Search
Search results
Bex Heber (5 KP) rated Good Omens in TV
Jul 12, 2019 (Updated Jul 13, 2019)
I'm a long time Terry Pratchett fan and whilst I haven't read the book, David Tennant and Micheal Sheen were enough of a selling point. They did not dissapoint; the dynamic they have throughout is both entertaining and endearing. However I think this is in large part a credit to the actors rather than the show.
The writing often missed the mark for me, sometimes only by hair but many of the characters never really managed to find their stride. What surprised me most, is that where this was most felt was in dialogue taken directly from the book. Even watching as someone who hadnt read the book I found it noticable and then later confirmed it by reading The Guardian's review. It appears Neil Gaiman was reluctant to take too many artistic liberties, perhaps in tribute to Prattchett but it seemed to hurt the show as a result.
It worked in places, the opening narration felt distinctly and enjoyably Pratchett-esque but even in this case the narration began to become over bearing as it continued to feature heavily in later episodes.
Saying this, I can't pretend I didn't enjoy the show, watching David and Micheal caper around with ridiculous CGI and yellow contacts to boot was always going to be entertaining and there are moments of brilliance, but given the potential of such a ridiculous plot and ensemble, I found the whole thing mostly forgettable.
The writing often missed the mark for me, sometimes only by hair but many of the characters never really managed to find their stride. What surprised me most, is that where this was most felt was in dialogue taken directly from the book. Even watching as someone who hadnt read the book I found it noticable and then later confirmed it by reading The Guardian's review. It appears Neil Gaiman was reluctant to take too many artistic liberties, perhaps in tribute to Prattchett but it seemed to hurt the show as a result.
It worked in places, the opening narration felt distinctly and enjoyably Pratchett-esque but even in this case the narration began to become over bearing as it continued to feature heavily in later episodes.
Saying this, I can't pretend I didn't enjoy the show, watching David and Micheal caper around with ridiculous CGI and yellow contacts to boot was always going to be entertaining and there are moments of brilliance, but given the potential of such a ridiculous plot and ensemble, I found the whole thing mostly forgettable.
David McK (3169 KP) rated Doctor Who: Engines of War in Books
Aug 19, 2023
The War Doctor.
A previously unknown incarnation of the Time Lord known only as The Doctor, as portrayed by John Hurt in the Dr Who 50th anniversary special 'the Day of the Doctor' in 2013 during Matt Smith's tenure as The Doctor (and with David Tennant also reprising his role as the same character).
The War Doctor refers to the fact that *this* incarnation participated in the Time War, a fundamental part of the backstory of Nu-Who, between the Daleks and the Time Lords.
Its also open to interpretation whether the Engines of War of the title here are those Daleks, or the various TARDIS's used by the Time Lords during this story, which itself is largely split into 3 segments: part 1 on the planet Moldox (which the Daleks have conquered, and where the Doctor meets his new companion for this story), part 2 on Gallifrey (the home of the Time Lords), and part 3 in the space above Moldox, in the Tantalus Eye.
The result is something that is generally light-weight enough: solid if not spectacular. But, then again, that could probably apply to just about every extended universe tie in there is!
A previously unknown incarnation of the Time Lord known only as The Doctor, as portrayed by John Hurt in the Dr Who 50th anniversary special 'the Day of the Doctor' in 2013 during Matt Smith's tenure as The Doctor (and with David Tennant also reprising his role as the same character).
The War Doctor refers to the fact that *this* incarnation participated in the Time War, a fundamental part of the backstory of Nu-Who, between the Daleks and the Time Lords.
Its also open to interpretation whether the Engines of War of the title here are those Daleks, or the various TARDIS's used by the Time Lords during this story, which itself is largely split into 3 segments: part 1 on the planet Moldox (which the Daleks have conquered, and where the Doctor meets his new companion for this story), part 2 on Gallifrey (the home of the Time Lords), and part 3 in the space above Moldox, in the Tantalus Eye.
The result is something that is generally light-weight enough: solid if not spectacular. But, then again, that could probably apply to just about every extended universe tie in there is!
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Dark Waters (2019) in Movies
Nov 28, 2019
Dark Waters, the screenplay developed from the New York Times Magazine article: The Lawyer Who Became DuPont’s Worst Nightmare. The article tells of Robert Bilott (Mark Ruffalo), a corporate environmental lawyer, who headed the years long battle against DuPont in one of the landmark cases that held the company accountable for their actions.
