Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated The Equalizer 2 (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
Ex-government assassin Robert McCall (Denzel Washington) takes it upon himself to right the wrongs of those who have been exploited. He spends his days driving a Lyft around making chance encounters with people. When one of those people is in need he will go to any length to dispense justice. His brand of justice is brutal and swift but he always give the oppressors the chance to redeem themselves. He does this for people passing though his life but when his best friend, and one of the only former colleges to know his alive, Susan Plummer (Melissa Leo) is killed while on an investigation he sets out to dispatch vengeance rather than justice. He will stop at nothing to find out why his friend was murdered and eliminate those responsible. Robert must first reveal that he is still alive to his former partner Dave York (Pedro Pascal) so he can have access to the investigation. Once he has access the pair will try and find the killers and exact revenge. That is before the killers find them.
This film is the follow up to 2014’s The Equalizer. It returns both Washington and Leo as well as Director Antoine Fuqua (Shooter, South Paw) and Writer Richard Wenk (Jack Reacher: Never Go Back, 16 Blocks) and Bill Pullman, as Brian Plummer. The action scenes in the beginning of the film are really well done. Maybe a spoiler here so caution, the climatic fight scene at the end is less well done and because it is set in a hurricane a lot of it is blurry and hard to follow. It puts you in the setting of the weather but because the action is hand to hand you can really miss a lot of what is going on. It didn’t really work for me personally. The story started out really how I expected and followed the first films story of McCall helping out those who had no other options. This part felt very much like the first film but not redundant. However, it really slowed down when it got into the main story of the film. This part really seemed overly predictable and unoriginal. You, or rather I, could see how the entire movie was laid out and the inevitable conclusion with very few plot twist. This made pace of the film is tough for me. Really action packed at the beginning and then really slow drawn out drama in the middle.
On its own this film is an okay movie. One of many action/crime/mystery films that are made each year. It didn’t really do a good job of distinguishing itself from the rest of the genre. But fans of this type of movie can enjoy how it is heartfelt and warm at times and bloody and action packed at others. The end I discussed above I was not a fan of. Also there is the issue of when you compare it to the original film it really is lacking some key things that the made the first film a success. The villain in this film really leaves something to be desired while the first film had a pretty good antagonist. The pace of the first film was much better and the story flowed more naturally. Sometimes it is really hard to recreate something and I think this film falls way short.
This film is the follow up to 2014’s The Equalizer. It returns both Washington and Leo as well as Director Antoine Fuqua (Shooter, South Paw) and Writer Richard Wenk (Jack Reacher: Never Go Back, 16 Blocks) and Bill Pullman, as Brian Plummer. The action scenes in the beginning of the film are really well done. Maybe a spoiler here so caution, the climatic fight scene at the end is less well done and because it is set in a hurricane a lot of it is blurry and hard to follow. It puts you in the setting of the weather but because the action is hand to hand you can really miss a lot of what is going on. It didn’t really work for me personally. The story started out really how I expected and followed the first films story of McCall helping out those who had no other options. This part felt very much like the first film but not redundant. However, it really slowed down when it got into the main story of the film. This part really seemed overly predictable and unoriginal. You, or rather I, could see how the entire movie was laid out and the inevitable conclusion with very few plot twist. This made pace of the film is tough for me. Really action packed at the beginning and then really slow drawn out drama in the middle.
On its own this film is an okay movie. One of many action/crime/mystery films that are made each year. It didn’t really do a good job of distinguishing itself from the rest of the genre. But fans of this type of movie can enjoy how it is heartfelt and warm at times and bloody and action packed at others. The end I discussed above I was not a fan of. Also there is the issue of when you compare it to the original film it really is lacking some key things that the made the first film a success. The villain in this film really leaves something to be desired while the first film had a pretty good antagonist. The pace of the first film was much better and the story flowed more naturally. Sometimes it is really hard to recreate something and I think this film falls way short.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Equalizer 2 (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A “Good Guy” meting out justice in a bad way.
There’s something really satisfying about seeing our ‘hero’ Robert McCall giving bad ‘uns a bloody nose (and far worse) as immediate punishment for a crime committed. My parent’s pre-war generation would wax lyrical about the days when police officers or teachers could give a kid a “good box around the ears” as a lesson for a minor infringement. (“Ah, the good old days…. That’ll learn ‘im”!). But equally there’s also the queasy feeling here that this is a vigilante being judge, jury and executioner. Thank GOODNESS then that it’s Denzel Washington and he’s OBVIOUSLY a good guy that will never get it wrong!
Washington returns here as the righter of wrongs, now working as a Lyft driver in Boston (clearly Uber either lost the bidding war or they were not considered to be as cool a brand anymore). Through his job he crosses paths with various troubled souls and is often able to help: sometimes with just an encouraging word; sometimes with more physical activity! By way of validating his good guy credentials, he also takes under his wing Miles (Ashton Sanders) – a local black kid at risk of being dragged into the Boston gang scene.
But this is all window-dressing for the main plot, involving bad guys (for reasons that escaped me) tidying up a lot of CIA loose ends in Brussels in a very brutal way. In charge of the investigation is Robert’s ex-boss Susan Plummer (Melissa Leo) and to help out further Robert has to ‘reappear’ to his ex-partner Dave York (Pedro Pascal). As in the first film, events lead to an explosive western-style showdown.
Directed again by Antoine Fuqua, the film oozes style from the impressive opening shots of a Turkish train, where the cinematography by Bourne-regular Oliver Wood is exceptional. The action scenes are well-executed, and includes a superb science experiment that will puzzle any viewer who thinks “hang on a minute – flour doesn’t burn”!
Reading again my review of the original film, I went off on a rant about extreme screen violence in sub-18 certificate films. There is certainly – as the British film censors (the BBFC) describe it – “strong violence” in this film, with some pretty brutal murder scenes. If anything though I thought the violence was a little less gratuitous this time around, which I welcome.
Denzel is the greatest asset of this film though. He acts up a hurricane (literally), and without his calm and powerful presence at the heart of the film, this would just be A.N.Other generic thriller. It’s also great that this time around the excellent Melissa Leo gets more screen time, as does her husband played by Bill “Independence Day” Pullman. (Is it just me that gets Mr Pullman confused with the late Mr Paxton? I spent all of this film thinking “Oh how sad” though all his scenes before I realised I was grieving for the wrong guy!). In terms of mistaken identity, this film has another in that a key villain Resnik looks far too much like Mark Wahlberg, but is actually Canadian actor Jonathan Scarfe.
