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.
A little backstory first, I saw the trailer for Bright a while back and I was intrigued by it. I can't say I was overly excited for it but it was a film I planned on watching when it came to Netflix. Directed by David Ayers, the mastermind behind the entertaining but ultimately not that great Suicide Squad, and written by Max Landis, the controversial writer who I do somewhat appreciate for thinking outside of the box but ultimately don't think he's very good among other personal thoughts on him, Bright had potential but also had the potential to be bad. So I wasn't really surprised when it received a mixed review and a lot of people considered it to be the worst film of 2017.
However, because of all those reactions, when I finally did watch Bright, I went in with the lowest of expectations and was half expecting to be tearing the movie apart in this exact review. And overall, I actually had a little bit of fun with Bright.
Bright stars Will Smith as Officer Daryl Ward. He's a police officer in the Los Angeles Police Department set in a world where the creatures and species of fairy tales like orcs, elves, fairies, etc live in modern times with humans. The ancient history is kept somewhat vague but everyone refers to it like the Lord of the Rings novels weren't fiction but instead historical fact.
There is an obviously analogous hierarchy where elves are at the top of the hierarchy and orcs are at the bottom. But the LAPD has a diversity program that hires orcs like Ward's partner Nick Jakoby (played by Joel Edgerton). Obviously people are not happy about this and it makes Ward and Jakoby pariahs among their colleagues at the department.
Eventually, Ward and Jakoby find themselves on a call and find an elven girl named Tikka (played by Lucy Fry) and find a magic wand, that is compared to a nuclear weapon of power. They find themselves in a battle against ancient forces, corrupt government officials, and federal agents in order to save the life of this girl and get the wand into the right hands.
The first thing to talk about is the obvious, obnoxious, and really tone deaf social commentary in this film. When one of the first lines in the film is, "Fairy lives don't matter", the cringe and eye rolling will probably begin. I never want to be the one to say white guys like David Ayer and Max Landis can't make social commentary, but when its done like it is done in Bright, it just brings on all the cringe and doesn't feel authentic.
Something I did find a little bit interesting was Will Smith's character, being black, and being "racist" towards orcs. That's a big point of the movie and it does bring a lot of development between these two, however, again, it feels weird and out of place.
I'm not going to sit here and pretend like I'm the expert on how to execute social commentary, all I can say there were a lot of social commentary moments that I've seen before in multiple other movies that just felt cliche and didn't help the movie at all. It just felt weird.
The social commentary is a big part of the movie so it's kind of hard to overlook, but if you can get through the eye rolling you're probably going to do, you will see that as weird as their character's dialogue is, Edgerton and Smith really do commit to the roles they're given and give a decent performance. I did end up caring at least a little bit about Ward and Jakoby and they made a decent team.
As far as world building, Bright is a little bit of a mixed bag. On one hand, this is a really interesting and fresh world that Ayer and Landis created. It is a concept that I don't think a lot of people would think of initially but would actually be really interested to see. Especially with David Ayer's past movie End of Watch, take that and combine it with Lord of the Rings, you do get a really creative idea.
However, there are a lot of glaring inconsistencies.
The elves are at the top of the food chain and yet they call their section of town Elf Town? Joe Rogan is still a thing in this world. Will Smith directly makes an insulting comment to a bunch of orcs about the movie Shrek... is that a documentary in this world?
Even as I write those, I do realize that they might seem small details and nit picking, however, it does point towards not enough time given to this script. The reason big fantasy worlds like Star Wars, Star Trek, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, etc, are successful is because A LOT of time was put into creating these world in a way that would make sense in the context of that world. Goblins running the banks in Harry Potter doesn't necessarily have to make a lot of sense but it painted a picture of a section of Harry Potter. Bright has its own lore that is kept vague but is also blended with reality and that doesn't blend well unless you have an explanation for it. So while I commend Landis for creating a really creative idea, I also have to criticize him for not following through and making something that makes sense and is digestible for an audience. And unfortunately Landis is probably too easy of a target because the night before Bright was released Landis put this out on Twitter...
Like... why... why would you put this out there? Maybe his script was the next Star Wars but the movie I saw was not pieced together to give me that idea. At all.
Script issues aside, the other big issue I had with the film was a critique that David Ayers is very familiar with and that is, despite the movie being called Bright, as the movie went on, it got darker and darker visually. Which I don't totally understand. Despite some short comings, I've always seen David Ayers as a very competent director. I want to see these action sequences that he's putting on screen but it's impossible if the film is so dark!
I feel as though if they just boosted the light by two notches, despite any script or eye rolling social commentary, this movie would have been at least a little bit more enjoyable towards the end.
And that's very much where I need to land at the end of this review. There are a lot of problems with Bright, it's visually dark, it's got script issues, and the social commentary is really cringe-worthy. However, there is a good movie somewhere in there. The overall plot is interesting and creative, the actors in it are committed and talented, and despite issues, I did feel like it wasn't a waste of time to check out the film.
Is it a really good movie? Absolutely not. But is it as bad as people say it is? I don't think so. It's hard for me to say it's worth your time on Netflix but again, you're paying for Netflix, why not check out what they have to offer, it won't be a complete waste of time.
Overall, not a glowing review for the film I know. I have heard there are plans to make a sequel, this time without Landis. I really have no strong feelings about this either way. While a part of me thinks that maybe with a second go around they could make it better but I also have zero faith in that happening realistically speaking. If I worked for Netflix, I would say let's focus our money somewhere else, but I'm also not gonna be super sad if there's a sequel because there is a slight chance it could be made better. Who knows?
But those are my thoughts on Bright? What did you think? What were you expectations going into this film and were they met? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium 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. So this video might be some context that I think might have been important when watching this movie. But at the same time it feels very half baked and left me with more questions that answers at the end of the day. Enjoy!
There's probably not a lot I can say about this movie I can say that hasn't been said already. Nobody was itching for a fifth Pirates of the Carribean movie. I don't think there were a lot of people were were vocally against the idea but nobody was sitting up at night incomplete until they got ANOTHER installment into the franchise that all stemmed from a ride at Disney World. The funny thing is, people were saying the same thing when they came out with Pirates of the Carribean On Stranger Tides... oh you don't remember that one? Neither does anybody else!
Yes, Pirates of the Carribean has had a weird road and while the first movie is absolutely brilliant, they have only declined in quality since. But is that actually what the movie is like or is that just what every one assumed Dead Men Tell No Tales would be like?
