- ken hale
- Last Active
I've been looking forward to this series for about ten years after reading the comic, so suffice to say I was pretty, pretty hyped for it to premier on Netflix yesterday. I've only watched one episode because the series is such a favorite I just really don't want to rush through it and then be waiting for more. Same reason I haven't watched the new season of the Expanse, yet. It's like a fine wine that you anticipate opening.First episode (no spoilers) was very good, in my incredibly biased opinion. I was ready to hate it from anticipointment, and I definitely did not. It's great that Joe Hill was involved with writing it for television. (Also co-written by some guy named Aron.) Up front, I gotta say this will never be as good as the comic, because the nature of sequential art just allows for different pacing and visual transitions, and Gabriel Rodriguez did some amazing things in that series.This first episode effectively introduces all of the major characters that will be involved in the story and, more importantly, juggles pretty well all the different tones that the story hits. It balances teenage drama, little kid adventure, family in crisis, and horror elements, and I think the script and cinematography in this first episode effectively delivered on all of them.I'm really struggling to write a review because I don't want to spoil stuff or rant about the minute and major differences in the adaptation, so I'll just cut this off by saying WATCH THIS SHOW, or maybe just buy the comic, and then come back and discuss it, lol.
I'd heard so many good things about Little Women that I was hyping it up to my sister and nieces for about a month before I actually took the girls to see it. Kind of a bad call. This movie was definitely not written for six year olds. Between the 3-4 focal characters and like 3 different time periods that it jumps between, the younger girl was literally bouncing in her seat within about the first five minutes. She couldn't follow it. A significant character death towards the end was completely lost on her because the character immediately reappears in a flashback. Super disappointed that she didn't get more out of it, but on the plus side her older sister really liked it, despite having been a bit bored by the book and the Winona Ryder version of the film. It's definitely a good movie that I enjoyed, with some beautifully composed shots, so I'm not going to be too critical, but the casting choices are totally baffling to me. The male lead looks about ten years younger than any of the girls, even when he's supposed to be a grown man, and for the life of me I can't tell you which were supposed to be the elder or younger sisters. Not casting two sets of actors to portray the different time periods was a pretty glaring mistake, imo.
Well, I'm fine with the NBA doing something to honor Kobe's memory at the all-star game, I'm not really sure I like this resetting the scores after each quarter but then adding them all back up at the end and then play until you reach a certain number thing. But I think what bugs me more is the author's line of this: "The target score is the latest addition to the NBA's quest to make the game more competitive, something that players have wanted for some time".
It's really confusing the way they're doing it, but I don't mind breaking it up into essentially four short games. It would be simpler and I'd prefer it if each "quarter" was just a little first-to-24 game, though. I have to imagine pride would naturally lead to some half-solid defense if you were down 18-6 and didn't want to get embarrassed. But I'm not sold on that "something that players have wanted for some time" line.
It's not a movie but a three-part true-crime documentary on Netflix called "Don't Fuck with Cats." It's good. Probably goes in a direction you don't expect so I won't spoil it. It's basically about internet-doxing for justice and how that played out in this one specific, well-publicized case. It really pulled me in and I'm shocked I just watched the whole thing in one sitting (it could probably have been shorter), but it did leave me with a lot of unanswered questions, almost like loose plot threads that would have been really interesting if the filmmakers investigated or explained further. Ultimately, the doc makes an attempt at tying things together with some deeper moral or meaning, but that falls flat, in my opinion. Still a good one if you like these true-crime stories.
Dang, Jamie's thrown me for a loop here because when I rack my brain I'm ashamed to admit that there aren't very many names of "character actresses" that spring to mind the way they do for some fairly obscure male actors, and I don't have a good reason for that. I blame myself for being less attentive to the actresses that I do take note of...i.e. I can recall specific faces/roles that stood out but don't know the actesses' names. But I also wonder the extent to which it is a systemic problem, as Jamie mentioned perhaps there are just less minor, but quality, roles available to women? I might just be trying to let myself off the hook for phallocentrism.As far as underrated actresses goes, I would like to mention Anna Gunn because I've long thought that it can't be a coincidence how she plays a major role in two of the best television series of all time (and yes, I'm talking about Deadwood again, lol, because it's great and she's brilliant in it). I think she deserves more credit for that (I mean, credit beyond the two individual Emmy's, haha).