Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Me Before You (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“You are scored on my heart Clark”
“Me Before You” is a bit of a queer fish of a movie. It never quite decides whether it wants to be a romantic weepy, a drama, or a rom-com and as such ends up rather falling between all three stools.
Emelia Clarke (“Game of Thrones”, “Terminator: Genesys”) plays Lou Clark, an ‘invisible’ girl “with potential” who is trapped – due to unemployment-led poverty – living with her parents in a provincial castle town (a picturesque Pembroke, though notably hardly a Welsh accent in earshot). Her boyfriend Patrick (“Harry Potter”’s Matthew Lewis) is a running nut that doesn’t play to her romantic needs in any way. Circumstance leads her into the job of a carer for a quadriplegic, Will Traynor (Sam Claflin, from “The Hunger Games” sequels) who also happens to be the son of the local millionaire couple (played by Charles Dance and Janet McTeer). They own the castle, a large mansion and most of the surrounding countryside too.
Will – previously a sports jock – is paralyzed from the neck down after an accident and is a frustrated and suicidal mind in a useless body. Can the quirky and vivacious Lou bring him out of his morbid shell and find him a life worth living again?
From this outline, you might think the story almost writes itself, and for most of the film it does. But the writers have a number of twists and turns in store which – depending on your sentiments – might entertain or appall.
As her first leading actress role in a non-action feature it’s a bit difficult to sum up Emilia Clarke’s performance. At face value it could be described as an advanced case of over-acting, with an extensive array of kooky looks and gurning facial expressions. (Those eyebrows! At some point we’re going to have to see her acting opposite Cara DeLevingne in a “Batman v Superman” eye-brow-off). On the other hand, she plays the part with such vivacity and charm – and notably in a manner so in keeping with the character she portrays – that it is hard not to be enchanted by her: I certainly was.
Claflin plays the brooding and resentful Traynor well and Matthew Lewis shows he is growing into a really professional jobbing actor as he enters his mid-20’s.
Also radiant (she always is… sorry to break it to the wife like this… but I am basically in love with her!!) is the ever-gorgeous Jenna Coleman (“Dr Who”, “Victoria”) in what is to date a rare outing for her onto the big screen (she previously has only had a small role in the first “Captain America” film: she really needs a breakout movie like Carey Mulligan’s “An Education”). Coleman and Clarke make a very credible pair of sisters, with the “bed” discussion scene being very touching.
Elsewhere a number of other well-known faces crop up including Brendan Coyle (“Downton Abbey”) as Lou’s father and Joanna Lumley as a wedding guest with a handy line in references.
The soundtrack by Craig (“Love Actually”) Armstrong is top notch with pleasing songs from Ed Sheeran, Imagine Dragons, Cloves and We The Kings.
The production quality is as professional as you would expect from a British-made movie, although the Mallorca and Paris locations are not particularly well exploited, since for a large chunk of these scenes I was convinced they hadn’t left Pinewood!
So, a bit of a mixed bag, but enjoyable nonetheless. A guilty pleasure. If you like a romantic piece of escapism this is one for a wet Sunday afternoon, provided you have a box of tissues handy.
Emelia Clarke (“Game of Thrones”, “Terminator: Genesys”) plays Lou Clark, an ‘invisible’ girl “with potential” who is trapped – due to unemployment-led poverty – living with her parents in a provincial castle town (a picturesque Pembroke, though notably hardly a Welsh accent in earshot). Her boyfriend Patrick (“Harry Potter”’s Matthew Lewis) is a running nut that doesn’t play to her romantic needs in any way. Circumstance leads her into the job of a carer for a quadriplegic, Will Traynor (Sam Claflin, from “The Hunger Games” sequels) who also happens to be the son of the local millionaire couple (played by Charles Dance and Janet McTeer). They own the castle, a large mansion and most of the surrounding countryside too.
Will – previously a sports jock – is paralyzed from the neck down after an accident and is a frustrated and suicidal mind in a useless body. Can the quirky and vivacious Lou bring him out of his morbid shell and find him a life worth living again?
From this outline, you might think the story almost writes itself, and for most of the film it does. But the writers have a number of twists and turns in store which – depending on your sentiments – might entertain or appall.
As her first leading actress role in a non-action feature it’s a bit difficult to sum up Emilia Clarke’s performance. At face value it could be described as an advanced case of over-acting, with an extensive array of kooky looks and gurning facial expressions. (Those eyebrows! At some point we’re going to have to see her acting opposite Cara DeLevingne in a “Batman v Superman” eye-brow-off). On the other hand, she plays the part with such vivacity and charm – and notably in a manner so in keeping with the character she portrays – that it is hard not to be enchanted by her: I certainly was.
Claflin plays the brooding and resentful Traynor well and Matthew Lewis shows he is growing into a really professional jobbing actor as he enters his mid-20’s.
Also radiant (she always is… sorry to break it to the wife like this… but I am basically in love with her!!) is the ever-gorgeous Jenna Coleman (“Dr Who”, “Victoria”) in what is to date a rare outing for her onto the big screen (she previously has only had a small role in the first “Captain America” film: she really needs a breakout movie like Carey Mulligan’s “An Education”). Coleman and Clarke make a very credible pair of sisters, with the “bed” discussion scene being very touching.
Elsewhere a number of other well-known faces crop up including Brendan Coyle (“Downton Abbey”) as Lou’s father and Joanna Lumley as a wedding guest with a handy line in references.
The soundtrack by Craig (“Love Actually”) Armstrong is top notch with pleasing songs from Ed Sheeran, Imagine Dragons, Cloves and We The Kings.
The production quality is as professional as you would expect from a British-made movie, although the Mallorca and Paris locations are not particularly well exploited, since for a large chunk of these scenes I was convinced they hadn’t left Pinewood!
So, a bit of a mixed bag, but enjoyable nonetheless. A guilty pleasure. If you like a romantic piece of escapism this is one for a wet Sunday afternoon, provided you have a box of tissues handy.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Live By Night (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Sleep by day…”.
Ben Affleck’s new movie could best be described as “sprawling”. In both directing and writing the screenplay (based on a novel by Dennis Lehane), Affleck has aimed for a “Godfather” style gangster epic and missed: not missed by a country mile, but missed nonetheless.
Morally bankrupted by his experiences in the trenches, Joe Coughlin (Affleck) returns to Boston to pick and choose which social rules he wants to follow. Not sociopathic per se, as he has a strong personal code of conduct, but Coughlin turns to robbery walking a delicate path between the warring mob factions of the Irish community, led by Albert White (the excellent Robert Glenister from TV’s “Hustle”), and the Italian community, led by Maso Pescatore (Remo Girone). Trying to keep him out of jail is his father (“Harry Potter”’s Brendan Gleeson) who – usefully – is the Deputy Police Chief. Life gets complicated when he falls in love with White’s moll, Emma Gould (Sienna Miller). The scene is set for a drama stretching from Boston to the hot and steamy Everglades over a period of the next twenty years.
Although a watchable popcorn film, the choppy episodic nature of the movie is hugely frustrating, with no compelling story arc to glue all of the disparate parts together. The (often very violent) action scenes are very well done and exciting but as a viewer you don’t feel invested in a ‘journey’ from the beginning of the film to the (unsatisfactory) ending. In my experience it’s never a good sign when the writer considers it necessary to add a voiceover to the soundtrack, and here Affleck mutters truisms about his thoughts and motives that irritate more than illuminate.
The sheer volume of players in the piece (there are about three film’s worth in here) and the resulting minimal screen time given to each allows no time for character development. Unfortunately the result is that you really care very little about whether people live or die and big plot developments land as rather an “oh” than an “OH!”.
Affleck puts in a great turn as the autistic central character whose condition results in a cold, calculating demeanor and a complete lack of emotion reflecting on his face. Oh, hang on… no, wait a minute… sorry… I’ve got the wrong film…. I’m thinking about “The Accountant”. I don’t know whether he filmed these films in parallel. I generally enjoy Ben Affleck’s work (he was excellent in “The Town”) but for 95% of this film his part could have been completed by a burly extra with an Affleck mask on. In terms of acting range, his facial muscles barely get to a “2” on the scale. Given the double problem that he is barely credible as the “young man” returning mentally wounded from the trenches, then in my opinion he would have been better to have focused on the writing and directing and found a lead of the likes of an Andrew Garfield to fill Coughlin’s shoes.
