hypersonic8999 Reviews

The Forgotten Battle (2020)

Enjoyable but mediocre

[5/10 · 24 October 2021]

When it comes to WW2 movies, I've probably seen most of them. Not just Hollywood, but Russian, British, Italian, German, French, Dutch, Australian, Chinese, Greek, etc.

This one is nothing to write home about. You can have a good time for the 2 hours it lasts, although it's a bit too drawn-out. By the end of it, you'll forget what it's all about.

The story never really draws you in. The 3 storylines are too far apart from each other, and the jumps between them never really give you the time to immerse yourself in the story or get to know the characters. The way the film is edited also ruins pacing. Things take quite a while to resolve themselves, and by the time they do, you have either forgotten about them or got caught up in other things. As a result, there's barely any emotional impact on the audience.

The plot doesn't give the characters enough depth. As a result the performances come across as a bit wooden, even though the actors seem competent enough to pull off a major production like this.

The story doesn't do anything really original, and doesn't do enough to be apart from other "serendipity" kind of films or films about German occupation. Frankly, I caught myself often thinking back on Black Book (an excellent Dutch WW2 resistance film) and comparing it to this one. Black Book is superior by far.

The film is just too long and too slow for its own good. And I'm not talking about lack of action. You can have good war films with barely any action in them. The problem is that the weaknesses I mentioned become more apparent the longer a film is. If this film was 30-40 minutes shorter, it would have a more compact and better paced story, the vision and the premise would have been given a better chance to shine, and it would have been a lot fairer to the actors' talents.

The director, editor and screenwriter all fail to deliver suspense where it was needed. There's many scenes where characters are about to die and the film might as well have been describing the weather.

In fact, if I was in charge of this, I would have cut the glider pilot's storyline out all together. It's completely irrelevant to the other 2 stories and it leads nowhere beyond a minor tie-in at the end. The ending could have easily been the same without this entire storyline. The storyline itself has an interesting premise. It would have served the entire project, if it was instead turned into a separate film. As it is, it serves no purpose to the plot of this film.

Summary: Decent acting, average direction, a plot with pacing issues and shallow characters but otherwise OK, subpar editing. I don't know where all these 8, 9 and 10 reviews are coming from. It's watchable, even enjoyable, but doesn't really rise above mediocrity.

The Liberator (2020)

Great war series

[10/10 · 12 November 2020]

This is a pretty great WW2 series. I really enjoyed it. Good story, good acting, good characters. People complain about the animation filter, but it's not that big of a deal. It could have been done better at certain points, but all in all, it doesn't take anything away.

Inhuman Resources (I) (2020– )

Great series, awful ending

[7/10 · 26 June 2020]

Eric Cantona scores a great performance in this (mini?) series.

A destitute man is at the end of his rope, when an amazing job opportunity presents itself. He is desperate to get it, so he resorts to any means to get an edge on his competition, including alienating his family and putting himself further in the hole. However, he creates a plan to take revenge on the system and get something out of it.

The central theme of the series is how capitalism changes people for the worst. The more they seek money, the less human they become. The series manages to depict this pretty well.

The problem is that although the series is well-written, the writers aren't as skillful as they think. They tried to give this a bittersweet ending (and perhaps a hint for an uncertain second season). All they manage is that they give very little closure, and any that is given is unsatisfying. I understand why they wanted to give the ending they did give, but I think they didn't present it in a way that does it justice.

Special Correspondents (2016)

This is great and caustic satire

[8/10 · 8 June 2020]

I don't understand the negative ratings. This is a pretty good film and a very easy 98 minutes to spend your time.

Yeah, it's not filled to the brim with funny but shallow one-liners. It's a classic comedy in that the situation is what makes it funny, and not the actors acting as crazy as they can. It's a satire that exaggerates a situation instead of exagerrating words.

