Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Trial of the Chicago 7 (2020) in Movies
Oct 24, 2020
The epic ensemble cast (1 more)
The direction from Aaron Sorkin
“Trial” is a less wordy triumph for Sorkin
So, "The Trial of the Chicago 7" is one which I was unfortunately unable to catch on its short "Oscar-nom" cinema release, but is now on Netflix. And boy, for older viewers who prefer historical drama over wham-bam action, this is definitely worth the watch.
I know a decent bit of 20th century history, but this is a story I knew nothing about. At the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, anti-Vietnam protests resulted in a violent and brutal confrontation with the police. Eight of the ring-leaders were rounded up and charged with inciting the violence. What happens in the court with the eight convicted men, in front of an old and partisan judge (the wonderful Frank Langella), is simply amazing.
There's a nice wiki article on the history you can look up. But its worth watching the movie blind, since it's a great rollercoaster ride.
If you read my blog regularly, you'll know that one of my favourite of the awards in award season is the "Ensemble Cast" award from the Screen Actor's Guild (SAG). I think a good measure of which movies might be good candidates for this award is when you find it difficult to single out particular actors for an individual award when they all work so well together. For this is a cast to die for:
- Sacha Baron Cohen, as Abbie Hoffman: an intelligent 'straight' role, poles apart from Borat and Bruno, that he delivers on 100%;
- Jeremy Strong as Hoffman's buddy Jerry Rubin, doing an enormously entertaining turn;
- Eddie Redmayne as the apparently 'sensible one' Tom Hayden. A bit similar to his role in "Les Miserables", but diving off in a different direction at a key point;
- John Carroll Lynch as the genuine 'boy scout' David Dellinger, so good in "The Founder" and here as the only family man under the judgmental stare of his wife and son;
- Yahya Abdul-Mateen II as Black Panther member Bobby Seale - the "minus 1" from the title - in an astonishingly powerful performance;
- Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the prosecutor Richard Schultz - always quietly dependable;
- And the fantastic Mark Rylance as the defense attorney William Kunstler. I appreciate I am having a tendency to gush in this review, but Rylance expresses such a range of frustration and disgust here that his performance is nothing short of electrifying.
There's also a cracking cameo from Michael Keaton playing the former US Attorney General, Ramsey Clark.
I would think that any of these performances might be Oscar-worthy (somewhere in the Actor/Supporting Actor categories) but my personal choices would be Rylance for Best Actor and Baron Cohen and Langella for Best Supporting Actor nods.
One of my issues with the scripts of Aaron Sorkin is that they tend to be overly dense and wordy. In epic TV like "The West Wing" he could spread the dialogue over a whole series, but in a feature film it can become very dense and verbose. I found that in both of his last two films - "Molly's Game" and "Steve Jobs".
Here, in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", even though there's a lot of speechifying, to me it never felt over the top. Although an epic courtroom drama (akin to his debut script "A Few Good Men") the characters are given time to breath between the lines. And many of those lines are real zingers, particularly out of the mouth of stand-up anarchist Abbie Hoffman (Sacha Baron Cohen).
Aside from the script being a zinger, the direction here from Aaron Sorkin is also top-notch. If you thought a courtroom drama was going to be static and boring, think again. The camera never rests, and inserted flashbacks (excellent film editing from Alan Baumgarten) maintain the momentum of the story.
Overall, this is a movie tour-de-force from Sorkin, and a fantastic watch. Could this be a writing/directing double Oscar nom for Sorkin?
(For the full graphical review, check out the bob the movie man review here - https://rb.gy/y6bxtf . Thanks.)
I know a decent bit of 20th century history, but this is a story I knew nothing about. At the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, anti-Vietnam protests resulted in a violent and brutal confrontation with the police. Eight of the ring-leaders were rounded up and charged with inciting the violence. What happens in the court with the eight convicted men, in front of an old and partisan judge (the wonderful Frank Langella), is simply amazing.
There's a nice wiki article on the history you can look up. But its worth watching the movie blind, since it's a great rollercoaster ride.
If you read my blog regularly, you'll know that one of my favourite of the awards in award season is the "Ensemble Cast" award from the Screen Actor's Guild (SAG). I think a good measure of which movies might be good candidates for this award is when you find it difficult to single out particular actors for an individual award when they all work so well together. For this is a cast to die for:
- Sacha Baron Cohen, as Abbie Hoffman: an intelligent 'straight' role, poles apart from Borat and Bruno, that he delivers on 100%;
- Jeremy Strong as Hoffman's buddy Jerry Rubin, doing an enormously entertaining turn;
- Eddie Redmayne as the apparently 'sensible one' Tom Hayden. A bit similar to his role in "Les Miserables", but diving off in a different direction at a key point;
- John Carroll Lynch as the genuine 'boy scout' David Dellinger, so good in "The Founder" and here as the only family man under the judgmental stare of his wife and son;
- Yahya Abdul-Mateen II as Black Panther member Bobby Seale - the "minus 1" from the title - in an astonishingly powerful performance;
- Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the prosecutor Richard Schultz - always quietly dependable;
- And the fantastic Mark Rylance as the defense attorney William Kunstler. I appreciate I am having a tendency to gush in this review, but Rylance expresses such a range of frustration and disgust here that his performance is nothing short of electrifying.
There's also a cracking cameo from Michael Keaton playing the former US Attorney General, Ramsey Clark.