Bilott, is visited by a farmer, Wilbur Tennant (Jim Azelvandre), who was an acquaintance of his Grandmother. As a child, he visited her home in West Virginia during the summers and had fond memories of that farm. Robert, having worked with DuPont on many cases, felt confident that he would be able to sort out the situation for Tennant. What he does not realize until he visits Wilbur’s farm is that the situation is more dire than he had known.
Wilbur had arrived with multiple VHS tapes recording the various issues that were happening to his farm animals. Bilott witnesses the mass graves that littered Tennant’s farm from his herd that had died from various illnesses. Wilbur is convinced that the reason is the dump that DuPont has created next to his property.
Mark Ruffalo’s portrayal of Bilott is an exercise in subtlety. He becomes more purpose driven once his investigation and research in the information that DuPont had sent due to discovery. Anne Hathaway plays Sarah Bilott, Robert’s wife and steadfast partner. Over the years, Sarah had been supportive, however as the case drags on and Rob’s pay gets cut repeatedly, the strain begins to show.
This film has a stellar cast. From Tim Robbins, as Tom Terp, the managing partner at the firm, Victor Garber as DuPont’s in-house counsel. Mare Winningham as Darlene Kiger, a lead plaintiff in the class action suit and Bill Pullman as Harry Dietzler, lead counsel for the plaintiffs.
This movie has the quality that awards season loves. It is a David vs. Goliath, under dog wins story. Mark Ruffalo does a great portrayal of a man who initially does not want to pursue the case, then shifts to the defender of the people.
This movie is along the lines of Erin Brockovich and Norma Rae.
4.5 out of 5 Stars
Bilott, is visited by a farmer, Wilbur Tennant (Jim Azelvandre), who was an acquaintance of his Grandmother. As a child, he visited her home in West Virginia during the summers and had fond memories of that farm. Robert, having worked with DuPont on many cases, felt confident that he would be able to sort out the situation for Tennant. What he does not realize until he visits Wilbur’s farm is that the situation is more dire than he had known.
Wilbur had arrived with multiple VHS tapes recording the various issues that were happening to his farm animals. Bilott witnesses the mass graves that littered Tennant’s farm from his herd that had died from various illnesses. Wilbur is convinced that the reason is the dump that DuPont has created next to his property.
Mark Ruffalo’s portrayal of Bilott is an exercise in subtlety. He becomes more purpose driven once his investigation and research in the information that DuPont had sent due to discovery. Anne Hathaway plays Sarah Bilott, Robert’s wife and steadfast partner. Over the years, Sarah had been supportive, however as the case drags on and Rob’s pay gets cut repeatedly, the strain begins to show.
This film has a stellar cast. From Tim Robbins, as Tom Terp, the managing partner at the firm, Victor Garber as DuPont’s in-house counsel. Mare Winningham as Darlene Kiger, a lead plaintiff in the class action suit and Bill Pullman as Harry Dietzler, lead counsel for the plaintiffs.
This movie has the quality that awards season loves. It is a David vs. Goliath, under dog wins story. Mark Ruffalo does a great portrayal of a man who initially does not want to pursue the case, then shifts to the defender of the people.
This movie is along the lines of Erin Brockovich and Norma Rae.
4.5 out of 5 Stars
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Fright Night (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Twenty-six years ago, “Fright Night” premiered in theaters and went on to become a fondly remembered title amongst horror fans. The movie cleverly combined horror and humor to create a fresh take on the vampire and teen horror genres which had started to grow stale. While the movie spawned a largely forgettable direct to video sequel, the original film has remained popular over the years. So, when I first heard that they were planning on remaking the film I was skeptical as I felt it would be very difficult to match the original film.
Boasting an impressive cast which includes Anton Yelchin, Colin Farrell, David Tennant, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, and Toni Collette, the remake does not try to reinvent the wheel, but instead takes the formula of the original and creates an entirely new entry into the saga.
For those unfamiliar with the series, Yelchin stars as Charlie Brewster, a young man who is trying to balance watching over his single mother, and his growing relationship with a girl way out of his league named Amy (Imogen Poots). He is also wrestling with becoming part of a cooler crowd at the cost of alienating his geeky former best friend, Ed, played by Christopher Mintz-Plasse.
