urthpainter Reviews

Warrior: Enter the Dragon (2020) Season 2, Episode 9

One of Televisions Best Ever Episodes

[10/10 · 7 May 2024]

Sometimes as a viewer, just have a feeling going into an episode that it might be great. It's probably production quality, and little details crafted by the filmmakers that one can pick up on as tells. The first thing I said to myself as this episode began? This might be Warrior's 'May the Giant be with You' from Twin Peaks or 'Bear Man' from Hell on Wheels. Not that there is any connection in content - they are just masterpiece episodes of TV, that have a timeless quality like the best movies.

And that is where Enter the Dragon lands. Without getting into any specifics, many foreshadowed events come to fruition. The entire 2nd season has had a building sense of dread and unease - all that tension is released in a furious, and brilliantly choreographed large scale action sequence. I think it is one of the best scenes of its kind I have ever watched.

Due to the dramatic outcomes of the episode some relationship bonds become stronger, and others more filled with pure hatred. All the main characters are well represented, and changed in some way by this episodes events.

Ultimately? It's just the incredible level of entertainment on display, all delivered with an unrelenting approach. Warrior is one of the best produced TV shows of modern era. I really respect the cast for buying into Warrior's vision. Besides a great TV show that is consistently Very good - it's led to an episode like this which fans will never forget.

Hell on Wheels: Bear Man (2014) Season 4, Episode 6

Amazing episode of Hell on Wheels

[10/10 · 7 May 2024]

This should be the highest rated episode of the entire series. It's a brilliant television episode that effectively portrays brain damage, and a Real World dream. I guess some fans of this show were not ready for such an artistic episode focusing on Common's character, Elam Furguson.

After a lot of questions, Hell on Wheels returns to Elam on a surreal journey, as he returns to health after a traumatic head injury. Every single aspect of this episode is well thought out and brilliantly created. Like the best episodes of this show, its very immersive, but in a completely different way. I'd say the unrelenting approach is maintained, but the reality is far from grounded due to the perspective of this episodes main character.

Bear Man is to me, not only the best episode of Hell on Wheels, but one of the best episodes of any TV show. I find it a little frustrating that many fans of this show gave this episode no chance, and just instantly conclude it's without merit. It's a pitiable offense. Especially in the realm of fiction. I'd argue less open mind and more ability to recognize merit. Perhaps a valid argument exists to back up not liking this episode - but to give the lowest possible score says way more about the reviewer than it does about Bear Man, season 4 episode 6 of Hell on Wheels.

Fallout (2024– )

Clinic on producing existing intellectual property

[9/10 · 28 April 2024]

Considering all the terrible producers in 2024 - who regularly crush the dreams of Star Trek, Star Wars and fans of other established intellectual properties, very refreshing to see an IP with tons of merit getting produced by individuals who understand their job.

Fallout is a Legendary video game franchise. Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas are, to me, top 10 all time video games. Fallout three was like GTA III - it changed the industry. Gamers were provided interactive bliss for a game that one could sink 100+ hours into, which is remarkable for a single player experience. Fallout and Fallout 2 were more turn based strategy games, but established a ton of lore, items and ideas that were carried forward into Fallout 3 - a third person action game. But a third person action game with Role Playing Game and Strategy Game elements also incorporated into design. Gamers were given a ton of customization for building their character, both aesthetically and how they applied 'perk' abilities while leveling. The beauty of Fallout 3 is how the player could really tailor a character's ability to exactly what they want. This included physical abilities, improved use of tools and weapons, intelligence abilities like hacking, and charisma abilities for better communication and deception. On a single play through, not all abilities could be had - so the player had to pick and choose abilities to round out their character.

That's all a lot - but the bottom line is there are great games in the Fallout franchise, and a ton of merit from which to draw from. For the record, I would say the same thing about the Monster Hunter franchise, and the MH movie was a god awful train wreck. That is where intelligent production comes in. You need producers who understand what it takes to make good television, but also who understand the source IP, and know how to draw merit out of that IP. In the modern era, it seems like many producers think that they can just take an existing IP and do whatever the heck they want with it: change fundamentals, insert outside content that has nothing to do with original IP, and worst yet - use the existing IP to float their own messaging and insipid ideas.

Not in Fallout! In Fallout the producers hired the right people, and let them work. I wonder if they ever had to define parameters, or if the producers were able to simply get out of the way, and let their chosen talent do their jobs. However it unfolded, the end result is a borderline masterpiece.

Fallout the TV show is about a future world that never grew out of the 1950s style and aesthetic. The mix of retro aesthetic, science fiction future and post apocalyptic wasteland makes for a great playground to inject characters and narrative. Which is exactly what happens. While Fallout does have a single main character, there are basically three main characters, each with their own story arc. These arcs intersect, which unfolds across 8 AAA episodes. A second season has already been authorized.

While the show unfolds in an easily digested manner - the story is quite complex, as is the backstory for each character. While I'm sure many have attempted a summery? I just recommend watching the show. One episode will probably be enough to fully commit, but if there is any doubt, definitely watch at least three complete episodes, kinda like an anime, before deciding what the show is. Fallout has a lot of highly stylized violence, often with humor involved. The effects and really all technical qualities are top notch. This is one of the better seasons of TV, all genres, in the last 10 years. Its up there with the best of GoT, early seasons.

If you can't tell, I loved this first season of Fallout. It also gets me going on my ax grind - producers who selfishly attempt to ruin existing intellectual properties for dubious reasons. But I know it's not as simple as understanding and loving a video game to make it into good TV. Producers also have to understand their own medium, and how to pick and choose merit from the other genre to make something good.

But this is great! Such a Rare gem! And - gamers know that Bethesda, the company behind Fallout, has been struggling for the last 5+ years with their video game releases. Their last great game was Fallout 4, but even it fell short of Fallout 3 and NV in my opinion. Fallout 4 came out over 8 years ago! That is a Long time with no great releases. It is my hope that the Fallout TV show reaches a mass media audience, and provides the influx of resources and interest that Bethesda needs to make more great video games in the future. Even if that doesn't happen, if this show is done right for multiple seasons - it could be the greatest thing to come from that publisher. And that, to me, is an astonishing possibility.

Civil War (2024)

Shooting images, not bullets on the battlefield

[9/10 · 24 April 2024]

I fully recommend Civil War as a theater experience for anyone who likes the big screen. I went in knowing very little about movie, and that likely led to my enjoyment due to limited expectations.

