I didn't enjoy watching 'Schitt's Creek'.

So when it comes it to the current situation with comedy on television, it's not exactly a secret that things aren't going particularly well. Even though critics keep constantly telling us that we're living in the golden age of television, this is something that is simply not true. 

After all, even though there are a couple of watchable shows at the moment like 'The Mandalorian', especially when it comes to comedy shows, things are awful. Pretty much all the shows are unwatchable - with the exception of 'South Park' and 'Curb Your Enthusiasm'.

Nevertheless, when I checked that a comedy show called 'Schitt's Creek' had won tons of awards at this year's Emmys, I had to give the show a chance. I had to check it out, even though I was pretty sure that it wouldn't be even remotely funny.

Having now watched a couple of episodes from each season 'Schitt's Creek', I have to say that I wasn't impressed by the series. There isn't much going on in here comedy-wise, even though critics liked the show (the series ended this year after season 6).

Premise-wise, 'Schitt's Creek' is about a super rich family that loses all its fortunes thanks to their deceitful manager. The only remaining asset that they have is a raggedy town that they bought decades ago, so that's where they're headed together.

On a paper this kind of premise isn't necessarily that bad or hopeless, as long as the rest of the elements in the series work. As long you'll deliver characters that are relatable and storylines that are well written, then this kind of show might perhaps work in theory.

However, when it comes to 'Schitt's Creek', even though not all the elements are completely awful, there are way too many weak links here. The superficiality and the one-dimensional aspects of the show are pretty much what sink the ship here.

Character-wise, these flaws are especially obvious when it comes to Eugene Levy's son Dan, (the co-creator and the writer of the show) and Catherine 'Home Alone' O'Hara's character. They are just way too over the top and not likable or relatable in a meaningful way.

Indeed, Dan is a fashion obsessed super queer with a squinty face and O'Hara is a former soap actress that acts even more theatrically than the most outrageous diva. These are not the types that exist at least in my universe of believable characters.

Story-wise, the series has scripts that are filled with lazy writing (weak storylines and story beats in episodes) that make the stuff seem vapid and empty. The writers don't seem to know what to do with the characters and what the show is supposed to be about.

Indeed, as I kept watching the episodes, too many of the situations are just re-takes from other tv shows that already did them before way better. There's some fairly obvious references to shows like '30 Rock' and 'Arrested Development' based on what I managed to see.

Joke-wise (don't forget the show's title), it has to be also mentioned that the series wastes way too much of its energy on over the top potty humour and pee pee jokes. This approach is not engaging and tells us how immature and out of touch the writers are.

After all, especially when it comes to 'squinty' Dan's overreactions to anything that might have to do with bodily fluids they try to extract as many scenes as possible from them. This is not funny or relatable to a normal (non Hollywood gay) audience member.

In that sense, when I look at 'Schitt's Creek' as a whole, it's pretty clear to me, based on what I've seen, that we're not dealing with a great show here. It's fairly obvious that this isn't a funny series and that there just isn't enough solid material to make the show comedic enough.

After all, even though there are some redeeming qualities here (Eugene Levy etc.) for a supposed comedy series you'd need to have more good stuff to make things click. You'd need have way better ingredients than what the writers have managed to come up with here.

Unfortunately for us, that's not what the writers managed to come up with here. They didn't come up with stuff that could make us laugh and even though there are some heartfelt moments here and there, as a whole, those things weren't enough to make 'Schitt's Creek' funny.

Movies that I've seen lately (sequels & threequels).

So when it comes to my movie watching habits, it's not exactly a secret that lately there hasn't been that many films to watch. Ever since the covid-19 interrupted our daily lives, there haven't been that many new films out there to watch and to review. 

Nevertheless, since there haven't been new films that have been released, that's not a reason not watch movies. In my case I've tried to check some of the earlier movies that I have missed and see whether they would be worth watching.

When it comes to the films I've seen this time we have three movies (all sequels or threequels) to review. We have an animated film called the 'Angry Birds 2', a '24 / Jack Bauer' type film called 'Angel has Fallen' and a fantasy / adventure film called 'Jumanji: The Next Level'. 

So the first film that I watched is 'Angry Birds 2', a sequel to the first 'Angry Birds' movie. This is a film series based on a popular cell phone game, where you as a player control 'angry birds' characters and try your best to beat the 'bad piggies'.

