Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Netflix recommendations

Is it grim? I am not talking about sporadic accounts of graphic violence, which is fine by me if it’s a gripping enough story, but a general theme of utterly horrific and depressing human behaviour that leaves you wishing you hadn’t known about the case. In particular as this is apparently based on a real life story.

Apparently based on a case that has attracted more media coverage in Spain than any other crime. Obviously it's a bit dark; it's about the murder of a child, but it's not overly ghoulish or difficult to view and I'm quite sensitive to stuff like that. It's effectively a fact based legal drama which does a good job of analysing the case and the very odd Spanish legal system. It's a strange case that will have you doing a lot of head scratching and asking "WTF?" but it's not a nasty watch.
 
A Man in Full is entertaining me today. It's based in a Tom Wolfe novel which I haven't read but I love love love Bonfire of the Vanities.

As it's a series rather than a 90 minute film, I have higher hopes than the hatchet job movie of Bonfire.
 
In the Land of Saints and Sinners

Liam Neeson gives us the full Neeson, DONEGAL STYLE. Yes, it's a Donegal Western, to go with all the Sligo Screwballs and Mayo Musicals.

It's 1974, and Liam Neeson is a non-political hitman lying low in a very remote part of the Forgotten County, and doing occasional non-political murders for Colm Meaney.

Then a trio of Provies come to town, having botched a bombing in Belfast (try saying that quickly). Neeson wants to quit being a gun for hire, but quickly realises that A Child is in Danger (this is handled sensitively by the way). Events. Quickly. Spiral. Out. Of. Control.

We thought it was ridiculous, but also enjoyed it a lot. ODCs versus the 'ra has been done before - Reefer and the Model, and High Boot Benny - but that was when the conflict was still ongoing, with no apparent end in sight. I was reminded of how I had to explain to my niece about how despite what she saw on Derry Girls, the war wasn't all jolly japes at convent school.

The set design and production was spot on, capture the feel of '70s Ireland very well - you could almost smell the mix of booze and fags in the pub scenes, etc. Just don't watch it with Irish people, unless you want to listen to them "bursting their holes laughing" at more than one scene.

Support is from Sorcha Cusack, Ciaran Hinds and TV favourite Joffrey off Game of Thrones, who has the same haircut and 'tache my dad had in the 1970s.

Jaysus this was a silly wee film so but worth it for the Donegal shots


I’m curious just how much business a non-sectarian hitman would have in 70s Ireland (and according to the background story 40s through to the 70s as well) clearly must be a lot to sustain two lads in relative affluence.
 
Jaysus this was a silly wee film so but worth it for the Donegal shots


I’m curious just how much business a non-sectarian hitman would have in 70s Ireland (and according to the background story 40s through to the 70s as well) clearly must be a lot to sustain two lads in relative affluence.
The lack of affiliation would surely broaden the customer base.
 
So today my TV tells me it's no longer compatible with Netflix. So is that it, may as well unsubscribe as the kids can't watch it?
 
We watched Unfrosted yesterday. Given the ensemble cast and who the writer & director is, it is sadly a major letdown. Not only that, the branch of humour is so unlike Jerry Seinfeld, Will Ferrell should sue for plagiarism.

There are some funny moments though, and as at least it’s short and fast paced, so if you lower your expectations before putting it on, it is watchable if you’re looking for easy entertainment.
 
We watched Unfrosted yesterday. Given the ensemble cast and who the writer & director is, it is sadly a major letdown. Not only that, the branch of humour is so unlike Jerry Seinfeld, Will Ferrell should sue for plagiarism.

There are some funny moments though, and as at least it’s short and fast paced, so if you lower your expectations before putting it on, it is watchable if you’re looking for easy entertainment.
Jerry has been really promoting it. No doubt he'll blame it on "woke" if it doesn't do the business.

Will watch out of curiosity but prefer to rewatch the entire Seinfeld run.
 
Jerry has been really promoting it. No doubt he'll blame it on "woke" if it doesn't do the business.

Will watch out of curiosity but prefer to rewatch the entire Seinfeld run.
Would he do that? The film takes the piss (among other things) of Capitol riot Trumpians, and whereas I have never seen Seinfeld, he doesn’t strike me as a right winger at all, let alone the kind so far gone to jump on the woke bandwagon. Quite the opposite in fact.
 
Would he do that? The film takes the piss (among other things) of Capitol riot Trumpians, and whereas I have never seen Seinfeld, he doesn’t strike me as a right winger at all, let alone the kind so far gone to jump on the woke bandwagon. Quite the opposite in fact.
I mean, the various promo interviews he's been doing to plug his film do have him continually moaning about woke lefties so 🤷‍♂️

 
Well, I have finally caught up with Ripley and have almost finished the show.

I hated the first episode, gorgeous photography but otherwise rather lacklustre. Thankfully it soon calmed down, a bit, with the long lingering, oh so meaningful, shots. becoming less frequent. At least until they go to Rome and there are all the classic tourist shots.

