New movies on HBO January 2020: Full list of whats new on HBO this month – Express

January Blues are certainly upon us, as the weather becomes drizzly and grey and the dreaded January bug starts to spread around our offices. There is nothing better at this time of year than to curl up on the sofa with a good streaming subscription to watch the latest movies and TV series. With that in mind, what is new on HBO in January 2020, and what can we look forward to?

John Wicks third chapter was a truly epic action thriller, featuring the reluctant assassin back where we know him.

Fans will remember how the first John Wick saw Keanu Reeves retired assassin return to work after brutal killers broke into his home and killed his dog - the gift given to him by his recently deceased wife.

Since then, Wick has tried desperately to get out of the game, but with every turn someone is trying to drag him back in and force him to rejoin the life he escaped from.

John Wick: Chapter 3 - Parabellum is available to stream on HBO now.

READ MORE:Joker Oscars 2020: THIS is why Joaquin Phoenixs Joker will win Best Picture at Oscars

American Animals is a crime drama based on a real life crime committed by some students desperate to give their lives meaning.

The group decide to steal rare books from a library in the hope of selling them for millions of dollars, but the heist is led by two students who seem desperate to try and escape their humdrum lives for something more exciting.

Starring Barry Keoghan, Evan Peters, and Ann Dowd of The Handmaids Tale fame, the film gained positive critical reviews, and currently holds an 89 percent score on Rotten Tomatoes, as well as an 81 percent audience score.

American Animals is available to stream on HBO now.

Fast Five is the fifth (believe it or not) movie in the Fast and Furious franchise, which saw Vin Diesel and Paul Walker return to the fold as Dom Loretto and Brian OConner.

The film was named so as to distance it from the street-racing themes seen in the previous movies, and focuses more on action and heists.

The film also saw the introduction of Dwayne John as Luke Hopes, a DSS agent who hunted the pair down in the hopes of putting Dom and Brian behind bars.

Fast Five is available to stream on HBO now.

READ MORE:Michelle Obama documentary streaming: Can you watch the full movie online? Is it legal?

See the original post here:
New movies on HBO January 2020: Full list of whats new on HBO this month - Express


Reviewed and Recommended by Erik Baquero
Posted in Scary Movie| Comments Off on New movies on HBO January 2020: Full list of whats new on HBO this month – Express

Revisiting the Cinematic Landscape of 2000 – Flickering Myth

Tom Jolliffe takes a look back 20 years to the film offerings of 2000

Ive got news for people older than 30. The year 2000 wasnt a couple of years ago. Colour me quite shocked but apparently its not 2004? When did this happen? It is in fact 2020. This means people born this century could conceivably be 20 years old. Now that Ive thoroughly depressed myself (and perhaps a few of our readerssorry) I will take a look back at a turning point in history and indeed cinema.

1999 was gone. Y2K came and went. A slew of millennium set, end of day films that were largely shit, were now thankfully, mercifully, old hat. It only took a slightly slow, middle aged Arnold Schwarzenegger to throw himself on a sword and avert the apocalypse. Cheers Arnie. The Matrix marked perhaps the most iconic film that played out in that final year of the 20th century. What happened in the birth of the 21st century was that many a Matrix follower came about. That being said, in the year 2000, before Matrix fever had fully taken off following a good hearty video run, there were mercifully few Wire-fu Matrix knock offs. Films like Charlies Angels and the long forgotten Wesley Snipes techno thriller The Art of War certainly aped some of the action sequences, but the following year would see a longer run of tired Matrix riffing.

Looking back in fact, 2000 is a stronger year than I had first hazily recalled. There was generally a demise in cinematic quality in the late 90s, leading into the first 5 years particularly of the new century. As a miserablist Ill forever maintain that Hollywood cinema peaked in the 70s and music died in the 90s but still, things from 2005-2015 seemed to pick up a little (and subsequently have levelled off as Marvel/Disney furthers its chicken choking grip). 2000 had some epic turkeys it must be said. The aforementioned Charlies Angels, a dreadful film which somehow captured a moment and brought McG to attention (and made the kind of money Elizabeth Banks thinks female led action films wont make in a male-lead world). Battlefield Earth was considered a Turkey of such epic proportions that it would never be out-turkeyed again (yet the years have been kind, not so much in re-appraisal, but in it being thoroughly out-turkeyed and forgottenCats, Im looking at you).

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon is 20 years old now. Shockingits a great film and one that indeed opened doorways to the Western acceptance of Chinese action films on a wider level. That director Ang Lee had already established himself in American cinema obviously helped, whilst Chow Yun Fat and Michelle Yeoh already made the American bows too. Further, the film also benefited from The Matrix awakening a craving for Martial arts action (indeed courtesy of flavour of the subsequent decade Yeun Wu Ping). As far as English speaking cinema goers went, the early century saw a yearning and generosity in accepting foreign films. Add in Amores Perros, the stunning In The Mood For Love, Yi Yi and Cult Horror Battle Royale. Audiences seemed willing to read subtitles, sit through a different style and pace. In part, it could be that many of these films were a whole lot better than much of what Hollywood offered, but distributors seemed more open to World cinema too. Do modern audiences have the attention span for it now? The distributors dont seem to think so (on a decent scale that is).

