paddlin_jones

I enjoyed the movie, but watching for the second time I saw there was one glaring flaw, and I'm not sure if it's the responsibility of the new director for this second film, or the actor.

Jennifer Lawrence's over-acting (limited to 2 or 3 significant moments) doesn't maim the movie, but it certainly momentarily breaks the spell. First, as Katniss ascends the tube to the arena, Once (more than once?) when she's in the arena, and once more in the last couple of minutes of the film.

We had the same kind of crazed in the latter seasons of Handmaid's Tale; one presumes the directors didn't have a robust imagination for alternatives than "crazed expression #24".

It's as if the characters, contrary to most reasonable people I think, actually hadn't reached the point of not being surprised by anything that might occur, in spite of all that has occurred to date.

Otherwise, a very good film, well done all-around.

As noted elsewhere, the movie is a series of disjointed, abstract vignettes forming a bit of a puzzle, I thought, which is left to the watcher to sort out. Or perhaps uncover a theme, if any, that connected them.

Was it trying too hard to be an art film, at the expense of a film with a recognizable purpose and/or message?

Carey Mulligan was very good but her performance was not as seamless as was the case in, say, Promising Young Woman. (I was probably 1/3 of the way into that movie before I even recognized her). It may have been the vocal accent here that caused a bit of dissonance for me. Having said that, she does fully realize her characters as discrete entities; I am hard-pressed to find any 'tells' she may exhibit which appear from role to role. She is a gifted actor.

Bradley Cooper was also very good; I had no expectations as to how Bernstein would appear but he seemed to inhabit the role and provide a consistent characterization.

The music was given a definite second fiddle status, and it wouldn't have harmed things, IMO, had an ID label popped-up briefly with each piece. I recognized West Side Story and I love Mahler's 2nd but otherwise....

Speaking of the Resurrection, the selected 5 minute (and change) excerpt was certainly the climax of the symphony but the tempo of this reading inexplicably shifted into the slow lane on the highway only to find itself behind a loaded semi heading up a hill at the very moment it should have been majestically, effortlessly flying and pulling everyone along with it. I could hear that the orchestra was certainly up for it. I realize tempi are a style thing, and there is no single path chosen through this work by great conductors, but still. Also, I think this is one instance where Mr. Cooper trying to conduct as Bernstein didn't work all that well. It may have been beneficial for him to develop his own style (incorporating, certainly, some Bernstein mannerisms) and taken the training with a view to inject his own soul into the baton rather than trying to channel Bernstein. But what do I know.

(Should anyone be looking for a suggested reading of Mahler's No 2; I highly recommend Leonard Slatkin and the St Louis Symphony on Telarc. Magical. Seat belts and subwoofers, or good earbuds, recommended. Youtu. Be/w2jdk18_6c4?si=oKiU3Jb_2JK84eBt)

The choreography of the Sailors' Dance was terrific, I thought and very well danced.

I switched off Netflix, after watching, not feeling as though I had much more insight into either Mr. Bernstein or his legacy, sadly.

To give you a comparison, last night, after hearing great things about it, I started watching the movie "How to Blow Up a Pipeline"; what a lame piece of crap that was. I saw it as a first-year film school project. I pushed eject just after they set off the explosions. Who cares what happened. I gave that a 3 star as well.

What's the deserved rating for any film that one can't abide until the closing credits?

I had likewise heard great things about this series and found it at the library yesterday. Oh good!

Well, that didn't last long.

I pulled the plug in episode 4 when the travelers, trying to get across the country while avoiding the "infected" decide that going through Kansas City (rather than, duh. Going around it???) would be a great way to avoid trouble. Idiotic writing.

This after the attempt to get across Boston in episode 2 and running into Zombies who had somehow escaped from the film "World War Z". I swear they hired the same zombie consultants and Foley artists -- Zombies'R'Us? -- as that film. Same zombie behaviour. Same zombie sounds. Same zombie behaviour.

They should have enlisted the choreographer from some Michael Jackson videos.

