Change Your Image
SirBreeze
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning Part One (2023)
Not the best M:I movie
The Mission Impossible franchise is almost a relic. In a space saturated by superheroes and their constant reboots, CGI-driven and constantly looking for new characters to add to their universes, M:I stands out. When it started out, it was pretty groundbreaking, and the original TV show was virtually unknown outside of the US so it could start really fresh. It cemented Tom Cruise as an action star and established its main tropes - tech, subterfuge and real action. It's real action that truly sets it apart from anything we've had in cinemas for a very long time. The Dubai stunt in Ghost Protocol, the Airbus takeoff in Rogue Nation - great pieces of stuntwork and a testament to the dedication and skill of Tom Cruise.
So I was excited to see the next to last installment and have rewatched a lot of the movies in the last couple of months. (Interesting to see how the vibe has changed since the DePalma film.) It felt good, the movies were tight, the cast had chemistry, the stunts were on point, and the plots were fairly convincing. Now, Dead Reckoning Pt. 1 is a fine movie and I gave it a 7, but only because of my appreciation for the movies preceding it.
It has all the requisite M:I ingredients, so I'll just list the negatives. It's way too long. The plot seems unnecessarily convoluted. The bad guy does kinda capture the Zeitgeist, but since it's a disembodied entity, we never see it and Esai Morales' character acts as a stand-in. While I think he's a fine actor with presence, his character seems watered down, and having one bad guy made out of two pieces adds to the convoluted plot and the runtime. Just how Hayley Atwell's character takes up too much time and dialogue, without being sufficiently convincing - we never really care whether she does or she doesn't.
AND, this is only part one. I'm afraid part 2 might suffer from the same problems, but will also have the same requisite M:I ingredients, which should be enough to make it worth a watch. I'll end with another special mention to the seemingly indestructible Tom Cruise. Like him or not, he made this franchise his own and is committed to giving his all to it, and boy he delivers.
Midway (2019)
Historically correct
I understand the lack of enthusiasm for this movie from some of the reviewers. There are some issues with pacing, effects and character development. However, all of that fades against the historical accuracy of the movie, which I found very surprising, to be honest. And for a war movie that seeks to represent a single battle, that's the most important thing, and Midway excels in that. The only thing really bugging me are the horribly wrinkly uniforms - that could pass on a carrier six months at sea, but not ashore and in literally every situation and with every rank. Was the ironing budget so bad?
Top Gun: Maverick (2022)
A great summer blockbuster it is, a 10/10 masterpiece epic it ain't
What's not to love about the original Top Gun? The homoerotic overtures, the age-old trope of Americans as mighty warriors for justice facing a malicious, peer foe flying nonexistent aircraft, plenty of military porn, cheesy dialogue and great music, and a rebellious yet capable and lovable hero. Oh and did I mention awesome photography of military tech?
Top Gun: Maverick tries to stick to the same formula and largely succeeds in it. The good things I'll list here because unfortunately they are few. Great photography...and that's about it. To be fair, the references to Goose are more or less successfully and tastefully done, the supporting cast of Cyclone, Warlock and Hondo are good, and it was heartwarming to see Val Kilmer reprise his role with dignity, especially with the way his own health issues were integrated into the film
Other than that, the movie is not really good. The plot is a rehash of a Cold War mission that makes no sense today, the dialogue is bad to atrocious for the most part, Jennifer Connelly is wasted on her role and her lines, and the young pilots team is cartoonishly cocky and insufferable.
My biggest gripes are doctrine and technology related. The Mach 10 aircraft may well be in development, but merely as a test bed, and definitely not something that would be pulled in favor of more drones (that still require pilots, whatever admiral Ed Harris may think), and would not require such a dramatic scene.
The mission itself makes no sense since there is no mission an F/A-18 could do better than an F-35, except maybe dogfight (oooh now I get it!). Send in 5th gen aircraft to avoid all those SAMs and enemy 5th gen aircraft, not get detected, perform SEAD/DEAD (suppression/destruction of enemy air defense) like it is meant to, and perform the same laser guided bomb drop from a more secure position. Also, I'm not the first to mention that the mission is suspiciously similar to the Star Wars trench run, but hey, it makes for great flying shots.
The mission itself also additionally makes no sense with what we know about peer state 5th gen aircraft (i.e., Su-57, NATO code name Felon) and the state of their military after the Ukraine invasion. But this is an old movie, really.
