What're you watching?

Topic

What movies and TV shows are you watching?

Replies

Anonymous wrote:

I tried watching Joker but I just couldn’t watch it, the mannerisms they gave him were just too silly and annoying. Like they went out of their way to make him look super crazy and weird.

I haven’t seen Joker yet, despite a lot of interest, primarily because Joaquin Phoenix tends to be more than a little creepy even in the rare films where he doesn’t play a distinctly person. Still, I’ve somehow seen and liked most of the movies he’s in (To Die For, Clay Pigeons, Her, Gladiator, Inherent Vice, Signs, The Yards, The Village).

‘Joker’ is ok, I agree that it’s a Scorsese tribute act wearing clown make-up though.

I’m looking forward to ‘The Lighthouse’.

It feels a bit nasty to people with mental illness as well. I understand if you’re making a Joker movie the lead character can’t be really stable and well adjusted, but this is lacks any subtlety. Like laughing at a freak show in the circus. Compared to Travis Bicle in Taxi Driver the Joker doesn’t seem realistic.

SteveUK wrote:

‘Joker’ is ok, I agree that it’s a Scorsese tribute act wearing clown make-up though.

It’s ironic Scorsese put his name on THE SNOWMAN and decided not to put it on JOKER.

He had the option;

“I know the film very well,” Scorsese told BBC about “Joker.” “I know [director Todd Phillips] very well. My producer Emma Tillinger Koskoff produced it. I thought about it a lot over the last four years and decided I did not have the time for it. It was personal reasons why I didn’t get involved. But I know the script very well. It has a real energy and Joaquin. You have remarkable work.”

https://www.indiewire.com/2019/11/martin-scorsese-dropped-joker-after-four-years-1202187094/

I hope he likes the end result.

Watched the final season of Broad City; not always laugh out loud but enjoyable with Abbi in particular being a lovable character (I do find Ilana a bit much).

We’re also 7/10 through season one of Succession – pretty solid drama, well acted with some dark humour.

Watched The King on Netflix, David Michod & Joel Edgerton’s adaptation of Shakespeare’s Henry plays. Edgerton plays Falstaff, Timothee Chalamet plays Henry, Robert Pattinson plays the Dauphin. It’s beautifully shot and has great performances and some of the scenes are individually great but overall it doesn’t quite add up. It feels as if there’s connective tissue missing between scenes. The scenes are all very quick, they would often end right as things were getting interesting. And the climactic battle starts off brilliantly but right when it really gets going, it switches to a montage of slow motion battle images. Really disappointing choice there.

Overall I liked the film more than I disliked it but I was ultimately underwhelmed. The story would have probably been better served being a mini-series.

Andrew wrote:

We’re also 7/10 through season one of Succession – pretty solid drama, well acted with some dark humour.

Season One is good, but Season Two is one of the best shows of the year.

I saw the new Black Christmas, which I enjoyed. It’s possible my expectations for horror movies are low after watching through the increasingly awful Halloween movies for the last two months, but I found it very effective.

There’s not many surprises (the whole frat/cult thing is revealed in the opening scene), and the characters are a bit thin, but the scares worked for me, and the cast is good, especially Cary Elwes hamming it up. Really looking forward to seeing what Sophia Takal does next, after this and the excellent Always Shine.

It’s sometimes a bit too obvious where they’ve cut a shot or ADR’d dialogue to change the movie from an R to a PG-13 (though still a very gory one, getting a 15 over here). I wonder if they’ll do an “uncut” version for home release.

It’s that time of year again. Which can only mean one thing.

 

Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid
Sam Pekinpah directing James Colburn, Kris Kristofferson, and a slew of great character actors in a 1970s Western. Knock, knock, knockin’ on heaven’s door…

Dave wrote:

It’s that time of year again. Which can only mean one thing.

Kurt Russell is Santa Claus?

It’s seven o’clock Saturday night. That means Wonder Woman reruns on Me-TV.

Easy Rider
A true classic. And back in the day, Toni Basil was HOT!!!

Just watched the Michael Bay Netflix movie with Ryan Reynolds… 6 Underground… erm… it’s a neat idea, and there’s a lot of neat set pieces all the way through, but it’s very headache-inducing in terms of the editing… there’s a billion cuts, it’s very noticeable and annoying (I don’t usually get hung up on that kind of thing, but oh man). Kind of a shame, it could’ve been a pretty good franchise starter but in the end it’s too fuckin hectic. Still, some really cool ideas for the actions scenes, too bad it was shot that way.

paul f wrote:

Andrew wrote:

We’re also 7/10 through season one of Succession – pretty solid drama, well acted with some dark humour.

Season One is good, but Season Two is one of the best shows of the year.

I saw the new Black Christmas, which I enjoyed. It’s possible my expectations for horror movies are low after watching through the increasingly awful Halloween movies for the last two months, but I found it very effective.

There’s not many surprises (the whole frat/cult thing is revealed in the opening scene), and the characters are a bit thin, but the scares worked for me, and the cast is good, especially Cary Elwes hamming it up. Really looking forward to seeing what Sophia Takal does next, after this and the excellent Always Shine.

It’s sometimes a bit too obvious where they’ve cut a shot or ADR’d dialogue to change the movie from an R to a PG-13 (though still a very gory one, getting a 15 over here). I wonder if they’ll do an “uncut” version for home release.

I went with friends to watch the 1974 version last week, a packed cinema of horror geeks.

To be honest I thought I’d seen it before, but I was obviously thinking of another christmas-themed horror film. Everything was new to me.

