Change Your Image
![](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjQ4MTY5NzU2M15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDc5NTgwMTI@._V1_SY100_SX100_.jpg)
jeroen-106
Reviews
Presumed Innocent (2024)
Gotcha! It was the butler's nephew all along.
The show was great and then the final episode's 20 minutes ruined it all. The daughter of the accused killed the woman? There were zero clues up to that point.
The daughter even openly questioned whether her own father was guilty or not. That makes no sense. No fingerprints of the daughter were found in or around the house even after it being an ad-hoc crime. The tying-up by the accused to shift the blame was completely off with the persona that was established. The accused never discussed his (wrong) suspicion of his wife being the murderer prior to the verdict.
In the last 20 minutes the writers suddenly introduce a whole new set of circumstances rendering the majority of the show (which is acted, directed and written excellently) pointless. We've been taken on a ride. At no point could we have guessed his wife and daughter might have been involved in any way. Not even nuggets of clues were provided.
The ego of the writers and directors are the show's downfall here, ironically a theme of this very series. Instead of a cheap "gotcha" that no one could have seen coming (and also being completely unrealistic), they instead should have made the prosecution almost win the case, but then having it fail at the very last moment by having Tommy Molto's obsession with Carolyn's rejection ruin it all. Albeit it less original, at least that would have a fair wrap-up considering the built-up.
I'm pissed off by this show. A shame because the overall production value was high.
The Boys: Season Four Finale (2024)
A terrible (conclusion to the) season
Season 4 revolves around heightened stakes with Victoria Neuman edging closer to the Oval Office under Homelander's control. Butcher, now with months to live due to his misuse of Temp V, is grappling with losing Becca's son and facing the lies within his team.
The season explores a deadly supe-killing virus introduced in *Gen V*, now possessed by Neuman. Homelander consolidates his power, introducing Ryan to his alt-right followers, setting up a battle for Ryan's soul. New characters like Sister Sage and Firecracker add chaos, but their presence feels like more spectacle than substance
This show has really nosedived this season, and the signs were there last season. In the beginning, the violence, weirdness, and social commentary were smart, functional, and calculated. Now it has become a party trick to mask drifting direction and writing. The recap preceding each episode is a cacophony of weird sex and gore clearly aimed at juvenile twenty-year-olds who think it's cool and smart.
The repetitive and clichéd "Butcher sees the dark side of him personified" drags on throughout several episodes. Frenchie's sudden shift to being gay, then bisexual feels forced and unconvincing.
The only fun part was seeing a much more interesting side to Erin Moriarty's performance as Starlight. It took a shape-shifting supe taking her place for me to see her acting capabilities. Normally, her plastic surgery seems to hinder her emotional expression-something about her face feels off.
Homelander is still perfectly cast, with Antony Starr delivering a solid performance, but his character hasn't seen any development this season; it's mostly more of the same. The focus on Homelander's son, Ryan, has been disappointing. Ryan fluctuates between being a whiny, annoying character and a menacing lunatic. Are we supposed to like him, cheer for him?
Sage's reveal that she planned everything didn't feel plausible. You can be the smartest person in the world, but that doesn't mean you can predict the future. Even the smartest person deals with chaos, entropy, forces you don't control. Her so-called 'scheme' made zero sense when she revealed it.
The rest of the cast is forgettable. The season's end introduces truly lame characters from *Gen V*, demonstrating the war set in motion. This crossover is a mistake. I watched *Gen V* and it's horrendous. Bringing these characters over feels like a desperate move. I'm fed up with the world the writers have set up and I'm saying goodbye. It was fun for a while.
Gen V (2023)
Unoriginal and Shallow
Gen V, the spin-off series from *The Boys*, introduces us to Godolkin University, a prestigious institution where young superheroes, known as "supes," are trained. The premise initially sounds intriguing: exploring the lives and decisions of the next generation of supes navigating the complexities of super-powers, sexuality, and the ranking system that determines their future. However, the execution falls flat in several areas.
Firstly, the characters are extremely shallow, with little depth or development. They often come across as stereotypical and one-dimensional, failing to engage the audience emotionally. The series tries to delve into the students' struggles with their powers and moral dilemmas, but it ends up feeling more like another generic teen drama, offering nothing new or exciting. The problems of these kids are first-world issues. No viewer cares.
