Tuesday, August 27, 2019

10 for 10: Rewatching Tarantino [and then a ranking]

[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 half-remembered scattershot thoughts? Surely that's doable?   ]

In This Edition:

Reservoir Dogs (1992) - d. Quentin Tarantino
True Romance  (1993) - d. Tony Scott
Pulp Fiction (1994) - d. Quentin Tarantino
From Dusk 'til Dawn (1996) - d. Robert Rodriguez
Jackie Brown (1997) - d. Quentin Tarantino
Kill Bill Volume 1 (2003) & 2 (2004) - d. Quentin Tarantino
Death Proof (2007) - d. Quentin Tarantino
Inglorious Basterds (2009) - d. Quentin Tarantino
Django Unchained (2012) - d. Quentin Tarantino
The Hateful Eight (2015) - d. Quentin Tarantino

Aaaaand go-go (twist contest!)
---

Reservoir Dogs features many of the Tarantino hallmarks, but not all of them (no fetishistic foot shots).  You've the climactic shootout, tension-raising extended dialogue sequences, killer soundtrack, prolific use of ethnic and racial slurs, pop-culture references, dark comedy, non-linear timelines and so much more of what we've come to expect from the writer/director/actor*   27 years later, Reservoir Dogs is the minimum viable product for a QT picture, the template for everything that would come later.  It's a heist picture that pretty much ignores the heist.  It's about sitting around the fringes of the heist, the downtime and the aftereffects.  It's exploring how terrible people deal with things gone wrong, and how there's something still relateable even in those terrible people.  The gut punch of violence - the infamous ear cutting sequence - was notorious back in the early 1990s, and kept a lot of people away from the film, but that kind of grimness is commonplace on television these days.  You see worse on the average episode of CSI or NCIS or whatever acronymed procedural is popular these days.  I don't love this movie, but I like it a lot.  It's got a brisk pace (one of few QT movies to clock in under 2 hours) and a captivating framework.  The budgetary limitations show in the design aesthetic, the movie looks a lot different than every other QT production since, but the dialogue and performance is the show here, and it's pretty good in that regard.

[10:29]

---






True Romance is the least memorable of all the Tarantino-scripted movies (though one wishes they could forget Natural Born Killers), because it's not a Tarantino movie, it's a Tony Scott movie with Scott trying to cram a Tarantino movie into a conventional Hollywood narrative.


 Christian Slater is miscast (there's no belief or conviction in what he's saying - a Sonny Chiba fan, works at a comics shop, Elvis obsessed - I don't buy it, bub) and you don't get any sense of where this character has obtained such brazenness and confidence. This guy is a geek, but Slater doesn't do geek.
The rest of the cast is on point for a Tarantino joint, though: Patricia Arquette is great as Alabama, (even if she is a manic pixie dream girl prototype), Val Kilmer as Elvis (err..."the Mentor"), Gary Oldman as the lead singer of Korn, Christopher Walken and Dennis hopper being racist.  Brad Pitt and James Gandolfini sharing a scene years before The Mexican, Sam Jackson, Bronson Pinchot, Tom Seizmore, Chris Penn.

The direction is all wrong, the edits are all wrong, the musical queues are all wrong... even the usual orgy of violence in the end of nearly every Tarantino movie is sensationalist cheekiness, here Scott tries to play it straight and doesn't understand the absurdity of it all.

This movie has a terribly juvenile sense of love and romance, and it doesn't care to explore the greater emotional depths of the characters or their relationship. The second half of the film gets so sidetracked with its drug deal it forgets about the relationship.  But listening to Tarantino's commentary, and hearing about the original structure for the film (which was his usual non-linear construction), it IS more about the drugs and how these lovers got embroiled in with these mobsters and their cocaine.  QT says that he loves this film as is and by the time he had name enough to get it made he was beyond it. But I can't help but want his full vision for this. To see Slater pick up Big Kahuna Burgers and for Hopper to ask for a Red Apple instead of a Chesterfield.

There's definitely a theme of rebel lovers in QT's early work...here, the duo in Natural Born Killers and Pumpkin and Honey Bunny in Pulp Fiction.

[written while watching the film, so not timed]
---

Ahhh, Pulp Fiction.  This was my awakening as a wanna be cinephile (it turns out I'm too interested in things like comics, music, comedy, games, and such to really commit to the cinephilic lifestyle) when I was 18 years old.  This was a slap in the face, a sudden shock that there's more to the world of film then just what Hollywood dishes out.  QT's approach to Pulp Fiction seemed to be assembling a collage of cinematic homages and putting those on top of a twisty, non-linear, multi-story framework.  Taking inspiration also from 30's and 40's pulp magazines, where there are multiple tales of gangland crime, detective noir, and all sorts of debauchery, the film doles out a half dozen stories, all interconnected but placed out of order.  It's a dense layer cake, but utterly delicious every bite.  I watched this thing 6 times in the theatre when it came out and multiple times since.  I haven't watched it in a while  but most of the script is still committed to memory, as is most of the soundtrack.  The entire package remains thrilling to me 25 years later.  I'm never bored watching it and when it ends I just kind of want to watch it straight away again.  It's kind of a feel-good movie for me.  For all its dark themes, and heavyweight aspects (violence, drugs, gangs, rape, racism) it's a hilarious movie, and it's shot so brightly, it's almost like it's without shadows.  I love it tremendously.  It's a masterpiece.

[20:14]

---

From Dusk 'til Dawn was a favourite of mine 20-ish years ago.  I was into both QT and Robert Rodriguez quite heavily at the time so seeing the two of them married together like this was a big thrill.  It also exposed ER's Dr. Hunky George Clooney as a capable action star and badass.  The thing is, if I'm being perfectly honest, is I liked the criminals on the run aspect of the film's first half a lot more than the second half of vampire monster killing at the titty bar.  The first half has an internal logic at least, one which pokes a little fun at the media's obsession with real-world violence with a news clip of the crime the Gecko brothers commited and a reporter way too enthusiastic about covering the story. 

Of course, this is a very, absurdly violent movie, and I have no problem with that, but the inner consistency of the second half, of how the vampires turn their victims, or how they die, or what can kill them, it all falls apart very quickly.  Nothing is consistent in the second half and it's just balls to the wall ridiculousness.  There's no hint of scares here, it's meant as pure Grindhouse goofiness.  I wish it had stuck with the more grounded tone of the first half. 

QT gives his best (and perhaps only good) performance here as Richie Gecko, a demented sex offender with violent intentions, barely kept in line by Clooney's Seth Gecko, definitely dangerous, but certainly more level-headed.  Richie's interactions with the Fuller family, particularly Juliette Lewis' Katherine is full on ick-inducing, particularly when the film goes into Richie's demented POV that most certainly isn't reality. 

There are aspects I like about the second half, Fred Williamson primarily.  He's hilarious in the role, particularly when he's telling his absurd 'Nam story.  Rodriguez's fast-and-loose doesn't clash with Tarantino's meticulousness all that much, but he certainly seems more at home in the realm of exploding vampires and bloody neck bites than he does with long conversations.  Oh and the foot fetishiness is at its apex here. Bleh.

[1:29:10]


(written after Django)

---

I didn't like Jackie Brown when it came out.  I was extremely excited for it, hotly anticipating it.  In the few years since Pulp Fiction I had become a Tarantino devotee (I even watched Destiny Turns On The Radio because he was acting in it).  I was reading his screenplays, listening to soundtracks over and over, attempted to following his recommendations via Blockbuster and other video stores in a vain attempt at catching onto his cinematic influences (it's pretty much everything, it's futile), and of course, watching Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction over and over.  I thought I knew what I was going to get with Jackie Brown.  I was wrong.  And I was so disappointed.  I didn't think it was a bad movie, but I didn't get it.  It didn't have so many of Tarantino's usual flairs that I didn't know how to feel about it. I always meant to get back to it, to try it again, but I never did, so great was my disappointment.  I didn't even buy it on DVD when it came out.  Me, this Tarantino devotee.  That was my first experience with understandings that our idols aren't flawless and that at some point they'll let you down (so many more of these lessons were still to be learned).

