JurijFedorov Reviews

Late Night with the Devil (2023)

Great fun all the way

[8/10 · 3 May 2024]

Acting: 9 Dialogue: 8 Camera work: 8 Editing: 8 Budget: 7 Story: 7 Theme: 8 Pure entertainment factor: 9 Video quality: 8 Special effects: 7 Pacing: 10 Suspension of disbelief: 7 Non-cringe factor: 5 Lack of flashbacks: 4

These artsy cheap movies tend to have a ton of hype around them if they are even barely decent as they get a cult following and fans who adore them for trying and succeeding at being okay. This time the hype is warranted. This is legit a good movie that never once gets dull or loses its footing. Often cheap horror movies tend to use gore to stand out or are telling stories so basic or unstructured that anyone can see they are written by the director as a lazy passion project. Here this is NOT the case. The writing is absolutely top-notch for 80% of the movie. The ending is a huge letdown compared to the rest of the movie, but yet again it's not dull.

The movie starts out as a mockumentary. Sorta a found footage idea. Then turns into a really funny comedy and frankly this could have stayed a comedy as it was that good and the jokes always landed. It also mixes in 1980's US history from real life events even though this is a fictional talk show. And then it mixes in 1980's Satanic panic history and even the Waco event shown in a fictional cult. This script goes deep into all these topics and you can't really write this without being a semi-expert on all these fields. How did the movie get the 1980's correct and know how the media worked back then? Lots of research.

I don't like found footage stuff and this seemed to lose its focus because of that as they had to force a ton of scenes to make it work. Even showing us a ton of imagined scenarios alongside the found footage. Which of course makes no sense. How would the camera film something a host dreams up? Similarly they have a lot of storylines that all keep it interesting, but later on these storylines fall apart as nothing is done with them. Instead of giving us more and deeper story we just hear the same point over and over again. The host is part of some satan worship group. Obviously that's relevant to the story and could lead to a great conclusion tying all these plots together. Yet instead of giving us more info we just have people saying "you are part of a cult that did something in the woods". That's all the info we get. I get what they are trying to do. They are trying to create a plot by getting back to it. But they forgot to GIVE US MORE info. After 1 hour we can see that the plot in some aspects is stuck and that the movie indeed is just what we see. A found footage horror scenario where the plot doesn't really matter so we don't really see any. We hear about some plot via all this narration and small comments. But no one is actually moving anywhere or discovering anything. I would compare it to 1408 (2007) where a guy who specializes in debunking paranormal events stays in a room to uncover how it works. Both movies are about special effects and horror and both movies are not really going anywhere. They are just there to present a huge event.

Besides this both movies are good and memorable. Even though clearly the setting here of a single set is cheap and maybe not ideal. I also think it's why the story doesn't unfold. There are not many places it can go. But I do feel like someone at some point could have delivered a bit more exposition and story.

The young woman playing the teen girl has a huge career ahead of her if she wants it. Her charisma is mindblowing high here.

Silenced (2011)

A fictional story inspired by real events

[4/10 · 30 April 2024]

Historical accuracy: 3 Acting: 5 Dialogue: 5 Camera work: 7 Editing: 7 Budget: 6 Story: 5 Theme: 4 Pure entertainment factor: 5 Video quality: 7 Special effects: NA Pacing: 7 Suspension of disbelief: 4 Non-cringe factor: 3 Lack of flashbacks: 3

A school for deaf and mentally handicapped children controlled by a Christian group in South Korea experienced some child abuse that was uncovered in 2005. This real case in South Korea inspired a book that seemingly follows some of the real life events to some degree. But overall this movie is more fiction than fact.

I like history and historical movies. South Korean movies are quite good and this one is quite popular. There are some top-notch South Korean movies about history. Unfortunately this one is not really a simple watch like Spotlight (2015) that is an amazing detective movie. This movie on the other hand shows quite a few over the top scenes where children outright are abused in a way that makes it seem like the child actors may actually have suffered mental harm in some of the scenes. Which to me is too much. I like a bit more distance between the hard topic and the scenes we see. Just like hospital TV shows don't really show gruesome injuries up close.

If you see this as a horror movie of sorts it works that way to some degree as the gruesome atmosphere and tension is very high for the first 45 min. But I couldn't really watch this for long periods of time as it became too much at times with all the screaming, crying, and dark scenes. If the acting was decent I think it would be easier to watch.

I like the cinematography here. The calm camera work is by far the best thing here with even dull settings at times looking great.

The acting was quite a bit below par with shouting, overacting, and underacting alike. Which seems extra weird here as they made sure to make the kid scenes super realistic then the director made the actors put on a weird fake theatrical acting in other scenes. I think the acting is this way on purpose to not make the topic too hard to watch yet it doesn't work this way overall with all the other stuff being overly realistic and in your face.

Typically these movies should actually fully avoid having child actors in abuse scenes. At most they can feature in interrogation and court scenes. In Spotlight we saw a few children in other rooms just to show us they were being interviewed, anything past that takes away from the plot and message as we know these are actors actually being abused to some degree. Especially as they keep showing the scenes via flashbacks which often ruins the overall feel and structure of a plot just to add extra shock factors. In court room movies it's actually all about gathering and presenting evidence. Showing all the abuse scenes for an hour before even getting to the court room makes it a story that forces a one-sided point of view on you. Here of course we know this happened. But we can't be completely sure of who did what or when or who knew about it. A slow information gathering could illustrate just HOW all this could go on for years without anyone saying anything. As of course if anyone with half a brain was ever at this school the abuse would be uncovered in minutes let alone days. So the plot should have been all about how such huge secrets could remain hidden and how people may overlook signs of abuse.

The lead actor is mainly just watching stuff happen without doing anything. He heard an attack take place then did not check out the room it was happening in. In another scene he sees a boy getting beat up and doesn't even flinch. Just stands there and looks on like nothing is happening. So when he later is the main support for the children during the trial he still seems like a bad guy to any critical viewer. He's one of the main reasons this abuse could happen as he was one of the teachers at the school who ignored obvious signs. And only when a kid directly said what happened did he slowly start to accept what is happening. At a point where not accepting it anymore would be insanity. The other workers at the school were not told about such abuse. So while they indeed overlooked the violence there is no scene here showing us that any student told them about any SA.

There is also an ongoing plot point about the parents to the children being poor so they make civil case settlement deals with the church running the school meaning the criminal cases are dropped somehow even though the children don't even live with or know these family members. Of course this is total nonsense. One can drop the accusations as it so often happens in SA cases and once the victim claims nothing happened then it's not really possible to prosecute a she-said he-said case as you lack any meaningful evidence. So that's how such cases stop. But the movie shows a kid crying hysterically after his grandma, that he never once visits, settles the case. So children have no rights here? If some family members settles the children are not heard?

In real life it seems like the case was quite less significant in scope according to the clear evidence the court did see. The sentences were indeed very short, but when the evidence is flimsy and most accusers drop their claims there is not much to prosecute. Furthermore the movie has quite a few over the top scenes like near the end with a huge showdown making it quite obvious this is fiction.

I think the main issue is that the real case didn't really cause much outrage. So the movie makes the story 10 times bigger to make it more emotional. But overall this fictional retelling takes away from the real thematic element and makes the unfairness and abuse seem less real.

The Offer (2022)

Great fun! Would have watched 40 episodes easily.

[8/10 · 28 April 2024]

Historical accuracy: 5 Acting: 8 Dialogue: 9 Camera work: 8 Editing: 9 Budget: 8 Story: 9 Theme: 9 Pure entertainment factor: 9 Video quality: 8 Special effects: NA Pacing: 9 Suspension of disbelief: 6 Non-cringe factor: 7 Lack of flashbacks: 10

Matthew Goode was amazing and stole all his scenes. So did the actor playing the book writer Mario Puzoand the actor playing Francis Ford Coppola. There were characters like Charles Bluhdorn, Joe Colombo, Barry Lapidus, Bettye McCartt, and Peter Bart. All with absolutely amazing acting and you could not get enough of them. Frankly it felt like they got too few scenes as their performances were that good. Sure episode 1 has some cringe acting but after that the actors get the hang of it and it becomes top-notch. It's just very fun to watch. There is stuff going on in every scene and you have so many characters and conflicts that everything is intertwined. One scene plays out and then a short moment of the scene is about another set of characters and another plot point. All scenes interact this way where everything is interconnected and you have to be clued in to keep track of everything even though it's never complex. This is very fun to watch with some of the best acting I've seen in years in some areas.