Pirates of the Carribean: Dead Men Tell No Tales takes place AT LEAST twenty years after Pirates of the Carribean 3: At Worlds End. I have no idea how long it takes place after On Stranger Tides but let's be real, who cares?
We know this because the story follows the son of Will and Elizabeth, Henry (played Brenton Thwaites). You might say that's a spoiler but it's revealed VERY early on and you could probably guess that from the trailers. He's grown up trying to free his father from the curse of The Dutchmen that we saw in At World's End. In order to do that, he goes looking for the Trident of Poseidon.
In order to do that however, he enlists the help of the infamous Captain Jack Sparrow (played by Johnny Depp).
Along the way he comes across a woman astronomer named Karina (played by Kaya Scodelario) and the three of them plus some familiar faces including, Mr. Gibbs (played by Kevin McNally), and Captain Barbosa (played by Geoffrey Rush).
But along the way, Jack is being chased down by an old enemy of his, Captain Armando Salazar (played by Javier Bardem), a cursed pirate hunter who's death was caused by a very young, very CGI looking Jack Sparrow, many years ago.
There is, A LOT going on in this movie. There are a lot of characters too, both old and new. The very talented David Wenham is in this movie but I bet I will forget that in a week's time because his scenes were so inconsequential. Karina is accused of being a witch but then there is an actual witch who shows up for two scenes then disappears. And that is a bit of a shame because I think at it's core, there is a good story waiting to get out in this movie.
Javier Bardem does a pretty good job as Captain Salazar and while some of it was seen in the trailers already, his crew and him are actually pretty well designed. For a series that has had multiple cursed pirates, this might be the freakiest so good on them.
Now while the movie is AT LEAST 20 years after At Worlds End, Jack Sparrow still looks like barely 10 years have passed, but it is discovered that Jack is pretty washed up at this point. His luck has run out and he is no longer the infamous Jack Sparrow, he's more of a joke. He's at his lowest point in this movie.
I guess as far as story goes, it kind of makes sense to state that Jack's situation has changed so there is some development in the character. But I don't think anybody wanted to see this Jack Sparrow. Like Jack Sparrow was always a caricature of a washed up Keith Richards, but I don't think anybody wanted to see an actually washed up Jack Sparrow, if that makes sense.
I heard a review state that in the old movies people would look off as Jack escaped a situation and say, "That might be the greatest pirate I've ever seen". Nobody was saying that in this film. He is just this drunk baffoon who... now that I think of it, besides his connection to Captain Salazar, really serves no purpose to the film besides comic relief.
And that is a shame. While I think they started down the right path by Jack taking somewhat of a back seat to the adventure that Henry and the female main character, Carina are having, I still think there was too much Jack in this movie and not the good kind.The parts of the character that people love were gone and he's not just a parody of himself. The end of this movie hints towards the possibility of a sixth Pirates movie and while not one person is calling for that at all again, I don't know if people wouldn't see it. But I will say if they make another one, just drop Depp from the film. Find another comic relief to actually BE THE COMIC RELIEF.
The weird thing about this movie is that there is a lot of talent, old and new. All the shady bullshit that he's been doing in regard to his ex-wife Amber Heard, he's not a bad actor. I sweat that Geoffrey Rush has reached a level where he is WAY out of this movie's league with his performance and every time he was on screen I gave a shit.
Even the new actors aren't the worst, and they brought back so many old characters who could have been consolidated for a reason because they worked in previous films. But it's all just jumbled together to create this weird mess of a movie.
Again, I'll say there might have been some inklings of the spirit of the first film in this and I will probably remember this more than I remembered On Stranger Tides, but that is a pretty low standard.
But the biggest thing I noticed about this movie was it's attempt moving in the direction of Fast and Furious where instead of just being an adventure film, they're trying to do things just bigger, to hell with logic or reason. I noticed this in the first big action sequence where Jack's crew drags a whole house with a vault in it with a team of horses, very reminiscent of the scene in Fast 5 where they drag a vault through the streets of Rio with a bunch of cars.
I think Dead Men Tell No Tales was a rebranding attempt by Disney for this franchise. Without giving anything away, there is a hint at a 6th Pirates movie and I can only imagine what they have in store, but if it happens, its not going to be anywhere in the realm of Curse of the Black Pearl in being a simple adventure pirate movie. It instead will be the same as this film with a lot of CGI, bigger and more ridiculous plots, and more than likely, more Johnny Depp.
Dead Men Tell No Tales is not a horrible movie. It's by no means good, but it's not the worst thing I've seen from 2017. It felt a little more memorable than On Stranger Tides, but not by much. Overall, it was just a movie that nobody really wanted but it's on Netflix so why not enjoy it right?
A lot of things were kind of mixed up because the main attraction is supposed to be Johnny Depp's Jack Sparrow, but he looked bored as all get out the entire movie. Geoffrey Rush is of course great, and the new characters I think were just happy to be there, but there was so much going on and so many things in play that it just didn't have that same flare that the original pirates did. I really hope this is the end, or at least the end of Pirates of the Carribean as we know it. I wouldn't mind seeing more movies about Pirates and if you want to call it a Pirates of the Carribean movie for marketing reasons thats fine. But get rid of Jack Sparrow, try something new, and hey if that means you rebrand and make it Fast and the Furious but for Pirates, I wouldn't be opposed to that. But if these movies continue on the path they're going, they're just going to be mediocre at best and only worth barely paying attention to it when it comes on Netflix.
But what did you think? I feel like I gave kind of a back handed compliment of this movie because I did slightly enjoy myself but what did you think? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium 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. It doesn't matter how mediocre this film is, Pirates of the Carribean does have a kick ass sound track. Enjoy!
So I've seen a good amount of films with my family but there are a couple of films that for a number of reasons, the time of year it comes out, the subject, and the actors involved, I sometimes feel like I need to watch it with them to get the full effect and The Greatest Showman was a movie, from the start I wanted to wait and see with my parents. It was a musical that came out around Christmas time, and the trailer was just good.
There were other things about this movie that I discovered as it got closer to coming out and this weekend I was finally able to go and see it with my family and it was definitely worth the wait. The Greatest Showman is a great family film.
The Greatest Showman is a musical that follows the story of the creator of the Big Top Circus, PT Barnum (played by Hugh Jackman). While PT Barnum was a real person, this movie does not claim to be based on a true story and for good reason. If you do the research, you can probably guess that PT Barnum has some shady stuff in his history and was not as great of a person as Hugh Jackman is playing him to be in this movie. While the movie was a little more conscience of this than I thought it was going to be, if you're going to see this movie, just make sure you're not thinking it's super realistic or based on truth. It is very much Hollywood fluff, but I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing for this movie. Just as long as you have that in mind, you can have a pretty fun time with this movie.
