3 Short Paragraphs (Or Not): Mercy

2026, Timur Bekmambetov (Night Watch) -- download

Weird. I have a fuzzy memory of saying out loud, "I wonder was Bekmambetov is up to these days...." but its not in any post and I don't recall the context. I haven't seen any of his since the failed Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. I guess he's been on the other side of the pond for the most part.

Despite coming from two entirely different studios, Universal and Amazon MGM, this movie, made by the latter, plays like it grew from the same Purple Suited Minds responsible for the recent War of the Worlds. It is a barely-above-middling crime thriller which is dragged into the muck by an absolute terrible visual depiction of technology, and this is coming from the guy who absolutely loves interface design focused movies. Most of the near-future flick looks like it was designed on a MacBook (likely it was) by a person who hasn't seen a non-MacOS computer since Windows 3.1.

And I was not hallucinating. Its right there in Timur's Producer credits -- and if you look through his producing credits, you see an inordinate number of movies that take place in front of a screen, such as "Unfriended: Dark Web" (2018) and "Profile" (2018). I just wish he was better at it.

This was an astoundingly bad movie, so much so I even considered not finishing it. But if I persevered through War of the Worlds then in for a penny, in for a pounding. I also wondered, as the opening "explainer vid" rolled, whether this was a MAGA Movie, i.e. something meant for the minds of the Republican / Right-Wing mindset in the US these days. The premise is that In the Future, when crime is at an all time high, they decide to implement an AI Judge as part of the "Mercy Court". The AI is "judge, jury and executioner" (without Dredd's cool helmet) and it has access to all information, all of it, giving the defendant 90 minutes to prove their innocence before being put to death. The assumption is that the only people standing "trial" here have been convicted by the evidence itself. Guilty until proven innocent, but by only your own aptitude.

No issues there.

Chris Raven (sounds like he chose his own character name; Chris Pratt, Parks and Recreation) wakes up, strapped to the chair. Judge Maddox (Rebecca Ferguson, Dune) explains to him that he killed his wife. But of course Raven doesn't think he did it, but cannot deny that he got blackout drunk and was abusively enraged at her, and she, wife that is, thought he was entirely capable of doing it. But he didn't do it, did he, cuz he's the main character.

Except the movie does kind of lead us down a garden path that Chris is a violent, narcissistic ass who is more than capable of doing it. I am not recapping the movie, but you know he didn't do it. He's Been Framed by his Best Friend, because, of course he has been. We are here to talk about how bad the movie is written, depicted and presented, not to debate "plot".

And we are here to do lots of "air quotes".

The methods in which the accused convinces Maddox that they are innocent are by accessing all the data made possible by her really sus methods of access. Don't trust AI, that is not at all considered a sentient AI as this is not that movie, but we are supposed to trust the surveillance state? She can literally access anything. She doesn't require warrants. The Mercy Court gives her this level of power.

But she sucks. She's not all that different than current AIs that are prone to being led by the nose to the wrong conclusions. If a human misrepresents the data available, then the data is corrupted. That might kind of be the point of the movie, but you always get the impression the agenda of the movie really likes the idea of an AI killing off scumbags, as long as other scumbag humans (likely Lefties) don't interfere with it.

But still, I should like a computer thriller full of interface screens, right? Yes, I should but we now know how Bekmambetov low balls even that idea. Like in War of the Worlds all the screens are social media, fly away file folders, video feeds, etc. that entirely look like someone is recreating them with software. Like mentioned prior, the designers used MacOS with its current rounded edges & smoked glass backgrounds but also made the usual terrible mistake of depicting other computers as if you would see their data from their screen. If I remotely access a MacBook from my Windows laptop, the screens I will see will be Windows screens, the data does not affect the depiction. But sure, visual cues to help technologically incapable audiences. 

And Maddox "herself". I am sure there is some low-key sexism or reverse sexism going on here, but having Rebecca Ferguson playing the fallible AI judge. I mean, I know that in a movie with limited cast, they need a contrasting recognizable face to Pratt's, but there definitely is some "cannot trust a woman" going on. And some side-eye glances about how AI's are not supposed to have emotions, yet near the end of the movie, she starts making "emotional choices". Once Eagle Raven's evidence-against starts proving to have been fabricated or falsified, and Time is Running Out, she begins taking matters into her own "hands" (screens) to help him. All they needed was one moment in the script where they talked about the AI being on the edge of sentience, maybe hobbled by scared technicians, and they would have some thin explanation as to why this non-sentient, non-gendered computer program would start making choices based on emotional situations. But no, nobody making this movie believes any audience cares about intelligent choices. Maybe my initial thoughts of this being a MAGA movie were validated purely by the expected intelligence levels of the viewers? Yeah yeah, cheap shot but...

Anywayz, I will just be here waiting for a real AI to help write a script and actually help with the visual graphics of the next interface focused technology movie. I know such depictions are possible and they are really good despite my quibbles with the whole AI industry.

Determinism: Devs vs. Westworld (Season 3)

Devs - d. Alex Garland, FX (8 episodes)
Westworld Season 3 - HBO (8 episodes)

It would seem that in the past two or three years writer-director Alex Garland and Westworld showrunners Lisa Joy and Jonathan Nolan read the same book about how the philosophical concept of determinism could potentially be validated, or even instituted, by the mighty power of artificial intelligence and big data.

I don't know for certain that there is even a book out there that explores that thesis, but given that two shows running at the same time are exploring the same subject from different approach vectors seems to at least intone that it's now part of the intellectual conversation.  Maybe it's a Ted talk, I dunno.

I can't say I prefer one show's approach on the topic over the other.  Both have their merits, but I'm also still contemplating whether they're saying the same thing or not.

Garland has, for a number of years now, been exploring both philosophical and technological concepts in his very heady directorial sci-fi projects like Ex Machina and Annihilation, but his screenplays even before that, like Never Let Me Go, Sunshine and even 28 Days Later toyed with contemplation of existence (whether it be clones bred for organ replacement, a crew trying to save the humanity or a small group of survivors of a zombie-like plague).  Clearly, what life means and what we're supposed to be doing with it is something that is on his mind.


At the epicenter of Devs story [mild plot spoilers ahead] is that a secret coding project within the Google-like Amaya corporation, where they're working on a project that can see the past and future with precision.  But the meat of the show centers around Lily (Sonoya Mizuno) whose fiancee, Sergei, was admitted to the Devs program and then disappeared, only to show up days later and self-immolate on the Amaya campus.  Her investigation into Sergei's actions, attempting to understand them, lead her on a complicated path that sees her revisiting her past and questioning her future.

The idea behind the Devs project is one of determinism, that we're all on a fixed path, that free will is but an illusion.  Having taken in all of the data systems have collected on practically everyone for decades now, the Devs system can extrapolate and interpret and ultimate display the exact past and the exact future.  Everything will happen as it will always happen, such that it always has happened even if it hasn't happened yet.  Amaya founder, Forrest (Nick Offerman) and Katie (Allison Pill), his right hand on the project, have looked to their future and they know what happens.  As such they perform their roles as they're meant to, thinking they would be unable to deviate even if they tried.  They also know Lily's future, and they're more than at peace with letting the horrifying events in her life proceed without  any sense of troubled conscience.  They're devoted believers in the fixed tram lines our life are on, and feel absolved on any complicity because of it. 

An author before a script writer then director, with Devs, Garland seems to be redefining what can be done in the new golden age of television [aside - the new golden age of TV is certainly coming to an unpredicable end thanks to the Coronavirus shut-down...I wonder how things will look a year from now?] by literally making a tele-novel.  It's a rare show that has one writer and director for the entire production, but Garland's control of the situation make it a decidedly singular vision from start to finish, and it feels structured like chapters of a book.  At times the way the show plays out, it has a similar feeling to reading a book. There's a solitude to the experience of watching (or maybe that was just my experience watching it alone), as Garland let his camera sit and rest in a scene, letting the ambient noises fill the space, gleaning insight or understanding by holding on expressions or exploring the backgrounds, or just giving the audience time to contemplate meaning or feel the weight of events.  He bookends each chapter with a song, the same one in the starting montage and the ending montage, but a different song for each chapter.  The songs are well selected reflecting the tone the show is seeking perfectly.

Devs is very small scale in how its looking-glass project impacts humanity in the world of the story.  It's still technology at its incubation stage.  It hasn't been commoditized or exploited for much purpose other than self-satisfaction.  But one can see where taking all that personal data collected, all that observational video recorded, all that digital audio parsed and using it to see what people will do, and what they have done (or at least believe that's what you're seeing) could wind up being very bad for society, and the very sense of freedom.

In Season 3 of Westworld, we've left the trappings of the theme park where the automatons ran wild.  They're now loose in the real world (well, the real world of 2058) and they've starting a war nobody even realizes is happening yet.  Delores (Evan Rachel Wood) an a small cabal of hosts have taken various strategic forms and insinuated themselves in roles across the globe, including taking the body of Charlotte Hale (Tessa Thompson) seeding her in the top spot of Delos, the owners of the AI technology and host body technology.

Delos is the focus of a hostile takeover by Incite and its somehow mysterious and completely off-the-grid owner Serac (Vincent Cassell).  Serac, meanwhile, is aware that someone, or something is interfering with his plans.  Serac is the co-creator of Rehoboam, an AI construct that has absorbed the world's big data and now effectively (and secretly) governs it, ensuring that everyone stays on their predictive paths, and that the outliers, the ones its unable to predict the actions of, are removed from the equation.

Rehoboam is also tracking aberrant behavior from other hosts that made it out, Bernard (Jeffrey Wright) who's basically in hiding, having had the massacre at Westworld pinned on him, and Maeve (Thandie Newton), who has been resurrected under Serac's sway.  It's also tracking Caleb (Aaron Paul), an ex-marine with PTSD finding it hard to break out of Incite's predictive existence for him, and who falls into Delores' sphere of influence.

