Reviews

First two seasons great.

Third still felt like Boondocks despite it seemingly losing focus. There just wasn't a uniting element present anymore, but the characters are stuill there.

The fourth season, though, does not feel like Boondocks at all. It feels hollow, like a mannequin show trying to use characters as dolls. A lot of characters are no longer present often if at all and none of the characters feel like ones from the prevoius seasons, more like a misunderstood attempt at their recreation. Everything's just so off.

So, in conclusion, if interested, watch season 2 and maybe 3, but not 4.

I have the same issue here that I had with Agents of S. H. I. E. L. D., except for that show the constant reliance on "team member compromised", as annoying as it was, made much more sense as S. H. I. E. L. D. is a spy agency. Here it feels even more like lazy writing. And thet's hardly the only way the writing could be considered lazy; it's just one of many and listing them is frankly not worth the effort.

Exceptional aesthetic and performances aren't enough to cover for a weak script. Which is a real shame, because there is so much potential ad so many things done right.

I see where they were going with this, but the events are illogical, contrived and quite inconsistent throughout. I could write an essay listing them all, but it seems like a waste of time. When handling such a controversial topic (especially at the time) and trying to make somewhat of a stand, it can be considered even more important to have the movie work on all these fronts on which it doesn't. It's redeeming quality is brevity that ensures you at least won't fall asleep as you would if it were longer.

I had a little list of annoyances I thought they should improve and my grade was to be taken with a grain of salt anyway as I'm familiar with the characters and story from games.

However, the stuff that's wrong with season two will be wrong for anyone who pays attention, irregardless of previous familiarity. There's more done wrong than done right and I feel no need to waste any more of my time listing it out. Plenty of others have done a great job already.

Other than that, not much nice to say about it. The plot is very simple and drags in a predictable direction to the end. Some character work is there too. Luckily, it's not that long of a film. One must assume the praise the two films get is coming from adults nostalgically rewatching their most memorable childhood flicks, most of which are unwatchably bad for an averagely intellingent adult, so now these two seem profound in comparison.

As the title said, well made. If the message was less cheesy, I'd probably give it a higher grade (8-9), but this is not an attempt at an objective review, but rather a note to dial in my preferences (figure out what I like and what i dislike).

This is one of those shows people find excuses for being horrendous just because it touches on some interesting philosophical or psychological concepts. As if that excuses horrible storytelling, nonexistent characters with no arcs whatsoever, poor animation, awful pacing and a dozen other problems this show has. It's just not in any way a compelling narrative.

To all of those who liked the show, answer me this - what is Lain like? She is kind of introverted, I guess. Anything else? No? You sure? What personality traits does she have? Nothing? And this is the protagonist we're talking about. That's what I mean when I say this show has no characters. They are all just vessels, marionettes, twisted and turned by writers to make whatever choice is needed for the nonsensical plot to progress.

Frames hang around for too long and are constatly recycled. It's slow-paced, but that seems to be a consequence of a low budget forcing a super-low framerate instead of actual authorial intent, especially as it isn't used in any meaningful way.

The show does indeed touch on some really smart themes, but none of them are fully realized or actually lead anywhere. You can forget about drawing any sort of conclusion, clear or not, from this. Because it is so vague, people seem to project a lot of meaning onto it, despite it carrying none on it's own. You'll hear stuff like "It asks bold questions and provides no easy answers" when in reality it doesn't explore the implications of various answers at all and can barely formulate something resembling a question in the first place.

John Wick (1) was a pure 10/10 for me. It had a tight, albeit simple script and excellent action. John Wick 2 somewhat upped the action, but the plot couldnt've possibly been on the level as 1 had a definitive ending. I viewed 2's plot as something that needed to be sacrificed for a franchise and that's exacly what we got. But, now with the 3, I'm not sure where said francise will go if it sacrifices it's plot any further.

As happy as I am that action is better than ever, the plot problems seep into it as well, resulting in an uneven pacing and unclear character motivation as well as some plot holes holding this movie back from being something truly excellent like the original.

I still find it better than 2 overall, but not by much.

Last season is overall the worst although you could argue the show should've ended at season 5. First 5 seasons, though, are some pretty good stuff. Shame we see once more the incessant phenomena of a show outstaying its welcome.

They've got a solid script here. The acting is on point as well, although I'm not a fan of American diversity casting that requires a certain percentage of every race to be present even in a fictionalized medieval slavic Europe with no explanation whatsoever of how they got there. You want diversity, do it like GoT - this is just lazy.

This first season is quite episodic, which I found to be quite refreshing and welcome. I assume upcoming seasons will be more serialized as the material starts requiring it.

When it comes to the material, I didn't read the novels so I wouldn't know how much they are sticking to them. I came from the games and didn't expect everything to be the same, but enough was that I could take advantage of all the lore I've picked up and understand far more than I would assume the average viewer without that background would.

Overall, if it maintains this level of quality, we will end up with a pretty decent fantasy show. However, I'm not optimistic as the general trend dictates that it will likely see a gradual fall in quality across the following seasons.

Season 1 was excellent, seasons 2 and especially 3 didn't maintain the quality. Averages out to the grade above.

That's it, really. Season 1 gets a 10, the rest can be skipped.

As is the case with oh so many shows, Archer gets farther and farther away from its core premise as it desperately tries not to bore the audience the first few seasons created. This percieved neccessity of capitalizing on a success and not letting a show go when it has said what it had to say, but instead releasing season after season of consecutively worse material as long as the ratings justify it, is the cause of many shows's unsatisfying later seasons. This is done, of course, for profit. It's seemingly hard for creatives in the industry to push new ideas, which means they are more likely to stick to a show while it's making money.

Starts off great, gets slowly worse to the point that last couple of seasons feel like a do-over. Sadly typical for the medium. First 2-3 seasons worth a watch.

I believe the high ratings here are primarily because of lack of competition in the space of Viking TV-shows. That's not to say that the show is bad, but it's, im my opinion, not accolade-worthy.

If interested, watch the first few episodes and see for yourself. Reconsider your decision after season 4, as the show changes significantly.

Overall, decent for multitasking. Not rewatch material in my book.

First season is an excellenly executed horror bursting with 80s nostalgia. Second and third seasons are consecutively worse do-overs and aren't worth most people's time.