recent movies

Per recent trend, it's been more than a year since my last movie microreview post.

This isn't everything. I've omitted the many things I watched that were so bad that I don't even have anything funny to say about them. Also, when I checked my list, I found that there were some on there that I don't actually remember at all. There were a few. Ok, a lot.

In maybe something close to chronological order but not really:

Guns For Hire: A very low budget "what actually happened" action/mystery. Not bad.

Addicted to Fresno: Absolutely hilarious Slacker Idiot Caper movie.

Morgan: They keep making this movie -- the genetically engineered "born sexy yesterday" killing machine -- but this is a decent entry in the genre.

The Girl With All The Gifts: A zombie movie worth watching even if you're sick to death of zombie movies. I loved the book, and the movie does it justice.

Doctor Strange: Ok either you've already seen this or we can't be friends.

Crazyhead: This series is Buffy with more swearing and awkwardness. Starts off very strong, sort of loses it by the end.

The Man in the High Castle: Season 2 wasn't bad. You can pretty much entirely skip season 1, in which nothing happens.

Travellers: Time travel show basically from the perspective of the Terminators. It's not bad but suffers in characterization since by design, the characters have no backstory. We only get their cover identities.

Falling Water: This is an odd show about walking into other peoples' dreams. What I liked most about it is that it was really good for watching while falling asleep, because like dreams, it makes no god damned sense. It's like a 42 minute screen saver. When they finally started explaining things I felt, "nooo, don't spoil it".

Passengers: The trailer tells the entire story, because there's not much story, and the plot is even more monstrous than the script says it is. It's pretty, though. And I liked the bartender robot.

The Love Witch: This is a glorious tribute to the Hammer Horror movies. If you have any love for those, this is fantastic.

Person of Interest: When this show started, I gave up after a couple episodes because it was just another stupid police procedural. But people kept saying, "no, if you suffer through Season 1, it gets really good and turns into an actual science fiction show". Well, yeah, it does turn into a science fiction show, and it's not bad, but it suffers so heavily from plotblocking: In five seasons, there's about ¾ of a season's worth of the "AI" plot that I actually cared about. The rest of it is procedural victim-of-the-week nonsense.

The Sin of Harold Diddlebock: I thought I had seen all of the Preston Sturges movies, but somehow I missed this one! And it's fantastic!

Legion: SO GREAT. It turns out that what mutant stories were missing was hallucinatory unreliable narrators in asylums! And Aubrey Plaza. You may have heard that the is nominally connected to the X Men franchise, but it feels like it has nothing to do with that world, so don't let that scare you away.

Timeless: This is a really fun time travel show, and I don't often say those words. It hits many of the tropes, ok all of the tropes, but it comports itself well.

Midnight Special: It's a precocious mutant kid movie that seems to be based on the various M83 videos, and is possibly set in the same universe as Tomorrowland. I mock, but actually it's pretty good.

The Autopsy Of Jane Doe: I was worried this was going to be "zombie movie with boobs", but it's actually a pretty great locked-room ghost story. Very well done.

Modesty Blaise: You gotta watch this movie for the wallpaper alone.

The Void: Start with The Thing, turn left at Hellraiser, sprinkle lightly with Beyond The Black Rainbow.

The Scribbler: Good looking movie, shame about the plot.

After Death: Some people wake up on a beach, pretty quickly realize they died and are in Hell. It's not bad, but don't watch the trailer, it spoils the whole thing.

Rogue One: I was very pleasantly surprised by The Force Awakens, but this was even better. It held up on a second viewing, too.

Get Out: This is as great as everyone says it is. It's funnier and less of a horror movie than I expected.

Before I Fall: What if Groundhog Day was Mean Girls? Actually that works our pretty well.

The Neon Demon: This movie takes a really long time to get around to its actual plot -- which begins about 10 minutes from the end. It's vacuous and very pretty, and I might have enjoyed it more if I had known from the beginning that it was actually REDACTED.

Jawbreaker: Speaking of Mean Girls, I remembered this movie being a piece of shit, but I was talking to a friend who remembered it fondly, so I watched it again. I was right, it's a complete piece of shit.

The Devil's Candy: A really nice haunted house / possession movie. Much more on the suspense side than the spring-loaded-cat side.

Trainspotting 2: I did not expect this is be any good, but WOW, it's really good! It really felt like these jackasses have just been fucking around for twenty years and we're checking in on them again.

