l watched Daredevil back when it had 2 seasons, but postponed my watch of the third one for several years. Not for a particular reason, just poor scheduling I would say. It's a shame too, as the show was more-or-less cancelled - my favourite superhero TV series. A lot of time passed and I wondered if my fascination with "Daredevil" would hold up; I was a teenager who had much to see and was more easily impressed, whereas I am currently a growing adult who has a relatively stable grip on his tastes. I had fond memories of "Daredevil", but not quite that same adoration that I used to. Well, I am glad to state that it has gotten even better with the years, and is no doubt one of my favourite TV series of all time. An absolute masterpiece front-to-back, that sadly had even more potential to unleash.
Lawyer Matt Murdock, portrayed by Charlie Cox, stunts as masked vigilante Daredevil during the night in Hell's Kitchen. The gritty atmosphere is perfect for his character to shine. Daredevil is very much an antihero, and the series never tries to hide it. No one in their right mind would set out to do what Matt Murdock does, no matter how pure his intentions. Religion is a central aspect, and I applaud the complexity with which Matt's catholicism is represented here. The parallels between being the Devil of Hell's Kitchen and a man of God elevate the show to an artistic level of genuine humanity. If you wish to find symbolism done right, look no further. The dillemas Daredevil faces, his struggles maintaining all facets of his life, his past - everything haunts him, yet he finds ways to cope after many failures. This is why I love Daredevil, the same reason that he and Spider-man are my favourite superheroes. No more than regular people with superhuman abilities trying to make the world a better place, though Daredevil lacks the naivette a Spider-man story might have. Which makes its messages of hope and perseverance all the more poignant when they are present.
A superhero is only as good as their rogues' gallery, for the contrasting beliefs bring out extremes and hypocricies to the front. The amazing adaptation of Wilson Fisk, embodied by Vincent D'onofrio, serves as the primary antagonist of Daredevil. He's a cold, ruthless, calculating, occassionaly unhinged crime underlord with a stout build. His use of his physical prowess is rare however. Instead, it is his strategising abilities that fuel much of the show's suspense. Other great antagonists include John Bernthal's Punisher, who even got his own Netflix series due to the quality of his role; the threatening Bullseye, played by Wilson Bethel. These are only ones I can name off the top of my head. The second season delves more into comic book mythos and occassionaly veers off into some of the series' few weaker points (which are still incredible), but in general it is able to greatly compliment the realism with comic book spice.
The rest of the cast are nothing to scoff at either. Everyone has their own lives and beliefs, which will often clash and lead into many of the series' conflicts. Were it not for his friends, Daredevil could not be Matt Murdock. Foggy Nelson (Elden Henson) brings some light to the dark tone of the show, and serves as the most consistently grounded figure in a story filled with so many tormented souls. Karen Page sees great development along the course of three seasons, and I find Deborah Anwoll's performance quite great. I just wish the writers would cut down on her trauma somewhat; being on the verge of a mental breakdown 90% of the time gets a little exhausting to watch at some point. Still, I enjoy her character arc a lot and think she has much to bring here. Besides that, city officials, police officers, FBI, medics - people from many corners of society play a role here and build a much larger world for the plots to unfold.
The quality of "Daredevil" does not end with its writing, plot, and characters. The cinematography is gripping, particularly when it comes to fight scenes. As a matter of fact, this series is groundbreaking on this front. Some of its fights have become famous in their own right, notably the hallway scene. All done in one shot, featuring brutal brawls with a touch of acrobatics. It dances on the line between realism and superhero thrills, resorts to as few cuts as possible, and tells its story with each character's fighting style
The music fits rather well in here, with the Daredevil theme itself being a memorable motif. The intro is always a joy to watch as it builds up in intensity. The visuals are great as well, with a brooding red to set the tone.
Acting is at its finest, and must be complimented to no end. Charlie Cox is Daredevil, Vincent D'onofrio is Kingpin, John Bernthal is the Punisher, Elden Henson is Foggy, Élodie Yung is Elektra, so on and so forth. Intense emotions and elegant nuance feature across the entire cast, a key component to the show's success. It might just be the finest acting in a superhero adaptation; the line between actor and character is laid thin as everyone embodies who they represent.
"Daredevil" is in my eye one of the most underappreciated shows during the 10s' golden era of TV. It received rave reviews, but was a tad too niche compared to the big names of that time. Yet, I think this is the peak of the superhero genre in the medium, and an outstanding crime drama should you remove the association. I sincerely hope the team gets back and works on this show again, as it is clear they still had stories to tell in the vigilante supervision of Hell's Kitchen. If not, you have a satisfying three seasons of a broken man trying to do some good and holding on to his sanity, being very badass in the meantime. Because, ignoring all of my pretentious blabbering, this show never fails to deliver badassery. It is able to do so with a conscious approach.
"The Defenders" was an anticipated show for me that I only got around watching now. I'm a big fan of Daredevil and Jessica Jones, like Luke Cage, and didn't have much of an opinion on Iron Fist (besides hearing how horrible the first season was), so I was excited to see them all get a mini-series. I've heard mixed opinions on it, but generally more positive than elsewise. I can see why that is having watched it now.
The Defenders' plot revolves around the clan of ninjas knows as the Hand, who played a big part in Daredevil Season 2 and Iron Fist Season 1 from what I can presume. As such, Matt Murdock and Danny Rand are at the centerfold of the story. As villains, I can't say I was too ecstatic about The Hand, especially with how great some of the antagonists were in the Netflix series (Kingpin, Punisher, Kilgrave), but they weren't bad either. I found them largely uncharismatic, though the return of a certain character, Elektra, added the necessary tension and kept me invested in what was going on. The conspiracy itself was kooky, but certainly interesting. Overall, "The Defenders" gets pretty crazy, yet somehow manages to make this work with its grounded superheroes. It takes itself a little too seriously at times, but works for the most part and has its share of fun and comedy.
My biggest issue might really be the overload of drama that is present throughout the 8 episodes. It makes sense and is necessary, even good when properly timed, but there is so damn much of it. Matt is far too secretive, a personality trait that has been set up and is an important character flaw. As such, he is often in conflict with the rest of the group, but the frequency of this gives the show a tonal inconsistency that takes away from the fun. Jessica is an asshole, that is a big part of her charm, so I don't really have any gripes with her. Luke isn't too argumentative either. Danny, on the other hand, being such a vital part of the plot, brings a lot of annoying arguments with him as well. Thankfully, there are many other interactions between these characters that make up for this. Some of the best relationship include Matt and Jessica's, Luke and Jessica's, and Luke and Danny's. Besides the four, we get a lot of cast members coming from across the shows. Stick had a very strong presence here and an important role; Trish was enjoyable to watch, no matter how small her role might have been; Foggy had some great moments as well.
"The Defenders" suffers from some objectively bad writing. My least favourite scene would be Jessica following Matt, who at first senses her and decides to swerve down a back alley, then parkours his way out, somehow completely oblivious to what he just noticed. I cannot make any sense of the scene, it barely had a reason to even be there. Unfortunately, there are other missteps in logic throughout.
The action scenes were good, even great at times. They could also be lazy, but I think the show did a good job altogether with managing 4 characters, each having their own distinct fighting style. Nothing as ground-breaking as Daredevil, but of quality and entertaining.
Truly, the biggest strength of "The Defenders" is how damn fun it is. The pacing is said to be an issue and I would agree, particularly with how much time it takes to actually gather the team. It left me a tad dissatisfied with how little time we got to spend with them, when this was the biggest draw. Still, I like that each of them had their time to shine. Matt had a great arc here and in spite of some of my issues with how he was written, he was one of my favourite characters to watch. Tied with Jessica, who was probably the most out of place and as such one of the most relatable and down-to-earth heroes on the team. Every scene she was in was good in my opinion. Luke contributed a lot and had great charisma. Danny was honestly not as bad as I anticipated. His edge was definitely tacky at times, but most of the time he had this naïve charm to him and was even funny on occassion.
Overall, "The Defenders" was a very flawed, but very entertaining mini-series. While the plot itself might not have been the most engaging and there were plenty of other flaws, I had a lot of fun simply watching each of the characters interact and their stories develop. I wouldn't call it a must-watch, but I wouldn't mind watching it again. As much as I have issues with it, "The Defenders" is just that damn fun.
"Kimi" was a film I had no intention of watching, but it was able to grip me rather quickly. It follows Angela Childs, a tech worker with agoraphobia who comes across a dangerous conspiracy that makes her face her greatest fear. A primary backdrop is the AI device Kimi that the company she works for is developing.
The first half of the film was great. In my opinion, it did a great job at portraying agoraphobia and Angela's struggles with her mental health. Utilising contemporary themes of the Covid pandemic, lockdown, work-at-home culture, and social isolation was a risky move, but it was interwoven fantastically into the narrative. Could have felt like a tacky attempt at reaching a modern audience, but it's an integral part of the story. Most of this part of the movie works off of character exploration, with a solid focus on realism. I enjoyed delving into layers of Angela's character, as well as the various details in the small environment she has surrounded herself with.
