An entire episode of stress, scares and more mysteries.
Give me the next episode already!
I don't know how to feel. Mixed feelings on the finale for me. Not great, not terrible. Was it perfect? No. Am I completely satisfied? No. Are there many loose ends that I will never understand? Absolutely. Can you ever please your whole audience? No.
Dorothy got her closure and was finally able to grieve. Her knowing that Leanne brought Jericho back for almost a year helped the sting of finally waking up. So yes, the “reborn” doll technically helped. Leanne got her closure as well. She got the mother figure that she had long yearned for. Dorothy and Sean get a fresh start. They no longer have to live in the house where they experienced so much trauma. Also, Dorothy seems to have fully recovered from her broken back, she was barely able to walk 2 episodes ago, now she's running up and down stairs.
Kind of felt the Leanne and Dorothy changes of heart were too quick from previous episodes. Leeanne's "redemption" wasn't earned - her character development was all over the place this season. She went from being lowkey evil to straight up psycho in the span of one episode. Then after a single stiff conversation with Dorothy she’s willing to sacrifice herself.
I’m glad that they didn’t kill Julien and acknowledged that Leanne brought him back to life. Julian honestly getting the biggest twist? Julian getting the final frame of the show. Julian getting the final line of the show. I didn't see the twist with the cop and Julian coming though, and it definitely leaves a spinoff open.
That being said, I am disappointed that there were no answers to any of the lingering questions throughout the series such as time inconsistencies, the green window, the history of the house, how Dorothy's mother died, etc. Some of these details set the tone for the show but I was hoping that they would play a more essential role in the final episode.
All in all, I was never expecting a huge twist and always thought what we saw was what we were getting at the end. Also, I didn’t need to dig deep and analyze windows. Is the ending really good? It was fine. And honestly I didn’t expect much. Some have over-analyzed every scene thinking everything has a special meaning. And when it doesn’t fit their expectations they get upset and sat it wasn’t worth it, went on too long, etc. But one thing is for sure though - the show went on for too long. Servant really needed to be a limited series
[7.3/10] Solid pilot. It sells the premise of the show well. We’re doing The Producer except for sports. Extrapolating the silliness of a mid-major football coach being brought over to head up an English Premier League team to a full show is a trick, but the writers come up with a decent way to have it make a strange sort of sense.
I’m most intrigued by the character of Ted Lasso himself. He’s basically a cartoon character in the early going, and I could see his “hayseed full of cliches” routine running thin pretty quick. But they do a few things to humanize him and make him into an actual character and not just a caricature from sports channel bumpers.
Most conspicuously, they make him someone going through a separation from his wife and son. It adds a whiff of pathos to an otherwise inveterately upbeat persona. They also make him a kind and considerate person, asking people how they are and treating them with a certain compassion that most don’t seem used to.
That seems to be the core theme of the show in the early going. Ted may not know much about the sport, and he may only have been hired to drive something the former owner loved into the ground, but he cares about people, treats them like human beings. It opens some eyes, from Nathan the groundskeeper, to Keeley the WAG, to even Ms. Welton the owner, who’s taken aback when Ted asks how she’s dealing with the divorce. It’s not hard to see the outline of Ted’s kindness giving these players what they need in an unexpected way, but it’s a solid foundation for the show.
I also like Ms.s Wleton as a character. She’s sharp-elbowed debut self-possessed in a way that makes her compelling. Her being two-faced with Ted isn't ideal, but there’s gotta be room to grow, and you have to start somewhere.
Otherwise, this is mostly table-setting and silliness. We get thumbnail sketches of the important players, a start to Ted’s assistant coach, Coach Beard, and Ms. Welton’s morally reluctant assistant. We get the sense of the media and common fan’s reaction to the absurdity of an American football coach being brought over to manage a big time soccer team. The basics are all covered.
My only major complaint is that I didn’t really laugh at any of this. Some of Ted’s cornpone sayings are worth a smile, and there’s a few mildly clever bits. But there weren’t a ton of yuks in this opening episode. Maybe that's to be expected with so much premise-setting ground to cover.
Overall, this is a solid but unspectacular start to the show, but it sets up a good foundation of characters and plots to build on, if not as much overwhelming comedy out of the gate.
[6.5/10] This has the same pathology as the last episode, more or less -- some really interesting ideas marred by a really annoying presentation. What if you wanted to resume your normal life, but were sidelined and pigeonholed because everyone knows you have superpowers? What if you were a qualified professional, but couldn’t get work in your field because nobody wants the “sideshow” of your abilities, which they only know about because you acted to save people? What if you had to compromise your ethics and work for a bad guy because it’s the only job you can get? And what if they only wanted you for that job because of what you are, not who you are?
Those are all great ideas! The problem is that the second episode of She-Hulk races through them from scene-to-scene, and drapes them in the same unavailing quips and cartoony players. Jennifer’s new corrupt jerk of boss is such a stock archetype, who feels like a snarling cardboard standee rather than a real person as dangles hiring/firing and makes ethically compromising demands of her. The overexaggerated family dinner scene and strained conversation with Bruce fall into the same unimaginative dialogue traps that the first episode did. I wish the quality of the execution here met the quality of the concepts in play.
It is nice to see Tim Roth back in action though. He plays the faux contrite supervillain well, and it’s something of a kick to see this show referencing The Incredible Hulk, a flick that the MCU has all but forgotten. The most interesting part of his “I thought I was the good guy” story is that it sparks an idea in Jennifer. She sees there’s a genuine argument that he was acting under orders and only went mad because of the injections his handlers were giving him, to where he’s not responsible for it. The clockwork of her being reluctant to represent the man who tried to kill her cousin but then seeing a winning strategy after getting more details and putting an argument in place is good stuff.
I just wish the characters were deeper and more winning and the scene-to-scene dialogue could support that good stuff. The fly in the ointment of Abomination’s escapades in Shang-Chi has promise as a complicated pickle Jennifer will find a creative way out of, but two episodes in, I’m less hopeful that the show can match that potential with execution.
[7.7/10] I like the theme of older and younger generations teaching each other in this one. The most obvious is Roy and Jamie. Ted convinces Roy to emphasize with his younger counterpart and remember the days when he himself was a “primadonna bitch.” Roy connecting with Jamie over the fact that he too remembers what it’s like to have an older teammate whose seniority is a good beat. And he doesn’t pretend that it’s all sunshine and rainbows after that, just that setting aside their differences for a common goal benefited them both. Hearing grumpy Roy sound like a human being seems to get through to Jamie, just a little, in making him recognize that he can be an arrogant prick.
You have the same deal with Rebecca and Keeley. Keeley teaches Rebecca how to pose for the camera and pumps her up in front of the paparazzi in her big post-divorce coming out party. Rebecca returns the favor by teaching Keeley to hold people accountable, including both her boyfriend and herself. So when Jamie embarasses her by setting up an extra “plus one” to improve his image by having two women bid for him, she calls him out on it. She even apologizes for bidding on Roy, using him as an object in their “little game.” And when Jamie doesn’t get that, doesn’t understand the difference between simply saying “I’m sorry” and actually apologizing for something you regret, she has the self-possession to dump his ass.
It seems obvious that the show is veering toward pairing up Roy and Keeley. But that notwithstanding, I’m much more invested in the friendship between Keeley and Rebecca. The two of them doing what Rebecca always wanted to -- riding around in a tacky peddle cart -- is a wonderful note to go out on.
I also love the introduction of Rebecca’s ex. It doesn’t hurt that it’s ANthony Stewart Head (!!!). I’ve never seen him play such a scumbag before, and he’s surprisingly great at it. You know that type of guy, the schmoozer who can work a room and knows exactly how to push people’s buttons, but is a complete shitheel underneath the facade. Head pulls off the unctuousness of the man to perfection.
But what I like most about it is how Ted sniffs him out almost immediately. Not only does he figure out that Rupert likely called off Robbie Williams to embarrass his ex and give him the chance to come play hero, but he sees what an empty piece of garbage Rupert is. Ted sees the best in everybody. He recognizes the ways his friends and coworkers can be the best versions of themselves. He even has the recognition to see how a shabby-looking busker could tear the house down at a million dollar gala. But given that ability to empathize, to connect, to really see people, he observes the blackness within the soul of Rupert, and affirms it to Rebecca. It’s telling when such a chipper, kind-hearted man sees you for the scum that you are.
Overall, a superb outing for the show that takes the gala setup and runs with it, while delivering some great character beats for all involved.
I went into "Quantumania" with really low expectations, since none of the trailers really spoke to me. Unfortunately, these doubts were confirmed in the finished film. I liked the two predecessors quite a bit. They were small, family-friendly stories, where the main goal was not yet again to save the whole world from ultimate destruction. The humor, in particular, worked very well in these films.
In the third Ant-Man film, almost none of these strengths remain. The jokes have been reduced to a bare minimum, and the few that are still there often don't work. The solid action sequences from the previous films, which creatively dealt with the different sizes of the characters, are also no longer present. Instead, nearly the entire film is set in a CGI environment that I would describe as "barely okay" in terms of visuals. The villain M.O.D.O.K., on the other hand, looks like a character model from an early PS3 game. They couldn't even get his lip sync right.
