This had a fine cast, albeit a bit old to be playing 16-year-olds, but the script and direction were not good. I found Dakota Johnson's character to be really unlikeable for most of the film, and there was no look into the three members of her cohort, which seemed like a really wasted opportunity. What was the plan, to tell their backstory in a sequel? Tahar Rahim is a fine actor, but he was not good in this, and for all the vitriol against this film, it wasn't that bad, but it also wasn't good, as it really wasn't a superhero film, so I'm not really certain why they marketed it as such. To give you an idea of how bad the scripting/dialogue was, there was a scene in the first third of the film, where the four main characters are standing in a park getting to know one another a bit. Celeste O'Connor complains that her father makes a fortune polluting the oceans with plastics, which would've been a worthy gripe had she not less than 30 seconds earlier finished eating a bag of beef jerky before tossing the empty plastic bag into the bushes. Seriously, no one in the entire filmmaking process caught this?
This was an incredible achievement in filmmaking. What Benh Zeitlin captured on film was astounding, and Quvenzhané Wallis' performance, by a six-year-old nonetheless, was something that has to be seen to be believed. As I watched this tale of a daughter and her ailing father living deep in the bayou of Louisiana, I couldn't help but think of the film Cidade de Deus, which evoked similar feelings of authenticity and cultural understanding. The world captured in this film also reminded me of a book I'd read years ago that mostly took place on an island off the coast of Virginia, where people had lived for generations w/out much, if any, contact from mainland America. It was as if they were leaving in a completely different country, and this had a very similar feeling. As someone who has lived their entire life in a major metropolis, it's incredibly eye-opening to see that there are pockets of first-world countries that have seemingly been left in the past, largely untouched by technological, medical, or educational advancements.
In a way, this was a simple story about those struggling to survive in the face of a dying homeland. But, it's also about the people and their connection to one another and their origins. I think that the message at the end of this film was that in spite of the harshness of reality, life goes on, and we adapt to ever-changing conditions, or we cease to go on with it.
This may be the finest series finale I've ever seen in all my years. It was such a fitting ending for all involved, as they held a funeral for Old Man Fixico. It was a community affair attended by everyone, and as Willie Jack had been under Fixico's tutelage, she spoke in his honor. She noted her growth and spoke of how no matter what everyone decided to do w/ their lives, the reservation would always be their home, a part of them and they of each other. What she spoke of really mirrored the show and its premature ending. She stated that "He was my good friend, and we were just really starting to get to know each other, and I'm happy for my time with him. Boa, I know I didn't get to spend enough time with you. But mvto for everything that you taught me." And who among us didn't have these sentiments when viewing this final episode. When Willie Jack was done speaking, she picked up a handful of dirt and spread it over Fixico's casket, as if metaphorically spreading the dirt on the casket of this series.
Over the course of the series, Willie Jack's growth was remarkable. She started as a kid w/ a smart mouth and grew into a caretaker of the community. She was the one member of the Rez Dogs who kept them together, through thick and thin, and helped show them realize just how precious their time together truly was. It's something that goes by in the blink of an eye, and you can lose it w/out ever realizing that it's gone. We never know the last time we'll someone, so it's important to remain as connected as possible, and that's what this show was about, the connective tissues that held this community together, and it was beautiful to watch it play out over the course of three seasons. I'll always be grateful for my time w/ Elora Danan, Willie Jack, Bear, Cheese, and the rest of the village community. From the bottom of my heart, mvto, Reservation Dogs.
This was an incredible portrait of what it means to be a displaced person. I greatly appreciated the fact that two-thirds of the film focused on the journey from a war-torn Syria to safe refuge in Germany. The inbetween trek was heartbreaking and frightening, and real-life sisters Manal and Nathalie Issa did an amazing job of portraying the harrowing journey. At its core, this was a story of the indomitable nature of the human spirit and our will to overcome all odds and obstacles. Displaced peoples will go through unimaginable travails in order to find a new, safe life for themselves and their families, and it's not anything to be taken lightly or dismissed.
While medaling in the Olympics would've been great, it would always pale in comparison to what the Mardini sisters chose to do w/ their lives. They're both champions of human rights, helping displaced peoples find their way safely to new lives. They are both to be commended for their choices.
For a number of years, I've supported an agency that assists widows and orphans in Syria. Their own government has waged an illegal war on the people of that country, and NuDay Syria has helped provide necessary services to displaced families. In addition to providing goods and services, they also teach the women a sustainable skill, so they can make money to support their family. It's really an amazing organization, and they're backed by the UN. If you're able, I highly suggest supporting them and those they help.
