wunderbaum11 Reviews

Makta (2023–2024)

Quite a feminist perspective, but decent execution

[5/10 · 15 March 2024]

The show is entertaining-ish and the acting of the more experienced actors was alright. The main actress portraying the Norwegian politician Gro Harlem Brundtland did fine, although the Norwegian media, desperate for having a sensational, high-quality TV-show from Norway (unfortunately this isn't it) seem to overhype the show overall as well as the execution and portrayal of this famous politician because the actress nailed her distinct tone of voice. She did well, but Brundtland is also one of the easiest persons one could possibly portray or parody and I don't see how any reasonably average actress could fail to portray her. Not to take anything alway from the performance, but this is more about how the media, like this self-indulgent movie critic at the tabloid newspaper VG, so comically overhyped this (gave it 6/6) the same way he'd trash anything not adhering to his political preferences.

Now the mostly female creators of the show didn't want to spend all the necessary resources to use a setting of Norway in the 70s and 80s rather than today, which is suboptimal for the viewer but also understandable and doesn't ruin the show. So you see today's Oslo but the actors dressed like they would have back in the day. The mandatory correctness of cultural diversity was of course included in the show (it would take a lot of spine these days for a creator to dare doing otherwise), using a hip, modern-looking multicultural female as a Norwegian train conductor from the 70s with a generous amount of screen time for such a role (what was that all about?), a multicultural male (he's a fun actor btw) to portray a famous Norwegian politician and so forth. The media applauded these very mainstream aspects as being something of a "stroke of genius" because it was making the show thought-provoking and helping people realise it wasn't 100% historically accurate. Interesting. 15 years ago I'd incline to agree, but today this is the norm, and so the though-provoking act today would be to depict it with only ethnical Norwegians for example, and without man-bashing perspective making all women smart, decisive, straight-forward and morally virtuous while the men are the exact opposite - slow-witted, sneaky, clumsy and undetermined.

And that's probably the biggest flaw of the series: this is the type of show depicting historical events and people where they say at the beginning that this is not 100% historically accurate, giving themselves a carte blanche to take any liberty they want, and then hide behind the aforementioned statement. The problem is that they go very close to reality in most aspects, but can simultaneously focus on coherently twisting the truth in a few, narrow (often political and gender-related) areas to manipulate the viewer into believing the narrative of the creators, and if arrested on twisting the facts, they can always say that "we informed you it wasn't completely accurate." That's not how the human mind works - if you don't tell the viewer what's accurate and what's fiction, people will assume most is correct except the explicitly obvious. Most people won't take the time to google everything that happened and doing research on your own.

Funnily enough several politicians who knew the people depicted have criticised the show for dumbing down the men so much. One politician stated that she thought it was accurate, and that was Brundtland herself. She was portrayed by the female creators as unrealistically saint-like and massively more competent and virtuous than her male colleagues even when her family orchestrated a coup of the party's leadership to put her at the top, as shown in the series.

Apart from that, I think it's well-made and entertaining enough.

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)

Very good, some missteps made it weaker than 1&2

[8/10 · 8 October 2023]

First of all, ROTK is a high quality movie across all factors - production, cinematography, music, writing, directing, acting etc. The best parts of the movie are IMO the Rohan scenes, the beacons, the battle of Minas Tirith, Mount Doom and probably even the harbour goodbye scene.

The screenwriting is, as with FOTR and TTT, very good. But I think they made a few missteps here, along with the style of some of the scenes, which showed a lack of common sense among the writers and the director (a common sense that they generally have shown to have). For example, they should have dropped the entire Gollum backstory at the beginning. I'm sure it made sense at the time to try it, and perhaps it was also to give some well-deserved screen time to Andy Serkis, but it set the tone of the entire movie to mildly creepy with a hint of "disgust" rather than the more grounding frame the two previous movies (and all three books) had. It would have been enough having Gandalf talk about Gollum's story. The same goes with Denethor's meal, the nacho libre olyphant rider, the big-headed orc field officer etc. All made more disgusting to an exaggerated extent, somewhat breaking with the style of the two previous movies. Whether or not that was intentional, it made the end product weaker.

The deus ex machina with the ghosts should also have been handled differently.

Luckily they stayed clear of today's political landscape now two decades later, unlike a certain TV-adaptation, but the writing got a bit too feminine if that's allowed to say these days (two of the writers are female, and they all did great along with Jackson of adapting the script, but the overly feminine touch shines through and I don't think JRR Tolkien would have approved of taking it that far). Dialogues and several scenes got way too melodramatic across the entire movie, and particularly towards the many endings. They kind of ruined many of the hobbit scenes because of milking them with too many emotional dialogues to the point that they didn't even seem realistic anymore even given the tough circumstances. They seem to have made the hobbits talk and act in the way that nice, kind, middle-aged women would have liked them to. They completely feminised these male hobbits.

