The writers of Mixology set themselves up with a fantastic premise (and a series deadline) from the get-go. One night, one bar, one group of friends, 13 episodes. It almost sounds impossible, doesn't it? Yet Mixology comes out with flying colors and a sting in my heart that makes me want more, much more of this show, despite knowing that there isn't a way in which Mixology could live on, story-wise.
Adorkable Tom, confident Maya, sexy Ron, friendly Cal, Dominic the player, smart Jessica, innocent Liv, cute Kacey, and the brilliant brilliant brilliant (yes, thrice) Bruce, make up this group of friends and strangers. Each episode focuses on one particular relationship, while gravitating around others, setting them up for the next instalment.
Some pairings don't make sense at first, leading you to question the sanity of the two characters involved, but they either dwindle inevitably like you expected them to or move forward in a weird and enchanting way that forces you to reconsider your stance.
Mixology is light and funny, without a single weak link, but with many strong ones that elicit different feelings. You'll root for Tom, fall for Ron, want to slap some sense into Liv, admire Maya, and enjoy every single one of the other characters. You'll enjoy Bruce's comedic relief, his theories, the names he has for every single situation or action.
The show keeps you on your toes, wondering where things will really head, who will end up with whom and how. It's a mating game, but despite the original goal being simple pleasure, Mixology turns out to be more about humanity, friendships, love, and connection. The final resolution is satisfying and true to each character's nature.
If only there was a way to have more, more Mixes and more Ologies!
Orange Is The New Black is really a good show, and much different compared to other shows which are currently high rated.
The writers don't need that long to build up the characters. This is what I don't like at the beginning of many shows, because most of the time this is the boring part - until the whole story starts to develop. In Orange Is The New Black you got kicked in right from the start.
The actors are really good . All of them. And well written; and I got to admit that my favorite character is "Red". Not just because Kate Mulgrew played Captain Kathrin Janeway in Star Trek: Voyager, but because the character is build up so strong, and she's got so many facets.
You also get to know her in more backflashes (that explains how the people got into the prison). Some TV shows are using backflashes as well to explain some things, and usually I find that annoying, because it is a hard cut in the current plot; but the director in Orange Is The New Black is doing that so well, that it doesn't me bother at all - just the opposite: I want to know why the women got in there.
After watching the first three episodes I wrote that the show shouldn't be drama. It should be a comedy show. That is not true, after I watched the other episodes. Yes, there are funny scenes in it, but it defiantly got the strong drama parts as well.
I highly recommend to give this show a try, because you might wanna love it!
The show itself started quite strong. It was intriguing despite some weird story decisions (having students do leg work for a well known lawyer like Keating).
But throughout the story the writers pretty often went "full retard" to provoke. My best guess: all for better ratings.
The amount of cheap shots are stacking high but that isn't necessary considering the general strong acting in this show.
At the beginning up until roughly the middle I had my problems with the portrayal of Connor and his homosexuality. How it was exploited to get what Connor needed, mostly information for Keating. The time she called him out on it was kind of redeeming for the show but soon after it was taken over by other crap.
Most recent was the plot of two gay men blaming a woman for raping one of them so they could get a decent amount of money, instead of using such a plot to deal with a real issue: men being raped by women while it's not taken seriously.
Now Oliver got HIV, from all the people it's one of the gay characters. Again, stereotypical prejudices used in this show exploited to "shock", or rather provoke. Maybe it's even the payback that Connor was such a whore at the beginning and he actually infected Oliver but we'll see...
But what strikes me the most here is the fact that fans claim this show advertises safer sex or getting tested for STDs. F*cking hell. It's a sideplot without any of that meaning, it's mentioned without any focus on those two and is another example of the crucial problems this show has but it's blindly praised.
Considering the plot in this double episode, I have my doubts that the outcome of Frank being the one who killed Lila was the initial idea. I guess it was supposed to end differently, hadn't this gotten another season. While Frank was always this mysterious, cool-headed character, it feels like a backdoor that was kept open for a second season order. Otherwise it feels too easy and I wasn't really surprised. He wouldn't be my first guess but definitely not my last and if what the flashback shows was the actuall truth, Sam ultimately killed Lila nontheless as he was the one blackmailing Frank to do it even if he wasn't choking her to death in person.
