AzSumTuk Reviews

The Equalizer 3 (2023)

Like a Steven Seagal movie, but somehow worse...

[4/10 · 6 October 2023]

Pros - great scenery. Two nicely choreographed fight scenes.

Cons - everything else. The soundtrack is just horrible. The action scenes are few and far in between. Denzel Washington and Dakota Fanning are, to put it mildly, underused. The writing is simply atrocious - and I'm saying this as someone who loved the previous two movies.

Do you remember the previous two movies? You know, the ones where Denzel Washington was always helping those around him? He wasn't a big-time superhero saving the world, he was just... helping people. He'd train his coworker to pass the physical test to become a security guard. He'd track down the thieves who stole his other coworker's ring. He'd wreck the Russian mob just to make sure that one girl had a future... And he'd be undeniably cool doing all this.

This, however, is not the character that we see here. Here Robert McCall just watches how the Camorra wrecks the little town that he's grown to call home and, during most of the movie, does exactly nothing to stop that or help the people who suffer. The bad guys beat his friend to a bloody pulp. He does nothing. The bad guys burn his friend's store down. He does nothing. The bad guys hang a disabled man from the balcony of his apartment in front of everyone living in the building. He does nothing. The bad guys beat another friend of his - and this friend happens to be a policeman. He does nothing. The bad guys threaten to kill the policeman's child. He does nothing. They interrupt his dinner... Well, he finally does something. What follows is one of the nicely choreographed fight scenes that I mentioned in the first paragraph. Sadly, by the time it comes, most of the movie has already passed.

And then there is the other huge problem - which is that in this particular movie you can easily replace Denzel Washington with Steven Seagal and absolutely nothing will change. Robert McCall in the previous movies had emotional range. Here he is a very well trained ex-military guy with experience in aikido who just looks down on everyone and always has the upper hand. There is even a scene that is like Seagal's signature - he uses his skills in aikido to bully and humiliate someone, his excuse being that his victim is actually a bad guy. Seagal's aikido is better, though.

So... As you can probably tell, I am not happy with this movie. That's it.

Rogue Heroes (2022–2024)

The negative reviews are surprising

[8/10 · 31 October 2022]

OK, I'm not going to claim that this show is a masterpiece or anything. It's just good fun. That's all there is to it - it is an action adventure show set in the past, not that different from the books that made Bernard Cornwell so popular - yeah, it is somewhat historical, it actually does do history some justice, but, first and foremost, it is here to entertain and does it masterfully. It has nice production values, great pacing, well developed characters, impressive action scenes and enough drama to keep a viewer's attention.

A lot of people seem to have a problem with the soundtrack, which, to be honest, I can understand, but I don't think this is a valid complaint - music from the appropriate time period is used whenever that is actually needed. The jazz bands shown in some scenes don't play AC/DC. As for the rest - have you noticed the fact that the soundtracks in historical productions are always anachronistic? What, did you think electric guitars existed in the time of the Vikings? Because they were used heavily (as in heavy metal) in the soundtrack of the show. Did you think there were violins in Ancient Rome? No. The soundtrack isn't supposed to fit the time period where the production is set. It is supposed to fit the scenes it is used for.

As for the dialogue - yeah, the used language is a bit too modern for my taste, but, at the very least, it is lively and very well written. I honestly can't fault it for not being something it's not even trying to be. For what it is, it is quite good.

All in all, the show works very well. It is exactly what the trailers promise - the rock music, the modern-sounding dialogues, the lighthearted tone - it's all in trailers. I think that's what is important. If you don't...

Obi-Wan Kenobi (2022)

Obi-Wan is not Obi-Wan, Leia is not Leia, Vader is not Vader...

[5/10 · 8 June 2022]

OK.

"The Mandalorian" is awesome. So is "The Book of Boba Fett", regardless of the flaws many people see with it. Why are they awesome? Among other things - because their creators respected Lucas' ideas and characters. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this, I'll just remind you of one scene - the scene where Luke Skywalker showed up in the last episode of "The Mandalorian". You remember how awesome he was, right? Now... Guess what I expected from "Obi-Wan Kenobi". That's right, I expected awesomeness. Now try to guess what I got.

In short, Obi-Wan's character was completely and utterly destroyed. I mean, I get it, they wanted to show him dealing with the guilt of failing his padawan and becoming one of the reasons for the Empire to rise. It kinda makes sense... Oh, wait, it doesn't. Because in the movies Obi-Wan did not deal with trauma like he was shown to do it here. Because he always reacted to traumatic events with actions and, occasionally, with cracking a joke here and there. When he saw Darth Maul kill his teacher, he fought and killed him. When he had to fight Dooku one-on-one, he didn't hesitate, and even though he knew he'd lose, he still managed to crack a joke. When he realized that Anakin had become evil, he immediately took action. In Episode 4 he faced Darth Vader with a smile and a joke, although he knew Vader would kill him. This was the character that we loved. He was the reason this show was made. He... is not here. Instead, Ewan McGregor is playing a PTSD-ridden war veteran who is afraid of basically everything, initially refuses to take action and doesn't even possess the same skill set. He just works in some meat factory (in the middle of the desert) and silently watches while his supervisor bullies his coworkers and steals from them. Some other soldier would probably be like this. But not Obi-Wan. Obi-Wan would not be afraid of the Force. Obi-Wan was ridden with guilt in Episode 4, he was still hiding from the Empire's troops, and yet he used Jedi mind tricks when needed. And here he is afraid to use the same tricks, even when he is surrounded by people who know who he is and what he supposedly can do.

That's because he is, in fact, not Obi-Wan Kenobi. He is a different character played by the same actor - even his fighting style is different. In this show Obi-Wan relies on aikido for the hand-to-hand fight scenes and on some rather ugly stage fencing in the lightsaber fight scenes. Now, I've practiced aikido for a few years and I'm always happy to see my martial art on screen, but Obi-Wan did not fight like this in any of the movies. Hell, in one scene this show he literally and obviously intentionally imitates John Wick - the combination of a "throw-lock" and a shot through the head is one of John Wick's trademarks. At the same time, the fight choreographer did not use any of aikido's sword forms in the lightsaber fights. If they had done this, I'd forgive them the inconsistencies with the movies, because the sword forms I've practiced are incredibly beautiful. Alas, they didn't.

And the treatment Leia got from the writers was even worse. Now, of course, I know I can't expect her to be the same warrior that she was in the movies, but there is no possible way that this kid here will grow up to be the Leia we love. Leia was an adventurer. She didn't constantly spew pseudo-wise words. She didn't constantly and loudly analyze everyone she ever met. She did not speak that much. When Leia analyzed her cousin in the first episode of this show, I physically cringed. The same scene would be much more effective, if she'd only said one line conveying the same message. Instead, she went on a full monologue, while her cousin just stood there and did nothing and said nothing. Her older, richer, more influential cousin just let her publicly humiliate him without even trying to interrupt her. I mean... I don't expect realism from this franchise, but... Come on.

As for Darth Vader... First, please, google "leitmotif" - even if you already know what that is. Then click on "Images". One character will stand out. Darth Vader. Because his is probably the most famous leitmotif in the history of cinema. And you know what? It's not here! The show's entire soundtrack is based around ideas extracted from "The Imperial March", but the actual riff that we all know and love is never heard, at least in the four episodes so far. And without it Vader is not Vader. And it's not just that. They made him an absolute idiot. Seriously. There is one really awesome scene with him - he was like a monster from a horror movie killing random people on the street. Everything else, though... Obi-Wan was in his hands, practically dying at his feet. He didn't do anything. Reva told him a few words and within seconds he went from being willing to murder her to telling her how impressive she was. I mean...

Ugh.

And Reva... She is the actual main character here. She has some potential. Sadly, instead of making her as awesome as she can be, the creators of this show have decided to ruin everyone else to make her stand out. They tried the same with Rey. And with Emilia Clarke's character in "Solo". It didn't work with them. It doesn't work with Reva, even though Moses Ingram is a very good actress. It's not her fault. It's just that... Obi-Wan Kenobi was made a secondary character in his own show. Sorry, but... No.

