Reviews

I watched both 50 Shades of Gray and 365 Days (part one), and the main focus of those two are sexual relationships, so sex and erotica made complete sense, because they were the main plot in the storylines of both of those films (who thinks otherwise, in my opinion, didn't understand those films). Almost every scene in them was a scene of seduction, so that even the events from characters' everyday lives played a secondary role in the storyline and those events were used as tools to perpetuate the main storyline of seduction, eroticism and sex (typically the more sexually explicit variation of the knight - damsel in distress trope).

In Burning Betrayal, however, the sex scenes don't quite fit in. The main storyline seems to be the typical thriller type story which I won't spoil, but then that storyline is interspersed with sex scenes in an awkward and rather clumsy and disconnected way. For all I cared, it could've been a "food network thriller" genre and the characters could've fine dined instead of having sex. It wouldn't make much difference to the main storyline, because guess what - couples generally do engage in sex every now and then, but they also eat a few times a day too, so either wouldn't make a difference in the progress and development of the storyline.

It looked like the actors weren't particularly thrilled (no pun intended) to be in this film, and if its story stuck to the thriller aspect which was intriguing, the score would've been much better. Unfortunately, this time - 3 out of 10.

A movie like this is bound to divide the audiences, as it comes across as too plain and lacking drama for an average viewer with little knowledge of psychology, however if you have some knowledge and experience with narcissistic and psychopathic personalities in real life (in my case, both) this suddenly makes it filled with action, clues and red flags.

The storyline, although judged by many reviewers here, is very educational and informative, as it actually abounds with psychological details, not so obvious to an average viewer as in the likes of "Misery" where the antagonist suffered from a more dramatic concoction of personality and mood disorders which tend to be more easily detectable. The details in this movie meticulously build and present the narcissistic and antisocial (i.e. Evil) character of a guy ironically named Ángel and they do so in a very realistic way, because those personality disorders are much less obvious and with them, the devil is indeed in the details.

The darkness of Ángel's apartment with dark green tones reminiscent of rotting and death, paints a macabre picture which closely matches Ángel's equally rotten personality. He was presented as a bad person - asocial, misanthropic, ego-sensitive (narcissistic), thief - even before he experienced a life-changing event that just acted as a trigger for him to unleash his inner evil.

There are several aspects of the storyline and directing that I liked in particular that can all be subsumed under realism, which was heavily favored as opposed to the Hollywood-esque exaggeration for the purpose of dramatic effect (which typically adds fun to movies so they are more entertaining for wider audiences, but takes away from the educational side).

This movie hit home in depicting how a relationship with a bad, toxic person doesn't look much different than romantic relationships involving healthy individuals. That's usually what confuses people, because they expect to be able to recognize a psychopath or a narcissist thinking that they look insane. The fact of the matter is, just as it's shown in the movie, a life with a psychopath or a narcissist can be very ordinary, boring (which most healthy relationships are as well, a good chunk of the time), until the narcissistic ego gets hurt, and it's then when all hell breaks loose as we can see in the movie.

I also liked that the movie doesn't shy away from presenting a person in a wheelchair as an antagonist, making them just as human as everyone else and separating a person's disability from how good, bad or evil their personality can be.

All in all, a good story, plausible (in spite of what some viewers might think), unnerving at moments, quite thrilling and very psychologically educational.

Even the end of the movie goes to show that we all have sadistic potential and especially after experiencing sadism from someone we trusted, we may develop an urge to have them experience what that they did to us, although most people rarely act on it. We're left wondering what - if anything - of that sort happened as the movie ends.

I recommend this flick.

In the first episode, I thought Phoebe was quite impressive at how casually she's break the fourth wall and then snap back into situation/character just as seamlessly. The editing is dynamic, but it does come with a touch of hyperactivity and at times switching between dialogues and breaks to provide for a running verbal and nonverbal commentary struck me as overwhelming.

As for the storyline and its protagonist, I'm not feeling it. The reason why that's the case is probably that when comparing myself to other people, I can say that I'm closed-minded to mischief that hurts (the feelings of) other people, as well as the (apparent) lack of caring/empathy in doing so.

This show does a good job of pointing out that women are capable of some of the behaviors that have stereotypically been attributed to men.

It's somewhat of a "The Wolf of Wall Street"-type story from the behavioral side of things (sex, drugs and rock'n'roll).

Where I found "The Wolf of Wall Street" doing a better job is that somehow I was left with a feeling that the protagonist made his background commentary about his moral and legal "transgressions" from a more humble or at least neutral position, without explicitly mocking the victims of those transgressions.

Fleabag however takes a superior in-your-face position when commenting on most situations, almost promoting her "transgressions" and positioning herself above her "victims".

And that's where I see a problem that quite significantly takes away from the fun and entertainment. Some humility and self-deprecation for the wacky / quirky behavior would've made the show much more fun to watch. However, the way it is, it leaves me more worried than entertained.

