dreamdemon-1 Reviews

Fallout (2024– )

A top-notch game adaptation

[10/10 · 12 April 2024]

Gone are the days of Uwe Boll.

The recent adaptation of The Last of Us is the gold standard against which all game adaptations will be measured and while there are many out there, it's generally the anime-style the gather appreciation since the animated genre is more malleable to provide the kind of elements generally required while live-action lives and dies on the strength of the story, characters and acting.

Fallout shines in the direction department. Jonathan Nolan and Lisa Joy join forced with Bethesda game designer Todd Howard. Nolan's name alone would gather respect but next to a Bethesda game designer, the hopes from this adaptation are high and it doesn't disappoint.

The story draws on all the right elements of the franchise and builds deeply within the post-apocalyptic Fallout world. The story is really well thought out and brings enough background that the detailed-oriented viewers who haven't enjoyed the games also have a good shot at immersing themselves in the story.

The only thing that feels shaky is the acting. It's not consistent all around and while overall the cast does a good job, it's not just that (obviously) some actors do a better job than others, it's also that nobody is consistent in their craft.

It's a fairly minor issue, but I can see the potential for it to get tiresome. Overall though, it's an amazing series that makes the subscription to Prime Video worth it all by itself.

Madame Web (2024)

No redeeming qualities to be found

[1/10 · 24 February 2024]

I get it. We definitely need some strong female action figures.

However, the laziness of saying "let's do a female Iron Man, or a female Spiderman or whatnot" is totally countrerproductive here, particularly in a world where superhero fatigue has taken hold.

The MCU has not only raised the bar on the expectations moviegoers have about superhero movies but it has also oversatisfied the demand to the point few (if any) would actively demand more superhero movies.

Sure, we're poised to consume some that come out but to leave a mark a movie needs to provide a strong story, at least above average acting and at least on-par VFX. There's really no margin for laziness here because any follow-up act has its work cut out for itself if it wants to make an impact. Doubly so when female leads are front and center (largely due to previous laziness as seen in the latest Ghostbusters installment) But "Madame Web" makes no effort whatsoever. It's formulaic, lazy, beyond silly. The leads definitely have a hard time turning an awful script into an opportunity and there's just no room for them to ... you know ... act. It's a total waste of their talents to the point where I'm baffled that nobody threw the script away and ran screaming.

At what point is a paycheck too little for a stain on your career? I can't directly blame them though, but I'm sure there are people in an office somewhere in Hollywood who'll land the blame on people not wanting strong female action leads.

Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2024– )

At least it doesn't pretend to be a sequel

[2/10 · 24 February 2024]

Someone was obviously going for an attempt to create water out of arid rocks ... or money for nothing.

They definitely spent a lot to create a whole lot of nothing, that's for sure, which is understandable given that the premise itself is absurd.

The premise, in fact, it's all that this title has in common with the previous 2005 film featuring Pitt and Jolie. However, that movie ended up mildly entertaining because of the charisma and chemistry between the two leads (and that it didn't take itself very seriously).

This series however runs out of charm and steam in the first 20 minutes, once the premise is out. There's no chemistry between the leads, the story lacks any imagination whatsoever to the point where the result is a flat waste of time.

Avatar: The Last Airbender (2024– )

Very few redeeming qualities here

[3/10 · 24 February 2024]

In the wake of the original animated series and the Korra sequel, I would've been shocked if someone wouldn't have tried to make a live action version at some point. And given the technology we have now for VFX, what better time?

Of course, when you make a pure remake in the "what if we had real people instead of animations" where the actors are all that's real and everything else is CGI, you're setting yourself up for failure unless you also try to breathe something new into the story.

This is what makes this series so sad: it has pretty good VFX/SFX, the acting is more than decent given the ensemble. In many ways, it's better than I expected.

So what gives then?

First of all, as a fan of the original series, I can't get over the fact that it's a blatant attempt to cash in on nostalgia. Plain and simple. There's nothing new here.

I can appreciate the actors and directors were in a no win situation here. A beloved series - but a different story or change in the "canon" world would raise protests. Be too faithful to the original material and people will be (like I am) quite "meh" about the final thing.

Second, I would have prefferred a series focusing on the human aspect of the story. Too much VFX about bending is a trap in a live-action series. There's simply too much that worked well before because it was an 100% animated thing. The characters blended with the FX seamlessly. Here, despite the technology, despite the obvious care for details, a lot simply doesn't work and the actors end up looking laughable in scenes doing too much bending.

In a children's animation like the original Avatar, a lot can be forgiven. Korra took a much more mature approach (as if catering for the fans growing up) and ended up a truly solid sequel.

But this ... it looks great and kudos on the acting effort, but much of everything else (script/writing/ etc .... even music at times) falls way flat.

Foundation (2021– )

Visually stunning but little substance

[4/10 · 6 August 2023]

Filming anything "Foundation" related would be a daunting task. As a series focused more on story-telling and the meat of its concepts, it never spent time on visual descriptions.

