annadens Reviews

Physical (2021–2023)

Really entertaining and fresh but obviously know nothing about Mormonism

[7/10 · 24 February 2022]

I wasn't sure what to think of this show going into it. I like Rose Byrne and haven't seen her in anything I didn't like and Apple TV has such good shows that I thought I'd give it a try. Boy am I glad I did! This show is funny and irreverent and I love how you see into the mind of a woman with bulimia, and how she'd say one thing to her husband and friends and whatnot, but really be thinking something else entirely. It made for a one of the most fleshed-out characters I've seen in years.

However, where she was fleshed out, I felt like most of the other characters were one note, and that's where this show falls a little flat, taking this from a 10 to 7 1/2 rating. Especially when it comes to the "evil Mormons" in this. I grew up Mormon. Did I ever believe it? No. So I'm not one of those people who is just mad that they bad-mouthed my religion since it's not my religion and hasn't been since I was old enough to think for myself. However, the way that they show the Mormons in this is 100% wrong. If you're going to show a religion, at least make it a true vision of them. For one, in one of the first scenes with the Mormon family, they show them praying at the food court. Yes, it's true a lot of Mormons would do that (my own VERY Mormon brother does), but the way they were folding their arms was like they were freaking vampires rather than humans. I'm sorry but Mormons don't hold their arms that way (with the hand open on the opposite bicep). They hold it with the hands fisted under the opposite bicep. One looks cooky and crazy and vampire-like and the other distinguished and normal.

And honestly, everything they showed about the Mormons in this followed this. Like I'm sorry, but Mormons don't say "our blessed family" and our women don't act like slaves to their husbands. There were at least 15 more of these very wrong and inaccurate situations (or things that the Mormons say) that could have been done correctly if they'd taken even 5 seconds to actually research Mormons. If they DID do research, it was from people who just hate Mormons and don't actually know any true facts about them, but just the stupid "facts" people say (I once was literally asked if I have scales on my legs like a fish and horns hidden under my hair and if we really do satanic worship/sacrifices under our trampolines...yes, these weren't jokes but things people actually thought! And it's because of shows like this). They even make the Mormon lines stilted (which the actors really play into, obviously also hating Mormons and just doing the part to show that hatred rather than actually trying to be and empathize with their characters) and written weird, like a totally other language, which isn't how Mormons even talk. Mormons talk like normal people and don't use the words the writers seem to think they do.

On the other hand, notice the liberal people in this. Even though the husband is treating his wife just as bad as the Mormon is in this, he's the hero and the Mormons are the bad guys. Then the Mormon guy goes to his bishop and that whole scene, everything that was said and assumed there isn't true and isn't how those bishop meetings even go, nor did they ever. At the end, the Mormon guy has an affair. I'm not saying Mormons don't have affairs. I've known some that did, since they're just as human as anyone else. But it's just the fact that when the main character's husband wants to have a threesome it's played out as fine and dandy but when the Mormon guy has bad thoughts, it's seedy and whatnot and like this guy is a terrible person for it. There are completely different rules for each and shown in different lights, even though both are doing the same thing. It's very obviously anti-Mormon propaganda and that's messed up.

I really hope that for season 2, the writers and actors can actually flesh out all of the secondary characters and actually learn TRUE things about Mormons, maybe hire a Mormon to say what is real (nothing) and isn't real (everything) in the script. And then shed the same light over both families and sets of characters. I guess they thought no Mormons would watch a show with cussing and sex and whatnot but, again, that's a complete misconception that just a little research would show you it's frowned upon but not forbidden and plenty of Mormons who go to the temple also watch R rated movies and tv shows. So please stop assuming so wrongly and then showing your false assumptions as "fact" because that makes the rest of the show and it's reality as false as well.

The Suicide Squad (2021)

Suicide Squad Has A Bit of Fun

[9/10 · 19 January 2022]

I liked this movie. It's what the first Suicide Squad should have been (would have been had Will Smith not demanded the rewrite making everything revolve around him). And that made this movie a lot of fun. And the fact it took the most ridiculous villian (and heroes) and just had a good time trying to make it serious (at the same time as not trying to make it serious at all), made this funny and entertaining and a ride where you never knew what was coming next.

