jmg999

I heard a recommendation for this that made me want to sit down and watch it. When the film began, the first thing I noticed was the age differential between Jaden Smith and Cara Delevingne. As I kept watching, I noted how this film was derivative of others of its genre, such as "Me and Earl and the Dying Girl" and "The Fault in Our Stars," specifically. Yet, I didn't feel that this film captured the quality of either of those. This being said, as the story progressed, it definitely grew on me and immersed me in the lives of two young people living w/ heartbreaking tragedy.

Watching any child die is tremendously difficult, and this film is no different. The scriptwriters knew this and played at it, which gave this film a more convincing veneer. It wasn't an easy film to watch b/c of the narrative, but at a certain point, I became invested in it to the point that these other concerns melted away, and I was just left w/ two teenagers dealing w/ something that no teenager should have to.

One of the things that makes this film work is the work by a strong cast of actors. Jaden Smith, Cara Delevingne, Nia Long, Cuba Gooding, Jr., and RZA were all exceptional in their roles. While stronger writing could have made for a better overall movie, these actors really stepped up and nailed their roles.

This was a particularly impressive film. Cooper Raiff created a tremendous screenplay, and the actors chosen for their respective roles were certainly worthy of their given tasks. This film brought out exceptional performances from all involved, especially Vanessa Burghardt, co-starring in her first film, and Leslie Mann, who just kills it in everything that she's in. She really gets far less credit than she deserves for her level of talent. And, of course, Dakota Johnson was fantastic in her role, as well, which covered a great deal of emotional ground.

What set this film apart from others like it in its genre was its realism. While the protagonist, played quite capably by Cooper Raiff, began the film as a bright-eyed, hopeful, recent college grad looking at a world of opportunities, he quickly came to the realization that life outside of college couldn't always be planned for, and we, as the audience, began to see the cracks in the facade of not only his character but also those in his life. And, that's what makes for a great character, their problems, how they deal w/ them, and what the outcome ends up looking like.

In this film, what turned out to be in the end wasn't necessarily what we may have expected, but then again, that's how life works. That's what was so realistic about this film. Life can often be sad or melancholy, and sometimes, we'll have feelings of ambivalence or unrequited love. None of this makes our lives worth any less. It's simply another of life's many lessons along the journey, and that's the splendor of experiencing living.

There were portions of this film that I truly enjoyed and portions that I could've done w/ out. Since there was much more good than bad, I'll start w/ what I liked:

1. Although not a huge Batman fan, I have seen all the movies, including some of the animated films, and I really appreciated the gritty, noir quality this film had. It lent well to the dark atmosphere that was necessary for this film.
2. I really liked that Batman wasn't portrayed as some superhuman character, b/c he's not. He's a great detective, in the vein of a Sherlock Holmes, and he's been trained in various fighting disciplines, but he's still just a man. He's not like other members of the Justice League, for instance, and I prefer that he not be portrayed that way. In this film, it was shown that he was able to be injured, as many of the fight scenes were fairly realistic, albeit for what they were. I also appreciated that his attire wasn't laden w/ every gadget in the world that he'd require to navigate any situation. He was more of a relatable superhero in this film b/c of this.
3. I am thankful that we didn't get the umpteenth edition of a superhero origin story. Unless the superhero isn't widely known, there's really no reason for that, and for someone like Batman, it'd been done to death.
4. I'm especially appreciative of the fact that Robert Pattinson spent practically the entire movie in Batman's cowl and cape. Far too many superhero movies are made w/out making use of the superheroes. It's really a travesty of filmmaking, and for a superhero movie, where I want to see someone doing fantastic things, I don't need 105 minutes of would-be drama and 15 minutes of superhero action. That doesn't appeal to me.
5. Finally, I enjoyed the relationship between Batman and Detective Gordon. In this film, they worked together as a team. Jeffrey Wright was excellent as Detective Gordon, and the two of them had an interesting co-existence. I also appreciated the way Robert Pattinson played Bruce Wayne, close to the vest but w/ that intensely visible, yet restrained, rageful anger underneath the surface.