The things it satirizes are also pretty great. Since this film, journalism has really taken a downturn in the US. And I think that's what gets people uneasy about this. It's a movie that dares criticize the media and the 24-hour news cycle, and like any good satire, the targets of its humor don't like it.

The English Game (2020)

Mediocre soapy drama

[5/10 · 28 March 2020]

I started the first episode and despite some of its flaws, I quite enjoyed it. I binged the rest of the series in one night. However, I was mortified to find out that that first episode is the best of the lot. I was hoping it was going to return back to that quality by the end, but it never did.

There's very little football history in this series, and what little there is, is wrong.

The show follows mainly Fergus Suter, the first professional football player, and Arthur Kinnaird. These two existed, but essentially the show just invents an entire life around them, and then follows that, pretending like it's a real story, when it's not. What's more is that the show contains several major historical falsehoods. I can't say examples, as I would be spoiling it, but let's just say that the third most important team in the plot is not only the wrong one, they were the local rivals of the actual team, the show has the position of the playmaker invented 60 years ahead of its time, and in general the events in the plot have very little resemblance to the actual events that took place.

Additionally, the show tries to depict the political and social clashes of the time, between the wealthy upper class, and the poor masses of the lower class of that period. Political drama is easy to make, particularly in this day and age. Yet the show bungles that as well. It seems the conservative Julian Fellowes couldn't resist sprinkling his own political ideas on yet another show. Some characters and plot-lines appear well out of place as a result.

But fine, the show is trying to be a character drama. Does it succeed?

Nope. It's as uninteresting and dull as it gets. The actors are OK (I suspect their actual talents were not allowed to shine), their characters are completely one-dimensional. The drama stems from a bunch of cliche situations. The set-up for character relationships is non-existent. Despite the historical inaccuracy, the football parts are the most interesting bits. However, as the show progresses, it foregoes all the football and instead focuses primarily on the dull drama. If the show didn't make this choice, it would have most probably been fairly decent, despite any shortcomings, and it would have been one of the first half-competent football sports dramas. Instead it plays it safe and goes for the dull, uninteresting, unoriginal and painfully slow soap opera.

There are better things to do, better things to watch. It's a run of the mill, period peace, mediocre, unoriginal soap opera. If you are looking for football, it's not going to scratch the itch. If you are looking for political drama, you'll be disappointed.

The Blood of Heroes (1989)

Oozes with atmosphere

[10/10 · 24 March 2020]

From the first moment, the film grabs you by the throat and throws you in a dirty post-apocalyptic world. You are really there. There is consistency and depth for miles in the world being built. You feel as this is not a film. It's real. These people are real.

The focus of the film is a very simplistic and quite brutal sport. It is the only reprieve these people get from toiling day and night for a piece of rubbery bread. And as they cheer, you find yourself cheering. As the players struggle you find yourself gasp.

I highly suggest watching this. It's a masterpiece. A hidden gem waiting to be discovered.

Age of Tanks (2017)

Biased, inaccurate, sensationalist, propagandistic

[2/10 · 27 July 2019]

This was a pain to watch. Half the information is very basic, and the other half is very inaccurate, and sometimes even false. There's a very clear bias of the creators towards France/USA/UK (in that order). At certain points the series will diss the Soviet Union in a very out of place way, which makes me question the motives behind this whole project. They are emphasizing only very basic and famous tank designs (mostly main battle tanks and light tanks), while failing to delve into the more experimental side of things, as well as missing out on whole categories such as self-propelled artillery guns, tank destroyers and armored carriers.

Dirty Money (2018–2020)

Good docu series but disappointingly misses the larger picture

[6/10 · 24 July 2019]

This series goes into some very interesting topics and discusses a lot of current and older events (with the exception of the maple syrup episode). It does a pretty good job of presenting what happened, but rarely why it happened.