In terms of who is the murderer of Rebecca: My best bet is Bonnie. She vanishes from the episode after she sends the doucheface home without any word and she was the one who got a lot of her confidence back the last couple of episodes, proving herself to Keating as she desperately wants her approval. It opens the chance of showing what happened from her perspective afterwards and fill another episode.
I definitely rule out the obvious ones: Frank, Keating and Wes.
I've got my doubts about Connor. Other two suspects would then be Michaela, who recently discovered she's from the "Ghetto" and can't hide it (stereotypical, so it fits the show) or Laurel, who is also rather cool headed.
Somehow, the cliffhanger has some resemblance to the season 3 cliffhanger of Breaking Bad but without any of its brilliance (and shock value).
I watched this movie, because the plot seemed to be good. Young kinds breaking into homes of celebrities, getting some stuff and party out there for a little bit. "Why not?" - was my thought. A plot I have never seen... That might be interesting.
A shit.
I had to use the "fast forward" key, because many of the scenes repeated and were really boring. Boring ... boring ... boring ...
All of the cast reminded me in some way of a bad version of the Skins UK characters. With "bad" I mean, that their play is much more worse than in the great Skins - TV Show. In Skins, those young adults, are far more realistic, that those guys in that movie. What a shame.
The only fun thing in this movie (for me) was, as they broke in into the house of Paris Hilton. She is one of the celebrities I don't like at all ... so all this ugly things what the guys found ... this was realistic to me ... hahaha!
And at the beginning of the movie, there was the hint that this movie is based on true events. I am curious what was really true in this movie.
4/10
Why is this BDSM fairy tale of 50 Shades would not work in real life?
BDSM life style is not made out of the blue. It is about people who have tried the vanilla life style and finding out that it would never work out for them. It is sneaking into other people's bedrooms and judging them for what they do.
The reasons why 50 shades never work are many, but the following are my own why these 50 shades of fucked up would never actually work in real life..
1- Anastasia Stelle is nothing but an inexperienced virgin who has never been in a real relationship in her life. People who have seek BDSM relationship are people who have tried and never been successful into being in a normal or what the community would call vanilla relationship. They have seek and never been able to achieve their satisfaction by being into a "normal" relationship or at least what society have been telling them what a relationship should be about.
2- Through out the movie, the relationship was about satisfying Mr. Grey, but in a real BDSM relationship the dominant is all about satisfying the submissive other than the other way around. Being the dominant in the relationship is all about the satisfaction of the submissive before seeking the satisfaction of oneself. Like any other relationship it is about both parties getting what they wanted out of it.
3- The BDSM motto has always been Safe, sane, and consensual, most of self respecting BDSM life style would ban the use of alcohol cause in more than one way it dulls the senses. The person who should enter in such a relationship should have a complete ownership of his or her senses. Which through out the movie was untrue.
The character of Anna Steele enters the relationship to satisfy Mr. Grey which in most of BDSM relationships is not the case.
The case of such relationship is like any other, it is all about the satisfaction. What one party would be by giving up and the other party would be taking, Control.
However, the movie was all about the relinquishing of that control to satisfy the other party which is not what a healthy relationship should be about.
The BDSM community was in a twist cause they have reconsigned that this relationship was built on a not so equal grounds. Both the parties in such relationship would relish on the feeling that they are both getting what they needed, something which the movie has obviously shown to be not the case.
I did not like it. It showed a relationship that was based on the fact that a single party is getting what they want on the expense of the other's misery. Which is a text book of an unhealthy relationship.
I found the movie to be an unhealthy commercial of something that the community regards to be a taboo. It was made to show what everyone was expecting to be an orthodox relationship.
Anyone of us who decided to be with someone they make their own rules whether we share it with the community or not, it is an unbinding contract that we hold to one another..
Another thing that this movie has grossly and utterly ignore..
I am disappointed and not impressed..
