Tag Archives: 2007

Movies or shows released in 2007.

TV Show Reviews

24 Review (Season Six) – Jumping Over Several Sharks

1 Comment
Advertisements

When I said in my review for season five (here) that the end of the season is where the decline starts, I wasn’t kidding. Look, I won’t say season six is bad; it’s not. It’s just more ludicrous than ever; the threats feel more manufactured than ever, and most of all, this is why I mentioned TV tropes. There are a few that can tell you whether your show might have run its course when you manufacture tension by introducing family members that we haven’t even heard of, let alone seen, over the past five seasons! As with my previous review, I have to go into spoilers from the very beginning to discuss this season in any meaningful way, so…

Beware, SPOILERS are coming!

Remember the main bad guy behind president Logan from the last season? The writers felt it wasn’t enough for him to come back or that the company obviously had a much greater role in everything no. They made him into Jack’s brother. Can I ask, would it be less impactful to have him back without that? Couldn’t we simply have this company (if that is the route we are going down) that’s influencing everything and has influential people on the board without them having a family connection to Jack Bauer? And if the fact his brother was behind that wasn’t enough for you, do I have another family member for you?! James Cromwell, who is always a great addition to anything, portrays Jack’s dad. And, of course, he is also involved because fuck everything. But what makes these “additions” even more worthless is neither of them survives this season. I could see these choices make some sense if at least one survives and becomes “the big bad” for the rest of the show or at least one more season. But nah, both die this season, making them part of Jack’s family absolutely pointless, and that family tie has no compelling impact on this season or the show overall. And this is what makes this “Oh no, a few of the bad guys are part of Jack’s family!” move so cheap and ultimately meaningless. There is some shock value (but most of the shock stems from him never referencing either in the show), but that is it. No “repercussions” and no emotional damage for Jack because he’s already broken from the Chinese prison…

That is something that I wish we would have explored more, Jack’s mental state. This season is his first one where he doesn’t want to be involved and even says he can’t do this anymore. But we only see that for not even two episodes, and then, back to the action! And I understand it’s his show he “needs to” be the guy who kicks all the terrorists’ butts and all, but… They had a chance to do something interesting here, especially after Jack kills Curtis (a great performance by Roger Cross); I wish we switched to somebody else taking the reigns for a bit, and we would see Jack struggling with everything. But no, we can’t have our American hero suffer too much and kick fewer butts, so of course, his patriotism prevails, somehow, and he is back at it, what feels like in no time.

What I thought was handled well and added some realism to this season was Morris’ storyline (portrayed by Carlo Rota), whose character I liked in the previous season and grew to love in this one. I think the point of his character was to show us somebody more like “us”, the “normal” viewer. Sure, Morris is a CTU agent, but he isn’t indestructible or unbreakable like Jack, and his arc of him helping the terrorists (well, being tortured to help them) and having that cloud over his head for the rest of this season was haunting. The same went for the racial profiling of all Muslims, including the CTU agents; the show touched on something that is still more than relevant today. And this might be as good a time as any to go over one of the main criticism I keep reading about when discussing 24.

One of the main complaints I have seen in a few tidbits on the Internet is that this show is heavily conservative with its views and politics (that is true) and is anti-Muslim. And I don’t think that’s necessarily true. In the second season (my review here), which was the season right after 9/11 happened, the show showed some anti-Muslim rhetoric. But here is where people didn’t watch that season thoroughly, as in that season, the vigilantes who hunted down and killed an innocent Muslim were the wrong ones; the show even condemned them. A fun fact, the main racist vigilante is played by young Nick Offerman. And the same applies here in this season; throughout it, all the profiling policies and tendencies come from people who are either revealed behind everything or proven wrong at the end. There is a difference between showcasing racial profiling and condoning it, and I never thought the show even hinted at any of these things as being “the correct things to do”. At the time of writing this, I have, yet again, future knowledge of what’s ahead of me (as I just started season eight) and that supports my view even firmer as the terrorists in that season want to pin down everything on Muslims. Again, 24 isn’t a perfect show by any means, I think the main criticism should be justifying torture as a valid interrogation method, but regarding any racial profiling, I think they have (at least from what I saw) always landed on the right side and never tried to justify it.

Back to this season, another thing I didn’t care about was the White House scenes. Because yet again, we have a traitor there, and we have a very random president (I like D.B. Woodside as much as the next guy, but the show’s justification of “Well, his dead brother was popular.” didn’t ring true). And since he also goes away quickly, his character leaves no impact. And talk about random, did you know Palmers had a sister? And as much as I love seeing Regina King in anything, I wish she would have played a character that mattered, not this disposable “Hey, I am president’s sister.” character that, yet again, has little impact on this season except for getting him out of his coma. And it pains to write about both of these actors that they were disposable, but I didn’t write this season. The writers made them into paper-thin characters whose entire purpose was to move some plot points further and disappear when their role was done, with no explanation. We don’t know what happens to him after this season. Did he die in the coma, or did he recover? “Fuck you for even asking”, the show says. And the same with Regina’s character, who just disappears.

