vaultoverseer_15 Reviews

Unfrosted (2024)

Unfunny: A Jerry Seinfeld Story

[1/10 · 13 May 2024]

What's the deal with pop-tarts? Really, they're not particularly remarkable, I don't know anyone who can say that their childhood was defined by these things, and I would like to think nobody had these things for breakfast. But obviously, that's the point, pop tarts are uninteresting and likely so is the real story about pop tarts being made.

So the idea is, pop-tarts being made as a movie, isn't that funny?

I'm not going to be as cynical as to say you CAN'T get that idea to work, but on it's own it's really not that funny. The biggest problem is that it is overwhelmingly, aggressively, unfunny. There are a ton of comedians here whom I need not mention that are just unfunny and you wouldn't expect anything else from them. But there are genuinely hilarious and talented people, who are just given nothing. There's a lot of moments in this movie where a famous person shows up, in a weird costume or suit, and I'm ready for a hilarious joke. But it always goes the most obvious safest route.

I prefer comedies that go out there, that are zany and ridiculous, like the old Leslie Nielsen comedies. They're well shot, they have no basis in reality. They're really just making fun of film tropes and ideas. This movie isn't clever enough to do that, most of these jokes can be reduced to, a character doing a silly thing, a character caring about a silly thing, a character wearing a silly thing.

It's weird because this movie must also be a shameless Pop-Tart product piece, but the biggest thing I came away thinking is that this is a massive vanity project for Jerry Seinfeld. He loves the 60s, all the cars, all these references, all these comedians in the movie. The movie to me feels like a thinly veiled excuse for him to have all these moments and bits that he likes, which, good on him, but it doesn't make for a compelling movie.

Before this movie got made, I assumed it was meant to be a sort of parody of these recent biopics about these corporate products being made. It made me think of Weird; the Al Yankovic story, which is way better than this movie, and a good comparison for this review. There's massive differences with these movies. Unfrosted is a fake story, and has absurd and completely ridiculous moments. Yet it feels the need to constantly remind the audience how ludicrous the scenario is. Often jokes boil down to characters going "wait, so we're working this hard just to make a new brand of food?" It's like the marvel movie "okay there are aliens, I know, crazy right". Compare that to Weird, where there are fight scenes, drug lords, claims that Michael Jackson ripped off Al Yankovic. It's ridiculous and that's what's funny, and it's not funny for the movie to babysit us to get there.

Here's a scene that is in the trailer that proves my point here. Eventually the gang meets up with President JFK, played by Bill Burr. This is a great idea, and has the potential to be hilarious. Imagine a scene where JFK tells his advisors "listen fellas, forget about this cuban crisis, this cereal stuff is the most pressing matter for this country". That could be funny, but instead he just seems mildly annoyed by this, and not in a funny way were he starts swearing at them or cussing them out. The only real joke they used was Kennedy's "ask not," which is over-explained and not that clever.

And the other problem, a massive problem that has been plaguing a lot of comedies for a long time - it's terribly shot and helmed. For a movie like this, which is kinda satirical, it's very important. There are a lot of montages, a lot of visual gags, and they're just awful. Jerry Seinfeld uses very simplistic comedy shots, that would make more sense if this was an improv heavy movie. It might be, but it doesn't seem like it. And even if it was, it's not an appropriate fit for this movie with such an absurd plot that it's not going for realism. And some of the acting... these two kids, they're undoubtedly the worst child actors I've seen in quite some time. I don't understood why you'd not be more careful in trying to craft this movie like other biopics to have this satirical angle.

Then again, the movie is not satirical. The movie wants to suggest how absurd the situation is, but also doesn't want to make the very obvious joke about how they're fighting for what is an unhealthy, diabete-inducing cocktail. Because the movie is actually VERY afraid to offend it's corporate backers, that the movie regularly makes serious moments about how good pop tarts and Kellogg's are.

Because this movie is ultimately best at being an ad. I won't lie, I felt interested in buying some pop tarts, or some Kellogg's brand cereal. Which good on the advertisers. But I don't watch movies for ads, and as entertainment, this movie fails spectacularty.

The Shield (2002–2008)

A Gritty, Rough Anti-Hero Saga

[10/10 · 2 April 2024]

I'm not particularly interested in police shows. There are a variety of reasons - they lack a compelling overarching narrative, they hold simplistic worldviews (good guy with badge, bad guy with crack, get arrested and everything gets solved), and overall they're just very cheap. There are other reasons, but it's a big reason why I don't watch stuff like Blue Bloods.

The Shield exists in a different universe. The gritty streets of downtown LA are depicted through an ugly looking 30mm camera. You can see all the film grain, all the overbearing colours. It looks crap but deliberate, the show looks like your watching a snuff film or an X-rated documentary. The scenery is all broken and falling apart, even the central police precinct, the Barn, is an old misused church. And the camera often gets close to our characters, and we can see the pours, the acne, nobody looks like they're wearing heavy make-up, everyone looks real. Camera are rarely steady, giving us a true documentary feeling. And the subject matter... The Shield depicts some truly horrific things, the violence always horrific, but still very real.

And it's important that this sort of environment be established before we get to our characters, who are part of the Strike Team. The Strike Team regularly breaks the law, violently injuring and threatening perps at every turn. And that's just the bare minimum, they actively steal, implant evidence, and even murder. These are not good people, but in the context of the show, we aren't here to repeatedly criticise these guys. Vic Mackey is bad, but Armadillo, Antwon Mitchell, Cruz Puzuela - these people are infinitely worse. The show makes no moral equivalence, the act of the Strike Team attempting to bust these criminal empires is a good goal.

But the real question being asked here, how far should the police be allowed to go to stop criminals?

I think it's clear to me that the Shield is dated very specifically in its time period - it is distinctively post 9/11, the language, the attitude towards certain positions, even the technology. Also the music, which often in my mind is flat out not very good but I kind of appreciate how it reminds me of some of the music that was big in the 2000s with certain people. When a show gets extremely committed to its time period, I almost think it retroactively becomes a period piece, and works even better. Especially when it critical of its time period, for while the Shield never makes overt and explicit discussion of its themes it's very clear it's tackling the sort of attitude that America had to dealing with its threats. One thing I really appreciate about the Shield is that while there is an overarching narrative arc there seems to be no real overt consequences on this establishment. The fact that the police keep letting Mackey's strike team go ahead, despite the fact that they are generally perceived to be brutal, meant that they were in essence meant to look the other way. Not that there aren't good people working, but people like Claudette are constantly undermined by this system, and seem to have to constantly work with corrupt elements to get things done.