PT Barnum lives a humble life with his wife Charity (played by Michelle Williams) and their two young girls. After losing his job, Barnum takes a risk, gets a loan and opens a museum to expose people to the weird and the unnatural. It starts as a wax museum, but it eventually turns into a show full of "freaks", including a dwarf (played by Sam Humphrey), a bearded lady (played by Keala Settle), a dog man, trapeze artists (one of them played by Zendaya) and a bunch of other different acts.
Along the way Barnum wants to expand his entertainment ventures and enlists the help of a young benefactor by the name of Phillip Carlyle (played by Zac Efron) and a talented Swedish opera singer by the name of Jenny Lind (played by Rebecca Ferguson).
The story is essentially a rags to riches story and stresses the importance of being who you are, family, and the effects of wealth and fortune can have on a man.
I think the best way to enjoy this movie is to not take it too seriously. You're only going to be disappointed if you try and see this as a biopic on PT Barnum. But on the other hand, you're probably going to be disappointed if you think this is a big social justice piece about acceptance because even that element is pretty lacking. Especially in the main attracting song from the trailer, "This is Me", you've got all these disenfranchised people singing how they will be seen and they don't care what others think, they're going to live proud. And in a way they sing in defiance of Barnum and Carlyle... but at the same time it kind of loses its effect when Barnum and Carlyle (the two wealthy white men) are still reaping in the money from these people dancing and singing about how they are defiant... you get how that's a little contradictory?
The Greatest Showman is not a master piece of storytelling and it's not exactly complex. I'll talk more about the characters but even the main ones are very surface level and not exactly complicated. The story is pretty cheesy and minimal. However, all of that aside, where this movie shines is the music, dancing, and just how committed people are to this movie.
Absolutely nobody is phoning in their performance for this film. In the film and in the marketing of the film, Hugh Jackman made this seem like this was some kind of passion project and it's the most important movie to come out in 2017. Everyone is committed to their role no matter how small and it is apparent in the music and the choreography of the dance numbers.
The performances are so crisp, the singing is fantastic, and the songs are so catchy. I had already heard some of the songs from the soundtrack prior to watching the movie and when the rest of the soundtrack was made complete in the movie for me, I just had fun with every single song and had to complete the soundtrack on my Itunes.
Because the good parts of this movie were so good, it really outshines the glaring issues with the film. It's a movie that you really don't need to take that seriously and more just have fun with. The weird thing is, I'm getting older and I always enjoy a movie that can get to the point and make the movie accessible in a run time less than two hours. It's not necessary but it's something that I do appreciate.
The Greatest Showman clocks in at about an hour and forty five minutes and I almost feel like they could have added another 15 to 20 minutes to develop characters more and flush out the story more and it would have been actually pretty good. A great example of this comes in Zac Efron and Zendaya's characters. While I like these two, I think they have good chemistry, and their performances are good, you don't really know much about them or why they fall in love besides he sees her and thinks she's pretty.
Again a lot of the emotion and plot is driven by the music so I can go to a Youtube of these two's song and get the jist of what their relationship was supposed to be and the same can be said for a lot of characters, but if you take everything in as a whole, there are a lot of things that are really glossed over just to create a fun family experience.
The Greatest Showman could have been a little bit more indepth and shown the true life of PT Barnum but I don't know how that really would have blended with what they wanted to do, which was entertain people with some really good music and great bright, and vibrant performances.
Seriously, if you go into this movie with expectations that it's going to be a biopic, a period piece, or even a call for social justice, you are going to be disappointed.
Overall, The Greatest Showman is kind of like a really good piece of candy. In reality, it's just sugar and fluff and you really should take it all in with a grain of salt. But that doesn't prevent it from being just down right entertaining. The energy of the music keeps you going for the run time that could have easily been longer and everyone is giving their all.
It's not gonna blow your socks off but you will definitely feel good coming out be humming the music for a while to come.
But what do you think of The Greatest Showman? Did you enjoy it? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium 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. This video is a great example of how committed Hugh Jackman was to this film even before it came out. They explain the scenario and if you're a fan of theater or singing in general, you know how music can just gather you up and overwhelm you with emotion. This did that for me. Enjoy!
So I've come to realize that the same way we're going to have a Star Wars movie, and 3 Marvel movies, and a couple of DC movies, and other franchise movies every single year, since the release of American Sniper back in 2014 that had mad box office returns we are going to see a "Based on a True Story" war movie every January till the day we die. Maybe that's the reason people think we are going to North Korea, Hollywood needs to keep doling out war movies.
Now I don't necessarily mind this trend. I enjoy a good war movie. I think there are so many movies that misrepresent the military that it's okay to have good old America kicking ass movie from time to time. Sometimes they can be interpreted as propaganda... and believe me I will talk about that in this movie, but just because something is propaganda doesn't necessarily mean it's not entertaining.
12 Strong takes place in 2001. One of the first scenes is these Soldiers seeing 9/11 occur. From that point on, they spring into action. Captain Mitch Nelson (played by Chris Hemsworth), a green beret assembles a team together of special forces to go into Afghanistan and kick off the United State's retaliation offensive to knock down the Taliban in Afghanistan.
On his team is a Warrant Officer by the name of Cal Spencer (played by Michael Shannon) and a bunch of other Soldiers, most notably one played by Michael Pena named Sam Diller.
Unfortunately, this is where I need to take a step back and point out a criticism of this movie. You've got a group of 12 United States green berets and unfortunately I could really only remember Chris Hemsworth's character's name. Everyone else was really only recognizable by physical traits. Of course you recognize Michael Shannon and Michael Pena and maybe you'll remember their names, but then there's one with glasses, there's one with long blonde hair they make fun of, and there's the black one. I honestly couldn't tell you what any of their names were or really anything about them. In fact you only see the three big name actor's families and even then their good byes are pretty rushed.
The movie seems a little bit more focused on getting straight to the action and describing the events that occurred, and that is important by all means. But when you forgo the background on these guys, they're just extra non-playable characters similar to a video game. They don't have much of a backstory at all and it's hard to get invested in them when all I know about them is that they are Soldiers.
The team is sent into Afghanistan to join up with a warlord by the name of Abdul Rashid Dostum (played by Navid Negahban). Dostum is one of many warlords of the northern alliance of Afghanistan that want to take control away from the Taliban. However, the warlords are thirsty for power and don't like each other either. This creates an unstable environment for Nelson and his team to enter into as their mission is to embed with Dostum's forces, support them with air strikes, and take a city that was said to be the headquarters of Taliban control.