I love this movie just for the entertainment, and following these characters through a highly fictionalized war zone. I think liking the characters is a must for full immersion. Also thought there was a lot of really good acting in various intense scenes. I'm a big fan of this cast and how they work together.

Civil war is a movie that keeps viewer in the moment, following war photo journalists during an American conflict between government factions. There isn't a lot of answers for what is going on, exactly. The viewer is given hints that draw speculation, but not many clearly presented facts to paint a clear picture. I'd argue that is a tactical approach by filmmaker that builds into a war photographer's life approach. Civil War also implies questions about the human experience. When do we feel most alive? What is the draw to violence, like moths to a flame? And also the inverse - keeping oneself busy to avoid troubling matters, and simply pretending a problem doesn't exist. That is a lot of existential questions/ideas that work on many levels - and they are questions with no easy answers, perhaps only an ongoing discussion of what it all means.

Much of Civil War's merit comes from all the questions it asks, and that approach is not for every viewer. I read a lot of viewer reviews, and it's pretty clear that many prefer a more literal, guided approach to their cinema.

More of the film's merit is found in production and well conceived action scenes. Guns, bullets and other military ordinance are given their true destructive potential. The gun fights have a grounded realism that I found highly immersive. Nice to see film violence with consequences - not that it's easy content to digest, it's just more refreshing than most action films violence for violence sake approach.

I like most of Alex Garland's work and think this might be his best all around best project. Civil War certainly took a great deal of planning/pre-production to get everything logistically in place. Along with marvelous production, the actors were able to give solid, convincing performances. With all the variables involved in making feature length motion picture, I'm always impressed by the movies with an identity that become more than the sum of their parts.

I think Civil War is best for viewers who like questions in their media, and drawing conclusions from those questions. I fully admit that the film title and poster art are misleading - this isn't a straight up war movie with soldiers, clear conflict with obvious sides. Still, there is a lot heroism on display, and I appreciated following main characters with nerve who shoot images in war zones, not bullets.

Ripley (2024)

Mesmerizing black and white cinematography

[7/10 · 21 April 2024]

Ripley is about a scoundrel New Yorker, down on his luck, who finds himself propelled into an adjacent look at Italian luxury via the father of an old acquaintance. Through various devious means the main character pursues that luxury for himself, only to set various chaotic events into motion. Can Ripley stay one step ahead of his own misdeeds?

The easiest place to start with Ripley is it's look and feel established by black and white presentation. I'd go as far as saying it's a technical masterpiece. Every episode has an array of incredible shots in well lit/thought out locations. In my opinion the look of this show is easily the best part and the main reason I completed the season.

The secondary reason was I thought this show was hilarious. The blundering nature of the main character is black comedy gold, and the scenes are very consistent in delivering that entertainment.

Otherwise? I thought the show was OK at best. I love the main character as an actor, but I think part of the comedy is likely due to improper casting. I can't say bad casting, because Andrew Scott delivers a consistent performance that I really enjoyed. But some of the scenes are preposterous. These occasional scenes destroy any chance of me really taking Ripley seriously.

It's also too long, and at times truly boring in terms of delivery of content. The visuals, really all technical qualities keep every moment afloat with merit, but patience is required to enjoy the slow paced approach.

For me the slow pace is the double edged sword of this show. On one side it meanders between major events, but! When those events occur, Ripley really extends the duration of highly entertaining scenes in a satisfying way.

The Bricklayer (2023)

There will always be hack scripts...

[4/10 · 18 April 2024]

While there will always be poorly written, hack scripts - the job of a producer is to fund a script with actual merit. If a garbage script is green lit, then made into feature length film? Immediately I wonder if the producers are bad at their jobs, Or if a project was just drummed up for an easy payday.

That's what the Bricklayer feels like: no inspiration, no labor of love, no depth... no good! Ironic that a half baked story revolves around a skilled laborer too... a character who is supposed to be the embodiment of hard work. Instead this movie tries to shoehorn in ideas of his profession in awkward ways - seemingly to rationalize the movies title.

In a nutshell the Bricklayer is about a retired government specialist who has disowned his previous, professional life, instead working as a craftsman. But shocker! He's swept back into his previous life, and has to right previous wrongs. To mix things up Bricklayer has not one, but two love interests... sort of - of the many things the Bricklayer does wrong, I'll include character development. Both backstory characterizations and those told as the movie progress lack commitment, and come off uncertain at best.

Pretty strange that Beekeeper and Bricklayer would come out so close to each other. Both go with a side-job premise, but also have horrific, half baked scripts. Both are a complete waist of acting talent, resources and a viewers time - in this case, action scenes included. Bricklayer tries a bit harder with character interactions, and perhaps the story isn't as preposterous... somehow. I'd say Beekeeper has more merit with Jason's action scenes, but both movies have a sloppy, thrown together feel that is disappointing. It all starts with the script, that set a low bar for everyone involved in the first place.

The Beekeeper (2024)

Terrible script uplifted by main character

[4/10 · 12 April 2024]

If not for Statham, this might of been one of the worst AAA movies ever made, and it's baffling that a script this bad would get green lit, let alone made into a AAA film. Bottom line? For fans of Statham only. Unfortunately, because this movie is easy to digest, has a star and clever title? It will be widely watched.

Beekeeper begins as a kinda interesting revenge plot, but quickly escalates into conflict pinning one man against the entire nation. It feels like a script dashed out over a weekend, poolside, while inebriated friends interject increasingly absurd ideas that end up as major plot points. Add a twelve year olds world view of government agencies and politics? Blend and serve...

This includes Statham's character, but somehow, like an instinctive karate chop reflex, he carries this garbage all the way to the insipid end with his professionalism.

Even though Jason Statham's character has no backstory, he still manages to have presence. To the Beekeeper's credit, they did spend money in the right places for exciting action scenes - even if the motivations for those actions scenes is unclear, and unfold as violence for violence sake, often in unsavory ways. In other words, the revenge never feels earned, and the faceless victims might as well be automatons.

Side characters might be the worst part of this entire movie, and that is a remarkable feat! Statham is probably only onscreen for about 30-40 minutes of this train wreck, and that leaves a Lot of time to fill with side characters. Emmy Raver-Lampman, who probably should never be cast again for that name alone, is the poster child for god awful characters. There is no intelligence, charisma, heroism... or merit of any kind. This is likely not the actress fault due to material. However, Statham is also given about as much to work with script wise, and he still brings it as a performer, in every scene. Irons is completely wasted in this movie. His performance is fine, just not dynamic for a performer of his ability, and comes off as a pay day, not any labor of love.

