Change Your Image
Holt344
Self-Published Author and cinephile.
Charm City Matters 📚
bit.ly/CharmCityMatters
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948)
The Treasure of the Sierra Madre is an incredible western, Humphrey Bogart is exceptional in the role, a masterpiece
The Treasure of the Sierra Madre is written and directed by John Huston, it's the first film of his I've seen but a film I've wanted to watch for a long time. Did it hold up to my high expectations? Oh yes. The direction and writing is exceptional, some of the best I've seen, throughout all eras of Hollywood and in film. The cinematography, editing and musical score were three other things that were brilliant. John Huston created a masterpiece, a film both critics and audience refer to sometimes as Huston's magnum opus and one of the greatest films of all time. I agree fully and can't wait to watch more of Huston's films, but first off, what's the film about?
The film's premise: Two down-on-their-luck Americans searching for work in 1920s Mexico convince an old prospector to help them mine for gold in the Sierra Madre Mountains.
The film begins like the premise says, Fred C. Dobbs and Bob Curtin played by Humphrey Bogart and Tim Holt respectively, are having bad luck and are barely getting by. The film's first 20 minutes or so are us getting to know these characters, the pacing is perfect because of how the scenes are written and how they're edited. The next scene is on a train and a bandit attack happens, this is our first action sequence and John Huston shows the audience how he can direct action and drama as great, showing off true artistry and getting people hooked. Then the main characters continue their way to the Sierra Madre Mountains, along with Howard played brilliantly by Walter Huston (who's the director's father). What's interesting with this film is how it's set in 1925, making it a neo western, yet having it set in Mexico and being shot on location there. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre was one of the early Hollywood productions to be shot on location outside the United States, with extensive location shooting in Mexico. Having the story take place in Mexico, makes the film into more of a western. The land is wild, the bandits have a huge part in the story in how the film leans into tension and suspension. Honestly, each scene with dialogue with these three characters are interesting to watch, Huston writes with realism in mind and I never once felt the writing was bad or unrealistic. I won't go into any spoilers in this review, so I'll end it there. For a film made in 1949 with the length of 126 minutes, I found that The Treasure of the Sierra Madre has aged like fine wine, John Huston created a masterpiece with likeable characters you root for and that you can easily see yourself in. The film is often described as a story about the corrupting influence of greed. Film critic Roger Ebert expanded upon this idea, writing "The movie has never really been about gold but about character." Reviewers have also noted the importance of greed and gold and of nature and its desolateness as an influence on the actions of the men. However, the film's ability to comment on human nature generally has been doubted as Dobbs is evidently flawed from the outset. This is the extra layer of realism of the story and characters that Huston executed perfectly. The film was both a critical and commercial success, winning three Academy Awards - Best Director and Best Screenplay for John Huston, and Best Supporting Actor for Walter Huston. It also won the BAFTA Award for Best Film and the Golden Globe Award for Best Picture. I get how Walter Huston won an award but Humphrey Bogart was truly magnificent in the role as Fred C. Dobbs, having the film's best performance and a reason alone to watch the film. You could easily analyze Bogart's acting, the writing of Dobbs, how this character is among the best written characters in cinema. Roger Ebert wrote this in his review, "The movie has never really been about gold but about character, and Bogart fearlessly makes Fred C. Dobbs into a pathetic, frightened, selfish man -- so sick we would be tempted to pity him, if he were not so undeserving of pity." Although Tim Holt didn't do anything special with his performance, I think you shouldn't forget about him because of his presence and how he portrays the character. To finish my review, I'll quote Bosley Crowther from The New York Times, "Mr. Huston has shaped a searching drama of the collision of civilization's vicious greeds with the instinct for self-preservation in an environment where all the barriers are down. And, by charting the moods of his prospectors after they have hit a vein of gold, he has done a superb illumination of basic characteristics in men. One might almost reckon that he has filmed an intentional comment here upon the irony of avarice in individuals and in nations today...But don't let this note of intelligence distract your attention from the fact that Mr. Huston is putting it over in a most vivid and exciting action display."
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 (2011)
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows ends like it began, magical and exceptional, incredible direction and acting
The grand finale, the film that made $1.342 billion at the box office, an event on the same scale as Star Wars. Splitting up the seventh book into two parts was the best thing they could do, leaving the second part to solely be about the final battle after having a part with character development and the characters at their most hopeless. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 is directed by David Yates and written by Steve Kloves, Yates takes each scene and makes each one iconic. The mise-en-scene is incredible and all from the props used to the makeup and costume departments, to the way Yates used the lighting and shot the scenes with the actors.
The film stars an ensemble cast consisting of Daniel Radcliffe as Harry Potter, and Rupert Grint and Emma Watson as Harry's best friends, Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger, alongside Helena Bonham Carter, Robbie Coltrane, Warwick Davis, Ralph Fiennes, Michael Gambon, John Hurt, Jason Isaacs, Gary Oldman, Alan Rickman, Tom Felton, Maggie Smith, David Thewlis, and Julie Walters. There were a couple of great performances, sadly a lot of these actors have a couple of minutes of screen time.
The film's premise: Harry, Ron, and Hermione search for Voldemort's remaining Horcruxes in their effort to destroy the Dark Lord as the final battle rages on at Hogwarts.
The film wastes no time in getting into the action, how you may ask? It begins immediately after the previous part and Harry Potter and his best friends are on the hunt for Horcruxes and it leads them to break into Bellatrix Lestrange's vault at Gringotts bank. This is a great action sequence with some incredible filmmaking behind it, Yates made a sequence that stuck with me since the first time I watched the film, into one of the most iconic moments in Harry Potter. The musical score is incredible and Alexandre Desplat never lets you down with his superb musical score, with this sequence or the rest. This sequence shows how great the production design is, along with the scenes at Hogwarts and overall the whole film. The build up to the battle of Hogwarts has Snape having a quick and actually great scene/duel with McGonagall which ends with him escaping, later as Harry and his friends are getting another Horcrux, they end up in a chase by Draco Malfoy and his two friends. It's a scene with action, suspense and character drama with the golden trio saving the lives of Draco and his remaining friend as one of them possibly died by his own hand. Then comes what I believe to be the strongest and most emotional scene in the entire film, Severus Snape's death by the hands of Voldemort and Harry acquiring Snape's tears to be able to see his memories where we learn of his relationship with Harry's mother and how he was in love with her, also his friendship with Dumbledore and their plan. One thing I wish they did was have more scenes involving Severus Snape, this film along with Part One. To be honest, that's been a problem I've been having the whole rewatch of these movies this time. In a minimum of scenes, Alan Rickman pulls off one of the film's performances and with his death scene he gives the film's best.
One criticism I've always had was how we never see any heroes really dying, there's no big emotional impact to it which makes it a missed opportunity and a flaw in the writing, characters like Remus Lupin and his wife Nymphadora Tonks along with long-time character Fred Weasley. Fred and Remus are two deaths we should have seen. I understand for pacing and perspective characters, neither of our trio were close to where they died, but this is a movie and not a book, we should have experienced their tragic deaths. Other than that, the Battle of Hogwarts is pretty great, because of the visual effects and direction. The final duel against Voldemort feels too easy, yet brilliantly shot. Don't get me wrong here, as a teenager, I used to love this final fight. But now, I just wish it was more epic like the duel with Dumbledore against Voldemort. There's no real life threatening suspense, narratively it is not, because of how safe it is written. Severus Snape's death is the most unexpected as we actually see it happen on screen, the only death with some emotional depth and impact. Bellatrix goes down extremely easily in a good action sequence against Molly Weasley.
What I didn't go into was the quieter and more dramatic moments in between the battle and action. Harry learns who Snape really was, also how he's the final Horcrux. Learning the truth and changing from hating Snape to respecting and liking Snape through his memories, it's brilliantly acted by Daniel Radcliffe and superbly directed by David Yates, sequences like that contribute so much to the story and movie. Then we have Harry dying and resurrecting himself, a scene which I never fully understood as a young Teen but understands now. It's a nice way for Harry, in limbo, choosing his 'family' instead of dying and spending his time with his true family, thus he gets resurrected through the Resurrection Stone and the final showdown between Harry and Voldemort begins. It's such a hard choice for Harry to do, which goes back to the first film with Harry standing next to the mirror and seeing his parents and all he wanted to do was to be with his parents again. Harry Potter's character arc comes full circle through this scene where he's in limbo and the hero's journey ends with the death of Voldemort. It was also nice that he spoke with Dumbledore's spirit inside, making his arc feel complete as well. Like Dumbledore's Phoenix, Fawkes, Harry Potter becomes reborn as well with knowing exactly who he is and who he wants to be. He's Harry Potter, a Gryffindor, as Voldemort is no longer a part of him.
What did the critics think? Most found it great, with The National Board of Review naming Deathly Hallows - Part 2 one of the top-ten films of 2011. Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times gave the film three and a half stars out of four and said, "The finale conjures up enough awe and solemnity to serve as an appropriate finale and a dramatic contrast to the lighthearted (relative) innocence of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone all those magical years ago." Richard Roeper, also from the Chicago Sun-Times, gave the film an A+ rating and said: "This is a masterful and worthy final chapter in one of the best franchises ever put to film." But there were also some who found it lackluster in comparison to the other films in the franchise, with Alonso Duralde from The Wrap writing, "If there's one substantial flaw to the film, it's that this cavalcade of people and places and objects can barely fit in the 130-minute running time." Honestly, that's the only thing worth criticizing, because of how this ensemble cast never gets the chance to truly explore their characters or places they are in. The film was nominated for three awards at the 84th Academy Awards and received numerous other accolades, like BAFTA. In my opinion, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 is a spectacular film, brilliantly directed and written, with performances you're sure gonna enjoy. It's a satisfying conclusion to a magical and exceptional franchise.
The Walking Dead: Daryl Dixon: Vouloir, C'est Pouvoir (2024)
The penultimate episode is good and entertaining, writing remains flawed and story feels rushed
"Vouloir, C'est Pouvoir" is the fifth episode of TWD: Daryl Dixon - The Book of Carol. It's directed by Daniel Percival and written by Jason Richman & David Zabel. The writing is better than the previous but still very flawed during some parts, mostly the treatment of the story. The direction is great, so are the cinematography and Percival's mise-en-scene. With solely one episode remaining, the season finale, this episode does everything right for building towards a finale. Yet, stumbling in some parts.
The episode's premise: A new faction of survivors hunt down Laurent. Carol's lies come to a head.
Is this episode better than the previous? An episode many liked but I found lackluster, I get why people liked it though as it was good in numerous of ways. This episode has Carol and Daryl visiting two settlements which we last saw in season one, Fallou Boukar's small rooftop community and the Demimonde (an underground nightclub). They search for Ash who disappeared, which is actually understandable but it feels like the plot has been all over the place this season with no real goal. One thing I liked about this episode was the subplot revolving Stéphane Codron at the rooftop community, a character I've always liked and Romain Levi is great in the role. His scenes with Boukar and Laurent were great. Losang and his group come armed to the teeth to the rooftop community, actual suspension and tension, I strongly believe it's because of how Daryl and Carol are at a completely separate location. The musical score is great here. At the Pouvoir's base of operations our heroes find Ash stuck in a vehicle, I have no idea why he ran all the way over there, makes no sense but alright. Another thing I don't get is both Daryl and Carol go inside the car when there's so many more Walkers incoming, when we know they're smarter than that. The writers want faster pacing though, that's why. Although the camera work was great, I didn't find the action sequence very good, it was average, mostly because of no real tension or suspension. The special effects and makeup for the zonbies were great though, I always love the work Greg Nicotero does for the show. In the episode's climax, inside the catacombs, Daryl gets help from Codron to get Laurent to safety. Daryl is up against Losang whilst Codron fights Jacinta who he spares for some unknown reason solely for the plot to continue, writing like that isn't good. Why? Because he brutally kills a paramilitary guy who acted like a scared little boy whilst Jacinta was not scared. At least Losang dies, brutally. It's a great action sequence. When Carol tells Ash the truth, he becomes angry and Carol begins to cry a little bit. She did something horrible, manipulating him into doing something he didn't want to do because of her telling him she's searching for Sophia. Honestly, I haven't liked Carol this season, the writing hasn't been very good for her because of how out of character she has been. I understand why David Zabel wrote her like that, because she has been a morally grey character for a long time, like when she lies and plays a role as a housewife. That's manipulation she would do, using Sophia doesn't feel like her. The 'twist' with the plane holding only three people, it made sense and didn't come as a surprise. I just find it quite ridiculous that Losang became the villain after Genet died, a great death but not right for the story, as Losang dies which leaves Jacinta as the antagonist for the finale, a one dimensional character. It feels like the writers have taken a page out of Fear TWD's notebook, antagonist getting killed and then changed to a worse character until the final one arrives. Genet was made into a three dimensional character this season, Losang was two dimensional at best and when he became an interesting antagonist in this episode he dies, leaving us with Jacinta. The tension and suspension, my expectations of the finale have now grown from quite large to almost non at all. Jacinta isn't a terrifying villain nor do I think anyone will die and if Codron dies I'm losing faith of the show's writing. Remove some plot armor, allow our heroes to be human and be injured.
As the penultimate episode "Vouloir, C'est Pouvoir" is quite good and entertaining with some good and great performances, mostly from Norman Reedus and Melissa McBride but also from Romain Levi and Manish Dayal. Losang was quite laughable this episode, a comical one dimensional character, a character that had potential to be three dimensional if they would have focused on a slower paced season, but they wanted to rush things. Something The Ones Who Live did too, rushing the story, a story and plot you could easily have two seasons for (three in Daryl Dixon). Although I didn't like the writing, it was better, there was a lot of things they did right with it.
The Penguin: Gold Summit (2024)
"Gold Summit" is as much a build up episode as it's an exceptional hour of television, brilliantly acted and written
"Gold Summit" is the sixth episode of The Penguin, it's directed by Kevin Bray and written by Nick Towne. Both their work were exceptional, so were the editing and cinematography. What were the highlights? I would have to say the acting and the emotional tone other than the writing and direction. Colin Farrell, Deirdre O'Connell and Rhenzy Feliz were spectacular in this episode, award worthy.
The episode's premise: Despite his enemies' attempts to smoke him out, Oz seeks to expand his reach in the city. Meanwhile, Victor crosses paths with a former adversary.