The decision to move the action completely to the quantum realm isn't just a visual disappointment, though. The story also suffers from it. Instead of a self-contained little adventure like in its predecessors, "Quantumania" has the task of setting up the "big picture." It's just too bad that they forgot that the film also has to work on its own. In any case, there is hardly any suspense; the new characters are too underdeveloped for that, and the old ones get almost nothing to do. In the last act, everything falls completely apart until the film ends rather abruptly. Any risk is avoided, and the status quo remains. The MCU films have handled that better in the past.
However, there are a few positive aspects to "Quantumania," particularly some of the performances. For instance, Paul Rudd is still pretty good in the lead role. Kathryn Newton also does a solid job as the new Cassie Lang. And to my delight, I noticed that Michelle Pfeiffer gets a lot more to do. Most impressive, however, is Jonathan Majors as the new MCU supervillain Kang. He really has a great presence, even if his character spends a bit too much time delivering long monologues. I'm definitely looking forward to seeing more of Majors in this multiverse in the future. And that's at least a somewhat conciliatory thought. All in all, I didn't really like "Quantumania", but it's not a total failure either.
Kate Bishop: He's still an Avenger.
Yelena Belova: What does that word even mean? Huh? That it holds so much power. You call him a hero no matter what he does?
Such an excellent Marvel show to cap off the year, and an awesome way to celebrate Christmas, with the Avenger that was always focused on his family!
Throughout the show, Clint Barton deals with his PTSD after Avengers: Endgame and the loss of Natasha. You can see that losing her broke him. The ending fight and reconciliation between him and Yelena was such an emotional scene.
The way they introduced Kate Bishop into the MCU was absolute genius. They had her as a kid in an apartment during the Battle of New York, she was about to get a Chitauri ship crashed into her, but Clint saved her at the last moment. That's what inspires her to be an archer!
Another thing this show did well was the way they depicted deafness in both Clint Barton and Maya (Echo). That scene where Kate writes down whatever Clint's son is saying on the phone so he can answer him was so nuanced.
And finally, Marvel Studio's gave us one last Christmas present this year. Revealing Wilson Fisk (played by Vincent D'Onofrio) and finally confirming that the Netflix Marvel shows are indeed canon to the Marvel Cinematic Universe! I've been binge-watching those shows currently (slowly getting through Iron Fist at the moment), so it was awesome to see him back. I do have a few questions about the ending. Maya shoots him but doesn't show the actual impact of it. I'm assuming he survived because in a previous scene he survived an arrow to the chest and an explosive arrow. But I'm not sure. Though the overall product is good enough that I'm willing to forgive this confusion.
Overall, an excellent way to wrap up the year and I can't wait to see what they'll do with Yelena, Kate, and the rest of the Netflix MCU characters.
I don't hate it, but it was disappointing
Pros:
- Jonathan Majors killed it, even when given a poorly written character
Some extremely impressive visual effects
Intro and outro felt like the original movie. I wish the rest of the movie was like that
Character designs were pretty great. MODOK would've looked much better with his head covered, but still a good MCU design. Alien designs were fantastic
Cons:
- Modok and Darren were both butchered. I don't hate the design as much as others seem to, but his personality is just wrong. Not just for MODOK as a comic character, but Darren as an established MCU character
Kang was extraordinarily inconsistent and not the threat the marketing made him out to be. He can completely obliterate a background character with the point of a finger, but if that same blast hits a main character, they just get thrown back a bit.
Pacing was awful, and there were no meaningful connections built at ALL. Other than Scott, any character could've died, and it would've meant nothing. In fact, the entire movie was inconsequential. Council of Kangs are doing what they would've done anyway
Most jokes fell flat. The "don't be a dick" thing was painful. A shame considering how well-written and witty the original Ant-Man is
Bill Murray is only there for marketing purposes
Quentin Dupieux... Love him or hate him, you love him.
Smoking Causes Coughing is like eating food you find on a bus station bench in a strange town at 4am, and why wouldn't you?
Like that dumpster dived dinner, Dupieux's annual delirium this year comes in bits and pieces.
At 80 minutes long, not only does Smoking Causes Coughing continue his trend of medium-length features but, as it's an anthology film, is even more concise than his last movie, Incredible But True, which clocked in at 74 minutes.
The vignettes seem to suit him, though, and each individual story is wholly entertaining, contrary to most anthology films.
The titular longer work, which serves as the framing device for the rest of the shorts, revolves around Tobacco Force, a Power Ranger-esque group of super heroes (Mercury, Benzene, Ammonia, Nicotine, and Methanol) who swap 'creepy' stories while away on a team building retreat.
The tales they tell are just as quirky and off-beat as you'd expect from Dupieux, and include a cast of repeat offenders from his other films (Alain Chabat, Anaïs Demoustier, Adèle Exarchopoulos...) as well as some welcome new faces (Gilles Lellouche, Jean-Pascal Zadi, Doria Tillier).
Like a deep drag on a menthol cigarette, Smoking Causes Coughing is a breath of fresh air.
Season 1 of Succession surprised me. It's a pretty unique show and quite different than I was expecting - less event-TV drama, more dark satirical dramedy. Everything clicked when I found out Will Ferrell is an executive producer. So much of his character DNA is present here. from Cousin Greg's stammering stoner ramblings, to Tom's blatant two-faced treatment of others, to Kendall's douche-y bravado and barely-masked insecurity. You can see the echoes of Ferrell and his collaborators' characters from Stepbrothers to Anchorman on full display. The tone and pacing feels very similar too - the way that semi-serious scenes end up devolving into barely-contained improv, ending with an unexpected barb or blink-and-you'll-miss-it visual sight gag before quick-cutting away.
That said, it's not perfect. The mid-season dragged a bit. At times I felt like the show wasn't quite deep or thrilling enough to keep me hooked as a drama, but wasn't consistently funny enough to hook me as a comedy either. The amount of quick-cuts can make some scenes feel a bit disjointed and tough to follow. The writing also feels a bit transparent at times, where it feels like characters are doing / saying things in order to move the plot in the desired direction, instead of doing/saying what would feel natural for the character in that situation. And at times the whole thing just feels kind of... douche-y? The same sort of feeling that Entourage used to give me (altho I've only seen a few episodes). Like all the characters are obnoxious assholes, I have no one likable to root for, and even the writing and plot points feel like the product of douchebags w/ daddy issues who are kind of missing any deeper point.
That said, the finale episode of Season 1 bumped this up from a 7 or so to a solid 8 for me. Very unexpected, raw, dark, and chilling. Looking forward to the following seasons.
A potentially great film being held hostage by its PG-13 rating and its messy, all over the places screenwriting.
By PG-13 I don't simply mean its visuals/goriness, but most importantly its dialogues, themes, and storytelling it tries to raise. Let me explain.
First, the dialogues.
The film opens with murder and Batman narrating the city's anxious mood. We get a glimpse of noir in this scene, but it soon falls flat due to a very uninteresting, plain, forgettable choice of words Batman used in his narration. Mind you, this is not a jab at Pattinson - Pattinson delivered it nicely. But there is no emotion in his line of words - there is no adjectives, there is no strong feelings about how he regards the city full of its criminals.
Here's a line from the opening scene. "Two years of night has turned me to a nocturnal animal. I must choose my targets carefully. It's a big city. I can't be everywhere. But they don't know where I am. When that light hits the sky, it's not just a call. It's a warning to them. Fear... is a tool. They think I am hiding in the shadows. Watching. Waiting to strike. I am the shadows." Okay? Cool. But sounds like something from a cartoon. What does that tell us about you, Batman?
Compare this to a similar scene uttered by Rorschach in Watchmen. "The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood. And when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown. All those liberals and intellectuals, smooth talkers... Beneath me, this awful city, it screams like an abattoir full of retarded children, and the night reeks of fornication and bad consciences." You can say that Rorschach is extremely edgy (he is), but from that line alone we can tell his hatred towards the city, and even more so: his perspective, his philosophy that guides him to conduct his life and do what he does.
Rorschach's choice of words is sometimes verbose, but he is always expletive and at times graphic, making it clear to the audience what kind of person he is. Batman in this film does not. His words are always very safe, very carefully chosen, which strikes as an odd contrast to Pattinson's tortured portrayal of Batman as someone with a seemingly pent up anger. His choice of words is very PG-13 so that the kids can understand what Batman is trying to convey.
And this is not only in the opening scene. Throughout the film, the dialogues are written very plainly forgettable. It almost feels like the characters are having those conversations just to move the plot forward. Like that one encounter between Batman and Catwoman/Selina when she broke into the house to steal the passport or when Selina asked to finish off the "rat". They flow very oddly unnatural, as if those conversations are written to make them "trailer-able" (and the scenes indeed do appear on the trailer).
Almost in all crucial plot points the writers feel the need to have the characters to describe what has happened, or to explictly say what they are feeling - like almost every Gordon's scene in crime scene, or Selina's scene when she's speaking to Batman. It feels like the writers feel that the actors' expression just can't cut it and the audience has to be spoonfed with dialogues; almost like they're writing for kids.
Second, the storytelling.
