CinefanR
Joined Aug 2010
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.
Reviews112
CinefanR's rating
The series tries to be a commentary on the human condition, wrapped in a sci-fi theme. Watching it, older viewers may be reminded of Twin Peaks, while younger ones, of Stranger Things. This is not a copy of either one. Dark stands on it's own; however, I found it underwhelming despite the raving reviews.
One might get even Stalker flashes of Tarkovski's pretentious monologues.
Dark riffs on issues like identity, determinism, free will, the nature of time, faith etc. Quite elevated for the current state of affairs, right? But what it fails to do, in my opinion, is to encompass all these topics in a truly original take. Twin Peaks for instance had a unique vision on the human condition, on good vs evil, and its poetry hits a nerve, even when leaving the novelty out of it. Twin Peaks was unique, visually and conceptually, with a timeless complexity on many levels.
Another fault of Dark is its repetitive nature. All the characters say the same things, and they repeat it across multiple episodes. We got the picture from the first time, and it's getting old pretty fast.
Soon enough, characters get in and out of time, and again, it's getting tiresome and confusing, leading to a lack of interest in whatever happens next.
The teenage actors' older versions are well chosen and the acting is decent; however they lack charisma. There is no star power here.
I doubt there can be such thing as star power in non American films. However brilliant these productions may be, Hollywood made its name for a reason. They know entertainment. They got the winning formula. They got the stars. They got the one liners.
That's not to say that Dark is bad, I just expected more.
One might get even Stalker flashes of Tarkovski's pretentious monologues.
Dark riffs on issues like identity, determinism, free will, the nature of time, faith etc. Quite elevated for the current state of affairs, right? But what it fails to do, in my opinion, is to encompass all these topics in a truly original take. Twin Peaks for instance had a unique vision on the human condition, on good vs evil, and its poetry hits a nerve, even when leaving the novelty out of it. Twin Peaks was unique, visually and conceptually, with a timeless complexity on many levels.
Another fault of Dark is its repetitive nature. All the characters say the same things, and they repeat it across multiple episodes. We got the picture from the first time, and it's getting old pretty fast.
Soon enough, characters get in and out of time, and again, it's getting tiresome and confusing, leading to a lack of interest in whatever happens next.
The teenage actors' older versions are well chosen and the acting is decent; however they lack charisma. There is no star power here.
I doubt there can be such thing as star power in non American films. However brilliant these productions may be, Hollywood made its name for a reason. They know entertainment. They got the winning formula. They got the stars. They got the one liners.
That's not to say that Dark is bad, I just expected more.
The lead actor is perfectly cast as the crook. Simon Baker is very pleasant to watch , and it's a perfect match to the role.
The script however is very weak. Simon is wasted talent because of this half-assed writing. The supporting characters are boring, uninteresting, underdeveloped, and have no chemistry whatsoever. They have no real personality, there is no depth, so no connection to the audience.
The name "Jane" is stupid and annoying, and so is this "CBI" agency. What is that? How about Police or FBI. Annoying and unimaginative.
Even the Jane character has its holes. Prior to his tragedy he was a ruthless conman. Afterwards , he's such an ethical person. Implausible. Inconsistent. Bad writing.
On a side note, all the extras in this series are familiar from House MD, Psych, X-Files, The Young and the restless, Monk and virtually every American series out there, which is distracting.
The script however is very weak. Simon is wasted talent because of this half-assed writing. The supporting characters are boring, uninteresting, underdeveloped, and have no chemistry whatsoever. They have no real personality, there is no depth, so no connection to the audience.
The name "Jane" is stupid and annoying, and so is this "CBI" agency. What is that? How about Police or FBI. Annoying and unimaginative.
Even the Jane character has its holes. Prior to his tragedy he was a ruthless conman. Afterwards , he's such an ethical person. Implausible. Inconsistent. Bad writing.
On a side note, all the extras in this series are familiar from House MD, Psych, X-Files, The Young and the restless, Monk and virtually every American series out there, which is distracting.
One of my favorite action movies. Apart from Demi's incredible physical performance and memorable roles by Anne Bancroft and Viggo M., this is a perfect summer blockbuster. Why it flopped at the time is beyond me, but I don't care. This is a great Hollywood movie to enjoy by all ages - fun, entertaining and memorable. Love it!