Search
Search results
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Get Him to the Greek (2010) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
Aaron Green (Jonah Hill) works as a record company intern at Pinnacle Records. His boss Sergio Roma (Sean "Diddy" Combs) is wanting a "game changer" that will help turn the company around. Aaron pitches the idea that since it's the ten year anniversary of out of control British rock star Aldous Snow (Russell Brand) performing at the Greek Theatre in Los Angeles, he believes that the company can make a serious profit from not only a return performance, but by re-releasing his back catalog, as well. Sergio eventually goes for the idea and Aaron flies out to London to bring Aldous back to America to prepare for the show. Unfortunately for him, Aldous Snow's lifestyle tends to rub off on him and turns his life upside down in the process. As Aaron deals with some relationship issues and has his hands full trying to keep Aldous sober, Aldous has some relationship problems of his own and begins to wonder if there's more to life than sex, drugs, and rock and roll. It seems like a moot point by the time the Greek Theater show sells out as Aaron may not have a girlfriend or a job by the time the show begins and Aldous speaks of skipping the gig altogether.
I was a pretty big fan of Forgetting Sarah Marshall, but that was mostly due to the Dracula rock opera and Russell Brand's outrageous portrayal of Aldous Snow. So Get Him to the Greek immediately grabbed my attention since it was announced as a spinoff sequel, but I became excited when reviews trickled in saying it was raunchier than its predecessor. Is more Aldous Snow really a good thing though? The short answer is yes. Yes it is.
Russell Brand is really the backbone of the film. Aldous Snow's rock star lifestyle provides his character with a sense of unpredictability as his outlandish outbursts and struggle with more adult decisions is enticing and at often times hilarious. Jonah Hill's screen presence is just as important to the film. His usual quick witted and delightfully explicit sense of humor in addition to his chemistry with Russell Brand is really a spectacular combination. Sean Combs manages to steal quite a few scenes, as well. His theory on screwing with people's heads and his one-liners ("You cannot out run me! I am black!") were surprisingly hysterical. The music in the film is really the key ingredient that brings the entire film together though. Fictional band Infant Sorrow delivers some pretty fantastic and humorously obscene ballads that are better than they should be for a film like this. I liked "Furry Walls" so much that I downloaded the soundtrack as soon as I returned from the theater.
The film's strongest scenes don't seem to last as long as they should though. The R-rated comedy seems to shine brightest when things get a bit more serious as the main characters come off as being more human, more realistic, and easier to relate to during those situations. Unfortunately those scenes really only begin to transpire in the last 15-20 minutes of the film and even though the point is made, I can't help but think of how a great film could have been even better if those events had occurred earlier on to have an even bigger impact. The biggest issue for me was that most of the scenes in the trailers were either not in the film at all or were different takes from scenes that actually made it into the theatrical version of the film. That means the DVD will probably be unrated and have x amount of extra footage not seen in theaters, but at least 50% of the scenes you're looking forward to were probably left on the cutting room floor which is just disappointing.
Get Him to the Greek may very well be this year's The Hangover, but isn't quite as laugh out loud funny as the 2009 comedy blockbuster. Get Him to the Greek is a wonderfully amusing comedy with a highly entertaining soundtrack that effectively gives a little more depth to the already remarkable for all the wrong reasons character Aldous Snow, but unfortunately doesn't live up to the reputation of being the uproarious riot that everyone seems to be making it out to be. Nevertheless, it is still an extremely solid comedy that comes highly recommended from me.
I was a pretty big fan of Forgetting Sarah Marshall, but that was mostly due to the Dracula rock opera and Russell Brand's outrageous portrayal of Aldous Snow. So Get Him to the Greek immediately grabbed my attention since it was announced as a spinoff sequel, but I became excited when reviews trickled in saying it was raunchier than its predecessor. Is more Aldous Snow really a good thing though? The short answer is yes. Yes it is.
Russell Brand is really the backbone of the film. Aldous Snow's rock star lifestyle provides his character with a sense of unpredictability as his outlandish outbursts and struggle with more adult decisions is enticing and at often times hilarious. Jonah Hill's screen presence is just as important to the film. His usual quick witted and delightfully explicit sense of humor in addition to his chemistry with Russell Brand is really a spectacular combination. Sean Combs manages to steal quite a few scenes, as well. His theory on screwing with people's heads and his one-liners ("You cannot out run me! I am black!") were surprisingly hysterical. The music in the film is really the key ingredient that brings the entire film together though. Fictional band Infant Sorrow delivers some pretty fantastic and humorously obscene ballads that are better than they should be for a film like this. I liked "Furry Walls" so much that I downloaded the soundtrack as soon as I returned from the theater.
The film's strongest scenes don't seem to last as long as they should though. The R-rated comedy seems to shine brightest when things get a bit more serious as the main characters come off as being more human, more realistic, and easier to relate to during those situations. Unfortunately those scenes really only begin to transpire in the last 15-20 minutes of the film and even though the point is made, I can't help but think of how a great film could have been even better if those events had occurred earlier on to have an even bigger impact. The biggest issue for me was that most of the scenes in the trailers were either not in the film at all or were different takes from scenes that actually made it into the theatrical version of the film. That means the DVD will probably be unrated and have x amount of extra footage not seen in theaters, but at least 50% of the scenes you're looking forward to were probably left on the cutting room floor which is just disappointing.
Get Him to the Greek may very well be this year's The Hangover, but isn't quite as laugh out loud funny as the 2009 comedy blockbuster. Get Him to the Greek is a wonderfully amusing comedy with a highly entertaining soundtrack that effectively gives a little more depth to the already remarkable for all the wrong reasons character Aldous Snow, but unfortunately doesn't live up to the reputation of being the uproarious riot that everyone seems to be making it out to be. Nevertheless, it is still an extremely solid comedy that comes highly recommended from me.
Night Reader Reviews (683 KP) rated Emaji Nation Book 1 The Sparrow in Books
Jan 9, 2020
Honest Review for Free Copy of Book
Emaji Nation Book 1: The Sparrow by Denna M. Davis is a book that I will not soon be forgetting about. In fact, I was very pleasantly surprised by just how much I enjoyed this book. The first chapter grabbed my attention instantly. Most books I have read don’t do that, they tend to need some time to build up a reader’s interest. Each chapter seems to leave the reader hanging with just enough anticipation that you might find yourself staying up hours past your intended stopping time to continue the story.
With little explanation as to why young Amanda finds herself walking through a portal at her grandparent’s house and transported to the planet Emaji. This is where she meets Solomon, who helps reunite her with her grandparents. Her grandmother tells her that there is a prophecy naming her the defeater of Zorn and savior of Emaji. With the help of the Emaji leaders, Amanda learns that Emaji was once much like Earth. That is until a nuclear world war forced the survivors into Mount Hanovi where their God (Ema) united them and blessed them with gifts. Peace cannot seem to last and Zorn grew arrogant with his gifts and betrayed the rest of the survivors.
Now, Amanda has to deal with being under attack by an unknown assassin controlled by Zorn. At the same time, she must begin her training. Amanda is only given two days to train and learn about the warrior classes of the Emaji before taking her own Journey of Discovery to receive her personal gift from Ema. At the very end of her Journey she must jump from a cliff to prove her belief in Ema. On top of all this, the prophecy also names the Emaji man she is supposed to marry and she isn’t even seventeen yet.
Denna M. Davis makes Amanda a very relatable character. Amanda shows her fear and her doubts from the moment she steps through the portal at her grandparent’s house and finds herself in Emaji. Unlike many books where a character is the main focus of a prophecy, Amanda does not jump right into her Destiny and instead takes her time deciding if that is what she really wants to do. She internally struggles with the idea of being this destined hero when she could always just go back to the safety of her home. Staying on Emaji means facing danger and possible death for people she just met.
There are so many things I liked about this book that it is hard to pinpoint what I liked best. I loved how relatable and real Amanda is. I also found the story to be gripping and so detailed that the action never slows down for a second. I did not want to stop reading. Being completely honest what I liked least about the book seems almost trivial to me. I did not really enjoy how every citizen of Emaji is described as having their own specific skin color. I understand how this may be a gift from Ema or possibly a result of the radiation from the war but, I just had a hard time picturing it. Frequently, I noticed I would mentally default back to thinking in the skin tones that are naturally found on Earth.
The target readers for this book are fantasy readers starting at mature middle school age and older. There are a few different times that Amanda hints at the fact that she may have been (or came close to being) raped while at a party, so readers would have to be mature enough to handle that concept. Although, nothing of a sexual nature is actually described with detail at any point in the book. I am fully confident in my decision to give this book a complete 4 out of 4 rating. It is extremely well edited to where I only noticed one error in the entire book. Also, I found myself enjoying this book right from the start. Denna M. Davis portrayed a world different from ours wonderfully. I felt like I was actually there at times and was sad when I finished the book. I can not wait to read the second one. I am hooked and I believe anyone who enjoys fantasy will be as well.
With little explanation as to why young Amanda finds herself walking through a portal at her grandparent’s house and transported to the planet Emaji. This is where she meets Solomon, who helps reunite her with her grandparents. Her grandmother tells her that there is a prophecy naming her the defeater of Zorn and savior of Emaji. With the help of the Emaji leaders, Amanda learns that Emaji was once much like Earth. That is until a nuclear world war forced the survivors into Mount Hanovi where their God (Ema) united them and blessed them with gifts. Peace cannot seem to last and Zorn grew arrogant with his gifts and betrayed the rest of the survivors.
