Hey, PRC gang,
Long time, no reviews.
It's not like I have a huge readership, but then, this was never really about reaching a ton of people. It was mostly just a way for me to stretch my writing muscles in a way that I found fun, on topics that I love. So you may wonder, what happened?
Well, long story short, life got in the way. I got married, got my wife moved to America, and then, shortly thereafter, noticed that my hands were hurting a lot. My wrists were stiff, and my joints throbbing. My day job entails a lot of typing. Like... A LOT. So I did some home remedies that helped ease the pain and stiffness enough for me to do my job. But everything else got put on pause -- typing essays out for fun, had to go, and horrifically, I haven't played any video games since 2017. I unpaused long enough to write my Black Panther essay early last year, and that hurt my hands quite a bit, so I put it back down.
BUT...things change. I got a promotion at work that allowed me not to have to type as much, which was cool. And I also got fed up with the current direction of film criticism. Or what passes as film criticism. I got tired of the YouTube dorks who think that nitpicking constitutes criticism. Or that hyperbolic ranting is the same thing as having a valid point.
And so I decided to try it again, albeit slower and probably not so often. Maybe focus on older stuff, so I don't feel the pressure to put out a review on a particular deadline. And definitely write shorter reviews. I don't wanna push it too hard, too fast.
So...let's do this thing.
The greatest, nerdiest website in the history of the multiverse!
Monday, May 13, 2019
Tuesday, February 20, 2018
THE WAKANDA ALLEGORY - How RYAN COOGLER and BLACK PANTHER Reframe the 2016 Election
The deepest film of the Marvel Cinematic Universe is a lot deeper than you think.
SPOILER ALERT - This article will deal with explicit plot points of the newest Marvel film, 'Black Panther' as well as my unapologetic liberal political leanings. So...you're warned.
Set in the fictional African country of Wakanda, and bringing back Chadwick Boseman's scene-stealing badass from 'Captain America: Civil War', you knew Coogler's screenplay would delve deeply into Wakandan politics. After all, T'challa is a young prince thrust into place as king after the murder of his father in the events of the previous film. And unsurprisingly, we are treated to many scenes introducing us to the rites and rituals of the Wakandan monarchy. What is a bit surprising, though, is how much the framing of T'challa's story matches, nearly beat for beat, the outcome of other, real-life political events.
Namely, the 2016 U.S. Presidential election.
To be clear, Coogler, co-writing with Joe Robert Cole, tell a riveting story in its own right. Even without real-life political parallels, 'Black Panther' is rife with thoughts and difficult questions regarding race relations, personal and national responsibility. It's as thematically rich as 'Captain America: The Winter Soldier' (frequently held up as the high-water mark for the MCU) and that's before you get into that other layer. Watching the film, I kept catching little moments where I felt like the film matched the events of the 2016 election. As the story progressed, I started to wonder if it was deliberate. And then we are treated to a scene of T'Challa speaking to the UN and proclaiming that while the wise attempt to build bridges during times of trouble, the foolish endeavor to build barriers. That did it for me. I now have no doubt at all that Coogler et al. intended for this allegory to exist.
So, here's how I see it breaking down:
T'Challa - The Democrats. Whether he explicitly represents Hillary Clinton, or rather just the democratic party coasting on the legacy of Obama, I can't say. What I can say is that both individuals were the presumptive nominee, so to speak, for the highest office in the land. In the initial coronation scene, T'Challa stands, almost complacent, waiting for the other tribes to waive their right to produce a challenger for his reign, and almost no one does. Until M'Baku makes his presence known. A tough challenge, but ultimately T'Challa wins the throne, but only briefly, until a much more brutal opponent emerges, uncovering damaging secrets, and forcing a brief exile in the wilderness. But while HRC's political career is over, T'Challa's is just beginning, having learned from his defeats and allied himself with his former rival.
M'Baku - This guy is clearly a stand-in for progressive left, as personified by Bernie Sanders. Frustrated by being ignored by the other tribes for too long, M'Baku mounts a strong challenge to T'Challa's reign and nearly defeats him. Well-meaning and with a legitimate gripe, both Sanders and M'Baku have ideas about leadership that make them outliers with passionate followers.