Past a certain point, once the plot really kicks in, is where my major issues with the film come. It was entertaining all the way through, I'll give it that. But it was so bloody stupid that it felt like an entirely different movie, one of my prime gripes - the tonal inconsistency. From an uncomfortable portrayal of a rarely explored mental health issue, we quickly rush into a thriller with completely ridiculous stakes. To start with, having three hitmen sent against Angela came out of left field, even with the set-up. The realism was broken, moreso with how incompetent they were. Trying to abduct her right next to a huge crowd. All those points about the information age, but no one would mention the attempted kindapping of a girl in the middle of a riot? Then they got her at her home and were left dumbfounded, legitimately stunned, when she issued a few commands at Kimi. Worst of all, the ending was fun, but completely ridiculous and out-of-place. The movie turned into a very violent version of "Home Alone", just end everything with a nailgun and hitmen who are afraid to use their guns. And to my disappointment, the ending was tone-deaf. Apparently, surviving an attempted assasination and murdering three of your assailants is the perfect way to kick off your recovery from mental illness! Because Angela appears completely happy, like all her struggles are now gone. Without a scene to suggest how she approached such changes in her life, only the aftermath.
"Kimi" was a very intriguing film to see, but got marginally worse in quite the rapid fashion as it went on. It's a shame as I genuinely loved its more introspective set-up portion, before it delved into its actual plot. The mystery was disturbing, but the tonal shifts drove my suspense away, later leaving me only dumbfounded at what I'd just seen. Some great ideas in here, but they didn't contribute to as much as they should have in the end. One thing that remained consistenly great - Zoe Kravits's performance. Her mannerisms were quite varied and there was a lot of subtlety to her delivery.
I was quite surprised to learn the Rurouni Kenshin live-action film series was getting two new additions in 2021, nearly 7 years after The Legend Ends. At first I was a little sceptical as I thought this might be some weird cash-in, but their reception was once again positive, so I waited until a proper opportunity came to watch them with my dad. This film adapts the final arc of the manga. It was confusingly released before "The Beginning", the reason being that both films were produced simultaneously. I might honestly recommend viewers see "The Beginning" first, but it works both ways really. It's just nice to leave the final movie for last. Personally, I watched this one first and it didn't hinder my enjoyment in any significant manner, but I gained some more appreciation for it post-factum.
"Rurouni Kenshin: The Final" sees our main character, Himura Kenshin, face off against a new villain, Yukishiro Enishi, and his entourage. A premise that might leave you sceptical, but the relationship between Kenshin and Enishi is quite interesting. Takeru Satoh is fantastic in the role of the protagonist as always, while Mackenyu gives it his all, a tad too much at times, for the antagonist. Besides these, many characters return and are given standout moments. I do wish some had a bit more of a role to play frankly, but the film is long as it is and I can see that the story would have had too much going on for its own good. It does its best while maintaining a focused narrative. Big shout-out to Sanosuke and Aoshi, love those guys.
The action is what puts these films above any others, and I am pleased to say that the choreography remains excellent. Over-the-top and beautiful to watch, there is no point at which the effects break the immersion. There's always been a focus on practical effects and it does wonders for the look of these movies.
The music remains fantastic, which is no surprise as The Final reuses many of the series' classic themes. As it rightly should, the songs are wonderful and the connection I have to them gave me chills at times.
"Rurouni Kenshin: The Final" is a worthy conclusion to the saga and it is great at wrapping up all the series' themes and ending on the right note. I do wish some of the side characters received more development, but as I said, I understand that the film medium is not fully capable at handling so many characters' stories at once. In this case, it's incredible how concise The Final is. Must-watch for fans of the films and for any who might be eyeing it, please do yourself a favour and start with the first one. It was wonderful seeing all these characters I love again and how their lives have turned out.
"Eastern Promises" tells the story of one Ana Ivanovna, a midwife at a London hospital who gets involved with the Russian mafia. It quite surprised me with its quality; later I learned that it is apparently a cult film. It's rather detailed and tells a lot in its runtime of 100 minutes.
The cast is absolutely incredible. Viggo Mortensen and Vincent Cassel are the biggest stars here, and have a great chemistry to boot. Viggo really sells the mystery and charisma of his character Nikolai Luzhin, while Cassel is great at displaying the insecurities of Kirill. Clearly, a lot of effort went into donning Russian flavour to their speech, and from what I have been able to gather, the results are actually quite decent. For them and many others here. Armin Mueller-Stahl stands out as well, posing a facade of a good person, beneath which lies much darkness.
The story deals with some pretty heavy themes and director David Cronenberg does not shy away from the brutality of the world he is depicting. I winced a couple times, as this is far from an action movie; every time harm comes to a character, it makes an impact. The subject matter's hardship does not end there; power, sex, human trafficking, drugs, and many more themes serve to paint the rotten underground beneath the elegance of London. There's a style to the film that always remains, it never loses its tone in spite of the realities that occur. There a fictional stroke to the movie, almost romantic, Godfather-esque.
The cinematography was beautiful, and I think it managed to infuse Western filmmaking with some Russian sensibilities. This goes for the overall tone of the film - characters and plot. I would say that it is leagues better than most Russian representation you see in popular media.
"Eastern Promises" is a film I would genuinely recommend to those looking for a good crime drama film. It treads away from stereotypes with tact, and tells a story that is engrossing and gives good room to humanity along the way. It's not for the faint of heart, so just keep that in mind before watching it. A great movie, doing well at setting its identity.
I've been on the hype train for "Spider-man: No Way Home" for at least a year, ever since the rumours of returning characters from previous Spider-man films came to light. One thing you have to give to Marvel is the genius marketing for this film, I do not doubt for a second that they were responsible for many, if not all the leaks that happened. I was unsure of the MCU after Endgame, it just didn't seem like it would go in any interesting direction, but No Way Home is honestly my favourite movie in the universe. It's a love letter to nearly two decades of Spidey cinema, and as a massive fan of the character, I can't help loving it.
I've heard stories of how powerful some audiences' reactions were to this film, and while I was in a fairly modest crowd, I could still hear a comparatively audible answer to the spectacle that No Way Home offers. There were times where I couldn't turn down my grin either, nor remain tearless. To call it pure fan service would be unjust, as the third chapter of MCU Spider-man's story manages to remedy all issues people like me had with the character. While I always appreciated the new approach, it simply did not deliver what I liked most about Peter Parker's tales. Without spoiling anything (I will do so later, warning will be given), I'm very excited for where the character goes next in the franchise. Otherwise, it is able to truly capture why Spider-man is such an endearing presence - the conflict of leading this double life. Peter had it all perfect, up until the end of NWH's predecessor, Far From Home. The reveal of his identity causes all sorts of havoc for him, and most importantly, the people he cares for. Spidey is pretty desperate, and with that, the shenanigans of the plot unveil.
The cast was fantastic, and Tom Holland's performance was his best yet. Zendaya is a strong presence and really gives an interesting portrayal to MJ. She has charisma and great chemistry with Holland. Jacob Batalon does well in the comic relief role of Ned. Benedict Cumberbatch is a joy as always in the role of Doctor Strange. I'd even say he is a better fit for this movie than RDJ's Iron Man is for the first two MCU Spider-man flicks. Most interesting are returning villains from previous Spider-man franchises. Jamie Foxx seems to love being back and does a great job at portraying Jamie Foxx, if not so much Electro. Still, a much better version of TASM2's character, and he is very entertaining to watch. Thomas Haden Church and Rhys Ifans, respectively Sandman and the Lizard, are perhaps a tad weaker in their acting, I believe due to them only lending their voices, but their presence is still greatly appreciated. Alfred Molina does just as well as he did in Raimi's "Spider-man 2", while Willem Dafoe might even outperform his old work. He steals the show here, and I'll give even more credit to Holland for being able to keep up with him.
I have some criticisms for Happy Hogan and Aunt May, unrelated to Jon Favreau or Marisa Tomei. I think they are fantastic actors, but I could not care less for their characters, which are obnoxious, unfunny, and fail to resonate with me. Don't get me wrong, they aren't a total abomination to watch, but I dislike the major role they play in Parker's story. This is why a particularly potent point in the film failed to land for me, only saved by Holland's acting.
It's spoiler time as I simply cannot avoid sharing some surprises that No Way Home has in store. Skip to the next paragraph if you haven't seen the movie, which I highly recommend you do, as is evident. THEY'RE BACK! Seeing Tobey Maguire on the big screen is a childhood dream of mine come true. I grew up watching the Raimi Spider-man films, and while he might not be the best Spider-man actor, he is certainly an icon. His performance wasn't top-tier, but that is irrelevant. He added so much to the movie, I couldn't care less if it is fan service. Fan service is the strongest point of No Way Home and I love it for that. It takes a lot of hard work to pull off something quite like this. And what of Andrew Garfield, the Internet is currently clamouring for The Amazing Spider-man 3 after his phenomenal role. At times I think he overacted, but that's only because of how much he clearly loves being Spider-man. Somebody might convince me he simply walked on the set and joined in, while the crew decided to roll with it. He, Holland, and Dafoe are the biggest stars here. Otherwise, it's a joy watching 3 generations of live-action Spider-Men interact; they share stories, joke about, pull each other up. Clearly the writers are huge nerds of the cinematic history here, unashamedly interspersing memed lines from the Raimi trilogy. They are awkward to hear at times, but I'll take it. It's charming. Last, but definitely not least, as it perhaps got the biggest reaction out of me due to my sheer surprise. A few rumours floated around, but nothing too major to convince me that none other than the best actor in the MCU, Charlie Cox, would come back as Matt Murdock in a scene where he completely takes over for a few minutes. I had finished the third season of Daredevil no more than a week before, still dealing with the grief of the series' cancellation. I finally got to see Peter and Matt talking on the big screen, now we are one step closer to seeing their costumed alter-egos do the same. Hopefully, this also means that a renewal of the TV show might come about.