But it's not just a show about themes, it has characters and by god does it have some great performances. Michael Chiklis will probably always be remembered as Vic Mackey. The true head of the Strike Team, Vic is an efficient, dedicated soldier who will do whatever it takes to end some of these gangs. That means getting down and dirty with some of the gangs, busting heads in some truly brutal scenes. He's threatening, brooding, but still definitively human with his scenes with his family. You do kind of root for him, but you understand he's hurt many people, some definitively innocent. Shane is also fantastic, Walton Goggins portrays him at first as the worst person of the group, he's racist, violent, and seems to be a little man who enjoys picking on people. He is most certainly the least moral of the group, and does some really messed up things, but you do feel like he has a heart, someone in there. I think it's mostly Walton Goggins performance that makes me care about him, because I feel really bad when things get worse for him towards the end. Other characters, I really like Dutch and Claudette. They're probably the most likeable characters for genuine reasons, and they go through a lot across the show. I initially thought the Shield would be hard to watch because of how much they try to catch Vic and knew over 89 episodes wouldn't get very far for a lot of it, but they do a lot of police procedural work in between. Aceveda was another one I really liked, because of how much he transformed throughout the show. He was always somewhat corrupt, but by the end of the series... yeah. I like how it's still very believable, he doesn't end up as like a criminal kingpin, but you get the sense that he's really not going to do much to help. There are other great characters but those were the ones that really stuck out to me.

And that's where we get to the general plot. The Shield may not do a lot of police things, but don't be misguided that it is a police show. There's almost always some sort of crime that needs to be solved in an episode, the Strike Team is always working to do something, there's always an interrogation in that room, and a scene of the Strike Team smashing over some suspect. So it's very easy to get invested in the show because there's no filler episodes where not much happens which is often the case for these very narrative heavy shows. And also, there is always a looming storyline that means most episodes are important and that the show is constantly building. What I especially love about the show is how important certain plot points are. For example, the Armenian money train plot gets mentioned like 100 times, a plot point that starts in s2 that becomes central to its 2nd half and the entire 3rd season. And then it becomes important again in the 5th and 6th seasons, and gets mentioned towards the end as something that gets pinned on Ronny. It makes plot developments feel important, which is another thing - changes tend to be long lasting. Some shows will have some end of season twist or something happen and then kinda resolve it early. Not the Shield. What's better is that these narratives do take time, but it means when there's a turning point or resolution, it has that much more of an impact.

And it is just a really enthralling narrative. The first season starts really strong with what might be one of the best pilot episodes I've ever seen - the episode is great but the last minute capper is what immediately establishes who these guys are. And the rest of the season, Dutch against the serial killer, Aceveda trying to get the Strike Team, Gilroy blackmailing Vic, and the end of Vic and Corrine (which again, despite the fact that she's in the rest of the show they don't get back together properly). Season 2 is also really strong, with Armadillo becoming an immediate hateable villain, to the start and unfortunate completion of the money train. Season 3 is the longest, but also really substantial for many characters. Aceveda, well, I can't say it here, but it's a real depressing turning point for his character. The Strike Team's money train fallout is one of the most intense moments of the show, both with what they do to resolve it and the personal fallout. And Claudette and Dutch finally go after Vic, but, well... yeah.

I will admit personally that I find the fourth season, while still good, the weakest out of them all. The first three all have their padding but this one really stretches out this Antwon Mitchell conflict. It feels like he should be established as a threat more properly earlier on, because he is a great villain. And I personally am not a big fan of Glenn Close here, her character just comes across as self righteous, because ultimately she's very biased and I don't know if she was a good captain. But it is important because of setting up Antwon as a threat, and still has good serialised serial killer storylines.

Season 5 is one of the strongest seasons. Forest Whitaker is great here and leaves his mark on the Team forever. The feud between him and the Strike Team is some of the best moments they have, and the way they both try to stop each other... I also like the new additions, Paula and Steve (whom isn't new but I didn't really notice him til s5). Claudette becoming captain as well, that's great. And then, well. I haven't really talked about Lem, but, yeah. The most moral out of the team, and that's where it goes for him.

Season 6 is great as well, the first half resolving loose ends, Kavanaugh and then finally revealing Shane's guilt. And then the second half, with Cruz Pezuela. But it's the final season that establishes this show as so great. The way that the strike team collapses, by the start of the season it's probably gonna fall, Vic's gonna be retired, Shane's got something coming his way, and while Ronnie could take over it'll be different with people like Julian. But the fighting between them, damn. The ending is so devastating because of how we've built all these characters together and it just topples in a way so raw that it really sticks. Might be the strongest finale I've ever seen, every ending feels earned although not necessarily happy or satisfying. Shocking, but it was set up. A tragic ending that some of these characters deserved, but still hard to feel in the same.

Overall, it's a fantastic show, and definitely worth being held in high regard.

Godzilla (I) (1998)

Watch Out New York! Here Comes Minor Nuisance, Zilla!

[2/10 · 18 February 2024]

I don't like discussing Roland Emmerich films for the most part. It's very easy to describe why he's bad in a way that millions have already done. I'll get into how I would describe his sort of style or schtick later, but I definitely dislike it, and this movie detracts for those reasons. But it's not just those Emmerich-isms that make this movie not work.

