Reviews

Dampyr is a B-movie that wears its B-movieness with pride. It is solidly in the category of "so bad it's good", with every possible cliche and Godzilla-sized plot holes.

At first, I had high hopes for the 1990s Yugoslavia war setting hoping to see a blend of history and fantasy, but 10 minutes later, it became clear that whoever wrote the script, had a very vague idea about history, Slavic names, how human beings talk, or how to write a script. Were the soldiers Serbs? Croats? Who knows, and none of them wore uniforms, nor indicated who they were fighting for nor the actual country they were in. The war is a vague event with a bunch of plainclothes fashion models drive around in Al Qaeda-style pickup trucks with big guns and kewl 1970s music, occasionally shooting a surviving civilian. What, you didn't know? War is hell.

But once you stop expecting any semblance of logic and assume it's a parody, it turns out to be a tolerable experience. Commander Dolce & Gabbana (background: requisite dead family) and a vampire slayer (background: Jesus with a drinking problem; never asked himself why he's been alive for hundreds of years without aging) are joined by a hot blonde vampire (background: hot; blonde; vampire) to take on a bad vampire. That's it. The rest is what you'd expect it to be, plus plot holes. Turn off your brain, watch, and enjoy, with an optional drinking game for cliches and plot holes.

Screaming, profanities, parties with drugs.

Normally, I wouldn't be a fan but the Brighton Beach setting made me curious. The first part was difficult to connect with, with spoiled rich kids partying away their parents' money and the main character happily eating crumbs from the rich table. None of the characters were interesting or likeable.

It changed in the second act when the confrontation with Vanya's guardians and parents began.

The combination of a crazy slapstick and sheer realism is captivating. It's as if Baker was asked to reimagine "Pretty Woman" in real-life in bitterly cold New York. Imagine what happened if a rich guy fell in love with a sex worker. Baker's answer is, "it's gonna be cold, it's gonna be grey, and it's gonna last you for the rest of your life."

Equally realistic and subtle is the portrayal of Brooklyn and exUSSR immigrants. The "thugs" are not two-bit knuckle-draggers but fully fleshed characters and, generally, decent human beings. The rant of Toros in the diner while looking for Vanya is one of the highlights.

The ending, very much like the movie as a whole, is a combination of hopeful and disturbing, and as impactful.

I read all the praise and decided to give the movie a go. (I still don't understand why in so many reviews it is called comedy horror. There's nothing even remotely horror-related or funny there.) Simply put, a waste of time.

The characters are unlikeable and hollow. Imagine being stuck with nearly identical 20-somethings gossiping about their relationships and who is attracted to who for an hour and a half. Imagine them inserting the word "bro" in every second sentence.

Why do so many people say it's "original"? It's another body swap movie. Except, they all are so alike that "what's inside" didn't really change, and the punch line is who wants to sleep with who. Oh wow, boy 1 likes girl 2 instead of girl 1! And it was like that for a long time! Oh and there is somewhat of a twist at the end, in case you actually care about these characters!

Who cares.

I haven't read the original book (now it's on my reading list). I haven't watched the Tencent adaptation. I understand it's dumbed down, "streamlined", and given a "General Tso's chicken treatment".

It is still good though. The world-building is great, the cinematography is spectacular, the plot is engaging. The explanation of scientific ideas and concepts is easy to digest even to the audience not familiar with them.

The scientist bunch, however... Dear scriptwriters, it's 2024. The general consensus today is that the scientists and nerds are not all insecure super geniuses who insert the F-word in every sentence to sound cool. (Thanks for not calling them "boffins" though.) The cast is OK but there is not much for them to play with.

The cast that is given less cardboard characters like Rosalind Chao, Liam Cunningham, and in particular, Benedict Wong really shine. Especially Benedict Wong with his grizzled, chain-smoking cynical detective whom every other character unsuccessfully tries to provoke. Give this man a medal.

Worth watching and I welcome the trend of adapting classic sci fi instead of dragging infinite decade-long franchises.

Once in a while Netflix comes up with brilliant outliers. Kubra is a great example.

