I'm just a guy who loves stories, whether they be past, present, future, movies, TV Shows, video games, whatever. If you came to get an average guys thoughts on film, you've come to the right place.
I remember when this book came out. I never read it, but I do remember it being a popular book. Now here's the thing, there's a reason why this movie didn't come out until 2014 and it's because 2014 was the height of the Young adult book to movie adaptations that were started by The Hunger Games and someone wanted to take advantage of that with The Giver. I don't know if the book is as YA as the movie makes it out to be, but if it is, this is the OG YA novel and I'm actually a little sad it didn't get at popular as the other movies that have come out recently because it does have a poignant point to make... it just got bogged down by wanting to be the next Hunger Games, which is ironic because it kind of was the first Hunger Games...
The Giver takes place in a future where humanity has seen a horrible "calamity". Because of the calamity, remaining humans band together in communities that are artificially created and all emotion and feelings are not only outlawed but they are expunged from them.
The movie starts off in black and white, to show the view point of our main character Jonas (played by Brenton Thwaites). Him and his friends Fiona (played by Odeya Rush) and Asher (played by Cameron Monaghan). The movie starts right before they are going to go through the process of adulthood and they are going to receive their jobs that they will do for the rest of their lives.
Fiona ends up being a doctor or sorts, Asher becomes a drone pilot but Jonas is given a very strange job because he meets all the qualities that are expected of the people in this community (Divergent much?). He is given the job of receiver of memories and is put under the tutelage of a man called The Giver (played by Jeff Bridges). The job is essentially to be the only one who holds memories of the world they used to live in and advise the elders, the main one played by Meryl Streep, on the mistakes of the past.
As Jonas spends more time with the Giver, he starts to see the beauty, pain, and emotions that make us humans and the lengths this government has gone to squash it out in order to avoid conflict and in order to avoid the pain and calamity of the past.
As far as I understand, the villains in this movie are not exactly villains or corrupt like a President Snow from The Hunger Games, but instead of just bought so far into the system that their ways of thinking can only be changed by them seeing the things that the Giver and Jonas can see.
Oh... and Taylor Swift is in this movie...
I thought I was really going to hate Taylor Swift in this movie and I figured I had pinned down why this movie didn't get the following or acclaim of The Hunger Games and it was all pinned down on Taylor Swift. But she's honestly barely in the movie and the only reason I know she was in the film was because it's Taylor Swift, a famous person who is not an actress and the scenes she is in are not that good. She's incredibly inconsequential to the entire plot. They really could have taken her out entirely and nothing would have changed.
So... put Taylor Swift aside, is this a good movie?
On face value, yes.
It's not a masterpiece and it stinks of trying to be a franchise and trying to ride on the coattails of The Hunger Games, but when it's just trying to emulate the story, a story that I haven't even read the book and I know it's an interesting story, it does a pretty good job at portraying that.
I really wish I had read the book first because I'm pretty sure I'm going to read the book now and just think this movie is a piece of garbage. I'll have to let you know when I do read it, but on face value, this is really not a bad film. It's set in a futuristic world that seems pretty original and just sets itself apart from the rest of the YA films.
I really did like the transition they make from black and white to color to portray the slow progression Jonas goes through as he starts to see the new emotions and feelings. Now I think that the progression could have been show a little more than just color coming into his world, but I really liked it nonetheless.
I think when you think of the cast of this film, its actually not that bad. Except for Taylor Swift... she
wasn't in this movie. Katie Holmes is also in this movie and so is Alexander Skarsgard as Jonas's parents.
When you have Jeff Bridges and Meryl Streep, you're really not going to have a bad performance. I know that Jeff Bridges tends to pull out a grumbled mumble a lot of the time but I thought he did a good job with this one. I really liked Jonas and Fiona, I thought that they worked well together.
I don't think the cast and the film was overly exceptional. I think overall, everyone was good. Not great, but good. The movie served a purpose to entertain and make you think a little bit. It's very interesting watching someone like Jonas start to color his reality with the true feelings and facts of life, something he was hidden from. It makes for a good adventure and decent story. Nothing exceptional but not bad either.
I feel like I'm doing really short reviews but honestly when you finish a long review like the one I did for Beauty and the Beast everything feels short. Overall, the Giver is on Netflix. If you're a fan of the book, I'm not sure what you'll think about this film, but if you have never heard of The Giver, and especially if you're a fan of YA films like The Hunger Games, you actually might really like The Giver.
But what did you think? Does The Giver hold up against the other YA movies that their source material received from this story? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as send me your requests for films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.
I'll leave you with this. Again, I'd like to read the original book. Here's a short interview with Lois Lowry the books author. Enjoy!
So I remember hearing about Who Framed Roger Rabbit when I was a kid. I knew about the film but I had no idea what it was about or what the big hype about it was but I was aware of it. My parents never showed it to me because either they didn't think it was appropriate and they didn't allow me to watch it, or they never saw it themselves and therefore I never did. However, since I have been paying more attention to movie reviews on the internet these days, I have heard a lot of people rave about this movie and I thought it was time to finally give it a shot.