Here's the problem: The series barely scratches the surface of the game played underneath many of these subjects. Particularly when it comes to the US political scene. It goes into things like money laundering, the pharmaceutical and healthcare industry, the auto industry, the drug war etc. But it only focuses on certain companies and people, while glancing over or never mentioning others in the same sector doing the same kinds of criminal acts. Most importantly, it almost never talks about how politicians are involved in these acts through bribery and corruption.

My biggest gripe was that in a series of 6 episodes, they decide to do one on... a maple syrup monopoly? Really? We couldn't talk about the Clinton foundation, or the telecom monopoly in the US, or the military industrial complex, or the crazy election finance laws, or seizures of homes, or any of the countless of financial disasters that have been happening in the past 20 years? We had to spend 50 minutes talking about some guys stealing some barrels of maple syrup?

The Hollow (2018–2020)

The Hollow rings a bit hollow

[6/10 · 16 July 2019]

I had fun watching this, but I'd be hard-pressed to recommend this series to anyone above the age of 10.

Positives: Very good concept, reminiscent of a tabletop RPG. The mystery and action will keep you interested. There is an interesting world to discover in the Hollow. The characters are nothing special, but when they work together, they have a good dynamic.

Negatives: The dialogue is mostly stale. The humor is very hit and miss, emphasis on miss. The plot is sometimes nonsensical. It really sucks when the audience is much smarter than the characters. The series is not sure of what it is, is it a Rick and Morty style cartoon for adults? Is it aimed at teenagers? Is it aimed at children? No one knows. It tries to do all 3, but does so very badly. When characters are talking or trying to do something, there are annoying pauses between each character, which ruin the pacing.

Downsizing (2017)

A rare gem in a sea of rubbish

[10/10 · 12 May 2018]

I was surprised at the negative reviews and low scores this movie has garnered. I found it to be a very good piece of film-making and entertainment.

Do not be deceived by its sci-fi nature. The premise is just background to a greater story. It is a question asked "What if people could shrink themselves to the size of a pen?" and the answer is given in a low-key and grounded manner. We are exploring this question alongside the protagonist.

However, the movie quickly strides into territory where it explores a variety of social issues: Debt, increasing poverty, environmental catastrophes, materialistic way of life, how technology can be used to both help and harm us, love, failure in life, commitment to others, etc. And it does what it does quite while, albeit not subtly at all.

You won't find crazy action scenes, fast-paced car chases, evil robots or grimness. You will find a well-acted, well-filmed soft-toned drama/comedy.

Highly recommended 8/10

Jean-Claude Van Johnson (2016–2017)

Funny, satyrical and action-packed

[9/10 · 31 December 2017]

I've just finished watching this and I must say I'm blown away. I did not expect it to be this amazing. I was anticipating something mediocre, but instead I was served a great action/comedy and I couldn't help but watch all 6 parts in one sitting.

The series is both a homage and a satyrism of 80s action films , the film industry and modern audiences. It manages to pull off a great combination of the three, managing to keep it at just the right level, while deliberately sprinkling the viewer with well-done action scenes. It brims with over-the-top ideas, bold humor and unexpected turns in the story. There were many scenes that caught me completely unaware with the direction they went. I couldn't keep myself from bursting laughing out loud, which is a rarity these days.

JCVD gives a fine performance as well. It mustn't have been easy playing 3 different roles at once: The famous but depressed movie star, the secret agent and the action hero/bad actor. Not to mention the many other faces he puts throughout. The rest of the cast is doing OK. I can't say anyone shined in particular, but it was enjoyable nonetheless. The thing is that elements that would otherwise would be downsides work in favor for the series, because they blend in nicely with the effort to make a light satyre.

There is an interesting plot going in the background as well. It's simple, it's well-paced and well-executed and doesn't detract from the main focus, which is the characters. Rather it builds alongside.

My only gripe is that fight scenes that didn't involve JCVD weren't done very well. They were executed too slowly and were shouting "fake" from a mile away. Still they were extremely rare, so I can't say I can complain about it much.

If you are a fan of old action flicks, I highly recommend you get the gang together for the weekend, order some food, sit down and enjoy Jean Claude Van Johnson.