While that initial battle (the primaries!) between M'Baku and T'Challa is hard-fought, they're both clearly men on the same side - namely, those that would defend Wakanda and her people. And when T'Challa is overthrown, it is M'Baku who remains the lone hope for Killmonger's defeat. I see this as HRC and the dems needed the aid of Sanders and his supporters when it started to become clear that defeating Trump would not be the cakewalk it initially seemed. M'Baku needs concessions from T'Challa in the same way Clinton and Sanders had a closed-door meeting to sort out what needed to be done for Clinton to get Sanders' endorsement.
And, I mean, seriously, M'Baku is a vegetarian for god's sake.
And, I mean, seriously, M'Baku is a vegetarian for god's sake.
Killmonger - Clearly Trump. Driven by rage and personal greivances, Erik "Killmonger" Stevens believes that he is the man to lead a global revolution. Taking the throne by force, using the Wakandan traditions against those who would see the status quo remain, Killmonger is just as much of a bully as Trump, stomping over his opponents with insults and lies. Unapologetic in his disdain for the norms of Wakandan politics, he stands over a sacred garden and demands that it be burnt to ash. His authoritarian rule begins immediately with plans to overthrow oppression on a global scale, but one feels that this isn't motivated by some sense of justice, but rather hate and anger. Traditions are the first casualty of his reign.
Trump capitalized on the hate and anger of an enormous swath of the American population and rode their resentment of diversity and the political legacy of America's first black president into the White House. Blaming others for their misfortune worked well for Trump, in the same way that Killmonger exploits the Wakandan hatred of Ulysses Klaue to obtain the loyalty of W'Kabi and his faction. W'Kabi has a right to hate Klaue and to be angry at his decades of freedom, even after his murder of W'Kabi's parents. But it would seem that W'Kabi's bitterness at both T'Challa and T'Chaka are misplaced. We see Klaue escape from T'Challa, and while it's not as simple as a lack of effort, W'Kabi proclaims that T'Challa is no better than his father and simply doesn't care enough to capture him.
Certainly many of Trump's most ardent supporters feel abandoned by the American government in the wake of so many changes to the national socio-economic makeup. Jobs are outsourced, replaced by automation, or simply by those who would work for less money. Education and wealth become something that is out of reach. Anger grows. But rather than looking at the complex (yet not always inevitable) series of events that have led to their troubles, many of them just want someone to blame. And the easiest person to blame is always going to be the person in charge. This is why "Thanks, Obama" became a meme. Easier to say that than to explore the myriad reasons why a factory worker in Michigan doesn't have a job.
But while Killmonger has an actual injustice he's attempting to force into correction (black people the world over have, for centuries, struggled mightily in no small part thanks to the oppression of white people), Trump's nihilism only seeks power for power's sake. Their methods may be the same, but their motivations are vastly different. Killmonger's hate is born from pain, whereas Trump's seems born of the realization that hate and fear are easily manipulated. But neither would have succeeded without a bit of outside help, which brings us to...
Ulysses Klaue - Russia. While there are those would still argue that no collusion has been proven yet, it is almost beyond denial at this point that Russia played a part in Trump's ascension. He sows chaos and even disinformation (manipulating the crime scene to make it look more amateurish). Russian bots and trolls took advantage of American social media to sow discord and lies aimed at increasingly dislike of Clinton, thereby elevating Trump. Likewise, Klaue, an enemy of Wakanda is used by Killmonger as a method of ingratiating himself both to the Wakandan people and to W'Kabi specifically. But W'Kabi is unaware that Killmonger and Klaue were allies and that without Klaue, Killmonger would never have made it into a position to take the Wakandan throne. Additionally, like many of Trump's American political allies, Klaue is dispatched without remorse or ceremony the instant he's no longer necessary.
Ulysses Klaue - Russia. While there are those would still argue that no collusion has been proven yet, it is almost beyond denial at this point that Russia played a part in Trump's ascension. He sows chaos and even disinformation (manipulating the crime scene to make it look more amateurish). Russian bots and trolls took advantage of American social media to sow discord and lies aimed at increasingly dislike of Clinton, thereby elevating Trump. Likewise, Klaue, an enemy of Wakanda is used by Killmonger as a method of ingratiating himself both to the Wakandan people and to W'Kabi specifically. But W'Kabi is unaware that Killmonger and Klaue were allies and that without Klaue, Killmonger would never have made it into a position to take the Wakandan throne. Additionally, like many of Trump's American political allies, Klaue is dispatched without remorse or ceremony the instant he's no longer necessary.
