Cloverfield

I can't really decide if I feel old that Cloverfield is already 10 years old, or if I'm more disappointed that I've waited 10 years and this Twilight Zone-likeCloverfield universe still doesn't totally feel like it's gotten off the ground the way I've expected from JJ Abrams. I'll talk more about the larger picture stuff that I don't think we ever really conceived in 2008 from this movie later and instead talk about the movie Cloverfield just as a standalone movie and how it has aged in the 10 years since it's release.

Cloverfield centers around government seized found footage. The footage was originally captured by a group of friends as they throw a going away party for their friend Robert (played by Michael Stahl-David) as he gets ready to leave for Japan.

His friend Hud (oddly played by TJ Miller in his big screen debut) has the video camera and he is assigned to get people's good bye messages to Rob before he leaves. Underneath the whole movie is a romance plot line between Rob and his friend Beth (played by Odette Yustman). It serves more as character motivation later on and while paper thin, isn't the worst addition to this movie and is luckily overshadowed by the sudden horrific events that happen on that night.

The party is going relatively smoothly, some character drama is unfolding, when suddenly an earthquake shakes the city and the main characters, Rob, Hud, Rob's brother Jason (played by Mike Vogel), his girlfriend Lily (played by Jessica Lucas), and another girl at the party named Marlena (played by Lizzy Caplan go to see what happened.

The rest of the movie is this group of characters trying to escape from New York as it is terrorized by a giant skyscraper sized monster and the small little alien monsters that came with it. And of course, all it is captured by TJ Miller on a video camera.

First off, I have to say, watching this movie ten years later is weird especially considering that this was TJ Miller's first movie, EVER. He did a little bit of TV the year before, but this was his break out role and nobody ever talks about that. Partly because he's behind the camera the entire time but you hear his voice... the entire time. Now I think I get it. He's slightly annoying but also slightly charming in that typical TJ Miller fashion. I'm not totally sure how his career blew up more than everyone else's in this movie. With the exception of Lizzy Caplan, I don't really hear about any of the other actors in this movie. It's just weird that the biggest celebrities from this movie is the sexual abuser from Deadpool and Lindsey Lohan's goth friend from Mean Girl.

The second thing I'll talk about is the found footage format of the movie. Now I'm not a huge fan of the style anyways but I do have to give the movie a little bit of credit. I recognize that it definitely wasn't the first found footage movie but I think it was this movie and Paranormal Activity in 2007 that really started off the found footage trend that people got so sick of. I'll talk a little bit more about that later, but I actually didn't mind it for this film.

The thing that always bugs me about these found footage movies is that it never makes a whole lot of sense why people are filming these events. For this movie it kind of works and the truth is, its not something that breaks the film, even when it doesn't make sense.

The camera work and the plot at the beginning, for the most part makes sense and feels pretty diegetic. With the exception of some campy acting, it makes sense why someone would have a camera at the start of the film. As the film progresses though it stops making a whole lot of sense why TJ Miller is filming. There is something to be said about the obsession we have with our phones and the way we film and document everything even in the middle of a disaster and that's some probably unintended commentary that I didn't notice the first time around, but I really doubt that was the subliminal message Matt Reeves or JJ Abrams was trying to get across in their monster movie. It also doesn't rationalize a whole lot of why he keeps filming as he's running for his life from a monster.

There's a point in the movie where TJ Miller's friend asks him if and why he's still filming and Miller gives the shittiest line in the movie, "People are gonna want to see what happened." Again, it does not make sense how Miller's career sky rocketed so much more than almost everyone in this film...

But the truth is, I don't want to make a huge deal out of the fact that the found footage thing only sort of works in this movie. It gives the movie a unique format and at least at the time, it felt different than other monster movies out there. I'm really glad found footage films ahve gone out of style because its been overused. But it's not done horribly in this film at all. It's shakey, there are times where you don't know whats going on and probably get a headache, but I think it works.

Larger picture though, I do think this movie gets a little bit of unwarranted shit. I think it mainly comes from the fact of hindsight on two fronts. The first and most obvious is how much people hate found footage movies now. Cloverfield and Paranormal Activity started off a horrible trend for the next 5 to 8 years where A LOT of horror movies were found footage movies and they were bad... and that got really old, really quick. But I think it also gets a bad reputation on how disappointing the whole Cloverfield franchise has been.

Again, think about the fact that this movie has been out for 10 years. To be fair, I don't think we really had the idea that Cloverfield was a franchise until 2016 when 10 Cloverfield Lane came out but again, 10 years and what do we have to show for this "franchise". Two initial movies that were unique and felt more like cousins that direct sequels, and a direct to Netflix film that I remember being better than I think a lot of people give it credit for. But where is this going?

I honestly don't even know how to talk about this franchise because we still don't know anything about it or if its actually happening. There's a recent movie called Overlord that I think initially was supposed to be a Cloverfield film set in World War 2 and then after the failure of The Cloverfield Paradox, they took the Cloverfield name out of it.

I think a part of me wants Cloverfield to be a franchise but it's hard to really define what that franchise would be. Would it be a Twilight Zone/Black Mirror Anthology series only loosely connected by the name Cloverfield? Is it a monster horror franchise? Nobody really knows, and I think that's where this movie gets a little more shit than it deserves.

On it's own, Cloverfield is a unique film. I also remember it having a really unique viral marketing campaign.

