Hi there,

I was in the mood for some comedy to have a nice time and worry less about how the day went. So I went for the Prime Video movie Balls Up starring Mark Wahlberg and Paul Walter. I have to be honest about how I found out about this movie. It was a popular scene from the movie, all over the internet as a reel. It had a different caption, some said, when you and your bro go out for karaoke after saying you guys are not interested. It had different kinds of captions, but it was interesting. This grabbed my interest in watching what the movie could probably be about.

Balls Up is the kind of movie you watch when you are looking for something light that does not have a serious storyline, but you just want to grab a quick laugh. It got me laughing hard on my couch because of how it was very hilarious with the different scenes, most especially the karaoke scene. Well, like most comedy movies, the scenes in the movie get funnier with each take. I did not have much of an option but to keep watching because of the story the movie told.

The movie is based on two guys who work for the same company, and from my speculation, the company is in the business of creating condoms. Mark Wahlberg, who plays Brad from Sales, has an outstanding talent for selling things. While Paul Walter plays Elijah, who works as an inventor. He created the condom but has a poor skill at selling, so he gets teamed up with Brad. With Brad's skill in marketing and Elijah's talent in creating, one would think they would make a good team since they compliment their weakness. But at first they did not. They had an issue during their first pitch, but luckily, they were able to cover up the problem and create a new one.

After the pitch with the CEO in charge of making the condom the official condom for the World Cup, they got him drunk, and he displayed an unusual behaviour that got them to lose the deal, and that is not all, they also lost their job. This led them to be jobless for a while, but the free tickets to the World Cup were still valid. This got them to head over to Brazil for the World Cup, where all hell broke loose. While the match was ongoing, Brazil against Argentina in the final, Brad and Elijah got involved with the mascot, which caused Brazil to miss a goal from an empty post, but Brad's body was there to block the shot. This left the referee with no other choice but to call a play on after the incident had occurred. This made Brazil hunt Brad and Elijah. When I say hunt, I am talking about the nation. They chased them down from left to right, up to the point that they had to go into the forest for their basic survival.

This will later lead them to have encounters with different kinds of people, who are another kind of funny character that you do not want to miss watching. They will get you to laugh because they tell me what you are looking for on the pitch when the whole world is watching the game. Yet you think they would just forget about what you did, since it is just a game.

My Rating: 6/10

♟♟♟♟♟♟♟♟♟

The Mountain King (S2x12)

Airdate: 19 October 2008

Written by: Matthew Weiner & Robin Veith Directed by: Alan Taylor

Running Time: 48 minutes

In so-called Golden Age of Television, the penultimate episode of a season had begun to assume a particular narrative weight. It was the moment for the ‘wham’—the shocking twist, the devastating confrontation, the point of no return that would propel the story into its finale. Matthew Weiner, schooled in this very tradition on The Sopranos, appears to deliberately stray from this principle in The Mountain King, the twelfth episode of Mad Men’s second season. While the episode features an event that, in any other series or season, would be deemed profoundly consequential—the secret sale of Sterling Cooper—it is presented with a curious, almost languid anti-climax. The seismic business shift is relegated to a muted decision by partners who dismiss the absent Don Draper as ‘insignificant’. This structural choice, to downplay the central plot engine, forces the episode to compensate with a sprawl of side narratives, resulting in a frustratingly diffuse instalment that lacks the focused, consequential punch its position in the season demands.

The title itself, ‘The Mountain King’, is a direct reference to Edvard Grieg’s 1875 orchestral piece ‘In the Hall of the Mountain King’, composed for Henrik Ibsen’s Peer Gynt. It is one of the most famous pieces of classical music, ubiquitously deployed in film and television to soundtrack creeping horror and impending doom. The genius of the allusion is not in its application to the episode’s atmosphere—there is no literal sense of horror—but in its ironic placement within the domestic, sun-drenched space of Anna Draper’s California home. Here, the piece is heard by Don as one of Anna’s young piano pupils practices it, describing it simply as ‘scary’. The music, associated with monstrous fantasy and pursuit, becomes a benign, slightly discordant backdrop to the episode’s true emotional core: the revelation of Don’s past and his unique, forgiving bond with Anna. Through flashbacks, we learn the full story: Anna, the real Don Draper’s wife, confronted the impostor Dick Whitman, who confessed his ignorance of the marriage and his role in her husband’s death. In a moment of extraordinary grace, the lame Anna—a woman who felt herself a substitute for her prettier sister—not only forgave him but forged a deep, platonic friendship. She later agreed to divorce him so he could marry Betty. In the present, their arrangement provides Don with his only true confidante, a sanctuary where his fabricated identity is not a burden. The California interlude, with its custom cars and ocean swims, offers Don a tantalising, if fleeting, glimpse of an authentic life, far from the stifling performances of New York.

While Don enjoys this sabbatical, his prolonged absence is met with a collective, telling indifference back in New York. His family, bosses, and subordinates largely choose to ignore it, a testament to his emotional isolation. Only Pete Campbell pays it any mind, and his attention is purely self-serving; he secretly hopes Draper will simply vanish and assume a new identity, thereby clearing Pete’s path to advancement. This venal hope is undercut by a crisis in his personal life, where his anger over Trudy’s secret contact with an adoption agency leads to a row so intense that his father-in-law Tom Vogel intervenes, threatening the review of Pete’s Clearasil account. The message is brutally clear: Pete’s career prospects are inextricably tied to his wife’s happiness, a chilling equation of domestic and professional capital.

Other subplots unfold with varying degrees of relevance. Peggy, frustrated by sharing an office with a Xerox machine, successfully petitions Roger Sterling for her and much larger office, a small victory that sows resentment among the male staff. Joan’s relationship with the surgeon Greg Harris is revealed as deeply troubled; his insecurities manifest in a jarringly unsubtle scene where, after refusing Joan’s sexual advance at home, he later forces himself upon her in Don’s office. This moment, intended to illustrate the oppressive patriarchy of the early 1960s, suffers from a lack of narrative subtlety, reducing Joan’s complex agency to a blunt metaphor about female subjugation.