That’s not to say there is not some good acting present in the rest of the cast’s all too brief supporting roles. Elle Fanning (“Trumbo”, “Maleficent”) in particular shines as the Southern belle Loretta Figgis: a religious zealot driving her police chief father (Chris Cooper, “The Bourne Identity”) to distraction. Cooper also delivers a star turn as the moral but pragmatic law-man.
Sienna Miller (“Foxcatcher”) delivers a passable Cork accent and does her best to develop some believable chemistry with the rock-like Affleck. Zoe Saldana (“Star Trek”) is equally effective as a Cuban humanitarian.
In summary, it’s sprawlingly watchable… but overall a disappointment, with Affleck over-reaching. One day we surely will get a gangster film the likes of another “Godfather”, “Goodfellas” or “Untouchables”. Although this has its moments, unfortunately it’s more towards the “Public Enemies” end of the genre spectrum.
Morally bankrupted by his experiences in the trenches, Joe Coughlin (Affleck) returns to Boston to pick and choose which social rules he wants to follow. Not sociopathic per se, as he has a strong personal code of conduct, but Coughlin turns to robbery walking a delicate path between the warring mob factions of the Irish community, led by Albert White (the excellent Robert Glenister from TV’s “Hustle”), and the Italian community, led by Maso Pescatore (Remo Girone). Trying to keep him out of jail is his father (“Harry Potter”’s Brendan Gleeson) who – usefully – is the Deputy Police Chief. Life gets complicated when he falls in love with White’s moll, Emma Gould (Sienna Miller). The scene is set for a drama stretching from Boston to the hot and steamy Everglades over a period of the next twenty years.
Although a watchable popcorn film, the choppy episodic nature of the movie is hugely frustrating, with no compelling story arc to glue all of the disparate parts together. The (often very violent) action scenes are very well done and exciting but as a viewer you don’t feel invested in a ‘journey’ from the beginning of the film to the (unsatisfactory) ending. In my experience it’s never a good sign when the writer considers it necessary to add a voiceover to the soundtrack, and here Affleck mutters truisms about his thoughts and motives that irritate more than illuminate.
The sheer volume of players in the piece (there are about three film’s worth in here) and the resulting minimal screen time given to each allows no time for character development. Unfortunately the result is that you really care very little about whether people live or die and big plot developments land as rather an “oh” than an “OH!”.
Affleck puts in a great turn as the autistic central character whose condition results in a cold, calculating demeanor and a complete lack of emotion reflecting on his face. Oh, hang on… no, wait a minute… sorry… I’ve got the wrong film…. I’m thinking about “The Accountant”. I don’t know whether he filmed these films in parallel. I generally enjoy Ben Affleck’s work (he was excellent in “The Town”) but for 95% of this film his part could have been completed by a burly extra with an Affleck mask on. In terms of acting range, his facial muscles barely get to a “2” on the scale. Given the double problem that he is barely credible as the “young man” returning mentally wounded from the trenches, then in my opinion he would have been better to have focused on the writing and directing and found a lead of the likes of an Andrew Garfield to fill Coughlin’s shoes.
That’s not to say there is not some good acting present in the rest of the cast’s all too brief supporting roles. Elle Fanning (“Trumbo”, “Maleficent”) in particular shines as the Southern belle Loretta Figgis: a religious zealot driving her police chief father (Chris Cooper, “The Bourne Identity”) to distraction. Cooper also delivers a star turn as the moral but pragmatic law-man.
Sienna Miller (“Foxcatcher”) delivers a passable Cork accent and does her best to develop some believable chemistry with the rock-like Affleck. Zoe Saldana (“Star Trek”) is equally effective as a Cuban humanitarian.
In summary, it’s sprawlingly watchable… but overall a disappointment, with Affleck over-reaching. One day we surely will get a gangster film the likes of another “Godfather”, “Goodfellas” or “Untouchables”. Although this has its moments, unfortunately it’s more towards the “Public Enemies” end of the genre spectrum.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Thor: Love and Thunder (2022) in Movies
Jul 8, 2022
Good Character Arcs for Thor and Jane
Under the Writing and Direction of Taika Waititi, the THOR franchise portion of the Marvel Cinematic Universe has gone in a more comedic, rather than Shakespearean, direction and THOR: LOVE AND THUNDER proves that this direction is a smart one both for THOR and for the overall health and diversity of the Marvel Cinematic Universe as well.
Starring Chris Hemsworth, of course, as the titular THOR, Love and Thunder shows our demi-god hero at a crossroads in his life and career. Into this world walks his ex-girlfriend, Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) and chaos ensues as both are chasing the god-killer, Gorr (Christian Bale).
This sort of premise set-up (and the fact that Hemsworth is playing THOR for the 8th time), could have fallen victim to banality and dullness, but under the watchful eye of Waititi (Writer/Director of the severely under-rated JOJO RABBIT), this THOR soars with the best of them and develops the overall arc and (eventual) pay-off of both Thor’s and Jane’s arcs precisely and (upon retrospection) in the only satisfying way that they could have ended. So, kudos needs to be given to Waititi for walking this tightrope and sticking the landing.
Hemsworth, of course, is charming and buff as Thor and balances the action, romantic drama and comedic portions of this story well. Waititi brings more than just comic relief (though he has plenty of that as well) as the voice of Thor’s buddy KORG, while Christian Bale is more than just one-dimensional (how can this actor be anything but interesting) as the main villain of this piece..
What surprised me the most in this film is the portrayal of Jane Foster by Portman and how her character becomes the “female Thor” (that’s not a spoiler, it’s in the trailers) and does NOT become just “Thor’s girlfriend”. Portman has made no secret of her distaste of how her character became the femme fatale in THOR: THE DARK WORLD and refused to return to this character previously. Obviously, Waititi has been able to come up with a storyline - and an arc - that would interest an actress like Portman to return and Natalie nails it. She looked bright-eyed and energized by this part and by where her character goes in this film.
And then there is Tessa Thompson’s Valkyrie. This character is a strong part of Thor’s story - and the story of the survivors of Asgaard (their destroyed homeworld). Thompson owns this part and is engaging and interesting to watch on-screen. Out of necessity, her character and story play a supporting role to the main Thor/Jane story, so her character didn’t get quite enough to do for my tastes. But it did whet my appetite for a stand-alone Valkyrie film (make that happen Marvel).
There are cameos and extended-cameos galore in this film - as well as TWO end credits scenes - so to mention them would be to spoil them, except to say that the GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY play a pivotal role, but for those who came to see a GUARDIANS film, you’ll have to wait for GUARDIANS 3 to come out next year - this is a THOR film.
A very satisfying entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and while not a perfect film (it does try too hard, at times, to mine the same, surprise comic gold of THOR: RAGNAROK), THOR: LOVE AND THUNDER delivers a stand-alone Thor story that drives both the characters of Thor and Jane forward in a smart, intelligent way…and when is the last time the words “smart and intelligent” were used with a comic book film)?
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Starring Chris Hemsworth, of course, as the titular THOR, Love and Thunder shows our demi-god hero at a crossroads in his life and career. Into this world walks his ex-girlfriend, Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) and chaos ensues as both are chasing the god-killer, Gorr (Christian Bale).
This sort of premise set-up (and the fact that Hemsworth is playing THOR for the 8th time), could have fallen victim to banality and dullness, but under the watchful eye of Waititi (Writer/Director of the severely under-rated JOJO RABBIT), this THOR soars with the best of them and develops the overall arc and (eventual) pay-off of both Thor’s and Jane’s arcs precisely and (upon retrospection) in the only satisfying way that they could have ended. So, kudos needs to be given to Waititi for walking this tightrope and sticking the landing.
Hemsworth, of course, is charming and buff as Thor and balances the action, romantic drama and comedic portions of this story well. Waititi brings more than just comic relief (though he has plenty of that as well) as the voice of Thor’s buddy KORG, while Christian Bale is more than just one-dimensional (how can this actor be anything but interesting) as the main villain of this piece..