Now I can't speak to that viral marketing campaign 10 years later but I see that as something beneficial for me to judge this movie on its merits, not the hype. And as it stands, I enjoyed re-watching Cloverfield. The movie is pretty short so even if you're not a fan, it goes by really quick and it does the monster science fiction genre pretty well and in a unique way. I think looking at a greater scale, this was a weird movie to start a franchise on which maybe makes me think that that was never the plan. But if you haven't seen it in a while, check out Cloverfield again. I do recommend it after 10 years.

But those are my thoughts on Cloverfield. What did you think? Does it hold up 10 years later? Where would you want a Cloverfield franchise to go? Do you want a franchise? 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.

Thanks for reading!

The Lion King (2019) Teaser Trailer (but more a rant on Disney Remakes)

So the funny story behind this was that I was at my annual Thanksgiving get together with my family when this trailer aired during the Football game. I remember I woke up a little bit in a daze and looked over to the TV just as it was airing. I knew exactly what it was for and got excited, but there was a part of me that thought I was still dreaming. But no I saw some beautifully designed CGI animals similar to the ones I saw in The Jungle Book a few years ago, and I knew immediately that this was the highly anticipated Lion King Trailer.

And its not surprising that this is such a highly anticipated film. The Lion King is a beloved film that a lot of people love from their childhood, nostalgia alone would make this movie break box office records. When you hear James Earl Jones' voice and then the Elton Jone classic "The Circle of Life" it makes a lot of sense why this trailer gave people chill.

But then you add this awesome cast. And yes, it is awesome. Donald Glover, Beyonce, Chewtel Ejofor, Aflie Woodard, the list goes on. And furthermore you get a lot of people excited that this is a strong mostly black cast. In the time we live in and the history of film, this is becoming a trend that is not only long overdue, but also a trend that we've seen from Black Panther to be profitable.

So why, despite the trailer being really good and intriguing me on the film, make me very nervous that this movie is not going to be that good?

I should talk a little bit about where we came from and how we got to this point that we're expecting to get this summer event that could end up being very profitable, but also not that great of a movie.

And before I go on, I should say that I'm not hoping for this movie to fail. I love this story and I will more than likely be the first in line to see it, again totally based off that nostalgia. I want it to surprise me and succeed. But I do want to point out the trend we're seeing that makes me nervous that I'm going to be disappointed with this film. I have no doubt its going to make Disney a crap ton of money, but I'm not as sure that it's going to be a great movie because... we've been down this road before.

The Lion King was released in 1994 and essentially reimagined the story of Hamlet in a gorgeously animated cartoon story about a young Lion cub named Simba who is next in line to take the throne and the responsibilities that come along with that. There are no humans, it's all talking animals.

Lion King is often considered the peak of the "Disney Renaissance" when Disney was producing some of the most memorable and quality driven (and profitable) animated films in their history. It was one of many movies that defined a generation. I am apart of that generation that grew up on these films and again, it's why remaking these movies in "live action" makes total sense. This movie as well as other animated films that have been and will be remade in live action like The Jungle Book, Beauty and the Beast, and Maleficent, are all quintessential parts of a lot of people my age's childhoods. The minute people heard James Earl Jones saying, "Everything the Light Touches, is our Kingdom" Disney probably made a million dollars right there, at least.

But I also want to talk about these remakes that Disney has been doing lately.

Cinderella, Maleficent, Beauty and the Beast, Alice in Wonderland, Pete's Dragon, The Jungle Book. And that's just the movies that have come out. There's a whole slew of movies in the pipeline that are going to be remaking those classic Disney animated films. Obviously this, Mulan (2020), Aladdin (2019) Dumbo (2019), even an eventual Lady and the Tramp remake staring Justin Thoreaux and Tessa Thompson. These remakes are not dying down quick.

Now I don't know if The Lion King was always in the pipeline from the beginning, but I remember first hearing about it not long after Jon Faverau's The Jungle Book. I imagine it be naive to think that it wasn't as this animation probably takes a lot of time and 3 years might not be enough time to produce the quality animation. I know Faverau wasn't involved until the success of Jungle Book so who knows.

The Jungle Book was a commercial success and garnered a lot of its fame from phenomenal production stories of how the entire thing was filmed on a sound stage. It looks amazing. So I guess it makes sense that people saw that and thought, I want this nostalgia to continue and it would be amazing to see this CGI used in a more beloved remake like The Lion King.

But there are three issues I have with this remake and the first has to do with that logic.

The Jungle Book was so intriguing because the kid who played Mowgli was the only real actor in the movie. Everyone else was motion captured into these animals on a soundstage. It was a life action movie because of that kid.

The Lion King doesn't have any humans or anything (that I know of) real in it. By definition, we're not getting a "live action" remake of The Lion King, we're just getting a CGI version of it.

And yeah. The CGI we see in the trailer looks amazing but to me it just seems like a weird movie to remake if its just going to be a different style of animation.

I am by no means an expert when it comes to animation but hear me out as I butcher this nuanced look at the types of animation. Different types of animation are able to accomplish and make you feel different things. The animation you see in Sponge Bob is a lot different than the animation you see in the new animated Spider-man movie. The new Spider-man movie is able to achieve results you can't do in a live action movie while maintaining some reality. Meanwhile Spongebob is so removed from reality that the characters can do anything and it feels natural. Remember the times where Bugs Bunny would have his eyes spring out of their socket or have hearts in them, that worked with the style of animation and would feel weird in the new Spider-man animated film.

