Change Your Image
mike-5445
Reviews
Bull (2016)
Simplistic and boring formula
This show started with an interesting premise (trial science) but after a few seasons it's become a simplistic, formulaic and predictible and feelgood legal drama. Basic formula is (1) A client has an issue; (2) Bull's team select a jury; (3a) Bull's team noisily express exactly what's happening inside every jury's head with 100% accuracy; (3b) Bull's team struggle and look like they're going to lose; (4) New and compelling evidence is miraculously discovered by Bull's team, frequently showing Police/FBI/etc to be incompetent investigators (although this is not directly addressed); (5) Bull's team wins case while Jason Bull commentates his lawyer's brilliance in whispers.
It's a very simplistic show, which might appeal if that's what you're after, but could also be really annoying. For example, time scales are completely fictional. Bull's team is always urgently gathering evidence during a trial. They frequently break laws, hack computer systems, and invade people's privacy. ALL of these actions are brushed off as inconsequential and a justified means to an end for their client. His team made up from former employees of the FBI and Homeland Security are idolised as if those organisations are faultless.
Earlier episodes spent considerable time talking about juries, but there's no detail... just someone in a room staring at screens and expressing what are supposedly 100% accurate explanations of what each juror is thinking. Uncertainty is very rare.
I'm not very familiar with trial science but it's hard to imagine that it hits this degree of formulaic perfection. Maybe a disinterest in looking at that is why what is meant to be the main premise of the show is brushed over so superficially. If a show had to be based on trial science, there would be so many interesting things it could focus on: accuracy, ethics, just getting it to work, the list goes on. Bull doesn't. It's just an excessively simplistic legal drama.
The Greatest Showman (2017)
Some good parts but the script needed more polishing
Lots of people obviously enjoyed this movie and good for them. I found it okay but didn't really rate it as highly.
There were a few individual fun and well choreographed musical numbers, but I think I just came away thinking that it was more like a stage musical which someone decided to film instead of a film with singing.
Other than that there were just lots of little things which I found annoying because they seemed meaningless or weren't clearly explained.
Several characters had radical changes of attitude and confidence which weren't really explained. eg. Lettie Lutz and Tom Thumb were introduced as extremely nervous in society, but at some point suddenly became confident and angry with no explanation beyond maybe a song where they'd sing something like (paraphrased) "I've changed my mind", just... because. Most of the rest of the ensemble barely existed beyond shallow individual characters who'd repeatedly end up being background dancers. They usually went everywhere in a bunch, and usually in the same formation. They never even change out of their performing costumes, even when crossing the sea to meet Queen Victoria!
The narrative repeatedly had Barnum being criticised for championing fake things and cheating audiences (which apparently is more like the real-life reputation) but the film didn't really show him doing this... unless compiling people who were genuinely unique into a circus performance is somehow lying.
The movie rationalises Barnum's hiring of Carlyle for his expertise in appealing to the rich classes of society, but actual attempts to do this, nor their consequences, are ever addressed in the story. There's a cameo trip to see the Queen, which is immediately forgotten and with no consequences explained. (In real life, this trip.. which was actually only with Tom Thumb rather than the whole ensemble... resulted in lots of positive attention, zero of which is given any time in the film, so why bother even including it at all?)
Jenny Lind -- portrayed as the greatest European opera singer -- made a thing in the movie of having risen from the lower classes, but this declaration never actually amounted to anything in the story. It was meaningless information that seemed more of a distraction. She also only sang one song in the film... several times.... and instead of opera it was more like a Mariah Carey song with hints of auto-tune effects.
And so on.
I didn't come away hating the film, but if the above sort of stuff might annoy you then I'd not recommend it. Maybe I've been spoiled for film musicals by some of the wonderfully animated musicals for children, often with compelling narratives, scripts that make sense and songs that weave nicely into the story. I don't see why a musical film made for adults, and not animated, can't have a similar kind of fluid composition. It shouldn't need to look like it's done for a stage just because people are singing in it.
Camelot (2011)
Like it's aimed at children, but with adult content
I've now watched the first five hours of Camelot. It's enough to keep me going, but I'm fairly disappointed. The beauty of the Dark Ages is that there's so little written history, which leaves a lot of flexibility to create a complex and interesting story. The Arthur/Camelot legend itself is a mish-mash of stories that developed over a long time, and it's been interpreted widely over the years.
When I first heard of the series, I was hoping for a darker and more complex tragedy, similar to Bernard Cornwell's Warlord trilogy that was a brilliant adaptation of the story built on an historic foundation of warlords, superstition and clashes between old and new religions. Characters were complex, and the appearance of "magic", however incredible, could always be put down to combinations of skill, superstition and illusion. Despite Arthur's attempts to do things right, it rarely worked for him because he's always so overwhelmed by a corrupt world. Rather than being seen through Arthur (which would have been boring), the story was told through the eyes of an imperfect protagonist. Merlin was an extremely creepy guy, and Lancelot became a very disturbing satire of his historic stereotype.