The House (I) (2017)

Pretty funny

[6/10 · 10 October 2017]

I don't know what people expected. This movie was actually very funny. It's definitely not Old School, but it scratches that itch. It's actually been a while since I've laughed during a Will Ferrel film. I went in without expecting much and was very pleasantly surprised.

The humour isn't so much about them saying things. It's the whole situation they set up and how quickly they devolve into a pit of madness.

Revolt (2017)

While not a waste of time, still a very average sci-fi

[6/10 · 24 September 2017]

* This review might contain very minor spoilers in the fourth paragraph *

Earth has been invaded by alien robots. Humanity has largely been defeated. The film follows a soldier who lost his memory and a doctor as they try to survive and find the remnants of humanity, in the closing days of the invasion.

Considering its budget, the film is a technical masterpiece. The camera work is good. The settings and atmosphere of the film is really great. They manage to pull off the post-apocalypse pretty well. There's some really solid special effects, which is surprising for a film of this calibre. The sound effects are satisfying. The acting isn't lacking and the direction is all in all OK. The plot is simple and to the point, but we need to talk about the writing a bit.

This film didn't work for me for two reasons: There's a big chunk around the beginning and middle of the film where essentially nothing is happening. It's just two people walking the savanna. I guess it gives us exposition on the destruction the aliens have wrought, but it's not that impressive. There's a couple action sequences in this part that kinda break the monotony but they are over quick. There's some really cringe montage shots spread throughout, that I didn't like at all, didn't achieve anything to connect me with the protagonists, and broke the immersion to an extent.

The other reason is that the film doesn't explain anything. Who are the aliens? Why are they here? Why are they gathering up people? What are those fighter jets flying overhead every couple days that don't seem to do anything? In my opinion this is the mark of an extremely poor sci-fi film. Particularly this film whose characters never really connected with me. I didn't care if they lived or died frankly. The only thing keeping me interested were the questions about the aliens. And then the film just ended without explaining anything. This is a cop-out by action "sci-fi" films that try to avoid plot-holes by not having an actual sci-fi plot. Just stuff that looks like sci-fi.

So while it's a competently-made film, it is not an enticing film. It's enjoyable to watch, even entertaining in a lot of moments, but for the most part it's either boring or barely engaging. I would recommend watching it if you like films of this kind. You'll like it. It's just not for me. And if you are like me, then it's likely you'll be far less forgiving than I was.

Security (I) (2017)

Meh

[3/10 · 17 August 2017]

This was a waste of time for the most part. The only redeeming factor was the action, which honestly was above average. Also Banderas gives a pretty solid performance. Everything else sucked.

Screenplay and dialogue are idiotic and check every cliché. I think they were intentionally trying to imitate cheesy dialogue from the 80s, but it didn't fit with the tone of the film. Tired hurting veteran who just wants to be a normal guy while everything around him is despair and darkness. Whereas the 80s action hero is the exact opposite of this. A happy go lucky guy who kicks bad guy ass daily and it's what fulfils him as a person. He might have a few problems but he never lets it affect his flamboyance and humor. The result is something really weird that just perpetually keeps you out of place.

It's a shame really, because the premise was interesting, and they could have worked a lot more with it. The mall and all the resources it contains are barely used beyond a couple scenes. Ben Kingsley performs a ruthless villain, but he's never given the chance to shine. Everyone along the ride with Banderas could have done a better job if they were coordinated better by the director. Most egregious is that most of the bad guys aren't killed by clever traps or the unexpected tactical skills of the good guys. It's just Banderas sliding and pirhouetting around who kills most of them, and he does it so easily it's almost supernatural.

There's a lot of issues with the pacing. It's clockwork really. 5 minute build-up, 5 minutes action, 5 minutes slow exposition and here we start again. Most of the time the characters aren't doing anything. They are just sitting around not being prepared. Then just before the action starts they start running around like headless chickens. The exposition part is really lame. Most of the time they were talking I was just cringing.