And while this all sounds like a military war movie with all the political and military jargon I just threw at you, there's also an element of this movie that feels almost fantasy like than modern day warfare.
There is a Taliban leader in this movie that is somewhat of the main antagonist of the film who looks like the most stereotypical arab villains I've ever seen. I'm not saying it's not accurate but they portray this guy like Jafar from Aladdin. That along with the fact that you've got a bunch of guys riding on horses, pulling off battlefield warfare with a mysterious warlord who talks about having the warrior heart, it all just felt like a modern day fantasy movie more than a war movie.
Let me be clear, I am nothing but respect for the people this story is portraying and while I haven't read the book it's based on or really done enough research into the situation, a lot of details are probably accurate.
However, they do take a lot of liberties with this movie in order to make an entertaining war movie. And when I say war movie, I mean a popcorn entertainment value movie, not a heart wrenching war movie like American Sniper or Saving Private Ryan was.
And that's the problem. I have a lot of friends in the military that say that Saving Private Ryan and American Sniper is Hollywood fluff and overblown to get an emotional reaction. 12 Strong is definitely Hollywood fluff, but it's more in the way of hyping up the action rather than making something that makes you feel. It's more the Michael Bay route of things than the Steven Spielberg way.
I don't care how unrealistic the story of Saving Private Ryan is, when Matt Damon's character is older and he asks his wife if he's a good person, I lose it every time. I know I just brought up Michael Bay as a bad example but even the characters in 13 Hours had a lot more character background than the characters in 12 Strong.
At the end of the day, 12 Strong felt like two things. A really long, more in depth Call of Duty cutscene with a lot of really cool action but was pretty light on the story.
The other thing it felt like was military propaganda.
As much as I liked the music in this film, I cannot think of a movie that had so many scenes that could have replaced the music with that theme music you hear in every Army recruiting commercial and it wouldn't have felt much different at all. There were so many money shots that just made Chris Hemsworth look badass, made Michael Shannon look amazing and more importantly, made the Army look amazing.
Now there is a lot of research you can do about the involvement of the military in Hollywood. I won't go over it now but if I'm a movie producer and I want to get the most accurate representation of the Army or I want to represent the military in my movie, I have to sign a contract to help promote the military in a positive light. Some people call that manipulative but I honestly don't have a huge problem with it... for the most part. And while 12 Strong does feel like a two hour long recruitment video for the US Army, I still enjoyed it.
I will give the movie some credit. It is a pretty good tribute to the military and it does portray a significant victory for the Army back in 2001.
It also does do an okay job at the very least of giving Chris Hemsworth a developing character throughout most of the film.
According to the movie, Mitch Nelson was a fairly green Captain and didn't have the combat experience his men did. So when he sets out on this mission, he is required to put his metal to the test and prove himself to his men and the Afghan warlord he is assigned to accompany.
Now I don't know how much of that is true, or how much of what happens with Nelson in the movie is true, I will have to read the book. I know that a bunch of my military friends would say that it's Hollywood bullshit and when you're in the midst of battle, you don't have time for leaders who are going through personal development. Everyone needs to join together as a team and complete the mission or people die. But regardless of the accuracy of the movie, it does give Chris Hemsworth an opportunity to do something really interesting and dynamic with this character.
For the first half of the movie it is really well done. There's an interesting scene where Dostum only wants to talk to Nelson's subordinates because they have the "eyes of a killer". That scene and scenes like it are interesting development for a character. While the other members of the team really get no development at all, Chris Hemsworth gets a lot and it's done fairly well until about half way through when he kills a bunch of people, has one scene where it bothers him and then it's never mentioned again. And that's kind of a theme throughout the movie, it doesn't really address any fallout of any of this.
Not only is there not really any fallout to Chris Hemsworth's character and the development he goes through, since this movie takes place at the beginning of the war in Afghanistan you'd think it would end on a more somber note or at least one that fully addresses the fact that this war went on for 17 years later, marking the longest military conflict in US history, and took the lives of over 2000 US military forces alone. But instead we get a couple of lines of how they won the battle but not the war, a oddly prophetic line from Dostum about how blurred the lines will become in the future between the United States and the warlords, alluding to insurgent warfare. But then they do the obligatory true story facts that come after each one of these movies that honor the Soldiers who fought in this conflict and kind of ignore the whole there was a 17 year long war that followed this battle.
Overall, there's a lot of fun to be had with 12 Strong. I wouldn't say it's a really deep or heart felt war movie. At the end of American Sniper the entire movie theater was silent as we walked out. There were parts of the movie I was in tears. I never got that feeling from any moment of 12 Strong. There was a lot of good action and it felt like the Call of Duty movie that we never got. But it's not going to be a war movie that I'm going to feel like I need to own to experience again. If it's on TV or Netflix, I might watch it again, but more than likely, I won't feel the need to spend money on this and I don't think you should either beyond maybe seeing it once.
If you like military movies, you might find this interesting. It is an interesting story and a good tribute to the military. But I think there are better movies out there. It's probably better than most January films that come out this time of year, but don't expect the next American Sniper.
But have you seen 12 Strong? What's the next military movie to come out and is it going to have the number 11 in it (13 Hours, 12 Strong, 11?) Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts @MovieSymposium as well as 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. A fun little piece of trivia in this movie was seeing Rob Riggle in it. In case you didn't know, Rob Riggle was a Marine Officer and made it to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. I believe he plays a Colonel in this movie who he actually worked for after 9/11 and if you knew that it was entertaining to see him in this role. Enjoy!
This could be a potentially really long review or a very short review because this is such a unique show and it's a little bit difficult to review. I will explain why.
Black Mirror is in essence The Twilight Zone but about technology.
Each episode is an hour long anecdote that centers on a piece of technology and the dangers. The reason I am able to write a review about this season so quickly is that the first season only has three episodes. I think what I will do for this review is talk about each episode very briefly but moving forward, I probably won't do a whole review for the season and instead focus on individual episodes that I really liked or found to have the most impact.
I don't know, we'll see how this format goes because like I said, Black Mirror is a difficult show to review.
The National Anthem
The first episode, The National Anthem, centers on the British Prime Minister. (The show did start on the BBC and then eventually moved over to Netflix so that's why all the actors are British and the stories are usually set in Europe.
