windycitytoast

I was very apprehensive about checking out the From Dusk Till Dawn the Series, because I really liked the original film and felt that the show wouldn't do justice. This is also because they attempted to do several other films afterwards that were all flops. The difference though between the last couple films and this series, is that Robert Rodriguez(the guy who created/directed original film) is the helmer of this series rather than someone else. The show has proved to be successful with his adapting the film to television. 5 episodes in the series and each one has been nostalgic of the film. What I like about the show is that it follows the original story religiously, but goes into way more detail than it did in the film. I assume things will be somewhat different though from the film before the season is over in order to keep the story going since the series was recently renewed for another season after this one. So far though, the story is building the same way it did in the film, in that the Gecko brothers are on the run after robbing a bank, join up with the Fuller Family by taking them hostage in there RV so that they can evade police and make there way for El Rey. Episode 5 was the best episode I've seen yet. A small synopsis is that The Gecko Brothers and Fuller Family are almost into Mexico, but they need to get past the border checkpoint. This scene is much different than the film though, it that the stakes feel way more dangerous and higher. The story is great and smart, incorporating Wilmer Valderammas character Carlos and Ranger Gonzales who is still hot on the Gecko Brothers trail. All I have to say is by the end of the episode, you'll be wanting to see next weeks. If you've been keeping up with each episode so far, you've noticed little nods to the world of Rodriguez/Tarantino such as The Big Kahuna Burger, Earl Mcgraw's character played by Don Johnson in the series, Seth/Richies mannerisms..etc. If you get the El Rey channel, Netflix, or have internet to download, I definitely recommend keeping up with the series. It is surprisingly an entertaining show to watch on Sunday's.

I have not seen the film yet, but this is comment is more of a caution to people who are looking for a good review of it. Heed many of the negative comments on IMDb. There has been a huge influx of people specifically hardcore christians. Who are creating accounts just to boycott and talk smack about the film without even seeing it. I for one think anyone is entitled to have there own interpretation of the story of Noah (Book Of Genesis/Quran) and this movie is simply Aronofsky's. Just like the Passion of the Christ came out, thousands of religious nutjobs went to the internet and either praised/bashed the film for its horrible portrayal. A huge difference between the two films, is that Noah will most likely be an honest piece of work rather than the Passion which was a film that was meant to please Gibson's own father rather than the audience. All I'm saying is that be careful what reviews you take notice of, and make sure its nobody who is against the film just because of its portrayal of events. From what I've heard so far, Aronofsky navigates the story from the bible preety faithfully onto the screen.

I am an Avid Pot Smoker... have been for most of my life. This past week on the Comedy Central lineup, both the plot of Workaholics and Broad City were all about smoking weed . I think I might be getting too old for this stuff now, but I'm sick of seeing these shows stereotype people who smoke weed like incompetent idiots. I also can't stand too see the glamorization of weed on these shows because its trying to bring weed down into the normal legal stratosphere. I believe this is bad because these shows are giving a huge misrepresentation towards what weed is really all about and its uses. What I'm saying is that I'm sick of devoting my time to each episode, when all it is some bratty hipster's complaining about the merits of holding a steady job when instead they could be smoking weed(Workaholics), same thing with Broad City but instead the idea rests in the characters incompetence to keep a job or function like a normal person( ex. ilana doesn't have underwear, sleeps all day at her job, can't complete normal tasks like replacing a television remote).. Television for young adults these day's is crippling because there is nothing your going to get out of it besides stupid laughs and will probably feel stupid afterwards for watching it. Beware of this kind of programming, it is creating a generation of lazy-ritalin addicted-weed smoking-hipsters.

Its physically and emotionally draining to see one of the greatest actors of all time succumb himself to such a bad streak of films this year... thats right, I'm talking about Robert De Niro. the Goodfella... the Raging Bull... Don Corleone...Al Capone... the list is endless. I can't wrap my mind around why he does such horrible films these days like The Bag Man, The Big Wedding, Last Vegas(Hangover on Viagra), Killing Season,Grudge Match. Little Fockers..etc. The man is 70 now and has only so many years left before he retires. Obviously people will always remember him by the earlier films, but I think he's more than capable of doing one last memorable film. As far as the Bag Man goes, the story was sloppy, acting was mediocre and thats because the script was bad not the actors, cinematography was a lot of dark lighting, and the music had that ominous CSI random guitar solo feel to it. I only ate half my popcorn and threw the rest away, I got too sick of looking at who and what was on the screen. I wish all of them actually wore bags on there heads, that might have saved the film. 3/10. sorry Robbie.

This movie sucked... its a rip off of Fast and The Furious Franchise... plus its basically based off a driving video game. The acting was horrible, Aaron Paul couldn't "yeah bitch" his way out of this film. The only thing that warranted any of my attention was Michael Keaton. As far as my two cents go, if this film is a 7.2 on IMDb, then the rating system is definitely corrupted. I'd rather watch Vin Diesel and his stupid monotone voice over and over again... then have to sit through a c***sh**t like this ever again. This film is obviously for those who are close minded, and desire story's with no character development but rather want just generic action scenes. Do yourself a favor and see a real film like The Grand Budapest Hotel or Nymphomaniac while you still have brain matter left up there.

