Change Your Image
vaultoverseer_15
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try again
Best Film per Genre
Also, this is a best for what this genre IS MEANT to do. If it’s an action movie it has to do it’s action very well. If the most notable thing to me is something other than the action, it doesn’t count.
Top 50 Video Games
Top 75 films
Reviews
The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997)
The Best Jurassic Sequel
The Lost World is the best Jurassic Park sequel. That might be saying something if it weren't the only good Jurassic Park sequel - but I think there's a lot of interesting aspects to this movie. A 7/10 to me is usually a movie that is good, but not remarkably good. The Lost World, on the other hand, is a movie with elements I absolutely love, but a lot of garbage in between. To explain my position, I've divided this review up into the positives and the negatives. I don't normally do this but I feel like in The Lost World with such conflicting scenes it is warranted.
On the plus side:
1. Awesome Set Pieces - This is the main reason you watch these movies, and Lost World delivers in spades. There are more dinosaurs, more of them, and more people. This isn't a little group of people going to a theme park - this is an expedition into an unknown land. And you still have Steven Spielberg in the director's chair. This is what makes the movie. There are tons of action scenes, each creative and different, each expertly helmed to fill the viewer with dread. There's the dino hunting scene where dozens of vehicles capture dinosaurs. There's the T-Rex trailer scene. There's the velociraptors attacking the worker village. There's the final T-Rex rampage in San Diego. Beyond the pure action, there's a lot more death in the movie - and the death scenes are very well done. There's Dieter Stark's compy chase, the car death, and my favourite, the long grass scene.
2. Great visuals - The Lost World is exactly what you want from a big budget blockbuster. The dinosaurs, like the first movie, are still impressive to this day. I think that almost goes without saying, but a lot of it comes down to how the effects are utilised. Watch Jurassic Park III, and you can understand why it's not just about the effects themselves. It's about how a director uses those effects to make them believable - despite the fact that the dinosaurs are mostly animatronic, you never get the feeling that they are. And the CGI is used in such a way to hide the 1997 flaws. That's not all - the lush Isla Sorna rainforest is beautiful, and menacing at night. There's this feeling that you've entered another world - a Lost World??? Seriously though, it's one of the things that a lot of movies that try to go to another island fail at. Isla Sorna feels different from a rainforest. Even if we don't see dinosaurs, the island feels like their domain.
3. A Unique Adventure - The Lost World is not Jurassic Park II, it is more The Lost World. Compared to the novel, Lost World has a lot more connections to the Arthur Conan Doyle novel. It would be really easy to just be like "there's another re-opening, and it doesn't go well...". To be fair, Michael Crichton didn't do that in the book, but the book feels a lot more familiar to the first book. Dinosaurs in this movie are now creatures living free in nature. They are also more dangerous, and less awe-inspiring. The first movie built up to the dinosaurs coming, and spent a lot of its time indoors. Isla Sorna is mostly outdoors, say for a few rusty buildings, meaning the whole crew is never truly safe. The Lost World isn't just more of the same - it's a different adventure entirely.
4. The Underrated Music - Hot take here - I prefer the music in Lost World to Jurassic Park. Jurassic Park's music is great, but it's not that special from your standard John Williams score, say for the proper main theme. The Lost World is very different, and opts to make the adventure feel different. I'm not much of a music geek, but the instruments are different, the score overall hinting at a more serious journey. This isn't a fun adventure - this is a mission. But when the tone is a little more fun, the music has a nice classical monster movie-esque score, and brings in those congo drums which are both fun and intense. I also appreciate the restraint with that original theme. It plays a total of three times I believe, and we only hear a little bit of it, two of those three times. This helps make the tone feel seperate, as well as emphasise the score when it does play at the end of the movie.
5. The Positives of the Story and Characters - There is a whole lot bad about this aspect, but there is a lot good. The best thing is that the movie is full of A-list actors who are doing their best. The characters are (mostly) given as much depth as they need for a movie like this, and they have good chemistry. There's a lot less fun with their interactions, but that feels appropriate for the tone of this movie. The story takes a complete side step from the original, and I like that the theme is kinda different. The original is all about not playing God, but this one is more about leaving animals to be, which I appreciate. I appreciate that 1. It has a theme that is explored and 2. It's not just the same as the first movie.
On the negative:
1. An Unfinished Movie? - The Lost World has this unmistakable feeling that creeps up in the second half that things are missing. At first it's just little things. There are action scenes where errors occur. In the long grass scene, the camera zooms in as a man screams, indicating a POV shot from the raptor, but the next show shows a raptor jump out of the grass and eat him. During the raptor attack on the village, a raptor breaks through a window of the truck, and then Ian makes a run for it, the raptor for some reason not following him. My assumption is that the raptor got stuck, but this is not shown well. These are little things, but it begins to stick out towards the end. Getting to San Diego feels ridiculously rushed, the T-Rex coming back makes little sense, and overall it feels like just a big excuse to get to the next action set piece. I feel like at some point they just weren't bothered with the narrative and wanted the action set pieces to take precedence. The problem is is that the movie's story isn't irrelevant, this is a movie that takes time to develop it's story. So when things are missing, there are two big problems. One, a lot of character and story importance are gone, minimising these elements. Two, there is a lack of buildup to these scenes, and an over-abundance of action can mitigate from its quality.
2. The Negatives of Story and Characters - The first and most obvious thing is that the characters are VERY stock. While we get a lot of good performances, I don't like a lot of the characters. Roland Tembo is a great character, though we don't get enough of him. Dr Sarah Harding, Ian Malcolm, and Kelly Curtis are all great protagonists. Other than that - Eddie Carr is good then dies really quick, Nick Van Owen I don't like, Deiter Stark and Peter Ludlow are way too comical. And unfortunately, you get a lot of them. The story is a bigger problem. For starters, getting onto the island is easily the worst part of the movie. It takes way too long and requires a lot of exposition and explaining that really isn't required. It's a huge problem for me that you establish a theme quite early on - dinosaurs should be left alone. My question is, who learns this? Ian Malcolm is constantly like "this is bad" - Sarah Harding constantly agrees with him, and the kid goes along with them. No one has an arc, excluding Roland Tembo, who just disappears by the end. Why not have Malcolm want to nuke the island at the start, then have him realise that it's better to leave the dinosaurs alone? Just something, but instead we get told something that everyone in the movie agrees with who is good. And the movie constantly can't sustain itself with the plot. When dinos aren't hunting, everyone's just walking around, not really doing anything. And then the ending with San Diego is fun, but feels inappropriate and out of place. It's hard to describe, but while I enjoy the ending, it doesn't really feel earned. It's a story that I think has a lot of merit, but requires a lot more work.
3. A Lot of Weird Stuff - Using gymnastics against a raptor? Having brownface in a 1997 movie? Running into a dinosaur's jaws because you're scared of snake? A weird british kid getting pecked by compys that somehow kill a grown man?
There's just an ambundance of weird, bad decisions that are frustrating. And killing a dog is an easy way for me not to like your movie.
It has it's problems, but a lot of merits. Overall, it's a good time, although much better to watch scenes in isolation than as a whole movie.
Joker (2019)
A Masterful performance - is all I like
Joaquin Phoenix is often described as one of the greatest actors of all time, and while I haven't seen enough of his movies to confirm that, I think he is excellent here. Arthur Fleck is a fully realised character, a mentally ill loner who is both saddening, pathetic and terrifying. It is Pheonix's performance that makes this movie engaging.
I also really respect that a movie like this with such themes and subject matter is given such a higher budget and mainstream appeal. I would prefer it wasn't based on a pre-existing property but I'm glad that it never feels like a superhero thing.
That's really it.
The first and biggest problem with this movie is that it is so unbearably un-subtle. I think a movie like this should go pretty strong in terms of its themes, but this movie makes its points too obvious. Everyone who is an authority figure in society is so ridiculously evil that we know we're meant to be like - well Joker is bad but maybe if society wasn't so mean. I don't disagree with the themes but its so blatant and unrealistic. There are far better ways to portray rich people then violent aggressive a-holes. Thomas Wayne punching Joker, those subway guys (who were by far the worst actors in the movie) harassing a clearly mentally ill guy and De Niro ranting at a guy who confessed to murder instead of arresting him. It characterises these people in such a way that actually neglects what really makes them so bad.
This goes into a lot of the style of the movie which is just unbearable to me. The actual colour of the movie is really nice, and gives a real grungy feeling to the city. However, the actual shot composition is bad, excluding wide shots. It's either doing a handheld, a really weird hyper focused shot or everything's not quite centered right. It's hard to explain but it disengages me from the movie when I'm distracted by how it looks. The editing is straight up terrible, a ton of shots cutting inappropriately. Whenever a movie, especially a big budget movie, cuts to the exact same shot, cutting out the full clip - that's inexcusably bad. And then there's the music. At first it's unique and atmospheric. Then it's annoying, and you get that in the first ten minutes. That violin is stuck in my head, and not in a good way.
One of the worst things I can say about the movie is that despite being ultra violent and gritty, I felt none of it. I never felt on edge, I never felt shocked by the blood, I occasionally thought it was laughable. Sometimes its just by nature of going that far - I feel like when you try to get shocking you go on the path to either shock or laughter for me. But other times, like that subway scene, it's just that its clearly bad. Whoever thought 'we need a guy throwing chips' or 'we need Arthur and one of the guys to comically run in and out of the carriage to hide from one another' should be fired. And I also just don't buy the city as much as I should. I feel like I need more scenes where I see people who are poor or ill - like Arthur. Thematically it goes into the idea that Arthur isn't the only person affected by this system. It also just presents a character to this city that I feel is lacking.
I understand that it's contrarian to not like this movie, but I just really dislike it. They are making a sequel to this movie anyway which, 1. Kinda destroys all value of this movie and 2. Will probably be worse - but if they do make a sequel, I hope they learn from their mistakes, but judging on this movies success, they probably won't.
Diabolical (2022)
Enjoyable Enough
I really enjoy the Boys. It's not my favourite show or anything, but I've rewatched it quite a bit. I just find the concept pretty good. And I'm also a fan of light cartoon entertainment. Mix that together and what do you get?
An okay show.
This isn't groundbreaking or anything, but for what it's worth I enjoyed it. I should say, on average. I normally dissect everything about the show, but since every episode is pretty different and there are only 8 of them, I'll review them all here:
EP1: 5/10
Eh. It's nicely made but very gimmicky. Like it's really just a simple cartoon you've seen before, but with gore. That's not really going to pull your thoughts on either way, but I overall just thought it was a bit too safe. Like idk, you have a baby who can shoot lasers with her eyes, and every joke was either the normal slapstick stuff or "the guards head exploded!" I definitely wanted to see more dark or funnier scenarios, but it wasn't infuriating or anything. The animation is nice, and I like that they stick to not speaking.
EP2: 7/10
More enjoyable and definitely reminded me of Rick and Morty. The best part of this episode to me was the style, and just how blunt it was. There's not much to get out of it, but it had a little bit of emotion which was nice. I do think though that for an episode like this it really needed something more than what it had. The bluntness is kinda a double edged sword, where while the episode is really fun, it also isn't anything special.
EP3: 7/10
This episode was great fun in showing the boys comic universe, but this one definitely needed more. Like it's really just one scene, and if you haven't read the books you'll be confused by a lot of the character differences, and if you have you won't get the significance or real fun of it. They also didn't show a lot of characters, which was the most disappointing part. Though it was admittingly fun and it did capture the feel of the books, which would be nice for a longer graphic novel adaptation.
EP4: 3/10
Good things about this episode? Its animation, its voice cast. That's it. It's an incredibly obvious work, and although nicely designed not very well thought out. You hear the premise first and you might think about this cool idea where you can turn into whatever you want. Unlimited possibilites, right? Well no it goes for the easiest place and is overall just pretty boring.
EP5: 6/10
This one is getting the lowest reviews, which I can understand, but its not the worse. If anything, this episode is just kinda fun and appealing to me. That being said, it's really juvenile, out of place, and definitely weird. Not great or anything, but I though it was alright.