The MCU still doesn't excel musically, but this score is relatively notable compared to the dry run they had for many years. The cinematography and visual effects are good, although I honestly found the latter lacking in a few places. Nothing major, though it won't be fair to say they are quite great.
Overall, I loved "Spider-man: No Way Home". As a Spider-man fan, it delivered practically all I came for here, and went ahead to make me legitimately attached to this version of the character. I hope we get to see Holland reprise his role soon, he has just gotten started. Besides that, the film is a load of fun. If you need a solid blockbuster, see this film. And if you are a Spider-man fan, go out of your way to experience this. We live in a great time for the character, with many solid releases in a variety of mediums, and No Way Home is able to stand out as one of the best in them. I won't overhype it as a cinematic masterpiece, but it is a movie I enjoyed a lot and would love to watch again in the near future.
My dad suggested we watch this movie and I thought why not. And honestly, I had fun with it. It's a bit of a weird one tonally, as the vibe completely shifts by the end, but I can't say I didn't enjoy it for what it was.
"Nobody" sees Bob Odenkirk take a starring role as the character of Hutch Mansell, a seemingly everyday guy who clearly has a lot more going on to his person than it might seem at first glance. His and all other performances were solid. Nothing really blew me away, but I liked what everyone brought to the table.
The story was engaging, largely thanks to maintaining the mystery surrounding Odenkirk's character. It takes more than half the movie until all the puzzle pieces are set and the viewer is familiar with all aspects of the story. It's never confusing thankfully, meaning that the plot is relatively easy to follow. By the end, things devolve into an all-out unashamed shooting fest. While it might be disappointing in regards to the film's unfulfilled potential, there's no denying it was fun. As gritty as it might seem at first, don't take "Nobody" too seriously. It's honestly quite a stupid movie, but a very likeable one. Each character has their moment, which is not too unimpressive considering the short running time. All of them stand apart and are clear in their place in the story. All of this works as good background for the action.
And the action is what really sells the movie. It's absolutely silly, over-the-top, and entertaining as hell to watch. I'll refer to the straw throat scene for those who have watched this film as my favourite out of all. The creativity in the violence here is staggering, I love it. I was glued to the screen everytime there was some fighting going on.
One somewhat odd criticism I have is the overuse of music throughout. I honestly thought most of the budget was probably spent on just licensing songs here. Their use is honestly rather trite at this point, e.g. let's put a pre-90s song (think it's pre-80s in this case) to make this scene stand out. It's kind of hard when you do this every 10 minutes or so. It's honestly too much, might be best to have just let most of those scenes speak for themselves.
All in all, I liked "Nobody". It's an engaging ride that won't impress you, but it will entertain you. If you're just looking for a quick over-the-top action flick, I can wholeheartedly recommend it.
"Daredevil" and "Jessica Jones" are both shows I love, so another acclaimed series off of Marvel & Netflix's run of shows was meant to be right up my alley. Unfortunately, "Luke Cage" left me rather lukewarm (sry for the pun). I meant to drop it after the first season, but reading some opinions online convinced to continue with the second one and finish it, and truth be told, I did enjoy the second season more, but it still had plenty of issues for me.
Pacing is the biggest enemy of LC. The 13-episode seasons never really bothered me in "Daredevil" and were not a big issue in "Jessica Jones" as I can watch Krysten Ritter be a sassy asshole all day. It's a major problem in Luke Cage though. While there aren't many flaws otherwise to speak of, the show is so slow that it's hard to watch a lot of the time. There are great moments that make this worth it, particularly in the second season, but there's a whole lot of nothing happening most of the time. If each season was half as long, I honestly think this would have been a great series, on par with the previously mentioned Marvel/Netflix series.
Luke Cage's roster of villains is a mixed bag. Cottonmouth didn't do a lot for me, but he got quite interesting towards the end. And then he got immediately killed off... Diamondback was not good. His backstory was somewhat interesting and the general concept of his character provided potential, but what we got was an unbelievable cartoony whacko. Black Mariah manages to have some of the worst and best moments in the series. Shades is someone I liked, though I wasn't enjoying his presence for a good half of Season 2. But then there is one antagonist that throws every other villain, no, every other character, Luke Cage included, out the window - Bushmaster. A bloodthirsty, eccentric Jamaican man with a thirst for vengeance, his motives and development made him the most captivating presence on screen. Of course, Mustafa Shakir's performance cannot be understated.
More positive characters would include the titular character, portrayed by Mike Colter, who carries the role with a great deal of charisma. I have no gripes with Luke and like a lot of what the show has done to solidify him as his own superhero. Misty Knight is someone else with a very prominent role. I liked her, but do think that I was intended to be more involved in her story. Simone Missick acted well, but her performance was just too repetitive to me. Other notable characters would include recurring MCU Netflix nurse Claire Temple, whose arc in Season 2 I actively dislike and is one of my biggest dislikes of that season. Relationship drama that comes out of nowhere and spirals out of control like that is a superhero cliche I absolutely loathe. Bobby Fish was a charming fellow. D.W. is great comic relief, but he brings a lot of heart to the story as well. Pop is a captivating person. Have to say that Luke's father contributed a lot, and that Reg E. Cathey did great at bringing the complexities of this character to life.
The action is solid, though not exceptional like in "Daredevil". Nonetheless, I never got sick of seeing some ignorant soul shoot Luke, only for the bullets to bounce off him. Then he went and dealt with thugs like they were nothing. He's quite powerful, but that never stops suspense from factoring in, whether it's a weakness he has or something that he cares about being threatened. While battling, hip hop is the most common choice of music. A lot of Wu-Tang in particular (Method Man even makes an appearance). A big theme of Luke Cage is celebrating blackness, and while hip-hop is the dominant form of music, even in the main theme, plenty of other genres come in and out as well. Funk, blues, jazz. In fact, reggae is quite big in Season 2.
On the topic of blackness, it's only fair for the series to dive into its characters' more socially conscious roots and explore topics such as racism, gang violence, corruption and more. It takes unashamed inspiration from "The Wire", which would be clear to any fan of the drama as three actors from it appear in the first few episodes. I have to say "Luke Cage" never comes even close to the greatness of "The Wire", but I do enjoy its more laid-back approach to some of the serious topics it covers. The tone in general is quite campy, but there are times when it will get more serious and it somehow works. Focusing more on its characters is perhaps the truly progressive move, using those blaxploitation roots as a backdrop to build its world more than anything.
I grew attached to "Luke Cage", but those two 13-episode seasons were a slog to push through. I was waiting for most episodes to end, though I was glad whenever something more interesting occured. I wouldn't recommend it as a must-watch, but if you want a longer show and don't mind the slow pace, it might be worth giving a shot.
I was cautious about "The Batman", as it had the potential to be the best DC film in a long time or yet another pretentious flick. I'm happy to say it's the former, as "The Batman" went ahead and surpassed my expectations, squashing any doubts I might have had. Matt Reeves' arteur approach and understanding of the character's mythos blend together to create a crime thriller unburdened by the clichés of superhero cinema.
Robert Pattinson was an interesting choice to play the titular vigilante, one I had a feeling would go on to become the definitive live-action rendition, and so he did. His Batman flows smoothly between aggression and stoicism, with the former being more prevalent as we see a man completely absorbed by a futile crusade. A major theme is Batman's methodology in dealing with crime, and it's clear that the two years he has spent fighting it have done much damage both to himself and to Gotham. Bruce Wayne is hardly of any importance, this being a conscious choice. I should mention that the edgier portrayal of the billionaire might throw some people off a little, but I've yet to see someone go out of their way to complain about it. It seems that most of us revelled in the broken person that he is here, and we are likely to see his growth as the film series continues.
Gotham is another main character, the best realised version of the fictional city yet. A blend between the theatrics of Burton's and the grittiness of Nolan's movies, it's dripping in its own filth. Rain is a common companion, city lights haze amidst the shadows. Crime lurks everywhere, and so does Batman. A perfect parallel to him, the worst enemy of Gotham is its own people. Musically, "The Batman" utilises horror film cues, minimalistic melodies, and a few moodier licensed tracks. "Something in the Way", one of the best Nirvana songs, was prominently featured in trailers and the same is true for the film itself. I wasn't big on the overblown trailer rendition, but it's perfect as a backdrop to decadency of the city. Besides its tunes, "The Batman" has excellent sound design. One of my favourite moments was when the Batmobile showed up and the theatre bass went crazy.