7.4/10. A very representative episode of Bob's Burgers -- nothing that will knock your socks off, but a well constructed episode with a lot of good humor and heart, and good emotional beats in both stories. The B-story with Bob not wanting to put up the mafia murder plaque, only to find that Jimmy Pesto steals it, is classic restaurant rivalry stuff. But the twist that Bob can't take it away from Jimmy because of how happy it makes him, and Jimmy's skin-deep appreciation for Italian culture are both great.
And the A-story is a nice continuation of the Boys 4 Now story the show explored previously. The whole plot to throw up on Boo Boo gets a little convoluted, but the idea behind the story, as explicated by Tina, of admitting that you like something even if it's a little embarrassing, is a heartening one, and it's framed in the perfect awkward Tina way. It's nice to see Louise pushing her Boo Boo love off on others until the moment of truth when she admits that she likes her pre-teen idol. Plus, the way she calls him a "garbage angel" and other similar lines that perfectly sell how conflicted her attraction and repulsion to this kid are is perfect.
Overall, it's not necessarily one of the more memorable episodes, but both stories end on high emotional notes, and there are a good number of laughs to get there. Even the relatively ho-hum episodes of Bob's Burgers are better than a lot of the shows' best.
Just got back from seeing this. Here is what I'll say right off the bat: It's not nearly as bad as I anticipated based on the reviews going in. If the entire film was exactly like the first 30 minutes, I would LOVE this movie. Sure it would have been 2 hours of set up, but how much fun was that first 30 minutes?!
THE GOOD
Harley Quinn. Robbie lives up to the hype on this. Seeing the ads I wasn't head over heels. I just wasn't seeing the charm of it in short bursts. But seeing the movie totally reminds me of watching the animated series, which I haven't revisited in awhile. Makes me want to go back. She was the best part of this movie.
Will Smith. I imagine fans of Deadshot will have plenty to say about what he got wrong about the character. I didn't know Deadshot existed until this movie. I'm not a huge comic book guy anymore, so I was going in blind on this. I loved him. I thought he was great. Still not 100% the Will Smith I want to see up there, having a blast, but this was pretty damn close.
The music. They went the Guardians route with the soundtrack and it works. I'm a sucker for a recognizable old jam in a movie and there are plenty in this.
Ike Barinholtz. Big fan of this guy and he's friggin' hysterical here. He was a big part of that first 30 that I loved so much. Seeing him interact with Harley, etc, was great.
THE BAD
Everything after the 30 minutes of "We're putting together a team." Once they're assembled and the completely ridiculous plot begins, and the long stretches of boring make you even more aware of how many leaps you have to take to believe the plot, the more checked out I became. I know you have to allow some suspension of disbelief in these kinds of movies, but this one asked a lot.
Insanely subpar CG. What the hell was going on with the look of the villain? These were Mummy-level "The Rock's face pinned to a blurry CG body" effects. Just baffling.
The end was the same as every single one of these movies, whether they're good or bad, it's just a group of characters who have to use their skills to battle a CG monster, each of them fail until for some reason the last big thing they do works. Whatever. Also the end look of how the power was shooting out of the building looked very Ghostbusters (any of them really).
The Joker. Look. His Joker was just fine. I liked his look, he was even being kind of crazy sometimes. But for the amount of screen time he actually gets DOES NOT equal the amount of articles I had to see about this dude pranking people on set and being disgusting and sending gross gifts to Viola Davis blah blah blah. Seriously, the PR train on this has been going strong for what feels like a year and a half and it all amounts to....15 minutes, all together? Sure sure this will set him up for other stuff but come on. So many articles about him being in character and pranking. So many. The other actors had to hate it. Especially considering the fact that they BARELY share the screen with him! It'd be like Jeremy Irons pranking the shit out every single cast member in BvS "for his character." Lawrence Fishburn would not stand for that shit.
Anyway, I didn't completely hate it. I had fun sometimes. I laughed at things they didn't want me to laugh at sometimes (so did the rest of the theater). But it wasn't the worst.