Betty Draper, meanwhile, grapples with Don’s absence in halting, confused ways. After catching her daughter Sally smoking, she attempts discipline but later confesses to a friend that her husband’s disappearance might be permanent. Her other storyline, in which she chastises her friend Sarah Beth for the extramarital affair she herself previously encouraged, feels particularly aimless. It seems designed less to develop Betty’s character than to artificially stall her potential ascent as a counterpoint to Don, reinforcing a destructive irrationality that goes unexplored.

The critical event, however, occurs in a conference room without its protagonist. The Sterling Cooper partners—including Bertram’s sister, Alice (Mary Ann McGary)—meet and, with dismissive ease, agree to sell the agency. Don, with his mere 12% share, is deemed inconsequential to the decision. This is the episode’s purported ‘wham’, yet it is delivered not as a dramatic climax but as a dry, administrative footnote.

This is where The Mountain King fundamentally falters. The year 1962 allowed the show to explore subtle shifts in American life, but this episode feels like a collection of those shifts without a unifying centre. Matthew Weiner and writer Robin Veith appear to have deliberately downplayed the sale’s drama, compensating with a series of side storylines that go all over the place, and sometimes go nowhere. The Joan-Greg subplot lacks nuance, the Betty-Sarah Beth thread is abortive, and even Pete’s crisis is resolved through external financial threat rather than internal growth. The episode is, like all Mad Men instalments, impeccably acted and directed, but it suffers from a lack of narrative focus.

This lack of cohesion culminates in the final image: Don, alone, swimming in the vast Pacific Ocean. The shot is visually striking but tonally dissonant. It feels like a piece of ‘acid’ art cinema artificially infused into the narrative, an idealised vision of the West as a place of spiritual cleansing. This aesthetic choice finds a direct parallel in the criticised desert sequence from The Sopranos episode Kennedy and Heidi. This episode portrayed Tony Soprano’s peyote-induced vision as visually striking but leaning into pretension, evoking the excesses of 1970s counterculture rather than deepening Tony’s character. A similar charge can be levelled at Don’s oceanic baptism. It aspires to a profound, wordless catharsis but, in the context of the episode’s scattered priorities, registers more as a stylistic affectation—a postcard from a thematic holiday the script hasn’t fully earned.

In conclusion, The Mountain King looks like a curious misfire in Mad Men’s otherwise impeccable second season. By rejecting the conventional ‘penultimate episode’ playbook, it seeks a more nuanced, ambient tension but ultimately substitutes fragmentation for depth. The sale of Sterling Cooper should reverberate; here, it is muffled. The character moments should illuminate; instead, many feel undercooked or obvious. The episode grasps for thematic resonance through its musical allusion and final, beautiful image, but without a sturdy narrative framework, that resonance rings hollow.

RATING: 6/10 (++)

==

Blog in Croatian https://draxblog.com Blog in English https://draxreview.wordpress.com/ InLeo blog https://inleo.io/@drax.leo

LeoDex: https://leodex.io/?ref=drax InLeo: https://inleo.io/signup?referral=drax.leo Hiveonboard: https://hiveonboard.com?ref=drax Rising Star game: https://www.risingstargame.com?referrer=drax 1Inch: https://1inch.exchange/#/r/0x83823d8CCB74F828148258BB4457642124b1328e

BTC donations: 1EWxiMiP6iiG9rger3NuUSd6HByaxQWafG ETH donations: 0xB305F144323b99e6f8b1d66f5D7DE78B498C32A7 BCH donations: qpvxw0jax79lhmvlgcldkzpqanf03r9cjv8y6gtmk9

Cover image edited in canva; the image was taken from the following source

The Jet Set (S2x11)

Airdate: 12 October 2008

Written by: Matthew Weiner Directed by: Phil Abraham

Running Time: 48 minutes

As Mad Men approached the conclusion of its second season, the series began to strain against the confines of its established narrative format. The eleventh episode, The Jet Set, is a pointed example of this tension, directly leaning on the events of its immediate predecessor, The Inheritance. Unlike the more self-contained, vignette-like episodes that characterised much of the early season, Jet Set commences precisely where the previous instalment concluded, forging a stronger serialised link that signals the show’s gradual shift towards more protracted story arcs. This structural pivot, whilst effective in deepening character exploration, also renders the episode one of the more conventional in the season’s run—a conventionality that is both its strength and its subtle weakness.

The episode opens in the tangled sheets of Roger Sterling’s midlife crisis. The image of Jane Siegel, nude on a bed with only a strategically positioned blanket preserving modesty for the cameras, is one of the series’ most potent and attractive. For the male audience, the scene is instantly telling: here is the visceral, physical answer to the question of why a man would jettison three decades of marriage and stability. Roger is not merely captivated by Jane’s body but by her performance of bohemian artistry. Deeply impressed as she scribbles poems about him, he is seduced by the fantasy of being someone’s muse, leading to his impulsive, almost absurd proposal to marry her. This moment perfectly encapsulates Roger’s tragicomic trajectory—a pursuit of rejuvenation through cliché, mistaking a young woman’s affectations for profound connection.

Meanwhile, the episode’s central narrative thrust follows Don Draper, who has arrived in California with the endlessly eager Pete Campbell. The contrast is immediate. Pete is a child in a candy shop, enthusing about the warm climate and the beautiful women by the pool, while Don must sternly remind him to prioritise business. This dynamic establishes the episode’s core theme: the confrontation between escapist fantasy and inescapable reality. Don’s professional purpose leads him to an aerospace convention in Pasadena, a temple to the era’s technological optimism. Yet, this dream of a Space Age future curdles into a specific, visceral nightmare. A presentation by an international ballistic missile manufacturer features a chillingly enthusiastic simulation of an American nuclear attack on the Soviet Union, boasting of near-total annihilation and a drastically reduced retaliatory capability. For Don, a man who has seen the intimate, chaotic horror of war first-hand, this sanitised, corporate vision of apocalypse is profoundly unsettling. He abandons the convention, delegating the work to Pete, in a flight not from responsibility, but from a future that feels more grotesque than the past he fled.

