Search
Mark Jaye (65 KP) rated Avengers: Endgame (2019) in Movies
May 13, 2019
Ending The Game
Contains spoilers, click to show
Avengers: Endgame - the concluding installment of the Marvel Cinematic Universe's 'Infinity Saga', has made box office history, breaking a number of records on its' journey (thus far) of becoming the second highest grossing movie ever in a short period of time. Bringing together the story threads of 21 films before it 'Endgame' had a number of hurdles to overcome - not only did the Russo Brothers have to find a satisfying way to reverse the effects of 'The Decimation' (if you have to ask then you're probably reading the wrong review!) but they had to do so in a way that did not lessen the impact of 'Infinity War', whilst bringing to a close a number of character arcs for many well respected and founding members of Marvel's flagship superhero team and setting the course and direction for whatever comes next.
The question is, did it succeed?
At the time of writing 'Endgame' has been in cinemas for over two weeks and all embargoes pertaining to spoilers have since been rescinded. It is on that note that I will make the following SPOILER ALERT and advise anyone yet to see the movie (is there actually anyone out there daring to call themselves a fan who hasn't seen it?!) to leave now.....
Endgame picks up a few short weeks after the events of 'Infinity War' and depicts the surviving heroes of Thanos's snap coming up again him once again. The encounter is very short lived but doesn't go as planned/hoped effectively destroying all hope for returning the vanished. Que a five year time-jump..
Steve Rogers heads up a support group for the survivors, Natasha Romanoff directs the remaining Avengers refusing to move on, Tony Stark and Pepper Potts are living a quiet life raising their daughter, Thor has spiraled into despair at New Asgard effectively leaving Valkyrie in charge, Clint Barton has become the blood-thirsty vigilante Ronin - tracking down and eliminating those criminals who escaped the decimation when his family didn't, and Bruce Banner has found a way to merge personalities with the Hulk allowing both to co-exist as one (Professor Hulk).
Things look pretty grim until AntMan (Scott Lang) returns - quite accidentally, from the Quantum Realm bringing with him the key to bringing everyone back and reversing Thanos's decimation. And that's where time travel appears...
The Avengers must travel back to key moments in their history to remove the Infinity Stones and bring them to the present where Stark and Banner create their own Gauntlet to house them. This involves the second act of the movie displaying some time travel shenanigans as our heroes interact with events - and themselves, of previously seen movies. Such encounters include revisiting the events of Avengers Assemble, Thor:The Dark World, and Guardians Of The Galaxy. Don't expect a retread of the 'Back To The Future' franchise however, as Avengers: Endgame creates its' own rules for time travel. Basically, going back in time and interfering with established events does not alter the future - instead it creates a branched reality (think parallel timeline), however traversing the Quantum Realm will still return you to the original timeline you came from. In other words, go back in time kill Thanos, return to the future and you've changed nothing.... Simple, right?!
That's the basic gist, and all I'll give you for now.
Whilst this does follow on from 'Infinity War', 'Endgame' is stylistically and tonally a different movie. Whereas the former threw us straight into the thick of the action and never let up until the devastating conclusion, throwing a cavalcade of heroes at us in a relentless fashion, 'Endgame' scales it all back (for two thirds of the running time at least) focusing on the original six core Avengers (with strong support from Don Cheadle's War Machine, Karen Gillan as Nebula, Paul Rudd (returning as AntMan), and of course, Rocket Raccoon! With the preceding movie been Captain Marvel you would be forgiven for thinking Brie Larson would play a strong role in this movie, however - with a throwaway line earlier on justifying her absence, Carol Danvers features for all of around fifteen minutes! That's not to say she doesn't make an impact when she does I might add! Given the downbeat tone to 'Endgame' there is a lot of humour from start to finish - Chris Hemsworth, Paul Rudd, Bradley Cooper, I'm looking at you most here!, which in no way detracts from the weight of what's at sake here.
Josh Brolin is back as Thanos, and Thanos...that's right, two versions of the mad Titan appear. The one whom our heroes go up against during the final third act is a past version who travels forward in time to present after seeing into his own future and witnessing the efforts of Earth's Mightiest Heroes and the lengths they are prepared to go to in order to 'decimate' his plans. This is a Thanos whom I would deem more ruthless that 'Infinity War's' protagonist, a Thanos now determined to erase ALL life in the Universe.
I imagine the biggest question - well, one biggie amongst many, fans going into this movie blind had concerned who would return after the shocking climax to 'Infinity War' (along with whether those who died in that movie stayed that way). There was never any doubt - was there, that the vanished would return? It isn't that much of a spoiler then to reveal that the final thirty minutes or so of 'Endgame' features every MCU hero on screen together embroiled in the biggest fight of their lives. And what a visual delight it is. The visuals in this film are fantastic and the final battle rivals anything Peter Jackson gave us.
I was fortunate enough to see 'Endgame' at the first screening (pre-midnight) at a local cinema and what an experience it was - a mini comic con. The atmosphere was electric and it was a highly memorable experience.
Everyone involved in this movie deserves kudos, for this lifelong superhero fanboy Avengers: Endgame is the best movie....ever.
If I may digress somewhat, there has been much confusion reported concerning the movie's ending, namely the resolution to Steve Rogers' story. Having returned the Infinity Stones to their rightful place in the MCU timeline Cap chooses to remain in the past (circa 1940-ish) and to live out his life with Peggy Carter (the final shot shows the two having that well overdue dance). Whilst the perfect sendoff this has left many conflicted as to the implications with some reviewers claiming this goes against the rules established earlier in the movie relating to the use of time travel. It really isn't that complicated. Essentially there are two theories at play that can explain the climax.
The first is that Steve simply lived out a life in secrecy within the established continuity, choosing not to involve himself in major events. This does not contradict what we've seen so far - back in 'The Winter Soldier' we see archive footage of Peggy from the nineteen fifties in which she talks about Captain America saving her (un-named) husband during the war. It isn't really a reach of the imagination to suspect that Cap and this man are one and the same. In the same movie, present day Steve visits a dying Peggy - clearly suffering the effects of dementia, who apologises to him for the life he didn't have. Could this be a reference to the man she married having to live a life of secrecy, choosing to stay out of the fight for fear of creating a divergent reality? Given that the movie establishes that actions in the past will not change the future (within the main timeline) Steve's interference would not change anything in 'our' reality anyhow.
The second theory is that Steve created a branched reality by reuniting with Peggy and lived a fulfilling life in that alternate timeline, only returning to the main timeline an old man when the time was right to handover the shield to Sam Wilson/Falcon (as seen at the end of the movie). Sure, this raises questions as to how Steve was able to cross realities but to be honest - that's a story for another time and the answer isn't important (for now).
Further confusing things is the fact that the Writers and Directors cannot seemingly agree, with Marcus and McFeely disputing the alternate reality theory that the Russo brothers subscribe to. You could argue that surely it is the Writer's view that counts, as..after all, they wrote it! Well, yes and no. The directors translate their understanding of the written word onto the screen and it has been reported that additional material was filmed after test audiences struggled with the time travel aspects of the film. Therefore it's not that hard to believe that the film - and that ending, were shot in a way that supported the film-makers understanding. I subscribe to the former - the romantic in me and all that, with Steve's story coming full circle with the revelation that he was always there with Peggy. Either way, both theories work and preserve the integrity of what has come before.
In any regard it's the perfect ending for Captain America!
So, to conclude....did it succeed? OH YES!!
The question is, did it succeed?
At the time of writing 'Endgame' has been in cinemas for over two weeks and all embargoes pertaining to spoilers have since been rescinded. It is on that note that I will make the following SPOILER ALERT and advise anyone yet to see the movie (is there actually anyone out there daring to call themselves a fan who hasn't seen it?!) to leave now.....
Endgame picks up a few short weeks after the events of 'Infinity War' and depicts the surviving heroes of Thanos's snap coming up again him once again. The encounter is very short lived but doesn't go as planned/hoped effectively destroying all hope for returning the vanished. Que a five year time-jump..