It’s good fun! Famously it’s a proto-slasher, before the term existed and the sub-genre had defined itself. As such it doesn’t quite hang together, there are things that will fall by the wayside in later films. But it does have some stylish moments and it some good suspense, plus the cast is pretty good. Margot Kidder is terrific as the student who drinks too much, and she does give some depth to it, making it funny and sad and hinting at more going on under the surface. Keir Dullea, John Saxon, Andrea Martin and Marian Waldman all have character roles, where they inject more life than someone else might’ve done, given the parts.

I’m sure it was gory for it’s time, but you can see far more blood on TV these days.

Still, good fun.

Saw The Conjuring a few days ago. Yes, I am behind the curve on this. But anyway, um. It was alright. It’s been a while since I’ve seen a haunted house film, and it was nice to see the whole ghosthunter/exorcism setup; the sequences when they have all their stuff installed and the ghosts appear are the best parts of the movie. But overall, given that this was quite successful, a huge franchise-starter and made James Wan’s career, I guess I expected more than a nicely-made, but pretty average haunted house movie. It also starts and ends rather weakly. I mean, I guess that has to do with their wanting to keep the pseudo-authenticity of using the Warrens, but they still could have started/ended with something a bit more scary.

It was alright though. Made for a nice evening.

If you’re after a bleak, 2.5 hours of casual mayhem without any feelgood elements then War of the Worlds is recommended.

For myself? The whatever you class it as, flash forward, flash back structure just didn’t work at all.  Any time either story strand got a bit of momentum it cut the legs out from under it by switching to the other.

In its credit, it doesn’t pull its punches and its suggestive style arguably amps up the horror element very effectively. The sequence with the baby crying off screen being a case in point.   I can’t I particularly liked or cared much about any of the characters either.

It’s technically well-executed, quite smart in places, but for all the brutality, smart points about the nature of empire and attempts to show how it’d play out when the tables are reversed – it certainly shows how feelgood the Spielberg-Cruise version is – I can’t say it’s a series I’d rush to rewatch

X-Men: Dark Phoenix isn’t quite as bad as I expected, based on the feedback when it came out, it’s just mediocre. That’s still a shame though, especially as it starts off really promisingly with some gripping scenes and compelling setup. The whole thing goes off the rails (no pun intended) by the time of the big train sequence at the end, which ends the film on a bit of a damp squib.

Still better than X-Men: Apocalypse though.

Wooooaaah no it’s not.

Dark Phoenix was a total piece of shit

Apocalypse was bloody awful. Dark Phoenix is just poor.

NO! The newer piece of shit is the shittier piece of shit!

Lady Bird.

Booksmart was better

‘6 Underground’

It’s Bay, without anyone telling him no.

He really needs people to do that. He’s got a lot of good instincts but he’s frequently tone-deaf about people, emotions, human nature in general really. He needs help with that, help that includes “no”.

It’s big, loud, flashy, expensive, over-cooked… you know, a Michael Bay movie? But more so.

SteveUK wrote:

‘6 Underground’ It’s Bay, without anyone telling him no. He really needs people to do that. He’s got a lot of good instincts but he’s frequently tone-deaf about people, emotions, human nature in general really. He needs help with that, help that includes “no”. It’s big, loud, flashy, expensive, over-cooked… you know, a Michael Bay movie? But more so.

You know I was going to do a quick review but this pretty much covers it.

The film starts with an insanely destructive sequence in Florence that exists to say: Oh, you didn’t know this was a Bay film? <kaboom!> You do now!

From there it’s just over two hours of hugely fun nonsense with a hugely satisfying final fate for the villain.

SteveUK wrote:

‘6 Underground’

It’s Bay, without anyone telling him no.

He really needs people to do that. He’s got a lot of good instincts but he’s frequently tone-deaf about people, emotions, human nature in general really. He needs help with that, help that includes “no”.

It’s big, loud, flashy, expensive, over-cooked… you know, a Michael Bay movie? But more so.

I haven’t finished watching it yet. My review wasn’t meant to be positive, it’s grating like fingernails on a blackboard for me. Like I said, he needs a “no” quite often.

But I’m glad it’s entertaining others.

SteveUK wrote:

‘6 Underground’

It’s Bay, without anyone telling him no.

He really needs people to do that. He’s got a lot of good instincts but he’s frequently tone-deaf about people, emotions, human nature in general really. He needs help with that, help that includes “no”.

It’s big, loud, flashy, expensive, over-cooked… you know, a Michael Bay movie? But more so.

That sounds incredible.

SteveUK wrote:

My review wasn’t meant to be positive, it’s grating like fingernails on a blackboard for me. Like I said, he needs a “no” quite often. But I’m glad it’s entertaining others.

Heheheh – it’s funny how text can read at times.  I went in expecting a big, loud, dumb Bay movie and…. It delivers that.

I can’t say I’d pay much money to see it, but such is the benefit of streaming.

I loved the new Little Women.

It’s mostly an adaptation of the later stuff (the “Good Wives” novel for those outside the US), with the childhood stuff in flashback. The childhood stuff suffers a little from using the same actors for both halves (Florence Pugh is supposed to be playing 12/13 at one point), but the grown-up stuff is great, especially considering I like that book a lot less.

Saoirse Ronan and Florence Pugh are the stand-outs, but I also preferred Laura Dern here than to the Marriage Story performance that will probably get her an Oscar nomination.

RonnieM wrote:

That sounds incredible.

It is.