That being said, I did have issues. They did regurgitate some of the plot from the first film (the dad who is a bad guy but chooses to be part of the SS to make his daughter see him as a hero) and other such things. I felt like either they did that as a joke or they didn't realize they were doing the same thing again.

Luckily, the whole "same thing" again changed really soon and it became a ride where I was laughing aloud in shock. The competition between Bloodsport and Peacemaker had me dying the whole movie. I usually can see things coming in movies but this movie I never had a clue.

Oh, and John Cena in undies? Trust me. You gotta see this.

Birds of Prey (2020)

Expected so much better

[8/10 · 19 January 2022]

Okay, so this movie has me conflicted. The first Suicide Squad movie, Harley Quinn totally stole the show and when I learned she was getting her own movie, I was so excited. But then I saw it and I really don't know what to think. Where was the Harley Quinn from Suicide Squad?

See, in Suicide Squad she was written one was as far as what she said went. And though Margot Robbie was able to keep her speaking the same way (accent-wise) it wasn't the same syntax-wise. When you don't have the same material, no matter how hard the actor can try, it just doesn't sound like the same character.

Yes, Harley still does her morally ambiguous antics that are hilarious and interesting. But there was just something missing. I can't put my finger on what, but something that made her funny and playful in the first movie, some extra spark, was missing in this one.

Maybe it was the costuming/styling. In the first movie, Margot Robbie looked incredibly beautiful. But in this one, the makeup was wonky and really made her unattractive. The lipstick was the wrong hue for her, same for the foundation/powder. And her hair, which had been thick, is suddenly thin and sparse. They had her a 10 in the first movie and maybe a 7 or 8 in this one.

The birds of prey women, though mostly gorgeous and talented, all felt really contrived. I saw the acting, trying to be these tough girls, which pulled me out of the story because if I see the acting, then I remember it's a movie. This may not have been their fault since I noticed this with Harley as well (which wasn't apparent in the first SS). It very well could have been the direction, especially since I noticed it with all of them. Maybe the director wanted them to all act terribly and be too over-the-top and whatnot. Stuff that usually would have worked for Harley but just somehow didn't. Even Ewan McGregor as the Black Mask did this, and we all know he can act when he wants to. So I've tried to not blame it on the actors and instead on the writing and directing.

Of course, that all being said, I did still enjoy it. I just had to stop having pre-conceived notions about what it is and isn't and try only to see the fun in it. Then it's the good time it was meant to be.

Suicide Squad (2016)

Margot Robbie Steals the Show

[8/10 · 19 January 2022]

I was really excited when this movie was first announced because, as a person who loves a good antihero, what could be better than a movie about DC villians becoming the heroes? The only way this movie wasn't going to be good was if the execution wasn't good because they had everything going for them concept-wise.

Their biggest issue they seemed to have run into was casting Will Smith. I like Will Smith. I'm not a Will Smith hater. But rumors abound that they'd had a script where everyone had equal (or at least bigger) parts but then Will Smith came in and wanted to be the main character and the hero of the story. I completely believe this. So what had likely been incredible got watered down into tropes and clichés (bad guy wanting to become a hero in his child's eyes) and the story that should have been about more entertaining characters became all about his downer one. So I feel like his arrogance ruined this movie. Is it good? Yes, I liked it (only the extended version as the theatrical version is awful and shouldn't exist), but I could have loved it. This movie was a long time coming together. Freaking decades. And then we finally get it and he ruins it just so he can be the star? Ugh it makes me so mad.

Who should have been the star? Or at least have more parts? Definitely Harley Quinn and the Joker, whose relationship was barely featured in the original version (thank goodness the extended version added more of this, though it still was lacking since they were the most entertaining characters for sure, as far as the antiheroes go). If it hadn't been for the rewrites or Will Smith wanting to be featured, we'd have a lot more of Harley and Joker, or at least Harley. Margot Robbie was so good at this character that I found myself smiling every time she came on screen. I'm really glad she got her own movie because she completely stole the show.

The second character who stole it even though they had very few scenes was Captain Boomerang. I know of the actor from a couple of things but he did so well at becoming Capt Boomerang that I literally didn't even realize who he was! He was so hysterical and I never expected whatever he did next.

I also really liked Rick Flag and the story with Enchantress (and man did Cara Delevingne look amazing as Enchantress. I'm a huge fashionista so I knew who she was and was really looking forward to seeing if she could act or not. I didn't like her as June but when she switched to Enchantress, she looked amazing and I totally bought it). They gave these two characters ample screen time where I didn't feel like I was lacking anything in their storyline (which was such a big issue for other characters).

And man was Amanda Waller amazing or what? The wrong actor playing that character could make it hard to believe that the character would really be that evil and do the things she does but Viola Davis made the atrocities completely believable. She was seriously bad and I loved it.

The other characters were good, but honestly very obvious stereotypes/tropes that I didn't feel they stood out as much. Still, everyone's acting was really good. I thought Will Smith's acting wasn't his best. His acting was too obvious in this. What I mean by that is when he's trying to act like he's in turmoil with his daughter, I literally saw Will Smith the actor fighting to show that turmoil rather than seeing Deadshot in turmoil and that really ruined his character for me. See, Margot Robbie WAS Harley Quinn. Jai Courtney WAS Capt Boomerang. Joel Kinnaman WAS Rick Flag. I think all of them (as well as the other members of the Suicide Squad who were given more stereotypical stories) all made this movie. They couldn't fully make up for the stuff Will Smith had changed, but they did so enough that I still liked this movie. Just remember, don't watch the theatrical version as it's terrible. Like I'd vote maybe a 5 for that. But the extended version gets more like a 7.5.

The Iron Lady (2011)

A Time and Place for Everything

[7/10 · 31 August 2021]

This movie shows Margaret Thatcher in present day (early 2000s) going through with having dementia and imagining her deceased husband as the dementia causes her to basically jump time to other events of her life. Now usually I despise the Hollywood trope of having people seeing and speaking to ghosts to show that the character is thinking about them. I feel it's unoriginal, unimaginative, and unrealistic. I'd much prefer if the writer/director could think of some way to get the same point across that I haven't seen in a bajillion movies and tv shows. However, for this movie it totally works and makes you sort of feel like you're seeing dementia in reality. I really liked that because it's the most imaginative way I've ever seen them do something like that and they easily could have just gone the normal biopic route of starting with them as a child and through their failures and achievements.

However, that all being said, they spent a little too much time in the present dealing with her dementia than actually telling the story of her life. You see only tidbits of things, which aren't always cohesive, and never feel like they're enough. Which is the reason I'm giving this 7 stars (really 7.5 stars). I don't know much about her other than what I learned via The Crown and I really wanted them to delve into her deeper in this show rather than only showing glimpses of backstory that I felt like I needed extended to truly understand her as well as to truly tell her story. Many of the flashes are only a few minutes long and don't have anything to do with the flashback previously and the one after it, telling a story that doesn't feel like a continuation but just a jarbled up mess.

Then there's the fact of the aging of the characters. I'm not talking about the aging of Meryl Streep because they were incredible in her makeup. But the actress who plays her daughter is the same age playing a teenager getting her driver's license and then 40+ years later. Then Jim Broadbent is the same age over all of those years as well. The only one who ages is Meryl Streep, which totally bugged me and took me out of the story.

Still, I would definitely recommend this and will probably buy it because I did like it and I do like these kinds of movies and they didn't ruin it with being unoriginal.

The Great (2020–2023)

At First It's "Great" But Eventually Starts To Drag

[7/10 · 13 March 2021]

The first few episodes, I really liked this. But then the jokes got old as they were always the same episode to episode, and each episode didn't move forward much, instead choosing to spend precious time pretending that Catherine the Great and her servants and boyfriend invented bowling, the Moscow mule, parachutes, etc. That time could have better been served to get a bit deeper into some characters or Russia or at least come up with new jokes. I found myself really forcing myself to go to the next episode by the end of it, where usually I will binge-watch a show in one or two sittings. I did like it enough I'll watch season 2, though I likely won't watch the whole first season again right before I do as I do with the shows I adore.

Also, it drove me absolutely insane that they had so many people of other ethnicities than Caucasian in this. Yes, diversity in film is a must. It's soooo important. But do that in movies and tv shows where the race of a character doesn't matter. Not in historical shows in places where there was little to no diversity. You wouldn't cast a white person in a show that takes place in an African village back before the Colonialists came, or as Nefertiti or Billie Holiday or an emperor in China. So why are you casting people of color in 18th century Russia? Even today the percentage of Black people in Russia is tiny but by this show, you'd think at least 40% of people were Black (or other races of color) hundreds of years ago. This is probably going to get me in trouble and labeled racist so I will reiterate: Diversity is a must. We need representation in shows. But showing historical accuracy as to race is also important. Russia had absolutely nothing to do with Africa back in the days of Catherine the Great. They weren't part of the slave trade and had no direct access to Africa. So the only people from Africa in Russia would be those who chose to go there. The first Black person to come to Russia was only about 50 years before this takes place. More followed but not so much that would account for how many are just in Peter's court alone in this show, and long enough to become nobility too (of numerous families as they were all counts so they likely wouldn't be closely related). Not to mention the other ethnicities there.

Though I will say, beyond that, the cast was all excellent. They all really got into their parts and played them believably. If it wasn't supposed to be a historical thing then I wouldn't complain one bit about the casting. And yes, it does sell itself as a "sometimes historically accurate show" but this new thing of casting all kinds of races in historical places where they didn't have much, if any, diversity and representation has become a really annoying habit all the new shows are doing just to show they're not racist and as a history buff I just can't stand such inaccuracy.

Stardust (II) (2020)

A Bit Boring

[5/10 · 13 March 2021]

I came into this with no expectations. I like David Bowie but I'm not a huge fan who knows most let alone all his music. So I wasn't watching this knowing everything about him and his music. But I actually expected some of his music to be in this, similar to Bohemian Rhapsody. This movie was boring and I found myself playing on my phone just waiting for it to end. All in all, I feel like they did a disservice to David Bowie, making him look like an idiot obsessed with becoming famous. They tried to add something deep by adding him being afraid of becoming like his brother, but it actually fell flat. There's a concert scene at the end where he finally goes on stage and the actor had zero sparkle or pizzazz or showmanship where David Bowie on stage had all of this. He literally looked like he was just laying on the stage where he's supposed to be making fierce poses. And I usually like Jena Malone but she had the worst accent in this (and wig and eyebrows) that I just couldn't stand her character. I don't think anyone making this movie recalled that she was American. Curious if the real Angie Bowie had gotten a British accent, I looked her up and she doesn't have one. So why did Jena Malone do the worst British accent in history?

Loophole (2019)

Super cheesy acting and bizarre storyline that can't decide what it's going to be!

[2/10 · 21 November 2020]

I watched this from being a fan of Dance Moms and wanting to see what little Chloe was doing now that she's an adult. I didn't really know what to expect. The cover made it look futuristic and sci-fi and the description made it sound like a suspense thriller where they're chasing time to find the heir of Judas Iscariot. Well, let me tell you that it really wasn't any of these things.....

The storyline is one second a dystopian in the future where all people are labeled as valid or invalid. Invalids live outside society scraping up a living while the valids get whatever they want...or so they tell you yet you never actually see the future despite a run-down old church where invalids live, all dirty and trying too hard to be Mad Max cool. So this girl comes in there, looking like a creepy version of a nun in some kind of cult that would trick everyone into a suicide pact (oh and in this future though she dresses all in white and a veil she somehow decides to wear super thick black eyeliner as though she's going out to party, which doesn't fit her character at all, but they had to find some way to tell you that she's the same eyeliner-wearing girl when they go into flashback scenes, where the story of the movie actually takes place), and she's there to do something that's supposed to be all mysterious but you really don't care. Then an invalid asks how the world got to this point and it goes back in time right to when some guy (I think he's the POTUS because they call him Mr. President, though he only has one secretary and zero bodyguards) who is forcing the world to get tested for this gene that's supposedly the gene that makes people commit violent acts. Those with the gene are what become the invalids and those without it are validated. But when the main girl goes to get tested, she's declared valid but the machine to give her some implant stating she's valid won't work and it also doesn't work for her roommate. The people there tell them they don't know what's wrong and to come back tomorrow (yet they keep testing other people as though they have no worry that it's going to also be broken for the rest of them, which is really how this whole movie goes where they don't think outside of the characters with the story-line). Then the story goes to the doctor who invented the test and the blood shows the main character as a 100% match, so you learn they're really just after her. You already instantly know this is the Judas Iscariot heir they're supposedly going to fight the whole movie to find.

That night they go to bed and you see someone coming into their house in the intruder's POV and they don't show what happens. The next morning they wake up in some other place (which it took me about 15 minutes to realize they'd even been kidnapped and weren't still, in fact, in their own home) and the person who kidnapped them isn't there but calls her on the phone and tells her to listen to him. She reluctantly does but when people come into the house to find and kill her. Her and her roomie escape and some guy with Fabio hair (and trying to act like it was all sexy but seriously failing in it, you know like those guys who think they're so hot and strut around like look at me look at me) runs out and literally says "Come with me if you want to live." Like really? You're going to steal the line from Terminator??? And do it cheesy? With some terrible actor more concerned with how his hair is moving on screen than how he says the line?

He tells the girls to go into this cave and put her left hand on the wall and they actually have her saying as they go through the cave: "keep the left hand on the wall" over and over again. As they're doing that, it goes back to the guy, Riley, and you find out he's an angel and the people after her are demons. Or something like that. So wait, now this is an angel movie? I thought it was Sci-Fi!

I'm not going to keep going with the plot, because it just got worse and worse. Every time they finally tell you what's going on, they change it, and never for the better. Because now it's some story where some badass angel decided he wanted to kill all humans because they were violent (um, isn't he violent too for wanting them all dead and creating every war, oh and wait the reason he created all the wars was to find the heir to Judus Iscariot, except wasn't there war before that and how would killing people find you the heir? If anything, it could kill the very heir you're after, as logic would be, but nothing in this story is logical. Nothing.

The twists were dumb. The best friend is really the main girl's twin, and Riley the angel/watcher who has been protecting the JI line saved only one of the girls from a car crash that was created to kill their parents and he says he only had time for one because the bad guy was coming, yet the bad guy didn't arrive before the police, who took the leftover girl and gave her to a good family. And so why wouldn't the bad guys have been able to at least find the twin since the police had placed her with a family and therefore it was public record exactly where she was....see, just so many dumb inconsistencies.

Then it gets to the end, back to the future, and you realize the girl she's talking to is really her baby that she had with Riley and left in an alley or dumpter or something to protect her and now she's here for her so they can kill the super evil angel guy who was brought back from being a frozen rock for centuries. He's the worst actor of them all, being way too over-the-top in his cheesiness trying to be bad. It's so bad it's even beyond laughable (and yes, up to this point any time a bad guy was on the screen I laughed at their failed attempts but his was so bad I couldn't even laugh at it. I actually just felt sorry for anyone that had their name attached to this atrocity of a movie). And the young girl suddenly realizes exactly who she is and I think she literally teleported like her angel father, without ever being taught or anything. She just suddenly was so in touch with herself after a lifetime of not being so, which just doesn't really happen. Oh and supposedly Riley was mortal and yet he's not really. It was a trick or something. And he disappears until every 17 years when the "loophole" is open. Which is what the movie is named after though it too makes it seem sci-fi and not about angels.

Literally everything about this movie had nothing to do with any other part of it. It was like 50 movies in one, with the way the story changed into something else entirely every 5 or so minutes. The twists were obvious and did nothing good for the story. The characters were all one-dimensional and the casting honestly was the worst casting choices for each character. Especially the journalist who looked all of 18 and had dreads and nose piercings and dressed cheap and tacky and yet she's interviewing the POTUS? The stuff she figures out only bring her into the story without her really doing anything at all and then her character is disregarded once they're done with her as though she was never there in the first place. And the say she comes to believe in this whole thing with angels and demons searching for some particular heir is done without any kind of scrutiny on her part. She just literally believes these wild things on a level no human being living today would. We would be like, "yeah right" until there was so much proof that we couldn't ignore it any longer.

As I said before, I was here for Chloe, and though her acting wasn't the best in comparison to A movies, it was the best acting in the whole movie and that was only because she was wooden compared to everyone's super cheesy renditions of their characters. The best friend was whiny, the future scenes were over-the-top where even that acting would be over-acting on a stage production, and as I said before, the bad guys were the worst bad guys in video history. Do NOT watch this movie unless you're in it to watch the worst movie ever made. Actually, I take that back. It had a few nice shots. So it's not the worst movie, but it's definitely up there. Maybe if they had decided the movie was going to be one thing rather than 80 and just run with it, it would've been better. Oh, and also with better acting and casting choices. But maybe with a script as bad as theirs was, these "actors" were the best they could get.