What surprised me the most in this film is the portrayal of Jane Foster by Portman and how her character becomes the “female Thor” (that’s not a spoiler, it’s in the trailers) and does NOT become just “Thor’s girlfriend”. Portman has made no secret of her distaste of how her character became the femme fatale in THOR: THE DARK WORLD and refused to return to this character previously. Obviously, Waititi has been able to come up with a storyline - and an arc - that would interest an actress like Portman to return and Natalie nails it. She looked bright-eyed and energized by this part and by where her character goes in this film.
And then there is Tessa Thompson’s Valkyrie. This character is a strong part of Thor’s story - and the story of the survivors of Asgaard (their destroyed homeworld). Thompson owns this part and is engaging and interesting to watch on-screen. Out of necessity, her character and story play a supporting role to the main Thor/Jane story, so her character didn’t get quite enough to do for my tastes. But it did whet my appetite for a stand-alone Valkyrie film (make that happen Marvel).
There are cameos and extended-cameos galore in this film - as well as TWO end credits scenes - so to mention them would be to spoil them, except to say that the GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY play a pivotal role, but for those who came to see a GUARDIANS film, you’ll have to wait for GUARDIANS 3 to come out next year - this is a THOR film.
A very satisfying entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and while not a perfect film (it does try too hard, at times, to mine the same, surprise comic gold of THOR: RAGNAROK), THOR: LOVE AND THUNDER delivers a stand-alone Thor story that drives both the characters of Thor and Jane forward in a smart, intelligent way…and when is the last time the words “smart and intelligent” were used with a comic book film)?
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ticket to paradise (2022) in Movies
Nov 10, 2022
Charismatic Leads Saves This Underwritten Film
Have you watched one of the two ABBA Musical MAMA MIA films (MAMA MIA or MAMA MIA: HERE WE GO AGAIN) and thought to yourself, “I want more of this, but with no music”.
If so, do I have a film for you.
The George Clooney/Julie Roberts Romantic Family Comedy TICKET TO PARADISE is a slight, somewhat fun lightweight film that won’t eat up too many brain cells while watching, but you’ll walk away satisfied and entertained if this sort of thing is in your wheelhouse. It is a movie geared towards older adults who just want to get away from the world and watch beautiful people in beautiful costumes tromping around beautiful scenery.
Written and Directed by Ol Parker (MAMA MIA: HERE WE GO AGAIN, naturally), TICKET TO PARADISE tells the tale of an unhappily divorced couple (Clooney and Roberts, of course) who must overcome their differences and join together to stop their daughter from a hasty marriage - a mistake they both think they made when they married each other.
The opening of this movie is frenetic and tries just a bit too hard to establish the hate/hate competitive relationship between these 2 characters. Roberts fairs better in this part as she settles into her character fairly quickly - and she becomes the rock of the film. From the get go you understand her character and when all else fails in a scene, you know that Roberts will be there to rescue things. It is a steady, sturdy performance that shows that Roberts “still has it” as a movie star.
Clooney has more of a rollercoaster of a performance. For my tastes he tries to hard to be comedically funny in the first part of the film (a fault of his that can be scene in such Clooney comedic failures as O BROTHER WHERE ART THOU and BURN AFTER READING), but once we get past the initial scenes, Clooney settles down to be a somewhat comedic version of the calm, suave and sophisticated Clooney that we have grown to know and love.
The supporting characters are underwritten and are thin and nondescript with character arcs that really go nowhere. This is a shame for Billie Lourd (as the Best Friend of Clooney and Roberts’ daughter) and the couple that plays the grooms parents were interesting characters that could have/should have been fleshed out more.
The script and Direction by Parker are nothing special. It’s not bad but it also doesn’t elevate the proceedings above the pleasantness that it is - with one key exception. About 1/3 of the way through the film, Clooney launches into a monologue about how he and Roberts’ seemingly wonderful love fell apart, leading to divorce. It is a beautifully shot and directed scene and Clooney absolutely nails the speech mixing in anger and regret skillfully. This scene made me sit up in my chair thinking that maybe this film was taking a deeper, more dramatic turn at this point and it is shifting from a RomCom to a family drama.
But, alas, we head into a scene where Clooney and Roberts get drunk and shenanigans ensue. True…it looks like good friends Clooney and Roberts are having a good time playing with each other in the beautiful location of this film…but this fun never really translates to the audience.
The perfect airplane film - there is no intricate plot points that you’ll miss if you dose off for a moment or 2 - but perfectly, acceptably entertaining, this TICKET TO PARADISE could be worse…but could have been better.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
If so, do I have a film for you.
The George Clooney/Julie Roberts Romantic Family Comedy TICKET TO PARADISE is a slight, somewhat fun lightweight film that won’t eat up too many brain cells while watching, but you’ll walk away satisfied and entertained if this sort of thing is in your wheelhouse. It is a movie geared towards older adults who just want to get away from the world and watch beautiful people in beautiful costumes tromping around beautiful scenery.
Written and Directed by Ol Parker (MAMA MIA: HERE WE GO AGAIN, naturally), TICKET TO PARADISE tells the tale of an unhappily divorced couple (Clooney and Roberts, of course) who must overcome their differences and join together to stop their daughter from a hasty marriage - a mistake they both think they made when they married each other.
The opening of this movie is frenetic and tries just a bit too hard to establish the hate/hate competitive relationship between these 2 characters. Roberts fairs better in this part as she settles into her character fairly quickly - and she becomes the rock of the film. From the get go you understand her character and when all else fails in a scene, you know that Roberts will be there to rescue things. It is a steady, sturdy performance that shows that Roberts “still has it” as a movie star.
Clooney has more of a rollercoaster of a performance. For my tastes he tries to hard to be comedically funny in the first part of the film (a fault of his that can be scene in such Clooney comedic failures as O BROTHER WHERE ART THOU and BURN AFTER READING), but once we get past the initial scenes, Clooney settles down to be a somewhat comedic version of the calm, suave and sophisticated Clooney that we have grown to know and love.
The supporting characters are underwritten and are thin and nondescript with character arcs that really go nowhere. This is a shame for Billie Lourd (as the Best Friend of Clooney and Roberts’ daughter) and the couple that plays the grooms parents were interesting characters that could have/should have been fleshed out more.
The script and Direction by Parker are nothing special. It’s not bad but it also doesn’t elevate the proceedings above the pleasantness that it is - with one key exception. About 1/3 of the way through the film, Clooney launches into a monologue about how he and Roberts’ seemingly wonderful love fell apart, leading to divorce. It is a beautifully shot and directed scene and Clooney absolutely nails the speech mixing in anger and regret skillfully. This scene made me sit up in my chair thinking that maybe this film was taking a deeper, more dramatic turn at this point and it is shifting from a RomCom to a family drama.
But, alas, we head into a scene where Clooney and Roberts get drunk and shenanigans ensue. True…it looks like good friends Clooney and Roberts are having a good time playing with each other in the beautiful location of this film…but this fun never really translates to the audience.
The perfect airplane film - there is no intricate plot points that you’ll miss if you dose off for a moment or 2 - but perfectly, acceptably entertaining, this TICKET TO PARADISE could be worse…but could have been better.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The French Dispatch (2021) in Movies
Jan 4, 2022
Weak Stories Can't Support the STUNNING Visuals
Filmmaker Wes Anderson is an acquired taste. He is one of the most visually stunning filmmakers working today, but his films are often time difficult to grasp and can get lost in their own weirdness.
Such is the case with his latest effort THE FRENCH DISPATCH. It is a visually STUNNING film that you can turn the sound off and just drink in the images depicted on screen with your eyes - but the story these pictures tell was, unfortunately, not all that compelling.
Starring Bill Murray, Tilda Swinton, Frances McDormand, Jeffrey Wright and a whole bundle of known stars, THE FRENCH DISPATCH tells the story of a Sunday Newspaper insert called THE FRENCH DISPATCH (think PARADE MAGAZINE). The quirk of the FRENCH DISPATCH is that this insert in the Liberty, Kansas paper in the 1930’s(or so) focuses solely on the goings-on of the French town of Enui. Stories told in the flavor of the New Yorker.