The themes of an evil corporation manipulating young heroes and the pervasive use of social media are tired and overdone. We've seen these tropes countless times before, and Gen V doesn't bring any fresh perspective to the table. The attempts to critique these issues feel forced and superficial.
The superpowers themselves are baffling and seem contrived just to drive a certain (woke, societal) agenda. For instance, a character who vomits to shrink and another who switches sex at will feel more like gimmicks than meaningful abilities. These powers are poorly integrated into the story, making it hard to take the plot seriously.
After enduring four or five episodes, I found it difficult to continue. The show's attempts to tackle serious themes are overshadowed by its lack of originality and depth. If you're a fan of *The Boys*, you might find some aspects of Gen V interesting, but for me, it was a disappointing addition to the universe.
Would I recommend it? Not really. If you're looking for something profound or innovative, Gen V is not it.
Gen V: First Day (2023)
Super...ficial
As someone who's not a big fan of teen dramas, "Gen V" felt overly familiar. For example, take "Wednesday"-it rehashes the same themes and conflicts, merely in a new guise. "The Boys," its predecessor, was a sharp social commentary aimed at a mature audience. Shifting this gory world to a teen-focused narrative feels odd and somewhat inappropriate.
The superficial issues of these teen characters-who have razor-thin backstories-offer little depth. Their problems seem trivial, and the lack of well-rounded characters makes it hard to care about their journeys. These characters are written as "persona templates," lacking individuality and complexity.
Moreover, the writing often feels like the weakest link. Superpowers conveniently align with plot needs, making the story predictable and less engaging. One glaring example is the lazy computer writing in Episode 2, where a character bypasses biometric protection with a mere hand wave. Such plot conveniences detract from the believability and coherence of the show.
Overall, "Gen V" fails to deliver a compelling experience and leaves much to be desired. I don't think I'll be watching it any longer.
The Rookie: Pilot (2018)
It already starts out so bad
If you shoot a first episode, you gotta do it right. It already starts with completely unrealistic behavior by someone who we are just getting introduced to, demonstrating suicidal behavior in how he speaks with bank robbers.
Then, the cops decide to drop by and opt to immediately shoot the robber, who at that very moment is pointing a gun at the protagonist's head. Everyone who thinks for a few seconds knows cops will never shoot because the robber's muscles will contract with a very high chance of killing our 'hero'. Oh, also they seem to not care about the fact that the good guy is in the middle of their line of fire, and they also don't seem to bother first figuring out the situation and doing a basic risk assessment. There could be several other bad guys in that room.
If this is the *intro to a cop show* then this very brief scene tells me not to continue watching.
The Boys: We'll Keep the Red Flag Flying Here (2024)
This show took a nosedive
Starlight is being hated by that redhead girl because when they were 13 Starlight put out a rumor that ended her beauty pageant career, and since then she's out for revenge? Is this a joke?
Direction is all over the place. The pacing is off, there's zero character development and thus no emotional investment on my part.
The Frenchie dude is now gay? Where did that come from? Why did he randomly got high and hallucinated during a shootout, without any connection to the larger story?
Why do I got the feeling the entire show is a strong of filler content without any clear build up to a climax?
I liked previous seasons because some of it was smart social commentary. However now it seems the writers are no longer invested in this show and have been replaced by a bunch of interns.
Outer Range (2022)
A Visually Stunning, Yet Philosophically Weak, Frustrating Journey
"Outer Range," starring Josh Brolin, presents an intriguing blend of western drama and science fiction, centering around the enigmatic concept of time travel. The show introduces a mysterious void on the Abbott family ranch, which acts as a portal to different points in time. This anomaly not only propels characters across various temporal landscapes but also intertwines their fates in a seemingly predestined loop. The time travel concept in "Outer Range" suggests that all events are part of a fixed destiny, with characters seemingly reliving the same cycles without altering the ultimate outcome.
From a production standpoint, "Outer Range" is well shot, with impressive cinematography that captures the vastness and beauty of the rural setting. The acting is generally strong, particularly from Josh Brolin, who delivers a compelling performance as the patriarch grappling with extraordinary circumstances. However, the performance of Amy's mother, who goes into hiding with her daughter, stands out for its mediocrity. Her portrayal feels stiff and unconvincing, detracting from the overall quality of the cast and leading to moments of toe-curling discomfort.