Colin Farrell plays the handsome and suave new next door neighbor who easily charms Charlie’s mom, played by Toni Colette. Unbeknownst to his neighbors, the charming and charismatic Jerry, played by Colin Ferrell, is actually a vampire who’s come to their Las Vegas suburb to continue his nighttime hunts. Ed has become suspicious of the recent disappearances in their community and confides to Charlie that he’s had Jerry under surveillance and knows that he is a vampire.
Needless to say this does not sit well with Charlie, who distances himself further from Ed. But when Ed goes missing, Charlie decides to do some investigating of his own. Charlie turns to a local Vegas performance artist named Peter Vincent (David Tennant), whose vampire-themed show portrays him as an expert in fighting the undead. While at first skeptical over Charlie’s claims, a few devastating confrontations with Jerry and his minions forces Vincent to rethink his role. The two unlikely allies soon find themselves in a deadly race against time to defeat Jerry and save their loved ones before it’s too late.
The film cleverly combines horror and comedy and does a good job of providing some suspenseful moments in between the blood and gore, managing to squeeze in more than a few laughs along the way. While not overly scary, the visual effects work is solid and aside from the converted 3-D is a really enjoyable to watch. The film would’ve been much better had it been shot in 3-D or simply left as a 2-D film as the conversion really didn’t offer anything of value as is often the case in these lab converted efforts.
The cast works very well with one another and Farrell cheekily introduces a few new wrinkles to the vampire lore. I really enjoyed David Tennant’s performance and should they do a sequel I certainly hope that they bring him back. Anton Yelchin gives a reliable performance but I was surprised that Christopher Mintz-Plasse did not have a bigger role but he does have some memorable moments in the film. What really impressed me was that the film did not attempt to do a shot-by-shot remake of the original but instead took the premise of the original and offered a fresh take that easily could have been issued as the third chapter in the series rather than a reboot. While there were nods to the original, outside of the premise it was very much its own film.
The film is not going to set any high marks for new standards in horror nor is the plot fresh and original. It simply knows what its target audience and source material are and sets a course right down the middle without attempting to deviate too much one way or another. “Fright Night” just might be perfect for those looking for a dose of nostalgia and some highly suspenseful, fun entertainment.
Boasting an impressive cast which includes Anton Yelchin, Colin Farrell, David Tennant, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, and Toni Collette, the remake does not try to reinvent the wheel, but instead takes the formula of the original and creates an entirely new entry into the saga.
For those unfamiliar with the series, Yelchin stars as Charlie Brewster, a young man who is trying to balance watching over his single mother, and his growing relationship with a girl way out of his league named Amy (Imogen Poots). He is also wrestling with becoming part of a cooler crowd at the cost of alienating his geeky former best friend, Ed, played by Christopher Mintz-Plasse.
Colin Farrell plays the handsome and suave new next door neighbor who easily charms Charlie’s mom, played by Toni Colette. Unbeknownst to his neighbors, the charming and charismatic Jerry, played by Colin Ferrell, is actually a vampire who’s come to their Las Vegas suburb to continue his nighttime hunts. Ed has become suspicious of the recent disappearances in their community and confides to Charlie that he’s had Jerry under surveillance and knows that he is a vampire.
Needless to say this does not sit well with Charlie, who distances himself further from Ed. But when Ed goes missing, Charlie decides to do some investigating of his own. Charlie turns to a local Vegas performance artist named Peter Vincent (David Tennant), whose vampire-themed show portrays him as an expert in fighting the undead. While at first skeptical over Charlie’s claims, a few devastating confrontations with Jerry and his minions forces Vincent to rethink his role. The two unlikely allies soon find themselves in a deadly race against time to defeat Jerry and save their loved ones before it’s too late.
The film cleverly combines horror and comedy and does a good job of providing some suspenseful moments in between the blood and gore, managing to squeeze in more than a few laughs along the way. While not overly scary, the visual effects work is solid and aside from the converted 3-D is a really enjoyable to watch. The film would’ve been much better had it been shot in 3-D or simply left as a 2-D film as the conversion really didn’t offer anything of value as is often the case in these lab converted efforts.