As for what I didn't care for:

1. I felt that while this wasn't an origin story, it was still designed as a way to setup characters for future use. I felt that this film would have been a much more potent vehicle had it been viewed by the writer as a stand-alone feature, since it was outside canon.
2. B/c of this reason, I felt that the film dragged a bit in the middle and toward the climax, which I felt was rather anticlimactic. It wasn't a huge deal, b/c it was still a fine film, but I did feel that everyone could've been better served by making the film more streamlined.

I'm ambivalent about this. I am not at all a fan these American defenders of the faith films. I didn't realize that this was a film about a private contractor who'd just gotten out of the service. If I had, I wouldn't have watched it. My feeling is that these films consistently misrepresent these characters in order to make them palatable for the general public.

The cast was strong, but the script was incredibly lacking. There were a number of things that were just off about this; things that weren't necessarily that simple to put a finger on but nonetheless, still missing the mark. I felt that the plot was weak and contrived, and if anyone bothered to apply any critical thinking skills whatsoever, it was likely implausible. We're supposed to believe that a hardcore serviceman kills a scientist who was working on an antiviral vaccine that had the potential to save millions, and he's upset by this? It seems much more likely that he'd be in the anti-vaxx camp and would believe that he'd done the world a service. Regardless, this plot point hardly made much of a difference in the film, so it seemed a rather odd choice to include this particular dilemma.

The ending of the film also bore little relation to what seemed to be the purpose of Chris Pine's character's pursuit throughout the film. In fact, I felt that there were a number of areas throughout the film that were rather inexplicable. The only reason that I gave this film a 6/10 rating was b/c of the casting. If this were some random cast, this probably would've rated a 4/10.

Bravo! This mini-series hit right at the heart of the insidiousness of sexual assault and rape; what it means to be assaulted and what it means to be (dis)believed, and what it means to seek justice. It's incredibly sad and unfortunate that this is such a worldwide epidemic, where victims of sexual assault are regularly dismissed, shamed, or even blamed for being a victim. This mini-series got into the details behind all of this by telling a compelling story of what it was like to be in these various positions.

The casting for this series was especially strong, and the performances were marvelous. Toni Collette and Merritt Wever were tremendous as the investigative detectives, and their chemistry together was fantastic. Kaitlyn Dever, as a teenage rape victim, was believable and sympathetic. Her portrayal of someone who'd been assaulted was detailed and nuanced, and she did justice to the many survivors of sexual assault. Danielle Macdonald was also terrific as another rape victim.

I have to say that as well done as Watchmen was, it wasn't as strong or nearly as important as this mini-series. I felt that this should have won both the Emmy and the Golden Globe for Best Limited Run Series, Best Writing, and Best Casting. This was truly a remarkable achievement; not something that comes along every day.

This was definitely a western for a modern-day audience, and while the story and dialogue lacked in certain parts, the acting was stellar. Overall, this was a tremendous cast of exceptionally talented actors, and I have to state, the three leading women, Danielle Deadwyler, Regina King, and Zazie Beetz really stood out, as wonderful as the rest of the acting was. Ms. Deadwyler's performance was remarkable, and I'm going to now watch her filmography b/c of how impressive she was in this role. She nailed her character to a tee!

Edi Gathegi was also right on point in his role, and as I watched this, I couldn't help but think how underrated Delroy Lindo is as an actor. He has been so good for so long in so many roles, and he really deserves much more credit than he actually receives.

Overall, while the story could have been written for more dramatic effect, rather than the blood and guts style of Quentin Tarantino, and the dialogue could have stood a few revisions, the cast really saved this film. I believe that if this film had been written as more of a drama, rather than an action film, it would've received rave reviews.

