With a horrid script, lackluster performances, and a waste of potentially awesome characters, _Black Adam_ is an explosive, $195 million, anti-heroic dud. The DCEU is about to get way more convoluted and underwhelming than ever before if this is the future of live action DC films.
**Full review:** https://hubpages.com/entertainment/Black-Adam-20220-Review-A-Stale-and-Disjointed-Antihero-Kerfuffle

Well it wasn't disappointing...

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://www.msbreviews.com/movie-reviews/black-adam-spoiler-free-review
"Black Adam is far from impressive, being somewhat disappointing due to its formulaic, predictable screenplay when something different was anticipated.
Lorne Balfe's epic score and a magnificent cast - Dwayne Johnson, Aldis Hodge, and most remarkably Pierce Brosnan are phenomenal - try to elevate the decent action and visuals, but the moderate entertainment levels don't make up for the dated narrative structure.
Tiresomely heavy exposition, story with little to no creativity, and inconsistent humor make it impossible for the DCEU to take "the next step" in a truly impactful manner."
Rating: C+

A mixed bag.
I didn't really enjoy 'Clash of the Titans' but I didn't dislike it all that much either. The cast do alright, as Sam Worthington sticks out most - the rest kinda merge into one in my memory. Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes feel very underused, in fact the parts of the story involving them onscreen didn't do anything for me - Worthington & Co.'s bits are far more watchable.
The special effects aren't the best, including those used for 'the gods'... though Fiennes as Hades looks fine enough. It's mainly the creatures that don't work as well, most notably for the giant scorpions on the wide shots. On that note, I did rate the long, sweeping shots that are used throughout... the music is strong too, I'd even say Ramin Djawadi's work is the best thing about this 2010 flick to be honest.
Not one I'd personally revisit... still gonna see what they did for the sequel, though.

It was too hot to go home so we decided to watch a movie.
This movie is about Greek Mythology. I'm really not into that subject. It's a good thing I saw Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief so I was able to get a background on the gods. I think Percy Jackson is the modern Clash of the Titans.
I appreciated Sam Worthington here. I always thought he looked better as an avatar than in person but in this movie he looked good.
I guess I was super tired and sleepy that I couldn't help it I fell asleep. But it was for a short time. "idlip". I woke up and didn't want to miss a thing. The cinematography was great.
My grade for this movie is B.

**_The true 'sequel' to "Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan," 32 freakin' years later_**
"The Legend of Tarzan" (2016) stars Alexander Skarsgårda as John Clayton (Tarzan), Margot Robbie as Jane and Samuel L. Jackson as Tarzan's American friend. The events take place a decade after Tarzan & Jane leave Africa for England with brief flashbacks to the ape man's origins. Christoph Waltz co-stars as the villain, Rom, who enslaves blacks in the Congo to mine the diamonds of Opar. Tarzan, Jane and Willliams (Jackson) aim to set things aright.
"Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes" (1984) was the best modern Tarzan movie, and one of my favorites despite a somewhat lethargic second half (and an irritating overuse of the "Ooo, ooo, ooo"ape vocalization, which this movie thankfully only does once). Unfortunately, they dropped the ball with the sequel, 1998's "Tarzan and the Lost City" with Casper Van Dien in the title role, as it was half-baked, a quickly-thrown-together "sequel" to presumably steal some of the thunder of Disney's animated version that was coming out the next year.
This one comes across as the true sequel to "Greystoke," albeit with an altogether different cast and understandably so, seeing as how it's 32 years later. The portrayal of the lost city of Opar is different from the books. There's no ravishing High Priestess La (a blonde white female) or ape-like denizens. The Oparians in the movie are just an intimidating black tribe covered with white body paint, but this is no big letdown because changes are to be expected when transferring to a different medium and, besides, Opar doesn't play that big of a role, at least not the city itself.
In any case, I found this to be a solid Tarzan flick with a serious adult tone mixing drama, jungle adventure and unbelievable action. I was thankful for the thoughtful lulls in the story, which shed insights on the characters or conveyed the wonders of nature, like when Tarzan communes with an elephant at night or when Williams honestly confesses about his past mistakes as a youth where he feels he's not so different from the odious Rom. Moreover, Margot expertly brings Jane to life and is easily one of the better Janes in the movies. The CGI animals are great, especially the powerhouse apes.
The film runs 1 hour, 50 minutes, and was shot, believe it or not, in England with aerial shots done in Gabon (West of the Congo).
GRADE: B

This was the most underwhelming Tarzan movie that I have ever seen. A typical product of some Hollywood producer trying to make a "modern" take of Tarzan not really knowing or caring for the Tarzan that Edgar Rice Burroughs created.
In particular it was the palest and most underwhelming Tarzan character yet. He never radiated the strength nor the intelligence that Edgar Rice Burroughs attributed to his character. He spent most of the movie going around with a bland look on his face.
The story itself is pretty much an out of the box standard Hollywood story about slavery and abuse of the black African population. Not truly bad but nothing to write home about either.
There is a lot of CGI in the movie and although quite a few reviewers seem to consider it bad I personally though it was pretty okay. One of the few decent bits of the movie.
I truly do not understand that they had the nerve to call this movie The Legend of Tarzan since it really is pretty far from the legend of Tarzan that Edgar Rice Burroughs created. This movie would perhaps have been okay as a one hour episode in a Tarzan TV-show but as a high budget feature movie it simply does not cut it. I was quite disappointed.

