Reviews

It starts with the titular civil war being almost over. It is a shame though. We don't get to witness the glory of a Nick Offerman presidency.

There is a screenwriting mantra that urges scripts to start late, finish early. Generally, it is a useful tip. It enables to start the plot at a more intersting moment of the story (and flesh it out subsequently).

This film misses this opportunity. As it opens on the Civil War closing, someone says: this is like the race to Berlin. A reference to a more cooler real life thing that happened. This isn't the race to Berlin, it's a road trip through "war-torn" Pennsylvania. Visually and thematically it is reminiscent of The Walking Dead. This film is only remotely interested in an american war. It is used as a device for a celebration of a certain type of photography. The snapshot is more important than the event.

We follow Kristen Dunst's Lee, a celebrated/famous war photographer/jounalist. I have to overuse slashes because the movie is purposefully vague and elusvie about it. Arguably the purpose is to give the story a bigger resonance. Instead it waters it down. The characters are not really characters, not even stereotypes, they are nebulae. They are the idea of the stereotypes they are supposed to embody. There are four main characters, or rather caricatures. The idea of an experienced war photographer, accompanied by the idea of a charismatic yet vapid reporter. They get to mentor the idea of the eager overly enthusiastic naïve junior photographer that wants to make a name for herself and. Finally travelling with them is the idea of the weathered older wiser fatherly no-nonsense print-media journalist.

It wouldn't be that bad if the characters actually interacted with each other and learned/reacted from one another. Instead they all travel toghether but remain each narrowly in their lane. The film never really explains why they would care about each other, therefore it is difficult to care for them as an audience.

The marketing and visual language promises a dystopian war movie infused with political commentary. It does not deliver on both accounts. Rather, it function more as an unpolished liberal fantasy. There happens to be a right-wing novel that describes the take over of America in a race war by white people. The only value of that piece of work it how it reveals the inner mental state of its authors.

This film being the left-wing, or at least liberal, version of that. It is also a fantasy that says more about its authors then about its own text. A fantasy so transparent that is doesn't really offer anything else. It has something to say, even if it isn't much. Yet it more interesting for what it doesn't say. And that is kindof an ironic accident rather than a deliberate choice.. If you hate a hypothetical president that hates the media, dismantles the FBI, and ignores term limits this is the movie is for you.

This movie hits you like a storm. It's disorienting. It's a lot of things at once and it never ceases to shove it's intensity in the audience's face. It is confusing at first, yet once you get into it, it is rather clever and a somewhat refreshing experience.

It achieves to be a bit of everything at the same time. It starts as a horror film, full of bodily mutilations and upsetting clinical imagery. It becomes a drama, a tale of judicial constraints, passionate love affairs and infidelity.. It pivots to full-on absurdist comedy; that is when you realise that was it from the beginning. In the final act it lands as a melancholic drama once again.

To neatly classify this film would be a disservice. It truly achieves being more than the sum of its parts, and that is what makes it palatable.

I did not initially appreciate the sexuality that it overwhelms you with. Yet it was more than mitigated by the absolutely superb acting. Everybody shines in this film, but Mark Ruffalo is certainly the one with the most impressive performance. In the course of the film, you hate him, you love him, you pity him, but you completely forget: "Hey, that's Mark Ruffalo!"

In other words: I am glad for this film, it was a genuine blast! It talks about feminism in a unique and whimsical way. It is like if Tim Burton had directed Bridget Jones's Diary. Half-way from Nymphomaniac to Damien Chazelle's Babylon with a dash of Frankenstein for good measure.

There is something about disasters that appeals to us. Something primal. Some of it might come from the fact that deep down we are fascinated with what would happen if we stepped out of modern life. Delete all comfort and technology. Delete civilization. Return to a state of man against the elements. Man v. Nature.

It is the thematic space in which the film tries to pull the viewer. Some of it works. As much as the mountains in the picture are beautiful, they're also terrifying. Every landscape is a reminder of the nothingness of man, of the delicate fragility of life. The inescapable dreadful power of cold and hunger.

However, the film doesn't really go beyond a very factual retelling of the events. It is meant to be visceral; you might engage with it to a varying degree. Yet it never achieves being cerebral. The drama is rather flat. The protagonists are never the agents of their own fate, except for the last act. We see them being subjected to the disaster, and the whole film shows how they endure hardship, but there is nothing going forward. They are not trying to actively find a solution, nor does it describe some unique group dynamic. They crash into the snow and that's basically it. Eventually more dreadful events happen to them, which leads to more hardship. But we don't really see them trying to solve issues, or ty to turn the situation around. The way it shows dealing with survival is very superficial. It's like they have not seen Castaway!

These young boys are a bit indistinguishable from one another, aside form their appearance. They debate on whether to start eating some of the corpses for survival. Some of them refuse on ethical or legal grounds. It felt hollow because there isn't really and alternative.

It looks like the film did not dare venture away from the source material. If it was stranded on top of the mountain, it would have remained next to the wreckage. It feels like they did not want to show anything but hard known facts. We can't know what they really felt or what they really said, so we'd rather not show it. It's prudent, yet it feels sterile. It feels like one of those reconstitutions they show in documentaries sometimes in-between expert interviews. It could have been a bit creative with the characters and give them differentiating personalites, motivations. Give us something to root for in a sense. Take the artistic license to go beyond the facts and visual mimicry. If you never venture across the mountains to seek help, you won't survive.

It's not necessarily a bad movie, apologies for the tilte. Yet, it is hardly memorable. There is nothing we have not seen beofre. It's just repackage and re-sold as the origin story of latest chapter in the ongoing American opioid epidemic.

It is also not very illuminating, the script is rather coy and timid. There is no impressive cataclyst for the events in the movie. We are shown that the fentanly epidemic happens because of the interplay between pharma salesmen and doctors got blurry. Because Pharma will do anything and sell to anyone to boost their bottom line and doctors will happily prescribe drugs if they get a kick-back. It just happens because of regular, boring greed. In a sense it's a perfect post-modern movie. Yet it still presents itself as fresh and important and that is where it comes short. In the old days this would be a TV movie you catch on a Sunday afternoon, nowadays it gets three A-list-ish actors and BAFTA nominations.

