Change Your Image
daniel-n-c180
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Supernatural: Destiny's Child (2020)
Continuity is lacking
Enjoyable as always, but the episode felt slow and like a filler, for the most part, considering they're are only 7 episodes left.
Continuity is also lacking, but that has been a theme for a while now. Example: Anael fell from heaven a bunch of seasons after Ruby was killed yet here they're shown working together.
God's awareness is apparently being dialed down big time. I can easily accept him not being even close to omniscient, but this is ignorance. Jack waltzes in and out of the garden of Eden with God apparently none the wiser. I have a better idea of what's going on on my property with a few security cameras and sensors, and I'm supposed to believe God is clueless about things happening on, essentially, his own turf? Not to mention he, alleged creator of all things and among the oldest beings in the history of existence appears to get so easily outsmarted like a low-rent, run-of-the-mill two-dimensional villain.
Supernatural: The Heroes' Journey (2020)
God withdraws the hero status
I disagree with the other reviews that make it sound like this is unreasonable: God withdrawing the hero status suddenly leaves Sam and Dean helpless and lost. Of course not everything they've ever done has been because of God, but most of it is.
This is my second time watching this show and thus time I did it all in 3 months. Had a lot of time and spent entire days just watching it.
There are a LOT of inconsistencies to the Supernatural world. It's often silly and ridiculous when you think about it. Of course, we don't, because we go along with the show. We suspend disbelief.
It's not that Sam and Dean never get cavities. That's just a funny way of putting it to drive home a point.
No it's about the fact that Sam and Dean (and the 'hunter' world) can go around impersonating fbi etc and almost never get caught, abd when they it's just another adventure: they always get out. They and their hunter friends can live without work, solely on fraud - and don't get caught. They fight monsters and are smashed around the room and the next day they don't have so much as a concussion or a sprained ankle. Even young girl like Claire. They're able to take hits from vampires and the like, and be just peachy.
That's just the basic stuff, nevermind the infinite number of close runs with demons, being brought back to life, going bro purgatory etc.
How is this possible? Well, it's not. Chances are, Dean is thrown against the wall by a demon and ends up in a wheelchair at the very beginning. Or they get thrown in jail and stay there for good.
But this isn't a show about prison or fraud. It's a show about hunting monsters. Sam and Dean, and the hunters as a whole, for the most part, get to go on fighting the good fight because that's the show Chuck Shirley likes watching. It's his favorite show.
Sure, they might be special in their own right, but having watched about 350 episodes in 3 months, it's clear their endless life-and-death adventures can only take place because Chuck wills it.
Charlie's Angels (2019)
a pile of trash and a complete waste o precious time
What a pile of garbage this movie was. It seems fashionable nowadays to expect a movie to succeed not based on its aesthetic quality, but on how extremist it is in its views. Throw that in there, and some man-hating to boot, and the movie is guaranteed to be a hit, right? Well I rate films in terms of quality, and this is manure.
10 Cloverfield Lane (2016)
the ending was a bad move
Actually a really good movie - a solid 8-8.5. The movie though ruined it, so the rating I'm giving it for that is actually a 7. The only reason I'm leaving it at eight is for personal reference - I might come back to it and want to remember 90% o the film being better than a 7.
Let Me In (2010)
falls significantly short of the original
I can't say this is a bad movie, but it's no masterpiece - which the original, I have to say, on the other hand, is. This is no way better than the original and the remake is really actually pointless.
This has been needlessly prettified, americanized, and the little details dramatized in a silly sort of way. There's no scene that's better than in the original - other than maybe the jump-cut movement of the vampire girl, which gives it more of a supernatural feel.
But the most important thing is - the vibe is not the same. Where the original genuinely has the vibe of a creepy masterpiece like Carpenter's 'The thing', this feels forced, contrived and ultimately like an inferior remake - which it is, without bashing the film too much.
Lights Out (2016)
An actually very very solid horror film
I used to think that the metacritic score was the point of reference when it comes to the quality of a certain movie. But it's increasingly obvious it's jsut agendas. Sometimes they get it right, but sometimes they give high scores to films that are just mediocre or flat-out crap while they make promising or even solid films out to me low-quality. If this were a feminist propaganda film, it would've been a 9 or a ten.
Regardless, let's not go there.
I came in with low expectations but I've been left pleasantly surprised. This is a good,solid horror film. In many ways it feels like of the great supernatural episodes back in the day when Supernatural used to be good and hadn't jumped the shark. As there aren't a whole lot of good horror movies, I could safely say this could work its way into my top 10, offhand.
Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)
10 for visuals. 3 for everything else
The movie looks amazing. You can call it eye candy, but the visuals are freaking great. A shame though that once you strip that away, the story itself isn't much to talk about. It's pedestrian. It's unexceptional. It's actually even worse than that- barring the visuals, it's an out-and-out average film with propagandistic feminist undertones. Too bad - it could've been a great film.
