Dee Vee

There is no way this is a John Woo movie. Mr Woo simply couldn't resist and took the money and let the committee do the rest. There is not an ounce of signature John Woo flair and style in this "remake". Instead, lots of gore, lots of tired tricks and formulas found in other movies made by committee and, of course, an overdose of "diversity". (Changing the container but not the content is not meaningful diversity. Whether you put a ham sandwich in a lunch box or in a paper bag, your lunch is still a ham sandwich.) The only positive is that perhaps it will tickle the curiosity of younger moviegoers enough for them to go find and watch the real "The Killer" movie.

I’m a huge fan of this TV series. Loved the first three seasons. Sadly, I’m struggling to stay interested in Season 4. It’s just simply bad. Many of the casting are questionable. Too many characters are just more annoying than interesting, I can’t sympathize for anyone of them, quite the opposite. Casting Rock and Schwatrzman is a major blunder. (And spoiler: they are not funny, not even close.) Sorry to say this but the actor playing Gaetano is the worst. The gangs are totally unconvincing, mainly due to the casting, the acting and many of the dialog. Too often, the dialogs were childish and pointless. The Italian gang is the worst offender at this. There is something missing in Season 4, failing to be authentically Fargo. Maybe it’s the characters, maybe it’s the storyline which is going nowhere after four episodes, with no traction whatsoever, maybe it’s the lack of the characteristic dark humour (adding more “carrots scenes” isn’t gonna make it funnier). Maybe it’s all little of everything. Being a huge fan, I’ll keep struggling along, hoping it’ll get interesting but I feel I’m just going to be disappointed.

I agree with many who said this is one of the most underrated superhero movies ever, in the same league as Watchmen. This is probably due to Marvel/Disney shills, particularly on RottenTomatoes (one of the most unreliable rating websites out there). There is no way Captain Marvel can get a 79% on RT while Man Of Steel only got a 56%. Man Of Steel is one of the best superhero origins movies. That's not an easy feat when the superhero is named Superman. The special effects are top notch, even seven years after its release. The costumes are absolutely amazing (google some of them). And the action sequences are masterfully executed. The music is by Hans Zimmer, enough said. While Cavill's performance was fine (he has never been known to be an extraordinary actor), Shannon as Zod and Antje Traue as Faora were perfect cast, offering pleasant and effective performances. Crowe, Adams, Lane and Costner constitute an all-star cast of supporting actors. Maybe the tone of the movie was a bit too "serious"; maybe there could be more humour sprinkled here and there like Disney usually likes to do (personally, I enjoy "serious" superhero movies). But for a superhero movie, Man Of Steel has no major weakness.

Legend has it that an idiot fell in his own trap. 90% of the danger and suspense scenes are so made-up and heavy-handed that it feels cheap. From the infected rats about to break the glass container, to the helicopter getting ridiculously out of control during take off, to the “saviour” with a tendency to nonchalantly put his neck inches away from a bite by an infected, numerous ridiculous cheap-thrill near-misses are sprinkled here and there to keep the viewers interested. And of course, faithful to Hollywood tradition, when the hero gets caught, the bad guy just throws him around so that he can recover, retaliate or escape; simply snapping his neck would have been way too simple and effective.

Another product of the Michael Bay cheese factory. Armageddon, when the world turns upside down, where it makes more sense to train drillers to become astronauts than the other way around. Two stars: one for the theme song and another one because this movie could appeal to some audience: the sixteen year-olds.

Some people keep mentioning this show with Succession. So I gave Billions another shot. This second time is even worse because I now have Succession to compare it to. Billions is not even in the same league — it’s in triple-A. Everything from acting, writing, editing and lighting to soundtrack feels cheap and amateurish. Even the multi-billionaire big dog of the show fails to convey his immense wealth (a still shot of the facade of his house and the occasional scenes with an exotic car are lame tricks that don’t work well; and his multi-billion company looks like a struggling has-been start-up). As for the acting. let’s just say that Malin Akerman wouldn’t even make the second tier cast of Succession, and she wouldn’t be alone. (Example: end of episode 2, Bobby and wife watch a building renamed and the former says something “funny”. The wife just smiles and looks at him. They look at each other as if it’s their first date. Nothing more was said for some awkwardly long seconds. Terrible! Horrible writing and acting.) The two leads may be quite watchable but them alone cannot carry a multi-season show. A great cast makes a mediocre story good and this cast as a whole is mediocre for a plot that’s already pretty “meh” (why the hell is a psychiatrist at the center of the company’s operations — makes no sense). But what really irritates me the most is the constant spoon-feeding to the viewers; some many things are spelled out. This is just bad writing, if the lame dialog didn’t make that obvious enough already. Example: scene starts with dog pissing in the kitchen, Bobby explains to his kids the origin of the expression “pissing contest”; then, out of nowhere, he asks one of his kids a trivia question… yada yada yada… all this just to spell out a trivial tactic used in competition (one of the kids ended up doing push-ups in the middle of dinner). Lame! The list of nominations and awards don’t lie: Succession is pro all-star and this is triple-A league.

Another signature Ridley Scott mediocre movie. Good technical execution spoiled by uneven writing (particularly the many silly late 20th century-styled dialogs). Ben Affleck was horribly miscast and his performance equally unbearable to watch. And did I hear a texan accent from Matt Damon? Sometimes, I had to remind myself this is not a parody. The 20th century dramatization is ludicrous. Tip: Skip chapters 2 and 3, which are predictable and exhausting, and go to the last 20 minutes of the movie to enjoy (or not) the brutal and savage Gladiator (wink wink) fight; Ridley Scott’s return to his true element. *spoiler*: How can the wife of a knight, who owns an estate and who employs a dozen of servants, whose return from war is typically met with trumpets and welcome party, be raped in her own house by some visitors? The mother brought all the servants with her? Really? The me-too tone is so on-the-nose and shoehorned, it feels amateurish and opportunistic. Another ridiculous detail: Why would Le Gris reveal, in his version of the story, the count’s private affairs? Makes no sense.

This documentary offers a story contrarian to the narrative imposed by popular mainstream western media. It is a good starting point for the curious viewer with critical thinking who wants to explore a different perspective and angle of the Ukraine issue. It's unlikely that everything said in this documentary is true but someone with critical thinking already understands that the world is rarely black and white (the natural colors of propaganda) but mostly grey. But one thing is for sure: it's a lot about money, economic interests and power, but little about freedom or democracy. (Those who didn't like this documentary claim it's all propaganda but they fail to offer a shadow of an argument.)

The creators of this movie found a short story (poem) and tried to turn it into a 2-hour feature film. The end result is a very very slow movie with lots of inconsequential extras. Lots of snail-pace scenes, few dialogs and many plot holes -- all this using "intelligence and depth" as alibi. Those who enjoyed this movie will tell you it's an "intelligent" movie and that, if you didn't like it, it's because you didn't "get it". Don't be fooled -- it is NOT that deep. I came to this conclusion by searching the web. The explanation and analysis I found didn't present any eye-opening revelation. (Is that it? Yes, that's all there is to it.) The illusion of profundity is the product of obscurity, obscurity of the plot holes. In this social media era, film creators inject ambiguity and omissions, that they falsely claim as symbolism and metaphor, to their work so that people google about it ([movie X] explained"). It is therefore ironic that some people find such movie "intelligent". It's not a horrible movie. The visuals are superb. If it were an hour shorter, I would have liked it. But as it is, it feels pretentious and fake.

Nonsense even in the context of a videogame. The creators cant figure an NPC from a real player?! Absurd. The plot is super formulaic. Stories inside a videogame world is getting old.