janedoe5300

Neill Blomkamp calls his Oats Studios projects "experimental short films", and I suppose if experimental short film means "not a short film", in the case of "Rakka", he would be right. It's like calling sounds without any coherence "experimental music". At what point during the experiment does it stop being music, and start being something else? A short film, much like a short story, can be a lot of things, but at least it is supposed to be a story, right? Albeit a very compact story, but with a beginning, middle and end, oftentimes taking place in a larger universe that is alluded to but never fully explored, as it would in a feature length. It's a little tale within a greater world, a world we don't know, and never will know, except for the specks of information given in the tale. Imagine, if you would, the scene with Gollum and Bilbo competing on riddles (whether you imagine the book or the film is irrelevant). It begins with Bilbo escaping an unknown enemy, finding a mysterious gold ring deep inside a dark cave, and then encountering a strange creature. They battle for wits, and suddenly we realize that this ring belongs to the creature, and is tremendously important to it. At this point Bilbo manages to escape, by finding out the ring makes him invisible. Throw in a cryptic, perhaps mischievous look at the camera, and cut. Beginning, middle, end. "Firebase" and "Zygote", two other Oats projects, would qualify as being experimental shorts. But Rakka isn't a story, it's just the beginning of one, like the first episode in a series. There is no middle, and no end, except for a cliffhanger, a device that only ever has any merit, if it's followed up on. Yet Rakka is a standalone feature. It introduces a universe, the people in it, the good and the bad, and a bit of mythology, but that's it. Imagine a music album, where every song is an intro, and then the first 3 lines of a verse, and then it just stops. Would you call that experimental music? Perhaps you would, I know Blomkamp would, but I wouldn't, I'd call it something else.

Turns out Gareth Edwards is just an okay director, and an absolutely terrible writer. I'm glad he only directed Rogue One, here's hoping he's putting down the pen and staying behind the camera in the future! To be fair, I see his vision, I understand it, but the execution is a mess of decent ideas at best, borderline moronic at worst. We notice first the superficiality of the characters, even though the lead characters do what they can (Madeleine Yuna Voyles especially, channelling exceptional levels of emotion for such a young actress). Next comes the level of AI cliches and the boring and basic script. Finally, and perhaps most enervating, is the amount of questions that go unanswered, questions that apparently aren't important to Edward's plot, although they should be. I started to take note of all these, but eventually I gave up, being able to recognize a moot point when I see one. Suffice it to say, there are a lot, and it's as if Edwards knowingly ignores all of them, jumping from one seemingly unrelated, slick (I'll give him that) moment to another, all the while providing us with unnecessary exposition like "Josh you're a hero, you killed Nirmata and got the weapon", instead of actually expanding on his mythology and paying more attention to the world his movie is set in. The movie even tries to be funny at times, but stops that cold at about the one hour mark, almost as if it heard the silence in the theaters and decided to quit trying!

Oh, and if you guessed that Alphie is Joshua's daughter about a minute after you saw her, the minuscule twist to the reveal (that she kinda is but kinda isn't) isn't enough to make you think you weren't right all along! What almost made me turn the thing off, however, was when Alphie was able to run straight through the NOMAD, all the way to the control center, without the slightest interruption. I wonder if Edwards actually has a valid explanation for the lack of security in this, the most important vessel in the American army, their only hope of winning the war, but I suspect not. At this point, the plot just needed the thing to be empty, and we, the dim witted viewers, are just supposed to accept it and, as such, accept that we've been played for fools by giving our time away to this drag of a film.

The Kim Bauer storylines have, to me, always been the blemish on the masterpiece that is 24. For some reason, every season she has to get in ridiculous situations, make ridiculous choices, and star in her own little soap opera-esque side stories. I should emphasize that this is not Elisha Cuthberts fault, by any stretch of the imagination, although I actually believe the vitriol towards her (it's no secret she was disliked) hurt her career. She is playing a spoiled, naive, borderline idiotic teenage (/grown up) brat, and judging by the level of annoyance she instills in myself and countless others, she plays the part perfectly. In this season she is partnered up with an equally infuriating boyfriend, Mr Perfect for all intents and purposes, a record producer, hunk and apparently also a martial artist (come on man). The two, in this episode, decide to recklessly endanger a policeman's life, simply for doing his job, to save their own asses. Even if her father was David Palmer himself, none of them should ever get away with this, but (spoiler alert) they will. This is symptomatic of Kim's storylines all through the show (until she is finally written out), and in my opinion it lessens the whole experience. Every single other minute of 24, I'm glued to the screen, even if this is my 3rd watch, but every time Kim is on, I'm just waiting for her scenes to be over. Too bad, but there's no such thing as perfect, although without Kim Bauer, 24 might have been.