Of course while this is highly recommended for everyone as a great show it does have some issues. Mainly it's just not historically accurate and once you see various shootings and the mafia being close to the production you will feel something is off. It is as if it's all fiction. The mafia events and shootings did happen but they happened at another time and had absolutely zero relation to the movie production. But then again it is true history they just forced it into this story and frankly I have to say it does work storywise. A movie production is a dull topic so forcing fake mafia scenes was kinda required.

Similarly, while I think the English actress who played the female lead was the best in this TV series I do feel her role was overwritten. She was the lone female character on the set here so they had to really expand her role to make it fit into the modern girlboss theme all movies and TV shows now apply. Keep in mind she was a secretary in real life. Of course here she hits an actor on set, meets with a mafia boss to make a deal to get her boss rehired, gets various top actors to the movie, the CEO of a giant company is constantly flirting with her and all men around her are constantly praising her looks. She's basically Supergirl in a TV show where only the main character has this type of power and influence. And we feel his role is way overrated too. Yet her role as the super secretary is just nonsense. I wish they would have more female characters in smaller roles instead of trying to do it this way. But then again she is attractive, cute, and is spotless in her acting ability so somehow she makes this stupid fake role work. It's just that it's quite unrealistic and on the nose. She has way too many scenes where she saves the day and mocks men around her for being useless and flawed as an insert to show us that the guys are not okay and are doing something wrong by not giving her and other women even more power. But it becomes too fake. I think the solution would actually be to make the TV show from her point of view. Let us follow her dating life and personal problems and then also show The Godfather production. That way the writers would not need to write her as a girlboss and instead just write her as a real character with flaws. As if she is in most scenes anyhow you can have girlboss in a more natural way if you show her handling female life issues. She doesn't even sleep with a single guy here. Which frankly I do not believe for one single moment. She is a secretary and a CEO is hitting on her yet she doesn't even try to see if this can lead to anything? Her boss is single, powerful, and praises her looks yet she doesn't even try to date him? This is nonsense. She is smart enough to understand that these men are great.

I think this issue of historical inaccuracy overpowers too much of the show. I can forgive the mafia scenes as they are parallels to The Godfather story so they are engaging and realistic as they did happen at some point. But maybe spread a bit of the hero saves the day scenes around to not have 2 people basically save everything in every scene. Especially when one of them is a secretary who just got her job! This is why I think WW2 movies where they replace male soldiers or leaders with women are lame, but WW2 movies where we follow real mothers and daughters being part of their real history in their own way are often amazing. It would be like a WW2 movie with a female general.

Overall what matters is that it's engaging and entertains and partly the historical factoids are what makes it work as you want to read up on everything and see how much of this is fake. We constantly see mentions of movies, actors, and movie history. So even small scenes turn into history lessons and makes you want to look up those movies. Some of the movies mentioned are indeed great classics like Paper Moon that is one of the most underrated movies I have seen. No one is talking about it and it has the best child actor performance ever.

The Infiltrator (2016)

Horrid filmmaking

[4/10 · 26 April 2024]

Historical accuracy: 2

Acting: 3 Dialogue: 4 Camera work: 5 Editing: 4 Budget: 5 Story: 6 Theme: 3 Pure entertainment factor: 4 Video quality: 6 Special effects: NA Pacing: 4 Suspension of disbelief: 2 Non-cringe factor: 2 Lack of flashbacks: 10

Obnoxious overacting and horrible directing makes this hard to watch despite me being very interested in the real life story and topic. It's the main issue with the movie so this has to be pointed out as it ruins half the scenes in the movie. The script constantly bombards us with overly emotional scenes where outbursts of outrage and indignation are created to carry the movie as it lacks plot and cohesion. So instead of slowly introducing us to a sleazy criminal world and enticing us with deep storylines and intrigue we have people whining and shouting at each other because of an event in a single scene. Someone does something stupid or doesn't do everything completely right then someone else shouts at this person in the same scene or the scene after. Rinse and repeat. And the overacting happens in even small family scenes. We are never really seeing regular scenes making the setting feel real. Instead even small daily life events need to have DRAMA and overacting. What the heck was the director thinking? There is no focus on the story or creating overall emotional drama. We see a scene and we get the "payoff" in the same scene which is never enticing and always obnoxious.

The focus on shocking over the top scenes also means the movie is largely fictional. I would say 95% fictional. We constantly see people getting killed just meters from the cops without the cops ever saying or doing anything about it because "they are undercover". Undercover agents not caring about a murder is a giant stretch of reality. Undercover agents not caring about murders every few days they witness firsthand is just nonsense.

The movie is created by such mini scenes that are trying to do everything in a minute. All scenes are disconnected and clearly filmed on separate days with the production crew not even making sure everything aligns like emotions, the lighting, the acting. A character may be in a shooting in USA where some random person is murdered and then the next scene is set hundreds of miles away with the same character being calm. Next scene again the character is sitting in his office. How do they travel? How do they plan anything? Instead of letting us be part of the slow infiltration we are made to watch "big" scenes and a constant array of murders that never happened in real life.

There are also a lot of made up drama scenes where people freak out in public. So over the top that you know this didn't happen in real life. This is horrible filmmaking. Just embarrassing.

American Manhunt: The Boston Marathon Bombing (2023)

Quite good overview

[7/10 · 19 April 2024]

A good overview of the Boston Marathon bombing, but I feel like it doesn't really give us extra info or tries to be a conclusive overview of the case. It heavily relies on talking heads to string together a story. A Black journalist, the imam in the mosque that the terrorists belonged to, and then some commanders from the police departments. So we have much explained via their stories, but they are not neutral observers and are quite biased. The imam constantly talks about how those xenophobic right-wing people online blamed Muslims for the bombing before having any evidence and how unfair this is to all Muslims in USA. And then the documentary dived into this argument for a full episode. Of course a few days later we find out they were actually radical Muslims so why the heck make one of the 3 episodes about this moral preaching topic when clearly everyone who was a "hateful bigot" was actually 100% correct. Sure people online tend to guess too often and at times are not careful in how they tweet their ideas. But since they were proven correct you are wasting a ton of the documentary on not making a great point.

Similarly the Black journalist just hates cops. Which I actually think fits in here as the cops made tons of errors like shooting at the boat 200 times when one cop thought he saw a gun. He didn't and they nearly killed the final guy with info about the event. Just stupid. And they did the same in a the car shootout where they also fired tens/hundreds of bullets mainly hitting houses and apartments. And neither of the 2 terrorists were killed by the cops. The older brother was run over by his younger brother as the cops were handcuffing him in the middle of the road after the shootout that didn't even slightly stop any of the 2 terrorists. Then the younger brother hid in the boat and the cops kept making errors even when there were hundreds of them against 1 single guy. But then he is a journalist I was expecting more from him. He sounds like the imam, just a stuck record telling us the same thing over and over again. I think the documentary needed to build a story without them then add them in for flair. Not the other way around.

Overall I do think it's a good documentary. But then they bring in stuff like the killing of 3 men years prior that the older brother is accused of. And they also try to tell us more about the brothers and their beliefs, but largely they never deep dive into anything as much runtime is spent on the moral preaching and pundits. For me moral preaching is never really that engaging no matter if it's valid or not. I rather see more facts and this documentary is short on them for sure. They just bring of the killings and then never fully explore them. They tell us about the shootout without recreating it in 3D. It feels lazy.

Old Henry (2021)

Fun to watch but not much story or theme

[7/10 · 17 April 2024]

Acting: 7 Dialogue: 7 Camera work: 8 Editing: 8 Budget: 5 Story: 6 Theme: 3 Pure entertainment factor: 8 Video quality: 8 Special effects: NA Pacing: 8 Suspension of disbelief: 4 Non-cringe factor: 9 Lack of flashbacks: 6

A very simple movie and simple story. Basically, an old farmer lives alone with his son. The brother of his passed away wife lives nearby. The son is grumpy about having to live on a farm and not being allowed to touch guns. One day they find a shot guy with a batch of money with him. They take him in to help him out. Then a posse arrives as they want the man and money back. The man claims he's a sheriff so they don't want to hand him over. It turns out the old farmer is Billy the Kid who survived till old age. He kills the whole posse, but the sheriff shots him as it turns out he's a robber too. The son shoots the robber and rides away after having buried his dad. That's it.