The Prime Minister (played by Roy Kinnear) is called to respond to the kidnapping of a beloved Princess, Princess Susannah (played by Lydia Wilson). The kidnappers send a video laying out their demands. But instead of demanding money or political changes, they only have a very bizarre request. That the Prime Minister broadcast himself having unsimulated sexual intercourse with a pig.
Black Mirror is by no means a comedic series. The show often has a very somber tone to it and you do have to be in a mood to watch it because it is not light hearted at all. That being said, there is some intriguingly dark comedy in the series and it does give a unique tone.
The episodes main purpose is to point out the impact that the internet and public opinion on the internet has on our political figures. While it does exaggerate how quickly the internet can garner public support on a topic, it still does have an intriguing message on the power of trending topics on Twitter, how Youtube has affected the news cycle, and how public opinion (supplemented by the internet) does have an affect on policy and the actions of the government.
When I first saw this episode, I did think it was a weird way to start the show. The Prime Minister isn't a particularly likable guy and it is such a weird and frankly disgusting premise that I wasn't sure exactly if I wanted to keep going with this series.
Upon a second viewing I did appreciate the episode a little bit more, especially now that I know what I'm in for when I watch this show, however, I would recommend you take this episode with a grain of salt and don't let it dictate exactly how you feel about the show. It definitely is an episode that needs to grow on you and it could turn people off upon the first viewing.
Fifteen Million Merits
Fifteen Million Merits is another episode that I didn't really enjoy upon my first viewing. I get the feeling I was not in the right mindset when I first watched this show because upon a second viewing I have really appreciate these episodes more and more.
Fifteen Million Merits takes place in an unspecified future where the global currency is a point system that is earned by cycling to provide power to the world. These points allow for people to buy virtual goods and services. Everyone lives in an ad filled world and are required to watch ads for their preferences unless they spend points to skip the ads. Do you see the cultural references made very apparent in this episode already?
The story centers on a man named Bing (played by Daniel Kaluuya). He has a decent amount of points but doesn't really use it for anything. He just cycles his days away and lives his life normally. But then he meets a girl named Abi (played by Jessica Brown Findlay). He becomes infatuated with her and when he figures out that she can sing, he offers to spend the majority of his points to buy her way onto an American Idol-like show called Hot Shot.
The episode essentially makes a message about ads, internet sensations, and exploitation in a internet-d world.
Like I said, I didn't really enjoy this episode when I first saw it. I thought the environment was dull, the American Idol setting was a little bit too on the nose, and the story dragged.
But again, upon a second viewing, I really started to enjoy the message it was sending and the twists and turns the story started to take. Also I'm starting to pick up on the humorous aspects of the show despite it being so dower. You definitely have to be in a certain mood to watch Black Mirror and luckily I'm in that mood at the moment because I can appreciate the episodes more. It's not really a show that is easily picked up and binge watched out of no where but if you find yourself in the right mood it could be perfect.
The Entire History of You
The Entire History of You is, in my opinion, the make or break episode of Black Mirror. There are probably much better episodes but if you're going in a sequential order, in my opinion, if you're not on board with the show after this episode, Black Mirror might not be the show for you.
It is such self contained story that really takes place over the course a day or so but it is probably the most intriguing story of the entire season.
The story takes place in a not so distant future where most people have an implant that records their memories from birth. If you don't remember somebody's name, you can quickly recall a memory and review whatever information you want.
Tobey Kebell plays Liam, a man who believes his wife is cheating on him. He obsesses over the recorded memories or "grains" and insists, based on the facial cues and behaviors he sees in the memories that his wife is cheating on him.
Jodie Whitaker plays his wife Ffion which I had more appreciation in 2018, especially since Whitaker is set to play The 13th Doctor this year. She gives a really good performance with Kebell and it does start a trend of having these episodes star big name actors.
The theme of the episode definitely points out the pitfalls of everything being recorded these days and the strain it could take on a marriage. The really interesting part is that Kebell is not a very nice guy. He's obsessive, he drinks too much, he's just mean to his wife at times, but at the same time the recorded memories do tell a story. Kebell and Whitaker do a great job at portraying jealousy and deceit in a technological world and while we don't have recorded memories of intimate moments, with technology and the ability to record and capture intimate moments, that can have a strain on relationships.
All three of these episodes seem to only get better with time. I haven't been able to really compare them with future episodes so I don't know what's in store for me in the future but I can appreciate and yet criticize a series of episodes that only get better after multiple viewings. If I'm watching a series, I don't usually go back and watch old episodes unless they really make an impact on me. I'm glad I went back and digested these episodes more upon a second viewing, but usually I wouldn't have and would have gone on not really appreciating these first few episodes.
The other complaint I have about this first season as a whole is that it is so clearly pushing a message. The dangers of technology and the world that we might find ourselves in if we keep going down this dangerous path.
I'm not saying a show shouldn't have a message to it. Messages are good. The problem comes when I just want to watch some creative storytelling and instead I get some heavy handed symbolism or message pushing when the show is basically screaming, "ASK ME WHAT IT MEANS!"
Again, I've found that I have to be in a certain mood to watch Black Mirror and it might be more beneficial to watch these episodes more spread out as opposed to binge watching them. Maybe that way I can digest them more and appreciate the messages. I don't know, we'll have to wait and see and that might lend itself better to how I might be reviewing these in the future. Because while I do feel like the message is a little heavy handed at times, there is some good story telling being done and I've been told it only gets better. So maybe I will review highlight episodes or something. I don't know for sure.
But I thought for now it might be good to just give you an idea of what you're in store for if you're like me and haven't totally gotten on the Black Mirror train. There are only three episodes so if you are a binger, you will get through the first season very quickly.
Overall, the show is a bit of an acquired taste. I'll be honest, the few times I have watched The Twilight Zone, I haven't gotten into it as much as I would hope I would have and the same can be said about Black Mirror. But I can't deny there is great storytelling and poignant messages to be told in the first season. Black Mirror requires the right mood which at this current moment I am in and am ready to breeze through this show.
But what do you think? Without any spoilers, are there any strategies or guides to watching this show? Are there episodes I should skip? Does it get better? What do you think of the first season and where does it rank? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium 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. I'm not including a video at the end of this because this is a hard series to find a video that doesn't include spoilers. So I'll leave you with one more thought. I am intrigued by the idea of this show because it reminds me of the Cloverfield franchise. Cloverfield and 10 Cloverfield Lane are not sequels but they do share somewhat of a universe by just sharing the same name. I do like how Black Mirror episodes are not connected but at the same time feel like they're in the same vein. It's a nuanced way of storytelling these days that I find myself really enjoying. Do you agree?
Whatever I thought of this movie, put that aside. I love Liam Neeson. My first exposure to him was through Star Wars: The Phantom Menace. And yeah, that movie isn't very good but it's Star Wars, and if you are in Star Wars, in my mind you can do no wrong. I later discovered that Liam Neeson is not that bad of an actor. You see him in movies like Schindler's List, he's absolutely phenomenal.
And then in 2008, a little movie called Taken came out. No longer was Liam Neeson just Oskar Schindler, no longer was he the kind of irresponsible dad who let his son jump a security station in a still jumpy post 9/11 world in Love Actually. No, Liam Neeson was a freaking action star.
But while Liam Neeson looks old, 2008 was ten years ago. He was in his mid-fifties, an age that a lot of actors these days are rocking with style. Robert Downey Jr, Tom Cruise, Johnny Depp. 50 has become the new 40, so it's not like Liam Neeson was doing anything too different.
Well 10 years passed, we got two more Taken sequels than we needed and an odd slew of movies that were not Taken sequels... but at the same time weren't NOT Taken sequels.
Yes, I know there is a difference between The Commuter and the Taken franchise. Nobody actually gets TAKEN in The Commuter. But it does have that similar feel of a guy who is getting older kicking ass and oddly enough, always having a scene where he talks on the phone with the bad guy in his most threatening Irish accent.
The Commuter may not be Taken, but it is very similar to it, and movies like Non-Stop, Run All Night, A Walk Among the Tombstones, and The Grey.
The Commuter follows the story Michael MacCauley (played by Neeson). He is an ex-cop who now sells life insurance. Every day for the past ten years, he takes the same train into New York and the same train back to his home in the suburbs.
One day, on a particularly tough day for him, Michael is approached by a mysterious woman named Joanna (played by Vera Farmiga) and she gives him a task to find someone on the train in a certain amount of time. If he does that, he will be given 100,000 dollars. What follows is a suspenseful ride on this train as Michael uses his skills as a former cop to deduce who this person is, but also who wants them and why they need him to find them.
And overall, it's pretty cheesy and overall, pretty forgettable.
There is a pretty cool montage at the beginning of the movie where it depicts the daily routine of Michael how he is a pretty normal guy. Yeah he used to be a cop, but it's not like Taken where he was former CIA. Unlike his previous movies, while it does tap on Liam Neeson being old, he does come off as an older, less capable man who is "SIXTY YEARS OF AGE!".
That is an actual line in the movie and it's entertaining because these movies have almost started putting obligatory lines making fun of how old Liam Neeson is and how that usually doesn't match up with being an action hero. But he spends almost the entire movie walking back and forth, up and down this train to find the person he's expected to locate and all the while there are action sequences and heroic exchanges pull this guy who is supposed to be your everyday guy back into the image of Liam Neeson.
I've been making fun of this movie because I've basically said it is Taken on a train, but it feels more like a sequel to Non-Stop, a film Neeson did in 2014... which was basically Taken on a plane. Sooner or later, there's going to be an action movie with Liam Neeson solving mysteries on a boat and all the other odd forms of transportation.
I tweets about this film yesterday after I saw it and somebody mentioned that it does have somewhat of the same feeling Murder on the Orient Express had last year. Not only that it was on a train, but there was a little bit of a whodunit mystery to be solved. There is a cast of colorful characters in a small confined space and one old man who has the knowledge to solve this mystery.
I get that and yeah there are some similarities. But similar to my thoughts on Murder on the Orient Express, there isn't enough of an impact for me to really put this beyond a generic murder/conspiracy mystery. It's an entertaining movie. Murder on the Orient Express had better acting and was just a better movie overall, but very similar to it was, there was no impact. I won't remember this movie because the greatest thing in it was a fight sequence where Liam Neeson beat the crap out of a guy with a guitar. I don't like being the only person laughing in a theater... but yeah that was so dumb it was great!
Oh yeah, Patrick Wilson and Sam Neil are in this movie... it really looks like they were brought in for a week of shooting and were paid way too much for this movie.
So do I recommend The Commuter? Eh, sorta? It's not a bad movie, but it's also not very good. It's pretty much your generic action movie with Liam Neeson. Yeah there are some things I enjoyed for sure, but overall it didn't leave any kind of impact. If you're looking for a movie to kill some time, that was exactly what this movie did for me. But if you're only interested in going to find good movies, you can skip The Commuter. Watch Taken instead.
But what did you think of The Commuter? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as 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. I think I might have talked about this before, but I do love the relationship between Seth MacFarlane and Liam Neeson and I love it when they talk about it. Enjoy!
Madam Secretary is a show I went into a little bit blind from the beginning. I had heard the shows title, but I had never really grasped what the show was about until I actually decided to start watching it on Netflix. After 22 episodes, it is hard to say I spent that entire time not liking the show. Usually at that point I would quit watching it and there probably wouldn't be a review like this. But here we are 22 episodes later and there are a couple of things to say.
Madam Secretary follows the story of former CIA agent and current college professor, Elizabeth McCord (played by Tea Leoni). After the sudden death of Secretary of State, she is visited by the President of the United States and her former boss at the CIA and is chosen as the new Secretary of State. When she joins at the new Secretary of State, she is greeted by the staff of the former secretary and the group has a rocky but ultimately close relationship.
What follows is a pretty by the numbers procedural set in the halls of the State Department. Secretary McCord and her team face new issues week by week both foreign and domestic. There is drama from other foreign agents, within the ranks of the state department, and they even butt heads with the President himself (played by Keith Carradine) and his ruthless chief of staff, Russell Jackson (played by Zeljko Ivanek).
But Elizabeth has other problems on her plate including her family. Her husband Henry (played by Tim Daly) is a religious studies professor and her children are growing older and older throughout the entire season. Her oldest Stevie (played by Wallis Currie-Wood) is rebellious and figuring out the trials of being in her very early twenties. Her other two, Alison and Jason (played by Katherine Herzer and Evan Roe) are younger and don't totally understand as much as Stevie does. They still end up being interesting characters but I'd be lying if the show slows down a little bit when the story centers on those two.
Throughout all of this there are a bunch of big name cameos who play smaller one-off roles. Tom Skeritt shows up for an episode and plays Henry's father, Aasif Mandvi makes a surpringly good guest appearance as a foreign representative in one of the episodes. The big cameos don't really show up until the second season but they never feel forced or gratuitous, at least not in the first season....
But throughout the entire first season there is an underlying plot thread that ties it all together. Due to Elizabeth's former career in the CIA, she has connections to spy work and that does come into play in this show. The main story that carries throughout all these hour long procedurals is a really interesting conspiracy that was really interesting.