The episode begins what I believe is a week after the previous episode with Oz Cobb's HQ up and running and it's now winter. Then we follow Oz as he walks around talking with Victor, Colin Farrell has so much dialogue in this scene, he excels on both the dialogue and the more subtle things of his acting like the facial expressions and the way he moves. Then we follow Sofia Falcone and her scene with Salvatore Maroni, two great performances by Cristin Milioti and Clancy Brown, a scene that's brilliantly written and directed. I love the mise-en-scene here. One of my favorite scenes in this episode was actually the scene with Oz and his mother, where she tells him how she wants to die with dignity and not like a vegetable. It feels natural for someone with dementia, at least someone like Francis Cobb. We have only seen her dementia deteriorate throughout the season and it's such a well written scene, superbly acted by Colin Farrell and Deirdre O'Connell, especially O'Connell. Her performance might be the best performance of this episode. But another who was great was Rhenzy Feliz who plays Victor, the reason is when he shoots Squid a regular thug but it's the way he does it, pleading for forgiveness as the man is bleeding out from a gun wound to the throat. This is not how I expected the event would turn out and that's what I love about this show, it's unpredictable, both the tension and suspension is there and it's real. Some other shows have tension but when everything is predictable and characters with plot armor, we never get to sit on the edge of our seats. The episode begins with the power back on, Victor and Francis dancing whilst Sofia is watching them from the door. Right after Oz has created a partnership what I guess is every organization except for Maroni and the Gigante's. This is how you end an episode, a cliffhanger with you wanting to start the next episode immediately.
What did some critics think of the episode? I absolutely loved it. Andy Andersen of Vulture gave the episode a 4 star rating out of 5 and wrote, "It's hardly a spoiler to point out that The Penguin is about Oz Cobb's rise to power, and "Gold Summit" shows us what'll get him to the top of the Gotham heap in the end. Every crumbling institution of the city - from the halls of justice to the backrooms of Crown Point - is a pressure point that demands attention. And Oz knows you have to work them all to rule them all." William Hughes of The A. V. Club gave the episode a "B+" grade and wrote, "It's possible, on reflection, that this is The Penguin operating as it's intended to: a tense, quick-moving drama that milks genuine unease out of the damaged personalities at its core. (The episode's most emotionally unsettling moment has nothing to do with mob shenanigans or implied threats, and comes instead as Oz and Vic get into a queasy sibling rivalry about how best to keep Francis happy.) But it continues to fail to make its case that The Penguin himself is a figure worthy of this level of TV scrutiny. Interesting things happen here, interesting scenes are created, interesting performances deployed. But is this an interesting story? Jury's still out, which is rough news with just two episodes left to go." In my opinion, The Penguin's story is an interesting story, making the story more complex and bigger with Sofia being a main character makes for different sides of who Oz is. Is this someone we want to win? As if we would solely get his perspective, we wouldn't understand how his actions hurt other people so much. Like Alberto for example, when Oz killed him in the first episode, we were in Oz shoes and thus made for a cool scene with Oz on the top but my opinion have changed. I think the story is great and also interesting. IGN gave the episode an 6/10 and wrote "But while 'Gold Summit' does necessary work to drive towards the endgame battle between Oz and Sofia, the seemingly never-ending sense of buildup has me impatiently waiting for the inevitable climax.". The build up and focus on crime drama is what the show have always been about, this isn't like DC's Peacemaker, it's more like HBO's The Sopranos, a slow burn crime drama that focuses on its characters and their actions more than getting to the big climax. I've always felt that those critics have never understood the show, I believed it would be a faster paced show but that was in the first episode before I knew what kind of story it was telling. Francis Cobb is an important character, played by the brilliant Deirdre O'Connell. What character does she remind me of? The narcissistic, disapproving and manipulative mother, Livia Soprano. I think the story is great and I'm looking forward to the next episode.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1 (2010)
The Deathly Hallows - Part One is a great character driven fantasy film with great acting and direction, dragged down by a lackluster first act
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1 is directed by David Yates and written by Steve Kloves. Yates returns with his third Harry Potter film, I would say he does what he's best at here, creating this fantastical world and making sure it looks amazing and believable whilst keeping the drama at the forefront. The film is action packed and full of suspense, with small moments where the pacing and plot slows down, for character moments. As Davis Yates divided the Deathly Hallows book into two films, this part is all about building up to the upcoming events at the same time as developing the trio and having them on an adventure to find and destroy the Horcruxes. Each character of the trio, Harry Potter, Hermione Granger and Ron Weasley, gets time to develop along with moments they seriously kick ass. Two major things with this film along with Part Two is how the cinematography and musical score is spectacular, Eduardo Serra and Alexandre Desplat respectively. The film was nominated for Best Art Direction and Best Visual Effects at the 83rd Academy Awards, worthy of nominations if you ask me.
The film's premise: As Harry, Ron and Hermione race against time and evil to destroy the Horcruxes, they uncover the existence of the three most powerful objects in the wizarding world: the Deathly Hallows.
Roger Ebert awarded the first part three out of four stars, praising the cast and calling it "a handsome and sometimes harrowing film, and will be completely unintelligible for anyone coming to the series for the first time." Honestly, if a newcomer would sit down and watch this film, it would be quite an uninteresting experience as there's so much information and story you need to know along with films you have to watch to understand this film. The Deathly Hallows, two of the items are introduced in the first Harry Potter film which are the Philosopher's Stone and the Cloak of Invisibility whilst the Elder Wand have always been possessed by Dumbledore. One sub-plot which really doesn't work for me is when Ron Weasley is under the influence of the Slytherin's Locket (a Horcrux) and gets jealous of Harry spending time with Hermione, very original as you clearly see the inspiration from Lord of the Rings and the One Ring. I didn't like this writing choice as I clearly feel there would be a better way for Ron to ultimately come to the conclusion he's in love with Hermione. This film has the trio out in the wild, away from Hogwarts and the magical world for the majority of time. Although I disliked the writing choice here, it remains a good scene because of the drama and great acting in it but also of the great character development. Ron Weasley sees his two worst nightmares come forward in front of him when they destroy the locket, he sees spiders but also Harry and Hermione kissing. This comes after Ron had left and returned to save Harry Potter and found the Gryffindor sword. It's a heroic moment which honestly makes me dislike the scene earlier in the movie quite petty, but it's something I have never liked after my numerous viewings. With that criticism out of the way, I found myself appreciating this film much more during this rewatch mostly because I'm older and are nowadays a cinephile. The cinematography and direction is incredible, stunningly shot and a mise-en-scene which brings so much to each scene, each shot. The editing is mostly great, with solely the chase sequence in the woods to be really terrible, unfortunately. I found the first act to be quite all over the place, stuff happening off camera and we solely get action, also the sequence inside the Ministry of Magic was only decent. The second and third acts were great though. Before the sequence inside the Ministry of Magic, we get to see the wedding of Bill Weasley and Fleur Delacour and this serves as the last time we see everyone together until Part Two, the sequence ends with the Death Eaters attacking and the trio escapes not knowing who survived. This event sets up multiple subplots, mostly Ron Weasley who're listening to the radio for knowledge of any survivors, that along with Hermione wiping the memory of her parents, makes each member of the trio without any hope in their bodies except for one thing, finding the remaining Horcruxes. In doing all this, there's a subplot following Voldemort as he takes Lucius Malfoy's wand, when noticing it didn't work as he tried to kill Harry Potter, Voldemort begins a quest of his own, finding the Elder Wand. The Elder Wand's backstory is covered in the animated Deathly Hallows scene but also through Dumbledore's story, a subplot along with Voldemort's where Grindelwald is introduced. Grindelwald is a dark lord which had history with Dumbledore along with a famous duel, parts of their history is covered in the Fantastic Beasts films but sadly never the famous duel. I found all these plots interesting and entertaining, also well written and superbly executed by Yates.
One thing the Harry Potter franchise knows to do, is to create an epic and exceptional climax. The ending in this film has Dobby dying after saving Harry Potter and the gang, then Voldemort acquiring the Elder Wand. What does this mean you might ask? Voldemort has acquired the best and most dangerous wand in the history which will make him able to kill Harry Potter, whilst Harry Potter and the group is safe once again but with one of their teammates dead. Order of the Phoenix is down several members now, with Dobby hitting the hardest since Dumbledore in the prior film, Alastor 'Mad-Eye' Moody died in the beginning of the film but didn't hit as hard because we hardly getting to know the character after his introduction in the third film (where the real Moody was introduced in the ending). Bellatrix Lestrange might have the highest kill count and she's brilliantly played by Helena Bonham Carter who captures the antagonistic side perfectly along with this craziness to her. The cast includes: Helena Bonham Carter, Robbie Coltrane, Warwick Davis, Ralph Fiennes, Brendan Gleeson, Richard Griffiths, John Hurt, Jason Isaacs, Alan Rickman, Fiona Shaw
Timothy Spall, Imelda Staunton, David Thewlis, Julie Walters and Tom Felton along with others. Most notably we have the trio; Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson. These three are incredible throughout this film, pulling off something they wouldn't have been able to before, leading an entire film together. Part one of Deathly Hallows is great and has a lot that a fan will like, David Yates created a great fantasy film with mature themes.
The Walking Dead: Daryl Dixon: Le Paradis Pour Toi (2024)
"Le Paradis Pour Toi" is a good episode of Daryl Dixon through its performances and filmmaking aspects, unfortunately the writing drags the rating down
"Le Paradis Pour Toi" is the fourth episode of the second season titled TWD: Daryl Dixon - The Book of Carol, it's directed by Michael Slovis and written by Jason Richman & David Zabel. In my review I'll be giving the episode some praise but also some criticism. To summarize, I found the filmmaking aspects to be absolutely fantastic and same for the acting, and the writing was sadly very lackluster.
The episode's premise: All hope feels lost as Genet begins an attack on the Nest.
The episode begins with Carol escaping, the writing is sadly terrible in this scene as I would never believe they would react so slowly or the walkers not kill her. They should have never placed Carol in that situation because of the plot armor she wears. I like what happens after though, Genet's attack begins and Codron is back, there's some good direction in the scene where the Walkers attack and inside with the scene shared by Isabelle and Losang, great dialogue and writing there. The scene ends with Losang critically injuring Isabelle and she later dies in Daryl's arms, in some ways I expected this to happen but never wanted to. Isabelle was my favorite character of this show, after Daryl, so this hurt. Norman Reedus and Clémence Poésy were terrific in this scene. But why did the writers make her do something so stupid? Trying to kill Losang. That kind of writing is what's hurting this show and the whole franchise, always using tropes that hurt the original show, what does this remind you of? Beth's death scene which was terrible writing. It's good that Carol and Daryl are finally together again, the scenes they share together are the best dialogue and writing Carol has had this whole season, which is unfortunate. Their scenes are simply great. I do think the whole story with this older couple and their stay with them worked, but just two episodes left I think they could have used the time better. The focus on Carol's Psyche and trauma were a highlight. I do think the acting of the older couple were quite great. The climax was great, plenty of suspense and tension, but I got a problem with it. First of all, the mise-en-scene and cinematography was incredible. Each frame was perfect. But to the negative, that is the writing. The whole fight, no one of our heroes gets injured, Genet dies and the episode ends with Losang becoming the leader of both organizations which combine into one. Both these events were quite lackluster, not good at all. Genet is the leader and shouldn't even be there, making house calls, her second in command should be doing stuff like this and a well written script would have placed her there at the older couple's house. Two ridiculous deaths full of bad writing in an episode which could easily have been the season's best.
The Penguin: Homecoming (2024)
"Homecoming" offers compelling writing and great acting, an incredible hour of television full of suspense
"Homecoming" is the fifth episode of The Penguin, written by co-producers Breannah Gibson and Shaye Ogbonna, and directed by Helen Shaver who directed the previous episode. Whilst the previous episode focused on Sofia Falcone, her backstory and what she did after learning how Oz had backstabbed her. This episode brings the focus back to Ozwald Cobb and his protege Victor. The filmmaking aspects and story, is all terrific. You're in for an unforgettable ride.
The episode's premise: With his nascent operation at stake, Oz makes a desperate move to turn the tables. Meanwhile, Sofia strives to build a new legacy for herself.
The episode begins with a fast pacing, where Oz grabs Taj who is the son of Salvatore Maroni in order to cut a deal with him. But his goals are much grander, there are twists and turns in the story both with Oz and Sofia, but we see Oz take out both Salvatore along with his wife and Taj whilst grabbing the mushrooms (drugs). Salvatore managed to survive the assassination attempt and just wow, there's suspense and tension throughout the whole episode after this moment as we know no one is safe. In the previous episode Sofia killed almost everyone in the Crime Family, now Oz is making his play against the Maroni's. Concurrent with Sofia creating a new Crime Family, the Gigante Crime Family, and another twist comes when she unexpectedly shoots Johnny Viti (the Under Boss). After we saw them bonding or what we thought was bonding, inside the mausoleum, it was Sofia playing him to get more followers. Then there's another twist, all well written I might add, where Sofia makes a plan with Salvatore to combine their forces. The tone of this episode has been perfect, making us appreciate the lighter tone of the two first episodes before each powerplay and plan went into motion. The writing is compelling with complex characters that each stand out, with myself not knowing who to root for if it's Oz or Sofia. This is how you create a morally grey crime show, with you understanding both lead characters. Colin Farrell and Cristin Milioti are absolutely fantastic in this episode, although they don't share any scenes I wouldn't say that's needed. Other performances worth praising are Clancy Brown as Salvatore Maroni and Michael Kelly as Johnny Viti. With this episode, with all the twists happening, the director and the writers did a phenomenal job. There's something interesting happening in every frame, in every shot, and in an episode that could easily been a trainwreck. Yet, it's far from it, it's easily one of the best episodes that keeps its focus on trauma, a theme we have seen throughout the show from both leads.
