gaspyy Reviews

Frasier (2023– )

Terrible

[4/10 · 2 November 2023]

The original Frasier helped me through anxiety. I always loved the character and I always saw bits of myself in him and his brother. I watched all 260+ episodes. Twice.

Sadly, the new Frasier is nowhere near the original. It's not even in the same universe. I watched 5 episodes and I had enough.

My biggest complaint are the actors. They are just terrible, as in school play terrible. The actors portraying Freddy, Eve and David simply can't act. Grammer and Lyndhurst can't save the show by themselves and, at least so far, Alan is a very unidimensional character,

The scripts are mediocre, with many rehashed ideas.

Production values are minimal. Frasier's apartment was interesting, it had character, it effectively _was_ a character its own right. The new apartment is so generic I can't picture Frasier living in it.

Hello Tomorrow! (2023)

Wasted opportunity

[6/10 · 24 February 2023]

I was very intrigued by the show's retro-futuristic aesthetic. I was expecting something like a live-action Jetsons and hoping for a For All Mankind -like exploration of alternative history.

What we get is a very simple show about a con man trying to reconnect with his son. That's it. The fact that he's selling property on the moon or that the bartenders are floating robots is absolutely inconsequential.

Compare it to For All Mankind. That show is a generational drama that explores an alternative reality and even though the technology and politics are in the background, you can still understand how that future came to be and its implications and ramifications, which are often fascinating.

Or take Severance, another Apple show, so simple on the surface, and yet so intriguing, because, besides the mysteries, it explores how the procedure affects the characters and society as a whole.

None of these are present in Hello Tomorrow. The retro-futuristic look quickly becomes just an overused visual (compare it to Gattaca, where they were very smart in getting just a whiff of retro, enough to create an unique style, but not so much as to overshadow the story). Even Loki put this aesthetic to better use.

What we are left with are a bunch of characters that are not even lovable like the protagonists of Paper Moon, the '70s movie about a con man and his daughter.

The Peripheral (2022)

Good but not as great as the novel

[7/10 · 22 October 2022]

William Gibson's novels are usually difficult to get into. The reader is thrown in the world without any context. The terms are never explained and the reader needs to figure everything out as they progress. But once you get past the initial hurdles, you're rewarded with a rich world, nuanced characters, and a gripping story.

One thing that bothers me with the adaptation is how the characters are reduced to stereotypes. To put it simply, male characters are not misogynic a-holes in the novel and Flynne is not a Mary Sue. It's such a pity to see how new movies and shows feel the need to add unnecessary character traits that only demean the characters, while ignoring the larger themes explored in the novel.

Even the whole encounter between Flynne and Aelita is completely different and I think it was done solely for shock values and to inject more "excitement" in the pilot.

Overall, The Peripheral feels like a simplification, a dumbed-down version of what should have been.

Even so, The Peripheral remains quite interesting and different enough to be worth watching.

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

Not great, not terrible

[6/10 · 16 September 2022]

Halfway through the first season, I still don't know how I truly feel about The Rings of Power. If I had to sum it up in one word, I guess it'd be "meh".

I loved The Lord of the Rings, both in book and movie form. I wasn't a big fan of the Hobbit movies, but they were well-done and reasonably entertaining. I am not a Tolkien purist (LOTR wasn't 100% faithful the books either).

First, the good. Some of the visuals are stunning in 4K. I actually have a view of Númenor as a wallpaper. In parts, the cinematography is very good. There are lots of settings, costumes and characters. It screams high-production value.

Sadly, with all the money spent on the dazzling sets, the producers forgot about the basics.

The story is badly-paced and at times, frankly, boring. The dialogs feel stilted. I won't comment on how it departs from the source material, but it is clear that it's not a story for Tolkien fans. Rather, it seems more interested in injecting current social issues. Some characters bicker about the elf "peacekeepers". Others gather to protest against elves taking their jobs.

This issue is compounded by another. I don't know how to put it politely, but the actors, for the most part, can't carry their roles. Producers of movies and TV shows are usually smart to cast a few good actors at least for supporting roles. Good actors can elevate bad dialog and can salvage disasters. Unfortunately pretty much no one can do this here, maybe with the exception of the actor playing Sadoc Burrows, but he has such a small part. 4 hours in, most characters are bland and quite unlikable.

The skin color of an elf may attract headlines and prompt accusations but it's the least of the show's worries. The main problem is that Galadriel is simply unlikable. And not because she's a warrior and not like in the books. After all, everyone thought Arwen and Eowyn were great in LOTR. I don't know of any backlash against Tauriel in The Hobbit. No, Galadriel just isn't likable. Although she's supposed to be already a thousand years old, she comes across as an impulsive teenager. I get it that the producers want to give her room to grow, but it doesn't work.

