In all honesty, It's hard for me to chews between the two.You wrote that The Menu was undercooked, but this sounds even more so. No wonder you found it tasteless.
In all honesty, It's hard for me to chews between the two.You wrote that The Menu was undercooked, but this sounds even more so. No wonder you found it tasteless.
Catching up on some titles that I watched over the last few weeks...
Enola Holmes 2 (2022) - 4/10 - Sherlock's sister starts her own detective agency and continues to break the 4th wall to explain how smart she is. It's more of the original, but not as fresh this time and with a stupid twist ending that's liable to annoy Sherlock Holmes fans. If more of the original is what you want and you don't care about Holmes canon, though, you'll probably love it.
Wait a minute, is that Enola thing part of the Marvel universe too?so only idiots would be annoyed by it.
The Enola Holmes books are not canon and this movie isn't an adaptation of one of them, anyways. Also, what was done in a TV show that people haven't watched is beside the point.If I've understood correctly, the ENola Holmes books have the blessing/approval of the Arthur Conan Doyle estate/family so they are canon. Also, the tv show Elementary already did the twist you're referring to so only idiots would be annoyed by it.
I know "canon" can be a loose term, but, to me, yours is a dangerously broad definition. If an estate could declare canon, that opens the term up for a lot of abuse. I doubt you would consider Sherlock Holmes stories written by other authors as canon. Yet your definition opens up the possibility of the estate declaring such books so as a means of enhancing potential influence or even profit. I think where an estate's imprimatur could prove germane might be in an instance when a previously unpublished or undiscovered work could be authenticated as the work of the original author--at which point the estate, having established the validity of the source material, could declare the work part of the canon. That is as far as I would comfortably take it, though.If I've understood correctly, the ENola Holmes books have the blessing/approval of the Arthur Conan Doyle estate/family so they are canon. Also, the tv show Elementary already did the twist you're referring to so only idiots would be annoyed by it.
Actually I remembered incorrectly, they are not canon.There was actually the most moronic lawsuit by the Conan Doyle estate against the book's writer, publisher and Netflix claiming they made Sherlock emotional and that he shouldn't be. But it was dismissed. I mean Jeremy Brett's Holmes was already emotional in the 80's and that' my favorite Holmes.I know "canon" can be a loose term, but, to me, yours is a dangerously broad definition. If an estate could declare canon, that opens the term up for a lot of abuse. I doubt you would consider Sherlock Holmes stories written by other authors as canon. Yet your definition opens up the possibility of the estate declaring such books so as a means of enhancing potential influence or even profit. I think where an estate's imprimatur could prove germane might be in an instance when a previously unpublished or undiscovered work could be authenticated as the work of the original author--at which point the estate, having established the validity of the source material, could declare the work part of the canon. That is as far as I would comfortably take it, though.
To give somebody else's work blessing or approval just means to me that the estate has no objection to this particular application of Holmes lore. But it would be an outrageous step to declare the newly minted work "canon."
If I remember correctly, you also thought Guadagnino's Call Me By Your Name was a bit of an odd meshing thematically since the story would work as effectively without the gay/homosexual angle used? Guadagnino has great visual style, but maybe a little problem with how he wants to convey his messages? Have you or anyone else seen his 2018 take on Suspiria? I think you may have seen and reviewed it, but I am not conclusive on that. Could have been someone else's review I vaguely remember from 4years ago.
Bones and All (2022) Directed by Luca Guadagnino 3B
Hard to imagine how talented people thought this script was a good idea. Imagine the Twilight series, only with cannibals instead of vampires. Vampires can be sexy; vampires can be romantic. Cannibals can't. There just isn't anything remotely swoony about people who feast on human flesh. To make matters even more head shaking, Bones and All doesn't even need the cannibalism affectation to tell the story. Maren (Taylor Russell) and Lee (Timothee Chalamet) are homeless, disaffected youth on the road hoping to find someplace that may be better than the last place but probably won't be. The woeful couple are already a discernible type, so why saddle them with having to be cannibals to boot? So we end up with this seriously bi-polar movie: on the one hand Bones and All is a brooding sort of romance; on the other hand, it is a gory and tasteless horror movie with us meeting a host of creepy but pointless people along its highly meandering way. The parts, of course, don't fit. As a result, just about everything in the movie seems misguided in a major way. This mess has a couple of positives, though. Taylor Russell is a real find. The cinematography is excellent. And the score by Trent Raznor is more interesting than the movie itself which for some reason is set in the Reagan '80s. Then there is Timothee Chalamet. Why does this dude keep getting parts? He hasn't been good in anything since Guadagnino's Call Me By Your Name in 2017. To me his wispy skills are wearing very thin by now. Why anybody thought he could adequately impersonate a cannibal is a mystery to me.
By the end of the In Bruges, two of the three main characters were dead and the third was trending that way. It would have been the shortest sequel in history.Not even a 9A and the kihei stamp of approval can fully erase the disappointment that it isn't a sequel to In Bruges.
That's no excuse. If they could make a Young Guns II, they can make an In Bruges II.By the end of the In Bruges, two of the three main characters were dead and the third was trending that way. It would have been the shortest sequel in history.
I know what you should do to scrarch that itch. Visit Bruges. It is extremely beautiful with a river running through it everywhere, has the best French Fries in the world, and when you order a slice of cheese, it comes with a little chocolate mouse on top of it. After walking up the courtyard tower, you can relive your memories of the movie in one of the town square cafes.That's no excuse.
Seriously, that's why I was half joking, but the disappointment was real because I did get excited for a minute before I stopped and thought about it.
I know what you should do to scrarch that itch. Visit Bruges. It is extremely beautiful with a river running through it everywhere, has the best French Fries in the world, and when you order a slice of cheese, it comes with a little chocolate mouse on top of it. After walking up the courtyard tower, you can relive your memories of the movie in one of the town square cafes.
That's a fine idea, except that I've already seen it. Why spend thousands on travel when I saw it for only $3.99?I know what you should do to scrarch that itch. Visit Bruges. It is extremely beautiful with a river running through it everywhere, has the best French Fries in the world, and when you order a slice of cheese, it comes with a little chocolate mouse on top of it. After walking up the courtyard tower, you can relive your memories of the movie in one of the town square cafes.