The first season was quite impressive. The casting on this was just incredible, and the dialogue was snappy, funny, and kept the story moving in the right direction. While this was billed as a mystery w/ comedic elements, it's much more than that. Each of the leads has a backstory that affects their interactions w/ one another and causes them to come together to seek something that's missing in each of their lives. The first season was as much about this as it was solving the mystery behind the murder.

I also wanted to note the seventh episode in particular. It was an episode that took place from the point-of-view of James Caverly's character, Theo, who is deaf. There's no dialogue in the episode, and there is practically no audio at all, save for limited sound effects and some light background music in a few scenes. The entire episode relied on American Sign Language as a means of communication between Theo and some of the other characters, and he also was able to read lips. As Mr. Caverly is actually deaf in real life, the episode showed a good example of how someone who is deaf might live in a hearing environment; sort of on the periphery, attuned to others, their body language, and what they're saying by use of lip-reading, but not necessarily included in the social structure of the environment. I felt that the cinematography and script of this episode was a really good use of the medium to convey a bit about this world.

Movies like this tend be schmaltzy and corny, but I felt this film was able to eclipse that bar through both the performances and the dialogue. Jessica Rothe was terrific as a young woman struggling in the face of unimaginable adversity showing a tremendous range of emotion in the role. Harry Shum, Jr., while reserved in much of his role, showed off great depth in his ability to reach the core of his character's emotional journey.

While skipping a bit of the process, I did feel that this film sufficiently covered the five stages of grief. It's not easy to watch a loved one die, nor is easy to be the one dying. These stages are very real, something that most of us will go through at some point in our lives, and I felt that this film did service to this shared experience.

One scene I felt encapsulated the relationship between Jennifer and Solomon particularly well was at their wedding, when they were standing at the base of this large fountain discussing the potential outcomes of Solomon's treatment. Jennifer stepped up on the ledge of the fountain and jumped into the water in her flowing wedding gown. She asked Solomon if he was going to join her, and he stepped up on the ledge, as well. After a moment of looking at the water, the camera focused on this feet, as he jumped. It was a strong metaphor to show that Solomon was jumping in w/ both feet first into his marriage, his wife's care and support, his treatment, and his journey into the unknown.

All in all, I thought that this film worked on a variety of different levels. It's not an Academy Award-level drama, and it doesn't try to be. But, it is a solid love story about two young people who struggle mightily w/ something they know very little about, and in the face of all adversity, they found that their love for one another carried them through immense loss and heartbreak as well as could be expected.

I felt that this show really should be evaluated in three parts, as it’s almost as if there were three shows in one. The first season was based on the novel of the same name, so the writers had clearly marked signposts to follow. As the novel was quite compelling, so too was the first season of the show. However, this is where the book ended, and the writers had to take up the slack. The natural progression of events led them to follow the court case surrounding the death of Hannah Baker, as well as the criminal trial of Bryce Walker..

I felt that these two seasons should be evaluated in terms of being different shows. The first season was clearly the best season of the four b/c, that’s the material the book covered, and the writers didn’t have to come up w/ any of their own material. The second season, although panned by some fans and critics, still followed the same themes of the first season, yet it was not up to par in terms of storyline or writing.

The third and fourth seasons should be considered a third show all on their own. While they did stick to similar themes from the first and second seasons, the writers clearly had no plan in place to go beyond the end of the novel. These last two seasons, especially, felt completely disjointed from the first two. The third season was long and drawn out, and the payoff in the end was neither surprising nor all that interesting. If they had maintained more of a mysterious atmosphere over what they were doing, it might have been better.

The fourth season was just a mess. Watching a main character who’s moody, bitter, angry, intense, depressed, and slipping into schizophrenia is not a compelling watch. They began this in season three and continued on in season four. It really added no particular value to the show or the character of Clay.

