Search
Handy Photo
Photo & Video and Entertainment
App
***** “What does it do? Everything… quickly and easily. It’s really awesome!“ – Life In...
Sophie Wink (11 KP) rated It's Kind of a Funny Story in Books
Jun 20, 2019
"Insightful and utterly authentic... This is an important book." - The New York Times Book Review
I do very much agree with this comment as it is insightful reading about a mind that is depressed as it can be very hard to compute if you are not depressed yourself, even though this is just one story of an individual with depression it does give you a really good indication of what it's like. And from what I've just read, it sounds horrendous and I would never wish it on anybody.
I really like how the story is set out as even though it only takes place over a few days, the flashbacks convey the depth of the story and really show the development of the main character Craig. I love the way the novel helps the reader understand the mental illness with the little man in his stomach, the soldier in his head, over-sweating, his tentacles, and anchors, it is a clear projection of what it is like. Overall the portrayal of this increasingly common illness is beautifully done.
The character Craig is very likable, even the title immediately portrays the kind of guy that he is; funny and good yet complex. Correct me if I am wrong but he is kind of a walking contradiction as while he can be quite melodramatic he also plays things down, he can be very funny but inside his mind is cluttered with sadness. While he sometimes seems angry he can never actually convey that through his actions. The depth of this character is very thorough, it works really well as even though this character is so complex Vizzini portrays him in such an understandable way. The majority of the characters have two common traits; they're likable yet deeply troubled. I enjoyed reading about everyone in the hospital as there was something about the way they're described and portrayed that makes them, somehow familiar and very much likable. I think the development of the main character is truly fantastic and it made me smile, that's all I can really say without giving too much of the story away.
One thing I really did love within the book was the connection between school and stress with these illnesses as far too often it takes up a good portion of why the individual has a mental illness. From personal experience I know that it is beyond difficult to balance everything between, socialising, family time, the school itself, homework, revision, exams, hobbies, extracurricular activities and jobs and then within that you have to eat, drink and sleep. I definitely connected with the story and Craig himself considering this theme. Another aspect of the story I really love is him finding his love for art. That really made me smile, as it was sometimes my anchor too.
As for the movie... It was terrible. I feel bad for saying it but it really was awful. A lot of the acting in it was really bad, a lot of the plot taken from the story was wrong and mixed up which to an extent I understand as obviously you cannot have every detail of the book in the film but it was too muddled. I think the only character that I thought was portrayed quite well in the movie was Bobby, played by Zach Galifianakis as I connected with him and really felt sympathy and joy for him, there is also a lot of humour associated with him too that I liked and really did laugh out loud at. I thought that the guy who played Craig was really bad, I felt nothing for the character in the movie compared to the book, the acting overall was bad and his chemistry with the other actors wasn't all that great either. I apologise for the bad review of the movie but I have to be honest, as an aspiring actor myself I would want to know if I had done well or not.
Overall the novel is incredibly insightful and beautifully written.
I do very much agree with this comment as it is insightful reading about a mind that is depressed as it can be very hard to compute if you are not depressed yourself, even though this is just one story of an individual with depression it does give you a really good indication of what it's like. And from what I've just read, it sounds horrendous and I would never wish it on anybody.
I really like how the story is set out as even though it only takes place over a few days, the flashbacks convey the depth of the story and really show the development of the main character Craig. I love the way the novel helps the reader understand the mental illness with the little man in his stomach, the soldier in his head, over-sweating, his tentacles, and anchors, it is a clear projection of what it is like. Overall the portrayal of this increasingly common illness is beautifully done.
The character Craig is very likable, even the title immediately portrays the kind of guy that he is; funny and good yet complex. Correct me if I am wrong but he is kind of a walking contradiction as while he can be quite melodramatic he also plays things down, he can be very funny but inside his mind is cluttered with sadness. While he sometimes seems angry he can never actually convey that through his actions. The depth of this character is very thorough, it works really well as even though this character is so complex Vizzini portrays him in such an understandable way. The majority of the characters have two common traits; they're likable yet deeply troubled. I enjoyed reading about everyone in the hospital as there was something about the way they're described and portrayed that makes them, somehow familiar and very much likable. I think the development of the main character is truly fantastic and it made me smile, that's all I can really say without giving too much of the story away.
One thing I really did love within the book was the connection between school and stress with these illnesses as far too often it takes up a good portion of why the individual has a mental illness. From personal experience I know that it is beyond difficult to balance everything between, socialising, family time, the school itself, homework, revision, exams, hobbies, extracurricular activities and jobs and then within that you have to eat, drink and sleep. I definitely connected with the story and Craig himself considering this theme. Another aspect of the story I really love is him finding his love for art. That really made me smile, as it was sometimes my anchor too.
As for the movie... It was terrible. I feel bad for saying it but it really was awful. A lot of the acting in it was really bad, a lot of the plot taken from the story was wrong and mixed up which to an extent I understand as obviously you cannot have every detail of the book in the film but it was too muddled. I think the only character that I thought was portrayed quite well in the movie was Bobby, played by Zach Galifianakis as I connected with him and really felt sympathy and joy for him, there is also a lot of humour associated with him too that I liked and really did laugh out loud at. I thought that the guy who played Craig was really bad, I felt nothing for the character in the movie compared to the book, the acting overall was bad and his chemistry with the other actors wasn't all that great either. I apologise for the bad review of the movie but I have to be honest, as an aspiring actor myself I would want to know if I had done well or not.
Overall the novel is incredibly insightful and beautifully written.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Drag Me to Hell (2009) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
I’m just going to be honest. Drag Me To Hell is the movie we would have seen 22 years ago had Sam Raimi been given several million dollars, had Bruce Campbell been a woman and had there been no chainsaws handy. Not that this is a bad thing. I believe that Raimi fans will be quite pleased to see the cult and blockbuster director’s return to his roots.
Christine Brown (Alison Lohman) is a soft-spoken loan officer competing for the open position of assistant manager at the bank branch she works for. She has a predominantly sunny life with her boyfriend, Clay Dalton, (Justin Long) and a new kitten.
When an old woman in an Oldsmobile (Lorna Raver) comes to beg for an extension on her mortgage, Christine is unaware of how much her ideal life is about to change.
Desperate to impress her boss and prove her prowess over the only other candidate, Christine refuses the woman help. Angered and shamed, the woman curses Christine, calling upon the demon Lamia (voiced by Art Kimbro) to torment her for three days and then damn her soul.
Acting upon the advice of a Seer (Dileep Rao), Christine struggles to free herself from this terrible fate. She alienates herself from Clay’s parents, sacrifices her cat, participates in a séance, crashes a funeral, defiles the dead and is eventually forced to choose whether or not she can in turn damn her business rival.
But I wouldn’t want you to start thinking that you’re dealing with some far-too-serious classic horror revival (not that that would be a bad thing). Let’s not forget the projectile blood and vomit, the mud and maggots, the stapler to the face and ruler to the back of the throat; all done in that comical slapstick that only Raimi can produce. The utterly gory, disgusting images that make you laugh hysterically while simultaneously cringeing in disbelief. This is the stuff that made him a cult hero.
There are certainly some creepy moments, quite a few in fact. Things that pleased the horror fan in me very much. And there are plenty of scares to be had as creatures and characters launch themselves from the shadows. I only jumped a couple of times (and I scare easily) but that might have been due more to the people sitting around us than the movie itself.
Drag Me To Hell opens with a classic Universal logo, one that hasn’t been seen since the 70s. It was so appropriate that as soon as I saw it I was sure I was going to walk away happy. Then the opening credits began and I was blown away. They are so absolutely gorgeous that they almost deserve to be a short of their own rather than find themselves pinned to a feature. The special effects continue to be a remarkable strong point throughout the rest of the movie. Several scenes blew me away with their execution and look.
When it comes down to what was missing, characterization was the one thing this film lacked. I didn’t feel very connected to any of the characters and certainly didn’t care about their plight. It seemed rather two dimensional. The characters are barely introduced and we aren’t ushered into their lives and minds before the action begins. We are just expected to care.
On top of this, Lohman’s acting wasn’t the greatest and Long, while doing a decent job, didn’t seem to fit the role terribly well. The cat-sacrificing didn’t go far for making me feel any sympathy toward Christine or her dilemma. This was all very disappointing since I feel as though everything else was so strong that had this been reinforced rather than left flat it would have been exceedingly excellent.
