Reviews

I've spent the last two weeks rewatching Orphan Black through and through for the second time since its original airing. In doing that, I've found that a lot of the dips and peaks didn't feel so steep, unlike the first airing when I had a week to process each episode. In saying all of that, my views on the show have changed slightly.

Orphan Black has always been a good show, and even at its lowest points (season three and aspects of seasons four and five) it was still held up by its gorgeous cinematography, well scored music, and the off-the-walls acting by Tatiana Maslany and the supporting actors around her.

The bad in the show will forever be outweighed by the good, because there truly is very little to dislike. The only real unlikable aspects are the Castor clones, the character of P.T Westmoreland, some of the incredibly expository dialogue, Rachels inconsistent character growth (though it could be argued that she only ever acted out of kindness because it gave her an advantage elsewhere) and the unplotted world after season three. To sum up, if the endgame had been plotted from the beginning, the show would have felt slightly more consistent, instead of defeating one bad guy only to discover yet another, even badder, guy pulling the strings of the first bad guy. The last aspect that left a slightly bitter taste in my mouth was how on-the-nose the delivery of the message got, especially during the last season. However, this can be forgiven, as I guess they wanted to have a central thesis on which they could end the show, I just found it slightly lazy was all.

However, even with all of that going on, the show never actually gets bad, and this is purely a result of Tatiana Maslany. How this woman isn't regarded as the best actress ever, will forever boggle me. The fact is, no matter how good (or bad) the writing is, Tatiana Maslany makes it better. From episode 1.01, to 5.10, she brings the world to life with acting that can only be compared to Bryan Cranston in Breaking Bad - but then times that by a factor of eleven because she did it for multiple characters. Standing heads above the rest are her portrayals of Helena, Rachel, Cosima, and Alison. The ability to carry herself differently, the little ticks and even the cadence of her voice - just wow... This is acting, in its purest, rawest form.

The other members of the cast are what truly binds Tatiana Maslanys performance together, though. Without the actors who portrayed Donnie, Scott, Leekie, Sarah Stubbs, Felix, Mrs. S, Art Bell, Ferdinand. and Kira being A-Class, Tatiana's performance wouldn't have worked quite as well. These actors, among the rest, brought their A-Game, and it showed. It's easy to believe that all of these actors truly believed in the show they were making, and insisted on making it the career defining work it is.

It's not just what happens in front of the camera that makes Orphan Black such a phenomenal show, though. The cinematography by Aaron Morton is cinematic and telling. By using shaky, out-of-focus, framing for Helena, bright poppy looks for Alison, dark grimey choices for Sarah and slightly blurry cinematics for Beth, Aaron Morton is able to create a visual distinction between clones without ever needing the characters on screen. As the clones grew closer in the narrative, so too did Mortons framing, opting to visually lessen his choices (such as the shaky cam for Helena) to demonstrate this fact without the need for dialogue.

Accenting the cinematography was the score, by Trevor Yuile. The score for each character felt as if it had come from its own film, blending multiple genres, sounds and themes into one brilliant cacophony of sound. While some choices weren't my cup of tea, they were always well done (see specifically the synth score pertaining to Rachels eye during the last two episodes of S04). However, the fact that I'm able to remember the parts I didn't like demonstrates Yuiles ability to create memorable soundscapes for this show, ones that perfectly served their function, even if I personally wasn't a fan. Any critique on the score would be incomplete if Helena's Theme wasn't mentioned. This piece of music, sounding something like nails on a chalkboard crossed with the sound of a thousand dying cats, is perfect for Helena, creating an atmosphere of dread and excitement. This two note theme is simple in its execution, but speaks volumes about the character. Being used less throughout the series, hearing it pop up in the last two seasons became a source of intrigue - "what's Helena doing now?".

To avoid commenting on the set design would be doing any review of OB a disservice. The sets for Felix's apartment, the DYAD building and even the Rabbit Hole basement in S04/05 were well dressed, and again, spoke volumes about the characters and narratives that they surrounded. Despite being my least favorite season, S03 had brilliant moments of set design - the military camp, and London, especially were well done. Seeing how the filmmakers created London in Canada was a testament to the expertise of the creatives. Sure, the cars were on the wrong side of the road, but how important is that, really? If it were a show about cars, it'd be more pertinent, but it isn't so it's not.

