House of Cards

Season 1 – 80% – Kevin Spacey chose an apt place for his resounding comeback. As a powerful and morally unbound politician, he can act magnificently in gripping dialogues, mischievously wink at the camera, give the viewer a sense of belonging, and convince with his charisma that sometimes doing something bad could be beneficial for one's own cause. The whole house of cards has the strongest foundation in Frank's tension with Zoe (and in general, the influence of these two characters), while some fail to fully captivate you due to their too calm storyline (Claire), or irritate you with their decisions and actions (Peter). It is the atmosphere and mood, which are not afraid to use a dose of irony, that make the series unique in its own way. Certainly not because of the script. It loses its presumed sophistication at the moment of the first revelation. Then the magic of the shocked viewer fades away, and with every plot twist, I suspect a bigger plan. However, thanks to specific characters and pleasantly ambiguous progression, it hasn't started bothering me yet. Season 2 – 60% – A surprisingly frustrating experience. The gradual carving out of the most interesting characters and storylines leaves the path paved for regular politics with all its routine dirtiness, and at that moment, the magical satire that could captivate the audience the most disappears. What's worse is that none of the sidelined storylines are satisfactorily concluded, and most of the closing scenes are just shortcuts or unbelievable jolts. Characters with nothing new to offer and are just cheaper versions of ones who have already left the Congress, the White House, and other locations, are pushed into the foreground inexplicably. Despite the occasional paperwork rustling in purely political circles, the pleasantly unsettling atmosphere never completely disappears, and Spacey manages to chill you with every raised voice. However, that's not enough for a series that wants to be an unforgettable event all at once. Season 3 – 70% – Surprisingly, even though it reaches higher political circles, the show plays on a more personal note, but it is not enough for victory. It is played using pawns whose role in the whole game is undeniable (Jackie, Remy, Seth), but if they are not in direct contact with Frank, I have no need to see them at all. Their side storylines are just filler, just like last year, not to mention Doug, whose driving force, an obsession with a certain redhead, should have been resolved long ago, but instead keeps repeating itself in tiresome loops. Luckily, the central antihero, who has found an equal opponent in Heather as well as Petrov, and best of all - in Claire, is still present. It's precisely the cautiously escalating dialogues between Spacey and Robin Wright that always captivate me as Mr. and Mrs. FU, even if the other storylines are unnecessary. Originally, I was aiming for a higher rating for the third season because politics this time aims pleasantly in the current direction, but the ending itself flinches. Unfortunately, it shows that showrunner Beau Willimon wants to appear very sophisticated, but at the same time lets go of the vast majority of possibilities to really work with supporting characters and instead randomly pulls them wherever it suits the next episode. Season 4 – 80% – For a while, it seemed that even the remaining sophistication would transform into pure politics, which would be a disaster for the original premise. However, in the fourth episode, it dramatically deviates from the indicated direction, and the whole House finally breathes lightly, bringing back to the game to my great delight almost all the more significant supporting characters from past years, and giving Spacey a chance for previously unseen acting expressions. The character of the writer Tom shows how creatively seemingly finished characters can return to the game, while in the case of Doug, for several years now, it has been shown that Michael Kelly must have some dirt on Netflix; otherwise, I don't understand why they insist on keeping him in the main cast at all costs. Thanks to the unexpected and daring development, I would believe in the whole project again, except for one thing holding me back, the departure of Beau Willimon from the position of the main creator. Even this season was far from flawless, but continuing at any cost without him seems highly risky to me. Season 5 – 70% – In the first two-thirds, I enjoy watching Frank's subversive deeds and have a great time until the climax of the election storyline. However, everything that comes after works worse, especially because the main couple is surrounded by increasingly uninteresting characters. Mark, Cathy, Alex Romero, Seth, and unfortunately, Jane Davis portrayed flawlessly by Patricia Clarkson, unfortunately, mean nothing to me, and most of the time, they only function as an advertisement for how perfectly Kevin Spacey and Robin Wright can play off each other due to their contrast. I would still believe in the series at this moment if it knew where it was going, if it wasn't for the events that left the show without its biggest draw. Season 6 – 40% – After Spacey's departure, I believed that the creators knew what they were doing. That the swan song wouldn't be just a weak