It also tells the tale of the rags-to-undeserved-riches. Much like Pain and Gain or War Dogs, a story of outsider underdogs that rise up to be top banana, also with a (slight) critique of the hollowness of the American Dream. Those films were also half-backed and traded heft for humour at the first opportunity. This film here is not even funny.

There is nothing original in the way it presents its characters and how it unfolds the drama. The filmmaking is serviceable, the performances are average. Unfortunately, there is nothing really to tie them together. There is nothing memorable except for Andy Garcia's floor obsession.

There is a good movie in here, somewhere. Unfortunately it is buried under three repetitive iterations of the same story.

The first part, which we will only undertand too late is only the first iteration, follows Matt Damon's Jean de Carrouges. Your typical white knight story so to speak. It is classic, it is conventional ; so much so, that it is frankly soporific. Plainly vanilla boring. Even the filmmaking in that first part seems uninterested in it. Serviceable to the extreme. It's establishing shot, exposition, dialogue, next scene. Repeat times fifty.

Then comes Adam Driver's Jacques le Gris part, or anyway the same story but from his point of view. And it's borderline more interesting, a bit more edge, bit more spice, a bit of nuance. You realize why you had to sit through that first part and why it was so awfully boring. It's a bit in praise of the anti-hero; no so much black and white but fifty shades of gray.

And then comes the third part. "The truth" as the movie announces. It would have been nicer if we had been trusted to make it out for ourselves, but alas!

Here, all the clocks are reset. The film might have started here. Everything has to be introduced again, and we are forced to re re-watch the same events a third time, in the same order but supposedly to notice the faint differences in tones, accents, intonations and overall intent. Oh and also feminism. Big surprise, we're shown that was not a widely embraced concept in the Middle Ages, who would've thunk it!

Anyway, if one is still awake they can finally enjoy the Last Duel's last duel. I mean it's a duel, there is no much point to it and I guess that is the movie's point. I guess hooray for being meta?

This film is more interesting for what it is not than for what it is. It is not boring, but it not clever or unique enough to surprise you and/or leave a lasting impect. The film presents a nice premise, but it very bland and vanilla. It is like Black Mirror and Ex machina had a baby but without the humour nor the intellectual depth. So, what is left? Not much.

The movie tells the story of people at a penitentiary/research facility called Spiderhead. Already a first contradiction that the film brushes away, how can a place be both a prison and laboratory? Unless it is some sort of concentration camp. Instead, it is neither. You almost wait for the moment that contradiction breaks, and you discover a dark upsetting secret (think of the reveal in M. Night Shyamalan's Glass) but it never comes.

Our protagonist Jeff is one of the subjects. In the course of the film we discover that although he appears to agree with the experiments, he isn't really there on his own volition. Chris Hemsworth's Abnesti is the one leading the research and generally running the facility. The movie goes on to explain that it is some sort of corporation testing drugs on people and more importantly they are gauging the subjects emotional reactions and the choices that they make. Abnesti is presented as a very cautious and meticulous scientific mind. Yet we immediately see that this approach is flawed; how can you measure the decision-making and choices preference in a setting where there is no free will. Anyway, that is the premise and the movie chugs along.

Instead, it puts all its eggs in the psychology, love and drama basket. Yet, here again the film commits too little to achieve anything meaningfull. Jeff has a nice backstory, but that is pretty much it. He doesn't have much of a personality outside of the testing environment. He is kind of principled and ethically concious, but no more or less than the other inmates. Hemsworth as a vilain is refreshing, although he comes a bit off. His acting range can't really take the film where it needs to be. It seems he can either play the brooding Thor-type or the smiling over-confident tech-bro, but not much in between. There's a bit too much Chris Hemsworth in this movie, with his slick clothes, Adonis looks and golden glasses. He plays him part tech-guru, part manipulating conman. But, it is too polished to be convincing. Too clean to be repulsive. It needed a bit of slime, a bit of pathos. We are shown that he himself uses the drugs that he tests, yet we are never explained why.

It doesn't deliver on the sci-fi apsect, because it can't. Appropriately, it focuses everything on the character drama and interpersonal relations, but it dares not explore half the ideas it set up. It feels not such much half baked but plain and forgetable.

I hate to crash the party so late, but yes it's the new voice, it does not work. It just does not gel. The voice itself is good, iit is a fine imiation, but it's just shy of working for the show. There is something off. And it compounds on the fact that Rick actions are slightly out of character.

It reminds me of a sub-plot in one of the later Entourage seasons; where Johnny Drama has finally caught his big break on an animated series but his voice-actor co-star, the legendary comedian Andrew Dice Clay is replaced with a random dude that only sounds like him. The joke is that even if the new guy has the voice, he is not Dice Clay the persona, the attitude. That is what is missing.

I am not here to defend Justin Roiland. But it seems we are indeed missing not just Rick's voice, but Rick the character (to contrast that the Morty voice is completely fine). As it stands, this is only imitation. The show begs for something more, on the voice side but also on the character side. It needs patina, a bit of depth, a bit of soul. It's like a pair of brand new jeans, they're cool, fresh and fancy, but they lack that feeling of comfort. Of familiarity.

I believe they should dare trying something different. Not just for the sake of the new voice, but to keep the show from becoming stale. The wacky plots, the weird and abrasive sci-fi concepts were cool and unique when the show came out, but it can only get you so far. It would need to reinvent itself, by re-inventing it's central character.

I've always dug sci-fi. It is an unappreciated genre. It is misunderstood genre.

Good sci-fi, competent sci-fi should be primarily focused on the inner workings of its world.

Here, what would be a world were AI is sentient. Show how people interact with it, how they live with it, how they're lives are different from ours. Here, already a tiny crack: AI, is only represented as bipedal robots. It never shows an AI ala ChatGPT, text-based. There is no Architect as in Matrix or giant orb as in Westworld. Furthermore, there is already a disconnect: human at wars with the AI are still using/relying on futuristic technology, unlike almost every tech in our current world it's apparently not AI powered. You're at war with a intelligence that can hack any computer system so you double down on making everything "smart"?