If you're aware of the stage play "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern", this film and WWZ could fit the same premise; the two stories could have easily been occurring simultaneously. Oddly, both even featured Boston. Why didn't this one feature, say, Atlanta? Or Memphis? (They could have resurrected Elvis)

In fact, I can't recall the several films and small-screen series that I thought this series drew from; there wasn't an original bone in its body.

On the other hand, episode 3 I did appreciate because it featured new, transitory characters. It wasn't fabulous writing but the break from the main story was enriching.

Fungi deserve better!

I only watched 30 minutes of the first episode before writing off yet another Apple series.

It took me until the first words were spoken from the Moon to understand why it wasn't Walter Cronkite in the pre-landing newscast.

This series appears to have borrowed the "what if the other side won" premise from the excellent series mentioned in my header but, given the current situation, seems to, perhaps, have a purpose of propaganda to drive support for renewing the 60s' fervour for a manned space program. Not to mention the tendency for testosterone to fuel pissing contests. Yes, the world needs more "mach-o mach-o man".

I wouldn't be surprised if Musk and Bezos had provided some financial backing.

Well, this is a new record for me.

I lasted 5 minutes.

The terrible direction -- that's where I'm placing the blame, deserved or not -- was evident right away. We have Anna Kendrick, again, playing to a very unflattering type, as opposed to her strengths, and Blake Lively being told to be.... something that drives a nice car, wears a big hat, and introduces the C-grade script with genitalia jokes in the rain. (It was funny in Kindergarten Kop when the line was delivered by a 6 year-old).

I'm a little hesitant to rate a film after so little time sacrificed to the act of watching it, yet I persist.

So many other much more worthy films to see.

And, anyway, surely you have laundry waiting.

I stopped watching about 2/3 through. The mom, in an overwrought scene, had shortly before driven through the gauntlet of stone-throwing, white yahoos while the police (SQ?) merely watched. But what made me throw in the towel was the way the filmmaker chose to develop the "friendship" between Beans and her rougher peers. That didn't work for me at all. I'm assuming those youthful relationships and the incipient awakening of the heroine from a protected innocence was meant as a metaphor for First Nations society, but I don't know.

The lack of nuance in the storytelling and a lack of historical footage that captured the racism encountered in the course of daily life off-reserve, during the blockade prevented me from feeling what I had hoped for.

I have the quaint idea that a director would have an interest in providing some reason for a watcher to continue watching beyond 10 minutes of a two hour movie.

Sandler's character was of zero interest to me and I didn't care what was to become of him nor why I intrigued to find out, so I pushed the eject button.

The spoilers are pretty inconsequential.

The first two seasons of this series were amazing. I'm guessing that, for some time now, the writers have been off-book; seasons 3 and now, especially, 4 are heading downhill. Mind you, I'm watching 4 in French, which I'm still learning (it's what's available at the moment).

How many different ways and how many more thousands of times are directors going to send Elisabeth Moss back to the Book of Stock Crazed Facial Expressions?

I fear HULU may have caught the Netflix disease which seems to be to cut writing and directing budgets as a show peaks in quality and audience, and then let it drift, for as long as there is a cow to milk, to a questionable finish line. Example, the BJ ask by the pirate king a couple of episodes ago. Also, the entire plotline at the farm starting this season through to The Mutiny in the Red-Curtained Chariot.

Suggestion, just scoot to the end, after nuclear war on Canada, when June, Luc, Anna, and Nicole head off into a Cormac McCarthy-esque, road-trip epilogue.

Or maybe just send June off to Hawaii, for a 3-episode R&R, before her triumphant return, in fighting form, to team of with Serena and double-handedly destroy Gilead!

I recall a few years ago downloading an ebook from Amazon about some apocalyptic EMI event that impacts the USA. It was terrible. It could have been written by the same person who wrote this screenplay.

There are a few moments where the story held together but too many holes and eye-rolling moments ; watch Pee Wee's Great Adventure, instead.

(One small inconsequential spoiler: what? you thought the flight would go without a hitch?) When the Twin Otter (turboprop with a short range) started sputtering like a WW1 Sopwith Camel (actually, it was more like a DHC-2, it was just one comical event too far. Surely this was meant to be a spoof if the producers couldn't even spend the money to get a real turbine sound.

