Reviews

We could see it coming. We knew it was going to happen. Don't characters in movies and TV shows ever watch movies and TV shows?

The first few episodes of Season created realistic, although tropish, characters. By great crime show standards, they were not particularly complex, but reasonably well written and acted.

However, at the end of Episode 5, and all through episode 6, formerly intelligent and savvy characters make a series of bad decisions, leading to predictably bad outcomes. Then there was a Hollywood shoot-out, requisite death scene and typical criminal bro-love.

We will watch Season 2, and hope we are less successful at guessing exactly what will happen, before it happens.

Some of the reviewers here have likened this movie to Slasher or Italian Giallo horror films. The problem with the slasher genre is that the plot elements are always the same. There is a near immortal killer that has high level plot armor until the internal rules of the universe are broken, and then the slasher boss is defeated until the sequel.

Giallo, which usually had nonsensical plots at least had visual style to keep you interested when the characters started to do incomprehensible things.

So, Malignant encompasses all the structural problems of the slasher film (meaningless but gory death to NPCs, death on a vast scale that seems to have no societal consequence, no coherent plan by the protagonists who finally catch on) etc.

The movie is full of tropes, including locking yourself in the upper story bathroom that has no exits, the plucky sister exploring the scary gothic lab/hospital by herself with that great anti-ghoul device, the flashlight, and characters exploring the strange sounds, instead of doing the natural thing, which is leaving.

What do we know from these endless cookie cutter horror films? 1. Guns are useless in the hands of guards/street cops/security guards. These characters have a combined IQ of 18, including all the similar characters going back to the origin of talkies 1927ish.

2. Whether you have been possessed by Satan, a 300 witch or a parasitic unsplit fetus, you are "still in there" and someone can get you to rise to the surface and assert yourself over the thing that has possessed you.

3. You've killed 100 people, but it "wasn't you", so the camera pans out and the main character will likely be living in a cool apartment with an interesting job in the sequel, and there will be no consequences except a few yellowed newspaper articles.

Movies like this enforce my hypothesis that mean IQ has dropped 50 points in the last 20 years.

1883 started out well and then lost its way. 1923 amplifies all the glaring weaknesses of 1883, starting off poorly and deteriorating into a slush filled bore-fest.

About halfway through the second episode, during one of the Spencer story-line romantic scenes my wife turned to me and said "It's a freakin' bodice ripper!"

The music drones and then swells. The baddies are nihilistically cartoonish.

The story is unfocussed: Is it about a range war between cattlemen and sheepherders? Is it about the atrocities in forced assimilation schools? Is it about the endless roadblocks to the damaged but supernaturally competent Spencer's return to Montana, or is it all just narrative blah blah to link scenes of declarative romance?

By the last episode, I really didn't care.

Of course it is better than the absolutely dreadful Discovery. You can see this in both the overall and the individual episode ratings. Obviously, they listened to some feedback of the unwatchable Discovery abomination. I won't rehash other people's points, but I will point out a few positives and a few negatives.

Positives:

1. Since the overall story arc is mostly a discreet set of missions, there are no dead-end episodes that bog down progression towards an arc conclusion.

2. Overall, any failings in the Ethan Peck Spock character are the fault of the writers and directors, and my opinion is that he has created a believable younger Spock, but....(see below)

3. I haven't yet formed an emotional bond with these characters, like I did with the original TOS cast or the DS9 cast, but I don't despise them like many of the Discovery cast.

4. The set lighting is brighter and the mood is less dour than Picard and Discovery. Nobody has cried, yet.

Now., the cons:

1. Space is mostly silent. The constant soundtrack is intrusive. This is a criticism of more than just this show. If I am noticing the music, than it is failing in it's purpose.

2. The one characteristic that these characters lack is the attribute that elevated the best previous characters: Dignity!!!

The is too much bridge discussion, wisecracking, asides and emotional display for a military organization. Anybody who has exposure to the military finds this aspect unbelievable. Shatner famously studied submarine captains to understand the relationship between a crew and commander.