People see Star Wars and they see space lasers deathstars and x-wings. They think that is what makes the film, yet that is not the case. Star Wars is a film about freedom vs. Tyranny, democracy against barbarism. It can be Vietnam in space, or Nazi Germany, or the Soviet Union. But first and foremost it is what it is, the parralels and allegories are secondary, incidental even.

What makes sci-fi work ultimately is its meaning. That is different from allegorical power, or social commentary. Good sci-fi should stand on its own. It should be a framing for a story, to give it texture, but the motifs should be recognizable. Here, Humanity and AI are pitted against each other. An entity descibed alternatively as The West or America has forbidden AI. It derives that "The West" and New Asia are pitted against each other. So far so good, I think that concept is neat. But that is as far as it goes. The rest of the film is a the dumbest action film.

Contrast that with Starship Troopers which had a similar premise. Indeed, it delivered on the action but it was a unique twisted story and efficient world-building, and arguably that why is it considered a cult classic.

This movie makes wild metaphors. There are multiple references to Vietnam and the Irak War. But it's all told superficially. US special forces raid poor farmer villages and do a My Lai without batting an eye. In addition, the US has built a omniscient, invincible, unstoppable flying missile platform (drone stikes anyone?). Yet, I am not sure it understands any of this or just uses it to make action scenes awesome. There is not one thing in this film that makes sense or is cogent. It's just a bunch of things slapped at the wall to see what sticks. Answer: none of it does.

It is a film that is very reminiscent of Elysium and Looper. Two smart sci-fi premises visually well crafted, but butchered by bone-headed execution. In Elysium, the whole thing revolved around getting healthcare; and Looper repeatedly violated it's premise that murder is unfathomably illegal in the future.

First off: why are they talking in bad Italian accents?

This movie is a stark reminder that Ridley Scott, as acclaimed and as visionary director has he become, is just a man with the sensibilities of a music video director. He is not a storyteller. And here it shows. It's one thing to adapt some memoir or biography into a feature film; apparently it is another to make it interesting.

There is nothing in this film. The story is convoluted; it's unclear who does what and more importantly why. Motivations or character traits are never brought up; almost all of them are motivated by either money or fame. That is hardly compelling.

The movie could have woven a smart plot around it. Granted, they the protagonists are acting on base impulses; but they could've hatched brilliant plans and elaborate mind tricks to get there. Nope - their schemes are as straightforward as they come. Everybody's moves are transparent; there is barely any mystery or intrigue.

Is the movie a pretext to show the backstage of the fashion world, a view on the underbelly of the glamour of the high-fashion world? Defiles and canapés on the one side, cloak and dagger intrigue on the other? Think again, the most boring scene is when Tom Ford is introduced, and still the film treats it as if you're supposed to fall from your seat at that moment.

Maybe the acting will be the saving grace. Poor story, bad plot, a remarkable memorable performance stands out and moves you in other ways?

Of course not! Everybody is acting as if they're in a different movie. Pacino and Leto are either trying to outdo each other in some sick game of which Oscar winner can deliver the worst performance, or just phoning it in pure and simple. If it's a bet between them it's actually pretty hilarious and they're both winning. Adam Driver is stiff and wooden and dry. Lady Gaga on the other hand is the only one taking it seriously and giving a genuinely good performance, but it feels completely out of place. To top it all, they all have bad Italian accents.

It is a mess of a film and it's not even an interesting mess. It's just boring, it's has the same look and feel and depth as those re-enactment they do sometimes to illustrate documentaries. Except everyone in the cast is an Oscar winner and the director is Ridley Scott.

Even if you're in love with the clothes, I suspect there are better ways to spend two and a half hours.

It took me quite some time to decipher this movie. I felt like I was missing something, that there was more to it than first apparent. The acting, the dialogue, the sets, the costume: technically it is polished and purposeful; yet I was utterly unable to engage with it. And finally it hit me: that is because it is actually a commercial.

Moreover it is nothing else than a commercial. It doesn't deliver anything more than promote a product. Take the product away and there is nothing. Take away Barbie the brand, and the film is devoid of any substance. It's empty. Unlike the Lego movie for instance, similarly an unapologetic ad for children's toys, that managed to be a decent adventure film that celebrated the creativity that toys enable.

Barbie functions as a film but only on the most superficial ways.

It has a story, characters and lines of dialogue. And while some of the dialogue is clever and funny, and some of the characterization opens the door to some interesting character study, overall it is weighted down by the absolute obtuseness of the plot. The worst flaw is that it doesnt give anything of substance to do to Barbie, the protagonist. Almost every other character is moving the plot forward by either taking action or moving the story forward by emotional growth. Barbie herself is just a side character that goes from A to B and back to A. Physically, as well as emotionally. Ken has a far more interesting journey and arc. Gloria has a more important role in the story. Arguably even Sasha and Allen work better as characters with whom you relate and empathise.

The worst thing is that the movie is not even a commercial for the dolls. Rather it is a commercial for the idea of the doll. I don't know if we can get more post-modern than that. Barbie is not an actual doll in the movie, but she is literally the thing you think of when you describe someone as a "Barbie" Yet the film is very much so a commercial for Mattel's Barbie and the intellectual property it represents. I think it is crass and pedestrian. The movie is purely a corporate maneuver to pivot from one business to another, from manufacturing toys to manufacturing content.

That is why this film throws so much at the wall to see what sticks; that is why when Barbie leaves fake plastic Barbie-land, she escapes to fake plastic Los Angeles and nobody picks up on the irony. That's why they have garbage collector Barbies in a world where there is no garbage. That's why they have women Barbie doctors that aren't actual doctors and when later Ken meets a real doctor in the real world, you're waiting for a call-back that never happens.

This movie is the absolute opposite of art. To call it a film is an insult to everything we hold sacred.

