Search
Search results
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Unsolved Mysteries in TV
Jan 22, 2021 (Updated Jan 22, 2021)
It is a guilty secret of mine that when in the right mood I love to get a small fix of the unexplained or the macabre true crime documentary type thing. They tend to range from truly ridiculous to the mildly convincing, but tend not to have especially high production value. Netflix seem to know there is demand for it however, and every now and again there is a mini-series that can live in the same box as the more serious docs.
Making a Murderer was maybe the first to break through into the mainstream consciousness, some five years ago. I watched the first series of that with a morbid fascination, as did everyone else. The second season was interesting too, but lacked the cliffhanger drive of the first. Then there are three or four parters like the superlative Ted Bundy Tapes, which get to the point and don’t out stay their welcome. Unsolved Mysteries is sort of something in the middle.
The twist on this series is that these six stories are all active cases that remain unsolved by local police forces, and we are encouraged at the end of each one to call a hotline with any info that may lead to an arrest. This is a gimmick, of course, and I can’t imagine the calls and emails they have been getting! Those would make a better TV show than this actually is, for sure.
Each episode is an hour long, which in honesty is twice as long as it needs to be in half the cases. In fact, only two of the six captured my imagination enough to give me chills and want to know what happened. The other four were standard missing person stories that although “unsolved” were pretty mundane. As mundane as murder ever gets… which is a pitfall of watching this stuff… it all gets quite normalised and loses its power to disturb, as it should.
The first to interest me was the first up, the strange story of Rey Rivera, known as “the mystery on the rooftop”. The thing that got me was the hidden note taped to the back of his computer, that read like a coded message, and hinted at involvement with a secret society. That, combined with the fact that his fall to death was impossible, and that his boss put a gagging order on all his staff after the event. Whatever this guy had going on in his life it was weird! And his family knew not one thing about it…
The second was “House of Terror”, the story of a French aristocrat who secretly shot his entire family while they slept, carefully buried them under the back porch with immense care, left no other trace of evidence in the house, then disappeared forever into the mountains, seemingly creating a deliberate false trail on CCTV. What got me here was the calculation and calm of it all, combined with the mystery of not knowing his motive, other than the fact he may have been living a lie about how successful he was financially. Regardless, his actions were so cool and unpanicked, it was like watching something out of the Bourne Identity.
As I say, otherwise it is all pretty standard stuff, and nothing to write home about. But I will remember those two cases and be holding out for any new developments in them. I guess that’s all they want – enough intrigue to keep you hooked for more down the line. Of course, you are never quite sure how manipulative with the “truth” these things are? It seemed to be presented soberly and without a sensationalist angle, but you never know. Why do I watch them at all, that is the biggest mystery…
Making a Murderer was maybe the first to break through into the mainstream consciousness, some five years ago. I watched the first series of that with a morbid fascination, as did everyone else. The second season was interesting too, but lacked the cliffhanger drive of the first. Then there are three or four parters like the superlative Ted Bundy Tapes, which get to the point and don’t out stay their welcome. Unsolved Mysteries is sort of something in the middle.
The twist on this series is that these six stories are all active cases that remain unsolved by local police forces, and we are encouraged at the end of each one to call a hotline with any info that may lead to an arrest. This is a gimmick, of course, and I can’t imagine the calls and emails they have been getting! Those would make a better TV show than this actually is, for sure.
Each episode is an hour long, which in honesty is twice as long as it needs to be in half the cases. In fact, only two of the six captured my imagination enough to give me chills and want to know what happened. The other four were standard missing person stories that although “unsolved” were pretty mundane. As mundane as murder ever gets… which is a pitfall of watching this stuff… it all gets quite normalised and loses its power to disturb, as it should.
The first to interest me was the first up, the strange story of Rey Rivera, known as “the mystery on the rooftop”. The thing that got me was the hidden note taped to the back of his computer, that read like a coded message, and hinted at involvement with a secret society. That, combined with the fact that his fall to death was impossible, and that his boss put a gagging order on all his staff after the event. Whatever this guy had going on in his life it was weird! And his family knew not one thing about it…
The second was “House of Terror”, the story of a French aristocrat who secretly shot his entire family while they slept, carefully buried them under the back porch with immense care, left no other trace of evidence in the house, then disappeared forever into the mountains, seemingly creating a deliberate false trail on CCTV. What got me here was the calculation and calm of it all, combined with the mystery of not knowing his motive, other than the fact he may have been living a lie about how successful he was financially. Regardless, his actions were so cool and unpanicked, it was like watching something out of the Bourne Identity.
As I say, otherwise it is all pretty standard stuff, and nothing to write home about. But I will remember those two cases and be holding out for any new developments in them. I guess that’s all they want – enough intrigue to keep you hooked for more down the line. Of course, you are never quite sure how manipulative with the “truth” these things are? It seemed to be presented soberly and without a sensationalist angle, but you never know. Why do I watch them at all, that is the biggest mystery…
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated The Purge (2013) in Movies
Jan 28, 2021
Contains spoilers, click to show
I wanted a 'Killer in masks/home invasion' and that's what I got but there is a lot going on it 'The Purge' :
1) We have the purge itself, a new political party has come in and started titular Purge, one night a year where any crime is legal (although the emphasis is on killing and, via subtext, rape). There are a few exceptions stated at the start of the film and, although it's not directly stated, it seems that minors are exempt, in that they can be targets but not actually participate in the killing.
2)The 'Boyfriend' subplot. This could have led to the main plot but seems to be there just to keep us off track at the beginning.
3) The bloody stranger - ok he's needed as he's the main McGuffin
4) The Freaks, Yes the film needs it's antagonists and it's sometimes good to throw in a red herring but we have; The Freaks, Henry (the boy friend), The Bloody stranger who is suspected as being dangerous when he first arrives, even Janes Sandin looks like he could be the antagonist when he is going to throw the stranger out of the house, then we have...
5) The neighbours - even from the start of the film there is something off about them.
6) Add all of this together with a lot of politics and you have a very layered film.
The first half of the film is mainly set up, setting up the idea of the purge and introducing the characters, there are a few shots of violence in the beginning but the film starts off slow. Then it explodes in violence.
Although the concept is the same, The Purge is a different beast to something like 'The Strangers', both films spend time building up to the the action but, when the action starts, the Purge is much faster paced, mainly because there are more 'hunters' and they have guns.
The Purge is also a very political film but it doesn't go down the 'rich vs poor' root that a lot of films do, this is mentioned a bit but only to back up the thinking behind some of those who partake in the event. The film shows two sides of the Purge and mentions two more, you have those that want to take part in the event and those (like the main family) who don't, the Sandin's just want to get through the night where as the 'Freaks' happily take part in it. It's also mentioned that there are those who can not protect themselves (the poor) and those that object.
After watching it I am left with two questions:
1) what happened to Henrys body? We last saw it in Zoey's room, no one mentioned moving it and it couldn't have been taken out of the house but it was never seen when the Freaks were going room to room, they even went into the room where it should have been.
2) were the cookies poisoned? The neighbour said they saw the shutters come down (pulled off) and decided to take the opportunity to kill the Sandins but the hatred was already there so could the cookies have been another way to kill them off. It's true that they would have had to have been cooked before the purge officially started but, going by when they given, they would not have been eaten until either a few minuets before the start or after it had started and I doubt that anyone official would pay too much attention to the bodies after the purge. There would be too many even if they wanted too.
1) We have the purge itself, a new political party has come in and started titular Purge, one night a year where any crime is legal (although the emphasis is on killing and, via subtext, rape). There are a few exceptions stated at the start of the film and, although it's not directly stated, it seems that minors are exempt, in that they can be targets but not actually participate in the killing.
2)The 'Boyfriend' subplot. This could have led to the main plot but seems to be there just to keep us off track at the beginning.
3) The bloody stranger - ok he's needed as he's the main McGuffin
4) The Freaks, Yes the film needs it's antagonists and it's sometimes good to throw in a red herring but we have; The Freaks, Henry (the boy friend), The Bloody stranger who is suspected as being dangerous when he first arrives, even Janes Sandin looks like he could be the antagonist when he is going to throw the stranger out of the house, then we have...
