Billions

Pilot and Episode 2 "Naming Rights": This is Showtime trying to make the world of investment banking as interesting/dramatic as what Netflix did for politics with House of Cards. The only difference is that the world of hedge funds and traders are surprisingly a lot more foreign than Capitol Hill. Further distancing the audience is the difficulty in relating to the ultra-rich - who here is also a co-lead and ?likely anti-hero.

Thankfully, at least, Showtime has decided to not dumb it down too much which shows respect to the audience and kept all the technical jargon in, although conversely, that might end up alienating some audience if they keep it up too much.

Secondly, thank you for staying away from gratuitous sex scenes, although I do applaud them from going beyond network TV's S&M and used golden showers to show how edgy cable tv is. But then, we get drugs and a lesbian sex scene in episode 2. Two steps forward, one step back.

There was too much exposition in this pilot with too much telling rather than showing and that really dragged the pacing, especially when there are only two leads. Some of the lines were over clunky but there were some really good quotable quotes, although the build up of which sometimes did not really make it worth it. One thing interesting about the series (more in the pilot) was how the director (Neil Burger - both episodes) cut away from a conversation to show a scene of what the conversation was/will be about.

Damien Lewis is back to Showtime with his weird American accent. However, he is a good actor and does really make a good anti-hero, making us feel confused and torn as to how bad is his character. Although the showrunners really drilled it in by hammering us repeatedly with innocent white-collar criminals and their incessant pleas of "...but I only did it because...no one was hurt".

Paul Giamatti really chewed his scenes - reminding me a lot of James Spader in the early days of Blacklist, but his more quiet scenes had more impact, especially when he played across Maggie Siff.

Siff's character is going to be interesting and I really hope she will not end up being a cliche. Thus far, she has been written as smart and independent and as the only character with interactions with both sides, she will be the most interesting to watch down the road. And Siff played her well.

Malin Ackerman also plays the other more interesting character and Ackerman icily exudes an underlying ruthlessness that makes her an ideal match again Lewis. Sadly, she has had not much screen time, but whenever she is on, she gets great lines.

The only other actor that stood out thus far was Toby Leonard Moore, and unfortunately that was more because he was essentially playing the same role as he last did on Netflix's Daredevil.

The concept of the show is there and it will be interesting to see how the hunt goes. Although it will be difficult to imagine how it will proceed beyond this current 12-episodes season. How long can the hunt stretch out? Is this going to end up more Revenge or more Hannibal? More Homeland Season 1 to 3 or Season 4 and 5? The good news is that at least it is still interesting enough to continue watching.

Episode 3, "YumTime": Malin Akerman and Maggie Siff got more to do this episode and they are both a delight to watch. Giamatti is really chewing the scenery mercilessly. And Lewis is doing the same but with those really scary eyes and brows. It will be interesting to see how the A-plot in this episode fall in with the rest of the show in the long run. But at least thankfully the The Big Short-esque jargon has been kept to a minimum. And although there is way less nudity or skin shown here as compared to other Showtime flicks, the swearing is excessive. Way too excessive.

Joy

David O. Russell has his first semi-dud since hitting a home run with his last three movies (The Fighter, Silver Linings Playbook and American Hustle).

Re-teaming up with his muse Jennifer Lawrence and frequent collaborators Robert de Niro and Bradley Cooper (can a muse be a guy?...anyways, moving on...) Joy was a genuinely enjoyable, funny and interesting film...in its first act. Thereafter, director/writer Russell got bogged down by the tedious reality behind every success story and neglected the fundamentals that made his previous dramas worked: the characters, the family and the complicated bonds between them. That resulted in a bloated, overwrought, tedious drama of a fairly interesting person which was wrapped up in one of the laziest, sloppiest, deus ex machina way possible which kind of overwrites all the character development of Lawrence's central character.

The first act was a joy (all pun intended). And a very pleasant surprise. With shades of Silver Lining Playbook. The family members, except for Elizabeth Rohn's half-sister character, played well opposite each other. There were genuinely funny moments and a central character worth rooting for. But as the film dragged on, the laughs got scarcer and scarcer, and characters just got more and more two-dimensional and flat and boring.

Lawrence gave one of her most understated performances since her Winter Bone days. It was not showy nor flashy and she really does embodies the everyday American persona very well. And the girl has great comedic timings. She really should work with Amy Schumer. She anchored the film but the writing of her character failed to live up to its potential, however, if it was not for her, the film may have tanked even more.

The understated star of the show was Diane Ladd. She was fantastic and equally magnetic on screen, giving a real, palpable sense of faith, believe and love.

Virginia Madsen also give a hilarious turn as the mother.

De Niro was let down by his character; Cooper was just a glorified cameo, again playing the role he had always play; Rohm was just out of place with no chemistry with the others and extremely poor justifications for her character; Edgar Ramirez was a fun addition but ultimately just a plot convenience; Isabella Rossellini was wasted although she was a (non-intentional) campy hoot in the first act.