As such, these would have to be envisioned completely from scratch and the showrunners have done an absolutely amazing job.

However, picking up on the source material leads to spotty results. The Foundation, even as a standalone book, is a sprawling work that covers different times of the Galactic Empire. Asimov builds a story and connects dots over many books. However, the showrunners have tried to condense the material and turn it into a 10-episode season.

In doing so they broke most connections to Asimov's work, aside from some character names and the broad concept of psychohistory. What's left is a mess within the scope of Asimov's work.

* a robot that inexplicably breaks the 3 laws?

* little thought given to space travel? (as a scientist, Asimove went at great lengths to explain the inner workings of his universe while the showrunners make a mess) * little thought given to the history of the universe?

* clones?

I'm not sure why the showrunners simply didn't create a fully separate universe while just borrowing ideas from Aismov. You could have a science based on psychohistory, a galactic empire has since become an ubiquitous trope - after all the result is the same while getting fan backlash. Given the departures it would've been wise just to call it an original work somewhat inspired by Asimov's series.

Oppenheimer (I) (2023)

A movie that challenges you to find faults

[9/10 · 24 July 2023]

Should I mark this review as containing spoilers? It's a historical drama and given that the movie is based on a novel that in itself is as close to historical fact as one can get, the move is basically pre-spoilt for anyone with a cursory knowledge of the events around the Manhattan project and the witch-hunt that pursued Oppenheimer and some of his close associates.

All in all, this is a movie which one goes to see for the acting and the drama rather than the story itself. And boy, is the acting top notch! Downey JR and Cillian Murphy steal the show (as one would expect) but even the lesser known names have a lot to work with and they don't disappoint which is a testament both to their skill as well as the writers'.

Faults?

Well, being close to source can lead to a feeling of being rushed and it does feel as such. The movie rushes through Oppenheimer's life hinting at genius and brushing over faults, jumping at predetermined points in a way that feels quite artificial and forced. Indeed, Oppenheimer could have easily been an HBO TV series as there's a lot to take in.

Science fan service includes name dropping of big names: Bohr, Bethe, Szilard, Fermi, Teller, Einstein, Feynman, Lawrence, Rabi and others. But Rabi and Teller aside, their relationship with Oppenheimer isn't explored nearly enough. I do love the attention in the portrayal of Oppenheimer's personality and also personal life and its consequences in the high stakes game around the Manhattan Project but it's a miss the fact that the movie simply brushes over why Oppenheimer even went ahead leading the project - all the more reason I would look forward to a series.

Above all, however, looms the cheap drama that Nolan makes of Strauss' "hidden" witchhunt against Oppenheimer. It's cheap because there was no "detective work" needed to realize who pulled the strings. When Eisenhower offered Strauss the chairmanship of the AEC, his condition was that Oppenheimer was kept out of it. The animosity had already spilled over well before the month-long hearing used by the movie as the backdrop of the story.

Consequently, Strauss losing the confirmation hearing was also no mystery whereas several scientists brought up the subject of Oppenheimer's brutal hearing.

The movie's "oomph" could have easily been the internal drama of the morality of developing WMDs, their use and their later proliferation but it's understandable that Nolan, a true right-wing filmmaker that has no qualms about justifying the most questionable practices under the guise of security, would prefer to skip the debate.

In fact, I was surprised to see the very question of whether WMDs should be used or not posed - it was hard to skip altogether but in the end we can still feel Nolan's efforts to brush it aside. After all, Oppenheimer not signing the manifesto initially makes it easy to paint him as being on the fence when in fact he went on to wage an all-out-war against nuclear weapons and proliferation - a battle replaced by the Strauss/Oppenheimer conflict.

The ending of the movie is also just a bit too on the nose - but it's a fitting one.

Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves (2023)

A worthy revival

[8/10 · 31 March 2023]

I'll say off the bat that judged as a standalone movie, D&D HaT isn't great. Going in the gorgeous fantasy setting, there's very little emotional connection to form. It doesn't work in the same way that Guardins of the Galaxy (an obvious source of inspiration for the structural build of this movie) does.

While the main character does have a tragic backstory, it fails to connect and any attempt at drama feels rather annoying in a movie that is at its best when it doesn't take itself seriously.

Truly, that's what makes it work - and boy, when it works then it works magically! It pokes fun at the source material, at itself and doesn't try to be too clever.

All in all, it feels exactly like a D&D quest (and a Forgotten Realms adventure to boot, which takes you through some of the mandatory places there and mentions even more).

Obviously fans of the tabletop game have the most to enjoy. There's plenty of inside jokes, symbols to observe, places to see/hear mentioned. Top mentions go to the Harpers (whose lore has some bearing on the plot) and the ghost of Elminster.

