Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Darkest Hour (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
As the Nazi’s sweep through Europe at the beginning of World War II the British face the difficult issue of replacing their Prime Minister. The people and members of Parliament have become disenchanted with Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup). They feel his lack of action lead to the rise of Hitler and the Nazis. He agrees to step down and has to name a replacement. While he would prefer to have his protégé, Foreign Secretary Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane), there is only one member of his party that all of Parliament will accept, Winston Churchill (Gary Oldman). King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn) is also opposed to the brash and opinionated Churchill. Bowing to the will of the opposition Churchill the King agrees to appoint him the next Prime Minister. Although he is thrilled at finally achieving his lifelong dream he has no delusions that he is facing extremely difficult times ahead. The Nazis are tearing through Europe. They have already taken Belgium and Holland they now are invading France. The Nazis have also managed to surround nearly the entire British ground force on the French beaches with no way home. Not only does he have to worry about foreign foes but also his numerous political enemies in his own party. Many oppose his brash and unpredictable nature, while others think of him as heavy drinker that is no more than an exceptional orator with little capacity to make hard decisions. He must overcome all of this to protect the English people and prepare them for the tough days ahead.
Winston Churchill is a very well know historically figure. He was known for his powerful speeches and bigger than life personality. This film takes a look at the early days of him being Prime Minister, during some of the most volatile days in the history of Europe. Not only does the story delve into the politics and struggles of Churchill to put forth his agenda in a hostile climate but also shows him at his most vulnerable. One example is after delivering his first radio address to the nation he walks home alone and to talk with and be reassured by his wife, Clementine Churchill (Kristin Scott Thomas), that his speech was good and people could hear him.
Gary Oldman is spectacular in his role as Chruchill. From the iconic speeches to the light moments with his family and personal secretary, Elizabeth Layton (Lily James), he puts forth a great performance. The supporting cast is great as well, highlighted by Mendelsohn, Scott Thomas and James. The flow of the film really worked, under direction of Joe Wright (Atonement, The Soloist, and Pan). The two hour and five minute run time felt shorter and the movie really moved along. There were some points that they showed some battle scenes, after all it is a World War II era film, which did feel like afterthoughts and didn’t really add anything to the movie. The tension of the moment was well done even without these scenes. Besides those scenes the movie was shot well and added to the overall feel of the movie.
This film will appeal to those who are fans of history, the World War II era specifically, and historical figures. It also is powerful and heartfelt. Really the performances of the cast are what really stuck with me and will be the reason that I watch it again.
Winston Churchill is a very well know historically figure. He was known for his powerful speeches and bigger than life personality. This film takes a look at the early days of him being Prime Minister, during some of the most volatile days in the history of Europe. Not only does the story delve into the politics and struggles of Churchill to put forth his agenda in a hostile climate but also shows him at his most vulnerable. One example is after delivering his first radio address to the nation he walks home alone and to talk with and be reassured by his wife, Clementine Churchill (Kristin Scott Thomas), that his speech was good and people could hear him.
Gary Oldman is spectacular in his role as Chruchill. From the iconic speeches to the light moments with his family and personal secretary, Elizabeth Layton (Lily James), he puts forth a great performance. The supporting cast is great as well, highlighted by Mendelsohn, Scott Thomas and James. The flow of the film really worked, under direction of Joe Wright (Atonement, The Soloist, and Pan). The two hour and five minute run time felt shorter and the movie really moved along. There were some points that they showed some battle scenes, after all it is a World War II era film, which did feel like afterthoughts and didn’t really add anything to the movie. The tension of the moment was well done even without these scenes. Besides those scenes the movie was shot well and added to the overall feel of the movie.
This film will appeal to those who are fans of history, the World War II era specifically, and historical figures. It also is powerful and heartfelt. Really the performances of the cast are what really stuck with me and will be the reason that I watch it again.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Ready Player One (2018) in Movies
Apr 5, 2018
Very Good Time
It's 2045 and most of the world's population has turned to the virtual world called OASIS which has become a second home for many. When the world's creator James Halladay (Mark Rylance) passes away, he leaves behind an easter egg inside the virtual world and whoever finds that egg will inherit both his fortune and the OASIS. Wade Watts (Tye Sheridan) hopes to find that egg before Nolan Sorrento (Ben Mendelsohn) and his greedy corporation IOI can get their hands on it and forever ruin the OASIS.
Acting: 8
Beginning: 10
Characters: 2
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 9
A death-defying race chocked full of easter eggs (like Ryu from Street Fighter and the bike from Akira) where the participants have to deal with a shifting path, bulldozers, the T-Rex from Jurassic Park and a very angry King Kong. Yeah, that's just the first ten minutes.
In Ready Player One, it's not just about the action but about everyone and everything involved in said action. I can't go into too much detail without ruining the surprises, but I will say there is plenty of eye-candy and intense action sequences that will keep you fully engaged in the film. Just when you think you've seen it all, they surprise you with something new.
Genre: 9
Memorability: 8
Pace: 10
The epitome of a popcorn movie. Just relax. Have fun. Enjoy the ride. Don't expect substance. Just thrills on top of consistent thrills. The film arrives from one scene to the next at a speed I felt was just right.
Plot: 7
Resolution: 10
Solid ending that made me appreciate the otherwise flat characters more. There's a good message here revolving around the importance of taking full advantage of life around you. You just might call me a sap when you see it for yourself but, for this film...it fits.
Overall: 83
Was Ready Player One as good as the novel it was made after? No. Not even close. If you can keep that in mind from the jump like I was able to do, the film should still make for a very enjoyable experience. You can tell that a lot of time and love was poured into the film. See it.
Acting: 8
Beginning: 10
Characters: 2
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 9
A death-defying race chocked full of easter eggs (like Ryu from Street Fighter and the bike from Akira) where the participants have to deal with a shifting path, bulldozers, the T-Rex from Jurassic Park and a very angry King Kong. Yeah, that's just the first ten minutes.
In Ready Player One, it's not just about the action but about everyone and everything involved in said action. I can't go into too much detail without ruining the surprises, but I will say there is plenty of eye-candy and intense action sequences that will keep you fully engaged in the film. Just when you think you've seen it all, they surprise you with something new.
Genre: 9
Memorability: 8
Pace: 10
The epitome of a popcorn movie. Just relax. Have fun. Enjoy the ride. Don't expect substance. Just thrills on top of consistent thrills. The film arrives from one scene to the next at a speed I felt was just right.
