Reviews

The Protégé. The Fixer, Kind of. But he's not The Gentleman running anything or calling the shots. I enjoyed the movie of the same name and I enjoyed the first two episodes penned by Guy Ritchie. Thereafter, the not Guy Ritchie-written episodes fell off a cliff. I love Theo James. Hollywood still has not utilized him properly. He'd make a perfect Bond. James Bond. Here, he's a Duke for Hire and does whatever tasks assigned to him from The Weed Boss Lady (played by an actress who's name is impossible to spell). She was great in a series called Spinning and she's good here. I just don't like the work dynamics going on here. What is The Duke's standalone storyline? His entire character arc runs through the Weed Boss Lady. She's basically his mentor. Why would she send The Duke off on a low-level job to steal a car from a dangerous enterprise? Why would she risk his life or clean record or good standing when she operates a lucrative weed business out of his mansion? Why is The Duke's big Brother still around past Episode 2 or 3 at best? The actor's fine in the role, but he has nothing to do, which means he's not needed. The weed farm guy with the off accent is too high out of his mind to be put in control of a lucrative weed farm 24-7. Where's the muscle? Why wouldn't his boss, The Weed Boss Lady, track him or his phone to catch the pretty crook who stole his van with the big weed delivery? Who would trust an out of his mind weed head with such a delivery in the first place? Why does the show keep having The Duke clean up one mess, just to create a bigger mess? It's repetitive and predictable. All of the eccentric personalities and over-the-top scenarios could not distract me from the bad writing and redundancy. Not even Vinnie Jones, Theo James, and criminally underused Giancarlo Esposito and Ray Winstone could hook me past Episode 4. I've never met a Guy Ritchie project I didn't find interesting and entertaining. He may be an executive producer, but outside of the first two episodes he wrote, this doesn't feel like Guy Ritchie. It's trying too hard to be shocking and cool. Guy Ritchie projects don't try. They are.

Even in a fantasy crime-drama, you must have rules, and the writers must write within those rules. You can't just throw nonsense the viewer's way because Toby needs a pretty redhead to get busy in bed with who has powers like him and even stronger (we'll get to that in a minute) and those said powers led to her sacrificing herself thereby predictably making Toby realize he must continue to use his abilities to help others, despite harming his own health. In Season One, this show used to have an advisor, confidant and psychiatrist (played by always great Colm Feore) for Toby, who guided him. Did the the wise doctor retire? His wisdom would have guided an uncertain Toby to the path of sacrifice for others, instead of some random girl with telepathic abilities who can also transfer or plant ideas in others human beings heads who have a guilty conscience. She does this without speaking to you by the way! Her family was murdered when she was eight. She was in a coma for a year after being shot. She's in her 20s now. Why revenge now? Toby inherited his abilities from his Mom, as Season One alludes. Toby assumes His Girl Friday got her mental powers while in a coma. Ok? But how is she transferring or planting ideas in others' heads. One minute, IIB supercop Michelle is interrogating the girl with the super mental powers, the next she's releasing her with no memory of why and how! The episode never explains how this is happening! It's one thing for someone to have special powers. But how are they just randomly transferring ideas into someone else's head to off themselves, essentially mind control. It's not hypnosis and she doesn't even speak to them! This episode was the worst episode of the series. Things were just happening without any rhyme or reason. Maybe instead of focusing on Michelle's boring divorce dilemma, the episode should have focused on what could have been a great episode if the writers just took the time to explain the new fascinating special powers of a newcomer, who's now a goner. Please don't do this in Season 3!

Jensen Ackles was brilliant in balancing between Dean and Archangel Michael. Attire aside, his facial expressions alone differentiate between whom is whom. He captured every mannerism and reactions to actions. It's Ackles finest hour since a season or two ago when he told his Mom, who was locked in or stuck in a dream, that he hates her (and loves her) because he was forced to be both Mom and Dad to baby Sam because of decisions she made.

The loop (lucid dream?) was incredible and reminded me of one of my favorite Twilight Zone episodes where Dennis Weaver relives the same day of being found guilty and sentenced to death, but each day has different variations, minimal but noticeable. Here, Dean is trapped in a loop and Sam's realization that contentment is what will break Dean, not trauma because Dean thrives on trauma is some of the most profound and intelligent writing in this series.

The ending is perfect and reflective acting from Jensen Ackles. The final scene is unpredictable and leaves the door open to sinister and mysterious possibilities for an otherwise weak Season 14.

Side note: Jack's grace/powers are restored. Finally. Welcome Back Jack. What an exciting addition to the episode.