Funny thing is? I think a good movie was hidden in here somewhere. It probably needed to tone down it's ultra-epic desires, humble itself - and tell a smaller story with better developed characters. To see this script brought to the AAA screen is representative of really bad production, and inability to recognize half baked writing.

American Assassin (2017)

Good movie for Keaton

[7/10 · 21 February 2024]

Really good movie for Michael Keaton, who flexes his versatility and spectacular range as actor. In an era of the 'old badass' movie genre, which has developed an astonishing library in the last decade, Keaton's character in American Assassin is a welcome addition. Even though this movie is not realistic, his character is very grounded and believable.

I also really liked seeing Scott Atkins in an actual acting role. Sure he gets to show off some martial arts, but really more as a means to uplift the main character's ability/presence. Anyone unfamiliar with Atkins should watch a few of his higher rated movies in which he is the star. He might be the most underrated action star of the modern era, certainly one of them.

Lead actor? Meh... he Just pulls off the role, but is not very well cast. A better actor in this role could of moved the needle up a point for sure, but? No big complaints! He does come off as the everyman in a great life spot in the films intro. The transformation to a self motivated international terrorist fighter? Somewhat less believable. But American Assassin does the viewer a favor and implies his transformation as a means to see revenge through. No complaints!

There is a loose, unrealistic nature to the story arc that I actually really liked. Its not politically correct, and the action scenes are visceral and entertaining. I'm sure people wanting a grounded military experience are left wanting, but as a fan of action movies, I felt right at home.

American Assassin does ask some interesting questions about the morality of the opposing force, antagonist. When a movie uses Nazi's as enemies (generally speaking), they can be slaughtered, wholesale and no one cares. Rightfully so! But when using enemies from the Middle east, we are in an era where that needs more finesse. A viewer needs to bring this context with them, and understand the insensitive nature of this movies portrayal of evil. I say that, because a viewer should not let this movie sway opinion of reality in any way. That is certainly my subjective opinion, but I stand by it - keep this an entertaining film, with story and characters - not any portrait of the here and now (well, 2017).

I would say that American Assassin Does attempt to address uncertain morality with the female lead - not boss lady, but the contact character who is introduced in the 2nd act. Her character is given real backstory and personal motivations - though admittedly, her arc and fate are convenient for moving story elements forward as a plot device, which is undeniably a point of negative critique.

So, general issues aside, I think it's a fun action movie! I really liked the casting outside of the MC, and was pleasantly surprised. Recommended.

True Detective (2014– )

4 seasons review, emphasizing season 4

[8/10 · 21 February 2024]

True Detective is an anthology, so each season follows a new arc, with it's own set of unique characters. The general thread between the seasons would be highly motivated, if flawed law enforcement individuals, who get wrapped up in unsavory, epic criminal scenarios. Scenarios in which they are especially motivated to solve for various personal reasons.

Generally speaking, the first half of season 1 is brilliant, and mature television at it's absolute finest. Season 1 slips a little bit on the 2nd half, but it's all still Very good. Season two is good, and in my opinion underrated for casting and performances. Viewers were not satisfied with it's less profound antagonistic force, and (maybe?) it's less focused approach. I was the rare viewer who really enjoyed the 2nd season throughout. I think season three is very good. The story and characters are understated, and the third season has an excellent consistency throughout, which I appreciated. I do think the third season is the least memorable, but probably? The 2nd best season after the 1st.

Which brings me to the 4th season. Fourth season is very memorable, and has incredible scenes of mystery, suspense, and even a little horror. But, for the record? Night Country feels as though it borrowed from season one of the Horror... which is a truly spectacular run of of episodes. The Horror is also a period piece that takes hold of spirituality/mysticism with both hands. And that is a failure of season 4, Night Country - it's uncertainty. What is all this supernatural content? Is is literal/real? Is it mental illness/stress/hallucinations specific to each character? And what is the point of dream like scenes while characters go about their day to day lives/business in the odd American town, Ennis Alaska? Ennis is (thankfully) a fictional community at the farthest northern reaches of Alaska, and the time period for Night County is the late year cycle of permanent night. I get the feeling like the point of the supernatural content was to emphasize the strange environment in a personal, acute way... but I though this failed miserably, because of the literal approach to presenting all the spiritual imagery. It all appears real, including shared etherial experiences. But this is never confirmed, or properly addressed.

Season 4 is a difficult critique/analysis. Why? Because all the pieces fit. Foreshadowing is present. The spirituality, while I found frustrating and uncertain, is consistent in how it is delivered. The first episode is an absolute clinic in camera angles, blocking, setting, audio, lighting which all fits content in an elegant manner. I don't think all episodes have this detail and finesse, but! It is present throughout the entire season.

I would say that Season 4 suffers from the same issue of all three seasons before, but more acute. How to answer all the big questions it poses early on? The questions just get to big, to difficult to answer in a satisfactory manner. So when the answers do come? Ends up being underwhelming - not to mention, borderline dumb. At the Very end it's like the writers completely forgot about forensics and actual police work in the investigation. Because if those tools were used? The ending actually doesn't make any sense, even if properly foreshadowed, and cleverly written. I do think the ending could of worked, but it required Real bravery from the writer/director to properly contextualize antagonist. Trying to reverse (or shift) the antagonistic force at the end is... garbage, and feels woke messaging. But why? Just serve the story and characters!

But it is a well produced season of episodes that I don't regret watching. There were some very suspenseful scenes I really liked, and Night Country does maintain a consistent pace. I was interested in all the character motivations. When a viewer is confounded with an unsatisfactory final episode, it can color the entire experience. Ultimately, beginnings and ends are crucial to get right - and separate the good from the great in all storytelling medias. Season 4 is good, but it's also the 4th best season of the series, which disappointing. It should of followed the lead of previous seasons in an unrelenting approach. Instead it tried to have some sort of happy ending devoid of meaningful answers.

Probably a reason for the show creator to re-acquire the reigns of the franchise and attempt to either steer it back in the right direction, Or? End it here, and move on to greener pastures.

First season 9/10, 2nd 7/10, 3rd 8/10, Night Country? 6/10.

Red Sparrow (2018)

Jennifer Lawrence's most entertaining movie

[9/10 · 16 February 2024]

Red Sparrow may not be Jennifer Lawrence's best movie, or her best role. Red Sparrow is imo, Jennifer's most Entertaining movie.