Steve Rogers heads up a support group for the survivors, Natasha Romanoff directs the remaining Avengers refusing to move on, Tony Stark and Pepper Potts are living a quiet life raising their daughter, Thor has spiraled into despair at New Asgard effectively leaving Valkyrie in charge, Clint Barton has become the blood-thirsty vigilante Ronin - tracking down and eliminating those criminals who escaped the decimation when his family didn't, and Bruce Banner has found a way to merge personalities with the Hulk allowing both to co-exist as one (Professor Hulk).
Things look pretty grim until AntMan (Scott Lang) returns - quite accidentally, from the Quantum Realm bringing with him the key to bringing everyone back and reversing Thanos's decimation. And that's where time travel appears...
The Avengers must travel back to key moments in their history to remove the Infinity Stones and bring them to the present where Stark and Banner create their own Gauntlet to house them. This involves the second act of the movie displaying some time travel shenanigans as our heroes interact with events - and themselves, of previously seen movies. Such encounters include revisiting the events of Avengers Assemble, Thor:The Dark World, and Guardians Of The Galaxy. Don't expect a retread of the 'Back To The Future' franchise however, as Avengers: Endgame creates its' own rules for time travel. Basically, going back in time and interfering with established events does not alter the future - instead it creates a branched reality (think parallel timeline), however traversing the Quantum Realm will still return you to the original timeline you came from. In other words, go back in time kill Thanos, return to the future and you've changed nothing.... Simple, right?!
That's the basic gist, and all I'll give you for now.
Whilst this does follow on from 'Infinity War', 'Endgame' is stylistically and tonally a different movie. Whereas the former threw us straight into the thick of the action and never let up until the devastating conclusion, throwing a cavalcade of heroes at us in a relentless fashion, 'Endgame' scales it all back (for two thirds of the running time at least) focusing on the original six core Avengers (with strong support from Don Cheadle's War Machine, Karen Gillan as Nebula, Paul Rudd (returning as AntMan), and of course, Rocket Raccoon! With the preceding movie been Captain Marvel you would be forgiven for thinking Brie Larson would play a strong role in this movie, however - with a throwaway line earlier on justifying her absence, Carol Danvers features for all of around fifteen minutes! That's not to say she doesn't make an impact when she does I might add! Given the downbeat tone to 'Endgame' there is a lot of humour from start to finish - Chris Hemsworth, Paul Rudd, Bradley Cooper, I'm looking at you most here!, which in no way detracts from the weight of what's at sake here.
Josh Brolin is back as Thanos, and Thanos...that's right, two versions of the mad Titan appear. The one whom our heroes go up against during the final third act is a past version who travels forward in time to present after seeing into his own future and witnessing the efforts of Earth's Mightiest Heroes and the lengths they are prepared to go to in order to 'decimate' his plans. This is a Thanos whom I would deem more ruthless that 'Infinity War's' protagonist, a Thanos now determined to erase ALL life in the Universe.
I imagine the biggest question - well, one biggie amongst many, fans going into this movie blind had concerned who would return after the shocking climax to 'Infinity War' (along with whether those who died in that movie stayed that way). There was never any doubt - was there, that the vanished would return? It isn't that much of a spoiler then to reveal that the final thirty minutes or so of 'Endgame' features every MCU hero on screen together embroiled in the biggest fight of their lives. And what a visual delight it is. The visuals in this film are fantastic and the final battle rivals anything Peter Jackson gave us.
I was fortunate enough to see 'Endgame' at the first screening (pre-midnight) at a local cinema and what an experience it was - a mini comic con. The atmosphere was electric and it was a highly memorable experience.
Everyone involved in this movie deserves kudos, for this lifelong superhero fanboy Avengers: Endgame is the best movie....ever.
If I may digress somewhat, there has been much confusion reported concerning the movie's ending, namely the resolution to Steve Rogers' story. Having returned the Infinity Stones to their rightful place in the MCU timeline Cap chooses to remain in the past (circa 1940-ish) and to live out his life with Peggy Carter (the final shot shows the two having that well overdue dance). Whilst the perfect sendoff this has left many conflicted as to the implications with some reviewers claiming this goes against the rules established earlier in the movie relating to the use of time travel. It really isn't that complicated. Essentially there are two theories at play that can explain the climax.
The first is that Steve simply lived out a life in secrecy within the established continuity, choosing not to involve himself in major events. This does not contradict what we've seen so far - back in 'The Winter Soldier' we see archive footage of Peggy from the nineteen fifties in which she talks about Captain America saving her (un-named) husband during the war. It isn't really a reach of the imagination to suspect that Cap and this man are one and the same. In the same movie, present day Steve visits a dying Peggy - clearly suffering the effects of dementia, who apologises to him for the life he didn't have. Could this be a reference to the man she married having to live a life of secrecy, choosing to stay out of the fight for fear of creating a divergent reality? Given that the movie establishes that actions in the past will not change the future (within the main timeline) Steve's interference would not change anything in 'our' reality anyhow.
The second theory is that Steve created a branched reality by reuniting with Peggy and lived a fulfilling life in that alternate timeline, only returning to the main timeline an old man when the time was right to handover the shield to Sam Wilson/Falcon (as seen at the end of the movie). Sure, this raises questions as to how Steve was able to cross realities but to be honest - that's a story for another time and the answer isn't important (for now).
Further confusing things is the fact that the Writers and Directors cannot seemingly agree, with Marcus and McFeely disputing the alternate reality theory that the Russo brothers subscribe to. You could argue that surely it is the Writer's view that counts, as..after all, they wrote it! Well, yes and no. The directors translate their understanding of the written word onto the screen and it has been reported that additional material was filmed after test audiences struggled with the time travel aspects of the film. Therefore it's not that hard to believe that the film - and that ending, were shot in a way that supported the film-makers understanding. I subscribe to the former - the romantic in me and all that, with Steve's story coming full circle with the revelation that he was always there with Peggy. Either way, both theories work and preserve the integrity of what has come before.
In any regard it's the perfect ending for Captain America!
So, to conclude....did it succeed? OH YES!!
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Get Him to the Greek (2010) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
Aaron Green (Jonah Hill) works as a record company intern at Pinnacle Records. His boss Sergio Roma (Sean "Diddy" Combs) is wanting a "game changer" that will help turn the company around. Aaron pitches the idea that since it's the ten year anniversary of out of control British rock star Aldous Snow (Russell Brand) performing at the Greek Theatre in Los Angeles, he believes that the company can make a serious profit from not only a return performance, but by re-releasing his back catalog, as well. Sergio eventually goes for the idea and Aaron flies out to London to bring Aldous back to America to prepare for the show. Unfortunately for him, Aldous Snow's lifestyle tends to rub off on him and turns his life upside down in the process. As Aaron deals with some relationship issues and has his hands full trying to keep Aldous sober, Aldous has some relationship problems of his own and begins to wonder if there's more to life than sex, drugs, and rock and roll. It seems like a moot point by the time the Greek Theater show sells out as Aaron may not have a girlfriend or a job by the time the show begins and Aldous speaks of skipping the gig altogether.
I was a pretty big fan of Forgetting Sarah Marshall, but that was mostly due to the Dracula rock opera and Russell Brand's outrageous portrayal of Aldous Snow. So Get Him to the Greek immediately grabbed my attention since it was announced as a spinoff sequel, but I became excited when reviews trickled in saying it was raunchier than its predecessor. Is more Aldous Snow really a good thing though? The short answer is yes. Yes it is.
