My heart was breaking for Dev this season, love can be hard, but you gotta admit he was being kind of a dick to her at the end right here. He clearly did not appreciate how hard is it for her to abandon something that was a part of her life for 10 years, he was being selfish and unfair in saying that she used him, since he was aware of her situation and could have refused or stopped at any moment like he stopped with Rachel.
This is what I hate the most about american love stories, I mean... okay, he loves her, she loves him, what about Pino? is it fair that he loses his 10 years partner just because he got too busy for a few months? does that undo those 10 years?
I dunno, I feel that ending was too easy and unearned, and clearly a too simple resolution to a very complicated issue.
I don't usually care for this kinda shit usually, it always felt to me that caring about fictional characters relationships is a very silly thing to do but this show was obviously too real and there's a part of me that related to that experience, which made me write this.
Anyhoo, this was quite the season, I wasn't so sure at first but it won me after a few episodes, the writing was fine until that last scene, hopefully Aziz will be back with more in a few years.
When I wrote my thoughts on Spotlight, I speculated about how knowing the end of the story going in, knowing the extent of the scandal the team in Spotlight was uncovering, may have robbed the plot of some of its punch. And yet, The Big Short is, in many ways, the perfect counter to that.
Almost everyone old enough to watch this film lived through The Great Recession. They know that the disaster all the main characters in the film are predicting comes true, in all its horrible, self-destructive glory. But rather than taking away from the film, it adds to it. There's this sense of foreboding, of doom that hangs over everything.
A film about the financial crisis, especially involving traders and analysts and people crunching numbers in a fund, could easily be too dry. And yet, the fact that the individuals the film focuses on are slowly but surely investigating an economic massacre waiting to happen, and how each step they take reveals another way that disaster might have been diverted, or people who are supposedly in the know digging the whole deeper, means that the entire film is just an exercise in creating that sinking feeling in the pit of your stomach. It's not a prestige picture; it's a horror film.
It's also a very weird film. It's not so bold in its presentation that it feels unprecedented, but it feels stitched together, disjointed, and unusual, but in a good way. Adam McKay, of Anchorman fame, is the right man for the job. There is a darkly funny absurdity to the topic The Big Short covers, and with his fourth-wall breaking asides, his cuts to celebrity explanations of complex financial consequences in ridiculous situations, and his jumping between various characters acting wild or nutty lends the perfect tone to the movie, one of simultaneous horror at what hell hath been wrought and unavoidable bemusement at the clowns who steered us all into this ditch.
The direction and rhythm of the film is frenetic. It's closest comparison point is Requiem For a Dream with the same frenetic hodgepodge of images and sounds, bleeding and blending into one another, disorienting the viewer and conveying the sense in which the financial world the film depicts is intoxicating, dizzying, and unsettled all at the same time.
Another aspect of the film that makes it hard to compare to other works in this space is the fact that it doesn't really have a protagonist or a plot. Sure, it has a story, and it has characters who take up the most oxygen over the course of the movie, but more than anything it feels like a documentary. It's far too stylized and irreverent to really deserve that label, but it's far more interested in trying to describe what happened, to explain just what mistakes and lies and blindspots led to the global economic crisis, than it is in rising action and resolution, or showing people growing or changing.
That's not to say there isn't an emotional element to the film. Steve Carell stands out by playing essentially a smarter, angrier Michael Scott who grabs your attention every time he's on screen. The parallels between his character's sense that a catastrophe is looming in economic terms that he could do something to prevent, and his guilt over not doing more to prevent his brother's suicide was--while perhaps a little easy--also affecting.
The rest of the cast do their jobs well, but blend together a bit because again, while they're a vital part of the film, the film isn't really about them. The characters in The Big Short are conduits to detail, in amusing and human terms, just what the hell went wrong. Christian Bale is a collection of actorly tics, but he acquits himself well enough. Ryan Gosling does his best dudebro douchebag type, and is sufficiently entertaining in that guise. And Brad Pitt seems pretty reserved, short of his moment where he chastises his young wards for being too happy about what they're making their money from.
But again, the fact that there's not really a narrative means that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The film is not really a story; it's an autopsy, cutting up the corpse of our financial system and exposing the bloody innards, the rotten organs at the core that led the USA, and the world, to the dire economic state it was in by late 2008. In that sense, the film succeeds wildly, and McKay manages to tackle something of real significance without losing the absurd madcap attitude he brings to his comedic works, and somehow, doing justice to the insanity of the lead up to The Great Recession in the process. It's a hell of an achievement to make a film this funny, this disturbing, and this great.
