thoughts

hometopia hometopia hometopia hometopia hometopia hometopia

Billions (2016) Season 1 Review

This week, I put on my best power tie, bought low, sold high and invested an entire Sunday into watching the first season of Billions (2016) starring Damien Lewis (Homeland) and Paul Giamatti (American Splendor).

Robert "Bobby" Axelrod (Damien Lewis) is Wall Street's greatest hedge fund manager. Worth, well, billions, Bobby runs Axe Capital at such a high profit rate, you'd think there was some shady deals going on in the background to facilitate it.

You'd be right.

Enter U.S. Attorney Charles "Chuck" Rhoades (Paul Giamatti). Rhoades has made it his mission while in office to go after white collar criminals and prosecute them to the fullest letter of the law. He'll only take on cases he knows he can win, though. After an apparent slip up at Axe Capital, Rhoades finally begins to put together his case against Axelrod. Complicating matters, Rhoades' wife Wendy (Maggie Siff) works at Axe Capital as their head shrinker, creating an obvious conflict of interest. The show quickly becomes a massive game of chess with moves and counter-moves flying fast and furious back and forth.

I'll admit, this is one of the few times I've taken a blind chance with a show I knew nothing about based solely on the lead talent appearing. And, boy, am I glad I did.

Damien Lewis, usually cast as a straight-laced, military type, gets to stretch his legs here as the Wall Street icon Bobby Axelrod. Standing on desks shouting stirring speeches, punching out guys for driving his kids around drunk and buying $80 million beach houses against everyone's advice, Lewis plays Axelrod as a loose cannon who wants for nothing and answers to nobody. It's mesmerizing to watch.

Paul Giamatti, on the other hand, actually keeps himself fairly reserved for most of it. Don't get me wrong, one of the best "F" word users in show business still manages to get himself riled up on occasion, but we get to see a more subtle side to Giamatti and it's great. His cat and mouse game with Lewis is compelling, even if the two actors only share a few minutes of screen time together throughout the first season.

The nicest surprise for me after watching Billions was Maggie Siff. Caught in the middle between these two power hungry titans, Siff plays both ends of it brilliantly. It's a layered, fascinating portrayal of a character that should be hard to relate to, but somehow isn't. I'm looking forward to seeing more of Siff in season 2.

My one complaint with the show has to do with my own knowledge and experience more than anything else. I'm not a stock trader nor do I have many insights into the world of high finance. There are vast tracks of dialogue and a few plot points that sailed right over my head with all the jargon being thrown around. Occasionally, we'll have a third party character on hand representing the audience, asking what that thing is and a bit of exposition to follow, but these moments are few and far between. The over-arching plot is certainly manageable and easy to follow; Rhoades' relentless pursuit of Axelrod. But I found myself getting lost with some of the specifics. Okay, okay, with a lot of the specifics.

Still, don't let that deter you from watching this show. I went in blind, as I mentioned earlier. Had I known it was dealing with Wall Street and the U.S. legal system, I wouldn't have given this a look. I'm glad I gave it a shot as I'm eagerly awaiting season 2.

The look of the show is very well done. The opening is probably the shortest in TV history, yet it works. The snappy dialogue and subtle humour comes across like a Soderberg movie. The settings are spot on, from the shiny glass and metal edifice that is Axe Capital to the cramped and stuffy offices of the U.S. Attorney's office. The whole feel of the series will draw you in and keep you watching.

4 out of 5 stars

Stranger Things (2016) Review

This week, I shut out all the lights, dragged out my blankie and favourite pillow and plopped myself on the couch to check out Stranger Things (2016), the latest (and possibly greatest) TV series from Netflix. 

Stranger Things tells the scary tale of young Will Byers' disappearance in the small town of Hawkins, Illinois, and one mother's insistence that he's still alive. To complicate matters, a young girl with the dubious name "Eleven" shows up out of the blue, barely able to speak but possessing some remarkable abilities. Throw in a trio of adventurous boys (who adopt Eleven) a shadowy government operation, a healthy dose of teen angst and set it all dancing to the tune of the supernatural, and you'll start to get an idea of what Stranger Things is all about. 

I should warn you, before you read any further, there will be spoilers. 

The performances on the show are, for the most part, superb. Millie Bobby Brown especially, who plays the enigmatic Eleven, is such a treat to watch you'll be inpatient for scenes she's not in to finish up quicker. 

The story moves along at a decent pace, giving bits and pieces of the mystery throughout and moving the main plot along while attempting to build some character development. 

In fact, some of the side plots used to fill time and flesh out the characters are my only real complaint with the show.  It's established pretty early that Will's absentee father is a douchebag. I don't think we need more scenes dedicated to this later on. Will's sister Nancy and all her teenage trials and tribulations seems to drag on forever before finally bringing her into the main story. Her interactions with the supernatural side of things are important to the story, the rest of it plays out like a series on the CW. A bad one. Her boyfriend Steve's redemption towards the end of the series doesn't work at all. They spent too much time wanting us to dislike him and gave little motivation for why he'd suddenly turn out to be a great guy after all. 