The Mosquito Coast (2021–2023)

3.5/7

[5/10 · 26 September 2021]

Three and a half out of seven. That was how many episodes I saw before I decided to throw in the towel. The first episode was great, although it had some problems. The second episode was even better, although it, too, had some problems. The third episode was not bad, but it was significantly worse than the previous two. The fourth episode was garbage. It was so horrible, in fact, that I couldn't even finish it. I saw half of the currently available episodes - hence the rating of 5/10. I'm being generous here. Let me explain.

Let's start with the good - the acting is more or less excellent, and the casting is great. The four main characters actually look like a family. The kids have the familial resemblance to their parents that is expected from them. The daughter actually look so similar to her mother... All in all - excellent. The camera work is also commendable. And I like the music.

That's it, though. The bad eventually outweighs everything. The problems started appearing in the beginning of the first episode, but I ignored them. I thought they'd be explained or maybe resolved somehow. Instead, in the fourth episode they culminated in a series of infuriatingly stupid scenes making you wonder how this family has managed to survive for such a long time, let alone escape the almighty NSA. During the episodes that I saw we never found out what exactly Allie did to make the NSA chase him like this. OK, fine. But why would he drag his family with him? His wife's parents were rich, and they were willing to help. Why wouldn't he let them help his family, while he was on the run alone? Why would he doom his children to a life of poverty and fear? OK, let's say there is some actual explanation for this later. Let's say he has to bring his wife and kids wherever he goes, no matter how risky for them that is. You'd think he, being a genius inventor, would, at the very least, try not to attract unnecessary attention, right? Wrong. Within the first few minutes of the first episode he files a patent application. In a government institution. (True, under a false name, but still, why?) You'd also think he'd try and train his kids to survive in our world, right? Well, he is shown teaching his son to take care of the family's car, if that counts. He is also shown teaching his kids that technology is evil. He doesn't really teach his kids how to work with modern technology. Hell, his son doesn't even know what an X-Box is. Do I need to explain why this is a problem? Like it or not, our world is technology driven. Not knowing and understanding technology at least to a certain extent will hamper anyone's existence. Hell, this is actually shown here, in this series - when the daughter goes to an Internet cafe, uses one of the computers there and as soon as she opens a specific article planted by the NSA, the NSA receives a clear image of her face reading it, as well as her exact location. Now, don't you think she'd know how to avoid this, if her father hadn't banned her from using technology? (I'm not really tech savvy, by the way - just mentioning.) Maybe she'd know what a proxy server was. Maybe she'd notice the computer's web camera and cover it. (She probably wouldn't - it's not like Hollywood writers have ever understood technology. They still live in the 80s, when kids could believe "WarGames" was plausible.)

And this scene isn't the dumbest decision we witness in this show. I mean, imagine you're a parent of two kids. You're in a cheap, seedy motel in a foreign country. One of your kids doesn't even know the local language. You know the American government is looking for you. You also know that a powerful Mexican cartel is looking for you. Since you, apparently, hate technology, you have no way to contact your children in case you get separated. Would you leave them alone for an indefinite amount of time, without even making sure they have something to eat while you're gone? No, right? Right? Well, guess what the parents here do. And let's say you're in your early/mid teens. Your parents have just left you in a room in a hotel. You have no way to contact them. You don't know when they'll come back. You don't know where they are. Would you leave the room for an indefinite amount of time, taking the risk that your parents won't find you, when they come back? No, right? Right? Well, guess what happens here. To top it all - the two kids separate from each other - while one of them doesn't know the local language. (And yes, Charlie said he was hungry, but it's not like he couldn't wait for an hour or two.)

These are just a few examples of the show's problems in the writing department. There are many, many more. Before I finish the review, I want to mention one more thing. I find it really hypocritical that a show produced by Apple of all companies tries to preach against consumerism in America. I hope I won't need to point out my reasons for this. You might as well have a vegan preaching about the benefits of eating meat.

Kung Fu: Sanctuary (2021) Season 1, Episode 5

I'm Spartacus!

[1/10 · 5 August 2021]

In short, this episode is horrible. In long, this episode is so ridiculous that, in fact, it looks like the writers are intentionally mocking the BLM movement they're pretending to support. Let me try to explain.

So, Nicky and Henry go to a bar. While they walk on the street, a young black man on a skateboard runs into them, then he apologizes and continues riding his skateboard. While walking back from the bar some time later, Nicky and Henry pass by Wong's jewelry store, only to see paramedics loading the same young black man into an ambulance, after he's been shot by a policeman mistaking him for a thief. This is when the actual story of this episode starts.

It's not about Kung-Fu. It's not about ancient weapons. It's about some warped TV version of the BLM movement, where all protesters are peaceful and calm, all policemen are the enemy of the people, small business owners happily welcome people they don't know in their establishments during a violent protest on the street, and somehow the protest in support of black people against police brutality turns out to be all about the white writers' blatant self-insert - Nicky. She is the central figure here. Joe, the black activist who is also the boyfriend of Nicky's brother, barely has 5 minutes of screen time, if even that. Nicky - who is basically a white savior played by a non-white actress - takes most of the credit and the rest of that goes to her white ex. Ugh. Just... Ugh.

And there are other problems. Like, in one scene Henry speaks against false narratives in the media (which is commendable, don't get me wrong), but this whole episode tries - and fails - to push a false narrative. Namely, that looting and arsons don't happen during the BLM protests. "Fiery but mostly peaceful," remember? Double ugh. Also, with all due respect, the biggest thing this episode manages to do is to undervalue what happened with George Floyd - you know, the black man whose death likely inspired this episode. Unlike the fictional Andre Durant, George Floyd was not exactly an upstanding citizen - and this is actually important - because even a person like him deserved support and justice for the way he was treated. By making Andre a paragon of virtue, the writers of this episode undercut the actual event that led to the BLM protest last year. Good for them, I guess. Triple ugh.

And then there is the Spartacus reference at the end. You will recognize it. Quadruple ugh.

Black Widow (2021)

The name is Gaze! Male Gaze!

[1/10 · 17 July 2021]

Remember how Scarlett Johansson said her character wasn't treated like a piece of meat? Well, she must have talked about a different movie, because few comic book movies are as male-gazey as this one is. Even in "Iron Man 2," where Tony Stark spoke about Natasha as if she was a toy he could buy, the way her body was shown by directors and cinematographers was much more respectful. Here, in "Black Widow," most of Scarlett Johansson's scenes contain at least one prolonged, gratuitous shot centered on her backside or her breasts. Even the first shot with her in the first trailer is done this way. I really don't like this, and I honestly think it goes against any progressive ideas in the movie. If you wanted to make a movie about a bunch of women being freed from an oppressive tyrant, why would you objectify your leading actress so blatantly? Was Charlize Theron's Atomic Blonde treated like this? No, she wasn't. The makers of "Black Widow" have stolen plenty of ideas from "Atomic Blonde" (more on that - later). Why didn't they steal the idea that the leading lady can be treated like a great fighter and not like eye candy for teenage boys? I'm surprised that so few people have paid attention to this problem - and yes, it is a problem.

Apart from this, the movie is just horrible. I'm sorry for saying it like this, but this is the truth. I stopped being an MCU fan a long time ago and the only reason I watched this movie was because the trailer promised more visceral action and a more personal story. It fails on both accounts.

The action scenes are obviously heavily influenced by "Atomic Blonde." "Atomic Blonde" happens to be one of my favorite recent action movies, so I'm happy that it influences much bigger movies, but the imitation just doesn't work. First, Scarlett Johansson actually is not a good action performer. The use of a stunt double in this movie is way too obvious, whereas Charlize Theron did most of her stunts by herself - which made her character believable. Second, Natasha intentionally broke her own nose and then continued beating the snot out of the bad guy as if nothing had happened to her, whereas Lorraine Broughton felt every single punch she took, and that affected the way she fought. Lorraine bled, got tired, got dizzy... She was a human being, and Charlize Theron's performance reflected that. Natasha Romanoff was like a robot who never felt pain, never got tired, never bled... I can't even blame Scarlett Johansson for this - that was how the character was written.

