thiseccentricjourney

When I heard about the book being turned into a series, I was excited. Granted, most of King's shows and movies are pale echoes of the books. With the opening scene, my hopes got dashed. "That's literally closer to the middle of the book!" I thought, seriously confused. Oh, it's going to be *that* kind of show? Where flashbacks occur when a statement is made or an action done to show significance, rather than let it play out organically? I won't blame people for not wanting to ignore the book after that "creative decision." Then the pilot episode ends with one single moment that adds to the mystery flavor of the book. Literally one second from the premiere added anything of notice to the story in a good way. 3 episodes later, I start to wonder if there's going to be anything good about this show? Well, okay, Nick Andros is great as a deaf-mute, with additional backstory for his eye. Odd choice to change his ethnicity, though. Tom Cullen, though? EXCELLENT choice! That man hits every note perfectly! As one with autism, I can relate to his overt optimism with strangers and confusion with negative people. Plus, he's occasionally funny yet insightful and has some of the best trademark lines worth remembering! Ezra Miller did a decent job as a secondary villain of a pyromaniac. That's all I can think of. After those 4 episodes, it felt good to stop seeing flashbacks and get back to tge linear nature of the story. Doesn't mean the improved, itself. In fact, it felt like CBS used the whole post-apocalypse setting to have an excuse to throw in literally every cussword in existence, have tasteless violence (it makes sense in the book, it's a showcase of FX on TV) and occasionally show nudity. Of course CBS will give a finger to censors to show it's an adult while acting like a teen discovering sex and violence. The penultimate episode finally gets the story on track (though so many big details were changed). I also have a feeling the series epilogue is the Stand sequel that King wanted to write years ago. Then, it ends exactly like the book does, the end. Finally! It felt like a massive chore getting through that crap! Overall, it had 4 more hours of storytelling than the original and squandered it for debauchery over heartfelt story. It took me 3 years to read the book and far longer to watch the whole show. Won't recommend to anyone.

When I heard about the book being turned into a series, I was excited. Granted, most of King's shows and movies are pale echoes of the books. With the opening scene, my hopes got dashed. "That's literally closer to the middle of the book!" I thought, seriously confused. Oh, it's going to be *that* kind of show? Where flashbacks occur when a statement is made or an action done to show significance, rather than let it play out organically? I won't blame people for not wanting to ignore the book after that "creative decision." Then the pilot episode ends with one single moment that adds to the mystery flavor of the book. Literally one second from the premiere added anything of notice to the story in a good way. 3 episodes later, I start to wonder if there's going to be anything good about this show? Well, okay, Nick Andros is great as a deaf-mute, with additional backstory for his eye. Odd choice to change his ethnicity, though. Tom Cullen, though? EXCELLENT choice! That man hits every note perfectly! As one with autism, I can relate to his overt optimism with strangers and confusion with negative people. Plus, he's occasionally funny yet insightful and has some of the best trademark lines worth remembering! Ezra Miller did a decent job as a secondary villain of a pyromaniac. That's all I can think of. After those 4 episodes, it felt good to stop seeing flashbacks and get back to tge linear nature of the story. Doesn't mean the improved, itself. In fact, it felt like CBS used the whole post-apocalypse setting to have an excuse to throw in literally every cussword in existence, have tasteless violence (it makes sense in the book, it's a showcase of FX on TV) and occasionally show nudity. Of course CBS will give a finger to censors to show it's an adult while acting like a teen discovering sex and violence. The penultimate episode finally gets the story on track (though so many big details were changed). I also have a feeling the series epilogue is the Stand sequel that King wanted to write years ago. Then, it ends exactly like the book does, the end. Finally! It felt like a massive chore getting through that crap! Overall, it had 4 more hours of storytelling than the original and squandered it for debauchery over heartfelt story. It took me 3 years to read the book and far longer to watch the whole show. Won't recommend to anyone.

Considering the (sadly well-earned) reputation of Christian movies, I was very hesitant to check this out. I'm glad I did. The movie does start cheesily enough with a good hint of family realism and gets me asking questions about things that seem obviously unusual. When it comes to the pivotal scene on the ice... it's spoiled in the title, on the theatrical poster, on the DVD cover, in the premise, it's literally spelled out for the audience what's going to happen. Yet, when it happens, the sound design, mixed with the cinematography, makes the moment so sudden that I jumped while anticipating it. Very well done moment. From there, the film goes from probable Christian cheese flick to a challenge of where one places their faith. In the background one raises a family in? In one's own pride? In one's pastor? Or in the impossible? The acting, for once, was incredible for a Christian drama. Mike Couture (famous as Luke Cage) feels authentic as an atheist with an unexpected encounter with a divine moment and can't get the moment out of his head. The actress playing the mother goes through a really good transformation from overbearing mother ("Watch your language.") to spiritually crazy woman who thinks miracles happen because of her. Though, honestly, my fave performance was from Topher Grace. Before this, I watched the "Smithereen" episode of Black Mirror, which he was in. His acting in that was really good at ambiguity. In this, he hams it up as a "hip pastor" that tries too hard to be liked, then actually becomes likable when he gets real. After this movie, I attempted to watch BlacKkKlansman, and his performance in that shows his diverse acting style. Now, the hospital scene. I honestly don't know how most people thought of the scene, but here's my thoughts. I grew up with a CNA mother, so I got interested in medical science even though I never went to medical school. Regardless, I have done independent researches rather deeply for various (sometimes personal) reasons. When the doctor explained exactly why the breakthrough was a miracle, I understood every single word and followed where he was going. I had to wonder if there was a medical consultant behind the scenes to make everything that real. All-in-all, this was a surprisingly good film.