Still, the overall look, tone and feel works so well you'll assume you're watching a long movie and not a tv series. I've heard and read some people drawing comparisons to Spielberg. Other than the obvious parallels between Eleven and E.T., I don't get the feel of a Spielberg picture at all. For me, it's like John Carpenter worked closely with Stephen King and came up with a series centred on...wait for it...stranger things happening to characters we've come to know and love. Even the ending screams of King and Carpenter, with a little Twin Peaks thrown in for good measure. 

At only 8 episodes, this could be the best weekend binge watching series ever produced. I cannot recommend it highly enough. 

4.5 out of 5 stars

Why Luke Skywalker can't be a Sith Lord in Star Wars: The Force Awakens

Unless you've been living in a cave on Mars with your eyes shut and your fingers in your ears, you've probably seen the trailers for the upcoming (at the time of this writing) 7th film in the Star Wars saga, Star Wars: The Force Awakens.

If you haven't, feast your eyes.

First teaser:

Second Teaser:

Official Trailer:

Rather conspicuous by his absence is Luke Skywalker, played by Mark Hamill. While we get a voice over from him in the second teaser, we have yet to actually see him in any of the teasers or trailers released for the film. When co-writer and director J.J. Abrams was asked about said absence, he had this to say:

"The fact that Luke is being kept away from the promotional materials is no accident"

This has lead to rampant speculation among the fan base that Luke has, in fact, turned to the Dark Side of the Force and become a Sith Lord, like his father Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker before him.

But he can't. Or, at the very least, he shouldn't.

The problem with Luke succumbing to the Dark Side and becoming a "bad guy" is that it flies in the face of the trilogy of films that started with Star Wars (1977) and ended with Return of the Jedi (1983). The entirety of those original movies leads to the one moment in Jedi when Vader realizes his son's life is more important to him than his devotion to the Dark Side and redeems himself by ridding the galaxy of the Emperor's tyranny once and for all, saving his son's life in the process. The son that never turned to the Dark Side. The son that never gave up on his father. That last effort robs him of his own life, but finally, fully turns him away from the Dark Side at the same time, even telling Luke "You were right. Tell your sister, you were right"

Luke never gave up on the idea that his father could be brought back from the Dark Side. He felt the good in him and knew he could be redeemed. And you know what? He was right.

So now, after 30 years, Luke himself has turned to the Dark Side? That makes zero sense to me. Not from a fanboy perspective, though I'll admit to being one, but from a storytelling perspective. I want JJ and his team to come up with an original, standalone film while still continuing the story that we all know and love. I don't want him to try to rehash plot elements from the original trilogy by trapping Luke in some ridiculous cycle where the son becomes the father and must also be redeemed or some such nonsense. Luke is the plucky young hero who defied all the odds and brought his father back from the brink. If you turn him "evil" now, you undo all of that in one stroke.

Has 'Game of Thrones' Finally Jumped the Shark?

I'd like to preface this by saying I'm aware I'm going to come across as some raging-nerd-book-loving-fanboy. I only ask that you stick with me until the end.

Oh, and if you haven't watched Season 5, Episode 9 of Game of Thrones, here there be spoilers.

This week, Stannis Baratheon did the unthinkable. You all know Stannis. He's the guy that came to the aid of the Night's Watch at the Wall in defense against Mance Rayder and his massive army of Wildling warrios. He's the guy who is, by rights, the actual King of Westeros. He's the guy who, after a rocky start on the show, has come around in people's eyes and has a small legion of fans cheering for him.

Well, they were, anyway.

This week, Stannis killed his daughter. Not just his daughter, though; his only heir and the last, trueborn child of his house and bloodline. Essentially, Stannis killed his own future and any legacy he might have had. Why? Well, it was on the advice of a woman who's powers of precognition are shaky at best. She's awfully pretty, though, so maybe that's part of it. Who knows. Here's what I do know:

It never happened in the books.

I know that's getting old hat for people who only watch the show. I'm sure a lot of you are tired of hearing all the comparisons between the books and TV. Normally, I wouldn't mind changes or deviations from the source material, but this one is so far out in left field, I felt I had to say something.

Stannis, as he's been depicted on the show, is quite different from the character in the books. Creative license can do that and I've come to accept it. Until this past Sunday night, that is.

Now everyone who only watches the show hates Stannis. Me, I reserve my dislike for the writers and show runners for portraying him in this way.

You see, not only is Shireen alive and well in the books, but she didn't even join him on his march to Winterfell from Castle Black. Neither did his wife, Selyse. Nor did Melisandre, the Red Woman who goaded him into this and carried out the act herself on the show. No, all three of these characters stayed at Castle Black as Stannis deemed it too dangerous for them to march with him to war.

So why deviate so far from the books like this? I have a theory.

Every season there's been a big shocker near the season's end. Usually in episode 9, but not always. Season 1 was the death of Eddard Stark. Season 2 was the Battle of the Blackwater. Not exactly shocking, but huge. Season 3 saw the now infamous "Red Wedding" and the deaths of Robb Stark, his wife, his unborn child and his mother in extremely gruesome detail. Season 4 was Tyrion killing his father and The Hound meeting his demise at the hands of Brienne.

Now, I haven't seen the last episode of Season 5 yet, but I'm betting it's going to have a tough time topping the human sacrifice of an innocent little girl.

The reason this article mentions 'jumping the shark' is the lack of precedent for this season's shocker. In the books, each of the shocking moments that happened in those previous seasons I mentioned also happened. Some in different ways (it wasn't Brienne who did for the Hound, Robb's wife wasn't even at the wedding, etc) but each with some roots in the source material. This week? Nada.

