“The Passage – Episode Five – How You Gonna Outrun The End of The World?” (2019)
Ten Episodes
Created by: Liz Heldens based on the novels written by Justin Cronin
Featuring: Mark-Paul Gosselaar, Saniyya Sidney, Vincent Piazza, Brianne Howey McKinley Belcher III, Jamie McShane, Caroline Chikezie, Emmanuelle Chriqui
Babcock: “Don’t worry you will see him soon.”
The fifth episode has arrived of the show based on the excellent adult trilogy ‘The Passage’ by Justin Cronin that charts the world as it passes from a pre apocalyptic period through to an ante period through to the post part which takes place over a one thousand year time period.
The general plot of the “The Passage” (2019) focuses on Project Noah, a secret medical facility where scientists are experimenting with a dangerous virus that could lead to the cure for all disease, but also carries the potential to wipe out the human race. When a young girl, Amy Bellafonte, is chosen to be a test subject, Federal Agent Brad Wolgast is the man who is tasked with bringing her to Project Noah. Ultimately, however, Wolgast becomes her surrogate father, as he tries to protect her at any cost.
The problems once again stem from the fact that that the people behind the series have ignored what was great, compelling and original about the initial novel, ‘The Passage’. That is the pacing as well as the offering back stories to only the really important characters, not only that there were revelations about the other subordinate characters made throughout the novels which built up tension. Here there are revelations made whenever new characters are introduced which dulls the impact of the action that is taking place.
Watching this weeks episode the word that comes to mind is ponderous, that is the long time it is taking for the story to actually get going to a point that is interesting enough to actually enjoy. Once again we have illogical decision making by all the main characters for arbitrary reasons as well as once again jumps in action that make little narrative sense. Not only that decision making that actual people would do seems to be out the window. Witness two linked events where one of the suck up scientists not only tests the ability of the virals to read minds but trusts the outcomes of his experiment, then later carries it out again by himself, you can guess what happens then.
It is obvious now that the writers of the show have no idea where the plot is going which in turns mean that we see jumps in the narrative that make no sense. We see the head bad guy appear in a dream, or is it long range telepathy to the wife of a scientist who has a form of alzheimer’s which is later revealed to be cured because she has been injected with some viral’s blood – but who actually did it, that is not explained at all. This is much like Wolgast’s ex wife and their friend who end up in a church, why I am not sure, to seek help, with some ropey clunky dialogue as well as cliff hanger within the church for next week. Interestingly they meet some Nuns which is an obvious fragment from the novel which was dropped in favor of the trope laden origin of Amy, once again huge missed opportunities. By the way Wolgast’s female friend who seemingly was shot and dies, then recovered is now 100% alright with no explanation given for how she recovered or how she hooked up with Wolgasts ex-wife and why they actually care so much about what is going on.
As has been present throughout this entire series there is the continuing use of the most overused plot devices that is essentially an artificial way to build tension as well as move the narrative, that is keeping information or a secret away from others when in fact they should know what is going on. We also see a pattern emerging at the end of each episode there is a jarring cliffhanger of sorts which make no sense as we already have that information from earlier episodes.
At this stage the brightest part of the series is still Saniyya Sidney, she shines above all others as Amy, the main character in both novels and series. At this early stage it does seem she might be better than the character that has been written for her, the reasons for her being, the relationship with her mother, the other worldliness of her actual being, the reason she is wanted, her actual attractiveness to Wolgast and finally why the story is centred around her.
At this stage of the series with half the episodes gone this show is really feeling like hard work, I can only imagine what readers of the novel who are still watching think of this. For people that have not read the novel this show must feel like a retread of so many other horror/fantasy genre pieces that it becomes obvious with each passing moment what is going to happen next, which again is unlike the novel that had no easy answers for readers which in this day and age is a real gift.
The problems with the show are numerous, but the one that stands out for me is that it is exactly no different from a variety of other shows. We are now seeing shadowy figures like the one played by the excellent James LeGros (wasted here) who want to control the virals, while all along a larger plan by those virals is being played out. Again giving the virals themselves personalities as well as actual goals and an ability to mentally manipulate people is something that was not in the novel, they were treated like their origins, that is they were animals a force of nature unleashed onto the world with only one unconscious objective, to kill everyone else and survive. The producers were obviously too scared to do this so we have virals as traditional vampire which is something that is unforgivable: boring.
Episode Five – “How You Gonna Outrun The End of The World?”
Directed by: Jeffrey Nachmanoff
Written by: Joy Blake
Brad and Amy plot their escape with an unlikely accomplice when a high ranking official suddenly arrives at Project NOAH. Sykes and Richards begin questioning each other’s motives.
Andy Warhol:“The key of the success of Studio 54 is that it’s a dictatorship at the door and a democracy on the dance floor.”
This week sees the release of yet another documentary on DVD, the rather unimaginatively titled, “Studio 54: The Documentary” (2018) which is based mainly around the time period of the 1970s as well as the geographic location of the nightclub in New York, Studio 54, which was a haven for celebrities who populated the club for a period of about three years before it was forced to shut down amongst a few controversies. This time period and club has already been the subject of a narrative movie in the Mike Myers led bomb “Studio 54” (1998) which did little to inspire audiences to visit cinemas. Interestingly there is another film far superior to both of these that while fictional takes the feeling of what both of these film try and capture, expertly making it one of the best films about the time in the un-missable “The Last Days of Disco” (1998), written and directed by Whit Stillman. There are after viewing this movie quite a few issues, one of the biggest is that at times it feels like a long advertisement for times gone by, even though some of the problems that the club faced were very serious, not only only that, the last fifteen minutes feel like an advert for the new business venture one of the co-founders is involved with now, which to me is distasteful to the extreme. It not only sets him up as some kind of business genius but belittles what has gone before, his attitude is Trumpian to the next level, we even see him organizing a book about the club which is obviously all based on once removed celebrity.
There has been no doubt at all that 2018 was the year of the documentary, it has been an excellent year for documentaries not only on streaming or DVD but in cinemas which is a trend that goes against what many people may have expected. However I find this to be exactly what should be expected especially with the concentration of so-called ‘fake news’ that now exists on the internet, coupled with what has been coming from the White House under the Trump Presidency. In fact there was a thought that cinematic documentaries might be a thing of the past especially with the success as well as saturation of Disney-fied blockbusters invading multiplexes, in fact audiences have been flocking to cinemas to seek out stories about real people making real differences in times and places where many others have been marginalised and made powerless by the people in charge in their respective times. Some of the great, as well as critically received, not forgetting making money documentaires at the box office are: “Wont you be my neighbour?” (2018), “Three Identical Strangers” (2018), “Jane” (2018), “McQueen” (2018), and my personal favourite “Bombshell: The Hedy Lamarr Story” (2017) with so many more. What this says about audiences is that they will seek out true stories told in the relative first person that are not only inspiring but are direct counter programming to the politics of the day as well as the lies that are being produced by a President who is not only artificial but hate fuelled. My belief as a fan of documentaries is that this genre will only gain in popularity, with the coming years being a boon as well as revealing the importance of truth in the media as well as the importance of researching decisions made by the electorate. It is no surprise that the rise in fake news, Donald Trump, racism and may other hate fuelled elements has been answered by artists creating documentaries that prove there can be positive outcomes when people choose to buck the system as well as believing in others, differences, freedom and most of all, love. Where this falls is definitely in the camp of revised history much like the recent “Westwood” (2018) documentary which seeks to remake the past to match a present that seems at odds with what a documentary like this should be about.
Studio 54 was the epicenter of 70s hedonism – a place that not only redefined the nightclub, but also came to symbolize an entire era. Its co-owners, Ian Schrager and Steve Rubell, two friends from Brooklyn, seemed to come out of nowhere to suddenly preside over a new kind of New York society.
This documentary has been directed by relative newcomer Matt Tyrnauer who does not seem to want to find a real story behind the club instead we are treated to interviews with people that worked at the club as well as the only surviving founder of the club which is problematic at best. This is a documentary told from one point of view only, it is as subjective as one could get as there is not a real story being told just an hour and a half of revisionist history that attempts to advertise the remaining founder as some kind of genius who once he came out of jail was able to parlay his name into a chain of hotels, which we hear about ad nauseam in the closing part of this movie. There is a conspicuous absence of interviews, in the present, of any of the famous guests of the club from the 1970s many of who are still alive, as well as any kind of counter point to the argument that is being made. All the interviewees seem to want to seem to say is that drugs are cool, alcohol is cool, disco was cool and because we were able to combine these we are geniuses, and its only because the establishment found out we were breaking a lot of laws they stopped it. Also disco shouldn’t have ended and we were railroaded into pleading guilty and going to gaol, boo hoo them. There seems to be a common thread in documentaries as well as based on true event movies based on decades old stories where people have broken the law, then later say they were forced into pleading guilty or taking the blame for crimes they say they had no part in, I am sure this has happened and there are plenty of examples of this. However when someone runs a nightclub and does not have the required licences as well as avoiding paying tax, on top of that dealing cocaine I have no gripe that they would be sent away, just because they were successful at one thing.
The other weakness as well as a bit of a con is to show have a large proportion of this movie told in archival footage of famous people with present day voice overs which on the surface lends meaning, that it is treated with some kind of truth. Let us be clear there is no truth in that, it is just some famous people dancing from forty years ago, there is no real story being told here just a lot of smoke and mirrors. We also only have the now deceased partner being shown in old photographs and an interview he once took part in from the 1980s, which again only tells one side of a story. There is also much to tie his HIV related death into the wider story of the AIDs crisis and to endear audiences to the club through the many deaths that this disease caused, but for what actual narrative reason I am not sure, it seems cheap to me.
If anything this entire documentary seems timed to coincide with the opening of hotels as well as the publishing of a book about the club which is a tenuous reason to create the movie in the first place. If you want to watch a film about the time period then seek out “The Last Days of Disco” it is superior in every way.
Avoid this at all costs it is not worth your time.
La Llorona. The Weeping Woman. A horrifying apparition, caught between Heaven and Hell, trapped in a terrible fate sealed by her own hand. The mere mention of her name has struck terror around the world for generations.
In life, she drowned her children in a jealous rage, throwing herself in the churning river after them as she wept in pain.
Now her tears are eternal. They are lethal, and those who hear her death call in the night are doomed. La Llorona creeps in the shadows and preys on the children, desperate to replace her own. As the centuries have passed, her desire has grown more voracious…and her methods more terrifying.
In 1970s Los Angeles, La Llorona is stalking the night—and the children.
Ignoring the eerie warning of a troubled mother suspected of child endangerment, a social worker and her own small kids are soon drawn into a frightening supernatural realm. Their only hope to survive La Llorona’s deadly wrath may be a disillusioned priest and the mysticism he practices to keep evil at bay, on the fringes where fear and faith collide.
Beware of her chilling wail…she will stop at nothing to lure you into the gloom.
Because there is no peace for her anguish. There is no mercy for her soul.
And there is no escape from the curse of La Llorona.
THE CURSE OF THE WEEPING WOMAN is directed by Michael Chaves and stars Linda Cardellini, Raymond Cruz, Patricia Velasquez, Marisol Ramirez, Sean Patrick Thomas, Jaynee-Lynne Kinchen and Roman Christou. The film is produced by Emile Gladstone, Gary Dauberman and James Wan.
THE CURSE OF THE WEEPING WOMAN releases in New Zealand cinemas on April 18, 2019.
Featuring: Rami Malek, Lucy Boynton, Gwilym Lee, Ben Hardy, Joe Mazzello, Aidan Gillen, Tom Hollander, Allen Leech and Mike Myers
John Reid:“So, tell me. What makes Queen any different from all of the other wannabe rockstars I meet?”
