Change Your Image
ebabsy-60853
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
The Patient (2022)
Steve Carrell At One Of His Finest
I've never been a fan of Steve Carrell's comedy work, but feel he always shine in dramatic roles. And this is no exception. His performance is quiet, well measured and believable as the therapist trapped by a sociopath. I could watch him all day long and he is perfectly matched by Domhnall Gleeson as Sam, who is equally quiet, measured and believable as said sociopath. Most people would play this role as loud, ranting and over the top, but Domhnall takes the time to carve out different edges of Sam so you can see when he is calm, calculating, taking in the therapy, getting restless and agitated, before exploding, all with his eyes, jaw and hands. All in all I would recommend this any time to a friend.
I would like to address other people brought up in other reviews. So spoilers start here.
***
First, 20 minute episode length. I actually felt this was fine. You were in, you were out, you weren't overburdened by lengthy episode plots. And while there is an overarching story, each episode really is it's own story. In fact, later episodes were longer, reaching 48 minutes on the final episode, which is why it feels like it starts to drag.
Second, dragging. As mentioned this is part down to episode length changing. However, I would consider that some people may feel because the focus of the show changes from Sam to Dr Strauss. This, I would say, was always going to be the case as the show was called The Patient, leaving it really to interpretation who was the patient? It's highlighted early that Dr Strauss has his own demon and they were, for me, actually more interesting than Sam's need to kill because of anger at his father. But Dr Strauss was more hidden.
Finally, Dr Strauss' death. I was sad and cried. Like any of us I hoped he would survive. But from the start you kind of knew he was going to. It was repeated through the show; he was not young or strong enough to beat Sam physically. Some will say that Dr Strauss standing up to Sam physically was out of character since he knew he couldn't win, but this came after he had tried to use intelligence. Sam made him believe if he could be cured, Dr Strauss could go home. When that point was reached but the release taken off the table, Dr Strauss felt out of options. In most shows you would be shown the character slowly get agitated and unravel, but that didn't happen because his character always was so controlled. However, this side of him was always hinted at in his conversations with his imaginary therapist. That said, it was disappointing that you didn't actually see the fight between them, which might have helped get some closure.
The story, ultimately, is one if tragic irony. A man who thought he knew the answers discover his own truth too late, and never able to make up for it.
Murder to Mercy: The Cyntoia Brown Story (2020)
Nature Vs Nurture
There isn't much that I can write that others haven't touched on. A young woman kills a man, not enough is made of looking at who or what the victim was, but then again a life was taken, and if you don't want it to look like you killed him just to rob him, don't take his stuff. It's hard to fully paint a victim, but then again nobody does. Her defense lawyers never once shy away from holding their hands up and saying "Yes, she murdered him." Neither does she. But there are interesting aspects. Should a 16 year old really be tried as an adult? Is the sentence too harsh? Does the fact she is a victim of foetal alcohol poisoning really a defense?
On the last question, the documentary actually gives an interesting insight; nature vs nurture. Other reviews state she had a crap childhood. Actually, not really. She was adopted out of a bad childhood early by a loving, church going, caring mother who sent her to school like any other child. However, Cyntoia was not interested in education, choosing drink, drugs, partying, and sex with a much older boyfriend, running away briefly at 12 after being kicked out of school and scared what her mother would say. She went back to school but dropped out again, later confessing she thought she knew it all. These were all traits of her biological mother; drink, drugs, parties. A woman she appeared to have no contact or influence from prior to trial.
If you take nothing else from this, take the study of nature vs nurture as your foundation going into the documentary. It does make it more interesting.
Sons of Anarchy (2008)
You Have To Give It Your Full Attention
I have to start off by saying I loved this show. It watched on Netflix after missing the original run, and by the end I was glad. I laughed, I cried, I genuinely sucked in my breath and shouted "No!" when something happened. The cast was pitch perfect, particularly Katey Sagal in a role I will love to the end of my days and will be the reason I rewatch.
But.....
I had to start again from the beginning five episodes in as I got lost. The show throws you in with gravelly accents and gruff soft voices, and terminology like "kuttes" and "Patch Over" you have to just figure out without full explanation until the end of the episode, by which point some people may have got confused, frustrated and turned it off. It's not a show you can chuck on in the background while you work. You need all eyes (and possibly the subtitles) on this.
But I promise you, it is worth the ride.