3. There are still to many Kurtzman interludes of emotional porn and declarative nonsense. The motivational speeches are pep talks instead of specific instructions to solve problems.

4. While she is not the savior and prodigy of the galaxy like Burnham, Uhuru is still a bit of a Mary Sue (perfectly good at everything). Fortunately, both the character and actress are likeable and self-deprecating. However, Nichele Nichols set such a high bar that missing her beauty, dignity, acting chops and presence is forgivable.

5. Every episode has some 2 or 3 minute where some character must declare something obvious, through dialog, that actors from previous episodes could express through expression of a single line. And, then, the music tells you what you are supposed to feel.

So, all in all, it's pretty good, but not great TV. Nobody here has become a cultural phenomenon like Kirk, Spock, Data or Picard, and it isn't, yet, a great ensemble cast like DS9. Still, I won't give up on it, like I had to after season 3 of Discovery.

This is another movie that asks an epistemological question, disguised as a horror flick.

The question is: If monsters occur in the natural world, why do we think of them as supernatural. In this case, the monster is a rationalist who understands her "monsterness" is just some sort of natural chromosomal mutation that has, to date, not been totally solved. But is partially understood by her. She is not part of some ancient curse or the incarnation of an ancient goddess. She is just a naturally occurring genetic mutation that has a symbiotic relationship the offspring of her mating partners.

So far, so good. But, then, the last 15 minutes turns into some sort of cliched rom-com. Will she give up immortality for love? It's the Polydeuces, Alcestis, Arwen plot line. Why must immortals give up immortality for love? Do anybody else lose their sympathy for Evan when he asks the most selfish question of "Please give up your immortality because you love me." Wouldn't true love expressed itself as a willingness to forgo love for the sake of her immortality?

And. The tone of the last 15 minutes, which becomes quippy and romantically starlit is too reminiscent of "naturally smart but narrowly educated American boy finds his heart in worldly, mysterious European girl with secret, ancient knowledge" fantasy.

Also, the same nerds who will enjoy the existential questions asked by the film are the nerds who will be bothered by the Volcano in southern Puglia or the idea the the mummified friars, which would be no earlier than the 16th Century are older than her 2,000 years.

Still, all in all, much better than your average indie horror flick.

This movie is about coming to grips with the inexplicable. It is an epistemological treatise wrapped in the shell of a drama about grief, loss and uncertainty, with a touch of the supernatural.

The performances are perfect. The main characters have small lives in a small town. They react to events in ways that are relatable and universal. There are no reused cliches from other movies and the film retains its internal logic throughout.

The theme of grief is secondary to something we can all relate to. When someone close to us passes, there are so many questions and conversations we wish we would have had and, as human beings, we have to come to terms with the possibility that there may be no possibility of receiving answers.

The supernatural nature of the film is just a metaphor for possibility. Whether or not you accept the possibility is up to you.

The film also is about how we package events to form patterns. We do this by formulating a hypothesis and then fitting the data to our hypothesis. The final segment stakes a claim on the validity of the characters hypotheses, but intelligent viewers are free to create their own endings.

At first, the show was interesting with the tension between the Haredi and secular Israeli communities. But, then it deteriorated to the unwatchable. I had to give up in the middle of the second season, as previously a fairly admirable character, discusses plans to hide her brother's crimes of theft, kidnapping and being an accomplice to murder, because he is mama's boy, even though he is a soldier in the army.

A single instance of people hiding a crime by one of their loved ones, over a 20 episode series might be interesting, but they whole show has several instances of normal people hiding the worst of violent crimes and make a series of bad decisions that any rational person would know would have terrible consequences.

Are these actual soldiers? Nope. They are millennials in uniform taking mental health breaks and needing safe rooms to cope with normal army life.

Apparently, my wife and I are in the minority. From reading review, fans of the show dislike all of the external storylines and are enamored with the obsessive relationship between Villanelle and Eve. We find this to be the most tedious part of the show.