All in all, it's not the worst film ever. It's a B-movie after all. But it's not a very enjoyable one. There's far better things to do with your time, than to watch this.

Life (I) (2017)

As horror it's good, as sci-fi it's very bad

[5/10 · 17 July 2017]

As a movie, it's enjoyable. The horror elements are well set and the story moves along nicely. The characters don't much matter, but they are good actors doing a decent job. It's the script that hasn't given them much to go on. The camera work is stunning at places and I applaud the director for making a technically competent film as far as visuals and acting goes.

The problems start when we enter the sci-fi part of the film, and more generally when we start talking about the script. As an idea it has potential. It's certainly not an original premise, but hey, I'm not gonna hold that against anything in human culture. Everything is ripping off something else.

However, the script suffers from a lot of "this improbable and stupid thing just happened so the next improbable and stupid thing can happen". After a while the whole movie degenerates into a series of these blunders and can start pulling you out of it. That's a big no no for any movie, and especially for a horror film where you rely on... well, horror.

**FROM HERE ON IT'S SPOILERS**

I wouldn't nitpick something like Alien, which has several issues as well. But Alien was made nearly 40 years ago. And its issues aren't so many to be a problem. This film just keeps piling from the beginning and they become so many that there's no longer cohesion. Without these, I would rate the film as anything between 8-10 out of 10.

The astronauts are incompetent. Just simply incompetent. Right at the point where the alien kills its first victim I have thought of a very simple and clear solution. Wear space suits and vent the station. Stick together and arm yourselves. Nope, doesn't even cross their minds until it's too late.

At this point I should mention I'm a biologist, and I've done a lot of work with relatively harmless pathogenic bacteria. My lab has miles ahead better precautions than their lab. And they have a CDC "Doctor" aboard whose basically there to make sure no one opens the door and nothing else. Their whole protection is a plastic incubator that is equipped with latex glass. Not even leather gloves. There's no emergency venting of atmosphere. There's no secondary shield to seal the incubator. The room's ventilation and sprinkler system is connected to the rest of the station. It's just plain stupid, and it's there to fail.

Then there's all those small information that make no sense: * The fuel runs out immediately after the film starts. Apparently, not one of at least 15 space agencies (today's numbers) have thought to resupply the International Space Station before the most critical and important mission undertook by humanity. And one that would place the whole station in quarantine until the mission was over (presumably).\ * I can see the alien being immune to fire and maybe withstanding limited times without oxygen, but it's also completely immune to toxic and poisonous substances and can withstand the vacuum, cold and radioactivity of space for hours.

* Also, the first 20 minutes it can't withstand the absence of atmosphere, afterwards it can withstand it forever, then towards the end it can't survive without oxygen for prolonged times.

* The humans fail to rescue one other human when they know where he is, they know he's probably alive and they know the alien is sealed away somewhere where it can't reach any of them. Then said non-rescued human proceeds to mess up everything.

* No one ever thinks of wearing a space suit so they can have that much extra protection from something that seems intent on drinking them.

* We have a flamethrower aboard the station, which goes against every single safety rule that has existed for space travel since Yuri Gagarin.

* No one ever thinks of trying to poison the organism, or even just mess up with its atmosphere when it's destroying the arm of one of the astronauts. They just sit there and watch.

* They just find the organism and revive it 5 minutes after putting it under the microscope. Seriously, WTF scientists? What happened to safety and precautions? Study what you have first. Then see about reviving it. Not only is it completely reckless and dangerous, even if the organism turned benign, they've just introduced a bunch of ethical complications to the study, when there were none.

* The ending is beyond stupid. The alien acts out of completely out of character, there's a twist that can be seen from miles away. The alien is stupidly intelligent. I mean it's so intelligent it beggars belief. Just because it has brain power doesn't mean it instantly can learn everything about piloting space shuttles, orbital mechanics, human psychology/behavior and dramatic irony.

