Search
Search results
Andy K (10821 KP) rated The Blair Witch Project (1999) in Movies
Oct 18, 2019
While this film is credited as being the first "found footage" film ever made, it is not true. I found several websites even saying the same thing. Not true. That award goes to Cannibal Holocaust (I am pretty sure) which was release almost two decades earlier (1980 vs. 1999).
The film begins with sort of standard documentary fare showing interviews with the Maryland locals discussing if they have heard of the legend of the Blair Witch. For those that had, they recalled their own memories of the stories they had heard from others or from their childhood. Eventually, the documentary filmmakers meet the odd-looking Mary Brown who details her first hand experience with the demon recalling its weird hairy appearance.
Heather, Josh and Michael then decide to go for an outdoor wooded adventure in an attempt to locate and document evidence of the existence of the local legend themselves, not knowing what lies ahead for them. The journey starts out pretty normal with Heather doing most of the onscreen explanations, the other two mostly relegated to replying to her whims or arguing with her about various topics.
Eventually, a few bad thing start to happen including the loss of their woodland map and hearing strange sounds during the blackness of night. They now wander the woods becoming increasingly agitated with each other and their situation when it is revealed they may be walking in circles and are no closer to completing their quest or finding their way out. They see various various stick and rock formations which are not naturally occurring which means someone else is out there with them.
I remember sitting in a darkened theatre in 1999 hearing about this film briefly before its release. Not much was known at the time, and I recall this being one of the first films to have significant internet buzz beforehand. The internet was only a few years old at the time, so this was also a relatively new concept. Modern audiences are spoiled with so much content for every film available online, that everyone almost loses the feeling of being completely surprised by a film you knew virtually nothing about going in.
For Blair Witch, the added element of the "found footage" style was foreign to pretty much everyone which added to the hype and box office success of the film. Virtually the entire viewing public were not completely sure if what they were watching actually happened or this was fiction. It helped that writer/directors Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sánchez used an unknown cast so seeing someone they recognized onscreen would not ruin the experience of believing its authenticity.
I am down on sloppy modern moviemakers most of the time these days relying so heavily on CGI and making movies look like pretty perfection rather than focusing on the most important thing for a horror film (or any film) a good screenplay and implied tension. For Blair Witch, it has been said some scenes were improvised or given a general direction but not a full script; however, that doesn't detract from the authentic nature of the situation.
The 2nd half of the film has some truly terrifying moments which happen in the background or off-screen showing you don't need to spend all your money on a CGI monster, just make it scary. The scene and keyart for the film showing the top half of Heather's head which she speaks into the camera explaining her terror and anguish is so believable and mesmerizing it send chills down my spine every time I watch it.
The film also get bagged for the ending which might be considered too short or anti-climactic; however, I think it's perfect and really the only way the movie could have gone.
The film begins with sort of standard documentary fare showing interviews with the Maryland locals discussing if they have heard of the legend of the Blair Witch. For those that had, they recalled their own memories of the stories they had heard from others or from their childhood. Eventually, the documentary filmmakers meet the odd-looking Mary Brown who details her first hand experience with the demon recalling its weird hairy appearance.
Heather, Josh and Michael then decide to go for an outdoor wooded adventure in an attempt to locate and document evidence of the existence of the local legend themselves, not knowing what lies ahead for them. The journey starts out pretty normal with Heather doing most of the onscreen explanations, the other two mostly relegated to replying to her whims or arguing with her about various topics.
Eventually, a few bad thing start to happen including the loss of their woodland map and hearing strange sounds during the blackness of night. They now wander the woods becoming increasingly agitated with each other and their situation when it is revealed they may be walking in circles and are no closer to completing their quest or finding their way out. They see various various stick and rock formations which are not naturally occurring which means someone else is out there with them.
I remember sitting in a darkened theatre in 1999 hearing about this film briefly before its release. Not much was known at the time, and I recall this being one of the first films to have significant internet buzz beforehand. The internet was only a few years old at the time, so this was also a relatively new concept. Modern audiences are spoiled with so much content for every film available online, that everyone almost loses the feeling of being completely surprised by a film you knew virtually nothing about going in.
For Blair Witch, the added element of the "found footage" style was foreign to pretty much everyone which added to the hype and box office success of the film. Virtually the entire viewing public were not completely sure if what they were watching actually happened or this was fiction. It helped that writer/directors Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sánchez used an unknown cast so seeing someone they recognized onscreen would not ruin the experience of believing its authenticity.
I am down on sloppy modern moviemakers most of the time these days relying so heavily on CGI and making movies look like pretty perfection rather than focusing on the most important thing for a horror film (or any film) a good screenplay and implied tension. For Blair Witch, it has been said some scenes were improvised or given a general direction but not a full script; however, that doesn't detract from the authentic nature of the situation.
The 2nd half of the film has some truly terrifying moments which happen in the background or off-screen showing you don't need to spend all your money on a CGI monster, just make it scary. The scene and keyart for the film showing the top half of Heather's head which she speaks into the camera explaining her terror and anguish is so believable and mesmerizing it send chills down my spine every time I watch it.
The film also get bagged for the ending which might be considered too short or anti-climactic; however, I think it's perfect and really the only way the movie could have gone.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated 2012 (2009) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
Disaster films and Hollywood have enjoyed a long and successful partnership over the years as box office gold has been found in fictional disasters. Irwin Allen had a string of hits such as “The Towering Inferno” and “The Poseidon Adventure” which in turn lead to the films such as “Dante’s Peak”, “Volcano”, “Deep Impact”, and “Armageddon” who kept the tried and true formula of relatable, regular people forced to cope with extraordinary situations where they must battle against all odds to survive.
In the new film “2012” director Roland Emmerich follows up his other end-of-the world epics “Independence Day” and “The Day After Tomorrow”, with a story about the total devastation of the earth and all life upon it due to an increase of neutrinos from the sun heating the earth’s core causing the displacement of the Earth’s crust.
Keeping to the established formula of the disaster films, 2012 centers around a struggling writer named Jackson Curtis (John Cusack), who learns of the pending catastrophic events while camping at Yellowstone National Park with his children. The presence of forbidden areas and swarms of soldiers and scientists leads Jackson to believe that the local conspiracy radio host Charlie Frost (Woody Harrelson), might be right in his predictions that we are all on borrowed time, and that the increase in earthquakes and fissures along the fault lines are a very bad omen.
Unbeknownst to Jackson, and the majority of the world’s population, U.S. President Wilson (Danny Glover), and his fellow heads of state, are preparing for the coming tragedy. Carl Anheuser (Oliver Platt) and a team of geologists lead by Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetal Ojiofore) are trying to determine exactly how much time they have to save what they can of humanity. Unaware that the fate of mankind is being decided by the politicians and those with money, Jackson and his children soon find themselves rushing to stay alive, with his ex-wife Kate (Amanda Peet), and her boyfriend in tow. Jackson learns of a plan to save select members of the population and pins their very survival on being able to arrive at what they hope is their salvation before time runs out.
