Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Unhinged (2020) in Movies
Aug 8, 2020
A courtesy tap
If you were ever going to deliberately hack-off anyone in real life, Russell Crowe would probably be low on the list. A genuine bear of a man! He looks like he could kill you with a single swipe of his clawed furry hand!
In the movie it was a certain Rachel (Caren Pistorius) who randomly crosses the ursine-one's path. She encounters his unnamed character ("Man") at traffic light. Rachel is having a bad day herself. But the unstable and unhinged man makes it his mission to show her "what a bad day really feels like".
Having had over 40 years of driving experienced, I've experienced two incidents of genuine road rage against me. One of these was in similar circumstances to Rachel's experience. By me giving slightly more than a 'courtesy tap' on the horn to a driver who cut me up. Both though were 'white-knuckles-on-the-wheel' scary experiences. So although, as a viewer, I felt a degree of irritation at Rachel's stubborn actions in the movie, it didn't seem completely 'out there'. You only need the other guy to be a psycho, and....
What follows is a thriller having a vein of dark comedy running through it. Yes, it's relatively predictable and above-average on the gore rating but nonetheless enjoyable.
The movie, of course, blends some staples of the thriller genre. Firstly there is that favorite trope of Spielberg of a malevolent force, persistently lurking in the shadows to wreak havoc at any time. (Think of those classics "Duel" and "Jaws". Blended with that is a recurring plot-point of Hitchcock movies: the every-man (in this case every-woman), in the mode of James Stewart or Cary Grant, uprooted from their hum-drum normal lives to suddenly face peril they are unequipped to deal with.
Holding that role here extremely well is Caren Pistorius as the luckless Rachel. She's only had bit parts in previous movies I've seen - "Denial", "Mortal Engines" and "The Light Between Oceans". But here she gets a starring role, up front and central, and I thought she pulled it off really well. She also gets to deliver the best line in the film in the violent and bloody denouement! A leading actress I would like to see more of for sure.
The star-power evident here though is Crowe. His portrayal as the steely-eyed unhinged psychopath is beautifully and believably done. A scene in a diner is especially chilling, featuring Jimmi Simpson as the unfortunate Andy, Rachel's divorce lawyer. (If, like me, you were desperately trying to place the actor, Simpson played the young 'good-guy' tourist in the brilliant first season of "Westworld".)
Unhinged is nicely penned and, in the main, nicely directed. With the pen is Carl Ellsworth, who's sparse career has delivered chillers such as "Disturbia" and "The Last House on the Left". And although we've been in this sort of stalker territory numerous times before, the script of "Unhinged" delivers some nice twists. For example, the dangers inherent in "Find My Friends" style tracking apps. One negative though for me is the rising body-count of "innocents". It gave me the slightly icky feeling I felt when the jumbo jet is crashed in "Die Hard 2".
Keeping up the pace is German director Derrick Borte, someone new to me. The car chases incorporated into the action are tense (reminiscent sometimes of "Baby Driver") and well-shot (by Irish cinematographer Brendan Galvin). There are the occasional "oh, really!!" moments, that a more experienced director might have chosen to excise. But on the whole, this is a taut little thriller, wisely sticking to a 90 minute running time, and never losing my interest.
Although formulaic, and at times extremely violent for a '15' certificate, "Unhinged" made a welcome and entertaining return for me to the multiplex after the Covid break.
(For the full graphical review, please check it out here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/08/08/one-manns-movies-film-review-unhinged-2020/).
In the movie it was a certain Rachel (Caren Pistorius) who randomly crosses the ursine-one's path. She encounters his unnamed character ("Man") at traffic light. Rachel is having a bad day herself. But the unstable and unhinged man makes it his mission to show her "what a bad day really feels like".
Having had over 40 years of driving experienced, I've experienced two incidents of genuine road rage against me. One of these was in similar circumstances to Rachel's experience. By me giving slightly more than a 'courtesy tap' on the horn to a driver who cut me up. Both though were 'white-knuckles-on-the-wheel' scary experiences. So although, as a viewer, I felt a degree of irritation at Rachel's stubborn actions in the movie, it didn't seem completely 'out there'. You only need the other guy to be a psycho, and....
What follows is a thriller having a vein of dark comedy running through it. Yes, it's relatively predictable and above-average on the gore rating but nonetheless enjoyable.
The movie, of course, blends some staples of the thriller genre. Firstly there is that favorite trope of Spielberg of a malevolent force, persistently lurking in the shadows to wreak havoc at any time. (Think of those classics "Duel" and "Jaws". Blended with that is a recurring plot-point of Hitchcock movies: the every-man (in this case every-woman), in the mode of James Stewart or Cary Grant, uprooted from their hum-drum normal lives to suddenly face peril they are unequipped to deal with.
Holding that role here extremely well is Caren Pistorius as the luckless Rachel. She's only had bit parts in previous movies I've seen - "Denial", "Mortal Engines" and "The Light Between Oceans". But here she gets a starring role, up front and central, and I thought she pulled it off really well. She also gets to deliver the best line in the film in the violent and bloody denouement! A leading actress I would like to see more of for sure.
The star-power evident here though is Crowe. His portrayal as the steely-eyed unhinged psychopath is beautifully and believably done. A scene in a diner is especially chilling, featuring Jimmi Simpson as the unfortunate Andy, Rachel's divorce lawyer. (If, like me, you were desperately trying to place the actor, Simpson played the young 'good-guy' tourist in the brilliant first season of "Westworld".)
Unhinged is nicely penned and, in the main, nicely directed. With the pen is Carl Ellsworth, who's sparse career has delivered chillers such as "Disturbia" and "The Last House on the Left". And although we've been in this sort of stalker territory numerous times before, the script of "Unhinged" delivers some nice twists. For example, the dangers inherent in "Find My Friends" style tracking apps. One negative though for me is the rising body-count of "innocents". It gave me the slightly icky feeling I felt when the jumbo jet is crashed in "Die Hard 2".
Keeping up the pace is German director Derrick Borte, someone new to me. The car chases incorporated into the action are tense (reminiscent sometimes of "Baby Driver") and well-shot (by Irish cinematographer Brendan Galvin). There are the occasional "oh, really!!" moments, that a more experienced director might have chosen to excise. But on the whole, this is a taut little thriller, wisely sticking to a 90 minute running time, and never losing my interest.
Although formulaic, and at times extremely violent for a '15' certificate, "Unhinged" made a welcome and entertaining return for me to the multiplex after the Covid break.
(For the full graphical review, please check it out here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/08/08/one-manns-movies-film-review-unhinged-2020/).
