HBO:s 'Avenue 5' is an awful comedy series.

When it comes to creating quality comedy shows for television, it's not exactly a secret that coming up with quality shows is not easy. Most shows that get produced aren't even remotely well made and don't have what it takes to keep us entertained.

Indeed, in order to create a solid series that could be funny, you need to come up with stuff that actually makes sense. You need to have a solid premise, relatable characters and you also need to have storylines that would feel relevant, which is pretty difficult.

So a couple of months ago, when I noticed that HBO was coming up with a new sci-fi comedy called 'Avenue 5', I was not getting my hopes up. I was pretty certain that this would not be a series worth watching and that it would not be worth my time.

The reason for this is that 'Avenue 5' was made by the same guys who had done 'Veep'. 'Veep' was a wildly overrated 'satire' about politics that had nothing going on in it except for excessive cursing and unnecessary vulgarity (Hollywood at its worst).

Not surprisingly, having now finally seen the first episodes of 'Avenue 5', I can say that my predictions (based on the trailer) turned out to be completely correct. The series, unfortunately, is exactly as empty as I had thought and possibly even worse.

So when it comes to the show, one of the worst things about 'Avenue 5' is that no one seems to know what the purpose of it is. The premise of a carnival cruise space ship full of passengers that malfunctions isn't well thought out and doesn't have much potential in it.

In reality, once you start watching the series, it doesn't take long before it becomes obvious that there's just something terribly wrong here. The whole thing feels unfocused and disjointed (everything seems to be all over the place). 

When it comes to the characters on the series, things aren't unfortunately any better. As the supposed main protagonist, you have a 'captain', played by the usually awesome Hugh Laurie, who doesn't know what he's really supposed to do.

Indeed, on the show as a 'fake' captain wearing the outfit, he just keeps scrambling and is clueless. This is somehow supposed to be funny, even though it really defies all kind of logic and feels like the creators of the show weren't even trying here. 

Unfortunately, the supporting cast is peppered with characters that are even worse. You have characters like an obvious 'Jack Black' doppelganger, an arguing married couple, poorly crafted token minorities and other weirdos that just feel out of place.

Not surprisingly, since the premise of the series isn't well thought out and the characters aren't well defined or interesting, the storylines don't work either. There doesn't seem to be any real stakes, even though the ship is supposedly in real trouble.

Indeed, once I kept watching the episodes, all I could think was that the characters behave as if there was nothing wrong with anything. Their superficial and vain behaviour is just so out of touch that at least to me it felt super infuriating. 

In hindsight, the only 'good thing about the series is that its production values seem to be really solid. It's obvious that a lot of money was spent on the series and that at least at some point the top brass at HBO actually believed in the show. 

After all, when you look at the visual production values, things at least in that department look good. The sets look really expensive and you can tell that the CGI-folks have been working on the show quite diligently (the ship looks pretty good). 

Still, when it comes to the show as a whole, even though the production values are high in 'Avenue 5', those production qualities are obviously not enough. It's apparent that everything else about the series is totally abysmal and does not work.

After all, even though (among other things) Hugh Laurie is a superb actor, there are just too many basic problems here. These flaws (like concept, characters, storylines) are just too serious and too severe for the show to have potential to work in any decent way.

In that sense, if you haven't seen 'Avenue 5' yet, it's safe to say that you should not waste your time on this series. You should not be excited about it and thinking that it would be worth your time or worth watching at some point.

After all, even though there are some big names involved here, in the end, the show just doesn't work. It doesn't work and despite its big production values, the series manages to be disappointing and doesn't have anything meaningful or real going on in it.

Review: Pixar's animated film 'Onward'.

Over the course of the last few weeks I've tried to find time to watch some movies with my friend. We have tried to find time together so that we could watch films (preferably animated ones) that would be worth our time and worth watching.

Thankfully, once we noticed that Pixar had recently released a new animated movie, it wasn't a difficult decision to give it a chance. It was a pretty safe bet that we would find their latest film, 'Onward', to be at least somewhat entertaining. 