Finally, the hero. US military has an up or out approach to personnel, meaning if you don't get promoted sufficiently quickly, you'll be essentially fired. That also means that Maverick would have been out by the time of the Obama administration and given his record, he may not even have reached captain rank, but he's such a lovable rapscallion and has the back of his more career-minded friend, 4-star admiral Ice.
Tom Cruise's performance is just him being Tom Cruise. To the reviews saying he gets too much screen time - the title of the movie has his character's name in it. Whaddya expect? That said, he was fine, like he is intensely convincing and charming in his every role, as intense and borderline creepy as he is in his life off-screen.
I did enjoy the movie. The flight scenes are the best part, and really are nailbiters. Plus, the nostalgia factor, heavily stressed on purpose, does its thing for all of us who grew up on its predecessor. But, this one will not attain the cult status of the original, nor will it provide excellent opportunities to mock and parody it. A great summer blockbuster it is, a 10/10 masterpiece epic like many reviewers here say, it ain't.
Balle perdue (2020)
French car movie tradition for the 21st century
TL;DR - this is a tightly written and shot, unassuming action movie that centres around cars and has decent action, deserves a shot from viewers not acquainted with French action cinema.
Frech cinematography is one of the most prolific in the world, and one of the most respected. Moviemakers like Truffaut, Godard, Malle, Resnais are required watching, but French movies are not all high-brow art or goofy comedies with de Funes, Bourvil or Tati. Ever heard of Luc Besson? Remember the Taxi franchise?
Yes, there is a tradition of action and crime movies in French cinema, perhaps brought to its pinnacle in the 70s an 80s and starring the big names of Belmondo and Delon, to name just the most famous ones. Belmondo in particular was a hard-boiled action movie star that has a string of crime movies featuring a lot of shooting, fighting, and yes, driving. Just like McQueen or Newman, he was known for doing his own driving in movies, and some of those scenes hold up really well even today.
Given that, I feel that this movie continues that tradition. The story is rather a cliche, but cliches exist for a reason and work well if you use them wisely. There are a couple of twists and a couple of points in the movie that can be either declared plot holes, or interpreted as artistic licence, but overall, the movie is well paced and leaves no loose ends, except for maybe the possibility of a sequel, which could be a good thing if the makers are looking to start a franchise. And be aware that this is not Fast and the Furious, and that is a good thing.
If you're looking for an entertaining and solid movie, give this one a shot, and don't fear the subtitles. Dubbing never works as well.
Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi (2017)
Can't say this is a bad movie, but..
After successfully committing patricide in the last movie, Kylo Ren a.k.a. Ben Solo in this episode manages to commit tantamount to avunculicide, and fails in committing matricide, but not for lack of trying. Boy, the Skywalker-Solo clan is one messed up family.
The Good:
Fight scenes and space battle scenes are really good, especially if you've seen them in big-screen 3D. There's plenty of strong female characters, who essentially call all the shots. The interplay between Leia and admiral Holdo is very emotional and full of subtext, if you choose to look into it.
Mark Hammill does an excellent job as a jaded and disappointed, I've-seen-it-all, too-old-for-this-BS type, and his to and fro with Rey are the highlights of the movie. The movie is about him, and he delivers, above and beyond.
Props also to Rose, an interesting character that should receive more screen time in future movies, as she completely outshone Finn. The entire Rose-Finn storyline looks like it would work just fine without him.
The Bad:
The movie is too long for what it wants to convey - the end of an era. Plot holes abound. The humor is juvenile and utterly unfunny, it seems like it tries too hard to emulate the wit of the originals, but fails miserably (see: general Huggs).
The villains are not very scary: who the hell is Snoke? Guess we'll never know, and we don't really need to, since it's just a Palpatine replacement, just like Kylo Ren is a Vader replacement - both bad. Even the good guys are unmemorable: Poe is an irritating thrill-seeker, Finn completely unnecessary, just like Threepio and yes, Artoo, too. Chewie is there just so that the Falcon could have a major role, and consequently keep on selling many, many toys.
And that's my biggest gripe with this movie: call me cynical, but Star Wars now feels entirely like a cash grab, which makes all the good about this movie (and it's not all bad) seem unnecessary and just...sad. Someone said that this should have been the last SW movie. I agree.
Oh and, in light of the rumored Poe-Finn gay relationship, is it just me or does "Get your head out of your cockpit" line have a completely different meaning when looking at it from that angle?
Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015)
It will make billions! Not much more.
Initially I wasn't going to write a review of Episode VII, but I've just seen a Duracell ad featuring light sabres and it was too much.
The Force Awakens is not a bad movie, but it's a pandering to nostalgia, without any courage to explore new ground, motives or motifs. In the attempt to not alienate fans or heaven forbid hurt sales of toys or tie-in products, JJ Abrams rehashed all the key points from the original trilogy. If it were not for BB-8 or Kylo Ren's light sword and the hilt, it would have been devoid of anything original.
From the production and directing point of view, there's nothing to reproach to this movie. It's easy to watch, not boring or annoying, but it's utterly unoriginal and a major disappointment in this area. The new characters are bland except maybe for Daisy Ridley's. Adam Driver is completely unconvincing as the villain, John Boyega's Finn could be deleted from the movie without anyone noticing, and as for Han Solo, Harrison Ford delivers, the only bright point in the movie.
That's about it. Fans will like it or love it, people new to SW (I know those do exist) can pick up without needing to know the previous films, and it will generate billions in worldwide sales. Mission accomplished. Hopefully JJ will not repeat his inexcusable demolition of the Star Trek franchise. Then again, Star Trek is intelligent and thus can be dumbed down. Star Wars, not so much.
Daredevil (2015)
A superhero I can enjoy
The hyperinflation of superhero movies and TV shows in recent years, as well as my utter indifference towards American comics, has almost ruined this recently revamped subgenre for me. I say almost, because Daredevil is a gripping portrayal of a character you just don't see as a superhero. No campy costumes, no mindless one-liners, no CGI and no sci-fi technology, just one guy with an exceptional ability fighting his demons as much as the bad guys.
Daredevil is dark, violent and disturbing, probing its two main characters as if it were a drama on the level of The Wire or Breaking Bad. Indeed, if it were not for the Marvel intro, I bet you couldn't tell it was set in the same universe as the blockbuster movies – intelligently only hinted at by the dialogue. It could function as a police drama all on its own.
Daredevil focuses on the eponymous hero Matt Murdock and his nemesis Wilson Fisk, exploring each character through their relationships in the present and in their formative years through flashbacks, and when they finally meet face to face, the tension is almost palpable. The supporting cast is just that, but great performances as well as impressive guest stars perfectly complement the performances by Charlie Cox and Vincent D'Onofrio, who deserves a special mention.
D'Onofrio plays Wilson Fisk with such intensity and presence, making us really feel the turmoil he's going through, almost bursting at the seams. His predilection for eclectic roles makes him possibly the best, if not the only choice for the series villain.
The fight scenes are just awesome, if a bit brutal and definitely not cartoonish, but serve to reinforce the hero as a reluctant hero, and to further differentiate him – and the series – from the run of the mill superhero fare we are inundated with both in the cinema as on TV.
I'm still watching the first season, and eagerly await each new episode, not to mention new seasons. It's truly a superhero show I can enjoy and wholeheartedly recommend if you've had too much of magic hammers, iron suits and green monsters.
Penny Dreadful (2014)
Dreadfully delicious
As season 2 kicks off, time for me to give praise to this dreadfully delicious horror fantasy show. A mish-mash of well known, public domain characters with a supernatural vibe set in Victorian London, Penny Dreadful might, at first glance, be dismissed as yet another attempt to cash in on legendary works of literature. The very bad movie, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, comes to mind. However, nothing could be farther from the truth thanks to the show's excellent writing and virtuoso performances from an eclectic cast of fine actors, making it simply captivatingly macabre.
It's a pleasure to see Timothy Dalton at his scowling best, Eva Green steals every scene she's in, and Josh Hartnett brings us a surprisingly nuanced performance as the troubled fish out of water. The rest of the cast also brings stellar performances, be it Billie Piper's Irish accent, Rory Kinnear's haunted – and haunting – monster, or Danny Sapani's mysterious wise man.
The show is superbly paced, engaging and interesting, bringing a truly Gothic horror experience rarely seen executed at such an impressive level. Even if you're not a fan of this genre, the show's dialogue, rich and convincing in its literary feel, beautiful sets and costumes, and the multiple story arcs that leave you wanting more, should be enough to make you at least give it a shot.
After all, it's all just good, very good fun.