This movie is interestingly quite different from the other stuff he does. I think it's for that reason that this movie gets such a bad wrap even among people who are more forgiving of, say, Independence Day or Day After Tomorrow. The people who like this movies like the sort of simplicity and spectacle of all this destruction. But there's key differences that ruin what those people might want, for example;

• Unlike most RE movies, which are massive epics, Zilla '98 takes place almost exclusively in New York
• There is minimal destruction in the movie. Godzilla destroys some cars and picks up a truck, the military does most of the heavy lifting
• There isn't a lot of action and 'splosions. Godzilla pops up, things happen, then hides again. Rinse repeat. Most of the movie is characters trying to find Godzilla, rather than surviving and such

The thing about this is, it amplifies a lot of the stupid in Roland Emmerich movies. In Independence Day, for example, I find a lot of the characters paper thin as they are here. But there are fifty million of them in that movie, and you don't really need them to be fleshed out. Here you just have a handful, and you spend a lot of time with them. In a lot of RE movies he picks one quirk for a character which is okay when the character only appears a few times. But when its the French character who just complains about coffee it becomes frustrating when we get so much from a character who has so little behind him. And then we get so much military plans and discussions and planning, which is so stupid and uninteresting. And like, I'm never particularly interested, because the way the movie feels a giant lizard occupying a city of 20 million never feels that big a threat.

It's all so odd that they've made these mistakes because you have a really easy movie for him. Godzilla seems like the perfect fit for RE's sort of movies, just have him go out and destroy all these cities and have the US try to find a way to blow him up. Easy. The thing is though, RE actually hates Godzilla movies, from what I have read. He thinks they are stupid and silly, which, I don't know, have a bit of self awareness mate? He didn't like the design of the original Godzilla, calling him "fat", wanting this reptile thing in the movie. I don't despise the redesign, excluding the gigachad chin. The thing is for me is that Godzilla should be terrifying, the sort of thing where you look out your window and you see this hulking menace and you know you're screwed. For whatever reason he just has Godzilla burrow underground and lay eggs, he barely hurts anyone. Everyone he kills is either by accident, or after they attacked him first. So we have this threat who, honestly isn't that threatening. Am I supposed to be frightened?

Godzilla in this movie is just like a lizard thing that only cares about eating and laying eggs. There is something you can do with that, and I don't mean to say that being different is inherently bad. I like the idea that he's not particularly evil or dangerous but as a giant animal has the potential to cause great harm at any point. Except, they barely delve into that, so they didn't even replace it for an interesting replacement. Same goes for the audio design - they removed the iconic roar and replaced it with what I think is elephant sounds, which once I figured that out couldn't imagine this movie with any level of seriousness. But even if it wasn't a bad audio design, why change it? You have a perfectly good audio cue, if you're going to replace it, you should find a good sound at the very least. I can imagine a better version of this movie, where they focus on Godzilla who comes up every now and then to tear down factories of meat or stores and stuff. He's not a walking tank like the Japanese movies, but he is genuinely terrifying, and there is this fear that every so often he could just jump back out and cause damage so the military really need to find him.

I can't say that I would expect that from Roland Emmerich. He has this reputation as making dumb movies, but they aren't just dumb. I mean you can call a movie dumb because their aren't themes or interesting plot points, but that doesn't mean the movie can't be great. You need a filmmaker who is able to direct a scene in a way in which we feel the impact and excitement of an action set piece. When Godzilla springs out and five hundred helicopters come out to chasing him, I'm not just thinking how stupid it all is. I'm thinking, why is there no weight to this, why does this all just feel like noise? This is how I feel about a lot of his movies, especially in 2012, where you see all this destruction, which has great VFX. But there's no real threat, no feeling that anyone's in danger. I don't see the scene with helicopters running past and cross my fingers hoping they'll blast Godzilla. Instead it's just like, visual noise. It looks okay. But it's not engaging.

And it also is so strange that Roland Emmerich makes these dumb movies because not only can he never direct it with any engaging set pieces, he has no creativity. You have the free reign to create whatever set piece, environment you want, and it's all in drab rainy New York. You can have Godzilla do whatever he wants, but all he does is go after fish and lay some eggs, he has no interesting powers beyond fire breathing which was literally added last minute to address fans criticising the lack of atomic breath. And my god, somebody really liked Jurassic Park. While I don't think Godzilla's design is aping Spielberg, a lot of the shots are. The whole, keep it dark and rainy for better shots, and especially a lot of the shots early on remind me of the end of Lost World. I think it's fine to be inspired by Spielberg. But you should have something original and cool happen.

Fargo: Bisquik (2024) Season 5, Episode 10

Cookies and Karma (review of Bisquik + Season 5)

[10/10 · 22 January 2024]

Fargo is my favourite show of all time, for a lot of reasons. So I was excited for November 2023, but I was worried for this season. Once you slip up even slightly for one season, people become wary. And yet season 5 is not only far better than season 4, it is up to the same masterpiece quality that I hold every other season. For some of you that may sound hyperbolic, and although I understand if you disagree I assure you I mean that sincerely. And it was in this episode, Bisquik, where it all clicked together.

This review is mostly a review of the season, as I can't review it anywhere else, because I've already change my review of Fargo once to include season 4 and I'm not doing it again... but I assure that I would give this season and the finale the same rating so I feel as though this is valid.

The beginning of this season is what sold me, and everyone on this season. Immediately the music, the cinematography... this is why Fargo is my favourite show, you don't get this in other shows. Jeff Russo always finds such unusual instruments that create such a distinct feel. This brownish filter I thought from trailers would be ugly. Instead it gives this season a distinctly western feel to it. It's truly cinematic in a way that other shows aren't. That first episode is one of the strongest first episodes, it immediately sets up the conflict but keeps a lot of mysteries for the season, it divulges a lot of time on Dot's family so we feel for her family. And it's just super engaging, it's mostly comedic but contains some of the most tense sequences in history. Season 5 is without a doubt one of the more fun seasons, both in sequences but also in tone.

But what is Fargo without a serious storyline of tragedy to undercut all this fun? Something I loved about this season was how long it took to show the harsh truths behind these characters. For the first half I was unsure as to who the main villain was, even though the show pulls no tricks in this regard. While Roy Tillman is the villain, they almost paint him as comical early on (certainly not funny enough to make the character a joke). And why is Dot running away? Obviously she doesn't want to be his wife but initially I felt a little bit of hesistance towards her character. I mean she commits acts of violence which makes us think she is at the very least a flawed character. But bit by bit Tillman is shown to be more than just a lackey. Some of the harshest depictions of domestic violence I've ever seen. What makes Roy Tillman such an effective villain is that despite his unwavering evil, he seems more real than we would like.