I did enjoy the movie. It's filmed in a calm manner, the acting is good, the editing clean. The story and mystery always progressing. There is not much here, but it's done well. The movie does look dirt cheap and feels like it cost a few millions at most. We are just in this one location with one house. There are some horses and hogs. The acting being quite decent makes it work and it's never too slow even though the theme and story is barebones. My main issue is the shootout sequences. There is one big showdown scene and then prior to that a lone bad guy attacks the cabin. But old Henry just stands around in the open and shoots at people and they shoot back and are unable to hit him. He's not smart or a great fighter; rather he just stands there and gets lucky. There are a few scenes where they hide in the cabin, but even then it's largely dialogue and exposition. There is even a scene where the fake sheriff goes in front of the window during the shootout and gets shot like a damn fool. The cleverness and fighting spirit of Henry is shown by having all other characters be extremely stupid. So the son and the fake sheriff do basically nothing during the fight and Henry largely stands in the open and even gets shot that way as he refuses to duck most of the time. This stuff just needed to be way better as it's what the movie is pointed towards and what we look forward to. It feels a bit like Glass (2019) where we are promised a huge showdown. The 2 characters got their own movie. One a supervillain and the other a superhero. Both movies were slow-paced and well-liked. Then at the end nothing happens when they meet up. There is no conclusive fight. A shame as pretty much the whole world looked forward to this franchise expanding, instead it crashed. And it felt like it had nothing else to tell us. This movie feels the same way. It's a neat story that for sure never feels dull and is a joy to watch. But there is not much here and just like Glass that I somewhat enjoyed, I'd likely forget this movie too. The movie thinks the Billy the Kid reveal at the end is something huge and makes it work. And it promises a huge showdown that's mainly Henry shooting people from the distance over a few minutes. The showdown should have been 20 minutes long maybe with clever fighting tricks. And I would have liked to see a village set too with stores. This feels a tad too cheap. Like an episode in a TV show with just one single reveal and then not much else. And heck we already knew Henry was an outlaw and quite brutal. That's clear from the first scene so once Billy the Kid is mentioned we kinda all know what's going on and who Henry is. And then he dies and so what?

Good movie, but nothing much to it. I think the director is going places for sure. But I'm not sure the writing is good enough for anything bigger or proper for bigger genres. I did enjoy the directing for sure.

The Will: Family Secrets Revealed: The Estate of Hank Williams (2012) Season 3, Episode 3

Cool story

[7/10 · 17 April 2024]

A happy ending story. A huge country music star dies very young. He has had multiple girlfriends during his lifetime and one was pregnant. They write a will, but soon they both die and the greedy family adopts the young girl away and hide all the evidence. His son and record label take over a the music collection worth millions. The girl grows up not being allowed to know her family. Decades later she meets and marries a lawyer and they try to prove she is the daughter yet all documents about this are hidden away and the state refuses to reveal them. All done quite cleverly to make sure she doesn't get access to the money. At the end a supreme court overrules the initial verdict and she gets access to millions. This is a story with no one besides the record label and state fighting back. The devicious family members are not interviewed. Her adoption family convinces her adoptive mom to write her out of the will as she is old, frail, and can't think clearly and they too are greedy. So now this woman is written out of everything, but finally wins the verdict and gets ultra rich. Of course she was likely rich anyhow as she was married to a the lawyer she met to take up her case and prove she was the daughter of a millionaire. But the story is quite nice and cozy. The record label would obviously never be the good guys in any case and they know this. But they are not evil either just greedy.

It's incredible how much families manipulate wills for money. I'm sure that in 99% of such cases such a case would not go anywhere. You have to spend millions on such prosecution.

The Will: Family Secrets Revealed: The Estate of Frederic C. Dumaine (2010) Season 1, Episode 7

Big drama

[8/10 · 16 April 2024]

Honestly, watching rich spoiled adults who never had to work a day in their life fight over millions in court is good drama. Yeah, they are not sympathetic and everyone watching it will just want all these spoiled and greedy people to get a job. But that's the good thing about it.

A son to an ultra rich man has an affair with his secretary and she gets pregnant. He forces her to move to Europe during the pregnancy and they they adopt the baby away to hide their secret affair and bad deeds as otherwise he would not inherit any money from his family. Later their daughter inherits $200K when they both die. As a lowerclass woman she can't handle money and wastes it in a year. She's now dirt poor again and she notices why she wasn't sued for the money. Legitimate children will inherit millions from the main estate. She of course was not a legitimate child. Yet her lawyer argues she is as her parents were wed in the one state where the law makes illegitimate children legitimate after marriage. Yet an old guy who oversaw the will creation in 1920's says the word illegitimate has another meaning in the will and the judge ends up agreeing with this claim. Of course the old man may have been paid off by the main family to say this, we don't know. It's millions of dollars saved hence enough to pay him well for this claim. Maybe a few millions.

To me it seems like the woman born out of wedlock is the most devious one here. She doesn't seem to have an education or proper job or at least didn't. She legally disavows her adoption parents to have a stronger case. The rich family kids at least didn't need to work so they have this excuse. And furthermore their lawyers went to court not them. And she wasted $200K in a year anyhow. Inheriting $10m could just mean she would get addicted to gambling or drugs. She got lucky. But it makes for a juicy story.

Tokyo Vice (2022– )

Season 1 is amazing and season 2 is just weird

[6/10 · 16 April 2024]

Historical accuracy: 2

Acting: 3 Dialogue: 4 Camera work: 8 Editing: 7 Budget: 8 Story: 5 Theme: 3 Pure entertainment factor: 6 Video quality: 8 Special effects: NA Pacing: 5 Suspension of disbelief: 2 Non-cringe factor: 3 Lack of flashbacks: 5

Very weird TV show. Probably the weirdest show I have ever seen because it starts out trying to be realistic and then devolves into full on pure fiction where you start to wonder when they will take out their laser guns. Season 1 was amazing besides at the end when the episodes became about giant fiction plots with a lone detective chasing down gangs and gangs openly doing crime with no consequences. Which was a shame and forced. But season 2 is this all the way. Each episode is about some giant crime the main villain commits that then no one can do anything about because he has bribed cops, top ranking politicians, business people, papers, and even FBI is working with him. Basically he constantly gets civilians murdered on the street and even proclaims he will kill the detective's family without anyone being about to touch him and that's why the main detective needs to do his job alone with the help of the American journalist Jake because he can't trust anyone. The whole thing becomes a cartoonish joke where even the journalist and detective are not actually solving anything 95% of the time as they are too afraid too.

I think season 1 is some of the best TV I have seen in a long time. Season 2 is just regular TV. Quite predictable and badly written. The story initially tried to follow a real life person in Tokyo with fully believable scenes. He wrote some books about his journalist job in Tokyo that were likely 95% fiction. And the TV show is even more fiction so practically all characters are fictional here and all events fully fictional. They still needed to act like it really happened so of course this journalist who uncovers more crime in a single episode than all of Tokyo's police combined in a year cannot actually write any of it. As if he does in the TV show it must have happened in real life. Hence him revealing that the villain, the main yakuza boss, is close to taking over all of Japan cannot be mentioned by a single word in any article despite him working on it for years and clearly told to work on it. And despite it being a story so huge at every step that it's practically all New York Times stories for a full year combined in significance. Yet the only big story he wrote here is about some teens stealing motorbikes. That's it. That's the true story. Then everything else with the yakuza is pure fiction so the show has to constantly invent reasons for Jake not writing anything in more obscure ways. And of course the whole police department is not investigating anything of note either as all their big bosses work for the villain.

There are also a ton of weird nonsense events. We know the White hostess needs to lose her money somehow as that's set up from the start by us seeing all her money in her home. She is dating a yakuza boss who does everything for her. Small favors each single episode as she whines about even minor events and makes him solve all her problems knowing full well it will end in murder if he is asked for help. Then when some thin manboy steals all her money and mocks her she for the first time ever doesn't even tell her boyfriend anything about her problem even though it's the first time she actually has a real problem on her hands. Well, her money is gone and she has to go to the yakuza to take a loan. Again knowing that this will likely cause her to lose her business to them and also may get her killed. But asking her boyfriend for one more favor is too much for her, a quite easy favor at that as the boy who stole her money is a loser with no connections. Instead she risks her life outright because this one time talking is too mentally hard? This of course causes an innocent person to get killed in her club, that is now a yakuza hangout spot, and her club is shut down.