Two decades later though, and Jackie Brown makes sense to me now.  It's a surprisingly adept portrayal of the disappointments of middle-age.  Sure much of that comes from Elmore Leonard's book, Rum Punch, which Tarantino adapted, but QT sure seems to get it.  And he holds himself back.  I think this is a love letter to his mom and her friends, these strong middle aged women he knew who are constantly pushed down by the world but they won't be beaten and they know how to shrewdly navigate it without letting on that they're in control.  Or maybe it's just a fantasy, but it's really, really damn great.

At the time of its release, I was expecting more of a Blacksploitation vibe because of Pam Grier's presence, (probably thinking it would be more like Black Dynamite, something really tongue-in-cheek) but the earnestness is what makes it so great.  It really is a fantastic movie, and Grier, Samuel L. Jackson, Robert Carlyle, Bridgette Fonda all hit it out of the park.  Hell, you've got both Michael Keaton and Robert DeNiro in relatively small support roles (DeNiro barely speaks at all until the third act).  It's brilliant casting.  There's no big eruption of violence, and QT tempers his grindhouse instincts almost completely, finding a completely different gear that we never see this exact way again, but it certainly influences how he approaches dramatic moments in the future.  It's his most mature movie, in more ways than one.

[33:32]

---

QT has always said Kill Bill was intended to be one movie, and it was a greedy Weinstein decision to split them up into two pictures.  I've been waiting a decade and a half for a complete Kill Bill, to see it the way its creator intended, and though it keeps getting teased, it never gets released.  So, for the purpose of this recap, I just watched them back to back, literally skipping the credits on volume 1 and jumping direct into Volume 2.  The only thing that seems out of place in doing so is the brief recap at the start of Volume 2 that seems out of sync with the rest of the film.  Otherwise, I don't know that there's much else missing or added to the proceedings.

The wife (that would be my wife, not The Bride) had said that she didn't think the films held up, but I was rapt watching these two again.  More than any other film that QT had done before, or has done since, Kill Bill smashes together so many of his cinematic loves.  There should be tonal whiplash, but the chaptering of the film helps contain each segment to its own genre.  There's obviously different inferences of kung-fu and martial arts films.  There's an anime sequence.  There's so many hard boiled asian action tropes.  Hell, it opens with a Shaw Brothers title card.  The first half really steeps itself in Chinese cinema of the 70's and 80's, while thoroughly digging its heels (so many feet shots) in its 70's exploitation revenge drama. The second half toys around with noir and western revenge cinema (it really is laced with all different genres of revenge), while still keeping its toes (so many feet shots) in Chinese cinema.

The action in the film is ridiculous.  Master fight choreographer Yeun Woo-Ping outdoes himself with so much of what QT asks for here.  What we see in the big Crazy 88s fight is often relegated to animated form because it'd be so difficult to pull off in reality, but here it is.  It's visceral and scintillating.  The climax of Vol. 1, the showdown with O-Ren Ishii is stunning, a majestic and magical sequence that comes more from Samurai cinema than Chinese wuxia.  The opening kitchen fight combines John Woo with wuxia, while the later fight in the trailer is incredible for acknowledging the obstacles and challenge of fighting in close quarters.

What I disliked originally in the theatre was the slow burn of the finale, but watch as a whole, there's total resonance, with The Bride finding out her daughter lives, and is beautiful.  How she handles Bill in this sequence comes back to the maturity QT found in Jackie Brown, and it's beautiful, well-acted, and heartfelt.

As a whole, Kill Bill is a lot, but it shouldn't really be anything less than what it is.  Not totally perfect, not without its flaws (or controvercies) but thoroughly enjoyable nonetheless.

[51:34]

---

I saw Death Proof originally as part of the Grindhouse presentation, a lenghty double-feature viewing experience that kicked off with Robert Rodgriguez's Planet Terror.  A gross, yet giddy dive off the deep end of exploitation tropes.  Where a true grindhouse movie has to pace out its shocks and gags, with his budget Rodriguez could dole out multiples per minute.  In comparison, QT's Death Proof was meandering and leisurely, with a very extensive amount of time given to following a quartet of liberated women as they have an evening out at a dive bar.  The promised murder machine driven by Kurt Russell's Stuntman Mike only appears for a few minutes in the entire film, and the menace of Stuntman Mike's presence in the bar actually waffles between creepy and charming.  When the kill(s) actually happen, well, it's almost over before it began, but really you didn't want it to overstay its welcome to begin with.  And then there's a whole other half, where the tone shifts from ominous, slasher film to stunt spectacular.  It's almost two different projects altogether. So tonally it's a bit all over the place, and yet, QT seems to have everything right where he wants it.  If he's going to do straight up grindhouse, he's going to do it true to straight up grindhouse...complete with the meandering dialogue, the titillation, the drinking and drugs, the menace, the kills, the janky editing and extreme camera angles.  And he's not going to do just one straight up grindhouse, but two.  So you get in a 2 hour span both a relatively uninspired horror with a big spectacular kill, and then a stunt show with a dash of revenge thrown in.

Back in the day, watching all of Grindhouse, I wasn't in the mood for QT's slow amble after Rodriguez's amped-up visceral experience (not to mention those hilarious, gross and densely packed mock grindhouse trailers from the likes of Eli Roth and Edgar Wright).  But as its own production, as an experiment to make authentically styled grindhouse, but on a bigger budget, I think QT nailed it.  He has such an appreciation for the style of low budget exploitation cinema that it influences all his work, but in replicating it he know exactly what's going on.  At the same time, he makes it his own, as one would expect, and the dialogue and soundtrack are on point for QT.  The first half is good, the second half is delightful (Rosario Dawson, Zoe Bell, Tracie Thoms and Mary Elizabeth Winstead make a wonderful quartet).  QT giving Bell a real spotlight to show off her formidable stunt skills is pretty much the entire point of Death Proof in my mind.  But then there's also the great turnaround where Stuntman Mike becomes a wimpering, simpering fool as he's not used to women fighting back.

This is not a great movie, and there's not much here to think about past what it is, but it is pretty fun.

[1:08:25]
---

Whoops, I forgot to write about Inglorious Basterds.  There are some flat out incredible scenes in this film.  The opening sequence is breathtaking in both its beautiful cinematography and its intensity.  QT has always liked tension building but this is almost exclusively built around tension building.  People trying to hide who they are from other people, the stakes always so high, yeah, it's best avoided by anyone with anxiety issues.

The titular Basterds of the film are kind of the least appealing aspect of it, however.  Their ruthless, revenge-tinged scalphunting is uneasy and speaks too much to "rah-rah 'merica" in its revisionist retelling of how World War II went down.  I can't tell whether it's QT playing to his grindhouse fanaticism or if it's satire of "We're No. 1, U.S.A! U.S.A!" WWII movies that make it seem like there was no war without America's involvement.  There's just uncomfortable problems here.

That said, it's a pretty exciting feature overall, with an absolutely epic, now infamous climax which was a very bold choice on QTs part.  In any other director's hands it would feel like an unearned twist, in QT's hands, it feels like logical extension of the storytelling, and the director.  I like this one...just a little less than I did before.