As for the storyline in the final season, it was absolutely ludicrous. I won’t go into the details, but suffice it to say, the writers really didn’t put much thought into what they were doing. The last two episodes of the show were especially pointless. The prom episode was completely unnecessary, as was the finale, at least the way it was filmed. And, it certainly didn’t require 90 minutes to portray the events of what happened in the finale. Not to mention, the last scene of the show was absolutely awful.

I think that the worst part of this show, however, was the treatment of two characters, Bryce Walker and Montgomery de la Cruz. In the third season, the writers actually spend quite a few resources rehabilitating the image of Bryce, as if there was some redemption to be had for him. He was a serial predator, and his actions would have stemmed from a deep-seated psychological disorder that wouldn’t have simply gone away, b/c he acknowledged his wrongdoing and felt bad about it. They did something similar w/ Monte in the fourth season, and I felt that it was incredibly disingenuous, dangerous, and irresponsible to take this path, b/c it showed that they really hadn’t researched the topics they were writing about. It was really surprising to watch this, and even both of Jessica’s relationships w/ Justin and Diego were quite questionable, especially given her role as head of the women’s rights movement on campus.

Watching this reminded me of watching an overhyped boxing match. It's supposed to be two world-class fighters, and in the first half of the fight, a few solid shots are landed, but it's mostly a feeling out process. In the latter half of the fight, just when you think things are about to get interesting, both fighters show signs of tiring which become more significant, as the fight carries on into the last few rounds. By the time the last round comes to pass, you're basically over the fight, thinking that even one, big, knockout blow couldn't salvage this mess of a fight, and when the knockout doesn't come, the fight goes to the judges' scorecards. In a split-decision, one fight is awarded the victory, although, in reality, they both fought not to lose rather than to win, and you're left w/ that empty feeling wondering why you just wasted $50 on a pay-per-view boxing match that once again didn't live up to its billing.

This story started off well, then just imploded down the stretch. This was a made-for-TV movie back in the '80s, I believe it was, w/ essentially the same storyline. If not for the cast in this film, I would've probably rated it a four on story alone.

I had heard such great things about this mini-series that I believe that my expectations may have been a bit too high. First off, the acting was top-notch! There were so many stellar performances in this, it was really hard to single any one particular individual out, although given that the series focused prominently on Kate Winslet's character, she did just a remarkable job. Julianne Nicholson, Angourie Rice, Jean Smart, Chinasa Ogbuagu, Sosie Bacon, Evan Peters, Enid Graham..the list goes on. All of these actors were really tremendous in this project.

I also have to commend the production for creating a female-centric police drama/murder mystery. It isn't often that we see casting such as this for a show of this type, and not only was it was quite refreshing, but it really gave this series that extra emphasis, when it came to the character-driven drama that was the other half of the storyline. It really worked particularly well in this production.

All of this having been said, what I was not impressed by was the writing, particularly how the pieces of the storyline flowed together, some of the dialogue, the apparent lack of research, and the odd character arcs. The script that Brad Ingelsby wrote came across to me as something less that he'd spent time researching the topics of and more drawing from previous television productions. On more than a few occasions, I found myself realizing that specific bits of dialogue or storyline were quite derivative of other shows. Obviously, stories are rehashed, but this seemed much more like a patchwork of pieces taken from other productions and put into this one storyline.

Due to the derivative nature of the story, some of the dialogue came across as very clichéd and out of place, as in it really didn't fit w/ the storyline. For instance, in the scene at the waterfront after Mare and Zabel’s date, Mare made a comment about she just couldn’t let go of this case, b/c it’s one of those that just “gets inside you, you know?” I thought to myself, “Really? This cold case that you’d moved on from, b/c there were no leads and no evidence, where you didn’t want any outside help, but you weren’t actively working it, either.” This is exactly the type of clichéd statement you’d hear in any generic detective drama, and in this particular case, it literally made no sense in terms of the storyline.