Now, Amanda has to deal with being under attack by an unknown assassin controlled by Zorn. At the same time, she must begin her training. Amanda is only given two days to train and learn about the warrior classes of the Emaji before taking her own Journey of Discovery to receive her personal gift from Ema. At the very end of her Journey she must jump from a cliff to prove her belief in Ema. On top of all this, the prophecy also names the Emaji man she is supposed to marry and she isn’t even seventeen yet.
Denna M. Davis makes Amanda a very relatable character. Amanda shows her fear and her doubts from the moment she steps through the portal at her grandparent’s house and finds herself in Emaji. Unlike many books where a character is the main focus of a prophecy, Amanda does not jump right into her Destiny and instead takes her time deciding if that is what she really wants to do. She internally struggles with the idea of being this destined hero when she could always just go back to the safety of her home. Staying on Emaji means facing danger and possible death for people she just met.
There are so many things I liked about this book that it is hard to pinpoint what I liked best. I loved how relatable and real Amanda is. I also found the story to be gripping and so detailed that the action never slows down for a second. I did not want to stop reading. Being completely honest what I liked least about the book seems almost trivial to me. I did not really enjoy how every citizen of Emaji is described as having their own specific skin color. I understand how this may be a gift from Ema or possibly a result of the radiation from the war but, I just had a hard time picturing it. Frequently, I noticed I would mentally default back to thinking in the skin tones that are naturally found on Earth.
The target readers for this book are fantasy readers starting at mature middle school age and older. There are a few different times that Amanda hints at the fact that she may have been (or came close to being) raped while at a party, so readers would have to be mature enough to handle that concept. Although, nothing of a sexual nature is actually described with detail at any point in the book. I am fully confident in my decision to give this book a complete 4 out of 4 rating. It is extremely well edited to where I only noticed one error in the entire book. Also, I found myself enjoying this book right from the start. Denna M. Davis portrayed a world different from ours wonderfully. I felt like I was actually there at times and was sad when I finished the book. I can not wait to read the second one. I am hooked and I believe anyone who enjoys fantasy will be as well.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Gold Manor Ghost House in Books
Jun 6, 2018
(This review can be found on my blog <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.com/">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>).
I have to admit that the blurb is what drew me in to this book. While it wasn't really that ghostly, it was still a good book.
Usually any title with the word "ghost" in it captures my attention, and it was no different for this book. The title references the name of the tv show the characters are in. It also reflects real life for them.
I don't like the cover at all. It's not very captivating nor does it tell us anything about the book besides one of the characters is a girl. There's so many different covers this book could've had, so why settle on a boring photo of some girl. I just hope the cover doesn't put others off because this is a good read.
The world building, while believable, was confusing at some points in the book. I don't know if it's because a lot of questions will be revealed in the next book (if there is one) or what. There were times when I had no idea what was going on. I even would go back a few pages and reread them in case I had missed something, but I hadn't. I don't really know how to describe it other than to say the world building was choppy at times. Besides being confused, I found myself drawn to the world which the author created for this book. There were times when I felt like I was even one of the characters.
I enjoyed the pacing. Once you get past the confusing bits of the story, the pacing is done rather well. I was totally immersed in this book, and I could've wait to read the next chapter to find out what the characters would experience next.
The plot was interesting albeit confusing since we don't really know where and what Anna is yet. It's the typical good versus evil story, but written in a very interesting way. We're not sure who to trust yet, and we're left wondering with whether Anna is good or evil. The plot thickens...in the next book. (At least, I hope there's a next boo since so many questions are left unanswered).
I liked the character of Anna. She's been through a traumatizing experience, yet she's a strong person. I felt bad for her with what she was going through, and I loved her feelings for Adam! I enjoyed Adam. He's still a very mysterious character, not because he wasn't written well, but because I think the author wants to save what he's really about for another book (hopefully) and because she wants her audience to make up their own mind about him. I love how protective he is and how sexy he sounds! He's British (like my husband) so he instantly scored points with that one! I felt bad for Corey when it came to his unrequited love from Anna. He's her best friend, yet he yearns for more. I was Team Corey all the way even though I liked Adam. I wanted Anna and Corey to become a couple all throughout the book! He comes across as being a tad more sweet than Adam, and I don't know what it is about Corey, but I just loved him a lot. To me, he was better boyfriend material.
The dialogue didn't really sound like it was teenage like. It sounded more like the way adults would talk, not a bunch of teenagers. However, I did enjoy the dialogue but kept forgetting that Anna was meant to be only sixteen. It annoyed me how Adam kept saying "love" though. I found it to be too stereotypical. Yes, some British people do say "love," but Adam seemed to say it an awful lot. Having lived in England for 6 years, I can tell you that British people do not say "love" all the time. However that's just a me thing and shouldn't affect the book for others. I enjoyed the scenes Corey was in the most though as his dialogue was the most enjoyable in my opinion. I didn't notice any swearing in this book.
Overall, Gold Manor Ghost House by Merry Brown is an enjoyable book despite some of its confusing scenes and minor faults. I really hope there's a second book in the works because I enjoyed the first one and am wanting my questions to be answered. The way the first book is written, it seems like there will be a second book which I will most definitely read!
I'd recommend this book for those aged 14+ who are fans of the paranormal that are also looking for a bit of romance.
I'd give Gold Manor Ghost House by Merry Brown a 3.75 out of 5.
(I received a free ecopy of this book from the tour host in exchange for a fair and honest review).
I have to admit that the blurb is what drew me in to this book. While it wasn't really that ghostly, it was still a good book.
Usually any title with the word "ghost" in it captures my attention, and it was no different for this book. The title references the name of the tv show the characters are in. It also reflects real life for them.
I don't like the cover at all. It's not very captivating nor does it tell us anything about the book besides one of the characters is a girl. There's so many different covers this book could've had, so why settle on a boring photo of some girl. I just hope the cover doesn't put others off because this is a good read.
The world building, while believable, was confusing at some points in the book. I don't know if it's because a lot of questions will be revealed in the next book (if there is one) or what. There were times when I had no idea what was going on. I even would go back a few pages and reread them in case I had missed something, but I hadn't. I don't really know how to describe it other than to say the world building was choppy at times. Besides being confused, I found myself drawn to the world which the author created for this book. There were times when I felt like I was even one of the characters.
I enjoyed the pacing. Once you get past the confusing bits of the story, the pacing is done rather well. I was totally immersed in this book, and I could've wait to read the next chapter to find out what the characters would experience next.
The plot was interesting albeit confusing since we don't really know where and what Anna is yet. It's the typical good versus evil story, but written in a very interesting way. We're not sure who to trust yet, and we're left wondering with whether Anna is good or evil. The plot thickens...in the next book. (At least, I hope there's a next boo since so many questions are left unanswered).
I liked the character of Anna. She's been through a traumatizing experience, yet she's a strong person. I felt bad for her with what she was going through, and I loved her feelings for Adam! I enjoyed Adam. He's still a very mysterious character, not because he wasn't written well, but because I think the author wants to save what he's really about for another book (hopefully) and because she wants her audience to make up their own mind about him. I love how protective he is and how sexy he sounds! He's British (like my husband) so he instantly scored points with that one! I felt bad for Corey when it came to his unrequited love from Anna. He's her best friend, yet he yearns for more. I was Team Corey all the way even though I liked Adam. I wanted Anna and Corey to become a couple all throughout the book! He comes across as being a tad more sweet than Adam, and I don't know what it is about Corey, but I just loved him a lot. To me, he was better boyfriend material.
The dialogue didn't really sound like it was teenage like. It sounded more like the way adults would talk, not a bunch of teenagers. However, I did enjoy the dialogue but kept forgetting that Anna was meant to be only sixteen. It annoyed me how Adam kept saying "love" though. I found it to be too stereotypical. Yes, some British people do say "love," but Adam seemed to say it an awful lot. Having lived in England for 6 years, I can tell you that British people do not say "love" all the time. However that's just a me thing and shouldn't affect the book for others. I enjoyed the scenes Corey was in the most though as his dialogue was the most enjoyable in my opinion. I didn't notice any swearing in this book.
Overall, Gold Manor Ghost House by Merry Brown is an enjoyable book despite some of its confusing scenes and minor faults. I really hope there's a second book in the works because I enjoyed the first one and am wanting my questions to be answered. The way the first book is written, it seems like there will be a second book which I will most definitely read!
I'd recommend this book for those aged 14+ who are fans of the paranormal that are also looking for a bit of romance.
I'd give Gold Manor Ghost House by Merry Brown a 3.75 out of 5.
(I received a free ecopy of this book from the tour host in exchange for a fair and honest review).
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 14, 2019
I’ve never left the cinema more unnerved than I did after watching Todd Phillips’ first foray in the superhero genre. Joker is a frequently violent, often grotesque and regularly intense portrayal of the iconic character that’s already receiving praise and backlash in equal measure from those in the critic community.
With development originally beginning way back in 2016, Joaquin Phoenix walking out of interviews and the press junket being cancelled altogether, it’s safe to say that the path to release has not been easy, but what’s the finished product like?
Forever alone in a crowd, failed comedian Arthur Fleck (Phoenix) seeks connection as he walks the streets of Gotham City. Arthur wears two masks, the one he paints for his day job as a clown, and the guise he projects in a futile attempt to feel like he’s part of the world around him. Isolated, bullied and disregarded by society, Fleck begins a slow descent into madness as he transforms into the criminal mastermind known as the Joker.
Director of The Hangover trilogy, you’d be forgiven for thinking that Phillips is an odd choice to helm a picture like this, but his darkly comedic roots shine through in Joker and add a much-needed lightness of touch over the course of the running time. Without these pockets of humour, Joker would just be far too murky, more so than it already is.