Other things are hit-and-miss. Numenor and Khazad-Dum are great seen from afar bust some closer shots reveal their CGI nature. There's not enough attention to detail in some of the shots. For LOTR they actually built Minas Tirith, Helm's Deep and Ortanc tower as scale models and it shows. There's a warg in episode 3 that's just bad CGI, bad animation. Some of the armor looks cheap in 4K. The dwarves and the harfoots look great but the elves look more like cosplay.

Fall (I) (2022)

Gripping but flawed

[6/10 · 1 September 2022]

I've been anxious to see this movie since the first trailer, and I like concept, however, ultimately its flaws are hard to dismiss.

First, the good: in some parts I could actually feel my hands getting sweaty. The cinematography is stunning and camera work is top notch.

Now, for the bad: the story is essentially "47 meters down". The two protagonists have the exact same personalities and even the same hair colors; only their backstories are a bit different. Even the big plot twist is identical.

The pacing is uneven. Some parts are really unnecessarily slow.

One thing that really annoyed me was the use of a rope. At one point one character struggles to grab the end of the rope, but the other, 50 feet above, could have easily reorient the rope to help her.

Finally, the characters really don't have the physique of rock climbers as it's established in the opening. It may be a minor point, but it was distracting.

The verdict: If you've seen "47 meters down", you've seen this one too. If not, Fall can be gripping and anxiety inducing, but ultimately unsatisfying.

Man vs. Bee (2022)

Not nearly as good as Mr Bean or Johnny English

[5/10 · 30 June 2022]

The secret to Mr. Bean's success (the shorts, not the movies) as well as to Johnny English, is that the protagonist is so full of himself. You can honestly laugh at his misfortunes because for the most part they are deserved.

Trevor however is just clumsy. He's a nice guy with an ex-wife and a daughter. At times he's like a child trapped in a man's body. Some of his actions are on par to, say, what Forrest Gump would have done. You can't _really_ enjoy that.

Some of the humor is dumbed down to the lowest level possible. Somehow, Mr. Bean managed to be a worldwide success without retorting to having dog poo smeared across one's face.

Foundation (2021– )

Disappointed

[6/10 · 24 September 2021]

While I love the Foundation series by Isaac Asimov(and the Empire and Robots series), I admit it may be a bit dated. The novels were written during the '50s and Asimov never described the visuals in detail.

It was therefore expected that any adaptation would diverge from the source material. And I don't mind it. A faithful adaptation would not be possible because we wouldn't know how the ships are supposed to look like, for example. I don't mind the gender swap in itself.

But the creators take too many liberties with the source materials to the point the story doesn't make sense for any science fiction fan. If Terminus is 55,000 light years away from Trantor and the colonists don't have jump ships, how do they travel? Why does it take 900 days to get there? That would mean they are travelling at 22,300 times the speed of light. This kind of oversight may be OK for a Marvel show, not for a show where math plays a central role.

I was also disheartened by changing Demerzel's gender. Not because of itself, but because in the books Eto Dermerzel is a very special character with a deep backstory. Changing his gender sends ripples everywhere. It's like making Han Solo or Ron Weasley a woman.

Hari's relationship with Raych is also changed for the worse, presumably to make room for Gaal. Sigh.

All these changes leave us with really impressive visuals and a weakened story. Not the Foundation I expected.

Star Trek: Picard (2020–2023)

Terrible

[4/10 · 27 February 2020]

As a kid who grew up on ST:TNG, I really wanted to like it. Alas, it's still garbage.

I simply fail to understand why all new series must be dark and hopeless and gloomy. This is not Star Trek.

I give it 4/10 for production values but that's it.

The Pale Horse (2020)

They don't understand the source material

[5/10 · 25 February 2020]

Sigh. The screenwriter simply doesn't understand Agatha Christie and she's murdering the originals. The Pale Horse, The ABC Murders, Witness for the Prosecution, And Then There Were None - they all miss the point completely.

You know who understood Christie perfectly? Rian Johnson. His "Knives Out" is exactly like an Agatha Christie novel. He even captured the essence of Poirot, something Murder on the Orient Express could not. See, Poirot is not about the fact that he's Belgian, or bald or has a mustache. It's that the others perceive him as weird, and pompous, and even clueless, things Daniel Craig & Rian Johnson understood perfectly.

Agatha Christie was never gross. She was never obvious. She was witty, clever and cultivated. Her social commentary is subtle. She knew how to allude without shouting it. She knew how to misled, how to create an atmosphere. She could make you suspect everyone and noone at the same time.

Sarah Phelps' adaptations are like crayon copies of Renaissance paintings. You may recognize the subject but it'll never leave a lasting impression.