Again, that’s not meant to be a positive statement on my part.

Honestly I didn’t even realise it was a Bay movie until the end… the editing was REAAAALLY too absurd, even for Bay’s standards… I kinda thought it was from a new-ish director… =/

It’s a strange movie.

I don’t typically like Bay but I liked Pain & Gain (despite … the colours) and Bad Boys.  I also am able to tolerate Transformers 1 and 3.

6 Underground isn’t so terrible as to be on the worse-er end of the spectrum of Bay films but it’s basically just a smorgasboard of his shit. Bay cut his teeth on music videos and I did frequently find myself thinking twhile watching 6 Underground that he seems mich better suited to those than films (or, you know, perfume commercials and car ads)

It’s also terribly paced and the product placement is … absurd.  There’s a point where Ryan Reynolds is drinking Aviation Gin and I fully expected him to call out the product placement in a Deadpool like aside.  It was a disappointment he did not.

It also feels like the role was never written for Reynolds, but adapted for him at the last minute.

paul f wrote:

Laura Dern here than to the Marriage Story performance that will probably get her an Oscar nomination.

Laura Dern in Marriage Story really unsettled me.  I’m not sure if it was her playing that character or maybe that im familiar with that type of person but i really disliked her in that movie.  Otherwise I love her.  Laura Dern for President@

Anonymous wrote:

Laura Dern for President@

Do you really think it’s a good idea for the offspring of Bruce Dern to have her finger on the big red button?

There is something creepy about Laura Dern I think, after seeing Inland Empire anyway. Though David Lynch makes anything creepy.

Ben wrote:

The film starts with an insanely destructive sequence in Florence that exists to say: Oh, you didn’t know this was a Bay film? <kaboom!> You do now!</kaboom!>

I liked it. That scene was fantastic. My main disagreement with this film is Dave Franco died so early. Like Tim said, it looks like a really long music video. the only character growth seems to be Reynolds stops being so fatalistic(he realizes he can succeed without dying) and the CIA spook lets her libido control her and sticks with the idiot hitman.

Sounds like reviews are in line with what was intended.

I did like that first car chase sequence, because it’s probably the first time I see actual bystander casualties… a LOT of them, and the characters acknowledge it. Usually car chases are too perfect and no one gets hurt… in this one, oh boy, they’re reckless and they fuck up. Which is a nice change…
 
Oh and that Reynold’s add is genius… at least they know what it is, that’s good. I can get behind that kind of honesty =P

Jon wrote:

Honestly I didn’t even realise it was a Bay movie until the end…

It’s the most Bay movie I’ve ever seen.

Rocket wrote:

My main disagreement with this film is ********** died so early.

That’s a spoiler. I don’t mind because I’ve watched that much of the film, but it only dropped on Netflix a couple of days ago.

I’ll never finish watching it. I might check out specifics if I have to for work, but I’m not giving the film any more of my time voluntarily, without being paid.

Netflix makes those decisions soooooo much easier.

In other news, I saw ‘Doctor Sleep’.

The book probably works better but the film is very slow to get going and takes its time to get anywhere after that.

The money has clearly been spent, the cast are strong, but there’s a 90 minute movie in there, much better than labouring the point for an extra 60 minutes. It’s pretty blunt and clumsy about it too.

But it’s not a horror film, it’s a thriller, and there’s a difference. A lot of horror films have been mis-described the other way around but this isn’t a scary movie. It’s a sad movie and it’s a slow, sad movie.

‘The Shining’ is a horror film. Kubrick didn’t set out to be as meaningful as this is trying to be. Kubrick was, allegedly, just trying to make a hit film. He wasn’t trying to explain anything. He didn’t get too complex, didn’t wrap it up in knots.

I think he had the right idea.

I really liked Knives Out, and refreshingly so did my wife (she’s lukewarm on most movies, don’t ask me why). Ana de Armas is great as others have said, and it was fun seeing Chris Evans play such an utter douchebag. Craig is good but doesn’t dominate the film as I thought his detective would, he’s more around the edges of the drama. The movie was filmed in my neck of the woods and looks it. I’m pretty sure I’ve been to whichever town they filmed the car chase in, it looked very familiar.

So I’ve been re-watching Chuck… I’ve made it to the begining of season 3, but I think I’ll just leave it there, it’s becoming WAAAAY too repeptitive at this point, so I’m guessing that’s how it’s gonna fizzle out… BUT, I was surprised at how well the show aged, although I guess these days they wouldn’t be able to get away with sooooooo many T&A shots… crazy how sexualized they went for this show (although to be fair Captain Awesome is always naked too, so there’s at least that)… Comedy aged pretty well too, which is legit surprising, since comedy tends to age horribly.
 
I was also thinking: Damn shame they didn’t cast Yvonne Strahovski as Captain Marvel… she’s a good actress (she’s been stand out in the Handmaiden thingie) and pretty damned good at action stuff as well, I’d forgotten how good she was… but then again, seeing what they wrote for that movie, maybe it’s for the best… Still though, she would’ve been MUCH better than Brie Larson for sure.

I think you picked a good point to stop watching. Chuck started to get annoying when they suddenly decided there needed to be a deep backstory involving his entire family. It was just unnecessary clutter.

Just finished Season 4 of the Expanse. If you’re not watching the show and like Sci-Fi, sort your life out.