Premise-wise, it shouldn't come as a surprise that making movies out of this concept was a bit of a challenge. Since we're dealing with a franchise where the characters had zero depth, making a film out of them didn't seem 'organic'. 

Not surprisingly, when it comes to the story in the second film, it has to be said that 'Angry Birds 2' - like the first one  - isn't a particularly well written movie. The second film in the series isn't great, even though there are some redeeming qualities here. 

Story-wise, the biggest problem in the film by far is that there isn't enough solid story beats & quality material in the screenplay. The beats that the writers came up don't justify the film's 1h 30 min plus length, even though there are some laughs here and there.

Indeed, especially when it comes to the completely pointless and unconnected side-story and the hit songs that the movie played every five minutes or so were pretty obvious. They got old very fast and were there only to add to the film's running time.

On a plus-side, there's no question that the production values in the film are really solid. The animation in the film is really good (the movie had a meager 70 million dollar budget) and there's no question that the voice acting is really solid and enjoyable too.

Still, when you look at the problems in the story of the film (the villain's motivation is especially weak), these flaws in the story are just too much. They're too serious and at least in my case, prevented me from enjoying the movie.

The second film that I managed to watch this week is 'Angel Has Fallen'. This the third movie in the 'Olympus / London / Angel Has Fallen' series where Gerard Butler's secret service agent does his best to save the president and the world.

The reason that I watched this is because I thought that I could use some 'Jack Bauer / 24' stuff now that show has been over for years. I thought that 'the Fallen' franchise would likely be entertaining enough, even though I didn't expect anything awesome.

So when it comes to the story in the film, it doesn't take long before '24' things start happening in the movie. Once we're done with the introduction stuff that involves a 'token' training session disguised as a real action scene, things get going.

Indeed, the 'incident' in the movie happens -  during the president's (Morgan Freeman) fishing trip - when the terrorists attack the potus. He and his security detail (that includes our protagonist) are attacked by terrorists with a swarm of bomb carrying drones.

A bit later, when our protagonist manages to save the president by going underwater (potus falls into coma), things get more complicated. The FBI suspects that it's Butler's character who is behind the whole thing (they have the 'evidence' too) and he's arrested. 

Naturally, in order to prove that he's innocent and that he's being framed, our protagonist escapes from his captors. He escapes during a transportation ride and starts his quest to find out what really happened - while the bad guys & the cops are chasing him. 

Plot-wise, I have to say that 'Angel has Fallen' is not even a remotely well written movie. The screenplay is incredibly contrived and there are so many convoluted moments where you can only shake your head in disbelief with how stupid the movie is. 

On a plus-side, perhaps the 'only' saving grace about the film has to do with some of the action scenes and the two leads. Both Gerald Butler's character and his dad (Nick Nolte) are really good (especially Nolte steals every scene that he's in).

Still, when it comes to the movie as a whole, unless you have a huge craving for a '24esque' stuff, this film is not for you. 'Angel has fallen' is not a good movie and despite its box office success, I wouldn't recommend it to almost anyone. 

So the third and the last movie that I've seen lately is 'Jumanji: The Next Level'. This a movie that is a sequel to the 'Jumanji' reboot - a film about people that get sucked into an 80s video game as the game's various characters.

So when it comes to this movie, the biggest reason that I watched it was because I was genuinely curious about the quality of the movie. I was curious because I had seen seen the trailer last year in a movie theater with my dear friend and wasn't that impressed.

After all, the trailer had a lot of 'silly' things that seemed kinda 'hip' desperate to me. There was stuff like 3d character cards on the screen, the characters being in the wrong bodies / the banter and those attacking baboons - among other things.  

Fortunately, having now seen the film (I haven't seen the first reboot yet), I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised by the movie. Against my expectations, 'Jumanji: The Next Level' turned out to be a pretty watchable and an entertaining film.

Indeed, as a movie one of the very best things if not the best thing about 'Jumanji' is that it doesn't take itself too seriously. There's a lot of silly fun going on in here and it feels like everyone in the cast is genuinely having a good time. 

Story-wise, the film manages to be fairly well written and logical. Once the gang joins the game and is taken to the 'Jumanji' adventure, the internal logic in the story / game kicks in and stays pretty consistent throughout the movie.