Despite a strong performance by Lawrence, this film failed to live up to the high bar that Russell has set for himself. A fairly enjoyable show that was failed by poor writing.

The Danish Girl

The Danish Girl was a good film that boasted good performances from its two leads - Eddie Redmayne and Alicia Vikander - but despite its Oscar-baiting story, the ultimate product failed to connect and engage with the audience beyond the superficial layer. And it showed especially in its ending and the penultimate scene.

Tom Hooper is really a fan of the close-ups after Les Miserables, and it was again a double-edged sword here. It worked well for certain scenes but not so for the majority of the others. Hooper chose to tell the story Lili Elbe nee Einer Wegener, but yet the film seemed more interested in focusing on the struggles of Gerda Wegener rather than the identity struggle of Einer/Lili. But when it does, Hooper sort-of just glossed over it and Redmayne go through the expected beats, such that it does become painfully obvious that both Hooper and Redmayne did not explore much into the characterisation and emotional architecture of the eponymous heroine.

Although there is a need to dramatise a story when it is given the big screen treatment, Hooper and writer Lucinda Coxon really twisted the true story of the Wegeners to make it more sanitised and Hollywood-appropriate. Thereby, like Stonewall before it, it felt like a betrayal to the people involved and to the memory of Lili.

Redmayne gave a good performance, but perhaps because of the above, he may not have reached the Oscar-winning heights of his Stephen Hawking portrayal last year for The Theory of Everything. There was so much potential here for him but I think his portrayal of a trans-woman lacked depth and substance. It was more showy (for the sake of showing) rather than nuanced.

Vikander - having a very ubiquitous year after Ex-Machina and The Man From UNCLE - gave a striking performance that showed she was more than just a pretty face. Although I felt that she performed a lot better in Ex-Machina and is more worthy of awards-recognition for a Best Supporting Actress for that role rather than a Best Actress for this (although BAFTA and the Golden Globes might disagree, but strangely enough the SAG put her for Best Supporting Actress for this).

And then of course there were the always reliable Ben Wishaw (I fear he is going to get typecast soon...but after seeing him here and in Suffragette, I really want to watch a Ben-Eddie-Carey Mulligan movie!) and Matthias Schoenaerts (hey! another Carey Mulligan - Far From The Madding Crowd - connection, so maybe a Ben-Eddie-Carey-Matthias rom-com?).

Cinematography was by Danny Cohen who worked with Hooper on The King's Speech and Les Miserables, and he sure did make Copenhagen and Denmark country looked beautiful. Music by Alexandre Desplat was hauntingly beautiful who also did the score for Suffragette but this work was stronger.

The Danish Girl bears a lot of similarity to the other Oscar hopeful Carol. Both films are outstanding and engrossing in their own rights, boasting good performances by their two leads (although Carol's Cate Blanchett and Rooney Mara do edged out both Redmayne and Vikander and their very odd/conflicting accents), beautiful score and gorgeous cinematography, and excellent directing, however, also like Carol, something is missing in its final product and execution to really elevate it to greatness. Although Carol does one-up The Danish Girl in its authenticity both in terms of setting and the non-heteronormative love story.

Sherlock: The Abominable Bride

A one-off screening of the much loved (and missed) Sherlock series, this Christmas/New Year special was everything the TV series was and translated very well onto the big screen. Although it truly did not advance the serial’s main plotline, it was an effective one-off, case-of-the-week story telling that kept its fans happy and any new viewers satisfied (the recapped definitely helped).

The dialogue was quick and witty and machine-gunned out with aplomb and gusto by all its stars. The humour was spot on and there was a healthy amount of verbal and physical comedy. The direction was superb with outstanding work on set designs, costumes, music and cinematography.

The central plot/narrative on the hand was fairly straightforward. The case itself drew comparison with Season 3’s explanation of how Sherlock’s faked his own death. The initial explanation of why it was set in Victorian times was great and truly unexpected (for someone who had strictly avoided all spoilers), however, the constant slipping in and out of time thereafter felt cheapened and reduced that tension and authenticity of the later scenes.

The theatrical release was bookended by Steven Moffatt’s introduction of Holmes’ Victorian set design and Mark Gatiss’ cast interview. The former was a fun insight to production design and the thought that goes into it and the latter was just fan service.

The Little Prince [SQ Inflight Entertainment]

The Little Prince was a charmingly sweet animation that combined both CGI and stop-motion technology to present a story within a story, with the original narrative mirroring that of the beloved (and well known) fable.

Directed by American Mark Osborne, this film was clearly targeted towards introducing a new generation to Antoine de Saint-Exupery’s children classic (although every time I read it, at different ages, I garner something new about it). It managed to introduce a wholly new narrative to bring the audience into the world of The Little Prince, however, non-book readers may initially be confused by how weirdly erratic the eponymous little prince could be – although Osborne did try to address that with a bit of meta-confusion.

