Change Your Image
steve2470
Reviews
Civil War (2024)
Semi-realistic but flawed
Pros: 1- Semi-realistic usage of the military
2- Semi-realistic combat in Washington
3- Realistic (?) portrayal of combat journalism
4- Some real caring of the characters for one another
5- Very limited portrayal of a civil war
6- No clear indications of any political bias
7- Good acting, in general. No actors did a sub-par job, from what I could tell.
Cons: 1- Almost no development of the main characters backstories
2- The young reporter, Jessie (Cailee Spaeny) recklessly and irresponsibly jumps from their vehicle into the other vehicle. Granted, she was imitating the friend of Joel (Wagner Moura), but she received no tongue-lashing whatsoever for it. Not realistic at all and she deserved it.
3- It is true that Sammy (Stephen McKinley Henderson) could have died in any number of ways, but it's arguable that if Jessie had not jumped into that car, that possibly Sammy might have lived. Also, when Sammy was shot, there was absolutely no indication that he WAS shot when it happened, and I watched the movie twice.
4- Joel, when talking to fellow reporters about Washington, seemingly doesn't care that his friend Sammy just died. If the director wanted to portray Joel in a very bad light, that was one example.
5- Also, when the President is just about to be shot, Joel just has to get his freaking quote. What a horrible time to demand a quote. Again, Joel is in a very bad light, to me.
6- Once again, Jessie just has to be reckless and impulsive and jumps into the middle of the White House hallway during a fierce firefight to get a photo. If only her life has been at stake, that is one thing. Lee Smith (Kirsten Dunst) sees the danger Jessie is in, jumps out to save her, is shot to death in the process, and what does Jessie do ? Jessie takes one look at her (maybe two), and just walks on to do her job. Talk about horrible callousness.
7- One last comment about Jessie: At the gas station, Jessie sees something that she's curious about. Never mind the fact that: 1- she doesn't know this area, which is in a civil war zone; and 2- there are 3 men with semi-automatic rifles sitting in front of her. She is lucky she was not raped or raped and killed. Lee going after her might have saved her life or saved her from a rape.
8- If the director was trying to spare the audience from the true reality of a civil war, he did well. That being said, any civil war in the United States would be far worse and far bloodier than he depicted.
9- When Sammy said he could not drive any more and was put into the back seat, I (having seen many war movies) fully expected Lee, Joel and Jessie to spring into action, try to bandage his wound with what they had, and try to get him to a hospital, even a vet clinic. Did any of that happen ? Heck no. Did they figure he was just going to die, so why waste time and effort to save him ? Maybe. So, Sammy bleeds out in the back of the vehicle. Good job showing your caring and empathy for Sammy, folks.
10- Somehow I doubt that combat soldiers are going to take the time and effort to safeguard the safety of combat journalists to the extent these soldiers did. Some effort, of course. I just found it unrealistic, sorry.
Final word: For people who have never ever seen a war movie, this might actually be quite satisfying. It will be even more satisfying if someone has no idea whatsoever what a real civil war would entail. If you can ignore the callousness, impulsivity and recklessness, you are even more satisfied.
Vikings (2013)
Decent historical fiction, spoiled by some bad acting and OMFG fog
First, the MEH:
1- I could make an argument you could still have a great TV series more faithful to actual history.
2- Repetitive discussions of fate and "the Gods" and Christianity
The BAD:
1- With only two exceptions, Bjorn (Alexander Ludwig) had two acting styles: angry and intimidating, and blank stare. I vote for more acting lessons, sorry not sorry.
2- The chronic and noticeable overuse of the fog machine and the wind machine. Come on, moderation is key. However, it is used all the time. On sunny days. On cloudy days. On apparently windless days. When I notice the fog and wind machines, it means they are grossly overused. Oh yes, rain is used way too often also. I get that the climate on Iceland is harsh but it's ridiculous the amount of rain.
3- Ragnar (Travis Fimmel) is generally a good actor but damn he has some really strange facial expressions at times. Totally discordant with what he is saying and doing. Is this a director's error ? Travis trying to put his spin on a legendary Viking legend ?
4- I realize you can only be so realistic with ax and sword fight scenes but wow some of the scenes are pathetic. They should have been shot over or just deleted.
5- Bishop Heahmund (Jonathan Rhys Myers) murdering another priest in cold blood in a church ? If this is really what happened, then OK.. but otherwise, how stupid can he be ? I felt his "sentence" was totally unrealistic also.
Finally, the GOOD:
1- I really really hated Ivar the Boneless (Alex Høgh Andersen), so Alex Andersen did a superb acting job.
2- Overall, it was a mostly believable depiction of the events, people and time period.