Gary Oldman is in top form as an attorney obsessed with winning, but toes the unethical line after doing his job too good and regrettably getting his rich arrogant client, played by a sexy slithering Kevin Bacon, acquitted for a sexual violation and murder, who's later revealed to be a prolife serial killer toying with said attorney, which sends his attorney over the edge. From this movie to another movie where he terrorizes a Wife (played by Charlize Theron) and her family to Hollow Man to City on a Hill, Bacon always nails the charming creep role! If you split Criminal Law into three acts: Beginning, middle and end, the first two acts work while the final act spirals out of control and ruined any rewatch value. Bacon's character for example is smooth, methodical and confident his riches will always bail him out of anything. Then, suddenly he's erratic and going off the rails in the final act and I hated the cliche ending. The blonde love interest for Oldman's attorney character added nothing for me except one rough, passionate sex scene that illustrated Oldman's increasingly maddening state of mind. Well played and acted by both actors. Despite Criminal Law's shortcomings, you can't tell me The Lincoln Lawyer author and screenwriter didn't draw from this movie as its premise and just tweaked it. I bet The Devil's Advocate took some "inspiration" too when it comes to blurred morals of thoroughly representing an obviously guilty monster to score a win. And yes, I do believe in innocent until proven guilty in a court of law and everyone deserving legal representation, which reminds me there's some quick great dialogue in this movie about the defense attorney's role, ethics and justice.

Did I just see a little boy coldcock James, a grown man?! Why didn't James chase him down? We now have James' Wife Helen mocking him in front of his boss Siegfried for getting "thumped" by said little boy. Speaking of Helen, she continues to be a busy body know-it-all from Season 3 on. She retired from her family's farm or did I miss something? Siegfried has become a goofy grump and stopped smoking his pipe and tells his clients to do the same because the writers want to insert a modern-day No Smoking message in a 1940s rural Yorkshire village where it doesn't belong. Housekeeper Audrey continues to be sad, so very sad. After a somber, unimpressive Season 3, I feared the show I loved in Seasons 1 and 2 left on that train with Tristan. I'm out.

13 minutes in and the opening credits are hauntingly good, while the CGI reindeers are awfully bad. Horror happenings at an arctic research facility immediately grabs you. We're off to a good start. I like it here. Then, here comes the "climate change" talk and then every male character is talked down to by their female counterparts, and then one police officer guy cannot even figure out how to shut down a loud television. No man is worth respecting. I exited. If the writer doesn't think her male characters are worth respecting or remembering, why should I care. Too bad I never got to see Christopher Eccleston. I watched and loved Seasons One through Three in real time, One and Three being my favorites. Nothing can top Season One and the mesmerizing performances of McConaughey and Harrelson, a gothic tale so ugly its gorgeous and the unforgettable one running tracking shot through the trap houses. However, I gave every season thereafter a try and didn't regret it until Season Four.

The sun glare from the aerial surveillance and simultaneous heated pursuit on the ground made for a visually stark and tense chase from street to dam! The premise is nothing groundbreaking, but it stands out in some ways. The Jigsaw-like disguised voice making ransom demands was unexpected and creepy. A satisfying creepy. The landscape from the performance stage and maze-style seating to the chase through the narrow watery dam and the inner workings of the dam looked like something out of an early Kubrick or Carol Reed. Architecturally gritty and gorgeous at the same damn time. The movie could have avoided the dull love story between the cop-hater cutie and the uh cop. The movie should have avoided the cliche bad guy gets fatally shot in the final minutes. He was cornered. Did the cop need to shoot him dead? He wasn't a serial killer, child predator or menace to society. Just arrest him.

After the closing credits, I read an old interview with the filmmaker, who revealed this is based on a runaway hotline call. He didn't hear the call firsthand. It's alleged and he built a story of perceptions and interpretations on the alleged call! I didn't come into this movie expecting a true story. However, the opening credits told me it's based on real people and events. It is not. I resent being lied to and will avoid projects from the screenwriter moving forward. A fictional story can be compelling without being falsely based on a true story. I tried this movie for its cast of Jaime Bell, Josh Lucas and Dermot Mulroney and they do not disappoint in their respective roles, especially Josh Lucas. It is a tale of two brothers destroyed by past resentments and present greed. There's also a second tale about two other brothers turned runaways, stowaways and survivalists. Their resourcefulness was impressive and their dedication to each other admirable. One brother suffers from Pica but I'm not sure if that was a known disorder in whatever time this movie takes place. The movie also does The Drive thing where money is discarded as a morality lesson. News Flash: People, especially poor, hungry ones, don't leave money behind to send the bad guy a message. Some random girl is thrown into the mix to give Jaime Bell's character an unnecessary love connection. His previous love story with Kristen Stewart's character went nowhere and the last time she could act was in Speak. A love story doesn't fit into everything. There was a well-written, well placed dreamlike dialogue about a Sea King and doomed gold coins delivered beautifully by Mulroney. As usual, Hollywood depicts rural Southerners as brainless unwashed caricatures desperately in need of dental care. Their pure contempt for anyone outside of California and New York is insulting. I wanted to love this movie. The writer wouldn't let me.