Bastarden (2023)
The Promised Land has some great writing and direction but also one of Mads Mikkelsen's best performances, a cinematic masterpiece
The Promised Land is an epic historical drama film directed by Nikolaj Arcel and written by Arcel and Anders Thomas Jensen. The writing is actually quite magnificent, also the dialogue. The direction and cinematography is remarkable and two highlights. There's so many brilliant shots in this, the mise-en-scene is perfect. The costume and makeup departments did an amazing job. Two things worth praising are the on set location and the natural lighting used, making the film look so much better and adds a layer to the epicness. The film explores themes of racism, classism, sexual violence, and exploitation of labour. Whilst being a story about romance, drama, and revenge. The cast includes: Mads Mikkelsen, Amanda Collin and Simon Bennebjerg. Kristine Kujath Thorp, Gustav Lindh, Jakob Lohmann, Morten Hee Andersen, Magnus Krepper and Felix Kramer in supporting roles.
The film's premise: The story of Danish soldier and explorer Ludvig Kahlen, who explored and cultivated Denmark's wild Jutland, which now comprises the vast majority of the country, in the mid-18th century.
Right from the beginning, we are taken to this time and age with a quick text telling us the historical events and what's happening in Jutland, showing who Mads Mikkelsen's Ludvig Kahlen is in a matter of seconds thanks to the visual storytelling. The film is quite slow paced, letting us the audience get a feeling of the land and follow Ludvig as he begins to farm. 20 minutes into the film, we get introduced to Frederik Schinkel who is the owner of the land but as Ludvig stands by its the king's who he's personally working for. Ludvig and him have a rivalry throughout the film, we get to see Mikkelsen's character go through various things and he's written perfectly. His relationship with Ann Barbara (played brilliantly by Amanda Collin) and the child Anmai Mus (Melina Hagberg) is two characters that bring other emotions to the character, making Mikkelsen able to give more emotions with his performance. The character goes through an arc and it's a great one, wanting to prove himself for both himself and to the upper class but understands that he needs to improve himself and be better than the upper class. Ludvig's character development and portrayal are exceptional and a joy to watch. I'm so happy Mads Mikkelsen is playing these complex roles, showing he's one of the best and most underrated actors of his generation. The film's climax has Ludvig seek revenge and it's executed so perfectly, for example the direction and cinematography, the musical score does so much in making it more suspenseful and dramatic. Overall, what happens in the final half hour is brilliantly executed, superbly written and directed. The Promised Land was nominated for the Golden Lion, the biggest prize at the Venice International Film Festival, and for a good reason because this was one of the best films of 2023.
Heaven's Gate (1980)
Heaven's Gate is a flawed masterpiece, an unforgettable cinematic experience about the Johnson County War
Right off the big win that was The Deer Hunter (1978) which won 5 Oscars including Best Picture, Michael Cimino created the western epic Heaven's Gate (1980) which unfortunately flopped and was re-released with a trimmed and re-cut version which was hated by critics. The film's financial failure resulted in Transamerica selling United Artists to Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, ending their existence as an independent studio. Why this big history reason you might say? Well there's five cuts of this film, I watched the fifth and newest one which is the digitally restored Director's Cut: 216 minutes. I have always wanted to watch this version and not the 149 minute cut which a friend of mine began watching before quitting 30 minutes into the film. The 1981 re-edit has been characterized as "one of the greatest injustices of cinematic history", while later re-edits have received critical acclaim. In 2015, BBC Culture ranked Heaven's Gate 98th on its list of the 100 greatest American films of all time. Cimino had an expensive and ambitious vision for the film, pushing it nearly four times over its planned budget. But it's that vision we ended up seeing and it's such a great film, possibly one of the best epics I've seen. The plot is big and slow paced, every shot is perfectly photographed, with Vilmos Zsigmond serving as the cinematographer. The cast includes: Kris Kristofferson, Christopher Walken, John Hurt, Sam Waterston, Brad Dourif, Isabelle Huppert, Jeff Bridges and Joseph Cotten. I've to say that John Hurt is truly magnificent and holds one of the best performances, although he's not in the film very much which is unfortunate. Both Kris Kristofferson and Christopher Walken are incredible. Going into this film I had only heard good things about Isabelle Huppert who plays Ella, but in terms of this performance I didn't really like it, although I didn't like her performance and the character very much it ended up growing on me but her introduction was quite ridiculous if you ask me with wooden acting. I do think it's because her being French and English is not her native language. In the final half of the film, she and Christopher Walken just excel in every scene. Jeff Bridges is also great throughout the film, I read how he actually played his ancestor who were a saloon keeper, with Cimino adding more scenes throughout the production.
The film's premise: During the Johnson County War in 1890 Wyoming, a sheriff born into wealth does his best to protect immigrant farmers from rich cattle interests.
You know when the film is an epic when it's a slow start, slowly building up to events inside a big building with tons of extras and a set worthy to brag about. The Harvard sequence could have been trimmed sure, but it's the way Michael Cimino shoots it and the mise-en-scene he uses, how brilliantly shot and created it is. From out on the streets with the orchestra playing, building up events and suspense, then to the incredible sequence when Reverend Doctor is talking where every frame is like a piece of a painting. Cimino shows us how cinema can be art. The beginning also introduces two young men, Jim Averill and Billy Irvine as they graduate, played by Kris Kristofferson and John Hurt respectively. Twenty years later, in 1890, Averill is passing through the booming town of Casper, Wyoming, on his way north to Johnson County, where he is now a marshal. We followed those two characters for almost 20 minutes as graduates until we got to the story in Johnson County. You see, the film is loosely based on the Johnson County War. It revolves around a dispute between land barons and European immigrants in Wyoming in the 1890s. Normally in Hollywood films everyone is clean, in Heaven's Gate, as we see in the sequence in the town 'Casper' there's so many that are dirty. The costume and makeup departments are truly remarkable throughout the film. There's one specific here which I absolutely loved, the camera moves to a wide shot letting us see the whole town and the set is both massive and impressive, then the camera just lingers and it increases the immersion so much. Making it feel like a real city.
Although I loved the film, it isn't perfect as it's flawed around the corners, for example the sound is not the best at times. You notice how it's shot on location and that's the most impressive part of it and why it looks so incredible, there's a scene about an hour into the film where the wind is so strong that you almost solely hear it. Is it realistic? Yes. Does it make for a good movie? Not necessarily, but it depends on how you think. As so much is natural sound, you get this extra layer of realism and immersion, and as the film doesn't use a musical score that much all this sound makes for an alternative for the soundtrack. Another scene is the cockfighting where there's so many voices, so much noise, and two roosters fighting to death with blades on their feet which is something I've never seen before but is so accurate (sadly). Another thing to criticize is the huge amount of smoke outside, Roger Ebert wrote this regarding it although he only watched the shorter version, "There are clouds and billows of dirty yellow smoke in every shot that can possibly justify it, and when he runs out of smoke he gives us fog and such incredible amounts of dust that there are whole scenes where we can barely see anything.". Now, I don't fully agree with that, yet there are certain moments which bothered me and it's the short scene outside during the roller skate sequence. That's one example which destroyed a scene for me, one of the only examples I was bothered by, there's so much smoke because of immersion purposes, but not every time. The fog is what bothers me the most. During the final 90 minutes, we get to see more gunfights and it's incredible. The guns pack serious punch and sound amazing too. When Canton, Wolcott and their men encounter one of Champion's friends leaving a cabin with Champion and his friend Nick Ray inside, and a gunfight ensues. This sequence is high on action, also dramatically with such emotional payoff and impact. With all this build up, the sequence just hits right on every aspect. It ends with what I now believe is one of the best deaths in cinema, Christopher Walken were truly brilliant in that whole scene and making Champion's death even more emotional, again, the direction here by Cimino is excellent and his perfection made the scene iconic. Just wow. John Hurt had almost no dialogue in the whole sequence but he speaks more with his facial expressions than hundred words would, brilliant. Then we have the climax, the anticipated battle, which when you think about it... How stupid it really is how normal settlers/homesteaders are in war with these rich people, because of land, greed and lust. This sequence is complete chaotic, in a good way, because that's war for you, pure chaos. What I found interesting is how the director focused now and again on the scenery, impossible not to but it's such gorgeous scenery, but also of Irvine who were being comedic in a time of death. Why did he think of Paris and happy memories, why did he talk about Paris. In my opinion, he never used a gun and was drunk half the time, possibly because of him not really wanting to go through it but were a coward. He was just scared and nervous, nervous people can talk too much. Then he dies, a death I didn't expect. Afterwards comes stage two of the battle, when the homesteaders have built barricades and so on, and Averill joins the fight. The fight becomes more even, the homesteaders using strategy. This sequence has some terrific filmmaking by Michael Cimino and honestly it's a great conclusion to the story and tension he have building towards, the writing have been great, and the pacing actually quite good. There's one thing that I didn't expect, Ella's death, I jumped from my seat out of the unexpectedness. That's how you direct an ending to your film, a sense of hope before Cimino flips it around.
Many critics disliked or outward hated the film back when it released, now when it has been reassessed. Writing in the New York Times, critic Manohla Dargis said of the restoration that it "looks good projected, if surprisingly bright", and "it also appears to be an act of directorial revisionism." Of the film itself she writes: "The film's scope, natural backdrops, massive sets, complex choreography and cinematography are seductive, at times stunning, and if you like watching swirling people and cameras, you may love it." I agree fully with her. With a film on this scale, with such attention to detail and accuracy, in every single frame and scene. It can be overwhelming in certain ways, needing a rewatch. The art direction, set design, production design, direction and cinematography are all perfect. I do find the writing to be quite great, from story and arcs, the dialogue too. But I find that some characters could have been better written, also for example Ella being raped was unnecessary in my opinion as it did nothing to her story. Shock value for the sake of shock. These kinds of epics are films you'll rarely get to experience nowadays, where a director gets too much freedom and goes over budget, creating something that becomes controversial. One example of this year (2024) is Francis Ford Coppola's Megalopolis which has made $11,387,365 million out of a budget of $120-136 million, the difference here is Coppola lost his own money whilst Cimino bankrupted a company. My honest opinion, Heaven's Gate didn't feel like Horizon: An American Saga Chapter 1 in a way that everything moved quickly and time flew away. Instead, the film felt really long and it was 209 minutes after all, yet there were sequences that wasn't edited very good I believe which caused the pacing to slow down a bit too much. But Heaven's Gate was incredible, a piece of art, and I'm glad it's getting more favorable reviews and response now. It's a great film.
Inside Llewyn Davis (2013)
Inside Llewyn Davis is brilliantly written and masterly directed, containing Oscar Isaac in one of his best performances, it's slow paced but magnificent
'Inside Llewyn Davis' is a great drama-black comedy which is written, directed, produced, and edited by Joel and Ethan Coen. This might be their most underrated film, one that didn't hit mainstream but can justifiably be called one of their best, it also contains one if not the best performance of Oscar Isaac. There's drama, a bit of comedy with his comedic timing, and also just an actor doing a terrific job doing multiple things at the same time. For example, Isaac plays the guitar simultaneously as he's acting and staying in character, flawlessly. In my opinion, this is hands down one of his best performances and it's so interesting how this was his breakthrough role. A. O. Scott of The New York Times writes, "Llewyn's repertoire and some aspects of his background are borrowed from Dave Van Ronk, who loomed large on the New York folk scene in its pre-Bob Dylan hootenanny-and-autoharp phase. Oscar Isaac, who plays both Llewyn and the guitar with offhand virtuosity, is slighter of build and scowlier of mien than Van Ronk, with a fine, clear tenor singing voice...Mr. Isaac, a versatile character actor here ascending to the highest levels of his craft, refuses the easy road of charm. Like his character, he trusts his own professionalism and the integrity of the material." The supporting cast includes Carey Mulligan, John Goodman, Garrett Hedlund, F. Murray Abraham, Justin Timberlake and Adam Driver.
The film's premise: A week in the life of a young singer as he navigates the Greenwich Village folk scene of 1961.
For this review I'm keeping it spoiler free so I won't go into any details, but I absolutely loved the story, as we follow Llewyn Davis for one week we grow to care for him, he's extremely flawed and could be seen as a nobody, yet he's an everyman. The Coen brothers wrote this character so realistic, like everyone else but especially him. They found an actor who played the part perfectly, their direction is felt in every scene. Their mise-en-scene is absolutely fantastic, so is the camera work and composition. Every shot is perfect and who else contributes to the spectacular shots? Bruno Delbonnel who served as the cinematographer and I have nothing but praise for his work on this film, the choice of lens and look of the film. Combined, these three have created such a beautiful looking film. The Coen brothers creates such great drama and comedy, but I absolutely loved the music which is played by numerous of actors but especially Oscar Isaac, music that is played on set by them. The film was nominated for two Academy Awards (Best Cinematography and Best Sound Mixing), both well earned but I want to go deeper into the sound mixing. Mostly for the music, but I absolutely loved one thing which increases the drama significantly and it's whenever something bad happens to Llewyn Davis the sound grows louder, and we see that halfway through the film when Davis takes a seat on a subway like he normally does but now the sound is loud and we hear everything louder than before as a man is looking at him. Where a similar scene was played out with a more natural sound, thus emphasizing things are getting worse after time. The Coen brothers shows how the visuals and cinematography is as important as the sound for this film. The film also was nominated for three Golden Globe Awards (Best Motion Picture - Comedy or Musical, Best Actor - Motion Picture Musical or Comedy (Isaac) and Best Original Song).
'Inside Llewyn Davis' is a flawless film, beloved by critics and the audience. Todd McCarthy of The Hollywood Reporter called the film "an outstanding fictional take on the early 1960s folk music scene", praising the "fresh, resonant folk soundtrack", and said Isaac's performance "deftly manages the task of making Llewyn compulsively watchable". Many film critics had this on their best films lists of 2010's, it might be one of the best films released in 2013. With a great lead and a supporting cast whom all gives terrific performances, this is a film you need to watch, yet there's one thing you could criticize if you want. The film has quite a slow pacing and that can either be something that will make you find the film less good or be at peace with it, being at peace with the slower pacing makes the film into the spectacular film it is with each scene and moment brilliant as the next. There's also no real plot with Joel Coen saying "That concerned us at one point; that's why we threw the cat in." I found that a negative thing at first but films like this are special, it's solely about the character and the writing is excellent. I'll finish off my review with Peter Bradshaw from The Guardian who gave the film the highest score, "Brilliantly written, terrifically acted, superbly designed and shot; it's a sweet, sad, funny picture about the lost world of folk music which effortlessly immerses us in the period." I agree fully.