I would think that any of these performances might be Oscar-worthy (somewhere in the Actor/Supporting Actor categories) but my personal choices would be Rylance for Best Actor and Baron Cohen and Langella for Best Supporting Actor nods.
One of my issues with the scripts of Aaron Sorkin is that they tend to be overly dense and wordy. In epic TV like "The West Wing" he could spread the dialogue over a whole series, but in a feature film it can become very dense and verbose. I found that in both of his last two films - "Molly's Game" and "Steve Jobs".
Here, in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", even though there's a lot of speechifying, to me it never felt over the top. Although an epic courtroom drama (akin to his debut script "A Few Good Men") the characters are given time to breath between the lines. And many of those lines are real zingers, particularly out of the mouth of stand-up anarchist Abbie Hoffman (Sacha Baron Cohen).
Aside from the script being a zinger, the direction here from Aaron Sorkin is also top-notch. If you thought a courtroom drama was going to be static and boring, think again. The camera never rests, and inserted flashbacks (excellent film editing from Alan Baumgarten) maintain the momentum of the story.
Overall, this is a movie tour-de-force from Sorkin, and a fantastic watch. Could this be a writing/directing double Oscar nom for Sorkin?
(For the full graphical review, check out the bob the movie man review here - https://rb.gy/y6bxtf . Thanks.)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
“He’s waited for me; I’ve waited for him”.
A blood-soaked history.
There’s such a familiarity with the content of these films that it’s difficult to put yourself back in 1978 for Jamie Lee Curtis‘s original battle with Michael Myers when the teen-slasher genre was in its infancy. Arguably “The Texas Chain Saw Massacre” four years earlier booted the 70’s/80’s genre; but thanks to its huge success John Carpenter’s “Halloween” opened the flood-gates… or should I say, blood-gates.
The plot.
40 years after the terrifying events of Halloween night in Haddonfield, Illinois, Michael Myers is still mute and incarcerated in a psychiatric unit being studied by Dr Sartain (Haluk Bilginer). He is joined by two investigative journalists – Aaron Korey (Jefferson Hall) and Dana Haines (Basingstoke’s-own Rhian Rees: “Where are your loos?”… classic!). They are keen to reunite Myers with his nemesis Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) to watch the fireworks.
Strode is unfortunately damaged goods: still mentally traumatised and with failed marriages and a child taken into care, she lives in a fortified home in the middle of the woods. But she knows she has a date with destiny. As Halloween 2018 approaches, an ‘incident’ puts Myers on a collision course with Haddonfield’s teenage population all over again.
The turns.
Wow… you forget what an effective actress Jamie Lee Curtis is and here she absolutely owns every single scene she’s in, bringing enormous energy to the screen as the paranoid but ever-prepared hunter-in-waiting. The original Halloween was Lee Curtis’s movie debut and the film that made her a household name, and it almost feels like this is a passion-project for her to say “thanks for all the fish” for her career. Impressive.
As her eye-rolling daughter, Judy Greer rather pales in comparison (I found her character is a bit whiny and annoying), but the acting stakes pick up again with Andi Matichak as the granddaughter Allyson.
Of the other teens, Virginia Gardner is particularly effective as Vicky: the cute “favourite” babysitter who you can’t help but empathise with.
The review.
It’s very easy to make a very bad slasher movie, but this isn’t such a movie. Although having a wonderfully retro feel (when is the last time you saw “traditional” opening titles like this?) and despite mining every horror cliché known to man (ALWAYS look in the back seat when you get in a car!) it’s all obviously been done with loving care by the director David Gordon Green.
Above all, the director knows that what’s more scary than seeing violent murders is what your imagination can visualise happening off-screen. Don’t get me wrong, there is some SERIOUS gore meted out, with a few ‘cover your eyes’ moments. However, a good proportion of the violence is not shown, and very effective that is too, supported by Carpenter’s classic and insistent theme and some kick-ass foley work to add spice to your imagination!
The script (by the writing team of David Gordon Green, Danny McBride and Jeff Fradley) also wickedly plays with your darkest fear of where the plot *could* go if it wanted to: in a brilliant piece of misdirection (you’ll know the scene) your “OMG surely not” nerves twang and then un-twang with relief.
The script also works well to help you care about the teens on the menu, in much the same way as “Jaws” did with the tourists to Amity Beach.
Where the plot nearly lost me was in a rather daft twist before the final reel (which actually made more sense of what happened in the first reel, but was still hugely improbable). The ship rights itself fairly quickly (if messily) and normal order is resumed for the finale it deserves.
Final thoughts.
I’m not really a “horror nut” but this was popcorn horror of the best sort and I enjoyed it. Reverential to the original classic, it made for some entertaining reactions in the sparsely populated showing I attended: I imagine if seen in a packed auditorium on a Saturday night (or perhaps tomorrow night!) it would literally be a scream.
One’s thing for sure: when I got into my car in the dark cinema car park, I did take a sneaky look into the back seat!
There’s such a familiarity with the content of these films that it’s difficult to put yourself back in 1978 for Jamie Lee Curtis‘s original battle with Michael Myers when the teen-slasher genre was in its infancy. Arguably “The Texas Chain Saw Massacre” four years earlier booted the 70’s/80’s genre; but thanks to its huge success John Carpenter’s “Halloween” opened the flood-gates… or should I say, blood-gates.
