yemgha

Good things first: Actors are doing a fine job, Soundtrack is great, cinematography is beautiful ... Actually, everything is very stylish and nice ... But so boring, so predictable, so dishonest, so overambitious and eager for applause (and probably awards - not much luck there, though).

The anger and desperation that this story could stir up is drowned in a self-suffocating overdose of righteousness. This story could be deeply moving, shocking and rage-inducing. But the film makers are trying so hard to be good people like those in their own film, as if they thought they were personally responsible for a whole racial movement of proud decency. Which, as should be clear by now, is just doomed.

And here goes Mr. Jenkins, happy to indulge in pretentiously clean and bourgeois surface scrubbing of a racist society. But then again, so was Mr. Baldwin, a great author who, however, would write anything to get praise and acceptance from the powers that be.

One more word to the use of music, which is quite revealing: Billy Preston's endlessly moving rendition of My Country 'Tis of Thee is abused to intensify the emotions at the end of the film. This is such a clichéd move and it also backfires as the song is so much more potent than the film itself. Using music to illustrate and boost a film's sentiment is very unsatisfying.

PS: How the exact same song could be used in a creative, almost subversive way and therefore much more emotionally affecting, has been shown by Robert Aldrich in Twilight's Last Gleaming.

The three actresses are great. They act and interact with an enormous level of authenticity and sensibility. Particularly Elizabeth Olsen, who is amazing and almost uncanny in her acting abilities. The tiniest details in her playing reflect the deep understand of the complicated character she is portraying.

This film could have been a masterpiece if it wasn't completely predictable from the start and if the director would have refrained from some really tacky and clichéd decisions. Even these wonderful actresses could not hide their uncomfortability with some of the scene settings, especially towards the end.

It leaves a stale aftertaste to realize that what starts promising ends in mere conventionality and is not very interesting after all, despite the terrific actors.

What starts quite enoyable and funny, building on a promising premise, takes a turn to the bad, boring and trite astoundingly quickly.

It's as if the film makers tried to do stereotype bingo for a british comedy. The forced quirkiness, the funny overemotional gays, the people with no self-esteem who bounce back from tragedy, the hilariously blunt parents ... Whatever it is, it has been seen countless times, but funnier. And yes, Richard Curtis, he has been mentioned by other reviewers, but even the Godfather of british cliché comedy, has written better stuff than this. Although he clearly serves as an inspiration here - which is not a good omen either.

The actors are not to blame. They are just left with a boring script, too many punchlines that fall flat and an inept direction.

The often lamented fact that the characters are not likeable is really not the problem here. That they are kind of annoying is one of the better things here, because it actually makes them relatable ... Probably the only thing that Richard Curtis could learn from this mess here.

A film about the papacy and the responsibility that comes with being pope, embedded into a mundane conspiracy plot.

Cardinals gather in Rome to elect a new pope. Intrigues, bribery, blackmail and other filthy activities that are to be expected during such procedure unfold.

Who would actually be interested in seeing this? The film is riddled with clichés but most disturbing is the attempt to depict the cardinals as run-of-the-mill power brokers in drags, all about personal gain like they generally behave in high politics. Sorely missed are the more disturbing traits these characters certainly have, being decade-long religious leaders. Even just a few psychological features beyond the usual stereotypes shown here, would have been welcome.

I guess, the problem starts with the book, written by upscale pulp author Harris, but director Berger certainly seems incapable of giving the plot and the characters a much needed infusion of fresh blood. But it remains alarmingly superficial, peddling banalities about faith, politics, morals and the conditio humana.

This is a conventional and predictable buddy movie - in a clerical setting. If it wasn't for the clear stylistic inspiration drawn from Sorrentino's pope series, it could have been made in the 80's.

This is an ambitious film that certainly succeeds in combining several genres. It is also a film that manages to fascinate and captivate for its whole, long running time.

However, there are two major problems: First: the film is ridiculously moralistic.

Second: it is absurd to believe that nobody would immediately question the identity and therefore the background of the main character. Her motivation is legit, she wants to make amends, but it is mindboggling that the filmmakers apparently thought it could go unquestioned when the protagonist, a mysterious woman in every respect, carelessly decides to enter the spotlight.

The longer this drags on the more annoying it gets.

Let's not waste any words on the several voice-overs that deliver an incessant interpretation of the obvious things seen on screen. They are simply patronizing and incredibly tedious.