Apart from that, it was a great movie, but IMO the weakest and less coherent of the three. I've read the books and am not complaining about the changes of details or story, most of which made sense, but rather the changes of dialogues and making it overly sentimental.

Winning Time: The Rise of the Lakers Dynasty (2022–2023)

Decent show, although vulgar and unlikeable characters

[6/10 · 29 August 2023]

It's an entertaining show, good actors and characters although most of them are portrayed as quite unlikeable. Were they really that vulgar and value-less, only fixated on sex? The only honourable mention would be Kareem, who seemed to be a god-fearing man of character and integrity.

I don't get why they added so many scenes of Magic going down on chicks, but then I checked who was directing the most explicit episodes and it turned out to be a woman called Tanya Hamilton, who's pushed a typical feminist agenda in other productions in the past. Is that really female empowerment? Or are they trying to tell men that they should go down on women more often because some basket ball player apparently did so? There were a few other vulgar scenes as well, like the coach's graphical bike accident while playing "good vibrations" for several minutes. Almost as if she enjoyed showing a tragic accident of a white male into a macabre scene with inappropriate music. But apart from the occasional perverse writing and directing, it's a pretty decent show.

Extraction II (2023)

Great action and entertainment, silly premise

[8/10 · 19 June 2023]

I liked the first Extraction movie, but I found this better. Hemsworth does a great and believable (psychologically speaking) job as Rake.

Golshifteh Farahani is, apart from some of the action scenes (beating 3 big guys in a close combat in a small, contained space), also believable in her role. In contrast to many miscast female action heroines, who often come off as over-the-top cocky, aggressive and mastering anything without any effort, which make you think their skills are unearned and not realistic, Farahani has a more toned-down demeanour as if she is an old soul who's been through a lot. It works particularly well when portraying this type of character and I think the casting is superb.

Some of the premise is a bit silly, and they don't exactly make one of the kids likeable, which makes it annoying when the main characters put their life on the line for them, but overall it's not a big enough drawback.

If you like well-done and engaging action scenes, just want to watch something entertaining and allow yourself to move past some of the unrealistic elements you'll probably enjoy this one.

Billions (2016–2023)

Great initial seasons, but started deviating from the winning formula

[8/10 · 5 May 2023]

It's a good show, especially thanks to smart writers and great actors - Giamatti and Lewis in particular. Many interesting characters and supporting characters. Degiulio, Hall, Orrin, Ben Kim, Dollar Bill, Spyros, Sacker and Cantu.

I think the show increasingly turns into this female empowerment focus which in itself is a good thing but unfortunately also makes the show less captivating and entertaining. They shifted away from their winning formula.

Sacker is a great character although borderline Mary Sue who apparently masters everything with perfect integrity and produces one impressive pop cultural reference after the other. Eventually you can't help but think it seems a bit unrealistic and forced when a geeky book smart woman clearly born in the 80s references movies and music that would be only natural coming from a streetwise guy born in the 60s and 70s. Coming from a character like hers, you get the feeling she's googling references just to be able to say them, as opposed to Wags and Axe.

Wendy Rhoades was great the first season when things focused on her impressive mental coaching and being relatively objective, but then throughout the seasons slowly shifts into a petty, spiteful, snobby and selfish individual with too much unearned respect and authority. Her moral downfall is interesting but they never managed to pull her back into an enjoyable character again. So much for character development. Reminds me of how they ruined Donna in Suits - she had her perfect niche as the sassy, quick-witted assistant to becoming a needy, insecure and annoying COO.

And then we have this over-the-top badass Bonnie character who, as pretty much all the women on the show, always gets the final word and is portrayed as 10x tougher than the guys. It's too much, seems more like a utopian character for certain writers rather than realistic and engaging.

The casting of Dave was probably the biggest miss - they should have had more focus on finding someone likeable instead of ticking yet another box. She comes off as manipulative and 'superior', but not in a fun, intriguing way.

Prince of course is not Axe, but given the circumstances he did okay.

Taylor is actually a decently interesting character despite the obvious forced progressivism behind the introduction, and makes enough sense.

From being a typical aggressive tradefloor with classic macho a-holes, the men slowly deteriorate into goofy whimps in a hedge fund now full of female badasses. That's a clear shift in the writing, and although this shift can be interesting to explore it unfortunately makes the show go from entertaining and fun to increasingly lame and melodramatic.

That said, overall it's a great show worth watching. Lots of fun moments and manoeuvres.

Pretty Baby: Brooke Shields (2023)

Interesting, perhaps a bit unbalanced?