(It was very good)

Work was dead today, so I watched two movies on Netflix and got paid to do it. Pacific Rim Uprising was fun, but incredibly vapid and very cynical about wanitng to sell toys and appeal to the Chinese audience. By comparison Marraige Story was amazing, emotionally raw and by turns heartfelt and incredibly uncomfortable. The big fight is going to live in the back of my head for a while. At the same time, I couln’t shake that this was a movie in which Kylo Ren and the Black Widow are getting a divorce, Admiral Holdo and Hawkeye Pierce are their lawyers, and Grand Nagus Zek and Ensign Tilly work for Kylo

lorcan_nagle wrote:

Pacific Rim Uprising was fun, but incredibly vapid and very cynical about wanitng to sell toys and appeal to the Chinese audience.

Yeah, I also just saw that one. Some fun fights, but overall it was lesser returns, and the whole thing with the cadets was daft. Overall, quite disappointing for a Stephen DeKnight thing.

Soooo I just finished the Witcher… pretty good… too short though =(
 
Should we have like a thread for it or something? Maybe there’s not enough interest… Anyways, too lazy for spoiler tags so I won’t discuss it much… There were some interesting narrative choices though, a bit confusing for a while, but it’s kinda cool how it comes together by the end. Also, quite suprising that the series is very female centric, in fact, the show is more about the Witcher himself and two other women, they’re definitely the 3 mains, despite the name of the show.
 
Anyways, great performances by everyone. Cavill was suitably imposing, and the two lead women were really good as well, but everyone does a good job in general. Good thing S2’s already been green-lit ’cause damn that cliffhanger… u_u
 
I suppose that as always there’s the question of “is this the new GoT?” and… I dunno, probably not… it has the potential, but I supposed it’ll depend on wether it sparks people’s attention quickly enough… we’ll see I s’pose…

I’m a couple of episodes into the Witcher and enjoying it. It’s a bit less serious than I expected, in a good way. It’s quite camp and silly in places.

Cats: It’s not good, but it’s definitely more fun to watch than The Rise of Skywalker.

You never get used to the faces, and the songs aren’t very good. The dancing seems like it’s probably good, but because of all the CGI, it’s hard to tell. They just look like cartoons, and it’s easy forget there are people in there until you remember their disturbingly human faces/hands/feet.

The weirdness peaks early with Rebel Wilson pulling off her skin to reveal a second skin (and clothes underneath), and then her eating tiny mice and cockroaches, all of whom also have human faces (kids’ faces, for the mice). Ian McKellan gives the best performance, as Jennifer Hudson is misused. She has the one song in the musical that people know, but it’s filmed in such a dull way that I mostly just wanted it to be over so we could get back to the fun characters.

It’s also weirdly horny for a PG movie. There’s a lot of shots of the cats nuzzling up to one another, and it definitely feels like everyone in the movie is trying to **** Victoria, the POV character created for the movie.

Ghostbusters

There was a special 35th Anniversary blu-ray release of this (and GBII) in most countries this year, with a new bonus disc featuring some unearthed deleted scenes and whatnot. But, it wasn’t released in the UK. Half the European versions were the same as the US one (albeit with localised box text), meaning five discs (one for each film, the bonus disc and then two UHD discs), a naff steelbook and largely sold out. The other half don’t have the UHD discs, or the bonus disc or even GBII but just a load of tat.

Enter the Japanese! A smart set with an English language cover (it comes with a Japanese wrap-around outside the case but in the shrinkwrap), the two movies on normal blu-rays and then the bonus disc. And it’s region-free (which I checked with Sony Japan before importing). Got it off Amazon JP for about £33 including postage that only took about three days.

I’ve barely scratched the special features (I did watch the fan-restored Real Ghostbusters pitch reel though, which is great fun). There’s about four different commentary/trivia tracks for the first film alone.

But the film… god this still holds up, all these years and viewings later. It looks beautiful on blu-ray, the VFX are still brilliant (apart from a couple of terror dog shots), the music is superb, the plot captivating, the cast brilliant (even the unfairly maligned Ernie Hudson, even if you can see where bits were written for Eddie Murphy) and, crucially, it’s still laugh out loud funny.

A Christmas Carol (2019)

(Here in the US, FX is showing all episodes back to back whereas y’all in the UK will get it over three nights.)

Among other things, the use of the word “fuck”, the mouse decapitation, and the burned people really set it apart from prior adaptations.

It’s beautifully produced but could have been an hour shorter. It’s going for a dark, “edgy” suspenseful, mature take bordering on horror. It’s not bad but to does drag a bit. It’s definitely different.

Rick and Morty, Episode 4.5: Rattlestar Ricklactica

This was the best Terminator movie of the year.

Todd wrote:

A Christmas Carol (2019)

(Here in the US, FX is showing all episodes back to back whereas y’all in the UK will get it over three nights.)

Among other things, the use of the word “fuck”, the mouse decapitation, and the burned people really set it apart from prior adaptations.

It’s beautifully produced but could have been an hour shorter. It’s going for a dark, “edgy” suspenseful, mature take bordering on horror. It’s not bad but to does drag a bit. It’s definitely different.

This starts tonight in the UK. I’m really looking forward to it – it’s one of my all-time favourite stories.

I’m reading the original book with my daughter this Christmas too, and I’ve already watched lots of my favourite adaptations of it so far this Christmas. There are so many to choose from – Scrooged, the Doctor Who episode, Blackadder, the Muppets, all great.

I’m not sure I need a gritty reboot of ‘A Christmas Carol’.

I might just watch the Muppet version again.

I’m watching The Witcher.

My friend does not like it but I do.

This is why friends are bad.