5) The neighbours - even from the start of the film there is something off about them.
6) Add all of this together with a lot of politics and you have a very layered film.
The first half of the film is mainly set up, setting up the idea of the purge and introducing the characters, there are a few shots of violence in the beginning but the film starts off slow. Then it explodes in violence.
Although the concept is the same, The Purge is a different beast to something like 'The Strangers', both films spend time building up to the the action but, when the action starts, the Purge is much faster paced, mainly because there are more 'hunters' and they have guns.
The Purge is also a very political film but it doesn't go down the 'rich vs poor' root that a lot of films do, this is mentioned a bit but only to back up the thinking behind some of those who partake in the event. The film shows two sides of the Purge and mentions two more, you have those that want to take part in the event and those (like the main family) who don't, the Sandin's just want to get through the night where as the 'Freaks' happily take part in it. It's also mentioned that there are those who can not protect themselves (the poor) and those that object.
After watching it I am left with two questions:
1) what happened to Henrys body? We last saw it in Zoey's room, no one mentioned moving it and it couldn't have been taken out of the house but it was never seen when the Freaks were going room to room, they even went into the room where it should have been.
2) were the cookies poisoned? The neighbour said they saw the shutters come down (pulled off) and decided to take the opportunity to kill the Sandins but the hatred was already there so could the cookies have been another way to kill them off. It's true that they would have had to have been cooked before the purge officially started but, going by when they given, they would not have been eaten until either a few minuets before the start or after it had started and I doubt that anyone official would pay too much attention to the bodies after the purge. There would be too many even if they wanted too.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Obey (2018) in Movies
Aug 30, 2019
Verdict: Eye-Opening Drama
Story: Obey starts as we meet Leon (Rutherford) a 19-year-old man living in London, he doesn’t have the education, he spends most of his time getting high and drinking with friends, while causing trouble with other gangs, Leon does train in boxing and is starting to wonder what his life is meant to be.
As the violence in the surrounding neighbourhood, Leon starts to question everything more, as he sees his friends acting out causing bigger problems, while he homelife isn’t getting any better with his alcoholic mother, stopping him from getting a chance to improve himself and the woman he meets Twiggy (Clark) only gives him mixed messages.
Thoughts on Obey
Characters – Leon is the 19-year-old man that was raised in the London, where he has become part of a gang, didn’t get a chance at an education and is left facing a life of uncertainty. Leon is feeling like life is going no where now and he wants to do something about it, this could see him go back into education or continue his training in boxing, but the reality comes with him that he just doesn’t want to get involved in criminal actions going on within London, it is a make or break time for the young man, that we completely understand his position in life. Twiggy is the woman that Leon meets, she has been squatting in London with her boyfriend, though she is a free spirit that isn’t looking for trouble, which makes her different to everybody else in Leon’s life. Anton is her boyfriend that we don’t learn to much about other than he is happy to hang out with whoever and fights for rights. We do get to meet most of the gang Leon is in, though the names are easy to forget, they represent a life of crime he could fall into, Leon’s alcoholic mother and her abusive boyfriend, each character does seem to reflect a life Leon could have.
Performances – Marcus Rutherford easily gives us a standout performance in this film, he will make you understand every single situation his character is going through, which is a delight to watch. Sophie Kennedy Clark is everything she needs to be, with the whole supporting cast making you feel like you are part of this world that Leon is living through.
Story – The story here follows a young man who grew up in London as part of a gang, who isn’t given a chance of a future, until he meets a stranger and is left to decide what he wants for his own future. This story is a true eye opener when it comes to showing us how the gang situation happens, is treated and how hopeless somebody could be if they are trapped within it. We do only follow one person, who is given a few outs, through support, a woman, but is also held back by his lack of education, his gang friends and caring for his addict mother. This does show us how hard the life can be, how the mentality can see the person making the wrong decisions, how the outsiders can see them as wrong, rather than not given a chance. This is an important story for the people of England to see and one that could open up more eyes to what the problems really are, not what they think they are.
Settings – The film is set in London, this does show us just how difficult the life would be for Leon and other young people in this location, if they haven’t been given a chance.
Scene of the Movie – The journey.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not enough development of the supporting characters.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the most important eye openers in the world of film, it doesn’t glorify anything, just keeps it feeling realistic throughout the film.
Overall: Important drama.
Story: Obey starts as we meet Leon (Rutherford) a 19-year-old man living in London, he doesn’t have the education, he spends most of his time getting high and drinking with friends, while causing trouble with other gangs, Leon does train in boxing and is starting to wonder what his life is meant to be.
As the violence in the surrounding neighbourhood, Leon starts to question everything more, as he sees his friends acting out causing bigger problems, while he homelife isn’t getting any better with his alcoholic mother, stopping him from getting a chance to improve himself and the woman he meets Twiggy (Clark) only gives him mixed messages.
Thoughts on Obey
Characters – Leon is the 19-year-old man that was raised in the London, where he has become part of a gang, didn’t get a chance at an education and is left facing a life of uncertainty. Leon is feeling like life is going no where now and he wants to do something about it, this could see him go back into education or continue his training in boxing, but the reality comes with him that he just doesn’t want to get involved in criminal actions going on within London, it is a make or break time for the young man, that we completely understand his position in life. Twiggy is the woman that Leon meets, she has been squatting in London with her boyfriend, though she is a free spirit that isn’t looking for trouble, which makes her different to everybody else in Leon’s life. Anton is her boyfriend that we don’t learn to much about other than he is happy to hang out with whoever and fights for rights. We do get to meet most of the gang Leon is in, though the names are easy to forget, they represent a life of crime he could fall into, Leon’s alcoholic mother and her abusive boyfriend, each character does seem to reflect a life Leon could have.
Performances – Marcus Rutherford easily gives us a standout performance in this film, he will make you understand every single situation his character is going through, which is a delight to watch. Sophie Kennedy Clark is everything she needs to be, with the whole supporting cast making you feel like you are part of this world that Leon is living through.
Story – The story here follows a young man who grew up in London as part of a gang, who isn’t given a chance of a future, until he meets a stranger and is left to decide what he wants for his own future. This story is a true eye opener when it comes to showing us how the gang situation happens, is treated and how hopeless somebody could be if they are trapped within it. We do only follow one person, who is given a few outs, through support, a woman, but is also held back by his lack of education, his gang friends and caring for his addict mother. This does show us how hard the life can be, how the mentality can see the person making the wrong decisions, how the outsiders can see them as wrong, rather than not given a chance. This is an important story for the people of England to see and one that could open up more eyes to what the problems really are, not what they think they are.
Settings – The film is set in London, this does show us just how difficult the life would be for Leon and other young people in this location, if they haven’t been given a chance.
Scene of the Movie – The journey.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not enough development of the supporting characters.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the most important eye openers in the world of film, it doesn’t glorify anything, just keeps it feeling realistic throughout the film.
Overall: Important drama.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Sinner - Season 1 in TV
Nov 30, 2017 (Updated Nov 30, 2017)
Barely any of the characters were sympathetic or relatable (3 more)
The ending was dissatisfying
So many wasted episodes
It was only 9 episodes long, but it felt far longer
A Sin That This Wasn't Better
This show came highly recommended to me by sources that I usually trust, but it turned out to be a total let down. The show opens with a young family going to the beach. The mother who is played by Jessica Biel, suddenly walks over to another young man on the beach and stabs him to death in front of over a hundred witnesses in broad daylight. She is then arrested and the show spends the next 8 episodes clumsily trying to explain why she committed this heinous act.
I like Jessica Biel, I like Bill Pullman and I like Christopher Abbott, who plays the husband to Biel's Cora Tannetti. I like mysterious shows about crime and murder. I should have loved this, but I thought it was a train wreck from start to finish. During the first episode we see the murder occur in graphic detail, then the next couple of episodes ask why she did what she did and then you start to wonder, "how are they going to manage to drag this out for another six episodes without it getting stale?" The answer is, they aren't and it gets old fast. In this sense, the writing is a mess.
