Change Your Image
jill-deschrijver-369-684932
Reviews
Halt and Catch Fire: Goodwill (2017)
A grinding halt to allow the loss to sink in
This was a HALT episode that shadowcased grief and how to deal with it for different generations, characters and what role Gordon had in their life. It is one of the most moving portraits of such a devastating loss as I've ever seen.
The show started about building a PC, but it was never a tech or IT documentary. Tech or IT was the world building or setting, since whatever the characters and their companies do is fictional against real history. And they always used their projects to project their wishes onto human connections. You know from the start none of their projects or businesses will go down into history. It has always been about the characters, how they inspire, love, sabotage or destroy each other. After all, since 1x06 Camero tried to put a soul in the machine. And as the characters grew and bonded more, they require less tech and more personal interaction about life itself to influence each other.
We've been with Gordon since the first episode. Neither viewers nor the surviving characters who loved him could just "move on and re-launch" the episode after learning of his death.
In other writing hands it could have been corny. But it wasn't. It was all just devastatingly and beautifully human, from the daughters, to Donna, Joe who does not know how to deal with it, to Cameron, Katie who only had freshly fallen in love and was envious of a picture of a time Gordon shared with Donna, not knowing the wrongs he did at the time, and Bos making some soul food.
So, everything else came to a grinding halt for this episode, as it should be.
No need to "guess" this is their last season. The writers and actors confirmed that S4 was going to be the last season and that it was exactly what they needed to wrap up the series on their own writing terms.
Black Sails: XXXI. (2017)
Brutal and ending on a high note
Black Sails manages each season to get better and better. The season opener already tried to avoid the pitfalls of most season openers, while doing what it always does, you win some, you lose some.
SPOILERS - The stakes are set high, and in 4x03 one of the major stakes loses its head, just not the head many viewers and pirates have been demanding. Teach's death did not come too early. It propels the plot of Jack, Anne and Woodes forward as well as their characterization. Season 4 is not about vengeance for Vane, but the ending story lines of the remaining pirates, citizens and Nassau. The keelhauling was brutal, well built up and made me shiver and cringe, while giving the "last laugh" to Teach. It's especially amazing, because it's a ten minute scene with almost no dialogue.
HISOTRY - While some cry foul on account of "history" and "illogic", I completely disagree, even on some of history that is cited. While it was Maynard who captured Teach, it went down pretty much the same way - Maynard kept most crew below deck, waited until Teach boarded and then had his men charge out. Secondly, the fact that Maynard threw the headless body of Teach overboard begs the question what reason Maynard had for doing this. The claim of 20 cuts and 5 shots comes from Maynard, after he allegedly examined the body. Firstly, it is possible that many of those cuts and shots were inflicted on Teach after death. And secondly, Maynard had a motive to exaggerate - a victor benefits from making his foe close to invincible (Caesar already applied that style of propaganda in his De Bello Gallico), because it only makes the victor more formidable. So, the historical "facts" may not be so factual after all. And then there is the legend of his headless body swimming thrice around Maynard's sloop. This does sound like an echo of keelhauling, and if Teach was indeed keelhauled then Maynard had plenty of motive to rid himself of the body afterwards and only keep the head for identification. So, what 4x03 shows to have been Edward Teach's end might actually be more closer to the truth than Maynard's historical log about it.
As for Woodes Rogers: I would not call him a failure, when he historically managed to prevent the pirates from ever re-taking Nassau, while a third of his forces succumbed to disease, the Navy deserted him and he had to take on personal loans to keep Nassau going. He also effectively repelled a Spanish invasion attempt. The reason why he defaulted was because of a conflict he had with a Naval Captain Hildesley of the HMS Flamborough. After the several HMS ships that had accompanied him to Nassau sailed off to New York, Hildesley arrived with the HMS Flamborough in Nassau to have repairs done to it, pretty much acting like a potentate and abusing the Nassau workers. Hildesley was also completely unwilling to remain and protect Nassau against Spain or pirates. Woodes went to Charleston to recuperate from illness, where he mete Hildesley again and the men dueled. When Hildesley returned to London he portrayed Woodes disfavorably to defend his own choices and destroyed Woodes' reputation. It's likely the biggest cause for Woodes' creditors to abandon Woodes, when Woodes sailed for London to find out why no help came anymore. He landed in debtor's jail, became the foremost source of the West Indy pirates for "A General History of the Robberies and Murders of the Most Notorious Pirates", written by the pseudonym author Captain Charles Johnson (most likely Daniel Defoe). The book was a piece of propaganda that bombarded Woodes back to national hero status, and the king appointed him governor of Nassau again and gave him back-pension even for the years spent in debtor's jail (in other words - the king believe Woodes had been wrongly used). Woodes was to be governor for life of Nassau. His second term was a peaceful and successful one. He died however, four years later of illness. And I would not call a man a failure for dying from say typhoid or malaria, not in those times. And while he was not a superhero, he did manage to quell a mutiny, capture 2 Spanish Galeons (in other words 2 Urcas de Lima) on his round the world voyage, raided Cartagena, saved the marooned inspiration for Robinson Crusoë, had half his jaw shot and was operated in Guam, and was one of the few sailors at the time who took a whole load of limes on board to prevent scurvy. He is also the man who originated the universal pardon plan, and tested the willingness of pirates to accept a king's pardon at Madagascar in 1715. The East Indy Company however preferred pirates on Madagascar than a company that might infringe on their monopoly. So, he executed the plan in Nassau.
LOGIC Teach's aim was to get his hands on Eleanor. It is likely that Teach wanted to capture Woodes alive, and force Nassau forces to exchange Eleanor for Woodes. This would explain the way he boarded Woodes' ship. Furthermore, in S3 it was very much established that Jack Rackham believed Woodes to be a soft boiled egg who "stood on a beach and said 'please'". He always underestimated Woodes' personality. With Anne captured as well, Jack likely believed that surrendering was the best option to keep as many of their crew alive. He would also have expected Woodes to take them to Nassau and treat them well enough, giving Teach, Anne and him ample time to plan a take-over. He did not expect Woodes to keelhaul Teach. So, what Jack chose to do, was very logical from his POV. Yet, it surprised Woodes just as much, when Rackham struck the colors.
Martha Marcy May Marlene (2011)
a great portrayal of PTSD
The movie starts with Martha escaping a cult and managing to contact her sole real family left - her sister - who comes to pick her up and takes her in her grand house at a lake. But the aftermath process after escaping the cult still needs to start - the flashbacks of the abuse she lived through as well as the bonding she experienced, which typically belong to PTSD.
For some viewers there may seem to be plot holes, like Martha eating openly at a diner in the village nearby the cult. But daylight and a public place seems instinctively the safest place for her, even though when confronted in the diner by the second hand of the cult's leader Patrick she does not have the courage to speak out to the server. While the second hand approaches her, talks to her, how the cult leader misses and worries about her, he leaves, nor forces her back. This seems weird on the surface when you know this cult burglarizes homes and murders people and the cult wouldn't want to have witnesses roaming free. However, cult leaders know the extent of the emotional and psychological impact they have. Abuse causes what's called a trauma bond within the target (and it doesn't have to be physical abuse), and it's stronger than any love bond and highly addictive. They know that soon enough she'll miss them more than she fears, distrusts or even hates them. And without proper psychological guidance she won't have the tools to quit the oxytocin addiction (bonding hormone) and the obsessive thoughts about them.
This is what we witness with Martha. She has nightmares and memory flashes of events when she was with the cult: her loss of her name and it being changed into Marcy, her ritual drug-rape by the cult leader and the other women telling her how to feel about it ('it's a good thing', 'smile') and so negating her the right to feel how she really feels about it (awful, raped, betrayed); cult leader Patrick seemingly putting her on a pedestal by singing a song about her ('she's a picture') and at the same time devaluing her ('and nothing more'), and then later she doing the same thing to the next new recruited girl...
In a way the flashbacks during the PTSD process are necessary in order to heal from the trauma and abuse. The victim has negated their feelings (the pain, the anger, the shock) about the traumatic events when they occur, and yet one cannot start the mourning and healing process of both the separation and trauma without first actually reconnecting with her or his feelings locked away of that time. It's not so much that victims forgot the events, but they push it away and forgot how they felt about it deep down at the time.
The problem for Martha is that neither her sister nor her brother in law even know that she lived with a cult. Martha never tells them. To them she stopped calling her sister two years ago, and she lived with a boyfriend for two years. Her sister's husband wants to instill his version of a responsible person in her - think of a career, behave normal, don't live off your sister and me for such a long time. Her sister tries to give her space, patience, time and company, but naturally shows her frustration when she hits the wall around Martha. She suspects Martha has been abused, but makes the common mistake to suspect the ex-boyfriend hit her, not knowing that emotional and mental abuse has as damaging impact.
As the flashbacks emerge of the community life and her sister and brother-in-law behave towards her as if they expect she should be 'normal' the addictive bond rears its head up and she calls the cult, her 'new family'. For the cult this is a sign that she is ready to return to the fold.
While the remote lake house of her sister seems a great retreat to heal from the trauma, it actually only strengthens her fears and for good reasons. The cult lived in a remote area nearby similar grand lake houses. They burglarized and even murdered in such homes. Now she's living in such one. Together with the PSTD, the nightmares and a triggering environment, and her mistake to call the cult from her sister's home, it's not surprising that she increasingly starts to fear for the cult to come and seek her out and violently take her 'home' again. For outsiders it seems she's paranoid, but paranoia is an unreasonable fear. Martha's fear is not unreasonable, though the movie remains ambiguous about the fact whether the cult is truly trying to apprehend her again.
Alias (2002)
Over the top
Jan Verheyen is a capable movie director. But this is perhaps the worst movie I've seen in a while that pretends to be better than it is.
The plot lacks all credibility. The acting is well done, but that does not make the plot any more credible. The credibility issue starts as soon as 'Eva' kisses 'Dieter' on the mouth at their first accidental meeting - him tripping over two thieves who stole her camera.
It is as if the movie does not know what it wants to be: a murder mystery thriller or a psycho slasher movie. The murder mystery is solved halfway through the movie already. And the psycho slasher part takes itself too serious and lends too much from Hollywood in a world that just is not that scary.
If this movie was supposed to keep me in suspense, it failed utterly. It might have worked when I was 10 though.
The Thing (2011)
The Thing doesn't add up
I have never seen the 1982 movie, and thus unable to make any comparison. The prequel plot and effects seem fine and interesting enough at first, but very soon the whole plot falls apart because the Thing's actions go against any survival logic.
To begin with the Thing supposedly assimilates a victim in order to hide amongst the population and then parasite on it. But that would only truly work if, once it assimilates in such a small population, it does not blow its cover all the time by attacking other people at random all the time. Its main intent is to reach the outer world. But its rapid attacks as soon as it feels like it (for example by bringing down the first helicopter) simply do nothing but self-sabotage.
This is a survival logic similar to that of a virus or bacterial disease. Diseases that hit quickly (possibly kill quickly) also must spread quickly and need a large population. In too small a population, the disease may kill everyone in that small population but since this happens so quickly, the disease dies along with the population. Slower diseases that can spread around for days, months and even years before showing symptoms can start in a small population and kills nobody yet for a long while, and thus has all the time in the world to spread into a bigger population.
The Thing in this prequel does the first thing. And that would work if it were an alien with the consciousness of an insect (like Alien). But this Thing comes from a some super intelligent species that traveled the universe in a spacecraft. It is smart enough to learn languages, to drive a UFO, but not smart enough to keep its cover under wraps for more than an hour? It has this intelligent biological assimilation abilities and look like a perfect human or dog, and yet at times it crawls on spidery eights with two fleshy heads? It just doesn't add up. I know, one needs to set aside some notions of reality, but even then the Thing's behavior, its intelligence, and its biological abilities must still add up.
Arbitrage (2012)
Apres moi le deluge
... is the French saying that fits someone who does not care what happens/comes after him. Literally translated it means 'After me comes the flood', and that is exactly the mindset of the character that Richard Gere plays - Robert Miller, a slick, rich business owner whose history of shady business solutions and sexual liaisons starts catching up to him.
Miller got involved in a Russian copper mine that gets his own company in trouble. He's been cooking the books, and lent 400 million $ from a business friend to cover up the deficit in order to sell his company. But his daughter Brooke, who admires her father and works for him, is catching up on the fraud. Meanwhile Miller's mistress Juliet dies in a car accident he causes because he fell asleep behind the steering wheel. Not wanting to be caught red handed with his hand in the extra-marital cookie jar, let alone a dead mistress, Miller hopes to avoid a scandal that would blow his prospective and highly necessary business deal to get rid of his company. To get away from the crime scene, he involves a young man Jimmy Grant, 'the only black person he knows'. The police investigator (Tim Roth) hopes to nail Miller for it via Jimmy. When Jimmy refuses to talk, Roth hopes to force Jimmy into making a plea deal when Jimmy stands to lose 10 years of his freedom.
Roger Miller is a control freak without morals, except for what he needs to keep up for the social philanthropist facade or when he attempts to cite flawed moral considerations in defense of his choices to the various characters catching up with him. And as far as Miller's pity-play and machiavelistic 'I had to in order to save blablablabla' talk goes, it is marvelously acted and succeeds in creating sympathy for Roger Miller as well as the best of corporate sociopaths out there can do for himself.
I particularly like how with each hurdle, with each person who tries to confront him on what is right, he dips from the standard set of manipulation tactics: starting with a pitiful how much he suffers to save everyone, onto how it will be the fault of those who want to blow the whistle if the livelihoods and so many people get hurt because of the discovery, and eventually he simply turns into a selfish bully and simply starts to command. And that usually works.
So, those who find him sympathetic and human after all... Actually, he is as selfish and cold as they come, because he reveals time and time again that he does it for himself alone. Not to save the livelihoods of employees. How could he save it? He sells a cat in a bag. The company will still go down, just not with him as owner anymore. Not to protect his family. He ends up corrupting and belittling his daughter. He cheated on his wife with so many for so long already, and even when she reveals how she has known all along and tries to force him to sign off any power left to him, he calls her bluff. He's in it for himself only. He's protecting himself and hoping to get away with it all. But he does it with a mask that is easily mistaken for a flawed but golden hearted personality. And just like such people usually manage, Miller succeeds in pity playing, bribing, bullying, corrupting anyone who attempts to stand up against him, and have them all keep up the appearance. He gets away with it.
I did have a few annoyances. For one Susan Sarandon and Tim Roth being underplayed. They carry so much actor weight in too small a roll, that it's an immense pity. And it leaves the sensation that in the end the script was spread too thin.
My other annoyance were a few scenes where Miller privately actually considers to do the right thing for a fleeting moment, that he actually cares for anybody but himself and actually feels responsible. I found that unbelievable and non-realistic for the rest of the character. It may be what many people hope - that everybody is good but deeply flawed (some more than others) - but unfortunately some people just use a facade of goodness to hide the empty and ugly truth of themselves, and no these people do not feel remorse or responsibility once they are by themselves. When they are alone, and have no one to mirror, the lights of their pretended conscious and emotions are out.
So, I agree with another reviewer that this movie tries to paint Miller as a character you should sympathize with. It attempts to sell the myth that even corporate sociopaths are redeemable, that they feel guilt, remorse and responsibility after all. Worse, the movie sells the idea that eventually everyone has a price and can be corrupted and bought, which I find not true either.
Midsomer Murders: Judgement Day (2000)
in retrospect humor
I truly liked this episode, which had an Agatha Christie level plot.
True, young Orlando Bloom plays a murder victim part in this before he became known as Legolas and a Will Turner... Irregardless of his later stardom, it seems to me that this episode hints at the fact that Orlando Bloom was cast for Peter Jackson's coming trilogy. Shortly after Peter Drinkwater (Orlando Bloom) is found murdered with a pitchfork, Barnaby and his partner visit a house which has a plaque above the front garden referring to "Lothlorien" which provokes a short discussion upon Tolkien's books - Lord of The Ring and The Hobbit. They admit to a book about hobbits and elves not being "their thing".
Coincidence? I think not ;-)
Komt een vrouw bij de dokter (2009)
Good portrait of a narcissist through his rose-colored self-portrait glasses
I liked this movie. No, like most, I didn't like the protagonist, but it was nevertheless interesting to watch how a narcissist would portray himself while betraying the people who care for him with his shallowness. I understand the frustration and remarks by other reviewers regarding the shallow portrayal of the wife and prop-like use of the daughter Luna. But that is exactly how narcissists use and look at people in their world.
Was this a story about love? The narcissist tries to spin it that way, by remembering over-the-top romantic adventures with his wife Carmen: the playful nude pick-nick in the farm fields behind the back garden; the Bora Bora holiday; the Carpe Diem traveling tour once she knows she has little time left to live. However, the protagonist reveals early from the get go what he truly cares about: control; which is exactly what personality disordered people want out of any relation - control. All his actions underline how little he actually knows about love: he wants to get married very rapidly (which sounds romantic but has little to do with loving someone); he cheats whenever he can; he starts an actual affair with another woman because he wants sex with a healthy woman who can adore him, instead of spending his actual time with his wife who's wrapped up in her fight with cancer; his narcissistic rages; his breaking of his promises; and to actually bring his new victim to the funeral of his dead wife.
A narcissist cannot bond or feel real empathy for anyone else but themselves, although they will try to appear as if they do. Hence the over-the-top romantic outings, which actually feel shallow, and the appearance of being empathic when they wish to sell themselves - to Rose, his latest conquest, but also the viewer (or reader). Hence also the possible frustration over the distance that remains between Carmen fighting for her life against cancer and the viewer - the narcissist cannot truly empathize with his wife, and he's the one telling the story after all.
I give the protagonist credit to being brutally honest about the cancer process, his womanizing and affair and not leaving Carmen to die alone... And yet I also feel as if the brutal cancer portrayal is part of his pity play - as if I'm supposed to understand it's no wonder he goes running in between the thighs of a healthy woman; and see what a good guy he is after all, since he could have left Carmen and move on with Rose... That's like saying: he could have been a worse bastard... but it doesn't take away the fact that he's still a bastard. And I suspect his dying wife's words of how grateful she is to have been married to him might even be a narcissistic embellishment - my wife forgave me and loved me, so I'm not so bad after all! I actually did feel empathy with Carmen, exactly because she was portrayed in such a factual way. I felt empathy by myself, exactly because the protagonist lacked it so thoroughly - he was incapable of telling the story with empathy, and that made me feel more for her even.
As for Rose and Stijn living a happy ending? No chance! As if he'll ever stop cheating and not start an affair with another woman as soon as Rose fails to give him his narcissistic supply.