Rate The Last Movie You Watched
Oct 18, 2020 at 10:21 PM Post #22,711 of 24,598
Succession - 9/10 (TV Series)

Finally a show worth watching. I believe it was nominated for 18 Emmys and won 7, and definitely deserves the best drama award. Great acting'. Great cinematography, and engaging plot. I'd say the best is the show's dialog. Brilliant dialog. This show was out for 2 years, and I don't know how it was under the radar for me. Great shows like this needs to be put on the spotlight.

I watched two episodes because of your review. I just finished episode 2 and am not interested enough in continuing. My question is do you recommend I continue on because it gets better or do I stop because if I dont like it already then its probably not for me?

Cliche storyline: who will inherit papi’s business/fortune? Cinematography is annoying not special: zoomy hand held action live cam jason bourne style but not an action movie so doesnt aid so much in “realism” just distracting. Dialogue not smarter than some children’s shows Ive watched with my kid in the past months: Steven Universe and Summer Camp Island.

I like Shiv and Roman. Shiv is a badass and cute, but I find it infuriating that she is inexplicably married to a jerky idiot. Roman is the smartass and most vocal of his opinions, but its difficult to see him functioning in the business’ future. The main kid Kendall is dumb and weak, and I predict will become a slimy snake in order to get what he wants. Other child (whatever his name), there for some contrast but boring waste of screen time.
 
Last edited:
Oct 18, 2020 at 11:48 PM Post #22,712 of 24,598
Watching cartoons with my kid is good times and here are some highlights.:

Steven Universe (3.5/4)
Great voice acting and songs. Smart n relatable enough for adults. The mood of the show is a mix of Miyazaki and kids light fantasy adventure cartoon. Pro and con: the story is interesting but the filler episodes delay gratification. Filler episodes are sometimes boring but most involve appreciable character development.

Avatar the Last Airbender (3/4)
This show would have gotten a slightly higher rating when it originally aired but since its release there has been a greater rate of well done cartoons. Still worth a watch if youre into kids cartoons. Like Steven Universe, some filler episodes delay gratification but are mostly not bad.

Summer Camp Island (3.5/4)
Cute and charming, and smart n funny enough for the adults. Story not so important so you can watch randomly as I have been but it does have a arc and continuity. Have not seen all episodes, but am still bemused by how such intentional cutiness does not get tiring. Thats because it doesnt take itself serious.
 
Last edited:
Oct 19, 2020 at 12:25 AM Post #22,713 of 24,598
I watched two episodes because of your review. I just finished episode 2 and am not interested enough in continuing. My question is do you recommend I continue on because it gets better or do I stop because if I dont like it already then its probably not for me?

Cliche storyline: who will inherit papi’s business/fortune? Cinematography is annoying not special: zoomy hand held action live cam jason bourne style but not an action movie so doesnt aid so much in “realism” just distracting. Dialogue not smarter than some children’s shows Ive watched with my kid in the past months: Steven Universe and Summer Camp Island.

I like Shiv and Roman. Shiv is a badass and cute, but I find it infuriating that she is inexplicably married to a jerky idiot. Roman is the smartass and most vocal of his opinions, but its difficult to see him functioning in the business’ future. The main kid Kendall is dumb and weak, and I predict will become a slimy snake in order to get what he wants. Other child (whatever his name), there for some contrast but boring waste of screen time.
Like any show, you'd have to give time to develop the story and get familiar with the characters. I would give more episodes as it's to early to know much about the characters as the story is developing. It's after going through toward the end of season 2, you get a good grasp of the show. Or it could just be that the topic of the show doesn't interest you, or you think it's a cliche (in which it's really not in the way the story is developed). I just find the show brilliant. It was interesting enough to binge both seasons fairly quickly.

It's not a children's show, and I really don't see why anyone would compare this show to a children's show. So, I really don't get what you mean the dialog is not smarter than a children's show. If you rate a children's show highly, then you like children's shows. lol I really can't watch children's shows to be honest. The dialog isn't like the last airbender. It's really hard to imagine 'The Last Air Bender' having a smarter dialog. yeah, I enjoyed thundercats when I was a child, but my tastes has changed. Perhaps, you don't GET the dialog, but you do with the 'Last Air Bender?'
 
Last edited:
Oct 19, 2020 at 12:26 AM Post #22,714 of 24,598
Stranger (season 2) (2.75/4)

Season 2 plot not as good as season 1. Less original too obviously. The lady protagonist excelled as character and actor. Not enough outstanding moments otherwise though to recommend unless you’re major fan of season 1 and craving new material. ... More critiques would require spoilers, so sorry.
 