If you're a fan of espionage, you'll actually find a lot of a fix in this show. If you're a fan of political drama, you'll find a lot of that in here. But I think the way this show sets itself apart is where it blends those lines and the espionage and the politics mesh together.
The other interesting part about the show is that it does kind of mirror the current events and politics happening in our world, and if you're a current events junkie like me, you'll really enjoy that in this show.
I mean, let's not beat around the bush, this show did air in 2014, a year after Hillary Clinton left the state department. You'd have to be pretty blind not to see the parallels between the tenure of Hillary Clinton at the State Department and the stories of Elizabeth McCord. However, the show isn't a full homage to former Secretary Clinton. Tea Leoni does make the character her own and with her background in the CIA and the conspiracies that unfold, there is enough to make the show feel different and not feel too much like a biographic piece.
A criticism of the show is that it does feel like a procedural at times and the crisis of the week feeling does set in from time to time. This is one of the few shows I've watched in the last year and a half that has had more than 14 episodes and I've actually enjoyed almost all the way through. But that does not take away from the fact that there are filler episodes and there was a little bit of space in the middle where I lost interest. When the episodes connect to the larger plot, or they delve more into the characters and their personal struggles, the show gets really good. There are times where the show just doesn't feel genuine enough and I'm just not invested as much.
I think the show does hit some really emotional chords and there is good acting and drama in the show as it is, but I can only imagine what this show would look like if the seasons were a bit shorter and they were able to go a bit further than the prime time network would allow them. As it stands, Madam Secretary is perfectly serviceable as a PG, sometimes PG-13 drama but I can only imagine if those restrictions put on by prime time television were taken off.
But again, as is, I really enjoyed Season 1 of Madam Secretary. I am already a good amount of episodes into season 2 and its reassuring that the show seems to improving more and more. I don't know if I'll do a second season review because with a show with this many episodes, it's hard to pinpoint an exact storyline and like the second season, some of the major plot points only have a finite number of episodes dedicated to it.
One of the downfalls of the show is that the finale was not really as grand as I had expected it to be. It was fine, but it was building up to something that ultimately went no where. There are a couple of points of imbalance in the show and some things that were the most important thing in the previous episode might not be as significant in others.
Still, overall, Madam Secretary is a great show. Again, it has been a while since I've been this invested in a show on prime time and with more than 14 episodes. Somehow they're able to grab me. I do recommend Madam Secretary for anybody who likes their political, espionage, and even family dramas.
But those are my thoughts on Madam Secretary. What do you think? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium 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 and TV news and review coming out of this blog.
I'll leave you with this. So this is a first look at the first episode of the season. It's basically a five minute run through of the entire episode so if you're not interested in spoilers, don't watch this. If you don't care, or if you watch the first thirty seconds or so, you can get an idea of how the show starts, the kind of tone it sets. Enjoy!
So 2018 has started out a little bit slow, by which I have spent the majority of the New Year, finishing what I started back in 2017. Luckily, January is usually a pretty slow months for new movies so it's usually a good time to catch up on things I didn't finish, and watch some movies on Netflix that just came out.
This show was of particular interest because I was up to date on it for a little bit when the show was airing. Then, very quickly, I fell behind and never got around to finishing it up until now. I have discovered since that 24: Legacy has since been cancelled and there are no plans now to revive 24, but it is not out of the question. 24 falls under the umbrella of Fox TV shows that now belongs to Disney so maybe when that transfer goes through we might see a revival of 24... but based on this show, I'm not sure I really want that.
I did a "pilot" review that covered the first 3 or 4 episodes. A lot of the background is covered in that review but I will be adding a little bit onto it and talking about the season as a whole.
As stated in the pilot review, 24: Legacy follows the story of former Army Ranger Eric Carter (played by Corey Hawkins) who was part of an elite team that teamed up with the Counter Terrorist Unit (CTU) to take down a terrorist in a secret operation.
Not long after, he is struggling to live a normal life with his wife Nicole (played by Anna Diop) while his handler at CTU, Rebecca Ingram (played by Miranda Otto, Eowyn from Lord of the Rings) is stepping down as director, handing it over to a new director (played by Teddy Sears), so she can support her husband Senator John Donovan (played by Jimmy Smits) run for President.
But their transition is halted when terrorists track down the other members of Carter's team, murders them, and begin to carry out a plot to carry out attacks on US soil. The race against the real time clock begins as Rebecca and Eric are pulled back into the world they thought they had left behind to foil the plot of the son of the man they assassinated in that secret mission.
I will say, when I think of 24: Legacy as a complete season, I do think there was a lot to like about it. Like I said in my pilot review, it is fun to come back to the world of 24 with the Sean Callery music playing and the clock ticking. After a couple of hours of finishing the season I can say I did like it as a whole.
However, when I try to think of individual episodes or individual moments that I thought were really cool and memorable, it's kind of hard to think of instances where I was thoroughly entertained. The episodes kind of blend together and while I can definitely think of the things I didn't like very clearly, there are only a handful of scenes, characters, and choices they made that I really loved.
Something that I need to retract from my review of the pilot after getting the whole picture is that I do think there is at least a little bit of a deviation from the typical 24 formula that I've found in almost all the previous seasons. Usually there are episodes that you can pin point are going to be important episodes. After the 4th episode it is usually the end of one of the beginning plot threads and it usually signals an attack carried out by the terrorists that almost serves as the thirty minute, not turning back, mark from any Hollywood movie. Legacy doesn't do that. You'd think that since there are only 12 episodes that it would be condensed but it is instead drawn out some more and it seems a bit more methodical than previous seasons.
This is a good thing and a bad thing.
On one hand it is good because, like I said, it draws out the smaller plot points a little bit more and lets us get to know the characters a little bit more. It also deviates from the regular 24 format... a little bit, I'll get to that.
By also keeping the President role out of the story, they lose the political aspect that could sometimes slog depending on who played the President in the past. This allows the show to focus on the action and the characters... sort of.
Overall, it helped create something that had the same feel of 24, while also attempting something a little bit different.
However, the first problem comes when you realize that while the previous seasons were ultimately formulaic, they were also tight and high tempo. 24: Legacy's pacing is a little bit off and the stakes never really feel that high for the first half of the season. While it's good they're trying to do something different, it never feels truly different enough to make itself stand out. The result is, 24: Legacy is a bit of a slog at times and the episodes, and unfortunately the characters, don't grab you the same way old school 24 did.