[5/10 · 12 April 2023]

Brooke Shields seems like a delightful, intelligent person with lots of humour and charm. Undoubtedly famous some decades ago although mostly in the US and they may have exaggerated her international fame a bit (maybe living in a bubble are we?), but we get the point. Learning about her childhood was interesting and it must have been quite challenging to grow up in that kind of environment. Quite remarkable that she made it through in one piece even though it took its toll psychologically speaking.

The documentary turns a bit unbalanced at times with several in her entourage quite aggressively pushing the female victim narrative over and over again. It's fair to mention once or twice that her experiences can be seen as an example of how many women have been suppressed in show biz, but it seems they are trying to force every mishap of women to fit into this particular world view, causing the viewer to take the overall message less seriously because the bio turns into an agenda instead of just objectively show the many challenges she faced and let the viewer decide for themselves (wasn't that what much of the message was about - making your own opinions?)

Having supportive friends is important, but some of these people don't exactly seem to be particularly balanced in their world view and one have to start wonder how healthy it could be if you're constantly being told by your supportive friends that everything bad that happened to you is 100% because of the rest of the world and the patriarchal system etc. It's nothing you could have done differently, you're just a victim. That aspect of feminism can be quite one-sided and toxic. Wasn't the mother perhaps the biggest reason for the difficult childhood? She was mostly excused, which is fine, but then they can't just go about judging everyone else instead. Also, where's the comment that a pretty woman wasn't/isn't allowed to be funny by society coming from? Marilyn Monroe, Audrey Hepburn, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Jennifer Aniston, Courtney Cox to name a few - wasn't being encouraged to be funny a big part of their success in many of their roles? So many contradictions and strawmen throughout this documentary.

Brooke herself seemed more balanced than many of the more activist types in her bio, although revelations such as her ex-husband Agassi destroyed all of his tennis trophies out of jealousy because Brooke licked Joey Tribbiani's hand in a (very funny) Friends episode came off as a bit petty and unnecessary, strongly insinuating him being a maniac.

Brooke's eyes looked quite frightened, spooked and unsettled during most of the bio but at the very end when she was speaking about taking action and finding a purpose they increasingly sharpened and sparkled. Good to see.

War Sailor (2023)

Average, lots of shouting and screaming, lacks build-up, missed opportunity

[5/10 · 8 April 2023]

This is a typical Norwegian production - average and not ridiculously bad, but has unnaturally written and -executed dialogues, single-geared slow pace and dark mood (here's Ibsen's realism for you) and very little talent and effort put into action scenes because entertainment is just for shallow productions, right? This could almost have been a theatre piece the way it was executed. It seems like they believe the more miserable the depiction, the higher quality and more praise from the critics. And yet it never really pulls you in as the scenes are rushed without a proper build-up, and they're trying to reach depth, intensity and tension by having the actors scream, shout and curse at each other without believable body language, which ironically makes the movie/series come off as shallow as these are seemingly the only ingredients within their repertoire. Pål Sverre Hagen is one of very few who's able to act more or less naturally. None of the other actors are bad, but they are stuck in the dominant Norwegian theatrical acting. Authentic acting is something Norwegian actors can learn from the British or American, or anywhere else outside of the Nordics really.

A lot of screen time was given to the family's miserable time back home, and I guess it's fair to include that aspect of war too, but it doesn't really help the story - it's too much. Just a lot more screaming and cursing. This is the opposite of elegant and emotional.

Why not include at least some build-up of the attacks, and show how the sailors handled this operationally? Was it a budget constraint, even though they had the highest budget of any Norwegian production to date? The viewer is offered no overview of how things really were, and even if this was done intentionally because we're supposed to get a feeling of how it was for each individual, it's not intriguing enough. Instead they are focusing on one young man screaming in agony for several minutes (he did an okay job given the writing) - this could have been a powerful scene, but it comes off as a cheap and lazy emotional trick. It wasn't exactly a Black Hawk Down-quality of a similar scene.

The real-life sailors were also robbed of acknowledgment and their promised compensation from the Norwegian government until decades later, which is one of the darker sides of Norway's WW2 history and one of the most important aspects in the aftermath of the war in Norway, but this was also hardly explored and described in this series. Comes off as a bit gutless and politically correct. Including PTSD among some of the characters after the war was important, but it's not like the series lacked of demonstrating the emotional tolls of war throughout the series anyway. One aspect that was balanced in a good way was that the Germans weren't shown as a bunch of evil people without any trace of empathy unlike many other WW2 dramas.

Overall this was a wasted opportunity that could have been far better with a different angle IMO - the brave and forgotten men (approx. 30 000 men and 200 women) that were the war sailors had deserved a better depiction of their efforts than this. But at least it's better than nothing, and kudos for giving it a shot.