Knives Out (2019)

Great Agatha Christie style mystery

[9/10 · 6 December 2019]

Ladies and gentleman, Rian Johnson has done it! He cracked the formula of Agatha Christie's novels! In fact, what he did is more true to the core of these novels than recent adaptations like The Orient Express.

The whodunnit story, even with all its twists and turns, is quite logical. There's no impossible coincidence, impossibly-clever mastermind, incredible timing or other deus ex machina tropes.

Daniel Craig is also superb. His pompous Benoit Blanc detective, with his peculiar accent and mannerisms is really a better Hercule Poirot than Kenneth Branagh's actual Porot in the Orient Express, which was a caricature.

Above all, this appears to a film everyone involved really enjoyed making it.

In this age of superheroes and explosions and mindless action, Knives Out stands out. I really wish there were more like it.

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)

I should've listened

[3/10 · 20 November 2019]

I was excited about Dark Fate. I was convinced Cameron would actually know how to continue the story respectfully, even though, if you think about it, it's very hard - T2 had such a perfect ending it's almost a crime to continue it.

What we got instead is a mess, a forgettable movie that rehashes the old ones, a sort of a reboot without any imagination.

The story is unimaginative and in places illogical. In the first minute it destroys all T2's legacy and replaces it with a crappier version - Legion instead of Skynet. The movie wants to do some social commentary but it's so clumsy there's really nothing worth discussing.

The characters are dull. Linda Hamilton is the only one really looking bad-ass. The new terminator is more of a nuisance than a menace. Arnold's character is laughable. And the new girl, Daniela and her protector are simply disposable. I never came to care one bit for them.

Special effects are surprisingly mediocre and, again, unimaginative. The "old" Terminator had that shiny metal look, including the mirror-like liquid metal that's iconic. Everyone knows what I'm talking about and that's the point. Remember the moment we see T1000 going through the grated door? Or the way it morphed in the helicopter? Of course you do. There's nothing, nothing similar. Nothing jaw-dropping or even mildly shocking.

I can't say for sure it's the worst Terminator in the series because I couldn't be bothered to see all of them, but it's definitely worse than T3.

The Wandering Earth (2019)

Incredibly good film

[9/10 · 12 February 2019]

I'm a big fan of hard science fiction and love when movies are well-thought. Films like Interstellar or the Martian are my favorite.

On the other hand, with precious few exceptions, I never really enjoyed Chinese movies, so I was rather skeptical of The Wandering Earth. I had heard about the story it was based upon - The Three Body Problem, but I haven't read it (yet).

I must say that The Wandering Earth is indeed a great movie. Not a great Chinese movie. A great movie. In fact, it's better than most big-budget Hollywood movies.

The idea itself - a 2500 year project to move Earth to a new solar system, is more ambitious than anything I've read. Good old Jules Verne had a story novel about changing Earth's rotational axis and Isaac Asimov had one about moving an asteroid, but they pale in comparison to this endeavour.

I'm sure some will be quick to try to find similarities with other movies, and you can find them, obviously. There's a computer that reminds me of HAL in 2001 or the one in WALL-E. There are some scenes inspired by Gravity, but nowadays all space movies borrow from it.

At a human level, the story is relatively simple. The characters are not very well developed, but this can be said of most action movies. The main protagonists do have a nice progression though.

Special effects range from adequate to stunningly beautiful. Some do look too much like CGI but it never looks cheap or rushed.

Overall, it's amazing how much Chinese cinema has progressed in the last years and I recommend it to all sci-fi enthusiasts.

RoboCop (2014)

Better than the original

[9/10 · 15 February 2014]

I first saw RoboCop on VHS when I was 13. Somehow Murphy's drama resonated more than the ultra-violence. The moment Lewis says "Murphy, it's you"; him visiting his old home; the moment he takes off his helmet; the whole "is he a man trapped in a machine or a machine that thinks it's a man". All these impressed me more than, say, the "acid bath".

Based on early signs, I thought the new RoboCop will be much worse - the stills, the trailers, nothing convinced me.

But the movie blew me away. Better in all areas (except the violence). Yes, it's not a "hard R" but there's plenty of violence, just not over- the-top. In fact, there are enough elements to make the movie pretty scary for kids (the moment Alex sees what's left of him is nightmarish).

The movie is more modern. With all the advancements in robotics, surveillance, drones and even politics, you just can't play the old cards. The world has changed but the RoboCop DNA is all there.

Monsters University (2013)

Good but not great

[6/10 · 25 June 2013]

Monsters, Inc. was the first Pixar movie where I saw their genius. Such an incredible mix of themes and emotions. From the basic premise of "humanizing" monsters to the tiny details in Boo's behavior that I did not notice until I had a daughter of my own, it was beautiful and original.