Outsiders may still enjoy some of the banter (there was room for more though) but taken standalone it's not the best movie. However, top marks to washing away the awful taste of the 2000 movie - the attention given to the source material (again, I would have made some different choices in terms of monsters and whatnot) leaves room for some cinematic universe building. Hasbro has learned from Marvel, for sure.

Bezos (2023)

A pointless attempt that goes nowhere

[3/10 · 29 January 2023]

First of all, I acknowledge that making anything except a straight factual biography on Bezos is an attempt in futility as there's no way it will reach people.

Bezos is a polarising figure as his story as a person equals that of Amazon, with all that it represents to different people: a success story, a villanous corporation, a pointless foray into commercial space flight, worker rights suppression, a consumer godsend, environmental disaster and so on.

Something that brushes past these topics having any other reason except factual authenticity is going to get a pushback.

To make up for dodging what makes Bezos polarising, the movie would have to be an exercise in art: acting, story writing, a human side of Bezos, going deep into personal issues, the make of the man and so on.

Long story short, this movie fails across the board. The acting is all over the place, I'd call it decent but decent is just not enough to save this. Cinematography is good ... but buried under bland writing and a story that brings nothing to the table.

There's really nothing here as everything that could potentially make people curious is just glossed over, including Bezos' divorce despite the fact that his wife was also a driving force behind his Amazon empire building. This point alone is unforgivable.

Paranoid (2016)

A missed opportunity

[7/10 · 22 January 2023]

I'll come out an say it: the main story line is deeply engaging. The cast has the talent and the fact the story happens around several geographic locations adds a whole other layer on top.

Everything seems primed for success, so much so that it feels like it took real effort from the writers to undercut their biggest assets.

I love Indira Varma - she can do anything. Whether it's emotionally unstable characters or strong women, she can deliver. Yet here it looks like the writers played a joke on her with a neurotic detective that's all over the place. Her boyfriend drama seems overly manufactured - mostly in the sense that it comes out of nowhere. She's presented as a smart, successful and driven detective which suddenly breaks into an "I want to have kids now, otherwise my life is meaningless" tirade. If only there was some buildup to that or any hint whatsoever ...

Robert Glenister's detective is the only one whose character seems to make sense - mostly for all the reasons why Varma's character is not. His character is provided as a puzzle, with different revealing moments. It's not perfect, it doesn't necessarily fit neatly if you think too much but his actions and dialogue follows logically (mostly) from how the character is revealed.

Dino Fletcher seems to have also gotten the short end of the stick. The three top detectives on the same case? He looks and feels like a third wheel in the beginning. He exists to create a pointless subplot with respect to Varma's Nina. He suffers from largely the same writing shortcomings as Varma. There were times when I was hoping he'd get killed just to stop the painfully over-the-top interactions with Nina. At least that way there would be some plausible drama there.

In a way, the main story provides enough reward which feels all the more valuable due to the pain the viewer goes through in order to get to.

Red Notice (2021)

It goes all the way, and beyond!

[9/10 · 14 November 2021]

This little action comedy gem has enough going for it: cast chemistry, a laughable premise and outrageous action. By all means it's should be just a by-the-numbers heist flick with light twists, enough to keep you entertained.

And entertaining it is, as long as you can suspend your disbelief just the right amount.

Driven largely by the chemistry between Reynolds (who seems to play Deadpool everywhere) and Dwayne Johnson (a natural comedy genius) with Gal Gadot an unlikely by charming addition, this movie is just enough of light saturday night entertainment to help recharge your batteries.

But there's another side of the movie: it never takes itself seriously and at the same time it subverts your own need to suspend your disbelief. As the movie nears its conclusion, do take the time to revisit in the back of your mind all those moments that seemed too outrageous (and the script does take the time to address them either during its runtime or at the end when it goes back to "explain" some things). Yes, the movie mocks you for suspending too much of your disbelief and not going with the simplest explanations.

This tiny bit of detail helps this movie out of the hole of generic action flicks, perhaps just enough to warrant a second watch.

Game of Thrones: The Bells (2019) Season 8, Episode 5

The most dissapointing

[1/10 · 22 May 2019]

Even at its quickest pacing, GOT generally took its time to make sense. Here, however, it ran aground on its own ambition and what should've taken a couple of episodes to explain (or even a season) got compressed into a couple of lines of dialogue and a minute of dumbfounded looks. This is writing at its lowest to the point where I do not doubt any fan blessed with decent grammar would have done a better job.

Game of Thrones: The Long Night (2019) Season 8, Episode 3

A shallow disapointment

[2/10 · 22 May 2019]

It's one of those things that ooze with bad writing and great visuals, quite like a Michael Bay movie. It's fascinating, largely due to the mind numbing sillyness of how the action unfolds while captivated by its looks. Awful by GOT standards, that's the bottom line.

Frontier (2016–2018)

A lot of misleading promises

[5/10 · 29 November 2017]

There's plenty to like about the series and the first season had plenty of punch to it, which sadly can't be said about the second season.