The plot.
40 years after the terrifying events of Halloween night in Haddonfield, Illinois, Michael Myers is still mute and incarcerated in a psychiatric unit being studied by Dr Sartain (Haluk Bilginer). He is joined by two investigative journalists – Aaron Korey (Jefferson Hall) and Dana Haines (Basingstoke’s-own Rhian Rees: “Where are your loos?”… classic!). They are keen to reunite Myers with his nemesis Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) to watch the fireworks.
Strode is unfortunately damaged goods: still mentally traumatised and with failed marriages and a child taken into care, she lives in a fortified home in the middle of the woods. But she knows she has a date with destiny. As Halloween 2018 approaches, an ‘incident’ puts Myers on a collision course with Haddonfield’s teenage population all over again.
The turns.
Wow… you forget what an effective actress Jamie Lee Curtis is and here she absolutely owns every single scene she’s in, bringing enormous energy to the screen as the paranoid but ever-prepared hunter-in-waiting. The original Halloween was Lee Curtis’s movie debut and the film that made her a household name, and it almost feels like this is a passion-project for her to say “thanks for all the fish” for her career. Impressive.
As her eye-rolling daughter, Judy Greer rather pales in comparison (I found her character is a bit whiny and annoying), but the acting stakes pick up again with Andi Matichak as the granddaughter Allyson.
Of the other teens, Virginia Gardner is particularly effective as Vicky: the cute “favourite” babysitter who you can’t help but empathise with.
The review.
It’s very easy to make a very bad slasher movie, but this isn’t such a movie. Although having a wonderfully retro feel (when is the last time you saw “traditional” opening titles like this?) and despite mining every horror cliché known to man (ALWAYS look in the back seat when you get in a car!) it’s all obviously been done with loving care by the director David Gordon Green.
Above all, the director knows that what’s more scary than seeing violent murders is what your imagination can visualise happening off-screen. Don’t get me wrong, there is some SERIOUS gore meted out, with a few ‘cover your eyes’ moments. However, a good proportion of the violence is not shown, and very effective that is too, supported by Carpenter’s classic and insistent theme and some kick-ass foley work to add spice to your imagination!
The script (by the writing team of David Gordon Green, Danny McBride and Jeff Fradley) also wickedly plays with your darkest fear of where the plot *could* go if it wanted to: in a brilliant piece of misdirection (you’ll know the scene) your “OMG surely not” nerves twang and then un-twang with relief.
The script also works well to help you care about the teens on the menu, in much the same way as “Jaws” did with the tourists to Amity Beach.
Where the plot nearly lost me was in a rather daft twist before the final reel (which actually made more sense of what happened in the first reel, but was still hugely improbable). The ship rights itself fairly quickly (if messily) and normal order is resumed for the finale it deserves.
Final thoughts.
I’m not really a “horror nut” but this was popcorn horror of the best sort and I enjoyed it. Reverential to the original classic, it made for some entertaining reactions in the sparsely populated showing I attended: I imagine if seen in a packed auditorium on a Saturday night (or perhaps tomorrow night!) it would literally be a scream.
One’s thing for sure: when I got into my car in the dark cinema car park, I did take a sneaky look into the back seat!
Erika (17789 KP) rated X-Men: Dark Phoenix (2019) in Movies
Jun 8, 2019 (Updated Jun 8, 2019)
Better than Last Stand
Last Stand didn't exactly set a high bar for the Dark Phoenix story line, and luckily, this film surpassed it. To be honest, the only reason they got my butt in a seat was for Michael Fassbender and James McAvoy.
The story goes the way you expect it to go. I'm not completely convinced Sophie Turner is a good actress. I'm also glad that they killed Raven (not a spoiler, it's common knowledge), though it wasn't quick enough in my opinion.
I'm unsure as to why Jessica Chastain was cast (or why she's ever cast in ANYTHING); her 'villain' was completely useless. The movie didn't even need that subplot, they would have had a better movie without it and her. Pro-tip: don't introduce new characters in the last film of a saga because no one will care enough about them. Seriously, I felt like my time was wasted having to watch her.
I will say, this film FINALLY gave us good scenes with the X-Men kicking some ass, all using their unique powers. They really gave Nicholas Hoult something to do, and he was great!
Finally, the reason I was there, McFassy. This was one of McAvoy's best Professor X performances, he wasn't black or white, he was more gray and it really worked. They didn't give Magneto much to do, but I loved that they introduced Genosha. This will be below the 'see more' line, so, the best flexing his power scene was when he lifted the subway through the concrete, it was almost on par with the submarine being lifted out of the sea in First Class, and pulling up the Auschwitz gate in Apocalypse.
The last scene shows the entire new saga go first circle. Of course, it's very Dark Knight Rises, but it was perfect. I'm only rating it a 6 because of that.
The story goes the way you expect it to go. I'm not completely convinced Sophie Turner is a good actress. I'm also glad that they killed Raven (not a spoiler, it's common knowledge), though it wasn't quick enough in my opinion.
I'm unsure as to why Jessica Chastain was cast (or why she's ever cast in ANYTHING); her 'villain' was completely useless. The movie didn't even need that subplot, they would have had a better movie without it and her. Pro-tip: don't introduce new characters in the last film of a saga because no one will care enough about them. Seriously, I felt like my time was wasted having to watch her.