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Spider-Man 2 (2004) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
There comes a time in every young persons life where they have to make a series of decisions regarding their future. For many the pressures of finance, school, work, and ever-changing social dynamic force individuals to take a look at their values and what is important, adjusting their lives as needed.
For many this is a difficult situation that is often accomplished through trial and error marking the difficult transition into adulthood. For Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire), the added pressure of dealing with his dual identity of Spider-Man has driven him to the edge.
Since Peter spends his evenings scouring New York fighting crime, his college studies and job have become seriously neglected. With difficulties paying the bills and making it to class and work on time, Peter has become weary of his life, as Spider-Man has made it close to impossible for him to lead any semblance of normality.
Further hindering Peter’s life is his strong feelings for Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst), who he keeps at a distance to protect her from reprisals from enemies of his alter ego, though it is causing him endless emotional turmoil to do so.
Faced with losing the woman of his dreams and his lives goals, Peter decides to abandon his alter ego and live life as a normal person allowing his energies to be focused on his studies and pursuit of science.
Peter’s new found freedom is interrupted by the emergence of a new villain named Dr. Octopus (Alfred Molina), who is a brilliant scientist turned evil as a result of an experiment gone awry. The Doctor has four metallic limbs grafted to his body and is capable of amazing feats of strength and copious amounts of destruction and mayhem due to his unrestrained madness.
The cause of the good doctors wrath is to complete the experiment that disabled him and avenge the loss of his wife in the accident that created him. Towards that end, the Doctor needs an abundance of financial assets and a rare fuel source that can only be provided by his former employer Harry Osborn (James Franco). Harry is only to happy to comply as he still blames Spider-Man for the death of his father in the previous film, and promises to supply the Doctor if he delivers Spider-Man to him. The recent failure of the Doctors experiment, have pushed Norman to the edge as what was to be a shining achievement for the company has now left him reeling and looking for answers, straining his relationship with Peter and Mary Jane.
What follows is a wild ride of action, romance, drama, and comedy as the tangled web that is Peter Parker’s life unfolds and it is one wild ride.
“Spider-Man 2” is a solid film that will delight fans of the first film as well as the comic and will provide a welcome presence at the theaters this Summer from the flock of big budget disappointments that have been the norm.
Sam Raimi paces the film at a slow pace to start with and allows the action and pace of the film to unfold. The film never seems in your face as despite the intense action sequences, the film remains a character driven piece as the relationship between Peter and those he cares for are central elements to the film.
As adventure films go, “Spider-Man 2” has a very complex storyline as several mature issues are developed and explored which helps round out the characters from comic book icons to people that you actually care about.
If I had to find fault with the film, and it would be nitpicking, would be that Doctor Octopus did not stand out as menacing a threat as The Green Goblin did in the last film, as he does not embody the same level of fear and evil. That being said, Maguire is amazing as he does a great job of making Peter a realistic character by showing the audience the pain and conflict as well as the joy that Peter experiences being Spider-Man.
The special effects are amazing but never overshadow the human performance and tone of the film, as after all, this is still a story about a regular guy, with regular problems and extraordinary abilities that are part gift and part curse.
The supporting work of Franco and Dunst is solid and there chemistry amongst the leads is evident. The ending of the film sets the stage perfectly for the next chapter in the series and here is hoping that the winning formula continues as “Spider-Man 2” is not only the best comic inspired film ever made, but one of the best films of the year.
For many this is a difficult situation that is often accomplished through trial and error marking the difficult transition into adulthood. For Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire), the added pressure of dealing with his dual identity of Spider-Man has driven him to the edge.
Since Peter spends his evenings scouring New York fighting crime, his college studies and job have become seriously neglected. With difficulties paying the bills and making it to class and work on time, Peter has become weary of his life, as Spider-Man has made it close to impossible for him to lead any semblance of normality.
Further hindering Peter’s life is his strong feelings for Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst), who he keeps at a distance to protect her from reprisals from enemies of his alter ego, though it is causing him endless emotional turmoil to do so.
Faced with losing the woman of his dreams and his lives goals, Peter decides to abandon his alter ego and live life as a normal person allowing his energies to be focused on his studies and pursuit of science.
Peter’s new found freedom is interrupted by the emergence of a new villain named Dr. Octopus (Alfred Molina), who is a brilliant scientist turned evil as a result of an experiment gone awry. The Doctor has four metallic limbs grafted to his body and is capable of amazing feats of strength and copious amounts of destruction and mayhem due to his unrestrained madness.
The cause of the good doctors wrath is to complete the experiment that disabled him and avenge the loss of his wife in the accident that created him. Towards that end, the Doctor needs an abundance of financial assets and a rare fuel source that can only be provided by his former employer Harry Osborn (James Franco). Harry is only to happy to comply as he still blames Spider-Man for the death of his father in the previous film, and promises to supply the Doctor if he delivers Spider-Man to him. The recent failure of the Doctors experiment, have pushed Norman to the edge as what was to be a shining achievement for the company has now left him reeling and looking for answers, straining his relationship with Peter and Mary Jane.
What follows is a wild ride of action, romance, drama, and comedy as the tangled web that is Peter Parker’s life unfolds and it is one wild ride.
“Spider-Man 2” is a solid film that will delight fans of the first film as well as the comic and will provide a welcome presence at the theaters this Summer from the flock of big budget disappointments that have been the norm.
Sam Raimi paces the film at a slow pace to start with and allows the action and pace of the film to unfold. The film never seems in your face as despite the intense action sequences, the film remains a character driven piece as the relationship between Peter and those he cares for are central elements to the film.
As adventure films go, “Spider-Man 2” has a very complex storyline as several mature issues are developed and explored which helps round out the characters from comic book icons to people that you actually care about.
If I had to find fault with the film, and it would be nitpicking, would be that Doctor Octopus did not stand out as menacing a threat as The Green Goblin did in the last film, as he does not embody the same level of fear and evil. That being said, Maguire is amazing as he does a great job of making Peter a realistic character by showing the audience the pain and conflict as well as the joy that Peter experiences being Spider-Man.
The special effects are amazing but never overshadow the human performance and tone of the film, as after all, this is still a story about a regular guy, with regular problems and extraordinary abilities that are part gift and part curse.
The supporting work of Franco and Dunst is solid and there chemistry amongst the leads is evident. The ending of the film sets the stage perfectly for the next chapter in the series and here is hoping that the winning formula continues as “Spider-Man 2” is not only the best comic inspired film ever made, but one of the best films of the year.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Can You Ever Forgive Me? (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
McCarthy and Grant in a memorable double act.