Good things first: - Jason Momoa can act, though his heart isn't in this character. The other are a hit and miss, plenty of supporting cast to like but most other main characters are brought to life by actors with little to no charisma. - the story has huge potential, plenty of it coming to fruition - as a period piece, there's beautiful scenes, great costumes and a lot of raw feeling to it that lends it believability and authenticity

Bad things: - huge nonsensical plot holes, smart characters turning stupid over night - the story is marred by cheap cheese much too often - dialogue is filled with clichés - incredibly uneven performances leading to a lot of effort going to waste

Wonder Woman (2017)

Enjoyable for the most part but editing kills it in the end

[4/10 · 1 June 2017]

Can't say I was ever a fan of Wonder Woman but then again I'm not a fan of DCU in general with the exception of Batman (hated the atrocious embodiment by Ben Affleck though). Given that I thoroughly hated the new Superman movies as well as the awful Superman vs Batman ... whatever that was, I still decided to give WW a shot ... and I was pleasantly surprised for the most part.

Wonder Woman puts all other recent DC movies to shame through a nice character introduction and the build-up, though predictable (well, it's a comics inspired movie after all) it's well supported by Pine and Gadot and once their little band comes together, Taghmaoui also gets a piece of spotlight. Several in fact.

I was half expecting to dread the WWI background but instead I found it refreshing. Marvel's Captain American went on for WWII, a decision saved by keeping the war in the background. Here it serves as a vehicle for the discovery of humanity, as shallow as it may be.

There's plenty to like in the movie, the fighting scenes are decently choreographed, the soundtrack is great, the characters are expectedly one-dimensional.

On the downside: - the editing keeps the movie from being a blast. At one point, the group who met WW couple of days ago and barely exchanged words somehow find it to give her a boost the same way she was trained as a child. I bet somewhere there's a scene that would've explained that moment - the nonsense about love and humanity that Gadot is made to spew at the very end basically wrecks the entire character buildup - David Thewlis is completely miscast. His appearance in armour is ridiculous (seriously, professor Lupin as a full fledged action hero??), at one point he's without helmet and the mustache complements the armour like a dog flea complements a cup of Earl Grey. - the movie takes itself much to seriously and I do take into account that the few bits of humour revolve around a formerly isolated person who gets updated on to the current state of things. It does pull a few laughs but not nearly enough.

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016)

It's almost enjoyable

[5/10 · 18 December 2016]

It's really difficult to put this movie in the Star Wars context. The original movies were groundbreaking scifi for their time and inspired generations (although not enough it seems since we're still lightsabre- less as a civilization).

On one hand, just about all the new Star Wars movies have been made to explain things from the original trilogy. From the need to introduce a physiological explanation for the Force to a nearly enjoyable story-line about how Darth Vader came to be, their downfall was that they didn't bring anything new to the fold.

On the other hand all movies follow the pattern of finding a rag-tag hero who wants nothing to do with the events they are about to be dragged into.

Same thing applies here.

The very first movie told about about the 'high cost' of acquiring the plans, this movie comes to tell us the story behind that, which is what makes it worthwhile, in theory.

I was always curious about that part and from this perspective it's a story that needed to be told. But what I can say ... it's not like this.

The storytelling starts from being schizophrenic and ends up being ridiculous (which opposes just about all the other movies in the sense that the others were mostly linear or spawning side stories in a controlled way).

The movie starts off by throwing the audience in a bunch of related but isolated settings. There's a guy who started of designing the DEath Star but somehow ran away and now they want to being him back (with no explanation as to why he started in the first place and how come he only realized that later, what did he think the big golf-ball in the sky with a death ray was going to be used for?), a spy killing another spy, and pilot being sent off to a paranoid rebellious lunatic.

We follow through the Star Wars pattern where the unlikely hero finds motivation to get involved and up to a grand finale where they nonsensically cram the death of all the main characters.

However, the characters are quite enjoyable. We have a strong female lead, because when you go about Star Wars you don't want balance but rather going around to the other extreme altogether. Felicity Jones does a good job here (we're talking a good sci fi hero, not Golden Globe expectations).

We have an obnoxious assassin/spy who gets his heart melted for no reason whatsoever.

We have a sarcastic robot (pretty good one).

We have an overly dramatic and intense Whitaker portrayal (I really don't think that this guy can can be act anything else but dramatic and overly intense). He could do a Vader impersonation though, breathing aid and everything.

We have a lot of people sacrificing themselves left and right (quite happily doing so for someone they just met and of whom their own leadership disapproved of) including an entire fleet. Enough to warrant the name Pyrrhic victory for some plans to find a fault that was always going to be there. But hey, Vader did capture a lot of people alive, enough to find out the location of the rebel base later on.

Of course, we have a totally stupid way of data search (much alike trying to grab plushies out of a box with mechanical grappling hooks) ... quite ironic for a system that uses robots a lot. ALso to note that while the empire stored those plans on something that looks like a hard drive of the 80's, the Alliance only needed something like a mini-disc for the same data.

