#if it starts getting boring or too repetitive or UNDERWHELMING as hell

[waluijoe]

i would also like to add that this job is killing my will to live real quick and isnt that just astounding in a one month period

[hawkland]

For the SPN ask meme - 11,15, 16?

I know we’re all in French translation hell at the moment, but I have some peace at work today so...let’s do this!

11. Which episode do you wish we had gotten (ex. beach episode, body swap episode, human!impala episode, etc)?

Definitely body swap, after hearing Jensen’s Cas voice  during the virtual con on Sunday. It would just be fun and um, the possibilities.

That, or maybe not human!impala but somehow the impala has a personality/starts talking to them KITT-style. Especially if he bitches about Dean’s repetitive music choices--and, of course, how many times he’s been defiled by Dean having sex with an angel in the backseat.

15. Name three things you would change about spn.

FFFFFFFF only three oh hell where to start.

- Definitely the ending, of course. It just...ok if we even accept Cas’s "death” in 15x18, we need to know how he came back more than a 2-word “Cas helped” in Heaven in 15x20. And if Heaven/Dean’s death is gonna happen then there needed to be a scene with Cas giving him so much fucking shit for throwing his life away so quickly after Cas had sacrificed everything for him. Just...I get the suicidal depression interpretation of Dean, I do, but I don’t have to like it as a choice the writers made. I’d prefer that the finale had been about Dean & Sam getting all their people back, especially Cas. And then all working together to make a new free will world a better place. Dean understanding that his life didn’t have to be all about being daddy’s blunt little instrument and protecting Sammy. He deserved happiness on Earth, too. And Cas could be happy without immediately being dead.

- I’d change a LOT about Season 9 (probably onward, too, but I’m only half-way through 10 at this point on my complete watch-through, only seen choice/select episodes after that point.) I just...I loved parts of Season 9, Cas dealing with being human and then also showing him being an actual badass commander of angels against Metatron—like that part of who he is/was that seemed so often overlooked, especially by Dean? It was glorious seeing Dean’s reactions to that. But I hated how contrived it seemed that they made it such that Cas couldn’t stay at the bunker/Dean basically throwing him out on the street right after dying just no. I refuse to accept the way that was handled, Sam or not. I also honestly found Abaddon a kind of weak/boring “big bad”, her death very meh and the whole storyline with the first blade/mark of Cain is...far from my favorite for SPN. I can honestly say I see why a lot of fans may have given up on the show at this point after Season 8 was so very, very much, what with Purgatory and Benny and Naomi and Kevin and just...it was so so good in comparison. But I guess that’s why one of my fic projects at the moment is spinning a big AU from 09x03 onward. Because I don’t like it.

- Not sure if this is a controversial opinion or a common one, but I’d recast Lucifer. I never was really thrilled/convinced by Mark Pellegrino’s performance. Granted I’m still somewhat spoiled because John Glover will always be the ultimate Satan to me, no one else has even come close (though I do enjoy Tom Ellis’ charming Lucifer in a very definite vein.) Mark just wasn’t sexy/menacing/charming/horrible in the right way for me? IDEK? I just remember being underwhelmed by him in season 5, maybe thinking he was a bit better in 7 in Sam’s hallucinations but still. Not enough dark/sexy/disturbing for me (honestly as much as I enjoyed his portrayal of Death, I’d have rather had Julian Richings as Lucifer here. He’s always been part of the creepy-but-weirdly-so-sexy-to-me club.)

16. Which fanfic trope would you force onto Dean and Cas in a canon episode?

Mm, besides body-swap? Kind of hard as one of the things about SPN I love is they gave us so many tropes already. But definitely oh no there is only one bed. Actually make it one bed in a haunted Canadian shack.

[tvwriteups]

Notes as they happened.  I might do more general commentary later. (Might also not.)

France, Italy, and Spain in the last group. Hmm.

I watched the SFs on my laptop. I’m watching the grand final on a large screen TV with surround sound.

Malta

Well, getting the party started. I don’t think she’s a particularly strong singer.

Albania

A much, much, much better performance here than in the SF.

My only criticism is her walk to the front of the stage - needed more direction for that. It kind of felt like she did that too casually.

Czech Republic

This song just bores me.

I give them credit for vibrant colors.

But I take that away because I hate camera tricks. I’m more annoyed the second time around.

Germany

I’m expecting this to suck.

Not sure “I’m tired” are the best words to start with.

I don’t like the start but...it kind of gets better. The bridge of the song is awkward.

Ugh, the “sister” part is awful. The music builds to try to make this song more dramatic but...

I mean, not Lithuania-bad but almost. I haven’t heard four of the songs but I’m already predicting this for last.

Russia

I really don’t like this song at all. It tries too hard.

It doesn’t help that all I’m thinking of is when Sergey competed last time.

I wonder how many people watching this right now are thinking the same thing.

Denmark

Is it makeup or is she not getting enough sleep? Not as fun as the first time.

San Marino

Says a lot about this year that this is a middle-of-the-pack song.

I actually love that these guys love being here. They’re having fun.

North Macedonia

I’m just not a fan of this song. It gets repetitive very quickly. (I can’t believe that’s a criticism I’m lobbing at it after watching the “na na na” song.)

She does better with the belting than the lower register stuff.

Sweden

He started really well. I was loving his voice. But...

I don’t know. I like parts of the song but not altogether? It just kind of gets too busy for me at the end.

Slovenia

I really like the chorus of the song. It’s weird that it holds my attention for how little is happening on the stage.

Cyprus

Either they’re better in the final or this just plays different on a big screen.

You know, I think it’s that I don’t like it being played sexy. I think it would’ve worked better for me if it was played for “fun.”

The Netherlands

I hate the staging so much. Would’ve worked better with him standing at a microphone. Does he not have stage presence? Is that why he has to hide behind a piano that they don’t even show him mime-playing?