Spectacular effects follow as Los Angeles and other cities are swallowed up by massive sinkholes and buried under collapsing bridges and buildings in some of the most amazing sequences of mayhem and destruction ever captured on film. The movie does an amazing job of showing the absolute calamity and chaos and does a passable job with the relationships between the characters. There are some nice supporting performances from Thandie Newton and George Segal. It is just a shame they were not given a bit more to work with. The cookie cutter scenarios that many characters faced seem to have been lifted from the book of disaster film plots.
I did not go into the film expecting realism, as I fully expect the world will go on as normal on December 22, 2012. However, I did have to note some of the absurd developments that strained any semblance of credibility the film may have had. One such scene had the characters being flooded and trapped for an extended period of time by water. Since their locale was near Mt Everest, I had to assume that it was not warm spring water they were submerged in, and had to wonder if hypothermia just went the way of most of the human populace.
Then again, we were dealing with a heated core that was essentially melting the earth’s crust. So maybe the water was warm.
As with all disaster movies, I do have to remember the audience is asked to suspend all disbelief, at least for 160 minutes. While the film does take some vast leaps of logic, there is enough good action, special effects, and strained levity to make this a good distraction, as long as you are willing to check your brain at the door and just enjoy the ride.
In the new film “2012” director Roland Emmerich follows up his other end-of-the world epics “Independence Day” and “The Day After Tomorrow”, with a story about the total devastation of the earth and all life upon it due to an increase of neutrinos from the sun heating the earth’s core causing the displacement of the Earth’s crust.
Keeping to the established formula of the disaster films, 2012 centers around a struggling writer named Jackson Curtis (John Cusack), who learns of the pending catastrophic events while camping at Yellowstone National Park with his children. The presence of forbidden areas and swarms of soldiers and scientists leads Jackson to believe that the local conspiracy radio host Charlie Frost (Woody Harrelson), might be right in his predictions that we are all on borrowed time, and that the increase in earthquakes and fissures along the fault lines are a very bad omen.
Unbeknownst to Jackson, and the majority of the world’s population, U.S. President Wilson (Danny Glover), and his fellow heads of state, are preparing for the coming tragedy. Carl Anheuser (Oliver Platt) and a team of geologists lead by Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetal Ojiofore) are trying to determine exactly how much time they have to save what they can of humanity. Unaware that the fate of mankind is being decided by the politicians and those with money, Jackson and his children soon find themselves rushing to stay alive, with his ex-wife Kate (Amanda Peet), and her boyfriend in tow. Jackson learns of a plan to save select members of the population and pins their very survival on being able to arrive at what they hope is their salvation before time runs out.
Spectacular effects follow as Los Angeles and other cities are swallowed up by massive sinkholes and buried under collapsing bridges and buildings in some of the most amazing sequences of mayhem and destruction ever captured on film. The movie does an amazing job of showing the absolute calamity and chaos and does a passable job with the relationships between the characters. There are some nice supporting performances from Thandie Newton and George Segal. It is just a shame they were not given a bit more to work with. The cookie cutter scenarios that many characters faced seem to have been lifted from the book of disaster film plots.
I did not go into the film expecting realism, as I fully expect the world will go on as normal on December 22, 2012. However, I did have to note some of the absurd developments that strained any semblance of credibility the film may have had. One such scene had the characters being flooded and trapped for an extended period of time by water. Since their locale was near Mt Everest, I had to assume that it was not warm spring water they were submerged in, and had to wonder if hypothermia just went the way of most of the human populace.
Then again, we were dealing with a heated core that was essentially melting the earth’s crust. So maybe the water was warm.
As with all disaster movies, I do have to remember the audience is asked to suspend all disbelief, at least for 160 minutes. While the film does take some vast leaps of logic, there is enough good action, special effects, and strained levity to make this a good distraction, as long as you are willing to check your brain at the door and just enjoy the ride.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Bruno (2009) in Movies
Aug 9, 2019
Life is good for Austrian fashonista Bruno (Sacha Baron Cohen). As the star of the top Austrian fashion show, he is a fixture at all of the social events and is the flamboyant highpoint of any event he graces.
That is until things go awry and Bruno finds himself on the outside looking in and is blacklisted from the European fashion industry he lives for.
Undaunted, Bruno sets out to become a star and take America by storm in the shockingly outrageous and sure to be controversial “Bruno”. The film is a follow up to “Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan” which took the box office by storm when it was released three years ago.
Upon arriving in America, Bruno sets out to be a star, but soon runs into trouble when his first day on a television set goes out of control. If this was not bad enough, Bruno’s pitch for a variety shows scores badly with a focus group who are dismayed at the very graphic depiction of the male form and other outrageous humor.
Undaunted even when his attempts at celebrity interviews crash and burn around him, Bruno sets out to get tabloid attention by adopting a baby from Africa. This leads to a daring and outrageous segment on a Texas talk show where Bruno is verbally chastised by the predominately African American audience.
Unable to catch a break, Bruno travels to locales as diverse as Israel, Alabama, and Los Angeles hoping to get a break, but only finds failure. Despite his horrible luck, Bruno has the adoration of his assistant Lutz (Gustaf Hammarsten), which sadly for Gustaf is unrequited.
Desperate for acceptance, Bruno decides to become straight and sets off to the South to learn what being a straight man is all about which sets up some outrageous encounters ranging from a swingers party to a hilarious macho man event hosted by Bruno as “Straight Dave”.
While there are those who will see only the nudity and crude humor of the film and dismiss it, those who are more open minded will see the genius of Cohen who is a master of improvisational. It is fascinating to see how much he throws himself into a scene and literally becomes his characters. No matter how outrageous the scenario, Cohen is not afraid to push the boundaries and get people to expose their true selves.
While his scenarios shock, they also educate and enlighten as he gets his unsuspecting co-stars to show sides of themselves and human nature which people try to hide and ignore. Despite thinking we are an enlightened society, there are those that are shocked by a person who is so flamboyant and open, even swingers whose very lifestyle is considered by most to be out of the norm and for others to be unordinary.
Numerous celebrity appearances also grace the film, which I will refrain from spoiling but suffice it to say add to the enjoyment of the film.
The movie does not have much in the way of plot and character development, but that is not the intention of the film, as the plot is a framework to connect the segments which work well in my opinion.
Unlike a Saturday Night Live sketch turned into a movie, “Bruno” works well within the films run time without overstaying its welcome and losing momentum.
In the end, you will either love or hate the film, and much of this will depend on your tolerance for very mature, bawdy, and controversial humor. For my taste, this was one of the funniest films I have ever seen and I could not stop laughing.