There were an array of films that have since become cult classics. American Psycho which still feels fresh and still manages to entertain on several levels is probably still one of the finest exponents of Christian Bales talents ever. That mix of horror, comedy and commentary works sizzlingly well in a film open to several interpretations. Its still a personal favourite of mine, nestled somewhere within a disorganised and ever changing Top 100 (but with a placing all but forever assured). High Fidelity is still an effortlessly cool and enjoyable film and a reminder of a period where John Cusack was a great go to charming every-man lead. School of Rock aside, there has also never been better use of Jack Black and his talents. Further, the soundtrack in High Fidelity, and that fervent passion for carefully curating music that flows from script to screen through the characters, is exceptional.

X-Men came about with a lot of fanfare and a lot of moaning. There was, believe it or not, a time when people thought Hugh Jackman was an awful choice for Wolverine. Okay, in the grand scheme I can appreciate that X-Men is a somewhat dated film now, particularly in comparison to some of the better modern Marvel films, although Ill still say X2 and Spider-Man 2 (Sam Raimi), which both came pre-MCU are as good as anything the MCU have made. I saw that film a few days after seeing Snatch, a film that still has a cult following, and if The Matrix inspired lots of irksome followers, Snatch was duly guilty of inspiring a vast, unfathomable typhoon of grimly unimaginative British Gangster films. In fact, they still come out fairly regularly, but the first decade of his century you couldnt move for Lock Stock/Snatch rip offs.

Big Oscar films like Almost Famous, Gladiator and Erin Brockovich (starring Eric Roberts sister) still hold up well. Gladiator might be a bit melodramatic in retrospect, coying and maudlin in places but it stands head and shoulders over most of the similar themed epics of the previous 30 years before it, and the decade of dross (like Troy, Kingdom of Heaven etc) that it inspired. Films like O Brother, Where Art Thou, a fine example of the Coens doing quirky absurdist comedy, and in a way they havent bettered since (in the likes of Hail, Caesar! or Burn After Reading), Memento (still Chris Nolans best film for me) and Requiem For A Dream have all maintained a cult following and were some of the strongest that year. Unbreakable some people love, and of course it has since been followed but M. Night Shyamalans follow up to The Sixth Sense always felt disappointing to me (and still does).

Family films were a weak affair with Jim Carrey barnstorming his way, perhaps a little tiresomely through a weak Grinch film, some average Disney in The Emperors New Groove and an even more average The Road To El Dorado. Chicken Run was the pick of the bunch for kids, who must have been bored stiff by cinematic offerings that year (Aardman aside).

Comedy fans, still chortling heartily I imagine from American Pie rejuvenating the teen debauchery comedy, werent offered much either. We had Dude Wheres My Car, which stretched the concept of its titular line over the course of a tiresome film. Big Mommas House(I need only say the titledo I need to go on?). Scary Movie began a franchise that has dated horribly. Billy Elliot was charming however, with a bit of subtle pathos added. Or you could have watched the almost unintentionally funny Mission impossible 2, which epic set pieces and impressive Cruise performed stunts aside was the most ego dripping self indulgent star vehicle of the early 00s.

Oddly, and perhaps coinciding with the century turn, and impending year of 2001 (that the Clarke/Kubrick collaboration saw as a futuristic possibility of deep space travel) saw an odd pre-occupation with space. Red Planet, Space Cowboys, Battlefield Earth, Pitch Black (still an enjoyable slice of B fun, and Vin Diesel at his absolute pinnacle) and Supernova. Yes, theres a lot of dross in space, Riddicks first outing aside.

What do you think of the cinematic offerings in 2000? Which is your favourite? Are things better or worse now? Let us know in the comments below and on our twitter page @flickeringmyth.

Tom Jolliffe is an award winning screenwriter and passionate cinephile. He has a number of films out on DVD/VOD around the world and several releases due in 2020, including The Witches Of Amityville Academy (starring Emmy winner, Kira Reed Lorsch). Find more info at the best personal site youll ever seehttps://www.instagram.com/jolliffeproductions/

Visit link:
Revisiting the Cinematic Landscape of 2000 - Flickering Myth


Reviewed and Recommended by Erik Baquero
Posted in Scary Movie| Comments Off on Revisiting the Cinematic Landscape of 2000 – Flickering Myth

I Doubt Chris Rock Will Use ‘Tussin To Overpower Jigsaw In The Upcoming Ninth ‘Saw’ Movie – Pajiba

One of my favorite Chris Rock routines involves him reminiscing about his parents cure-all: Robitussin. Broken leg? Let that Tussin get in there! Let that Tussin go down to the bone! If you run out of it, put some water in the jar, shake it up, more Tussin! MORE TUSSIN!

I couldnt help but think of it immediately after being reminded that Rock stars in a reboot/spin-off/sequel to the Saw movies due to hit theaters May 15 of this year.

Sure, Jigsaw sets traps but he also offers up a hefty dose of Tussin to heal your severed hands, the poison coursing through your body, or the shotgun blast to your face. At least, in my dreams, thats the storyline Rock handed over to Jigsaw writers Pete Goldfinger and Josh Stolberg so they could pen the script.

Instead, we know that Rock will play a police detective investigating the crimes of a serial killer (no word yet on Tobin Bell returning) and that the movie will have some humor in it to diffuse the torture porn of it all.

Allegedly titled The Organ Donor, the movie also boasts the director of Saw II - Saw IV, Darren Lynn Bousman, and Samuel L. Jackson starring as Rocks father. Although filming began in July 2019, there really isnt much more information about the franchises newest entry, but I already have a theory brewing in my head based on the information that has been provided to fans and media outlets.

Rocks own father is the serial killer. Im calling it now. Or maybe not. After all, Lionsgates chairman Joe Drake praised Rocks originality in a statement to The Hollywood Reporter back in 2019, so hed better come up with something better than my lame shot in the dark.

So maybe there is Tussin involved? The killer is a crazed surgeon stealing organs (a callback to the alleged name) and forcing the patients, hooked up to a Tussin IV, to run a gamut of traps. Yes, its all coming together for me. I await the May premiere and will be sure to see which of my excellent theories turn out to be true.

Jodi Smith is the Associate Trade News Editor at Pajiba. You can email her or follow her on Twitter.

Header Image Source: Netflix

Next Article

Read the original:
I Doubt Chris Rock Will Use 'Tussin To Overpower Jigsaw In The Upcoming Ninth 'Saw' Movie - Pajiba


Reviewed and Recommended by Erik Baquero
Posted in Scary Movie| Comments Off on I Doubt Chris Rock Will Use ‘Tussin To Overpower Jigsaw In The Upcoming Ninth ‘Saw’ Movie – Pajiba

Joker Is A Great Movie That Has Absolutely Zero Business Winning Best Picture At The Academy Awards – BroBible

In the middle of the fourth season ofThe Office, Michael is enraged when he finds out Karen, who has since left the Scranton office to become the manager of the Utica branch, has offered Stanley a job. Michael responds by recruiting an incredibly eager Dwight and a very reluctant Jim to drive north to Utica with him in an attempt at retaliation.

They wear disguises, break a copier, and ultimately humiliate themselves, which is the end result of essentially any plan dreamed up by Michael Scott.

At one point, Dwight finds himself in the midst of a conversation with Karen and threatens to burn Utica to the ground. Moments later, Michael also threatens to do the same. The line has gone on to become one of my favorites from the show, and as someone who can find ways to quote The Office on an almost unhealthy basis, I really enjoy having the option to threaten to burn Utica to the ground when it suits me.

If the DVR didnt do its job, Ill vow to burn Utica to the ground. If the garbage truck picks up all of my trash except for that one heavy can I knew they werent going to take but that I was really hoping they would, I will fantasize about reducing the tenth largest city in the state of New York to a pile of ashes.

A staff meeting runs long? Im torching Utica. Amazon messes up an order? Uticas toast. I break a wine glass while doing the dishes? Scranton might have a strangler but Uticas going to have an arsonist.

If Joker somehow wins the Oscar for Best Picture, Ill burn Utica to the ground.

I sawJoker and I thought that it was pretty good. Or I think it was pretty good. I leftJoker feeling confused and fairly uneasy.

I couldnt stop thinking about it, but at a certain point, I didnt want to think about it anymore. I found the movie both entertaining and boring as well as equal parts confusing and intriguing. I would be perfectly comfortable never seeing it again, yet at the same time, Im happy (if not relieved) that I did, because then I wouldnt have to concern myself with needing to see it to form my own opinion.

Thats not how Id want to describe a movie that takes home the Academy Award for Best Picture.

How do I feel about Joaquin Phoenix? He was absolutely dynamite as the Joker.

He went all in and I respect that. I dont understand why he climbed into the fridge at one point but Im not here to question the intentions of an artist. I guess it made sense to him, so there you go. Case closed.

If they want to give Phoenix the Oscar for Best Actor, I wouldnt be opposed to it. I suppose arguments could be made for Leonardo DiCaprio or Adam Driver but Phoenix feels like a favorite and for good reason. Again, he was really, really good in Joker.

If Phoenix hadnt been up to the job of becoming Joker, that movie would have been a colossal trainwreck. He carried the film and did so from start to finish. Thats what we should want from someone who is in the running to win an Academy Award for Actor in a Leading Role.

I like to think of it as the Daniel Day-Lewis Rule. That guy carries movies and owns literally everything hes in. When hes onscreen, its impossible to take your eyes off of him. When it feels as if only that one actor could have pulled off playing a specific part, theres a good chance he was the guy they tried to cast.

If someone goes full Daniel Day-Lewis in a movie, they should win an Oscar. Phoenix did exactly that in Joker. Give the man his trophy.

But the movie itself? I think we need to seriously ask ourselves ifJoker was actually good or not. Im not sure it was.

The last thirty or forty minutes definitely were. The movies final act was what stuck with me and was what caused me to not be able to shake it for a few days after I saw it. Once Arthur Fleck turns that corner and becomes Joker, the movie also turns a corner. Joker becomes almost like a horror movie; one of those psychological, mind-altering horror movies as opposed to one that relies on jump-scares.

Fleck makes you uncomfortable the whole time but youre never really scared of him.

Fleck as Joker though? Thats a different story.

Phoenixs Joker was the first incarnation of the character in a movie that was truly scary. Cesar Romeros Joker wasnt scary and neither was Jack Nicholsons. Both were too cartoonish to be deeply unnerving.

Heath Ledgers Joker came close but he didnt make you nervous or cause you to squirm in your seat in the same way Phoenixs Joker did. Ledgers Joker was very much a villain and he was familiar in that sense. The way in which he was methodical and had plans and carried out those plans were things we expect from villains, especially comic book villains.

Phoenixs Joker was a combustible wild card and an incredibly dangerous one at that. Sure, he had plans, but they were amateur hour compared to what Ledgers Joker cooked up. They were sketches, whereas Ledgers were fully-formed Powerpoint presentations. There is just something more troubling, unsettling, and scary about someone making it up as they go along, which is the feeling I got from Phoenixs Joker.

If that last act ofJoker stuck with me, the accompanying visual that I just couldnt let go of was the shot of him walking out of the subway station while smoking a cigarette with confidence for the first time and pleased with himself in a way he had never really been before. He looked demonically evil, a look we had never previously seen from a Joker.

Ledgers Joker just wanted to watch the world burn. Phoenixs Joker wasnt nearly as interested in watching. Rather, he was more intrigued by the aftermath and the effects of the punishment.

So yeah, lets give Phoenix the Oscar. And while were at it, lets give Joker the Oscar for cinematography too.

All Fleck talked about throughout the movie was how dirty and disgusting the city had become.Jokers cinematographer Lawrence Sher was able to create a Gotham that truly looked like Fleck described it. You could almost smell the trash through the screen and feel the grease and grime on your hands.

But I think thats about it. I dont think it should win anything else.

Todd Phillips shouldnt win for directing because he essentially ripped off the vibe of the films Martin Scorsese put out in the late 1970s and early 1980s (and I didnt get the sense he was purposely paying homage to them). Joker also shouldnt win for costume design, score, or sound editing. The film can be in contention for those awards, sure, but they shouldnt win.

AndJoker should definitely not win for Best Picture.

Why?

Because its not the best movie to come out in the past year. That about sums it up.

If it were only the last act, then we could have that conversation. Unfortunately, there was about an hour and a half that preceded that culmination that was boring, emotionally confusing, boring again, kind of okay, head-scratchingly confusing, and repetitive. I found myself wondering why I was watching the movie a handful of times and Id like to think I wasnt alone there.

To make things worse, I figured that was going to happen before I saw the movie.

Prior to watching Joker, one of the biggest things I wrestled with was if I really wanted to potentially feel sorry for him. The Joker is a bad guy. Sympathizing with antiheroes is one thing but the Joker isnt an anti-hero. I dont want to know why hes doing what hes doing because then I could potentially empathize with him, and frankly, thats not something Im very keen on.

That didnt stop me from seeing it anyway and the concerns I had going in were warranted. I certainly found myself feeling bad for Arthur Fleck (the movie made it almost impossible not too) and then was mad at myself for feeling bad for Arthur Fleck because he eventually becomes the Joker and the Joker is a bad guy. I dont want to feel bad for bad guys. I want to feel bad for the people harmed by bad guys. I guess Im just old-fashioned that way.

Plus, you knew Fleck/Joker was going to eventually kill Zaziz Beatz character as soon as she was introduced and you knew he was going to kill Robert DeNiros character the moment he was invited on Murray Franklins show. I dont know how Marc Marons character survived but Im impressed that he did.

Also, what was that nonsense about Fleck thinking he was Thomas Waynes illegitimate son? There are plenty of other ways that Phillips and company could have driven the point home that Flecks mother was delusional. Trying to shoehorn Batman history and canon into the story just felt cheap.

AND. WE. DONT. NEED. TO. SEE. THOMAS. AND. MARTHA. WAYNE. GETTING. KILLED. ANYMORE. Thank you very much.

If you want to show their murder from a different perspective, maybe show them with bodyguards for once because it doesnt make any sense that a man of Thomas Waynes stature (especially how hes portrayed in Joker) wouldnt have some kind of security detail.

The city is on the brink of a riot and hes running for office, yet he and his family are gallivanting around the wretched streets of Gotham by themselves? Come on now. Include at least one dude with an earpiece following close behind them and then maybe Im buying it.

But that doesnt mean I want to see it. At least not again.

Adding that part felt a little too cute and took away from the overall impact of those few minutes of anarchy portrayed in the films final moments. For a while there, the movie had brought you so far into their story, you almost forgot that this was even related to Batman and that was part of the reason why it got so good.

But then they ruined it. It was a bummer.

Earlier this week, I was talking to my wife about the Oscars and the subject ofJoker came up. I started venting my frustration with it receiving so many nominations when she asked why they even made a movie about the Joker.

It stopped me in my tracks. I didnt have an answer. It was such a simple question and simple questions should normally have simple answers.

Why did we need a movie about the Joker? Are we that starved for comic book content and/or for expanding every comic book universe under the sun.

In 1989s Batman, we got a glimpse into how Joker came to be and that was fine. Id argue that it was significantly more interesting in The Dark Knight when the Joker just appeared, and not only did he not really have a backstory, that backstory kept changing.

The Joker is the bad guy. Since when do we need deep dives into how the bad guy came to be? Dipping our toe into the shallow end should get the job done just fine.

Being confused by movies is normal but we shouldnt be as confused by the intention of a movie. As strange as The Shape of Waterwas, the intention was clear. Guillermo del Toro wanted to make a fairy tale, which he did (albeit a mighty strange one).

So what was the actual point of Joker? Was it to tell a story about the people left behind and disowned by society or was it simply an attempt to tell the Jokers story? Maybe it was both?

Either way, there are other ways to tell if Option A was the reason and not much of a reason for digging into Option B. Whichever movie wins for Best Picture shouldnt feel pointless and Jokerfeels pointless.

Joaquin Phoenixs portrayal of Joker was remarkable. Joker was not.

And yes, if it wins the Oscar for Best Picture, I will burn Utica to the ground.

Originally posted here:
Joker Is A Great Movie That Has Absolutely Zero Business Winning Best Picture At The Academy Awards - BroBible


Reviewed and Recommended by Erik Baquero
Posted in Scary Movie| Comments Off on Joker Is A Great Movie That Has Absolutely Zero Business Winning Best Picture At The Academy Awards – BroBible

Netflix Dracula is sexy and fun, but could season 2 undo the end? – NewsDio

As one of the count's girlfriends, the BBC / Netflix miniseries Dracula He is charming, funny and sexy, until he runs out of life. However, the culprit is not the bite of a vampire, but rather the showrunners Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss biting more than they were willing to chew in the first three episodes, which they like Sherlock, play as three independent films.

(Ed. Note: this contains minor spoilers for the first season of Dracula)

While the first two episodes freely follow the plot of Bram Stoker's novel, Moffat and Gatiss twist the literature by adding a nun: Agatha Van Helsing, who now faces face-to-face with the vampire lord. Gender investment (which is revealed about 20 minutes after the audience should have resolved it by itself) does not seem like a trick in the hands of Doll & Em Actress Dolly Wells. There is a playful vivacity in Wells & # 39; van Helsing that complements the undead Count Dracula of Claes Bang, who hesitates between soft and animalistic depending on how hungry he is.

Dracula "The first two episodes are full of scenes that fall directly into the Moffat attack zone: dialogue that reads like a verbal chess game between a brilliant hero and an equally brilliant villain. The series is at its best when Wells and Bang speak in circles. Near the climax of episode 1, "The rules of the beast," Sister Agatha opens the doors of the convent to Dracula, realizing that she cannot enter a space without an invitation. The tension since the two are dimensioned for the first time is palpable: it is not entirely sexual, but it is not do not sexual either. (Still, Moffat's tendency toward self-complacent intelligence is also displayed. He was rolling his eyes when Dracula and Van Helsing continued their fight with a game of literal chess.)

Dracula and sister Agatha Van Helsing go face to face.Image: Netflix

After serving two changing episodes of horror, Moffat and Gatiss insert an important turn at the beginning of the end: Dracula emerges from his coffin, which fell to the bottom of the ocean with him inside him at the end of episode 2, "Blood Vessel" , and walks to a beach. Immediately surrounded by police helicopters. As a result, she has been underwater for 123 years, and Van Helsing's great granddaughter, Zoe, (also played by Dolly Wells) has been preparing for her arrival as a scientist employed by the mysterious Jonathan Harker Foundation.

The premise itself is not necessarily bad. In fact, imprisoning Dracula in a modern medical center designed specifically to catch a vampire is a fun investment of the Gothic castle in which his victims were imprisoned. As we know by Sherlock, Moffat and Gatiss are fully capable of making a modern and elegant interpretation of classical British literature. But with Dracula, the writers completely abandon the tone and style that made the two previous episodes so convincing; instead, they serve as a meandering slogan.

Episode 3, "The Dark Compass" is everywhere in terms of plot and tone. After being ambushed on the beach, Dracula escapes custody, only to be imprisoned again. Zoe provides a dump of information about what the Harker Foundation really does, then Dracula calls a lawyer (named Renfield, naturally, played by Mark Gatiss) who releases him on the premise that the foundation does not have the legal right to hold him against his will. The first half of the episode feels like a police procedure with vampire hunters. Again, that is not an uninteresting concept, but in the context of the rest of the program it is very out of place.

Dracula caresses Jonathan Harker's face.Image: Netflix

Then there is Lucy Westenra, the promiscuous femme fatale who becomes Dracula's girlfriend. Critics have argued that Lucy's representation in the novel is radical in the face of Victorian sexual oppression, but the Netflix series does nothing to update the character other than turning her into a party girl absorbed in herself. Moffat and Gatiss punish her for that vanity; After Dracula kills her, she is revived in the middle of cremation and emerges covered with burns. She is only redeemed through the eyes of a child who says she is in love with her, despite her clear and firm indication that she was not interested. It is a horrible and deaf representation of the sexuality of a young woman, although it is not surprising given Moffat's story of writing women.

The series culminates in a final showdown between Van Helsing and Dracula. Zoe has drunk Dracula's blood, connecting her and allowing her to talk to Sister Agatha. Yes, it is silly, but honestly it is a relief. Zoe is mostly a diluted version of Agatha anyway. Zoe-as-Agatha lowers the curtains to reveal that the morning has come. Sunlight enters and Dracula recedes, but does not explode or dissolve in powder. Agatha then explains his theory, which also works as the thesis of the show: Dracula is just a coward who fears dying. Their "rules" are nothing more than habits, driven by fear and shame.

Apparently, this is the point that Moffat and Gatiss want to make. They have reversed the script in one of the most fearsome villains of literature, postulating that their terrifying behavior, taking advantage of mortals in the dark, is not a tactic to disorient their victims, but an obsessive compulsion to protect it from sunlight that He will reveal his deepest shame. Certainly, here is a nugget of truth about things that scare us because they are wrapped in darkness, and a potential argument for the metaphorical sunlight to shine on them (and perhaps on our own deepest shame). But in the last five minutes of the episode, it feels half cooked. The scene ends with the blow of an image: Dracula nervously emerges from the shadows to the heat and sunlight, but that moment is not won.

TastyImage: Netflix

While "The Rules of the Beast" and "Blood Vessel" are fun, "The Dark Compass" completely lacks theme. Its rhythm and tone are impossible to follow and its gender policy is a disaster. I recommend simply watching the first two episodes and turning off your TV before the third episode begins, if it wasn't for the final image of the series: Agatha and Dracula have sex in the middle of the sun after drinking Zoe's cancerous blood, killing to both. (Zoe has cancer, which is an important plot point that doesn't matter at all.) It's crazy that ends in the best way, the kind of elevated schlock that made the first two episodes so fun. .

This ending wraps Dracula's arc with a clean arc, although unsatisfactory, but it seems that a second season has not been ruled out. Even before the series aired, Mark Gatiss told RadioTimes: "It's very difficult to kill a vampire. Do you know what I mean? What they do is resurrect."

It is not clear exactly how a season 2 would work, especially since the two main characters die in each other's arms. Will we get a prequel that shows how Dracula's obsessions became a tradition? Will Dracula and Van Helsing meet again in the future, resurrected by the Harker Foundation? Gatiss and Moffat have certainly shown that they are willing to play with deadlines, but we expect them to resurrect the more campy tone if Netflix orders another season.

Dracula Now it's streaming on Netflix.

See the original post:
Netflix Dracula is sexy and fun, but could season 2 undo the end? - NewsDio


Reviewed and Recommended by Erik Baquero
Posted in Dracula| Comments Off on Netflix Dracula is sexy and fun, but could season 2 undo the end? – NewsDio

5 Changes AMC’s The Walking Dead Made To The Comics That We’re Okay With (& 5 That We’re Still Mad About) – CBR – Comic Book Resources

There is no way to take a popular comic book series like The Walking Dead and create aTV show that is entirely accurate in its adaptation of thestory. For one thing, books and TV shows are very different, and something that plays out well on the page would never work on the small screen. As a result, changes always need to be made from the source material.

RELATED:10 Things From The Walking Dead Comics That Were Dropped For The Hit TV Series

The question then changes to whether or not the viewers and fans of the source material will appreciate the changes. Sometimes, the changes work perfectly and improve on the source material something that fans appreciate over time. However, other times fans hate the changes and turn their noses on the show. Here are five changesAMC's The Walking Deadmade to the comics that we're okay with and five that we're still mad about.

Carl's death is easily the most polarizing change from the comic books to the TV series. The fact Carl lived in the comics and was telling the story to his kids in the future made this harder to accept. It also doesn't help that actor Chandler Riggs didn't want to leave the show.

In The Walking Dead TV series on AMC, Carl did not live, and died after a Walker bit him while he was saving Siddiq. The fact that the TV show also killed Siddiq later meant that Carl's death meant absolutely nothing in the end.

If there is one silver lining about the death of Carl, it is the fact that The Walking Dead at least has someone who can carry on his story on the show to the end. One of the most shocking and brutal moments from the comics had Lori delivering her baby and then The Governor gunning both down.

There was no way AMC could have a baby gunned down on television. They could have had the baby lost during birth, along with Lori, but Judith lived. Now, she can carry on Carl's legacy, and that might make his death a little easier to take, by the end.

Andrea was one of the toughest, take no nonsense, characters in The Walking Dead comics. She was someone who could hold her own and kill anyone needed, from Walkers to evil humans. However, on the AMC version of the series, Andrea changed completely.

Instead of the strong woman who would one day hook up with Rick Grimes and help lead the new society, Andrea was someone who just wanted to die and seemed depressed and angsty all the time. When Andrea died on the show, many fans rejoiced. This was not the Andrea that the comic book character deserved.

While Andrea was a terrible character onThe Walking Dead TV show and was nothing like her comic book counterpart, the opposite happened with Carol. Honestly, looking at the comics and the TV show reveals that the AMC series just switched Carol and Andrea's roles on the show.

RELATED:5 Things From The Comics We Hope To See In The Walking Dead: World Beyond (& 5 That We Don't)

Carol, in the comics, was the clingy and needy character that couldn't survive on her own. She wanted to marry Lori and Rick (as in polygamy), and when rejected, let a Walker bite her in a form of suicide. Carol on the TV show is a billion times better.

Jesus was one of the toughest butt-kickers inThe Walking Dead comic books. Even Tom Payne, the actor hired to portray Jesus on the AMC series, seemed excited that he was going to get to take on the role of one of the coolest characters in the comics.

Then the AMC series did nothing with him. Seriously, they left Jesus on the sidelines when he could have been kicking butt for several seasons. When producers told Payne that Jesus would die at the hands of the Whisperers, the actor said he was relieved since the show didn't do anything with the character from the comics.

InThe Walking Dead comic books, Rick and Andrea were the couple that hooked up, and everyone loved. Rick was the main protagonist and leader, and Andrea was strong enough to back him up every step of the way. However, Andrea in the TV show was terrible.

With that said, there was also no way that Rick and Carol (who replaced Andrea as the butt-kicker) could hook up. Michonne, on the other hand, hooked up with Ezekiel in the comics, Having Carol and Ezekiel hook up, and Rick and Michonne have a baby together worked very well.

In the comics, Tyreese was a strong, dominating, powerful fighter and a perfect right-hand man for Rick Grimes. However, because Shane was such a brilliantly realized character on TV, he lived much longer than he did in the comics, and Tyreese was pushed off since Shane filled that role.

Finally, after Shane's death, it was time to bring in Tyreese, and the character was Tyreese in name only. While the comic book version as strong enough to kill an entire room of Walkers by himself, the TV version was a pacifist who did little but refuse to want to fight.

While Tyreese was a disappointment in the changes the TV show made with him, Morgan was a different story. The character of Morgan in the comic books had a very short life and did little that meant much in the grand scheme of things. On the TV show, he was important and even went on to star inFear the Walking Dead as one of their key players.

RELATED:The Walking Dead: The 10 Most Heartbreaking Deaths In The Comics

Morgan even had his own crazy character arc on the show that never happened in the comics. He became a pacifist and then realized he needed to become a fighter again, and now he is a great leader himself.

The Walking Dead had the Whisperers attack in both the comic books and the TV show, and both instances resulted in the heads-on-the-pikes scene. However, the change here was that they had different people die.

While Henry's death devastated Carol, and Tara and Enid were longtime characters, none of the deaths mattered as much to viewers. In the comics, two of the deaths were a pregnant Rosita, which destroyed Siddiq and Eugene, and King Ezekiel, which was probably the biggest of them all. The TV show didn't have the same impact.

If there is one change thatThe Walking Dead made that fans are not just okay with, but love wholeheartedly, it is Daryl Dixon. This character never existed in the comic books at all. His brother Merle was in both versions, but Daryl was an original character starting in the first season.

Daryl never showed up inThe Walking Dead comics at all, and that might be the one thing fans of the books missed the most. Now, with Rick gone and Carl dead, it is Daryl that is the heart-and-soul of the TV show and the most beloved character.

NEXT:The Walking Dead: 10 Future Storylines That Daryl Can Have

NextJoJo: 10 Stand Cosplay That Look Just Like the Anime

Tags:the waking dead

See the original post:
5 Changes AMC's The Walking Dead Made To The Comics That We're Okay With (& 5 That We're Still Mad About) - CBR - Comic Book Resources


Reviewed and Recommended by Erik Baquero
Posted in The Walking Dead| Comments Off on 5 Changes AMC’s The Walking Dead Made To The Comics That We’re Okay With (& 5 That We’re Still Mad About) – CBR – Comic Book Resources

Who died in season 2 episode 5 of The Walking Dead? – Undead Walking

Things were getting complicated on the Greene family farm during season 2 of The Walking Dead. Shane had just sacrificed Otis in order to return to Hershel with the medical supplies necessary to help deal with Carls gunshot.

In the meantime, other survivors had finding Sophia on their minds. After she was lost during the walker invasion on the highway, nobody had been able to find hide nor hair of her. Still, the group was not giving up.

Season 2 episode 5 of The Walking Dead titled Chupacabra aired on Sunday,Nov. 13, 2011 and planted the seeds for a big story to be unveiled on the Greene family farm. But who didnt make it out of the episode alive?

Here is who died in episode 205:

Daryl sure can hunt! Even if it is just small game hunting, he did his best to make sure that those he cared about didnt go hungry. He is also great at dealing with walkers, of course hallucinating about your brother can make a hunting trip a lot more interesting. Thankfully, he killed the walker by shaking off his delusion.

This episode could have had a scary death if Andrea was a more confident shot. She mistook Daryl coming out of the woods for being a member of the undead and nearly took a shot at him. Even more interesting was that Daryl found the doll Sophia was carrying, meaning they now have a bit of a trail to follow for when they keep looking for her.

Another shocking moment came at the end of Chupacabra when Glenn thought he was going to the barn to hook up with Maggie and instead discovered they were using the building to house dozens of the undead.

It would have been absolutely crazy to lose Daryl in this episode considering how much more involved he becomes in the story during later seasons. Thank goodness that he, and every other human, survived this episode of The Walking Dead!

Continue reading here:
Who died in season 2 episode 5 of The Walking Dead? - Undead Walking


Reviewed and Recommended by Erik Baquero
Posted in The Walking Dead| Comments Off on Who died in season 2 episode 5 of The Walking Dead? – Undead Walking

AMC president is committed to The Walking Dead universe – Undead Walking

AMC is doubling down on The Walking Dead universe in a big way. The flagship show has already been renewed for season 11 and production will be starting on season 11 in just a couple of months. Fear The Walking Dead is currently filming season 6, and the latest addition to the franchise TWD World Beyond will debut in April. There are also a slate of feature films planned.

In a recent interview Scott Gimple said that the creative team that keeps TWD universe expanding is looking at exploring more stories of the apocalypse world and more formats including one off movies, limited series, and an anthology like series, among other options.

In an interview with the L.A. Times the president of AMCs networks, Sarah Barnett, echoed Gimples enthusiasm for TWD universe and reiterated that the network is committed to expanding the universe. She said, Were plotting a lot more ambition for this, she says. I think there are endless stories to be told in this universe.

Do fans want to continue exploring The Walking Dead universe? Judging by the ratings they definitely do. While live view numbers across the scripted cable spectrum slate have dropped consistently over the last few years as people move to delayed viewing and streaming TWD has remained the number one scripted cable drama on TV and when the show is hiatus Fear The Walking Dead slots in nicely and has also dominated its time slot.

Very few genre shows get the chance to air for 11 seasons, and TWD isnt even slowing down at the 11 season mark. One of the reasons for the shows continued success is that its a genre show that has the character development, narrative heft, and engagement of a drama. Its a show that is driven by the characters and their relationships to each other, and there is some blood and gore and zombies too. When talking about the reason why The Walking Dead captured the imagination of millions of fans Burnett said, The reason The Walking Dead became the phenomenon it did was not because it was a zombie show, but because it was a character show that happened to be about zombies.

Those core relationships are definitely important, but theres also been a distinct upgrade to the look and feel of The Walking Dead since showrunner Angela Kang took over. Overall fans have been thrilled with the amped up look of the show, which now has a true horror feel to it. It looks like that edgy darkness will become a hallmark of the brand judging by the similar gritty look of TWD World Beyond. Fear The Walking Dead already got an upgrade when it got a soft reboot in season 4. There are still many dark corners of the apocalypse landscape to explore and AMC is going to be bringing them to life for a long time to come.

View original post here:
AMC president is committed to The Walking Dead universe - Undead Walking


Reviewed and Recommended by Erik Baquero
Posted in The Walking Dead| Comments Off on AMC president is committed to The Walking Dead universe – Undead Walking

The Walking Dead season 10: Whisperers to take over Alexandria in promo clue you missed? – Express

The Walking Dead season 10 ended the first half of the season on a huge cliffhanger, with Carol Peletier (played by Melissa McBride) and the gang trapped in a bunker full of the undead, with Alpha (Samantha Morton) at the heart of the plan. However, it seems there will be a full scale war when the season picks up after the latest promo spies dropped multiple clues that the Whisperers will invade Alexandria.

In the promo, there are multiple shots of the Hilltop group preparing for war.

One of the Whisperers spotted multiple times in Alexandria is Beta (Ryan Hurst).

During the clip, Alpha and Beta are rarely together.

This suggests both head Whisperers are on separate missions, with Negan (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) at hilltop with Alpha and Beta and some of the other Whisperers in Alexandria.

READ MORE:The Walking Dead season 10: Carol and Ezekiel back together?

Members spotted at Hilltop included: Aaron (Ross Marquand), Eugene Porter (Josh McDermitt), Rosita Espinosa (Christian Serratos) Daryl Dixon (Norman Reedus), Carol (Melissa McBride), Ezekiel (Khary Payton) and Judith Grimes (Cailey Fleming).

In one shot, Gabriel appears to be reacting to Alphas new demands for the border, learning Alexandria is going to be in Whisperer territory, but after that, little is seen of him.

This suggests the character never made it to Hilltop.

Was Gabriel killed in Alexandria?

See the article here:
The Walking Dead season 10: Whisperers to take over Alexandria in promo clue you missed? - Express


Reviewed and Recommended by Erik Baquero
Posted in The Walking Dead| Comments Off on The Walking Dead season 10: Whisperers to take over Alexandria in promo clue you missed? – Express

THE WALKING DEAD: WORLD BEYOND Premieres Sunday 4/12 – Dread Central

THE WALKING DEAD: WORLD BEYOND Premieres Sunday 4/12

The new The Walking Dead spin-off The Walking Dead: World Beyond premieres Sunday, April 12 at 10 PM with subsequent episodes airing Sunday nights at 9 PM.

The series is set ten years after the apocalypse and features two young female protagonists. It focuses on the first generation to come-of-age in the apocalypse as we know it. Some will become heroes. Some will become villains. In the end, all of them will be changed forever. Grown-up and cemented in their identities, both good and bad.

Alexa Mansour stars as Hope with Nicolas Cantu as Elton, Hal Cumpston as Silas, Aliyah Royale as Iris, Annet Mahendru as Huck, Nico Tortorella as Felix, Julia Ormond as Elizabeth, Joe Holt as Leo Bennet, Natalie Gold as Lyla, Al Calderon as Barca, and Ted Sutherland as Percy.

The Walking Dead: World Beyond is created by Scott M. Gimple and Matthew Negrete based on The Walking Dead by Robert Kirkman, Tony Moore, and Charlie Adlard. Scott M. Gimple serves as the new shows executive producer along with Matthew Negrete, Robert Kirkman, Gale Anne Hurd, David Alpert, and Brian Bockrath.

The Walking Dead: World Beyond premieres Sunday, April 12 at 10 PM with subsequent episodes airing Sunday nights at 9 PM. Will you be tuning in? Let us know in the comments below or onFacebook,Twitter, orInstagram!

See the original post here:
THE WALKING DEAD: WORLD BEYOND Premieres Sunday 4/12 - Dread Central


Reviewed and Recommended by Erik Baquero
Posted in The Walking Dead| Comments Off on THE WALKING DEAD: WORLD BEYOND Premieres Sunday 4/12 – Dread Central