I mean, it's not perfect, there are a couple of glaring plot holes, it's not as good as The Witcher, it's not GOT, but why would you even make that comparison? As a fan of the games, but someone who hasn't read the books, I consider this a great little backstory. I didn't go in expecting more than exactly that, world building. Not rich complex characters, not a convoluted plot, not 20 episodes of a new story. Blood Origin does what it sets out to do, which is expand on the mythology, and thus provide some answers to a lot of the mysteries in The Witcher. What is the conjunction, what is chaos, where did monsters come from, what is elder blood? I know all of this from the games, but if I was just a casual Netflix viewer, I would have been beyond confused about all these elements of The Witcher, and I probably wouldn't have made it for more than a couple of episodes! Blood Origin does what it should, and does a fine job of it.

...of grossly overacting! Holy mother of the lord it was hard enough to watch him as Lucifer, with the exaggerated facial expressions, duck lips and what not, but this just takes the cake. I read in the trivia that, that Misha Collins likes to experiment with different versions of Castiel, and I can sympathize with that, even admire it, but could somebody, the directors perhaps, rein him in?? For Castiels torture happy bizarro version, Misha went with a kind of deranged German-Russian hybrid, who for some unknown reason completely lost control of his lips, and it's just so painful to watch, it reminded me of that viral audition tape with Brian Atene.

I love Castiel, I think Misha does a great job at playing the brooding, kinda sad and sometimes inadvertently hilarious angel, and he was great as a Russian psychopath in "24" (2001), but he just can't pull of these scenery-chewing characters, and he needs to stop trying, or rather, someone needs to stop him!

Otherwise great episode, only came to put this great actor down, a man way more successful than I'll ever be, because that's how petty I am. Maybe I shouldn't post this..

Before going into this, you need to know, the mystery, the plot twist, the reveal, happens in the third episode. The rest is dealing with the consequences, but this show is a lot more than a mystery and horror show, in fact the horror, too, dissipates around the middle, and there wasn't much to begin with. I'm saying this to manage expectations for anyone reading, because I myself am so limited by my expectations, or more so whether they are met or not. I was disappointed, almost gave up on the show, exactly in the middle (which would be around 25 minutes into episode 4), but then I got it.

I understood that this show was more about addiction, religion, guilt, suffering and the various common denominators between them. It's also about another thing, one that draws, upon realizing it, such obvious parallels to especially the religious themes. This other subject, I won't spoil, but you will find out by episode 3.

I suppose I stayed for the writer/producer/director most of all, because I know that everything Mike Flanagan does, is worth giving a chance, and I'm glad I did.

Last, but not least, I stayed for Hamish Linklater, who as opposed to Flanagan, I didn't know from Adam. But he blew my mind from the very beginning, his character is so deeply ingrained and manifested, that you almost forget you're watching an actor. This is rare, it's Pacino in Scarface, Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight, rare. Either he is a brilliant and somewhat undiscovered talent, or he was simply born for this role.

To sum up, I urge you to not only watch this for the horror or the mystery, but to also watch it for the social commentary, the commentary on religious fanaticism, the acting and the direction, because it's the sum of the parts that make the whole here, and it's a pretty good whole!

Great?: No..

Dumb?: Pretty damn dumb

Unpredictable?: oh yes

In a good way?: not really

Plot holes?: craters more like it, you can't even imagine!

Confusing?: incredibly

Bad acting?: horrible

Except for Michael Pitt?: Except for Michael Pitt of course

Funny?: Michael Pitt is

Annoying?: Edgar Ramírez is..

How does he keep getting work by the way, I mean he's soooo bad?: he's kinda handsome, I guess?

He kinda looks like a bearded John Mayer doesn't he?: yeah maybe that's it.

Bad writing?: Well duh

Wait, Sharlto Copley is in it?: oh yeah, almost forgot, he doesn't get much to do

Is his character at least an important part of the story?: No that's just it, not at all, there is absolutely no reason at all for him to be there!