[1:45:49]

---

With Django Unchained we enter the realm of QT films I've already written about on this site.  But the purpose here isn't to reiterate what I've said before, but to measure my impressions now, in a quick 10 minute writing session.  And so, to be perfectly honest, I was a bit disappointed with this rewatch.  Django as a character has an almost legendary status now... the film ends with him triumphant in killing all the southern degens and rescuing his true love, and he feels epic at the end, but the rest of the film is only marginally about him.  It's three acts of exploits, first with Christoph Waltz's King rescuing Django and taking him under his tutelage in the craft of bounty hunting, then venturing out to mess with Don Johnson's southern fried estate, and finally winding up at Candy Land where Django and King square off against Leonardo DiCaprio's vile Candy.  In these exploits you can see the legend of Django building, but it's still not his show.  It's not until the fourth act where Django frees himself and gets his revenge that the real legend of a true badass mofo is born.  It's an origin story.   QT has said he will never do a superhero movie but here, he's basically done it already.  I mean, QT has already plotted a Django/Zorro team-up comic which may come to fruition as a film soon enough, but we really need a Django movie that immortalizes the character into grand status.  This underbakes the legend, leaving it a little soft in the middle.  It's also really self-indulgent, as I think we've gathered QT's movies all are.

[1:17:26]

---

And back to The Hateful Eight.  Honestly, I didn't particularly like this movie the first time around, and of all of QT's movies this is the one I had the least desire to revisit.  Upon revisiting most of my initial apprehentions about the film still hold -- it's too long, it squanders its panavision, it's use of narrator is annoyingly inconsistent -- but at the same time, watching it at home made it a more inviting experience.  It may not be the way QT originally intended but I liked it more.

Cutting out the overture and the intermission trims the experience down quite a bit, which makes it feel less padded.  In fact, taking out those elements (as great as Ennio Morricone is) leads the film back to being more character focused.  The first time we hear the narrator (QT himself) is after the intermission, an intermission which the narrator references, so on home release, if you weren't familiar with the theatrical experience, would seem a bit odd.

I was actually hoping to watch this as part of the multi-part "Extended Edition" that QT recut for Netflix.  I was curious to see how the experience of the film worked broken down into episodes (the film is already carved out into chapters) with material added in.  There are parts within the current cut which seem like they were abruptly edited, so I could see at least some of the points where more would go.  It's not that the film needs more, but operating as a TV series, I could see this working even better.  There's a mystery at play and the way it executes and unfurls that mystery is quite well done, but I think would be even better in episodic form.  Alas, with the release of Once Upon A Time... In Hollywood I think the extended edition got pulled from netflix, at least for now.  That said, I'm in for another rewatch of that version, or even just the film again at some point in the future.  It's kind of fun. Also, no gratuitous fee shots.

[1:38:14]
---

And that's the QT recap.  Nope, no Natural Born Killers and no Four Rooms (neither are available on streaming at the moment) but let's be fair, both of those are bottom-of-the-list dwelling features anyway.

As for ranking...I had done one before it turns out, after viewing The Hateful Eight  but at that time I hadn't seen most of QT's films for years.  So this one is more true, since everything is fresh (to be fair I should probably see Once Upon A Time... again before ranking it but fuck it...)

So here it is, hot, fresh, and rank...er, rankings (with movement from my last rankings in brackets):

  1. Pulp Fiction - of course [-]
  2. Kill Bill - I think I liked both "volumes" even more on rewatch [-]
  3. Jackie Brown - what a difference two decades make. A new favourite [+3]
  4. Inglorious Basterds - holding strong [-]
  5. The Hateful Eight - something works better watching it at home [+2]
  6. Death Proof -  in some ways, it's the most fun QT [+2]
  7. Reservoir Dogs - still a pretty taut movie, but feels prototypical [-2]
  8. Once Upon A Time...In Hollywood - I'm not sure about this one yet [new]
  9. Django Unchained - I also can't believe it's fallen all the way down here, but there you go.  It misses the mark in some ways. [-6]
  10. True Romance - bleh [-2.5]
  11. From Dusk 'Til Dawn - I've moved past it [-4.5]
  12. Four Rooms - why? [n/a]


 

Friday, August 16, 2019

3 Short Paragraphs: Brightburn

2019, David Yarovesky (The Hive) -- download

A meteor crashes into a farmer's field in Brightburn, Kansas in the early 2000s. Anyone with a hint of knowledge of the Superman mythos knows what happens next. Twelve years later, Tori and Kyle are raising their very own adopted alien. It would have been interesting if this movie had gone down the road of an illegal alien in America, but instead it went with a singular premise, "What if Superman was evil?" Oh, DC has already visited that in many many Elseworlds or alternate-Earth versions including a couple who fought for Russia or Germany. And there are the other companies who have done their own versions of evil super-men, such as the Homelander from Garth Ennis's The Boys, now a very well done TV show of its own. But few have visited the idea of how the sending of a super-powered being to a planet such as ours, where he is a god over our meek selves, might be intentional.

Brightburn frames itself as a thriller or horror. It's one of those flicks where it would best be seen without any knowledge coming in, but seriously, how is that possible in today's age? So most viewers come at it like the knowledge we have of what's going to happen to all the counselors in the camp next to the lake. Thus, the movie is all about how we get from crash landing in farmer's field to all the flying & killing and laser eyes. And the tension of decently built scenes which go exactly where we expect them to. And a really really creepy superhero costume analog.

That is both the failure and the success of the movie -- in that we know exactly where its going, and Yarovesky doesn't diverge from that flight path in the least. So, we know that once Brandon starts getting alien messages from the crashed alien ship in the barn, he is going to end up killing a lot of people. And it's not that the movie does a bad job of delivering this to us, it's more that... well, it could have been more. Why is Brandon switched on like a evil, red lightbulb? Was he a machine and not a person all along? Does he forget the emotions he had while Tori and Bryce were raising him? Was the intention of the aliens to have him gain his powers at puberty and become a child conqueror? The movie could have been more intriguing, more involving, if it had just approached some of these ideas instead of *ping* let's go burn people with laser eyes and disembowel them for fun.

Thursday, August 15, 2019

Saturday Sci-Fi Spectacular, vol 1

War for the Planet of the Apes
Upgrade
High-Rise
Alien:Covenant
------------------------------------

It's a rare occasion when I get an evening to myself, nevermind a full day, where I can just linger and do nothing.  A few Saturdays back I wound up in that very scenario, with the kids off visiting with grandparents, the wife out RPGing for the night... all I really had to do was walk the dogs and feed myself, which left me with many hours to fill in very much the way I would have filled a sleepy Saturday some 25 years ago: movie marathon.

But what to watch?  My ability to watch movies became very limited once children came along, not to mention competing forces of epic television, streaming services and a new revolution in comedy via podcast and standup.  What to watch?  Do I spend precious minutes that turn into dozens of minutes scrolling through feeds, or thinking about my sizeable, if aged, DVD/Blu-ray collection?  What to watch?  And how to program this mini home festival so that it feels like a cohesive whole?  I've missed so many films over the years that I still want to watch, but so many competing for attention I'm always at a loss on where to start.  What to watch?

I settled on watching science fiction movies from the past few years that I've been meaning to get to.  In a couple instances, they were the latest chapters in series that I've enjoyed or was invested in.  In another case it was picking back up a movie I started watching but didn't finish.  Just narrowing down to a genre and also a time frame made it so, so easy to just dive in and start watching.  I knew where I wanted to start, and where I wanted to end, which made the middle relatively self evident.

---

War for the Planet of the Apes (2017 - d. Matt Reeves - netflix) was the easiest choice.  I love the Planet of the Apes franchise.  The original pentalogy is always watchable and fascinating (save the last one, Battle for the Planet of the Apes which may well be worse than the Tim Burton/Mark Whalberg misfire), and this modern series reinvented the story brilliantly, from the traumatic animal abuse in Rise of the Planet of the Apes to the emotionally affecting Shakespearean drama Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, these are legitimately great films.  The fact that I didn't see War for the Planet of the Apes in the theatre and basically let it dangle on the vine for years after it's post-theatre release speaks ill of my devotion to the series, but I do love it.