**Yep, this is a different Tarzan, an updated one.**
Recently the Indian jungle boy, the live-action Mowgli film was made and so its time for Africa's. This is not a Disney film and that's one of the disappointments for the Tarzan fans. Because this film is for the grown-ups only. It is rated PG13, but still I don't think the children would enjoy it like they did for the recent 'The Jungle Book' film. So it is like a DC film, I mean, DC makes superhero films for the grown-ups, unlike Marvel's. The bottom line is, don't expect it to be like a Disney film. Like the director said before the release, this is not the Tarzan from your father, grandfather's era, but an updated one with strong graphic violence.
So the story skips all the Tarzan's earlier life like from his childhood to adulthood parts. The film commences with Tarzan being settled in the UK. It's the second half of the 19th century, where the European colonies in the Africa are expanding for its rich natural resources. So in the Congo savanna, the natives welcome Tarzan for his short visit, but the things get ugly when his wife, Jane was kidnapped. Now he must fight back for her safe return and also avert other threats in the region from the foreign power.
There are many CGI character films were made at the recent time, it is a trend, but not all of them are impressive. This film looked average when it comes to vfx. The story was acceptable, the performances were decent, the casting too not bad, but Samuel L. Jackson was completely useless. He's one of the greatest sidekick Hollywood ever produced, but I don't know why he's in this project, his role was very silly.
In other hand, Alexander Skarsgard was good in the lead character and so Margot Robbie as Jane. The action sequences were not good as I expected. The film had a good runtime, but in some parts, it was slow or maybe you can say nothing interesting thing happens. I liked the idea, to update the theme, but they should have given more focus on the story. I hope if they plan another film, it should be a prequel. Because I feel there's lots to learn about the past than going forward. This is a one time watchable film, there's no surprises, just plain and partially entertaining.
_6/10_

This has probably the most perfect balance of story and soundtrack of any film I've ever seen - animated or otherwise. Adapting Rudyard Kipling's tale of "Mowgli" the child abandoned in the Indian jungle, but rescued and raised by a family of wolves. "Bagheera", the sagacious panther realises as the boy starts to grow to manhood, that he ought to return to his own kind but "Baloo", the avuncular bear thinks otherwise and so takes our young man-cub on some fun adventures in the jungle - including some near-misses with the wonderfully menacing, sardonic tiger "Shere Khan" and "Kaa" the hypnotic python. The voice cast - especially Phil Harris as the bear and George Sanders as the tiger are great; Louis Prima as "Louie" the King of the Apes provides us with one of the best songs ever to feature in a Disney film - and the Sherman brothers provide a great slew more of them for us to enjoy, too. The detail in the animations and the humour in the script are super - this really is a must watch.

Good watch, might watch again, and can recommend if you've seen any other version or are looking for a writing analysis.
During a lot of the movie, I was kind of in nostalgia mode, remember things I saw / felt when I was a kid, just sort of enjoying the way back machine experience.
It wasn't until almost the very last scene that it clicked how good the writing is in this. I know this is known for the excellent animation styling, the catchy tunes, and charming coming of age semantics, but this uses several strong formulas that have been used since Aesop's fables.
And that's what made me realize the writing quality, I felt as if I was watching an on fable with moral lessons of consequence. Up until that point I was mentally preparing how this 1967 animation is actually a perfect metaphor for 2020 entitled child entering the real world: never being told no, even to the threat of great, potentially lethal, loss because even in the face of danger, they've been taught that they deserve, even in the logic that it can't be true on both sides though both believe that. Hmmm, that sounds a lot like religious war.
Digressing back to the writing: Mowgli embodies naivety, narcissism, entitlement, whatever you would like to call as he's a victim / ward of extreme chances of compassion: he just happens to luck into survival wherever he goes. While Tarzan makes more sense, this is character development for the series of situations (each one their own potential fable) with the main character shifting to and fro from Bagera to Mowgli to Balloo, each one being taught lessons as the adventure continues.
With the representation of the jungle and the adversities that Mowgli faces, Mowgli slowly learns what Bagera and Baloo both know: most people are only interested in their own interests, but sometimes those that have enough can be in a position to help others. The xenoism (racism) that Sher Khan has for Mowgli as a human is enough for these predators give up his companionship to help him to the man-village.
The really odd lesson is that Mowgli embraces the self-interest needed in the jungle, despite dialogue to the contrary.

A young man is all excited as he heads to bed on Christmas eve. His sleep is disturbed though, when his house starts to shake. He bounds to the window whereupon he sees the arrival of a great train, one he quickly discovers is heading on to the North Pole. Safely aboard he encounters other children and adventure beckons as they learn that one child will get to meet Santa Claus himself before he embarks on his global deliveries! I didn't love this film. I found the rather sharp, linear, facial animations a bit too sterile and there is way too much chatter with not enough going on. I can play chase the ticket once, but after a while that became little better than a clunky conduit for the rather episodic nature of the narrative. I'm sure that technically it is a masterpiece of CGI and human interaction, but somehow it all just left me feeling that the cheesy sentiment overwhelmed it with it's messages of teamwork and the Christmas spirit well and truly over-egged. Alan Silvestri has provided a nice score, and when the animation scenes focus on the actual train then it does liven up a bit, but sorry - for the most part I wasn't sold.

Watching The Polar Express is not an annual event for me, but I believe I have seen it three times and would not nix the idea if someone were to suggest watching it again. I feel a connection to it for an odd reason: my wife and I volunteered one Christmas season to be elves serving cocoa and dancing for an actual Polar Express narrow gauge train ride when we lived in Maine. (Though I can assure you our dancing was not as acrobatic as what you see in this movie.)
The animation feels a little odd at first, but I stop noticing it each time I watch it. The story turns the train trip to the North Pole into a real thrill ride for the children on board, especially for our hero boy, voiced by Tom Hanks. In fact, if you are a Hanks fan, settle in, because he does multiple voices here, including one that sounds remarkably like Gilbert Godfrey to me.
I try to avoid punching holes in the plots of Christmas movies. Half the point is that they will include unlikely events all leading to the miracle of Christmas ending. You want logic; pull out the old algebra textbook!

No matter how many times I watch this, it always brought me to tears!
I only wish that I got to see it in 3D at the cinema.

