I’m four episodes in and quite frankly, I don’t see this show getting any better. At least Wandavision picked up after the third episode. Those people saying this is the best MCU show so far must be on crack.
UPDATE:
Now that I've finished watching all the episodes, I still feel a bit shortchanged with this show. I do think Oscar Isaacs did an incredible job all through the season, but I still feel it's terribly paced. Even though the last episode was awesome, I had already lost much of the initial interest. Ethan Hawke's character falls flat for me. Marvel films have created great villains with powerful motivations to justify what they do. Damn! I still think Thanos had a very good point! If Hawke was supposed to be Marc/Steven's foil, he came across as a bland bad guy who wanted to be bad because Khonshu is a trickster god who lied to him (we still don't know exactly how). Had his history arc been developed thoroughly, it would've opened more complex layers in the story. Also, they boast they got an Egyptian director who knew his way around Egyptian mythology... but... the show was quite lacklustre on that regards as well, IMO. Now we're left with a cliffhanger that hints at a second season. Oh my...
Denzel Washington is just killing it as Robert McCall. That man could read the phonebook and still be captivating, but here he's upping the ante with every fight scene. I didn't think it was possible, but the brutality level actually went up a notch, and I was all in for it!
The pacing had its slow moments, sure, but it wasn't a buzzkill for me. It's like savoring a fine wine before you get to the fireworks; you appreciate the explosions even more when they come. Plus, the total running time felt just right, you know? Kept everything on an even keel.
And let's talk about Dakota Fanning! Loved how her role wrapped up in this installment. It felt like the story threads finally wove together into this complete tapestry. Kinda gave me that "Aha! So that's where it was going!" moment, and I live for that in a trilogy.
The cinematography? Spot-on. Very slick shots, it all pulled me deeper into McCall's world. And those fight scenes—they were few, yes, but, come on! It's like watching a dance, if that dance could incapacitate you in five seconds flat.
So, yeah, I had an awesome time with this one. It's like the film grabbed me by the collar and didn't let go until the credits rolled. If this is how they're closing out the trilogy, then bravo! They stuck the landing, 100%
Everyone in Spain (and many Latin American countries) knows who Cristina "La Veneno" (Poison) was, to a greater or lesser extent. Many will remember her for her famous intervention in the long-gone "DEC" hosted by Jaime Cantizano on Antena 3 and the iconic phone prank she was played there, in which a woman posing as her neighbor insulted her to piss her off. I certainly recall the times in which she faced Nova, another trans woman who criticized Cristina for not standing up for Trans rights. Others may remember her for her appearances on "Esta Noche Cruzamos el Mississippi" (Tonight we cross the Mississippi), Pepe Navarro's well-known program thanks to which she came out of her anonymity.
From her first appearance on television until her death in 2016 under strange circumstances, many things have been said and published about the life of Cristina Ortiz, but the truth is that they have never been told with such sensitivity and respect for her figure. Cristina worked as a streetwalker, one of the few outlets that hundreds of trans women in Spain were forced to go to in order to make a living.
Inspired by the book of her memoirs: "¡Digo! Ni puta ni Santa: Memorias de la Veneno" (I Say! Neither a whore nor a saint. The memoirs of La Veneno), "Veneno" is much more than an autobiographical show about the life of Spain's most famous trans woman. The mini-series, of 8 one-hour episodes, paints a faithful portrait of the skeevy, homophobic, and ultra catholic Spain of the late Francoism that mistreated and humiliated anyone who did not meet or fit certain standards. The series is a work of great maturity that mixes comedy, tragedy, and kindness in just the right doses to create a cocktail that, as a whole, is balanced and satisfactory.
One of the highlights of "Veneno" is in the successful cast of actresses who give life to Cristina throughout her life (from younger to older; Jedet, Daniela Santiago and Isabel Torres), as well as Paca la Piraña (played by herself), a mythical friend of Cristina's, who provides the comic relief of the series. Special mention should be made of the young Guille Márquez and Marcos Sotkovski who bring to life the Cristina of childhood when she was still known as Joselito; and of course Lola Rodríguez and Mariona Terés, two actors who grow up and shine even more with the course of each episode.
This new series by "The Two Javis" (Javier Ambrossi and Javier Calvo) is certainly the most original and groundbreaking work they have done to date, both in terms of script and production. The fact that a series like "Veneno" has managed to see the light (and even reach the big screen) is a milestone in the Spanish audiovisual scene. Because although it is true that we see more and more gays or lesbians or bisexuals in series and films, we finally find a series that features transgendered people as the main event. Equally or more important is the openness with which the series shows and raises awareness about this reality that is so important and so mistreated: transgender issues.