Westworld is using our advancements in big data, AI and predictive modeling as it's groudwork, noting its potential to eventually accurately predict the future, and then extrapolating a scenario where the AI and its employers ensure a predictable future, both as well-meaning societal benefit and as a means of self-elevation (Serac is clearly not hurting for money or resources).  It's the central thesis of the season, having already explored the ideas of existence and what it means for AIs to have consciousness and exist in the previous seasons.  It carries those with it, as the hosts are still front-and-center, but each displaying just as much humanity, good and bad, as any character in the show.  Serac and Delores are flipsides of the same coin each very much fueled by their convictions, and each very much willing to sacrifice anything for their plans.

Jonathan Nolan explored the emergence of artificial intelligence prior to Westworld in Person of Interest, a clever bait-and-switch on the case-of-the-week formulae that was really about observational nanny state, the abuse of all that monitoring, and artificial intelligence that could use that information for good or ill based on the guidance of their programmers.  Rehoboam in Westworld is very much an extension of PoI's machine, taking that observational AI system, feeding it ALL the world's data and giving it the task of ensuring humanity's future through order.  It's kind of like communism if you manage to eliminate the corruption and thirst for power.
 

Where Devs' determinism is explored on the micro level, how the very idea impacts the people who believe it, or the people who refuse to do anything with the information they have, believing even the possibility of doing something other impossible, Westworld's use of determinism is mostly macro.  We don't really sit with the impact of a predetermined existence too much with any one character, but we see the impact it has on society, and it's not a far-off extrapolation of where we already seem to be heading.  Westworld, however, has more designs on staying within its pulpy Michael Crichton origins. Action is still very much a part of the play, as are cool looking technology and futuristic designs to vehicles and other equipment.

The original Westworld is said to have influenced the Terminator, and this season is taking that influence right back.  The indestructible machine, the stony-faced determination, the impassioned assaults... Evan Rachel Wood's face seems to be made up to be even more esoterically smooth and her angles sharpened to give her an inhuman, perhaps even ultrahuman visage.  It's not uncanny valley, but it is somehow captivating and unsettling.

In both shows, the idea of the outlier does come into play, where in Devs the very concept is willfully abandoned, the very idea that there is free will would throw the system into a chaotic multiverse, but it does play it's part.  In Westworld it's these anomalies hailed as humanity's savior...or at least liberator, much like Delores was her people's liberator in Season 2.  For better or worse.

Devs is methodical, and may not be to everyone's taste.  Westworld Season 3 basically reboots the show with a new path and keeps only a scant few threads from the past.  It may not be what viewers of previous seasons were expecting.  Both are, however, compelling viewing.

10 for 10: I Need a Catchy Title?

10 for 10... that's 10 movies which we give ourselves 10 minutes apiece to write about.  Part of our problem is we don't often have the spare hour or two to give to writing a big long review for every movie or TV show we watch.  How about a 10-minute non-review full of scattershot thoughts? Surely that's doable?

[2019, May Update -- this was still in Drafts? Let's finish it off. Which should be interesting considering it was ... 2017 ?!?!]

[2019; August Update... jeebus, just finish already, format or not]

[2019; SEPTEMBER OMG !]

In This Edition:

The November Man, 2014, Roger Donaldson (Dante's Peak) -- Netflix
iBoy, 2017, Adam Randall (Level Up) -- Netflix
Volcano, 1997, Mick Jackson (The Bodyguard) -- Netflix
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, 2016, David Yates (The Legend of Tarzan) -- download
The Void, 2016, Jeremy Gillespie, Steven Kostanski (Father's Day, Manborg) -- download
Colossal, 2016, Nacho Vigalondo (Timecrimes) -- download
Paradox, 2016, Michael Hurst (Room 6) -- Netflix
2:22, 2017, Paul Curie (One Perfect Day) -- download

aaaand Go.

Netflix still often feels like the corner video store, where there are a hand full of first run movies at the front, but most of the place is filled up with Straight To movies and delete items. The November Man is a Straight To flick for the Bourne crowd, or probably more precisely the fans of the British spy procedurals.

Pierce Brosnan is Devereaux, an ex-MI5 operative. Or is it CIA? Which is in vogue these days? I still get this flick mixed up in my head with the John Snow MI5 movie I previously rushed through a post. So yes, CIA. He was a hit man, but he's old now; ex-CIA black ops kind of guy in retirement. He is convinced by an old boss to help him extract a... what's the standard word... asset from Russia. The asset is about to get caught and she has good intel on a Russian general. Devereaux agrees but things go south, as they always do, and the asset (who turns out to be his old paramour) dies... at the hands of Deveareaux's once-protegee. But not before she gives him the Next Clue. So, now Devereaux is angry and upset at the CIA and his ex-protegee but still wants to help out the Next Clue, played by Olga Kurlenko.

Standard convoluted plot of espionage and revenge, which happens to be based on a popular adventure book series. Its not all that original and Donaldson spends far too much time recreating Bourne style scenes, but the acting is all committed and the locales are generously exotic. Brosnan is probably stuck with playing B-rate ex-spies of many sort and he does it deftly enough. This was definitely sitting on sofa checking Facebook fare, though. [9:36]

---

iBoy is a wonderful Netflix Original from Britain, not perfect but a lot of fun. It's your classic 80s inspired technology magic super-powered tale sourced from people who understand a bit about technology, but depending on you to not know a lot. In other words, much of what happens is not at all possible. But with some decent effects, it still makes for engaging fantasy.

Pretty much all technology based fiction.

Tom lives in a rough part of London, those classic towers you see in all the movies -- run down, cramped and ridden with gangs. He has a crush on Lucy and on the night when he was finally going to confess his feelings, he finds her gang raped. The movie almost lost me there; I am in the camp where I am tired of that being the impetus for most fiction heroic males. But at least it was able to move past it quickly enough. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Tom has to run from the gang members, and in turn shot in the head and (I forget exactly how) ends up with parts of his cell phone embedded in his brain. Boom! Magic technology powers, that makes him kinda of like Besson's Lucy (not the character in THIS movie) in that he can see and interact with technology "waves". And soon after, he realizes he can manipulate them, and control mobile devices and data.

From there it runs as a typical revenge / vigilante drama, but the play on technological powers is charming enough. Eventually he reveals himself as the iBoy, and discovers the core leadership of the gang that hurt Lucy. But at a cost. There is always a cost. The weird thing about the movie is that it keeps on dancing between the goofy scifi powers based stuff, and the darker plot elements around the rape and the balance of power of those who committed it versus those who manipulated them. It wants to be deeper than it is, but only succeeds half way.

Still, Maizie Williams is always worth watching. [9:36]

---

Volcano goes into my list of favoured disaster flicks, but not enough to be added to The Shelf. Like the movies about asteroids looming down on us, there were two volcano movies that season. This is the Tommy Lee Jones one, the one where a volcano grows in central LA and the emergency management guy has to pull out all the stops in order to reduce the loss of life. Anne Heche is along as the scientist who has to convince people of the Bad Stuff About to Happen.

Basically, IIRC, something is happening with the fault line (its always San Andreas' fault, ba dump bump) which is sending magma flowing under LA. Things are heating up and geologist Heche, and her trusty side-kick, are trying to figure out why. I remember being horrified the first time I saw the cute, bespectacled sidekick get devoured by an unexpected eruption of magma. Once this event happens, a proper volcano soon emerges and all hell breaks loose. Do you really expect me to NOT use cliches when it comes to remembering disaster flicks?

At the time, Jones was already (click click...) 51, at which point I should be saying "too old to break out as an action star" but remember Liam Neeson's kickoff with Taken ? But that seems what they were trying to do here -- make him the sexy, leading man with against Heche, saving LA from all the stupid people who didn't believe her. But remember, we didn't know Heche was leaning in the direction of women at that time. Still, Jones never  really did reach Action Man status.

And I still did get utterly chilled at the most heroic act in the entire movie, by some rather nameless subway worker, who jumps into flowing lava to save a woman, and dies as lava absorbs him -- but not before he tosses her into the arms of horrified workers. It wouldn't have gone that way in reality, but .... disaster flick. [10:24]

---

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is the latest, or first, in the new Harry Potter cinematic universe. This is supposed to take us in two directions: to America and trundling along with Adult Wizards. Eddie Redmayne, the chameleon actor of our current age, plays bumbling, nerdy, stumbling and innocuous British wizard Newt Scamander who has come to America to... oh, I don't remember, but he has a bag (of holding) full of monsters. In his mind, they are not monsters, just misunderstood beasts from myth and magic. But really, dude some of these things are truly beastly, horrific things that would kill people given the chance. What I was disappointed in, in the representation of the monsters, were that so very few of them were mythological. They were basically just alien creatures that the wizards of the world either destroyed or manipulated reality to hide from us. That has to be it right? How else could such a plethora of creatures never have been heard of before?

Anywayz, when one of his creatures gets free he gets caught in a mystery about how muggles (non-mag in the US) interact with magicians, a notorious Bad Guy and some usual HP politics. But the best bits were actually between no-mag baker Jacob Kowalski and Newt, as Jacob gets drawn into a world he is really not supposed to know anything about. Think about it, these magicians never really any cook or bake anything, they just wave a wand and it appears or assembles or something. But Jacob knows, through instinct and skill, what those spells would have drawn upon for the first time. It made me wonder whether there are magicians out there creating new spells that would require non-mag's to provide the base ingredients. What a scandal that would cause.