As for some of the characters, they came across as really incredibly awful human beings. Then, they seemingly and miraculously grew hearts that allowed them to do selfless things that put them in harm’s way? Again, this was something that just didn’t fit w/ the nature of the story, and it threw the characters into disarray, b/c there was really no need for this type of role reversal. Additionally, one of the characters who was portrayed as this small-town girl w/ no prospects, looking for trouble around every corner, we suddenly find out was a strong student w/ collegiate potential? Some of these character traits and attributes just came out of nowhere and served no purpose in moving the storyline forward.

The last thing about the writing that I didn’t care for was how the pieces around Mare were shifted. It was almost as if she were in a room w/ one door, and everyone else was in a circle that constantly rotated around the outside of the room. Every time Mare opened the door, a new character would be standing before her, and she would interact w/ them before closing the door. She would then reopen it, and new character would be standing there for her to interact w/. It was almost as if many of these individuals were simply pieces of furniture in her life, there as set-dressing, rather than as characters to drive the storyline deeper.

I believe that the one exception to this was Mare’s mother. Her interactions w/ her showed that this script could have been refined in such a way that many of the characters could have been made fuller and richer w/ more meaningful interactions w/ Mare.

The bottom-line for me was, while the cinematography looked fantastic, and it provided a genuine look and feel that really gave this story series credence, there is a big difference in looking spectacular and actually being spectacular. I believe that the director and producers very much went for a True Detective esthetic, but looking like True Detective isn’t the same thing as being True Detective.

This only gets a six out of 10 based on the acting. The story, while going along quite well for much of the film, came to a crashing halt w/ the realization of what had really occurred. It was really amateurish writing. I don't know if this was a departure from the novel, which I haven't read, but it seemed a rather integral portion of the story, so I'm guessing that it was taken from the book. Given that the ending didn't even make sense, I'm guessing that it was taken from the book, so in totality, it just wasn't a well-written story. It was, more or less, half of a good idea for a story.

Additionally, while I mentioned that the acting bumped this up a notch, one poor casting choice was that of the son, Ethan. If the script calls for a 15-year-old child, cast a 15-year-old child (or someone reasonably w/in that range). Do not cast 20-22-year-olds to play these roles, particularly when they look like they can pass for 28 in the most important scenes of the film. I thought that casting had gotten away from this need to cast older actors in younger roles, but I suppose not.

This was fucking horrific. This scriptwriter should be forced to find a new career. The second that Rosamund Pike was kidnapped, I thought to myself, "He's either going to propose, or they're going to go into business together." The problem was in getting to the point, where this actually happened. These Russian mobsters must've been the most incompetent buffoons on the planet to not be able to finish off two individuals, who they'd already pretty much brought to w/in an inch of their life. This was such an incredible stretch that it made this movie absolutely ridiculous.

Aside from this, the fact that the writer tried to make these two women sympathetic characters screams that there's something really off w/ this writer. On what planet are people who take advantage of, and essentially murder, some of the most vulnerable members of society sympathetic?

On one last note, I've never been a fan of Rosamund Pike. I'd seen her in two previous films, where she was not good at all: Jack Reacher and Gone Girl. In the former, she's so melodramatic, it's difficult to watch, and it's even more difficult to take her character seriously. In the latter, although she's playing a character w/ Antisocial Personality Disorder, that doesn't necessarily mean someone devoid of affect, which is exactly how she played that role. She may as well have been a talking stump in that movie. I realize that she received industry-wide recognition for the latter role, but I prescribe this to the industries' complete and utter lack of understanding of psychological disorders and their accompanying attributes.

I wasn't going to watch this film b/c of my distaste for Ms. Pike's acting ability, but the movie, on its own, won such rave reviews, I figured that I'd give it a chance. However, something about her just wasn't right. She had this odd grin in a lot of scenes, where it either didn't fit, or it seemed like it would've been inappropriate, if it had been a real-life situation. I just find her acting to be really off-putting. Luckily, both Peter Dinklage and Dianne Wiest are always top-notch performers.