Plot-wise, even though most of the story works, it has to be said that the inciting incident in the movie is weak. There wasn't really much of an explanation why our hero decides to - again - enter the game (the girlfriend stuff was really weak and made no sense).

Still, when I think of 'Jumanji: The Next Level' as a whole, this flaw in the story isn't that critical. It wasn't enough to make the audience not like the film and not want for more (the fourth one is going to be made later based on Dwayne Johnson's schedule). 

In that sense, if you haven't seen 'Jumanji: The Next Level' yet, I think you should give it a chance. You should give it a chance, because even though the movie isn't great per se, it's still be pretty entertaining and manages to put you on a good mood.

The 60 percent rule in the (re)writing process.

When it comes to writing in general, it's not exactly a secret that I'm not the biggest fan of rules in storytelling. Even though there are certain 'rules' that are useful in coming up with a good story, you shouldn't get too strict with your story structure and how the script is put together.

After all, if someone tells you that a specific story event has to happen on an certain page or that it needs to have a certain 'cliche' event in the script, that is usually not good advice. You shouldn't think too much of that person's storytelling expertise.

At the same time, just because there are no super strict rules in storytelling, that doesn't mean that there aren't any guidelines that you should follow. There are things about the process that you should be aware of and that knowing them will make you a better writer. 

So the reason that I'm writing about this is that lately I've been (still) doing some rewrites on my children's book. During these rewrites I've ran into challenges in the story that I didn't know were going to be as exhausting as I had thought they would be.

By that I mean is that when I started doing this rewrite, at first it wasn't that exhausting to do. Even though I had some struggles with getting the first third 'exactly' right (spent like a week on one scene), it was still mostly 'brute force' and going through different permutations.

However, when I was finally content and happy with the first half and got to the second half, rewriting the book really started to take a toll on me. When the story got past its 'fun & games' and 'midpoint' beats, things started to get considerably worse for me emotionally.

The reason for this is that when it comes to polishing your script, there is this age old '60% rule' or theory that has to do with your story's second half. Once you reach the 60% mark page-wise, especially in the rewriting process, things might get tough for you.

Psychologically speaking, the reason for this is that when your characters start to get in real trouble ('bad guys closing in', 'all is lost') in the story beats, the writer will also experience these feelings. You can sense that things are going to get worse soon.

The thing that can make these 'bad guys are closing in' scenes difficult is that if you're not feeling physically and mentally well, they will affect your writing performance. You might feel that your story doesn't have enough direction or energy and that your project is just hopeless.

Indeed, in my case, since I didn't manage to polish and fix those minor mistakes fast enough - despite having a good story structure, I felt absolutely terrible. Every mistake that I made felt like a million times worse than had I made them in the other parts of the story.

In contrast, rewriting-wise, it's so much easier to rewrite and polish when you're dealing with the first half of the story in the script. This is when the characters are - more or less - regardless of the genre having 'relatively' good time (Blake Snyder's 'fun & games'). 

After all, as I was rewriting these earlier chapters (my characters were in an amusement park), it wasn't really a problem. Even though I was stressed, fixing the mistakes wasn't that difficult to do because it was 'fun & games' structure-wise (instead of 'all is lost').

In that sense, when it comes to story structure as a whole and its certain challenges, it's safe to say that you should know that the task can be really stressing. You should know that sometimes getting yourself super exhausted is almost an inevitable part of the process.

After all, when you set your standards high as a writer and when you're trying to write stuff that is as good as possible, that will create challenges. Especially when it comes to the latter part in the script this is when your mental fortitude is being tested.

In that sense, in the end, if you ever get yourself in trouble in your rewriting process and feel like you're going to lose your mind in the latter half of the script, you shouldn't lose your hope. You shouldn't think that the task is too hard and too difficult for you.

After all, even though it's possible that you're in trouble because your story has structural problems, that is not always the case. You shouldn't give up and discount the idea that you're emotionally hitting the wall because you're tired and your characters are in trouble.

On the contrary, if that is indeed the reason, in that case you just need take a break from the rewriting process. You need to take a break from the project and not come back until you feel that your mind is clear and you feel that you're able to come up with good stuff again.

'Angels & Demons' + 'Inferno' movie reviews.

When it comes to Dan Brown's popular novels, over the last couple of weeks I've managed to watch the film adaptations of his books. I watched the movie adaptations after reading his 'Da Vinci Code' novel - the book that was the first one in the 'Robert Langdon' series.