Murder Mystery 2 (2023)

Entertaining-ish, typical feminist perspective

[5/10 · 2 April 2023]

It's entertaining enough, action scenes are fine. The acting is just as expected, so no need to dig any deeper on that. It's also another "let's uproot the gender stereotypes" flick from Netflix. Most of the men are portrayed as ridiculous, incompetent and/or disgusting, while most of the women are decisive, clever and never looks like idiots - their flaws are only their psychopathic tendencies e.g. Being cruel, deceptive or evil, making it obvious that these women are not representative of the typical female. Men can be ridiculed by their physicality (baldness, short stature etc), while the women are never subject to such atrocity (that would be misogynistic) and are only put in a bad light for being "mean". Most men probably don't really care about this, but it can come across as a bit immature, unbalanced and manipulative. The very ethnic diversity of the characters was quite obvious, but they had created a setting where this made enough sense and didn't feel forced (perhaps apart from a black countess with a chateau in France) - kudos for managing that better than many other Netflix productions.

Veronica Mars (2004–2019)

Not A-list, but good for a season and a half, then writing drops in quality

[7/10 · 26 January 2023]

Compared to contemporary shows like Friday Night Lights and Entourage, both top tier A-list shows, Veronica Mars has a bit more B-list feel to it both in terms of casting and writing. It's still entertaining though, and pretty good at its best. Kristen Bell nailed the role with her quick-witted comeback sassiness (until she became unlikeable and took herself a bit too seriously), however most of the other actors seemed more mediocre without the same charisma and presence apart from the occasional visits of pre-breakthrough stars like Amanda Seyfried, Leighton Meester, Tessa Thompson and partly Krysten Ritter.

Good first season and a half. Nice suspense buildup, and engaging and clever subplots. Fun and charming protagonist. Decent character development of Logan, although they made all those rich kids a bit over-the-top annoying to the point where it became unnatural.

Then sometime halfway through the 2nd season Veronica turned more and more into a Mary Sue, always getting the final word and outsmarting anyone she encountered, typically some young doofus male that stood in her way, while any meaningful flaws were downplayed or nonexistent, and rarely did any mistake that would make her seem more human (which I think they managed better in season 1). At the same time increasingly judgmental of others, especially guys. Seemed very much like the writing of a radical feminist who didn't have the best time in high school or college. I used to enjoy her sarcastic and playful comments, but at some point during season 2 it tipped over to her being smug and sarcastic in pretty much every interaction. They must have placed too much faith in the winning formula, in the same way Billions started having every unlikely character in the show throw out some impressive pop cultural reference a bit too often.

Veronica started being judgmental and moralistic on others, now rolling her eyes when someone else was playing her own game by answering her questions with sarcastic evasion. At the same time she was extremely imposing and invading on others whenever she needed something. Writers can't have it both ways without turning her into an unlikeable character. Or perhaps this was Kristen Bell gradually shifting her character into how Bell is in real life, thus simply reflecting her own attitude? Some of her important flaws were partly addressed well in season 1, having others calling her out on her opportunistic and transactional behaviour, but this faded away somehow.

There were also too many unnecessary, meaningless and unresolved subplots along the way, rushing into things without at least a hint of a buildup. Writing got increasingly chaotic, while lacking coherence. As if there were too many screenwriters working on this at the same time, unable to work in sync. Plot twist in season 2 finale was unnecessary and unsolicited - simply trying to make things as surprising as possible doesn't make it good.

Avatar: The Way of Water (2022)

Nice Colgate commercial

[7/10 · 13 January 2023]

I loved the first Avatar, but must admit I got skeptical when I heard they were doing several sequels. Can Cameron and his team really keep this franchise interesting enough to justify the many years and resources spent on all the sequels when you not anymore can offer the surprising, spectacular, almost groundbreaking feel that the first one had? The result so far is at least better than I had expected, and the second half is better than in the first movie, but the movie itself wasn't as mind-blowing as the first given we've already been introduced to the world of Pandora. Introducing sealife and underwater scenes helped though.

Outstanding visuals, a good enough story (if you're not too fussy about plot-holes), charming enough characters and of course all the not-so-subtle digs at the many nature-threatening industries out there. They also kept some of the excellent melodies of the late James Horner. I think especially the naive dreamers and the young will get really inspired by this movie, and the environmentalists, but people in general too will probably enjoy it.

I was almost expecting some hidden product placement of a Colgate toothpaste during the movie considering all the numerous perfect and sympathetic smiles, but couldn't spot any red and white logo anywhere. Plus, maybe the avatars don't actually brush their teeth, given they probably stay away from refined sugar and processed foods? Oh well, so I guess they just tried to give a good feel to the viewers instead (and show how happy and great your teeth become if you live in harmony with nature), and I'd say they weren't completely out of touch with this one. Why not.