I'm still not sure what to make of this mini-series. I love the Maya Lopez/Echo character, an Indigenous woman who is deaf with a disability, that cross-representation is so, so awesome for a number of greatly underrepresented communities. Yet, this story felt incomplete. It seemed as if they had created a much richer story, and possibly filmed quite a bit of it, then cut it out for some reason. That this was only five episodes was one indication and that the final three episodes all decreased in length, w/ the final episode coming in at less than 30 minutes, was another. Also, much of the first episode seemed to be taken from the Hawkeye mini-series.
Usually, when a mini-series ends w/ an episode that's significantly shorter than the rest of the series, it's not a good indication, as it often feels like leftovers from the main story; not so much an epilogue as that the filmmakers didn't really flesh out the story completely, and that was what they were left w/. This series felt less like that, b/c the storyline continuity seemed off throughout, and as noted, episodes got shorter and shorter. It just really left a sense that so much was left behind during the editing process. It really seemed that there had to be more to this story in order to make it fuller and more robust. I had a difficult time understanding how this might of occurred, since Sydney Freedland, of Reservation Dogs fame directed four of the five episodes, and she was more than capable of bringing home a stellar series. It seemed as if Marvel's hand in this might've taken the ship off-course.
One thing that I really wanted to see more of was the relationship between Maya and Bonnie. They played it up as if they were sisters forcibly removed from one another's lives, but they barely utilized Bonnie. She seemed more like a set piece used to move the story forward, and that was through no fault on the behalf of Devery Jacobs, who's a tremendous, young actor. I will say that Alaqua Cox did a tremendous job as Maya Lopez/Echo. For someone w/out a lot of acting credits to their name, she really held her own well, and she did herself proud as a representative of the Indigenous, deaf, and disabled communities. I also greatly appreciated the message that strong, intelligent, capable women could accomplish anything together. I really hope that her character is used to better effect in the new Daredevil series.
The writing for this show is so bad. This intro to the Punisher makes him appear weak and indecisive. There's no discernable difference between him and the dozens of faceless, nameless bikers across this four episode arc. They did a terrible job introducing him, and furthermore, the acting on this show makes it nearly unwatchable. Elden Henson was a poor actor as child, and he never got any better. Having him as a bit player is one thing, but having him as a co-star, where he's required to carry scenes is unacceptable, b/c he's incapable of doing so. Watching him act opposite Rosario Dawson was just painful, b/c he's so far out of his league opposite her. I don't find Charlie Cox to be anything special, either. He's an all right actor, but he doesn't command the presence necessary to hold this role. I also find his moralizing incredibly disingenuous and irritating.
What this episode boiled down to was, Frank Castle, the Punisher, had Matt Murdock (Daredevil) chained up on a rooftop, and he'd duct taped a gun onto his hand, so he had a choice: He could either shoot Frank, as Frank was killing one of Murdock's clients who also tied up. Murdock chose not to shoot him, instead shooting the chain to break free. He didn't shoot Frank, b/c he spent the entire episode moralizing about how it was wrong to kill anyone. Yet, moments later, after escaping, he came across a number of angry bikers. The gun is still duct taped to his hand, and he pulls the trigger, but there are no more rounds in the gun. So, the moral of the story was, it's all right to waste an episode going on about how it's bad to kill criminals, but when given a chance, it's all right to do so? The story made zero sense, and it was a giant waste of time.
This was such a poor movie. The only reason I gave this a five out of 10 was due to the cast, even though many of them seemed to mail their performances in. First off, James Wan is not a talented director or writer. He should not be allowed to helm anything other than the garbage horror films he makes or the crappy Fast & Furious franchise movies he's helmed. He effectively ruined the Aquaman franchise for DC. Also, while I like Jason Momoa, he shouldn't be writing any films. He's not exactly what I would call an intellectual, so this film came across as him playing himself. Even Nicole Kidman's performance came across as comical, and she's one of the finest actors ever.
This movie had the feel of a '90s superhero film, and much of the dialogue came across as if it was ripped directly from an '80s superhero film, and none of that was a good thing. Seriously, what was w/ Black Manta's crew and their matching uniforms?!? It was a combination of old superhero films and the worst parts of 1960s James Bond films. At one point, this delved into a Journey to the Center of the Earth-type film. It seems as if they had no plan for this, instead just winging it, and this was quite distinct in the final version. It was quite telling, even from the very beginning of the film, where they joked about what a joke this film was. What type of director does that? It's even more concerning that this was the third version of this film, since the first two versions were panned by test audiences.