Sometimes though, a show can have messy writing, but be saved by it's cast of characters. However, that is absolutely not the case here. Cora is the main character of the show, so I think we are supposed to feel some sort of connection to her, yet she is so grossly off-putting in every way, I was actually was hoping to see her get the death sentence. At first you see her committing this atrocity, which obviously causes you to take an instant dislike to her, but you expect as the show goes on and we learn more about her, that we will eventually feel sympathetic towards her. In fact, the exact opposite is true, every new facet of information that I learned about her backstory just made me hate her more and at no point did I feel like I was on her side.
There is also a flashback subplot going on, which shows Cora as a suspiciously old looking teenager, as for some reason Jessica Biel is still playing the role of the teenage Cora. Through this we see her family life growing up, but her family are some of the most dislikeable characters I have seen in a TV show in years. Her mother is a religious nut to the point of insanity, her father is sleeping with the next door neighbour and her terminally ill sister is such a little shit that you don't feel any sympathy towards her for her illness and you end up hoping she will die sooner rather than later.
I'll try to discuss the ending without giving away any major spoilers, but for those who haven't yet seen the show, you may want to skip to the final paragraph. At around the episode 5 mark, I was very close to giving up on this show, but I had heard that the ending was amazing, so I stuck with it. What a waste of time that turned out to be. The reveal itself was a huge let down and after everything was revealed, I still felt that the murder victim didn't deserve to die and I thought that Cora pretty much getting away with murder was so dissatisfying and undeserved.
Overall, this show is pretty awful. There are so many plot threads that go nowhere, the writing thinks it is far more clever than it actually is, actors that I normally like are playing entirely dislikeable characters and the whole thing seems far longer than just nine episodes. The ending isn't worth sticking around for and really the show is just tons of wasted potential. Do yourself a favour and give this a skip, there are far better shows available to watch on Netflix.
I like Jessica Biel, I like Bill Pullman and I like Christopher Abbott, who plays the husband to Biel's Cora Tannetti. I like mysterious shows about crime and murder. I should have loved this, but I thought it was a train wreck from start to finish. During the first episode we see the murder occur in graphic detail, then the next couple of episodes ask why she did what she did and then you start to wonder, "how are they going to manage to drag this out for another six episodes without it getting stale?" The answer is, they aren't and it gets old fast. In this sense, the writing is a mess.
Sometimes though, a show can have messy writing, but be saved by it's cast of characters. However, that is absolutely not the case here. Cora is the main character of the show, so I think we are supposed to feel some sort of connection to her, yet she is so grossly off-putting in every way, I was actually was hoping to see her get the death sentence. At first you see her committing this atrocity, which obviously causes you to take an instant dislike to her, but you expect as the show goes on and we learn more about her, that we will eventually feel sympathetic towards her. In fact, the exact opposite is true, every new facet of information that I learned about her backstory just made me hate her more and at no point did I feel like I was on her side.
There is also a flashback subplot going on, which shows Cora as a suspiciously old looking teenager, as for some reason Jessica Biel is still playing the role of the teenage Cora. Through this we see her family life growing up, but her family are some of the most dislikeable characters I have seen in a TV show in years. Her mother is a religious nut to the point of insanity, her father is sleeping with the next door neighbour and her terminally ill sister is such a little shit that you don't feel any sympathy towards her for her illness and you end up hoping she will die sooner rather than later.
I'll try to discuss the ending without giving away any major spoilers, but for those who haven't yet seen the show, you may want to skip to the final paragraph. At around the episode 5 mark, I was very close to giving up on this show, but I had heard that the ending was amazing, so I stuck with it. What a waste of time that turned out to be. The reveal itself was a huge let down and after everything was revealed, I still felt that the murder victim didn't deserve to die and I thought that Cora pretty much getting away with murder was so dissatisfying and undeserved.
Overall, this show is pretty awful. There are so many plot threads that go nowhere, the writing thinks it is far more clever than it actually is, actors that I normally like are playing entirely dislikeable characters and the whole thing seems far longer than just nine episodes. The ending isn't worth sticking around for and really the show is just tons of wasted potential. Do yourself a favour and give this a skip, there are far better shows available to watch on Netflix.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated A Nearly Normal Family in Books
May 14, 2019
Legal thrillers usually aren't my thing. In fact, I find them to be more a snooze fest than anything else. However, when I read the synopsis for A Nearly Normal Family by M.T. Edvardsson, I was intrigued. I just want to say that this book blew me away! It was that good!
The plot for A Nearly Normal Family is very intriguing indeed. Eighteen year old Stella becomes involved with an older man named Christopher. She's having the time of her life. When she learns more about her romantic interest, she's having a hard time believing the bad stuff is true. It's not long before Christopher is found murdered, and Stella is the main suspect. Told from the point of view from Stella's father, Stella, and Stella's mother, we learn what really happened that night, what led to all of this drama, and what happens afterwards. We also learn how far people will go to protect the ones they love. I found myself not wanting to guess what happened with this book. I wanted everything to be a complete surprise which it was. There are a few twists and turns throughout this novel which I did enjoy. I loved that this book tied up any loose ends by the end of the book, and nothing was left to speculation. I hate having to guess what happened after the main mystery has been solved, so I was thrilled when I had all my answers. I'm a stickler for closure!
The characters were all very well developed and fleshed out enough that they felt real. We are introduced to Adam, Stella's father, first. We see his relationship with his daughter, his wife, and with God since he's a pastor. He relies heavily on his faith to get him through things. He's an upstanding member of the community and very trustworthy. I found Adam to be the most interesting to read about. It was interesting to read about his response to his daughter being accused of murder. Next, we are introduced to Stella's point of view. Stella is accused of murdering her boyfriend, Christopher. She's eighteen and has a devil may care attitude when it comes to everything. Some points throughout the book, I felt she was innocent of the crime, but there were other times she seemed very guilty. I couldn't figure her out. It was interesting to read about what had happened throughout her young life to get to the predicament she was in. Finally, we learn the perspective from Ulrika, Stella's mother. I didn't think I would be able to connect with Ulrika right at first, but I found myself understanding her quickly. Ulrika is a criminal defense attorney, so it was interesting reading about her perspective on everything. I was happy that Ulrika didn't use legal jargon too often. Although we don't get to read things from her perspective, the character of Amina, Stella's best friend, was also intriguing. I loved reading about the girls' friendship throughout the years and how loyal they were to one another.
The pacing was spot on! Every time the story would change perspectives, I thought I'd get bored with the change of character, but I was sucked in right away same as before. I devoured page after page of A Nearly Normal Family. I couldn't wait to find out more and learn about motives and what would happen.
Trigger warnings include profanity, alcohol use, drug use, violence (not very graphic), rape (not very graphic, mentions of sex (not graphic), and murder.
Overall, A Nearly Normal Family is a very intriguing read that pulls you in from the very first page and doesn't let you go even after it ends. I would definitely recommend A Nearly Normal Family by M.T. Edvardsson to those aged 18+ who like to get lost in well written thrillers!
--
(A special thank you to the publisher for providing me with an ARC paperback of A Nearly Normal Family by M.T. Edvardsson in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
The plot for A Nearly Normal Family is very intriguing indeed. Eighteen year old Stella becomes involved with an older man named Christopher. She's having the time of her life. When she learns more about her romantic interest, she's having a hard time believing the bad stuff is true. It's not long before Christopher is found murdered, and Stella is the main suspect. Told from the point of view from Stella's father, Stella, and Stella's mother, we learn what really happened that night, what led to all of this drama, and what happens afterwards. We also learn how far people will go to protect the ones they love. I found myself not wanting to guess what happened with this book. I wanted everything to be a complete surprise which it was. There are a few twists and turns throughout this novel which I did enjoy. I loved that this book tied up any loose ends by the end of the book, and nothing was left to speculation. I hate having to guess what happened after the main mystery has been solved, so I was thrilled when I had all my answers. I'm a stickler for closure!