The main issue with "Outer Range" lies in its writing. Despite a lot happening on screen, the events often feel inconsequential. The narrative is cluttered with twists and turns that ultimately amount to nothing substantial. If the premise suggests that everything is part of a predetermined loop, then the characters lack real agency. Their choices are mere illusions, as everything that occurs is already set in stone. This nihilistic approach undermines the viewer's investment in the story and the characters' journeys.
As a result, "Outer Range" left me annoyed and dissatisfied. The show's fixation on destiny and the futility of choice rendered the entire viewing experience somewhat pointless. The sense of inevitability and lack of character control over their fates made it difficult to stay engaged. While the show had potential with its unique premise and strong visual appeal, the execution ultimately fell short, making it a frustrating watch.
From: Choosing Day (2022)
So far, boring and stupid.
Just a bunch of Americans acting on auto-pilot with cliche dialogue.
Cliche character building. Cliche little boy being stupid and naive, seeing things others don't.
Poorly thought out world building.
How do they shower, being cut off from the world? There isn't even water pressure in such case. How do they get that oatmeal and peaches? Do the monsters carry over that stuff to say "thanks for the blood"? There is no real work done on self-sustainability.
And then the whole talisman thing. A block of wood with inscriptions helping against the monsters. Seriously?
The three episodes could have been told in 5 minutes and we wouldn't have missed anything. Is this one of these shows where it's stretched like a scrotum over a timpani drum?
Dune: Part Two (2024)
Terrible movies with top tier production value.
Plot Summary: "Dune: Part Two" continues the journey of Paul Atreides as he unites with the Fremen of Arrakis to battle House Harkonnen. With his mother, Lady Jessica, and his new allies, Paul embraces his destiny and leads a rebellion to reclaim his family's honor and the planet's future. The film explores themes of prophecy, power, and sacrifice as Paul evolves from a fugitive to a messianic leader.
My review: Despite the epic scale and stunning visuals, "Dune: Part Two" suffers from the same issues as its predecessor. The dialogue is overly formal and lacks the natural flow of real human conversation, making interactions feel clinical and cold. Even the romantic exchanges between Paul and Chani are stilted, devoid of genuine warmth and spontaneity.
The fight choreography, while competent, fails to innovate, echoing the battles seen in the first part. The use of shields and strategic elements is minimal, leading to straightforward and unremarkable combat scenes.
The war sequence is disappointingly brief and simplistic. It begins with a character pointing to a map and stating their plan of attack, which unfolds exactly as described without any unexpected twists or strategic depth, resulting in an anticlimactic victory.
For fans of the "Dune" series, the film offers a wealth of material to dissect and discuss, staying true to the source material's complex narrative and themes. However, as someone who has not read the books, the film's impressive production values and cinematography are overshadowed by its emotionally distant and detached storytelling, making it difficult to invest in the characters and their plight.
Sugar (2024)
Silly
The Apple TV+ series "Sugar," starring Colin Farrell, promises an engaging detective drama but ultimately disappoints with its unexpected sci-fi twist in episode six. The reveal of an alien plot feels jarring and poorly integrated, undermining the detective story built over the first five episodes. This abrupt genre shift frustrates rather than intrigues, highlighting a lack of cohesive storytelling.
Farrell's performance is a notable draw, yet it can't salvage the weak screenplay and clunky dialogue that persist throughout the series. The recurring homage to old movies, likely a nod from the director's personal interests, feels out of place and forced, failing to enhance the narrative or character depth.
The series' climax falls flat with predictable tropes such as the "friend-turned-villain" twist and implausible plot devices like the conveniently hidden dress. These elements contribute to an ending that feels contrived and unsatisfying.
Overall, "Sugar" struggles to blend its ambitious elements into a coherent and compelling story, leaving viewers more perplexed than pleased.
Fallout (2024)
Pretty good
(Note: I completed the Fallout 3 game but do not consider myself to be a fan, per se).
The TV adaptation of the beloved video game "Fallout" has finally hit the screens, and while it brings the iconic post-apocalyptic world to life with impressive art direction and set design, it struggles in some critical areas, particularly storytelling.