Mike Flanagan's first horror Netflix miniseries - I loved the tale of the heartbroken, haunted family, trapped in a cycle of gloom and doom all tied to a spooky family home with individually interesting characters. There was one sibling who indulged in girl on girl action...ok, didn't add to nor distract from the central story.

Mike Flanagan's second horror miniseries - I liked the tale of the heartbroken American nanny, escaping her grieving past, just to land in an English mansion that holds a heartbreaking and tragic past of a doomed love affair and supernatural evil trying to possess the living. The actor playing the handsome evil was the stand out, but overall the cast was good. I didn't like the never-ending final episode, but I liked the miniseries overall. There's a random girl on girl loving relationship that added nothing nor took away anything from the main plot.

Mike Flanagan's third horror Netflix miniseries Midnight Mass was incredibly acted, paced, written and shot until the final two episodes. It went from something profound to just a basic gory supernatural horror miniseries. Hamish Linklater was brilliant as the mysterious, charismatic priest and I refuse to believe anyone out-acted him in 2021! How did he not get nominated for all the awards?! Zach Gilford is also perfect in his role and his final scene on the boat is unforgettable. I think a nurse might have liked women. She's sidelined most of the runtime, so I don't remember. If so, it's not the focus.

Mike Flanagan's fourth and latest horror miniseries - I could not finish the episode. Good cast, although I would have preferred the original casting of Frank Langella as Roderick Usher. Already, I see Flanagan is not staying true to Poe's tale. Ok, I'll stick with it. I like the dark cinematography and how the story starts. Pretty early on, you see Flanagan is committed to pushing an agenda, not his pen. We're supposed to root for the strangle death of a "powerful" man because, because he's powerful. He was mean. Is that punishable by death though? I guess the Eat The Rich agenda makes Flanagan feel cool, despite him being rich. Mr. District Attorney has a Husband. Ok. An Usher daughter has a girlfriend (Wife?). Ok. An Usher son is getting serviced by a sexy girl who he hides from his boyfriend. Another Usher daughter says a Fox News host makes her sick to her stomach. Here comes the politics. Sigh. I exited out. Hollywood, same-sex loving is not edgy or shocking. It's 2023, not 1953. If you go by percentages, no family has all that going on. And why must DNC politics be in everything? Mike Flanagan, no fifth miniseries please.

The last 10 minutes betrays the character arc of the hero/Witch Hunter. You can see the screenwriters were hoping for a sequel, but who will watch it if you let down most of your audience for the first movie? I don't know why writers don't focus on hooking you before chasing a maybe sequel. For most of the runtime, The Last Witch Hunter is a good action and adventure fantasy. It is visually spectacular and competently meshes witch hunting and dream walking. The backstory and alliance of ax and cross, Donals serving as The Witch Hunter's keeper and the Witches Council all have cohesiveness, surprisingly. Don't adjust your sound, but you may need to put on your captions from time to time, as Vin Diesel tends to mumble at points. He's very good in this role - commanding presence and shows a range of emotions in certain scenes. The supporting cast delivers as well. Michael Caine and Elijah Wood always stand out. You throw in immortality, betrayal, and revenge and what could go wrong. As it turns out, too much for a rewatch or to care about a future sequel, if any. Elijah Wood's The 37th Donal disappears for too long in the third act to be a substantive villain in a last-ditch twist that fell flat instead of shocking me. The Witch Queen's return is not a shock either. As long as The Witch Hunter had immortality, we knew she was alive. And why would the Witch Queen leave her interwoven coven of banished witches, the key to her ultimate plan to end humanity, unguarded? The final action by the Witch Hunter betrayed everything that came before. Instead of killing the Witch Queen, he lets her live by not destroying her heart, for the predictable, forced love story with a red-headed dream walker he met a couple of days ago. A total directional shift from his eight-centuries old honor and duty. He had a great love in his Wife. I thought his immortality was a curse and he wanted to end it to reunite in the afterlife with his great love - his Wife and daughter. He left humanity's doomed fate up to chance and his eternal love behind for a shallow love story. Where's the sacrifice? What was the point? What a weak and unforgivable ending.

