judith angelo

Just beginning to watch, but Any story about the Sacklers framed as a horror-comedy gets my vote. Didn't hurt to have watched Fandango interview with cast ;->!

Terrific directing/writing debut for Kravitz, perfect use of Tatum - and casting altogether. In a film about power, Kravitz' control is overt. The first half is deliciously slow, stunningly beautiful. In a film about abuse and violence, assault isn't pornographic, and blood flow isn't gratuitous.

I would follow the Kings - and their opening credits - anywhere. Casting has been brilliant throughout - with extra credit for using Andrea Martin and Christine Lahti. The clamoring chorus of daughter voices never gets old. It's goofy - which is a pitch-perfect tone for any serious philosophical meditation on the nature of evil which allows the Catholic Church to participate.

Noomi Rapace anchors this demanding series - it is hard to imagine it maintaining its pitch without her. Tho i dont think it's for everyone, for me the writing and characters are a "realistic" take on a sci-fi classic : 98% of the folks in the story have no idea what is going on. No one is happy. And unlike other variations on the theme, this time no one with a clue is written to make things easier for us ;-> That's what i like - tho the premise is familiar, at 4 episodes in ive never seen such a convincingly slow arc of discovery...

(The 3 stars are an acknowledgement of subjectivity. I really liked it!!) This film, like most fairy tales, is entirely predictable. But the most enduring power of love in this case resides in the hearts of sibling monsters- and that makes all the difference. Drenched in blood and miles of fabric so sumptuous that some gowns are not so much costumes as companion spirits, this movie is as relentlessly beautiful as the 3 human creatures trapped inside it. All three actors are perfectly cast, and each operates at the distinct melodramatic pitch of their characters. The credibility of their voices is what sustains the spell, and while Chastain’s commitment may well the be most essential in that regard, she is part of a trio...Or a quartet, if you count her clothes ;-)

Fun. Ridiculously teenage-boy gross - which is better than college boy gross - but still interrupts the story in an increasingly annoying way. That said, the former cop partners snd the devoted secretary are all excellent, the mystery is solid. Best part tho is the last couple minutes ON-SET. I woulf give 90 minutes of that 5 stars.

Rewatching after many years, perhaps because I have caught up with it, there is more to see, and more to hear in the multitude of silences that define Griet. I had recently read the book when I first saw the film, and agree with the reviewer who said that the book’s story benefits from the film’s visual beauty. I think something equally powerful happens when the book’s first person narration becomes Grier’s nearly mute presence in her own story. On the page she is is never silent - she is open to us. The film requires us to open to her. Her wordlessness forces us to learn about her the way she learns: by paying close attention. At the beginning, Griet’s innocence and ignorance are nearly interchangeable, and both give way to cruel experience and self-discovery. And while she may like the boy and be confused by her more complex reaction to Vermeer, it is the studio where she first feels passion - unique, immediate, and utterly private. It is the kind of passion that can override conventional accountability, as it does for both Vermeer and his patron the sexual predator. Everything is quieter and more internal for Griet. I think discovering that personal capacity transforms Griet’s navigation of powerlessness and self-respect - that is the story I think the film tells beautifully. It isn’t so much better than the book as successful on its own terms.

I missed this. I’m trying to imagine this being the first time I saw Emma Stone. That’s why 5 - Voice 5, Range-5, Clever Parents Who TOTALLY make Emma’s clever credible, Gayboy-5... And I haven’t even finished the film.

Just wandered into this - still on S1 & delighted there are 4 more. Definitely a product of its time - accessibly clever people we like, some traditional boy/girl tension, a reliably eternal moral dilemma, minus the super quick or sharp banter we’ve become used to, and cheerfully straightforward about good guys & bad guys. I like demanding heartbreaking television - I watch a lot of it. And I like shows like this : it hits that sweet spot of nicely paced episodes with an animated mix of believable & quirky characters - this time suspended between the mysteries and dangers of both science and politics. Looking forward to a comfortable ride through more complex & deeper terrain... or not ;->

“That such tosh squeaks through as trashily enjoyable is testament to Judd's basic likeability and Jones' craggy charm, even as a cold character he could have played standing on his head.” Pretty much, and there really isn’t enough of Jones. But the fact that something is far-fetched, full of holes, and predictable as a cuckoo clock has never bothered Hollywood, and Hollywood has never underestimated the complacency of American audiences.