At first, it feels like a story of a religion (or a cult) in the making, with a Muslim Jesus-like (both visually and mindset-wise) figure facing predictable leadership challenges, corrupt politicians, and dealing with his family.

In the last chapter (of season 1), the twist turns the story upside down (not revealing what it is, although some other reviews did...), setting up the scene for a very different season 2.

There is a lot to like. The characters, the acting (and the actors themselves), the exploration of spirituality from the 21st century Turkish perspective. As someone who knows next to nothing about Turkey, I found it to be educational while still accessible enough not to overshadow the story with cultural differences. In the last chapter, the professional terms and concepts are amazingly spot on. Sadly, the Hodja character (a priest with what sounds like a degree in psychology) is underexplored.

I deducted one point for the Netflix's insistence on specific running time. The bullet subplot felt redundant and forced with the motivation of the rioters vague and unclear. It's like it was added just to make the season last for 8 chapters. It made the series feel a bit stretched. But at least Netflix didn't cancel it, like they do with other brilliant outliers (The OA, 1899, etc.).

Watched Jules on a long flight.

Simple plot. An alien crash-lands in an old man's garden. The old man and his two elderly female friends help the alien to recover and fix his ship. The government lazily pursues the alien, allocating a whooping two agents that are slow enough to be outpaced by the main characters.

I understand it is supposed to be about aging and regrets rather than sci-fi topics, but I wish the plot had a bit more meat (apples?). The alien literally never utters a word. We learn nothing of him or his species or even how he views us earthlings. The government doesn't really get in a conflict with the elderly protagonists... nothing. Children, relatives, etc. Never learn about the alien.

There is a bit of humor sprinkled here and there and technically, there is a plot... but that's it.

Everyone praises Kingsley here, but he doesn't have a lot to play with. I was much more pleased with Harris' performance, whose character is given much more personality.

This is how to make a biopic of a complex historical figure without boring the audience! Oppenheimer is my most favourite Nolan's movie so far.

The chemistry between the actors is unbelievable, and the visuals are stunning. It's not just wide open spaces of New Mexico, but even elementary particles when Oppenheimer talks about them.

I have to say that after the first part where everyone was a Marxist intellectual, the military were a welcome change. The secondary characters are as memorable as the leads. Everyone praises Murphy's performance for a good reason, but Matt Damon's Groves steals the show as a reluctant bridge between the two worlds on a cat-herding assignment gambling an enormous amount on money in the middle of a war. Brief but ominous appearance of Casey Affleck's Boris Pash is probably one of best parts of the movie. Also memorable, even if small, is Tom Conti's Einstein, with his bit of wisdom, and President Truman, played by unrecognizable Gary Oldman.

One gripe I'm sure I'm not the only one having: after Tenet, you'd think Nolan would fix his sound problems. Most of the time the dialogue is audible, but there are still parts where I caught myself thinking, "what did he just say?"

...but less brilliant movie.

I know it's John Wick. I was not expecting a philosophical meditation on serious topics. But c'mon!

The welcome little bits of comic relief like in John Wick 3 are gone. The last link with reality has gone up, up, and away, like a runaway party balloon. The characters are even more cardboard; you would've thought it's impossible, but apparently no. You could barely hear the main character talk over the overlong 3 hours running time.

One issue I'd like to focus on is the stereotypes. It's basically as if Tommy Wiseau ran National Geographic. The French guy eats creamy cakes (no croissants?) on business meetings. He is arrogant, impulsive, likes high art, and wears 18th century outfits. He lives in Paris, and all business meetings and pivotal plot points take place exclusively in (amazingly empty) touristy landmarks. The German guy is an obese asthma sufferer who always adds "ja" to his bad jokes that he always laughs at. Barely being able to breathe somehow does not prevent him from inflicting serious damage and running. In Berlin people just keep dancing while a bunch of gangsters with guns and knives are killing each other and breaking things. At some point, they decide it's too much for them and quietly go to their cars. The vaguely Middle Eastern country is where people ride horses, live in the middle of a desert in a tent with carpets, and their role in life is to say a piece of eastern wisdom and get shot (what for?). Japan is all shiny and neon-lit, and everyone talks, dresses, and acts like a XIX century samurai.