Where the film stumbled for me was in having too many parallel “good deed” sub-plots. One in particular – you’ll know the one – feels completely superfluous, beggars belief and could have been excised completely for the DVD deleted scenes.
Do you need to have seen the first film? No, not really. There is exposition about McCall’s back-story, but if this was covered in the first film then I had completely forgotten it. It certainly didn’t detract from this as a stand-alone film.
A cut-above the norm, Washington’s solid performance makes this an entertaining night out at the flicks.
Washington returns here as the righter of wrongs, now working as a Lyft driver in Boston (clearly Uber either lost the bidding war or they were not considered to be as cool a brand anymore). Through his job he crosses paths with various troubled souls and is often able to help: sometimes with just an encouraging word; sometimes with more physical activity! By way of validating his good guy credentials, he also takes under his wing Miles (Ashton Sanders) – a local black kid at risk of being dragged into the Boston gang scene.
But this is all window-dressing for the main plot, involving bad guys (for reasons that escaped me) tidying up a lot of CIA loose ends in Brussels in a very brutal way. In charge of the investigation is Robert’s ex-boss Susan Plummer (Melissa Leo) and to help out further Robert has to ‘reappear’ to his ex-partner Dave York (Pedro Pascal). As in the first film, events lead to an explosive western-style showdown.
Directed again by Antoine Fuqua, the film oozes style from the impressive opening shots of a Turkish train, where the cinematography by Bourne-regular Oliver Wood is exceptional. The action scenes are well-executed, and includes a superb science experiment that will puzzle any viewer who thinks “hang on a minute – flour doesn’t burn”!
Reading again my review of the original film, I went off on a rant about extreme screen violence in sub-18 certificate films. There is certainly – as the British film censors (the BBFC) describe it – “strong violence” in this film, with some pretty brutal murder scenes. If anything though I thought the violence was a little less gratuitous this time around, which I welcome.
Denzel is the greatest asset of this film though. He acts up a hurricane (literally), and without his calm and powerful presence at the heart of the film, this would just be A.N.Other generic thriller. It’s also great that this time around the excellent Melissa Leo gets more screen time, as does her husband played by Bill “Independence Day” Pullman. (Is it just me that gets Mr Pullman confused with the late Mr Paxton? I spent all of this film thinking “Oh how sad” though all his scenes before I realised I was grieving for the wrong guy!). In terms of mistaken identity, this film has another in that a key villain Resnik looks far too much like Mark Wahlberg, but is actually Canadian actor Jonathan Scarfe.
Where the film stumbled for me was in having too many parallel “good deed” sub-plots. One in particular – you’ll know the one – feels completely superfluous, beggars belief and could have been excised completely for the DVD deleted scenes.
Do you need to have seen the first film? No, not really. There is exposition about McCall’s back-story, but if this was covered in the first film then I had completely forgotten it. It certainly didn’t detract from this as a stand-alone film.
A cut-above the norm, Washington’s solid performance makes this an entertaining night out at the flicks.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Frankie (2019) in Movies
May 24, 2021
A film about death that dies on its feet.
In "Frankie", the eponymous French movie star (played by Isabelle Huppert) is dying of cancer and gathers her complex family and friends around her for one last 'family holiday' in the picturesque Portuguese town of Sintra. We follow the events of a single day of the vacation as frictions and back-stories of the players become more evident.
Positives:
- Sintra looks gorgeous: as a regular visitor to Portugal's Silver Coast, it's a place I've not yet visited. The cinematography of the region makes me want to change that.
- There are a couple of decent scenes in the movie: both involving the trustworthy Greg Kinnear: one involving him trying to sell a film idea to Frankie (who knows, but won't tell him, that she won't be around for it); and another with Kinnear and Tomei at their hotel.
Negatives:
- Where do I start.... the film is as dull as dishwater!
-- A criticism I had of the otherwise impressive "Nomadland" was that the story arc of the leading character was shallow and not very compelling. The story arc here is a bloody straight line! Virtually nothing happens in the movie and it goes nowhere. Events occur as isolated snippets in the storyline. For example, the 'loss' of an expensive bracelet is randomly lobbed into the story, but then is never referenced back in any future narrative.
-- When the ending happened (which the illustrious Mrs Movie Man referred to as a "blessing") it was a non-event. The lady behind us in the cinema exclaimed "WHAT????". And I could understand her frustration.
- The direction is distinctly lacking. Aside from the couple of decent scenes (see above), most of the shots feel like first takes, with the actors doing read-throughs of the clunky script to try to work out how to best sell the lines. "OK, time to film it for real now". But director Sachs has already shouted "Cut and Print.... now who's for some more vinos and Pastel de Nata?"! Were they aiming for some sort of naturalistic fumbling of the character's conversations? For that's how it comes across, and it's just awful.
- The script feels like a wasted opportunity. The set-up should have been a good one for an intense drama. And there are flashes (merely flashes) of potential brilliance in there: a formative step-brother/step-sister incident is based around the film "Grease", which is mirrored (either cleverly or purely through coincidence!?) in the beach-side romance of Maya (Sennia Nanua) and Portuguese holiday-maker Pedro (Manuel Sá Nogueira). And does the homosexual Michel (Pascal Greggory) have his sights on Jimmy (Brendan Gleeson)? Or Tiago? Or both? None of these potentially interesting strands ever get tied down.
- Aside from the poor script and the poor direction, some of the acting performances are unconvincing. "The Girl with all the Gifts" was a fabulous film - it made my number 2 slot of 2016! And I called out young Sennia Nanua as "one to watch for the future" as the zombie girl at the heart of the film. Here she was 17 at the time of filming. But I'm afraid I just didn't find her convincing as the moody teen. (By the way, I only single her out, since I was so impressed with her previous performance: with the exception perhaps of Kinnear, Tomei and Carloto Cotta. none of the rest of the cast consistently shine either.)
Summary Thoughts: It's a real shame that my first visit back to the cinema was such a let-down. Ira Sachs is not a director I know, but he comes with a strong reputation (for 2016's "Little Men"). But here he delivers a plain stinker. I'm afraid this movie has a word associated with it, and the word is "Avoid".
(For the full graphical review, please check out "One Mann's Movies" here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/05/24/frankie-a-film-about-death-that-dies-on-its-feet/. Thanks.)