Freddie Mercury:“Tell you what it is, Mr. Reid. Now we’re four misfits who don’t belong together, we’re playing for the other misfits. They’re the outcasts, right at the back of the room. We’re pretty sure they don’t belong either. We belong to them.”
This week sees the release on DVD, Blu-ray and 4K of one of the biggest box office successes of last year in “Bohemian Rhapsody” (2018) which prior to its release looked like it was going to be a huge misfire both critically and commercially, however what has happened since its release reads like an actual Hollywood fairy-tale for almost everybody involved, except maybe disgraced the director Bryan Singer. There was so much going against this movie before its release, the original director was fired by the studio on the main stars say so, the first trailer had been met with consternation as it seemed to play down Mercury’s homosexuality, the early reviews were terrible and a variety of other issues to many to go into here, this all seemed to mean the movie was heading for a swift release and to be consigned to ignominy. However what actually happened was that worldwide audiences embraced “Bohemian Rhapsody”, like no musical before, to the tune of over US$850 million not only making its money back but being universally enjoyed by general audience, not only that it has won many awards, with it being nominated for no less than five Academy Awards and possibly being the favourite for Best Actor for star Rami Malek, who so far this awards season has pretty much been cleaning up.
Interestingly like many films, especially recent ones there is a sharp divide between how critics have reviewed “Bohemian Rhapsody” and how audiences have not only reacted but also have gone to cinemas in droves to experience it, which is a conundrum that has followed it into awards season, forcing a populist movie that is flawed into the hunt for Academy Awards, with a high probability that it will win one of the big six awards. This divisive nature of audiences and critics is nothing new but with the advent of social media this fracturing is becoming more apparent and public, as with this, as well as another high profile movie “Venom” (2018) which was eviscerated by critics but went onto make US$900 million dollars and will spawn at least one sequel. However what is different here is that the main reasons why “Bohemian Rhapsody” is not a great film is that is has so much revisionist history attached to its plot, that it may be the first ‘fake news’ movie of our times, and the fact that there has been a splintering of opinion between the ‘establishment’ and the ‘common people’ may actually help explain how the world is going right wing, how fantasy is replacing reality and how when the truth does not fit a narrative then a lie is the next best thing. This is a kind of biopic but it has been created through the eyes of two member’s of the band, Queen, who have rewritten history to such an extent that the character of Freddie Mercury comes off as a caricature that is so broad as if to be a straight mans version of a closeted Gay man, not only that but they are at pains to point out minute aspects of certain music or events so that they receive credit for certain ideas, it is just ridiculous. The other person that is absent from the credits and may as well be absent from the movie is bassist John Deacon, who, once Mercury died dropped out of public life and did not perform within the band (after the Mercury tribute concert), here he seems to be punished for that decision as even when he is onscreen is portrayed as an idiot or untalented whelp, which shows he was the only one of the three with a drop of integrity even as Brian May and Roger Taylor attempted to keep Queen going in what I consider to be in bad taste.
Bryan Singer has directed “Bohemian Rhapsody”, at least up until two weeks before filming wrapped, as he was fired and replaced by Englishmen Dexter Fletcher who completed filming. Apparently Singer was a fan of Queen and wanted to tell the story of Mercury as a closeted Gay man who eventually would die due to complications of HIV. Its fairly obvious that to make a movie about Queen and/or Freddie Mercury any filmmaker was going to need to be able to use their music which is where May and Taylor enter and were able to alter what the movie was going to be about, how the narrative was going to unfold and how everyone was going to be portrayed. There is no doubt in my mind that the entire movie has been controlled by two producers, May and Taylor, because they held a Trump card, the music, they were both able to act like Trump, creating the past in their own image, controlling the writer and director to such an extent that much of what we see has to be treated as fiction. On the brightside, however, there is a plethora of music used in the movie as well as devoting the final fifteen minutes of the movie to recreating the Live Aid performance that helped cement Queen in the minds of many fans for years to come, it may instigated the tour that followed a few years later. This final part of the movie is actually the centrepiece of the movie, it is moving, powerful, a revelation and gives star Rami Malek a literal stage to shine on to portray Mercury as one of the greatest showmen in Rock and Roll, ever.
“Bohemian Rhapsody” begins in 1970, Farrokh Bulsara, an Indian-British Parsi college student and baggage handler at Heathrow Airport, watches a local band who he has been following for a while, named Smile, perform at a nightclub. After the show, he meets Smile guitarist Brian May and drummer Roger Taylor, and offers to replace their singer Tim Staffell, who had just quit earlier that night. With the addition of bassist John Deacon, the band – now known as Queen – play gigs across Britain until they sell their van to produce their debut album. Their musical style lands them a contract with EMI Records. At the same time, Farrokh legally changes his name, now going by Freddie Mercury and becomes engaged to Biba shop assistant Mary Austin. The album hits the charts in America, and, during the band’s U.S. tour, Freddie begins questioning his sexuality. This is the jumping off point for the movie, it is actually as formulaic as any movie about musical personalities have ever been, however what is unique about the movie and Queen is the music which sounds fantastic to this day.
The stopping point on any possible Freddie Mercury/Queen biopic was who would play the outlandish as well as unique looking star. Over the years many were rumoured as well as cast and then changed. With the casting of Rami Malek many were curious as the only high profile project he had been involved in was the successful television show “Mr Robot” (2015-present), however once the first trailers arrived it was obvious he was going to be a good fit. What the producers and directors have wisely chosen to accept is that no one can sound like Mercury so Malek lip syncs his way throughout the movie, so he just has to do a fair imitation of the star in his movements and voice and for the most part he exceeds expectations which is one of the reasons he has been winning so many awards for the part, all well deserved. Wisely the movie has cast two fantastic character actors in minor support role in Aidan Gillen and Tom Hollander who are both so experienced they know exactly what movie they are in. However for me the standout is Lucy Boynton as Mary Austin Mercury’s closest confidant, who brings what is a thankless role to the screen in a way that honours not only the woman but their relationship as well, which was possibly Mercury’s most important in the end, she is possibly his living legacy and one that has gone unheralded as to the part it played in his life and during his final years. To be honest the actors playing the rest of Queen are adequate, they are obviously doing what they have been allowed to do, they offer little in the way of depth which means they have been short-changed but this movie covers so much ground that it really would be difficult to do anything else which is a lost opportunity.
As I have stated this is an incredibly flawed movie, although in saying that this film does revolve around an incredibly flawed individual so maybe that is saying something, I don’t personally think so. There really are only three reasons to see this movie, they are, first and foremost the great music that permeates this narrative from the beginning to the end, it has not aged at all, in fact in a world where Mercury had not died he and the band could still be touring. Secondly is the performance by Malek who took on a role that was by no means a walk in the park, he in fact by all accounts is not only the hero in the movie but in real life as well. Thirdly, the recreation of the Live Aid performance that takes audiences behind the scenes, onto the crowds and onto the stage with the band is a seamless blend of CGI, practical effects and practical filmmaking at its best, as I have said it serves as the centre of the entire movie, even though it is at the climax, even though its not the end of the story.
Even though I definitely do not think this is even in the top twenty movies of 2018 I have to admit that I had a good time with it, with all its faults, the revisionist history of Freddie as well as the band themselves, the questioning of his actual gayness pivoting towards bisexuality even though if you know anything Mercury had a male partner who was with him when he dies. In saying that I recommend this movie as a part of anyone’s collection especially on 4K with a superior picture as well as soundtrack, however if you can see this on a big screen you should do yourself a favour and see it that way as well.
“The sun is also a star” (2019) – Official Trailer
College-bound romantic Daniel Bae and Jamaica-born pragmatist Natasha Kingsley meet—and fall for each other—over one magical day amidst the fervour and flurry of New York City. Sparks immediately fly between these two strangers, who might never have met had fate not given them a little push. But will fate be enough to take these teens from star-crossed to lucky in love? With just hours left on the clock in what looks to be her last day in the U.S., Natasha is fighting against her family’s deportation as fiercely as she’s fighting her budding feelings for Daniel, who is working just as hard to convince her they are destined to be together.
A modern-day story about finding love against all odds, “The Sun Is Also a Star” explores whether our lives are determined by fate or the random events of the universe.
THE SUN IS ALSO A STAR is directed by Ry Russo-Young and stars Yara Shahidi, Charles Melton and John Leguizamo.
THE SUN IS ALSO A STAR releases in New Zealand cinemas on May 16, 2019.
Unconventionality rules in UGLYDOLLS, STXfilms’ new animated musical adventure starring the acting and singing voices of Kelly Clarkson, Nick Jonas, Janelle Monáe, Blake Shelton and Pitbull. The film is inspired by the unique and beloved global plush toy phenomenon launched in 2001. In the adorably different town of Uglyville, weird is celebrated, strange is special and beauty is embraced as more than simply meets the eye. Here, the free-spirited Moxy and her UglyDolls friends live every day in a whirlwind of bliss, letting their freak flags fly in a celebration of life and its endless possibilities, occasionally looking to the sky, where a new UglyDoll will appear and be embraced by the community.
UglyDolls_16x9_Trailer2_CS_HD-Online
UGLYDOLLS is directed by Kelly Asbury and also starring in the voice cast are Wanda Sykes, Emma Roberts, Gabriel Iglesias, and Wang Leehom.
UGLYDOLLS releases in New Zealand on June 27, 2019
“Project Blue Book – Episode Four – Operation Paperclip” (2019)
Sci-Fi
Ten Episodes
Created by: David O’Leary
Featuring: Aidan Gillen, Laura Mennell, Michael Harney, Ksenia Solo, Michael Malarkey
Alien: “A hypothetical or fictional being from another world.”
This new series revolves around secret U.S. Air Force investigations into supposed UFO encounters and unexplained phenomenon, undertaken by astrophysicist, and eventual ufologist, Josef Allen Hynek in the 1950s and 1960s.
This week’s episode, the fourth, follows the pattern of the previous three installments, which is rather enjoyable, it follows yet another true event but it does exaggerate even more than the others how the two investigators were treated as well as their own encounter with a possible UFO. The episode seems to be realistic however it takes a sharp turn when after what must be a fictional account of an interaction with a possible UFO our main characters attempt to find answers on a military base that is run by an ex-Nazi scientist that has been taken by the Americans after WWII to seemingly work on the nascent space program, under Operation Paperclip.
What was Operation Paperclip? Operation Paperclip was a secret program of the Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency (JIOA) largely carried out by Special Agents of Army CIC, in which more than 1,600 German scientists, engineers, and technicians, such as Wernher von Braun and his V-2 rocket team, were taken from Germany to America for U.S. government employment, primarily between 1945 and 1959. Many were former members, and some were former leaders, of the Nazi Party.[
The primary purpose for Operation Paperclip was U.S. military advantage in the Soviet–American Cold War, and the Space Race. The Soviet Union were more aggressive in forcibly recruiting more than 2,200 German specialists—a total of more than 6,000 people including family members—with Operation Osoaviakhim during one night on October 22, 1946.
As we move through the first season it is starting to become apparent what kind of show this is turning into, that is a Cold War version of the “X-Files” (1993-present) which as I have stated in the past is not a completely bad or negative thing to be, especially in this day and age of ‘fake news’. What I mean by that is that “Project Blue Book” (2019) is taking real events or at least real reports of reported events that really have not been substantiated, then making narrative leaps in terms of showing them onscreen as well as creating new stories about how they fit into a wider narrative, albeit something of a conspiracy revolving around new technology as well as paranoia. For some people who have watched the “X-Files” some of the stories as well as the narrative flourishes may seem all to familiar but I am actually enjoying it as it is similar to viewing something I enjoyed from a new angle, but I can understood others who may think this is a little bit of a ripoff.
