In general, viewers enjoy watching police movies when they are synchronized with the police's struggles and fine deductions. However,
Agent Beck's psychics represents all answers out of the blue, with no significant police works made. I felt like I was skimming a mystery book from the back. You will see a twist in the last 10 minutes, but it was cheesy and frustrating with little content related with the entire story. In short, a terrible unstructured script.
Reviews
9 Reviews
Tidying Up with Marie Kondo
(2019)
Just boring show
2 January 2019
This show is to merely watch disorganized people and say "Yeah, I have the same problem." In other words, I did not learn any new techniques or inspiring words from Marie Kondo. This is a big difference between Marie Kendo's show and the Fav Five's Queer Eye - i.e. she is not suitable for a reality show host.
On top of that, clients selection is boring. Yes, they own a bit too many stuff, but on almost the average level. I was not impressed with the before/after comparison scenes at all...
One or two episodes are enough to motivate yourself to tidy your house.
By the way, I'm Japanese and watched the show with English subtitles. Most of the time Kondo speaks in Japanese during the show, but her translator and subtitles are both accurate. Therefore, my negative review is not due to a language issue.
Terrorism Close Calls
(2018– )
Police PR videos telling HOW but not WHY
31 October 2018
The docu-series visually restages actual terrorism plots, based on evidence provided by in-charge law enforcement agents. All cases featured by this docu-series are not well known and something new to me because they were aborted right before execution.
However, it walks me through each plot too quickly. It tells only HOW they successfully aborted, but no observation WHY terrorists attempted in the first place.
On top of that, the narration style reminds me of CNN reports. And interviews basically are one side story. It's like police PR videos designed for a new officers recruitment purpose. I do not say it's propaganda, but simply lack of enthusiasm and neutral analysis. I sometimes fell asleep while watching it.
However, it walks me through each plot too quickly. It tells only HOW they successfully aborted, but no observation WHY terrorists attempted in the first place.
On top of that, the narration style reminds me of CNN reports. And interviews basically are one side story. It's like police PR videos designed for a new officers recruitment purpose. I do not say it's propaganda, but simply lack of enthusiasm and neutral analysis. I sometimes fell asleep while watching it.
Two Catalonias
(2018)
A bit hyper conceptual, but unbiased
26 October 2018
The documentary only gives you a hint, mentioning "Nationalism is not the problem but the symptom. The problem is Spain and the European Commission." It would be a great start for those who not so familiar with the independence topics. However, if you are Spanish or European citizens, you may probably not be satisfied with it so much.
Pros:
Cons:
Interviews conducted by this documentary include leaders of political parties, journalists, political science and law scholars, social activists, and President Rajoy's chief of staff. You will see at the end that all of them are, no matter what their political position is, partially right and partially wrong. It is like an ancient Indian anecdote "blind men and an elephant."
Thanks to the relatively wide scope of interviews, you will at least able to find out what you do NOT know yet and how you can further research for yourself. In short, this documentary is for an agenda-setting purpose, not for comprehensive understanding.
Pros:
- Shed fresh light on disputes not only between the Spanish central government vs. the local Catalonian, but also pro- vs. anti-independence groups within Catalonia, and Pan-European vs. autonomy.
- Unbiased intensive interviews from both sides: pro and anti-independence groups.
- Throw questions about the ultimate definition of nationalism.
- Closely shadow key Catalonian political leaders (including the ousted President of Catalonia, Mr. Puigdemont now in Brussels) and successfully draw honest voices and mixed feelings from them.
- Quick visual overview of the bloody turmoil between Catalonian ordinary citizens and the Spanish armed police on the referendum day.
Cons:
- No analysis from an economic perspective, which is one of the most critical agendas to determine constituents' minds.
- No significant comments on the true reason(s) why some Catalonian are against the independence.
- Most of comments from experts are hyper conceptual (e.g. nationalism, democracy, populism, separation of power, nation state, and republic vs. constitutional monarchy)
- Very limited comments from the European Committee, which is reluctant to intervene in the Catalonian independence matters.
- Shallow comparison between Catalonia and other cases such as Brexit, Scotland and Canadian Quebec.
- Kick off the documentary with twenty-minute clips of Catalonian politicians without proper introduction, so I was very confused how to map their names, faces and political positioning.