But the movie never really caught me beyond the interaction of those two. The rest just seemed... forced. [9:31]

--

The Void is one of those Lovecraftian flicks that was probably adored by the horror movie film fest circuit. I wonder whether and how it would have played at FantAsia in Montreal. Remember though, this is a lowish budget movie I saw in 2017, something I saw running on the movie / specfic blogs that looked interesting enough. Basically anything Lovecraftian, cults and summoned monsters and transformation and tentacles, can attract my attention. I wonder what that says for me. I remember liking it, but not loving it.

A couple of people are on the run from ... someone. They end up at a mostly abandoned hospital, which recently suffered a fire, and is on a downturn in use. They drag in the survivor and almost immediately things begin to go wrong, with a nurse killing a patient, her face ripped off by ... something. The Good Guys kill her, but she comes back, all tentacly and gross. From there things get all the more convoluted and creepier, connecting the people on the run to a cult that is summoning something from the namesake.

In another era this would have been done by John Carpenter. The over-use of vomit inducing practical-effected monsters and devolving people & creatures was probably the only boon to this movie, for the ideas it was trying to depict just faded away in the over-troped, over-used, not very creative scene to scene "plot". [6:31 because I don't really have much more to say about it, with this faded lingering impression left]

--

[full disclosure; i just deleted Noroi as i don't recall a single thing about it]

--

Colossal is just a movie of the current era, a time when kaiju are not just coming back ironically or in homage, but also in tangentially referential ways. We have a movie whose sole premise is a presenting traumatized woman who channels a kaiju on the other side of the world. Or is it that he kaiju channels her? Well, whatever she does, the kaiju does as well. She swings her arm, its swings its arm. She walks, it walks and crushes Seoul. It only happens while she is in a certain point, and she cannot see through its eyes, but via the wonders of the Internet, can can see what's going on.

While this is a fantastical premise, this is not a genre movie. This is a classic indie emotion and interaction movie. Gloria (Anne Hathaway; The Intern) is a drunk of trainwreck. She has to escape to her hometown and is sleeping on the floor of the empty family house. Of course, she ends up at the local watering hole and connects with the bar owner Oscar (Jason Sudeikis; Horrible Bosses).

At first things are amiable between Gloria and Oscar, but as they explore this extraordinary phenomena, a really dark side comes out of him. I am not even sure of what is darker, that he seems to be so disconnected from the damage he can cause when he manifests his own kaiju (giant robot), or that there was a dark past situation that created this whole turn of events. Oscar is a horrible person and doesn't seem to be bothered by who is hurt, either lone Gloria who stands before him, or the countless nameless Koreans who he only sees on TV screens.

[kent's view]

[8:30]

--

[full disclosure; i just deleted Gambit (2012) & Paradox (2016); AGAIN I don't recall a single thing about them]

--

But I do remember this one, albeit slightly. Not quite time travel, more a romantic touch of synchronicity and a bit of time looping, this one was small budget and not thoroughly thought through (i love those three words together) but I rather liked it. I admit, I am rather charmed by Michael Huismann, who we first got to know on The Treme, but you might know better as the second Daario Naharis in Game of Thrones.  And I really like Teresa Palmer. So, I can at least enjoy watching two beautiful people fall in love. Add in some time hijinx and...

Dylan is experiencing something. He keeps on seeing innocuous events repeating: drops of water, flies, car horns, etc. Through chance, he gets connected with Sarah (he gets distracted at 2:22pm almost guiding her plane and another into collision; he's an air traffic controller).  Events and things out of time keep on colliding, focused around an event at 2:22pm and connecting the two new lovers.

Its not easy to explain where the movie goes, and how, and mainly/frankly because it doesn't entirely make sense. Suffice it to say, the lovers are connected through time and via the energy of a dying star from 30 years prior. I just rather liked the execution.

[7:41]

Wow. Cleaned out. And yet, I am not really sure WHY. I mean, I basically ignored the content of almost an entire year's worth of movies seen. Oh well, who I am to define my brain and that war going on in there.

Black Mirror: Bandersnatch

2018, d. David Slade -- netflix

For the better part of the last 25 years we've been hearing that movies can't compete with video games. As they advance in graphics and maturity, and continue to outearn most cinematic offerings, the perception is that video games offer an interactive experience that is superior to the passive experience of watching a film.

Enter creator Charlie Booker's latest entry in his Black Mirror anthology, Banderstanch. This is an interactive film, based on the conceit of the popular Choose-Your-Own-Adventure novellas of the 1980s, which allows the viewer to direct the flow of the film. It's the type of project we've been anticipating for quite some time, but has never been feasible for the cinematic group experience. Even for DVD this type of idea would be a hard sell. It's only because of the ubiquitousness of Netflix, and the power of video streaming that such an endeavor is even possible.

The "film", if we can even properly call it that, present a metatextual story set in the early 1980's, about Stefan, a young man who is developing a video game based on a pick-a-path adventure novel. As the film progresses we are frequently presented with options to guide Stefan...choosing breakfast, saying yes or no to an offer, deciding to react violently or calmly, those sorts of things. When the choices are presented (for a limited time before it chooses for you) the scene on screen continues to play out with almost unnoticeable stalling tactics, and after you make your choice the story progresses, in most cases seamlessly.

If you make the "wrong" choice, as would happen with a CYOA novel, your journey ends, but where with a book you would simply flip back to the last fork in the path and change options, Bandersnatch will send you back to a certain starting point or sometimes present options of forking points to return to. As you return, deftly edited sequences reiterate the path you've taken to this point.

Where Bandersnatch really comes alive is in the awareness that the "wrong" choices weren't without an impact, as the characters on screen experience deja vu or become confused about reality. Stefan is a troubled young man as is, taking medication and seeing a therapist are aspects of his life introduced early. As things progress, Stefan's grip on "reality" become strained, and he will, I guess depending on the paths you take, start breaking the fourth wall, his mind bending with notions of being controlled, but uncertain of whom his controller is.

Invariably, one's grip on the reality of Stefan's world gets strained, as you begin to backtrack on choices over and over again. Bandersnatch is a Choose-Your-Own-Adventure book in the movie, it's also a game in the movie, and it's also the name of the story you are watching. It is many things, and it's aware that it is these many things. The metatextual nature is partly the point, that reality and control of reality are somewhat delusional. And in this case the idea that you actually have control over the narrative is what's in question, as many times the story leads you to where it wants to go.

It's not unlike a video game. Regardless of what video game you play or how advanced they get, you can only do so much with what the creators have programmed into it. Your perception of choice and control in a video game is still only limited to what has been given to you. As a storytelling vehicle, a video game only allows you to do what will progress the story they want to tell. Until you do what they want, the story doesn't progress. The illusion of control.

There's a certain amount of sophomoric philosophy at play in Bandersnatch, but it does provide a foundation for further contemplation once one completes their viewing of the "movie". That completion point is completely up to the viewer, as the way it's set up seems to allow the viewer unending opportunity to "flip" back in the story. It can get tedious if you've passed your second hour of what's otherwised posed as a 90-minute story, and there's likely a saturation point for most viewers. Even still, after spending about 130 minutes with Bandersnatch, I'm keen to revisit from scratch at least once more.

To criticise this experiment based on the story it tells is to overlook the experience, which is absolutely unique to the medium. The story, for what its worth, is a far cry better and more thoughtful than every Choose-Your-Own-Adventure story I've ever read, so there's that. It's pioneering, but time will tell if anyone decides to pick up the ball on this challenge and make it into an art.

31 Days of Halloween 2018: Unfriended

2014, Levan Gabriadze (Lucky Trouble) -- download

Well, that was clever.

Am I wrong, but shouldn't every horror movie about friends who did something wrong (i.e. I Know What You Did Last Summer) have one nice girl/guy survivor? Or are we, in this age of the social media based judge & jury state, everyone is guilty and worthy of punishment? I suppose that since this entire movie is around social media based interaction, its appropriate?

You saw that episode of Modern Family where the mom tries to track down the daughter, and we see it all through the "eyes" of her macbook screen? This movie is like that, all in the evening social "gathering" of a group of of highschoolers on iChat. Is that what Apple calls its PC based video chatting? Or is Facetime transparent in this post-iPhone movie? I can't keep up with what you kids do.

OK, that is out -- Old Man View. Sure, the movie is clever but do kids actually just hang out in video chat? Sure, its 2014 but weren't phones the focal point back then? Sure, there are the technical challenges of presenting an entire movie through a phone screen, but do kids actually ever just hang out in front of their laptop screens? Cybering (what is the current 2018 term for cyber-sex?) I can believe but general social chatting? Well, whatever the reality of the situation, that is where the kids are when a mysterious third party shows up, one they cannot kick from the chat, one that slowly unravels their lives.

This group was at the centre of a social media lynching that posted a video of a un/popular girl who crapped her pants at a party. In response, the girl shot herself. Now, a year later, it appears she is back and (the real horror here) hacking their social media accounts. Over the course of the movie, the ghost in the machine reveals details of how each participated in the cyber-bullying of the girl, from posting videos to leading "kill yourself" tirades in anonymous comments to just generally messing with her. But not just that, as the spirit reveals that each and every one of them is just a soulless bully even against each other. And to backup the bullying, the spirit has the ability to force them to commit suicide in gruesome manners.

Its all rather well done, quick and frenetic, jumping from app to Facebook to personal chat. There was a bit of stick handling done, as the conversation of the others seems to quiet down (i.e. they don't do anything) while we focus on conversation private to two, but beyond that, it all was displayed really well. It still amused me that a ghost, revenge spirit or whatever became tech savvy enough to play with software, removing buttons and hacking accounts. The afterlife has some good malware.

In the end, there is no Final Girl. All the kids are horrible, to each other and to others. All the kids deserve to die. Deserve to die? Ghost girl is obviously as bad as they were, if that's where her revenge takes her.

I Saw This!! What I Have Been Watching (PT D.2)

Pt. A, B, C, D.1 can be found there.