That is until things go awry and Bruno finds himself on the outside looking in and is blacklisted from the European fashion industry he lives for.
Undaunted, Bruno sets out to become a star and take America by storm in the shockingly outrageous and sure to be controversial “Bruno”. The film is a follow up to “Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan” which took the box office by storm when it was released three years ago.
Upon arriving in America, Bruno sets out to be a star, but soon runs into trouble when his first day on a television set goes out of control. If this was not bad enough, Bruno’s pitch for a variety shows scores badly with a focus group who are dismayed at the very graphic depiction of the male form and other outrageous humor.
Undaunted even when his attempts at celebrity interviews crash and burn around him, Bruno sets out to get tabloid attention by adopting a baby from Africa. This leads to a daring and outrageous segment on a Texas talk show where Bruno is verbally chastised by the predominately African American audience.
Unable to catch a break, Bruno travels to locales as diverse as Israel, Alabama, and Los Angeles hoping to get a break, but only finds failure. Despite his horrible luck, Bruno has the adoration of his assistant Lutz (Gustaf Hammarsten), which sadly for Gustaf is unrequited.
Desperate for acceptance, Bruno decides to become straight and sets off to the South to learn what being a straight man is all about which sets up some outrageous encounters ranging from a swingers party to a hilarious macho man event hosted by Bruno as “Straight Dave”.
While there are those who will see only the nudity and crude humor of the film and dismiss it, those who are more open minded will see the genius of Cohen who is a master of improvisational. It is fascinating to see how much he throws himself into a scene and literally becomes his characters. No matter how outrageous the scenario, Cohen is not afraid to push the boundaries and get people to expose their true selves.
While his scenarios shock, they also educate and enlighten as he gets his unsuspecting co-stars to show sides of themselves and human nature which people try to hide and ignore. Despite thinking we are an enlightened society, there are those that are shocked by a person who is so flamboyant and open, even swingers whose very lifestyle is considered by most to be out of the norm and for others to be unordinary.
Numerous celebrity appearances also grace the film, which I will refrain from spoiling but suffice it to say add to the enjoyment of the film.
The movie does not have much in the way of plot and character development, but that is not the intention of the film, as the plot is a framework to connect the segments which work well in my opinion.
Unlike a Saturday Night Live sketch turned into a movie, “Bruno” works well within the films run time without overstaying its welcome and losing momentum.
In the end, you will either love or hate the film, and much of this will depend on your tolerance for very mature, bawdy, and controversial humor. For my taste, this was one of the funniest films I have ever seen and I could not stop laughing.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Mario Party in Video Games
Nov 5, 2019
Ready To Party
Mario Party- you got to love it but at the same time you got to hate it. Cough - Chance Time. Anways Mario Party is a game that if you havent played yet, than i highly reccordmend it. Its fun, entertaining, fustrating, you will get a blister from rotating your plam from those rotating minigames and also chance time.
Lets talk more about it...
Mario Party is a party video game with six playable characters: Mario, Luigi, Princess Peach, Yoshi, Wario, or Donkey Kong. In the game's storyline, Mario and his friends argue about which of them is the Super Star. To settle their dispute, they set out for adventure to determine which of them is best.
Upon starting a board, players each hit a dice block to determine turn order, with the highest number going first on each turn and the lowest number going last.
Blue spaces give three coins to any player who lands on them, and red spaces take away three coins (both increased to six coins during the last five turns). Bowser also has his own spaces on the board map which hinder the players' progress.
Each player's goal is to collect the most stars. Purchasing stars requires coins, which can be earned through mini-games that are played once at the end of each turn. Each mini-game is chosen randomly. Mario Party features more than 50 mini-games, divided into several categories:
1. 4-player mini-game: each player competes against one another
2. 1 vs. 3 mini-game: a team of three players competes against a lone competitor.
3. 2 vs. 2 mini-game: competing teams of two against two.
4. 1-player mini-game: a lone player works toward a goal to win the mini-game.
Several characters appear throughout each board map, and each character can have an effect on players who reach them. Stars can be purchased from Toad for 20 coins. Boo can steal coins or a star from another player on behalf of anyone who requests it; stealing coins is free, but stealing a star costs 50 coins. Koopa Troopa appears at the starting point on board maps and will give 10 coins to each player who passes him. Bowser tries to foil the efforts of any player who passes him by taking coins.
Three bonus stars are awarded at the end of each board map: two are given to the player(s) who collected the most coins in mini-games and throughout the board map game, and the third is given to the player(s) who landed on the most "?" spaces.
In Mario Party, certain minigames required players to rotate the Nintendo 64 controller's analog stick as fast as they can. Some players reportedly got blisters, friction burns and lacerations from rotating the analog stick using the palms of their hands instead of using their thumb.
complaints were received by New York's attorney general's office and Nintendo of America eventually agreed to a settlement, which included providing gloves for anyone who had hurt their hand(s) while playing the game and paying the state's $75,000 legal fees. At the time, providing gloves for the estimated 1.2 million users of the game who might have been affected could have cost Nintendo up to $80 million.
The analog stick rotation has been used sparingly since Mario Party 2. Despite Nintendo's current analog sticks being better suited to play these games than the hard plastic of the N64 controller, Mario Party has not been re-released for the Virtual Console. For the Wii Virtual Console, Nintendo skipped it and instead re-released Mario Party 2, which was later also made available for the Wii U Virtual Console.
Mario Party is a must play game, like i said before its fun, enteraining, fustrating and you can either play with your friends or your family.
Lets talk more about it...
Mario Party is a party video game with six playable characters: Mario, Luigi, Princess Peach, Yoshi, Wario, or Donkey Kong. In the game's storyline, Mario and his friends argue about which of them is the Super Star. To settle their dispute, they set out for adventure to determine which of them is best.
Upon starting a board, players each hit a dice block to determine turn order, with the highest number going first on each turn and the lowest number going last.
Blue spaces give three coins to any player who lands on them, and red spaces take away three coins (both increased to six coins during the last five turns). Bowser also has his own spaces on the board map which hinder the players' progress.
Each player's goal is to collect the most stars. Purchasing stars requires coins, which can be earned through mini-games that are played once at the end of each turn. Each mini-game is chosen randomly. Mario Party features more than 50 mini-games, divided into several categories:
1. 4-player mini-game: each player competes against one another
2. 1 vs. 3 mini-game: a team of three players competes against a lone competitor.
3. 2 vs. 2 mini-game: competing teams of two against two.
4. 1-player mini-game: a lone player works toward a goal to win the mini-game.
Several characters appear throughout each board map, and each character can have an effect on players who reach them. Stars can be purchased from Toad for 20 coins. Boo can steal coins or a star from another player on behalf of anyone who requests it; stealing coins is free, but stealing a star costs 50 coins. Koopa Troopa appears at the starting point on board maps and will give 10 coins to each player who passes him. Bowser tries to foil the efforts of any player who passes him by taking coins.