Blake Lively's performance in 'The Shallows' is very engaging. The movie is basically a one-woman show. Blake gives everything she has to make her fight for survival look realistic and she really does it great. Her performance elevates the movie above the usual mediocrity one is used to seeing in these kinds of survival movies these days. She's not only easy on the eyes in her surfer outfit, but she also acts realistically and makes you feel the character's pain.
I thought it was a pretty decent and relatively realistic shark attack movie – up until the finale that is. Just before the final fight against the shark, there is an under-water scene involving glowing jellyfish, which just seems completely unrealistic and out of place to me. That scene is something for a sci-fi movie. Then there is the final fight in which the shark is killed in the most ridiculous and unrealistic way imaginable. The payoff in this otherwise decent movie is just laughable and something I would have expected seeing in a Sharknado installment or something.
It's too bad that the movie doesn't hold up until the very end, but it is still a rather decent survival movie. Watch it for Blake Lively's great performance, if nothing else.
This movie, like many horror films like it, rely heavily on concept rather than writing. It's true, the concept of a spirit that you can only see when you turn off the lights is perfect. We often saw questionable shapes in the night as children, and our mind would then create more disturbing imagery after that. It's only fair that a movie would attempt to do the same thing, but when you rely more heavily on concept, you lose track something important: depth and reason.
Simple scares are easy, but they aren't quite enough anymore. We need a reason to latch onto something in order to understand what we're watching...and to discuss it after viewing as well. To put it lightly - the spirit in this film didn't seem to have a real reason to be as violent as it was. I could probably list off more reasons for it not to be violent. I personally wanted to know why it was so angry at these specific individuals, and I couldn't really find anything. I did understand that it was vengeful for another reason - but without spoiling anything - there is a valid point as to why it shouldn't have ever felt threatened by this family. So I'm a little lost.
All in all, it felt like a movie that drew its strength from the premise and little else. The acting in the film wasn't so bad, in fact the boy's acting was quite impressive for what it's worth...which isn't a whole lot. It's not a terrible movie by any means, in fact I quite enjoyed the premise. I just wish it had a little more backbone and depth when it came to the writing of the characters. That being said, if you are a fan of horror movies - you should check out the movie. You might love it. You might not, but...who am I to judge?
There’s honestly some controversy surrounding sick-lit. Things like glorifying diseases like cancer and depression and even suicide. Here’s what I have to say to that: you can’t make everyone happy. There will always be someone mad about something – you’ve just got to pick and choose who you listen to. Personally, I understand the direction in YA. It’s basically the new fad, moving from the dystopia/apocalypse sub-genre – which means we have a little bit of originality on the rise – and a potential in different areas. This film surprised me in ways I never really thought it would – mostly in the chemistry between our two leads – it was extraordinary.
Let’s dive a little deeper into that, though, and break down Everything, Everything to interpret the stars.
PEOPLE SCORE – 10/10
Acting – 2|Characters – 2|Casting – 2|Importance – 2|Chemistry – 2
As with any good romantic drama, you need the people category to be scored highly, if not perfectly. Everything, Everything scored a perfect 10 in this category. The acting was full of emotions that twist and turn, but most importantly, any audience could connect with. When it comes to the characters, there’s not many of them, but I think they were all pretty memorable – even the ones not in love. Casting-wise, I wasn’t sure how it would all play out before watching it, but I now feel as if no one could play these roles better than who we have in front of us. Each character has their own reason for being there…as well as background, which forms their identity and ultimate purpose. Chemistry? Man. You will probably never, ever, hear me say this again, but these two were adorable together. That innocent tension and those shy awkward behaviors were actually really well done, so I applaud them.
WRITING SCORE – 10/10
Dialogue – 2|Balance – 2|Story – 2|Originality – 2|Interesting – 2
Next, we’ll take a look at the writing category, which also received a perfect score. First, the dialogue. When a film focuses in so intimately with the main characters, it doesn’t have a lot to go on but the dialogue. So, I’d say the speech was certainly an important element in this film, even if the lines weren’t always memorable. The balance of the film couldn’t be more focused and in tune – as most of the film takes place in one spot while the world revolves on without her outside. The story is sort of like Bubble Boy, except taken a lot more seriously…and I may have just not have heard of them, but I have never seen a movie like this before. The concept is interesting and the execution is interesting. It’s hard to say where the film will go when there’s not a lot of options for the girl in the first place.