I'm six episodes through this season, and it's not nearly on par w/ the first season. The first season storyline was interesting, and it was about an outsider and loner who partnered w/ two people to bring his brother's killers to justice, although he still worked alone much of the time. The second season moves away from this premise, where he quickly sheds his loner persona and joins his old military buddies to track down some dirty, former cops. The problem here is that the story for the second season is lame and generic. It's the same thing that any movie about investigators/cops would use. I realize that this can't necessarily be helped, in this instance, b/c it's derived from the source material. However, I think that they could develop some original material for this character that would be much more interesting.
In addition, much of the season has the look and feel of those terrible network cop dramas, such as CSI: Miami or Law & Order: SVU. Even though these programs are episodic in nature, they still have a soap opera feel to them. They're not character-driven programs; they're story-driven programs. Reacher is the opposite. He's the main character, and he drives the story forward. I checked the credits of the directors, and many, if not all, of them have worked primarily in network TV dramas, many of them cop dramas. I think that that was a bad choice to direct episodes of this show. These directors hired recycled actors from the shows they'd previously worked on. I recognized three or four character actors, at least, who had been in this cop drama or that cop drama.
They also brought Malcolm Goodwin in as a callback to the first season, which I really liked, as he was great in the first season, but they utilized him so poorly. He essentially stood around during an interrogation by Reacher and his associate. It was really pointless. I noticed that they also did this during the sixth episode, where a young girl was being protected by one of Reacher's associates. She was in great danger of dying, and they utilized her more as a prop than as a human being. She was just there. I felt that this was really poor writing and direction. They could do a lot better than this.
I just finished the final season, and given the show was what it was, a cultural phenomenon that was essentially about nothing of great importance, the final season was a mixed bag. For large stretches of the first five of six episodes, they moved away from their witty, back-and-forth banter that won them so many fans and dove into actual content that indicated potential future directions for the characters. However, they seemingly gave up on this idea, blew off the apparent changes that might take place in the lives of the characters, and had the show end on a disappointing note, where everyone was still in the same place, doing the same things, they had been in the first episode of the show. There was seemingly very little growth from any of them.
Having noted that I like the actual real storyline they started the final season w/, there were a number of things I questioned about the final season, as well. First, they introduced a number of new characters, something that's never a good idea during the final season of a show, especially an ensemble show such as Letterkenny. Second, they introduced these characters at the expense of other established characters who received little-to-no screen time during the final season. The characters essentially missing from the final season included Joint Boy, Coach, Glen, Bonnie and Mrs. McMurray, Rosie, Tanis, Dax and Ron, Aly and Bianca, Barts, Yorkie, Scholtzy, Fisky, and Boomtown, Mary-Anne and Betty-Anne, the Dyck family, and Anik. Of all these people, some were seen in the final season and had small roles, but most of them either weren't seen at all or had no lines. This was incredibly disappointing, and I don't know why they chose to go this route w/ the final season. Third, in the final episode, Jonesy and Reilly stopped by the produce stand to offer their thanks and respect to Wayne and Dary for all the times they'd stood by one another in times of trouble, and instead of showing any growth from Wayne and Dary, the writers chose to have them chirp the boys the same as they'd done in early seasons of the show. I felt that this was another missed opportunity to give validity to previous seasons. In other words, by not acknowledging Jonesy and Reilly, they essentially said that all the times they'd been there for one another didn't matter, and that was really a shame. I think that writing like that devalued their own show. Fourth, the whole idea of having each of the main characters move on to something bigger in their lives was a good idea, but they scrapped it all over nothing. I will never understand the decision to build this storyline, then forget all about it by disregarding it in its entirety. Finally, they spent a significant portion of the final episode, and the only segment of the season Glen was a part of, rehashing the episode Fartbook. This was really a head-scratcher, as it was one of the most lowest-rated episodes of the entire series as shown by its rating on multiple platforms. It was really a poor choice to include this, and it also said that the writers were really out of touch w/ what their audience wanted and expected from them. You don't see that very often in hit TV shows. The writers and producers usually pay great attention to what the audience responds and doesn't write more of something that failed spectacularly in previous episodes. I really don't know what they were thinking, but it wasn't a good look for the writers.
This show will likely continue to be one of my favorite comedies, but I really felt that the final season could've and should've gone in an alternate direction. They started off really well, and the whole thing imploded in the last two episodes for no reason. I think that they would've been better off simply sticking to their formula and doing the same bits they'd previously done w/out the teaser of having ending arcs for the characters. There really was no character arc for any of the characters on this show. Instead, it was more of a flat line.