Three bonus stars are awarded at the end of each board map: two are given to the player(s) who collected the most coins in mini-games and throughout the board map game, and the third is given to the player(s) who landed on the most "?" spaces.
In Mario Party, certain minigames required players to rotate the Nintendo 64 controller's analog stick as fast as they can. Some players reportedly got blisters, friction burns and lacerations from rotating the analog stick using the palms of their hands instead of using their thumb.
complaints were received by New York's attorney general's office and Nintendo of America eventually agreed to a settlement, which included providing gloves for anyone who had hurt their hand(s) while playing the game and paying the state's $75,000 legal fees. At the time, providing gloves for the estimated 1.2 million users of the game who might have been affected could have cost Nintendo up to $80 million.
The analog stick rotation has been used sparingly since Mario Party 2. Despite Nintendo's current analog sticks being better suited to play these games than the hard plastic of the N64 controller, Mario Party has not been re-released for the Virtual Console. For the Wii Virtual Console, Nintendo skipped it and instead re-released Mario Party 2, which was later also made available for the Wii U Virtual Console.
Mario Party is a must play game, like i said before its fun, enteraining, fustrating and you can either play with your friends or your family.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Two Popes (2019) in Movies
Jan 26, 2020 (Updated Jan 26, 2020)
Fantastic performances from two old acting pros.
Being inaugurated as a new pope in the last century must have been a source of enormous pride. But there must also have been a nagging thought... at some point you are going to be paraded, stiff as a board, around your work courtyard before being taken back inside to your place of work and buried there!
All that changed in 2013 when Pope Benedict XVI resigned, the first pope to voluntarily do so since Pope Celestine V in 1294. (Pope Gregory XII also resigned in 1415, but he was effectively forced to).
This movie tells the story of that curious situation, when Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio (played by Jonathan Pryce) ended up as Pope Francis while Benedict (Anthony Hopkins) was still alive. The official reason for the pope's resignation appears to have been his advanced age. But the film paints a rather different picture.
The movie starts back in 2005 as we enter the papal conclave. Benedict (Cardinal Ratzinger, as was) is the highly-political German cardinal who desperately wants the papacy; Bergoglio is the highly respected Argentinian cardinal who doesn't seek the office but might have it thrust upon him. (Clearly, when the white smoke clears, history has dictated the outcome).
But flash forward to 2013 and Bergoglio will get another bite of the cherry. Is he worthy of the role? Through flashbacks we return to Perón's unsettling rule over Argentina and the events that made the man.
The two stars are simply outstanding together, and it's no surprise at all that both have been nominated in the Oscar acting categories. They are almost joint leads. But - perhaps to give the film its best awards-season shot - Pryce is down for Best Actor and Hopkins is down for Best Supporting Actor.
Anthony Hopkins in particular for me shone with the brilliant quietness and subtle facial movements that are the mark of a truly confident actor. Less is more.
I was enjoying this movie enormously up until we flashed back to the Argentinian sub-plot. Set in the time of Perón's "Dirty War" when a huge number of people - estimates range from 9,000 to 30,000 - simply went "missing". There's nothing wrong with this sequence of the film. For example, a reunion of Bergoglio with a persecuted priest, Father Jalics (Lisandro Fiks) - is brilliantly and movingly done. It's just that for me it seemed so disjointed. It was jarring to switch from this Evita-era drama to the gentle drama of the papal plot.
If the movie had been 30 minutes shorter and focused on the mental struggles of Benedict I would have preferred it. Curiously - we don't really get to fully understand his divergence from the faith. Bergoglio gets no end of back-story. But Ratzinger's is probably just as interesting, but not explored.
This is still a really fine movie and will appeal to older folks who like a story rich with character acting and not heavy on the action or special effects. The director is Fernando Meirelles (who interestingly directed the Rio Olympics opening ceremony!) and it's written by Anthony McCarten, the man behind the screenplays for "The Theory of Everything", "Darkest Hour" and "Bohemian Rhapsody".
You may still be able to find this in selected cinemas (e.g. Curzon) but it is also streaming on Netflix, which is where I had to watch it.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/26/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-two-popes-2019/ ).
All that changed in 2013 when Pope Benedict XVI resigned, the first pope to voluntarily do so since Pope Celestine V in 1294. (Pope Gregory XII also resigned in 1415, but he was effectively forced to).
This movie tells the story of that curious situation, when Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio (played by Jonathan Pryce) ended up as Pope Francis while Benedict (Anthony Hopkins) was still alive. The official reason for the pope's resignation appears to have been his advanced age. But the film paints a rather different picture.
The movie starts back in 2005 as we enter the papal conclave. Benedict (Cardinal Ratzinger, as was) is the highly-political German cardinal who desperately wants the papacy; Bergoglio is the highly respected Argentinian cardinal who doesn't seek the office but might have it thrust upon him. (Clearly, when the white smoke clears, history has dictated the outcome).
But flash forward to 2013 and Bergoglio will get another bite of the cherry. Is he worthy of the role? Through flashbacks we return to Perón's unsettling rule over Argentina and the events that made the man.
The two stars are simply outstanding together, and it's no surprise at all that both have been nominated in the Oscar acting categories. They are almost joint leads. But - perhaps to give the film its best awards-season shot - Pryce is down for Best Actor and Hopkins is down for Best Supporting Actor.
Anthony Hopkins in particular for me shone with the brilliant quietness and subtle facial movements that are the mark of a truly confident actor. Less is more.
I was enjoying this movie enormously up until we flashed back to the Argentinian sub-plot. Set in the time of Perón's "Dirty War" when a huge number of people - estimates range from 9,000 to 30,000 - simply went "missing". There's nothing wrong with this sequence of the film. For example, a reunion of Bergoglio with a persecuted priest, Father Jalics (Lisandro Fiks) - is brilliantly and movingly done. It's just that for me it seemed so disjointed. It was jarring to switch from this Evita-era drama to the gentle drama of the papal plot.
If the movie had been 30 minutes shorter and focused on the mental struggles of Benedict I would have preferred it. Curiously - we don't really get to fully understand his divergence from the faith. Bergoglio gets no end of back-story. But Ratzinger's is probably just as interesting, but not explored.
This is still a really fine movie and will appeal to older folks who like a story rich with character acting and not heavy on the action or special effects. The director is Fernando Meirelles (who interestingly directed the Rio Olympics opening ceremony!) and it's written by Anthony McCarten, the man behind the screenplays for "The Theory of Everything", "Darkest Hour" and "Bohemian Rhapsody".
You may still be able to find this in selected cinemas (e.g. Curzon) but it is also streaming on Netflix, which is where I had to watch it.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/26/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-two-popes-2019/ ).