But it is worth a watch. If you love anything by Sam Raimi you will not be disappointed and if you’ve never seen any of his work then you might find yourself pleasantly surprised. This is one of the few things I have ever watched that was exactly what it promised to be.
Thank you, Mr. Raimi, for this excellent return to horror. We are all grateful.
Christine Brown (Alison Lohman) is a soft-spoken loan officer competing for the open position of assistant manager at the bank branch she works for. She has a predominantly sunny life with her boyfriend, Clay Dalton, (Justin Long) and a new kitten.
When an old woman in an Oldsmobile (Lorna Raver) comes to beg for an extension on her mortgage, Christine is unaware of how much her ideal life is about to change.
Desperate to impress her boss and prove her prowess over the only other candidate, Christine refuses the woman help. Angered and shamed, the woman curses Christine, calling upon the demon Lamia (voiced by Art Kimbro) to torment her for three days and then damn her soul.
Acting upon the advice of a Seer (Dileep Rao), Christine struggles to free herself from this terrible fate. She alienates herself from Clay’s parents, sacrifices her cat, participates in a séance, crashes a funeral, defiles the dead and is eventually forced to choose whether or not she can in turn damn her business rival.
But I wouldn’t want you to start thinking that you’re dealing with some far-too-serious classic horror revival (not that that would be a bad thing). Let’s not forget the projectile blood and vomit, the mud and maggots, the stapler to the face and ruler to the back of the throat; all done in that comical slapstick that only Raimi can produce. The utterly gory, disgusting images that make you laugh hysterically while simultaneously cringeing in disbelief. This is the stuff that made him a cult hero.
There are certainly some creepy moments, quite a few in fact. Things that pleased the horror fan in me very much. And there are plenty of scares to be had as creatures and characters launch themselves from the shadows. I only jumped a couple of times (and I scare easily) but that might have been due more to the people sitting around us than the movie itself.
Drag Me To Hell opens with a classic Universal logo, one that hasn’t been seen since the 70s. It was so appropriate that as soon as I saw it I was sure I was going to walk away happy. Then the opening credits began and I was blown away. They are so absolutely gorgeous that they almost deserve to be a short of their own rather than find themselves pinned to a feature. The special effects continue to be a remarkable strong point throughout the rest of the movie. Several scenes blew me away with their execution and look.
When it comes down to what was missing, characterization was the one thing this film lacked. I didn’t feel very connected to any of the characters and certainly didn’t care about their plight. It seemed rather two dimensional. The characters are barely introduced and we aren’t ushered into their lives and minds before the action begins. We are just expected to care.
On top of this, Lohman’s acting wasn’t the greatest and Long, while doing a decent job, didn’t seem to fit the role terribly well. The cat-sacrificing didn’t go far for making me feel any sympathy toward Christine or her dilemma. This was all very disappointing since I feel as though everything else was so strong that had this been reinforced rather than left flat it would have been exceedingly excellent.
But it is worth a watch. If you love anything by Sam Raimi you will not be disappointed and if you’ve never seen any of his work then you might find yourself pleasantly surprised. This is one of the few things I have ever watched that was exactly what it promised to be.
Thank you, Mr. Raimi, for this excellent return to horror. We are all grateful.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Men in Black III (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Fifteen years after bursting onto the scene, award winning actors Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones are back in black in Men In Black 3! Alien-busting agents J (Will Smith) and K (Tommy Lee Jones) are here once again to protect the galaxy, and the people of Earth, in this action-packed, hilarious and attention-grabbing adventure that is sure to redeem itself from its previous sequel flop.
Men In Black 3 features a time travel plot, with a comedic twist, that focuses on the relationship between Agent J, and surly old character, Agent K. Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones have fantastic and seamless chemistry that makes it easy to dispel disbelief and emerse yourself into this secret world of aliens among us.
The film starts off with what seams like a casual conversation, between wise cracking charismatic Agent J and always grumpy Agent K, but soon leads to Agent K stonewalling J’s questions about K’s past by stating, “Don’t ask questions you don’t want to know the answers to.” As Will Smith’s character persists, our curiosity grows, and a conspiracy of a cover up and clues to Agent K’s dark past unfolds.
Meanwhile, one of the most feared criminals in the galaxy, Boris the Animal (Jemaine Clement), has just escaped from a maximum security prison that was built on the moon to detain him. Boris wants nothing more than to seek revenge on the person responsible for his 40 year incarceration and kill the man responsible for the loss of his arm, Agent K. Through a murderous rage Boris secures a time travel device and jumps back in time to 1969, where he rewrites history by killing K in hopes that his Boglodite alien kind will fulfill their mission to use and destroy present day Earth. The only person aware that time has been altered is, of course, Agent J who ends up traveling back in time to stop Boris the Animal. In doing so, Agent J unites with the younger Agent K (Josh Brolin) and has to work together to ultimately save mankind. Josh Brolin’s performance was spot on. He gave an uncanny impression of Jones, right down to the mannerisms and facial expressions. He was very entertaining to watch.
When I first heard about a third Men in Black movie, I didn’t expect much out of this 10 year dormant franchise. Mainly because the second movie left so little to be desired, due to its horrible storyline and less than stellar performances by the lead characters. I honestly cannot remember a single enjoyable moment from Men in Black 2, someone must have neuralized me!
Barry Sonnenfeld is back in the director’s seat, hoping to redeem himself from the disaster that was Men in Black 2. He attempts to return to the original formula that made the first Men in Black movie fun, original and entertaining. Proving to have succeeded in creating a more worthwhile storyline, there are however moments within the movie that seem a bit thrown together, times in the plot that could have been expanded upon but may have ended up on the editing room floor.
Kudos to the special effects and art direction team for once again creating amusingly and outlandish aliens that were the real stars of the show. The special effects, such as Boris’ dart spitting spider-like creature that lives inside his hand, were particularly gruesome.
Both Sonnenfeld and Smith, who serve as producers, were aiming at providing more substance to the third installment. They wanted to delve into the relationship between J and K and why K has such a bitter and distant persona, especially after having been partners for 15 years. The real reasons will shock you. I won’t spoil the surprising end, but it was a touching twist that I did not see coming. It made me appreciate both characters and had me walking out of the theater feeling pumped up from all of the action, giddy from all of the laughs and moved from the heartfelt ending. They pulled it off without being sappy, a well rounded action comedy, suitable for the whole family.
Men In Black 3 features a time travel plot, with a comedic twist, that focuses on the relationship between Agent J, and surly old character, Agent K. Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones have fantastic and seamless chemistry that makes it easy to dispel disbelief and emerse yourself into this secret world of aliens among us.
The film starts off with what seams like a casual conversation, between wise cracking charismatic Agent J and always grumpy Agent K, but soon leads to Agent K stonewalling J’s questions about K’s past by stating, “Don’t ask questions you don’t want to know the answers to.” As Will Smith’s character persists, our curiosity grows, and a conspiracy of a cover up and clues to Agent K’s dark past unfolds.
Meanwhile, one of the most feared criminals in the galaxy, Boris the Animal (Jemaine Clement), has just escaped from a maximum security prison that was built on the moon to detain him. Boris wants nothing more than to seek revenge on the person responsible for his 40 year incarceration and kill the man responsible for the loss of his arm, Agent K. Through a murderous rage Boris secures a time travel device and jumps back in time to 1969, where he rewrites history by killing K in hopes that his Boglodite alien kind will fulfill their mission to use and destroy present day Earth. The only person aware that time has been altered is, of course, Agent J who ends up traveling back in time to stop Boris the Animal. In doing so, Agent J unites with the younger Agent K (Josh Brolin) and has to work together to ultimately save mankind. Josh Brolin’s performance was spot on. He gave an uncanny impression of Jones, right down to the mannerisms and facial expressions. He was very entertaining to watch.
When I first heard about a third Men in Black movie, I didn’t expect much out of this 10 year dormant franchise. Mainly because the second movie left so little to be desired, due to its horrible storyline and less than stellar performances by the lead characters. I honestly cannot remember a single enjoyable moment from Men in Black 2, someone must have neuralized me!
Barry Sonnenfeld is back in the director’s seat, hoping to redeem himself from the disaster that was Men in Black 2. He attempts to return to the original formula that made the first Men in Black movie fun, original and entertaining. Proving to have succeeded in creating a more worthwhile storyline, there are however moments within the movie that seem a bit thrown together, times in the plot that could have been expanded upon but may have ended up on the editing room floor.