Plot: 7
Resolution: 10
Solid ending that made me appreciate the otherwise flat characters more. There's a good message here revolving around the importance of taking full advantage of life around you. You just might call me a sap when you see it for yourself but, for this film...it fits.
Overall: 83
Was Ready Player One as good as the novel it was made after? No. Not even close. If you can keep that in mind from the jump like I was able to do, the film should still make for a very enjoyable experience. You can tell that a lot of time and love was poured into the film. See it.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Flatliners (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The undiscovered country… which they shouldn’t have returned to.
The movies have depicted the hereafter in varied ways over the years. From the bleached white warehouses of Powell and Pressburger’s “A Matter of Life and Death” in 1946 and Warren Beatty’s “Heaven Can Wait” in 1978 to – for me – the peak of the game: Vincent Ward’s mawkish but gorgeously rendered oil-paint version of heaven in 1998’s “What Dreams May Come”. Joel Schmacher’s 1990’s “Flatliners” saw a set of “brat pack” movie names of the day (including Kevin Bacon, Julia Roberts, William Baldwin and Kiefer Sutherland) as experimenting trainee doctors, cheating death to experience the afterlife and getting more than they bargained for. The depictions of the afterlife were unmemorable: in that I don’t remember them much! (I think there was some sort of spooky tree involved, but that’s about it!)
But the concept was sufficiently enticing – who isn’t a little bit intrigued by the question of “what’s beyond”? – that Cross Creek Pictures thought it worthy of dusting off and giving it another outing in pursuit of dirty lucre. But unfortunately this offering adds little to the property’s reputation.
In this version, the lead role is headed up by Ellen Page (“Inception”) who is a great actress… too good for this stuff. Also in that category is Diego Luna, who really made an impact in “Rogue One” but here has little to work with in terms of backstory. The remaining three doctors – Nina Dobrev as “the sexy one”; James Norton (“War and Peace”) as “the posh boy” and Kiersey Clemons as the “cute but repressed one”, all have even less backstory and struggle to make a great impact.
Still struggling to get the high score on Angry Birds: from left to right Ray (Diego Luna), Sophia (Kiersey Clemons), Marlo (Nina Dobrev), Courtney (Ellen Page) and Jamie (James Norton).
Also putting in an appearance, as the one link from the original film, is Kiefer Sutherland as a senior member of the teaching staff. But he’s not playing the same character (that WOULD have been a bloody miracle!) and although Sutherland adds gravitas he really is given criminally little to do. What was director Niels Arden Oplev (“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”) thinking?
In terms of the story, it’s pretty much a re-hash of Peter Filardi’s original, with Ben Ripley (“Source Code”) adding a few minor tweaks to the screenplay to update it for the current generation. But I will levy the same criticism of this film as I levied at the recent Stephen King adaptation of “It”: for horror to work well it need to obey some decent ‘rules of physics’ and although most of the scenes work (since a lot of the “action” is sensibly based inside the character’s heads) there are the occasional linkages to the ‘real world’ that generate a “WTF???” response. A seemingly indestructible Mini car (which is also clearly untraceable by the police!) and a knife incident at the dockside are two cases in point.
Is there anything good to say about this film? Well, there are certainly a few tense moments that make the hairs on your neck at least start to stand to attention. But these are few and far between, amongst a sea of movie ‘meh’. It’s certainly not going to be the worst film I see this year, since at least I wasn’t completely bored for the two hours. But I won’t remember this one in a few weeks. As a summary in the form of a “Black Adder” quote, it’s all a bit like a broken pencil….. pointless.
But the concept was sufficiently enticing – who isn’t a little bit intrigued by the question of “what’s beyond”? – that Cross Creek Pictures thought it worthy of dusting off and giving it another outing in pursuit of dirty lucre. But unfortunately this offering adds little to the property’s reputation.
In this version, the lead role is headed up by Ellen Page (“Inception”) who is a great actress… too good for this stuff. Also in that category is Diego Luna, who really made an impact in “Rogue One” but here has little to work with in terms of backstory. The remaining three doctors – Nina Dobrev as “the sexy one”; James Norton (“War and Peace”) as “the posh boy” and Kiersey Clemons as the “cute but repressed one”, all have even less backstory and struggle to make a great impact.
Still struggling to get the high score on Angry Birds: from left to right Ray (Diego Luna), Sophia (Kiersey Clemons), Marlo (Nina Dobrev), Courtney (Ellen Page) and Jamie (James Norton).
Also putting in an appearance, as the one link from the original film, is Kiefer Sutherland as a senior member of the teaching staff. But he’s not playing the same character (that WOULD have been a bloody miracle!) and although Sutherland adds gravitas he really is given criminally little to do. What was director Niels Arden Oplev (“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”) thinking?
In terms of the story, it’s pretty much a re-hash of Peter Filardi’s original, with Ben Ripley (“Source Code”) adding a few minor tweaks to the screenplay to update it for the current generation. But I will levy the same criticism of this film as I levied at the recent Stephen King adaptation of “It”: for horror to work well it need to obey some decent ‘rules of physics’ and although most of the scenes work (since a lot of the “action” is sensibly based inside the character’s heads) there are the occasional linkages to the ‘real world’ that generate a “WTF???” response. A seemingly indestructible Mini car (which is also clearly untraceable by the police!) and a knife incident at the dockside are two cases in point.
Is there anything good to say about this film? Well, there are certainly a few tense moments that make the hairs on your neck at least start to stand to attention. But these are few and far between, amongst a sea of movie ‘meh’. It’s certainly not going to be the worst film I see this year, since at least I wasn’t completely bored for the two hours. But I won’t remember this one in a few weeks. As a summary in the form of a “Black Adder” quote, it’s all a bit like a broken pencil….. pointless.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated No Time to Die (2021) in Movies
Oct 16, 2021
Works well enough - despite a weak villain
The Daniel Craig James Bond films are a different breed of Bond films. Instead of each one being a “one-off, fun romp” filled with Gadgets, Villains, Beautiful Ladies and Wild Stunts, the 5 films of the “Daniel Craig era” of Bond films was something else…gritty, serious and serialized, each film standing on it’s own but also building on the previous one to tell one long story.
It will be up to the individual to decide whether this type of storytelling works for Bond.
For me, it does.
Picking up where SPECTRE left off, NO TIME TO DIE follows Bond and his lady love from that film, Madeliene (Lea Seydoux) as they are followed and threatened by agents from SPECTRE. After an action-packed opening, Bond heads into retirement only to be drawn back in.