Indeed, even though there were certain issues in the 'Da Vinci Code' as a novel, I thought that it was still worth reading. The book kept me entertained and was fairly well written, even though historically speaking it wasn't particularly accurate as a novel.

So when it comes to the film versions of these books, it has to be said that - as unfortunate as it is - 'Da Vinci Code' as a movie wasn't particularly well made. Its story (see the last article) suffered from really terrible exposition and pacing issues among other things.

Fortunately, even though Da Vinci Code as a film was a disappointment, having now seen the other two film adaptations, I can say that they were much better. Both 'Angels & Demons' and 'Inferno' managed to be a lot more entertaining and watchable than 'Da Vinci Code' was.

Indeed, when I saw 'Angels and Demons' (2009)(picture above) last week with my friend, I was pleasantly surprised. The movie was surprisingly well made and turned out to be easy to follow - even though I hadn't read the book that it was based on.

In essence, the premise in the film is that Robert Langdon is brought to solve a problem in the Vatican. There's a hostage situation and unless the Illuminati conspirators are stopped, they will blow up The Vatican with their anti-mater bomb (that they stole from Cern).  

Story-wise, like in the first one, once Tom Hanks's character is taken to the place, he starts deciphering the clues about the secret society and their habits. He and his partner (a female nuclear scientist) try to figure out where the hostages and the bomb are before it's too late.

Pacing-wise, the movie works so much better than the 'Da Vinci Code' did. There aren't really any bigger exposition issues, even though in certain places it's obvious that a lot more background information was in the book (like when they go to the Vatican archives).

Not surprisingly, this same analysis also applies to 'Inferno's' film adaptation (2016). This movie more or less also has the same basic story elements and the same story beats that we in the audience have already gotten used to.

Premise-wise, the basic idea in the film is that this time we're dealing with a crazy billionaire scientist that has decided to expose the world to a virus that would fix the overpopulation problem. Hanks with his female doctor partner once again needs to prevent it from happening.

Entertainment-wise, what makes the film work is that just like in the second one, there is an imminent threat that needs to be addressed. This fairly straightforward angle (there are some convoluted twists too) is solid and has elements that keep you on the edge of your seat.

Plot-wise, when it comes the film's third act, it has to be mentioned that 'Inferno's' movie version has an ending that is significantly different from the novel. They changed it from a 'downer' ending to a more uplifting one, which honestly didn't make that much sense.

Indeed, once the movie was finished, (I haven't read the book), it was pretty obvious that the original story had a more 'daring' ending. Certain character twists were a bit awkward and were disappointing if we're being honest here (not what the audience wanted).

Still, when it comes to this film as a whole and to 'Angels & Demons', it's pretty clear that these are relatively watchable films ('Angels' is better). Compared to Da Vinci Code, there's a clear difference in favor of these later adaptations in the series. 

After all even though both of the later films in the series have their issues, it cannot be overstated how bad 'The Da Vinci Code's' film adaptation was. The exposition and the pacing in the film were completely off and really hurt its quality.

In that sense, in the end, when it comes to these movie, if you haven't seen 'Angels & Demons' or 'Inferno', you should probably give them a try at some point. You should give these movies a chance and see whether you'll be able to enjoy them. 

After all, even though neither of these films are masterpieces, that doesn't mean that they're completely worthless. You shouldn't be thinking - like some of the critics do - that Dan Brown can't write or that there's no value in watching 'fictional' stuff like this.

On the contrary, when it all is said and done, these films - despite their flaws - are watchable. They're worth watching and even though they could have been better (like the 'National Treasure' films), there's more than enough good stuff here to keep you entertained.

Retro Reviews: 'Da Vinci Code' as a Movie.

Last week I managed to write and publish an article that reviewed the book version of Dan Brown's 'Da Vinci Code'. In the article, I tried to be as objective as possible about the various merits of the book and how the novel could have been even better. 

Indeed, even though there were some issues in it (point of view stuff, historical inaccuracies etc.), there's no question that as a whole I was impressed by the quality of the novel. This was really a surprisingly immersive and entertaining book that you couldn't put down.

Naturally, once I was done with reviewing the book, I thought about watching and reviewing the movie too. I was interested in knowing how well the Tom Hanks / Audrey Tautou film would fare compared to the original version, since I had enjoyed the book so much.