"The Batman" is unique in that it is the first live-action film adaptation to put focus on our masked hero's title of World's Greatest Detective. The action remains at a smaller scale, the real thrills come from the mind games set forth by the incredible rendition of iconic villain the Riddler. A serial killer whose clues are all carefully planned out to put him at an advantage, it's enticing to see how the plot unravels. Each thread is carefully placed and plot conveniences are never an issue. The story took quite the risks, all while maintaining believability.
Plenty of subplots reside beside the main mystery and connect with it. "The Batman" is layered and rich, in my opinion justifying its lengthy runtime. Perhaps it could have cut down on some ten-twenty minutes, but it's not a major issue as each scene had its place and evoked interest. Zoe Kravits was great as Catwoman, perhaps the best we have seen on the screen, and her tale was gripping. Criminals like the Penguin and Falcone played a major part in the story and everyone around them brought details to Gotham's underworld. Andy Serkis played a great Alfred, while Jeffrey Wright was a fantastic Gordon.
I'll go as far as to say that "The Batman" is my second favourite Batman film. It does a great job at telling a proper Batman story, embracing the character's lore, while also adding many of its own strokes and being able to wrap up all of its themes in a satisfying manner. A must-watch for Batman fans and sceptics of superhero cinema. I cannot wait for the sequel, and am fully invested in what else Matt Reeves and co have planned.
What an obscure gem of a film. My father found "My Way" while browsing for some films and we both really liked it! Based on the story of a Korean man named Yang Kyoungjong, the film follows the Korean Jun-shik and Japanese Tatsuo Hasegawa on their mutual path through life. It's a sentimetal tale that depicts the true hardships of war, using sports as a commentary on real human values.
"My Way" is a high-budget production and it's easy to tell. On its journey through half the world, it features a great diversity of nationalities, depicting expansive environments and horrid battles. It can be quite gory, but it never glamourises any of it. I found that the violence always set forth the grimness of the World War II setting. Hope and despair clash along the rapid pace of the plot. Characters grow immensely from the moment they first appear on screen. Jun-shik remains as a more consistent moral compass, in a manner that is deeply human. Tatsuo's development is fascinating to watch, and the relationship between him and Jun-Shik was gripping. Besides these two leads, others' fates paint a fuller picture of war's depravity. Choon-bok could be considered somewhat of a weaker individual who is a proper contrast to his more idealistic companions. Shirai was amusing, but she might be one of my criticisms with "My Way", for no other reason than her story being redundant. You could remove her from the movie and nothing would change.
Another personal gripe I might have is the stylistic choice of a shaky camera. It's fantastic at representing the sheer chaos of WWII, but there's too much of a good thing - I felt downright uncomfortable watching at times. I'm not one prone to motion sickness either, so this is worth considering. Otherwise, the cinematography is gorgeous and is a strong drive of the film's emotional potency.
I mentioned sports as a major topic of the story, and this refers to marathon running in particular. War and patriotism are nothing more than superficial dividers of humanity, which butcher true values such as the wonder of sports. Jun-shik and Tatsuo retain their spirit through the values of the marathon - human willpower and love of perserverance. It's quite romanticised and I respect "My Way" for being so unashamed about this beauty.
I would recommend "My Way" to a fans of World War II cinema who would appreciate a brutalworldwide tale that has a simple message at its core. I was on the verge of crying at several points as I watched it, overtaken by the acting and scenery. A fantastic feature that deserves more love.
"Rurouni Kenshin: The Beginning" is a live-action adaptation of the same story that the OVA"Rurouni Kenshin: Trust & Betrayal" adapts, that being the backstory of the protagonist Himura Kenshin. This film has a much darker tone than the rest of the series, completely ditching the shounen staples and instead telling a fantastical historical drama set during the Bakumatsu period in Japan. Themes such as meaning, loss, romance, and guilt tell the humanity present in the characters' tales
The fight scenes here are stunning and the bloodiest they have ever been in this film series. Kenshin is a beast in the story that follows, but it's insane to see just how powerful he is when he had given himself free reign to kill. My favourite scene would be the first, which I'll leave for you to see yourself.
The sets are beautiful and build the fictional realisation of the time period with a great atmosphere. Many details adorn the environments. The music is fantastic as always.
Acting is phenomenal. Takeru Satoh (Kenshin) keeps things subtle, doing great to express the inner torment of his character. I would state the same for Kasumi Arimura (Tomoe).
My only criticism might be that the movie can linger a little too long on some of the sadder moments. It's not a major issue however.
I loved "Rurouni Kenshin: The Beginning" and have a hard time truly expressing my love for the film. It's a little rough to recommend for no other reason than its chronological place and the release date. I'd say watch it after the first three films (meaning after The Legend Ends) and before The Final, the latter was produced alongside this one. The Beginning is a beautiful, poetic tragedy that will bring its viewers closer to their inner humanity.
My dad suggested our family watch "Atonement", and I'm always open to seeing a film blind. This made me appreciate it even more perhaps, since "Atonement" switches its tone quite drastically over its runtime. It's an adaptation of an eponymous book I wasn't familiar with either, but I have added it to my backlog since it appears to have a positive reception of its own. I'm paying specific attention to this fact, because "Atonement" is a dissection on literature/stories.
Cecillia and Robbie are our main characters here, a love duo whose relationship takes on many strides. Cliches are used fairly well and the movie has many interesting twists that elevate this way beyond the cheesy love story it occassionaly portrays itself as. Decades pass as the plot furthers. I was not familiar with the WWII setting that would be present here, though it is not the focus. With that, I should also say that it occassionaly veers into pretentious Hollywood symbolism; some of the stylisation was overdone here. Besides that, you really do get to see the horrors of war and a solid exploration of the human condition. I was left with many questions of my own self after watching it.
Interestingly enough, "Atonement" won an Oscar for Best Original Score, an area where my subjectivity will have to provide a more mixed opinion. Typewriting sounds are heavily represented in the audio; a creative idea, but one that got stale past its first appearance. There's nothing particularly interesting done with the typewriter musically either, at least nothing that I noticed. The orchestral score was solid, but didn't blow me away. I'd also have to say that the mixing was far too loud at times, and the music unnecessarily overbearing. Truthfully, I think it took me out of the scenery sometimes. The acting was powerful enough.
Indeed, the performances here were outstanding. Keira Knightley has a wonderful, mysterious charm, while also presenting heavy emotional turmoil. James McAvoy is great at depicting the loss of hope his character went through. Briony goes through much growth here, literal and metaphorical, and all the actresses responsible for her were fantastic. There is an emotional stuntedness that the younger actresses carry out in quite the believable manner. The rest of the cast are quite good as well, but didn't stand out all that much, and this was probably for the best.
I have to applaud "Atonement" for its nonlinear storytelling and the amazing use of an unreliable narrator. I was not lost at any point, and whatever confusion arose only kept me more glued to the screen. Everything wraps up nicely in the end, and even the weird pieces of this puzzle make sense in the grander scheme of things.
"Atonement" is a great film and I would recommend it to most people, particularly those looking for an unconventional tale about love, desparation, the power of stories. It seems to be hardly talked about, and while I can see why that is, I say check it out if you haven't. It's a gem.
Season 6 started off fairly well. I genuinely enjoyed a good half of the episodes. The plotlines were decent, giving a decent development to most people involved. Pretty much all of them had their flaws, though. Currently, I watch the Flash mostly as a sort of mediocre trash show that can be quite entertaining. I've grown to like most of the characters and find the series at its best when it focuses on its humourous aspects. The issue is with the polar opposite - the drama. Frankly, the Flash has almost completely failed to deliver in that department since Season 2. I used to legitimately cry back in those first episodes, the reason likely being how humane the events involved were. It was easy to relate to the problems the characters faced, whereas now they throw a fit or cry every time some difficulty arises. The melodrama here made me want to put my fist through the screen at some point, I was baffled by how sappy it could get for what I found to be unbelievable reasons. There a few improvements, most noticeably with the lack of an ongoing seasonal villain. There are two main villains this time around, which lets the storylines feel more fulfilling and resort to filler less often. Due to the circumstances this year, the season ends somewhat abruptly at 19 episodes, although it ended up being for the better in my opinion, as the ending offered something different and an amusing cliffhanger.
The FX can be hit-or-miss, depending on the budget of individual episodes. I can't offer too much praise for them either way. The music is fine. I enjoyed the acting, with occassional flubs. All in all, I found Season 6 to be a mostly amusing watch, one not as irritating as Season 5. It's alright, but I can't deny I've developed far too much disdain for The Flash at this point, and could see myself dropping it next season unless there are marginal advancements in its many departments. It's repetitive and mind-numbing at this point, resorting to the same formulaic storytelling it keeps getting criticised for.
"jeen-yuhs: A Kanye Trilogy" comes right after the release of a career-revitalising album "Donda" by Kanye West and a whole new wave of controversies his name is attached to. It's been quite the stream of news and content when it comes to the legendary rapper, but it can't quite prepare you for the sheer scope of this documentary. In the making for more than two decades, we get a very intimate look at Kanye's rise to stardom through the eyes of old friend Coodie.