His retreat leads him directly into another, more seductive fantasy. Previously spotted at his hotel by a cosmopolitan group including the enigmatic Joy (Laura Ramsey) and the European aristocrat Willy (Philippe Brenninkmeyer), Don is now invited to join them in Palm Springs. After initial hesitation, he accepts, arriving at a stunning Mid-Century Modern house with a vast pool. Joy, effortlessly played by Laura Ramsey, explains they are house-sitting for friends in Sardinia. In a scene dripping with erotic possibility, she slips into a bikini and suggests Don join her in the pool, either by borrowing trunks or going “au naturelle.” Overwhelmed—perhaps by the heat, the offer, or the cumulative weight of his disillusionment—Don collapses.

Upon waking, diagnosed with heat stroke, he is surrounded by this strange new coterie. Refusing an injection but acquiescing to convalescence, he remains, ultimately having sex with Joy. Their post-coital conversation reveals the group’s nomadic, hedonistic ethos. Willy discovers them in bed, but his reaction is one of paternal appraisal: “he makes beautiful babies,” he remarks, all but admitting his familial relationship to Joy. She later offers Don a permanent place in their rootless set, citing Willy’s admiration for his “beautiful” silence. It is the ultimate temptation for a man who once reinvented himself: to shed Don Draper completely and become a perpetual tourist in his own life. Yet, the fantasy is punctured by the arrival of a man named Christian with two small children, a reminder of the familial obligations that even this liberated circle cannot fully escape. Instead of embracing the nomadic future, Don makes a pivotal phone call, addressing himself as “Dick Whitman” to someone presumably privy to his original, discarded identity. It is a moment of profound regression, choosing to face the ghosts of his past rather than leap into an uncertain future.

Back in New York, Roger’s impulsive decision begins to unleash unforeseen corporate consequences. Consulting divorce attorney George Rothman (Alan Blumenfeld), Roger is warned that Mona will take half of everything. This vulnerability is spotted by the opportunistic Duck Phillips, who sees Rothman leaving and deduces the impending divorce. In a desperate power play, Duck confronts Roger, demanding a partnership, only to be bluntly refused due to his lacklustre results. Fearing for his job, Duck meets with his former colleagues from the London firm Putnam, Powell & Lowe. Failing to win back his old position, he makes an audacious counter-gamble: he suggests PPL simply buy Sterling Cooper. With Roger needing liquidity for his divorce, the timing is perfect. Duck’s condition is that he be installed as president post-merger. This corporate intrigue unfolds with quiet menace, threatening to dismantle Don’s professional world at the very moment he contemplates abandoning it.

The episode’s subplot involving the junior staff at Sterling Cooper provides a pointed, if somewhat clumsy, commentary on the changing social mores of 1962. As they discuss the growing civil rights disturbances in Mississippi, the German art director Kurt Smith asks Peggy to attend a Bob Dylan concert at Carnegie Hall. The open invitation sparks office gossip about a date, which Kurt deflates by calmly stating, “I am a homosexual.” The revelation lands like a grenade in the sterile office. Salvatore Romano, himself a deeply closeted gay man, reacts with panicked awkwardness. Ken Cosgrove declares he would never “work with a homo,” while Kurt’s partner Smitty lamely explains it away as a “European thing.” Peggy, however, agrees to go. In a subsequent scene, Kurt visits her apartment, cuts her hair into a more modern style, and acts as a confidant. Herein lies the episode’s most glaring conventionality. The depiction of Kurt and Peggy’s friendship leans heavily on a tired Hollywood cliché: the gay man as the single woman’s stylish, non-threatening mentor and best friend. While the episode deserves credit for directly naming homosexuality in a 1962 setting—a taboo breaking that shows that times have indeed changed when someone clearly identifies with being gay—its execution feels sanitised and familiar, a safe narrative compromise.

This conventionality is a defining feature of The Jet Set. It is, paradoxically, a very good episode—arguably one of Season 2’s best—despite being one of its more conventional. Its conventionality manifests in its multiple story structure and in its treatment of social issues like homosexuality through recognisable, almost formulaic, tropes. It even concludes with a cliffhanger-like revelation—Don’s “Dick Whitman” call—that feels designed to propel the serialised narrative forward in a manner more typical of television dramaturgy.

Yet, to dismiss it as merely conventional would be a grave error. The Jet Set’ is a richly multi-layered hour of television. Series creator Matthew Weiner employs multiple levels of irony with a master’s touch, most effectively in the brutal confrontation of Don’s dreams with reality. Don’s dream trip to the promised land of California immediately devolves into a minor nightmare of lost luggage and professional disgust. His dream of a gleaming, technological future is perverted into a simulation of nuclear genocide, triggering his suppressed wartime trauma. The season uses California to give hints of both protagonist’s future and present, and here that future is rendered as a seductive illusion. Don, the master of self-reinvention, is wooed to perform the act again by the rich, idle nomads—a group whose lifestyle of endless travel, sun, sea, and sex represents the very antithesis of his stifling suburban existence with Betty. Joy is the embodiment of a freedom Betty could never offer. Yet, for Don, this step proves a step too far. Whether due to age, ingrained fear, or a latent sense of responsibility, he cannot make the leap. In a supreme irony, he turns to face his past at the precise moment Duck Phillips’ machinations threaten to annihilate his present. The escape hatches both forward and backward are simultaneously closing.

Directed with exceptional flair by Phil Abraham, Rge Jet Set is one of the series’ most visually appealing instalments to date. The cinematography luxuriates in the Californian light and the sleek lines of modernist architecture. It is also arguably the most erotic episode by this point in the series, though, as noted, AMC’s broadcast standards ensured it never reached the explicit heights of contemporary HBO or Starz productions. The allure is in suggestion and composition rather than graphic display.

The episode has also accrued a curious cultural afterlife, sparking persistent fan theories that Joy, Willy, and their set are not merely rich socialites but vampires. This reading, whilst fanciful, speaks to the group’s uncanny, ageless, and predatory aura—they feed on the vitality and beauty of those they attract, offering an eternal, parasitic existence that mirrors Don’s own vampiric relationship with the identity of the real Don Draper.