The story itself is a quite conventional drama circling around a egotistical woman, who eventually gets caught up with her past, or better with the only one of her reckless acts that had grave consequences - for other people. At least that is what the audience is told as the narrating voices constantly reminds us how unpleasant this woman is. But so are all the other protagonists. They are consumed by vanity, envy, lust for revenge and the destruction of others or themselves. To watch these kind of people getting tangled up in disaster could be a lot of fun, however, here none of the characters are much more than concepts.

There are scenes of almost breathtaking clumsiness, like the one the main character is confronted by her work colleagues. This was done in a shockingly simplified and moralistic manner, simply amazing.

Besides, too many plot events are simply illogical or make no sense at all. The characters sometimes act without reason in desperate attempts to keep the story up and running.

The actors struggle sincerely. That this is such an embarrassingly pretentious and meaningless show is certainly not their fault. But even Kevin Kline, who starts so wonderfully, deteriorates into the cliché of a bitter creep. And while Lesley Manville's portrayal of a hardened and suffering mother is stunning, it's the cat that does the best job.

Now, it could be said that it might have been the film makers intention to repulse and create anger against the sort of people that are the characters here - being entitled, self-centered, fake virtue signalling and mostly, without any ability of neither insight nor introspection ...

But eventually, it is rather clear that there is no such agenda involved here. This is not a sophisticated, politically charged dismantling of class, simply a long annoying tv show that does not offer much pleasure.

This is a funny and well-written show. But the characters are so stupid.

The two sisters are self-obsessed non-serious people who have, of course, a podcast. Therefore, they can talk and think even more about themselves than they already do. If they are supposed to be representative of modern young-ish people in LA it is actually shocking to learn how much these people lack of basic knowledge. They are utterly clueless about "the jews" and judaism, which is kind of worrying and makes Adam Brody's character, the Rabbi, turn into an educational guide for them (and the audience). Of course, this is pointless when at the same time his own family fulfills all the clichés about a jewish family: loud, intrusive and just as ignorant about the non-jewish world.

So, although the show is fun and well acted by all, it is also quite dumb and irritating. If by any chance it does accurately portray modern urban life, it is even more disturbing.

This is another series about a dysfunctional and morally corrupted family of the super-rich, again produced by and starring Nicole Kidman, who somehow seems to be obsessed by these people and their issues. It's a classic whodunnit, however, I increasingly lost interest in finding out who actually did it. In the end, it was no suprise either.

The show is stacked with good actors who all end up playing caricatures and clichés. Poor Isabelle Adjani who plays a french woman (as always in US shows) and has to randomly throw in some french expressions in order to remind herself of who she is. Liev Schreiber is at least convincingly lost. Nobody plays the entitled scumbag better than Jack Raynor but also his character can't develop much psychological depth. Ms Kidman would win a staring contest with a statue and her devotion to play a terrible person is admirable, however, it would have been more interesting if she had shown some human traits once in a while.

The whole story meanders hopelessly because of editing gone wild, but mainly responsible for the disaster however are creator, director and writers. The development is depending on many flashbacks. The dialogue is soapy and often outright ridiculous. Many plot turns are implausible and the setups clumsy. Even the attempts in comedic relief that are supposed to provided by the people in the local police station fall absolutely flat. Rarely have I seen actors so unconvincing, being lost at sea even in the final episode with all the shocking but hardly surprising revelations. They are rather ridiculous and stunningly predictable which again is the fault of a script that somehow isn't able to add just a hint of dramatic tension. What might have worked in the book doesn't work on screen at all.

This story is just not interesting and what happens to this family touches no nerve. It also fails in antagonizing the audience to the selfish behaviour of the top 1-percenters, if this was the intention, as these rich people are not much else than boring. Of course, it could be an elaborate trick the rich are playing on us in order to make us not care about them and the injustice of them being undeservedly wealthy, but ... nah, that would be to subtle.

In the end, it even didn't really matter who died, since all of the characters are lifeless, even when alive.

After trying - and failing miserably - to copy Charlie Kaufman with Sorry to Bother You, Boots Riley tries even harder to impress critics and intellectuals and to excite regular audiences. Failure, again.

I'm a Virgo is a messy compilation of half-baked ideas and things Mr. Riley always wanted to say - or hear characters say. There is a naive and very basic lecture about what's wrong with the economy, there is a depressed super hero looking for a super villain, there are supporting characters that suddenly get a lot of screen time ...