This third installment opens with literal war.  A waning humanity desperately clawing at relevance by murdering apes with their guns, but apes are smart, and tactical and have the advantage of the war being on their turf, in the forest.  But Cesar (the brilliant Andy Serkis) sees the writing on the wall. The more desperate the humans become, the more dangerous, so their home is only protected, only safe for so long.  It's time to leave.  As the community of apes prepares to leave for new land, a strike force infiltrates the ape's forest home at night, in the process killing Cesar's mate and first born son.

The anger and rage towards humanity that Koba felt - and Cesar fought against - in the last installment starts to boil inside him.  He abandons his tribe for revenge, but without his leadership they are taken captive.  Cesar was blinded by his own grief and fury, and his society pays the price.

There's actually very little direct war, in War for the Planet of the Apes, as it's mainly a prison camp/prison break style movie with a lot of dramatic motivation.  Cesar and The Colonel (Woody Harrelson) are the main focus of the film, with Cesar desperate to get his society away from human influence, while the Colonel fights the inevitible (the plague that made apes smart across the globe are making humans mute and depreciating their intelligence) thinking that eradicating the apes will stop anything.  At the same time, he's preparing for war, not just with the apes, but an opposing human faction.

Certainly the messiest of this latest Planet of the Apes series, it's still a very engaging, gripping, entertaining 2 hours and 20 minutes of drama and adventure.  It's a literal technological marvel how seamless the CGI apes fit within their surroundings, how natural they feel to the environment.  You're not seeing a performer or special effects, it feels like you're watching actual apes who are amazing performers.  How can you not just adore Bad Ape (a bald chimpanzee played by Steve Zahn) or Maurice the wise orangutan (played by Karin Konoval)?  I want to hug them so badly.

If anything didn't work in the film, it was the tail end of the climax.  Without spoiling anything, it sets up a new threat for the apes, then immediately dispenses with it.  It's a very strange moment that is meant to be ironic, but not the comedic kind of irony that it pretty much is.

Based on where War for... ends, I don't know where the franchise goes from here.  This truly feels like closure.  Whether it attempts to reinvent the original (which was tried with the Tim Burton venture...a financial success but not a creative one) or if it has a new path it could forge in a futuristic ape society that would in any way appeal to a human audience, I don't know.  This trilogy was full of surprises and deeply resonant characters that show exactly the right way to reboot an older property for modern times... by telling a good story not rehashing an old one.

(I can't believe how terrible most of the posters were for this movie)
---

My second movie for the evening was Upgrade, the 2018 action-thriller from Australian director Liegh Whannell.  I had heard about this movie via The Weekly Planet podcast shortly before it came out.  The hosts of The Weekly Planet were both rather taken with the style of the film, and how technically accomplished it was for its very small budget.

The story is set in a sort of 5-mintues-into-the-future type scenario, in a world where the technology we're just on the cusp of standardizing has become standard.  Fully integrated home systems with voice activation and AI response cues and self-driving cars are a the forefront in this film.  Our lead character, Grey (Logan Marshall-Green) is a luddite in this integrated world.  He likes to be disconnected and repairs vintage muscle cars for a living.  He's wary of technology, but not outright disdainful.

While he and his wife are traveling in her automated car, the vehicle goes haywire, taking the wrong course and putting them into the dangerous surroundings of the city.  There they are accosted by three men who execute them, or so it appears.  Grey survives and battles with full body paralysis, grief and depression... until one of his muscle car clients, a wealthy technology magnate, offers him an experimental trial implant that would cure his paralysis.

When Grey accepts he's surprised at how quickly he's able to move, but even more surprised to find an artificial intelligence speaking directly into his head.  The AI wants to aid him in his quest for justice/revenge and when Grey's physical limitations are met, the AI takes over.

The film's sensibilities are very 1980s without seeming dated (it may be a little cliche, but it's definitely playing into those cliches).  Whannell approaches the storytelling and design in a way that wouldn't be out of place in a vehicle starring Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, or Kurt Russell in their prime.  If anything it does a better job at modernizing the Robocop story than the 2014 version does.  At the same time, there's a synergy with Alex Garland's Ex Machina, where this feels like the action-oriented younger brother, a little less mature, a little less heady but similarly stylized.  Or maybe it's a next-generation tale in the world of Person of Interest.

Where this film feels innovative though is in the fight sequences.  Whannell and team have crafted a stunning new method for capturing dynamic and kinetic fights.  Whenever the AI takes over Grey's body the camera starts tracking Marshall-Green's movements precisely.  Every twist, tilt or punch has a corresponding camera move that just cranks us the momentum of these well orchestrated sequences.  It's rather ingenious.

I have to say I loved this movie.  It's an instant classic of action and sci-fi in my book.  I can't believe Toast hasn't written about it yet (though I'd be dismayed if he hasn't actually seen it).
---

I was super keen to see High-Rise in 2015 as I had just become acquainted with director Ben Wheatley's Kill List and was intrigued by his style and sensibilities.  The poster and the trailer for High-Rise seemed downright Cronenbergian in their tone and aesthetic (I'm most definitely thinking of Shivers as a big inspiration here) and I was in for it.  I intentionally kept myself in the dark about what it was really about, the few glimpses I caught was all I needed to see.

In my head I was also thinking this was some sort of Demon Seed situation, where the technology in a high rise tower goes haywire and starts manipulating its residents.  But it turns out, there's not a damn bit of science in this fiction, unless you consider architecture science.  Though, the tone here is once more 5-minutes-into-the-future, but it's five minutes into the future of 1975

Based off the book by J.G. Ballard (who wrote Crash, which Cronenberg adapted), the titular high-rise of the film is part of an experimental neighbourhood, the first finger in a hand formation.  The concept is of a microcosm of society with different classes of people living on different levels in the building.  Though work happens in town, not in the building, almost everyone's leisure time is spent in the cinder and concrete monstrosity they call home.  They all seem to be very enamored with it at first, but the class structures start to poke through and eventually decay any and all goodwill between men.

The first act introduces this place and a cross-section of the people in it, the second half chronicles the slow degradation of the relationships between them, and the third act is all madness and rioting and orgies abandoning all sense of self.  In the collapse of civilized society, everyone kind of winds up the same.  The inference is that perhaps the complex's designer, as played by Jeremy Irons, did use some forms of satanic symbolism in the overall design, and the concept of a hand reaching up from beneath the earth to pull everyone down.


It really does owe a lot to Shivers, but the same allegory of societal structures is at play here as the most-definitely-sci-fi film Snowpiercer but the two stories do play out quite differently.  Our focal character here is not underclass struggling for justice and truth like Chris Evans in Snowpiercer but rather a middle class/straddling upper class Tom Hiddleston, someone who from the middle can see the struggles on both sides, and doesn't know where he belongs (he doesn't really belong at the bottom nor the top).  It's an interesting film, to a point, but it doesn't really hold together fully as a narrative, and the characters exist to represent their class rather than have any real individualism or personality.  In the end I struggled to maintain interest, as the last act of debauchery is tedious and loses the plot, if there ever really was one.

(unlike War for the Planet of the Apes, the High-Rise posters are pretty great)
---

And finally, the last film for the evening, because I wanted it dark, was the latest in Ridley Scott's exploration of the Alien franchise.  2017's  Alien: Covenant is a serves as prequel to his 1979 classic as well as sequel to his much-maligned-but-loved-by-me 2012 outing Prometheus [link to my take...Toast's take on Prometheus is here, we disagree!]