I have a big apology to make to Melissa McCarthy. A few months ago, at the excellent Picturehouse Harbour Lights film trivia quiz (every 2nd Tuesday of the month in Southampton… “be there and be… well… a bit of a film geek”!) there was a fun round of suggesting New Year’s resolutions for movie stars. Mine was the rather spiteful and cutting “Melissa McCarthy…. to retire”. In my defence, I did have the truly dreadful “Happytime Murders” fixed in my memory, and McCarthy’s track record since “Bridesmaids” has not exactly been stellar. As the quiz’s host – Stephen ‘Grand Moff’ Sambrook – justly admonished me for at the time “McCarthy is about to come out with a very different role which is supposed to be pretty good”. This film is that role…. and I take it all back.
For McCarthy is a revelation in a dramatic role which, whilst having moments of levity, is largely downbeat and very moving.
The Plot.
Based on a true story, McCarthy plays Lee Israel; a cat-loving bestselling biography writer who has seen better days. Her work is now so poor that her publisher (“3rd Rock”‘s Jane Curtin) no longer returns her call. She doesn’t help herself by having an alcohol problem and an ability to get on with other people that borders on the sociopathic.
Stumbling by accident on a letter from a famous author, she sells it for a decent sum to a dealer in such documents and is asked if she has any similar documents. What follows is a criminal trail of counterfeiting and grand larceny, into which she introduces her only friend: the gay and itinerant Jack Hock (Richard E. Grant).
With newfound success can Lee find criminally-induced happiness? Or will the authorities eventually catch up with her and Jack.
A great double-act.
The reason to see this film is the tremendous double-act between McCarthy and Grant which is just magic. Both have been lauded with nominations during awards season, and both are richly deserved.
Without aspersions against the excellent Shakespearean actress Brenda Fricker, this film could have turned into a 2 hour downer featuring a literary-equivalent of the bird-woman from “Home Alone 2”. The fact it doesn’t – notwithstanding a Central Park scene that just about re-films the final scene of HA/2! – is wholly down to McCarthy’s stunning performance. Although having some scenes of darker comedy, the majority of her performance is dramatically convincing as the conflicted and depressed victim of chronic writer’s block.
Grant as well is just superbly entertaining, all teeth and over-confidence in the face of all odds. If he wasn’t up for an Oscar nomination at one point in the process, then his final scene in the film absolutely nailed it. If you are not moved by this scene, you have a very hard heart indeed.
Ephron-esque.
The script is by the relatively unknown Nicole Holofcener and the debut writer Jeff Whitty, who are nominated for best adapted screenplay for both BAFTA and Oscar award: not bad going! It’s ironic that the late Nora Ephron is (comically) referenced by the screenplay, since there is a strong whiff of Ephron-esque about the film. (This is further enforced through reference to struggling book shops, that harked me back to “You’ve Got Mail”). The movie’s directed by the up and coming Marielle Heller, who’s debut was the well-regarded “Diary of a Teenage Girl”.
Cheer on the anti-hero.
Once again, like last year’s disappointing “Ocean’s 8“, for the film to work we have to emotionally support the actions of a criminal woman and, in this case, her damaged man-friend. This movie almost gets away with it, in that a) the ‘victims’ are unseen wealthy ‘collectors’ who ‘probably have too much money to burn’ anyway and b) Lee expresses such a wondrous delight in the quality of her work; delight that pulls her out of her destructive downward spiral of depression. It’s hard not to get behind her to at least some degree.
Given the movie dives into subjects including animal – or at least animal owner – cruelty, death, depression, homelessness and terminal illness, will you enjoy it? My bell-weather here is my wife Sue, who was unwillingly dragged along to see this, but ended up enjoying it mightily.
For McCarthy is a revelation in a dramatic role which, whilst having moments of levity, is largely downbeat and very moving.
The Plot.
Based on a true story, McCarthy plays Lee Israel; a cat-loving bestselling biography writer who has seen better days. Her work is now so poor that her publisher (“3rd Rock”‘s Jane Curtin) no longer returns her call. She doesn’t help herself by having an alcohol problem and an ability to get on with other people that borders on the sociopathic.
Stumbling by accident on a letter from a famous author, she sells it for a decent sum to a dealer in such documents and is asked if she has any similar documents. What follows is a criminal trail of counterfeiting and grand larceny, into which she introduces her only friend: the gay and itinerant Jack Hock (Richard E. Grant).
With newfound success can Lee find criminally-induced happiness? Or will the authorities eventually catch up with her and Jack.
A great double-act.
The reason to see this film is the tremendous double-act between McCarthy and Grant which is just magic. Both have been lauded with nominations during awards season, and both are richly deserved.
Without aspersions against the excellent Shakespearean actress Brenda Fricker, this film could have turned into a 2 hour downer featuring a literary-equivalent of the bird-woman from “Home Alone 2”. The fact it doesn’t – notwithstanding a Central Park scene that just about re-films the final scene of HA/2! – is wholly down to McCarthy’s stunning performance. Although having some scenes of darker comedy, the majority of her performance is dramatically convincing as the conflicted and depressed victim of chronic writer’s block.
Grant as well is just superbly entertaining, all teeth and over-confidence in the face of all odds. If he wasn’t up for an Oscar nomination at one point in the process, then his final scene in the film absolutely nailed it. If you are not moved by this scene, you have a very hard heart indeed.
Ephron-esque.
The script is by the relatively unknown Nicole Holofcener and the debut writer Jeff Whitty, who are nominated for best adapted screenplay for both BAFTA and Oscar award: not bad going! It’s ironic that the late Nora Ephron is (comically) referenced by the screenplay, since there is a strong whiff of Ephron-esque about the film. (This is further enforced through reference to struggling book shops, that harked me back to “You’ve Got Mail”). The movie’s directed by the up and coming Marielle Heller, who’s debut was the well-regarded “Diary of a Teenage Girl”.
Cheer on the anti-hero.
Once again, like last year’s disappointing “Ocean’s 8“, for the film to work we have to emotionally support the actions of a criminal woman and, in this case, her damaged man-friend. This movie almost gets away with it, in that a) the ‘victims’ are unseen wealthy ‘collectors’ who ‘probably have too much money to burn’ anyway and b) Lee expresses such a wondrous delight in the quality of her work; delight that pulls her out of her destructive downward spiral of depression. It’s hard not to get behind her to at least some degree.