Since this is the central theme of the show, obviously, we are not enthralled. There are some clever bits, and Jodie Comer has good comedic timing, but the storyline, itself, is too thin to last four seasons.

We are currently in the middle of season two and it doesn't bode well. From looking at IMDB, we are in the highly rated portion. The ratings dip in season 3 and season 4 ratings were disastrous.

My guess is that they extend the "will they, won't they?" aspect long past the point of anybody caring. Plot armor will save the main characters until it does or doesn't in the final episode. They will probably have some sort of Thelma and Louise moment as they metaphorically walk hand-in-hand off a cliff.

I won't care because these are only cartoon characters.

We thought the first season was fine television. Now, the only way we can get through it is to view it as a comedy. We calculate how many people will die as collateral damage to the very unsympathetic and uninteresting character that June has become.

We mock her jutting chin gyrations, her smirks and her Kareness. We count how many times she is captured and escapes, how many times she is saved by plot armor and how many times the camera stops for a slow motion reaction shot.

The moment of prime comedy gold was the previous episode where, to appropriately swelling music, she goes dashing across the bridge for a passionate kiss with the murderer who has caused the death of many of her allies.

Our suspension of disbelief has been stretched too far. We won't be watching next season.

One of the sins of low-imagination horror films is that the protagonists seldom learn their lesson. Because of this, they act in ways no real human would act.

The moment that I could not take any more of this formulaic jump-scare tripe was the scene in which they are calmly having dinner in the house where, the previous night, a nameless weeping evil spirit had just terrorized them.

There was already sufficient information to know that something supernatural and unfightable was going on. What would be the rational human reaction?

1. Go someplace else.

2. Be around other human beings who might be able to confirm the supernatural occurance.

3. Tell someone else, even if they don't believe you, so that when the supernatural thing that is attacking you wins, at least there is an evidence trail.

But, of course, in these stoooopid movies, people do irrational things to serve the script. The whole purpose is to have the helpless protagonist alone with the unameable so that the music can blat while the audience receives a brief tingle.

The problem, of course, is that jump scares are like a drug. After 40 years, or so, of constant use, we are virtually immune. Face in the mirror? Check Rocking door? Check. This is a by-the-numbers affair, with little real drama.

Why do they continue to make this same movie, over and over?

Those who conclude that Revisionist history is always wrong, miss the point.

What this episode says is the history always has an Epistemological problem. The historical narrative we accept may be right or it may be wrong, and interpretation of events always says more about current times, than historic times.

We can actually never know the true story of events, and believing in either the traditional story or the Revisionist story is 100% true, is logically absurd. Neither can be known for sure.

The script has many implausibilities, but the sense of awe and wonder of the now 700 year old doctor setting out alone on a 60,000 light year search gives you that some experience of the mystery and vastness of space that we had in TOS, in the 60s.

Now, it is likely that there would be contact with the Federation or its descendant in 700 years, so that is a script flaw, but, still, the hope of reconciliation and exploration that was our aspiration 55 years ago was heartwarming and humbling.

I gave this one star. It may actually warrant 3 out of 10, except for the sin of wasting the very talented Nina Hoss on drivel.

The four country occupation by zone in post war Germany, the issues of revenge vs. Reconciliation and the compromises each must make during times of stress have the potential for compelling and instructive drama. However, this script- by- the- numbers and trivialization of grand themes by reduction to absurd scenarios equates to 8 episodes of increasing head slapping disbelief.

As usual in shows like this, the "climax" is a one on one confrontation between the protagonist and antagonist. We predicted every resolution by the 2nd episode, and there was no variation from the predictable script.

The most ridiculous moments occur when Max attends an embassy party in his leather jacket and unshaved face. As someone who's father attended events like those, we know he would never have been allowed entry.

Similarly, Moritz' full beard and mustache would have given him away as not being a regular soldier, so he could not have passed for a driver.

The scene in which the police walk directly into machine gun fire was reminiscent of a Tarantino script.

Even New York tough guys of the period would have watched their language around ladies. The prevalence of vulgarities in mixed company, even among hardened cops, is a later phenomenon.