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Beautiful Creatures (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Hollywood has seemed to turn to books these days for inspiration to try and bring audiences the latest and greatest to the big screen. Has the industry turned to teen novels to solely follow in the footsteps of the widely known Twilight Saga success to in turn bring more money to the box office? It certainly wouldn’t be a bad idea to do so. With the success of the over saturated archetype of vampires and zombies, the path through the supernatural teen based stories has now led us to witches, or should I say casters. Based on the best selling American young adult series by Kami Garcia and Margaret Stohl, Beautiful Creatures is the first novel in the best selling series. The story is based in a small conservative town of Gatlin, South Carolina and is at first about Ethan Wate (Alden Ehrenreich) a seventeen year old young man who lives with his father that is stuck in morning over the death of his wife and the house keeper Amma (Viola Davis) who is also the towns all knowing librarian. Ethan dreams and hopes that one day he will break free of the small town of Gatlin and go to college far away. Lately though, he has been having a recurring dream of a young woman waiting for him on a Civil War battlefield. Every time he is close to reaching her a lightning bolt strikes just like a gunshot and he dies. Thankfully, it is only a dream but he doesn’t seem to be able to think about anything else other than the woman in his dreams and falls in love with this mystery woman, hoping one day he will be united with the girl of his dreams.
With the beginning of the first day of school a newcomer named Lena Duchannes (Alice Englert) seems to be an outcast because of her families history. Capturing the attention of Ethan he becomes more and more intrigued with her, despite the awful things that the other classmates are saying about her. Lena is the niece of Macon Ravenwood (Jeremy Irons), the owner of the one and only mysterious Gothic Ravenwood Manor. Lena has uncontrollable powers proving that some of what her classmates have been saying is true. Lena has until her sixteenth birthday to undergo the Claiming, a process that throughout the years makes a caster go to the light side or the dark side. The film also features an allstar cast such as: Alden Ehrenreich, (“Tetro”), Emmy Rossum, Thomas Mann, Emma Thompson, Rounding out the cast are Eileen Atkins, Margo Martindale, Zoey Deutch, Tiffany Boone, Rachel Brosnahan, Kyle Gallner, Pruitt Taylor Vince and Sam Gilroy.
The film Beautiful Creatures is a supernatural love story with some of the same ideas and themes as most of these supernatural teen movies based off of best selling novels. However, Beautiful Creatures was a refreshing take on the story of two young lovers, one who is human and the other who is a supernatural being. The scenery and use of the deep southern backdrops added to the mystery of the story. I have not read the book though I plan to, I am unable to comment on how close the movie was to the book. The special effects in the film were not overdone or out of place and were appropriate to each specific scene. Some comedic relief is found throughout the film and is not out of place. The flow of the story is also flawless including the music used for the soundtrack.
This film has been rated PG-13 for violence, scary images and some sexual material. I would recommend this to audiences of a variety of ages from young teen to older adult. Yes this film may have some similarities to other teen/supernatural films but all in all it is a film I definitely would recommend to our readers and I can’t wait for the second installment.
With the beginning of the first day of school a newcomer named Lena Duchannes (Alice Englert) seems to be an outcast because of her families history. Capturing the attention of Ethan he becomes more and more intrigued with her, despite the awful things that the other classmates are saying about her. Lena is the niece of Macon Ravenwood (Jeremy Irons), the owner of the one and only mysterious Gothic Ravenwood Manor. Lena has uncontrollable powers proving that some of what her classmates have been saying is true. Lena has until her sixteenth birthday to undergo the Claiming, a process that throughout the years makes a caster go to the light side or the dark side. The film also features an allstar cast such as: Alden Ehrenreich, (“Tetro”), Emmy Rossum, Thomas Mann, Emma Thompson, Rounding out the cast are Eileen Atkins, Margo Martindale, Zoey Deutch, Tiffany Boone, Rachel Brosnahan, Kyle Gallner, Pruitt Taylor Vince and Sam Gilroy.
The film Beautiful Creatures is a supernatural love story with some of the same ideas and themes as most of these supernatural teen movies based off of best selling novels. However, Beautiful Creatures was a refreshing take on the story of two young lovers, one who is human and the other who is a supernatural being. The scenery and use of the deep southern backdrops added to the mystery of the story. I have not read the book though I plan to, I am unable to comment on how close the movie was to the book. The special effects in the film were not overdone or out of place and were appropriate to each specific scene. Some comedic relief is found throughout the film and is not out of place. The flow of the story is also flawless including the music used for the soundtrack.
This film has been rated PG-13 for violence, scary images and some sexual material. I would recommend this to audiences of a variety of ages from young teen to older adult. Yes this film may have some similarities to other teen/supernatural films but all in all it is a film I definitely would recommend to our readers and I can’t wait for the second installment.
156Reviews (7 KP) rated Dark Waters (2019) in Movies
May 1, 2020
Films are important.
Films are important to us all for many different reasons, they show what we are, what we can be, what we aspire to be, of who we are. Sometimes that comes in the form of escapism, of dreaming that we can be better, Mark Ruffalo is no stranger to the genre I'm referring to, sometimes shows us our darkest fears and that we can overcome them, and sometimes, it shows us just how low, we as people can get, and never offer any kind of redemption. Dark Waters manages to be all of these things. A small intro before the film began had me franticly signing up to numerous petitions the second the film ended, joining a cause I didn't even know existed before I sat down to watch. This is why film is important, and why you should watch Dark Waters as soon as you can. So why the 3 out of 5 rating? Surely a film that EVERYONE should watch should get top marks, right? Unfortunately not.
The film begins with Rob Bilott (Mark Ruffalo), a corporate defence attorney, whose office is visited by a farmer from his home town, trying to raise a legal case against DuPont, a multi-billion dollar business, the towns biggest employer, and a chemical company at the heart of potentially poisoning the towns water supply. As Billot investigates the scale of the issue, and its inevitable cover up, it all becomes alarmingly clear. Thousands of people are being poisoned, they're health will likely deteriorate and life threatening illnesses are now a high probability. To take a line from the recent movie Bombshell “somebody has to stand up, somebody has to get mad.”
That anger that should be felt, but for all the terrifying facts about the poisoning these people received on a daily basis, it never comes, the rage should be palpable. Instead it opts for giving us all the information, teaching about regulation and government intervention, or lack thereof, and the only temper in the film shows comes as a heated exchange in a board room that blows over as soon as it comes, and protesters outside courtrooms for fleeting moments throughout the movie. It should be seething instead of showing, giving us the knowledge we need through gritted teeth, not clinical, scientific and impersonal.
Dark Waters is off the mark with its tone, Mark Ruffalo's high-priced lawyer is too uncertain, a little too every-man, never really portrayed a hot-shot or an underdog, and the supporting cast fall into “Good Guy” or “Bad Guy” far too easily with no exploration into any depth of character. One scene has a DuPont representative, shown in great detail, every undisputable, despicable thing that his company has done to these people, and listens attentively, never upset or defiant but instead seeming slightly bored, before getting up and leaving. Every scene feels like it should be emotionally hard-hitting but never raises above a tap on the shoulder.
As the lesson goes on, the complete lack of morals DuPont has, becomes shockingly clear as they drag the case on for as long as they can, making sure Billot's firm spend more money and time than they are willing to pay. Bilot's home life becomes strained, which distracts from the main thread more than adds to it plot, he becomes distant from his wife, a woefully underused Anne Hathaway, and his health deteriorates under the weight of fighting, and in the end, the conclusion is murkier than the water supply. But he still fights, and in real life, Rob Billot is still fighting to this day to help the West Virginia community, and to change the way the corporations are regulated worldwide.
This film is important, and everyone should see it because it's message, just don't see it for its entertainment value, because that's few and far between.
Films are important to us all for many different reasons, they show what we are, what we can be, what we aspire to be, of who we are. Sometimes that comes in the form of escapism, of dreaming that we can be better, Mark Ruffalo is no stranger to the genre I'm referring to, sometimes shows us our darkest fears and that we can overcome them, and sometimes, it shows us just how low, we as people can get, and never offer any kind of redemption. Dark Waters manages to be all of these things. A small intro before the film began had me franticly signing up to numerous petitions the second the film ended, joining a cause I didn't even know existed before I sat down to watch. This is why film is important, and why you should watch Dark Waters as soon as you can. So why the 3 out of 5 rating? Surely a film that EVERYONE should watch should get top marks, right? Unfortunately not.
The film begins with Rob Bilott (Mark Ruffalo), a corporate defence attorney, whose office is visited by a farmer from his home town, trying to raise a legal case against DuPont, a multi-billion dollar business, the towns biggest employer, and a chemical company at the heart of potentially poisoning the towns water supply. As Billot investigates the scale of the issue, and its inevitable cover up, it all becomes alarmingly clear. Thousands of people are being poisoned, they're health will likely deteriorate and life threatening illnesses are now a high probability. To take a line from the recent movie Bombshell “somebody has to stand up, somebody has to get mad.”
That anger that should be felt, but for all the terrifying facts about the poisoning these people received on a daily basis, it never comes, the rage should be palpable. Instead it opts for giving us all the information, teaching about regulation and government intervention, or lack thereof, and the only temper in the film shows comes as a heated exchange in a board room that blows over as soon as it comes, and protesters outside courtrooms for fleeting moments throughout the movie. It should be seething instead of showing, giving us the knowledge we need through gritted teeth, not clinical, scientific and impersonal.
Dark Waters is off the mark with its tone, Mark Ruffalo's high-priced lawyer is too uncertain, a little too every-man, never really portrayed a hot-shot or an underdog, and the supporting cast fall into “Good Guy” or “Bad Guy” far too easily with no exploration into any depth of character. One scene has a DuPont representative, shown in great detail, every undisputable, despicable thing that his company has done to these people, and listens attentively, never upset or defiant but instead seeming slightly bored, before getting up and leaving. Every scene feels like it should be emotionally hard-hitting but never raises above a tap on the shoulder.
As the lesson goes on, the complete lack of morals DuPont has, becomes shockingly clear as they drag the case on for as long as they can, making sure Billot's firm spend more money and time than they are willing to pay. Bilot's home life becomes strained, which distracts from the main thread more than adds to it plot, he becomes distant from his wife, a woefully underused Anne Hathaway, and his health deteriorates under the weight of fighting, and in the end, the conclusion is murkier than the water supply. But he still fights, and in real life, Rob Billot is still fighting to this day to help the West Virginia community, and to change the way the corporations are regulated worldwide.
This film is important, and everyone should see it because it's message, just don't see it for its entertainment value, because that's few and far between.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Fast & Furious 9 (2021) in Movies
Jun 24, 2021
Ridiculous storyline (1 more)
Improbable action
Magnetic bulls**t that will no doubt attract Fast-fans
Positives:
- Glossy locations, fast cars and beautiful women: the usual Fast stuff.
- When the stunts are "real", they are good and exciting. But it's often difficult to tell when there's been a 'computer-assist'.
Negatives:
- I complained in my review for "The Hitman's Wife's Bodyguard" about it having a childish and ludicrous plot. This movie makes that look like bl***y Shakespeare! There's an attempt to add a smidgen of family tension into the mix, based on Dom's childhood trauma. But aside from that element, the 'story' (I use the term in its loosest possible sense) bounces (without any rational logic most of the time) from ludicrous situation to ludicrous situation without pause. Most of these are linked by Ramsey (the very British Nathalie Emmanuel) stating a random fact such as "Well, now he's going to need to launch a satellite". And off we go again. (That particular crazy story arc even sees them 'doing a Musk' and flying a car into space: I kid you not!)
- It's not even the 'big stuff' that's unbelievable. Everywhere you look, there are inconsistencies and things that don't make sense.
-- Tej (played by Ludicris - an appropriate name here) takes dodging a brigade worth of machine gun bullets to nonsensical limits.
-- Generally, the cast gets blasted, dropped, crashed, burned, and otherwise put through more fatal situations than you can imagine, only to walk out without a scratch.
-- And if you can show me a single delivery lorry in Edinburgh that has an automatic gearbox, I'll be amazed!
- At one point, Roman (Tyrese Gibson) mutters some line about "Trusting in the physics and the numbers". Well, let me tell you, it's like no physics that I studied on this planet. A lot of the set pieces involve huge magnets attached to trucks and cars. Now - correct me if I'm wrong - but if you turn a massive magnet on in a truck then as well as ripping the car you are chasing through the adjacent building (as if), you will also force the truck to be pulled into that building too. OK, perhaps not as much.... but the lorry ain't going to stay in its driving lane, I know that much! And magnets attract metal - they don't repel it!
- At 145 minutes, this is well over 2 hours of my life I will never get back.
Summary Thoughts on "F9": It's just such a formulaic and contrived piece of fluff that it makes me cross that they can spend $200,000 on a movie and not make it better. Part of this involves the lazy use of CGI to create obviously nonsensical stunts that devalue true action films. Yes, the stunt team was busy, and impressive, here - but always going for "one better" has led to extensive use of CGI. That's why I liked the 2014 'knock-off' film "Need for Speed" - - at least they did all their stunts old-school, in camera, and not in the computer.
But whatever I say here, this movie will unfortunately get its audience. At the time of writing, it's already made nearly $300K at the box office on its $200K budget. Which means there will inevitably be an F10, no doubt involving a driving battle on the planet Mars. Sigh.