Then there's the costumes, hair, and make-up. What would Tatiana Maslany's performance had been if she were merely an actress alone in an empty room without different costumes and make up? I remember first watching Orphan Black, and trying out the clone technique in After Effects - it didn't work. Why? Because I wore the same type of clothes with no difference in my actual physique. This is, of course, why the Castor clones were nowhere near as interesting to watch as the Leda clones - because there was no nuance to their character designs. The differences between Helena and Rachel is astronomical. Despite being played by the same actress, with the same hair color, and the same face, in the same locations - you cannot mistake the two. Even when one clone is playing another clone - say Sarah playing Cosima in S02E01, you still know what's happening. This comes down to two things, Tatiana Maslany's great acting (I promised I would stop but it's just so hard when she's just that good), and the hair, costumes and make-up. Just the hair alone is enough to give it away. When Sarah pretends to be Rachel, her fringe is messy and poorly cut. When Sarah is pretending to be Cosima the roots of her dreads are incomplete. Helena's clothes are roughshod, layered poorly, whereas Rachels is always impeccable, and wouldn't look out of place at the MET Gala.

Some of the effects are hit or miss (see the blood spurts in S05E09), but by and large, they are great. Used sparingly, the effects are mostly reserved for set extensions, or the clones. There are a few other major ones, such as weapons, or pencils-in-eyes, but these are usually incredibly well done and hardly noticeable as visual effects. Always well done though, are the clone shots. Not once do they falter. I believe this comes down to the fact that most of these shots had an acting double involved, and this is where Kathryn Alexandre deserves her applause. Without her, this whole show would have fallen flat on its face. Tatiana has spoken many times about how Kathryn Alexandre played each character alongside her with gusto, and I believe it firmly. Kathryn Alexandre played as many clones as Maslany and was never seen as any of them once, but still, she went on, doing just as much work as Tatiana Maslany.

Lastly, is the philosophical aspect to the show. This show asks some questions, and is quite comfortable at not having the answers to all of them. Is sexuality genetic? What would someone raised by a corporation think of those who aren't? Are our genes what makes us, or is it our environment? What is the nature of family? Do we own our evolution, or is it the sole property of nature? Is it ethical to live forever? Can, and should, synthetic life be owned by way of patent law? Is corporatism going too far? How would you react if you realised your life was a Truman Show-esq lie? There are many questions OB asks, but not all of them have answers, some have multiple answers, and others aren't meant to be answered. Much like Westworld, Orphan Black is a show that is just as mentally stimulating as it is entertaining.

In all, Orphan Black is an incredibly underrated gem of a show. Sure, it's got some minor issues, but it doesn't actually have a bad episode, just some not-so-good narrative choices. However, it's inventive, compelling to watch, and the novelty of seeing one woman play 11 different characters never actually wears off. When I first watched this show, I rated it an 8/10, however, I've since revised it to a 10/10, having the ability to binge watch making the difference. The show deserved more praise than it got, but I'm happy it ended before things took a real swoop downward, meaning that everyone can enjoy it as it is.

Kimmy Schmidt is/was a phenomenal show. A+ writing, acting, colorwork, music - I mean, everything. Across the board, the four seasons that exist are beyond great.

This... I don't know. For the most part, the things that I liked about the show were there, except the story.

I get it, the writers saw "Bandersnatch" and were eager to use the same technology to tell a Kimmy Schmidt story, but did it have to be this particular story? It felt rushed. Really, really rushed.

The things I liked are plenty, though, it's not like the whole film is creatively bankrupt. In fact, despite all the things I didn't like, the film was actually quite enjoyable. Most of the A+ aspects of the show are retained - great music, brilliant jokes, wonderful use of color, the whacky aspects of the world that's been built, and the acting, specifically from Ellie Kemper and Titus.

However, this was set against a backdrop of using a technology that hasn't yet had the time to mature. The choose your own adventure thing was pretty frustrating, to be honest. If, for 90% of the choices, you're going to tell me I'm wrong, then why have the choices in the first place? It felt as if they wrote a film, took all the scrapped storyline's and filmed them anyway. I want Kimmy to kill the reverend, don't just tell me she did that and died and then rewind me back because I made the "wrong choice". I don't care that it's the wrong choice. I'm making the decisions here, not you. If you want to make the decisions on how the characters live their lives; make a film without the gimmicks. It genuinely frustrated me. If there's a right choice, then why bother asking me? Quite frankly, I couldn't care less what dress Kimmy wears, if that's the most substantial decision I get to make.

Again, it feels rushed. Like they wanted to get it out so fast they didn't bother to properly plot the choices out. While Bandersnatch wasn't high art, it at least felt consequential, like the choices I made mattered. Sure, sometimes a character died along the way, but at least I made all the decisions that lead them to that point and it felt like a natural progression for the story.