The characters were all very well developed and fleshed out enough that they felt real. We are introduced to Adam, Stella's father, first. We see his relationship with his daughter, his wife, and with God since he's a pastor. He relies heavily on his faith to get him through things. He's an upstanding member of the community and very trustworthy. I found Adam to be the most interesting to read about. It was interesting to read about his response to his daughter being accused of murder. Next, we are introduced to Stella's point of view. Stella is accused of murdering her boyfriend, Christopher. She's eighteen and has a devil may care attitude when it comes to everything. Some points throughout the book, I felt she was innocent of the crime, but there were other times she seemed very guilty. I couldn't figure her out. It was interesting to read about what had happened throughout her young life to get to the predicament she was in. Finally, we learn the perspective from Ulrika, Stella's mother. I didn't think I would be able to connect with Ulrika right at first, but I found myself understanding her quickly. Ulrika is a criminal defense attorney, so it was interesting reading about her perspective on everything. I was happy that Ulrika didn't use legal jargon too often. Although we don't get to read things from her perspective, the character of Amina, Stella's best friend, was also intriguing. I loved reading about the girls' friendship throughout the years and how loyal they were to one another.
The pacing was spot on! Every time the story would change perspectives, I thought I'd get bored with the change of character, but I was sucked in right away same as before. I devoured page after page of A Nearly Normal Family. I couldn't wait to find out more and learn about motives and what would happen.
Trigger warnings include profanity, alcohol use, drug use, violence (not very graphic), rape (not very graphic, mentions of sex (not graphic), and murder.
Overall, A Nearly Normal Family is a very intriguing read that pulls you in from the very first page and doesn't let you go even after it ends. I would definitely recommend A Nearly Normal Family by M.T. Edvardsson to those aged 18+ who like to get lost in well written thrillers!
--
(A special thank you to the publisher for providing me with an ARC paperback of A Nearly Normal Family by M.T. Edvardsson in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Michael’s back, back again
Happy Halloween everyone! What better way to celebrate than with my review of the latest in the Halloween franchise?
40 years after John Carpenter’s iconic horror film, we are greeted with a brand new instalment in Michael Myers’ saga. It feels like a really special moment for horror fans, as we reflect on the original decades later. The opening credits pay homage to the 1978 and provide some nostalgia for long time fans by using the same text and soundtrack that audiences would’ve seen on the big screen back then. This was a great stylistic choice as it really gets you feeling pumped for what’s to come.
The film opens with Myers in a high security facility, where two true crime podcasters attempt to communicate with him in order to learn more about him and the murders he committed. Unsurprisingly, Michael refuses to say anything, providing a seriously uncomfortable moment for the audience. Throughout the film, we don’t see or hear him, and shots of him without the mask are always the back of his head. I would have been very disappointed if they’d decided to show his face throughout, as this sense of facelessness is something that’s always scared me about him. He’s a silent killer, never jumping out and screaming, but hiding in the shadows waiting to strike at any point. Most interactions with Myers are tense, uncomfortable and nail biting. His presence alone has that effect on you.
As ever, it was a joy to see Jamie Lee Curtis reprise her role as original Myers’ victim, Laurie Strode. Throughout the film, Strode’s paranoia is hard to brush off, and actually makes you feel more on edge. It was great seeing how she’d aged, yet refused to move on, and Curtis really brought her to life once again. She was the highlight of the film for me, as she was far from a cowering victim, and someone who wanted Myers dead for good. Having said that, you can tell how much she still fears him and how she’s suffering with long-term PTSD after almost being murdered. Let’s face it, anyone would feel the same way.
Unfortunately, I did find some of the acting a bit cringeworthy and it took away from the overall experience. I know that horror films have a bit of a reputation for terrible acting and dialogue, but I felt like such an important franchise deserved better than that. In my screening there were a few laugh out loud moments, and I don’t think all of them were intentional. One thing I will say is that child actor Jibrail Nantambu is one to watch because he was such a character and brought some genuine humour to the scenes he was in. I hope he goes far. Michael’s handler Dr. Ranbir Sartain is also an interesting character that I won’t say much about, but his development throughout is particularly great.
Admittedly I would’ve preferred less focus on teenagers, families and their dramas, and more on Michael and the actual kills. The film was meant to be about him and Laurie, after all. Whilst I was mostly satisfied by the brutality and some really gruesome moments, I felt it had been hyped up to the point where I expected more. Is that bad? Have I just become desensitised to bloody moments? I’m not quite sure. Having said that, one scene in particular did have me on the edge of my seat so it was still able to provide that adrenaline rush despite all its flaws. I’m still really bloody scared of Michael Myers.
Overall, Halloween is certainly watchable and a great visit to the cinema, especially this evening. Whilst I’m not the world’s biggest Halloween fan and there are certain films in the franchise I haven’t even seen, I still enjoyed this and understood what was going on. If you’re a big horror fan, particularly of the classics, give this a go. It might give you some welcome nostalgia and scares, and maybe that’s enough.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/10/31/halloween-2018-michaels-back-back-again/
40 years after John Carpenter’s iconic horror film, we are greeted with a brand new instalment in Michael Myers’ saga. It feels like a really special moment for horror fans, as we reflect on the original decades later. The opening credits pay homage to the 1978 and provide some nostalgia for long time fans by using the same text and soundtrack that audiences would’ve seen on the big screen back then. This was a great stylistic choice as it really gets you feeling pumped for what’s to come.
The film opens with Myers in a high security facility, where two true crime podcasters attempt to communicate with him in order to learn more about him and the murders he committed. Unsurprisingly, Michael refuses to say anything, providing a seriously uncomfortable moment for the audience. Throughout the film, we don’t see or hear him, and shots of him without the mask are always the back of his head. I would have been very disappointed if they’d decided to show his face throughout, as this sense of facelessness is something that’s always scared me about him. He’s a silent killer, never jumping out and screaming, but hiding in the shadows waiting to strike at any point. Most interactions with Myers are tense, uncomfortable and nail biting. His presence alone has that effect on you.
As ever, it was a joy to see Jamie Lee Curtis reprise her role as original Myers’ victim, Laurie Strode. Throughout the film, Strode’s paranoia is hard to brush off, and actually makes you feel more on edge. It was great seeing how she’d aged, yet refused to move on, and Curtis really brought her to life once again. She was the highlight of the film for me, as she was far from a cowering victim, and someone who wanted Myers dead for good. Having said that, you can tell how much she still fears him and how she’s suffering with long-term PTSD after almost being murdered. Let’s face it, anyone would feel the same way.
Unfortunately, I did find some of the acting a bit cringeworthy and it took away from the overall experience. I know that horror films have a bit of a reputation for terrible acting and dialogue, but I felt like such an important franchise deserved better than that. In my screening there were a few laugh out loud moments, and I don’t think all of them were intentional. One thing I will say is that child actor Jibrail Nantambu is one to watch because he was such a character and brought some genuine humour to the scenes he was in. I hope he goes far. Michael’s handler Dr. Ranbir Sartain is also an interesting character that I won’t say much about, but his development throughout is particularly great.
Admittedly I would’ve preferred less focus on teenagers, families and their dramas, and more on Michael and the actual kills. The film was meant to be about him and Laurie, after all. Whilst I was mostly satisfied by the brutality and some really gruesome moments, I felt it had been hyped up to the point where I expected more. Is that bad? Have I just become desensitised to bloody moments? I’m not quite sure. Having said that, one scene in particular did have me on the edge of my seat so it was still able to provide that adrenaline rush despite all its flaws. I’m still really bloody scared of Michael Myers.
Overall, Halloween is certainly watchable and a great visit to the cinema, especially this evening. Whilst I’m not the world’s biggest Halloween fan and there are certain films in the franchise I haven’t even seen, I still enjoyed this and understood what was going on. If you’re a big horror fan, particularly of the classics, give this a go. It might give you some welcome nostalgia and scares, and maybe that’s enough.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/10/31/halloween-2018-michaels-back-back-again/
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Who Runs the World? in Books
Dec 17, 2018
3.5 stars
<i>This ARC was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review </i>
What would the world be like if there were no men, only women? Would it be an idyllic, peaceful planet, where compassion and courtesy are more important than money and owning commodities? A world without war, without crime, without weapons? Global agreements with everyone working together and not for personal gain? Endangered animals suddenly thriving in a landscape no longer inhabited by poachers? Perfect, perhaps? <i>Welcome to the Matriarchy.</i>
<i>Who Runs the World?</i> by Virigina Bergin explores the concept of growing up in a world with no men. Sixty years previously, a virus wiped out anyone with a Y chromosome (i.e. men), leaving women to pull together to survive in a dystopian world. River, aged fourteen, has never met a boy, and never expects to – they are as rare as unicorns. Conditioned to believe that men used to be monsters whose only aims were to rape, harm and kill, River believes the world is a faultless society. But, then she meets Mason.