So…this setup is just, really, an excuse to tell 3 different short stories and tie them together with an overarching theme - getting the French Dispatch ready to publish. A good enough excuse for a movie - provided that the 3 stories being told are interesting enough - which they are not (and therein lies the issue with this film).
Bill Murray is a congenial enough host of this party as the Editor of The French Dispatch. His character is the “through line” of this film and if you are going to anchor an anthology film with a character/actor, then Bill Murray is a pretty good anchor.
The first story, telling of a life-imprisoned person (Benicio Del Toro) who finds a muse (Lea Seydoux) and becomes a world famous artist, thanks to the efforts of his patron (Adrian Brody) is the best of the bunch. This story is written/narrated by a character played by Tilda Swinton and it is her performance that is the highlight of the film for me. Because of this narration - and because this is the best written/most interesting and best acted of the 3 stories (by Del Toro, Seydoux and Brody), I was excited as to where this film was going to go from here.
Unfortunately, that direction was down.
The 3rd story - narrated by a character played by Jeffrey Wright about a Police Commissioner’s son who is kidnapped is absurb - and almost succeeds when Anderson decides to animate the car chase - but ultimately isn’t quite as good as the first piece.
And then there is the middle part that stars Timothee Chalamet as a student that starts a rebellion. This part is written/narrated by a character played by Frances McDormand and while these 2 are “game” for what is given to them, the story is not compelling and, to be honest, a bit boring. This middle story (the longest of the 3 tales) is where the movie loses it’s footing.
And that’s too bad for Anderson - as is his custom - fills every frame with interesting pictures/visuals that are a marvel to look at and fills almost every minor role with some sort of major star looking to work with him. Almost the best part of this film was to spot the star in a cameo role. Willem DaFoe, Saoirse Ronan, Liev Schrieber, the “Fonz” himself, Henry Winkler, Cristoph Walz and Anderson “regulars” Jason Schwartman, Edward Norton and Owen Wilson (amongst others) all show up - briefly - to lend their talents to this absurdity.
Well worth checking out for the visuals, just don’t look for much in the way of plot or drama.
Letter Grade: B (did I mention that the visuals are STUNNING?)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with his latest effort THE FRENCH DISPATCH. It is a visually STUNNING film that you can turn the sound off and just drink in the images depicted on screen with your eyes - but the story these pictures tell was, unfortunately, not all that compelling.
Starring Bill Murray, Tilda Swinton, Frances McDormand, Jeffrey Wright and a whole bundle of known stars, THE FRENCH DISPATCH tells the story of a Sunday Newspaper insert called THE FRENCH DISPATCH (think PARADE MAGAZINE). The quirk of the FRENCH DISPATCH is that this insert in the Liberty, Kansas paper in the 1930’s(or so) focuses solely on the goings-on of the French town of Enui. Stories told in the flavor of the New Yorker.
So…this setup is just, really, an excuse to tell 3 different short stories and tie them together with an overarching theme - getting the French Dispatch ready to publish. A good enough excuse for a movie - provided that the 3 stories being told are interesting enough - which they are not (and therein lies the issue with this film).
Bill Murray is a congenial enough host of this party as the Editor of The French Dispatch. His character is the “through line” of this film and if you are going to anchor an anthology film with a character/actor, then Bill Murray is a pretty good anchor.
The first story, telling of a life-imprisoned person (Benicio Del Toro) who finds a muse (Lea Seydoux) and becomes a world famous artist, thanks to the efforts of his patron (Adrian Brody) is the best of the bunch. This story is written/narrated by a character played by Tilda Swinton and it is her performance that is the highlight of the film for me. Because of this narration - and because this is the best written/most interesting and best acted of the 3 stories (by Del Toro, Seydoux and Brody), I was excited as to where this film was going to go from here.
Unfortunately, that direction was down.
The 3rd story - narrated by a character played by Jeffrey Wright about a Police Commissioner’s son who is kidnapped is absurb - and almost succeeds when Anderson decides to animate the car chase - but ultimately isn’t quite as good as the first piece.
And then there is the middle part that stars Timothee Chalamet as a student that starts a rebellion. This part is written/narrated by a character played by Frances McDormand and while these 2 are “game” for what is given to them, the story is not compelling and, to be honest, a bit boring. This middle story (the longest of the 3 tales) is where the movie loses it’s footing.
And that’s too bad for Anderson - as is his custom - fills every frame with interesting pictures/visuals that are a marvel to look at and fills almost every minor role with some sort of major star looking to work with him. Almost the best part of this film was to spot the star in a cameo role. Willem DaFoe, Saoirse Ronan, Liev Schrieber, the “Fonz” himself, Henry Winkler, Cristoph Walz and Anderson “regulars” Jason Schwartman, Edward Norton and Owen Wilson (amongst others) all show up - briefly - to lend their talents to this absurdity.
Well worth checking out for the visuals, just don’t look for much in the way of plot or drama.
Letter Grade: B (did I mention that the visuals are STUNNING?)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Game Of Thrones in TV
Jul 1, 2019
Winter has come and gone... and there won't ever be anything like it again!
Contains spoilers, click to show
Game of Thrones. The only show that drove people to brag on social media about the fact they've never seen it every time a new series came out!
I watched this from Season 3, quickly binging the first two seasons about a week before it aired. I'm not a huge Fantasy fan, but this show really was something else. Despite the setting, it gave us everything - blood, guts, drama, sex... even comedy. It gave us some of the most vile and hated antagonists to ever grace the screen, and it made heroes out of the unlikeliest of people.
Watching it week-to-week was difficult for a couple of reasons. One, so much is going on (especially in the earlier seasons) that you can forget a lot in a week, and you find yourself questioning everything. Two, it's so bloody good, you didn't want to wait a whole week to get your fix! Obviously, now it's finished, the second issue is no longer relevant - it's available to binge to your heart's content, which you absolutely should do.
I want to address the recent criticism of the eighth and final season. We waited over two years for it, and many people felt it was rushed, too short and too shallow. I would say 75% of people who watched the last season were left disappointed. Myself included.
But a few days after it had finished, I found myself thinking about the series as a whole more and more. I was reading articles online, theories and arguments about how and why the story played out the way it did. I realised I had felt somewhat detached watching Season 8 because it HAD been two years since I watched Season 7. It's as if I'd forgotten what it was like to watch it.
So, having never seen any episode more than once, I went back to the beginning and watched all eight seasons in a little under three weeks...
SO MUCH BETTER the second time around!
For two reasons. Firstly, there was no break in the story at all. Watching it as it aired meant you had a 12-month break every 10 hours, basically. Easy to lose your thread. Easy to forget things. When that doesn't happen, it's much more enjoyable and actually makes a lot more sense. There was so much I'd forgotten over the course of the nine years it was on, I kind of felt like I'd cheated myself, in a way, by not watching Seasons 1-7 before Season 8 aired.
Second, much in the way that Star Wars Episodes 1-3 work better if you've seen 4-6 first, Game of Thrones was actually much more enjoyable having seen the ending, because things make a lot more sense in retrospect.
***This is where it gets spoilery***
It becomes evident early on, even in the first season, that Jon Snow is one to watch. His shocking death at the end of Season 5 caused much confusion and debate. Obviously, his resurrection early in Season 6 put an end to that, and when the secret about his true identity is finally revealed in Season 8, it was a shocking moment, as everything started to fall into place and the true threat became evident.
However...
Having now done Seasons 1-8 back-to-back, the revelation that Jon Snow is, in fact, a Targaryen is far from surprising, given they've been dropping clues about it since back in the first few episodes. Obviously, at the time, these seemingly throwaway comments meant nothing, but now we know, there are numerous conversations throughout the show that border on being spoilers themselves.
Same with Arya Stark and her storyline. Second time around, even from Season 1, it's evident she was destined to slay The Night King. And as with Jon Snow, you never would've picked up on it at the time, but in hindsight it's been obvious for years.