Think back to "I Just Can't Wait to Be King", remember how colorful and crazy that song gets. Now try and imagine that song done in "live action". I can't imagine a scenario where that song gets as animated and fun with animated Lions that are supposed to be acting like real lions because it's "live action". What you get is a watered down version that they will need to reimagine because they can't do it the same way as they will not be able to achieve that same animated results with the style they're going with.

I hope they reimagine it and I hope I enjoy it. I'd love to hear Donald Glover and Beyonce's voices in Can You Feel the Love Tonight, but I do think the movie is hamstringing itself into a more "live action" style.

And that leads me into the second issues I can for see happening with this movie and that's that it's just doing a shot for shot remake.

I've already talked about the way this movie hamstrings itself by creating a more grounded animation. If the movie decides to go just for a shot for shot remake of the film, it's just going to be disappointing.

The teaser trailer is pretty clever because they manage to find a lot of shots that appear to be 1 for 1 recreations of the original film in "live action". This looks great for a teaser trailer but makes me very nervous that I'm going to be paying money to watch the same movie I watched as a kid, just in more "realistic" that hamstrings it. I don't care how cool it is that they were able to get Beyonce to play Nala, why would you recreate a movie that is almost perfect?

Now this is going to be my shortest section because the reality is, I know it's not going to be that. As surprised as I am that there were a lot of shots from the teaser trailer that looked exactly like the animated film, I know they're not going to do that because again, we've been down this road before.

Remember when we got SOOOO excited for Beauty and the Beast because Emma Watson, Ewan McGregor, Ian Mckellan, Luke Evans, and a lot of other really great actors were involved with a nostalgic classic from our childhood? I have really soured on that movie since its release. I think I still like it, but even in the moment when I was at the height of the hype around this movie, I was still pointing out glaring issues in my review.

But something I've noticed from this film and the other Disney remakes is that they set out, not only to be faithful to the original animated film, but also fix some of the "problems" with the original.

Now some of these "issues" are small, frankly stupid things. These are usually plot holes that internet culture has exploited because pointing out little things like the Beast being a child in the prologue or the fact that the village Belle lives in just forgot there used to be a Prince that lived not too far from them is funny material to talk about on Youtube. It's really annoying that pointing out these plot holes have grown from just funny observations to glaring issues that Disney and larger culture feel the need to address them in multimillion dollar movies but the bigger trend comes from modern Disney films in general.

The new trend in Disney movies is to create meta commentary on previous Disney movies. In many movies like the new Wreck it Ralph movie and Moana, it's played quick laughs  but also kind of suggests that we should be holding older movies made in the past to the same standard we hold movies today.

Frozen often felt like that's all the movie was, a meta commentary on how Princess's in Disney films automatically fall in love with their prince's after 1 day. Cinderella in the 2015 film becomes more strong and independent, having conversations with the Prince allowing for them to actually have chemistry before falling in love. It's almost happening so much that they have started repeating themselves. Maleficent basically had the same resolution as Frozen.

And this long detour from the Lion King (yeah you kind of forgot I was talking about that) isn't to say this trend is always bad. If you're going to follow the money and remake these movies, it's good to try and update the characters to create better role models. I think Cinderella in the 2015 is a stronger and more interesting character than the old movie. I think taking a unique look at a character like Maleficent is interesting (though not really executed well).

The parts where Disney fails at this though is when they try and shoehorn in social trends that they think will win them the approval of modern thinkers but instead is just poorly done.

Remember when LeFou was gay?

My point in all this is that while I would hate the idea of Lion King doing a shot for shot remake in "live action" I'm also worried about what their reimagining of an almost perfect movie is going to be. Some of it might work out. I doubt they're going to get Beyonce in the film without beefing up Nala's part in the second half of the movie. The original movie is only 88 minutes long and they're probably get that up to 2 hours as least so it will need to be expanded. I just don't know if Disney's past has been shown they're able to not only pay proper tribute to the previous film, but expand on it. 

Beauty and the Beast is a great example again. There are a lot of scenes that try to recapture almost shot for shot the magic of the film but due to the live action, the emotion doesn't come across the same way as it did in the animated film even if the shot is exactly right. Furthermore, the stuff they added filled some of the plot holes, but then opened up even more. Overall the movie suffered. 

I think the main point of this is less to say The Lion King is going to suck, and more warn Disney that they need to learn from their mistakes, not only in The Lion King, but for their future endeavors. 

We're going to keep on getting these remakes, there's no question about it. I think it's too much to expect these movies to be better than the animated films but wouldn't it be great if these movies felt like they were trying to do something different instead of feel like they're just cash grabs?

I hope this rambling made at least a little bit of sense. I think it's important to restate that I am excited for The Lion King. I'm going to go see this new movie when it comes out next year and I'll probably see Aladdin... and Dumbo... and Mulan... and every other film. I just expect more out of my Disney films. We all should. 

But what did you think of the Lion King Teaser Trailer? What do you think we should expect from this new film? 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. 

Thanks for reading!

The Man Who Invented Christmas

I should note from the beginning that I watched this movie because it was requested by my good friend Aly. Let it be a note to every one, I do take requests. So thank you Aly for the request and a really fun watch.

This was a movie that I had heard of but honestly was probably never a movie I'd go out of my way to watch. Also, put on the fact that it's November and I'm usually one of the people who say that before Thanksgiving is too early for Christmas movies. However, this movie gets a pass because its more of a historical drama, and it starts 6 weeks before Christmas which we are basically at right now so I think it's okay. Regardless of any of those factors, I'm really glad it was requested because I actually watched it, really enjoyed it, but definitely have some things to say about it.