The cast works very well with one another and Farrell cheekily introduces a few new wrinkles to the vampire lore. I really enjoyed David Tennant’s performance and should they do a sequel I certainly hope that they bring him back. Anton Yelchin gives a reliable performance but I was surprised that Christopher Mintz-Plasse did not have a bigger role but he does have some memorable moments in the film. What really impressed me was that the film did not attempt to do a shot-by-shot remake of the original but instead took the premise of the original and offered a fresh take that easily could have been issued as the third chapter in the series rather than a reboot. While there were nods to the original, outside of the premise it was very much its own film.
The film is not going to set any high marks for new standards in horror nor is the plot fresh and original. It simply knows what its target audience and source material are and sets a course right down the middle without attempting to deviate too much one way or another. “Fright Night” just might be perfect for those looking for a dose of nostalgia and some highly suspenseful, fun entertainment.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Mary Queen of Scots (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
January is proving to be a challenging month, so many historical and biographical movies and a lot of me saying "this was great but..."
Scrolling back through Saoirse Ronan's acting career I've only actually seen her in two things, Lady Bird and City Of Embers (which for the life of me I cannot remember her in), and I can't say that I was going in as a fan, but I came out pleasantly surprised by her powerful portrayal of Mary.
The cast in this is brilliant, so many recognisable faces. Ian Hart, Gemma Chan, David Tennant (not initially so recognisable until he starts to speak), Brendan Coyle and Joe Alwyn who is clearly hedging his bets by appearing in The Favourite as well.
Margot Robbie is wonderful, just generally, and I love so many of her roles. I do feel like she was rather underused as Elizabeth, but thankfully her brief appearances were quite striking.
I was so happy to see Adrian Lester's name connected to this. I'm slightly obsessed with Hustle, and his stage and screen work is usually something tremendously entertaining to watch. However, I didn't feel that the script allowed him to get anything good out of Lord Randolph sadly. Guy Pearce fared much better and gave an impressive performance.
Visually the locations and costumes make for a magnificent film, but while I wasn't bored at any point it does feel like it could have lost a few minutes here and there.
What you should do
It's worth giving a watch at some point but I don't think there's any rush to get to the cinema for it.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Some quality Mary ginger hair... maybe without the halo of volume.
Scrolling back through Saoirse Ronan's acting career I've only actually seen her in two things, Lady Bird and City Of Embers (which for the life of me I cannot remember her in), and I can't say that I was going in as a fan, but I came out pleasantly surprised by her powerful portrayal of Mary.
The cast in this is brilliant, so many recognisable faces. Ian Hart, Gemma Chan, David Tennant (not initially so recognisable until he starts to speak), Brendan Coyle and Joe Alwyn who is clearly hedging his bets by appearing in The Favourite as well.
Margot Robbie is wonderful, just generally, and I love so many of her roles. I do feel like she was rather underused as Elizabeth, but thankfully her brief appearances were quite striking.
I was so happy to see Adrian Lester's name connected to this. I'm slightly obsessed with Hustle, and his stage and screen work is usually something tremendously entertaining to watch. However, I didn't feel that the script allowed him to get anything good out of Lord Randolph sadly. Guy Pearce fared much better and gave an impressive performance.
Visually the locations and costumes make for a magnificent film, but while I wasn't bored at any point it does feel like it could have lost a few minutes here and there.
What you should do
It's worth giving a watch at some point but I don't think there's any rush to get to the cinema for it.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Some quality Mary ginger hair... maybe without the halo of volume.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Good Omens in TV
Aug 25, 2019
Could’ve been better
I love Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman, but yet I’ve never read Good Omens. The book is next on my to read list, but I thought I’d give the show a go first and in the main, I did enjoy it.
The best thing about this show is by far the interactions between Aziraphale and Crowley, and the performances of Michael Sheen and David Tennant. They’re so much fun and this is where virtually all of the laughs in this show come from. They’re a great pairing, even if they are a little over the top at times, and my favourite episode by far was the one that showed their interactions over the ages. It’s the rest of the plot that I feel let’s this show down a little bit. There are some wonderful cameos from a whole host of stars, and Jon Hamm was great if a little underused. I would’ve loved to have seen more of him. However I really wish they hadn’t cast Jack Whitehall, I don’t get his appeal as he’s an horrendous actor and rather irritating.