"Veneno" is an unprecedented revolution in the Spanish audiovisual industry. It gives us sex, violence, and insecurities without any concealment, with all the rawness with which it is sometimes associated, without leaving room for imagination. Probably, this series has also achieved more than any public awareness campaign promoted by many NGOs.
But the important thing is that "Veneno" exists and is necessary. You should see it, regardless of whether you like the character of La Veneno or not. Cristina Ortiz is just one more example of how much trans people suffer throughout their lives, of how difficult it is for them, physically and emotionally, and of the challenges they face every day. And so I would like to end by congratulating Javier Ambrossi and Javier Calvo for making this series that brings to light a reality that, unfortunately, many still see as taboo.
Just watched Atlas on Netflix, and while Jennifer Lopez did her best with the material, the film fell short in several areas. The plot leans heavily on the outdated “AI as the enemy” trope, much like the old Cyberdyne Systems/Skynet narrative, without bringing anything new to the table.
One of my biggest issues was the cringeworthy interactions between J-Lo’s character, Atlas, and her AI companion, Smith. Instead of sophisticated mental exchanges that could illustrate a seamless human-AI integration, we got overly explanatory dialogue that detracted from the film’s potential.
Atlas’s character was also a bit off. For someone with a deep distrust of AI and a high level of intelligence, she was portrayed as overly emotional and sociable. A more reserved, introspective portrayal, similar to Antonia Scott from Juan Gómez-Jurado’s novels, would have made her character more believable and compelling.
The film missed a significant opportunity to explore deeper themes, like the ethical and existential implications of integrating AI into human biology. Instead, it settled for a straightforward plot without delving into the potential awe and fear that advanced AI brings to our current era.
Critics have pointed out that Atlas struggles under the weight of a script that feels artificially intelligent rather than genuinely clever. It fails to capture the complex and nuanced discussions about AI that are so relevant today. For a more thought-provoking take on AI, I recommend Sam Harris’s TED talk, “Can we build AI without losing control over it?” It offers insights that the film could have explored but didn’t.
In 2024, we need sci-fi films that trust their audience’s intelligence and show, rather than tell, the complexities of AI. Let’s hope future films rise to the challenge and bring the innovative storytelling this genre deserves.
If you enjoy a languid two hours of Keanu Reeves relentlessly punctuating his enemies with a bewildering variety of firearms, then “John Wick 4” might just be your idea of cinematic nirvana. But for the rest of us mere mortals, it’s more like being held captive at a party where the only entertainment is the sound of a leaky faucet.
For starters, the killing scenes seem longer than a winter in Siberia, and I found myself pressing the fast-forward button with such regularity that I’m concerned I might have developed a repetitive strain injury. Perhaps in the next installment, the filmmakers might consider introducing some commercial breaks, so viewers have the chance to rest their fingers. But I hope they keep their promise and this is the last JW.
And let’s talk about the villain. Have you ever tried to build a sandcastle with dry sand? That’s how solid and compelling the villain was in this movie. They had about as much threat level as a half-deflated helium balloon and as much depth as a paddling pool in a summer drought.
The biggest tease of all? The all-knowing, all-powerful High Table. With each film, they promise us more, and each time we’re left holding an empty bag of revelations. In this chapter, we still didn’t get the payoff we’ve been waiting for. The High Table seems as elusive as Bigfoot, just with more tailored Kevlar suits.
And then we come to the stunts. I’m all for suspending disbelief, but there are limits. Even the dog was pulling off moves that would make a Cirque du Soleil acrobat raise an eyebrow. Next time, I fully expect to see it juggling chainsaws while riding a unicycle on a tightrope.
All in all, “John Wick 4” has the depth of a kiddie pool and the subtlety of a sledgehammer. But if you’re a fan of endless gunfire, weak villains, and dogs that get hit by cars and come out of it unscathed, you’re in for a treat.
Is this the way a very promising story should end? After four installments, this not even disappointing… we’re way past that.
So, I caught "All of Us Strangers" over the weekend - Andrew Haigh's latest. And man, it's like everyone's been talking about this one. The whole vibe of the film, the way it looks and feels, it's just... there's something about it. And Andrew Scott, I mean, come on, the guy's a genius. From his days as Moriarty to now, he just nails it every time.
But, okay, here's the thing. The whole storyline with the protagonist's parents being gone from the get-go... it kind of just set this tone, you know? Like, you could see where it was headed, and it sort of took the wind out of the sails for me. Even when Paul Mescal's character took that dark turn, I wasn't shocked. It felt like the movie was laying it on thick with the whole trauma angle, without giving us that light at the end of the tunnel kind of vibe.