Of course there is also the storyline about the main detective trying to stop yakuza in Tokyo all alone. When the main yakuza boss, the villain, threatens his family and even reveals he just killed his cop partner, the main detective just lets him be. So now no one is investigating the yakuza at all as most people in power are bribed by the main yakuza leader and every story Jake brings to the paper gets squashed as they fear the gangs too. Then we see the detective and Jake having to do all this work alone. Work that in real life takes hundreds if not thousands of people to get done. But it's easy when every time you question a bad guy with info he confesses to all his crimes right away knowing it will lead to a death penalty. The guy who took over the police task force looking into the main villain gets a single critical question and right away confesses to everything to the detective. Yet when they transport a key witness to a court they do it in a regular car with non-tinted windows. Clearly begging the key witness to get murdered for the TV show to not let anything big happen that didn't happen in real life. No big crime must be revealed. When they get a tape of the foreign vice minister taking part in a murder of a prostitute on a boat Jake and the detective never bother to make copies of it. They deliver it to Jake's newspaper that they makes copies off and keep them in one small room together. We know this tape didn't exist in real life so of course all the copies are destroyed in one single mini fire and then the story cannot be written as "we may get sued for writing a story with no evidence". Rinse and repeat. All Jake's big stories fade away this way with Jake making errors and everyone else working for a murderer on a rampage in Tokyo.

Plot points go from developing over many episodes to now being solved in a few minutes by these extremely stupid and forced events that no one with half a brain would ever believe did happen or even could happen in real life with smart people around. Heck, the main boss is finally caught as he keeps his revealing documents in his yacht and a lackey tries to run away with them when the cops arrive. Why not burn when? Would take seconds. Just tell him to burn the documents if the cops arrive as it's the only thing that could make him fall from grace. He is close to taking over all of Japan. Before that the villain attacks the last remaining rival gang. We just had a full episode about them procuring guns. Then next up their boss holds a meeting in a public place with little protection and gets shot. Then later after the gang knows the villain is trying to kill them they all just sit around in their house with no weapons. The rival gang arrives and starts shooting them with no one shooting back. So they knew this attack was coming yet have no weapons at all on them? This TV show makes no sense. Why is everyone this stupid?

Overall I would recommend season 1. The first few episodes were amazing. But season 2 is quite mediocre with horrible acting. A few of the Japanese actors are amazing, but then the model and love interest is horrible. She is supposed to be the mistress to the villain and then also the girlfriend of Jake knowing that if the villain found out about the affair he would kill her and Jake. Yet she is in her 40's and a horrible actress. Why cast her for this main role as the super attractive former model? I think mainly the acting becomes terrible as the Japanese actors are all forced to speak English 90% of the time in season 2 even to each other. And most of them can't act in English unfortunately. Jake is also good in season 1. Then in season 2 the actor is now horrible as he has a ton of screaming scenes along with all the other actors. At least the main villain is incredible and basically forces the show from not becoming terrible.

Tokyo Vice: Yoshino (2022) Season 1, Episode 8

This episode is pure fiction not rooted in any reality

[7/10 · 15 April 2024]

This episode is fully illogical. Everything up to this was realistic, but this episode has no logical consistencies. For example, the blonde woman is dating a big shot yakuza who doesn't mind hitting people to get them to talk or give him money. Then he hits a young prostitute guy who works in a club to get info from him about a missing woman. The friend of the blonde woman. The young guy is extremely afraid. Later the same young guy sets out to steal money from the blonde without even hiding the fact he did it. Clearly this would mean certain death. Yet she never tells her boyfriend anything and instead borrows money from his mafia clan in the very next scene. Makes no sense as the young guy is clearly extremely afraid of the mafia and would never even think about robbing her. Furthermore, he should have waaay more money than the blonde so setting up a way to make her bring him money to pay off other people to bring back her friend makes no sense. He should have enough to pay the people at any rate. And she could have gone to the cops or told her boyfriend about it at any point. Heck, if he went with her they wouldn't dare to rob her. Robbing her at any rate knowing who she is dating is insane. These men are already pretty rich. Why would they rob the girlfriend of a top ranking yakuza member just for extra profit? Also, they could have shown us how she told her boyfriend about it and then he can't help as he is stabbed and falls unconscious. They have the stabbing scene anyhow so why not use it as part of the plot. Instead they just have her not ask for help ... because reasons. Even though we have just seen her take advantage of him 10 times over to use his connections and power for any small favor. Whatever she asks for she gets except this one single case where ALL her money is stolen then she finally doesn't ask for help. The one time she actually does need help.

The whole harbor event makes even less sense. Why is a top ranking detective going out alone to track down a drug smuggling ship? That would never in a million years happen in real life. And then the yakuza boss threatens him? That would land him directly in prison no questions asked. Instead the detective is now too depressed to act? Makes no sense. Try to threaten a top ranking FBI agent in USA and see what happens. Would he go home and cry alone? The whole episode is a bunch of weird scenes like this that make zero sense and then a constant talk about how they can't call the cops because clearly cops don't care about a random foreigner who was kidnapped. Keep in mind she has model looks and would be a huge story in ANY country. The cops not caring about her makes zero sense. Maybe if she was an old foreign woman or a man that would make some sense.

The Beekeeper (2024)

A blast to watch

[8/10 · 13 April 2024]

Acting: 6 Dialogue: 8 Camera work: 8 Editing: 8 Budget: 8 Story: 8 Theme: 6 Pure entertainment factor: 9 Video quality: 9 Special effects: 8 Pacing: 9 Suspension of disbelief: 3 Non-cringe factor: 8 Lack of flashbacks: 10

Absolutely batshit crazy movie that starts out somewhat realistic and then devolves into a fever dream with no roots in reality. It's never dull and always keeps moving and engages the viewer so one can forgive most of this stupid stuff as it's actually a blast to watch. This is not quite a classic, but I would say it's a must-watch for action movie fans who want to be blown away and this shows that Jason Statham is still on his a-game making top notch movies. Sure it's a silly mess, but then is that really a deal breaker?

It's about a secret program with supersoldiers in USA created to protect the hive. Meaning they can break any laws to protect the overall hive/country. This one agent is retired, but still has this idea of right and wrong and when an older Black woman shoots herself after being scammed he sets out to demolish the scam company that made her shoot herself. Yet with every step he takes we discover that the company is bigger and more significant than anyone could have imagined. I mean, of course this ends up with the president being the one on top and the Beekeeper getting to the president quite easily, killing tens of bodyguards often without even using any weapon. Basically, even when they expect him and he can't kill the soldiers who are trying to kill him, as they are not pure evil guys, he can easily take down 20 men in minutes. If a Batman type guy with Captain America powers is too much then this is not a movie for you. It's John Wick if John Wick could dodge bullets by just slowly walking away and never jumping for cover.

This writer also wrote Total Recall (2012), Law Abiding Citizen (2009), Street Kings (2008), Equilibrium (2002), The Thomas Crown Affair (1999), Sphere (1998). A ton of really fun movies yet all movies that are ungrounded and unrealistic. The Thomas Crown Affair is about a perfect guy who can steal anything without making a single mistake. It's not just fiction it's too much as he's too perfect hence nothing can happen to him. All his movies are basically Superman movies if kryptonite didn't exist. Salt is the same way with a special agent. She can kill anyone at any place in seconds and ends up in the White House easily killing anyone she wants. While the director has directed Street Kings and Fury among other stuff. Their lows are very low their highs are very high. And here they mix perfectly together into silly action. If the action is good and dialogue fun it can't fail and hence it doesn't.

I still have a complaint about young Black actresses in modern Hollywood. The low level is painful to watch and since a Black actress is basically a required hiring today we get a ton of bad acting in leading roles which is a damn shame. They could have hired an Eastern Asian or Indian actress instead. But since it's a silly movie this doesn't matter too much here. I just think there are solutions for this stuff Hollywood is overlooking.

Mr Bates vs. The Post Office (2024)

Decent true story drama

[7/10 · 12 April 2024]

Historical accuracy: 8

Acting: 5 Camera work: 7 Editing: 7 Budget: 7 Story: 7 Theme: 7 Pure entertainment factor: 7 Video quality: 7 Special effects: 6 Pacing: 6 Suspension of disbelief: 8 Non-cringe factor: 6 Lack of flashbacks: 10

The structure is very weird. It's engaging enough to see more of this story, but it feels incomplete and unfocused unfortunately so it's not as good as The Dropout, Scam 1992 or anything at that level. In these 4 episodes: a guy steps in front of a bus, a woman gets super depressed and stabs herself in the stomach, people constantly complain, 2 smaller characters get cancer. We see kids for some minutes overall and one time it's because a girl is spit on at school because her dad is accused of stealing money. The other time a criminal convict complains about not being allowed to be with the school kids as she has this fake conviction. All regular life scenes are only here to show distress.