As with all of these episodes we end the show on a revelation that involves a possible government coverup of one sort or another, while the first few it seemed like there might be an alien ship on an Air Force Base, however as this episode reveals it seems like these reveals might be leading up to the invention of new technology, but the question remains how has it been developed and what does it all mean in terms of Hynek’s investigations.
Of course we still have the dual narrative of the possible Russian spy befriending Hynek’s wife which has now been folded into an alien conspiracy plot that links back to episode one, whether or not this ever happened is unknown to me, but I would say not as it adds too much color to the series. That is not a bad thing but it does nicely tie in the entire family to a possible over arching alien conspiracy which is right out of Chris Carters playbook. The other idea that we are seeing even more of is the Cold War plot linking to the ‘Red Under the Bed’ as well as the nuclear war tensions that existed, we even see a Saturday alarm test where people are told to seek shelter. The aspect of this I enjoyed was Hynek telling his wife that a wooden she would not protect anyone, her comeback about making their child feel safe was a lovely touch that really is what people were attempting to do, feel safe in routine even though there were tensions under the surface.
I for one am enjoying this show for what it is, not what it is trying to be which is where many other similar series have failed, it is a period family drama that is hybridized with the sci-fi/horror genre that works well because of the tightness of the storyline and the actors, in particular
Aidan Gillen who is shining as the centre of the show surrounded by very good character actors, I am looking forward to the weeks to come.
Episode Four – Operation Paperclip
Directed by: Pete Travis
Written by: Harley Peyton
A commercial airliner’s bizarre UFO encounter leads Hynek and Quinn to a top-secret program involving ex-Nazi scientists in Huntsville, that has a mysterious agenda all its own.
“The Pacific: In the Wake of Captain Cook with Sam Neill” (2018)
Documentary
Six Episodes
Featuring: Sam Neill
Sam Neill:“You see signs of renaissance and regeneration everywhere around the Pacific, most particularly in our country. There’s still a long way to go but I think there are great grounds for optimism. I won’t be around to see it peak, but for my grandchildren, yeah, I’m cheerful.”
Captain James Cook’s incredible epic voyages of discovery are as controversial now after 250 years as ever. In light of recent public debate in this new six-part series, Sam Neill re-examines Cook’s legacy, delivering new perspectives from the Pacific cultures left in Cook’s wake.
Refreshingly and in a post colonial world this new series while following the expedition of Captain Cook rarely seeks to inhabit a colonial narrative instead opting for a viewpoint from the people that were affected by the intrusion and ‘discovery’ of new lands by the Captain and his ship as well as the crews that were part of that venture. It is an inspired choice to have Neill who is compassionate as well as affable to open viewers eyes as to the casual destruction caused by the journeys as well as the place of those ventures into todays world. We also are introduced to a variety of new personalties many people may not have heard of as well as those that we think we knew but are told different truths to bring about some true revelations.
Cook first set sail to the Pacific in 1768. These vast waters, one third of the Earth’s surface, were uncharted – but not unknown. A rich diversity of people and cultures navigated, traded, lived and fought here for thousands of years. Before Cook, the Pacific was disconnected from the power and ideas of Europe, Asia and America. In the wake of Cook, everything changed.
In conjunction with the 250th anniversary of the HMS Endeavour’s departure from England, actor and raconteur Sam Neill takes a deeply personal, present-day voyage to map his own understanding of James Cook, Europe’s greatest navigator, and the immense Pacific Ocean itself. Setting sail on a great ocean tanker as well as many a smaller craft, Sam crosses the length and breadth of the largest ocean in the world to experience for himself a contemporary journey in Cook’s footsteps.
Featuring: Robert Redford, Casey Affleck, Danny Glover, Tika Sumpter, Tom Waits and Sissy Spacek
Forrest Tucker:“Let’s take this place. Say it was a bank and say that counter up there was really a tellers window and you just walk in, look calm and so you just walk up, look her in the eye and you say ‘ma’am, this is a robbery’ and you show her the gun, like this..”
[makes a gun with his hand]
Forrest Tucker:“..and you say ‘I wouldn’t want you to get hurt cause I like you, I like you a lot, so don’t go breakin my heart now, ok’.”
There are so few actors or actresses working today in their eighties that still make movies where their name is the drawcard, two do come to mind, by no coincidence are they multi-hyphenates, one being Clint Eastwood (88) and the other being the star of this months excellent “Old Man & the Gun” (2018), Robert Redford (82), who is possibly one of the longest living A list stars of all time. There truly are few creative people who have been intimately involved with almost every part of show business for over nine decades who are still relevant as well as a true acting talent. This film was set up as a potential awards contender for this years Oscars, especially for Redford as a Best Actor Nominee who has never won that honour, in fact having only ever been nominated once in 1974 for “The Sting” (1973) which is a real travesty considering his career. Interestingly from the early 1980s through to the early 2010s Redford only acted sporadically instead focusing on his directing career as well as his independent film festival, Sundance, that will possibly end up being his enduring legacy. However over the past six years Redford has made nine movies all very good with high points including this release as well as the excellent “All is Lost” (2013) as well as the surprisingly good remake “Pete’s Dragon” (2016) which was directed by David Lowry and led him directly to this role.
“Old Man & the Gun” is a most unique film from a most unique writer and director in the inimitable as well as ubiquitous David Lowry who so far has directed some of the most unusual as well as original films of the past decade with one of those being a remake, “Pete’s Dragon”, and the effecting as well as one that years best “A Ghost Story” (2017). Here he has the challenge of taking on a true story as well as a period piece with two A list actors who are both excellent in their roles although one is limited and has to be applauded for getting out of the way of both the story and Robert Redford which shows the class of Oscar winner Casey Affleck. Here Lowry takes the kernel of an idea as well as a fairly simple story but imbues it with real emotion as well as tension to paint a portrait of a man in the twilight years of his life who is in such a cycle of destruction that even he doesn’t know why he does what he does when he has no real need of money or anything else as it turns out. The old adage that it is not the destination but the journey that is important has never felt so right even when he seemingly meets the woman of his dreams and a lifestyle that many would die for he self destructs, at least in others eyes. This entire narrative could be said to be a metaphor for Redford’s own career and journey where he has made decisions that at the time seem illogical but work out anyway, Sundance and his own directing career speak to that as well as the decisions in recent years in terms of his acting roles.
The movie revolves around 61 year old career criminal Forrest Tucker (Robert Redford) who is a wanted man, having broken out of San Quentin. In 1981, after escaping from a police chase, Tucker sees a woman with a broken down car on the side of a Texas highway and pulls over to assist. Jewel (Sissy Spacek), who is grateful for his help, buys Tucker food at a diner. Despite introducing himself with a fake name, Tucker becomes drawn to Jewel to the point of revealing that he is a bank robber. Tucker goes on to conduct a string of heists, often without him having to draw the weapon under his coat. Detective John Hunt (Casey Affleck) compiles police sketches from witnesses who describe Tucker as charming. He then displays the sketches on the evening news, asking anyone with information to come forward. Shortly afterwards, Hunt’s investigation is taken over by the FBI. This is the basic structure of the plot which takes us to many familiar places within the genre although it ends in a way that may not feel wholly satisfying but is far more realistic than audiences may care to admit especially in terms of the life we lead while we are alive.
In the past four years or so I believe that Robert Redford has delivered two at the very least Oscar nominatable performances in the excellent “All is Lost” and in this new film in which he both carries the entire narrative as well as portraying a character who has to be smart, funny, serious and extremely vulnerable in a variety of scenes to a wide range of co-stars, not forgetting the audience who has to believe him every step of the way. Not only that but Redford who seems to have made a career of acting well with props has to deal with a multitude here which at times can be distracting but never once does he offer a false note staying true to the character in every scene, it is a wonder that he has not been recognised for this performance as he is as great the actor he has ever been, it is incredible to see. In support there are two previous Oscar winners in Casey Affleck and Sissy Spacek who play protagonist as well as love interest respectively and who are as good as they have ever been. While Affleck definitely plays a supporting role it is Spacek who like Redford acts her age and is great to see onscreen especially acting with her great co-star, you can tell they had a ball working with each other, both knowing how to create a scene and where to go with it. Affleck on the other hand plays the protagonist as well as very much a supporting role that has little flash but he gives it presence that also comes into play as he needs to do a balancing act himself with wanting to catch a criminal but in a way seeing himself in that same person.
I really cannot make a secret of loving all of David Lowry’s movies so this one was high on my list and I was not letdown when I eventually watched this on DVD, it was excellent. I had actually heard of the subject of “Old Man & the Gun” before so it was with some excitement I waited on the release of this movie. To be fair it is less about the robberies and more about the man which was a plus as there are too many heist movies to name but the eventual reveal of the final main heist is well done which acts as the centrepiece of the film and is worth waiting for.
The movie asks some very important questions about life, growing old, the regard for the elderly as well as the possible legacy that we may or may not leave behind. It is also about relationships, what they are, what they mean and how long do we have to know someone for them to be important as well as how do we make them meaningful. As with all good films this does not set out to answer any of those questions but instead asks audiences to go on a journey, at the same time ask the questions of themselves, this is a gift by the director to not only the audience but to his cast as well. I would recommend this movie highly and it is a great addition to any collection, my only wish is that it was available as a Blu-ray or 4K discs.
“The Passage – Episode Four – Whose blood is that?” (2019)
Ten Episodes
Created by: Liz Heldens based on the novels written by Justin Cronin
Featuring: Mark-Paul Gosselaar, Saniyya Sidney, Vincent Piazza, Brianne Howey McKinley Belcher III, Jamie McShane, Caroline Chikezie, Emmanuelle Chriqui
Babcock: “Don’t worry you will see him soon.”
The fourth episode has arrived of the show based on the excellent adult trilogy ‘The Passage’ by Justin Cronin that charts the world as it passes from a pre apocalyptic period through to an ante period through to the post part which takes place over a one thousand year time period.
The general plot of the “The Passage” (2019) focuses on Project Noah, a secret medical facility where scientists are experimenting with a dangerous virus that could lead to the cure for all disease, but also carries the potential to wipe out the human race. When a young girl, Amy Bellafonte, is chosen to be a test subject, Federal Agent Brad Wolgast is the man who is tasked with bringing her to Project Noah. Ultimately, however, Wolgast becomes her surrogate father, as he tries to protect her at any cost.
The problems once again stem from the fact that that the people behind the series have ignored what was great, compelling and original about the initial novel, ‘The Passage’. That is the pacing as well as the offering back stories to only the really important characters, not only that there were revelations about the other subordinate characters made throughout the novels which built up tension. Here there are revelations made whenever new characters are introduced which dulls the impact of the action that is taking place. This week we get a ponderous as well as pointless backstory to one one of the infected, this time Anthony Carter whose introduction in the novel as well as his own backstory became two of the events that helped shape the first half of the novel, here it is clumsily introduced as well as being effectively pointless to the rest of the plot, instead it is some kind of clumsy reasoning behind him tuning into a viral, which when taken apart from the narrative actually makes little sense. Not only that the reduction of the characters age as well as social situation robs him of any real impact, it along with Amy’s mother deletion are two of the major pieces (although as it moves forward this series moves further and further away from the spirit of the novel) that would have made this show something very special.