I know that Prometheus as the sum of its parts isn't a great movie, but there are so many of those parts that I just love that I can watch it over and over again without any voice nagging in the back of my head about the quality or plot holes or absurdity.  I just enjoy it.

The critical response to Covenant was even worse than Prometheus but I thought that maybe Scott was on the same track, that he was going to still be operating at a level of insane and awesome individual bits that don't coalesce as a whole.  But even the scant few Prometheus defenders I knew didn't have much good to say about Covenant, which wasn't a good sign.  As such I skipped it in theatre, and then avoided it on VOD, and even still kept passing it by on the streaming services.


I did still hold out hope that everyone was wrong, that I would find a movie in here that I could appreciate, like Prometheus.  But no.  This is trash.  It's a garbage film full of dumb characters doing dumb things, getting in stupid situations that make no sense, and having dumb conversations about which dumb thing they're going to do next.  It's awful. It's a Z-grade horror film with an A-grade budget that wants to provide world building and an origin story but in a most shoehorned fashion.

The opening scene takes us back to David's creation (David from Prometheus as played by Michael Fassbender), his education and his evolution. He's the malevolent force of the picture full of other malevolent forcest.  Following the end of Prometheus David has returned to the Engineers home in their own ship carrying a payload of bioengineered weapons which he's set loose and eradicated their society.  But David has left a homing beacon running, which brings a new crew of colonizers to this planet teeming with bad shit.  There are so many malevolent forces!  Too many.  Way too many.  It's stupid how many malevolent forces there are.  No human should be able to survive a minute on this hellscape planet David has created and yet we keep following the cast around as if there's some hope that any of this will turn out well.

This film is tragically unentertaining.  The characters, with the exception of David and Walter, are boring and thin.  David and Walter, however, are both artificial intelligences that are explored, but not explored very well.  The film should fully revolve around these two characters, but it gets distracted too often with its human cast (and killing them off) to the detriment of really getting into any sort of commentary about the nature of AI (as unnatural as it is).  There is some thinking about the nature of creation and evolution but even that seems rudimentary and not well crafted.

This is science fiction, but the science part of it feels left on the floor and repeatedly stepped on like a doormat.  I hated this movie.  What a waste of time and money (and I'm not even talking about my time or my money).

(Toast's take on Covenant is here, we disagree, in that I hated it so much more than he did)

Wednesday, August 14, 2019

Alita: Battle Angel

2019, Robert Rodriguez (Machete) -- download

I have said it before but there is a certain type of genre movie that seems to be made for me. Think big, expansive worlds like Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets or over the top scifi worlds like in Mortal Engines & Jupiter Ascending. I like big, cinematic and imaginative. That is one of the reasons I was always attracted to anime, for nothing gets its vast on like the melodrama in anime. The Japanese are not afraid to make their worlds too big, just like the eyes and just like the cries out loud. And the melodrama.

Alita: Battle Angel came originally as a Manga and then as a popular 90s anime movie. Rodriguez comes along, after James Cameron gives up to focus on his blue elves, with a grand film that is faithful in many ways my memory says it was. It's been years since I either read the comic or saw the movie, but the world, the characters and the sheer audacity of its far future human cyborg relations is faithful.

In case you haven't guessed, I rather liked it, and I will have to either see it (if possible) in the cinema or at least get a blu-ray, as my wont of downloading decent rips doesn't always translate well with movies as CGI illuminated as this one, with digital breakup taking over many scenes.

In this world Zalem, the last remaining floating city (the rest taken down by war hundreds of years prior), hangs above Iron City. The rich are above, the poor are below but everyone is mixed up in trans-humanity, some going so far as to only have their brains remain, the rest of their bodies converted into fantastic creatures, many so far as to become monsters. Ido (Christoph Waltz), the local free-clinic doctor, finds the upper torso of Alita in the trash (all that falls from Zalem can have a new life in Iron City) and reconstructs her, including the lower body of his lost daughter. Her memory is absent so he tries to instill in her a wonder for Iron City while ignoring the fact she has a legendary warrior buried somewhere inside her.

Migawd this movie looked lovely! Iron City is just lovingly created, drawing upon the source material but also using imagery that made me think of Mexico City. Of course, the parallels of the current US / Mexico situation, with the glorious, rich city in The Sky (behind The Wall) compared to people who are just doing their best to gain enough prestige to move there. That's not to say Iron City isn't a lovely place to live, as despite the obvious separation of lifestyles, you can still be happy & healthy in Iron City. As long as the monsters don't get you.

While the overall plot of a young girl finding herself and her empowered place in the world doesn't entirely work, the classic anime of What Is Human does. I always translated that to What Is Sentient, because who are we to decide what gets to be A Person? Humanity is likely not the only intelligent life in the universe, so its not so much as whether you are Human or not, as whether you are a living creature of intelligent & emotion. Ghost in the Shell took that premise and decided that the presence of a Ghost, a migrated otherness (soul?) that was housed in an entirely artificial shell, was enough to be Human. They don't go as far here, for as long as there is a brain that generates humanity, the metal people of Iron City are human. Or so the story wants us to believe. Meanwhile, we question the humanity of the man who while entirely biological, seems to act as the shell for another man.

This one will definitely bear another watching or two, and likely join The Shelf. That said, I am thinking its maybe the time to get a proper 4K blu-ray player.

I Saw This!! Post-Deletion Phase

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. And despite hiatuses, where some movies might just get washed away in the apathy, it still makes us feel crotchety to NOT write something them.

Venom, 2018, Ruben Fleischer (Zombieland) -- download/Crave

This was one of the pair of movies that were meant to resurrect previous renditions of popular characters/franchises, taking them in new directions. Oh, they did that, but in the most boring and divisive directions.

I originally saw both of the movies soon after they hit the *cough* digital downloads sites. But I didn't write. But due to finally seeing the evolution of our Internet-based, cable-cut movie & TV watching era come to a stage where it makes sense to actually PAY for them, I did. Ala carte offerings, served through the Internet, and viewed on your favourite devices (smart TV, game system, Android box, etc.) are the new (current new?) cable TV or satellite service. I said that I would start paying for services again when they better served me -- someone who didn't want a boatload of channels I didn't care for. Things are still fleshing out, for example the Crave app sucks terribly and Amazon Prime Video (in Canada) cannot get its shit together (only their own shows are worth the dollar, and fewer still are actually in the claimed 4K), but at least it's there.

So, when I was stuck in a hotel, in a city that shut down at 6pm, where I could only drink so many craft beers (yes, I know, me! Faith & Begorra!) I plugged an HDMI cable from my laptop to the hotel TV (which had terrrrrible cable reception BTW), joined the free WiFi (better speed than I expected) and began "channel surfing". Most nights I was tired from long work-trip days, so ReWatches were in order.

The thing is, I couldn't actually finish the Venom rewatch. The first time round, the movie just .... bored me. The second time round, the movie just ... OK, what the fuck? How can Tom Hardy in a comic book movie bore me? Even at his most mundane, I enjoy Hardy, but for some reason I just could not get interested in what Hardy was doing with his asshole v-blogger being depicted as a legit journalist. But OK, I can live with that, what about Venom, the alien symbiote that started his "creation" as a Spider-Man suit? While not a fan of the anti-"hero" villain monster that people seem to love, I can at least understand the appeal. But instead of a nasty, juicy creature of the dark, I get a petulant teenager alien thing that ... oh, whatever. The whole movie just annoyed me.

I know this is one of those times when you talk to your coworker who just doesn't know how to watch movies with more than a passing glance, where they just don't seem to have a formed opinion as to why "dat movie just sucked dude". That guy is me right now, as I think it dumbed out any properly built opinion I had. I just could not warm to this movie, even in a hotel forced second viewing.