There are characters whining in basically every scene and when we see a small win we right away get negative news. The issue is that it's emotionally not well-structured and it feels like they are fighting for nothing at all as their lives suck anyhow. Most of this negativity is stuff the Post Office didn't cause like the cancers. And overall people whine so much you don't quite understand how they can even function.

The focus on suffering and whines also means we often don't focus on the technical and truthful details of the cases themselves. Especially all the lies the Post Office team told in the initial trials like making up full reports and claims. Claiming the Horizon system was bulletproof by making up claims and doing fake investigations. Writing initial guessing reports then including them as conclusive evidence in court and swearing on them.

On the other hand they are great at stretching everything out and making it look painfully slow as it must have been in real life. This detail is not fully appreciated in other media about the case as they try to make it fun and controversial. Here they focus on pain, suffering, whining, and old people to such a degree where you can feel why it's extra painful to such people who have this going for them and nothing else. It's both a positive and negative at the same time. Positive as it's a matter of fact and negative because it's not overly fun to watch. I do appreciate the BBC podcast more. That was just pure fun, emotional, and technical.

I think the most interesting part of the story is maybe later in the timeline. Maybe even after this TV series came out as the case is now bigger than ever with more info and facts coming out and finally deep investigations into the big bosses behind the corruption because a ton of people watched this series. I think most people largely want to see the Post Office CEO in prison for some years. And then of course everyone who worked for her, but they are protected by a ton of money. I would gladly watch 4 more episodes and I'm sure the writers have learned from their mistakes and could do it even better this time around.

I recommend it to some degree, but don't expect too much. The older blonde lady is especially a horrid actress. The rest are actually quite fine. They are not charming or fun and the dialogue is painfully bad, but the acting and overall quality is fine. Unfortunately the blonde lady has a main role in this TV series.

I really like historical stuff and enjoyed this too. I do think they need to focus more on technical stuff instead of making it all about cancer and suffering, but besides this I'd like to see their other series about true stories. I also like to see more regular fun scenes like dinners, football games, park runs, dog walks, more courtroom scenes, work scenes, more fun and regular life stuff.

Damsel (2024)

The movie is painfully stupid yet never dull

[7/10 · 11 April 2024]

Acting: 4 Camera work: 8 Editing: 6 Budget: 7 Story: 6 Theme: 4 Pure entertainment factor: 7 Video quality: 8 Special effects: 4 Pacing: 8 Suspension of disbelief: 5 Non-cringe factor: 3 Lack of flashbacks: 6

This is a movie about a far away rich girl being married off to a prince so that they can sacrifice her to a dragon and make sure the dragon doesn't burn down the village.

It's quite incredible how many stupid things I noticed here. Firstly we are in a fantasy world yet this is just the Middle Ages. There are no curious animals or tech outside the cave. No worldbuilding, just a bunch of Black people around to show us this is a fantasy world. All Black people are completely Black so where do they come from and where are all the mixed race kids? Why is she chopping wood for the household on some field when she's a semi-princess and quite rich? Why is she as a 20 year old chick doing it with her sister? That would be extremely dangerous in the Middle Ages away from home yet it's just a random nonsense scene only here to show she is strong without even showing us what the heck the world is or why she needs to work alone. The film starts out being all about girl power even having the narrator tell us all about how no strong man will save the day and I get the intention, but you need to create strong women via worldbuilding and exposition not just force this onto us without explaining the logic behind it. Maybe everyone is kind here so she is safe all alone? But nope, it's a dog eat dog world as we later learn. So how does this world even work?

When we see the old king fight the dragon his men are just grouping up ready to fight. The dragon then burns them in seconds and the other half of the men again group up together the same way right after seeing what happened without even caring about any potential fight. When the dad marries her off to get killed he never warns her in any way to be prepared and maybe survive the cave and dragon. When they throw her into the cave it's her husband/prince throwing her after telling her to keep her eyes closed while carrying her after she specially told him she doesn't want to be carried. Keep in mind she knows they are on a ledge and has seen that the ritual is about them sacrificing something - clearly her. We even see her be nervous about it all. Yet the prince insists on carrying her over the bridge and she was even warned by her stepmom that the marriage is fishy. Yet after knowing him for only a day and knowing something is off she fully trusts him. At least one would imagine she would hold onto his neck to prepare for a fall or stumble. Nope. Also, how are so many princesses surviving the fall 30 meters down? Her survival is quite random as she hits the right tree branches on her way down. 99% of princesses would die so how would the dragon be happy with this kind of sacrifice to her? They are all randomly surviving?

When she jumps over a hole the movie never shows us how she went back to pick up speed. We just see her sitting at the ledge then suddenly she's way on the other side gaining speed.

There are no clever solutions. She sees another dead princess in the cave from the day prior. She would for example know there is a knife on her and where it is as it's part of the wedding attire she herself is wearing. Now she has 2 knives she can use to climb walls. No such smart thinking anywhere and we later see her climb a wall with 1 knife - stupid. She constantly screams and wails even when the dragon is meters away. Not even trying to keep the sound low - I had to lower my volume as she was screaming so much while knowing she would get killed if the dragon found her and then later even trying to keep fully quiet again yet failing and yet again making noises for no damn reason.

She gathers snails in a bag and then keeps telling them how she won't hurt them yet leaves them in a bag when she tries to crawl out of the cave without them. Leaving them to die. Keep in mind these snails can heal wounds so why not take them with you when you know you may get injured before reaching safety? The snails are used to heal her leg yet it's just a burn nothing else. We see her be active even with this burn so the whole snail thing is made moot. At least show us she can't even walk or let her have a limp arm for 10-15 min then later heal it. At one point she finds water dripping down from the ceiling and is so excited that she closes her eyes and just stands there under the luminous crystals. One of the only non-dark spots in the whole cave. This is right after she escaped the dragon so why the heck is just standing under a light source without thinking? Of course that nearly kills her. She later finds a map other princesses drew and then concludes one princess must have escaped as there is an escape written on the map yet how would she escape then draw the map when the escape is a huge climb away? She later gets into the area with the exit right after being told escape is impossible. Yet this area is right there with an exit up top one at least could consider possible to get to somehow. Why was this not on the map? How did she not notice this area at all and feels 100% stuck then seconds later finds it? It's a gigantic area while the rest of the cave is mainly smaller tunnels so why did no princess find it at any point and draw it on the map? Why is she suddenly yelling again when she is meters away from the exit with the dragon being preoccupied hundreds of meters away. She can legit just walk out of the cave yet because she decides to yell again, as she feels climbing a rope is hard, she is nearly found and killed. Actually, like 90% of her near deaths are because she out of nowhere starts yelling because of pain or tiredness. And why is this escape even a plot point? She gives up then sees her father. Then escapes the cave. Then ... goes back into the cave. The escape legit just had her sit outside for a bit then she goes into the cave again. She didn't do a single thing outside the cave. Didn't pick anything up, didn't learn any tricks. Just escapes then goes back in so what's the plot here?

Why is she wearing heavy modern makeup at all points even way into the movie? At least use light makeup for such pseudo historical movies. For me as a man to notice makeup it has to be darn heavy. And it is even after she washes her face and crawls in dirt. Under the dirt is this perfect makeup.

Why did the queen give her father a ton of gold to sacrifice his daughter to the dragon yet later the queen just nearly kills the stepmom and kidnaps the younger sister. If she is doing this anyhow then why not just always do it? Why pay off anyone when you can make them sail to you and be captured? And why pay chiefs to sacrifice their daughters? Why not just kidnap women or pay poor farmers? She's not quite royalty before the marriage so seemingly this part doesn't much matter so why risk pissing off powerful people this way? Heck, they find Black and Asian girls and the dragon believes those are daughters in the same small royal family. So if looks don't matter nothing else should.