So when it comes to the movie, the basic premise in 'Onward' is that you have a society that has over the years given up on using magic. Once the technology kept advancing, there was no reason to use magic, since it more or less became obsolete.

When it comes to the characters in it, as a protagonist we have a 16 year elf Ian, who is a role playing game fan. He's a socially awkward teen who lives with his brother, mother and her new boy-friend cop who has come to replace Ian's father who died when he was young.

Story-wise, the catalyst in the film happens once Ian gets a wooden staff as a birthday present from his mother. The gift also includes a spell that he could use to summon his dad for twenty four hours, in case he wants to spend time with him.

Not surprisingly, once Ian decides to cast the spell, things don't go as planned. As the staff's crystal breaks during the cast, he only manages to summon the lower half of his dad's body - which leads him on a journey to find another crystal to complete the spell.

Quality-wise, when it comes to the film, it's safe to say that there are a lot of good things that can be said about 'Onward'. A lot of these qualities are things that we all have learned to expect from films by Pixar studios over the years.

After all, there's no question that the movie looks really amazing and that it's genuinely a joy to look at all those things happening on the screen. The characters are lively (and likable) and you can't help but to be interested in what's going on.

Another good thing about the film is that there are a lot of visual jokes and other funny observations that made me and my friend laugh. I thought that a lot of the action scenes had absolutely superb gags that you don't seen in most animated films.

At the same time, even though the film is rather entertaining, there's no question that the storyline in 'Onward' is a bit contrived. It takes a long time before the story gets going and I don't think that many of the film's emotional moments were that well earned.

Indeed, especially when it comes to the last act's 'bucket list' before the climactic battle, I just didn't feel that it made much sense. It felt a bit too out of place based on my viewing experience and perhaps should have been trimmed down.

Still, when you look at the movie as a whole, I have to say that despite these flaws and the story being a bit muddled, the film still managed to be watchable. The movie certainly had solid laughs, even though there were some problems in the screenplay.

After all, even though the story and the characters could have been better defined, at least in my case, that's not to say that the negative aspects managed to outweigh the positive aspects. The story flaws in the film weren't still that serious in my opinion.

In that sense, if you haven't managed to watch the film yet, I think it's pretty safe to say that you should watch it at some point. You should watch it (especially if you happen to be a gamer) and not be discouraged by some of the film's weaker aspects.

After all, especially when you take into account all the absurd fantasy aspects in 'Onward', they saved the movie. These comedy moments saved it and made me enjoy the film, even though the story should have been better and the themes in it should have been clearer.

Movie review: 'Spies in Disguise'.

So when it comes to animated movies, it's not exactly a secret that I'm a pretty big fan of these movies. I genuinely like these films in the genre and do my best to watch pretty much every animated movie that has gotten even remotely decent reviews. 

After all, for me watching animated films is something that gives me hope as a person. Watching these films helps me to forget my usual worries and allows me to become something else while I get immersed in these captivating stories.

So naturally, when I noticed that there was a new animated film out there called 'Spies in Disguise', I had to give it a chance. I thought that I had to watch the film, even though its premise of a 'secret agent becoming a pigeon' sounded pretty silly.

Having now seen the movie with my friend last week, I have to say that, I was pleasantly surprised by the overall quality of the film. The movie managed to be surprisingly entertaining and funny, even though I had my doubts about it at first.

So when it comes it to the story in the film, the plot in it is admittedly fairly basic. We have a nerdish 10-year old kid inventor coming up with his gadgets and hoping that one day he would manage to join the law enforcement / intelligence community. 

Not surprisingly, once the kid (voiced by Tom Holland) grows up, he finds himself being a scientist in this MI6-like organization inventing stuff. He works as one of the assistants for the super secret agent (Will Smith) who has managed to save the world again and again.

Later on, as the agent gets framed for a crime that he didn't commit and needs help, our scientist helps with the invention that he came up with. Together they go on a journey (the agent as a pigeon) and manage to save the day.