The Man Who Invented Christmas is a biographical story surrounding Charles Dickens (played by Dan Stevens) as he embarks on writing arguably his most famous book, "A Christmas Carol". The movie begins after Dickens has written Oliver Twist and cemented himself as a writer with some acclaim and yet he is in debt and unsure of himself because his last three books were critical and commercial failures.

Eager to publish another book to settle his debts and get back on top, Dickens states he will write a Christmas story in 6 weeks, an unheard of goal.

The movie follows Dickens on that 6 week binge and delves into a really cerebral and emotional look into his writing process. There's a lot to discuss about this movie, but by far the best part of the film is when he is either writing or thinking up the plot for A Christmas Carol.

The way they portray this writing process is brilliant as Dickens' characters come alive and interact with him and you see the plot unfolding in front of him.

Christopher Plummer (who is just a national treasure) plays the incarnation of Ebeneezer Scrooge and he as well as the other characters of the story, most notably the ghosts start haunting Dickens as he writes the story.

And there is just so much to love about these scenes. Personally, as someone who loves to write, I absolutely loved the portrayal of the writing process so they had me from the beginning. But this is where the movie takes a lot of liberties and closely connects the story with Dickens' personal life and the personal drama driving the plot.

Another great thing is that the movie serves as a giant fan service for people who love A Christmas Carol. You can see the particular things that inspire Dickens and you watch the story unfold in his head on screen. Furthermore, while the audience knows how the story ends up, the characters don't know and you actually see Dickens building the story from the ground up. As someone who has read the book, watched many adaptations of it, and know individual lines very clearly, this was just a blast.

And the good thing is, these scenes make up the majority of the movie. A lot of Dickens' friends make for inspiration for the characters of the book and appear as the story unfolds.

However, the parts where its examining Dickens as a person and his relationships is where the movie's quality goes down a little bit. It's not the worst but it does exemplify the strange line this movie rides by being both a cerebral personal story of movie Charles Dickens, who is an interesting character, and how his personal demons parallel with the story, as well as a historical biographical on the actual Charles Dickens.

Biographic movies are difficult because life doesn't fit perfectly into three acts with clean cut mores at the end. Now this movie actually does okay with historical accuracy as far as my minimal research concludes. Dickens did go a little mad writing this story in 6 weeks, stating he saw ghosts, and drawing inspiration for characters from his friends, family, and people he ran across. There is a lot of historical accuracy in this movie.

But just due to the format of a writer looking inward and seeing a parallel between his fiction and his life, this movie lends itself to an intriguing drama that I would have excused a lot of liberties to examine. Dickens relationship with his wife is pretty lacking but the better example is in Jonathan Pryce who plays Dickens' father and he gives a really solid performance. I don't know if they were just trying to maintain historical accuracy, but the tension between those two, while there, doesn't resolve the way this movie really deserved. Yes it probably wouldn't have necessarily been historically accurate, but this is a movie version of Charles Dickens, why not flesh out the relationships between Dickens and his family some more to the message of the story more meaningful. You have some great actors in Dan Stevens, Jonathan Pryce, and Christopher Plummer, I just wanted to see an extra mile that didn't end up happening. The movie is still fun and interesting, I just feel like there could have been more by way of internal drama.

This movie tries to do both a biographic film about the 6 weeks Charles Dickens wrote his best work as well as tell a really personal and emotional story about a writer realizing his self worth. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't.

Now, I'm going to go from saying I wanted the movie to take liberties to criticizing the points where liberties were taken but there's a good reason for it. One of my biggest gripes is the title.

At the end of the film, like a lot of biographical movies, they include some epilogue text stating the aftermath of the movie and some final historical facts. But this movie in this final text and in the title boldly claims that Charles Dickens "invented" Christmas.

I'm not gonna debate this topic too hard because I do think A Christmas Carol is one of most influential books of history, but I will say the movie makes a pretty bold claim and only backs it up with a few lines of dialogue and some text at the end. Again, I've done pretty minimal research but what I have found is that some of that claim is accurate. Christmas was a minor holiday at the time and the book contributed to a revitalization of Christmas tradition. The focus (rightfully) is more on Dickens and his personal development and the actual writing of the book, rather than the effects that feel more like an afterthought relegated to epilogue text. I think I would have actually liked to see more of the effect rather than just be told about it. Maybe show what Christmas looked like before the book was published. The only time we see this is (I think) a flashback of Charles Dickens as a kid celebrating with his father and it doesn't look that different. I think discussing the impact of this great book is important, just more important than a few lines of dialogue and a couple lines of text.

Overall, I really liked The Man Who Invented Christmas. I think its a film with some great performances, really creative storytelling, and takes a unique approach to telling a true story about a historic figure.

My biggest regret about this movie is that it tries to juggle multiple things at once. It tries to be a character study of an eccentric writer, while also trying to be a historical account of Charles Dickens, while also commenting on the impact of a beloved piece of literature. I'm not saying it couldn't have been more than one if not all three of these things, I just think by pursuing one of those goals in this case, it made the other goals suffer.