And that's the other issues, the characters.
Corey Hawkins and Miranda Otto were the right choice to headline this show. These two are probably the best part of the show and I did feel like the show allowed for me to get to know these two and their relationship a little bit better than some of the relationships that formed over a seasons worth of time in the past. Sure, there are characters that Jack Bauer got to know really well over multiple seasons and you got to know Jack Bauer really well, but I'm actually pretty impressed with how much I cared about these two by the end of 12 episodes.
The issue is, with only a few exceptions, everyone else is pretty boring. Eric's wife and brother (played by Ashley Thomas) are okay but they're pretty one note the entire season and aren't very complex. Andy the analyst (played by Dan Bucantinsky) has an episode where his anxiety brings out some interesting dynamics in his character but ultimately he's pretty boring too, and everyone else is either really boring or just poorly written characters. They don't even really know what to do with Jimmy Smits for the majority of the show. This is an example of the show not doing enough to distinguish themselves because you could replace these characters with other one dimensional characters from previous seasons and you've probably get better performances.
You can tell who are the veterans and who are TV actors in this show because the veterans are the ones I really enjoyed. Hawkins, Otto, and Oded Fehr has a role that I would have actually really liked for them to get 12 more episodes just to develop him as a bad guy some more.
But of course, probably the best part of the entire season was Carlos Bernard reprising his role as Tony Almeida.
They needed to have something tying the new 24 to the old and boy am I glad they chose Tony Almeida to do it. Tony was always a fan favorite and I've always enjoyed Carlos Bernard. I also really enjoyed what they did with his character in this season. He's not a huge role and he's also not a bad guy, but he also isn't really a good guy either. I don't want to spoil it, but he does have a role in this whole season that I really enjoyed and wished they would have utilized more, really he was the best part.
I think the part of this show that I did like was the shows utilization of old and new, but mainly focusing on the new and trying their best to build something new and great. And a lot of the heavy lifting in that area is done by Corey Hawkins and Miranda Otto.
Corey Hawkins is a good actor. I feel like he was in a really difficult predicament by trying to fill the void of an iconic performance from Kiefer Sutherland as Jack Bauer.
And while we're on the bad guys, I do want to talk about how they handled the antagonists of the season.
24 got really popular right after 9/11 and for good reason. We had just been attacked, it was great to see an American going off and kicking terrorist ass while commenting on the toll that takes on Soldiers and those who are brave enough to take on that responsibility. But as I've said in previous reviews of 24 properties, that perspective has changed dramatically since 9/11. The Obama administration changed our perspectives, 17 years changed our perspectives, and terrorism itself changed our perspective on terrorism. Right after 9/11 it was easy to sensationalize those who had the audacity to attack us. We could dramatize these organized, evil organizations only bent on killing Americans, and now things have gotten a little bit more messy. I'm not here to say that terrorism isn't bad. It very much is. It just got messy.
These days there isn't your evil figure head like Bin Laden, there's this faceless terror called ISIS. It's not as easy as saying only Middle Eastern people are terrorists (while that is still portrayed in the show) you have homegrown terrorists who are weakly swayed into joining some messed up organizations. Again, not to say anything becomes justified or grey, it just becomes messy.
It was a lot easier when they could just write a the bad guys as complicated foreign terrorist organizations that make their way into the United States illegally and are held up in a compound that armed to the tooth Jack Bauer can just storm and shoot everyone without consequences. That's easy. Tracking down American citizens who are manipulated into joining a jihad, that's a lot more difficult and could have delved into some really intriguing territory.
So how does 24: Legacy decide to portray these homegrown terrorists? These sleeper cells that feel so close to home and add a level of complexity to our war on terror?
They cast Kathryn Prescott as a teenage girl in high school whos conflicts start with her ex-boyfriend suspecting she's a terrorist because she hasn't been talking to him. On top of that she's in cahoots with her teacher who is in love with her...
Listen, this isn't a personal attack on Kathryn Prescott herself. I'm sure she's a lovely individual. But what was this?
This was a horrendous direction to take the plot, and we spend half the season with this chick! First she's dealing with her ex-boyfriend, then she's dealing with her teacher, then she's dealing with her father, and I barely remember her brother who brings her into this whole plot.
And while I might be harping too much on this girls plot line, it does really illustrate where 24 is and where the rest of the world is.
Like I said, 24 came out at the right time in the political and international world. America needed Jack Bauer to hunt down terrorists and it did provide a great foundation for TV shows and movies about terrorism and the brave men and women who work tirelessly to keep our country safe.
But since 2001, we've gotten a lot of other shows that have taken what 24 started and refined it. Homeland is a great example. It took an issue like terrorism and made it a little bit more complicated and extracted the drama that is rife in these scenarios. 24: Legacy was a chance to revitalize 24 and make it applicable to todays world where its not as simple as, let's go get the bad guys.
I could see in another context, this plot line with this girl in high school being corrupted and manipulated into becoming a homegrown terrorist, how this could be compelling drama. There is an inkling that she's struggling with what she's doing and the choices she has to make.
But this is 24, everything is moving at a billion miles per hour because terrorism utilizes every minute of the day and there can be no subtlety.
Overall, 24 in general is like Call of Duty and 24: Legacy is like Call of Duty Infinite Warfare. Both are high paced, light on the story but just enough to keep you invested, and the only difference between the two of them is the coat of paint. Sure there are a couple of new things, but not enough to really distinguish it from previous iterations that were already well past the point of being tired and overused.
As a die hard fan of 24, I'm okay with this show dying off. There are things about 24: Legacy that I enjoyed and probably could have been more interesting, but I don't think there is enough in this show to really distinguish it as a huge change.
Now this is where the Call of Duty reference kind of goes off the rails because I haven't played the new one yet and I don't know if the best choice was to just go back to the roots and revamp the franchise from where it began... that being said if 24 was revamped and still able to bring Kiefer Sutherland back... I wouldn't be complaining.
24: Legacy was entertaining. As someone who enjoyed 24, I had a good time with it. It's not going to be something new for new viewers and I don't think any die hard 24 fans are going to call it the best season yet, but it's fine. Overall, pretty harmless. I really could have seen Fox going either way with the decision to cancel and I'm not surprised at all that it didn't make it past the first 12 episodes. Who knows where we go from here, but we will see.
But have you seen 24: Legacy? What did you think? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your requests for films and TV shows I should review in the future. You can also send thoughts and requests to me via Twitter @MovieSymposium. 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 Kiefer Sutherland talking about 24: Legacy before it came to the end. Enjoy!