Russell Brand is really the backbone of the film. Aldous Snow's rock star lifestyle provides his character with a sense of unpredictability as his outlandish outbursts and struggle with more adult decisions is enticing and at often times hilarious. Jonah Hill's screen presence is just as important to the film. His usual quick witted and delightfully explicit sense of humor in addition to his chemistry with Russell Brand is really a spectacular combination. Sean Combs manages to steal quite a few scenes, as well. His theory on screwing with people's heads and his one-liners ("You cannot out run me! I am black!") were surprisingly hysterical. The music in the film is really the key ingredient that brings the entire film together though. Fictional band Infant Sorrow delivers some pretty fantastic and humorously obscene ballads that are better than they should be for a film like this. I liked "Furry Walls" so much that I downloaded the soundtrack as soon as I returned from the theater.
The film's strongest scenes don't seem to last as long as they should though. The R-rated comedy seems to shine brightest when things get a bit more serious as the main characters come off as being more human, more realistic, and easier to relate to during those situations. Unfortunately those scenes really only begin to transpire in the last 15-20 minutes of the film and even though the point is made, I can't help but think of how a great film could have been even better if those events had occurred earlier on to have an even bigger impact. The biggest issue for me was that most of the scenes in the trailers were either not in the film at all or were different takes from scenes that actually made it into the theatrical version of the film. That means the DVD will probably be unrated and have x amount of extra footage not seen in theaters, but at least 50% of the scenes you're looking forward to were probably left on the cutting room floor which is just disappointing.
Get Him to the Greek may very well be this year's The Hangover, but isn't quite as laugh out loud funny as the 2009 comedy blockbuster. Get Him to the Greek is a wonderfully amusing comedy with a highly entertaining soundtrack that effectively gives a little more depth to the already remarkable for all the wrong reasons character Aldous Snow, but unfortunately doesn't live up to the reputation of being the uproarious riot that everyone seems to be making it out to be. Nevertheless, it is still an extremely solid comedy that comes highly recommended from me.
I was a pretty big fan of Forgetting Sarah Marshall, but that was mostly due to the Dracula rock opera and Russell Brand's outrageous portrayal of Aldous Snow. So Get Him to the Greek immediately grabbed my attention since it was announced as a spinoff sequel, but I became excited when reviews trickled in saying it was raunchier than its predecessor. Is more Aldous Snow really a good thing though? The short answer is yes. Yes it is.
Russell Brand is really the backbone of the film. Aldous Snow's rock star lifestyle provides his character with a sense of unpredictability as his outlandish outbursts and struggle with more adult decisions is enticing and at often times hilarious. Jonah Hill's screen presence is just as important to the film. His usual quick witted and delightfully explicit sense of humor in addition to his chemistry with Russell Brand is really a spectacular combination. Sean Combs manages to steal quite a few scenes, as well. His theory on screwing with people's heads and his one-liners ("You cannot out run me! I am black!") were surprisingly hysterical. The music in the film is really the key ingredient that brings the entire film together though. Fictional band Infant Sorrow delivers some pretty fantastic and humorously obscene ballads that are better than they should be for a film like this. I liked "Furry Walls" so much that I downloaded the soundtrack as soon as I returned from the theater.
The film's strongest scenes don't seem to last as long as they should though. The R-rated comedy seems to shine brightest when things get a bit more serious as the main characters come off as being more human, more realistic, and easier to relate to during those situations. Unfortunately those scenes really only begin to transpire in the last 15-20 minutes of the film and even though the point is made, I can't help but think of how a great film could have been even better if those events had occurred earlier on to have an even bigger impact. The biggest issue for me was that most of the scenes in the trailers were either not in the film at all or were different takes from scenes that actually made it into the theatrical version of the film. That means the DVD will probably be unrated and have x amount of extra footage not seen in theaters, but at least 50% of the scenes you're looking forward to were probably left on the cutting room floor which is just disappointing.
Get Him to the Greek may very well be this year's The Hangover, but isn't quite as laugh out loud funny as the 2009 comedy blockbuster. Get Him to the Greek is a wonderfully amusing comedy with a highly entertaining soundtrack that effectively gives a little more depth to the already remarkable for all the wrong reasons character Aldous Snow, but unfortunately doesn't live up to the reputation of being the uproarious riot that everyone seems to be making it out to be. Nevertheless, it is still an extremely solid comedy that comes highly recommended from me.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated They Shall Not Grow Old (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
We DO remember them.
“Trapped in a Charlie Chaplin World”. So says director Peter Jackson in a post-screening discussion with Mark Kermode, describing early black and white documentary footage. Whereas modern film runs at 24 fps, most of the old footage is hand cranked, with speeds as low as 12 fps which leads to its jerky nature. Jackson in this project with the Imperial War Museum took their WW1 footage and put it through a ‘pipeline process. This cleaned-up and restored the original footage; used clever computer interpolation to add in the missing 6 to 12 frames per second; and then colourised it.
The results are outstanding. Jackson wisely focuses the film on the specific slice of WW1 action from the trenches. And those anonymous figures become real, live, breathing humans on screen. It is obviously tragic that some (and as commented by Jackson, many in one scene) are not to be breathing humans for much longer.
These effects take a while to kick in. The early scenes in the documentary are in the original black and white, describing the recruitment process, and how many of the recruits were under-age. (To explain the varied comments in the film, they should have been 18, although officially shouldn’t have been sent overseas until 19).
It is when the troops arrive in France that we suddenly go from black-and-white to the fully restored and colourised footage, and it is a gasp-inducing moment.
Audio magic
All of the audio commentary is from original BBC recordings of war veterans recounting their actual experiences in the trench. Some sound like heroes; some sound like rogues; all came out changed men. Supporting music of WW1 ditties, including the incredibly rude “Mademoiselle from Armentières” over the end credits, is provided by Plan 9.
But equally impressive is the dubbing of the characters onscreen. Jackson employed forensic lip-readers to determine what the soldiers on-screen were saying, and reproduced the speech using appropriate regional accents for the regiments concerned. Jackson also recounts how the words associated with a “pep-talk” speech to troops by an officer he found on an original slip of paper within the regimental records: outstanding. Added sound effects include real-life shelling by the New Zealand army. It all adds to the overall atmosphere of the film.
3D = less
The film itself is a masterpiece of technical innovation that will change in the future the way in which we should be able to see this sort of early film footage forever. As a documentary it’s near-perfection. But if I have a criticism of the cinema showing I attended it is that the 3D tended to detract rather than add to the film. Perhaps this is just my eyesight, but 3D always tends to make images slightly more blurry. Where (like “Gravity”) there are great 3D effects to showcase, it’s worth the slight negative to get the massive positive. But here, there was no such benefit: 2D would have been better. For those in the UK (and possibly through other broadcasters worldwide) the film is being shown on BBC2 tonight (11/11/18) at 9:30: I will be watching it again to compare and contrast.
Final Thoughts
Jackson dedicated the film to his grandfather. And almost all of us Brits will have relatives affected by this “war to end all wars”. In my case, my grandfather was shot and severely wounded at Leuze Wood on the Somme, lying in the mud for four days and four nights before being recovered… by the Germans! Fortunately he was well-treated and, although dying young, recovered enough to father my father – else I wouldn’t be here today writing this. On this Rememberance Sunday, 100 years on, it is a time for us to truly remember the sacrifice these men and boys gave to what, all in the film agree, was a pretty obstinate and pointless conflict.
I’ll finish the review by reproducing one of the war poems of my wife’s Uncle Ivor (available in a collection here), written on 11/11/18 a hundred years ago:
Peace
At last O Lord the Day has come,
And hushed is now the noise of guns.
Peace is proclaimed over land and sea,
Our heartfelt thanks we give to Thee.
I thank thee Father for Thy care,
That thou hasn’t answered all my prayers.
This day I see in manhood’s strength,
The Peace we longed for, come at length.
O may my future actions be,
Worthy of all Thy care to me.
Let me forget not Thy Great Love,
Remembering chums who live Above.
I.G.H. 11/11/1918, France.
The results are outstanding. Jackson wisely focuses the film on the specific slice of WW1 action from the trenches. And those anonymous figures become real, live, breathing humans on screen. It is obviously tragic that some (and as commented by Jackson, many in one scene) are not to be breathing humans for much longer.