The weaknesses imo are:

• Bringing back the villain from the first movie, although in a different outfit. He did show a hint of a redeemable trait though, but it would have worked better with a new, charismatic villain. It's like Star Wars introducing "a new and improved" Death Star in every second new movie instead of going a bit more creative on the script and plot.

• Painting the villains so evil, unsympathetic and despicable with no redeeming qualities whatsoever that it gets almost comical. Way too childish and black and white portrayal, and a few too many silly Avengers-style one-liners.

I actually liked the fact that the climax wasn't some large-scale invasion battle as opposed to in the first one. This worked fine, and making it about family gave the battle scenes a bit more soul and emotions.

I became slightly less skeptical about the Avatar-sequels after seeing this movie, so that's a good sign. And it's one of the few movies where I actually preferred the second half over the first.

The Menu (2022)

Mediocre plot using cheap tricks to shock, but creative and decently executed

[5/10 · 6 January 2023]

I'm sure many critics will love this movie. It's creative-ish and decently executed.

Anya Taylor-Joy is, yet again, playing a Mary Sue-character fitting to her aggressive- and almost autistic-/intelligent-looking facial expressions, yet (for the naive viewer) seductive with her big eyes and an I-deserve-everyone's-respect-just-because-of-my-hostile-and-unapologetic-attitude as well as an unexplainable and effortless degree of high intelligence, street-smartness, psychological skills (and fighting skills apparently) and so forth. Typically spiced up with a tragic past coupled with some sort of mental health issue to make the character seem more deep and realistic. A bit like in Queen's Gambit, which by all means was a good show.

Rightly so - here she turns out to be the all-knowing, bad-ass, clever escort, with a struggling, lower-class past, deemed more pure and innocent than the other guests by the psychotic, cult-like chef, played well by Ralph Fiennes. His petty reason for killing Leguizamo was actually quite amusing. Hoult also played his character well, as did most of the guests.

Given no major change of the story, I think a change of detail that would have improved the movie was to also kill off Taylor-Joy's character in the end. Blowing up the boat or something, just to follow their own recipe of shocking happenings. Instead they chickened out, ending up with the lamest end scene that they could have chosen at that point. Nothing is more annoying than screenwriters placing the most annoying character on a pedestal because they mistakenly consider the character to be good, impressive or inspiring. That's why you need screenwriters who are more in touch with real-life and real people outside of their industry-bubble.

That said, the overall story would have worked far better had they continued the track they were on during the first 30 minutes - a dark, dry humour-piece of ridiculously snobby restaurant-workers and -guests. I thought the first half hour was hilarious, and was eager to see how they elegantly would unfold the story. Instead we got a pretentious, wannabe-out-of-the-box story with scenes designed to shock the viewer, while failing to offer a true redemption in the end. Letting Taylor-Joy survive and take a greedy bite of her doggy bag-cheeseburger as the final picture is, however deep and provoking they might have thought it to be, not redeeming.

We get it: the point was to shock, and you wanted to make a stylish, surprising horror-movie, but you tried too hard, probably over-analysed what it takes to entertain people, and should instead have settled for a clever comedy-thriller.

This was a missed opportunity of what could have been a hilarious and enjoyable film with several amusing characters.

Bullet Train (2022)

Entertaining, could have been better

[7/10 · 22 October 2022]

Amusing, good music, funny characters. Fun setting too. Train scenes always work well in action movies - Mission Impossible 1, Knight and Day, Casino Royale, From Russia with Love... More of this.

Don't get Hollywood's obsession with portraying women as over-the-top badass with a spiteful attitude while always being a step ahead of everyone else and making it all seem effortless though. It's just a bit too unrealistic, even in an unrealistic movie like this. They never look like fools, as opposed to the portrayal of men, and seem invincible. Nobody buys that, it seems almost like the biggest dream of certain screenwriters. The actresses act well though, they're only doing their job of course.

What We Do in the Shadows (2019–2024)

Hilarious first two seasons, then drops in quality

[8/10 · 22 October 2022]

Colin Robinson is hilarious. Great characterisation and really well executed by the actor. Genius stroke to portray an energy thief as a devious super white guy draining everyones' energy on purpose and even planning how to do it beforehand. The others in the show help playing him good too, by having the real vampires fear Colin and constantly being cautious around him.

Nadia is fun too, with great timing and physical acting. Very talented actress.

The problem is that after season 2, the quality of the show drops. I easily laughed several times during nearly every episode in seasons 1 and 2 and expected the same with season 3 onwards, but I find myself hardly laughing anymore.