I enjoyed watching the first half of this film, during the second I became incredibly bored. It was truly a chore to finish. Yes, the settings and costumes are amazing and the film looks spectacular, but the characters are awfully underdeveloped and the story is incredibly bland. Every time someone started talking I could fall asleep. Dialog scenes are very dull, and it turns out not even that important. There legit just there to set up the next duel. The first two duels are kinda cool, but there is so little happening in between the duel sequences that it makes you lose interest in the whole affair. You spend the movie literally waiting for the next duel to happen. And it isn't exactly riveting. It does not help that Harvey Keitel, the most charismatic actor, has very few lines. The story ends up being told form the point of view of Keith Carradine. He might be a good looking dude, but he is the most soporific protagonist.

It was only towards the end of the film, literally after the last duel, that the meaning of the film dawned on me. It turns out it was film about Napoleon, but told in an roundabout metaphoric kind of way. On paper I love that. Even though the film adopts a quite Anglo-British reading on the character, it's fine. The movie juxtaposes the duellists' confrontations with the ongoing Napoleonic campaigns. Each duel is set up at noteworthy places and you get to feel those wars from the inside so to speak. That is very cool.

The only issue is that the movie only works on that level, i.e. The metaphorical one; it only works if you see d'Hubert as an avatar of the Enlightment and Ferraud as Napoleonic ruthlessness. As such it completely neglects the immediate story of its actual characters. The film is permeated with delicate indirect meaning and subtle references (my favorite is in a quick shot in a crowed pub where we see Ferraud with the Legion of Honor pinned on his chest, exemplifying that he is the type of character that this type of regime would promote and celebrate). Yet, it is crucially devoid of direct meaning and outright significance. In other words, the plot makes no sense and these two guys have little reason to be duelling all the time.

It is very reminiscent of Barry Lyndon and you also get an effort of visual composition in this film. However, I would categorically rate Kubrick's film higher. Here it seems the vision is similar but the script is too weak to deliver a movie that stands on its own. I guess it is an entertaining film if you're a true Napoleon nerd. It is a slow film with a rather thin import, if you aren't an eager history buff then unfortunately there is not much to go on.

This movie works on the premise that anything said loudly is more cogent than something said quietly. As such this movie is a thrill ride that is surprisingly un-cinematic. It is very acutely visual but it purposefully ignores any kind of meaning or emotional connection. It delivers on the shock value of images to the point where it completely abuses it. And withholds most of the emotion. It's almost a parody of a bad movie. It does and shows everything a good movie shouldn't. Unfortunately it is played straight and therefore cannot be qualified as such. It ambitions to have a grand message.

It wants to be an homage to pre-golden age cinema and also a critique of something. A reverence to the wholesomeness of early cinema and simultaneously a shining light on the excesses. Yet, Babylon is itself oblivious to basic screenwriting and movie making technique. The argument becomes almost moot.

Basic screenwriting suggests that a film should have a beginning, a middle and an end. It should have a recognizable protagonist, the more relatable the protagonist the better. You can have multiple protagonists/heroes, but it's more tricky and you're essentially diluting the emotional core. Traditional technique would be to divide the story in separate acts, basically doing one thing at a time, so the audience can understand what happens at any given moment. You need to know what a character is doing and why, and also sort-of anticipate what will follow. You can adjust the pace to what is happening in the acts to give thing more meaning or emphasis.

For instance, you wouldn't include an interminable manic sequence, without any connection with the rest of the story, where a snake runs loose and bites a whole party in the middle of the desert. With pacing, it is also important to have loud moments followed by quiet moments. When you keep the intensity of the film to a high throughout it is exhausting. You need quiet beats as much as loud ones not only for that reason but also to absorb the louder moment and emotional rushes. If you represented emotional intensity graphically it should be sinusoidal waved curves not a straight line.

More than anything, this film is the story of Damien Chazelle, the fall from grace of a Hollywood wunderkind. It's a tale as old as time really, he broke out with Whiplash, a sports movie disguised as a film about jazz. Then came LaLa Land, which is kind of a simple movie, the plot is subpar and it's rather manipulative emotionally, but it charms you and it works because it's a musical. He is a smart man, with a sense of rhythm and pacing, with a reverence to jazz. He's got a style, a pattern, a signature. Thoses were commercial and critical successes. Hollywood says: We trust you: make whatever you want. You'll have all the resources, access to any and every actors/talent. Go nuts. Looks like Mr. Chazelle took that quite literally.

The discourse over this show had always one big component: who will succeed to Logan. And that was always one of the most fun part of watching the show, thinking (and talking about) who will win? Are you team Kendall? Do you favour Roman? Or are you one those eccentric contrarians that argue cousin Greg will sit on the Iron Throne? Ahem, sorry wrong show, same idea.

There is something disappointing in discovering that none of it mattered. That the real succession is not about who will sit in Logan's chair but how Logan actually never prepared anything nor anyone to follow in his footsteps. Yet, it is also sobering. From the beginning, the show was an underhanded critique of a certain one percent of the one percent. It was always on the nose about it: none of these people are competent nor deserving to be in the place they are. It was not the main thing about the show, nor the only thing. It was buried alongside a number of things and themes you could analyse and passionately talk about. Yet, here it is still strangely framed as a defeat for the siblings and a victory for Tom. Which is a bit dissonant; the sibling are now even richer than ever and free of burdensome legacy, and Tom, the glorified empty suit wins over the other claimants but not in absolute. He will merely be another rich man's puppet.

I think it is a good finale, because it is driven by emotion. It does leave (many) things unanswered, but it closes the main emotional arcs. That is enough. To a certain extent that has always been the case for this show. The plot never really mattered, the story did not matter. One could argue that for most episodes the really interesting thing were the silences between lines of dialogue. This episode succeeds because it closes those emotional loops. And indeed it feels a bit circular, but on the other hand what did you expect? These are all emotionally stunted people. There is no growth, that is the whole point.