3- The actors portraying Lagertha, Floki, Harbard and Gunnhild all did a great job.
The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power (2022)
Entertaining for a non-Tolkien reader
First, the positive: Cinematography is excellent. The actors all seem quite competent overall. Not being a Tolkien reader, I have no idea how faithful the series is to his vision, but it makes sense overall. The complaints about the elves don't bother me. The "sky man" sub-plot is interesting and I wait to see how he ties into the overall plot (is he Gandalf ?).
Now for the negative: I know the writers wanted Galadriel (Morfydd Clark) to be a strong leader and strong woman, but they really turned her up to 11, so to speak. They made her too angry overall. She needs some more scenes where she is reflective or showing some vulnerability.
A glaring error: Bronwyn (Nazanin Boniadi) is on the brink of death, seemingly, after an arrow goes through her and she loses a lot of blood. Then, seemingly a day later, she's up and walking around and looks totally fine.
Frontier (2016)
Lack of satisfying series ending spoils it
Historical fiction shows are one of my favorites, so I was looking forward to viewing this. The plot overall is decent. The acting, overall, is decent. Zoe Boyle as Grace Emberly is the best actor or actress of the whole cast. Evan Jonigkeit as Chesterfield did a good job of making me hate him, at times. Diana Bentley as Imogen was also quite convincing. I know so many love Jason "Eye Candy" Momoa but I do think he needs a bit more work on being convincing. To be fair, his character is not exactly sophisticated or cultured but very rough. Now for the negative: some of the fights were quite ridiculous. Example 1 was the final battle between Declan's bunch and the castle garrison. The castle garrison all had long guns, and his bunch had none. Talk about a suicide mission, and somehow Declan survived it to get into the castle. Then Declan marches into a hall filled with British soldiers and, unbelievably, Lord Benton doesn't have him shot or arrested right away. WTF. Yes, it made for a fulfilling and violent ending, but totally unrealistic. Then, to really put a wet blanket on the entire series, Declan cannot bring himself to 1) tell Grace he loves her before he leaves and 2) take her with him. Granted, if a 4th season was planned, it could have tied up all the loose ends, but the way it happened, Declan just walking out is very unfulfilling.
Leave the World Behind (2023)
Disappointing, film school level
Pros: 1- Easy to understand
2- No subtitles or dubbing
3- No gore
4- Black family owns two houses
Cons: 1- The ending sucks. Totally unfulfilling.
2- Rosie(Farrah Mackenzie), the daughter of Amanda and Chad, is a totally spoiled and disturbed kid
3- The mother, Amanda (Julia Roberts), is as nasty and unpleasant as a character comes, most of the time
4- Ruth (Myha'la Jael Herrold) is a racist, nasty and demanding daughter to G. H (Mahershala Ali).
5- G. H does a great job as Ruth's father and the mysterious owner of the home.
6- Clay (Ethan Hawke) takes far too much nastiness from his wife Amanda (Julia Roberts). They are obviously in an empty shell marriage and family.
7- Archie (Charlie Evans) turns in a good performance as the bratty stereotypical older brother to Rosie.
8- The film's soundtrack is horribly overused to set mood. If there was no soundtrack, the film would be 99% less emotion-arousing.
9- Cinematography is a bit strange
10- Despite the good performances, a very talented film school student could have done this, given enough time and resources.
Do not waste your time.
Legends of Tomorrow (2016)
Definitely young adult material, mixed bag
As I stated in the subject line, this series is definitely aimed at the young adult market (18-25) and older teen (16,17). So, I assume if you are 25 or younger, you will *probably* like this series. Over 40, not so much.
First the negatives: 1- The character of Gary Green is truly cringe-worthy. He almost seems written as a cartoonish stereotypical portrayal of an effeminate, weak and overly emotional man. The character, perhaps intentionally, is very over the top; 2- Way too many emotionally-based decisions to alter time; 3- Some really silly and cringy dialogue at times; 4- Sara Lance was blinded (Season 5) ? She walks around just like a normal-sighted person would, no indication of being blind, massive blunder by the writers; 5- Just an overall lack of depth and excessive silliness, impulsiveness and emotionality (again, young adult/late teen)
Pros: 1- Very interesting concept to be explored; 2- LGBT is well-represented and portrayed; 3- Women are almost uniformly portrayed as "strong"; 4- Ethnic diversity is excellent amongst the cast; 5- Sympathetic Muslim characters are included, not common from my experience; 6- Decent (but limited and not totally accurate) depiction of diverse historical periods.
Conclusions: If you are over 40, I would avoid this. If you are 18 to 25, you might find it entertaining.