This was a film in parts. There were parts I liked, parts I didn't like, and parts I didn't have any strong feelings about one way or another. First off, the storyline was quite convoluted, unnecessarily so. There were a number of reveals but none crucial to the actual outcome of the film. Primarily, I was bored by the first third of the film, while the middle third was, I felt, the best, and the ending third was designed to push the story forward. I'm not really sure where they set up to go from here, b/c it wasn't overtly clear from the script. Yes, there were some indications of what might happen next, but I don't think that they did a good job of really leaning into any particular storyline that was of significant consequence. Additionally, the CGI was blatantly awful; just horrendous.
I really, really liked Sasha Calle as Kara Zor-El. She was fantastic in the role! In fact, in her short amount of time on screen, she was the best part of the film. I really hope that they follow-up w/ her in a stand-alone Supergirl film, b/c that would be ideal.
The problem w/ the Flash is that he's really not a great superhero. He's fast, and that's it. Underneath, he's still just a man. Thus, if physics were applied, he'd be a pile of goo any time he ran that fast. Even if he wasn't, traveling at the speed of light and touching anything would cause him to end up in a billion pieces. I've always felt that the Flash was the weakest character in the Justice League. And, when they make him the comedic foil, it only makes it worse. There's really nothing amusing about this film, so that goofy character that he's written as just doesn't work. In fact, it's really annoying, b/c for someone as smart as he's supposed to be, he comes across as quite dense.
Since this bombed at the box office, I'm hoping that they move away from it and on to better fare. That's my hope, but the reality is, James Gunn has a giant ego, and he's the kind of guy to make a movie simply to assuage that ego. My fear is that he'll continue down this path w/ the DCEU, b/c the Flash is a primary character in it, and we'll get saddled w/ a lot of second-rate superheroes, when we could've still had Henry Cavill and Gal Gadot in the main roles. It's really a shame that Gunn was put in charge, for a number of reasons, but between him and Zaslav, the old, white boys club is in full effect, so we'll get what they decide to give us. Really, it's painful to watch what Warner Bros. has done w/ this franchise of characters. It's too bad that they didn't hash everything out from the get-go.
I felt that this show never really found its footing, which was disappointing, b/c it had an interesting premise and relatable characters w/ one notable exception. I felt that Craig Roberts, as David in the lead role, was written in an odd fashion. This wasn't a knock on his acting ability but more in how the character was created. He, more or less, was simply there in each scene. There wasn't much affect from him, so his character came off as more of a bystander in his own life. Aside from him, the other characters, as written, were quite enjoyable to follow.
One thing I found questionable about the direction of the show was that, after the first season, they largely moved away from the country club setting. I thought that this was a poor choice, since the setting of the show was what made it unique in many regards. This show, as originally planned, had the feel of an adult summer camp-type vehicle. However, when they repositioned this show to follow the characters from the club to other areas of their lives, it lost much of the distinctive feel it originally held. I felt that this was a mistake in the direction of the show, and it ultimately led to its downfall, which was unfortunate, b/c it held so much promise and could've easily run for five or six full seasons.
My score for this show is a reluctant seven. It really deserved a less, but I based my per-episode ratings on production values and topics touched upon. Based upon story and writing, I would've given this show a three- or four-star rating. The writing and direction, as in direction of the storylines, was incredibly lazy. This show was a constant stream of the relatives of those killed by Barry coming back to seek revenge against him. It wasn't all that interesting of an idea to begin w/, and it certainly didn't get better as seasons progressed.
I was immediately bored w/ this series, and I never really grew an interest in watching any of it. I found the characters to be really "meh." I thought that the best character was NoHo Hank, but his role in this wasn't very consequential. Then again, no one's role in this was consequential b/c of the way the show was designed. There was no one to root for, and practically everyone on this show was some self-serving individual. In nearly every instance, these characters were incredibly one-dimensional.
And, what was w/ the final season? There were what, three consecutive episodes leading into the finale which Bill Hader didn't appear in? What were they thinking? It recalled a line from a great movie, Quiz Show, where one of the main characters, Charles Van Doren, wasn't called to testify during a congressional investigation, where he was a central figured, and the wife of the main protagonist stated, "Quiz show hearings without Van Doren was like doing Hamlet without Hamlet." How do you have a show focused so completely on one man, and three of the four final episodes don't feature this character? It's mind-boggling how this show received such incredible ratings.
I'd been putting off watching this film for years. I'm glad that I finally took the time to watch it. It's a really interesting film. It's great in the sense that it's an incredibly achievement in filmmaking. However, I can't help but imagine that if this were a traditionally filmed movie, where various actors played the same characters at different stages of their lives, it wouldn't be so well thought of. There was really nothing traditional about this film in the sense that it didn't really have a beginning, middle, and end the way that almost all films have. This was simply a story about life.