It felt like the writers knew it, too. At one point in the film, Kimmy is reading a choose your own adventure book, and makes a mistake and flips back. It's like they were trying to say "look this is just like a choose your own adventure book". But it's not. It's a film, and by failing to expand upon the idea to make the most out of the technology you have, you might as well have just written a book. It just feels kind of redundant.

Again, this rushed feeling isn't just felt during the execution of the idea, but in the idea itself. The story just kind of... well, it's not the best. It's not terrible, but it just feels redundant, given the ending the show had in its original series finale. There were a few good moments, specifically Titus singing "Free Bird", Lillian shooting guns in a hotel room, and anything to do with Jacqueline is always a treat, but these moments are down to the actors. However, these moments can't save writing that feels like fan fiction.

Honestly, this would have been significantly better if they'd taken longer to write it, film it and work out all the details to make it work as it deserved to.

Kimmy Schmidt is one of the greatest shows to come out of the streaming era, it sucks that the last thing we're seeing of it is this. I didn't quite like how the fourth season ended - like they tacked on an epilogue on the last episode because they got prematurely cancelled or something - but it was a far better ending than this cliché filled exhibition.

Will I watch it again? Probably. Did I enjoy it? Yes. Was it worth the hype? Not really.

I've seen some great movies, I've seen terrible movies, this is neither. Like other reviewers, I sincerely wonder how this movie made so much money when it was released. Was leaded petrol so toxic, and prevalent, that it convinced people that this movie was worth $100 million at the box office?

Again, not the worst movie, just... not good.

Let's start with the bad, and just get that over and done with. The plot is paper thin - I mean, tissue paper thin. Man, brother, and monkey go on road trip to find mans lover - hunted down by a bumbling neo-nazi biker gang and a pair of crooked cops. That's it. That's the plot in its entirety.

Don't get me wrong, films can have wafer thin plots and still be masterpieces (see genre comparable "Once Upon a Time In Hollywood"). However, this ain't it chief. To achieve that, you need other things to work exceptionally well.

Film, naturally, is more than just the plot, otherwise they would be novels. Film relies on things like music, acting, cinematography, location, set design, sound design, and so much more, in order to be good. Unfortunately for "Every Which Way But Loose", a lot of these areas leave so much to be desired, and with a plot as thin as the one it has, it's just not as great as it could have been.

What makes this all so much more noticeable is the length. There are far too many scenes that add nothing to the plot, don't demonstrate moments of character, have very poor set choice and very little in the way of camera work. An example of this is the scene where the characters take Clyde to the zoo so he can have a moment with a female orangutang. Trimming the fat could've aided in making this film more enjoyable, but they didn't.

Another aspect of the film that seriously harmed it is the shoddy camerawork during the fight and car chase scenes. I'll give it to the film that this issue probably came out of the era. Obviously, this was 1978, a time before electronic stabilizers and drones, but some of the shots are so horrendously shaky, it's worth asking why they kept them, especially as in some scenes removing the shots wouldn't have harmed the overall narrative.

The last negative aspect I want to ruminate on is the acting. Based on the follow up reading I've done, it's said that Eastwood's agents didn't want him to take the role as they thought the film wouldn't be successful. It's amusing how they were both right and wrong. As we now know, the film did amazingly well at the box office, even if it was poorly received by critics. The thing is, though, they were correct. I don't get how Clint Eastwood felt he was right for the role of Philo. Sure he fits the caricature of a beer swilling, gun toting cowboy, but he fails to impart any real chemistry with any actor other than the orangutang who plays Clyde. It's a bit of a catch-22, really. One only wonders how another actor might've had better chemistry with the human actors, and worse chemistry with the animal actor. I think it would've been a lose-lose either way, which sucks because it means this movie never really had a chance overall, at least when it comes to the acting.

Which brings me to the things I did rather like. The actors for Orville and Echo were nothing short of brilliant. Both had excellent comedic timing and really played into their roles rather well. Both acted brilliantly with the orangutang and were able to give an air of history that lesser actors couldn't have done if cast in the same roles.

The location choices were excellent, lending the movie a true western feel. A lot of the small towns, road establishing shots, and highway shots gave the movie a feel that could only have been achieved by shooting on location. A lot of the Americana depicted felt truly lived in.

The music, aside from the repetitive music played in the bar scenes, was well chosen, and suited the film immensely. It's a timeless soundtrack, that even after forty years still feels relevant and fresh.