And this is some of the best acting from many of these actors, as is the case with many seasons of Fargo. I could go on and on about the main cast, and I will say unlike season 4 there is no choice that goes below perfect. The standouts for me is both Juno Temple and Jon Hamm. Dot is so unbelievably likable and funny but convincingly deceptive and capable as a fighter. And you'd be hard pressed to discover without looking up that Temple is a British actress from her voice. And Jon Hamm... when I first heard him I almost rolled my eyes - I don't really know why I've just never thought him as a fantastic actor. Well he absolutely works here. He is terrifying, in ways that I can't fully describe. He almost perfectly embodies like old grandfather anger if that makes sense.

It is in my mind that Fargo season 5 became a masterpiece in the last three episodes. From a narrative arc, almost all of the pieces which were somewhat strung about clicked all so well in the last three episodes. Call them the Ranch Arc of Fargo if you will, as they started and ended Dot's time on the ranch in 2019. The season that had surprisingly restrained itself from a lot of death and murder (compared to other seasons) exploded into action with the perfectly set up death of Graves. With the army on the way we get an array of tense scenes where it feels as though every character could die at any sequence. And in the final episode, guns are raised, and we finish in explosive epic Fargo fashion. But it's the thematic character resolutions that become so satisfying to me. Characters like Lorraine have for many reasons been downplaying the evil of Roy for years. He's not that big of a threat, he's not that bad. Certainly an analogy for alt right politics or domestic violence. Lorraine realises, as does the FBI, as does Graves (a little too late) that they don't control these people. Obviously a big theme this season is toxic masculinity, and it's ultimately that which is Roy's downfall. For while he is certainly an intimidating figure, his rash decisions are incredibly stupid. I like how at first we almost find him laughable, but we find at the end that his simplistic worldview is dangerous. He kills Graves, his stepfather, and Farr, things that all end up immediately backfiring on him. But this fragile masculine figure is never depicted in such a way to make the audience feel as though he can be easily defeated.

And now we get to Bisquik, the grand finale. Or half a grand finale, half a baking segment. After the last episode perfectly set up the final showdown, we open at the ranch. Fog has seeped through, a truly apocalyptic landscape to set the stage for the end of the Tillman clan. And it doesn't seem good for any of our characters. Witt is inside enemy waters. Tillman has finally given up on God. And the blind, bleeding Gator is running off for some sort of safety. A setup for a long episode of conflict. But then, bang, out of nowhere, Dot comes out and shoots Roy. And then, the army shows up, and then, a massive shootout.

But Roy got away. Okay, so he'll probably come back later in the episode to do something bad, maybe... like killing one of our main characters? After killing Witt Farr it almost feels as though evil is going to win. Such a merciless death, it seems as though Roy's going to escape. He does, escaping out the latch of his bunker - only got a dozen officers to pull him to the ground.

This part of the season is where the finale becomes perfect, although definitely a turn off for many people. The finale should be a moment to moment thrill ride, shock after shock. But that's not what this story is about. It's a happy story, where the villain doesn't get away. We get a great scene where Roy finally gets his comeuppance, not through murder but sweet sweet planning, proving that Lorraine is more powerful than Roy Tillman.

But Lorraine is not the hero of the story. This is where Bisquik becomes an instant classic in my book and absolutely rounds up the season. Ole Munch's return at first seems cruel, as though Fargo is going to kill Dot just to prove that life sucks. But no. Dot seems to realise, with her naive husband's backing, that the best solution to this threat is to bake with him. It's almost too perfect you would think, ending a show on characters all saying things to the effect of don't hate, forgive. It's a little more complicated than that, as we hear, which is partially why it works so well. It also is just a result of coming after all we've seen. This is some character whose lived her life through the hands of an abuser, who had forgiven and promised to visit someone who had her kidnapped to someone who very well wanted her as a prisoner. So when she says these things, we know the weight that she has to burden to forgive. To love. Ole Munch is a character who will have lived through unspeakable deeds that are quite literally impossible to imagine. Yet it is those words that break through to him, that and a damn good biscuit. What a perfect way to end the season, with the original Fargo music playing. A funny, and yet deeply sentimental and joyous ending.

I don't know if this will be the last season of Fargo. But I am sure that if it ends on that note, I'm happy.

Cannibal Holocaust (1980)

An Understandable Cult Classic, and My Most Hated Movie

[1/10 · 7 July 2023]

Cannibal Holocaust is my least favourite movie of all time. It will probably never be beaten unless I witness an actual snuff film.

At the outset, this is not a universally hated movie, and I can understand its appeal. Kind of. I do not know how anyone could give this movie a flawless 10, as I'll get into, but a lot of the ideas present in this movie are original, and it definitely goes for it. This is an extreme movie that one will never forget. I understand the appeal of a lot of these types of movies. I can't say I love them, but films like Salo I appreciate. None of these factors are positive, in my opinion, but I can understand if you like this movie.

Now, there's the obvious critique I will get to, which is imperative to review, but this movie does not just fail because of that. So before I get into the nitty-gritty of what makes this movie notorious, I first want to review every other aspect.

For starters, this movie is credited as the first found footage movie, which snotty film brats who want to feel smug will often point out against Blair Witch Project. Which, let me say, is a significant mistake. Blair Witch Project generally comes across as a piece of footage someone found. What makes that movie work is that you might think, "This feels real...". You could not believe that about this movie. For starters, a framing device makes it obvious this is a fictional story where people "watch" this movie. Secondly, Blair Witch Project feels like people were recording, whereas there are plenty of moments where the cameras and camera operators are not part of the world. Sometimes it's just like, why is nobody interacting with the camera? Other times you ask how many cameras there are, how many cameramen they have etc. And finally, the acting is, well, it's cheap. Not the worst thing I've ever heard, but it's evident that this is not real. When you contrast that with real emotions and events present here, the contrast makes the actors come across much worse. And, like, yeah, I believe some of the things that happen in this movie. BECAUSE THEY ACTUALLY HAPPENED. There's no craftsmanship in that.