American Gods: I read the book and it really bored me -- all I remember of it is that it's a road trip with a whiny viewpoint protagonist who has absolutely everything exposited to him. But the show is so much better! Probably because it's actually about Dead Wife and Giant Leprechaun instead of the nominal lead characters. This is very much a Bryan Fuller story, not a Neil Gaiman story: it has much more to do with Fuller's Pushing Daisies and Dead Like Me than with Gaiman's pastiches of late-period Douglas Adams.

The Handmaid's Tale: It's pretty great. But do shows with female leads always have to be about babies? Is there some kind of Bechdel test corollary that goes, "...and the women didn't talk about babies at all"?

Glow: Words cannot express how little interest or nostalgia I have for wrestling, but this was pretty funny. But again with the babies.

Wynonna Earp: , Supernatural has been kind of losing my interest lately, and this show was bringing the kind of stupid monster-of-the-week pulp schlock that I was missing. Season two has been slow so far, though. Also, now with babies.

I Am Not A Serial Killer: This is a pretty weird monster movie. It's hard to say more without spoilers. Not bad.

The Tenth Victim: Did you know that they made The Hunger Games in 1965? This may well be the first recorded appearance of a bra that shoots bullets from the nipples. This movie is not good, but it is better than The Hunger Games.

He Never Died: Rollins is immortal, and very very grumpy. I strongly recommend this as a double bill with The Man From Earth.

Blood Drive: This show is way funnier than it has any right to be.

>Freaks of Nature: What if zombies, vampires and humans all went to high school together, and then aliens invaded. Yeah, ok, I'm in.

Motivational Growth: Jeffrey Combs plays a manipulative pile of talking bathroom mold. It's kind of amazing.

Arrival: I loved this movie, and I was already a fan of the story it was based on. Calling it Contact done right isn't out of line.

Absentia: The day after her husband is declared "presumed dead", he comes back, and then gets taken by a monster again. It's pretty well done.

God Help The Girl and Sing Street: If you are looking for a double bill of twee indie-rock musicals, these are totally where you should go for that.

Wonder Woman: After suffering through what felt like a thousand stultifyingly shitty live-action DC movies, they finally got one right! I enjoyed this a lot. (When I saw the trailer for Dunkirk I said, "Wow, this Wonder Woman movie is way darker than I expected it to be.") I still think the Justice League movie looks like it's going to be a piece of shit, though. How is it that the DC animated stuff is (mostly) so good, but their live action outings are complete garbage? Except this one.

Guardians of the Galaxy 2: Hands up anybody who saw the first one and thought, "Boy, I hope the whole second movie is about Starlord's sad manbaby daddy issues!" Nobody? That's what I thought.

Colossal: Come for the kaiju, stay for the abusive relationships! I loved this.

Heavy Metal and Heavy Metal 2000: I was feeling nostalgic, so I'm here to remind you that these movies are absolutely dreadful. They're even worse than I remembered. They're shit.

Rock and Rule: In comparison to Heavy Metal, this lousy movie looks pretty great I guess?

Akira: This, however, really stands up. Every frame of this movie is gorgeous.

Ghost in the Shell, 1995: This too. It's absolutely as great as I remembered. One of the things that struck me about it this time is that it's slow not just because it's just a talky movie, but because they are showing off the absolutely obsessive environmental detail. This movie loves its skylines and neon-lit tunnels as much as Blade Runner did, and is just as willing to linger on them.

Ghost in the Shell, 2017: I put off watching this for a long time because A) remakes are stupid and B) whitewashing is stupid. And yeah, the whitewashing is weird and lame. But I gotta say, if you can get past that, they did a great job on this movie. It is absolutely gorgeous -- the exteriors, especially, which look like live-action Wipeout -- and the characterization and themes do justice to the original. The plot is different than, and much simpler than the original movie, but the various movies and TV shows were never much for continuity anyway. (Do the first and second movie even take place in the same universe? I can't remember. I'm pretty sure at least some of the TV shows disregarded the others.)

Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets: For the first hour or so, I thought this movie was fantastic -- very much The Fifth Element done right. It kind of lost it toward the end, though. Like most movies, it probably should have ended 20 minutes earlier. Still, it was gorgeous and a lot of fun. (I have since read the comics, and I can say with assurance that the movie is way better. The comics are shit. Though the movie and the comics do share one important point: both of them would have been better if the male lead wasn't in them.)