I certainly value entertainment above all other qualities when volunteering for the film viewing experience. For that reason action movies have a special place in my heart, and Red Sparrow is one of my favorite action movies.

Red Sparrow chronicles the origin, recruitment, training and final product of a Russian spy and assassin. Being an American film about a Russian spy - of course there is going to be a lot of plot complexity involving espionage, counter-intelligence, mixed morality and redemption. The specifics end up pretty complex, but most importantly the story provides for outlandish, wildly entertaining scenes with Jennifer Lawrence at their center.

The way Jennifer Lawrence commits to the protagonist role is inspiring. Red Sparrow is not an easy role to take on. My understanding that some viewers really nitpicked her performance for various reasons. I would argue they are missing the point, and perhaps taking this movie a little too seriously. This isn't a role written to win awards, but it will win fans - and Lawrence fits perfectly into how this movie is presented.

Director Francis Lawrence has a track record of successful action movies. My personal favorite other than this one would be Constantine (2005). Both movies have a ton of visual flair and are enjoyable, entertaining films.

Many movies seem to restrain ideas, writing, concepts in order to emphasize safety & fairness. Red Sparrow is Not one of those movies, and I appreciate it's unrelenting approach.

Reacher (2022– )

Entertaining action TV show with untapped greatness

[7/10 · 26 January 2024]

Having watched the first two seasons of Reacher, I've come to the conclusion it is a fun, exciting TV show that is well worth watching. It does almost everything right, with occasional frustrations, and my biggest critique would be, as of yet, untapped potential.

Reacher is aptly titled after it's main character, who is a wandering ex-soldier, applying his version of justice wherever he goes. He is portrayed as a giant, somewhere in the 6'4" to 6'6" range, built like an elite NFL defensive tackle. Inject crimes against his family, and military background backstories, and that is essentially the show. The story arcs are straight forward. Roles are well defined. And everything is resolved by the end of each season in a respectful way. Probably should mention that Reacher story arcs play out as revenge tails, and these unfold with many action scenes, most playing out as gun fights. Any fan of action movies is going to enjoy Reacher's approach.

The drama scenes are not bad, and I feel Reacher's pacing is well addressed. I was generally fully immersed in the moment to moment on screen action.

While everything is good, I feel Reacher needs some finesse in at least one area. Reacher's semi-sociopathic tendencies could be more explored, or perhaps a less certain good vs evil, and maybe some exploration of violence morality. One area that really should be a lot better is how the gunplay scenes are handled, both in design, and execution. Guns are not given their true destructive ability, and environments are not well thought out in how people are arranged. It makes for very unrealistic scenes involving characters who are supposed to be military, gun handling experts. Scenes like this are a big challenge that few motion pictures get correct, but if anyone has seen the TV show Colony, season 2 - it can be done! And there are action choreographers that could add real magic to Reacher. I'm stressing this point because this show deserves really well thought out action scenes - not just fun stylized gunfights.

I'm not saying that the stylized action scenes are bad. They can be entertaining. But the gunfight scenes generally lack urgency, and unfold in an unappealing, casual way. Characters with pistols run straight toward enemies with rifles (for example), and often the environments are not well defined. I just feel due to the nature of the show's story and characters that these scenes should be more grounded and realistic in their presentation. Not only would it make the show smarter, but it would add texture to the storytelling.

Ultimately a good entertaining show. In my opinion it could be a lot better with a less literal, and more artistic approach - at least in one area.

Saltburn (2023)

SaltSquirm

[5/10 · 26 January 2024]

Challenging, well made drama with a baffling protagonist, and various cringe worthy scenes.

Clearly some astonishing amount of money was thrown at this film by producers who likely want their money back. Despite the incredible cast, intricate set design and overproduced sequences - this movie just ain't right. The pieces do not fit, and this viewer wonders who the heck this movie was made for. After the 3rd or 4th double down on cringe content, I ask, "but why though?"

Saltburn follows an overachieving student at a high profile English university who is befriended by the upper crust, and swept into a higher social circle. The twist? The protagonist isn't the viewers standard entry into this world - he's actually the most messed up of all the characters, but unlike the wildly entertaining Talented Mr Ripley? The story never really goes anywhere interesting, both literally and figuratively - and I couldn't figure out why I was watching this movie. Just for the cast and production values? Not good enough! The story and characters in the end just kinda lame and unfortunate - the further along the movie goes, the worse it gets. Also agree with others that film is not well paced. Jagged pacing emphasizes all bad qualities by forcing viewer to ask questions, instead of being swept into experience. Incredible what a well paced film can get away with, and how a poorly paced film spotlights already poor qualities.

I'm sure some fans of particular performers could get some satisfaction from this film - seeing actors put into interesting circumstances. But for this viewer, this is one of my least favorite viewing experiences that works against entertainment for baffling, unappealing reasons. 50% score for me for obvious preproduction/production qualities that can't be ignored, but squandering them all with cringe overload, boring outcomes, and undiscovered potential.

Night Sky (2022)

Great central story that weakens the further the viewer is taken away from the lead characters

[6/10 · 6 January 2024]

Is Night Sky worth watching? I'd give it a marginal yes. Especially if one is a fan of Simmons and Spacek. By and large, Night Sky is well acted and an easy watch in terms of production. It's very clean, and well made. Night Sky is advertised on the science fiction genre side, but really the focus is on dramatic character interactions.

Content is all over the place, making Night Sky difficult to describe in any concise manner. This can be said about many TV shows, but in this case it really has to do with what this show is, and what it is trying to say. Night Sky appears to want to ponder aging, mortality, family relationships, regret, accepting life challenges, and living with unresolved issues that will never have satisfying answers. And along these lines? I really liked this show a lot.

The problem is the further periphery characters get away from the leads (Simmons and Spacek), the weaker everything becomes. Leads are fantastic. The family members and flashbacks to an earlier era are solid. Friends, and neighbors less so, and the completely removed characters that follow parallel action outside of the lead's influence? Are actually bad characters, doing pointless activities in a painfully frustrating manner. The lack of connection is emphasized by Spanish language sequences that feel like a completely different TV show. The lack of attempt to seam this all together in Any way makes for uninteresting scenes that are baffling in direction and content. True, any seasoned TV viewer will know that these storylines will converge - but that's not good enough, and it's a deal breaker when rating/recommending this show.