Quality-wise, the real reason that the movie works is because the writers manage to do a good job with script even though the premise just isn't that plausible or strong. It's really a positive surprise how well the story beats work in the film.

After all, as I watched the movie, I couldn't help but to notice that they did a lot of right decisions with the script. These decisions, like making the chasing team (semi antagonist) making rational decisions etc. really elevated the movie to another level.

In that sense, when it comes to 'Spies in Disguise' as a whole, even though this isn't the greatest animated film ever, I had no problems being entertained by it. There's really tons of good things happening in the film structure-wise.

After all, even though the basic idea of a 'secret agent transforming into a pigeon' isn't strong, the rest of the story somehow works. I was pleasantly surprised how the writers managed to make the right decisions story- and character-wise as the film kept going on.

In that sense, if you haven't seen 'Spies in Disguise' yet, I think it's safe to say that you should probably give it a chance. You should watch the film (75% fresh by critics and 92% fresh by the audience at Rottentomatoes.com) at some point.

After all, even though the film isn't that well known and didn't do that well at the box-office (only 166 million dollars world-wide) that's not all there is to it. You shouldn't give up on it based on its lacklustre commercial performance.

On the contrary, when it all is said and done, the film does work well. It works and shows that just because your premise isn't strong, the story can still work, as long as your writers know what they're doing and as long as they are willing to take their jobs seriously.

Movies that I've managed to see this week.

Like many others, recently I've hadn't had that many things to do. Ever since the global pandemic hit, all my work related stuff (speaking engagements) was postponed and I've been spending my time at home trying to take things as easy as possible

Naturally, since I've had a lot of spare time, this week I've tried to watch some of the latest films that have been released. I managed to watch the WWI movie '1917', the Oscar winning film 'Parasite' and the animated film called 'Missing Link' with my friend.

So when it comes to the first film, '1917' is a WWI based movie directed by Sam Mendes. This 'one take' (in real time) movie is about a British soldier trying to relay an important message across the enemy lines to inform about a trap that the Germans have set up.

Not surprisingly, as a some sort of a history enthusiast (I do subscribe to a history magazine) I was not disappointed by the film. Both me and my friend thought that the movie was professionally made and kept our attention well.

Indeed, the movie not only looks good, but it's also well acted and directed. The scenes in the film flow effortlessly (the edits are cleverly disguised) and you can't help but to be immersed in all the things that are going on. 

In hindsight, the only tiny 'problem' that I had with the film is that there's not much of a story here. It seems that it's not possible to pack that much drama into a story that is as straightforward and simple as the film is (run, duck & cover). 

Still, when you look at the movie as a whole, these storytelling issues don't really matter that much. I'm definitely not saying that '1917' is a movie where the negative aspects in any way managed to outweigh the positive qualities.

In that sense, if you haven't managed to watch the film yet, you should definitely give it a shot and watch it at some point. You should watch it, because even though the story could have been stronger, everything else in '1917' is absolutely fantastic.

The second movie that I watched with my friend is a 'Missing Link', an animated stop motion film produced by Laika studio. This is a production company that has earlier produced films like 'Kubo and The Two Strings' and 'The Boxtrolls'. 

So when it comes to this movie, the story in the film is about a big foot and a desperate British explorer. The explorer wants to a prove that bigfoots exist, whereas the (lonely & well read) bigfoot - once found - wants to join his ancestors in Himalaya.

Not surprisingly, as a big fans of animated films, it was not a difficult decision to give the movie a chance. I was looking forward to watching it, even though the user rating for it wasn't that high (67% fresh by the audience at Rottentomatoes.com). 

So when it comes to the qualities about the movie, it has to be said that 'Missing Link' looks good. It's obvious that a lot of hard work went in to making the film look as beautiful as it does (it's hard to believe that it's actually a stop motion film).

Another really good thing about the film that has to be mentioned has to do with its acting and performances. Like in most other animated films, in this film the voice acting is top notch too (Hugh Jackman, Zach Galifianakis, David Walliams etc.)

