Change Your Image
serpent_coil
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
The Expanse: Fight or Flight (2018)
Turning progressively worse each episode
So the quality of the series has taken a real nosedive. Season one was binge-worthy and the overall plot was engaging enough to cover up any unflattering scrips and acting related aspects. Season two started a bit slower and revealed some cracks in the facade and only got worse the longer it progressed. The dialogue ranges from sappy attempts at emotional interactions to sarcastic zingers that just feel out of place and awkward. Seriously, does every damn bit of dialogue have to end with the characters roasting each other? Also, some of the main characters developments reveal some pretty shoddy acting. Stait could make Holden work as an unwilling, troubled leader but as a gruffy, jaw-clinching dictator he's miles from pulling it off. Aghdashloo plays an iron-lady with gravitas but is extremely wooden when displaying any emotion that isn't stone cold seriousness.
I suppose the show is still watchworthy as there are characters that make up for the obvious weak spots and the general plot still holds water. Still disappointed that the show went from great to meh so fast.
Dracula (2020)
Great, great and OK.
OK, so the third episode was obviously not quite up to par. And yes, the tone shifts perhaps too much between witty banter and dark grimness but still, I liked it. The ending is by no means bad but a modern setting takes away a lot of the atmosphere that was built up during the first two episodes.
I'd still recommend it.
Split (2016)
Could have been decent
So Split is the latest movie from M. Night Shyamalan. Not having seen any of his movies since The Village nor being that familiar with the actors I didn't really have any expectations about this movie.
Anyway, Split is a classic kidnapping-thriller. Three girls are kidnapped by an unknown assailant with multiple personalities and spends the movie trying to escape. Along the way they uncover disturbing truths about their kidnapper. In a parallel story the kidnappers psychiatrist suspects something and starts investigating on her own. Hardly groundbreaking stuff, then again there are plenty of fantastic movies with unoriginal structures.
I was quite drawn in by the first half of the movie. The gradual reveal of the plot works fairly well. Sure, the dialogue was fairly wooden and there was little to no background on the main characters. The flashbacks that was supposed to breathe some life into the main character didn't really add much to the story or give much nuance to the character so much as being a pretty cheap plot device to tie the cheap ending together. For all it's flaws the first two thirds of the movie worked for me. The gradual reveal of the main antagonists personalities and motivation along with some decent acting from James McAvoy makes for just enough suspense to keep the viewer hooked.
Like so many other movies the end is where it all falls apart. There is a special place in hell for writers who incorporate supernatural elements where there is absolutely no need for them. This movie would probably have worked much better as a semi-realistic thriller. The foreshadowing of supernatural elements are vigorously shoved in the viewers face during the whole film but I didn't really suspect they would be so over the top. Subtlety doesn't so much get thrown out the window as shot in the chest with a shotgun. Not to mention the protagonists escape that is heavy handedly tied to the forced flashbacks that plague the film and makes the end both over the top and anti-climactic at the same time. Honorable mention goes to the cheap tie in to Unbreakable in the movies dying seconds that seems lifted from a superhero movie rather than a sort of serious thriller.
A seriously bad ending destroys what could have been a decent film.
Bone Tomahawk (2015)
Boring and over the top
So, the premise is fairly classic. Indians abduct some people from an isolated western town, a group of men led by the sheriff goes after to get them back. The movie seemed interesting to me because of the combo horror/western and the cast containing some high ranking actors and a good IMDb score.
So why was this movie a gigantic let down? Well, first of all it's not a horror movie. Sure, there are some gory scenes but 95% of the movie is just the rescue party riding through the desert and chatting by the campfire. Doesn't have to be a problem, lots of great movies are dialogue heavy and still manage to keep interest and suspense going.
Unfortunately this movie has terrible, terrible dialogue. The writing is so stiff and woody it comes off as parodic. OK, maybe it's historically accurate, but the dialogue consists of endless conversations that in the end lead nowhere, doesn't advance the plot and doesn't really reveal anything about the characters. The acting is OK given what they had to woe with I guess... Quentin Tarantino has the talent to write long, seemingly directionless dialogue and still make it flow and be interesting. Lots of less talented filmmakers try to emulate this only to fail miserably. That's my best guess as to why this movie falls so flat. The over the top violent end of the film only highlights the heavy-handedness of the script as it varies from two extremes. Boring and over the top in the same movie.
Don't watch this.
Marcella (2016)
Decent entertainment spread way too thin
So Marcella is a criminal thriller partly written by Hans Rosenfeldt who was also involved in the Swedish/danish production "Bron" or "The bridge" with which Marcella has several things in common. Intentionally confusing and misleading plot, seriously unlikable protagonists and being stretched out over more episodes than warranted just to name a few.
I binged Marcella in two days and still had some problems keeping track of the plot. Sure, maybe I just wasn't paying enough attention or maybe Marcella is stuffed with unnecessary side-stories and red herrings. Plenty of the characters seem to be included just for the sake of having more suspects for the audience to be distracted by. A good example is the Brendek plot. Ultimately he has absolutely nothing to do with any of the murders but a decent amount of time is spend fleshing him out as a stereo-typically creepy and violent figure only to have him conveniently die to tie up the loose end.