These effects take a while to kick in. The early scenes in the documentary are in the original black and white, describing the recruitment process, and how many of the recruits were under-age. (To explain the varied comments in the film, they should have been 18, although officially shouldn’t have been sent overseas until 19).
It is when the troops arrive in France that we suddenly go from black-and-white to the fully restored and colourised footage, and it is a gasp-inducing moment.
Audio magic
All of the audio commentary is from original BBC recordings of war veterans recounting their actual experiences in the trench. Some sound like heroes; some sound like rogues; all came out changed men. Supporting music of WW1 ditties, including the incredibly rude “Mademoiselle from Armentières” over the end credits, is provided by Plan 9.
But equally impressive is the dubbing of the characters onscreen. Jackson employed forensic lip-readers to determine what the soldiers on-screen were saying, and reproduced the speech using appropriate regional accents for the regiments concerned. Jackson also recounts how the words associated with a “pep-talk” speech to troops by an officer he found on an original slip of paper within the regimental records: outstanding. Added sound effects include real-life shelling by the New Zealand army. It all adds to the overall atmosphere of the film.
3D = less
The film itself is a masterpiece of technical innovation that will change in the future the way in which we should be able to see this sort of early film footage forever. As a documentary it’s near-perfection. But if I have a criticism of the cinema showing I attended it is that the 3D tended to detract rather than add to the film. Perhaps this is just my eyesight, but 3D always tends to make images slightly more blurry. Where (like “Gravity”) there are great 3D effects to showcase, it’s worth the slight negative to get the massive positive. But here, there was no such benefit: 2D would have been better. For those in the UK (and possibly through other broadcasters worldwide) the film is being shown on BBC2 tonight (11/11/18) at 9:30: I will be watching it again to compare and contrast.
Final Thoughts
Jackson dedicated the film to his grandfather. And almost all of us Brits will have relatives affected by this “war to end all wars”. In my case, my grandfather was shot and severely wounded at Leuze Wood on the Somme, lying in the mud for four days and four nights before being recovered… by the Germans! Fortunately he was well-treated and, although dying young, recovered enough to father my father – else I wouldn’t be here today writing this. On this Rememberance Sunday, 100 years on, it is a time for us to truly remember the sacrifice these men and boys gave to what, all in the film agree, was a pretty obstinate and pointless conflict.
I’ll finish the review by reproducing one of the war poems of my wife’s Uncle Ivor (available in a collection here), written on 11/11/18 a hundred years ago:
Peace
At last O Lord the Day has come,
And hushed is now the noise of guns.
Peace is proclaimed over land and sea,
Our heartfelt thanks we give to Thee.
I thank thee Father for Thy care,
That thou hasn’t answered all my prayers.
This day I see in manhood’s strength,
The Peace we longed for, come at length.
O may my future actions be,
Worthy of all Thy care to me.
Let me forget not Thy Great Love,
Remembering chums who live Above.
I.G.H. 11/11/1918, France.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild in Video Games
Jul 25, 2017
Bonus Points - An Example Of The Favoritism Towards Certain Developers In The Gaming Industry, Even When They Don’t Deliver
Zelda: Breath Of The Wild came out last month and it has taken the gaming world by storm. As a non Zelda fan, I am left wondering why this is the case. Why is this Zelda game so revolutionary? I don’t own the game, but I have played the first few hours of it and I have read a good number of reviews on the game. There are a few critics claiming that this game, ‘writes a new chapter in the videogames industry,’ and that it is an, ‘evolution of everything that has come before.’
While I appreciate that this is a well made game and it is doing new things within the Zelda franchise, these statements stick in my throat a little. This isn’t because I don’t agree that this is an impressive game, because it is. Other than the odd frame rate drop, there aren’t many flaws with this game and I did enjoy the few hours that I spent with it, (I had a lend of a friends Switch for the night so I could try the game for myself.)
My problem comes from the fact that this is a well made game that isn’t doing anything that hasn’t been done before a million times and frankly been done better. Full disclosure, I have never been a Zelda fan, but I wanted this game to convert me and I’m sorry to say that it didn’t. The purpose of this piece isn’t to attack the Zelda franchise, so you fanboys can put your pitchforks down. What I want to discuss is how when Nintendo do anything that is slightly better than a disaster, it is heralded as the brave new step in video games by a large number of the video game press.
I get it, nostalgia is a powerful lens and most writers in their 30’s grew up playing on Nintendo systems and franchises like Mario and Zelda, but as someone who is around ten years younger and grew up with Playstation, I don’t feel that Nintendo has advanced a great deal since the turn of the millennium and frankly, I don’t see Nintendo as having broken any new ground in the last twenty years.
If games like Breath of the Wild came out on another console, they wouldn’t be lauded as the best thing since sliced bread. In fact they have, it’s called Horizon: Zero Dawn! When Horizon came out it received a positive critical reception and high sales, but no one was writing articles claiming it was the next step in the evolution of video games. Splatoon has been put on a pedestal and has been described as ‘fresh,’ and, ‘unique,’ even though it is nothing more than a dumbed down version of Team Fortress 2 for a younger audience. Super Mario Maker was released in 2015 and it was essentially a $60 level editor. Level editors have been included in other games since forever and no fuss has been made, but when Nintendo sell an entire game based on the concept, it’s hailed as another, ‘triumph by Nintendo.’
When you compare Breath of The Wild to other recent open world games like The Witcher or Skyrim, there is nothing that makes it unique from a design and functionality standpoint. If Breath of The Wild came out in 2008, then sure you could get away with labeling it revolutionary, but in this day and age it isn’t any more special than Horizon or Skyrim.
Let’s look at some of the features that have been called unique in the game. The tower climbing to uncover zones of the map mechanic has been done in the Assassin’s Creed and Far Cry series’. Using plants for crafting and cooking has been done in Far Cry and Skyrim. Far Cry 2 and Dead Island had degradable weapons. The inventory system is very reminiscent of multiple Ubisoft titles; essentially Breath of The Wild has taken some elements from other games and made something from that within the Zelda universe.
This may sound patronizing, but it honestly isn’t intended that way. I get it, Nintendo fans have had it hard over these last five years, they have had nothing to be proud of since the launch of the Wii and they have had to stand by their console of choice and defend themselves with very little ammo to defend themselves with, but as a result nowadays when anything better than a car crash is released by them it is inflated by a large number of critics in the industry and so Nintendo fans are given a justification for putting their mediocre games on a pedestal. This is why to the rest of the industry it appears that Nintendo fans can’t accept things for the way that they really are and everything is blown so far out of proportion.
Some examples of Nintendo games being blown out of proportion and reviewers being clouded by nostalgia are available to go and check out right now on Metacritic. Zelda: Skyward Sword is currently sitting at a 93, Zelda: Twilight Princess is sitting at a 95 and Metroid: Other M has a 79. All three of these games are recognized as subpar and once the novelty wore off, even the most hardcore of Nintendo fans would agree that these are forgettable, black marks on the respective franchises track records. Not that BOTW isn’t a game for Zelda fans to be proud of, because it is. I can see why this would be people’s game of the year so far and I can see why it could be considered as the best Zelda game, but to someone that isn’t a Zelda fan that praise is meaningless.
In summary, the inflation of mediocrity in the industry has to stop, if we want gaming to improve. If we want to break new ground across the gaming media, these sycophants and apologists living in a false perception of reality have to go. These novelty games that are applauded for simply carrying the title of a beloved franchise, have to stop being praised so highly and given a free pass of any sort of criticism just because of a nostalgic lens.
While I appreciate that this is a well made game and it is doing new things within the Zelda franchise, these statements stick in my throat a little. This isn’t because I don’t agree that this is an impressive game, because it is. Other than the odd frame rate drop, there aren’t many flaws with this game and I did enjoy the few hours that I spent with it, (I had a lend of a friends Switch for the night so I could try the game for myself.)
