Change Your Image
felicity_gr
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Black Summer (2019)
An underrated gem
Seriously, this the most underrated show on Netflix. The show is simply amazing and refreshing, and all the things that TWD should have been. A series focused on survival and zombies, and the hell that a zombie apocalypse would be, without the unnecessary and (frankly) unwanted drama, meaningless and dreary dialogues, etc.
Plot: full of adrenaline, suspenseful, very original (same event from different POVs), raw and realistic dialogue, (very) subtle dark humor. Story begins with no background information, season 2 just starts off without unnecessary details about what has happened in-between. It doesn't matter, we don't care. These are snippets of specific/significant moments in different characters' stories that highlight their transformations and respective loss/gain of humanity.
Cinematography: beautiful, realistic, conveys the feel of the apocalypse. Empty roads, abandoned buildings, eerily silent venues, trashed surroundings.
Direction: Great. Artistic. Original. Raw and real. Handheld camera follows the characters through their frenzied struggle for survival. You actually feel and live the tension with them.
Acting: Superb. All the actors/actresses are fantastic. Refreshing not to see any known actors. New faces that do an amazingly, ridiculously good job. Lead actress (Jaime King) is fantastic.
All in all, this is a completely unappreciated gem. A refreshing, unconventional, raw, nihilistic, arthouse, low-budget-but-made-with-love zombie show. If you want to get a feel and thrill of the apocalypse, with genuine, not-black-and-white characters, do watch this show. If, on the other hand, you loved TWD beyond season 1 (or maybe 2), want drama, want long, dreary dialogues instead of being chased by zombies, want Hollywood-style SFX zombie hordes, and, most importantly, if you are fretting about how (un)realistic this or that is in a frigging fictional universe, missing the point and the feel of a work of cinematic art (in short, if you don't understand what cinema or storytelling is), then please stay away from this beautiful series and spare us your idiotic, negative review.
PS: I've never been more certain, in-my-life, that this show deserves nothing less than 8 stars (to say the least). It's gonna be a future classic and this review will be the one which predicted it. Just wait and see.
Game of Thrones: The Long Night (2019)
A disgusting joke of an episode (no, I haven't read the books)
What viewers expected and would have been the natural consequence of the White Walkers threat that has been building up since episode number 1: the whole season actually dealing with that threat.
Sad truth: writers were tired by this project, they had already made a mess with the plot after they had run out of original book material and wanted to get over with the whole season quickly; getting rid of the White Walkers threat in one episode was the fastest and most economical way of doing so.
Result: An episode well directed and produced with nonsensical and highly unsatisfying plot. If the Night King can be killed so easily then he's a joke. If the whole army of White Walkers can be eliminated by the killing off of just one character then they're a joke. If the long night is just a battle that Northerners and Daenerys's army alone, with zero help from the rest of the Kingdom, can win then it's a joke. If Bran's sole power is to sit on his chair contemplating the past then he's a joke . If the red woman's only role has been to choose wrong people for being the chosen ones and to set a bunch of sticks on fire, then she's a joke.
And the ultimate joke is on the viewer.
Game of Thrones: The Bells (2019)
Despicable
Despicable, rush ending from series writers who had had enough and wanted to end the project in the fastest way possible, without compromising on the special effects. This is the sad truth.
Daenerys's character development has been absolutely disgusting. Shows writing by biased male writers who think that women lack rational thinking and are governed by their emotions. And those women who are written to think rationally in the series (e.g. Arya, Brienne, Yara), are either lesbians or look and act like men.
So, with this kind of thinking in mind, the writers chose one of the worst possible and one of the laziest (in terms of writing) ending.
The Northman (2022)
Meaningless
The Northman is a medley of the Scandinavian legend of Amleth, the Green Knight, Scandinavian mythology, Skyrim imagery, Star Wars Episode III (final scene), the Lion King, and Robert Eggers megalomaniac visions. It has fantastic landscapes and cinematography, but is empty in terms of plot, characters and meaning. To the unsophisticated viewer, this will likely be a fun (albeit weird at times) 137 minutes of Viking bloodfest, though I suspect they would be happier watching any random Viking movie or episode. To the sophisticated viewer, it will be just another greatly produced film with nothing to say and lots of shock value. The latter seems to be Egger's specialty, after all, judging by his other two films, the VVitch and Lighthouse. A film as meaningless as two heavily-muscled men screaming at each other.
Finch (2021)
Seriously?
I haven't seen anything more boring in my life. Effects and cinematography are pretty good, but the story lacks pace, content and, most importantly, depth. I'm truly amazed by the positive reviews, but oh well.
Archive 81 (2022)
Disappointing
Begins well, ends up being repetitive and idiotic. It has good intentions but gets cluttered by a chaotic story. The ending is simply disappointing. The show creates such huge expectations about this otherworldly realm that the characters want to open a door to, only to show us that, what? It's a dreamlike version of our own? Come on, even the down under of Stranger Things was more interesting (strong vibes of this show towards the end). Even the ancient God is disappointing. He's so weakly written and fleshed out that we're supposed to make do with just a creepy alien figure? That's what we were waiting all along?
I gave it a five because of the cinematography, but the story is a 3 tops. You might have a good time if there's nothing else to watch.
The Guilty (2021)
Just watch the original
Just what this review title says. This is a mediocre film, perhaps if there wasn't an original one it would be a little more likeable. But it will never reach the suspense and quality of the Danish film, so do yourselves a favor and watch the original movie.
Chernobyl (2021)
Extremely boring
Had to stop watching the movie at one hour on account of how boring it was. If you haven't seen the Chernobyl series, please go watch that instead.
Monday (2020)
Pretentious
Horrible movie, simplistic story, unrealistic/cliché dialogues and scenes; in one word, totally pretentious.
"Now I will have a cigarette because I can, because this is Greece!" (one of the many nonsense lines of the movie)
Embarrassing to watch.
Katla (2021)
Wonderful
Wonderful, well-directed and well-acted series, that provides closure at the end.
In order to enjoy this you have to see it as a metaphor; this is not realistic Hollywood, but a more poetic and esoteric story. If, on the other hand, you try to interpret the story in terms of the real world, you'll be disappointed, like those reviewers who are raving about this not making sense.
The Hurt Locker (2008)
Pointless
I can't understand the meaning of this film for anyone except a war-loving American.
I Care a Lot (2020)
Awful
A film with totally unlikeable characters never wins an audience. It's a basic premise of a good story.
Hush (2016)
Steer clear and avoid wasting your time
Please do steer clear of this movie and avoid wasting some time which might otherwise be well spent. This is a case of a movie with no pace, no real characters (there's absolutely no motivation for the villain's actions and he does look/act somewhat ridiculous) and, most importantly, no real story. The story is immensely boring and predictable, and successfully manages to not scare you at all, or even surprise you. I'm appalled at some reviews that dare to compare this mediocrity to superb arthouse films like It Follows. The only explanation could be that the good reviews were written by the movie's promo team; whatever the reason, do not make the same mistake I did and believe the positive reviews. This movie is the ABSOLUTE waste of time.
Pandorum (2009)
Great stories make great movies
A well-directed, gripping, and suspenseful sci-fi horror/thriller that has the element that is missing the most from the large majority of recent years sci-fis: a good story, with the necessary twist at the finalé. Of course, excellent acting and solid special effects are also present, but these alone do not make a good film; good stories do.
Wyatt Earp (1994)
One of the most boring movies I've ever seen; avoid at all costs
I'm writing here starting with a clean slate: I watched the film without knowing who Wyatt Earp was, or that there was another film (Tombstone) about the same guy, which everyone has been comparing Wyatt Earp to. So, I'm not prejudiced and I'm not gonna make comparisons. It was just a boring film, with a nonsensical script that dragged on and on unnecessarily, occasionally introduced new characters who didn't have any meaningful contribution to the plot, and little to no sense of adventure and excitement. But the most annoying thing in the movie, I have to admit, is Kevin Costner himself. It seems that Mr Costner has a knack for playing the same character in every movie he stars in: a brooding, smile-less, miserable, cold-outside- but-with-a-heart-of- gold tough macho guy. Well, not such a good guy here, in my opinion. Just a cold-hearted bastard, as one of the characters calls him. But I digress. So, if the film wasn't unbearable enough, Costner's performance makes it even worse. Towards the end I had to fast- forward; I didn't miss anything important, and you wouldn't either, believe you me.
The Survivalist (2015)
Patriarchal and misanthropic
I tried hard to like this film; I really did. I actually wanted to like this film so badly. However, it was so poorly written, that I couldn't. I'm just gonna give credit to the actors who were absolutely fantastic, and the cinematography itself, which was not that shabby either.
So let me explain the title of this review:
Patriarchal: I've chosen specifically this term on account of the director mentioning, on an interview, that he deliberately tried to avoid being patriarchal in his film. He says, "Something I didn't want in my movie was the male gaze, and I learn as a male director how patriarchal our structures of seeing things are." (see full interview on BFI website)
The Survivalist couldn't have been more patriarchal if it tried. Why? Well, because women are viewed as sexual objects and cunning black widows who use sex only to get what they want from men, even if this means killing them. They don't have sexual desires of their own, they're not strong; just cunning and manipulative, using one and only weapon: their body.
Similarly, men are sex starved beings, with their only primal instinct, in such a difficult time like the one the film describes, being rape, instead of.. well, just simply eating.
Don't get me wrong; of course sex is important and basic. But it's important for both sexes. Also, when you're starving, your first instinct is going to be finding food: not raping.
At the end of the day, the film is patriarchal in perpetuating those stereotypes that have been falsely banged on and on up to now: women are only good for providing sex (not wanting sex, because they don't really, do they?), and are essentially evil; men are only good for killing and raping.
Misanthropic: Well, actually even if you don't agree with 'patriarchal', everyone will surely agree that the film is the definition of misery. A film being miserable is not necessarily bad, if there is a purpose or a catharsis, or just a meaning in this misery. However, a film being miserable just for the sake of misery
well, this strikes me as some really bad and ill-thought script writing. A basic premise of the film is that people are starving. The land, however, is fertile. The land is not charred from nuclear war, or an environmental disaster; on the contrary, it seems as green as ever. Why then, if people can cultivate the land, aren't they working together to do so and feed themselves (as they've done for centuries in the past)? And this is one of the dozen 'why's raised when you watch this film:
Why the Survivalist's brutal, long-term isolation (even if he lived with his brother), when he can surely live better among other people? Why the two women (or at least one of them) insist on killing a person who helped them, instead of working together? Even against all odds. This is where humanity shines, and this is where people make a big transition. Why gangs of men go about destroying crops, if they're so useful and precious? Why the main characters roam about silent and grim, like alien robots, without a hint of smile, a hint of being real human beings?
To cut this narrative short, why the big misery??
When I first watched the film, I truly thought it was written by a teenager. When I found out that it was actually written by an adult person, I tried to figure out the reason he wrote such an unrealistic story like this. I found two reasons:
First, it might be the director's (he happens to be the scriptwriter) bleak and distorted view of humanity. I assume this scenario is not far from the truth. On an interview, Mr. Fingleton says that he's optimistic about the future of the world, because, even if humans cease to exist, nature will carry on (you can view the interview on YouTube, under the title "The Survivalist Interview"). Here might be a man who doesn't love humans; he likes nature. He believes in nature, but not in people. It's not bad, but not necessarily true, either. And, most importantly, and sadly for him, it's people who are gonna see his work, not trees. It's people who are going to dive into his grim and hopeless vision about humanity.
Honestly, if I'm going to experience a visual work of art, such as a film, only to be convinced that humans are evil, which really is a rather naïve, black-and-white way of seeing things, then I truly can't see the point. Can you?
The second reason the film is so misanthropic might be that, simply, misanthropy and misery sell tickets. It's actually very easy to present a bleak view of the human condition. It carries a tremendous shock value and reviewers will try to find a hidden, profound meaning out of all this misery. Only, there isn't always any. The easy way to portray a post-apocalyptic world is to drench it in misery, with people killing each other, for no obvious reason, because we know that people will be better off working together (see: The Walking Dead series). The difficult way of portraying a post-apocalyptic world is finding some kind of hope and catharsis for your characters, despite the misery. Some kind of transcendence beyond the animalistic nature which we undoubtedly possess (because we don't only possess that). (see films like: The Road, Le Temps Du Loup, Snowpiercer, A Boy and His Dog, Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead – and YES, all those grim films reach the catharsis that the Survivalist never did)
I gave it a four out of ten, for the superb acting and the cinematography. And the effort of making an engaging (I'll give it that) film on a low budget.