BTS SCORE – 8/10
Visuals – 1|Directing – 2|Editing – 1|Advertisement – 2|Music – 2
Behind-the-scenes also got an okay score. The main areas in need of improvement were the visuals – which was as basic as you can probably imagine it would be, and the editing, which was average in a way that I think anyone could do the job. Everything, everything else done perfectly…see what I did there? The director had a good eye for camera placement in general, as well as how to tell an efficient story, the film was as-advertised, and I actually liked the music and scoring choices used in the film.
NARRATIVE ARC SCORE – 10/10
Introduction – 2|Inciting Incident – 2|Obstacles – 2|Climax – 2|Falling Action – 2
Moving on to the narrative arc category, which surprised me in some ways. The introduction really just introduces us to characters and why Maddy is in this situation. The inciting incident is when good ol’ Olly brings cheesecake to the house and the two fall for each other, which creates friction and obstacles in several, several forms. The climax is a mix of a decent epiphany and action made, which was definitely a culmination of everything else, and the falling action returns us to a new norm…everything was definitely in place here.
ENTERTAINMENT SCORE – 6/10
Rewatchability – 2|Fun – 2|Impulse/Buy – 0|Impulse/Talk – 0|Sucks you in – 2
Now, how entertaining was it? I think it was pretty darn entertaining in parts. For one, I’d definitely consider a film I’d have no issue rewatching again, I think it’s a movie that can suck you in from the get-go and have you interested in the film throughout – which is where the “fun” subcategory comes in. I definitely had fun watching the film. The only thing I will say is that I don’t think I’d care to really buy or own the film, nor do I care to talk to others about it. It’s not that kind of film, where it blows you away to the point where it needs to be known. No. It’s just a good movie to check out sometime.
SPECIALTY SCORE – 50/50
Drama – 10|Romance – 10|Concept – 10|Amandla Stenberg – 10|Halfway Decent – 10
Alright, guys. We are now finally onto the five specialty questions that I asked before seeing the film. Being a dramatic romance, how was the drama and how was the romance? These are easy. It’s definitely heavy in the drama when it needs to be and always incredibly romantic when it needed to be, as well. This is why I sometimes like drama romances more than rom-coms…these are believable and audiences can really connect with the characters, full points to both of those. The concept of being allergic to everything is interesting if done right – so did they do it right? I believe they did – yes. They explained the condition and even gave a few examples here and there. Full points. I’ve seen Amandla Stenberg in one other film – The Hunger Games, and I can officially say that she shines even brighter in this film. Full points. Finally, was this film halfway decent? Of course it was, full points!
TOTAL – 94/100
[9.2/10] Avatar: The Last Airbender has been scary before. There’s moments where our heroes are under threat or some strange new monster or power is after them, or some freaky thing called “the face dealer” is in play. But never before has the show been as downright creepy as it is here. “The Puppetmaster” plays like an episode of Tales from the Crypt, with a mystery, a friend turned tormentor, and a dark secret.
The very idea of bloodbenders, of someone who can control other life forms, be they animals or human beings, is intriguing and haunting in turn. The episode builds up to that nicely, with Hama initially taking water from plants, and seeming slightly unnerving in her presence before the big reveal. One of the things I like about Avatar is that it takes the natural nerd-y questions about these elemental powers and takes them to their logical, sometimes disturbing extremes, whether that’s Toph being able to bend metal or Hama being able to manipulate human beings filled with fluid.
But what I like about Hama is that the show doesn’t make her just an evil witch. For one thing, she is a link to Katara and Sokka’s history and tradition. She is, for all we know, the last water-bender from the southern water tribe. There is a sense of communion with her and Katara, a connection between them that Katara cannot forge with anyone else given the circumstances and what the Fire Nation did to their people. That immediately makes her reveals, her attacks, and her methods more damning and haunting – because she is, at least nominally, on the side of the good guys.
And yet what I love about Hama is that she’s basically Magneto from X-men (right down to breaking out of prison built to evade her powers using substance contained in a human being). She does terrible things and she has a binary, retributivist view of right and wrong that perpetuates the cycle of violence. Still, you absolutely understand who she is and what she does and why she is that way given what she’s been through and what’s been done to her. She’s seen the worst of the fire nation’s trespasses against her people; she’s seen the way they wiped out her brothers and sisters, and she has no forgiveness in her heart for them or anyone who bears their brand. She is a victim rounding up the descendants of her tormentors. That is horrifying, but complex.
It’s also unnerving because she tries, and arguably succeeds, in passing that legacy down to Katara. Hama is worried about the practices of her people dying out, and so works to teach bloodbending to Katara, to force her to use the techniques. The very sight of her controlling Aang and Sokka and using their bodies to attack Katara is creepy enough, and the same goes for the way she contorts Katara’s arm. But the real tragedy is that she forces Katara to use the bloodbending to stop her, passing this terrible mantle down to her in the process.
AtLA can be scary, but it can also be much deeper than that. “Puppetmaster” succeeds at telling a horror story as good as any that could be whispered around the sort of campfire at the beginning of the episode, but it grounds it in complicated notions of vengeance, legacy, and agency that take a horrifying thing and given it an unavoidable human dimension.
Twilight becomes both much more funny and much more bearable when you are familiar with the genre and take it as the film equivalent of a shōjo manga or otome game, including all the same tropes. Under these criteria, it's actually a pretty fun movie.
Hot Take: If you can tolerate James Bond movies but this one somehow makes you feel weird, perhaps it's because you're more used to or more comfortable with male fantasies of sexual desirability. Either way, I used to hate Twilight because I felt superior to all the stupid girls who liked it. Now I just accept it for what it is: wish-fulfilment. Sure, Edward would be a creepy stalker and borderline abusive if not for story mechanics that tell us he can be trusted because he's a good guy, but that's the beauty of fiction: in real life there's no such thing as "good guys" and "bad guys," but in stories, there is. Similarly, James Bond would be a serial sexual harasser if not for the fact that all the women he encounters are super into him, but again, that's the beauty of fiction: they always are, and we know it's okay for him to be a dick sometimes because he is, you guessed it, a good guy. And yes, there's some weird puritan ideology here about the dangers of male sexuality, but that's still a hundred times better than for instance the subtext of Bram Stoker's Dracula (which, funnily enough, is about the dangers of female sexuality).
So, once more for the people in the back: Twilight is silly, implausible, and often ridiculous. And that's absolutely okay.
That being said, things I like about this film: the great way in which it captures teenage awkwardness (which I find hilarious and at this point have to believe is intentional); the fact that Bella just accepts he's a vampire because it's the most logical conclusion, and there's no drawn out "I can't believe this guy stopped a car with his bare hands, I'm going to tell everyone about it - oh no, no one believes me!"; the quotability of so much of the dialogue (coming close to the SW prequel trilogy in that department); the absolute dead-pan way in which everyone delivers their lines ("It's like diamonds. You're beautiful." - "Beautiful. This is the skin of a killer, Bella."); The way literally no one looks like they want to be there; the fact that Bella does not seem to be able to fully close her mouth; the implication that vegetarians are "never fully satisfied"; Seemingly endless scenes of piggyback rides (now I finally know why they never actually show how The Flash carries people - it just looks so fucking weird); the shot of Bella's father rolling his friend in the wheelchair right in front of the stairs leading up to his house, followed by a cut so that it's never explained how he actually got inside; the fact that Bella just seems absolutely chill with everything ("I don't sleep." - "Never?" - "No, never." - "Okay.").
Things I don't like about this film: how everyone takes it so goddamned seriously. Oh, and that there is absolutely no instance of "What are you?" - "A waitress."
I don't know why some people are shocked at the ending. It’s basically the plot line of Crime and Punishment (the allusions to the book were given frequently). Joe isn’t punished in the sense of being in prison, and even though he’s technically free, now he is stuck with a girl just like him and a baby on the way when he would rather be with a “normal” girl he can manipulate and control. He is trapped and it’s a Gone Girl-esque ending. He even compared his new home with Love to a Siberian prison.
It was so funny watching Joe judge Love for all the shitty things she’s done. Like she was somehow worse. His murder sprees are not repulsive to him because he did them and he felt justified. That logic does not extend to others, just him. It’s a perfect mirror for showing just how delusional Joe is. The series isn’t about how he finds love. It’s about how Joe is a predator, using love as a way to convince himself he’s doing things for the right reasons. The whole point of Joe's character is that he will never be satisfied. It’s in his nature to crave what he can’t have. That’s why I thought the ending was perfect. Of course he is already interested in his “normal” neighbor. He is going to start fantasizing about her to escape his “tortured existence”.
Totally saw the Love twist coming from a thousand miles away. She was always coming on strong. Her killing Delilah was super predictable too. I actually liked that they made her psycho because Joe somewhat got a taste of his own medicine.
Overall, I enjoyed this season, but:
I’m a little disappointed in the lack of creativity. Season 2 had a lot of similar storylines to the first one: Love is the new Beck, Ellie - the new Paco.
Realism isn't necessary in fiction but some of the plot holes were annoying. How did Candace know exactly which storage unit was Joe’s? How could Forty turn on Joe so fast? Officer Fincher thought Joe could have been the murderer because of some expensive headphones but has done absolutely nothing about it. Joe reconstructing the glass box in the storage container was a bit of a stretch for me. This whole season, while entertaining, is completely unrealistic. It requires all characters to be morons and the hugest of coincidences to happen at every turn.
I was incredibly disappointed absolutely nothing from Joe's old life came back (other than Candace). He moved to a new city and changed his name - poof all his problems are solved? What happened to the PI the Salingers hired?
Candace's character had potential. They hyped her up in the first season so I thought she would do something but no, she didn't have an actual plan and was outmatched at every turn.
Was it the writers intention to insert cringy millenial jargon into every possible piece of dialogue? Really went too far compared to last season. And all the "woke" dialogue was so cringe, boring and trite.
It said a few think about society but nothing new. I know people are evil. I know institutions can be hypocritical, experimental and evil. I know about gang mentality. What's left? The only interesting moment was the family dynamic after Alex was released and that only lasted one scene. Alex wasn't even a complex character like he could have been. He goes from sick to cured to victim with nothing interesting in terms of actual personality - oh but he likes beethoven, yeah great. This is structured more like a fairy tale than a movie for grown ups. This movie seems to have the view that the hypocrisy of power and violence is genuinely interesting and clever enough to base an entire movie on. Clever social predication? Hardly. Maybe about a degenerate society but many movies predict that as a usual plot idea. I'm sure people don't care as much in those cases. What about all the wrong predictions? Where are all the posh talking kids listening to beethoven and raping? What was the logic behond that anyway?? Why does the future still look like the 70s?
What bugs me is the arty veneer to try and give some intellectualism. Beneath the flesh, boundary pushing violence for the time and nonsensical classical music (especially the edgy Nazi beethoven scene), it's a very basic story. It's not Alex or the violence that bothers me but the fact it's shallow and overrated
I unashamedly loved this movie. What an unexpected great horror film for 2021. The shots, maybe they're not that amazing, but everything is so clear and beautiful with incredible scenery of the Appalachian trails in the USA. And ON SCREEN deaths. WOW. Amazing deaths. Just so gory. Wow.
Jen is seeking herself and as a last hurrah before she decides what she wants to do, her boyfriend and 4 others (couple Gary(?) And Luis, and 2nd couple Adam and Mila) go to hike the Appalachian trails together. However, the group runs into trouble when Darius decides to go off the trail, ignoring warnings from locals, to end up pursued by a mysterious group of mountain dwellers.
This story does not hesitate to drag our characters down into the true depths of their psyche. Unfortunately some of the most interesting characters are thrown away within minutes of the action starting. I wish there had been more development given to the characters, especially outside of the main duo, but I still really liked where the movie went. I had so much fun watching this and learning about the mountain dwellers. I did like the diversity in the casting and the story behind the mountain dwellers.