Phoenix is absolutely astounding and his physical transformation defies words. Alongside Heath Ledger, these two very different portrayals of this iconic character are fully deserving of as much recognition as possible. Arguably however, Phoenix delivers the best iteration yet and one that perhaps needed even more commitment – this is a two-hour film dedicated to the character, whereas the Joker has always been a supporting part of previous films.
From the frame devoid of any muscle, dark circles under his eyes and wrinkles etched on his face, Phoenix’s dedication to this role is on another level to anything we have seen before. As his transformation from troubled Arthur Fleck to criminal mastermind gets underway, this only serves to highlight the acting prowess of this incredible performer. Elsewhere, supporting cast members like Robert De Niro, Frances Conroy and Zazie Beets are also wonderful in their roles of varying screen-time, but as Joker is a film about the singular character, they stay in the background, and rightly so.
The script too is exceptionally written. Phillips and co-writer Scott Silver, who also wrote 8 Mile, deliver a tightly wound screenplay that is at times just too tense for its own good. This is never a film you can sit back and relax to, it feels like you’re on the edge of your seat for the full two hours. The comedic notes that I alluded to earlier nicely round off some of the sharp edges however, but make no mistake, this is a brutal and unforgiving film.
The comedic notes… nicely round off some of the sharp edges
Criticism has been levelled already about the significance this film may have on those who already actively promote the character’s actions, and it’s easy to see why people are concerned. However, as an art form, Joker doesn’t need to be processed in such a way. Yes, it’s brutal, yes, it’s bloody and yes it sometimes hits too close to home about the issues we face in the real world, but cinema is escapism and that’s what it offers.
To look at it’s clear that the very modest of budget of $55million has been put to good use. The city of Gotham feels dirty, grimy and about to erupt and this is exactly how we as the audience want it to be. The uprising is coming and with each grimace from Phoenix’s face, we get closer and closer to that critical moment.
For me that critical moment occurs a little too late into the film and with not a lot of time left after this point, Joker tries to wrap up its loose ends too quickly, but this is a miniscule criticism in a deeply impressive and immersive cinema experience.
The score too is excellent. Icelandic composer Hildur Ingveldardóttir Guðnadóttir has worked on films like The Revenant and Sicario 2 and that gritty realism she brought to those films has been replicated here. It’s a soaring orchestral score populated with some sharp string solos that work perfectly with the character.
Overall, Joker is a masterpiece. Phoenix’s performance is one of the best I’ve ever had the pleasure of witnessing in the cinema and to go alongside that commitment the audience is treated to an engrossing script and beautiful score. Where DC has failed in the past is in forgetting to carve their own niche. Marvel has the 12A game all sewn up and there’s no point in competing there. Joker is the direction that should have been taken from the very beginning and it’s one of the best films I’ve seen in years.
Brutal? Yes. Beautiful? Absolutely.
With development originally beginning way back in 2016, Joaquin Phoenix walking out of interviews and the press junket being cancelled altogether, it’s safe to say that the path to release has not been easy, but what’s the finished product like?
Forever alone in a crowd, failed comedian Arthur Fleck (Phoenix) seeks connection as he walks the streets of Gotham City. Arthur wears two masks, the one he paints for his day job as a clown, and the guise he projects in a futile attempt to feel like he’s part of the world around him. Isolated, bullied and disregarded by society, Fleck begins a slow descent into madness as he transforms into the criminal mastermind known as the Joker.
Director of The Hangover trilogy, you’d be forgiven for thinking that Phillips is an odd choice to helm a picture like this, but his darkly comedic roots shine through in Joker and add a much-needed lightness of touch over the course of the running time. Without these pockets of humour, Joker would just be far too murky, more so than it already is.
Phoenix is absolutely astounding and his physical transformation defies words. Alongside Heath Ledger, these two very different portrayals of this iconic character are fully deserving of as much recognition as possible. Arguably however, Phoenix delivers the best iteration yet and one that perhaps needed even more commitment – this is a two-hour film dedicated to the character, whereas the Joker has always been a supporting part of previous films.
From the frame devoid of any muscle, dark circles under his eyes and wrinkles etched on his face, Phoenix’s dedication to this role is on another level to anything we have seen before. As his transformation from troubled Arthur Fleck to criminal mastermind gets underway, this only serves to highlight the acting prowess of this incredible performer. Elsewhere, supporting cast members like Robert De Niro, Frances Conroy and Zazie Beets are also wonderful in their roles of varying screen-time, but as Joker is a film about the singular character, they stay in the background, and rightly so.
The script too is exceptionally written. Phillips and co-writer Scott Silver, who also wrote 8 Mile, deliver a tightly wound screenplay that is at times just too tense for its own good. This is never a film you can sit back and relax to, it feels like you’re on the edge of your seat for the full two hours. The comedic notes that I alluded to earlier nicely round off some of the sharp edges however, but make no mistake, this is a brutal and unforgiving film.
The comedic notes… nicely round off some of the sharp edges
Criticism has been levelled already about the significance this film may have on those who already actively promote the character’s actions, and it’s easy to see why people are concerned. However, as an art form, Joker doesn’t need to be processed in such a way. Yes, it’s brutal, yes, it’s bloody and yes it sometimes hits too close to home about the issues we face in the real world, but cinema is escapism and that’s what it offers.
To look at it’s clear that the very modest of budget of $55million has been put to good use. The city of Gotham feels dirty, grimy and about to erupt and this is exactly how we as the audience want it to be. The uprising is coming and with each grimace from Phoenix’s face, we get closer and closer to that critical moment.
For me that critical moment occurs a little too late into the film and with not a lot of time left after this point, Joker tries to wrap up its loose ends too quickly, but this is a miniscule criticism in a deeply impressive and immersive cinema experience.
The score too is excellent. Icelandic composer Hildur Ingveldardóttir Guðnadóttir has worked on films like The Revenant and Sicario 2 and that gritty realism she brought to those films has been replicated here. It’s a soaring orchestral score populated with some sharp string solos that work perfectly with the character.
Overall, Joker is a masterpiece. Phoenix’s performance is one of the best I’ve ever had the pleasure of witnessing in the cinema and to go alongside that commitment the audience is treated to an engrossing script and beautiful score. Where DC has failed in the past is in forgetting to carve their own niche. Marvel has the 12A game all sewn up and there’s no point in competing there. Joker is the direction that should have been taken from the very beginning and it’s one of the best films I’ve seen in years.
Brutal? Yes. Beautiful? Absolutely.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A True successor to the original
Halloween 1978 and little-known director John Carpenter terrifies thousands of impressionable horror fans with the introduction of ‘The Shape’. Jamie Lee Curtis becomes the new ‘scream queen’ and all is well in the world of the slasher genre.
Fast-forward to 2009 and Rob Zombie directs the sequel to his reasonably successful remake of Halloween, but it was poorly received by critics and audiences alike. Why? Well Zombie’s grungy, rock-anthem vibe didn’t really sit too well with Michael Myers and the result was a distasteful and messy outing that set the franchise back nearly 10 years.
Of course, in between 1978 and 2009, the series was ripped apart, put back together again until it was a shadow of its former self. Anyone remember Busta Rhymes doing a vague impression of a karate master in Halloween: Resurrection? Best forget about that.
Nevertheless, director David Gordon Green, a lifetime fan of Carpenter’s iconic original is in the chair to helm a direct sequel to the 1978 classic. That’s right, it forgoes every single film apart from the first. But is it a worthy sequel to one of the greatest horror films of all time?
It’s been 40 years since Laurie Strode survived a vicious attack from crazed killer Michael Myers on Halloween night. Locked up in an institution, Myers manages to escape when his bus transfer goes horribly wrong. Laurie now faces a terrifying showdown when the masked madman returns to Haddonfield. But this time, she’s ready for him.
Having Jamie Lee Curtis and John Carpenter back for this instalment is already a coup for Gordon Green. Clearly, they thought enough of the material that he and co-writer Danny McBride had produced to give one more shot at crafting a properly deserved sequel. And it works very well, so well in fact that we have, barring the original, the best Halloween movie to date.
Jamie Lee Curtis is absolutely fabulous as a world-weary Laurie Strode. Traumatised by the events of 40 years ago, she holds herself up in a cabin on the outskirts of Haddonfield, flanked by floodlights and CCTV cameras. The script does a very good job at showing how massive events can destroy an individual’s life and Curtis’ understated performance is a highlight here.
Judy Greer gets a nicely fleshed out role as Karen, Laurie’s daughter. She’s an incredibly talented actress and it’s a world away from the one-dimensional characters she’s been given to play in blockbusters like Jurassic World. The great thing about this film is that each of the main characters feels real. There’s no cheap sex scenes, the kills are well-placed and the dialogue is superbly written – you actually believe these are real people, rather than characters in a movie.
While the body count is high, Halloween doesn’t rely on the murders to progress the story forward. This is very much Laurie’s film as opposed to Michael’s and it works very well. There’s some nice juxtaposition as shots that would have involved Michael in the original, choose to put Laurie front and centre here. Halloween features some tasteful references to the original as well as its less-well received sequels. They’re not immediately obvious for those not too familiar with the series, but die-hards will enjoy seeing those homages pop up every now and then.
Halloween is a resounding success. It takes what audiences loved about the original and updates them in a sequel that, while not being wholly original, respects what came before it
The film starts relatively slowly with a not quite successful side-plot involving two investigative journalists, but once Michael Myers gets his mask back, the film rarely lets up until the end. Populated by enough kills and scares to keep the audience happy, this is a Halloween movie that doesn’t rely too much on jump scares. There’s a few, but they’re nicely filmed which helps lift them above the mundane.