Overall it was OK although the plot suffer from several massive holes, most characters are cardboard cut outs and never get fleshed out enough for me to care about or understand them. Too much effort is put into keeping the audience guessing and not enough effort is put into character background or development. If you are into crime/drama/thrillers there are way better options out there.
10 Cloverfield Lane (2016)
Better as a thriller than a sci fi
Just to clarify, I watched this movie without knowing it was a spiritual sequel to Cloverfield.
Anyway, the majority of the movie isn't at all sci-fi but rather a claustrophobic, psychological thriller. And a quite good one at that. The acting and characters are well fleshed out and are believable and likable. Despite the confined space the story engages and always seems bigger then the setting. The plot twists and turns but never in a way that seems contrived and as a viewer you're always guessing and never knowing what's real and what isn't
I found myself quite engaged in the plot and characters. Emmet is quite likable and given just enough back-story to be made human and worth caring about. The writing makes you really care about him and paints him out as a really nice guy which is why his death makes so much more of an impact. Howard morphs from psychopath to teddy bear right back to psychopath seamlessly and Michelle works just fine for most of the film. So approaching the end I was positively surprised and in my head starting to think it was a solid 8/10 or even a 9/10 film.
That was before the rather disappointing and over-done ending that kind of spoiled it for me. I guess they felt they had to include more references to the original Cloverfield but I really think the movie suffers from it. The transition from psychological thriller to action sic-fi is about as subtle as a kick in the nuts. So suddenly our protagonist Michelle turns into Rambo and blows up an alien ship with a molotov cocktail and then goes off to join the resistance.
A shame really because the first 95% of the movie is really solid and stands on its own without any references to Cloverfield. With a little more subtlety when wrapping the film up it could have been truly great.
The Walking Dead: JSS (2015)
Running on empty
Looking at the latest episode I realized how strong the force of habit is. It's been far too long since I actually thought this show was going somewhere but still I tag along hoping for something. Sure, some episodes, like this one, are quite good and engages you for a little while the main plot is idling along. The problem is that every exciting episodes are re-hash of previous plot turns and by now it's getting kind of stale.
Rick and co. find a haven that has to be defended against zombies and/or other living humans. Rick has mental breakdown, what is good or evil in a world where survival is the only law blah blah blah
the gang eventually has to abandon their safe space and once again prowl the world beyond. Sound familiar?
Like I said, it's not that the episodes themselves are always bad, it's that there is no sense of overarching plot development at all and every eventual hint that the plot is actually going somewhere turns out to be a dead end. So we go back to the same old dull road again. The minuscule character-development isn't enough to carry this show. Rick has painstakingly slowly been loosing his sense of humanity for at least five damn seasons now so that hardly counts.
Anyway, I'll probably keep watching like the idiot I am since I'm way too invested in the show to back out now. Maybe next season will be better
is what I have been thinking for too long. I never learn.
Hannibal (2013)
Pretentious art and engaging suspense
So, the series has come to what appears to be a definitive end. It's been an engagingly interesting and frustratingly bumpy ride that definitely took the scenic route.
Season one showed great promise but was overburdened by too many distractions. The plentiful serial killers trying desperately to outdo themselves in needlessly convoluted killings only subtracted from what was the real thrill of the show; Hannibal and Will. It was as if the writers didn't trust the audience to find the dialogue and central characters interesting enough and felt the need to entertain us with shiny objects to keep us from changing the channel.
Season two was an improvement in that sense. More focused the background wasn't quite as muddled and the main story was rightfully given more of the spotlight. Some strong supporting characters made for some great tension and despite some major logical flaws the build up and subsequent finale was as satisfying as one could hope for.
In season three we're finally rid of all distractions. Essentially a remake of "Hannibal" and "Red Dragon" in reverse chronological order the first half of the season is mostly set in Florence. Though many scenes and the main plot is lifted straight from the book/movie it still has enough original material that makes it fit quite seamlessly with the shows unique tone. One can hardly accuse the show of appealing to the lowest common denominator. The startup is a challenging, slow paced and surreal introduction to the final season. Though visually stunning as always I found myself growing tired of the forced and sometimes over- pretentious dialogue that seems every bit surreal as the visuals. I kept wishing for some natural, realistic dialogue to break off the somewhat pompous, stuffy tone that permeated each episode and almost every character. Though I guess that is also part of the charm.
The "Red Dragon" part is in that sense a breath of fresh air. Though still staying true to the aesthetic fingerprint of the show it is generally more fast paced and has a more obvious sense of direction and development. In most ways it's simply a re-make of "Red Dragon" and a lot of the scenes are pretty much copy-pasted from the 2002 film. It's however a very good remake, the visuals are astounding and the acting is top tier. Special praise goes to Raúl Esparza as Dr. Frederick Chilton and Richard Armitage as Francis Dolarhyde, the red dragon. They share an especially unforgettable scene i episode 12. A carbon copy of a scene from the movie but nonetheless spectacular. The finale is one of the more satisfying I've seen on TV. Though the buildup feels a bit rushed the end is simply poetic and beautiful.