I've noticed Japan's getting better with producing quality BL films/dramas, but they still have room for improvement in their GL.
My main reason for watching was because of Mizuhara-san, and I wanted to give Japan another chance for GL themed films. Also, the casting choice seemed pretty solid, and Netflix picked it up, so I thought, "why not?"
Although it was appreciative that the main leads have a connected backstory, the film's plot is all over the place. Mizuhara's character's actions throughout the film were quite questionable. I would interpret her character as maybe bi (?). The goals of these two leads made no sense to me. I could see what falling in love feels like, especially to a person you could never have. You lose a sense of logic and wish for that person's happiness, and sometimes you find yourself to be selfish. But killing someone and losing it all, that aspect and how the film executed it seemed very extreme and unrealistic. What bothered me the most was the toxic relationship between the women. Despite killing off the abusive husband, Nanae still was not free from the inner struggles. Rei's action, including towards Nanae, didn't seem sincere either.
A bit similar to my thoughts on "The cornered mouse dreams of cheese", I felt sorry for the supporting characters affected by the main lead's actions. Don't get me wrong, I felt bad for the main leads upbringing, but many of their situations could have been easily avoided.
OST - Music was pretty decent and chill. It was very obvious they used English songs to attract a wider audience. Cherry by Yui was a huge symbolic ost in the film. Nice use of it.
Overall, I believe with a better story structure and direction, this film could have been better executed. Hopefully, the crew, staff and Japan are open to considering people's feedback on the film for future GL films/drama.
If you're into the dark thriller drama, including GL, and don't mind switching off your brain for a while then, go for it.
If you're looking for a decent GL with a strong story and relationship, this may not be for you.
A lot of plot movement condensed to a single episode. Not really sure what I make of it.
First there's the Melfi storyline, and the way that it's enough to finally convince her that she's not helping Tony. I don't know that I buy it. I mean, it seems to be the thesis of the show more or less -- that this therapy is enabling Tony more than it's actually prompting him to improve himself, but I don't know if I agree. Is Tony ever going to become a kind and gentle soul? Certainly not. Is he, or can he become a little better, a little more understanding of people and situations around him? I think the series has shown that he has, from his feelings about Vito to his mixed up feelings for his own son. The fact that after the confrontation with Melfi, Tony initially tries to be sensitive to his son when telling him that they need to hole up, only then to boil off and drag him to the closet, speaks to the sense that Melfi's had an effect, and that without some reinforcement it's easy for him to fall back on old habits. It felt very sudden somehow.
But on the other hand, part of the thrust of the episode seems to be that these people don't care about others. The random guy who has to break the news to the New York mobsters gets beaten up for his troubles. The guys who take out Silvio cause the death of a motorcyclist without any regard for the value of other lives. Phil's comare and her father are killed without anyone noticing or taking the time to check whether they got the right guy. There's a persistent sense that people are suffering for these mobster's largesse and they're entirely unaffected by that thought.
I don't know, man. A lot of it is interesting, but it didn't do as much for me as I might have hope given how long the build to the NJ/NY war was. Bobby's murder was beautifully shot and edited, but felt almost gratuitous. The image of Tony falling asleep with the assault rifle Bobby gave him is a powerful one, but still. Was it too much all of a sudden? Is the AJ stuff dragging on too long? I don't know. Something didn't quite work for me despite the ratcheted up tension.
To be frank, maybe I'm just burned out. I didn't binge watch the show exactly. Instead, I parceled out 1-2 episodes an evening. But even then, it may have been a bad idea to try to watch the whole show in the span of a couple of months. Sure, it lets me draw connections and themes between episodes that might have been jumbled or forgotten otherwise, but you also hit a point of exhaustion with a fictional world and the characters within it, even one that you're terribly compelled by. It feels like the show has been building to the moments in this episode for so long, and yet, when they arrive, I just don't feel what it seems like I should toward them. A recommendation to savor, I suppose.