Director Cary Fukunaga (BEASTS OF NO NATION) crafts a satisfying, if somewhat too long and dragged out, finale for Craig as Bond battles villains joined by old friends (and fiends) along the way (as a bit of a final Curtain Call for them all), meets some new allies (and adversaries) all while dealing with his own feelings.
And it is this part of the film that “Bond purists” will be the most annoyed about. JAMES BOND HAS FEELINGS! He isn’t just a “Super-Spy” with a quip and a gadget, Fukunaga and perennial Bond writers Neal Purvis & Robert Wade (along with Fukunaga and Phoebe Waller-Bridge) craft a Bond that has cracks in his veneer that show doubts and fears underneath.
This rounding out of the character works for me in this film, especially if you put this film in the context of all 5 Craig Bond films. It is a natural growth for the character and one that Craig handles well.
As for the performances, regular Bond players Ralph Fiennes (M), Naomi Harris (Moneypenny), Ben Whishaw (Q), Rory Kinnear (Tanner) and Jeffrey Wright (CIA Agent Felix Leiter) all have a moment (or 2) to shine and they show up on the screen like old friends showing up at a going away party. Christoph Walz also reprises his role of Blofeld from SPECTRE (it’s not a spoiler, it’s in the trailers) and it was good to see Blofeld and Bond play chess one last time and Seydoux’s performance as Bond’s “lady love” is “good enough”.
But it is the newcomers to this story that stand out to me - with one strong exception. Lashana Lynch (as a fellow 00 agent) and Billy Magnussen both shine in this film as do Ana de Armas as another femme that Bond encounters - this is the 3rd strong performance I’ve seen from the former model (following strong turns in BLADE RUNNER 2049 and opposite Craig in KNIVES OUT) and am eagerly awaiting what she will do next.
Only Rami Malek as villain Safin fails to be interesting and that’s where this film falls down. Safin’s encounters with Bond bring the energy and excitement down, thanks to Malek’s “underplaying” of a role that should have been overplayed. His performance just doesn’t work.
But, this is a Bond film, so the acting and plot always take a backseat to the action - and the action in this film is better than average, but not A-M-A-Z-I-N-G as one expects from Bond films. Couple that with Malek’s underwhelming performance and this Bond film will leave audiences with an unfulfilled feeling.
Unless, you are invested in the journey that Craig has taken Bond on - and the culmination of that journey to conclude this film. If you are invested in that, this film work. If you are not, it will not.
It worked for me.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
It will be up to the individual to decide whether this type of storytelling works for Bond.
For me, it does.
Picking up where SPECTRE left off, NO TIME TO DIE follows Bond and his lady love from that film, Madeliene (Lea Seydoux) as they are followed and threatened by agents from SPECTRE. After an action-packed opening, Bond heads into retirement only to be drawn back in.
Director Cary Fukunaga (BEASTS OF NO NATION) crafts a satisfying, if somewhat too long and dragged out, finale for Craig as Bond battles villains joined by old friends (and fiends) along the way (as a bit of a final Curtain Call for them all), meets some new allies (and adversaries) all while dealing with his own feelings.
And it is this part of the film that “Bond purists” will be the most annoyed about. JAMES BOND HAS FEELINGS! He isn’t just a “Super-Spy” with a quip and a gadget, Fukunaga and perennial Bond writers Neal Purvis & Robert Wade (along with Fukunaga and Phoebe Waller-Bridge) craft a Bond that has cracks in his veneer that show doubts and fears underneath.
This rounding out of the character works for me in this film, especially if you put this film in the context of all 5 Craig Bond films. It is a natural growth for the character and one that Craig handles well.
As for the performances, regular Bond players Ralph Fiennes (M), Naomi Harris (Moneypenny), Ben Whishaw (Q), Rory Kinnear (Tanner) and Jeffrey Wright (CIA Agent Felix Leiter) all have a moment (or 2) to shine and they show up on the screen like old friends showing up at a going away party. Christoph Walz also reprises his role of Blofeld from SPECTRE (it’s not a spoiler, it’s in the trailers) and it was good to see Blofeld and Bond play chess one last time and Seydoux’s performance as Bond’s “lady love” is “good enough”.
But it is the newcomers to this story that stand out to me - with one strong exception. Lashana Lynch (as a fellow 00 agent) and Billy Magnussen both shine in this film as do Ana de Armas as another femme that Bond encounters - this is the 3rd strong performance I’ve seen from the former model (following strong turns in BLADE RUNNER 2049 and opposite Craig in KNIVES OUT) and am eagerly awaiting what she will do next.
Only Rami Malek as villain Safin fails to be interesting and that’s where this film falls down. Safin’s encounters with Bond bring the energy and excitement down, thanks to Malek’s “underplaying” of a role that should have been overplayed. His performance just doesn’t work.
But, this is a Bond film, so the acting and plot always take a backseat to the action - and the action in this film is better than average, but not A-M-A-Z-I-N-G as one expects from Bond films. Couple that with Malek’s underwhelming performance and this Bond film will leave audiences with an unfulfilled feeling.
Unless, you are invested in the journey that Craig has taken Bond on - and the culmination of that journey to conclude this film. If you are invested in that, this film work. If you are not, it will not.
It worked for me.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Spider-Man 3 (2007) in Movies
Jul 1, 2019 (Updated Jul 3, 2019)
"None of that matters now, you're my friend"
After the worldwide success of the first two "Spider-Man" films, director Sam Raimi and the cast decided to take a break. The first two had been shot almost back-to-back, with very little "down time" in between. So, in late 2005, about 18 months after the release of "Spider-Man 2", Raimi began fleshing out ideas for a third storyline. For this chapter, the director wanted to teach Peter Parker about forgiveness; to do so, he'd need a villain with personal ties. The problem was that, besides the Osborn family and Otto Octavius, no villains in the comics had such a huge connection. Raimi didn't want to contradict a well-established character, so he sought one out whose backstory had never been fully realized: the Sandman, whose literary incarnation was little more than a random thief. Connecting the character to the death of Ben Parker gave Peter a huge obstacle that needed facing. Wrapping up Harry Osborn's story was also necessary, since Marvel wasn't sure if James Franco would agree to more chapters in the franchise. The addition of Gwen Stacy (who in the comics, was Peter's first love) was done mainly for the fans, and to create a conflicted love triangle with Peter & Mary Jane. Satisfied with his concept, Raimi told his plans to Marvel Comics; the result was less than expected.