And why is her dad sacrificing her for gold yet her Black stepmom is for some reason warning her and even trying to help when she can. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Why is the dad the uncaring one here? Why is the princess making the dragon kill hundreds of people and burn down the whole village when all they did was to sacrifice women to the dragon to have everyone survive. It's either these very few sacrifices or the dragon will kill them all so they are actually good royals protecting their people by sacrificing foreign women. They don't have a choice in the matter either. Sure it's still evil, but the punishment should not be death when the dragon is freed from the cave. Or just let the dragon kill the evil queen and that's it. I think 99,99% of people would do what the queen did here and make the village survive by any means. Heck, the father literally talks about this after selling the princess. He talks about how he sold her to help his people survive via the gold he got for her, but then later regretted selling her and tried to save her. So would she have killed her own father too then if he had survived? And why is the dragon suddenly her friend at the end when the dragon literally killed innocent women for hundreds of years. Even if they were nobility and therefore part of the evil clan they are still just young women who have no say in the matter and were just born into this family. In reality they are of course innocent outsiders so it's even worse. Yet the dragon is just freed at the end and now has friends. I don't get the moral values here? How come the talking dragon who loves to torture and kill young women for hundreds of years not evil yet the queen who is forced by the dragon to sacrifice young women extremely evil? And the difference is so extreme that half the people in the village get killed for it and the whole village/castle is burned to the ground.

Anyhow, the movie is quite fine. Nothing great and if you remove her yells it would be way better as it makes zero sense. The rest can be forgiven. The acting is quite horrid though and the CGI painfully bad besides the dragon. I would say it's fine or a single watch, but in some ways a letdown because of the million lazy plotholes.

Nikki Glaser: Perfect (2016 TV Special)

A letdown

[5/10 · 9 April 2024]

I have a boyfriend, I am young and like hanky-panky, I have hanky-panky with my boyfriend, I like dirty stuff, I watch hanky-panky online. Repeat, repeat, repeat. That's it. It's just a young attractive blonde talking about her s*x life. There is nothing smart or deep here. I don't mind a few more nasty or personal jokes like this, but there is legit nothing else here. It's like she took all her s*x jokes and put them together randomly into a show which is a huge letdown as she can legit be super funny and smart with her humor. She was extremely funny in the podcast "Dead Eyes". For a young woman to be this funny it's basically a made career. She can do anything now. But she has to actually know how to put a show together.

And no, I'm not offended. This is not offensive or overly nasty humor. There are funny female comedians that are waaaaaaaay worse that I really enjoy watching. But they try to tell a story and entice the audience not just tell singular jokes.

Scoop (2024)

A fun movie with no theme

[7/10 · 7 April 2024]

Historical accuracy: 9

Acting: 8 Camera work: 8 Editing: 7 Budget: 5 Story: 6 Theme: 6 Pure entertainment factor: 7 Video quality: 8 Special effects: 5 Pacing: 8 Suspension of disbelief: 8 Non-cringe factor: 7 Lack of flashbacks: 10

Honestly pretty enjoyable and well-made. It doesn't really do anything extra or special and you have to wonder what the point of making it is. There is not much story here and the storylines we follow are dropped and are never finished. But overall it was fun to watch for the historical relevance and the down to earth storytelling.

The story is about how an unfocused low-brow lower class mom sets up an interview with the British queen's "favorite" son. And he for some reason says yes to it. The goal is to ask him about his Epstein friendship and of course it can only go wrong. What do you say in such an interview? The guy is accused of trafficking young girls to his island. The interview was a giant topic online and pretty much 100% of people agreed prince Andrew looked horrible in the interview. Clearly he was lying and making up stuff at times. We don't know how much is true, but his facial expressions alone tanked it as no one could believe a word he said.

This movie is way better than Frost/Nixon (2008) that tried to do a similar thing. But that movie was about an interview with a president who was known for never being personal or even understanding himself or his own secrets. So the interview is dull and about nothing while they try to make it exciting and big. Here the interview is in UK. It's small and not overly significant in itself and prince Andrew is largely an unknown character overall as he is just known for being the son of a queen. It's the Epstein relationship that's significant as Epstein killed himself before telling anyone about his crimes so no one knows what he did and hence the interview was anticipated.

The movie does have some weirdnesses to it. Firstly the women who set up the interview are getting together and talking about how men used to be all powerful and control everything and how it's important to support women and attack powerful men. Which I'm sure does happen in BBC. If this happens, then it will come out, and then no powerful man anywhere would ever agree to an interview with the show. They are literally getting together and planning to demolish powerful men and we are to believe prince Andrew and his giant team never heard a single whisper about this? Right ... I think She Said (2022) does it better overall theme wise. We can believe female journalists are getting together to attack a powerful man. As they don't need to interview him so they don't need to look neutral. But once you have to entice the subjects you can't be obviously and transparently hateful and biased.

Then there is the case of unfinished storylines. I really like the Black guy in the office who attacked the lead for being late and setting up random meetings instead of doing her job. Then she sets up this huge interview at the end and we of course assume that he has changed his mind and now respects her. Amazing storyline. Well, just one problem. He never again speaks to her. They set up this amazing story and then we just see them in the same room later on. That's it? The woman who sets up the interview is also crying to her mom about not being appreciated as she's a gossip girl and not a serious BBC worker. Yet after she did this amazing work no one is really thanking her much. We just assume it's there and she is appreciated a bit, but we don't really see anything happen. So why follow her around if you are not taking us anywhere? They end the movie by telling us via text that she got a new job soon afterwards. Right ... so what's the point here? Why follow her and not someone else? She's crying about being afraid of being fired and not fitting in or being respected. And then she never really solves any of her problems? That's it?

I also recommend Brexit (2019). I think Brexit is a bit better. It's more relevant overall historically so for me it's way more recommended. But both movies are fun for the runtime though cheap and don't have much to offer storywise. 6 Days (2017) on the other hand is the best of these UK movies. Still a true story and still a small story. But this time it's actually a great movie from start to finish.

Ghost Whisperer (2005–2010)

Too heavy on melodrama

[6/10 · 5 April 2024]

The detective stories are quite smart. Small town murder mystery stories with ghosts for some reason never telling everything outright and even trying to kill people. These ghosts can move stuff around easily, create certain stuff like mud in sinks, appear anywhere, and make things freeze. They are more powerful than humans and can therefore kill a person 100 miles away in minutes then come back. And they never try to solve any of their issues outright as that of course would remove the mystery element.

Similarly they don't tell the full story about killers so the killers can continue being evil. Why not warn people? It's all a bit silly and forced, but works to some degree. The main issue is the heavy melodrama. Episodes are constantly ending on 2-3 minutes with fake crying or overly emotional outbursts and they all feel extremely fake and cringe. As a guy this is too weird. I enjoy the detective stories, but I have no need to see 2 mediocre actresses cry together for several minutes as they talk about emotional personal matters. The editing is also always stretching these scenes out while the detective stories are way faster paced. So I think it's part decent and part quite cringe. It depends on your tolerance for cringe and outtaded visual elements and tech. The detective stories are kinda just background stuff and the emotional melodrama takes over.

The concept is great and to be fair the detective writing at times is absolutely top notch. Some of the ghost scenes are eerie in a childish way. It's clearly made for people who hate horror or anything above PG. We see dead bodies but it's just a tiny bit of red paint on people. So nothing much. I was surprised by the writing at times for sure and it's way better than nearly all modern TV shows at this point. They kinda needed to write well as they didn't have CGI or big budgets to rely on so you could spend the CGI budget on more and better writers. And I don't know if TV shows will ever reach the writing level of the pre CGI stuff. But unfortunately it's too focused on the female audience. And overall the stories are not good enough to account for that. We just jump from scene to scene rarely focusing on the overall plot too much.

Law & Order: Special Victims Unit: Raw (2005) Season 7, Episode 6

SVU is not a good show

[5/10 · 4 April 2024]

The episode has some great ideas with a Nazi group, a mystery bomb, a murderous Nazi kid, a school shooting. Overall the ideas are great and the mystery element has some neat ideas too. Unfortunately it's a giant mess. Instead of it being a mystery slowly being solved like in the original Law & Order we just jump to new points. School shooting from a sniper, Nazi group with hundreds of members, an FBI agent that reveals herself as she shoot a Nazi kid who just shot the judge and multiple officers so she had to kill him. Several leads being shot. A pedo being beaten as the cops revealed his name to the victim's mother - yet such errors are not even procesecuted. Then we uncover that a prison guard hired the sniper to shoot his adopted Black kid to get the insurance money which he would then split with the Nazi group for setting up the school shooting. The whole thing just jumps from point to point which is a damn shame as the twist and mystery is pretty damn clever. The whole concept and steps are good ideas, but it just cannot work if you don't give it time and don't give the viewer clues. We just see new stuff being uncovered and don't see them finding any of the clues. They just talk about clues they found as they present them as evidence.