Kent has pretty much the same opinion, but a much better formed one...

Meanwhile...

The Predator, 2018, Shane Black (Iron Man 3) -- download/Crave

Why do I have such a fond opinion of Shane Black? Sure Kiss Kiss Bang Bang and The Nice Guys are brilliant and fun movies, but that's .... about it ? I subsequently love Iron Man 3 but that is probably all based around the kid in the small town aspects, as the rest is just lifted from Iron Man comics of one degree or another. So, again, why do I love Shane Black so much?

Just cuz. Cuz true Good Stuff comes along rarely while OK Stuff is everywhere and Utter Crap is mostly avoided, but still surrounds us. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is just incredibly, astoundingly Good Stuff, that I want his subsequent things to be as well done and as enjoyable. Alas, often the Good Directors get assigned to things just because. And that is not a good reason.

In pitch, this is a good re-launch of the franchise. Introduce the Predator creature to Americans long past the last Earth-bound story from 90s tale, and bring back the hunter-predator aliens for a current story. Add in some post-war vets, traumatized and damaged from what America has done to them and give them a reason to be Good Soldiers again. Alas, we get stuck with All Snark and Little Else. Its like a Writing Room just got printed on paper, to become a proper script, without any editing.

Sure there are good lines, and good performances and an interesting idea. But jeebus, it just never lifts off  the ground. I cannot say if it was Producer Meddling or the shadow of that horrendous scandal where a seemingly oblivious Black allowed a real-life human predator into his crew, but this movie just could not come together. It just could not captivate, nor hold together anything that was Shane Black. But I can say, at least, that it was a decent rewatch as a Hotel Movie.

I won't even bother attending to the plot.

Aquaman, 2018, James Wan (Saw) -- download

OK, despite the desires stated for the previous two movies, wherein I feel compelled to rewatch a movie in order to state intelligently about it, but this one? Nope. Why? I dunno, because I remember enjoying it. But like much of the DC Universe, once is enough. Well, if the DC Universe movies are terrible, I am at least compelled to watch again to see if I gave it a fair chance. What's up with that brain?

First up, I found Jason Momoa annoying as Aquaman in the Justice League movie. Let me rephrase that; I liked Jason Momoa, I can never NOT like him, but fuck what is with the WHA-HOO yelling? I guess they wanted a more irreverent, less grim character than the comic book renditions. If anything, give us more of the small fishing village fuck-superheroes version, but no we get X-Games Aquaman.

But damn, this movie is just pretty. Its just so colourful and brightly lit, I could not help but enjoy. But beyond that, I was not enthralled by this Avengers-Lite version of a superhero movie. The plot was a weak aspect of a Marvel style rebel-against-kingliness Thor but, well, better done. And I kept on expecting his mother to be Michelle Pfeiffer, mixing it up with the Antman reveal. Still, beyond Looking Good and Charismatic Momoa, I didn't see any reason to label it anything other than a Good On First Run movie.

P.S. What a terrible poster.

The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part, 2019, Mike Mitchell (Sky High) -- download

I never said a thing about The Lego Movie, during another rendition of I Saw This!! other than I couldn't stay awake. That's a terrible thing happening to me these days, as I turn into My Dad who always fell asleep watching TV post-supper. But some dramatic structures just don't hold me, including Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse which I, at first thought, it was just me, but a Crave-bound rewatch (today!!) confirmed, the third act puts me to sleep. I wish I could tell you what it was, but.... well, I had just briefly closed my eyes and then Miles was fighting the King Pin. Wait wait wait, THIS is a post about The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part not Spider-Verse, which deserves its own non-sleepy post, because everything I was awake for IS FUCKING BRILLIANT.

Anywayz, I did not enjoy the first movie all that much, as the rewatch referenced above, which generated the tangent, proved. And despite a lack of sleep, the second one didn't do all that much for me either. Oh, I was head over heels for their post-apocalyptic nod at the beginning, but to be all honest, it just lost me after that. The whole Duplo invasion is cute, but... what as the plot about again? The parallels between the Real World and the Lego World are cute, but... I dunno, have I lost my whimsy? Is that it? Am I no longer able to be charmed by play? This bears further therapy investigating.

10 for 10: moore pique teevee

[10 for 10... that's 10 movies -- or TV shows -- 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 half-remembered scattershot thoughts? Surely that's doable?   ]

In This Edition:
Killing Eve Season 2 - Bravo
Shrill Season 1 - Crave
Dead To Me Season 1 - Netflix
Stranger Things Season 3 - Netflix
The Tick Season 2 - Amazon Prime
Legion Season 3 - FX
Dark Season 2 - Netflix
GLOW Season 3 - Netflix
Chernobyl - HBO
I Think You Should Leave with Tim Robinson Season 1 - Netflix


Aaaand....g-g-g-ghost! I mean GO!

---

I liked season 1 of Killing Eve just fine, but it felt like it should have been a done-in-one season.  The fact that it wasn't frustrated me.  As well, I'm not sure I got the point of it at the time.  Season 2 reinforced what the point was: this exceptionally twisted love story between Eve and Villanelle.  Eve is more infatuated with Villanelle than she is in love with her, and vice versa (I'm not sure, given how sociopathic she is, that Villanelle even can understand what love is).  Season 2 gets real down and dirty into this warped tango the two have, as well as deals with the fallout of Eve's decisions and a bit more poking around into the world in which Villanelle operates.  It balloons out the world of the show very very nicely, and expands on the characters nicely as well.  As much as we're seeing Villanelle's influence rub off on Eve, even more we start to see Fiona Shaw's shadow agency tendencies rub off on her (or at least the ones Eve can perceive).   There is a lot of manipulation happening this season from almost all the key players (with poor Niko and Kenny bearing the brunt of much of it) and the show is better for all the deception and trickery.  And yet, this season was saddled with an almost incredibly stupid central story, a social media magnate who has murderous tendencies but also so much power he's almost untouchable.  It seems not only improbable, but impractical and absurd that Villanelle, who was the chase subject of last season, seemingly public enemy #1, becomes a colleague (or at least a tool) of the agency this season.  It makes next to no sense. 

I really didn't think I was going to watch Season 2, but I'm glad I did.  Yet I'm back in the same boat where I don't know if I'm going to watch Season 3 when it comes out (but I probably will, eventually).

[10:34]

---

Shrill is a part of the new wave of American television that is taking its cues from the British format of show-running.  Short, dedicated seasons that tell a full story, but likely to leave you wanting more.  Based on a novel, the series starring (as well as co-written and created by) Saturday Night Live's Aidy Bryant is, in broad swaths, about fat shaming in America, but centered around Bryant's Portland-based journalist hopeful Annie.  The magazine she works for has a toxic family atmosphere with a vitriolic boss who doesn't seem to support any of his employees yet proclaims to love them all.  Annie is tasked with a food review and finds herself at a strip bar, learning about female empowerment from the women that work there.  Her article isn't what it was supposed to be, yet becomes a sensation for the magazine much to her editor's chagrin.  This new burst of empowerment and self confidence starts to impact Annie's life in strange ways, both good and bad.  A troubled relationship with a slacker boyfriend starts to solidify, but alienating events start to occur with friends, family and coworkers.  Annie explores and challenges her own empowerment, awareness of self, her own history of shame with her body, and society's impact on how she thinks of herself and self worth, and it's a pretty amazing journey in a lightly dramatic comedy wrapping.

The show is packed with great musical cues, particularly a pool party sequence that left me with big happy smile on my face.  The show ends with Annie confronting her online cyberbully, and it's powerfully upsetting and a bit funny as well as totally awkward.  The season ends not really in a cliffhanger, but rather with Annie's life in such a dramatic flux that one can't help want to see more of her journey.  It's a really good season, but I think there's potential for greatness in the future.