However for me it is the Anthony Carter character that was so full of honesty, soulfulness, gentleness and most of all courage that is one of the biggest lost opportunities. Carter in the novel was all about protecting the memory of a woman that took pity on him, for no other reason than to help give an older possibly impaired man a chance then ends up being the reason for him on death row. Even though he is innocent his own moral compass in protecting the woman, her memory is one of the reasons that Wolgast ends up attempting to protect Amy, not the A typical reason given in the series which is trite as well as disingenuous.
There are also elements within the narrative that make no sense the biggest in this episode is the strange jump cut (there are so many in the series so far you have to wonder how many people had a finger in the post production of this show) from Amy and Wolgast in her lab room talking about the possibility of infection then we see them building a tree house in the open surrounded by people, so on one hand the people in charge are terrified of their patients infecting others then they let one out in the open with soldiers, where is the logic, this is just one example of the inept lazy storytelling that exists throughout this terrible adaption.
As has been present throughout this entire series there is the continuing use of the most overused plot devices that is essentially an artificial way to build tension as well as move the narrative, that is keeping information or a secret away from others when in fact they should know what is going on. Not only that they would know as part of their position within the story such as Babcock not being liquidated. We also see a pattern emerging at the end of each episode there is a jarring cliffhanger of sorts which make no sense as we already have that information from earlier episodes. We also see briefly, as I assume this subplot is being written out as it is ludicrous, Wolgast’s wife, his friend and a reporter where for the briefest moment it is mentioned the report has died, the other two look at each other mysteriously and that is the last we see of them. There is still no explanation of how Wolgast’s friend was able to return from a shootout where she looked dead and now has no mark on her, although when we see her she is in bed, I though bullets caused more damage than that? The show is full of jumps in storyline or just pretending actions did not happen in previous episodes – it is very confusing.
At this stage the brightest part of the series is still Saniyya Sidney, she shines above all others as Amy, the main character in both novels and series. At this early stage it does seem she might be better than the character that has been written for her, the reasons for her being, the relationship with her mother, the other worldliness of her actual being, the reason she is wanted, her actual attractiveness to Wolgast and finally why the story is centred around her.
At this stage of the series with only four episodes gone this show is really feeling like hard work, I can only imagine what readers of the novel who are still watching think of this. For people that have not read the novel this show must feel like a retread of so many other horror/fantasy genre pieces that it becomes obvious with each passing moment what is going to happen next, which again is unlike the novel that had no easy answers for readers which in this day and age is a real gift.
Episode Four – “Whose blood is that?”
Directed by: Allison Liddi-Brown
Written by: Daniel Thomsen
Wolgast convinces Sykes and Lear to let him and Amy outside of the facility for exercise in an effort to protect her; Fanning’s hold on those kept in Project Noah grows stronger as flashbacks reveal how Carter wound up on death row.
Written by: Eric Roth, Bradley Cooper and Will Fetters
Directed by: Bradley Cooper
Featuring: Bradley Cooper, Lady Gaga, Andrew Dice Clay, Dave Chappelle and Sam Elliott
Jackson Maine: “Can I tell you a secret?”[Ally looks over to him]
Jackson Maine: “I think you might be a songwriter. And don’t worry, I won’t tell anybody. But I’m not very good at keeping secrets.”
When I first heard about the “A Star is Born” (2018) remake it had Clint Eastwood as director and Beyonce as the ingénue that is fated to eclipse her older mentor which was enticing enough, but when both dropped out and star Bradley Cooper came on as not only actor but producer/screenwriter/director it seemed like the world may have been turned upside down, especially with the casting of pop Diva Lady Ga Ga in the pivotal role. This is at least the fourth direct remake of the original movie from 1937, and it is possibly the best version (which is really saying something), told in a modern context with not only pop music at its centre but also County music as well, which play extremely well against each other. What is so surprising is the way in which all levels of this movie work in relation to each other, the performances, the original music, the way in which it is filmed both on locations, in sound stages as well as the musical numbers, the way in which supporting actors have been cast in roles that they would not normally be known for, down to the way the plot has been deployed through its editing as well as its classical Hollywood narrative.
The biggest question about this film especially coming out of festivals was, is it any good or was it just a vanity project, the great news is that this is not only a good film, it is a great one, that is going to have long legs quite a while after its release date, and going into awards season where I believe it is going to do very well on all fronts, notably for Bradley Cooper across a few categories as well as for Lady Ga Ga where I think she is a lock for an Academy Award for ‘Best Song’. There are so many examples of films similar to this that do not fare well, especially when they are released at this time of year, feature good casts, could be considered atypical of their genre and are built around big performances but fail to either make an impact or are just bad. This is not the case with “A Star is Born” which is pretty much built about two central performances, they are so strong that they mitigate any other deficiencies that are contained within the film from a first time director.
Speaking of directors, “A Star is Born” has not only been directed by Bradley Cooper, but he has co-written, co-produced and even co-wrote some of the music which is as impressive as you can get, particularly when this is the first film behind the camera. By the way, he gives the performance of his career in the role of Jackson Maine, an alcoholic, pill popping country singer who is as believable as any role he or anyone has ever been in. The key to Cooper’s success I believe in this film is the first hour where you get to know the two main characters from their introductions, which does let up for the next hour, this also represents the best hour from any film this year, it is almost perfect with every aspect, however the last third of the film is a little more uneven but to be fair this is the heavy lifting for the audience as well as the plot and is when this film comes together into the final few scenes which really bring the narrative to a final full stop. My only nit-pick would be it seems like Cooper may have had a difficult time putting together a completely coherent narrative as it seems the time the movie takes place over is a little confusing as are the jumps that are made. Not that this is a negative as this is still one of the great films of the years.
“A Star is Born” concerns Jackson Maine, a famous country singer privately battling an alcohol and drug addiction. After one show, Jackson happens upon a drag bar where he witnesses a performance by Ally, a waitress and singer-songwriter. Her talent amazes Jackson; they spend the night speaking to each other, where Ally discloses to him the troubles she has faced in pursuing a professional music career. Jackson invites Ally to his next show. Despite her initial refusal she attends and, with Jackson’s encouragement, sings on stage with him. Jackson invites Ally to go on tour with him, and they slowly begin to form a romantic relationship.
“A Star is Born” is really based around the Lady Ga Ga character but this is a deceptive film as it to me is really about addiction, as well as the arc of the person that Bradley Cooper portrays which is a difference from other versions of this story. As I have already stated this is Coopers greatest performance, which is saying something as he has already been nominated for three acting Oscars, however this is the one that should win it for him. What is stunning about this performance is that Cooper appears in most of the scenes but is directing at the same time while giving a three dimensional performance. Not only that but at many times he is either singing or playing an instrument, as well as performing in front of real audiences, this is one of the more unique performances of the modern age, it is inspiring to see what he is capable of. On the other hand this is the big screen debut of Lady Ga Ga who of course excels in the musical scenes as well as the more naturalistic scenes but there is no doubt that that inexperience plays a part but she does acquit herself exceptionally well, I am sure we will be seeing her onscreen for years to come. There are three supporting actors that are all excellent they are Andrew Dice Clay, Dave Chappelle and Sam Elliott, the two former are comedians who do their jobs well, but the real stand out is the actually great Elliott as Coopers brother. Elliott is an actor that has appeared in almost every genre, but it is with his performance here, while small makes a massive impact on the main characters and lends some of the heart to the movie outside of the music, look out for his name to be announced at awards time.
The final aspect of the film that is really worth noting is the music, which really is another character. Many films that are not strictly musicals but feature music heavily are normally at least written by third parties but this is where “A Star is Born” really makes its mark with the music being supplied by both its principal’s in Lady Ga Ga and Bradley Cooper. Because this music is written by one of the co-writers of the movie it all not only adds to the narrative but actually means something and is poignant which is an additional layer of meaning which can only mean great things for this movie’s future.
This is a film that should and actually deserves to be seen in cinemas, it is one of those rare films that presents itself as a classic and actually succeeds on almost all levels. Sure there is currently a high amount of hype that surrounds this movie but unlike many others it is an instant classic that tells an almost universal story about love, talent, loss and success in equal measures. What Cooper has done is take a previous plot, cast some very good actors, created some great music and combined all of these with great behind the scenes talent to produce a great unmissable film.
“Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt Seasons One & Two” (2015-2019)
Comedy
26 Episodes
Created by: Tina Fey and Robert Carlock
Featuring: Ellie Kemper, Tituss Burgess, Carol Kaneand Jane Krakowski
Kimmy Schmidt:“And you are gonna sing at the Grammys with Whitney Houston and Michael Jackson!”
Titus Andromedon:“Bad examples, but yes!”
This month sees the release onto DVD of the hit Netflix comedy series “Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt” (2015-2019) that as well as constantly being funny has been nominated for eighteen Emmy awards which in and of itself is very impressive, considering it was originally dropped by a major network, being picked up by Netflix unaware of the future it was going to have.
The show revolves around Kimmy Schmidt (Ellie Kemper) who was in eighth grade when kidnapped for 15 years by Reverend Richard Wayne Gary Wayne (Jon Hamm). The Reverend held Kimmy and three other women hostage in an underground bunker, and convinced them that doomsday had come, gone, and had left them the sole survivors of humanity.
The show has an impressive pedigree having been co-created by Tina Fey and Robert Carlock who both were behind the successful television show “30 Rock” (2006-2013) which actually shares quite a bit of the type of humor as well as style and feel of this new show which is not only original but has some of the funniest moments on any television series.
One of the elements of the show besides the premise that is great is the mixture of new actors as well as veterans that populate the series not forgetting some of the fantastic guest stars and semi-regular actors that pop up from time to time. One of the best is John Hamm who is definitely a closet comedian, he has been showing in many comedies over the past decade, here he plays what could be considered the protagonist of the show.
In the first season, the women are rescued, and go on to appear on the Today Show in New York City. After the show, Kimmy decides she does not want to return to Indiana, so she starts a new life in New York City. Roaming around the city, Kimmy comes across landlady Lillian Kaushtupper (Carol Kane). Kaushtupper offers Kimmy a chance to room with Titus Andromedon (Tituss Burgess) in her downstairs apartment. However, Kimmy has to find a job in order to get the apartment. Returning a child who has tried to steal candy, Kimmy encounters his mother, Jacqueline Voorhees (Jane Krakowski) a Manhattan trophy wife, who mistakes her for a nanny, and whom Kimmy mistakes as someone trapped in a cult. Soon after, Jacqueline hires Kimmy to be a nanny for her 10-year-old son. As Season 1 continues, Kimmy falls in love with a Vietnamese man, Dong (Ki Hong Lee) from her G.E.D. class, goes to court to testify against the Reverend, and discovers how the world has changed in the 15 years she was locked up.
In the second season, Kimmy is sick of working for Jacqueline and acquires a job at a year-round Christmas store and then as an Uber driver. She tries to get over Dong who enters a green card marriage with another G.E.D. student and eventually is deported. As Kimmy tries to move on, so do Titus and Jacqueline, who both find boyfriends. Titus begins dating construction worker Mikey Politano (Mike Carlsen) and Jacqueline begins dating lawyer Russ Snyder (David Cross). Jacqueline also goes back to her Native American heritage and decides to take down the Redskins, who her boyfriend’s father happens to own. When Season 2 ends, Titus leaves to be a performer on a cruise and Lillian protests the invasion of hipsters in her neighborhood, while Kimmy makes amends with her mother (Lisa Kudrow) after advice from her therapist (Tina Fey) before receiving a phone call from The Reverend in prison, telling her that they need to get a divorce.