Therein lies my biggest problem with "Spider-Man 3". I liked the Venom character as a kid, but in all honesty having 4 villains in the same film (Harry, Marko, the black symbiote itself, and eventually Venom) was just too much at once. From the standpoint of a fan, I'd have preferred that Venom be saved for a future entry, so he could have taken center stage. By having him alongside both Marko and Harry Osborn, the story became rather confusing for many fans, and the film's box office suffered as a direct result. Overall, this film made less money across the board than its predecessor...all because of corporate greed.
That being said, I still enjoy the film on many levels, but knowing what caused the multi-arc story makes some moments bittersweet. The actors clearly enjoyed this ride, but something in general seemed a bit lacking. Looking back, I realize it was the Venom character. The fact of it essentially being forced into the narrative only made the tale confusing and hard to follow. It became one of those films many people have to watch more than once, just to understand it...and these days, audiences don't have a lot of patience for films with too many angles. Rightfully so, in my opinion.
Tobey Maguire, slipping into the spandex suit for a third try, really shows his acting range here, even more so than his diverse performance in "Spider-Man 2". From intense love to seething hatred (and everything in between), he really brings his game up to a whole new level. Kirsten Dunst shines again as Parker's star-crossed love, Mary Jane Watson. I liked her performance very much, and her singing in the film is beautiful. She's less helpless than in either prior entry, and far more confident. Bryce Dallas Howard (daughter of acclaimed director Ron) makes her first apearance in the franchise as the bubbling, exuberant, and gorgeous Gwen Stacy. I liked her character, but felt she didn't have much to do in the long run.
James Franco does an equally-remarkable turn, finally completing the journey that began at the end of the original film. He gives Harry a blend of jealousy, mystique, and severe determination. He also revisits the lighter tones of his role, for the scenes where Harry has amnesia. And in the finale, he shows that in his heart, Harry was truly a hero. Thomas Haden Church gave Marko both sentiment and menace, and turned what was originally a two-bit thug into a far more interesting character. Topher Grace played the "creepy" card as Venom, and gave Eddie Brock a know-it-all arrogance that makes you almost feel disgusted.
Aside from the criticisms surrounding Venom, I honestly didn't have a lot for this entry. Mary Jane is no longer in a water-drenched position (thank God!), so I was very relieved. I guess my main concern was that there were too many villians should of just stuck with Harry and Venom or Harry and sandman. And for anyone who asks why i haven't put the dancing scenes as a negative. I get a kick out of them what can i say?
Therein lies my biggest problem with "Spider-Man 3". I liked the Venom character as a kid, but in all honesty having 4 villains in the same film (Harry, Marko, the black symbiote itself, and eventually Venom) was just too much at once. From the standpoint of a fan, I'd have preferred that Venom be saved for a future entry, so he could have taken center stage. By having him alongside both Marko and Harry Osborn, the story became rather confusing for many fans, and the film's box office suffered as a direct result. Overall, this film made less money across the board than its predecessor...all because of corporate greed.
That being said, I still enjoy the film on many levels, but knowing what caused the multi-arc story makes some moments bittersweet. The actors clearly enjoyed this ride, but something in general seemed a bit lacking. Looking back, I realize it was the Venom character. The fact of it essentially being forced into the narrative only made the tale confusing and hard to follow. It became one of those films many people have to watch more than once, just to understand it...and these days, audiences don't have a lot of patience for films with too many angles. Rightfully so, in my opinion.
Tobey Maguire, slipping into the spandex suit for a third try, really shows his acting range here, even more so than his diverse performance in "Spider-Man 2". From intense love to seething hatred (and everything in between), he really brings his game up to a whole new level. Kirsten Dunst shines again as Parker's star-crossed love, Mary Jane Watson. I liked her performance very much, and her singing in the film is beautiful. She's less helpless than in either prior entry, and far more confident. Bryce Dallas Howard (daughter of acclaimed director Ron) makes her first apearance in the franchise as the bubbling, exuberant, and gorgeous Gwen Stacy. I liked her character, but felt she didn't have much to do in the long run.
James Franco does an equally-remarkable turn, finally completing the journey that began at the end of the original film. He gives Harry a blend of jealousy, mystique, and severe determination. He also revisits the lighter tones of his role, for the scenes where Harry has amnesia. And in the finale, he shows that in his heart, Harry was truly a hero. Thomas Haden Church gave Marko both sentiment and menace, and turned what was originally a two-bit thug into a far more interesting character. Topher Grace played the "creepy" card as Venom, and gave Eddie Brock a know-it-all arrogance that makes you almost feel disgusted.
Aside from the criticisms surrounding Venom, I honestly didn't have a lot for this entry. Mary Jane is no longer in a water-drenched position (thank God!), so I was very relieved. I guess my main concern was that there were too many villians should of just stuck with Harry and Venom or Harry and sandman. And for anyone who asks why i haven't put the dancing scenes as a negative. I get a kick out of them what can i say?
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Ready Player One (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
Directed by Steven Spielberg, Ready Player One is a fast paced action film full of fun pop culture nostalgia. Set in a dystopian 2045, the world’s number one resource is the Oasis. A virtual reality world where everyone either works or uses to escape the doldrums of everyday slum/trailer park life of Columbus Ohio.
When the creator of the Oasis, James Holiday (Mark Rylance) passes away, he leaves a Willy Wonka like challenge in the Oasis, where whoever is the first to find Holiday’s “Easter egg,” will inherit control of the Oasis and the fortune that comes with it. Naturally, we go on a “Goonies” like adventure where we follow the hunt for the egg through our hero Wade Watts/Parzival (Tye Sheridan) and his crew of friends Aech (Lena Waithe) and Art3mis (Olivia Cooke). They hope to keep the Oasis free for everyone and make it so no one will have to slave away working to pay off debt in the Oasis. Meanwhile, the wicked corporation, led by Nolan Sorrento (Ben Mendelsohn) that will do anything to win control of the Oasis as a way to make money and enslave people. Got that? Good. Because the film pretty much explains this in the first fifteen minutes or so. After that, the film becomes a fast paced adventure race to find each of the three key’s needed to find Holiday’s egg and win the challenge.
Since the majority of the film takes place in the Oasis, we find ourselves mostly watching animation and voice acting. The cast does an excellent job delivering their lines combined with top tier animation. These two things are melded so well, at times you barley even realize you are watching animation. Additionally, the Oasis is packed full with visual pop culture references and gags. Whether its video game or comic characters, a reference to a scene from a movie, soundtrack, or even certain famous sound cues, you will find yourself constantly looking at everything on screen and smiling with amusement. Even if you do not know the references very well, the film moves at a fast enough pace through each part of the adventure, you never feel alienated or as if you are out of the loop.