Blade Runner 2049 (2017)
Great cinematography
Nothing exceptional narratively, but visually it's fantastic. It's immersive and it makes a really really good sequel. I liked it.
The Vietnam War (2017)
BEst documentary I've ever seen?
Quite likely.This very well produced- you're just hard pressed to find any holes in it.
Game of Thrones: The Long Night (2019)
Mediocre
I see a fair number of people giving this episode 5-star, 4-star, or even 1-star ratings. That's the disappointment in them speaking, which perfectly understandable. The keyword for the whole season 8 so far has been just that: disappointing. However, it's not THAT bad. It's just that it's -again- really disappointing for a series that's supposed to be the best ever and that is known for it's multi-layered complexity to end like this. What does shock me more is the 10-star rave reviews. As far as these people are concerned, they're better off sticking to soap operas. This episode isn't 1 and by the same token, by no stretch of the imagination is it a 10. It's a 6, which I think perfectly identifies it's level, which smack-dab mediocre. The plot is weak, underlain by uninspired writing that doesn't do justice to an immortal story like GOT. This episode perfectly encapsulates what's wrong with the series right now: beautiful cinematography, nothing to reproach the camerawork for, the soundtrack up to par, as always, the special effects again, didn't disappoint. But that's not what GOT stood out for. They're all great, but they're a bonus. First and foremost, everything boils down the story. And what we're getting right now is a mess. I could let this fly if it were a filler episode-heck, a filler season- as I love GOT so much, but this is not filler- this, believe it or not, is the ending of the oh-so-hyped central conflict of the story. People- we're not getting another ending , this was IT. It's hard to put it into words how disappointing it is to see the best TV series ever screech to a close in such an amateurish a way.
That said, I've still tried to maintain some objectivity here: to repeat what I said before, it's not a 1. There are worse out there, and it could've been worse. A 10 is just dumb and makes me question if the people rating the episode so high aren't in fact bots. It's a 6, in line with the glossy but shallow Hollywood mediocrity of a show it's been reduced to.
Now we can just hope Martin can apply himself and really finish those books before he dies and give this series the finale it deserves, because this is, yes, embarrassing. GOT is no better than the walking dead as it stand.
Game of Thrones: A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms (2019)
as good as the first, which was mediocre.
The first episode was slow, uninspired, and time wasting. It wasn't bad- just somehow not appropriate considering there are only 6 episodes. The episode didn't really add anything to the story. It stalled. The second I was 100% sure the big fight would start. It didn't. Almost unbelievably, the second episode was even slower than the first, again, in a six-episode final season. Neither episode was that bad, but pretty close to that. They're outright mediocre, insipid, average. Like a good many others said, it's very predictable, cliche, and cheesy giving off Avengers-Hollywood vibes. It's really gone downhill without Martin's books and it's apparent they're running on empty. What's come to the fore is glossy camera work and special effects, but the writing has deteriorated painfully much. Characters are acting out of character, they're somehow becoming more flat every minute, and it all seems very contrived and artificial.This is a pale version of GOT.
Narcos: México (2018)
The rave reviews are shocking
This is not horrible. But it isn't great either. It's nothing to write home about. Let's get real here: Narcos- particularly the first season- was probably one of the best shows ever made (and I've watched all the greats)- this one is just ok. There's no comparison aside from a similar title and recognizable style. Any way you slice it, it's just not as good, and only mediocre by comparison, if only because the original Narcos put in place such high standards. If you didn't know both series had the same creators, one would assume this is the work of an epigone, ripping off a classic. What is fundamental is to know when to quit. That's what immortalizes a series. Few know when to stop- Rome knew (well, that was actually cut short), Sopranos and breaking bad knew. Vikings doesn't, Supernatural didn't/doesn't (is it still running?!), same goes for dexter and a host of other series- thank God GOT is ending, it was beginning to feel dragged-out. Narcos apparently doesn't either, and superfluous extra seasons spoil the legacy of a bright start.
Shichinin no samurai (1954)
as samurai-esque as it gets
The long and the short of it is this is a movie for the ages. Anyone who call themselves a cinephile ought to have watched this perforce. Gonna hit the high spots only 'cause boy do I despise those who in their review sum up the book's plot. If I need a synopsis I'll read the synopsis, people. First order of business- the length. I, personally , find the movie a trifle overly lengthy- 2h30 would've been perfect, the way I see it, and 1/3 of the movie was - let's call a spade a spade, shall we? - superfluous. Nothing really much happens in the movie. Everybody knows it all boils down to seven samurai endeavoring to put themselves out for a village of farmers, so we might just as well cut to the chase. If it were a Hollywood movie the same content would have to be fit in half the length of this one or less, namely 1h30, 1h45. This isn't to say that you shall squander time watching this one. But the action is indeed rather slow-paced, anyhow. Again, I'm not gonna make any bones about it- I take it that what accounts for the relative renown of the movie is the fact that it's a portrayal of a world ever so unknown to the European or American people -which makes it all the more glamorous. It outstrips in frankly no way whatever numerous American movies-apart for the setting. The setting metamorphosed an average-goodish movie in an exceptional one.
