TV Shows/Movie - Reviews
FILM REVIEW THE TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7 (2020)
 |
The Trial of the Chicago 7
Image Source NETFLIX
BACKGROUND
A Netflix Film (October 2020) is based on true events, when ringleaders from different strands of activist activity, namely: anti-war; anti-authority; revolutionary, were put on trial in regard to events surrounding violent clashes between protestors and police at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Illinois (1968).
Director: Aaron Sorkin
Writer: Aaron Sorkin (screenplay)
Category: Drama, History,
OVERVIEW
At the Democratic Party Convention (Chicago 1968) protestors came together on the day, ranging from a student society demonstrating their support for a democratic society; to those being more anti-authoritarian and more militant in their approaches. Though the demonstration was pre-planned and peaceful; it, somehow, ended up in violent confrontation with the local authorities.
This is the story about the trial of seven ringleaders and which included, Bobby Seale of the Black Panthers (though Seale was not actually involved in the incident on the day). In court, Seale was not properly represented, legally. Astonishingly, this Chicago conspiracy trial turned out to be unfair in more ways than one.
Headed by a dubious Judge, who demonstrated himself to be an untiring advocate for all that was wrong with America at the time. One who airily dismissed proposals out of hand, and when it suited him refused to adhere to courtroom protocol. The prosecution were hot on tarnishing certain ideologies and revealing chinks in what divided the seven. Therefore, to get anywhere the defense lawyer had to work at convincing the defendants to settle their differences, because there was no chance, otherwise, to stand up to the corrupt happenings and to digest the shocking realisation as to what was actually unfolding during the trial.
Comment
This is an extremely watchable courtroom, period drama with a jaw dropping back story attached.
A stonkingly good cast. Wonderful character actors are: John Carroll Lynch, Joseph Gordon Levitt and Michael Keaton.
Splendid is Mark Rylance once again. In this, he plays defense lawyer, William Kunstler. See Rylance's acting brain going Tick. Tick. Tick., showing his character coming to terms and staying ahead of the rising challenges and irritations which materialised during the court proceedings. Rylance can do no wrong in reviewer's mind.
Eddie Redmayne is Tom Hayden and he reveals, very well, a person at odds with himself. What is more important? The public persona? Or his compassion for people and social justice? Through Redmayne's performance we come to understand the man.
We see a lively and a lesson in characterisation worn lightly once again by Sacha Baron Cohen (Abbie Hoffman), his is a great pairing with the eccentric and day dreaming, Jerry Ruben played by actor, Jeremy Strong.
Reviewer could go on singing everyone's praises. No negatives, this Aaron Sorkin's film is just brilliant!
**ENDS**
Review by critic Debra Hall (UK)
BACKGROUND
A Netflix Film (October 2020) is based on true events, when ringleaders from different strands of activist activity, namely: anti-war; anti-authority; revolutionary, were put on trial in regard to events surrounding violent clashes between protestors and police at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Illinois (1968).
Director: Aaron Sorkin
Writer: Aaron Sorkin (screenplay)
Category: Drama, History,
OVERVIEW
At the Democratic Party Convention (Chicago 1968) protestors came together on the day, ranging from a student society demonstrating their support for a democratic society; to those being more anti-authoritarian and more militant in their approaches. Though the demonstration was pre-planned and peaceful; it, somehow, ended up in violent confrontation with the local authorities.
This is the story about the trial of seven ringleaders and which included, Bobby Seale of the Black Panthers (though Seale was not actually involved in the incident on the day). In court, Seale was not properly represented, legally. Astonishingly, this Chicago conspiracy trial turned out to be unfair in more ways than one.
Headed by a dubious Judge, who demonstrated himself to be an untiring advocate for all that was wrong with America at the time. One who airily dismissed proposals out of hand, and when it suited him refused to adhere to courtroom protocol. The prosecution were hot on tarnishing certain ideologies and revealing chinks in what divided the seven. Therefore, to get anywhere the defense lawyer had to work at convincing the defendants to settle their differences, because there was no chance, otherwise, to stand up to the corrupt happenings and to digest the shocking realisation as to what was actually unfolding during the trial.
Comment
This is an extremely watchable courtroom, period drama with a jaw dropping back story attached.
A stonkingly good cast. Wonderful character actors are: John Carroll Lynch, Joseph Gordon Levitt and Michael Keaton.
