Saw The Northman over the weekend. It was above average. Had some good performances, somf of the music was good, and lots of the little historical details were (or seemed) very accurate. Plot starts out as a simple revenge tale that gets a bit more complicated later on. Some of the scenes are way to dark, not sure why they bothered filming them if you can't see them.
Was it constant action heavy or was there plenty of dialogue and many slow paced scenes? I'm not expecting Shakespearian soliloquy but I prefer not a script of one liners, etiher.
Overall there's a bunch of dialog. You have some events at the start that get the plot moving, a fight at the start of act 2, then the big finale. Even though some of those fights are fairly large, it's not constant action throughout and there's a lot of time between.
The film is being labelled as "arthouse" by many entertainment journalists so that implies some high level of character development and a good amount of deep dialogue.
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
Haha then I will watch. I enjoy arthouse cinema. These journalists are all about the lowest common denominator and likely shovel cinema such as Marvel action snorefests.
These journalists are all about the lowest common denominator and likely shovel cinema such as Marvel action snorefests.
They make a valid point though in this case concerning "The Northman". Even arthouse studios don't want to be in the red making films that are financial disasters. The big question here is why was such a huge budget approved for this movie?
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
I've only seen bits and pieces of "Quigley Down Under" whenever I would come across it during my seemingly endless TV channel surfing during the 80's and 90's.
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
What a series! Great show with excellent writing that at times approached levels seen in literature, especially with subtleties embedded within dialogue. The characters evolved throughout the course of the show, sometimes more than once, which was refreshing. In fact, not just one, but almost all characters evolved at several points. Flaws were the seasonal structure, but otherwise the entire show was serial in nature with the biggest event of each season happening on the last episode and I I dare say... too short. Yes, I absolutely appreciate the condensed nature, with each season being only six episodes for a total of six season, but the writing and directing was so good that I actually find myself longing for more. I do not recall a single moment of boredom throughout, and while at times I may have figured a thing or two out, there were others that the writers managed to flip things around and keep the plot progression surprising. Highly recommend anyone who enjoys gangster movies or characters that aren't black and white. While there's true evil here, there are also hints of good sprinkled throughout and vice versa.
I rate this show a special rating. One that I've never given to another show. Because of the flaw of being seasonal in nature I cannot give the show a perfect four out of four stars. Yes, a couple other of my highest rated shows are seasonal, but I do not think "Blinders" overcame this weakness as well as it could have. Regardless, I give this show a 3.9 out of 4 star rating. At a minimum it is a 3 3/4 star show, but the writing and a characters push it higher. Not quite the tippy top, but close enough.
After this, I will have a hard time finding something as good to watch next.
Because of the flaw of being seasonal in nature I cannot give the show a perfect four out of four stars.
What exactly do you mean by :"seasonal in nature". Aren't all series seasonal in nature? You have feature films and then you have either a limited series (what used to be called a mini-series) and you have series that are meant to run several seasons unless they get cancelled earlier.
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
Because of the flaw of being seasonal in nature I cannot give the show a perfect four out of four stars.
What exactly do you mean by :"seasonal in nature". Aren't all series seasonal in nature? You have feature films and then you have either a limited series (what used to be called a mini-series) and you have series that are meant to run several seasons unless they get cancelled earlier.
What I meant by this was the plot structure revolving around this seasonal format.
Take "Game of Thrones," for example. In that show they have major events happening out of sequence. At times there are events of such dramatic magnitude that in a traditional seasonal show would be reserved for the last episode of the season, but in "Thrones" they might occur in the third, first, or eighth episode of a ten episode per season run. This fractures the predictable plot structuring and allows the viewer a greater element of surprise--that something huge could happen at any time, instead of us knowing what to expect. In a typical show the first episode is always world building, introducing us to the new setting, character changes, etc., then sometime around the two-thirds point we revisit characters, perhaps have some respite followed by staging that leads into the last twenty percent of the season. "Thrones" defies this. So did "Breaking Bad" and "Mr. Robot." Even "Babylon 5" defied this in the middle seasons, and such relinquishment of accepted serial norms adds to a refreshing viewing experience.
I suppose since I have written long form fiction I am constantly aware of the mechanics behind the scene, whereas many folks won't be. The majority of viewers appreciate the solidified nature of the seasonal plot progression format, much like most enjoy fiction structured like the hero's journey--because that's what they are accustomed to and if plotting deviates then the story feels weird.
OK, thanks for that explanation Blastman. I definitely agree with your points.
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
I've only seen bits and pieces of "Quigley Down Under" whenever I would come across it during my seemingly endless TV channel surfing during the 80's and 90's.
What a series! Great show with excellent writing that at times approached levels seen in literature, especially with subtleties embedded within dialogue. The characters evolved throughout the course of the show, sometimes more than once, which was refreshing. In fact, not just one, but almost all characters evolved at several points. Flaws were the seasonal structure, but otherwise the entire show was serial in nature with the biggest event of each season happening on the last episode and I I dare say... too short. Yes, I absolutely appreciate the condensed nature, with each season being only six episodes for a total of six season, but the writing and directing was so good that I actually find myself longing for more. I do not recall a single moment of boredom throughout, and while at times I may have figured a thing or two out, there were others that the writers managed to flip things around and keep the plot progression surprising. Highly recommend anyone who enjoys gangster movies or characters that aren't black and white. While there's true evil here, there are also hints of good sprinkled throughout and vice versa.
I rate this show a special rating. One that I've never given to another show. Because of the flaw of being seasonal in nature I cannot give the show a perfect four out of four stars. Yes, a couple other of my highest rated shows are seasonal, but I do not think "Blinders" overcame this weakness as well as it could have. Regardless, I give this show a 3.9 out of 4 star rating. At a minimum it is a 3 3/4 star show, but the writing and a characters push it higher. Not quite the tippy top, but close enough.
After this, I will have a hard time finding something as good to watch next.
What a series! Great show with excellent writing that at times approached levels seen in literature, especially with subtleties embedded within dialogue. The characters evolved throughout the course of the show, sometimes more than once, which was refreshing. In fact, not just one, but almost all characters evolved at several points. Flaws were the seasonal structure, but otherwise the entire show was serial in nature with the biggest event of each season happening on the last episode and I I dare say... too short. Yes, I absolutely appreciate the condensed nature, with each season being only six episodes for a total of six season, but the writing and directing was so good that I actually find myself longing for more. I do not recall a single moment of boredom throughout, and while at times I may have figured a thing or two out, there were others that the writers managed to flip things around and keep the plot progression surprising. Highly recommend anyone who enjoys gangster movies or characters that aren't black and white. While there's true evil here, there are also hints of good sprinkled throughout and vice versa.
I rate this show a special rating. One that I've never given to another show. Because of the flaw of being seasonal in nature I cannot give the show a perfect four out of four stars. Yes, a couple other of my highest rated shows are seasonal, but I do not think "Blinders" overcame this weakness as well as it could have. Regardless, I give this show a 3.9 out of 4 star rating. At a minimum it is a 3 3/4 star show, but the writing and a characters push it higher. Not quite the tippy top, but close enough.
After this, I will have a hard time finding something as good to watch next.
You seen Ozark? If not you may enjoy it.
Yep. Great show. Haven't seen the most recent season yet, though. Saving for when I have a couple of weeks to watch.
Both "Ozark" and "Peaky Blinders" are excellent examples of shows that have received tons of praise from both critics and fans but where the main premise simply didn't interest me so I passed on watching them.
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