Who Framed Roger Rabbit takes place in 1940's Hollywood but we live among cartoons. Instead of being drawn and animated, cartoons film the same way a live action movie does.
And in this world, Eddie Valient (played by the late Bob Hoskins) is a private investigator who worked for high profile stars. He is hired by a studio executive to spy on the wife of the star Roger Rabbit (voiced by Charles Fleischer) because they believe that she's cheating on him. Soon after he takes some pictures of Rabbit's wife Jessica Rabbit (voiced by Kathleen Turner) playing patty cake (it's a PG movie people). Roger goes missing and is implicated in the murder of the head of a big studio. Eddie soon finds himself helping Roger as they try to unravel the mystery behind the murder of the studio executive while avoiding the grasp of a mysterious but clearly evil Judge Doom (played by Christohper Lloyd).
The first thing everyone always says in this review is that this was the first and only time that you saw both Disney and Warner Brothers cartoons together on screen... and yeah it's pretty cool to see that.
This film has a timeless feel to it, especially if you're like me where you grew up watching characters like this in cartoons and movies as a kid. And what's better is seeing what happens when these characters interact with one another. Watch this scene and tell me that this isn't incredibly entertaining.
But even until a couple of months ago before I watched the movie, that's really the only acclaim I knew about this movie, that it was the only outing where Disney and Warner Bros cartoons were together. I never really knew a whole lot about the story and how charming it is.
Is it the best story out there? No. But I do have a bit of a soft spot for Noir films and Who Framed Roger Rabbit is a tried and true noir film. It's actually kind of an interesting combination and actually some how is the closest thing to a serious mystery that includes animated characters with live action, something that has been mimicked but never really done correctly since.
I thought that Roger Rabbit looked like the most annoying character that could ever exist and that Jessica Rabbit was just a sex symbol that everyone thinks women should look like these days. But when you actually watch the film, you realize that they actually put a lot of effort into the story and the adaptation of a book I now want to read.
The book, Who Censored Roger Rabbit actually is a pretty big commentary on racial discrimination and prejudice and you can definitely see that within the film. It's done in a very clever way. The commentary in the film is just subtle enough to make a good point but not distracting enough to take away from the story and instead just add to it.
I thought Bob Hoskins did a really good job and that can't be easy, especially since the person he interacts with the most is an animated rabbit.
I read something that said that Harrison Ford was supposed to play Eddie Valient but his price was too high. Other names included Bill Murray and Eddie Murphy. After seeing the film I can only imagine what this film would have been like if all those other options had fallen through, and what's more interesting is that each one of those films would have been different. Harrison Ford's Eddie Valient would have been really interesting but Bill Murray and Eddie Murphy would have done the movie in a totally different way and that's the kind of stuff that interests me a lot.
Again, I'm glad Bob Hoskins is in the role, but that's the kind of stuff I find really interesting.
The most fun character hands down though had to be Christopher Lloyd playing Judge Doom. Have you ever wondered what Doc Brown would be like if he was evil? Besides Rick from Rick and Morty, Judge Doom is the perfect epitome of that.
Lloyd plays this part so animated and so beautifully evil that he's the kind of villain you just love to hate. His plot is actually kind of mature and gruesome for a kids movie but I never really saw this movie as a "kids" movie per-say and more of an adult movie with cartoons in it. Also I never saw it as a kid... so yeah... not a kids movie.
The thing that works best about this movie is just how it flows. It's an adventure and it sucks you in from the beginning. You like the characters, you like their flaws and their bravery. Now again, is it going to go down as one of my favorite movies of all time from the one time that I watched it? Most than likely no. Who Framed Roger Rabbit is more entertaining to me because of the historical value and technique used in the film. Personal preference really has nothing to do with it.
There's a classic feeling to it and it seems like something I could easily return to and watch again with ease. Maybe with some time it could start to climb the ranks of my favorite movies, but for now, I recognize the value it holds and the time and care that was put into a film like this.
If you're looking at this in the modern times where we love to reboot things, someone might ask the question, should we reboot Who Framed Roger Rabbit? The quick answer, I think, is no. I think it's so well done and kept in the time capsule of 1988 that anything created now might feel cheap and not really relevant, especially since a lot of the acclaim of this movie comes with the technological advances of the times and the type of animation that was celebrated in its hay day then.
If the right idea came along to perhaps continue the story or reboot it in a way that would be constructive I'm not so attached to the film that anything new would be an affront to me, I just don't see that happening, especially how few reboots that are good these days.
But overall, Who Framed Roger Rabbit is definitely a film worth checking out and if you haven't seen it yet like me, you're in for a treat.
But those are my thoughts, what did you think? Did you grow up watching Who Framed Roger Rabbit? Would you recommend it? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as send me your requests for films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.