For those who are wondering, then film differs greatly from the hit 2011 novel by the same name, in that it is able to create a version of this story that is entirely its own. Thus it leaves the “book is better” conversations to the side. Instead, the book could be seen as a complement to the movie, for those looking for more depth in character, the real world of 2045 and the Oasis. I was surprised how much I enjoyed the changes from the book in the film, and yet, I want to re-read the novel to get more out of this rich environment.
In the end, I’d have to say that Ready Player One is worth the full price of admission. There is something for everyone to enjoy in this fun, fast paced, action film.
When the creator of the Oasis, James Holiday (Mark Rylance) passes away, he leaves a Willy Wonka like challenge in the Oasis, where whoever is the first to find Holiday’s “Easter egg,” will inherit control of the Oasis and the fortune that comes with it. Naturally, we go on a “Goonies” like adventure where we follow the hunt for the egg through our hero Wade Watts/Parzival (Tye Sheridan) and his crew of friends Aech (Lena Waithe) and Art3mis (Olivia Cooke). They hope to keep the Oasis free for everyone and make it so no one will have to slave away working to pay off debt in the Oasis. Meanwhile, the wicked corporation, led by Nolan Sorrento (Ben Mendelsohn) that will do anything to win control of the Oasis as a way to make money and enslave people. Got that? Good. Because the film pretty much explains this in the first fifteen minutes or so. After that, the film becomes a fast paced adventure race to find each of the three key’s needed to find Holiday’s egg and win the challenge.
Since the majority of the film takes place in the Oasis, we find ourselves mostly watching animation and voice acting. The cast does an excellent job delivering their lines combined with top tier animation. These two things are melded so well, at times you barley even realize you are watching animation. Additionally, the Oasis is packed full with visual pop culture references and gags. Whether its video game or comic characters, a reference to a scene from a movie, soundtrack, or even certain famous sound cues, you will find yourself constantly looking at everything on screen and smiling with amusement. Even if you do not know the references very well, the film moves at a fast enough pace through each part of the adventure, you never feel alienated or as if you are out of the loop.
For those who are wondering, then film differs greatly from the hit 2011 novel by the same name, in that it is able to create a version of this story that is entirely its own. Thus it leaves the “book is better” conversations to the side. Instead, the book could be seen as a complement to the movie, for those looking for more depth in character, the real world of 2045 and the Oasis. I was surprised how much I enjoyed the changes from the book in the film, and yet, I want to re-read the novel to get more out of this rich environment.
In the end, I’d have to say that Ready Player One is worth the full price of admission. There is something for everyone to enjoy in this fun, fast paced, action film.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Sonic the Hedgehog (2020) in Movies
Feb 17, 2020
It’s been a very long time since I played the Sonic the Hedgehog video games on my brothers SEGA Megadrive. I was, and always have been, a Nintendo guy, so since then my only experience of Sonic has been when he joins forces with Mario and Co for Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games. I do have good memories of his solo outings though, and he is clearly an enduring and popular character, ideally suited for a CGI/live action movie.
When we first meet Sonic, he’s a young hedgehog on his home world, zipping about the place without a care in the world and being mentored by an owl called Longclaw. Before we get a chance to learn anything about Longclaw and the world that he and Sonic inhabit, some bad guy echidnas show up, looking to get their hands on Sonic and his speedy powers. Longclaw gives Sonic a bag of rings that can be used to open a portal to another world, and after opening one for him to escape through, tells him to use one whenever he is in danger of being captured.
Cut to Green Hills, Montana where we meet local sheriff Tom Wachowski (James Marsden) and his wife Maddie (Tika Sumpter). Tom has been accepted, pending background checks, into the San Francisco police department, and he and Maddie are currently in the process of looking at houses there. We also learn that a now grown up Sonic has found his way into our world and has been living in hiding in Green Hills for some time now. The local crazy old man, Crazy Carl, claims to have seen a ‘blue devil’ on a number of occasions, but otherwise Sonic has managed to stay hidden. He’s even got himself a little underground man cave, and has become quite attached to Tom and Maddie, observing and following their every day lives from afar.
When Sonic manages to cause a city-wide power outage one evening, he draws the attention of the government, who bring in mad scientist Dr Robotnik (Jim Carrey) to investigate. When the gold rings that Sonic needs to transport to another world are mislaid, and as Robotnik and his team close in on him, Sonic makes himself known to an unsuspecting Tom and asks for his help. The movie then becomes a road trip, with them both on the run, evading Dr Robotnik and searching for the gold rings.
The CGI representation of Sonic had been something of a hot talking point, ever since the release of the first trailer sparked a huge online backlash. Looking more human, with smaller eyes, and longer limbs, the reaction of horror by anyone vaguely familiar with the character was enough to make director Jeff Fowler stand up and take notice, and the release date of the movie was pushed back to allow for some serious rework by the VFX team. Thankfully, when the new trailer was released, it was to a much more positive reaction, and rightfully so - Sonic was now much more aligned to his video game persona and on the receiving end of some pretty decent marketing material and promotion to back it all up. Ben Schwartz provides the voice for Sonic, giving him a wonderful childlike quality - in awe of the world around him, funny and confident in his abilities, but never really coming across as an annoying brat.
Jim Carrey brings to Robotnik the kind of madcap comedy that he we haven’t seen from him in a long time and is a delight in every scene he features. James Marsden is no stranger to appearing alongside CGI characters in children’s movies, and does his part well once again. Outside of that, the rest of the cast don’t get much to work with and kind of just fade into the background.
Overall, Sonic the Hedgehog is a fairly enjoyable movie, but it’s also instantly forgettable. It’s been a couple of days since I saw it and, apart from a couple of fun action scenes along the way, and the climactic showdown, I really don’t remember very much about it. If you’ve seen the wonderful scenes in the X-Men movies where QuickSilver zips around, interacting with characters and scenery as though time has stood still, then there are a few scenes just like that for you to enjoy. It’s a much better movie than I was expecting to see, but ultimately I think it could have been a hello a lot worse if they’d stuck to their guns with the original character design.
When we first meet Sonic, he’s a young hedgehog on his home world, zipping about the place without a care in the world and being mentored by an owl called Longclaw. Before we get a chance to learn anything about Longclaw and the world that he and Sonic inhabit, some bad guy echidnas show up, looking to get their hands on Sonic and his speedy powers. Longclaw gives Sonic a bag of rings that can be used to open a portal to another world, and after opening one for him to escape through, tells him to use one whenever he is in danger of being captured.