This TV series, though, seems to take more of the children's story interpretation, even if some of the relatively adult content means it's not aimed at children at all. I think part of what bothers me is that I can't figure out who the story is aimed at. The story follows Arthur around, generally he's "perfect" and always "morally right". He's there to fix up a corrupted world with his virtuous speeches and good looks on the expectation that people will just follow him, and from the tone of the show I expect he'll win (but maybe I'll be surprised). Merlin might not be perfect but he performs real magic, so there goes any connection to a real historic platform. The bad people are bad, the good people are good.. and usually good looking. Serious violence and ugly people barely exist in this world. At least that's how it seems. From the episodes I've seen to date, it feels as if it was a lost chance to have made something better.
Nordwand (2008)
This film reminded me of why I've never wanted to be a mountain climber
The cinematography here is brilliant. The film does a wonderful job in portraying the close-up atmosphere that's possible and lethal in some of these violent outdoor places. I think it's easily one of the best climbing-themed films out for this reason. Go and see the movie for breathtaking scenes.
I think it was let down (not much) by the way the climbing theme was tied to the sub-plots. A third of the film has no mountains in it at all, which is fine, but as long as it was going to branch into another kind of film, I think I would have enjoyed more character development. The Nazi theme is brushed over as background politics, with little attempt to show disturbing things were brewing. We barely learn anything about the attitudes of the people involved in the film. I guess this may have been fear of distracting from the film's main theme, but which I think could have made the entire story and characters stronger if it were done well and believably.
Some details of these sub-plots also directly interfered with the main climbing theme, and maybe believability. eg. The love story (presumably tacked on for interest) included Luise shouting into a storm and amazingly being heard. I found this very difficult to believe -- I've been in what I thought were similar storms at high altitude (not dangling from a cliff), and had trouble screaming and being heard by people a couple of metres in front of me. Since leaving I've also read conflicting stories about the ending sequence, and although there would clearly have to be much creative licence for much of this under the circumstances, I now also wonder how much even confirmed facts have been changed to romanticise the story more.
All of this is small nitpicking, though. If you want to see some awesome cinematography it's a brilliant mountain film which makes it one of my favourite films. It's also not such a bad story if you're less pedantic than myself.
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008)
Just another life-in-the-20th-century film with a twist that doesn't work
This film is basically the narration of the life of a person through the 20th century (WW2, swinging 60s, etc), but even on that premise it completely bypasses many of the big events and there's little other story or character interaction to make up for it. The main twist is that Benjamin Button lives his life in reverse (though time still moves forwards), being born as an old man and growing younger as time goes on.
The film is okay, but not great. It didn't grip me and after a couple of hours I was waiting for it to finish. It's broken into segments of Benjamin's life without much overlap between them. Almost exactly the same story could have been told in a more interesting way with the main protagonist being a normal person (life moving forwards) who had a few problems in keeping relationships with people. That's essentially what it seemed to be, with very few characters lasting the length of his life and interacting with his condition realistically at the same time. The strength of this film is the acting and the cinematography, but the weakness is its screenplay.
There's huge scope to explore the life of someone ageing in reverse, but the screenplay doesn't expend much effort to do so. The main characters throughout the film recognise that Benjamin is ageing in reverse, but simply accept it without questioning how or why it happens, or becoming obviously concerned about the implications or unknowns. It's as if they all just got up and thought "Hey, that guy's ageing backwards -- that sucks" and then went on with their lives without wondering about it in any detail.
There's very little exploration about what lengths someone might need to go to to fit into society without such a problem actually being noticed, such as getting a passport or any other kind of public record, escaping being drafted for Vietnam (for which he must have been a prime candidate), or just living below the radar of those who might want to learn more about his condition. The closest the story comes to investigating implications is with a brief sub-plot about (not) raising a family, which is a shallow addendum stapled to the end.
A vague effort is made to connect Benjamin's life to the life of a clock in a railway station that was built by its depressed maker to run backwards, but for me it didn't work at all. A short story about the creation of the clock is given at the start, an announcement that the clock has been dismantled is made at the end, but throughout the whole movie -- including at Benjamin's birth and death -- no plausible reason is given to believe that there's any connection between the clock and his life. Did the producers just throw this bit into the script at the last minute because they thought it'd seem cool? It felt superfluous to the film and I thought it should have been either cut, or properly intertwined with the rest of the story so it would actually be meaningful.