First and foremost, the representation of the game's world is superb. The art direction is amazing, capturing the essence of Fallout's retro-futuristic aesthetic with incredible attention to detail. The sets are beautifully crafted, showcasing the passion and dedication of the production team. However, while the CGI is generally good, there are moments where it could have used a bit more polish.
The show's gore is in line with the Fallout IP, and while it is integral to the universe, it can occasionally feel a bit distracting. This, however, is a minor gripe and largely forgivable given the context of the series.
Despite these strong points, the show's storytelling is not perfect. One of the main issues is the improbable frequency with which characters run into each other in the vast wasteland. This constant string of coincidences strains credulity and detracts from the otherwise immersive experience.
Character comparisons also fall a bit flat. Maximus, for instance, feels like a clone of Finn from Star Wars, lacking a unique identity. Similarly, the Ghoul character comes across as a rehashed version of William from Westworld. These similarities diminish the originality that fans expect from a Fallout adaptation.
Moreover, character consistency is another area where the show falters. Lucy, for example, is portrayed as naive due to her upbringing, yet she demonstrates formidable combat skills. This juxtaposition of naivety and adeptness in fighting creates a disconnect, as her level of training should realistically come with a better understanding of the dangers of the wasteland. While her moments of comedy are relatable, they sometimes translate into frustration when she fails to recognize obvious threats.
Overall, "Fallout" is not a bad show. I was entertained and I will be watching season 2. It offers a visually stunning experience with high production values. However, it falls short of brilliance due to its storytelling flaws and character inconsistencies. It's an enjoyable watch, but it doesn't quite reach the heights of shows like "Succession" or "Severance."
Argylle (2024)
A $200M insult to indie filmmakers.
Despite its promising plot and stellar cast, "Argylle," directed by Matthew Vaughn and written by Jason Fuchs, stands as a colossal misstep in the spy-comedy genre. The film, which boasts an intriguing premise involving a novelist whose fictional work mirrors real espionage activities, unfortunately, squanders its creative potential through a series of unforgivable cinematic blunders.
The film's special effects are its first notable downfall. In an age where viewers have grown accustomed to high-quality, believable visuals, the effects in "Argylle" are jarringly unrealistic, detracting from the immersion and overall experience. Such a flaw is especially glaring given the movie's substantial $200 million budget, which, one might argue, could have been allocated more judiciously.
The acting, too, leaves much to be desired. With a cast that includes the likes of Bryce Dallas Howard, Henry Cavill, and Samuel L. Jackson, my expectations were high. However, the performances delivered are surprisingly wooden. This could be attributed to the film's poor direction and a script that fails to capitalize on the actors' capabilities, instead rendering their talents almost unrecognizable amidst the awkward attempts at humor and stilted dialogue.
Speaking of humor, the film attempts to adopt a tongue-in-cheek tone but fails miserably. The jokes are flat, and the comedic timing is off, making the film feel more tedious than entertaining.
Plot-wise, "Argylle" is a tangle of implausible scenarios that seem more focused on convoluted twists than coherent storytelling. The narrative leaps from one improbable situation to another, relying on contrived developments rather than genuine intrigue to propel the story forward. This not only challenges the viewer's suspension of disbelief but also makes the storyline feel forced and uninspired.
Moreover, when considering the extravagant budget, it's disheartening to reflect on what could have been achieved. The financial resources poured into "Argylle" could have supported numerous indie films, potentially offering fresh voices and innovative ideas to the cinema landscape-opportunities lost to this underwhelming production.
In conclusion, "Argylle" is an unfortunate example of a film that, despite its ambitious concept and A-list cast, fails to deliver. It is a stark reminder that a big budget and big names do not necessarily equate to quality filmmaking. For those in search of a compelling spy comedy, this film, unfortunately, misses the mark by a significant margin.
Barry (2018)
From Brilliant to Baffling: Barry's Downward Spiral
Rating season 1 & 2: 4 out of 5 stars.
Rating season 3 & 4: 2 out of 5 stars.
"Barry" started as a beacon of innovative storytelling and dark humor, masterfully blending the absurdity of an assassin-turned-actor with sharp, engaging writing. Bill Hader shone brightly, delivering comedy and pathos in equal measure, supported by a compelling cast and fresh narrative twists.
However, the transition into later seasons marked a stark and disappointing shift. The series dove into a darker abyss, losing its comedic edge and narrative clarity. It felt as though the writers abandoned the original charm and wit of the show for a tone that neither matched the brilliance of its beginnings nor offered something equally substantial in return.