W'Kabi - the Republican party. W'Kabi begins the film on the side of T'Challa, thought not without his gripes. His loyalty to T'Challa, and further, to Wakanda, is evidently for sale, as he nearly immediately sides with Killmonger once the wannabe dictator produces the body of Klaue. Even as Killmonger's villainous actions stack up, W'Kabi is still willing to stand by his side and fight against T'Challa. It is only his love for Okoye that stays his hand in the end. If indeed, W'Kabi is a stand-in for the GOP, it's obvious that Coogler expects and demands those Republicans in congress who aid Trump would remember that their loyalty is to their country, not to one man.
Okoye - The federal government of United States. Okoye is, above all else, loyal to Wakanda. Angered though she may be at the rise of Killmonger, she is loyal to the throne and the traditions of Wakanda. She is clearly sympathetic to T'Challa, considers him a friend, but recognizes both Killmonger's right to challenge, and his apparent defeat of T'Challa that elevates him to the throne. She will not betray her oath, no matter how she feels in her heart. But when (and, brother, I mean the millisecond) Killmonger violates the laws of Wakanda, she and her guard turn on him and fight like hell to take him down.
Certainly seems to run parallel to the institutions in place in the US. The laws are what led Trump to victory in spite of his popular vote loss. And those same laws are keeping his powers in check, and aiming to discover the truth of what went down (if anything) between his campaign and the Russian government. But sometimes those same institutions that are meant to protect us do make mistakes.
Costly mistakes.
Certainly seems to run parallel to the institutions in place in the US. The laws are what led Trump to victory in spite of his popular vote loss. And those same laws are keeping his powers in check, and aiming to discover the truth of what went down (if anything) between his campaign and the Russian government. But sometimes those same institutions that are meant to protect us do make mistakes.
Costly mistakes.
T'Chaka - James Comey and the FBI. Killed during 'Civil War', T'Chaka seemed like a perfect father. Wise, loving, patient and kind, it is easy to understand T'Challa's heartbreak and his quest for vengeance during that film. 'Black Panther' opens with the memory of T'Chaka still strong and untainted, but as the film progresses, the former king's secrets come to light and his sins of omission bear catastrophic fruit.
Knowing all that we know now, in February 2018, it's no longer debatable whether or not Russia interfered with our presidential election, or that they preferred one candidate over the other. But what we also know is that the FBI was aware of Russia's attempt to breach American democracy. We know the investigation into the Trump campaign's involvement with Russian players was well underway long before the FBI decided it was a good idea to make public comments about the investigation into Hillary Clinton's email "scandal".
Their investigation into the emails yielded nothing, but was a PR disaster for Clinton's campaign. And while that was going on, the FBI remained silent about their investigation into the Trump campaign. Why they chose to comment on one and not the other is unknown. Comey made a mistake that apparently nauseates him now, when he considers whether or not his decision could have affected the outcome of the election.
Yes, James...decisions have consequence. Secrets have cost.
Shuri, Nakia, Ramonda - The Resistance. Shocked and stunned and in denial over the rise of Killmonger, their first instinct is to immediately stage a coup. Their second is to steal a heart-shaped-herb and present it to M'Baku that he might defeat Killmonger. In the end, they find T'Challa alive, feed the herb to him, make peace with M'Baku and defeat Killmonger in ritually recognized combat (T'Challa having never yielded, and not been killed, the challenge that let Killmonger take the throne was not officially over)
How many posts did we see in the aftermath of Trump's electoral college victory - "How Bernie Sanders can still become President"? Pinning hopes to the recounts launched by the Stein campaign. Hoping against hope for rogue electors to save us from this megalomaniac. None of them came to fruition, and in the end we've had to rely on the same tools we have always had: activism, voter registration, community outreach. The ACLU and the federal court system have held some of Trump's baser instincts in check while Robert Mueller works methodically to uncover the full extent of the Russian interference.
In the end, despite the panic and desperate ideas, Wakanda survives. T'Challa is restored as king and the nation learns something about itself and its duty to the world. Hopefully, American can reach a similar resolution.
And speaking of Americans, let's wrap this up with Everett Ross. Who does he represent?
Us. America. The people who need to open our eyes and our hearts to the way the world is changing. We cannot hope to succeed if we keep going through life hanging on to our old ideas of "the way things are". Ross begins the movie as a tool for the CIA, going about his business as usual, unaware of the danger Klaue represents and unwilling to accept the idea that he's woefully underprepared for his mission. But by the end of the film, he's risking his life to protect not just Wakanda, but citizens the world over. And he sits in the UN gallery with a knowing smile as King T'Challa unveils his plan to share Wakanda's resources with the rest of the world. Ross understands that together is the only way forward. It's time the rest of us understood that as well.