By the way, before you dive for the exits to relieve your bladder (it is 145 minutes after all), there is a mid-credits scene that re-introduces an old favourite.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/24/f9-magnetic-bullst-that-will-no-doubt-attract-fast-fans/. Thanks).
- Glossy locations, fast cars and beautiful women: the usual Fast stuff.
- When the stunts are "real", they are good and exciting. But it's often difficult to tell when there's been a 'computer-assist'.
Negatives:
- I complained in my review for "The Hitman's Wife's Bodyguard" about it having a childish and ludicrous plot. This movie makes that look like bl***y Shakespeare! There's an attempt to add a smidgen of family tension into the mix, based on Dom's childhood trauma. But aside from that element, the 'story' (I use the term in its loosest possible sense) bounces (without any rational logic most of the time) from ludicrous situation to ludicrous situation without pause. Most of these are linked by Ramsey (the very British Nathalie Emmanuel) stating a random fact such as "Well, now he's going to need to launch a satellite". And off we go again. (That particular crazy story arc even sees them 'doing a Musk' and flying a car into space: I kid you not!)
- It's not even the 'big stuff' that's unbelievable. Everywhere you look, there are inconsistencies and things that don't make sense.
-- Tej (played by Ludicris - an appropriate name here) takes dodging a brigade worth of machine gun bullets to nonsensical limits.
-- Generally, the cast gets blasted, dropped, crashed, burned, and otherwise put through more fatal situations than you can imagine, only to walk out without a scratch.
-- And if you can show me a single delivery lorry in Edinburgh that has an automatic gearbox, I'll be amazed!
- At one point, Roman (Tyrese Gibson) mutters some line about "Trusting in the physics and the numbers". Well, let me tell you, it's like no physics that I studied on this planet. A lot of the set pieces involve huge magnets attached to trucks and cars. Now - correct me if I'm wrong - but if you turn a massive magnet on in a truck then as well as ripping the car you are chasing through the adjacent building (as if), you will also force the truck to be pulled into that building too. OK, perhaps not as much.... but the lorry ain't going to stay in its driving lane, I know that much! And magnets attract metal - they don't repel it!
- At 145 minutes, this is well over 2 hours of my life I will never get back.
Summary Thoughts on "F9": It's just such a formulaic and contrived piece of fluff that it makes me cross that they can spend $200,000 on a movie and not make it better. Part of this involves the lazy use of CGI to create obviously nonsensical stunts that devalue true action films. Yes, the stunt team was busy, and impressive, here - but always going for "one better" has led to extensive use of CGI. That's why I liked the 2014 'knock-off' film "Need for Speed" - - at least they did all their stunts old-school, in camera, and not in the computer.
But whatever I say here, this movie will unfortunately get its audience. At the time of writing, it's already made nearly $300K at the box office on its $200K budget. Which means there will inevitably be an F10, no doubt involving a driving battle on the planet Mars. Sigh.
By the way, before you dive for the exits to relieve your bladder (it is 145 minutes after all), there is a mid-credits scene that re-introduces an old favourite.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/24/f9-magnetic-bullst-that-will-no-doubt-attract-fast-fans/. Thanks).
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Nevermoor: The Trials of Morrigan Crow in Books
Oct 5, 2020
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Book-Review-Banner-78.png"/>;
After reading (and loving) the Hidden Beach by Karen Swan, as part of the Tandem readalong, the whole group fell in love with Karen's writing, so we decided to continue the streak with reading another book. We chose the Greek Escape, because it was suited perfectly for the summer month of August.
<b><i>Synopsis:</i></b>
Running from a heartbreak, Chloe leaves London for a fresh start in New York. She works for a luxury concierge company, where she looks after client's arrangements and event management. But when her friend and colleague Poppy has a terrible accident, she needs to step up and fill her role. This role involves direct customer contact with the clients, which was different to what Chloe was used to.
This is how she meets Joe Lincoln, who asks her to find a secluded holiday home in Greece. You would think all goes by the plan, but her ex, Tom, unexpectedly shows up in New York and she is faced with issues from the past that she wants to run away from. He is the man who has hurt her before, but says he's changed.
She immediately jumps to the chance to help Joe inspect the holiday house - a trip to Greece will give her all the time and space she needs to sort her life out and decide what she wants to do next.
Her mind still unsure about Tom, she also forms a connection with Joe. Even though very mysterious and somehow secluded, there is an undeniable chemistry between them that Chloe is unable to resist. Should she give a second chance to the man she loved for years and years, or is it time for something brand new?
<b><i>My Thoughts:</i></b>
This book is perfect to help you forget the current pandemic and give you a nice summer vibe. Even though it’s not entirely set in Greece, but rather mostly set in New York. That being said, Chloe does also travel to the south of France and there are plenty of summer holiday vibes throughout the book as a whole.
<b><i>Karen Swan won me over with her writing again.</i></b>
The description of places, events and characters are so lively and colourful. I felt like I knew Chloe. When she is out for a drink, I felt like I am her friend. When she was in the office, I felt like a colleague. Something that also attracts me to Karen’s writing is her ability to fully materialise the antagonists as well. Even when they have ill intentions or do something bad, she is able to make the readers understand the reasoning behind it and accept it, no matter how wrong it may be.
The premise and the plot were very interesting, and the mystery behind Poppy’s attack kept me glued to the book. I loved how there was suspense in each chapter and slowly revealing the clues.
I felt for Chloe, when it came to her love life. She forgives Tom for years, and all he does is hurt her and then apologise for it! I think she deserves way better, and she should’ve ditched him the first time he screwed up.
I really enjoyed the Greek Escape, and I loved the ending. It was satisfying, how everything ended and was glad Chloe could find true happiness and peace in the end. I definitely recommend this book, and will continue reading Karen Swan’s books with excitement.
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Book-Review-Banner-78.png"/>;
After reading (and loving) the Hidden Beach by Karen Swan, as part of the Tandem readalong, the whole group fell in love with Karen's writing, so we decided to continue the streak with reading another book. We chose the Greek Escape, because it was suited perfectly for the summer month of August.
<b><i>Synopsis:</i></b>
Running from a heartbreak, Chloe leaves London for a fresh start in New York. She works for a luxury concierge company, where she looks after client's arrangements and event management. But when her friend and colleague Poppy has a terrible accident, she needs to step up and fill her role. This role involves direct customer contact with the clients, which was different to what Chloe was used to.
This is how she meets Joe Lincoln, who asks her to find a secluded holiday home in Greece. You would think all goes by the plan, but her ex, Tom, unexpectedly shows up in New York and she is faced with issues from the past that she wants to run away from. He is the man who has hurt her before, but says he's changed.
She immediately jumps to the chance to help Joe inspect the holiday house - a trip to Greece will give her all the time and space she needs to sort her life out and decide what she wants to do next.