SVU is a huge letdown. I'm trying to watch it again and again as Law & Order is a work of art. But I just can't get into it. I am even starting with the highest rated episodes. This show is a joke. It's cheap melodrama.

J. Edgar (2011)

Not enough true history here in an otherwise slow and dull looking movie

[5/10 · 29 March 2024]

Historical accuracy: 5

Acting: 6 Camera work: 7 Editing: 5 Budget: 7 Story: 5 Theme: 5 Pure entertainment factor: 6 Video quality: 3 Special effects: NA Pacing: 5 Suspension of disbelief: 4 Non-cringe factor: 4 Lack of flashbacks: 2

It's a movie that's largely panned today and I kinda see why. The whole thing feels like a mix of the movie JFK (1991) and then a historical overview of a life like a typical movie about an American president. I was hoping for more history focus, but with all the rumors around him you can create a story focusing on his own secrets and dating life - stuff no one knows anything about. Which frankly is a tad dull. We know there is no factual basis for any of this stuff like his romantic life, sexual preferences of Hoover and other people in power, or him dressing as a woman. They were rumors created to attack him. One cannot prove or disprove something no one has ever seen happen. So could it be true? Sure, I guess it could be and there is a logic in writing books or making documentaries based on rumors alone. But I would have liked a greater historical focus in a multimillion project with big actors.

The quality of the movie is shockingly bad too. Everything is black and dark. The lack of colors makes it all seem fake and dull. The aging masks are fake. The acting is overdone and forced. And most scenes are inside the same rooms and at any rate you don't see green so any scene shot outside looks dull anyhow. We also jump in time and don't follow any storyline.

Clint Eastwood is often great, but this is a lazy movie as he at times is prone to with bad acting and unfocused storytelling. The screenwriter writes movies about gay men and he did it here too. Instead of focusing on history he made it into his own story and unless you like these type of progressive rewrites of history this may feel a bit weird. Actually, it's pretty much like JFK (1991) in topics and themes. But with the dull colors it never really entices me. I frankly rather watch real history or at least a small story focused on a single detective story like the fictionalized JFK (1991) or The Highwaymen (2019) about Bonnie and Clyde. There the true history is not overly important compared to a movie spanning decades. We want this to be a truthful overview. To be a short intro to his lie. Yet that's not what it is.

West Cork (2021 Podcast Series)

Fun listen

[9/10 · 25 March 2024]

I greatly enjoyed this.

A murder was committed in Cork on the British Isles. A rich attractive French trophy wife liked to vacation in an outskirts cabin in a small town by herself. One night she puts on her boots and jacket and wanders outside. There she is brutally beaten to death with unknown objects by an unknown assailant. The cops there don't know much about murder or evidence gathering. They have 1 expert for all of Ireland and he's on vacation. The regional cops just wanted to drag the body away. They are told to not move the body. But when the expert arrives no DNA evidence is found anywhere. No evidence is found anywhere at all actually. No one has seen or heard anything of note. One local woman later tells cops she saw a loser nearby at the night of the murder. He himself claims he was outside but only to walk to his shed and not near the murder scene. We do later find out that he beats his girlfriend so obviously the public and media starts attacking him. He's also mentally challenged and lazy while extremely eager to get into the spotlight.

He sues media companies for making him seem like a murderer but the witness yet again claims she saw him there even during this pointless civil trial. So he loses and basically goes bankrupt. Later she recants and says the cops forced her to make a false confession. But there is no other evidence.

Did her husband get her killed for having affairs? Someone from France traveled to the British Isles to commit the murder? We don't know.

We know 3 other people were outside at night during the murder. The loser, and then this woman witness and a mystery man she was driving with. She refused to tell anyone who he was as she was having an affair with him. So the most likely suspects are the loser and then this mystery man. She may have lied about spotting the loser to protect her lover. Which makes some sense as she actually didn't reveal herself to the police. She kept making anonymous calls until they finally tracked her down and forced her to become a witness yet then never went to trial with anything. She also claims she say the mystery killer in town yet no one else ever saw him. And she keeps going to the media even today. Claiming she has more evidence.

Another theory is that a wild horse killed the woman. She went out to calm it down and it kicked her. That makes sense to me. No clear DNA evidence was found. We don't have a murder weapon or even know it what the weapon could be. If a drunk stupid loser killed her there is no way he wouldn't leave DNA evidence. He's too stupid for this. A horse to me makes perfect sense. Of course no one ever found this horse but then no one was looking for it either so no one would have noted it anyhow. To me this seems like a clear case unless the witness' lover did it and then somehow didn't leave a single strand of evidence. And furthermore the cops never even learned his name or tried to find him. Which seems a bit weird. I assume the cops knew she was lying about everything.

Later a French court convicts the loser. If he had ever travelled to France he would be in prison for life. But they used old evidence from people who have all since then recanted their claims. So this doesn't give us further info on anything. I think the horse did it.

American Experience: The Lie Detector (2023) Season 35, Episode 1

Great short intro

[8/10 · 24 March 2024]

Good intro to the early days of the lie detector as it was invented and used in USA. It's largely a historical overview of how it came about and became a giant hit in USA. The supreme court made it illegal for cops to torture people into confessions and they needed other methods to force and persuade people. Similarly Hollywood and marketing campaigns wanted to use the lie detector to market their products and see what people enjoy or react to. And there were people ready to sell it to any bidder. We follow 3 men who each invented their own lie detector and then 1 guy who took over. The documentary doesn't really focus on smaller names or cases. If these 4 were not involved the documentary just overlooks the cases. The psychologist who invented Wonder Woman is a sleazy salesman while another guy who made a much better lie detector is fighting these salesmen who are just trying to use the lie detector as a 100% correct machine and right away use it to solve murders and sell products without even caring if it's valid or not.

Honestly it's a great intro. It's 1 hour too short but that's it basically. Of biases I did notice that every time they bring up race they show a bunch of Black people in photos and then have a Black narrator telling us how cops can be mean etc. This is just silly as I'm sure there are experts of any race ready to talk about racial issues and there is no need to force points this way. But American Experience is typically way more progressive so this is not a huge bias. The documentary never really gets into if the lie detector works or not or how it may have failed in some cases. It's presented as a proper and valid machine and the misuse is just said to be caused by ignorant people controlling the polygraph. Which is just weird. There have been notorious cases of communist spies tricking the lie detector yet the documentary presents zero such cases and the pundits never once mention a single case where the lie detector failed in catching a lie. Does it work? We don't know. We just see how it was used and then finally banned from company use by Reagan and now mainly used for fun or by cops and agents.

The Moment of Truth (2008– )

Was a hugely popular show

[6/10 · 23 March 2024]

Yet another show using a lie detector. They were extremely popular in USA and were used to convict people. Still used as a tool to solve whole crime cases and to this day if someone accused of a crime is offered a lie detector and refuses to take it or fails it the police, media, and public in USA will fully believe the person is guilty. There is no upside to taking them and there are plenty of cases where double-agents fooled such tests anyhow as you can't know why people are lying or why they are not believing their own stories or are maybe just too nervous.

This show is real enough. They need to take a lie detector first then answer questions in the studio to win money and if they fail a single question they lose all their money. It's simple and real. If you are about to get a divorce you can try to win $500K while you are revealing all the dirty secrets to the world causing a divorce. Which happens in the most notorious episode where a wife fails at the end by answering wrong on "do you believe you are a good person?" And hence the show reveals what it is. There are so many vague questions based on emotions that many people who fail don't know why they failed and truly believe they answered correctly. I just think the show fakes the answers to these questions to not give away $500K more than a single time during all the seasons. It shows how they manipulate the answers to never lose. Many people are ready to reveal all their dirty secrets, but you can't guess random emotional lie detector stats. Hence showing why the lie detector is bunk as you can't prove or disprove such statements.

A Killing in Tiger Bay (2021)

The BBC podcast is way more detailed

[7/10 · 17 March 2024]

A young White prostitute is murdered in Tiger Bay Cardiff. The police drag in her boyfriend, who they assume is her pimp, and plenty other criminal elements mostly from mix-race families. They get the boyfriend to confess to the murder even after knowing that the only volunteered evidence is someone spotting a White man at the crime scene.

