hyoga_saint Reviews

Knights of the Zodiac (2023)

It doesn't suck, but it's not good. And It's not really Saint Seiya, either.

[5/10 · 1 May 2023]

A Saint Seiya fan since 1991, I knew going in that this movie would differ from the source material. The trailers were clear enough. A faithful adaptation, I did not expect. But maybe there was a decent film in there, with some elements of the original manga/anime. While not a trainwreck, a good movie this is not.

So how much does it stray? Well, there *are* some callbacks to the original IP. A few notes in the musical score, taken straight from the anime soundtrack. Some visuals that made my heart skip a beat, including the very first, somewhat misleading scene. They are all too few, though. This is not the Saint Seiya we grew up with.

The armors are way too different - and not particularly appealing. The fighting scenes, heavy in martial arts, guns, and military vehicles, are not what the original series was all about. Hard to tap into nostalgia when you turn your back on 90% of what people liked in the first place. But again, the main trouble lies in the story.

It's bland. The characters are poorly written. Their arcs, poorly developed. Key scenes late in the movie are laughable, including some that were supposed to be poignant. It's not altogether surprising: rather than adapt the 80's masterpiece, this movie is based on the more recent Netflix adaptation, which flopped commercially and critically.

The film's about a young man struggling to accept his destiny as a knight while spouting that nobody's fate is predetermined and the reincarnated goddess he's supposed to protect, a spunky young girl who lived in fear of being unable to control her immense power, in a rehash of the (also poorly adapted) Dark Phoenix saga from the X-Men.

It feels all-too familiar, especially with Famke Janssen (Jean Grey in the X-Men movies) overlooking the action as the movie's antagonist. There's also Sean Bean (LOTR, GOT, etc.) and Marc Dacascos (Crying Freeman, John Wick 3) in there, but everyone's acting is flat throughout. Hard to shine with the run of the mill story and dialogue.

As for newer faces, Mackenyu looks the part, but there's something lacking. You feel he may have done a better job with more decent lines. Madison Iseman as Sienna showed some charisma, but she too fell victim to the plot holes and inconsistent behavior that plague her and all the other characters.

Could the sequel, with the expected introduction of some key characters, come closer to evoking the thrills the original story did? Perhaps, but I doubt they'll get the chance to do so after botching the launch of what was expected to be a multi-picture saga. Then again, I'm not confident this creative team could have done a good job at it.

No, this is not Dragonball Evolution. The glimpses - teases, really - we get of the original Saint Seiya hint at what could have been a great film. The action scenes are well-choreographed and the main two characters, sympathetic enough. It's all 100% watchable, but nobody's recommending it to anyone, and it will be forgotten soon.

It's a shame. You had some great source material. You could have gotten an awesome movie out of it. Why the lack of faith in it? I came away disappointed and suspect many others will, as well. You want to like or at least enjoy it, but you just end up frustrated at the missed opportunity.

(+) A select few callbacks to the original manga and anime, particularly at the very beginning, in the training scenes, and for a few seconds in the movie's climax. Some actions scenes are decent, albeit heavy in martial arts.

(-) Spotty plot. Lousy third act. Bland characters and storylines taken straight from Netflix's poorly received adaptation. Movie really strays from the source material to tell a rather unoriginal story - and tell it poorly, to boot.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011)

Worthy adaptation with a fantastic Lisbeth Salander

[8/10 · 29 June 2017]

As a reader of the original novel, I wondered if I should not watch the Swedish adaptation first, rather than what I figured would be an Americanized, dumbed-down, and sanitized remake, the likes of which we've seen all too often in the past with other foreign movies. I was very pleased to see my concerns were completely unfounded.

Rather than a remake, this is more like a new adaptation of the modern thriller classic. A faithful one it is, too, set in the original Swedish locations of the novel and with characters speaking and acting much like their original literary counterparts. Even the controversial decision to speak in pseudo-Nordic accents is one I actually approve of. I liked the results.

Particularly great is the talented Rooney Mara, who looks a little like Natalie Portman but, while not having the same fame or level of recognition, may be just as good an actress. Her Lisbeth Salander is probably *the* character that was going to make of break this film and thankfully, it is a resounding success: she is very much the blunt, complex, riveting girl you picture when you read the book.

Though Mara's magnetic performance in many ways supports the film just fine on her own, she is helped by a strong cast in which Plummer and Wright, in particular, shine, while Skarsgård, Richardson, and Craig also more than hold their own. The music sets the tone wonderfully, while the pacing and editing are also strong points, with 2,5 hours flying by.

