jlcallahan-53678

Solo is a romance set in the world of drag performers in Montreal. I am not a fan of most romances, straight, gay or other. However, Solo works for some of the reasons other romances don't. For one, the characters have back stories that make sense. Also, while his relationship with Oliver is troubled, you understand how this traveler from France would seek adventure with a good looking performer in Montreal, Simon, and how it might be less permanent for him.

The main character, Simon (Théodore Pellerin), has a complex relationship with his family, his sister being his biggest champion and best friend. The parents, not so much. Mom played by Anne-Marie Cadieux is famous in the world of entertainment and he yearns so much for her approval and love. His Sunday brunches with other family are not enough to make up for the fifteen year absence of his mother, gone since he was a boy.

The drag performances are credible and are woven well into the drama. Many of the performers have their own stories and they are touched on in the drama.

Rating: Pay full price/Stream it.

Joe Callahan.

The Capture

The moral of The Capture? Wow, I don't know, but clearly the characters feel "It's not about doing what's right; it's about doing what sells," about what you can convince others is right.

Also, apparently, Politics is not about understanding; it's about agreeing.

I have not been this tricked at an ending since... I don't know when. On retrospect, I should have figure it out, but the magic of the show is that you are so entranced by what is happening in the moment, you don't have mental space to theorize.

The ethical ambiguity presented in The Capture is palpable. It's the number one selling point for the show. I don't know about you, but I am sick of shows that give us the same "good versus evil" view of the world, as if we are children. Life is full of paradoxes, dilemmas and choices where there is no clear decent option. That is why The Capture is so...captivating. It's also why superhero films have become so dull and have many detective shows.

It's starts off with... Watch the damn show if you want to figure it out. The blurb for the show led me to believe this show was going be ten hours of staring at screens. I was so wrong, and so would you be if you like thrillers and don't watch this show.

The sets are excellent, the few action scenes work well, the false leads and wrong turns stun you in each episode. The political intrigue is so believable that I thought I was watching an update from a British Justice Minister. The squabbling between the major power's governments, many that appear here, leaves me with the feeling that even if things go wrong in the security world, the elites will come out okay and the rest of us will lose more freedoms.

The acting is...captivating. Each cast member does their part and is credible. Holliday Grainger as DCI Rachel Carey was the biggest surprise. After seeing the mediocre C. B. Strike where she plays an "accidental" secretary, I thought her part would be lame in The Capture as well. This is what good writing and a clever concept can do for you; she is excellent here. The whole cast is stellar, and a special shout out to the main antagonists: DSU Gemma Garland played by Lia Williams and U. S. Agent Frank Napier played by Ron Perlman. Yes, that Ron Perlman of Hellboy fame.

The showrunners for this series are threatening us with a third season. Please don't. The show's two series are perfect as is; there is nothing to improve upon. Certainly, a good writer or team of writers can do something with the world and characters that have been so beautifully created, but to what end? If it's just a money grab, it won't work. If they have a new angle for the show, fine.

Rating: Pay full price; watch it twice.

Hate is too strong for film, or people for that matter, but Civil War was terrible in many ways, and thus it will be 'amazingly popular with audiences and critics alike.'

For a good film on reporters in war, watch 1. Salvador, 2. The Year of Living Dangerously, or even 3. Dennis Hopper in Apocalypse Now, more compelling than the reporters in Civil War.

First, the action is not motivated by anything but assumptions of a division between "factions" in the U. S. Writer-director Garland never shows or tells us what were the precipitating events for this War. It doesn't take much. Edge of Tomorrow has the news cast showing the invasion, the effects, and the fighting. Boom. Ten minutes in and we know the premise and what motivates the actions of the characters. That doesn't happen in Civil War. And don't give me some crap about how "people don't get along" and so they fight. If you don't give the audience a why, you are doing your film and the audience a disservice. I know what you're thinking, "but the action scenes were great"! Fine, but don't pretend this is high art.

In V for Vendetta, the first scene with V and Evey shows us what the conflict is and who the main actors are. Nothing of the sort happens in Civil War. And the film thinks Texas and California are going to unite in a war against the federal government. Do people know how different politically, historically, economically and in so many ways those two states are? It's ridiculous to have them in an alliance unless you give us a compelling reason why they join in an effort to take down the US government. Otherwise, it's a bunch of BS. It's almost as if Garland really just wanted to show some war scenes between US factions and it didn't matter that it made no sense.

What else didn't work? The characters, the acting and the dialogue. Reporters are the main characters in this film, and they get away with way too much and would have been pushed out of the battle field. And you know one of them is going to get shot because they are being irrationally risky for a photo. Also, why are all the cameras with film and not digital. Digital has come close to the film quality and is 1000 times easier to use in the field.

The acting is flat, to be nice, but Jesse Plemons really sinks his canines into his role, making the most of his limited time on screen. They could have used more of his character to motivate the action of the rebels. Stephen Henderson was also excellent as Sammy, a real human character that you could root for. He makes the most of his time on screen. Dunst was dull and miscast and didn't have the charisma for the role. She was so good in Fargo, so I had hopes. The rest of the cast is lost and Offerman in no way acted presidential or was a good mocking of a president. President Camacho from Idiocracy would have been better. Again, his speech was a lost opportunity to present reasons for the fighting, but we can't have that kind of conflict presented in a big budget film.k That would risk too much money.

Where's the ideology? Again, we need some reason they are fighting, some reason to care. I didn't. If you care about cardboard cutouts and cliche characters that have been done better in other films, then you will love Civil War. There is nothing in this film we haven't seen before in better movies. If you want to see a decent war film with reporters, watch Salvador.

One last thing: why were they in New York, what was the fighting about, and how did the reporters get out to travel to D. C.? And don't put snipers in the torch of the Statue of Liberty if you aren't going to show them in the film. Chekov would be massively disappointed.

Rating: I want my money back.

It was terribly written and acted and only a few decent action scene saved it form being the Razzie favorite for worst film.