I'll leave you with this. Kind of a fun video about making live action and animated hybrids. Enjoy!
So there are a good amount of movies that I need to review right now and I'm incredibly behind on all of them. This is actually the most recent film that I saw and I probably shouldn't be reviewing this one first, but this film is fascinating to me and there is a lot to talk about. It also doesn't help that it's the most current of the films that I'm reviewing and those are always more fun anyway.
So when I was a kid Beauty and the Beast was not my favorite of the Disney classic cartoons, but more recently I have revisited it in both the cartoon form and the musical on stage and it has begun to climb the ranks of my favorite Disney films so this remake could not have come at a better time.
This has been a remake I've been tracking for a long time because the cast is so strongly picked out. From Emma Watson, Ewan McGregor, Ian Mckellen, Luke Evans, Josh Gad, Kevin Kline, and so many more, this is a stacked cast the truth is, it had a lot riding on it.
On top of that, the fad of Disney remaking all their classic cartoons into live action films has had it's ups and downs from the great ones like Cinderella and The Jungle Book, to the not so great ones like Malificent and everything involving Alice and Wonderland. This was a film I think everyone was looking forward to.
Beauty and the Beast follows the story of Belle (played by Emma Watson), a young woman living in a small village in France with her father Maurice (played by Kevin Kline). Belle longs for adventure and "so much more than the provincial life" she has had in this village. The entire village thinks she is odd but the town hero Gaston (played by Luke Evans) sees Belle as the best bride for him and he and his side kick Lefou (played by Josh Gad) will stop at nothing to get her to marry Gaston.
Belle eventually finds her way to a magical castle and is eventually taken prisoner by the head of the castle, a mysterious Beast (played by Dan Stevens) who first imprisons her father for stealing a rose from his castle grounds. The castle is populated by the former staff who were transformed into household items like a clock, a candelabra, a tea pot, a harpsicord, and a dresser. The staff want desperately to become human again and that can only happen if the spell is broken.
The whole movie follows pretty closely to the original cartoon film and teaches the lesson that beauty comes from within and Stockholm syndrome is very, very real... or something like that, as Belle comes to know her captor and eventually becomes the key to lifting the curse set on this magical castle.
And right off the bat, I'll say, this was a good movie. I had a lot of fun with this movie. A lot of that is due to the fact that this is the most faithful live action remake of the Disney Cartoons they've done so far and there's a reason for that. Despite any criticisms of Stockholm Syndrome, the story of Beauty and the Beast is just a magical and beautiful fairy tale and you definitely get that feel in this film. Because it's so true to the original, it remains that beautiful story.
But I want to say again, this was a good movie. I am going to have a lot of things to say about this movie that might seem negative. I'm also going to try and not compare this to this original but that is impossible because it is so close to the original, and they did this on purpose. On top of that I just watched the original a couple weeks ago so there are going to be comparisons. But just remember, I really liked this film.
This movie also benefits incredibly by the soundtrack by Alan Menken already laid down in the original movie that was brought back and all they had to do was add some songs and make sure they're good... and they are.
This has to be one of my favorite original songs that have come out of a movie musical in recent times. And this is also one of my favorite musicals that have come out recently.
Here's the unfortunate thing though. Because the music is so good, there are a lot of times where the score and soundtrack kind of out shine the singers. Dan Stevens is the outlier in this situation because his voice does match the grandious score, but that's not always the case.
Because the casting was such a big deal, I'm going to look at most of the cast individually and give my thoughts on their performance and their singing, because it is definitely worth talking about.
I'm going to start with Emma Watson as Belle. And I'm just going to say it... I don't think Emma Watson was the right choice for Belle. And this is for a couple of reasons.
The first is her singing. I hate to criticize her for that so much, but the truth is Emma Watson is not a great singer. She can hold a tune sure but a lot of her songs just feel lifeless at times. Once the nostalgia that you're listening to the phenomenal music of the original score wears of and you actually start listening to her, she's really not that great.
And you know how I mentioned that the score outshines the singers, Emma Watson is a great example of that.
Doug Walker did a great video a couple weeks ago when this movie came out talking about when it is necessary to dub an actor's singing in a film and it really encapsulates my thoughts.
But it's not just the singing. Watson uses her British accent which usually I would never complain about. And before you say it, I understand that yeah it doesn't make sense that in a village in France, there's maybe one person who actually has a French accent. Even the cartoon didn't follow the rule. But Watson's accent is more an example of his stringent and wooden acting that doesn't totally exemplify the tone Page O'Hara set up so well in the original. If Watson wanted to make Belle different than the cartoon, that's fine. But do more, show more emotion than a quizzical eyebrow raise that worked for Hermonine but not here. And because everything is so wooden and so stringently British with her, she doesn't have any charm to distract from the bad singing she's providing.
I'm looking forward to more of Emma Watson's work because regardless of my thoughts here, this is going to get her more work. However, I think everyone was quick to point how great of casting this could have been that they didn't analyze how good it actually was.