Anonymous wrote:

I’m watching The Witcher.

My friend does not like it but I do.

This is why friends are bad.

Good news then, you found someone with worse taste than yours…

That’s not very nice

not gonna lie, I’m disappointed you didn’t type “already found you” or something like that… u_u

Because  I’ve already fouuuuund yooouuuu

The Witcher is great. I’ve watched five episodes in the last 24 hours, and I’m not usually a binge-watcher. It’s tons of fun and I like how tongue-in-cheek it is. Best enjoyed with a drink or two.

SteveUK wrote:

I’m not sure I need a gritty reboot of ‘A Christmas Carol’.

The original story is pretty gritty. And I don’t think of this as a ‘reboot’, just one adaptation of many over the years.

One of the things I like about the story is that it can support a wide variety of tones and styles in adaptations. I love the silly ones and the serious ones for different reasons.

Dave wrote:

Todd wrote:

A Christmas Carol (2019)

(Here in the US, FX is showing all episodes back to back whereas y’all in the UK will get it over three nights.)

Among other things, the use of the word “fuck”, the mouse decapitation, and the burned people really set it apart from prior adaptations.

It’s beautifully produced but could have been an hour shorter. It’s going for a dark, “edgy” suspenseful, mature take bordering on horror. It’s not bad but to does drag a bit. It’s definitely different.

This starts tonight in the UK. I’m really looking forward to it – it’s one of my all-time favourite stories.

I’m reading the original book with my daughter this Christmas too, and I’ve already watched lots of my favourite adaptations of it so far this Christmas. There are so many to choose from – Scrooged, the Doctor Who episode, Blackadder, the Muppets, all great.

SteveUK wrote:

I’m not sure I need a gritty reboot of ‘A Christmas Carol’.

I might just watch the Muppet version again.

This is definitely NOT one for young children. The portrayal of a character’s death is quite graphic.

Ultimately the show’s real problem is that it’s too long. It’s a two hour project that’s been stretched out to three.

The Muppet version is definitely better.

Dave wrote:

The Witcher is great. I’ve watched five episodes in the last 24 hours, and I’m not usually a binge-watcher. It’s tons of fun and I like how tongue-in-cheek it is. Best enjoyed with a drink or two.

Well then, that’s a chunk of my Christmas sorted.

Dave wrote:

The original story is pretty gritty. And I don’t think of this as a ‘reboot’, just one adaptation of many over the years.

I was using the phrase as general term for an approach; gritty reboots of everything were on the cards for a few years.

I’ve read the novel, it’s dark but gritty is in the eye of the beholder. It’s not graphic. This sounds like overkill, but I might give it a try if I run out of ‘Witcher’, or whisky?

Overall I enjoyed The Witcher.  To get the bad out of the way, the first episode really gives off a vibe of the show trying to be Game of Thrones, and it doesn’t have the skilled writers, enough skilled actors, or the money to pull that off.  As soon as the narrative tightens, it gets much better.  Though it’s not clear for most of the show’s run that the three main stories are starting at different times and running at different speeds until the characters start to meet up.  It’s a really nice narrative trick, but frustrating that it wasn’t ever properly explained. As I understand it, most of Geralt’s plots were more or less straight adaptations of the original short stories, while other elements come from the first full novel, with the second series primed to continue adapting that book, which is a good approach.  There’s some very ropey writing, early on – there’s some of the most awkward and yet almost impossible to discern dialogue when Geralt and the Sylvan are fighting, but it definitely improves from that point. And a lot of the effects and prosthethics for monsters and other races interacting with humans are… subpar.

Oh, and I think my eyes rolled so hard they did a full 360 with Yennefer’s subplot about trading her fertility for beauty and then regretting it.

Complaints out of the way, the rest of the show is very good.  I’m gonna call out the fight scenes especially, they’re really well-choreographed and move with a fantastic intent. It really shows up The Mandalorian’s pedestrian fights by comparison. The decision to make the dialogue more modern than most fantasy stories works in its favour for the most part, and I really like how Jasiek’s songs have a contemporary feel to them as opposed to the traditional fantasy image of minstrels and bards.  The versions used for the closing credits on a couple of episodes are fantastic. There’s a lot of fun in the show as well, which is one of two elements I’m glad it has that separate it form Game of Thrones – the show is entertaining as much as it is compelling, and that goes a long way when so much of prestige TV is dour.  The other is that it’s weird in a kinda counterculture vein, as opposed to Game of Thrones having everything supernatural being played for horror, here it’s a mix of “this is normal” and “nobody really talks about how odd normal is”.  It hold this up for examination, and just says “this shit’s pretty messed up, don’t you think?”

I also like the broad use of regional European accents and cultural references, it helps to make the Continent feel like a varied and diverse region, moreso than most fantasy worlds.  That said, there is a character in the cast list named Eist Tuirseach, which is Irish for “Hear Tired”

SteveUK wrote:

I was using the phrase as general term for an approach; gritty reboots of everything were on the cards for a few years. I’ve read the novel, it’s dark but gritty is in the eye of the beholder. It’s not graphic. This sounds like overkill, but I might give it a try if I run out of ‘Witcher’, or whisky?

Yeah, that’s fair. They might be taking it a bit too far. We’ll see.

lorcan_nagle wrote:

Though it’s not clear for most of the show’s run that the three main stories are starting at different times and running at different speeds until the characters start to meet up.  It’s a really nice narrative trick, but frustrating that it wasn’t ever properly explained.