I will say, this film FINALLY gave us good scenes with the X-Men kicking some ass, all using their unique powers. They really gave Nicholas Hoult something to do, and he was great!
Finally, the reason I was there, McFassy. This was one of McAvoy's best Professor X performances, he wasn't black or white, he was more gray and it really worked. They didn't give Magneto much to do, but I loved that they introduced Genosha. This will be below the 'see more' line, so, the best flexing his power scene was when he lifted the subway through the concrete, it was almost on par with the submarine being lifted out of the sea in First Class, and pulling up the Auschwitz gate in Apocalypse.
The last scene shows the entire new saga go first circle. Of course, it's very Dark Knight Rises, but it was perfect. I'm only rating it a 6 because of that.
Lumos (380 KP) rated The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy in Books
Jan 25, 2018
Not as good as I was expecting.
I was very excited to read Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. I even recommended it for this month's book club read. I know it is such an iconic book and so many great quotes and scenes come from it (I remember watching the movie when it came out and I was obsessed with the "So Long and Thanks for all the Fish" song that the dolphins sing... I even had it on a CD) but I just felt as though I was missing something while I was reading through it. Perhaps, I am just not a fan of that sort of dry... British sarcasm.
I have been trying to push myself beyond my typical genre. Science Fiction is generally not one of my favorite, but I thought I would give this book a try since it has been so well received for generations. I’m sure that has to do with it, but I just found myself zoning out when I read. Douglas Adams’ writing style was just a little too… over the top for me. It seemed like the author was just trying to come up with some of the most bizarre names and titles for his characters and locations and it made it hard for me to slog through.
I was ashamed to admit my dislike for the book at book club but I was quick to find that I am not alone in my feelings. None of us particularly cared for the book. Perhaps it is a “millennial” thing? We had also all seen the movie previously and that could have clouded our vision, perhaps when it came to the book.
All that being said, however, I did find some parts of the book a little humorous. I smiled at parts and chuckled a little, but it wasn’t really enough to save the book in my eyes.
I have been trying to push myself beyond my typical genre. Science Fiction is generally not one of my favorite, but I thought I would give this book a try since it has been so well received for generations. I’m sure that has to do with it, but I just found myself zoning out when I read. Douglas Adams’ writing style was just a little too… over the top for me. It seemed like the author was just trying to come up with some of the most bizarre names and titles for his characters and locations and it made it hard for me to slog through.
I was ashamed to admit my dislike for the book at book club but I was quick to find that I am not alone in my feelings. None of us particularly cared for the book. Perhaps it is a “millennial” thing? We had also all seen the movie previously and that could have clouded our vision, perhaps when it came to the book.
All that being said, however, I did find some parts of the book a little humorous. I smiled at parts and chuckled a little, but it wasn’t really enough to save the book in my eyes.
Nick Smallwood (0 KP) rated Black Panther (2018) in Movies
Mar 10, 2018
Black Panther was a great movie with very few negatives to it. Marvel movies being what they are, there are definitely similarities to be drawn between BP and other recent MCU entries, mostly along the lines of Spider-Man: Homecoming and Thor: Ragnarok.
Ryan Coogler very adeptly introduces a brand new culture, a brand new nation, to the Marvel Universe, finally pulling back the veil on Wakanda itself after many hints and Easter eggs.
Fresh from his appearance in Captain America: Civil War, which is recapped very briefly in the beginning of the film, Black Panther comes home to be declared King after a quick action scene that shows Black Panther in action, shot VERY well while maintaining the Marvel humor shown in Ragnarok. "Don't freeze."
As the movie progresses and we're introduced to Michael B. Jordan's villain of the film, we are given an empathetic villain we can eventually sympathize with, albeit knowing full and well that he is still the bad guy who needs to be foiled.
Some character highlights of the film include Princess Shuri, a welcome addition to the MCU, the return of Ulysses Claue from Avengers: Age of Ultron and Everett Ross from Captain America: Civil War, and newcomer M'Baku, who was very tastefully adapted for the film without calling him Man-Ape.
The action scenes were well done, Wakanda showed cultural depth, the plot was well-developed and every scene that wasn't self-explained was eventually paid off later on.
This being a comic book film, it translated Wakanda well, and shows Marvel has found their groove. The distractions I have are few and far between, mostly just stemming from Killmonger's use of a Black Panther suit (Iron Monger, The Abomination, The Red Skull, and Kaecillius all come to mind as mirrored versions of the heroes) and some spotty pacing between some scenes.
Also.
Didn't expect it, didn't see it in trailers, so mild spoilers, but.
Battle Rhinos.
Awesome.
Ryan Coogler very adeptly introduces a brand new culture, a brand new nation, to the Marvel Universe, finally pulling back the veil on Wakanda itself after many hints and Easter eggs.
Fresh from his appearance in Captain America: Civil War, which is recapped very briefly in the beginning of the film, Black Panther comes home to be declared King after a quick action scene that shows Black Panther in action, shot VERY well while maintaining the Marvel humor shown in Ragnarok. "Don't freeze."
As the movie progresses and we're introduced to Michael B. Jordan's villain of the film, we are given an empathetic villain we can eventually sympathize with, albeit knowing full and well that he is still the bad guy who needs to be foiled.