The same thing could be said of the show itself, the most important part are the silences. The things it doesn't show or doesn't say. It was a show about business that never showed us business. It repeatedly weaves a motif of Kendall and water and death. But it never shows it. At the end we never see Ken jumping in the Hudson. The genius of this show is that we don't need to.

It is the end of a show that was a reflection of our era. Every show is. Waystar-Royco has new owner, a new boss that is not a Roy. HBO Max just renamed itself Max. Obviously, they'll make new shows. Big wheels will keep on turning, Proud Mary'll keep on burning. It's time that we collectively do like the Roys and move on with our lives.

This episode feels anti-climactic. Mundane even. The one thing of note was Roman's meltdown. Something that was expected since he claimed he'd pre-greieved. But that is only a single moment out of the whole episode.

Obviously, you can write your TV show however you like. Yet, here Succession goes against an established unspoken rule of our current era of prestige TV; the finale is not the finale. The penultimate episode is usually the real finale. This is were things happen and are definitive, characters come to heads with each other, plot thread culminates and conflicts are resolved. It's were poop goes down. Here no such thing happens, the plot feels timid, stale. It presents events that are almost slice of life, if they weren't for the fact that you bury your father only once. Usually then the actual final episode is left for a wrap-up, a smooth-landing recap. An after action report. A coda of sorts that helps you make sense of what you've just witnessed and eventually setting up franchises spin-off or subsequent seasons.

This episode squarely confronts us with pretty much of the same it has shown until now. I'm having a hard time finding anything novel. We've seen all this. We've seen all this before on Succession. We've already seen uncle Ewan being openly critical of his brother, the only one who's not beholden to him and frank enough to speak truth to power. We've already seen Kendall rising up to the challenge and being a very confident and cogent speaker unprompted; we've seen him being a capable natural heir. We've also already seen Kendall corralling effortlessly Logan's various subordinates and people he would need as allies. We've already seen Shiv's awkward attempt at being suave and playing puppetmaster with the finesse of a sledgehammer. Yet I fail to see how it does not contradict with her whole arc from last episode. In true Succession fashion, she always has the most arcane out-the-blue powerplays. But she has never been on the winning side of any argument vis-à-vis the family. The only one she was able to ever boss around was Tom. And even that backfired.

Roman implodes at the sight of his father's remains. In the world of Succession, emotions are a weakness, and that means he will not take on the mantle. That is probably for the best, he was written from the start as the spoiled rich brat and his recent transformation into a cunning nihilistic cynic - with a repressed sensitive side - felt unnatural and forced.

Overall, what has been the meaning so far? A caricature of the Murdochs? No, that is an aesthetic coincidence. A satire of the one percent? Also no, it is unintersted in the mechanics of wealth and power. As such, the only thing it can pretend to be is a family drama where the silences are more powerful than the dialogue. A glorified sitcom with a better budget. Maybe the real Succession was the friends we made along the way?

For all it's attention to detail, Succession has never really fleshed out it's own universe. It only ever offered a mirror of our own. A certain amount of distortion was always granted. The Roys are the Murdochs, but not quite. ATN is Fox News, but not quite. As such the show doesn't really show us reality as it is shows a version of it. Not quite the truth but the perception of the truth . It's not Fox News, but it is the image we have of Fox News. And that is where the show loses some of its potency. There is the text, context and there is the subtext and metatext. However, here I found the context lacking; you can only go so far purely with text. Until now, Succession would always push reality to the background, so it could focus drama on family. Yes, they were the Murdochs, a wealthy family controlling a right-wing media empire, but that was just window dressing for depicting Logan as a tyrant, Kendall as insecure and so on...

It's election night in the world of Succession, and the race is between a left-wing Latino democrat and a republican populist everybody says is a fascist. ATN, is using its might as the premier news channel to influence the perception of the US election to change its outcome. The motivations for it are very clear and straightforward, in short every character does so because they think it will strengthen their own personal private position in the family chess-game. That is all fine for a fictional drama. The problem is that it leans on what happened in reality. Yet it also mischaracterises it. Suddenly the family drama at the core does not feel pregnant. Reality was more absurd and chaotic and more consequential that what Succession offers. It felt more significant.

We are presented with a very clean, very elegant trade-off: the Roys end up supporting the in-universe alt-right candidate because it helps them renege on a business deal. But that feels off with respect to reality. The show presents it driven by opportunity, in reality it seems it might have been driven by fear. I doubt there was a debate of opposing views at Fox's HQ before deciding to support either candidate. I would say that's not how anything works or has worked. Succession presents it like a debate of ideas, or even as a clash of opposing interests. And there is something verisimilar in the billionaires giving in to fascism thinking they will be able to control it or be insulated from the consequences (and slowly discovering they won't). But again, that is not quite in line with what happened in 2020, where more than anything it was the tail wagging the dog.

The problem is that the in-universe has never been fleshed out, yet the show attempts to build on that to deliver some dramatic arc. When you realise the framing is fake, it makes the drama seem artificial too.

This could be one of the most interesting episodes yet, because it almost entirely takes place during a party. And because it is a party it gives us an excuse to have all the characters in the same spot at the same time. What is the worst that could happen?

What is immediately great is the unfolding of many plot threads that have been building since the beginning of the season. The whole Gojo acquisition is the main story arc that gets a twist. The deal and how it was presented was something that always felt fake and artificial, at least to me. However the show could always hide behind the excuse of its biting social commentary; see Musk or Zuckerberg, they're far from being business geniuses. They're basically winging it, yet they have enough goodwill and money that their failures are forgotten while their successes are amplified. Matsson is clearly of the same type, and until now the show was presenting him as the eccentric business genius that is always right, everybody wanted to agree with him. Yet I suspect the show will make him look even closer to Elisabeth Holmes and Sam Bankman-Fried. But in-universe you can see that characters are turning against him. Of course mainly for their own selfish reasons, but it replaces the Roy's not as victims waiting to be bought out, but as predators on the hunt. It is a change of dynamic and it will be interesting to see how it plays out, given Logan's absence.