Season One:
Kimmy Goes Outside!:Kimmy Schmidt (Ellie Kemper) has been held captive in an underground bunker in Indiana for the past 15 years by a Reverend who told her and three other women that the Earth was destroyed in an apocalypse. After getting rescued, the women are dubbed ‘The Mole Women’. The Women travel to New York City to be interviewed on television. Kimmy decides that she wants to stay in New York City and try out life there. On her first day, she looks for a roommate, which she finds in a broke prospective Broadway singer named Titus Andromedon (Tituss Burgess), who tells her that she must get a job first. Kimmy gets a new job as a nanny for a rich upper-class Manhattanite, Jacqueline Voorhees (Jane Krakowski). Later, at a nightclub, Kimmy’s backpack is stolen, containing the $13,000 in cash that she had from the ‘Mole Fund’. The following morning, she shows up for her first day two hours late and is fired. After finding that she has nothing left and being told to return to Indiana by Titus, she remembers how she survived with the Reverend for fifteen years and decides to stay in New York City to fix what she can.
Kimmy Gets a Job!:Kimmy attempts to get her job back from Mrs. Voorhees and, to prove her worth, is tasked with throwing a perfect birthday party for Mrs. Voorhees’ son and grounding her step-daughter, Xanthippe (Dylan Gelula), who seems to run the house. Mrs. Voorhees is devastated after she finds that her husband isn’t coming to her son’s birthday party, believing that he is cheating on her and that their marriage is falling apart. Kimmy blackmails Xanthippe and is able to ground her for drinking alcohol. Mrs. Voorhees tries to fire Kimmy but after she finds that Kimmy has done everything she tasked her with she proclaims that Kimmy is her best friend and rehires her. Meanwhile, Titus works to get his security deposit back from his costume rental after Kimmy tells him to quit his job to pursue his dream, as she now has her job back and is able to pay the rent and take care of things around the apartment.
Kimmy Goes on a Date!:Kimmy believes that she needs someone to talk to, which prompts Jacqueline to set her up with a rich elderly man who has dementia – prompting jealousy from Charles (Andy Ridings). After being asked about her heritage, Jacqueline remembers the family that she came from, after Charles helps Buckley with a project, showing that she is a Native American woman from South Dakota who is pretending to be white. Jacqueline stands up for Kimmy when Xanthippe sets out to find out everything about her and Charles tries to ask Kimmy out. Titus tries to hide his money from Lillian – which is for new head shots so he can make it on Broadway – resulting in him going to a funeral of an elderly Korean man. When he comes clean about what the money is for, a man snatches it from him in the street.
Kimmy Goes to the Doctor!:Kimmy receives a call from Cyndee, from the cult, after Titus sends her a letter – pretending to be her – because he believes that she needs to talk to someone about her life in the bunker. Jacqueline hears from her husband that he will not be back for six weeks and believes that he is cheating on her. She takes Kimmy to her surgeon (Martin Short). Kimmy wants to get a new face because someone recognized her as one of the Mole Women and she wants to start a new life. Titus auditions for a spot in a Broadway production, after Kimmy convinces him that he needs to be more confident in himself. Later, she also explains to Jacqueline that she needs to accept herself for who she is and not focus so much on her looks. Kimmy then realizes that she needs someone to talk to about the bunker and invites Cyndee to come visit her in New York.
Kimmy Kisses a Boy!:Charles tells Kimmy that he likes her and when she says the same, the two kiss. Cyndee arrives with her boyfriend Brandon, who had also been her former middle school crush. Titus immediately suspects that Brandon is gay, but Kimmy disagrees. After Kimmy realizes how many free things Cyndee has been getting due to the sympathy of others, she tricks Brandon into revealing that he is gay, but he says that he’s only with Cyndee because he too feels sorry for her. Shortly after, Brandon proposes to Cyndee, prompting Kimmy to tell Cyndee the truth, though Cyndee says she already knows and does not care. After a misunderstanding when speaking to Charles on the phone, Kimmy tells him that she loves him. She then realizes that she hadn’t been working on the goals she set out when in the bunker and was jealous of all Cyndee had done, leading her to enroll in a GED program. Meanwhile, Titus has a crisis regarding his age and if he is still found attractive.
Kimmy Goes to School!:Kimmy enrolls into an adult GED class in an attempt to pass the eighth grade. There, she encounters a teacher (Richard Kind) that could not care less for her education, and would much rather screw up until he’s placed in a room where he can do nothing. He uses his tenure as a stand for never actually getting fired. Kimmy, who is vehemently against this, enlists her classmates – including a Vietnamese immigrant named Dong Nguyen (Ki Hong Lee) – to fight against the teacher. Meanwhile, Lillian helps Titus make a music video in Jacqueline’s house.
Kimmy Goes to a Party!:Jacqueline’s husband Julian (Mark Harelik) finally makes it home and is throwing a surprise cocktail party, which Jacqueline believes she can use to prove his infidelity. Jacqueline invites Kimmy as a guest/accomplice and Kimmy invites Titus to sing at the party. While at the party, Kimmy flirts with an upscale guest Logan Beekman (Adam Campbell) and Titus seeks to impress a guest he believes works on Broadway.
Kimmy Is Bad at Math!:Realizing just how poor her math skills are, Kimmy seeks out classmate Dong to help her with math, which he agrees to in exchange for some help at his delivery job. She is bad at that job because she gives the customers too much change due to her lack of math skills. As Dong helps her improve her math, she helps him improve his English. Jacqueline is contemplating her ability to survive without Julian’s financial assistance if she and he divorce. Titus starts his new job as a werewolf at a horror-themed restaurant on Broadway; he finds that life as a werewolf is easier than that of a black man. Kimmy begins dating Logan.
Kimmy Has a Birthday!:It’s Kimmy’s 30th birthday and she’s throwing a party. She invites both Logan and Dong, but is also unwillingly joined by her incompetent state trooper step-father Randy (Tim Blake Nelson) and half-sister Kymmi (Kiernan Shipka). Titus invites an attractive coworker to the party without seeing his face, only to realize the two had a rough history together.
Kimmy’s in a Love Triangle!:Logan wants Kimmy to stop talking to Dong and tries to have him deported. Kimmy finds out, breaks up with Logan, and begins dating Dong. Meanwhile, Titus is overlooked for a new role at the restaurant because he can’t “play straight.” As a result, he seeks out help from a “straight coach,” M. La Loup (Dean Norris).
Kimmy Rides a Bike!:Kimmy is summoned to testify against Reverend Richard Wayne Gary Wayne (Jon Hamm) but refuses. Kimmy and Jacqueline begin regularly attending a spinning class instructed by Christopher “Tristafé” Micellito (Nick Kroll) to escape their problems – Kimmy to avoid the guilt of not returning to testify and Jacqueline to cope with her divorce. Kimmy notices similarities between Tristafé’s spinning class and a cult and exposes Tristafé’s scheme. Titus goes to the local library to watch the trial unfold online, though the prosecuting attorneys Marcia and Chris (Tina Fey and Jerry Minor) aren’t doing very well.
Kimmy Goes to Court!:Kimmy returns to Indiana to testify against Reverend Richard Wayne Gary Wayne. The Mole Women return to the shelter to look for evidence against Reverend Richard Wayne Gary Wayne when the prosecutors begin to lose the case. Titus becomes an internet sensation.
Kimmy Makes Waffles!:The Mole Women become trapped in the bunker when Kimmy’s stepdad fails to properly guard the hatch door and begin to argue. Jacqueline and Lillian attempt to travel to Indiana to support Kimmy, but struggle to make it out of New York as neither of them drive. Eventually, Jacqueline uses knowledge from her Native American heritage to navigate them to Indiana. Meanwhile, the Mole Women make up and work together to escape the bunker themselves. The Mole Women head back to the trial and use a tape of Reverend Richard Wayne Gary Wayne found in his bunker to win the case. Jacqueline decides to return to her home in South Dakota. Dong gets married to Sonya from GED class to avoid being deported. Titus’ estranged wife finds him after seeing his YouTube video.
Season Two:
Kimmy Goes Roller Skating!:Titus’ ex, Vonda, sues him. Kimmy decides to go after Dong even though he’s married. Jacqueline overstays her welcome with her Native American parents. Lillian begins dating Robert Durst (Fred Armisen).
Kimmy Goes on a Playdate!:Jacqueline returns to Manhattan and has Kimmy help her get her back on track. When giving away his old clothes, Titus makes a connection with the construction worker he talked to the previous year.
Kimmy Goes to a Play!:Titus puts on a one-man show about one of his past lives. Jacqueline attempts to make her ex-husband jealous. Lillian fights the gentrification of her neighborhood.
Kimmy Kidnaps Gretchen!:Kimmy attempts to save Gretchen from joining another cult. Titus goes on a date with Mikey.
Kimmy Gives Up!:Kimmy gets distracted from her GED by preventing Dong from getting deported. Jacqueline medicates her hyperactive son, Buckley. Titus decides to teach Lillian some forgotten showtunes.
Kimmy Drives a Car!:Titus rents his apartment on Airbnb to a couple of hipsters from Austin (Zosia Mamet and Evan Jonigkeit). Kimmy puts her foot down on her relationship with Jacqueline.
Kimmy Walks Into a Bar!:Jacqueline throws a gala the same night that her frenemy, Deirdre Robespierre (Anna Camp), throws a party. Kimmy has a brief relationship with an Army vet (Samuel Page) she met in a bar where she used the bathroom.
Kimmy Goes to a Hotel!:Kimmy and the gang celebrate Fake Christmas. Kimmy takes Dong to an abandoned hotel in the Poconos. A Jewish family claims the rights to the painting Jacqueline bid on.
Kimmy Meets a Drunk Lady!:On her Uber run, Kimmy meets a drunk therapist named Andrea (series co-creator Tina Fey) whom she begins to open up to. Meanwhile, Titus decides to build his own tape tower.
Kimmy Goes to Her Happy Place!:Kimmy begins therapy with Andrea. Titus helps Mikey come out to his family.
Kimmy Meets a Celebrity!:Cyndee comes back to New York where Kimmy finds out she has been seeing a celebrity television therapist (Jeff Goldblum). Titus mentors a teenage boy and contemplates having a family of his own. Lillian handcuffs herself to a bulldozer to prevent gentrification.
Kimmy Sees a Sunset!:Kimmy attempts to help Andrea stop drinking, but to no avail. Jacqueline decides to pursue Russ, the lawyer who took away her painting. Titus and Mikey move in together.
Kimmy Finds Her Mom!:Kimmy reunites with her long-lost mother (Lisa Kudrow) at Universal Studios Florida. Titus heads to Miami, but makes a detour at Titusville, Florida, taking it as a sign. Jacqueline invites Russ’ family for Thanksgiving, but finds out they are the same Snyder family who own the controversial Washington Redskins.
Featuring: Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Steve Carell, Sam Rockwell, Tyler Perry, Alison Pill, Jesse Plemons and Justin Kirk
Dick Cheney:“I can feel your incriminations and your judgments, and I am fine with that. You want to be loved? Go be a movie star. The world is as you find it. You’ve gotta deal with that reality that there are monsters in this world. We saw 3,000 innocent people burned to death by those monsters, yet you object when I refuse to kiss those monsters on the cheek and say “pretty please.” You answer me this, what terrorist attack would you have let go forward so you wouldn’t seem like a mean and nasty fella? I will not apologize for keeping your family safe. And I will not apologize for doing what needed to be done so that your loved ones could sleep peacefully at night. It has been my honor to be your servant. You chose me. And I did what you asked.”
“Vice” (2018), somehow on the strength of its actors performances has managed to also ride the wave of “The Big Short” (2015) to become one of the most nominated films at this years Oscars with a stunning eight nods, which after actually watching the film left me scratching my head a little.
This is a film that is based around some parts of the life of Dick Cheney that paints him as some kind of failing upwards demigod that was after power his entire life and found it when he was asked to be Vice President under George W. Bush, then making many of the decisions that would come to define how the US operated both domestically and internationally in a post 9/11 world. This is a movie that has been carefully put together by Adam McKay who made such a splash after his first ‘serious’ movie “The Big Short” became a box office, as well as critical hit and an Oscar winner that covered the housing crisis that led to the collapse of major banks as well as the disappearance of trillions of dollars from the international economy. However the techniques that worked so well in that movie, as well as in McKay’s previous blockbuster comedies do not come close to working here, especially when dealing with such a serious subject as Cheney, 9/11 and a host of other subjects that still resonate so strongly today, which is a missed opportunity as it more or less makes light of a variety of subject that still resonate in todays political and social world. It is a difficult thing to look forward to a movie for so long and feel let down and disappointed by it.
After so many movies, documentaries as well as television shows about the George W. Bush White House especially in the light of the aftermath of 9/11 and how that transformed the world I had to wonder why make a movie that could glorify one the chief architects of that outcome as well as possibly one of the people that helped bring a person like Trump to power. Initially I understood why McKay and his cronies would want to make this movie, especially in light of the “The Big Short”, combining politics and his own somewhat unique narrative style, but after viewing it his take on Cheney is not very clear as well as a one sided affair. My own issues are that basically “Vice” skips over some major points of history instead opting for a broad overview that actually helps explain how we have ended up where we are, it is a cheap technique to pick and choose what is shown to a prospective audience. The other element is that this is a movie that requires the audience to do none of the heavy lifting in terms of understanding who Cheney was and is, to the extent that it draws some points that are difficult to substantiate, which in terms of an audience is negated by far too much humour. Another very weak part of the movie is the constant explaining by the narrator who is present for almost the running time of the film and for what real reason I am still not sure, If there is one movie that has been produced ever that shouldn’t require a narrator it is this, “Vice” covers so many important parts of the last forty years if you have to re-explain to an audience you are doing something seriously wrong as a director. In my mind we are seeing a director who has fallen in love with his own scattershot technique to offer what can only be described as a post modern biopic of the lowest standard as it is almost all surface with little depth and ultimately means little, it is also forgettable in terms of the point of it, the medium rally has become the message. Even the title “Vice” may seem like a clever pun, or play on words but thinking more deeply it is a little juvenile as well as simple to attempt to explain Cheney.
“Vice” is narrated by a character, Kurt, a fictitious veteran of the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars whose point for being becomes clear towards the conclusion of this film. The movie opens with Dick Cheney and other White House officials and staff responding to the September 11 attacks. The film then flashes back to Wyomingin 1963, where Cheney finds work as a lineman but struggles with alcohol that led him to drop out of Yale. After Cheney is stopped by a traffic cop for driving while intoxicated, his wife Lynne Cheney convinces her husband to clean up his life.
The reason to view some films can vary greatly, maybe it’s the story or the director or the actors, most times it is a combination of two more of these at a very basic level. However I can think of few films in recent memory that rely so heavily on the performance of the lead actor, in this case Christian Bale as Dick Cheney. It is Bales complete transformation into his role that makes “Vice” watchable at all, Bale really is Dick Cheney in almost every way which is as uncanny a performance as you will see this year. Bale has made a habit of physical transformations in many of his roles, in this he succeeds as much as he ever has, he has to be one of the frontrunners for Best Actor at this years Oscars, his only real threat is how people feel about the movie itself. Of course the rest of the cast are incredible as well with the three key supporting actors being the always great Amy Adams as Lyn Cheney, Steve Carell as Donald Rumsfeld and Sam Rockwell George W. Bush who all play their parts with authenticity (mostly) and lend an air of power to aid Bales own performance which is a treat to see.
Now, I get that Adam McKay et al are all very smart liberal people who wanted to make a point about someone that has sown chaos throughout his career which is definitely highlighted in this movie which is a good thing to do especially when in this day and age we as a population are apt to forgive and forget particularly with the micro stories that take up our time on social media. I also recognise that McKay is not interested in telling a story that fits within a classical biopic as well as the Hollywood classic narrative which is to be applauded, the proof of his technique and its power as well as success can be easily recognised in “The Big Short” which remains a very powerful movie and a great piece of entertainment. There was nothing stopping McKay from retaining his flourishes but maybe they would have better utilised in a more though out manner, his fishing metaphor was good enough but overused far to much as was the narration which again was not needed and I wondered the point of the revel of the narrator, this felt like a movie that was found in the edit and it shows which is a real shame.
Regardless of the negatives of the movie it is still a good viewing experience and the performances along cover up many of the holes that exist, in fact I would even say is worth going to the movies to see it especially if you are interested in the period covered in US politics as well as the entire endeavour being a metaphor for the rise to power of Trump.
Featuring: Teresa Palmer, Matthew Goode, Edward Bluemel, Louise Brealey, Malin Buska, Aiysha Hart, Owen Teale, Alex Kingston, Valarie Pettiford
Matthew Clairmont: “Once the world was full of wonders, but it belongs to the humans now. We, creatures, have all but disappeared. Daemons… vampires… witches… hiding in plain sight. Ill at ease even with each other. But, as my father used to say, in every ending, there is a new beginning.”
There has been a real fascination with horror as well as fantasy stories since the dawn of the motion pictures as there has been in the written word, so it is logical that as the idea of peak television approaches that instead of adaptations going to the big screen they should end up on the small screen, not only on broadcast networks, but cable and now of course, streaming outlets. So it really is with little surprise as well as a small fanfare that Deborah Harkness’s ‘All Souls’ Trilogy should be brought to life on the small screen with her first book, “A Discovery of Witches” (2011) being turned into a series of the same name – with the other two following at a later date. To be fair if you have read or viewed other horror or supernatural novels/movies/series that involve any kind of monster then the stories being told here will not be new, in fact this new series plays out like an older more mature ‘Harry Potter’ or ‘Twilight’, although I for one found this new series a lot more like-able as well as more logical, less aggrandising as well as moving the plot along a lot more quickly – I found the aforementioned franchises plodding and drawn out to the extent that I was very happy they came to an end.
This series is based around Diana Bishop, a historian and reluctant witch, unexpectedly discovers a bewitched manuscript in Oxford’s Bodleian Library. This discovery forces her back into the world of magic in order to unravel the secrets it holds about magical beings. She is offered help by mysterious geneticist and vampire, Matthew Clairmont. Despite a long-held mistrust between witches and vampires they form an alliance and set out to protect the book and solve the mysteries hidden within while dodging threats from the creature world.
What is really different about “A Discovery of Witches” (2018-) is that it is all about adults, it is set in the real world, it involves witches as the mainstay of the series and it offers a very different glimpse into an original fantasy world. What is the same as any other fantasy narrative is that it does offer a heroes journey which is identifiable as well as atypical, it is all about a ‘chosen’ one’, it does offer cross species pollination which is now de rigueur for this genre and there is a larger mystery at play which will be revealed over time – I hope. What is great about this new series is that all of these very different elements compliment each other to provide something that is not only original but offers some real surprises from episode to episode, and I hope eventually from season to season.
Another aspect of the show that I enjoyed was the slow revealing of the plot through the use of real locations across a few countries, which coupled with the very different actors provided the show with not only depth but breadth, something I think required for this new series to really set it up. It made a change from having people in a corner of a country or being transported to places through dubious magical means. “A Discovery of Witches” sets itself firmly in the real world with a nod to humans, who are not in danger, to the more fantastic elements that are set up in the first episode as well as laying the groundwork for the rest of the first season. The show also paints a picture of a group of beings who are all in peril with no one agreeing on what is occurring as well as what to do about it, which is in fact a reflection of a myriad of problems we face on a global scale, something that always works so well with the horror/fantasy genre. The other element of the show is that while it is does revolve around a main character who is a woman, it is also gives most of the power to women in just about all aspects with men attempting to hijack that power in many cases. Not only that but Diana Bishop has agency in all her decisions, she makes her own way through the first season with little fear or apprehension. These are all aspects that I enjoyed thoroughly and kept me engaged for most of the running time of the season.
“A Discovery of Witches” is led by two very good actors in Teresa Palmer and Matthew Goode who have had chances in bigger budgeted fair but nothing has really hit, so they have been character actors in a great many other projects, however here they both get to shine together as well as separately in very different ways which is a gift for an actor over a number of episodes. In particular it is Palmer who has the heroes arc, she is young but ends up playing an old soul who has lost much but still has people around her for support who she does listen to which is something unique in this fantasy genre. Goode on the other hand has to be reserved for much of the series but does have moments of real emotion which have to be believable, luckily he is such a good fit that he has no issues in whatever he goes for within the character. Other highlights of the show are great English character actors Trevor Eve, Owen Teale, Alex Kingston Sophia Myles and Lindsay Duncan who all offer very different takes on archetypical genre characters, that could be bland but are all engaging in one way or another, especially in relation to the two main stars which is extremely welcoming.
The look of the show is subdued as it should be with origins that derive from the gothic as well as having directors that are experienced in the sci-fi/horror/fantasy genre, which is exactly what is required to frame the performances around. They all coalesce well to have a narrative that is cohesive, easy to follow as well as engaging the audience for the run of the first season. There can be a tendency in genre narratives to set people against each other with a technique of hiding information from each other, here that does not happen, in most cases information is shared between the two central characters which again will lengthen the appeal of this new series.
All in all this is a vey good first season and although it ends on a hard cliff-hanger which I am not fond of this is an engaging watch which I recommend audiences stick with, the good news is that it already has been renewed for a further two seasons which is success in anyone’s book.
Episodes:
Things get creepy for historian and closet witch, Diana Bishop, when she calls up a magical manuscript. Her discovery is about to throw her back into the world of magic and into the path of Matthew Clairmont, a centuries old vampire.
As Matthew fights to control his cravings, he leaves Diana to face her enemies alone. And those include powerful witch Peter Knox.
There is another dark turn in store for Diana when an alarming package is slipped under her door. Meanwhile, her relationship with Matthew moves forward, but something is about to happen that will cast them both further into danger.
Diana gets a chilly welcome when she seeks safety at the Clairmont family home. Back in Oxford, trouble is brewing. Juliette shows up and throws Marcus’ life into danger, while Satu pays the price for her curiosity.
Tensions between the creatures grow as the witches find out the vampires are studying DNA. Matthew crosses a line when he returns to Oxford. Diana discovers his dark past, before something unexpected tears them apart.
Matthew and Baldwin race to save Diana from Satu’s dangerous dark magic. In Oxford, Sophie shocks Agatha with a confession.
Diana’s aunts’ home gives up all sorts of secrets when Diana and Matthew pay a visit. Danger looms as Juliette breaks free from Gerbert.
With danger at every turn, Diana and Matthew are forced to run. But will they escape in time?
“A Discovery of Witches – Season One” is released onto DVD on 14th February 2019.
Written by: Andy Weiss, Logan Miller & Noah Miller
Directed by: Yann Demange
Featuring: Matthew McConaughey, Bel Powley, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Brian Tyree Henry, Rory Cochrane, RJ Cyler, Jonathan Majors, Eddie Marsan, Bruce Dern and Piper Laurie
Richard Wershe Sr.:“When I first saw you I knew you were going to be bigger than me.”