They started subtly adding more and more PC elements from season 3, although that doesn't necessarily explain why it's not funny anymore. That's just a mildly annoying thing that gradually makes the show less magic and genuine, which in turn makes you lose interest over time. However, PC writing might be an indicator of how the focus has shifted.

The magic of Colin Robinson gradually decreased too. They started developing his character too much instead of continuing with the winning recipe. A character like that should be kept at a certain distance for the viewer, and the moment he starts acting like a normal, realistic, emotionally needy and vulnerable human-being he loses his magic at the same time. I wish screenwriters would realise this in other shows too.

The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power (2022– )

Superficial and hollow

[4/10 · 14 October 2022]

I've read the books and I really don't care that the show doesn't follow the original story and details with enough precision. I just want a well-made and entertaining show that makes sense on a human level even within its fantasy genre. Good characterisation is important, but here I don't find the characters believable at all - both in appearance (people look too polished, artificial, modern and too clean as if they just came out of the shower and put on makeup and their newly-made costumes - they don't look believable) and behaviour (inhibited, no emotions, no charm, no twinkle in the eye, no character).

With a seemingly high budget I'm surprised Amazon didn't bring in or attract top-notch directors, actors, writers and producers to work on this. It doesn't feel as magic as LOTR or The Hobbit. The different places and cities are adequately made, and at times beautiful, but one would expect more considering the money spent on this.

We don't have any characters in the show to root for or look up to. Hopefully that will change.

I think people will tire of the show if it continues like this. It will always have many viewers because of the name, fame and beautiful landscapes, but I doubt the money and the resources they put into this will be justified, especially because the people working on the show seem to be C-list.

Coco (I) (2017)

Fantastically written and executed

[10/10 · 2 September 2022]

Such a great movie - I'm amazed at how cleverly the script is written, not to mention all the great animation, voices and music. This is what happens when you put together a bunch of incredibly talented, creative and just plain intelligent people and have them make a movie together. They must have had a thrill making this picture.

Really smart using the great tradition of Dia de los Muertos as a backdrop for a family's pain and eventual redemption. Or perhaps it was the other way around - wanting to show the greatness of this tradition by developing the perfect story around it.

I really can't see how they could have made this any noticeably better. Cheers to perfection.

Inventing Anna (2022)

Why did they make the characters so unlikeable?

[3/10 · 1 September 2022]

I hope some of it is on purpose although I suspect not, but how did they manage to gather so many unlikeable characters? Not necessarily because of their way of life, but just general behaviour. This Garner is even more annoying than she was in Ozark with the fake accent and over-the-top wannabe tough-attitude, and the actress playing the journalist is just very unlikeable, as is the entourage of Anna. As for the story itself, it's dragged out too much. Watching all episodes seems like an effort - pretty much the definition of a bad show. The creators, screenwriters and directors are mostly female. The cast should have been better - it never hurts to have at least one person that viewers can root for.

This was quite a toxic group of people with so little self-awareness, little wisdom and so judgmental on others, living happily ignorant believing they are good people. Like that very insecure and aggressive Neff person who reeks of contempt and easily gets jealous - a typical tribal person. She believes that blind loyalty makes her a better person than those who stop being loyal because they got conned by Anna, but fails to realise that she was never in a position to get properly swindled because she was broke to begin with, and luckily wasn't able to experience the worst situations like the Morocco trip. She got reimbursed by Anna because Anna owed her very little money, and was more of a freeloader than the others, while taking less risk. While this Rachel person, although as toxic as the rest, had far worse experiences and losses because of Anna. The real-life Neff actually stated that she was proud of how well she was portrayed - didn't she and the actress portraying her realise how horrific she seems as a person?

And then the unethical journalist Vivian always manipulating people to talk unless they want to risk being put in a bad light in her article, as well as her bad judge of character, narcissistic traits and judging the parents of Anna even when she realised they weren't to blame for Anna's behaviour. But of course - she was in a stressful situation so then she's entitled to behave as badly as she wants, without apologising. Perhaps not helped by Chlumsky's overacting and facial expressions.

The three Scriberia-journalists seemed quite petty as well, with a self-righteous attitude and hostility to whoever they don't like. In their eyes they are the "good guys", and they are in the right to judge whoever they want. The bitter woman in that group shouting at the other journalist because he dared to say something critical about Vivian, with the attitude that her opinion weighs more than others. Well that part was pretty well acted, she was just conveying the horrible opinions of the writers.

Then there is this personal trainer Kacy who's supposed to be a balanced, strong, independent person who gets annoyed because Anna drinks her last bottle of sparkling water - have you ever heard about tap water? She is in her sixties and hung out and went on vacation with toxic girls in their twenties. Believes in how the universe gratifies you if you are a good person, which is a bit narcissistic for a person who succeeded well in her PT-careeer.