Having now finally seen the movie too (a couple of days ago with my friend), I have to say that - as unfortunate as it is - I was not impressed by the film. It's not even remotely as good as the book, even though a lot of talented people were involved with making the movie.

So when it comes to those flaws in 'Da Vinci Code's' film version, surprisingly enough, the biggest problem has to do with its screenplay. The screenplay is genuinely lacking and suffers from all kinds of storytelling problems (especially exposition) that you can think of.

By that I mean is that once you start watching the film, it won't take long before you'll notice that there is something wrong with the pacing of the movie. The story is rushed and way too many story beats are crammed in the first 30-40 minutes of the film.

In practice, what this means is that once Hanks's character Robert Langdon is taken to Louvre to check out Sauniere's dead body, there isn't enough time to introduce us to those the things that are needed. The stuff really comes out of nowhere and without any explanation.

Indeed, when Tautou's character shows up a bit later and immediately starts helping Langdon, things don't make any sense. This includes stuff like her seeing the Fibonacci series right away, her having the cell phone plan & and her knowing that Hanks is 'bugged'.

Story-wise, what makes these mistakes so bad is that when you don't give proper introduction to your characters, their situations and their background, the story just won't work. The audience is going to be in the dark and won't feel comfortable with the film.

Indeed, as I was watching the movie with my friend, I was pretty much panicking about the whole thing. As things kept unfolding in the first act, I couldn't believe how unbelievably under-exposed and all over the place the story was here.

At the same time, just because the first act was indeed awful, it has to be said that the film does get a bit better in its second half. Once we're finally done with the film trying to explain what the story is supposed to be about, things get better.

Indeed, once our characters manage to escape Teabing's mansion and subdue Silas, the movie finally starts to make at least a little bit sense. There's some pacing to the story and fortunately the movie doesn't follow the book 100% anymore. 

After all, these changes - that include there being only one 'code' at the Zürich bank, that there's only one layer in the cryptex and the revelation of the villain being faster - are solid. These changes work rather well and clearly help the movie.

Still, just because things do get better and the third act and the finale are relatively watchable (there are some changes to the book too), that wasn't enough to make the movie work for me. I wasn't impressed with the execution and how the script was put together as a whole.

After all, even though there were some changes later in the movie that were needed, we didn't get those crucial changes when they were needed the most. The first act didn't work and was almost a carbon copy of the book (without any of its exposition and background info).

In that sense, in the end, if you're one of those who still haven't seen the movie and are thinking about watching it, I think it's safe to say that you should not get too excited about the film. You shouldn't get too excited about it just because you perhaps liked the book.

After all, even though there were so many Oscar winners working on this movie (director, actors, writer) that's not all it takes to make a good film. You shouldn't be thinking that these guys would be automatically able to deliver the goods here no matter what.

On the contrary, especially when it comes to this film, these guys failed us big time. They (Ron Howard, Akiva Goldsman) failed us and weren't able to deliver, even though the book that the film was based on was really good and was something that managed to entertain us.

Retro reviews: Dan Brown's 'Da Vinci Code'.

A couple of weeks ago, as I decided to go through our fairly book library at our house I noticed an interesting book there. I noticed that there was Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code standing on our book shelf - a book that I hadn't managed to read before.

Indeed, even though I usually try to keep myself updated on popular culture stuff relatively well, for some reason I had missed this particular phenomenom completely. I hadn't read the book and I even hadn't managed to see the movie either.

Not surprisingly, since I've tried to get back to reading books lately, I thought that I had to give it a chance. I had to give it a go, because certainly its subject matter of historical conspiracies warranted my attention - even though I had read some negatives things about it.

Having now finally read the book, I have to say that as a whole, I was pleasantly surprised by the quality of 'Da Vinci Code'. I was surprised in a good way by its quality, even though there are some flaws with it too that need to be mentioned.

So when it comes to those good aspects about 'Da Vinci Code', the very first thing that I have to mention here is that the novel is genuinely entertaining. Unlike so many others books that I've read lately, this one was actually a real page turner from start to finish. 

By that I mean is that in this book in which we follow our protagonists Robert Langdon and Sophie Neveu in their plight, you can't help but to be interested in their story. Their struggle to get out of trouble and to find the truth about the Da Vince Code (holy grail) is simply riveting.