This is an episode about selfishness, or at least self-centeredness. Everyone in the episode is focused on themselves and their people and their situation at the expense of any other. Ralphie asks what's in it for him to support Rosalee. Rather than providing the "honesty and compassion that [she's] known for", Janice breaks up with Ralphie by yelling at him for not taking off his shoes and knocking him down the stairs. The Casino head only welcomes Tony and his crew to his casino in order to get them to try to book Frankie Valli for him. Junior is only worried about his widower helper driving him to his trial.
The same is true of the "who was oppressed the most" contest that everyone is having. The Italians disregard the Native Americans, Hesh is sympathetic to them until his Cuban friend claims his people's suffering under Columbus is akin to the Jews' suffering under Hitler. Everyone is focused on their own problems and grievances at the expense of the slightest bit of empathy for anyone else's.
The lone holdout is Bobby Bacala, who, despite having no hand in his wife's death, is constantly brought to tears by the thought that he wasn't there for his wife when he might have been. It's a hell of a contrast, and highlights how so many people with every reason to be considerate or empathetic only think about themselves, and how Bobby, who has every reason to let himself off the hook, is racked with guilt.
I don't know if Tony's speech at the end is supposed to be the author's avatar. It seems a little more direct in enunciating the point than the show tends to be, but it feels like the writers talking through the character. It's interesting, because in one way, it's a rejection of the cultural oppression pissing matches that consumed so many individuals in the episode--Tony argues that folks like Gary Cooper didn't complain about that sort of thing and that people rise above them-- but it's also another form of self-centeredness because it credits all of their success to their own ingenuity and wherewithal, seemingly ignoring the fact that they stood on the shoulders of giants and by the nature of their business, had many things handed to them that others would not have been able to wrangle. Interesting stuff, to be sure.
It's hard to put a beat on this episode. There's a lot of interesting parallels. Both Carmella and Matt & Sean feel like they're sick of having tried to do things straight and not gotten as far as they wanted to. Both decide they need to get their hands dirty to get what they want, whether it's Meadow getting into Georgetown or Matt & Sean moving up in the organization. Both manage to hurt someone more deserving, literally in the case of Chris who's paid more of his dues or figuratively in the underprivileged boy whose letter of recommendation has less meaning.
And then there's a contrast drawn between people who think they're "hard" or assertive or imposing who are then shut down by someone else. Jean Cusamano's sister fancies herself steely but then eventually caves when Carmella cracks her knuckles loudly enough. Matt & Sean think the same of themselves until they get shaken down and intimidated by Furio and another grunt from the other side. Even Tony, who has been shown to be downright cruel in some moments of the show so far is one-upped by Richie, who's heartless enough to threaten a man in a wheelchair.
Then there's Richie's jacket. Maybe a cigar is just a cigar. Maybe the point is just to spark more tension between Richie and Tony and Tony giving the jacket his housecleaner's husband is an easy way to do it. But I think it connects to the other themes in the episode, at least a little. Richie got the jacket in a fight with a bigger man; it's a sign of his toughness, of the old way of doing things, and it means something to Richie. When he gives it to Tony, it's both a token and a reminder; it's meant to be a peace offering, something to bring them closer together, but it's also meant to be a subtle call to Tony about the harshness their business is founded on, and Tony giving it away is like spitting in his face to Richie.
Tony, meanwhile, is worried about making amends to Beansie and not getting wiretapped and helping his daughter to fly and maybe even appreciate him on the same terms as a business man respected in the community. His jealously is palpable. Davey is a man who's sterling on the outside, but unbeknownst to the world has severely hurt his family with his private irresponsibility. Meannwhile Tony, who's public reputation is either a freakshow curiosity or scary and impolitic for good society on the outside, is the one who uses his position to try to provide for his family's security and his daughter's education. At the beginning of his therapy session with Melfi, he seems happy for once, and then he asks "how could this happen." Every time he thinks he's got things under control, there's another complication.
Some people really couldn't get over Frank's loss, right? This season wasn't the best it could have been, more 5 episodes could have rounded it up a bit better, but circunstances were as they were and the show did its best to handle in 8 episodes a sudden and enormous plot change, create another one and do it with grace - The whole "Saving the legacy from the man" thing was very clear pointed out to Spacey itself and it felt... important and meaningful to the series - the whole season was about everyone plotting against Claire and her ability to be ruthless in order to overcome them and secure her power as commander in chief - be it for good or for bad, she alienated everyone around her to have pure, unrestrained power and didn't care abou any of the consequences - she was stone cold even more than Frank was, a manipulative, calculated sociopath and a great character alltogether. Killing Doug in the Oval Office wasn't the best ending at all, but I felt it was a rather symbolic one, more than logic itself. Good ending to a great show - could have been more, but it was fair enough.