Almost everyone always seem to take the victim role whenever these women don't succeed, blaming the evil patriarchy and never realising it's because of their own lack of abilities and integrity. And the entitled stance that when things go well, it's because they deserve it.

Interestingly Kacy is in her 60s in real life and was depicted by someone in their 40s, while Rachel was 30 and was depicted by a 40-year-old. And Netflix brought in real life Kacy and Neff as "consultants", meaning they could control how they were presented to a far bigger extent than Rachel, who had sold her rights to HBO instead. Seems like Netflix, or rather the producers, acted quite unethically here.

Also seemed that Kacy and Neff had very short-term memories - as long as it had been a while they had had suboptimal experiences with Anna, they acted as if it had never happened and were quick to be judgmental to Rachel who went through tougher tests and eventually cooperated with the police. The typical double standards one would expect from aggressive, unstable and unintelligent people with low self-awareness and daddy issues, which typically makes a person more unbalanced and struggling to get perspective.

Usually I would think scripts like this were written with a self-ironic sense and parody on toxic women (and some men, especially the two guys of Anna's entourage in the early episodes), but in this case it actually seems that the writers are somewhat serious about it, especially when lashing out on politicians they don't like who have nothing to do with the storyline.

The toxicity and pettiness around and within this show is mind-blowing.

Ozark (2017–2022)

Not entertaining, plus LGBT agenda

[4/10 · 28 August 2022]

Well done - you don't root for any of the characters - maybe the most important aspect of any screenwriting. Also too many random subplots that are irrelevant to the story.

Quite aggressive LGBT-agenda in this show. Completely irrelevant subplot of gay intrigues and sex - a gay FBI agent, another gay black agent, a turned-gay criminal redneck etc. While interestingly enough the hetero relationships are failed, toned down or absent in comparison. Almost as if the creators try to glorify LGBT while a heterosexual life is depressing. I guess if you tell yourself enough times that you're a good person, being an advocate for LGBT and making the world a better place by writing in subplots like this you'll eventually make it true in your own mind. How about writing stories in a natural way for a change, without forcing these diversity subplots when they don't make any sense? Sometimes they do make sense - like in The Wire, Modern Family and so forth, but unfortunately not here.

Bateman is often amusing in a very subtle way - also here - but the show just isn't interesting or inspiring enough and his character is too bland. The one playing his daughter seemed promising in the first episodes though. The wife is too unlikeable and annoying - there's a reason she got to play the annoying, gaslighting wife in the Truman Show, but you can't give characters like that too much screen time.

All the 10/10 reviews - are they fake or do people just so easily throw out high ratings for any depressing show with a dark type of cinematography because they mistake the show of being "deep"? These are just cheap tricks, not even worthy of being called pretentious.

Thor: Love and Thunder (2022)

Woke as usual, goofy and childish humour

[4/10 · 26 August 2022]

Interesting how Disney and their screenwriters insist on trying to make all females into these brilliant too-cool-for-school characters with some handpicked masculine traits, while the males are just handsome, smiling, harmless and clueless goofs with somewhat feminine behaviour and jokes. The humour is, as usual, targeting 12-year-olds and nerdy 20-30-year-old females.

Tessa Thompson is trying so hard to be tough and cool in her roles that she turns out not to be. A bit similar to the problem that Angelina Jolie and Rihanna have had in other movies. Would be better If she instead tried to learn from her colleague in Westworld, Thandiwe Newton, who effortlessly makes her character an interesting badass because she doesn't try so hard to be - she just turns out that way.

Thor is at some point shown stripped of his clothes from the rear, which the female characters are spared of in the same scene. Fair enough, but it's funny how Disney at the same time recently censored Daryl Hannah's bare rear-end in Splash. Don't the woke and the feminists realise their almost comical double standards of objectifying men while women are too holy for the same? Oh the irony.

Other than that - interesting to add Zeus to the story although underwhelming. Bale is a good actor but isn't a memorable villain in this movie - not his fault though. Marvel-movies struggle to create great villains for some reason, apart from Loki.

Light & Magic (2022)

Interesting, almost inspiring

[8/10 · 24 August 2022]

Surprisingly inspiring to watch the story of ILM and how it was connected to so many famous people (other than Lucas and Spielberg), movies, techniques, softwares and companies, such as Pixar, Steve Jobs, Photoshop, James Cameron and so forth.

Funny how the first generation ILM'ers seemed perhaps more likeable, "human", old-school, straight-forward while the new computer-animator-generation seemed a bit more "cocky nerd", efficient, I-am-very-intelligent kind of people but perhaps also with less intuition, emotions and artistic traits. Kind of reminds me of the difference between intuitive, visionary business people and the more robotic, efficient web developers. Everyone seemed like very kind, smart and talented people though.

