mimidjukic

I binge-watched the first couple of seasons. What really made me love it was actually how un-apologetically awful the characters could be. It was so refreshing to not have that "they might be bikers but they're really good persons inside, I swear" take on them for once. No attempt to make us forgive or diminish the horrible things they do and no turning them into victims. Of course, they have their own set of principles, values and code of honour - you can feel drawn to their quests because you can follow the logic even if it's not one you want to endorse. I loved the characters for that even if there is no denying that they would be horrible real-life persons.

the third season is when I started going from disappointment to disappointment.

1. The main plot line of the season is really drawn out unnecessarily in a bit too much angst and when it FINALLY comes to it's resolution, we fall right back in a plot line that is so similar it made me literally roll my eyes.

2. Jax (the main character) started to get on my nerves. Instead of having significant character development, the writers have him constantly wallowing in man pain but recurrently doing mistakes - like killing the wrong person or trusting the wrong person (sometimes resulting in horrible consequences for someone who didn't deserve it) but never modifying his behaviour accordingly.

3. The portrayal of women. I know many of you will dismiss that point but not only is it gross, but it speaks of poor writing. No but I know the world of gangs is sexist and redneck, but you can portray sexism without being sexist. You are deemed to hate all of the women on this show. There is only two feminine archetype in it, really. The first: Gemma. The mom is a Machiavellian Lady Macbeth type: Controlling, manipulative in the worse ways and castrating. Plot- wise, she is actually more of an antagonist than an ally and she would even be a good one if they didn't burden her with being the only feminine character with any sort of power. The second type is embodied by absolutely all the other women we have met up until the end of season 3. They are bland, vapid and to varying degrees, "whores" (as an archetype). The women are not characters but plot devices and tools for "furthering the man pain". I mean Tara: lets talk about a poorly written character.

I admit that a 3 is still too harsh, but I really feel the need the compensate how over-rated this show is.

First of all, I get the "Blackout" thing, but that doesn't mean that the screen has to be so dark that you can't even see what is happening during the whole movie. That being said, I think asylums or mental hospitals are great place to set horror movies, but this one manages to make even those creepy places unscary. That's probably because the Asylum is not believable at all. The patients don't seem to have any particular diagnosed problem, they're just crazy, creepy and violent. All of them. They even have the same pills. There is no staff in the hospital except for the guard whose only job seems to be to yell at patients and strangle them and the cooks.

it's not just the hospital. There's obvious plot holes throughout the movie that make the whole thing ridiculously unbelievable. Like the girl cook that suddenly disappears when the blackout actually happens or the reason why the police didn't show up until hours later when they told them there was a f*cking decapitated body in the hallway. So shitty photography, shitty plot, shitty characters and not even a tiny bit scary.

When I was little, Les misérables was a cartoon aired on Saturday mornings, mostly focused on Cosette as a child with Jean Valjean. When I got a little older, I read the shortened version and during the last few years, the full length version was just a book laying around my room that I read passages from when I felt like it. I watched the old movie version a couple of times when it was aired on on one of the six channels I have home. Watching this movie made me realize that I have now a pretty strong emotional attachment for this story. It makes me also aware that I can't imagine the perspective that one who was not previously acquainted with it might have on Hooper's rendition. For me however, every second of it was brilliant. The cast is perfect. I liked Hugh Jackman in general, but I really am in love with him as Jean Valjean. Hathaway's fifteen minutes on screen- despite my expecting otherwise, are in fact enough to earn an Oscar. Even the children playing Cosette and Gavroche are pulling their weight. You have to watch this movie like you would watch a Broadway show: for the voices and the raw performances, the decors and the epicness. If you don't like musicals all that much and are waiting for the story to get on with it, you will hate it.

I'm usually more of a fan of anti-heroes. I would watch breaking bad and Dexter over CSI and Bones any day. This show about Montreal's police really does something for me though. Frankly, I think I usually avoid police shows because to me, the characters in them are either cliché or stagnant. In 19-2, rest assured you'll see no righteous, confident hero nor eccentric genius who infuriates-everyone-but-is-tolerated-because-he-is-always-right (mentalist, Monk, House...). The characters will all make you hate them a little at some point, while still having you rooting for them. They evolve, as do their relationship in a natural, believable way. New plot lines are thrown in at the right pace: no time for being bored, but enough to make it coherent and fluid. The dialogues are right on the spot - absolutely natural, powerful or funny when needs to be. Although, this is probably one of those shows people from France might need subtitles to understand. Finally, they know exactly when to go slow mo', when to mute or delay the scene to make it efficient. If you know French, 19-2 is really worth your time.

I wanted to see the movie since the minute I heard the soundtrack, but when I walked out of the theatre, I was literally overwhelmed by how much I loved it. Fans of Tarantino's work will definitely appreciate it. For those who aren't that familiar with his work, beware: violence, blood and galore in overloads. The soundtrack is perfectly chosen from the music Tarantino had at home: it definitely plays an important part in setting the atmosphere. The universe is sordid, the plot is worse, some scenes - two, to be precise- had me nearly throwing up. Despite that, I won't criticize the level of violence in the movie. I don't think it's unneeded. On the contrary, it is a very important part of that universe. Black people were killed and tortured; it should shock you. Sparing the viewer's sensibilities would also spare him the full extent of the horror implied. So no, it's not needlessly violent. The movie will have you on the edge of your seat and I guarantee you won't even realize how long it is. It's definitely worth viewing.

There are two things I want to say here. The first is that while most of you know that the movie is based on a play, many seem to ignore that the play was also written in french, and therefore named Incendies, not Scorched. The Writer is one of my favourite persons in the world and his name is WAJDI MOUAWAD, so if you could stop calling him Mouhad it would make me very happy.

But the second and most important thing I want to say regards the reviews that that criticized the ending of the movie for being too far-fetched and killing itself by going over the top. I probably would have agreed a little if I had no prior knowledge of Mouawad's work. So I feel the need to point out that it is a Greek TRAGEDY. It is part of a trilogy where no piece is linked to the other in any other aspects than themes, from what I gather (the two other pieces are called Littoral (coast) and Forêts (Forests)). I had the chance to read a bit of his work, including Incendies, before I saw the movie and once you are aware that this is a Greek tragedy despite the settings, you see it under a different light. Maybe it seems strange, but it works - and besides, Genius always does, right?

Now that I've got that out of my system, I can skip to recommending you this movie with all my heart. I swear I am not saying that just because It's from Quebec (like me - if the spelling and grammar mistakes in this haven't tipped you off). The emotion won't need subtitles to pierce the screen. The choice of scenery and colours, the imagery, but mostly, above everything, the plot really makes it worth seeing. I love the fact that this is the movie that represents Quebec's cinema on the international scene. I love that it is a play that drives you deep into the middle-eastern world without exploiting the terrorism issues in a mediocre way. I love the fact that it isn't set anywhere particularly. I learn from the reviews that Mouawad was inspired by the Lebannon conflict, but it doesn't change the fact that it's not about the country or the nation but about humans.