Which leads me to the other huge problem - the writing. It has every problem you can think of. It's inconsistent. In the beginning David Harbour's Alexey (the only somewhat good performance in this thing, by the way) was shown as an incredible fighter - USSR's response to Captain America, a biologically modified super soldier who is strong enough to lift and throw a truck. Later he was shown snapping the Dutch Giant's arm like a twig just for the fun of it. After he was established like that you'd expect to see him maul bad guys in a fight scene, right? Well, that's not what you get. Instead, you see him take a beating in every single action scene after he escapes from prison. He has superhuman strength and extensive training in fighting, and yet he is constantly outperformed by people who are supposed to be normal, although well trained.

Rachel Weisz's Melina is even worse. Weisz is an incredible actress, but even she couldn't save such a horribly written character. I'm sorry, but Melina tortures animals just to make a point. Literally. Who thought it would be a good idea to show a scene like this and then make her one of the good guys? And why did Natasha and Yelena treat her with much more respect than they treated Alexey with? Did the writers forget the story they'd written? You know, the story where Melina spent literal decades helping the main bad guy enslave women by her own free will, while Alexey was thrown in prison by the same bad guy? Do I actually need to explain why this bothers me?

Natasha and Yelena take the cake, though - mostly because they're completely devoid of personality, and I'm sick and tired of MCU characters who don't have to live with the consequences of their actions. You know, either they conveniently die, or something cancels their actions out. In the middle of the movie we find out that Natasha has killed a child for nothing. An irredeemable sin, right? No. Plot twist - the child is alive and stronger than ever, she just needs to be saved by Natasha from her abusive father. Ugh. Just ugh. Everything is so convenient in this franchise.

And. To top it all, this is yet another MCU movie that ends with an explosion in the sky. How many times are they going to make the same thing, before viewers finally get tired of it?

All in all, this movie is a disappointment. It doesn't keep its promises. It treats its characters like pieces of meat. It's badly written. Even the action scenes can't save it. Do yourself a favor and watch "Atomic Blonde" now.

The Tomorrow War (2021)

I'm sorry, but this is insultingly stupid

[1/10 · 6 July 2021]

I've liked dumber movies, but I've rarely felt as offended by a bunch of movie characters' stupidity as I was while I was watching this movie.

Let's see. A bunch of soldiers from the future come to the present to tell humanity about a war that is about to begin in the year 2046. So far - so good. Then governments from our time decide to send hundreds of thousands of untrained civilians in the future to die a horrible death. Let's say this is understandable. (Although it isn't.) Then, well, the viewers watch dumbfounded, as not a single government official on the entire planet in our time even thinks of, you know, researching the future enemy, trying to find where they land before they appear and nip the future war in the bud. No, they just send their people to die, although they know perfectly well that they achieve nothing. I wouldn't even mention this, by the way, if this movie's writers hadn't made the brilliant decision to have a volcano loving high school nerd find the location of the aliens using only his laptop.

And this is the least of the movie's problems, believe me. The main characters are, supposedly, brilliant. Chris Pratt is a science teacher and an experienced soldier. Yvonne Strahovski is literally the best scientist of her time and also an incredible soldier. Let me give you an example of these two's brilliance. They've managed to capture a female alien alive to use it for experiments to develop a toxin that can kill all aliens. Understandable, right? They know that female aliens call males to the rescue and males flock to save and protect them. So what do they do with this information? They promptly forget to sedate the alien when that becomes convenient for the plot, and then decide they don't need to kill it, while it calls an army of males big enough to destroy the entire military base they're in. I mean, yeah, it's spectacular to watch, but at the moment you try thinking, well...

Ugh. I'm sorry.

The Nevers: Pilot (2021) Season 1, Episode 1

Not that great, but not bad

[6/10 · 13 April 2021]

OK, let me make one thing clear, before I continue with the review. Regardless of what you might read in other reviews, "The Nevers" is obviously not a woke show. This episode was written and directed by Joss Whedon. Joss Whedon was fired after the Rey Fisher debacle, when it became public knowledge that he had the habit to abuse actors and use racist insults towards minorities. Joss Whedon is a straight white nerd without a single original bone in his body, but with a very strong fem-dom fetish. Regardless of what many people believe, Whedon has never really been a feminist - if he were, he wouldn't abuse the actresses he worked with (yeah, ask Charisma Carpenter about this) and wouldn't blatantly take advantage of women. All of this becomes clear within the first few minutes of the episode.

OK. So, this is simply X-Men in a different setting. That's all there is. Just as the mutants in the X-Men franchise were an allegory for the racially oppressed, while conveniently having awesome superpowers, the Touched here are an allegory for the socially oppressed, while, also, conveniently having awesome superpowers. Charles Xavier here is a woman, though, and so is the potential Magnetto, and the setting is Victorian England. The setting itself doesn't matter at all and, to be honest, I suspect Whedon chose it simply because he wanted a reason to have hot girls fighting while wearing Victorian dresses and for no other reason reason whatsoever. And yeah, you have hot girls fighting while wearing Victorian dresses all the time - which is a problem, although not because of the reasons that many people have to be unhappy with this. You see, one of my martial arts instructors was a woman. I know plenty of women who can fight well, and I have no problem with seeing women beating men up. "Mad Max: Fury Road" and "Atomic Blonde" are among my favorite recent action movies. Why? Because Charlize Theron is awesome. Because she is strong and athletic and can perform fight choreography like a master. The actress playing Amalia True, though, looks like she doesn't even know how to make a fist properly. Literally. She is just unconvincing. That's it. Everything is unconvincing. There is a scene where a woman casts cogwheels out of iron - while wearing her Victorian dress, of course, and without even tying her hair properly. After she's done with this, she barely needs to wet her face with water to get perfectly clean. Ugh. This is why I said Whedon has a fem-dom fetish. Because he doesn't show women being strong. He shows women being sexy while looking strong. There is a difference.

And then there is the other problem - Whedon's writing. As I said, he doesn't have a single original bone in his body. Setting X-Men in the past has been done before. There are a few scenes that were blatantly stolen from other productions. Showing women outdoing men at every step has also been done to death already. (And way too many writers who have the habit to do this turn out to be really sexist, including Whedon - which is not surprising one bit, to be honest.) And then there are Whedon's dialogues - you know, his greatest strength, according to many people. When I was in my teens, I actually thought he was the greatest dialogue writer in the history of Hollywood. Then I grew up and realized that punny and pseudo-witty dialogues are extremely easy to write, especially when all your characters talk in the same way and the only real difference comes from the acting performances. Add to that the random bursts of cussing, nudity, and gore, which contrast rather unpleasantly with the show's childish tone, and, well... You get the point.

Despite everything I've written so far, though, the story has a lot of potential and I'm looking forward to the next episode. The show is visually nice, the acting performances vary between good and great, and the mystery is promising. I just hope it will get better.

Coda (I) (2019)

OK...

[5/10 · 7 February 2021]

Do you want to know why many people dislike classical music? Watch this movie and you will find out. Ask anyone who dislikes classical music, and they will inevitably tell you at least one of the following two words - "boring" and "snobbery." 'Coda' somehow manages to embody both. First, although the scenes where Patrick Stewart's character plays the piano are somewhat well done and he looks convincing enough, the makers of this movie have decided to concentrate almost entirely on technically difficult, fast pieces. The result - unless you're already deeply familiar with German composers' piano sonatas, you will not remember a single piece. You'll only hear some piano shredding - which does sound impressive for a minute or two, but ultimately it's completely devoid of feeling, soul, and even melody. And the problem is not with the pieces that were chosen. They sound wonderful in their own context, but here it's like trying to represent a metal band by only showing the guitar solos in the band's fastest songs. It just doesn't work like this. It's repetitive and, as a consequence, simply boring. The fact that all concert scenes are way too similar doesn't help - they're blocked and shot the same way, which is, indeed, a problem - it's like watching the same scene again and again, and again and again. So yes, it is simply boring - but the classical pieces are not to blame. The movie is. Second, there is the snobbery. Oh, you can't simply enjoy classical music, this movie tells us. You have to constantly wax poetic about how wonderful, philosophical and all-in-all superior that makes you. Again, it doesn't work like this. If the filmmakers had tried to convey the same message through music, maybe it would work, but the decided to have every character just say everything felt or thought. You know, tell-don't-show to the max. This is extremely off-putting - and yes, there are classical music aficionados who are exactly like that, but they are not what represents people who actually love the music. Add to that the pseudo-philosophical blabbering, where, of course, one of the main characters keeps quoting Nietzsche, because, apparently, western filmmakers can't think of any other philosopher...

