I've been quite tentative on recent Spike Lee outings, maybe he doesn't have it any more I said.
I watched the trailer for this and knew I had already been proving wrong.
The story of 4 black soldiers who served in Vietnam going back to reclaim many things they lost, love, gold and much more.
While the cast was all excellent, Delroy Lindo as Paul STOLE the show in what is probably his greatest performance.
From the very start you can tell he's a PTSD powder keg ready to explode and boy does he ever.
The hurt, the anger, the bitterness, even the psychosis is on full display as he presents to the audience a truly broken man, if he's not atleast up for an oscar it will be highway robbery.
Chadwick Boseman shines in what is slightly more than a cameo as Stormin Norman.
I'm assuming they shot on location in Vietnam, if not they did a heck of a job recreating vietnam because everything looks very authentic, especially the jungles.
Lastly even though there's not a whole lot of it, the gore effects are SUPERB, there's one scene and you'll know when you see it where someone dies and it's just disgusting yet beautiful at the same time.
The acapella Marvin Gaye soundtrack interwoven with real life solders who wouldn't otherwise get mention was the cherry on top.
Bravo to all involved, Spike Lee is back.
I don’t get the negativity. Honestly you people are so entitled. The lack of context is intentional and there are several clues as to why it’s that way. It’s not a 50s to show (we haven’t seen them imitate a 60s tv show yet, that’s next week). It’s going to change probably every week, even up to the point of imitating modern tv shows like the office from what they’ve said. And the context is clear enough by the end of the second episode. Even without reading additional articles to explain the more subtle hints, you can tell what’s going on at least loosely. Plus it does a great job lampooning the absurdity of 50s tv and ideals about homemaking and marriage. To hilarious effect
I felt that this show really should be evaluated in three parts, as it’s almost as if there were three shows in one. The first season was based on the novel of the same name, so the writers had clearly marked signposts to follow. As the novel was quite compelling, so too was the first season of the show. However, this is where the book ended, and the writers had to take up the slack. The natural progression of events led them to follow the court case surrounding the death of Hannah Baker, as well as the criminal trial of Bryce Walker..
I felt that these two seasons should be evaluated in terms of being different shows. The first season was clearly the best season of the four b/c, that’s the material the book covered, and the writers didn’t have to come up w/ any of their own material. The second season, although panned by some fans and critics, still followed the same themes of the first season, yet it was not up to par in terms of storyline or writing.
The third and fourth seasons should be considered a third show all on their own. While they did stick to similar themes from the first and second seasons, the writers clearly had no plan in place to go beyond the end of the novel. These last two seasons, especially, felt completely disjointed from the first two. The third season was long and drawn out, and the payoff in the end was neither surprising nor all that interesting. If they had maintained more of a mysterious atmosphere over what they were doing, it might have been better.
The fourth season was just a mess. Watching a main character who’s moody, bitter, angry, intense, depressed, and slipping into schizophrenia is not a compelling watch. They began this in season three and continued on in season four. It really added no particular value to the show or the character of Clay.
As for the storyline in the final season, it was absolutely ludicrous. I won’t go into the details, but suffice it to say, the writers really didn’t put much thought into what they were doing. The last two episodes of the show were especially pointless. The prom episode was completely unnecessary, as was the finale, at least the way it was filmed. And, it certainly didn’t require 90 minutes to portray the events of what happened in the finale. Not to mention, the last scene of the show was absolutely awful.
I think that the worst part of this show, however, was the treatment of two characters, Bryce Walker and Montgomery de la Cruz. In the third season, the writers actually spend quite a few resources rehabilitating the image of Bryce, as if there was some redemption to be had for him. He was a serial predator, and his actions would have stemmed from a deep-seated psychological disorder that wouldn’t have simply gone away, b/c he acknowledged his wrongdoing and felt bad about it. They did something similar w/ Monte in the fourth season, and I felt that it was incredibly disingenuous, dangerous, and irresponsible to take this path, b/c it showed that they really hadn’t researched the topics they were writing about. It was really surprising to watch this, and even both of Jessica’s relationships w/ Justin and Diego were quite questionable, especially given her role as head of the women’s rights movement on campus.
I was very enthused about this once I heard it was Lindlehoff at the helm. The Leftovers is one of my all time favorites, and this series promises to be a deep dive thematically with him at the helm. The series opener is as smart and interesting as I expected, but I was happy to see that it delivers on the action elements, as well. Very solid beginning - I'm psyched to see where it goes.
"I don't need Jim. I need Dexter Morgan."
Well, in my opinion, this is the best episode so far. Can't wait for the next episode.
This show is streets ahead.
I watched the first season when it aired, and thought it was a muddled mess, but based on the recommendation of friends I gave it another try, and I'm so glad I did. Season 2 the show really starts to find its footing, and pace. Another commenter mentioned the "trendy ending that doesn't answer any questions"; to that I have to say what more questions could you possibly want answered? I thought the "ending was BRILLIANT".
The entire show is about the extremes that humans will go to assign meaning to random events. There is no providence, there is no master plan, there is no destiny, and if you believe otherwise, then yes, you WILL be disappointed in this series. In the end this show is about the human mind and how it is so very fragile and so fallible; yet it shapes the world around us, and more importantly shapes those around us. We must be careful with sharing our beliefs, because they are contagious, yet in the end my amount to nothing.
I'm not a professional film critic or anything, and I'm not trying to comment like one, but I've got something I'm pretty sure on why some movies are so great: They simply never stop on get better as the runtime go.
I saw the movie because of its reputation. I knew its something good and i wanted to find out why everyone can't stop praising it. So when Henry Fonda pulled out that switch blade and stuck it on the table, i thought "oh thats it, that's why they say this movie is great, a huge twist". And then came the old guy with great insights about the old man downstairs and the woman across the street, they were on 2 to 10; And then there was the man who shouts his hate for people from the slumps, everyone in the room showed him how ignorant he was, they were tied on 6/6; And finally, the last man teared up his photo with his son he haven't seen in 2 years, sobbingly say "not guilty" ... Everything built up like a pile of random acts at first, but as the movie progresses everything fell into place like a luxury box of Belgium chocolates. I'm not saying you need to be keep on getting better to be a great movie, a lot of classics don't work the same way (or even the opposite), but if a movie can build up like 12 Angry Men, you just can't be bad.
The plot is amazing. 12 men just argue and discuss murder in a room for the whole film. In A room! The film, however, is so interesting. It's probably a good description of American Jury System in 50's.
I never thought a movie with only 12 men in 1 room with no action could be so thrilling, so engaging, so thought-provoking, so emotional so... PERFECT!
that's genius! nowadays there will never be movies like this again
"There can't be two Alpha Titans."
First things first: Yes, the humans for the most part are the worst part of the movie. The story is pretty simplistic and whenever the camera would pan to Millie Bobby Brown and her crew I would think "who cares!". That being said, monster scenes and fight sequences were really a true sight to see, and the action was crisp. Kaiju were done right.
I’m so shocked by these negative comments... this latest episode was so good, and you needed the first few episodes to play out how they did for context. You guys are weird lol.
jfc give this man an editor who can say "No".
It's frankly amazing that he did shot most of the storyline focused scenes first time around I assume a good DCU superhero movie after two attempts... and buried it in a whole hour, if not more, of unnecessary slow-mo music videos and stupid or creepy for no reason scenes.
And for the love of god keep Whedon away from it... Who the hell cuts character arc that a core part of a main storyline?!
I just don't get it. He could have so easily cut stupid equation thing and nodes to future movies away if that was the real point of reshoots. Why rearrange so much of the story bits, assuming of course, that the plot was already completed by than.
P.s. Well, I hope someone on the internet will eventually make another cut of this and finally saves the movie for good.And add the race scene between Flash and Superman
Started watching for Nathan and was not disappointed. Perfect amount of humour, action and familiar character developed to make it addictive without being tiring. It's rare that i get to season 2 of a show and would prefer not to have a break until the third season. Also like the addition of body cam footage, makes me feel more part of the action. How realistic is it? Frankly don't care, I can watch a number of show, heavy dramas for that which I equally love but that's not what i came here for. As advertised.
I mean. I'm a simple woman. You say "Jake Johnson" and I'm there.
08/10.
In Spike Lee's newest joint "Apocalypse Now" meets "The Treasure of Sierra Madre". The titular "5 Bloods" are the 5 African-American men who fought together in the "Vietnam War" or as guys in 'Nam like to call -- the "American War." The remaining 4 Bloods of today would like to go back for the remains of their fallen brother and buried "gold."
Spike Lee wastes no time in getting to the point right away. He uses actual footage from the past and makes sure to educate the folks of today.
Though like most of his joints the story can become long and messy, the incredible direction and powerful performances make this the best film I have seen this year.
Sadly It's way too underrated
if you dont like the show, then stop watching.
a) I did. Ages ago.
b) you have to watch something to know whether or not you like it
c) "if you don't like my comments, then stop reading"
d) it's called criticism and totally valid to say, even if you have issues with criticism of a show you like, because you project that criticism on yourself
e) if you can't see anything wrong with this show, good for you
no one wants a homophobic asshole watching the show, believe me.
a) why should I believe you, you are a stranger starting directly with ad hominems and you are - sorry to say - no authority to say who wants what, or what person to declare an "asshole"
b) educate yourself what "homophobic" actually means and realize, in the context of my criticism here and in several episodes, that it's not applicable towards me. But for that you might need to fully understand what I say instead of getting riled up over a comment you don't like, on a show you enjoy so much that you'd ignore all the issues it has. If you call it equality and not the exact opposite how this show uses male homosexuality to provoke then I can't help you, you are a part of the issue this show has.
c) nice ad hominem, thanks for making another great example why trakt needs moderators to take away the ability to comment for some people.
and peter nowalk writes the show, not shonda. get educated before you speak
I don't care who writes the show on a regular basis, nor did I say here Shonda Rhimes is writing it, didn't I? Shonda Rhimes' company produces it and if you think she has no influence on this show at all you're incredibly naive.
Get educated, hm? I like the irony in that.
Thanks for the chuckle, but go back under the bridge you came from. :D
I can't handle this anymore
I got up to S02E12 and its just... bleugh
I find myself checking Twitter more than watching this
Just one of those shows that really turned me off, at some point I really didn't like the characters even though I felt invested in it, it just really turned me off.
Why does a law professor also run a high stakes law firm, expecting her entry level students to do all the leg work of a field they know nothing about?
Imagine walking into your first science class, only to have the teacher yell at you for not knowing advanced quantum mechanics already, then failing you if you don't cure cancer.
Everything is just so messed up. Awesome!
Great story line. I really enjoyed a version of Flash that wasn't so superficial and cracking jokes the whole time. And the Batman timeline twist totally caught me off guard. Nice touch.
Zach and Mr. Porter's trial episodes were the most interesting. I was super excited for another season, but for some reason, season 2 fell short for me. Should have left it at season 1 and ended it there.
The words cult and classic doesn`t even begin to describe this. It´s amazing it premiered over 75 years ago. I have seen this so many times and it still makes me laugh every time. Although I feel for poor old Tom much more with every time I watch it.
I prefer the original Hanna/Barbera cartoons. The later ones are OK but never quite reached the quality in terms of animation and script.
Great sequel. A bit more towards action but still some powerful character moments. What makes this work anyway is the portrayal of the apes not only from the technical side, no, even more how they are written. What always drew me to this story is the approchability. It felt possible which, for me, is a sign of a good story baseline. And even with the role reversal in the end the apes are no different than men which makes this also a tragic story.
So far this is really one of very few remakes that don´t stand behind the original. They both are equally great within there timeframe. Althought technically it is not a remake but, by staying true to the story, a prequel. Now I hope they can keep the quality up for the next one.
Am I the only one thinking that leaving the robot alone is heartless? He's just standing there so sad like when these terrible people leave a dog in the woods...