I skipped over the rest of the post as I still have a few episodes to watch before I finish it, but I actually really liked the way they did this. It was clear from fairly early on that some strands were running at totally different speeds to others, so there had to be some element of time-shuffling going on.

And then as you started to see certain later story strands that logically had to come before stuff you’d already seen (due to dead characters suddenly being alive again, and events happening that you had already seen referred to previously) it became pretty clear what the sequence was. I thought it was quite elegant.

Dave wrote:

lorcan_nagle wrote:

Though it’s not clear for most of the show’s run that the three main stories are starting at different times and running at different speeds until the characters start to meet up.  It’s a really nice narrative trick, but frustrating that it wasn’t ever properly explained.

I skipped over the rest of the post as I still have a few episodes to watch before I finish it, but I actually really liked the way they did this. It was clear from fairly early on that some strands were running at totally different speeds to others, so there had to be some element of time-shuffling going on.

And then as you started to see certain later story strands that logically had to come before stuff you’d already seen (due to dead characters suddenly being alive again, and events happening that you had already seen referred to previously) it became pretty clear what the sequence was. I thought it was quite elegant.

It think it was episode 4 when it fell into place for me.

Me too. I realised early on, in episode two (with the magical training taking months at the same time as the Witcher’s storyline was taking hours) that it wasn’t all in sync, but it was only with episode four that everything else fell into place.

I saw a pre-award screening of ‘The Lighthouse’. If ‘Cats’ is any weirder than this it’ll be an achievement.

The style is very in your face. Fortunately the trailers aren’t trying to pretend this is a mainstream horror film (like ‘the Witch’ was sold as, despite being something else entirely).

It didn’t completely work for me, it’s a tale of madness and isolation, and it keeps it’s cards close to it’s chase on whether there’s anything more at work there.

But it’s very well made, Dafoe and Pattinson play very different people and both do a great job. The cinematography is echoing early cinema well (and effectively) but the edit and sound is where it (for me) is a little too old fashioned to gel today.

So, one to explore a bit, and contrast with the modern, mainstream approach, but as I said. It kept me at a distance.

Eddie Murphy hosted Saturday Night Live last night, the first time he’s been on the show in 35 years (ignoring his brief, pointless moment in the 40th anniversary special).

He was a bit rusty at live performing, breaking a few times and accidentally saying shit once, but it was pretty good overall. It was a total glory run of all his old characters – Gumby, Buckwheat, Velvet Jones, Mister Robinson – but when you anchored the show and haven’t been on it in so long, I think you can get away with that. And he was good in a couple of other sketches.

This is also (again ignoring the 40th anniversary special) the first SNL I’ve seen in maybe 7 years, possibly longer (last one was Marshall off HIMYM hosting with Florence and the Machine) and man, I have heard of next to none of this current cast. Kate McKinnon, Pete Davidson (vaguely) and, of course Kenan Thompson, who I assume is now looking to see if he outlasts the entire show. This maybe wasn’t the best episode to judge them on, as it was overloaded with alumni, but none of them beyond McKinnon really made an impression and I was surprised by how weak Update was.

Dark Materials S1 has been quite the ride. Hopefully S2 and S3 will be following quickly and I remember less of the later books.

Dave wrote:

Me too. I realised early on, in episode two (with the magical training taking months at the same time as the Witcher’s storyline was taking hours) that it wasn’t all in sync, but it was only with episode four that everything else fell into place.

Well since Lorcan already spoiled that one massive thing about time-lines: I really liked how they design the show around that… I usually get annoyed with that kind of thing, like with Westworld, but here it’s a neat narrative trick… plus it’s designed to let you know what’s going on early on (with clues in earlier episodes) so at least it’s not dicking you around… but it is a bit confusing and hard to follow because of how people age differently and that’s not really explained early on… and from the ton of coments I’ve seen on-line, everyone’s experience was more or less the same unless they knew the books.
 
But anyways, I really like how it all comes together by the last episode. I’ve been watching interviews, pretty interesting to hear what’s behind the idea of doing that multiple time-line thing, I like it that’s it’s not really about the plot twists, but rather a way to incorporate characters a lot sooner than in the books. Still, I remain confused on some things, because some time jumps are super fuckin wild, while others not so much… it’d be fun to plot a chronography, actually…
 
Oh the figths were top notch, though I gotta say the most memorable is at the end of the first episode… that was mind blowing…

I’ve played the games so I know the general narrative. I’m only on episode 4 but it became clear to me the stories were not concurrent when we first meet Yennifer in episode 2.

I’m not sure if it’s meant to be a reveal, is it? More just a structure you pick up

Martin Smith wrote:

I was surprised by how weak Update was

Update has been awful for years. Che and Jost are terrible, but they’re in charge and don’t look like they’ve any plans to step down or move on to anything else. I usually just skip it.

Bowen Yang is probably the best of the new cast, but he didn’t get much to do last night.

Jon wrote:

Oh the figths were top notch, though I gotta say the most memorable is at the end of the first episode… that was mind blowing…

Yeah, the action is really good. After watching that first episode my wife commented on how good the fight choreography was, and she doesn’t usually take a huge amount of notice of that stuff.

It felt like they maybe wanted a Daredevil-corridor-fight moment, a signature action setpiece to sell the show.

Anonymous wrote:

it became clear to me the stories were not concurrent when we first meet Yennifer in episode 2. I’m not sure if it’s meant to be a reveal, is it? More just a structure you pick up

This was my experience too. More a gradual realisation than a reveal.