To look at, this is a film that is head and shoulders above anything else in the genre. Gordon Green uses incredibly fluid camera techniques that almost mimic those of the original. In one extended sequence, Myers moves in and out of shot as the camera follows him from house to house, selecting his next victim. With no cuts in between, it’s a stunning scene to watch and very effective.
Thankfully, the writing duo has decided to pass on giving Michael anything resembling a back story. The embodiment of ‘pure evil’ as Samuel Loomis once put it, Myers needn’t have any motives – and that’s what makes him so terrifying. In fact, his first kill here reaffirms his evil characteristics and it’s clear that David Gordon Green and Danny McBride were aiming for this take on the character.
Then there’s the score. John Carpenter has returned to craft new music for this instalment and it is by far the best score in the series, possibly even better than the original. That haunting Halloween theme tune is back, but upgraded with guitar riffs and electronic percussion. It’s a fabulous update that works perfectly with the modern characters and an older Michael.
While it’s true that the film isn’t out-and-out scary, the finale is exquisite as Laurie and Michael come face-to-face once again. Only the abrupt ending and forgetting of some key characters lets it down. After all, what’s the point in caring about a character and never learning of their fate?
Overall, Halloween is a resounding success. It takes what audiences loved about the original and updates them in a sequel that, while not being wholly original, respects what came before it. While this is sure to make bucket loads at the box-office, it feels like it was crafted with care by a writing team and director that absolutely adores the series. It’s a must watch.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/10/20/halloween-2018-review-a-true-successor-to-the-original/
Fast-forward to 2009 and Rob Zombie directs the sequel to his reasonably successful remake of Halloween, but it was poorly received by critics and audiences alike. Why? Well Zombie’s grungy, rock-anthem vibe didn’t really sit too well with Michael Myers and the result was a distasteful and messy outing that set the franchise back nearly 10 years.
Of course, in between 1978 and 2009, the series was ripped apart, put back together again until it was a shadow of its former self. Anyone remember Busta Rhymes doing a vague impression of a karate master in Halloween: Resurrection? Best forget about that.
Nevertheless, director David Gordon Green, a lifetime fan of Carpenter’s iconic original is in the chair to helm a direct sequel to the 1978 classic. That’s right, it forgoes every single film apart from the first. But is it a worthy sequel to one of the greatest horror films of all time?
It’s been 40 years since Laurie Strode survived a vicious attack from crazed killer Michael Myers on Halloween night. Locked up in an institution, Myers manages to escape when his bus transfer goes horribly wrong. Laurie now faces a terrifying showdown when the masked madman returns to Haddonfield. But this time, she’s ready for him.
Having Jamie Lee Curtis and John Carpenter back for this instalment is already a coup for Gordon Green. Clearly, they thought enough of the material that he and co-writer Danny McBride had produced to give one more shot at crafting a properly deserved sequel. And it works very well, so well in fact that we have, barring the original, the best Halloween movie to date.
Jamie Lee Curtis is absolutely fabulous as a world-weary Laurie Strode. Traumatised by the events of 40 years ago, she holds herself up in a cabin on the outskirts of Haddonfield, flanked by floodlights and CCTV cameras. The script does a very good job at showing how massive events can destroy an individual’s life and Curtis’ understated performance is a highlight here.
Judy Greer gets a nicely fleshed out role as Karen, Laurie’s daughter. She’s an incredibly talented actress and it’s a world away from the one-dimensional characters she’s been given to play in blockbusters like Jurassic World. The great thing about this film is that each of the main characters feels real. There’s no cheap sex scenes, the kills are well-placed and the dialogue is superbly written – you actually believe these are real people, rather than characters in a movie.
While the body count is high, Halloween doesn’t rely on the murders to progress the story forward. This is very much Laurie’s film as opposed to Michael’s and it works very well. There’s some nice juxtaposition as shots that would have involved Michael in the original, choose to put Laurie front and centre here. Halloween features some tasteful references to the original as well as its less-well received sequels. They’re not immediately obvious for those not too familiar with the series, but die-hards will enjoy seeing those homages pop up every now and then.
Halloween is a resounding success. It takes what audiences loved about the original and updates them in a sequel that, while not being wholly original, respects what came before it
The film starts relatively slowly with a not quite successful side-plot involving two investigative journalists, but once Michael Myers gets his mask back, the film rarely lets up until the end. Populated by enough kills and scares to keep the audience happy, this is a Halloween movie that doesn’t rely too much on jump scares. There’s a few, but they’re nicely filmed which helps lift them above the mundane.
To look at, this is a film that is head and shoulders above anything else in the genre. Gordon Green uses incredibly fluid camera techniques that almost mimic those of the original. In one extended sequence, Myers moves in and out of shot as the camera follows him from house to house, selecting his next victim. With no cuts in between, it’s a stunning scene to watch and very effective.
Thankfully, the writing duo has decided to pass on giving Michael anything resembling a back story. The embodiment of ‘pure evil’ as Samuel Loomis once put it, Myers needn’t have any motives – and that’s what makes him so terrifying. In fact, his first kill here reaffirms his evil characteristics and it’s clear that David Gordon Green and Danny McBride were aiming for this take on the character.
Then there’s the score. John Carpenter has returned to craft new music for this instalment and it is by far the best score in the series, possibly even better than the original. That haunting Halloween theme tune is back, but upgraded with guitar riffs and electronic percussion. It’s a fabulous update that works perfectly with the modern characters and an older Michael.
While it’s true that the film isn’t out-and-out scary, the finale is exquisite as Laurie and Michael come face-to-face once again. Only the abrupt ending and forgetting of some key characters lets it down. After all, what’s the point in caring about a character and never learning of their fate?
Overall, Halloween is a resounding success. It takes what audiences loved about the original and updates them in a sequel that, while not being wholly original, respects what came before it. While this is sure to make bucket loads at the box-office, it feels like it was crafted with care by a writing team and director that absolutely adores the series. It’s a must watch.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/10/20/halloween-2018-review-a-true-successor-to-the-original/
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?
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Nov 10, 2019
Joachim Phoenix - Oscar winning performance? (1 more)
Look and feel of the film - technically brilliant
A loser's tale.
“Joker” has managed to stir up a whirlwind of controversy, centring partly around the level of violence included but also on the use of “that song” on the soundtrack. But putting aside that flurry of commentary, what of the film itself?
Man, this is a dark film! It’s as much of an anti-superhero film as this year’s “Brightburn“. The Batman legacy has addressed the mental state of the protagonists before (both that of the hero and the villains). Here we have a real study of how a mentally unstable no-hoper can be pushed over the edge by bigotry, carelessness and government cut-backs.
Indeed, there is something alarmingly prescient about the movie’s plot line, watching this as we (in the UK) are in the month of possible (or as Boris Johnson would say, definite) Brexit madness! “Is it me, or is it getting crazier out there?” Arthur Fleck muses to his social worker (Sharon Washington). And a rant by Arthur late on goes “Everybody just yells and screams at each other. Nobody’s civil anymore. Nobody thinks what it’s like to be the other guy. You think men like Thomas Wayne ever think what it’s like to be someone like me? To be somebody but themselves? They don’t. They think that we’ll just sit there and take it, like good little boys! That we won’t werewolf and go wild!” Chilling words as we possibly face a very bumpy October and November in the UK.
After reviewing “Judy” I wouldn’t be the least surprised if I’d just seen the Best Actress award bagged (by Renée Zellweger). Now, with “Joker”, surely Joachim Phoenix might bag his first (and well overdue in my book) Oscar. Although nominated before (for “Gladiator”, “Walk the Line” and “The Master”) he’s never won. Here Phoenix’s physical transformation into Arthur Fleck is SIMPLY EXTRAORDINARY. And the way he captures the (medically) induced fits of helpless laughter, ending in a sort of choking fit, is brilliant and replicated to a ‘T’ on multiple occasions.
I loved “You Were Never Really Here“, primarily due to Phoenix’s pitch-perfect performance. And “Joker” reminded me very much of Lynne Ramsey‘s film: a disturbed loner, looking after his elderly mother; with violence meted out to wrong-doers. Joe is almost the yin to Arthur Fleck’s yang: Joe is an invisible man who is very much present; Arthur is a very visible man who thinks he is invisible. There’s even comment by Fleck towards the end of the film that sometimes he thinks he’s ‘not really there at all’! (A deliberate ‘in’ joke in reference to that film?)
After some pretty piss-poor “pension grabs” in recent years, culminating in the appalling career- nadir of “Dirty Grandpa” in 2016, Robert De Niro comes good with a fine performance as the idolised but thoughtless and cruel talk-show host Murray Franklin. It’s very much a supporting role, but delivered with great aplomb.
Also great again is “Deadpool 2“‘s Zazie Beetz (a great trivia answer for an actor with three ‘z’s’ in the name). This angle of the story is deviously clever, and Zazie handles the various twists and turns brilliantly.
Movie violence needs to be taken in context to both the film’s story and to the movie’s certificate. For those expecting a light and fluffy “Avengers” style of movie, they might be shocked by what they see. True that the film definitely pushes the boundaries of what I think is acceptable in a UK15-certificate film. … I suspect there were HEATED discussions at the BBFC after this screening! The violence though seems comparable to some other 15’s I’ve seen: a DIY-store drill scene in “The Equalizer” comes to mind.
A particularly brutal scene is reminiscent of a climactic scene in “Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood“, such that Quentin Tarantino might have just cause to appeal his ‘UK18’ certificate.