Story-wise and character-wise it has to be said that the movie isn't particularly strong. Even though the screenplay for the film isn't bad per se, I couldn't help but to feel that the characters were a bit bland and 2-dimensional.

After all, especially when it comes to the non-big foot characters (especially villains), I couldn't help but to think that they weren't that well defined. It was somewhat difficult to relate to any of the main characters that were present in this movie.

Still, when it all is said and done, once the end credits rolled, I was entertained by the film. I was entertained by it, so in that sense, if you haven't managed to see 'Missing Link' yet, I think it's obvious that you should give the film a chance at some point.

The last film that I saw is 'Parasite', the South Korean film has been the big thing this year in the film industry. It's the picture that won the main prize at Cannes and that won the best picture Oscar at this year's Academy Awards. 

Story-wise it's a comedy/drama/thriller movie where a poor hustler family infiltrates a rich Korean family. One by one the family members come up with clever tricks to get hired to assist them in various tasks (maid, chauffeur, tutor etc.).

So when it comes to the quality of the film, I have to say that even though 'Parasite' won the awards, it's not that good of a movie. There's just too many basic storytelling, thematical and even genre problems that the film struggles with.

By that I mean is that when it comes to the film, in the first half 'Parasite' does do a good job in establishing the characters and their plight. I couldn't help but to root for them, especially when they were scheming to become part of the family.

However, once we reach the midpoint in the film, it becomes obvious that the writers just didn't know what they were doing. They run of out structural story beats and just start to make up random, incoherent stuff - typical for Asian movies.

Indeed, especially once we get to the preposterous basement stuff, the flooding, the morse-code & the massacre nonsense, the movie simply falls apart. It's really astonishing how quickly it deteriorates and becomes unwatchable.

In that sense, if only 'Parasite' would have wrapped itself fairly soonish after its first half, in that case this would have been a pretty good comedy movie. In that case I would have understood what the hype for the film was supposed to be about.

Unfortunately for us, that's not what the makers of the film did here. They didn't wrap up the film and instead switched to slasher drama for another 60 minutes, which did not work at all and at least in my case made me dislike the film and its supposed 'message'.

'Richard Jewell' is an important movie.

A couple of days ago me and my friend managed to find time together to watch Clint Eastwood's latest film 'Richard Jewell'. The movie tells the story of a security guard falsely being accused of being behind terrorist attack during the summer Olympics in 1996 in Atlanta.

Indeed, the movie tells how Jewell - after saving dozens of lives thanks to his alertness - became the target of the investigation. The FBI and the media went after him thinking that he must have been the person who planted the bomb that went off in the Olympic village.

Having now seen the film, I have to say that 'Richard Jewell', overall, more than met my expectations. The movie really managed to capture my attention and entertained me, even though there were some tiny flaws with the story that need to be mentioned too.

So first of all, when it comes to those good aspects in the movie, one of the best things about it has to do with its acting and the performances. There's no denying that Clint Eastwood has managed yet again to get some real acting talent to this film.

Indeed, when you have a cast that includes Oscar winners like Sam Rockwell (as Jewell's furious lawyer) and Kathy Bates (as Richard's suffering mother), you can't go wrong with them. They really manage to bring some gravitas and relatability to their roles.

At the same time, even though these two 'sell' us the movie, the best acting actually comes from Paul Walter Hauser as the main character Richard Jewell. He really surprises as the soon-to-be-framed hero and manages to transform himself into his role amazingly well.

Indeed, Hauser is a total revelation in the film and really shines here. It's great that he gets to do some straight drama, because before had been known for being the 'comic relief guy' (the ridiculous henchman in 'I, Tonya' and the silly guy in the 'Cobra Kai' series).

Story-wise, the really good thing about the movie is that it does a great job at showing how recklessly the FBI and the media acted during the whole ordeal. There's no question that they botched their jobs and did not care about the truth at all.

After all, as the movie keeps moving forward, the more obvious it becomes that the FBI was out to get him. Almost everything was done to railroad the guy and trick him into giving a confession, which is just brutal to watch.