Kudos to the special effects and art direction team for once again creating amusingly and outlandish aliens that were the real stars of the show. The special effects, such as Boris’ dart spitting spider-like creature that lives inside his hand, were particularly gruesome.
Both Sonnenfeld and Smith, who serve as producers, were aiming at providing more substance to the third installment. They wanted to delve into the relationship between J and K and why K has such a bitter and distant persona, especially after having been partners for 15 years. The real reasons will shock you. I won’t spoil the surprising end, but it was a touching twist that I did not see coming. It made me appreciate both characters and had me walking out of the theater feeling pumped up from all of the action, giddy from all of the laughs and moved from the heartfelt ending. They pulled it off without being sappy, a well rounded action comedy, suitable for the whole family.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
In the search for a way to watch the 92nd Academy Awards live from Hollywood tonight I was led to a subscription for Now TV, which is basically the online platform for Sky Cinema. And there I found all the missing films I had yet to see from last year that aren’t available “free” on Amazon Prime or Netflix. I should really have worked it out before now that a free trial might be available, having assumed that a Sky subscription was beyond my means at the moment. Imagine my excitement to not only secure the Oscars but a 7 day pass to catch up on some big titles. It’s the small things in life…
Having made a 20 strong watch list, I wasted no time in heading straight for the Queen biopic, Bohemian Rhapsody, winner of 4 awards last February, including one for Rami Malek as Freddy Mercury that I applauded very loudly at the time, without having seen it, due to my love for him as Elliot Alderson in my favourite TV show of the last 5 years, the incredible and mindbendingly brilliant Mr. Robot.
My connection to Queen as a fan isn’t an especially strong one; I have always thought they were fine, and enjoyed their biggest hits as much as anyone. But it is the story, charisma and undeniable singing talent of Mercury that attracts me. From the opening scenes it is apparent that what we are going to get here is a fairly straightforward, by the numbers recounting of events, punctuated by some serious tunes and some glorious 70s fashions. Having read that this was the main criticism of it going in, it really didn’t bother me at all to find it wasn’t going to make bolder artistic and dramatic choices. It was very much about sitting back and enjoying the show!
In fact, there is something comforting and unchallenging about its format that I liked. The pattern of abc that is a) some background to Freddy’s life, b) a build up to how they came across their big hits, and c) a rendition of that hit, didn’t strike me as cheap, but rather unpretentious and to the point. The whole thing clipped along nicely with very little dead air; Malek is a joy to watch in every moment; the clothes and scenery of the 70s and later 80s is a treat; and the music stands for itself, with you often forgetting how good the tunes are until you hear them in this context.
Of course, at times it is almost laughable how well known facts and details are crow-barred into the narrative, with some of the darker elements glossed over, as if this were almost a Disney retelling. But, again, it doesn’t matter, because as an entertainment it is all so enjoyable. Not to say the dark side of the story isn’t touched upon, because it is to an extent, just that it is clear this is a celebration of a life and a talent, not an exposé. Which is fine. As with the superior Walk The Line, and the recently inferior Rocketman, we know a seedier story of Johnny Cash and Elton John exists, but we accept that revelling in the genius of the music is more fun than trawling through the trash.
Malek is a wonder to behold! It has to be said. Once you (and he) get used to the false teeth and bite down on the energy and drive of Mercury, it is impossible to take your eyes off him! He handles the dramatic moments and nuance of this fragile mind with ease, but it is the performances that stand out: his movement is so fluid and accurate that you forget at times you aren’t watching archive footage, which is some trick! Gwilym Lee and Ben Hardy as Brian May and Roger Taylor are also to be praised for this, despite having less to do. With Joseph Mazzello as John Deacon largely merging into the background inoffensively, much as his real life counterpart did.
There is some solid support too. Lucy Boynton is completely charming if largely uninteresting; Tom Hollander quietly steals several scenes as the lawyer who doesn’t just work for them but idolises them as much as any fan; and an unrecognisable Mike Myers is a lot of fun as the manager who missed out on the vision and lives to regret it. Honourable mention also to Allen Leech as the villain of the piece, who walks the tightrope of cartoonish nastiness with some skill, serving the story well in the latter half.
My favourites parts were, unsurprisingly, the genesis and evolution of the big tunes, which was invariably very satisfying. Love of My Life, We Will Rock You, We are the Champions and of course Bohemian Rhapsody are treated like holy texts, with fascinating detail and a reverence that never seems over-egged. Building to the climax of Live Aid; a twenty minute segment at the end of the film that brings a genuine lump to the throat. The magnitude of the event and its natural energy are so well realised, every minor foible of the film up to that point are forgiven, and you walk away from it feeling elated and glad that this moment exists in music history.
Artistically, it isn’t a movie to get too caried away about, but the art of creating a spectacle that pleases on a basic, uncomplicated level is. Director Bryan Singer knows a trick or two, and the trick here is what is left out. There just isn’t a moment to be bored, and I find myself wishing that films of this kind took a leaf out of that book more often. In conclusion, I think this movie will endure the test of time, which is a lot more than most biopic genre films can say. But who wants to live forever anyway?
Having made a 20 strong watch list, I wasted no time in heading straight for the Queen biopic, Bohemian Rhapsody, winner of 4 awards last February, including one for Rami Malek as Freddy Mercury that I applauded very loudly at the time, without having seen it, due to my love for him as Elliot Alderson in my favourite TV show of the last 5 years, the incredible and mindbendingly brilliant Mr. Robot.
My connection to Queen as a fan isn’t an especially strong one; I have always thought they were fine, and enjoyed their biggest hits as much as anyone. But it is the story, charisma and undeniable singing talent of Mercury that attracts me. From the opening scenes it is apparent that what we are going to get here is a fairly straightforward, by the numbers recounting of events, punctuated by some serious tunes and some glorious 70s fashions. Having read that this was the main criticism of it going in, it really didn’t bother me at all to find it wasn’t going to make bolder artistic and dramatic choices. It was very much about sitting back and enjoying the show!
In fact, there is something comforting and unchallenging about its format that I liked. The pattern of abc that is a) some background to Freddy’s life, b) a build up to how they came across their big hits, and c) a rendition of that hit, didn’t strike me as cheap, but rather unpretentious and to the point. The whole thing clipped along nicely with very little dead air; Malek is a joy to watch in every moment; the clothes and scenery of the 70s and later 80s is a treat; and the music stands for itself, with you often forgetting how good the tunes are until you hear them in this context.
Of course, at times it is almost laughable how well known facts and details are crow-barred into the narrative, with some of the darker elements glossed over, as if this were almost a Disney retelling. But, again, it doesn’t matter, because as an entertainment it is all so enjoyable. Not to say the dark side of the story isn’t touched upon, because it is to an extent, just that it is clear this is a celebration of a life and a talent, not an exposé. Which is fine. As with the superior Walk The Line, and the recently inferior Rocketman, we know a seedier story of Johnny Cash and Elton John exists, but we accept that revelling in the genius of the music is more fun than trawling through the trash.
Malek is a wonder to behold! It has to be said. Once you (and he) get used to the false teeth and bite down on the energy and drive of Mercury, it is impossible to take your eyes off him! He handles the dramatic moments and nuance of this fragile mind with ease, but it is the performances that stand out: his movement is so fluid and accurate that you forget at times you aren’t watching archive footage, which is some trick! Gwilym Lee and Ben Hardy as Brian May and Roger Taylor are also to be praised for this, despite having less to do. With Joseph Mazzello as John Deacon largely merging into the background inoffensively, much as his real life counterpart did.
There is some solid support too. Lucy Boynton is completely charming if largely uninteresting; Tom Hollander quietly steals several scenes as the lawyer who doesn’t just work for them but idolises them as much as any fan; and an unrecognisable Mike Myers is a lot of fun as the manager who missed out on the vision and lives to regret it. Honourable mention also to Allen Leech as the villain of the piece, who walks the tightrope of cartoonish nastiness with some skill, serving the story well in the latter half.
My favourites parts were, unsurprisingly, the genesis and evolution of the big tunes, which was invariably very satisfying. Love of My Life, We Will Rock You, We are the Champions and of course Bohemian Rhapsody are treated like holy texts, with fascinating detail and a reverence that never seems over-egged. Building to the climax of Live Aid; a twenty minute segment at the end of the film that brings a genuine lump to the throat. The magnitude of the event and its natural energy are so well realised, every minor foible of the film up to that point are forgiven, and you walk away from it feeling elated and glad that this moment exists in music history.