Mason is a similar age to River, but has a distinct difference – he’s a boy. After escaping from a sanctuary – something River never knew existed – Mason has been on the run, seriously ill, but, amazingly, not dying. Despite the initial antagonism between the two characters – after all, they have both been conditioned to believe the opposite sexes are dangerous predators - River and Mason quickly discover that the older women in power have been hiding secrets from the rest of the world.
For six decades, men have lived in sterile sanctuaries, isolated from the deadly virus and the rest of the world. Their purpose is to produce sperm to be used in IVF in order to keep the human population going – obvious when you think about it. Yet, there is clearly an ulterior motive amongst the women in charge, for why else would they keep the male existence secret and teach young girls that men were monsters?
As River and Mason try to come to terms with the hidden truth, events begin to unravel the harmony of the Matriarchy. Perhaps an all female world would not be so perfect after all.
Initially, the tranquil civilisation Bergin creates feels false, a mockery of today’s politics. It is almost like feminism gone too far, claiming that men are the reason for the suffering in today’s world. True, women are still oppressed by their male counterparts, but the generalization that this is a result of ALL men, is a stretch too far. Once the truth about the situation begins to break through, it becomes more acceptable, more realistic even, given the corrupt society we are used to.
But Bergin has a point, how would the world survive if there were no men? For all we know, a deadly virus could rid the world of XYs, leaving women to piece everything back together. What the author is trying to point out is that women CAN be as powerful as men. Women deserve to be part of politics, of decision making, to have equal rights. Despite the initial suggested perfection, Bergin is showing that women are as capable as men, not better or worse.
Targeted at young adults, <i>Who Runs the World?</i> is written in a way that current readers can relate to, but not in ways one may expect. References made by or about the older generation are much more significant than the life and experiences of River, for it is these women that were alive at the beginning of the 21st century. These women were us.
An innovative novel from an up-and-coming British author, <i>Who Runs the World? </i>will make you think about the future as well as open your eyes to the discrimination of the present. It is a very interesting concept with the potential to be followed up with further novels, or left to the reader’s imagination.
<i>This ARC was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review </i>
What would the world be like if there were no men, only women? Would it be an idyllic, peaceful planet, where compassion and courtesy are more important than money and owning commodities? A world without war, without crime, without weapons? Global agreements with everyone working together and not for personal gain? Endangered animals suddenly thriving in a landscape no longer inhabited by poachers? Perfect, perhaps? <i>Welcome to the Matriarchy.</i>
<i>Who Runs the World?</i> by Virigina Bergin explores the concept of growing up in a world with no men. Sixty years previously, a virus wiped out anyone with a Y chromosome (i.e. men), leaving women to pull together to survive in a dystopian world. River, aged fourteen, has never met a boy, and never expects to – they are as rare as unicorns. Conditioned to believe that men used to be monsters whose only aims were to rape, harm and kill, River believes the world is a faultless society. But, then she meets Mason.
Mason is a similar age to River, but has a distinct difference – he’s a boy. After escaping from a sanctuary – something River never knew existed – Mason has been on the run, seriously ill, but, amazingly, not dying. Despite the initial antagonism between the two characters – after all, they have both been conditioned to believe the opposite sexes are dangerous predators - River and Mason quickly discover that the older women in power have been hiding secrets from the rest of the world.
For six decades, men have lived in sterile sanctuaries, isolated from the deadly virus and the rest of the world. Their purpose is to produce sperm to be used in IVF in order to keep the human population going – obvious when you think about it. Yet, there is clearly an ulterior motive amongst the women in charge, for why else would they keep the male existence secret and teach young girls that men were monsters?
As River and Mason try to come to terms with the hidden truth, events begin to unravel the harmony of the Matriarchy. Perhaps an all female world would not be so perfect after all.
Initially, the tranquil civilisation Bergin creates feels false, a mockery of today’s politics. It is almost like feminism gone too far, claiming that men are the reason for the suffering in today’s world. True, women are still oppressed by their male counterparts, but the generalization that this is a result of ALL men, is a stretch too far. Once the truth about the situation begins to break through, it becomes more acceptable, more realistic even, given the corrupt society we are used to.
But Bergin has a point, how would the world survive if there were no men? For all we know, a deadly virus could rid the world of XYs, leaving women to piece everything back together. What the author is trying to point out is that women CAN be as powerful as men. Women deserve to be part of politics, of decision making, to have equal rights. Despite the initial suggested perfection, Bergin is showing that women are as capable as men, not better or worse.
Targeted at young adults, <i>Who Runs the World?</i> is written in a way that current readers can relate to, but not in ways one may expect. References made by or about the older generation are much more significant than the life and experiences of River, for it is these women that were alive at the beginning of the 21st century. These women were us.
An innovative novel from an up-and-coming British author, <i>Who Runs the World? </i>will make you think about the future as well as open your eyes to the discrimination of the present. It is a very interesting concept with the potential to be followed up with further novels, or left to the reader’s imagination.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Hacksaw Ridge (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
In God, and Doss, we Trust.
Those dreaded words – “Based On A True Story” – emerge again from the blackness of the opening page. Actually, no. In a move that could be considered arrogant if it wasn’t so well researched, here we even lose the first two words.
When a war film is described as being “visceral” then you know you need to steel yourself mentally for what you might see. But given that this film is based around the horrendously brutal combat between the Americans and the Japanese on the Pacific island of Okinawa in 1945 this is a warning well-founded. For the battle scenes in this film are reminiscent of the opening scenes of “Saving Private Ryan” in their brutality: long gone are the war films of John Wayne where there would be a shot, a grasp of the stomach and a casual descent to earth.
But before we get to the battle itself, the film has a leisurely hour of character building which is time well spent (although it could have perhaps been trimmed a tad tighter). Desmond Doss (Andrew Garfield, “The Amazing Spiderman”, “Never Let Me Go”) grows up a God-fearing youngster in the beautiful surroundings of the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia. His alcoholic father (Hugo Weaving, “The Lord of the Rings”, “The Matrix”) has been mentally traumatised by the First World War, further strengthening Desmond’s fervent belief in following the Ten Commandments; most notably “Thou Shalt Not Kill”. But his patriotic sense of duty is also strong, and Doss signs up after Pearl Harbor and is posted to a rifle brigade that – given his refusal to even touch a rifle – puts him on a collision course with the US Army. It also (obviously) disrupts his romance with nurse sweetheart Dorothy (Teresa Palmer).
This is really two films in one, with the first half setting up extremely well the characters that make the second half so effective. For you care – really care – for what happens to most of the characters involved, especially the zealous and determined Doss who has nothing to face the Japanese hoards with but a medical bag. The feelings that comes to top of mind are awe that these real people actually had to go through this horror and hope that in today’s increasingly unstable political world we will never need to again face such inhumanity of man against man again.
Andrew Garfield really carries this film, and his Best Actor Oscar nomination is well-deserved. He is perfectly cast as the (onward) Christian soldier. Also outstanding is Hugo Weaving in an emotional and persuasive role playing opposite Rachel Griffiths (“Saving Mr Banks”) his wife. But the real acting surprise here for me was Vince Vaughn (“The Wedding Crashers”) who plays the no-nonsense platoon Sergeant Howell: never one of my favourite actors, here he brings in a warm and nuanced performance that ends with a memorable action scene.
Also worthy of specific note is Dan Oliver (“Mad Max: Fury Road”) and his team of special effects technicians, the stunt teams (led by Kyle Gardiner and Mic Rodgers), production designer Barry Robinson and the hair and makeup team, all of who collaborate to make the final half of the film so gripping.
The film marks a comeback from the film society ‘naughty step’ of Mel Gibson after his much publicised fall from grace in the mid-noughties. A Best Director Oscar nomination would appear to cement that resurrection. For this is a phenomenal achievement in direction and one that should be applauded.