And that was my ultimate problem with season six. The action is still great, and there are some tense moments, but if a bunch of your characters are paper-thin, disposable pieces of nothing, the stakes feel much lower, which is a shame, given this show could have been amazing. Also, if you are watching this show for the first time, make sure to watch 24: Redemption (2008) right after the end of season six because that is a prequel to season seven. That was something I didn’t know, and nobody pointed it out, so I will watch it retrospectively to see what I missed. But this also goes to show how there are some fans of this show but not enough to point these things out to new watchers like me. When I watched Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1997 – 2003) a few years ago for the first time, I knew of the watching order from the fanbase. If you don’t know, when Angel (1999 – 2004) got his show, the episodes would often overlap or reference each other, sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly. So people created a timeline; on how to watch them both back to back for the best viewing experience. Same with Star Wars: The Clone Wars (2008 – 2020, my review here), since the show is an anthology, there is a list (here) for watching the entire show in chronological order if you want to, and again, I have learned about it from the fans. But nothing like this for 24, proving my point that this show has been forgotten about. And it’s mainly due to things that happen over this season, where they jump several metaphorical sharks at once; whilst having characters that don’t matter.

Overall, the sixth season of 24 was a messy frustration mixed with occasional glimpses of great stuff. The action sequences are still mostly fine, and some plotlines were superb, but mostly, this season dampens the legacy this show could have had. It’s still an ok watch, but you might roll your eyes more than once. 24 might inadvertently be the best example of why streaming, despite its flaws, is the superior way to produce new shows and how it makes sense to tell the story you have in mind, not task yourself year by year to come up with more insane things for Jack Bauer to go up against.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5.

That’s all for this one! Did you see it? What did you think about it? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke

Movie Reviews

Michael Clayton (2007) Review – How Much is Your Life Worth?

Leave a comment
Advertisements

To write Michael Clayton is a packed film would be an understatement. This movie is complex in all its facets, from the chilling story to the movie’s characters that are anything but black and white. In fact, the film is so packed that I don’t think you can fully appreciate it on your first viewing. Sure, the main story isn’t “complicated”, so you won’t get lost and will understand everything perfectly fine on your first viewing, but there are many details throughout the film that I would imagine reward repeating viewings.

Michael Clayton was a directing debut for Tony Gilroy. If you aren’t familiar with him, he made his name as a screenwriter; and he was one of the main screenwriters behind all the Bourne movies, which immediately gives him a pretty good credit. And you can tell he also wrote this film too because it feels a bit “Bourneian”. The sense of paranoia, where you never know what will happen next, all the characters are scheming to get what they need… Michael Clayton might be one of the last truly great corporate thrillers, where you are in for a ride and entertained for the entire time. That is my first compliment; I have never “felt” the runtime. This film is 119 minutes, but in the end, I felt like spending more time in this world which is always a good sign.

Another thing this movie has going for it is the casting. No wonder George Clooney was nominated for an Oscar for this role as he not only nailed, he lived it. He became Michael Clayton, the man you don’t kill but buy. Sure, this is the most famous scene/moment from this film (and rightly so, it is an excellent finale), but even throughout the movie, Clooney managed to be charismatic but in a different way. Let me explain – George has always been one of those actors who is a “walking charisma”. It’s hard to hate him, and he uses that charisma in most of his films hence why he gets roles that are quite similar. But, in Michael Clayton, he has managed to switch to a different “charisma mode” somehow and carried himself differently. And that’s a sign of a great actor, especially somebody on his level of “fame” – you never forget it’s George, but at the same time, this seems like the least “Clooney” we’ve gotten from him. I hope this makes sense.

What I also need to talk about is Tom Wilkinson. Talk about nailing a role; Tom chewed up every scene he was in. What I loved about his performance was how it wasn’t one note. We are introduced to him as he is “going crazy” in one important meeting, and then we get some other scenes with him where he feels unhinged. And yet, after his encounter with George on the street, where he has to convince us he isn’t crazy, he nails it. That scene alone was worth the nomination, how he managed to subtly “flip the switch” and prove to us and George’s character that there might be something more sinister going on.

And this is where we are delving into the story. It would be so easy for this film to turn “preachy” as the movie’s message could be distilled into “corporations bad”. But as with every oversimplification, you will lose all the nuances, as Michael Clayton is the perfect example of how to make a movie about “corporations bad” and succeed. The trick is “simple” – there are no heroes. There are just people. And as cheesy as this might sound, nobody is purely good or evil, and this film understands that. Before we move and discuss these complex characters, I can’t skip past a trivia I have learned about what the inspiration for this film was because holy fucking shit. I will let it speak for itself.

In a November 2020 interview, Clooney stated that the case in the film, while about a completely different industry, was based on the Ford Pinto case, where it wasn’t that Ford had a car that was unsafe, but that an internal memo showed that they had calculated the cost of recall versus the individual suits from people being killed in the car, and determined it was cheaper to pay off claims and not do the recall.

Source: IMDb.com

That is why I have titled my review the way I had. It is not “news” to me, I have read many studies and news over the years about businesses or insurance companies calculating these morbid questions, but it hits differently when you see a news like this.

Back to the film, the complexity of our characters is the biggest reason for this film’s success. When I wrote, “there are no heroes”, I meant it. I always enjoy it when movies portray people the way people are – because nobody is a monolith. Nobody is 100% good or 100% evil. And every single character in this film proves it. Tom Wilkinson’s character was defending corporations like this and made his living out of it. And yet, he is this film’s whistleblower. Clooney is fighting for what is “right”, but his character also makes some questionable decisions. Even the already quoted finale: “I’m not the guy you kill. I’m the guy you buy!” showcases that had the company not tried to kill him, he would have been willing to look the other way. And even the main “villain” of this film, Tilda Swinton, is a complex character because everything she does is evil. Yet, we see her “in-between” her evil decisions, where she is just this nervous woman; who is “just trying to do her job”. It would be easy for her character to be this confidently evil person, but this film understands people are more complex than “he’s good, she’s bad” and vice versa.

The only reason I am not giving this film the highest rating is a feeling I had right after the ending. When the movie ended, I knew I enjoyed myself; I knew why I enjoyed it, but there was something holding me back from fully “adoring” this film. I am 99% sure that something will disappear on repeat viewings because I have to repeat myself; Michael Clayton will 100% reward multiple viewings. And I fully expect to bump my rating higher when I see this film again, but at this moment, there is some part of me stopping me from the ultimate rating.

Overall, Michael Clayton is a chilling film with amazing performances, a top-tier screenplay and a story that won’t get old, unfortunately. It is a clever film about people and corporations that doesn’t try to tell you what to think. The film would rather show you all the characters for themselves, leaving nothing unanswered, and it leaves it up to you to decide what you think of everything; more importantly, it might prompt you to put yourself in this film’s scenario. Which side would you be on, and are you sure about your answer? Michael Clayton might also be my favourite Clooney performance. I can’t wait to rewatch it already.

Rating: 4.5 out of 5.

That’s all for this one! Did you see it? What did you think about it? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke

Movie Reviews

Death at a Funeral (2007) Review – Gets Funnier Every Time You Watch It

Leave a comment
Advertisements

This movie is the perfect example of the fact, that absolute statements make no sense, as we change over time, alongside our opinions. I remember watching Death at a Funeral around the time it came out and I thought it was a decent comedy, but nothing to rave about. Then, I have seen it again, couple of years later, and I liked it a bit more. And upon my recent re-watch, introducing this hidden gem to my girlfriend, I laughed hard alongside her, wondering why did I ever doubt this movie’s brilliance.

One has to wonder, why is that? Well, the most obvious answer to that would be my age, as when I watched this movie for the first time, I was around 16/17 years old. And without sounding too snobbish by any means, but for some movies, you really need to experience the world, meet different people, grow up a bit, to fully appreciate them and this film is definitely one of them. I remember not being able to to fully resonate/get into either of these characters, maybe with an exception of chaotic force of nature Kris Marshall, as I have always liked him from the britcom My Family (2000 – 2011). And with any additional re-watch, I understood more and more of these characters, as this movie perfectly encapsulates the awkwardness of large family gatherings, such as funeral(s) and in that, to an extent, life.

Just a couple of examples this comedy deals with – expectations to be as successful as your relative(s) (in this case brother), the idea of living a secret, almost a double life, that is so secret nobody has any idea, until your funeral, the pressure, that you are not good enough to marry into a family, the idea of living a good life and what does that mean… and on top of that, the movie is really funny! Frank Oz has done it again and managed to combine his almost signature sense of over-the-top situation humour, but this time, he combined it with the dry sense of British humour and the result couldn’t be any better. This is why great comedies are not just about “how many jokes you can fit into one minute”, but there should be some themes.

I also think there is another thing, that helped me truly appreciate this comedy more. Living in the UK for almost 10 years now, and knowing way more about British mentality. Even though I live in Scotland, not England, I’ve met a few people from England, who gave me a good glimpse into the English psyche, that made me appreciate this movie a bit more, in the way “the stereotypical English person”, if there is such a thing, thinks, behaves and reacts. That might also contribute to your enjoyment of this film, whether you have ever been in the UK, or know a bit about the way the people here act/behave. It’s hard to describe it, but that polite, yet strict attitude, even within their family, is something that needs to be experienced.