I talked about the beauty, I need to talk about The Beast.
The Beast was actually one of my favorite parts of the movie and a lot of the credit of that goes to Dan Stevens. The CGI for the beast can at times not look that great but it was a lot better than I thought it was going to be.
But it's Dan Steven's voice and performance that not only harkens back to the original, but it makes the character sympathetic and relatable. He actually receives more character development than Belle and by the end you actually feel the character change for the better.
And here's the difficult thing. Even in the cartoon, when the Beast transforms (...spoilers?) it was kind of strange when you saw this man in the place of a character you've gotten to know pretty well show up. And while they kind of joke about that at the end, it still is a little bit weird. However, I felt with the opening scene showing the actually events that led to the curse and the casting of Dan Stevens, it worked better and even again harkened back to the cartoon. Overall, the Beast was just a great mixture of nostalgia and good performing on the part of Dan Stevens.
Luke Evans plays Gaston in the film and I have to say this had to have been the hardest character to lock down because of the expectations set by the original.
I mean look at that? That's not exactly possible unless you are The Rock and even then you have to find an actor who is that ripped and can act as well as Luke Evans. I don't know if it can be done.
I really like what Luke Evans did with the character though. He probably knew that he couldn't achieve the levels of hyperbolic fitness shown in the cartoon so he made up for that in what he could achieve and he does a pretty good job. Another surprise was how good of a singer Luke Evans is. Again, it doesn't exactly fit with your original thoughts from the cartoon but for what Luke Evans was trying to do, it works really well. The one downside and the disadvantage this movie finds itself in is that it's both trying to totally recreate the original while trying to make its own movies both from the limitations live action can make and the desire to make something creative. I felt because the movie was handcuffed to the story, Gaston needed to go in a certain direction that worked perfectly for a larger over the top buff guy like in the cartoon but didn't exactly work for Luke Evans. In the beginning he seems like a jerk but not evil. So when he wants to go and kill the beast, it doesn't exactly feel right.
The thing I've always liked about Gaston is that in any other story, he would be the protagonist. But that's the point, looks don't make the person. I feel like this movie could have developed Gaston a little bit more and I don't think it totally did. Again, I really liked Luke Evans and he was a lot of fun, but his contribution is really only skin deep. With all the moments they flash back to him, I wish they would have done more with his character.
I want to talk really quickly about Lefou. A few weeks before the movie came out, they decided to drop a little nugget saying that Lefou was the first openly gay character in a Disney movie. This got so many people angry that this movie was banned in Russia for "promoting homosexuality".
But here's the reality of the situation. Lefou is every stereotypical gay character from the 90's in this movie and he really didn't need to be. If you watch the original cartoon and you watch it under the information that Lefou is actually gay, it makes a lot of sense. Lefou always was in love with Gaston and it's not really something that needs to be announced and it didn't need to be over played the way Josh Gad played it.
I like Josh Gad. I get the feeling that Disney is milking every bit of him until he can provide no more. The issue is that he plays Lefou so stereotypically gay in this movie but that whole thing about him being the first openly gay character is just not true.
If Lefou was openly gay, there would be moments in the film where it's obvious that he's interested in men and makes that apparent to those around him. He doesn't need to act feminine or accidentally dance with another man at the end, he can just be gay. That's what being openly gay means.
And here's the thing, at the end of the day, this should not have been a story. Is it really a huge win for the gay community if Gaston's henchman is gay? Is it really an affront to our morals if a character in a movie is gay? The answer to both questions should be no. This should not have been a story, it shouldn't have been such a big deal. This is not the first gay character that has shown up in a movie. The fact that it's a Disney movie should not matter.
So yeah, I didn't hate Lefou, I think overall, Josh Gad does a decent job playing the character, but I think the "controversy" over this character was overblown and really unnecessary.
Then you've got the staff of the castle and when I first saw the picture of these guys, I was not exactly impressed. I mean if you look at that photo, they don't really look that interesting. However, the important part is seeing them in action.
I really liked the CGI used for these characters and it was only helped by the actors utilized for these characters. You've got the iconic Lumiere (played beautifully by Ewan Mcgregor), Cogworth, (played by Ian Mckellen), Mrs. Potts (played by Emma Thompson). Stanley Tucci plays a harpsicord, Audra Mcdonald plays a dresser, and Gugu Mbatha-Raw plays Plumette the duster that Lumiere is in love with.
I really liked all these characters and they played off each other very well.
If I had to choose my favorite it would be Ewan Mcgregor as Lumiere. Now this may be due to the fact that Mcgregor is one of the few people in this movie that has a record of being able to sing and he exhibits it very well. Including Dan Stevens, Audra McDonald and Luke Evans at times, Mcgregor was one of the few that I felt was keeping up with the soundtrack that was already really good in the cartoon but seemed to be enhanced now in the live action movie.
