Necrotongue

I didn't get to laugh much, and I was really annoyed by the film’s predictable plot. Things could hardly be saved by Ryan Reynolds and his standard poker face or Jeff Bridges’ garrulous character. It wasn’t a disaster, but an average rating is enough.

It was basically like a Bond film whose creators shamefully wasted the opportunity for witty dialogue. If they hadn’t, agent Solo wouldn’t have gotten on my nerves so much and agent Kurjakin might not have seemed like a Terminator with poor software. It could have been a great film if only Guy Ritchie hadn’t forgotten to put more zing into it. 4*-

As opposed to the first Kick-Ass, the second film had some shortcomings: 1) I really missed Mark Strong in the role of the main villain, Christopher Mintz-Plasse didn’t even come close to his performance. 2) The story was not as coherent as in the previous film and kept running into uninteresting dead ends. 3) All those unnecessary supporting characters were really annoying. 4) The worst thing was the constant moralizing - the original lightness of the story was gone. If there’s anything I would highlight, it’s Jim Carrey's performance as Colonel Stars and Stripes. It was yet another proof that without his goofy grimaces, he is actually an excellent actor. 3*-

Even after all these years, I still enjoy the film, and I consider it much better than most films about "actual" superheroes. There are several reasons for that - I like the work of Matthew Vaughn, I like the film’s humor, I don’t mind its violence and the cast was spot-on. Mark Strong always plays his villains excellently, Aaron Taylor-Johnson was instantly convincing in the role of a loser, and Chlöe Grace Moretz gave a perfect performance. There must be something wrong with me, but I really enjoy scenes in which a thirteen-year-old girl hacks professional killers into bits. Especially with such a great soundtrack.

The series is one of my favorite HBO "history" series, alongside Rome and The Tudors. Even in this case, the creators didn't let themselves be too bound by the actual events and bent history according to their needs. But that’s what I’ve come to expect of HBO, and I don’t let it ruin my overall impression. Plus, all the more reason for me to look for deviations from historical events, so I might even educate myself in the process :-) As a bonus, I was served various hypocritical church practices, so all the more reason to be satisfied.

Fortunately, the third season didn’t represent a drop in quality, as is often the case, so I won’t look for reasons to quibble. The creators focused in greater detail on the character of Cesare Borgia, his ambitions, and the darker side of his nature. I was also amused by Machiavelli's allusions to “The Prince” and insights into the soul of an assassin. Season 3 was definitely not a waste of time.

I realized how much I missed some good military action. So, I really enjoyed the conquest of Forli, even if some parts were unintentionally funny. But what really got me was the final scene. It felt like something straight out of a psychological thriller.

This episode didn't blow me away or keep me on the edge of my seat, but it also didn't bore me. You could definitely tell they were laying the groundwork for the series finale, which slowed it down a bit.

I couldn’t help but think of that Blackadder episode where Edmund becomes the Archbishop of Canterbury and starts trading holy relics. The takeaway? A true believer has to buy into the biggest nonsense and follow the herd. Still, it was pretty entertaining. 4*+

The seventh episode was definitely more satisfying than the last, even though Lucrezia in Naples was responsible for most of the political maneuvering. Three stars should be enough for this one.