Given the movie dives into subjects including animal – or at least animal owner – cruelty, death, depression, homelessness and terminal illness, will you enjoy it? My bell-weather here is my wife Sue, who was unwillingly dragged along to see this, but ended up enjoying it mightily.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Ford v Ferrari (aka Le Mans '66) (2019) in Movies
Nov 5, 2019 (Updated Nov 5, 2019)
Anyone who knows me knows that I have pretty much zero interest in cars. As long as they can get me from A to B, reliably and comfortably, then that's good enough for me. I have even less interest in watching cars race round and round and round at high speeds for hours on end too - if I wanted to watch that, then I'd just go and stand on a bridge overlooking the M25 for a while. So, a movie about a determined team of American engineers and designers looking to build a Ford racing car with the potential to finally beat Ferrari in the 1966 Le Mans race in France? Well, that doesn't immediately sound like my kind of movie. But, a great looking trailer and an interesting cast got me interested, and in the end I am so glad that I saw it.
Le Mans ‘66 (or Ford v Ferrari as it is known elsewhere - much better name, no idea why it needed to be changed) stars Matt Damon and Christian Bale (once again going through some weight loss for a movie role) as Carroll Shelby and his engineering partner Ken Miles. Shelby was the first American to win Le Mans, the 24 hour race held in France, in 1959, but has since retired from racing due to a heart condition. These days, Shelby designs and sells souped-up cars as well as running the racing team Cobra, along with British racing driver Ken Miles. Shelby is calm, very clever and extremely determined and Miles knows everything there is to know about cars, but isn’t exactly what you might call a good ‘people person’. Together they have a wonderful friendship and partnership, the highs and lows of which form the basis and heart of the movie.
Meanwhile, Ford Motor company is suffering from poor sales and Henry Ford II (Tracy Letts) is looking to his workforce to come up with the next big idea in order to try and boost the Ford name. One of the many corporate suits we see during the movie, Lee Iacocca (Jon Bernthal) proposes that Ford buy into Ferrari in order to create a winning sports car that will make Ford cool again with the kids, so they head to Italy for a meeting with Enzo Ferrari. The meeting doesn't really go according to plan though, and the suits return home with their tails between their legs, and a strong desire to go to war with Ferrari and teach them a lesson.
Ford puts its money where its mouth is, pretty much writing a blank cheque for Shelby to come up with a car worthy enough to defeat Ferrari and win Le Mans ‘66, and we then follow Shelby, Miles and their team as they struggle to make it happen. Problems arise when Shelby is repeatedly put under pressure by the corporate suits at Ford to ditch Miles, feeling that he doesn’t quite fit with the Ford image, and this puts strain on both the project and the friendship between Shelby and Miles, eventually resulting in a comedy brawl reminiscent of the one involving Hugh Grant and Colin Firth in Bridget Jones Diary!.
Caitriona Balfe plays Miles' wife, Mollie, and it’s great to finally see her out of period costume and outside of TV show Outlander. It’s a role that could easily have been relegated to the usual, long-suffering spouse, sitting at home watching hubby race with baited breath, and while there is a fair bit of that, she does prove to be a strong and worthy addition to the cast. As does Josh Lucas, one of the dastardly, clueless suits who thinks he knows best. It’s a fantastic, jam-packed cast, but never detracting from the central Shelby/Miles friendship and dynamic.
I’ve come this far without talking about the race itself. There are a number of enjoyable, smaller races throughout the movie, giving us a taste of the high energy, intense camerawork to come, but that’s nothing compared to the 24 hours of racing we get when the team eventually arrive in France. As Shelby and his team look on in the pits, watched over in the stands above by the suits from Ford, and by team Ferrari in the stand next to them, Miles takes it in turns with other drivers to try and win the race, through the night and in heavy rain, dealing with car problems already experienced and worked upon throughout the movie, as well as yet more meddling from those pesky suits.
The pacing of the race is perfect. Putting you right in the heart of the action, occasionally cutting to the drama in the pits and between the team, all the while desperate to get one over on the all powerful Ferrari. This is a movie that can be enjoyed by petrol heads, and non enthusiasts like me, in equal measure, and I had an absolute blast watching it. Highly recommended.
Le Mans ‘66 (or Ford v Ferrari as it is known elsewhere - much better name, no idea why it needed to be changed) stars Matt Damon and Christian Bale (once again going through some weight loss for a movie role) as Carroll Shelby and his engineering partner Ken Miles. Shelby was the first American to win Le Mans, the 24 hour race held in France, in 1959, but has since retired from racing due to a heart condition. These days, Shelby designs and sells souped-up cars as well as running the racing team Cobra, along with British racing driver Ken Miles. Shelby is calm, very clever and extremely determined and Miles knows everything there is to know about cars, but isn’t exactly what you might call a good ‘people person’. Together they have a wonderful friendship and partnership, the highs and lows of which form the basis and heart of the movie.
Meanwhile, Ford Motor company is suffering from poor sales and Henry Ford II (Tracy Letts) is looking to his workforce to come up with the next big idea in order to try and boost the Ford name. One of the many corporate suits we see during the movie, Lee Iacocca (Jon Bernthal) proposes that Ford buy into Ferrari in order to create a winning sports car that will make Ford cool again with the kids, so they head to Italy for a meeting with Enzo Ferrari. The meeting doesn't really go according to plan though, and the suits return home with their tails between their legs, and a strong desire to go to war with Ferrari and teach them a lesson.
Ford puts its money where its mouth is, pretty much writing a blank cheque for Shelby to come up with a car worthy enough to defeat Ferrari and win Le Mans ‘66, and we then follow Shelby, Miles and their team as they struggle to make it happen. Problems arise when Shelby is repeatedly put under pressure by the corporate suits at Ford to ditch Miles, feeling that he doesn’t quite fit with the Ford image, and this puts strain on both the project and the friendship between Shelby and Miles, eventually resulting in a comedy brawl reminiscent of the one involving Hugh Grant and Colin Firth in Bridget Jones Diary!.
Caitriona Balfe plays Miles' wife, Mollie, and it’s great to finally see her out of period costume and outside of TV show Outlander. It’s a role that could easily have been relegated to the usual, long-suffering spouse, sitting at home watching hubby race with baited breath, and while there is a fair bit of that, she does prove to be a strong and worthy addition to the cast. As does Josh Lucas, one of the dastardly, clueless suits who thinks he knows best. It’s a fantastic, jam-packed cast, but never detracting from the central Shelby/Miles friendship and dynamic.