After watching Volume I, I decided to continue on to Volume II. One of the major differences is that Volume I is acted out by Young Joe (Stacy Martin) while Volume II is older Joe (Charlotte Gainsbourgh). I found Charlottes performance to be more believable of someone who is a nymphomaniac, which propelled the story to much greater heights than in Volume I. Another comparison of the two is the tone and pacing. Volume I seemed much longer because there is much more symbolism to music, nature, and mathematics brought up by Seligman(Stellan Skarsgaard) when Joe is explaining her childhood and past affairs. Von Trier takes a lot of time in the first half to make random connections to Joe's experiences, some for comedic effect and others that try to connect sexual prowess with nature. For example when Joe loses her virginity the first time to Jerome(Shia Labeouf). Seligman refers to it as the Fibinachi Sequence when Joe explains that Jerome penetrated her 3 times in the vagina and 5 times anally which equals 8. (I know, I couldn't believe they tried to even make this connection the first time I saw it as well.) A better example is how Seligman connects fly fishing to Joe and B's escapades on the train. The connection of reeling in the perfect catch(men), and how its illustrated in the film by Joe and B scouring the different train compartments, going from men who are less reserved to men that are more choosy when it comes to who they sleep with. There are a few other instances like this in Volume I, which is why the pacing is much slower and the tone is bleak. Another reason the pacing is slower is because Volume I spends much more time on introducing the characters that shapes Joe's experiences such as Joes Father(Christian Slater, M(Uma Thurman, Jerome, B(Sophia Kennedy Clark), and Seligman. The pacing and tone of Volume II is much different because it jumps right into the thick of Joe's darkest experiences being a Nymphomaniac. From the very start of Volume II, we the audience are shown that Joe can no longer feel pleasure from sex. Like a drug someone abuses, Joe's tolerance is so high that she has to resort to cheating, threesome, and fetishes in order to feel pleasure herself, this includes being whipped by a man who has no sympathy for how she feels on the inside.( He full on punches her in the face and even calls her "Fido"). We are shown the gravity of Joe's decisions and who they affect, 1. Marcel, Joe and Jerome's baby almost falls off the balcony unattended because Joe is waiting for her fetish appointment. 2. Jerome ends up taking Marcel and leaves Joe. 3. Jerome can't raise Marcel on his own and ends up leaving him in foster care. The Pedophilia Scene definitely stuck in my head as the most disturbing of the film though. The reason i choose to discuss this scene is because it shows us the severity of Joe's addiction and you will know what I mean when you see it for yourself. Each character that Joe interacts with in Volume II whether its K ( the guy who whips and beats her for pleasure, L (Willem Dafoe)~ the man who proposes that Joe run her own loan sharking business by using her own means of sexual persuasion, and P(Mia Goth)~ the girl that Joe takes under her wing. all enable Joe in some way to go further down the rabbit hole. Basically all the scenes in Volume II are either disturbing or violent in someway compared to Volume I, which is why the tone and pacing is much different between the two.

Violence- 3/5- the scenes were Joe is getting beaten and whipped by K for fetish, we see parts of her body bruised and bloody. When she is beaten to the curb, Joe has blood all over her face. And at the end although we don't see it, it is implied and heard that Joe kills Seligman after he tries to sleep with her.(Unbelievable scene)

Language-3/5- A good amount of "F" Bombs, few instances of C***, Sh**, Bi***..etc

Sexuality- 5/5- Altogether I would say out of the 4 hour film there is an hour that have scenes or shots of fetish, penetration, fellatio, pedophilia, full frontal nudity. Some are shot far away/ Some are up close.

Adult Situations- 5/5- This film deals with someone who is a Nymphomaniac, her experiences are disturbing and brutal because many times throughout the film she is chasing a high that becomes harder and harder to get as her tolerance for it increases. The film shows the destructive sides of being a Nymphomaniac( especially as a woman) such as abuse, womanizing, adultery, pedophilia, adoption, putting your addiction above your family and health. *Joe has a good relationship with her father, but not with her mother. Ex. When Joes Father (Christian Slater is on his deathbed, only Joe comes to visit. Joe has resentment towards her mother for not coming to see her dying husband. *There is a scene depicting the consequences of Adultery where M (Uma Thurman confronts Joe and her ex-husband by bringing the children to Joe's apartment. The situation is tense and heartbreaking, as M finds out that Joe doesn't even love M's husband who has just left her and the children. *The scene where Joe is punched in the face a few times by K may also be quite disturbing. *The scene where Joe's plan of trying to kill P's boyfriend fails as the gun is botched, ends up getting beaten to the ground. *The scene at the end of the film may disturb some viewers as well, when Seligman who is asexual,tries to force himself into Joe when she is sleeping.

Overall a pretty interesting film, I give it an 8/10 for good acting, great storytelling, and imagery.