As for the story, as I said, it remains faithful to the original while trimming down some of the excess baggage and taking a couple of actually satisfying shortcuts, improving on some of the slightly groan-inducing aspects of the book. However, some of the richness, depth, and mood of the novel inevitably get lost when translated to film, preventing this very good adaptation from becoming a classic.

(+) The story is faithfully adapted to the screen. Good pacing, editing, music. Mara nails it as Lisbeth Salander

(-) Some of the finer points and subtleties of the novel get lost in the silver screen, especially in regards to the Hedestad part of the story.

The Diary of a Teenage Girl (2015)

Period piece not without merit, but doomed by unlikable characters

[7/10 · 29 June 2017]

In many ways a period piece, this indie film captures a very special time period in San Francisco, a time when counterculture flourished and withered, people experimented and abused all kinds of substances, and teen artist Minnie experiences a lot of firsts, in the eternal search for acceptance, love, and a sense of purpose.

In spite of a brave, earnest, and raw performance by a deliberately exposed Bel Powley, very believable as a teenager in the aforementioned period, and of a subtle, nuanced and understatedly magnetic one by the great Alexander Skarsgård, this movie falls short because its characters are sadly just a bit too immature, selfish, and unlikable.

While that sounds very much like the typical description of the stereotypical youth, it remains nonetheless a major fault in the script how unsympathetic Minnie is throughout, with no real point of self-reflection or regrets over some of her actions, refusing to deal with the consequences of even her more heinous ones.

Surrounded by egotistical, likewise emotionally stunted, at times manipulative adults, it may be no wonder that the main character is unable to learn or grow much, but the level of navel-gazing is still a bit too grating, with the protagonist of this clearly autobiographical story experiencing life events without any sort of moral compass whatsoever.

The film drags towards the end, perhaps because of the fragmented, increasingly hazy way the story is told as the movie progresses, but also because by then we care very little about the fate of the different characters. Though this intimate film does hit some high notes in terms of mood, acting, and cinematography, the end result is unsatisfying.

(+) The reconstruction of 70's San Francisco is very well done. Some of the scenes really hit the point. Mood and color palette also well done.

(-) Unsympathetic characters, starting with the amoral, self- centered protagonist, doom the movie.

Horrible Bosses (2011)

Very fun ride with a fair share of laughs

[7/10 · 20 June 2017]

Although the script is sharp, with a solid plot and great banter, Horrible Bosses is really all about the performances, with the impressive cast showing they really enjoyed the material, digging their teeth into it and making this movie a very entertaining, quite funny and at times laugh out loud adult comedy.

Spacey, Aniston, and Farrell steal the show, going against type and shining as the title characters, playing these outrageous, over-the- top bosses with gusto. Though their behavior is reprehensible, they torment their employees with such hilarity you can't help asking for more of their scenes.

Bateman and Sudeikis are both pretty good in their roles, too, with the former quite sympathetic and the latter giving a sardonic performance not unlike the one in Meet the Millers. In fact, this movie reminded me of that one, both in tone and humor. I enjoyed both equally and welcome this type of comedies.

The weak link here is probably Charlie Day, While I wouldn't say I hated his role, I was left unimpressed with his grating, high- pitched voice and whiny character. I'd say he's tolerable and somewhat funny at times, but he was really walking on the edge, dangerously close to being just a tiny bit too annoying.

Regardless, this is still a pretty entertaining comedy, both smart and funny, and a great option for movie night with friends. In fact this is a pretty safe choice for laughs with wide appeal, the kind you rented back in Blockbuster days that left everybody satisfied.

Note: there's actually another hilarious performance in there I didn't mention, but I'd rather not spoil it.

(+) Fun characters, great performances but the 'horrible bosses', tight plot, sharp dialogue and a fair share of laughs.

(-) Actually fairly tame given the subject and R rating, it holds back a little and remains a step or two below legendary status. Not a fan of Charlie Day's character.

Janis: Little Girl Blue (2015)

A great window into wounded, soulful, legendary Janis Joplin

[8/10 · 17 June 2017]

This touching, intimate documentary chronicles the life of legendary singer Janis Joplin, from her childhood in Port Arthur to her untimely death, as told by her surviving family members, friends, lovers, associates, peers, and by Joplin herself, through personal letters and notes.