And then there are the problems with the story that is being told. Which is the oh-so-original story of a young woman falling head over heels in love with a man who is old enough to be her grandfather. How many of these should we see, really? Plus, although both leading performances are competent, they leave a lot to be desired. Patrick Stewart is convincing in his role - which shouldn't be surprising, as he is playing every single one of his characters over the last two decades the same way. Yes, this is Picard. This is Professor X. This is the same character. He can sleepwalk through roles like this and make them look competent, because this is all he plays. The old bald wise mentor type of a character with his old authoritative voice... It's not a bad performance by any means, but I've seen more variety from Jean Claude Van Damme. Literally. As for Katie Holmes - again, not a bad performance... until you see her trying to play the piano. At least Stewart knows where to put his hands and how to move his shoulders. Holmes, though, simply doesn't. When her character is supposed to be playing, she doesn't move at all. Well...

All in all, there are two reasons to see this movie - one is Giancarlo Esposito's character. Seeing him play against type is, at the very least, interesting. The other reason to see this is the good cinematography - which is kinda excellent, and the scenery is really wonderful. If for some reason you expect a profound, life-changing movie... You'll have not find it here. 'Coda' is about as profound as 'The Transformers', but with less action and more pretentiousness. Sorry.

Fargo: East/West (2020) Season 4, Episode 9

Why is this?

[6/10 · 9 January 2021]

OK. I started learning photography about a year ago. It was only a few days, after I finally learned how to hold the camera steadily enough, when I took the shortcut towards artiness and started desaturating my photos in the editing software. You know, all of a sudden a normal photo of one of my cats looked like a piece of art simply because it was incredibly sharp and in black and white. Needless to say, this is way too easy - that's why I called it a shortcut. My black and white photos didn't take any more effort or skill than the photos I did in color. They weren't any more arty. Hell, they were easier to do, as I didn't need to be as careful when taking them as I did when taking photos in color. And choosing the black and white palette didn't really serve any purpose, other than artificially making my photos look more arty than they were.

It's the same with this episode - the black and white cinematography serves no purpose whatsoever. It's just there, and it's so obvious that the picture was desaturated in post-production that it will make your eyes hurt as soon as you notice this. Yes, it was filmed in color, without any thought about how something actually filmed in black and white would look. I don't know why and I honestly don't see any reason to do this, other than forcing the viewers to feel something that simply isn't there, while, at the same time, the director and the cinematographer don't need to be as careful with composing the frames as they'd need to be, if they worked with color. I see reviews mentioning excellent cinematography... Well, where is it? The episode is, of course, competently filmed, but that's a given for any high profile TV show.

And it's not only the cinematography that is a problem. The whole thing is done is some self-congratulating way, as if the writers wanted to tell the viewers, "Look how smart we are!" Well, you're not. The episode is filled with "Wizard of Oz" references that serve no purpose whatsoever, Coen brothers movies references that, again, serve no purpose whatsoever, pseudo-poetic and pseudo-meaningful dialogues that, again, serve no purpose whatsoever, quirky characters that... You know what I'll say about them, do you? Most of the things that you'll see serve no purpose. They are just there to stroke someone's ego - be it the ego of the people who'd get the references or the ego of the people who thought they were oh, so smart for putting these references in the episode. To top it all, there is a prolonged conversation about a certain fairy tale, where the moral is simply said to us absolutely directly, and we are left scratching our heads, not understanding whether this show is for the supposedly smart people who'd get all the references and all the symbolism, or for stupid people who'd need everything to be spoon-fed to them. But, since we are, in fact, smart enough to see through all of this, we can understand one simple fact - that most of this episode serves no purpose whatsoever. Events that are relevant to the overall plot of an otherwise good season here take less than five minutes. But hey, there is an awesome visual effects sequence near the ending. That's why I'm giving the episode an overall positive mark.

Lovecraft Country: Strange Case (2020) Season 1, Episode 5

If you celebrate this, you're sick

[1/10 · 10 October 2020]

So, my second favorite character in the show - Ruby - watches helplessly, as a manager makes unwanted advances onto the only black woman who works for him and, after that woman bites his lip and runs away, he hurls a horrible racial slur at her. Later Ruby decides to punish him. What does she do? She uses a fake identity to seduce him, then she ties him up and then violently rapes him repeatedly with a sharp stiletto. And the whole scene is presented as some moral victory for her, with her triumphant smile and everything. We are expected to celebrate her for sticking it to the sleazy white man... At least within this episode the writers, the director and even the actress don't even hint at the possibility that Ruby raping someone may be wrong.

Well, sorry, but it just doesn't work like this. I despise sleazebags like that manager. Even as a straight white man I've had encounters with people like him. I hated him throughout the entire episode, but after he was brutalized like this, I ended up sympathizing with him - because nothing can justify such a severe punishment. One may argue that this was justice for Tamara, whom the sleazebag was going to fire, after she rejected him, but there is another problem. Ruby not only let him live, she also made sure he knew she raped him because of the way he treated Tamara. Well, what stopped him from completely ruining Tamara now? He'd probably only fire her, if Ruby hadn't interfered. What would he do, after he was humiliated like this because of her? That was what I immediately thought of after this scene. Ruby didn't, though. Ruby didn't care whose life she'd ruin, as long as she got to smile triumphantly. Great. Just great.

Father Brown: The Blood of the Anarchists (2019) Season 7, Episode 8

Better than the previous episode, but that's not saying much...

[5/10 · 31 July 2020]

OK. There will be spoilers.

I just want to mention that when I sympathize with a man who's committed two really gruesome murders and tried to frame a somewhat innocent woman for that more than I sympathize with his victims or the people who try to catch him, there is some problem with the story I'm reading or watching. And this is precisely what happened here. Let me try to explain.

A troupe of anarchist actors travel from town to town to perform and speak out against the tyranny of things like Science and Society. For some reason their amateurish and, frankly, horrible shows manage to rile people up to the point where, when they go to Glasgow, they're warned by the police not to perform, because that may cause a riot. Being anarchists, they still do their show and cause a riot during which Angus Boyde's wife is trampled to death. He decides to take his revenge, infiltrates the troupe and when they eventually reach Kembleford. he kills two of them and successfully pins that on one of his victims' daughter - who is the only one from the troupe that remains alive. Of course, Father Brown soon solves the mystery.

Can you see where my problem is? I hope you do, but if you don't - these "actors" were just a band of dangerous criminals who got God knows how many people killed. They knew what they were doing. And not only that, but the supposedly innocent daughter said in plain text that a true anarchist owes nothing to anyone. And this woman was not innocent at all. True, she was framed for the murders, but before that she assaulted the first suspect in front of witnesses and then, after he was released, she tried to kill him right in front of a few police officers. Isn't attempted murder a crime? How about trying to claw someone's eyes out? (The way the actress performed uncontrollable rage was award worthy, though.) This is what eventually tanked the episode for me. At the end of the day, while this woman lost her father (who was shown to be a really horrible human being and possibly an abusive parent, by the way), she was not held accountable for the crimes she committed within the episode, nor was she held accountable for the lives she and her troupe ruined.

Well...

Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1997–2003)

I used to love this show

[6/10 · 7 July 2020]

OK. There was a time when "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" (from now on I'm going to use the abbreviation BTVS) was among my favorite shows. I was in my early twenties and I'd watch it with my - then - 14 year old sister. She loved it, and so did I. It was just so deep, so profound, so real.

The only problem is that it wasn't, though. As I grew older, I began to realize that the premise of the show was absolutely preposterous. The way they tried to combine the life of a normal teenager with the life of a young woman whose calling is to save the world from supernatural threats almost worked. Almost. Even when I loved the show, I couldn't fail to see this, and now... Now I just see that BTVS is simply a young-adult story with every single downside of this category - namely, extreme and phony emotion, love triangles, inserting contemporary teen problems in situations where they just don't belong, and so on. To top it all, it's simply dripping with teenage girl power fantasies - and no, I'm not talking about Buffy's strength. I'm talking about the fact that she is simultaneously the unpopular girl in school and desired by every single hot guy here, apart from the ones who look old enough to be her father. But not the ones who actually are older than the city she lives in - two vampires fall head over heels for her. One of them - Angel - falls so deeply in love with her - when she is 16 and he is at least ten times as old as she is - that this actually triggers a curse causing him to become a horrifying killing machine. The other one - Spike - displays his love by trying to rape her, among other things, and yet she changes him for the better. Now, do I need to explain why I have a problem with this? Because it's not only beyond creepy (we're talking about two really old dudes lusting after a girl in her teens, after all), it's also beyond stupid, if you think about it. Are we really supposed to believe that Angel has never met a woman worth loving in his rather long life, before he met this teenage girl?

Then there is the problem with the whole premise of the show. As I said earlier, it's absolutely preposterous. You see, there is this ancient order of well trained soldiers protecting the world from supernatural threats. This order is rich enough to train and send soldiers all over the world, and they can easily find the next vampire slayer and send someone to pose as her school's librarian and train and guide her. So, if they are as rich and powerful as they were shown to be in BTVS and "Angel" and they can easily find the only person who actually has the strength to fight toe-to-toe against a vampire and win and is the world's biggest asset in the war against the darkness, what should they do with this person? Should they train her as a warrior, or should they send her to a normal high school where she won't even have the time to be a warrior and she'll eventually be forced to live as a pariah, torn apart between killing demons and trying to be a normal high school student? Let's say the latter, which they chose, isn't as moronic as it is. But after she graduates from high school, should they use their rather significant means to support her, so that she can dedicate her time and strength to training and fighting for the world, or should they let her waste her time and strength working in a diner to support her family, while at the same time they require her to pass their exams? Where is the logic in that?

And then there is Joss Whedon's approach to writing relationships. One would think that with all the love polygons in this show, there'd be at least one stable relationship, right? Wrong. The two partners will either get separated by some circumstances, or one of them will be killed. There are no other options that I can think of right now.

Sorry. I still value the show for being exactly what I needed when I watched it, but I can't ignore its flaws now. I wish I still could.

Father Brown: The Cat of Mastigatus (2018) Season 6, Episode 8

Plot holes...

[5/10 · 27 June 2020]

OK. I like the show, I like silly, cosy mysteries where nothing is really taken seriously, even when the amateur sleuth is investigating the most gruesome murder. This is where this episode fails - unlike most episodes of "Father Brown", "The Cat of Mastigatus" plays it really seriously. It tries - and almost succeeds - to convey a rather important message, and the comedic moments are few and far in between.

There will be spoilers.

So, first, the good. Unlike many of the previous episodes of this show, this one has a believable villain. You know how often in "Father Brown" seemingly ordinary people all of a sudden plan and murder someone in cold blood, often in a calculated manner that a true psychopath will be proud of? Well, at the very least, the culprit here is an actual monster, a man who's used violence to punish kids from his position of authority as the Headmaster of a prestigious school for boys. Given his psychological profile, the way he committed his crimes wasn't that surprising, which was the only reason for me to be so generous with the rating here.

Because there are plot holes. Many plot holes. The Headmaster finds a secret letter to his grandson from his girlfriend, then goes in his stead to meet the girl and after she tells him she's pregnant, the old man reacts in anger and bashes her head with the boy's cricket bat. Here is the first problem - if he didn't plan on using the bat as a weapon, why did he take it to the meeting? And there is the second problem - the girl survived and he later tried to kill her again. Why didn't he just finish the job while she was unconscious in his feet, if he was willing to kill her anyway? Then comes the third problem - why did he put the bat back where he'd taken it from, without even cleaning it from the blood? He should have known the police would suspect his grandson as soon as someone found the bloody (pun intended) thing.

Then, while the girl was in the hospital, the old man tries to suffocate her with her pillow. Luckily, Jack, the girl's school's gardener and one of her few friends, comes to the rescue. Here is the fourth problem - why was the victim of an attempted murder left unprotected? Even if a suspect was arrested, why? And the fifth problem - why did this supposedly well educated man try to kill the girl where everyone would know it was him?

Then Father Brown, naturally, decides to talk to Jack. He goes to his shed, picks the padlock on the door using the skills he's shown many times to have, and he and the people with him find Jack's corpse inside. The police - and Father Brown - initially rule this as a suicide committed out of guilt. And here I was this close to yelling at the screen. How could he put the padlock on the door on the outside, if he killed himself inside the shed? I mean... How? Even if Campbellford's police was this stupid, Father Brown should have immediately guessed what had happened. He picked the padlock, after all. And why was the scene where he did that even included? It added absolutely nothing to the story, other than the biggest plot hole in the entire show so far.

I could go on. I won't, though. I'm getting tired and the review is getting long. I'll only, once again, express my disappointment. If this episode didn't take itself so seriously, I'd be more than willing to forgive all the problems I listed here. Sorry.

Star Trek: Picard: Et in Arcadia Ego, Part 2 (2020) Season 1, Episode 10

What was this?

[4/10 · 27 March 2020]

OK. Three of the four stars you see above my review are for the visual effects and the remaining one is for the acting and the music. In short, this episode was a horrible conclusion to an otherwise watchable season. In long... There will be spoilers.

Where do I even begin? Perhaps the ending is a nice thing to start my review with. The ending, where, after Picard has died, we see his crew mourn him, we're force-fed the emotions from the death of the main character, and then we find out that he's still alive and his crew knew about this. What were they crying about then? They knew that Picard not only lived, but was also cured of his brain tumor or whatever that was... Also, although the scene with Data was almost nice, one question kept bugging me - why didn't Data speak with his daughter? I mean... Why? The technology was there. She was his daughter, she was what he'd dreamed of, and she spent the whole season discovering herself. Why didn't they have a conversation?

And if they could just bring Picard back from the dead, why didn't they bring Data back a long time ago?

Why was there a very strong hint that Raffi and Seven of Nine were suddenly in a romantic relationship? Not only were they both established as straight within the show, but even if they weren't, they barely knew each other.

Why did Dr. Jurati get away with murder? (OK, that's almost understandable, but still...)

Why was that catfight in the cube choreographed so horribly? The previous episodes showed some good martial arts choreography. Why was the climactic fight scene so bad?

Why was that magical device introduced? You want something done? Just imagine it... The device can do anything - from repairing machines to creating holograms... Uh...

Why? Why? Why?

Why?

See (2019–2022)

So they can't see, huh?

[1/10 · 2 January 2020]

Before I continue with the actual review, I want to ask the (few) people who will read this one thing. Please, stop trying to justify this show's flaws by saying it is fantasy. This is disrespectful towards the entire genre and towards the writers who actually do what is necessary for their work to make sense. Because "See" doesn't make sense, or, at the very least, the first episode doesn't. I'm not going to waste my time with any of the next episodes. After what I saw in the pilot, I'm absolutely certain that it will not get better. Here is why.

So, according to this show, here is what blind people do in a time where even mentioning that someone can see is seen (pun intended) as heresy:

• They wear jewelry and decorate their hair and clothes with feathers.

• They paint their faces with mud before getting into a battle.

• They perform synchronized haka dances before getting into a battle.

• They can tell the difference between friend and foe in a battle where none of the two armies' soldiers actually make the effort to stick together.