Update: I tried to watch this movie again, and I completely retract what I said about it above. I don't know what I was thinking. Or possibly drinking. This movie is shit. There are some cool alien races, but everything else is awful. The comedy rarely rises above the level of "Hurr durr, women are terrible drivers!" Seriously, they make that joke like five times.

Atomic Blonde: THIS IS SO GREAT! From the opening titles where I thought, "You are already referencing To Live and Die in LA and I am all in," every moment of this movie is fantastic. The fight choreography is great. The use of music is great. Where they chose not to use music is great. It's all great.


Tags: , , ,

46 Responses:

  1. jboy says:

    Wow, that "Born Sexy Yesterday" trope is super-creepy. Thanks for sharing that.

    I was a huge fan of Trainspotting, but I was so disappointed by T2. It seemed like the entire film was just a vehicle for references back to the first one. It's the same lazy nostalgia that Family Guy uses: "Hey, remember this thing that happened? I know it happened and you know it happened -- isn't it great that we're both in on this open secret, this unchallenging common knowledge!"

    I actually wondered whether T2 was intended to be a bitter rebuke to the Trainspotting fans who refused to move on from the past glory days of the first film. Or perhaps as a powerful proof of Sickboy's Theory ("At one point you've got it, then you lose it, and it's gone forever." / "We all get old, we cannae hack it anymore, and that's it.")

    This is the best T2 review I've found:

    • jwz says:

      I dunno, I feel like both Trainspotting movies were primarily character studies of a bunch of charming losers, who get a lot less charming once you get to know them. The "action" of the movies were kind of incidental, except in that the characters thought them important and fucked it all up, because they're a bunch of fuckups. It's basically the Cohen Bros. approach. So the second one lets use see those characters again, older and sadder and never, ever going to get their shit together. I mean, when you put it like that, it makes both movies sound pretty bleak. Oh wait, they are fucking bleak!

      • jboy says:

        > charming losers, who get a lot less charming once you get to know them

        Sure, I can agree with this: Renton & Sickboy were charming, eloquent, selfish pricks; Begbie was a charismatic psycho. Even (perhaps ironically, perhaps inevitably) Renton's final "redemption" (an escape from his otherwise inescapable life) was obtained by screwing over his friends.

        > the second one lets use see those characters again, older and sadder and never, ever going to get their shit together

        I'll extend your description of the first one to "charming losers, in outrageous/shocking/awful self-inflicted situations". Crawling into toilets, stealing from everyone else, running from police, overdosing on heroin, hooking up with schoolgirls, flinging shit across kitchens.

        It was a mixture of exhilarating highs and crushing lows (with a perfectly-fitting soundtrack). Their charm, eloquence and charisma were the highs, and their behaviour & repercussions were the lows. I fell in love with the highs & the lows of the first movie.

        But in the sequel, the highs & lows were both much less. As you say, the characters are older and sadder, and maybe that's the point: that they're just going to fade away, rather than go out with any more big bangs. And yeah, that is a pretty bleak statement to make, and I'll grant that it is a new/different theme, relative to the first movie. So that's why I was wondering whether the whole sequel was intended as a demonstration of Sickboy's Theory.

        The sequel had the same name, contained toned-down versions of the same characters, in toned-down situations. Hey, let's make a reference to the first film! Remember Tommy??

        • MattyJ says:

          Also worth noting: we are all also 20 years older.

          • jboy says:

            Sure, noted, but what's your point?

            That the older, sadder characters are demographically representative of an older, sadder audience who are fading away? That an audience that is 20 years older no longer appreciates the shock value of Trainspotting (1996) and would prefer a toned-down movie? Something else?

            • MattyJ says:

              More or less that, yeah. T2 is a manifestation of the sentiment/realite that (well, for most of us anyway, perhaps not you) that we're not as cool as we thought we were two decades ago. Life moves past us whether we want it to or not. My wants, needs, preferred entertainment are not the same now as they were then. I grew up, most of the characters in T2 did not and that's bleak and interesting.

              I'm not sure I'd be interested in seeing the same movie/story as the original Trainspotting but with 45 year-old dudes (as you put it) crawling out of toilets and banging schoolgirls. That would be more sickening than entertaining.

              I didn't even see the first Trainspotting until the week before the second one came out. I'm the same age as Ewan MacGregor in real life but I can certainly appreciate that movie. It was good and entertaining because of the characters and mayhem, but I'm just not interested in finding out that (in an alternate universe) that they kept on going at the same pace and were the same people 20 years later. That' not a sequel, that's a remake.