Well, there was that one plot line in the books....

In A Storm of Swords, the third book in the series, before Stannis marched north to save the realm, he first marched on the Baratheon ancestral home of Storm's End. Once taken, Stannis came home with a ward to foster; one of his brother King Robert's few acknowledged bastards, a young man named Edric Storm. It was Edric that Melisandre wanted to sacrifce to her god because of his "king's blood". Stannis balked at first, but Davos was afraid that he might be persuaded by the Red Woman's charms. So Davos and some men loyal to Stannis smuggled Edric off Dragonstone and shipped him off to another continent to protect him. When all is said and done, Stannis didn't end up punishing Davos for defying him, but named him Hand of the King and heeded Davos' advice more clearly moving forward from that point. Even going so far as to say "He reminded me of my duty, when all I could think of were my rights".

I'm convinced the burning alive of Shireen this season was done purely for shock value. To up the ante, as it were, on a show known for it's deaths and twists. I could be wrong, of course. The guys producing the show know the broad strokes of how the story is supposed to end from the author himself. Maybe Stannis is supposed to commit some damning act later in the novels from which he can never recover. I don't know. But I do know that this particular damning act didn't happen in the books. That, more than anything, makes me think Game of Thrones has, officially, jumped the shark.

Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) Movie Review

This week, I strapped on my dirtiest leathers and headed out into the desert to check out Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) starring Tom Hardy and Charlize Theron. It's directed by George Miller, who directed the three previous films in this franchise.

The new Mad Max: Fury Road is a pretty simple tale. Imperator Furiosa (Theron) hijacks the "War Rig" to smuggle out a bevy of beauties that are being used as broodmares for the leader of the War Boys faction, one Immortan Joe (Hugh Keays-Byrne who also played the lead villain in the original Mad Max (1979)). She intends to take them to the "green land" that she remembers from her youth. Joe, not wanting to be without his harem, gives chase. Max (Tom Hardy taking over for Mel Gibson) finds himself caught in the middle of the conflict and eventually having to choose a side. I'm sure you can guess which one.

And that, friends and neighbours, is it. If you're looking for a movie with deep, layered plot points, fully fleshed-out characters with complete backstories or even a bit of dialogue and exposition, you've come to the wrong place.

If you're looking for a 2 hour car chase movie with some of the most spectacular action sequences ever put on film, grab some popcorn, sit back and enjoy the ride.

This film will set a new benchmark on the use of practical effects to tell a story. The rig and stunt work on this movie is second to none. Things actually move and explode. Lots and lots of things and, boy, do they ever explode. The look and feel of the movie with the bright saturation of colours and the amazing conglomeration of vehicles put together will have you smirking with delight throughout. It's an assualt on the senses in the truest sense of that phrase. I spent the majority of the two hours not knowing what anyone was really saying as they seemed to have a language all their own, spoke very fast and had pretty thick accents. And do you know what? I just didn't care. Because even though I paid for the whole seat I was in, I only used the edge of it...

Not all is well, though. I couldn't call myself The Bitter Critic if I didn't find something to nitpick about. Tom Hardy isn't given much to work with here as far as character development is concerend. He does the best he can with what he has, but he's the least engaging of the three major stars. Charlize Theron and even Nicholas Hoult are for more intriguing and even seem to get more screen time (and definitely get more dialogue). I didn't hate Hardy in this role, I just didn't love him in it. Since it's called Mad Max, I expected Max to take a more central role. He doesn't. This movie could've been called Imperator Furiosa: Fury Road, but that likely wouldn't have sold as many tickets.

Still, these pickings are small. I highly recommend you go to the biggest and loudest movie theatre you can find to watch this movie. I even enjoyed the 3D aspect of it, which is something I didn't think I would ever say.

4 out of 5 stars

Marvel's Daredevil Episode 4 Review

This week I managed to squeeze in another episode of Marvel's Daredevil on Netflix. 

We're up to episode 4 now and things are starting to get interesting.

First off, it can't be understated how violent this show is. Not only is there relentless beating of various thugs and baddies, but decapitations, suicides and even some good ol' fashioned corpse defiling. This show isn't for the faint of heart. It's dark, gritty and unrelenting. During this episode's viewing, I turned to my buddy who was watching it with me and said "Marvel finally gets a TV show right, and all they had to do was pretend they were DC". That's not to start a flame war or anything. It just details how completely different the look and feel of Daredevil is compared to everything else from Disney/Marvel.

Anyway, on to the episode. Some key elements started falling into place that will clearly build to a bigger payoff later on. Primarily, Wilson Fisk (Vince D'onofrio) was heavily featured. I have to admit, I'm not keen on his portrayal of the character thus far. The feel I get from him as he awkwardly stumbles around a social engagement before literally smashing a thug's head off with a car door is one of someone not all there mentally. I don't mean unhinged, though he's clearly that. I mean slow. This isn't the criminal underworld mastermind I was expecting to see. It's still early for He-Who's-Name-We-Do-Not-Say, so I'll give the show runners the benefit of the doubt. I'm hoping they turn it around.

Overall, the criminal element in Hell's Kitchen is starting to take notice of our intrepid hero. They've even slapped a nickname on him, calling him "the devil" which I can only assume will lead to his eventual moniker of Daredevil.