I’ve come this far without talking about the race itself. There are a number of enjoyable, smaller races throughout the movie, giving us a taste of the high energy, intense camerawork to come, but that’s nothing compared to the 24 hours of racing we get when the team eventually arrive in France. As Shelby and his team look on in the pits, watched over in the stands above by the suits from Ford, and by team Ferrari in the stand next to them, Miles takes it in turns with other drivers to try and win the race, through the night and in heavy rain, dealing with car problems already experienced and worked upon throughout the movie, as well as yet more meddling from those pesky suits.
The pacing of the race is perfect. Putting you right in the heart of the action, occasionally cutting to the drama in the pits and between the team, all the while desperate to get one over on the all powerful Ferrari. This is a movie that can be enjoyed by petrol heads, and non enthusiasts like me, in equal measure, and I had an absolute blast watching it. Highly recommended.
Jamie (131 KP) rated What To Do With A Duke in Books
Jul 22, 2017
Mild humor (1 more)
Some good discussion about marriage and women
Unstable plot (2 more)
Frustrating characters
Vulgar male lead
A misguided curse
When it comes to historical romance, I look for one of two things: one, a compelling love story with some scenes that make me blush and fan myself; or two, a light and fluffy clean romance, sometimes with a touch of humor. What I demand from all historical romances is for both the romance and the setting to be believable. I’ve started to wonder if my standards are too high. When I went into this book, with the cute cover and hints at a curse, I figured this one might fall on the fluffy side of the spectrum (the cat on the cover may have influenced this assumption). I was sadly mistaken.
The characters seem so non-committal, not just with each other, but with upholding any of the values they claim to have. Catherine was constantly complaining about how she needed peace and solitude to write, but in the first half of the novel whenever she had it she didn’t do it. She blames family for her difficulties with not being able to be the next great novelist, but the problem was really with the fact that she was not all that committed to doing it. Just like she apparently was not all that committed to being a spinster, despite preaching about it constantly. I found Catherine’s character to be frustrating at every turn and had a hard time rooting for her.
Unfortunately, the other half of this love story was hardly any better. Marcus is dreamy for all of a few minutes, until he started talking about his manhood… Which he proceeded to do all the time. Every time the narration would switch to him, inevitably a thought would end with some note about what his cock wants. I suppose Marcus’ raw desire was supposed to be tantalizing, but I honestly just found it vulgar. It didn’t help that everything about Marcus and Catherine’s romance was a lust at first sight sort of scenario. I didn’t feel any real chemistry between them, even by the end when they are apparently in love with each other I still wasn’t feeling it. Literally everything always boiled back down to sex. The rest of the story and dialogue was not even all that funny, clever, or witty, it was just two stubborn people wanting to get in each other’s pants the entire book while being really over dramatic about, well, everything.
Then there is the curse plot line, which I could suspend my belief and go with it for a while, but even that felt like it was poorly thought out. Marcus has to control his desires and avoid marriage because he’s fearful of accidentally impregnating a woman, thus ending his life. Though somehow, he has no problem with brothel women and the risk of impregnating any of them? Because bastard children can’t be heirs? Sure, at that time period they certainly had a harder go of it, but it wasn’t unheard of. And even if that was the case, didn’t the curse start with an illegitimate child born to a woman jilted by her lover? The number of plot holes was staggering and it wouldn’t have been such a big deal if it wasn’t the central focus of the story.
I also didn’t buy the mildly magical ending with the cat. No I don’t hate the cat, on the contrary the cat was perhaps the best character in the entire book. It just seemed too convenient, too hastily put together. I was also bothered by the fact that, in order to I guess create some tension, Marcus had absolutely no interest in finding out the truth about the curse. That alone basically undid all of the effort, all of the worry, all of the focus this character had on this family curse that has weighed so heavily on him for his entire life. It made absolutely no sense for his character. I don’t even want to go into how his character contradicts himself again once the mystery is solved. I hated Marcus.
I almost put this book down after the first couple of chapters, but things picked up around the half way mark. After one scene that actually made me chuckle with the eye brow waggling old ladies, I had hope that maybe the story would redeem itself with the added bit of comedy. I was disappointed that things started to go downhill again once the book attempted to flesh out the curse and develop the romance between Catherine and Marcus. Which, while I’m on that subject – I absolutely hated how that turned out. Catherine spends the entire novel preaching about never wanting to get trapped in a marriage and to never have children, then finds herself trapped. It wasn’t romantic, it was just frustrating.
On a slightly random note, I also noticed at one point an expletive is used that I was fairly certain did not exist in the context that it was used during that time period. After looking it up my assumption was correct – while the word had existed in the more vulgar sense that it is commonly used, as a curse or slang word it didn’t come about until the 1920’s. I know it’s being overly nit picky, but things like that really ruin the immersion in the time period for me.
The characters seem so non-committal, not just with each other, but with upholding any of the values they claim to have. Catherine was constantly complaining about how she needed peace and solitude to write, but in the first half of the novel whenever she had it she didn’t do it. She blames family for her difficulties with not being able to be the next great novelist, but the problem was really with the fact that she was not all that committed to doing it. Just like she apparently was not all that committed to being a spinster, despite preaching about it constantly. I found Catherine’s character to be frustrating at every turn and had a hard time rooting for her.
Unfortunately, the other half of this love story was hardly any better. Marcus is dreamy for all of a few minutes, until he started talking about his manhood… Which he proceeded to do all the time. Every time the narration would switch to him, inevitably a thought would end with some note about what his cock wants. I suppose Marcus’ raw desire was supposed to be tantalizing, but I honestly just found it vulgar. It didn’t help that everything about Marcus and Catherine’s romance was a lust at first sight sort of scenario. I didn’t feel any real chemistry between them, even by the end when they are apparently in love with each other I still wasn’t feeling it. Literally everything always boiled back down to sex. The rest of the story and dialogue was not even all that funny, clever, or witty, it was just two stubborn people wanting to get in each other’s pants the entire book while being really over dramatic about, well, everything.
Then there is the curse plot line, which I could suspend my belief and go with it for a while, but even that felt like it was poorly thought out. Marcus has to control his desires and avoid marriage because he’s fearful of accidentally impregnating a woman, thus ending his life. Though somehow, he has no problem with brothel women and the risk of impregnating any of them? Because bastard children can’t be heirs? Sure, at that time period they certainly had a harder go of it, but it wasn’t unheard of. And even if that was the case, didn’t the curse start with an illegitimate child born to a woman jilted by her lover? The number of plot holes was staggering and it wouldn’t have been such a big deal if it wasn’t the central focus of the story.