When Don McLean talks of the "girl who sang the blues" in his seminal song American Pie, it is Janis he references. We see that smile of hers, so full of life, passion and joy. We also see the many faces of her sadness, that bewitching, heartbreaking pain that fed her powerful, inimitable voice.

This documentary takes us beyond the music, although Janis was pure music. It is the medium that drove her to like-minded spirits, to someplace she could truly feel herself at home. It led her to recognition, adulation, success. She never seems as alive as when she is on stage.

We see how she got there, her ups and downs, the loneliness, self-doubts, the need for an acceptance that may have never really come, especially from herself. Along with the music, the alcohol is also there, as are the drugs. A life lived on the edge, despair never fully going away.

I would have liked a little more time to go even more in-depth, peel the layers even more and get closer still to Janis, that little girl blue with the harrowing, unforgettable voice. It is still a wonderful, moving trip to a time, a woman, a soul who remains, in many ways, untouchable.

(+) A wonderful retrospective that will tell you who was Janis Joplin, converting newcomers and thrilling long-time fans.

(-) More time could have been spent engrossing the story, showing more of the different sides of this haunted, incredible singer.

Accepted (2006)

Not too funny, mostly a waste of a good idea

[5/10 · 15 June 2017]

I learned after watching the movie that a fair share of scenes were improvised. Not too surprising. While that could have made for some very funny lines, in this instance it gave us a comedy scarce on the laughs and that's barely held together at the seams.

I did not have high expectations coming into this, but I at least hoped for some entertainment. The idea had potential, but the plot and turns are very by-the-numbers and the people behind it, like the students in the movie, were apparently content half-assing it.

"Accepted" is fairly harmless. Nothing too raunchy or gross, no drugs or sex. The high jinx here is pretty tame, and so is the movie. The villains are not that villainous, the rowdy bunch of outcast students, not that rebellious. It's all just bland.

I wonder if in more capable hands some of the actors would have shined a little more. We know Jonah Hill is able to be much better. Justin Long was fairly earnest, but his lack of charisma far too evident. Lewis Black's character was just a waste of time.

Perhaps the only to come out well here is Blake Lively, who in spite of the dialogue, gives a sympathetic, bright performance, but I'm gasping at straws here. This rather forgettable movie is watchable, but neither funny nor particularly entertaining.

(+) A few good actors who have done better work elsewhere: Hill, Lively, Thayer. The concept had potential .

(-) Wasted potential. Bland movie. Barely there script, with nothing much happening. Meh.

John Wick (2014)

The kind of action movie that's become all too rare

[8/10 · 12 June 2017]

All too often nowadays, action movie means a convoluted, unrealistic mess, full of spectacular stunts and *unbelievable* CGI that are exactly that: very hard to believe. More often than not, I pass. This revenge, he-against- everybody film is an exception, and what a wonderful, welcome one it is.

John Wick is the kind of action movie I love, one in which you find yourself nodding in agreement, enjoying fantastic cinematic violence, rooting for the hero, knowing he should prevail but not sure whether he will survive or not, appreciating the journey and thoroughly enjoying the ride until the climax.

The plot is not ground-breaking stuff. It can be summed up in but a few words, and yet simple works well in this case. There are no stupid plot twists, no maddening plot holes, no illogical actions. The characters are believable, their motivations clear enough, it's all quite easy to understand and enjoy.

That is not to take way from the work the writers and directors did in this movie. They built a rich, realistic universe, one in which the viewers can easily get immersed. The action is tight, the filming, very well-done, capturing every hit, stabbing, bullet in precise fashion. It's gritty and stylish without going overboard. Performances are mostly pretty good, too.

In the end, this is a pretty good action movie. It may lack a bit of emotional depth when compared to genre classics, but in this day and age, a throwback film like this is a true blessing. While you won't be left thinking for days about this one, John Wick is a very fun film to watch.

(+) Great action scenes, sound performances, a well-crafted, believable, straight-forward movie that gives action fans exactly what they hope for.

(-) Nothing too ground-breaking. An effective, enjoyable action movie, but one lacking a couple of elements to be a truly great one.

Iliza Shlesinger: Confirmed Kills (2016 TV Special)

Unspeakably bad and painfully unfunny

[2/10 · 12 June 2017]

This comedy special is neither comedic nor in the least bit special, except for its amazing capacity in making 75 minutes seem like over 3 hours. Tackling subjects such as gender, feminism, and race, Iliza Shlesinger gathers more (forced) applause than laughs while making contrite, unoriginal points in ways rarely funny or entertaining.

