Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 14, 2019
I’ve never left the cinema more unnerved than I did after watching Todd Phillips’ first foray in the superhero genre. Joker is a frequently violent, often grotesque and regularly intense portrayal of the iconic character that’s already receiving praise and backlash in equal measure from those in the critic community.
With development originally beginning way back in 2016, Joaquin Phoenix walking out of interviews and the press junket being cancelled altogether, it’s safe to say that the path to release has not been easy, but what’s the finished product like?
Forever alone in a crowd, failed comedian Arthur Fleck (Phoenix) seeks connection as he walks the streets of Gotham City. Arthur wears two masks, the one he paints for his day job as a clown, and the guise he projects in a futile attempt to feel like he’s part of the world around him. Isolated, bullied and disregarded by society, Fleck begins a slow descent into madness as he transforms into the criminal mastermind known as the Joker.
Director of The Hangover trilogy, you’d be forgiven for thinking that Phillips is an odd choice to helm a picture like this, but his darkly comedic roots shine through in Joker and add a much-needed lightness of touch over the course of the running time. Without these pockets of humour, Joker would just be far too murky, more so than it already is.
Phoenix is absolutely astounding and his physical transformation defies words. Alongside Heath Ledger, these two very different portrayals of this iconic character are fully deserving of as much recognition as possible. Arguably however, Phoenix delivers the best iteration yet and one that perhaps needed even more commitment – this is a two-hour film dedicated to the character, whereas the Joker has always been a supporting part of previous films.
From the frame devoid of any muscle, dark circles under his eyes and wrinkles etched on his face, Phoenix’s dedication to this role is on another level to anything we have seen before. As his transformation from troubled Arthur Fleck to criminal mastermind gets underway, this only serves to highlight the acting prowess of this incredible performer. Elsewhere, supporting cast members like Robert De Niro, Frances Conroy and Zazie Beets are also wonderful in their roles of varying screen-time, but as Joker is a film about the singular character, they stay in the background, and rightly so.
The script too is exceptionally written. Phillips and co-writer Scott Silver, who also wrote 8 Mile, deliver a tightly wound screenplay that is at times just too tense for its own good. This is never a film you can sit back and relax to, it feels like you’re on the edge of your seat for the full two hours. The comedic notes that I alluded to earlier nicely round off some of the sharp edges however, but make no mistake, this is a brutal and unforgiving film.
The comedic notes… nicely round off some of the sharp edges
Criticism has been levelled already about the significance this film may have on those who already actively promote the character’s actions, and it’s easy to see why people are concerned. However, as an art form, Joker doesn’t need to be processed in such a way. Yes, it’s brutal, yes, it’s bloody and yes it sometimes hits too close to home about the issues we face in the real world, but cinema is escapism and that’s what it offers.
To look at it’s clear that the very modest of budget of $55million has been put to good use. The city of Gotham feels dirty, grimy and about to erupt and this is exactly how we as the audience want it to be. The uprising is coming and with each grimace from Phoenix’s face, we get closer and closer to that critical moment.
For me that critical moment occurs a little too late into the film and with not a lot of time left after this point, Joker tries to wrap up its loose ends too quickly, but this is a miniscule criticism in a deeply impressive and immersive cinema experience.
The score too is excellent. Icelandic composer Hildur Ingveldardóttir Guðnadóttir has worked on films like The Revenant and Sicario 2 and that gritty realism she brought to those films has been replicated here. It’s a soaring orchestral score populated with some sharp string solos that work perfectly with the character.
Overall, Joker is a masterpiece. Phoenix’s performance is one of the best I’ve ever had the pleasure of witnessing in the cinema and to go alongside that commitment the audience is treated to an engrossing script and beautiful score. Where DC has failed in the past is in forgetting to carve their own niche. Marvel has the 12A game all sewn up and there’s no point in competing there. Joker is the direction that should have been taken from the very beginning and it’s one of the best films I’ve seen in years.
Brutal? Yes. Beautiful? Absolutely.
With development originally beginning way back in 2016, Joaquin Phoenix walking out of interviews and the press junket being cancelled altogether, it’s safe to say that the path to release has not been easy, but what’s the finished product like?
Forever alone in a crowd, failed comedian Arthur Fleck (Phoenix) seeks connection as he walks the streets of Gotham City. Arthur wears two masks, the one he paints for his day job as a clown, and the guise he projects in a futile attempt to feel like he’s part of the world around him. Isolated, bullied and disregarded by society, Fleck begins a slow descent into madness as he transforms into the criminal mastermind known as the Joker.
Director of The Hangover trilogy, you’d be forgiven for thinking that Phillips is an odd choice to helm a picture like this, but his darkly comedic roots shine through in Joker and add a much-needed lightness of touch over the course of the running time. Without these pockets of humour, Joker would just be far too murky, more so than it already is.
Phoenix is absolutely astounding and his physical transformation defies words. Alongside Heath Ledger, these two very different portrayals of this iconic character are fully deserving of as much recognition as possible. Arguably however, Phoenix delivers the best iteration yet and one that perhaps needed even more commitment – this is a two-hour film dedicated to the character, whereas the Joker has always been a supporting part of previous films.
From the frame devoid of any muscle, dark circles under his eyes and wrinkles etched on his face, Phoenix’s dedication to this role is on another level to anything we have seen before. As his transformation from troubled Arthur Fleck to criminal mastermind gets underway, this only serves to highlight the acting prowess of this incredible performer. Elsewhere, supporting cast members like Robert De Niro, Frances Conroy and Zazie Beets are also wonderful in their roles of varying screen-time, but as Joker is a film about the singular character, they stay in the background, and rightly so.
The script too is exceptionally written. Phillips and co-writer Scott Silver, who also wrote 8 Mile, deliver a tightly wound screenplay that is at times just too tense for its own good. This is never a film you can sit back and relax to, it feels like you’re on the edge of your seat for the full two hours. The comedic notes that I alluded to earlier nicely round off some of the sharp edges however, but make no mistake, this is a brutal and unforgiving film.
The comedic notes… nicely round off some of the sharp edges
Criticism has been levelled already about the significance this film may have on those who already actively promote the character’s actions, and it’s easy to see why people are concerned. However, as an art form, Joker doesn’t need to be processed in such a way. Yes, it’s brutal, yes, it’s bloody and yes it sometimes hits too close to home about the issues we face in the real world, but cinema is escapism and that’s what it offers.
To look at it’s clear that the very modest of budget of $55million has been put to good use. The city of Gotham feels dirty, grimy and about to erupt and this is exactly how we as the audience want it to be. The uprising is coming and with each grimace from Phoenix’s face, we get closer and closer to that critical moment.
For me that critical moment occurs a little too late into the film and with not a lot of time left after this point, Joker tries to wrap up its loose ends too quickly, but this is a miniscule criticism in a deeply impressive and immersive cinema experience.
The score too is excellent. Icelandic composer Hildur Ingveldardóttir Guðnadóttir has worked on films like The Revenant and Sicario 2 and that gritty realism she brought to those films has been replicated here. It’s a soaring orchestral score populated with some sharp string solos that work perfectly with the character.
Overall, Joker is a masterpiece. Phoenix’s performance is one of the best I’ve ever had the pleasure of witnessing in the cinema and to go alongside that commitment the audience is treated to an engrossing script and beautiful score. Where DC has failed in the past is in forgetting to carve their own niche. Marvel has the 12A game all sewn up and there’s no point in competing there. Joker is the direction that should have been taken from the very beginning and it’s one of the best films I’ve seen in years.
Brutal? Yes. Beautiful? Absolutely.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Following the very successful adaptation of Stieg Larssons millennium trilogy into three very successful Swedish language films, it came as no surprise when Hollywood announced that it would be making an English-language version of the series. Director David Fincher was announced to craft the first book in the series, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. The new version follows very close to the original material with one fairly big exception which I will detail later in the review.
Daniel Craig stars as Mikael Blomkvist, who at the opening of the film has recently lost a court case for which he was being sued for libel by a prominent business figure. His career is in ruins and virtually all of his savings gone as a result of the trial and punitive damages. So when he is contacted by an attorney representing the wealthy and powerful Vanger family, he agrees to meet. Although highly reluctant to take a meeting, Mikael takes the four hour train ride north of Stockholm to a cold and remote island to meet with Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer). Henrik wishes Mikael to investigate the disappearance of his niece some 40 years earlier, a niece vanished under the families’ very noses and not a trace of her has been discovered since. Henrik is convinced that she has met with foul play, yet every year on his birthday, he continues to receive a gift of ornate pressed flowers in an anonymous package.
Henrik believes that the killer is haunting him by sending the gifts and that a member of his family may be to blame. Although skeptical of being able to find anything 40 years later, Mikael accepts the case and soon sets up residence in a small cabin on the island and begins his investigation by combing through police reports, conducting interviews, and examining photographs and newspaper clippings. Mikael had been warned that the other members of the Vanger family may not be too thrilled with his presence as not only is the family fractured, they all have their share of secrets.
At the same time, a very Goth punk girl named Lisabeth (Rooney Mara), is fighting her own demons. Lisabeth is an extremely gifted computer and surveillance expert who specializes in gathering background information on individuals. As such, her skills have made her in high demand with her employer. Unfortunately, Lisabeth is also a deeply antisocial person who is prone to lash out violently if provoked. Much of this stems from an extremely traumatic childhood spent in institutions which resulted in Lisabeth being placed as a ward of the state, not deemed competent to care for herself. This arrangement requires her to check in on a regular basis with a representative who, unfortunately for her, has recently suffered a stroke and places her in the care of the new guardian.
The new guardian subjects Lisabeth to horrific demands just so Lisabeth can access her money. The traumatized Lisabeth does not play victim long and in a twist of fate, is assigned by Henrik’s attorney to assist Mikael since she did the background check on him prior to Mikael being approached by Henrik for the investigation. The unlikely duo combined to form a highly efficient pair as they start to piece together the clues which indicate a brutal string of murders leading back for decades. As they work together, the relationship deepens and the reserved Lisabeth starts to come out of her shell. Tension mounts as danger surrounds them in an epic race against time to solve the case that certain members of the family do not want solved.
The film runs approximately 2 hours and 45 min and does take a little while to get started as the landscape and back story of the characters is established. The film has some very dark and brutal moments, which are hard to watch, yet were not as graphic as those in the Swedish language version. Craig and Mara work very well with one another and props to Craig for being willing to put on weight and occasionally looked disheveled to enhance his character.
Mara gives a masterful performance as the complicated Lisabeth, the anti-damsel-in-distress heroine, who subtly shows the many complicated sides to the character. Noomi Rapace first portrayed the character and has gone on to prominent success in Hollywood with a slew of upcoming high profile films. I would expect nothing less for Mara with two other sequels in this series to film. I am sure this breakout performance will not go unnoticed as it is an extremely difficult and daring role that few in Hollywood would want to tackle, much less be able to pull off as convincingly as she did.
I was extremely happy to see that the character names, settings, and situations were not changed in the new version, and it was refreshing to see the film set in Sweden and not relocated to London or New York. The biggest issue I had with the film was with the ending, which deviated from the previous versions. I will not provide spoilers, suffice it to say the resolution was a bit too tidy of a Hollywood ending and in my opinion greatly undermined one of the central characters of the film. That being said the film is a bold and dynamic vision from Fincher and is a deeply dark and disturbing story that is difficult to forget.