***Some kids with creepy dead eyes take a dreamlike trip to the North Pole on The Polar Express***
A boy from Grand Rapids, Michigan, is at the age where he no longer believes in Christmas, as far as Santa, his elves and flying reindeer go, but a magical train appears in front of his home on Christmas Eve and whisks him away on an adventurous trip to the North Pole with several other kids.
“The Polar Express” (2004) was based on the 1985 Christmas book and was the first mainline movie to use motion capture animation for all its characters beginning to end (think Gollum from “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy). Some people think the animation is weak, but I feel it creates its own world and has its own charm. It holds up as long as you can adapt to those creepy dead eyes of the characters.
Some people love this movie while others think it’s weird, like a Twilight Zone Christmas flick. Roger Ebert, for instance, loved it and gave it a perfect grade. I’m sorta in the middle. I see its good points and appreciate them, like the haunting winter ambiance, parts of the trip to the North Pole (e.g. the quasi-rollercoaster ride) and the kids’ investigation of the Christmas factory. But there are some meh parts and dubious sections like the whole last act with the multitude of elves and the towering Santa who looked like he was modeled after 6’5” Christopher Lee with a pillow strapped to his mid-section.
The movie’s interesting in some ways but also quaint in a cheesy way, as well as peculiar and lifeless.
The film runs 1 hour, 40 minutes.
GRADE: C

Just a really great movie!
I didn't know anything about the original Louisa May Alcott novel and haven't seen any of the other six (!) film adaptations. 2019's 'Little Women' evidently makes for the perfect introduction to this story. All events here are nicely portrayed, I found the pacing a little slow in the beginning as well as some tiny timeline issues, but once things get going it's very much a pleasant watch.
It's a really touching and, in the end, surprisingly wholesome movie, I was waiting for exaggerated drama and antagonists to appear but they never really come, which is quite refreshing. The cast is stacked. Saoirse Ronan and Florence Pugh are the obvious standouts, though the likes of Timothée Chalamet, Emma Watson, Eliza Scanlen and Meryl Streep all stick out in my memory too.
My only criticism would be how the sisters don't always act how the look, a very quick glance at Wikipedia suggests the sisters in the book are all under-16 but visually here they don't seem that young; so there are some moments where you have adults acting like 14 year olds, which is a bit odd. This isn't a major criticism of mine, mind.

It's Little Women... with "modern sensibilities" and that should be enough of a warning... which is odd given that the novel, and even the 1994 movie both had feminist ideals. But then they weren't made for "modern audiences," so they have more of a focus on characters and story than pushing "The Message."
And that was the issue here, yet again "THE MESSAGE" was the most important part of the movie, and to make sure you understood that the characters were, well caricatured, some of them reduced even further to nothing but cliches.
The plot was... rushed. It seemed to want to jump from message to message rather than tell a cohesive narrative and because of that one of the saddest parts of the novel was almost laughable, almost comedic in this version, most like because it really didn't fit with The Message and needed to be rushed.
And the same thing happened with the dialogue, it was rushed, clipped, and meaningless unless pushing, you guessed it, The Message.
The result was that there is little in the way of character development, you can't really get attached to anyone, they have little personality compared to the other adaptations and the source material, but then you get the feeling that this version wasn't about the sisters, it was about the politics that appeal to the "Modern Audience."
And that is a shame, because the modern reader still picks up Little Women and loves it because of the March sisters and not because of "Modern Sensibilities." But, hey, kudos for not race swapping.

Full review: https://www.tinakakadelis.com/beyond-the-cinerama-dome/2021/12/28/great-or-nothing-little-women-2019-review
Greta Gerwig’s adaptation of Louisa May Alcott’s timeless novel, _Little Women_, feels like coming home. It’s the sort of movie that surrounds the audience with feelings of warmth and comfort. This feeling comes from the coziness of the cabin the March family resides in, the love that exudes from the performances, and the treatment of the source material, which was clearly a formative book for Gerwig. She approaches this retelling with a few small updates and a great reverence for the original.

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com
The 92nd Academy Awards are presented this Sunday, and Little Women is part of the few 2019 releases that are only now (2020) being shown in my country. I really want to watch every Best Picture nominee before the ceremony not only to provide my honest predictions but also to have a Top10: Best Movies of 2019 more complete regarding the number of films watched. Well, Greta Gerwig's adaptation of the famous book isn't able to crack a spot in my Top10, but it's definitely worth an honorable mention.
There's been a lot of controversy surrounding the Best Director category, way beyond just the Oscars. The lack of a female nominee across a few award shows raised some discontent, and most considered Gerwig's work to be more than enough to warrant more nominations, especially at the Academy Awards. Now, I'm going to be as polite, respectful, and fair as I can. While I do agree that Gerwig does a great job in directing this movie, I still believe that the five male directors nominated for the respective Oscar did an even better one. Even removing Todd Phillips (Joker) out of the equation (which I entirely accept), I would definitely choose Noah Baumbach (Marriage Story) as his replacement.
With that said, do I suddenly become a misogynist? Do I always favor men when I send my own ballots to the OFTA Awards, for example? I don't think so. It's just a humble opinion. Putting that discussion aside, let's focus on the positive aspects of Little Women because there are many! Usually, romance isn't a genre I tend to love, but I really enjoyed this adaptation of Alcott's famous novel. I'll start with the cast because how can't I?
With such a stellar team of actors, I knew I was going to receive some amazing performances. Every character gets a lot of screentime, but Saoirse Ronan is definitely the lead as Jo. She's the odd sister, the one that doesn't really want to follow the "rules" of being a woman in the XIX century. She wants to do what she loves for a living and be independent without having to be this housewife that simply married a rich man. She wants to be remembered. Saoirse incorporates this personality like it's her own, and adds another brilliant display to her acting career.
However, Florence Pugh gives the standout performance as Amy. Undoubtedly, Pugh is the breakthrough actress of this last year. Fantastic physical display in Fighting with my Family, one of the best performances of 2019 in Midsommar, and the most complex role of her career in Little Women. Since the story is continuously going back and forward in time, everyone has to portray two versions of the same character, but Amy is the one that changes the most. As a childish, immature, silly, young Amy, Pugh delivers some of the funniest moments of the film. Truly hilarious at some points. Then, as an adult Amy, she's more grounded, responsible, and about to follow one of the "rules" of society regarding women: marrying a rich man.
Eliza Scanlen carries an emotional arc as Beth, and the best past-present sequence is due to her. Emma Watson is Meg, the older sister who everyone looks up to since she seems to be perfect, so her arc goes through some demonstrations of how her imperfections make her a role model to her sisters. Timothée Chalamet is also one of the standouts as Laurie, a neighbor who gets close to the March family, but I won't delve into too many details regarding his story. Laura Dern (Marmee March) and Meryl Streep (Aunt March) are perfect as always. Every character arc is exceptionally developed. With a runtime slightly over two hours, it's remarkable the level of detail, complexity, and depth that the characters possess.
I can't address every single one in detail since there are so many, but I tried my best to give an overview of each of the main ones. Clearly, Jo, Laurie, and Amy's arcs are the absolute best. However, Emma Watson's character story is the one that feels too superficial and too simple compared with her sisters'. It doesn't really feel like she went through any change throughout the years, and part of her story feels a bit forced. Beth's arc might also be straightforward, but since it's associated with an emotionally powerful plot point, one can understand her little screentime.
The past-present storytelling method works for the most part. There are a couple of moments beautifully and seamlessly "stitched" together, giving the viewer a sense of fulfillment by witnessing the start and end of a little story that happened in the past and later in the present under other circumstances. Nevertheless, some sequences either drag too much or lack emotional investment. Since the movie crosses the two-hour mark, I found myself bored during certain storylines that failed to captivate me.
In a film with so many characters, it's very common to give more focus to only a few of them. It's impossible to call someone a protagonist if half a dozen characters have the same or more screentime or plot relevance. However, this always brings the issue of not being able to fascinate the audience with every character arc. Also, some past-present transitions are so abrupt that they disrupt the overall pacing by being a bit confusing. Nevertheless, Greta Gerwig does an excellent job in balancing these timelines, and an even better one by opposing the contrasting tones of each period and still make them consistent.
Technically, Yorick Le Saux offers gorgeous cinematography, Alexandre Desplat provides a subtle yet efficient score, but the costume design steals the show by being extremely period-accurate. The colors of the whole movie tell a story on their own, as well as the set design, so be sure to look around on each wide shot because there is much to see behind the actors.
In the end, Little Women doesn't do enough to warrant a spot in my 2019's Top10, but Greta Gerwig's adaptation of the classic graphic novel deserves all of the screenplay awards it has been receiving so far. As expected, the whole cast is phenomenal, but Saoirse Ronan, Florence Pugh, and Timothée Chalamet not only deliver the best performances of the film, but their characters carry the most compelling arcs. With so many people, it's remarkable the level of detail, complexity, and depth that each character has. However, some storylines are not as captivating as others, and the pacing suffers from these less exciting stories, which bring the movie down for some moments. The past-present transitions are mostly well-handled but a few are too confusing and abrupt. The contrasting tones of each timeline are consistent throughout the runtime, and the costume design steals the "technical spotlight". Overall, it's a pretty good romance, so if you enjoy the genre, I can't see why you shouldn't enjoy this one.
Rating: B+