All the other interpersonal relationships get redefined this episode; Roman vis-à-vis Gerri, Connor and the brothers, Shiv and Matsson and of course Shiv and Tom.

Tom Wambsgans has always been a favorite of mine. He might not be the most relatable, but he kinda worked as the moral orthogonal center of the show. He would essentially function as the straight man, the one who would be the audience surrogate. To react to the family's extravagant antics. Yet, the show never misses an opportunity to remind us that he is generally a goofball. He is not good at his job, nor charismatic, he is not particularly smart or cunning. He is just there. In addition, he seems to be more vain and status obsessed than the rest of them. Which makes him truly a pathetic character.

It was tension that was building up a while that got released in the conversation between them. Shiv's problem is that she could not manipulate herself out of her predicament; Tom's problem is that the thing that got him in power was betraying Shiv, it was the only thing he done competently and it went nowhere.

What is funny is that they both were the artisans of their own demise yet they started blaming each other.

It an episode that re-dealt everyone's hand. Yet, it could leas some of our beloved characters into some interesting unexpected journeys. Even this late in the series.

It's powerful how this episode shows the different forms grief can take. However, it does it through a "normal day in the life", via the not-so-relatable routine of running a major corporation, which also happens to be a family business. It is unironically refreshing to have an episode focused on business work. It gives us a plot that is a bit more grounded. The previous episodes, and the whole arc they followed, were more focused on the drama and on inter-personal relationship dynamics. They helped us understand each characters inner struggle. But they were always in flux, always a pathway and not quite a destination.

Here, the plot has a more conventional structure, with a beginning, middle and end. The brothers had tried to kill the merger deal from the outside by trying to alienate Matsson. This time they are trying to do it from the inside, by either souring the board or unlocking "unlimited growth".

What is of note is that the siblings are at very different mental states. Kendall is the most emotionally open; it doesn't make him necessarily the most vulnerable. You could actually argue that acknowledging the grief and harnessing it into a productive endeavour is somewhat positive. Yet, as we've seen with Kendall again and again there is a superficiality to it. It is all kinda fake, it's all just buzzwords. And you can feel that it's fragile, that the façade could crumble anytime. And he knows it. We have seen that happen before were he started confident and bombastic but it lead him ultimately to a hard crash. I believe it happened every season so far. Nevertheless, as for now Ken is in charge and de facto the best Roy to take over. We'll see if the bubble bursts, or if Ken can find a way not to drift away in the ocean.

Roman, on the other hand, is almost the polar opposite; he agressively refuses to face his own feelings. We've seen already how it lead to an unhealthy outburst that resulted in a situation that is the opposite of what he wanted. This time, his whole behaviour is a continous outburst of repressed denial. And you can see the anger and sadness in the way he wants to fire anyone who stands up to him. Yet there is also something changing in Roman, Ken is taking his feelings head on but it's just the same old Ken. Roman's grief is making him into someone else, and for now it seems it can go either way, for better or for worse.

Shiv is somewhere in between the two in the large spectrum of grief. Not quite delayed sadness, not quite repressed anger, but a bit of both at the same time. It is revealing: for her pain and pleasure are very alike and she revels in receiving it as much a giving it. Maybe even more so.

This episode allows us to see how these emotions manifest themselves.

What is this show about? That is in essence the question that arises after last week's episode. It is a valid question because until now the show has been quite a few things: a scathing satire of the right wing entertainment complex, an unflattering portrait of Rupert Murdoch, a farcical take on the inner workings of an ultra-rich family, a Shakespearian drama on a family feud, a character study on a narcissistic father and his silver-spoon scions. It has been all those things at once and it has also been not anything specifically. Which also partially explains the show phenomenal success: everyone can see what it wants to see in it. The audience interprets it how it wants. You could even argue that it is a caricature of what the left thinks of the right. Ironically it was never quite outright about the actual succession to Logan Roy that the title suggests. We've been seeing how he is going on to designate an heir, to the family, his fortune, his empire and/or all at the same time; but it was a proposition that was always in flux.

With this episode, It finally feels like the show is attempting an answer, what is this show: what have we been watching?

This episode gives the feeling that the whole show has actually been about Kendall. Given that it had a rather open-ended storytelling so far it's rather natural that it does not provide a definitive answer, it could still go in any direction. Yet there are a number of elements that lead to the show in general being Kendall's succession arc. He started as the presumptive heir and it took him that much time and efforts to rise-up to that actual position. To self-actualise in some way. A fall-rise(-fall?) arc of sorts and we are finally seeing him becoming the killer his father wanted him to be in the very first episode of season one. It also makes sense in the way the show has always showed us a more intimate side of Kendall which it has not done for any of the other children. We've seen his inner thought more than any other character's.

This episode also strengthens the argument against the social commentary, the political satire and the business aspect of the story. They're present but in reality none of them hardly matter. The real core of the show is that dialogue the three children have around the coffee table, that is what we are watching. The rest, the side meeting of the executives in the kitchen or the library, the snarky comments from Greg, Connors antics, those are all side-shows. They're fluff and flavour. The real engines are those characters of Kendall, Shiv and Roman. Logan is the most important person in that world. But even though his overbearing presence is felt even when he is not in the room with them it turns out the story isn't about Logan, . It might well evolve into something else, but as now it is about the realtionship between Kendall and Logan.

If there is something redeeming in Nikita it would be Luc Besson's style. This movie has a very particular look and feel. It is close to the typical 80s American blockbuster action films like Die Hard and Lethal Weapon, yet it has some particular flair to it. It is a bit different. It takes the same ingredients, such as the lighting and the framing, as well as a certain sense of pace, but it does not use them in quite the same way. It is more elevated than it would be in a regular drama or a straight forward action flick. It is cleaner and more interesting to look at; but it is not quite extreme and dramatic as it would be in a more classic action film, it is not as sharp and purposeful as in those films. It not quite that exaggerated and pitched, while also being obviously over-the-top in its own way. There is a certain John McTiernan-ness and yet it's distinct. And those are elements of style that come in every Besson films, from le Grand Bleu to the Fifth element. It is a style, it is a mark, it is a signature. Sometimes it works, sometimes like in Joan of Arc, it doesn't really. Here it does.