Jet Set operates on two levels. On the surface, it is a superbly crafted but structurally conventional episode that advances key plotlines and explores social change through occasionally clichéd lenses. Beneath that surface, it is a profound and ironic meditation on identity, escape, and the inescapable. It presents Don Draper with a mirror reflecting two possible selves: the rootless hedonist and the haunted fugitive. His choice to call out to “Dick Whitman” is not a choice for freedom, but a recoil into a different kind of prison. The nomadic group’s seductive utopia might be an illusion just like those Don sells his clients. In Jet Set, Don Draper, the master illusionist, briefly becomes the mark, before recognising the con and retreating to the devil he knows. The episode’s greatness lies in making that retreat feel not like a failure, but like the tragic, inevitable conclusion of a man forever trapped between the selves he has been and the selves he might have been.

RATING: 8/10 (+++)

==

Blog in Croatian https://draxblog.com Blog in English https://draxreview.wordpress.com/ InLeo blog https://inleo.io/@drax.leo

LeoDex: https://leodex.io/?ref=drax InLeo: https://inleo.io/signup?referral=drax.leo Hiveonboard: https://hiveonboard.com?ref=drax Rising Star game: https://www.risingstargame.com?referrer=drax 1Inch: https://1inch.exchange/#/r/0x83823d8CCB74F828148258BB4457642124b1328e

BTC donations: 1EWxiMiP6iiG9rger3NuUSd6HByaxQWafG ETH donations: 0xB305F144323b99e6f8b1d66f5D7DE78B498C32A7 BCH donations: qpvxw0jax79lhmvlgcldkzpqanf03r9cjv8y6gtmk9

Springsteen: Deliver Me From Nowhere

The making of Bruce Springsteen’s 1982 album Nebraska, a raw acoustic record that marked a pivotal moment in his life and is considered one of his most timeless works. Is it worth watching?

🟢🟢🟢🟢

• Jeremy Allen White delivers a solid performance, especially considering the material he was given to work with.
• Jeremy Strong gives a powerful and grounded performance.
• Scott Cooper uses beautiful black-and-white flashbacks to explore the father-son relationship.
• The director shows us the troubled man behind the legend. The film has a more human and intimate tone because of that.
• It successfully captures the melancholic feeling of the past.
• Minimalistic and gloomy cinematography, but it serves the film’s purpose well.

🔴🔴🔴🔴

• It follows a very introverted approach, perhaps a bit too much at times.
• There were several moments where I got bored. 😅
• We barely get to see Bruce Springsteen performing on stage 🤷‍♂️. Clearly intentional from the director, but still…
• The idealization of manager Jon Landau feels a bit forced.
• It’s aimed more at Springsteen fans.
• In several parts, the pacing loses momentum.
• It lacks major narrative peaks or emotional climaxes 🤷‍♂️.

Greenland 2

The surviving members of the Garrity family must leave the safety of their shelter in Greenland and embark on a dangerous journey to find a new home. Is it worth watching?

🟢🟢🟢🟢

• Some interesting post-apocalyptic visuals and shots.
• I found the narrative choice at the end interesting (no spoilers).
• The sequel tries to bring a more dramatic tone to the story.
• It works more as a road movie.
• Some of the visual effects are convincing.
• The pacing is decent overall.

🔴🔴🔴🔴

• For a disaster movie, the scope does not feel that large. Most of the destruction is implied. Probably a budget issue as well.
• The young son still needs a lot of improvement performance-wise.
• The movie is not really what it promises to be.
• Very basic direction.
• Although it starts strong, I found Morena Baccarin’s presence mostly decorative after a certain point.
• Script-wise, it does not avoid the clichés of the genre.
• At its core, it feels like an unnecessary sequel.
• Narratively lifeless, with several convenient plot shortcuts.

Good evening, blogging friends, I'm back writing in this community. It's been a while since I've reviewed anything. Shame on me, I have so much to review. I've been watching an old series lately—not exactly old, but not new either—that I've never seen! I found it on Amazon Prime, and since I love the fantasy genre, I decided to watch it, and I'm really enjoying it. The series is called Grimm, but it's not based solely on the fairy tales of the book of the same name. In reality, the Grimm are hunters of very powerful supernatural beings. Nick, the protagonist, begins to see strange things and discovers that it's a peculiarity of his family, where several Grimm have the power to see Wesen (supernatural beings). Nick is also a policeman, and in fact, the plot could be described as fantasy/procedural because each episode features a different case with a different Wesen. In this first season, we meet the main characters (the series has six seasons): Nick, the Grimm policeman; Monroe, a werewolf who will show Nick how the Wesen world works and help him behind the scenes to solve various cases. He will also be the first Wesen to befriend a Grimm; Hank, Nick's fellow police officer who is unaware of his Grimm nature, as is his girlfriend who knows nothing about the supernatural world; the police chief who is hiding a dark secret; and many other characters, cruel witches, half-human, half-animal characters, etc. The series is captivating from the very first episodes because each episode reveals new Wesen characters inspired by various legends, many of which are German, but also Japanese and American.

Buenas noches, amigos blogueros, he vuelto a escribir en esta comunidad. Ha pasado un tiempo desde que reseñé algo. ¡Qué vergüenza, tengo tanto que reseñar! Últimamente he estado viendo una serie antigua —no exactamente antigua, pero tampoco nueva— ¡que nunca había visto! La encontré en Amazon Prime, y como me encanta el género de fantasía, decidí verla, y la estoy disfrutando mucho. La serie se llama Grimm, pero no se basa únicamente en los cuentos de hadas del libro del mismo nombre. En realidad, los Grimm son cazadores de seres sobrenaturales muy poderosos. Nick, el protagonista, comienza a ver cosas extrañas y descubre que es una peculiaridad de su familia, donde varios Grimm tienen el poder de ver Wesen (seres sobrenaturales). Nick también es policía, y de hecho, la trama podría describirse como fantasía/procedimental porque cada episodio presenta un caso diferente con un Wesen diferente. En esta primera temporada, conocemos a los personajes principales (la serie tiene seis temporadas): Nick, el policía Grimm; Monroe, un hombre lobo que le mostrará a Nick cómo funciona el mundo Wesen y lo ayudará tras bambalinas a resolver diversos casos. También será el primer Wesen en hacerse amigo de un Grimm; Hank, compañero de Nick en la policía, quien desconoce su naturaleza Grimm, al igual que su novia, quien ignora por completo el mundo sobrenatural; el jefe de policía, que oculta un oscuro secreto; y muchos otros personajes: brujas crueles, seres mitad humanos, mitad animales, etc. La serie cautiva desde los primeros episodios, ya que cada uno revela nuevos personajes Wesen inspirados en diversas leyendas, muchas de ellas alemanas, pero también japonesas y estadounidenses.