The elimination of pivotal elements, like Barry's acting classes and his professional escapades, stripped the show of its unique flair. Instead, we were left with a convoluted soap opera that lacked the original's clever punch. The series finale tried to recapture some magic with a meta-twist, presenting a show within a show based on Barry's life. While conceptually interesting, it landed on an already weakened foundation, making it hard to appreciate or care for the direction the characters and story had taken.
By the end, the frustration was palpable. It felt as though the creative team lost their narrative compass, leaving us with a shell of the show that once was. What started as a brilliant hybrid of comedy and drama ended as a bewildering disappointment, a sentiment echoed by many fans who had high hopes for Barry's journey.
Sugar: Shibuya Crossing (2024)
Sugar Hits a Sour Note
Colin Farrell's "Sugar" unfortunately stumbles into the pitfalls of many TV dramas; it's grasping for a unique voice but ends up sounding all too familiar. Episode 4 epitomizes this struggle, leaving much to be desired in terms of character development and originality.
A significant issue in this episode is the blatant disregard for realistic tech portrayals, a common thread in many shows but painfully obvious here. The scene where a character receives an "unauthorized access!" alert on her computer in bright red is particularly grating. Not only does it defy basic understanding of how cybersecurity and access protocols work, but it also assumes viewers will accept this lack of authenticity. The question of why she, presumably not an admin, receives real-time alerts about file accesses is left unanswered. More realistic would be a scenario where breaches are discovered through routine checks, not flashy, real-time warnings.
This kind of creative oversight reflects a broader problem in "Sugar": a deficiency in clever, thoughtful writing. The show seems content to recycle familiar elements of the detective genre without injecting the nuanced character study or sharp dialogue that elevates a series from ordinary to exceptional.
For those of us yearning for the gripping narratives and rich character arcs seen in shows like "Severance" and "Succession," "Sugar" feels like a missed opportunity. It tries to dress up in noir trappings but lacks the substance needed to make its identity crisis compelling.
The Gentlemen (2024)
A Tale of Style Over Substance
Guy Ritchie's venture from the big screen to the streaming platform with "The Gentlemen" (2024) offers a visual spectacle, true to his trademark style, yet leaves a void where the essence of its story should reside. Filmed across iconic locations including London, Badminton House, and the historical Longcross Studios, the series is nothing short of a feast for the eyes, enveloping viewers in a world that's as stylish as it's meticulously curated.
With a reception that teeters on the edge of general favorability (71% on Rotten Tomatoes and a Metacritic score of 67), the series embodies Ritchie's penchant for slick, polished narratives that, while entertaining, skate on the surface of its characters' depths. The performances, especially by Kaya Scodelario, inject a much-needed vitality into the series, portraying a character with a semblance of arc and complexity amidst a sea of underdeveloped personas.
However, the central figure, played by Theo James, becomes emblematic of the series' struggle - a protagonist lost in a narrative that dazzles without depth, where the allure of coolness overshadows the potential for character growth and emotional resonance.
"The Gentlemen" manages to be both engaging and monotonous; it's a paradox of entertainment that captures Ritchie's cinematic flair but falters in delivering a compelling narrative. As viewers traverse through the series, the excitement of the crime-laden plot gives way to a realization of its superficiality, leaving one to ponder the potential of its untapped depths.
In sum, while "The Gentlemen" succeeds in being a visual treat and a testament to Ritchie's distinctive style, it underscores the quintessential challenge of balancing form with substance. The series stands as a reminder that in the realm of storytelling, the sheen of style, however appealing, cannot fully compensate for the lack of a substantive core.
Resident Alien: Pilot (2021)
Dumb and cliche.
Managed to slightly smile at some point, but it's not that smart and funny. The premise is a bit lame too. A terrible bar scene where a woman shows a lot of interest in the 'alien' based on interactions that normally scare away women. And then the absolutely childish dancing scene on auto-tune GenZ music that apparently is liked by the two women. A bar lady saying she likes "bad boys" and drinks like she's a customer. It's all so unrealistic and out of place, American cliche class-C writers room crap. And then the alien kinda wants to dance because of, instinct I guess? What is this, a children's show?
Can believe the ratings for this crappy pilot.