Such a waste of acting talent. And a great plane must now wear dark glasses for the rest of its days!

Hey, Bezos, throw some of your loot into your productions.

Talk about loose ends. There was one huge "why?" from neat the start that was never answered. And McCall tidies things up at the end as if he was dealing with dumb punks.

Lousy and lazy writing.

Not nearly as good as the first. You can use the two hours for something else more fulfilling like laundry.

A few months after tossing this series in the trash after the first episode, Amazon gave me another free Prime month and I gave it another shot. Overall the series is pretty good with original characters and storylines that evolve in unexpected and interesting ways.

Individual episodes I would rate anywhere from a 3 to 8+.

But, there is a lack of continuity in character morals - what they wouldn't do in one episode they are happy to do in other. The occasional character goes way over the top - the kid belter Diogo, for example, is intolerable; even Naomi relies too much on direction to be consistent from episode to episode. Then there's the apparent Tourette inflicted leader of the UN. When writers go down the path of most F bombs per sentence, you know they are lazy.

The character of Alex is well-played. Amos is good but could do with a little more emphasis on moving beyond 2D.

Towards the end of Season 3, the writing was again failing.

There's enough that's good to make for an entertaining binge. I'm in season 4 now and gatting put off again by the inconsistencies. We'll see where it goes.

Before now, after a bit of a confused start to the whole production, I was thinking 7-8 stars.

Now come the gaping plot holes and the snap-of-the-fingers magic that allows lazy screenwriters to have whatever their characters need no matter how implausible. This is reminding me of Season 2 of Sense8 or the end of S7 of GoT.

Here are the spoilers in this episode that made me shut it off; maybe I'll go back to it, maybe I won't:

1. The professor getting stuck in the mud. Really? Then leaving an RV full of equipment to be found?

2. Arturo running into the bank. These characters would have thrown him right back out again. I had enough of his character in the first two seasons and, in the periphery of this season, he was tolerated. Now he's just going to be intolerable. Again. I have zero interest in that character and a much-reduced interest in continuing the series.

3. The bug in Rio's clothes. C'mon... really.? You don't think the robbers would think "Oh, the police gave you these clothes, sure just keep wearing them and let's discuss all our plans while you're looking so good." And when they had the wand that Stockholm waved around Arturo you don?t think they'd have done the same to Rio.

God, I hate cheap, lazy and sloppy writing. Yet another series ruined as producers cut costs and sacrifice quality once a series is established to maximize their haul.

So incredibly disappointing.

Someone's positive review said that it reminded them of Shutter Island; I can go along with that, in a sense, but...

I watched this with the french audio and the voice-over for Ray was terrible - full-on histrionics without end. Having said that, I'm not convinced hearing Sam Worthington's voice would have helped much.

This is one of those movies where I got a bad (movie) feeling within the first 5 minutes. Usually, when my spidey-sense tingles that way, it is spot on and so it was here. I was watching with others, however, so I persevered, and I thought I did well to refrain from laughing until the last 10 minutes, at which point I was hoping the entire cast of characters would find the hidden cooler of kool-aid and drink it. All. To the last drop. Then dry it with a rag and suck the last of it from the rag.

Sure there were twists, but what suspense existed was wrapped in a great big dollop of "Who cares"? And, at the end, I didn't know what the truth was or what the back story of the truth was.

On this movie, I blame: 1) the director, and 2) the script.

A cross between Alien (I'm sure the creatures went to the same martial arts school) and Little Shop of Horrors with the human character IQ nestled snugly between Dumb and Dumber. "Ooooh, it's so cute!" (I'm paraphrasing)

Please don't waste your time.

It's a vastly different approach to the topic than, say, Avatar.

In this one, it is not an alien world proxy but our own planet that is the subject. The notion is that we brought on the end of times ourselves - other than that, the vehicle for doom is unimportant (but it is the general trashing of our biosphere and not global warming, per se).

The ending could surely be anticipated although the writers, director and Margaret Qualley maintained doubt (will she or won't she? And what is that she will or won't? And what about him?) through to the closing scene; there were a few different directions it could have gone. I thought Qualley did a spectacular job on what is, essentially a one-and-a-half hander for 90 minutes.