Be Our Guest was a lot of fun and the voice of Mcgregor only added a lot to the film. I do wish him and the rest of the staff had been utilized a little more and in a way that made their characters have a little bit more depth, however, I felt for just a fun Disney romp, they did a really good job.
There are a couple of other characters in the film that are a lot of fun. Most namely Kevin Kline as Maurice. I don't think he was utilized to the levels that he should have been used but he was able to make the character something different and not just a carbon copy of the animated film.
And that's the biggest problem with the movie.
Beauty and the Beast is a great nostalgia trip. It does a decent job at being a shot for shot remake of the original and reminding you heavily that that was a thing. In fact instead of watching the original first then checking this out, I almost wish I would have watched this first and then gone back to the original. The problem is that because it couldn't be a perfect shot for shot remake of the original, there's a lot of emotions and non-verbals that are missing either because the original was animated and they give expressions that cannot be done in live action, or they don't take the time to really address why these moments are important and give the characters time to really analyze and develop from the things that they do.
But I will say one of my favorite parts of the film was when it was different than the original and decided to get creative.
A lot of these moments were because the movie couldn't always be a carbon copy of the animated so they decide to change it up. The opening sequence done in live action as opposed to looking at stain glass windows was really interesting, the aesthetic choices of the castle, the furniture, and just the entire environment was really interesting to me and part of the film that I really like. Even the Beast is different because the movie couldn't knock down the beast for exactly what he looked like in the animated film so they decided to make him look a little bit different, and because of that they get this Guillermo Del Toro looking Beast that I really enjoyed.
Like I said when I talked about Dan Steven's performance and the Beast in general, I liked the mixture of old and new when it came to the Beast and that's the feeling I had for the entire movie. There's a lot that I liked because it harkened back to the original but it wasn't the original, it literally could not possibly be the original, the original is the original.
Beauty and the Beast is not a perfect movie by any means. It had a lot of limitations, some of them were limitations that they worked around, some of them were created by them not being different enough to create something new.
I've seen this movie twice now and I'm still looking at the things that I liked and the things I didn't like but overall I think that I have pretty strong feelings towards this movie and will probably want to watch it again if not purchase it for my own collection. If you haven't seen it, I recommend checking it out and let me know your thoughts as well.
So what are those thoughts? Comment and Discuss Below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as send me your requests for movies I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.
I'll leave you with this. Here's a Deadpool parody of the Gaston song that came out right after the movie. It's a fun time. Enjoy!
I don't really remember when I first heard of Penny Dreadful. It's really only been on since 2014 and it's on Showtime. I don't mean to knock Showtime at all, but I honestly don't know a lot of people who watched the show when it was on. I'm sure it had it's fans, but it really didn't seem to me like people were talking about it the way that people talk about Game of Thrones or Stranger Things.
The real reason I was interested in Penny Dreadful without really knowing what the show was about at all was because I saw who was in the cast and I really dug it. You've got big names like Eva Green, Timothy Dalton, and Josh Hartnett. All actors who I really enjoy in other things but they haven't really been in a lot of really popular movies or TV shows, save one or two big ones, and definitely not recently.
It's a little hard to explain exactly what Penny Dreadful is all about without getting into spoiler
territory but I will do the best I can. The show takes place in the 1800s where a young sharpshooter named Ethan Chandler (played by Josh Hartnett) is at a stop with his show in London and he is recruited by a mysterious woman by the name of Vanessa Ives (played by Eva Green) to assist in a mission that requires his gun slinging skills.
Chandler finds himself in the company of Sir Malcolm Murray (played by Timothy Dalton), an explorer in search of his daughter. In the first episode, Chandler finds himself in the middle of a battle between Malcolm Murray's team of mysterious characters and the forces of darkness and evil.
The intriguing thing about the show is that it takes a number of characters from famous pieces of literature and utilizes them in an organic collaboration. Characters like Victor Frankenstein (played by Harry Treadaway) and Dorian Grey (played by Reeve Carney) are brought to life in the show and they have their own stories and connections to a larger world.
One thing worth saying up front is that there is a reason why I was drawn to this show due to the cast. It is a solid cast. Hartnett, Green, and Dalton are all really strong actors and they fit really well into their characters. But the supporting cast is great as well. I've already mentioned Reeve Carney and Harry Treadaway, but Billie Piper, best known as Rose Tyler from Doctor Who, appears in the show and she gives a surprisingly great performance, totally different from her role as Rose.
The really fun part about the show is just how many directions the show could head in. In the process of writing this review, I did have to look at the Wikipedia page and I wanted to avoid as many spoilers as I can, but even without knowing any spoilers, there's a lot you can speculate might happen and a lot of characters you can guess might show up from famous pieces of literature.
I'm not usually one to get into shows about vampires and demons like The Vampire Diaries and others, but Penny Dreadful to me seems like a lot more than that to me. Even the vampire storylines are done in such a way that it's subtle and feels more within the vein of classic Dracula and not Twilight or True Blood.