You might argue about the level of violence that SHOULD be shown in a 15 certificate film. But I think the violence portrayed – given this is in the known context an origin story for a psychopathic killer – is appropriate. I personally found the Heath Ledger‘s Joker’s “pencil trick” scene in “The Dark Knight” more disturbing, given it was a 12 certificate.
I have less sympathy for the inclusion of “Rock and Roll Part 2” on the soundtrack. The fact that a convicted paedophile (I refuse to say his name) is profiting from the ticket sales is galling. This is almost deliberately courting controversy. There has been some view that this is a “traditional” chant song at US football matches (as “The Hey Song”). But most (all?) teams have now recognized the connection and stopped its use. At least here the director and producers should have more of a ‘world view’ on this.
Where “Hangover” director Todd Phillips does recover some of this respect is in the quality of the script (co-written with Scott Silver) and the direction. It’s misdirection without mis-direction! Some of the twists in the plot (no spoilers here!) I did not see coming, and certain aspects of the story (again no spoilers!) are left brilliantly (and chillingly) vague.
Sure, it borrows heavily in story-line and mood from Martin Scorsese‘s “Taxi Driver”. And I was also reminded of 1993’s Joel Schumacher flick “Falling Down” where Michael Douglas is an ordinary man pushed to the edge and beyond by a series of life’s trials. But if you want to criticise a film for “not being 100% original” then let’s start at the top of the 2019 IMDB listings and keep going! I’ve also seen comment from some that criticises the somewhat clunky overlay of the Batman back-story into the script. I also understand that view but I didn’t personally share it.
Elsewhere I would not be surprised if the movie gets garlanded with technical Oscar nominations aplenty come January. The cinematography, by Phillips-regular Lawrence Sher, is exquisite in setting the grimy 70’s tone. (I loved the retro Warner Brothers logo too). And both video and sound editing is top-notch. Not forgetting a sonorous cello-heavy soundtrack that perfectly suits the mood. Want to put a bet on which film might top the “number of Oscar nominations” list? This might not be a bad choice.
Dark and brooding, with a slow-burn start, this is a proper drama that might make action superhero fans fidgety. But I simply loved it, and would love to carve out the time to give it a re-watch. The Phoenix performance is extraordinary. Will this make my Top 10 of the year? Fingers to head, and pull the trigger…. it’s a no-brainer.
Man, this is a dark film! It’s as much of an anti-superhero film as this year’s “Brightburn“. The Batman legacy has addressed the mental state of the protagonists before (both that of the hero and the villains). Here we have a real study of how a mentally unstable no-hoper can be pushed over the edge by bigotry, carelessness and government cut-backs.
Indeed, there is something alarmingly prescient about the movie’s plot line, watching this as we (in the UK) are in the month of possible (or as Boris Johnson would say, definite) Brexit madness! “Is it me, or is it getting crazier out there?” Arthur Fleck muses to his social worker (Sharon Washington). And a rant by Arthur late on goes “Everybody just yells and screams at each other. Nobody’s civil anymore. Nobody thinks what it’s like to be the other guy. You think men like Thomas Wayne ever think what it’s like to be someone like me? To be somebody but themselves? They don’t. They think that we’ll just sit there and take it, like good little boys! That we won’t werewolf and go wild!” Chilling words as we possibly face a very bumpy October and November in the UK.
After reviewing “Judy” I wouldn’t be the least surprised if I’d just seen the Best Actress award bagged (by Renée Zellweger). Now, with “Joker”, surely Joachim Phoenix might bag his first (and well overdue in my book) Oscar. Although nominated before (for “Gladiator”, “Walk the Line” and “The Master”) he’s never won. Here Phoenix’s physical transformation into Arthur Fleck is SIMPLY EXTRAORDINARY. And the way he captures the (medically) induced fits of helpless laughter, ending in a sort of choking fit, is brilliant and replicated to a ‘T’ on multiple occasions.
I loved “You Were Never Really Here“, primarily due to Phoenix’s pitch-perfect performance. And “Joker” reminded me very much of Lynne Ramsey‘s film: a disturbed loner, looking after his elderly mother; with violence meted out to wrong-doers. Joe is almost the yin to Arthur Fleck’s yang: Joe is an invisible man who is very much present; Arthur is a very visible man who thinks he is invisible. There’s even comment by Fleck towards the end of the film that sometimes he thinks he’s ‘not really there at all’! (A deliberate ‘in’ joke in reference to that film?)
After some pretty piss-poor “pension grabs” in recent years, culminating in the appalling career- nadir of “Dirty Grandpa” in 2016, Robert De Niro comes good with a fine performance as the idolised but thoughtless and cruel talk-show host Murray Franklin. It’s very much a supporting role, but delivered with great aplomb.
Also great again is “Deadpool 2“‘s Zazie Beetz (a great trivia answer for an actor with three ‘z’s’ in the name). This angle of the story is deviously clever, and Zazie handles the various twists and turns brilliantly.
Movie violence needs to be taken in context to both the film’s story and to the movie’s certificate. For those expecting a light and fluffy “Avengers” style of movie, they might be shocked by what they see. True that the film definitely pushes the boundaries of what I think is acceptable in a UK15-certificate film. … I suspect there were HEATED discussions at the BBFC after this screening! The violence though seems comparable to some other 15’s I’ve seen: a DIY-store drill scene in “The Equalizer” comes to mind.
A particularly brutal scene is reminiscent of a climactic scene in “Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood“, such that Quentin Tarantino might have just cause to appeal his ‘UK18’ certificate.
You might argue about the level of violence that SHOULD be shown in a 15 certificate film. But I think the violence portrayed – given this is in the known context an origin story for a psychopathic killer – is appropriate. I personally found the Heath Ledger‘s Joker’s “pencil trick” scene in “The Dark Knight” more disturbing, given it was a 12 certificate.
I have less sympathy for the inclusion of “Rock and Roll Part 2” on the soundtrack. The fact that a convicted paedophile (I refuse to say his name) is profiting from the ticket sales is galling. This is almost deliberately courting controversy. There has been some view that this is a “traditional” chant song at US football matches (as “The Hey Song”). But most (all?) teams have now recognized the connection and stopped its use. At least here the director and producers should have more of a ‘world view’ on this.
Where “Hangover” director Todd Phillips does recover some of this respect is in the quality of the script (co-written with Scott Silver) and the direction. It’s misdirection without mis-direction! Some of the twists in the plot (no spoilers here!) I did not see coming, and certain aspects of the story (again no spoilers!) are left brilliantly (and chillingly) vague.
Sure, it borrows heavily in story-line and mood from Martin Scorsese‘s “Taxi Driver”. And I was also reminded of 1993’s Joel Schumacher flick “Falling Down” where Michael Douglas is an ordinary man pushed to the edge and beyond by a series of life’s trials. But if you want to criticise a film for “not being 100% original” then let’s start at the top of the 2019 IMDB listings and keep going! I’ve also seen comment from some that criticises the somewhat clunky overlay of the Batman back-story into the script. I also understand that view but I didn’t personally share it.
Elsewhere I would not be surprised if the movie gets garlanded with technical Oscar nominations aplenty come January. The cinematography, by Phillips-regular Lawrence Sher, is exquisite in setting the grimy 70’s tone. (I loved the retro Warner Brothers logo too). And both video and sound editing is top-notch. Not forgetting a sonorous cello-heavy soundtrack that perfectly suits the mood. Want to put a bet on which film might top the “number of Oscar nominations” list? This might not be a bad choice.
Dark and brooding, with a slow-burn start, this is a proper drama that might make action superhero fans fidgety. But I simply loved it, and would love to carve out the time to give it a re-watch. The Phoenix performance is extraordinary. Will this make my Top 10 of the year? Fingers to head, and pull the trigger…. it’s a no-brainer.
Mothergamer (1521 KP) rated The Last of Us in Video Games
Apr 3, 2019
I have been slowly but surely going through my backlog of games, so I chose The Last Of Us Remastered to play next because I have been curious about it and many of my friends have been telling me I needed to play this game. To them I say you were right. I did need to play this game because it wasn't just fun to play; it was phenomenal story telling. When a game's story has me getting choked up about something within the first few minutes, I know it's going to be a heck of a ride and be great.
I couldn't help, but like Joel. This is a character that has been through something that is so devastating to him and yet somehow he's kept going on and had to do things that are not necessarily good, but that he felt had to be done in order to keep surviving especially since the world as everyone knows it has ended and a post-apocalyptic world is the new normal.
Is Joel a good person? No, not really. He's not really a terrible person either. His partner Tess was interesting also and she's another character that's not really good or evil. The Last Of Us really showcases that this world isn't really that black and white; there are varying shades of grey and not everyone is completely good or bad and that many of the people are just trying to survive any way they can.
It wasn't long before the story progressed to meeting Ellie. I loved Ellie. She was this mouthy 14 year old kid, but you come to realize that a lot of why she's like that is because she's scared of losing those she cares about and having to parent herself. In spite of that, Ellie always managed to dig down deep and find the courage to do what needed to be done and I admired and respected that level of strength in her. The interaction between Ellie and Joel at first was rather terse, but I understood that was normal especially for Joel because he just wanted to finish the mission and not get attached.
I really got into it because the game was that good for me. The combat controls are great; not clunky at all. Sometimes I would get nailed by an infected and have to start over from that point (I really HATE the Clickers and Bloaters, they're terrifying), but I didn't really mind because I was enjoying the story and wanted to know what happened next. There are human factions as well such as military, the Fireflies, and Hunters. This is definitely a game for adults because of how dark the story can be at certain points and because of the harsh violence.