Interviews conducted by this documentary include leaders of political parties, journalists, political science and law scholars, social activists, and President Rajoy's chief of staff. You will see at the end that all of them are, no matter what their political position is, partially right and partially wrong. It is like an ancient Indian anecdote "blind men and an elephant."
Thanks to the relatively wide scope of interviews, you will at least able to find out what you do NOT know yet and how you can further research for yourself. In short, this documentary is for an agenda-setting purpose, not for comprehensive understanding.
Bodyguard
(2018)
Another Jack Bauer from "24" in London
25 October 2018
If you are fond of superhero stories with big budget action scenes like 24, Bodyguard would be your taste. As a big fan of Line of Duty, however, I was disappointed at the quality of Bodyguard.
The similarities of Bodyguard and 24 are classical simple dichotomies: right/wrong, hero/evil, friend/foe, and one honest guy/large-scale organized crime. A tough guy alone tackles a series of terrorism acts, constantly being swayed by colleagues and high ranking politicians and officers. Viewers may really get excited to search for a clue who the true traitors and mastermind are behind the scenes. Once they are revealed, however, you will question their motives.
I also would like to point out the difference between Line of Duty and Bodyguard. The center of LoD is real-life people whereas that of Bodyguard is roller-coaster events. No one in LoD is perfectly right or wrong. Through nail-biting interrogation interviews in LoD, you will find characters' beliefs, struggles, bargaining tactics and lessons learned. It's not a black and white agenda. It could happen to everyone. You may be even attracted with criminals.
On the other hand, Bodyguard failed in portraying people. Jed Marcurio (the writer) probably came up with the idea of terrorism first, and then decided the criminals and their motives later. If Marcurio had set the motives first, he would have definitely chose different ways of crimes. Thus, the perpetrators look like selfish idiots and act like a two-dimensional pawn. Most of reasoning and course of actions do not make sense to me.
Not sure BBC will renew Bodyguard for its series 2, but probably I will pass.
The similarities of Bodyguard and 24 are classical simple dichotomies: right/wrong, hero/evil, friend/foe, and one honest guy/large-scale organized crime. A tough guy alone tackles a series of terrorism acts, constantly being swayed by colleagues and high ranking politicians and officers. Viewers may really get excited to search for a clue who the true traitors and mastermind are behind the scenes. Once they are revealed, however, you will question their motives.
I also would like to point out the difference between Line of Duty and Bodyguard. The center of LoD is real-life people whereas that of Bodyguard is roller-coaster events. No one in LoD is perfectly right or wrong. Through nail-biting interrogation interviews in LoD, you will find characters' beliefs, struggles, bargaining tactics and lessons learned. It's not a black and white agenda. It could happen to everyone. You may be even attracted with criminals.
On the other hand, Bodyguard failed in portraying people. Jed Marcurio (the writer) probably came up with the idea of terrorism first, and then decided the criminals and their motives later. If Marcurio had set the motives first, he would have definitely chose different ways of crimes. Thus, the perpetrators look like selfish idiots and act like a two-dimensional pawn. Most of reasoning and course of actions do not make sense to me.
Not sure BBC will renew Bodyguard for its series 2, but probably I will pass.
22 July
(2018)
Oversimplified sob story
22 October 2018
Director Greengrass focused on the aftermath of the massacre - not so much the massacre itself - particularly by featuring one of the teenage survivors' recovery process. That's the reason why this film ended in a mediocre sob story. Although the recovery process is agonizing physically and emotionally, it is widely observed in any form of casualties. In that sense, there is no significant difference between this massacre in Norway and school shootings repeatedly happened in the US. Thus, you do not find any uniqueness in this film if you are familiar with many crime stories. I even do not understand why they call it as "terrorism", not simply as "massacre."
What I expected from the so-called "aftermath" is
None of them was fully addressed in this film.
Let's compare to a Discovery Channel's TV limited series "Manhunt: Unabomber", which is also an actual serial killer's story. Both Unabomber and the 22 July attacker were highly intellectual, leading lone wolf lives, and issued long manifestos in order to justify themselves - the 22 July attacker actually copied some message from Unabomber's manifesto.