Indeed, the minute you get introduced to Langdon as a scholar and as a suspect in a murder in Louvre (joined soon by Neveu), you feel like you're part of the story. There's a murder mystery going on and also a larger conspiracy that involves all kinds of powerful people.

Later on, once our duo escapes the place with their 'clue' to their next destination, the stakes keep getting higher. There's constantly a bigger puzzle to be solved and the antagonists keep getting closer and closer to catching them (eventually our heroes do manage to save the day).

Story- and structure-wise, when it comes to the quality of the book, the reason that the story (mostly) works so well is that the author (Brown) knows how to plot a story. There are a lot of twists, turns, obstacles, revelations and a even huge MacGuffin that is used well.

Indeed, especially when it comes to the Hitchcockian MacGuffin, this plot device (our duo trying to break the code and find the 'holy grail') is what keeps things going. You want to know what happens next and are willing to overlook some things that don't always make sense.

At the same time, even though the book and the story mostly works really well, that doesn't mean that there aren't problems. There are flaws and issues with the book that range from its historical inaccuracies to its storytelling aspects in certain moments. 

For example, historically speaking, there's no question the book is simply fiction (mostly based on a discredited book 'The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail'). This is something that might turn you off, especially if you bought into Brown's claim that the book is 99% factual.

Story-wise, I couldn't help but to notice that there were some clear 'point of view' problems in the book's first half. The story changing from the protagonists to antagonists for quick, short exposition interrupted the flow (Silas & co.) rather abruptly and noticeably.

Furthermore, there's no question that in parts the story gets a bit too contrived. Especially when it comes to Fache changing his mind and the villain's reveal (well hidden but a bit convoluted), there's a bit too much stuff and explanation going on exposition-wise.

Still, when you put it all together, even though there are certain issues here, there's no denying that the story managed to keep me entertained. It kept me thrilled surprisingly well and even made me want to know more about the topics that the book covers.

After all, once I finished reading the novel, I immediately had to go visit wikipedia to check stuff that ranged from Da Vinci to Mary Magdalene and from Gnosticism to Merovingians. I was interested to find out more about its various aspects that included real life locations too. 

In that sense, in the end, if you're someone who's interested in mystery books and conspiracies that have to do with history, I think it's pretty clear that 'Da Vinci Code' might be a book for you. You should give it a chance and not be too discouraged by some of its detractors.

After all, even though the novel isn't historically speaking true and even though the 'holy grail' might not be what you thought at first, that's not a reason not to give it a shot. You shouldn't be thinking that just because the story is fiction you shouldn't read the novel.

On the contrary, when it all is said and done, 'Da Vinci Code', despite its flaws manages to entertain. It manages to entertain and holds your attention, even though it could have been better and even though most of its 'claims' aren't supported by data or accepted historical facts.

Movies that I've managed to see lately.

So when it comes to my recent movie watching habits, over the last month or so, I haven't really been able to watch that many (if any) films. I haven't had a chance to watch the latest movies that have been released on dvd.

Nevertheless, last week I had some free time for myself and finally got back to watching some of the stuff that I had postponed watching for so long. I managed to watch some of these new movies that mostly managed to be fairly entertaining.

In any case, this time I have seen three recently released films that I get to review. These films are Guy Ritchie's 'The Gentlemen', Harrison Ford's 'Call of The Wild and Will Ferrell's vehicle 'Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga'.

So when it comes to the first film, 'The Gentlemen' is a mobster drama/comedy starring Hugh Grant and Matthew McConaughey. The film revolves around a marijuana kingpin (McConaughey) in London who is trying to sell his cannabis business.

Not surprisingly, in the story it will not take long before things spiral out of control. Once McConaughey's character starts shopping his underground business, all kinds of entities appear to make offers and this leads to extortion, blackmail, violence and sabotage.

When it comes to the quality of the film, this is as expected a 'Guy Ritchie' movie. You have the usual weird characters, stylish dialogue, 'English' banter, violent action scenes and other things that you have learned to expect from him.

Acting-wise, pretty much every actor in the ensemble gives really good performances. McConaughey is solid, Colin Farrell is out there in a good way and Hugh Grant does a really memorable role as a slimy blackmailing reporter.

The only real problem with the film is that the story in 'The Gentlemen' is a bit all over the place. There doesn't seem to be clear purpose and point of view to the film, which leads to the story lacking a clear meaning, if we're being honest here.