      • Waider says:

        Maybe worth noting, if you're not aware, that Trainspotting the book is a loose collection of short stories (written in more-or-less phonetic Scottish, which is a bit... challenging) with recurring characters but no narrative thread to speak of, and the stage version is similar. As such, a movie without a narrative, just a collection of fuckups, is pretty true to the source.

    • +1 'born sexy yesterday'
      One inversed example came to mind, 'rocky' from rocky horror (touch me / creature of the night) .. others ? ..

  2. jboy says:

    Also interesting that you mention Beyond The Black Rainbow. I only just saw that one. As we were watching it, we were picking out the stylistic references to Kubrick films, a Vangelis-like soundtrack, etc, and trying to guess which year it was from. It looked like a 70s-80s film (including the clothes & hair), but the film looked too sharp for a film of that era. And was Michael Rogers doing a Christian Bale impersonation, or does Christian Bale impersonate Michael Rogers? Imagine our surprise when we looked the date up on IMDB.

    Segue #1: At around the time we saw Beyond The Black Rainbow, we also saw Hardcore Henry:

    If you haven't seen this, I recommend it: It's basically a film version of a first-person-puncher/shooter video game. You are a cyborg and you have to rescue the princess. Utterly devoid of any depth but highly entertaining. (Apparently it can cause shaky-cam nausea in some people though.)

    Segue #2: I'm a huge fan of Ghost In The Shell (1995), but I'll admit that the first time I watched it, I was confused by the slowness of the second half. I saw it after I'd seen The Matrix, so I guess I was expecting "neural-interface cyberpunk" to consist entirely of action scenes, exposition monologue, and training montages. The long stretches of action-free silence in the second half of GITS (just soundtrack -- even though the soundtrack is amazing) confused me.

    It was only on my second & third viewings that I had my moment of enlightenment: The film is primarily about what's happening inside Kusanagi's head as she grapples with her own doubts about her humanity. All of the futuristic cyber-action is just a colourful backdrop to that internal processing, occasionally providing external stimuli to advance her internal state. We are seeing Kusanagi become more and more obsessed with finding answers to her questions, and the final stretches of action-free silence are meant to show her resolving to do whatever it takes (no spoilers).

    Also on the topic of GITS (1995), I recently saw this excellent video by Nerdwriter1:

    • jwz says:

      Hardcore Henry was bullshit. I got a kick out of the music video that it was based on, but that was mercifully only four and a half minutes long.

      I was about ten minutes into Hardcore Henry and almost done with it already, when I said to my friend, "They're about to head into a strip club for no reason, aren't they?"

      And just like that, they did.

      Fuck that movie.

      • jboy says:

        No! Here are my counter-arguments about why I don't classify it as bullshit:

        I appreciated the novelty & honesty of the distillation of the pure video-game essence. It strips away the pretence of most video-game movies (Dead Or Alive, Tomb Raider, Assassin's Creed, etc) that they're anything more than the thinnest layer of screenplay story stretched over a combat-based action-scene skeleton. I also appreciated that it didn't take itself seriously, in contrast to excremental mega-budget toy-marketing franchises like Transformers.

        The film knows what it is, and it pushes as far as it can in that direction. The most obvious example being the DOOM-like first-person perspective, of course. Yes, the "plot" is just a sequence of action-scene locations, with just enough cut-scene exposition between them to motivate the next fight. Yes, they go into strip clubs for no reason (like the Duke Nukem games, right?). Baddies attack one at a time. There's a parkour level, etc.

        If you're going to do a video-game movie, do it well. The first-person puncher/shooter perspective was well done. The parkour scenes in particular looked great.

        I didn't find the strip club scene any sleazier than From Dusk Til Dawn (for example), and it's nowhere near as tacky as the 80s sex comedies (Revenge Of The Nerds et al) or the modern remakes.

        Even though everyone had English names (aside from Slick Dimitry), I could tell it was made by a Russian: It had that same plastic-trashiness & nihilism as Night Watch & Day Watch (both of which I like). I enjoy that as a counterpoint to Hollywood gloss & self-confidence sometimes.

        I thought the "gradual upskilling" was done reasonably well -- the pacing was OK and the progress was sufficiently believable. (Not as well done as in Edge Of Tomorrow, as a comparison -- but really, that whole film is a love-letter to upskilling: "Through readiness and discipline, we are masters of our fate.")