Daniel Craig stars as Mikael Blomkvist, who at the opening of the film has recently lost a court case for which he was being sued for libel by a prominent business figure. His career is in ruins and virtually all of his savings gone as a result of the trial and punitive damages. So when he is contacted by an attorney representing the wealthy and powerful Vanger family, he agrees to meet. Although highly reluctant to take a meeting, Mikael takes the four hour train ride north of Stockholm to a cold and remote island to meet with Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer). Henrik wishes Mikael to investigate the disappearance of his niece some 40 years earlier, a niece vanished under the families’ very noses and not a trace of her has been discovered since. Henrik is convinced that she has met with foul play, yet every year on his birthday, he continues to receive a gift of ornate pressed flowers in an anonymous package.
Henrik believes that the killer is haunting him by sending the gifts and that a member of his family may be to blame. Although skeptical of being able to find anything 40 years later, Mikael accepts the case and soon sets up residence in a small cabin on the island and begins his investigation by combing through police reports, conducting interviews, and examining photographs and newspaper clippings. Mikael had been warned that the other members of the Vanger family may not be too thrilled with his presence as not only is the family fractured, they all have their share of secrets.
At the same time, a very Goth punk girl named Lisabeth (Rooney Mara), is fighting her own demons. Lisabeth is an extremely gifted computer and surveillance expert who specializes in gathering background information on individuals. As such, her skills have made her in high demand with her employer. Unfortunately, Lisabeth is also a deeply antisocial person who is prone to lash out violently if provoked. Much of this stems from an extremely traumatic childhood spent in institutions which resulted in Lisabeth being placed as a ward of the state, not deemed competent to care for herself. This arrangement requires her to check in on a regular basis with a representative who, unfortunately for her, has recently suffered a stroke and places her in the care of the new guardian.
The new guardian subjects Lisabeth to horrific demands just so Lisabeth can access her money. The traumatized Lisabeth does not play victim long and in a twist of fate, is assigned by Henrik’s attorney to assist Mikael since she did the background check on him prior to Mikael being approached by Henrik for the investigation. The unlikely duo combined to form a highly efficient pair as they start to piece together the clues which indicate a brutal string of murders leading back for decades. As they work together, the relationship deepens and the reserved Lisabeth starts to come out of her shell. Tension mounts as danger surrounds them in an epic race against time to solve the case that certain members of the family do not want solved.
The film runs approximately 2 hours and 45 min and does take a little while to get started as the landscape and back story of the characters is established. The film has some very dark and brutal moments, which are hard to watch, yet were not as graphic as those in the Swedish language version. Craig and Mara work very well with one another and props to Craig for being willing to put on weight and occasionally looked disheveled to enhance his character.
Mara gives a masterful performance as the complicated Lisabeth, the anti-damsel-in-distress heroine, who subtly shows the many complicated sides to the character. Noomi Rapace first portrayed the character and has gone on to prominent success in Hollywood with a slew of upcoming high profile films. I would expect nothing less for Mara with two other sequels in this series to film. I am sure this breakout performance will not go unnoticed as it is an extremely difficult and daring role that few in Hollywood would want to tackle, much less be able to pull off as convincingly as she did.
I was extremely happy to see that the character names, settings, and situations were not changed in the new version, and it was refreshing to see the film set in Sweden and not relocated to London or New York. The biggest issue I had with the film was with the ending, which deviated from the previous versions. I will not provide spoilers, suffice it to say the resolution was a bit too tidy of a Hollywood ending and in my opinion greatly undermined one of the central characters of the film. That being said the film is a bold and dynamic vision from Fincher and is a deeply dark and disturbing story that is difficult to forget.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
First off I want to address the elephant in the room, or more accurately, the serial killer in the room. Kudos to Cineworld for always engaging in dressing up banter for their movies, but honestly, I don't need to be tormented by them during the movie too. We're all familiar with the hovering member of staff who checks the screens during the performance. When the titles started to role on Halloween I was aware of the lurking figure, unlike other times though when I glanced out of the corner of my eye I wasn't greeted with the friendly face of an employee but rather the mask-clad face of a serial killer. At least he wasn't creeping up on me otherwise I would have unleashed the power of my flying handbag... you try and scare people there WILL be consequences! Saying that I would love them to re-release Scream so I could dress up as Ghostface and just tilt my head at people.
Anyway, to the film!
Having just seen the original I found it very easy to draw parallels between the two. The links were everywhere and it made for a nice familiar touch, which I found surprising as it isn't a film that I'm really that well versed in.
The opening credits were obviously a highlight and it was fun to watch the scene unfold, literally. Having not seen many of the other Halloween offerings I don't know how they dealt with Michael and Laurie's connection, not that it really matters I suppose as they tossed out the rest of the timeline out of the window for this one.
Comparing the two films you can really see how they've given Laurie some of Michael's traits. He's so much a part of her that she's even taken to lurking like him outside the school watching her granddaughter. She progresses through the film much like he did in the first, with little flashes of him in her actions like when we see her exit a restaurant and stand at the end of the path like he did after murdering his sister.
We see the escape from the transfer but we don't really know how it happened, although I had my suspicions. Yet again we see a mirror of events from the first film. The patients are roaming around and Michael attacks without mercy to get what he wants/needs.
I'll take a quick diversion here to talk about one of my dislikes about the film. The journalists doing the interviews with Michael and Laurie. I understand why they were there. Michael needed to get his identity back and some groundwork needed to be laid so that the audience could see what Laurie had been working to her whole life... but... I didn't find either character to be particularly effective and the small monologues for the tape seemed poorly executed. Yes, yes, they're just making audio notes for the final piece, but as a film they're supposed to be crafting the scene in a way that flows, and they really don't. Of course as I said, they need to be there so that Michael can get his face back so *shrug* their fate wasn't such a sad one for the story line.
I think what makes Michael so effective as the bad guy is that he's just so brazen. He's got one objective and his single mindedness means that he never stops. It doesn't matter that he's wearing his hospital clothing, he has to do something and that confidence makes him invisible to almost everyone until it's too late. Seeing him in the background of shots brings on the anticipation of what's to come. When it's dark you're squinting at an area that seems unusually framed waiting to see that face emerge from the gloom. It works incredibly well and brings almost a glee to the watcher. You know something that the characters don't... you could survive this thing.
Movies these days seem to be finding some very talented kids and the writers are furnishing them with excellent lines. Jibrail Nantambu as Julian, the ill-fated babysitting job of Haddonfield, brings the comedy in what is otherwise the bleak slasher-fest you'd expect. He's got the witty banter, the attitude, and he delivers perfectly. Watch out for my favourite piece of the movie where Vicky his babysitter attempts to go and investigate for a possible intruder. Julian knows where horror films are at, and he knows who's expendable, good job kid.
As a sequel I think it works really well. Trying to erase the knowledge that there were films in between was challenging though. It's an 18 certificate though and the more I watch them these days the more I wonder exactly how TV and film has jaded my perception of things. Sure, there's a lot of murdering! But none of it seemed particularly graphic or violent to me. Like I say... perhaps I've just become accustomed to it.
What you should do
If you enjoy horror films then I think this one would appeal. Especially if you see the original before you go. I'm sure it would work as a standalone film with only basic knowledge of the first, but there's no denying how well they'll work together in a double bill.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
As with the original, I would still like some of Laurie Strode's luck at surviving against the odds.
Anyway, to the film!
Having just seen the original I found it very easy to draw parallels between the two. The links were everywhere and it made for a nice familiar touch, which I found surprising as it isn't a film that I'm really that well versed in.
The opening credits were obviously a highlight and it was fun to watch the scene unfold, literally. Having not seen many of the other Halloween offerings I don't know how they dealt with Michael and Laurie's connection, not that it really matters I suppose as they tossed out the rest of the timeline out of the window for this one.
Comparing the two films you can really see how they've given Laurie some of Michael's traits. He's so much a part of her that she's even taken to lurking like him outside the school watching her granddaughter. She progresses through the film much like he did in the first, with little flashes of him in her actions like when we see her exit a restaurant and stand at the end of the path like he did after murdering his sister.
We see the escape from the transfer but we don't really know how it happened, although I had my suspicions. Yet again we see a mirror of events from the first film. The patients are roaming around and Michael attacks without mercy to get what he wants/needs.
I'll take a quick diversion here to talk about one of my dislikes about the film. The journalists doing the interviews with Michael and Laurie. I understand why they were there. Michael needed to get his identity back and some groundwork needed to be laid so that the audience could see what Laurie had been working to her whole life... but... I didn't find either character to be particularly effective and the small monologues for the tape seemed poorly executed. Yes, yes, they're just making audio notes for the final piece, but as a film they're supposed to be crafting the scene in a way that flows, and they really don't. Of course as I said, they need to be there so that Michael can get his face back so *shrug* their fate wasn't such a sad one for the story line.
I think what makes Michael so effective as the bad guy is that he's just so brazen. He's got one objective and his single mindedness means that he never stops. It doesn't matter that he's wearing his hospital clothing, he has to do something and that confidence makes him invisible to almost everyone until it's too late. Seeing him in the background of shots brings on the anticipation of what's to come. When it's dark you're squinting at an area that seems unusually framed waiting to see that face emerge from the gloom. It works incredibly well and brings almost a glee to the watcher. You know something that the characters don't... you could survive this thing.
Movies these days seem to be finding some very talented kids and the writers are furnishing them with excellent lines. Jibrail Nantambu as Julian, the ill-fated babysitting job of Haddonfield, brings the comedy in what is otherwise the bleak slasher-fest you'd expect. He's got the witty banter, the attitude, and he delivers perfectly. Watch out for my favourite piece of the movie where Vicky his babysitter attempts to go and investigate for a possible intruder. Julian knows where horror films are at, and he knows who's expendable, good job kid.
As a sequel I think it works really well. Trying to erase the knowledge that there were films in between was challenging though. It's an 18 certificate though and the more I watch them these days the more I wonder exactly how TV and film has jaded my perception of things. Sure, there's a lot of murdering! But none of it seemed particularly graphic or violent to me. Like I say... perhaps I've just become accustomed to it.
What you should do
If you enjoy horror films then I think this one would appeal. Especially if you see the original before you go. I'm sure it would work as a standalone film with only basic knowledge of the first, but there's no denying how well they'll work together in a double bill.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
As with the original, I would still like some of Laurie Strode's luck at surviving against the odds.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Light of My Life (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
It is difficult to talk about Casey Affleck in a positive light as a movie-maker without mentioning the heightened media storm that surrounded him in 2017, at the time of #metoo and his own moment of personal glory in winning the Best Actor Oscar for his excellent performance in Manchester By the Sea. The Oscar was deserved, as was the criticism. The latter affecting the sweetness of the former entirely, and perhaps explaining why a recent Academy Award winner would be so quiet for the next 3 years.
The facts are that he settled out of court for two sexual harassment claims, that in interviews later he would admit some guilt and shame towards. He never tried to hide it and seemed genuinely regretful of his part in whatever crimes took place. He never tried to deny it or belittle it or excuse it as something small and insignificant, he owned up and hung his head.
For which I’d be tempted to say, yes, he behaved like an asshole and abused his position, but is worthy of forgiveness, on probation that he learned from the mistake and never remotely did anything like it again. However, the media doesn’t forget, and in a personal and professional way he has been persona non grata ever since.
Like many others in the spotlight before him for nefarious reasons, I believe emphatically in saying it is possible to separate a person from their work. If someone has done something where they need to be in jail, then let the system take care of it, otherwise let them get on with life and continue to work. Affleck is such a talented actor that it is his performances that spring to mind above anything else by far, and that probably won’t change. I’d absolutely hate to think his negative reputation prevented him from doing the best work of his life.
One way to ensure some relative solitude and privacy whilst remaining at work, then, is to write, produce, direct and star in a small personal film about a father and daughter, alone for 90% of the movie, in a post apocalyptic wilderness. Affleck is the nameless “dad” to the pre-teen daughter he dotes on and will do anything to protect, named “Rag”, for reasons that are explained beautifully in the narrative.