I Saw This (double exclamation point) is our feature wherein Graig or David attempt to write about a bunch of stuff they watched some time ago and meant to write about but just never got around to doing so. But we can't not write cuz that would be bad, very bad.  Y'know, red horny demon possession, bad.

Just to round out the pile, I am going to shoe horn in a show I am currently watching. So, this edition, we get a completed season (and series), a dropped show (but likely to be binge watched) and a nearly done season.

Meh; four (series) seasons completed.

Mr Robot S2, 2016, USA Network -- download

Speaking of technology rampant, from the more metaphysical and speculative idea of what could happen, to a more grounded, if darker view on unfettered tech use.

Mr. Robot continues Eliot's descent into madness. Descent? More like riding the wave.

When we last left our young hero and his imaginary dad, Mr Robot, they were enacting their economically catastrophic plan. But of course, wiping out (records of) debt hasn't destroyed Evil Corp nor freed the serfs from debt slavery. In fact its fucking things up royally. Cash has become king and almost everyone, the 98% included, has had their bank accounts frozen.

I would have preferred if the show had expanded its purview beyond NYC so we could see how things are going in the rest of the US, and maybe across the border, but no we wander the streets of the city seeing restaurants that only take cash, people are jobless and pissed off and the TV never stops talking about it. But of course, the suits just keep on suiting. They will always have the money no matter how militaristic Elliot and his sister get.

Elliot spends much of the season desperate to maintain a routine while being forced into a seemingly routine tech support role for a gangster. This gangster, friendly and attentive to Elliots peculiarities is an analog for that guy who ran the Darkweb ebay site, you know, the one that sold weed and hitmen. Meanwhile his sister and her friends are both trying to plan what happens next while absolutely petrified about getting caught. Seriously, with the damage they have done they will end up in a deep dark concrete room, even if you ignore that they have an Arab girl working with them. And Angela, poor lost angry Angela who also wants to be wrapped up in the 2% world, she is being simultaneously courted and manipulated by Evil Corp's CEO. She knows it but she cannot escape, because only within them will she unveil what they did her home town. And her mother, and Elliot's dad.

This was a season better left to binge watching. The individual episodes are enigmatic and frustrating, yes even more so than season one was. And unfortunately, Sam Esmail is now required to have a secret behind what goes on for most of the season. Well, a secret that like in the first season, is pretty telegraphed and not entirely well explained, once the reveal hits.

After the reveal, we return to Elliot trying to find out what happened to his non-F Society cohort, Tyrell. Of course, Tyrell is not dead and he also has further plans for the destruction of Evil Corp and the world's wealth. Or is he? Of course, by now we cannot accept anything on the screen as being quite what it is. Really, this season leaves Elliot more as a side character, while focusing on the fallout and the investigation into F Society. Really, the best bits are about the socially crippled FBI agent Dom DiPierro and her desperate need to work this all out, so she will not have to return home where she only has masturbating and lonely conversations with her Amazon Siri clone, Alexa.

As I said, the season is best watched as a whole, but unfortunately it doesn't pull together at the end. There is no single moment it is moving towards and really feels more like one of those mid-season endings that plague television now. Seriously, its annoying how many shows have two Season Enders these days.

What I Am Watching: Season(s) Complete

Longmire, Netflix
The Last Ship, TNT
Mr Robot, USA

Its been a while since I covered this topic, and I may have to follow it up soon if I start watching anything regularly this coming fall season. But let's go over some recently completed seasons of shows I enjoyed.

Longmire was cancelled by A&E last spring and a ton of voices screamed in the darkness, as the cliffhanger shooting of Branch Connelly (yes, still a stupid name) left us hanging.  I've been watching it since it started, and I have become quite invested in those characters. But moreso in the mood of the show. Its a sombre, lone cowboy on the range mood that lingers with me long after the episodes have ended. Its never any one episode or any one thing that sticks, just a theme and feeling left behind as the credits roll.

Netflix walked in like a big ol hero and presented season 4. Against my good judgement, I binge watched over a weekend. Now I have to wait a year for more.

I realized last night as I listened to a mix I made with the closing credit song from the final episode of the season, that I am easily manipulated into watching certain shows. Aging, quiet men with a certain amount of melancholy about them easily click for me. Not always; Hinterland only presented the concept but gave no method of attaching myself to the lead. But in Walander, Case Histories and Longmire I find myself drawn into the melancholy of the characters. Kurt Walander has the weight of the tragedy & horror  he experiences, Jackson Brodie has a terribly tragic past and Walt Longmire starts the series coming out of a depression, after his wife's murder. I am a bit of a brooder, and aging, so its easy to see where I connect with these  guys.

The show has run along the ever connecting thread of the murder of Walt's wife. Each of the three seasons pulled at the fraying mystery, eventually leading us to David Ridges, a "white warrior" and a man in the employ of Jacob Nighthorse, business man and casino builder. But it takes some digging by Branch, the deputy who has been at odds with Sheriff Walt Longmire since the series began, to find the true story. It was Branch's own unhealthy obsession with Ridges that lead him out of the Sheriff's department and into his wealthy father's business. And there he found out the motive and truth behind the murder that spawns the show.

Spoiler spoiler spoiled.

That discovery leads to Branch's death. At the hands of his father. Yes, the show killed of one of main characters, a not entirely unloved character but not a popular one. He was ever the yin to Walt's yang, always doubting, more savvy in the public eye and more likely to play the right game of politics. Walt didn't like him much but finding Branch's body was obviously devastating. Someone in his employ was dead, someone who they suspected (due to delicately placed hints) had committed suicide, someone who Walt had been letting his annoyance win over, instead of catching the terminal details. Walt feels responsible.

This was the kind of plot point you couldn't stretch out for another season, so in three quick episodes they discover Branch did not kill himself and we watch Barlow Connelly struggle with what he has done -- is he faking that breakdown? The arc ends with death by cop, but not quite. Barlow wants to die but Walt also wants  him dead.

The next season.... I mean, episode resumes with Walt on the veranda, the deck that overlooks all that big wide space he owns, a massive amount of mostly untouched green valley. He is reading and reading, drinking can after can of Ranier beer. The FBI investigates, clears Walt and he returns to work a month later. Walt replaces the bookcase he wrecked last season. A new loaner deputy, a new crush for Vic (who has mysteriously dumped her crush on Walt) and its back to business as usual.

So, how does a series continue when the center thread of its plot has been unravelled? Things have been explained. Stories have been summed up. There has been closure. Rightfully, the show doesn't start pulling on another one, but does continue on some lingering secondary plot points from seasons past. The hated casino has been built, bringing new crime and new reasons to loathe Jacob Nighthorse. Cheyenne Batman Hector is dead, but his ghost lives on and Henry steps into his shoes. This is primarily Henry's season, one where he gets to speak more than calm, incredibly articulate one liners. We see emotional development, expansion and struggle. The tension between Vic and Walt is explored in other, less healthy ways leading to another season ending cliffhanger. No yarn sized thread to follow, just a whole lot of threads woven together by the characters we have already become attached to.

Darn nabbit, I shouldn't have binge watched.

The Last Ship is my anti-Walking Dead. Where the latter is all about the failure of mankind, and not much about the rise above its weaknesses, the former is all about that. I have mentioned it is centered on the rah-rah American ideal, one generated by co-creator Michael Bay, but one that is sorely needed in this show. The planet has been mostly devastated by a virus, and it needs the last known working American naval ship to continue working on the cure, and more importantly, bring it to the people.

Last season ended with the cure found and the Last Ship dealing with the first despotic remnant of a government they find. With her put down, the crew's next step is to work with land based labs, manufacture and distribute the cure, and then see what is left of the world. That is interrupted by a submarine full of madmen who destroy all the labs, firing long range missiles and wiping out so many survivors. Fucking madness. The crew of this sub, of European origins, has already completely nuked France (literally) and devastated the European countryside. Their goal is to infect (and kill) any survivors in order to reveal the naturally immune. The Immunes will then rise up and create a whole new world. Psycho Messiah stuff.

Evil. Very real evil. And a proper Big Bad for the Last Ship and its crew to fight.

The thing I notice about this show, the primary thing that The Walking Dead and The Strain are so rightfully criticized for, is the lack of filler episodes. This show is full steam ahead to a goal and it follows that agenda faithfully. Each and every episode, barring one weird, confusing one about rescuing kids, is about fighting this enemy in The Immunes. Its not as simple as shooting a sub, because, well its a sub. But The Immunes are also winning the land based political and ideological battle via the charisma of its leader and some magical cell phone technology. The crew of the ship are labeled evil aggressors while the immunes secretly deliver the infection via virus laden teddy bears, in case you didn't know they were evil.

Its nice having a shift from current depressing dramatic action to a show where things can go right. The crew is always making strides forward, despite some pretty dramatic losses. They are always focused on doing the right thing. Its an American ideal that hasn't been around since the 80s, before they tainted their own morality with torture and Doing What Has To Be Done. Sure, its a little overbearing, including the addition of a President they can worship, but at least its heart is in the right place.

The whole point of the tortured drama at the heart of The Walking Dead is that we are never sure what Rick is doing is the right thing. Sure, he shows results and protects his people, but at what cost?  The Last Ship wants us to like and respect the people involved. And I do.

Mr Robot was a profound shift in my television watching this season. The hacker (that's belittling it, really) show that borrows ideas and thoughtspaces from so much else, just perfectly clicked with me. After that astounding first episode, I was hooked.

Profound shift? Despite the prevalence of non-standard TV and my accessibility to it, the non-network shows like True Blood, The Walking Dead, Mad Men, etc. in the last few years, I have been watching less of those. TV has once again started to feel like derivative crap. Or at least a big bag of meh. I haven't been as faithful to my What I Am Watching but take my word for it, I have mostly reverted back to network TV and familiar downloads. Standard TV is easier to digest than getting indigestion from cable shows that disappoint.