Now, the major criticism about Season 8 was that it felt rushed and that it sacrificed too many characters arcs for the sake of finishing inside of six episodes. Watching it as it aired, I completely agreed. Jon Snow "suddenly" went from a brooding hero to a pointless extra. Daenerys Targaryen "suddenly" went from the freer of slaves and saviour of Westeros to an insane despot who slaughtered half the world because someone took her toys away.
Not true.
It seemed like that after two years of forgetting almost everything that had happened previously, but watching it from start to finish in one go, those things make perfect sense, and aren't actually that sudden. The Mother of Dragons showed clear and obvious signs of becoming The Mad Queen of Ashes very early on in the show. She was always kind and fair and just... but my goodness, did you get it if you pissed her off! Let's not forget she crucified almost 200 slave-owners long after they surrendered to prove a point. And poor Sam Tarly's father and brother! She had a mean streak, and she lived on a knife's edge. At any point since she married Khal Drogo back at the beginning of Season 1, the slightest push and she would snap. Fast forward to Season 8 and, after many years of fighting to fulfil her birthright and take the Iron Throne, she finds out she's not actually the heir to it at all... that's a pretty big push to a woman with a history of losing her shit when things don't go her way. So not much of a surprise at all, really.
And to address the criticism further, I'll analyse this as a writer. I tell stories for a living. When you're writing a novel, you look at it as a triangle, of sorts. It starts off wide and gradually gets to a point. Game of Thrones began very wide, with lots of characters and subplots. But as time goes on, it narrows and becomes more focused on the main threat... the main storylines - the battle against The Night King and the fight for the Iron Throne. Those two things are what nine years of storytelling were working towards, so yes, when you get to the final season and you have to wrap things up, it makes sense that you're going to focus on the big finish - the point of the series.
Not only that, for the first six seasons, the shows writers and creators had their hands held by George R. R. Martin and his source material. But then the TV show caught up with the books, which meant they suddenly had nothing more than a handful of bullet points to work off instead. Not easy to go from one to the other. They can't embellish things too much, because they run the risk of contradicting and undermining future books, which Mr. Martin wouldn't allow them to do. So they had to keep it simple, stick to the point and finish the job they started - nothing more.
Ultimately, no one likes to see their favourite show end. In hindsight, I think a lot of the criticism the final season received was because the audience forgot what came before it, and because they didn't want it to end.
If you're reading this having never watched it before.... first of all, sorry for ruining the story for you (but I did say it contained spoilers, in my defence). But you have the benefit of being able to binge through this, which means you'll get the full, uninterrupted experience, which is well worth the investment of your time to do.
If you HAVE watched the show before, I strongly suggest re-watching it from the beginning, because I enjoyed it far more the second time around.
This is the kind of show that comes along once a generation. The kind of show people talk about daily long after it finished. It redefines TV drama and I can promise you, you'll never see anything like it again.
That said, don't watch it if you're easily offended or grossed out. Or if you like animals. Oh, and don't watch Season 4, Episode 8 whilst you're eating. And don't watch Season 3, Episode 9 if you believe in the afterlife and have your heart set on getting into Heaven. And it's perfectly acceptable to watch Season 6, Episode 9 and feel like that's what you would do if faced with certain death.
Just perfect.
I watched this from Season 3, quickly binging the first two seasons about a week before it aired. I'm not a huge Fantasy fan, but this show really was something else. Despite the setting, it gave us everything - blood, guts, drama, sex... even comedy. It gave us some of the most vile and hated antagonists to ever grace the screen, and it made heroes out of the unlikeliest of people.
Watching it week-to-week was difficult for a couple of reasons. One, so much is going on (especially in the earlier seasons) that you can forget a lot in a week, and you find yourself questioning everything. Two, it's so bloody good, you didn't want to wait a whole week to get your fix! Obviously, now it's finished, the second issue is no longer relevant - it's available to binge to your heart's content, which you absolutely should do.
I want to address the recent criticism of the eighth and final season. We waited over two years for it, and many people felt it was rushed, too short and too shallow. I would say 75% of people who watched the last season were left disappointed. Myself included.
But a few days after it had finished, I found myself thinking about the series as a whole more and more. I was reading articles online, theories and arguments about how and why the story played out the way it did. I realised I had felt somewhat detached watching Season 8 because it HAD been two years since I watched Season 7. It's as if I'd forgotten what it was like to watch it.
So, having never seen any episode more than once, I went back to the beginning and watched all eight seasons in a little under three weeks...
SO MUCH BETTER the second time around!
For two reasons. Firstly, there was no break in the story at all. Watching it as it aired meant you had a 12-month break every 10 hours, basically. Easy to lose your thread. Easy to forget things. When that doesn't happen, it's much more enjoyable and actually makes a lot more sense. There was so much I'd forgotten over the course of the nine years it was on, I kind of felt like I'd cheated myself, in a way, by not watching Seasons 1-7 before Season 8 aired.
Second, much in the way that Star Wars Episodes 1-3 work better if you've seen 4-6 first, Game of Thrones was actually much more enjoyable having seen the ending, because things make a lot more sense in retrospect.
***This is where it gets spoilery***
It becomes evident early on, even in the first season, that Jon Snow is one to watch. His shocking death at the end of Season 5 caused much confusion and debate. Obviously, his resurrection early in Season 6 put an end to that, and when the secret about his true identity is finally revealed in Season 8, it was a shocking moment, as everything started to fall into place and the true threat became evident.
However...
Having now done Seasons 1-8 back-to-back, the revelation that Jon Snow is, in fact, a Targaryen is far from surprising, given they've been dropping clues about it since back in the first few episodes. Obviously, at the time, these seemingly throwaway comments meant nothing, but now we know, there are numerous conversations throughout the show that border on being spoilers themselves.
Same with Arya Stark and her storyline. Second time around, even from Season 1, it's evident she was destined to slay The Night King. And as with Jon Snow, you never would've picked up on it at the time, but in hindsight it's been obvious for years.
Now, the major criticism about Season 8 was that it felt rushed and that it sacrificed too many characters arcs for the sake of finishing inside of six episodes. Watching it as it aired, I completely agreed. Jon Snow "suddenly" went from a brooding hero to a pointless extra. Daenerys Targaryen "suddenly" went from the freer of slaves and saviour of Westeros to an insane despot who slaughtered half the world because someone took her toys away.
Not true.
It seemed like that after two years of forgetting almost everything that had happened previously, but watching it from start to finish in one go, those things make perfect sense, and aren't actually that sudden. The Mother of Dragons showed clear and obvious signs of becoming The Mad Queen of Ashes very early on in the show. She was always kind and fair and just... but my goodness, did you get it if you pissed her off! Let's not forget she crucified almost 200 slave-owners long after they surrendered to prove a point. And poor Sam Tarly's father and brother! She had a mean streak, and she lived on a knife's edge. At any point since she married Khal Drogo back at the beginning of Season 1, the slightest push and she would snap. Fast forward to Season 8 and, after many years of fighting to fulfil her birthright and take the Iron Throne, she finds out she's not actually the heir to it at all... that's a pretty big push to a woman with a history of losing her shit when things don't go her way. So not much of a surprise at all, really.
And to address the criticism further, I'll analyse this as a writer. I tell stories for a living. When you're writing a novel, you look at it as a triangle, of sorts. It starts off wide and gradually gets to a point. Game of Thrones began very wide, with lots of characters and subplots. But as time goes on, it narrows and becomes more focused on the main threat... the main storylines - the battle against The Night King and the fight for the Iron Throne. Those two things are what nine years of storytelling were working towards, so yes, when you get to the final season and you have to wrap things up, it makes sense that you're going to focus on the big finish - the point of the series.
Not only that, for the first six seasons, the shows writers and creators had their hands held by George R. R. Martin and his source material. But then the TV show caught up with the books, which meant they suddenly had nothing more than a handful of bullet points to work off instead. Not easy to go from one to the other. They can't embellish things too much, because they run the risk of contradicting and undermining future books, which Mr. Martin wouldn't allow them to do. So they had to keep it simple, stick to the point and finish the job they started - nothing more.