Is there any chance the Witcher posts can be moved into a separate thread? I’ve not had a chance to watch it and even though I’ve skipped past the posts discussing it I’ve picked up a couple bits and pieces in scrolling.

Sorry, I didn’t see the dedicated thread until after my last post. I’ll keep discussion to the spoiler thread from now on.

Been watching a few episodes of Twin Peaks season 3 (as I got a Sky subscription to be able to watch Watchmen, and they’ve got this, too). It’s far weirder than the first seasons were, and heavier on the occultist refererences. I love it, but it’s often some heavy watching – I mean, there’s also the gentle humour of the show and there’s the tense, violent moments, and there’s bits that are just entertaining. But it’s all wrapped up in something that goes very deep, and watching three or four episodes of this uploads a lot of that stuff into your brain.

What I’m saying is, I’m probably going to take a break and watch The Witcher or something tonight.

Also, watched Catching Fire with the kid a few nights ago. It’s alright. Very much a middle movie that kind of repeats the first one while setting up the final parts of the trilogy; so the movie itself felt both too long and kind of empty at the same time. But it was still fun to watch, being a very competently made movie, after all.

Christian wrote:

Been watching a few episodes of Twin Peaks season 3 (as I got a Sky subscription to be able to watch Watchmen, and they’ve got this, too). It’s far weirder than the first seasons were, and heavier on the occultist refererences. I love it, but it’s often some heavy watching – I mean, there’s also the gentle humour of the show and there’s the tense, violent moments, and there’s bits that are just entertaining. But it’s all wrapped up in something that goes very deep, and watching three or four episodes of this uploads a lot of that stuff into your brain.

What I’m saying is, I’m probably going to take a break and watch The Witcher or something tonight.

Have you made it to Episode 8 yet?

In my personal opinion, that is one of the best single episodes in the history of television.

Martin Smith wrote:

Eddie Murphy hosted Saturday Night Live last night, the first time he’s been on the show in 35 years (ignoring his brief, pointless moment in the 40th anniversary special).

He was a bit rusty at live performing, breaking a few times and accidentally saying shit once, but it was pretty good overall. It was a total glory run of all his old characters – Gumby, Buckwheat, Velvet Jones, Mister Robinson – but when you anchored the show and haven’t been on it in so long, I think you can get away with that. And he was good in a couple of other sketches.

This is also (again ignoring the 40th anniversary special) the first SNL I’ve seen in maybe 7 years, possibly longer (last one was Marshall off HIMYM hosting with Florence and the Machine) and man, I have heard of next to none of this current cast. Kate McKinnon, Pete Davidson (vaguely) and, of course Kenan Thompson, who I assume is now looking to see if he outlasts the entire show. This maybe wasn’t the best episode to judge them on, as it was overloaded with alumni, but none of them beyond McKinnon really made an impression and I was surprised by how weak Update was.

Christel and I watched it last night. Eddie came across rusty as hell. He was amusing but not gut-busting funny like he used to be.

SNL’s big problem is that it’s too long. Out of 90 minutes, the last half hour usually has the weakest sketches. Most sketch comedies nowadays are 30 minutes tops with little fat. SNL is just a bloated beast that struggles to fill its runtime. Weekend Update was long ago surpassed by The Daily Show.

Unless she signs a new contract, this is Kate McKinnon’s last year. They really don’t have anyone who can fill her shoes. They are kind of fucked.

If it were announced that SNL was cancelled, I doubt I’d miss it.

Todd wrote:

Have you made it to Episode 8 yet?

 

I did and I agree. But it’s exactly what I’m talking about – I kept going for two more episodes after that one, but now I really have to let all this stuff unfold in my subconscious for a while before going on. “This is the water, and this is the well”, man.

Christian wrote:

But it’s all wrapped up in something that goes very deep, and watching three or four episodes of this uploads a lot of that stuff into your brain.

I tried bingeing it but it got in my brain and I couldn’t deal with the messed up dreams it gave me. I think that would make Lynch very happy.

Todd wrote:

SNL’s big problem is that it’s too long.

Too long, too frequent. It sets demands on being able to turn out a volume of sketch comedy nobody else has. If you watch the original few seasons with all the cast members that went on to be comedy superstars a load of the sketches fall flat, a lot of them are excellent and those are what everyone remembers rather than the fact that it’s always been like that. Some great stuff padded with filler.

You have a show that’s been going for 40 + years yet nobody copies it’s format (some tried but never got far at all) which I think is telling. It survives on the promise of those few sketches that are really good and a monopoly on the best of that kind of talent combined with a rather impossible task.

 

<p style=”text-align: left;”>

Todd wrote:

this is Kate McKinnon’s last year. They really don’t have anyone who can fill her shoes. They are kind of fucked

That attitude always comes up when the current breakout star/glue goes to leave and the show always manages to cope (eventually).</p>
I think the show has run too long now to be cancelled until Michaels quits/dies. And even then I think they’d try to get someone like Tina Fey to replace him.

I saw ‘Cats’ Last night.

To get the obvious question out of the way first; no it doesn’t work. It’s a bad film.

The critics (not unusually) have gone completely overboard about it. They have review columns and podcasts to fill so this is a bit of a Christmas gift for them, but they anti-hype is still excessive.

The problem with the movie is that it’s fundamentally misconceived. The human-cat hybrids never stop being strange. There should come a point (as early as possible) where you forget what you’re seeing isn’t real and just go with it, but that never happens and, occasionally, extra weird things happen and take you even further out of the film.