Guess 2019's just the year for Florence Pugh to be in critically acclaimed and letterboxd beloved movies that I just genuinely didn't care for much.
_Final rating:★★ - Definitely not for me, but I sort of get the appeal._

Opinions are opinions. Subjective or objective, but I find quite interesting the positive response Greta Gerwig's second feature film has received, considering the so self-complacent film she created.
I personally believe that.
Do not confuse that feeling with me saying this is a misdone film. There's talent in her direction but Gerwig instead of looking for a challenge having the doors as open as she has them at the moment, she sat in the conformism and made a film that feels totally built as a ''For Your Consideration '' And be afraid if she's not considered.
I don't deny that Gerwig loves the novel, she shows it and certainly this version is her personal vision but despite the nice attempt, there's nothing new or fresh in her take.
I have to admit and emphasize that at this point it's completely stupid and naive to ask for a radical change in a story which has already been told a lot of times in film, however, it also cannot help feeling like a cheap mean of exploiting the story considering our current times, where feminism is now a driving force in the industry.
Like I said, she went for the safe bet.
And yet despite Gerwig's attempt to increase that specific plot weight, she also avoids going to issues that wouldn't work for the story she was trying to tell, because although they're not girls with money, they have the privilege of being protected from the civil war.
Jo is a young woman aware of herself and her mind, which in those times wasn't something positive but obviously the external world is not a concern for her, only her personal interests. And that's ok, we get to be that way, especially when we're young, but how do you try to make woke characters, if it's only in the things that suits them?
That's where the pertinent questions should be asked about what it was decided to take in order to make this new version work according to the director's perspective.
In the end, despite the production quality, Little Women is just a conventional and ordinary repetition of a literary classic that I personally think has already been too used.
But the proposal works both to be loved and to be hated and that depends a lot on the mentality you carry with you when you go to see it.
As always the rest depends on what you get from the film.

I’m not discounting the new approached Greta has taken here. I personally think it’s great and, in 2019, definitely poignant but it also shows too much respect for only one on-screen woman. I can’t help but feel that, while serving one grand idea, Greta has caused a disservice to those other women in its wake.
- Jess Fenton
Read Jess' full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-little-women-a-21st-century-remake-but-does-it-cause-more-harm-than-good

**very good series**

I was really excited for this series as I have read a good amount about the USSR and have a personal relationship to it, having been born in a former satellite country. But I came away disappointed. The series really drew out some scenes for no reason, to the point where I felt the need to fast-forward (for example, essentially the ~entire 5 minutes of going under the core to open a valve). I was also frustrated that the series started right at the point of disaster; I think I would have appreciated more context in a backstory section.
Can't recommend.