As a horror movie, this movie isn't scary. I get that it's meant to scare you in a different way than other movies. These sorts of movies, which rely on excessive violence and assault, are not scary to me. But I can appreciate at least the Thriller aspects of them. There's nothing here. Any violence is just shown as such; there are no chase scenes, thrills, or suspense; it's just a sense of brutality and violence. And I can understand that the increasing levels of violence are meant to way on you and affect you, but I end up feeling bad halfway through, not because of the fictional characters, but because of the events that transpired. Still, the music wants you to believe that the movie is scary, but it's so bloody obnoxious. I love a lot of Grindhouse scores, but this is too much. It's way too overbearing and constantly trying to instil an emotion of fear, sadness, etc.

There is an argument that this movie has a lot to say. I disagree with that statement entirely. Clearly, the filmmakers were trying to make some statement about journalism, violence, etc. But there are a lot of problems. The found footage aspect clashes with what should be more satirical (not humourous, but a little more exaggerative) characters. When certain characters do things that service what I think is an attempt at showing cultural relativism (i.e. The Americans are just as violent as the natives), don't work when we don't actually delve into these characters; things just happen. It's also like, weird to present that when you characterise the natives (who are a real group of people) as violent cannibals. My guess is that it's mostly saying that without civilisation, humans would be savage. But I don't find that fascinating because the movie doesn't delve into those aspects; it's just like, "Yeah, humans are violent". I'm not so cynical, but regardless if you don't bother exploring the themes, it being there does nothing for me.

Now finally, we get to the big bucks. The making of this film. I usually don't discuss such things in a review; movies like The Shining had arguably abusive work conditions. Ironically, my favourite film of all time, Apocalypse Now, also features an animal death. So, why is this movie different? The first thing is that it translates too well in the film to where every uncomfortable, disturbing, and tragic moment comes from you knowing that the things happening are real. The actors themselves are bad, which makes it all the easier to recognise real emotions. Disgust, sadness, shame, it's all captured, and it's all real. The director of this movie is a terrible person who wants the cast to be as broken as possible through filming. Scenes of fake violence and shock leave no impact, but the faces of characters at points are some of the most haunting images I've seen. This is actual abuse, not at the hands of a fictional character. And that is what you're watching. This movie is not a snuff film because it doesn't involve a human death, but the animal deaths here - wow. Apocalypse Now gets a pass because of the context in which the animal would always die in that manner. But even in movies like Friday the 13th, I'm against it. Here though, it's torture, used to freak the audience out. I mean, just think about it - animals were bought to be killed in a way that would scare an audience who would pay to watch that movie. Many deaths prove no narrative reason; it's just shock value. Some moments that are not real are impactful, but many are because of the actors' positions. There is an SA scene early on that got to me, but it's because I was appalled at the state in which the woman was put. I'm okay with nudity, but where she was, what was happening - no. And this is emblematic as to why it doesn't work for me. This could be a movie where I go - I don't endorse how it was made, but it is a unique experience. Yet to me, I feel all these things not because I'm imagining the horrifying experience of these characters. I'm experiencing the horrifying experience of this production.

That is, in essence, what this movie is. A capture of torture, not through craftsmanship, but by an evil man who wanted to make money off of his crew's misery.

Mortal Kombat (2021)

Cheap, Bland, Boring

[2/10 · 24 June 2023]

I watched this movie around when it came out, and gave it I think the same rating as I still have now. I watched it, thought it was pretty bad, and decided to leave it at that. Recently I decided to play the Mortal Kombat games, and now I've got more of a bone to pick with this movie. And I think that helps me better define what is bad about this movie not only for moviegoers, but for a fan of the franchise now - coz a lot of the buzz for this movie (as minimal as it is) suggests that this is a movie 'for the fans', which I couldn't disagree with more.

The main reason you'd go for a movie like Mortal Kombat is obvious, I mean, it's in the title. Cool with a K action scenes, that mimic the gory fights of the game. And like, the elements are all there. The fatalities in the movie are pretty good, and most definitely one of the strongest aspects. Not quite up to the games if you ask me, but close enough. The choreography seems pretty good. You can tell that people are really putting their all into the action. Everyone gets to use their special abilities related to their character. And yet, it just doesn't work. I like a lot of the gore, but it's not as present in the fights themselves and more in the fatalities, which doesn't give the sort of brutality you need. The choreography in my mind is splintered by really bad editting. You can tell that their are wide shots with a lot of impressive action but the way it's cut minimises the way the fight scenes flow and it just doesn't have the same impact. The special abilities and stuff can feel strong (Scorpion's grapple hook is really cool here) but a lot of it just feels like powers are used when someone needs to die or the film wants to show them off as fan service, rather than a natural feeling of a move used in a fight.

So if you don't go to a Mortal Kombat movie what do you go for? I'd say the characters, which overwhelmingly disappoint. To point out some bright spots, Kano in this movie is awesome. As an Australian, I'm glad he's actually played by an Australian. However, he works as a side character, so he can't save the movie too much. Scorpion is also really good, although not utilised nearly enough. Everyone else is just, nothing. I'm okay with these characters being different then there game counterparts, but I want to be invested in them to a similar degree. As a fighting game, you have all these different characters in Mortal Kombat who they really flesh out and develop, and the idea is that the characters are well communicated as to who they are and have the allure of an interesting backstory. Characters like Liu Kang and Sub Zero might on a surface level be accurate to the games, but they don't have either the intrigue or the personality that shines to the forefront in the games. I mean, beyond Kano and Scorpion, I don't root or care for anyone here, and I don't get much of them. Cole Young is a terrible choice to lead, I think no one would argue there. But how do you lack any interest in side characters? That's what would invest me in this movie universe, which I know would advertise itself with the introduction of more characters. Mileena is one of my favourite MK characters, and they did her dirty. Don't do the same to my main man Johnny Cage.

Visually the movie is so ugly. It's got that annoying dark palette which I assume is to hide the shoddy CGI. It's a new thing and I find it to be a sign of laziness generally, but I do think with the movies budget there is more of an excuse. But the smartest decision to remove this, is simply to not use CGI a lot. I'm not anti CGI but when it requires your whole movie to look like a murky mess maybe limit your usage. All you really need is fatalities, and some spark effects. Get rid of CGI characters, find as many character you can do in camera. Most of the locations are bleh, although I will admit that the frozen gym set was pretty cool - that felt like it could actually be a mortal kombat stage. At some point, with cheapness, I kinda have to put it as a negative. Some of the costumes, the designs, the places, they just look bad. And like, if you don't have the budget to make it look good, don't make the movie.