Now, don't get me wrong, the acting across the board was top-notch. Critics have been saying the same, pointing out how everyone in this film just brings their A-game, making these really intense emotions feel super real. And the whole thing about Adam trying to connect with his past, with his parents, I get that it's deep, it's moving. But for me, it was like, where's the hope, you know? After everything, you kind of want to see a glimmer of something good on the horizon.
So, yeah, it's a beautiful film, no doubt. The colors, the shots, the performances, especially Scott – it's all there. But by the end, I was left feeling a bit... I don't know, empty? Like we went through all these emotions, but for what?
Rating it? I'd say a solid 6 out of 10. It's worth watching for the performances alone, and there's definitely something haunting about it that sticks with you. But just be ready for that heavy vibe, without much to lift you up by the end.
So, I dove into "Barbie" expecting some fun, flashy visuals and, well, it didn't disappoint on that front. The start was pretty solid, with all the glitz and glam you'd expect from a Barbie world. They even threw in some cool messages about loving yourself and all that jazz. But then, things got... weird. The movie started going on this whole "women rule, men drool" vibe, which kinda felt like they missed the mark on the whole equality thing.
Greta Gerwig seemed like she was trying to juggle a million things at once. It's like she wanted to wink at the audience every two minutes, saying, "See what I did there?" Margot Robbie as Barbie was cool and all, but Ryan Gosling as Ken? He stole the show. Dude was hilarious!
The visuals? Top-notch. The music? Catchy as heck. But the story? Kinda felt like they were trying to please everyone and ended up pleasing no one. It's like they wanted to make a point, but then they'd immediately backtrack, probably scared of stepping on toes.
The movie was a bit of a bummer for me. It had its moments, but also left me scratching my head a few times. If you're in for some laughs and eye candy, give it a go. Just don't expect a clear message by the end.
After watching the 2023 version of Disney's "The Little Mermaid," I feel like I've dived into shallow waters of disappointment. While Halle Bailey undoubtedly shines with her talent, the film fails to capture the essence of the beloved classic.
The dark lighting, seemingly aiming for "realism," only manages to dull the vibrant and colorful underwater world of Ariel. And let's not even get started on the CGI, which often feels subpar and detracts from the immersion. It was just AWFUL.
Melissa McCarthy's performance, which I had high hopes for, unfortunately, fell flat. It lacked the depth and charisma one would expect from such a seasoned actress, especially in a role as iconic as Ursula.
Why the decision to introduce unnecessary political and family subplots? Sacrificing iconic moments, like the hilarious chase scene with the Chef and Sebastian, for narratives that don't enrich the core story was a misstep. That scene in the original was a guaranteed laugh, and its absence is deeply felt.
Moreover, the film's geographical setting is puzzling. The Caribbean? While celebrating cultural and racial diversity is commendable, the choice of a "kingdom" with a medieval-looking castle on a Caribbean island feels out of place. I'm left wondering what role this setting plays in the narrative, and I feel a missed opportunity to delve deeper into the rich Caribbean culture.
Despite being touted as revolutionary, especially with the inclusion of a Black princess, the film doesn't bring anything new to the table. It feels like another attempt by Disney to revive their classics without truly grasping what made them special in the first place.
In short, if you're seeking the magic and simplicity of "The Little Mermaid," I'd recommend revisiting the 1989 version. This new adaptation, unfortunately, doesn't measure up to the cherished memories of the original.
I haven’t read the source material. I didn’t even know it was based on a novel until I read it in the opening credits. That said, I can’t make any comparisons, but if the novel is at least 50% the same as the movie, then it’s a waste of time.
Although I find interesting the premise of a planet whose atmosphere (or magnetic field) has that effect on all males species, I think it was poorly executed. I’m a linguist and I feel that the writers have no idea what cognitive science says about Steven Pinker’s “Mentalese”. The human brain doesn’t work with a specific language and the visible effect would probably be more abstract, with more images and fewer words. Also, given that Todd grew up in the planet, it’s only natural that he would become a freaking expert on how to control his noise and use it in the most creative ways, pretty much as the Mayor. After all, it’s nothing more than an extension of your way of expressing yourself. It’s just clumsy and lazy writing… the possibilities are endless. What I get is that the noise is gone when they speak, as if the brain stops thinking when they speak.
Instead, we get a story that doesn’t even explore what it shows. What about the native species? It leaves you with nothing.
I don’t know… it’s just a very lazy movie.
Netflix has become a sort of refuge for animation styles that major studios no longer bring to theaters. They’ve given us gems like 'Apollo 10 1/2,' 'The Cat Burglar,' and 'Klaus.' But despite these hits, 'The Sea Beast' ends up being a letdown.