Positives:
- Sintra looks gorgeous: as a regular visitor to Portugal's Silver Coast, it's a place I've not yet visited. The cinematography of the region makes me want to change that.
- There are a couple of decent scenes in the movie: both involving the trustworthy Greg Kinnear: one involving him trying to sell a film idea to Frankie (who knows, but won't tell him, that she won't be around for it); and another with Kinnear and Tomei at their hotel.
Negatives:
- Where do I start.... the film is as dull as dishwater!
-- A criticism I had of the otherwise impressive "Nomadland" was that the story arc of the leading character was shallow and not very compelling. The story arc here is a bloody straight line! Virtually nothing happens in the movie and it goes nowhere. Events occur as isolated snippets in the storyline. For example, the 'loss' of an expensive bracelet is randomly lobbed into the story, but then is never referenced back in any future narrative.
-- When the ending happened (which the illustrious Mrs Movie Man referred to as a "blessing") it was a non-event. The lady behind us in the cinema exclaimed "WHAT????". And I could understand her frustration.
- The direction is distinctly lacking. Aside from the couple of decent scenes (see above), most of the shots feel like first takes, with the actors doing read-throughs of the clunky script to try to work out how to best sell the lines. "OK, time to film it for real now". But director Sachs has already shouted "Cut and Print.... now who's for some more vinos and Pastel de Nata?"! Were they aiming for some sort of naturalistic fumbling of the character's conversations? For that's how it comes across, and it's just awful.
- The script feels like a wasted opportunity. The set-up should have been a good one for an intense drama. And there are flashes (merely flashes) of potential brilliance in there: a formative step-brother/step-sister incident is based around the film "Grease", which is mirrored (either cleverly or purely through coincidence!?) in the beach-side romance of Maya (Sennia Nanua) and Portuguese holiday-maker Pedro (Manuel Sá Nogueira). And does the homosexual Michel (Pascal Greggory) have his sights on Jimmy (Brendan Gleeson)? Or Tiago? Or both? None of these potentially interesting strands ever get tied down.
- Aside from the poor script and the poor direction, some of the acting performances are unconvincing. "The Girl with all the Gifts" was a fabulous film - it made my number 2 slot of 2016! And I called out young Sennia Nanua as "one to watch for the future" as the zombie girl at the heart of the film. Here she was 17 at the time of filming. But I'm afraid I just didn't find her convincing as the moody teen. (By the way, I only single her out, since I was so impressed with her previous performance: with the exception perhaps of Kinnear, Tomei and Carloto Cotta. none of the rest of the cast consistently shine either.)
Summary Thoughts: It's a real shame that my first visit back to the cinema was such a let-down. Ira Sachs is not a director I know, but he comes with a strong reputation (for 2016's "Little Men"). But here he delivers a plain stinker. I'm afraid this movie has a word associated with it, and the word is "Avoid".
(For the full graphical review, please check out "One Mann's Movies" here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/05/24/frankie-a-film-about-death-that-dies-on-its-feet/. Thanks.)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Wonder Woman 1984 (2020) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
I swung between wanting to see this and not, had it been a normal world then of course I would have gone regardless, but as it is I wasn't having strong feelings about this one.
Diana's dreams come true at the hands of an ancient artefact that can grant wishes. But as a wish is given something is taken away, and when Maxwell Lord, businessman and entrepreneur, makes a wish, the world is about to learn the lesson of the phrase... "be careful what you wish for".
First off... this absolutely would have been better on the big screen. It's never been so apparent to me that a cinema experience of a film holds so much power, it's making me understand the differences in early reviews and home viewing reviews a lot more these days.
The story of WW84 is really a very simple one. Doodad does magic, people are evil, goodie must make them good again. And that somehow fills a whole 2 hour 31 minutes of film... it doesn't feel like a very satisfying experience. For all that opener, the conclusion seems to be fleeting and dare I say it... not entirely believable. Overall the whole thing doesn't get particularly deep at any point despite there being a lot of opportunities around the wishes, and there are some questionable moments that could fill several blog posts.
There's been a long pause between me writing the first part and continuing here. That pause involved me staring at my notes and contemplating just writing "meh" and finishing the review there. I'm really going to try and elaborate on my feelings though.
For a film with two villains it's not got much proper villainy in it. Barbara Minerva becoming Cheetah is massively underwhelming from what felt like a promising build-up, and Maxwell Lord, despite having the potential, was not big bad material. Neither had the drive in them to be a truly powerful force in the film, and what's the point in a villain if you can't get on board to hate them?
Kristen Wiig did give a great performance as Barbara, it was a smooth and interesting transition as she progressed, and it left me a lot less "meh" than everything else. But did anyone else just keep thinking Catwoman though?
I thought Pedro Pascal had 80's businessman down pretty well, but I found him to be a little lacklustre, and the character's story felt like the reason for that.
As with the first film, Gal Gadot is majestic on screen as Diana and Wonder Woman... but even here I found myself shrugging at what was going on, and cringing at some problematic plot points. I'm trying to work out if the appeal of the first film was partially due to the amusement of Diana discovering the world for the first time. Here she's savvy and elegant (even for the 0s), and she didn't have the same humour. Instead, we've got that role filled by Steve (Chris Pine). His discovery of the 80s world was fairly amusing, but the way in which he came back bugged me.
All in all characters really didn't grab me, out two main newbies felt very much like rip-offs of other things rather than a great recreation of their source material.
Visually the film was amazing, the bright colours, the style, all fit the era and you gotta love some parachute pants. But outside of that it just merged into other films for me.
That CGI... how can you get so many things right but somehow not do the villains? It's Steppenwolf all over again, Cheetah looked bad. Not only that, but it took an immense amount of time for us to even get to that full effect... so why wasn't it on point? How are DC incapable of animating their villains?
Will I watch this again? Probably, but I'm not overly fussed about it being anytime soon. It wasn't anywhere near as entertaining as the first for me, and didn't have enough action to cover up the disappointing story and character work. I really wish I felt strongly one way or the other on this and not having just another sitting on the fence swinging my feet review. I did appreciate some early vaguely Quidditchy vibes at the beginning though.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/01/wonder-woman-1984-movie-review.html
Diana's dreams come true at the hands of an ancient artefact that can grant wishes. But as a wish is given something is taken away, and when Maxwell Lord, businessman and entrepreneur, makes a wish, the world is about to learn the lesson of the phrase... "be careful what you wish for".