"Manhunt" detailed the background why Unabomber wrote up such a distorted manifesto, and thereby viewers can capture the motive in depth. On the other hand, "22 July" failed to deeply dive into the perpetrator's mind, without showing the context of the manifesto. Rather, Greengrass spent the first 30 minutes on the attack scenes, and the rest mainly goes to the survivors with too dramatized dialogues and anecdotes.
In short, the screenwriting is oversimplified.
What I expected from the so-called "aftermath" is
- what made the perpetrator's far-right belief
- why the Norwegian authorities could not avoid, or at least minimize the casualties
- how Norwegian media and citizens reacted to the massacre
- and how the massacre influenced the national security and immigration policy-making process as well as the justice system.
None of them was fully addressed in this film.
Let's compare to a Discovery Channel's TV limited series "Manhunt: Unabomber", which is also an actual serial killer's story. Both Unabomber and the 22 July attacker were highly intellectual, leading lone wolf lives, and issued long manifestos in order to justify themselves - the 22 July attacker actually copied some message from Unabomber's manifesto.
"Manhunt" detailed the background why Unabomber wrote up such a distorted manifesto, and thereby viewers can capture the motive in depth. On the other hand, "22 July" failed to deeply dive into the perpetrator's mind, without showing the context of the manifesto. Rather, Greengrass spent the first 30 minutes on the attack scenes, and the rest mainly goes to the survivors with too dramatized dialogues and anecdotes.
In short, the screenwriting is oversimplified.
Sacred Games
(2018–2019)
Subtle story-telling
8 October 2018
If you love movies featured by the Cannes Film Festival more than Hollywood, this is the TV show you cannot miss.
This TV series consists of two different stories in different time periods. (1) A mafia boss' biography from his early days to his acme (in 1980s and 90s, particularly); and (2) Currently happening (possible) terrorism tackled by a good cop. Those two stories are woven into one and go back and forward.
Honestly, mafia's rivalry in general (i.e. the first biography part) is not my favorite genre at all because it always contains grotesque crime scenes with fewer dialogues. However, I was truly fascinated by the biography part, thanks to two factors: (A) The mafia boss is a fictional character, but his life goes along with actual social and political history in India; and (B) Religiously deep and subtle dialogues were made by the mafia although he was cagey. India was emerging economically so as the guy was climbing the mafia career ladder. The third India-Pakistan war ended in 1971 (i.e. more than a decade before his life story), but the TV show describes the Hindu-Muslim conflict remained socially. Religions should be for better life but also bring death, and life and death are always resonating - that's the lesson this show profoundly infused into me even though I am an atheist. In this context, mafia's violence and his reckless personalities play essential roles.
On the other hand, the second part (i.e. possible terrorism vs. a good cop) is not on par with the first one. It is not so thrilling as if base on a template of B-level action movies. That's the reason I cannot rate this show with 10.
Netflix has already renewed the show for the second season, but I wish it had added two more episodes to the first season and completed as a limited series. Most of the mafia's biography was told in the first season. Only the cheesy cop story is left.
This TV series consists of two different stories in different time periods. (1) A mafia boss' biography from his early days to his acme (in 1980s and 90s, particularly); and (2) Currently happening (possible) terrorism tackled by a good cop. Those two stories are woven into one and go back and forward.
Honestly, mafia's rivalry in general (i.e. the first biography part) is not my favorite genre at all because it always contains grotesque crime scenes with fewer dialogues. However, I was truly fascinated by the biography part, thanks to two factors: (A) The mafia boss is a fictional character, but his life goes along with actual social and political history in India; and (B) Religiously deep and subtle dialogues were made by the mafia although he was cagey. India was emerging economically so as the guy was climbing the mafia career ladder. The third India-Pakistan war ended in 1971 (i.e. more than a decade before his life story), but the TV show describes the Hindu-Muslim conflict remained socially. Religions should be for better life but also bring death, and life and death are always resonating - that's the lesson this show profoundly infused into me even though I am an atheist. In this context, mafia's violence and his reckless personalities play essential roles.
On the other hand, the second part (i.e. possible terrorism vs. a good cop) is not on par with the first one. It is not so thrilling as if base on a template of B-level action movies. That's the reason I cannot rate this show with 10.
Netflix has already renewed the show for the second season, but I wish it had added two more episodes to the first season and completed as a limited series. Most of the mafia's biography was told in the first season. Only the cheesy cop story is left.