Light ball of randomness. Not really a fan of sad songs winning...if this wins.

Greece

This song feels like someone Frankensteined pieces of three different songs together. This song is weird, the presentation weirder but it’s holding my attention.

I’m laughing.

Those ribbons. Those strong, indifferent ribbons.

Israel

Don’t care for the video screen presentation.

Don’t care for the song.

Is the crowd singing along?

Bored.

That ending is just weird to me.

Norway

Ha ha!

Seriously, no way this guy is straight.

This is the most Eurovision song of the year. The beat carries the song and the singers just go for it. It’s admirable. I love them!

UK

Even your postcard is lame.

Not sure that light is even synced right.

I don’t like his voice on the verses.

Swedish guy took the better song for himself. So repetitive.

One of the backing singers has more charisma.

This is as bad as the Belgian entry.

Gosh, North Macedonia chick’s eyes look weary.

Serhat is a dentist?!

Iceland

I don’t understand how something can be this weird and not hold my attention.

Estonia

I hate the chorus.

Oops, camerawork.

So many leather jackets this year.

I hate the visual effects.

Belarus

They really brought the dancers.

I spent this second watch more or less watching the dancers. More enjoyable that way.

Azerbaijan

Crowd likes this for some reason.

Hate the lyrics.

This vocalizing part is ... ugh, effects.

France

This was a lot better than I was expecting. Good performance. (Granted, I had low expectations.)

Italy

You sure got the crappiest location for your dance.  Yeah, shipping container port.

I can’t really follow the song. It’s not bad. It’s just very different.

Sincere.

Kind of reminds me of that time Hungary sent that domestic violence song.

Not sure it’s a one-listen song.

Serbia

I forgot this song had made it through.

She can’t go near an MRI machine.

Switzerland

Crowd just roared for this one.

Oh, this is also a very Eurovision song.

There’s nothing about their dancing that’s remotely dirty.

I don’t really think he’s all that compelling dancing in isolation. He needs those backing dancers to make him look good

Australia

Time for this weirdness.

Can’t wait to see the discrepancy between jury votes and televoting.

I still hate this. The only part of this song I like is the bridge.

Maybe I’d be more impressed if I didn’t know someone who sings opera.

Spain

I love that Spain is trying.

This is a good performance.

This song is too fast though.

Former Eurovision Contestants

Conchita Wurst performing “Heroes”

I adore Mans but I think I prefer Conchita singing his song.

Mans performing Fuego; not a fan of this rendition

Eleni gets “Dancing Lasha Tumbai” (or whatever the hell it is)

There’s more dirty dancing here than the Swiss song.

Verka gets “Toy”

The gold and silver lame!

Those backing dancers in those outfits really make this act for me.

I think this was a good way of getting these songs back in while not feeling too familiar and repetitive.

Hallelujah!

This year:

No really good song.

No outstanding voice.

No ridiculously charismatic performer.

Madonna Interview:

Awkward interview with Madonna.

Madonna totally comes off like a mom.

I mean that mom when you’re a pre-teen and you’re trying to distance yourself.

The Idan Raichel Project

Just not my kind of music

Eh.

Cuervo interview

Guy don’t know what ESC is

They need to cut this interview before he backs himself into a corner

The mentalist again

This has to be rehearsed. Seriously.

Netta

Not into this.

Now I understand bringing in Madonna

Norway made me smile the most. I’d vote for Norway.

I think the crowd really loved Switzerland.

Madonna’s Performance:

I’m so used to Madonna lip-syncing so this is weird for me.

I’m underwhelmed by Madonna.  First time I’ve ever written that in my life.

This is why she lip-syncs. But, like, why the eye-patch? That can’t be good for the depth perception.

And now they’re closing voting.

I don’t think pre-recorded Gal Gadot should qualify as having Gal Gadot on your show.

Does Gal Godot need lighting this soft?

Jan Ola Sand

I wonder if Russia hacked the televoting.

Juries

Portugal gives 12 points to the Netherlands

Azerbaijan -> Russia

Malta goes for Italy

North Macedonia -> Italy (this one surprised me)

San Marino -> Italy

Nederlands -> Sweden

Montenegro -> Serbia (duh)

Estonia ->r Sweden

Poland -> Australia 

Norway (Alex Rybak) -> Czech Republic? Really?

Spain -> Sweden

Austria -> North Macedonia

UK -> North Macedonia

Italy -> Denmark

Albania -> North Macedonia

Hungary -> Czech Republic

Moldova -> North Macedonia

Ireland -> Sweden

Belarus -> Israel

Armenia (Aram! He has way more Personality here than when he performed.) -> Sweden

Romania -> Australia

Cyprus -> Greece and cue the groaning

Green room

Back to juries:

Australia (Not the old Asian lady) -> Sweden (Another reason why I want Australia kicked out)

Russia -> Azerbaijan (duh)

Germany -> Italy. Oh good.

Can’t wait to see how many public votes Iceland gets.

Belgium -> Italy

Sweden (Eric Saade) -> Netherlands

Croatia -> Italy

Lithuania -> the Netherlands

Serbia -> North Macedonia

Iceland -> Sweden

Georgia -> Czech Republic

Greece -> Cyprus. Boos. LOL

Latvia -> the Netherlands

Czech Republic -> Sweden

Denmark (Rasmussen) -> Sweden

France -> The Netherlands

Finland -> Sweden

Switzerland -> North Macedonia

Slovenia -> Czech Republic

Israel -> the Netherlands

How do juries work? Is there lobbying that goes on behind the scenes? Are people just happy that FYROM got a real name now? Is the singer just a really nice and lovely person who built up a lot of goodwill the first time she competed? Was the jury presentation THAT MUCH BETTER than either performance I saw?