Wynonna Earp (2016)
Tries way too hard to be funny
I was looking for something to watch, and I was not familiar with this genre or Supernatural. So, I tried it. I finished all the episodes out of sheer curiosity to see the ending. The good: The overall plot has merit. The actors put in decent performances and seem to be enjoying themselves. Waverly (Dominique Provost-Chalkley) has a terrifically joyful infectious quality about her. The relationship between Waverly and Nicole (Katherine Barrell) is believable and touching. Both Wynonna (Melanie Scrofano) and Doc (Tim Rozon) have funny moments. The bad: The writers try way too hard to be funny. Too many jokes and quips too often, it is truly overwhelming. The series is clearly oriented to the 13 to 30 year old female demographic, which is fantastic if you are 13 to 30 and female. The plot has way too many plot holes and just an extreme level of action, as if trying to keep the viewer hooked. The series also seemed to be inventing truly ridiculous sub-plots to extend the life of the series. The relationship between Doc and Wynonna is improbable, to say the least. Classic stereotypical girl loves bad boy plot. Doc has his good points and good moments, but he is all too willing to abandon Wynonna and Wynonna tolerates this ! Wynonna clearly has her issue but she deserves a better man than Doc (and I'm a guy saying this). Dolls dies and Wynonna acts as if they were deeply in love. I found this very improbable. I admit, I am probably too old and male to find this series really enjoyable. I'm glad it was so popular with some viewers.
Vikingdom (2013)
Low-expectations viewer says do not waste your time
I never review movies, even the ones that slightly disappoint. I just have very low standards. However, this movie is SO bad, I just could not wait for it to be over so I could warn others. Let me count the ways it's bad: 1- Bad acting: Dominic Purcell took acting lessons from Vin Diesel, and Vin is not a good actor. Sometimes Dominic looks bored or even looking at the ground for no reason. Only two actors (Nastassia Malthe as Brynna and Craig Fairbass as Sven) do a decent job; 2- Horrible "CGI". Case in point, the fearsome hound in Hell looks like something out of the 1950's, think paper hound; 3- Backgrounds: obviously fake green screen. Only a few real ones; 4- Dialogue: Poor; 5- Hair: Obviously bad wigs. Badly fitted wigs. Come on guys, Thor had this horrible "too red" red wig; 6- Thor: a villain ? Not in mythology. Getting beaten up by a mortal ? Give me a break. That hammer was horrible, something out of a cheap Halloween store; 7- Actors: Did they raid the nearest gym to recruit the most roided up huge guys with huge muscles to act for them ? They must have; 8- Frey: Wearing a bright yellow woman's dress ? Good gosh; 9- Sets: The interior of the castle was the worst. Painted on walls. The rest of the sets were very cheap looking; 10- Chinese martial arts expert in Norse saga: Are you serious ? The director and producer spent $15 million on this pile of dung and they got ripped off, badly. If you just want to get stoned or drunk and have a laugh at how bad it is, I can see watching this. Otherwise, skip it.
Fauda (2015)
Excellent plot and authenticity overall
I have read that some reviewers have had scathing reviews of this TV series in that it is not 100% factually accurate and balanced about the overall Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I cannot speak to that, since I am not well-versed in the history of the conflict. What I can say is, I learned more about the conflict than I ever have, and that the series at least makes an attempt to present balance about the conflict. Yes, there is a bias towards the Israelis but the Palestinian side is presented with humanity, honesty and empathy. The action is exciting, with interesting plot twists. The psychological toll of the undercover unit is covered, as well as the effects of PTSD. The effects upon families on both sides is covered well. Yaara, the female hostage, puts in a great performance.
Now for the criticisms: as usual for Hollywood (or most film makers), the "good guys" are great shots and the bad guys (the Palestinians in this series) are shot too easily. The main protagonist, Doron, is really over-the-top with his impulsiveness, stupidity (at times), and rebelliousness, while, in fairness, showing a decent amount of caring, empathy, and grief at times. As typical for police and military-centered shows, the men are not very good at handling their emotions and it affects the unit at times.
The conflicts that erupt between the unit members are handled a bit too quickly and glibly, and seem almost like filler at times. The director seems to enjoy the shaky camera effect, but at times it's way too much and detracts from understanding some details. One last comment about Doron: as rebellious and insubordinate as he is, it is a miracle he is retained in the unit at all, and the decision by his supervisor that he is not fit for the unit is quite justified, to me. Of course, Doron returns back to the unit.
In summary, if you are seeking a highly accurate "documentary" of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, you should skip this series. However, if you are open to learning more about the conflict and enduring some flaws, I can recommend this movie as being quite captivating.