Finally we have history breaking things, like the guy running with the disc containing the plans around the attacked rebel ship (when the first movie made it clear that the way Vader learned about the plans leak was by intercepting a transmission). Speaking of which, they transmitted the data from the planet to a ship, why didn't they send it to all ships? Or, for that matter, why was there a guy running around with the one disc? Why not make 1000 copies AND transmit the data to all ships? Or directly to the rebellion?).

What's offsetting this? Well, there's all the visual magic done by ILM, then there's Felicity Jones, Madds Mikkelsen and Donnie Yen.

Jupiter Ascending (2015)

An incoherent mess

[1/10 · 11 February 2015]

"An incoherent mess" is a mild way to describe the awful motion picture I had the misfortune to see. While I found the special effects and most action scenes used effectively (and particularly nice in IMAX 3D), it fails across the board in terms of acting, story and music.

The top failure is the story as presented in the film. While I am sure than the Wachowskis thought out a detailed universe, the movie appears as an uncoordinated mess which jumps from A to B with no apparent connection between the two. There is literally no reason presented for more than half of the plot items used in the movie, appearing as a string of "deus ex machina" elements (in particular the mandatory love story which appears out of nowhere at it's so forced on the audience that it made me physically sick).

The acting is flat. Mila fails to render any emotion whatsoever, a baffling feat given her proved talents but in the context of the movie, with a script that gives her no chance whatsoever, it starts to make sense.

I see no reason why a talent like Mila was paired with your everyday cheap action hero Channing Tatum. They have no chemistry, he has no talent and both their characters are squeezed into a romance so unnatural that the first "hints" come from other characters explicitly saying the two have the hots for each other.

Bad guy Douglas Booth was charged with providing the mild attempt at providing something unexpected, a titanic task given the flat and utterly predictable (bed time?) story. To his credit, he does play the playboy decently to the degree that the ridiculous writing allowed and overall he seems to have made the best of a bad situation.

The other bad boy, Eddie Redmayne, is brought to memory by better roles (Hawking in "The theory of everything" and Jack in "The pillars of the Earth"). His appearance is more baffling than Mila's given the absolute ridiculousness of his character that is not only cardboard flat, but he is neither the "action-movie" bad guy that takes on the opposing action hero, but rather ends up fighting a girl hand-to-hand, a battle we know he's gonna lose from the beginning of the movie, despite the fact that Mila's only combat training comes from wielding toilet brushes.

The music shows that the movie takes itself way too seriously for a flat action movie (the comic relief moments hardly have any comedy in them) as the score tries to enhance a non-existing drama.

The Wachowski's seems to have gone out of their way to ensure it is utterly impossible to feel or root for any of the characters (good or bad). Believe it or not, that's saying something on my part as I tend to invest something even in apparently nonsensical movies such as Schwarzenegger action types.

This movie deserves to bomb and teach actors like Mila and Redmayne that it's not worth tarnishing a reputation for money.

American Sniper (2014)

There are one dimensional stories and there's American Sniper

[4/10 · 2 February 2015]

It is difficult to suspend expectations when you are facing a story inspired by the memoires. Even though a movie is a work of cinematographic art (and Eastwood excels at that, whether as an actor or as director), it is difficult to bypass a story that lacks depth and labels participants narrower than a Steven Seagal movie.

The story is simple, American soldier follows orders, goes to Iraq, kills people he labels as evil and returns home traumatized that he couldn't kill more (and save his mates).

Cooper is a good actor and he may be compelling in this part save for the fact that it's truly hard to empathize with his suffering. He travels oceans and continents to the far side of the world to impart death and destruction motivated by a natural need to overcome terrorism (the long defunct thesis that somehow Iraq had something to do with terrorism or WMDs, something dismissed even by the Congress) and everyone found there is 'evil' and somehow deserving of death.

It's difficult to find something to like in the portrayal of an invader and impossible not to root for those invaded and labeling the fight against the invader as anything but a fight for freedom (I would say war and describe the conflict as the White House does in press, save for the fact that nobody seems to abide by the Geneva convention).

I truly wish I could move beyond the details of the reality that brewed this story, but as the story itself wants to appear grounded in reality while ignoring the higher reasons for the events, I cannot. Nobody lingers over justification, we are good, they are evil and must be killed. Soldiers need to invade foreign countries while staying safe at the same time (pardon me, but isn't a soldier's job to risk their life? why lament over it instead of honoring the task when done in good faith?).

Overall the movie is an insult to the victims of the US invasion of Iraq and this general feeling manages to tarnish any artistic value.

Taken 3 (2014)

The black sheep of the three

[6/10 · 1 February 2015]

I'll begin by saying I enjoyed the film. While the first was actually good, the story of the third definitely outshines the second. In the end, however, the third Taken suffers a lot at the hands of the writers who spend too much time trying to force emotions on rather flat and unexplored characters.