Last edited:
Oct 19, 2020 at 1:00 AM Post #22,715 of 24,598
Like any show, you'd have to give time to develop the story and get familiar with the characters. I would give more episodes as it's to early to know much about the characters as the story is developing. It's after going through toward the end of season 2, you get a good grasp of the show. Or it could just be that the topic of the show doesn't interest you, or you think it's a cliche (in which it's really not in the way the story is developed). I just find the show brilliant. It was interesting enough to binge both seasons fairly quickly.

It's not a children's show, and I really don't see why anyone would compare this show to a children's show. So, I really don't get what you mean the dialog is not smarter than a children's show. If you rate a children's show highly, then you like children's shows. lol

Smart not in terms of advanced knowledge but logic and emotion. Yikes, episodes are 60minutes and I have to watch nearly two seasons to understand? The topic doesnt interest me, but I enjoy reading your reviews so I gave it a chance.

Cliche. @1:40


Im trying to identify why I like cartoons. I think its the same reason why I like sci-fi/fantasy. Alternate realities that dont need to adhere to my experiences and preconceptions. Easier to immerse myself and ignore all the plotholes.
 
Last edited:
Oct 19, 2020 at 1:25 AM Post #22,716 of 24,598
Like any show, you'd have to give time to develop the story and get familiar with the characters. I would give more episodes as it's to early to know much about the characters as the story is developing. It's after going through toward the end of season 2, you get a good grasp of the show. Or it could just be that the topic of the show doesn't interest you, or you think it's a cliche (in which it's really not in the way the story is developed). I just find the show brilliant. It was interesting enough to binge both seasons fairly quickly.

It's not a children's show, and I really don't see why anyone would compare this show to a children's show. So, I really don't get what you mean the dialog is not smarter than a children's show. If you rate a children's show highly, then you like children's shows. lol I really can't watch children's shows to be honest. The dialog isn't like the last airbender. It's really hard to imagine 'The Last Air Bender' having a smarter dialog. yeah, I enjoyed thundercats when I was a child, but my tastes has changed. Perhaps, you don't GET the dialog, but you do with the 'Last Air Bender?'

Sorry, I missed the Avatar rebuke. I intentionally didnt mention Avatar the Last Airbender in my earlier post regarding intelligence. I did watch it recently and reviewed and gave it an above average rating for it’s quality in a time of darkness, and may have given it an extra .5 because nostalgia. :) I stand corrected.

FYI not everything is judged on the same scale. Intended audience is taken into account for example.
 
Oct 19, 2020 at 3:02 AM Post #22,717 of 24,598
I watched two episodes because of your review. I just finished episode 2 and am not interested enough in continuing. My question is do you recommend I continue on because it gets better or do I stop because if I dont like it already then its probably not for me?

Cliche storyline: who will inherit papi’s business/fortune? Cinematography is annoying not special: zoomy hand held action live cam jason bourne style but not an action movie so doesnt aid so much in “realism” just distracting. Dialogue not smarter than some children’s shows Ive watched with my kid in the past months: Steven Universe and Summer Camp Island.

I like Shiv and Roman. Shiv is a badass and cute, but I find it infuriating that she is inexplicably married to a jerky idiot. Roman is the smartass and most vocal of his opinions, but its difficult to see him functioning in the business’ future. The main kid Kendall is dumb and weak, and I predict will become a slimy snake in order to get what he wants. Other child (whatever his name), there for some contrast but boring waste of screen time.

I found the show excellent, but if you don't enjoy it already, I doubt your opinion will change over time.
 
Oct 19, 2020 at 3:52 AM Post #22,718 of 24,598
I found the show excellent, but if you don't enjoy it already, I doubt your opinion will change over time.

Thank you for the advice. SilverEars defense of the show is making me question whether I judged too soon. Im going to try another episode but bet it wont be positive. Ill try to be more succint with critique too. I wasnt saying the show was dumb like any kids show. I meant it didn’t stand out compared to some exceptional kids shows. I also made the comparison to those two kids shows because they were the last shows I had watched before starting Succession... okay, I havent completed Summer Camp Island but its not a show where the major arc is so important.
 
Last edited:
Oct 20, 2020 at 12:24 PM Post #22,719 of 24,598
Black(k)klansman 3/5

Quite okay but there was quite a lot of yawning going on.
 