Infected are scary!
The environments in the game are beautifully done. I found myself stopping and just looking at everything often. From riding a horse in the woods to an abandoned college campus with a herd of giraffes, all of it looks great and really stands out. The music in the game is perfectly done as well with some hauntingly beautiful melodies that add to the emotions of moments in the story.
Horse riding in the woods
Even an abandoned campus can be pretty
There were points in the story where I got pretty emotional because I came to care about the characters. I had to remind myself it was just a game, but it was difficult especially when it came to the characters of Henry and Sam. I actually had to walk away for a few minutes because I was so saddened by what happened to them especially with Sam because he and Ellie were close to the same age and they had bonded and became friends.
The big thing that stood out for me is the relationship between Joel and Ellie. I loved how it slowly progressed from Joel being reluctant about getting to know Ellie to during some slower moments like navigating an area to look for supplies there would be a bit of talking between them back and forth about different things such as what a type of video game was like or that an ice cream truck was a real thing. I also found myself chuckling at some of the awful puns that Ellie would read from her book of puns.
As I got further in the game I recognized that Joel is a very angry and desperate man, but when it came to Ellie he could have these moments of kindness and really seemed to look out for her. The story isn't in your face about it and it becomes this gradual evolution of Joel treating her like a daughter and her coming to trust him while they both support each other in a situation that is pretty dangerous and exhausting on many levels. It's poignant and the emotions from both characters is so incredible that it draws you into the story fully which shows how fantastic the voice acting was in this.
Joel and Ellie watching some giraffes.
When I got to the ending of the game, it made me think about a lot. It made me ask questions like could I do what Joel had done? Was the leader of the Fireflies right about sacrificing a few for the many? It brought up a lot of ideas about the choices that people have to make in this world and not all of them are easy; much of it involves hard choices. I liked the ending, but it definitely wasn't a sunshine happy ending because that's not the kind of game The Last of Us is.
I played the Left Behind DLC also and I thought it was interesting to get a chance to see what Ellie was like before she met Joel. It also shows you some moments that are pivotal in the main story line that focus on Ellie which are also great. I liked the interaction between her and Riley because it brings some lightheartedness to the game with them just being kids and having fun, forgetting about the dark things going on in their world for a moment. It also shows some great emotional moments between Ellie and Riley that don't feel forced and seem to happen quite naturally. Of course the cheerful stuff only lasts for so long and then it's back to some very sad things happening. The final conversation between Ellie and Riley just before Left Behind ends had me choking back some tears because it was this heartfelt moment between two characters that truly cared for and loved each other.
Ellie and Riley having fun in a photo booth.
This is exactly why I loved The Last Of Us. It is hands down one of the best games I've ever played because of how intelligent the writing for this was creating a game that is perfectly story driven with some very memorable characters; characters that you find yourself caring about a great deal. The exploration of the various relationships are wonderfully executed making for a fantastic gaming and story experience. The game play is excellent and it shows that a lot of thought was put into getting things just right. The Last Of Us is a game title that I am thrilled to have in my gaming collection and it's absolutely worth playing.
I couldn't help, but like Joel. This is a character that has been through something that is so devastating to him and yet somehow he's kept going on and had to do things that are not necessarily good, but that he felt had to be done in order to keep surviving especially since the world as everyone knows it has ended and a post-apocalyptic world is the new normal.
Is Joel a good person? No, not really. He's not really a terrible person either. His partner Tess was interesting also and she's another character that's not really good or evil. The Last Of Us really showcases that this world isn't really that black and white; there are varying shades of grey and not everyone is completely good or bad and that many of the people are just trying to survive any way they can.
It wasn't long before the story progressed to meeting Ellie. I loved Ellie. She was this mouthy 14 year old kid, but you come to realize that a lot of why she's like that is because she's scared of losing those she cares about and having to parent herself. In spite of that, Ellie always managed to dig down deep and find the courage to do what needed to be done and I admired and respected that level of strength in her. The interaction between Ellie and Joel at first was rather terse, but I understood that was normal especially for Joel because he just wanted to finish the mission and not get attached.
I really got into it because the game was that good for me. The combat controls are great; not clunky at all. Sometimes I would get nailed by an infected and have to start over from that point (I really HATE the Clickers and Bloaters, they're terrifying), but I didn't really mind because I was enjoying the story and wanted to know what happened next. There are human factions as well such as military, the Fireflies, and Hunters. This is definitely a game for adults because of how dark the story can be at certain points and because of the harsh violence.
Infected are scary!
The environments in the game are beautifully done. I found myself stopping and just looking at everything often. From riding a horse in the woods to an abandoned college campus with a herd of giraffes, all of it looks great and really stands out. The music in the game is perfectly done as well with some hauntingly beautiful melodies that add to the emotions of moments in the story.
Horse riding in the woods
Even an abandoned campus can be pretty
There were points in the story where I got pretty emotional because I came to care about the characters. I had to remind myself it was just a game, but it was difficult especially when it came to the characters of Henry and Sam. I actually had to walk away for a few minutes because I was so saddened by what happened to them especially with Sam because he and Ellie were close to the same age and they had bonded and became friends.
The big thing that stood out for me is the relationship between Joel and Ellie. I loved how it slowly progressed from Joel being reluctant about getting to know Ellie to during some slower moments like navigating an area to look for supplies there would be a bit of talking between them back and forth about different things such as what a type of video game was like or that an ice cream truck was a real thing. I also found myself chuckling at some of the awful puns that Ellie would read from her book of puns.
As I got further in the game I recognized that Joel is a very angry and desperate man, but when it came to Ellie he could have these moments of kindness and really seemed to look out for her. The story isn't in your face about it and it becomes this gradual evolution of Joel treating her like a daughter and her coming to trust him while they both support each other in a situation that is pretty dangerous and exhausting on many levels. It's poignant and the emotions from both characters is so incredible that it draws you into the story fully which shows how fantastic the voice acting was in this.
Joel and Ellie watching some giraffes.
When I got to the ending of the game, it made me think about a lot. It made me ask questions like could I do what Joel had done? Was the leader of the Fireflies right about sacrificing a few for the many? It brought up a lot of ideas about the choices that people have to make in this world and not all of them are easy; much of it involves hard choices. I liked the ending, but it definitely wasn't a sunshine happy ending because that's not the kind of game The Last of Us is.
I played the Left Behind DLC also and I thought it was interesting to get a chance to see what Ellie was like before she met Joel. It also shows you some moments that are pivotal in the main story line that focus on Ellie which are also great. I liked the interaction between her and Riley because it brings some lightheartedness to the game with them just being kids and having fun, forgetting about the dark things going on in their world for a moment. It also shows some great emotional moments between Ellie and Riley that don't feel forced and seem to happen quite naturally. Of course the cheerful stuff only lasts for so long and then it's back to some very sad things happening. The final conversation between Ellie and Riley just before Left Behind ends had me choking back some tears because it was this heartfelt moment between two characters that truly cared for and loved each other.
Ellie and Riley having fun in a photo booth.
This is exactly why I loved The Last Of Us. It is hands down one of the best games I've ever played because of how intelligent the writing for this was creating a game that is perfectly story driven with some very memorable characters; characters that you find yourself caring about a great deal. The exploration of the various relationships are wonderfully executed making for a fantastic gaming and story experience. The game play is excellent and it shows that a lot of thought was put into getting things just right. The Last Of Us is a game title that I am thrilled to have in my gaming collection and it's absolutely worth playing.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Questeros in Tabletop Games
Jan 21, 2021
You know that messed up deal when you are just chillin’ in the forest doing goblin-y things when you are caught and forced into a life of servitude by the king of the realm, and then when he needs someone to go on a dangerous quest he calls upon you, the now court jester, to fulfill said quest? Doesn’t that just chap your hide? Such is exactly the setting in which our hero(?) finds themselves in Questeros, or more fitting, Ero’s Quest (the solo adventure variant).
Ero is the goblin court jester from the open who has been “chosen” to quest about the land to rid it of the ne’er-do-wells of the realm. In this solo adventure mode of Questeros the player will be donning the visage and character of Ero as they travel about developing their skills and having encounters with powerful beings. It is up to the player to guide Ero through the kingdom and rid it of the foul that is plaguing it.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, as there are just too many. You are invited to download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup the solo game, fondly and ingeniously-named “Ero’s Quest,” follow the rulebook to divide the tarot cards into their specific stacks and splays so that it roughly imitates the photo below. Draw a hand of five cards from the deck and the game may begin.
On a turn the player has a choice of seven actions that may be performed in any order. Each action may only be performed once per turn and when the turn is over the final action is Rest. To use the Develop action the player will place a card from their hand onto the Blades, Staves, or Orbs stacks in next-numerical order. This increases Ero’s attack and spending power. To Puchase cards Ero will spend Orb cards to look at the spent Orb value worth of cards from the draw deck, add one to their hand, and place the others at the bottom of the draw deck. At times Ero will need to Forget cards from hand in order to make room for more cards to enter it via the Learn action. Forgetting simply discards cards from hand while learning draws cards into hand from the draw deck. Recover is used to stand any kneeling/turned/rotated cards into an unused state by destroying cards of higher value from hand. As stated previously, to Rest is to end the turn by discarding the top card of the draw deck to setup the next turn.
I purposely left out the final action choice, Encounter, for a specific reason. Ero’s Quest is won when the entire deck of 21 Encounter cards is defeated. Each of these cards depicts a person or persons that Ero meets in his travels. Some require Ero to give them cards in order to pass. Some require Ero to succeed in battle against them in order to progress. In either case, Ero will need to get through the entire deck before his draw deck runs out in order to win the game.