Lastly, despite my aforementioned complaints about the plot, the twist with Lynn Halsey Taylor not being interested in Philo was well done, and allows the movie to stand on its own as being unique in a landscape of predictable love movies. I sure hope they don't ruin that by retconning it in an unnecessary sequel.

Either way, this movie is hit or miss, depending on how much mileage you get out of seeing Eastwood bashing people for what felt like 2 and a half hours. Did I enjoy it? Kind of. Will I watch it again? No.

Once you get over how different the cast looks, the film is stunning to look at - you know straight away this wasn't a made-for-tv film. The cinematography is superb and is on par with any A-List film released in the last decade. The locations shots of the deserts of ABQ, and the snow lined roads in Alaska were top notch. Another technique that really made an impression on me were the "lock-on" shots used during some of the driving scenes. I'm sure this same camera technique was used in Breaking Bad and it was a nice little flourish that helped ground this movie within the BrBa universe. In that vain, despite the score being pretty good, I was a bit disappointed there weren't more musical motifs calling back to some of the iconic musical pieces in Breaking Bad.

I've seen a few reviewers mention that Jesse Pinkmans character had little room to grow, and I agree with this sentiment. However, I don't think that this is a wholly bad thing - his character had completed his arc by the end of season four anyway - but it is true that there is little room and this in itself is an issue, even if Jesse's "lack of growth" is not.

This movie feels like it's three acts stretched over a five act time period - and while the movie never gets boring, it never takes any major risks, either. Maybe this was a problem with having a more realistic story. I was (foolishly) awaiting a dramatic twist - maybe Jesse would meet Saul in Omaha. Maybe he wouldn't get the money and he'd have to find a new way to Alaska. Either way, there was no twist - just a good, old fashioned, through and through story.

I know this is my problem, because my expectations were high, but I also feel it's worth mentioning that I was awaiting scenes from the trailer that ultimately didn't make it into the movie - so I'm not convinced my expectations were entirely unrealistic. Also, Jesse having the duel and blowing the welding shop to smithereens felt more than a little out of character. In the end though, despite giving a solid conclusion, the lack of a twist (and subsequent acts that would follow) leaves me feeling a bit unsatisfied.

I enjoyed it. It's worthy of being in the BrBa canon, but it could've been better, especially seeing as it's effectively just a second part to the final episode of a show that ended six or so years ago. Definitely watch if you like BrBa.

Designated Survivor has been one of the smash hits of 2016/2017, hence why this finale ultimately disappointed me. I felt the series lost its way for a while during episodes 13-17, but it came back strong once it found its feet again.

After episode 20 ended with Hannah (the best character, don't even argue me here) in the back of a van filled to the brim with explosives, I'd hoped this week would be tight as hell. This was not the case and the episode (while having a brilliant opening scene resolving the Hannah cliffhanger) dragged its feet for the first 32 minutes. Not cool.

The end of the episode treated us with one hell of an undeserved monologue by Kirkman, before giving us a half-arsed set-up for next season.

This episode did not do the first season of this show justice. I like this show, it's not one of my absolute favorites, but I'd be annoyed if it were canceled; so why do I feel so cheated? I think its because nothing really feels resolved. Everything explained in this episode we kind of already knew, and the set-up for season two feels kind of unexplained- if you asked me to tell you what Loyd plans to do next season, I just, I don't know what I'd tell you.

Anyways- Am I excited for season two? Yes. Will I buy this show on DVD? Yes. Is the first season worth watching? Yes.

I'm not a US Resident, so this didn't affect me in the way it seemed to affect American audiences, especially considering I'm under 25 and as such, OJ Simpsons trial was before my time. All of this culminated in a set of fresh eyes watching the OJ Simpson trial play out in a fictional setting.

I really enjoyed 'The People v. O.J. Simpson, American Crime Story', it was well written, well acted, and the editing was incredible. Obviously I know this is based on a true story, however, because of the aforementioned fresh eyes - I was able to enjoy this thoroughly and became engrossed in the story, as opposed to the details.

One thing that really stood out for me was the time dedicated to setting the scene within the first ten minutes of the first episode. We're given information about the racial tensions of the day (RE; 1992 L.A Riots) and this helps establish the tone and world that this show will be exhibiting for us.

Many people have remarked that Cuba Gooding Jr wasn't a convincing OJ- for me though this wasn't an issue. Even after researching OJ Simpson and watching the original trial tapes on YouTube, I still think Cuba Gooding Jr did a brilliant job at capturing OJ's shady essence within his very nuanced performance.