Anyway, I thought this was gonna be a bit dull and technical, but it added a great deal of human aspect to it. Visual effects are important, but I love how Spielberg put it in the final episode: visual effects' role is to support the story, not be the story, or overshadow the story. If you forget that, then you're on the wrong path. Sounds like something Steve Jobs would say about the users' needs and that user experience is more important than coming up with some impressive technology in itself - tech is first and foremost there to support a great user experience.

Black Bird (2022)

Decent, annoying actress

[6/10 · 21 August 2022]

It's a decent albeit slow show, but the female agent doesn't nail that "tough-cop" attitude, seems forced and tries too hard, which is one of the best ways to ruin a show. If you can't find female actresses that nail a stereotypical masculine behaviour, then perhaps just go with, you know... as outrageous as it sounds... a male actor? Bad casting.

Better Call Saul (2015–2022)

Decent but slightly pretentious and overrated

[7/10 · 20 August 2022]

Better Call Saul is, like Breaking Bad, one of those shows that is very "correct" to say that you enjoy. It's not a bad show by any standard but its excessively slow pace, pretentious and "deep" character development that always leads to miserable destinies as well as pretentious cinematography and sounds (but also a decently written script, generally good acting and at least unpretentious casting) inherited from Breaking Bad seem to always guarantee good reviews among the critics and some kind of cult status among viewers because it's not tabloid or easily digestible.

I really wish they had gone for what they originally planned - a more easy-going, comedic show about Saul Goodman. It would have been more original trying to do things differently from BB, and it would also have suited the character of Saul Goodman better. I guess they realised there was less risk involved blueprinting the style of BB instead.

And of course, making a dark drama assures you a decently high rating on IMDB - dramas and TV-shows have inflated ratings compared to movies, comedies and actions.

The Newsroom (2012–2014)

Decent, but unlikeable characters

[6/10 · 15 August 2022]

The Newsroom is quite interesting in the early stages, and worth a watch, but an important difference from this and great shows is that here you don't really root for any of the most important characters. Jeff Daniels' character has an arrogance to him that unfortunately doesn't work as well as with Dr House or even Harvey Specter - they're "cool arrogant" while Daniels is more "nerdy arrogant" without the elegant or dark humour. Perhaps for the two former their brilliance shines through in a better way as well. Probably due to a mix of the acting and the writing.

Obi-Wan Kenobi (2022)

Below average

[5/10 · 29 May 2022]

Really wanted this to be entertaining but so far it has ended up uninteresting and slightly annoying. Female actors not great. Leia, a little child, talks and behaves like a 40-year-old radical feminist (a reflection of the screenwriters/director/producers/casting director's agenda perhaps?) and has yet to learn one or two things about acting naturally, but she's young and I'm sure she'll improve in the future. The third sister seems quoted in to tick the usual diversity boxes, and they desperately try to make her the greatest badass villain one can find, but she's just not believable in that role and over-acts. Casting director didn't do a great job here. Some of the action scenes are ridiculous and seem to have been made for kids - the director is not delivering here. Conclusion: use a different director and casting director next time. Which in turn probably means different producers too - someone who's brave enough to first and foremost put together the best possible show, and then start looking at ways to promote diversity without forcing it. If you can tick both boxes - great!

Top Gun: Maverick (2022)

Great action, awkward acting and rushed storyline - no magic left

[6/10 · 27 May 2022]

Music ok but not memorable. The action scenes of the final 45 mins are great, but the movie has an empty, toned down atmosphere and awkward acting by usually great actors. The dialogues felt unnatural and half-heartedly with no intensity and little chemistry, as if the actors felt intimidated or just focused on remembering their lines rather than acting. Storyline rushed, not enough character development even for an action movie. Forced rivalry within the group that isn't built up enough to be believable. Even though the action scenes may have been of higher quality on the sequel, the magic of the first movie was mostly gone. It had all the ingredients but just poorly executed. Screen writing, directing and editing all should have been better.

Limitless (I) (2011)

Interesting concept, entertaining but not greatly executed

[6/10 · 3 May 2022]

It has some entertaining glimpses and worth a watch. However with a four-digit IQ one would believe the protagonist would be a bit more "above it all" and see the whole picture rather than running around partying and trading stocks. Sure he learns a lot of new things but too much focus is given to the finance-, mafia- and other petty subplots rather than exploring the true potential of his new abilities. The end game makes sense but the movie feels like like a missed opportunity. Tabloid angles like this can work, I just wish they had done it a bit more elegantly.