As I watched this, one thing that occurred to me was why this film was named what it was. The first 50-60 percent of this film didn't really focus on Mason. It was more a focus on the entire family structure. It wasn't until the latter half of the film that he became the main focus of the storyline. I felt that the film fell off a bit at that point, as I would have liked to have seen the focus remain on the family, rather than zeroing in on Mason. It wasn't a major issue; it was more of my particular preference for the direction of this tale.
This film is not what it seems. It's one thing to look at mental health through the lens of stalking social media influencers, but this film goes beyond that into an area that doesn't deserve to be explored in a film of this type. Ingrid is a woman, likely with some type of undiagnosed attachment disorder, who stalks social media influencers by ingratiating herself into their lives. She attempts to make herself appear as if her life is fuller than it actually is, and she does so through duplicitous methods. For instance, [spoiler]she tells her newfound friends that she has a boyfriend, and she sleeps with her landlord in order to get him to pose as such for her.[/spoiler] It could be argued that this action fits with the narrative of the film by being symptomatic of her disorder. Fair enough.
However, she does other things that have nothing to do w/ her disorder that make her an awful human being. In one instance, [spoiler]she borrowed the truck of her landlord, and violated the agreement she had to return it, b/c she was having fun w/ a new friend. Later, she wrecked the truck, and when she finally brought it back, she had cost her landlord his ability to meet a responsibility, and she offered no accountability. She tried to pretend that it wasn't a big deal and not something she should be bothered w/. Later in the film, it's indicated that the damage was $8000, and again, she attempted to play it off. She later outrights steals the truck, which, again, could be seen as something related to her disorder.[spoiler/]
Those who engage in this type of behavior are dangerous. I felt that they focused so much on the mental health-related aspects of her behavior, they overlooked what a terrible human being they actually made her aside from that.
I was not impressed by this. The producers played this up as an extraordinary set of events that brought these brothers together and a conspiracy that created the separation in their lives. The fact of the matter was that all three of them grew up in the same area, and two of them ended up at the same community college, where they found one another. When that happened, their story made the local papers, where the third brother found them. It really wasn't an amazing set of circumstances. It was a simple coincidence, and given that they all lived in proximity to one another, it was likely that they, or someone they knew, would've eventually crossed paths w/ one another.
As for the conspiracy, the adoption agency was at fault for not informing any of the adoptive families that these boys were part of a set of triplets. Apparently, they did this w/ multiple sets of multiple births. While the producers hinted that the study that involved these siblings was somehow in on this w/ the adoption agency, they never actually provided any evidence to back a claim of that type. Instead, they interviewed the two surviving brothers, and had them spout their ignorant opinions about social science research. It really didn't make them or the producers come off very well. They also made statements about how the researchers were disingenuous in what they were studying, but the fact was, they didn't know what they were studying, b/c no one ever filed any legal claim to the underlying data for the unpublished study.
This entire production came off as incredibly amateurish, unfinished, and really a not terribly interesting story. In actuality, the first 15 minutes of this documentary were interviews w/ people talking about how they couldn't believe how much these siblings looked alike. It was unnecessary and boring to watch. Aside from that, this very much felt like another of these manufactured documentaries that are all too common these days. These are stories that aren't clear-cut, so the producers create a story, instead of documenting it.
There really wasn't much to this film. The fact is, I found the ending to be particularly egregious. An on-screen graphic stated that Phil Knight has donated $2 billion to charity. What it didn't say was that he weaseled Nike away from its founding father, Bill Bowerman, supported child molesters, rapists, and murderers by giving them multi-million dollar shoe deals, and supported white nationalism, neo-Confederatism, Christo-fascism, and neo-Nazism by being a supporter of Donald Trump and hateful, right-wing policies.
The film also puffed up Sonny Vaccaro, a man who has played a significantly mixed role in American athleticism. Yes, he did help bring Michael Jordan to Nike, and he recruited Ed O'Bannon for the claim against the NCAA that eventually allowed student-athletes to receive payments while in school, but he also had a huge hand in creating the shady, often illegal activities of summer basketball camps, all-star youth tournaments, and elite prospect camps, all endeavors supported by basketball shoe companies, which Vaccaro took a big piece of the pie from. He was essentially paid to force kids to risk their eligibility to play high school and college basketball. This was his day-to-day job. He really wasn't a figure to admired.