The film bears closest comparison with the interesting two-film combo from Clint Eastwood – “Flags of our Fathers” (from the American viewpoint) and “Letters from Iwo Jima” (from the Japanese viewpoint). While all three films share the same blood and guts quotient, with “Hacksaw Ridge” edging this award, the Eastwood films tend to have more emotional depth and a more thought-provoking treatment of the Japanese angle. In “Hacksaw Ridge”, while the war crimes of the Japanese are clear, the war crimes of the Americans are quietly cloaked behind a cryptic line (“They didn’t make it”).
That being said, there is no crime in a rollicking good story well told, and “Hacksaw Ridge” is certainly that. This was a film I did not have high hopes for. But I was surprised to be proved wrong. Recommended.
When a war film is described as being “visceral” then you know you need to steel yourself mentally for what you might see. But given that this film is based around the horrendously brutal combat between the Americans and the Japanese on the Pacific island of Okinawa in 1945 this is a warning well-founded. For the battle scenes in this film are reminiscent of the opening scenes of “Saving Private Ryan” in their brutality: long gone are the war films of John Wayne where there would be a shot, a grasp of the stomach and a casual descent to earth.
But before we get to the battle itself, the film has a leisurely hour of character building which is time well spent (although it could have perhaps been trimmed a tad tighter). Desmond Doss (Andrew Garfield, “The Amazing Spiderman”, “Never Let Me Go”) grows up a God-fearing youngster in the beautiful surroundings of the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia. His alcoholic father (Hugo Weaving, “The Lord of the Rings”, “The Matrix”) has been mentally traumatised by the First World War, further strengthening Desmond’s fervent belief in following the Ten Commandments; most notably “Thou Shalt Not Kill”. But his patriotic sense of duty is also strong, and Doss signs up after Pearl Harbor and is posted to a rifle brigade that – given his refusal to even touch a rifle – puts him on a collision course with the US Army. It also (obviously) disrupts his romance with nurse sweetheart Dorothy (Teresa Palmer).
This is really two films in one, with the first half setting up extremely well the characters that make the second half so effective. For you care – really care – for what happens to most of the characters involved, especially the zealous and determined Doss who has nothing to face the Japanese hoards with but a medical bag. The feelings that comes to top of mind are awe that these real people actually had to go through this horror and hope that in today’s increasingly unstable political world we will never need to again face such inhumanity of man against man again.
Andrew Garfield really carries this film, and his Best Actor Oscar nomination is well-deserved. He is perfectly cast as the (onward) Christian soldier. Also outstanding is Hugo Weaving in an emotional and persuasive role playing opposite Rachel Griffiths (“Saving Mr Banks”) his wife. But the real acting surprise here for me was Vince Vaughn (“The Wedding Crashers”) who plays the no-nonsense platoon Sergeant Howell: never one of my favourite actors, here he brings in a warm and nuanced performance that ends with a memorable action scene.
Also worthy of specific note is Dan Oliver (“Mad Max: Fury Road”) and his team of special effects technicians, the stunt teams (led by Kyle Gardiner and Mic Rodgers), production designer Barry Robinson and the hair and makeup team, all of who collaborate to make the final half of the film so gripping.
The film marks a comeback from the film society ‘naughty step’ of Mel Gibson after his much publicised fall from grace in the mid-noughties. A Best Director Oscar nomination would appear to cement that resurrection. For this is a phenomenal achievement in direction and one that should be applauded.
The film bears closest comparison with the interesting two-film combo from Clint Eastwood – “Flags of our Fathers” (from the American viewpoint) and “Letters from Iwo Jima” (from the Japanese viewpoint). While all three films share the same blood and guts quotient, with “Hacksaw Ridge” edging this award, the Eastwood films tend to have more emotional depth and a more thought-provoking treatment of the Japanese angle. In “Hacksaw Ridge”, while the war crimes of the Japanese are clear, the war crimes of the Americans are quietly cloaked behind a cryptic line (“They didn’t make it”).
That being said, there is no crime in a rollicking good story well told, and “Hacksaw Ridge” is certainly that. This was a film I did not have high hopes for. But I was surprised to be proved wrong. Recommended.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Bad Boys for Life (2020) in Movies
Mar 9, 2020
Welcome to Miami - again!
Will Smith seems to have been having a lacklustre period in his career. His genie from "Aladdin" got a rather lukewarm reception. And his last movie - "Gemini Man" - billed as a big summer blockbuster - failed to impress. True it wasn't a commercial disaster (raking in at the time of writing about 150% of budget), but it's still a film on a plane for me that, even if I'm bored, I'll say "nah" to.
Perhaps it's for this reason that Smith reached for an old and reliable property to dust off for another outing.
And, do you know, it's not half bad.
I only recently saw this one, right at the end of its UK cinema run, because frankly it appealed to me like being hit round the head with a cold fish. Martin Lawrence is an actor who just grates on me enormously. I'm sure he's a lovely chap; kind to animals; donates to charity; etc - but I generally just don't find him funny. (Here though he has a killer line about condom use that made me chuckle.) It feels to me like he is on implausible ground here re-treading the role of aging detective Marcus Burnett. One look at Burnett lumbering along and you would think "well, he'd never pass the medical" for the on-street role he's portrayed doing. His buddy is detective Mike Lowrey (Will Smith), who has a sordid past that is set to catch up on him.
Since we start the story in Colombia, where Isabel Aretas (Kate Del Castillo), the witchy wife of a notorious deceased drug baron, is sprung from prison by her son Armando (Jacob Scipio) in what I admit is a clever and novel way. The Aretas family is bent on revenge - - and a key target in their sites is Lowrey.
Burnett is newly a grandparent and hell-bent on retirement. But with Lowrey and his associates with a target on their backs, will there be one last chance to "Ride Together, Die Together"?
Not seen the first two movies? Not to worry! There are movies, like LOTR, where if you've missed the first two movies in the series you will be left in serious "WTF" territory in trying to watch the third. This is not one of those movies. The story is entirely self-contained, and refers to events never seen prior to the first film in the series.
But whether the movie is for you will depend on your tolerance for loud and brash visuals and music with the knob turned up to 12. Directors Adil and Bilall (Adil El Arbi and Bilall Fallah - Belgian film school buddies best known for the critically acclaimed 2015 feature "Black") - don't do anything by halves.
There is a scene in "Lost Series 3" in which Sawyer, Kate, and Alex have to bust young Karl out of the mysterious room 23 where he is being tortured by having his eyes kept open while watching a collage of images continually smashed into his eyeballs. This movie feels a little like that after a while.
This is not by any means a criticism that it's poorly done. There is some truly stunning cinematography of the Miami skyline by Belgian cinematographer Robrecht Heyvaert, including a 'pull-back' drone shot from a conversation on the top of a building that is quite AWESOME! And there are more than enough "fast action - then slo-mo - then fast again" shots to keep music-video junkies happy!
The music score by Lorne Balfe is also pumping, adding a dynamism to the frantic action scenes that keeps you entertained.
The screenplay by Chris Bremner, Peter Craig and Joe Carnahan is assuredly familiar: it's not going to win any prizes for originality. We've seen the cartel/revenge plotline played out in multiple movies over the years. And we've also seen the "buddy cops with aging partner taking retirement" angle from the "Lethal Weapon" series. This just sticks them together.
Will Smith and Martin Lawrence wise-crack their way through the comedy well-enough, though for me it never reaches the heights of the pairing of Smith and Tommy Lee Jones from MiB (or indeed Mel Gibson and Danny Glover from Lethal Weapon). Elsewhere we have Vanessa Hudgens as a cute cop, still trying to break through from "Disneyfication" into mainstream flicks. For one horrible moment, when I saw her name on the cast, I thought she might be the love interest to Smith. But no. That honour goes to Mexican beauty Paola Nuñez who, with only a 10 year age gap, becomes a less gag-worthy pairing. She plays a female leadership role (every 20's film now needs one) as the head of a new crime division.
Also good value is Joe Pantoliano reprising his role as Captain Howard - Lowrie's exasperated boss. Playing it by the numbers, every film like this has to have one!