* The humans mess up badly at the end. Not only do they execute a reckless plan, they don't make sure they maximize their odds of succeeding. They split up, when they know that the alien has only ever tried dealing with one of them at a time. They perform a plan that hinges on the alien not overpowering them (which it can totally do). Part of their plan is that one of them returns to Earth. Why? You are breaking your own quarantine rules in the most extreme manner. What if that thing can multiply and one of its offspring comes back to Earth? * Most heroic sacrifices are not only wasted. They are unnecessary and stupid.

Once Upon a Time in Venice (2017)

Distinctly average

[4/10 · 16 July 2017]

It's not a bad film. It's not a good one either. For me it's always a bad sign when the film changes titles to escape the bad publicity it got just for a little bit and make that extra sale (L.A. Rush AKA Once Upon A Time In Venice).

They scored the recognizable names to put in the film, but as far as everything else goes it's average at best. You get some really amateurish scenes here and there. The dialogue in parts is horrendous. The characters aren't bad. They are just wacky and always not what you expect. It makes you expect the unexpected.

It's not unenjoyable either. There are some scenes that are genuinely funny. The whole film is characterized by a very chill and relaxed attitude. If you have 90 minutes to kill and you don't go in expecting anything great, maybe you'll like it. For me it was a waste of time, and I'd personally suggest you just watch anything else.

In Dubious Battle (2016)

Which side are you on?

[10/10 · 21 February 2017]

One of the best novels by Steinbeck is translated to a powerful film. The struggle of workers to gain labour rights and the birth of unions in the USA.

James Franco has the right credentials to become an amazing director. The film portrays brilliantly the kaleidoscope of feelings of a group of people asking nothing more than to be treated fairly from the people who own everything. This is something the book focuses on, and this adaptation doesn't just present a story, but it carries accurately what Steinbeck tried to portray: The initial fears and hesitations that hold people back from coming together, then the anger and hope that brings them together, the self-doubt as the fight reveals to be a protracted one, and the final push through the desperation and dread to overcome the obstacles.

It's time people remembered that in this life, unfortunately, nothing is given. It is earned with hard-fought battles and sacrifice.

This film is a real gem, not just because it's executed well, but more importantly because it has something important to say, something that all should stop, listen and give it some thought.

Bravo James Franco and everyone else involved in this. You have the guts to stand up and take on a beast that few film-makers ever try to wrestle with.

A Monster Calls (2016)

Watch this

[10/10 · 29 January 2017]

This is an amazing fantasy drama. It's one of the best films I've seen in a while. Definitely go watch it.

This is not a children's film and this is not a horror film. This is a drama about coping with loss of loved ones. Children will probably be scared by some scenes and the rest of it they'll probably not understand.

From a technical standpoint, it's a triumph. The cinematography is not just mere background. Everything plays its role. I am very keen to see what this director will offer us next.

You will weep, you will smile. This film will touch you in ways you never thought possible. It's a masterpiece.

Cargo (2009)

Could have been a masterpiece

[6/10 · 4 January 2017]

Cargo presents a very familiar premise: A dystopian future with a desolate Earth is the backdrop for a thriller set in the confines of a cargo ship.

And while it starts off as what seems to be the usual Alien clone, it quickly evolves into a very complex mystery, with a far-reaching story arc. If I were to rate the first hour of the film it would be a solid 8/10 suspenseful hard sci-fi mystery/thriller.

However, after the first hour problems begin to arise. The plot starts having cracks. Characters start doing irrational things with hardly any explanation, simply so that their actions can act as a vehicle for the next scene. The mystery reveals itself but the implications it presents are mishandled. The movie starts dropping speed and stretches itself without any real need to do so. (And I have to say this but I hate it when characters are told they have X minutes left to do something important, but they take their time to walk slowly from point A to point B as if they have no cares in the world).