Now time for public vote where we see Norway cleanup LOL

I actually want Sweden to win because Petra.

This show feels so long.

Sweden green room.  More Jan Ola Sand

Reverse order points:

Oh, this is different reveal order. Usually they did least to most.

Ouch UK.  Ouch!

Predicted that with Germany! I’d rather be UK in last with getting at least 3 public votes than finishing where Germany did with ZERO from the public.

Norway gets 291 points!!!  In the lead!!!

Iceland with 186 points!

France gets 38 points.

Russia got 244 points and the lead.

Switzerland got 212 points

Czech Republic got 7 points ...... totally opposite the jury. muahahaha

Australia 131 points

Azerbaijan gets 100

Italy gets 253 and the lead

Netherlands 261 points and the lead.

North Macedonia 58 points. Not surprising.

Sweden 93

[alo-piss-trancy]

(fire emoji) p5

Okay I have quite a few unpopular opinions I’d like to get off my chest so here we go (keep in mind these are p much just personal preferences so don’t feel bad if you actually like the things I’m about to rag on lmao)

Also I apologize if these show up in the actual tags I don’t want to put slashes in all of these names and ships RIP

!!!WARNING FOR BIG GAME SPOILERS!!!

1. Akechi/Akira is my least fav p5 ship and ngl I feel burning disgust 98% of the time I see it. Both characters are interesting on their own and I love the similarities and contrasts between them (I live for those perfect protag/antag foils), and I do really like those bits where they could ALMOST be close friends but then it gets fucked up mmm. I also like 1 of them pining for the other on occasion (or in Akechi’s case, possibly going past that into obsessive lust) but the other has no interest in anything deeper. But I can’t see them in love at all, especially in content that sticks to canon since there’s so many time constraints and scenarios that would prevent them from having the opportunity to actually form a true relationship.

But also putting all that aside it mostly bothers me because the entire pairing just REEKS of the completely overdone “These two rivals are opposites and boys so they HAVE TO BE secretly in love and super gay for each other” kinda thing that used to be (coughstilliscough) all over the place in other fandoms. Like, I guess potentially in the right hands it could be done well and actually develop the relationship between them, but I really just despise that type of ship in 98% of fandoms and nearly any time I see Akechi/Akira content it seems pretty forced and is clearly wish fulfillment/desperate craving for gay representation.

RIP I know that sounds harsh as hell, I really don’t know how to word my feelings on it in a more coherent manner so this is the best I can explain it? People can ship whatever they want ofc and if I ever spot good content or it has smth I like (like omo fics) I’m down to read it, but it’s definitely a ship I usually try to avoid simply because I’m sick and tired of seeing it EVERYWHERE (and there’s so many other people Akira is canonically closer to/much more likely to fall in love with)

2. In a similar vein, Akira/Yusuke gets on my nerves almost as much as the above. I just don’t see much chemistry between them so it seems a bit forced, but also it’s kind of a personal bias because I just. I don’t like Yusuke. He irritates me so much he somehow pushed all my buttons when I first met him and I ignored him FOR MY ENTIRE GAME and gave him shitty coffee and if Akechi and Mishima hadn’t made me even angrier I probably would call him my least fav character in the game. That said, I’m going to try hanging out with him more than twice and actually USE HIM IN MY PARTY in my ng+ so maybe I’ll learn to warm up to him. And despite my distaste I will admit his lines are some of THE FUCKING FUNNIEST (esp his bits in Mementos jfc)

Also Akira/Ryuji irritates me too bc I also get real tired of the ‘bffs fall in love trope’ and I think they each have ppl that fit them better, but in some instances it can be really cute or kinda deep so I enjoy looking at it on occasion. I’m mostly just tired of it drowning the tags when I’m looking for other Akira pairings lmao

3. Sadayo Kawakami isn’t that great and idk why ppl hail her as one of the best girls. I actually liked her a lot when she first appeared in the game but once you start her social link and get into all the other shit I just got really bored and annoyed with her? I don’t know why because while I didn’t finish it (I got to 7 or 8 I think but then the late game plot dragged me into madness so I couldn’t find time to meet her anymore) I got to one of the big plot points in her arc and it was sad that it happened but…I was already so irritated by all of her lying and she was starting to rub me the wrong way bc despite her being 'kind’ it seemed like any dialogue I picked even when it helped her brought some snark or just obnoxious moping from her so I just kinda. Stopped giving a shit about her. I’ll max her in NG+ this time so I can see the end and hopefully I’ll feel more for her since I know most of what happened but I don’t think she’ll ever be as important to me as The Squad Girls or Tae or Hifumi.

As a character I still like her and there are certain plot aspects I really find interesting/deliciously angsty if expanded on, but I definitely wouldn’t say she’s waifu material lmao

4. Now for an actual game critique: I feel they definitely started off WAY too strong with the first palace/boss, so most of the future game (palace design/boss fights, not the plot the plot’s always top tier) seem kind of underwhelming by comparison. Like the entire way the plot progresses in Palace #1 is awesome when you’re brand new to the game/series and the boss is the perfect Holy Shit moment because, like, just look at that revolting mess, it’s super different from anything you saw before that point in the game and kinda scary to fight and it’s badass. But then a lot of the rest just doesn’t have the same shock or high stakes feeling to it or the palaces aren’t as interesting. Cool and creative bosses/neat palace ideas: #1, #4 (boss and 1 bit of plot, the palace itself got pretty repetitive to trudge through), #6 (amazing boss, loved the fighting arena bit and palace aesthetic, but hated trudging to collect shit just so Akechi could slide us through the plot), #8 (rad design, cool 1st boss, Yaldawhoever was kinda lame to fight tho bc it was a lot of the multi-bodypart stuff we’ve seen before)

Palaces that were repetitive/annoying most of the time/lame bosses: #2, #3 (THE W O R S T BOSS AND PALACE), #4, #5, #7

[filmforthought]

Dunkirk

Starring Harry Styles, Tom Hardy, and Mark Rylance Rating: ★★ Allied forces evacuate the battle of Dunkirk as Nazi troops close in.