I would still recommend this movie, especially as we get closer to the holidays. It'll leave you feeling good and you might learn a thing or two about a historic figure. #CauseKnowledgeisPower

But those are my thoughts on The Man Who Invented Christmas, what did you think? Comment and Discuss below! I'll mention again that someone recommended I watch and review this movie earlier this week. I made it my priority to watch it and review it as soon as I could so I encourage you to do the same. Send me your thoughts and recommendations on Twitter as well @MovieSymposium and I will do everything I can to watch whatever movie you recommend. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

Thanks for reading!

Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan Season 1

This series took me a lot longer to finish that I originally expected. I will say I enjoyed the second half of the season more than the first half but that's a pretty good analogy for my thoughts on the entire season. It's a mixed bag. Some of it I absolutely loved and was hooked from the start, while other parts made me roll my eyes or take a long break because I was just bored. 

Jack Ryan is a property that I'm really glad someone did a television series on and I am always a fan of Tom Clancy properties. But there are definitely some notes I can make of Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan that keep it from being a great espionage television show. 

The Jack Ryan story is not the most known story of in all cinematic and television history, but it is

one that has been told a few times. John Krasinski follows in the footsteps of Alec Baldwin, Harrison Ford, Ben Affleck, and Chris Pine to play Jack Ryan, the analyst from the CIA thrusted into a conspiracy against the United States, bringing him from behind the desk, out into the field.

The show depicts Jack as an intelligent analyst. And that's about it. I like John Krasinski and I think he was a good choice for the character. Any issues I have with the character doesn't have to do with Krasinski, it's more his character. And this has always been a problem with Jack Ryan. He's not that interesting of a character. He's a described boy scout. He loves America. He wants to serve his country. He is lawful good. And that's not to say lawful good characters can't be interesting, but there have only been a few cinematic interpretations of Jack Ryan that were really interesting and this one is... not the worst?

Jack's team is focused on Terror, Finance, and Arms and he gets a new boss, the world weary and morally grey Jim Greer (played by Wendell Pierce). Greer comes with a checkered reputation, benched from the field from a mysterious past. The two are polar opposites. This plays very well when they partner up to investigate some financial transactions that lead them to Yemen and on a manhunt for a ruthless terrorist.

The show is very much a buddy cop show between Jack Ryan and Jim Greer. One is the inexperienced idealistic analyst (Ryan) and the other is the weathered morally gray operative (Greer). While Greer doesn't become very interesting until the second half of the season, the two play off each other very well. Greer has been in the world of international espionage for years while Ryan is being taken out of the security of his desk job and must learn the moral greyness of that world.

Their partnership brings them down a rabbit hole as they pursue a terrorist by the name of Mousa Bin Suleiman (played by Ali Suliman).

Now the way this show stands out from the other adaptations of the Jack Ryan story is how it makes itself timely to the era we live in.

First off, they spend a lot of time in the show developing the main villain. Traditionally, I'm cool with that. Shows like Daredevil and other premium streaming service series usually have an episode or two tracing the backstory of the villain so it means more to see this person you can relate to turn evil. The one bad thing about this show is that they try that approach and try and humanize radical terrorists. While the show never excuses or justifies any of their behavior, they do rationalize it a little bit for audience understanding. To a certain extent it works, especially when it builds up the cunning and intelligence of Sulieman. But there is an aspect about this character that really can't be rationalized. They try to connect a dot between a guy who is the victim of stereotypes and prejudice and a radical terrorist and I think that dot is very, VERY hard to connect. And even in the episodes where they try to explain it, they never go all the way because the show rides a fine line between being relevant to the issues of the international world, and being a red white and blue Tom Clancy property. It's a difficult line that they don't always stay on.

The show also spends a lot of time on Sulieman's wife Hanin (played by Dina Shihabi). Now this section of the show was both interesting and made the show drag a lot. On one hand, Hanin was used as the insight into the life of Muslim women as well as the refugee crisis from countries plagued by war like Syria. I applaud the show for taking on this topic and at times it was well done. It's pretty timely and definitely worth portraying to draw attention to it at at time like this. But these moments often serve more as a background for the story, rather than actually having much to say about it. There are a lot of "OH THE HUMANITY" moments where it just displays people living and moving in harsh conditions to escape from their previous situations. However, not a whole lot is being said in these moments because the show is again riding that fine line of being aware of international issues, and beating the chest of America. It would be silly to say this show has a bold stance because it really doesn't. Now, to be fair, they don't have to have a bold stance. But there are moments where they're giving the impression that they do have that stance.

One huge downfall of the show is when the subplots veer off and are either super boring, or amount to absolutely nothing. The biggest culprit is that of the random drone pilot that carries over multiple episodes played by John Magaro.

I get what they're trying to do in this and I can at least appreciate the effort. The big through line with this character is the advancement of military technology and what impact it has on the modern battlefield as well as the Soldiers who operate drones as opposed to airplanes. There is a decent conversation he has with his partner about that and again, I can appreciate the effort. But it feels REALLY out of place in a show that already struggles to herd the cats they let loose. If you watch this series, feel free to fast forward all but two scenes with this character because they really make the show drag.

And that's the bummer of the show. It does not exactly clip along. There are moments where it's really interesting and then it slows down to a crawl and it's tough to capture my attention. There's some really good international espionage intrigue and if you're a fan of the Bourne franchise or modern military movies, you might enjoy this series (I'll talk a little more about that in a little bit). But there are for sure some problems.

A good example of this is the relationship between Jack and Kathy Mueller (played by Abbie Cornish). If you've seen any of the other Jack Ryan movies you'll know there's always some drama with Jack and Kathy in the beginning of their relationship because he can't tell her he works for the CIA. There were some moments that I really liked between these two.

