Masterpiece.
That's all anyone needs to know when trying to figure out if watching Shōgun is worth the time and energy.
This miniseries should be required viewing for anyone in the entertainment industry to comprehend what good story telling and construction of a series is.
This should be the bar, the gold standard in quality in every respect that shows should endeavour to achieve. Not just in historical drama but every genre!
We have had a constant diet of empty, lifeless garbage flood our screens (for the most part), expecting easy money making profits while dishing out crap.
We don't expect the lavish expense that has gone into Shōgun as the norm, but do expect decent story writing without today's continual political agenda bashing the audience. We watch shows to get lost in the world and the story being told to us.
We refuse the incessant garbage. We demand stories written by people, not a room full of monkeys, or AI and we want those writers to be passionate and well versed in the story 'world' they are writing about. No more compromise, no more 'calling it in'.
Audiences deserve better, and Shōgun piqued our desire for exceptional story telling and crafting for the screen. The vast library of modern entertainment is a waste of money and time.
Denis Villeneuve is the man!
There’s only one word that came into my mind after watching it: finally.
Finally, a blockbuster that isn’t afraid to be primarily driven by drama and tension, and doesn’t undercut its own tone by throwing in a joke every 30 seconds.
Finally, a blockbuster that puts actual effort in its cinematography, and doesn’t have a bland or calculated colour palette.
Finally, a blockbuster with a story that has actual substance and themes, and doesn’t rely on intertextual references or nostalgia to create a fake sheen of depth.
Finally, a blockbuster that doesn’t pander to China by having big, loud and overblown action sequences, but relies on practical and grounded spectacle instead (it has big sand worms, you really don’t need to throw anything at the screen besides that).
Finally, a blockbuster that actually feels big, because it isn’t primarily shot in close ups, or on a sound stage.
And of course: finally, a blockbuster that isn’t a fucking prequel, sequel, or connected to an already established IP somehow.
(Yeah, I know Tenet did those things as well, but I couldn’t get into that because the characters were so flat and uninteresting).
This just checks all the boxes. An engaging story with subtext, very well set up characters, great acting (like James Gunn, Villeneuve's great at accentuating the strengths of limited actors like Dave Bautista and Jason Momoa), spectecular visuals and art design (desaturated but not in an ugly washed out way), pacing (slow but it never drags), directing, one of Hans Zimmer’s best scores: it’s all here.
I only have one real criticism: there’s too much exposition, especially in the first half.
It can occasionally hold your hand by referencing things that have already been established previously, and some scenes of characters explaining stuff to each other could’ve been conveyed more visually.
Other than that, it’s easily one of the best films of the year.
I’ve seen some people critiquing it for being incomplete, which is true, but this isn’t just a set up for a future film.
It feels like a whole meal, there are pay offs in this, and the characters progress (even if, yes, their arcs are still incomplete).
8.5/10
This was a huge step down from the previous film. I thought the first act was straight-up bad and not at all enjoyable. The COVID mentions felt dated and overly forced, and this film only just came out. That doesn't bode well for how this film will age. However, once the film gets going it gets better and is enjoyable, and they drop the COVID stuff, which in turn, actually makes the COVID mentions at the beginning feel even worse and more pointless than they had felt initially.
I thought that the plot felt far more simple and extremely predictable compared to the first film. I also thought that the characters (aside from Blanc), were largely much worse - both in writing, and performances given by the cast.
Daniel Craig and Benoit Blanc is just as good as he was in the first film, and he absolutely steals the show every time he's on screen. I also found Janelle Monáe as both Andi and Helen to be decent. Edward Norton's billionaire character, Miles Bron, was a mixed bag, and although he started out quite interesting with some potential, I found his character to inevitably be overly shallow and poorly written.
As far as the rest of the cast went? It wasn't so good. Most of them, such as Whiskey, were simply bland and forgettable. But others were downright awful characters that were overly shallow and just plain annoying. Kate Hudson's 'Birdie' was probably the worst offender here, and I found that her character lowered the quality of every scene she appeared in.
I realise that this review has been largely negative, but what I will say is that Glass Onion is still a mostly fun and entertaining experience for the majority of its runtime. I had a lot of fun watching it (aside from the first twenty minutes or so), and I don't regret it at all. I'd recommend watching it if you enjoyed the original film, but I just don't think it's anywhere close to being anything great like its predecessor was.