We won't be watching a 2nd season, if there is one.

When I was 10 to 12 years old, before I had read Epictetus or Marcus Aurelius, Leonard Nimoy and Mark Lenard's characterization of Vulcans immediately struck and internal chord. Like my father, they were men of reason, intelligence and dignity. You could disagree with them, but you always had to admire them.

As I grew older, I found that I was a natural Stoic. Vulcan aspirations coincided with my natural inclinations. This is one of the reasons that I found the the portrayal of Vulcans in Star Trek: Enterprise so distasteful.

The portrayal of Klingons as sort of battle loving vikings, but with a code of honor in TNG was fun, but it was at the expense of what resonating with me in TOS, reason and dignity.

So, now, Star Trek: Voyager is the last Star Trek series that I have watched. As it has the creative team for Deep Space 9, occasionally, it approaches high quality TV. Although the best of DS9 is unsurpassed for quality.

So, that brings me to this episode. It could have been mostly a single setting play. It is a bit predictable, the theme being the thin line between our animal nature and our civilized selves and the nature of capital justice in a civilized society. There is no new ground here.

But, oh, what a job by Tim Russ. He is the first Vulcan since TOS to give me the feeling that the future can contain reason and dignity. He is the first Vulcan to give me that zing of admiration, and watching him kindled the same recognition of self that I saw in the original portrayal of Spock. For that alone, this episode earns infinite stars.

Tim Russ captures what it is to be Vulcan like no actor since TOS.

This season fell off the rails in this episode. The inability of the cops to communicate with each other was just a variation of the bad horror movie trope of "there's no cell service, here."

With all the various means of communicating available, both private and departmental, I was unable to suspend my disbelief enough to accept this scenario.

In fact, any plot that relies mostly on people not communication with each other screams sloppy writing.

The next two episodes are no better.

I am a quarter of the way through the 4th and last season, so I have watched a sufficient amount of episodes to gauge the strengths and weaknesses of the show.

1. Lazy writing - The series is full of sneering villains who say obvious things about how they will destroy this or that planet, or kill this or that villain.

The shields, weapons and life support are always at some percent to indicate that the ship is about to be destroyed. We know it won't be, so there really is no drama.

There is always a known time limit for the bad thing to happen, but we all know that things happen when the writers want them to, so, again, no drama.

Deus Ex Machina solutions abound.

The Enterprise is always under powered and under gunned, yet always prevails because the foes always have a uniquely simple weakness to exploit which the crew of the Enterprise always knows.

One or two on the fly technical solutions are believable, but the crew always has instantaneous scientific, engineering and medical solutions that would take years of research by a team and testing to create.

2. There are few good actors. Only John Billingsley (Phlox) can carry a scene by himself. The rest range from adequate to terrible. I suspect Anthony Montgomery might be a better actor than indicated, but he isn't given sufficient chance to extend his character.

4. There are few non-regular characters that have a presence. TOS had a slew of fine actors that were villains, allies or foils to the crew. You had the dignity of Sarek, plus Khan, Mudd, or dozens of other fine stage actors. Next generation had Q, Deep Space Nine had had Garak and the three elderly Klingons, etc.

Unengaging actors and plots. It deserves to be the lowest rated Star Trek.

I am adding my agreement to the criticism of this episode in the hopes that the showrunners will take note. This episode was just turgid melodrama and my wife and I eye-rolled each other as this dour, talky and boring sub-plot dragged on.

Parent/child relationships, in the grand scheme of solar system politics, is uninteresting. For the last 4 episode of Season 5, the writers have reduced Naomi to whining, crying, pronouncing, regretting and whimpering.

Please return to the big themes.

The overarching themes are universal and compelling. What do you do when an occupying force compels behavior with threats to you and your loved ones? How do you maintain civilized humanity when you are dehumanized every day? Many episodes of these themes are well handled.

However, as the show progresses, it often bogs down into romances that we don't care about, actions that are incomprehensible, given previous behavior and the constant use of coincidence.