I also didn’t buy the mildly magical ending with the cat. No I don’t hate the cat, on the contrary the cat was perhaps the best character in the entire book. It just seemed too convenient, too hastily put together. I was also bothered by the fact that, in order to I guess create some tension, Marcus had absolutely no interest in finding out the truth about the curse. That alone basically undid all of the effort, all of the worry, all of the focus this character had on this family curse that has weighed so heavily on him for his entire life. It made absolutely no sense for his character. I don’t even want to go into how his character contradicts himself again once the mystery is solved. I hated Marcus.
I almost put this book down after the first couple of chapters, but things picked up around the half way mark. After one scene that actually made me chuckle with the eye brow waggling old ladies, I had hope that maybe the story would redeem itself with the added bit of comedy. I was disappointed that things started to go downhill again once the book attempted to flesh out the curse and develop the romance between Catherine and Marcus. Which, while I’m on that subject – I absolutely hated how that turned out. Catherine spends the entire novel preaching about never wanting to get trapped in a marriage and to never have children, then finds herself trapped. It wasn’t romantic, it was just frustrating.
On a slightly random note, I also noticed at one point an expletive is used that I was fairly certain did not exist in the context that it was used during that time period. After looking it up my assumption was correct – while the word had existed in the more vulgar sense that it is commonly used, as a curse or slang word it didn’t come about until the 1920’s. I know it’s being overly nit picky, but things like that really ruin the immersion in the time period for me.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated End of Watch (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Director/Writer David Ayer (Street Kings, Training day) once again takes us into the world of the Los Angeles police department in the new movie End of Watch. Only this time rather than go in the corrupt police officer direction he has gone before, Ayer instead takes audiences on a honest and somewhat realistic emotionally charged ride along with two young and confident LAPD patrolmen.
While the story in this film is as simple as two cops over reaching their pay grades causing them to get on a drug cartels hit list. The film is more like an unrated extended episode of the TV series Cops, focusing on the everyday encounters of our heroes as they patrol south central LA. These encounters range from calls for lost children, domestic disturbance, and noise violations, albeit a bit exaggerated in these and several other incidents. Still the various types of encounters cause the film to feel like a true ride along into the lives of these LAPD cops. Additionally the use of the handheld “found footage” film style works surprisingly well at giving the movie that TV episodic style that makes the overall experience feel realistic. That being said, there are a few scenes where it is not clear who is holding the camera or where the shot is coming from, however these scenes are barely noticeable because of the excellent performances by our protagonists that keeps our interest on what they are saying and doing on screen rather than who is holding the camera.
Officer Bryan Taylor (Jake Gyllenhaal, Source Code) is our main protagonist of this movie. The ex-marine turned cop has to take an art elective in his pre-law studies and decides to take a documentary film class and take us on the inside of the LAPD. Gyllenhaal ‘s performance embodies Taylor as the good natured ambitious officer wanting more in his life of relationships and career. It would be easy for this character to be the traditional good cop in movies like this however given the found footage film style we instead find that Taylor, while good, can also be a complete “jerk” cop who is quick to anger and use brutish force when he deems necessary. This only helps solidify the rawness and reality of this film which pays a nod to the difficult nature of this job for real life police officers. Gyllenhaal gives yet another outstanding performance in his career causing us to grow attached to his character and respect him.
In addition Michel Pena (Crash) delivers a fantastic performance as Taylor’s partner and best friend Officer Mike Zavala. Pena embodies the other side to Gyllenhaal’s “jerk” cop by with his own good natured, simple man who is quick to become a bull when pushed. No more is this better shown in a scene where Zavala and a gang member get into a war of words and caused Zavala to drop his gun and badge and fight man to man to settle their dispute in the “street” way. Thus earning respect from that particular gang member.
Together Gyllenhaal and Pena share the screen wonderfully. Their relationship seems effortless and natural as if they were actually partners and best friends. You can tell they are having fun on set working together and it shows in their performance together as they really get a sense that they are more than partners and friends but are in fact, brothers. Their relationship and characters are only developed further as we watch Taylor pursue a deeper intellectual relationship with scientist Janet (Anna Kendrick, Up In The Air) and Zavala through the birth of his first born from wife Gabby (Natalie Martinez, Death Race). Kendrick and Martinez give believable performances as love interests to our heroes that show us a more human and softer side of these testosterone filled officers who will do whatever it takes to uphold the law. Throw in a strong supporting cast of other police officers led by Frank Grillo (Warrior) who plays the LAPD’s sergeant and you have a performance where we not only care about our heroes but we see the brotherhood of the police force in general.
One thing that I was not expecting from the film is the amount of moments where the audience literally laughed out loud. That is not to say that this is a comedy, in fact it is far from it. But the quick witted jokes and verbal jabs by our onscreen partners help alleviate some of the heavy emotional scenes of the movie. I felt that these characters used that good natured humor to keep themselves from going off of the deep end in handling all of the gruesome encounters they witness. These well placed laughs helped the audience deal with these gruesome scenes as well and helped strengthen our bond with these brothers.
All in all, this movie is a buddy cop film on steroids. While there is not much of a traditional story arch, this helps develop the realistic feel more like an unrated extended episode of Cops. That being said Gyllenhaal and Pena deliver a fantastic performance together. They have a real connection that makes you believe they have been partners for years and consider each other brothers. Add in a solid ensemble cast and the overall experience is worth the price of admission. However those who grow motion sick from found footage films may want to stay clear as there is a definite lack of steady cam
While the story in this film is as simple as two cops over reaching their pay grades causing them to get on a drug cartels hit list. The film is more like an unrated extended episode of the TV series Cops, focusing on the everyday encounters of our heroes as they patrol south central LA. These encounters range from calls for lost children, domestic disturbance, and noise violations, albeit a bit exaggerated in these and several other incidents. Still the various types of encounters cause the film to feel like a true ride along into the lives of these LAPD cops. Additionally the use of the handheld “found footage” film style works surprisingly well at giving the movie that TV episodic style that makes the overall experience feel realistic. That being said, there are a few scenes where it is not clear who is holding the camera or where the shot is coming from, however these scenes are barely noticeable because of the excellent performances by our protagonists that keeps our interest on what they are saying and doing on screen rather than who is holding the camera.
Officer Bryan Taylor (Jake Gyllenhaal, Source Code) is our main protagonist of this movie. The ex-marine turned cop has to take an art elective in his pre-law studies and decides to take a documentary film class and take us on the inside of the LAPD. Gyllenhaal ‘s performance embodies Taylor as the good natured ambitious officer wanting more in his life of relationships and career. It would be easy for this character to be the traditional good cop in movies like this however given the found footage film style we instead find that Taylor, while good, can also be a complete “jerk” cop who is quick to anger and use brutish force when he deems necessary. This only helps solidify the rawness and reality of this film which pays a nod to the difficult nature of this job for real life police officers. Gyllenhaal gives yet another outstanding performance in his career causing us to grow attached to his character and respect him.