Overly long?: overly long!

Gratuitous sex scenes?: whadda you think?

Will I enjoy myself if I expect nothing and completely turn my brain of?: I did!

Is that a redeeming quality?: I guess not ..

I suppose something must be wrong with me, because I didn't find Paranormal Activity (the original) very scary. As they went along with sequel after prequel after spin-off, each one less scary than the former, I stuck around for the mythology. I was hoping to get to some kind of conclusion with this one, but surprisingly, none of the mythology of the first 6 films are present. I should have been disappointed, because I don't quite believe the whole Tobi debacle is concluded yet, but I wasn't. Why? Because this film was actually really scary! I'm a huge fan of found footage, and I don't buy the "shaky-cam" and "put the camera down and flee" criticisms, it's part of the genre, you wouldn't put on Schindlers List to have a laugh would you? Yes, the film has flaws, the plot is a bit messy and implausible at times, but that has been the case for 99% of horror films ever made. A scary movie should, first and foremost, be scary, and if the story is tight, the acting is solid and the direction is capable, that's when you end up with masterpieces like The Ring (the Japanese original, mind you) or The Descent.

"Paranormal Activity: Next of Kin" hits on 3 out of the 4 aforementioned parameters, and in my opinion, that's more than any of its predecessors managed to do.

I liked the first Kingsman, I enjoyed the way it spoofed the spy genre, particularly the Bond films of old, while simultaneously harboring a great deal of respect and admiration for them. It was over the top, and better for it. The sequel took the formula to even greater extremes, and in my opinion suffered from that. The art of going over the top, seems to be to stay somewhere below it, however contradictory that may sound. Enter "The King's Man". Every franchise needs an origin story, and within the boundaries laid out by the first two films, this one could hardly have been any better. What struck me immediately was the way the film was as true to history as such a film could possibly allow itself to be (the Russian Tzar, the German Kaiser and the King of England were all real people, and the latter two were in fact cousins). This however, in and of itself, would not necessarily exclude the ridiculous gadgetry and implausible plot lines, but writer/director Matthew Vaughn chose to let it, and it was the right choice. "The King's Man" stays exactly where it needs to be which, according to my admittedly brilliant analysis (please note my sarcasm), is somewhere between over the top, and over the top. As for the plot, the way the film so carefully mixes fact and fiction was immensely enjoyable to me, and as I would pause at several moments to google WW1 and related events, I actually learned a lot by watching this, which is hard to say for most blockbusters! I was also continuously surprised by the twists and turns the story would take, in particular a moment at the end of the second act (I suppose), I won't spoil anything, but I will say it's in regards to a flask with some very interesting contents. I hope Vaughn will continue down the conceptual road he laid out for this film, in the inevitable following installments, I hope the franchise will continue to jump between past and present (a post credits scene suggests it will) and perhaps even future, and I hope the next Kingsman film will be at least as good as the first, or even better, as good as this one.

I don't know why I thought this was gonna be a mediocre flick, but upon realizing it was directed by Alexander Aja, the man behind the great Haute Tension, I knew I was in for at least something of a ride! Still, it exceeded my expectations quite a bit, this is a very well made horror film, considering not only it's lesser contemporaries (I watched Wrong Turn when I was 13 and even then I thought it was dumb), but the fact that it's a remake, which is usually a recipe for disaster.

Some of the credit needs to go Wes Craven's way, who made the original (which I haven't seen mind you) and acts here as a producer. I've never been a fan of his classics, most likely because I'm too young, but I knew the original was a celebrated film, and I expect his involvement didn't hurt this remake.

What resonated with me most of all was not, as one might expect from a horror fan, the brutality, wonderful as it is. It was the level of humanity in each of the characters, the relative depth of their emotions within the bounds of the story. I don't know how directors manage to create likable and relatable characters in slasher films, when half of them always seem to get killed off before the 30-minute mark! Albeit most don't, but Aja nails it, and it's in great part because of the stellar cast.

Dan Byrd in particular gives a breathtaking performance and, even though I realize the stigma surrounding the whole "scream queen" cliché, Emilie de Ravin sells the trauma and terror on another level.