Night sky follows an aging couple who carry a profound secret in the way of pretty interesting science fiction concept. The secret has maintained their spark for life through many challenges. They are also a couple truly in love, at the twilight of their lives. If this was all this show was? It really could of been something. Unfortunately there's a side story involving a mysterious refugee and his pursuers. The refugee, being close to the family, is pretty interesting, and spurs multiple plot elements, broadening the lead characters motivations. His pursuers, however, are completely outside the sphere of the main characters, and are given almost main character status - but we the viewer have zero reason to care about their activities. Some of this mystery is revealed episode by episode, but a lot remains unclear even at the end. But mostly? Not only are they uninteresting, but also not likable! I think this parallel story could work, but only if the characters were dynamic, and the mystery was presented in a more satisfying way. And I want to stress that this harsh critique is regarding Story and Character, and is not motivated by anything else.

By and large I did like it, but it's the kind of project with great lead casting that a seasoned viewer Expects to be 8/10 or better, and imo, this show is far short of that type of excellence.

Rebel Moon - Part One: A Child of Fire (2023)

Television Backwash?

[3/10 · 23 December 2023]

I'm sure most fans of TV/Film has tuned into a TV show and been pleasantly surprised to discover one or more AAA actors involved in the project. Equally pleasant is a high quality film maker directing the majority of a TV project, like the criminally underrated Devs (2020). Same can be said of any number of filmmakers transitioning elegantly to the smaller screen.

But what about the other way? Has anyone ever said, "Wow, that movie reminded me of a TV show! And it was so good!" No! No one ever said that!

And that is what we have here. We essentially two or three episodes of a TV show crammed together to try and make the first installment of a movie franchise. Zack Snyder really should of known better, especially with a writing credit. While it's not a complete disgrace? It is all around bad, and I'd argue the biggest problem is the approach. That, by the way, is a failure of production and a failure of leadership.

Rebel Moon gets off to an astonishingly boring first 15 minutes... that sets the pace for the entire experience. People standing on green screens talking. This is not a story that needed Any science fiction in the first place. It's a story that has been told better many times in period pieces like Braveheart. Chronicles of Riddick is also a comparison, but Riddick has the protagonist already in place, played by a Super popular actor at that time. It also dove into the science fiction right from the start, not... farming! Rebel Moon... is so... average... I'm actually irritated - don't do the genre like that!

I think the make up/costuming is good - but it's hard to recognized any merit among the abundance of mediocrity.

Acting is wooden. Characters are two dimensional. Scenes are bland. The content can be cherry picked to make a decent trailer, but thats about it.

Leave the World Behind (2023)

A movie that is well worth watching

[7/10 · 19 December 2023]

Leave the World Behind is a very unique movie experience, and unfolds as a slow, tense burn.

It's an increasingly popular formula, where the viewer gets to experience world altering outcomes from the intimacy of a few select characters. A very well cast set of characters too! Not only that, but this is a 2+ hour movie full of dialog... that is entertaining! No small achievement.

For some reason this movie is especially polarizing, including a lot of sub 3 star reviews. There are 1 star reviews, that basically read like this: I liked the opening couple scenes! Got me into it! Great acting! Great cast! Really well made! Oh... I didn't like the last 10 minutes and some of the random content... 1/10. In my opinion, the lowest rating this movie can achieve with it's objective merit, would be a 4/10. There's a bit of irony there too, regarding the content of this film.

Which is? Family goes on vacation outside of NYC on spur of the moment choice by Mom. While on vacation a series of unexpected events asks very interesting questions about world changing events happening outside of everyones control. Family one is introduced to family two - and the two families get to know each other, and speculate on what is going on.

If I have one major critique of this film, it would be regarding all the supernatural type stuff that happens. It feels unnecessary and forced - ironically often presented with iffy computer graphics. There's an especially moving shot from the Earths moon, that to me? Does not achieve it's intended result. It's almost like writer/director wanted to add myth like, exaggerated quality to the film to uplift the content, but for me? It did the opposite. These moments just make me ask the wrong questions, and gets my own speculation going in more fantasy type possibilities, that I think? Were not intended.

Via the films perspective, the viewer is always in the same place as the characters we follow. And they never know the exact truth. It is a very interesting film making approach that I think adds intrigue, but also leaves many unanswered questions.

I do think this movie has some hidden depth with regard to characters, their choices, interactions, and how they grow in a relatively short period of time. I will likely re-watch this movie at some point to more analytically approach depth of content.

Ultimately, it's a really well made movie with solid performances by a good cast. Regardless of some the frustrating content? Well worth watching.

Peacemaker (2022– )

Like the intro - amazing, but wears thin episode by episode

[7/10 · 12 November 2023]

With almost 1000 reviews on IMDB - not much I can add to a basic review, but I can speak to someone who arrived at this show a little late - finally coming around to watch.

First episode? I seriously thought this was going to be a 9/10 type of TV show, which is super rare in the comedy genre. First episode is witty, fresh, and truly hilarious. All the jokes hit, the timing is perfect, and the world of Peacemaker is established, as well as the foundation for the story arc.

Especially funny is the main characters pettiness, ego and need for validation. It makes for hilarious back and forth conversations with the rest of the cast. Cena is perfectly cast - obviously an extension of his role in The Suicide Squad. In that movie he kinda steals the show as a side character, and not shocking he would find himself in a mini-series (maybe a few seasons?).

Also funny is Peacemakers bend towards conspiracy theories, which then unfold like a self fulfilling prophecy as the show arc is revealed.

I think Peacemaker really puts on full display the challenge of comedy - just how hard it is to maintain the velocity of smart humor, even if it comes off as slapstick or dumb. Episode by episode, the jokes become more sparse, and the show really becomes more focused on character and story development, including real drama. And there is nothing wrong with that - the show just becomes less funny, even if the subject matter remains pretty absurd.

Two shows that also utilize this kind of humor would be the brilliant John Claude Van Johnson, and the Evil Dead TV show. Van Johnson somehow maintains humor throughout, I'd say Evil Dead is a lot like Peacemaker, and kinda slips the longer it stays. All three are well worth watching, I would think especially for fans of comedy. Evil Dead also utilizes humorous violence - something I think needs to be heavily stylized to really work well.

That would be my first critique of Peacemaker - I don't think the violence as humor always works. Sometimes the violence is a little too grounded/realistic, and feels like violence for violence sake alone - without the focus on humor or any other purpose. Same could be said about a ton of media. My other big critique is the lack of a villain, which in a show like this is baffling. Who is the bad guy (or gal?)? Is it their boss? Is it the invasion they are investigating? Is it a family member? Or is it all of them, all nebulously forming an antagonistic force? I don't know - but I do know the lack of a specific/clear villain in a show like this makes zero sense.