This has it's drawbacks for Matt (Charlie Cox) though as it's putting those that are helping him in the line of fire as well. Namely, our friendly neighbourhood nurse Claire (Rosario Dawson). She's kidnapped and beaten for information she doesn't have and has to be rescued a la damsel in distress by Matt, who tells her his real first name after this shared traumatic experience. The chemistry between these two is undeniable. I'm genuinely curious where it's going to go.

Even the Karen Page/Ben Urich story line following Karen's former employer and all the corruption surrounding it is keeping my interest. I had a nasty feeling it was going to start to feel like filler, but it's actually quite engaging. My guess is it will likely lead to Fisk, bringing all our introduced characters into the same arc by season's end. Time will tell, I suppose. I'm still determined to watch this show weekly and not binge it like so many others.

Until next week, friends!

Jupiter Ascending (2015) Movie Review

This week, I decided to shift gears a little and get back to watching some movies. Since sci-fi is a particular love of mine, I thought I'd check out Jupiter Ascending  (2015) starring Channing Tatum and Mila Kunis. It's written, produced and directed by the Wachowski siblings.

To explain the plot of the film in a single paragraph would be problematic at best. This is actually one of the downfalls of Jupiter Ascending (2015).

At it's heart, it's a love story between Jupiter Jones (Kunis) and Caine Wise (Tatum). I won't spoil anything for you, but I'm sure you can guess where a love story between these two ends up. There are barely explained reincarnation issues, family squabbling and backstabbing on a truly epic scale, entire planets owned and willed as part of an inheritance for farming purposes, former soldiers stripped of rank for biting, a boyfriend trying to sell his girlfriend's unfertilized eggs and the scrubbing of many, many toilets. If none of that seems to lineup for you, you've got a pretty good idea why this movie has a hard time finding it's place and defies explanation.

The visuals in the film are amazing. The release was delayed 9 months to give the post-production team more time to put finishing touches on the VFX required. You can see exactly where this 9 months was spent. Much of the movie takes place either on huge spaceships or in grandiose palaces on foreign worlds. It's all rendered beautifully. The sound effects are expertly done as well. From a technical standpoint, this movie is great.

From a story standpoint, however, this movie is just a mess. Too many ideas shoved into too small of a space, giving short shrift to all. 

Still, the visuals and action sequences are enough to keep you in your seat until the end. Sure, some of the acting is clumsy. Eddie Redmayne is ridiculously over-the-top and Channing Tatum only has the one facial expression, apparently. Mila Kunis is good but not great and her character seems to be in constant need of rescuing at the very last minute. Whether that's from certain death or just her own very bad decisions. None of the characters are given near enough time for any true development and end up coming across as cardboard cutouts with only the most basic of motivations.

If you're bored on a Sunday afternoon and you want to watch a movie that looks and sounds incredible and no sense at all, give this one a try.

2.5 out of 5 stars.

Jupiter Ascending (2015) Movie Review
Reviewed by The Bitter Critic on April 21 2015
Rating: 2.5

Marvel's Daredevil Episode 3 Review

I managed to plop myself in front of Netflix for an hour to catch the third episode of Daredevil.

This series just keeps getting better and better.

This particular episode was much improved for a number of reasons. Chief of which was the lack of flashbacks. I understand an origin story is important to establish the character and why he does what he does, but it was my least favourite aspect of this new show, so I'm rather glad it appears to be over.

More fleshing out of the nefarious Wilson Fisk (or Kingpin as he's known in the comics, played here by a very heavy Vincent D'onofrio), his hired associate and the criminal empire they are trying to build around him. We even get to have a brief scene with Fisk right at the end of the episode. Too early to tell how well D'onofrio will inhabit the role, but it looks promising from this quick peek.

Most important, however, is that this episode was much more nuanced than the two that came before. Yes, we still had an over-the-top fisticuffs battle towards the end of the show with a very shaky conclusion, but the rest focused on the hard choices Matt Murdock is going to have to make to be both a good lawyer and a good hero. 

It was nice to see some further progress with the story that brought Karen Page into the fray. Unlike most episodic series that would have likely dropped it after the premiere episode, Karen is still dealing with emotional fallout of waking up to a dead man in her apartment as well as all the chaos that she caused when she leaked her story to the news media. News reporter Ben Urich (played by longtime character actor Vondie Curtis-Hall) is a welcome addition to the cast with his ties to Karen and her corruption story. I'm genuinely interested in where this is going to go.

My only real beef with this episode was the courtroom case itself. I spent a lot of it not really understanding what was going on and I'm still kinda clueless how it played out at the end. I'm going to have to brush up on my U.S. judicial system knowledge, I guess.

All in all, a step in the right direction. The ball is finally rolling with Fisk and our hero is having to make some tough calls and juggle some moral issues. More episodes like this, please.

Marvel's Daredevil Episode 2 Review

A couple of days ago, I reviewed the premiere episode of Marvel's Daredevil on Netflix. You can find that review here. Unlike most, I'm not binge watching the entire season in one weekend. I've managed to watch the second episode, however, and thought I'd share my thoughts on it.