Unfortunately, the rest of the film does not follow. A lot of these elements are cool, e.g. The story is of a young drug-addicted punk who is recruited as a covert super-spy, but they are never treated or fleshed out fully. Cool ideas, very bad execution. You can feel that some plot elements come from a neat concept, but they are all executed in the most brain-dead juvenile nonsensical way. Nikita, the protagonist and central character is supposedly this fish out of water low-life turned killer, but she is so unlikable, she is a straight up sociopath. You can't reasonably empathize with her struggles and therefore identify yourself with her. The first half of the movie plays out like a disturbing horror film, yet the framing and the music are executed like an action film.

Even so, the government hires her and trains her, but the training takes several years in completely secret state of the art facility. I kept wondering why are they're doing any of this? What is the upside of turning an unstable junkie, into a goon that needs another battalion of constant support and logistics? The story plays out like a sort of proto-Jason Bourne film. And that is cool concept, however it is dragged down by every decision being nonsensical and cartoonish.

And that is the crux of this movie, the look and feel is what makes it unique, but it also makes it feel like a poor live-action adaptation of a satirical cartoon. With the unnecessary violence, characters being over the top caricatures and grotesque plot points. It's rather Gen-X in its themes and social commentary, but the absence of empathy makes it a boring endavour.

Why am I watching Thor Love and Thunder. I'm not watching it because I like Thor, god no! I mean he is a fine character I guess. I don't even remember if I liked the previous movie. I think I did. It was the one with Hulk and Jeff Goldblum, or no wasn't there something in between? Did I ever see the Dark World, or was it called the Dark Elf, I won't look it up, that is how much I care. It's possible I saw that movie. Anyway that is all a blurr. Thor is fine, Chris Hemsworth is ok. Don't love him, don't hate him. Again, can't remember if I've seen him in something else? I do remember the all-female Ghostbusters remake but not much else. He is kinda been only Thor. So yeah, I don't know why I'm watching this film.

Does anyone care about the MCU anymore? I mean seriously, is it still sold as the mix of multiple different genres and storyline into one big showdown? That sound awfully like a 2010s thing. For the first Avengers movie it was fun I guess, but by the time they are fighting Thanos the amount of footage you have to consume just get up to speed is too much. Feel like you have to do homework to understand who is who and doing what. And the first thing you feel when you watch any of the latest Marvel films is that you're again watching something set up the back story for another upcoming movie which will set up the stage for another movie and so on. The MCU has become the film equivalent of a requiring reading list at the start of the semester, only it never ends. Like a perpetual wheel of sub-par movies.

There, the movie is sub-par. There is nothing else to add. The story is generic, the plot is predictable, and the dialogue is atrocious. The film gives the villain a very valid motivation. He is the gods slayer The "gods" in this film are horrible. And they're not gods mind you, they're not deities, they're just another type of overpowered super-being. In this "universe" a god is not a being that creates life or punishes evil, they're merely beings that seek very basic pleasures. I'm going to stop here; this is already giving it more thought than anybody that worked on this film. That is why this movie is so bad, because it is not interested in what it means (unlike Guardians of the Galaxy vol.2 for instance, although it wasn't Nietsche either). It isn't interested in what anything means, it is only interested in rehashing things over and over. Just to keep the wheel spinning while we're waiting for the next one.

I expected way worse from Bullet Train. It feels like we've been overwhelmed lately by these by-the-numbers action films lead by recognizable movie stars. There is an ocean of them and I can barely tell them apart much less remember half of them. Films like the Grey Man, Red Notice, Kate (2021), Six Underground, The Old Guard. It looks like they exist in a plane somewhere between the slickness of John Wick action and the humour and sensibility of Family Guy. I would be too much credit to say they're formulaic but they tend to have the thinnest plot with the most boring characters.

The key element that separates Bullet train from these other movies is a certain amount of flair in the execution.

The movie tells the story of Brad Pitt, who is basically playing a version of The Dude from the Big Lebowski. Half unscrupulous killer, half hippy slacker. He is tasked to get on the Bullet Train to recover a briefcase full of cash. Unbeknownst to him, it seems that everybody in the Japanese underworld is also apparently on the train, for a bunch of different reason. As such it is a merry gallery of characters, should I say stereotypes, going at each other. It is not exactly high art but the tone is irreverent enough and it does not take itself too seriously, yet at the same time the action is treated with respect. The film achieves a tonal equilibria that keeps you engaged, and at this point that is frankly as good as it gets. Same thing can be said of the plot, it is nothing groundbreaking, but is sufficiently convoluted that it will make you guessing on how it is going to unfold.

The thing I liked the most about the film was the comic relief duo of Lemon and Tangerine. Brothers and partners in crime, their dynamic veers between police detectives in a buddy movie and old married couple. However the actors charisma makes them endearing and somewhat relatable. I almost wish the movie would have focused on them as protagonist. Unfortunately the story does not give them much to do, and they have no agency. And also, while I adore those actors, iit is clear this movie was built around Pitt and he is the draw.

You're left wondering if there is anything it could have done better? I would have enjoyed a bit more if it had given the script more gravitas, more heft and have the protagonist a bit more grounded. The humour and the setup are a bit too quippy and giddy. The humour comes primarily from the randomness of the situations.

As such Bullet train is a good film, but despite the heightened japanese-inspired neon stylistic look, the faux-ironic use of music and the levity of the script it does leave you with an overall sense of blandness.

I can't take this anymore. I think that since the success of the movie Parasite, the movie industry has gone all-in in these types of Eat the Rich dark comedies. Between this film, Glass Onion, Triangle of Sadness, but also TV shows like White Lotus, Succession it seems that everyone wants to do social commentary. Not just any social commentary, but on wealth inequality. Wealth inequality seems to be the source of many of our current issues so all these movies operate on the premise that wealth is by definition unjust.