The intimacy truly sets this series apart. Coodie started shooting this footage years before Kanye released his acclaimed debut album "The College Dropout". His efforts in getting signed and sheer hustle are the most engaging and inspiring parts of the documentary. What's more, there's years of work before Coodie started shooting that we don't get to see. So it's clear that Kanye earned his place in the industry by fighting tooth and nail. The reality of the footage paints a true picture of an underdog story, one where there isn't a special event past which his whole life turned around. No, challenges continued to emerge for Kanye, but failures only served to motivate him.
Donda West, Kanye's mother, is one of the most important figures in his life and it's beyond apparent in the documentary. The wisdom and support she provided for him is heartwarming. Her presence took over each scene she was in.
I'm a little more mixed on act iii compared to its two fantastic predecessors. Without delving into spoilers too much, it follows some later events in Kanye's life. It tries to do so as best as it can, but the life situations of both Coodie and Kanye make the story flow somewhat inconsistently. Worse yet, we get to see the more toxic side of Kanye's personality, to the point where it's insufferable to watch at times. Coodie is not at fault here and I'm impressed with how good the third act was in spite of this, and his ability to present the humanity of Ye in spite of the growing distance between the two.
Coodie occassionaly shifts the narrative to his own life; an odd, but necessary choice. I'm certain this is an aspect of the series that would be better appreciated on a rewatch. I do believe that the connection between the two is a fundamental drive of the documentary and that the focus only shifts away from Ye when necessary. There are lessons to be had in Coodie's tale as well, some of which relate well to the relationship he and West have.
I loved jeen-yuhs and would immediately recommend it to all fans of the rapper. It might be a little harder to enjoy for others as it delves into his career with great detail. What I love the most about jeen-yuhs is the even greater context it gives to "The College Dropout" and how inspirational it is to see this unfiltered view of a man who never gave up and accomplished his dream. The aftermath is a little more rough, but it goes to show that the man might not have changed as much as one might think.
I watched the first Jessica Jones season about a year or two after it came out. Afterwards, I put the series on hold and ended up finishing what I started recently. Back when I first saw it, I even read the comic series the first season adapted - "Alias". The dark tone and cynicism of that story form a great basis for the TV series to build upon,
Jessica Jones is a superpowered private investigator who thrives off of neo-noir clichés in the best way possible. Her life is a consistent trainwreck, she's got a major drinking problem, everyone around her is a toxic asshole and so is she. Krysten Ritter gives an absolutely iconic performance as the titular character and owns every moment of the role, they could not have picked a better actress. Her charisma is off the charts, I could watch an entire episode of Jessica being herself and would be thorougly entertained. Beneath her nihilistic attitude though lay layers of tragedy that unfold themself as we see her grow past them and the new difficulties she faces with each season.
A superhero (or whatever Jessica is) is only as good as their villain, and the series does provide a good cast of them, particularly in the first season (a major reason as to why it's the best). David Tennant is as masterful in his role as Purple Man as Ritter is in Jessica's and their opposition against one another. There's always the question of how Jessica will be able to take them down, and the show does well to subvert the viewer's expectations when the climax is reached.
The cast of side character is a bit of a mixed bag for me though. Rachael Taylor is fantastic as Trish Walker and while I had a few issues with some sudden changes to her character, I overall liked her arc and found her engaging to watch. Malcolm was a charming sidekick, but I grew to have very mixed feelings about him and found his screentime unearned. The same might go for Jeryn Hogarth. Carrie Anne-Moss is able to wonderfully humanise someone as despicable as this comptetitive attorney. There's a lot of complexity to Jeri, but that doesn't change how nonessential her plots are. They barely connect with the main threads going on and are great at showcasing a major flaw in the latter seasons - to pad out episodes, side characters take over far too often, which is apparent whenever Jessica gets the focus.
The atmosphere is fantastic, props must be given to the crew when it comes to music and cinematography. The title screen is always a blast to watch; engaging colour pallete, while the absolute banger of a theme builds up. The music running through the course of episodes is wonderful too. As for the shots, they are a joy to look at. The lighting and angles do a lot to set a vibe.
I love the "Jessica Jones" series, and while I find that it has its issues in Season 2 and 3, I would still wholeheartedly recommend it. Even if just for Season 1, which is some of the best content Marvel and Netflix have put out. The end might be a little abrupt, but there's no cliffhangers left dangling at the end of Season 3. I hope we get to see Ritter reprise her role someday, and if not, I can always rewatch this.
"The Little Things" is a neo-noir crime thriller starring Denzel Washington, Rami Malek, and Jared Leto. I knew nothing about it going in and enjoyed it a fair amount. The film has received mixed reviews, I can see why, and while I wouldn't go out of my way to recommend it, I have to say it had its charm.
To me, "The Little Things" focuses greatly on style over substance. Even if it has themes and storytelling details that enhance it, for the most part, I found myself most engaged by the cinematography, acting, and music. It's a neo noir, so it's important that everything looks dark and badass. Shots go on for longer than might be necessary, and if you don't care to appreciate the shots, you'll probably be bored at some point. Not me though, I took as it was and let myself absorb each colour, glare, and angle. The acting is rather low-key for the most part, and it enhances the atmosphere. I found Rami Malek to be my favourite actor here; his voice and emotionless stare border on campy, but the film sells the detective fantasy very well. Denzel Washington leads the story well and has great chemistry with Malek. I wouldn't call myself a Jared Leto fan, but once I spaced out of any preconceived notions I had of him, I though he gave an amusing performance. Lastly, the music was minimalist and often out of tune, being the last piece to the movie's feel. It stood out to me and defined more than a few moments.
The story might be where most people will have conflicting opinions. I am surprised I enjoyed this as much as I did. Usually, I feel like I would actually hate this kind of story, but it clicked with me. It ends rather abruptly, in a completely different manner than you might think at first. There's an attempt at making a greater point about humanity, but I can't say it left the impact it was supposed to. Nonetheless, the twist was interesting and subverted my expectations well enough. It's not as great as it might have aimed to be, but it didn't leave me dissatisfied.
Overall, I'd recommend "The Little Things" for its atmosphere, a genuinely strong point. If you're looking for more, I do think you might be disappointed. Nothing groundbreaking, but a good film for what it tries to do.
"The Wire" is touted as one of the greatest masterpieces the medium of television has to offer, and it deserves all of this praise. Broadcast between 2002 and 2008, it did not receive the appropriate acclaim it deserves during its run, but ever since it has achieved a legendary status. Truly, this series was ahead of its time, most notably in its approach to the sheer variety of social and political issues it tackles, always doing so with maturity and complexity.
What begins as a straightforward crime drama turns into a in-depth exploration of the Amerian City, in this case Baltimore. It details the fractured relationship between individuals and institutions, something that sadly also rings true to me as a foreigner. No one could have been chosen as a better lead then than Dominic West in the role of Jimmy McNulty, a rebellious detective who is fed up with the incompetence of bureaucracy and often sets off the plotlines for each season. "The Wire" is not a naïve, hopeful look that a rebel or two will change anything. It can be quite fatalist. Characters who go against the grain often pay a price for it, and may end up worse than those who simply chose to play along. A crushing reality, one that I see remaining true in the centuries to come.
Reality - this is a defining feature of the series. It is so dedicated to presenting its events away from typical Hollywood thrills that I think it occassionaly does so at the expense of satisfying storytelling. It's the only real issue I have here, most notably in Season 5 (ironically the one season that pushes its believalibility to the limit). Some arcs stutter at points. Season 2 is probably my least favourite season as its setting is simply not as interesting as the urban environment most of the show takes place in, but it's still incredibly tight plot-wise and tells a worthwhile tale. It's just the least essential one. My biggest issue with Season 4 and 5 is the major role Marlo takes on. He's a one-note character who literally has a single expression on the whole time. Such a let-down after how incredible Barskdale and Stringer were. The man is actually wholly incomptent and is able to go as big as he did only due to luck/plot convenience. This negativity pretty much encompassed all bad things I have to say about the series. Trully, I love the aprroach otherwise. Every character is threatened in some way, everyone suffers. No one is bigger than the world around them, no matter their ego. As much as it hates the system, "The Wire" concurs that you can't competely disavow it, as you'll only hurt yourself in the process. The best an individual can do is focus on making a meaningful change, however small it might seem. That's my takeaway at least. Even still, things don't always work out and you have to accept it.
The acting is fantastic and never ceases to amaze me. Every character is portrayed with gravity and feels human. "The Wire" pushed boundaries as to what your average viewer might expect. A predominantly black cast is featured, accurate to the Baltimore we see portrayed. Michael Kenneth Williams pllays my personal favourite - Omar Little, who along with Sonja Sohn's Kima Greggs set a precedent for outstanding LGBT representation that a lot of media still fails to follow on. Andre Royo is central to the heart of the series as Bubbles, giving this junkie a great deal of humanity. Idris Elba absolutely killed it as Stringer Bell, introduced as soon as we enter the show alongside Dominc West's Jimmy McNulty. Both have incredible arcs and function as pivotal main characters. Lance Reddick is convincing as Cedric Daniels and goes through much growth , especially in the first season. Clarke Peters is charismatic as Lester Freamon. Even seemingly smaller roles like J.D. Williams' Bodie go on to be central in Baltimore's story. Amazing are also the child actors who drive the fourth season, every single one of them. While I wouldn't quite call it my favourite for reasons stated above, I found it to be the most gut-wrenching and that is no small part due to their work.