Cut to Green Hills, Montana where we meet local sheriff Tom Wachowski (James Marsden) and his wife Maddie (Tika Sumpter). Tom has been accepted, pending background checks, into the San Francisco police department, and he and Maddie are currently in the process of looking at houses there. We also learn that a now grown up Sonic has found his way into our world and has been living in hiding in Green Hills for some time now. The local crazy old man, Crazy Carl, claims to have seen a ‘blue devil’ on a number of occasions, but otherwise Sonic has managed to stay hidden. He’s even got himself a little underground man cave, and has become quite attached to Tom and Maddie, observing and following their every day lives from afar.
When Sonic manages to cause a city-wide power outage one evening, he draws the attention of the government, who bring in mad scientist Dr Robotnik (Jim Carrey) to investigate. When the gold rings that Sonic needs to transport to another world are mislaid, and as Robotnik and his team close in on him, Sonic makes himself known to an unsuspecting Tom and asks for his help. The movie then becomes a road trip, with them both on the run, evading Dr Robotnik and searching for the gold rings.
The CGI representation of Sonic had been something of a hot talking point, ever since the release of the first trailer sparked a huge online backlash. Looking more human, with smaller eyes, and longer limbs, the reaction of horror by anyone vaguely familiar with the character was enough to make director Jeff Fowler stand up and take notice, and the release date of the movie was pushed back to allow for some serious rework by the VFX team. Thankfully, when the new trailer was released, it was to a much more positive reaction, and rightfully so - Sonic was now much more aligned to his video game persona and on the receiving end of some pretty decent marketing material and promotion to back it all up. Ben Schwartz provides the voice for Sonic, giving him a wonderful childlike quality - in awe of the world around him, funny and confident in his abilities, but never really coming across as an annoying brat.
Jim Carrey brings to Robotnik the kind of madcap comedy that he we haven’t seen from him in a long time and is a delight in every scene he features. James Marsden is no stranger to appearing alongside CGI characters in children’s movies, and does his part well once again. Outside of that, the rest of the cast don’t get much to work with and kind of just fade into the background.
Overall, Sonic the Hedgehog is a fairly enjoyable movie, but it’s also instantly forgettable. It’s been a couple of days since I saw it and, apart from a couple of fun action scenes along the way, and the climactic showdown, I really don’t remember very much about it. If you’ve seen the wonderful scenes in the X-Men movies where QuickSilver zips around, interacting with characters and scenery as though time has stood still, then there are a few scenes just like that for you to enjoy. It’s a much better movie than I was expecting to see, but ultimately I think it could have been a hello a lot worse if they’d stuck to their guns with the original character design.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Downton Abbey (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Very little happens…. and it’s totally glorious!
The “Downton Abbey” TV show is comfortingly bland. The tales of the well-heeled Grantham family and the below-stairs antics of their servants. But for those who have followed Julian Fellowes‘ pot-boiler drama through all six seasons, and a number of Christmas specials, it’s like a favourite jumper… or rediscovering your comfy slippers just as the nights start getting colder.
But in a world where TV spin-off movies are notoriously dire, would this movie by the nail in Downton’s coffin?
Thankfully not.
It’s a glorious production! The opening of this film will, I’m sure, fill all Downton fans with utter glee. John Lunn‘s music builds progressively as a royal letter wends its way through the 1927 postal system, eventually ending up (as the famous theme finally emerges spectacularly) at the doors of Downton Abbey. (Downton is of course the gorgeous Highclere Castle near Newbury, acting as a star of the film in its own right. Somewhere I was lucky enough to visit just a couple of weeks before filming began).
The plot(s).
In a year of Thanos-crushing drama, there really is nothing very substantial going on here!
The King (George V, an almost unrecognizable Simon “Hitchhikers Guide” Jones) and Queen Mary (Geraldine James) are staying over in Downton for one night on their Yorkshire tour. This naturally sets the below-stairs staff into a bit of a tizz, as indeed it does the whole village. But their glee at involvement and recognition is a bit premature, since the royal entourage – headed by an officious Mr Wilson (David Haig) – parachute the complete gamut of staff into the location to serve the royal party, so bypassing the locals completely.
The ‘Downton massive’ are of course having none of this, and a battle-royale ensues.
Scattered as sub-plots like confetti at a wedding are a military man putting a strong arm around the potentially-risky Irish Tom Branson (Allen Leech); a family rift that erupts between Aunt Violet (Maggie Smith) and cousin (and royal lady-in-waiting) Maud Bagshaw (Imelda Staunton); a sobbing princess (Kate Phillips); an over-enthusiastic shopkeeper (Mark Addy), who is difficult to let-down gently; a plumbing emergency with romantic jealousy and sabotage involved; the sexual preferences of Barrow (Robert James-Collier) getting him into trouble; and a potential love-interest for the widowed Tom with Maud’s maid Lucy (Tuppence Middleton). (There are probably half a dozen others that I’ve forgotten!)
A huge ensemble cast.
As befits a show that has gone over six seasons, there is a huge ensemble cast involved. Inevitably, some get more air time than others. Bates (Brendan Coyle) seems to be particularly short-changed, and above stairs I thought the same was true – strangely enough – of the Crawleys (Hugh Bonneville and Elizabeth McGovern).
As for Henry Talbot (Matthew Goode), he’s hardly in it at all! Apart from some impressive camera gymnastics for his running-up-the-stairs arrival, he doesn’t make much of an impression at all. (I can only guess he had other filming commitments).
These are players that have worked together as a team for many years, and it shows.
But the acting kudos has to go to Maggie Smith who steals absolutely every scene she’s in, with genuinely witty lines – “I’ll lick the stamps myself” (LoL). Close behind though is Imelda Staunton who also turns in a very impressive performance.
Glorious photography.
The photography is fantastic throughout, with deep rich colours, pin-sharp focus and some seriously dramatic pans. A big hats off to cinematographer Ben Smithard, but also to his drone team (“The helicopter ladies”) for delivering some jaw-droppingly gorgeous shots of Highclere castle.
(By the way, I thought the picture at my local Picturehouse cinema – Harbour Lights in Southampton – was particularly stunning: I queried it with them, and they said they had changed the (very expensive) projector bulb just that day! These things clearly matter!)
Will is appeal?
If you are a Downton fan, yes, Yes, YES! I have been a moderate fan of the TV series, but went with superfans – the illustrious Mrs Movie-Man and (as a guest visitor) Miss Movie-Man. I loved it, but the two ladies were ecstatic with the movie.