After all, the wise build bridges...and the foolish build barriers.
Knowing all that we know now, in February 2018, it's no longer debatable whether or not Russia interfered with our presidential election, or that they preferred one candidate over the other. But what we also know is that the FBI was aware of Russia's attempt to breach American democracy. We know the investigation into the Trump campaign's involvement with Russian players was well underway long before the FBI decided it was a good idea to make public comments about the investigation into Hillary Clinton's email "scandal".
Their investigation into the emails yielded nothing, but was a PR disaster for Clinton's campaign. And while that was going on, the FBI remained silent about their investigation into the Trump campaign. Why they chose to comment on one and not the other is unknown. Comey made a mistake that apparently nauseates him now, when he considers whether or not his decision could have affected the outcome of the election.
Yes, James...decisions have consequence. Secrets have cost.
Shuri, Nakia, Ramonda - The Resistance. Shocked and stunned and in denial over the rise of Killmonger, their first instinct is to immediately stage a coup. Their second is to steal a heart-shaped-herb and present it to M'Baku that he might defeat Killmonger. In the end, they find T'Challa alive, feed the herb to him, make peace with M'Baku and defeat Killmonger in ritually recognized combat (T'Challa having never yielded, and not been killed, the challenge that let Killmonger take the throne was not officially over)
How many posts did we see in the aftermath of Trump's electoral college victory - "How Bernie Sanders can still become President"? Pinning hopes to the recounts launched by the Stein campaign. Hoping against hope for rogue electors to save us from this megalomaniac. None of them came to fruition, and in the end we've had to rely on the same tools we have always had: activism, voter registration, community outreach. The ACLU and the federal court system have held some of Trump's baser instincts in check while Robert Mueller works methodically to uncover the full extent of the Russian interference.
In the end, despite the panic and desperate ideas, Wakanda survives. T'Challa is restored as king and the nation learns something about itself and its duty to the world. Hopefully, American can reach a similar resolution.
And speaking of Americans, let's wrap this up with Everett Ross. Who does he represent?
Us. America. The people who need to open our eyes and our hearts to the way the world is changing. We cannot hope to succeed if we keep going through life hanging on to our old ideas of "the way things are". Ross begins the movie as a tool for the CIA, going about his business as usual, unaware of the danger Klaue represents and unwilling to accept the idea that he's woefully underprepared for his mission. But by the end of the film, he's risking his life to protect not just Wakanda, but citizens the world over. And he sits in the UN gallery with a knowing smile as King T'Challa unveils his plan to share Wakanda's resources with the rest of the world. Ross understands that together is the only way forward. It's time the rest of us understood that as well.
After all, the wise build bridges...and the foolish build barriers.
Monday, March 20, 2017
X-MEN - A Retro Review
The success of 'Logan' has made me want to go back and check out some of the older X-films to see how well they hold up. So let's dive right in to their cinematic introduction, shall we?
Spoiler Warning - Dudes, this movie is seventeen years old. If you haven't seen it yet, that's your own damn fault, so don't come at me with your accusations about spoiling the movie!
Watching 'X-Men' recently, I was struck by the sort of feeling one gets after re-watching the pilot episode of a beloved TV series. It mostly holds up, but you can't help but be struck by the shakiness of the whole thing when compared to the confidence exhibited by later seasons - or in this case, films. 'X2', 'Days of Future Past' and 'Logan' are all really great films that wouldn't have been possible without 'X-Men' to lay the groundwork, but it's still a bit rough around the edges.
Director Bryan Singer, for the most part, does a pretty good job introducing Marvel's mutants to the big screen. The story, basic though it is, holds up relatively well. But there are some pretty noticeable flaws in the execution, too. Some of the dialogue is pretty bad - especially Xavier's introduction of the team; it's awkward and sounds...stupid. Logan is right to make fun of it, but calling attention to it to poke fun doesn't make it any less silly. Some of the character designs, costumes and special effects haven't aged very well. But the backbone of the movie is strong, and it's elevated by several really good scenes and solid performances.