Despite being a film about vengeance-fueled Batman (I actually like that cool "I'm vengeance" line) we don't get to see him actually being in full "vengeance" mode. Still in the opening we see Batman punching some thugs around. That looks a little bit painful but then the thugs seem to be fit enough to run away and Batman let them be. Then in the middle of the film we see Batman does something similar to mafias. Same, he just knocked them down but there's nothing really overboard with that. Then eventually in the car chase scene with the Penguin, Batman seem to be on "full rage mode", but over... what? He was just talking to Penguin a moment ago. The car chase scene itself is a bit pointless if not only to show off the Batmobile. And Batman did nothing to the Penguin after, just a normal questioning, not even harsher than Bale's Batman did to Heath's Joker in The Dark Knight - not in "'batshit insane' cop" mode as Penguin put it.
Batman's actions look very much apprehensive and controlled. Nothing too outrageous. Again, at odds with Pattinson's portrayal that seem to be full of anger; he's supposed to be really angry but somehow he still does not let his anger take the best of him. The only one time he went a bit overboard that shocked other characters is when he kept punching a villain near the end of the film. But even then it's not because his anger; it's because he injected some kind of drug (I guess some adrenaline shot). A very safe way to drop a parent-friendly message that "drug is bad, it can change you" in a PG-13 film.
And all that supposed anger... we don't get to see why he is angry and where his anger is directed at. Compare this to Arthur Fleck in Joker where it is clear as sky why Arthur would behave the way the does in the film. I mean we know his parents' death troubled him, but it's barely even discussed, not even in brief moments with Alfred (except in one that supposedly "shocking" moment). So... where's your vengeance, Mr. Vengeance? And what the hell are you vengeancing on?
Speaking of "shocking" moment... this is about the supposed Wayne family's involvement in the city's criminal affairs that has been teased early in the film. Its revelation was very anticlimactic: the supposed motive and the way it ended up the way it is, all very childish. If the film wanted the Wayne to be a "bad person", there's a lot of bads that a billionaire can do: tax evasion, blood diamond, funding illegal arms trade, fending off unions, hell, they can even do it the way the Waynes in Joker did it: hints of sexual abuses. But no, it has to be some bloody murder again, and all for a very trivial reason of "publicity". As if the film has to make it clear to the kids: "hey this guy's bad because he killed someone!" Which COULD work if the film puts makes taking someone's life has a very serious consequence. But it just pales to the serial killing The Riddler has done.
Even more anticlimactic considering how Bruce Wayne attempted to find a resolve in this matter only takes less than a 5 minute scene! It all involves only a bit of dialogues which boils down to how Thomas Wayne has a good reason to do so. Bruce somehow is convinced with that and has a change of heart instantly, making him looks very gullible.
And of course the ending is very weak and disappointing. First, Riddler's final show directly contradicts his initial goal to expose and destroy the corrupt elites. What he did instead is making the lives of the poor more difficult, very oxymoron for someone supposed to be as smart as him.
Second, the way Batman just ended up being "vengeance brings nothing and I should save people more than hurting people" does not get enough development to have him to say that in the end. Again - where's your vengeance? And how did you come to such character development if nothing is being developed on? And let's not get to how it's a very safe take against crime and corruption that closely resembles Disney's moralistic pandering in Marvel Cinematic Universe film.
Last, the visuals.
I'm not strictly speaking about gore, though that also factors in the discussion. The film sets this up as a film about hunting down a serial killer. But the film barely shows how cruel The Riddler can be to his victims. Again, back to the opening scene: we get it, Riddler killed the guy, but it does not look painful at all as it looks Riddler just knocked him twice. The sound design is very lacking that it does not seem what The Riddler done was conducted very painfully. Riddler then threw away his murder weapon, but we barely see blood. Yet when Gordon arrived to the crime scene, he described the victim as being struck multiple times with blood all over. What?
Similarly, when Riddler forced another victim to wear a bomb in his neck. The situation got pretty tense, but when the bomb eventually blow off, we just got some very small explosion like a small barrel just exploded, not a human being! I mean I'm not saying we need a gory explosion with head chopped off like in The Boys, but it does not look like what would happen if someone's head got blown off. Similarly when another character got almost blown off by a bomb - there's no burnt scar at all.
Why the hell are they setting up those possibly gory deaths and scars if they're not going to show how severe and painful these are? At least not the result - we don't need to see blood splattered everywhere - just how painful the process is. Sound design and acting of the actors (incl. twitching, for example) would've helped a lot even we don't see the gore, like what James Franco did in The 127 Hours or Hugh Jackman in Logan. In this film there's almost no tense at all resulting from those.
I'm not saying this film is terrible.
The acting, given the limited script they had, is excellent. Pattinson did his best, so did Paul Dano (always likes him as a villain), Zoe Kravitz, and the rest. Cinematography is fantastic; the lighting, angle, everything here is very great that makes a couple of very good trailers - perhaps one could even say that the whole film trades off coherency for making the scenes "trailer-able". The music is iconic, although with an almost decent music directing. And I guess this detective Batman is a fresh breath of air.
But all that does not make the movie good as in the end it's still all over the places and very PG-13.
Especially not with the 3 hours runtime where many scenes feel like a The Walking Dead filler episode.
If you're expecting a Batman film with similar gritty, tone to The Dark Knight trilogy or Joker, this film is not for you. But if you only want a live-action cartoon like pre-Nolan Batmans or The Long Halloween detective-style film, well, I guess you can be satisfied with this one.
I've had an amazing experience watching the movie premiere in Venice, I've been waiting for this movie for a long time and I was not disappointed in the slightest.
It's a gorgeous movie, it's disturbing but moving at the same time, violent at times, but also subtle. It's a different and fresh spin on the character and on the cinecomic genre as a whole and Phoenix delivers an amazing performance portraying a version of the Joker we've never seen before, he's not the villain of someone else's story, he is the hero and villain of HIS own story, and the audience can be orrified by him, but we can't help but feel for him at times.
Without giving anything away I would recommend to go and see the movie not expecting to go and see an action packed, but gritty cinecomic, I suggest going in and watch it pretending that it's not even about a famous comic villain, but simply a movie, I think that people will appreciate it more in that way, not comparing it to the cinecomics we've seen before, but thinking of it as a normal movie.
P.S.: People will of course compare Phoenix to Ledger, I don't think it's possible, they give a totally different percormance because they portray totally different versions of the character, and I think it's going to be hard to compare them, you either prefere Ledger's version or Phoenix's but only based on the character, the actor's performances cannot be judged by comparison, they're both great. Just enjoy the movie
Nothing comforts anxiety like a little nostalgia.
If anything, Hollywood has boiled that concept down to a science over the past few years, as this film is basically a summary of everything that’s wrong with the industry in a neat, 148 minute package.
It thinks it’s meta and self-aware by pointing out how cynical and cheap franchise filmmaking is.
That might sound similar set-up as 22 Jump Street, but this film proceeds to be cheap and cynical itself without saying anything substantial beyond its own set up, so it embraces what it’s trying to criticize.
Everything in this movie is structured as an excuse to show stuff you’ve seen before, there are little to no original concepts or ideas that push the franchise in an interesting direction.
It’s mostly a rehash of the first film (mixed with some stuff from Reloaded and Revolutions in the second half), except the action isn’t nearly as good, it’s more predictable and convenient, the performances are nowhere near as memorable (that’s what you get from replacing your 2 best actors), it looks uglier and more synthetic, the pacing isn’t as tight, and it’s a lot more dull because of how much it overexplains itself.
It also ditches the cyberpunk aesthetic, and replaces it with something a lot more bland and boring, stripping the franchise from a lot of its personality.
It’s honestly quite an accomplishment when you think about it: the original is one of the best, most successful, big budget films ever made that still maintained a strong artistic and alternative impulse.
This, on the other hand, couldn’t be any more lowest common denominator if it tried to.
It’s a parody of itself and modern blockbuster filmmaking.
I suppose that was Lana Wachowski’s goal to some extent, but it isn’t very compelling to watch.
3/10
If this film is a cake, then it’s got the best possible frosting you could wish for. The cake itself, however, isn’t great.
I’ve always had a strange relationship with these films. I don’t really care for the Raimi films (I think they’re overly cheesy, poorly acted and dated, though don’t expect anyone from around my age to admit that), the Webb films are fine (really like the first one, second one’s a mess) and I’ve really liked the 2 recent ones (not as much as Into the Spiderverse, but still good in their own right).
Compared to the previous 2, this one pretty much ditches the John Hughes aesthetic as it goes along, and it goes into full on, operatic superhero mode.
Unfortunately, it is another one of those project that puts nostalgia and fan pandering over story and character, the kind of blockbuster we’re seeing over and over again in a post Force Awakens world.
This story is completely hacked together, consisting of so many contrivances, conveniences and established characters acting out of character that it becomes a bit of a shitshow ( Doctor Strange, a genius, is being tricked by teenagers; Peter not knowing about the consequences of the spell is a very forced way to set the plot in motion; Ned being able to open portals is quite ridiculous when the Doctor Strange movie made a point about how hard that is to learn; why is Venom in the universe given how they set up the rules of the multiverse, and the list goes on ). The problem is that they needed to take that bullet in order to make the film they wanted to make here (or rather, the film fans wanted to see), but that doesn’t make it the right choice by any means, because it leads to a nonsensical film with a rushed pace.
Look, you can nitpick this film to death ( why would a university publicly admit that MJ and Ned are rejected because of their connection to Peter? ), but that’s not even my point. It’s heightened and not meant to be taken that seriously, I get that, but you at least need some form of internal logic, you cannot just do these unearned things because the plot demands it.
It’s not all bad though, Holland’s Spider-man still has a very good arc with some great emotional beats in it, and they make some very bold choices towards the end that I hope they stick with. It’s very similar to the first Fantastic Beasts, so I hope they don’t pull a Crimes of Grindelwald by retconning everything .
The acting is great, Holland and Zendaya give their best and most mature performances yet, and the villains are all good. I really like that they toned Dafoe down a little bit.
It looks fine. It has some of the best cinematography out of the trilogy, but some of the action looks very animated (again, stop touching up the suit, just let it wrinkle ffs) and unfinished, which is probably because this thing was rushed out, as we know.
For instance, there are some really wonky shots in the scene where Spider-Man fights Doctor Strange, the close-ups with Benedict Cumberbatch look like a weather forecast on television.
The references to the previous incarnations are a bit of a mixed bag. I like that they progressed some stuff and did interesting things with the things they referenced ( for example, you really feel like time has passed with Tobey and Andrew, they’re not giving a copy of their original performances, which is also a great excuse to tone down the awkwardness and lack of personality in Tobey’s version. Also, the banter between them is very nice, of course ), but most of it plays like a pandering greatest hits compilation. I don't need Dafoe to say you know, I'm something of a scientist myself again, it is nothing but a cheap attempt to trigger my nostalgia button.
Finally, it also has some of the worst tonal balance and comedy out of the trilogy, especially with some of the lines that are given to Benedict Cumberbatch.
5/10
In summary/TLDR: great idea for Sony’s bank account, but the seeds for this needed to be planted much earlier in order to make it a good film.
This is certainly not The Boys' strongest season finale. The plots feel awkwardly resolved and the key plot points they've been developing just ended up as nothing. It feels really underwhelming. Of course there are some positive notes about this finale as well but bear with me, let's go through three most crucial problems for me.
First, Black Noir. What a disappointment. They've been building up Black Noir for at least four out of eight episodes in this season. They even showed him as a person, a real individual with emotion and vivid imagination this season after the previous two he had only been a mute killing machine. And he went down just like that. Sure the conversation between him and Homelander was tense - but that was it. Unfortunately, Black Noir's imaginative flashback, as I've suspected in the previous episodes, serve as nothing more than plot device to move the story forward.
Second, Soldier Boy. The hunt for the ultimate weapon to destroy Homelander ultimately just ended up in vain. Where did it go, the riled up spirit of The Boys in bringing Homelander down? They have the weakest excuses to portray this change of heart. With M.M.'s plot, well, I guess, okay, as he has his own personal vendetta against Soldier Boy, it's still understandable. This is to put aside that they went with the "Soldier Boy kills my family" plot too easily (we didn't get to ever see what actually happened and it's brushed off as nothing more than "racism", which is quite disappointing since there were plenty of rooms for flashback this season).
But then there's Butcher. He ended up beating down Soldier Boy because Soldier Boy hit his kid? I mean, sure it's his kid, but where's the man-with-a-mission-to-kill-Homelander-no-matter-what-it-takes that we've seen for all these three seasons? If Butcher was a little smarter - and he actually is with his cunning tactics and all! - he could've stopped Soldier Boy for a while, let Homelander pats Ryan's back, then when Ryan is out of sight just finish off Homelander by then. Soldier Boy doesn't even seem to hold anything against Ryan (especially after he knows Ryan is Butcher's son). The whole charade about beating up Soldier Boy is a really weak plot point just to let Homelander alive to be the ultimate big bad in next seasons.
Still here? We'll get to Homelander but let's talk about Maeve briefly. What's her end goal? At first she seems to be an ally ready to take down Homelander, but when it comes to actually facing Homelander she can't see the forest for the trees. Rather than staying true to her goal to kill Homelander, she was just absorbed with herself, punching Homelander around only to get herself beaten. Sure, Maeve isn't the most tactical ones, but she's been supplying Butcher with everything so far.
Last, Homelander. As soon as the fight ends, my biggest question is: what would be Homelander's yet another reason to NOT kill Butcher, Hughie, and co? Our Boys have been picking a fight with him since Season 1. It's clear our protagonists are pests to him, but he keeps giving them leeway. At this point isn't it easier to just get rid of them all when Ryan's not looking to prevent our Boys messing up with him again? There's a fan speculation that predicted Homelander is going to be depowered, then he's going to live the whole Season 4 under Vought's protection while our Boys track down the biggest big bad: Compound V. I think I like that better since it's going to show how Homelander will struggle with his weakness and humanity. But I guess the showrunners wanted to keep on getting Homelander more unhinged and even more unhinged and violent, as shown when he lasered a guy in a parade. With this direction, I'm expecting the show to end in a high note with chaos everywhere like perhaps in the comics. I just hope they don't prolong this much further - maybe Season 5 at most.
Then there's some plot devices like Tempo V, powering the army with V, etc that are left unexplored, which feels a bit like nothing more than filler to get the plot moves forward. And the fact that they kind of go with cliffhanger in this finale reminds me of Season 1's rather weak, cliffhanger-ish finale as well (perhaps that's their pattern: the real season finale is in the even-numbered seasons).
That said, this episode is still quite entertaining as it kept me guessing where the plot would go. It's not as frantic and riled up as Herogasm (Eps 6) and the direction is not quite satisfying, but it's fine. The theme of this season is "family", they stay true to that up to the finale. Soldier Boy's dialogue with Homelander is good. Talk about how toxic upbringing would make you become toxic as well, while thinking you can do better than your parents.
I like that they are planning to use the political plot with Neuman in Season 4 (I thought it was going to be wasted after the nice development in Season 2) as The Boys' forte is taking a jab at politics and corporatism. I do hope we will see what Stan Edgar envisioned as Vought "getting out of the supe business in the next five years."
I also like what they did with Ryan, coming together with Homelander, and the way Homelander is normalizing Ryan to violence. This is the consequence of Butcher's acting asshole-ish to everyone and sure hope our Boys will see the consequences of his action, especially with the sweet reunion with everyone at the table in the end (feels like the calm before the storm).
All in all, not a bad finale, but a bit too disappointing in the way they resolve the plots that have been built up all this season.
[8.4/10] I'd speculated about how Kim would depart Jimmy's world. I feared she might be killed. I thought she'd get fed up with his misdeeds and leave him over that. What I didn't expect was that it would be spurred by a moment of self-recognition born of a terrible tragedy. Kim still loves Jimmy, but she recognizes that they're "poison" together, that they get off on the joint cons, and that when they do, people get hurt. She is one of the vanishingly small number of people in this franchise to recognize that she's on a destructive path and take drastic action to stop it. It's one of the most unexpected, but ultimately satisfying ways to have her exit I can imagine.
And it puts her in good company. Jimmy is as horrified by what happened as Kim is, but he can envision moving on, he can picture maintaining this life despite where it led them, he can see forgetting this some day. Kim can't. It's the same way Gus cannot forget his former partner Max, someone he loves, whose memory lingers with him when he gazes into Don Eladio's pool and holds him back from continuing to flirt with the handsome waiter who chats him up over a glass of a wine. It's the same way Mike cannot forget his son, which leads him to tell Nacho's father the truth about what happened to his child.
Mr. Varga shrugs off Mike's promise that justice will be done, recognizing that what he's talking about is vengeance. He declares that vengeance is a cycle that doesn't stop, and we know from Breaking Bad that he's right. Gus hasn't beaten the Salamancas or Don Eladio. Mike hasn't completed his tour of duty so that he can retire and spend time with his granddaughter. Jimmy can't avoid crossing paths with the cartel again. They're all in this now, and their victories bring them no peace, only pull them deeper into the muck of this, and closer to their ignoble ends.
But Kim breaks away. She cannot forget, but she can act to stop this from happening again. Her final scene with Jimmy (for now at least) is more quietly heartbreaking than explosive and dramatic, but that suits the gravity of this. And in her absence, Jimmy is free to become Saul, as an indeterminate time jump to the man in his huckster faux-finery confirms. The last thing holding Jimmy back is gone. Saul Goodman is here. He can't stop. And despite the woman in his bed, the bedraggled secretary on his phone, and the crowd of people in his waiting room, he is alone.
EDIT: If you'd like to read my usual, longer review, you can find it here -- https://thespool.net/reviews/tv-recap-better-call-saul-season-6-episode-9/
[9.8/10] What an episode! It's hard to imagine an hour of television that could draw out the differences between Jimmy and Kim better than this one.
In the wake of Howard's death and all the sins she committed and enabled, Kim numbs herself in a colorless world of banal conversations and empty experiences. Everything about her day-to-date life is colorless and dull, resigning herself to a sort of limbo as both penance and protection from inflicting anymore wrongs on the world. And even there, she won't make any decisions, offer any opinions, as though she's afraid that making any choice will lead her down another bad road.
Until Gene intervenes, balks at her command to turn himself in, and tells her to do that if she's so affronted by what they did. And holy hell, she does! If there was ever an indicator of moral fortitude in the Gilliverse, it's that. The courage of your convictions it takes to have gotten away with it, lived years away from the worst things you've ever done, and still choose to return to the place where it happened and accept your punishment, legal, moral, or otherwise, is absolutely incredible. Rhea Seehorn kills it, especially as Kim comes crumbling apart on an airport shuttle, amid all the hard truths she set aside for so long coming back in one painful rush. It's a tribute to Seehorn, and to Kim, how pained and righteous Kim seems in willfully choosing to confess and suffer whatever fate comes down, unlike anyone else in Better Call Saul or Breaking Bad.
It makes her the polar opposite of Gene, who finds new depths of terribleness as the noose tightens around him. As he continues the robbery of the cancer-stricken man whose house he broke into in the last episode, he finds new lows. Even when this risky excess has worked out for him, he pushes things even further by stealing more luxury goods as time runs out. He nearly smashes in the guy's skull with an urn for his own dead pet. He bails on Jeff. And when Marion finds him out, he advances on her with such a physical threat, a dark echo of the kindness to senior citizens that once defined his legal career.
The contrast is clear. Kim will turn herself in even when she doesn't have to and has excuses and justifications she could offer. Gene resorts to ever more cruelty, fraud, and craven self-interest to save himself from facing any of the consequences he so richly deserves. Kim is right to tell Jesse Pinkman that Saul used to be good, when she knew him. The two of them will understand better than anyone else in this universe what it's like to attach yourself to someone who sheds everything that made them a decent human being. Jimmy lost the part of himself that was good, or kind, or noble, even amid his cons. But Kim held onto her moral convictions, and it's what makes her not just Jimmy's foil, but the honorable counterpoint to the awful person he became.
EDIT: Here's a link to my usual more in-depth review of the episode if anyone's interested -- https://thespool.net/reviews/better-call-saul-season-6-episode-12-recap/
Look, I'm very much in favor of giving directors the creative freedom to put their own spin on whatever they're adapting.
In fact, I think it's quite shallow and close-minded to judge an adaptation against its source material, pretending as if that's meant to be some holy grail of perfection.
That being said: the whole appeal of the Uncharted games in the first place is that they feel like a mix of Indiana Jones and Mission Impossible, with this sassy, horny, shit-talking protagonist at the center of it.
This movie captures neither of those aspects, and replaces them with basic movie tropes.
It doesn't feel like the aforementioned franchises. Instead, it looks and feels like your generic, throwaway action movie that usually stars The Rock (e.g.Rampage, Red Notice, Skyscraper).
Tom Holland plays Spider-man with attitude. He's not playing (a younger version of) Nathan Drake.
Mark Wahlberg plays Mark Wahlberg.
Like, why was this project treated like a tax write-off?
It has everything a Hollywood executive could want: the source material is cinematic, action packed, fun, and best of all: it has a built in audience.
This could've easily been the next big summer franchise if this was given a proper treatment. It should be much easier to get this right than other videogame based adaptations.
So why is Avi Arad producing this? Why is Ruben Fleischer directing this? Why is this script burning through four games of material? Why is the dialogue so clunky and unfunny? Why is the casting so lame? Why does it look like plastic, when the cinematographer of this thing shot Last Night in Soho and Oldboy?
Fuck.
3.5/10
[8.2/10] What a blast this is. I’m impressed both at how well WandaVision is able to replicate the 1950s sitcom vibe, especially for supernatural-themed comedies like Bewitched mixed with The Dick van Dyke show, while also including a subtle but palpable sense of existential terror beneath the three camera confines of the show.
I really enjoy how this first episode plays on the classic sitcom tropes: a couple not remembering an important date on the calendar, a wacky neighbor, a boss coming over for dinner who needs to be impressed. The show does a nice spin on them, while also feeling true to the sitcoms it’s paying homage to. I’m particularly stunned by the cast, who are able to replicate that acting style, and the editors and other behind the scenes craftsmen, who are able to replicate the rhythm, to such perfection.
What’s neat is that the episode works pretty perfectly separate and apart from its larger MCU connections as a solid old school sitcom pastiche. There’s a lot of nice setup and payoffs of gags, like Wanda repurposing a magazine's “Ways to please your man” article to distract her husband’s boss and his wife, or Vision singing “Yakety Yak” after decrying it earlier. Even the lobster door knocker routine was a fun and comical grace note to an earlier bit. As cornball as it is, there’s something charming about this sort of thing, right down to the “What do we actually do here?” gag about the computer company. And despite the light spoofing at play, this works as a solid meat and potatoes sitcom episode.
But the show goes a step further and has real fun with the fact that its leads are a self-described witch and a magical mechanical man respectively. There’s tons of amusing gags, starting with the intro, about the pair using their powers in trifling 1950s household sorts of ways. At the same time, it does well with the jokes about hiding their true identities. Vision writing off Wanda’s behavior as “European”, Wanda reassuring her neighbor that her husband is human, and Vision taking offense when a coworker tells him he’s a “walking computer” are all entertaining bits that make the most of the weird premise.
And yet, what really elevates this episode is the unnerving hints that there’s something terribly wrong going on here. It’s not hard to guess that after the events of Endgame, there’s still concerns about what happened to vision. The show plays with the melodic rhythms of the sitcom form to suggest something off at the edges here, in a really sharp way.
For instance, there’s an interstitial commercial featuring a Stark toaster, and not only does it feature the only bit of color in the black and white presentation with the beeping light, but the toasting takes just a beat too long for comfort. Likewise, the fact that Wanda and Vision can’t remember their story or how they got married is initially played for laughs, but then it becomes creepy when Mrs. Hart demands answers.
The peak of this comes when Mr. Hart chokes on his broccoli and the artifice freezes for a moment, leaving everyone paralyzed by the departure from how things work in this sort of situation. It’s a great piece of work, of a piece with the likes of Twin Peaks and Don’t Hug Me I’m Scared in its quiet horror.
I’ll refrain from speculating about who’s watching the broadcast we see or who’s in the monitoring room we seem to have an eye on, but the hints at what's really going on, and how that influences the images the audience witnesses, creates a great organic mystery and another layer to the proceedings.
Overall, this is a boffo debut for the series, and I’m excited to watch more!
[7.5/10] I wondered to myself, what was the point of those Breaking Bad flashbacks. Sure, it's cool to see Walt and Jesse and the RV and even the flat bottom flask again. But I was ready to write off the trip back to Saul's first meeting with the meth-dealers in season 2 of Breaking Bad as simple fan service.
It took the scene with Mike for me to get it. The point, at least on my read, is a theme that Better Call Saul has hit time and again -- Saul can't leave well enough alone. He won't listen to Mike that this chemistry teacher is a rank amateur who's going to end up with a dark result. And Gene won't listen to Jeff or his friend who warn that it's a bad idea to darken the doorstep of another poor man stricken with cancer.
We know how things end for Saul in Breaking Bad. The choice to throw in with Walter White rather than be satisfied with his rewarding, if not exactly classy law practice ultimately ruins him, and takes away everything he'd achieved in the years before and after the events of this series. The choice to cast aside any moral hesitation and callously rob a dying man of his finances, to push the bounds of the pragmatic given how long it takes between when they dosed the guy and when Gene tries to complete the deed, will almost certainly lead to a similarly bad end.
Yes, it's neat to flashback and see some of the old faces from Breaking Bad again. It's cool to learn that Huell made it out and see Francesca get one last payday. But the takeaway is simple. Saul lost everything. He has no more fortune or empire. The cops are still after him. His former allies are either dead or have moved on. And even Kim, who asked about him, seems to want nothing to do with him anymore, via a tantalizingly opaque phone call between her and Gene.
So left with no other options, Gene makes the same choice that Slippin' Jimmy did over and over again. He goes back to running scams. He can't leave well enough alone. He does it without any joy, because he's not doing this out of pleasure. He's doing it out of desperation, addition, sadness, and loneliness. He is scraping the last bit of thrill from the bottom of the jar, and if his star-crossed visit to Walter White is any indication, it's likely to be the last step in his sad, pitiable, but always avoidable fall from grace.
EDIT: Here's my usual, more fulsome review for anyone who's interested -- https://thespool.net/reviews/tv/tv-recap-better-call-saul-season-6-episode-11/
[8.1/10] For the entirety of this season, Kim Wexler, and the audience, have been waiting for Jimmy McGill to genuinely deal with his brother’s death, to confront it in some way, rather than moving on as though nothing happened. From the season premiere, where he brushed off Howard’s tortured confession with a happy air, to last week’s raging out, we’ve seen Jimmy sublimate his feelings about Chuck and his brother’s death. We’ve seen him repress them, run from them, and act out because of them, but never really face them head on.
Those feelings are at the core of “Winner”, the finale of Better Call Saul’s fourth season. The latest scheme from Kim and Jimmy requires Jimmy to cry crocodile tears at Chuck’s grave on the anniversary of his death, to get earnestly involved in the scholarship grants made in Chuck’s name, to loudly but “anonymously” throw a party for the dedication of the Chuck McGill memorial law library and seem too broken up to enjoy it. It’s all a big show, to attract as many members of the local bar as possible, in the hopes that word will get back to the committee judging his appeal for reinstatement as a lawyer.
It is an effort to put on grief, wear it like a mask, for self-serving purposes. The knock on Jimmy, the thing that held him back in his first hearing, was a lack of remorse or concerning or mournfulness about his brother. So he and Kim send every signal imaginable to the legal community, in lugubrious tones, that Jimmy is a broken man still shaken up by his brother’s passing, only withholding mention of Chuck because the memory is too painful to bear.
As usual, it’s a good plan! It’s hard to know for sure whether the signs of Jimmy’s faux grief make it back to the review board, but they at least seem to be effective on his immediate prey. And Kim is there by his side, shooting down his more outlandish ideas, workshopping his speech to the committee, and helping her partner mislead people in the hopes of regaining something that was taken away from him.
But the key to it all working is Jimmy’s speech to the review board. He goes in with a plan to recite Chuck’s letter to him. Jimmy wants to let his brother’s eloquence and feeling carry the day so that he doesn't have to put on that mask of true feeling and seem insincere. But he departs from the script. He improvises. He offers what sounds like an honest assessment of his relationship with his brother, the reasons why he became a lawyer, the difficulty of gaining Chuck’s approval, the truths about Chuck’s demeanor and the hardships their sibling relationship faced at times.
The the impact of those words is heightened by the karaoke cold open that shows Jimmy as needling but caring, Chuck as condescending but proud, and the two of them as loving siblings. It clearly moves the review board. It causes Kim to wipe away a tear. And you’d have to be made of stone to sit in the audience and not feel something as Jimmy offers what sounds like a heartfelt and honest eulogy for his brother and their relationship.
But it’s a canard, a put-on, a lie. It is an echo of similar faux-sentimental assessments from Chuck, and once again, I almost believed it. Jimmy revels in having put one over on the review board. His cravenness about tugging their heartstrings astounds Kim, underlining her worst fears about the man she loves. After tearfully echoing the passage from his brother’s letter, about his pride in sharing the name McGill, Jimmy asks for a “doing business as” form to practice under a pseudonym instead. Saul Goodman, scruple-free lawyer to the seedy underbelly of Albuquerque, is born out of the ashes of his brother’s life and name.
There was no truth in Jimmy’s seemingly sincere pronouncements. There was no outpouring of grief or real feeling in that confessional moment, or if there was, it was anesthetized and calibrated to be used for dishonest purposes. For ten episodes, we’ve been waiting for Jimmy to acknowledge what his brother meant to him in some genuine way, and instead, he gives us, the review board, and most notably Kim, what turns out to be just another performance.
It is, in a strange way, a negative image of how Mike behaves in this episode. When he speaks to Gus about Werner’s disappearance, he seeks mercy on his friend’s behalf, trying to avoid a mortal response from his employer. He pleads caution, forgiveness, the possibility of correction. But when he speaks to Werner himself, he’s colder, angrier, more taciturn and practical in the way we’ve come to expect as the default for Mr. Ehrmantraut. He too has a divide between the face he presents in his profession and the one he presents to his erstwhile friend.
But at least “Winner” gives us some good cat-and-mousing in that effort. For all the heady material in Better Call Saul, it’s hard not to enjoy the petty thrills of detective work and chases gone wrong all the more. Seeing Mike pose as a concerned brother in law, and piece together where Werner’s likely to be is an absolute treat. And the way he manages to loses Lalo Salamanca -- with a gum in the ticket machine ploy -- is a lot of fun.
Lalo himself, though, really drags this portion of the episode down. He’s a little too cartoony of an antagonist on a heightened but still down-to-earth show. The fact that he crawls through the ceiling like he’s freaking Spider-Man was patently ridiculous. And his single-minded pursuit of Mike and ability to ferret details out just as well veered too far into the realm of contrivance. I appreciate the promise of greater friction to come between Gus and Mike’s operation and the Salamancas, but the bulk of Lalo’s business in this one was unnecessary, and kept Nacho, who’s been underserved in general this season, on the sidelines.
Still, it leads to a tragic, moving, heartfelt scene between Mike and Werner where what needs to be done is done. Between Werner’s naive requests to see his wife, Mike’s matter of fact resignation about what needs to happen, and Werner’s slow realization of the position he’s in all unspools slowly and painfully.
The upshot of it is simple though. Mike found a friend, and he has to kill him. There’s sadness in Mike’s eyes, evident beneath the anger that it came to this. There’s pain in Werner’s, and for yours truly, when Werner tells Mike that he thought his little escapade would result only in frustration but ultimately forgiveness and understanding from Mike, because they’re friends.
There’s not room for friends in this line of work, at least not under Gus Fring. Ultimately, it’s not up to Mike, and underneath the stars of New Mexico, at a distance, with a spark and a silhouette, we see him have to end the life of someone he’d rather let go, because it’s his job. Werner is the first man that Mike kills for Gus, but he won’t be the last. And it all starts with a man who made one mistake, that can’t be forgiven, because the powers that be would never allow it.
That’s what ties Mike’s portion of the episode to Jimmy’s. Jimmy delivers what is basically the Saul Goodman Manifesto to a young woman who was denied one of the Chuck McGill scholarships since she was caught shoplifting. He tells her that chances at respectability like that scholarship are false promises, dangled in front of lesser-thans to convince them they have a shot when they were judged harshly before they even stepped in the door. The system is stacked against you. The rules are to their benefit. So don’t abide by them. Make your success without them. Do what you have to do. Rub their nose in your success rather letting yourself be cowed by something unfair and biased against you. The world will try to define you by one mistake, but fight back and don’t let them win.
That’s a comforting worldview, one that lets the viewer off the hook to some degree. We want to like Jimmy. He’s affable. He’s fun. He’s good at what he does. It’s easy to buy in Jimmy’s own sublimated self-assessment -- that the white shoed system is unwilling to overlook less credentialed but hard-working individuals who’ve had missteps but overcome them, so he has to fight dirty. It’s tempting to buy into that narrative -- that the people with the power aren’t playing fair, so why should he? Why shouldn’t scratch, claw, fight, and cut corners along the way to getting what he deserves?
But the truth is that “the system” hasn’t done much to keep Jimmy down. Howard Hamlin wanted to give him a job after he became a lawyer. Davis & Main gave him every opportunity to succeed. Even the disciplinary committee is not unreasonable in questioning Jimmy’s penitence when he offers no remorse for the person he hurt with his scheme. Jimmy’s made plenty of his own mistakes, but it’s not “them” trying to hold Jimmy McGill down; it’s “him.”
That’s the trick of this season finale. Despite all the put-ons and subterfuge, Jimmy does genuinely reckon with the death of his brother, he just does it in the guise of unseen forces set against him rather than a cold body in the cold ground. It’s Chuck who tried to keep Jimmy from being on the same level as him. It’s Chuck who instigated the disciplinary proceedings that continue to be a thorn in Jimmy’s side. It’s Chuck who judged his younger sibling solely on his mistakes, who overlooked his hustle, who saw those missteps as all that Jimmy was or could be. When Jimmy rails against the system that he sees as holding him down, when he uses that as an excuse to color outside the lines, he’s really railing against the brother, and his feelings of anger and pain and grievance, that no longer have a living object of blame to sustain them.
Because Jimmy has to be the winner. If Jimmy is denied his reinstatement, if a young woman with a checkered past but a bright future can’t earn a scholarship in his brother’s name, if it’s ultimately judged that someone like Jimmy isn’t allowed to be in the profession of someone like Chuck, then it means that Chuck won, and Jimmy can’t bear that.
Despite the loss of his sibling, we only see Jimmy truly cry once this season. It’s not in front of the review board. It’s not in a quiet moment with Kim. It’s in his car, by himself, when the engine won’t start, when he feels stymied, when it seems like the forces Chuck set in motion will pull him under for good, cosmically confirming his brother’s harsh assessment of him.
There is grief in Jimmy McGill, pain caused by a severe loss. But that loss didn’t happen when Chuck died. It happened when Chuck broke his heart, turned him away, told him that he didn’t matter. As with others on T.V. this year, death didn’t mean the loss of a confidante for Jimmy; it meant the end of the possibility of approval, of pride, of the sort of family relationship Jimmy had always wanted and thought he might one day gain.
There is truth in those tears behind the wheel of an off-color sedan, a mourning in private to contrast with the show he puts on in public. And Saul Goodman -- the real Saul Goodman -- is born. Because if Jimmy couldn’t earn his brother’s love, then at least he can win, he can try to become what Chuck never thought he would, reach heights his brother never reached, no matter what lies he has to tell, what corners he has to cut, or who he has to hurt or deceive to get there. That’s Jimmy’s truth now; that’s his response to his Chuck’s death, and that’s the force that moves him from the decency and concern of the man we meet at the beginning Better Call Saul to the amoral, win-at-all-costs mentality that comes with the new name that distinguishes him from his brother.
I don't know why some people are shocked at the ending. It’s basically the plot line of Crime and Punishment (the allusions to the book were given frequently). Joe isn’t punished in the sense of being in prison, and even though he’s technically free, now he is stuck with a girl just like him and a baby on the way when he would rather be with a “normal” girl he can manipulate and control. He is trapped and it’s a Gone Girl-esque ending. He even compared his new home with Love to a Siberian prison.
It was so funny watching Joe judge Love for all the shitty things she’s done. Like she was somehow worse. His murder sprees are not repulsive to him because he did them and he felt justified. That logic does not extend to others, just him. It’s a perfect mirror for showing just how delusional Joe is. The series isn’t about how he finds love. It’s about how Joe is a predator, using love as a way to convince himself he’s doing things for the right reasons. The whole point of Joe's character is that he will never be satisfied. It’s in his nature to crave what he can’t have. That’s why I thought the ending was perfect. Of course he is already interested in his “normal” neighbor. He is going to start fantasizing about her to escape his “tortured existence”.
Totally saw the Love twist coming from a thousand miles away. She was always coming on strong. Her killing Delilah was super predictable too. I actually liked that they made her psycho because Joe somewhat got a taste of his own medicine.
Overall, I enjoyed this season, but:
I’m a little disappointed in the lack of creativity. Season 2 had a lot of similar storylines to the first one: Love is the new Beck, Ellie - the new Paco.
Realism isn't necessary in fiction but some of the plot holes were annoying. How did Candace know exactly which storage unit was Joe’s? How could Forty turn on Joe so fast? Officer Fincher thought Joe could have been the murderer because of some expensive headphones but has done absolutely nothing about it. Joe reconstructing the glass box in the storage container was a bit of a stretch for me. This whole season, while entertaining, is completely unrealistic. It requires all characters to be morons and the hugest of coincidences to happen at every turn.
I was incredibly disappointed absolutely nothing from Joe's old life came back (other than Candace). He moved to a new city and changed his name - poof all his problems are solved? What happened to the PI the Salingers hired?
Candace's character had potential. They hyped her up in the first season so I thought she would do something but no, she didn't have an actual plan and was outmatched at every turn.
Was it the writers intention to insert cringy millenial jargon into every possible piece of dialogue? Really went too far compared to last season. And all the "woke" dialogue was so cringe, boring and trite.
[8.0/10] I am amazed that Better Call Saul can still be this tense, and this much fun, when there's nothing that big at stake. Yes, Cinnabon Gene still needs to protect his identity, and things could go terribly wrong if Frank the security guard found out about his involvement in this crime. But by god, at heart, this is just about stealing a minor pile of fancy-ish clothes from a Nebraska department store, and somehow it's still a total thrillride.
I think it speaks to how perfectly the show's creative team knows what they're doing at this late hour. They could make pretty much anything simultaneously exciting and meaningful. There is some inherent juice to the fact that this is the first time we've gotten a full-blown Gene Takovic episode. And it does tie off a few loose ends from the show like the cab driver who identified him as Saul or the security guard whose shoplifting bust he disrupted. But for the most part, this is just a heist for the sake of heist, to show that even so far removed when when we left him in the past and even in Breaking Bad, Jimmy's still got it.
There's a few points of real meaning and resonance though. For one, I believe Jimmy when he talks to Frank (Jerry from Parks and Rec!) about how alone he is. He's using that sad truth to manipulate someone, but I think it's genuinely how he feels, and Jimmy has a history of using real feelings for false purposes. It's underscored by the fact that the title of the episode is just one word, not "____ and ____" like every other title this season. It's a formal way to show that after so long having Kim as a partner, Jimmy is alone.
I'm also struck by the fact that he basically dresses down Jeff and his other accomplice much the same way Mike did to him in "Point and Shoot", right down to him having the other schmucks repeat his line to make sure they understand. Jimmy is still a pro, even if he's been out of the game this long. And despite the fact that he seems to take such joy in the action, he's able to put the loud shirt and louder tie back on the rack at the end of the episode. Jimmy's never been able to stop himself, but after all of this, maybe he's finally got a hold of himself.
There's still three episodes to go, and almost limitless possibilities for where the series could go from here. But it seems like Jimmy has found a tiny bit of peace and security after one last heist, at least for the time being. It's amazing that after all this drama and all this death, something so comparatively low stakes can still be such a thrill.
EDIT: Here's a link to my usual, longer review in case anyone's interested -- https://thespool.net/reviews/tv-recap-better-call-saul-season-6-episode-10/
Cool concept but terrible, terrible writing.
None of the characters behaves in a believable way, it all feels staged (you know those lines that just happen in movies but just don't feel right in real life? Like "there's no time to explain, just follow me" or "we've got company"), even at the beginning at the resort, before the supernatural part kicks in, like a series of scenes almost unrelated one to the other and patched together, each with the precise purpose to stimulate a feeling in the audience or to get the plot ahead. Characters falling as flies like in predictable horror movies.
Some unexplicable sloppy screenplay moments:
The ending was the best and more naturally progressing part of the movie
let's get the important stuff out of the way
onto the actual review:
do you like mike flanagan? do you love incredible actors getting to give intense monologues that make you kind of want to die? are you okay with the fact that literally everything is going to be sad (of course you are, if you said yes to the first question)?
then watch this. you'll enjoy it, no question. just be down for a slow pace, bleakness and intensity, and the usual not-quite-horror vibes. flanagan's work never rests on horror laurels and i feel like it makes his pieces stronger.
also: i spent the entire time leading up to the actual release having no idea that hamish was the Mysterious Charming priest character and spent the whole first episode going ZACH WHY ARE YOU SO SAD AND NOT MYSTERIOUS but tbh it all made sense soon enough.
anyway, for those of you wondering who shouldn't watch this: a LOT of talk of death. alcoholism. small town trapped feelings, and loss of life that gradually picks up pace throughout the series. i'd say skip this if bleak content puts you in a bad place. i also have a relative recently diagnosed with alzheimer's and that made the first couple episodes a bit harder.
since it's pretty obvious from the first or second episode, the rest of my comment isn't technically a spoiler BUT if you like going in totally blind, stop now!!
i think the way this show handles vampirism mythology is actually quite unique. it focuses far less on the vampire lore itself and far more on how easy it is for people desperate for answers to the universe to fit everything from completely ordinary occurrences to an actual batwinged monstrosity into a religious context if they just quote the right piece of scripture.
[7.5/10] Ahsoka feels right. The vistas of Lothal feel of a piece with their animated rendition. The characters seem like themselves despite shifts in the performer and the medium. Their relationships feel genuine even though much has changed in the five years since we’ve seen them together.
Maybe that shouldn’t be a big surprise with Dave Filoni, impresario of the animated corner of Star Wars, both writing and directing “Master and Apprentice”, the series premiere. He is the title character’s co-creator and caretaker. He is the creator of Star Wars: Rebels, the show that Ahsoka is most clearly indebted to. And he is, for many, the keeper of the flame when it comes to the Galaxy Far Far Away.
But it was my biggest fear for this show. More than the plot, more than the lore, more than the latest chapter in the life of my favorite character in all of Star Wars, my concern was that translating all these characters, and their little corner of the universe, to live action and a different cast and a different era of the franchise would make everything feel wrong. Instead, we’re right at home. The rest is gravy.
And the gravy is good. Because these are not the colorful, if intense, adventures of the Ghost crew fans saw before. This is, or should be, a period of triumph for the onetime Rebels. They won! The Empire is torn asunder! Lothal is led with grace and a touch of wry sarcasm by Governor Azadi, with none other than Clancy Brown reprising the role! Huyang the lightsaber-crafting droid is still around and has most of his original parts!
Nonetheless, our heroes are hung up on old battles and older wounds. Ahsoka Tano is on a quest to track down Grand Admiral Thrawn, who hunted the Spectres in Rebels. Sabine Wren can’t bask in the afterglow of victory as a hero when she’s still mourning Ezra Bridger. And the two warriors have some lingering bad blood with one another after an attempt to become master and apprentice, true to the title, went wrong somewhere along the way.
With that, the first installment of Ahsoka is a surprisingly moody and meditative affair, one that works well for Star Wars. Sure, there's still a couple of crackerjack lightsaber fights to keep the casual fans engaged. But much of this one is focused on familiar characters reflecting on what’s been lost, what’s been broken, and what’s hard to fix. The end of Rebels was triumphant, but came with costs. To linger on those costs, and the new damage that's accumulated in their wake, is a bold choice from Filoni and company.
So is the decision to focus on Sabine here. Don’t get me wrong, Ahsoka has the chance to shine in the first installment of the show that bears her name. Her steady reclamation of a map to Thrawn, badass hack-and-slash on some interfering bounty droids, and freighted reunions with Hera and her former protege all vindicate why fans have latched onto the character. For her part, Rosario Dawson has settled into the role, bringing a certain solemnity that befits a more wizened and confident master, but also that subtle twinkle that Ashley Eckstei brings to the role.
And yet, the first outing for Ahsoka spends more time with Sabine’s perspective. It establishes her as a badass who’d rather rock her speeder with anti-authoritarian style than be honored for her heroics. It shows her grieving a lost comrade whose sacrifice still haunts her. It teases out an emotional distance and rebelliousness between her and her former mentor. And it closes with her using her artist’s eye to solve the puzzle du jour, and defend herself against a fearsome new enemy.
This is her hour, and while Sabine is older, more introverted, all the more wounded than the Mandalorian tagger fans met almost a decade ago, this opening salvo for the series is better for it.
My only qualms are with the threat du jour. Yet another Jedi not only survived the initial Jedi Purge, but has made it to the post-Return of the Jedi era without arousing the suspicions of Palpatine, Vader, Yoda, or Obi-Wan. Ray Stevenson brings a steady and quietly menacing air to Baylan Skoll, the former Jedi turned apparent mercenary, but there's enough rogue force-wielders running around already, thank you very much.
His apprentice holds her own against New Republic forces and Ahsoka’s own former apprentice, but is shrouded in mystery. She goes unidentified, which, in Star Wars land, means she’s secretly someone important (a version of Mara Jade from the “Legends” continuity?) or related to someone important (the child of, oh, let’s say Ventress). And I’m tired of such mystery boxes.
Throw in the fact that Morgan Elsbet, Ahsoka’s source and prisoner, turns out to be a Nightsister, and you have worrying signs that the series’ antagonists will be rehashing old material rather than moving the ball forward. The obvious “We just killed a major character! No for real you guys!” fakeout cliffhanger ending doesn’t inspire much confidence on that front either.
Nonetheless, what kept me invested in Rebels, and frankly all of Star Wars, despite plenty of questionable narrative choices, is the characters. The prospect of Ahsoka trying to train a non force-sensitive Mandalorian in the ways of the Jedi, or at least her brand of them, is a bold and fascinating choice.
But even more fascinating is two people who once believed in one another, having fallen apart, drifting back together over the chance to save someone they both care about. “Master and Apprentice” embraces, rather than shying away from, the sort of lived-in relationships that made the prior series so impactful in the past, and the broken bonds that make these reunions feel fragile, painful, and more than a little bitter in the present.
I am here for Hera the general trying to patch things up between old friends. I am here for Sabine holding onto her rebellious streak but carrying scars from what went wrong, in the Battle of Lothal and in her attempts to learn the ways of the Jedi. And I am here for Ahsoka, once the apprentice without a master, now the master without an apprentice, here to snuff out the embers of the last war and reclaim what was lost within it.
They all feel right. The rest can figure itself out.
I had heard good things going in, and I was still thoroughly impressed. This is definitely my favorite movie I've seen this year, and quite possibly in the past few. While he is at some of his best in the movie, very little of that has to do with Nicolas Cage.
There is way more substance than the trailer gives you clues to. Outside of the rich narrative, the film is a masterclass in "less is more" to illustrate complex subjects through well executed inference. Michael Sarnoski's writing and directorial debut demonstrates some of the best storytelling skills I've seen in a long time. This will be a piece I point to for a while on effective filmmaking.
Underneath the novel premise of the movie is deep subject matter and one of the more mature explorations of grief and purpose in life. I wouldn't call this a feel good movie, but rather one that lays out a difficult but healthy and necessary path to dealing with tragedy and loss. I called Manchester by the Sea on of the best movies on grief ever made, because it showed how broken it can make people. Pig is an answer to it that shows the health of acceptance and recognizing the value in what we chose to spend our time doing.
Decent over all. Part 1 was too much build-up for what Part 2 delivers.
The things I thought were good:
The new settings, and a creative plot. I liked the dissociative plot twist. I think it was well executed.
I liked how in the end Joe was chasing himself rather than a girl. I loved how unhinged it got.
The things I thought were not good:
I think part of the reason this season fell flat is because we didn’t have any truly great side characters. They were not written well. Most of the side characters did not add much to the plot at all. Take them out the show completely and we haven’t lost much in my opinion. They all seem like cartoon characters. There is not even the slightest depth to them and I have no interest in the relationships they form with Joe.
I can't really connect to Nadias storyline. Everything she did in P2 was SUCH a horrible decision. What was up with Maryanne not letting Nadia call the cops? It makes no since at all, their reasoning was beyond dumb, it’s just lazy writing.
Another disappointing character arc was the lady with the camera. She was just Phoebe's stalker? I was hyped to see if she was the one who was finally going to expose him. Or if she was connected to Beck somehow.
Kate is my least favorite love interest of Joe. There is zero chemistry between her and Jo. Zero.
I just don't understand why Joe becomes obsessed with Rhys in the first place. It seems so unlike his past obsessions. Had they written this season more tightly, we wouldn't have to wan explanation.
My suspension of disbelief has been broken many times this season, especially things leading to the ending. Joe just murdered Nadia’s boyfriend in broad daylight in London and they're just chatting next to a dead body for how long.
It feels like this season the plot armor is even more noticeable than in the last ones - reasoning of Nadia and Marienne for not calling the cops was really weird, all because they wanted Joe to get away with it without facing the police. The PI just handing Joe a new life wasn't explained. He killed Kate's dad incredibly easily for how rich and smart he's supposed to be. He even survived jumping from the bridge.
Joe has really managed to find not one, but two women who wholly accept him for all his stalking and murdering. And conveniently they both came from very wealthy families who are happy to cover up all of his crimes.
I have a feeling season 5 is gonna be the last. The fact that Joe it now at his absolute worst makes me think they’re preparing for his downfall. Plus it would be fitting for the last season to take place in NYC since that’s where it all started.
Ever since the mid 90s, Roland Emmerich has attempted time and time again to repackage and recapture the ideas from Independence Day. After many failed attempts, I wonder why there’s still a theatrical market for films like this. Or rather, it’s odd that Hollywood thinks there’s still a market for it, given that all of Emmerich’s films since 2012 have flopped at the box office. And, he’s about to add another one to his resume. This should’ve gotten a streaming release at best, as it belongs in the same category as a film like The Tomorrow War. It’s background noise you throw on while you’re doing the dishes or folding the laundry. It's too disposable, phony, poorly acted and boring to pay any serious attention to, let alone pay money for. There's a sense of authenticity and fun to dumb action movies like Independence Day that you're never going to capture with the way these kind of films are made now. You have to applaud Emmerich for making a big, original studio film, but it’s still generic schlock that doesn’t have a single ounce of personality. Fuck whoever financed this.
Edit: after a little bit of digging I found out that the primary investor of this thing is a Chinese company called Tencent Pictures. They’re also responsible for financing other great films such as Terminator: Dark Fate, Warcraft, Kong: Skull Island, Men in Black: International, Monster Hunter and the 2 Venom movies. To put it mildly, it appears that it’s this company’s sole purpose to flood the market with trash, and not exactly the fun kind. Now I know what you’re thinking: maybe their involvement helps with receiving a Chinese release from the CCP? But here’s the problem: Venom 2 was banned in China. So, they’re clearly just a bunch of incompetent investors, given that all of their films (the Venom films excluded) have been massive financial and critical flops. The takeaway for Hollywood should be pretty simple: if Tencent wants to invest in your production, cancel all plans before you have another Moonfall on your hands.
2.5/10
Watch it if you’re a fan of Toto, or genuinly laugh at any point during the first scene.
“I want to say how nice it is not to be alone.”
‘The Power of the Dog’ is a triumph return for director Jane Campion after a 12-year absence from cinema. The movies pace is steady and patient, so some people will take issue with that and find the movie too slow and uneventful, but for me, I was never bored by it. Instead, I was captivated by its eeriness and complexity. It’s a movie that never explains itself and nothing is articulated, but you can pinpoint the long-troubled history just from reading the characters faces and actions.
This is one of Benedict Cumberbatch’s best performance of his career and it’s my favourite role from him. He plays Phil Burbank, a repulsive and cruel human being, who deep down has this boiling rage inside of him that he unleashes by abusing animals such as horses. However, I also found the character fascinating, because you never really know why he does the things he does. The expression throughout the movie was irritation, as if the western wind said something that got under his skin. His got the personality of a misbehaved child, sometimes mimicking and mocking those around him. Sulky and strange, with a thousand-yard stare.
But man, Jesse ‘mother fucking’ Plemons, who plays George Burbank, the brother of Phil Burbank. I mean, holy shit what a natural and gifted performer. His relationship with his brother is complicated to say the least, and George is powerless to Phil’s constant insults towards his weight, appearance, and his new love for a female hotel keeper. Even then, the two brothers would still share a bed together. As I said before, it's complicated.
Kirsten Dunst plays Rose, a local hotel keeper who romantically falls for Jesse Plemons and gets thrown into the ranch life, something she and her son are not suited for, which sets the story into motion. Her son is played by Kodi Smit-McPhee, an awkward kid who stands out for the wrong reasons. Dunst and McPhee, both child stars who grew up into maturity on film and both deliver effective performances. Just from the facial expressions alone they manage to convey some much hurt and curiosity that the characters experience when in the presence of Phil Burbank. It’s one of the finest roles.
The use of music here isn’t something you will remember after the movie ends, but I feel that when re-watching it, the score, along with the scenes playing out, makes the experience more hypnotizing and oddly mystical.
The movie was filmed in New Zealand, and it never looked more beautiful until Jane Campion is behind the camera. Even with the muted colours and harsh quality to it, it still felt dreamy.
Although, if you’re a massive lover of animals, then beware because there’s a couple of scenes in this movie of animal abuse that may upset you. It’s not on screen for long, like a few seconds, but man those few seconds are rough. Or just cover your eyes.
Overall rating: whistles menacingly