Ultimately, no one likes to see their favourite show end. In hindsight, I think a lot of the criticism the final season received was because the audience forgot what came before it, and because they didn't want it to end.
If you're reading this having never watched it before.... first of all, sorry for ruining the story for you (but I did say it contained spoilers, in my defence). But you have the benefit of being able to binge through this, which means you'll get the full, uninterrupted experience, which is well worth the investment of your time to do.
If you HAVE watched the show before, I strongly suggest re-watching it from the beginning, because I enjoyed it far more the second time around.
This is the kind of show that comes along once a generation. The kind of show people talk about daily long after it finished. It redefines TV drama and I can promise you, you'll never see anything like it again.
That said, don't watch it if you're easily offended or grossed out. Or if you like animals. Oh, and don't watch Season 4, Episode 8 whilst you're eating. And don't watch Season 3, Episode 9 if you believe in the afterlife and have your heart set on getting into Heaven. And it's perfectly acceptable to watch Season 6, Episode 9 and feel like that's what you would do if faced with certain death.
Just perfect.
mostlyinpyjamas (13 KP) rated It Only Happens in the Movies in Books
Nov 25, 2017
Another cracker by Holly Bourne
The blurb; Audrey is over romance. Since her parents relationship imploded her mother’s been catatonic, so she takes a cinema job to get out of the house. But there she meets wannabe film-maker Harry.
Nobody expects Audrey and Harry to fall in love as hard and fast as they do. But that doesn’t mean things are easy.
Because real love isn’t like the movies…The greatest love story ever told doesn’t feature kissing in the snow, or racing to airports. It features pain and confusion and hope and wonder, and a ban on cheesy clichés. Oh, and Zombies.
~
I’m a huge fan of Holly Bourne, and with It only happens in the movies she has written another cracker!
It only happens in the movies challenges all those cliches from romantic movies, and the message they give about what love and relationships are like.
Audrey is instantly likeable, positive feminist characters are exactly what’s needed and Holly Bourne writes them so well. Audrey is getting over being dumped after having sex for the first time, trying to cope with her mum having a breakdown, and she’s been distant from her friends since her break up, her life is messy – and then she meets Harry.
Harry, with a reputation for being a player! He doesn’t always understand Audrey’s point of view, and he says the wrong things …
‘You’re not like other girls, are you?
but I like Harry. He tries!
In chapter 25, Audrey and her friend Alice talk about first time sex in a refreshingly honest way and this is, in my opinion, such an important thing to see in young adult books. Some girls, for whatever reason, don’t have someone they can talk about these things with, and I feel that it’s such a good thing that authors such as Holly Bourne are putting it out there.
I’ve read a number of feminist YA books this week, and I’m so pleased that they are being written. Conversations about consent, sexism, misogyny and rape culture are so important and these books help to get the message out there.
Excerpt from the book ; Men in films regularly kiss women who don’t want to be kissed. And those are supposed to be the good kisses. Either the woman is taken by surprise, or storming off in a mood, or having a huge go at them, or is engaged to somebody else, or claims she’s just plain Not Interested. And,how do men in movies respond to this clear instruction of “no”? They grab the woman’s face, and kiss her anyway. Roughly. Using their masculine force. And rather than being slapped or even arrested, these movie men are rewarded for their… well… sexual violence. The women “give into” the kiss after a brief moment of fighting it. You see, according to Hollywood, these women wanted to be kissed all along. It was just the male lead’s job to break through the barriers. Barriers like WILFUL CONSENT. Outside Hollywood movies, there is a term for being kissed against your will. This term isn’t “spontaneous” or “romantic” or “passionate”. No, it’s called sexual assault. It’s a crime punishable in the UK by up to ten years in prison.
~
Holly Bourne writes about feminist issues without being patronising and without telling her readers that we should hate all men.
If I’ve made it sound at all like It only happens in the movies is all feminist messages and no story then I must add that it’s entirely not that at all.
I enjoyed the story so much that I read it over a weekend, staying up far too late because I just couldn’t put it down. There’s plenty of drama, humour, and some lovely, touching moments! The ending – although it was perfect – exactly the way this story was meant to end – broke me. I cried actual tears.
Love isn’t just a feeling. Love is a choice too. And you may not be able to help your feelings, but you are responsible for the choices you make about what to do with them. (From It only happens in the movies).
Nobody expects Audrey and Harry to fall in love as hard and fast as they do. But that doesn’t mean things are easy.
Because real love isn’t like the movies…The greatest love story ever told doesn’t feature kissing in the snow, or racing to airports. It features pain and confusion and hope and wonder, and a ban on cheesy clichés. Oh, and Zombies.
~
I’m a huge fan of Holly Bourne, and with It only happens in the movies she has written another cracker!
It only happens in the movies challenges all those cliches from romantic movies, and the message they give about what love and relationships are like.
Audrey is instantly likeable, positive feminist characters are exactly what’s needed and Holly Bourne writes them so well. Audrey is getting over being dumped after having sex for the first time, trying to cope with her mum having a breakdown, and she’s been distant from her friends since her break up, her life is messy – and then she meets Harry.
Harry, with a reputation for being a player! He doesn’t always understand Audrey’s point of view, and he says the wrong things …
‘You’re not like other girls, are you?
but I like Harry. He tries!
In chapter 25, Audrey and her friend Alice talk about first time sex in a refreshingly honest way and this is, in my opinion, such an important thing to see in young adult books. Some girls, for whatever reason, don’t have someone they can talk about these things with, and I feel that it’s such a good thing that authors such as Holly Bourne are putting it out there.
I’ve read a number of feminist YA books this week, and I’m so pleased that they are being written. Conversations about consent, sexism, misogyny and rape culture are so important and these books help to get the message out there.
Excerpt from the book ; Men in films regularly kiss women who don’t want to be kissed. And those are supposed to be the good kisses. Either the woman is taken by surprise, or storming off in a mood, or having a huge go at them, or is engaged to somebody else, or claims she’s just plain Not Interested. And,how do men in movies respond to this clear instruction of “no”? They grab the woman’s face, and kiss her anyway. Roughly. Using their masculine force. And rather than being slapped or even arrested, these movie men are rewarded for their… well… sexual violence. The women “give into” the kiss after a brief moment of fighting it. You see, according to Hollywood, these women wanted to be kissed all along. It was just the male lead’s job to break through the barriers. Barriers like WILFUL CONSENT. Outside Hollywood movies, there is a term for being kissed against your will. This term isn’t “spontaneous” or “romantic” or “passionate”. No, it’s called sexual assault. It’s a crime punishable in the UK by up to ten years in prison.
~
Holly Bourne writes about feminist issues without being patronising and without telling her readers that we should hate all men.
If I’ve made it sound at all like It only happens in the movies is all feminist messages and no story then I must add that it’s entirely not that at all.
I enjoyed the story so much that I read it over a weekend, staying up far too late because I just couldn’t put it down. There’s plenty of drama, humour, and some lovely, touching moments! The ending – although it was perfect – exactly the way this story was meant to end – broke me. I cried actual tears.
Love isn’t just a feeling. Love is a choice too. And you may not be able to help your feelings, but you are responsible for the choices you make about what to do with them. (From It only happens in the movies).
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Supernatural - Season 1 in TV
Apr 20, 2017
Great Character development (2 more)
Brilliant take on the myths/legends lore
Somewhat educational
Saving People, Hunting Things, The Family Business...
Supernatural Season One first aired in 2005, and I was only 10 years old when I first watched it with my Dad. I didn't sleep for right for ages and didn't look in a mirror for a long time. However, now when I watch it, this show still has the horror factor but my brain has grown accustomed to the genre so it doesn't necessarily frighten me these days but it is very creepy.
The first thing I loved about this show was that the lore's it followed were real from the legend of Bloody Mary, to the Woman in White and even a Wendigo. I knew about these legends but this show taught me more about what people believed about them and how they came to be, so this show is somewhat educational as well as being a great action horror drama show.
SPOILERS AHEAD!
So in Season One we are introduced to a family who witness the death of their mother/wife as she bursts into a fiery explosion on the ceiling of baby Sam's nursery room. Fast forward years later and Sam's in college/university and has left his past behind him until his brother Dean shows up to tell him their Dad has gone missing after a 'Hunting' trip.