Even if you have never seen an episode, it is easy to pick up and the quality of the production is so impressive I don’t think you will be disappointed.
As such, I think I need to post a blend of ratings for this one.
But in a world where TV spin-off movies are notoriously dire, would this movie by the nail in Downton’s coffin?
Thankfully not.
It’s a glorious production! The opening of this film will, I’m sure, fill all Downton fans with utter glee. John Lunn‘s music builds progressively as a royal letter wends its way through the 1927 postal system, eventually ending up (as the famous theme finally emerges spectacularly) at the doors of Downton Abbey. (Downton is of course the gorgeous Highclere Castle near Newbury, acting as a star of the film in its own right. Somewhere I was lucky enough to visit just a couple of weeks before filming began).
The plot(s).
In a year of Thanos-crushing drama, there really is nothing very substantial going on here!
The King (George V, an almost unrecognizable Simon “Hitchhikers Guide” Jones) and Queen Mary (Geraldine James) are staying over in Downton for one night on their Yorkshire tour. This naturally sets the below-stairs staff into a bit of a tizz, as indeed it does the whole village. But their glee at involvement and recognition is a bit premature, since the royal entourage – headed by an officious Mr Wilson (David Haig) – parachute the complete gamut of staff into the location to serve the royal party, so bypassing the locals completely.
The ‘Downton massive’ are of course having none of this, and a battle-royale ensues.
Scattered as sub-plots like confetti at a wedding are a military man putting a strong arm around the potentially-risky Irish Tom Branson (Allen Leech); a family rift that erupts between Aunt Violet (Maggie Smith) and cousin (and royal lady-in-waiting) Maud Bagshaw (Imelda Staunton); a sobbing princess (Kate Phillips); an over-enthusiastic shopkeeper (Mark Addy), who is difficult to let-down gently; a plumbing emergency with romantic jealousy and sabotage involved; the sexual preferences of Barrow (Robert James-Collier) getting him into trouble; and a potential love-interest for the widowed Tom with Maud’s maid Lucy (Tuppence Middleton). (There are probably half a dozen others that I’ve forgotten!)
A huge ensemble cast.
As befits a show that has gone over six seasons, there is a huge ensemble cast involved. Inevitably, some get more air time than others. Bates (Brendan Coyle) seems to be particularly short-changed, and above stairs I thought the same was true – strangely enough – of the Crawleys (Hugh Bonneville and Elizabeth McGovern).
As for Henry Talbot (Matthew Goode), he’s hardly in it at all! Apart from some impressive camera gymnastics for his running-up-the-stairs arrival, he doesn’t make much of an impression at all. (I can only guess he had other filming commitments).
These are players that have worked together as a team for many years, and it shows.
But the acting kudos has to go to Maggie Smith who steals absolutely every scene she’s in, with genuinely witty lines – “I’ll lick the stamps myself” (LoL). Close behind though is Imelda Staunton who also turns in a very impressive performance.
Glorious photography.
The photography is fantastic throughout, with deep rich colours, pin-sharp focus and some seriously dramatic pans. A big hats off to cinematographer Ben Smithard, but also to his drone team (“The helicopter ladies”) for delivering some jaw-droppingly gorgeous shots of Highclere castle.
(By the way, I thought the picture at my local Picturehouse cinema – Harbour Lights in Southampton – was particularly stunning: I queried it with them, and they said they had changed the (very expensive) projector bulb just that day! These things clearly matter!)
Will is appeal?
If you are a Downton fan, yes, Yes, YES! I have been a moderate fan of the TV series, but went with superfans – the illustrious Mrs Movie-Man and (as a guest visitor) Miss Movie-Man. I loved it, but the two ladies were ecstatic with the movie.
Even if you have never seen an episode, it is easy to pick up and the quality of the production is so impressive I don’t think you will be disappointed.
As such, I think I need to post a blend of ratings for this one.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Team America: World Police (2004) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
AMERICA! F**K YEAH!
The theme’s lyrics sum up this movie as well as any could have. Made in the midst of the War On Terror in 2004, a satire was needed and who better to provide one than the satirical genius’ Trey Parker and Matt Stone, best known for South Park. On the surface, this looks like a straight forward bawdy adult puppet parody, taking the mickey out of Bruckheimer’s blockbusters, Thunderbirds and the reputation being acquired by the U.S. over the past 30 years but reaching boiling point over the last decade, certainly in a post 9/11 world.But that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
This is looking into every major aspect of the above, such as chauvinism, the political interference and undue, and sometimes dangerous influence of celebrities, summed up here with the Film Actor’s Guild (or F.A.G.) with a host of major film stars ripped off, notably upsetting Sean Penn.
The infamous puppet sex scene, which is nothing more than a poke, pardon the pun, at the puppetry employed in the film.But there’s so much more such as the excellent selection of bespoke songs, such as “Only A Woman” for the sex scene, “End Of An Act” as our hero leaves the group to wallow in self-pity to the song with features verse after verse nothing more than slagging off Michael Bay’s, Pearl Harbor and Ben Afleck! But for a film with criticises these blockbusters, it understands them too well to be truly nasty about them.
The entire film IS a well made Bruckheimer film, even recruiting one of his regular composers, Harry Gregson-Williams, to be in at the last-minute, to compose a great score, but why do this if they hated it so much? They don’t; they love these films and the affection for the genre is clear, making their digs enjoyable and not hurtful… There’s even a contradiction with the political tract as one hand this would seem to be an anti-American tome where Team America blow up every city and landmark imaginable in order to protect the world from the destruction of the Terrorists… Get it?
On the other, the song entitled “Freedom Isn’t Free” would seem to suggest that we should all do our part, even though this number ends with the line, “Freedom cost a buck o’five…” But then after all the political and social satire, and the spoofing of Hollywood’s gung-ho films, it’s just a fun film.When the terrorist’s come from Derka Derkastan, the tone is clear. This is like a pair of boys playing “War On Terror” with a collection of action figures.
They’re clearly laughing hysterically as they write, produce and direct this film like two teenagers, as they create the highly insensitive language of the terrorists, use elements from films such as Star Wars and James Bond, certainly as for Kim Jong-il, is nobody safe, well not after offending the North Korean leader, but in all fairness, this is really just Eric Cartman from South Park.But in the end, this is the perfect satire, with a blend of real world political and social commentary, great spoofing but when all’s said and done, this has a great sense if humour, though at times, somewhat bawdy. This is brilliant and one of, if not the best comedy of the past decade, and one of the greatest satires of all time. And, no, I don’t believe that I’m over stating that…
This is looking into every major aspect of the above, such as chauvinism, the political interference and undue, and sometimes dangerous influence of celebrities, summed up here with the Film Actor’s Guild (or F.A.G.) with a host of major film stars ripped off, notably upsetting Sean Penn.