Marcia Clark was written and portrayed as a strong, flawed, and determined woman, and Sarah Paulson's acting was superb and worthy of her accolades and awards.

Overall 'The People v. O.J. Simpson, American Crime Story' was a brilliant Miniseries, and one I would very much watch again. It very much captures the story of OJ Simpson in a way that feels authentic (minus any actual discrepancies) and makes for a very compelling piece of television.

I watched 'Thirteen Reasons Why' after having it hyped up to me by a friend. I'd already attempted to watch it twice before truly sitting down and giving it a real chance.

People have equally lumped criticism and praise onto this show, and personally I do not feel it deserves either. 'Thirteen Reasons Why' is a good show, in terms of narrative; it doesn't play the suicide card heavily, and it's use of rape and sexual assault as plot devices somehow doesn't feel overly gratuitous. I've seen people criticize the show for glorifying suicide; this is ridiculous. The aftermath of Hannahs suicide is the focus of the first twelve (out of thirteen) episodes, the actual suicide scene being saved for the last episode. To say that this glorifies suicide is lazy. 'Thirteen Reasons Why' glorifies suicide in the same way 'House' glorifies sickness, or 'Breaking Bad' glorifies lung cancer.

On the other end of the scale is the praise this show has received. Some of the defenses I've seen for this show are beyond extra. It's just a show and it's just a story, not something to be worshiped. It's a morality tale, and I don't think it should be glamorized the way some people are glamorizing it. I think this is where a lot of the criticism is coming from, because people ARE glamorizing the show where it doesn't need to be.

The one praise I am going to give it though, is the editing. The editing was stellar, blending a beautiful combination of current day and present day stories into one elegant narrative.

Anyway, 13 Reasons Why was draining as heck, but definitely one to watch.

Yeah, no. I went in with low expectations, and I still came out disappointed.

Why are we here? What is the appeal? The story was trash, the effects were rubbish and the repetitive slow motion was enough to make me puke.

Why are we here? The only true enjoyable facets of this "movie" were the locations. Seeing Cuba was refreshing; as it's not really a common location for films, but this isn't enough to sustain a franchise. It seems at this point all the writers are doing is putting dumb plot points into a hat and pulling them out to create a story, then chucking in location names and writing a script based on this.

This franchise is dead, put it down and move on. Make a spin off franchise. Stop making Fast and Fates Of The Furious 5's because this is boring. So boring. Dumb!

I didn't expect much, but I got what I wanted; this movie is rubbish. Obviously, you know this. It's 2017, so to even think that a anti-pot propaganda film would be anything other than rubbish, is just dumb.

I don't even know what to say, other than, why was this movie made? What is the plot really? People get baked and do bad things, this is hardly a revolutionary plot.

The whole "story" is horribly executed, the acting is terrible, and the music is lame. Just don't watch it.

I come fresh from the cinema having just seen this film and wow, it is beyond brilliant. I've only recently seen the original (I'm 21, cut me some slack), so I went into this perhaps expecting a 100% remake of the original, but it wasn't.

It was much better than expected. The film is adapted for a completely new audience, and its fresh and refreshing for having been so different to the original. We have an eccentric trio of characters, each bringing to the table something wholesome and believable.

In true millennial fashion we have Keira, this generations Shirl. Keira is a vegan, and an avid protester against live exporting of animals. While Keira may have strong beliefs, it's evident that this isn't a film with an agenda. Keiras vegan-ism is a character trait, and a way to provide us with some genuinely funny moments.

On the other end of the scale, we have Luke, a young man of Maori decent with a pretty sad past. Luke repeals and replaces Gerry from the original film, and I honestly think Luke is the better character. Luke is intelligent, but a drifter in life since his mother died, leading him into a life of fast cars and easy (illegal) money.

Lastly we have Jon, who replaces, er, John. This generations Jon is essentially a younger version of the original- except maybe without the covert sexism, which is probably just a summary of the entire film.

At its heart, Pork Pie is really a modern take on the original, but it stands on its own two feet as well. Pork Pie provides its characters with genuine substance, and a solid backstory. None of this is shoehorned in and it plays out naturally, allowing the audience to feel as if they too are one of the gang, finding out information as the other characters do. The story paces well, albeit with a few minor lapses in story somewhere in the middle.

All in all, Pork Pie lived up to the expectations I held it to, and then some.

Watch it. Now.