That is not to say there isn't the sex, blood, and gore from shows like True Blood, there is a lot of it, and it is raw. This is definitely a horror show and there are some pretty intense moments, something that I usually don't go for.
The truth is this show is not for everyone. Even if you're a fan of the vampire movies and shows like Vampire Diaries, this show might not be for you with the amount of gore and horror that appears in this show. It can get intense at times and it's definitely not for the faint of heart.
However, I really enjoyed the story and the unique atmosphere the show brings. And like I said, there's a really good cast behind this show.
While the first episode focuses mainly on Josh Hartnett's character of Ethan Chandler, the show is spread pretty evenly across the 5-7 main characters within the story. Each episode delves into characters differently and you really get to know these characters.
I thought it was really funny when I figured out that Josh Hartnett was in this show. I don't know if I've mentioned this in past reviews of movies that have featured him but you don't really see Josh Hartnett in a lot of things these days. He seems to be pretty selective of the movies he's in and apparently he's been pretty busy with this show for the past 3 or 4 years that this was really all he was doing. He does a really good job and he's one of the reason why I'm going to continue watching the show past the first season.
The real star of the show however is clearly Eva Green as Vanessa Ives. I have really been a fan of Eva Green ever since Casino Royale and I really wish that she would be in more American films. She is a power house of an actress and no where does she show it more than her performance in Penny Dreadful. This girl has to do a wide range of things in this show and a lot of them do not look pleasant at all. All the while she's just there drawing the audience in and she does a really good job doing it. Again, it comes down to a lot of these actors are really good, especially the ones who are a little bit more well known and it's good to see them in these roles and back in action once again.
And speaking of back in action, let's talk about Timothy Dalton.
I will be honest, I haven't seen a lot of Timothy Dalton's work. I know that he was once James Bond but I didn't see much of his run as 007. I know that he was an antagonist in Doctor Who from one of my favorite David Tennant specials, and I know that he has this amazingly commanding voice.
Reading into him, I've figured out that Dalton is Shakespearian trained and did a lot of stage work in his long career. Now we see him in this role and he commands it perfectly.
The best comparison I can think of when talking about the character of Sir Malcolm Murray is Sean Connery's character from The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Now I know that movie wasn't very good, but hear me out. He's an older gentlemen rounding up a group of extraordinary individuals in Victorian London. But what works about Murray is that he is conflicted by his personal goals and everyone he works with seems like pawns he moves in order for him to achieve the goal of finding his daughter.
All of these characters, including Harry Treadaway as Victor Frankenstein, Reeve Carney as Dorian Grey, and Billie Piper as Brona Croft all make a really great team that I want to continue watching as they go out search for Vampires and more other-wordly things. All the characters compliment one another very well and they all have their own personal goals.
Now are there problems with the show? Of course. It can drag a little bit. Luckily the season is only 8 episodes. However, with the exception of one or two episodes, I can't really point to a specific episode and say exactly what that episode was totally about. Now this does make it so the entire series feels more like an 8 hour long movie which I like, but there's also not really anything extraordinary about the episodes themselves and I don't have any real favorites except for the two that I can remember exactly what they were dealing with, both of them centering around Vanessa Ives. This is not to say the season isn't good, there's just not a lot of exceptional episodes and they all kind of blend together for the big picture.
The action in the show is fine and that's clearly not the emphasis of the show. The emphasis is more on the drama and the struggles of the characters. The overall truth is that I just enjoyed Penny Dreadful. It's not the best show I've seen in a long time but it's definitely a different ride worth checking out if you're into horror and traditional vampires, not modern Twilight Vampires.
But what do you think? Have you seen Penny Dreadful? Comment and Discuss below! You Can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as send me your requests for films and TV shows I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.
I'll leave you with this. Something I really enjoyed from the show was the music. It was really good. Enjoy!
So I saw the trailer for the Accountant but I didn't have a strong desire to see the film. It’s the kind of film that I'd be interested in checking out via Redbox or on an airplane. So I had a flight recently and the Accountant was on the on demand selection.
The Account follows the story of Christian Wolf (played by Ben Affleck). Wolf is an Accountant with Aspergers Syndrome. He was diagnosed at an early age and instead of being treated at a school for people with disabilities, his father, a hard nosed veteran instead teaches him how to be a killing machine. Christian grows up to eventually become a professional accountant working for
international crime syndicates and high paying customers. Eventually, he is brought on to investigate possible fraud in a corporation run by a man by the name of Lamar Blackburn (played by John Lithgow).
The possible fraud is brought to light by an accountant by the name of Dana Cummings (played by Anna Kendrick), an accountant working with the company. Eventually Christian and Dana start working together to uncover a dangerous conspiracy accompanied by murder, and an assassin (played by Jon Bernthal).
All the while, the head of an investigative department of the Treasury (played by JK Simmons) and one of his agents (played by Cynthia Addai-Robinson) are hot on Christian's trail, trying to find the identity of his mysterious accountant.