Splendid is Mark Rylance once again. In this, he plays defense lawyer, William Kunstler. See Rylance's acting brain going Tick. Tick. Tick., showing his character coming to terms and staying ahead of the rising challenges and irritations which materialised during the court proceedings. Rylance can do no wrong in reviewer's mind.
Eddie Redmayne is Tom Hayden and he reveals, very well, a person at odds with himself. What is more important? The public persona? Or his compassion for people and social justice? Through Redmayne's performance we come to understand the man.
We see a lively and a lesson in characterisation worn lightly once again by Sacha Baron Cohen (Abbie Hoffman), his is a great pairing with the eccentric and day dreaming, Jerry Ruben played by actor, Jeremy Strong.
Reviewer could go on singing everyone's praises. No negatives, this Aaron Sorkin's film is just brilliant!
**ENDS**
Review by critic Debra Hall (UK)
CRITICAL REVIEW ENOLA HOLMES (NETFLIX FILM 2020)
 |
| Enola Holmes (Netflix Autumn 2020) Reviewed by Debra Hall |
CRITICAL REVIEW - Enola Holmes 2020
BACKGROUND
A Netflix film (September 2020) based on the novel of the same name by Amercian author, Nancy Springer.
PG-13 Adventure - Mystery - Drama - Crime
OVERVIEW
The free-spirited Enola (Millie Bobby Brown), fierce and fiesty, raised lovingly and directly by her mother (Helena Bonham Carter), is hurt and disappointed when she awakes on the morning of her 16th birthday to find her mother missing. Enola is left hidden clues for her to work out as to why she left and where to find her. However, there's a further problem, as big brothers Mycroft and Sherlock (played by Sam Claflin and Henry Cavill respectively) are making plans for a future she does not envisage for herself.
Enola takes off to search for her mother in London. On the train, a young man is hiding. Turns out he's Lord Tewkesbury (Louis Partridge) and he is running for his life as his chaser is trying to kill him. Their lives become entangled from that moment and like her famous brother, Enola shows herself to be a super-sleuth in solving the clues, unravelling the mystery around her mother, and exposing an aristocratic family conspiracy along the way. Using disguise, a determined mind, and methods of self-defence that her mother had taught her.
Comment
Despite this being a film that has attracted a strong cast, whose makers have been given a fictional plot with a clear hand, and have a talented creative team to boot; the result could have been much better as this is pretty dreary viewing.
Admittedly, told in eye-catchingly, vivid ways, the story is whisked through at break neck speed with lots of weak dialogue and special effects. The fight scenes are 'interesting'; there are a couple dramatic scenes where it gains a few brownie points. Reviewer feels it would work better as a TV series, with a different cast, in order to gain gravitas and insightfulness within the storylines. Lots of energy but disappointing overall.
**ENDS**
Review by critic Debra Hall (UK)
REVIEW - US (A BBC1 TV SHOW)
BACKGROUND
Four episodes from 20 September 2020.
Screenwriter is David Nicholls, the author of the best selling novel 'Us' (2014).
A Drama/Relationships/Romance category.
OVERVIEW
Douglas's life is about to take an unexpected turn after his wife, Connie reveals her wish to separate.
Middle-aged now, though Douglas had always demonstrated narcissistic tendencies, and Connie had loved and admired his scientific mind and his obssession for facts in the early years, but in the process of raising their son (Albie), Connie had become exasperated by Douglas's failings to emotionally connect. She still loved Douglas, but as far as him being a rest-of-her-life partner she'd reached a point of no return in that regard.
Despite all of this the trio of Peterson's decided to go ahead with a pre-booked, summer European tour, before Albie's impending departure from the family home to study art. Douglas is deeply hurt and hopes to pull things round, Connie suggests that they see how it goes.
The present day happenings switch back and forth to Douglas's memories of his and Connie's shared past. His mind wanders to their first meeting at a dinner and Connie is there with her bohemian friends. Douglas is unimpressed; his nerdy ways surfacing. He hadn't really seen it before, but he is realising that Connie's love for him was a case of 'opposites attract' in the early days. More flashbacks from Douglas's first person narrative reveal their young life as lovers; Connie's tender wedding day speech, and a first pregnancy.
Also revealed is the two, struck down by grief after the tragic loss of Jane, a baby daughter. Connie loses her sense of self and Douglas is supportive but completely broken inside. After the birth of Albie, the bond between mother and son is impenetrable, whereas Douglas sits on the outside incapable of showing any interest in Albie, or possessing any desire to encourage his son as he grows up.