The show is not without flaws and annoyances. Season one was needlessly contrived, the dialogue isn't quite as smart as it thinks it is and the whole third season, though well executed and not without original minor plots and embellishments, is still basically a remake. It's a shame that the series was already in its death throes when it finally found a tone and voice that was a perfect balance between pretentious art and engaging suspense. Hannibal had all the potential to become a modern classic but fell a few short yards from the finish line.
Now You See Me (2013)
All style, no substance. All smoke and mirrors. All surface, no feeling.
So what is there to say about this movie? What we get is a vague, overarching background plot, a contrived love-story that just kind of pops up for no apparent reason, a few predictable plot twists, a huge plot twist pulled out of thin air and some really overdone CGI magic. For a film boasting such a strong cast it falls surprisingly flat. I suppose someone has a lot of dirt on the main cast, or maybe they didn't read the script before signing on to this Titanic of a movie.
First of all, there is no of urgency or excitement what so ever. The four horsemen are certainly closer to being super villains than actual human illusionists. The FBI and Interpol are no more than comic sidekicks, never ever getting close to catching the bank robbers/magicians/demigods. I get the feeling the writers want me to root for Jesse, Woody and the rest of the illusionists but they just come off as being so ridiculously overpowering and vastly superior to the police it's like rooting for a UFC fighter beating up a puppy.
The would be heroes are at best people who the movie never tries to make the audience care about, at worst they are smug and utterly unlikable. There is no back story worth mentioning, all we get are some short intro sequences. The main characters meet and then the main plot just kind of fast-forwards off into action without any further explanation. The character development is so insignificant it cannot even be measured. There is no change and nothing is leaned. At the end of the film the characters are exactly the same as when we started. Yes, there are some references to a back story but that never effects the plot besides setting up a few one-liners and in a clumsily thrown together ending twist.
I read quite a few reviews saying this movie thinks it is much smarter than it really is and I think that sums it up quite nicely. This movie is like a pompous street magician with a self satisfied grin, quite certain he's got the audience in awe when in reality everyone in the crowd has seen that he's got a card up his sleeve and that his fly is undone.
I gave this movie 1/10, if only to balance the notoriously generous IMDb-crowd and lobbyists that for some reason beyond think this movie is worth 7.2/10. If I was drunk while watching and feeling particularly benevolent I might give it a weak 3/10.
Suicide Kings (1997)
Not great but not bad
I admit I only saw this movie because it starred Christopher Walken and I figured it would at least be worth the time. And sure enough... I liked it. Sure, there were more then a few strange holes in the plot. And sure, you won't be seeing any Oscar-worthy performances. But I enjoyed it nonetheless goddammit! Sometimes you just have to watch a movie without overanalysing it and just enjoy the ride. I guess one of the things you could get hung up on is the fact that the whole set-up for the movie depends on the fact whether a mob-boss chooses to get in a car with a gang of youngsters he's never seen before to join for dinner with one of their fathers. A bit hard to swallow I'll admit. But hey, if you accept that someone could acquire superpowers by getting bitten by a radioactive spider this is a small leap of faith. Anyway, there are more of these strange irregularities in the script but I'll take a few strange coincidences for the sake of a good movie. What I'm having a harder time dealing with is the strange tone. It's like the director couldn't make up his mind whether to make it a dark comedy or a thriller/gangster film. Now it just sort of stumbles in between. A shame really, because it is a great set up with a rather unusual hostage situation where the hostage gradually takes control of and turns the tables on his kidnappers. In the right hands this could have been a fantastic movie instead of just a good one.
6/10
Feast II: Sloppy Seconds (2008)
Not that bad
This is an entertaining movie filled with gore and a healthy dose of sick humor. The FX are good, the movie is professionally shot and the acting is, while over the top, OK for a movie like this in spite of the characters being stereotypical for horror movies. You have the old guy, the drunk (or in this case drug-addict), the bad-ass biker chick, the token black man, and the wrestling midgets... The only thing that really annoyed me was the ending that seemed too sudden. Seems like a "spent all of the money on fake blood and now we can't make a proper ending" kind of ending. They don't even kill off the whole cast... I haven't seen the first movie so I can't really say how this one measures up compared to it. This one makes for a nice entertaining sundaymovie if you are into this kind of thing.
The Dark Knight (2008)
Great, but not that great
It's hard not to get caught up in the hype surrounding this movie, and in all fairness it lives up to most of the high expectations I had. The acting is great, the action is great and Heath Ledgers take on the Joker certainly makes for one of the better villains in any "hero" movie I've seen. But there is a BIG difference between great movies and GREAT movies. Let's be honest here... this movie shouldn't be on any "greatest film of all time" top 10 list, nor does it belong there. It seems the voting on this one has been over-inflated and blown this movie up into something it's not. Sure it's yet another breath of fresh air into the batman story, and certainly a great follow up to Batman Begins (a slightly better movie in my book) but it certainly isn't the stellar masterpiece of a movie the hype claims it is.