Silicon Valley (2014)
Very funny, very smart, very Mike Judge
Silicon Valley is all of the above. It has to be funny – it's a sitcom. It has to be smart – it's about Silicon Valley. It's a social commentary – it's Mike Judge so it has to be.
The show's humor is spot-on. It has plenty of low-brow moments without ever becoming too vulgar, and even when it's on the verge of vulgarity, the cast manages to pull it off thanks to their charm and chemistry. It's smart – and that's a part of the success of the humor. Not only is it about "smart", geeky things, it's also smart in its depiction and criticism of the overblown, mystified and venerated startup culture and community which is often just a lot of hot air – and Mike Judge is not shy in letting us know.
The social commentary: it's only understandable that Silicon Valley is taking itself too seriously. What should worry us is that the general public is starting to take it too seriously. Mike Judge's satirical, insider take serves to remind us that these entrepreneurs, coders, geeks, app billionaires are people just like us, with insecurities, egos, qualities and feelings, from the star CEO down to the struggling entrepreneur trying to get his startup to take off.
Mike Judge's work has this strange quality to make you feel more down to earth, make you look at yourself more realistically and more critically, and those are the first steps in becoming a better human being. But I wax philosophical: this show will make you laugh hard even if you don't know much about the tech scene and the things it parodies. 9/10, give us more in season 2!
American Hustle (2013)
And the Oscar goes to...cleavage
It would be unfair that the only reason for so many Oscar nominations for this movie are the cleavages and the mere names of the cast. This movie is very watchable, good fun and gives you a thought or two. But not much more than that.
It's the classic switcheroo – con artists get conned and then manage to up-con their rivals. Even though the movie is based on real events, there's not too much else to say about the plot. The cast however deserves a mention and Christian Bale in yet another of his body transformations is definitely the lead man. He does a good job and gives his character depth, even makes us feel for the guy. For a man so inclined to overacting, he's quite subdued.
But Bradley Cooper makes up for that: he's the overacting throughout the movie and succeeds in making the FBI agent the sleaziest character in a movie about con artists, politicians and mobsters. Quite an achievement, really.
Amy Adams' character motivation seems to have been: cleavage. I'm aware it's in line with the character, with the character's line of work where showing skin is meant to put off the guy on the other side of the table, but I can't shake the feeling it somehow took away from arguably the most interesting, the most layered character in the movie.
Jennifer Lawrence is on the other hand the most annoying character and I guess that's an indicator she did a good job – but definitely not award material. Louis CK was brilliant, who would've thought he can actually act? De Niro plays a mobster, which means he was good.
Jeremy Renner deserves a mention. Very convincing performance of the loser in the bunch, a sincere character who navigates through this story about the shades of grey.
That's actually what the movie is about: it's another confirmation that the world is just shade upon shade upon shade of grey, and there's much more than fifty of them. David O. Russell conveys it in a light-hearted way, with nice period costumes and a great soundtrack, and, it gives you a thought or two, but not much more.
Is this Oscar material? No way. Is it good Hollywood fun and should you watch it? Absolutely. I'm being benevolent and giving it a 7 even though it more deserves a 6.5, but definitely not a 6, though.
Hannibal (2013)
Mikkelsen and Dancy take you on a dark journey
It's definitely unjust to compare Hannibal the series with any other crime shows, CIS-style, or even Dexter and Criminal Minds. Hannibal is not so much a crime show as it is a voyage into the mind, an exploration of the psyche, a disturbing peek into what's it like to be losing your mind.
That's why, to be able to fully appreciate the series, the viewer must dispense with certain traditional perceptions and focus not so much on the plot, but on the main characters and the atmosphere, and allow to be led into a dizzying descent into darkness.
The novels that this series is based on are serial killer novels, and all those delve deeply into the mind, mental illness and crime. I must confess I've never read any of them. So much for the better – it gives me a better appreciation of this superb show.
Movies based on the works of Thomas Harris have had varying success to date, and of course, it's the theatrically creepy Anthony Hopkins in his iconic role that has set the benchmark and influenced the audience's expectations. I dare say, Mads Mikkelsen has reinvented Hannibal Lecter as a truly menacing and malevolent presence, made so much the scarier with his suaveness and charm. Such understated yet intense acting, putting his cold, impressive facial features to such fascinating use -Mikkelsen gives a simply magnificent performance.