Chronologically, back to the present day story telling and a gathering storm is brewing, and sure enough, in a cafe some guys are disrespectful to Albie's vivacious busker girlfriend (who had followed him to Amsterdam). Albie's temper immediately flashes and he reacts, but Douglas diffuses the situation simply by apologising for Albie's 'stupidy'. This public humiliation by his father is the last straw for Albie and he takes off leaving the parents a letter expressing his sad disappointment. Connie and Douglas are resigned to cutting short the trip. At the last minute, however, Douglas sees a way to right his wrongs and to bring the family together. He's going to carry on with the tour hoping to intercept Albie. In the meantime Connie returns home. They'll stay in touch by phone.
Prior to father and son reconciling in Barcelona, Douglas has the odd adventure/misadventure. He's makes a new female aquaintance, has a chance meeting which turns out to be crucial, and a run-in with the law. After catching up with Albie, saying sorry, and moving on together to a final destination, Douglas has a massive health scare! All of which leaves Douglas deeply reflective and enables a slow coming to terms with his new reality.
On their return home, Douglas and Connie are seeing Albie off to college at the train station. Back in their marital home and there's no regrets for what has been. They take to bed to be intimate one last time. Afterwhich, the days that follow the couple sift through their possessions, they box up the past and go their separate ways.
Comment
The structure of this is a double movement. Away from the couple's first encounter and their demonstrative affection for one another in their younger days, there's a sad irony hanging over the whole thing that this relationship (once Albie has left for college) is doomed. Connie does not want to live the rest of her life with Douglas anymore. She makes it clear from the start.
We are wondering what impact the twists in Douglas's behaviour, good and bad, are having on Connie and Albie throughout this watch. Douglas's intentions for the best part are good and there's a hope that all is well at the end.
However, as far as Connie goes there's too much water under the bridge and her mind is made up. A reminder that this is a work of fiction, because, surely, such amicable parting of the ways could not be acheived in real life! What we really see is some deeply touching father and son tenderness. It's a tear jerker for sure.
Tom Hollander is tops for portraying flawed characters, like Douglas, who have their heart in the right place. Hollander's performance is a balance of the dramatic with the comedic in equal measures. Once again, the acting versatility of Saskia Reeves (Connie) is apparent, and Tom Taylor is a strikingly good, Albie.
Nicholls includes many places of interest during his three character's whirlwind tour of European cities. He also tells a heartwarming story very well. Cleverly, as his characters experience things, the viewer engages empathically and nostalgically too. He exposes a witty inner dialogue, which is very entertaining. Hollander and the director, Geoffrey Sax have not missed a trick to bring Nicholl's fine blend of storytelling to the fore.
**ENDS**
Review by critic, Debra Hall
 |
| I'm Thinking of Ending Things A Netflix Feature (2020) |
BACKGROUND
A Netflix feature September 2020.
A film adaptation of Canadian writer, Iain Reid's debut novel of the same title (2016), by its director Charlie Kaufman.
An American Psychological Thriller under the Horror/Drama category.
OVERVIEW
The off kilter relationship between a 'young woman', Lucy, (Jesse Buckley) and her boyfriend, Jake (Jesse Plemons) is revealed through the former's narration.
The two are strangely melancholy together. Lucy (whose name/face changes at odd times) have arranged to go meet Jake's parents, so they take a long car journey for the purpose of doing so. This provides, for the delivery of the main plot, the opportunity to contrast their personalities. It is not obvious as it happens and dialogue seems slow and repetitive, but these early scenes reveal what is essential to know.
As the narrator, Lucy's private thoughts are also heard, where the blandness of Jake is overidden by his enthusiasm for Lucy's talent as a student, an artist and a poet. He acknowledges a good few times too, her back story, her early life on the farm, etc., With the wintry road ahead, the conversation in the car intentionally reveals much more about the woman than it ever does the man.
A changing emphasis takes the viewer away from the two travelling in the car at times, to a grey haired man, who appears to leave a weird, stuck-in-the-mid-century home, to go to work. When scenes continually return to this aging man, they show him working as a school janitor. In his quiet times he is observing the young students and we sense his invisibility while amongst them. When he watches a musical theatre performance; he cuts a lonely figure.
Things get way weirder once the couple arrive at the parents' house. The dark patch on the ground; the behaviour of the dog; the slow reception of the visitors by the parents; the scratches on the door. The tenseness during the meal; the shameful glances; the put downs, and the inappropriate things said. And throughout, Lucy receives calls to her mobile phone which displays the names of girlfriends ringing, but when she answers there's a male voice repeating messages; these she awkwardly dismisses.