Visually, 'The Sea Beast' is stunning, with some of the year's most beautiful imagery. The monsters are charming, the ocean is gorgeously animated, and it captures a sense of wonder and adventure. It makes you want to join the characters on their journey. However, the story feels like a mix of 'Moby Dick' and 'How to Train Your Dragon,' making it predictable and slow at times.
The film excels in its action scenes, which are thrilling and reminiscent of 'Pirates of the Caribbean.' Director Chris Williams, known for 'Moana' and 'Big Hero 6,' skillfully balances action and visual appeal. But unlike what you might expect, this isn’t a comedy-driven adventure. It’s more serious, with characters dealing with trauma and loss.
Rather than rushing through a familiar story, the film takes its time to explore its world and characters. Most of the movie focuses on epic sea battles, government conspiracies, and a revenge plot. Although it borrows heavily from 'How to Train Your Dragon,' it manages to feel fresh by diving into the emotional journeys of its characters.
Interestingly, the film also touches on modern issues like fake news and propaganda, which is unusual for a children's movie. While it has plenty of cute monsters and fun moments, it sometimes feels torn between being a serious film about rebellion and growth and a lighthearted one designed to sell plush toys.
In the end, 'The Sea Beast' aims high but doesn’t fully deliver. It’s not a bad movie, and it looks incredible, but its derivative plot holds it back. Despite impressive battle scenes and well-developed characters, the overall story leaves much to be desired.
Just watched "No One Will Save You" and I've got to say, it's a mixed bag. The film attempts a minimalist, high-tension narrative with little dialogue—a bold choice that might have aimed for a deep, contemplative vibe, but ends up feeling underwhelming.
I would surely praise it for its visual and sound design, but it struggles to connect on an emotional level. The narrative starts in medias res and doesn't provide enough backstory or character development, which makes it hard to care about Brynn's plight. As the plot unfolds, the lack of context turns what could be a compelling story into a series of repetitive and tired cat-and-mouse chase sequences. This slow-burn thriller is supposed to keep you on edge, but instead, it's a frustrating watch that fails to maintain interest or momentum.
It's not just about leaving things to the audience's imagination; it's about making them care enough to want to piece things together. Unfortunately, "No One Will Save You" doesn't quite manage to build that investment, leaving many questions unanswered—not out of a deliberate narrative choice but seeming more from a lack of depth. While the film's approach to storytelling is undoubtedly ambitious, it feels more like a missed opportunity than a thought-provoking journey.
If you're into films that heavily rely on atmospherics and can forgive a sketchy plot, give it a shot. Otherwise, it might just leave you as bewildered and detached as it left me.
Just watched this "Road House" remake, and oh boy, where do I even start? The original with Patrick Swayze was an absolute gem, right? That mix of 80s grit, charm, and Swayze's undeniable cool made it iconic. But this 2024 version with Jake Gyllenhaal... I feel they missed what made the original so special.
Gyllenhaal tries his best, sure, but the whole thing feels like it's stuck in a weird limbo between wanting to pay homage and trying to be something new, and it just doesn't gel. The action scenes, which should be the highlight, feel like they've been zapped straight out of a video game with all that CGI. Remember the raw, in-your-face brawls from the original? This one's got none of that visceral punch.
And Conor McGregor as the villain... I mean, I like the guy, but acting might not be his calling. It's like watching a tiger trying to moonwalk - amusing but ultimately you wish it would stop. His character's like a cartoon villain but without the charm.And what’s with that walk? Cringey as F.
The whole thing just feels like a missed opportunity. They had the chance to build on the original's legacy but ended up with something that's more forgettable than memorable. There's a reason classics are classics, and some shoes are just too big to fill, I guess.
It’s obvious that Paraíso draws from the same nostalgia used by Stranger Things. It’s set in the early 90s, which is roughly a time comparable to the 80s in the US. It’s a group of kids that want to unravel a mystery, paranormal forces but that’s pretty much where similarities go. The circumstances and events unfold quite differently to the point of giving this show its own personality.
The series has some great elements: the acting is decent, the photography is good, the soundtrack is the best part. Mecano and OBK were THE bands to follow in those years. The fact that the producers brought Mecano’s lead singer, Ana Torroja, to sing the title song was a great touch. The song is named after the show, and the tune, which was created especially for this, even seems like it was created by Nacho Cano himself.
In terms of the story, I like the general feeling and the original elements it has but I think the twists are sometimes too contrived. There are characters that take you nowhere and storylines that need a bit more of background. The gay storyline was a bit shoehorned, considering that I’ve always loved the inclusion of LGBT stories, especially among teenagers, I believe that it needed more justification.
All in all, it’s very watchable and if it has a second season (by the looks of how it ended…) I hope the writers offer a bit more answers.