Hugh Dancy on the other hand conveys so very convincingly a tortured man, blessed with a cursed talent, teetering on the brink of madness, unsure of himself, unsure of his friends and his actions, sure only that his world is terrible, horrifying and damned – and so is he. Not a martyr, but a victim, Will Graham is the representation of humanity, the symbol of the fragility of our inner world, of all our worlds. A compelling performance, truly disturbing and on par with the icy demeanor of the true Satan, Hannibal Lecter.
So convincing is Will Graham's madness, that it's more scary, more disturbing even than the graphic gore of the crimes, which has nevertheless been presented very elegantly. Should you get nightmares from Hannibal, it will be because of Will, not the blood and guts.
Too bad the supporting cast leaves something to be desired. I cannot really say whether it's to be attributed to the actors, or the writing, but luckily they don't detract much from the cat and mouse play of Hannibal and Will, a suspenseful high stakes game. It's nice to see Gillian Anderson though, hopefully her character will get more time in upcoming seasons.
The final scene in the season finale is the perfect illustration of the chemistry Mikkelsen and Dancy have on screen. So little is said, but so much is implied, leaving a huge field for fans' imaginations to run wild. This is where not having read the novels really pays off, because I can speculate and look forward to the new season with all the excitement of a fanboy.
8/10, hoping future seasons will give me reason to add more stars.
Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)
Star Trek Into Darkness: Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan 2
A longtime fan of Star Trek in most of its incarnations, I loved the reboot, the visual style and even the crew and cast. The ship was beautiful, the story could have been better but it ticked all the boxes and introduced a new timeline (even though I can't escape the feeling that most of it was contrived and slapped together), overall an excellent foundation for new stories. So what do they do for the sequel? Rehash a legendary story arc from the original cast.
It's really been long since I've seen such a derivative and uninspired movie. The first half is unremarkable while the other half is a cringe-worthy reimagining of the best and most memorable original movie, from the villain to the climactic scene across the glass, only with characters reversed. For a team that made such a radical departure, they seem to be so firmly stuck in the original mythology that you have to wonder, what was the point of the reboot? Other than Khan for the next generations, the movie itself is entertaining, far from it. However, the characters seem to be less likable than in the first installment. Everyone says Kirk has grown, and he has, but not into the charming, self-confident and mischievous character we all know and love. He's more of a juvenile delinquent in over his head. The Spock-Uhura affair provides nothing other than a supposedly humorous moment using the lovers-fight-amidst-danger-with-neutral-observer-present trope. The supporting cast is just that, and Bones is excellent as always (I'm not objective here, I admit).
Making this a bi-villained movie brings its own set of problems. Cumberbatch is menacing and convincingly dangerous, but because Weller needs his own screen time, the entire Khan mythology is cut short in order to introduce the future Marcus story arc (I'm guessing the makers will go with the Kirk-Marcus romance in upcoming movies). This leaves me feeling Khan could have done more damage than just crashing an airliner into the...no, wait, a starship into Starfleet HQ.
A big thumbs down for the costume department. This is Star Trek, not Star Wars, and Starfleet is not the Imperial military. The new uniforms are not so much a problem per se, but just add to the derivative feel of the movie and the story, with the notable exception of the admirals' uniforms hearkening back to ST:TMP.
Thank goodness Enterprise is starting her five-year mission. Maybe now we'll see some Star Trek and not whatever this is – a lazy rehashing and cashing in on effects and a young sexy cast on the one hand, and on the sentiment of longtime fans of the franchise on the other. And an honest piece of advice for Leonard Nimoy: stay retired. You don't need this.
Fringe (2008)
Fringe: A sendoff
It must be easy to hate Fringe. The outlandish theme, complete disregard for continuity, gratuitous use of deus ex machina plot devices, the list goes on. But Fringe is so good because the characters are so good, so lifelike, convincing and likable. Especially Walter, the soul of the show. Fringe's greatness is in that it went where the X Files never dared or imagined going. It's a bold show that has had me hooked from the get-go and it's almost painful to be counting down to its final curtain.
The final season comes out with guns blazing. It's gripping, intense, emotional and each episode seems too short. Its shortcomings I listed above are blatant in this season, with plot holes such as the apparent incapability of bad guys, who have the power to appear out of thin air, to locate, track and wiretap the protagonists. But to a die hard fan like me, that's beside the point.