After dinner, more dreamlike, unexplainable, things happen. A family photograph of young, Jake, is actually one of Lucy as a child when you look close. Paintings in the basement in Lucy's artistic style bear Jake's signature...and other strange things occur.
The most bizarre moments are when the parents' house becomes a time warp, with Jake's Mom and Dad appearing at different stages in their life while interacting with their two present day visitors.
Lucy appears nothing more than a little confused at any one time; and just keeps insisting that she must get back home because of the worsening weather. Jake reassures her that they can do that safely enough in the heavy snow because he "has the chains", apart from that he is the same old empty shell throughout.
The drive home involves an unlikely stop off at a 1950's icecream palour, followed by a drive into the school grounds for Jake to dispose the litter. When he returns to the car he suddenly sees an old man's face at the window snooping, so he jumps out in pursuit. Lucy follows shortly after and she meets the janitor in the corridor; she asks if he has seen Jake. The Janitor is reassuring saying that Jake is fine; all is fine in a kindly way. They share a tender moment and a sad goodbye for two people who have only just met. This is the final confirmation that Jake and the Janitor are linked, and Lucy too.
The performance between two young dancers within the school walls represents Jake and Lucy (as deeply intense lovers). A romantically imagined version of the two is unleashed in a beautiful, artistic ballet. However, like many dramatic tragedies the romance is cut dead, in this case it is when the Janitor himself intervenes in a choreographed fight, and at the end the dance is over and the tragedy is apparent.
The final scenes are explained below.
Comment
Wha-Hay this is one mystery to suss! Things have a surprise effect on the viewer. Not an edge-of the-seat-kind of ride, nevertheless, this is unsettling to watch and completely baffling. A style the reviewer prefers rather than horror for the sake of it and so she willingly stayed watching the movie to the end. When the end came, the reviewer was not immediately enlightened, and to make sense of it involved some deliberation and source researching after watching. Many will not give it such time because this is a slow paced film. Nonetheless, they should as this is super clever with some inventive creativity to be admired.
To further overview and to conclude, it is important to consider the penultimate scene involving the Janitor and The Pig. This is an indication that the pig story, which the viewer heard earlier from Jake, actually formed part of the Janitor's own history. Therefore, Jake never existed.
In fact, the whole story we come to understand better when we learn it is fabricated from elements of the old man's past and his imagination. Lucy too, being an imagined love for this man is based on a young woman whom he only met briefly in his youth.
Confirmation then, that all the chaotic, nonsensical happenings is a result of a doubling, and in this case a tripling of characters.
The final scene - and we see Jake as an elderly man receiving the Nobel Prize, and Lucy, (and others), proudly clapping in the audience. The reviewer concludes as being another example of the Janitor always being looked upon as doing unskilled work and invisible in his workplace. Feeling regretful of never making any great ripples in life. So through his imaginary Jake it is he (the Janitor) receiving a dream accolade.
The story reveals that the Janitor had a lifelong appreciation for many things that did not come his way. A deep thinking individual on the inside, who, perhaps did not possess many natural skills, or had little or no faith in his own abilties. His dreams were dashed somewhat by those less educated around him growing up, and little opportunity to make good. Therefore, he was left leading a mundane life, unloved, and mourning a lost youth. This he supplemented by the imaginary twosome he created in his mind. Or is this a further twist? Discuss.
This exploration shows you how to structure a story that will completely baffle by design. Therefore, this is one to appreciate, it is completely memorable and for the right reasons. If it isn't, then it should be. If the viewer comes from a cold call starting point reading reviews like this one, as a preview, will help fill the gaps.
Wonderfully and perfectly cast.
**ENDS**
Review by critic Debra Hall (UK)
CRITICAL REVIEW – Mrs America (mini-series)
Image source BBC Two Mrs America
BACKGROUND
Created and written by Dahvi Waller, this historical drama is a big
production.
FX on Hulu label
Aired United Kingdom BBC Two - summer 2020
OVERVIEW
Based on the fights and fallouts of America’s mid-20th century sex and equality
war.
Conservative activist and lawyer, Phyllis Schlafly was a strong advocate
against equal rights for women and campaigned against the Equal Rights
Amendment (ERA) and helped reshape American politics in doing so. She battled
against the second wave of the feminist movement which was gaining momentum
during the 1970s. The spark for this occurrence was the publication of Betty
Friedan’s book “The Feminine Mystique” (1963). Friedan had been writing
and speaking, effectively, in support of feminism for many years, but she was
knocked back when she poorly debated with Schlafly publicly. After which
journalist and activist, Gloria Steinem took up the mantle, leading the
movement on the campaign’s trails alongside Friedan, lawyer, Bella Abzug and
American politician, Shirley Chisholm. This is their story (and of others
associated with it) throughout the decade.