Zack Snyder's Justice League (2021)
Better, Longer, Less Cut, But....
These views are my own, if you don't agree that is cool. Overall, I liked it much more than the original theatrical release. Made much more sense.
I watched this directly after rewatching the original so I could compare the two. What was interesting was how much Joss Whedon left in. Most who talk about the original will discuss it like he added in 70%+ new footage and ignored the original. That isn't true. A lot of the original release is Zach Snyder content, just with a lot left out. On the flipside, there are parts of Whedon's version that was reshot for literally no reason, showing conversations happening from a slightly different angle or location, but were already in the movie to start with. However, overall, the beats and plot points of the movie remain the same, so it was clearly storyboarded fully.
***Now The Spoilers***
The upsides;
The motivation for Steppenwolf was a lot clearer in this version. We learn that the original fight fought by all the tribes was with Darkseid, not Steppenwolf, which adds a bigger element to the story.
Barry Allen is slightly dialled down in this. Still goofy, but we thankfully lose the awful "It's like a Bat Cave" line that was in the original. I can get behind a solo movie for this Barry.
No bickering and full on disagreement between the members that made them feel disjointed previously.
Bruce doesn't brood as much about letting Superman down. I mean he does, but not quite as much.
We lost the scenes of Diana doubting herself as a leader, which made no sense for a woman who had left her island to fight with man to destroy a God.
More time gave the whole thing more clarity.
Martian Manhunter.
The downsides;
Slightly too long. There were the odd scenes that could have stayed out, such as the scenes with Steppenwolf checking in after each box he found. The first one was fine as it showed his motivation, but beyond that it just dragged the pace. Likewise, the epilogue could have been cut down. Bruce's dream/premonition could have been left for another movie. It isn't necessary here.
Title cards (Part 1, etc). I know the reasons why they were there, but if you are putting it all into one continuous film, leave them out. It's only necessary for a change of character like in Kill Bill.
We do lose the Aquaman-sitting-on-the-lasso-of-truth scene. It's not actually an issue, I just personally liked it.
As I say, I liked it more than the original. My only personal criticism is that this was hyped so much I expected almost an entirely different film. And while it is, it also isn't.
Cum on Feel the Noize (2017)
Half The Film It Should Be
I have always loved hard rock and metal. As an adult I started to develop an interest in how music became what it is, how genres came to life, who were the key players, what were their inspirations, how far back do they reach, and how those players inspire the next wave and shifts. And I thought this documentary would fill in some gaps and give inspiration.
At the start it seemed promising as we begin with Jimi Hendrix. Fair starting point; black music (which you can hear in his music, especially blues) is the start of most genres, the fairly new invention of the electric guitar, coupled with Jimi's imagination, flair, and protesting against the government could only lead to the beginning of heavy angry attitudes. Fine. But from then on it becomes rushed. The makers and narrator feel in a race to fill the time with as many people as possible, rather than those who impacted it most. Mention is made of Iron Maiden, but little time spent on them aside from a quick mention of the pre-Bruce Dickinson years. There is no AC/DC, Slayer, Pantera, anything about Doom metal or any of the other sub-genres. Somehow we jump from the early eighties and how punk has become commercialised, to around 2017 with Ghost and Disturbed being discussed, all without spilling our beer. We are given a total of around 3 minutes of interview with James Hetfield, but no discussion of Metallica or how they influenced others. How can you discuss metal without discussing Metallica? Yes, some will consider them more commercial, but they are still there, and did influence. Or Nirvana? How do you not discuss grunge after making such a big deal about punk, when grunge is an offshoot, and influenced future guitarists?
I get that there is a lot of ground to cover, but if you are going to do something do it well.
Cobra Kai (2018)
So Much Fun For A Fan
*I've listed this as spoilers, but if you have seen the movies, then there aren't. Watch the movie, then come back*
At the time of writing we have finished season 3 and are waiting for season 4 to be released. And I cannot wait. The Internet says it is floundering, I don't feel that.