My problem comes from the fact that this is a well made game that isn’t doing anything that hasn’t been done before a million times and frankly been done better. Full disclosure, I have never been a Zelda fan, but I wanted this game to convert me and I’m sorry to say that it didn’t. The purpose of this piece isn’t to attack the Zelda franchise, so you fanboys can put your pitchforks down. What I want to discuss is how when Nintendo do anything that is slightly better than a disaster, it is heralded as the brave new step in video games by a large number of the video game press.
I get it, nostalgia is a powerful lens and most writers in their 30’s grew up playing on Nintendo systems and franchises like Mario and Zelda, but as someone who is around ten years younger and grew up with Playstation, I don’t feel that Nintendo has advanced a great deal since the turn of the millennium and frankly, I don’t see Nintendo as having broken any new ground in the last twenty years.
If games like Breath of the Wild came out on another console, they wouldn’t be lauded as the best thing since sliced bread. In fact they have, it’s called Horizon: Zero Dawn! When Horizon came out it received a positive critical reception and high sales, but no one was writing articles claiming it was the next step in the evolution of video games. Splatoon has been put on a pedestal and has been described as ‘fresh,’ and, ‘unique,’ even though it is nothing more than a dumbed down version of Team Fortress 2 for a younger audience. Super Mario Maker was released in 2015 and it was essentially a $60 level editor. Level editors have been included in other games since forever and no fuss has been made, but when Nintendo sell an entire game based on the concept, it’s hailed as another, ‘triumph by Nintendo.’
When you compare Breath of The Wild to other recent open world games like The Witcher or Skyrim, there is nothing that makes it unique from a design and functionality standpoint. If Breath of The Wild came out in 2008, then sure you could get away with labeling it revolutionary, but in this day and age it isn’t any more special than Horizon or Skyrim.
Let’s look at some of the features that have been called unique in the game. The tower climbing to uncover zones of the map mechanic has been done in the Assassin’s Creed and Far Cry series’. Using plants for crafting and cooking has been done in Far Cry and Skyrim. Far Cry 2 and Dead Island had degradable weapons. The inventory system is very reminiscent of multiple Ubisoft titles; essentially Breath of The Wild has taken some elements from other games and made something from that within the Zelda universe.
This may sound patronizing, but it honestly isn’t intended that way. I get it, Nintendo fans have had it hard over these last five years, they have had nothing to be proud of since the launch of the Wii and they have had to stand by their console of choice and defend themselves with very little ammo to defend themselves with, but as a result nowadays when anything better than a car crash is released by them it is inflated by a large number of critics in the industry and so Nintendo fans are given a justification for putting their mediocre games on a pedestal. This is why to the rest of the industry it appears that Nintendo fans can’t accept things for the way that they really are and everything is blown so far out of proportion.
Some examples of Nintendo games being blown out of proportion and reviewers being clouded by nostalgia are available to go and check out right now on Metacritic. Zelda: Skyward Sword is currently sitting at a 93, Zelda: Twilight Princess is sitting at a 95 and Metroid: Other M has a 79. All three of these games are recognized as subpar and once the novelty wore off, even the most hardcore of Nintendo fans would agree that these are forgettable, black marks on the respective franchises track records. Not that BOTW isn’t a game for Zelda fans to be proud of, because it is. I can see why this would be people’s game of the year so far and I can see why it could be considered as the best Zelda game, but to someone that isn’t a Zelda fan that praise is meaningless.
In summary, the inflation of mediocrity in the industry has to stop, if we want gaming to improve. If we want to break new ground across the gaming media, these sycophants and apologists living in a false perception of reality have to go. These novelty games that are applauded for simply carrying the title of a beloved franchise, have to stop being praised so highly and given a free pass of any sort of criticism just because of a nostalgic lens.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Don't Stop Believin' in Books
May 28, 2019
I was obsessed with Olivia Newton-John as a little girl. As a little girl, I knew all of her songs by heart, and I had watched all of her movies over and over. I do admit that as I grew up, my obsession faded. However, when I saw Olivia's autobiography, Don't Stop Believin', on the shelf at my local library, I decided to give it a read. While it was enjoyable, it just came across as kind of preachy.
Olivia Newton-John rose to fame in the United States as the character of Sandy in the movie Grease. She also had a bunch of hit songs and records afterwards. Olivia's autobiography does mention her rise to fame although I felt as if there wasn't enough time spent on her rise to fame. She does write about her time with Grease and other films as well as recording her songs throughout the book. I felt the movies and songs were written about well.
We get a taste of her life as a child in England and Australia, although I felt she didn't discuss her pre-fame life too much. I would have liked to read more about her childhood instead of just being rushed into when she started performing. I know Olivia Newton-John likes to keep her private life out of the limelight, but when writing an autobiography, it's important to give the reader a little more details than what Don't Stop Believin' gave us.
There was so much name dropping throughout this book! While I understand that famous people know other famous people, sometimes I felt as if Olivia was dropping names just for show instead of because it fit the story. You have a lot of famous friends. We get it!
Another thing that annoyed me about the book was how some parts seemed like an advertisement for her Olivia Newton-John Cancer Wellness and Research Centre as well as for her husband, John Easterling's, herb company. I know she's done so much for her cancer center, (which I give her mad props for), but she goes on and on about how great and lovely of a place it was especially after she was an inpatient there. Of course the staff would treat her better when her name is on the building! There's more than one chapter devoted to how great the place is. I'm sure it is lovely, but I felt like I didn't need to a chapter (and more) about how great it is. As for her husband's herb company, she went on and on towards the end of the book how his herbs really helped her out which is great, but again, does the reader really need the specifics and being told over and over again how helpful it was?
The major thing that annoyed me was how preachy Don't Stop Believin' was in a lot of chapters. In fact, it made me feel guilty sometimes that I rely on modern medicine. Olivia writes how she'd rather take the natural approach to fighting off viruses and diseases, and I get that because I don't like to take medicine needlessly either, but sometimes, it's the best thing. However, I just felt that Olivia was berating those who choose to go the medicinal route. I felt like she was implying that natural remedies work better than modern medicine. This can be dangerous especially if someone gets off their medicines they need to survive to try the natural approach. People should always discuss any changes of medication with their doctors.
To me, Don't Stop Believin' writes like someone who's always been privileged and sheltered throughout their life. A lot of it feels like Olivia Newton-John is out of touch with reality and like she's living in La-La Land. I just found it hard to relate to her throughout the book. Yes, she has gone through some hardships such as deaths in the family, her cancer diagnoses, and her ex-boyfriend disappearing, but for the most part, her autobiography is just too sunshine and rainbows for me to truly relate.
Don't Stop Believin' flows beautifully though, and the writing is done very well, so it has that going for it. I did find myself enjoying the book most of the time when Olivia wasn't been preachy or advertising something. There were some interesting tidbits about her life throughout the book.
Trigger warnings include some profanity use, death, cancer, drinking, and smoking.
Overall, Don't Stop Believin' isn't a bad book, quite the contrary. It's just a bit too hippie dippy for me to have truly enjoyed it to its fullest. I did find the book interesting though despite some flaws. I would recommend Don't Stop Believin' by Olivia Newton-John especially to those who have been diagnosed with cancer as this book does come with a bunch of positivity when it comes to dealing with cancer.
Olivia Newton-John rose to fame in the United States as the character of Sandy in the movie Grease. She also had a bunch of hit songs and records afterwards. Olivia's autobiography does mention her rise to fame although I felt as if there wasn't enough time spent on her rise to fame. She does write about her time with Grease and other films as well as recording her songs throughout the book. I felt the movies and songs were written about well.
We get a taste of her life as a child in England and Australia, although I felt she didn't discuss her pre-fame life too much. I would have liked to read more about her childhood instead of just being rushed into when she started performing. I know Olivia Newton-John likes to keep her private life out of the limelight, but when writing an autobiography, it's important to give the reader a little more details than what Don't Stop Believin' gave us.