This isn't a review so much as an attempt of closure, a grieving process, trying to let go and say a final goodbye. Fringe is sci-fi, fantasy, cyberpunk, love story, crime story, soap, all in one. It's a show that gave us unforgettable characters and daring stories. A new way of looking at our everyday – is there maybe a rift somewhere that lets us peek into a same but different universe? But I digress.
If you haven't seen it, see it. If you don't like it, your loss. Farewell, Fringe.
The Dark Knight Rises (2012)
Pretentious
I'll be brief: the characters have zero, well, character, the movie is full of plot holes, the twists are not mind-blowing but mind-numbing and irritating, and to top it all off, the fight scenes are poorly shot.
It's pretentious and it fails: it has multiple plot lines of great potential, but none of them go full circle, leaving so much hanging in the air. If 2.5 hours is not enough, you might consider changing your plan.
I have to have at least 10 lines for the review to be accepted, but this film really does not merit so much text or thought. Nolan's Batman magic is gone and this movie is completely unnecessary - from an artistic point of view, of course. From the money perspective, it makes perfect sense. Too bad it won't be a flop.
Prometheus (2012)
Bought the hype, got a huge disappointment
This movie raises many philosophical issues: faith, humanity and its quest for understanding the origins, the reasons why, etc. It fully addresses none of those, leaves them hanging and ends up as a two-hour trailer for its sequel. And the trailers for this movie were mind-blowing, really worked up the hype and got me excited, but turned out to be the best parts of it, without any scenes being in it (especially the Weyland keynote). It's a crying shame, a tragedy, what this movie turned out to be.
I'm writing this fresh from the cinema and just can't wrap my head around the disappointment. Visually, the movie is striking and beautiful. The acting, the script, the plot holes – everything else sucks on so many levels.
To those reviewers who say the movie made them think, I say the movie does poor justice to the elemental questions of the human condition that it seems to be so eager to raise from the start. The ending leaves a bitter taste and makes you feel like the only reason this movie was made is to kick start a franchise that was over after Cameron's film.
I didn't mean to give this bottom rating, only to commend the visual style of the movie, but I just can't. I feel so disappointed and robbed of my hard earned money, and no, I won't go to see the inevitable sequel. Words fail me to express my disgust and sadness of what became of a sci-fi legend, both the movie and the director.
Homeland (2011)
Subversive.
I can see where this series pisses off Americans and especially those of right-wing political views, or ex-Marines or extremist patriots. The idea of a war hero becoming a sleeper for the other side is deeply unsettling and controversial: coming from a country still feeling the effects of a war ended almost 2 decades ago, I can tell you it's a universal feeling. That's the main point that makes this show subversive. But there's much more.
The CIA agent bordering on rogue, the family drama of faith and faithfulness, cynical politicians and heartless agents – it all makes for great drama and heated discussions from all sides of the political spectrum – because this show is impossible to watch without considering political undertones. And the actors deliver, giving very human performances amid this flurry of potentially controversial topics. My favorite here is definitely Mandy Patinkin, who is very convincing as a man who is in the process of realizing that his work has entirely taken over his life and marriage without him really noticing and is getting to grips with it. I really hope that season two will give us more of this fine actor.
Claire Danes has come a long way and she is surprisingly good in her complex and emotional role. Damian Lewis delivers as well, while Morena Baccarin seems to be struggling with her role, just as her character is struggling with the situation she is in.
The show is excellently written and apart from the military-related inaccuracies, there really are no plot holes some reviewers are quick to point out. Yes, a psychotic CIA agent would be an outrage in real life, but so would veteran terrorists and FBI SWAT killing two praying Muslims. That's what makes drama and art. The final episode was a real cliffhanger that leaves you wanting more and thinking about all the ways the story can go. If you have a problem with the ending or the plot, then this show is not your problem, but some other issues.
I'm giving this show 8/10, just for the hope that they will deliver the great expectations we have for season 2.
Dirty Money (2011)
One's an artist, the other's a con artist
This show is brilliant. On the surface of it, another of these new reality-type documentaries, and one of the first in the long line of garbage picking shows. We follow the DiResta brothers as they scour NYC looking for, literally, junk to sell at flea markets. But there's a twist, and as one of the sellers says, "One's an artist, the other's a con artist".
And it's completely true: Jimmy is so amazingly handy and creative with the junk they buy, and comes up with fascinating uses for trash and old items. That's really the only attraction to this show, watching this guy create magic. Watching his sleazy brother John buy and sell stuff - not so much. Oh yes, John calls his son Ratboy. So much for that guy.