Some character highlights of the film include Princess Shuri, a welcome addition to the MCU, the return of Ulysses Claue from Avengers: Age of Ultron and Everett Ross from Captain America: Civil War, and newcomer M'Baku, who was very tastefully adapted for the film without calling him Man-Ape.
The action scenes were well done, Wakanda showed cultural depth, the plot was well-developed and every scene that wasn't self-explained was eventually paid off later on.
This being a comic book film, it translated Wakanda well, and shows Marvel has found their groove. The distractions I have are few and far between, mostly just stemming from Killmonger's use of a Black Panther suit (Iron Monger, The Abomination, The Red Skull, and Kaecillius all come to mind as mirrored versions of the heroes) and some spotty pacing between some scenes.
Also.
Didn't expect it, didn't see it in trailers, so mild spoilers, but.
Battle Rhinos.
Awesome.
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019) in Movies
Jul 10, 2019
The MCU delivers again!
Tom Holland reprises his role as the friendly neighbourhood Spiderman in this enjoyable final entry in the MCU's third phase.
Picking up where Avengers: Endgame left off, the world is slowly getting back on its feet after Thanos' handiwork was reversed. Peter Parker is on a school trip across Europe when huge Elemental enemies attack. He's unprepared, but the day is saved by Mysterio - a superhero from an alternate universe.
So far, so Marvel.
Twists and turns follow, with plenty of action throughout. The storyline reminded me of Iron Man 3 in some ways, in terms of it's structure and style. The visuals were impressive as always. The acting was spot-on, with Happy returning in a comic relief/mentor role that worked really well alongside the hero.
The great thing about all the Marvel movies is how they distinguish themselves from each other. Aside from being just comic book movies, each individual series has its own themes and genre. Guardians of the Galaxy is sci-fi/action/comedy, Captain America is more political/action, Thor is fantasy, etc... Spiderman fills the gap for a teen drama, appealing to the younger audience by giving them the angst and romance they crave and relate to. The relationship between Peter and MJ is explored in greater detail here, and their on-screen awkward is fun to watch, but also believable - largely, I suspect, due to the pair's off-screen friendship. Their chemistry is brilliant and really adds to the movie.
As with all Marvel movies, it ain't over 'til it's over. The mid-credits scene does a truly fantastic job of setting up the third movie in the series, while the post-credits scene teases at the future of the wider MCU.
Marvel has had numerous hits with only a small handful of near-misses. Spiderman: Far From Home is a resounding hit and not to be missed!
Picking up where Avengers: Endgame left off, the world is slowly getting back on its feet after Thanos' handiwork was reversed. Peter Parker is on a school trip across Europe when huge Elemental enemies attack. He's unprepared, but the day is saved by Mysterio - a superhero from an alternate universe.
So far, so Marvel.
Twists and turns follow, with plenty of action throughout. The storyline reminded me of Iron Man 3 in some ways, in terms of it's structure and style. The visuals were impressive as always. The acting was spot-on, with Happy returning in a comic relief/mentor role that worked really well alongside the hero.
The great thing about all the Marvel movies is how they distinguish themselves from each other. Aside from being just comic book movies, each individual series has its own themes and genre. Guardians of the Galaxy is sci-fi/action/comedy, Captain America is more political/action, Thor is fantasy, etc... Spiderman fills the gap for a teen drama, appealing to the younger audience by giving them the angst and romance they crave and relate to. The relationship between Peter and MJ is explored in greater detail here, and their on-screen awkward is fun to watch, but also believable - largely, I suspect, due to the pair's off-screen friendship. Their chemistry is brilliant and really adds to the movie.
As with all Marvel movies, it ain't over 'til it's over. The mid-credits scene does a truly fantastic job of setting up the third movie in the series, while the post-credits scene teases at the future of the wider MCU.
Marvel has had numerous hits with only a small handful of near-misses. Spiderman: Far From Home is a resounding hit and not to be missed!
Becca Major (96 KP) rated Black in TV
May 26, 2018
Premise (3 more)
Story
Mystery
Interesting world-building
THAT TERRIBLE ENDING (1 more)
Manipulative asshat hero
"Black" is just weird, okay?
"Black" is a very weird show because it is a steaming pile of questions. What Black is actually about is a detective who kinda befriends a psychic woman right before getting shot, and the Grim Reaper that possesses his dead body for his own purposes. Oh, and the psychic and the reaper develop feelings for each other, because of course they do.
The Characters
The main female character is Kang Ha-ram, an unfortunate woman who is able to see black smokey clouds on the backs of people who are about to die. Then, if she touches them, she can see exactly how they die. She lives alone, has trouble keeping a job, and has a terrible relationship with her family. Out of all the characters in this show, she is the most relatable. It’s also nice to see a headstrong female character who is also compassionate and damaged.
The main male character, however, is the Grim Reaper. His designated number is 444, but he chooses to call himself Black pretty early on (as an homage to "Meet Joe Black" though I can't say anything about it because I haven't actually seen the movie). He's... interesting. On one hand, I hate him. I hate that he manipulates Ha-ram. I hate that he lies to her about everything, and still has the audacity to jerk her around. I hate that he is prejudiced and egotistical. On the other hand, after he's been on Earth for a little while, he starts to pick up on the nuances of human interaction, so I can't hate him too much.