Battle in Ero’s Quest is turn-based, where the Encounter persona attacks first, thus handing Ero wounds immediately. Wounds are suffered by spending Cups cards in value of the wound taken. For example, the Assassin is a value of 12, so they immediately wound Ero for 12 damage at the start of the encounter. Ero will spend a value of 12 Cups cards to simulate damage taken. Ero may then attack with a combination of available Blades, Staves, and any Ally cards obtained – one of each per attack turn. If the Encounter is defeated, Ero lives on. If the Encounter is not yet defeated, the battle continues with the Encounter card dealing damage and Ero responding with damage until one is defeated.
As mentioned earlier, the Encounter deck contains 21 cards with six of these being combat encounters. Ero has a ton of work to do and when each turn requires a card to be discarded before a new round may begin, they also have an in-game clock ticking and ticking each turn. However, if Ero is able to Develop their skills and overcome all the Encounters, the game is won and Ero becomes a Hero.
Components. Again, this is a prototype copy of the game, and many items are not fully completed in this version. That said, what we were provided is a large stack of tarot-sized cards, a first player Ero token (for multiplayer games), and a large pad of scoring sheets (also for multiplayer use). The cards are great quality and feature some really excellent artwork (on the cards that have the completed artwork on them). I do like the art style employed here, as I am a fan of fantasy themes, and I know that the game will probably ship with similar iconography, but may also be color-coded for ease of reference. All in all I believe Questeros is headed in the right direction for components, and a successful Kickstarter campaign may improve that even further.
The gameplay for the solo adventure of Ero’s Quest is really decent and engaging. So often I have found myself crunching numbers in my head and attempting to utilize my horrible card-counting “skills” to determine my next actions to take. Turns can be very intense and fruitful, or very frustrating and minimal, especially when you are waiting to draw that 3 of Blades so you can place it on the 2 of Blades sitting there, but it just won’t come up. And here you are sitting with the 4, 5, and 6 of Blades in hand and a Necromancer staring right at you awaiting combat. That is the definition of frustrating, but games usually take less than an hour, so even if an entire game is chock full of these turns, you can always setup a new game quickly and hope for better luck.
I like this one. I really do. It is interesting, has a great theme, so many delicious choices, and multiple ways to use the cards for game modes or tarot decks or even RPG FATE decks! On versatility alone I would rate this one high. If you are looking for a little card game to satisfy your mid-weight solo thirst, then check out Questeros. If you need a tarot game in your collection (as I look at mine and see no others), consider this one. It takes up very little shelf space, but looks great on the table and offers a great little solo experience. I have yet to beat the solo adventure, but Ero is calling my name for another go, and I might just have to give in. Again. And again.
Ero is the goblin court jester from the open who has been “chosen” to quest about the land to rid it of the ne’er-do-wells of the realm. In this solo adventure mode of Questeros the player will be donning the visage and character of Ero as they travel about developing their skills and having encounters with powerful beings. It is up to the player to guide Ero through the kingdom and rid it of the foul that is plaguing it.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, as there are just too many. You are invited to download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup the solo game, fondly and ingeniously-named “Ero’s Quest,” follow the rulebook to divide the tarot cards into their specific stacks and splays so that it roughly imitates the photo below. Draw a hand of five cards from the deck and the game may begin.
On a turn the player has a choice of seven actions that may be performed in any order. Each action may only be performed once per turn and when the turn is over the final action is Rest. To use the Develop action the player will place a card from their hand onto the Blades, Staves, or Orbs stacks in next-numerical order. This increases Ero’s attack and spending power. To Puchase cards Ero will spend Orb cards to look at the spent Orb value worth of cards from the draw deck, add one to their hand, and place the others at the bottom of the draw deck. At times Ero will need to Forget cards from hand in order to make room for more cards to enter it via the Learn action. Forgetting simply discards cards from hand while learning draws cards into hand from the draw deck. Recover is used to stand any kneeling/turned/rotated cards into an unused state by destroying cards of higher value from hand. As stated previously, to Rest is to end the turn by discarding the top card of the draw deck to setup the next turn.
I purposely left out the final action choice, Encounter, for a specific reason. Ero’s Quest is won when the entire deck of 21 Encounter cards is defeated. Each of these cards depicts a person or persons that Ero meets in his travels. Some require Ero to give them cards in order to pass. Some require Ero to succeed in battle against them in order to progress. In either case, Ero will need to get through the entire deck before his draw deck runs out in order to win the game.
Battle in Ero’s Quest is turn-based, where the Encounter persona attacks first, thus handing Ero wounds immediately. Wounds are suffered by spending Cups cards in value of the wound taken. For example, the Assassin is a value of 12, so they immediately wound Ero for 12 damage at the start of the encounter. Ero will spend a value of 12 Cups cards to simulate damage taken. Ero may then attack with a combination of available Blades, Staves, and any Ally cards obtained – one of each per attack turn. If the Encounter is defeated, Ero lives on. If the Encounter is not yet defeated, the battle continues with the Encounter card dealing damage and Ero responding with damage until one is defeated.
As mentioned earlier, the Encounter deck contains 21 cards with six of these being combat encounters. Ero has a ton of work to do and when each turn requires a card to be discarded before a new round may begin, they also have an in-game clock ticking and ticking each turn. However, if Ero is able to Develop their skills and overcome all the Encounters, the game is won and Ero becomes a Hero.
Components. Again, this is a prototype copy of the game, and many items are not fully completed in this version. That said, what we were provided is a large stack of tarot-sized cards, a first player Ero token (for multiplayer games), and a large pad of scoring sheets (also for multiplayer use). The cards are great quality and feature some really excellent artwork (on the cards that have the completed artwork on them). I do like the art style employed here, as I am a fan of fantasy themes, and I know that the game will probably ship with similar iconography, but may also be color-coded for ease of reference. All in all I believe Questeros is headed in the right direction for components, and a successful Kickstarter campaign may improve that even further.
The gameplay for the solo adventure of Ero’s Quest is really decent and engaging. So often I have found myself crunching numbers in my head and attempting to utilize my horrible card-counting “skills” to determine my next actions to take. Turns can be very intense and fruitful, or very frustrating and minimal, especially when you are waiting to draw that 3 of Blades so you can place it on the 2 of Blades sitting there, but it just won’t come up. And here you are sitting with the 4, 5, and 6 of Blades in hand and a Necromancer staring right at you awaiting combat. That is the definition of frustrating, but games usually take less than an hour, so even if an entire game is chock full of these turns, you can always setup a new game quickly and hope for better luck.
I like this one. I really do. It is interesting, has a great theme, so many delicious choices, and multiple ways to use the cards for game modes or tarot decks or even RPG FATE decks! On versatility alone I would rate this one high. If you are looking for a little card game to satisfy your mid-weight solo thirst, then check out Questeros. If you need a tarot game in your collection (as I look at mine and see no others), consider this one. It takes up very little shelf space, but looks great on the table and offers a great little solo experience. I have yet to beat the solo adventure, but Ero is calling my name for another go, and I might just have to give in. Again. And again.
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Game Of Thrones in TV
Jul 1, 2019
Winter has come and gone... and there won't ever be anything like it again!
Contains spoilers, click to show
Game of Thrones. The only show that drove people to brag on social media about the fact they've never seen it every time a new series came out!
I watched this from Season 3, quickly binging the first two seasons about a week before it aired. I'm not a huge Fantasy fan, but this show really was something else. Despite the setting, it gave us everything - blood, guts, drama, sex... even comedy. It gave us some of the most vile and hated antagonists to ever grace the screen, and it made heroes out of the unlikeliest of people.
Watching it week-to-week was difficult for a couple of reasons. One, so much is going on (especially in the earlier seasons) that you can forget a lot in a week, and you find yourself questioning everything. Two, it's so bloody good, you didn't want to wait a whole week to get your fix! Obviously, now it's finished, the second issue is no longer relevant - it's available to binge to your heart's content, which you absolutely should do.
I want to address the recent criticism of the eighth and final season. We waited over two years for it, and many people felt it was rushed, too short and too shallow. I would say 75% of people who watched the last season were left disappointed. Myself included.
But a few days after it had finished, I found myself thinking about the series as a whole more and more. I was reading articles online, theories and arguments about how and why the story played out the way it did. I realised I had felt somewhat detached watching Season 8 because it HAD been two years since I watched Season 7. It's as if I'd forgotten what it was like to watch it.
So, having never seen any episode more than once, I went back to the beginning and watched all eight seasons in a little under three weeks...
SO MUCH BETTER the second time around!
For two reasons. Firstly, there was no break in the story at all. Watching it as it aired meant you had a 12-month break every 10 hours, basically. Easy to lose your thread. Easy to forget things. When that doesn't happen, it's much more enjoyable and actually makes a lot more sense. There was so much I'd forgotten over the course of the nine years it was on, I kind of felt like I'd cheated myself, in a way, by not watching Seasons 1-7 before Season 8 aired.
Second, much in the way that Star Wars Episodes 1-3 work better if you've seen 4-6 first, Game of Thrones was actually much more enjoyable having seen the ending, because things make a lot more sense in retrospect.
***This is where it gets spoilery***
It becomes evident early on, even in the first season, that Jon Snow is one to watch. His shocking death at the end of Season 5 caused much confusion and debate. Obviously, his resurrection early in Season 6 put an end to that, and when the secret about his true identity is finally revealed in Season 8, it was a shocking moment, as everything started to fall into place and the true threat became evident.
However...