But Mr Robot feels so different, so utterly new, I had to watch.

Elliot, our "hero" is a socially awkward, emotionally damaged hacker working for a software security firm. He is also being coaxed into a hack which will have world wide ramifications. I covered all this in my review of episode one, but it sits as the plot of the entire season, even as we learn more about Evil Corp and what it has personally done to Elliot and his family. Evil Corp -- initially called E Corp, but then Elliot references "everyone calls it Evil Corp" and then for the rest of the show, everyone does. We are seeing this world through Elliot's eyes, slightly skewed, painfully truthful and somewhat shadowy. We are, afterall, Elliot's imaginary friend.

Hello friend. Don't read if you don't want to be spoiled.

In my commentary on the first episode, I mention Mr Robot might not be real. Taking on the idea that the show is borrowing / homage-ing Fight Club, Mr Robot (played by Christian Slater) is the show's Tyler Durden, and once you approach the show with that premise in your head, things become so much fun. Wait, wasn't he just interacting with someone?  Oh but there is Elliot in the background, sitting alone, not being noticed or interacting. And if this is true, then when Elliot is introduced to the hacker group F* Society, for the first time, then he is.... introducing.... himself? Yeah, Elliot is much more messed up then the first episode suggested.

Then the show trips over the Sony hacks and the Ashley Madison hacks and references to the Planetary comic and and and.... This show will require another watching to just enjoy the second level of references. Detailed, intricate, involving.  Weeee,

3 Short Paragraphs: Getaway

2013, Courtney Solomon (Dungeons & Dragons) -- Netflix

In 13 years, this poor guy has directed 3 movies including the reviled D&D movie. But he has a ton of producer credits, so I guess he sticks to his strengths. Dungeons & Dragons was not Asylum level bad but it was not a very good movie and, well, neither is this one. Honestly, the only reason I was attracted to it was Ethan Hawke, and the plot kind of reminded me of Drive, the short lived series starring Nathan Fillion, i.e. guy's wife is kidnapped and he is forced to drive fast or never get her back.

So, yeah, a guy's wife is kidnapped so he has to drive fast fast fast in order to get her back. But here's the twist, the car is stolen, modded with webcams and The Internet (!!!) and the car's original owner, spoiled brat Selena Gomez still looking no more than 14 but all streeted up in ballcap and hoodie, finds the car and jumps in to steal it back. The Voice, John Voight with bad teeth and an even worse Eastern European accent, is the bad guy forcing Ethan (and Selena once she jumps in) to do the driving, watching & controlling events through the car's mods. This all takes place in a nameless (or I plain forgot) European city, so the real demographic is the same audience that Uwe Boll made use of, the resell market over there.

Not only does the movie not make much sense, not convince us Selena is a tech wiz who can hackety hack her car and the city, but it has some unbelievably glaring errors. Almost immediately after Selena gets stuck in the car, Ethan tosses her cell phone out the window so she won't call the cops, another appears in her hands. It reappears and becomes integral to the plot. She didn't have a second and they could have just edited that scene out, but no, and Solomon probably just didn't care enough. The rest of the movie is supposed to be fast driving but the city is so crowded and cobblestone streeted, he spends most of the time shifting. It wanted to be Bourne Meets Furious Vin Diesel but ended up kind of boring and frustrating.

3+1 Short Paragraphs: The Zero Theorem

2013, Terry Gilliam (Time Bandits) -- netflix

It may be accredited to the fact I waited this long to see the movie, that my enjoyment of the movie was diminished. For the first time ever, I can say a Terry Gilliam movie really just didn't do it for me. Despite an array of visuals that were as Gilliam as ever and a plot that actually sang to my core, I was just not... impressed.

The Zero Theorem looks incredible, visually distinctive like no movie (of his) since Brazil. But where that movie was all dull earth tones, muted palette for a dull bureaucratic world, this is all colour and jazz, for a world set as an extreme mockery of our own, one of screens and advertising and the desire to be unique from the grey crowds. Computers are everywhere, but using unique interfaces much more like a child's toy, than intelligent UIs. And colour! Outrageous, riotous colour!

Qohen, played by Christoph Waltz, is a programmer with Mancom. And when I say programmer, I mean he crunches numbers. And when I say crunches numbers, I mean he wiggles icons to fit into other icons. He is the best at it, but is broken, having missed a phone call that would explain the meaning of life to him. He now waits forever, for that phone call, and has stopped living life. That makes him perfect for Mancom's management (unrecognizable Matt Damon) plan to understand the antithesis of meaning; the Zero Theorem. A man who (un)lives while always seeking the meaning of living, can be so perfect to the finding of an algorithm that proves everything is meaningless. Sorry if that hurts your frontal lobe.

And yet, despite the visuals and the current question of meaning ("waiting for my real life to begin"), it just didn't work for me. Not completely bored, but not completely bought in, I kept on waiting for something to actually happen. I kept on waiting for enlightenment. I kept on waiting for the Gilliam rush. Part of me believes Terry Gilliam was very very intentional in that, in that he needed me to find that meaning for myself, like he needed Qohen to actually find meaning, instead of just waiting for it to be explained by a phone call that would never come.

Rewatch: Minority Report

2002, Steven Spielberg (Raiders of the Lost Ark, Hook) -- Netflix

Almost anytime I review a movie set in a non-spaceship future, I mention my fondness for I, Robot and Minority Report.  Its about time I rewatched and blathered about them.

Minority Report is the Steven Spielberg adaptation of a Philip K Dick novella.  Dick's story is more about the views of multiple timelines and choices made, while the movie was more about the moral implications of convicting people for something they technically have not (yet) done. Its a flashy movie of near future technical marvels and exciting action, but with a hint of thoughtful ideas. I am not all that concerned about which is better. I like both equally.

I wonder who first decided that data of the future would be stored on glass. Data crystals, as the usual science fiction nomenclature. At the Stanley Kubrick exhibit (www.tiff.net/kubrick), I was reminded of the idea, as Dave slides rectangular blocks of numbered glass into slots, or maybe out of, while HAL sings slowly. Why glass? Is crystalline structure really perfectly built to replace magnetic tape, liquid crystals in disk format or even integrated circuitry? What will be the next level of data storage?

Set in 2054, the authorities in Washington, DC have discovered a way to manipulate the precognitive abilities of three young people, to predict potential murders. They stop the murders before they happen. But they still incarcerate the potential criminal. The "investigative" magic takes place in a room with a giant, curving, clear glass monitor. Images sucked from the brains of the precogs are tossed onto the screen and investigator John Anderton (Tom Cruise) manipulates them via gloves with finger-tips of light. I guess they never imagined one's movements could be tracked merely by the movement, not requiring balls of light at reference points. He grabs images, wiggles his fingers, swings his hands, moving things about like items attached to a white board with magnets, but working in three dimensions.

The glass is clear, yet he sees clearly (ba-dump bump). I have yet to see that idea represented well in real life. I think we would be too distracted by what is on the other side of the clear screen.  This was ten years ago, when the idea of mobile & wireless technology was still young, thus they still have to use "flash drives" to move data from one workstation to another. Large, flat, slates of clear glass grab the data, represented by video clips on their surface, and allow it to be slid out from the slate onto the big, clear screen. Later (other movies & TV) representations feel more fluid, more real, as people grab data and just toss it from one screen to the other, effortlessly, wirelessly. But all this glass is pretty, and futuristic. Given the current popularity of clear glass smart phones in science fiction movies, too bad Nokia didn't use the opportunity to display a concept for a future phone, instead just dropping their latest model into the movie. And it looks really outdated now. Think Neo in The Matrix and his slider phone.

Being overdone for the sake of being overdone is the technological standpoint of the movie. Sure, the cars are typically concept-model type and auto-driven isn't too far fetched, but they slide up and down, and all over the place. Highways run up buildings, down buildings, with vast stretches that must be atop buildings. It just seemed frivolous and potentially dangerous. Want to kill hundreds of people? Kill the maglev control centre of a highway. And then there were the cops in jetpacks. Yes, I understand its the future and jetpacks are to be expected, but I didn't see the purpose they served, other than Action Sequence, which I honestly found more annoying than exciting.

The use of targeted advertising, in which the store sees you as you walk in, checks your buyer history and starts talking to you, was innovative and believable. Except for the idea that there should have been dozens of reactions to dozens of customers, all competing with each other in a cacophony of Google ads. And no chance to opt out? Maybe close your eyes just as the retinal scan happens.

Finally, there was the technology seeded into the movie to help substantiate Anderton's motivations, his utter obsession with his son's abduction. Memory enhancing drugs were combined with the lamest representation of 3D video ever depicted. Key reference objects from the video, his son, are stretched out in a horrible, bleeding aspect, sort of like a video pop up book. It looked terrible in the movie, and probably intentional to show not fully developed but possible tech. They should have stuck to holograms which felt more real because of the drug he was inhaling.

Don't get me started on the laser lathing of wooden balls just to announce Murderer.

The focus of the plot is that Anderton is framed for a murder, but doesn't believe he can possibly commit it. But his whole career has been based on believing exactly what he saw on the screens. If anything our current age has taught us, is that everything seen on the New Fangled Technology (i.e. The Internet) is not to be believed. And if Anderton can be framed, then so can anyone else. And if anyone can game the system, then it should be shut down and every single criminal released from their tubular incarceration. Whoah whoah there Nelly. I would imagine most of those criminals were going to do exactly what they precogs saw them doing. They already had the idea of red balls (crime of passion) vs blue balls (*snicker* planned murders) -- they were blue, right? So a planned crime could be substantiated after the fact, with all the details confirmed. But no, social outcry against it won out and people were freed. I wonder how many took the chance to actually murder the person they had considered earlier? Would double-jeopardy come into play? The Law & Order: Washington, DC 2054 episode would have been great.