Although it is has a strong production value, director Christopher Nolan’s latest feature lacks of a gripping story narrative.

Let’s start out by saying if one will see this film no matter what my opinion is, they should watch this on an IMAX screen. The IMAX experience brings out the best in Nolan’s production, by beautifully capturing broad landscapes, loud explosions, or the looks on each soldier’s face. Its visuals are stunning and crystal clear on the screen. Also, the sound quality is great with each explosion or gun shot’s ringing heard.The thought of watching this film on any standard screen seems unimaginable. Nolan has intended this to be a visual experience, and IMAX is the perfect way to experience this.

Other than its grand visual scope and production, this is really challenging to get in to. The three main characters are a part of the evacuation by land, sea, and air (also known as a secret menu item from McDonald’s). On the ground, this character scurries around the beaches to find a way out. By sea, there is a civilian (Rylance) who attempts to save soldiers whose boats have sunk. Then, in the air, a pilot (Hardy) is shooting down enemy planes to prevent further casualties from below. Nolan chooses to cut back and forth to these different characters after every five minutes, which becomes mundane after sometime. Once we meet each character, they do not engage in any other activities or drama. On the land, we can expect this guy to run around and find a way out. By sea, the civilian is just traveling to the evacuation. Some drama happens there, but it is not too interesting. Then, in the air, we can always expect for the pilot to shoot down at least some sort of plane. It may sound surprising to some, but yes, it becomes quite repetitive by the thirty minute mark.

What could spice up this film is a concrete story or narrative. Although it is constant battle, explosions, death, and destruction, there is a feeling of boredom because there is no character to pull for, or plot to follow. Not a single character has a backstory, which gives this experience a lack of depth. Sure, Nolan intends to put the viewer in the shoes of soldiers in the middle of this evacuation, but it does not work. With this being the case, it is simply just not interesting enough for one to have a compelling experience. After about twenty minutes, it was understandable: this place is hell and we have to get out of here. Once we get the point, it would be nice for the characters to develop so we can have a reason for watching this. With Nolan’s approach, it just feels like a collection of images, rather than a cohesive film. If that is the case, one is just better off watching a documentary on the evacuation of Dunkirk, or better yet, check out Their Finest.

One is better off checking out a documentary just on the historical context alone. Yes, there seems to be some accurate information with one of the general’s explaining the situation at hand and Churchill’s strategy. However, something with the pilot happens at the end that is so unbelievable, it is almost Disney like. Not like Nolan throws all credibility out the window, but things tend to get a little Hollywood down the stretch.

Also, its dialogue is poor. Although there is hardly any, when characters speak they are not cohesive. The film is mostly silent, but what makes this funny is the constant bombs and ticking one can hear in the background. When a character is called upon to speak, we expect their dialogue to be profound, or meaningful. However, about sixty percent of the speaking is not understandable. All of the characters have heavy British accents, which does not help with all the background noise. Regardless, their lines were not too meaningful, despite the general’s. No wonder why Harry Styles got a role in this one.

Frankly, this was a disappointing experience. Sitting with a ripe 92 percent on Rotten Tomatoes, along with receiving great praise from critics such as Mark Kermode, there were high expectations. For months, Dunkirk was anticipated to be not only the best experience of summer, but possibly the year. Unfortunately, its lack of a story or narrative, along with poor dialogue and shaky historical context made this underwhelming. Yes, its production value is great and the visuals are stunning. However, there were plenty of moments where one may feel bored, and would rather be watching a more compelling WWII film like the recent Hacksaw Ridge, or Their Finest. Unfortunately, Nolan’s latest film does not scale up to the latest WWII pieces that have graced our screens.

[lemasquerade]

Assassin’s Creed: Tedium

So here’s the thing about the Assassin’s Creed series that’s frustrating the shit out of me:

The early games were broken as hell, there’s no denying it, but they felt like games. You have a character, you run around some relatively cool ancient cities, and you just go stab people in the face. It was an absolute hoot. Repetitive mechanics aside, it functionally felt like a game with a narrative in place (even if they did elect to throw that narrative out entirely four games into the series).

The two most recent games don’t feel like that anymore. The worlds are so large and so vast that you can’t easily navigate your way around them without allotting fifteen minutes to get where you need to get -- the waypoints are no longer conveniently placed in the world, so you have to either spend a painful amount of time watching your horse jaunt through the countryside, or take the risk of running into an animal that’ll fucking destroy you and remove any progress you’ve made to getting to your next waypoint.

I feel like the staple parts of the franchise were best shown in Brotherhood. A fun character with a sensible-enough story gets to navigate the hell out of a closed city map. It’s familiar enough territory historically that people are interested in traversing the breadth of Rome while also feeling as though they aren’t overwhelmed by the scope of it. This is not to say Brotherhood was perfect for this -- the sewer-travel system was clunky and not always well placed, and lord knows the climbing mechanics were not as smooth as they eventually have become. It wasn’t always smooth to travel from one area to another, but the frustrations were comparatively short lived.

They obviously went off the rails for quite some time after that, and I full on quit the franchise for a hot second after 3, but when I played Syndicate I had that same sense of fun in a way that I hadn’t in quite a long time. Being able to navigate the whole city in a relatively effortless manner between the waypoint system and the grappling hook made traversing the world fun, and the Frye twins were legitimately funny and engaging protagonists. It made planning assassinations and fleeing from them equally amusing, and I keep going back to that game over and over. Flaws were still there, but it felt like the world was of benefit to the game mechanics they had in place.