Much can be said about "The Wire" as it continues to make me think on the questions it set forth. It makes no light of the heavy themes it deals with, while at the same time maintaining its charm throughout. The comedy can be quite underrated, as it packs quite a punch in a world so grim. It doesn't spend too much time moping around either, just as much as it needs. Things are grim, very few born on the lower steps of society get a happy ending, and many born near the top won't bother with those below. It's not about hope, it's not about hopelessness - it's just how things are. Simply showing that can be more telling than any predefined message. "The game is the game".
"Rome" was honestly a disappointment to me and I did not even want to continue with the second season, but my mother wanted to so I decided I might as well. To my surprise, the second season was genuinely good and I have to say that the first was able to find its charm by the end. My issue has to do with the beginning of the series, it's below mediocre. This is, of course, my opinion and it does not seem to be the most popular one, so fair warning.
Character writing appears to be the series' biggest issue and only becomes acceptable around the second season. Before that, characters range from passable to horrid, and I don't mean just ethically. For indeed, "Rome" is quite the cynical drama, rightfully so. I was wrong to assume this was a series that came after the success of "Game of Thrones" in an attempt to fill the void left in between seasons. Quite the opposite, "Rome" paved the way for GoT to eventually take over the mainstream. Political intrigue, a great deal of nudity, and obscene violence. Unfortunately, these thrills are fairly surface-level. When your characters serve as simple vehicles to the plot, it's hard to have anything beyond decent TV. As mentioned above, things get better around the second season, and I genuinely think that Octavian is a solid character minus a few storytelling errors. Titus Pullo and Lucius Vorenus serve as the glue for all sub-plots and a connection with your everyday Roman, away from the world of nobles. Their arcs were inconsistent for sure, but I thought their chemistry, aided by the performances of Kevin McKidd and Ray Stevenson, carried their tales. Plenty of characters suffered from poor writing though - Servilia was so obnoxious I wished for her to die horridly everytime she appeared on the screen; Atia was a pretty basic controlling mother, not enough depth to justify the role she plays; Brutus was no more than a wimp and his arc was wholly unconvincing.
With boring characters, you can't expect your plot to maintain interest. No matter how much politics and sex the show threw my way, it did not change the fact I had no reason to care for the people that led the tale. Not until some of them finally gained on some semblance of two-/three-dimensionality. Even in Season 2, a fair amount of characters could only rouse my annoyance, but thankfully many of them began dying and the focus could shift ever so slightly on those that justified their presence.
The setting might be the strongest point of the series. "Rome" is famous for being one of the most expensive productions in the history of television. Let me repeat that this series paved the way for "Game of Thrones"; "Rome" came out in 2005. And frankly, it looks better than most series released since (January 2022 as I'm writing this). The props are stunning to look at and what more there is to appreciate is the extended focus on the Roman city beyond the royal districts. You get to see the slums and all the life that booms there, scum or not. Unfortunately, the series had to be cut short due to the sheer excession in its price; somewhat ironic, a parallel to the end of the Roman empire perhaps. I'll give props for the fact that it is able to wrap up in a conclusive manner.
"Rome" is good TV and I would recommend it to people who need something to watch, but I will go against the grain and say it is absolutely not necessary viewing. It looks like it's much deeper than it really is. Few of the themes feel like they really make a point, and as I said, it takes a while before I got around caring for these character-barren historical figures to drive the plot. Nevertheless, I enjoyed it and am positive enough after seeing it.
The second season of Netflix's "The Witcher" has gotten much more positive reviews compared to the first one, which I had rather mixed feelings on. Seeing this trend and being a big fan of the series, I decided to continue with Season 2 and see what's up. To that I will say that the most glaring of Season 1's flaws have been taken care of, though the show still struggles with some things I will cover in more detail.
"The Witcher" wants to be one of those series that wants to stray away from its source material and have its own identity, except that it stays in this weird area of being about 60-70% loyal. It follows the general plot and characters, but the changes that are made never serve to give its own identity and are only confusing. They are not all bad, but those other examples still exist. My biggest gripe has to do with some of the character writing, an aspect that requires more work yet. Ciri being one of the lead characters, with a role about as major as Geralt's in the tale, should not be as mediocre as she is here. Frankly, I just cannot get behind Freya Allan's performance, and I am not sure if I am to blame her entirely. Perhaps it's direction, perhaps it's the writing. Perhaps it's all three factors. Ciri is a charming brat with a lot of personality in the source material. I don't buy any excuse for the portrayal here, for one simple reason - she's boring. Indeed, she has seen a major improvement from the previous season where her entire character boiled down to a screaming machine that was chased about all the time. In fact, she even has many charming moments here. Not enough to capture just how great the real Ciri is however. They also seem to be constantly avoiding the tomboy part of her personality for some reason, one I can maybe only explain as a weird attempt to avoid comparisons to Arya Stark from "Game of Thrones"? Comparisons which would be ridiculous as Ciri predated Arya by several years, but never mind that.
A big shout-out to Henry Cavill for being the greatest strength of the show. He's the perfect casting for Geralt, and with some behind-the-scenes info given, the greatest asset all-around as a fan of the series.Joey Batey comes straight after him as one of the best actors of the series. His eccentric performance steals the focus of any scene he's in, a statement that completely disregards how strong his emotional scenes are as well. One in particular sticks with me still - the conversation they have with Yennefer in the ship about losing one's talents. I like Anya Chalotra quite a lot as Yennefer, and while she differs from who she is in the books, I honestly enjoy seeing this version. Chalotra is able to carry out the sass, aggression, and bottled up emotions of the sorceress. Her plotlines sometimes fail to deliver their reward, but I have to admit they were entertaining and I enjoy seeing this vision of who she is.
A big issue with all of these fantasy adaptations I have has to do with both the studios and the fanbases of respective series. Clearly, everyone is trying to find the next "Game of Thrones". People denying this are wilfully ignorant, a kind of naivette I find obnoxious, but understandable. Media newslets won't shut up about how much each show compares to GoT. They are not GoT - so why do they keep trying to be? Yes, there are differences, but the strong focus POV characters, politics, and death scenes directly opposes the true spirit of the Witcher. Sapkowski can suck off Netflix all day if he wants to, guess he found something in common with all those prostitutes he wrote about. He screwed his deal over on the games, I can see why he is salty, but those truly understand the strength of his material, and even are able to improve on this. Netflix's "The Witcher" continues to double down on the epic elements of this tale, which were never its draw; the down-to-earth moments are what give it its soul. There are more of those moments thankfully, but they still feel insufficient. Episode 1 was great altogether, but goddammit, the campfire scene at the end where Ciri and Geralt's relationship shined - Cavill was the one who pushed for it.
We get a bigger focus on the witchers here, an interesting choice. One that dabbled with its quality. The idea to develop these characters more than in the books is solid, but the execution fails. Lambers is an annoying prick, that much is accurate, but I found his attitude written poorly a lot of the time. Vesemir was more flawed than his book counterpart, a bit of an unbelievable trait, seeing as he is supposed to carry much wisdom. Still, I found his portrayal solid otherwise. Eskel suffered from a major writing flaw, one I need to delve into spoilers to discuss. [spoilers]The person shown here has nothing do with Eskel, who wasn't an all that major character in the books. Fine enough, but why would you make him such an obnoxious edgelord the viewers are actually supposed to care for? It is only after his death that we get a glimpse of the brotherhood between him and Geralt, something that should have come beforehand.[/spoilers]
Cahir is someone I enjoy seeing more of, his arc takes on a lot of turns and I like that. Istredd continues to thread into the story, something completely different from his limited role in the books. I like that. Elven lore is exlpored further here and I found it quite engaging.
The fight choreography was great here and improved on from the first season, one of many common complaints they improved on. Similarly, the CGI has seen betterment, though there are still weak spots that are beyond apparent. The finale was where I was able to be genuinely impressed, I will give this credit in particular as it is due. There are no "experimental" timeline shenanigans here, the plot is fairly straightforward.
And before I finish this, the music remains good.
Season 2 greatly improves on its predecessor, but still suffers from an attempt to make the Witcher something it is not. Overall, I enjoyed watching this and hope the series continues on an upward trajectory. If you're looking for something engaging to watch, give this a shot, but it's by no means essential. The quality is a lot more consistent, I'd say I was hooked at about episode 4, and the first episode was great as well. Some weird decisions bring it down, but altogether, a step in the right direction.
"Time" follows the story of one Mark Cobden, a man regretful of his actions, thrown into a prison full of total degenerates and the occassional decent person. I did not know what to expect going on, and left mostly satisfied with what the show had to offer. It had very strong moments and explored humanity in some interesting ways.
