Loki Season 2

Loki Season 2 (Michael Waldron, 2023)

Click here for the basics

Rating: DSQ=11, SP=7 / Decadence

Scale A=4, Scale B=4, Scale C=3, Scale D=3, Scale E=4

Marvel, Science Fiction, Fantasy, Action, Adventure, Complex Relationships

I had high hopes for the second season of Loki, mostly because I was so surprised at how good the first season was. Season 1 brought us a new take on Marvel, with an emphasis on artistry and vibrancy that harkened back to the traditional comic books. I was again surprised by Season 2--while the show was still vibrant and visually intriguing, the emphasis impressively shifted to telling a very philosophical story about time, destiny, and the meaning of life. This is not what I would ever expect of the new MCU universe that usually chooses flashy and escapist fantasy over narrative depth. Loki Season 2 is a time travel adventure, but it is dark and deep. It's even a religious allegory, at times. Loki, as well as the other characters, must grapple with his "glorious purpose." There are hard choices, difficult realizations, deep philosophical conundrums. And all of this in serious urgency--the fate of the entire universe... needless to say, I was quite impressed by this one. 

--Don't understand the ratings? Click here

Napoleon

Napoleon (Ridley Scott, 2023)

Click here for the basics

Rating: Q=6, P=4 / Average OJ

Scale 1=4, Scale 2=2, Scale 3=2, Scale 4=2

Biopic, 19th Century, Historical, France

I went in to the theater with no expectations, but I had seen the very mixed reviews about Ridley Scott's latest film. I knew that the French were upset and disappointed, that much was not historically accurate, and that Joaquin Phoenix's performance was...different. That being said, though, I had an open mind.

Napoleon is a beautiful, epic cinematic experience. The visuals are stunning and leap from the screen, the battle sequences are phenomenal and immersive. There are moments that are breathtaking. The costume design and art direction are mesmerizing--like being in an exquisite and intricate oil painting. But the story of one of history's most mythologized and famous (or infamous) leaders is, quite frankly, flat.

I don't know how it is possible for Scott to make a story that is simultaneously intriguing yet also boring, but somehow he manages to do that. We are shown Napoleon as a general and as a rather annoying and boorish husband. We see him as an emperor, too, but in all these situations we know nothing about him. We see his citizens and soldiers following him without blinking, but we don't know why. Why? What did he do that makes you adore him so? We don't know. We aren't shown. What makes him tick, what interests him? What is his background? And what did he do for France besides fight battles? And the part that is confusing is that we know this information--he was a real figure. Why not show us Napoleon the leader--building up the economy and making reform? Why not show us that he was intelligent off the battlefield, too? That he had...a personality?

Phoenix's portrayal is interesting, I rather enjoyed it but there was so much missing. Not necessarily his fault, though, he worked with what he had--a very lackluster script.

One thing I will say: I would watch it again and enjoy it again. And I will be watching more Napoleon films from the past, as I'm aching to see a performance of him with more depth.

--Don't understand the ratings? Click here