• They braid, style and dye their hair.

• They ride horses.

• They use open fire for purely decorative reasons and lighting.

• Some of them have tattoos.

• And much more.

Seriously, this thing would be watchable, if we weren't told that the characters were supposed to be blind. It looks expensive and the actors are awesome, but stating that the characters cannot see and then showing them do the things I mentioned is beyond ridiculous. It's like stating that someone doesn't have legs only to show them running a minute later. As I said, it doesn't make sense, and the dreadfully serious tone makes things worse. If this were a comedy, it would be tolerable. If it were campy like "Xena: The Warrior Princess", I'd probably like it. Instead, though, it tries to be the next "Game of Thrones". Well, sorry, but even GoT's final episode wasn't this bad.

Ningyo-tei ibun: Muhôgai no Surônin (1976– )

The best show no one knows about...

[10/10 · 4 September 2019]

OK, first things first - the only way to get a hold of this show using somewhat legal means is to purchase a few badly translated, but, alas, quite expensive bootleg DVDs containing the first eleven episodes. Sadly, at least as far as I'm aware, it has never been officially released on home video - which, of course, is a pity, because it is rather wonderful. Despite the bad translations, it is really worth its price and your time, so if you get the chance, see it. You can find it under the title "Ronin in a Lawless Town".

Despite being well over four decades old, visually it is - still - really nice. Great production values - it just looks big. Produced by Toshiro Mifune himself, money obviously wasn't spared - awesome set design, nice costumes and excellent camera work - makes you feel as if you're watching a big budget movie, despite the letterbox aspect ratio.

Also, the setting is really interesting - Yokohama, soon after the start of the Meiji era. Suddenly open to foreign ships, Japan is swarmed by foreign influences, especially in a port city like Yokohama - and this is shown wonderfully. Although, to be honest, I'm not sure how accurate it is, it looks right - as there are people desperately clinging to their old culture, wearing traditional Japanese clothing and so on, there are also many desperately trying to look like westerners - wearing western clothing, calling each other "Mister" or "Ma'am", even if they don't know a word in English... Clash of cultures - shown pretty well, despite the fact that the show itself isn't pretentious at all.

This leads us to the characters. Toshiro Mifune, playing Mister Danna, is, of course, excellent - he is the master of playing these roles - few actors have his dramatic and comedic chops, as well as his athleticism and ability to perform fight choreography and dangerous stunts. His fight scenes here are every bit as good as what you've seen in his big movies, and his stunt work as a whole is simply jaw dropping. The character is, of course, interesting. Mister Danna has traveled around the world, gathering knowledge, wisdom and cynicism - which has lead him to returning to Japan and living the rest of his life as easily as possible. He doesn't care about foreign influences, he just wears his ragged hakama, drinks, and utters a joke here and there. Whenever he's not forced by the circumstances to grab his sword, he makes a living off of translating love letters for foreigners to and from Japanese - and despite his cynicism, he still is good at heart. Chidori Gennoshin, played by Wakabayashi Go, is at least as awesome, but describing him in so much detail will spoil some major plot points. To a huge extent Chidori is the exact opposite of Mister Danna - we wears a fashionable suit in an European style, takes care of his looks, uses a pistol instead of a sword, and has his own reasons to denounce Japanese culture. His hand-to-hand fight scenes are awesome too. Chidori and Danna are an excellent team, and their friendship, although shown subtly, just rings true. The supporting characters are also awesome, but the review is already getting too long, so I'll not describe them.

As for the writing - it is good. Unpretentious, and every episode is almost completely stand alone. However, keep in mind that, despite the overall comedic tone of the show, it can be really emotional. Every win comes at a price, and sometimes that price is really brutal.

All in all, the show is worth your time. Watch it, if you get the chance.

Stranger Things: Chapter One: Suzie, Do You Copy? (2019) Season 3, Episode 1

Uh... What?

[4/10 · 2 August 2019]

After the first season I gave this show the rating of ten out of ten. I'm not going to change that because of this episode. The first season is still good and the second one, although deeply flawed, is pretty enjoyable. This one, though - I'm (probably) going to drop it, because, apart from the admittedly good acting and emotional moments here and there, it's just awful. Factually awful. I hope the show does get better after that, but, given the fact that almost everything I liked about it was basically obliterated, I don't think I can force myself to watch the rest of the season.

There will be spoilers. You've been warned.

So... First, as many reviewers here and on other sites have already pointed out, most of this episode is dedicated to a teenage romance. That alone is a huge problem for me, as a person who rarely likes romance in his shows and never if it involves teens, but the situation gets even worse, when it involves these particular teens. After everything they've been through together, am I supposed to believe that Mike and El will just abandon one of their closest friends, whom they haven't seen in a month, for a yet another session of pointless kissing? Did the Duffer brothers forget what they wrote in the first season? "She is our friend and she is crazy!" "A friend is someone that you'd do anything for." And so on. I mean, El is not a normal girl, Mike is not a normal boy, why do they all of a sudden act as if they're the douche bags terrorizing the nerds in 80s high school movies? Yeah, hormones, growing up, and so on, but up to a few months earlier El was a killing machine who could barely speak, and now she's acting like the popular girl in school? Mike was willing to risk his life for his friends, and now he can't be bothered to spend a few minutes more with Dustin? Come on.

Second, Hopper. From a hardened cop he was demoted to a sitcom father. I hope this gets better in the next episodes, but, as I said, I don't intend to find out.

Third, Nancy and her storyline. I guess we were supposed to feel for her because of the way her bosses treated her. I didn't, though. Her boss, brilliantly overacted by Jake Busey, is made out to be an absolute piece of garbage. Maybe she'll get back at him later. I hope she won't, though. I hope she'll be put at her place as emotionally brutally as possible. Why? Because, although her boss treated her really badly and I definitely wouldn't approve this, I don't think she had any reason to expect anything else, the way she behaved. I know I'm going to get a lot of flack for this, but how exactly should he have reacted when she, a teenage girl barely out of high school, with no university degree, no experience in life, no job experience, and no proof of her abilities whatsoever (other than what her teenage boyfriend says about her), expect that the boss at a supposedly big newspaper would even consider working on her ideas? Why would he? True, he shouldn't have shut her down the way he did, but if the boss listened to any idea that came out of anyone's mouth, regardless of their position in he newspaper, he'd have no time to actually work. Nancy's job was to buy him food, not to suggest ideas for articles. (Not to mention the fact that her idea was not that brilliant, actually - because, first, every media would publish or air something about the way the new shopping mall would affect local businesses before they'd even started building it and, second, the situation surrounding this mall wasn't as black and white as she suggested - can you even imagine how many jobs are opened because of one shopping mall? Wouldn't that be a positive thing for a (relatively) small town like Hawkins?) Maybe this was supposed to be a comment on the sexism women faced in their workplaces back then, but what I saw was a prom queen trying to get a job she wasn't qualified for and being shut down by the actual adults. If she were as good a writer as Jonathan said she was, she wouldn't be so naive.

Fourth, time skipping is just weird. This season takes place in 1985 - the year when 'Back to the Future' came out. A few months after the events in the previous season - which was, at least to some extent, centered around Halloween in 1984 and the kids dressing up like the characters from 'Ghostbusters'. In the meantime, a huge shopping mall was built and, by the time the season took place, it was fully functional. How? We're not talking about a "McDonald's" restaurant here, we're talking about a massive building that has to go through countless stages of approval - before, during and after its construction - then the stores are rented out, staff is hired and trained, then... This is just not possible in such a short time frame, especially in the 80s, with the technology they had back then. The characters, as I mentioned earlier, were treated similarly.

Fifth, instead of showing me the 80s (or movie 80s) organically, this episode relies on memes - like that hands scene from 'Day of the Dead' - but this just obliterates my immersion - although the movie is from 1985, the meme is relatively modern, and I could only think about the time I saw it for the first time - which was a few years ago. They used exactly the same clip...

Sorry.

Enemy of the State (1998)

I used to love it...