EP6: 4/10
This one was just kinda forgettable. I like the cast, I like the story, but everything just kinda fell flat. The ending wasn't as clever as it thought, the characters were all kinda unlikable, and I just don't see what they were really trying to do except go 'celebs bad'.
EP7: 6/10
People really like this one, but I thought it was overall just okay. Like I've seen stories like this done before, done better. I also think it suffers from animation styling. Seriously, why would you draw a character whose eyes never open? It's not a narrative thing its completely stylistic and I just couldn't stop thinking about it. Idk the cast is good and the overall emotional connection is nice but its really not anything to write home about.
EP8: 9/10
This is what the series needed. In a short period of time you get a pretty significant story where there's no fat, only the stuff you need. The cast is great, and the animation is nice. It's honestly pretty creepy, the amount of gore is quite disturbing. There's an appropriate amount of humour, and it feels alive in the world of the Boys, but it also feels radically different from the show. In short, different, but very good.
The Batman (2022)
A Solid Outing
It's hard to watch a movie like this and review it irrespective of the other movies. I mean, what can this movie do that the others happened?
And yet I was wrong. Despite having some pretty substantial flaws with the movie I loved it. Kinda.
So let's dive in. The characters are great here, some of the best versions of this character. Pattinson may be my favourite Batman so far, and I really like how distant his character is. Kravitz is a great Catwoman, and Farrell is a great Penguin. I'll always have a preference for the Burton versions but these characters are pretty much entirely different. Jeffrey Wright may be my favourite Gordon, though if I'm being honest I don't find that an especially difficult role to fill. The Riddler is awesome, and one of the best on-screen villains to date. I could've used more of him, but he was the first villain who I thought was genuinely terrifying. Alfred is good, although there isn't much of Andy Serkis if you're expecting him. Another surprise character is played by John Turturro who I thought was really great and probably the best portrayal of this character.
That brings me to the style of this movie. All the movies before this have been very different, and it was a concern of mine that these would be too much like the Nolan ones. But there's a distinct noir influence here that makes this one distinct. The city is grimy and always raining, but not in the sort of over the top Burton landscape of the first two. The action is easily the best part, which I've always thought has been lacking in these movies in general. Batman feels raw, and brutal. There's no sense that this guy is a SUPERhero, he's really in there giving his all. The sound design is great, and very intense. I was worried about the coloring going into the film, but looking on a nice cinema screen it looked really good. And the music REALLY delivers. It's hard to imagine how anyone would possibly expect to match the previous scores, but I feel like this one is pretty great.
And then, we get into the story, which is my biggest weakness. The overall structure of this movie is divided into three acts, I would say, a very long first act, a second act, and a third act. The first act is amazing, and easily what kept me going. It was an easy 10/10. Characters are introduced with good development, there's a lot of good detective scenes, and it's overall just enthralling. And then - to keep it spoiler free, a character begins to stop appearing, and a side plot pops up that honestly wasn't handled well at all. This development leads into a comic book storyline that honestly wasn't handled very well. It could have been, but I thought the movie ultimately didn't commit to what the necessity of that plot required. You'll definitely figure it out once you watch it. That isn't to say its bad, but it is much less engaging then the interesting story the film sets up. And then when they return to the main story the movie is more interesting, but it overall felt pointless. The third act is kinda hampered by this, but it's overall really good. And then - they kinda ruin a certain character by introducing someone else. There was also a few too many times I thought that the Riddler echoed Ledger's Joker. Not in the performance, there were just too many scenes were I was like - hey didn't they already do this?
It's a shame with the story because I think the fundamentals are there, and I would even be able to forgive it if this movie had a lesser story. But the fact that the overarching story is good and then it just looses its footing makes the drop even more of an issue. Which I will say, is also a positive. If you enjoy the middle plot and some of the flaws I mentioned, you might love this movie. I was honestly feeling a 10/10, but I had to detract a bit for some of the negatives.
Definitely worth seeing though.
American Crime Story (2016)
UPDATED FOR SEASON 3
FIRST TWO REVIEWS WRITTEN BEFORE IMPEACHMENT
The People V. OJ Simpson - A mostly factual account of the real life event, this season is surpisingly quite an enjoyable ride. Yes, the murders themselves are brutal and the core of this movie is quite dark, however this season is mostly fun. That's not to say it should be fun necesarily, however it only pokes fun at the ridiculous nature of the trial itself, and not the actual crime. The series has great flowing camerawork, the acting is top notched and it truly is a binge worthy show. This season has been mosty talked to death so I'm mainly focusing on the second season, but I'll just briefly bring up some criticisms with the show - Travolta and Gooding. John Travolta is undoubtedly strange at first, but ultimately his weird impersonation kinda grows on me. Robert Shapiro is a weird character so it kinda works. With Cuba Gooding Jr, I do understand that if you want him to be like OJ, his performance will be disappointing. OJ is commanding, larger than life, and ultimately a lovable presence. I think Cuba gets the essence of what OJ at the time was like. And ultimately, you do feel kinda sympathetic for this guy. If you listen to the real OJ, he lacks the kinda remorse that would make you care, and although the show makes it clear he probably did do it, you still have the sympathy that makes the show intriguing. The best episode in my opinion is either the first episode or the ninth.
The Assassination of Gianni Versace - I know this is not a popular opinion, but I loved this season, probably more than the first. Part of the problem as to why it was less popular is clear - this is a lesser known story, the show is not nearly as binge worthy as the first season and ultimately the idea seemed kinda boring and cynical. I initially thought this random guy killed Versace because he was some sort of obsessed fan - that's the show. Little did I know how much there was to this story. Being a lesser known story made it more interesting to uncover what had happened. I had no idea who Andrew Cunanan was, and that was the fun of the show. He was a serial killer which I had no idea about. The interesting thing as well is the enigma. In the OJ case he enigma was who killed Nicole and Ron, in the Impeachment story the enigma will probably be around the morality of Bill Clinton. The enigma here is far more interesting to me - why did he do it? And although the show gives you a lot of evidence, you don't really know why. Andrew never says why he killed anyone - at least truthfully. The show also has a great soundtrack and score (esecially a lot of the musical stings for Andrew and the opening Adagio in D minor) similarly beautiful camerawork, which captures a lot more beauty than the OJ show due to the world around Andrew Cunanan. And of course, no one else can be praised more than Darren Criss. He captures both the flamboyant charm of who Andrew pretends to be, and the true sociopath that lies beneath. As less of an ensemble piece, Darren becomes the centre star, and keeps the show s engaging as it is. It should be noted that this show is not a fun experience like the OJ show - almost all of the characters in the show have a sad ending, and when we start at there lowest point and travel back to their highest, it makes the show even more sad. So don't go into this expecting to finish it in a day. However it is definitely a story I recommend exploring. The best episode in my opinion is the last one, followed closely by the second last.
Impeachment - Initially watching this I was going to have this as the last place season, even though I enjoyed it, but about halfway through I think this season really went up for me. At the moment I still maintain the second season is my favourite but I'm not sure about its placement with the first. Both 1 and 2 start off running, with a plot that immediately starts rolling. 3 starts pretty slow, and although entertaining it doesn't have a real focus. The other negative is that I didn't like the color of the show. 1 and especially 2 have very bright and colorful shots, while 3 is quite muted, which occasionally makes the show look ugly. By the second half, however, I changed my mind. As things happen to Monica, everything unravels, and we get a spiral out into some of the strongest episodes of this series. The color also got used to me, and I think there are some more memorable shots. The strongest aspect of this season though was the central three characters. Beanie Feldstein is the real star of this season as Monica Lewinsky, who becomes by far the most likable character on the show and one of the most sympathetic characters of any television show. Sarah Paulson is great as Linda Tripp, an interestingly morally grey character who although does bad things, we feel kinda bad for her. Clive Owen as Bill Clinton is one of those choices you hear and think "really?" But after the second episode you're sold. Not only does he get the mannerisms down pat, but he gives a lot of intensity to the performance that is difficult to give especially on someone who's been parodied so much. The season is less about him and more about the women he affects, and soon afterwards the media affects. The interesting thing to me is that Bill Clinton, while definitely a villain in this story, is not the only one who causes harm. Linda Tripp acts as a vehicle for this theme of people using a real life tragedy as a vehicle for their own political agenda. It's a really heartbreaking story that leaves you devastated at the site of many of these characters, although it's always great to know that Monica Lewinsky is doing quite well for herself nowadays. While it starts a little slow, wait until Episode 6, and after watching it you will be hooked. The best episodes are just the latter half with a consistently great quality, so just episodes 6-10.
BioShock Infinite (2013)
Big Budget Art
BioShock Infinite was released to almost universal praise. Now, it's a bit different. It's clear that the game is not largely hated but there's certainly a large amount of people who believe that the game is disappointing, not as great as people will often say. But in my opinion BioShock Infinite is truly a work of art, a game that showcases both entertaining and fun gameplay with an engaging an interesting world with deep and thoughtful themes and storytelling. To analyse all the different factors present in people's opinions, I'm gonna examine the three quintessential aspects of this game. They are: Presentation, gameplay, and themes/analysis.
Presentation:
Bioshock has always been presented well. All the games have great graphics, but they aren't the best of the best for their time. The visuals is what is truly remembered. Bioshock Infinite is distinctively set in the 1910s, with beautiful architecture, steampunk aesthetics and colourful locales. Infinite is truly beautiful with all of its landscapes of the blue sky and huge cityscapes. The sound design is great as always, but changed for an older approach to technology. The design of each land gives distinct differences that are more extreme than in Bioshock to give Colombia a real world quality due to the proper architecture and also just better engagement. The game greatly utilises color and lighting to emphasise different feelings. In the opening parts of the game, Colombia is bright and vibrant, even when bad things happen. But when we are meant to feel the gravity of events to come, we see the colors darker, the lighting more extreme, as the world glitches out. People generally like the presentation - the world feels realised and the sci fi feels understandable due to the way its presented, A common criticism is that the game's character's are too stylised, compared to its trailer. Personally I prefer the stylised characters. Not only does it help stand the test of time against realistic graphics that would date the game, it makes the game feel unique. Another criticism is the gore. This isn't a big one but I heard this made by some guy who did Gears of War, a franchise I know little of. The criticism is that in this colorful and magical world, the gore becomes excessive as a result of the contrast. Firstly, that also happens in the Bioshock games. Secondly, that's the point. The gore is pretty shocking, and while not sickening there's a real sense that you're guy's being pretty bad. The fact that you're guy is killing misguided people kinda makes people think it's a bit weird I guess, but that's the point. DeWitt is a morally flexible character, and the game mostly makes pacifists arguments.
Gameplay:
I remember playing the game as part of the collection in 2016, and although I still thought that the game was the best of the series, After playing Bioshock 1 and 2 I felt as though the gameplay was the weakest aspect, as it felt like an average shooter with a few little gimmicks. In replaying the game, I don't think that at all. The RPG aspects of Bioshock and the inventiveness are gone, that's true. I'm okay with that as long as it's replaced with an engaging system, and I love this system. People who dislike this game really criticise this aspect because it feels very standard and generic, and although it's more shooting focused than the other games, I'd disagree. There's a lot of room to move around in combat, and enough variety in weapons that gives you strategy coming into combat. The skyhook is the best addition, giving you a lot of momentum, and giving you the feeling of movement, which is needed. There's not too much cover, and enemies move around a lot, meaning you have to be moving and engaging. Ammo and salt is low enough so that you can't just stand in a corner and win a fight, but you also won't ever be im a situation where you're struggling to find weapons. Elizabeth to me is a clear standout of the game. She pretty much only helps, and is never a liability, which narratively helps because when you don't have her the game is more restricted, and when she's around not only do you have more dialogue you have more abilities. In replaying the game I was surprised at how many more RPG aspects there were. There was a pretty decent customisation options that was helped by the fact that you couldn't buy a lot, meaning you had to really make wise choices. I would've enjoyed wider maps with more secrets and little dialogue bits, but overall I think we get a decent bit with secrets that all lead to better combat and abilities, meaning looting is actually advisable.