The Walking Dead: Daryl Dixon: L'Invisible (2024)
"L'Invisible" is a mixed bag, there's things I loved and things I didn't like, overall a good episode with Anne Charrier giving a brilliant performance as Genet
Where did the previous episode leave us? Carol is in Paris and has been taken and is working for the Pouvoir, whilst Daryl and Isabelle were backstabbed along with their ally Fallou by Losang and his followers who have been the good guys up until now. The clock is ticking, will Carol find Daryl and will Daryl rescue Laurent? These are two plot points in this episode. "L'Invisible" is the third episode of The Walking Dead: Daryl Dixon - The Book of Carol, it's directed by Michael Slovis who directed a couple of episodes from the original show and also The Ones Who Live, and written by Lisa Zwerling who wrote for ER along with David Zabel (the showrunner).
The episode's premise: Carol searches for intel. Daryl and Isabelle rush to rescue one of their group. Pouvoir regroups their forces.
The episode begins with a flashback, with Genet and Sabine working as janitors at the Louvre, preparing to go on strike after abuse from supervisors. What is so incredible here is how it's shot on location at the Louvre, a location I visited when I was in Paris. This flashback gives us more details into who Genet and Sabine who have gotten a larger role in this season, making them more three dimensional, it's also set before the outbreak started and the showrunner noticed how beloved the flashback sequence from season one were. Although not really that original, Genet losing her partner in front of her as he was being devoured by Walkers, it's something that happened to so many and an event which traumatizes you along with changing you. Then there's a transition from the Mona Lisa back then and to the present where Genet speaks to Carol. I liked the writing here, Genet is solely in her eyes talking to another woman unknown to her she is best friends with Daryl. It adds more to her character, making Genet even more three dimensional, although I found the scene afterward when a man is eating on the floor like a dog. Something played for laughs but ended up not working and being unnecessary, except for showing Genet having power which we already know. The writers took something from The Walking Dead's playbook, giving more screentime to a supporting character before killing them in the same or next episode, in this episode Sylvie gets killed as she's trying to find Laurent and warn everyone, a character I finally started to care for and when the death came I didn't feel anything except for her solely being a tool for the writers to move the story forward and make Losang a bigger threat. He's the antagonist of this season, something I didn't expect and I don't know what to feel. The plot and story with Laurent being this messiah, it has never worked for me and the ritual which the season has built towards, it ended up being lackluster and no tension or suspension at all as we knew Laurent would not get bit and our heroes be okay. The plot armor is there and honestly, I don't believe for a second that these three people could just sneak in and catch everyone off guard. This sequence could have been executed so much better if there would have been more build up and actually screentime at Union de L'Espoir (Union of Hope). The escape from Mont-Saint-Michel had some suspense, mostly thanks for the musical score and direction, the mise-en-scene were great. The camera work and one take action scene with Daryl were great, a highlight! Michael Slovis operates the camera perfectly here, like he does throughout the entire episode. Carol meets Codron by chance, a common writing trope which can be a hit or miss, for this scene it feels natural. It's a great scene and I'm so glad Romain Levi's character didn't get killed off as he was one of the highlights of the first season. He's broken but helpful, maybe this sets up a redemption arc? I hope so. If I remember correctly, Daryl did kill his brother though, a reason why I always liked their dynamic. Something I think the show is missing, real tension. For example, when Carol was trying to escape, it was so predictable and honestly I'm glad she got caught as that was some stupid logic and writing. It should never be that easy and that guard should have heard her. Of all the lackluster writing, nothing against Lisa Zwerling who does one thing right and it's to write these characters so human and realistic, it's just some actions that are confusing and done solely to create suspense and move the plot forward. When Carol is taken to Genet, we see Carol act as herself again, as an intelligent woman who's playing them. Why is the character so unevenly written? Smart one second and stupid the next? She would have known it was a trap. But as I said, the plot needs to move forward.
One thing I absolutely loved about the episode with all the criticism aside, the character of Genet, the writers made her into this three dimensional character. Remember the scene back in season one when she held the baby, the flashback builds on that in some ways, and the different side of her we get to see in this episode. They need a lot of praise for that as The Walking Dead have failed with their villains for the last few years with The Whisperers being the last good villain or antagonistic group. The scenes Melissa McBride had with Anne Charrier were incredible, so was the final scene Norman Reedus and
Clémence Poésy shared jailed together, the dialogue and acting was amazing. I also really liked Michael Slovis's direction. I just wish the whole episode could have been incredible, as it goes from great to okay in the matter of seconds at times. But overall, this episode was quite good. There's one plot hole which Erik Kain writes about which could have been explored, "...where Daryl takes out half of Losang's fighting men (...) did none of the dead turn into walkers? This could have made for a good 'second act' of the fight, but I guess they must have just stabbed their heads offscreen." and he's so right here. This could have made Daryl able to escape and meet Isabelle by chance and escaping. Technically this episode was incredible, from the production design to the special effects and cinematography-direction. I just wish the writing could have been coherent in terms of quality. Overall a good episode with highlights; the one take action sequence where Norman Reedus truly shines, along with Genet who were written perfectly and acted with such brilliance by Anne Charrier. There's things to criticize, yes, but there's so much else that is good.
The Penguin: Cent'Anni (2024)
The Penguin takes a backseat in this Sofia Falcone centric episode which arguably is the best one yet with Cristin Milioti bringing a brilliant performance
Episode four "Cent'Anni" begins where the previous episode ended but a minute before but this time in the perspective of Sofia Falcone, how she witnesses Oz backstabbing her and now knowing Oz had killed her father. It's written by supervising producer John McCutcheon and directed by Helen Shaver. The cinematography was done by Jonathan Freeman who had worked on multiple episodes on shows like Game of Thrones and Boardwalk Empire, two extremely well shot shows and this episode of The Penguin has some exceptional cinematography. Shaver's mise-en-scene is truly incredible, the way she shoots every scene and keeps it the same (in some ways) to what Craig Zobel did, makes for a coherent show with great direction and cinematography along with writing.
The episode's premise: Confronting the events that turned her into the Hangman - and led to a decade-long fight for survival in Arkham - Sofia makes plans for a more hopeful future.
The episode turns into flashbacks showing Sofia prior to her incarceration at Arkham and I have to say this, during the scene when a happy Sofia is talking to a woman who asks her questions about a series of hangings, she becomes a totally different person and honestly more of the Sofia we know from the present timeline. In a manner of seconds Cristin Milioti gives a terrific performance with multiple emotions. Afterwards we get to see Mark Strong as Carmine Falcone, telling his daughter how he wants her as his successor which makes us understand Sofia even more. The composition in this scene and cinematography is incredible, like so many other shots. There's a scene at a party with Sofia and Carmine, after she had spoken with the reporter. Oz had ratted her out to her father. But what happens next are unpredictable as Sofia are arrested for the murders of a serial killer dubbed The Hangman, something we suspect in this episode that Carmine is the true murderer and suspect because of him killing his wife the same way. What a plot twist, which makes me sympathize with Sofia even more as every negative part of her character is now a lie and she went through some horrible stuff at Arkham just for her father and Oz who indirectly caused that to happen. The musical score is spectacular and thrilling. The sequence at Arkham Asylum is truly heartbreaking, there's no other word for it. I love Theo Rossi's role as Julian Rush, he had a quick appearance back in episode two but is more fleshed out here. Then it goes back to the present, with Rossi sharing a great scene with Milioti, what follows might be one of the best endings yet, a twist no one would expect if we didn't get to see all these flashbacks.
Some reception analysis regarding the critical acclaim of the episode. Andy Andersen of Vulture gave the episode a 4 star rating out of 5 and wrote, "The Hangman was the illusion of a monster, created by a monster to absorb the fallout of his monstrous deeds. Rather than remain the monster that her family made of her, Sofia mutates into a triumphant manifestation of her own wrath and the wrath of the women her father killed. In Gotham City, you either die the victim or live long enough to see yourself become the criminal of the week. Nate Richard of Collider gave the episode a perfect 10 out of 10 rating and wrote, "Storylines about gang wars, rats, and drug-running all take a backseat as "Cent'anni" narrows in on what the series has been doing best: its character work. It's going to be hard for the remaining four episodes of The Penguin to top this, but if this is any indication, we're in for a wild and satisfying ride." What about the audience, a quick look at IMDb and the answer is right in front of you. 9.6/10 of 1.7k people who have rated during me writing this.
This episode was masterly written by supervising producer John McCutcheon and directed by Helen Shaver. Throughout the season Cristin Milioti has been incredible, pulling as great of a performance like her leading partner Colin Farrell, for this episode she gives what becomes the best performance yet of the entire show. Although Colin Farrell took a backseat this episode and Oz Cobb was solely a secondary character in his own show, this episode might be the best one yet. It seems like the audience seems to think so, even some critics. I loved it.
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is slow paced but has one of the best Harry Potter stories, the cinematography and acting are exceptional, so is David Yates direction
My opinion of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince have changed quite a lot since I saw it for the first time as a teenager and then as an adult, it's the film I liked the least back then and the one I like the most now. It's the darkest and most slow paced film in the franchise, there's so much happening in terms of plot and character development and world building, also the mystery around the Half Blood Prince is great, the slow pacing fits perfectly with the film's plot. Draco Malfoy has much more material and real meaning in this film, as he becomes a death eater like his father. The film begins with Snape making an Unbreakable Vow with Narcissa to protect Draco and fulfil his task should he fail, after Draco takes his father's place. Narcissa is the mother of Draco and Bellatrix is his aunt. It's a completely different beginning and that's what David Yates (The director) and Steve Kloves (Screenwriter) wanted, it creates expectations of what will happen, also how these events will turn out. Will Draco Malfoy live up to Harry's expectations of being an evil death eater or will he show how human he truly is, time will tell and it's one of the film's best character arcs.
The film's premise: As Harry Potter begins his sixth year at Hogwarts, he discovers an old book marked as "the property of the Half-Blood Prince" and begins to learn more about Lord Voldemort's dark past.
Visually, this film exceeds on every level, the cinematography is incredible and truly mesmerizing, David Yates's mise-en-scene was spectacular. To elaborate, the film was justifiably nominated for an Academy Award for Best Cinematography and Bruno Delbonnel deserved to win. The film's composition but what is composition you might ask? It involves cinematography, framing, camera movement, depth of field and depth of space. Composition is all about what's inside the frame: how people, objects, even light and shadow are arranged. It follows rules like the rule of thirds to create images that feel balanced and tell a story. Cinematography is the bigger picture - it's about how you capture the image with the camera: movement, angles, lenses, and how it's lit. Combined, The Half Blood Prince is mutually agreed by the audience and critics to be the best shot Harry Potter film ever brought to film, I could only agree, it's incredible. The film's cast includes: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Jim Broadbent, Helena Bonham Carter, Tom Felton, Robbie Coltrane, Warwick Davis, Michael Gambon, Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith, Timothy Spall, David Thewlis, Julie Walters, Helen McCrory, Mark Williams and Bonnie Wright. Along with others. Although I find the pacing to be great, when I was younger I didn't like it one bit, making everything boring. The film is really quiet, which if you're not in the mood for a slow paced film you might turn the film off. Is that something you could criticize, for sure! At the same time, it's also a flaw and a strength.
The film's climax, when Dumbledore dies by the hand of Snape who reveals to Harry how he is the Half Blood Prince, thus saving Draco Malfoy's life as he was not able to do it. Everything that the film has built towards, every mystery and plot point, is executed so extremely well in this climax. The Horcruxes have been officially introduced and the quest to destroy Voldemort has begun. The ending is something I think no one excepted, book reader or film viewer, how Dumbledore gets weakened and almost dying for a fake Horcrux before dying by the hands of Severus Snape who he seemed to trust deeply. The stakes have never been higher and why does this work so well? Because of the slow pacing, the film never rushes through its story, it's the first time we see quidditch since the second or third film and its one of several plot points that makes the story feel deeper and bigger. When the action does hit and the climax begins, we have no idea what will happen and the cinematic experience is stronger than ever and so are the emotional impact. This feeling of waiting, of watching the slow story play out, can be seen as bothersome but ends up being incredible. I love the ending and not witnessing Dumbledore's funeral is something I wanted to see in this viewing, as it felt like it was missing. But honestly, I've always liked the ending and how open it is, the expectations it sets for the finale.
For a small reception analysis, I would have to say that critics were mutual regarding their thoughts of the film. To summarize, BBC News's Tim Masters praised the film's cinematography, visual effects, production design, acting and darker plotline which most critics agreed on. Todd McCarthy of Variety said that the film is "dazzlingly well made" and "less fanciful than the previous entries". He praised Alan Rickman's performance, described Helena Bonham Carter as "mesmerising", and Jim Broadbent as a "grand eccentric old professor". Screen Daily criticized the film and commented, "David Yates and his team struggle to whip J. K. Rowling's 608-page tome into a consistently thrilling cinematic experience", but praised the shooting of some scenes and Bonham Carter's acting. The interesting thing here is how right they are, in a certain kind of way, you see a book with 608 pages would never work as a film with a length of 153 minutes, 3 hours would work but that's thirty more minutes in a film that is extremely slow paced. I think they're wrong though as this is the best cinematic experience of all films, most thrilling is another question as it stumbles a bit, but I never felt it needed more action because every action sequence is well written and are there for a reason. There's a bad and good action sequence, bad ones are often never fully thought out, these ones are. Instead of a thrilling experience, the writer and director went for a dramatic and emotional one.
To end my review, what about the highlights? The cinematography, story, emotional weight and performances are incredible. Some performances worth naming are: Michael Gambon, Helena Bonham Carter, Alan Rickman and Tom Felton. They're exceptional in this film, notably Alan Rickman who is given such great material and an expanded role which he shines and takes over each scene. From the dramatic, more heartful scenes with Emma Watson and the scenes with Michael Gambon, Jim Broadbent, Alan Rickman and Tom Felton. I think it's also the direction which David Yates gave, his direction and visual storytelling is excellent and so are the writing from Steve Kloves. The film was nominated for many awards, including the Academy Award for Best Cinematography and the BAFTA Award for Best Production Design and Best Special Visual Effects. Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince is visually one of the best films in the franchise, it's also one of the best stories in my opinion. One of the best fantasy films I've seen!