Where the plot does add some interest is in a surprising scene mid-film and a twist that I didn't see coming. But this twist felt - in the context of the release date or the film - like a mistake (a "Spoiler Section" in my review on the One Mann's Movies web site discusses this).
All of this happens of course against a backdrop of a body count of bad guys being killed in ever more graphic and gory ways, while the good guys generally dodge every bullet, grenade and crashing helicopter heading their way.
It's that time of year when films are released to die. Where studios drop their movies that are never going to trouble the Academy and are not deemed worthy of summer or even late spring release. But they should have had more faith in this one, for it's not half bad. True, you may need a couple of paracetamols afterwards, but if your corneas and ear-drums can stand the pace, its not short on entertainment value.
(For the full graphical review, check out the One Mann's Movies link here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/03/08/one-manns-movies-film-review-bad-boys-for-life-2020/ ).
Perhaps it's for this reason that Smith reached for an old and reliable property to dust off for another outing.
And, do you know, it's not half bad.
I only recently saw this one, right at the end of its UK cinema run, because frankly it appealed to me like being hit round the head with a cold fish. Martin Lawrence is an actor who just grates on me enormously. I'm sure he's a lovely chap; kind to animals; donates to charity; etc - but I generally just don't find him funny. (Here though he has a killer line about condom use that made me chuckle.) It feels to me like he is on implausible ground here re-treading the role of aging detective Marcus Burnett. One look at Burnett lumbering along and you would think "well, he'd never pass the medical" for the on-street role he's portrayed doing. His buddy is detective Mike Lowrey (Will Smith), who has a sordid past that is set to catch up on him.
Since we start the story in Colombia, where Isabel Aretas (Kate Del Castillo), the witchy wife of a notorious deceased drug baron, is sprung from prison by her son Armando (Jacob Scipio) in what I admit is a clever and novel way. The Aretas family is bent on revenge - - and a key target in their sites is Lowrey.
Burnett is newly a grandparent and hell-bent on retirement. But with Lowrey and his associates with a target on their backs, will there be one last chance to "Ride Together, Die Together"?
Not seen the first two movies? Not to worry! There are movies, like LOTR, where if you've missed the first two movies in the series you will be left in serious "WTF" territory in trying to watch the third. This is not one of those movies. The story is entirely self-contained, and refers to events never seen prior to the first film in the series.
But whether the movie is for you will depend on your tolerance for loud and brash visuals and music with the knob turned up to 12. Directors Adil and Bilall (Adil El Arbi and Bilall Fallah - Belgian film school buddies best known for the critically acclaimed 2015 feature "Black") - don't do anything by halves.
There is a scene in "Lost Series 3" in which Sawyer, Kate, and Alex have to bust young Karl out of the mysterious room 23 where he is being tortured by having his eyes kept open while watching a collage of images continually smashed into his eyeballs. This movie feels a little like that after a while.
This is not by any means a criticism that it's poorly done. There is some truly stunning cinematography of the Miami skyline by Belgian cinematographer Robrecht Heyvaert, including a 'pull-back' drone shot from a conversation on the top of a building that is quite AWESOME! And there are more than enough "fast action - then slo-mo - then fast again" shots to keep music-video junkies happy!
The music score by Lorne Balfe is also pumping, adding a dynamism to the frantic action scenes that keeps you entertained.
The screenplay by Chris Bremner, Peter Craig and Joe Carnahan is assuredly familiar: it's not going to win any prizes for originality. We've seen the cartel/revenge plotline played out in multiple movies over the years. And we've also seen the "buddy cops with aging partner taking retirement" angle from the "Lethal Weapon" series. This just sticks them together.
Will Smith and Martin Lawrence wise-crack their way through the comedy well-enough, though for me it never reaches the heights of the pairing of Smith and Tommy Lee Jones from MiB (or indeed Mel Gibson and Danny Glover from Lethal Weapon). Elsewhere we have Vanessa Hudgens as a cute cop, still trying to break through from "Disneyfication" into mainstream flicks. For one horrible moment, when I saw her name on the cast, I thought she might be the love interest to Smith. But no. That honour goes to Mexican beauty Paola Nuñez who, with only a 10 year age gap, becomes a less gag-worthy pairing. She plays a female leadership role (every 20's film now needs one) as the head of a new crime division.
Also good value is Joe Pantoliano reprising his role as Captain Howard - Lowrie's exasperated boss. Playing it by the numbers, every film like this has to have one!
Where the plot does add some interest is in a surprising scene mid-film and a twist that I didn't see coming. But this twist felt - in the context of the release date or the film - like a mistake (a "Spoiler Section" in my review on the One Mann's Movies web site discusses this).
All of this happens of course against a backdrop of a body count of bad guys being killed in ever more graphic and gory ways, while the good guys generally dodge every bullet, grenade and crashing helicopter heading their way.
It's that time of year when films are released to die. Where studios drop their movies that are never going to trouble the Academy and are not deemed worthy of summer or even late spring release. But they should have had more faith in this one, for it's not half bad. True, you may need a couple of paracetamols afterwards, but if your corneas and ear-drums can stand the pace, its not short on entertainment value.
(For the full graphical review, check out the One Mann's Movies link here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/03/08/one-manns-movies-film-review-bad-boys-for-life-2020/ ).
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Umbrella Academy in TV
Sep 19, 2020 (Updated Jan 22, 2021)
I came to this gloriously colourful, energetic and super smart comic book adaptation in August (when Netflix advertised season 2), at a time of lockdown where I really needed something cheerful and fun to keep me going. It worked so well I watched both full seasons twice over, back to back, and key episodes 3 times! A rare thing indeed for me and a TV show.
Since then the rigours of isolation have set me back with a really long backlog for The Wasteland – currently I have a list of over 40 cultural artifacts I want to talk about and share with you- but, I am very glad to be talking about this one today, as even though it wasn’t that long ago, it evokes such fond happy memories of becoming just a little bit obsessed by something. A phenomenon that only seems to happen when you go into something with low to medium expectations and come out feeling like you have found a diamond in the rough.
The concept of 7 children with mysterious powers being adopted and raised by a shady and strict, umbrella wielding, father has been around a few years in the form of several graphic novels, penned by My Chemical Romance frontman Gerard Way. You can feel the vibe of something slightly emo and arty coming through – just cool enough but also self conscious; melancholy and dark in places but also lots of sardonic fun. But, unlike the books, which often look stark and minimal, the world created by show runner and director Steve Blackman is vivid and full to the brim with things to overwhelm the senses.
For the last few years, and especially of late, the Superhero genre has been so oversaturated that it is almost impossible to come up with anything original, but The Umbrella Academy together with Amazon’s The Boys, definitely manage to do that. It has enough mystique to be intriguingly confusing for the first few episodes, as we piece together the Hargreaves’ past that has led to the current situation, and discover the dynamic tension that exists between the adopted siblings. Oh, and there is a talking chimpanzee butler / guardian called Pogo, that feels like CGI gimmickery for a while, before growing into something truly wonderful.
The first thing you notice about this set of misfits, as they reassemble for their father’s funeral after years of bitterness and estrangement, is that they are all a little bit broken and uncomfortable in their own skins – their powers as individuals are all a bit, well frankly underwhelming, and their personalities are not exactly attractive in every case. Season one is all about re-establishing connections and working through identity crises. In many ways it is a coming of age story, as circumstances lead to them needing to grow up fast and join together to achieve true power. It works both on the surface and as a deeper allegory.
As each main character is introduced you inevitably get drawn into ranking them from most to least favourite, and the trick of it is how much those feelings shift as the story progresses. Everyone loves Klaus, the twitchy junkie who can see dead people, his completely non heroic yet hilariously stoned outlook gives him many of the best lines and most fun scenes. I changed allegiance several times with the others, but Klaus, played by the charismatic Irish actor Robert Sheehan, always remained my favourite, because of his hippie rockstar vibe. Although it’s hard not to have a soft spot for Number 5, the time travelling schoolboy that has been missing for years and re-emerges as a middle aged man still trapped in the boys’ body. Aiden Gillen is superb in conveying that he is older whilst always looking like a teenager, and in many ways he is the true pivot and anchor of the story.