If it weren't for the cast and the marketing, the reaction would not have been as positive.

Ignore the critics on Rotten Tomatoes, there is nothing wrong with the movie.

It's generally a simple crime story and a period piece, and the movie delivers exactly that, with A-list cast, memorable characters, beautiful XIX century Hudson Valley, and an ending that ties up all the loose ends.

The fictional version of Edgar A. Poe very much aligns with his real-life persona and we get a glimpse where he could have gotten some of his ideas. Poe steals the show. He is a sympathetic kind-hearted weirdo bullied by his peers, making strange claims, and far more intelligent than he appears at first.

The rest of the cast blends in well. It took me some time to recognize Gillian Anderson... now I feel old.

The setting is well-researched and feels authentic, with characters behaving as you'd expect from XIX century Americans (played mostly by British actors, haha).

The plot is a well-executed whodunnit with a twist which I honestly didn't see coming.

The story is self-contained but I wouldn't mind another movie with Detective Poe.

Don't expect anything particularly profound but the movie does exactly what it's supposed to do and does it well.

I'm with the rabid fans crowd on this one. Why, Netflix?!

The OA is not just a mystery to figure out. It's also a meditation on deep subjects, from the nature of reality and human condition to obsession with discovery, parenthood, grief, and coming of age issues. The plot starts slowly but then sucks you in. If you have a passing interest in paranormal subjects like NDE, it will be even more interesting.

The primary leads (Jason Isaacs and Brit Marling) are phenomenal. Jason Isaacs is one of the most underrated actors of the generation. (If today's Star Trek weren't run by talentless hacks, Captain Lorca could have been another Picard.) The secondary cast is pretty good too, with Scott Wilson, Ian Alexander, and Alice Krige being standouts.

The OA is simply a perfect TV series.

That said, Season 2 is not as good as S1. S2 has a pointless "Stranger Things" subplot (studio tampering?) and less insight into serious subjects that S1 so brilliantly tackled. Another gripe is HAP. He is no longer a complex flawed antagonist, whose mind we get to peek into when he discusses his feelings with another doctor. In S2, he is more or less a standard issue villain with a primitive motivation. S1 felt like fine poetry. S2 had more of a whodunit vibe.

Still, it's The OA, and the transition to Season 3 felt promising.

Season 1 was brilliant. It had a novel, well-defined concept, with a quirky New Yorker as a leading character, and a consistent plot. It was a story that had a satisfying and consistent ending, tying loose ends.

It must have been too tempting for Netflix not to try to make it into a franchise. Trouble is, when the story is over, it's not easy to come up with a sequel.

And so the scriptwriters came up with... something. No plot, no answers, no reasoning, a resolution that makes no sense; some of the subplots go nowhere. There is the same wise-cracking New Yorker (whose heritage got retconned to Hungarian), and Alan, who is there, but for no discernible reason. Apart from Natasha Lyonne, no reason to waste your time on this.

Folks in Netflix, when considering to extend a show, please start by looking at the script and not by talking to your CFO.

Watching the series while the war is raging in Ukraine and its lead is playing a larger than life role in tectonic real-world events is surreal. But the series is pretty good in its own right.

By now, everyone knows the premise: an honest high-school history teacher Vasyl Holoborodko becomes a president through a series of improbable events (at least, back then it would be deemed improbable...). He tries to get things done in a ridiculously corrupt system, despite the odds.

There are several aspects that set Servant of the People apart from numerous "outsider fixes the system" movies though. The makers are brave enough to avoid the usual "simple folks are saints" or "power corrupts" tropes. Many of these simple folk, when given a chance, steal as much (or more) than their predecessors. At one point, Holoborodko makes an impassionate speech about how the innocent and well-meaning children step by step turn into corrupt and indifferent "khokhols" littering and corrupting and sending their own children abroad because everything is already littered and corrupted.

(Speaking of which: the Netflix translation is, put it this way, sanitised. There are homophobic and nationalistic slurs used, even though in a context that is not necessarily homophobic or nationalistic.)

Holoborodko himself does not always win, and makes silly gaffes, sometimes with disastrous consequences. His decisions are not always wise, like assigning his less than bright childhood friend to become a foreign minister.