The Story
The story caught my attention early on. It is first and foremost a mystery and a cold-case mystery at that. Shortly after Black takes over the life of detective Han Mu-gang, he is roped into a case of teenage prostitution, murder, and political cover-ups. It's very good and keeps you guessing. Plus there's the romance between Ha-ram and Black to worry about. Unfortunately, the entire final episode is terrible. It literally feels like they threw darts at a board to figure out how to finish the show.
Final Thoughts
It's a good show that could use a much better finale. It has strong characters and a hella good story. The effects are good, and the acting is great. If you like mysteries or need a change of pace, then give it a shot.
[I wrote a little bit more about this on my personal blog, and I plan to do a few more posts about Black on it. Check it out if you are interested. https://rebecca-major.com/2018/05/24/black-a-spoiler-free-k-drama-review/]
The Characters
The main female character is Kang Ha-ram, an unfortunate woman who is able to see black smokey clouds on the backs of people who are about to die. Then, if she touches them, she can see exactly how they die. She lives alone, has trouble keeping a job, and has a terrible relationship with her family. Out of all the characters in this show, she is the most relatable. It’s also nice to see a headstrong female character who is also compassionate and damaged.
The main male character, however, is the Grim Reaper. His designated number is 444, but he chooses to call himself Black pretty early on (as an homage to "Meet Joe Black" though I can't say anything about it because I haven't actually seen the movie). He's... interesting. On one hand, I hate him. I hate that he manipulates Ha-ram. I hate that he lies to her about everything, and still has the audacity to jerk her around. I hate that he is prejudiced and egotistical. On the other hand, after he's been on Earth for a little while, he starts to pick up on the nuances of human interaction, so I can't hate him too much.
The Story
The story caught my attention early on. It is first and foremost a mystery and a cold-case mystery at that. Shortly after Black takes over the life of detective Han Mu-gang, he is roped into a case of teenage prostitution, murder, and political cover-ups. It's very good and keeps you guessing. Plus there's the romance between Ha-ram and Black to worry about. Unfortunately, the entire final episode is terrible. It literally feels like they threw darts at a board to figure out how to finish the show.
Final Thoughts
It's a good show that could use a much better finale. It has strong characters and a hella good story. The effects are good, and the acting is great. If you like mysteries or need a change of pace, then give it a shot.
[I wrote a little bit more about this on my personal blog, and I plan to do a few more posts about Black on it. Check it out if you are interested. https://rebecca-major.com/2018/05/24/black-a-spoiler-free-k-drama-review/]
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Zombieland: Double Tap (2019) in Movies
Oct 24, 2019
Ten years is a long time in Hollywood. Ten years ago, to this day Avatar was yet to be released to the unsuspecting masses, with Titanic still reigning supreme over the global box-office and debutant director Ruben Fleischer surprised the cinema-going public with Zombieland.
Made on a tiny budget of just over $20million, it went on to gross over $100million globally and received unanimous praise. A sequel was widely expected in the years that followed but never materialised. That’s probably down to a few things; one being Emma Stone’s meteoric rise to fame, Jesse Eisenberg starring in some of the biggest and most celebrated films of the decade that followed and Woody Harrelson, well, being Woody Harrelson (that’s not a dig, we love you Woody).
Fleischer meanwhile went on to direct 30 Minutes or Less, Gangster Squad and Venom among a couple of other projects. The time for a Zombieland sequel came and went with the film’s core fanbase hoping that one day they’d get what they desired.
That day is now here with the release of Zombieland: Double Tap. With a cast of returning characters and the original director at the helm, things certainly look promising from a technical point of view, but has the ship sailed on getting this franchise off the ground?
Zombie slayers Tallahassee (Harrelson), Columbus (Eisenberg), Wichita (Stone), and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin) square off against a newly evolved strain of the undead as well as combatting their own personal demons in an effort to survive the ongoing zombie apocalypse.
Despite the popularity of the film’s actors since its predecessor, it’s nice to see all of the lead cast slot back into their roles seamlessly. Granted they’re a little older than we last remember them, and a little wiser too, but these characters still retain the charm and humour that made the last movie such a success.
Harrelson remains the standout and that’s mainly down to a nicely written script, penned by Rhett Reese, Paul Wernick and Dave Callaham. Between them they’ve worked on films like Gareth Edwards’ Godzilla, Ant-Man, Deadpool and its sequel and Life. That’s a pretty impressive roster of films it has to be said.
Eisenberg and Stone are also nicely written with a good character arc that means we get to see opposing sides to their roles. Unfortunately, Breslin is underused throughout, reduced to a part that feels much more like a support role. Of the new characters introduced, Rosario Dawson and Zoey Deutch are thinly written but reasonably entertaining.
The movie makes a big deal out of introducing some new breeds of zombie flesh-eaters, but doesn’t really do anything with them
Thankfully, the script remains a real highlight over the brisk 99-minute run-time with some genuine hilarity. The screenplay’s attempts at emotion work reasonably well but fall flat on a couple of occasions – the basis of the previous film was its humour and no surprises, this is where the sequel excels.
It’s a nice film to look at too. While some of the landscapes look a little too artificial, the sweeping shots of desolate buildings and roads add a sense of scale that was sometimes lacking last time around. The opening sequence inside the White House is great to watch and sets up the rest of the film well.