Glass Onion (2022)
Doesn't Quite Cut as Deep
"Glass Onion" attempts to replicate the sharp wit and intricate plotting that made "Knives Out" a standout, but it loses some edge in the process. Where "Knives Out" deftly combined the cozy trappings of a classic whodunit with timely social commentary, "Glass Onion" veers towards the fantastical, stretching the bounds of plausibility.
In "Knives Out," the Thrombey family felt like a believable, if dysfunctional, unit, each member with motives that were relatable. The film's setting, a stately mansion filled with secrets, provided a perfect backdrop for the detective work of Benoit Blanc, played with charismatic flair by Daniel Craig. His performance was one of the keystones of the film, alongside a tightly woven plot that delivered satisfying twists and a poignant social message.
On the other hand, "Glass Onion" trades this groundedness for a more flamboyant and far-fetched tale. Set on a private Greek island, the film's eccentric billionaire Miles Bron invites a group for a murder mystery party that becomes all too real. The stakes feel artificially inflated, and the characters lack the depth of the first film's ensemble. For example, the murder mystery party setup feels contrived and the 'onion' layers of the story, while ambitious, often come off as convoluted rather than clever.
The charm of "Knives Out" lay in its ability to surprise us within the confines of reality, whereas "Glass Onion" sometimes feels like it's trying too hard to outdo its predecessor's inventiveness. The twists seem more for shock value rather than serving the story.
Despite these criticisms, "Glass Onion" is not without its merits. The production design is stunning, and the ensemble cast brings a vibrant energy to the screen. However, I found myself yearning for the more understated and shrewd storytelling of "Knives Out."
As we anticipate "Knives Out 3," my hope is for a return to the roots of what made the original so engaging: a clever, tightly plotted mystery that feels as sharp as a blade and as cozy as a worn leather armchair. A return to form would be a welcome sight, indeed.
Barbie (2023)
Preachy
"Barbie" (2023), directed by Greta Gerwig, stands as a film that ignites conversation, not just about its spectacle but also its heavy-handed approach to delivering its message. At the heart of my experience was a sense of disillusionment, not with the film's ability to dazzle visually-because, in this aspect, it truly excels-but with its insistence on a sermonizing tone that detracts from the cinematic storytelling.
The Preachiness Problem: Gerwig's Barbie world is more than just a canvas of pink; it's a platform for preaching. The film, in its zeal to address gender norms and societal expectations, often crosses the line from showing to telling, leaving little room for viewers to engage with the narrative on their own terms. This didactic approach undermines the essence of "show, don't tell," a fundamental principle of filmmaking. As a result, it feels like enduring a lecture rather than being invited into a story.
Misguided Gender Dynamics: My discomfort extends to the portrayal of gender dynamics within the film.
Art Direction vs. Experience: It's undeniable that "Barbie" is a feast for the eyes. The art direction is nothing short of amazing, bringing to life the iconic doll's universe with a kaleidoscope of colors and imaginative design. However, this visual achievement feels hollow in the wake of a narrative that struggles to match its depth with substance. The beauty of the film's aesthetics becomes overshadowed by a viewing experience marred by its preachy tone and missed opportunities for nuanced storytelling.
In conclusion, while "Barbie" (2023) may be a landmark in visual storytelling, its reliance on overt messaging and a skewed portrayal of gender dynamics detracts from its potential as a film. The brilliance of its art direction is unfortunately not enough to save the viewer from a less-than-stellar experience. A movie, regardless of its good intentions or bad, must first and foremost captivate its audience through the art of storytelling, something that "Barbie" struggles to achieve amidst its preachy narrative and controversial themes.
Acapulco (2021)
I changed my mind.
Acapulco, the 2021 1st season, is a vibrant splash of color and energy, encapsulating the spirit of the famed Mexican resort city with an art direction that can only be described as beautiful. The series does an impressive job of bringing the 1980s to life through its meticulous set designs, costumes, and overall visual storytelling, making it a feast for the eyes. The energy radiating from the screen is palpable, with every frame bursting with the kind of zest and vivacity that matches the show's picturesque setting.
At first I rated this a 6 out of 10. I felt actors lean heavily into a comedic portrayal that often felt out of place. The morale was a bit too much on the nose for me. However, I just had to get used to the format and actually over time the show demonstrated a lot of heart and some of the more serious notes compensated for what I found to be lacking earlier.