There is a lot going on, but it feels random and somehow not original. Probably, because all of it has been seen in other shows or films. Mr. Riley's eclecticism would be fine if there would be just a little more to this collection of inspirations by others. But there isn't.

I'm a Virgo is shallow and has not once managed to surprise me. Nevertheless, the show's pretentious creator seems to consider himself enormously sophisticated and inventive, which translates into the exaggerating of the predictable twists and turns. But after all, he is mostly processing ideas of other people that inspired him. Here, however, the ideas are annoying and incoherent, it all results in disappointment.

Nevertheless, some actors have managed to deliver convincing performances, like Carmen Ejogo, Mike Epps, Allius Barnes and Walton Goggins.

This show continues to mystify me.

The three couples with relationship problems are very relatable and human. Sometimes they are outright hilarious and mostly quite insightful.

Their therapist, however, Orna, is an ignorant and incredibly self-absorbed person with whom at least I would not sit for even one session. She does not sense let alone understand the subtle tensions between the couples. She even is incapable of realizing that one of her patients is clearly pregnant.

Perhaps, it does not matter, since the series still is rather entertaining and up to a certain point even enlightening. However, it is also quite obvious that the whole production is aimed at presenting therapist Orna as a rather amazing therapist. Otherwise, all the interludes indulging her vanity would seem rather pointless.

Therefore, I am confused by this series, because the therapist is such a nuisance, but I nevertheless would like to praise the production team for the tender and somehow fascinatingly revealing method with which they manage to introduce us to wonderful characters like Michal, Dru or Gianni.

This film could not have been any tackier. These are the pictures that the petite bourgeoisie imagines when thinking sentimentally about the debauchery of the wild and roaring 20's. Everything here is so predictable that it starts to annoy after 5 minutes and never stops.

Mr. Chazelle, a certified copycat who, by all means, is a brilliant manager of big sets but most certainly not a true artist with a vision, once again tries to manipulate audiences into excitement about what apparently never ceases to excite him: trumpets, long tracking shots, beautiful women dancing, flirting and just being beautiful women, nostalgia and endless clichés regarding all of the afore-mentioned.

The problem (once again): we have seen it all before. In Mr. Chazelle's other films and - much better - in works by actually talented directors like Fellini, Kubrick, Donen/Kelly, Stroheim, Scorsese, Fincher and yes, even Babylon Berlin does make more sense than this forlorn mess of another celebration of Hollywood and not much else. But mostly, this film is a truly shameless ripoff of Boogie Nights, including everything from photography, dramaturgical structure, character development with the sole exception that Boogie Nights, of course, is the original and a good film.

This film is hopelessly overacted which does not go well with the fact that it is based on a true case and its actual court files.

The director seems to desperately wanting to create something historic here, however he tries so hard that it is eventually more painful than interesting to watch.

It is quite surprising that this film is not even 40 years old but looks and feels so much more dated than many other much older films. Perhaps it is the german way how this rather serious case has been treated: very heavy-handed.

Compare this film to just two films of Fassbinder (Deutschland im Herbst or Die dritte Generation) which are, though not re-enactments but nevertheless so much more accurately captivating a sense of history.

Today this film just appears as if the director didn't come up with any visual idea, therefore deciding to stage a play and film this instead. Unfortunately, even as a play, this thing would have been very boring.

While this film has been produced with technical skill and a lot of money, the only truly astounding thing about it is the breathtakingly bad script and sloppy direction. True, the actions scenes are great and the violence is overwhelming. However, all of it is delivered with such an insanely smug attitude and the filmmakers appear to be really pleased with themselves. It is all pretension, though, and no substance. Of course, nobody expects here characters that are more than one-dimensional, but how about some funny dialogues! There is just no quality or originality to be found in this film. Ripping off Tarantino is bad enough, since Tarantino's old tricks have become boring and he himself moved on. But not knowing how to copy him and thus writing a truly prepotent script is an insult. Needless to say that this film never ever gets close to be either funny or thrilling.

This is, without the slightest doubt, the best Film ever made. The acting - simply astounding, the screenplay - philosophically marvelous, directing - heartwarmingly buoyant, editing - cutting edge, costumes - interminably tasteful, producing - so good!

Gosh, I wish I'd had more words to describe this Masterpiece of modern Art.