Oct 20, 2020 at 2:52 PM Post #22,720 of 24,598
@SilverEars Tried another two episodes of Succession. Better than first two. It got better because it became more intense, which also made action cam make more sense (they mightve toned it down too). I do recognize above average quality production but nothing amazing. Story telling is typical for intense drama (ie. Stranger) with cliffhangers and intrigue. Successions’ characters though are unscrupulous mega rich people, so its hard to empathize. I do like Shiv (mostly she’s cute), Roman’s directness, and now the mother-in-law’s humanity. The mother-in-law brings to Succession someone to care about and see their story to the end. (She might also be another snake in the death pit. Who knows! Thats the fun! That is if there is a good pay off otherwise its garbage.)
 
Last edited:
Oct 20, 2020 at 7:30 PM Post #22,721 of 24,598
@SilverEars Tried another two episodes of Succession. Better than first two. It got better because it became more intense, which also made action cam make more sense (they mightve toned it down too). I do recognize above average quality production but nothing amazing. Story telling is typical for intense drama (ie. Stranger) with cliffhangers and intrigue. Successions’ characters though are unscrupulous mega rich people, so its hard to empathize. I do like Shiv (mostly she’s cute), Roman’s directness, and now the mother-in-law’s humanity. The mother-in-law brings to Succession someone to care about and see their story to the end. (She might also be another snake in the death pit. Who knows! Thats the fun! That is if there is a good pay off otherwise its garbage.)
I find it intersting because it's about mega rich people and the family dynamics as result of it. We don't see the family in an ideal perspective, but in a more raw type of form, in which HBO tend to put. It's definitely not The Crown. I don't need to emphasize with these people, but just need to be entertained by the spectacle these characters put on. It's something different, not typical stuff you find on TV.

It's kinda different from most shows. It's a drama that seems serious, but also comedic. It's not a serious drama I'd say. They use zoom effects like in the The Office. The Office was a first to not have background laugh for every joke, and used more dramatic looks than the way sitcoms typically look. It's similar with this shows, but takes a step further in terms of making it look like a documentary.

I find UK version of The Office much better than the US one.

So, it's an anti sitcom, and doesn't instruct you on what to laugh at. You just laugh at what is funny to you. There were scenes I laughed really hard.

I understand it's fiction, but it is based on Rupert Murdock's family supposedly. It does get more interesting when reaching to the end of the first season with season 2 being better than the first with how the characters and the story develops over the episodes. Shiv is kinda interesting (who seems to be the verbally clever one), but I find other characters interesting as well. Greg and Tom's dynamic is pretty funny. The story can't develop without the other characters, especially the main ones, Kendall and his father.
 
Last edited:
Oct 20, 2020 at 9:25 PM Post #22,722 of 24,598
I find it intersting because it's about mega rich people and the family dynamics as result of it. We don't see the family in an ideal perspective, but in a more raw type of form, in which HBO tend to put. It's definitely not The Crown. I don't need to emphasize with these people, but just need to be entertained by the spectacle these characters put on. It's something different, not typical stuff you find on TV.

It's kinda different from most shows. It's a drama that seems serious, but also comedic. It's not a serious drama I'd say. They use zoom effects like in the The Office. The Office was a first to not have background laugh for every joke, and used more dramatic looks than the way sitcoms typically look. It's similar with this shows, but takes a step further in terms of making it look like a documentary.

I find UK version of The Office much better than the US one.

So, it's an anti sitcom, and doesn't instruct you on what to laugh at. You just laugh at what is funny to you. There were scenes I laughed really hard.

I understand it's fiction, but it is based on Rupert Murdock's family supposedly. It does get more interesting when reaching to the end of the first season with season 2 being better than the first with how the characters and the story develops over the episodes. Shiv is kinda interesting (who seems to be the verbally clever one), but I find other characters interesting as well. Greg and Tom's dynamic is pretty funny. The story can't develop without the other characters, especially the main ones, Kendall and his father.

The Office style camera shot choices adds a seriously funny depth to the show I had not connected at all. Interesting. There is much humor but a lot of it was joyless for me because I hated the characters. But if Im supposed to find them revolting then thats different. It didnt click for me that much of the show may be farce until I saw the giant umbrella. I laughed hard. Thanks

e9422e132b4cdc3dafc4f560fa95763ac4-lede-.rsquare.w700.jpg


Edit: btw I never watched The Office but ive seen enough clips
 
Last edited:
Oct 21, 2020 at 10:25 AM Post #22,723 of 24,598
The Office style camera shot choices adds a seriously funny depth to the show I had not connected at all. Interesting. There is much humor but a lot of it was joyless for me because I hated the characters. But if Im supposed to find them revolting then thats different. It didnt click for me that much of the show may be farce until I saw the giant umbrella. I laughed hard. Thanks

e9422e132b4cdc3dafc4f560fa95763ac4-lede-.rsquare.w700.jpg


Edit: btw I never watched The Office but ive seen enough clips
I'm indifferent to the characters since they are just characters for the development of the story. I think traditional protagonist characterization is unrealistic and therefore boring and cliche. For example, I find Jim's charcter in The Office boring and cliche, and the other characters make the show. So, wether or not they'd be likeable in reality is irrelavent, it's important that characters have characterizations.

It's much more believable to show the human nature of characters (the flaws), their pitfalls, and much better if the shows is backing up why their characterization is the way it is. And the dialog follows this philosophy.

Spoiler Warning (clips from Succession).


Personally, I just thought the umbrellas were big. lol I look at what they are wearing or carrying wondering if mega rich would carry such ordinary stuff. That's one thing that's not easy to replicate.

This guy calls it 'Mockumentary.' That's a good term to call it.
 
Last edited:
Oct 21, 2020 at 12:26 PM Post #22,724 of 24,598
This guy calls it 'Mockumentary.' That's a good term to call it.

Mock-documentaries go back to at least the 1960s (The Beatles "A Hard Day's Night" in 1964 being one of the prominent ones). The backstory to show The Office is that an account named Tom Peets kills himself, and then a film crew from PBS wants to film a documentary about a workspace in the wake of a coworker's suicide. This is why they have the shaky cam, but they didn't exactly keep that whole documentary within the show premise consistent, and it doesn't make a ton of sense that PBS would keep filming them for years and years, or that everyone would be ok with that. Other shows have been even more half-hearted mockumentaries, like Arrested Development, Parks and Recreation, Modern Family, etc. They use the mockumentary style but are not self-consistent and the things "filmed" and the things people say and do while purportedly "on camera" don't really make a lot of sense (if you think about the camera people running around all over the place with their cameras and mics while all the "drama" unfolds). This weak mockumentary has instead become more just a style of show and not something that bears any scrutiny if you stop to think about it. Personally, I almost always find shaky-cam annoying. It's over-used, and as someone who's been an amateur photographer most of my life, I find it distracting (just like I find video games that add lens flare to what I'm seeing in what's supposed to be a first person game completely breaks suspension of disbelief, because if I'm supposed to be in the shoes of someone in a game world, I would have eyes to see, not a camera lens, and so the world should look as it looks through eyes, which seems basic, but so often it's missed).
 
Last edited:
Oct 21, 2020 at 8:40 PM Post #22,725 of 24,598
Rewatched John Dies at the End. I had watched it years ago, shortly after it came out, and really loved it. Revisiting it, I still think it's really good, but maybe not as good as I remember.

Being based on a book, the expression "the book is better than the movie" gets throw around any time someone tries to talk about this, or any other movie. It's gotten to the point where the expression is used so much it's lost all meaning and turned into a loud, whining noise. That being said, there are some pacing issues that no doubt come from the fact that it's based on a book. I haven't actually read the book, but I feel like the movie was trying to get all the bullet points of the book down without actually expanding upon the ideas. Like, it didn't really make sense to me that David and that girl ended up together, considering they barely talk to each other. Honestly, I feel that if a movie is adapted from a book, there should be an obligation to have a, bare-minimum, two and a half hour run time. Preferably closer to 3. This, by contrast, runs about an hour and a half. (!) I feel like even if it pushed to two hours it could have fixed most, if not all, of its pacing issues.

Pacing issues aside, the movie is also slightly pulled back by dated special effects and comedy that's pretty spotty. Thankfully the movie uses a decent amount of practical effects, so it's really only the CGI that's mediocre, and it's mostly toward the end of the movie.

Once you get past the nitpicks, there's a very solid and fun movie underneath. The cast of characters is very likeable, it's extremely lighthearted considering the nature of the story, it's highly imaginative, and has some nice twists and turns along the way. It's also kinda Halloween-ish, so you can justify watching it to celebrate the holiday. :stuck_out_tongue:

If I had to rate it... Maybe 7.5/10?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top