[23:31]

---

As far as premiere TV, Dead To Me doesn't really fit the bill.  It's a really entertaining watch, I will grant it that, but it's not upper echelon, mandatory viewing.  I'm going to spoil the show's second episode reveal, so if you don't want any SPOILERS then perhaps skip to then next review.  Christina Applegate is a real estate agent who has recently lost her husband in a hit-and-run, and is lost as her rage consumes her, since the perpetrator fled the scene.  She meets Linda Cardellini, an artist working at a retirement center, who aggressively tries to befriend her.  The tactic is off-putting to the bristly Applegate, but an offer for a late-night insomniacs chat spawns a mutually rewarding friendship.  But things get twisty when we learn that, indeed, Cardellini was the driver responsible for Applegate's husband's death.  But there's more to it than just that.  It's not just a show that asks whether a friendship can survive such a deception, whether absolution or forgiveness can be given to such an act.  Things get deep, the connections formed are actually meaningful, and the truths revealed are huge complications to sustaining such a relationship.

The show, each episode, teases out additional bits of information about both Applegate's relationship with her husband as well as what actually happened that night.  This metering out of information allows the audience to keep reshaping their judgement of these characters and the situation, in what I think is actually a valuable exercise in examining perspectives.  There are facts, but both context and emotions change the meaning of those facts considerably and I like the way the show explores that.  As well I like that the season doesn't end on a cliffhanger of Applegate finding out Cardellini's secret, but rather we get almost two full episodes of dealing with the fallout, and a completely different (perhaps somewhat predictable) cliffhanger instead.  At half hour increments I was never bored, and the show is quite propulsive drawing you through its intriguing (if sometimes too soap operatic) darkly comedic drama.

[33:54]

---

2018 was kind of a dark void in the G&D Sometimes Disagree world. Looking over to the right (your right) you can see there were only 30 write-ups in 2018, as opposed to our usually 120+ per year.  The dark times, 2018, real dark times.  As such, I have no review of Stranger Things 2 to point you too (Toasty does tho).  I thought ST2 was not on par with the first season, the latter of which is a legitimate masterpiece.  ST2 had a lot to live up to and did a decent job of not letting people down too badly.  It unfortunatley had too many disconnected pieces that didn't all line up properly with each other and a sorely miscalculated diversion between acts 2 and 3 where we visit Eleven on a personal journey in Detroit for a full episode.  This story wasn't bad in and of itself but really a major distraction to the main story thread (it should have instead been carved out and added to Netflix as a special a few months later telling the story of where she took off to and why her look changed).

Anyway, Stranger Things 3 is a return to form.  It's not quite the equal of season 1 but it's pretty close to being just as great.  It finds the right notes of nostalgia in it's mid 1985 setting, a bevy of charming homages that aren't *just* there as homages (everything from Aliens to Die Hard to Star Wars to Back to the Future), and some excellent additions to the cast (Maya Hawke!).

This round finds the cast separating into multiple groups comic book super-team style, each unknowingly tugging on the same thread, ultimately leading them together in the end.  That the audience can see how each of these stories connect (at least in the loose details if not always the finer ones) it gives each story merit, even as they advance the characters and their relationships with each other.  Steve continues to be one of the most enjoyable characters on TV, and his group introduces two new characters to the show that are both very welcome and very amazing additions.  Eleven has a completely different journey this season than last, finding her own voice, not as an experiment or a quasi-superhero, but as a teenage girl.  Hopper has a challenging journey, as suitor for Joyce and father to Elle, both roles he's not particularly well suited for due to his alcoholism and rage issues.

It's kind of subtle, but in every story faction the female characters are the ones leading the charge, the ones who are saying "my approach is the right one here" and the male characters having to learn to trust them.  It's not hitting you over the head with any sort of messaging but the empowerment of the girls and women this season is off the charts and well deserved.  At one point a male reporter calls Nancy "Nancy Drew" as if that is a derogatory term, but Nancy, Joyce, Elle, Max, Robin all do "Nancy Drew"-type sleuthing and help overcome the big nasty of the season as a result, and it's an absolute delight.  And the big final fight is a gorgeous spectacle which should be on the big screen.  I'm impressed with Stranger Things 3, and the bold choices it made with its characters and the finale it went with, as well as the correction in focus from Season 2.  Another season is greatly anticipated.


[53:50 ... oops went 20 minutes there]

---

I've been amused by every iteration of The Tick I've encountered: the comic; the cartoon; the first Barry Sonnenfeld-created live action series; and the first season of this new Amazon Prime iteration.  But for some reason I was very apathetic about this second season.  I had heard rumblings of its release but for weeks I couldn't even be bothered to check out whether it was actually available or not. Then, upon confirmation, we wound up watching the first two episodes and then burying it in our viewing roster for over 2 months.  I don't know why my enthusiasm had waned so much.  Was it the weirdly cheap-yet-not quality of the show (special effects are pretty awful, but costumes are fairly on point)?  The lack of outright comedy (the humour is so subtle)?  The lack of recognizable faces from Tick products past?

Perhaps.

But we finally got back to it and I have to say I loved Season 2 far more than season 1.  The first season was marred by its weird scheduling, from it's long delay from pilot to 6-episode series, and then another long delay between the end of its first batch of episodes to its final batch.  Along the way it always felt like it was still finding its footing.

In season 2, it starts off still finding its footing, but it gains that toe hold early on and is a confident production to the finish.  There are some really fun journies for Arthur, Dot, Overkill, Ms. Lint, Superian and even Danger Boat.  Things aren't nearly as high-stakes as Season 1, but they're more personal across the board and more rewarding. Things build exceptionally well in the last half of the season and end with some great set-up for season 3... which will never happen...because it was cancelled...likely because fans like me sat on it for too long and the metrics weren't there to continue.

Alas.

[1:05:31]

---
look at all these great posters...

It's interesting the phenomena of peak TV, this new golden age of television.  It used to be a show would take a season, sometimes two, in order to find its footing.  But with this sort of auteur television, so many shows come out the gate with such a strong, singular vision that they are instant classics from the get go, and then falter when trying to repeat the effect for a second season. Stranger Things was like this, so was True Detective (and apparently Big Little Lies despite the presence of Meryl fucking Streep).  Legion was also like this.  The first season is an incredible piece of television, a truely artistic work in an age of omnipresence superhero media.  The second season bobbled and fumbled trying to decide exactly what story it was telling and how to tell it.  It's attention was fractured, unfocused and as a result its direction was often unclear.  It turns out the point was to turn the series protagonist, David, into its chief adversary, a real villain.  David, we learned, would destroy the world, but the second season never really got us to comfortable with that reality.  The David we knew from Season 1 wasn't destroyer of worlds, he was a victim, a tortured young man. That season ended with the heel turn and it didn't seem to earn it.

This season, David earns his supervillain status, while still providing a sliver of recognition of the hero we'd hoped he would be and going through efforts not to paint his mental illness as the source of is villainy.  It is also 100% a return to Season 1 form.  There is clear focus and a steady artistic hand in play.  Creator/showrunner Noah Hawley has a clear vision for what he's trying to accomplish, and what each character's role in the proceedings is.  He makes some very bold swings (song / dance numbers, unexpected deaths) and though kind of absurd, they feel integral and part of the whole.  It's a ride that kept me on the edge of my seat with some really unexpected turns and some absolutely inspired bouts of creativity (the land between time...oh man!).  After being so let down by Season 2, this thrilling Season 3 has been a tremendous surprise and an anxious delight.  The finale may have seemed a little soft, a little anticlimactic, and yet, it also felt exactly right for the journey these characters had made.