Jimmy's creativity deserves more TV time. I see that the DiRestas already tried their hands at TV, with less than stellar success. But Jimmy really deserves it.
The Hunger Games (2012)
Works fine in the city, not so much in the woods
Like many other, I first saw the trailer, was intrigued and only then learned that it's actually a "young adult" novel. That label makes me sick and I went to see the movie only on a recommendation.
First of all, the theme seems a lot like "Running Man", both the novel and the movie. I won't say it's a ripoff, but you just can't neglect it. From the dictatorial regime throwing a bloody reality game, down to the flamboyant host, and even the flashy colors in the TV studio and the costumes. But that's probably just me.
The intro and the Capitol parts are very convincing and a little disturbing, it really made me think and I'm not easily fooled by sugarcoated Hollywood c**p. The decadent society of the well-fed, who seem oblivious to the real world of poverty and despair beyond their impressive city, is not so unbelievable and I really see it as one possible future. High marks for that one.
However, the action part in the woods is drawn-out and only average, with shaky camera-work not really helping matters. The same story could have been told in less time and with more believability and that would've made it much more enjoyable.
What puzzles me, and some other reviewers as well it seems, is the down-played hunger. Kids who are reduced to squirrels as their main protein source seem completely cool when brought to a world where each meal is a feast - and many scenes take place at the table. It's either poorly acted or poorly written.
On the other hand, the violence was cleverly depicted: I don't need buckets of blood to feel something very gory and tragic is happening, I don't need to see skulls crack and limbs torn to think it's a good action movie.
A bit about the cast. Woody - so so, Sutherland phones it in, Bentley seems more interested in his beard than the acting, Banks' character needed to be given more, because she seems she could have pulled it off. Hemsworth and Hutcherson - eye candy for teen girls. Jennifer Lawrence is quite good and deserves a mention. I don't have a particularly good opinion of her acting skills, but here she pulled off a good performance, again, more convincing in the city even though her character is more at home in the woods.
Overall, an uneven film that still manages to be intriguing but leaves you wanting more. Maybe I'm the jaded, cynical 30-something that wants more grit and much more social commentary. But then again, it's a movie aimed at a very different audience and on that level it succeeds much better. What works both ways is the need to straighten up the directing and pay more attention to characters. Maybe the sequels will be better.
Bones (2005)
I used to love it...
I simply can't understand the high ratings this show keeps getting. I must admit that initially, I too loved the show. The slightly bizarre plots, the sexual innuendo, humorous supporting cast, it had it all. But as the show progressed, the formula became a little old, and I had trouble digesting Brennan. A "socially inept" genius doesn't become more "apt" as she goes on, but on the contrary, becomes more arrogant and seems incapable of using her brilliance to accept that there is something to psychology and all other sciences she looks down upon.
The main problem of this show is that it is walking a fine line between cheesy and cool, between deja-vu and interesting. I cannot dismiss and I won't, but it have grudge: it leaves a bitter taste that a show I once loved, now at best doesn't annoy me much.
Bedazzled (2000)
Very funny, very sexy
This is one of my favorite recent (I must be getting old) comedies. Having recently seen it, I just had to write this short review and applaud this unpretentious but intelligent and funny comedy. Brendan Fraser is funny as always, with so many transformations he does so well, but Elizabeth Hurley steals the show. She never looked better, and never put on such a convincing performance. Really hard to imagine a better devil in a comedy.
I have seen unfavorable reviews of this movie, cannot really say why. It's no masterpiece, and I must admit not having seen the original, but this is still a very funny and intelligent movie. Highly recommended.
Sherlock Holmes (2009)
I love to hate it
I have been a devout fan of Mr Holmes' adventures almost since I could read, and I have great respect for the literature that is Sherlock Holmes. I loved the Jeremy Brett series and was apprehensive at the news of a Ritchie-Downey Jr Holmes flick. My fears were realized.
I have nothing against reboots, I think they're a great movie-making technique, with excellent movies to back it up. However, the issue here is rebooting a literary text - and that is pretentious to say the least. Such disregard for the original material I have not seen in a long time and I wonder how far it will go.
Notwithstanding: this is an excellent movie. Entertaining, well written and directed, I found myself liking it in spite of my disapproval of the treatment of Doyle's original. Definitely a must-see, even if you are an ultraconservative Sherlock fan such as myself.