This episode improves on some items I took issue with in my review of the premiere. Namely, the fight sequences. Let's face it, this show is primarily about a guy who beats people up. If the fighting doesn't look good, the entire show will suffer. I found the fight scenes in the premiere looked far too polished and choreographed for my taste, not to mention how it deviates from making this series look tough and street level. This second episode improves upon that. The final fight scene at the villain lair is a little ridiculous (our intrepid hero, barely able to stand much less fight, still manages to dispatch about a dozen guys), but it looks far better. If you've ever been in an actual fistfight or have been witness to one, you know it's mostly chaos and mayhem. This end fight sequence channeled that chaos far better.

Some new cast members joined the show with this outing. Namely, Rosario Dawson as Claire, the nurse who helps Murdock when she finds him beat to hell in a dumpster. Dawson plays the role well and clearly has some chemistry with Charlie Cox. It'll be interesting to see where this partnership leads.

I'm going to touch on the narrative style of this episode. It's really just a pet peeve of mine and maybe it's due to old age or something, but I'm really not a fan of episodes that start in the middle and slowly reveal how we got there throughout the rest of the show. I just find it gimmicky. Show me a linear narrative so I can be invested in it. I'll admit, this time around it wasn't as bad as some as the events that lead us to the middle were told to us through exposition rather than shown to us in a flashback. No, all the flashbacks were reserved for our continuing origin story.

It's probably just me again, but I'm not digging the origin story either. This is a comic book I've never read and a hero I know next to nothing about...well, other than the fact that he's blind, of course. Still, far too much time is being dedicated to setting up how our hero came to be a hero in the first place. I think we get it. Grew up poor with a single dad and a ton of Irish pride. Get's blinded in a freak accident (while saving someone, no less) and dad sacrifices himself rather than take a dive in a boxing match. Done and done. Can we move on?

Foggy and Karen's night out on the town was fun, at least. Some good character building going on there. I'm sure there will be some kind of unrequited crush or maybe a love triangle or something, but since this is still early times in the show, this gives us the breathing room to develop these characters without mucking up the waters with soap opera cliches. The chemistry isn't quite there between these two like it is with Murdock and Claire, but it's not entirely absent either. I think they're trying a little too hard to make Foggy funny, though. Maybe they'll settle him down a little as the series moves on.

All in all, I liked this episode better than the premiere. I'm still not going to binge watch it like most. Probably an episode or two per week. It's the slow burn that leaves the most lasting impression! Or something like that.

Marvel's Daredevil Premiere Episode Review

Today, I double-clicked on the Ol' Netflix and queued up the newest series to hit the streaming giant. 

Marvel's Daredevil stars Charlie Cox (Boardwalk Empire) as Matt Murdock, a blind defense attorney by day and an ass-kicking, masked vigilante by night. It also stars Elden Hensen as plucky sidekick "Foggy" Nelson and Deborah Ann Woll as damsel in distress Karen Page.

Daredevil is Marvel's first foray into a more serious, grounded television program. Netflix, with it's lack of commercials and shortened season structure, along with it's willingness to run PG-13 or even R rated with some of it's content, should lend itself very well to a property like Daredevil.

After watching the first episode, I can tell you that it does...and it doesn't.

First off, let me say I enjoyed the premiere quite a bit. This is definitely a departure from the rest of what Marvel has given us. Darker, grittier and much more violent, Daredevil takes some huge risks deviating from what's already been established. 

That's both it's blessing and it's curse.

It's nice to see them giving us another side to the Marvel Universe; one that isn't filled with fancy gadgets, ancient gods, huge government agencies or aliens. Hell's Kitchen, where Daredevil takes place, feels very real. Most of the colour has been bled out of the environment and it's nearly always raining. The entire setup is very moody and noir. 

The problem? It doesn't match up with anything else Marvel has done. Which really wouldn't be a problem if everything wasn't so interconnected. And before you start thinking that these shows on Netflix won't be tied very closely to the rest of the MCU, please take note there is not one, not two, but three direct references to the events that occurred in the first Avengers movie just in this premiere episode alone. In fact, the first one comes not 10 minutes in.

If Daredevil is going to be this dark, violent and gruesome show where it's hero seemingly takes some enjoyment from beating the snot out of the bad guys with his bare hands, how would that ever transfer over to the rest of the largely light and fluffy (and sometimes silly) Marvel universe? These properties are all supposed to take place within the same framework, but Daredevil feels like a completely different thing. This isn't necessarily bad, I might add. It just shows that, sometimes, it's okay to have standalone projects and not try to shoehorn the rest of your universe into everything you ever produce.

The foundation for a great show is all there. Performances were good. Cinematography was excellent. Casting seems spot on. 

There are some issues, though. Most of the fight scenes are far too choreographed. It looks more like a complicated dance off than a tough and gritty street fight a lot of the time. Murdock's partner Foggy is such a ridiculous cliched comic relief sidekick that it gets annoying almost immediately. Then there's the obligatory shirtless scene in the first 10 minutes and the very obvious product placement shots throughout (anyone suddenly feel like buying a Microsoft Surface tablet?).

But, overall, this first episode definitely sets the stage for a pretty cool show. Several story arcs are begun and we want to know where they're going. I'll be hanging around for a few more episodes at least.

Dear Warner Bros. - Please don't screw up Suicide Squad

I started thinking about the slew of comic book movies being released in the coming years. Fox, Sony, Marvel/Disney and DC/Warner Bros. have somewhere around 40 titles confirmed between them over the next 6 years. That's a lot of capes and tights to get excited about. One title, however, has me both intrigued and excited. That title is Suicide Squad.