Zombieland: Double Tap works best when our band of characters is bouncing off each other and it’s a good job as the zombie action is fleeting. Some action pieces are well choregraphed but for a film about the world being overrun by the undead, there’s a distinct lack of them. The movie makes a big deal out of introducing some new breeds of zombie flesh-eaters, but doesn’t really do anything with them until the final act and that’s a bit of a shame.
Nevertheless, Zombieland: Double Tap remains easy-to-watch and likeable throughout with a cracking cast of characters. Unfortunately, the world has moved on from 2009 and zombie films, TV shows and books are ten-a-penny nowadays (something nicely referenced at the beginning of the film) and while Zombieland 2 does an awful lot right, in the end it’s a decent sequel to a great film, and nothing more than that.
Stick around for a post-credits sequence that follows on from the predecessors “greatest cameo ever”.
Made on a tiny budget of just over $20million, it went on to gross over $100million globally and received unanimous praise. A sequel was widely expected in the years that followed but never materialised. That’s probably down to a few things; one being Emma Stone’s meteoric rise to fame, Jesse Eisenberg starring in some of the biggest and most celebrated films of the decade that followed and Woody Harrelson, well, being Woody Harrelson (that’s not a dig, we love you Woody).
Fleischer meanwhile went on to direct 30 Minutes or Less, Gangster Squad and Venom among a couple of other projects. The time for a Zombieland sequel came and went with the film’s core fanbase hoping that one day they’d get what they desired.
That day is now here with the release of Zombieland: Double Tap. With a cast of returning characters and the original director at the helm, things certainly look promising from a technical point of view, but has the ship sailed on getting this franchise off the ground?
Zombie slayers Tallahassee (Harrelson), Columbus (Eisenberg), Wichita (Stone), and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin) square off against a newly evolved strain of the undead as well as combatting their own personal demons in an effort to survive the ongoing zombie apocalypse.
Despite the popularity of the film’s actors since its predecessor, it’s nice to see all of the lead cast slot back into their roles seamlessly. Granted they’re a little older than we last remember them, and a little wiser too, but these characters still retain the charm and humour that made the last movie such a success.
Harrelson remains the standout and that’s mainly down to a nicely written script, penned by Rhett Reese, Paul Wernick and Dave Callaham. Between them they’ve worked on films like Gareth Edwards’ Godzilla, Ant-Man, Deadpool and its sequel and Life. That’s a pretty impressive roster of films it has to be said.
Eisenberg and Stone are also nicely written with a good character arc that means we get to see opposing sides to their roles. Unfortunately, Breslin is underused throughout, reduced to a part that feels much more like a support role. Of the new characters introduced, Rosario Dawson and Zoey Deutch are thinly written but reasonably entertaining.
The movie makes a big deal out of introducing some new breeds of zombie flesh-eaters, but doesn’t really do anything with them
Thankfully, the script remains a real highlight over the brisk 99-minute run-time with some genuine hilarity. The screenplay’s attempts at emotion work reasonably well but fall flat on a couple of occasions – the basis of the previous film was its humour and no surprises, this is where the sequel excels.
It’s a nice film to look at too. While some of the landscapes look a little too artificial, the sweeping shots of desolate buildings and roads add a sense of scale that was sometimes lacking last time around. The opening sequence inside the White House is great to watch and sets up the rest of the film well.
Zombieland: Double Tap works best when our band of characters is bouncing off each other and it’s a good job as the zombie action is fleeting. Some action pieces are well choregraphed but for a film about the world being overrun by the undead, there’s a distinct lack of them. The movie makes a big deal out of introducing some new breeds of zombie flesh-eaters, but doesn’t really do anything with them until the final act and that’s a bit of a shame.
Nevertheless, Zombieland: Double Tap remains easy-to-watch and likeable throughout with a cracking cast of characters. Unfortunately, the world has moved on from 2009 and zombie films, TV shows and books are ten-a-penny nowadays (something nicely referenced at the beginning of the film) and while Zombieland 2 does an awful lot right, in the end it’s a decent sequel to a great film, and nothing more than that.
Stick around for a post-credits sequence that follows on from the predecessors “greatest cameo ever”.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Deadpool (2016) in Movies
Aug 15, 2019
An X-Men spin off, of a poorly received character from an earlier X-Men spin off... FOX must have had some major trust in Ryan Reynolds to give Deadpool the green light after the mess of X-Men Origins: Wolverine.
I've been a huge fan of Deadpool comics since as long as I can remember. When I was younger, the 4th wall breaking, the hyper violence, comedy, and self awareness that he is a comic book character, was always something that appealed to me.
So I, like many other Marvel fans, really hated what they did with the character in Origins, and it seems Ryan Reynolds did as well, pitching a rough sequence to FOX which convinced them to give this beloved characters another shot. God bless Ryan Reynolds.
And it paid off in spades. And it's easy to see why - Deadpool is a great movie.
The character himself is near perfect. He looks the part, he sounds the part, and it's great that the studio didn't shy away from an R rating.
The violence in Deadpool is frequent and messy, as is the cursing and crudeness, and the result is hilarious.
The story is told mostly in flashbacks before the big last showdown, and is nicely mapped out, and we're given a hugely likable cast.
Ryan Reynolds is of course , as is T.J. Miller and Morena Baccarin.
I even liked Ed Skrein's villain, Ajax.