attempt to pass the baton, that there would simply be something to play for. Now, on the contrary, I regret that the series wasn't canceled because the ship sank when the scripts started getting rewritten. I like Robin Wright, but without her eternal counterpart in the form of Frank, she is sadly an add-on to the picture, no matter how much she plays with the ongoing female victories. For a change, I even appreciate Doug for the first time in a long time, for there to be a decent counterpart at all and an attempt at a balanced dynamic. Otherwise, the Shepherd siblings steal a huge amount of space. Never-before-seen characters are positioned as the grey eminences of all of Washington, without whose oversight perhaps the entire cabinet won't turn around. When other bland Mark-type antagonists are added, it becomes definitively clear how far a once-ambitious undertaking has fallen. Long-running side characters hastily leave the scene to get any absolution at all, the finale fails to bring any logical point to the events so far, and the revelations that have been awaited for the entire eight episodes come across as a travesty, not to mention the overall direction being too much at the mercy of behind-the-scenes events. A regrettable ending that is only saved from ignominy by the quality of the actors they managed to get for even the smallest roles. (28.08.2014) (vähemmän) (lisää)

I consider myself a rational person who also dislikes rushing, so I let myself be controlled by emotions only exceptionally - usually when something heavy or sharp falls on my foot. I reject love at first sight, yet after just a few minutes of the first episode, I felt a strong connection between me and the series forming - it simply perfectly hit my mood and my taste. Satire is counted among comedic genres, usually associated with exaggeration and absurdity, with grotesque and black humor. We expect bursts of laughter from it. At one point in the past, I was surprised that the morbid novel "The Child Buyer," which evoked completely different emotions in me, is also referred to as satire by reviewers. Under the label of political satire, we probably imagine series like Yes, Minister, or the more outspoken The Thick of It. House of Cards appears more serious at first glance, focusing on credibility and not attempting to evoke bursts of laughter. It initially follows the formula of social dramas. An ambitious man who has tied his future to a presidential candidate expects a substantial reward after winning the elections. However, the feast for the privileged is forbidden to him, with the condition that he must have supervision over the cafeteria, which undeniably has quality and no one is hungry there. However, the cafeteria food cannot satisfy Francis's appetite for power, so as an experienced chef, he begins to mix ingredients in a way that would upset the head chef and cause a stir in the kitchen. Francis is a perfect power technologist, a manipulator, and a skillful negotiator, who is knowledgeable about human psychology and the functioning of state institutions. Francis's detachment, ironic glosses, and comments that he directs at the viewer reveal that we are truly in the realm of satire, despite the objectivity and the effort to have an analytical view. House of Cards paints an unflattering picture of American high politics manipulated by lobbyists, disintegrated by personal ambitions and intrigues. Noble ideals here too often succumb to cynical pragmatism and manipulation. The charm of the series lies in the virtuosity with which Francis goes through the story and directs the course of events. Even the best ancient orators would have to pay tribute for his performance in the church, where he masterfully managed to break the spikes of hatred and gain the sympathy of those present. ------ Whether I like it or not, I have to return to my review after some time. Making mistakes is human, and I repentantly confess to my mistake. Some series quickly lose steam, the screenwriter runs out of ideas, or the story falls flat. Here, I get the feeling that the screenwriter and I completely diverged at some point. I wanted to see something in House of Cards that it is objectively not and does not want to be. The sexual affair between Frank and the ambitious young journalist should have warned me because honestly, it did not fit his character and ambitions at all. Frank would not just throw himself at someone who can offer him so little. However, the real blow came with the first murder. Innocents, of course, do not move in high politics, but for several centuries, it has been customary that the dirty work is entrusted to someone who can be removed or thrown overboard if necessary. Ideally, someone whom it is difficult to connect to the client. Here, Frank comes across more as an unpredictable psychopath than a big player. After the second murder, I definitively gave up on the series. The cast is great, but what the screenwriter is doing kills the promising potential. Overall impression: from the originally lofty heights, I have fallen very deeply in the second season, so my overall impression of 60% is a compromise in its own way - also with the knowledge that I would go down by a few percentage points with each subsequent episode. (08.02.2016) (vähemmän) (lisää)