The latest movie starring Oscar winner Matthew McConaughey opens soon, a drama centered around organised crime as well as the crack epidemic of the 1980s, named after the main characters nickname, “White Boy Rick” (2018). This is based on a true story that as it is adapted, is uneven at best, with a narrative that could best be described as riffing on other similarly themed movies of which there are a number. If a decision is made to make a movie based around one person and their story, that leads an audience through a journey which is basically about the selling of drugs as well as being about a group of people that it is extremely difficult to feel any real emotions for then that is going to be a very tough sell.
The best version of this movie is Martin Scorsese’s “Goodfellas” (1990) that had at its core one very violent person, who we follow for the entire film, to mitigate that violence it injects an element of humour as well as realism although everything is heightened which works well, not only that but the movie has not dated at all in almost thirty years. Unfortunately the same thing cannot be said for “White Boy Rick” that has at its centre a character, Rick, who is not sympathetic in the slightest, not only that it makes the point that this subjective narrative is completely from Ricks point of view with no room for any other kind of perspective. What this means is that at times it appears that the director and writer would like you to think that what Rick chose to do, sell drugs, and the punishment he ultimately received was not only outside of his control but was motivated politically which may be correct but is completely unprovable. In saying that there is still a story to be enjoyed here but for me it comes from some of the set design, as well as the truly great cast that has been assembled to support the main character who just seems to be cruising through this movie not doing a whole lot of actual acting, which for him is a missed opportunity.
This movie is based on the autobiography “White Boy Rick: My Time as an Undercover Teenage Drug Informant for the FBI” by Richard Wershe Jr. and has been adapted by Andy Weiss, Logan Miller & Noah Miller which may explain why the movie follows the narrative it does as none of these writers really have the experience or track record to elevate this movie above nothing more than a curiosity to see another great Matthew McConaughey performance. The movie directed by Yann Demange whose best and most notable work has been in English television as well as the very good film “’71” (2014), here he struggles putting anything meaningful together with a script that meanders all over the place not really finding a rhythm as well as pandering to the main subject which is a real dent in the movie itself.
“White Boy Rick” is set in 1980s Detroit at the height of the crack epidemic and the War on Drugs, it is based on the true story of a blue-collar father and his teenage son, Rick Wershe Jr., who became an undercover police informant and later a drug dealer, before he was abandoned by his handlers and sentenced to life in prison.
This movie lives and dies in the performance of the main actor, which may explain why it seems uneven in that, the lead, Richie Merritt has no previous screen experience whatsoever, for me that is unforgivable and it shows all the way through the film, it is one of the reasons that this movie really falls on its face. I do not understand why a seasoned actor who had some experience and could build a performance was not chosen as there are plenty of people I would have thought would jump at the chance. As usual Matthew McConaughey does what he does best, playing a character originally and is fully invested in it, which is exactly what you expect from him in this stage of his career. However for me the performance of the film is Bel Powley who has shown over the past few years that she is an excellent actor no matter the part, here she is no different, having to play someone who is three dimensional as well as someone who has very human weaknesses. As for the rest of the cast, which is made up of both veterans as well as newcomers such as Bruce Dern, Piper Laurie, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Rory Cochrane and Brain Tyree Henry all do their best, again they are let down with the material but all know what they are in and so adjust their performances accordingly.
It is hard to know how this movie was given the go ahead, although I do understand how people would have invested their money in it as it could have been sold on the name of McConaughey alone, as he has over the past ten years built up clout at both the domestic as well as the international box office. Not only that but the supporting cast is incredible and there are some high profile producers behind it. That is why it is difficult to adjust to a movie that is a period piece that is so bland as well as formulaic to a point. There needed to be some more stories involving others independent of the main character, as there is very little context to make sense of what is actually going on in a wider sense. Sure there are some hints to the White House but they are not fully explored, not only that but actual motivations of the main characters are a little thin so it is all broad strokes. Once again to compare it to “Goodfellas” we had a true sense of who all those characters were as well as why they were committing crime, we also had a sense of place, time and the extreme danger that Henry Hill was in, with this movie we do not.
This is a movie that I would not recommend be seen on the big screen, save your money and go and see a good drama that actually means something in human terms. “White Boy Rick” isn’t a cautionary tale for people wanting to pursue a criminal lifestyle, it is more of a cautionary take for people who maybe looking at making a movie with a lead who has no business being there. If you get a chance it might be a good movie to catch on a streaming service but that’s about it.
“White Boy Rick” is released in New Zealand cinemas in 2019.
“The Passage – Episode Three – That should never have happened to you” (2019)
Ten Episodes
Created by: Liz Heldens based on the novels written by Justin Cronin
Featuring: Mark-Paul Gosselaar, Saniyya Sidney, Vincent Piazza, Brianne Howey McKinley Belcher III, Jamie McShane, Caroline Chikezie, Emmanuelle Chriqui
Fanning: “Let him know your story”
The third episode has arrived of the show based on the excellent adult trilogy ‘The Passage’ by Justin Cronin that charts the world as it passes from a pre apocalyptic period through to an ante period through to the post part which takes place over a one thousand year time period.
The general plot of the “The Passage” (2019) focuses on Project Noah, a secret medical facility where scientists are experimenting with a dangerous virus that could lead to the cure for all disease, but also carries the potential to wipe out the human race. When a young girl, Amy Bellafonte, is chosen to be a test subject, Federal Agent Brad Wolgast is the man who is tasked with bringing her to Project Noah. Ultimately, however, Wolgast becomes her surrogate father, as he tries to protect her at any cost.
The problems once again stem from the fact that that the people behind the series have ignored what was great about the initial novel, ‘The Passage’. That is the pacing as well as the offering back stories to only the really important characters, not only that there were revelations about the other subordinate characters made throughout the novels which built up tension. Here there are revelations made whenever new characters are introduced which dulls the impact of the action that is taking place. This week we get a ponderous as well as pointless backstory to one one of the infected, this time Shauna Babcock who has a thing for one of the guards. One of the great aspects that set it apart from other vampire series or movies was that in the end the vampires were treated like an infection they spread out with no personalizes, no motivations just causing infections and death.
There are also elements within the narrative that make no sense like Wolgast who at one point does not know what is going on with the experiments but all of a sudden knows that sunlight will kill in the infected. Other elements that are jarring are the fact that whenever knowledge needs to be passed on it is by the right person at the right time. So one character is curious about something then just in the nick of time another character will give a satisfying answer. We also have one of the most overused and essentially an artificial way to build tension and that is keeping information or a secret away from others when in fact they should know what is going on. We also see a pattern emerging at the end of each episode there is a jarring cliffhanger of sorts which make no sense as we already have that information from earlier episodes. An example of that is Wolgast dreaming about Fanning talking to him, then Fanning revealing a scary face which not only happens to another character earlier in episode two but is just repetitive from an explanation of Fanning in an earlier scene. We also see a character return from a shootout where she looked dead and now has no mark on her, although when we see her she is in bed, I though bullets caused more damage than that? The show is full of jumps in storyline or just pretending actions did not happen in previous episodes – it is very confusing.
At this stage the brightest part of the series is still Saniyya Sidney, she shines above all others as Amy, the main character in both novels and series. At this early stage it does seem she might be better than the character that has been written for her, the reasons for her being, the relationship with her mother, the other worldliness of her actual being, the reason she is wanted, her actual attractiveness to Wolgast and finally why the story is centred around her.
The third episode is a minor improvement over the first and second ones which was needed but this is still a disappointing series so far. The pacing of the series so far is all off completely, there is no sense of how much time has passed from episode one, not only that attempting to give show scope by having endless flashbacks as well as introducing characters that are there just to create plot points is needless such as a reporter and once again Wolgast’s wife who at one point says he is having a baby with another man now seems like a conspiracy theorist. Unless there are some real improvements this will be an extreme chore to watch over the coming weeks.
Episode Three – “That should have never happened to you”
Directed by: Jason Ensler
Written by: Liz Heldens
Brad makes a deal with Sykes and Richards to stay with Amy at Project NOAH as they begin testing the virus on her, then forms an alliance when he discovers the truth about the state of the inmates in 4B; Babcock sheds light on her past.
Featuring: Gerard Butler, Gary Oldman, Michael Nyqvist, Common, Linda Cardellini and Toby Stephens
Captain Joe Glass: “I would like to take one last breath before we go under. You never know what it’s gonna be like when you come up.”
This month sees the release on DVD, Blu-ray and 4K of a throwback movie of sorts in “Hunter Killer” (2018) a film that is straight out of the Cold War era in that it deals with relations between the US and Russia by cashing in on the relations as they are now. What is interesting is that this movie was made so long ago that when it was produced the US/Russia relations were actually very cordial, it is only in the past two years things have become very icy. What I find very odd about this movie (to be fair there is more than one odd thing) is that based on a variety of elements, it should not be very good at all, but I found myself enjoying it quite a bit even if much of it is reductive, trope laden and stars Gerard Butler who has not been in a good movie in a number of years and whose last movie was the pitiful “Geostorm” (2017) which has to mark a real low point for him. For an actor that started off so strong he has taken the path of least resistance to end up as a kind of action also ran in Hollywood.
One of the main reasons this movie is watchable at all is for me down to the split narrative, it covers the story from three distinct geographic areas, they are firstly a kind of war room in the US, secondly under the ice aboard a submarine and lastly in Russia itself where the President of Russia is facing a coup and ends up being aided by some US special forces soldiers, who have been roped in the role as saviors. What this means is that any weakness in the story of which there is quite a bit is covered up with the constant switching from place to place, it has to be said that the best part of all this is the section in Russia with the US special forces led by Toby Stephens who is surprisingly extremely charismatic and fun in his role. In fact I would go so far as to say Stephens ends up stealing the entire movie by acting the part well and knowing exactly what kind of movie he is in, which is a key in being a character actor as well as someone who has the kind of experience he now has after appearing in so many productions over the past three decades. I could actually watch an entire movie with Stephens character set up as a hero, although that too has been done to death.
“Hunter Killer” more or less is based around U.S. submarine, the USS Tampa Bay, that vanishes while shadowing a Russian Akula-class submarine in the Arctic Circle. Rear Admiral John Fisk sends a Virginia-class submarine, the USS Arkansas, under the command of newly promoted and unorthodox Commander Joe Glass to investigate. You really do not need to be explained the rest of the plot as like many other similar themed movies it just heaps on conincidence as well as far fetched political objectives, but needless to say it does borrow heavily from other under water set movies.
This movie is written by Arne Schmidt and Jamie Moss and directed by Donovan Marsh who collectively have very little experience in not only making movies but definitely making movies of this size and scope, it is a wonder with all the embedded clichés that this one comes off as good as it does. To be fair because of the tightness of the running time as well as the three main locations and the quality (mostly) of the cast this movie succeeds despite itself, which is rarely the case especially in modern cinema. Someone who can plan a scene as well as follow a narrative through to the end even if at times it stretches credulity in each successive scene has directed “Hunter Killer” so it does actually become a fun watch.
This is a movie loaded with actors who all seem miscast here, it is a shame that “Hunter Killer” ends up being the first movie that Gary Oldman appears in after winning an Oscar for best actor, here he shows his class by going off the deep end and chewing the scenery like a pro, he is really fun to watch. As I have already said I think that Toby Stephens absolutely steals the show while Gerard Butler is anything but his normal self playing his part as subdued as possible which is a nice change from the parts he has been playing or should I say playing them over the past decade, I hope this indicates a change in direction as in good roles he is not difficult to actually like. Actors who are making careers out of exactly these types of parts and movies such as Common and Linda Cardellini who are fine if fairly ordinary fill out the rest of the cast. This is also possibly the last time the great Michael Nyqvist will appear onscreen as he dies a few years ago now, he was a great Scandinavian actor who raised the level of movie every time he appeared, here he is no different.