While viewing this episode, especially the ending sequence, I was reminded of an incredibly fitting tale once retold by the great orator and baseball announcer, the recently deceased Vin Scully, upon his induction, many years ago, into the Baseball Hall of Fame:
"There is a legend in the West of an Indian chief who was wont to test the manhood of his young braves by making them climb up the side of a mountain as far as they could in a single day. And at daybreak on the appointed day, four braves left the village. The first one came back in the late afternoon w/ a sprig of spruce to show how high he had climbed. Later that afternoon, another came with a branch of pine, and much later in the day, the third came with an alpine shrub. But, it wasn’t until late that night by a full moon with the stars dancing in the heavens that the fourth brave arrived. “What did you bring back? How high did you climb?” asked the chief. And the brave said, “Where I was, there was no spruce nor pine to shield me from the Sun; there was no flower to cheer my path; there was only snow and ice and barren rocks and cold, hard ground. My feet are torn and bloodied; I’m worn out and exhausted; I’m barehanded, and I have come home late. But,” and then a wondrous look came into his eye, and he said, “I saw the sea.”"
What can be stated about this program that hasn't previously been stated? In all aspects, it's terrific. The writing, direction, acting, flow of the storylines, and feel of an oft-forgotten culture is tremendous. I felt that that the particular efforts of Devery Jacobs and Paulina Alexis were amazing. They both played quite difficult, delicate roles, and they absolutely nailed them!
Some of what I greatly appreciated about this show was how deeply-ingrained the culture of Native American peoples were into the storylines. This show existed on so many levels at once, and all done so well, it was truly astounding. It was quite the achievement in television. Most importantly, the writing didn't gloss over life events that affect us the most. This show encapsulated a tremendous sense of loss on the behalf of many characters, b/c that was a fact of life on many Indigenous reservations. The fact that the writers didn't create a singular episode from it, but instead, used it as an overarching storyline was to their credit and should be commended.
This show could be difficult to watch at times, b/c it wa so powerful, but the lives of the characters were important and deeply-rooted in a community that mattered. This was the type of television we should be watching, not just b/c it was so fantastic, but b/c, it was so important to how we relate to one another.
This story had so much heart rooted in its message of family, friendship, and togetherness in community. It's unfortunate that we were only honored with three, short seasons of this masterpiece, but in a way, I believe that its brevity will cause it to linger in our collective conscience for a long, long time. These characters, especially the four at the core of the series, Elora Danan Postoak, Willie Jack, Cheese, and Bear Smallhill, left an indelible mark of how friends and family were there for one another through thick and thin. I'm glad that I got to spend some time w/ all of them, and learn of their culture and community, while gleaning a bit of understanding of what makes them who they were as a people and as individuals. Mvto, Rez Dogs.
This is a stunningly gorgeous tale. In an account about loss of humanity, it's the chronicle of our connection to community, our humanity, and the ties that bind. The first season of this program is a master-class in storytelling, filmmaking, acting, and scene setting. There were a number of episodes that focused solely on the connections among characters, and it was so well done that it made them all come alive. We got to actually feel what it would be like to love and lose those most special to us.
I am not a fan of zombies, and I never have been. That being said, I played The Last of Us, and the game stood out for me, as it did for most who played it, as a story of a father and daughter, the loss in their lives, and their ability to reach out to one another, not to fill the hole of what was once missing, but to make complete their sense of being. Those responsible for this production brought this to life during the first season.
I have to give one special set of props to Bella Ramsey. What an absolutely incredible actor she is! Her performance in this season was so utterly remarkable that I can't wait to see how her career progresses. There were a number of standout performances, and even among them, hers rose to the top. She was simply amazing in this.
This was really terrible. It was as formulaic as formulaic got. As I watched the film, I was reminded that while the creators of the majority of these superheroes may have had a good idea in the beginning, a good idea does not a story make. Most superhero origin stories were incredibly basic. They followed the same type of idea, and it got really boring really fast. There was zero depth to any of the characters involved in this film, and when Amanda Waller called on a ridiculous roster of superheroes to assist in whatever catastrophe was next, it made for a really poor setup of a movie, let alone movie franchise.
The cursory look at whether these superheroes should be assisting oppressed people was really pathetic, as well. They showed up in an oppressed country and protected the oppressors w/ some line about "due process." It made them look like the same fascists that were oppressing others in the first place, b/c fascism and murder were not designed to be fought w/ due process. The entire point of fascism was to bypass due process in order to implement your special brand of hate.