Characters from the past always show up at the exact moment to further a plot line. There is a lot of nick o' time savings and telegraphed plot occurrences.

At least the characters don't have plot armor. The good guys miss and the bad guys hit, so that trope isn't used.

But, characters make bad decisions that every watcher knows is a bad decision. And, it almost seems that the writers want to fulfill the stereotype that l'amour is more important than actually accomplishing anything, as almost every character makes a bad decision and compromises their beliefs in love stories for which there is no on-screen chemistry.

There is some fine acting and good writing in spots and when the show hits, it hits hard, but there is a lot of reliance on plot tropes and coincidence. The 1944 season is particularly guilty of long uninteresting melodramatic sequences.

We wasted an hour and a half on this. About 40 minutes before the ending, my wife and I determined exactly what would happen, down to the exact sequence of events. The movie unfolded exactly as we predicted, down to precise details.

A computer could have written this story.

I get some of the criticism. We are at episode 5, and it seems like a small story, instead of a big story. Some of the characters seem like composite tropes, instead of real beings, like the magic Romulan Ninja warrior.

I also see a lot of complaints that it is too "PC". I suggest that it isn't Star Trek that has changed, but the viewing public. Star Trek, even back to TOS, was inclusive and on the side of peace, trust and cultural relativity. It was 60s sexist, but, by next Generation, it promoted sexual equality.

Complaints about this are like people who have been Crosby, Still and Nash fans complaining about a liberal rant in concert. That's the way they always were. It is the audience that has changed, not the messenger.

It is also canon in the sense that Star Fleet migrated from a force for good in the universe to an organization of political intrigue. This is consistent with both TNG and Deep Space None (the best written Star Trek, in my opinion).

So, the good:

It warms me to watch such a courteous and courtly man as JL Picard. In our time, when ruthlessness is considered a virtue, Picard's humanity stands as a testament to the best in humanity.

It has space ships, technology and a complex enemy. There are both good and bad Romulans. There is an explanation for behavior.

The bad - Too much flare lighting, and wire-fu fighting. The Elnor character is a composite trope of every "magic ninja" of absolute honor and loyalty. He is a cartoon.

A lot of melodrama. In the best TOS, TNG and DS9, plots were derived from daily routine, not plot driven "special cases".

Too much plot armor. Too many victories of the few against the many.

So, my assessment. So far, I rank it fourth, behind DS9, TOS, and TNG. It is certainly far superior to the disastrous Star Trek Discovery. I hope the 2nd season improves. Please remember how poorly written was the first season of TNG, and pedestrian Denise Crosby and Will Wheaton were as actors, until they migrate to the Data story arc.

I do hope that the writing staff is absorbing the feedback. There is potential for a good show, here. I don't need to repeat all the criticism about unappealing characters who would never be selected for a quasi- military mission.

Dangerous missions are not populated by self- focused snarks. Age is not an excuse, as a platoon sized military unit is going to have about the same age profile as this group.

So, to this Episode, number 4.

There is no drama. We know it is Katee Sackoff's show, show we know that she will come out of her dream. So, what we have is an exploration over her guilt of her previous mission, using dream sequences that do not further the main story line.

Dream sequence stories are generally not relevant, because nothing in the dream has downstream consequences to the main story line.

Every leader who had made the life and death choice visits their previous choices, but. in history, hundreds of thousands of leaders, from Sergeants to Generals, have made these choices. They make their choices and accept the consequences. That is what makes them leaders.

In general, the audience has concluded that many of the characters in this show are not fit for the expedition. This seems to confirm that Nico, as well, isn't a true leader.

As the son of a military officer who often had to leave us for various missions, and being aware of the his responsibility and sense of duty at a young age, I can assure you that Nico's family's support system doesn't strike me as real, her guilt over decision is overwrought and the constant angst of the characters seems more to drive plat than to reflect the reality of a mission of this sort.

So, agreeing with most posters that a Dream Sequence show so early is a wast of an episode to try and make a compelling premise into a wathchable show.