Nina B

Powerful, dynamic, engaging, and perhaps even whimsical, Watchmen is an essay on power as well as morality, with a strong message that echoes with the original themes the comic portrays, and well as include a dialogue about race and white supremacy. While the first four episodes were a little slow for me, they did their purpose of introducing us to the world of Watchmen, which is just a special type of superhero zany; however it doesn’t seem silly or obnoxious—the show gets extremely creative with what the world would look like post the events of the Watchmen comics, yet still manages to remain grounded enough. The cast put on a phenomenal performance, all of them complex and fleshed out, as well as all morally ambiguous. It’s hard to tell from the original Watchmen whether they’re good guys or now the bad guys, especially Ozymandias (something that rang true in the comics as well), and while there was no real antagonist besides the white supremacy group the Seventh Kalvary, it still was executed wonderfully. I would especially give a shout out the adaption of FBI agent Laurie Blake; previously known as the Silk Spectre. Her crass wit, and both her strength and vulnerability were just done beautifully. Overall; the show still holds strong to its source material and incorporates into this new, uncharted territory amazingly well, and as thought provoking and complex as the comics. Can’t wait for Season 2!

I really, REALLY wanted to like Netflix’s adaptation of The Witcher. While never reading the books nor playing the games, I wanted it to fill the Game of Thrones sized-hole in my heart. While I knew it could not be Game of Thrones, it didn’t take on much of a life of anything, unfortunately. The story is told in a non-linear fashion, with three major storylines that eventually converge. Two of these storylines span decades, and provide way more context needed for the third storyline which takes place in the “present”. So many gaps are left in the storyline that you as the audience are meant to implicitly fill, which makes for bad writing. Furthermore, this means that 75% of the show is just filler with no contribution to the central conflict—which was very abstract and not explained at ALL, which made it far less threatening (seriously, what’s wrong with Nilfgaard anyways, except for the subtle hints that it’s a metaphor for communism?) The lore of The Witcher is poorly told, and while the laws of Magic that govern the mages are told to us, these rules seemed abandoned several times. Each character speaks aloud of their desires, ambitions, and weaknesses, yet act against their favor numerous times, which make for an extremely one-dimensional cast with whom you have little sympathy for. I think the most fleshed out character was Dandelion/Jaskier, the bard who serves as comic relief—the rest are just shadows of some archetype that they fail to fulfill. By the end of season one, you are left with an undercooked plot and a flat ensemble of characters, and the show is so directionless I can’t even imagine where season two could go, as we are pretty much in the same place we started in episode one. Several buzzwords like “destiny” and “chaos” are thrown around, yet they are poor explanations for the world that The Witcher inhabits. You can kind of see where they’re going for, but it’s not enough. If renewed, I’m not sure I would even bother to see how the show redeems itself (if it even does), as its left us on such an aimless spot on what feels like a very pointless mission. The only reason why this has two stars instead of one is because Dandelion has some pretty catchy ballads, and the fact that Henry Cavill is VERY hot in this show.

Strange, twisted, and some certain type of odd-ball horrific, this grounding take of the iconic Batman arch-nemesis The Joker is a sobering tale of a man plagued with mental health issues following extreme childhood trauma, and forced to live in the banals of a city which deems him worthless. I think that the way Todd Phillips' directed this film was in the most Joker-esque way possible: some strange, yet old-timey movie that has surface level charm, but in the backdrop of chaos, violence, and total misery. While the first half felt a little slow and perhaps confusing at times, I would also argue that due to it being told from the perspective of Arthur Fleck, the man who would become the Joker, who is plagued with several delusions and psychoses shown throughout the film. And of course; the third act: ultra-violent, chaotic, and Fleck's ultimate transformation into the killer clown that you could even say is his unmasking: the unraveling of who this man really is. The themes within this movie weigh heavily, starting with disparity among the rich and the poor in a city suffering economic ruin that causes such corruption and hopelessness in Gotham. Seriously, its the most disgusting and miserable Gotham depicted in live-action incarnations, which I think is extremely spot-on. And of course: a slap in your face message on mental illness. How society mocks those with neurodivergent tendencies and in turn, fail them. And let's be clear: this is not just the more "palatable" of mental illnesses like mild anxiety or depression, I am talking about disorders that can seriously impact one's quality of life--especially as a result of extreme trauma. The true villain in this story is society--especially those top of the totem pole. Some critiques of the movie though: its overall message. The movie had no clear hero, however Arthur is the protagonist. I'm not sure if that sits well with me, since the Joker is infamous for his absolutely barbaric crimes, and that it has sparked a debate on whether it has inspired real acts of violence: a strong example would be the tragic shooting in Aurora, Colorado, where the gunman referred to himself as "The Joker". The fact that Arthur Fleck is a figurehead role in a revolutionary movement is quite unsettling and almost dangerous, in my opinion. The very idea of the movie did not sit right with me: giving such a chaotically evil character a backstory that makes us sympathize with him? Joker is still very much an insane and violent, yet there it still lingers in the air: what kind of bad person is he? Furthermore, the mysterious backstory of the Joker within the original comics made him even more fear-inducing for me, as he was the unexplained, malevolent force that felt almost inhuman. Overall, this movie is as sick and dark as a Joker movie would (and maybe should?) be. It also definitely shakes up the Batman mythos quite a bit, and definitely adds a layer of complexity between the two legendary rivals. While I overall thought Joaquin Pheonix delivered an incredible performance, it makes me wonder whether this incarnation will re-appear in "The Batman" starring Robert Pattison. This Joker is by all means very interesting, however his absolutely carnal portrayal makes me frightened to see him again. Which I guess, could be the point.

When first coming across "You", I opposed the idea of the show; I was afraid that it romanticized horrific crimes towards women: stalking, violence and even murder. Yet "You" knows exactly the nature of its beast--and not only gives us an entertaining thrill ride with Season 1, and ups and the ante for a remarkable Season 2, but also writes it character and plot in such an amazing and clever way. The writers do a fantastic job walking the tightrope for the show's protagonist AND antagonist Joe Goldberg. Through his inner monologue that reminisces of American Pyscho's Patrick Bateman, we get absolutely sucked into Joe's tunnel vision that has us almost rooting for him; but the show never lets us forget: Joe is a bad man. The show also does a wonderful job showing how hypocritical he is in his reasoning, especially by comparing and contrasting with the show's delectable cast of characters. Everyone is multi-faceted and well written, and none so much so as Joe. Furthermore, we see an open commentary on several societal and moral issues within "You", from domestic violence, abuse, society's vapidness and how we interact with social media today, as well as an interesting take on the dichotomy of good and evil. "You" is an onion of depth, and I could not begin on how much I enjoy peeling back each layer while sitting in my seat. While the names of characters can be awfully ridiculous (Beck, Peach, Love, Forty, Sunshine, and I can go on), and sometimes the dialogue can reach the peaks of mega-cringe, this show is an addicting thrill ride that is fully intentional in what it is doing. To the crew and cast, all I can say is: bravo!

While this movie is quite political as it posits the 2020 United States election as a large scale event from this year, and there is a lot of things that might turn noses from viewers with a left-leaning or right-leaning bias, if you take all of that away, it’s just not funny. Not a single joke in this “comedy” made me even give a slight chuckle. It was just a multi-million dollar project with top tier actors to deliver something not funny.