Overall though? Peacemaker offers a ton of entertainment. The leading man plays the part very well, and he's a truly unique action star. Surrounding cast is good (especially Vigilante), and from a point of overall production? It is a very well made show. I'd watch a spinoff of a spinoff - Vigilante TV show! More to the point - I'd be fully interested in a second season.

A Company Man (2012)

Quietly Inspired John Wick?

[9/10 · 1 November 2023]

Hear me out! I'm a big fan of the John Wick franchise. From the protagonist to the action to the villains and AAA production, John Wick became a world wide sensation.

Both movies star an understated hero, with super-human abilities. Wearing a suit and tie, both heroes unleash the pain via firearms, or handy environment objects to achieve their goals. There is a matter of fact way the stars of each respective film go about their business.

But where John Wick maintains minimalism both in character And story - A Company Man actually has a point, depth of meaning, tons of drama, and grounded surrounding characters. This is where the two really diverge, and become good movies for very different reasons. John Wick really doubles, triples down on stylization and constant stimulating entertainment. Most people would consider Wick movies far superior to A Company Man for an order of magnitude higher budget, more action scenes, and... well... lets face it - Keanu.

But via dialog and story, A Company Man really achieves something special. It asks very interesting questions about sacrifice for work vs pursuit of happiness and fulfillment of dreams. There is a deceptively complex weave of dialog that changes the protagonists viewpoint from the first scene to the last - and by the last scene? I was moved, and very impressed with the complete story arc.

What is A Company Man? A movie that centers around an employee of a office that he only refers to as the company. He doesn't talk much about work, so no one in his inner circle (outside of fellow employees) realizes that the office is actually a front for violent activity. This fact is established Very early - and this is one of those movies that explaining Anything feels like a spoiler - so probably should just watch to see what changes the main characters perspective.

I'd say this movie draws inspiration from Korean/asian gangster movies, hong kong action movies (John Woo style - like A Better Tomorrow), and crime dramas of any nationality. While the bulk of this movie is a single character study, the surrounding characters are very textured. Dialog is very good, and clearly well thought out. Only the protagonist is minimal/understated - other characters are fully emotional, and more what one would expect, generally speaking. The arguments between a daughter and mother (for instance) come off as very realistic and juxtapose other areas of the film, like the clinical action scenes.

One very surprising element to this film is it's the only effort from writer/director Sang-yoon Lim, which is baffling. This film has tons of merit, and screams additional projects since, but there are none! I think this movie kinda gets lost in all the Korean crime genre films. While the action scenes are fantastic, they are a bit sparse. I contend that this movie has a unique flavor that people who have seen a lot of movies will appreciate. That is why I rate 9/10 - which generally I reserve for truly spectacular films nearing perfection. This movie is Very good, and while I began this review with another film as comparison? A Company Man has separated itself in my mind as truly singular and a special, memorable film.

Good Night World (2023)

Anime that Takes Big Swings

[8/10 · 29 October 2023]

Surprisingly good Netflix anime addition. I had no expectations outside of a very short description going into the first episode. To respect that experience, I fully recommend watching all twelve episodes, and consider Good Night World a very good anime.

The brief premise going in revolves around members of a family who spend a great deal of their lives playing a fully comprehensive, virtual video game called Planet. Their lives in the real world are at one extreme, their time in Planet is at another. A lot of this anime is spent showing the differences between the real world and the virtual realm.

As the show develops, we learn that the members of this family are all deeply connected to the game Planet. This includes development of sophisticated artificial intelligence which explodes into a variety of problems, first in the game, then in the real world.

I'm a big fan of any story that really takes a big swing with interesting ideas, and Good Night World's story goes completely off the deep end! While completely different, this anime unfolds like some sort of technological X-File. I also like how all the huge ideas are tied directly to individual characters, their experiences/motivations.

I'd say this comes at a bit of an entertainment price, because when Good Night World is in the game Planet, it's a lot like many anime; fun and full of action. But in the real world the characters and scenes can be abrasive and a rough watch. I fully approve, because there is a purpose to all of it within the context of the story, and how things play out.

I felt this anime really stressed one aspect of humanity, specifically our lack of perfection. Maybe Good Night World spends too much time on each character's flaws to allow them to be likable? Perhaps, and I do think this effects dramatic moments where it can be difficult to pull for any character.

I'd say Good Night World has a little inspiration from the movie Paprika (2006), and like that movie its pretty impressive how much content is delivered in a relatively short amount of time. Definitely a journey told and an interesting watch.

Bodies (2023)

Very Good Miniseries

[8/10 · 27 October 2023]

Bodies begins with an excellent, compelling concept - then actually pays off with a series of interesting episodes. The concept begins with detectives/law enforcement encountering the same body in 4 different timelines. Of course, they can't know that upon discovery, and so begins each investigation into the baffling case of a mysterious dead body for each set of characters from each timeline.

I was worried during the first episode how the time jumps are handled. I though it could get clunky and annoying, but the writers/directors knew this, and streamline the transitions as the show goes - as the viewer becomes comfortable with the content.

The surprising treat is all the character work and character development. By the end of the miniseries, we, the viewer know a great deal about each character. They all have their separate trials which must be overcome, and through these trials, each character develops in interesting ways.

In my opinion, time travel story arcs are particularly fascinating, because a writer can have complete control of the timeline. Generally, writer/directors do this with non-sequential presentation, or parallel action in multiple places - but occasionally a writer is brave enough to dive into science-fiction (or fantasy), and actually mess around with characters who go forward, backward in time. It opens up incredible opportunities for fascinating stories. But it requires very real writing finesse to keep all the moving parts in mind. It's not easy to navigate time travel as a concept and have dynamic characters in an entertaining story all at the same time.

While I appreciate the focus on characters, I do think there is a cost regarding explanations of how the science works. There is also a sub-arc that explains a potential future for all of humanity perpetrated by the antagonist. I myself would of liked more information how the origin of a cult, and a transforming world wide incident could lead to that future. As a viewer, we kinda just have to accept that outcome without meaningful explanation.

The last episode also begins to take some liberties with time travel in how the characters recognize changes in the timeline. Perfectly understandable to build dramatic action toward a meaningful conclusion.