I really enjoyed the first season because I love fantasy and crime, and both are present here, as each episode features a crime case to solve, combining investigation and procedural elements with the fantasy side of magical creatures. Each episode begins with the opening lines of a Grimm fairy tale, and the fairytale theme runs throughout the series. Some say it's too similar to Supernatural. Yes, there are some similarities, but honestly, I think Grimm is different, perhaps a little lighter and less dark. It's enjoyable to watch, but I recommend not stopping at the first season, which can sometimes seem a bit simple and banal. As the series progresses, in my opinion, the plot, the characters, the atmosphere, and the investigations improve significantly. However, in my opinion, the first season already shows the potential for the following seasons. It's truly a sort of introductory season, but the basic idea, with different characters and cases each episode, is really enjoyable if you love the supernatural world. For me, it's a good series and I recommend it to both fantasy fans and crime novels with a touch of humor and a flowing plot. I hope my review piqued your interest!

Disfruté mucho la primera temporada porque me encantan la fantasía y el crimen, y ambos géneros están presentes aquí, ya que cada episodio presenta un caso que resolver, combinando elementos de investigación y procedimiento con el lado fantástico de las criaturas mágicas. Cada episodio comienza con las primeras líneas de un cuento de hadas de los hermanos Grimm, y el tema de los cuentos de hadas está presente a lo largo de toda la serie. Algunos dicen que es demasiado parecida a Supernatural. Sí, hay algunas similitudes, pero sinceramente, creo que Grimm es diferente, quizás un poco más ligera y menos oscura. Es entretenida, pero recomiendo no quedarse en la primera temporada, que a veces puede parecer un poco simple y banal. A medida que avanza la serie, en mi opinión, la trama, los personajes, la atmósfera y las investigaciones mejoran significativamente. Sin embargo, en mi opinión, la primera temporada ya muestra el potencial para las siguientes. Es una especie de temporada introductoria, pero la idea básica, con diferentes personajes y casos en cada episodio, es realmente disfrutable si te gusta el mundo sobrenatural. En mi opinión, es una buena serie y la recomiendo tanto a los fans de la fantasía como a los amantes de las novelas policíacas con un toque de humor y una trama fluida. ¡Espero que mi reseña haya despertado tu interés!

First picture edited by canva translation with deepl.

Pictures source

A Fistful of Datas (S06E08)

Airdate: 9 November 1992

Written by: Robin Hewitt Wolfe Directed by: Patrick Stewart

Running Time: 46 minutes

The marriage between Star Trek and the Western genre is a curious, decades-long affair, born as much from pragmatic television economics as from any profound artistic synergy. The Original Series appeared during the zenith of the Western’s popularity on American television. It was perhaps inevitable that this cultural tide, particularly in the beleaguered third season when producers desperately pandered to prevailing tastes in a bid to stay on air, would eventually wash over the USS Enterprise. The result was Spectre of the Gun, an episode which, while hardly a classic, stands as one of the more surreal and conceptually intriguing pieces of early Star Trek, using a stark, artificial recreation of the O.K. Corral as a psychic punishment. Nearly a quarter of a century later, The Next Generation revived the genre in its penultimate season with A Fistful of Datas, an episode that, for all its surface-level homage, lays bare the creative exhaustion and formulaic tendencies that had begun to creep into the series by 1992.

The episode commences with the USS Enterprise-D arriving two days early for a rendezvous with a supply ship, leaving the crew at a loose end. Seizing the opportunity for recreation, Lieutenant Commander Geordi La Forge and Lieutenant Commander Data propose an experiment to test Data’s positronic brain as a potential backup for the ship’s computer core. Meanwhile, the perpetually stern Worf reluctantly acquiesces to his son Alexander’s request to visit the holodeck, where they participate in a simulation of the Ancient West town of Deadwood, playing the roles of sheriff and deputy. They are swiftly confronted by a holographic adversary, the troublemaking Eli Hollander (John Pyper-Ferguson). After overpowering him, they are joined by Counsellor Deanna Troi, a self-professed Western enthusiast who enters the programme to play a gunslinging stranger named “Durango.” The plot thickens when Eli boasts that his father, the local tycoon Frank Hollander, will secure his release.

Concurrently, odd malfunctions begin to plague the ship. More peculiarly, Data, while working with La Forge, begins to adopt an American Western twang in his speech and occasionally gestures as if he were a character from a dime novel. This peculiar behavioural shift is the first clue to a deeper systemic corruption. Back in Deadwood, Worf’s confrontation with Frank Hollander reveals the crux of the malfunction: Frank bears the exact likeness of Data. Furthermore, the holodeck’s safety protocols have been disengaged, a fact Worf discovers painfully when Frank’s bullet grazes his arm. All attempts to terminate the programme fail. In a tense escalation, Frank and his gang, who were also transmogrified into a Data lookalikes, abduct Alexander and demand Worf surrender himself. Troi deduces that the only escape is to “finish the story,” leading to a classic Western showdown. Utilising his Klingon ingenuity, Worf improvises a force field from a hitching post and metal plate, defeats Frank in a final gunfight, and safely extracts everyone from the now-stabilised holodeck.

A Fistful of Datas remains a deeply divisive episode among the fandom. To many hardcore “trekkies,” it serves as Exhibit A for the argument that the production staff was suffering from creative exhaustion in the show’s sixth season. The episode unabashedly panders to a general audience by delivering gimmicky, lightweight fluff instead of engaging with the philosophical or ethical dilemmas that represent Star Trek at its best. Its reputation was not aided by the fact that a similarly frivolous gimmick-centric episode, Rascals, had aired only a week prior, compounding a sense of narrative repetition. Furthermore, as with the majority of holodeck-themed stories, the plot is entirely contingent on a catastrophic system malfunction, a narrative crutch that had already grown tired. To inject stakes, a catastrophic malfunction must occur, transforming the safe simulation into a lethal trap. A Fistful of Datas does nothing to innovate beyond this well-worn template, relying on the same convenient technological failure to manufacture peril.