At the same time, even though the story in the film in most cases works really well, that's not to say that screenplay was perfect. It's clear that there were moments where the story had some boo-boos and the script could have required some extra polishing.

After all, had the first act been a bit smoother (Jewell getting his job was choppy) and had the villains been more fleshed out (Jon Hamm & Olivia Wilde were flat), the script would have been tighter. In that case the pacing in film would have clearly been better.

Still, when you look at the movie as a whole, even though there were some tiny flaws, overall these minor issues weren't really that serious. I'm definitely not saying that the negative aspects in the film outweighed the positive aspects.

After all,  as you kept watching the film, you couldn't help but to be immersed by its 'slow burn'. It's just shocking how easily things can go wrong when the media gets sensationalistic and doesn't care about what actually happened.

In that sense, if you haven't managed to see 'Richard Jewell' yet, I think it's safe to say that you should give it a try at some point. You should give it a try (96% positive by users on Rottentomatoes.com) and not be discouraged by some of its detractors.

After all, even though some have been complaining that the film is supposedly inaccurate, that's not really the case here. You shouldn't believe those who are trying to whitewash the case (in my country too!) and deny that the whole thing ever happened.

On the contrary, when it all is said and done, the film does show what happened. It shows that the FBI & the media did try to frame and destroy Jewell and that in the end, most of them had no problems, sense of shame or regrets about what they had done to him at all.

'Star Trek: Picard' isn't good enough as a series.

So when it comes to the beloved 'Star Trek' franchise, it's not exactly a secret that the franchise hasn't been doing great lately. Pretty much all the new movies and tv shows that have been produced have turned out to be disappointing.

In reality, even though the J.J. Abrams Trek films weren't completely unwatchable, CBS:s 'Star 'Discovery' series turned out to be really terrible. It was so bad and so against 'Star Trek's' values and idealism that things certainly didn't look good here.

Nevertheless, when I heard that there would be yet another Star Trek series called 'Picard', I had my hopes up a bit. I thought that since Patrick Stewart would bring back his captain Jean Luc Picard, there was a chance that the series would actually work.

So based on the first six episodes of 'Star Trek: Picard' that have now aired, I have to say that - unfortunately - the latest instalment in the franchise hasn't been that good either. Even though 'Picard' is better than 'Star Trek: Discovery', that's not saying much. 

Indeed, one of the biggest problems with the new show is that it - like the Trek movies and 'Discovery'- is just too dark and depressing. It feels like we're watching some cheap, cynical action series instead of  real' Star Trek stuff.

By that I mean that when it comes to the 'original' Star Trek, that included the 'original' series and the 'Star Trek: The Next Generation', those shows were about giving people hope. Those shows were about what we as human beings could be at our best. 

In these new shows though, the producers and the writers are doing everything in their power to make everything as awful and hopeless as possible. There aren't really any characters (excluding perhaps Picard) who would actually represent honesty or idealism. 

Indeed, one of the most mindboggling things about 'Picard' is that there are so many two-faced characters on the series. Almost everyone is either an infiltrator, back-stabber or someone who has something awful to hide (Allison Pill's murderous character).

Story-wise, one of the issues I had with 'Picard' 'Trek-wise' is that there aren't individual episodes. This continuous story approach means that it's (unlike in The Orville) difficult to come up with episodes that would allow them to handle thematical or moral issues.

Another problem with the writing has to do with the structure of the story and the way the forced story beats drive the characters. There are so many instances where the characters wouldn't really do things the way they do if it the story wouldn't force them.

Still, perhaps the worst part about the writing on the show is the continuous flashbacks (a cheap exposition device). There are so many of them in almost every episode (15 years ago, 13 years ago, 17 years ago etc.) that they kill the pacing of the show.

In that sense, when I think about 'Star Trek: Picard' as a whole, it's pretty clear that there are a lot of problems with the show. There are so many flaws here that it's hard to say that the good aspects (like acting) are enough to redeem the show.