There was so much name dropping throughout this book! While I understand that famous people know other famous people, sometimes I felt as if Olivia was dropping names just for show instead of because it fit the story. You have a lot of famous friends. We get it!
Another thing that annoyed me about the book was how some parts seemed like an advertisement for her Olivia Newton-John Cancer Wellness and Research Centre as well as for her husband, John Easterling's, herb company. I know she's done so much for her cancer center, (which I give her mad props for), but she goes on and on about how great and lovely of a place it was especially after she was an inpatient there. Of course the staff would treat her better when her name is on the building! There's more than one chapter devoted to how great the place is. I'm sure it is lovely, but I felt like I didn't need to a chapter (and more) about how great it is. As for her husband's herb company, she went on and on towards the end of the book how his herbs really helped her out which is great, but again, does the reader really need the specifics and being told over and over again how helpful it was?
The major thing that annoyed me was how preachy Don't Stop Believin' was in a lot of chapters. In fact, it made me feel guilty sometimes that I rely on modern medicine. Olivia writes how she'd rather take the natural approach to fighting off viruses and diseases, and I get that because I don't like to take medicine needlessly either, but sometimes, it's the best thing. However, I just felt that Olivia was berating those who choose to go the medicinal route. I felt like she was implying that natural remedies work better than modern medicine. This can be dangerous especially if someone gets off their medicines they need to survive to try the natural approach. People should always discuss any changes of medication with their doctors.
To me, Don't Stop Believin' writes like someone who's always been privileged and sheltered throughout their life. A lot of it feels like Olivia Newton-John is out of touch with reality and like she's living in La-La Land. I just found it hard to relate to her throughout the book. Yes, she has gone through some hardships such as deaths in the family, her cancer diagnoses, and her ex-boyfriend disappearing, but for the most part, her autobiography is just too sunshine and rainbows for me to truly relate.
Don't Stop Believin' flows beautifully though, and the writing is done very well, so it has that going for it. I did find myself enjoying the book most of the time when Olivia wasn't been preachy or advertising something. There were some interesting tidbits about her life throughout the book.
Trigger warnings include some profanity use, death, cancer, drinking, and smoking.
Overall, Don't Stop Believin' isn't a bad book, quite the contrary. It's just a bit too hippie dippy for me to have truly enjoyed it to its fullest. I did find the book interesting though despite some flaws. I would recommend Don't Stop Believin' by Olivia Newton-John especially to those who have been diagnosed with cancer as this book does come with a bunch of positivity when it comes to dealing with cancer.
Gareth von Kallenbach (962 KP) rated Straight Outta Compton (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The moment I heard they were making a film about N.W.A., I knew I had to see it. Like many, I didn’t listen to their music during their height of their popularity. Unlike many, I am willing to admit that. But it doesn’t mean that their music didn’t influence me in significant ways when I was in my teens. So naturally, I was excited about this movie. I only wish it would have lived up to my expectations.
Straight Outta Compton tells the story of N.W.A.’s formation, but it’s more than just that. It tells of the trials and tribulations the members of the group went through to become the icons they were. It tells of both the struggle with their oppressors, as well as each other. We start the film in 1986 with an introduction to the three main guys that everyone knows: Eazy-E (Jason Mitchell), Dr. Dre (Corey Hawkings) and Ice Cube (O’Shea Jackson, Jr.). They soon form Ruthless records putting out their first single, which gets the attention of Jerry Heller (Paul Giamatti), their future manager. The movie then tells of their rise to stardom, and ultimate falling out, all the way through to the passing of Eazy-E.
Straight Outta Compton sets out to do a lot of things, some of which it doesn’t get exactly right. Don’t get me wrong, the movie is good. It just felt… unnatural at times. The actors themselves did a great job portraying the real-life people they were representing, but I don’t think they had the chemistry as an ensemble. I noticed it really early on in the movie, when Ice Cube and Dr. Dre were at Dre’ aunt’s house. The flow of the conversation just didn’t feel comfortable. It didn’t feel like the natural conversations I had with my friends when I was around the same age, as they were putting clear distance (time) between each of the character’s lines, just so you can make out what they were saying. And Hawkings and Jackson, Jr. just seemed really awkward in delivering their lines to each other. I know that this is needed often in movies, but I have seen similar scenes in other movies where I didn’t have this feeling.
There were also many things that the movie put into your face, but then didn’t really finish telling you what it was about, or make you believe in the connection. For example, the movie starts with Dre having a girl and baby, and you see her for all of 10 seconds, and then you see her a little later when she is leaving him. Dre also has very minimal time with his brother in the beginning of the film, again a short time later they interact for a few moments on screen (over the phone), and then there is supposed to be a moving scene where Dre finds out his brother was killed. I say supposed to be because as with the film where Dre’s girl left him, you are supposed to feel something for the character here, but there wasn’t enough for you to go on. There wasn’t the emotional connection to the relationship between Dre and his girl/brother for you to feel connected to the movie and character. These are just a few examples, another could be a menacing threat to Jerry Heller at his home, but the movie never really wraps back around to it. Most people are supposed to know, or maybe you are supposed to infer from the plotline at the time, but it seemed a little abrupt to me. Now, I hear that the running time of this film, 147 minutes, is actually a far cry from the original 210 minutes. This could explain a lot of where I felt the film just kind of failed at follow through. Hopefully we get to see this on the home release.
Ultimately, this was a great movie. It was amazing to sit in the theater and listen to people sing along with the iconic songs that were released not only from the super group themselves, but even from Eazy-E, Ice Cube and others. Plus, there were many great easter eggs throughout the film, including appearances of the characters Snoop Dogg, Tupac, Warren G, Suge Knight and many others. There was plenty of humor, but still managing to portray the struggle they went through well. One of things I was worried about was O’Shea Jackson, Jr. I originally thought they only cast him as his father because of the looks, but he really did hold his own. I definitely see a future in acting, and possibly in music too, just like his father.
Should you go see it in theaters? If you are a super fan, then definitely. Even if you are not, definitely check it out as it tells a great story about what was considered at one point the most dangerous group in music. This is definitely one that will be added to my collection upon home release, especially if there is an uncut version.
Straight Outta Compton tells the story of N.W.A.’s formation, but it’s more than just that. It tells of the trials and tribulations the members of the group went through to become the icons they were. It tells of both the struggle with their oppressors, as well as each other. We start the film in 1986 with an introduction to the three main guys that everyone knows: Eazy-E (Jason Mitchell), Dr. Dre (Corey Hawkings) and Ice Cube (O’Shea Jackson, Jr.). They soon form Ruthless records putting out their first single, which gets the attention of Jerry Heller (Paul Giamatti), their future manager. The movie then tells of their rise to stardom, and ultimate falling out, all the way through to the passing of Eazy-E.
Straight Outta Compton sets out to do a lot of things, some of which it doesn’t get exactly right. Don’t get me wrong, the movie is good. It just felt… unnatural at times. The actors themselves did a great job portraying the real-life people they were representing, but I don’t think they had the chemistry as an ensemble. I noticed it really early on in the movie, when Ice Cube and Dr. Dre were at Dre’ aunt’s house. The flow of the conversation just didn’t feel comfortable. It didn’t feel like the natural conversations I had with my friends when I was around the same age, as they were putting clear distance (time) between each of the character’s lines, just so you can make out what they were saying. And Hawkings and Jackson, Jr. just seemed really awkward in delivering their lines to each other. I know that this is needed often in movies, but I have seen similar scenes in other movies where I didn’t have this feeling.