[6/10 · 5 May 2019]

This movie came out when I was 12. I was 14 when I finally saw it, and back then it blew me away. It was just so good... I saw it again a few hours ago. It wasn't that good, actually. Sorry.

OK, while the idea is interesting and the message is very important, especially nowadays, its realization left a lot to be desired. There will be spoilers.

OK, first, the main character is played by Will Smith. Will Smith is and has always been an excellent actor. The thing is, in the 90s he was an action/comedy star, and this was exactly what 'Enemy of the State' didn't need. Robert Clayton Dean was supposed to be a lawyer, but he was just a 90s Will Smith character - with the one liners, the comedy, and the action scenes - which would not be a problem, if it didn't shatter my immersion to pieces. The movie tries to be a serious thriller, and yet, the lead character, with no military/martial arts/combat experience whatsoever fights off a person pointing a gun at him in a moving car, runs like a professional athlete, disarms trained policemen, and so on. Uh... How? This is a lawyer we're talking about here, not a Steven Seagal character.

Second, and this is the movie's big problem - for a tech thriller 'Enemy of the State' plays it very loose with technology. In both directions, I mean. On one hand, technology in the movie is so developed that a single stationary security camera in a lingerie store can produce a 360 degree visual of anyone in the store, and a satellite from space can provide detailed image from one particular roof in one particular country. On the other hand, sending a short low-res video via e-mail is unheard of and you need to keep a physical copy of it if you want to have it. Hacking any computer is possible as long as you have a laptop, but uploading a few megabytes on a cloud server (and these existed in the 90s, btw) is, apparently, not.

Third, well... There are certain writing problems that may ruin the movie for certain viewers. Like, even a five year old knows that a cop needs a warrant to search someone's home. Why exactly is it so surprising that a lawyer, of all people, knows this? Why was Gene Hackman's character so cryptic even after he supposedly started trusting Robert? Why did Robert make that phone call after he'd seen what the NSA could do? He knew they tracked phones, he knew they killed his friend, and still... Why?

All in all, despite everything I'm writing here, this movie is not a complete failure. It is thrilling, fast paced and well acted. It just didn't live up to my memories. Sorry.

Sleight (2016)

Logic? What logic?

[2/10 · 2 April 2019]

In short, this is an awful movie. Somewhat well filmed and well acted, hence the rating of 2 out of 10, but, still, awful. I don't give a rat's behind about the fact that it wasn't made with big money. Its makers were trying to tell a big story, and they failed spectacularly. Why? Because everything was brutally illogical.

So, the main character, Bo, is a somewhat talented street magician, but his main source of income actually is selling drugs. Or, is it? In the beginning scenes he was shown getting a bag full of money from his street performances and then getting less than one hundred dollars from selling molly, whatever that is. Before he started selling cocaine, he wasn't making that much money from selling drugs. Why was he even doing this? Why didn't he devote himself entirely to street magic? He was obviously successful at that.

Then... Bo's drug dealing boss, Angelo, asks him to find out who the new guy selling coke on their turf is. Bo uses his skills as a magician to find him. So far, so good. But then Angelo himself goes, accompanied only by two or three of his thugs and Bo, to Morris - the new guy - to give him a warning, to demand percentage of his income and so on. Why would a supposedly big drug lord do this? Why would he risk his life so stupidly? And why would he take Bo there? Not only is Bo absolutely worthless in a violent situation, he's also proven he's useful in situations where rival gangsters don't know who he is. Why would Angelo expose him like this? Then, after Angelo beat one of Morris's men to a pulp, why didn't Morris just kill him on the spot? Morris's men outnumbered Angelo's, plus, they could have the surprise on their side. But, OK, let's say they wouldn't do that. But, after his life was threatened, why would Morris, a wannabe drug lord, walk around without any security? He'd already seen what Angelo was willing to do.

Then... Angelo and his thugs kidnap Morris and Angelo forces Bo to chop Morris's hand off. This is almost understandable. What isn't understandable is that soon after they did this Bo, now selling coke, decides to double cross Angelo. I mean, what the actual F-word? He's seen what Angelo is capable of, he's supposedly a smart kid, he should know that mixing the coke with baking soda will not go unnoticed, and he should know that there will be a severe punishment. Yet, he still mixes the coke with baking soda. Again, what the actual F-word?

Then... This supposedly moral kid did not hesitate to rob his friend, and he did it, after he was shown controlling the slot machines in an arcade. Couldn't he get the money that way? Why would he steal from a friend? Even if that were understandable, it would be too much for me - and it wasn't understandable. Soon after this scene I stopped this movie. How could I support this character?

Then... A huge part of the movie was devoted to Bo's invention - an electromagnetic device which helps him control all kinds of metals. Instead of selling drugs, why didn't he, I don't know, try to patent it and sell the patent? This device could turn anyone into Magneto. I think he could make some good money off of it.

Then... Seriously, I'm sick of American movies showing a supposedly poor character whose home is as big as a shopping mall. I know what poverty is, this is not it. Bo and his sister lived - alone - in a huge house. Why didn't they move to a smaller place in a better neighborhood? Bo wanted his sister to have access to better schools. Why didn't he provide it for her?

Triple Threat (2019)

Well...

[8/10 · 23 March 2019]

Reading some of the reviews here, I can't help but wonder what their writers were expecting from this movie. Seriously, what's with the negativity? The movie promises only one thing - fighting, lots of fighting - and it delivers on that promise. Everything else is secondary, and with good reason. The writing is passable, as it gives the action a reason to exist, but the acting is often just awful, especially when the Asians try to speak in English. (No offense, but they're obviously struggling with it, which drags their performances down.) (Scott Adkins and Michael Jay White show some fine acting, though - but not only they're very good actors, they also have the advantage of speaking in their native language most of the time.) The camera work is surprisingly good, actually, and it puts much more expensive movies, such as the Expendables franchise, to shame, and the editing keeps the pacing fast and tight.

The action, of course, is where the movie really shines. I have only one complaint here - that Iko Uwais takes a lot of beating, although his character is shown as a more than capable martial artist and a clever man. He does get enough opportunities to show off his skills, but most of the others clearly outshine him - especially White and Adkins, playing the main bad guys. Maybe it was because they'd already worked with the fight choreographer, Tim Man, and were accustomed to his style of staging fight scenes, but their fight scenes stood above the rest. (Man worked on some of their movies since the year 2013, including Adkins's 'Ninja: Shadow of a Tear' and 'Boyka: Undisputed' and White's 'The Hard Way', and 'Accident Man', where they both starred.) Directed by Jesse V. Johnson, a stuntman, the action in this movie flows nicely, shown in oftentimes absurdly long and smooth cuts and edited perfectly. If only Johnson had shown the same talent when directing the acting or developing the plot, this movie would be an absolute tenner. Alas, he's not David Leitch, but, still, 'Triple Threat' is exactly what I wanted it to be. If you appreciate the art of performing dangerous stunts, don't miss it.

Mrs. Doubtfire (1993)

Loved it as a kid, but now...

[5/10 · 12 February 2019]

I guess when you're a kid it's easier to put yourself in the shoes of the kids in this movie - they love both of their parents and are really happy that their father is willing to do anything to be with them, they love being allowed to go wild, and so on...

But when you're closer to the age of the parents, you begin to realize that no mother of three will want a person like Robin Williams' character in hers and her kids' lives. It is one thing to throw a memorable birthday party for your kid. It is a completely different thing to throw a party so wild that it puts most frat parties to shame, when your oldest daughter is in her early teens. Partying is one thing. Allowing - and even encouraging - kids to break stuff is a different thing. So is letting farm animals walk free in and around your house, and so is getting the police involved. If you were Mrs. Hillard, would you stay married to a manchild who's just put your kids' lives in danger? Because that's exactly what Daniel Hillard did. And would you tolerate a creep willing to impersonate a woman just so that he could be around your kids? While there were many funny gags in this movie, Daniel Hillard was shown as an emotionally manipulative person, and an actor so good that he could fool even people who'd known him for years. He was not shown as a trustworthy person, though - and that judge was right to rule against him.