The Penguin: Bliss (2024)
"Bliss" offers some powerful and spectacular performances, mostly from Colin Farrell, but also some of its best writing yet
Episode three of The Penguin is titled "Bliss" and is directed by Craig Zobel and written by Noelle Valdivia. It offers incredible drama, compelling writing and direction along with cinematography. The director's mise-en-scene is excellent like the previous episodes.
The episode's premise: Oz and Sofia must address the skeletons in their closet as they attempt to control the future of Gotham's drug trade, while Victor is torn between his new life and what remains of his old one.
There are some flashbacks in this episode which makes us learn more about Oz's driver Victor "Vic" Aguilar which is brilliantly played by Rhenzy Feliz in this episode, containing his best performance yet. With the flashback sequence we see Victor's life with his family before The Riddler's seawall explosion which we saw in The Batman from the hero's perspective, now we see it through Victor's and it's horrifying as he loses his entire family in a manner of seconds. Director Craig Zobel was delighted in showing "a scene (that) I feel like you don't get to see in a superhero story very often." For the scene, the crew studied floods during Hurricane Katrina, as well as other floods in Germany. Zobel said this was "to just see what happened, physically, and how devastating they can be." And devastating it was you see it through Vic's eyes. The scenes with Graciela only enhance the character development as she has his romantic interest, along with his usual scenes with Oz. There are also plenty of scenes with Oz and Sofia which are great, they are so far the best characters and give the best performances. Their visit to Chinatown was great, introducing Link Tsai played by Robert Lee Leng and expanding the world building. Later on they introduce Feng Zhao portrayed by François Chau which is great in Lost and The Expanse. Before that there's a scene inside a restaurant which was absolutely fantastic and might be my favorite scene of the episode, it involves solely Oz and Vic talking before Oz walks up to a woman named Tina who is later having sex with Johnny Viti. There's great character development for Victor here. The scene when Viti is naked in bed trash talking Oz, Colin Farrell brings this animalistic and antagonistic side we all know he has. Farrell brings so many emotions to the role, this unpredictability. What a brilliant performance, he steals the show in this episode, same as he stole every scene he was in The Batman. At the same time as the deal with the Triad is going down, Victor is having a panic attack from his PTSD. Afterwards is a scene inside a bathroom, the lighting is splendid and the acting is truly spectacular with Colin Farrell bringing such a terrific performance and the same goes for Rhenzy Feliz. The ending has Victor choosing the life of a criminal under Oswald which felt right but after this episode you just feel like he did the wrong thing. When you thought Colin Farrell couldn't pull any more emotions in today's episode, we see him and Cristin Milioti share such a beautiful scene with Oz almost breaking to tears, whilst keeping his masterplan a secret. He's playing her yet the emotions are real. The ending has Nadia Maroni coming and placing Oz and Sofia at gunpoint, then Victor comes and rescues them. Yet, now Oz has both Sofia and the Maroni family against him.
I have now learnt that The Penguin isn't about big set pieces, it's about its rich characters, about Oz. The writing is compelling, each character well thought out and three dimensional. Colin Farrell and the writers have made Oz Cobb into a morally grey character on the same level as Tony Soprano, Don Draper and Walter White among others. We're almost halfway through the season and it feels the story have just begun, with every character established now. This was a brilliantly directed and written episode.
The Walking Dead: Daryl Dixon: Moulin Rouge (2024)
"Moulin Rouge" is an episode closer in quality with the first season, it has good writing and direction along with a great action sequence
The second episode of The Walking Dead: Daryl Dixon - The Book of Carol is directed by Daniel Percival, his fifth episode overall in Daryl Dixon, and the episode was written by Keith Staskiewicz. "Moulin Rouge" has great direction, incredible camera work and magnificent work done by Greg Nicotero. He continues to create Walkers who are different and impressive. The episode is full of suspense, tension and drama. It's a well written episode of television.
The episode's premise: Carol and Ash face an unforeseen diversion. Meanwhile, Daryl and Isabelle discover a fresh danger lurking at the Nest.
After this episode I remain conflicted if I like The Nest storyline or not,
In my previous review I criticized how they never spoke french to each other, that is fixed in this episode which improves the immersion and realism. Losang speaks English because of him being American and he is the leader of Union de L'Espoir (Union of Hope), a resistance network working against Pouvoir from their main settlement at Mont-Saint-Michel. We get more scenes with Sylvie and her boyfriend, which are necessary for what's to come later in the episode. Carol and Ash start the episode in Greenland, their scenes together and their arc is actually pretty entertaining and quite well written. In Greenland we get some new variant walkers, a new form of lurkers who dig themselves up from the ground which makes everything feel unpredictable. Also a new group of people, a duo of researchers who find them and these two women are well written, I really like how different Hanna's perspective on the apocalypse is in regards to Carol, the scene with Carol and Hanna was great. The scene with Ash and Eun wasn't as great but I buy into her doing everything to get impregnated to repopulate, it's sick but makes sense if you're twisted which is highly possible if the world ends. I feel the writing is stronger in this episode, uneven for Isabelle Carriere in one scene who doesn't know what a catcher is. If it would have come from someone younger than I would be fine with it. I really like the scenes Norman Reedus shares with Clémence Poésy and Louis Puech Scigliuzzi in this episode, especially Poésy's character Isabelle Carriere. The episode's climax has Carol and Ash landing in France, but the most important sequence is the backstabbing that happens and Losang's true plan. Daryl was supposed to be alone and would have died alone but thanks to the allies he has made, Isabelle and Fallou, they come out of it alive. There were no enemies, it was their friends who were waiting to ambush them. It was a great action sequence and some incredible drama, with Isabelle pulling the trigger and killing the traumatized Emile. But back to Carol, when she's in Paris and meets the paramilitary group, she's back to being smart and well written again like she has been in the entire episode, which makes me wonder what happened to her writing in the previous episode. I liked how we got to see more of the Pouvoir from another perspective. The episode ends with Daryl and Isabelle kissing each other, a scene I fully expected but seems having taking the world by a storm. It felt natural and in my opinion, they have built towards this romance for multiple of episodes now.
Some final thoughts, I think "Moulin Rouge" was an incredible episode more in terms of the first season which I loved. It has everything you would want with the show, I strongly believe there could have been more build up though as we haven't even gotten a full episode worth of getting to know Losang and The Nest. Thus his backstabbing comes across as rushed, yet true to his character. I do wish we could have seen more of Daryl Dixon but the material and scenes Norman Reedus was given, it was quality over quantity.
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix uses its darker tone and PG-13 rating for the better, a great fantasy film dragged down by lackluster writing
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix is the fifth installment of the Harry Potter franchise, the film I personally find the worst. With that said, I think it's great in a lot of areas. For example the friendship of Harry, Ron and Hermione which is brilliantly played by Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson. Also when Harry is training the students (Dumbledore's army), every scene with Sirius Black and Severus Snape. The Order of the Phoenix is directed by David Yates and written by Michael Goldenberg (Steve Kloves returns in the final three films), what I dislike is the writing but more on that later. I really like how the story is more mature, there's higher stakes and Voldemort is growing in power. No one is truly safe. Nicholas Hooper's musical score deserves some praise as well. The cast also includes: Helena Bonham Carter, Robbie Coltrane, Warwick Davis, Ralph Fiennes, Michael Gambon, Brendan Gleeson, Richard Griffiths, Jason Isaacs, Gary Oldman, Alan Rickman, Fiona Shaw, Maggie Smith, Imelda Staunton, David Thewlis, Emma Thompson, and Julie Walters.
The film's premise: With their warning about Lord Voldemort's return scoffed at, Harry and Dumbledore are targeted by the Wizard authorities as an authoritarian bureaucrat slowly seizes power at Hogwarts.
There's one sequence that I absolutely love and hold among the best Harry Potter scenes and it's the climax when Harry and his group of friends go to where Sirius Black is evidently getting attacked, instead they find the bottled prophecy and gets ambushed by Lucius Malfoy and Bellatrix Lestrange along with other Death Eaters. It starts off as an escape through this room inside of the Department of Mysteries, until they come to this mysterious room where the true battle ensues with Dumbledore's Army and the Death Eaters. Where Sirius and Remus Lupin arrive with Order members Nymphadora Tonks, Kingsley Shacklebolt and Mad-Eye Moody. As they attack the Death Eaters. During all this fighting, Lucius accidentally drops the bottled prophecy, destroying it. The next moment, Bellatrix kills Sirius which is the most emotional scene yet. When I saw this for the first time, as a child (teen), it was the most tragic and heartbreaking scene in all five Harry Potter films. Sirius Black doesn't have the largest screen time during the three (two) films he's in but Gary Oldman does such a terrific and beautiful job which created this iconic and likable character. Daniel Radcliffe has been incredible throughout the entire movie but this scene and the emotion he brings to the performance, along with what comes after, is truly something incredible. The character goes through all kinds of emotion in this film, anger to happiness to sadness and everything between. What is it that comes after? The duel with Dumbledore against Voldemort is everything you want and expected it would be, they're fast and experienced, using all different magic tricks. Having watched the other Harry Potter films and the Fantastic Beasts films, this is nothing new, but for the first time viewer who has only seen the students be up against other magic users, this and the previous scenes are truly incredible and mesmerizing I might add. The film ends with both Voldemort and Bellatrix escaping, just before Minister for Magic Cornelius Fudge comes into the room, finally acknowledging what is actually happening in the world of magic. Voldemort is officially back. This is how you do a climax, a sequence brilliantly directed by David Yates, with every department working together to create one of the best and most magical Harry Potter scenes to date. The visual effects are top notch here, the editing and production design is great. But going back to the directing, every dramatic performance, the way he shot the sequence. There's so much style here, Yates' mise-en-scene is superb in every way possible. What a brilliant scene, this is as cinematic as the scene when Harry and his friends arrive at Hogwarts for the first time.
Although I have a lot of praise for this film, there's unfortunately a lot more that I dislike. So what didn't work? The Ministry of Magic is not fleshed out and is one dimensional, the antagonist Dolores Umbridge played by Imelda Staunton is easy to hate and is quite one dimensional but Staunton does such an incredible job with the performance. Her character begins as the new Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher and becomes this dictator of Hogwarts as she's working for the corrupt Ministry of Magic, a story I don't really like because of how it isn't fleshed out and becomes an antagonistic organization doing bad things for the sake of doing it. But Staunton brings such life to a character that easily wouldn't have any. Recently she went on to play Queen Elizabeth II for "The Crown" and honestly I see how she could have been cast, as her character in The Phoenix Order, is like an evil queen. But in "The Crown" she plays a real person who is three dimensional in every aspect. Another thing I disliked was Cho as a love interest, although a decent character and a good performance by Katie Leung. The writing for her character was lackluster. Instead, more time could have been spent in developing Ginny and her character along with bonding more with Harry.
The character of Luna.
What did the film cut? As it's a lengthy book. In the book, Ron grows as a character by trying out for the Quidditch team. The screenwriter said, "Ron facing challenges and coming into his own in the same way that Harry is, we tried to get that into the film in other ways, as much as possible. So, you feel like, if not the details of that story, at least the spirit of it is present in the film" and that's the changes that were made, adaptation of one of the largest books to one of the shortest films. The spirit of the book is in the film, of what was removed and changed. Unfortunately, I haven't read the book so I can't say anything else.
What did the critics say when the film was released? Imelda Staunton's performance as Dolores Umbridge and Helena Bonham Carter's as Bellatrix Lestrange were widely acclaimed; Staunton was described as "coming close to stealing the show" by The Guardian and the "perfect choice for the part" and "one of the film's greatest pleasures" by Variety. Bonham Carter was said to be a "shining but underused talent" by The Times. Variety further praised Alan Rickman's portrayal of Severus Snape, writing that he "may have outdone himself; seldom has an actor done more with less than he does here". Peter Travers of Rolling Stone also lauded the three principal actors' achievements, especially Radcliffe: "One of the joys of this film is watching Daniel Radcliffe grow so impressively into the role of Harry. He digs deep into the character and into Harry's nightmares. It's a sensational performance, touching all the bases from tender to fearful". Roger Ebert who has praised each film, only gave it 2.5 out of four stars and said, "Whatever happened to the delight and, if you'll excuse the term, the magic in the "Harry Potter" series? As the characters grow up, the stories grow, too, leaving the innocence behind and confusing us with plots so labyrinthine that it takes a Ph. D from Hogwarts to figure them out. "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" still has much of the enchantment of the earlier films, but Harry no longer has as much joy. His face is lacking the gosh-wow-this-is-really-neat grin. He has internalized the secrets and delights of the world of wizards, and is now instinctively using them to save his life." There's truth here and I absolutely love this quote here "As the characters grow up, the stories grow, too, leaving the innocence behind and confusing us with plots so labyrinthine that it takes a Ph. D from Hogwarts to figure them out." The plot is confusing because of the writing being lackluster, it could have been better written and the film would have benefited of being longer. The Order of the Phoenix is a mixed bag but ultimately a great fantasy film which uses (in my opinion) the darker tone and PG-13 rating for the better.
Body of Lies (2008)
Body of Lies doesn't have the best story, but it has Ridley Scott and his leads Leonardo DiCaprio and Russell Crowe in a great spy thriller
Body of Lies is directed and produced by Ridley Scott, and written by William Monahan who wrote the screenplays for Kingdom of Heaven (2005) and The Departed (2006). The former being a film directed by Scott, this film brings up similar themes like that one, a conflict between the Western and Arab civilizations, Kingdom of Heaven was set during the Crusades. Body of Lies resumes this theme in the context of modern intelligence operations and terrorism. If you're looking for a spy thriller with elements of the action genre set in the middle east, where Leonardo DiCaprio's character Roger Ferris (a field officer working in the CIA's Near East Division and later CIA Station Chief of Amman, Jordan) is in constant fear of dying because of the dangerous operation he's in. There's suspense and tension here which is brilliantly executed by Ridley Scott, his mise-en-scene in every scene is incredible and the first big action set piece happens about 15 minutes into the film. The first half hour does everything right to get the viewer invested, we get introduced to the characters with the technique Show don't tell and also by some dialogue. Ridley Scott wastes no time with unnecessary scenes in this film, he directs every scene with greatness.
The film's premise: A CIA agent on the ground in Jordan hunts down a powerful terrorist leader while being caught between the unclear intentions of his American supervisors and Jordan Intelligence.