The rest of the presidential team is played by other members of Kvartal 95, the Monty Python-esque Ukrainian comedy troupe that was headed by Zelenskyy before his ascent to politics in real life. They are okayish but aren't that interesting except Yevhen Koshovy cast as a bumbling foreign minister.

Among the supporting cast, Stanislav Boklan as Yuriy Chuyko is a standout. He is very much a Ukrainian version of Sir Humphrey Appleby from Yes Minister / Yes Prime Minister, an experienced, cynical, and corrupt veteran of Ukrainian politics playing by corrupt rules.

The nameless three oligarchs are the weakest part. It's like Kvartal 95 spent 3 seconds thinking them through. They either eat super-high-fibre food, drink champagne, or play Monopoly. When they talk to their fixers and henchmen, it's always either while eating or playing Monopoly. It's like the super-rich are stuck in a weird Groundhog Day.

Interestingly enough, Russia is looming in the background but does not prominently feature in the series, even though it was already after Crimea and Donbas. (Apart from the famous "Putin Hublot" joke, the part when he yells "Putin got overthrown!" to gain attention, and the hilarious conversation with Ivan the Terrible.) The main beef of Holoborodko is with the corruption and the mentality perpetuating it, not with anyone else.

Common comedic tropes are there but executed well. There's a pretty good "Hangover"-inspired chapter, the mismatched couples like the minister of foreign affairs and his aide, and Holoborodko's own dysfunctional family.

The lack of knowledge about overseas kinda weirded me out (folks, masala chai is delicious, Indians comfortably deal with foreigners in their foreign terms, and not everyone is transgender in the Netherlands!), but these are very minor bits.

The underlying message is that the change is hard but not impossible. That there are, after all, principled and honest people who know what they're doing and try to get things done. And if Ukraine and Zelenskyy manage to pull through the hellish ordeal Ukraine is going through now, Sluga narodu will be one of the greatest stories ever told.

Slava Ukraini!

The makers of season 4 seem to have listened and brought back what was missing from season 3: the mystery being solved layer by layer, Harry's detective skills, the beautiful northeastern settings (this time, King-esque Maine), and great leads in the center of the mystery.

This time, it's not just "why-dunnit", but "why-dunn-what". Harry, being a witness himself, is not even sure what he saw, and recovering from the events of season 3 is not helping. Already retired, he is pushed to join the investigation because the local police simply lacks the skills to deal with serious crime. Sonya who is still with him (possibly the most annoying character from season 3), thankfully is barely there. So the focus is mostly on the mystery and the usual little town secrets.

Highly recommended.

Archive 81 is one of the top Netflix productions ever. If you liked Rosemary's Baby, Dark, or even (not supernatural) Sinner, you're going to love this one.

Archive 81 is deliberately slow-burn, but it still sucks you in. The world-building is executed piecemeal, without too many exposition dumps. The settings, 1990s NYC and present-time Upstate New York, are beautiful and atmospheric.

The cast is great, both Athie and Shihabi, as well as the supporting actors like veteran Martin Donovan and promising Ariana Neal.

The script avoids most tropes and manages to build a coherent mystery with many moving parts. The ending does leave a lot of open questions, but ties just the right number of loose ends.

Looking forward to Season 2.

It's another Marvel movie. If you're into that, great. Other than that, it did not stand out to me.

The "meta-joke" on the other reboots is an interesting idea but that's pretty much the only original part of it.

It's really just another Marvel superhero movie. Not horrible, but not outstanding either.

I have only a mild interest in K-dramas. My usual reservations are artificially extended running time, inconsistencies, and soap opera-like abundance of romance, usually because of the studio executives meddling.

Hellbound seems to have allowed Yeon Sang-ho (the director) run with his concept, and implement it just the way he wanted.

Hellbound is mesmerizing on several levels. It paints an unflattering picture how ideologies and organised religions rise to power, but also does not scrimp on action (mostly brutal and disturbing). People complaining about the slow pacing probably just wanted to see a horror flick about monsters. Hellbound is more than that, and the pacing is just right: enough to tell the story, but not long enough to bore the viewer.