[1:15:01]

---

The plan was to rewatch the entire first season of Dark before moving onto the second season, but timing wasn't working out to sit down to re-consume 10 hours of television.  It's part of the problem with so much culture and entertainment to consume now, there's not enough time to revisit things.  We managed to cram in three of Season 2's eight episodes in one night and for the first, let's say, episode and a half, I was regretting not going back.  Dark isn't particularly dense, but it is intricate.  Without getting too spoilery, the show cuts across multiple eras, 33 years apart, and has different people playing the same character in these different eras, as well as additional characters appearing in one era but not in another.  In general, there are four different families intertwined (plus a few outlying characters) and we need to track them multi-generationally, understanding the familial and romantic connections.

It may sound like it's not worth the effort, but it more than certainly is.  The show is utterly propulsive, drawing you through its time-addled narrative with utter fascination.  Piecing together the connectivity of each of the characters is as equally fun as it is frustrating (just when you think you have a handle on it....)  This isn't just melodrama, it's also science fiction, with the subtlest tinge of suspense and horror, and it's how these elements creep into the sprawling narrative of the small German town and the nuclear power plant that looms large over it that drive it to the next level.  I'm still not sure where Season 2 is going and I've already caught wind that Season 3 is in the works (hopefully not a year and a half break between seasons like this one though.  And hopefully Netflix can provide a much better season recap next time.

[1:26:05]

---

Season 1 of GLOW really had to contend with some form of historical approximation, of finding a place for the true story of the formation of the Gorgeous Ladies of Wrestling in the confines of a very fictionalized setting.  Season 2 found the show exploring the characters and their relationship dynamics much more, as bonds were formed.  These factors overtook the show and less time was spent on the wrestling aspect and more on the business aspects.  This 3rd season threatens to explode the entire premise as the close knit group of women are thrust into the setting of Las Vegas, where the excitement of the strip, yet the isolation of living out of a hotel starts to wear on them.

The cast is huge, and this season tries valiantly to give most of the characters some form of arc, but in a scant 10 episodes averaging a little over half an hour, it doesn't do most of the arcs full justice.  There are characters getting a brighter spotlight than before, like Ellen Wong's Jenny as she deals with the racist stereotypes and cultural appropriation around her or Kia Steven's Tamme as her back problems start to wear on her ability to perform.  As well this season contends with additions to its cast, including Geena Davis as the Vegas hotel manager where GLOW is performing and Kevin Cahoon's drag performer Bobby Barnes. It's appreciated that the show doesn't forget about it's marvelous extended cast, but at the same time, focusing on the extended cast takes away from the central stories that kicked off the show, leaving the arcs for Ruth, Debbie, Sam and Bash all feeling somewhat underserved, and even wildly disjointed.  And by the end so much has changed that one wonders what next season is even going to look like (but at the same time, at the mid-way point of this season things threaten to decimate the status quo, but they actually logically find their way right back the next episode).  The only journey that felt fully baked was Sheila's.  The moment when the ladies are at Bobby's drag show and Bobby finds Sheila "the She-Wolf" in the audience, she braces for the barrage of insults.  But a Bobby in full on drag lets her know she is seen, and understood.  It begins a beautiful mentorship and a glorious transformation. 

Overall, this season is a rare case where I'm looking at a show and thinking they needed more episodes, not less, to do the stories and characters justice.   The 6-month time jump in episode 9 really hits home as it skips over so much of the character arcs and finds some characters in surprising positions at this stage. This season could have easily ran 20 episodes.  Also, I'm very disappointed in the show for even contemplating the Ruth-Sam ship. Yuck.

[1:43:42]

---

The disaster at Chernobyl in 1986 was a big deal at the time, and remains a big deal, because radioactivity is something that spans eons not years.  We all know of the Chernobyl disaster, but what do we really know about it? The events that spawned it? The effort to minimize its damage? The sacrifices made? The conspiratorial cover-up by the Soviet government (that led not just to the event in the first place, but the trauma inflicted on so many in combating the fire and the meltdown, and the ongoing effects felt across the continent)?  Unless you've really spent time studying it, you likely don't know much.  Not that this dramatization presents unfiltered truth, but it does lift the veil on the horrors of the disaster.

And this HBO mini-series is a straight up horror show.  It uses horror movie stylizing and techniques to make the audience uneasy with every single decision every character makes in the movie.  But unlike your average zombie plague or slasher killer, there's no escaping the effects of the radiation, the silent killer at play.  Either through disinformation, ignorance, or valiant bravery, nearly every character we meet is doomed (there's a lot of "don't go in there" yelling at the screen, especially in the first episode).  Each episode unveils a new horror, from the immediate burn trauma of high radiation exposure, to the wafting irradiated smoke clouds reaching neighbouring cities and countries, to the long term effects of even minimal exposure, to the almost catastrophic effect of the meltdown which could have made most of Europe uninhabitable, to the necessity of killing and burying every animal within a wide radius of the plant, and clear cutting the forests and overturning the soil and burying both.  The efforts, expense and man-hours required to contain the disaster are astronomical, almost unfathomable.

All of this is framed by the atrocious decision making of men in positions of power trying to save face rather than do what is right, or concede that for all their power they are, in fact, powerless in the face of the events unfolding before them.  Like modern day politicians denying the monolithic disaster of climate change, these officials don't see a visible danger and thus deny its existence, placating a pliable populace through misinformation or absence of communication altogether.

 It's a real condemnation of the communist political structure which is defined by the perception of control and strength.  The real heroes were the patriots who worked diligently to evade disaster, and the scientists (most of whom are not represented in the show) who worked to uncover the truth about the events.  The politicians, not the radiation, not nuclear science, are the real monsters of the piece.

(Important follow-up from the New Yorker on what the series got right and "terribly wrong" )

[1:57:12]
---

I pretty much hate writing about anthologies - whether it's TV, movies, comics, books or even a various artists compilation/soundtrack - because it usually means having to break down each entry on its own because it's not a cohesive whole.  Sketch comedy is basically a comedy anthology, and it's a real pain to review without working through highlights and lowlights.

I Think You Should Leave with Tim Robinson takes the ex-SNL featured player and ex-Detroiters co-creator and lets him loose with his surrealist exploration of absurd situations.  So many of Robinson's sketches are about a large group of people entertaining a very absurd conversation, such as when a weinermobile crashes into a clothing shop and the guy in the hot dog suit tries desperately to deflect blame.  It's funny. It very easily couldn't be, but it is funny, based not just on the conviction Robinson's hot dog costumed character tries to redirect the inquisition but also how the other characters even entertain the doubt he's presenting.  This is one of Robinson's key formulas on this show (but not the only one).

Some sketches which could so easily be utter cringe comedy instead veer so headlong into absurdity that there's nothing cringe-inducing about them anymore.  The very first sketch of the series finds a Robinson character exiting a job interview at a coffee shop and trying to save face when he pushes the door instead of pulls, and keeps forcing the door the wrong way as if he made no mistake at all in an ill-advised attempt at saving face.

The first episode sketch, "Baby of the Year" is perhaps the show's top sketch, which is a baby beauty pageant where everyone - from the host (Detroiters co-creator Sam Richardson) to the judges to the audience - takes the competition so direly serious (people yelling "Fuck You" at the rebel baby Harley Jarvis is so stupidly hilarious, I love it).

There are a handful of absolute gems in I Think You Should Leave's 29 sketches, and, actually, no real duds.  I like the fact that Netflix lets the series live in its own time, with each episode varying between 15 and 20 minutes.  I guess I have to say I Think You Should Leave never overstays its welcome.

[unknown -- lost track of time]
 ---

Full disclosure - I wrote this over multiple sessions, did some correction work, and added some additional thoughts after the fact.  I certainly put in more than 10 minutes per review defeating the point of this whole 10-4-10 thing.