**_Terrifying and sobering – as exceptional a piece of television narrative as you're ever likely to see_**
> _The third angel blew his trumpet, and a great star fell from heaven, blazing like a torch, and it fell on a third of the rivers and on the springs of water. The name of the star was Wormwood. A third of the waters became wormwood, and many died from the water, because it was made bitter._
- Revelation 8:10-11
> Вічная Пам'ять
- Polychronion chanted at the end of Eastern Orthodox funerals
> _This bitch was in the middle of the room with her puppies. She went for me – I p__ut a bullet in her. The puppies were licking my arms, being all sweet and playful. We had to shoot at point-blank. Saints preserve us! There was this one dog, a little black poodle. I still feel sorry for it. We heaped the tipper full of them. Taking them to the burial site. To tell the truth, it was just a plain old deep pit, though you were meant to dig it taking care not to reach the ground water and line the bottom with plastic. You're meant to find some spot fairly high up, but you know how it is. The rules were broken all the time: we had no plastic, and we didn't spend long looking for the right spot. If you wound them rather than killing them, they'll squeal and cry. They were tipping them out of the truck into the pit, and this little poodle began scrabbling about. It climbed out. Nobody had any cartridges left. Had nothing to finish it off with, not a single cartridge. They shoved it back into the pit and covered them all up with earth. Still feel sorry for it._
- as related to Svetlana Alexievich; _Voices from Chernobyl: The Oral History of a Nuclear Disaster_ (1997)
> _Altogether, 50 million curies of radiation were released by the Chernobyl explosion, the equivalent of 500 Hiroshima bombs. All that was required for such catastrophic fallout was the escape of less than 5 percent of the reactor's nuclear fuel. Originally it had contained more than 250 pounds of enriched uranium – enough to pollute and devastate most of Europe. And if the other three reactors of the Chernobyl power plant had been damaged by the explosion of the first, then hardly any living and breathing organisms would have remained on the planet._
- Serhii Plokhy; _Chernobyl: The History of a Nuclear Catastrophe_ (2018)
> _Soviet scientists admitted that 17.5 million people, including 2.5 million children under seven, had lived in the most seriously contaminated areas of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia at the time of the disaster. Of these, 696,000 had been examined by Soviet medical authorities by the end of 1986. Yet the official tally of deaths ascribed to the disaster to date has remained the same: 31._
- Adam Higginbotham; _Midnight in Chernobyl: The Untold Story of the World's Greatest Nuclear Disaster_ (2019)
Released in May 2019, with over a year remaining of the Trump administration, a show about a nuclear accident in the Soviet Union some 33 years ago probably doesn't jump out as being especially relevant to the here and now. Except, of course, it's not really about a nuclear accident. It's about governmental denial and subterfuge, it's about the dangers of rejecting science in favour of ideology. It's about the importance of a free press. It's about lies. It's about people who attempt to speak truth to power. And it's about the people who suffer when an entire legislative system is rotten to the core.
And with that in mind, it suddenly becomes a lot more relevant to 2019 United States.
Created, written, and executive produced by Craig Mazin (whose previous work inexplicably includes _Scary Movie 3_, _Scary Movie 4_, _Superhero Movie_, _The Hangover Part II_, and _The Hangover Part III_), _Chernobyl_ is directed by TV and music video veteran Johan Renck as part-horror movie, part-cautionary tale, and part-political treatise. Mazin began researching the Chernobyl explosion in 2013, initially as a hobby. Thinking he knew what had happened reasonably well, he was surprised to find how much he didn't know, and how much the majority of people didn't know, and it was this knowledge-gap that led to the show. Equal parts political deconstruction and painstaking recreation of what it must have been like to live through the worst nuclear disaster in history, the show presents a terrifying, nightmare vision of how bad things can get when hard scientific facts are made subservient to political agendas, and governments strive to undermine not only scientific expertise but the very nature of truth itself (the Soviet Union was a big fan of "alternative facts" long before the GOP). _Chernobyl_ begins and ends by asking the viewer to ponder the cost of cumulative nation-wide lies. However, it's just as interested in celebrating the heroes as it is assigning blame, and in that sense, it has an extraordinary sense of humanism.
The acting is immense, the writing is incisive and terrifying, the aesthetic is exceptional, and the show was a worthy winner of no less than 10 Emmys from its 18 nominations, including "Outstanding Limited Series", "Outstanding Directing for a Limited Series, Movie, or Dramatic Special", "Outstanding Writing for a Limited Series, Movie, or Dramatic Special", "Outstanding Cinematography for a Limited Series or Movie" (for "Please Remain Calm"), "Outstanding Musical Composition for a Limited Series, Movie, or Dramatic Special" (for "Please Remain Calm"), and "Outstanding Single-Camera Picture Editing for a Limited Series or Movie" (Simon Smith for "Please Remain Calm"). The show also won seven of its 11 nominations at the British Academy Television Craft Awards (including Best Director, Best Editing, Best Costume Design, Best Original Music, and Best Production Design), and two of its four Golden Globe nominations – Best Limited Series or Television Film and Best Supporting Actor in a Series, Limited Series or Television Film (Stellan Skarsgård). All in all, Chernobyl is that rarest of beasts – a show which lives up to the hype.
April 26, 1986, 1:23am; near the city of Pripyat in the north of the Ukrainian SSR. Reactor No. 4 at the Vladimir Ilyich Lenin Nuclear Power Plant (aka Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant) explodes, sending out masses of radioactive material. Fire crews are called, but neither they nor the local people have any idea of the severity of the situation. As the Central Committee tries to keep a lid on things, a commission is hastily assembled to investigate the disaster. The commission's head is Boris Shcherbina (a career-best performance from Stellan Skarsgård), Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers, and a devout party-man who believes it when he's told that the radiation released from the reactor is no stronger than that used in a chest x-ray. The commission's scientific expert is Valery Legasov (a mesmerising Jared Harris), deputy director of the Kurchatov Institute, who immediately realises that the accident is much more serious than the government are saying, and that the people in immediate danger amount not to tens of thousands, but tens of millions.
The show opens with the explosion and then follows Legasov and Shcherbina as they investigate why it happened and unexpectedly form a strong friendship. Along the way, we're introduced to a sizable number of characters, some well-known, many not at all – Ulana Khomyuk (Emily Watson), a nuclear physicist from Minsk (composite character); Lyudmilla Ignatenko (a heartbreaking Jessie Buckley), the wife of one of the first-responders; Vasily Ignatenko (Adam Nagaitis), Lyudmilla's husband; Anatoly Dyatlov (a quite stunning Paul Ritter), Deputy Chief Engineer at Chernobyl and the man in charge of the control room at the time of the explosion; Mikhail Gorbachev (a chameleonic performance from David Dencik), General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union; Viktor Bryukhanov (Con O'Neill), director of Chernobyl; Nikolai Fomin (Adrian Rawlins), chief engineer at Chernobyl; Aleksandr Akimov (Sam Troughton doing a lot with a small role), night shift supervisor; Leonid Toptunov (Robert Emms), senior control engineer; General Vladimir Pikalov (Mark Lewis Jones), commander of the Chemical Troops of the USSR; Viktor Chebrikov (Alan Williams), Chairman of the KGB; Andrei Glukhov (Alex Ferns), mining crew chief; Major General Nikolai Tarakanov (Ralph Ineson), supervisor of the clean-up operation; Pavel Gremov (Barry Keoghan), civilian draftee into the clean-up operation (fictional character); Bacho (Fares Fares), Soviet-Afghan War veteran who trains Pavel (fictional character); Zharkov (Donald Sumpter), member of the Pripyat Executive Committee (fictional character); Svetlana Zinchenko (Nadia Clifford), doctor treating those with radiation sickness (composite character); and Andrei Stepashin (Michael McElhatton), Soviet prosecutor (composite character).
Thematically, _Chernobyl_ is anything but subtle. The opening line is "_What is the cost of lies?_", and this issue is front and centre for the entire five episodes. The show presents the Soviet Union as a place where lying and statecraft were one and the same, and in so doing, it illustrates what can happen when institutions of government put political ideology above objective facts, when egotistical politicians disregard everything that experts are telling them in favour of their own ill-informed theories (sound familiar?). It is, in essence, a show about the dangers of state-sanctioned obfuscation. The first episode in particular gives us some fine illustrations of a system obsessed with committees, bureaucracy, and secrecy, all built upon an unnecessarily complicated and rigid hierarchy. For example, shortly after the explosion, Bryukhanov explains to the Pripyat Executive Committee,
> _As you can see, we have experienced an accident. A large control tank malfunctioned, damaging reactor building four and starting a fire. I have spoken directly to Deputy Secretary Maryin. Maryin spoke to Deputy Chief Frolyshev, Frolyshev to Central Committee member Dolghikh, and Dolghikh to General Secretary Gorbachev. Because the Central Committee has the greatest respect for the work of the Pripyat Executive Committee, they have asked me to brief you on matters as they stand. First, the accident is well under control._
This sequence goes from the manager of Chernobyl (Bryukhanov) to the Deputy Secretary of the Power Industry (Maryin) to the Deputy Chief of the Machine Building Department of the Central Committee (Frolyshev) to a Politburo member (Dolgikh) to the General Secretary (Gorbachev). And if you think this is an exaggeration, all of these people are real, and this is precisely the sequence of how the information got from Bryukhanov to Gorbachev. As it's presented in the show, there's nothing remotely subtle about it, as we're invited to shake our heads at the ridiculousness of it all. An even more telling example of governmental secrecy occurs in the same scene, as Zharkov addresses the Committee,