As all the 1 star reviewers point out, it is not a fast paced story; but I certainly didn't find it boring. It also induced more personal reflection on what we are giving up as we continue down our current path of the destruction of our home.

Many other lo-star reviews captured the essence.

I can only suggest the FBI ought to have hired this crew to find the unabomber; would have caught him before lunch on the first day.

On the plus side, the lead must be somewhat relieved that the producers have downgraded her bosom from the major supporting (supported?) role in seasons 1 and 2 to a, somewhat, lesser prominence in season 3. (to be clear - that's a criticism of the producers, not the actor).

Season 3 appears to follow the season 2 pattern of Sense8 (maybe others); the producers seem to know the show will be disappearing so they are sparing "every" expense in writing ("magic" is always happening in place of clever - and somewhat believable - plot-making), directing, production until the clock runs out.

I wish shows to succeed. I don't like wasting my time watching bad shows. I finally cut Iron Fist loose after several episodes of hoping.

The main problem is the Danny Rand character; he is simply annoying. I'm going to share the blame between the actor, the director, and the producer. The actor because he's not that good; the director(s?) because they aren't able to help the actor develop and present a better quality character; and producer(s) because this series is being done on the cheap and they don't seem to care about a quality product. Just get the episodes out bang, bang, bang.

That's the impression I get at any rate.

Compare this production to, say, GOT, Homeland, Six Feet Under (etc.) and there is no contest.

This series is kinda like the non-stop talking heads on CNN; when you have 24 hours to fill, every day, you gotta fill it with something. Anything.

Iron Fist is exactly that: something, anything.

I was surprised to see that much of the film had been filmed close to Vancouver, BC. The set dressers, I thought did a great job to create what easily passed to my eye as India. While there were other aspects of the film that I enjoyed, I think that Deepa Mehta's film 'Earth' is a better rendering of the partition story and better communicates the situation. It is the intellectually deeper of the two films with much more meat on its bones. 'Partition' came across a little light-weight in that regard. The mixed race love story is clichéd though the origins of this one seem credible; it does leave a few open questions as to just how (in)tolerant the various ethnicities involved were at the time.

I came away wondering what the point was.

The technical aspects of the film (acting, direction, camera, etc.) was, I thought, very well done. I'm still puzzled as to the intent of filmmakers who put a bunch of gore and some very unseemly characters before us.

** Some mild(?) spoilers follow **

In addition, in this case, I was perplexed by Jones' character and little hints along the way that make me wonder what he was about, what he knew. For example, he is never proactive in the investigation yet he follows (as opposed to pursuing) the trail. In the final scenes when he returns to the motel, I noticed he took what seemed to be a large step across the threshold. Did he know that someone else was there? There are clues that he did and that he expected someone to be there. Had he become a nihilist and, by returning, was hoping to get shot to get out of his life? And had the sheriff made the connections between evidence and weaponry as he talked earlier about the abattoir? And what was the point of having names which can be confusingly similar: Ed Tom and Anton (in fact, somewhere late in the film, I thought someone did call the sheriff "Anton").

So, Full marks for the technical film but... I'm not going to try and solve the riddles.

I'll make a note of where the spoiler language comes about; you're safe until then.

The film could have been set anywhere but to place it on an oil rig, near abandoned following a fire, is inspired. There are only a handful of characters, each of which brings both an amount of spice to the main story and a bit of reprieve - sort of brief time-outs - and to add some flavour, like a small chorus, to the main story.

The film is not subtle in certain aspects; the director/writer fairly kicks us in the head and yells at us that these people, on a cold, steel desert island, are lonely. At the same time, she lays down hints to make the watcher think about what else is going on in their lives. Of course, it is the two leads that one is most curious about but small exchanges with the supporting cast leave us curious about the lives of each on board. And when we are at last let in on Hanna's secret, the empathy that builds can be shared amongst all the characters and beyond. *** SPOILER ALERT. Skip now to end of paragraph to avoid it **** Indeed, it got me wondering seriously about holocausts and made me wonder of my past thoughts that it gets tedious when Jews continue to raise the WWII holocaust over and over. It caused me to truly wonder about where my thoughts have been and what I now think about the various acts of genocide that have occurred during my lifetime and before. What must one do about this? This film has been on my "must see" list for a while and I'm glad I picked it up.