There were also many things that the movie put into your face, but then didn’t really finish telling you what it was about, or make you believe in the connection. For example, the movie starts with Dre having a girl and baby, and you see her for all of 10 seconds, and then you see her a little later when she is leaving him. Dre also has very minimal time with his brother in the beginning of the film, again a short time later they interact for a few moments on screen (over the phone), and then there is supposed to be a moving scene where Dre finds out his brother was killed. I say supposed to be because as with the film where Dre’s girl left him, you are supposed to feel something for the character here, but there wasn’t enough for you to go on. There wasn’t the emotional connection to the relationship between Dre and his girl/brother for you to feel connected to the movie and character. These are just a few examples, another could be a menacing threat to Jerry Heller at his home, but the movie never really wraps back around to it. Most people are supposed to know, or maybe you are supposed to infer from the plotline at the time, but it seemed a little abrupt to me. Now, I hear that the running time of this film, 147 minutes, is actually a far cry from the original 210 minutes. This could explain a lot of where I felt the film just kind of failed at follow through. Hopefully we get to see this on the home release.
Ultimately, this was a great movie. It was amazing to sit in the theater and listen to people sing along with the iconic songs that were released not only from the super group themselves, but even from Eazy-E, Ice Cube and others. Plus, there were many great easter eggs throughout the film, including appearances of the characters Snoop Dogg, Tupac, Warren G, Suge Knight and many others. There was plenty of humor, but still managing to portray the struggle they went through well. One of things I was worried about was O’Shea Jackson, Jr. I originally thought they only cast him as his father because of the looks, but he really did hold his own. I definitely see a future in acting, and possibly in music too, just like his father.
Should you go see it in theaters? If you are a super fan, then definitely. Even if you are not, definitely check it out as it tells a great story about what was considered at one point the most dangerous group in music. This is definitely one that will be added to my collection upon home release, especially if there is an uncut version.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Moonlighting in TV
Aug 6, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
Another dip into the retro TV archive as part of that odd period in lockdown when all I could do for my watching fix was find old shows with full episodes on You Tube. My favourite show when I was a teenager happened to be one of those, with most of seasons 1 and 5 out there, and a small selection from the middle years.
If you were to make a time capsule to show aliens what the mid to late 80s looked like, look no further than this madcap rom-com drama that ran for 66 episodes between 1985 and 1989. The shoulder pads, the hairdos, the slip on shoes, the large chunks of cheesiness, it’s all there. Some of the coloured silks Maddie Hayes (Cybill Shepherd) wears have to be seen to be believed.
It was the first show to get free reign creatively from a network, with ABC trusting Glenn Gordon Carol, fresh from success with Remington Steele, to create something cool and hip. At the peak of its success it was costing $1.6m per episode, with Bruce Willis’ pay check becoming a big chunk of that, as his ego inflated and his star rose.
They auditioned close to 600 actors for the role of glib, fast talking sleuth David Addison, before taking a risk on an out of work nobody the producers had heard singing karaoke in an LA bar. The phenomenal buzz around Bruce Willis in 1985 is hard to imagine now, but he was literally the biggest star on TV, and once Die Hard came along in 1988, he gave the movie star thing a good go too.
Famous for its post-modern take on episode content, with overlapping dialogue, direct address to camera, in jokes and endless references to current events and the show itself, it was a knowingly self-conscious misfit. Nothing had ever been like this. Nothing, even close. It was funny, cool, had mass appeal and could seemingly do no wrong, breaking ratings records all over the place.
But all was not paradise on set. Shepherd and Willis were never pals, and at the worst actively despised one another, often refusing to film scenes if they thought the other one was too much the focus – which in Shepherd’s case was often a weird anachronistic soft focus, that attempted to make her look like a vintage movie star. They argued, fell out, made up and threw tantrums just like the characters they played. And scripts for the unusual hour long format were often so late, they filmed filler scenes whilst they were being finished on set!
This allowed for an unparalleled voice in American TV land. They got away with some very terse comments and innuendo bordering on smut, that slipped under the network radar, simply because the show was being edited minutes before it was shown. By season four it was really falling apart, as episodes got more surreal and used the breaking of the fourth wall more often, in a desperate attempt just to keep going.
Ostensibly, it was a detective show. But it was never about the cases. The sleuthing was only a background to the will they won’t they romance of Maddie and David, facilitated by the ever present Allyce Beasley as Agnes DiPesto, the rhyming receptionist, that was the only other cast member to appear in all 66 shows apart from the two stars. Early on the mystery plots and crimes to be solved were taken semi seriously; with a peak in season three where it actually approached proper drama. But by the end it was all about Willis goofing around, at the expense of any recognisable story.
Let’s face it, looking back on it now it has aged a whole bunch in a lot of bad ways. You aren’t really going to indulge in it for anything other than nostalgia reasons. But I was a huge, huge fan, and so for me it was a real trip to see it again. I never missed it as a kid, and would sulk if anything threatened to stop me watching it as it aired. I had every episode taped on VHS and could quote entire episodes, I had watched them so much.
It all ended too soon for me, but not soon enough for them. Shepherd got pregnant, Willis took the break to go and make some mid budget action film, and the rest is history. To this day, footage of them reminiscing about it is a fascinating but awkward watch, as they clearing still can’t agree on anything and thinly veil their contempt for each other. Willis’ ego does not come out of it well, but David Addison will always remain the one character that formed my personality via TV in those days, for better or worse.
If you were to make a time capsule to show aliens what the mid to late 80s looked like, look no further than this madcap rom-com drama that ran for 66 episodes between 1985 and 1989. The shoulder pads, the hairdos, the slip on shoes, the large chunks of cheesiness, it’s all there. Some of the coloured silks Maddie Hayes (Cybill Shepherd) wears have to be seen to be believed.
It was the first show to get free reign creatively from a network, with ABC trusting Glenn Gordon Carol, fresh from success with Remington Steele, to create something cool and hip. At the peak of its success it was costing $1.6m per episode, with Bruce Willis’ pay check becoming a big chunk of that, as his ego inflated and his star rose.
They auditioned close to 600 actors for the role of glib, fast talking sleuth David Addison, before taking a risk on an out of work nobody the producers had heard singing karaoke in an LA bar. The phenomenal buzz around Bruce Willis in 1985 is hard to imagine now, but he was literally the biggest star on TV, and once Die Hard came along in 1988, he gave the movie star thing a good go too.
Famous for its post-modern take on episode content, with overlapping dialogue, direct address to camera, in jokes and endless references to current events and the show itself, it was a knowingly self-conscious misfit. Nothing had ever been like this. Nothing, even close. It was funny, cool, had mass appeal and could seemingly do no wrong, breaking ratings records all over the place.
But all was not paradise on set. Shepherd and Willis were never pals, and at the worst actively despised one another, often refusing to film scenes if they thought the other one was too much the focus – which in Shepherd’s case was often a weird anachronistic soft focus, that attempted to make her look like a vintage movie star. They argued, fell out, made up and threw tantrums just like the characters they played. And scripts for the unusual hour long format were often so late, they filmed filler scenes whilst they were being finished on set!
This allowed for an unparalleled voice in American TV land. They got away with some very terse comments and innuendo bordering on smut, that slipped under the network radar, simply because the show was being edited minutes before it was shown. By season four it was really falling apart, as episodes got more surreal and used the breaking of the fourth wall more often, in a desperate attempt just to keep going.
Ostensibly, it was a detective show. But it was never about the cases. The sleuthing was only a background to the will they won’t they romance of Maddie and David, facilitated by the ever present Allyce Beasley as Agnes DiPesto, the rhyming receptionist, that was the only other cast member to appear in all 66 shows apart from the two stars. Early on the mystery plots and crimes to be solved were taken semi seriously; with a peak in season three where it actually approached proper drama. But by the end it was all about Willis goofing around, at the expense of any recognisable story.
Let’s face it, looking back on it now it has aged a whole bunch in a lot of bad ways. You aren’t really going to indulge in it for anything other than nostalgia reasons. But I was a huge, huge fan, and so for me it was a real trip to see it again. I never missed it as a kid, and would sulk if anything threatened to stop me watching it as it aired. I had every episode taped on VHS and could quote entire episodes, I had watched them so much.