The story is bad, and I feel like I need not explain that. Still it's shocking to me how bad a lot of the decisions are. All you need, really, is to have the tournament, introduce characters, and have us hope that Earthrealm wins. Instead, it's like, we have to have an origin story almost for this whole concept. Every character's power has to have this weird arcana thing which is not in the games, and leads to two bad things; characters who had interesting powers stories tied to them are all just a result of this power system, and thus less interesting - and now we have to spend the whole movie with characters coming in and developing powers rather than just getting in and on with it. It's probably my biggest problem with the plot. Ultimately, Shao Kahn, Shang Tsung, they just wanna conquer Earth, and Raiden wants to stop them. It's simple, it's the characters that make it work. But when you have to go into this whole situation where Shang Tsung tries to break the rules, they have to stay in this castle, they all need to develop their powers, etc. Etc. The movie is dividing your attention into all these plot points. And I do criticise MKX and 11 for having narratives that go all over the place, but they actually show interesting things. When you don't do that, it becomes a problem.

They will, and already plan to make a sequel, and I can see what they would be trying to do. Shao Kahn and Johnny Kage need to appear, and I'd hope we'd see Kitana and Noob Saibot. Plot wise, do the first half of MK9. That gives you a really good script to follow, and you could just set the movie on an island ala the 95 movie. Don't introduce any more CGI characters, so you can actually shoot in nice colours. Which yes, MK shows blood but it's a colourful game with all the palette swapped characters. Go to nice sets optimally, but I'd settle for anything. Introduce characters, but only ones you'd be willing to give lines to. And fire your editor. Then, you'd have a decent sequel.

Barry (2018–2023)

A Funny, Sad, Action-Packed Masterpiece (Spoilers, so pls watch it)

[10/10 · 31 May 2023]

I want to review every season here, but before I do that I want to get into what makes this show work. For starters, the episodes and seasons are not very long. This means that every scene is deliberate and intentional, every moment building onto something. There is no filler, no unnecessary character arcs or moments. Everything builds into something. I never binged the show, but I can imagine easily binging a season and treating it as a long feature length movie. And the cinematography in this show... When I saw Fargo I thought that TV has truly transcended to the quality of movie filmmaking, but this is something else. Every shot is interesting enough to carry basic elements. It's always interesting; there are moments that are comedic, sad, or interesting, not because of what's happening but because of how it's being shown. Obviously a lot of this comes down to how short the episodes are and that they probably have more time to plan these things. But it's still great. And the audio and sound quality... fantastic. It's hard for me to describe but when you watch it you can just tell. The acting as well is fantastic. Bill Hader is the obvious scene stealer, but he gives a lot of time to Sarah Goldberg, Anthony Carrigan, Stephen Root and Henry Winkler, who are also great. And the show is able to balance comedy with serious drama and really dark moments. Some shows fall into a trap of characters just sort of doing the same thing season by season, but if something happens in Barry, it will always radically change the status quo. What it's initially about is a character trying to redeem himself, but it's not as easy as it seems. What's interesting is how Barry progresses throughout the show, but also his companions, who all go through a lot during the show, and discover who they are. Who redeems themselves? Who gets worse?

Season 1:

Season 1 is the weakest season, but still very good. The main problem with the season is that it seems to be a funny comedy with more adult and serious themes, but by the last two episodes that changes. The first half is more comedic, the Chechens acting more like silly henchmen, and the acting students being so theatre obsessed. Barry seems like he genuinely could do good and was unjustly turned into a killer, which is less interesting. It is still very good, don't get me wrong. But then it gets there in Episode 7 , one of the best episodes of the show, and in my mind the turning point for where the rest of the show goes. Barry killing his friend for potentially ratting him out gives him a lot more guilt and shame, while also portraying him as deeply immoral. It's this Barry, one who's both deeply guilty but unwilling to accept responsibility that the show wants to explore. And then the show kills of two main characters, one in a comedic way and one in a tragic way, setting up a great sequel season.

Season 2:

With a clear understanding of where the show is going now, Season 2 is a massive improvement. For starters, the plot gives every character a moment. Sally in the previous season was a little annoying when she would get so occupied with acting when we just experienced the most traumatic stuff from Barry. But here, the introduction of her ex justifies a lot of her faith in acting; she's a deeply broken, human character, rather than just a caricature of a superstar wannabe. The same with a lot of characters; Gene is a lot more human when he has to deal with the death of his girlfriend, Fuches becomes more desperate, NoHo Hank has to become independent and actually does stuff on his own. Barry's attempt to be good is promising, and you feel as though this could continue after this season. But I feel like the show runners knew it wouldn't be interesting if they did that. And everything is just a build up to that last episode, where they pull everything out of the rug. Barry absolutely massacres a bunch of people, Fuches ruins his relationship with Barry and has to go on the run, and Gene figures it out. Obviously I can't go this season without mentioning ronny/lily. It contains possibly some of the best action I've ever seen. It's clumsy, but brutal, and fits right into the Barry tone. It also established a lot of the more dreamy and weird stuff that Barry would lean into, which I'm all for. It's a great look into who Barry and Fuches are, what they do, and I think it's fitting as the last episode of the two really working together.

Season 3:

This is probably my favourite season. It starts out great - unlike many shows, which would shy away from depicting Barry as a killer again, the season immediately starts with Barry killing two people for a completely irrational reason. Where Season Two gave a lot more room for characters to act in this season, Season Three puts everyone in critical circumstances. Sally is worried about an important show she's producing, which dramatically proceeds to a tragic end to her acting career. NoHo Hank's escapades eventually get him into falling in love and trying to save everyone. Gene becomes pivotal to this season, having to consider using Barry to help his career, or help get Barry taken away. Fuches has less importance here, but even his minor scenes help a lot - possibly my favourite part for his character is when he gets an opportunity for a peaceful life. Bill Hader is exceptional this season. Barry is truly a villain here, and redemption seems a distant hope this season. He kills people without question - we see a great dream sequence in the second last episode, but he doesn't seem to desire real change. He's not a completely evil character, but he's changed noticeably. He's barely clinging onto relationships with people around him. So many episodes are great. 710N and starting now are some of the best episodes of any tv show. Jim Moss's introduction is great as well - we don't spend a lot of time introducing his character, he just gets things done. And the final touch of this season, Barry getting caught is just what needs to happen.