This line of thinking bled into the entire problem w/ the dialogue. The script felt as if it were written by people who didn't have much in the way of critical thinking prowess. In the beginning of the film, the heroes were on their way to confront Black Adam, and Pierce Brosnan made a statement about how they'd employ diplomacy so as not to get into a fight w/ him. The first thing Brosnan then said to Black Adam was, "Kneel or die." How exactly was that anywhere in the universe of diplomacy?
Finally, there was one plot point that stood out as especially terrible, and it was the death of Fate. In the film, he stated to his team members that he'd be taking on the enemy himself, b/c he foresaw the death of Hawkman. He said that he should be the one who dies, instead. However, he didn't so much as die in battle as commit suicide. In the middle of the fight, he simply removed his helmet, the item which gave him all his power, and allowed the enemy to kill him. Of course, this was used as the emotional impetus to drive his teammates. It was so poorly written that it was nearly unfathomable. The only reason I gave this film a six was due to the fact that this debacle wasn't in any way the fault of the actors involved, and I felt bad for them.
When I first watched Community, it was already off the air, and I binged the entire thing. As I made my way through, it quickly became one of my favorite shows. However, upon rewatching it a few times over the years, it definitely lost some of its luster. While I rated the entirety of the program an eight, I still think that's being generous. In reality, this show was a handful of really great episodes, mainly those w/ a thematic nature, surrounded by a lot of bad television. Over the years, a number of fans leaned on the idea that this was dependent upon Dan Harmon leaving the program as show runner after three seasons, as the fourth season was considered weak in comparison to the first three, and the fifth was a return to greatness. I don't subscribe to this hypothesis, though. I felt that the fourth season, while not in the same tone as the first three, was just as good. The fifth season made changes that didn't fit w/ the current of the program, and as for the sixth, much of that was truly awful television. The ending of the show felt pushed together, b/c for all the Annie-Jeff will they, won't they talk, the reality was that the writers really didn't explore this much beyond the first couple seasons. Yes, there were the furtive glances and off-handed remarks, but in totality, there wasn't much exploration of this storyline. Thus, in the finale, Jeff's outpouring of emotion toward Annie was really out of the blue. And, more than anything, the homophobic jokes and toilet humor by Chang really killed any semblance of a mood. I saw no purpose to those, but it gave me some insight into Dan Harmon's abilities as a writer, and it told me that he really was overhyped. For every great idea he had, he had seven or eight that were unremarkable or outright terrible.
Through all of this, the show was solid throughout the first two seasons and midway through the third, but the writing seemed to take a nosedive at that point. While some of the program's best episodes were aired during the third season, the writers also began leaning heavily into certain characteristics of the characters: Shirley's cloying behavior, Annie's neuroticism, Pierce's political incorrectness, Troy's ridiculousness, Britta's , Abed's tenuous grip on reality, Jeff's superficiality, and worst of all, Chang's full-blown psychopathy and the dean's creepiness.
Recently, it was announced that a Community movie would be produced. I'm not sure how I felt about this, b/c many aspects of this show didn't age well. Dan Harmon also announced that the movie wouldn't rely on aspects of the show that made it really great, such as Dungeons & Dragons or pillow/blanket forts. This might be of concern, if Harmon tried to go w/ old tropes, rather than the fresh takes that made this show great, when it really hit its groove.
The creation of Wanda Maximoff's children, at the age they appeared in this movie, and as we last saw them in WandaVision, was just not right. There was something odd about them and their mannerisms. In WandaVision, I chalked it up to the tone of the show, but in this movie, it's even more pronounced. It's as if the person/people who developed these characters had never actually spent any time w/ a child before. It was as if they'd learned all they knew about children from watching terrible '80s sitcoms. Their words and actions seemed pre-programmed, almost as if it was an AI program in its early stages that was attempting to figure out how children acted and reacted. It was incredibly off-putting. In fact, there were studies performed about how the closer automatons performed to human beings, the more useful we found them, until they began making them human in their appearance. The closer research scientists came to this, they discovered people had a physical reaction of disgust to the automatons, b/c there was something so artificial about their appearance that it overrode their purpose of their functionality. The way these children acted fell into this category for me. It was just repulsive, and I'd be curious to know what the writers were thinking.
Other than this, the concept for the film was an interesting one, and I particularly enjoyed Xochitl Gomez's performance as America Chavez. She really hit the role in stride, I hope to see more of her in future Marvel vehicles, sooner rather than later.
What began w/ such great promise ended w/ lots of questions for what might have been. This show began as an original production of an old idea repackaged in a way that was fresh and new. I think the problem w/ this was the backstory was particularly interesting, but the writers let the audience in on the secret much too early on. There wasn't enough here to sustain nine full episodes. Instead, they should've slowly let out details of what was going on. However, as w/ many Marvel/DC vehicles, this was also used to setup a future project, so the introduction of certain characters took precedence over the total effects of the storyline.