This movie was excellent. Director Spike Jonze has done some amazing work in the past with other writers being in charge of the story like Adaptation and Being John Malkovich, so with him being the sole writer and director of the film I was surprised to see something this great. both the writing and the presentation flow so perfectly together in this movie that I am glad he has the directing skills to pull this off and bring his vision to life. I liked that this movie didn’t endlessly lecture you on the rules of this universe, and while that can work for some futuristic movies, this movie is more focused on the characters. The future like setting is merely a vehicle for the characters story. He made sure his universe’s rules did not conflict with itself. Without a consistent universe, its not a believable universe. Spike was able to add more legitimacy to his universe through his presentation, rather than have characters explain things like the prevalence of technology in their lives or the smog in the atmosphere etc. The movie subtly showed these things so that we could pick it up for ourselves. And because of that, it implies to our brain that there is a universe bigger than the one we are seeing on screen and thus adds to the believability. Making the futuristic and surreal, feel real. The film also pays attention to humans behave psychologically. Even nowadays, we are seeing technology having more of a presence in our romantic lives. This is shown in a quick scene at the beginning. Joaquin phoenix, again, does a phenomenal job of playing his character. The soundtrack from arcade fire was perfect. The made sure not to use cheesy futuristic music and went for a more acoustic feel to mix the familiar with the unfamiliar. I loved EVERYTHING! Even the characters. And when a certain character appears in a scene, in the context, it makes so much sense. This is easily one of the best movies to come out in 2013.
Pros
+Jon and Sansa along with the "Bastard" letter
+Drogo pyre re-enactment
+I'm excited to see how Jaime and Cersei's plan is going to work out, there's definitely going to be some unexpected twist that happens
Neutral
*Theon and Asha (Yara) reunion, wasn't bad and Theon's actor did great but I was not blown away by it. Still, it should make the Kingsmoot a little more shocking. It's going to need as much help as it can get since Damphair and Victarion probably won't be telling us why Euron needs to be prevented from getting the Throne like they do in the books.
Cons
-Ramsay killing Osha seemed a little out of place. I think it made sense but it was weird that he just has that one small scene and then nothing else. Just a nitpick really.
Danaerys finally had her first good episode in 1 and a half seasons, even though those buff ass dudes would've definitely killed her as soon as they realized how screwed they were, and if not them then the falling rafters probably would've gotten her. Also not convinced that the Dothraki would immediately back her after seeing their leaders burned alive and they obviously didn't give too much of a shit when she walked out of the first fire with her dragons. An argument could be made for them seeing it happen and having literally no leaders left but this is an ultra male-centric society and it's hard to think they'd change their minds after living their entire life in that way especially considering how much they despise magic. Still, it was a cool Odysseus like massacre and the parts before and after were all solid.
Once Upon a Time... in Nazi-Occupied France....
It goes without saying that this is a masterpiece.
Everyone who is a film enthusiast knows who Quentin Tarantino is. In the nineties his movies became instant cult classics to such a degree that (most likely) a 100 years from now everyone will still see him as one of the best director that ever came out of Hollywood.
Inglourious Basterds is a WWII movie. But it is nothing like any WWII movie you have ever seen. Quentin Tarantino gave the story and history its own twist. There are too many historical inaccuracies to count, but who cares? Quentin Tarantino obviously didn't and created a movie filled with dark humor, an amazing intelligent script, as always very good music and some of the most talented actors currently in the business.
WWII was one of the most horrific and devastating events in human history. But Tarantino together with Brad Pitt, a phenomenal (before this movie unknown) Christoph Waltz and Mélanie Laurent make it into an movie that makes you laugh, cry and keep you in suspense until the last second.
On my list of best WWII movies this one is rightfully in my top 3. At the end Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) proclaims: "This might be my best work yet" there are two ways you can implement that, the first one off course is that he is talking about the swastika he just "carved" into Col. Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz) his forehead and the second one is that Quentin Tarantino is talking through Brad Pitt and says that this is his best movie till date. For me it will always be Pulp Fiction, but this one comes pretty close.