The Good Cop
(2018)
Obsolete
3 October 2018
Although I like Josh Groban, I felt watching this show is like eating a McDonald's hamburger. No big failure and even familiar taste, but there are plenty of other choices available. Probably I have watched too many Netflix's edgy programs. Comparing to them, I found no special grips in The Good Cop. The structure is much alike Monk, which means a bit obsolete in these days. And the quality is lower than Monk because no impressive dialogues were made between the dad and the son. Such poor dialogues resulted in poor character development too. If a cop drama deals with predictable cases, at least protagonists should be magnetic.
The Angel
(2018)
So many plot holes
26 September 2018
Subject: 10/10; Film execution: 3/10
Ashraf Marwan is so-called the greatest asset for Israel as a spy in the 20th century. The film, however, failed to address the two central questions and thereby did not get viewers engaged emotionally.
The questions are (1) who Ashraf Marwan was (i.e. what brought him up to such a high ranking position even after his father-in-law President Nasser passed away); and (2) what his motivation as a spy was (i.e. why his patriot drive forces were not fulfilled within the Egyptian Presidential Office.) The biggest problem for me is the true reason why Marwan leaked critical information about war prep from his country to the enemy. The film seemingly described him like a peacemaker, but the leak served for only Israel's interests and caused damages on Egypt's side, from my viewpoint.
In order to fully illustrate the true story of Marwan, the film should've more deeply told about prolonged political tensions and dynamics between the Arab League and Israel, and more importantly described how Marwan made moves under the situation. Without explaining political efforts made by both sides, Marwan in this film looks merely like a betrayal idiot desperately in need of money.
Rather, the producers allocated more time to focus on soap opera-ish family matters and personal relationship between Marwan and his handler from the Israel Mossad. Such unstructured screenwriting and directing are everywhere in this film and derailed me from the main theme. So while watching I was frequently forced to google the Yom Kippur War in the 1970s as well as key players. And then I learned that the film ruined the original novel written by a political science professor. Although I only skimmed the novel, it is very informative yet intriguing and easy to understand in a politically neutral way.
This film could've been better if directed by someone else and made as a TV mini series, not a 2-hour film. Poor acting - which some other reviewers have already pointed out - is not mainly due to lack of acting skills or low budget, but inevitable due to shallow cheesy screenwriting with multiple plot holes. Still it may be worthwhile for those who are interested in but not so familiar with the history of the Middle East. At least for me it became a good start to further research for myself.
Ashraf Marwan is so-called the greatest asset for Israel as a spy in the 20th century. The film, however, failed to address the two central questions and thereby did not get viewers engaged emotionally.
The questions are (1) who Ashraf Marwan was (i.e. what brought him up to such a high ranking position even after his father-in-law President Nasser passed away); and (2) what his motivation as a spy was (i.e. why his patriot drive forces were not fulfilled within the Egyptian Presidential Office.) The biggest problem for me is the true reason why Marwan leaked critical information about war prep from his country to the enemy. The film seemingly described him like a peacemaker, but the leak served for only Israel's interests and caused damages on Egypt's side, from my viewpoint.
In order to fully illustrate the true story of Marwan, the film should've more deeply told about prolonged political tensions and dynamics between the Arab League and Israel, and more importantly described how Marwan made moves under the situation. Without explaining political efforts made by both sides, Marwan in this film looks merely like a betrayal idiot desperately in need of money.
Rather, the producers allocated more time to focus on soap opera-ish family matters and personal relationship between Marwan and his handler from the Israel Mossad. Such unstructured screenwriting and directing are everywhere in this film and derailed me from the main theme. So while watching I was frequently forced to google the Yom Kippur War in the 1970s as well as key players. And then I learned that the film ruined the original novel written by a political science professor. Although I only skimmed the novel, it is very informative yet intriguing and easy to understand in a politically neutral way.
This film could've been better if directed by someone else and made as a TV mini series, not a 2-hour film. Poor acting - which some other reviewers have already pointed out - is not mainly due to lack of acting skills or low budget, but inevitable due to shallow cheesy screenwriting with multiple plot holes. Still it may be worthwhile for those who are interested in but not so familiar with the history of the Middle East. At least for me it became a good start to further research for myself.
Tell Your Friends