I realized we are watching a sweet fairy tale.
We should be more grateful that finally there's something more positive, innocent, and less cynical on streaming media. We all can use that these days.
So, consider my previous review erased, and replaced with more appreciation.
Foundation: King and Commoner (2023)
Time to Jump Ship
Alright, folks, I've hit my limit with "Foundation" Season 2, Episode 3. Let's dive into why I'm calling it quits on this space saga.
Season 1 was decent, right? It had its moments, but oh boy, Season 2 has taken a nosedive into the abyss of fantasy gibberish. I mean, I'm all for a good space opera, but this? It's like they're just tossing in random elements without any rhyme or reason. The dialogue? It's like they're pulling it out of a hat.
This episode just highlighted all the flaws. The plot's wandering and the characters - they're just there, like extras who forgot they could leave the set. And let's talk world-building - or the lack thereof. In sci-fi, you've got to have a world that makes sense, even if it's a crazy, out-there kind of sense. But here? It's like they're winging it with every scene.
Honestly, Apple needs to take a hard look at this show. It feels like they just gave up and everyone's going through the motions. And while they're at it, might as well reevaluate "Invasion" too. Maybe take some notes from "Silo" Season 1 - that was a breath of fresh sci-fi air.
So, I'm out. If you're still hanging on, hoping for a miracle turnaround, I admire your optimism. But for me, "Foundation" has lost its foundation. Time to find a new space adventure.
Foundation (2021)
Anything goes, and I hate that.
"Foundation" (2021) seems less like a meticulously crafted sci-fi epic and more like a creative writing exercise where the motto is 'anything goes'. The writers, reveling in their unbridled freedom, appear to have tossed aside any semblance of narrative constraint, making it up as they go along.
The result? A universe where everything and anything is possible, which sounds cool until you realize it's basically plot armor masquerading as storytelling. Characters flip-flop between being inexplicably weak to ludicrously invincible, depending on what the plot demands at that moment.
This approach stands in stark contrast to a series like "The Expanse," where the rules of its universe add layers of tension and realism. "Foundation," on the other hand, opts for a more 'playground rules' approach, where the only rule is there are no rules. It's like watching a chess game where the pieces can move however the players feel like in the moment. The show might seem intelligent at a glance, a shiny veneer of sophistication, but scratch that surface and it's as hollow as a drum.
For those who value coherent world-building and consistent character development, "Foundation" is a hard pass. It demands a viewer who can switch off their brain and accept the narrative gymnastics without question. It's a show that only works if you're willing to consume it with the uncritical acceptance of a child watching a cartoon. Underneath its superficially intelligent exterior, it's a jumbled mess that feels like it's disrespecting both the audience and the art of storytelling.
But yes, the art direction and set pieces look good.
The Dark Knight Rises (2012)
Rated way too high; Nolan gets away with too much
"The Dark Knight Rises," the supposed climax of Nolan's Batman trilogy, sadly plays out more like a prolonged, confused whimper than the bang it aimed for. Overstuffed with plot holes big enough to drive the Batmobile through, the film tries to juggle too many elements, ultimately dropping them all. Bane, while physically imposing, ends up as a villain who's more muffled voice than menace, making one long for the charisma of Ledger's Joker. And don't get me started on the 'twist' - it's as if the writers threw darts at a plot board and went with whatever disjointed scenario they hit. The film's length, which I assume was an attempt at an epic finale, instead feels like a marathon with no finish line in sight. It's a lumbering giant that forgets the sleekness and depth that made its predecessors shine. In trying to be grandiose, "The Dark Knight Rises" unfortunately stumbles and falls into the pit of mediocrity.
Invasion: Contact (2021)
Absurd and lazy writing. Snail's pace.
"Invasion" Season 1, Episode 8, titled "Contact," takes a dive into the realm of science fiction that stretches beyond the bounds of plausibility, harking back to the days of '90s sci-fi extravaganzas like "Independence Day." However, unlike its predecessors, this episode fails to anchor its fantastical elements in a bedrock of believability, which becomes its Achilles' heel.