But then again, the chemistry at times was pretty lacking and I was often times pretty happy when these two were off doing their own thing. Again, there's a lot of loose cats this show has to herd back in 8 episodes. Some of which they do well, others they could have left alone.

The show lands somewhere in between two of my favorite international espionage shows: 24 and Homeland. Unfortunately, it doesn't match the tone and goal of either of these shows and falls shorts in the worst ways at places. The easiest and shortest way of putting it is that it is not as fast paced and over the top as 24. However, it's also not as thought provoking or realistic as Homeland. It lands somewhere in the middle sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worst.

Now usually I don't speak on the realism of a show for two reasons. Especially with a subject matter like this, I don't know how much is real and how much isn't, but it doesn't usually matter. It's a fictional show, you need to suspend disbelief in order to have an intriguing show.

With any military show or movie, you're going to get some inaccuracies. Military uniforms are never worn correctly, protocol and military etiquette get thrown aside in order to facilitate dramatic dialogue, etc. Most of the time I can look past that in order to have a fun time. But there were a couple of moments, especially towards the end that are actually pretty critical to how the story unfolds that would never happen ever. I won't delve into spoilers, but the bottom line is there were things that bothered me because they were so ridiculous. It wasn't even your over the top stuff, it was just bad writing. Again, I get that sometimes you have to suspend disbelief sometimes, but these are plot holes that were a little bit distracting when I was watching it.

Overall, I had fun watching Jack Ryan. I love me a good espionage, international intrigue thriller more than most people. It's why I was excited to watch this show in the first place. If you like it too, you're going to get what you expect. There are some great use of the military and espionage elements you'd see in 24, Homeland, or the Bourne films. The action is good, and there are some tense moments that I had fun with. I think it utilized the Tom Clancy IP pretty well and I'm glad it got renewed for a second season.

However, I really hope that some of the issues of the first season get addressed. The pacing, the writing of the titular character, and sometimes chaotic plot lines. I recommend they focus in on what made the first season good, and trim some of the fat. I don't think it's going to reach the levels of quality Homeland gives, but it's more of a popcorn series anyway, might as well make it the best popcorn series you can.

But those are my thoughts on Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan on Amazon Prime. What did you think? How does it compare with shows and movies like 24 and Homeland? 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.

The Haunting of Hill House Season 1

I've you've read my reviews of It Follows and The Witch you'll know that I am not a conventional horror fan. Where most people go to horror films to be scared, I go for the story. Where a lot of people really enjoy jump scares and measure their enjoyment of a horror film off of how scary it made them feel, I judge horror films off of how good the story is and how it utilizes creepy atmosphere and tension to its benefit. But I think I learned a lot from the 10 episodes of this show. Up front, I should say that I really, REALLY enjoyed this show, even though I spent a good portion of it watching through my fingers.

The Haunting of Hill House follows the story of the Crain family. Much of the story is split between flashbacks from the 1990's where the family moves into the infamous Hill House in order to flip it. But the real beef of the story takes place when the adults are all grown up and they are looking back on their tragic, horrific, and supernatural experiences at the house while also dealing with a tragedy that affects them in the present.

The show mainly focuses on the kids. In fact the first five episodes are an individual account of their experiences at the house while they were kids and the couple of days that the story centers around.

I won't give too much away because if you watch the show a lot of the fun experience is getting to know these characters individually then seeing them interact with one another. An extra bonus is if you experience the show the same way I did and recognize the classic family tropes and dynamics between siblings. I grew up with a lot of siblings and I really enjoyed seeing the different roles shift between the different characters the same way those roles switch among actual siblings. There's a good chance you'll identify with one character for one reason, but you will find something relatable in all of them.

You have Steve the oldest (played by Michiel Huisman as an adult and Paxton Singleton as a child). Steve grows up to be a writer and he writes stories about haunted house and ghosts, even though he does not believe in the supernatural. As a kid, Steve wants to help his dad Hugh (played by Timothy Hutton in the present and Henry Thomas in 1992) fix up the house.

I think out of all five of the kids, Steve is probably the least developed. I like Michiel Huisman and I think he's a great character, but in my opinion they didn't develop enough about him. I don't know if that was on purpose or what but a ghost story writer who doesn't believe in ghost suddenly have to face the supernatural is really interesting and I don't think they did enough with him. The other aspect was that I wasn't really impressed with the kid who played him as a child. There were a lot of lines that were not read very well and I did feel like the character wasn't written as well as it could have been. I wasn't sure if I was supposed to really dislike him or see him as the main character, especially with how well done the other kids were done.

The next sibling is the first girl Shirely (played by Elizabeth Reaser as an adult and Lulu Wilson as a kid). Shirely is a mortician who sees the dysfunction in her family from an early age. When Steve becomes a famous writer, she feels as though she has to take on a lot of the responsibilities he refuses to take on. The fact that she's a mortician in a story like this was also really interesting and a creepy, yet really profound character trait. Her particular episode deals a lot with death and the supernatural and it was a really great episode to keep on track the first episode was able to hook us onto.

Shirley is also a great example of how great the casting for this show was. I don't know how they were able to pair up these kids with these adults so well but I thought Lulu Wilson and Elizabeth Reaser were a fantastic duo. They complimented one another really well.

Lulu Wilson is an example of how these kid actors had a lot of talent. It was fun having moments where you could see the faces of the younger kids in the adults, (especially with the character of Theo) and I thought Lulu Wilson did a really good job.