This is where we learn that Sam, Dean and their Father, were actual in the life of Hunters who hunt down demons, ghosts/spirits, and monsters.
This show takes you one a journey with Sam and Dean saving lives from all sorts of strange and horrifying evil beings, who don't always turn out to be an evil being, just tortured or maybe even a being trying to warn them of a greater evil.
The effects are on par with a lot of big budget movies, even better than some of the most recent box office hits and in 2005, that says a lot about how the show can only get better with age. And it has!
Writer Eric Kripke truly did create something spectacular and to say that it's still running to this day, with a whole 12 seasons finished and a 13th season coming soon, it's hard to believe that it can still stay fresh and entertaining with this genre, but when you watch this show I guarantee you'll be entertained as there are dozens of pop culture references in every episode from X- Files to Lord of the Rings and many more, and with soundtracks that include rock and metal bands such as AC/DC it's hard to wrap your head around just how awesome this show is.
Many episodes are either named after movies ("Children Shouldn't Play with Dead Things", "The Usual Suspects", "I Know What You Did Last Summer") or classic rock songs ("In My Time of Dying", "Born Under a Bad Sign", "What is and What Should Never Be", "Sympathy For The Devil", "When The Levee Breaks"). - Copied from IMDB
The on screen chemistry between characters is brilliant and more often than not, even in serious situations, it can become hilarious with cheesy one liners or pop culture references used with perfect timing to lighten the mood of the show.
Sam and Dean (portrayed by Jared Padalecki and Jensen Ackles) have some of the best character development that I've seen in a show, and sometimes throughout the different series' the formula of arguing, falling out, and coming back to one another, can become somewhat tedious and repetitive making you scream at the TV saying "WHY!? YOU KNOW YOU'RE JUST GOING TO REALIZE YOU NEED EACH OTHER!" but if you think about it, that's how brothers would be in this situation. Having to spend every day with your brother on the road fighting the unthinkable, it would be stressful and tensions would run high, but you'd soon realize that after everything you've been through, who else could you feel comfortable around?
If you're into the paranormal or want to start learning more about different paranormal legends then this is the show for you.
TIP: For further entertainment, watch the bloopers. Some of the most hilarious clips I have ever seen from a show ;)
The first thing I loved about this show was that the lore's it followed were real from the legend of Bloody Mary, to the Woman in White and even a Wendigo. I knew about these legends but this show taught me more about what people believed about them and how they came to be, so this show is somewhat educational as well as being a great action horror drama show.
SPOILERS AHEAD!
So in Season One we are introduced to a family who witness the death of their mother/wife as she bursts into a fiery explosion on the ceiling of baby Sam's nursery room. Fast forward years later and Sam's in college/university and has left his past behind him until his brother Dean shows up to tell him their Dad has gone missing after a 'Hunting' trip.
This is where we learn that Sam, Dean and their Father, were actual in the life of Hunters who hunt down demons, ghosts/spirits, and monsters.
This show takes you one a journey with Sam and Dean saving lives from all sorts of strange and horrifying evil beings, who don't always turn out to be an evil being, just tortured or maybe even a being trying to warn them of a greater evil.
The effects are on par with a lot of big budget movies, even better than some of the most recent box office hits and in 2005, that says a lot about how the show can only get better with age. And it has!
Writer Eric Kripke truly did create something spectacular and to say that it's still running to this day, with a whole 12 seasons finished and a 13th season coming soon, it's hard to believe that it can still stay fresh and entertaining with this genre, but when you watch this show I guarantee you'll be entertained as there are dozens of pop culture references in every episode from X- Files to Lord of the Rings and many more, and with soundtracks that include rock and metal bands such as AC/DC it's hard to wrap your head around just how awesome this show is.
Many episodes are either named after movies ("Children Shouldn't Play with Dead Things", "The Usual Suspects", "I Know What You Did Last Summer") or classic rock songs ("In My Time of Dying", "Born Under a Bad Sign", "What is and What Should Never Be", "Sympathy For The Devil", "When The Levee Breaks"). - Copied from IMDB
The on screen chemistry between characters is brilliant and more often than not, even in serious situations, it can become hilarious with cheesy one liners or pop culture references used with perfect timing to lighten the mood of the show.
Sam and Dean (portrayed by Jared Padalecki and Jensen Ackles) have some of the best character development that I've seen in a show, and sometimes throughout the different series' the formula of arguing, falling out, and coming back to one another, can become somewhat tedious and repetitive making you scream at the TV saying "WHY!? YOU KNOW YOU'RE JUST GOING TO REALIZE YOU NEED EACH OTHER!" but if you think about it, that's how brothers would be in this situation. Having to spend every day with your brother on the road fighting the unthinkable, it would be stressful and tensions would run high, but you'd soon realize that after everything you've been through, who else could you feel comfortable around?
If you're into the paranormal or want to start learning more about different paranormal legends then this is the show for you.
TIP: For further entertainment, watch the bloopers. Some of the most hilarious clips I have ever seen from a show ;)
Ben Howkins (7 KP) rated Alita: Battle Angel (2019) in Movies
Feb 17, 2019
Muddled plot (1 more)
Forced ending
Alita's more mortal than angel
The basic plot of the film is: about 300 years after a large war called “The Fall” a cyborg repairer/ doctor called Dr Dyson Ido finds the dismembered but still functioning body of a young girl in the scrapheap of rubbish dumped from Zalem, the last remaining sky city from before “The Fall”. After Ido is able to connect the remains to a cyborg body he had made for his late daughter, the girl awakes with no memories of who or what she is. To help her, Ido decides to look after, treating her as if she had a new start in life, even giving her a new name, Alita, after his late daughter whose body she had. Unfortunately though whilst creating her new life in Iron City, Alita starts to remember things about her past and who she truly is, learns that some of the people who she thinks she knows aren’t quite what they seem and most worryingly starting to attract the attention of some bad people.
If I am going, to be honest, both the movie and performances are on a hit and miss scale. Rosa Salazar who is the face and performance of the leading lady is quite good. She portrays Alita’s emotional and mental journey/ life cycle throughout the film to a high standard, evolving from the naive young girl at the very start when she knows and is nothing, through her lovesick and difficult middle period (teenage years if you will) and finishing with starts to truly knowing who she is and what she must do. Christoph Waltz is like always very good as Dr Dyson Ido. The different sides he showed of his character, sometimes switching and showing multiple in a single scene, is quite impressive. These include lighter ones like the loving father figure towards Alita and the doctor who is willing to help everyone sometimes for nothing in return, to his darker side like his secret “night job” and his hatred and disdain towards Zalem and their murderous entertainment “Motorball”. I will also give an honourable mention to Ed Skrein who plays bounty hunter Zapan. Out of the multiple known names who have middle to lower importance parts he was definitely the best as his (what I would say) known style of emotionless bad guy fits perfectly to his character.
But as I said there were definite misses to these hits, biggest one being Keean Johnson who plays Alita’s first friend turned love interest Hugo. The problem with Hugo isn’t all Johnson’s performance, though that is quite flat and unengaging, but that Hugo was unfortunately terribly written and just doesn’t really have anything about him. Another miss, performance wise, was the fact that there were a few big well-known actors and actresses who they didn’t use to their potential, again due to poor writing. An example is Mahershala Ali who plays Vector, an entrepreneur linked into “Motorball”. Though he is what I would regard as a “B Level Character”, nothing is done with him to use or explore his story, which I believe could have helped a bit with the story.
Like the performances, the film itself is also hit and miss, unfortunately with the later are bigger in weight than the former. Start with the good, Visually this movie is as stunning as it is billed. Though you can tell it’s mostly CGI, Alita still looks absolutely beautiful and some of the other cyborg/ robotic characters look just as good, particularly Zapan. Also, the performances I said were good were very good.
For all the lovely visuals and good performances, the biggest problem for the movie is the script. It is incredibly muddled up, jumping from one thing to the next at such a quick rate that it is hard to follow and even sometimes see the link between scenes. The movie also, in my opinion, finishes without a true ending. It is clear it was set up for a sequel but I feel there could have been at least another 10-20 minutes more to tie it up/ tide us properly over.