The script was the debut television credit for Robert Hewitt Wolfe, who would later become a prolific and respected writer on Deep Space Nine. This genesis perhaps explains the episode’s competent but unambitious structure; it is a serviceable genre pastiche that lacks the deeper thematic layering Wolfe would later master.

Of far greater significance is the episode’s director: Patrick Stewart. Eager to hone his skills behind the camera and intrigued by the challenge of directing a genre about which he knew little, Stewart approached the task with palpable enthusiasm. The result, considering the significant difficulties faced during production, is remarkably polished. Filmed on the exterior Western backlot at Universal Studios, the cast and crew endured intense heat. Michael Dorn and Brent Spiner suffered particularly, buried under heavy prosthetics and makeup—Dorn in his standard Klingon regalia and Spiner under the additional latex required to transform various holograms into Data’s visage.

Despite these hardships, the episode stands as a clear labour of love from all involved. The script pays direct tribute to genre classics, its central hostage plot lifted almost wholesale from Howard Hawks’ Rio Bravo. Meanwhile, Stewart, as director, injects visual homages to Sergio Leone’s Once Upon a Time in the West, particularly in the iconic final shot of the USS Enterprise itself riding into a stellar sunset—a wonderfully cheeky and visually poetic conclusion. The cast visibly relishes the change of pace. Brent Spiner, in particular, is given a field day. Due to the holodeck malfunction imposing Data’s image on other characters, Spiner ends up portraying a multitude of roles, including the saloon owner Annie (originally played by actress Jay Garrett, who tragically died months after the episode aired), whom he performs in full drag with commendable comic commitment.

The episode also demonstrates a commendable attention to series continuity, using it to add texture rather than mere fan service. Captain Picard is briefly seen practising on his Ressican flute, a poignant artefact from the masterpiece The Inner Light, subtly reminding viewers of the character’s depth even as the main plot engages in frivolity. Furthermore, the presence of saloon prostitutes and other “non-family friendly” content within a Starfleet holodeck programme is given a clever, in-universe explanation: the simulation was designed by the socially anxious and sexually frustrated Engineer Reginald Barclay, a character detail established in earlier episodes.

A Fistful of Datas is undeniably well-crafted for what it is, buoyed by Stewart’s assured direction, Spiner’s comedic versatility, and a genuine affection for the Western genre it pastiches. Yet, it ultimately feels inconsequential, a symptom of a long-running series momentarily out of profound ideas. It lacks the surreal, budget-driven ingenuity of Spectre of the Gun and fails to reach the clever genre deconstruction or philosophical weight of The Big Goodbye. It is, in essence, a perfectly entertaining piece of television fluff—a “gimmicky” confection—that succeeds on the level of pure performance and homage but contributes little to the enduring legacy of The Next Generation beyond proving that even in the 24th century, the crew could still play dress-up.

RATING: 7/10 (+++)

Blog in Croatian https://draxblog.com Blog in English https://draxreview.wordpress.com/ InLeo blog https://inleo.io/@drax.leo

LeoDex: https://leodex.io/?ref=drax InLeo: https://inleo.io/signup?referral=drax.leo Hiveonboard: https://hiveonboard.com?ref=drax Rising Star game: https://www.risingstargame.com?referrer=drax 1Inch: https://1inch.exchange/#/r/0x83823d8CCB74F828148258BB4457642124b1328e

BTC donations: 1EWxiMiP6iiG9rger3NuUSd6HByaxQWafG ETH donations: 0xB305F144323b99e6f8b1d66f5D7DE78B498C32A7 BCH donations: qpvxw0jax79lhmvlgcldkzpqanf03r9cjv8y6gtmk9

What's up, friends? Today I'm back with that favourite episode again. Hope everyone is well. Today, I'm sharing my experience watching the eighth episode of Star Trek: Discovery season 1 again. I think you'll like it. Honestly, I had to think for a while after finishing this episode, because the story is not just action or space missions—it has a different kind of psychological stress and mystery.

In this episode, the USS Discovery goes on a mission to an unknown planet. Although everything seems normal at first, it is gradually understood that this planet is not an ordinary place. There is a kind of force or species present here that can affect people's fears and thoughts. From this place, the main tension of the entire episode actually begins.

Michael Burnham keeps making his own decisions in this episode, too, and there is always a question in it—what exactly should be done and what needs to be done. His character always seems to me to not just follow orders, but to try to understand everything.

On the other hand, Saru becomes the most important in this episode. His ability to be afraid here is not a weakness but a strength. Because he can feel things that others can't. But the problem is, these feelings also put him under a lot of mental pressure.

Gabriel Lorca once again maintains his mysterious behaviour. He cannot be completely trusted, nor can he be completely distrusted. His character in this dilemma makes the series more interesting.

The biggest aspect of this episode is its atmosphere and mental stress. There is no big war or big space battle here, but still, an invisible fear works throughout the entire episode. It feels like you are on that planet yourself, and your own thoughts are slowly turning against you.

Overall, my personal opinion is that this episode is more of a "mind game" type than action. For those who only want to watch wars or space fights, it may seem a little slow. But for those who like the depth of the story, the psychological aspects of the characters, and the mystery, this is a very good episode.

Finally, I will say that this episode reminded me that not all enemies are visible; some enemies are created within ourselves.

Posted Using INLEO

La verdad, no le tenía demasiada fe a esta cinta, pues en comparación a la superproducción F1 del año pasado, su presupuesto era de apenas 12 millones, además de que su producción era más autóctona, con pequeñas casas productoras tanto de España e Italia, aunque eso si, con la supervisión de Warner Bros. Luego de verla, no me pareció mala, tiene buenas escenas en los circuitos, y los personajes son entrañables por momentos, pecando sobretodo de un guión flojo, que lo hacía parecer una telenovela española en los momentos de mayor drama.

