Discuss and Rate the Last Thing You Watched (non-movies)
- Thread starter Hawki
- Start date
Yeah, that's how I felt about the show. Right when it finds it's rhythm in season three, Harmon gets sacked, and it never really recovered as the cast became famous (including the directors). Though, I should say that while I liked the show, it's probably something I won't watch again outside of bits on Youtube. The first season in particular plays a bit too 'safe' and feels like a conventional sitcom, but with Winger being a bit of a monster (he's basically a more successful Dennis Reynolds from IASIP). Granted, they even him out a bit, but it always was there, and wasn't helped by the constant 'boy, I sure learned my lesson!' followed by the next episode where they didn't learn their lesson (though this is most of the characters really).
If you're looking for another good sitcom, the What We Do in the Shadows series has been pretty great. The principal cast of vampires are great, and the effects are pretty good for a TV show.
We've actually been watching What we do in the Shadows season 3 now and loving it. I think it helps that it has only a few short seasons so it doesn't have time to get stale or repetitive but it works wonderfully.
Yes. The vampire just had a bit of a feed and then gave the priest some vampire blood to regenerate him. It broke Riley's neck.
The vampire's motives are not made clear, but presumably the intent was for a human servant, even one to lead it to a new "home" to make its own. The priest was suffering from at least moderate dementia at the point of attack and he's been miraculously restored by a winged being - he might believe, particularly in an addled state, it to be an angel. But I think the show also introduces a theological rationale, drinking the blood of Christ and so on, why perhaps someone open to delusion might fool themselves into thinking the profane was holy. Elsewhere, you can see the mean-spirited god-botherer Bev all too happily throws in her (already thin) morality for religious fervour, justifying it with dubious scripture.
Hence why Riley, an atheist who has suffered from alcoholism, sees things so very differently. He can't obfuscate the vampiricism with spiritual interpretation. He recognises the desire for blood as nothing but an addiction - like the addiction he's fought so hard to resist and is the cause of his terrible guilt (I thought it was a nice touch that the enhanced vampire senses seemed a little like a sort of narcotic-induced sensory distortion). And so he clings to his free-will, and self-immolates rather than surrender.
Most Korean cinema nerds are going to point out "Old Boy", the "Revenge Trilogy", and "I saw the devil", as the big ones in Korean cinema so here's a couple of my favorites that no one western side is aware exists. Fair warning when getting into Korean cinema, most film's are geared towards crushing your heart by the end of it like a ripe tomato. It's a running joke that Korean cinema is its own genre of "depressing as fuck".
Save the Green planet!
I love this movie so much I have the marquee poster
A moment to remember
Cry for days. This one is just a plain Jane drama, but it is heart wrenching. Id almost say ignore the trailers and just go watch it. It's got something crazy like 8/10 on IMDb and 95% on RT.
Last edited:
@Agema, though you do bring up some other issues. You're right; the vampire's motives aren't made clear and ultimately don't make sense. He isn't given any sort of character; I don't believe he even speaks, IIRC, yet he goes through the hassle of indoctrinating a priest who then returns to a remote island town to spread vampirism to what, a few dozen people? Couldn't he have stopped off somewhere on the mainland and gotten the job done more widely and efficiently himself if he just wants "MOAR VAMPIRES" as the overarching tale suggests?
And if you're correct that the vampire didn't kill said priest with dementia during their first encounter, but gave him regenerative, live-saving blood, would it not have cured his dementia and the priest come around to realize it was not a miracle he was experiencing, but an actual nightmare?
I like what the series tried to do, but it didn't do it very well.
Midnight mass (the rest)
Well, that was certainly something.
I just finished the last episode (watching 4 episodes of 7 in a single night), so these are just my immediate thoughts. But damn, that was a good series. Not horror, at least in the traditional sense, and not some sort of masterpiece either. But what it goes for it executes extremely well with engaging writing, a brilliant central concept, and just amazing acting. It also gets better and better with each episode. Hamish Linklater (who I'd never heard of but damn does he deserve all the awards) is simply outstanding, effortlessly and seamlessly moving between kind and gentle, fiery and passionate, and creepy and unsettling. Yet it never feels like it's fishing for "look at me, I'm acting" moments, it all feels completely natural for the character. It's not like the rest of the cast are slouches either, but Linklater is clearly the focus here. Still, the rest of the cast get some damn impressive moments too: I was just blown away by the back to back single-take monologues that went on for minutes in that one episode, and every single word was enthralling.
The series does have issues though. It's very slow paced at first, and I think it maybe could have been 6 episodes instead of 7, or at least every episode didn't need to be an hour or longer. The ending can dip into ridiculous gobbledygook depending on the viewer, and some of the effects don't look that great. But none of these are dealbreakers, and the core of the series is very solid.
Overall this series was very good. 8/10 for now, might change into a 7 later.
Well, that was certainly something.
I just finished the last episode (watching 4 episodes of 7 in a single night), so these are just my immediate thoughts. But damn, that was a good series. Not horror, at least in the traditional sense, and not some sort of masterpiece either. But what it goes for it executes extremely well with engaging writing, a brilliant central concept, and just amazing acting. It also gets better and better with each episode. Hamish Linklater (who I'd never heard of but damn does he deserve all the awards) is simply outstanding, effortlessly and seamlessly moving between kind and gentle, fiery and passionate, and creepy and unsettling. Yet it never feels like it's fishing for "look at me, I'm acting" moments, it all feels completely natural for the character. It's not like the rest of the cast are slouches either, but Linklater is clearly the focus here. Still, the rest of the cast get some damn impressive moments too: I was just blown away by the back to back single-take monologues that went on for minutes in that one episode, and every single word was enthralling.
The series does have issues though. It's very slow paced at first, and I think it maybe could have been 6 episodes instead of 7, or at least every episode didn't need to be an hour or longer. The ending can dip into ridiculous gobbledygook depending on the viewer, and some of the effects don't look that great. But none of these are dealbreakers, and the core of the series is very solid.
Vampires. It's vampires.
I don't think I've ever seen a series that can be spoiled with a single word without any further context. Granted, it's not exactly spoiling it either, since the viewer will know that by episode 4. But the element of mystery is still pretty central to the series' beginning, so I do consider it a severe spoiler.
I don't know if it's been done before, but linking christian mythology and ritual with vampirism makes perfect sense in retrospect. Though the version the series goes with takes quite large liberties with vampire mythology (almost to the point where it's debatable whether they should be called vampires), the core ideas line up perfectly. Whoever was tasked with finding all the bible passages they quote in the series really did their homework, since it both shows the versatility of the Bible as a philosophical text, as well as how it can be used to justify anything and everything.
I didn't think the series is very scary at all, aside from a few pretty cheap jumpscares early on. In retrospect they feel kind of out of place, almost as if the series was courting a different audience trying to present itself as "oooh, scary" when it's anything but. The horror it goes for is more existential and identity-based, more cerebral than visceral. It does play on the audience's sympathy quite effectively, seemingly turning the characters we've liked into bloodthirsty killers, but still showing them retaining all their humanity and empathy. That's probably the most disturbing concept in the entire series.
I would like to say the ending is one of the most conclusive I've seen, but there's still the niggling doubt of whether the arch vampire managed to escape or not. Considering how almost literally everybody dies at the end, leaving that out feels a bit out of place. Just end your show you cowards! This doesn't need a sequel, not even the hint of the possibility of one!
I don't think I've ever seen a series that can be spoiled with a single word without any further context. Granted, it's not exactly spoiling it either, since the viewer will know that by episode 4. But the element of mystery is still pretty central to the series' beginning, so I do consider it a severe spoiler.
I don't know if it's been done before, but linking christian mythology and ritual with vampirism makes perfect sense in retrospect. Though the version the series goes with takes quite large liberties with vampire mythology (almost to the point where it's debatable whether they should be called vampires), the core ideas line up perfectly. Whoever was tasked with finding all the bible passages they quote in the series really did their homework, since it both shows the versatility of the Bible as a philosophical text, as well as how it can be used to justify anything and everything.
I didn't think the series is very scary at all, aside from a few pretty cheap jumpscares early on. In retrospect they feel kind of out of place, almost as if the series was courting a different audience trying to present itself as "oooh, scary" when it's anything but. The horror it goes for is more existential and identity-based, more cerebral than visceral. It does play on the audience's sympathy quite effectively, seemingly turning the characters we've liked into bloodthirsty killers, but still showing them retaining all their humanity and empathy. That's probably the most disturbing concept in the entire series.
I would like to say the ending is one of the most conclusive I've seen, but there's still the niggling doubt of whether the arch vampire managed to escape or not. Considering how almost literally everybody dies at the end, leaving that out feels a bit out of place. Just end your show you cowards! This doesn't need a sequel, not even the hint of the possibility of one!
I think that's a bit of an uncharitable take.
I think the implication was pretty clear that the island was a control group, a test run if you will, for the vampire to see if it could spread its vampirism amongst an isolated populace without attracting unwanted attention to itself. After infecting a triple digit population it could have them spread out, and start infecting other places at a much faster rate than it ever could on its own. It's true that the vampire never speaks and its motivations are never made clear, but I kind of like the ambiguity. It makes the creature seem more eldritch, like something beyond our comprehension. But I think there are enough bits of information that we can infer it has some sort of plan, since in the second to last episode it's clearly in on the priest's plan, wearing a robe and all.
As to the priest's reaction to the vampire, remember that this series takes place in our world. He literally witnessed the miracle of resurrection happen to him. To him an angel is a far more plausible explanation for such a thing happening than a vampire. Just think of how many more people in modern day believe in the existence of angels than vampires. They repeatedly bring up how in the Bible people are terrified of angels when they appear, and how they're not what people expect. To me it makes perfect sense that such a devout believer would buy into it wholesale and convince himself he'd seen and met an actual angel. I mean Christ (see what I did there?), I'd probably tell myself that just to be able to make sense of it, and I'm not religious in the slightest.
Last edited:
And I'd offer that take is overly-charitable, to "death of the author" levels even.
Given what was represented on screen and in script, one can only infer motives of the central character (the vampire) behind the whole series, and as said inference is so intentionally vague, I'm hesitant to make the stretches the writers/producers/directors could have suggested had they done their jobs better.
What you've suggested requires the vampire to have been an actual character in the script and not just a means by which the supernatural affects the natural. As it stands, he was just a thing that did a thing that caused a guy to do some things.
Miss Fisher's Murder Mysteries
This is actually the second time I've watched the series. Its fairly rare beast in that its a period detective show set in Australia. Melbourne, circa 1928 to be exact. So you've got Essie Davis as the titular Miss (Phryne) Fisher swanning around in period dress, waving a gold plated .38 around while solving murder most foul. So far so good, then Nathan Page comes striding in with his fedora and brown coat like an Aussie Dick Tracey as Melbourne Detective Jack Robinson and forms instant chemistry with Davis - the two are good friends in real life I'm told - and so we have our three seasons of smouldering sexual tension.
What really helps the show is its supporting cast: Bert and Cecil, a pair of cab driving ex-diggers Phryne shanghais into becoming her informants, muscle, transport and procurers of slightly dodgy goods in Melbourne's docks who are the epitome of 'those two guys' and are hilarious. Bert especially. Then there's Mr. Butler, the.....butler and former member of the Australian Imperial Forces who can be relied upon for serving drinks, escorting visitors and procuring machine guns. Finally there's Dot and Hugh. Dot is the maid, rescued from the villains in the first episode who goes from being afraid to answer a telephone to almost as good a detective and bullshit artist as Phryne and Hugh is the put upon Constable who accompanies Jack on basically every case he's on. These two are the traditionally romantic couple of the show and much comedy is had at Hugh's expense as the rookie policeman, in fact some of the funniest is when Jack and Phyrne both conspiring to get Hugh to nut up and ask Dot out/marry him etc.
This is actually the second time I've watched the series. Its fairly rare beast in that its a period detective show set in Australia. Melbourne, circa 1928 to be exact. So you've got Essie Davis as the titular Miss (Phryne) Fisher swanning around in period dress, waving a gold plated .38 around while solving murder most foul. So far so good, then Nathan Page comes striding in with his fedora and brown coat like an Aussie Dick Tracey as Melbourne Detective Jack Robinson and forms instant chemistry with Davis - the two are good friends in real life I'm told - and so we have our three seasons of smouldering sexual tension.
What really helps the show is its supporting cast: Bert and Cecil, a pair of cab driving ex-diggers Phryne shanghais into becoming her informants, muscle, transport and procurers of slightly dodgy goods in Melbourne's docks who are the epitome of 'those two guys' and are hilarious. Bert especially. Then there's Mr. Butler, the.....butler and former member of the Australian Imperial Forces who can be relied upon for serving drinks, escorting visitors and procuring machine guns. Finally there's Dot and Hugh. Dot is the maid, rescued from the villains in the first episode who goes from being afraid to answer a telephone to almost as good a detective and bullshit artist as Phryne and Hugh is the put upon Constable who accompanies Jack on basically every case he's on. These two are the traditionally romantic couple of the show and much comedy is had at Hugh's expense as the rookie policeman, in fact some of the funniest is when Jack and Phyrne both conspiring to get Hugh to nut up and ask Dot out/marry him etc.
Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree then, because to me the indications seemed pretty clear.
1. The scene where they discuss Leeza's miracle recovery. They discuss at length how they're not going to exploit her or draw attention to it.
2. The amount of times the apostles are discussed, and how at first christianity consisted of only a few dozen people. But after witnessing the miracle of resurrection the apostles went out into the world and spread christianity like wildfire. It's pretty much a 1 to 1 parallel of what at least Bev is intending to do by turning the entire congregation.
3. Probably the biggest one for me was that the only people the vampire actually kills by feeding on them are non-islanders: the drug dealer, and later on his mother. Aside from those it's just wild animals. I think this indicates clear, deliberate effort on the vampire's part to avoid killing the people on the island, and to not let the outside world know what's going on on the island. It wasn't just looking for people to snack on, it was acting with some greater purpose.
Yeah, that show was quite well done on the whole, and dealt with a lot of social issues of the time. The spin-off film, not so much.
Not seen the spin off series set in the 70s or whatever made by commercial TV.
One funny thing about the show is that Essie Davis is a decade and change older than the character in the novel, but if you think about all the things she can do and has experienced, being in her early 40s makes sense compared to late 20s.
Also my word, Essie Davis is one of the most magnetic women I've seen ever.
We can absolutely agree to disagree seeing as, as of the time of this post, there's no clear or correct interpretation, AFAIK. In my opinion, inference isn't a very effective story-telling device when what's inferred is kinda the whole point of the story one is telling, the reason you have viewership. It's one thing to have a few hanging chads in a broader story, but when your central character, the whole reason the story exists, goes uncharacterized and the story's point is left to inference, well, then you've not told a story, have you? It's just a string of things happening then "period." I mean, it's got us talking and thinking about it, but for those like me, that's not enough given I invested 7 hours to be told half of the story.
The biblical parallels are clear; there's no debating that. But the problem for me is that's made evident so early in the miniseries, it makes the rest feel redundant, hence my "spinning of the tires" analogy in my initial post. I kept hoping for the series to explain or do more. There's something to the vampire and his motives that would make the story more interesting were it explored. Instead we're left with a shameless "blind religious adherence without question is bad" message which I got in the first couple of episodes. The vampire exists as little more than a monster in an '80s horror movie despite him being the catalyst for 7 hours of religious pontificating that on its own isn't very interesting at best and preachy at worst.
Season 3 of The Doom Patrol on HBO MAX.
This season, more than 1 and 2, got a near terminal case of the cutes.
I was able to skip enough of the painful scenes to focus on the fun and quirky.
Looking forward to season 4.
This season, more than 1 and 2, got a near terminal case of the cutes.
I was able to skip enough of the painful scenes to focus on the fun and quirky.
Looking forward to season 4.
Man I should really get back to this. I never finished season 1, but it was infinitely better than Titans. Still can't believe they exist in the same world.
Maybe it is a multiverse with another Doom Patrol, Beast Boy and Cyborg was in both?
There were and are some redeeming qualities to Titans but ultimately, got too talky and morally confused. I still skimmed around that for some of the action scenes but at this point, I don't even try to follow the, "plot".
Season 1 of Doom Patrol was fantastic and included one of the best, belly laugh out loud scenes I've watched on TV ever. Hope you get back to it.
Duel (2021)
The legendary director Ridley Scott is on this list again, and this time with a new knight film The Last Duel. It tells a fascinating story about betrayal and revenge mixed with the brutality and oppression of women in 14th century France.
This movie is a pleasant surprise. At first, you get the feeling that you don’t quite get what’s going. But slowly you start solving the plot puzzle and everything gets clearer. The story was told in a fascinating way.
I came in expecting to see battles between different warriors and armies than for a single battle between the two main characters. But that’s the whole point – that the Last Duel is built all the way up to that particularly aggressive and tense battle and for that I’m not disappointed but vice versa – I will describe the film in one word – WOW!
The legendary director Ridley Scott is on this list again, and this time with a new knight film The Last Duel. It tells a fascinating story about betrayal and revenge mixed with the brutality and oppression of women in 14th century France.
This movie is a pleasant surprise. At first, you get the feeling that you don’t quite get what’s going. But slowly you start solving the plot puzzle and everything gets clearer. The story was told in a fascinating way.
I came in expecting to see battles between different warriors and armies than for a single battle between the two main characters. But that’s the whole point – that the Last Duel is built all the way up to that particularly aggressive and tense battle and for that I’m not disappointed but vice versa – I will describe the film in one word – WOW!