When I saw the teaser trailer for Deadpool I thought "wow!" but wondered if the actual movie might not be able to sustain the wow-factor for its whole run time.
Fear not. Deadpool is brilliantly funny from start to finish.
And funny is what it is about. Many action films have humour thrown in to lighten the mood. But Deadpool is the opposite of that - a comedy with action thrown in to darken the mood.
The action is still great though. Much darker than you would be able to pull off if it weren't embedded in the comedy.
The comedy isn't something my mother would approve of... very sexual and what she would call "crude". But certainly adult humour. There was plenty of laughter in the cinema I visited - even during the opening credits - read them!
Deadpool is famous for breaking the fourth wall, and that does happen in the movie. The writing is very clever. Deadpool even talks to other characters as if they are part of the audience... "anyone would think the studio couldn't afford any more X-men".
I tried to keep my expectations low for this film, because Fox have screwed up Marvel characters a few times. But they have really nailed this one. Ace!
Saturday, 13 February 2016
Monday, 8 February 2016
The Originals
The biggest advantage that Netflix has over TV channels and disk rental outfits is the phenomenon of binge-watching.
It's both a blessing and a curse, in some ways. When you are off sick with a cold like I was today, then it is brilliant being able to watch 8 episodes back-to-back. On the other hand, when you have to get up for work the next day, watching one more episode at 2am probably isn't as great an idea as it seems at the time...
In the few months I've been 'flixed so far, I have watched Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Gotham, House of Cards (3 seasons), Sense8, Orphan Black (2 seasons) and now The Originals (2 seasons).
I've even started calling them seasons now, in the American style, rather than series. Which is somewhat ironic given that I am watching them in my own time and not on an annual broadcast schedule.
So what is so special about The Originals that has made me want to write about it? Maybe just the timing, because I was going to write something about Netflix TV series sooner or later. But there is something else.
There are several great characters in The Orginals who all play off against each other. Ultimately though everything revolves around one character... or actually a pair of characters... Klaus and his daughter Hope.
Initially Klaus is annoyingly unreasonable. Other characters seem cleverer, more noble, and less inclined to screw things up at every turn...
But as the episodes went by I came to realise something almost uniquely noble about Klaus. He is totally driven to do anything to protect his child. Anything. He will sacrifice his short term interests, alliances and those things most beloved by those closest to him to achieve his long term goal ... to protect Hope.
He is such a tragic character. As much as I hate the things he does; his love for Hope and his unswerving devotion to her are surprisingly admirable.
It's both a blessing and a curse, in some ways. When you are off sick with a cold like I was today, then it is brilliant being able to watch 8 episodes back-to-back. On the other hand, when you have to get up for work the next day, watching one more episode at 2am probably isn't as great an idea as it seems at the time...
In the few months I've been 'flixed so far, I have watched Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Gotham, House of Cards (3 seasons), Sense8, Orphan Black (2 seasons) and now The Originals (2 seasons).
I've even started calling them seasons now, in the American style, rather than series. Which is somewhat ironic given that I am watching them in my own time and not on an annual broadcast schedule.
So what is so special about The Originals that has made me want to write about it? Maybe just the timing, because I was going to write something about Netflix TV series sooner or later. But there is something else.
There are several great characters in The Orginals who all play off against each other. Ultimately though everything revolves around one character... or actually a pair of characters... Klaus and his daughter Hope.
Initially Klaus is annoyingly unreasonable. Other characters seem cleverer, more noble, and less inclined to screw things up at every turn...
But as the episodes went by I came to realise something almost uniquely noble about Klaus. He is totally driven to do anything to protect his child. Anything. He will sacrifice his short term interests, alliances and those things most beloved by those closest to him to achieve his long term goal ... to protect Hope.
He is such a tragic character. As much as I hate the things he does; his love for Hope and his unswerving devotion to her are surprisingly admirable.
Legend (2015) review
The only thing I didn't really like about Legend was the title. Why Legend, I wonder? Is it trying to hint that the film is more myth than history?
It is a very different film from The Krays (1990) which focussed on the twins growing up and their relationship with their mother. In Legend we are looking at the grown up twins, already gangsters, their relationship and the relationship between Reggie and his wife Frances.
Another difference is that we have identical twins here... since Tom Hardy plays both men. The Kemps are similar but not identical... and neither can act in the same league as Hardy.
The story is well known. And this film doesn't add much to what I already knew. Instead it tries to add to our understanding of what it might have been like to be involved in the crime scene of London in the 1950s and 1960s.
For me it worked. I found the twins very convincing. Often forgetting for a while that it was one man playing both. And Emily Browning does a great job too as Frances.
The interesting thing about the Kray twins is that they have two sides. On the one hand they are well-dressed club owners who mingled with aristocrats and celebrities. On the other hand they were brutally violent gangsters who intimidated, beat, tortured and killed people to get what they wanted.
Legend gets that across really well.