If I have to direct a criticism, it would be that I was amazed at how the dogs, when in proximity to the bad guys that is, were at one point barking and thrashing uncontrollably, and at another point impressively well trained, docile and quiet. This of course depending on what the plot needed them to do! But it's a minor plot-hole, it's probably a leftover from the original, and they even kinda make up for it at one point.

All in all, the sum of these parts make a very solid horror picture, it's gory, but not self-indulgent, it's creepy, it's thrilling and at times utterly disturbing.

Finally, don't you dare say it's a Tobe Hooper ripoff, if anything it's a wonderful homage, Craven said so himself!

This episode deserves so much better than the poor rating it's getting here.

As a fan of the show, a fan of acting, a fan of the storytelling medium that is film and TV, it's almost a pleasure watching Ricks choices, his self assured attitude, his bravado in this episode, knowing what is about to happen. As someone rooting for the group however, it's heartbreaking. But I remember watching it for the first time, thinking "hah, these Saviors are messing with the wrong guy, they done f'ed up, and they gon' learn today". That feeling is instilled in the viewer, by the writers, director etc, on purpose. They want us to feel just as cocky as Rick, so we can slowly start to lose hope, along with him, as the episode progresses. Watching him unravel at the sight of blockade after blockade, at the realization that The Saviors are legion, is just as good as it gets on TV, and Andrew Lincoln's performance has seldom been better!

As the ending approaches, hope turns to despair, and in one of the greatest introduction scenes ever (the single greatest in Andrew Lincoln's opinion), we meet one of the greatest TV villains of all time, played by one of the best and most respected TV actors of the last 20 years. The following scene is nothing less than a masterclass in suspense filmmaking, and within the final minutes of this season, Rick and his group are gonna realize, that they've been messing with the wrong guy, they done f'ed up, and they gon' learn today!

This episode deserves a spot on the top 3 list of the best episodes of the show. It is flawless, masterful TV-making, absolutely top-shelf, and no cliffhanger, no matter how despised or infamous, could, or should, ever undo that!

When I first watched this episode, I was impatient. I didn't like it, because of what happened in the earlier episodes, I didn't like it because I was desperate to find out what happened to Glenn, what happened to Rick. I couldn't appreciate it, because I didn't care about Morgan's backstory, I cared about the main story. Having watched it twice since, it's become one of my favorite episodes of the show. This is more than a tv show episode, it's a film in its own right, you could watch this without having watched a single TWD episode, albeit with a couple extra minutes of introduction to the "state of the state". That being said, with the knowledge of the story, and without the impatience of an initial viewing, it's even better! We are upset with Morgan, most of us I assume, because of his unwillingness to accept the world, because he doesn't kill. After all, if he had just killed the two Wolves when he first met them, they probably wouldn't have found Alexandria, and the plan for the herd wouldn't have been compromised, and so many lives would have been spared. More lives, than what he spared that fateful day. An underlying theme throughout the series, is the bigger picture. Action lead to reaction, but so does inaction. In the world of The Walking Dead, is it okay to kill, if it saves other lives? Is it okay to spare a life, even if it costs others? The show never answers those questions, it makes us think for ourselves, but Morgan makes a strong case for the latter. And for the viewers to get an understanding, and such a deep and profound one, of why makes the choices he does, is what makes this episode so great!

Also, in my book, John Carroll Lynch makes everything he participates in just a little better!

Let me just start by saying that I had very low expectations for this movie, in fact I put it on because I was tired but had to stay awake, and had to watch something that didn't require my attention too much. It feels like empty criticism to even have to say that a film with a title as this is unbelievably stupid, because of course it would be, right? But then again, great films have been made on ridiculous premises, it's no more ludicrous to imagine an American president hunting vampires, than, for instance, a boy raised by aliens fighting evil with a raccoon and a tree! My point is, "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" is even dumber than the title suggests, when it didn't necessarily have to be! Skip it.

And for some reason, I enjoyed myself immensely! This movie is objectively bad on so many levels, and as opposed to others I actually understand the relatively low score it's gotten here. But man I had a great time watching, I suppose I'm just a sucker for spectacle, but I was on the edge of my seat, I laughed my ass off several times, and almost cried once or twice. I'm gonna go out on a limb and declare, that this movie is extremely self aware, it knows how ridiculous it is! I don't for a second believe that director Dean Devlin took himself or anybody else seriously when he pulled that RPG out of the trunk, when he set the Kremlin on fire, or when, near the end, his lead character actually utters the words "Hernandez, you son of a b****". There is something pure about a film that just lets itself go like this. It's just a full on, over the top, cliche-ridden, science fiction roller coaster ride, and I didn't hate a single second.