Season 4:

Season 4 seems to be the most divisive season of Barry, and I can see why. For starters, season 2 started the big action scene moment which is also in the epic bike chase in season 3. There is no big action scene here, which I was expecting but I wasn't disappointed without. There are a lot of really ballsy character decisions made, and I can understand that some of them will disappoint people. In my mind, it was a perfect ending for the show. Barry himself doesn't murder a single person in this season, so there is progression for his character. But what the show suggests is that he needs to actually own up to what he did, and accept that it was wrong, otherwise he'll be doomed to do it all again... which he nearly does. I was expecting a final fight scene with Barry leading up to the final episode, but I'm actually glad we don't get it. Instead we end with him arguably redeeming himself. I love the ambiguity of his character ending in such a way. We hear him finally say he'll acknowledge his crimes to save Gene. Is this just a pathetic attempt to befriend Gene again, or is this him trying to finally be a good person? We never know, and it's better to keep it that way. Sally's arc in this season is great - definitely the most 'happy' ending for any character. And I'm glad someone definitely had a happy ending, considering she was probably the most moral character on the show. Fuches' turn as the raven was fantastic, and before the last episode, I was more just satisfied as it being a funny character moment until the last episode really justified it for me with him explaining he accepted his true nature, an important aspect of the show that we almost can't say is a wrong thought. Hank's arc is probably a little more controversial, but I love it. As much as we love Hank as a loveable goofball who somehow owns a crime syndicate, he is pretty evil. I wanted him to redeem himself, sure, but the whole point of Barry is to say that redemption is not easy. As shocking as that episode was, and how I would've appreciated a definitive redemption arc for Hank, I'm also glad that not everybody redeemed themselves. Because I think the whole show, especially the last season, is about characters accepting what they have done, and a lot of characters seem unwilling to accept this. Except Fuches, Barry and Sally, whom get the best ending. Gene's ending is definitely divisive, but I love it. There are many reasons for this. For starters, the last ten minutes of Barry are hilarious, thank you. Secondly, the main point of Barry again is character's being unwilling to change, and I feel like that encapsulates Barry. Gene was never as moral as people seem to remember, and being an actor was priority number uno. Him reaching out for a film about his girlfriend's murder was a big crime in the show's lens - killing Barry was the last straw that led to his end. But finally, it's probably not just. Barry is not a show about justice or people getting what they deserve - it never has been. It's an ending that makes you think, after having laughed about it. That's the definition of dark comedy in my mind. It's undeserved, but in my mind, it's a result of him having sought the primal instinct for revenge and killing Barry. What's great is that it both gives food for thought, but definitively ends the series. That's how you end a show.

John Wick: Chapter 4 (2023)

Going Out with a Bang

[10/10 · 8 April 2023]

John Wick is definitely one of the best franchises in history - it was before this movie, but it's gotten even better after this one. The action pieces, the cinematography, the score, the costumes, the guns, the world, it's all there. I don't think I need to go into this review to explain why John Wick movies are good. What I want to explain is why this one is far and away the best one.

The other movies themselves were really good, but things held them back. I gave the first two an 8, for different reasons. The first John Wick was an excellent take on revenge films, but that also held it back by having to do what those movies did. There is less an emphasis on the assassin stuff and more on John Wick's life and people telling him not to get back in etc. It's not a big deal but the movie would much better focusing on other stuff. John Wick 2 did exactly that, but the overall story was just so non existent that I didn't particular care what John Wick was doing. John Wick 3 struck a good balance - i gave it a 9, it was great. The only downside to me was the ending, it just felt like the movie ended exactly where it started, and that the franchise was just going to keep going on and on.

John Wick 4 just outmatches them in every respect. For starters, this has the highest budget i believe, and you can tell. The locations are beautiful, and even small scenes are devoted to well constructed sets or real locations, and it gives the movie a visual intrigue that keeps the viewer engaged even when not that much is happening. And similar to the last movie, I love how we're just fully in this world now. Unlike a lot of these action movies where the movie wants to tell us it's in the real world or silly action world, John Wick sets itself solely in its own world, where people can get cars and shake it off.

And the action - wow. This is nearly a 3 hour movie which I thought is weird for an action movie... then you realise about 2 hours of that is straight action. The action is not paced evenly, it mainly comes out in chunks, there's three big ones which consist of all these different moments and bits, and also lead into other sets and characters. While that has the chance of not working and keeping a consistent pace, or just being mind numbing, in John Wick 4 the action is always varying itself up. I feel like John Wick spends 15 minutes in this glass light room but the movie keeps the camerawork and choreography varied that it feels as though it's not just repeating itself, and also that John has to think of new ways on the fly to get himself out of the fights in a way that is quick and fun. The amount of memorable parts is staggering, and it's what keeps this above the others in my mind. I remember scenes definitely, but i can't remember half an hour of just the most creative, fluid, thrilling action.

And yes, this is the last John Wick. I went into this movie not knowing that, but feeling as though it needed to happen. It really helps this movie, because there's this epic feeling this movie has because of it. Early on it begins to be apparent. Once the hotel blows up, you know that things are probably going to rap up. But how? I didn't know, which was also exciting. In a lot of these movies I know John Wick and the previous characters couldn't die, but here it's less apparent, and they do kill off people.

The thing that got me most in this movie is just how everything has been upgraded, and by that I mean the feel. The most memorable scene to me was the scene in the club after the card game. It's similar to a scene in John Wick 2, but these sorts of gun fights in clubs happen in every movie. What's different is both the scale, and how stylized it is. In John Wick 2 pretty early on everyone gets scared and runs away. Here it isn't until the moment when it's over do people really get scared, and it's almost surreal. Combine that with how the action, while it has rules that make it work, are probably physically inaccurate. I mean bullet proof protection is not that strong. And the amount of water coming out in that party. But it's not silly - the movie dedicates itself to this, and doesn't make jokes despite all the fun its having. That's what John Wick is. It's over the top, but grounded in its world so that you feel engaged in the spectacle. That's why this franchise is great, and it's all exemplified in this movie.