> _From the Central Committee all the way down to each of us in this room – we represent the perfect expression of the collective will of the Soviet proletariat. Sometimes, we forget. Sometimes, we fall prey to fear. But our faith in Soviet socialism will always be rewarded. Always. The State tells us the situation is not dangerous. Have faith. The State tells us they do not want a panic. Listen well. True, when the people see police, they will be scared. But it is my experience that when the people ask questions that are not in their own best interest, they should simply be told to keep their minds on their labour – and to leave matters of the State to the State. We seal off the city. No one leaves. We cut the phone lines. Contain the spread of misinformation. That is how you keep the people from undermining the fruits of their own labour. That is how your names become inscribed in the hallways of the Kremlin. Yes, comrades. We will all be rewarded for what we do here tonight. This is our moment to shine._
This speech is met with applause. There's a lot to unpack here, but the line "keep the people from undermining the fruits of their own labour" is especially telling. Essentially, "_keep the people uninformed so they don't ask us to explain ourselves._"
And, to a certain extent, much of the rest of the show depicts how that is exactly what the government has accomplished. If there's an overriding mindset amongst the Soviet people, it's a sense of civic duty, borne of a genuine belief in socialism and total trust in the Central Committee. Not all characters share this trust, but enough of them do to make it an undeniable trope. And for the most part, the show presents this sense of duty to the State as deeply honourable, worthy of a great deal of respect. How the State elicits, manipulates and exploits these feelings is being criticised, not the feelings themselves – a vital distinction. This is seen most clearly when one contrasts the noble self-sacrifices made by multiple characters, often knowingly giving their lives for the State and for one another, with the callous way the politburo look on such sacrifices – they expect people to give their lives because lives have to be given. As Shcherbina says at one point, "_you will do it because it must be done_". To the Politburo, the proletariat is not a collective of individuals, it is a single body, and it can afford to lose a person here and there without any significant damage.
Since the series was released, much has been written about the fidelity (or lack thereof) of the representation of the Soviet Union in 1986 – whether such and such a politician doing this is realistic, or such and such a politician saying that is over the top. Without explicit knowledge of the _milieu_, I can't really comment on this aspect of the show, but what I can do is cite another source that seems to suggest the show's depiction of the extraordinary unpreparedness and elaborate web of lies built by the government is most definitely not an exaggeration. In _Children of Chernobyl_, a Canadian documentary filmed in Ukraine just five years after the accident, we're told that in the weeks and months following April 26, hospitals were trying to treat patients despite having no wheels on their IV stands and barely any cancer medication whatsoever. A pack of needles cost 10 rubles (5 times the average daily wage), so cash-strapped hospitals had to reuse syringes across multiple patients. And as part of the massive cover-up attempt, individuals were barred from owning dosimeters, meaning they were unable to test levels of radioactivity for themselves. Indeed, huge numbers of people only became aware of the severity of the problem by listening to foreign news reports on short wave radios (which were illegal in the Soviet Union). After the accident, Dr. Alla Shapiro was asked to prepare a lecture on radiation for a hospital in Kiev, but when she went to the National Medical Library, she discovered that literally every book with the word radiation in it had been taken off the shelves and classified. On May 1, just four days after the explosion, and with rumours spreading about the nature of the disaster, the government urged people to attend the International Workers' Day parades, even in areas they knew to be heavily contaminated (and once word got out to other countries, the vast majority of the official footage of the parades in and around Pripyat were removed from the National Archives). So the show may have some factual inaccuracies here and there, and quite a bit may be exaggerated, but there very much is at least an underlying truth to everything we see.
Aesthetically, _Chernobyl_ is nothing short of masterful, with virtually every creative department knocking it out of the park. The show opens with the explosion, throwing the audience into the chaos and confusion that happened. We're given no info whatsoever on what caused the accident – teasing that out will form the substance of much of the rest of the episodes. However, rather than placing us in the control room at the moment of the explosion, it is instead presented in such a way that immediately establishes that this isn't going to be all spectacle for its own sake. We initially see the explosion in the distance, through the closed window of a character who doesn't even notice it happening until the shockwave hits a couple of seconds later. It's a wholly unexpected way to begin, presenting a massive real-life disaster not from the perspective of spectacle (_Deepwater Horizon_, I'm looking at you), but from a subjective human perspective. This immediately sets up the show's interest in people. The helicopter crash seen in the trailer is shot the same way – we don't cut between objective shots from outside and subjective shots from inside, which would muddle the perspective. Instead, the whole thing is shot from Legasov and Shcherbina's perspective, focusing on their human reactions rather than the fiery spectacle.
As for the cinematography generally, Jakob Ihre (_Quitters_; _Louder Than Bombs_; _Thelma_) shoots everything unfussily, with no real visual gymnastics. However, there are still moments of stark beauty and great artistry. The second episode ends with a dialogueless scene that Michael Mann would be proud of – a terrifying claustrophobic sequence shot almost entirely in pitch darkness with the only light coming from the torches carried by the men on screen. This episode also features perhaps the single most extraordinary shot in the series – a high elevation shot of Pripyat looking down at the residents being evacuated onto a fleet of buses. In the background, the power plant can be seen still burning, whilst the people and the plant are bifurcated by the flats in which they used to live. This is as good an example of thematic photography as you're likely to find.
And then there's the acting. Harris plays Legasov as world-weary and somewhat bitter, but a man whose disillusionment with the Party was nothing compared to what he feels as he sees them trying to cover-up and play down the most serious nuclear disaster in human history. Skarsgård's Shcherbina has an exceptionally well-constructed arc, moving from emotionless apparatchik to perhaps the most relatable character in the show. Skarsgård does some of his best work here when he has no dialogue, conveying everything with his eyes, movements, and facial expressions. And then there's Paul Ritter, who turns Dyatlov into one of the most contemptible characters ever put on screen. I would never have an imagined that such an amiable actor could have made me loathe him so much, but Ritter embraces Dyatlov's narcissism, insecurity, and bullying tendencies and takes them to another level entirely (RIP Mr Ritter).
As for problems, well, if there is one, it is probably that the characters are a little too black and white – the 'good' characters are practically saintly, and the 'bad' characters are almost pure evil. Legasov, for example, is depicted as a truth teller who disapproves of the Soviet system and cares only for the facts. In reality, he was a party man, and he initially agreed with the cover up. Indeed, his dramatic testimony at the trial as depicted in the final episode is entirely fictitious – he was not present at that trail, which lasted weeks and was considered remarkably dull, even for a Soviet show trial. The same issue is apparent with Khomyuk, a composite character representing the many scientists who aided Legasov. Watson is good in the role, but as written, she's fairly obviously a screenwriter's creation, embodying multiple hackneyed Hollywood clichés. She's a fearless truth-teller and truth-seeker, a hugely intelligent woman who is far superior to the idiot men around her (how she discovers the accident is especially preposterous). She purposely gets herself arrested and not an hour later, she's in a meeting with Legasov, Shcherbina and the entire Central Committee. Such a thing would simply not be possible in the USSR. The strange thing is, she's unnecessary. If Mazin wanted a prominent female character, why not use Maria Protsenko, the architect who designed Pripyat and supervised its evacuation?
On the other hand, Bryukhanov and Fomin are presented as utterly detestable, as ignorant as they are callous, completely uninterested in the lives of their employees, concerned only with their own reputations. In essence, many of the characters are either stupid or evil, or both, while the scientists are righteous prophets. And there's not a lot of ground in between.
Chernobyl is a disaster which, as of 2020, is still affecting crops and animals – in Sweden (the first country to learn of the explosion), mushrooms, reindeer, and wild boar are still screened for Cesium-137 contamination and occasionally declared unfit for sale. The disaster also had a profound effect on the geo-political sphere, and is generally seen as the beginning of the end for the USSR, whilst also serving as something of a wake-up call to the world's nuclear powers. At the time of the disaster, the Soviets were manufacturing a missile called R-36M (NATO reporting name SS-18 Satan), which was roughly 100 times as strong as Chernobyl. By 1986, they had 2,700 in their arsenal. Chernobyl really brought into focus just what kind of devastating power we are dealing with here. At its core, however, the show is more interested in what happens when governments stop listening to science, when every smart person in the room is telling a leader one thing, and he or she decides to ignore it based on nothing other than ideology or ego (and yes, Trump's attitude to the ever-worsening global climate crisis is very much the target). An exceptional piece of television in pretty much every way, _Chernobyl_ is as terrifying as it is compelling, as heartbreaking as it is eye-opening.
And all of this is not even to mention the dogs. I'm just not ready to talk about the dogs.