The acting is great as expected, and the way the story is broken in two arcs, also works very well. The violence is over the top at times, but it does not detract from the story, and enhances it.

The twists are really unexpected, and so far, keep making sense. I do hope more will be explained in Season 2.

Dune is a spectacular movie, but I can't give it 10 having read the book.

The visuals are a gold standard. Villanueve is evolving as an artist, and if you imagine what the person who made Arrival and Blade Runner 2049 can do with a bigger budget and a bigger universe, you get Dune. Every single element of the Dune universe is faithful to the book and is beautifully realistic.

The cast is great, with Chalamet and Bautista being standouts. Glossu Rabban is given a bigger role than in the book, even though it's still minor, and Bautista does not disappoint.

The story: the universe of Dune is complex and the narrative is full of intersecting plot lines. Instead of blindly following the book, the adaptation is more focused and the expositions are not on the nose.

However, maybe it's inevitable with a big screen adaptation, but some important plot points were lost. For example, the revelation of Paul about their connection to the Harkonnens, or the more detailed explanation about the imperial politics and the great houses. The importance of the spice production and what it does is not highlighted. Instead of the tangled web and complex origin story, it's basically foreign invaders oppressing indigenous people to extract resources. We are shown the mentats, briefly, but they are basically advisers... and that's it. Where is the mention of the ban on the thinking machines?

The House of Corrino, the Spacing Guild, Feyd-Rautha are not shown. Hope they will be featured in Part 2.

I suppose that's one of Villanueve's strong points, the ability to focus. But I remember the book well, so it feels like parts are missing.

I miss the 1980s simple, brainless entertainment. Jungle Cruise is just that: budget Indiana Jones mixed with Pirates of the Caribbean and a couple of twists along the way. Which is a good enough reason for me to see the movie.

It is not a masterpiece and it does not have to be.

Turn off your brain, relax, and enjoy the ride.

"So, Zack Snyder, you have another derivative zombie movie for me?" "Yes sir, I do."

It feels like everything that was to be said or filmed about zombies was done already. With all the hype about Army of the Dead and Bautista, it's really a waste of time.

It's a zombie heist flick, adding more gore and shocking scenes. I was not expecting a masterpiece, but non-cardboard characters and plot that makes sense would help.

Other reviews already picked it apart, no sense doing it again. Let me just single out the good part: Dave Bautista. The dude can act, and here he has a lot less than in Guardians of the Galaxy to work with. I can't wait to see him in Dune.

Like many others, I really wanted to like it. I am also a fan of weird movies, whether they are mind-benders or just surreal. I tried, I really did. There was not much to like though.

There is a couple of actual jokes. One was almost funny. There is excessive gore, more disturbing than in an average horror movie. There is constant breaking of 4th wall, and not in a graceful way.

They brought top actors and gave them... nothing, really. They have slightly more lines than an extra in an average movie. Heck, Iggy Pop is used as an extra - why?

Ah but Tilda Swinton plays a character named Zelda Winston, Adam Driver has a Star Wars key chain, and Steve Buscemi (aka "Donnie" in "Big Lebowski") wears a MAGA-like hat (because... Donnie?). Bill Murray is cast against type, I guess: not the usual sarcastic and bitter self, but just a guy who simply does nothing. George Romero is mentioned and then his Dawn of the Dead is ripped off, but in a way that it's hard to care about what is actually happening.

The only bright spot is Tilda Swinton, who somehow got a slightly more meaningful role than the rest.

If not the big names involved, the entire movie would've been overlooked and forgotten upon release. Seriously, Mr. Jarmusch?

Who greenlit this? And why would Netflix pay a cent to license it?

Fine, a slapstick comedy does not have to be consistent. It has to be funny though. This one isn't. It makes Ghostbusters 2016 look like a masterpiece.

McCarthy is a great actress and Spy is one of the best comedies ever made, but there is nothing she can do with this one.

Cardboard, stereotypical characters. Plot that makes little sense. I can't say there are "plot holes" because a "hole" means there are parts that actually work. Not here.

The stuff you see in the trailer are the highlights. There is a couple of chuckles and McCarthy doing her schtick does relieve the awkward feeling a bit, but the rest is a chore.

Hard pass.