2025 - The World enslaved by a Virus (2021)

Not even entertainingly bad

[1/10 · 1 February 2023]

This movie has a fantastic title and poster, and I mean that in the way that Samurai Cop is an awesome movie. You expect to watch a movie where a grandma walks out of their house for one second without a mask on and a crew of Democrat soldiers come out and beat up this old lady. Unfortunately, 2025 is not entertainingly bad. It's just bad.

Some review said something like "this is a good example of how not to make a movie". They may have just been using that as a dig, but it's actually a really apt way of describing this movie. I've worked on short films before, and there are a ton of decisions here that are absolute rookie mistakes. For starters, this movie is clearly not storyboarded. You can tell that every scene was set up on the day, because there's very little planning to the shots. There is lighting - in certain scenes. And the audio is atrocious, I'm guessing it's all recorded from the cameras. And the actors are, well, not actors, and you can tell. And there is a lot of 'improv', if that's what you wanna call it.

But that's not the biggest problem. When they made this movie, for whatever reason, it seems as though they didn't want to make this movie fun in the slightest. They were probably thinking of making this cool, epic movie with a powerful statement. The problem is twofold. First off, there's nothing their doing which is going to be funny bad because their trying to be serious - most scenes for whatever reason are just people in a room talking about what's going on in this totalitarian future. And it's mostly just the same "I wish we had my christian freedoms" with really bad dialogue. But then the movie tries to be this epic espionage movie, and they just don't have the budget. Like, when you first make a short, you probably think of something really big, but then everyone working on the movie sits down and goes "alright we're gonna have to change a lot because we really can't show any of this." It's not because you might have bad effects, or you might be limited in what you can do - you just literally don't have the money to be able to show any of what you want. Somehow nobody told anyone in this movie, because we don't see any of this 2025 communist dictatorship. The rule is generally show don't tell but I think in this case they had no other option. They do show the evil futuristic guys, but its just a few soldiers and that's about it. There is an 'epic' car chase (by that I mean they just use a drone and a few cuts to give off a very poor illusion of a chase) and that's about it. Nothing funny bad. Which is a shame, I would've killed to see an army if cardboard men or 1990s CGI future city.

And then there's the political angle, which is just bad. Just like any right wing movie of this calibre, it's extremely preachy, to the point where it's clear every character and plot point is just there to service the very surface level theme. What's worse though is just how confused what they're trying to say is. It can be annoying in these types of movies that they can just make a really terrible argument and present a world were it seems to make sense, but in here because we don't really see the world and because they poorly define what the world is, it's hard for us to root for these guys. The world is apparently communist, I guess - they use that word but nothing else they say implies this at all. Also, despite the fact that the movie is called the world enslaved by a virus and has a poster of someone taking off their masks, it actually has very little to do with Covid. In fact, the movie is more about censoring christianity??? It seems to be implying that covid measures will lead to banning christianity, which beyond how ridiculous that sounds, you have to make an argument for, which they never do. It's also a case of the movie just telling us these things, because despite the fact that the main character gets arrested and gets told off, we never see real reprecussions for people being religious. I mean, you need a scene of police officers killing someone for reading the bible. You need something like that, otherwise you can just interpret the main characters as conspiracy theorists who are actually being targetted for an actual crime they all committed.

Are there notable kinda interesting things? I'll list anything I can remember;

• the main guy and his sister(?) are German, or something like that. Gives weird Tommy Wiseau vibes especially since he directed the movie as well
• the police and the military for whatever reason don't care for masks, despite the fact that they are meant to be authoritarian covid folks
• there's this weird christian bro guy who i think was meant to be in the army who has this very palpable tension when the sister character speaks. It's like he can't stand the fact that a dreaded femoid speak over him
• There are these random cut aways to this random girl in an apartment or house or something which I don't even remember what the point of it was

In case you couldn't tell, as bad as this movie was, it was mostly forgettable. That is not because the movie was really generic, it was because nothing on the screen was good on any real level. It's one of the most boring, insufferable things I've ever watched. This 1.1/10 imdb score is not because it's hilariously bad. It's just bad.

His Secret Marriage (2019 TV Movie)

A moderately entertaining bad movie

[6/10 · 30 September 2022]

The majority of this movie is a typical Lifetime movie. It's terribly shot, poorly acted, cheesy and pretty bad. But it's cardinal sun is being boring. However, it makes up for it in the last half hour ish. When the 'action ' starts, that's when the movie goes from a 1, to a 10. We get fight scenes, musical stingers, and big twists. Its bad - but it is now entertaining bad.

I like to rate entertainingly bad movies and I normally solely give them a 1 or a 10. 1 for well, being terrible but not entertaining, and a 10 for being bad and entertaining. But if it does both, I don't know how to rate it. It's hard to legitimately rate this movie, but I think I'll give it a 6/10 for entertainment. Parts of this "movie" are genuinely unwatchable but the last half an hour is very watchable.

The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997)

The Best Jurassic Sequel

[7/10 · 4 July 2022]

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 (I) (2019)

A Masterful performance - is all I like

[3/10 · 12 June 2022]

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.

The Boys Presents: Diabolical (2022)

Enjoyable Enough

[6/10 · 5 March 2022]

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

[8/10 · 5 March 2022]

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

[10/10 · 14 November 2021]

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 Video Game)

Big Budget Art

[10/10 · 15 October 2021]

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 Video Game)

My Personal Favourite

[10/10 · 5 October 2021]

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.

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

A Shockingly Bad Movie

[2/10 · 8 September 2021]

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

[1/10 · 20 August 2021]

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 Video Game)

A Great Mess

[7/10 · 17 August 2021]

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 (2014–2019)

A Mixed Bag

[4/10 · 30 July 2021]

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

[10/10 · 29 May 2021]

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 (1999–2007)

One of the Greatest and Most Important TV Shows

[10/10 · 13 May 2021]

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) Season 6, Episode 16

Shaky Cam?

[6/10 · 11 May 2021]

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

[10/10 · 7 May 2021]

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.