I have seldom felt so cheated out of a great movie than I do right now. This is a great premise and a great story, weighed down, frankly, by bad filmmaking. To list the flaws would be futile, they are so many and so frequent, both on a technical level, but also in the script, that by the time the reveal comes around, did anybody really care? This is painful to watch, not to say that the movie is painfully bad, it is painful because we know it could have been a fantastic science fiction film, maybe even a franchise. To be fair, Ben Young does end his fiasco with a blatant setup to a sequel, albeit one that is hardly ever going to happen. He might not be a great director, but his self esteem seems to be above and beyond.

The premise of this new film, by Norwegian director Tommy Wirkola, is a brilliant one, Naomi Rapace is as great as ever, and the overall execution is really good. If only the plot had been able to keep up.

It seems to me Wirkola asks us not to take it all too seriously, and just enjoy the ride and I was almost able to, because it's a pretty fun one. The problem is, in my humble opinion at least, a film like this, a premise like this, a plot like this, SHOULD take itself seriously. "What Happened to Monday" starts out as a techno-thriller, and I wish it would have stayed as such, but it soon divulges into mindless action. This is forgivable, even admirable, if the plot is able to support it, but in this case it isn't, and thus the movie quite quickly falls apart.

In a thriller, even a sci-fi thriller, one can only indulge so many plot holes, and in this one they are too frequent and too huge, and Wirkola doesn't seem to care. He seems to want to get ridiculous, to revel in his action and his violence, but I would say that, in that case, he should have made a different movie.

As for the plot holes, I won't spoil anything, because this is a good film, I just feel like it could have been a great one!

I know films are supposed to evoke emotions, make you sad, scared, angry, but it's always, however contradictory it may seem, in a good way! I don't need one to actually stress me out, I've got enough of that already. Credit where credit is due, this IS on purpose. The Safdie brothers are meticulous in their process of letting the audience feel the stress their lead character is under, and I can appreciate and applaud that. It just wasn't for me. My heart was pounding, non stop, but it wasn't in a good way. It wasn't in the way you normally get it with great thrillers, or even horror films. It wasn't exciting as much as it was unpleasant, I wasn't on the edge of my seat as much as I was on the verge of popping a Valium.

As for the plot, there hardly isn't any to speak of, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, because it leaves space for everything else. What it is about is a guy with debt and gambling issues, living through probably the worst couple of days of his life, and there is hardly a single second of quiet and reprieve from the mayhem. Characters are constantly shouting, fighting, cursing each other out, I wouldn't be surprised to read in the trivia section, that there isn't a single moment in the entire film where at least 2 characters aren't speaking at the same time. As such, there is hardly time to care about any of the characters, a lot of the time I found it hard to even care what happed to Howard, despite the brilliant portrayal by Sandler.

The Safdie brothers have made the kind of film they wanted to make, I'm sure of that, and the craft is nothing short of astonishing. It's just that, in making the film they wanted to make, they made an extremely uncomfortable one. I was stressed, I was depressed and not in any good way!

While watching this film, I kept reminding myself to just enjoy the ride, and let go of the many, many, many plot holes. After all, hardly any of these types of movies are plausible, so I just turned my mind of, and hoped for the kind of edge of the seat experience I was expecting. I expected it, because for the first 20 minutes I wasn't lead to expect anything else. The film sets up very nicely as the mystery unfolds before us, and it all seems solid enough, so I was hooked. Then it slowly but surely unraveled, in ways I can't get into without spoiling anything. I will say though, what really bumped the movie down from a 7 to a 5 for me, happens between 1.33.52 and 1.35.56. I'll recommend the film for anyone who enjoys a being taken for a bit of a ride, and I'll tell you not to judge it by those 2 crucial minutes, but it's something I can't do myself.

This was the single scariest episode of The Walking dead in all its years, and that is saying a lot. Being a bit of a horror buff, and with television having always had certain limitations with the medium of horror, I have never really been scared by a tv show! As a teenager, of course, we were all innocent once (Supernatural's first couple seasons, anyone?), but as a grown up, not really.