Like I said, this is very much a movie, based on the plot alone, that I wouldn't be overly encouraged to go and see in theaters. It just didn't really appeal to me enough to spend a lot of money on it. As much as I like action films, there's nothing about The Accountant that really made it stand out beyond the typical action movie you could find on Netflix very easily.
However, Ben Affleck is the kind of actor that I have garnered a larger interest for multiple reasons. The first being that he used to be a very bad actor and now he's been in some good movies since and I want to see if his comeback is for real and not just a fluke. But furthermore, it's definitely a call to his career in the DC cinematic universe. Multiple things about Ben Affleck intrigue me and I want to see him be successful but I also don't want to be misguided just because he had some good movies in the past year or so.
Overall, this is not a bad performance by Affleck.
If you think about it, Ben Affleck has the ability to play a pretty charismatic guy. He's played the billionaire superhero in Bruce Wayne, he's played the cool action hero guy in multiple movies like Argo, and the Town. You'd never really expect him to play someone with a mental disability and this is actually an opportunity for his acting to expand and show he's able to play a wide variety of roles.
I think he plays a highly functioning guy with a form of autism very well in this film and I don't think that's often easy to do. The portrayal was respectful and I think it fit right in with the story and the context it was being used for.
The rest of the cast is pretty hit or miss.
Listen, I will never complain when Anna Kendrick is in a film. She is a joy to look at and a joy to watch perform. However, I don't really think she was that great for this part. Kendrick is just this bubbly personality and she can't really escape that in her performances. Dana Cummings is this awkward bubbly girl and she's supposed to be the love interest in the film. And honestly, when you're working side by side with someone who's role is to be a loner and not really give her a lot to bounce off of with their performances, it's going to show especially if she needs more to really show off her acting.
Overall, she just seems out of place and that seems to be the case with a couple other people in the movie. Her and John Lithgow just don't seem like they're in the right film and when they're on screen it just doesn't feel right.
But at the very same time, there are performances that work really well with the movie.
If you've read my blog, you'll know that I pretty much think that Jon Bernthal needs to be in more things and he can really do no wrong in my mind with his performances. You may think that he's also a little bit odd in this film but wait till the end and you'll figure out exactly how he fits in and with his natural good performances, he continues to be one of my favorite underrated actors performing today.
He plays off of Ben Affleck pretty well in this film and I think the people who produced this movie recognized that because the scenes with these two are done really well. Everything else is really just kind of meh. Even J.K. Simmons, an actor who is definitely one of the strongest actors of the last few years is just kind of there and while he gives a good performance, I actually kind of forgot he was in the movie.
That's kind of the overall vibe I got from the film, meh and forgetful.
It's not a bad film by any means. But it's also really not a great film. I think they were trying to launch some kind of Ben Affleck Jason Bourne franchise and there's nothing really fascinating about the film that makes me want to see any more of Christian Wolf, the Accountant.
I think they made a halfway decent action film and if you're on an airplane and want to shut off your brain a little bit for an action film, The Accountant is not a bad film to do that on. However, I would strongly recommend you don't spend too much money on this title. It's a fine action film but there's nothing really spectacular about it and I'm guessing it will be forgotten pretty quickly. Serviceable, but forgetful.
But those are my thoughts on The Accountant. What did you think? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as send me your requests for films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.
I'll leave you with this. In case you forgot about this hidden gem, here's how sad Ben Affleck got when people weren't a fan of Batman v Superman. Enjoy!
So you may be wondering, why am I doing a review for a Marvel TV show when in the past I have just watched the entire show and didn't do this whole Pilot episode first? Well this is for a couple of reasons. As you probably have noticed, I haven't really been able to do a whole lot of reviews very recently. My reviews have been pretty sporadic and that is cause I am working. When I'm working I don't have a lot of time or energy to watch full movies and instead watch TV shows. Lots of times I watch short mindless TV like The Big Bang Theory (btw I'm hoping that review is coming soon) and the serious shows that I do watch I watch so sporadically that I haven't been able to finish even the 8 episodes in the first season of Penny Dreadful. All of that considered, while I do want to watch all of Iron Fist, I don't see myself finishing it in a timely manner but I do want to put a fresh review up.
But on top of that... this show has not received very great reviews from the very little I have been paying attention to the reception of this show. Put aside the fact that I don't really know too many people that were really excited for this show, myself included, I don't see myself blazing through this show the way I did Daredevil or Luke Cage. And that speculation is only supported by my thoughts on the pilot episode...
Iron Fist starts around the character of Danny Rand (played by Finn Jones). Danny is the young heir to a huge corporation that his father built with his friend Harold Meachum (played by David Wenham). However, Danny and his parents were involved in a horrific plane crash that took the lives of his parents in the middle of the Himalayas fifteen years before the show begins.
The pilot is Danny finally returning to New York after being presumed dead and trying to tell the people he knows and cares about that he is alive. On top of all of that he knows kung fu.