In both Origins and Odyssey thus far, it feels like the world is dominating the game. The characters are entirely too underwhelming to carry the tedium of world exploration. Bayek was hopelessly outclassed by Aya (just set the game with her as the protagonist, considering she arguably did more to create the Brotherhood than he did) and both Bayek and Kassandra/Alexios are utterly dominated by the monstrosity of the worlds they live in.

I can understand the urge to create larger maps now that the hardware can handle it, but at some point it feels like the game stopped focussing on how fun it was to be able to climb up a building and navigate the rooftops on the way to a run-and-gun assassination that you had to scramble to get out of. It became more obsessed with expanding the size of the map and completely lost out on the balance of ensuring there was fun shit to do with that map.

And this is a crying fucking shame, because they managed to make two of the most historically interesting and influential societies there have ever been boring. I’m fucking bored by these games. This is, of course, complicated by the fact that I’m also very frustrated by the new fight mechanics, but that’s a whole other rant. And don’t even get me started on the bullshit levelling system.

I want to like this series again. I really, really do, because I feel like it has such a cool niche. I feel like if they buckled down and limited the scope of their worldbuilding to one city again instead of trying to recreate the entire breadth of a country they could do some very, very cool things with their story and push their gameplay because it would free up a lot of resources otherwise spent on rendering their massive mountains and shit. Assassin’s Creed needs to remember how much fun it was to go vertical, not just horizontal.

Because, ultimately, if I wanted a fucking fancy walking simulator, there are much cheaper options.

[hellosaltysaladcollectionstuff]

Jarmusch seems pretty upset about the way things are in our society these days. So he made a zombie film. The Dead Don't Die, a zombie comedy written & directed by American indie filmmaker Jim Jarmusch (of Dead Man, Ghost Dog, Coffee and Cigarettes, Broken Flowers, The Limits of Control, Only Lovers Left Alive, Paterson), just premiered at the 2019 Cannes Film Festival as the opening night gala film. This actually isn't so much of a zombie film, as it is social commentary covered with blood and zombie make-up, along with a couple of weary small-town cops who try their best to survive this hell. The film is an extremely obvious criticism of how miserable things are becoming, between climate change and materialism and idiots running America, and how it's all going to end badly no matter what we do. Alas, its wears out its welcome rather quickly and doesn't offer much heart humor to make-up for it, only zombie irony and meta goofiness.

It's should come as surprise to those familiar with his work, but Jarmusch's The Dead Don't Die is a slow burn, deadpan, melodramatic film. This is Jim Jarmusch's typical style and it can work well (see: Paterson), but unfortunately this time it makes the film way too dull and at times boring. There's not much of a story here - we follow two locals cops in a tiny town who are a bit overwhelmed when zombies wake up and start eating people. A few other characters are introduced, but we're never given any reason to care about them, nor do they have an arc or progress in any way, except to be eventually eaten by zombies (and then turn into zombies themselves). Adam Driver stars with Bill Murray playing the local police officers in Centerville ("a real nice place"), joined by Chloë Sevigny as another cop. And then there's Tilda Swinton, who plays a samurai sword-wielding undertaker, which is cool to see but she really has no other point, oddly enough.

There's a batch of other supporting characters – undead and not-yet-dead – who appear throughout and are used as jokes, but most of them are tiny roles or even cameos. The biggest issue with The Dead Don't Die is that, instead of making an actual zombie comedy, Jarmusch is borrowing the zombie genre to express his anger at how fucked up the world has become. He takes advantage of all the usual tropes, references Romero in style and literally in dialogue, and includes some fun kills and fights. But it's so minimal and starts to get repetitive fast. Which is topped off by literally repetitive jokes, which keep coming back for comedic effect, but probably won't make you laugh anyway. There's also some awkward fourth-wall breaking meta-ness that doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the film. Despite trying hard to come up with something clever, nothing in this film is clever or entertaining. Not even the social commentary - which, honestly, is spot on accurate.

If anything, Jarmusch does deserve some credit for making fun of everything wrong with society today, and very bleakly showing us how we're all doomed. He just ended up getting way too high on his desire to wrap brutal social commentary with a small-town zombie apocalypse story. In focusing so much on making this commentary so painfully obvious, he seems to have forgotten about making something actually entertaining. At least there's some cool kills, and a few sparse (un)deadpan laughs. The best part might be Tom Waits playing a hippie-ish "Hermit Bob" character that narrates things and provides the most intriguing wisdom. The rest of it, though, isn't that memorable - except to remind us that it's all going to end badly and there's not much we can do about it even if we try. I'm on Jarmusch's side, I totally get it, and I agree with him – I just found the film to be quite underwhelming and unexciting. Not even Bill Murray can save us from doom.

Alex's Cannes 2019 Rating: 6.5 out of 10 Follow Alex on Twitter - @firstshowing

from FirstShowing.net http://bit.ly/2VDg28I

[junker-town]

Ranking the remaining World Series matchups

There are only four possible World Series combinations to make out of the Astros, Dodgers, Red Sox, and Brewers. Let’s rank them.

It was 10 days ago that SB Nation published an empirically correct ranking of all the possible World Series matchups. It featured a convoluted ranking system that gave extra credit to teams that haven’t won a World Series in a while, among other things, and I use it because it’s hard to wrap your head around 25 different matchups. There has to be a way to sort through the mess.

With four matchups, we can just eyeball it and use our feels.

Really, our feels are all that count. Which of these matchups just feels better than the others? Here’s what the original ranking system had:

9. Red Sox — Dodgers 10. Red Sox — Brewers 11. Astros — Dodgers 19. Astros — Brewers

Does those rankings track with our current feels? Let’s take a look.

#4. Astros — Brewers

Ah, the Switched Leagues Cup. Plop someone from 1988 down and show them a World Series program, and they’ll think they’re in an episode of Sliders. Oh, the wacky hijinks of Jerry O’Connell, we’ve missed you so.