I don't think that Shirley is my favorite character by any means but her episode is the second one and if you weren't hooked with the first one (which feels more like an introduction episode to everyone rather than a Steve episode), I would recommend you stick around for the second episode. If you don't like that one then the show might not be for you, but like I said, it really kept me on the hook from what the first episode was able to accomplish.

I'm not totally sure which character is my favorite because I like them the most when they're all together. But I think the closest to that title is Theodora (played by Kate Siegal as an adult and Mckenna Grace as a kid). I won't give away the secret behind Theo because again, a lot of this show is built on unraveling the mystery. But you could probably do an entire spin off focusing on her. I'll say that.

One thing that I can say is that if you're a middle child, you might identify with Theo. Going back to that family dynamic I was talking about, Theo definitely lives in the shadow of her older siblings and goes about her business. I am a middle child myself and I think that's why I liked her character so much. Her individual episode is a lot of fun and is where the show really got going for me. I'll clarify that it's hard to tell if there was a weak link episode because they were all pretty good. I will also say that her episode is where the show started to incorporate some more frightening jump scares and if I hadn't been hooked by her story and the episodes before hand, I probably would have called it quits. But I really enjoyed her parts.

Oliver Jackson-Cohen plays Luke as an adult and Julian Hillard plays him as a kid and I really liked the character of Luke. Besides the fact that we're getting into the younger and more adorable kids, I think the story line that they did with this character is really good.

In adulthood, Luke is a recurring addict and a burden on the family. As a kid he seemed to have a wild imagination and this all comes to a hedge with his episode which was actually really sad. While each episode brings out that family drama pretty well, Luke is the center of a lot of drama for this family and I thought that dynamic of family trying to look out for one another but also getting really annoyed of one another was done really well. I feel they could have actually given more to Luke but as it stands he was really great.

And then there's Nell (played by Victoria Pedretti as an adult and Violet McGraw as a child).

Nell very much becomes the emotional center of the family and her episode is both one of the more horrifying episodes while also being one of the more psychological and cerebral.

It's obvious from the front end of the show that Nell really never gets over the horror that the family experienced in the house and it haunts her throughout the show. While Nell and Luke are twins, Violet McGraw is probably the youngest of the cast. I think that's hard to convert to an adult 26 years later but they do it really, REALLY well.

Now if you make it to episode 5, you're probably in for the long haul and you're not questioning your commitment to the show. And I think that the episode "The Bent-Neck Lady" might just be the reward for sticking with the show this long. This episode also amps up the jump scares, but after some time to digest them, I realized that they were all strategic and not just for the sake of scaring the audience. I'll talk a little bit more about this later in the post, but that was both an incredibly jumpy episode, and also one of my favorites because how smart it was, especially in the way it used tension, scary imagery, and emotional storytelling. And it all centers on this character.

There are other characters worth mentioning like Shirely's husband or Steve's wife, but the main supporting characters are Olivia (played by Carla Gugino) and Hugh Crain, the parents of the five kids.

I might end up having to do a spoiler talk about this because there is very little I can say about any of these characters without delving into spoilers. I haven't decided but I will say I thought the actors who played the parents did a really good job. There was a moment early on where I wasn't wild about Carla Gugino which was strange because of how much I enjoyed her Gerald's Game, but especially in later episodes, she does a really good job. And like I said, the best parts of the show is when the entire family is together.

I thought episode 5 was hard to top after I watched it and then I watched episode 6 "Two Storms" and I was absolutely stunned by how well the episode was filmed and the way they utilized tracking shots. That particular episodes didn't rely on too many jump scares at all and just set up an atmosphere that made my skin crawl. And for the most part, the show does a really good job at doing that. There are for sure jump scares and it's incredibly more intense than a movie like It Follows, but like I said, it is very strategic.

Now maybe this next criticism is on me. There's a very good chance that I'm just bad at predicting when jump scares are going to be or the suspense throws me off so much that I can't process other moments because I'm expecting them.

But I did think that there were moments in the show that were diminished because I was waiting for a jump scare. I can think of a particular episode, especially near the end where I was expecting something really scary and when it came to the end of the episode, I realized that I missed a really sweet moment because I was so tense and waiting for something to pop out at me and I think that's where horror movies can lose me. I like tension, I like that creepy feeling, and the end of the episode ended up being really clever and cerebral, but when I'm so up tight, I can't enjoy the real emotional moments this show has to offer because I'm just waiting for the other shoe to drop and there to be jump scare, it ruined a couple moments for me. But that leads me into what I think might be the biggest strength of this show, at least for me.

While the jump scares threw me off at times, I do kind of see the show a little bit of a personal badge of honor for me because I feel like I'm watching an ACTUAL horror movie. Now as someone who avoids movies like that, my threshold of an "actual" horror movie is pretty low and you may not think it's that scary. But I also think that the show isn't a straight up horror movie, and instead just uses those elements really well to tell a really touching story about family, about tragedy, about death, and about relationships.

I think the best stories aren't those that use science fiction, or horror, or westerns, or fantasy just for the sake of telling those science fiction, horror, western, or fantasy stories, I think they're best when they use those genres to tell an interesting story with a message. Now I think Hill House is a little bit on the nose, especially at the end. But the show never felt gimicky. The show never felt like it was throwing out jump scares just for the sake of scaring me, it felt like it was for a reason.