David Ayer (Fury) is directing this adaptation of the DC Comics property. The main cast has already been announced, though there's been a rather big shakeup with Tom Hardy leaving due to scheduling conflicts. Rumoured to replace him is Jake Gyllenhaal, who I think is a solid choice. Will Smith, Margot Robbie, Jai Courtney, Jared Leto and possibly Viola Davis round out what's shaping up to be an impressive lineup.

The cast doesn't intrigue nearly as much as the concept.

The Suicide Squad property is a unique one in comics. The basic idea involves "super villains" that are incarcerated facing life in prison. Given an opportunity to shorten their sentence, these bad guys and gals are recruited by a shadowy government agency to pull off missions that are deemed too dangerous for regular field operatives. They're also given added incentive with bombs implanted in their necks to ensure good behavior and strict adherence to the mission at hand. Getting a group of known criminal hardasses to work together is only half the job. 

Hence the name Suicide Squad. Most of them are not expected to survive the mission...one way or another.

To me, this sounds like a great recipe for a dark, daring, exciting anti-hero film. So what's my problem? Well, it's mainly the rumour that this film is only seeing the light of day thanks to the success of Marvel/Disney's biggest gamble yet, Guardians of the Galaxy.

If you've seen Guardians, you can imagine how some similarities might make you think the two properties are related. Guardians is about a group of misfit criminals that come together for the common good, saving the world and probably the galaxy they are so zealously guarding now. 

Guardians was a goofy, funny, romping good time. And that's everything Suicide Squad should not be.

WB/DC is going to be sorely tempted to try to emulate Guardians based on it's success. We're all going to have to hope this doesn't happen as Suicide Squad is an entirely different animal.

The Squad members are not brought together by chance or kismet and they're certainly not interested in the greater good. They're forced together under threat of death by a powerful and manipulative government agency headed by a character named Amanda Waller. Waller (rumoured to be played by Viola Davis) is a tough as nails woman with whom you would not want to mess. She's been portrayed as both a villain and an ally in the comics, but mostly she fills a bit of a grey area. These dangerous missions need to get done and she's willing to do whatever it takes to make sure the Squad does just that. 

It's this dynamic that should set Suicide Squad apart. Nobody on this "team" is going to fall on a grenade for anyone. They're career villains looking at spending the rest of their lives in prison. Given a chance to commute some of that sentence, they jump at the chance. Then they wake up with bombs in their necks, being sent out on missions so dangerous they're not all supposed to survive. 

This should make for some stressful, action-packed situations and some very intense exchanges between the various Squad members and Waller herself. 

In other words, please don't make this some zany Guardians clone, Warner Bros. Keep this one dark and gritty. I want my anti-heroes to get dirty while they get dangerous. Let this film stand on it's own unique concept.

Interstellar (2014) Movie Review

This week, I did not go gentle into that good night. Rather, I went to a preview showing of Christopher Nolan's sci-fi epic Interstellar (2014) starring Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway and Jessica Chastain.

Interstellar (2014) is the story of the struggle for humankind to survive on a dying planet Earth. The key to said survival seems to be in space. Matt McConaughey and Anne Hathaway, among others, head out to the stars looking for a new home for everyone.

I went into this film hoping for a huge spectacle style movie with grand, sweeping shots in space, amazing, immersive music and lofty, mind-blowing ideas.

It's always nice to get what you pay for.

It's by no means a perfect film. At 2 hours and 49 minutes, it runs a little long. Some of the dialogue is corny and cliche. A few of the ideas aren't fleshed out well enough to suspend disbelief and the ending is something of a copout. Having said all of that, though, this movie is highly entertaining.

Matt McConaughey turns in a great performance as the father of two young children who suddenly finds himself thrust into the role of the saviour of all humankind. When you look back on his career, you start to appreciate how far he's come and what he's accomplished. His emotional range is dynamic and compelling. He's the lead in this film and takes it by the horns, never giving you any question that he's commanding the camera in every scene he's in.

Anne Hathaway is also very good in her portrayal as one of the scientists on the mission to save the world. She's the perfect foil for McConaughey. The two have excellent on-screen chemistry together, which allows them to boost each other's performances throughout the movie.

The visuals, sounds and technical aspects of the film are astounding. I was fortunate enough to see this film in IMAX and, boy, am I ever glad I did. The outer space shots in particular are incredible with the planet based shots on both the water world and the ice world equally so. Nolan and his cinematographer Hoyte van Hoytema create these worlds for us to come and visit. At no time did I get the sense that I was watching actors walking around in a studio behind a green screen. I got sucked in for nearly every single shot that happened to the explorers in space and on alien worlds.

A little less compelling was the story that was happening on Earth during this time. Due to the effects of relativity, McConaughey's kids grow up while he stays the same age. His son, played by Casey Affleck, is a salt-of-the-earth family man running the family farm. His daughter, played by Jessica Chastain, ends up going to work for the same government setup that launched her father into space, trying to solve an equation that will help the folks on Earth save themselves. If there is any trimming to do to reduce the film's run-time, it would be to this plotline. Too much exposition and too long to get where it needed to go.