This show could actually have been very cool as the characters' lives are mundane and the non-existent plot focusses on a kind of difficult romantic relationship. Unfortunately, the characters are also hardly more than one-dimensional and thus rather boring.

Some of the quirks and stereotypes are quite funny and Lisa Kudrow, who once again has to dig up her reliably hilarious character Fiona Wallice, delivers some great lines. Bust most of the characters remain just annoying clichés and all of them are just lazily developed. In general, this show is sloppily written. Some jokes are okay, most of them are completely predictable and many are just not funny ("It's forbidden. It's like the Montagues and Capulets." - "I've never seen Macbeth.", seriously?) It is a pity that the main character, who could have been an interesting one given her/their story of addiction and obsession, unfortunately is not much more than annoying. It certainly does not help that actor Mae Martin is hopeless in playing her alter ego who is - of course, what else? - a deservedly struggling stand-up comedian.

This show is badly over-rated.

This film has a meandering story that never really gets somewhere - at least not somewhere where I would like to follow ... There is a stunning amount of continuity mistakes which distracted me even more from the less than spellbinding developments in the story. The beautiful very conceptual photography can't help the fact that the story is constantly reminding of "Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf?" - but never really gets close to the dramatic quality of said film/play. However, a cast of great actors manage to elevate this film above its own merits. While Elisabeth Moss and Michael Stuhlbarg are trapped in stereotypical roles, she is still amazing though literally framed by her glasses, while he successfully squeezes every idiosyncrasies out of an unpleasant character. But in the end it's Odessa Young (at least in my opinion) that single-handedly carries this film. It is just wonderful to see the little things she does, in a discreet but nevertheless fascinatingly effective manner, and how easily she balances the different parts of her disturbed character while connecting all other parts of this disorganized mess of a film ...

There's not much I can say about the show itself (as I am only halfway through), except that it's rather confusing with its jumps in time and the additional tasks for viewers to choose their preferred order of episodes ... However, I think it is worth mentioning that there is certainly some of the best acting to be seen here. Although all the actors are very excellent, there is one who can't be praised enough: Peter Sarsgaard displays such a sensibility and breathtaking ambivalence while playing a supremely nasty character - I am deeply moved.

This german series has been highly praised for obvious reasons: it depicts Berlin in a period of turmoil and craziness, during the years of the Weimar Republic and it does so very stylishly, with seemingly endless ressources and carefully appealing to an international audience. Based on a novel by Volker Kutscher, the series initially succeeds in combining the unrestrained hedonism of the rich, the uncontrolled criminal scene, emerging revolutionary police methods, the misery of the poor and the political catastrophe that is lurking underneath it all. The many parallels to today's life in a metropole are obvious. So, why is this series such a disappointment (IMHO)? At first, it isn't. The first episode is overwhelming and exciting. The set design, the camera, the casting, the atmosphere, the whole exposition - everything is exciting and drags the viewer into its spell. It is no surprise that the makers wouldn't be able to keep up pace, tension and quality. What is surprising is how fast and how thoroughly this series crashes. The many plot lines seem to get out of control, some seem to be completely forgotten until they pop up at the end of Season 1 to tie some loose ends. Some twists are just ridiculous and neither the characters develop significantly any further nor does the attempt to contrast lower and upper classes lead to any specific insights. At least, some of the actors are excellent and manage to actually create more-dimensional characters (a.o. Matthias Brandt, Misel Maticevic), but then again, the two main characters, played by great actors Liv Lisa Fries and Volker Bruch are too often lost in space, while the script struggles to barely stay logical. At least the first episode of Season 2 doesn't raise the bar like the one in Season 1, but still the viewer simply can't be prepared to what comes next. The story gets completely out of hand, everything seem to have been shot in panic mode and ripped off of better films, characters are unconsistant, the acting becomes more and more awful and also the show and dance scenes are so boring, that not even Bryan Ferry can save it. Season 2 ends with plot twists that are too ludicrous and absurd to be believed and even the few good moments (Ms. Fries has an amazing scene) are immediately ruined by embarrassing turns right after. The unavoidable german acting star Lars Eidinger has a part that unfortunately becomes even bigger in Season 3 and, inversely proportional, the quality of the series declines even further ... Like a crash of extremely expensive cars, Babylon Berlin is somehow fascinating and it offers great value in scenography and cinematography, but the plot, really ... therefore, according to my inconsiderable judgment, this is a waste of talent, money and opportunity after all.