A strong cast headed by Cate Blanchett (Phyllis Schlafly), Rose Byrne (Gloria
Steinem) and Tracey Ullman (Betty Friedan)
Series 1 (9 Episodes): with each episode running chronologically detailing the
unfolding of events yet focusing on different people and place and their story
fits within the timeline:
Phyllis, Gloria, Shirley, Betty, Phyllis & Fred & Brenda &Marc, Jill,
Bella, Houston, ending with Episode 9 - Reagan which focuses on the Republican
election win (1980) and how this particular collective battle within the bigger
story came to an end.
Includes real film footage and an original soundtrack.
COMMENT
This
show is a real education and sharply focuses on the period and on the subject
it explores. It tells, intimately, a story of the women on both sides of the
argument who were constantly trying to deflate each other’s sails. Words that
embody the topics are: hope, optimism, scrutiny, criticism, rivalry and
resistance.
There is a special kind of irresistibility attached to this production which
commands attention, though the exploration of the argument may internalise
things for the viewer and one may find the mind wandering at times. This is not
a negative observation, just a sign of what brilliant writing can do!
All of the exceptional cast portray the ups and downs of the real-life
individuals to a tee, and provides portrayals that are hugely notable and
memorable.
The period costume, hair and make-up (wardrobe) and set designs, twinned with
the film edits, the split-screen techniques are great creative additions.
Lastly, but by no means least, the original soundtrack with song selections
from an array of music genres makes one sit up and pay attention… while foot
tapping at the same time.
What a time it was!
**ENDS**
Review
by critic Debra Hall (UK)
 |
| I Know This Much Is True (mini-series) Sky Atlantic - spring 2020 |
BACKGROUND
Based on author Wally Lamb’s bestselling novel
The main plot tracks the life of Dominick Birdsey and his intense, entangled, relationship with twin, Thomas; a paranoid schizophrenic. Revealing the boys’ early childhood where family secrets and disfunction ruled the day, Dominick’s sad and angry past merges into present day troubles in the form of flashbacks as he struggles to cope.
Actors Mark Ruffalo and Philip Ettinger play double roles. Each portray the twins Dominick and Thomas, with Ettinger playing younger versions of the Birdsey brothers.
The title suggests that this is a story which is just as much about lies as it is about truth and the reviewer has had a theory from the off about the 'family secret'.
Therefore, so far, we have seen Dominick supporting his dying mother and eventually losing her, and she, taking with her to the grave, the identity of his and Thomas’s father. Ironically, the twin’s antagonistic stepfather, Ray (John Procaccino) remains living in Dominick’s ancestral home after her death.
Through Dominick’s memories we see Thomas transfer, in fragmentary moments, from being a socially difficult youngster, to a man who has severed his own hand in a public library declaring it as an act of political protest and purification. This manic episode results in Thomas being taken back into a care system which Dominick is fiercely against; he anticipates disaster for his brother's future.
Dominick is presented as the centrepin of the family and he displays such admirable intention to shoulder the burden of all the negativity that surrounds him. However, as the story unfolds, we learn that in an effort to balance the demands from his first family, with a new family (in the form of Dessa (Kathryn Hahn) and their tragic new born) that Dominick’s inner dialogue begins to reveal a gradual unravelling especially as he tries to cut ties with Thomas. Later on he feels shameful about this.
This not a joyous tale, but blood is thicker than water as the saying goes. in Ep 4., and concentrating on the present Dominick finds himself needing support, he’s hospitalised and traumatised. His relationship with girlfriend, Joy (Imogen Poots) is diminishing, and though he finds social worker, Lisa Sheffer (Rosie O’Donnell) fighting his corner his inability to be there for Thomas is causing him much angst.
Derek Cianfrance’s direction is a marvel, with the main plot storytelling darting back and forth yet coinciding with the sub-plots involving different time frames it is remarkable what he has achieved. Mostly, of course, it is demonstrating an ability to uphold the heart of the storytelling while allowing everything about this tale (grim and joyless as it is turning out to be), to continually make perfect sense on every kind of level. Artistically there’s much to be admired.
Reviewer wishes she saw other directors taking a leaf out of Cianfrance’s book, though feels that, he too, has fallen into the trap of having to stretch out scenes in order to fit the six-episode format.