We've kinda come full circle with these superhero films when you think about it.
After the camp of the 90s, directors like Nolan and Singer reset the tone of superhero movies in the 2000's to something that was more grounded and serious, which in turn laid a lot of the groundwork for the MCU.
Here we have Taika Waititi providing a throwback to the Joel Schumacher days.
If that's your thing you'll probably dig it, but it's definitely not my brand of camp.
I’m not exactly a Thor: Ragnarok fan (nor the other two Thor films). I don’t have a problem with its silly tone, because I’m not a manchild who needs to see his childhood validated, but a lot of its comedy didn’t click with me (even after a rewatch). Everything that didn’t work for me in that film is amped up to an eleven here.
There are some serious points in it where the acting choices, slapstick/childish/hokey comedy, overly bright colors, gay undertones, overdesigned costumes (no nipples yet, but give Taika another film and we'll see what happens) and godawful music choices started to give me genuine flashbacks to stuff like Batman Forever, not quite the thing you want to remind me of.
It's not a complete disaster; the performances by Natalie Portman, Tessa Thompson and especially Christian Bale are generally quite good. I'm also glad Marvel seems to have definitively found the saturation button back after Guardians 2, even if the framing/lighting with the visuals remains uninspired and maintains a general level of artifice that makes it look like shit. I believe they used the volume stages for most of the production, and like Obi Wan or The Book of Boba Fett, it’s very noticeable for most of the runtime.
The story's not all that interesting and makes no sense when you put any thought into it, but that's fine given that there is some progression with most of the main characters, even if Thor’s character arc throughout the MCU is all over the place at this point. As with most Marvel films lately, there is a lot of unnecessary exposition (e.g. the Korg narrated flashbacks are really clunky), but where it really drops the ball for me is with the balancing of tone and plot elements. I already thought that the darker stuff in Thor: Ragnarok didn't blend that well with the goofy scenes on the trash planet, but there's even more tonal whiplash here. Christian Bale is giving this excellent, terrifying performance, but he's not in the same movie as Chris Hemsworth, who's playing even more of a Thor parody than he was in Avengers: Endgame. One moment we're invested in this heavy, emotional story with Natalie Portman, and then we cut back to a goofy love triangle between Thor, his hammer and his axe. It's an unbalanced mess without a sense of stakes.
I also don't know what it is with Taika's comedy in these films, because I think What we do in the shadows, Jojo Rabbit and Hunt for the wilderpeople are all very comedic and smart, but for some reason he really likes his Thor movies excessive and dumb. Screaming goats aren't funny to me, they're a dated meme at best. Maybe it's because Taika can't go edgy and niche with the jokes here, but fuck I really hate his sensibilities for this character.
In short, another major misfire from Marvel if you ask me. I pretty much disliked everything except for a few of the performances. Please go back to making indies Taika, and for the love of god: let James Gunn pick the soundtrack for your next film. Even a film this dumb doesn’t need a Guns ‘N Roses needle drop, let alone four of them.
3/10
Really enjoyed watching this week to week (long live the weekly release format!) . I'm still bitter about the ending, but I guess this was a dark comedy that poked fun of the white privileged scum, so in order to stay true to that they'd be the ones with the last laugh. Best performance here was definitely Murray Bartlett as the manager of the hotel who reverts to his drug addiction due to the unbearable demands of his spoiled patrons. That being said, the finale pissed me off since the character I rooted for gets killed by the worst character from the show. We get an ending reminding us of the privilege the guests have, but this is a bit depressing since this is a comedy where we see these rich monsters get called out for what they are. However, they leave unchanged and unaffected.
Anyways, I'm eager to see another season of this but I'd rather Mike White not be David Simon and try to show us "this is reality" since White's work is satirical where Simon's is actually journalistic. I'm guessing the other White Lotus resort won't have a death at the center of its story, but there will indeed be scandals. If we see characters return, hopefully they receive they cumuppins.
Deary me. It's a miracle I survived until the end.
'The Wrong Missy' is one of the worst films I have ever seen. I'm usually a glass-half-full type of guy, I always attempt to find the good sides to a film first before identifying the worse parts. With this, there is simply nothing to praise.