I tried this out for a few eps way back when it aired on YouTube streaming and was immediately giddy with it. I grew up loving the movies (1 more than 2 and 3). I read the novelisation multiple times, and watched the first movie a hundred more. This show picks up on that love. It doesn't just do a "What happened next" and move on from then, it harks back time and again. And it's all the richer for it. For instance, Johnny agrees to train Miguel. On his first day in the dojo, Johnny knocks Miguel down winding him. He then recites the lines "We do not train to be merciful here. Here, on the street, in competition, a man confronts you he is the enemy. An enemy deserves no mercy." A fan will know that in the movie this is said by John Kreese and is followed by "What is the problem, Mr Lawrence?" So, too, here do we have it followed up with "What is the problem, Mr Diaz?" A great, smile inducing moment that is made all the funnier by what follows.
Part of the brilliance is the performance by William Zabka and his portrayal as a man stuck in the 80's slowly rejoining the modern world. He is infuriating, adorable and, mostly, funny. Along the way he passes old friends (all played by the original cast), and of course, inadvertently by Ralph Macchio's Daniel LaRusso. They twist him and actually get you to root for the guy that in the movies you hated. They give him and other original characters back stories that add more depth so you will watch the movie anew. Yes, there is constant teen - and some adult - angst that can get a little tedious, but ultimately let's face it, that just makes the fight scenes all the more fun.
Give it a watch, you won't be disappointed.
The Babadook (2014)
All About The Actors
I'm not a horror fan per se. Not because I hate them, but because I spend 90% of the time going "He's behind the door." "He's not in there." "The music is playing so it's a red herring.". I am in fact a horror fan's worst nightmare and to me most movies reach 5/10 at best. However, I do have to give this 7/10 and that is for two reasons; Essie Davis and Noah Wiseman.
Firstly, Essie Davis. Even before the Babadook was introduced I felt her exhausted, bored, strained by her son, nails down a chalkboard desperation to hold it together. I really got frustrated for her, and later in the movie very tired.
Secondly, Noah Wiseman. I truly hope this young lad is a star of the future because dear god did I want to kill him. His performance was mesmerising and disturbing; screaming at his mother over things he did, demanding to be read the story of the Babadook, crying over the story of the Babadook, constantly demanding his mum's attention. And yet he still had you cheering for him when he broke his cousin's nose after she bullied him, hitting his mother with a cricket ball when the Babadook has her, and his ingenious traps to capture her and force the creature free..
The Babadook itself is pretty disappointing which is surprising on a $2million USD budget and little more that drawing on the screen and mind trickery.
In essence, deep down, I think this movie is about a woman having a nervous breakdown and losing it with her son, but I suspect they couldn't make that movie, so thought "What if we chuck in a creepy creature to make her do these things?"
The Invisible Man (2020)
Marmite Movie
As you can see from other reviews, this is a marmite movie: you either love it or hate it. I fell somewhere in the middle. Like a lot of people I liked the initial premise. Instead of the usual trope of seeing how he becomes the invisible man, we switch sides and come in a few months/years down the line and follow his abused and terrified girlfriend, Cecilia, as she escapes and tries to live a new life being cared for by her sister's friend and his daughter. Cecilia lives with agoraphobia and PTSD until her sister comes to tell her that Adrian, her abusive ex, has killed himself. Excellent. Clever. Different from previous versions. Of course we, the audience, know that he isn't dead because it's called "The Invisible Man" not "How I Hid Until He Died". I was happy enough with that and content to wade through people thinking she was still struggling and even losing her mind as long as she killed him at the end. However when that ending comes, I was a little disappointed. And I was for one reason: We were presented with what could have been a great bait and switch. Earlier in the film we meet Adrian's brother Tom who is handling Adrian's estate after his suicide. During this meeting he tells her she has been left $5million to be paid over time. There is fine print saying she is to commit no crimes, etc. Later, Cecilia's sister is killed and it is made to look like Cecilia did it. Tom turns up and tells her that as she committed a crime, she is no longer entitled to the money. There is some other stuff but I won't fully spoil it. Fast forward, Cecilia kills the invisible man, only to discover it's Tom. Does the movie end here with a "Haha, you thought you knew what was coming. Yes, Adrian was a ba$¥@£d but he had killed himself after all." ? No. As we are trying to make a social comment we have to swing back to "Adrian was a ba$¥@£D and now she has to kill him". For me, and probably just me, the movie would have been better for the twist as it would have subverted my expectations. Tom did actually have something to gain from harassing her, killing her sister and making her look crazy. He would have got the money back and revenge for his brother's death. It fit nicely. It's still a well done film, and if that hadn't happened I wouldn't have felt I missed out.