The problem though is that despite this show being about the Antichrist and the end of the world, the ending itself is rather lacklustre and whilst everyone wants to stop (or start) the end of the world, the urgency and tension and terror is all too lacking. I get that this is meant to be humorous, but it can still be funny and threatening in the same episode. I actually think they could’ve done without the whole end of the world thing and just had buddy type show with Aziraphale and Crowley that would’ve been just as or even more entertaining. I’m intrigued now to see how this plays out in the book and if it works better.
The best thing about this show is by far the interactions between Aziraphale and Crowley, and the performances of Michael Sheen and David Tennant. They’re so much fun and this is where virtually all of the laughs in this show come from. They’re a great pairing, even if they are a little over the top at times, and my favourite episode by far was the one that showed their interactions over the ages. It’s the rest of the plot that I feel let’s this show down a little bit. There are some wonderful cameos from a whole host of stars, and Jon Hamm was great if a little underused. I would’ve loved to have seen more of him. However I really wish they hadn’t cast Jack Whitehall, I don’t get his appeal as he’s an horrendous actor and rather irritating.
The problem though is that despite this show being about the Antichrist and the end of the world, the ending itself is rather lacklustre and whilst everyone wants to stop (or start) the end of the world, the urgency and tension and terror is all too lacking. I get that this is meant to be humorous, but it can still be funny and threatening in the same episode. I actually think they could’ve done without the whole end of the world thing and just had buddy type show with Aziraphale and Crowley that would’ve been just as or even more entertaining. I’m intrigued now to see how this plays out in the book and if it works better.
Ross (3282 KP) rated Good Omens in TV
Jul 4, 2019
Broadly fine
I am a long-time fan of Terry Pratchett, and a more recent fan of Neil Gaiman, and yet it was only the release of the TV series that prompted me to finally read their joint effort. I thought the book was pretty good, lots of nice silly little jokes spread about, and a good plot keeping up momentum throughout.
I felt the TV series let the book down a little bit. While the overall story and the dialogue, in the main, is true to the book, I felt a lot of it fell flat. A lot of the humour (which comes in the form of charming asides, generally in the narrative of the book) missed the mark and just did not land properly. I did like the expanded section on Azirafale and Crowley's efforts through time, though I think they laboured it too long on the angel's unwillingness and didn't quite show how much they had worked together.
Tennant played Bill Nighy playing a demon, Sheen played David Mitchell playing an angel and they were broadly fine but didn't really sit perfectly for my liking. The rest of the cast were pretty strong (with the exception of Jack Whitehall who I utterly detest and don't think he can act for toffee).
The special effects were on the poor side, but that is only compared to the major big-budget TV shows like GoT and The Walking Dead. The physical effects were excellent.
In all, I am glad they restricted the series to a small number of episodes and did not try and drag it out too long. The ending was not given the build-up it deserved, there really wasn't enough peril before the two single acts that stopped the end of the war (Pulsifer and Adam).
I was very happy to see the relationship between Azirafale and Crowley develop beyond friendship
I felt the TV series let the book down a little bit. While the overall story and the dialogue, in the main, is true to the book, I felt a lot of it fell flat. A lot of the humour (which comes in the form of charming asides, generally in the narrative of the book) missed the mark and just did not land properly. I did like the expanded section on Azirafale and Crowley's efforts through time, though I think they laboured it too long on the angel's unwillingness and didn't quite show how much they had worked together.
Tennant played Bill Nighy playing a demon, Sheen played David Mitchell playing an angel and they were broadly fine but didn't really sit perfectly for my liking. The rest of the cast were pretty strong (with the exception of Jack Whitehall who I utterly detest and don't think he can act for toffee).
The special effects were on the poor side, but that is only compared to the major big-budget TV shows like GoT and The Walking Dead. The physical effects were excellent.
In all, I am glad they restricted the series to a small number of episodes and did not try and drag it out too long. The ending was not given the build-up it deserved, there really wasn't enough peril before the two single acts that stopped the end of the war (Pulsifer and Adam).
I was very happy to see the relationship between Azirafale and Crowley develop beyond friendship
JT (287 KP) rated Fright Night (2011) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Colin Farrell as a vampire? He would hardly be my choice as the leading man in this one, yet beneath it all you get the impression that he loved every minute.