Artistically, it isn’t a movie to get too caried away about, but the art of creating a spectacle that pleases on a basic, uncomplicated level is. Director Bryan Singer knows a trick or two, and the trick here is what is left out. There just isn’t a moment to be bored, and I find myself wishing that films of this kind took a leaf out of that book more often. In conclusion, I think this movie will endure the test of time, which is a lot more than most biopic genre films can say. But who wants to live forever anyway?
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated Detective Comics Volume 3: League of Shadows in Books
Nov 30, 2020
<i>A little bit of "backstory": I am a sucker for well-executed Ra's al Ghul story! To me, he is one of Batman's best adversaries and one of my personal faves! Add in more human, less off-the-scale like he is under Tom King's run Batman, and you've got a great treat for me! Now, that said, on to my review.</i>
<img src="https://i.imgur.com/MW33UBM.gif"; width="300" height="200">
I am still enjoying my return to reading DC's books rather than the current slop Marvel is serving up. My latest undertaking has been James Tynion IV's run on DETECTIVE COMICS. Last night, I devoured the 3rd volume, "League of Shadows", largely for the reasons in my backstory above.
I know some folks on interwebs have issues with Tynion's writing for the Dark Knight. I've read things like "bland" and "his stories go NOWHERE". I don't know which of his Batman entries they are reading, but thus far, not a one has disappointed.
This one was particularly interesting as it dealt with Cassandra Cain, a former Batgirl/now calling herself "Orphan" as that is what her parents have chosen to do, leaving her <i>orphaned</i>. Her mother is Sandra Wu-San, or as she is better known, Lady Shiva. There is no love lost between Cassandra and her mother; essentially, Shiva treats the poor girl as if she was dead, not even a product of her womb. Sad, really. But, it is good to see Cassandra and Shiva's relationship dealt with following the whole "Rebirth".
I may be in a serious minority here, but I really liked the ending (not <i>really</i> much of Spoiler), where Batman holds her in a embrace, letting her known she is not alone..ever. Sure, Bats is all about the whole "Dark Knight" and "Oooh, feel my scary presence, criminals!", but it was nice to see his human, father-esque side to his character. Much better than the way he is being handled in his main book!
Equally meaty and worthwhile was Ra's inclusion as part of the story. I found him to be well-written, feeling much like "The Demon's Head" that is his being. I was totally able to hear, in my head, his dialogue as read by David Warner, who did his voice in BATMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES. That definitely seems like Tynion is truly writing at the top of his game!
I was also quite pleased with the subplot of more background to Batwoman's character. I was not really that familiar with her character, other than in the animated DC film. That aside, I found her to be real and decidedly interesting, especially her relationship with her father. Again, some excellent writing from Tynion!
And speaking of Batwoman, how cool was it to see Batman assembling Bat-Family 2.0? This plot element harkened back to the Silver Age, where DETECTIVE COMICS would often do double-sized issues that focused on the then-Bat-Fam: Batman, Robin (Dick Grayson, not yet Nightwing), Batgirl, and sometimes, Elongated Man would get a story in it as well.
The new Bat-Fam consists of Batman (of course!), Batwing (Lucius Fox's son), Batwoman, Orphan (Cassandra Cain), Azrael (who I consider to be not-so-interest, leaving me to skip the last issue of this volume as it was 100% Azrael-centric), Spoiler (Stephanie Brown), Red Robin, and the-now-trying-his-hand-at-being-a-rehabilitated-good-guy Clayface. Quite a mixed bag, almost like a Skittles version of the Bat-Fam, but interesting choices for a collaborative team.
The team functions well enough, but there is some static and tension, as would be true of any team assembled such as this lot. All in all, I really dug the gang, and they really worked well together. Super-smooth idea of introducing a Bat-Fam 2.0! Bravo, James Tynion IV,you are AWESOME for doing this!
It is also worth mentioning the artists for this volume: Marcio Takara and Christian Duce. I was already familiar with Takara's delicious style from his work on Marvel's ALL-NEW WOLVERINE. Christian Duce was previously unknown to me, but after seeing his super-legit art skills, he is going to be one for me to keep an eye for going forward!
Blah, blah, blah, am I right? I could go on and on, but if you weren't reading my blathering, you could be reading this excellent Bat-book. I was going to give it 5-Stars, but I see that I was just giving them out for a while not unlike Oprah giving away new cars! So, that's it! Go already! You need to get a'readin'!
<img src="https://i.imgur.com/MW33UBM.gif"; width="300" height="200">
I am still enjoying my return to reading DC's books rather than the current slop Marvel is serving up. My latest undertaking has been James Tynion IV's run on DETECTIVE COMICS. Last night, I devoured the 3rd volume, "League of Shadows", largely for the reasons in my backstory above.
I know some folks on interwebs have issues with Tynion's writing for the Dark Knight. I've read things like "bland" and "his stories go NOWHERE". I don't know which of his Batman entries they are reading, but thus far, not a one has disappointed.
This one was particularly interesting as it dealt with Cassandra Cain, a former Batgirl/now calling herself "Orphan" as that is what her parents have chosen to do, leaving her <i>orphaned</i>. Her mother is Sandra Wu-San, or as she is better known, Lady Shiva. There is no love lost between Cassandra and her mother; essentially, Shiva treats the poor girl as if she was dead, not even a product of her womb. Sad, really. But, it is good to see Cassandra and Shiva's relationship dealt with following the whole "Rebirth".
I may be in a serious minority here, but I really liked the ending (not <i>really</i> much of Spoiler), where Batman holds her in a embrace, letting her known she is not alone..ever. Sure, Bats is all about the whole "Dark Knight" and "Oooh, feel my scary presence, criminals!", but it was nice to see his human, father-esque side to his character. Much better than the way he is being handled in his main book!
Equally meaty and worthwhile was Ra's inclusion as part of the story. I found him to be well-written, feeling much like "The Demon's Head" that is his being. I was totally able to hear, in my head, his dialogue as read by David Warner, who did his voice in BATMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES. That definitely seems like Tynion is truly writing at the top of his game!
I was also quite pleased with the subplot of more background to Batwoman's character. I was not really that familiar with her character, other than in the animated DC film. That aside, I found her to be real and decidedly interesting, especially her relationship with her father. Again, some excellent writing from Tynion!
And speaking of Batwoman, how cool was it to see Batman assembling Bat-Family 2.0? This plot element harkened back to the Silver Age, where DETECTIVE COMICS would often do double-sized issues that focused on the then-Bat-Fam: Batman, Robin (Dick Grayson, not yet Nightwing), Batgirl, and sometimes, Elongated Man would get a story in it as well.
The new Bat-Fam consists of Batman (of course!), Batwing (Lucius Fox's son), Batwoman, Orphan (Cassandra Cain), Azrael (who I consider to be not-so-interest, leaving me to skip the last issue of this volume as it was 100% Azrael-centric), Spoiler (Stephanie Brown), Red Robin, and the-now-trying-his-hand-at-being-a-rehabilitated-good-guy Clayface. Quite a mixed bag, almost like a Skittles version of the Bat-Fam, but interesting choices for a collaborative team.
The team functions well enough, but there is some static and tension, as would be true of any team assembled such as this lot. All in all, I really dug the gang, and they really worked well together. Super-smooth idea of introducing a Bat-Fam 2.0! Bravo, James Tynion IV,you are AWESOME for doing this!
It is also worth mentioning the artists for this volume: Marcio Takara and Christian Duce. I was already familiar with Takara's delicious style from his work on Marvel's ALL-NEW WOLVERINE. Christian Duce was previously unknown to me, but after seeing his super-legit art skills, he is going to be one for me to keep an eye for going forward!