Danny is played by Finn Jones and you may recognize him from his role as Loras Tyrell in Game of Thrones. If you follow me on Twitter and read my live tweets from watching the show, I refer to Danny Rand as Hipster Tyrell because Danny has really no character whatsoever and all I see is Loras Tyrell trying to be a homeless person in New York.
I guess that they're trying to make it seem like Hipster Tyrell is a little bit stunted in his development since he never really had a childhood and he was forced to do whatever he did in the Himalayas and whatever gave him his kung fu abilities and therefore he's a fish out of water in this story. But what it really looks like is that he's just a crazy homeless person.
He goes and talks to Ward and Joy Meachum (played by Tom Pelphrey and Jessica Stroup) the children of his father's business partner, who I call Donald Jr and Ivanka Trump... cause they really look like them. When he gets to their building, he walks in looking like a homeless person, spouting off that he is a family friend who died in a horrible plane crash and they're reaction is to throw him out and treat him like a crazy person or worse, a corporate spy trying to bring down their business.
I know that there's supposed to be a message here about corporate greed and elitism and Ward and Joy are supposed to kind of be the bad guys in this pilot episode, but I don't blame them at all for wanting to get rid of this crazy guy. Now there is a deleted scene out there probably of Donald Trump Jr (Ward) telling his personal security to go and kill what they only assume is a homeless person, but to be honest, if I was a wealthy business man and my sister told me that a homeless guy broke into her house, I would probably do the same thing.
But here's the worse thing, this was an incredibly horrible first episode just on the basis that the story sucked. I could talk about the acting (which was bad), or I could talk about the character (which were bad, but you know I still will). But on a fundamental level, this was an awful way to start the story.
Now perhaps I'm looking at this from biased perspective as I have seen all of Jessica Jones, Daredevil and Luke Cage. But the way those shows started, got you hooked from the beginning.
From the beginning, you knew that Daredevil was a story of a kid going blind, developing super senses and fighting crime. From the beginning, you knew that Jessica Jones was about a renegade PI fighting a mind controller which was analogous for women's issues including abusive relationships. From the beginning you knew that that Luke Cage was about an indestructible man who is going to fight a corrupt crime boss.
From the first episode, could you tell me what Iron Fist is about?
All the first episode was was a clearly insane man running around bothering people including the Trump family and sometimes he pulled out some Kung fu. Which is weird because the premise is not that different from the premise of CW's Arrow.
I'm not saying they're totally the same, but you can see the similarities. And while Arrow definitely has it's problems, at least the premise seemed interesting and got you hooked in the first episode.
Iron Fist is like what Arrow would be if Oliver Queen got back to New York and continued to look like a homeless person in Starling City. Along with that, can you imagine the Queen's not believing that Oliver was their son and having them worry about the financial future of the Queen corporation? Cause that's all this first episode was. Same silly drama with some kung fu thrown into the mix.
Now, does this mean there was nothing good in this pilot? Well... not exactly?
She was cool.
Jessica Henwick plays the master of a dojo. She doesn't get to do too much in the pilot and really the only thing that happens with her is when Hipster Tyrell decides to stop bothering the Trumps and instead bother her.
Honestly, I was more interested in her story than Hipster Tyrells. Why couldn't this show be about her? Especially since a lot of the inspiration from Iron Fist comes from Asian martial arts and Budhist philosophy. I do realize that the origin story of Iron Fist does follow an Oliver Queen type format, but they've made changes to origin stories before, why not try something new? Especially since the Oliver Queen story has been done so many times already.
It's also good to see David Wenham getting work. You really only see him in one scene in the pilot and they're probably setting him up to be the villain. I had to roll my eyes a little bit that he does resemble a little bit of Donald Trump in a more James Bond villain sort of way... really subtle there Iron Fist.
I don't know what the show has in store for the character David Wenham plays but it's not a bad thing to see Faramir on the screen again. I hope he's one of the better parts of the show and he turns out to be a menacing villain instead of the poor man's Donald Trump impersonator.
I honestly do want to continue watching Iron Fist. Is it because there's much good in the show? No, the pilot is actually kind of awful. However, I have come this far with the Marvel TV shows, I can only assume there is stuff within the season of Iron Fist that I will need later this year when I watch The Defenders. At least I can hope so.
So when I say that it's better to do this pilot review because I don't see myself blazing through this season, there's a reason for that. This show is not off to a great start.
But those are my thoughts on the pilot of Ironfist. What did you think of the first episode? Have you watched the full season yet? Does it get better? Without spoilers let me know in by commenting and discussing below! You can also hit me up on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as send me requests for films and TV shows I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.
I'll leave you with this. So have you seen the new Thor Ragnorak trailer? I have mixed feelings about it but I do think it looks pretty cool and I do think it will probably be the best of the Thor movies. I'm putting a link to that and I'll put up one of the funny teasers they did. Enjoy!