First off... this absolutely would have been better on the big screen. It's never been so apparent to me that a cinema experience of a film holds so much power, it's making me understand the differences in early reviews and home viewing reviews a lot more these days.
The story of WW84 is really a very simple one. Doodad does magic, people are evil, goodie must make them good again. And that somehow fills a whole 2 hour 31 minutes of film... it doesn't feel like a very satisfying experience. For all that opener, the conclusion seems to be fleeting and dare I say it... not entirely believable. Overall the whole thing doesn't get particularly deep at any point despite there being a lot of opportunities around the wishes, and there are some questionable moments that could fill several blog posts.
There's been a long pause between me writing the first part and continuing here. That pause involved me staring at my notes and contemplating just writing "meh" and finishing the review there. I'm really going to try and elaborate on my feelings though.
For a film with two villains it's not got much proper villainy in it. Barbara Minerva becoming Cheetah is massively underwhelming from what felt like a promising build-up, and Maxwell Lord, despite having the potential, was not big bad material. Neither had the drive in them to be a truly powerful force in the film, and what's the point in a villain if you can't get on board to hate them?
Kristen Wiig did give a great performance as Barbara, it was a smooth and interesting transition as she progressed, and it left me a lot less "meh" than everything else. But did anyone else just keep thinking Catwoman though?
I thought Pedro Pascal had 80's businessman down pretty well, but I found him to be a little lacklustre, and the character's story felt like the reason for that.
As with the first film, Gal Gadot is majestic on screen as Diana and Wonder Woman... but even here I found myself shrugging at what was going on, and cringing at some problematic plot points. I'm trying to work out if the appeal of the first film was partially due to the amusement of Diana discovering the world for the first time. Here she's savvy and elegant (even for the 0s), and she didn't have the same humour. Instead, we've got that role filled by Steve (Chris Pine). His discovery of the 80s world was fairly amusing, but the way in which he came back bugged me.
All in all characters really didn't grab me, out two main newbies felt very much like rip-offs of other things rather than a great recreation of their source material.
Visually the film was amazing, the bright colours, the style, all fit the era and you gotta love some parachute pants. But outside of that it just merged into other films for me.
That CGI... how can you get so many things right but somehow not do the villains? It's Steppenwolf all over again, Cheetah looked bad. Not only that, but it took an immense amount of time for us to even get to that full effect... so why wasn't it on point? How are DC incapable of animating their villains?
Will I watch this again? Probably, but I'm not overly fussed about it being anytime soon. It wasn't anywhere near as entertaining as the first for me, and didn't have enough action to cover up the disappointing story and character work. I really wish I felt strongly one way or the other on this and not having just another sitting on the fence swinging my feet review. I did appreciate some early vaguely Quidditchy vibes at the beginning though.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/01/wonder-woman-1984-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Kingsman: The Golden Circle (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Vaughn and Golding cross the pond to deliver more of the same.
You would probably need to be living under a rock not to know that “Kingsman: The Golden Circle” is the follow-up film to Matthew Vaughn and Jane Goldman’s highly successful 2015 offering “Kingsman: The Secret Service”: a raucous, violent and rude entry into the spy-caper genre. And the sequel is more of the same: why mess with a crowd-pleasing formula?
The fledgling agent Eggsy (Taron Egerton (“Eddie the Eagle“), curiously called “Eggy” at various points in the film for reasons I didn’t understand) is now the new “Galahad” following the demise in the first film of the original, played by Colin Firth (“Magic in the Moonlight“, “Bridget Jones’ Baby“). But just as he’s getting into his stride the whole Kingsman organisation, now headed by Michael Gambon (“Harry Potter”) as Arthur , is ripped apart by an evil drugs cartel called “The Golden Circle” headed by smiling but deadly Poppy (Juliane Moore, “Still Alice”).
Eggsy and Lancelot (Mark Strong, “Miss Sloane“) in desperation turn to Statesman – the US equivalent organisation – and together with some surprising allies set out to defeat the evil plot to poison all casual drug users.
Subtle this film certainly is not, featuring brash and absurdly unrealistic action scenes that are 90% CGI but – for me at least – enormous fun to watch. As with the first film (and I’m thinking of the grotesquely violent church scene here) the action moves however from ‘edgy’ to “over-the-top/offensive” at times. The ‘burger scene’ and (particularly) the ‘Glastonbury incident’ are the standout moments for all the wrong reasons. I have a theory about how these *might* have come about…
One Mann’s Movies Showcase Theatre
The scene: Matthew Vaughn and Jane Golding are working “The Golden Circle” script at Goldman’s English home.
Vaughn: “OK, so Eggsy is in the tent with Clara and needs to plant the tracking device on her.”
Goldman’s husband Jonathan Ross sticks his head round the door.
Ross: “Hey Guys, I’ve an idea about that. I was on the phone to Wussell Bwand and we came up with a GWEAT idea.”
Vaughn: (rolling his eyes, mutters to himself): “Oh God, not again…”
Ross: “We thought that Eggsy could use his finger to stick the tracker right up her – ahem – ‘lady canal’ and… and… here’s the really great bit… the camera’s gonna be his finger. A camera up the muff! It’ll be weally weally funny!”
Vaughn: “But Jonathan…”.
Goldman nudges him hard.
Goldman (whispering): “Just let it go Matthew… you know what he’s like if he doesn’t get at least a couple of his ideas into the film”.
You can only hope a stunt vagina was used for this scene, else Poppy Delavigne (older sister of Cara) is going to find it very hard to find credible future work. One can only guess what tasteful interlude is being planned for Kingsman 3 – – a prostate-based tracker perhaps?
The film works best when the core team of Taron Egerton, Mark Strong and Colin Firth (yes, Colin Firth!) are together. Jeff Bridges (“Hell or High Water“), Channing Tatum (“Foxcatcher“) and Halle Berry (“Monster’s Ball”) all turn up as key members of ‘Statesman’ – adding star power but not a lot else – together with Pedro Pascal (“The Great Wall“) as ‘Whiskey’…. who I expected to be someone equally famous behind the moustache but wasn’t!
There’s also a very entertaining cameo from a star (no spoilers from me) whose foul-mouthed tirades I found very funny, and who also has the funniest line in the film (playing off one of the most controversial elements of the first film). It’s fair to say though that others I’ve spoken to didn’t think this appearance fitted the film at all.