This is one of the best dramatic series I have watched in years. It can be difficult to maintain tension and drama describing true events that the viewer might be already aware of to some extent, but this program manages it nicely. It is a little predictable in how it tells the story, by which I mean it uses several angles from different characters' points of view: the scientists and administrators representing the Russian government, the employees of the power plant and other disposable workers, and of course the masses of people caught up in the disaster; and finally, for a close-up look, the wife of one of the plant's employees, who follows her husband to a Moscow hospital. All of these perspectives are handled well.
A couple of the criticisms I saw sort of bounced off me. One person on another website said it was a good series but he was giving it a low rating because he couldn't believe it was rated higher than Game of Thrones. Uh, okay. Another person felt that the miniseries sugar coated the Communists. I don't know; I lived through Gorbachev and Glasnost, and this portrayal seemed spot on to me.
I fully intend to watch the series again, after I finish reading the book it is at least partially based on. Don't miss it.

**Ron Howard's Inferno.**
Dan Brown has made a lot of money from his mystery books, and his popularity has meant that virtually all of his stories have been ported to the big screen. For this film, Ron Howard adapted Brown's fourth novel, set between Florence, Venice and Istanbul. In the script, Robert Langdon wakes up in a hospital in Florence and discovers that he has been attacked and shot, and that he is being pursued because he knows something important, but has lost his memory. I mean, he knows as much as we do! He will be aided by an attractive doctor who will help him understand what is going on: so, we realize that a crazy Malthusian has decided to create a virus to decimate a third of the human race, and that he is about to spread it.
If in the previous films based on Brown we had notable successes, this film would be doomed from the beginning: “Inferno” is perhaps the least inspired and most poorly written book by this author. And there are no miracles in these things: either the source material is good, or you can forget it. The screenplay is also a poor and unhappy adaptation. Because? Because it completely alters the end of the book and gives us an alternate, clichéd, idiotic ending, staying true to the beginning of the story, which starts too abruptly to work well on screen. That is, the script changes things that it should leave and respects the part of the book that most needed adaptations! The dialogues and the construction of the characters also sound bad, and everything has a poorly finished appearance.
Ron Howard has reason to look at this film and bury his head in the sand like an ostrich. For a director of his caliber, with the accolades he has, this film is simply unacceptable. The amateurism, the carelessness, the almost negligent way in which details are approached… I would forgive a newcomer or an untalented director, but not Howard.
The cast again has the participation of Tom Hanks in the role of the symbologist. Keeping his record impeccable, the actor perfectly fulfills the role and gives us everything he owes, in a committed and consistent work. Felicity Jones also did a good job, with a skillful harmony between rationality and emotion. The rest of the actors are far below: Omar Sy and Ana Ularu added little and have very little screen time; Irrfan Khan and Sidse Knudsen do a little more and better, but remain in very secondary positions. Ben Foster pretty much counts for nothing.
Technically, the film relies heavily on green screen, massive CGI, and visual and special effects. Without them, the film collapses like a house of cards. I don't usually see problems in using these technologies, they can truly enrich a film, but here, I believe, they turned the film into a kind of giant video game, where everything is done against the clock, and where there are dangers so varied that we don't even feel them. The sets and costumes are pretty good, and the choice of filming locations respects the ideas and places the book visited. Also, the soundtrack, again by Hans Zimmer, is perfectly adequate. Unfortunately, the cinematography is thoughtlessly and inelegantly directed, and the entire editing job feels rushed, excessive and far too crude.

