Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

pricklypear

Member
  • Posts

    142
  • Joined

Reputation

304 Excellent
  1. Just finished all ten episodes. Ditto to everyone who said this last episode was a disappointment and not at all fitting with the rest of the episodes. It was just too...tidy for a haunted house story. And it really took the teeth and terror out of the previous episodes. I am a horror movie/show/story fanatic, and I haven't seen anything sufficiently scary in a long time. This is the first thing I've watched in forever where I had to look through my fingers in anticipation of something scary (and there was at least one scene that made me scream so loud that I made my kids scream, LOL). But then the super sappy ending was really unsatisfying. I know there are cases to be made for keeping the house malevolent and also for having the ghosts be at peace, but the show never really tied those two things together. For nine episodes, the house was after the family. It wanted to "eat" them. And then in the last episode, suddenly people were flocking to become a part of it? They needed to choose one or the other or do a better job of filling in that gap. (Personally, I would have gone with the malevolence and not just as a metaphor for everyone's personal demons, which admittedly was fairly well done.) I've seen movies do it in under two hours, so I know it can be done. Not sure where to ask this question, but I am wondering if anyone knows the drive behind the decision to cast Hugh with two different actors. Don't get me wrong. I love Henry Thomas and Timothy Hutton both (though, I'd have to say that TH's acting was far superior to HT's in this show). It was really jarring to me to watch scenes of "young" Hugh and then right after "old" Hugh, knowing the actors aren't much different in age. Couldn't they just have aged HT for the present-day scenes or made TH look a little younger for the flashbacks? It really took me out of the scenes. On the same note, the kids who played the younger versions of the adult actors were spot on. That was brilliant casting. Overall a good show, but man, I wish they had been able to stick the landing.
  2. This was definitely better than the first two episodes. I agree that Murphy and Avery are amazing together. I like Phyllis, too. I hope they just keep improving. It always takes shows -- brand new or returning -- to find their footing again. The one thing that is different for me this go 'round is that politics in the first incarnation was kind of a secondary character, almost subliminal (with some notable exceptions, like the Dan Quayle episode). It was always there, but it was woven into other, bigger plots. A good example was Murphy having a baby. The main plot of those episodes was her being pregnant and deciding to have the baby, and you obviously can't get through a story like that without some relevant, political humor. And the Dan Quayle issue was just mining what had actually happened in real life. It was a lucky (and hilarious, poignant, of course) coincidence. This time, the plots revolve around the politics itself. It's kind of like That 70s Show for me. The seventies were always in the background, and jokes were sometimes made about it, and those jokes were funny, but most of the basic plots were everyday, "normal" stuff. Then they aired That 80s Show, and almost every single joke was about the eighties decade itself. It really wasn't funny because they tried too hard to make the underlying thread -- the absurdity of the decade -- the main plot. Last week's episode was very much like this. The whole thing revolved around Murphy's big speech at the press conference. The #metoo episode this week was better, I think, because the plot stemmed from a broader issue of sexual harassment seminars (and who hasn't had to sit through one of those?). Her revelation, and the conversations after, were a little more natural than the first two episodes. Not sure if I'm explaining that well, but I think if they put the horse back before the cart, they'll be fine. Politics will always be a part of MB, and it will always be a left-leaning show. It just needs to be a little more organic, I think.
  3. Regarding the letter, I have no idea whether or not it was doctored, but I certainly get both Kim's and Jimmy's reactions. When you've dealt with someone with that level of mental disorder for so long, especially having been their primary taker, it takes a lot out of you. Given Jimmy's last conversation with Chuck, I can see where he immediately detached himself of all emotion. That's hard to just turn back on. It's almost a survival mechanism. (I've been there.) As for Kim, I see all of this as a long period of increasing guilt over how she acquired Mesa Verde in the first place and what they did to Chuck. She knows Jimmy "cheated" to get her that job (even if it was stolen out from under her in the first place). And then their dismantling of Chuck on the witness stand over an issue she knew was predicated on a lie. She blew up at Paige, who was practically giddy over Chuck's meltdown. I remember she said something like, "All we did is tear down a sick man." I can't remember the exact words. Chuck's courtroom breakdown, at least quite possibly in Kim's mind, led to his professional, and then his actual death. Something like that will slowly eat away at you over time. That's at least what I sensed when she was looking at the Mesa Verde models and kind of freaking out. Yes, it could be that she feels overwhelmed and trapped, but I suspect, also, that guilt is starting to consume her. If she was already feeling this way, and then she hears a letter written by Chuck -- which she thought was going to be scathing, petty, and hurtful, but was actually something almost sweet and heartfelt -- it's no wonder that she was overcome with emotion. Kim is a tightly wound character to begin with (you can even literally see it in her "work ponytail"). I wouldn't be surprised if she ends up having a nervous breakdown.
  4. I totally agree. She did call him a "superhero" to her band mate, too, though. I get that she was mad at the guy who was hitting on her at the time, and I think she was right to tell him off, but I think there was a little bit of idealizing when he was alive, too, which became even more magnified after he died.
  5. I would like, at some point, for the show to explore Rebecca's issues with Jack. Last night wasn't the first time she has referred to him as "perfect," which to me is strange. I adore my husband. He is an amazing husband and father. By no means have I ever seen him as perfect. I also wonder what she means by one of them "abandoning" her after their father died. Weren't they 17? That is just about the age that they would start flying the coop. One of them was bound to have plans to travel/go to college out of state/move away, whether their father had lived or died. My mother had borderline and narcissistic personality disorders. She had abandonment issues (i.e., making any of her kids feel guilty upon the slightest hint of wanting to move out, even when we were of the normal age that kids start talking about those kinds of things), and she once declared my little brother as "perfect," and that we weren't allowed to bug/harass him (guess what kind of speech that inspires siblings to do?). My brother told me fairly recently that he always resented her for that. Being labeled "perfect" not only made him a target for his siblings, but it laid an impossible amount of expectation for him to live up to. Not saying Rebecca has personality disorders, but her idealization of her husband is a little off to me.
  6. In Cydney's defense, I mentioned earlier that I had suffered a couple of uncomfortable nights having done something similar to Joe. I may have said the same exact thing Cydney said ("From my own experience, he is not going to be loving life in a little while."). It never would have occurred to me that Joe would suffer some life-threatening condition from eating too much beef. I would have just thought he would have a miserable night ahead of him, things would get moving, and then all would be good. Just like it does most of the time.
  7. Two of the most miserable nights of my life each came about a week after my c-sections. I had been on non-solid foods for a few days. Felt ready, ate a solid meal that involved some meats, and then less than 24 hours later…well, let's just say I'm fairly familiar with how Joe was feeling (if I ever have major surgery again, I now know to stick with LOTS of fiber until my body is up and running). I *always* think of that whenever there is a food challenge and people who have not eaten for days gorge themselves on meat, chocolate, etc. It makes me uncomfortable just watching them eating, knowing what's possibly in store for at least a few of them. I feel bad for Joe, though, that THAT is the reason he was evacuated from the game. As miserable as I was those two nights, at least it wasn't playing out on national tv. And if I'd had Jeff Probst sitting there yakking at me, I may have gone just a little bit crazy. I'm impressed that Joe didn't stand up and tell him to STFU. I'm back and forth on Tai, but overall, I think he deserves to be in that final four as much as anyone else. Can't accuse the guy of NOT playing the game.
  8. I swear, this show could go on forever, and I would be fine with it. There are SO many interesting characters to explore. I am suddenly VERY curious in Krazy 8's story. How did he go from family furniture store worker to low-level drug dealer ? (Not sure if that last part needed tags, but just in case.) I noticed the watch, too, and the fact that we saw it so many times and so prominently makes me think it wasn't an accident. Stay tuned, I guess…
  9. Okay, I know it's a sitcom and all, but it was really, REALLY bugging me that when Ramona's party started falling apart that her mom, THE PARTY PLANNER, went AWOL. I mean, isn't that when she should be kicking it into high gear and figuring out how to salvage the party? I guess I haven't seen enough to know whether Kimmy is supposed to be halfway decent at her job (though, based on this event alone, I certainly wouldn't hire her).
  10. He's actually quite good in Shattered Glass. I hope, if HC appears in future movies as a spirit that the writers remember that when he died, he was Annakin, not Darth Vader. Just saw TFA this afternoon, and I really liked it. Husband and I had similar "sameness" reactions to it that a lot of people did, but I like that it returned to the darkness and the humor of the original three. I think it was a good call on JJ Abrams' part to pay homage to ANH rather than call to mind any of the prequels. Hopefully the next two movies will move away from that familiar feeling, at least in plot. In cinematography and tone, it was comforting for fans, I think, to be reintroduced in such a way.
  11. Definitely loved this season. One of my favorites. A couple of things about last night: I don't think Spencer was being a "bully." I for sure think he took a misstep in talking too much at TC. He did what my BIL (car salesman) would call "talking past the sale." He should have just said that Kelley would win if she made it to FTC and left it at that. Even my husband, when Spencer started talking again, was all, "Didn't he already say that?" I really, really hope that Val being pregnant isn't what swayed the jury (and I don't think it was). I don't understand how someone choosing to have children makes someone more "deserving" than someone else. They need it more? Who's to say Spencer, Tasha, Kelley, Keith, or Kimmi didn't "need" it more? Maybe one of them was planning to open an orphanage with the money. Maybe one of them has a family member who needs life-saving surgery that would bankrupt them. Maybe one of them just wanted to travel the world with it. I just don't see how, with Jeremy and Val being presumably healthy, vibrant people and having a healthy, vibrant family, he "should" have it. And I really didn't understand why Val being pregnant was such a big secret and why it was such a BIG REVEAL at FTC. She is enjoying a healthy, seemingly uneventful pregnancy (and I'm glad for that). Two loving parents adding to their family isn't exactly earth-shattering. I kind of understood voting blocs being different from alliances because of fluidity. An alliance is assumed to be voting together at each and every TC throughout the game (until the point that they have to start voting against each other). The voting blocs were groups of people who voted together in one TC but might not necessarily vote together at the next. There is no solid alliance, where players can count on (as much as you can count on in this game) each other from day to day. People are constantly scrambling to gather a group to get a majority vote going for each TC. That's, at least, how I understood the difference.
  12. Ah, thank you. I haven't seen Australia since it originally aired, but I have seen Africa recently, and I remember that they were freaking out about people knowing there were votes against them. Didn't realize it had changed. Still seemed wonky last night, though. As much as I wanted Spencer to win, I think Jeremy played a great game. The fact that he WASN'T ever in any danger, to me, means just as much as Spencer and Kelley coming so far after having been on the bottom several times. Anyone who can get through the game without sweating much is quite deserving of the win, IMO.
  13. I've seen a ton of Survivor seasons, but not all (seen enough that a lot of them kind of blur together for me). I am a big Survivor fan, but certainly not an expert, so I am wondering if anybody knows the answer to this question: Didn't it used to be that, if there was a tie at TC, the person with the most votes against them previously goes home? I feel like that was a HUGE issue early on, that people didn't want others to know that there had been votes cast against them once they merged because then they would be a target. Did that go away? Does that not apply so late in the game? I enjoyed last night's tribal, but something didn't seem right to me, and it DEFINITELY wouldn't have been right to have Keith go, who had zero votes against him at that particular TC. :-/
  14. Put me in the same camp of watching with talkers and having to watch again the next day. I hope Spencer didn't hurt his game by voting out Abi. That was a risky move, but I can totally see why KEEPING her is risky, too, especially with so few left. It's too easy for her to blab everyone's plan or to flip without any warning. She's unpredictable, which makes her dangerous.
  15. Favorite parts of the night: Keith struggling to explain his RC picks. My family and I were trying to determine if he was speaking English at all. Jeremy's line about living with two Scorpios being the reason he drinks. Jeff asking Jeremy if he was confident in his "we." Goodness, the whole family -- including the nine-year-old and the eleven-year-old -- got a lot of amusement out of that. I'm sure that's what they were going for, and it worked.
×
×
  • Create New...