I wish they’d chosen to film actors/dancers/singers in make-up and costume, with a little VFX enhancement. Or, gone entirely animated and embraced the unreality of cats singing and dancing.

This half-way house version doesn’t work.

Having said that, some of the dancing is great, some of the singing, amazing, some of the design beautiful, and the cast are pretty much all well chosen.

But those CG catpeople are simply too distracting.

The audience we saw it with though were there to laugh at it anyway. It’s clearly become a cult film immediately, with the audience buying tickets specifically to mock the movie. That wont be enough to make the movie profitable, but at least no-one is bored.

And to follow up on news reports; it’s still not finished. Some of the cats weren’t really connected to the floor properly, with feet sliding around enough to be noticeable in a few shots, and even without shadows in some.

I wont be surprised if another update is sent out shortly.

SteveUK wrote:

I wont be surprised if another update is sent out shortly.

And so cinema reaches the level of video games, by issuing an incomplete film followed up with patches.

If you pay extra you can download alternative skins that make them look like Garfield, Fritz the Cat and Cat from Red Dwarf.

Dave wrote:

If you pay extra you can download alternative skins that make them look like Garfield, Fritz the Cat and Cat from Red Dwarf.

If you pay for the premium package, you can make them all Thundercats.

And to follow up on news reports; it’s still not finished. Some of the cats weren’t really connected to the floor properly, with feet sliding around enough to be noticeable in a few shots, and even without shadows in some.

 

I wont be surprised if another update is sent out shortly.

I saw it last night, and mine didn’t appear to be the updated version, thankfully.

I noticed the digitally sliding feet quite a few times, and a lot of other stuff was strange enough to question whether it was done by design. I’m never going to watch this movie again, and it was thankfully shorter than I thought it was going to be, but a lot of the audience that I was with seemed confused after it had finished.

KandorLives wrote:

I’m never going to watch this movie again, and it was thankfully shorter than I thought it was going to be

One for the poster.

The Lego Movie 2: Not as bad as I’d been led to believe, but not a patch on the first one either – far fewer gags and the story was less inspired. This felt like one of those films that would have been a straight-to-video sequel a decade or two ago.

The Mischief Theatre company has got a new TV series, off the back of their previous Christmas specials (Peter Pan Goes Wrong and A Christmas Carol Goes Wrong). The Goes Wrong Show started last night with a Christmas special, fittingly.

I was pretty underwhelmed by their Christmas Carol one, the first they made specifically for TV, so was a little apprehensive of this, but it turned out pretty great. It’s framed as a series of old style three camera plays with a live studio audience, which is a good middle ground between the theatre origins and the leas successful format of CC. There’s a solid mix of slapstick and jokes that I think will appeal across the generations. There’s some fairly dirty jokes snuck in here that will go over kids’ heads but amuse adults.

I was in a bit of a low mood before watching this tonight, but it really lifted my spirits, especially “Santa”’s rambling about Amazon.

One qualm I have is that there are a couple of lines that suggest this wasn’t intended as the first episode of the series and I wonder if it being taken out of order to go first will undermine any running sub-plots/jokes with the cast.

Did anyone else watch the annual BBC4 Christmas Eve ghost story by Mark Gatiss, Martin’s Close?

I ask because I’m wondering if anyone was as nonplussed by it as I was. Capaldi was good as the prosecutor and the guy playing Judge Jeffries was great, but it was a pretty limp story, not at all scary and I don’t quite get what the point of Simon Williams’ modern narrator character was.

Come to think of it, I don’t think I’ve found any of Gatiss’s Xmas Eve ghost stories scary. But then I’m not all that fussed by horror. Did it work better for people who are?

I haven’t watched it yet but it’s on my to-iplayer list.

I intended to watch it. They’re more cosy, creeping dread than anything.

I’m watching Kubo and the Two Strings for the first time since the cinema. It’s gorgeous.

Martin Smith wrote:

Did anyone else watch the annual BBC4 Christmas Eve ghost story by Mark Gatiss, Martin’s Close?

I ask because I’m wondering if anyone was as nonplussed by it as I was. Capaldi was good as the prosecutor and the guy playing Judge Jeffries was great, but it was a pretty limp story, not at all scary and I don’t quite get what the point of Simon Williams’ modern narrator character was.

Come to think of it, I don’t think I’ve found any of Gatiss’s Xmas Eve ghost stories scary. But then I’m not all that fussed by horror. Did it work better for people who are?

I’m on the “to watch later” list as well. I like Gatiss but even the stuff he’s passionate about (like ghost stories) is hit and miss. I hope I like it enough.

Right now, I’m trying to watch the new version of Worzel Gummidge. It seems like Crook has got out his big book of country/townee cliches. It’s not subverted any of those cliches or even expectations so far.

Hopefully it’ll get more intriguing as things go on.

Well, this year’s Boxing Day has been cold, wet, grey, dark and horrible.

So, perfect for watching The Greatest Showman – had ourselves quite a time.

Bye bye Mr. Robot. You were the best show: Legion-ary! Christian Slater (he’s so cool).

Dominique and Darlene: imperfectly, perfect wee dotes. Krista so great.

Ta, Sam Esmail for writing women as real people, but why you make poor Elliot cry and try so much?

Rami Malek’s lost, lonesome, sweet wee face.

There were a couple of extremely questionable and unsatisfying things by the end, but overall the show kept the quality pretty strong all the way through. Another great show ending this year… but hey, it’s better this way, I’m not sure this would’ve given a lot more…