After the flawed-but-campy-fun reboot in '98 comes a... kinda okay reboot. After that comes this sequel, which feels like Hollywood's struggle to reignite interest in creature features. Honestly, Eight-Legged Freaks is fine enough for me. Still, this was densely packed with themes, interesting images, and a literal worldwide creature fight. Also, a laugh-out-loud dig at how American pop culture can't figure out how to pronounce "Godzilla" in Japanese. As great as it all was, there were parts that lacked a great thematic punch, too many deus ex machina moments (a couple felt goofy and nearly predictable), and the script felt like it tried hard to fence an R rating. I ended up counting how many places would've been "perfect" for an f-bomb. Quite a few that went empty. Instead, they bordered the PG-13/R line with two amidst many other swears. Honestly, if you're going to make a cinematic universe this crazy, go all-out with R-rated fanfare or release an unrated versions. Still, in this generation, this was a good creature feature.

As the first line is spoken in this flick, I think "Oh, it's going to be that kind of movie, huh?" Insert the previous time frame, "Oh, *that* kind of movie." The kind that's both boring and irritating. Thinks it's clever but tries too hard to be edgy while holding itself back from being R. As the main actress is introduced, a line is mentioned and I think "A little on the nose on character development, ain't you?" Things go in a horrible downward spiral from there. Each character has a generic background we've seen hundreds of times, no innovation in the puzzles (per se), each character is a one-dimensional archetype than anything. About 2/3 through, I realize this film is just a borderline PG-13/R remake of The Cube, which is superior in every way. Story, characters, action, plot twists, environmental structure, everything. I don't recommend, even as a popcorn flick.

I didn't see the low rating until I came on the page. I was slightly hesitant to check this out since I didn't hear much about it. The only things I knew was it has James Franco and has a twist on a bank heist. I'm glad I took the chance. It starts off differently than I expected. Thanks to Leverage on TNT, I got into bank heist cinema. Yet this film tricked me into trying to figure out, due to the slow open, who may have been the robbers. "Maybe him? No, not him. She seems likely. She doesn't seem so likely- wait, maybe not. He really seems like he could br." And on and on for the first act. A nice set up to characterize the important people. An effective slow build. It's also in the first act that I have my only gripe. I noticed some editing could have been improved. A tad sloppy, but I forgot about it by the second half. For the haunt vault part, that takes time before getting to it. In the meantime, subplots and deeper characterizations and character mysteries are introduced, getting me more invested. When it is finally introduced, I admit, I wished there were less scares with jump noises. However, most of the scares are atmospheric, my preferred style. All throughout the film, Franco's character was an interesting anomaly. I won't say the end result, but I loved it. Then there's Q'orianka Kilchin, who plays Susan. A lovely yet underrated actress. She sells her character incredibly well, especially when she gives a chilling backstory on why the vault is haunted. By the ending, not everything is wrapped up, not everything is explained, but what is necessary is done. The visual filter is surprisingly just as good (if not better for the most part) as a triple-A major feature film, the suspense was done effectively with perfect pacing on the story beats. While everyone was hyping on Get Out (which I didn't care for), this went under the radar but deserves a lot of love.

"It's about cons conning cons. For the sake of the little guy." This is how I describe this show to anyone who asks why I love this show so much. It's in my top 5 shows I can rewatch over and over without a problem. Reasons: -Each character is strong, not just in "their own way," as the cliche goes, but in a real cool way to make each memorable. -Each episode (except the 2-part S1 finale) has a different con and scheme. -It goes out of the way to offer something fresh and inspiring. -Every time I watch it, it still gets funnier, more heartwrenching. -No villain feels half-baked or barely worth the time to be dealt with. -By the series finale, everything feels complete, no plot holes.

When you have such strong characters, memorable villains, evocative themes, relevant thoughts, very good writing (no matter who's writing for which season), how can I possibly pass it up? As Sophie Devreaux says in season 5, "It's a personal thing, you know?"