Julianne Moore makes for an entertaining – if less than credible – villain, as does Bruce Greenwood (“Star Trek: Into Darkness”) as a barely disguised Trump. None of the motivations of the bad ‘uns however support any scrutiny whatsoever: this is very much a “park your brain at the door” film.
I really shouldn’t enjoy this crass, brash, brainless movie fast-food… and I know many have hated it! But my guilty secret is that I really did like it – one of the best nights of unadulterated escapist fun I’ve had since “Baby Driver”. Classy it’s certainly NOT, but I enjoyed this just as much as the original.
The fledgling agent Eggsy (Taron Egerton (“Eddie the Eagle“), curiously called “Eggy” at various points in the film for reasons I didn’t understand) is now the new “Galahad” following the demise in the first film of the original, played by Colin Firth (“Magic in the Moonlight“, “Bridget Jones’ Baby“). But just as he’s getting into his stride the whole Kingsman organisation, now headed by Michael Gambon (“Harry Potter”) as Arthur , is ripped apart by an evil drugs cartel called “The Golden Circle” headed by smiling but deadly Poppy (Juliane Moore, “Still Alice”).
Eggsy and Lancelot (Mark Strong, “Miss Sloane“) in desperation turn to Statesman – the US equivalent organisation – and together with some surprising allies set out to defeat the evil plot to poison all casual drug users.
Subtle this film certainly is not, featuring brash and absurdly unrealistic action scenes that are 90% CGI but – for me at least – enormous fun to watch. As with the first film (and I’m thinking of the grotesquely violent church scene here) the action moves however from ‘edgy’ to “over-the-top/offensive” at times. The ‘burger scene’ and (particularly) the ‘Glastonbury incident’ are the standout moments for all the wrong reasons. I have a theory about how these *might* have come about…
One Mann’s Movies Showcase Theatre
The scene: Matthew Vaughn and Jane Golding are working “The Golden Circle” script at Goldman’s English home.
Vaughn: “OK, so Eggsy is in the tent with Clara and needs to plant the tracking device on her.”
Goldman’s husband Jonathan Ross sticks his head round the door.
Ross: “Hey Guys, I’ve an idea about that. I was on the phone to Wussell Bwand and we came up with a GWEAT idea.”
Vaughn: (rolling his eyes, mutters to himself): “Oh God, not again…”
Ross: “We thought that Eggsy could use his finger to stick the tracker right up her – ahem – ‘lady canal’ and… and… here’s the really great bit… the camera’s gonna be his finger. A camera up the muff! It’ll be weally weally funny!”
Vaughn: “But Jonathan…”.
Goldman nudges him hard.
Goldman (whispering): “Just let it go Matthew… you know what he’s like if he doesn’t get at least a couple of his ideas into the film”.
You can only hope a stunt vagina was used for this scene, else Poppy Delavigne (older sister of Cara) is going to find it very hard to find credible future work. One can only guess what tasteful interlude is being planned for Kingsman 3 – – a prostate-based tracker perhaps?
The film works best when the core team of Taron Egerton, Mark Strong and Colin Firth (yes, Colin Firth!) are together. Jeff Bridges (“Hell or High Water“), Channing Tatum (“Foxcatcher“) and Halle Berry (“Monster’s Ball”) all turn up as key members of ‘Statesman’ – adding star power but not a lot else – together with Pedro Pascal (“The Great Wall“) as ‘Whiskey’…. who I expected to be someone equally famous behind the moustache but wasn’t!
There’s also a very entertaining cameo from a star (no spoilers from me) whose foul-mouthed tirades I found very funny, and who also has the funniest line in the film (playing off one of the most controversial elements of the first film). It’s fair to say though that others I’ve spoken to didn’t think this appearance fitted the film at all.
Julianne Moore makes for an entertaining – if less than credible – villain, as does Bruce Greenwood (“Star Trek: Into Darkness”) as a barely disguised Trump. None of the motivations of the bad ‘uns however support any scrutiny whatsoever: this is very much a “park your brain at the door” film.
I really shouldn’t enjoy this crass, brash, brainless movie fast-food… and I know many have hated it! But my guilty secret is that I really did like it – one of the best nights of unadulterated escapist fun I’ve had since “Baby Driver”. Classy it’s certainly NOT, but I enjoyed this just as much as the original.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Great Wall (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Exercising your Damons.
Millions of people watching the Oscars would have seen Jimmy Kimmel roasting poor Matt Damon as a part of their long running ‘feud’. At one point he points out that Matt gave up the leading role in “Manchester by the Sea” to star in a “Chinese ponytail movie” that “went on to lose $80 million at the box office”. “The Great Wall” is that movie!
So is it really that bad?
Well, it’s no “Manchester by the Sea” for sure. But I don’t think it’s quite the total turkey that critics have been labelling it as either. I went to see it on a Sunday afternoon, and approaching it as a matinee bit of frothy action is a good mental state to be in.
Matt Damon plays the ponytailed-wonder William, a European mercenary travelling in 11th Century China with his colleague Tovar (Pedro Pascal) in an attempt to determine the secrets of black powder – a secret well-guarded by the Chinese. Captured by the ‘New Order’ at the Great Wall and imprisoned there by General Shao (Hanyu Zhang), William earns the respect of Shao and his beautiful warrior second-in-command Lin Mae (Tian Jing) with his bowmanship. This is almost immediately put to use by the arrival (after 60 year’s absence – a funny thing, timing, isn’t it?) of hoards of vicious creatures called Taoties. (I thought they said Tauntauns initially, so was expecting some sort of Chinese/Star Wars crossover! But no.)
Taoties who scale the wall are defeated by William who poleaxes them. (This is an attempt at brilliant humour to anyone who has already seen the film – poleaxe…. get it? POLEaxe. Oh, never mind!) Despite being a mercenary at heart, William is torn between staying and helping Lin Mae fight the beasts and fleeing with Tovar, their new chum Ballard (Willem Dafoe) and their black powder loot. (I’m sure something about Lin Mae’s tight-fitting blue armour was influential in his decision).
This is an historic film in that although in recent years there has been cross-fertilization of Chinese actors into Western films for box-office reasons (for example, in the appalling “Independence Day: Resurgence” and the much better Damon vehicle “The Martian“) this was the first truly co-produced Chinese/Hollywood feature filmed entirely in China. It might also be the last given the film’s $150 million budget and the dismal box-office!
