citizen-caveman
Joined Apr 2013
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Ratings19
citizen-caveman's rating
Reviews17
citizen-caveman's rating
The Reckoning is as serious as drama gets. It examines the culture that allowed Jimmy Saville to get away with so much depravity - depressing, but relevant.
An un-sceptical public believed the guy they saw on television was great. Ambitious careerists turned a blind eye, if they had eyes - as ratings rocketed, so did their careers. Countless vulnerable victims knew nobody would want to believe them.
Saville wasn't a one off. Other powerful predators have been exposed since. Same story, different predator. The Reckoning is universal.
Saville dodged justice the hard way in 2011 and ITV broadcast an expose the following year. Why the BBC waited until a decade had passed to make this drama is anyone's guess.
Steve Coogan really does a polished job of portraying a tedious character. His Saville is irksome. You want to punch him in the face.
If The Reckoning was fiction, nobody would believe it or want to watch it. A fictional Jimmy Saville would have been an implausible predator - getting away with so much witnessed by so many. Maybe that implausibility is partly what gave him opportunities? Truth is stranger and nastier than fiction.
The take away from all of this is don't believe what's on TV. Don't believe anyone's charisma.
An un-sceptical public believed the guy they saw on television was great. Ambitious careerists turned a blind eye, if they had eyes - as ratings rocketed, so did their careers. Countless vulnerable victims knew nobody would want to believe them.
Saville wasn't a one off. Other powerful predators have been exposed since. Same story, different predator. The Reckoning is universal.
Saville dodged justice the hard way in 2011 and ITV broadcast an expose the following year. Why the BBC waited until a decade had passed to make this drama is anyone's guess.
Steve Coogan really does a polished job of portraying a tedious character. His Saville is irksome. You want to punch him in the face.
If The Reckoning was fiction, nobody would believe it or want to watch it. A fictional Jimmy Saville would have been an implausible predator - getting away with so much witnessed by so many. Maybe that implausibility is partly what gave him opportunities? Truth is stranger and nastier than fiction.
The take away from all of this is don't believe what's on TV. Don't believe anyone's charisma.
In the main, cardboard characters collide with wooden acting.
That said, Henry Rollins demonstrates that he can overcome the obstacle of ropey material and still deliver a decent performance. What a shame he don't recognise ropey material in the first instance. Dressed like an undertaker, he does a capable job of playing the creepy, serial killer. Giving the best performance of all he elevates himself above cliché.
The story doesn't really hold together. In places, purpose-wise some of the characters' actions don't make any sense. They place themselves in harm's way to achieve no, apparently, useful goal. Both the good guys and the bad guys seem to be trying to trip themselves up in places.
A good heist, in the movies at least, should be tight and methodical, think Heat (1995). They get in, get rich and get away. Most robbbers don't want to run into the police and get caught. Presumably. These guys take all day. There is no sense of impending deadline, so there's no tension.
Conflict be shouldn't delivered in a way that makes characters unsympathetic. The robbers swear and gesticulate at one other too often to seem mature enough to be professional. Acting like juvenile delinquents makes them even more unsympathetic. This carry-on produces a sense of conflict but an irksome one.
I could go on but it's too depressing.
Overall, this lacks sympathetic characters and, because you cannot care about any of the characters, any real tension. It's slow, clumsy and clichéd. Television does it better.
That said, Henry Rollins demonstrates that he can overcome the obstacle of ropey material and still deliver a decent performance. What a shame he don't recognise ropey material in the first instance. Dressed like an undertaker, he does a capable job of playing the creepy, serial killer. Giving the best performance of all he elevates himself above cliché.
The story doesn't really hold together. In places, purpose-wise some of the characters' actions don't make any sense. They place themselves in harm's way to achieve no, apparently, useful goal. Both the good guys and the bad guys seem to be trying to trip themselves up in places.
A good heist, in the movies at least, should be tight and methodical, think Heat (1995). They get in, get rich and get away. Most robbbers don't want to run into the police and get caught. Presumably. These guys take all day. There is no sense of impending deadline, so there's no tension.
Conflict be shouldn't delivered in a way that makes characters unsympathetic. The robbers swear and gesticulate at one other too often to seem mature enough to be professional. Acting like juvenile delinquents makes them even more unsympathetic. This carry-on produces a sense of conflict but an irksome one.
I could go on but it's too depressing.
Overall, this lacks sympathetic characters and, because you cannot care about any of the characters, any real tension. It's slow, clumsy and clichéd. Television does it better.
Desperate to find a way to pay for his father's ever-increasing medical bills, the young and naive protagonist stumbles across a way that just might achieve that.
The involved set-up makes for a slow start. The next sequence gives an intriguing mystery. The sequence following this provides the guts of the film. Its fish-out-of-water nature exacerbates the tension; a piece of undiluted tension.
After this you get the feeling the film-makers run out of ideas and enthusiasm. The story-line is flat and goes downhill. The ending looks like the makers just wanted to wrap the production up and move onto other things.
This is a pity, because you feel that given more effort the makers could have produced, given the originality of its premise, quite a polished film.
The involved set-up makes for a slow start. The next sequence gives an intriguing mystery. The sequence following this provides the guts of the film. Its fish-out-of-water nature exacerbates the tension; a piece of undiluted tension.
After this you get the feeling the film-makers run out of ideas and enthusiasm. The story-line is flat and goes downhill. The ending looks like the makers just wanted to wrap the production up and move onto other things.
This is a pity, because you feel that given more effort the makers could have produced, given the originality of its premise, quite a polished film.