Analysis:
The big one. Bioshock Infinite has been the attention of a lot of critical analysis, and for good reason. Bioshock Infinite makes much more apparent it's philosophical aspirations, delving to directly confront the player with it's questions, and refusing to give all the answers. Before all this though, there's Colombia, which is really done. Like Bioshock 1, there's the political themes, and then the story themes that become more relevant in the story. Colombia is a society dedicated on American Exceptionalism, that values the ideas of a White Man's society over all else. At first there's a lot of funny ways of this life, as although Colombia is a bit cultish, they just seem quaint and silly in their traditions. But after enjoying yourself, you're forced to watch a public beating of a black woman and an Irish man (probably one of the first things that made me and many others realise that Irish people used to be discriminated against). There's some pretty horrific imagery, and it pulls no punches. At the end of the day, it can't be stopped with a few words. This isn't Wolfenstein, the bad guys don't get stopped easily. Daisy Fitzroy simply acts on violence and revenge, justifiably so but also pointing out that revolutions can't always do the right thing - they can be misled. And unfortunately, not only do they do bad things, they ultimately don't succeed because they can't. As it is said, no matter what they do, what they change, Colombia's war with America is inevitable. Why? Because the affects of racism and nationalism cannot be undone in one generation. Maybe slow change can be made, but one person can never make this change. And this goes into the ending, which is perfectly executed. Unlike Bioshock 1, which kinda drops the ball with its ending, Infinite opts to spent lengthy time on the ending, which explains pretty much everything that's been occuring, albeit in a vague manner so you can draw your own conclusions. Infinite never concludes what happens here. Burial At Sea answers a bit, saying that Booker is dead, and that one Elizabeth survived, but she lost her powers so she can't be 100% reliable. My belief is that Booker's sacrifice could only do so much. In the scene where your cross the lighthouse, my reflection has always been that they represent the different games, because like the game says these events have things that will happen and things that won't. I personally believe that their are infinite versions of this that Elizabeth couldn't foresee, and DeWitt may have done something, but not to every universe. This goes into the idea that things cannot be removed, cannot be undone. But also, the fact that something may have happened brings an interesting question of pacifism vs. Violence, in the fact that an act on oneself rather than violence or war is what saves the day. The story shows a lot of violence, which ultimately either leads to more bloodshed, or nothing. But it's never cut and dry, and these are all questions. And these questions vary on the person.
Bioshock Infinite is a game which challenges the notion that big budget games have to fit a narrow artistic scope to satsify fans craving a similar experience. As many others who love this game, I want more games that both gives us new enjoyable experiences wrapped around with worlds that make me interested and asking questions.
Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception (2011)
My Personal Favourite
This is a game that a lot of people criticise. Not a lot of people hate it or anything, but there always seems to be something preventing people from loving this one, especially since they tend to prefer 2 or 4. And yet I find Uncharted 3 to be the best of the franchise, and possibly the best action adventure game out there.
There are positives I can attribute to this game as an individual work. I can say, the gameplay is amazing, I can point out the amazing graphics, the cinematic talents in both cutscenes and gameplay. But yet, this is all common in this series. I think the best way to do this is to compare it to the other series and why I think it is better. These might be only minor for some, but the overall presence of all these make this game the best in the franchise.
1. The engagement. Uncharted is essentially an Indiana Jones game - as such our character should be constantly moving to locations. Not only does this give a sense of grandeur for the story, but it keeps gameplay that may be similar feeling exhilarating. In 1 this is a huge problem because we are mostly at the same scenery. 4 is like this for the first half, but in the second half we get reserved in the forest. In 2 this is less of a problem, however I would say that in the second half the action set pieces and overall gameplay is less with the introduction of those annoying yetis. 3 is constantly moving from country to country, and even when we stay at a country each chapter focuses on a new area. This movement not only helps the atmosphere but helps keeping new sections rewarding.
2. The gameplay. I think this is the strongest game in this regard. Firstly, we get introduced to the best melee combat system, which is not only ridiculously fun but helps a lot to the combat system. 1's gun fights suck, but 2 and 4 are also great. In 2 the standout are the big set pieces, a.k.a the heli chase and the train while the less linear action can get frustrating when it introduces the villagers. In 4, there are much less action set pieces, but the actual free combat is much better and consistently fun and challenging. In 3, there is a consistent blend of the both which are both very challenging. For example, you'll get those water sections in the ship graveyard, which are very difficult but also very fun. Then in the next chapter becomes more linear giving more movie thrills. The set pieces in my mind are the best in the series, and the gun fights may also be my personal favourite.
3. Story. Personally I don't find these games the right avenues to have amazing stories, as some might be surprised to here. Some people think "oh these games are cinematic so there stories are good." The story in these games need to be clear. It's not about the story - it's about the characters and the feel of adventure. 2 has a very well told story, but I find that it slows down a lot in the second half. The first half has a lot of twists and turns, and is greatly accentuated by the fact that we know something bad is gonna happen. Once this bad thing happens, we get introduced to the mystical things, the whole bad guy stuff etc. Pretty much we focus more on the story than we need to, because ultimately it should be about the characters. 4 clearly tries the most with the story, and has more effective beats. Overall I prefer 3's because I don't like it's lack of commitment. 3 and 4 have a similar "Drake needs to be less obsessed" story, which 4 commits a lot more to. However, in 4 my biggest problem was the lack of a real change. Without spoilers a twist happens, Drake doesn't do to well, and something bad should happen but it doesn't really. 3 has a similar plot, excluding the whole retirement angle, but the difference is huge. Firstly, it doesn't set up that something bad is going to happen to these characters, more that threats are in the way. As such, I don't feel cheatened when people don't die. Secondly, the section in the middle, in which Drake is completely alone, are very difficult and through natural gameplay and storytelling, convey much more a sense of Drake deliberately enabling himself. I also think that story wise it gives enough to Drake's character to understand his connection to justify his actions and feel compelling.
These are three things that I think the game does a lot better. Now, the Uncharted games aren't very different, so to compare other things doesn't really achieve anything to me. However it's this small group of things that establish this game as a slight step above the others.
Kaifuku Jutsushi no Yarinaoshi (2021)
Sick, Disgusting, Repulsive, Irredeemable, Etc.
Here's the basic premise. A healer who gets abused travels in another life comes to get revenge on his abusers. Emphasis on revenge. A fantasy anti-hero story right? Fun enough, right?
Without a doubt, Redo of Healer is the worst thing I have ever watched in my life, specifically the finale episode. Now, to be fair, I have not seen every single minute of every single episode. I initially watched the final episode of season 1, which i mistakenly thought was the pilot. As it'll become clear later, this may be the biggest reason I hate this show so much. While I am ashamed of myself for having the curiosity to watch this vile trash, I had to skim through the series afterwards. I watched like all I needed to know, which wasn't a whole bunch.
The plot is a mess, deciding to start immediately with the action. As such the character is immediately unrelatable. We don't see much of his abuse, it's only brought in through flashbacks. But he is so unlikable - besides what he does, he has no real personality, and he's really just evil, but they make him comical and try to make us like him. The art style is generic, looking like any anime fantasy world, and lacking any real interesting world building. The characters are all one note, the themes are non existent, the humour is cringey. Even if I didn't have such strong objections to the show I would still hate it.
But the obvious objections to the show are from the "edgy" factors. I like edgy stories - I like Elfen Lied, a much superior anime that has gore utilised for story not just shock value, sexualisation that is character specific and not just for all women, and darkness that is held with themes to give reason for darkness. Redo of Healer on the other hand has nothing but shock value. People might hesitate and say "but it's about the ethics of revenge". Name one moment where we are meant to question the ethics of the character. The edginess of the abuse he suffers is shock value intended to make us hate the villains. The shock value of the hero's actions are meant to make us laugh - or more detestable reactions. My point is there is no point to the edge factor. I can watch a movie where someone is viciously tortured - my reaction will never be enjoyment, but i may like the movie if i feel like there's a point to it. Otherwise, it just becomes sick detestable garbage.
And that's my main problem. You're meant to have a revenge movie with an anti-hero, someone who might have justifiable motivations but not good actions. There's two ways to take this. There's the action schlock way, where it's sort of a power fantasy. An example would be, say someone bad uses a keyboard a lot, and our protagonists blows off his hands. We are having fun, because it isn't too dark and serious and we relate to the protagonist in a distant power fantasy. The other way, which allows no restriction on how violent you wanna get, is when the character is more greatly questioned, and the world is morally grey. The problem is, the protagonist is clearly a hero. He stops the bad guys, he saves the day. We don't see the heroes point of view challenged, he is never seen as evil, he is meant to be likable. So while the detestable things he does should make us question his morality, the show seems to treat him like a power fantasy. We are meant to enjoy the evil he does, and he crosses a line that I can't enjoy.
This is where I get to the parts you probably are thinking about. The protagonist, to be clear, doesn't just kill people. He tortures them, has them eaten to death. Oh, and rapes them. I saw the finale, and that's what immediately disgusted me. I'll admit, I threw up. To be clear, it isn't visually disgusting, nor is it meant to gross you out - that's what disgusted me most. A character is violated so extremely and in such an extreme and detailed fashion that we should be shocked and horrified, and yet clearly the intended desire is for enjoyment. People are meant to enjoy rape. I am not kidding. If you are a sicko who gave this 10/10, you are okay with this. Firstly, people who are raped don't want to do the same thing to their abusers. Secondly, it is so blatantly sexist I'm just shocked. All the women are beautiful objects for his consumption. Except the lesbian, who is killed in the most violent way, despite not doing anything worse than anyone else.
This show is just disgusting. I've had to rewrite this review multiple times to get it accepted without bad words, because it is just THAT bad. If you enjoy this show, fine, but please, recognise that this main character is a PSYCHOPATH.
The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)
A Shockingly Bad Movie
Sony's (TM) Amazing Spider-Man (TM) from 2012 (TM) is possibly one of my least favourite big budget movies. I'd even go to say that the terrible sequel is SLIGHTLY better.
Now I gave this a 2, so let's be far and talk about the positives. I like what Andrew Garfield is going for, and HIS idea of the character of Spider-Man. I have lots of problems with this interpretation but it has little to do with him. Emma Stone is always great, although she's given very little to do, and Gwen Stacy never becomes a really interesting character. This has the best interpretation of Flash. The special effects are good. The idea of the villain is good. Dennis Leary is good. I like the idea of Uncle Ben's death. I like the idea of the transformation into Spider-Man. I like the web shooters.
And then there's everything else:
The Script: In essence, the story is essentially the same as the original, just sub out the Green Goblin for the Lizard. Now, I understand that you have to make differences and you should, but when you base your story on an already tight one and mess around, bad things tend to happen. The Lizard is established much later in the film, Uncle Ben's death plays a much smaller role, they place an unnecessary importance on Oscorp and his parents etc. The overall effect is that the pacing is clunky because the story isn't as directional as the 2002 one. In the 2002 one we know what the film is trying to get to. In this one when we get to establishing Oscorp, I don't know the point is so I kind of doze off. The Raimi movies make it clear what's happening - yes maybe because they are more silly. But I think that if you have less of a fast paced plot you gotta be showing an interesting story, and we really aren't. The origin story is interesting. But when he pretty much becomes Spider-Man in 10 minutes, it doesn't matter. You should stretch that out the whole movie, and maybe he only gets the proper costume until the last fight. Instead we have this weird POLICE V SPIDERMAN plot, and the Lizard who is too ridiculous that the film needs to desperately take less seriously. Overall the story is a mess.