To start with some positives, you can rely on a Chinese-set film (the film location was Qingdao) to allow the use of an army of extras and – although a whole bunch of CGI was also no doubt used – some of the battles scenes are impressive. There is a stirring choral theme by Ramin Djawadi (best known for his TV themes for “Game of Thrones” and the brilliant “Westworld”) played over silk-screen painted end titles that just make for a beautiful combination. And Tian Jing as the heroine Lin Mae is not only stunningly good-looking but also injects some much needed acting talent into the cast, where most of those involved (including Damon himself) look like they would rather be somewhere else.
And some of the action scenes are rather fun in a ‘park your brain by the door’ sort of way, including (nonsensically) cute warrior girls high-diving off the wall on bungey ropes to near certain death. While the CGI monsters are of the (yawn) over-the-top LoTR variety, their ability to swarm like locusts at the Queen’s command is also quite entertainingly rendered.
Where the movie balloon comes crashing down to earth in flames though is with the story and the screenplay – all done by three different people each, which is NEVER a good sign.
The story (by Max Brooks (“World War Z”), Edward Zwick and Marshall Herskovitz (both on “The Last Samurai”) is plain nonsensical at times. No spoilers here, but the transition from “wall under siege” to “wall not under siege” gives the word ‘clunky’ a bad name. As another absurdity, the “New Order” seem amazed how William was able to slay one of the creatures (thanks to the poleaxing ‘McGuffin’ previously referenced) but then throughout the rest of the film he slays creatures left right and centre (McGuffin-less) through just the use of a spear or an arrow! Bonkers.
Things get worse when you add words to the actions. The screenplay by Carlo Bernard and Doug Miro (both “Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time”) and Tony Gilroy (Tony Gilroy? Surely not he of all the “Bourne” films and “Rogue One” fame? The very same!) has a reading age of about an 8 year old. It feels like it has been translated into Chinese and then back again to English with Google Translate. “Is that the best you can do?” asks Tovar to William at one point. I was thinking exactly the same thing.
The combination of the cinematography and the special effects have the unfortunate effect of giving the film the veneer of a video game, but this is one where your kid-brother has stolen the controls and refuses to give them back to you.
Having had the great thrill of visiting a section of The Great Wall near Beijing, I can confirm that it is an astonishing engineering masterpiece that has to be seen to be truly believed. It ranks as one of the genuine wonders of the world. The same can not be said of this movie. Early teens might enjoy it as a mindless action flick. But otherwise best avoided until it emerges on a raining Sunday afternoon on the TV.
So is it really that bad?
Well, it’s no “Manchester by the Sea” for sure. But I don’t think it’s quite the total turkey that critics have been labelling it as either. I went to see it on a Sunday afternoon, and approaching it as a matinee bit of frothy action is a good mental state to be in.
Matt Damon plays the ponytailed-wonder William, a European mercenary travelling in 11th Century China with his colleague Tovar (Pedro Pascal) in an attempt to determine the secrets of black powder – a secret well-guarded by the Chinese. Captured by the ‘New Order’ at the Great Wall and imprisoned there by General Shao (Hanyu Zhang), William earns the respect of Shao and his beautiful warrior second-in-command Lin Mae (Tian Jing) with his bowmanship. This is almost immediately put to use by the arrival (after 60 year’s absence – a funny thing, timing, isn’t it?) of hoards of vicious creatures called Taoties. (I thought they said Tauntauns initially, so was expecting some sort of Chinese/Star Wars crossover! But no.)
Taoties who scale the wall are defeated by William who poleaxes them. (This is an attempt at brilliant humour to anyone who has already seen the film – poleaxe…. get it? POLEaxe. Oh, never mind!) Despite being a mercenary at heart, William is torn between staying and helping Lin Mae fight the beasts and fleeing with Tovar, their new chum Ballard (Willem Dafoe) and their black powder loot. (I’m sure something about Lin Mae’s tight-fitting blue armour was influential in his decision).
This is an historic film in that although in recent years there has been cross-fertilization of Chinese actors into Western films for box-office reasons (for example, in the appalling “Independence Day: Resurgence” and the much better Damon vehicle “The Martian“) this was the first truly co-produced Chinese/Hollywood feature filmed entirely in China. It might also be the last given the film’s $150 million budget and the dismal box-office!
To start with some positives, you can rely on a Chinese-set film (the film location was Qingdao) to allow the use of an army of extras and – although a whole bunch of CGI was also no doubt used – some of the battles scenes are impressive. There is a stirring choral theme by Ramin Djawadi (best known for his TV themes for “Game of Thrones” and the brilliant “Westworld”) played over silk-screen painted end titles that just make for a beautiful combination. And Tian Jing as the heroine Lin Mae is not only stunningly good-looking but also injects some much needed acting talent into the cast, where most of those involved (including Damon himself) look like they would rather be somewhere else.
And some of the action scenes are rather fun in a ‘park your brain by the door’ sort of way, including (nonsensically) cute warrior girls high-diving off the wall on bungey ropes to near certain death. While the CGI monsters are of the (yawn) over-the-top LoTR variety, their ability to swarm like locusts at the Queen’s command is also quite entertainingly rendered.
Where the movie balloon comes crashing down to earth in flames though is with the story and the screenplay – all done by three different people each, which is NEVER a good sign.
The story (by Max Brooks (“World War Z”), Edward Zwick and Marshall Herskovitz (both on “The Last Samurai”) is plain nonsensical at times. No spoilers here, but the transition from “wall under siege” to “wall not under siege” gives the word ‘clunky’ a bad name. As another absurdity, the “New Order” seem amazed how William was able to slay one of the creatures (thanks to the poleaxing ‘McGuffin’ previously referenced) but then throughout the rest of the film he slays creatures left right and centre (McGuffin-less) through just the use of a spear or an arrow! Bonkers.
Things get worse when you add words to the actions. The screenplay by Carlo Bernard and Doug Miro (both “Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time”) and Tony Gilroy (Tony Gilroy? Surely not he of all the “Bourne” films and “Rogue One” fame? The very same!) has a reading age of about an 8 year old. It feels like it has been translated into Chinese and then back again to English with Google Translate. “Is that the best you can do?” asks Tovar to William at one point. I was thinking exactly the same thing.
The combination of the cinematography and the special effects have the unfortunate effect of giving the film the veneer of a video game, but this is one where your kid-brother has stolen the controls and refuses to give them back to you.