I think the creators could have done a far better job and it's a shame that they didn't because the film excels in most other sectors. Aside from the flaws I mentioned above, the characters are not explored much, but what we do see of them is consistent and believable. The art direction really nailed it, and with a better CGI budget they could have blown minds. And although the direction aboard the ship was discreet, it nevertheless impresses.

I'll give more chances to the people who made this, they certainly deserve it. If you enjoy space sci-fi thrillers, with an emphasis on hard sci-fi, you will probably enjoy this.

Spectral (2016)

Stuck between good and awful

[5/10 · 15 December 2016]

Another film with good potential but wasted on bad decisions.

It has good ideas, but a bad screen writing.

It has a good basic story, but some scenes make you scratch your head on why they are shooting themselves in the foot with bad details.

It has good actors, but a bad script.

It has good special effects, but very mediocre cinematography. When they are supposed to shine the film won't let you enjoy them. (4/10 director).

Particularly I didn't like how the movie tried to explore some philosophical points on science, but it contradicted itself throughout the film. At first they try to show how science can be applied for bad purposes. Then they try to show us how the world is taken up in conflict and that's bad on the civilians (?). Then they turn around and show us how the soldiers will follow whatever orders they are given and that's a good thing (?). Then we are shown that science can explain everything. Then we are shown that science can't explain everything. Then we are shown that science can be used for good. But then we are shown that you can't put science and good in the same sentence.

It contradicts itself on every turn and comes off as very badly written. Even though now that I write it I realise it might be coherent on paper, the execution was so bad, it made me doubt the whole thing in the first place.

HOWEVER, if you switch off, sit back and just enjoy it as the action/horror it's supposed to be, you will enjoy it immensely. Despite my criticism at the direction, there are many scenes where they do manage to pull it off well enough. I liked all the ideas the film tried to do, and with a little bit of work they could have been achieved to great success. As is, they fall just short of that, and it's a bit disappointing. I think it's worth watching if you are an action fan.

The Whole Truth (2016)

Good combination of courtroom drama and mystery

[8/10 · 7 December 2016]

I've thoroughly enjoyed watching this film. Keanu, Zwellinger and Gugu all give solid performances. Especially Gugu, I'll be keeping an eye out for her next performance. There's a very good plot unfolding at a slow but steady pace, and I feel that the raw approach taken by the script and direction had kept me interested even more.

Almost the entirety of the film takes place in the courtroom or in the memories of those involved. And this is the brilliant part about the film. I feel that it managed to convey a very good representation of how the human mind works and has given us a courtroom drama without all the flowery bits in one stroke.

For example, the witness says something and then you see how they lied when they recall the memory. The mantra that "everybody lies" is prevalent through the whole film, and while things seem simple enough to the viewer, they do manage to surprise you at the end.

I think this film doesn't deserve the relatively bad reviews it gets. It's a good example of keeping things fresh. It engages its audience, it manages to keep you interested in the plot, it makes you identify and feel for the protagonists.

The Flowers of War (2011)

Great touching film

[10/10 · 12 October 2016]

It's been a long while since I've watched such a good film. The story is a tragedy and triumph of humanity. It's so rare to find a war film that can deliver with such elegance and straightforwardness the extreme opposites of mankind. The good and the horrible.

Despite its length, it doesn't drag on. The actors do stellar performances. The film combines the trademarks of Chinese direction, but without its excesses and out-of-place clichés. It's more down-to-earth and after the initial scenes you will never find yourself doubting that these are real people and real events.

The soundtrack is moving and subtle. There are many dramatic scenes where there is no music in the background. And that's when the gravity of the situation really hits you.

This is a must-see. I highly recommend it. I caught myself crying a few times, which is rare to happen in films for me. Yet I wasn't crying because it's sad, as much as it is awe-inspiring.

ARQ (2016)

I expected more, but a fun film nonetheless

[6/10 · 18 September 2016]

A rogue scientist develops a perpetual motion machine that generates limitless energy and is also a time machine.