Other than these few minor quibbles, I have to say that I really enjoyed Interstellar (2014). Great performances, a thought-provoking story, stunning visuals and a soundtrack that kept giving me goosebumps throughout. I couldn't have asked for much more.

4 out of 5 stars

CuP TrAy and DeStRoY

From the slums of Los Angeles to the beautiful skies of Whittier.  To the forgettable fog that travels through golden gate bridge of San Francisco. From route 66 to rocky skyline of the Utah mountains.  The Vandoleros Van Club have gone a trip.  Forever gone.  Creatively escaped this world before anyone could stop it.  Challenging authority and all of those who aren�t on the level.  making a bed on the road and making a bed into our work.  Our passion our brotherhood, our work, our lives, our club.  Within the thickness of our love comes support and within that support comes our work!  As a certified nut and Vandolero Van club member i�m extremely thrilled to be able to post along side of my brothers.  enjoy my work and you decide to purchase any of it you can reach me at http://thestabbincabinvanco.bigcartel.com

Chef (2014) Movie Review

This week, I put on my favourite set of cook's whites with a big, floppy hat, burned some water and watched Chef (2014). Written, directed and starring Jon Favreau, Chef tells the tale of Carl Casper, a former hot prospect, fine dining chef who has found himself in something of a rut. Working for Dustin Hoffman's "Riva" character, Carl feels compelled to make the same old same old dishes night in and night out. A visit from the biggest food critic on the internet has Carl wanting to try new things. Shut down by Riva, Carl gets skewered (the first of many cooking puns this review will contain, I'm afraid) by the critic and goes on something of a rampage, walking off the job in the process. His ex-wife, played by the very tasty Sofia Vergara, sets Carl up with her second ex-husband Marvin (Robert Downey Jr.) to man a food truck and travel across the country. Complicating matters is the damaged relationship Carl has with his son, Percy, played by Emjay Anthony. Percy accompanies dad across the country, learning the cooking trade in the food truck along with some valuable life lessons.

The ernestness of the film cannot be denied. Favreau really wants to send some messages here. Well, it wouldn't be me if I didn't find a few things wrong...

The pacing is difficult to work around, especially if you've seen the trailers or even the poster for the film. A lot is made out of the time Favreau and son spend in the food truck, travelling and bonding. In the film, however, it seems to take a very long time for them to get to that point. You would assume that act 1 would be the trials and tribulations that lead to Favreau getting into the truck. However it's not until at least half way through act 2, or halfway through the movie, that he manages to finally get there. The long, slow build helps to establish the two main characters (Carl and Percy), but it leaves too little time to focus on the main narrative piece of the movie. We get that Carl is a frustrated chef who wants to branch out. We also get his relationship with his son is strained because of his obsession with cooking. Get on with the plot of the movie already! 

Having said that, I'd like to point out that Favreau is fantastic in the role of Carl Casper. I won't lie, I haven't seen a lot of Favreau's acting work. After having watched this, however, I think I'll go back and check out some of his earlier stuff. You completely buy into his obsessions and his indulgences. You start out rooting for him, then thinking he's kind of a dick, then rooting for him again. It's a neat little emotional rollercoaster that he pulls off beautifully.

Unfortunately, it's a little too beautifully. Once the rigmarole is done with and he actually gets into the truck, everything goes so well and so amazingly you'd think it was some sort of dream sequence. The truck is a smash hit, thanks largely due to a seemingly simply social media campaign engineered by a 10 year old. Carl repairs his damaged relationship with his son and even manages to win back the way way wayyyyy out of his league Sofia Vergara character. He even gets his own restaurant backed by the very critic that roasted him in the first place! All of this as the result of a couple of weeks in a truck. A little more strife and struggle to help match the first half of the movie wouldn't have hurt.

Pacing and 3rd act issues aside, I liked Chef even if I didn't love it. I'm looking forward to seeing Favreau show off those acting chops more and more in the future.

3 out of 5 stars

Chef (2014)
Reviewed by The Bitter Critic on Sept 14 2014
Rating: 3

Van life

Vannin San Francisco.

 Photo/Brian Pritchard

SF to LA... and back.

One small road trip in the life of a Vandolero.                                  

Photos by co pilot Brian Prichard

Uncle Acid - Runaway Girls (OFFICIAL) promo 2014

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014) Movie Review

This week, I painted my face with some cool war paint, learned sign language (not really) and swung my way down to the local cinema to check out Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014), which shall henceforth be known simply as "Dawn" since I don't want to have to keep typing it out throughout this review. Dawn stars Andy Serkis, Jason Clarke and Keri Russell. It's directed by Matt Reeves.

Dawn picks up nearly 10 years after the end of Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011). The opening montage shows the spread of the disease that came to be known as the Simian Flu and it's effect on humankind. Namely, nearly wiping it out. The film then moves us to the ape city that's slowly being created and the human city that's slowly falling apart. The film's main focus is the struggle between these two factions, both with each other and within their own ranks.

Dawn makes some bold moves fairly early in the film. After the recap during the opening credits, our first scene is actually within the ape city. Even though Caesar (Andy Serkis) was clearly speaking by the end of Rise, the vast majority of the communication seen from ape to ape is via sign language. What we end up with is a long and beautifully shot but near silent set of scenes clearly establishing the apes as highly emotional and very family oriented characters. Typically in a movie of this fashion, a lot of time is spent on the human characters, ensuring that the audience has someone they can relate to. Instead, Dawn takes the time to make the apes very much human in our eyes, giving us touching moments and examples of loyalty, bravery, cunning and, ultimately, betrayal. As I said, it's a bold move on the film makers part and it pays off brilliantly.