The acting is perhaps the strongest aspect of the show, and how could it not be with Sean Bean and Stephen Graham's nuanced performances? It was hard not to get emotional during some of the series' most intense drama. It focuses on exploring the mindset of a convict, doing so in a very heartfelt manner. It seeks to understand, not so much judge. There are plenty of sympathetic characters in here, no matter the addition of the opposite. Which also does bring me to one of the show's issues - thematic consistency.
As I said before, there is a strong focus on guilt and redemption here. Mark's actions are never excused, and he is never presented as a person wrongfully incarcerated. His tale is that of prison life, where he meets others that have gone along the wrong path and face justice for their mistakes. To contrast this, Eric McNally suffers within the constraints of morality's greyness. Family or principle? While this is an interesting conundrum, and his story is interesting, I was disappointed by the poor incorporation of both in this series. The themes struggle to fit in together, mostly due to the ending's uncertain messaging. On one hand, Mark's tale ends in such a way that the challenges he faced in prison were seemingly for nothing, as he suffers no repreccusions for his goodness in there. On the other, Eric never really learns anything. He simply gets what is coming for him, without there being a point to be made. Not that it is always necessary to do so in a story, but there is a great disparity between the narrative tone of these two characters. The connection here needed to be better.
The other inmates had a lot to tell and you end up remembering each and every one as they develop along the sidelines. There's always something done to bring more to light about them. For example, I am quite fond of Paul, who never had such an important role in Mark's story, but was a great character in his own right. Many like him are humanised, but there are some who are inexcusable pieces of living waste. I think this could have been handled better; as I said, there is a focus on understanding, not judgement here, yet this isn't the entire truth, as clearly some inmates here are villanious. I understand this is an attempt at being more realistic, but in that case the idealism should have been toned down. "Time" has difficulty maintaining this balance, though it still makes for an enjoyable and affecting show.
I highly recommend "Time" to those looking for a story of guilt and how one might grow from. It stutters in its telling of this, but the genuine humanity shines through. Times change, what matters is how we carry along them.
Happened to catch this movie on TV, Christmas Eve. I found it fairly enjoyable for what it was, a dumb comedy. The film stars Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg, who have a great chemistry with each other! The premise is extremely silly, and thankfully, the movie doesn't take itself too seriously. Perhaps it delves into that silliness too much. The general plot functions to a decent degree. It generally centers around the two leads trying to "out-father" one another. The characters don't have much in the way of depth, though it's good enough that they serve the jokes.
What of the comedy, though? There's a dissonance to me between the more ill-spirited, adult jokes and the silly, fun-for-the-whole-family ones. Some of them work, some don't. As an example of the first, there's a token black character in the movie, who would have been fine if the movie quit making these thin-veiled racist jokes. Essentially things like: "So you're going to fire me because of the color of my skin?" and pointing out that someone is racist, this is half of his character's repertoire. Then there is the awful dance scene at the end. One interesting thing actually - I thought the movie was set in the early 2000s, but was surprised to learn it was a 2015 release. It seems to be stuck in the time period I mentioned, where skateboarding and breakdancing were all the hype among the kids. It's quite apparent that old executives had a say in the film's making, as it is absurdly dated in its essence.
Overall, there's not much to say about "Daddy's Home". It's a stupid comedy that might be worth a watch if you are willing to enjoy it for it what it is. I did, though I'm not going to deny its prelavent issues. Still, it had some genuinely hillarious moments.
Was quickly hooked on the show. Saul Goodman was an entertaining character in Breaking Bad, but I couldn't have guessed he'd have this much depth and be such a fantastic lead. BCS is an exceptional character study that shows the gradual development of all the people carrying the action in it. Several Breaking Bad characters make an appearance, though they are never shoehorned in. Fan service is not once forced and always carries the story. BCS functions as its standalone show, although there are just a few moments that knowledge of Breaking Bad would explain.
The show balances all its moments, from one comedic end of the emotional spectrum to the other, tragic one, in a great manner. It's absolutely hillarious and utterly devastating when it decides to be. Witty writing and outstanding acting allow them to do so and bring the series to a level of immersion where each scene is memorable and to be savoured. The magnificient cinematography further enhances these aspects. Each shot is carefully placed and visually impressive. The music selection is great and gives new layers to the story. I was very impressed by some of the original tracks too.
What separates Better Call Saul from just any show is the complex interconnected plotting and subtle character development. Not one minute in the series is pointless, everything builds up to something. Everybody has their own motivations, reasoning, personality. Present are themes such as the road of crime having no option of turning back, moral degradation, naivette and many, many more. Examining the layers of storytelling here will net many results, but this would be nothing if the pacing and general mood set didn't carry it forward.
There's a lot to say about Better Call Saul, but summing it up is, in a sense, too easy. There's nothing wrong with it, but much great stuff that it has to offer. It has cemented its place as a favourite series of mine alongside its parent show. I can't wait for the final season!
I found the show enjoyable overall, but most certainly flawed. It adapts material from the first two books, taking a good amount of liberties in certain areas. Now, I was fine with them making changes, but felt some of them certainly were for the worse. To begin with, the timeline is completely messed up. They wanted to give the story a POV type of thing, following each of the 3 main characters separately, which had me confused for half of the show. There are jumps in time all the time. I genuinely believe that it would have been better if they had just had the story move chronologically.
The POV brings forth another issue, pacing. The most interesting parts to watch were certainly Geralt's, adapted straight from the book. They were adapted pretty well, though a bit rushed at times. It is understandable why they showed Yen and Ciri's stories, though I think that if they had their own separate episodes, the show would have fared better. It leaves a very disjointed feel to the whole story, moving between classic Geralt stories, the weird Yennefer ones and that of Ciri.
Speaking of Geralt, Henry Cavill is the perfect actor to play Geralt. Within a few episodes, he became my default version of the character. I experienced immense enjoyment just watching him be Geralt, there are a lot of subtleties he completely nails, while giving it his own flavour. My other favourite casting choice was Julian, Geralt's troubadour companion. The actor portrays his witty, cynical, comedic relief aspects lovingly well and he is a pretty darn good singer to boot.
The actress of Yennefer does a good job. They show her development from the start to the woman she becomes, which was interesting. There were some weird parts here. I will give it to this way of presenting the story, it makes the mage characters a lot more interesting from the start here.
Now, I have some more issues with Ciri. They missed what the execution in the books had, mainly the connection between Geralt and Ciri. They have the theme of destiny connecting them, but it feels more unsatisfying and contrived. They set up the hunt from her and her powers much earlier, I hope it doesn't lead to the show feeling repetitive later. I just wish they didn't feel so much like a plot device and more like a human being. She is a rowdy tomboy, they only hinted at this once.
Visually, the show looks good. Cinematography is fine, not outstanding, but fine. The CGI is mostly okay, but it has some horrible spots. Fight scenes are amazing, maybe overchoreographed at times, though that is nitpicky.
Loved the music for the show. I was surprised how good it was even. As a person that spent time with all 3 games, each one of which always had an outstanding soundtrack, I wondered how the show would live up to that. It did it excellently. The sound is different from that of the games, but feels very much like the Witcher. Particular fan of the theme of Yennefer and the Toss A Coin For Your Witcher.
All in all, The Witcher is a good show. The first 2 books are in a different format that the other books, being short story collections rather than novels. There was obviously an attempt to streamline the former into the latter to make it more serialised, yet I feel those 2 books make for great TV just the way they are. Episodic with hints of continuity. I have hope there will be improvements in the next season, so I am waiting eagerly.
Edit: As time has passed, I've grown to dislike the show somewhat more. As it is, it is enjoyable, though heavily flawed. It largely butchers the material from the first two books, even though it's arguably the best material to adapt for a TV series. I've changed my rating from a 7 to a 6 and edited out a few parts I don't agree with any more, but my thoughts are mostly the same, I've just realised I felt pressured to give it a higher score so I wouldn't be one of those "the books are better" people, but I think it is perfectly fair to criticise a show when it neither does anything particularly unique with its concept, nor does it do its source material justice.
One of Green Day's biggest shows on DVD. Naturally, the experience cannot be replicated on a digital format, but it's an enjoyable one nonetheless. The song selection is fantastic. "American Idiot" happens to be not just my favourite GD album, but my favourite album ever. I'd say it's my favourite era of the band, one that this concert specifically captures. That being said, some hits from before are present as well, truly iconic ones at that. The performance of each song stands out and is a thrill to watch. Billie Joe's antics can be a little overbearing at times (looking at you "Hitchin' A Ride"), but there's no denying he knows how to captivate a crowd. I had to join in a little even from the comfort of my chair, haha. All in all, this concert truly is an experience. I highly recommend it to Green Day fans.
Good movie.
CGI was kinda shit tbh.
Characters were good.
Story was interesting enough.
Good acting for the most part.
Dope music.
The feminism was actually well done, it wasn't ham fisted at all.
My mother recommended we see this film after mistakingly having thought that she had seen it. What a shame as I wasted near 2 hours of my time suffering through the piece of crap "French Kiss" is.