Overall I was really disappointed with Alita. With the team involved, I believed it had potential to be this decade “Avatar” but instead just ended up being another mediocre futuristic action drama.
If I am going, to be honest, both the movie and performances are on a hit and miss scale. Rosa Salazar who is the face and performance of the leading lady is quite good. She portrays Alita’s emotional and mental journey/ life cycle throughout the film to a high standard, evolving from the naive young girl at the very start when she knows and is nothing, through her lovesick and difficult middle period (teenage years if you will) and finishing with starts to truly knowing who she is and what she must do. Christoph Waltz is like always very good as Dr Dyson Ido. The different sides he showed of his character, sometimes switching and showing multiple in a single scene, is quite impressive. These include lighter ones like the loving father figure towards Alita and the doctor who is willing to help everyone sometimes for nothing in return, to his darker side like his secret “night job” and his hatred and disdain towards Zalem and their murderous entertainment “Motorball”. I will also give an honourable mention to Ed Skrein who plays bounty hunter Zapan. Out of the multiple known names who have middle to lower importance parts he was definitely the best as his (what I would say) known style of emotionless bad guy fits perfectly to his character.
But as I said there were definite misses to these hits, biggest one being Keean Johnson who plays Alita’s first friend turned love interest Hugo. The problem with Hugo isn’t all Johnson’s performance, though that is quite flat and unengaging, but that Hugo was unfortunately terribly written and just doesn’t really have anything about him. Another miss, performance wise, was the fact that there were a few big well-known actors and actresses who they didn’t use to their potential, again due to poor writing. An example is Mahershala Ali who plays Vector, an entrepreneur linked into “Motorball”. Though he is what I would regard as a “B Level Character”, nothing is done with him to use or explore his story, which I believe could have helped a bit with the story.
Like the performances, the film itself is also hit and miss, unfortunately with the later are bigger in weight than the former. Start with the good, Visually this movie is as stunning as it is billed. Though you can tell it’s mostly CGI, Alita still looks absolutely beautiful and some of the other cyborg/ robotic characters look just as good, particularly Zapan. Also, the performances I said were good were very good.
For all the lovely visuals and good performances, the biggest problem for the movie is the script. It is incredibly muddled up, jumping from one thing to the next at such a quick rate that it is hard to follow and even sometimes see the link between scenes. The movie also, in my opinion, finishes without a true ending. It is clear it was set up for a sequel but I feel there could have been at least another 10-20 minutes more to tie it up/ tide us properly over.
Overall I was really disappointed with Alita. With the team involved, I believed it had potential to be this decade “Avatar” but instead just ended up being another mediocre futuristic action drama.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Happy Death Day 2U (2019) in Movies
Feb 18, 2019 (Updated Feb 21, 2019)
A worthy sequel
Contains spoilers, click to show
The original Happy Death Day was a real pleasant surprise. A cross between Groundhog Day and Scream, with our heroine being killed by a baby face mask wearing killer every day, only to wake up again at the start of the same day. With a long list of potential suspects, and slowly feeling the effects of dying repeatedly, she set about trying to find the killers identity. Much of what made the first movie so enjoyable was largely down to lead character Tree, played by Jessica Rothe and the intensely hilarious way that she approached the whole situation. It wasn't exactly a horror movie, more of a comedy thriller.
In Happy Death Day 2U, we begin by following Ryan. Ryan was also in the first movie, bursting into his campus room each morning, interrupting roommate Carter and Tree after she'd spent the night there. As he makes his way to the room from the car he'd spent the night in - avoiding a barking dog, dodging a man asking for money and a boy riding a skateboard - it's pretty clear that we're setting up a series of events likely to be repeated time and again in a similar way that Tree experienced a very specific series of events each day in the first movie. During his morning at university, we discover that Ryan has been working on a Quantum mechanics experiment along with a bunch of nerdy students - a machine dubbed 'Sissy'. Turns out Sissy has been causing some very high power fluctuations and generated some very high readings the day before, the day in which Tree experienced her loop. Soon after, Ryan is killed by the baby face killer and wakes up in his car once again, experiencing the same events we've just seen encounter on the way to his room. When he explains what just happened to Tree and Carter, Tree sets about trying to help him figure out how Sissy caused the time-loop in the first place, and how it has now transferred to Ryan.
At this point you'd think you've got the rest of the movie pretty much figured out - with Ryan repeating his day, aided by experienced looper Tree. But surprisingly, the movie largely abandons its slasher story-line. Instead, we get a more sc-fi story with a varied mix of slapstick comedy and emotional drama. An accident involving Sissy opens up a portal to the multiverse and Tree finds herself caught up in her original loop once more. Only this time, it's in a slightly different universe to the one she's used to - her mum is now alive, and her boyfriend is dating her best friend. Not only does she need to work with Ryan and his nerd friends each day in order to determine how to put things right, she needs to once again work out who the killer is in this particular universe and, more importantly, make the difficult decision to either stay in the universe where her mum is still alive, or return to the one she knows and has lived in all her life.
Once again, Jessica Rothe as Tree is what makes this movie so enjoyable. From the emotional scenes with her mum, to the frustration of the loop, to the bad ass fighting back against it all, she pulls it all off wonderfully. We even get time to enjoy some very funny death scenes too - a particularly enjoyable one being a sky-dive out of an aeroplane, wearing only a bikini and then landing horizontally in slow motion while giving the finger to the camera!
It's difficult for me to say whether or not I enjoyed this movie more or less than the first. A lot of what made the original so enjoyable is present in this sequel. But there are also a lot of new elements introduced, some that work and some that don't. Overall I had a great time watching with this though - definitely a worthy sequel.
In Happy Death Day 2U, we begin by following Ryan. Ryan was also in the first movie, bursting into his campus room each morning, interrupting roommate Carter and Tree after she'd spent the night there. As he makes his way to the room from the car he'd spent the night in - avoiding a barking dog, dodging a man asking for money and a boy riding a skateboard - it's pretty clear that we're setting up a series of events likely to be repeated time and again in a similar way that Tree experienced a very specific series of events each day in the first movie. During his morning at university, we discover that Ryan has been working on a Quantum mechanics experiment along with a bunch of nerdy students - a machine dubbed 'Sissy'. Turns out Sissy has been causing some very high power fluctuations and generated some very high readings the day before, the day in which Tree experienced her loop. Soon after, Ryan is killed by the baby face killer and wakes up in his car once again, experiencing the same events we've just seen encounter on the way to his room. When he explains what just happened to Tree and Carter, Tree sets about trying to help him figure out how Sissy caused the time-loop in the first place, and how it has now transferred to Ryan.
At this point you'd think you've got the rest of the movie pretty much figured out - with Ryan repeating his day, aided by experienced looper Tree. But surprisingly, the movie largely abandons its slasher story-line. Instead, we get a more sc-fi story with a varied mix of slapstick comedy and emotional drama. An accident involving Sissy opens up a portal to the multiverse and Tree finds herself caught up in her original loop once more. Only this time, it's in a slightly different universe to the one she's used to - her mum is now alive, and her boyfriend is dating her best friend. Not only does she need to work with Ryan and his nerd friends each day in order to determine how to put things right, she needs to once again work out who the killer is in this particular universe and, more importantly, make the difficult decision to either stay in the universe where her mum is still alive, or return to the one she knows and has lived in all her life.
Once again, Jessica Rothe as Tree is what makes this movie so enjoyable. From the emotional scenes with her mum, to the frustration of the loop, to the bad ass fighting back against it all, she pulls it all off wonderfully. We even get time to enjoy some very funny death scenes too - a particularly enjoyable one being a sky-dive out of an aeroplane, wearing only a bikini and then landing horizontally in slow motion while giving the finger to the camera!
It's difficult for me to say whether or not I enjoyed this movie more or less than the first. A lot of what made the original so enjoyable is present in this sequel. But there are also a lot of new elements introduced, some that work and some that don't. Overall I had a great time watching with this though - definitely a worthy sequel.