In fact, it may pay off a bit too brilliantly. The apes are so beautifully rendered and amazingly characterized that the actual humans in the film end up playing second banana (I'm so very sorry). All of the truly poignant moments in the movie come from the apes. The range of emotion the CGI apes are able to convey is nothing short of astounding. Even the sign language allows the viewer to read the scene in their head and add their own heightened level of emotion to the mix. The humans in the film don't really stack up to this. Well, most of the humans anyway.

Gary Oldman is the lone exception here. Or, at least, he would be if he'd been given more than 15 minutes of screen time. Just as Bryan Cranston was criminally underused in Godzilla (2014), so too does Oldman get short shrifted. A couple of key scenes and a moving speech and he's gone for most of the film. The few scenes he does get to play in he steals, of course. We just don't get to see nearly enough of him.

That's not my biggest gripe with Dawn, though. No, my biggest gripe is the nature of the film itself. This is a prequel; a second film that's leading to the eventual remake of the 1968 film The Planet of the Apes. The problem? Well, it's the problem with all prequels, really. We already know where it's all going to go. 

I find it incredibly difficult to take the human struggle for survival and it's need to hang on to civilization seriously when I know it's ultimately going to fail. I also find it hard to get involved in any of the "bonding" moments between human and ape when I know those bonds clearly do not last. Why do I care if Caesar and some dude become best buds when I know that apes will rule the planet (hence the title) and keep humans as pets? What's in it for me to see the humans trying desperately to get a hydro dam working to maintain power in their city if I know that the humans end up as speechless savages living in the jungle? Some say it's the journey and not the destination, but that's only when you haven't already actually experienced the destination. Maybe it's just me.

This movie couldn't have been made 10 years ago. It's a truly ambitious effort that blurs the lines between actual actors on-screen and CGI, motion-capture characters rendered digitally instead. It's a triumph of technology, much like Gravity (2013) was before it. It's also a character study with the cool part being that those characters are apes and not people. Let's hope it's a sign of more good things to come, even though I'll continue to grind my teeth at the nature of prequels and all the baggage that comes with them.

4 out of 5 stars.

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014)
Reviewed by The Bitter Critic on Aug 15 2014
Rating: 4

The movie business is weird. Or, why do we do it this way?

Movies are bizarre.

No really. They are. I was looking back at some recent movie releases and I had some thoughts about how we look at movies. More specifically, how we decide whether or not a movie is a hit.

When a movie is released, there are reviews by actual movie reviewers, fan reaction upon just having seen it (something called Cinemascore) and the all important box office numbers. It's this aspect, the numbers game, that got me thinking the other day.

When do we all collectively agree that a movie, once released, is a hit? Is it based on the critical reviews of the movie? No, not really. Is it based on the fan reaction? Nope. What makes or breaks a movie is the amount of money that movie makes. That's it. And, to me, that seems really weird.

Whenever we see a top 10 or top 100 list of most successful movies of all time, it's ALWAYS ranked in total gross dollar amount. Sometimes you'll see a list in something called "Adjusted Dollars" which just means the total gross has had inflation factored in. Do you know what you don't see as far as ranking these movies goes? 

The number of tickets sold. Or, in other words, the number of people that actually went to see it.

You have to dig pretty deep to find statistics on how many seats were actually sold for a movie. How many folks shoveled out their hard earned moolah to take their favourite sweetheart to see the latest Die Hard movie? I have no idea, but I can tell you exactly, and I mean EXACTLY, how much money that movie made.

Does this seem odd to anyone else? Or is it just me? Wait, wait...it gets odder.

The total gross dollars a movie pulls in at the box office still doesn't actually decide whether or not a movie is a hit. There's still one overriding factor that should really only matter to the studio that's making the movie but has somehow been adopted by the rest of us as well.

Profit.

Let me give you an example. Here's a movie that's been universally hailed as one of the biggest box office flops of all time:

Now here's a movie that was considered a huge runaway success just this summer:

Would you like to know how much each of these movies grossed worldwide?

The Lone Ranger: $260,502,115

The Fault in Our Stars: $263,444,846

That's right. The runaway smash hit of the summer made a mere $3 million more than one of the biggest box office flops since forever. What that means is, when it comes down to butts in seats, just as many people went to the theatre to see The Lone Ranger as did to see The Fault in Our Stars. So why is one considered a flop and the other a hit? I'll say it again;

Profit.

The Lone Ranger cost $215 million to make. The Fault in Our Stars only cost $12 million to make. So, from a studio perspective, I can see why they would think one was a success and one was a failure. But why do the rest of us adopt this mentality as well? 

Think about it for a second. Almost exactly as many of us (different demographics notwithstanding) went to see each of these movies. Do we, as the movie going public, actually care how much profit a film makes? We're certainly not seeing any of that money. So why is it if you ask someone about these two movies, most of them will tell you that one was a huge flop and the other a huge hit?

Maybe it really is just me. I understand the economics behind it. I just don't get why most of us do it this way.