After all, even though it's always good to see Sir Patrick Stewart and his captain Picard in action, one would definitely have expected more than that. One would have expected that the series would have been able to bring out the good stuff more than they did here.

In that sense, in the end, knowing that there are still four episodes to be aired this season, I'm not getting my hopes up anymore. I'm not expecting that the series would magically be able to turn around and come up with some great episodes that would entertain us.

After all, especially when you consider that 'Star Trek: Picard' is also a product of J.J. Abrams's team (Kurtzman & co), the show probably won't be able to recover. It won't be able to recover and won't become as good and watchable as it probably could have been.

Thoughts on the democratic presidential primary.

Like many others, over the last few months I've been paying a lot of attention to the ongoing democratic presidential primaries. I've spent more than enough time following the candidates, the debates, the polls and the actual primaries (results broadcasts).

Indeed, as a some sort of a political junkie (from Scandinavia), I can't help but to be interested in the U.S. politics. I find it to be so fascinating and interesting - especially because there are so many things so wrong with how the political system works there.

In any case, so far we've had two primaries (in Iowa and in New Hampshire) and based on those states, the frontrunner is none other than senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont. He's the most likely to become the nominee for the democrats in the November election.

The reason for this is that as a presidential candidate, he's pretty much the only person who actually cares and is trying to help others. He has a consistent history of pushing issues like medicare for all, free college and green new deal - which voters find to be popular.

At the same time, even though Bernie is doing well, it's not guaranteed yet that he's going to be the nominee for the democrats. There are still obstacles left that he needs to clear before he gets his chance to battle Donald Trump in the November election.

So when it comes to the candidates that were the biggest threat for Bernie, at first it seemed that former vice-president Joe Biden would be the one to beat. It seemed that he was the one who was unbeatable and who would stay high in the polls.

However, right before the first primaries, after months of speculation, Biden finally tanked in the polls. It took much longer than expected but his support finally took a hit (first two primaries Biden placing 4th in Iowa and 5th New Hampshire was a disaster for him).

Another candidate that actually did well in the first two states is South Bend Indiana's mayor Pete Buttigieg. He's the candidate that has gotten a huge amount of free positive press from the mainstream media (he's an obvious Wall Street candidate).

However, the problem with Pete is that even though he tied with Bernie in Iowa, he doesn't have a strong campaign infrastructure or support from the minorities (especially blacks). This is such an issue that he won't probably make it much further in the race.

The last remaining card for the corporate democrats seems to be former Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who only got in the race a couple of months ago. He was so late that he didn't even meet the deadlines to take part in the Iowa & New Hampshire primaries.

The real danger about him is that Bloomberg as a billionaire oligarch (he even has a news service named after him) has unlimited amount of money to spend (worth 52 billion dollars). He has already spent at least 400 million dollars on his campaign out of his own pockets.

At the same time, the problem with Bloomberg is that he has a pretty awful history as a Mayor. He has his problems with racism (unconstitutional 'stop and frisk' in NY), numerous sexual harassment cases and other things that should sink his campaign.

So based on all these things, when you look at the primaries so far, even though you can't tell for sure how things are going to go, it currently looks like that there is a path for Bernie Sanders. It looks like he might actually get the nomination here.

Indeed, not only does he have the best campaign operation going (pulls big crowds, the most amount of individual donors etc.), but he's also the real deal. He has managed to give people real hope, which is what matters and why things look so good.

Still, when you take into account that the mainstream media and the DNC (democratic party apparatus) are 100% against his candidacy, one has to tread carefully here. One shouldn't take anything for granted until he has managed to get the majority of the delegates.

After all, considering that the 'notorious' Nevada's caucus is next, the DNC is going to pull all the stops in trying to kneecap Bernie and his presidential campaign. They (like in 2016) most certainly aren't going to give him the nomination without a fight.

In that sense, when it comes to next Saturday's caucus in Nevada, I really hope that Bernie will win there. I hope he wins the caucus, because even though pretty much nothing is guaranteed in this election, clearly he's the best candidate to beat Trump in November.