“Hunter Killer” is a movie from another time, one that heralded such movies as “The Hunt for Red October” (1990), it has to be said, however it is a cheaper knock off with actors who are inferior to that great movie which has not aged a day. It is a true shame that movies like this can be made with a trope filled plot as well as a formulaic narrative that covers just about every submarine movie ever made. It is also telling when geographic areas are limited as this speaks to the budget as well as the faith that the producers had in this movie. However this movie is saved by the Russian section which is actually very good, it has tension as well as action that is lacking in the rest of the movie which may explain why this is the largest portion of the movie and the most inventive from a narrative point.
It’s a difficult question to answer in would I recommend this movie to viewers? Well you did not miss anything if you did not see in cinemas, but if you have a chance to see on DVD or Blu-ray then I would jump at it, or if you can find on a streaming platform then its worth a watch for a good piece of action as well as some tense moments that brighten up an otherwise dull action movie that has been written and directed by the numbers.
Featuring: Christina Hendricks, Kate Moss, André Leon Talley and Vivienne Westwood
Vivienne Westwood:“This film about me is mediocre. I am not.”
This week we see the release of one of the more oddly put together documentaries from last year on DVD, that is the average “Westwood: Punk, Icon, Activist” (2018). This last year has been a milestone for documentary films that not only been released into cinemas but have been attended in record numbers by audiences all over the world. However with this movie we see where a paint by numbers narrative can really suffer when dealing with a subject like Vivienne Westwood who is so much bigger than this rather plodding documentary that has been made up with a cut and paste narrative, that has at its spine a rather average interview with the subject herself.
There has been no doubt at all that this year has been an excellent year for documentaries not only on streaming or DVD but in cinemas which is a trend that goes against what many people may have expected. However I find this to be exactly what should be expected especially with the concentration of so-called ‘fake news’ that now exists on the internet, coupled with what has been coming from the White House under the Trump Presidency. In fact there was a thought that cinematic documentaries might be a thing of the past especially with the success as well as saturation of Disney-fied blockbusters invading multiplexes, in fact audiences have been flocking to cinemas to seek out stories about real people making real differences in times and places where many others have been marginalised and made powerless by the people in charge in their respective times. Some of the great, as well as critically received, not forgetting making money documentaires at the box office are: “Wont you be my neighbour?” (2018), “Three Identical Strangers” (2018), “Jane” (2018), “McQueen” (2018), and my personal favourite “Bombshell: The Hedy Lamarr Story” (2017) with so many more. What this says about audiences is that they will seek out true stories told in the relative first person that are not only inspiring but are direct counter programming to the politics of the day as well as the lies that are being produced by a President who is not only artificial but hate fuelled. My belief as a fan of documentaries is that this genre will only gain in popularity, with the coming years being a boon as well as revealing the importance of truth in the media as well as the importance of researching decisions made by the electorate. It is no surprise that the rise in fake news, Donald Trump, racism and may other hate fuelled elements has been answered by artists creating documentaries that prove there can be positive outcomes when people choose to buck the system as well as believing in others, differences, freedom and most of all, love.
This documentary has only covered what fits into the interview given by Westwood which means it is extremely subjective offering only what the subject wants to talk about all the while being quite ornery about having to talk about herself. The interview for the most part is interspersed with archival footage from awards shows, interviews, news footage and a variety of other sources, which is one of the great weaknesses of the movie and makes for a rather disjointed and completely enjoyable experience. Westwood who is almost eighty years old has never felt the need to have an in depth discussion about her own life, her accomplishments as well as an explanation of what she does, an insight into her first love, that is designing first and becoming a cause célèbre for the environment, which to me seems like she has come late to that particular party.
Make no mistake in watching this film, it is an orchestrated piece of non-fiction but with some very large gaps in the designer’s own narrative, it is carried out as well as performed professionally as well as what could be deemed as a cold manner. There is very little of value filmed for this outside of the interview setting, which takes place in a very orchestrated and boring kind of way, which considering the subject is a mjor letdown and might speak to the talent of the director. What is really missing is some grit and purpose as well as some spark of an overarching narrative with some dissenting voices, all we get constantly are people backing up Westwood’s own story which if you know anything about her past is full of contradictions. The only time when there is a hint of reinventing her past is when she references two people Malcolm McLaren and John Lydon. I think it is telling that she completely throws McLaren under the bus especially in terms of their relationship when he has no comeback at all as he dies a few years ago, which any director should have challenged her on or at least had some dissenting opinion. Then in reference to Lydon she makes an off handed remark about him not changing which is untrue especially if you look at his career since the “Sex Pistols”, of course there is no dissenting opinion on that either, but a lot less is said about him.
Westwood who is now a Dame is primarily known as a British fashion designer and businesswoman, largely responsible for bringing modern punk and new wave fashions into the mainstream. Westwood came to public notice when she made clothes for Malcolm McLaren’s boutique in the King’s Road, which became known as “SEX”. It was their ability to synthesise clothing and music that shaped the 1970s UK punk scene, dominated by McLaren’s band, the “Sex Pistols”. She was inspired by the shock-value of punk—”seeing if one could put a spoke in the system”. Westwood went on to open four shops in London, eventually expanding throughout the United Kingdom and the world, selling an increasingly varied range of merchandise, some of it linked to her many political causes such as the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, climate change and civil rights groups. Westwood is married to her former fashion student, Austrian Andreas Kronthaler.
If there is one thing you do not want to do when making a documentary about Vivienne Westwood is make it bland and boring which is what this ends up being. Instead of using footage that many would have seen before you need to as a director either film some inspiring footage yourself or dig deep with researchers and find footage no one has ever seen before. The other thing is to find interview subjects that really add something to the overall narrative instead of husbands, sons and co-workers; I for one cannot think of anything more reductive than that in a feature movie documentary. A great example is last years “McQueen” that not only had interviews from the subject that had never been seen but it had people talking about him not always in a good light and that was a great documentary.
Its funny but I would still recommend this documentary to watch once but it is nowhere good enough to add to any collection, if you get a chance to see on a streaming service or on television then it is entertaining but it will not stay with you once the credits roll.
Featuring: Olivia Colman, Emma Stone, Rachel Weisz, Nicholas Hoult, Joe Alwyn, James Smith and Mark Gatiss
Queen Anne:“Some wounds do not close; I have many such.”
It is truly amazing how quickly the critical establishment can turn against a director, then return him to favour, this is what has happened with newly Oscar nominated Yorgos Lanthimos, who directed the truly genre defying classic “The Lobster” (2016) then was shunned a little when his next film “The Killing of a Sacred Deer” (2017) was released, not meeting expectations, not in terms of quality but what it does with narrative, plot and subject. Yorgos Lanthimos is definitely a unique director with a vision that is singular, at once accessible but aloof in caring what audiences think about the end product, that is true in the case of “The Killing of a Sacred Deer” and his new film the great “The Favourite” (2018). This new film is an oddity in the best possible way, it is a drama, with elements of comedy, post #metoo zeitgeist, a love story, political thriller and a healthy does of historical reimagining. There are so many elements of this film that I really enjoyed that any parts of it that didn’t quite mesh with me had no real effect, as the style and vison are so clear that you might be thinking someone with far more experience has directed it. Interestingly this is the first film that Lanthimos has not written himself so this may have freed him up to concentrate on how he wanted the film to look, feel, flow and give it even more flourishes than his previous efforts.
This is a spectacular film based around part of the life of Queen Anne that covers some true events of her life such as her many lost children, the tension between the Royalty as well as the strands of government in that time, but takes artistic license with so much more such as her sexual affairs with both Sarah Churchill as well as Abigail Hill. However its not to say it is not fun watching two women vie for the attentions of the Queen no matter the cost to themselves, each other and England itself which is a treat considering the talent onscreen. What sets this movie apart from previous Lanthimos films is that it is possibly less pretentious, as well as being set in an actual real world although to be fair everything about this world is heightened, turned up to eleven if you will. Another aspect is that it is driven by women who all at some point have their own agency as well as aims in life but never settle or give up even when what they are striving for may seem like a lost cause. Like many films that are set in a Royal Court or are about aristocracy this works well as we see the Queen from very different points of view, we see her from a commoners point, the lower class, the political point of view and from an upper class point of view as well with all that entails in terms of the treatment to and from each class, as well as deep manipulation with almost everyone involved.
“The Favourite” is set in 1708, Britain which is at war with France, and Queen Anne sits on the throne. In frail health due to gout, Anne shows little interest in governing, instead preferring eccentric activities such as racing ducks and playing with her rabbits, which represent the seventeen children she has lost over the years. Her confidante, adviser and secret lover Sarah Churchill, the Duchess of Marlborough, effectively rules the country by the confidences she passes to the Queen. Abigail Hill, Sarah’s impoverished younger cousin, arrives at Court in search of employment. Abigail is at first forced to do menial work as a scullery maid in the palace, but after seeing the Queen’s condition, she sees an opportunity to ingratiate herself with Sarah and, eventually, Queen Anne herself. To say that this story is simple is a crime; it has intrigue as well as humour that really does make it something very special.
The film is definitely given a boost as well as sending it into the top of peoples best films of the year in large part because of the performances of the three leads, who have also all been nominated for Academy Awards in Olivia Colman, Emma Stone and Rachel Weisz, they all do very different things while playing characters that could be seen as similar but are in fact extremely different. While technically onscreen less than her two co-stars this is very much Olivia Colman’s film, she shines in a role where she must almost be three different people sometimes in the same scene, she can be funny, loving, dramatic, coy and vicious all the while maintaining some semblance of royalty as the Queen. She also seems to be having the most fun in her role playing against two tough women who also shine. It is no small feat in wrestling the spotlight away from two Oscar winners in Emma Stone and Rachel Weisz. Both supporting actresses seem to be having a ball also in parts neither of them have ever played before, they are manipulative, calculating and above all have to seem to love the Queen at all time, attempting to one up the other at every turn without paying to any existing stereotype. I have to think it helps the director as well as Colman and Weisz that they have all worked together before on the breakthrough “The Lobster” which means they know just how to act in one of his films.
“The Favourite” is one of those unique films that mixes drama and comedy as well as bringing in many contemporary ideas, props, music, language and even dance numbers but it all feel like it fits naturally within the very simple narrative. It offers audiences a look into a life that is once alien but also instantly recognisable especially in the age we live now with fake news, an insane US government and court intrigue that today would be better suited to reality television and gossip magazines. To say that the writers have created something unique is an understatement, both Deborah Davis and Tony McNamara have never shown any ability to produce something as layered as this, it is politically astute as well as socially conscious in its representation of women as well as politicians. I have to believe that director Yorgos Lanthimos has also layered his own tastes as well as his own unique penchant for storytelling to make it personal for him, which it has, as this is one of the better most unique films of the past year.
This is without doubt one of the movies of 2018 with great actors and one of the best modern directors working today with an individual signature that sets him and his films apart from anyone working today. This is also a film that deserves to be seen in a cinema as it has a great sound as well as a magnificent look with a unique colour palette and a variety of lenses used to give it a feel of wonder, which is surprising in such a character based film. In a world where we are constantly spoon fed movies that are a dime a dozen or set themselves out to be just what you see it is refreshing to think that a film like “The Favourite” is still able to be produced to such a high degree and be seen by enough people that it can be considered a hit and a front runner at this years Oscars.