Blah, blah, blah, am I right? I could go on and on, but if you weren't reading my blathering, you could be reading this excellent Bat-book. I was going to give it 5-Stars, but I see that I was just giving them out for a while not unlike Oprah giving away new cars! So, that's it! Go already! You need to get a'readin'!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mank (2020) in Movies
Dec 10, 2020
Cinematography - glorious to look at (1 more)
A fabulous ensemble cast, with Oldham, Seyfried, Arliss and Dance excelling
"Mank" is a biopic slice of the career of Herman Jacob Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman), the Hollywood screenwriter who was the pen behind what is regularly voted by critics as being the greatest movie of all time - "Citizen Kane". "Citizen Kane" was written in 1940 (and released the following year) and much of the action in "Mank" takes place in a retreat in the Mojave desert when Mank, crippled by a full-cast on the leg, has been 'sent' by Orson Welles (Tom Burke) to complete the screenplay without alcohol and other worldly distractions. Helping administer to his writing and care needs are English typist Rita Alexander (Lily Collins) and carer Fraulein Freda (Monika Gossmann). However, although Mank produces brilliant stuff, his speed of progress exasperates his 'minder' and editor John Houseman (Sam Troughton). (Yes, THAT John Houseman, the actor.)
In developing the story, we continuously flash-back six years - - nicely indicated by typed 'script notes' - - to 1934 where Mank is working at MGM studios for Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) and mixing in the circles of millionaire publisher William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and his glamorous young wife, actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried). Allegedly, the "Citizen Kane" script was based on Hearst. But what souring of the relationship could have led to such a stinging betrayal during those six years?
Mank has an embarrassment of acting riches. Mankiewicz is a fascinating character: charismatic, reckless, passionate and the definition of a loose cannon. Basically, a dream for a great actor to portray. And Gary Oldham IS a great actor. After doing Churchill in "Darkest Hour", he here turns in a magnificent performance as the alcoholic writer. Never more so than in a furious tirade at a dinner table late in the film, which will likely be the equivalent to the Churchill "tiger" speech come Oscar time. Surely, there's a Best Actor nomination there?
Equally impressive though are some of the supporting cast.
- Tom Burke - so good as TV's "Strike" - gives a fine impersonation of the great Orson Welles: full of confidence and swagger. It's only a cameo role, but he genuinely 'feels' like the young Welles.
- Amanda Seyfried: It took me almost half of the film to recognize her as Marion Davies, and her performance is pitch perfect - the best of her career in my view, and again Oscar-worthy.
- Arliss Howard for me almost steals the show as the megalomaniac Mayer: his introduction to Mank's brother Joe (Tom Pelphrey) has a memorable "walk with me" walkthrough of the studio with Mayer preaching on the real meaning of MGM and the movies in general. Breathtakingly good.
- But - I said "nearly steals the show".... the guy who made off with it in a swag-bag for me was our own Charles Dance as Hearst. Quietly impressive throughout, he just completely nails it with his "organ-grinder's monkey" speech towards the end of the movie. Probably my favourite monologue of 2020. Chilling. I'd really like to see Dance get a Supporting Actor nomination for this.
The screenplay was originally written by director David Fincher's late father Jack. Jack Fincher died in 2002, and this project has literally been decades in the planning. Mankiewicz has a caustic turn of phrase, and there are laugh-out lines of dialogue scattered throughout the script. "Write hard, aim low" implores Houseman at one point. And my personal favourite: Mank's puncturing of the irony that the Screen Writers Guild has been formed without an apostrophe! A huge LOL!
Aside from the witty dialogue, the script has a nuance to the storytelling that continually surprises. A revelation from Freda about Mank's philanthropic tendencies brings you up short in your face-value impression of his character. And the drivers that engineer the rift between Mankiewicz and Hearst - based around the story of the (fictional) director Shelly Metcalf (Jamie McShane) - are not slapped in your face, but elegantly slipped into your subconscious.
In addition, certain aspects are frustratingly withheld from you. Mank's long-suffering wife (a definition of the phrase) Sara (Tuppence Middleton) only occasionally comes into focus. The only reference to his kids are a crash in the background as they "remodel" the family home. Is the charismatic Mank a faithful husband or a philanderer? Is the relationship with Rita Alexander just professional and platonic (you assume so), or is there more going on? There's a tension there in the storytelling that never quite gets resolved: and that's a good thing.
Mank also has an embarrassment of technical riches. Even from the opening titles, you get the impression that this is a work of genius. All in black and white, and with the appearance of 40's titling, they scroll majestically in the sky and then - after "Charles Dance" - effortlessly scroll down to the desert highway. It's evidence of an attention to detail perhaps forced by lockdown. ("MUM - I'm bored". "Go up to your room and do some more work on that movie then".)
It's deliciously modern, yet retro. I love the fact that the cross-reel "circle" cue-marks appear so prominently... the indicators that the projectionist needs to spin up the next reel. I think they are still used in most modern films, but not as noticeably as in the old films... and this one!
A key contributor to the movie is cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt. Everything looks just BEAUTIFUL, and it is now a big regret that I didn't go to watch this on the big screen after all. Surely there will be a cinematography Oscar nomination for this one. Unbelievably, this is Messerschmidt's debut feature as director of cinematography!
Elsewhere, you can imagine multiple other technical Oscar noms. The tight and effective editing is by Kirk Baxter. And the combination of the glorious production design (Donald Graham Burt) and the costume design (Trish Summerville) make the movie emanate the same nostalgia for Hollywood as did last year's "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood".... albeit set forty years earlier. Even the music (by the regular team of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) might get nominated, since I had to go back and check that it actually HAD music at all: it's subtly unobtrusive and effective.
The only area I had any issue with here was the sound mixing, since I had trouble picking up some of the dialogue.
Although I can gush about this movie as a technical work of art, I'm going to hold off a 10* review on this one. For one reason only. I just didn't feel 100% engaged with the story (at least with a first watch). The illustrious Mrs Movie Man summed it up with the phrase "I just didn't care enough what happened to any of the characters". I think though that this one is sufficiently subtle and cerebral that it deserves another watch.
Will it win Oscars. Yes, for sure. Hell, I would like to put a bet on that "Mank" will top the list of the "most nominations" when they are announced. (Hollywood likes nothing more than a navel-gazing look at its history of course). And an obvious nomination here will be David Fincher for Best Director. But, for me, this falls into a similar bucket as that other black and white multi-Oscar winner of two year's ago "Roma". It's glorious to look at; brilliantly directed; but not a movie I would choose to readily reach for to repeatedly watch again.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/10/mank-divines-for-oscar-gold-in-a-sea-of-pyrites/. Thanks.)
In developing the story, we continuously flash-back six years - - nicely indicated by typed 'script notes' - - to 1934 where Mank is working at MGM studios for Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) and mixing in the circles of millionaire publisher William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and his glamorous young wife, actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried). Allegedly, the "Citizen Kane" script was based on Hearst. But what souring of the relationship could have led to such a stinging betrayal during those six years?
Mank has an embarrassment of acting riches. Mankiewicz is a fascinating character: charismatic, reckless, passionate and the definition of a loose cannon. Basically, a dream for a great actor to portray. And Gary Oldham IS a great actor. After doing Churchill in "Darkest Hour", he here turns in a magnificent performance as the alcoholic writer. Never more so than in a furious tirade at a dinner table late in the film, which will likely be the equivalent to the Churchill "tiger" speech come Oscar time. Surely, there's a Best Actor nomination there?
Equally impressive though are some of the supporting cast.
- Tom Burke - so good as TV's "Strike" - gives a fine impersonation of the great Orson Welles: full of confidence and swagger. It's only a cameo role, but he genuinely 'feels' like the young Welles.
- Amanda Seyfried: It took me almost half of the film to recognize her as Marion Davies, and her performance is pitch perfect - the best of her career in my view, and again Oscar-worthy.
- Arliss Howard for me almost steals the show as the megalomaniac Mayer: his introduction to Mank's brother Joe (Tom Pelphrey) has a memorable "walk with me" walkthrough of the studio with Mayer preaching on the real meaning of MGM and the movies in general. Breathtakingly good.
- But - I said "nearly steals the show".... the guy who made off with it in a swag-bag for me was our own Charles Dance as Hearst. Quietly impressive throughout, he just completely nails it with his "organ-grinder's monkey" speech towards the end of the movie. Probably my favourite monologue of 2020. Chilling. I'd really like to see Dance get a Supporting Actor nomination for this.
The screenplay was originally written by director David Fincher's late father Jack. Jack Fincher died in 2002, and this project has literally been decades in the planning. Mankiewicz has a caustic turn of phrase, and there are laugh-out lines of dialogue scattered throughout the script. "Write hard, aim low" implores Houseman at one point. And my personal favourite: Mank's puncturing of the irony that the Screen Writers Guild has been formed without an apostrophe! A huge LOL!