Played by promising newcomer Anna Pniowsky, it is a testament to Affleck’s skill and sensitivity as actor and director that Rag always feels as important and centre stage as the “star” of the show. The film begins very unusually with a 7 minute static dialogue between the two, which demonstrates the relationship and energy of the film perfectly, and in such an interesting way. Pniowsky gives as good as she gets in terms of detailed characterisation, and the dynamic between the two is an absolute delight.
Inevitably, this film is always going to be seen as a poor cousin to The Road, starring Viggo Mortensen, from 2009. It is very similar, it can’t be denied. Even the idea of the parent ensuring “the light / fire” is kept alive within the child, considering that the survival of humanity in all senses is paramount, and supercedes the notion of survival at any cost. Dignity, kindness and non-violence must be maintained, or they will be lost. It is a message worth passing on – enough to make Affleck want to fly so close to the themes and tone of a bigger, well liked film. He must certainly have been aware of how similar they are.
It doesn’t always work, and I did find myself wishing for more action, or at least incident, rather than all the static talking scenes. Although they were often beautifully done, there were just one too many of them to keep the film fully engaging. The use of flashback, where we see the past they came from and the absent mother (presumed long dead) played by Elizabeth Moss, who does not get enough screen time to leave a mark, also doesn’t fully ring true.
Where it does work is in the simple beauty of the relationship between father and daughter. Her innocence and growing curiosity about the tainted world she is inheriting, and his single minded insistence on teaching her things his way and keeping her oblivious to the harshness of life for as long as possible. We begin to suspect his methods are not always the best, and that inevitably the time is coming where for good or bad she will have to find her own path without him.
Which leads to a very touching last 20 minutes I can’t possibly explain without leaving spoilers. If it wasn’t two hours but 90 minutes I believe the idea would have had more impact and not outstay its welcome. As it is, it is just a little flabby in the edit to be described as “great”, and might be otherwise described as slightly indulgent and naive, directorially. It is a tough one to pin down, because whilst I don’t think there is much wrong with it, I also don’t think there is enough right to fully recommend it to a wide audience.
I’m putting this one in the box marked “little seen gems”, intersecting with the one marked “near miss with potential”. When in a patient mood, this could be a film you relate to and enjoy. Just don’t go in expecting too much to happen and concentrate on what it means to be a parent in a cruel world. In that sense it has a lot to say and is well worth your time.
The facts are that he settled out of court for two sexual harassment claims, that in interviews later he would admit some guilt and shame towards. He never tried to hide it and seemed genuinely regretful of his part in whatever crimes took place. He never tried to deny it or belittle it or excuse it as something small and insignificant, he owned up and hung his head.
For which I’d be tempted to say, yes, he behaved like an asshole and abused his position, but is worthy of forgiveness, on probation that he learned from the mistake and never remotely did anything like it again. However, the media doesn’t forget, and in a personal and professional way he has been persona non grata ever since.
Like many others in the spotlight before him for nefarious reasons, I believe emphatically in saying it is possible to separate a person from their work. If someone has done something where they need to be in jail, then let the system take care of it, otherwise let them get on with life and continue to work. Affleck is such a talented actor that it is his performances that spring to mind above anything else by far, and that probably won’t change. I’d absolutely hate to think his negative reputation prevented him from doing the best work of his life.
One way to ensure some relative solitude and privacy whilst remaining at work, then, is to write, produce, direct and star in a small personal film about a father and daughter, alone for 90% of the movie, in a post apocalyptic wilderness. Affleck is the nameless “dad” to the pre-teen daughter he dotes on and will do anything to protect, named “Rag”, for reasons that are explained beautifully in the narrative.
Played by promising newcomer Anna Pniowsky, it is a testament to Affleck’s skill and sensitivity as actor and director that Rag always feels as important and centre stage as the “star” of the show. The film begins very unusually with a 7 minute static dialogue between the two, which demonstrates the relationship and energy of the film perfectly, and in such an interesting way. Pniowsky gives as good as she gets in terms of detailed characterisation, and the dynamic between the two is an absolute delight.
Inevitably, this film is always going to be seen as a poor cousin to The Road, starring Viggo Mortensen, from 2009. It is very similar, it can’t be denied. Even the idea of the parent ensuring “the light / fire” is kept alive within the child, considering that the survival of humanity in all senses is paramount, and supercedes the notion of survival at any cost. Dignity, kindness and non-violence must be maintained, or they will be lost. It is a message worth passing on – enough to make Affleck want to fly so close to the themes and tone of a bigger, well liked film. He must certainly have been aware of how similar they are.
It doesn’t always work, and I did find myself wishing for more action, or at least incident, rather than all the static talking scenes. Although they were often beautifully done, there were just one too many of them to keep the film fully engaging. The use of flashback, where we see the past they came from and the absent mother (presumed long dead) played by Elizabeth Moss, who does not get enough screen time to leave a mark, also doesn’t fully ring true.
Where it does work is in the simple beauty of the relationship between father and daughter. Her innocence and growing curiosity about the tainted world she is inheriting, and his single minded insistence on teaching her things his way and keeping her oblivious to the harshness of life for as long as possible. We begin to suspect his methods are not always the best, and that inevitably the time is coming where for good or bad she will have to find her own path without him.
Which leads to a very touching last 20 minutes I can’t possibly explain without leaving spoilers. If it wasn’t two hours but 90 minutes I believe the idea would have had more impact and not outstay its welcome. As it is, it is just a little flabby in the edit to be described as “great”, and might be otherwise described as slightly indulgent and naive, directorially. It is a tough one to pin down, because whilst I don’t think there is much wrong with it, I also don’t think there is enough right to fully recommend it to a wide audience.
I’m putting this one in the box marked “little seen gems”, intersecting with the one marked “near miss with potential”. When in a patient mood, this could be a film you relate to and enjoy. Just don’t go in expecting too much to happen and concentrate on what it means to be a parent in a cruel world. In that sense it has a lot to say and is well worth your time.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Front Runner (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Candidate for a downfall.
We can all probably rattle off some of the classics movies with US politics as their backdrop. For me, “All the President’s Men”; “Primary Colors”; and “Frost/Nixon” might make that list. In the next tier down there are many great drama/thrillers – “Miss Sloane“; “The Post“; “The Ides of March”; “The American President”; “JFK” – and even some pretty funny comedies – “Dave” and “My Fellow Americans” for example. It’s actually quite difficult to think of many films on the subject that are outright dire, proving it remains a fertile ground for film-makers.
“The Front Runner” fortunately avoids this last category, but it’s certainly not good enough to make it into the ‘classics’ list either.
A true story.
The film is based on the true-story of US presidential hopeful Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman) and if you are NOT aware of the historical background then you might want to skip the rest of this review – and indeed all others – so you can see the film first and let the history come as a surprise to you.
Hart was younger than most candidates: good-looking, floppy-haired and refreshingly matter of fact in his dealings with the public and the press. Any interviews had to be about his politics: not about his family life with wife Lee (Vera Farmiga) and teenage daughter Andrea (Kaitlyn Dever).
Unfortunately, Hart has a weakness for a pretty face (or ten) and his marriage is rocky as a result: “Just don’t embarrass me” is Lee’s one requirement. His “nothing to hide” line to an intelligent Washington Post reporter – AJ Parker (a well cast Mamoudou Athie) – leads to a half-arsed stake-out by Miami Herald reporters and incriminating pictures linking Hart to a Miami pharmaceutical saleswoman Donna Rice (Sara Paxton). As the growing press tsunami rises, and his campaign manager (J.K. Simmons) gets more and more frustrated with him, can his candidacy survive and will his (now very much embarrassed) wife stick by him?
The turns.
Hugh Jackman is perfectly cast here; very believable as the self-centred, self-righteous and stubborn politician. But this central performance is surrounded by a strong team of supporting players. Vera Farmiga is superb as the wounded wife. Sara Paxton is heartbreaking as the intelligent college girl unfairly portrayed as a “slapper” by the media. The scenes between her and Hart-staffer Irene (Molly Ephraim), trying desperately to support her as best she can, are very nicely done. J.K Simmons as campaign manager Bill Dixon is as reliable as ever. And Alfred Molina turns up as the latest film incarnation of The Post’s Ben Bradlee – surely one of the most oft portrayed real-life journalists in film history.
“What did they just say”?
The biggest cause of dissatisfaction I have with the film is with the sound mixing. Was this a deliberate act by director Jason Reitman, to reflect the chaotic nature of political campaigning? Whether it was deliberate or not, much of the film’s dialogue – particularly in the first 30 minutes of the film – is drowned out by background noise. Sometimes I just longed for subtitles!
Just a little bit dull.
The screenplay, by Matt Bai (from his source book), Jay Carson (a Clinton staffer) and director Jason Reitman might align with the history, but the big problem is that the story’s just a little bit dull, particularly by today’s levels of scandal. This suffers the same fate as “House of Cards” (even before the Kevin Spacey allegations) in that the shocking realities of the Trump-era have progressively neutered the shock-factor of the fiction: to the point where it starts to become boring. Here, only once or twice does the screenplay hit a winning beat: for me, it was the scenes between Donna Rice and Irene Kelly and the dramatic press conference towards the end of the film. The rest of the time, the screenplay was perfectly serviceable but nothing spectacular.
When is a politician’s personal life private?
A core tenet of the film is Hart’s view that politics should be about the policies and not about the personality. Looking at the subject nowadays, it’s clearly a ridiculously idealistic viewpoint. Of course it matters. Politicians need to be trusted by their constituents (yeah, like that’s the case in the UK and the US at the moment!) and whether or not they slap their wives around or sleep with farm animals is clearly a material factor in that relationship. But this was clearly not as much the case in the 70’s as it is today, and the suggestion is that the Hart case was a turning point and a wake-up call to politicians around the world. (An interesting article by the Washington Post itself points out that this is also a simplistic view: that Hart should have been well aware of the dangerous game he was playing.)
Fidelity in politics.
Do you think that powerful politicos are driven to infidelity because they are powerful? Or that it is a characteristic of men who have the charisma to become political leaders in the first place? Such was the discussion my wife and I had in the car home after this film. Nature or political nurture? I’m still not sure.
It’s worth pointing out that to this day both Hart and Rice (interestingly, an alleged ex-girlfriend of Eagles front-man Don Henley) stick to their story that they never had sex.
Final thoughts.
The film’s perfectly watchable, has great acting, but is a little bit of a non-event. The end titles came and I thought “OK, that’s that then”…. nothing more. If you’re a fan of this style of historical political film then you probably won’t be disappointed by it; if not, probably best to wait and catch this on the TV.
“The Front Runner” fortunately avoids this last category, but it’s certainly not good enough to make it into the ‘classics’ list either.
A true story.
The film is based on the true-story of US presidential hopeful Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman) and if you are NOT aware of the historical background then you might want to skip the rest of this review – and indeed all others – so you can see the film first and let the history come as a surprise to you.
Hart was younger than most candidates: good-looking, floppy-haired and refreshingly matter of fact in his dealings with the public and the press. Any interviews had to be about his politics: not about his family life with wife Lee (Vera Farmiga) and teenage daughter Andrea (Kaitlyn Dever).
Unfortunately, Hart has a weakness for a pretty face (or ten) and his marriage is rocky as a result: “Just don’t embarrass me” is Lee’s one requirement. His “nothing to hide” line to an intelligent Washington Post reporter – AJ Parker (a well cast Mamoudou Athie) – leads to a half-arsed stake-out by Miami Herald reporters and incriminating pictures linking Hart to a Miami pharmaceutical saleswoman Donna Rice (Sara Paxton). As the growing press tsunami rises, and his campaign manager (J.K. Simmons) gets more and more frustrated with him, can his candidacy survive and will his (now very much embarrassed) wife stick by him?