The episode's central plot revolves around a Japanese woman attempting to communicate with aliens, a premise that in itself invites intrigue. However, the execution of this idea quickly veers into the realm of the absurd. The methodology and technology employed for this alien communication are reminiscent of the far-fetched scenario in "Independence Day," where a human-made virus is used to infiltrate an alien mothership. This comparison is not flattering; it highlights a lack of originality and an over-reliance on outdated sci-fi tropes.
Moreover, the show's portrayal of technology is disappointingly superficial. In an era where the audience is more tech-savvy than ever, and when real-world scientists, language experts, and engineers are readily accessible for consultation, the writers of "Invasion" opt for a lazy approach. The use of techno-babble, accompanied by flashy but meaningless visualizations of nodes, 3D spaces, and lines of code, does little to mask the absence of genuine scientific grounding. This approach not only insults the intelligence of the viewer but also represents a missed opportunity to infuse the narrative with authenticity and depth.
This lack of commitment to realism in "Invasion" extends to its overall pacing and development throughout the season. With a narrative that meanders more than it progresses, the show struggles to maintain engagement. The recommendation to watch it at 1.25x speed is a telling comment on its sluggish pacing. In a time where television writing has reached new heights of sophistication and complexity, the lackluster execution of "Invasion" stands out as a glaring example of how not to approach science fiction storytelling.
In summary, "Invasion" S01E08 is a disappointment for viewers seeking intelligent, well-researched science fiction. Its reliance on outdated tropes, combined with a lack of scientific rigor and slow pacing, makes for a viewing experience that falls short of the standards expected by contemporary audiences. It serves as a reminder that even in the realm of fiction, credibility and attention to detail are paramount.
Invasion (2021)
Season 1 review: better watch this at 1.25x speed!
"Invasion" Season 1 is a show that certainly divides opinion, primarily due to its exceptionally slow pacing. In an unusual turn, I found myself watching it at 1.25x speed, something I've never done before, which surprisingly made the viewing experience more bearable. Despite the sluggish pace, the show isn't as underwhelming as some might suggest. The performances are notably strong, lending credibility to a series that otherwise struggles with its narrative coherence.
A recurrent issue in "Invasion" is the frustratingly illogical behavior of its characters. Characters often withhold information or make decisions that defy common sense, creating unnecessary conflicts and prolonging storylines that could have been resolved much quicker. This kind of storytelling, where characters are artificially ignorant or silent, undermines the otherwise intriguing plot and can be a source of irritation.
Particularly baffling is the "signal decoding" subplot involving a Japanese JASA employee. This aspect of the show comes across as entirely nonsensical, highlighting a common problem in sci-fi writing: the lack of input from subject matter experts such as engineers or scientists. This leads to scenarios that feel unconvincing and poorly researched, detracting from the show's overall believability.
Despite these criticisms, "Invasion" manages to retain interest, largely due to its ambitious scope and some likable characters. The show is a smorgasbord of ideas, some of which are more successful than others. It's passable as a sci-fi drama, but it's evident that the series could have benefited from tighter writing and more realistic character decisions.
In summary, "Invasion" is a mixed bag. It's a show that requires patience and a willingness to overlook its slower moments and narrative inconsistencies. For viewers seeking a sci-fi series that's easy to binge and filled with intriguing concepts, it might be worth a watch, albeit at an increased speed.
The Age of Adaline (2015)
She shouldn't be driving.
"Age of Adaline" (2015) is a romantic drama that struggles to rise above its shallow premise. The story revolves around Adaline, a woman who ceases to age following a bizarre accident involving lightning and a car crash. This eternal youth becomes a curse, as Adaline spends decades fleeing relationships and connections to avoid revealing her secret. That feeling of loneliness works well - I felt it.
The plot thickens with a cliché romantic twist when she falls for a man whose father, in a twist of fate, turns out to be an old lover of hers. This revelation propels her into yet another car accident, ironically leading to her aging again due to defibrillator shocks. Wouldn't she be the best driver in the world at her age?
While the premise is intriguing, the execution falls flat, particularly in the romance department, which is tediously predictable. However, the film is somewhat redeemed by the performances of its cast. Harrison Ford delivers a remarkably nuanced performance, arguably outshining his younger self. Meanwhile, the actress playing Adaline is a vision of beauty, exuding grace and style that captivate the viewer. Despite these strengths, the film ultimately fails to delve deep into the potentially rich themes it brushes against, leaving the audience with a visually pleasing but emotionally unsatisfying experience.