As Jerry, the new neighbour who has moved into a quiet suburb deep in the Las Vegas desert, he has all the charm and likeability of any new dweller. That is until his true identity and ambitions are revealed.
Opposite Farrell is Charley (Yelchin), a nerd who has suddenly burst out of his shell and blended in with the upper echelons of high school society. Enough that he has bagged Imogen Poots as his girlfriend.
It’s very much a no brainer when it comes to the plot, but Yelchin does enough in the early parts to keep you hooked in. Battling with his former best friend played by Christopher Mintz-Plasse, who yet again does the role so well, he suddenly realises that there is more truth to the rumour that Jerry is devouring the locals.
The humour keeps the film ticking along and the introduction of David Tennant as Peter Vincent, a Vegas showman who as luck would have it, has the largest amount of vampire collectables going.
The special effects and gore elements are exciting, but its hardly frightening anyone to the core, which is a shame. If you’re going to do a remake then make sure its executed as well as it can be.
For me though the film is about Farrell, contented with playing the nice guy for the most part of his career its great to see him opening up to a new role. Even his Horrible Bosses turn showed that he had the potential for a badass, and long may it continue.
It’s not a patch on the original, and let’s be fair not a lot of remakes ever are, but its a credible effort from Gillespie. Farrell here sticks two fingers up to Twilight, and I bloody loved that!
As Jerry, the new neighbour who has moved into a quiet suburb deep in the Las Vegas desert, he has all the charm and likeability of any new dweller. That is until his true identity and ambitions are revealed.
Opposite Farrell is Charley (Yelchin), a nerd who has suddenly burst out of his shell and blended in with the upper echelons of high school society. Enough that he has bagged Imogen Poots as his girlfriend.
It’s very much a no brainer when it comes to the plot, but Yelchin does enough in the early parts to keep you hooked in. Battling with his former best friend played by Christopher Mintz-Plasse, who yet again does the role so well, he suddenly realises that there is more truth to the rumour that Jerry is devouring the locals.
The humour keeps the film ticking along and the introduction of David Tennant as Peter Vincent, a Vegas showman who as luck would have it, has the largest amount of vampire collectables going.
The special effects and gore elements are exciting, but its hardly frightening anyone to the core, which is a shame. If you’re going to do a remake then make sure its executed as well as it can be.
For me though the film is about Farrell, contented with playing the nice guy for the most part of his career its great to see him opening up to a new role. Even his Horrible Bosses turn showed that he had the potential for a badass, and long may it continue.
It’s not a patch on the original, and let’s be fair not a lot of remakes ever are, but its a credible effort from Gillespie. Farrell here sticks two fingers up to Twilight, and I bloody loved that!
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Mad To Be Normal (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Mental Health in the 60s
I’ll admit, whenever I see David Tennant’s name on a cast list I get excited. As a long time fan, I’ve watched him play a variety of roles brilliantly. So when I was given the opportunity to review Mad To Be Normal and I learned what the plot was, how could I refuse? Set in the 60s, the film follows Scottish psychiatrist R.D. Laing and his unconventional approach to mental health treatment, causing controversy within the psychiatry field.
Although I don’t know much about Laing, Tennant really shone in the central role and delivered a truly captivating character who was riddled with his own underlying issues. He’s a tricky one because sometimes you really sympathise and agree with him, but other times he’s so utterly frustrating. The film showed us many different sides to him, and created a well-rounded exploration of the man in question. He’s compassionate but also terribly naive, and that’s a dangerous combination indeed. Tennant is joined by Elisabeth Moss, Michael Gambon and Gabriel Byrne which is an excellent line up.
One of the best things about this film is the characters, because everyone does such an amazing job of portraying complex characters with equally as complex relationships. Moss plays student Angie who quickly becomes a love interest of Laing’s, and joins him in his work. Much like Laing, she is also well-rounded and has good traits and bad ones, the latter resulting in rather turbulent moments throughout the film.
