13 reviews
Oh, look! A new season of MAFS!
But wait, it's even longer than before! With more talking by the "experts," who, let's be honest, make terrible matches. And some more blathering. Oh yeah, more and more blathering!
Mmm, what's new this season? Exclusively heterosexual couples one more time! That's not it. Less pontificating by the "experts?" That's not it. Something... anything novel? Nope, that's not it.
A new city! Yesssss! It's a new city this season! Will a new city add something noteworthy to the season? Pretty please! Alas, no. More of the same schlock.
Time to pull the plug on this drivel. Seriously.
But wait, it's even longer than before! With more talking by the "experts," who, let's be honest, make terrible matches. And some more blathering. Oh yeah, more and more blathering!
Mmm, what's new this season? Exclusively heterosexual couples one more time! That's not it. Less pontificating by the "experts?" That's not it. Something... anything novel? Nope, that's not it.
A new city! Yesssss! It's a new city this season! Will a new city add something noteworthy to the season? Pretty please! Alas, no. More of the same schlock.
Time to pull the plug on this drivel. Seriously.
88 minutes? Seriously? It felt like 8 hours.
I watched the series edited into a feature length film. Maybe ten, 8-minute shorts might have been better? I dunno, because the whole thing was needlessly slow as it was.
Worthwhile subject matter that has been more skillfully handled in countless other movies. The Major Trauma Event is inferred, so it does have the gravitas that might explain the grinding, slow burn that follows. Not really a burn at all, more like a forgotten ember that eventually dies out.
I see potential here to be sure, but the direction is jarringly amateurish - more like a first-year film school student's final exam project. The professor's notes would likely include: speed up the pace; use better establishing shots; use fewer close-ups, tighten up the writing; direct the cast better. The absence of emotion when delivering lines plagues every character.
Tldr: Skip it.
I watched the series edited into a feature length film. Maybe ten, 8-minute shorts might have been better? I dunno, because the whole thing was needlessly slow as it was.
Worthwhile subject matter that has been more skillfully handled in countless other movies. The Major Trauma Event is inferred, so it does have the gravitas that might explain the grinding, slow burn that follows. Not really a burn at all, more like a forgotten ember that eventually dies out.
I see potential here to be sure, but the direction is jarringly amateurish - more like a first-year film school student's final exam project. The professor's notes would likely include: speed up the pace; use better establishing shots; use fewer close-ups, tighten up the writing; direct the cast better. The absence of emotion when delivering lines plagues every character.
Tldr: Skip it.
Yeah, that's not a sterling summation, but it is apt. I always go for gay themed movies, just to see what they might add to the genre. Lucky Bastard is different enough to earn a couple stars in that it deals with situations not well covered in other gay cinema. It seems that the directing was fairly loose, which I happen to like, and the main cast performed well enough, i.e., they were believable in their actions and dialogue.
Other reviewers seem to dislike the actors, but I think they were well chosen. The weakest lead was surely actor who played Garrett, the business partner, but his role is somewhat peripheral like a touchstone the main character goes to when he needs a small reset. The boyfriend, Daniel, is kind of forgettable, but the role is small. The meth-addicted hustler, Denny, almost nailed the role, but it's probably a problem with costume and make-up - every meth head I have been around has seriously messed up skin, teeth, and hollow eyes. Which leaves the main character, Rusty.
There were a few scenes where I wanted to punch him in the throat because he was making stupid decisions, but isn't that why we watch movies? To invest ourselves in character portrayals? The actor is adorable and I did not have to stretch credulity to follow him on his journey of self discovery and growth.
Is this a cinematic masterpiece? Hardly. But there is a good return on entertainment investment for this relatively short drama.
Somewhat recommend, especially for people who are looking for a gay movie off the beaten path.
Other reviewers seem to dislike the actors, but I think they were well chosen. The weakest lead was surely actor who played Garrett, the business partner, but his role is somewhat peripheral like a touchstone the main character goes to when he needs a small reset. The boyfriend, Daniel, is kind of forgettable, but the role is small. The meth-addicted hustler, Denny, almost nailed the role, but it's probably a problem with costume and make-up - every meth head I have been around has seriously messed up skin, teeth, and hollow eyes. Which leaves the main character, Rusty.
There were a few scenes where I wanted to punch him in the throat because he was making stupid decisions, but isn't that why we watch movies? To invest ourselves in character portrayals? The actor is adorable and I did not have to stretch credulity to follow him on his journey of self discovery and growth.
Is this a cinematic masterpiece? Hardly. But there is a good return on entertainment investment for this relatively short drama.
Somewhat recommend, especially for people who are looking for a gay movie off the beaten path.
Virtually every one of the cases have been covered - often better - by other, similar shows. But I haven't seen some of them in a while, so it's a decent review.
Christine Hannah, the forensic scientist, seems to be afflicted with a cleft palate, which profoundly affects her speech. Her impediment takes nothing away from her intelligence and expertise, but it distracts from the on-air presentation of evidence. Distracts, even.
Overall, this series would be much better if they cut each episode down from ~45 minutes to ~35 by tightening up the narratives and recaps. I realize the recaps are there for commercial breaks, but when you stream the show, they just add too much useless repetition. Maybe it's not profitable to re-edit the show for streaming, but it sure would make it more watchable.
Christine Hannah, the forensic scientist, seems to be afflicted with a cleft palate, which profoundly affects her speech. Her impediment takes nothing away from her intelligence and expertise, but it distracts from the on-air presentation of evidence. Distracts, even.
Overall, this series would be much better if they cut each episode down from ~45 minutes to ~35 by tightening up the narratives and recaps. I realize the recaps are there for commercial breaks, but when you stream the show, they just add too much useless repetition. Maybe it's not profitable to re-edit the show for streaming, but it sure would make it more watchable.
...... I'll get to the "but" in a minute.
Superbly cinematic and expertly filmed, Ripley gets the period, vibe, sets and props spot on. Ripley does not appear to have spared any expertise or expense in getting things right.
The cast, with one glaring exception, is exceptional. The exception is Andrew Scott. I adore him in most everything else he has done, but he should have turned down - nay, run away from - this role. He is far too old to play Tom Ripley; in fact, he is more than twice the age of Ripley and no amount of makeup or tape can hide the actor's age. Pity, as Scott acts the role well, but his effort, indeed, the entire series, is spoiled due to the incredulity of a 47 year-old playing a ~25 year old.
Superbly cinematic and expertly filmed, Ripley gets the period, vibe, sets and props spot on. Ripley does not appear to have spared any expertise or expense in getting things right.
The cast, with one glaring exception, is exceptional. The exception is Andrew Scott. I adore him in most everything else he has done, but he should have turned down - nay, run away from - this role. He is far too old to play Tom Ripley; in fact, he is more than twice the age of Ripley and no amount of makeup or tape can hide the actor's age. Pity, as Scott acts the role well, but his effort, indeed, the entire series, is spoiled due to the incredulity of a 47 year-old playing a ~25 year old.
I think the filmmakers started with good intentions - a feature film featuring African-Americans in every lead role. Unfortunately the effort fails in almost every way. The biggest problem is the sound editing and mixing. The entire film sounds as though it was recorded in a small room with concrete walls.
The script is juvenile. There is no subtlety, no room for viewers to extrapolate. Compounding this problem is the performance of most of the actors. While some might lay blame on the actors themselves, this is a directorial deficiency. A good director can lead even wooden actors to good performances. Not here.
The FX consist of slo-mo scenes, but the dialogue does not slow. The dissonance is jarring. I developed a headache by the halfway mark and, masochistically, stuck it out. Let my suffering prevent yours. You're welcome.
The script is juvenile. There is no subtlety, no room for viewers to extrapolate. Compounding this problem is the performance of most of the actors. While some might lay blame on the actors themselves, this is a directorial deficiency. A good director can lead even wooden actors to good performances. Not here.
The FX consist of slo-mo scenes, but the dialogue does not slow. The dissonance is jarring. I developed a headache by the halfway mark and, masochistically, stuck it out. Let my suffering prevent yours. You're welcome.
Not much new in this series, so disappointing in that regard. But any enjoyment of rehashing old information in a new format is demolished by the inept narrator, Dylan R. Berry. He is not listed in the cast and crew. Maybe because this gig is so embarrassing?