Problem is, I can’t tell if that makes this matchup cooler or less cool. Or if it makes absolutely zero difference. Probably the latter. Here’s my real problem with this matchup, though: There’s too much of a chance that the worst possible outcome would happen.

The worst possible outcome being that the same team wins from last year. No offense, Houston, but that story has been written. Here, I left it all on the table. I have no more words to give for another Houston championship. Maybe something like, “Hey, c’mon guys, cut it out.”

I wonder if I can get 1,000 words out of “Hey, c’mon guys, cut it out” after Game 7.

Man.

And this outcome would also come with the maximum amount of pain, considering it would be the Brewers who lost. Now, I know the Milwaukee Braves won in 1957, so technically the city has seen a championship. But now we’re in Indians levels of drought, and I’m not sure if it helps or hurts to claim it. The actual Brewers have been there for 48 seasons, with just one pennant to show for it, and that was nearly four decades ago.

The Astros celebrating while the Brewers slunk off the field would be a bad look for folks like me who are entirely too obsessed with droughts. As such, I can’t endorse this pairing above the other three.

#3. Red Sox — Brewers

Anti-Brewers bias? Kind of. I’ll cop to it, but before I give my reasoning, I would like to point out that I’m definitely excited about Christian Yelich and the beefy thunder of Jesús Aguílar. There are all sorts of fine talents sprinkled around the roster — having a good team is sort of how one gets to the NLCS. If I have to watch the Brewers, I’ll be thrilled!

It’s just that here’s something I’ll never say:

Oh, hell yeah, Chris Sale vs. Jhoulys Chacín.

I know that Chacín has electric, underrated stuff. I also know that the Brewers starters are a meticulously curated group of underwhelming-but-excellent arms, and it’s their command and control that help them win.

It’s just that I’ll never say ...

Justin Verlander vs. Wade Miley? Now we’re talking.

So this leapfrogs over the Astros-Brewers combo because we’re only mildly less sick of the Red Sox, but I’m afraid the Brewers take both spots because ... well, because they don’t have Clayton Kershaw, okay?

Not until this winter, at least.

#2. Astros — Dodgers

Yes, it’s a rematch from last year, which takes at least some of the fun out of it. But let’s remember how fantastic that World Series was. The two teams were so evenly matched, and they traded body blows so furiously, that this has the feel of a necessary sequel instead of a here-we-go-again vibe. You didn’t say, “Ugh, Apollo Creed again?”

Just forget the part where the first Rocky is about 80 times better than the second Rocky.

They’re mostly the same teams, too. The Astros added Gerrit Cole, and the Dodgers created Max Muncy out of mud and twigs, but the general rosters are the same. You get most of the same principals from last year, which means there’s a tiny chance that we’ll live through something like Game 5 again.

Hrmm, that article had a Rocky reference too. I see what you’re talking about when it comes to there being too much repetition. Maybe a rematch would bore us all silly.

There’s at least a chance, though, that we would look back at this as something of a necessary rivalry, an unexpected intertwining of two of baseball’s most dominant franchises. There’s no reason why the Cowboys and 49ers should be linked throughout history, but they most certainly are. Same goes for the Warriors and Cavaliers. If the Yankees and Royals could be a thing, why not the Astros and Dodgers?

There’s a 60-percent chance that this Series would make us roll our eyes the entire time, but a 40-percent chance that we would be jumping out of our chairs and secretly hoping 2019 game us a thrilling conclusion to the trilogy. This combination scares me, but it also fascinates me.

#1. Red Sox — Dodgers

In my previous life as a partisan Giants homer, I would have written something like “Heh, the only good part about this matchup is that one team is guaranteed to lose.” But because I’m definitely a Serious Journalist™ now, I definitely can’t write that.

[winks hard enough that eyelashes fall off]

So it’s not that I’m enamored of the idea of either one of these teams winning. The Dodgers haven’t won since video games looked like this:

And that still amuses me TREMENDOUSLY. The Dodgers getting this close threatens one of my favorite bits, in which I look at the year 1988 and cherry-pick something hilariously antiquated to highlight how long it’s been. Like this Radio Shack ad for a cell phone.

SORRY, sorry. Let’s move on and focus on another gross scenario, which is the Red Sox winning again. This would be their second championship of the decade and their fourth since they started winning them. I get that they had some karma built up from the previous decades, but it’s gauche to spend it all at once.

And yet. And yet. Dodgers/Red Sox has a ring to it. I know they’ve played in a World Series before, technically, in the days when Babe Ruth was a pitcher (he was 0-for-5 as a hitter in the series), but that doesn’t count. This is a new time, with a different coast involved, and it’s a matchup that should have been happened at some point over the last century, but didn’t. For as long as these two teams have been around, they’re linked by, what, the Adrian Gonzalez trade? That’s it? How is that possible?

So as long as we’re dropping movie comps, let’s pretend like this is King Kong vs. Godzilla. Maybe both teams will fall into the ocean, and we’ll constantly argue about who actually won! We can only hope.

Still, this matchup would have a lot going for it. The gnarly slider-curve combo of Clayton Kershaw vs. the fast-twitch mastery of Mookie Betts. The unholy stuff of Chris Sale against the quick bats of Chris Taylor and Justin Turner. Yasiel Puig running through the Green Monster on a popup behind home plate. This is where the star power is.

Even better: Both bullpens are just a liiiiiiiiittle shaky. They’re not bad bullpens. They just don’t make you supremely confident, which allows for late-game chaos.

For Giants fans: I know it would be hard to root for a rich team that had gone years and years and years without winning the World Series, then suddenly won three in a short period of time, which made for an absolutely insufferable fan base that the rest of baseball despised, but you could probably find a way. It would be strange, but you’d figure it out.