I especially enjoyed the way mental health was portrayed by characters, as you could tell they were struggling and trying so hard to deal with their illnesses. It was dealt with respectfully and honestly, whilst still showing the risks of untreated mental health conditions. Gabriel Byrne in particular stands out in his portrayal of Jim, going from someone friendly and sentimental to someone violent and dangerous very quickly. It would have been good to learn more about each character and their individual backgrounds for context’s sake, replacing the unnecessary scenes with this. Nevertheless, the insight into mental health in this era was fascinating, particularly scenes involving the inhumane treatment known as electroshock therapy. It shows we have come a long way since then, but we still have a long way to go.
The stellar performances are accompanied with some great set design, which I imagine would provide some welcome nostalgia for those familiar with the era. I loved Laing’s quirky style both in his interior design, behaviour and clothing choices, making him stand out even more. He’s flamboyant in every sense of the word, but not always for the right reasons. For his time, Laing was clearly very open minded, caring and in favour of self-expression, further conflicting with the beliefs of wider society. Although open mindedness is a good thing, his goes too far which ultimately would lead to his eventual downfall.
Robert Mullan has done a great job bringing this important figure to life on screen, putting together a cast that perfectly delivered this story. Whilst I would have liked more context around both the patients and Laing himself, the film still delivered a powerful message in its 1 hour 45 minute run time. It’s definitely worth a watch.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/08/04/mental-health-in-the-60s-mad-to-be-normal-review/
Although I don’t know much about Laing, Tennant really shone in the central role and delivered a truly captivating character who was riddled with his own underlying issues. He’s a tricky one because sometimes you really sympathise and agree with him, but other times he’s so utterly frustrating. The film showed us many different sides to him, and created a well-rounded exploration of the man in question. He’s compassionate but also terribly naive, and that’s a dangerous combination indeed. Tennant is joined by Elisabeth Moss, Michael Gambon and Gabriel Byrne which is an excellent line up.
One of the best things about this film is the characters, because everyone does such an amazing job of portraying complex characters with equally as complex relationships. Moss plays student Angie who quickly becomes a love interest of Laing’s, and joins him in his work. Much like Laing, she is also well-rounded and has good traits and bad ones, the latter resulting in rather turbulent moments throughout the film.
I especially enjoyed the way mental health was portrayed by characters, as you could tell they were struggling and trying so hard to deal with their illnesses. It was dealt with respectfully and honestly, whilst still showing the risks of untreated mental health conditions. Gabriel Byrne in particular stands out in his portrayal of Jim, going from someone friendly and sentimental to someone violent and dangerous very quickly. It would have been good to learn more about each character and their individual backgrounds for context’s sake, replacing the unnecessary scenes with this. Nevertheless, the insight into mental health in this era was fascinating, particularly scenes involving the inhumane treatment known as electroshock therapy. It shows we have come a long way since then, but we still have a long way to go.
The stellar performances are accompanied with some great set design, which I imagine would provide some welcome nostalgia for those familiar with the era. I loved Laing’s quirky style both in his interior design, behaviour and clothing choices, making him stand out even more. He’s flamboyant in every sense of the word, but not always for the right reasons. For his time, Laing was clearly very open minded, caring and in favour of self-expression, further conflicting with the beliefs of wider society. Although open mindedness is a good thing, his goes too far which ultimately would lead to his eventual downfall.
Robert Mullan has done a great job bringing this important figure to life on screen, putting together a cast that perfectly delivered this story. Whilst I would have liked more context around both the patients and Laing himself, the film still delivered a powerful message in its 1 hour 45 minute run time. It’s definitely worth a watch.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/08/04/mental-health-in-the-60s-mad-to-be-normal-review/
Darren (1599 KP) rated Bad Samaritan (2018) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: Bad Samaritan starts when two burglars Sean (Sheehan) and Derek (Olivero) are running an operation as valets who break into houses while people are eating their dinners. When they pick their latest victim Cale Erendreich (Tennant) with his flashy car, Sean leads the look through his house, finding all the goodies the pair want, before making a shocking discovery, Katie (Condon) chained up in an office.
Sean get caught between doing the right thing and helping the woman, only to find Cale is able to talk the police away and breaking back into the house, the woman is gone and now his has become a target for Cale.