        My main complaints about the movie were the insertion of the out-of-tone comedy-skit (the different mind-controlled bodies) in the second half, and the surrender to extended slash-stab melees at the end. (I understand that every death in an action/gore film should be more gory/shocking/spectacular than the previous, but too much gore-porn without a break becomes monotonous & desensitising.)

        In summary: It's not Blade Runner or Ghost In The Shell (1995), but it was fun; and what it did, it did well.

        • jwz says:

          I mean, if I wanted to watch someone play a a video game, I'd at least pick a more interesting video game. It wouldn't be Duke Fucking Nukem.

          I think all the meta-commentary you saw on the nature of video-game-movies was in your head and not actually in Hardcore Henry itself. HH was the thing itself, not commentary on that thing.

          Also, I hated Night Watch, though I certainly see the similarity. Back when that came out, I commented somewhere that it was so very Russian, in that it was long, boring, and full of dirtbags wearing eighties track suits -- causing the entirety of Russian Livejournal to send me hate mail.

    • jwz says:

      That GITS commentary is cool, though.

  3. Can I raise my hand for the third Guardians of the Galaxy movie to be all baby Groot dancing and playing in the foreground with out of focus lame action happening behind?

  4. Jan Kujawa says:

    The babies shit was what made me turn off Arrival in the first five minutes. I was expecting a movie about linguistics and walked into the start of a Lifetime movie. At least I only wasted a buck.

    • nooj says:

      You should actually watch Arrival. Fast-forward through the Lifetime parts if you have to. The babies aren't there because "yay babies!", they're there because [SPOILER]. If you want to hate it, hate it for its linguistics, not its babies.

    • MattyJ says:

      News flash: trailers aren't just the first two and a half minutes of a film. I don't understand the mentality of leaving a movie that quickly 'because babies'. I can name hundreds of great movies you've probably never seen if that's how high your bar of entry is.

    • anon3494 says:

      What you actually get is a movie by an art-house director that takes two hours to roll out its non-standard and terminally flawed notion of causality and time. Do not understand the love this thing gets.

  5. Steve Downey says:

    Bryan Fuller's American Gods owes more to Hannibal than anything else. Hannibal was a glorious mess, reassembled from the inconsistent pieces of the mythos he got the rights to. It was far better than it had any right to be.
    American Gods plays with the same heightened reality, except this time with source that is already willing to lie about itself if it makes the story just a little better. Or even just to have scene that works, even if it makes no sense.

    • jwz says:

      I was entertained that Hannibal gave zero fucks about plot or character. It was a show about corpse dioramas, suits and food plating, not necessarily in that order.

      Did you notice the Dead Like Me reference he snuck in? One early episode features a woman who thinks she's dead, whose name is Georgia.... who is played by the same actress.

  6. Rae says:

    Are you serious?? You watched Motivational Growth? I was the production designer on that!

    • jwz says:

      I know! I saw you in the credits! I meant to message you about that. Also your cassette tape selections did not go un-noticed.

  7. Rae Deslich says:

    That is, in fact, MY mold-covered bathroom.

    (I mean, I built it.)

    • Rae says:

      Awwww! Thank you. Also did you notice ALL the early 90s Wax Trax! posters? Metropolis helped me out a bunch with that.

  8. Oh my god how did I miss Motivational Growth

  9. MattyJ says:

    Glad I wasn't the only one that thought that about Valerian. Wrong male lead actor, I think. Or yeah, just ditch the male part of the team altogether. Cara Delevigne has enough charm for two people. The 3D apologist in me would like to say that on a good 3D projection (saw it in XD at SF Centre) it looked pretty spectacular.

    Alien: Covenant is also worth checking out if you liked the first couple Alien movies and weren't so keen on Prometheus. I like them all but I think you can get by watching Covenant without seeing Prometheus. They do just enough exposition to explain the basics.

    • k3ninho says:

      Alien: Covenant was mercifully only as long as it needed to be. It lacked any of the unknown horror of Alien or the trapped powerlessness of Aliens. It failed to answer "what does the protagonist want?" Notably -- and please go watch if you're happy with 'how wrong can this go?' -- it's inconceivable that a space-faring race who are trained for colonising and aimed at one system would divert to another, and then put people down on the surface without a first-contact quarantine process in place.


      • Not Frank says:

        Alien: Covenant is a response to Prometheus, in that they answer unanswered questions from the previous movie... but not the questions you care about. [removes spoileriffic rant, to be nice]

        Also, annoyingly, they still need one more movie to get to the start of Alien.