**Racing to stop men with bad intention!**
Compared to the first two films, it took a long time for the third film. But I expected 'The Lost Symbol' before this one. I don't know why they skipped that book from adapting which was done in the last minutes by the production house. My guess is it might be a controversial as the first one, or simply not good enough for the cinematic version. Anyway, this film was not as good as previous two. Once again, it was directed by Ron Howard and Tom Hanks returned as professor Robert Langdon. Two hours long, but very fast storytelling, non-stop adventures.
This is another tale in the series about fighting against the men who believes in the ancient text that's written about to curb the issue the human would face in the future, which is now. After waking up without any memory, professor Langdon with the help of a young woman escape from an assassin. In result, they look for the reason why and whoever behind it wants them dead. So it's not a good story, but entertaining film. Especially if you like action-adventure- suspense.
Nice cast, including Hanks and Jones. The other supporting cast was not bad either. Like always, it's a European adventure, particularly in Venice and neighbouring countries. Some cool secret places, might be the settings, but awesome. Since this part was not received well, I wonder the next one, 'Origin' would be made or not. Even before that, this time I expect 'The Lost Symbol' first to hit if they want to continue with the film series. This is not a film to recommend, but not bad for watching it once.
_6/10_

Walt Disney's classic film, 101 Dalmatians, may not be completely original as it is based on a previous book, but it has turned its characters into beloved favorites, especially Pongo and Purdy. The movie will make you fall in love with all the adorable puppies like Lucky, Penny, Patch, and Freckles.
The animation is superb with just the right amount of music that doesn't overwhelm the storyline but does give us the memorable song of Cruella Deville. Speaking of the villain, Cruella is an iconic and fantastically over-the-top character, with Horace and Jasper adding to the trio's incredible dynamic.
The film is a delightful experience from start to finish, a complete classic that has been a box office success and is one of Walt Disney's triumphs. Moving forward, the live-action films, 101 Dalmatians and 102 Dalmatians, are based on the cartoon and offer a fresh take on the story with Glenn Close's portrayal of Cruella Deville being particularly outstanding.
While the movies may have a few plot holes, they are still top-notch entertainment. The sequel, 101 Dalmatians Part 2 in the Animated Series, focuses on Patch's adventures in London, adding a new dimension to the beloved story. Although the animated series may not reach the same heights as the original or the movies, it is still worth a watch for fans of the franchise.
Overall, the four films together create an enjoyable and incredible experience. They are definitely worth checking out, with Patch's story adding an extra layer of fun to the beloved Dalmatian universe.

It's a classic. Great for all children and adults. Not really for me but I'll watch it if the family wants too. I prefer the live version more.

After a bit of a bumpy flight to Thailand, a family arrive in Phuket for what ought to have been a dream holiday. Well mother nature had other plans and a earthquake far out at sea generated a series of tsunamis that we now know killed almost a quarter of a million people. That could well have included "Henry" (Ewan McGregor), "Maria" (Naomi Watts) and their children "Lucas" (Tom Holland), "Simon" (Oaklee Pendergast) and "Thomas" (Samuel Joslin) but despite being out in the first wave of the encroaching water, they somehow manage to cling onto anything that will float, to the sturdy trunks of the trees and though separated do survive. That's just the start of their troubles, though - "Maria" is severely injured and with their elder and quite smart son "Lukas". The others - so we are fortunately spared much of the mediocre McGregor - are elsewhere with all looking to repatriate amidst the chaos of debris and mayhem left by the now retreated seawater. The thrust of the drama features mother and son, with quite decent and convincing efforts from both as they must make it to some semblance of safety and then try to get much needed medical help. It's based on the real event, and the photography quite potently illustrates just how devastating the waves were on these low lying islands that were designed for pleasure and tranquility - there were no sea defences and the structures ill-prepared for the sheer power of the swell. There's a spirit to the narrative too - the locals and the tourists all mucking together to help in a veritable hotchpotch of languages and priorities. The pacing is frenetic at times, lingering at others and that also helps give us a sense of the perils faced by all trying to come to terms with the destruction and this is a surprisingly better watch than I was expecting.