I could be sympathetic to that sentiment if only these movies were actually clever and smart about it. In general it seems that they all verge into a basic reflexive "à la mode" criticism of wealth inequality rather than a serious and rational argument.

Typically the deconstruction of wealth is cartoonish, in other words its distorted and exaggerated. It makes it hard to take the movie at face value.

In The Menu, wealth inequalities are represented by the patrons of upscale dining. The movie's central idea is simple; people that go to these places deserve to die. I could appreciate the twisted humour of the message if only it wasn't delivered in the most obtuse convoluted way. The arm of justice in this film is the celebrity chef. Why? The film seems earnest in presenting the superstar chefs that manages exclusive restaurants sold out years in advance as the champion of the working class. It could have worked ironically but here; as in any of those others films, the message is straightforward, there is no nuance or subtle subversion. It is not a movie on how killing the rich is not a good solution, it a movie where killing the rich is THE solution.

There is one scene, where one of the sous-chef declares in tears that he aspires to have Slowak's life but is unable to achieve. Which is the reason he blows his brains out. I am still baffled by this scene. I guess it is supposed to be a tonal shift and the gruesome realization that this is actually a horror movie and that the characters will die. I found it more confusing than anything, and it did not clarify anything, it spurred more question: why is the crew going along with this? Can they leave? Why don't they quit?

As I am writing this, there were news that the inspiration for Hawthorne, Noma, one the most exclusive and famous restaurants in world will close and do something different. In the same article it has been reported that for years they did not pay some of their staff, still while being one the most expensive dining places on the planet. To me, that fact is more interesting and revolting than anything that is addressed in this film. This film never wanted to be an actual social satire, it only ever pretends to be one.

I have had a couple of moments while watching Andor, where I was reminded that it actually does take place in the Star Wars universe. And it was almost always a surprise, and a welcomed one. I think it speaks to the quality of this series, that you're able to completely forget that it is actually a spin-off to a prequel film made to counter a lazy nitpick. Andor has escaped that lineage and is definitely it's own thing. And, that is arguably what is refreshing about it, given how saturated the franchise has become.

To a certain extent, it made me hate The Mandalorian. I had enjoyed it when it came out, but it felt slightly underwhelming. The narrative was weak, it seemed more like a series of random adventures without a solid enough backbone to keep everything together. Yet, I loved the few Bill Burr episodes where, and it was rare enough, you got a glimpse of regular people's lives in the Star Wars universe. With the hindsight of Andor, I realize that I was enjoying the timid attempt at characterization and world building.

It is funny that the original 1977 Star Wars has never been about fascists or Nazis in any way. It has never been about politics. It has references to Nazis, i.e the colour palette of the uniforms, the stormtroopers and it's universe has internal politics i.e they mention the senate and how " fear will keep the systems in check". But it never outright describes anything in terms of right or left. That is also why any political wing can identify itself with the goods guys and describe their opponents as the evil empire.

The OG Star Wars was always about freedom versus authoritarianism. Fortunately or not, it was never Apocalypse Now in space with the rebels being the Viet Cong. But that has become tangentially the postmodernist take on it. The Empire is right-wing.

Andor leans in on that. But, it does it well; it does it cleverly. Not bluntly like the First Order, where everybody is evil because they shout all the time. Andor, in the great tradition of sci-fi dystopias, builds a world in which technology, institutions affect people, guide behaviours, but they still have to make choices. It focuses on the people and how they navigate such a world. It does deconstruct the fascist state and the police state, but that is almost beside the point. It shows how people function it in, how they work in it, how they adapt to it. That is what is so enthralling. I would have been happy watching 10 hours of Mon Mothma having social gatherings in her golden apartment. But I was equally compelled with the Imperial garrison commander career ambitions. Focusing on ordinary lives, that is the key.

Andor does the opposite of what most of Star Wars had done until now. It doesn't have Jedis, lightsabers or any of that overused stuff. It is all original, and it is great.

There is a terrific article in the Guardian by Douglas Rushkoff in which he relates his experience of being invited as a futurologist by a small group of millionaires and billionaire to advise them on how to best prepare to what they refer to "the event". I.e the complete collapse of modern society following a catastrophe of some sort. It is funny and informative as it reveals the warped mindset of the uber-rich but also the disappointed at proposed solutions that are somewhat primitive and common sense, like be kind and friendly with your security detail ahead of time. There is also humour and shadenfreude in the realization from these affluent moguls that that reflection invalidates their perspectives on reality. Being that technology and innovation can solve anything, and obviously could mitigate a society ending disaster. In a world-view where they themselves would be able to survive not because they are merely rich, but because they would be inherently smarter and better equipped, and harnessers of superior technology

This movie in a nutshell does the same thing. The big difference is that the theme isn't tech and innovation but fashion and looks. It is a funny movie, even though it is not fun, there are no jokes in it, but there are a lot of humorous moments. In the same way as with Parasite, it is meant to be an over the top satire. Yet, this film is more enjoyable than Parasite. The film plays constantly on the awkwardness of social cues and how money and status play around them. When you're rich you can interrupt and correct the captain of a ship or demand that the staff engages in mandatory fun. There are a lot of absurd surrealist moments and that is where the humour comes from. My favourite thing might be the fact that most of the crew serving the guests on the boat are these young nubile tall Nordic girls, whereas the unseen lower deck staff like the janitors or cooks or mechanics are middle aged and more ethnically diverse.

That being said, the film does leave a lot to be desired. It presents a lot of thematic elements such as beauty and success, gender roles, the impact of wealth and status and so on. But it never really addresses any of it conclusively. It has a clear message but it is rather blunt and somewhat pedestrian. Which is frustrating because it is at odds with the tone and style of the film. The dialogue, the acting, the direction are all very slick, very sharp. Everything is done with style and purpose. So it is a let down that it is builds up to a simplistic eat the rich narrative.

It belong to the same category as Glass Onion or Parasite. It is a type of movie that is one thing on the surface, but ends up being a purported frontal critique of wealth inequality. It is good enough, it is definitely not great.