To be honest, I didn't have much faith in this film, since compared to last year's F1 blockbuster, its budget was only 12 million, and its production was more local, with small production companies from both Spain and Italy, although Warner Bros. did oversee it. After seeing it, I didn't think it was bad; it has some good scenes on the racetracks, and the characters are endearing at times. Its main flaw is a weak script, which made it feel like a Spanish soap opera during the most dramatic moments.

Aunque la trama se centra en la superación y en las carreras, buscando cumplir un sueño imposible para la inmensa mayoría de la población, algunas subtramas no me gustaron mucho, pues la relación padre - hijo entre el protagonista y su entrenador no es demasiado creíble, y siento que el guión llega a pesar mucho, así como la amistad del protagonista con su mejor amigo, que pasa inmediatamente a segundo plano, y luego aparece únicamente con un aficionado más, perdiendo todo el peso en la trama.

Although the plot focuses on overcoming challenges and racing, seeking to fulfill a dream impossible for the vast majority of the population, I didn't like some subplots very much, as the father-son relationship between the protagonist and his coach is not very believable, and I feel that the script becomes very heavy, as well as the friendship of the protagonist with his best friend, which immediately takes a back seat, and then appears only with another fan, losing all weight in the plot.

Sinopsis según Filmaffinity / Synopsis according Filmaffinity:

"Edu es un joven piloto de motos muy agresivo en quien ningún equipo confía. Eli, jefe del equipo de Aspar Team en Moto2, le ofrece una oportunidad con la condición de que sea su padre, Antonio Belardi, quien le entrene. Edu lleva muchos años sin ver a su padre, un expiloto que se retiró de las pistas tras provocar la muerte de otro piloto durante una carrera. Aunque Edu odia a su padre por haberle abandonado, sabe que sólo con él puede llegar a alcanzar su sueño. Edu se someterá al estricto control de preparación que le exige Antonio, el cual incluye dejar a un lado el amor… Hasta que conoce a Luna, una joven artista que acaba de abrir un salón de tatuajes justo debajo de su casa."

"Edu is a young, highly aggressive motorcycle racer whom no team trusts. Eli, the head of the Aspar Team in Moto2, offers him a chance on the condition that his father, Antonio Belardi, trains him. Edu hasn't seen his father, a former racer who retired from the track after causing the death of another rider during a race, for many years. Although Edu hates his father for abandoning him, he knows that only with him can he achieve his dream. Edu submits to the strict training regimen that Antonio demands, which includes putting love aside… until he meets Luna, a young artist who has just opened a tattoo parlor right below his apartment."

Esa relación se presenta luego de que Edu, quien impresionó a un manager de un equipo de una división más alta por su agresividas e instinto en la pista, más allá de que haya fracaso y perdido el campeonato por un error de control propio. Viendo las características del piloto, y la necesidad de que controlará y enfocará estas cualidades, busca a un ex corredor de mucho renombre, que termina siendo su padre, dando inicio a la subtrama más importante, pues aunque tienen sus vaivenes, finalmente consiguen un momento de conciliación, que termina por definir sus futuros.

This relationship develops after Edu impresses a manager from a higher division with his aggressiveness and instinct on the track, despite ultimately losing the championship due to a driver error. Recognizing the driver's potential and the need for him to control and focus these qualities, the manager seeks out a renowned former racer, who turns out to be his father. This sets in motion the most important subplot, as despite their ups and downs, they eventually reach a point of reconciliation that ultimately shapes their futures.

El temperamento de Edu hace que pierda muchas oportunidades, pues no sólo por su imprudencia y temeridad, que lo llevan a sufrir varios accidentes, siendo la gota que derramó el vaso cuando arremete contra su compañero de escuderia, no sólo perdiendo la carrera y el torneo, sino que además, ambos terminaron con lesiones graves, ameritando varios meses para recuperarse. Es en este momento donde tocó fondo, viendo como sus probabilidades de cumplir su sueño casi llegan a 0, donde madura y empieza a tomar mejores decisiones, demostrando una resilencia que fue la mejor enseñanza de la cinta.

Edu's temper causes him to miss many opportunities, not only because of his recklessness and foolhardiness, which lead to several accidents, but also because the final straw is when he attacks his teammate. Not only does he lose the race and the championship, but both end up with serious injuries, requiring several months of recovery. It is at this moment that he hits rock bottom, seeing his chances of fulfilling his dream almost disappear. It is then that he matures and begins to make better decisions, demonstrating a resilience that is the film's most powerful lesson.

El mayor fuerte pienso que es la parte visual, tanto las escenas de acción, las carreras y el ambiente en general, agregando a corredores reales a la historia, sobre todo Marc Marquez, que es una auténtica leyenda de la Moto GP. Aunque como esta tan fresca en la memoria colectiva la cinta de F1, pierde mucha espectacularidad, pues no puede compararse con aquella super producción, pero tampoco me malinterpreten, en esta cinta esta parte técnica cumple.

I think its greatest strength is the visual aspect, from the action scenes and races to the overall atmosphere, especially the inclusion of real racers in the story, particularly Marc Marquez, a true MotoGP legend. However, because the F1 film is still so fresh in our collective memory, it loses some of its spectacular impact and can't be compared to that blockbuster. But don't get me wrong, this film does a good job with the technical aspects.

Por otra parte, el guión fue lo más flojo de la película, sobre todo lo referente a la relación amoroso, que dio tintes de novela por momentos, así como la trama en sí, que sobretodo en el primer acto, parece una obra esquematizada, donde suceden cosas porque si, perdiendo parte de la lógica. La actuación de la actriz que hace a Luna no me pareció mala, el protagonista si siento que se quedó un poco atrás, mientras que fuera de los italianos, nadie realmente llegó a ganar un peso significante, pasando casi desapercibidos.

On the other hand, the script was the weakest aspect of the film, especially regarding the love story, which at times felt like a novel, as well as the plot itself, which, particularly in the first act, seemed like a formulaic piece where things happen for no apparent reason, losing some of its logic. The actress playing Luna didn't give a bad performance, but I felt the male lead lagged a bit behind, while aside from the Italian actors, no one really stood out, remaining almost unnoticeable.