The Direction: Here I'm just talking about what the ideas are. Spider-Man here is presented as kinda cool? He's the movie kid who maybe gets in trouble with the bullies, but he's not a DORK. I don't mind if they want to make him more normal, but you can't go and make him so stereotypically kool. I like how he plays it, but the movie needed to cool it down with the jokes. Like the movie is so dark and serious then we have scenes where he's having fun with a bank robber or playing against the bullies. Like, have him make quips during the fights, yes, but you don't need to dedicate scenes to this. Not only is it tonal whiplash, it's not that funny. And I still don't get it with this vigilante thing. They have this idea that Spider-Man is a batman, who just beats up criminals. That's fine if you want to do that, but they can't seem to make up their mind. There should be news stories where people have divisive talks about Spider-Man, we should see public reactions to Spider-Man. We never get real criticism from people, just Dennis Leary, and everyone seems to love him. And jesus the Lizard is just goofy. Why keep the voice when he's a Lizard? When I hear 'Ppooor Peter Parker!" How can I take that seriously? The thing is, if you just make the Lizard more scary, and pretty much make him insane, then you can make it work. But it's really strange. The whole movie balances this tone of really dark and gritty, and really light hearded and fun, but because it can't handle both very well, the serious things become boring and the fun things become stupid.
The Action: How can you honestly follow up the Raimi ones with this? Now, every movie nowadays uses mainly CGI in their fight scenes, so I don't have a problem that they shifted away from using more in camera effects. The impact of the punches is lost, and you can't really compare the shot choreography to Raimi's. But even compared to the marvel Spider-Man movies, or even AS2, these are pretty weak. One things that those movies do is use a lot of exaggerated movement that tracks the action perfectly because they have the ability to do so. In this cases, there are exaggerated camera moves, not a lot, but overall not a good focus on the fight. It feels like a lot of nice colour, but nothing really happening. You'll look at the raimi movies and they have a lot of close to close fight which shows reaction sounds and impact sounds to feel like things are happening. In the MCU movies there are lots of colour in more high range fights. For example when fighting the Vulture, Spider-Man contrasts the background so see him swinging, and when we see the Vulture who contrasts the background in a different colour, we go "spiderman cant touch that". It requires less impact but because it's so fast and our eyes show the threat we know what's happening. These movies are a bad mix, where they go for the brawling but lack the feel of impacts and have fast moves but lack visual clarity. Overall fight scenes are just nice effects, nothing more.
The Music: The score is bland, nothing particularly bad, but nothing memorable, which to me can be okay. If the score just acts to help the mood, I don't need something I'll listen on repeat. However, the score is used way too inappropriately. Spider-Man is swinging down the underside of a bridge. WHIMSICAL SPIDERMAN MUSIC - how cool, spiderman swinging a few metres above the ground. Parker intimidates bullies - quirky comedy music. I didn't find that scene funny, but when I put up the music, it suddenly became hilarious. I like music in scenes but come on, it doesn't need to dictate the mood. But the soundtrack - Oh god. These songs were picked by the guy who was like "I don't listen to rap like guys my age, I listen to really indie music" and it's the most generic and yet most annoying music you've ever heard. Sorry if you like these songs.
The Editing: Bad editing is something you can just tell. Bad editing normally is when you get distracted by a cut. For example, if I was just talking and you cut on each word I said, you'd get distracted because the cut didn't follow any reason. Obviously this movie doesn't do anything like that. It's small little edits. I feel like often the movie cuts to the other person right as their finishing, not just as they've finished. Shots often feel a little shorter than they should be. Like you might see someone do something, and it finished just as it's done. I know this may sound nit picky, but to me it's not. Editing is necessary, and good editing keeps us engaged and unfocused on the constant changing pictures. This movie doesn't do that. If I had to guess why this is, I think the editor of this movie sat down and told they need to make the movie shorter. Instead of cutting out scenes, because they probably couldn't have, they trimmed out as much little bits as they could to add to the runtime. It probably didn't affect most people's experience. It did affect mine.
Overall, this movie is really confused. I might like some ideas, I think, but everything is told so poorly I can't like it. I can't commend the efforts it did at telling the story because it was made five years after the last, so there was no real reason to create this new world. People like to call these movies drab and boring, but to me that's not this movies worst offense. It is frustratingly unclear and messy, to the point where little enjoyment can be found.
Death of a Nation (2018)
Would Legit Be Such A Good Satire
Death of a Nation is another one of D'Souza's movies that is so poorly made that it has no chance of persuading anyone who isn't feverishly in love with his opinions. I don't like writing about politics on imdb, that's not what this platform is for, but to me this movie is just so poorly made that I don't even need to talk about why his points are bad and wrong. That comes down to two issues.
1. The ridiculous over-emotional production. Now, I get that this is really important to Dinesh, but this movie does not need to be extreme as it is. Constantly music is blaring in every scene to indicate the emotion you are meant to feel. The evil lefties come on, the imperial march starts playing as we fear the end of everything. Then Trump comes on, and we get uplifting country sounds to remind us that Trumps is A GOSHDARN 'MERICAN. I don't mind using music but when you really want us to feel something in a documentary, that's when you turn the music off and just show us raw interviews, footage etc. We see Dinesh exploring the city, desperate to discover the truth. Just watching the movie you get a clear sense of narcissism, as Dinesh not only talks about himself in great detail but in lots of self congratulation. But the real highlight is the Nazi subplot. Someone thought to put in third rate Hitler to make this seem more connected. It only ties up to the ridiculous "National SOCIALISM is actually left-wing" argument that I swear he's made in another movie, but otherwise just brings a lot of unintentional entertainment value. Like seriously they get the most lazy hitler ever.
2. Actually convincing anybody. If you aren't completely on his side, you won't be persuaded by this. To me it's not just a matter of disagreement. D'Souza doesn't give a real argument as to why "Dems bad" and "Trump good". He likes Trump because he wont support the terrible democrats, but it's never explicitly clear why the democrats are so bad. He basically says they supported fascism and racism etc but never explains why they still do (which he kinda implies). He implies that the left wants socialism. I understand to a lot of people hear that word and throw up, but even then those people are never given any reason to believe that because D'Souza never really explains how they are socialist. Part of the problem is that he only debates right wing people so that he can't really argue the positions. Even if he just did out of clips and what people say, he is so ridiculously inconsistent with his depictions. For most of the movie, he likes to call dems the REAL fascists. But then occassionally he just takes time to show clips of lefties to insult them. Considering he never makes a distinction between liberals and lefties it just comes across as though he doesn't really have a good argument, he's just insulting the people he disagrees with.
Here's the thing - if I was Dinesh I'd do a bunch differently that would make it much better:
1. Interview democrat politicians and horribly edit them out of context.
2. Swap the Hitler scenario with a Stalin one, that way more people are convinced
3. Address the sex scandals by saying "But democrats had Bill Clinton"
4. Actually make arguments as to why the Dems are still racist
5. Not put music over all my scenes
6. Talk to Trump to make people like him more.
How hard is that?
But if he did that, then I wouldn't have something to convince conservatives not to be conservative. So thanks Dinesh!
Dragon Age II (2011)
A Great Mess
Bioware remains one of my favourite game developers, but as of recently, they've fallen down a bit. After Mass Effect: Andromeda, the studios have been steering clear from the formula that worked so well in their classic games. While I have problems with them now, many would argue that Dragon Age 2 was essentially the mark of the end of Bioware, withe Mass Effect 2 being their last truly great game. Now I could argue extensively about that against Mass Effect 3 and Dragon Age Inquisitions, but Dragon Age 2 is a much more interesting affair.
Dragon Age 2 took nine months to produce. Now, that might seem like a long time, but lets compare it to other Bioware games. Production of Origins took 4 years, more than 5 times the time it took to develop 2. Granted, the first game in a series usually takes the longest because it has to develop the ideas that are present through these series. But look at Mass Effect 2 and 3, which both took over 2 years to complete. Dragon Age 2 was obviously rushed, and it shows. Dragon Age 2 is a game that, size wise is nothing to Origins. Gone are the multiple origins, instead you are always Hawke. The story is much more linear, forcing you into three acts of the game compared to the freedom of Origins. And the overall game is just shorter - on my first playthroughs of both, excluding DLC, Origins took me at 42 hours while 2 put me at 28. Considering that it has less replay value as a result of removing these freedoms and customisations, 2 is much smaller than Origins.
That being said, 2 is still very good. The combat is much faster paced and more engaging. The storyline offers a lot of interesting world building and ideas that greater explore the world of Dragon Age. As a result of being more linear, the story is more personal to Hawke, meaning it has more importance to the player in some areas. The writing is fantastic, adding a lot more personality to the multiple characters. The companions are probably the best part of the game: Origins was good in this regard, but suffered from a few underdeveloped companions who seemed to be there just to add more classes. All the characters are distinct and interesting, with different motivations to drive them and different feelings on the story.
I think the overall feeling of being smaller world and story actually benefits the game quite a lot. Thematically, in a long series, once you go "ok here's the next world ending bad guy!" the world becomes less real and more just an excuse to justify a game. The darkspawn are barely in the game - the game's central conflict is between the mages and templars, a conflict that while important is never billed as world ending, more just a crucial moment in this world and important to its politics. Which is what the series is about - dragon age is about making difficult choices. Its a world with politics that are never morally obvious. My main concern was that you couldn't make a lot of choices going into this game. That's not true at all - there are quite a lot of interesting dilemmas and choices to make that are never obviously true or false, that do have ramifications for the world. To me, it is only disappointing at customising who your character is compared to the first game, because there are a lot of choices here. I was initially wary of putting the Mass Effect dialogue wheel here, but ultimately they change it up to make it work and not feel locked into being good or bad.
So ultimately, I don't care about it's short length, and I love the world and ideas of this game. So why don't I love it? Well firstly, the story ultimately isn't that good. I think overall it works less as a sum of its parts. Sections of this game are really great, but a lot of it doesn't add up to the main story. I don't mind having side quests that don't add up to the story but more to the world, as the side quests in this game are better than the first. Your main quests need to follow through. This problem doesn't become apparent until the end of the first act. The whole idea of the first act is that everything you are doing is to fund an expedition to the Deep Roads. Now, you would be anticipating that leads to something that leads off into the rest of the story, right? No, instead this leads to Varric's companion quests and the removal of a companion, which although makes a good quests, demonstrates that the plot really doesn't have a focus. I like the development of the mage templar conflict but it is never made clear that this is the big threat. I don't mind that there isn't a central villain, but there needs to be a central conflict that I can go "that needs to be resolved", even if it gets defeated and leads to the next big issue. Lack of focus is a big thing, and the other huge thing is gameplay. Now yes, it plays better than the other game, but the developers really didn't seem to worry about repition. People like to talk down on this game because the graphics are bad and re use a lot of assets. That's not quite true - personally I like the updated design, but the reuse assets isn't quite true because they don't go that low. You see, in a game this big you would expect reusing assets to create environments. But no, they literally use the same level. They have an asset of these levels, and they use the same one again and again. Sure, theyll change where the enemies are, put the exits differently, but you're always playing the same different location. That's bad enough for a game with side quests, but when you also do this for main quests, that's unforgettable. The game quickly becomes mind numbing because you literally are fighting in the exact same place. Dragon Age Origins would have varying environments for visual variety and different challenges, but in this game you know all of them by five hours in. And for a game called Dragon Age, jeez do you spend so much more time in a city fighting bandits than you do in beautiful lands fighting supernatural foes.
Overall, Dragon Age is a game that lacks clear focus and suffers from repititive gameplay. But if you can forgive this game for this, you will experience some of the most interesting world building that any media has to offer.
Gotham (2014)
A Mixed Bag
Gotham is a show that is overall kinda confused at what it wants to do, which is it's biggest problem. I'm sure that it would've made a fantastic pitch, and it's premise is truly great. I'm a big fan of Batman's Rogue Gallery, so a whole show that revolves around their origins? I'm for that. And while I have lots of problems with the show, make no mistake at times the show is exactly what you want it to be. There are episodes which are truly brilliant. But overall it's not a particularly good show.