I'll be honest, I expected more from this film. Netflix has a good track record with quality. Well, this film isn't up to that level, although it's a lot better than many other sci-fi that has recently hit the theaters.

The acting is mediocre to decent for the most part. I didn't enjoy the girl's acting at all though. When the moment calls for emotion, she is either overacting it or underacting it.

Although this story has been done to death, from Groundhog Day to Edge of Tomorrow, they manage to keep it fresh and interesting. But the plot does suffer from certain plot-holes. Some are just nitpicky, others are more serious. A lot of it comes down to stupid decisions the characters are making. Particularly towards the end, where they know what's going on, yet they do a lot of counter-intuitive things that come back to bite almost immediately.

Nonetheless, I believe you'll enjoy yourself if you lower your expectations before going in. It's a slightly above average film. I hope Netflix produces more films and I hope they learn from the mistakes of this one, because it does have a lot of moments where you can see the missed potential. With a bit of polish it would have made for a far better film.

The Expanse (2015–2022)

A true sci-fi

[10/10 · 5 July 2016]

Wow, this series blew me away. It's been such a long time since a true sci-fi series came on TV. What do I mean by true sci-fi? Well most sci-fi series out there released in the past 15 years are all about flashy action set in a dystopian future, which is left bare and with very little exploration done, relying on silly snappy dialogue and lame comedic relief to keep retention. Meanwhile sci-fi is only kept in appearance, by placing the plot in the future, throwing some characters in a spaceship and giving them imaginary tools that look futuristic.

The Expanse is the exact opposite of that. It's set in a rich world with poly-faceted characters. It doesn't use futuristic technology as a prop to impress audiences. It fleshes the technology out, bases it on legitimate science and believable extrapolation and then starts asking questions about it. What would it be like if people lived in 0 gravity? What kind of work would we have to do to terraform a planet? How do we mine an asteroid and what are the implications for the workers? This is how series like Star Trek and Babylon 5 used to do it, and this is why we loved them. Because they create consistent worlds. This is what a true sci-fi is, and the Expanse is filling that glove perfectly.

The production value is just an added bonus. The actors are mediocre (but well above acceptable levels), but their characters are so well-written you wouldn't mind. The plot has many layers, but it doesn't confuse you or bore you. There are real present and urgent political and economic issues presented and examined. The direction and the effects are top level.

You should definitely watch the Expanse. It's well worth your time.

Apocalypse: The Second World War (2009)

Good documentary but biased and very French-centric

[7/10 · 22 May 2016]

This documentary series' strong point is the use of only WWII footage, often colorized. A lot of it is rarely seen in other documentaries, some of it none at all. So it's very interesting in that perspective.

However, it's a French documentary and it's very French-centric and usually very biased. On several occasions I've caught it omitting important information/context or bringing up wrong information. For a documentary claiming to cover the whole of WW2 (which it does claim to do so), it's not a very good effort. It will mention several side-topics that are important for France (e.g. the politics of France before the war), but doesn't bother with important parts of WW2 that France had nothing to do with, e.g. the war in the Balkans.

Most egregious is that it tries very heavily to paint the Soviets as bad or worse than the Nazis. It tries to paint Britain as the major obstacle to Germany and their main opponent. Just to be clear, ideally it shouldn't be biased at all for either side. It should be presenting history and commentary on the footage. Instead it sometimes uses footage to present a version of history that is favorable to the makers.

Still, in the parts that concern Western Europe, it does a very good job on educating its viewers on important details that are not known by many. It gives a very good perspective of the civilian population. The footage taking a primary role, instead of a tool to transition between interview scenes (this documentary doesn't have any such scenes) keeps things interesting.

I'd recommend watching it, but bearing in mind that it only does the rudimentary minimum for anything else aside from French and British affairs. As far as the Eastern Front goes and the War in the Pacific, you can find many better documentaries.