Aside from the witty dialogue, the script has a nuance to the storytelling that continually surprises. A revelation from Freda about Mank's philanthropic tendencies brings you up short in your face-value impression of his character. And the drivers that engineer the rift between Mankiewicz and Hearst - based around the story of the (fictional) director Shelly Metcalf (Jamie McShane) - are not slapped in your face, but elegantly slipped into your subconscious.
In addition, certain aspects are frustratingly withheld from you. Mank's long-suffering wife (a definition of the phrase) Sara (Tuppence Middleton) only occasionally comes into focus. The only reference to his kids are a crash in the background as they "remodel" the family home. Is the charismatic Mank a faithful husband or a philanderer? Is the relationship with Rita Alexander just professional and platonic (you assume so), or is there more going on? There's a tension there in the storytelling that never quite gets resolved: and that's a good thing.
Mank also has an embarrassment of technical riches. Even from the opening titles, you get the impression that this is a work of genius. All in black and white, and with the appearance of 40's titling, they scroll majestically in the sky and then - after "Charles Dance" - effortlessly scroll down to the desert highway. It's evidence of an attention to detail perhaps forced by lockdown. ("MUM - I'm bored". "Go up to your room and do some more work on that movie then".)
It's deliciously modern, yet retro. I love the fact that the cross-reel "circle" cue-marks appear so prominently... the indicators that the projectionist needs to spin up the next reel. I think they are still used in most modern films, but not as noticeably as in the old films... and this one!
A key contributor to the movie is cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt. Everything looks just BEAUTIFUL, and it is now a big regret that I didn't go to watch this on the big screen after all. Surely there will be a cinematography Oscar nomination for this one. Unbelievably, this is Messerschmidt's debut feature as director of cinematography!
Elsewhere, you can imagine multiple other technical Oscar noms. The tight and effective editing is by Kirk Baxter. And the combination of the glorious production design (Donald Graham Burt) and the costume design (Trish Summerville) make the movie emanate the same nostalgia for Hollywood as did last year's "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood".... albeit set forty years earlier. Even the music (by the regular team of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) might get nominated, since I had to go back and check that it actually HAD music at all: it's subtly unobtrusive and effective.
The only area I had any issue with here was the sound mixing, since I had trouble picking up some of the dialogue.
Although I can gush about this movie as a technical work of art, I'm going to hold off a 10* review on this one. For one reason only. I just didn't feel 100% engaged with the story (at least with a first watch). The illustrious Mrs Movie Man summed it up with the phrase "I just didn't care enough what happened to any of the characters". I think though that this one is sufficiently subtle and cerebral that it deserves another watch.
Will it win Oscars. Yes, for sure. Hell, I would like to put a bet on that "Mank" will top the list of the "most nominations" when they are announced. (Hollywood likes nothing more than a navel-gazing look at its history of course). And an obvious nomination here will be David Fincher for Best Director. But, for me, this falls into a similar bucket as that other black and white multi-Oscar winner of two year's ago "Roma". It's glorious to look at; brilliantly directed; but not a movie I would choose to readily reach for to repeatedly watch again.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/10/mank-divines-for-oscar-gold-in-a-sea-of-pyrites/. Thanks.)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Black Mirror - Season 3 in TV
Mar 3, 2020
Nosedive - 8
We had to wait almost another 2 years for the Netflix investment to show a product, and in time for Halloween 2016 we got the super-glossy re-boot of Nosedive, with a big name up front and lots of anticipation. The tone was instantly more playful; less British, more inclusive to a world audience. It tackled with a wry humour the universal phenomenon of popularity and everything being rated, most notably, people themselves. In a future world of sunshine and pastel shades it has become the norm to rate every interaction, from buying coffee to buying a house, in the hope of becoming one of the beautiful people rated above a 4.5. It cleverly questions the motivations for that desire, and the pitfalls of false behaviour and the manipulation from an elite standpoint. It isn’t necessary to imagine this future, as we are virtually there already, and all this episode does is heighten the idea to hyperbolic proportions. Rated down by many viewers because it is “annoying”, but that is entirely the point: the whole thing makes you want to scream!
Playtest - 6.5
Also available for Halloween (as was the whole season, in standard Netflix style) came a chance to explore what really scares us! And… they blew it. Sure, the idea that gaming and VR becomes so photo realistic it seems entirely real isn’t far away. But, making it personal to a very annoying character dissolves all tension quite early on. Some mild jump scares aside, this has to go down as a missed opportunity. Notable only for the re-occurance of the White Bear symbol.
Shut Up and Dance - 7
This is the one most likely to make you think, hmm, that is too far! An uncomfortable episode, not only because of the subject matter and ultimate revelation, but because of the intense nastiness that pervades it. No doubt that tension is intentional, and therefore effective to a degree, but for me it crosses the line of entertainment and becomes simply nasty. Being unafraid to tackle controversial subjects is to be applauded, but the execution has to be note perfect, or the risk is the backlash this episode received. A cautionary tale about surveillance, data theft, blackmail and our personal online responsibility. Not a bad piece, just a slight misjudgment on tone and delivery.
San Junipero - 9.5
Just when critics were sharpening their pens that Netflix had ruined the potential of Black Mirror in its first phase, comes an almost perfect piece of TV that is literally heavenly! Everything about San Junipero is a work of art! Another “blind” episode that takes a while to unravel; the pacing and realisation of which is so beautifully judged that, from a writing point of view, this has to be seen as the pinnacle of the show to date. Mackenzie Davis is extraordinary as the vulnerable, shy and naive Yorkie, looking for a connection in an 80s nightclub, filled with nostalgia and cultural memes galore. The music alone is not only sing aloud perfect, but chosen for storytelling reasons so clever it raises goosebumps! The relationship between Yorkie and Kelly, an equally great Gugu Mbatha-Raw, is filled with chemistry and nuance, drawing us in to a place so deep that when the penny drops on what is really going on it draws a gasp and then possibly tears – I know it did for me! The mechanics of the technology that would make this story possible does raise a lot of questions, but in the end it is better to accept it as an allegory for love, life and our ideas of “eternity”. Don’t look too deeply at the how, but marvel at the why, and this could be the best hour of TV you will ever see! So rewatchable, rich and rewarding; the only reason not to make this a feature length big budget film is that how could it possibly be improved?
Men Against Fire - 7
Revisiting yet again the technology of a brain implant that affects our vision of the world, literally and figuratively, this episode explores indoctrination and brainwashing, with the underlying themes of racism and basic human compassion. It is a fine analogy of how the media and governments would have us think of immigrants and the “dangers” of anything “not us”. A tad obvious, and doesn’t really go anywhere new once the twist is revealed. Visually quite stunning, but not as strong as other episodes that cover similar ground.
Hated in the Nation - 8.5
With a running time of 89 minutes, this is essentially what happens when Black Mirror pushes an idea to feature length. Allowing more time for character development does make a difference, and the tension build in this fine concept for a thriller also benefits from a few extra minutes. The ever reliable Kelly MacDonald is the cornerstone of a strong cast, on the hunt for the mind behind a series of killings by killer bee drones, targeted at a democratically elected “most hated” person every day, based on a public vote. An exploration of media vilification and how easy it can be to manipulate our idea of someone’s identity and judge their actions and even personalities based on one wrong thing they may have said or done. The episode is a who-dunnit? A why-doit? And, framed, with the backdrop of the inquest surrounding events, both a good cop movie and a courtroom drama. Charlie Brooker has hinted that some of these characters may return at some point. I’m all for it.
We had to wait almost another 2 years for the Netflix investment to show a product, and in time for Halloween 2016 we got the super-glossy re-boot of Nosedive, with a big name up front and lots of anticipation. The tone was instantly more playful; less British, more inclusive to a world audience. It tackled with a wry humour the universal phenomenon of popularity and everything being rated, most notably, people themselves. In a future world of sunshine and pastel shades it has become the norm to rate every interaction, from buying coffee to buying a house, in the hope of becoming one of the beautiful people rated above a 4.5. It cleverly questions the motivations for that desire, and the pitfalls of false behaviour and the manipulation from an elite standpoint. It isn’t necessary to imagine this future, as we are virtually there already, and all this episode does is heighten the idea to hyperbolic proportions. Rated down by many viewers because it is “annoying”, but that is entirely the point: the whole thing makes you want to scream!