And yes, these are the sort of things I think about when I see a movie again. I also made note that Cruise as Anderton is a very unlikable main protagonist. He is rude to his coworkers, dismissive and condescending. And it played out, because as soon as he was a suspect, his direct reports jumped into action to have him arrested. Samantha Morton was great as the traumatized Agatha, an unbalanced precog dragged out of her milk bath and into the real world by Anderton, who really only cares about himself. And there is Colin Farrel's bit part, whom was written to be disliked, but in the end, is the understandable character. In the remake, he would play Anderton.

One Episode: Gotham, Scorpion, Forever

Ooooo Gotham (Fox, Donal Logue, Ben McKenzie), ooooo all the villains in younger forms, ooo its young Bruce Wayne. That's it, that is why I didn't give a hoot about this show -- why would I want to watch a Batman show without even the possibility of a Batman? Sure, Gotham is a character unto itself, the deeper, darker version of Manhattan with all those elevated trains and a corrupt police force & government. But even the promotional campaign annoyed me, as they dropped hints about incidental characters who we know would grow up to be big players, such as Selina Kyle the street kid or Ivy, the daughter of a thug who hides behind her potted plants. And all that, "Which one is the Joker? Is it the standup comedian??" So, I was not looking forward to this show.

But surprisingly, I was not all that bothered by the first episode. This is tooled for the fans of Arrow, with a sort of drama light. Gotham is gritty and dirty, but not so much so that its always night. And honestly, anything with Donal Logue is going to have me watch at least occasionally. But really, it was Ben McKenzie sporting a confounding tough-guy accent (did I catch hints of growly Christian Bale?) and the clear values of Jim Gordon that made me enjoy it. There is no way he can clean up the entire city or even the GCPD in the first season, but I was happy to be convinced he will try. But with a level head on his shoulders, not all gung ho, "You guys are all corrupt, I am gonna take you down !!"

I will probably watch a few episodes until I get bored or more annoyed by the references.

Meanwhile we have mostly no names in Scorpion (CBS, Elyes Gabel, Katharine McPhee, Robert Patrick). Billed as a non-comedic version of The Big Bang Theory (because we always have to provide common ground) with overly intelligent, socially inept people who are gathered together to save the world each week, this was not as terrible as I expected it to be.

Oh, it was pretty bad. We have a white male math genius, a white male psychology genius, a white male (but Irish, ooo the ethnicity !) genius genius (one of the 5 smartest people in the world) and a wh...er, Asian female technology genius.  Token smart girl has to be Asian. So, one understands numbers, one people, one machines and the last is smart enough to know everything. Together they are smarter than all of us (I mean all of us) but they cannot pay their bills or keep relationships because they are emotionally crippled. Like a room full of Sheldons.

Except, they are not. Main character Walter O'Brien is well dressed, obviously works out, has friends and at every turn is cracking smiles, connecting with people and understanding the emotional impact of what he is doing. But they add the occasional interpersonal flub to remind us. And the math genius can talk to pretty girls; now THAT was the most unrealistic bit.

They are gathered by blacksuit Robert Patrick (Homeland Security, NSA, something like that does not matter) to save a bunch of planes that cannot land because of a virus in the LAX air traffic system. No one can get hold of the planes and they would rather them be blown out of the sky than attempt dangerous landings.  ??!?!

But all together, this silliness was kind of fun. The tech talk is your typical mix of technical bullshit with a dose of truth so it sound real. Their solutions are way over the top (such as connecting a network cable from a low flying plane to a speeding car) and the interactions are fun. I could actually enjoy this, as long it doesn't ever try to take itself too seriously.

P.S. The show is also stylishly titled as </scorpion>. Uh, closing a tag to connect something to tech is soooo 10 years ago. And its not even proper syntax. <scorpion /> would have been more appropriate.

Speaking of common ground, I can hear the elevator pitch for Forever (ABC, Ioan Gruffudd, Alana de la Garza, Judd Hirsch). Its Castle meets Bones meets Elementary meets New Amsterdam. That's alot of meeting. So, we have the cop & non-cop partnership, charming and well dressed. We have Dr. Henry Morgan as a coroner / medical examiner, who also happens to have a Sherlock style of noticing details about people & situations. And finally, most importantly, he is immortal. If he dies, he instantly appears nearby, naked, in a body of water.

Now, given it has the directing and writing style of Castle, I am built to find it appealing. Surprisingly, Gruffudd who has annoyed me in movies past, is becoming rather charming as he grows older. And the relationship between him and Judd Hirsch just seals that for me. You see, Hirsch is effectively his son, adopted in the 40s and the two have been together since. Abe has aged but Henry is still late 30s. But the two display such a bond, inter-changing father and son, as the situation plays.

The story of how he became immortal is somewhat explained, but with enough mystery to play out for a few seasons. Also, Henry has a "fan", possibly another immortal who is taunting him. As long as they don't end up with tons of mythology, which overshadows the buddy cop show, it could last awhile.

Of the three, I think Scorpion will die the quickest. Despite being on Fox, Gotham will have the most support and it will be up to Forever to find an audience to stick around.

Catching Up: Netflix TV Show Roundup

Tron: Uprising - season 1

Doctor Who - The Tennent years (seasons 2 - 4)
Luther - seasons 1 - 3
Red Riding Trilogy: 1974, 1980 & 1983
Star Wars The Clone Wars - season 1
Happy Endings - seasons 1 & 2

-

The "Catching Up" prefix on this site is reserved for those times where David or myself wind up so deep into our viewing lists but so far behind on our reviewing that we just have clear the docket.  Chances are most of these items we watched months (perhaps over a year, even) and now we're in the position of struggling to recall just what exactly we thought of the movie and/or show.  Presented in order of viewing.

---

I love Tron.  Tron is great.  It's not for everyone, but I get mesmerised every time I watch it.  I shared it with my stepson a few years back, around when he was 8.  He didn't get it.  I can't say I got it at that age (which was the age I was when it came out) but I was still dazzled.  The effects aren't quite as impressive as CGI today, but at the same time, it's a film that was created using a tremendously unique and labor intensive process that was never replicated, so it dazzles on its own merits.  Tron: Legacy wasn't the film the old fuddy-duddy Tron fans wanted, but I have a hard time figuring out exactly what they wanted or hoped for.  I for one, was equally dazzled by the deep, deep blacks and vibrant neons.  The liquid-like digital world of Legacy was beautifully realized and if the story and/or characters fell flat the visual marvel held it aloft, like the globe on mighty Atlas' back.

Tron: Uprising was Disney XD's first original program (I think), a bold effort at extending it's cinematic properties for teen-aged boys into an appealing television format.  Unfortunately, it failed miserably, which probably isn't surprising, given that the general consensus on Legacy, even from Tron fans, was that it disappointed or sucked outright.  Uprising acts as a prequel to Legacy, which ultimately extends a story the masses didn't care about in the least.  If it hadn't have been deep into production by the time Legacy hit/bombed, it likely would have been pulled altogether.

Within the world of Tron, the digital civilization inside the nebulous computer dimension, computers have developed beyond their programming into a form of sentience, while a new species of self-aware, self-generating programming have begun to rise.  The totalitarian force in place, led by Flynn's doppleganger, Clu, are trying to keep these programs from further growing, both as viable programs and in numbers, and is oppressing all of this digital society in order to do so.

Uprising largely is enjoyable across its 19-episode run, with a talented regular voice cast in Elija Wood, Mandy Moore, Emmanuele Chriqui, Lance Henricksen, Bruce Boxleitner, Tricia Helfer, Paul Reubens, Reginal VelJohnson and Nate Coddry, and some good short players, like Paul Sheer, Lance Reddick, Aaron Paul, John Glover, Donald Faison, and David Arquette among others.  The animation is jarringly unique, and at first a little unpalatable, but as you immerse yourself in its world, it's quite mesmerising.  There's an unreal texture to it all, like watching through a filter, but the surreality of it inevitably works.   Disappointingly the show's creators were rather toothless in story writing, and there are no real analogies to digital culture represented, it's more a singular take on how its young characters navigate their world of oppression and learn to reject the status quo.  The story is largely that of Tron training Beck into a guerilla resistance fighter, but the main problem is the story constantly keeps hitting the notes of Beck's rejection of Tron's teaching, and the two break up and get together again practically every other episode.  It's frustrating the lack of progression the show makes, even more so when you realize at episode 19 that that is it.  It should have progressed much further in the story (and had they known it was a finite series I'm certain a better story would have been told).  It's strongest points are the character connections to one another, as well as some pretty enjoyable action sequences every episode, while the weakest are its repetitve elements.  It is rather forgettable, but I'm tempted to dip into it again just for its dose of visual pop.

===

Entering Doctor Who is at once daunting and utterly easy.  On the one hand there's 50 years of history to the character, hundreds of adventures, over a dozen different doctors, and a relatively dense mythology.  On the other hand, most of the adventures are stand-alone or requiring only a base amount of back-story (usually delivered within the adventure) and one only need enter with a healthy suspension of disbelief and a tolerance to BBC's modest effects budget to have a good time.  I watched some Doctor Who repeats on TV Ontario (our provincial version of PBS) as a pre-teen, mostly Tom Baker and Peter Davidson, but in a slapdash fashion so that I rarely saw every part of a story arc.  I was perpetually lost, but still made the effort.