Two episodes into Fargo Season 5 and I can see that Noah Hawley has lost his passion and imagination for writing or at least telling us an interesting story. I was stunned Hawley wrote these episodes. Or did a team of interns write it and he slapped his name on them to give them weight? Season 5 so far has been (and will continue to be based on the "coming up this season" previews) part Home Alone, some MacGyver and add in some Sleeping With the Enemy. It takes from those different premises minus any engaging or charismatic characters and replaces entertaining writing with the usual agenda: Men are bad, mad, weak or goofy, not heroic and not worthy of admiring or respecting. Only the female characters are smart, strong and important. It's all so repetitive, predictable and boring and it's in most shows and movies since about 2016. Jon Hamm is great as always. Here he's the perfect archetype of the toxic, alpha male for Hollywood writers since about 2016, and while everything he says makes common sense and therefore true, he is the villain and will predictably lose in the end. We waited three years for this? And why was a moment of silence given to a little daughter having a "wedgie"? It felt gross and unnecessary. Juno Temple plays a likeable and sympathetic woman on the run, but the bad writing lets her down. The direction and cinematography look great, as per Fargo standards. Season 4 was so bad I had to quit as well and I wasn't the only one. The ratings started at 1.22 million (a 14 percent drop from Season 3) and dropped to 851,000. Day 1, Season 1 fans like myself have abandoned Fargo and Season 5 has no interest in bringing us back.

The doctor got what he deserved. Yes, I said it. His Wife married him at 16, birthed his children, stuck by him and held down through college and medical school. And what does he do? Become a successful doctor and throw her away like trash after 25 years once he met a newly-hired young (and not even hot but very married) nurse, who was on the hunt for a doctor for financial and status gain unbeknownst to him. His Wife accidentally shot herself in the head while chasing behind him, threatening suicide and terrified that he was leaving her for his Ms. Nurse Mistress, resulting in her spine being severed and being paralyzed from the neck down and then she died from complications of her illness. How tragic!!! He then marries Nurse Mistress a year later! And Nurse Mistress turned his new Wife kills him for his money after he falls ill waiting for a liver donation. She killed him instead of caring for him like his first Wife surely would have. She then remarries a young handy man and they spend his money in Las Vegas. She then dies from an illness in prison just two years into her sentence. If Hollywood makes a movie called Karma, it should be based on the true crime story! I feel bad for his devoted first Wife and her alone!

I was in. I was all in and then she entered the picture. Mark Strong captivates. Leonardo DiCaprio is consistently good. Russell Crowe's accent annoys. The plot and pace stayed focused. The surveillance, political intrigue, and action all thrilled. Then, a boring pretty nurse entered the picture and everything chilled. Enter the cliché love story. DiCaprio's CIA character, fresh out of a bad marriage, has two clinic visits and two dates with a boring pretty nurse and risks his life (ultimately gets maimed) to save her life after she's "kidnapped". Is that believable? Despite having no love connection or chemistry whatsoever, he gives up his career and oath to America to remain in Jordan to stare at her from afar or something. An innocent architect framed as a terrorist and DiCaprio's right man, a good family man, are both murdered and coldly disregarded by this film. Their families aren't even financially compensated, yet this same film wants me to feel deep sorrow for the "kidnapped" pretty nurse?

The cold opening is tense, gripping in some ways and interesting in others. After the credits roll, Tom Cruise is still top-notch as Ethan Hunt and that signature run still excites. Something's off with his core team. They're barely on screen, especially Ving Rhames' Luther who disappears in the final act. The landscape is beautiful and the movie utilizes the elements in its action scenes, mainly in the desert scenes. The premise of a sentient digital world-controlling "entity" is intriguing. We're off to good start and then we meet Grace. I like Hayley Atwell. I don't like Hayley Atwell as Grace. Grace, the pretty pickpocket, is the key to everything. Ethan saves her, she betrays him, and leaves him for dead (or capture) and this cycle repeats throughout the movie, making the plot predictable and boring, and their chase scenes felt like a bad romantic and slapstick comedy. No matter how much Ethan saves her life or risks his for hers, she's never loyal to him. Nothing binds her to him. Yet, before Ethan does a death-defying stunt off a mountain to land on a train, he reflects on the great loves he lost or could lose and he sees IIsa's (Rebecca Ferguson) face and a love he lost early in his IMF career...and Grace. Grace? Why?! She's a great love of his life?? Again, why? Grace also caused IIsa's death, which is glossed over and passed off as IIsa sacrificing her life for Grace. I found that disingenuous as a fan. I love Rebecca Ferguson's IIsa character and she fit within the MI franchise. Grace is forced and forgettable. I think MI wanted Grace to be some mysterious, intriguing, unforgettable beauty like Halle Berry' Jinx or an Irene Adler and Hayley Atwell could not stick the landing. She did nail Tom Cruise. They were dating during filming. I guess it pays to date The Boss. Others things that failed Dead Reckoning for me was the villain Gabriel and his henchman Paris. Both were too generic to be memorable or any significant impact. The final never-ending train derailment almost made me exit the theater. MI 2 was my least favorite in the franchise until now. I'll catch MI: Dead Reckoning Part 2 at home on Paramount-plus when it streams at no cost.