Not to say I wouldn't want to see some character depth but what we have here is so forced and so uneven that it turns regular flat action characters into pure cardboard. I can live with a methodical, cool and precise Bryan Mills but not so much with a Mills that out of the blue risks the investigation into his wife's murder to pointlessly meet his daughter in a college girls toilet. Yes, the same Mills who in the first film used what could have well been the last time he would speak to his daughter to gather intel, in a cool and calculated manner.

Also, Maggie Grace shows her age. She was barely passable for a teen in the first Taken, but in the sequels she shows more of her age. A believable college girl now? Please! I generally like her, but I have to say she was probably the weakest actor in the movie.

Whitaker's detective is strange. For a law enforcement office pursuing a highly trained suspect, he looks way too laid back. There's no intensity there, he seems to 'like' Neeson from the onset and he casually strolls through the investigation. Poorly done and makes the investigation just a background (which it is in the film, but it wouldn't be so in the real world).

What I would have loved to see: - more of Mills' colleagues in action - more of Mills hand to hand: somehow I love Neeson's action hero in combat, regardless of excuse - more of Mills' cool intel gathering (well done in the first move, not so much afterward)

What I liked: - Neeson - Neeson fighting - Whitaker at the start of the investigation - Stuart's double-take: he is villainous, a victim and the definite villain in the end

What I disliked: - everything else

Hawaii Five-0: Ua 'aihue (2015) Season 5, Episode 11

Why do they always have to botch something up

[3/10 · 10 January 2015]

I exaggerated a bit with the title. The writers of Hawaii Five-0 are good and they rarely botch thing in their episodes, but when they do ... oh man, they make sure it stings and leaves with a 'WTF kind of special task force is this?"

In this episode that obviously nods to the ended "White Collar" series in more way than one, the one annoying issue become blatant in the end.

So you have a bounty hunter wanted in two countries (Hungary and Greece), but the Five-0 lets her go? Even though they never mentioned a warrant issued by Interpol, it's not necessary in the cases of Hungary and Greece because both countries have bilateral extradition treaties with the US which include clauses for mutual notification of wanted fugitives (likely the very reason Five-0 was aware of the wanted status in the first place).

So the self-righteous McGarret who violates borders for personal vendettas with impunity blatantly violates international treaties as well, just 'cuz? Way to serve the country!

Hawaii Five-0 (2010–2020)

A good show, but its low points are really low

[5/10 · 1 January 2015]

I've generally enjoyed this immensely largely due to the characters of Danny, Kono and Max. Well-built, balanced and entertaining, the perfect mix for a cop flick with a modern touch.

I won't insist much on the good, but I will underline two bad things which made me drop the grade to a 5.

One is persistent technological illiteracy. I'm sorry, but we live in the 21st century. Improper depiction of internet concepts, especially ubiquitous ones such as social networking and VPNs is unforgivable. Sure, NCIS might have touched the lowest point with their live- action hacking defense with two people on the same keyboard but that was ages ago. Today I expect a cop show to realize that an IP doesn't identify a single computer, not to mention a person.

The low-point of the series is episode 20, season 3, an episode that not only has nothing to do with any of the story lines, but has nothing to do with the task force itself and is possibly the most morally questionable episode I've seen in a cop show.

Definitely one of the weakest episodes. The particular story of McGarrett and his girlfriend as a two-man invasion team feels more like cheap filler than anything else.

It has nothing to do with the task-force, but more with McGarrett's SEAL past yet the question of what McGarrett has to do with North Korea is baffling as there's no historical background to go with that (sorry, but McGarrett wasn't even born for the Korean war).

For some reason, a SEAL team violated the territory of a sovereign nation, lost a man while retrieving an arms dealer ("why" is beyond logic as North Korea is a black hole for arms dealers, you simply can't do business given the embargoes and communication restrictions - any arms dealer in person there is essentially neutralized).

McGarrett goes back to once again violate Korean borders (both ways since he doesn't even have the consent of the South Korean government either, but since when do Americans need that?) to retrieve the body of his mate, risking his girlfriend's life in the process.

Even more senseless is the cold-blooded killing of an incapacitated enemy. After 10 years since the initial events, McGarrett holds a grudge against a man who's only fault is to have defended his own country, on his own territory and having followed his commander's orders.

Hawaii Five-0: Olelo Pa'a (2013) Season 3, Episode 20

One of the weaker episodes

[1/10 · 1 January 2015]

Definitely one of the weakest episodes. The particular story of McGarrett and his girlfriend as a two-man invasion team feels more like cheap filler than anything else.

It has nothing to do with the task-force, but more with McGarrett's SEAL past yet the question of what McGarrett has to do with North Korea is baffling as there's no historical background to go with that (sorry, but McGarrett wasn't even born for the Korean war).