Having had the great thrill of visiting a section of The Great Wall near Beijing, I can confirm that it is an astonishing engineering masterpiece that has to be seen to be truly believed. It ranks as one of the genuine wonders of the world. The same can not be said of this movie. Early teens might enjoy it as a mindless action flick. But otherwise best avoided until it emerges on a raining Sunday afternoon on the TV.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Mandalorian in TV
Jan 22, 2021 (Updated Jan 22, 2021)
Being a child of Star Wars, born in ’73, whose first memory of a cinema was A New Hope in ’77, of course the entire franchise is still close to my heart. I am no superfan, however. I do not need to remember every name of every character, or know the obscure names of planets to enjoy it. I remember that deeply competitive nature back in the playground – how important it was to prove Star Wars was yours by knowing more than any other kid! Fortunately I managed to let that go shortly after The Return of the Jedi. Ok, maybe 1995.
The Mandalorian is definitely for all Star Wars fans, but it is mostly for the kids that never grew up and need those details of “the canonical Star Wars” universe in their lives. And there are plenty of them. It is a geek’s wet dream! With chat rooms and fan sites going wild in debate and argument over the smallest of Easter eggs and hints to connections across the medium. As if this is a lost historical document that sheds light on the truth of many characters and events, that until now were shrouded in darkness and speculation only.
I find that phenomenon weird and a little creepy, but I do appreciate where it comes from. For me, I am merely glad it isn’t crap. It is nice to be in the Star Wars universe without holding your face in your hands for shame of lazy storytelling and moments that shit on the spirit of the original trilogy. The first thing that pleased me about The Mandolorian is how close it is in feel to the old school trilogy. In fact it surprised me, because, despite the very modern effects and full budget of Disney behind it, it feels very old fashioned, like a TV show from around 1986, maybe. And I wonder how they have achieved that every time I watch it. It has an intangible magic about it.
In fact, the feel of the show as a whole is often a little cheap, shockingly – the posters and toys and all associated media is as glossy and crisp as all money can afford, creating an image of the show that isn’t actually what the show is. In reality it is a cross between old spaghetti westerns, with The Mandalorian cast as The Man With No Name, and episodes of The A-Team or Knightrider. I kinda like it; very nostalgic, and a smart move by Jon Favreau and the other show-runners. It appeals to middle aged audiences and new alike, because it is a knowing hybrid of all things cool and nerdy!
Design-wise, the look of The Mandalorian himself is perfect fan bait and very cool. The music goes a long way to drawing you in – Ludwig Göransson, known for his work on Black Panther and Tenet, has hit on a career defining theme that blends Clint Eastwood and Star Wars in perfect harmony. I can’t imagine the show working half as well without that theme music! The spaceships and detail of every alien and weapon and costume is meticulous (if at times a little wobbly or cheap looking), and the wider feel of background and tertiary characters is pretty damn good.
But, let’s face it… The Mandalorian is the success it has been predominantly for one reason. I could give him his real name, but if you haven’t finished it yet that would count as a huge spoiler, so I will refer to him as The Child. The temptation to use the phrase Baby Yoda is hard to resist, and has been a cultural phenomenon that only comes along once or twice in a decade, but on this I agree with the fans: it is inaccurate and misleading. The Child is fine. It’ll do until you learn his true moniker.
In season one, where the build up of story, character and mystery is superb, we see very little of The Child at first. But we cannot take our eyes off him for every second he is on screen. The whole concept is so beyond cute and incredibly strong as a hook for a Star Wars story it is almost impossible not to squeal out loud at everything he does. Who is he? Why is he? What is he capable of? How will he fit in to the longterm idea for the story? So exciting, and total genius to keep everyone watching.
It isn’t all about The Child on his own though. It is about the unlikely symbiotic bond, like father and son, that develops between the tiny, vulnerable and childlike focal point, and the increasingly confident and loyal antihero, who will stop at nothing to protect his ward, as he struggles to find his own place in the universe. After a very short time, we care more about this relationship than 90% of all romances in all of TV history.
Through danger, mayhem and a touch of comedy, we grow to adore the two of them together, and can’t bear to think of them being apart. Some trick when you realise The Child is as much a mini-muppet style prosthetic as it is added CGI for expression and detail. Perhaps another callback to our 80s sensibilities, when we accepted ETs and Gremlins and all of the residents of Mos Eisley’s cantina as real without hesitation. It doesn’t have to look real, is the point, as long as it fits the story, is cool and is fun! Which The Child totally is – for entertainment value they have got the tone of the show so right.
What doesn’t hold up that strongly to critical scrutiny though is quite a lot of the scripts, the repetitive nature of the context of many episodes and missions the duo find themselves on, the mismatch quality of the guest directors abilities, and quite a lot of the dodgy acting by supporting characters. It’s as if at some production meeting at one early point they all said, look it’s Star Wars, we make the aliens and the spaceships and the weapons look good and we can’t fail… plus we have The Child and Boba Fett’s (yes, I know) armour, we can’t fail!
The basic storyline is enough to hook it on, just about, it is the detail that sometimes feels weak and lazy. But don’t worry, any minute something cool to look at and a big fight will happen, so we’re all good! I’m sure Pedro Pascal (the actor under the armour) can’t believe his luck! He is one of the biggest stars in TV all of a sudden, for basically doing a fairly monotone voice-over performance of some seriously dodgy dialogue. That is the magic of Star Wars.
So, I came to season one late, having no access at that time to Disney plus. In fact, I watched all of season one in a day the day before the launch of season two, so the switch to a new episode to look forward to suited me well. It gave me something to look forward to on a Friday between Halloween and Christmas. Trouble was that, although still having fun with the exploits of The Kid, I was starting to weary of the plotlines, and put my viewing on hold after S2E4 in favour of the far superior scripting of His Dark Materials on BBC.
I must have needed the hiatus, because when I came back to mop it up and finish season two a few days ago I realised that I had in fact missed it. It also helped that episode 5 onwards is when the season gets really good again. Rosario Dawson as Ashoka Tano (known well by fans of The Clone Wars) was a truly great addition that the show much needed by that point.