It all ended too soon for me, but not soon enough for them. Shepherd got pregnant, Willis took the break to go and make some mid budget action film, and the rest is history. To this day, footage of them reminiscing about it is a fascinating but awkward watch, as they clearing still can’t agree on anything and thinly veil their contempt for each other. Willis’ ego does not come out of it well, but David Addison will always remain the one character that formed my personality via TV in those days, for better or worse.
Gareth von Kallenbach (962 KP) rated The Green Hornet (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
The Green Hornet has appeared in books, a television series, and perhaps in its most famous form, as a radio series. Adapting a superhero to the big screen is not without its share of challenges. For every Batman and Spiderman that sets box office records there are several that fail miserably, such as Daredevil, Elektra, The Phantom, The Shadow, and the first Hulk movie.
When it was first announced that Seth Rogen would star as the title character many people were first skeptical that a chubby comedian would be able to pull off the part. While the Green Hornet is not as iconic as Batman, the casting did bring to mind the controversy of casting Michael Keaton as the Dark Knight for Tim Burton’s take on the Caped Crusader.
Further complicating matters were the delays and in the announcement that the film would be converted to 3-D in postproduction even though it was shot in 2-D. When the film failed to meet its anticipated holiday debut there were those that had wondered if the film would fail to meet even modest expectations as January certainly isn’t the time of year that action films, especially those based on a superhero, are released.
Thankfully the film is an extremely pleasant surprise that deftly mixes comedy and action with smart pacing in a winning formula. The film tells the story of Britt Reid (Rogen), the son of a wealthy newspaper owner who, despite his best efforts, always disappoints his father who never runs out of ways to criticize his only child. Britt, to his father’s dismay, has no ambition in his life and is content to live in the guesthouse of his father’s mansion, womanizing and embracing the party scene.
When his father dies unexpectedly, Britt is forced to take control of the newspaper, a job for which he is woefully unqualified. It is at this time that Britt meets Kato (Jay Chou), his father’s long-time employee, responsible for taking care of the elder Reid’s very impressive fleet of cars.
One evening in an act of rebellion against the benevolent image of his father, Britt and Kato intervene to stop a crime. Motivated by their success and by Kato’s amazing ability to invent technology and modify vehicles, as well as his superb martial arts abilities, the duo set out to make a name for themselves by taking on the city’s criminal element.
While it first appears that Britt sees this as just some grand adventure, he soon becomes dedicated to the cause and sets upon a path to use his newspaper to play up his newly created hero. The plan is to make the Green Hornet appear to be a bad guy when in reality he is fighting to end crime. The convoluted idea has some initial success despite Britt’s lack of fighting ability. Britt and Kato soon begin to make a name for themselves in the local underworld as well is dominate the media.
At this time a young assistant named Lenora case (Cameron Diaz), comes to work for Britt. Britt and Kato are both captivated by Lenora and use her knowledge of criminal psychology to detail their plan of action for their alter egos. While Britt and Kato are buoyed by their initial success they soon find themselves under the scrutiny of the local crime boss Chudnofsky (Christopher Waltz), an insecure criminal who believes people don’t think he is scary enough or stylish enough.
Finding them an annoyance, Chudnofsky decides to wage all-out war on the Green Hornet and Kato and will rest at nothing to see them dead. As if this was not bad enough, Britt and Kato find themselves in a jealous rivalry over Lenora as well as their roles. Britt sees himself as the real hero and Kato as merely his sidekick. Kato naturally takes umbrage with this being not only the one who develops all of their gadgets, including the awesome black beauty equipped with bulletproof glass, machine guns, rocket launcher and a flamethrower, but also the one with the amazing fighting skills.
What follows is a hilarious and action packed film that is one of the most satisfying action-buddy-comedies ever made. Rogen is in his element cleverly playing Britt as an everyman who, despite having all the advantages of wealth, is still very much a kid playing superhero who has to learn about the important things in life .
The action sequences are fresh and entertaining and both Rogen and Chao pull off their roles very convincingly. While the plot is not overly complex it serves its point and propels the characters along without getting bogged down or becoming too ridiculous. Director Michel Gondry keeps the film moving at a steady pace without overstaying its welcome and does not allow the action to overtake the characters.
The supporting cast is very strong and the only real issue I had with the film was the converted 3-D that was totally unnecessary and did little to enhance the film. Very few sequence appeared to benefit from it. That being said I had a fantastic time at this film and I surely hope that we’ll be seeing other films in the series in the not too distant future.
When it was first announced that Seth Rogen would star as the title character many people were first skeptical that a chubby comedian would be able to pull off the part. While the Green Hornet is not as iconic as Batman, the casting did bring to mind the controversy of casting Michael Keaton as the Dark Knight for Tim Burton’s take on the Caped Crusader.
Further complicating matters were the delays and in the announcement that the film would be converted to 3-D in postproduction even though it was shot in 2-D. When the film failed to meet its anticipated holiday debut there were those that had wondered if the film would fail to meet even modest expectations as January certainly isn’t the time of year that action films, especially those based on a superhero, are released.
Thankfully the film is an extremely pleasant surprise that deftly mixes comedy and action with smart pacing in a winning formula. The film tells the story of Britt Reid (Rogen), the son of a wealthy newspaper owner who, despite his best efforts, always disappoints his father who never runs out of ways to criticize his only child. Britt, to his father’s dismay, has no ambition in his life and is content to live in the guesthouse of his father’s mansion, womanizing and embracing the party scene.
When his father dies unexpectedly, Britt is forced to take control of the newspaper, a job for which he is woefully unqualified. It is at this time that Britt meets Kato (Jay Chou), his father’s long-time employee, responsible for taking care of the elder Reid’s very impressive fleet of cars.
One evening in an act of rebellion against the benevolent image of his father, Britt and Kato intervene to stop a crime. Motivated by their success and by Kato’s amazing ability to invent technology and modify vehicles, as well as his superb martial arts abilities, the duo set out to make a name for themselves by taking on the city’s criminal element.
While it first appears that Britt sees this as just some grand adventure, he soon becomes dedicated to the cause and sets upon a path to use his newspaper to play up his newly created hero. The plan is to make the Green Hornet appear to be a bad guy when in reality he is fighting to end crime. The convoluted idea has some initial success despite Britt’s lack of fighting ability. Britt and Kato soon begin to make a name for themselves in the local underworld as well is dominate the media.
At this time a young assistant named Lenora case (Cameron Diaz), comes to work for Britt. Britt and Kato are both captivated by Lenora and use her knowledge of criminal psychology to detail their plan of action for their alter egos. While Britt and Kato are buoyed by their initial success they soon find themselves under the scrutiny of the local crime boss Chudnofsky (Christopher Waltz), an insecure criminal who believes people don’t think he is scary enough or stylish enough.
Finding them an annoyance, Chudnofsky decides to wage all-out war on the Green Hornet and Kato and will rest at nothing to see them dead. As if this was not bad enough, Britt and Kato find themselves in a jealous rivalry over Lenora as well as their roles. Britt sees himself as the real hero and Kato as merely his sidekick. Kato naturally takes umbrage with this being not only the one who develops all of their gadgets, including the awesome black beauty equipped with bulletproof glass, machine guns, rocket launcher and a flamethrower, but also the one with the amazing fighting skills.
What follows is a hilarious and action packed film that is one of the most satisfying action-buddy-comedies ever made. Rogen is in his element cleverly playing Britt as an everyman who, despite having all the advantages of wealth, is still very much a kid playing superhero who has to learn about the important things in life .
The action sequences are fresh and entertaining and both Rogen and Chao pull off their roles very convincingly. While the plot is not overly complex it serves its point and propels the characters along without getting bogged down or becoming too ridiculous. Director Michel Gondry keeps the film moving at a steady pace without overstaying its welcome and does not allow the action to overtake the characters.
The supporting cast is very strong and the only real issue I had with the film was the converted 3-D that was totally unnecessary and did little to enhance the film. Very few sequence appeared to benefit from it. That being said I had a fantastic time at this film and I surely hope that we’ll be seeing other films in the series in the not too distant future.