Having now done Seasons 1-8 back-to-back, the revelation that Jon Snow is, in fact, a Targaryen is far from surprising, given they've been dropping clues about it since back in the first few episodes. Obviously, at the time, these seemingly throwaway comments meant nothing, but now we know, there are numerous conversations throughout the show that border on being spoilers themselves.
Same with Arya Stark and her storyline. Second time around, even from Season 1, it's evident she was destined to slay The Night King. And as with Jon Snow, you never would've picked up on it at the time, but in hindsight it's been obvious for years.
Now, the major criticism about Season 8 was that it felt rushed and that it sacrificed too many characters arcs for the sake of finishing inside of six episodes. Watching it as it aired, I completely agreed. Jon Snow "suddenly" went from a brooding hero to a pointless extra. Daenerys Targaryen "suddenly" went from the freer of slaves and saviour of Westeros to an insane despot who slaughtered half the world because someone took her toys away.
Not true.
It seemed like that after two years of forgetting almost everything that had happened previously, but watching it from start to finish in one go, those things make perfect sense, and aren't actually that sudden. The Mother of Dragons showed clear and obvious signs of becoming The Mad Queen of Ashes very early on in the show. She was always kind and fair and just... but my goodness, did you get it if you pissed her off! Let's not forget she crucified almost 200 slave-owners long after they surrendered to prove a point. And poor Sam Tarly's father and brother! She had a mean streak, and she lived on a knife's edge. At any point since she married Khal Drogo back at the beginning of Season 1, the slightest push and she would snap. Fast forward to Season 8 and, after many years of fighting to fulfil her birthright and take the Iron Throne, she finds out she's not actually the heir to it at all... that's a pretty big push to a woman with a history of losing her shit when things don't go her way. So not much of a surprise at all, really.
And to address the criticism further, I'll analyse this as a writer. I tell stories for a living. When you're writing a novel, you look at it as a triangle, of sorts. It starts off wide and gradually gets to a point. Game of Thrones began very wide, with lots of characters and subplots. But as time goes on, it narrows and becomes more focused on the main threat... the main storylines - the battle against The Night King and the fight for the Iron Throne. Those two things are what nine years of storytelling were working towards, so yes, when you get to the final season and you have to wrap things up, it makes sense that you're going to focus on the big finish - the point of the series.
Not only that, for the first six seasons, the shows writers and creators had their hands held by George R. R. Martin and his source material. But then the TV show caught up with the books, which meant they suddenly had nothing more than a handful of bullet points to work off instead. Not easy to go from one to the other. They can't embellish things too much, because they run the risk of contradicting and undermining future books, which Mr. Martin wouldn't allow them to do. So they had to keep it simple, stick to the point and finish the job they started - nothing more.
Ultimately, no one likes to see their favourite show end. In hindsight, I think a lot of the criticism the final season received was because the audience forgot what came before it, and because they didn't want it to end.
If you're reading this having never watched it before.... first of all, sorry for ruining the story for you (but I did say it contained spoilers, in my defence). But you have the benefit of being able to binge through this, which means you'll get the full, uninterrupted experience, which is well worth the investment of your time to do.
If you HAVE watched the show before, I strongly suggest re-watching it from the beginning, because I enjoyed it far more the second time around.
This is the kind of show that comes along once a generation. The kind of show people talk about daily long after it finished. It redefines TV drama and I can promise you, you'll never see anything like it again.
That said, don't watch it if you're easily offended or grossed out. Or if you like animals. Oh, and don't watch Season 4, Episode 8 whilst you're eating. And don't watch Season 3, Episode 9 if you believe in the afterlife and have your heart set on getting into Heaven. And it's perfectly acceptable to watch Season 6, Episode 9 and feel like that's what you would do if faced with certain death.
Just perfect.
I watched this from Season 3, quickly binging the first two seasons about a week before it aired. I'm not a huge Fantasy fan, but this show really was something else. Despite the setting, it gave us everything - blood, guts, drama, sex... even comedy. It gave us some of the most vile and hated antagonists to ever grace the screen, and it made heroes out of the unlikeliest of people.
Watching it week-to-week was difficult for a couple of reasons. One, so much is going on (especially in the earlier seasons) that you can forget a lot in a week, and you find yourself questioning everything. Two, it's so bloody good, you didn't want to wait a whole week to get your fix! Obviously, now it's finished, the second issue is no longer relevant - it's available to binge to your heart's content, which you absolutely should do.
I want to address the recent criticism of the eighth and final season. We waited over two years for it, and many people felt it was rushed, too short and too shallow. I would say 75% of people who watched the last season were left disappointed. Myself included.
But a few days after it had finished, I found myself thinking about the series as a whole more and more. I was reading articles online, theories and arguments about how and why the story played out the way it did. I realised I had felt somewhat detached watching Season 8 because it HAD been two years since I watched Season 7. It's as if I'd forgotten what it was like to watch it.
So, having never seen any episode more than once, I went back to the beginning and watched all eight seasons in a little under three weeks...
SO MUCH BETTER the second time around!
For two reasons. Firstly, there was no break in the story at all. Watching it as it aired meant you had a 12-month break every 10 hours, basically. Easy to lose your thread. Easy to forget things. When that doesn't happen, it's much more enjoyable and actually makes a lot more sense. There was so much I'd forgotten over the course of the nine years it was on, I kind of felt like I'd cheated myself, in a way, by not watching Seasons 1-7 before Season 8 aired.
Second, much in the way that Star Wars Episodes 1-3 work better if you've seen 4-6 first, Game of Thrones was actually much more enjoyable having seen the ending, because things make a lot more sense in retrospect.
***This is where it gets spoilery***
It becomes evident early on, even in the first season, that Jon Snow is one to watch. His shocking death at the end of Season 5 caused much confusion and debate. Obviously, his resurrection early in Season 6 put an end to that, and when the secret about his true identity is finally revealed in Season 8, it was a shocking moment, as everything started to fall into place and the true threat became evident.
However...
Having now done Seasons 1-8 back-to-back, the revelation that Jon Snow is, in fact, a Targaryen is far from surprising, given they've been dropping clues about it since back in the first few episodes. Obviously, at the time, these seemingly throwaway comments meant nothing, but now we know, there are numerous conversations throughout the show that border on being spoilers themselves.
Same with Arya Stark and her storyline. Second time around, even from Season 1, it's evident she was destined to slay The Night King. And as with Jon Snow, you never would've picked up on it at the time, but in hindsight it's been obvious for years.
Now, the major criticism about Season 8 was that it felt rushed and that it sacrificed too many characters arcs for the sake of finishing inside of six episodes. Watching it as it aired, I completely agreed. Jon Snow "suddenly" went from a brooding hero to a pointless extra. Daenerys Targaryen "suddenly" went from the freer of slaves and saviour of Westeros to an insane despot who slaughtered half the world because someone took her toys away.
Not true.
It seemed like that after two years of forgetting almost everything that had happened previously, but watching it from start to finish in one go, those things make perfect sense, and aren't actually that sudden. The Mother of Dragons showed clear and obvious signs of becoming The Mad Queen of Ashes very early on in the show. She was always kind and fair and just... but my goodness, did you get it if you pissed her off! Let's not forget she crucified almost 200 slave-owners long after they surrendered to prove a point. And poor Sam Tarly's father and brother! She had a mean streak, and she lived on a knife's edge. At any point since she married Khal Drogo back at the beginning of Season 1, the slightest push and she would snap. Fast forward to Season 8 and, after many years of fighting to fulfil her birthright and take the Iron Throne, she finds out she's not actually the heir to it at all... that's a pretty big push to a woman with a history of losing her shit when things don't go her way. So not much of a surprise at all, really.
And to address the criticism further, I'll analyse this as a writer. I tell stories for a living. When you're writing a novel, you look at it as a triangle, of sorts. It starts off wide and gradually gets to a point. Game of Thrones began very wide, with lots of characters and subplots. But as time goes on, it narrows and becomes more focused on the main threat... the main storylines - the battle against The Night King and the fight for the Iron Throne. Those two things are what nine years of storytelling were working towards, so yes, when you get to the final season and you have to wrap things up, it makes sense that you're going to focus on the big finish - the point of the series.
Not only that, for the first six seasons, the shows writers and creators had their hands held by George R. R. Martin and his source material. But then the TV show caught up with the books, which meant they suddenly had nothing more than a handful of bullet points to work off instead. Not easy to go from one to the other. They can't embellish things too much, because they run the risk of contradicting and undermining future books, which Mr. Martin wouldn't allow them to do. So they had to keep it simple, stick to the point and finish the job they started - nothing more.
Ultimately, no one likes to see their favourite show end. In hindsight, I think a lot of the criticism the final season received was because the audience forgot what came before it, and because they didn't want it to end.
If you're reading this having never watched it before.... first of all, sorry for ruining the story for you (but I did say it contained spoilers, in my defence). But you have the benefit of being able to binge through this, which means you'll get the full, uninterrupted experience, which is well worth the investment of your time to do.
If you HAVE watched the show before, I strongly suggest re-watching it from the beginning, because I enjoyed it far more the second time around.
This is the kind of show that comes along once a generation. The kind of show people talk about daily long after it finished. It redefines TV drama and I can promise you, you'll never see anything like it again.
That said, don't watch it if you're easily offended or grossed out. Or if you like animals. Oh, and don't watch Season 4, Episode 8 whilst you're eating. And don't watch Season 3, Episode 9 if you believe in the afterlife and have your heart set on getting into Heaven. And it's perfectly acceptable to watch Season 6, Episode 9 and feel like that's what you would do if faced with certain death.
Just perfect.