I had no trouble after that in bingeing to the end. You could feel a climax and a revelation coming, and although the character of Moff Gideon (Giancarlo Esposito) crumbled disappointly away into nothing much, the last 15 minutes of the final episode had me slack jawed in fan wonderment. I felt 9 years old again, and I loved it! I had been amazingly lucky not to stumble upon spoilers, I guess. Amazing ending, and all faults forgiven for that unforgettable moment and feel. Wonderful stuff!
To say any more, again, is to spoil. So, let’s just talk about it privately, or, you know, in about a year when season 3 is over and it is old news. Hmmm, season 3…? I wonder where they will take that now…? Actually, properly exciting, in a back in the playground kind of way.
The Mandalorian is definitely for all Star Wars fans, but it is mostly for the kids that never grew up and need those details of “the canonical Star Wars” universe in their lives. And there are plenty of them. It is a geek’s wet dream! With chat rooms and fan sites going wild in debate and argument over the smallest of Easter eggs and hints to connections across the medium. As if this is a lost historical document that sheds light on the truth of many characters and events, that until now were shrouded in darkness and speculation only.
I find that phenomenon weird and a little creepy, but I do appreciate where it comes from. For me, I am merely glad it isn’t crap. It is nice to be in the Star Wars universe without holding your face in your hands for shame of lazy storytelling and moments that shit on the spirit of the original trilogy. The first thing that pleased me about The Mandolorian is how close it is in feel to the old school trilogy. In fact it surprised me, because, despite the very modern effects and full budget of Disney behind it, it feels very old fashioned, like a TV show from around 1986, maybe. And I wonder how they have achieved that every time I watch it. It has an intangible magic about it.
In fact, the feel of the show as a whole is often a little cheap, shockingly – the posters and toys and all associated media is as glossy and crisp as all money can afford, creating an image of the show that isn’t actually what the show is. In reality it is a cross between old spaghetti westerns, with The Mandalorian cast as The Man With No Name, and episodes of The A-Team or Knightrider. I kinda like it; very nostalgic, and a smart move by Jon Favreau and the other show-runners. It appeals to middle aged audiences and new alike, because it is a knowing hybrid of all things cool and nerdy!
Design-wise, the look of The Mandalorian himself is perfect fan bait and very cool. The music goes a long way to drawing you in – Ludwig Göransson, known for his work on Black Panther and Tenet, has hit on a career defining theme that blends Clint Eastwood and Star Wars in perfect harmony. I can’t imagine the show working half as well without that theme music! The spaceships and detail of every alien and weapon and costume is meticulous (if at times a little wobbly or cheap looking), and the wider feel of background and tertiary characters is pretty damn good.
But, let’s face it… The Mandalorian is the success it has been predominantly for one reason. I could give him his real name, but if you haven’t finished it yet that would count as a huge spoiler, so I will refer to him as The Child. The temptation to use the phrase Baby Yoda is hard to resist, and has been a cultural phenomenon that only comes along once or twice in a decade, but on this I agree with the fans: it is inaccurate and misleading. The Child is fine. It’ll do until you learn his true moniker.
In season one, where the build up of story, character and mystery is superb, we see very little of The Child at first. But we cannot take our eyes off him for every second he is on screen. The whole concept is so beyond cute and incredibly strong as a hook for a Star Wars story it is almost impossible not to squeal out loud at everything he does. Who is he? Why is he? What is he capable of? How will he fit in to the longterm idea for the story? So exciting, and total genius to keep everyone watching.
It isn’t all about The Child on his own though. It is about the unlikely symbiotic bond, like father and son, that develops between the tiny, vulnerable and childlike focal point, and the increasingly confident and loyal antihero, who will stop at nothing to protect his ward, as he struggles to find his own place in the universe. After a very short time, we care more about this relationship than 90% of all romances in all of TV history.
Through danger, mayhem and a touch of comedy, we grow to adore the two of them together, and can’t bear to think of them being apart. Some trick when you realise The Child is as much a mini-muppet style prosthetic as it is added CGI for expression and detail. Perhaps another callback to our 80s sensibilities, when we accepted ETs and Gremlins and all of the residents of Mos Eisley’s cantina as real without hesitation. It doesn’t have to look real, is the point, as long as it fits the story, is cool and is fun! Which The Child totally is – for entertainment value they have got the tone of the show so right.
What doesn’t hold up that strongly to critical scrutiny though is quite a lot of the scripts, the repetitive nature of the context of many episodes and missions the duo find themselves on, the mismatch quality of the guest directors abilities, and quite a lot of the dodgy acting by supporting characters. It’s as if at some production meeting at one early point they all said, look it’s Star Wars, we make the aliens and the spaceships and the weapons look good and we can’t fail… plus we have The Child and Boba Fett’s (yes, I know) armour, we can’t fail!
The basic storyline is enough to hook it on, just about, it is the detail that sometimes feels weak and lazy. But don’t worry, any minute something cool to look at and a big fight will happen, so we’re all good! I’m sure Pedro Pascal (the actor under the armour) can’t believe his luck! He is one of the biggest stars in TV all of a sudden, for basically doing a fairly monotone voice-over performance of some seriously dodgy dialogue. That is the magic of Star Wars.
So, I came to season one late, having no access at that time to Disney plus. In fact, I watched all of season one in a day the day before the launch of season two, so the switch to a new episode to look forward to suited me well. It gave me something to look forward to on a Friday between Halloween and Christmas. Trouble was that, although still having fun with the exploits of The Kid, I was starting to weary of the plotlines, and put my viewing on hold after S2E4 in favour of the far superior scripting of His Dark Materials on BBC.
I must have needed the hiatus, because when I came back to mop it up and finish season two a few days ago I realised that I had in fact missed it. It also helped that episode 5 onwards is when the season gets really good again. Rosario Dawson as Ashoka Tano (known well by fans of The Clone Wars) was a truly great addition that the show much needed by that point.
I had no trouble after that in bingeing to the end. You could feel a climax and a revelation coming, and although the character of Moff Gideon (Giancarlo Esposito) crumbled disappointly away into nothing much, the last 15 minutes of the final episode had me slack jawed in fan wonderment. I felt 9 years old again, and I loved it! I had been amazingly lucky not to stumble upon spoilers, I guess. Amazing ending, and all faults forgiven for that unforgettable moment and feel. Wonderful stuff!
To say any more, again, is to spoil. So, let’s just talk about it privately, or, you know, in about a year when season 3 is over and it is old news. Hmmm, season 3…? I wonder where they will take that now…? Actually, properly exciting, in a back in the playground kind of way.