But, it did get on with the the actual story, which is, of course, fucking great. Although....most of the changes from the book dont work. They're all too old for a start, Scott is twice the age Matt Damon and Alain Delon were, Flynn is forty. They're meant to be in their early twenties, the whole set up makes far less sense if they are full grown adults. Putting Dickie & Marge definitively together makes her comparatively laid back approach to him disappearing makes little sense. And Dickie loved the robe in the book, it's part of what made Ripley think they were right together. Changing that becomes Dickie insulting Ripley and his taste, it totally changes their relationship. Did anyone think that Ripley was in love with Dickie here? Because he is in the book. Or at least he may well be. Ripley knows Dickie so well, so intimately, he doesn't need that absurd speech in the boat to know somethings up. Who would choose a moment they are stranded to suddenly go 'oh, by the way, I'm dumping you.' Ripley has become a sulky little child.

On the other hand, I did really like Freddie. Having a non-binary actor in the role really fits with the tone and themes of the book, a much more plausible pal than Philip Seymour-Hoffman (not that I would diss the Hoff).

(I realise that the above makes it sound like I hate it, I dont. Dakota Fanning is excellent, Flynn was too, if we accept him for being too old, It's still a great story and it's good to see more of it. And the photography is gorgeous)
 
Last edited:
Would he do that? The film takes the piss (among other things) of Capitol riot Trumpians, and whereas I have never seen Seinfeld, he doesn’t strike me as a right winger at all, let alone the kind so far gone to jump on the woke bandwagon. Quite the opposite in fact.
Unfortunately not.


And I am a massive fan of the series, even if some of it hasn't aged well.
 
Unfortunately not.


And I am a massive fan of the series, even if some of it hasn't aged well.
Rather disappointing to learn that. At least other offensive/ controversial comedy creators such as Larry David himself, the Always Sunny in Philly crew, or Seth MacFarlane have never (to my knowledge) tried to explain away bad ratings or deflect criticism by accusing people of being woke. Never mind the fact that their kind of comedy and indeed this film satirises left and right themes alike.

I’ve never watched Senfield despite the nearly universal rave reviews partly because Jerry’s face and presence in the show has always annoyed me for some unexplained reason. I guess my gut instincts were right.
 
I’ve never watched Senfield despite the nearly universal rave reviews partly because Jerry’s face and presence in the show has always annoyed me for some unexplained reason. I guess my gut instincts were right.

Your gut instincts that he doesn't strike you as a right winger at all, or that his face is concerning?

Seinfeld the show is magnificent. But its first (short) season isn't a strong indicator of what comes next. It goes where other sitcoms didn't go. It's occasionally surreal, nasty, dark in places so it really laid the groundwork for the other shows you mentioned.

Sure, some parts are dated, some of the comedy doesn't always come off and the finale is divisive but don't let his face put you off!
 
Your gut instincts that he doesn't strike you as a right winger at all, or that his face is concerning?

Seinfeld the show is magnificent. But its first (short) season isn't a strong indicator of what comes next. It goes where other sitcoms didn't go. It's occasionally surreal, nasty, dark in places so it really laid the groundwork for the other shows you mentioned.

Sure, some parts are dated, some of the comedy doesn't always come off and the finale is divisive but don't let his face put you off!
Oh I know- my post was largely tongue in cheek. But I had grabbed onto it as a possible explanation why I couldn’t get into the show.
 
Oh I know- my post was largely tongue in cheek. But I had grabbed onto it as a possible explanation why I couldn’t get into the show.
Apparently, the well known arbiter of taste, Liam Gallagher refused to watch the show because of the funky bass signature tune. So, there's always reasons ;)
 
Well, I have finally caught up with Ripley and have almost finished the show.

I hated the first episode, gorgeous photography but otherwise rather lacklustre. Thankfully it soon calmed down, a bit, with the long lingering, oh so meaningful, shots. becoming less frequent. At least until they go to Rome and there are all the classic tourist shots.

But, it did get on with the the actual story, which is, of course, fucking great. Although....most of the changes from the book dont work. They're all too old for a start, Scott is twice the age Matt Damon and Alain Delon were, Flynn is forty. They're meant to be in their early twenties, the whole set up makes far less sense if they are full grown adults. Putting Dickie & Marge definitively together makes her comparatively laid back approach to him disappearing makes little sense. And Dickie loved the robe in the book, it's part of what made Ripley think they were right together. Changing that becomes Dickie insulting Ripley and his taste, it totally changes their relationship. Did anyone think that Ripley was in love with Dickie here? Because he is in the book. Or at least he may well be. Ripley knows Dickie so well, so intimately, he doesn't need that absurd speech in the boat to know somethings up. Who would choose a moment they are stranded to suddenly go 'oh, by the way, I'm dumping you.' Ripley has become a sulky little child.

On the other hand, I did really like Freddie. Having a non-binary actor in the role really fits with the tone and themes of the book, a much more plausible pal than Philip Seymour-Hoffman (not that I would diss the Hoff).

(I realise that the above makes it sound like I hate it, I dont. Dakota Fanning is excellent, Flynn was too, if we accept him for being too old, It's still a great story and it's good to see more of it. And the photography is gorgeous)
Agree with all that. I haven't read the book or seen the Delon version but loved the Minghella film and thought this version - though stunning visually - was psychologically completely wrong. Scott is creepy and charismatic without being charming. Damon was much better as he was both bland and charming. Somehow he disappeared into the background while bolstering Dickie's ego.
 
That's a shame, Andrew Scott is usually reliable and the film version was particularly excellent. Maybe it's been stretched out too much?
 
Back
Top Bottom