While this remains one of my favorite episodes in the series, one thing always bothered me about it during its original run and upon my repeat viewings: The episode's writer failed to acknowledge that Paul's right to consent to sleep with Sarah was taken away from him. He's sleeping with Sarah who he thinks is his girlfriend Beth. It's not consensual sex. If the roles were reversed, this would not be ignored. The writer made sure we understood Sarah (and Beth while alive) were being physically inspected without consent and against their will by a medical team of strangers and also monitored unbeknownst to them by Paul. Paul is a victim too and that should not be erased just because he's pretending to be a boyfriend when he's a hired monitor. Sarah's pretending to be his girlfriend Beth when she's initially there for the hustle a/k/a cleaning out Beth's bank account and banging Paul to distract him.

If the show was just about Georgia, I'd watch it! I loved Gilmore Girls during its original run and I've even rewatched it a few times. I loved 1990's movie Mermaids as a kid. The Spinning Out series was very good. I love movies or shows about a quirky or eccentric or unbalanced Mother and her rational, grounded daughter wherein their different personalities clash. I thought Ginny and Georgia might feel that type of genre void. 38 minutes in I realized it would not. To the point, Ginny is irritating. She finds an -ism or something negative in school work or in general and her new school friend is equally irritating. The writers use Ginny to push certain talking points. No, thank you. Georgia, on the other hand, came from a rough and violent past, as we see in flashbacks, yet she's resilient but positive, cheerful and outgoing. She also pretty and hot and owns it confidently, while her spoiled daughter is dreary. Why is she so miserable? She has a loving Mother and little brother and no hardships, so what's the problem?

I no longer fall for "Inspired By A True Story" movies because it's barely based on the real story, people or events. I normally go straight to a docu-series or a fact-based crime article. I made an exception tonight... I watch all things James Norton since Grantchester and I've loved Gemma Arterton since Byzantium.

Why make a movie about a true story if you're clearly not a fan of the true story? It's not a documentary and you can fill in the gaps with some fiction, but it's not supposed to be mostly fictional. How come within five minutes of women (i.e. British litigator babe and American Embassy boss) meeting each other in a film, they're instantly best friends who mutually adore each other? I've worked in majority female environments and majority male environments. The female workplace is definitely the toxic, catty one where I didn't feel the love. The female empowerment collaboration to catch the infamous con man played by James Norton feels forced because it's complete fiction. The real capture is far more exciting. Our American FBI and U. K.'s Scotland Yard collaborated on a sting, monitored phone calls between the American psychologist victim's parents and the con man and captured him at Heathrow Airport. Doesn't that sound far more exciting than the movie's exhausting final minutes Lifetime-like Movie moment at a village home in the dead of night? I would have given this movie a sexy 8-rating if it just kept it real.

I dislike manipulative storytelling. It makes me feel like I wasted my time. Showrunners should never take its audience for granted. We pay not follow and support your future projects (insert Game of Thrones duo D. B. Weiss and Benioff). From's Season 2 finale answered nothing for most of the episode, then hits you with a shocking ending, as if that makes up for the idleness that proceeded it. Harold Perrineau's Sheriff Boyd continues to deliver in the acting area, despite the anti-God/faith dialogue spewed out of his mouth in the makeshift church scene. It was downright disrespectful to call God a muthaf×#ker and very unnecessary. The scene with the tech guy and his subconscious, in the form of the dead bartender, talking about strategy and morality was well-done. Boyd's son getting married was nicely done. The love felt real. Sheriff Body learns via his ghost-Wife that the elusive energy of the forest feeds off of hope, not fear is a new development. Speaking of hope, the final minutes were hopeful and horrifying to me. Is this a civilized reality or something else?