There's nothing particularly horrible "French Kiss" does, which makes it worse in a way. Basically every idea it has is so superficial and executed so weakly that it makes for a film that is silly in the worst possible manner. It spends most of its runtime on horridly cheesy slapstick comedy before trying to be deeper at the end because love or something. I'll admit, it was moderately entertaining for its first quarter or third, then it was just stupid. None of the performances do much for me as there is simply nothing they can do. The characters are one-dimensional, even the leads border on that. An absolute disaster for a romantic film as you are supposed to care about the people in the romance - what a novel concept.
The French fantasy. Yes, "French Kiss" pulls off some subconscious, almost dreamlike idea of what France is. And I don't mean dreamlike in the sense of wonder, more as in a claustrophobic maze which feels wrong while watching, then leaves with you a kind of existential dread after. France is presented as this exotic country, to the point it seems to be more of a love island with a bunch of quirks suited to couples than one of the most famous nations in the world. Look, I'm all for romanticism, especially in a romantic film, but this must have been written by a grandma with the worldview of a 10-year-old. The vaguest ideas of French culture - cheese, Eiffel Tower, accents, and that particular kind of overtly sentimental music I have a hard time swallowing (though I won't hold it as criticism, but it does only serve the issues in tone) - this is what "French Kiss" gives. Great job, you really made my body turn inside out. Thank God I don't have anyone to kiss right now as I'd just vomit in their mouth. Probably more memorable than this picture.
"French Kiss" is genuinely an awful movie, I did not enjoy seeing it. I will repeat again that it did not start off so bad, but it just kept getting worse to the point where it felt like a piece of soft erotica that eventually ended up being used as waste cleanser. Watch this is if you want your average romcom that requires you to have as few neurons active as possible during its runtime. It seems others have found something to appreciate here. I hardly did. French Kiss? More like French Piss, lmaooooo.
"When Harry Met Sally" is a name I had heard before, but knew nothing about before I watched. A genre-defining romantic comedy, it follows a nuanced relationship between its leads with plenty of charming moments sprinkled throughout its length.
"When Harry Met Sally" isn't a particularly long film, yet it feels like a proper 2h+ picture. The plot takes place across many years as we see both Harry and Sally grow exponentially. As sweet as the movie was, there's a bit of sadness I could feel from it with the amazing manner in which it depicted aging and romance. It's all very comfy, which brings the viewer into a very intimate space with the protagonists.
The structure of the plot is quite interesting and is a part of what makes WHMS stand out from most entries in the genre - plain good filmmaking. The acting was mesmerising from the get-go, and while some have criticised Billy Crystal's performance for being unfitting for this role, I would say that is precisely what made it so good. There's something very genuine about the way he portrays a cynical, emotionally unavailable man who deep-down wishes for true love. And Meg Ryan is simply flawless as Sally. The script is ideal, knowing how to play off of Crystal and Ryan's on-screen chemistry.
"When Harry Met Sally" is a fantastic film and no doubt my favourite romantic comedy. It's still amazing to me that it is only an 1h30min long. It's so complete and well-paced, delivering well beyond its simple premise and giving us a character-driven tale we near become a part of. If you want a sincerely fun and down-to-earth romance, do watch it.
"Inception" is a film Christopher Nolan had wanted to make for many years at the time of its creation. Understanding that he needed more experience to be able to pull it off, he ended up directing his first two highly-acclaimed Batman projects to understand the process of crafting such a massive movie. It paid off, as "Inception" is an ambitious release that has continued to receive praise ever since it came out.
The narrative revolves around exploring a person's subconscious through dreams, and it does a fantastic job at doing as much with this concept as it can. Thematically, it unfolds bit by bit, with Leonardo DiCaprio's portrayal of Cobb providing an enticing humanity that runs parallel to the fast-paced suspense. "Inception" doesn't waste a second and it requires a great deal of attention at times, but it fully rewards its viewers for sticking through.
Besides Cobb as the protagonist, I found myself attached to the rest of the cast as well, even those that did not receive substantial development. Interestingly, "Inception" functions as a heist film at its core, and each person plays a specific role that makes them stand out. Robert Fischer (Cillian Murphy) was surprisingly interesting and I ended up caring for the conclusion to his arc. Marion Cotillard was excellent as Mal Cobb and played very well off DiCaprio.
The action in "Inception" is magnificient to watch, relying on its incredible special effects that are appropriately trippy and unconventional. Even a decade later, it stands the test of time and dare I say looks as modern as it did back then.
My major issue with "Inception" comes in its last act, where I believe it begins to come across as genuinely pretentious. It loses its grip of logic, moving from sci-fi into pure fantasy. The ending is decent, but I'm not certain it fully lives up to all of its potential.
I loved "Inception", I've never seen a film quite like it. It was genuinely a fascinating concept that I found to be brilliantly executed, even if it did fall apart a little by the end. A must-watch for Nolan fans and I'd highly recommend it to just about anybody else, especially science fiction and action fans. Just know it is anything but a casual watch, you'll want to take in everything you can from it!
"Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness" is a sequel to 2016's Doctor Strange, though the connection between the two films is at this point mostly lost as Strange has had a significant role in several other MCU projects over the last few years. I watched the original in cinemas, but waited for this one to become available on digital as I wasn't exactly in the mood to visit the theatre at that time. I liked the first entry and was excited to see this one with Sam Raimi directing the project and all the rumoured cameos.
Multiverse of Madness is action-packed from the get-go and it rarely slows pace. That's not too bad as I found the movie never wasted a moment and was interesting throughout. However, it does lead to it being a somewhat typical MCU film in terms of pacing, arguably my largest criticism. For all of Raimi's shenanigans, Multiverse of Madness still feels like a fairly standard MCU flick at the end of the day. It's no doubt one of the better additions to it, but don't go in expecting anything special.
To elaborate more on Raimi's involvement, I think he was perfectly suited for this movie and for Doctor Strange's character. His Evil Dead films are the primary influence here, rather than his run on Spider-man. He certainly pushes the PG-13 rating with some interesting body horror, but I can't say it left as much of an impact on me as his cinematography did. The action was wonderfully creative and the locales Strange would visit were a joy to watch. All this perfectly suited this trippy character.
Stylistically, I thought the use of colours and the music stood out, though that is in comparison to other MCU titles. Regarding the soundtrack, I had mixed feelings. I believe Strange's theme saw some change, a change I found unnecessary and felt out of place. The music tried, let me give it that I guess. But nothing has stuck with me as per usual for these movies.
I enjoyed the plot of Multiverse of Madness and have no gripes with it. "Wandavision" seems to be recommended watching here, but it did a great job at being accessible to those who had not viewed it such as me. In fact, my mom had not even seen the character of Strange previously and she had fun with it. The story messes with the concept of the multiverse rather well, and I do applaud Marvel's writers for treading carefully around time/interdimensional travel plotlines. If any plotholes were there, they didn't stick out.
Besides Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch), major characters are Wanda (Elizabeth Olsen) and America (Xochitl Gomez). Strange and Wanda had the most interesting development for sure, while America didn't really do much for me, I found her to be rather boring in fact - she was a sidekick and a plot device for the most part. Cumberbatch and Olsen gave fantastic performances, and I think the rest of the cast do a solid job as well.
On the topic of cameos, I was not satisfied with how they were handled, particularly after Marvel's previous release being the fantastic "Spider-man: No Way Home". Whereas that film treated them wonderfully, giving them arcs and plot relevance, Multiverse of Madness did the bare essentials and in my opinion wasted them , especially Patrick Stewart. Something about them feels shoehorned in, and I'm guessing Raimi himself didn't care much about woving them into the story.
Altogether, I found "Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness" to be a solid entry in the MCU that maintains momentum, though it does rein in its creativity to set up whatever interconnected storyline is planned. It's a fun film and if you enjoy superhero flicks, it's a good one to watch.
This film was on TV while I was having dinner and while I had different plans, I ended up watching it through the end. Starring Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz, it's an action comedy that provides an incredibly dumb and fun experience.
The leads were fantastic in their roles, being able to fill the presence with their charisma. The chemistry between them was fun to watch and I think it managed to avoid quite falling into the realm of cliche. It had enough uniqueness and sillliness to it that I had no issue, though June's character was certainly very... dated.
The action was great, but the CGI not so much. No in between. Over the top and an absolute blast, but anytime the film had to rely on anything but practical effects, it dropped the ball hard. I can think of one explosion in particular that looked like it was made after watching one Youtube tutorial. It was glaring the times it did appear, but thankfully that was not enough to ruin the joy that was the rest.
Action comedy through and through, an unashamed example of the genre that has so much fun with its silly premises. It makes as much sense as it needs to, beyond that its ridiculousness knows no limits. The running gags were lovely and took me off guard each time. I believe this is the area that "Knight and Day" excels the most at, and I am glad they never ruined it with unnecessary drama. There was some, don't get me wrong, but only so the plot kept going, they never ruined the light tone.
"Knight and Day" is so joyfully stupid, I wouldn't mind rewatching it. There's nothing too special to it, I simply think it is highly entertaining. Go watch it with someone to have a good time, that's all I have to say.