In addition Michel Pena (Crash) delivers a fantastic performance as Taylor’s partner and best friend Officer Mike Zavala. Pena embodies the other side to Gyllenhaal’s “jerk” cop by with his own good natured, simple man who is quick to become a bull when pushed. No more is this better shown in a scene where Zavala and a gang member get into a war of words and caused Zavala to drop his gun and badge and fight man to man to settle their dispute in the “street” way. Thus earning respect from that particular gang member.
Together Gyllenhaal and Pena share the screen wonderfully. Their relationship seems effortless and natural as if they were actually partners and best friends. You can tell they are having fun on set working together and it shows in their performance together as they really get a sense that they are more than partners and friends but are in fact, brothers. Their relationship and characters are only developed further as we watch Taylor pursue a deeper intellectual relationship with scientist Janet (Anna Kendrick, Up In The Air) and Zavala through the birth of his first born from wife Gabby (Natalie Martinez, Death Race). Kendrick and Martinez give believable performances as love interests to our heroes that show us a more human and softer side of these testosterone filled officers who will do whatever it takes to uphold the law. Throw in a strong supporting cast of other police officers led by Frank Grillo (Warrior) who plays the LAPD’s sergeant and you have a performance where we not only care about our heroes but we see the brotherhood of the police force in general.
One thing that I was not expecting from the film is the amount of moments where the audience literally laughed out loud. That is not to say that this is a comedy, in fact it is far from it. But the quick witted jokes and verbal jabs by our onscreen partners help alleviate some of the heavy emotional scenes of the movie. I felt that these characters used that good natured humor to keep themselves from going off of the deep end in handling all of the gruesome encounters they witness. These well placed laughs helped the audience deal with these gruesome scenes as well and helped strengthen our bond with these brothers.
All in all, this movie is a buddy cop film on steroids. While there is not much of a traditional story arch, this helps develop the realistic feel more like an unrated extended episode of Cops. That being said Gyllenhaal and Pena deliver a fantastic performance together. They have a real connection that makes you believe they have been partners for years and consider each other brothers. Add in a solid ensemble cast and the overall experience is worth the price of admission. However those who grow motion sick from found footage films may want to stay clear as there is a definite lack of steady cam
It’s about 6 weeks since I finished season 3 of this incredible show from Netflix. I have been putting off writing about it, because I wanted to let it settle. And also because I have a hell of a lot to say about it. I am gonna try and be comprehensive, without giving too much away in terms of spoilers. I am going to assume you have seen some of it, or have heard the hype, at least. If you haven’t got around to it yet, then all I can say is: what are you doing with your entertainment life? Get on it, now! It is as ubiquitous as Breaking Bad, The Sopranos, or The Wire, and sits comfortably in that group for consistent quality and lasting impressions.
Season one first aired in July 2017. I heard good things very quickly, albeit with some hesitation. It was dark, sometimes literally, utilising a trademark washed-out effect visually, that instantly gave it a bleak feel, which was not to everyone’s taste, but I loved. General consensus had it that the writing was great; the situation and concept drew you in from minute one. In fact, I believe the first episode is one of the best pilots seen in the last decade, bar none. It made no bones about what we were to expect from the start: intelligent dialogue, a lot of tension and a hefty chunk of jaw-dropping brutality.
Jason Bateman has enjoyed a remarkable career in the last ten years, putting behind him a patchy child-star and B actor tag, to emerge as the go to guy for deadpan comedy pathos, rivalled only, perhaps by Paul Rudd. Ozark is Bateman’s show in many regards, fulfilling his ambition to produce and direct as well as act, and he is a superb central pivot to the show, as hard nosed accountant turned drug cartel puppet, Marty Byrde. He excels in all three roles on every level, and if you are a fan of his lighter work, chances are you will fall head over heels for his dubious charm in Ozark.
But, whilst he is the lynchpin of the show, and a compelling character in every subtley drawn way, there is so much more to the show than him. Laura Linney, as his initially timid wife, Wendy, is never less than interesting. Perfectly cast, utilising her skill for portraying strong yet flawed women at every turn; she grows into a character so full of contradictions and conflicts, that you change your mind whether you like her or not almost episode to episode. Time will tell, but she may yet emerge in season 4 as the most fully realised character in the show, depending on how her arc ends. The potential is huge, and despite a CV of solid roles over the years, this could be the defining work of her career. It’s already close.
Then there are the kids in this very modern nuclear family, Charlotte and Jonah, played by Sofia Hublitz and Skylar Gaetner. These characters could have been set decoration in lesser hands, but in this show they are given the chance to grow and become pivotal to the ongoing story in remarkable ways. There is nothing stereotypical about either of them, and the two young actors more than rise to the challenge of matching the more experienced pros. Many a show has been ruined by miscast youths that can’t match the more sophisticated adult content, but I remain impressed by these two, both as characters and actors. Again, they have the scope to go into very fascinating places within the story when season four emerges.
The true strength of the show, however, may lie in its consistently solid output of great supporting characters. Julia Gartner, as older than her years redneck with ambitions to rise above it, Ruth, has garnered all the plaudits, quite rightly. You grow to like her in usual ways. At first mistrusting her and then ended up 100% on her side. At times, she is the only one making sense and making the right decisions. The continual ways she is forced to grow up fast and bounce back from traumatic situations is so beautifully handled, that when she does show her vulnerable side it is at once shocking and heart- rending.
A lot of characters come and go; some forever, much quicker than you anticipated… for the sake of non spoilers, I won’t go into a who’s who here, but many meet a very sticky end, and it isn’t always who you think it will be. Especially by season 3, which largely drops the dark filter on the camera lens, but cranks up the body count exponentially, you start to feel that no one is safe, and anyone can go at any minute. Except, when they do, and why they do, is so well interwoven into the plot that you forget to look for the sucker punch and are still left with your jaw hitting the floor.
There were moments on season three where I was actually talking to the screen, begging certain characters not to do what they were doing; a sure sign of complete emotional investment. A big part of that was the addition of Tom Pelphrey as Wendy’s brother, who from the start puts a genius new spin on the family dynamic, becoming intertwined in interesting and ultimately devastating ways. His character takes a while to warm up, but by mid-season he is guaranteed to be your favourite person in it. And in episode 9, he delivers a monologue and a performance that I would quite honestly say is one of the absolute best things I’ve ever seen in a TV show.