The critics criticized Ridley's formulaic handling of the story and use of conventions from the spy genre, such as surveillance shots from high-altitude spy planes. The story could have been more morally grey and Scott could easily have gone down that route. Yet, critics praised Scott's direction and visual style, as well as the performances of its two leads. Although the critics are right in some ways, the writing of the two main characters are exceptional. They're two contrasting characters on the same side. Ferris, the CIA man on the ground, is a dedicated Arabist fluent in the language; he relies on trust, local knowledge and HUMINT. Hoffman, his superior, who is detached at home in Washington, D. C., and at the CIA in Virginia, is more Machiavellian: he authorizes deceit, double-crossing, and violence by telephone and without scruple. The New Yorker interpreted him as "a greedy, American domestic animal-an advanced-media freak, always eating". Ridley Scott handled these characters with such brilliance. Roger Ebert, writing in the Chicago Sun-Times, awarded the film three out of four stars. He praised the "convincing" acting and "realistic locations and terse dialogue" but questioned the verisimilitude of the story and concluded, "Body of Lies contains enough you can believe, or almost believe, that you wish so much of it weren't sensationally implausible." So if you're going to criticize something, it's certainly how there's next to no truthfulness to the story. Kenneth Turan reached the same conclusion in the Los Angeles Times, "The skill of top-flight director Ridley Scott and his veteran production team, not to mention the ability of stars Leonardo DiCaprio and Russell Crowe, ensure that this story of spies and terrorism in the Middle East is always crisp and watchable," he wrote, "but as the film's episodic story gradually reveals itself, it ends up too unconvincing and conventional to consistently hold our attention."
Looking at what critics thought you come to understand how Body of Lies isn't a perfect movie, it's flawed around the edges but mostly a great film. Although I loved Mark Strong's performance as Hani Salaam, intelligence chief and director of the Jordanian General Intelligence Directorate. I didn't really like how a white actor plays a Jordanian, something I don't think would happen today. With that said, he was one of the highlights and I'm glad he got the role. Ebert "particularly admired" Strong's aura of suave control. There's a subplot with Ferris and his love interest Aisha, played by Golshifteh Farahani. This subplot makes us sympathize with DiCaprio's character and learn more about him, there's chemistry between them and the writing is good. Each scene with them feels natural and Farahani was great in the role, having more to do and just a love interest because of her character being a nurse. Other roles include: Oscar Isaac, Ali Suliman and Alon Abutbul. The cinematography was done by Alexander Witt who have worked on numerous projects of Scott's, combined, they've created another fine looking film, this is cinema. Body of Lies is a great film, could it have been perfect? Perhaps! Yet, with the combined forces of Ridley Scott as director, Leonardo DiCaprio and Russell Crowe in the lead roles, this is a spy thriller worth watching, for their performances alone. Body of Lies offers its viewers suspense from start to finish.
The Walking Dead: Daryl Dixon: La Gentillesse des Étrangers (2024)
The season premiere of Daryl Dixon: The Book of Carol is quite lackluster, dragged down by its bad script, neither Greg Nicotero nor its stars could save it
The season two premiere of The Walking Dead: Daryl Dixon is titled "La Gentillesse des Étrangers" and was directed by Greg Nicotero who I'm so glad is returning to the franchise, whilst Shannon Goss wrote it. The second season is titled The Book of Carol, a kind of weird name but it tells you everything about the season, Carol is back and this episode revolves heavily around her. There's a lot of things I disliked about the episode, but one thing I liked was Daryl Dixon and his scenes, which were too few. He has scenes with Laurent, Isabelle and Losang. Most of them are great scenes.
The episode's premise: Carol maps a path toward Daryl; Daryl, Isabelle, and Laurent define their roles at the Nest.
Although I really liked the episode, I have some criticism. The season two premiere of TWD: Daryl Dixon was great but not up to par with the previous season, why? Because of Carol's story and the writing regarding her. Right from the moment she goes up against the men at the compound who sold Daryl to the Pouvoir we see how lackluster and rushed it was, then the car crash. But back to the previous scene, impossible that Carol would survive going in like that and how a couple of guys didn't even react to her threatening everyone there makes it even worse. How the story and plot focuses on chance, how Carol stumbles across a plane and then the owner of the plane. How the Walkers overrun the place as he's out flying, leaving Carol alone. For a guy who has survived for over a decade, he's not very smart and neither are Carol in this episode. Each time she's in danger, the compound as well as the greenhouse when the Walkers attack, the plot armor is too thick. I do like the mirror storytelling with Ash Patel having lost a son like Carol lost Sophia. The scenes they share together were great, I don't like the dialogue and writing of Carol though as it feels off, but Ash is good along with the dialogue he's given. Manish Dayal did a good job! One thing I liked was the flashbacks, they never overstayed their welcome and served to remember viewers what happened, like the flower Ash has on the dinner table. Melissa McBride is great in this scene, where she sits at the kitchen table talking about her old life. This is where Carol starts to feel like herself, making me wonder what happened to the writing before this scene. Carol tells Ash how she's searching for Sophia and how she's in France, in other words she's manipulating him, this is the Carol we know and love. Morally grey character who will do whatever's needed. One thing I thought I would criticize but ended up being happy with, Carol and Ash flying the plane. Fear The Walking Dead began their fifth season with a plane which was absolutely laughably bad because of no logic, the writers and producers of Daryl Dixon thought and consulted with experts about the logistics and the only way you would be able to fly a plane to France from US is flying to Greenland which Ash explains, something we see the American Air Force do in the tv show Masters of the Air. Going back to the scene at the dinner table, we see the episode leaving behind the stupidity level of Fear TWD in favor of something smarter.
The visual effects, production design (in France), cinematography and direction are spectacular. The climax of the episode has two action sequences, Carol and Ash in a thunderstorm, and Daryl ambushing the Pouvoir in what is the episode's best action scene but ends badly with the writer's favorite tool, chance. That's so unfortunate because of how well made the scene was, from the direction and Greg Nicotero's mise-en-scene to every department who worked on the scene. The scenes in France and with Daryl felt the same quality as the previous season, it's shot on location which just makes it so much better. What about the scenes which are supposed to be set in the United States, something that felt off and we learn how it's actually shot outside of Paris. I didn't like her scenes in the USA at all, yet that climax action set piece which ends with them seeing the sun rising up in the clouds, was amazing. I'm glad they're rushing her story to get to France, I just wish the writing would have been better. I didn't especially care for the performances too much and the writing was awful, the dialogue with Daryl was mostly good though so nothing bad with his scenes, but he had almost no screen time which was understandable but unfortunate. This wasn't a great premiere, it was decent. I'm glad Melissa McBride is back in the role as Carol again, but she nor Norman Reedus could have saved this bad script, and why does no one speak French? Something I believe they did in the first season. They are producers though, the script should have been better.
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)
Harry Potter and the Goblet Fire gives us spectacle after spectacle, an incredible fantasy film with minor flaws
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is directed by Mike Newell (who directed 'Four Weddings and a Funeral' and 'Donnie Brasco') who directs some incredible action and drama for the film, bringing some more color to the franchise whilst keeping the darker tone from Prisoner of Azkaban. Steve Kloves returns yet again to write the screenplay, the weakest so far in my opinion, because of the romantic subplot and the writing of Ron Weasley. Roger Pratt returns as cinematographer, after working on Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets before. The camera work is top notch and so is the direction, especially the production design which won the BAFTA Award.
The film's premise: Harry Potter finds himself competing in a hazardous tournament between rival schools of magic, but he is distracted by recurring nightmares.
Theres some truly brilliant performances in this film, from the adult cast and most of the younger cast, Daniel Radcliffe and Matthew Lewis being examples who play Harry Potter and Neville Longbottom. Robert Pattinson was met by critical acclaim for a good reason, great performance! What about the adult cast? Ralph Fiennes as Lord Voldemort, Michael Gambon as Albus Dumbledore and Brendan Gleeson as Alastor "Mad-Eye" Moody, were truly incredible. Other cast members include: Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Robbie Coltrane, Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith, Timothy Spall, Tom Felton, Jason Isaacs, Gary Oldman, and a couple of others. One of the best performances though goes to Daniel Radcliffe, he's in almost every scene and he truly shows how rightfully picked he was for the role of Harry Potter, and the direction Mike Newell gives him is brilliant.
All right so a few criticisms here, Ron Weasley doesn't get the best writing here, the whole feud between him and Harry is awful but him being jealous for Hermione makes sense. I also find the acting of Emma Watson to be quite lackluster. Overall, the film is too much about the trio and their romantic drama, the film loses the great character writing and development which Prisoner of Azkaban has. How? The film does like the two other films do, focusing on story instead of the characters. The story in Goblet of Fire is great... whenever it is about the tournament or Voldemort and his Death Eaters which gets introduced. The three others are Cedric Diggory, Fleur Delacour and Viktor Krum. Only Cedric gets some form of character development in the film, I strongly believe the film lost a lot of great material when the screenwriter adapted the book which is 636 pages long along with winning the Hugo Award (only film to do so), making sure the film's plot and story be more focused on the tournament and romantic subplots which goes nowhere because of bad chemistry and characters acting out of character. The film's climax is easily a highlight and best part of the film for me, it has the tragic and unpredictable death of Cedric Diggory by the hands of Peter Pettigrew / Wormtail and then the resurrection of Voldemort fully portrayed by Ralph Fiennes in what became one of his best and most iconic roles, then the first duel of Harry Potter and the Dark Lord. From the maze to the duel, then the reveal of Alastor "Mad-Eye" Moody is actually Barty Crouch Jr. A death eater. I never liked this reveal, because of how lackluster it feels (it's supposed to be more fleshed out in the book, what I read online it seems fantastic) and how something similar was done in the previous film but done much better. I'll write more on his character in the next film review but I always felt all Moody's character development and screen time had gone up in flames, I do get it's supposed to be that way but it always felt lackluster.
Other changes from adapting the book. The gameplay at the Quidditch World Cup was removed for timing reasons, leaving an abrupt temporal jump that some reviewers considered awkward or "rushed", I get that with the whole film actually, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is solely about Harry Potter and not about his friends which it should be about. If you look at the first film, every single character has a sub-plot and there's character development. The director knowingly removed everything to focus on Harry Potter, condensing what is supposed to be the best book to one of the more lackluster films. I still really like it though and hold the film's climax and final act with the maze and duel to be among the best sequences in the franchise.
What about the reception it got? Negative criticism included the film's pace which The Arizona Republic described as being "far too episodic", while CNN.com described the film as "clunky and disjointed". Which I agree with. Tasha Robinson from The A. V. Club wrote, "Whenever it hits its stride, it's a well-acted, vividly executed, full-speed-ahead special-effects extravaganza that puts as much bang as possible into every remaining scene." Roger Ebert reviewed it and gave 3.5 out of 4 stars, writing, "The film is more violent, less cute than the others, but the action is not the mindless destruction of a video game; it has purpose, shape and style, as in the Triwizard Tournament, which begins the film." Continuing how the director adds emotional range to the film like his other films, "He balances delicately between whimsy and the ominous, on the uncertain middle ground where Harry lives, poised between fun at school, teenage romance and the dark abyss." This is what the film provides you. Fun at school, teenage romance and the dark abyss. I just wish all three were as fantastic, the teenage drama falls flat and could have been exchanged to something else, something which develops the characters. Overall, the film is a 8.5 or 9, it could have been a flawless Harry Potter film, maybe in another universe.
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is my favorite Harry Potter film, darker tone and more character driven, Alfonso Cuarón created a fantasy masterpiece
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban makes the introduction to a couple of iconic and important characters whilst giving us an even more mature story along with darker tone. The directing (Alfonso Cuarón) and cinematography (Michael Seresin) are two things that the film just excels at. Seresin went on to be the cinematographer on Dawn and War of the Planet of the Apes which is two of the most beautifully shot films I've seen. What about Alfonso Cuarón as a director, this was the first film I watched of him and then he went on to make Children of Men (2006), Gravity (2013), Roma (2018) which is three films that are absolutely incredible from start to finish. Cuarón did such a terrific job with Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, lying down blueprints for the franchise and what route tonely it would take. It was the first in the series to extensively use real-life locations, with sets built in Scotland and scenes shot in London, thanks to the director. The film is yet again written by Steve Kloves who does a phenomenal job with the writing and story, for me the story is incredible and full of emotion. The characters feel like themselves, the pacing is great and thus makes every scene flow well with no unnecessary scenes, as a child I wanted to see more of the school like in the book (which I never read but heard much about ) but now as an adult I find this to be spectacular and see how more scenes would not be good for the pacing.
The film's premise: Harry Potter, Ron and Hermione return to Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry for their third year of study, where they delve into the mystery surrounding an escaped prisoner who poses a dangerous threat to the young wizard.
I'm so glad Hermione has a larger role in this film, this film shows why she's one of the best characters of the franchise and one of the closest allies to Harry. Because of the tragic passing of Richard Harris, this film marks the first appearance of Michael Gambon as Professor Albus Dumbledore. Who's the iconic characters I was talking about? Sirius Black and Remus Lupin, other introductions are Sybill Trelawney and Peter Pettigrew. What I didn't know was how David Thewlis was Cuarón's first choice for the role of Professor Lupin. He accepted the role on advice from Ian Hart, who was cast as Quirrell, and had told him that Professor Lupin was "the best part in the book." Honestly, the performances of Gary Oldman and David Thewlis are some of the best, especially Thewlis in the film. Oldman is saved until the very end as Sirius Black makes his grand appearance. I also think Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint did a phenomenal job in this film as the three best friends. The cast also includes: Robbie Coltrane, Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith, Timothy Spall, Emma Thompson, Julie Walters, Tom Felton, Richard Griffiths and Fiona Shaw, among other actors who returned from previous installments.
There's a lot more differences in comparison of the book but I never felt it bothered me when I was a child and teen or now as an adult. As I'm reading about it, it seems like all the differences and removal of various plot threads, backstory and exposition, were for dramatic effects or account of pacing and time considerations. The previous film was all about being accurate to the book, opting for mystery and adventure than character development, Prisoner of Azkaban succeeds with putting the three leads at the front and letting character development be front and center. For example there's no Quidditch Cup, except for one match which is all about narrative and moving the story forward, the reason is how much it would hurt the pacing.