The turns.
Hugh Jackman is perfectly cast here; very believable as the self-centred, self-righteous and stubborn politician. But this central performance is surrounded by a strong team of supporting players. Vera Farmiga is superb as the wounded wife. Sara Paxton is heartbreaking as the intelligent college girl unfairly portrayed as a “slapper” by the media. The scenes between her and Hart-staffer Irene (Molly Ephraim), trying desperately to support her as best she can, are very nicely done. J.K Simmons as campaign manager Bill Dixon is as reliable as ever. And Alfred Molina turns up as the latest film incarnation of The Post’s Ben Bradlee – surely one of the most oft portrayed real-life journalists in film history.
“What did they just say”?
The biggest cause of dissatisfaction I have with the film is with the sound mixing. Was this a deliberate act by director Jason Reitman, to reflect the chaotic nature of political campaigning? Whether it was deliberate or not, much of the film’s dialogue – particularly in the first 30 minutes of the film – is drowned out by background noise. Sometimes I just longed for subtitles!
Just a little bit dull.
The screenplay, by Matt Bai (from his source book), Jay Carson (a Clinton staffer) and director Jason Reitman might align with the history, but the big problem is that the story’s just a little bit dull, particularly by today’s levels of scandal. This suffers the same fate as “House of Cards” (even before the Kevin Spacey allegations) in that the shocking realities of the Trump-era have progressively neutered the shock-factor of the fiction: to the point where it starts to become boring. Here, only once or twice does the screenplay hit a winning beat: for me, it was the scenes between Donna Rice and Irene Kelly and the dramatic press conference towards the end of the film. The rest of the time, the screenplay was perfectly serviceable but nothing spectacular.
When is a politician’s personal life private?
A core tenet of the film is Hart’s view that politics should be about the policies and not about the personality. Looking at the subject nowadays, it’s clearly a ridiculously idealistic viewpoint. Of course it matters. Politicians need to be trusted by their constituents (yeah, like that’s the case in the UK and the US at the moment!) and whether or not they slap their wives around or sleep with farm animals is clearly a material factor in that relationship. But this was clearly not as much the case in the 70’s as it is today, and the suggestion is that the Hart case was a turning point and a wake-up call to politicians around the world. (An interesting article by the Washington Post itself points out that this is also a simplistic view: that Hart should have been well aware of the dangerous game he was playing.)
Fidelity in politics.
Do you think that powerful politicos are driven to infidelity because they are powerful? Or that it is a characteristic of men who have the charisma to become political leaders in the first place? Such was the discussion my wife and I had in the car home after this film. Nature or political nurture? I’m still not sure.
It’s worth pointing out that to this day both Hart and Rice (interestingly, an alleged ex-girlfriend of Eagles front-man Don Henley) stick to their story that they never had sex.
Final thoughts.
The film’s perfectly watchable, has great acting, but is a little bit of a non-event. The end titles came and I thought “OK, that’s that then”…. nothing more. If you’re a fan of this style of historical political film then you probably won’t be disappointed by it; if not, probably best to wait and catch this on the TV.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (2022) in Movies
Apr 9, 2022
Knuckles (3 more)
How detailed the special effects are
Most of the action sequences
Jim Carrey
Sonic the Hedgehog 2 is a bit of a weird sequel. It improves upon the original film in just about every way, but it also features some of the most unbearable material in any film released so far this year.
Dr. Robotnik (Jim Carrey), who is now bald and sports a mustache that is almost 100% video game accurate, hatches a plan to escape The Mushroom Planet and return to Earth to get his revenge on Sonic. As his plan unfolds almost exactly as he planned, Robotnik encounters a red echidna named Knuckles (voiced by Idris Elba). With a deep rooted history, Knuckles also has Sonic in his vengeful sights but also believes Sonic knows where the Master Emerald is; the seven Chaos Emeralds unite to form the Master Emerald (they existed separately in the games).
Meanwhile, Sonic has been trying to use his super speed as a hero on Earth. As Robotnik and Knuckles arrive and gang up on him, Sonic is saved by a fox with two tails named Miles Prower; better known as Tails (voiced by Colleen O’Shaughnessey). Sonic and Tails team up to try to find the Master Emerald before Robotnik and Knuckles as they travel around the world searching for something that Sonic always believed was just a myth.
It seems like the general consensus about the original Sonic the Hedgehog film was that there wasn’t enough Sonic. In the sequel, the Sonic sequences outweigh anything revolving around any human character that isn’t Robotnik. However, this doesn’t change the fact that just about anything that isn’t entirely focused on Sonic, Tails, or Knuckles is just outright trash. Tom (James Marsden) and Maddie (Tika Sumpter) travel to Hawaii for Maddie’s sister Rachel’s (Natasha Rothwell) wedding. Tom spends most of his time trying to impress Rachel’s fiancé Randall (Shemar Moore) and his groomsmen; who are all generic machismo obsessed characters.
The two sisters, Maddie and Rachel, end up out classing an entire army of federal agents in the second half of the film with the only reason being that the bride was scorned on her wedding day. The human characters in these two Sonic films seem to be trying too hard. It may just be the way they’re written because Wade (Adam Pally) is seriously dumber than anything just because.
That’s not to say the humans don’t serve their purpose. Sonic the Hedgehog 2 is mostly about family; discovering that you’ve been a part of one all along and figuring out that you can choose who is a part of your tight knit group whenever you’re away from home. Most of the characters are trying to find their confidence; Sonic finding his footing as a hero and Tails learning to be a confident adventurer. Even though some may view you as a, “weird freak,” those unusual quirks that are unlike anyone else are what make you unique. It basically feels like Sonic is a teenager here. He’s technically still a kid, but he’s at that age where he feels like he’s an adult and wants to be treated as one.
The dance fight sequence is probably raising a few eyebrows here. The sequence begins as a train wreck since it seems to highlight the only reason they put people in movies where a CGI creature is the star; to act like a donkey that’s dressed as and acts like a clown to try to get laughs. Naturally the dance fight begins as a pile of puke with very few redeeming qualities until it suddenly isn’t. Seeing Sonic and Tails together even if they’re just dancing to Bruno Mars just unlocks these pivotal moments of your childhood.
While this doesn’t work for most, it is an element Jim Carrey has always thrived in. Carrey recently said in interviews that he is looking to retire from acting. If this is his last film or one of his last, then Robotnik is the perfect send off for the Canadian born actor. Carrey is completely hamming it up as Robotnik. His performance is over exaggerated, outrageous, and over the top and you can tell that Jim Carrey is having a blast the entire time.
Audiences are going to love Knuckles. He takes dialogue at face value and is far too serious, but his ignorance regarding how things work on Earth is what makes the character so entertaining. The entire snowboarding sequence down the mountain where Sonic is dodging lasers is pure cinematic bliss and the Sonic and Knuckles fight in the temple is straight out of the second and third Sonic the Hedgehog video games. The final twenty minutes of the film including the after credits sequence are stunning and goosebump-inducing. Robotnik is menacing, Sonic and his friends unite in a formidable way, and it’s a visual feast with solid writing. Apart from a few sequences that were likely done during crunch time, the CGI in Sonic the Hedgehog 2 is top notch. Sonic’s wet quills after he falls in the lake at the beginning of the film as well as the sand granules after him and Knuckles wash up on the beach near the end of the film are prime examples of how detailed the special effects can be.
Sonic the Hedgehog 2 embraces the nostalgia of Sega Genesis and the essence of the 90s with a film that is fun for absolutely everyone of all ages. Audiences will adore the new characters, the action is a memorable throwback to what we loved about the games the films are based on, and the special effects are top notch. Even with its flaws, Sonic the Hedgehog 2 may be the best video game adaptation ever.
Dr. Robotnik (Jim Carrey), who is now bald and sports a mustache that is almost 100% video game accurate, hatches a plan to escape The Mushroom Planet and return to Earth to get his revenge on Sonic. As his plan unfolds almost exactly as he planned, Robotnik encounters a red echidna named Knuckles (voiced by Idris Elba). With a deep rooted history, Knuckles also has Sonic in his vengeful sights but also believes Sonic knows where the Master Emerald is; the seven Chaos Emeralds unite to form the Master Emerald (they existed separately in the games).
Meanwhile, Sonic has been trying to use his super speed as a hero on Earth. As Robotnik and Knuckles arrive and gang up on him, Sonic is saved by a fox with two tails named Miles Prower; better known as Tails (voiced by Colleen O’Shaughnessey). Sonic and Tails team up to try to find the Master Emerald before Robotnik and Knuckles as they travel around the world searching for something that Sonic always believed was just a myth.
It seems like the general consensus about the original Sonic the Hedgehog film was that there wasn’t enough Sonic. In the sequel, the Sonic sequences outweigh anything revolving around any human character that isn’t Robotnik. However, this doesn’t change the fact that just about anything that isn’t entirely focused on Sonic, Tails, or Knuckles is just outright trash. Tom (James Marsden) and Maddie (Tika Sumpter) travel to Hawaii for Maddie’s sister Rachel’s (Natasha Rothwell) wedding. Tom spends most of his time trying to impress Rachel’s fiancé Randall (Shemar Moore) and his groomsmen; who are all generic machismo obsessed characters.
The two sisters, Maddie and Rachel, end up out classing an entire army of federal agents in the second half of the film with the only reason being that the bride was scorned on her wedding day. The human characters in these two Sonic films seem to be trying too hard. It may just be the way they’re written because Wade (Adam Pally) is seriously dumber than anything just because.
That’s not to say the humans don’t serve their purpose. Sonic the Hedgehog 2 is mostly about family; discovering that you’ve been a part of one all along and figuring out that you can choose who is a part of your tight knit group whenever you’re away from home. Most of the characters are trying to find their confidence; Sonic finding his footing as a hero and Tails learning to be a confident adventurer. Even though some may view you as a, “weird freak,” those unusual quirks that are unlike anyone else are what make you unique. It basically feels like Sonic is a teenager here. He’s technically still a kid, but he’s at that age where he feels like he’s an adult and wants to be treated as one.
The dance fight sequence is probably raising a few eyebrows here. The sequence begins as a train wreck since it seems to highlight the only reason they put people in movies where a CGI creature is the star; to act like a donkey that’s dressed as and acts like a clown to try to get laughs. Naturally the dance fight begins as a pile of puke with very few redeeming qualities until it suddenly isn’t. Seeing Sonic and Tails together even if they’re just dancing to Bruno Mars just unlocks these pivotal moments of your childhood.
While this doesn’t work for most, it is an element Jim Carrey has always thrived in. Carrey recently said in interviews that he is looking to retire from acting. If this is his last film or one of his last, then Robotnik is the perfect send off for the Canadian born actor. Carrey is completely hamming it up as Robotnik. His performance is over exaggerated, outrageous, and over the top and you can tell that Jim Carrey is having a blast the entire time.
Audiences are going to love Knuckles. He takes dialogue at face value and is far too serious, but his ignorance regarding how things work on Earth is what makes the character so entertaining. The entire snowboarding sequence down the mountain where Sonic is dodging lasers is pure cinematic bliss and the Sonic and Knuckles fight in the temple is straight out of the second and third Sonic the Hedgehog video games. The final twenty minutes of the film including the after credits sequence are stunning and goosebump-inducing. Robotnik is menacing, Sonic and his friends unite in a formidable way, and it’s a visual feast with solid writing. Apart from a few sequences that were likely done during crunch time, the CGI in Sonic the Hedgehog 2 is top notch. Sonic’s wet quills after he falls in the lake at the beginning of the film as well as the sand granules after him and Knuckles wash up on the beach near the end of the film are prime examples of how detailed the special effects can be.
Sonic the Hedgehog 2 embraces the nostalgia of Sega Genesis and the essence of the 90s with a film that is fun for absolutely everyone of all ages. Audiences will adore the new characters, the action is a memorable throwback to what we loved about the games the films are based on, and the special effects are top notch. Even with its flaws, Sonic the Hedgehog 2 may be the best video game adaptation ever.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Climax (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
If you’re going to see this film, it likely won’t be a huge surprise to you. Those that will buy a ticket already know who Gaspar Noé is and what he’s all about. Films like Irreversible and Enter the Void have defined him as an artist of scandal, evil and the extreme. Climax follows directly in the footsteps of those films, but at this point it does leave us wondering if there’s any room for growth in this writer/director or if we’ll just continue to get more of the same until we’re sufficiently numb to his offerings.
The setting for Noé’s latest tour of human horrors is the final rehearsal of a French dance troupe set to tour internationally. The film begins with the final scene of the movie and the ending credits. Then, just as your confusion has built to appropriate levels, things actually begin with videotaped interviews of all 22 members in an attempt to give you some semblance of character introduction. Shown on an older TV, the screen is surrounded by books and plays focused on ultra-negative philosophical views and subjects such as schizophrenia and suicide. So, despite the rather upbeat and optimistic responses of the prospective dancers, the tone is already being set for the madness that is about to commence.
From there we are taken to the big dance number. A ten-minute single shot involving the entire cast choreographed to 90’s EDM music. While this scene felt a little bit long, it did nearly as much to introduce the characters as the audition tapes shown earlier. Each dancer has a unique style and flair that executes a certain character development. Once the dance is complete it feels like the movie finally begins and the cast starts their post-rehearsal party. The soiree involves dancing (of course), drinking (homemade sangria) and some minor cocaine use. But it mostly consists of quick shots between different cast members taking part in some intergroup gossip. We are treated to one more (non-choreographed) dance scene with each individual showing their talents in a circle of their comrades, then we break again for more conversation. As the party continues on everyone starts to feel a little bit funny. They quickly deduce that the sangria has been spiked with LSD, but cannot determine who drugged them.
And this is where the hour-long journey into hell embarks from. The realization that they have been drugged seems to worry them very little, but does instantly turn them all against each other. The effects of the LSD ramp up rather quickly and as the cast members descend into madness the audience is treated to a myriad of trauma and depravity including: rape, incest, self-mutilation, child electrocution and an attempted abortion via a swift kick to the stomach. None of this should be any surprise to someone familiar with Noé’s work. But if this is your first experience with his particular brand of filmmaking, then be prepared to leave no perverted stone unturned.
One of the most impressive things about this film is how little preparation actually went into it. The entire film was shot in 15 days and edited to completion in only 3 months after that in order to meet the Cannes festival deadline. In addition, it was shot with a mere 5 pages of script. The majority of the film consists of both dancing and psychotic undulations inspired by web videos of people high on crack, ecstasy and acid which were hand-selected by Noé. So, despite the assumed need for structure that comes with extended tracking shots such as these, the whole movie is (surprisingly) mostly ad-libbed. Only the opening dance scene is choreographed with all of the remaining ones being the result of the how the dancers chose to express themselves through dance.
In the end you’ll be left wondering if all of the shock and awe that’s been served to you actually meant something, or if it was simply sensory overload for the sake of itself. And that’s where the movie really falls short. If Noé had meant for any sort of deeper meaning in this film, it was ultimately lost to extreme subtlety. I did my best to find the clever allegory here (French history and culture, biblical stories, etc.) and I admittedly fell short. “Birth is a unique opportunity. Life is an impossible collective. Death is an extraordinary experience,” read three title cards which flash throughout the journey of Climax. Although these sayings are poetic and beautiful, they seem to have little or loose application to the actual storyline.
The strongest feelings in this film are not evoked from any sort of meaning or fable-style lesson. They come from the distress and disgust brought about by the actions of the characters and, more so, the beautifully executed cinematography. Every filming technique meant to cause discomfort is present here including: long tracking shots, inverted imagery, black screen with nonlinear sounds and subliminal images. The application and combination of all of these effects means that much credit for this film should most likely go to Noé’s DP, Benoit Debie.
Fundamentally, the judgement for a Gaspar Noé film exists on a different scale than any other film. And while that concept can be new and exciting when the first shocking film debuts, you quickly realize that subsequent ones have to continue to push the boundaries that were originally broken. Otherwise you run the risk of becoming stale. We may have gotten to that point now with Noé. Climax brings very little new shock to the table for a director who has developed his reputation as a purveyor of wickedness. Those who attend this movie will be looking for him to push their horror to new levels, but will likely end up unfulfilled. Although the lack of a new frontier doesn’t remove all of the value for the film, Noé has made implicit promises through his other work which he has failed to deliver upon with Climax.
The setting for Noé’s latest tour of human horrors is the final rehearsal of a French dance troupe set to tour internationally. The film begins with the final scene of the movie and the ending credits. Then, just as your confusion has built to appropriate levels, things actually begin with videotaped interviews of all 22 members in an attempt to give you some semblance of character introduction. Shown on an older TV, the screen is surrounded by books and plays focused on ultra-negative philosophical views and subjects such as schizophrenia and suicide. So, despite the rather upbeat and optimistic responses of the prospective dancers, the tone is already being set for the madness that is about to commence.
From there we are taken to the big dance number. A ten-minute single shot involving the entire cast choreographed to 90’s EDM music. While this scene felt a little bit long, it did nearly as much to introduce the characters as the audition tapes shown earlier. Each dancer has a unique style and flair that executes a certain character development. Once the dance is complete it feels like the movie finally begins and the cast starts their post-rehearsal party. The soiree involves dancing (of course), drinking (homemade sangria) and some minor cocaine use. But it mostly consists of quick shots between different cast members taking part in some intergroup gossip. We are treated to one more (non-choreographed) dance scene with each individual showing their talents in a circle of their comrades, then we break again for more conversation. As the party continues on everyone starts to feel a little bit funny. They quickly deduce that the sangria has been spiked with LSD, but cannot determine who drugged them.
And this is where the hour-long journey into hell embarks from. The realization that they have been drugged seems to worry them very little, but does instantly turn them all against each other. The effects of the LSD ramp up rather quickly and as the cast members descend into madness the audience is treated to a myriad of trauma and depravity including: rape, incest, self-mutilation, child electrocution and an attempted abortion via a swift kick to the stomach. None of this should be any surprise to someone familiar with Noé’s work. But if this is your first experience with his particular brand of filmmaking, then be prepared to leave no perverted stone unturned.
One of the most impressive things about this film is how little preparation actually went into it. The entire film was shot in 15 days and edited to completion in only 3 months after that in order to meet the Cannes festival deadline. In addition, it was shot with a mere 5 pages of script. The majority of the film consists of both dancing and psychotic undulations inspired by web videos of people high on crack, ecstasy and acid which were hand-selected by Noé. So, despite the assumed need for structure that comes with extended tracking shots such as these, the whole movie is (surprisingly) mostly ad-libbed. Only the opening dance scene is choreographed with all of the remaining ones being the result of the how the dancers chose to express themselves through dance.
In the end you’ll be left wondering if all of the shock and awe that’s been served to you actually meant something, or if it was simply sensory overload for the sake of itself. And that’s where the movie really falls short. If Noé had meant for any sort of deeper meaning in this film, it was ultimately lost to extreme subtlety. I did my best to find the clever allegory here (French history and culture, biblical stories, etc.) and I admittedly fell short. “Birth is a unique opportunity. Life is an impossible collective. Death is an extraordinary experience,” read three title cards which flash throughout the journey of Climax. Although these sayings are poetic and beautiful, they seem to have little or loose application to the actual storyline.
The strongest feelings in this film are not evoked from any sort of meaning or fable-style lesson. They come from the distress and disgust brought about by the actions of the characters and, more so, the beautifully executed cinematography. Every filming technique meant to cause discomfort is present here including: long tracking shots, inverted imagery, black screen with nonlinear sounds and subliminal images. The application and combination of all of these effects means that much credit for this film should most likely go to Noé’s DP, Benoit Debie.
Fundamentally, the judgement for a Gaspar Noé film exists on a different scale than any other film. And while that concept can be new and exciting when the first shocking film debuts, you quickly realize that subsequent ones have to continue to push the boundaries that were originally broken. Otherwise you run the risk of becoming stale. We may have gotten to that point now with Noé. Climax brings very little new shock to the table for a director who has developed his reputation as a purveyor of wickedness. Those who attend this movie will be looking for him to push their horror to new levels, but will likely end up unfulfilled. Although the lack of a new frontier doesn’t remove all of the value for the film, Noé has made implicit promises through his other work which he has failed to deliver upon with Climax.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Umbrella Academy in TV
Sep 19, 2020 (Updated Jan 22, 2021)
I came to this gloriously colourful, energetic and super smart comic book adaptation in August (when Netflix advertised season 2), at a time of lockdown where I really needed something cheerful and fun to keep me going. It worked so well I watched both full seasons twice over, back to back, and key episodes 3 times! A rare thing indeed for me and a TV show.
Since then the rigours of isolation have set me back with a really long backlog for The Wasteland – currently I have a list of over 40 cultural artifacts I want to talk about and share with you- but, I am very glad to be talking about this one today, as even though it wasn’t that long ago, it evokes such fond happy memories of becoming just a little bit obsessed by something. A phenomenon that only seems to happen when you go into something with low to medium expectations and come out feeling like you have found a diamond in the rough.
The concept of 7 children with mysterious powers being adopted and raised by a shady and strict, umbrella wielding, father has been around a few years in the form of several graphic novels, penned by My Chemical Romance frontman Gerard Way. You can feel the vibe of something slightly emo and arty coming through – just cool enough but also self conscious; melancholy and dark in places but also lots of sardonic fun. But, unlike the books, which often look stark and minimal, the world created by show runner and director Steve Blackman is vivid and full to the brim with things to overwhelm the senses.
For the last few years, and especially of late, the Superhero genre has been so oversaturated that it is almost impossible to come up with anything original, but The Umbrella Academy together with Amazon’s The Boys, definitely manage to do that. It has enough mystique to be intriguingly confusing for the first few episodes, as we piece together the Hargreaves’ past that has led to the current situation, and discover the dynamic tension that exists between the adopted siblings. Oh, and there is a talking chimpanzee butler / guardian called Pogo, that feels like CGI gimmickery for a while, before growing into something truly wonderful.
The first thing you notice about this set of misfits, as they reassemble for their father’s funeral after years of bitterness and estrangement, is that they are all a little bit broken and uncomfortable in their own skins – their powers as individuals are all a bit, well frankly underwhelming, and their personalities are not exactly attractive in every case. Season one is all about re-establishing connections and working through identity crises. In many ways it is a coming of age story, as circumstances lead to them needing to grow up fast and join together to achieve true power. It works both on the surface and as a deeper allegory.
As each main character is introduced you inevitably get drawn into ranking them from most to least favourite, and the trick of it is how much those feelings shift as the story progresses. Everyone loves Klaus, the twitchy junkie who can see dead people, his completely non heroic yet hilariously stoned outlook gives him many of the best lines and most fun scenes. I changed allegiance several times with the others, but Klaus, played by the charismatic Irish actor Robert Sheehan, always remained my favourite, because of his hippie rockstar vibe. Although it’s hard not to have a soft spot for Number 5, the time travelling schoolboy that has been missing for years and re-emerges as a middle aged man still trapped in the boys’ body. Aiden Gillen is superb in conveying that he is older whilst always looking like a teenager, and in many ways he is the true pivot and anchor of the story.
I suppose before the show aired it was Ellen Page that was the “star” draw amongst the young and mostly unknown cast of “heroes”. As Vanya, the only Hargreaves child never to demonstrate a power, and held aside by their controlling father, she is the outsider and most insecure of the bunch. You sense her storyline is going to be crucial to the whole shebang, and so it turns out, but her fame as an actress of note never overshadows the show as a whole – it feels instantly like a group effort, and in that sense a true family, the deeper you get into it.
I could go on explaining each character and the details of the intricate plot forever, but I would never do it justice. The only way to see what the fuss is about is to watch it. Anything else would just sound like mad confusion to the uninitiated. All I can say is that it does an incredible job of unfolding its charms and secrets piece by piece. So much so that by the climax of season two I am still not entirely sure we have all the information necessary to know what is going on in a complete sense; there are several questions and mysteries still to be unearthed, and I like that very much.
I have recommended this show to anyone I know who enjoys something entertaining that has substance yet doesn’t take itself too seriously – so that is everyone then! I think it’s allure is that very thing: it manages to hit a zeitgeist of perfect balance between a smart script and plotline with many cliffhangers, and enough disposable moments of fun, to be exactly what the modern Netflix viewer is looking for. Super easy to watch with one eye or with both, depending on what mood you are in.
There is also the style of the thing – a veritable candy box of colours and neat visual tricks, mixed in with some of the best musical montage sequences I have ever seen. I understand from several interviews that Steve Blackman specifically wrote certain scenes around the feel of a piece of music he wanted to include. That is a clever way of building a cult following: find songs that both tell a story and appeal to the cool kids, then use them as mini music video segments that punctuate the heavier elements of storytelling. It’s not a new trick, but the song choices here are so good that it has rarely been done this well before.
It all works especially well as we move into season two and an historical context that brings up a lot of pertinent issues for some of the siblings regarding race, sexuality and other freedoms of identity that can be taken for granted in the modern era. I don’t want to spoil too much of that here, but suffice to say as a hook to pin the themes on it is a genius touch that makes season two a huge leap forward on something that was already pretty decent in season one. All the characters become more rounded and relatable, even the so called bad guys – an increasingly eccentric bunch of creations that leave you in no doubt this is a comic book world not to be confused with reality.
At time of writing, a third season has still not being given the greenlight. Considering the massive cliffhanger we are left with at the end of season two, and how big the cult following seems to be by now, it would be an absolute crime not to allow it to continue. The only reason I can see it wouldn’t is that the stories of the source material are now exhausted, and anywhere they go from here will need to be truly original. However, there is so much scope to do almost anything from here that I don’t see it as any kind of issue.
If you haven’t seen it, I urge you whole-heartedly to give it a go. There really is something in there to please everyone, except perhaps the most serious minded of realists. Even then, they’d be hard pressed not to raise a smile or tap a toe at some of the best musical moments of emo hero mayhem.
Since then the rigours of isolation have set me back with a really long backlog for The Wasteland – currently I have a list of over 40 cultural artifacts I want to talk about and share with you- but, I am very glad to be talking about this one today, as even though it wasn’t that long ago, it evokes such fond happy memories of becoming just a little bit obsessed by something. A phenomenon that only seems to happen when you go into something with low to medium expectations and come out feeling like you have found a diamond in the rough.
The concept of 7 children with mysterious powers being adopted and raised by a shady and strict, umbrella wielding, father has been around a few years in the form of several graphic novels, penned by My Chemical Romance frontman Gerard Way. You can feel the vibe of something slightly emo and arty coming through – just cool enough but also self conscious; melancholy and dark in places but also lots of sardonic fun. But, unlike the books, which often look stark and minimal, the world created by show runner and director Steve Blackman is vivid and full to the brim with things to overwhelm the senses.
For the last few years, and especially of late, the Superhero genre has been so oversaturated that it is almost impossible to come up with anything original, but The Umbrella Academy together with Amazon’s The Boys, definitely manage to do that. It has enough mystique to be intriguingly confusing for the first few episodes, as we piece together the Hargreaves’ past that has led to the current situation, and discover the dynamic tension that exists between the adopted siblings. Oh, and there is a talking chimpanzee butler / guardian called Pogo, that feels like CGI gimmickery for a while, before growing into something truly wonderful.
The first thing you notice about this set of misfits, as they reassemble for their father’s funeral after years of bitterness and estrangement, is that they are all a little bit broken and uncomfortable in their own skins – their powers as individuals are all a bit, well frankly underwhelming, and their personalities are not exactly attractive in every case. Season one is all about re-establishing connections and working through identity crises. In many ways it is a coming of age story, as circumstances lead to them needing to grow up fast and join together to achieve true power. It works both on the surface and as a deeper allegory.
As each main character is introduced you inevitably get drawn into ranking them from most to least favourite, and the trick of it is how much those feelings shift as the story progresses. Everyone loves Klaus, the twitchy junkie who can see dead people, his completely non heroic yet hilariously stoned outlook gives him many of the best lines and most fun scenes. I changed allegiance several times with the others, but Klaus, played by the charismatic Irish actor Robert Sheehan, always remained my favourite, because of his hippie rockstar vibe. Although it’s hard not to have a soft spot for Number 5, the time travelling schoolboy that has been missing for years and re-emerges as a middle aged man still trapped in the boys’ body. Aiden Gillen is superb in conveying that he is older whilst always looking like a teenager, and in many ways he is the true pivot and anchor of the story.
I suppose before the show aired it was Ellen Page that was the “star” draw amongst the young and mostly unknown cast of “heroes”. As Vanya, the only Hargreaves child never to demonstrate a power, and held aside by their controlling father, she is the outsider and most insecure of the bunch. You sense her storyline is going to be crucial to the whole shebang, and so it turns out, but her fame as an actress of note never overshadows the show as a whole – it feels instantly like a group effort, and in that sense a true family, the deeper you get into it.
I could go on explaining each character and the details of the intricate plot forever, but I would never do it justice. The only way to see what the fuss is about is to watch it. Anything else would just sound like mad confusion to the uninitiated. All I can say is that it does an incredible job of unfolding its charms and secrets piece by piece. So much so that by the climax of season two I am still not entirely sure we have all the information necessary to know what is going on in a complete sense; there are several questions and mysteries still to be unearthed, and I like that very much.
I have recommended this show to anyone I know who enjoys something entertaining that has substance yet doesn’t take itself too seriously – so that is everyone then! I think it’s allure is that very thing: it manages to hit a zeitgeist of perfect balance between a smart script and plotline with many cliffhangers, and enough disposable moments of fun, to be exactly what the modern Netflix viewer is looking for. Super easy to watch with one eye or with both, depending on what mood you are in.
There is also the style of the thing – a veritable candy box of colours and neat visual tricks, mixed in with some of the best musical montage sequences I have ever seen. I understand from several interviews that Steve Blackman specifically wrote certain scenes around the feel of a piece of music he wanted to include. That is a clever way of building a cult following: find songs that both tell a story and appeal to the cool kids, then use them as mini music video segments that punctuate the heavier elements of storytelling. It’s not a new trick, but the song choices here are so good that it has rarely been done this well before.
It all works especially well as we move into season two and an historical context that brings up a lot of pertinent issues for some of the siblings regarding race, sexuality and other freedoms of identity that can be taken for granted in the modern era. I don’t want to spoil too much of that here, but suffice to say as a hook to pin the themes on it is a genius touch that makes season two a huge leap forward on something that was already pretty decent in season one. All the characters become more rounded and relatable, even the so called bad guys – an increasingly eccentric bunch of creations that leave you in no doubt this is a comic book world not to be confused with reality.
At time of writing, a third season has still not being given the greenlight. Considering the massive cliffhanger we are left with at the end of season two, and how big the cult following seems to be by now, it would be an absolute crime not to allow it to continue. The only reason I can see it wouldn’t is that the stories of the source material are now exhausted, and anywhere they go from here will need to be truly original. However, there is so much scope to do almost anything from here that I don’t see it as any kind of issue.
If you haven’t seen it, I urge you whole-heartedly to give it a go. There really is something in there to please everyone, except perhaps the most serious minded of realists. Even then, they’d be hard pressed not to raise a smile or tap a toe at some of the best musical moments of emo hero mayhem.
Erika (17788 KP) rated Loki - Season 1 in TV
Jul 16, 2021 (Updated Jul 16, 2021)
I’ll stick with Loki’s original story-arc.
Contains spoilers, click to show
Loki, featuring the return of Tom Hiddleston to the MCU, has escaped with the tesseract, and is subsequently caught by the TVA. He agrees to help Owen Wilson’s Mobius track down a variant that is conveniently a version of himself. What ensues is a painful setup for Ironman with Magic… oh, sorry, Dr. Strange and the Multiverse of Madness.
On one hand, my ma always told me, if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all, but on the other hand, I haven’t been this pissed off at a major franchise since Star Wars: The Last Jedi. My visceral, negative reaction was caused by many things.
First, this series did not need to be made. Loki had a perfect ending to his overall arc, and it really didn’t need to be messed with. I am a huge Tom Hiddleston fan, I went to NYC to see him in a play, waited outside freezing my butt off to meet him, all of that. I was so glad when Loki was killed off, so he’d be free to do other things, and not just be known for Loki. Alas, that did not happen.
This series was made for two subsets of fans: the fans that can’t accept the death of their favorite character, and the fans that are absolutely, irrationally obsessed with having their favorite character paired up romantically. I fall into neither of these categories. ‘More Stories to Tell’ was the tagline… it should have been ‘More Money to be Made’.
After watching the same movie in a different flavor for over ten years, I realized that maybe the MCU wasn’t for me anymore. But, when Loki was announced, I was promised something new and weird! I thought, maybe this will be the show to get me back into the MCU. That was not the case. I cannot believe the rave reviews about this series; did we all watch the same thing?
The first warning sign for me was when it was announced that Michael Waldron, who was a writer for Rick & Morty was going to be helming this series. Rick & Morty is funny… if you’re a dude-bro, drunk, or high. When I read a few of his interviews prior to the release of Loki, another warning sign, this guy kind of sounded like a huge douchebag. I was then calmed and reassured that maybe it wouldn’t be a train-wreck because Hiddleston was heavily involved in the series.
As I’ve mentioned before, we were promised something new, different, and weird. Don’t make promises you can’t keep, creative team behind Loki.
Episode 1 was cheap; did I need to see clips from previous movies used in a very uncreative way? No, I did not. There was also something just off about the casting of Wilson. Now, this may be on me because my teen-years were spent quoting Owen Wilson films. There were a few things I liked about Episode 1, like the Blade Runner robot reference. There was a red flag in this episode though. Pro-tip: never, EVER have a character verbalize/confirm that they’re smart. Because it’s probably not the case.
Episode 2 was the bright spot, it was my favorite, by far. It was fast-paced, amusing, and the most interesting episode out of the whole series. The Mt Vesuvius/unleashing of the goats thing was the sort of thing I was looking for in this series. I actually chuckled a little, which rarely happens. It moved the story along, and we get the big reveal of the Loki variant that’s causing all the havoc.
Episode 3 was, for lack of a better word, boring. The pace slowed, and it was the infamous Disney+ show filler episode. We’re introduced to Mary Sue, sorry, I mean Lady Loki, but not really, Sylvie, the Enchantress, right? No, wait, she’s a completely different, new character. Probably shouldn’t have opted for the name Sylvie in that case. She’s a brand new, *strong* female, that shows her strength by punching people and has no personality (see: Carol Danvers - Captain Marvel, Hope van Dyne - Ant-Man). Y’all, you told me you were going to give me something different, new, weird. A Mary Sue isn’t new, different, or weird. This episode was a get-to-know-each-other, and build a pseudo-sibling relationship, right? Because anything else would be weird in a bad way, not an interesting way. There was a considerable shift in our TVA ‘Smart’ Loki character evolution, he opened-up, announced that he was a member of the LGBTQQIAAP nation, progress! First bi-sexual character in the MCU, way to go Disney, getting with the times! It was still a filler episode though, and while the stakes seemed high, you knew that there were three more episodes to go, of course they would live.
Again, I was reassured after this lackluster episode by Hiddleston, that 4 and 5 were his favorite. That fact is now disturbing.
Episode 4 was the death knell. I think the response from the creative team afterwards was also incredibly tone-deaf, and, quite frankly, insulting. The 4th episode was so bad, I legitimately had to go cleanse my eyes and brain with a GBBO marathon. The fact that the creative team had no idea that the insta-love (see: Jane and Thor - Thor) between two characters that had seemingly formed a pseudo-sibling relationship wouldn’t come off a little incest-y is really strange to me. If a pseudo-sibling relationship was not the intention, then it was poor writing, directing and acting by all parties involved. Sometimes, when a Mary Sue punches our main character, he falls in love with her (see: Hope and Scott - Ant-Man). The whole narcissism thing was hilarious, I’m glad our TVA ‘Smart’ Loki was cured of that by Sylvie and another *strong* personality-lacking woman (see: Sif -Thor/Thor: the Dark World) kicking him between the legs was what he’d needed all along. If a small portion of this episode was actually utilizing the myth of Narcissus, then I’m glad they followed it through to the dying part. This is when everything clicked for me. Our TVA ‘Smart’ Loki’s character evolution made him a big ol’ bowl of mushy, overcooked oatmeal. HOW and WHY would you take one of the best anti-heroes in the MCU, or any superhero franchise, and make him so mushy? More importantly, I didn’t care about what happened to any of the characters, except B-15. Normally, that’s my cue to stop watching a show, but I wanted to see if they tried to convince audiences that this Oatmeal Loki was actually smart and logical.
Episode 5 was when things slightly improved. Again, I couldn’t forgive the events of Episode 4, and I totally fast-forwarded during whatever talk Loki and Mary Sue, sorry, Sylvie, had with a blankie around their shoulders. All of the other Lokis were better in their tiny amount of screen time than Oatmeal Loki and Mary Sue Loki. Alligator Loki had more personality than Sylvie. Richard Grant is the superior Loki in my opinion. This episode also reintroduced hand holding with CGI colors swirling around characters (see: Guardians of the Galaxy).
Episode 6 was our finale. Thank God. We’re introduced to the real head of the TVA, which was who everyone was expecting. This episode was a little slow-paced, with a lot of interesting chit-chat. Oatmeal Loki actually seemed like he had a brain cell or two for a few brief, fleeting moments. He even showed off some of his powers, which, by the way, we were told we’d see more of… but didn’t. Then, our Oatmeal Loki was distracted by his Mary Sue, went for a kiss, and plopped right on his ass, looking like a fool. I almost snorted my coffee as I watched. Then, they confirmed a Season 2.
Honestly, I was hoping Oatmeal Loki and Mary Sue Loki would get killed off. Sadly, it didn’t happen, and they’re getting another series, and an appearance in Ironman with Magic. I’m so glad this series was something new, different, and weird, not just the bog-standard, MCU drivel we normally get. Oh, wait… I probably don’t even need to state that this wasn’t my cup of tea, and, again, solidified the fact that I’m over the MCU. I also know that I should avoid anything Michael Waldron and Kate Herron touch. Eventually, I’ll stop feeling betrayed by Hiddleston, but it may take a while. Is that ridiculous? Probably.
On one hand, my ma always told me, if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all, but on the other hand, I haven’t been this pissed off at a major franchise since Star Wars: The Last Jedi. My visceral, negative reaction was caused by many things.
First, this series did not need to be made. Loki had a perfect ending to his overall arc, and it really didn’t need to be messed with. I am a huge Tom Hiddleston fan, I went to NYC to see him in a play, waited outside freezing my butt off to meet him, all of that. I was so glad when Loki was killed off, so he’d be free to do other things, and not just be known for Loki. Alas, that did not happen.
This series was made for two subsets of fans: the fans that can’t accept the death of their favorite character, and the fans that are absolutely, irrationally obsessed with having their favorite character paired up romantically. I fall into neither of these categories. ‘More Stories to Tell’ was the tagline… it should have been ‘More Money to be Made’.
After watching the same movie in a different flavor for over ten years, I realized that maybe the MCU wasn’t for me anymore. But, when Loki was announced, I was promised something new and weird! I thought, maybe this will be the show to get me back into the MCU. That was not the case. I cannot believe the rave reviews about this series; did we all watch the same thing?
The first warning sign for me was when it was announced that Michael Waldron, who was a writer for Rick & Morty was going to be helming this series. Rick & Morty is funny… if you’re a dude-bro, drunk, or high. When I read a few of his interviews prior to the release of Loki, another warning sign, this guy kind of sounded like a huge douchebag. I was then calmed and reassured that maybe it wouldn’t be a train-wreck because Hiddleston was heavily involved in the series.
As I’ve mentioned before, we were promised something new, different, and weird. Don’t make promises you can’t keep, creative team behind Loki.
Episode 1 was cheap; did I need to see clips from previous movies used in a very uncreative way? No, I did not. There was also something just off about the casting of Wilson. Now, this may be on me because my teen-years were spent quoting Owen Wilson films. There were a few things I liked about Episode 1, like the Blade Runner robot reference. There was a red flag in this episode though. Pro-tip: never, EVER have a character verbalize/confirm that they’re smart. Because it’s probably not the case.
Episode 2 was the bright spot, it was my favorite, by far. It was fast-paced, amusing, and the most interesting episode out of the whole series. The Mt Vesuvius/unleashing of the goats thing was the sort of thing I was looking for in this series. I actually chuckled a little, which rarely happens. It moved the story along, and we get the big reveal of the Loki variant that’s causing all the havoc.
Episode 3 was, for lack of a better word, boring. The pace slowed, and it was the infamous Disney+ show filler episode. We’re introduced to Mary Sue, sorry, I mean Lady Loki, but not really, Sylvie, the Enchantress, right? No, wait, she’s a completely different, new character. Probably shouldn’t have opted for the name Sylvie in that case. She’s a brand new, *strong* female, that shows her strength by punching people and has no personality (see: Carol Danvers - Captain Marvel, Hope van Dyne - Ant-Man). Y’all, you told me you were going to give me something different, new, weird. A Mary Sue isn’t new, different, or weird. This episode was a get-to-know-each-other, and build a pseudo-sibling relationship, right? Because anything else would be weird in a bad way, not an interesting way. There was a considerable shift in our TVA ‘Smart’ Loki character evolution, he opened-up, announced that he was a member of the LGBTQQIAAP nation, progress! First bi-sexual character in the MCU, way to go Disney, getting with the times! It was still a filler episode though, and while the stakes seemed high, you knew that there were three more episodes to go, of course they would live.
Again, I was reassured after this lackluster episode by Hiddleston, that 4 and 5 were his favorite. That fact is now disturbing.
Episode 4 was the death knell. I think the response from the creative team afterwards was also incredibly tone-deaf, and, quite frankly, insulting. The 4th episode was so bad, I legitimately had to go cleanse my eyes and brain with a GBBO marathon. The fact that the creative team had no idea that the insta-love (see: Jane and Thor - Thor) between two characters that had seemingly formed a pseudo-sibling relationship wouldn’t come off a little incest-y is really strange to me. If a pseudo-sibling relationship was not the intention, then it was poor writing, directing and acting by all parties involved. Sometimes, when a Mary Sue punches our main character, he falls in love with her (see: Hope and Scott - Ant-Man). The whole narcissism thing was hilarious, I’m glad our TVA ‘Smart’ Loki was cured of that by Sylvie and another *strong* personality-lacking woman (see: Sif -Thor/Thor: the Dark World) kicking him between the legs was what he’d needed all along. If a small portion of this episode was actually utilizing the myth of Narcissus, then I’m glad they followed it through to the dying part. This is when everything clicked for me. Our TVA ‘Smart’ Loki’s character evolution made him a big ol’ bowl of mushy, overcooked oatmeal. HOW and WHY would you take one of the best anti-heroes in the MCU, or any superhero franchise, and make him so mushy? More importantly, I didn’t care about what happened to any of the characters, except B-15. Normally, that’s my cue to stop watching a show, but I wanted to see if they tried to convince audiences that this Oatmeal Loki was actually smart and logical.
Episode 5 was when things slightly improved. Again, I couldn’t forgive the events of Episode 4, and I totally fast-forwarded during whatever talk Loki and Mary Sue, sorry, Sylvie, had with a blankie around their shoulders. All of the other Lokis were better in their tiny amount of screen time than Oatmeal Loki and Mary Sue Loki. Alligator Loki had more personality than Sylvie. Richard Grant is the superior Loki in my opinion. This episode also reintroduced hand holding with CGI colors swirling around characters (see: Guardians of the Galaxy).
Episode 6 was our finale. Thank God. We’re introduced to the real head of the TVA, which was who everyone was expecting. This episode was a little slow-paced, with a lot of interesting chit-chat. Oatmeal Loki actually seemed like he had a brain cell or two for a few brief, fleeting moments. He even showed off some of his powers, which, by the way, we were told we’d see more of… but didn’t. Then, our Oatmeal Loki was distracted by his Mary Sue, went for a kiss, and plopped right on his ass, looking like a fool. I almost snorted my coffee as I watched. Then, they confirmed a Season 2.
Honestly, I was hoping Oatmeal Loki and Mary Sue Loki would get killed off. Sadly, it didn’t happen, and they’re getting another series, and an appearance in Ironman with Magic. I’m so glad this series was something new, different, and weird, not just the bog-standard, MCU drivel we normally get. Oh, wait… I probably don’t even need to state that this wasn’t my cup of tea, and, again, solidified the fact that I’m over the MCU. I also know that I should avoid anything Michael Waldron and Kate Herron touch. Eventually, I’ll stop feeling betrayed by Hiddleston, but it may take a while. Is that ridiculous? Probably.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Last of Us Part II in Video Games
Jun 30, 2020 (Updated Jul 1, 2020)
Gameplay (2 more)
Graphics
Sound
I'm Not Mad, I'm Just Disappointed
Contains spoilers, click to show
It's been a while since I've written anything, but I couldn't let this one go by without saying anything about it.
The Last Of Us Part 2 is the biggest disappointment of 2020.
I finished the game a few days ago and have been letting it process in my mind in the hopes that it will somehow make more sense to me. So far that hasn't been the case.
Let me provide you with some context, I wanted to like this game more than anyone. The first Last Of Us is one of my favourite games of all time and because of the spectacular writing and performances in that first game, I was really excited to see what would happen to these characters. This was definitely one of my most anticipated releases in recent years and I'm genuinely in awe at how much of a let down it was, especially after the 10/10 reviews I had been reading leading up to the game's release.
Spoilers will follow from this point on as it's pretty difficult to discuss my reasoning for being let down by the game without getting in depth, so please tread carefully if you have yet to play through the game.
First off, I don't normally like to bring up my personal politics when discussing fictional media, but I do feel that it's necessary to mention that I am pro LGBTQ+ and none of my issues with this game stem from any sort of political bias that I may have.
The game opens slowly, juxtaposing the intense opening of the first game. However these slow opening few hours really allow you to drink in the breathtaking visuals and fantastic sound design. These elements really help to sell the cinematic nature of the game, along with consistently stellar performances.
Then we are shown the main conflict that will propel the story for the sequel. Joel is unceremoniosly murdered by Abby, a new character that we know nothing about at this point.