It is a very different film from The Krays (1990) which focussed on the twins growing up and their relationship with their mother. In Legend we are looking at the grown up twins, already gangsters, their relationship and the relationship between Reggie and his wife Frances.
Another difference is that we have identical twins here... since Tom Hardy plays both men. The Kemps are similar but not identical... and neither can act in the same league as Hardy.
The story is well known. And this film doesn't add much to what I already knew. Instead it tries to add to our understanding of what it might have been like to be involved in the crime scene of London in the 1950s and 1960s.
For me it worked. I found the twins very convincing. Often forgetting for a while that it was one man playing both. And Emily Browning does a great job too as Frances.
The interesting thing about the Kray twins is that they have two sides. On the one hand they are well-dressed club owners who mingled with aristocrats and celebrities. On the other hand they were brutally violent gangsters who intimidated, beat, tortured and killed people to get what they wanted.
Legend gets that across really well.
Sunday, 7 February 2016
Tuesday, 2 February 2016
King's Game (2004) review
Danish reporter tries to scupper baddie politician and his spin doctor.
I think the film falls a bit flat because we've seen all this before in the back story of The Killing and on Borgen. It's not that I didn't enjoy it. I did. But it felt like it should be one episode of something else... rather than a story on its own.
I think the film falls a bit flat because we've seen all this before in the back story of The Killing and on Borgen. It's not that I didn't enjoy it. I did. But it felt like it should be one episode of something else... rather than a story on its own.
Gentlemen of Science
I always wanted to be a scientist. Not the white-coated genius who just manages to come up with a world-saving miracle cure for the hero to deploy at the end of the movie. No. More of a gentleman scientist like Charles Darwin... plodding away patiently for years to gather evidence supporting a theory.
How many people with great ideas have never had the time to explore them?
Darwin had money. He didn't have to get a job to support his family. Instead he spent his time working on his scientific ideas. The ideas he wanted to work on.
I know a couple of people who you might describe as scientists. One works in a University - she complains that she spends most of her time trying to get grants to fund work, rather than doing any work; and can only work on what will be funded. The other works for a commercial company - he complains that he can only work on things that can be patented and make a good return on the investment.
Neither of them are working on the ideas that they really want to.
What are we missing out on by forcing them to work on other things?
If I was a billionaire I would give out grants to smart people to allow them to work on whatever they wanted. Maybe there are such billionaires out there... as well as the ones who buy football clubs, stupidly fast cars and yachts?
If I was in charge of Universities I would set aside funds for sabbaticals so that individuals could follow their hunches and work on ideas that might only play out after a few years.
Most people aren't good at explaining why they think something is a good idea. And most people aren't good at choosing between risky options. Leaving the management of ideas to the market is a terrible idea.
How many people with great ideas have never had the time to explore them?
Darwin had money. He didn't have to get a job to support his family. Instead he spent his time working on his scientific ideas. The ideas he wanted to work on.
I know a couple of people who you might describe as scientists. One works in a University - she complains that she spends most of her time trying to get grants to fund work, rather than doing any work; and can only work on what will be funded. The other works for a commercial company - he complains that he can only work on things that can be patented and make a good return on the investment.
Neither of them are working on the ideas that they really want to.
What are we missing out on by forcing them to work on other things?
If I was a billionaire I would give out grants to smart people to allow them to work on whatever they wanted. Maybe there are such billionaires out there... as well as the ones who buy football clubs, stupidly fast cars and yachts?
If I was in charge of Universities I would set aside funds for sabbaticals so that individuals could follow their hunches and work on ideas that might only play out after a few years.
Most people aren't good at explaining why they think something is a good idea. And most people aren't good at choosing between risky options. Leaving the management of ideas to the market is a terrible idea.
Circle (2015) review
When indie films hit the spot they can really be something special; and Circle is one of those that deserves to become a cult classic.
The premise is simple - fifty people wake up standing in a circle around a high-tech looking device and have to figure out what the hell is going on.
There are very few special effects. It's all in the script and the performances.
At first I was quite interested but thought it might become too much like The Cube or Fermat's Room. It doesn't. Instead it manages to draw you further and further in by creating a constantly changing dynamic between the participants. Just when you think you understand who is who, something changes (either subtly or dramatically) and you have to re-think again.
I loved the way it played out. It had me gripped right to the end.
Give it a go. It's only about 90 minutes long. Intriguing and surprising.
The premise is simple - fifty people wake up standing in a circle around a high-tech looking device and have to figure out what the hell is going on.
There are very few special effects. It's all in the script and the performances.
At first I was quite interested but thought it might become too much like The Cube or Fermat's Room. It doesn't. Instead it manages to draw you further and further in by creating a constantly changing dynamic between the participants. Just when you think you understand who is who, something changes (either subtly or dramatically) and you have to re-think again.
I loved the way it played out. It had me gripped right to the end.
Give it a go. It's only about 90 minutes long. Intriguing and surprising.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)