The Bible is quite deep, many complex, culturally rich, spiritually enlightening stories that too many in this generation fail to realize... Wait, I just realized I'm reviewing the show. The show was more than a chore to keep paying attention with its lack of finesse, nuance,attention to detail, care for God's character, etc. Literally from the first minutes of episode 1, I was deeply troubled that this would do more than worry me, but that my concerns from hearing it'd be on the History Channel (or "Hitler Channel," as a friend calls it) would be realized. Quite sadly, they were. Adam and Eve, respectively, get about a second of screen time each, a couple of other stories are shoved in your face, barely any comprehensibility, then the first story to get focused on is Noah's Ark. Seriously? The beauty and perfection of God's creating the universe gets dwindled down to basically a footnote? Roma Downey needs to get touched by an angel herself. To make things worse (and then worse), each episode starts with a disclaimer that "This adaptation stays true to the spirit of the book. Some scenes contain violence." The book? How quaint. Only violence? I grew up hearing the bible stories kids in church environments would know. I've read it on my own terms and was deeply shocked (and fascinated) as a teen that it contained not only graphic violence but plenty of sex scenes and prophecies that have vivid sexual imagery. Yet, compared to "the book" itself, the violence is seriously tame. It gets the second worse from how the narrator treats you, the audience, like you're in Sunday school, which annoyed me as a high schooler that Christian movies dealing with the Bible often did. You don't have movies like Passion of the Christ nor Risen or TV shows like the cancelled Of Kings and Prophets lecturing the audience on what's going on. Those treated you like you're an adult that can get an idea of what's going on. Now, for every major story they show, they completely miss, at the very least, 50 substories. Major characters don't get all the necessary details in their life that helps them become who they were in the Bible. The episodes with Jesus, for example, seem a bit too focused on making the Pharisees "bad" and "popularity-seeking" while almost just grazing Jesus any screen time in comparison. Just one miracle. Just one parable. A handful of smackdowns upon the Pharisees. Next to no cultural accuracy for the stories. This show presented Jesus in such a lackluster way that I thought "If skeptics were to get their experience of the Bible through this, I wouldn't blame them at all for not caring about Jesus." This wasn't just a waste of budget, it's a waste of time. I will not watch the sequel series nor recommend this heretical trash to anyone. If there's anything I *will* give credit for, it's a (kind of) decent camera lense and *some* of the costume design.

When I picked this up for a rental, I figured I could use what looked like a laughably awful and cheesy looking Christian film (I only like maybe 10% of all Christian films, I'm exceptionally picky) and make fun of it. No need. It starts, surprisingly, with a nice and provocative intro, a bit of backstory to bring you to the present. But, soon enough, it shows it's willing to poke fun at itself. In other words, it uses meta humor. It's aware of its cheesy nature and cheesy humor, doesn't always take itself seriously and, when it does, it never gets depressing. Not really. There were times that I laughed out loud for an unexpected moment of humorous madness ("I hate KISS, I'm a Tom Jones fan.") and, with some of the special effects, it's aware it's not using a high budget (I think Duncan Jones's small film "Moon" has a bigger budget) and it was okay being silly. I was worried that, being an independent Christian film, it would rely too much on cheesy allegorical elements and be too heavy-handed on using them. Turns out, it uses such elements a few times, but also gets goofy when using them ("Section 666? I've never heard of section 666, are you making that up?"). In the courtroom scenes, it uses a nice dose of its established humor and some very good twists. I hadn't expected a couple of them, so they were well used in their contexts. You have a side that's siding with Luke O'Brien and one side siding with Satan (everytime I looked at both, I wanted to laugh), and to be honest, the devil side just looks so silly (imagine diecore fans of Marilyn Manson, Motionless in White, Iron Maiden, etc. looking candy softened). Numerous times, the humor did get put aside for a serious topic and shown how fickle human nature can be (like a part about using a racist slur and the immediate reaction, I've seen similar incidents in real life). I was surprised about the balance. If anything negative, I couldn't stand how it ended. I felt very much let down, like a cheap cop out. I won't explain why, but I thought "Seriously? That's it??" Everything up to that point was well done for such a low budget film. Especially with such a well- known actor stealing the show as the devil.

Lately, horror has become a roller coaster of either potential awesome or awful. In this case, it exceeded my caution. The trailer made it seem seriously eerie (which usually meant it would be mostly filler), but this body horror gem blew my expectations out of the water! From the moment the Jane Doe corpse is brought in to a family run morgue, things already start getting creepy. Whether threat is in front of the camera or just lingering on the peripheral edge, this film knows how to get under your skin. The acting was incredible with accurate medical and anatomical jargon (son of a CNA here with a little medical studying as well), the mystery is kept at an even pace, raising new questions every other minute and with every new piece of evidence, every medical anomaly and contradiction. The dialogue is sharp yet personal at times, giving it a very human feel, no stupid comedic relief when none is needed. By the plot twist, I found myself thinking "Oh, now it all makes sense," which is something I very rarely think when watching any scary movie. Though Jane Doe's always shown graphically nude, it is never in any sexual context, but in a cold, dry medical context, which gave me relief that they wouldn't botch things up in this very scary tale. If you want something as creepy as Parasite Eve, I would recommend checking this body horror insanity out.