For some reason, a SEAL team violated the territory of a sovereign nation, lost a man while retrieving an arms dealer ("why" is beyond logic as North Korea is a black hole for arms dealers, you simply can't do business given the embargoes and communication restrictions - any arms dealer in person there is essentially neutralized).

McGarrett goes back to once again violate Korean borders (both ways since he doesn't even have the consent of the South Korean government either, but since when do Americans need that?) to retrieve the body of his mate, risking his girlfriend's life in the process.

Even more senseless is the cold-blooded killing of an incapacitated enemy. After 10 years since the initial events, McGarrett holds a grudge against a man who's only fault is to have defended his own country, on his own territory and having followed his commander's orders.

This episode is a huge stain on McGarrett's character.

The Interview (II) (2014)

A good bit of fun but no match to The Dictator

[5/10 · 28 December 2014]

I am giving only 5 stars to this movie because while it's a fun ride and has all the tropes you'd expect in a Seth Rogen comedy (not necessarily my kind of comedy), as far as political satire is concerned the movie feels empty.

When I watched this, I made a double feature by including Cohen's The Dictator for a quick comparison and in the end I found there's little to compare.

The Dictator uses similar tropes but while it starts from "tabloidified" information on Middle East dictatorships and their perks (the luxury, a take on Khaddafi's all-female guard, nuclear ambitions without expertise, sleeping with stars, etc) it clashes that view with democracy quirks that mimic dictatorships (control of press by political powers, the creation of a climate of fear, fake reasons for going to war, terrorizing own population, rigged elections, etc). It's a fun ride that humorously underlines the forest that we often can't see because of the trees. It's a comedy that supports a hard truth and in the end it (might) leave the viewer thinking. Whether you agree or disagree with the message, the fact is that Sascha Baron Cohen does have a message for your consideration.

The Interview, by contrast, it's just a fun ride. Had it not been surrounded by the cheap drama around it's launch day, I might have given it more. However, The Interview is still a fun comedy but when it comes to the political side, it tells shockingly little.

The North Korean dictator is a kid enjoying some perks (nothing too crazy), they try to present a facade to western visitors (fake grocery shop), there is plenty of dissent and they have nukes. OK, but at the end I'm left with no other message, nothing to consider. It's a lot of fun but as it sets out to be a political parody, I'm surprised at the total lack of a political message except that "Kim Jong-Un is a kid controlling a country". Also, the gags revolve between those milder stuff (of which some are actually plucked from what refugees told the world - so not really exaggerations but simple truth) to sticking stuff up one's arse and exploding heads.

All in good fun and I have to say I enjoyed it but I also felt that the hype was grossly exaggerated and in the end there was no actual political point.

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014)

Not a proper Middle Earth send-off

[4/10 · 18 December 2014]

This movie is total injustice done to the Middle Earth universe and I took off points for being so far off an appropriate ending to the Jackson's Middle Earth saga. For a movie that teased via Billy Boyd's beautiful song, the promised battle spends too much time on a character called Alfried whose sole purpose is to annoy and a completely pointless and cheap romance between Tauriel and Kili (of whom book readers know he's destined to die).

Overall the movie reads as a pure comedy.

There are some really funny moments that simply weren't meant to be like:

• Smaug's death reminded me of Mulan's Mushu the fire lizard: freeze, twitch, dramatically cough and fall flat, just like he got squashed in mid-air. Kind of like my cat when he runs out of energy after playing.

• Thorin is cheaply vilified (he simply goes crazy for no apparent reason, while in the book he's more ambiguous - unfair to people of Laketown because they seem to associate with elves who have no justification for their demands)

• Thranduil, majestic as *bleep*, doesn't seem phased by being in a fight (his hair remains perfect, tiara unmoved) - really, now?

• Tauriel pauses from pursuing the "love of her life" in the middle of a battle to spend a moment blasting Thranduil for living a loveless life. In the middle of a battle! With orcs closing in on everyone, Thranduil's soldiers dead literally at their feet and she nags at him because he doesn't understand that she loves one of the dwarfs that made elves lives miserable for centuries. In the middle of a battle where they were protecting said dwarfs' ancient home!

• Thranduil is portrayed even more mad than Thorin. After all he covets a treasure over which he has no apparent claim. The dwarfs actually worked for that treasure, digging metal from the mountain, minting coin and crafting jewels. Bard was promised a share for helping dwarfs. While Thranduil tried to blackmail his way after shunning the dwarfs away when the dragon took over their home.

• Legolas jumps on falling rocks like he's the Prince of Persia. That was hilarious!

• Were-worms pop out, roar and never to be seen again. Just like they realized they need to return to Dune!

• We get a really looooong shot of dying Kili. He dies, it's dramatic, but after a few seconds of drama he runs out of faces to make. I was expecting The Mask to pop-out of somewhere and demand an Oscar for this performance.

• Gandalf sighs and poofs with every opportunity, rolling his eyes and pausing for cheap effect. Not at all necessary.

• Tauriel drops orcs in a stride with two slashes at most, but gets bested out of the blue after poking the last one 5 times? Get real!

• Alfrid has no point in existing, at all. His comic relief made me think of Seth Rogen or Sascha Baron Cohen ... in a fantasy battle! Why torture the audience like that?

• The orcs are cut off cardboard, Defiler included. In the original Trilogy they had some personality, here they're nothing but props.

• Thorin's group was all armoured, helmets on and whatnot inside the mountain but when finally decided to fight they left all the battle gear behind. Huh?

• What happened to the Arkenstone? Bard just kept it? That's what the movie suggests (yeah, I read the book, I know what happens *there*)

• What happened with the gold, promises, etc? They spend 3/4 of the movie fighting over it and then just forget it?

Otherwise, the FX are nice, most of the battle is entertaining but the move lacks substance through and through. The first Hobbit was far superior and I really wish Jackson hadn't tortured me with this underachieving mutant, that's not how I want to remember his Middle Earth. The drama is artificial, cheap and the attempts at humor (where intentional) are even worse.

Interstellar (2014)

Possibly the best movie of the year

[9/10 · 11 November 2014]

In today's world it's really difficult to make a cool movie about space. With knowledge one click away (I'm not going to argue quality, just availability), people are more and more critical of movie tropes and with popular scientists gaining momentum, you can't get away anymore with something like Armageddon for example.

Interstellar plays its cards very well, with a producer being himself a scientists and also with the fact that with very few exceptions it deals a lot with research that's mainly theoretical (wormholes, their gravity and what happens to known dimensions inside an event's horizon). Ground in firm research, but still theoretical.

Nolan's genius manages to transpose the theory into a visually compelling story that is gripping from the start and takes you all the way without becoming confusing and sometimes spelling out things for those less science-oriented. It's nearly perfect.

I say nearly because like with every movie that plays on wits, sometimes it loses itself in details that expose the limitations of the writers. Examples:

• the title characters is the best pilot they had, yet instead of making him a part of the project from the start (maybe even train others), the gets on board what seems as chance (yes, we are told that in fact he's the one that loops around in time and gets himself on track)

• for a guy that gets trapped for a moment in the tesseract allowing him to swim across time he 1) fails to see the good that comes of his endeavor and 2) he starts the sequence of events, then tries to stop it and then sets on track again, like a brief stint of schizophrenia for some reason.

• Brand's speech about love is so out of place in the spaceship, so out of time and out of tune with the movie that it doesn't go beyond a WTF moment. Why in the world would a scientist trained to save mankind do that? Even Romilly who supposedly spent 23 years in complete silence and solitude is able to basically shrug it off and focus, but Brand breaks down in sentimentalism for no apparent reason

• the movie's premise is compelling because it's firmly grounded in reality: mankind will run out of food in less than 100 years. Yet aside from environmental changes that speak on a greater scale, there's nothing showing the effect on people's lives. Yes, their meals aren't the lavish ones Hollywood movies usually depict, but they're not poor either. Nothing speaks about the urgency of not wasting food, for example, or of all the hungry people that surely must be out there. Perhaps some wars over food? But there's nothing.

I would definitely love to see an extended version with more detail.

Automata (I) (2014)

Mildly entertaining

[5/10 · 29 October 2014]

Banderas' attempt at a sci-fi flick has great potential but it ultimately falls flat.

It's not because of the story. Although the trailer makes it clear that we're dealing with a recycled idea from Asimov's universe (robots that become more human than some humans), the movie barely scratches the surface of the issues at hand and chooses a middle path between a serious deep movie and an action flick and fails at both.

Banderas' character is the only one that interesting and it's easy to follow him and his point of view all the way from a corporate lackey to a guy involved in some ethical dilemmas. He acts well, way better than the movie average.

The first problem is that there aren't any other well-drawn characters. Everyone else is flat, starting from his family, his boss and his opponents. To call them one-dimensional is giving them too much credit, I would say they are soulless and at some point I was really hoping for them to just die and leave us with the robots and Banderas. I can't fault the actors much, it's the script that didn't give them any chance.

The second problem is the plot. Although the story has potential, the plot fails at acquiring it. It won't take long to see that at some point the actions of the 'bad guys' really stop making sense, they are there just as a really poor excuse for some lame attempts at action sequences (I'm not going to detail this as to not give spoilers, suffice to say that the main pretext for the confrontation between the bad guys and Banderas is not necessary at all, if you stop to think about it for a minute given the situation of the humans in the movie and whatnot).

The last one is the soundtrack. It's absolutely atrocious and the sound doesn't fit with the images at all, especially the music sequences.

I will admit that the movie is entertaining for the most part. But that's it. It wastes an amazing potential, fails to explore itself and just throws some lines and some action at you that lacks logic, common sense and characters (save for Banders and the robots).