If you appreciate films that make you question beliefs and attitudes, then you may well like this one.

I'm a small 'f' fan of Almodovar's films (Talk to Her) and to see his involvement, along with a couple of his favourite actors, in a film with Sarah Polley (or, vice versa) was delightful. Not to mention Tim Robbins; this international collaboration is wonderful.

Oh, and if you see the movie and can't understand what Ms. Polley's character is saying in a spot or two early on, don't worry. It becomes much more understandable not far into the film.

Perhaps some old gent from NZ did in fact race his motorcycle across Bonneville and set a record. I guess that much, in that case, would be true. Otherwise, it's a hokey fantasy with no meat on the bleached bones. Don't let Anthony Hopkins participation fool you - the quality here is more along the lines of "The Edge" than "The Remains of the Day". Although, "The Edge" is waaaaaay worse than this flick and you can take the kids to this one - it's likely intended for tweens - without worry.

Although they will see a man in womans clothing. :)

And there is a little good cop, bad cop tossed in.

Not to mention a "desert Affair".

Everyone falls in love with this guy.

After re-reading my summary, I'm adjusting my rating and giving one star per adjective - down from 5 stars to 3.

This is one of the few movies that I have given a 10 of 10, maybe the only one. There is tremendous skill at work in every aspect of the film. And the passion... yes, the passion.

The script is simply amazing. The fabulous humour - written and visual - exists throughout. The depth of meaning and presentation of the various references means three things for me. First, that the writing was done for the pleasure of the writers as well as the audience. Second, the writers know what they're writing about (certainly I recognize Tom Stoppard's talent). Thirdly, my impression is that the screenwriters wrote the cleverness not to be seen to be clever but because it was such fun. Every multi-level reference that I could catch or, more to the point, those I didn't, left me feeling not that I was clever or daft myself (correspondingly) but that there was a richness to the material that could be appreciated at a variety of levels.

The devices used in the script, many more than I know but can nonetheless appreciate, such as intermixing a dialogue sequence between real-life and stage is used very effectively to show that there are parallel fictional stories being told. There is no suggestion from the writers that we are watching a true-to-life story. We know at the outset that it is a fiction loosely based at a certain point in the lives of real people. Perhaps in similar way that Shakespeare's works themselves are historical fiction in some cases (though I know little of Shakespeare).

There are particular moments of script brilliance where I found myself suspended in time and unable to breathe as if a river was suddenly dammed and subsequently released with tremendous emotion. For example, the stuttering start of the prologue to the play - absolutely fantastic. Foreshadowing is also used effectively if unsubtly at times as are the Shakespearean notions of mistaken identity and gender-bending.

Even such contrivances as Lord Wessex getting a paper flyer in the face just after his marriage to Viola are pulled off easily and believably.

The acting is brilliant, cohesive and consistent - a magical combination of script, direction, casting and, oh yes, the actors abilities. The characters all gel into a single, 2 hour dance. How does a movie achieve this level of inspired acting and vivid characterization? I don't know, it's a mystery.

The direction of John Madden needs singling out for particular praise. I don't know what to say except that it is the director who must, in the end, not only bring the varied abilities of all those assembled into a single gem but to inspire and allow each facet to shine brilliantly. This he certainly does.

The music sets wonderful moods and captures (inspires) a real sense of situation.

Visual sets and costumes are fabulous.

The editing provides a piece that flows so smoothly.

One of the main reasons I see movies is to feel an emotional response and this movie certainly provides that. It all works beautifully - I think one can tell when a company is firing on all cylinders - and I will return to this movie from time to time as no other I have seen.

It seemed fitting that upon arriving home after I saw this movie I channel surfed past a Comedy Channel "roast" of Pamela Anderson. In that ode to maximizing the ratio of dollars earned per ounce of IQ present, several people - some famous - pulled out all the stops (one surmises there were no stops left to pull) to scrape through the barrel bottom to reach previously unplumbed depths of mean-spirited, profane puerility. It's hard to call it humour.