I think the current IMDB rating at 7.5 is exactly right. I rounded up to an 8, because of personal preference in unique stories. I think casting is very good, and the only character I wasn't fond of was the young version of the antagonist who really is more of a plot device than actual dynamic character - which is an exception.

I really didn't appreciate the last minute of the last episode that seems to build toward a sequel or second season. Why? It felt shabby and unnecessary, following popular current TV/Movie trend, instead of keeping the project complete and self contained - like the classy miniseries Mrs Davis. Sequels can be made. I have no issue with that, but respect the project... please.

I think this is a good example of time travel storytelling, and fits right in with Looper, Predestination, Tenet, The Arrival - way better than movies like Project Almanac or the Butterfly Effect. I don't think it quite achieves the rarified air of the film Primer - or my all time favorite time travel TV show Steins;Gate. Steins;Gate is my all time favorite Japanese anime, and top 5 TV show. It is the absolute pinnacle of time travel storytelling. I'd guess makers of Bodies have seen Steins;Gate based on some of the scenes and moments - especially in the last episode. Recommended.

Star Trek: Strange New Worlds (2022– )

Please Cancel this bizarre take on Star Trek

[2/10 · 6 August 2023]

I should seen this coming. My old fashioned sensibility still thinks that a new TV show can have an average first season and evolve into something more. However? In the modern era? First seasons are often the best a TV show has to offer, then ego driven producers get cute and their TV show descends in quality alarmingly fast! There are so many recent examples of this phenomenon: Witcher, American Gods, Russian Doll, among others. Some shows last 2-4 seasons, but even the best like TWD and GoT fall off around season 5. In the modern era, I think it is very difficult to satisfy increasing popularity of the stars increasing salary/fame. I also think producers overthink their role, and instead of serving the show and content, by setting certain standards for writing, production, acting/direction - they start dictating content, and trying to make the show a reflection of their ego. In the worst cases? Like Star Trek: Strange New Worlds? Everything got confused/terrible in an alarming hurry.

Who are the stars? Who are supporting actors? What is the shows identity? Is it legacy? Is it retro? Is it new? Who is the audience? And what is Star Trek?

None of these questions gained clarity in season two, and I'd argue the show completely lost focus, to the point where there are no guidelines - no borders to work within.

Star Trek is a serious show, with serious themes, performances stemming from professional writing by people who understand the science fiction genre. I've read a ton of lame excuses like TOS wasn't serious, so new trek also doesn't need to be. Or... there's those goofy Ferengi episodes of DS9... But when are those shows at their best? When they are serious, covering serious themes, written by talented writers, asking interesting questions in the science fiction playground. Great Star Trek is about deep ideas, a sense of wonder, and AAA production complete with consistent visual effects to help build the world.

Strange New World season two? Abandoned all of this. Outside influences became more important, from actors to a crossover, and ideas that are not a creative reach, but a stab in the darkness that nobody asked for.

The budget appeared to fall off episode by episode in the 2nd season - with long dialog sequences with zero visual effects. The only way this works is if the writing is brilliant - it's not, it's actually bad, often feels like a first draft, written by a staff writer, not by an experienced professional. This has to be monitored by producers, whose job it is to hire the correct writers, directors, actors to fulfill vision.

It appears the 2nd season was truly an attempt to change what Star Trek is... which is baffling... Fans of Star Trek want Star Trek - because of the history and success of Star Trek. Singing, dancing, cartoons crossovers? That might as well be a completely different show - A different intellectual property? But why though?

To hijack a franchise and try to bully it into a selfish vision of ego? There clearly are not enough selfless individuals involved in Strange New Worlds to respect the history of the material - and so? In my opinion? It should go away. Easy enough to avoid on my own, but as a huge fan of Star Trek from the era of TNG, DS9 and Voyager... Strange New Worlds isn't simply disappointing, it's a disgrace.

Star Trek: Strange New Worlds: Subspace Rhapsody (2023) Season 2, Episode 9

Disrespecting Star Trek? Please just stop.

[2/10 · 4 August 2023]

I really hope Strange New Ideas gets canceled at the end of season two. And I've never even hinted at this type of cynical take on any other Star Trek show. My level of respect for the creative forces behind Strange New Worlds has fallen into the abyss, and I feel sorry for any members of the cast and crew who have any shred of integrity regarding what Star Trek is.

Clearly, Star Trek needs a definition, a boundary within film makers work, in order to respect the history of the show. Anyone who thinks that Star Trek needed to transition into something else? That is the point of new intellectual properties - completely different TV shows. You want singing, dancing, cartoons in space? You don't want Star Trek, you want something else.

Without respecting Starfleet ethos: military structure, chain of command, respecting superiors as a matter of training, diligence, honor? What is the point? If it's a Star Trek show with a skilled crew operating from the bridge? Why ignore etiquette? Why ignore the captain, commanders and those in charge? Why elevate subordinates, and allow their flippancy as a rule? As a fan of Star Trek going back 35 years? It's not just painful to watch - impossible to watch such cringe, uncertain production that merely fills space with light and noise, instead of any meaningful content.

I despise what Strange New Worlds has become, and I can't even approach any of this with a sense of humor! Like I could with Discovery and Picard. I thought Trek fans were collectively moving in a better direction after Picard season three - which has some merit, but here we are... not two steps back, but shattered at the bottom of several flights of stairs. Why so serious? My question would be, why so accepting of below average... Everything!

The Flash musical episode was to me, one of the worst single episodes of TV ever made. This? Makes that episode look like a masterpiece. The lack of awareness and oversight that allowed this to exist? Is a clear answer to how much the producers care about and understand Star Trek. They are trying to change Star Trek into something devoid of any deep thought, intelligence or wonder. As a fan of ST over the years this is beyond disappointing - it actually kinda annoys me, and in the voluntary experience of visual media? Impressive in ways I really don't want to consider.

A Spy Among Friends (2022)

Attentive Viewing Rewarded

[9/10 · 28 July 2023]

Spy among Friends - definitely one of the smarter TV shows I've seen. Demands a lot of attention from the viewer to interpret situations, draw conclusions and keep track of characters and their names. Slow burn, no action, all drama.

Based upon historical fact, but uses dramatic license to enrich story elements. Which is? Cold war British MI-6 turmoil as a backdrop, but really the relationships and interactions of people involved.

Strong performances by Guy Pierce and Damien Lewis. Very personal show, that focuses on friendship, relationships, and their dissolution/destruction.

Very classy presentation all around. Felt like an honest interpretation of the work of spies from the cold war era. Takes place in Great Britain, but also includes a lot of story elements from Soviet Union, United States regarding cold war interactions.

Unpredictable, by design. May be one of the only shows I've seen that uses foreshadowing tactically for realities/events that may or may not occur.

Recommended for fans of the stars, interest in material, or people who really get into BBC drama type content (yea I know, MGM+).

Star Trek: Strange New Worlds: Those Old Scientists (2023) Season 2, Episode 7

Lowering the bar beneath the ground

[2/10 · 24 July 2023]

I'm not sure what the heck is going on with this show - nor do I understand anyone who thinks this approach to star trek is a good thing.

The bait and switch is official - Any gains made during the first season have been completely obliterated, and Strange New Worlds has descended into complete nonsense.

I don't consider a cartoon crossover a gimmick, business choice or otherwise outside influenced content. I just see this episode as truly unfortunate to exist at all. And that is my right, as a life long fan of Star Trek. I have expectations, and want a standard of excellence with new Star Trek releases.

Is Discovery the *serious* version of ST now? Because Strange New Worlds has officially become a joke: no concept of main vs supporting characters, no big three, fumbling legacy characters (intentionally to artificially lift new characters?), decreasing budgets episode by episode, writing that has been handed off to staff writers, and producers who apparently have no interest in the source material, or have they just given up?

How can the franchise go from Picard season three - that actually had some merit to this? If Picard season 3 has been pretty well lauded as best Trek in years? By that measure, this season is bad - I think it's actually worse than Picard season one and two! Those seasons, while often horrible in countless ways? At least had a budget, and consistent effects throughout. They also had a consistency of vision, which I found flawed, but Picard knew what it was. Strange New Worlds? What is it? Is is legacy ST? Clearly no, even though it has legacy characters. Is it about exploring strange new worlds, on a five year mission, like TOS? Again, no! Second season, they might as well be stationed at a star dock, twiddling their thumbs, talking about nonsense! Is it a silly, Orville like comedy? No, not when it's telling you what to think, line by line, in serious tones. Strange New Worlds may not be serious, but it isn't consistently entertaining via humor. So far? Second season? It feels like a show determined to make viewers like certain characters, as a goal. It also is written in a way that wants to be liked... instead of writing serving story, characters, overall arc. Along these lines, Strange New Worlds just doesn't appear to have any vision at all! Feels like the writers are guessing, episode by episode, how to fit pieces together in a way that serves outside influences.

Which Finally brings me to this crossover madness. It is repulsive. I'd question an animated episode if it was the cleanest Japan style animation the modern era could offer! But along these lines, that is the Least that a Star Trek episode deserves if going in this direction. But a cheesy looking, Saturday morning style cartoon? What? That is not respectful! Maybe - as part of some half hour web-isode offshoot, promotional project? But as a fluffy, exposition filler episode of a live action TV show, floundering in its 2nd season? Yikes!

Everything Everywhere All at Once (2022)

Best Picture?

[6/10 · 24 July 2023]

This is a good movie. It might be a Very good movie. But there is nothing, not one exceptional quality about this movie that puts it into the top tier of films.

The reason this is a problem is in 2022? There were some 9/10, 10/10 type movies that were exceptional in: writing, direction, overall production, camera, story, characters, entire sum of parts.

Everything Everywhere All at Once? Does not live up to its pretentious title, let alone stand up to other truly great films, made by great film makers.

By comparison, this movie comes off as experimental, and a first try by young film makers. In recent history, the South Korean movie Parasite? That was an exceptional film, with a stunning degree of detail, made by a master director who has honed his craft for decades!

This is a very good movie about an asian American family with culturally interesting array of issues, injected with a bizarre science fiction element, borrowed from recent superhero films. Funny thing is, the meta-verse idea? It's reason for existing? Has more to do with making the same franchise over and over again, trying to give it meaning... Is it clever use in this film? Maybe? But everything feels staged, unreal - and that lack of grounding makes for tedious moments and scenes, where as a viewer? Ok! Thats weird, and makes no sense, except as following words on a page, script?

Reminds me of reading about the script evolution of the movie Eternal Sunshine for the Spotless Mind ... A Great movie. The original script drafts were wildly experimental, having to do with repeat visitations to the same memories over and over - but over time and drafts? That script was tamed/mastered, and made for a touching, grounded, fascinating science fiction experience - not to mention, including an apt title that fit the content.

Everything Everywhere All at Once? How could that title Ever be satisfied? Isn't best picture, best actors, best directors supposed to be about Merit? Isn't supposed to be about what is objectively the best? I know it's a subjective sector, but there are real metrics that can be analyzed - and this film comes up woefully short in every single respect! This is seriously like giving Spiderman: No Way Home several academy awards because it was a good entertaining movie, that everyone involved somehow found a way to politic into critical success. That doesn't mean either are bad movies... But it does mean that the Academy award winners are a joke - don't reward merit, which makes that entire celebration of the arts? Questionable. I do still think, by and large, nominations still have value, but on this current path? Even nominated movies may end up chosen for reasons other than actual film making merit, which is unfortunate.

Star Trek: Strange New Worlds: Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow (2023) Season 2, Episode 3

Strange New Worlds?

[3/10 · 4 July 2023]

Hello? About those strange new worlds? Is this show trying to follow The 100s' example and stray further and further from the title, episode by episode?

Season one was Very strong, but what happened? Low budget, effect bereft episodes? Sloppy, first draft writing, including marginal dialog? Producers? What are you doing?

I'm beginning to think that all TV shows should just become individual mini-series; a single run of episodes, with guaranteed production, contracts negotiated a single time, and a defined beginning middle and end. I say this because in the modern era of TV, the first season is often the best, and the vast majority of AAA shows lose steam around season four. At this rate? SNW wont make it to season 4. It will be canceled after season 3.

But there is still time. But after the start to season 2, it's going to take a Picard season 3 like intervention via the producers. Writing can't be this bad in Star Trek. You need writing that respects the legacy, is smart, and entertaining - i.e. Professional. And every episode needs several effect driven sequences. And they don't need to be either action scenes or battles in space - there are more creative ways to utilize special effects. Watch an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, or Deep Space Nine for example... Both of which are clinics on continuous use of clever special effects. And these ST shows understood that constant effects were part of the world building, immersion and viewer entertainment.

Get back to the strange new worlds, please! Respect the legacy of Star Trek. And producers? Produce! The obvious budget cuts early are a disgrace. As is the lack of oversight on the script writing.