While Ettinger’s performance as the young twins is worldly and quite beautiful, Ruffalo, on the other hand, takes his art to another level, his emotional intelligence is incredible, the pain and emotion in the acting and the camera close ups (of which there are many) is fascinating and captivating.
The successful casting is the main triumph here and probably gives this film series more credence than it may have otherwise accomplished.
Reviewer understands that the scenes in which Ruffalo plays Dominick were filmed at a separate time from when playing Thomas, allowing Ruffalo to gain weight so his physical appearance allowed him to clearly differentiate better his portrayal of twins with very different personalities, with the help of wardrobe changes this is achieved.
Recommended.
**ENDS**
Review by critic Debra Hall (UK)
Originally a graphic novel series Le Transperceneige by Jacques Lob and Jean-Marc Rochette; published by Casterman, the Snowpiercer story ended up catching the imagination of film director Bong Joon-ho and in his hands the Science Fiction & Fantasy movie ‘Snowpiercer’ came to be; released 2014 (Radius-TWC).
The Netflix TV series ‘Snowpiercer’, originally a TNT drama is screening this spring 2020.
Episode 1: written by Josh Friedman and Graeme Manson shows from late May and stars: Jennifer Connelly (A Beautiful Mind, Winter’s Tale, Noah) Daveed Diggs (Disney) Alison Wright (The Accountant) Katie McGuiness (The Man Who Invented Christmas), and Jaylin Fletcher
OVERVIEW
A post-apocalyptic, dystopian story which falls under the Science Fiction/Fantasy category.
Set in the near future. After a man-made disaster, Earth has frozen over and surviving humans are living on the Snowpiercer; a massively long train with 1001 carriages, which is forever on the move. While the outside world remains encased in ice there is a constant struggle for the people on the train to coexist in an unnatural, socially imbalanced setting.
REVIEW: EPISODE ONE (note: contains spoilers)
Animation can sometimes tell a better story, and the animated introduction explains the catastrophic occurrences that led to people having to take to the Snowpiercer for refuge from Earth’s new Ice Age very well.
This is a great, high art addition to a thriller story that, otherwise, appears to lack artistic flair in some areas. Hoping, as the episodes roll out, that cast members be seen to ‘get on track’ with their characterisations, otherwise this is going to be an expensive, non-success.
In this episode we see the people at the rear lead a miserable existence living in poverty and darkness under guard control. There are the hard men, there are those wise types who offer the voice of reason; the women and children are gutsy yet compromised; there are no babies being born. Nevertheless, there is a strong will to survive and a plan to rise up.
Elsewhere on the train (away from the suppressed people) a grizzly crime has been committed. A request comes through for ex-detective, Layton to be removed from the poor surroundings to help solve it, so he is taken away from his girlfriend and his young dependent, Miles.
At this point viewers will welcome the change of scene from black and grey hues; depicting the underbelly rough, the rat breeding and the sweat streaked, dirty faces, and welcome it when the direction suddenly allows colour to flood through open train ‘compartments’ that are devoted to growing garden produce in temperature-controlled environments and where bright, sunlight filters through the glass.
An aquarium and other top facilities are also revealed, with light reflecting in the clean water.
Crisp, uniform clad children, who reside with their families in these areas are schooled and entertained. Miles can only dream of such an existence.
These middle to upper class sections of the train are where the rich and the privileged enjoy fine foods and luxuries and are a stark contrast to the tail end environment on the train.
Therefore, the scene is set. Though one scene in which Layton drinks soup from a bowl and tucks into fresh bread takes a dramatic turn when the body pieces of the murder victim are shown to him.
Daveed Diggs is the camera hogger, yet does not prove to be convincing in the role as leader during this first look episode. Jennifer Connelly is a close runner-up when she delivers those far-away, razor eyed looks to the middle distance for reasons we’ve yet to discover. Let’s hope we do.
Nearing the end, and on return to the dreary setting, a suicide has taken place. Later in this episode there is a violent clash between the ‘inmates’ and the guards and a brutal fight scene ensues, which indicates that violence is going to be a big feature throughout this series. Some viewers will find the ‘GoT’ style throat slashing and the limb-from-limb tearing disturbing; others mildly challenging perhaps, others may find this interesting/entertaining to watch.
Think ‘The Hunger Games’ meets ‘Westworld’ meets ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ and you have that initial handle on the themes.
.jpeg)
Comments
Post a Comment
POST your comment here: