Pericles Bacchus

This is yet another offering of televisual offal, from the powerhouse of pop trash, Ryan Murphy et al. He made his mark with AHS series, which, for me, never got better than Coven. Though most people have their favourites. This outing features some decent performances and talent, trouble is, the material is lacking in clear paradigms, internal logic, and world building. A shame seeing as how there are some creative set pieces offered here, but without the substance to carry a narrative. Sadly without fleshed out characters the dialogue is inauthentic and risible. Tripe.

I am truly bemused as to how this movie got made. Truly. Ang Lee has given us so many great films that I felt this must've been directed by an assistant director of far lesser talent. Nearly 24 hours later I am still at a loss. On the one hand, Will Smith is on point in his acting in this. Despite the looming plot holes, yes they get more massive and harder to overlook. His co stars all turn in solid performances too. Considering the material. Mary Elizabeth Winstead was a surprise as she worked well with Smith, eschewing the very typical female co star tropes the film avoids, for the most part. Clive Owen is so over the top evil, that he undercuts his usual on the money skills. The rest of the cast are pretty much wasted. The plot becomes utterly ridiculous and unnecessary. Far better films have handled the retiring spy that the state deems better of dead than alive trope. And without the idiocy of having the lead assassin with a conscience, battling his younger cloned self. Which brings me to this problem: It is excruciating watching this unfold. First, the idea that Will's character is so good that his clone alone could bring him undone is just plain stupid. Why not clone another assassin? One who's tricks etc he would not know ahead of time? Anyway, once they realise who is who and what is going on, they begin to bond. Surprise. Surprise. The CGI on the young actor that plays Wills younger self is appalling. At no time does it look natural. In any way. So you find yourself being jolted out of the narrative, such as it is, each time the camera is on his face. Then you have the eyes of both men, definitely showing much emotion, so much so you are pulled back, only to be whiplashed out again by the CGI trickery. The more this goes on, the less interest I had in the whole setup. By the time the credits roll I'd checked out. Save it for movie night at home, where you can have a bit of a slag off with your mates. All the while loving seeing a mature Will Smith doing his best with some of the weakest material I've ever seen him in. Enjoy.

Can I adequately express the unbridled joy at finding this gem on Netflix? Probably not. But I'll try. On seeing it a Chuck Lorre and co. enterprise I was a little dubious. True, I've long enjoyed much of his work over the years. Two And A Half Men had some kudos. The Big Bang in its heyday was smart and funny. And way back his work on Roseanne was gold. However, this new show, seems to be the show Chuck would be most proud of in terms of well drawn mature men, facing the twilight side of life in L.A. The cast is pure gold. Their chemistry sells it in spades. Arkin was made for this kind of humour. Douglas is back in top form. All the support cast bring it home in style and warmth. Travis, who I've often found cloying is smart, human and rounded. Susan Sullivan as Normans now dead wife is delightful. There are too many nuances here to go into. But laugh out loud funny, poignant, heartfelt, shallow, human and humane only scratch the surface. A must see for fans of any of the cast and smart TV humour. A Plus.

Spoiler Alert, I will be unashamedly fawning all over this film. Be warned. I'm a long time fan of Almodóvar's films. Some I've not seen, especially the early 80s ones. Others I need to watch again, as once was not enough. Like most great artists in film, watching and rewatching their works adds immensely to the appreciation of the piece. There is so much on offer in this his latest offering. The first being the Star, and I do mean Star, Antonio Banderas. My own love affair with his screen presence goes back to the early 90s. Perhaps with one of his first films I saw him in Law Of Desire. Apart from his incredible screen allure, is his talent. Looking into his eyes as he plays his characters you are drawn into a world of warmth, mystery, madness, charm, tenderness and in some roles, psychosis. In this one he is the rich dreamy centrepiece around which the narrative unfolds. He is flawed yet funny, in pain but energetic, sad but not lonely. He is having what many of us will go through. Mid life and the existential examining of ones life. Rudely and undesirable as it may often be. But he doesn't shy away from it. As usual Almodóvar has assembled a first class cast. All equally accomplished and a part of his unique vision. His colour palette is in top form. If you know his work at all, you'll appreciate his use of bold colours, striking set design and set pieces. Penelope Crúz is outstanding as the young Salvadore's mother. Raising her son in what could only be described as poverty. Maybe even abject poverty. Her own husband away at work most of the day, she struggles with their new life in a sort of cave system. The opening scene of her and other young women doing the washing of sheets down at the rivers edge on washboards is one of the most telling and striking scenes you will see opening a film. She has her young son on her back as she is scrubbing away, and has to ask her friend to take him off as he is too heavy. No drama, just a statement. Then as they spread the washing out over the bushes they are singing joyously. It is so simple and so pure. Rarely would we see a scene such as this in a film today. Or if we did, it would be to underline a heavy burden of poverty. This does not do that. It is uplifting. The story goes on, full of close ups of the interactions of the players. I was laughing and at times in tears. Antonio is ageing as we all are. But he is not old. His creative powers have not dimmed, nor has the directors. To look into Antonios eyes in the film will tell you more than my meagre words could ever do. See it and revel in a master and his work.

Started off as wobbly as a new born buck.... and got worse until it collapsed under the weight of its own inanity. Avoid at all costs.

First off, I’m tired. So not going to read through other reviews. It shouldn’t be necessary in this age of cinema. It’s pretty obvious from the get go that the money men behind this hired a stock team of so so writers, and threw some money their way and said, give us a vehicle for XY and Z. It’s a shame too. There is a good cast being let down by poor scripting, lousy writing, and shoddy direction. There are some excellent comedic scenes that do not flow, then they are thrown away for some tritely saccharine platitudes. It’s the equivalent of gorging on too much sugar and feeling sick later, like as soon as the credits rolled. I’m not sure, as I said I’m too tired to look it up, but there may have been some link to Girls Night, which was vastly superior. And clearly those in charge thought this was going to be that film. Not so. A surprising lack of chemistry between the cast baffled me. And can only assume they were not well directed. A poor offering at best. Avoid like the plague.

Thank you Sarah W. I was about to launch into the many reasons why Nat Nat and Hannah offended me. But you beat me too it. The fact that both their myopic self righteous reviews are receiving more upticks than yours just proves how much homophobia is well and alive. They clearly missed the point of the non vulgar shower scene. That in one fleeting visual, is the reason for the estrangement between the brothers, and the reason for his failed marriage. This was a brilliant yet gut wrenching film. And still relevant in the States and many other countries. America, the land of freedom for all. Unless your poor, black, gay or some other minority.

Watching Glass tonight was a confusing experience in horror/thriller enjoyment. The cast are all great, working flatout with hard to digest dialogue and overall disjointed scripting. Shyamalan has done some great work, and he is clearly working on some large themes here. The trouble is, it’s still a work in progress. Unbreakable was a great thriller that stayed with you long after. Split, was a very good stand alone serial killer film. I did not think it needed to be linked to either the former nor the latter, as in Glass. The premise of this latest film is a let down, plot holes abound, and dead spots aplenty. I genuinely was unaware of where it was leading, thinking that all the characters would be revealed to be identities inside Kevin’s mind. Which was alluded to. This red herring was annoying not tittilating in any way. The psychiatric institute they all find themselves in, is woefully lax in security and common sense. I kid you not. My eyes rolled so hard I had to pull back the lids. Idiotic lapses, unarmed guards and police until way too late in today’s America was just laughable. Ultimately M. Night has tried to address some mammoth themes here, but has found the material too wields. The end result is, he has reduced the human story down to ciphers. There is a disconnect between the audience and the characters. And no, this is not good. If you do not care and cannot relate to the main characters you stop caring what is happening to them and the story on the screen. I’d give the cast top marks as they did a great job. The story itself fell flat for me. Especially given that it is now 19 years since Unbreakbale was in the theatres. If, like myself, you haven’t seen it since, you’d have no clue as to the links. And it is the weaker of the three films. See it and make up your own mind though. As ever, we all see things differently.

Ok, giving this a 👍🏿And a 👎🏾. And this is why. This typical American ‘network’ show plays it so safe, you’re not in danger of anything but falling into a torpor. And that’s just fine. God knows we sometimes need that. But this is 2019. The digital age, the age of streaming TV. More on demand content than we could ever hope to watch in a dozen lifetimes. And so much of it is excellent. So, to have hoisted onto our screens this bloated mess of a show, which eschews any common sense, and follows less due process than any cop show that came screaming out of the 70’s, is, frankly an insult. But there you are, I still watch it and here’s why. Nathan Fillion. On the wrong side of 40 for a rookie that is meant to be 40. He trades heavily on his boyish charm. Even though it’s getting doughy and he’s getting heavy in the can. However, he pulls it off. Most of the cast are excellent and I’m sure they are hoping this will get them noticed. It should, as they really all deserve much better. So if this typical big network offering launches careers I’m all for it. Two real shock exists may prove the shows undoing. The captains brutal death was , well, brutal. She was strong and smart with great heart and soul. Likewise Afton Williamson. As Nolan’s partner. She is the highlight of the show. That she is not returning is a bad sign. Especially since she had made many claims of sexual misconduct and racism toward her, by members of the crew. That it wasn’t and couldn’t be resolved doesn’t look good for a long run. In fact I doubt even our Nathan can juice it for a 3rd season. Guess we’ll see soon enough. When taken as the return of Fillion to prime time after the very successful Castle, itself a lightweight but tight show that exceeded by the onscreen chemistry of all the cast, this pales in comparison. Oddly there was much rumoured about Fillion putting the kybosh on that show, after becoming difficult to work with. Whether there is any truth to these rumours I wouldn’t know. Being Hollywood, anything is possible. But a long run for The Rookie? Hmmm. Not too sure.

I agree with many other commentators here. Especially regarding 'content'. I've only seen 2 seasons, yet my head is swimming, from the inanity of the presentation and repetitive content and narration. I have been an avid reader of as many world mysteries as I can come across since I was a kid. This one I discovered as a grown up. And its bizarre nature has had me hooked. This current team are standup guys. Many of the 'experts' are a little over the top for my liking. Making extraordinary claims with absolutely no hard evidence to back them up. This annoys me. I mean anyone can make conjecture but what about the facts? I am sure the brothers are also relying on this series to help fund their further work on the site. As it's clear Marty has been the major bankroller for the current generation of treasure hunters. I can get that. But the productions flaws are typical of The History Channels sudden decent into tabloid programming. Something that began sometime in the last twenty years. I'd love to see the questions answered such as: If indeed there is a vault or vaults deep within the island. Who and how were they excavated and engineered? With what technology? What labour force? How was it sustained etc? Hoping we get more clarity on this fascinating subject in the eps to come.