Indeed, especially when it comes to the ending, I don't really understand why it happened that way (no spoilers). The arc of the story pointed to another direction and the 'winners' really didn't do anything to deserve it (deus ex machina).

Still, if you have enjoyed other 'Guy Ritchie' films, this is probably a movie that you're going to enjoy. You're probably going to be entertained by it, even though in my opinion the movie could have had a much stronger and much more 'relevant' story than it had. 

The second film that I watched is 'Call of The Wild', a movie based on classic Jack London novel. The film is about the adventures of a big St.Bernard/Scotch Collie dog called 'Buck' and the dog finding its way in the world & the nature.

When it comes to the film, the biggest reason that the movie got so much publicity (or let's say heat) is that the 'star' of the film, 'Buck' is completely computer-generated. The dog and some of the backgrounds are totally fake, which not surprisingly pissed off some people.

Nevertheless, since the film had gotten relatively decent reviews (61% fresh critics & 89% fresh audience at Rottentomatoes.com, it was an easy decision to give it a shot. Clearly the film had some redeeming qualities that would keep me entertained.

So having now finally seen 'Call of The Wild', I have to say that the movie as a whole was worth watching and worth my time. It was worth watching, even though there are some issues with the story that have to be addressed.

Indeed, one of the biggest challenges with the story is that the dog is the actual main 'character' in the movie. Since it can't talk and express its 'thoughts' in any meaningful way, it turned out to be tricky to make it the focus of the story.

In practice, over the course of the movie, this is the reason that the story feels episodic and jumps from one place to another. Even though all the actors that Buck is surrounded with do a good job (special mention to Omar Sy), there are problems that cannot be ignored.

At the same time, just because there are problems in the film and the  'evolution' of Buck from a food hungry dog to a leader of the pack in Alaska is a bit contrived, that's not reason not to watch it. The relaxed tone and the nature aspects are what make the movie.

After all, even though a lot of the landscape in 'Alaska' felt a bit manufactured, I absolutely loved the atmosphere. As someone who likes to walk, run or otherwise exercise in the nature every single day, those aspects meant a lot to me.

In that sense, if you haven't seen the film yet, you should probably watch it. You should watch it, because even though the movie has its flaws, it still has tons of redeeming qualities (like Harrison Ford in a role that he seemed to enjoy) that help to put you on a good mood.

The third movie that I saw is Will Ferrell's vehicle 'Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga'. This is a Netflix movie about an Icelandic couple Lars & Sigrit (Ferrell & Rachel McAdams) trying to fulfil their dream of taking part and winning the Eurovision Song Contest.

So when it comes to the expectations of the movie, a lot of people weren't initially excited about watching the film. Based on the trailer, it seemed that the movie simply wasn't going to be that good since the trailer just didn't have that many funny moments.

However, once the film premiered on Netflix and the general audience started posting reviews, it became obvious that there was something special going on in here. It looked like the movie was well made and that I should give it a shot.

Having now seen the film a couple of days ago, I have to say that the movie does work surprisingly well. 'Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga' manages to deliver the goods, even though there are some tiny issues with the film that need to be addressed.

So when it comes to those good qualities, one of the reasons that the movie works is that Lars & Sigrit's journey to the song contest is handled in a respectful way towards everyone. This respect includes Iceland, its culture, the rest of the characters and their problems.

Indeed, even though the movie is about Lars & Sigrit's underdog story, it's not just about them. A lot of attention is also paid to the supporting characters and making them relatable - especially the 'ja ja ding dong' guy and the Russian antagonist (Dan Stevens).

Another major reason that the film works - perhaps even surprisingly - well has to do with its music. Every single song that was composed for the film is absolutely fantastic and you can't help but to admire the quality of them (even better songs than in the 'real' contest).

Story-wise, it has to be said that there are some moments in the film that could have been better written. Especially when it comes to the inciting incident (bomb goes off) and the reaction of the duo, it was a bit over the top for my tastes.

Still, when it comes to the film as a whole, these problems aren't that big and serious. Despite these minor flaws the movie manages to be watchable, thanks to the overall good nature of the film and the fact that there aren't really that many 'bad' guys in it.

In that sense, if you haven't seen the film yet, I'd suggest that you give it a shot. You should give it a shot because even though the premise is silly, the movie nevertheless works and manages to put you on a good mood (81% fresh by the audience at Rottentomatoes.com).