This episode scared the literal crap out of me! Not the whole thing, mind you, but the Connie/Virgil segment in particular. I would say that this segment, on it's own, would classify as a horror-short masterpiece! The way Nicotero utilizes the sounds and music, but more importantly the lack of it, is as masterful as any of the modern horror films that have played on the same, or similar, elements. I'm looking especially at you "Hush" and "Don't Breathe", but somehow this is almost better.

Aforementioned limitations aside, I think that the edge a TV-show does have, as opposed to a short film, is that in "On the Inside" we are dealing with characters we've known and cared for in a while. We especially (no offense Virgil) care deeply about Connie's fate, because hers involves so many other characters, some that we've known literally since the pilot! This introduces a deeply emotional element, and the best horror films have that too, as I've said many times.

Alas, some 65% of an episode being a masterpiece does not qualify a 10 rating, but as always we've got Darryl to the rescue. This episode could easily have been bogged down by, for instance, a Commonwealth element, but instead opts to juxtapose its horror with some great "thriller filler". Darryl's "Inside Man" act is established as an exciting storyline in earlier episodes, and in this one it only goes deeper and darker. As such the only relief we ever get from the horror is thriller, and that is not really a relief is it?

So what does it all add up to? The long running "Where's Connie" story-line is wrapped up, and my wracked nerves would have thanked Nicotero for letting me off with this emotionally satisfying and moving conclusion, but no; As I was almost content, he pulls me right back in it, and delivers a terrifying cliffhanger, with a terrific new villain to contend with! Bravo!

There are 3 different types of Rick and Morty fans. The casual ones, like me, who enjoy the show for what it is, a funny and innovative animated sci-fi sitcom. Then there's the "intellectual" ones who ironically think this is the smartest thing ever made, and that you need an IQ of at least 120 to appreciate all the scientific layers and the philosophical questions and the blah blah blah (one reviewer here even used the word "Dadaist" to explain the humor, see what I mean?). But the worst kind, are the ones who think Justin Roiland is some sort of improv genius. These clips are so self indulgent, so full of themselves, so obviously condescending towards, well basically everyone. There is a tendency on the part of the writers and creators throughout the first seasons, to keep an ironic distance to everything pop, a kind of self-preserving "everything you like is dumb" bravado, that is subtle at best, but obnoxious at worst. Rixty Minutes is the latter, you can almost feel the contempt for everyone and everything except himself and his show, when Roiland lazily and ever-so-casually "improvs" his way throughout the episode. It's not funny, it's obnoxious. And it's condescending. And self-indulgent, and lazy, and people are eating it up. I guess that is actually kinda Dadaist, right? Maybe it's so Dadaist, that if you think it's Dadaist, you're the idiot? Maybe it's supposed to make you reflect, maybe it's a scolding satire about the ever degrading quality of entertainment, maybe it's a poignant parallel about the addiction to TV being mirrored in the war on drugs. Or maybe, Justin Roiland is just a bit full of himself, and that is the only point that is to (potentially) miss.

It has often amazed me, how people behind great shows, brilliant shows, at times make the most abhorrently stupid choices concerning their storytelling. The Walking Dead has been a stellar show, top of the shelf television from day one, and along come The Scavengers.

I can forgive the idea, in its infancy, but how a group of such talented directors, writers, producers and actors ALL decided that THIS was the way to go, is absolutely beyond me!

I learned today that The Scavengers are a group unique to the show, as in not from the comics, and it makes me wonder if the comics are really all that, and the people behind the show are just amateurs the lot. If you don't know by now specifically what grinds my gears about this new addition to the show, then you haven't noticed, and I'm happy for you. But picture this:

A meeting, of the show-runners, they need a new group to spice up the show, and they've used up the source material. An idea is pitched; Garbage people. Fine, I'm in. Another idea is pitched, then another, and then, somewhere in the room, some moron opens their mouth "hey, how about if they, like, talked weird, you know, because, like, post apocalyptic stuff?".