Playtest - 6.5
Also available for Halloween (as was the whole season, in standard Netflix style) came a chance to explore what really scares us! And… they blew it. Sure, the idea that gaming and VR becomes so photo realistic it seems entirely real isn’t far away. But, making it personal to a very annoying character dissolves all tension quite early on. Some mild jump scares aside, this has to go down as a missed opportunity. Notable only for the re-occurance of the White Bear symbol.
Shut Up and Dance - 7
This is the one most likely to make you think, hmm, that is too far! An uncomfortable episode, not only because of the subject matter and ultimate revelation, but because of the intense nastiness that pervades it. No doubt that tension is intentional, and therefore effective to a degree, but for me it crosses the line of entertainment and becomes simply nasty. Being unafraid to tackle controversial subjects is to be applauded, but the execution has to be note perfect, or the risk is the backlash this episode received. A cautionary tale about surveillance, data theft, blackmail and our personal online responsibility. Not a bad piece, just a slight misjudgment on tone and delivery.
San Junipero - 9.5
Just when critics were sharpening their pens that Netflix had ruined the potential of Black Mirror in its first phase, comes an almost perfect piece of TV that is literally heavenly! Everything about San Junipero is a work of art! Another “blind” episode that takes a while to unravel; the pacing and realisation of which is so beautifully judged that, from a writing point of view, this has to be seen as the pinnacle of the show to date. Mackenzie Davis is extraordinary as the vulnerable, shy and naive Yorkie, looking for a connection in an 80s nightclub, filled with nostalgia and cultural memes galore. The music alone is not only sing aloud perfect, but chosen for storytelling reasons so clever it raises goosebumps! The relationship between Yorkie and Kelly, an equally great Gugu Mbatha-Raw, is filled with chemistry and nuance, drawing us in to a place so deep that when the penny drops on what is really going on it draws a gasp and then possibly tears – I know it did for me! The mechanics of the technology that would make this story possible does raise a lot of questions, but in the end it is better to accept it as an allegory for love, life and our ideas of “eternity”. Don’t look too deeply at the how, but marvel at the why, and this could be the best hour of TV you will ever see! So rewatchable, rich and rewarding; the only reason not to make this a feature length big budget film is that how could it possibly be improved?
Men Against Fire - 7
Revisiting yet again the technology of a brain implant that affects our vision of the world, literally and figuratively, this episode explores indoctrination and brainwashing, with the underlying themes of racism and basic human compassion. It is a fine analogy of how the media and governments would have us think of immigrants and the “dangers” of anything “not us”. A tad obvious, and doesn’t really go anywhere new once the twist is revealed. Visually quite stunning, but not as strong as other episodes that cover similar ground.
Hated in the Nation - 8.5
With a running time of 89 minutes, this is essentially what happens when Black Mirror pushes an idea to feature length. Allowing more time for character development does make a difference, and the tension build in this fine concept for a thriller also benefits from a few extra minutes. The ever reliable Kelly MacDonald is the cornerstone of a strong cast, on the hunt for the mind behind a series of killings by killer bee drones, targeted at a democratically elected “most hated” person every day, based on a public vote. An exploration of media vilification and how easy it can be to manipulate our idea of someone’s identity and judge their actions and even personalities based on one wrong thing they may have said or done. The episode is a who-dunnit? A why-doit? And, framed, with the backdrop of the inquest surrounding events, both a good cop movie and a courtroom drama. Charlie Brooker has hinted that some of these characters may return at some point. I’m all for it.
KalJ95 (25 KP) rated The Last of Us Part II in Video Games
Jun 23, 2020
You Won't Find A Better Game In Terms Of Presentation. (4 more)
Level Design Is Astounding.
Like The First Game, This Will Create A Conversation For Years To Come
Sound Design Is Incredible.
Takes Risks, And Some Do Pay Off.
A Flawed Sequel. (4 more)
Awful Pacing.
Structure Of Narrative Is Bad.
Some Terrible Dialogue.
Shoehorned Agenda.
The last of The Last of Us.
The video game industry doesn't get enough credit as a source of entertainment, in my humble opinion. Time and time again, the industry has proven that it can produce something magical, memorable, mesmerising to play, and even more so, something engaging to watch as someone not even holding the controller. Naughty Dog’s 2013 masterpiece, The Last of Us, became an overnight classic game because it was cinematic in presentation, and a rollercoaster of emotions in narrative. I sat and played the remastered version on my PlayStation 4 in 2017, and fell in love with the chemistry, love and heartbreak Joel and Ellie took with them, as they crossed a post-apocalyptic America. I was satisfied with the conclusion, and felt the story of these two characters was finished. I didn't need, or ever want a sequel. Then a few months pass, The Last of Us Part II is announced. Obviously, I was ecstatic, but also concerned. Trailers came and went, delays happened over and over, and leaks began to drip onto the internet. I was even more concerned with the leaks, and how this game was taking shape, but I remained open minded, and began playing the game.
The Last of Us Part II is a strange beast. An ambitious, exquisite experience, mired by multiple flaws in structure, pacing and plot holes. I simultaneously adored and loathed the twenty five hour experience, and I’m ready to do it all again. Ellie’s thirst for revenge deals with many issues of morality and hate, and the consequences of ones actions. To coin a phrase, “violence begets violence”, and this is very violent. A flawed piece of art, that often shoehorns a political tick list so it can cater to a certain demographic of sexuality and gender. Whatever you think about Part II, it will create a conversation for years to come, for better or worse.
Narrative:
Ellie and Joel are settled in Jackson, Wyoming, living a relatively normal existence. Ellie is nineteen, and has a job, like the rest of the fighters in Jackson, by going out into the world on routes to clear out the wondering infected. When Ellie witnesses a violent event, she takes it into her own hands to take bloody revenge on the people responsible.
A big risk was taken by Naughty Dog to decide what they did for the first two hours, even the VP of the company, Neil Druckmann, said himself the game will be “divisive”, and that is probably an understatement judging by the fan backlash. I feel it worked to support the other twenty three hours, and shows the blurry line of being good and bad in this world.
Unfortunately, the narrative slogs through awful structuring and some dreadful, downright cringe-worthy dialogue. The structure goes back and forth from the present day, to months, and sometimes years previous, and this is all to cement the events that keep the narrative flowing. The flashbacks featuring Joel and Ellie give you brief moments of happiness, followed by devastating revelations. They are the best moments of the game, you can feel the warmth the characters have for each other, and the heartbreaking actions they take. It made me wonder why they simply didn't just create a game with these ideas in mind. Other flashbacks create more problems than they solve, particularly in the latter half of the game. The first half, for all its faults, really treats you to a vicious and bloodthirsty ride through Seattle, and you completely feel the motivation and drive Ellie has to complete the mission she's set out to do. Seattle is huge, and the perfect backdrop for this game.
Sadly, the second half of the game is an absolute mess. The whole experience becomes nothing more than “go to this location, collect something, go back” over and over again. Its a lazy trope that causes so much fatigue in terms of pacing, slowing down any momentum gained by the first half. The second half serves the most important purpose too, and while I did grow to understand the intention it was presenting me, I couldn't help but feel frequently bored of doing fetch quests. To remain as spoiler free as possible, the game is split into two perspectives of Ellie, and an entirely new character. Naughty Dog wants you to understand the perspectives of both sides, but the history thats been created with the original game, you cant help but sympathise with Ellie more. The fact that its half the game away from the main protagonist, and starts you fresh with a new character, with new skill sets and weapons, really feels out of place. This could of worked much better as an episodic entry, rather than just two stories, one after the other. I can understand people who love this way of storytelling, but for me it slows the pacing down.
Gameplay:
Part II is the most beautiful game I’ve ever played. Naughty Dog continue to set the bar extremely high in terms of surroundings and facial animations, and the seamless transitions from cutscene to gameplay made my jaw drop. Each facial movement shows the hurt, the honesty, the devastation the characters carry with them. It almost feels more like a film or tv series than a video game, featuring an excellent performance from Troy Baker, and a career defining show from Ashley Johnson. Unfortunately, some of the new cast members don't have enough time on screen to give a full understanding of their personality or perspective. Some are likeable, relatable even, but some are just annoying, saying some of the strangest, out of place dialogue.