There's a scene when Harry is talking with Remus Lupin and the camera goes to focus on Harry's face whilst we see Lupin in the background looking out another way, then the camera zooms back out to the previous angle. The director focuses greatly on the film's mise-en-scene and especially the camera work and composition. The film ends with a freeze frame, reminiscent of the editing technique from the French New Wave. Cuarón does such an incredible movie with this movie, creating iconic shot after iconic shot, with the critics praising his direction for good reason. It's a shift in directing style and tone, but it's a shift that works so well, the audience grew older and so did the actors, the colorful and more upbeat directional style with him being excellent in directing children. Burhan Wazir of The Guardian states that Columbus prefers characters that are the "everyday American men, women, and children who struggle to uphold family traditions against a changing, sometimes intimidating society". As the franchise moves on and the children become teenagers, Columbus' directional style was no longer the right choice, don't get me wrong, his directional style was absolutely perfect for the two first films with the first one being one of the best Harry Potter films. Alfonso Cuarón said this in an interview with Total Film, "I can't do anything unless I have the freedom to do what I do," continuing "I wanted to stretch things. Open up the universe. To feel that Hogwarts is set in a geographical place, where you can have nature around your universe, and to make your universe one with that nature. And to create a geographic logic to Hogwarts. You know, the Great Hall is here, and then the stairs are next to the Great Hall, and if you take the stairs you go to the bedrooms... If you go to the Clock Tower, the hospital is a corridor away, and you can see the courtyard, and from there you see the bridge... and below that is Hagrid's hut, and the Whomping Willow on the other side, then the forest..." This is something that I loved but couldn't really put any words into when I was younger, I always felt that Hogwarts had never felt more alive than it does in this movie. Thanks to the contribution of Cuarón. I always felt that this film was unpredictable regarding its story and plot, I had no idea of the plot twists like Sirius Black being good and how Scabbers were secretly Peter Pettigrew, the only thing that was predictable was Remus Lupin being a werewolf. Although the mystery in this film is not the best mystery, I think it's the best because of the character development. I absolutely love Alan Rickman as Severus Snape in this film, making him even more complex. The introduction of the dementors was a nice addition. One of my favorite scenes is inside the house when the big reveal is happening, the film's climax before the time travel happens, we have never seen our heroes be this vulnerable before. There's terrific performances from everyone, but also great writing and direction, making for one of the franchise's best scenes. The film has flawless cinematography, directing and editing. The visual effects, set design and musical score make each scene better and more magical. It was John Williams' final score for Harry Potter. The film was nominated for Best Original Music Score and Best Visual Effects at the Oscars. The film was also nominated for four BAFTA Awards: Best British Film, Best Production Design, Best Makeup & Hair, and Best Visual Effects.
For my reception analysis, I'm going to show what film critics think and how the recognition is for the audience. Roger Ebert gave the film three-and-a-half out of four stars, saying that the film was not quite as good as the first two, but still called it "delightful, amusing and sophisticated". He praised the cast, but felt the need for a better plot. Continuing in his review saying, "Is "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" as good as the first two films? Not quite. It doesn't have that sense of joyously leaping through a clockwork plot, and it needs to explain more than it should. But the world of Harry Potter remains delightful, amusing and sophisticated; the challenge in the films ahead will be to protect its fragile innocence and not descend into the world of conventional teen thrillers." The BBC commended the sets and direction, but did not find it "emotionally engrossing". In defense of the story I want to show these quotes from Lauren Coates who wrote this for RogerEbert.com, "But 'Prisoner of Azkaban' screenplay plays right to Cuaron's strengths- a coming-of-age story seeped in tragedy and chock-full of messy, fascinating characters ripe for exploration. Most coming-of-age stories don't involve time-traveling griffin rescues, sure, but tapping Cuaron to direct was a master stroke that allowed the franchise to grow organically." Continuing, "Between the ambitious story, vivid characters, and bold direction, "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" at 20 years old is still a magical, melancholy coming-of-age story and a filmmaking triumph for a franchise whose creator continues to cloud its cinematic legacy." I find this film to have one of the best stories, how it goes away from Voldemort and serves more as a coming of age story and building up for what's to come, I always found that to be great and what makes this so easy to rewatch. Prisoner of Azkaban and Philosophers Stone are the films I've rewatched the most. Prisoner of Azkaban is often regarded by critics and fans alike as the best Harry Potter film.
The Penguin: Inside Man (2024)
"Inside Man" is an exceptional episode of television which offers incredible performances from Farrell and Milioti, the suspense and tension keeps you on the edge
Episode 2 of The Penguin is titled "Inside Man" and it's directed by Craig Zobel and written by Erika L. Johnson. After the previous episode which brought us perfectly back into the world of Matt Reeves Batman universe, The Penguin does as great of a job without having Batman make an appearance. Instead we have characters and actors like Colin Farrell as Oswald "Oz" Cobb / The Penguin, Cristin Milioti as Sofia Falcone / The Hangman, Rhenzy Feliz as Victor "Vic" Aguilar, Clancy Brown as Salvatore Maroni, Michael Kelly as Johnny Viti, Scott Cohen as Luca Falcone, James Madio as Milos Grapa, Deirdre O'Connell as Francis Cobb, Carmen Ejogo as Eve Karlo, Theo Rossi as Julian Rush, Shohreh Aghdashloo as Nadia Maroni. I don't miss Batman at all because of the world and its rich characters. We learn a lot more about Sofia Falcone which is great! Milioti's performance was one of the highlights along with Farrell's in the previous episode. I absolutely love the character of Vic, Rhenzy Feliz is not necessarily unknown to me but he is absolutely perfect in the role, the facial expressions and physical acting along with the whole stammering. I had to look him up because of how much he has aged since Marvel's Runaways, I only saw the two first seasons. Overall, from everyone, the performances are exceptional, as are the writing and direction. This episode takes everything the previous episode did well and expands on it, making for better drama because the character introductions are over, a more tightly focused episode.
The episode's premise: Sofia works to secure her family's strength, while Oz attempts to play both the Falcones and Maronis to his advantage.
The title of "Inside Man" symbolizes Oz cooperating with the Maroni family. From the brilliant hijacking sequence which is in the beginning of the episode to the high tension when Oz is trying to frame Johnny Viti for the murder of Alberto, it's done brilliantly, although the pacing is quite not up to par with the direction and writing. The slow pacing is justified in my opinion because of those two along with character development and performances. The musical score enhances the drama and suspense brilliantly, the choice of songs were perfect too. The cinematography is again too notch, brilliantly photographed scenes with Zobel's exceptional mise-en-scene. Each frame looks great. Back to the story, Josh Rosenberg of Esquire wrote, "For starters, I already like the direction the series is taking, with the Penguin stumbling up the ladder of success. Does he have good ideas? Is he quick on his feet? None of those questions matter! The Penguin has luck on his side. He's the kind of guy who just spouts words until a threat on his life turns into a job opportunity. If you ever wonder throughout the series why no one simply kills the Penguin - trust me, they're trying." and that's the truth, people are really trying which makes each scene so much more suspenseful. The episode ends with Sofia asking Oz for a partnership to wipe out the Falcone family hierarchy so she may step in and take complete control, making the story go in a direction I would never believe prior to the events of this episode. Colin Farrell and Cristin Milioti were brilliant in this episode. The writing is phenomenal and Erika L. Johnson did such a brilliant job with this episode. I find that we're in safe hands with these writers and director, in my previous review I thought the episode felt small in scale but that is no longer the case. I think this was a flawless episode and I had no issues with the pacing, thus for me it's an incredible hour of television.
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is a great follow-up, opting for a darker story and one that's as magical as its spectacular
Harry Potter and The Chamber of Secrets is a film which I have some very fond memories with, the first and second act especially. I really like the writing and especially the character arcs for this film, the themes are more mature and the characters are older thus more capable being in scenes alone which the first act really shows, but more on that later. The cast includes: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Kenneth Branagh, Robbie Coltrane, Richard Harris, Jason Isaacs, Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman, Richard Griffiths, Tom Felton, Warwick Davis and John Cleese. Along with a lot of others. Chris Columbus and Steve Kloves returns to direct the second book adaptation, director and writer respectively. Along with John Williams who does the musical score, still as brilliant and magical as the previous one, not as memorable though. Although the film is longer and the pacing slower, I think Peter Honess' editing is actually quite spectacular. One thing to question, why did a couple of critics dislike the faithfulness to the source material? That's not what's wrong with the film.
The film's premise: Harry Potter lives his second year at Hogwarts with Ron and Hermione when a message on the wall announces that the legendary Chamber of Secrets has been opened. The trio soon realize that, to save the school, it will take a lot of courage.
The first act is all about getting the gang back together, an act that feels like the previous film, tone wise. Harry meets Dobby who is behind every misfortune that happens to young Harry and Ron, the first being locking the magical door to Platform 9 3/4 which brings the first adventurous action sequence with the best friends taking Ron's father's flying car and flies to Hogwarts. Between that and Harry's time at the Dursley family, lots of funny and family friendly sequences happen both at the Weasley house and Diagon Alley, where we meet Arthur Weasley. This is also where we get introduced to Lucius Malfoy and Gilderoy Lockhart, the latter being a celebrity author and the new Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher at Hogwarts. When they arrive back at Hogwarts you quickly notice how the tone shifts, Draco Malfoy have become a seeker and his rivalry with Harry Potter is now bigger, the Slytherin house is front and center during the entire film because of the original Slytherin having created the Chamber of Secrets. There are crimes against mudbloods which is a racial slur for muggle-born students which Malfoy along with others use. The school is dangerous and more mature, you clearly see where Draco gets it from. One memorable part of the story is when Harry, Ron and Hermione drink the polyjuice potion and the former two transform into Crabbe and Goyle. It brings the tone down to more lightheartedness again, balancing it out from the dark mystery which runs for the entire film. I must warn that phobia for snakes and spiders should be ready, there's sequences for both. But back to the mystery, it's actually quite a good mystery which makes the audience learn more of Hogwarts but also characters. All from Severus Snape played brilliantly by Alan Rickman who was handpicked for the role, with or without dialogue he just plays it perfectly, making Snape one of the most intimidating and complex characters. Then we have Gilderoy Lockhart which is played by Kenneth Branagh, a memorable role that brings a much needed lighter tone to the film, as the audience are mainly for 12-14 year olds as well as for all ages, because the film is so well thought out and well executed. Robbie Coltrane as Rubeus Hagrid is another one we learn much more about, who has one of the film's best performances. What about the whole mystery which is what the second and third act revolves around, with the fourth act being Harry and Ron along with Gilderoy who's a big fraud. His character reminds me of outlaws in the wild west who boast and fake their stories. Anyway, the mystery is great and the climax never quite hit it with me. It shows Harry Potter being really heroic and there's some great writing coming out of it, but it felt too easy, maybe it's me having watched it so many times but the scene never hits the same suspense and unpredictable or impressive climax that the other films have. Then again, the climax fight in the previous film wasn't anything special, it's everything leading up to it which is impressive. As the imprisonment of Hagrid and Dumbledore having to leave, a scheme of Lucius Malfoy, that whole thing was excellent. Despite my phobia of spiders I must say the sequence in the woods and confrontation of the spider is excellent. There are so many parts which work so well in this film, Tom Riddle and the mystery revolving around him and how no one knows who's Slytherin's ancestor, it makes for some great storytelling. The reveal of how Tom Riddle is Voldemort is what I like about the climax, not the boss battle but it's needed, felt too cheap though with no consequences as Harry Potter gets healed by the Phoenix.
Anyway, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is a great follow-up where Chris Columbus does everything right. He directed the previous film and having the same director for this probably helped the young actors (Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint) to do their best, they really show some talent here. What worked for me, mostly, were the darker plot and tone, the set design and production design, the visual effects, and the performances. The film was nominated for many awards, including the BAFTA Award for Best Production Design, Best Sound, and Best Special Visual Effects. What do the critics say? Or especially Roger Ebert who loved the film. "The production designer is Stuart Craig, returning from "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone." He has created (there is no other way to put it) a world here, a fully realized world with all the details crowded in, so that even the corners of the screen are intriguing. This is one of the rare recent movies you could happily watch with the sound turned off, just for the joy of his sets, the costumes by Judianna Makovsky and Lindy Hemming, and the visual effects (the Quiddich match seems even more three-dimensional, the characters swooping across the vast field, as Harry finds himself seriously threatened by the odious Malfoy)." Continuing, "This puzzle could be solved in a drab and routine movie with characters wandering down old stone corridors, but one of the pleasures of Chris Columbus' direction of "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" is how visually alive it is. This is a movie that answers any objection to computer animation with glorious or creepy sights that blend convincingly with the action. Hogwarts itself seems to have grown since the first movie, from a largish sort of country house into a thing of spires and turrets, vast rooms and endlessly convoluted passageways, lecture halls and science labs, with as much hidden below the ground as visible above it. Even the Quiddich game is held in a larger." Everything about this film is bigger, on each filmmaking aspect, but is bigger always better? Most certainly in this installment, everything except the story, and a great story is needed. I have always loved this film, but it's not the best nor the worst. Richard Roeper praised Columbus' direction and the film's faithfulness to the book, saying: "Chris Columbus, the director, does a real wonderful job of being faithful to the story but also taking it into a cinematic era". If there's something that's flawless, it's Chris Columbus' direction.
My Darling Clementine (1946)
If not for the historical inaccuracies, My Darling Clementine could easily be regarded as one of the best westerns, it has aged like fine wine
The only film I've seen of the great John Ford is The Searchers which I regard as one of the best westerns, also How the West Was Won which he co-directed. By critics, My Darling Clementine is regarded as one of the best Westerns ever made. Is that true? First of all, My Darling Clementine was released in 1946 and this film has aged like fine wine. The narrative structure, the writing and story, everything is incredible. John Ford directed one great drama, a terrific western, one with superb mise-en-scene and direction. The sound design, costume and makeup departments, and production design. The whole production is spectacular. So yes, it is quite true. I wish more people would get the chance to experience it, for newer films I would say Tombstone (1993) and Wyatt Earp (1994) are great examples of films focusing on Wyatt Earp, the former being one of my favorite westerns.
The film's premise: After their cattle are stolen and their brother murdered, the Earp brothers have a score to settle with the Clanton family.