But after interviewing and pressuring the boyfriend for hours he finally confesses. Weirdly his lawyer was in the room. And other low IQ people also claim they witnessed everything. A few years down the line they are exonerated as the interrogation tapes are listened to in an appeals court and it's clear the confession was forced. The cops still claim these 5 men killed her. But the police department does invite 2 outsiders to look over the case and with DNA evidence now being a thing they find out that they had already arrested a boy with matching DNA. He was not born at the time of the murder, but his uncle was. The case is closed. The fake witnesses go to prison for up to 18 months. And the cops are put on trial, but the judge throws out the case as some documents are missing. They are found 2 weeks later. Someone had misplaced them and someone else just claimed someone had shredded them - which proved to be false.

The case is not well-known outside UK. Largely because the cases were overturned after the people had been in prison for 4 years. So it's long, but not extremely unfair as some other similar cases with 13+ years in prison. Similarly the boyfriend did confess and one witness did claim she took part in the murder and saw everything. So while the police did force all of this to happen for the jury and judges it did look like a strong enough case. It's 3 witnesses and a full confession. Even to me, now knowing everything, it looks weird so many people claimed they saw these men murder a woman. But they are 100% innocent.

I listened to the BBC podcast before listening to this. I think the BBC podcast is better. The podcast is weird and with a ton of pointless sound effects, but it at least has a decent amount of info. This 3 hour documentary basically skips most significant details. We basically don't hear anything about the actual killer or how he was captured. Just a few sentences. They look past all the witnesses here and don't even show their photos making it look like a fake case. We also don't hear much about life in Tiger Bay or anything about prison conditions. It's nice to see some visual elements, but it's not really enough I feel. It also is a dirt cheap documentary. No 3D recreation or any recreation of any kind really. Just interviews alone with a narrator mostly set in dull rooms. I still think it's an engaging watch for sure. But I can't recommend this over other sources. The BBC podcast is completely free and more engaging and deep so I would recommend that over this for sure. Basically, it's good. But the podcast is just better so in comparison it's not quite ideal.

American Fiction (2023)

Dull

[5/10 · 12 March 2024]

Acting: 5 Camera work: 6 Editing: 3 Budget: 3 Story: 4 Theme: 5 Pure entertainment factor: 4 Video quality: 8 Special effects: NA Pacing: 3 Suspension of disbelief: 4 Non-cringe factor: 4 Lack of flashbacks: 10

The movie is obviously based on a good concept. The trailer actually makes it out to a smart and controversial comedy with a fast pacing and humorous tone. The trailer is a lie. This is actually largely a slow-paced drama often focusing on slow emotional scenes that beat you over the head with sadness and melodrama.

There are quite a few issues here. Firstly it tries to be funny and upbeat in some scenes yet these actors are all playing out serious roles and not a single joke lands. It tries to be a Tyler Perry movie yet misses everything about the style. The settings are boring, actors dry, and overall it feels fake. The sets are all over place. We for example start at a university yet the lead gets fired right away and then most scenes are set in a summer house and the office of his manager. 2 vastly different settings with no connection to each other and both settings are ugly and dull. They literally had the university setting with students and racial conflicts then threw it away to take us out of anything that seems real. We don't know where we are at any one time. What is the city and town? What are the issues there? What about the stories of the places and racial conflicts? We don't know because the movie sets everything up at the university then just drops us into the slow-paced drama in random places and many crucial scenes are done over a phone call so a lot of character arcs are presented via dialogue alone without us seeing anyone actually doing anything that shows off their personality.

Again, Tyler Perry is great at this because it feels like a plot with a ton of people all interacting. So all scenes are pointing towards a setting and story. Here the story happens in a few scenes and there is no move towards anything. 30 min into the movie we see a scene where he writes a gangster book. Next scene he is rich because a publisher just bought the book outright. So the whole setup with a sick mother and him needing money is moot as it's solved with a single scene. Did we need 30 min on setting up all of this then?

Largely the pacing is just way too slow. Nothing is cut out. Scenes and small story lines get 10-15 min. The editor clearly didn't dare to cut anything out or make scenes shorter so it becomes overly long and every single thing drags. It could have worked better if the slow scenes at least had proper sets, walk and talk segments, or some interaction. Instead it's all people sitting around or talking on phones. It feels like reading a book. And even worse the movie takes itself way too seriously so we get pseudointellectual scenes in place of scenes that could feel more natural or be funnier.

Oppenheimer (I) (2023)

Not worth the runtime

[5/10 · 10 March 2024]

Historical accuracy: 8 Acting: 7 Camera work: 7 Editing: 4 Budget: 8 Story: 5 Theme: 4 Pure entertainment factor: 5 Video quality: 7 Special effects: 7 Pacing: 5 Suspension of disbelief: 6 Non-cringe factor: 4 Lack of flashbacks: 3

Honestly very disappointed. I haven't been this letdown by Nolan since Batman 3. And lo and behold this is pretty much the same movie type just historical. 3 hours long and largely cut together of small scenes that feel disjoined. Like a mini series cut into a movie. There are too few scenes to connect things together into a plot. We are here and there just jumping around in time and place. At least there is a lead character, but without a plot it's hard to really be excited about any one scene. It never feels like you are in a real place with real people.

Nolan also overedits everything with music, sound, CGI, and fast intercuts making it all feel messy.

The worst part by far the is the storytelling. Everything is overdramatic and feels more like a chick-flick or melodrama. Just like The Imitation Game (2014) where the scientists constantly debate how to use the weapon they created. Which is ahistorical and cringe. They didn't make any such decisions and for sure didn't spend 95% of their time worrying about politics and how the bomb is used. That's utter nonsense. And while we do have some scenes following the team creating the bomb it's largely a movie about an interrogation into Oppenheimer after the war and then his 2 main romantic relationships. So it's largely gossip focused. There are way too many scenes with people being overly loud and dramatic and storming out of the room. Which again feels ahistorical which is a shame as I have seen even old and dirt cheap mini series about such topics do it way better.

About 15% of the movie is about his affairs and romantic relationships. 30% is about the investigation into Oppenheimer after the war where half the scenes are black and white and the rest are set in a small room with just loose accusations largely focusing on how most of his friends and girlfriends were communists. Which to be fair is a bit weird when we also know that he had a ton of communists working for him who leaked all atomic secrets to Stalin so that USSR could get the bomb just as fast as USA. So by showing these scenes the movie itself shows us the investigation into him is not that unfair. It's actually quite logical yet the movie makes it seem like the investigators are frantic, unfair, and evil attackers working outside the system. Again, the movie literally showed us a scene where he lied to a state agent who was responsible for shutting down leaks. You can imagine what would happen to anyone doing such a thing today. It's a guaranteed prison sentence. In dictatorial countries it would be a death sentence or at minimum life in prison. So why should I feel bad for him? He tried to protect his friend by lying to a state agent? So did Martha Stewart yet she ended up in prison.

I'm not sure what message the movie tries to deliver or why? But the overediting makes it moot anyhow. Everyone is an emotional mess whining in every scene so the unfairness is hiding behind whining we can see is uncontrolled anyhow. Heck, his mistress literally admits to whining about nothing because she has mental disorders.

I much rather watch a slower paced mini series that had a 20th of the budget, but will at least focus on the creation of the bomb not melodrama in a personal life of a genius. Or at least make it fun with a proactive lead not a guy stuck in some setting where things just happen to him. Honestly not good enough, but not terrible either. Fat Man and Little Boy (1989) is endlessly better.

Dark Side of the Ring: The Brawl for All (2020) Season 2, Episode 4

An engaging watch

[7/10 · 25 February 2024]

I actually think this is not bad because it's hard to find an intro to this event with actual videos of the fights. Youtubers are not allowed to use footage from the events so those videos feel lacking. This documentary goes over the basics and shows what happened in this pro wrestling event that had real fights. The owner of the biggest wrestling organization had hired a total outsider and a giant fool to write his events. So everything was a giant foolish disgusting mess as the guy clearly didn't care about wrestling. And he created this event with real fights that ended up injuring some of their big stars forcing them into early retirement.

The event is notorious today. While it was a dud and an economic disaster it did end up becoming a big story that made pro wrestling more popular over time.

I do already know about the event so my surprise seeing this was not huge. But it was fun to watch a second time.