An interesting transplant of the European cinematography onto the US soil. As the story took off, I immediately experienced somewhat of a cognitive dissonance over the fact that US English was spoken where I'd usually associate the camera, non-verbal elements, emotions and the setting with a European language. I was soon helped to get over this initial "language shock" by a gripping half-hour opening to the movie as well as the captivating performance of the cast in what most people hope would be a routine life event typically ending in joy. Instead we're struck with the movie reality of an opposite outcome.

The emphasized ill-green, gray tones and a general lack of vibrant colors present throughout the movie coalesce beautifully with the storyline filled with the gloom of unprocessed grief and broken relationships, until the very end of the movie when glimpses of color make their way onto the screen and develop into a fuller color palette, seemingly breaking the spell of emotional turmoil and informing the viewer the life has moved on and has taken various different forms.

Vanessa Kirby did a remarkable job portraying a character who has all the reasons to grieve and yet isn't fully giving herself in to the vulnerability of grief until late in the movie, stoically remaining distant and emotionally shut off, filling the timing of the movie in such a way that I felt drawn into asking what her thoughts were in all those moments - my need for some insight into her thoughts validated by her on-screen partner's line "a penny for your thoughts".

The other members of the cast all did a great job themselves as they all showed an array of vastly different ways of dealing with loss.

From the storyline point of view, I found that all the situations that took place were quite realistic and possible to occur in the wake of dealing with the loss of a baby, however, I'm not quite sure that all of those had to be packed in a single storyline, in order to achieve the point.

All in all, this is a great movie for those who find entertainment in reading into emotions that characters display in difficult circumstances of life they are put through.

I've seen a couple of reviews that blasted this show over the expectation of getting a sci-fi or space-travel focused drama.

The short overview that comes with the trailer says: "As she embarks on a treacherous mission to Mars commanding an international crew, Emma Green must leave her husband and teen daughter behind."

Now if you're native in English (which I'm not) you should be able to conclude that the show may involve a more ordinary side to characters' lives.

But let's look at the genre itself and put this show in a frame of a kind.

From the beginnings of Star Trek where sliding doors were manually slid by assistants on the filming set to the now automatic sliding doors which are commonplace anywhere you go, a number of gadgets and devices that were once featured in sci-fi flicks as high-tech futuristic technology have become reality in the meantime.

Therefore, sci-fi is not exclusively committed to fiction and regularly flirts with (the prospect of becoming) reality. Another thing is that sci-fi isn't and doesn't need to be a genre focused solely on distant future and the supposed exceptionally advanced technology that we believe the future holds.

With these arguments in mind, we can see that the show creators chose to feature a story that - from the standpoint of today's reality - is still considered sci-fi, and even if it may become reality in the very near future, that doesn't take away the sci-fi label from it. A human mission to Mars is as of now not possible and any shows featuring such a mission, including this one remain within the domain of sci-fi. Now, given that we're ever so close to it being possible, it is to be expected for the technology showcased in the show to be much less sophisticated and much closer to what already exists. I mean, why go into some sort of magical thinking that is way out of proportion. Yes, there may be inconsistencies with the real-world procedures at space agencies, but that's the whole point. It's still fiction, but a type of science fiction that is not too far removed from today's reality and it may well represent what our great grandchildren may witness in the future.

The other point that was raised are people's personal stories and how they have no place in sci-fi. Most major sci-fi franchises I'm familiar with featured (some kind of) personal stories and I don't see why and how this should be an exception. I'm trying to understand what the commenters have in mind for a sci-fi show. The show features near-future near-Earth space travel, so it doesn't make sense to expect any extreme differences in social interactions from today's world.

As a viewer try to be less rigid and more realistic in terms of what you (can) expect from this type of science fiction. Keeping in mind this is Season 01, I believe we're in for more adventures in the following seasons.

A well put together story, telling us to what lengths a sinister mind is willing to go in order to get his way and come back on top.

Javier jumps right into the character in the first minutes of the movie, showcasing all the facets of his personality that he will flip through in it, treating us to a great performance, with the rest of the cast not falling any shorter of his accomplishment.

The storyline itself is a challenge to a typical thriller where the protagonist is by definition a "good guy" for whom we root and watch closely his every step on the edge of our seats as he is moving from one trouble and danger to another, in the hopes of reaching a happy ending and giving the audience much wanted catharsis and closure.

This movie surprises you by giving the spotlight to your typical antagonist and puts him through the situations usually reserved for a protagonist.

As much as it's confusing and somewhat of a philosophical and moral dilemma to fear for the antagonist while he's out to do wrong, the movie ends waking us up to a rather somber reality - the evil in our world actually wins more often than not and there isn't much we can do about it. Why?

This movie makes you think - if those who are evil tell you that they're good, does that make them less evil? I'd leave it at this - one of devil's best tricks is for him to go unnoticed.