Borat slides right in to that same vein. Or does it?

When I found myself laughing constantly and often uncontrollably through "There's Something about Mary" I figured then that I could be as caught up in potty humour as much as anyone. Borat, however, goes well beyond "Mary's" silly and simple sight gags (related often to the middle third of the human body). In that movie, the humour is based upon two factors: the reaction to the initial gag, and also the viewer's realization of their reaction to the gag - they laugh a second time at themselves when they realize they laughed at such silly stuff. Monty Python was often similar.

Borat, in contrast, works off a very different premise.

First of all, it is about deception. Sure it "pokes fun" at attitudes towards others. In the global scheme of things of over 6 billion "others", Cohen leaves us with the suggestion that the way to deal with diversity is ridicule. Cohen suggests that the ridicule need not stop when one is invited into anothers house for dinner - it's OK to leave a turd beside your plate on the way out. That'll fix 'em so they can all be like... like.... who? Which of the >6 billion is the correct model that we should all follow?

I don't believe that Cohen and the rest of the production team was out to provide moral guidance or even point out anomalies in our society. I think it's likely that he was simply out to be as ridiculously offensive as possible and choosing the race, moral, religious subjects was simply the vehicle for doing that and, besides, harming animals is against the law.

As for the rating (1 out of 10), I had considered initially rating it much higher. The logic goes like this: It provoked me into thinking deeply about my reaction -> thought-provoking cinema is a good thing -> forces a re-examination of both what I know and my moral foundation -> reinforces (or not) my personal moral beliefs -> I should be thankful to the film-maker.

Ultimately, however, it made me think: What does this really say about our society and how much we value other people and diversity of views and cultures? This is rhetorical but it's not so much even the movie itself that most concerns me but the effusive reaction to it from paid critics and its box-office popularity.

What does it say that we honour a person simply because they have a pathologically low level of inhibition and decency? That we would place such a person in the same league - through awards - as the true cinema artists simply because he pushes the envelope of offensiveness? In our society, we view this as being behaviour to strive for and worth rewarding? Now that I have seen the movie I can question why Cohen was even nominated - much less having won - at the Golden Globes.

Best actor? He has the range of a toddler trying to hit the toilet he is sitting on.

Similarly, that the Academy would nominate anything about this film for an Oscar - best adapted sceenplay...? What screenplay?

For anyone who hasn't seen it... If you must, I suggest stealing it - download it or whatever. Don't pay anyone a cent to watch it.

I saw this movie several years ago and remember it being extremely well done and very moving. Brilliant characterizations and acting.

Opening the movie is one of the most moving ballet solos I have ever seen. It was absolutely spell-binding. What a fabulous way for two leading characters to meet. Worth seeing the movie just for that.

Recalls the brilliant dancing of Gregory Hines and Mikhail Baryshnikov in White Nights. Different of course but another fabulous movie dance moment (W.N. was not such a fabulous movie but still very watchable). And if you love dance and haven't seen H & B dancing together, well then...

Deepa Mehta takes a break from her much more serious Earth, Fire, Water trilogy to present a very light bit of Indo-Canadian fun filmed in Toronto.

Boy has to find a date to fill a family obligation, boy/girl fall in love-forget obligation, boy loses girl, boy gets girl again. Of course.

Even so, the female roles are quite strong and cultural norms (the little I understand them) are pushed and, in some cases, shattered. That doesn't change from Mehta's other films that I've seen. Consequences in this go around, however, are much more fun. Family remains central.

Did I appreciate it? Very much.

Do I know Indian culture? Very little.

It holds up very well to other light, large-family-oriented (aunts, uncles, 3rd cousins, grandparents, etc.) comedies. A terrific break from fare that makes one think a great deal.

Also recommend Monsoon Wedding if you liked this one.

I do wonder, though, if there are comedies from Indian culture that present other than rich folk. In spite of one character identifying himself as "middle class", I have to say that in my experience "middle class" doesn't mean chauffeured limo.