I watched the Fox/BBC TV movie/pilot co-production back in the late 90's with a group of Whovians but still felt like an outsider, and when the Doctor made his triumphant return in the form of Christopher Eccleston, I actually invested myself in the whole season (airing on CBC made it readily accessible).  But I lost track of the Doctor immediately after the Christmas special, when David Tennant made his debut and I didn't return until the hype machine of his departure hit.  I watched the three specials that ended his run (feeling lost once again) and climbed back on board the Tardis with Matt Smith (at least for a year or so).  In other words, I skipped the Tennant years almost in their entirety.  Eccleston brought me back in and I wound up loving Smith's Doctor rather quickly so I didn't feel much a need to backtrack... particularly with the switch of showrunners between the 10th and 11th Doctors.

But with Matt Smith's announced departure last year, and the grand "Day of the Doctor" celebrations, I felt that I should give the Tennant years a chance.  He's considered the people's Doctor, universally loved, even if he wasn't everyone's favourite.  I went into the Tennant years with a sour attitude and an almost determined focus not to like him, but I did.  I liked him quite a bit.  Rose Tyler, though, I don't care much for.  Same with Rickey (though Mickey is okay).  Rose's mom was fun though, but I didn't like the concept that Rose wasn't just the Doctor's companion but the love of his life (at least the love of that life).  Donna was quite a surprise as a companion, someone ill-equipped for interplanetary travel and diplomacy, but with a grander purpose in the scheme of things.  Martha got majorly screwed over by the Doctor in the wake of it all, but becomes one fierce character.

While I still prefer Smith's Doctor most, the Tennant years are far more consistent creatively.  Some of finest episodes in Doctor Who's entirety happen during Tennant's run, with "Blink" being incredible mini-movie that just so happens to feature the Doctor. Any episode that features former companion Sarah Jane Smith (and K-9) are amazing (I love how happy Tennant gets when he's with her, and the moments Sarah Jane shares with other companions) and the Face of Boe has a thoroughly satisfying arc through this run.  Tennant deals well with the anxiousness he feels towards his evil alternate, the Master, and being the last two time lords alive, Tennant's Doctor is desperate for brotherhood, while the Master only seeks his demise.  Perhaps, my favourite Doctor Who episode that explores the character's mythos is "The Next Doctor", in which a seemingly moribund Tennant meets an amnesiac calling himself The Doctor (played brilliantly by David Morrissey) in the late 1800s (he's a nifty, lo-fi analog, complete with his own companion, a "sonic" screwdriver which is just a screwdriver, and a TARDIS which is a hot air balloon) and wonders if he's looking at his own future self.  By the end of the journey, Tennant earns his finest moment, at the brink of regeneration, with tears of equal joy and sorrow, uttering "I don't want to go".  Matt Smith's long face, pronounced jawline, and pronounced pep are all shocking in the transition, but Tennant's vibrant smile coming out of Eccleston's grim visage was an equally bracing adjustment.  It just goes with the territory.
---
---
---

Luther was a show David told me to watch years ago, but there's no shortage of shows on my "to watch" backlog.  It took its time.  Three seasons combining for a total of 14 episodes, it wasn't intensive watching but it is, at times, and intense watch.

Detective Chief Inspector (DCI) John Luther of the Serious Crimes Unit is not a straight shooter.  He's got his own sense of morals and a penchant for bending the law.  He's not a corrupt cop, per se, but he's not a by-the-book one either, and it's this behavior that's always in danger of catching up to him.  John thinks he can bend the law to catch his perp, serial killers or perpetrators of major violent crimes, but as clever as he is, he's never thinking far enough ahead.

The first episode finds him investigating the murder of two rural Londoners, piecing all the clues together, and finding Alice Morgan guilty, but with only the barest of tangible evidence to back it all up.  Alice is a full bore sociopathic genius, and she winds up taking a shining to Luther as their cat and mouse game winds up in a draw.  She becomes equal parts guardian angel and devil in disguise for Luther, an ally and nemesis in the same package.  Their relationship is awkward and difficult, but matures and solidifies with every episode.  I disapprove of their relationship wholeheartedly which I think is what makes it so fun.  The first season is disheartening, the randomness and severity of the violence overwhelming, and the second season ratchets it up to an even higher degree, with two 2-episode arcs and a Luther embattled from all sides.

John is never for shortage of enemies, and allies are rarely good for John (or John isn't good for them) and there's a sense that John is constantly working at a deficit, but that's what makes it so compelling to watch.  Idris Elba plays Luther as cocky and cunning, tough and intimidating, but sometimes just not very smart, nor always a master tactician when working against his enemies.  Elba adopts a strut for Luthor that just seethes confidence, a man with no problem in the world, but his terminally pained face reveals otherwise. The formula of the show is pretty great, finding Luther and company always at a reaction point to whatever violence is being perpetrated that week.  As the audience we're always privy to what is happening but it takes a while, and some investigation (and occasional seedy dealing), for the police to catch up.  But once the perpetrator becomes known, the speed with which they are caught  definitely accelerates, it feels far more natural than the show's American cousins.

Luthor lives and breathes the London air.  You often hear about New York being a character rather than a setting, London is very much this in this show.  It's beautiful and menacing, forgiving and merciless, refined and run down, it promises everything and threatens to swallow them all whole.  It's definitely a UK show in flavour, but the byproduct of intensive irradiation of American police procedurals.  I love that the bad guys have guns and other weapons, but London police still do not carry firearms.  It makes for some heady confrontation and arrest sequences.  Worth re-watching, and begging for the promised film.  A prequel novel is also available.

===
===

The Red Riding Trilogy is comprised of three movies that in a way stand on their own but together form a whole, centred around a series of kidnappings, murders and police corruption in Yorkshire county in England.  The events of the series. while fiction, occur simultaneously with the real events of the Yorkshire Ripper (also referenced in the show), and the story pulls inspiration from notable events and figures of the times in construction of its story, lending it an eerie realism amid some of the more dramatically embellished parts of its story.

Based of the novels comprising the Red Riding Quartet by David Peace, the Trilogy starts with 1974, another little girl is kidnapped and the community is in an uproar.  Andrew Garfield stars as a up-and-coming reporter sent in to investigate.  As he digs deeper, he begins to see ties to past child kidnappings, and, face-to-fist, learns of the area's police corruption.  The more he digs, the more dangerous things become, as the local unscrupulous land developer seems to be connected to it all.  This first film is dreadfully intense, overwhelmingly so, and is produced very much in the style of 70's small-town cult/conspiracy films like The Wicker Man, complete with the total bummer of an ending.   It's incredibly well-made, the best looking of the trilogy, with director Julian Jarrold providing a very grimy, grey tone overall to the region, with spatters of vibrant colours or light poking through all the gloom and grey.  He also heavily uses darkness and shadows to great effect, and shooting on 16mm film only helped to sell the 70's aesthetic.

1980 picks up with the events of the first film a fading memory, focusing less on continuing the investigation started by Andrew Garfield's reporter, and instead looking back on the Yorkshire Ripper investigation when it appears he's struck again.  A London Assistant Chief Constible (Paddy Considine) is charged with forming a task force stationed in the region.  He had been there before, investigating events depicted in the previous film, an investigation he had to leave after his wife had a miscarriage.  So amid his delving into old Ripper case files, he can't help but dredge up his past investigation, learning that there may be a connection.  He's all too aware of the corruption among the region's police force, but underestimates just how far they will go to cover their tracks.  There's a sense of optimism to 1980 that 1974 didn't have, I think mostly because Considine's character is senior in the police hierarchy that he should be more effective at cutting through a lot of the corruption or working around it.  But the fact is he gets just as mired in it as Garfield's reporter character, inescapably so.  The use of peripheral and connective characters here is brilliant.  It is a disconnected story in procedural sense, of what is being investigated, but it starts to build the series' Yorkshire landscap in ways that don't just repeat what happened before.  If there's any let down in the plot, it's that Considine's character, set up to be "squeaky clean", has a vulnerable point in the form of an affair with a coworker which gives the forces of corruption leverage on him.  It's an unnecessary element, a little too cliche, and I think had he been utterly squeaky clean the oppressiveness of the corruption around him would feel even greater.


The Trilogy comes to a close with 1983, told from the perspective of David Morrissey's character, a Detective Inspector with a small part in 1974, and was part of the task force in 1980.  What makes this unique is he's a fully entrenched part of the corruption, but when children once again start to go missing his conscience starts to weigh down on him.  His investigation into the disappearances mirrors that of Mark Addy's schlubby solicitor, who reluctantly starts investigating after a casual meeting with a neighbour from his childhood home yields some curious coincidences to another case file of his.  Addy's father was a West Yorkshire policeman, and he'd long heard the rumours of his father's own corruption.  Just like Morrissey's DI, his conscience won't let him drop the case.  This third film switches between these two characters, with interludes featuring BJ, a male prostitute seen briefly in the shadows of the previous two movies offering insight into the darkest regions of Yorkshire.  This film deals head on with the child kidnappings, which sort of got scuttled to the side in the first film, and having little exposure within the second film.  Child abuse and its impact lead to the somewhat cathartic resolution of the Trilogy, but there's still no real happy ending.  The police corruption is never fully dismantled on screen (though you can see from the pieces placed how it might all crumble), which is dissatisfying and leads me to believe that there's still perhaps another film or trilogy waiting in the wings (or perhaps it's just the truth that the power corrupts, and that it's impossible to fully weed out).

Overall, the Red Riding Trilogy is fascinating, if somewhat dark and disheartening viewing.  I have to wonder if the creators of the recent HBO show True Detective were inspired by this, as there are a lot of similarities (though I would indeed say that I though Red Riding Trilogy was better, if only by a slight margin).  The performances are all quite amazing (particularly Garfield and Morrissey), and the weave of the overall Trilogy is something to take in, certainly unlike any other crime drama that I've seen.  I liked it even though it bummed me the fuck out.