But it makes me wish they had. See it and decide for yourself.
The Party's Just Beginning (2018)
Good for a debut
Scotland, drugs and death.
When starting this movie you can't help but make the obvious comparison to Trainspotting. But where Trainspotting is loud and abrasive with its topic, this is a much quieter affair. Yes we have the odd drug fuelled dance scene as we follow Luci (Karen Gillan) as she drinks, drugs and sleeps away the pain of losing her friend who committed suicide a year earlier. But mostly it is quiet filled with conversations, monotony and the past constantly intruding on the present as she can't help but remember all she wants to forget. There are some funny moments from the dialogue, consistent use of the same locations adding weight to Luci's frustration that there must be more to life, as well as a couple of uncomfortable scenes, too. It's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but this is possibly down to budget which keeps the cast small meaning the story has to be carried heavily by Karen Gillan which leaves very little wiggle room for growth beyond her. Ultimately this is a testimony to Karen Gillan's acting, writing and directing and I do look forward to seeing other projects from her behind the camera.
True Lies (1994)
Not Your Average Action Movie
What makes this movie rise above its competitors is not the action sequences - which were cutting edge at the time - but its heart and soul, forged by the marriage of Jamie Lee Curtis and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Helen Tasker (Curtis) is a bored housewife who believes her husband Harry (schwarzenegger) to be a boring computer salesman, when in truth he is a spy. When Harry starts fearing his wife is cheating on him, he uses an array of covert tactics to find out the truth and win her back. Without giving too much away, Harry concocts events that in turn remind Helen that she is a woman not just a wife and mother, culminating in the hilarious iconic moment in which Curtis dresses as a prostitute and ends up dancing for a man she doesn't realise is her husband. That may sound a bit much, but trust me it is brilliant. Yes, this surrounded by the story of terrorists, led by Art Malik and assisted by Tia Carrere, wanting to teach the west a lesson, but by the time you get back there you find yourself disappointed you did as Helen and Harry are far more entertaining. Give yourself a treat a put it on. You won't be disappointed.
Sky High (2005)
Better Than You'd Think
This breaks no new ground, in terms of super hero movies it doesn't do anything amazing, but there is something oddly charming about the son of two world famous superheroes that kinda pulls you in. Will, the son of The Commander and Jetstream, is enrolled in Sky High, a school for the children of superheroes. Except he has yet to show any talent for strength, speed, or any super power and is fearful he will end up as a dreaded sidekick. Even his best friend, Layla (played nicely by Danielle Panabaker who is now better known as Caitlin Snow in CW's The Flash), shows more promise than he does. There are some nice moments, a couple good cameos especially from Bruce Campbell and Linda Carter, nice nods to superhero tropes and some fine acting that all combine to make it a better than average watch.
The Miseducation of Cameron Post (2018)
Read The Book
Beforere reviewing the film I think it would be wise to address the consistent comment that appears on IMBD. Namely that this is a rip off of "But I'm A Cheerleader!". This movie isn't. It is based on a book. That book may have been written as a more serious version of "Cheerleader", but the movie isn't a rip off. While I understand that is a pedantic point to make, it is an important distinction as seeing repeated shouts of "It's a rip off" leads others to question if the writers even knew the book exists.
There are two fundamental issues with "Cameron Post".
Firstly, it starts halfway through the book and a lot of key factors are missed out. In fact, the camp was only about a third of the story. We lost her childhood, her upbringing and relationship with her grandmother after her parents died, her relationship with her aunt, her awakening through movies, and her first two same sex experiences, before we meet the infamous Coley. Rich story that would have added extra depth.
It does follow the same story as "Cheerleader", I cannot deny that, but possibly not only in the most obvious ways of storyline and side characters in the camp. "Cheerleader" is a campy, overly colourful, attempt to make a story about a hard subject, but failed as it kept trying to stick to the humour to drive it, possibly because it was too terrified of the backlash it might receive. Didn't want to upset religious groups, didn't want to push too hard on the subject, and wanted to keep it light it case it came back they could laugh it off that it was just good fun. No harm meant.
"Cameron Post" follows the same pitfalls. While it stays on the side of drama, it, too, tries not to push anything too far. It, too, is afraid of the potential shadow it might cast. And it, too, didn't want to upset anyone. As it was some people were upset and took trying to slam screenings. It is a shame as the material the movie is based on, had much more to offer.