Lauren Lapkus is horrifically annoying as Melissa, I have never been so cringed out and/or irritated when watching a character. I do have one solace of minor praise for Lapkus herself though, as she really does commit to the role - arguably too much so. There are moments late on when I see potential for her/Melissa if the script et al. was better.
It's the filmmakers who probably deserve most of the hate for this, though the cast should still be doing more - David Spade in particular. He is very poor in the lead role as Tim, I never felt he was giving 100% here - I'm positive he can do so much more. Elsewhere, not even Sarah Chalke of 'Scrubs' or Geoff Pierson of 'Dexter' could save this. Nick Swardson (Nate) is the only semi-bearable person onscreen, while there's at least a notable celebrity cameo at one point.
Terrible premise with awful dialogue, which relies almost entirely on sex/toilet humour, all alongside some dreadful acting and extremely unfunny comedy. As always with my reviews it is nothing personal, but this is a severely unpleasant film.
I think this is an important movie, it is also a good movie. Full disclosure: I am a white, middle class, post-graduate educated, Canadian, born in the 50s. This is why this movie was important to me: I live in a city that has unjustly treated black communities and, although I have sought to be better informed about the history and the issues, my perspective has been from a distance. This film helped me understand that the expectational presets of being black are radically different from the presets of being white. Also, my understanding of cultural appropriation grew - I can see why whites emulating black culture is missing the point rather than establishing cultural bridges. But, most importantly, for me, this film underlined the importance of each of us being authentic to who we are and to, humbly, engage in listening conversations, respect our differences and transcend that which divides us. That's was my take away. This is why this is a good film: I found the characters well drawn and the performances convincing (Amandla Stenberg is an actor to watch - she has been a credit to every role she's inhabited). The story was well crafted. The tragedy real and the relationships compelling. In our politically charged culture, there is an audience fatigue for movies with a point (I was disappointed to be only one of three people who came to watch this movie in the theatre), but don't miss this good movie, it's worth the watch. I give this film a 7.9 (very good) out of 10. [Drama]
I stopped watching at episode 10! Now, let me say that I was really looking forward to this show and I'm very disappointed it didn't live up to my expectations. What made me stop watching? It's not the acting, not the effects - it's the story.
It feels like the writers didn't know where to go with this around episode 7. Cole and Cassy stopped the outbreak, everything seemed to be fine! Guess what? They didn't! Somehow the story must go on and thus the outbreak wasn't really stopped. I suspected this would happen, but it threw me off anyways.
I think the two hour movie it was based on just hadn't enough juice to fuel a whole TV show, so the writers introduced some other characters and brought more storylines into play. Unfortunately, this didn't really help and made the whole show more confusing than interesting. If they had sticked to the original storyline, explained some parts of it in more depth, especially some characters, I believe they could've made a great 20 episode show.
There was so much potential. Instead the show was convoluted with characters and storylines, which I think are just there to stretch the whole show over more episodes.
A surreal sort-of sci-fi sort-of comedy, set initially in a hotel where single people must find a partner within a certain amount of time or be turned into an animal of their choice. Colin Farrell plays our protagonist, David, who chooses to be turned into a lobster should the need arise.
Lanthimos makes a damning indictment of the current state of relationships in society. Couples can only be together if they have something in common with each other, usually something fairly superficial like a limp, or a love of biscuits. Some go to the extent of faking a trait in order to be with someone. At times things get uncomfortable, at times very amusing.
What could be a powerful, emotional film gets set instead to a dreary, bland background. People talk in a strange, precise yet affected way. The setting is in a gorgeous part of Ireland but it’s grey and lifeless. It’s a really effective hook and it’s what makes The Lobster so unique.
My only criticism would be that it could have been a lot shorter. What is initially really interesting becomes frustrating in the last 20 minutes or so. The film seems to lose its edge, not quite knowing where to go. Lanthimos makes his point but refuses to roll the credits.
This doesn’t detract too much from the film though. The Lobster is a unique albeit slightly dull picture that leaves a lasting impression on its audience. Lanthimos has found a creative and accessible way to make social critique.
http://benoliver999.com/film/2016/01/14/thelobster/