Let's start with the positives. While I have problems with the visuals (more later) the show is significantly above your regular show, especially for a show which has many episodes per season. The production design is fantastic, and the sets feel lived in and real. For a smaller budget, it's impressive how much they could do to create Gotham and whatever time period it takes place. There are also fantastic story arcs surrounding the show, mostly around Jerome Valeska. The acting can be fantastic, and the characters and the stories are great. Notable characters in this world to me are Valeska, the Riddler, the Penguin and Alfred.
Onto the negatives. The show is chock full of characters, many of them I like and are interesting, many are also irritating, like Barbara Kean, Poison Ivy, Mad Hatter, etc. Etc. Too many to me, especially in a show meant to be a gritty show about the origins of these characters, are just "evil for evils" sake. A lot of these villains have such interesting stories and ideas from the comics that it's not difficult to take that and twist it into something interesting which is why it's so frustrating. My biggest gripe though is that the main characters are just so bland. Most police procedurals and long standing shows have the problem where the main characters are not given much room to grow, which can be excusable when the characters are good. Unfortunately, Harvey Bullock is the most stock of "gruff police officers" you've ever found, while Gordon is surprisingly dull. Other than him being a "good man" I don't really know what there is to say. Considering we spend the most time we these characters, the show often becomes a slog, because we have to listen to these characters who aren't interesting.
A big problem to me is just the look of the show. First off, the production is good as I said, and while their may be bad SFX, I can excuse that due to budget. However, what I cannot excuse is how the show looks in general. I understand that a show like this won't have great lighting or shots due to how quick it needs to be made, but I cannot excuse how it generally looks. It's given a low contrast look, which I'm not opposed to, and cinematographers can make it work espeically in the day, which is when the show looks good. But when you get lots of browns, it looks ugly, which is what the show often looks like. I don't know how to describe this but when you add that to the often goofy costumes, it gives the show a cheap quality that it doesn't actually have. Combine that with also the very silly and overbearing score which often takes away from the show. If the show had taken away the score, changed the design of the costumes into something more realistic, then the looks of these shots would make sense. Yet this sort of contrast between a serious look, and ridiculous costumes and music don't work, whereas a more consistent vision would've worked better.
Overall, I would recommend looking up good episodes. The best episodes to me where the third episode of season 2 and the finale of season 4, which are both the end of separate story arcs. For the whole show, I would recommend skipping through significant portions if you want to enjoy yourself.
Promising Young Woman (2020)
My Favourite Film of 2020
There's no doubt in my mind that this film is my favourite. To be completely honest, 2020 sucked in terms of filmmaking (obviously everything else as well) so that isn't saying much. But Promising Young Woman is a movie that utilises a great soundtrack and score, fantastic acting and great direction to create a fantastic film. To me this is a movie that both works as an entertaining revenge film (with a twist) and a fascinating exploration of its themes.
I think to get an idea of why this movie works for me I'd have to point out the one star reviews here. There are always a bunch of one star reviews that say stuff like "acting bad, director bad, writer bad, bad movie" which don't explain why they dislike the movie at all, but I'm looking at the main criticisms people have. I think to me there's main criticisms that is made, four main ones, that when I defend, explain why the movie is so great in my opinion. In no particular order of regularity, they are:
'The movie's too boring, where's Thanos?"
Kinda an annoying one for me, because I doubt these people actually sat through the movie. I think the first half an hour before cassie decides to go after the guy is slower and less entertaining, which I can see as one of the answers. To me though, the movie immediately becomes an interesting revenge flick after this, and even if you don't like it to call it boring doesn't make any sense to me. Also, I watch a lotta movies, and do normally stop thirty minutes through if I don't like it. But that's normally when I HATE the movie and what it's doing, not because not much is happening. Like I said this movie is kinda like a gender swapped idea of a macho man action flick. By that not only do I mean the lead is a woman but the film feels more feminine - rather than 'splosions and violence this movie is colourful and deceptively beautiful. But it's a movie with a lot of music, an interesting dramatic arc and a satisfying conclusion (more later) for our character. I don't get this.
"The movie is innappropriately treating it's subject."
This is one of those ones which I understand, but don't agree with at all. Yes, this is a more entertaining movie that gets surrounded by a serious topic. And I understand that the idea of a rape revenge film is kind of iffy. But here's the thing. We are never SHOWN what happens. The movie is too stylized to show what actually happened, so it actually never just makes it part of the movie in a sense, because it kinda exists outside the movie realm, if that makes sense. But the main reason is that the movie is thematically about the nature of the 'nice guy'. This movie is really realistic about what occurs. It isn't some guy who violently attacks and assaults this person, because that isn't typically what happens. The problem to me is that this is the way art works. A movie that accurately explains the nature of this in a stark, realistic way is very unengaging and also lacks a lot of the deeper things you can do when your movie is free to be as artsy as you want. This is an argument that a lot of people have about art in general, and to me as someone who likes art that tackles explicit and mature subjects, I think this film handles its subjects very well.
"THIS MOVIE PAINTS ALL MEN AS EVIL ITS SEXIST!!!"
Well firstly, the people who say this haven't watched the film. Both Clancy Brown and Alfred Molina portray characters who are not okay with sexual assault. Secondly, and most importantly, what, do you want the movie to introduce all these male characters who are good just to be like "in reality, most men aren't like that?" I mean, I've watched the Sopranos, and I don't think most Italian Americans are involved with the mafia.
"The ending ruins the movie"
A big one. This is one of those risky endings, which'll work well for some and poorly for others. Now technically, the REAL final twist is that she had this backup plan which catches them all. But most are referring to her death. It's definitely shocking, and people usually react negatively to shocking. To me, it's the way in which it's done. Our main character isn't gunned down as they heroically try to stop the villains - she is suffocated in an extended long shot. Though I'll note, she dies struggling back as the villain is crying and hysterical, noting that she isn't going to be killed in a sexual or submissive way to diminish her status as a strong character. To me it goes into the film. The film is coloured with vibrant colors that express a lavish world, almost a utopian world. Everyone seems to be enjoying this world, ignoring the problems that is occurring. Because ultimately it is an illusion, because our world is far from perfect. To me, if she just won easily and walked away, that signifies that there is an easy way out. She would have killed him too easily. The fact that she gets killed showcases that at the end of the day, this fantasy revenge story is still a fantasy. In our society, sexual assault survivors rarely succeed without substantial loss. It is unfortunate, but the movie makes points that it is something we can change with our attitudes. We all know people like the men in the movie, the people who either participate in this behaviour or think it is acceptable. But we are the people who need to be holding these people accountable, and hope one day we will.
The Sopranos (1999)
One of the Greatest and Most Important TV Shows
There is not much that can be added to the Sopranos. It is a masterpiece in storytelling that uses its characters to make statements about an array of topics. It can be both very real and very abstract. It is a show that is brutal and tough to watch, but also deeply entertaining and funny. There is so much that can be said, so I just wanted to summarise my thoughts into each respective season.
For reference, here is my ranking of the seasons, from best to worst (although none of the seasons are bad, more like perfect to great): 3, 6B, 1, 5, 2, 6A, 4
Also my top five episodes, in no particular order, would have to be, Funhouse, Pine Barrens, Test Dream, Long Term Parking and Blue Comet.
S1: The season that started it all. This is definitely a highlight: we get introduced to a bunch of characters that all become instantly memorable. Not all of them: I would say Silvio, AJ, And Adriana take a while to become great characters. But the storyline is fantastic. It's a mob story, but with a twist: he's seeing a shrink. At first it's a simple mob story, but it becomes a power struggle against Junior. This mob story turns into a tragic revelation of his mother, who becomes the real villain. It's unfortunate of what occurred in real life because Livia Soprano is such a great character, her legacy becoming pivotal to the show even in death. What's important is creating utterly terrible characters that we like and care about. Tony is a devoted family man. Paulie is a wisecracker. And Christopher just wants to work in the movies. The best episodes in the season are the Pilot, College, Legend of Tennessee Moltesanti, Isabella and I Dream of Jeannie Cusamano.
S2: This is generally one of the most well regarded seasons, which I don't quite agree with. While it ends strong, I think it isn't filled with enough substantive episodes. Most episodes are devoted to the Richie Aprile feud which, while entertaining, means most of the season isn't full of the thought provoking and impactful episodes of the show. It does introduce a lot of important characters. Thematically it has less of a focus than in the first season, there's a general theme of death and uncertainty but less on family. The three episodes that stand out for me are From Where to Eternity, The Knight in White Satin Armor and especially Funhouse. Funhouse is the first episode to introduce dream sequences that don't come back for quite a while but are significant for me. It delves into the paranoia of this man who fears that any of these men could backstab or kill him. And unfortunately, he is proven right.
S3: My favourite overall season. This is the first season without such a heavy emphasis on the overall plot. In fact, I would say so far it has the weakest finale. That being said, this has the most consistent episode quality of the entire show and has the best thematic continuity. This season is all about the daily lifes of the people impacted by Tony Soprano, from his wife to his mother to his goomah to his family and to his associates. The only episodes I would say aren't 10/10 are the one where the introduce Jackie Jr. (nothing against the character) and the four preceding Pine Barrens. This is the first season without a consistent threat for Tony, even Ralph just becomes a minor nuisance. As such, the writers have freedom which they use to create episodes that become much more isolated and contained for enjoyable reading. There are brutal episodes (University, Employee of the Month) there are funny episodes (Mr Ruggerio's Neighborhood, Pine Barrens) and there are sad episodes (Proshai Livushka, Army of One). It has wealth of content and is the most worthwhile season.
S4: Understandably the weakest season. It starts very weakly and takes a while to get great. It isn't bad, but the general story isn't terribly engaging and the episodes don't have as many great scenes. It is still the same style as before so it is still good, but it misses a lot of the punch. The Weight is the first episode to have real stakes and impact on the story. But the first great episode is Whoever did this, which kills a hated character (who we were somehat feeling sorry for) out of nowhere to fulfill both dramatic and thematic integrity to death in the Sopranos. It is by far the most gory episode of the show. We get two other great episodes, The Strong, Silent Type and Whitecaps, but the season has had many problems before this. Carmine Lupertazzi, whose faction becomes a crucial part of the show, is never given enough weight to allude to this threat. Like 3, it has less of a focus on its storyline, but without the strong episodes of 3 becomes easily the weakest season.
S5: This is a significant upgrade from Season 4. This has probably the most consistency of the seasons, as most episodes are very good. There are a ton of dark episodes here, and Tony Soprano loses a lot of sympathy from me. We are practically reminded through this season, throughout all the good they may appear to do and what happens to them, that they are bad people who deliberately do bad things. This season almost feels like punishing us for liking this characters. Surprisingly, Christopher Moltesanti turns into one of the most likable character because he is emotionally wrecked in this season and is forced into bad decisions. My only complaint in this season is that Phil Leotardo is underused, so the death of Tony B doesn't feel as forced onto Tony as it was.
S6A: This season opens very strong. Tony is shot - and we wait in a two episode long limbo zone. This leads to the idea of Tony's reincarnation, his moral resurrection. Five seasons of therapy, and this feels like the beginning of a potentially good man, but as this season suggests, this will never last. This season is all about if these characters can redeem themselves at the very end. Yet the biggest problem with this half is that it focuses on the Vito plot, an interesting plot development that spans much longer than it needs to. Episode-wise, Vito's whole struggle only needed one episode. Story wise it only really lead to more conflicts between the two families which should've been shown earlier. Overall, a strong start but a weaker conclusion.
S6B: This is surprisingly a divisive end to the show. I understand the last episode, namely the last scene. But this whole last season is to go against what we want. Before the last episode, we want tony to go out a good man fighting the evil Phil Leotardo, because he's made his way to moral redemption. But as this season shows, these characters have not really changed. These characters are too old, the effects of there parents and criminal culture lead to there choices. Their kids can make differences, something that becomes important with AJ, who does finally come to what appears to be a good life. But as Melfi realises, this idea that Tony is trying to be a better man is a complete fiction. Really, he is trying to come to terms with the fact that he does bad things. He has started to regain our sympathy, but by the time he's killed Chris, we've lost his support. Yet the last few episodes are moments of complete destruction to the people around him caused by his own faults. Similarly to his mother, it appears that Tony will leave misery on every one around him in death. And yes, Tony died. While thematically I understand that it signifies the last moments of Tony's peace before everything crumbles, I think enough shots are meant to imply that someone was there after Tony. The last tight shot could mean Tony was shot from the left, which was exactly how Phil was killed, and we know Phil was killed immediately, leading to the black out.