I really like the supernatural, I like psychological horror, and I like it when I'm not totally sure what the root cause of a tense moment is. Is it a ghost? Is it mental illness? Is it a combination of both? I think The Haunting of Hill House is able to utilize supernatural, horror, ghosts, mental illness, and a lot of other story elements really well to mess with the mind a little bit, and give a great message strung throughout it.

Is it a perfect show? No. While it scared the living crap out of me, if you're a hardcore horror fan you might think this show is a little bit tame. Some of the acting is a little bit off, but I did think the cast was a huge part of why this show was a success for me.

I get the feeling that this show might only embolden me to keep on watching horror movies and pick out exactly what I like and what I don't like. The good thing is that that is somewhat of the direction that Netflix seems to be heading with some of their original programming. Shows like this and Stranger Things are able to attract those who like psychological and supernatural stories, and if they're anything like this, I think the future of Netflix's programming is in good hands.

Overall, I really enjoyed The Haunting of Hill House, a lot more than I thought I was going to. The story and characters are the main thing I liked but some other good things worth mentioning are the soundtrack, the cinematography, and some creepy easter eggs I might mention in a spoilers review.

If you're like me and you hate horror movies, I do recommend this show with a warning. It is pretty intense and I actually was sitting through multiple episodes watching through fingers. But I do think it is worth checking out. The use of supernatural story telling, excellent cinematography to give that really tense haunted house vibe, and the great message throughout about family really makes it worth the experience. I will definitely watch any future seasons of this show if it is renewed for a second season.

But those are my thoughts on The Haunting of Hill House. What did you think? Hardcore horror fans, how does this compare with mainstream horror films? Am I still a pretty big wimp if I still think this scared the crap out of me? Let me know. You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium 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.

Thanks for reading!

She's Out of My League

So I swear that I've been watching more interesting stuff lately. I'm two episodes away from finishing The Haunting of Hill House and I'm really looking forward to sharing my thoughts on that. I'm also planning on renting a couple of movies that came out last year that I hadn't gotten around to so hopefully I'll knock that out this month.

But Netflix has dropped a bunch of movies this month and we're almost half way through the month. I thought I'd get at least one review in to at least try and combat the reality that I am lazy and don't produce nearly enough content on this blog.

She's Out of My League centers on Kirk (played by Jay Baruchel). Kirk is a little bit of a loser. He's uncoordinated. He's awkward, but overall he's a good guy. Pretty typical underdog in a romantic comedy. He works for TSA with his friend Stainer (played by TJ Miller), and some other friends at the airport. Kirk has been trying to get back together with his girlfriend Marnie (played by Lindsey Sloane) for two years.

Then one day, he comes across the gorgeous Molly (played by Alice Eve), an event coordinator who loses her phone at security when she's going off on a flight. She asks Kirk to hold onto it and give it back to her when she's back in town. Through a couple of interactions the two have, Kirk figures out that Molly is into him and the two hit it off and start dating.

The rest of the film is essentially people looking at their relationship and looking in awe on how Kirk (a 5) could get Molly (a "hard 10"). Supplemented by what seems like all the popular pop songs about love from the early 2000's.

 And yeah, they really chose two people that anybody on the street would say, they don't look like they would ever actually be together. Not only because Jay Baruchel is a funny looking guy and Alice Eve is drop dead gorgeous, but because they two really don't have any chemistry whatsoever.

I get it, the whole movie is joking about how Alice Eve is gorgeous but this movie would work if these two actually felt like they connected. Instead the majority of the movie are these two having short conversations to acknowledge that they both exist, and then its supplemented by montages of them laughing together and having conversations we never hear the subject of. THEN, Jay goes back to his stupid friends and they give early non-funny TJ Miller the chance to riff on how hot Alice Eve is and how ugly Jay Baruchel is. That is essentially the one joke throughout the entire movie.

It's not the worst movie ever. There were a couple of moments that I laughed because some good writing actually broke through, but overall the movie didn't do a whole lot for me.

I'm really glad Jay Baruchel is doing well with voice acting because he's a lot better at that with movies like How to Train Dragon than this.

And Alice Eve... Oh Alice. For some reason she is always brought on when they want to have a really hot girl get into a bra for little to no reason. It happened in Star Trek Into Darkness, and it happened here.

Yes, she is incredibly attractive. But they give her no personality beyond just being a hot woman who inexplicably has a thing for dopey Jay Baruchel. Also her accent bleeds through and I find it funny.

The movie carries on like a typical romantic comedy. There is nothing really new about it besides flipping some normal rom com conventions on their head at the end but the truth is the third act is just as predictable as every other rom com out there. It has that falling out between the two main characters that occurs for reasons that would never happen in real life ever but of course things need to go great and then they go terribly so they can get back together in the end and everything is happy. I watched this movie a while ago when it first came out and I remember it being contrived last time and its contrived now.

Overall, She's Out of My League is a standard romantic comedy that tries to be a dude comedy in the vein of 40 Year Old Virgin. It's not funny, but it is kind of funny seeing a lot of these actors who have gone off to do bigger and better things when they were really young about 8 years ago. Krysten Ritter (who plays Jessica Jones) is in this film... she's not overly good... but that's fun. And it focuses too much on the relationship between Jay Baruchel and his weird friends than actually give anybody in this movie a real personality.

My recommendation: Skip this one. There are much better comedies from the 2000's then this film. It has not aged well...

But those are my thoughts on She's Out of My League. 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.

Thanks for reading!