I suppose before the show aired it was Ellen Page that was the “star” draw amongst the young and mostly unknown cast of “heroes”. As Vanya, the only Hargreaves child never to demonstrate a power, and held aside by their controlling father, she is the outsider and most insecure of the bunch. You sense her storyline is going to be crucial to the whole shebang, and so it turns out, but her fame as an actress of note never overshadows the show as a whole – it feels instantly like a group effort, and in that sense a true family, the deeper you get into it.
I could go on explaining each character and the details of the intricate plot forever, but I would never do it justice. The only way to see what the fuss is about is to watch it. Anything else would just sound like mad confusion to the uninitiated. All I can say is that it does an incredible job of unfolding its charms and secrets piece by piece. So much so that by the climax of season two I am still not entirely sure we have all the information necessary to know what is going on in a complete sense; there are several questions and mysteries still to be unearthed, and I like that very much.
I have recommended this show to anyone I know who enjoys something entertaining that has substance yet doesn’t take itself too seriously – so that is everyone then! I think it’s allure is that very thing: it manages to hit a zeitgeist of perfect balance between a smart script and plotline with many cliffhangers, and enough disposable moments of fun, to be exactly what the modern Netflix viewer is looking for. Super easy to watch with one eye or with both, depending on what mood you are in.
There is also the style of the thing – a veritable candy box of colours and neat visual tricks, mixed in with some of the best musical montage sequences I have ever seen. I understand from several interviews that Steve Blackman specifically wrote certain scenes around the feel of a piece of music he wanted to include. That is a clever way of building a cult following: find songs that both tell a story and appeal to the cool kids, then use them as mini music video segments that punctuate the heavier elements of storytelling. It’s not a new trick, but the song choices here are so good that it has rarely been done this well before.
It all works especially well as we move into season two and an historical context that brings up a lot of pertinent issues for some of the siblings regarding race, sexuality and other freedoms of identity that can be taken for granted in the modern era. I don’t want to spoil too much of that here, but suffice to say as a hook to pin the themes on it is a genius touch that makes season two a huge leap forward on something that was already pretty decent in season one. All the characters become more rounded and relatable, even the so called bad guys – an increasingly eccentric bunch of creations that leave you in no doubt this is a comic book world not to be confused with reality.
At time of writing, a third season has still not being given the greenlight. Considering the massive cliffhanger we are left with at the end of season two, and how big the cult following seems to be by now, it would be an absolute crime not to allow it to continue. The only reason I can see it wouldn’t is that the stories of the source material are now exhausted, and anywhere they go from here will need to be truly original. However, there is so much scope to do almost anything from here that I don’t see it as any kind of issue.
If you haven’t seen it, I urge you whole-heartedly to give it a go. There really is something in there to please everyone, except perhaps the most serious minded of realists. Even then, they’d be hard pressed not to raise a smile or tap a toe at some of the best musical moments of emo hero mayhem.
Since then the rigours of isolation have set me back with a really long backlog for The Wasteland – currently I have a list of over 40 cultural artifacts I want to talk about and share with you- but, I am very glad to be talking about this one today, as even though it wasn’t that long ago, it evokes such fond happy memories of becoming just a little bit obsessed by something. A phenomenon that only seems to happen when you go into something with low to medium expectations and come out feeling like you have found a diamond in the rough.
The concept of 7 children with mysterious powers being adopted and raised by a shady and strict, umbrella wielding, father has been around a few years in the form of several graphic novels, penned by My Chemical Romance frontman Gerard Way. You can feel the vibe of something slightly emo and arty coming through – just cool enough but also self conscious; melancholy and dark in places but also lots of sardonic fun. But, unlike the books, which often look stark and minimal, the world created by show runner and director Steve Blackman is vivid and full to the brim with things to overwhelm the senses.
For the last few years, and especially of late, the Superhero genre has been so oversaturated that it is almost impossible to come up with anything original, but The Umbrella Academy together with Amazon’s The Boys, definitely manage to do that. It has enough mystique to be intriguingly confusing for the first few episodes, as we piece together the Hargreaves’ past that has led to the current situation, and discover the dynamic tension that exists between the adopted siblings. Oh, and there is a talking chimpanzee butler / guardian called Pogo, that feels like CGI gimmickery for a while, before growing into something truly wonderful.
The first thing you notice about this set of misfits, as they reassemble for their father’s funeral after years of bitterness and estrangement, is that they are all a little bit broken and uncomfortable in their own skins – their powers as individuals are all a bit, well frankly underwhelming, and their personalities are not exactly attractive in every case. Season one is all about re-establishing connections and working through identity crises. In many ways it is a coming of age story, as circumstances lead to them needing to grow up fast and join together to achieve true power. It works both on the surface and as a deeper allegory.
As each main character is introduced you inevitably get drawn into ranking them from most to least favourite, and the trick of it is how much those feelings shift as the story progresses. Everyone loves Klaus, the twitchy junkie who can see dead people, his completely non heroic yet hilariously stoned outlook gives him many of the best lines and most fun scenes. I changed allegiance several times with the others, but Klaus, played by the charismatic Irish actor Robert Sheehan, always remained my favourite, because of his hippie rockstar vibe. Although it’s hard not to have a soft spot for Number 5, the time travelling schoolboy that has been missing for years and re-emerges as a middle aged man still trapped in the boys’ body. Aiden Gillen is superb in conveying that he is older whilst always looking like a teenager, and in many ways he is the true pivot and anchor of the story.
I suppose before the show aired it was Ellen Page that was the “star” draw amongst the young and mostly unknown cast of “heroes”. As Vanya, the only Hargreaves child never to demonstrate a power, and held aside by their controlling father, she is the outsider and most insecure of the bunch. You sense her storyline is going to be crucial to the whole shebang, and so it turns out, but her fame as an actress of note never overshadows the show as a whole – it feels instantly like a group effort, and in that sense a true family, the deeper you get into it.
I could go on explaining each character and the details of the intricate plot forever, but I would never do it justice. The only way to see what the fuss is about is to watch it. Anything else would just sound like mad confusion to the uninitiated. All I can say is that it does an incredible job of unfolding its charms and secrets piece by piece. So much so that by the climax of season two I am still not entirely sure we have all the information necessary to know what is going on in a complete sense; there are several questions and mysteries still to be unearthed, and I like that very much.
I have recommended this show to anyone I know who enjoys something entertaining that has substance yet doesn’t take itself too seriously – so that is everyone then! I think it’s allure is that very thing: it manages to hit a zeitgeist of perfect balance between a smart script and plotline with many cliffhangers, and enough disposable moments of fun, to be exactly what the modern Netflix viewer is looking for. Super easy to watch with one eye or with both, depending on what mood you are in.
There is also the style of the thing – a veritable candy box of colours and neat visual tricks, mixed in with some of the best musical montage sequences I have ever seen. I understand from several interviews that Steve Blackman specifically wrote certain scenes around the feel of a piece of music he wanted to include. That is a clever way of building a cult following: find songs that both tell a story and appeal to the cool kids, then use them as mini music video segments that punctuate the heavier elements of storytelling. It’s not a new trick, but the song choices here are so good that it has rarely been done this well before.
It all works especially well as we move into season two and an historical context that brings up a lot of pertinent issues for some of the siblings regarding race, sexuality and other freedoms of identity that can be taken for granted in the modern era. I don’t want to spoil too much of that here, but suffice to say as a hook to pin the themes on it is a genius touch that makes season two a huge leap forward on something that was already pretty decent in season one. All the characters become more rounded and relatable, even the so called bad guys – an increasingly eccentric bunch of creations that leave you in no doubt this is a comic book world not to be confused with reality.
At time of writing, a third season has still not being given the greenlight. Considering the massive cliffhanger we are left with at the end of season two, and how big the cult following seems to be by now, it would be an absolute crime not to allow it to continue. The only reason I can see it wouldn’t is that the stories of the source material are now exhausted, and anywhere they go from here will need to be truly original. However, there is so much scope to do almost anything from here that I don’t see it as any kind of issue.
If you haven’t seen it, I urge you whole-heartedly to give it a go. There really is something in there to please everyone, except perhaps the most serious minded of realists. Even then, they’d be hard pressed not to raise a smile or tap a toe at some of the best musical moments of emo hero mayhem.