The Third Act was a highlight. With a marvellous imagining that was a bit darker than the preceding two acts, although Osborne ultimately still held back from making it too morose/macabre/dark.

The 3D stop-motion was gorgeous and I could really watch the whole original Le Petit Prince in that although that may not appeal to as wide an audience as this current incarnation. However, the computer animation was fairly normal with nothing too spectacular or standing out as compared to the Pixar films.

Similarly, the voice work was not outstanding with Jeff Bridges (as the Aviator), Paul Rudd (as Mr Prince), Marion Cotillard (as The Rose) and James Franco (as The Fox) being more distinct and imbuing some sense of personality to their characters.

The Little Prince will definitely appeal to the older audience who grew up reading this marvellous novella however it was not strong enough to hold onto their attention fully until the final act. As for a younger audience, this film should be engaging enough through its 108 minutes although it still lacked many of the bells and whistles that most animations have these days with much of its strength lying on its narrative which does demands more attention from the young.

Carol [Moonlight Cinema, Brisbane]

A beautifully directed love story by Todd Haynes that was superbly crafted and extremely well acted by two talented actresses. However, despite all its beauty and excellence there was within its core a distinct lack of emotional chemistry between the two leads/characters that, if present, would have elevated this film to almost perfection (and Oscar front-runner).

This was a very typical Haynes period film - highly reminiscent of his succinctly masterful Julianne Moore starrer Far From Away (even the soundtrack sounds similar) and the brilliant Kate Winslet/Eva Rachel Wood mini-series Mildred Pierce. Haynes definitely has an eye for the period and his attention to details were impeccable. The sets and scenes were lush with details, as were the costumes and make-up. Both Cate Blanchett and Rooney Mara looked convincingly liked they were from the 50s.

The story itself was beautiful, but I suspect something was amiss in the translation from print to screen. There was without a doubt that both actresses were superb and turning in fine performance; Blanchett was nuanced and finely tuned whereas Mara was more raw and exposed. However, their romance itself was less convincing. Objectively, and intellectually, I can imagine why they would fall in love, but emotionally, that was not translated keenly on screen. Individually, their feelings of longing, heartbreak, despair and lovelorn were keenly felt and explored, but when they are together, the sparks just seemed to crackle and sputter instead of burning up in a blinding blaze.

As aforesaid, individually both Blanchett and Mara gave very strong performances and it is very likely they will both get nominated during Oscar time (and Mara really does deserve a Best Actress rather than Best Supporting Actress, although her chances of winning seemed to be higher with the latter). However, Mara really felt more authentic as the naivete girl falling in love for the first time, rather than Blanchett as the more experienced lover trapped by society to conform while desperate to be really in love.

The craft throughout this film was beautiful and on point. Cinematographer Edward Lachman did a great job in lensing the period and Carter Burwell created a lovely score that really carried a scene and emphasised the emotions.

Haynes has given us yet another beautiful (atypical) love story but this time it lacked the intense chemistry that differentiates it from his earlier works. 

Suffragette

This Carey Mulligan led period piece was a fairly entertaining film that shed some light on the history of the suffragette movement through the personal, circumstantial drama of an initially unwilling participant. However, it lacked the historical details to make it more educational nor does it, despite Mulligan's dedicated and moving performance, provide enough emotional heft for us to connect with the cause. Especially since most educated audience will already accept the fact that it is a right for women to vote. Therefore, the film failed to show and engaging lead the audience to its inevitable conclusion.

The period details were well designed as were the costumes with the drabness and dreariness of the lower class clearly illustrated and emphasized to counterpoint that of the well to do. However, we do not see the struggle of the upper crust and that disparity made the cause and the purpose of the suffragettes jarring.

Mulligan did a highly commendable job in depicting the evolution of her character. But as a character, she was not a well written one - mostly reacting to her circumstances rather than actively participating in the change. Nonetheless, that did not diminish the quality of her acting as we keenly feel her pain, suffering, despair and helplessness. 

Ben Wishaw stood out as Mulligan's on-screen husband. Their scenes were electrifying and it would be interesting to see these two actors together again. 

Helena Bonham Carter received second billing and she is usually a great actress to watch. Here, she was her more subdued self and similarly did not really make much of an impression. There was hardly any conviction in her character's headstrong-ness and militant-type dedication to the cause. 

Meryl Streep just chewed up the scenery in her barely five-minutes appearance. But at least in that brief moment she managed to convince us why she is a leader and why the cause is right. 

Suffragette is unlikely to get much awards notice other than for Mulligan and maybe during the BAFTAs as it - despite its Oscar baiting intentions - really lacked an emotional core beyond its first act.