---
---
---
---
---

Like many a fan of old, I too became quite disillusioned with Star Wars as a property.  Where once I was a purchaser of every new toy on the shelf, of every comic book, novel, magazine, soundtrack, and fast-food tie-in knick-knack,  it wasn't that the Prequel Trilogy failed to live up to expectations (which they did) that killed it for me, but the overwhelming glut of peripheral material the meant being a Star Wars fan should an all encompassing experience.  I soured on Star Wars in the build up to Episode II, and suffered through the remaining two movies (though, I did feel that Episode III somewhat redeemed the endeavour, but I'm not getting into that now) still desperately wanting to be a fan.

The brightest spot in Star Wars during the first decade of this millennium was the Cartoon Network Clone Wars shorts from Samurai Jack creator Genndy Tartakovsky.  They featured all of Tartakovsky's great Samurai Jack-isms, and were excellent bite-sized nuggets of mood and action.  Basically it was the best parts of the Prequels without all that poorly-acted  melodrama, dry political manoeuvring, and silly Jar-Jar/C-3PO kid-bait.  I loved it.  So it was disappointing to me to see them trot out a new Clone Wars movie in the theatres as prelude to a new TV series that was a) digitally animated in a chunky, unappealing style, b) not directed or involving Tartakovsky in any way, and c) featured a new, young, brash (and, at least from previews, highly annoying) protege for Anakin in the form of Ahsoka.Tano.  Basically I thought they were even further gearing Star Wars towards a children's audience.

This is me eating crow.  Over the past few years, I have caught a random episode or five of The Clone Wars and found them to be not only tolerable but mildly enjoyable and surprisingly not patronizing.  I wasn't ready to give in to regular viewings though.  It was actually upon the recommendation of a coworker (a non-Star Wars nerd) that I decided to give it at shot, and what's more, make it family viewing with my 12- and 5-year-old.

I recall the reviews of the pilot/movie were underwhelming, and it's true, Ahsoka is crammed into being part of series and kind of grates from the get go (the sheer fact is she's Anakin's padawan and it's not even brought up in Episode III that he had one).  The plot of the film is thin, with the young Jedi's on a mission to rescue Jabba the Hutt's kidnapped son, but it features some absolutely cracking action sequences, including a wall climbing fire fight that's as stunning as anything seen in the live action films.  That sequence alone was enough for me to buy into the rest of the series.

The first season of The Clone Wars gets off to a slow start, in that there's plenty of action throughout each of the early episodes, but they feel like one-offs, and there's no cohesive glue.  Midway through the season the show starts exploring multi-part episodes, and gains more confidence in developing the characters beyond what we know of them from the Lucas films.  Ahsoka comes into her own as a realized character, Anakin is portrayed as conflicted in a much less ham-fisted way than the Prequels, and the first season gives many of the background Jedi and other characters more prominent roles.  The show even develops unique identities for the clone troopers like Rex and Cody, giving them each distinguishing colour markers on their uniforms.  As the first season goes on, it becomes less reliant on connecting itself to the original trilogy, and less concerned with bridging the gap between Episodes II and III, instead feeling more at ease to weave its own story, and make the characters and their relationships work (the Anakin/Padme thing still doesn't quite have much chemistry to it, so it largely avoids their dynamic in the first season.  Were I to bet at a secret affair without foreknowledge, it would've been Anakin and Ahsoka for sure).

There are some great episodes in the first season, all in the back half (like the episode where Rex and Cody root out the traitor in their midst, or the Ryloth Trilogy which tells a large story through three compartmentalized episodes), and by the end it's found its groove.  The Clone Wars fans out there have long said it's worth investing in, even for the lapsed and jaded Star Wars fan, and I'm inclined to agree.  The Prequels didn't destroy Star Wars, not irreparably anyway.  The concepts in Episodes I through III are all quite sound (as this io9 editorial observes), but Lucas' execution of the central story, Anakin's journey, is where it failed and fell apart through bad acting, poor direction, and unfortunate choices made.  Clone Wars the cartoon isn't focussed solely on Anakin, it's telling the story of the Clone Wars in which he is a character, and by making him a part of the ensemble, rather than building the whole series around him, it serves the franchise well, and actually gives the appropriate sense of scope to the fabled battles mentioned in the original films.

===
===
===

For a few years I was an avid daily reader of the Onion AV Club website, which was easily the best online source for cinematic and television criticism and pop-culture commentary.  It's still a pretty good site with great writers, but ever since the entire movie staff got poached by Pitchfork to form The Dissolve, it just hasn't been the same essential go-to source.  I'm more of a casual observer these days than a devotee.  That said, their television writing staff is tops online, if only because their opinions conform so often with my own it's kind of scary.  I barely have any quibbles with what they say (certain episodes of Community Season 5 notwithstanding).

For any reader of the site, you know AV Club champions certain shows, many of which align with my own viewing interests.  But one show they were constantly trumpeting, and then actively bemoaning the loss of, was Happy Endings.  Despite my trust in them as writers, I for some reason had an absolute mental block when it came to that show... I just couldn't see past it being a latter-day Friends knock-off and wouldn't give it's cast of attractive 20-somethings any leniency, despite having a mild crush on Casey Wilson from her short stint on SNL and enjoying Adam Pally's "Bro" appearances on the Comedy Bang Bang podcast.  I just had this stick in my craw about Elisha Cuthbert and another Wayans kid for some reason which I can't even justify now.

Suffice it to say, like the Clone Wars above, I was wrong.  Even more wrong I would say than I was about the Clone Wars, I would say.  Happy Endings comes out the gate strong (it's pilot is directed by producers Joe and Anthony Russo, who also did Community's pilot and paintball episodes went on to much acclaim with Captain America: The Winter Soldier, if you didn't know).  Live every network comedy, it's formed around the premise that Dave (Zachary Knighton) is left at the altar by Alex (Cuthbert) and resolving that the group of friends won't be damaged by it.  By episode 2, the gang is hanging out together with only a slight amount of tension residing between Dave and Alex (but this is because the more awkward moments are in episodes buried in the middle of the season as they were weaker and thus aired out of order as networks are wont to do... I wonder if they're in order on the DVD releases?).

The Dave-and-Alex thing crops up frequently through the first two seasons, not so much a "will-they-or-won't-they" but rather a "should-they?".  But even when those moments do come up it's never the center of an episode.  The episodes are almost always formed around things that have minor to no real consequences for the characters, which makes for a rather light and fun atmosphere to visit within.  I respect a show that actively diffuses any potential awkward situation and refuses to play the awkward-as-comedy game (though I certainly appreciate that kind of humour as well).  A favourite early episode deals with the artist illegally living in the crawlspace above Dave and Max's apartment (it's just a shame he wasn't a re-ocurring character) and a season 2 episodepresents one of the absolute best Halloween costume-as-comedy gags ever which interferes with both Max and Penny's abilities to pick up at a party (I won't spoil it because it's hilarious).

What works best for Happy Endings is how well-realized its characters are, and how well defined they are almost from start.  Alex owns her own store and is always up for a challenge, but she's also a variation on the dumb blonde.  She's not full-stop Phoebe airhead dumb or "white out on the computer monitor" stupid, just often slow to catch on or oblivious to deeper meanings and contexts. Unlike all the other actors, it takes a while for Cuthbert to ease into what her role is exactly.  Eliza Coupe plays Jane, Alex's sister, and she's my favourite character on the series.  Jane is a focussed, anal-retentive taskmaster, and is successful because of it.  But she's also got a party-girl history and a mean competitive streak, all of which the other characters toy with constantly.  Jane is married to Damon Wayans Jr.'s Brad, and their dynamic is incredible.  They have a playfulness that rings true to real couples, and they continually manage to avoid the stereotype of married couples whose spouse constantly irritates them. These two love each other and love everything about each other, especially the quirks that tend to annoy everyone else (it makes sense why they're married), and their sex-in-public troubles are a great running gag.  Brad is a goof, but with utter confidence in his goofing around.  He's not easily embarassed because he has utter belief in how cool he is, without being a dink about it.  Brad also has a tendency to drop his pants (sometimes in order to entice Jane, but just as often for fun or comfort).  Brad being black and in a mixed race couple comes up perhaps more than it would normally in real life, but the little struggles that Brad has with race are the only flaws in his armor.  Brad is best friends with Max (Pally), a gay man the show is determined to bust every gay stereotype with.  If the show falters at all early on it's with the constant repetition that Max is gay, but eventually they just settle into him being a gay character.  Max is a loafer, has no job (he eventually starts a limo company with an old '80's limo he buys), eats insane amounts of food, and is generally quite juvenile (he's generally the instigator for the really off-beat and goofy things that happen in the show).  The short romances they give Max all generally are pretty great, and speak to the character as a person seeking love and not hammering home gay cliches.  Penny (Wilson) is Max's BFF. They dated in high school.  Penny is a successful career woman, but terminally single because she constantly tries to change herself for her boyfriends.  Though the show never gets too deep into the characters' psyches, Penny is unhappy with herself so she compensates with a desperate need for attention.

The relationships these characters share with each other, and how they develop further throughout the series are all great, and it's a thoroughly good time.  It never gets to heavy even when it starts to focus in on the real problems these characters face.  There's always an aside or quip to undercut the drama.  That's kind of what you want out of a comedy show, quite frankly.  The first few episodes of the second season seem to hold back on the goofier elements of the characters and their collective quirkiness, as if they were trying to reshape the show for a new audience.  But by the Hallowe'en episode it returns fully to form and launches into great stories like Penny's jealousy when Max's other ex-girlfriend visits, Penny's efforts to change a guy instead of herself, everyone preparing for Brad and Jane's "Spring Smackdown", or Dave and Max dealing with the bully at the gay gym.

It's not a perfect comedy, and not as clever or outre as some, but the characters are great, it's warm, welcoming, and non-threatening.  I understand why its loss was so bemoaned.  It had life. But there's still season 3 for me to watch, so I'm not ready to bemoan it yet.