En conclusión, me pareció una película adecuada para distraerme un rato, siento que acertó en varias cosas, pero esos momentos que la hacían más similar a una novela latinoamericana que a una producción cinematográfica fue más pesado para mi gusto, aunque si debo darles un punto a favor porque no hicieron que el protagonista alcanzará la primera plaza y logrará al menos el podio, la caída de Marc Marquez, la máxima leyenda actual de la Moto GP, así como de otros dos competidores, fue algo totalmente acertado, porque para mi es inconcebible que los pueda vencer por más talento que tenga.

In conclusion, I found it a suitable film to distract myself for a while. I feel it got several things right, but those moments that made it more similar to a Latin American soap opera than a cinematic production were a bit much for my taste. However, I must give them credit because they didn't let the protagonist reach first place and at least make it to the podium. The fall of Marc Marquez, the current biggest legend of MotoGP, as well as two other competitors, was totally fitting, because for me it's inconceivable that he could beat them no matter how talented he is.

Mi calificación para esta película / My rating for this movie:

5.5 / 10.0

Source

Source

Source

Source

Source

Translated Using Deepl

ESPAÑOL

Fuente

Fuente

Fuente

Fuente

Fuente

There's only humidity here

One of the most oft-quoted yet least substantiated clichés is that "life writes the best stories." The notion that reality—which is, as a rule, rather banal—could compete with the products of human imagination is frequently wielded as an excuse for creative bankruptcy amongst Hollywood screenwriters. When such "extraordinary" true events are committed to film, particularly in dramatic form, the results are often disappointingly prosaic.

Yet there exists a small but significant subset of narratives that genuinely appear to have sprung from some fevered, perhaps disturbed imagination, whilst actually being rooted in cold, hard reality. The case of Marcus and Alex Lewis is precisely such a story.

The English identical twins first entered the public consciousness via a 2013 article in The Times, followed by their memoir Tell Me Who I Am, which six years later formed the basis for this Netflix documentary directed by Ed Perkins.

The film opens squarely from Alex's perspective. In 1982, aged eighteen, he suffered a near-fatal motorcycle accident. The resulting head trauma plunged him into a coma for three months, from which he emerged with almost total amnesia. The sole memory that survived—the only face he could recognise—was that of his twin brother Marcus. What followed was an extraordinary act of fraternal reconstruction: Marcus did not merely shepherd Alex from childlike ignorance back to adult competence; he fabricated an entire narrative of their childhood. Through carefully curated stories of a happy upbringing, Marcus enabled Alex to build a coherent identity and reconnect with a "family" that existed largely in fiction.

Alex accepted these accounts with little scrutiny until 1995, when their mother passed away. Whilst Alex was understandably devastated, Marcus displayed unsettling emotional detachment. The answer to this disparity arrived during the clearing of the family home. Amongst the debris of their childhood, the brothers discovered photographs and objects that spoke to a reality far removed from Marcus's idyllic tales. Confronted with this evidence, Marcus confessed: his narratives had been elaborate fictions designed not merely to spare Alex horrific truths, but also to serve as his own mechanism for surviving trauma.

Alex would not learn the complete truth for another two decades. It was only after both men had themselves become fathers that they elected to make their history public.

Perkins constructs the documentary almost entirely around the brothers' testimonies, using photographs, documents, and sparing dramatic reconstructions—including one particularly effective sequence depicting the Lewis family home as something akin to a Gothic horror house, all shadows and dread. The structure is admirably disciplined, divided into three distinct movements. The first charts Alex's post-accident existence and his literal rebuilding of self from tabula rasa. The second documents the collapse of Marcus's illusion and the grim reality it concealed. The third, and perhaps most devastating, observes both men confronting the consequences of Marcus's decades-long deception and attempting to reconstruct their relationship afresh.

It is this final section that resonates most profoundly. There are precious few cinematic moments where middle-aged men allow themselves to be so vulnerably exposed—where the depth of emotional scarring from half a century prior is laid bare, and where the ongoing struggle to transcend such trauma is rendered with such raw, disarming honesty.

Six years after its release, Tell Me Who I Am remains lodged in the memory of those who have seen it. This is no small achievement: despite Netflix's subsequent deluge of true-crime documentaries and lurid exposés, Perkins's film distinguishes itself by tackling material that initially appears less sensational than the platform's typical fare. There are no serial killers here, no courtroom theatrics, no unreliable narrators in the conventional documentary sense—merely two men wrestling with the weight of shared, concealed suffering.

If the film has a limitation, it is one inherent to the form: the viewer is ultimately held at arm's length from the full horror of the brothers' experiences, which are hinted at rather than explicitly detailed. This restraint is understandable and ethical, yet it occasionally lends the narrative a sense of incompleteness that some may find frustrating.

The production values are serviceable rather than spectacular; Perkins and his team favour intimacy over aesthetic fireworks. Yet this is entirely appropriate. The true credit belongs to Alex and Marcus Lewis themselves. Without their courage—their willingness to excavate and share wounds most would bury indefinitely—there would be no film, merely another "inspired by true events" screenplay languishing in development hell.

Tell Me who I Am stands as a testament to the complexities of memory, the burdens of protection, and the painful necessity of truth. In an era where documentary filmmaking increasingly chases the ephemeral spectacle, this quiet, devastating portrait of brotherhood and survival endures.

RATING: 8/10 (+++)

(Note: The text in the original Croatian version is available here.)

Blog in Croatian https://draxblog.com Blog in English https://draxreview.wordpress.com/ InLeo blog https://inleo.io/@drax.leo

LeoDex: https://leodex.io/?ref=drax Hiveonboard: https://hiveonboard.com?ref=drax InLeo: https://inleo.io/signup?referral=drax.leo Rising Star game: https://www.risingstargame.com?referrer=drax 1Inch: https://1inch.exchange/#/r/0x83823d8CCB74F828148258BB4457642124b1328e

BTC donations: 1EWxiMiP6iiG9rger3NuUSd6HByaxQWafG ETH donations: 0xB305F144323b99e6f8b1d66f5D7DE78B498C32A7 BCH donations: qpvxw0jax79lhmvlgcldkzpqanf03r9cjv8y6gtmk9