This story could have gone down the stereotypical route its predecessor did, and I'm so glad it didnt. There were times when the film felt long and then where the action was quick and tight and we had only 30 minutes left. I liked the musical cues for the mountain people. I also loved the end credit song. I could watch this again.
I also want to note how the trap that Jen finds herself in is meant to be bad but it was totally a daddy scenario I'm just saying...
I was hesitant going into this. Don't get me wrong, I love the original Wrong Turn and I enjoyed most of the sequels but I have to admit that they got too far from the suspenseful horror of the first one and it just wasn't as enjoyable anymore. I was glad to see this one return to it's horror roots and away from the horror comedy route.
This one is full of little twists and turns and fun moments for horror fans. It manages to include several horror sub-genres in small ways where they worked and fit without being forced. The killers were sufficiently creepy, the kills were realistic and delightfully gruesome without feeling campy or hokey and the overall tone was suspenseful.
I will admit, a few moments almost took me out of it but I was pulled right back in each time. What pulled me out was minor and was almost immediately remedied. For example the ending where Jen leaves to go back didn't sit right with me but as the credits rolled and it showed her killing them and leaving them felt like a more fitting end for her .
Overall, I would possibly put this on par with the first Wrong Turn.
Reading all the comments is depressing. This show is not about drama or being interesting to watch. It is about making a comment on society.
The build up was obviously to get us attached and interested in the characters. Maybe even make us question if this kind of "relationship" is OK. They made it purposely vague by making him right at the edge of the age of consent.
Climax was obviously when Claire gets caught. We are now at the point where they are exploring the consequences of this kind of trauma. The point of the time jump is because sometimes you don't always realize the effects of the trauma until much later, especially when the trauma occurred when you are young. We are seeing Nick be glorified and focused on because of his trauma because unfortunately society does not look at it as a trauma, hence why they made this show to begin with. He is OBVIOUSLY struggling and being re-traumatized over and over. He doesn't actually miss her, its a form of a trauma bond. He needs to talk to someone but he also needs to be ready to talk to someone. I'm just hoping he is ready before he gets hurt more severely.
And everyone out there thinking he is loyal, envious of him, or thinking this show is boring is obviously missing the point of this entire show.
Hah, when Sybil said "I want him dark, vulnerable, actual blood on his hands" it sounded like she was describing a fashion shoot or something.
Also, did Caroline not tell Alaric and Matt what Stefan and Damon did or are they just complete idiots? They just killed one of the dynamic duo that took your children's place - isn't that going to push them back to the top of the list?
Regardless, though, I still don't fully get what exactly the point of these emissaries is, anyway - they kill bad people so their souls go to hell? That makes absolutely no sense. According to Damon and others, it does not matter how much good you do, if you've done bad you go to hell. So why is there any reason to kill these people when they will end up in hell no matter how long they live? I can think of only two goals here: To keep them from doing any more bad things to good people, which I could actually kind of understand but which also no one has actually ever mentioned in any way - or, and this is starting to look more and more likely, because Cade for some reason needs those souls in hell (or, perhaps, he just really enjoys torturing people). I mean, if Cade actually cared about what happens to good people, he wouldn't let his emissaries cause so much pain to people like Bonnie who are very obviously good.
Gina Rodriguez ("Awake", "Miss Bala") shows some surprising comedic chops as a once promising writer, who chased after a relationship that didn't work out, only to return home to her old gig and find that her besties have kind of moved on without her, one now being her supervisor, and the stuck up rich girl they used to make fun of now runs the newspaper where she works. Rather than simply continuing where she left off, she finds she was a pity hire, and is stuck in a LITERAL closet to pen obituaries for obscure people who have shed their mortal coils.
Hilarity ensues when she meets a friendly old man while she is drowning her sorrows, only to find him in her flat the next morning, where she discovers she is pretty much channeling "Cole" from "The Sixth Sense", until she figures out what they need from each other, and pens the appropriate commentary on their life and passing. In the interim, she ends up discovering just as much about herself, and learns there may be more to herself, her workmates and others than her first impressions.
Pilot episode had some laugh out loud moments, and, I look forward to seeing if they can keep this fresh and interesting throughout the season.