The Sopranos: Chasing It (2007)
Shaky Cam?
Great show, but, who decides to employ shaky cam for this episode? Most scenes are either shot by hand or deliberately shaken. It's a weird decision that doesn't enhance the plot, but rather makes you nauseous. Fine story and all but if you value your eyes, look up the plot and skip this episode.
Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me (1992)
One of my personal favourites
This is a TV movie that got critically panned when it came out. It shouldn't be good, yet even a masterpiece. But Fire Walk with Me in my opinion is one of the greatest films of all time, and my second favourite film.
In retrospect, it's easy to see why this movie got panned. It's a movie much more adult than the show, and has very little humour or the fun of Twin Peaks. That fantastic cliffhanger is confusingly addressed, and if you dropped off during the low points of the show you will not understand the plot. I still don't understand the absolute hatred, because there are plenty of powerful sequences that I really can't understand someone not feeling anything towards.
What's frustrating to me though is that there is a real story taking place even if you strip away the supernatural elements. A young girl has been deeply traumatised by molestation at the hands of her father, leading to a downward spiral into drugs and sex that inevitably leads to her death. The supernatural elements to this heighten the stakes of this. This isn't a depressing movie about a sad situation, this is a tragedy about the coming of evil. Sheryl Lee is beaten physically and emotionally and convincingly creates this battered young teenager. Yet she is seemingly shielding the world from this great evil by allowing herself to be beaten. Despite being a real fleshed fleshed out character, she is also an unrealistically moral person, who seems to be willing to sacrifice herself for evil. And Ray Wise plays a character who both plays a realistic abuser and evil spirit. What's interesting is that in some sense Leland can be interpreted as a real abuser, because he appears to struggle with his acts but never seem to try to stop them.
This is a deeply moving picture. The first big scene is the Garmonbozia scene at the convenience store, which is terrifying in the way it explains the fear. Our normally stoic Cooper is nervous, as the tv begins to go static to a picture of the FBI building to the store, almost as though the reality is shifting from light hearted cop show to full on horror. The Pink Room scene is especially notable for its excessive nudity, in which we see our protagonists completely stripped off their humanities by the excesses of Laura's lifestyle. The murder scene is both terrifying and epic - it's both a terrifying demise but also a desperate act for Laura to save herself from becoming BOB. And finally, the final scene is a dramatic release. After two hours of absolute torture, Laura Palmer sees the light and ascends to death. In our brain, we know this is a terrible outcome because she died a terrible life and never got to escape. And yet, she's happy, almost as though she knows she did good, and we get the sense that she did well.
So what does it all mean? Well partially to me, this is to say that the death of Laura Palmer is an event so significant in the way it affects everything. Judy is released, we assume because of this. I think this ties into the idea that the whole tragedy of the death of a young woman affects our society, the idea that heinous acts of violence lead to more evil. Rather than embrace the cynical, Lynch wants us to think of the optimism of Laura Palmer. Things may not seem to get better, but they will. Of course there's much more to it than that, and I don't know for sure. But that's the brilliance Lynch and especially this film.
Nomadland (2020)
Good, but not great
It's unfair of how I feel this movie will be treated. It won an academy award, so now all these people will watch it and come out of it and go "that was boooooring". Because this isn't a movie for the masses. It's a movie that is challenging because it comes from the perspective where you are interested in the subject. If you hear the plot and think that sounds boring, don't watch this movie. This movie is all about Frances McDormand and the nomad culture. If you don't like that don't watch it. The problem is that it doesn't interest a lot of people, but they will watch it anyways and dislike it. So whatever comes of this movie on imdb, its BS.
The strongest elements of this movie would be the story. It's a simple story - Fern loses her job and after taking some part time jobs she meets with a group of nomads who give her a new outlook on life. It's actually a surprisingly funny movie with lots of unique characters. I always like a movie that has varying and different scenes and locations that all work with a central theme, and thats what this story does. Now, it is based on a real story, but the way the script incorporated elements was because of Chloe Zhao. It's apparent that Chloe Zhao is a fantastic director after watching this. I haven't watched any of her other works, but she seems to get great performances out of this film. There are also some standout scenes from a cinematography perspective, especially an astrology scene. The editing and lack of music (excluding some scenes) creates a minimalist vibe that encapsulates realism. There are some scenes which escape this realism for deliberate and effective purposes, but overall it has a documentary aesthetic.
And yet, this is what I don't like. I appreciate that the movie goes all out for this documentary style. Yet, often it takes me out of the story. Often, characters talk more like their being interviewed than being conversed to. It's hard to describe exactly why, but its the way in which Zhao has characters act. It makes every conversation feel real, but adding that with the way cameras replicate documentary style footage, we get the impression that its trying to be a documentary sometimes, even though it isn't. The big problem is that that often takes us out of the experience. And a large problem for me, which I think many will identify, is that realism isn't that great. I really hate indie movies that try to portray some basic story as realistically as possible. You know how real life is to someone looking from the outside? Long, and boring. That's the art of film, using cinematic language to convey emotion. And don't get me wrong, this film understands this. There are scenes where the piano kicks in and there's no dialogue that effectively convey emotion. Yet there's enough removal of this where it does drag the movie, and to which I can't love it.
In the end, while I personally don't love this movie, and you might not personally, it is undoubtedly a good movie. Should it have won the Oscar? In my opinion, no, there were better candidates, but there were also worse. Ultimately it's a movie with a distinct voice that while I don't think deserved the Oscar, I'm glad it won it anyways.
Avengers: Endgame (2019)
A Pretty Good Summation of The MCU
The MCU has been going on for 11 years when this movie came out, which in my eyes has been a mix of really bland, mediocre movies and some of the best blockbusters of the past few decades. When a director or the writers are given a distinct viewpoint of where to take these superhero stories, it can be really fun and exciting. But when the direction is at service of the same generic Marvel style action with cringey humour, I have no interest. Endgame is a mix of these two elements: Half of this movie is an epic, an exciting conclusion to the Marvel Universe. And yet the other half is a continuation of that same marvel style that is completely unengaging for me, that'll lead to a series of uninspired sequels that will take over the movie industry.
I think the main problem with this movie is it's script, more specifically, the plot. In my opinion, most movies don't suffer from a bad script, more from bad execution, when they are bad because most scripts have a good structure to them. All the elements in scripts are there, and it's up to the directors to fulfill them. And I think the problem in this movie, unlike a lot of marvel scripts, the elements aren't all there. For the movie billed as the grand finale to the Marvel Universe (which it isn't to no one's surprise) there is relatively little stakes. Now I know that in a literal plot sense there is huge stakes. However, the movies makes a major mistake in failing to really convince us of the gravity of the situation. There isn't enough scenes where we see people genuinely upset over the last movie. It's partially due to direction, but also due to the limited amount of scenes really taking in the loss. I think partially because it makes a time jump so soon. I don't dislike the idea of the time jump, and I like that it means that this event had consequences and wasn't just done away in a few days. However, by the time we get up to the new part, everyone has kind of moved on. Thanos is dead, so there is no threat, an idea that I don't mind. However, there is no real feeling that the world has been plunged into darkness. The only character who really feels like they have been deeply affected is Hawkeye, who we get very little of. Thor is also affected, but they turn his character into a joke so there's no weight there (no pun intended).
The stakes are obvious to us, but they aren't written. And a big problem is that the time heist is never given enough stakes. There's never much real dread, no real prospects of danger. The time heist ultimately becomes a fun but distracting affair, because we are never given the allusion that there is danger. It's strange to me because it's not that difficult. All is needed is a scene that establishes that Thanos anticipated that someone could go back and could track them or something, meaning they have to be quick. There doesn't need to be an antagonist in the time heist sections, but there needs to be a sense of danger that isn't there at all. These people, we assume, haven't been fighting for five years, you'd think this might present any challenge. But no.
And this weird choice goes into our antagonist. Thanos 2014 is deliberately defined as a different character, that is basically just evil. Firstly, they completely neglect the fact that I think Thanos does know who the Avengers are back then. Even if he didn't just say that he did, because we don't know. A personal relationship between protagonist and antagonist is integral to making a good villain, and especially an epic where there are real stakes. But Thanos doesn't really know them. Yet he wants revenge for them killing his future self, and basically comes up with a completely new goal in the span of a few hours. He wants to kill everything, oh no! While the ending battle is great, it is diminished a bit by how little we care about this new Thanos. It's annoying to me, because they didn't need to kill Thanos and replace him.
In general though, this is a well directed movie. I don't love the way the Russos direct the hand to hand combat scenes, it's a little to shaky cam and unconvincing, but I like in general the way they make heroes feel real. And I also like at the end how they handle the grand fight scenes, the stuff in Infinity War that was mostly missing in this movie. And while the Time Heist is distracting, I do always like how time travel works with older movies Back to the Future 2 style. It is fun to see older characters who are dead come back for a new scene. And I really like how it feels like they are committing to a conclusion. In my eyes, while they will continue making movies, this to me will still be there biggest movie, because I feel like this is where the MCU will start to slow down a bit. I also really like, as a fan of world building, how unlike the rest of the MCU movies they seem to have had an event that will have significant reprecussions for other MCU films.
I think overall that this movie has equal parts good and bad, although the good somewhat overwhelm the bad. I think it could have been much better, as do I think of the MCU as a whole, but I'm happy where it went off. I wish this could be the last movie in the franchise, but this engine will keep roaring.
Fargo: Somebody to Love (2017)
My Favourite TV Episode
I was watching this episode and just shocked by how great this episode is. As a finale, it gives both all the conclusion you need, and keeps enough to where you're asking questions. It also has some of the best scenes in any television show. And I'm coming here to review this, and I find that most reviews are saying how trash this episode is.
Look, I'm not here to say you are wrong. If you dislike this episode it's down to taste. But I see a lot of people talk about Season 3 this way. "It's weird, it doesn't go anywhere." I actually disagree. The first half of season three is a lesser version of season one. Morally ambiguous characters kill people and commit crimes, while a heroic cop and an evil criminal fight in the background. At least, that's what we think. Because this is a trap, a build up to a shock twist - the likable Emmit is killed, and our characters are forced to deal with the outcome. This episode is the conclusion of all this. While initially unfocused, the season now has four clear main characters; Nikki Swango, Gloria, VM Varga and Ray Stussy. This is the final episode, and our expectations are that this is the episode, like the other seasons, where the villain gets caught, and the criminals get their just due. And this might happen?
What makes this episode so great is that it both works as a grand finale and ambiguous ending. We start off and Gloria finally has the evidence she needs. Nikki is backing Varga into a corner, and leads into one of the most intense shootouts in Fargo, thanks to both editing and the fact that this season hasn't had many big shootouts. And Ray is finally standing up to Varga, in another tense standoff. This episode has four memorable scenes - the shootout, the standoff in the Stussy house, the car standoff, and the final interrogation scene. Some of this is due to the fantastic editing and score. Others are due to the amazing acting on display and the excellent writing. All is partially due to the amazing cinematography. This is all cinematic language that is used to convey a sense of hopelessness.
What's funny is that this episode is almost exactly what you want. The revenge person ironically dies inches away from the person she wants to kill. The person whose been leeching off unearned money finally gets comeuppance. But it isn't satisfying. Because the episode, and this season, asks the question as to whether the people like VM Varga, the true evil of today's societies, really face justice. And the answer is left for us. While the true ending is somewhat ambiguous, it heavily implies that he never gets caught - he finally fades out, as he has both truly become invisible from the law.