Also, I need to talk about one person, who steals this movie for me, every time – Alan Tudyk. His performance as Simon, who by no fault of his own, ends up taking some… “medication” that makes him bit too relaxed, is great. But not because he makes it funny, which is the bare minimum for that role and where most actors would have stopped – his performance has peaks and valleys. It would have been so easy to play it as the “comic relief” the entire movie, but in his performance, you do see him being amused, terrified, tortured, doubtful, happy, sad… He is all over the place, but it always make sense for his character and it never feels too much or too unrealistic. Alan took something, what easily could have been one note character and elevated that role, where he functions as heart of this movie. If he wasn’t there, most of the movie would still make sense narratively, but something would be missing, as his story arc is great and compliments the movie’s overall themes. Truly, great comedic performance, people seem to be missing out on, as I don’t see it discussed enough.

Overall, Death at a Funeral is a movie that I had to see three times to fully appreciate it. My first watch I ended up rating it around 3.5/5*, my second it was 4/5* and now, I have no other choice than give it a full rating. I have a feeling that in couple of years, there will be plenty of those “clickbait” articles like “10 reasons why you should see Death at a Funeral right now” or “7 British comedies that you should have watched from 2000’s” and this movie would be at the very top of those lists. And deservedly so, I might add, as it’s simply brilliant.

Rating: 5 out of 5.

That’s all for this one! Did you see it? What did you think about it? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke

Movie Reviews

Water Lilies (2007) Review – Very Strong Debut

Leave a comment
Advertisements

I have stumbled upon this film by a complete accident, I must admit. And before watching any kind of foreign movie I’ve never heard of, what I do is to go through the directors/screenwriters filmography to see, whether I am familiar with any of their other work. With Water Lillies (the original French title is Naissance des pieuvres) I have discovered it’s a debut of Céline Sciamma, the woman responsible for Portrait of a Lady on Fire (2019), the movie I’ve heard so many great things about and what I’m planning on watching soon.

Anyway, I gave this movie a shot and I really liked it. Water Lilies is something I like to call “simplistically difficult movie”. What that means is, the story of this movie is straightforward, easy to follow. What becomes harder to wrap your head around are the characters, as you need to think about why they are doing the things they do, where are they coming from, what’s their motivation…?

Movies like Water Lilies don’t usually give you straight answers, so you either get it, or don’t. And I like that. This movie’s story is focusing on 3 very different girls – Marie, who’s growing up slowly realising she might prefer girls, but is (as most teenagers) really shy and awkward, Anne, who’s your typical “next-door neighbour” kind of girl, who in a normal crowd wouldn’t standout as much as she does next to a team of synchronise swimmers, and Floriane, who because of how she looks like, gets hit on all the time, therefore having a “certain” reputation in her swimming team and beyond that.

And this film follows them throughout hardships, where you eventually find out, no matter how you look, you will always have some issues. Also, what was quite well displayed here, is life doesn’t always workout the way you plan it, as there will always be some curve balls thrown your way.

Beware, SPOILERS are coming!

The “chubby” girl (for the record, I wouldn’t describe her like that, but that’s what the movie was going for) is struggling with her body image and for the entirety of the movie, is trying to date this one guy, who’s more interested in Floriane, the “beauty” of this story. But both of them are still virgins, which is a fact that might surprise you, the same way you might be surprised that it’s eventually Anne, who sleeps with the boy first. What she doesn’t know is he’s tried it with Floriane first before coming to her place, who flinched in the last second (based on what she said to Marie).

I really like when a movie can surprise me, where the surprise makes sense and this one unfortunately did. As this is the kind of typical teenager behaviour, where you’d go for a girl, and if she says no, you’d go to your “safe” choice, who was Anne. I also liked how gently they’ve displayed the relationship between Marie and Floriane, where at first, she doesn’t want to have Marie near by, just so she’d get curious enough about her to allow Marie to be part of the group, allowing her to watch them while practising.

As I’ve put into the title, this is a very strong debut by Céline Sciamma, where it didn’t matter to me I didn’t get all the symbolism she’d put into this film, I still overall liked it, as there was something about her style, her pacing, that even though the movie is on the slower side, it never feels boring or stale. And that’s not an easy thing to achieve. After watching Water Lilies, I’m really excited to watch Portrait of a Lady on Fire and I’m hoping, it will live up to everything I’ve heard about it. And I have a feeling I will be pleased with it, but only the time will tell…

Rating: 4 out of 5.

That’s all for this one! Did you see it? What did you think of it? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke