Please see the wider internet for general recaps.
SPOILERS THROUGHOUT THIS TIME!!!
General Notes:
Slightly different order.
Cinematography and Editing: Ives and Zimmerman are at it and it is great. Want examples of how camera and editing work well? Watch the scene where Jonathan is in Nancy's room an laying on the floor. Pay attention to camera angles, lights, and cuts. Now the scene an Lucas' house and how the editing takes us into the story.
Acting: Matarazzo was even better than last episode; the kid is great. Heaton was less engaging and frankly I suspect it is because Dyer was so damn flat; last episode was a head fake, I think. Ryder and Harbour were in Expositionville so they were mainly there to listen to character actor Amy Seimetz to a great job. Catherine Dyer was nicely effective as evil female agent #1, too. Brown had a little more to do and seems to be a solid, yeoman actor.
Directing: Good, especially for a largely Expositionville episode. The cough "teen drama" cough stuff was a mess and we'll talk about the younger guys in full.
Showing posts with label stranger things. Show all posts
Showing posts with label stranger things. Show all posts
Sunday, August 21, 2016
Friday, August 19, 2016
Stranger Things - Episode 5 review
Taking my birthday to watch more episodes quickly. Remember, I review but I don't recap; there are great recaps all over.
General Notes:
Acting: Harbour, Ryder, Heaton, and Wolfhard were all good to great. Matarazzo stood out - the kid was great in this one. McLaughlin, Havens, and Keery are great journeyman actors and have good instincts - I really like Havens; the man will be a 'HITG' before you know it. Brown was great in the flashbacks but struggled in the contemporary scenes with how little she has to work with.
And Dyer. That girl. She had a few good scenes, holding out hope.... Perhaps she is finding her feet, perhaps her issue is direction? Let us hope she isn't just doing a head fake.
Cinematography: I knew Ives was back before I looked at IMDB. His style isn't intrusive (quite the opposite) but it is distinctive; like Lindsey Buckingham on guitar. The cinematography keeps being great and the use of light was very good in this one.
General Notes:
Acting: Harbour, Ryder, Heaton, and Wolfhard were all good to great. Matarazzo stood out - the kid was great in this one. McLaughlin, Havens, and Keery are great journeyman actors and have good instincts - I really like Havens; the man will be a 'HITG' before you know it. Brown was great in the flashbacks but struggled in the contemporary scenes with how little she has to work with.
And Dyer. That girl. She had a few good scenes, holding out hope.... Perhaps she is finding her feet, perhaps her issue is direction? Let us hope she isn't just doing a head fake.
Cinematography: I knew Ives was back before I looked at IMDB. His style isn't intrusive (quite the opposite) but it is distinctive; like Lindsey Buckingham on guitar. The cinematography keeps being great and the use of light was very good in this one.
Stranger Things - Episode 4 Review
There are really good recaps all over, so I only review.
General Notes:
Acting: Harbour is on point this episode; try to imagine how hard it would be to act like you're acting, re-watch that diner scene, and get back to me. He was great. Ryder did a good job of doing the Roy Neary arc of appearing crazy while being aware of more than others. Joe Chrest looks like he might get to be more than 'the dad too tired from work to notice the little things', which is good because he's a solid actor. And, with feeling, Cara Buono is surprising me with her very consistent portrayal.
Millie Brown keeps doing a lot with a little. Charlie Heaton is actually getting a chance to act and is doing well. Joe Keery put in a journeyman performance and Natalia Dyer keeps letting me down. Watch the scene between Nancy and Steve in the side alley at school; Keery is pretty good. Dyer is using the same performance as when Barb wanted to leave the party.
Cinematography: Drom now on I think I'll just mention when it is NOT great. Tod Campbell did a great job; he had shout-outs to the Searchers and Stagecoach in his use of cameras and I freakin' approve.
General Notes:
Acting: Harbour is on point this episode; try to imagine how hard it would be to act like you're acting, re-watch that diner scene, and get back to me. He was great. Ryder did a good job of doing the Roy Neary arc of appearing crazy while being aware of more than others. Joe Chrest looks like he might get to be more than 'the dad too tired from work to notice the little things', which is good because he's a solid actor. And, with feeling, Cara Buono is surprising me with her very consistent portrayal.
Millie Brown keeps doing a lot with a little. Charlie Heaton is actually getting a chance to act and is doing well. Joe Keery put in a journeyman performance and Natalia Dyer keeps letting me down. Watch the scene between Nancy and Steve in the side alley at school; Keery is pretty good. Dyer is using the same performance as when Barb wanted to leave the party.
Cinematography: Drom now on I think I'll just mention when it is NOT great. Tod Campbell did a great job; he had shout-outs to the Searchers and Stagecoach in his use of cameras and I freakin' approve.
Thursday, August 18, 2016
Stranger Things - Episode 3 Review
Remember, other places have great recaps, so I only review!
General Notes:
Acting: Natalia Dyer is bringing me down, man. The girl seems to have two acting modes - vaguely perky and vaguely confused. David Harbour is doing a decent job of keeping Hopper an interesting character. Winona Ryder was channelling Richard Dreyfus in CEotTK pretty hard, and in a good way. She did a fair job as coming across as 'really obsessed' rather than just loopy. Cara Buono is the hidden gem of acting in the show, BTW.
Cinematography: Continued great use of lighting, movement, blocking, etc. I can only say 'the cinematographer is really good' so many ways.
Editing: Continues the downward slide seen in last episode. The opening editing in particular was a mess, but this might be because the director demanded it. Hard to say, since some of the later cuts were confusing and jarring.
Directing: I was taught that under-acting is the fault of the actor, over-acting is the fault of the director. We are edging up on the director needing to get a grip on his actors. Ryder is doing OK, but Caleb McLaughlin is edging up on hamminess.
SPOILERS FOLLOW!!!
General Notes:
Acting: Natalia Dyer is bringing me down, man. The girl seems to have two acting modes - vaguely perky and vaguely confused. David Harbour is doing a decent job of keeping Hopper an interesting character. Winona Ryder was channelling Richard Dreyfus in CEotTK pretty hard, and in a good way. She did a fair job as coming across as 'really obsessed' rather than just loopy. Cara Buono is the hidden gem of acting in the show, BTW.
Cinematography: Continued great use of lighting, movement, blocking, etc. I can only say 'the cinematographer is really good' so many ways.
Editing: Continues the downward slide seen in last episode. The opening editing in particular was a mess, but this might be because the director demanded it. Hard to say, since some of the later cuts were confusing and jarring.
Directing: I was taught that under-acting is the fault of the actor, over-acting is the fault of the director. We are edging up on the director needing to get a grip on his actors. Ryder is doing OK, but Caleb McLaughlin is edging up on hamminess.
SPOILERS FOLLOW!!!
Tuesday, August 9, 2016
Personal Note: Me and Stranger Things
So.... Stranger Things. Set in Indiana in 1983, in a small town. Focuses on kids who play D&D.
While I moved a lot as a small child by the age of 4 I was back where I was born, Indiana. I lived near Muncie, famed in D&D lore because of Knights of the Dinner Table. But there was a lot of gaming in Muncie, as I recall.
I lived in al area near the towns of Redkey and Dunkirk, where the downtowns look like this;
this;
this;
and this;
Yes, that is the entire 'downtown' of four different towns. It looks a lot like where the protagonists of Stranger Things live, doesn't it?
Here is the view facing south from where I went to high school;
The other directions only vary in that one field is soybeans.
I was a bit older than the boys in Stranger Things that are hanging out with El and a bit younger than Nancy and her friends - in 1983 I turned 16.
My AD&D 1e campaign was 5 years old in 1983 and as I recall the party was dealing with a group of evil monks.
Anyway, I identify with a lot of the characters in Stranger Things because it is, in an odd way, about me and my friends. Sure, archetypes are what they are for reasons, and tropes are useful, yes. But this hits awfully close to home. Very literally.
While I moved a lot as a small child by the age of 4 I was back where I was born, Indiana. I lived near Muncie, famed in D&D lore because of Knights of the Dinner Table. But there was a lot of gaming in Muncie, as I recall.
I lived in al area near the towns of Redkey and Dunkirk, where the downtowns look like this;
this;
this;
and this;
Yes, that is the entire 'downtown' of four different towns. It looks a lot like where the protagonists of Stranger Things live, doesn't it?
Here is the view facing south from where I went to high school;
The other directions only vary in that one field is soybeans.
I was a bit older than the boys in Stranger Things that are hanging out with El and a bit younger than Nancy and her friends - in 1983 I turned 16.
My AD&D 1e campaign was 5 years old in 1983 and as I recall the party was dealing with a group of evil monks.
Anyway, I identify with a lot of the characters in Stranger Things because it is, in an odd way, about me and my friends. Sure, archetypes are what they are for reasons, and tropes are useful, yes. But this hits awfully close to home. Very literally.
Monday, July 18, 2016
Stranger Things - Episode 1 review
Yes, yes - everyone else is talking about it. But never let it be said I never indulge in me-tooism.
Last night I watched the first episode with my four oldest sons. Now, for slug reviews followed by a real review.
General Notes:
Acting: Surprisingly good. The kids were above average for child actors, Winona Ryder reminds us that she is an old pro and turns in a decent performance. David Harbour as Hopper was surprisingly good in the role, and I was expecting that role to be good, anyway. Other nice standouts were Matthew Modine (not a shock, but impressive given his short time in the pilot) and Charlie Heaton.
Cinematography: Impressive. Tim Ives has only been nominated for one cinematography award - he will get more nominations. The camera work was crisp, smooth, and not intrusive. His use of angles, lighting, and movement were great - he has obviously studied Allan Daviau and is a fan of Kurosawa. Want to see how you can use the camera to indicate awareness vs. distraction? Re-watch the scene when a certain young character first enters a diner until they are noticed. Great, subtle, effective use of the camera.
Editing: Like cinematography, the editing is well done. It took us about 15 minutes to catch the subtle color bleaching used in outdoor scenes to make things look... off. The editor keeps the scenes moving and does that hardest of things - the quick cut that doesn't break the flow.
Directing: From the cold open to the last shot the directing was very good. It is hard to keep plot, pace, and interest all moving along in a pilot when there is so much information to share. Speaking of which, the cold open was great and a good example of how to set them up. It reminded me of the better cold opens from the Venture Brothers (yes, that is a compliment).
Last night I watched the first episode with my four oldest sons. Now, for slug reviews followed by a real review.
General Notes:
Acting: Surprisingly good. The kids were above average for child actors, Winona Ryder reminds us that she is an old pro and turns in a decent performance. David Harbour as Hopper was surprisingly good in the role, and I was expecting that role to be good, anyway. Other nice standouts were Matthew Modine (not a shock, but impressive given his short time in the pilot) and Charlie Heaton.
Cinematography: Impressive. Tim Ives has only been nominated for one cinematography award - he will get more nominations. The camera work was crisp, smooth, and not intrusive. His use of angles, lighting, and movement were great - he has obviously studied Allan Daviau and is a fan of Kurosawa. Want to see how you can use the camera to indicate awareness vs. distraction? Re-watch the scene when a certain young character first enters a diner until they are noticed. Great, subtle, effective use of the camera.
Editing: Like cinematography, the editing is well done. It took us about 15 minutes to catch the subtle color bleaching used in outdoor scenes to make things look... off. The editor keeps the scenes moving and does that hardest of things - the quick cut that doesn't break the flow.
Directing: From the cold open to the last shot the directing was very good. It is hard to keep plot, pace, and interest all moving along in a pilot when there is so much information to share. Speaking of which, the cold open was great and a good example of how to set them up. It reminded me of the better cold opens from the Venture Brothers (yes, that is a compliment).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)