An audience eager to like her and say they had an enjoyable time was not able to mask the obvious: this show is a weird mix of physical and observational humor while not hitting the mark on either, with producers trying *very* hard to make it all seem so clever and hilarious with an abundance of painful, misguided hashtags.

Shlesinger is fond of using her elongated, shapely body to make these weird Grinch-like steps and poses, while contorting her face in off-putting grimaces and using distinctive, cartoonish voices that made me think of a bizarro, unfunny 90's Jim Carrey.

I can accept that not being my cup of tea while resulting humorous to other people. However, what came out of Shlesinger's mouth was just miss after miss after miss, whether speaking about a night out unleashing her inner party goblin or going on and on about women who identify as mermaids, in a particularly puzzling, never-ending bit.

I did chuckle one time near the very end and will admit that a couple of observations in her social commentary were okay, but I had to really push myself to endure this show over 3-4 sittings, sticking to the end only to fairly assess it: it was dreadful.

(+) A couple of her social observations miraculously hit the mark. That's about it.

(-) Jokes extremely hard to find and even those apparent never hit the mark. Uninteresting, painful material. No. Just...no.

Oldboy (2003)

Over-hyped, unfortunately. Deritative.

[8/10 · 5 June 2017]

This well-made film which took the world by storm failed to enthuse me for a very simple reason: I could clearly see traces of other films in the plot and the twists in it, hence bringing down the effectiveness of the story and making the whole experience enjoyable, yet a bit lackluster, sadly.

This is a pretty sound thriller in the vein of other similar Asian movies that have come before and after. The pacing is very good, the characters well-played and memorable, and the story, while pushing a little too much the realism envelope, is still (somewhat) believable but, most of all, quite gripping. A couple of scenes are actually brilliant.

However there is no sugarcoating it. The plot, while not a copy- paste, is *very* derivative of a Brian De Palma film called Obsession (1976), which was itself clearly inspired by Hitchcock's Vertigo. While the similarity between those two films has always been quiet apparent, I found Oldboy to be even more clearly inspired by De Palma's movie.

We've seen this before, from the Lion King's clear echoes of Tezuka's Kimba the White Lion to Battle Royale lending more than a few traits to The Hunger Games. Not to mention how much Hollywood borrowed from Satoshi Kon's work, with Black Swan and Inception recalling a fair bit the Japanese master's Perfect Blue and Paprika.

Curiously enough, this time it was an Asian director borrowing from an American peer. Could this be the reason so many have given him a pass? It might help that Obsession is not that well-known outside of film aficionados, but it did take away a lot of the effectiveness of Oldboy for me. As such, I find its rating to be much higher than reasonable.

(+) Captivating characters, great pacing, good visuals, a couple of memorable scenes, all in all, a well-made film.

(-) Its plot and twists are way too reminiscent - if not outright a copy of - other movies, which mixed with a few elements a tiny bit too fantastic, makes it undeserving of its legendary status.

Love (2016–2018)

Terrible pilot, then a pretty good 1st season ruined by season 2

[1/10 · 4 June 2017]

A dreadful pilot that had me incredibly close to hitting the off switch at the 2 minute, 5 minute and midpoint mark made it harder to get into the first season, but good reviews and the promise and the end of that first episode made me watch episode 2 and then quite enjoy the 1st season. Watched in 2-3 days, liked the characters, writing, humor.

Season 2 started pretty well, even gave us a wonderful, wonderful 5th episode (not surprised to see it is the highest rated one on IMDb), then completely ruined the main female character some very questionable decisions that, while fitting the character and situation, made me, as a viewer, want to break-up with her for good.

Admittedly, the main male character had made some very poor decisions at a certain point in the 1st season and I do not give him a pass for them, but they did not come close to breaking point, given the circumstances at the time. What she does in the later part of the 2nd season, however, does irreparable damage.

It's unfortunate. I really liked the character of Mickey, warts and all. I though she had a lot of charm, many good qualities going for her that offset her significant issues. I wanted her to be together with Gus, also someone with many a fault, yet good-natured and willing to improve, just as she seemed to be.

Alas, it's not meant to be. I was left with a bitter taste in my mouth. Though realistic, the situations and actions depicted in this series are not enjoyable to watch. There were other realistic directions the show could have gone without making one of the two leads this unsympathetic to the audience.

(+) Good writing, nice direction, relatable leads with great chemistry, great supporting characters, a few standout episodes.

(-) Unbelievably awful pilot episode, then a main character pushing things past the tipping point in the 2nd season that ruins it all.