Deadpool even manages to sneak in a couple of X-Men with a completely CGI Colossus joining the party, as well as Negasonic Teenage Warhead - the best superhero name ever, and coincidentally the films shining star after Ryan Reynolds - Brianna Hildebrand is a welcome addition to the film, and I genuinely hope that she makes in over to the MCU in the recent Disney Fox merge.
Deadpool is important for a number of reasons - it finally does the character justice. It's also shows that spin off films away from the main X-Men cast can be really decent, and it also shows that R rated superhero films can do the business at the box office.
It's certainly in the top tier of the FOX X-Men series.
I've been a huge fan of Deadpool comics since as long as I can remember. When I was younger, the 4th wall breaking, the hyper violence, comedy, and self awareness that he is a comic book character, was always something that appealed to me.
So I, like many other Marvel fans, really hated what they did with the character in Origins, and it seems Ryan Reynolds did as well, pitching a rough sequence to FOX which convinced them to give this beloved characters another shot. God bless Ryan Reynolds.
And it paid off in spades. And it's easy to see why - Deadpool is a great movie.
The character himself is near perfect. He looks the part, he sounds the part, and it's great that the studio didn't shy away from an R rating.
The violence in Deadpool is frequent and messy, as is the cursing and crudeness, and the result is hilarious.
The story is told mostly in flashbacks before the big last showdown, and is nicely mapped out, and we're given a hugely likable cast.
Ryan Reynolds is of course , as is T.J. Miller and Morena Baccarin.
I even liked Ed Skrein's villain, Ajax.
Deadpool even manages to sneak in a couple of X-Men with a completely CGI Colossus joining the party, as well as Negasonic Teenage Warhead - the best superhero name ever, and coincidentally the films shining star after Ryan Reynolds - Brianna Hildebrand is a welcome addition to the film, and I genuinely hope that she makes in over to the MCU in the recent Disney Fox merge.
Deadpool is important for a number of reasons - it finally does the character justice. It's also shows that spin off films away from the main X-Men cast can be really decent, and it also shows that R rated superhero films can do the business at the box office.
It's certainly in the top tier of the FOX X-Men series.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Predator (2018) in Movies
Sep 27, 2018 (Updated Oct 5, 2018)
The Ultimate Hunter Becomes Hunted Trope
After letting my girlfriend drag me to see A Simple Favor at the weekend, it was my turn to drag her to see something and to be honest, I think that she enjoyed this thing more than I did. This is a film that you can look at a couple of ways. You can either look at it and take none of it seriously, in which case this is a fairly fun, if extremely dumb action sci-fi romp, or you can take a bit more seriously, which I think the moviemakers want you to, in which case it is messy and unbearably cringey at times.
The main problem here is that I am not sure how the director wants us to take this film because the tone is all over the place, with some characters playing it totally straight and some just having a laugh with the ridiculously cheesy material they have been given to work with. The cast are okay, but it is as if they are all working on different movies. Boyd Holbrook, Alfie Allen and Olivia Munn are taking the whole thing pretty seriously and playing it straight while everyone else around them plays it comically and the clash of tones never really sits well throughout the movie. I am a long time Predator fan, I love the original and I think that Predators is a solid sequel too, (let's not mention Predator 2,) I am also a fan of Shane Black. I love the Lethal Weapon movies, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang and The Nice Guys, so I should have loved this movie, yet it just didn't work as well as it sounds on paper.
The VFX in the film was okay at times, but at others the CGI, especially on The Predator himself, felt light and floaty and weightless, which is kinda the opposite of how the Predator is supposed to look as he moves about onscreen.
The whole 'hunter becomes the hunted,' trope actually serves as an appropriate metaphor for what this series has become. The once king of action sci fi (Predator) is now on the back foot and being outdone by a bigger, stronger competitor, (Avengers,) and by comparison, the OG hunter can't stand up to it's superior successor.
Overall, it's not the best Predator movie by a long shot, but it's definitely not the worst either. There are some laughs and some cool kills sprinkled through the film, but there are better action films that have dropped this year and there are better sci fi movies out there too that are more worthy of your time.
The main problem here is that I am not sure how the director wants us to take this film because the tone is all over the place, with some characters playing it totally straight and some just having a laugh with the ridiculously cheesy material they have been given to work with. The cast are okay, but it is as if they are all working on different movies. Boyd Holbrook, Alfie Allen and Olivia Munn are taking the whole thing pretty seriously and playing it straight while everyone else around them plays it comically and the clash of tones never really sits well throughout the movie. I am a long time Predator fan, I love the original and I think that Predators is a solid sequel too, (let's not mention Predator 2,) I am also a fan of Shane Black. I love the Lethal Weapon movies, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang and The Nice Guys, so I should have loved this movie, yet it just didn't work as well as it sounds on paper.
The VFX in the film was okay at times, but at others the CGI, especially on The Predator himself, felt light and floaty and weightless, which is kinda the opposite of how the Predator is supposed to look as he moves about onscreen.
The whole 'hunter becomes the hunted,' trope actually serves as an appropriate metaphor for what this series has become. The once king of action sci fi (Predator) is now on the back foot and being outdone by a bigger, stronger competitor, (Avengers,) and by comparison, the OG hunter can't stand up to it's superior successor.
Overall, it's not the best Predator movie by a long shot, but it's definitely not the worst either. There are some laughs and some cool kills sprinkled through the film, but there are better action films that have dropped this year and there are better sci fi movies out there too that are more worthy of your time.