mail-69063
Joined Oct 2022
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews12
mail-69063's rating
What started as a promising adaptation of Asimov's legendary sci-fi saga quickly spiraled into a slow-motion train wreck dressed in prestige TV aesthetics. The first couple of episodes of Foundation teased something intelligent, world-building, philosophical stakes, a vast empire on the brink of collapse. For a moment, it looked like Apple had given us the thinking person's space opera.
Then it all fell apart.
Plotlines meandered. Characters made baffling decisions. Clones ruled the galaxy with all the charisma of wet cardboard. The so-called "genius" of Hari Seldon's psychohistory got buried under melodrama, mystical nonsense, and so many time jumps it felt like the writers were trying to escape their own story.
If The Expanse is Star Wars...sharp, engaging, character-driven sci-fi with political grit, then Foundation is Star Wars with no lightsabers, no sense of urgency, and no soul. It's like someone read Asimov and thought, "What this needs is a chosen one subplot and endless, moody stares into the distance."
Visually impressive but emotionally empty, Foundation proves that even the most ambitious concepts can be suffocated by bloated writing, shallow reinventions, and the kind of seriousness that forgets to be fun. The worst part? It thinks it's smarter than it is.
By season two, I wasn't watching to be entertained. I was watching out of stubbornness. Or maybe to see if something finally happened. (Spoiler: it didn't.)
Then it all fell apart.
Plotlines meandered. Characters made baffling decisions. Clones ruled the galaxy with all the charisma of wet cardboard. The so-called "genius" of Hari Seldon's psychohistory got buried under melodrama, mystical nonsense, and so many time jumps it felt like the writers were trying to escape their own story.
If The Expanse is Star Wars...sharp, engaging, character-driven sci-fi with political grit, then Foundation is Star Wars with no lightsabers, no sense of urgency, and no soul. It's like someone read Asimov and thought, "What this needs is a chosen one subplot and endless, moody stares into the distance."
Visually impressive but emotionally empty, Foundation proves that even the most ambitious concepts can be suffocated by bloated writing, shallow reinventions, and the kind of seriousness that forgets to be fun. The worst part? It thinks it's smarter than it is.
By season two, I wasn't watching to be entertained. I was watching out of stubbornness. Or maybe to see if something finally happened. (Spoiler: it didn't.)
From the very beginning, the show suffers from poor production values. The lighting is flat, the cinematography uninspired, and the sound design distracts more than it supports. Visually and tonally, it lacks the sophistication and attention to detail we've come to expect from Apple's original programming.
The writing is equally underwhelming. The dialogue is stilted and often unintentionally laughable, while the plot is riddled with clichés and predictable twists. Characters make irrational decisions, their motivations remain vague or inconsistent, and any attempt at depth feels forced and hollow.
What makes it worse is the acting - or lack thereof. The cast delivers wooden, exaggerated, or completely flat performances. Emotional scenes fall completely flat, and there's a clear absence of chemistry or believability. It feels more like a low-budget soap than a premium drama series.
Ultimately, Prime Finder drags down the overall quality of the Apple TV+ library. It's a reminder that not all content, especially outsourced or externally developed productions, meets the bar Apple has set. If this is the future of British content on the platform, it needs a serious rethink.
The writing is equally underwhelming. The dialogue is stilted and often unintentionally laughable, while the plot is riddled with clichés and predictable twists. Characters make irrational decisions, their motivations remain vague or inconsistent, and any attempt at depth feels forced and hollow.
What makes it worse is the acting - or lack thereof. The cast delivers wooden, exaggerated, or completely flat performances. Emotional scenes fall completely flat, and there's a clear absence of chemistry or believability. It feels more like a low-budget soap than a premium drama series.
Ultimately, Prime Finder drags down the overall quality of the Apple TV+ library. It's a reminder that not all content, especially outsourced or externally developed productions, meets the bar Apple has set. If this is the future of British content on the platform, it needs a serious rethink.
With Venom 3, Sony continues its streak of mediocre to disappointing Marvel spin-offs. The film feels like an uninspired sequel to an already shaky franchise that has struggled with its identity since the first installment in 2018. Is it supposed to be a dark comic book adaptation or an over-the-top action comedy? The third film remains stuck in this crisis, once again proving that Sony, without Marvel Studios' creative direction, cannot reach the quality of the MCU.
One of the biggest issues is, once again, the script. The story feels forced, lacking real narrative momentum. Instead of delivering a compelling, emotionally engaging plot, Sony relies on excessive CGI battles and cringeworthy one-liners. Tom Hardy does his best to bring depth to Eddie Brock and Venom, but his talent is wasted on a messy story and forgettable supporting characters. The villains lack presence, the jokes fall flat, and the emotional stakes are nonexistent.
Visually, Venom 3 continues Sony's trend of soulless, over-processed CGI. The action sequences are loud and chaotic but lack any real impact. Unlike Marvel Studios, which seamlessly integrates CGI into well-crafted set pieces, Sony once again delivers a film that feels more like a rushed video game cutscene than a polished blockbuster.
Sony's biggest failure, however, is its inability to evolve. While Marvel Studios carefully builds interconnected narratives, developing characters over multiple films, Sony seems content with producing standalone, uninspired entries that add nothing to the larger superhero genre. Venom 3 is yet another reminder that Sony's Marvel universe is a hollow attempt to cash in on comic book fans without understanding what makes these stories resonate.
One of the biggest issues is, once again, the script. The story feels forced, lacking real narrative momentum. Instead of delivering a compelling, emotionally engaging plot, Sony relies on excessive CGI battles and cringeworthy one-liners. Tom Hardy does his best to bring depth to Eddie Brock and Venom, but his talent is wasted on a messy story and forgettable supporting characters. The villains lack presence, the jokes fall flat, and the emotional stakes are nonexistent.
Visually, Venom 3 continues Sony's trend of soulless, over-processed CGI. The action sequences are loud and chaotic but lack any real impact. Unlike Marvel Studios, which seamlessly integrates CGI into well-crafted set pieces, Sony once again delivers a film that feels more like a rushed video game cutscene than a polished blockbuster.
Sony's biggest failure, however, is its inability to evolve. While Marvel Studios carefully builds interconnected narratives, developing characters over multiple films, Sony seems content with producing standalone, uninspired entries that add nothing to the larger superhero genre. Venom 3 is yet another reminder that Sony's Marvel universe is a hollow attempt to cash in on comic book fans without understanding what makes these stories resonate.