This can look at questions about modern times. It's one of the things I was initially skeptical about Season 3. Season 2 greatly relies on the feeling of a time period, and now we are back to modern times, again. But this season is all about modern times, the technological reliance that feeds off the scammers of the world. I read an article saying that VM Varga technically is never seen breaking the law, which is definitely not true - we see him literally cover up a murder. However, in the context of the show, the police never get anything on him. Gloria finds evidence to suggest that he is falsifying tax records, but as far as she is able to prove, only Ray Stussy was guilty of this. VM Varga was never recorded, and as far as the police know Gloria's recollection of Varga is a mere coincidence.
What makes this episode work for me is just simply the combination of the arthouse and entertainment. It's what a love about Fargo in general. In some areas, Fargo is a show that makes comments on our social places in society through smart direction. Other times, it is a thoroughly entertaining show with great action and dialogue scenes. While this episode makes grand statements about modern society, it is also an episode which makes satisfying conclusions for its story and delivers explosive set pieces and great scenes.
All in all, I love this episode.
Twin Peaks (1990)
A Show Like No Other
How do you start a show about the mystery of a young girl's murder and turn it into a story about supernatural spirits and still make it work? Why, you hire David Lynch of course. At some points, Twin Peaks is a soapy drama about quirky characters living in the small town of Twin Peaks. At other points, Twin Peaks is a surrealist horror picture sure to leave you awake at night. I can not tell you a show that has given me such drastically different feelings - and made them all work. I think someone has said it at one point or another, but there's a sort of juxtaposition in different genres that give more power to each different genre. For example, if you took out all the horror of Twin Peaks and made a show about that, I don't think it would be anywhere near as terrifying. And yet that is why Twin Peaks works. The music sometimes gives you warm feels of a classic town you want to be part of, and other times gives you the chills. The cinematography is sometimes standard (but still innovative for its time) but other times inspired. And we have such a range of characters from quirky to emotionally resonate. Twin Peaks has it all and handles its different stages into a somehow cohesive and enthralling show.
In some sense however, the show isn't perfect. I give the show a perfect 10, as you can see, but there's a lot of caviets that go with that. IMO I give films 10 out of 10 becaise they are both great and have no serious flaws to me. For a television show, I'm a little more lenient - I give it a 10 if I think that the best elements on the show don't require the flawed elements. That being said, Twin Peaks really stretched it from getting a 10. I love Twin Peaks, and it is without a doubt one of my favourite TV shows. But after the killer is caught, the show goes downhill, FAST. James Hurley before this was the only weak element, and of course they give him an entire subplot after this which is completely useless. The whole killer story arc, which I actually disagree with Lynch and think that they should eventually have solved it, is gone but this isn't what bogs the show down. Killer BOB, who I remind you, is STILL out there, is almost completely ignored after this. Like the next few episodes is basically the writers going "well how do we get Cooper to stay in Twin Peaks?" How about we have the FBI try to catch BOB? I understand that that would turn the character of BOB a little too literal, but you need something to pull us into wanting to stop or find BOB. For a while the whole idea of these spirits are basically abandoned. It isn't until the introduction of Windom Earle where we get a semblance of a plot for the police. The first four episodes I've noted after the killer is caught to skip. The first one is okay, but it introduces these terrible storylines. But the thing is you still have a lot to skip after this. Firstly, if there are any civil war elements left over, skip. Any Nadine as cheerleader, skip. Oh and just skip James. There are still plenty of annoying things that happen, to be sure. Forced romance and cringey sub plots bog it down, but its a slow rise up. And when you get to that finale, all that build up feels like it was really worth it. And you still get good moments before it gets really good. But you need to skip a lot to get this show to a 10.
With that out of the way, let's talk about my absolute favourite characters of the show. Firstly, is Dale Cooper, and the police. Dale is both the most wholesome and badass character. Harry is a mate, Hawk is a deeply spiritual and helpful ally, Andy is Andy and Lucy is a great accomplice. You always get a sense of comradery between the police, and there's no major arguments between these guys, excluding between Andy and Lucy of course. In town, there's Audrey Horne. She's a great character, although she gets severely downplayed as the series goes along. The Log Lady of course, is hard to forget. There's that Albert, who is somehow the most benevolent person ever. Then there's GORDON COLE. Basically, so many people in Twin Peaks are lovable characaters. But then there's a darker side. You have the sleazy Ben Horne, who by the end of the show tries to be a good person. You have the terrifying Leo Johnson, who somehow by the end of the show you kinda feel sorry for. Then there's Leland Palmer, who despite only being a villain for three episodes (not really him but whatever) is so creepy, which is difficult to do especially after how funny he was before this. BOB is, well, the embodiment of evil really. Catherine to me is a good villain, although her story just ends. But the heart of this show is Laura Palmer, and jeez is Sheryl Lee good. I mean Fire Walk with Me is a better showcase of her talents, but every scene she's in she steals it. There's two moments in Twin Peaks that made me jump, and both of them were with her. Well, technically her doppelganger, but still.
In terms of episodes, well there's a ton. Anything directed by David Lynch is great, of course. In terms of best episode, I think its a four way tie, between the Pilot, the Zen episode, the Lonely Soul episode and the Finale. All directed by Lynch. Some runner ups include, the Giant be with You and Arbitrary Law. An episode which doesn't get a lot of attention but I think is great is The Path to the Black Lodge. Sure, it still has that god awful Billy Zane plot - and Audrey Horne says she's a virgin, because that definitely seems in characters - but it feels like the return of the Black Lodge in what's been forever.
Now some of my favourite moments. First is the opening scene. That opening scene in the Pilot when Pete finds the body at first is both one of the most ominous and saddest moments and yet this is how the show starts. The First dream sequence is unforgettable. It's always eluded me how, in reference to the show everybody talks about the black and white lodge when they are barely shown. The white lodge is never shown, and the black lodge appears basically for only two episodes. But that final episode scenes in the Black Lodge are so long and creepy you can never forget them. The thing is, in the dream sequence the Black Lodge seems kinda strange, but not sinister in any way. That episode is so disturbing in how illogical, but also how sensical, it is. Audrey's Dance happens a few times, but it's such a memorable sequence which showcases her character perfectly. And then there's that room service guy who visits a dying Cooper. We gather that he's spiritual, but why? It doesn't really matter, but he's a great character nonetheless. There's also a few underrated moments that I love which people don't really talk about. There's this bit where Donna visits the grandma and her son in bed where they perform a bit of magic - the characters come back as part of Fire Walk with Me. There's also Josie's death, which granted doesn't feel like it was set up properly, but is so sudden and disturbing - especially considering how little horror happened before this; that it is genuinely upsetting. And finally is the ending of the Path to the Black Lodge where BOB finally returns.
So what does Twin Peaks mean? It's a somewhat abstract show, and David Lynch makes art to say something, even if he wants us to make up our own interpretations as to what that is. To me, Twin Peaks is a show about the darkness inherent in human beings. These spiritual forces are essentially a metaphor for aggression, although they like to say pain and sorrow. The aggressive nature of some of the townsfolk feeds onto the power of these spirits, in some sense like real life - agression creates pain and sorrow, and powers the tragedies that occur. Of course that's just the spirits. I'm not gonna say that this is what the whole show is about, because firstly it's probably not even what Lynch was getting at (who knows but the man himself), and secondly there's a lot of things about the show. It's kind of a parody, it's also making statements about what is and isn't acceptable in society etc. etc.
All I know is that Twin Peaks is incredible.
Fargo (2014)
Best TV Show IMO
Everyone has their personal favourite show, but Fargo is undoubtedly my personal favourite show. There are many reasons why it is my personal favourite, but I guess just the whole feel off the show gels with me. All seasons are fantastic with great writing, performances, cinematography, score, soundtrack, and storyline. Each season also has a completely different story, which to me, as someone who hates the idea of sitting through shows and not being able to watch later seasons really appreciates. I can binge a season every now and then, and the story arc has completely finished. Anyways, I'll discuss each season in depth because while the style is similar they are quite different:
S1. This is the most similar to the movie (also one of my favourites) with it being set just a bit before the season was released, and the storyline of Lester Nygaard is kinda similar to Lundegaard's story. Yet the storyline is so different that you cannot help getting enthralled by it. Lorne Malvo is definitely tied with the best villain in the series, and of all time. Nygaard, Grimly and Solverson are also fantastic characters - and that's just to name a few. Key and Peele are awesome here in their small role, the girl who plays Linda makes you really hate Lester, Odenkirk is really good as the chief etc. etc. Compared to the other seasons, in terms of gore its pretty tame. Storyline wise, I love the unexpected time jump at the very end, and really love the whole arc with Gus and Molly. I also love the complete 180 of Lester, who you initially sympathise with, to completely hating. Also this is by far the best score of the series, especially Malvo's theme. So many great conversation scenes as well.
S2. This is my favourite season so far. 1 is great, but 2 to me is just a little bit more exciting. Firstly, there is a ton that happens this season. A lot of people die compared to the first season. Secondly, there isn't really a main villain. Mike Milligan is close, but he's too damn likable to be one. Most characters are treated with shades of grey. Sure they are bad people, but you like a lot of them. So because you don't know who to root for, you're just waiting til the end when everything turns sideways when you don't know who will survive or what will end up of them. Every character is great, so my reluctance to talk about anyone is not because there bad - more because there is too many great characters. This is also the best shot season - I just love the exploitation split screen aesthetics. And in many scenes it works so well. And the scenes are way more intense and involved than in the first season. Easily the best.
S3. This is definitely the weakest season, but still a great season. I tend to think that it's the worst season because it takes a lot of risks - and not all of them work out. There's one episode which is completely detached from the rest of the show - and it is a great episode, but it kinda ruins the pace of the show. I also think that Ray's death was not built up enough. I like that it's unexpected don't get me wrong - I just think that it should've happened after a little bit more development. However, I think this goes into what I also love about this season. It's dark. There are much less fun sequences. In fact most of the fun moments happen earlier on - which is a smart idea. Because this gets to the heart of the theme of this season. Good doesn't win. The cop spends most of this season getting pushed down, while Varga spends most of it rising up. And Varga is a fantastic villain. He's both very crafty and very intimidating. I love the decision to have him walk away in the end. The time jump in the end feels sad, as it should be. No one makes it out at the end of the season except the obvious bad guy. And although this season can drag, I love the ambition of it. Definitely weaker than the others, but no where near as bad as some make it out to be.
Batman Begins (2005)
Far From a Great Movie
I feel like I'm always one of those people who rolls their eyes when someone says "Christopher Nolan is such a great filmmaker". Sometimes I feel like I'm being a bit mean. Nolan is an acclaimed director because of his vision for big blockbusters that are shot and film and rely on the spectacle of real sets and performances. Nolan exceeds well at what he tries to do, and its a sort of achievement that no director has accomplished. Personally, I don't love his style - it relies more on impressive setpieces then the language of film. But it mostly works. Yet I find this movies to be exactly what Christopher Nolan should not be directing - a fantasy. Because of his vision, and the conflicting interests with this story, I find Batman Begins to be an overlong, drab and rather than unengaging affair.
Firstly lets start off with the story. I simply don't like this story at all. The stories of each of the movies in the Dark Knight trilogy are very loosely based on Year One, Long Halloween and The Dark Knight Returns respectively. I haven't read Year One, but Long Haloween and Dark Knight Returns I know are fantastic - and very different to their movie counterparts. So I won't blame the scripts fault on the source material. The problem with this movie to me is how quickly the events of this movie occur. In essence, Bruce Wayne changes from a boy, to a ninja, to the batman in relatively short time. So this exciting arc of Bruce Wayne becoming the Batman is lost immediately. In fact a significant problem with this movie is that it really isn't about Batman becoming Batman. It's more like "this is what Batman would do to become a hero". There needs to be a story about him becoming the figure of batman, maybe learning not to murder or become a better vigilante. Yet halfway through this movie he knows what hes doing. The central conflict, that being Batman to become a hero, is kinda mute and as such there isn't much of a thread to hold us onto the story other than "Batman needs to stop bad guy".