Like I said, I can forgive a bad pitch. But this insane idea; that adults, who lived their whole lives speaking normally, would digress into this ineffective, unproductive and downright moronic way of communicating, just by living in a dump surrounded by zombies for a couple of years, made it all the way to the screen. Nobody second guessed it, everyone signed off on it, that is what absolutely blows my mind. Back to the meeting: "It's totally plausible that people living isolated for years will start to speak differently, maybe they just skip a word here and there, it'll make them edgy, exciting". Yes, except it's not plausible, at all, it's not edgy, it's just downright idiotic. It's the sort of idea that works in a Hunger Games novel, in a Riverdale episode maybe. How does the same episode have such a brilliant, mature scene between Darryl and Carrol? Perhaps because the The Walking Dead, zombies aside, is a mature show, for mature people, a show that takes the world it exists in seriously, that takes human nature seriously and, most importantly, takes its viewers seriously.

An otherwise great episode gets a 1/10 from me, just for dragging the show down in the mud with the other mediocre, pandering, teenage melodrama fare that's circulating the streaming services these days, and for a script that should have gone down in flames long before reaching production. Go ahead, Jadis, show Rick the up up up, and then just kill me already..

What a load of propagandist BS this is, holy Christ I'm disappointed in you HBO. First of all, are we supposed to believe these kids are that intelligent? That they have that vocabulary? That they are able to form such complex and insightful thoughts and sentences in their own little minds? Acting, is what it is, and that's unforgivable in a documentary, but the whole thing is clearly intended for kids, so I forgave it. When they started blaming the Soviet Union and redirecting any semblance of responsibility however, that's when I lost my head! It's such a deliberate distortion of the truth, it's despicable!

Thankfully that's the extent of the political propaganda, and we're taken back to the kids hearing a touching story from the son of a victim. This is the only part of the documentary that feels real, and it's about 5 minutes long.

Cut back to the very definition of the term "those who can't do, teach". I of course have zero evidence to the fact, but I would not be surprised if the art teachers were (bad) actors as well, I can't actually imagine any real people being as fake and obnoxious as these two! On second thought, maybe art teachers...

Don't be fooled by the look of this little gem, like I'm ashamed to say I was. Its obviously low budget, which is by no means an indication of low quality, but what made me think I was in for a pretty bad 1,5 hours was the sort of "amateur" direction style that it displays, especially at the beginning. It's the kind of feeling you'll get watching the pilot episode of Twin Peaks, if you don't know you're about to watch a masterpiece. Oh, and of course, the fact that Limp Bizkit front man and self proclaimed Jacksonville redneck Fred Durst is not only in it, but has a leading role, didn't do anything good for my first impression. Having made up my mind to watch it, it wasn't long before I was sucked in by the plot. Then came the pacing, steady, not too slow but not rushed, and the tension grows along with the mystery of this town, one that I flattered myself I would solve within the first 20 minutes. I never did, though I had some suspicions that came true, but I was never sure of anything. This is a well written, well directed little indie mystery-thriller. I ended up having one of those rare experiences where you are genuinely surprised by how good a film is, and shame on me for judging this proverbial book by its cover. Oh, and guess what; turns out Fred Durst is a pretty good actor!

Not since Guardians of the Galaxy has there been such an amazing standalone adventure in the MCU. When I say that, I mean an MCU film, that absolutely didn't have to be one at all, to be great. I have been with the MCU from the very beginning, I have watched the films and the post credits scenes from back in the days before The Avengers, where people (myself included) didn't necessarily realize that they tied together. That journey felt as though it had ended, when Iron Man snapped his fingers in Endgame, and I kinda thought, now 33 years old, that my own Marvel adventure was over.

I couldn't have been more wrong! Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings was a WILD ride, and I am so excited for this to be the first film out since Endgame. The MCU has always had its ups and middles (and maybe one or two downs), and I'm sure other films will be more along the middle, but I am confident, however, that though my initial MCU adventure is over, a new one is just beginning. Well done Marvel, well freaking done!

I'll give it points for trying and for actually keeping me entertained most of the time. However, a good chunk of the film is centered around it's overt social commentary, which is at best boring, at worst (and at most) pretentious and dumb. It says in the Trivia section that most the actors are relatively unknown, which is why they were picked, and probably also why most of them couldn't act to save their life (pun intended). It makes sense to have unknown actors, because you know, if Brad Pitt and Kevin Hart had been two of the fifty, we'd all kinda know how it turned out. On the other hand, having a bunch of bad actors in central roles, doesn't do the film any favors, my guess is that since it's obviously low budget, they just couldn't afford to hire 8 or 10 better actors. All in all, I'm glad I watched it, because now I can cross it off my watchlist, but I won't watch it again.