Now I don't have a problem with main characters being killed off in a story, in fact as a Tarantino fan, I relish it when it's done properly. The problem with Joel's death is the way that it was executed. First off, Joel and Tommy would never in a million years have blindly trusted this random faction that they've just bumped into enough to give them their names so quickly. They've both survived 25 years in the apocalypse and yet the writers still expect you to believe that they would be this naïve and stupid. Then, there's the fact that this is how they choose to introduce this new group that you are later expected to sympathize with and this character that they will later force you to play as for half the game. Why would anyone who is a fan of this world and these characters want to play and learn about this random ruthless killer?
Now, what you might be asking is "aren't Joel and Ellie ruthless killers at this point?" And you would be right, they are. However the point is that we were already invested in these characters before we seen them ruthlessly murdering infected and humans alike and therefore are able to put it down to them having to do what they had to in order to survive. With Abby you are introduced to her killing a beloved character from the first game for the sake of pure shock value.
The first game came out during an oversaturation period of zombie stories across media and yet because of it's stellar writing, it managed to stand out from the crowd and actually become one of the most unique games of the last generation in terms of the story it told. The story in this game feels so generic by comparison. I remember watching interviews with Neil Druckman in the lead up to the game's release where he would talk about how the main hurdle of writing this game was justifying it's existence after the first one ended so well. Really? You had seven years and another generic revenge plot was the best thing that you could come up with?
Another highlight from the first game was the fleshed out side characters that all felt deep and like they really existed in the world. Characters like Tess, Bill and Marlene all naturally fitted into the plot and felt necessary to the overall story being told. The same cannot be said for the side characters in this game. I have already mentioned how it is made impossible to sympathize with Abby and her crew after seeing what they did to Joel. There are two other new characters introduced called Yara and Lev. They are siblings, which put me in mind of Henry and Sam from the first game, but where Henry and Sam felt layered and genuine, Yara and Lev feel shallow and shoehorned in to give Abby's plotline some narrative weight.
Then there is the strange pacing of the story. I feel like I must reiterate, they introduce a character that murders the beloved protagonist from the first game and later expect you to sympathize with her. Then there is the fact that you play as Ellie for the next 8 hours or so before they present you with a shocking cliffhanger, only to then force you to play as Abby for the next 10 hours. Not only are they making you play as the character that murdered Joel and Jessie in cold blood, but every extra hour that they unsuccessfully attempt to make you feel sorry for Abby is another hour before you can get back to see how the cliffhanger, (that was introduced 10 hours ago,) is resolved. And then, they bafflingly make you fight Ellie while playing as Abby. Why would the game expect me to want to hurt this character that I care about as this brand new random stranger?
You are then eventually given control back as Ellie and the game lulls you into a false sense of thinking that you are finally done playing as Abby. Then Ellie makes the totally nonsensical decision to abandon a nice, cushty, quiet farm life that she's carved out for herself, to go after Abby yet again.
After that, you guessed it! You are forced to play as Abby yet again. Thankfully it's only briefly as we then at long last get to properly play as Ellie again. Not sure if you remember her at this point, she's the one that's in all of the trailers and posters and on the cover of the damn game?
Then we get what is probably the most anticlimactic ending in the history of gaming. Ellie lets Abby go. After Abby killed Joel and Jessie and crippled Tommy and after Ellie murdered all of Abby's friends and after Ellie abandoned her girlfriend and step-son and had her fingers bitten off, she's just like, "nah fam, I'm good."
I'm sorry, what?
You are going to break your promise to Tommy and let the person that murdered your father figure get away? Why?
If getting your revenge wasn't worth it, you should have really realized that back on the farm when you were surrounded by people you love and a chance at a family life. If you chose to leave that behind you must be committed enough to see it through, otherwise it is all for nothing. There is subverting audience expectations and then there is having your characters make nonsensical decisions and I feel like TLOU2 was full of the latter.
On a positive note, the gameplay is extremely fun and satisfying. Every blow lands with more force and every bullet seems to strike even harder than in the first game. It does get a bit repetitive after a while and the actual function of taking out a group of enemies hasn't evolved a great deal since the first game, but I still really enjoyed it. The upgrading and crafting systems have also been fleshed out. This, along with the immaculate graphical presentation, tight, fluid animations, brilliant audio and expectedly phenomenal performances make for something with so much potential, with only the writing and direction letting it down. Unfortunately, writing and directing are both pretty essential in a story driven game.
Before I summarise, I'd like to highlight that I am not against stories that explore the moral grey area and don't have clear heroes and villains. For example, Metal Gear Solid is my favourite franchise in gaming and the whole point of that series is to show that there is no black and white, but we all do things for our own reasons. A good story should be able to make you see the things from the "villain's" point of view without being like, "look see what you did to them? That is why they are the way they are! Look see, she is a good person because she plays fetch with dogs!" In TLOU2 it all just feels so forced and unnatural. A good storyteller should show a character's motivations and then show their actions and leave it up to audience to decide if it's justified, instead of strictly saying, "this character is 100% justified in the heinous act that you just seen her commit, now you must be on her side!"
I think that's all that I've got to say and I guess at the very least, this game has got people talking. You cannot accuse it of playing it safe, but there are a ton of different ways that the plot could have went that probably would have been a lot more satisfying for fans of the series like myself. 6/10
The Last Of Us Part 2 is the biggest disappointment of 2020.
I finished the game a few days ago and have been letting it process in my mind in the hopes that it will somehow make more sense to me. So far that hasn't been the case.
Let me provide you with some context, I wanted to like this game more than anyone. The first Last Of Us is one of my favourite games of all time and because of the spectacular writing and performances in that first game, I was really excited to see what would happen to these characters. This was definitely one of my most anticipated releases in recent years and I'm genuinely in awe at how much of a let down it was, especially after the 10/10 reviews I had been reading leading up to the game's release.
Spoilers will follow from this point on as it's pretty difficult to discuss my reasoning for being let down by the game without getting in depth, so please tread carefully if you have yet to play through the game.
First off, I don't normally like to bring up my personal politics when discussing fictional media, but I do feel that it's necessary to mention that I am pro LGBTQ+ and none of my issues with this game stem from any sort of political bias that I may have.
The game opens slowly, juxtaposing the intense opening of the first game. However these slow opening few hours really allow you to drink in the breathtaking visuals and fantastic sound design. These elements really help to sell the cinematic nature of the game, along with consistently stellar performances.
Then we are shown the main conflict that will propel the story for the sequel. Joel is unceremoniosly murdered by Abby, a new character that we know nothing about at this point.
Now I don't have a problem with main characters being killed off in a story, in fact as a Tarantino fan, I relish it when it's done properly. The problem with Joel's death is the way that it was executed. First off, Joel and Tommy would never in a million years have blindly trusted this random faction that they've just bumped into enough to give them their names so quickly. They've both survived 25 years in the apocalypse and yet the writers still expect you to believe that they would be this naïve and stupid. Then, there's the fact that this is how they choose to introduce this new group that you are later expected to sympathize with and this character that they will later force you to play as for half the game. Why would anyone who is a fan of this world and these characters want to play and learn about this random ruthless killer?
Now, what you might be asking is "aren't Joel and Ellie ruthless killers at this point?" And you would be right, they are. However the point is that we were already invested in these characters before we seen them ruthlessly murdering infected and humans alike and therefore are able to put it down to them having to do what they had to in order to survive. With Abby you are introduced to her killing a beloved character from the first game for the sake of pure shock value.
The first game came out during an oversaturation period of zombie stories across media and yet because of it's stellar writing, it managed to stand out from the crowd and actually become one of the most unique games of the last generation in terms of the story it told. The story in this game feels so generic by comparison. I remember watching interviews with Neil Druckman in the lead up to the game's release where he would talk about how the main hurdle of writing this game was justifying it's existence after the first one ended so well. Really? You had seven years and another generic revenge plot was the best thing that you could come up with?
Another highlight from the first game was the fleshed out side characters that all felt deep and like they really existed in the world. Characters like Tess, Bill and Marlene all naturally fitted into the plot and felt necessary to the overall story being told. The same cannot be said for the side characters in this game. I have already mentioned how it is made impossible to sympathize with Abby and her crew after seeing what they did to Joel. There are two other new characters introduced called Yara and Lev. They are siblings, which put me in mind of Henry and Sam from the first game, but where Henry and Sam felt layered and genuine, Yara and Lev feel shallow and shoehorned in to give Abby's plotline some narrative weight.
Then there is the strange pacing of the story. I feel like I must reiterate, they introduce a character that murders the beloved protagonist from the first game and later expect you to sympathize with her. Then there is the fact that you play as Ellie for the next 8 hours or so before they present you with a shocking cliffhanger, only to then force you to play as Abby for the next 10 hours. Not only are they making you play as the character that murdered Joel and Jessie in cold blood, but every extra hour that they unsuccessfully attempt to make you feel sorry for Abby is another hour before you can get back to see how the cliffhanger, (that was introduced 10 hours ago,) is resolved. And then, they bafflingly make you fight Ellie while playing as Abby. Why would the game expect me to want to hurt this character that I care about as this brand new random stranger?
You are then eventually given control back as Ellie and the game lulls you into a false sense of thinking that you are finally done playing as Abby. Then Ellie makes the totally nonsensical decision to abandon a nice, cushty, quiet farm life that she's carved out for herself, to go after Abby yet again.
After that, you guessed it! You are forced to play as Abby yet again. Thankfully it's only briefly as we then at long last get to properly play as Ellie again. Not sure if you remember her at this point, she's the one that's in all of the trailers and posters and on the cover of the damn game?
Then we get what is probably the most anticlimactic ending in the history of gaming. Ellie lets Abby go. After Abby killed Joel and Jessie and crippled Tommy and after Ellie murdered all of Abby's friends and after Ellie abandoned her girlfriend and step-son and had her fingers bitten off, she's just like, "nah fam, I'm good."
I'm sorry, what?
You are going to break your promise to Tommy and let the person that murdered your father figure get away? Why?
If getting your revenge wasn't worth it, you should have really realized that back on the farm when you were surrounded by people you love and a chance at a family life. If you chose to leave that behind you must be committed enough to see it through, otherwise it is all for nothing. There is subverting audience expectations and then there is having your characters make nonsensical decisions and I feel like TLOU2 was full of the latter.
On a positive note, the gameplay is extremely fun and satisfying. Every blow lands with more force and every bullet seems to strike even harder than in the first game. It does get a bit repetitive after a while and the actual function of taking out a group of enemies hasn't evolved a great deal since the first game, but I still really enjoyed it. The upgrading and crafting systems have also been fleshed out. This, along with the immaculate graphical presentation, tight, fluid animations, brilliant audio and expectedly phenomenal performances make for something with so much potential, with only the writing and direction letting it down. Unfortunately, writing and directing are both pretty essential in a story driven game.
Before I summarise, I'd like to highlight that I am not against stories that explore the moral grey area and don't have clear heroes and villains. For example, Metal Gear Solid is my favourite franchise in gaming and the whole point of that series is to show that there is no black and white, but we all do things for our own reasons. A good story should be able to make you see the things from the "villain's" point of view without being like, "look see what you did to them? That is why they are the way they are! Look see, she is a good person because she plays fetch with dogs!" In TLOU2 it all just feels so forced and unnatural. A good storyteller should show a character's motivations and then show their actions and leave it up to audience to decide if it's justified, instead of strictly saying, "this character is 100% justified in the heinous act that you just seen her commit, now you must be on her side!"
I think that's all that I've got to say and I guess at the very least, this game has got people talking. You cannot accuse it of playing it safe, but there are a ton of different ways that the plot could have went that probably would have been a lot more satisfying for fans of the series like myself. 6/10