And that's another thing - too many antagonists. I feel like no one brings this up, but there are essentially three antagonists in this movie - Carmine Falcone, Scarecrow, and Ra's Al Ghul. And they aren't really teaming up together - each antagonist gets set up, only to be foiled onto the next villain. If there was a constant driving villain as there was in the Dark Knight, this wouldnt be a problem. However Ra's Al Ghul, who is essentially the Big Bad, isn't established as a villain until the very last half hour. By that point the movie has failed to really connext with me with an opposition. So to me there becomes no real arc for batman and no real threat for the entire movie. As such, I don't really have much to connect with this character.
There's also the style of Nolan. One of the criticisms I have with Nolan is that scenes kinda blend together, so that there is rarely "that scene" in a Nolan movie - its more an event that occurs in a movie. In some movies it works, but in this movie because I'm not particularly invested in the characters I don't care. It's a sort of thing you need to do in a fantasy. In real life things don't just suddenly start - in the Dark Knight for example you might have a quick little scene with Joker and Gambol because it brings a level of realism. You're not seeing the Joker comically do something for four minutes as a normal scene. Yet in a fantasy world you need that. You need, for example a four minute scene where the Scarecrow's character is introduced. You need a scene where the city is established (as a fantasy city). When you go into realism it makes sense not to sort of overemphasise or exaggerate the world. Yet Batman Begins is a more fantastical story - it surrounds a group of seemingly magical ninjas, a really poorly designed and unrealistic city and a plot in which fear gas is going to be put into the water. To me this is at conflict with Nolan's vision. It would be like making a realistic version of star wars - you can make this movie dark, but it becomes difficult for me to assume this world as ultra realistic. I can't accept these characters but only as the works of fiction, and thus the movies can't try to trick me.
It's also of note that this movie is just very poorly helmed when compared to Nolan's future work. As an action director I don't think Nolan is actually that great. In this movie the action is a lot of shaky cam and quick cuts to give the illusion (very poor illusion) that action is occurring. Along with that there is no real sort of danger for Batman. He perfectly rides his Batmobile and fights with precision. But this is a learner, I guy who hasn't properly mastered being a hero. An action movie needs the hero to be endangered, especially when there is otherwise no direct threat. Thre is none here, and as such I find this to be boring.
Batman Returns (1992)
My Favourite Batman Movie
The majority of people I know tell me "Dark Knight is hands down the best batman movie, no contest". I feel like that's a bit unfair - Batman Returns is my favourite because it is for a very different audience. The Dark Knight is for people who like more grounded, serious crime dramas ala Heat. Yet as someone who loves film, I prefer a filmmaker who ushers his own style into a film. Someone who can create a whole, fully realised world. This is why I prefer Burton as a batman director as well. There's multiple reasons as to why this is my favourite batman movie, but also why I think this is just overall a classic in general that can stand the test of time.
1. Characters. One thing that's probably most notable about this movie is the abundance of comic villains. Nowadays, it's become more annoying, with comic movies either needlessly adding villains to set up (spiderman:homecoming) or having way too many villains in general (Spiderman 3). Yet This movie does it very well. It's not really a busy movie in fact - there are four characters in this movie, Batman, Max Shreck, Penguin and Catwoman. Yeah sure there are other characters but they barely get any input or reasoning. I think that's why it works here - we have a lot of villains, but we only focus on them. We know the central characters and they are all great. Danny DeVito and Michelle Pfeiffer are especially fantastic here, easily become my favourite villains in any movie. Where people like to criticise the movie is with Max Schrek and Batman's character. Shreck isn't really a colourful, zany, or even particularly evil villain. Yet that's what makes him interesting to me - this totally un-comic book character is the antagonist simply because he wants more power. Plus, Christopher Walken always helps. Michael Keaton's Batman is criticised as kind of bland. I mean in some sense, he doesn't really feel emotional or seem to care about the whole plot other than out of a sense of duty to being batman. But I find his dynamic interesting - he's a superhero, and a really good superhero, who is deeply committed to his concerns. You get this sense of a dark, committed character who's willing to spend his whole life fighting crime. You can tell Keaton understands the role, and why he dropped out of Batman Forever. And as I get to, unlike the first Batman I feel like they give more to his character this time.
2. Atmosphere. This is something that's just down to taste I guess. I mean, there are very obvious paintings, a ridiculous amount of smoke and almost no real sense that they ever shot in a real town. I can understand why people might like the Nolan movies going for creating a real serious world, or others liking the Schumacher movies because they make this ridiculous world cartoony. Yet I don't think dark and seriousness are necessarily tied together. For Batman Returns is by far the most dark batman movie ever - maybe even superhero movie. The main villain plans to abduct and murder babies by pouring them into toxic waste. Its ridiculous of course, but it is a dark, gothic world. This is a fantasy world, but it's not a fantasy world we live in. To me, that is what I want. The idea of a millionaire spending his nights fighting crime as a bat is ridiculous - to me you should acknowledge this aspect. To me that is the essence of Batman and his world. We want to see Batman in a dark world facing against crime. And to me that's what you get here in spades. Of course this is due to the amazing cinematography and fantastic score. It really captures the essence of a gothic world - there is beauty but great tragedy and darkness.
3. Themes. I feel like a lot of people don't acknowledge this because they don't think the 90s batman movies have no real deeper meanings. Of course none of these movies are truly deep metaphors, but i do believe that they are all peaces of art with things that can be learnt - even if they aren't particularly good. I find this movie to be my favourite in terms of its themes as well. The overall essence of this movie is that morality is not black or white. This is a noir world, after all, and there isn't quite good guys and bad guys. Well Batman is clearly a good guy. Yet he is entering a world of grey. Catwoman is vicious and violent, but she is suffering a breakdown after presumed years of a dissatisfactory life. Max Shreck, despite his evil doings, is just a businessman trying to provide a legacy for him and his son. The Penguin, despite attempting a genocide, is the result of a society pushing him away and showing no love. Batman's whole arc in this movie is to reflect his whole moral compass with this. You'll notice that he starts off watching Penguin on the TV, geuinely concerned about Oswald. When the Penguin dies, it is not a moment of celebration - it is instead a moment of sorrow for this poor man's life. Batman has to come to terms with the fact that nothing is black and white. Bad people come from bad circumstances, and good people can do bad things. This is why I love this movie.
Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
Incredibly Mixed
Here's the thing about this movie. There's this angle that's kinda going around on the internet that this is the worst terminator movie. I just can't agree with that at all. Sure, if you want to compare this to T1 or T2 this is nothing. But I think calling it worse than the other movies is a huge overstatement. Here's my review:
1. The action: this is exactly what you want to get right from a terminator movie. And for the most part, this movie does really well. The whole fight in the beginning with the truck and in the factory is great. Other bits like the airplane scene and final fight are p good. Some bits are a lil to excessive for my tastes, but it works well. My main criticism with the post T2 movies (excluding Salvation) has been that there never really feels like an impact to any fights. T3 feels like a cartoon and Genisys feels like generic modern action schlock. Yet I feel there is a lot of improvement here. The action is well choreographed, easily to follow, and exciting. Plus, it's FINALLY r rated again.
2. Visually - this is one of the aspects I am also very happy about. Again, excluding Salvation, The post T-2 movies have been very poor when it comes to visually being a terminator movie. Moody lighting with cool blue contrasted against the harsh orange summer heat. This movie doesn't do that, but I feel as though there was enough bright and dark contrast to work. It just feels as though this is the dark terminator universe again. This isn't just some generic action schlock.
3. Characters - This is where I get into negatives - but there are still some positives. First off I really like Grace as a character. She's strong but also vulnerable and complex. Arnie's cool here as well. And I think the Rev-9 May be the best terminator post-T2 (which IMO isn't saying much but still). On the negatives, Dani is an incredibly weak character. Her personality is that she's a hero I guess. Just very weak personality. It's nice to see Linda Hamilton back and they give her stuff to do, but We didn't need her and she just has the exact same arc she has in T2. She learns to trust Arnie. Kinda lame.
4. This is obviously the worse aspect of the movie. To me I don't care about the plot too much as long as the movie is well made. Yet the story is so bad it really pulls my enjoyment of this movie down. Firstly, they kill off John Connor. That makes T2 so dark when you think about it, because John spent that whole movie finally connecting with the T-800 only to be killed by the same type of robot. It's admittedly a terrible idea, but to me ever since T-3 the whole timeline has been stuffed. If this was the only movie after T3 I would've hated it more. Seeing as we've already been told that the whole story ofT2 doesn't matter I don't care that much. But the problem is, even then with that ballsy move the movie never justifies it. The whole idea of judgement day happening again with new machines ends up being more convoluted. Which is frustrating because the basic plot is the same. Yet so many decisions are baffling. I think the problem I have with this movie is that it has to relate to John and Sarah Connor. There arc has finished so leave them alone. This movie tries to do thAt, but then has Arnie and Linda Hamilton show up anyways. And they aren't even really important in this new timeline anymore.
I think that if you just ignore the story, it definitely isn't that bad. There are far more things to enjoy than the terrible T3 or Genisys.
Fargo (2014)
Best TV Show IMO
Everyone has their personal favourite show, but Fargo is undoubtedly my personal favourite show. There are many reasons why it is my personal favourite, but I guess just the whole feel off the show gels with me. All seasons are fantastic with great writing, performances, cinematography, score, soundtrack, and storyline. Each season also has a completely different story, which to me, as someone who hates the idea of sitting through shows and not being able to watch later seasons really appreciates. I can binge a season every now and then, and the story arc has completely finished. Anyways, I'll discuss each season in depth because while the style is similar they are quite different:
S1. This is the most similar to the movie (also one of my favourites) with it being set just a bit before the season was released, and the storyline of Lester Nygaard is kinda similar to Lundegaard's story. Yet the storyline is so different that you cannot help getting enthralled by it. Lorne Malvo is definitely tied with the best villain in the series, and of all time. Nygaard, Grimly and Solverson are also fantastic characters - and that's just to name a few. Key and Peele are awesome here in their small role, the girl who plays Linda makes you really hate Lester, Odenkirk is really good as the chief etc. etc. Compared to the other seasons, in terms of gore its pretty tame. Storyline wise, I love the unexpected time jump at the very end, and really love the whole arc with Gus and Molly. I also love the complete 180 of Lester, who you initially sympathise with, to completely hating. Also this is by far the best score of the series, especially Malvo's theme. So many great conversation scenes as well.
S2. This is my favourite season so far. 1 is great, but 2 to me is just a little bit more exciting. Firstly, there is a ton that happens this season. A lot of people die compared to the first season. Secondly, there isn't really a main villain. Mike Milligan is close, but he's too damn likable to be one. Most characters are treated with shades of grey. Sure they are bad people, but you like a lot of them. So because you don't know who to root for, you're just waiting til the end when everything turns sideways when you don't know who will survive or what will end up of them. Every character is great, so my reluctance to talk about anyone is not because there bad - more because there is too many great characters. This is also the best shot season - I just love the exploitation split screen aesthetics. And in many scenes it works so well. And the scenes are way more intense and involved than in the first season. Easily the best.
S3. This is definitely the weakest season, but still a great season. I tend to think that it's the worst season because it takes a lot of risks - and not all of them work out. There's one episode which is completely detached from the rest of the show - and it is a great episode, but it kinda ruins the pace of the show. I also think that Ray's death was not built up enough. I like that it's unexpected don't get me wrong - I just think that it should've happened after a little bit more development. However, I think this goes into what I also love about this season. It's dark. There are much less fun sequences. In fact most of the fun moments happen earlier on - which is a smart idea. Because this gets to the heart of the theme of this season. Good doesn't win. The cop spends most of this season getting pushed down, while Varga spends most of it rising up. And Varga is a fantastic villain. He's both very crafty and very intimidating. I love the decision to have him walk away in the end. The time jump in the end feels sad, as it should be. No one makes it out at the end of the season except the obvious bad guy. And although this season can drag, I love the ambition of it. Definitely weaker than the others, but no where near as bad as some make it out to be.