When it comes to the best combination of stars and talent, maybe the Astros-Dodgers would be a better matchup, but we’ve seen it before. This is something fresh. This is something between two teams in huge media markets that probably should have happened before, and we can all agree that if it does happen, we won’t need to see it for 100 years.

Consider me curious, though. This is probably the best remaining World Series matchup left.

[theampreviews]

Avengers - Infinity War

To quote the late, great Qui-Gon Jinn - “There’s always a bigger fish”, and so here we are at the Great White of the Marvel Cinematic Universe - Infinity War. It’s the third official Avengers team up (4th if you count Civil War, which was more of an Avengers film than a Captain America one), and the one that finally brings us to Thanos and the Infinity Stones - things that have been teased throughout the MCU’s decade of dominance. 

Some have pondered if Marvel Fatigue might be kicking in across the globe (a nonsense if you look at the Box Office), whether the annual omnipresence of these movies could be draining the enthusiasm there once was for them? Despite only actively disliking one Marvel film (Civil War), I must admit I always feel myself close to tapping out on the whole MCU after each new instalment; they’re always fun but familiarity will eventually breed contempt. That said, like Godfather Part 3′s Michael Corleone; they always manage to drag me back in...

Infinity War’s allure was greater than both Age Of Ultron and Civil War as, a couple of new cast member introductions each aside, the novelty of seeing the Avengers team up has lessened since 2012. Instead, this promised something no other MCU film had to date: character deaths within the Main Cast (as well as the integration of the Guardians with the Avengers, which was admittedly a huge attraction).

That might seem like an adverse selling point, but the MCU reaching its 18th movie without a single of its Heroes having died for the cause is a sign of Marvel/Disney's greatest weakness - their refusal to let anyone go. How can you invest in the myriad of threats they face if the only question you need ever ask is “how” and never never “if” they’ll survive? Even allowing for the fact that they’d want to keep the key Heroes around for Infinity War, its absurd that we should be 18 films in without having lost a few of the supporting cast; the likes of Natasha (Black Widow), Sam (Falcon), James (War Machine) or Bucky (The Winter Soldier), could all have fallen on the sword to let us know that Earth’s Mightiest Heroes have a sell by date.

The unwillingness to cut the (mortal) apron strings also hampers a film that strives desperately to include everyone, of which there are now far too many (with no room for Ant-Man and Hawkeye, both fan favourites and both conspicuous by their absence - possibly held back for Part 2). The Russo Brothers do an admirable job of dividing an oversized cast into more manageable, bite-sized groups, which results in some hits and one giant miss.

Two of the teams we follow are a resounding success. Iron Man, Doctor Strange and Spider-Man make for a brilliant trio, able to bounce zingers off each other with ease and hitting some emotional beats that are genuine and affecting. The other sees Thor (literally) bumping into the Guardians Of The Galaxy and is worth the price of admission alone. Chris's Hemsworth and Pratt squaring up to each other creates some inspired comedy. These two groups then splinter as Thor, Rocket & Groot go off to find The God Of Thunder a new hammer, whilst the rest of the Guardians join Tony, Doc and Peter to tackle Thanos.

So far, so good. But then we get the B team, and things start to go down hill...

There's now way around it; I don't like Chris Evans’ Captain America. I find his square-jawed, Boy Scout act dreary, and his lackeys, Black Widow and Falcon, even more so. Worst of all is Bucky, someone we've been inexplicably asked to care about whilst offering no tangible reason for doing so. He’s a charisma vacuum. Unpopular an opinion as it is; I feel the same about Chadwick Boseman’s portrayal of Black Panther (they should have left Michael B. Jordan’s Warmonger as King). They, along with Vision and Scarlet Witch (convincing no one as the Romantic coupling of these films), create the most boring Super Hero Team possible out of the extensive cast available (War Machine included. Don Cheadle may as well not have bothered checking the call sheet).

Speaking of Scarlet Witch, there’s a greater issue with her than all of the others combined. Performance aside (weak accent, hopelessly po-faced) she is  seriously ill-defined. She’s used here more as a maguffin than a character (as she was in Ultron and Civil War) with only the most cursory of explanations as to who or what she is/can do.

It's constantly reiterated that she's the most powerful amongst the Avengers, even capable of destroying Infinity Stones (which begs the question, why not set her against Thanos?), yet all she ever seems to do is “move things”. There's no consistency to her abilities. One minute she's getting the hell beaten out of her in Edinburgh by Thanos's henchmen (having to be saved by Black Widow, a 5'2"/100lbs regular human being who can do flippy-kicks), the next she's hurling immense space ships around Wackanda's CGI playing fields. It might be easier to just shrug it off as “Comic Book nonsense”, but consistency within the boundaries set by films like this is key - you can’t keep moving the goal posts to suit the occasion or my investment in the whole thing begins to erode.

Whilst the rest of the cast are zipping around space engaged in spectacular showdowns, this lot head to Cinema's least Cinematic Location; Wakanda. 

Part of the reason Black Panther was such a disappointment for me was how bland Wakanda had been visualised. For the second time in as many months, it plays host to the MCUs Grand Finale. CGI armies flood its dull green plains of grass, looking like a low-rent mobile phone RPG advert you can't skip through on a Free App. It seriously challenges Civil War's concrete airport for the most artless setting to stage your movie's climax. The time dedicated to Cap’s team becomes dead air; waves of CGI fodder thrown at the screen to bide time until Thanos arrives, creating an impotent spectacle .

Thank God then for Thanos. Marvel finally delivering a bona fide threat in one of their Villains is something they’ve struggled with to this point. They even double up with a genuinely sinister henchman, Ebony Maw, whose brief screen time makes a real impression (I’m hoping he survives his ambiguous demise). Everything about Thanos is a resounding success, from Josh Brolin’s intimidating yet near sympathetic performance to the quality of his CGI realisation, but does he make good on the promise to finally purge this franchise of some of its dead weight? Sadly, not quite yet.