Sorry. Robin Williams was a great actor, and this used to be my favorite performance of his. Not anymore.

Bull: A Higher Law (2018) Season 3, Episode 10

Infuriating

[1/10 · 9 February 2019]

As always, well acted, well filmed, and so on. It's hardly the worst episode of the show, but, sadly, it can only appeal to a Catholic blindly letting their faith do the thinking for them. There will be spoilers.

OK, it was said - in plain text, I mean - that the law of the Catholic church was above the secular law, and, willingly or not, the writers actually upheld this message - by refusing to take a side in the conflict between religion and law and, instead, having the actual culprit conveniently admit to killing a woman at the appropriate time. (And let's not kid ourselves, no matter how guilty he feels, no young man will choose going to prison over going to Harvard just because of Michael Weatherly's acting talent - but that's beside the point.) Now, let me briefly summarize the plot.

A young man hits a young woman with the church van, then flees the scene, goes to the church and confesses his crime to the priest there. The priest, bound by the seal of confession, decides to not report anything to the authorities and, instead, despite having drank a glass of whiskey or two, he decides get in the van, drive to the place where the hit and run has happened, and help the young woman as much as he can. The young woman dies, the police catch the priest in the van, and then the authorities try to pin everything on him. Benny, being a devout Catholic, is called to the rescue, and, of course, Bull and his firm take the case.

Now, there are a few problems with this. First, something personal - I am an atheist, it is very hard to impress me with devotion to faith, especially when that devotion takes the purely egotistical form of putting your beliefs above the lives of other people - which was exactly what this priest did. Had he reported the hit and run to the authorities, maybe the medical team sent to the scene would save the young woman's life. (He thought she was still alive, which is why he tried to go to her.) Instead, he decided his position as a priest was more important than her life. True, he could be excommunicated for breaking the seal of confession, but would that be big enough a reason to waste the little time she had left? Maybe he was worried about his immortal soul? But was his soul more important than hers? Maybe she had sins to redeem - but she did not get that chance, because he did not send a real doctor to help her, although he could do that.

Second, if someone confesses to a priest that they've planted a bomb in a kindergarten, should the priest report them? Or should the priest let dozens of kids die because of his faith? I understand the concept of priest-penitent privilege, but when exactly does it stop being OK to conceal actual crimes just because of your job? Is allowing a killer to go unpunished what this privilege is supposed to protect? This is an important question, and one that could be discussed in the episode. Instead, as I said earlier, the writers chose the easy way out - and with this they put the Catholic faith above everything else. Above intellectual honesty, above the rights of others, above the beliefs of others, and above the law. Thanks, but no, thanks.

The House with a Clock in Its Walls (2018)

Sorry

[5/10 · 29 December 2018]

Jack Black and Cate Blanchette are awesome in this. Funny when they have to be, dead serious when it is needed, with great chemistry between them... If these two were the main characters of this movie, it would probably be great. Sadly, they're not. The main character is played by Owen Vaccaro, a kid I hope I'll never hear of again. Maybe I'm unjustly harsh here, but his performance in this movie was simply awful, so forced, so exaggerated that it only brought laughter where it was supposed to bring seriousness and cringe where it was supposed to bring fun. The kid who played Vaccaro's character's bully was a much better actor - at least, he could become likable when he needed to be liked. Vaccaro's performance dragged everything down, and, apart from Black and Blanchette, nothing in this movie is that good to begin with.

First, OK, it's visually nice, but some of the CGI is really sub par. Plus, it just reeks of political correctness - I'm mentioning this when I'm talking about the visual side of the movie, because, sadly, the abundance of Asian and black kids in the main character's school serves only a decorative purpose - they don't have memorable lines (if they even have lines at all, which I've forgotten already, and I saw the movie less than an hour ago), they don't matter, they're just there - in an American school in 1955, only a year after the racial segregation in American schools was declared unconstitutional. Am I supposed to believe that kids of color were suddenly so well received? And if they were, why were they demoted to mere set decoration in the movie? Purely visually, that didn't make sense - it made the movie look as if it were set in the 80s or the 90s. All in all, while colourful and easy on the eye, the movie didn't really look as if it were set in the 50s.

Second, the writing is Razzie worthy. Eric Kripke, known for "Supernatural", did everything he could to make the story so brutally inconsistent that one can't help but wonder what it was supposed to be. It's not just a supernatural story, it's also a school drama - a school drama where it's easier to sympathize with the bully, because he's just more likable and easier to understand. The main character is irredeemably stupid, despite the filmmakers' efforts to make him look smart - which is the only reason the bully resorted to hitting him. (By the way, the main character attacked first, he just did it sloppy.) Seriously, put yourself in the bully's shoes. If someone risked your life using force you don't understand, would you want to be friends with them? Would you want them near you? I wouldn't.

Then there is the problem with the magic in this story - while nice to look at, it really makes no logical sense. How is it that in some scenes Jack Black's Jonathan is incredibly powerful, and in others he isn't? How is it that Owen Vaccaro's Lewis suddenly loses his magic powers only to just gain them back with no explanation whatsoever when the plot needs them? How is it that Cate Blanchette's Florence suddenly regains her long lost powers just when the plot needs them? (OK, that has some explanation, but it's not good enough.) This is just deus ex machina in its purest form.

Then, of course, there's the problem with the movie's uneven tone. Dead serious scenes revealing dark secret of certain characters' past are followed by poop jokes. Literally. In one scene Florence cries about the death of her daughter, in the next she utters one liners while gleefully killing living dolls with her umbrella. In the climax Lewis literally kills two people with magic, and just a few minutes later he is cheerily pranking his classmates. And so on. The makers of this movie just couldn't find the balance between horror and comedy - the comedy is way too light, and the horror, while not that scary, is way too violent and way too serious to not leave a mark on the characters, especially on Lewis. Lewis killed two people and then went to school to prank ten year old kids with magic. I mean... How? Is he a psychopath or something?

Also, the school was just horrible. What gym teacher would allow a student with a broken leg and a student with a broken arm to play basketball in class? I know this was supposed to signify that kids in that school would rather take a cripple in their team than Lewis, but it was just absurd. It was less believable than the magic in the movie.

All in all, the movie did not give me what I wanted from it. Sorry.

Police Story 2 (1988)

This is a wonderful movie, actually

[10/10 · 31 August 2018]

As I promised when I reviewed 'Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri", I'm finally writing a positive review. I needed this.

I saw the first two movies from Jackie Chan's Police Story franchise a few days ago... Again. I had seen each of them at least five times already, and, as always, I loved them. There is a lot to be loved here. I prefer the second movie, as it has more action, better constructed plot, and less silly comedy, but the first one is also rather great and I wholeheartedly recommend it.

A direct continuation of 'Police Story', 'Police Story 2' tries hard - very hard - to top it everywhere. Luckily, it succeeds - the scale is bigger, the production values are better, and, of course, the fight scenes are more and longer. The writing is also a bit more balanced - this time the story never drags, and the villains are more interesting. The first one had a sleazy corporate boss and his thugs, trying to get rid of an important witness, and Jackie Chan's character trying - and, of course, succeeding - to stop, them using legal and not so legal methods and causing a lot of destruction. Without spoilers, all of this is addressed in the second movie, and the sleazy corporate boss and his thugs appear again - to give us one of the most spectacular fight scenes in Jackie Chan's entire career. The main villains are different, though - young, ruthless, intelligent terrorists, excellent bomb makers and, of course, great fighters, they want money and they will do anything to get it. (And they will give the viewers some great fighting and frighteningly huge explosions, unseen in Hong Kong movies before.) It is hardly the greatest story ever, but it gets the job done, flows nicely and gives us enough action and humour.

And the action is exceptional. Well filmed, extremely well directed and choreographed, and, as one can expect, dangerous. Watch the outtakes at the end and you will see it. Also, back then Jackie Chan was damn fast and he showed this in his fight scenes. Just watch and be amazed.

All in all, this is an excellent action comedy. See it.