My top Pixar movies are (in no particular order) Finding Nemo, Monsters, Inc., Wall-E and The Incredibles. These are movies that actually mean something to me.

Monsters University is definitely better than Cars 2 and Brave, but I did not find that "magic ingredient" in it. If anything, it was formulaic - the same old story retold for the millionth time.

It was certainly nice to see Sully and Mike again and see how they became friends, but the story was rather shallow with little character development (I would have loved to see Randall's evolution for example).

Cars 2 (2011)

My 7 year old got bored

[4/10 · 28 January 2012]

In the family we're all big Pixar fans. We loved all their movies, know all their shorts, even use lines from Finding Nemo. My son was a big Cars fan.

We sat through Cars 2 but none of the Pixar feel was there. The visuals are spectacular and detailed, but the spy story itself is too convoluted and ultimately uninteresting and the humor is crude. I think we laughed twice during the whole movie. By the end my son was "yeah, whatever". Later that day we watched Rio and we enjoyed it much more.

Cars 2 is not only inferior to other Pixar movies, it's inferior to other new animated features. Cars was never the strongest Pixar piece but it had enough sweet childish fun to be enjoyable. Cars 2 looks like a different company with no clue tried to copy the concept.

Tinker Bell and the Great Fairy Rescue (2010 Video)

Very good for small kids

[7/10 · 6 September 2010]

I'm not sure what makes Tinker Bell so irresistible to small children, but Disney managed to expand upon the Peter Pan mythos and flesh out Tink as an independent, curious, kind yet temperamental fairy.

This is Tink's third adventure, after Tinker Bell (2008) and Tinker Bell and The Lost Treasure (2009). This time, her native curiosity in how things work and her fascination with humans gets her in trouble and her friends must organize a rescue party, also a good opportunity for Vidia, the antagonist, to show her better side.

The production values are good but not incredible compared to Pixar movies or even to Disney's own Bolt; still, I doubt that any child will notice that Cheese's fur doesn't sway for example.

About the only thing that disappoints me is that the whole Disney Fairies franchise is more aimed at girls rather than boys, which is quite a shame, given Tink's personality.

Overall, it's a nice family movie. My 6 years old son loved it and that's all it matters.

Blonde and Blonder (2008)

Stunningly bad

[1/10 · 7 February 2009]

I was looking for a cute, simple comedy to pass the time but choosing this film proved to be an enormous mistake.

I can't write a single good thing about it. First, the script is stupid and not funny at all, relying on tired, recycled jokes and a farting turtle for laughs. In my book, that's not funny, that's pathetic.

Low budget 'effects' (if I can even call them effects) with horrible cinematography. In many places it feels almost like an indie film shot with no money.

Acting... I feel sorry for the actors. Are Pamela Anderson and Denise Richards that desperate for some money that they've agreed to take part in this? (looking at their recent filmography, it would appear so.) Despite the outfits, Pamela is showing her age and as a whole, they don't even come across as sexy, let alone funny.

This movie is not even in the so-bad-it-is-funny category. It's just bad, as if everybody involved was sick of it.

Avoid.

The Dark Knight (2008)

Ledger makes a joke out of Nicholson

[9/10 · 22 July 2008]

I was 13 when Tim Burton's Batman hit the screen. It was an instant hit for me, the moment Batman became my favorite superhero. Still, even then, I thought Joker was silly; actually, all villains in Gotham seemed to be bunch of lunatics - crazy, but not really scary.

Jack Nicholson was a very good Joker, but even he (with his past experience in films like The Shining) couldn't transcend the times.

I can safely say that Ledger's Joker is one of the best villains of all time. The way he talks, the body language, everything is perfect. You forget there's an actor behind the messed makeup and all you can see is a mind so twisted and evil, you can't help being scared. How do you cope with someone who doesn't want anything? Someone who doesn't respond to torture, who doesn't care for anybody? Having seen the movie two days ago, some of Joker's words still haunt me...

There is a slight downside to all that. Simply put, the Joker outshines everybody else. This is not a movie about Batman, it's a movie about Joker; everyone else takes a backseat.

I was rather disappointed by Batman / Bruce Wayne. In Tim Burton's version, you could feel his loneliness. Nolan's Batman is too shallow, especially when compared to Joker. Bruce Wayne is just a mask, we get that; Batman wears a mask. But where is the man behind the mask? How does he feel? When he gets home and gets off his cape, when the Russian ballet dancers and the press are not around, what is he doing? Does he still love Rachel? Other than that, The Dark Knight takes the superhero genre to a completely new level. In fact, I'm not sure it qualifies as 'superhero movie'. If you ignore the character names and settings, it could be a dark thriller.

In conclusion, see it! You'll love it.