In terms of its gameplay, Part II hasn't really changed anything from its predecessor. It feels the same, whether you enjoyed it first time round or not. I personally am in the middle ground, it works for what it is. The Last of Us has always been a game about surviving by any means necessary. Part II feels like multiple ideas all in one, all conflicting themselves. Let me explain:
The game actively tries to twist the act of killing people to make you seem like its an awful thing to do. This is an interesting idea that has been done many times before in games, but it works in the oddest of ways here. I have completed the game twice now, and found it almost impossible to not kill anyone, yet cutscenes display remorse within the characters after they’ve murdered someone. This conflicts the idea of the whole game, where one moment I'm slicing a persons throat with a knife, the next I do the exact same, but this time I regret that decision. Again, its adding less weight to the story, and actively contradicting everything that happens.
Extra Notes:
The environments of Part II are some of the best in a video game. A sandbox of lush greenery and worn down buildings follows the same formula that Naughty Dog designed in Uncharted: The Lost Legacy, where you can explore a massive space to do what you find the objectives, but also see the sights and collect items. The level design of the entire game is absolutely masterful, but this level astounded me graphically and structurally.
By this point, it probably feels like I utterly hated Part II. I did, and didn’t, and thats the line I'm sticking on. The Last of Us always presented a commentary as to the nature of relationships, love, life and death. At the core was Ellie and Joel, two wayward strangers forced together on a journey across America. Everyone has a reason to love that game, for me its their chemistry and progression. Joel was hardened, standoffish, only to warm to Ellie, and love her by the end. Ellie, the immune girl who's humorous, optimistic and full of life, who ultimately becomes cold, quiet and sceptical of Joel.
Part II presents a different commentary, one of revenge and hate. I firmly believe Part II is weak in most areas, a downgrade in fact compared to its counterpart, but its so beautiful and bleak, with so many incapsulated moments of joy, heartbreak, love, shock. Its uncompromising, relentless and essential for anyone with a PS4. This will be a game I will constantly change my opinion on the more I think about it. As I said at the beginning, I never felt a sequel was necessary, and I firmly believe the story must end here.
(P.S. I must mention that Naughty Dog and Sony have only themselves to blame when it comes to the reception Part II has received during its release and promotional material. Early reviewers were told that they could only go into detail about the first ten or so hours, not mentioning the other fifteen. The other fifteen hours are incredibly important to mention, and they either make or break this game, so not letting reviewers do their job feels disingenuous, and from my point of view shows that they had no faith in their product to be criticised. The promotional material is also hugely misleading. The trailers show a completely different game, and characters are swapped for others in key scenes. That is wrong, and once again, shows your audience you had zero faith in your product based on the actual plot of your game.)
The Last of Us Part II is a strange beast. An ambitious, exquisite experience, mired by multiple flaws in structure, pacing and plot holes. I simultaneously adored and loathed the twenty five hour experience, and I’m ready to do it all again. Ellie’s thirst for revenge deals with many issues of morality and hate, and the consequences of ones actions. To coin a phrase, “violence begets violence”, and this is very violent. A flawed piece of art, that often shoehorns a political tick list so it can cater to a certain demographic of sexuality and gender. Whatever you think about Part II, it will create a conversation for years to come, for better or worse.
Narrative:
Ellie and Joel are settled in Jackson, Wyoming, living a relatively normal existence. Ellie is nineteen, and has a job, like the rest of the fighters in Jackson, by going out into the world on routes to clear out the wondering infected. When Ellie witnesses a violent event, she takes it into her own hands to take bloody revenge on the people responsible.
A big risk was taken by Naughty Dog to decide what they did for the first two hours, even the VP of the company, Neil Druckmann, said himself the game will be “divisive”, and that is probably an understatement judging by the fan backlash. I feel it worked to support the other twenty three hours, and shows the blurry line of being good and bad in this world.
Unfortunately, the narrative slogs through awful structuring and some dreadful, downright cringe-worthy dialogue. The structure goes back and forth from the present day, to months, and sometimes years previous, and this is all to cement the events that keep the narrative flowing. The flashbacks featuring Joel and Ellie give you brief moments of happiness, followed by devastating revelations. They are the best moments of the game, you can feel the warmth the characters have for each other, and the heartbreaking actions they take. It made me wonder why they simply didn't just create a game with these ideas in mind. Other flashbacks create more problems than they solve, particularly in the latter half of the game. The first half, for all its faults, really treats you to a vicious and bloodthirsty ride through Seattle, and you completely feel the motivation and drive Ellie has to complete the mission she's set out to do. Seattle is huge, and the perfect backdrop for this game.
Sadly, the second half of the game is an absolute mess. The whole experience becomes nothing more than “go to this location, collect something, go back” over and over again. Its a lazy trope that causes so much fatigue in terms of pacing, slowing down any momentum gained by the first half. The second half serves the most important purpose too, and while I did grow to understand the intention it was presenting me, I couldn't help but feel frequently bored of doing fetch quests. To remain as spoiler free as possible, the game is split into two perspectives of Ellie, and an entirely new character. Naughty Dog wants you to understand the perspectives of both sides, but the history thats been created with the original game, you cant help but sympathise with Ellie more. The fact that its half the game away from the main protagonist, and starts you fresh with a new character, with new skill sets and weapons, really feels out of place. This could of worked much better as an episodic entry, rather than just two stories, one after the other. I can understand people who love this way of storytelling, but for me it slows the pacing down.
Gameplay:
Part II is the most beautiful game I’ve ever played. Naughty Dog continue to set the bar extremely high in terms of surroundings and facial animations, and the seamless transitions from cutscene to gameplay made my jaw drop. Each facial movement shows the hurt, the honesty, the devastation the characters carry with them. It almost feels more like a film or tv series than a video game, featuring an excellent performance from Troy Baker, and a career defining show from Ashley Johnson. Unfortunately, some of the new cast members don't have enough time on screen to give a full understanding of their personality or perspective. Some are likeable, relatable even, but some are just annoying, saying some of the strangest, out of place dialogue.
In terms of its gameplay, Part II hasn't really changed anything from its predecessor. It feels the same, whether you enjoyed it first time round or not. I personally am in the middle ground, it works for what it is. The Last of Us has always been a game about surviving by any means necessary. Part II feels like multiple ideas all in one, all conflicting themselves. Let me explain:
The game actively tries to twist the act of killing people to make you seem like its an awful thing to do. This is an interesting idea that has been done many times before in games, but it works in the oddest of ways here. I have completed the game twice now, and found it almost impossible to not kill anyone, yet cutscenes display remorse within the characters after they’ve murdered someone. This conflicts the idea of the whole game, where one moment I'm slicing a persons throat with a knife, the next I do the exact same, but this time I regret that decision. Again, its adding less weight to the story, and actively contradicting everything that happens.
Extra Notes:
The environments of Part II are some of the best in a video game. A sandbox of lush greenery and worn down buildings follows the same formula that Naughty Dog designed in Uncharted: The Lost Legacy, where you can explore a massive space to do what you find the objectives, but also see the sights and collect items. The level design of the entire game is absolutely masterful, but this level astounded me graphically and structurally.
By this point, it probably feels like I utterly hated Part II. I did, and didn’t, and thats the line I'm sticking on. The Last of Us always presented a commentary as to the nature of relationships, love, life and death. At the core was Ellie and Joel, two wayward strangers forced together on a journey across America. Everyone has a reason to love that game, for me its their chemistry and progression. Joel was hardened, standoffish, only to warm to Ellie, and love her by the end. Ellie, the immune girl who's humorous, optimistic and full of life, who ultimately becomes cold, quiet and sceptical of Joel.
Part II presents a different commentary, one of revenge and hate. I firmly believe Part II is weak in most areas, a downgrade in fact compared to its counterpart, but its so beautiful and bleak, with so many incapsulated moments of joy, heartbreak, love, shock. Its uncompromising, relentless and essential for anyone with a PS4. This will be a game I will constantly change my opinion on the more I think about it. As I said at the beginning, I never felt a sequel was necessary, and I firmly believe the story must end here.
(P.S. I must mention that Naughty Dog and Sony have only themselves to blame when it comes to the reception Part II has received during its release and promotional material. Early reviewers were told that they could only go into detail about the first ten or so hours, not mentioning the other fifteen. The other fifteen hours are incredibly important to mention, and they either make or break this game, so not letting reviewers do their job feels disingenuous, and from my point of view shows that they had no faith in their product to be criticised. The promotional material is also hugely misleading. The trailers show a completely different game, and characters are swapped for others in key scenes. That is wrong, and once again, shows your audience you had zero faith in your product based on the actual plot of your game.)