The ensemble cast is led by Henry Fonda as Wyatt Earp, in an incredible performance, the film also features Victor Mature (as Doc Holliday), Linda Darnell, Walter Brennan, Tim Holt, Cathy Downs and Ward Bond. I think the best performances go to Henry Fonda and Victor Mature, they're truly terrific! If I would go more in depth in the film's scenes. I would start with the scene happening thirteen minutes into the film where Wyatt gets confronted by the Clantons, after James' murder, we get some truly incredible camera work with close-ups, maybe where Sergio Leone got the inspiration. It's a scene full of suspense and tension, you don't know what direction it will go. John Ford is talented with the camera, his cinematographer Joseph MacDonald was really great. But it's the shots Ford lines up, I love how often the camera centers on its protagonist Wyatt Earp and the other characters, his use of wide shots and close-ups. Shooting on location at Monument Valley was perfect, something John Ford often did for his westerns. I really like what director Michael Mann said about the film, how it "achieves near-perfection" in its cinematography and editing. In another scene, during the introduction of Doc Holliday, Wyatt stands in the bar and everyone stops chatting and playing, there's this seriousness to the scene like everyone believes a gunfight will start. The camera is static and moves, making it a continuous take with few cuts, bringing suspense and expectations to the scene, a well written and directed scene. Something unexpected which made me want to rewind, during a gunfight inside the bar, Wyatt shoots a man and the interesting part is how it was shot. We see him shoot one of the Clantons, yet not killing him, which is probably why the shot was like that. Something that never was seen prior to the sixties with Leone making it known.
Fifty years after its release, Roger Ebert reviewed the film and included it in his list of The Great Movies. He wrote it was "one of the sweetest and most good-hearted of all Westerns", unusual in making the romance between Earp and Clementine the heart of the film rather than the gunfight. That's actually something I didn't expect, how those two are the heart of the film but it made for a different story and narrative, something original. Although I liked it and lots of other things with the writing, the film is historically inaccurate on many things, the biggest example is the location and where Tombstone is located but also how Old Man Clanton never seemed to meet the Earps, also for example how James Earp lived until 1926 and Morgan Earp dying in 1882. John Ford took liberties but honestly, I'm no historian, I can look past those inaccuracies to experience and be entertained of the vision John Ford had. My Darling Clementine is a great western, it's cinema. The film's climax is all about drama and action, it's great action I might. John Ford directs gunfights and dramatic scenes with such brilliance, like how he directs everything else. To answer the first question if it's truly one of the best westerns, I think so. Just look past the historical inaccuracies and you'll find it spectacular, it has aged like fine wine. I can't rate it a 10/10 because of that though, the historical inaccuracies hurts the film as it's about real people, people who should be portrayed accurately.
Giant (1956)
Giant is an epic spanning decades, a project many would fail yet George Stevens created a flawed masterpiece in the genre
Giant is set between 1920-1950's and is not a regular western, but it has so many aspects of the genre, but I'll call it an epic western non the less but I think a historical drama epic is more accurate. The West is dying and this is the final period, a time in Texas explored both here and in Cormac McCarthy's The Border Trilogy, now those have nothing to do with each other except for Texas and the border to Mexico during the same time period. The film is directed and produced by George Stevens, written by Fred Guiol and Ivan Moffat, and William C. Mellor served as the cinematographer. The cast is full of well known actors from the golden age of Hollywood, numerous of actors giving truly incredible performances. The film stars Elizabeth Taylor Leslie Lynnton Benedict, Rock Hudson Jordan "Bick" Benedict Jr. And James Dean Jett Rink. The supporting cast has features: Carroll Baker Luz Benedict II, Jane Withers as Vashti Hake Snyth, Chill Wills as Uncle Bawley, Mercedes McCambridge as Luz Benedict, Dennis Hopper as Jordan "Jordy" Benedict, Sal Mineo, Rod Taylor, Elsa Cárdenas and Earl Holliman.
The film's premise: Wealthy Texas rancher Jordan "Bick" Benedict, Jr. Shakes things up at home when he returns from a trip to the East Coast with a love interest, the refined Leslie. Bick and Leslie get married, but she clashes with his sister, Luz Benedict, and wins the admiration of the ambitious young Jett Rink. Bick and Jett form a tense rivalry that continues to surface as the years pass and fortunes change in this sweeping drama.
For an epic film like this I would say the first hour was paced perfectly, it never felt boring. Yet when Luz is killed while riding Leslie's horse, War Winds. I wasn't sad at all, she was an unlikable and absolutely horrible person in my eyes, her will regarding leaving a small piece of land to Jett, it caught me by surprise. Although I think the pacing has been good with no unnecessary scenes, The scene when Jett gets his land was full of bad writing, I didn't like it one bit. I found the scene with Jett sitting on top of the oil driller quite powerful with a great musical cue playing at the same time, yet I didn't find it to be great. The shot was bad with nothing on screen except for James Dean as Jett Rink and the oil driller, I don't know what happened with the direction in this scene nor the one before it. I've seen 'Shane' of George Stevens filmography and that was a flawless film, there's a couple of other scenes where the direction is lackluster but mostly it's terrific in 'Giant'. I do get why Stevens won an Oscar for best director, directing a film on this scale as epic as this, that takes a lot of experience and skill. It was overall nominated for nine Oscars. The art direction, costume design, production design and film editing were truly incredible. I just didn't think the acting of Mercedes McCambridge or Rock Hudson was anything special, although Hudson became better in the second half, I think James Dean and Elizabeth Taylor deserved nominations and to win more than them. Bosley Crowther of the New York Times wrote that "George Stevens takes three hours and seventeen minutes to put his story across. That's a heap of time to go on about Texas, but Mr. Stevens has made a heap of film." He continued to write that "Giant, for all its complexity, is a strong contender for the year's top-film award." I agree with that, it's a great film and possibly one of the best that came out in 1956. The best parts of 'Giant' isn't the dialogue heavy scenes, that's where it can stumble, but the picture and more cinematic moments. Crowther went on to say, "Thanks to Mr. Stevens' brilliant structure and handling of images, every scene and every moment is a pleasure. He makes 'picture' the essence of his film." The pacing is great from start to finish.
In 1978, Martin Scorsese wrote about the movie as a guilty pleasure: "I've seen this film over forty times. I don't like the obvious romanticism, and it's very studied, but there's more here than people have seen. It has to do with the depiction of a life style through the passage of so many years. You see people grow. I like James Dean; I like the use of music, even though Dimitri Tiomkin did it; I like Boris Leven's image of the house, and the changes in the house; I like the wide image of Mercedes McCambridge riding the bronco, then cut to an extreme closeup of her hitting the bronc with her spur, then back to the wide image. As far as filmmaking goes, Giant is an inspiring film. I don't mean morally, but visually. It's all visual." Less complimentary was director and critic Francois Truffaut, who called Giant a "silly, solemn, sly, paternalistic, demagogic movie without any boldness, rich in all sorts of concessions, pettiness, and contemptible actions." This is one of the men who founded the French New Wave and influenced The American Wave with directors like Francis Ford Coppola, Steven Spielberg, George Lucas and Martin Scorsese to name a few. Truffaut devised the auteur theory and was a film critic who cared about film, I understand why he would call this film petty regarding the story. According to the Texan author Larry McMurtry, the film was especially popular with Texans, even though it was sharply critical of Texan society. Giant is very much an American movie about Texans for Texans, yet it's something that many Americans and Europeans like, Dallas was inspired from this film. I wouldn't say the film has what The 400 Blows has, it feels like the director focused too much on the big scale and failed with the characters and them feeling like true human beings, something Truffaut succeeded with perfectly. Giant doesn't have a lot of likable characters which can be problematic, during the first hour I would say solely Leslie Lynnton Benedict and Jett Rink are likable enough. That goes on for the entire film, almost, with the children played by Carroll Baker, Dennis Hopper and Fran Bennett, the children are also quite likable. I also don't think there are any themes which the film is exploring, except for racism. I really like how they brought up the topic of racism towards the Mexican population, the character of Juana Guerra Benedict is a good example of that. There are character arcs for each character. The greed and money got to Jett Rink and changed him, he sympathized with the Mexicans and he helped them, the ending has Juana getting denied help at the beauty shop. Jordan "Jordy" Benedict III grows angry and looses his cool, ending up being beaten by a drunk Jett. It ends with him falling asleep as he's about to make his speech, which marks for the sole great character development in the film. It was about him all along, I thought we would have more scenes with him but he had far less than first thought, yet a strong and memorable performance. The final scene shows how Bick Benedict has changed his ways and battles it out with the racist owner of the diner, a scene that's drastically different in Edna Ferber's novel. In the book, Bick is not present. Only his wife, daughter, and Mexican daughter-in-law are there, and they simply leave without causing any trouble when the diner owner orders them out. I think the latter would have been a stronger ending as it would be more realistic. The scene before that has Bick showing he have changed in another way too, it's no longer about the money and high life. The parallel storytelling with Bick and Jett was quite great in the film, just took a while to get going. Giant is a great film, but not flawless, yet almost.
The Penguin: After Hours (2024)
An analysis of "After Hours": an incredible series premiere that has spectacular acting and direction, Colin Farrell is The Penguin
Right from the first scene with the theme musical cue from The Batman, the red color grading with the camera moving slowly towards a man standing where Carmine Falcone once stood. It's about the aftermath of what happened in The Batman along with how it explores the Penguin's rise to power in Gotham City's criminal underworld. Oswald Cobblepot (or Cobb as his surname is in the show) is once again played by Colin Farrell and he said the series would further explore the character's strength, awkwardness, and villainy as well as the "heartbroken man inside there". The supporting cast has characters like: Cristin Milioti as Sofia Falcone / The Hangman, Rhenzy Feliz as Victor "Vic" Aguilar, Deirdre O'Connell as Francis Cobb, Clancy Brown as Salvatore Maroni and Michael Zegen as Alberto Falcone. The season premiere is written by showrunner Lauren LeFranc who worked on the tv series "Agents of S. H. I. E. L. D" and "Chuck", there was certain trust given to him as on paper he doesn't have what it takes but there's so much more to it, LeFranc's writing is compelling and truly spectacular. Whilst Craig Zobel directed the episode, who also serves as an executive producer.
The episode's premise: The death of Carmine Falcone and a post-flood crime wave motivates Oz Cobb to fill the power vacuum left in the criminal underworld of Gotham City, while Falcone's children attempt to keep their family together.
The series premiere begins with Oz acquiring blackmail but gets interrupted by Alberto Falcone, the scenes with these two, Colin Farrell and Michael Zegen, are absolutely fantastic. The scene ends with Oz shooting Alberto to death which was unfortunate because of the actor doing a terrific job. But what's best with the opening was the monologue when Oz tells him about Rex Calabrese, a gangster Oz respected and aspires to be. After the title card we have him dispose of the body and then meet Victor "Vic" Aguilar who becomes his new driver, what's to think about in those scenes are how great and comedic the dialogue is. The characters sound and act real. Like in The Batman, this version of Gotham City feels lived in and real, then at the same time feeling like a comic book accurate Gotham. It's the production design, writing and director's work. Colin Farrell transformed himself yet again to play the iconic mobster and the story he gives through dialogue and the visual storytelling of photos and his deformed clubfoot which causes him to limp, it's an excellent set-up as we learn more about Oz and thus makes it easier to sympathize with him because of the way the writer humanizes him. The scene with Oz and Sofia is brilliantly written and acted, Cristin Milioti showed how excellent she is in the role. The role of Sofia is so big, she's portraying this person who has just now been released from Arkham and thus is "rehabilitated", Milioti and Farrell are the ones who bring home the best performances for the first episode. The scene with Oz's mother is a scene I want to analyze. First of this storyline is reminiscent of Tony Soprano's mother, The Sopranos is a major inspiration for this show. Immediately when we get into her house, we see how old it is, the old mora clock is heard. Then we see why Oz goes there (probably every week), his mother has Alzheimers and her health is slowly deteriorating. Lauren LeFranc said this in an interview with IGN, "Oz and Francis have a very distorted, twisted relationship, verging on Oedipal at times. The thing that I was interested in is sort of dissecting in thinking about where a man like Oz comes from and what really forms him, who shapes him, that a character like Francis made a lot of sense to me to introduce and to really dig into more. When we first meet her in the first episode, it's through the lens of Oz, and we really see her in that way, and we sort of empathize more with Oz." What a brilliant character she is, Francis brought so much to the series, it brought something I didn't expect I wanted or thought the show needed. It's directed and played out like Oswald has the upper hand in the conversation, both in the writing and how the scene was shot, then everything gets turned around with Francis having all the power. Why? Because our expectations were how she was frail from her disease, but although she's getting worse she still holds power and we see how small Oswald is in comparison to her.
So what are my final thoughts on the episode? "After Hours" has some incredible directing, production design and make-up, along with writing, and the tone is just right with a mix of dark comedy at times when it's often a dark crime thriller. You clearly see the inspiration from The Sopranos in the show but also from other gangster films and shows like Scarface. This might very well be one of fall's best shows, time will tell. Andy Andersen of Vulture gave the episode a 4 star rating out of 5 and wrote, "Under the careful narrative direction of showrunner Lauren LeFranc, The Penguin casts Colin Farrell's Oswald Cobb in a monstrous (but recognizably human) "rise to power" arch that feels as comfortable presented alongside the HBO crime-drama canon as it does such DC villain-centered fare as Peacemaker or Harley Quinn." Every scene is brilliantly directed Craig Zobel is truly incredible, his mise-en-scene brings so much to every scene and you see why Zobel was chosen to direct this series. His work with cinematographer Darran Tiernan was excellent. The musical score is spectacular. Rachel Elspeth Gross from Forbes wrote, "Helen Huang and her costume department team put a lot of time, effort and love into making these characters feel like real people." quoting Huang, "You learn that from your family. So much of this show is about family. So much of this story is about passing power on through generations. And I think that there's something very powerful about a well-tailored coat." the costume and makeup departments does such a brilliant job and The Penguin and this episode wouldn't be as good if it wasn't for them. The episode is great but not perfect, I thought it would have a bigger scale but this lower scale offered viewers a more personal look to who The Penguin is, it makes perfect sense. "After Hours" is a great series opener, maybe the slow pacing might be off putting to some as there's not much action. This is a crime drama though, it doesn't need action, it focuses more on an intelligently written script than a script that needs action. If you love The Sopranos or anything similar, you will love this show.