On a related note, I will say that the production value of this show was quite high. I never looked at the CGI and thought about suspending disbelief. All the way through, it was an enjoyable watch. In comparable DC television shows, such as Titan, for example, one of the main problems, aside from the awful writing, was the undeniably bad CGI. It was such a problem, main storylines and characters had to be rearranged in order to facilitate a reduced reliance on these effects. One of the reasons why She-Hulk's CGI effects were called into question was that it was an anomaly for a Marvel show, whereas in DC shows, it's been commonplace across their spectrum of television offerings. But, I digress. This show looked great, but unfortunately, we were let in on the secret far too early.
This movie was fantastic on so many levels. Prior to watching Glass Onion, I wanted to rewatch this. I really gave it the attention it deserved, and I’m so pleased that I did. The conjunction of the writing, casting, acting, character and story development, and whodunnit nature of the film was truly majestic. There’s so much that could be said about any number of these attributes, but the thing that stood out most to me in the end was the last interaction between Ana de Armas and Daniel Craig, wherein she presumes that she should help the family, regardless of their noteworthy flaws and attempts to undermine her and family. He responds by stating that while he has an opinion, and it’s quite clear that it's an unfavorably one, he presumes that she’ll follow her heart, b/c, as he had noted earlier, she was a good person.
This got me thinking about the fact that among all these people involved in this story, even though one or two of them seemed to be nice people on the surface, when push came to shove, Ms. Armas’ character was the only one who truly had any semblance of decency and kindness. And, this is somewhat a reflection of the world around us, b/c we are often surrounded by those who are only interested in their own personal gain, but if we really pay attention, there will be those who will do what’s right and just, even in the face of adverse personal consequences for themselves and those they love. I believe that it’s really important that we remember this, b/c far too often, we’re provided opportunities to do the right thing, and we ultimately fail others and ourselves. There’s definitely something to be said for those willing and able to show compassion for others, even when it means that we may fail to gain from a situation.
The first season of this was really strong. It's not the most well-made television program ever, but it's definitely watchable, and main character actors are quite solid. Alan Ritchson is great as Reacher. For a character who can be monotone, he's quite funny, charming, and compelling in his nature. Willa Fitzgerald was an excellent choice as his partner this first season. Her acting ability covers a wide-range of ground, and she's as tough as nails as she is soft as silk. She really defined her character well. Malcolm Goodwin was also strong addition to the cast. He played a strong character who did an excellent job of looking outside of himself to find answers to a befuddling case. I also really loved Maria Sten in her role. She was tremendous as Reacher's only "friend." Although her part was limited in this first season, I'm hoping to see more of her in the seasons to come.
Overall, the script was interesting, as it intermingled many subtle layers to bring the story to life. It wasn't necessarily an original story, but it was told in a way that kept me engaged. I cared about the characters and what happened to them, and to this point, I liked that the writers introduced some side characters, who were the focus of parts of a few different episodes, that were designed to get me to care about them, which I did. In too many of these types of shows, these side characters are introduced, then quickly forgotten. In this show, however, these characters were introduced, and we were able to follow their progression through the remainder of the story to see the outcome of their character arc. I really appreciated that aspect of the writing, and I felt that it was the sign of a strong writer's room.
Having seen this once before, I was recently having a discussion w/ someone about this documentary, which prompted me to view it again. As many others have complained about, this documentary was way, way too long. This could've been wrapped up in a 90-minute documentary w/out any loose ends or missing components. Instead, the filmmakers decided to tell everyone's sob stories about this fiasco, but the problem was, the sob stories were coming from those who perpetrated the crime. Therefore, my interest immediately waned in their stories.
Also, the filmmakers' choices for interviewees was really suspect. Doug Matthews, the FBI agent that started this investigation, was just a clown. It's actually embarrassing that someone like that was able to become employed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He has zero critical thinking skills. As for the other interviewees, there were two who I considered to have any credibility at all. Other than that, it was a lot of self-serving crap that had no place in a documentary that should've been designed to simply tell the story of what had happened, not make victims out of criminals.
If you're intent on watching this, I would suggest skipping the first five episodes of this documentary, and only watch the last episode. The entire summation of what happened w/ this story is covered in a clip from a news segment that encompasses less than 60 seconds. This should give you an idea of the fluff involved over the course of six episodes.
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:
As for what I didn't care for:
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.