The infamous puppet sex scene, which is nothing more than a poke, pardon the pun, at the puppetry employed in the film.But there’s so much more such as the excellent selection of bespoke songs, such as “Only A Woman” for the sex scene, “End Of An Act” as our hero leaves the group to wallow in self-pity to the song with features verse after verse nothing more than slagging off Michael Bay’s, Pearl Harbor and Ben Afleck! But for a film with criticises these blockbusters, it understands them too well to be truly nasty about them.
The entire film IS a well made Bruckheimer film, even recruiting one of his regular composers, Harry Gregson-Williams, to be in at the last-minute, to compose a great score, but why do this if they hated it so much? They don’t; they love these films and the affection for the genre is clear, making their digs enjoyable and not hurtful… There’s even a contradiction with the political tract as one hand this would seem to be an anti-American tome where Team America blow up every city and landmark imaginable in order to protect the world from the destruction of the Terrorists… Get it?
On the other, the song entitled “Freedom Isn’t Free” would seem to suggest that we should all do our part, even though this number ends with the line, “Freedom cost a buck o’five…” But then after all the political and social satire, and the spoofing of Hollywood’s gung-ho films, it’s just a fun film.When the terrorist’s come from Derka Derkastan, the tone is clear. This is like a pair of boys playing “War On Terror” with a collection of action figures.
They’re clearly laughing hysterically as they write, produce and direct this film like two teenagers, as they create the highly insensitive language of the terrorists, use elements from films such as Star Wars and James Bond, certainly as for Kim Jong-il, is nobody safe, well not after offending the North Korean leader, but in all fairness, this is really just Eric Cartman from South Park.But in the end, this is the perfect satire, with a blend of real world political and social commentary, great spoofing but when all’s said and done, this has a great sense if humour, though at times, somewhat bawdy. This is brilliant and one of, if not the best comedy of the past decade, and one of the greatest satires of all time. And, no, I don’t believe that I’m over stating that…
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Gotham - Season 1 in TV
Jun 20, 2018
Cast (5 more)
Character development
Characters
Setting
Great Drama
Gripping storyline
Some of the more extreme comic book costumes (2 more)
Some of the characters
Certain plot elements that take away the drama (mostly if you've read or seen what happens next)
Imagine a Gotham without Batman....
Contains spoilers, click to show
When I first watched it when it first aired, I was sceptical and yet excited and then I felt let down. Gotham at first was a great cop show but what annoyed me was the fact that all these things that we knew to happen when Batman was around, were happening when Bruce Wayne was still a child and my brain couldn't wrap around the idea let alone get behind it, but at the same time I didn't know what I was expecting. Still I watched the first two seasons because I wanted to see some of my favourite villains and characters brought to life and I love Ben McKenzie as James Gordon!
However upon recently returning to watching Gotham I have come to see it in a new light and adore the show to pieces as I should have from the start. Gotham isn't about Batman, it's not about Bruce Wayne (not fully anyways). I see now that Gotham is a concept of a question:
"What if these villains we're here before Batman? Leaving only the police to deal with the extremity of Gotham most famous rogues!"
What makes this show so good is that we see a young, reckless and a little out of character Jim Gordon, who is even willing to bend the law to the point of breaking to get Justice. The drama is intense and you never can tell when Jim goes off on one, if he'll restrain himself to the law and doing things by the book. In a way there's a lot of Batman within Jim Gordon himself which makes the show even better.
Some of the characters annoy me at times. I liked Fish Mooney at first because she was dangerous and twisted, but when you bring a character back so many times you just lose interest and they're no longer a threat to the drama of their character development because you leave yourself with the only two viable questions: "will she ever stay dead?" And "when will she die for good?" I just don't seem to be concerned for her anymore like I did in the first season when she was double crossing Falcone. When everything was fresh and you didn't know if a stray bullet might hit her finally or if an Assassin was in her midst at all times waiting to strike. The drama for me didn't vanish but certainly lessened in later seasons.
The character development of characters like Bruce Wayne, Jim Gordon, Edward Nigma and Oswald Cobblepot are brilliantly written. With Bruce becoming a stronger minded young man in season two and Oswald's rise to power. I particularly loved Nigmas transformation into a killer because of the way it was set out, with the first murder being slightly on purpose, the second a complete accident, the third being to protect himself against discovery and the rest being a complete turn around into someone who discovers he enjoys the task of killing someone. The writers are excellent when it comes to development of characters and plot.
Can't wait for the new season and I hope they go out with a bang!
However upon recently returning to watching Gotham I have come to see it in a new light and adore the show to pieces as I should have from the start. Gotham isn't about Batman, it's not about Bruce Wayne (not fully anyways). I see now that Gotham is a concept of a question:
"What if these villains we're here before Batman? Leaving only the police to deal with the extremity of Gotham most famous rogues!"
What makes this show so good is that we see a young, reckless and a little out of character Jim Gordon, who is even willing to bend the law to the point of breaking to get Justice. The drama is intense and you never can tell when Jim goes off on one, if he'll restrain himself to the law and doing things by the book. In a way there's a lot of Batman within Jim Gordon himself which makes the show even better.
Some of the characters annoy me at times. I liked Fish Mooney at first because she was dangerous and twisted, but when you bring a character back so many times you just lose interest and they're no longer a threat to the drama of their character development because you leave yourself with the only two viable questions: "will she ever stay dead?" And "when will she die for good?" I just don't seem to be concerned for her anymore like I did in the first season when she was double crossing Falcone. When everything was fresh and you didn't know if a stray bullet might hit her finally or if an Assassin was in her midst at all times waiting to strike. The drama for me didn't vanish but certainly lessened in later seasons.
The character development of characters like Bruce Wayne, Jim Gordon, Edward Nigma and Oswald Cobblepot are brilliantly written. With Bruce becoming a stronger minded young man in season two and Oswald's rise to power. I particularly loved Nigmas transformation into a killer because of the way it was set out, with the first murder being slightly on purpose, the second a complete accident, the third being to protect himself against discovery and the rest being a complete turn around into someone who discovers he enjoys the task of killing someone. The writers are excellent when it comes to development of characters and plot.
Can't wait for the new season and I hope they go out with a bang!