I was moderately outraged then, to see he wasn’t rewarded with at least a nomination for the 2020 Emmy Awards. An oversight rather than a snub, for sure, but when Bateman, Linney and Garner all got nominated and he didn’t it felt like a real injustice, and a lot of online vitriol reflected that. Such a shame, especially if it turns out to be the best work he ever does – and I can’t imagine anything better, but who knows where he will go from here.
By the end of season 3 I felt exhausted. Each episode is slightly over an hour long, but can feel like you just watched a self contained movie. The quality certainly feels that way. I was both elated and shocked by the way it was left on a cliff edge, and relieved that I could take a break from it now. Although, waiting potentially up to two years to see how the story ends now seems like a long wait.
And it will be the end, one way or another, as the production announced season four will be the last, however stretching from 10 to 14 episodes, divided into 2 halves of 7; a trick Breaking Bad also did in its fifth and final season. I love that idea. Knowing the finish line is coming, rather than having it stretch out for years until the ideas and the momentum have long run out. Dexter springs to mind: a show that should have ended two seasons earlier, for sure.
I can really only see two ways it can go from here: either everyone dies, and that seems quite likely right now, or they win big. There simply is no inbetween I can imagine that would be satisfying. And I’m on the fence which I will prefer… The only certainty is that I will be very excited indeed when it comes around. And shows that make you feel that way are rare. In the meantime, I’m gonna watch a lot of comedies. I need a laugh after this…
Season one first aired in July 2017. I heard good things very quickly, albeit with some hesitation. It was dark, sometimes literally, utilising a trademark washed-out effect visually, that instantly gave it a bleak feel, which was not to everyone’s taste, but I loved. General consensus had it that the writing was great; the situation and concept drew you in from minute one. In fact, I believe the first episode is one of the best pilots seen in the last decade, bar none. It made no bones about what we were to expect from the start: intelligent dialogue, a lot of tension and a hefty chunk of jaw-dropping brutality.
Jason Bateman has enjoyed a remarkable career in the last ten years, putting behind him a patchy child-star and B actor tag, to emerge as the go to guy for deadpan comedy pathos, rivalled only, perhaps by Paul Rudd. Ozark is Bateman’s show in many regards, fulfilling his ambition to produce and direct as well as act, and he is a superb central pivot to the show, as hard nosed accountant turned drug cartel puppet, Marty Byrde. He excels in all three roles on every level, and if you are a fan of his lighter work, chances are you will fall head over heels for his dubious charm in Ozark.
But, whilst he is the lynchpin of the show, and a compelling character in every subtley drawn way, there is so much more to the show than him. Laura Linney, as his initially timid wife, Wendy, is never less than interesting. Perfectly cast, utilising her skill for portraying strong yet flawed women at every turn; she grows into a character so full of contradictions and conflicts, that you change your mind whether you like her or not almost episode to episode. Time will tell, but she may yet emerge in season 4 as the most fully realised character in the show, depending on how her arc ends. The potential is huge, and despite a CV of solid roles over the years, this could be the defining work of her career. It’s already close.
Then there are the kids in this very modern nuclear family, Charlotte and Jonah, played by Sofia Hublitz and Skylar Gaetner. These characters could have been set decoration in lesser hands, but in this show they are given the chance to grow and become pivotal to the ongoing story in remarkable ways. There is nothing stereotypical about either of them, and the two young actors more than rise to the challenge of matching the more experienced pros. Many a show has been ruined by miscast youths that can’t match the more sophisticated adult content, but I remain impressed by these two, both as characters and actors. Again, they have the scope to go into very fascinating places within the story when season four emerges.
The true strength of the show, however, may lie in its consistently solid output of great supporting characters. Julia Gartner, as older than her years redneck with ambitions to rise above it, Ruth, has garnered all the plaudits, quite rightly. You grow to like her in usual ways. At first mistrusting her and then ended up 100% on her side. At times, she is the only one making sense and making the right decisions. The continual ways she is forced to grow up fast and bounce back from traumatic situations is so beautifully handled, that when she does show her vulnerable side it is at once shocking and heart- rending.
A lot of characters come and go; some forever, much quicker than you anticipated… for the sake of non spoilers, I won’t go into a who’s who here, but many meet a very sticky end, and it isn’t always who you think it will be. Especially by season 3, which largely drops the dark filter on the camera lens, but cranks up the body count exponentially, you start to feel that no one is safe, and anyone can go at any minute. Except, when they do, and why they do, is so well interwoven into the plot that you forget to look for the sucker punch and are still left with your jaw hitting the floor.
There were moments on season three where I was actually talking to the screen, begging certain characters not to do what they were doing; a sure sign of complete emotional investment. A big part of that was the addition of Tom Pelphrey as Wendy’s brother, who from the start puts a genius new spin on the family dynamic, becoming intertwined in interesting and ultimately devastating ways. His character takes a while to warm up, but by mid-season he is guaranteed to be your favourite person in it. And in episode 9, he delivers a monologue and a performance that I would quite honestly say is one of the absolute best things I’ve ever seen in a TV show.
I was moderately outraged then, to see he wasn’t rewarded with at least a nomination for the 2020 Emmy Awards. An oversight rather than a snub, for sure, but when Bateman, Linney and Garner all got nominated and he didn’t it felt like a real injustice, and a lot of online vitriol reflected that. Such a shame, especially if it turns out to be the best work he ever does – and I can’t imagine anything better, but who knows where he will go from here.
By the end of season 3 I felt exhausted. Each episode is slightly over an hour long, but can feel like you just watched a self contained movie. The quality certainly feels that way. I was both elated and shocked by the way it was left on a cliff edge, and relieved that I could take a break from it now. Although, waiting potentially up to two years to see how the story ends now seems like a long wait.
And it will be the end, one way or another, as the production announced season four will be the last, however stretching from 10 to 14 episodes, divided into 2 halves of 7; a trick Breaking Bad also did in its fifth and final season. I love that idea. Knowing the finish line is coming, rather than having it stretch out for years until the ideas and the momentum have long run out. Dexter springs to mind: a show that should have ended two seasons earlier, for sure.
I can really only see two ways it can go from here: either everyone dies, and that seems quite likely right now, or they win big. There simply is no inbetween I can imagine that would be satisfying. And I’m on the fence which I will prefer… The only certainty is that I will be very excited indeed when it comes around. And shows that make you feel that way are rare. In the meantime, I’m gonna watch a lot of comedies. I need a laugh after this…