But leaving off slinging mud at it, I must say one's gotta hand it to "seven samurai". When you get right down to it, its success is, plain as day, underlain by its setting- the Samurai's Japan beset by war and its corollaries- famine,poverty, death. That said, the movie does a jaw-dropping job at portraying the times. I don't want to downplay the acting of of the cast either as they are, if anything, first-rate actors and I watched them with great relish. A one-of-a-kind film. Literally.
It (1990)
Huge fiasco
I really do not like being a drama queen, but I'm gonna make no bones about by discontent.
First and foremost, I'm speaking on behalf of all those who read the book beforehand.
The book was completely underwhelming, a huge let-down, a total fiasco. It doesn't live up to the book's reputation at all. The characters are clumsily portrayed, to begin with. On account of the Unskillful actors (except some of them) for one, and because the story not only was truncated excruciatingly short (that could be a good thing in some cases, but in this one, believe me , it is not), but a great deal of key moments were altered, which can't be but a shortcoming, at least for the readers.
Some of us, the readers, resolve to watch the movie, if there is an adaptation, after liking the book. One of the chief reasons being to see how the way we imagined the characters contrast with the way they are enacted in the movie. And there is a huge difference.
Because Beverly sounded a lot more beautiful in the book, and in the movie, while in her childhood, she is , well... not so much so. Ben was described as quite fatter and shier and here he was all cool smiles, ballsy and stuffed with innuendos. Stuttering Bill - same situation. In the book he is , at adulthood, BALD. and he has reddish hair, the same way as Beverly should be an auburn-haired chick and she isn't. All of them are more or less messed up in comparison with what the book's describes them to be like.
Also, the movies seemed to me as really , really fast-paced and an outsider could hardly make sense of the events.
I didn't see the whole movie, because ,Like I said, I was nothing but struck dumb by the movie's incapability to rise up to the mark. An because the book's finale was as well a bit anticlimactic. But that's a whole other story.
Long story short, readers of the book, beware of this smoke-and- mirrors thing. It is nothing to it, really. If you want to see something else and not a time-waster, a warm recommendation would be Psycho (yep, the 1960 black and white,antediluvian thing).
Psycho (1960)
spell-binding.
I know exactly how to go about this, I daresay. I'm gonna begin by clearing the air as regards one defining aspect of the movie, namely that it is black and white. Now, you can rest assured- the quality is impeccable, as there are lots of movies of lower quality out there; the cast, in addition,is top-notch.And I mean it. AAAnd the black-and- white thing , if anything, is a huge PERK. You heard me! it is an advantage, amounting, all in all, to the uncertain and suspenseful vibe that the movie conveys.
Anyhow, I'm gonna be short and sweet as this is not a book review and nobody (at least I know for a thing that I detest them) really goes in for lengthy comments.
The bottom line is that this tour-de-force is a must. A M U S T. and it isn't so because your teacher says so , or some haughty maven crows about it. It is because a friend says so- with a mere interest that people should watch art and good movies instead of preposterous time-wasters. This movie is the best psychological thriller I've ever seen( and certainly the great masterpiece people make it out to be). And there are a great deal of them. I'm not gonna ramble on about this, as there are a couple of movies that come close , but after pondering my choice well enough, I can assert that this is the best all-around, a cut above the competitors, and puts some of the nowadays tentative horror-things to shame, as the principles are timeless.
Pick it, no second thoughts about it. I'm gonna say just this- this is even better than Fight Club, as it is better proportioned in terms of length-content , and needless to say other praiseworthy works such as American Psycho.
Two and a Half Men (2003)
good series, truly.
As funny as funny stuff gets.
If you wanna laugh, this is the series to go, and Charlie Sheen is the man for it.
And his brother, Alan, is also up to the mark. But after Sheen's departure, the movie lost quite some of its cutting-d\edge indeed. You know the drill- the nonchalant, flamboyant and well-to-do bachelor, right? Well this is the classic scene, but anyhow, not a letdown, ever. Tremendous acting, by accomplished actors. Like I said, and I don't like repeating things, but IMDb won't let me publish a review if it has less than 10 line, which can be a real pain in the neck sometimes, I'm telling you, this series is easily up there amidst the likes of Seinfeld and the others. Totally recommend.