Thoughts on Bad Samaritan
Characters – Cale Erendreich is rich man that isn’t afraid to show his flashy cars around town, he is rude to people that he sees beneath him and he has a woman locked up in an office at his house. He likes to correct people and after Sean breaks into his house, he becomes the latest target, showing us that Cale is doing what he thinks is the right thing. Sean Falco is the thief that gets more than he bargained for on his latest job, he end up getting caught in the middle of a game which will see him become the target for the killer, seeing his life start to fall apart around him, Sean shows us what it is like when somebody wants to make it and just how far they will go to clean up the mess left behind. Katie is the woman that is held captive that knows that she will be put in more danger if Sean does rescue her at the wrong time. Derek is Sean’s best friend who works with him to select who to rob only he could get in more trouble if he is ever caught.
Performances – David Tennant is fantastic in this leading role, he brings us a creepy psychopath figure that is completely calm, while being calculated in each scene. Robert Sheehan is strong as his character is put through a moral dilemma and he shows us the desperation he is going through. Kerry Condon does what she can in her role, it is harder for her to do as much because most of role is tied up. Carlito Olivera does everything asked of him without standing out in anyway.
Story – The story here follows a small-time thief that sees his latest job go crazy after the person he is robbing from turns out to have dark secret which sees his life get turned upside down. This story is an easy watch and does go against everything you would imagine it going, watching the cat-n-mouse style unfold is interesting to follow as see how each side tries to get the upper hand and slowly starts to learn what the other might know about. It does soon pan out and just become a bigger case which is fine if you would like to get to learn more about the opening sequence. We do get to see just how dangerous technology will be in the wrong hands.
Crime/Horror – The crime side of the film does show us Cale operates in this world, with the horror side of this coming from just how he can get away with anything if he knows how to.
Settings – The film is set in Portland which shows how difficult the life can be for people that are struggling to make ends meet.
Scene of the Movie – You talk too much.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It has a problem when it comes to learning about Cale’s back story.
Final Thoughts – This is a crime horror that goes full-blown cat-n-mouse which does keep us guessing to just who will end up on top in this battle.
Overall: Interesting Cat-n-mouse chase.
Sean get caught between doing the right thing and helping the woman, only to find Cale is able to talk the police away and breaking back into the house, the woman is gone and now his has become a target for Cale.
Thoughts on Bad Samaritan
Characters – Cale Erendreich is rich man that isn’t afraid to show his flashy cars around town, he is rude to people that he sees beneath him and he has a woman locked up in an office at his house. He likes to correct people and after Sean breaks into his house, he becomes the latest target, showing us that Cale is doing what he thinks is the right thing. Sean Falco is the thief that gets more than he bargained for on his latest job, he end up getting caught in the middle of a game which will see him become the target for the killer, seeing his life start to fall apart around him, Sean shows us what it is like when somebody wants to make it and just how far they will go to clean up the mess left behind. Katie is the woman that is held captive that knows that she will be put in more danger if Sean does rescue her at the wrong time. Derek is Sean’s best friend who works with him to select who to rob only he could get in more trouble if he is ever caught.
Performances – David Tennant is fantastic in this leading role, he brings us a creepy psychopath figure that is completely calm, while being calculated in each scene. Robert Sheehan is strong as his character is put through a moral dilemma and he shows us the desperation he is going through. Kerry Condon does what she can in her role, it is harder for her to do as much because most of role is tied up. Carlito Olivera does everything asked of him without standing out in anyway.
Story – The story here follows a small-time thief that sees his latest job go crazy after the person he is robbing from turns out to have dark secret which sees his life get turned upside down. This story is an easy watch and does go against everything you would imagine it going, watching the cat-n-mouse style unfold is interesting to follow as see how each side tries to get the upper hand and slowly starts to learn what the other might know about. It does soon pan out and just become a bigger case which is fine if you would like to get to learn more about the opening sequence. We do get to see just how dangerous technology will be in the wrong hands.
Crime/Horror – The crime side of the film does show us Cale operates in this world, with the horror side of this coming from just how he can get away with anything if he knows how to.
Settings – The film is set in Portland which shows how difficult the life can be for people that are struggling to make ends meet.
Scene of the Movie – You talk too much.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It has a problem when it comes to learning about Cale’s back story.
Final Thoughts – This is a crime horror that goes full-blown cat-n-mouse which does keep us guessing to just who will end up on top in this battle.
Overall: Interesting Cat-n-mouse chase.