Her mind still unsure about Tom, she also forms a connection with Joe. Even though very mysterious and somehow secluded, there is an undeniable chemistry between them that Chloe is unable to resist. Should she give a second chance to the man she loved for years and years, or is it time for something brand new?
<b><i>My Thoughts:</i></b>
This book is perfect to help you forget the current pandemic and give you a nice summer vibe. Even though it’s not entirely set in Greece, but rather mostly set in New York. That being said, Chloe does also travel to the south of France and there are plenty of summer holiday vibes throughout the book as a whole.
<b><i>Karen Swan won me over with her writing again.</i></b>
The description of places, events and characters are so lively and colourful. I felt like I knew Chloe. When she is out for a drink, I felt like I am her friend. When she was in the office, I felt like a colleague. Something that also attracts me to Karen’s writing is her ability to fully materialise the antagonists as well. Even when they have ill intentions or do something bad, she is able to make the readers understand the reasoning behind it and accept it, no matter how wrong it may be.
The premise and the plot were very interesting, and the mystery behind Poppy’s attack kept me glued to the book. I loved how there was suspense in each chapter and slowly revealing the clues.
I felt for Chloe, when it came to her love life. She forgives Tom for years, and all he does is hurt her and then apologise for it! I think she deserves way better, and she should’ve ditched him the first time he screwed up.
I really enjoyed the Greek Escape, and I loved the ending. It was satisfying, how everything ended and was glad Chloe could find true happiness and peace in the end. I definitely recommend this book, and will continue reading Karen Swan’s books with excitement.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated What We Do in the Shadows in TV
Jan 22, 2021
Anyone who watched and enjoyed the entirely silly, but mostly genius, original film version of this, written and directed by the same partnership of Jermaine Clement and Taika Waititi, should not miss this show! Although Clement and Waititi step down from acting duties (aside from cameo appearences), they are replaced by the ideal, if not actually better, pairing of Matt Berry and Kayvan Novak, whose previous experience in left-field comedy with an improvisational edge leaves them perfectly placed to make this comedy fly like a startled bat!
The lead duo are joined in all 20 episodes over 2 seasons so far by relative unknowns Natasia Demetriou, Harvey Guillén and Mark Proksch. The first two do adequate jobs of keeping the laughs rolling and the mood steady. But it is Proksch, who brings some knowledge of a working mockumentary farce from his role as Nate is the US version of The Office, who is the stand-out as Colin the energy vampire, who bores his victims to death, or leaves them drained of the will to live. The many ways that single joke is varied to hilarious effect is a thing of true comedic beauty at all times.
The fine balance between the bizarre and ridiculous world of vampires and other monsters with a situation of utter mundanity like flatsharing affords some wonderful moments of laugh out loud insanity. The writing is terrific all the way through, and the bite sized episode lengths ensure it zips along and the joke only wears thin if you gorge on too many in one go. In fact I would strongly recommend not bingeing this one, but rather savouring 2 or 3 in a sitting then leaving it a while. There is something about missing it and coming back to the joke after a break that works better for me.
Some of the things I love about it are the details of the visual world they live in. The paraphernalia of the flat they live in and the clothes they wear is joyous and ever rewarding. There will be things to spot in the background that you missed first time for sure – and that is a sign to me that they wanted to create a classic here and not something disposable. I also adore the opening credit sequence, and sing along every single time.
Then there is the fabulous use of creative swearing, that manages to reach new and surprising heights episode to episode. Berry is especially proficient in this art, leaving me spitting out my tea many times with the use of a profane phrase off the cuff. It is as much the way he says it as what he says, so it is no surprise to me he has been singled out at recent TV awards shows. I hope he gets the recognition he deserves with a shiny trophy or two.
The fact that it was nominated for 8 Emmys for season 2, after only two nods for season 1, also shows that this is an entity that gets better if you stick with it. At first the pattern of the humour may not gel, but the more you get used to it, the character quirks and various relationships, the rewards as a viewer are exponentially good. And if you watch long enough there are also some tasty cameo parts that turn up… but I won’t spoil the surprises here.
Is it a joke that can run and run? No probably not. But I would like to at least see a third season, to wrap it all up. Especially as season 2 ends on somewhat of a cliffhanger, as much as a puerile comedy like this can do. I am a fan. And I imagine I’ll always be able to go back and enjoy an episode here and there to cheer me up. Brilliant stuff, that has its heart and its funny bones in all the right places. Go on, stick your teeth into it!
The lead duo are joined in all 20 episodes over 2 seasons so far by relative unknowns Natasia Demetriou, Harvey Guillén and Mark Proksch. The first two do adequate jobs of keeping the laughs rolling and the mood steady. But it is Proksch, who brings some knowledge of a working mockumentary farce from his role as Nate is the US version of The Office, who is the stand-out as Colin the energy vampire, who bores his victims to death, or leaves them drained of the will to live. The many ways that single joke is varied to hilarious effect is a thing of true comedic beauty at all times.
The fine balance between the bizarre and ridiculous world of vampires and other monsters with a situation of utter mundanity like flatsharing affords some wonderful moments of laugh out loud insanity. The writing is terrific all the way through, and the bite sized episode lengths ensure it zips along and the joke only wears thin if you gorge on too many in one go. In fact I would strongly recommend not bingeing this one, but rather savouring 2 or 3 in a sitting then leaving it a while. There is something about missing it and coming back to the joke after a break that works better for me.
Some of the things I love about it are the details of the visual world they live in. The paraphernalia of the flat they live in and the clothes they wear is joyous and ever rewarding. There will be things to spot in the background that you missed first time for sure – and that is a sign to me that they wanted to create a classic here and not something disposable. I also adore the opening credit sequence, and sing along every single time.
Then there is the fabulous use of creative swearing, that manages to reach new and surprising heights episode to episode. Berry is especially proficient in this art, leaving me spitting out my tea many times with the use of a profane phrase off the cuff. It is as much the way he says it as what he says, so it is no surprise to me he has been singled out at recent TV awards shows. I hope he gets the recognition he deserves with a shiny trophy or two.
The fact that it was nominated for 8 Emmys for season 2, after only two nods for season 1, also shows that this is an entity that gets better if you stick with it. At first the pattern of the humour may not gel, but the more you get used to it, the character quirks and various relationships, the rewards as a viewer are exponentially good. And if you watch long enough there are also some tasty cameo parts that turn up… but I won’t spoil the surprises here.
Is it a joke that can run and run? No probably not. But I would like to at least see a third season, to wrap it all up. Especially as season 2 ends on somewhat of a cliffhanger, as much as a puerile comedy like this can do. I am a fan. And I imagine I’ll always be able to go back and enjoy an episode here and there to cheer me up. Brilliant stuff, that has its heart and its funny bones in all the right places. Go on, stick your teeth into it!
Andy K (10821 KP) Oct 18, 2019
Awix (3310 KP) Oct 18, 2019