Whilst this is still Part 1 of Infinity War (despite them scrapping the Part 1 / Part 2 monikers) I was a little underwhelmed with the volume of carnage offered here (I won't discuss the ending, but suffice to say the cliffhanger was devoid of any plausible suspense, being that we know certain characters have sequels planned & dated). There are a couple of notable deaths, but neither felt sufficiently cathartic. I assume we'll have to wait until next year for that, which cheapens this instalment somewhat. 

My blood-lust aside, there is a definite need to thin the herd a little. Having so many Heroes to keep tabs on means we spend less time than we'd want with some, and more than we need with others. 

The non-Earthbound characters and their adventures encapsulate what the MCU does best; blending Humour, Heart and Spectacle. Robert Downey Jr, Benedict Cumberbatch and Tom Holland play off each other superbly, both comedically and emotionally. Their scenes are highlights throughout the film, bolstered even more so when the Guardians join them, (themselves already a proven success with well established chemistry).

Best of all is Chris Hemsworth, who has turned Thor into the standout of the franchise. He has an ability to parlay the emotive stuff with genuine pathos, whilst simultaneously landing the comedy perfectly, often within the same scene/monologue, switching between the two with impressive dexterity. More than just a pretty face (and huge pecs, great abs and triceps to die for).

Every time the film centres on these characters Infinity War soars, and much of that is to do with the increased level of comedy. If the action is sometimes repetitive and underwhelming (the finale on Wakanda), the Russo's certainly make up for it with far more humour than they showed in Winter Soldier or Civil War (a line from Rocket genuinely made me spit coke). Taking their cue from James Gunn's Guardians... films and Taika Waititi's sublime Thor: Ragnarok, Infinity War was surprisingly jovial considering the End Of The Universe threat, something that might have bogged it down with self-serious pretension (my hang-up with Civil War).

I probably won't appreciate this film fully until I've seen its conclusion, one that I hope closes the book on this group of characters and the Infinity Stones for good. As it stands, like the MCU itself, I found it to be exhilarating, exasperating, moving and mundane in (almost) equal measure.

[thisaintascenereviews]

Album Review by Bradley Christensen Death Angel – The Ultra-Violence / Frolic Through The Park Record Label: Restless / Enigma Release Date: April 23 1987 / July 1988

Death Angel is one of the more interesting groups within 80s thrash metal, because they’re a rather underrated group. They’re not in the Big Four, and even then, the most underrated band in the Big Four is Anthrax, hands down, but Death Angel is a relatively big name in the genre. Hell, their third album, 1990’s Act III, was released on a major label. Back in the late 80s and early 90s, metal being released on a major label wasn’t common. Unless you were completely sanitized, sterile, and radio-friendly, “extreme metal” bands weren’t accepted by the mainstream. Not yet, anyway. Death Angel managed to get their third LP released on Geffen. I’ve listened to that album, and I talked about it a few years back. I wasn’t super into it when I first listened to it, but that’s kind of because I was just getting into metal, so it makes sense. Getting into it again, though, I do like it a lot more. It’s a big weird, interesting, and experimental, especially for a thrash record, considering there are funk-metal riffs on the album, so it’s not quite a stereotypical or straightforward thrash album. I went on a little haul of late 80s thrash albums, because I wanted to get into some of the biggest bands of the genre that weren’t in the Big Four. I just recently reviewed some albums from the Big Four, anyway, and they ranged from being pretty good to great (Slayer’s first two albums were my favorites, frankly, but I think it’s because I just prefer the more “brutal” side of thrash). I decided to pick up Death Angel’s first two albums, 1987’s The Ultra-Violence and 1988’s Frolic Through The Park, and after listening through those two albums, it’s really interesting to hear their progression. If I had to say what my favorite of the two would be, though, it’s definitely The Ultra-Violence. Here’s why – Death Angel’s biggest issue for me is that their music is essentially “thinking man’s thrash,” which is great, because it’s far from generic, but at the same time, it’s meandering beyond belief.

Frolic Through The Park is 70 minutes long. In all fairness, that’s because it’s got some bonus tracks, but even then, the album’s still about an hour. It’s a long album, whereas The Ultra-Violence is only 45 minutes. Not to mention, The Ultra-Violence is more straightforward thrash, but it’s more technical, precise, and aggressive, so it’s done really, really well. It’s also got a bit of an experimental edge to it, because it’s almost in the same vein as Megadeth that has more of a technical approach to their brand of thrash. I’ve been coming back to The Ultra-Violence a lot more, mainly for that reason, but I have to give Frolic Through The Park some credit, because it is an interesting record. It’s long as hell, but I wasn’t necessarily bored, underwhelmed, or anything close to negative. If anything at all, I was exhausted, because it’s a long album that has a lot going on with it. With albums like this, as well as albums that are super long, there needs to be a good balance between engaging songs and a flowing tone to it, I guess you could say, because if the album is too repetitive, it gets exhausting that way, but if the album jumps around quite a lot, it can be exhausting to sit through it. This one is more on the latter, as it’s got a lot going on within it, but I still enjoy it. If I had to choose, like I said, The Ultra-Violence is the one that I come back to a bit more. It’s just more on the aggressive and brutal side of things, as well as showcases more of a technical side to the band. It’s a bit rough around the edges, but it’s still a damn good debut LP. Frolic Through The Park is a great album, too, just not quite as great. Regardless, though, I’d choose The Ultra-Violence as a good introduction. I started off with Act III, but I feel like that wasn’t the best introduction, since they didn’t have a straightforward thrash sound on the album, so The Ultra-Violence would be the best introduction to them, whether you’re getting more into thrash, or you just want to get into the band.