      • jwz says:

        There is no way I'm ever watching another so-called Alien movie. Alien and Aliens were amazing. But you know what sucked ass? Alien 3, Alien Resurrection, Alien vs. Predator, Alien vs. Predator: Requiem, and oh yeah, Prometheus.

        Somewhere before Shit Movie Six, you should stop trying.

        Also, with the exception of The Martian, Ridley Scott hasn't made a decent movie since Thelma and Louise and that was in 1991.

        • MattyJ says:

          I think there's an argument to be made for Black Hawk Down and, uh, yeah. Okay. I see your point there.

          I dunno. I don't give up on franchises when they start to suck. Sometimes you get a few shitty Rockys then Creed happens and it's good so who's to say what the right response is.

        • Ridley Scott's IMDB page is like a fucking war crime of squandered talent. Who would have predicted, in 1990, that Tony Scott (RIP) would be the one of them with the more defensible late career?

      • MattyJ says:

        News flash: sequel doesn't have same plot or feel as the original.

        Anyway, I guess I liked it because I didn't needlessly apply human characteristics to a fictional alien race and get offended when they didn't act the way they 'should' have. The Alien franchise is essentially a horror franchise and as we all know, people (and aliens, I guess) don't act rational in all situations.

        We may have a different idea of who the protagonist was, but in the movie I watched there was a very clear indication of what the protagonist wanted that they summed it up nicely in the last 20 seconds of the movie or so (purposely being vague.)

        • jwz says:

          The Alien franchise is essentially a horror franchise

          Alien was a horror movie. Aliens was a war movie. Alien 3 was arguably a horror movie. I don't know what the hell the others were. "Schlock sy fy fantasy action" I guess.

          (Supposedly, when Verhoeven told Cameron "I'm making Starship Troopers! Cameron said, "Why would you do that? I already made that, it was called Aliens".)

  10. Apparently I missed all the reviews that said Passengers was monstrous as opposed to just bad. Because I got part way through and was like, wait, this whole movie is him justifying raping and killing her? And then raping and killing her? So I stopped.

  11. I has a tiny sad that you didn't get into Person of Interest, but I understand. You're right about the first season being just a surveillance procedural. I was into it but obviously most people were not. I mean look at the ratings.

    It was pretty nifty when the last scene of the last episode of season 1 suddenly revealed that you had been watching legit science fiction instead of just slightly near-future crime drama.

    The other moment that made me get up and yell was in S4E21 "Asylum" when Root and Finch get him intentionally committed by just saying the truth:

    Root: I need to admit this man on a TDO. 72-hour involuntary hold. He's an increasingly dangerous paranoid schizophrenic. [looks at Finch] Unless he'd care to disagree?
    Finch: It's not paranoia if they're really out to get you.
    Doctor: Who exactly is after you?
    Finch: The Brotherhood, the federal government... an artificial super-intelligence, obviously.
    Doctor: What's your name, sir?
    Finch: I go by many names, all derived from species of birds.
    Root: I'd mark him as a John Doe. He basically lives in the subway.
    Doctor: We'll take it from here.

    This exchange got me thinking about an alternate P. K. Dick version of the show where you never get any objective evidence of whether The Machine actually exists. You've never 100% sure whether there's really a friendly AI, or they are just a group of burned-out ex spooks who hear voices and kill people.

    • jwz says:

      Yeah, that's the part I enjoyed -- but there was about 5 minutes of that plot per episode. The rest of it was just more "CSI Unit Law and Victims" nonsense, which I got no time for.

      • anon3494 says:

        If you stick through to the very end, it gets well and truly shit. The last season is Heroes-level bad.

  12. Waider says:

    I saw Sing Street on a transatlantic flight and enjoyed it sufficiently to purchase it when it showed up on DVD at a local store. I did not discover what was cut from the movie to avoid shocking plane-going folks until I sat down to watch said DVD with mother-in-law: female lead is somewhat flippantly discussing her deceased father with male lead, and in the unedited version there's a single extra line of dialogue that makes it clear she was being abused by said parent.

    Thanks, airline editors.

    (also spent a good deal of this movie playing "spot the location" given that it's set in my city of residence.)

  13. Probably about time I posted on one of these to say thanks for doing them. Anything you hate, there's a perfectly good chance I'll still like, but if you like something, it's pretty much always great, and I've found lots of great new shows and films from your posts over the years.

  14. bryan says:

    If you haven't yet, check out Goliath (on Amazon Prime). Excellent acting and other stuff.