All the supporting characters do a solid enough job (except Halle Berry who was just kinda...there) but really, the movie hinges on the performances of Patrick Stewart, Hugh Jackman, Anna Paquin and Ian McKellan. No superhero movie is going to be all that great without a good villain and McKellan's performance as Magneto is top notch. The opening of the film still ranks as one of the best sequences in all of the X-Films and the utter anguish of that scene permeates McKellan's whole performance. He's as sympathetic as a genocidal lunatic can be, and the fact that it's possible for the viewer to relate to his fear and anger and the unspoken motto of "never again" makes it a little too easy for us to see where he's coming from, even if his destination is terrifying.
After 'The Usual Suspects' (awesome) and 'Apt Pupil (sucked) I was cautiously optimistic about the job Singer would do in making a live-action X-Men. So when I finally saw it, I was mostly just relieved that it wasn't bad. And that's still kinda how I feel now. It's good - not nearly as good as X2 or DOFP - but it's a pretty solid jumping off point, and it has lead to a franchise that has had more highs than lows, and with 'Logan', one of the coolest movie superheroes ever.
FINAL SCORE - 7/10
'X-Men' has been available on DVD for about 22 years. So if you don't have it, just buy the blu-ray. I'm sure it's only like eight bucks.
Spoiler Warning - Dudes, this movie is seventeen years old. If you haven't seen it yet, that's your own damn fault, so don't come at me with your accusations about spoiling the movie!
Watching 'X-Men' recently, I was struck by the sort of feeling one gets after re-watching the pilot episode of a beloved TV series. It mostly holds up, but you can't help but be struck by the shakiness of the whole thing when compared to the confidence exhibited by later seasons - or in this case, films. 'X2', 'Days of Future Past' and 'Logan' are all really great films that wouldn't have been possible without 'X-Men' to lay the groundwork, but it's still a bit rough around the edges.
Director Bryan Singer, for the most part, does a pretty good job introducing Marvel's mutants to the big screen. The story, basic though it is, holds up relatively well. But there are some pretty noticeable flaws in the execution, too. Some of the dialogue is pretty bad - especially Xavier's introduction of the team; it's awkward and sounds...stupid. Logan is right to make fun of it, but calling attention to it to poke fun doesn't make it any less silly. Some of the character designs, costumes and special effects haven't aged very well. But the backbone of the movie is strong, and it's elevated by several really good scenes and solid performances.
All the supporting characters do a solid enough job (except Halle Berry who was just kinda...there) but really, the movie hinges on the performances of Patrick Stewart, Hugh Jackman, Anna Paquin and Ian McKellan. No superhero movie is going to be all that great without a good villain and McKellan's performance as Magneto is top notch. The opening of the film still ranks as one of the best sequences in all of the X-Films and the utter anguish of that scene permeates McKellan's whole performance. He's as sympathetic as a genocidal lunatic can be, and the fact that it's possible for the viewer to relate to his fear and anger and the unspoken motto of "never again" makes it a little too easy for us to see where he's coming from, even if his destination is terrifying.
After 'The Usual Suspects' (awesome) and 'Apt Pupil (sucked) I was cautiously optimistic about the job Singer would do in making a live-action X-Men. So when I finally saw it, I was mostly just relieved that it wasn't bad. And that's still kinda how I feel now. It's good - not nearly as good as X2 or DOFP - but it's a pretty solid jumping off point, and it has lead to a franchise that has had more highs than lows, and with 'Logan', one of the coolest movie superheroes ever.
FINAL SCORE - 7/10
'X-Men' has been available on DVD for about 22 years. So if you don't have it, just buy the blu-ray. I'm sure it's only like eight bucks.
Wednesday, March 15, 2017
LOGAN - A Movie Review
It's been a while since I've written, mostly due to an increasingly busy schedule, but also due to there not being many movies that have blown my skirt up of late. 'Logan' has ended this drought.
Spoiler Warning - be advised that I won't be skirting around any explicit plot points here.
Simply put, 'Logan' is the best film to come from the superhero genre since 'The Dark Knight'. Director James Mangold has crafted a perfect swan song for the role Hugh Jackman has held for almost 17 years. The film is expertly crafted, wonderfully acted, powerful and thought-provoking. If Chris Nolan gave us a morality tale posing as a superhero movie by way of a crime drama, Mangold has given us poignant rumination on death, legacy, and heroism posing as a road trip.
Anchored by a career performance from Jackman, 'Logan' very much feels like the culmination of everything the various writers and directors have done with the Wolverine over the years. Thematically, if there's one thread that has been woven throughout Hugh Jackman's entire time as Logan, it's the question of identity. Bryan Singer first brought Wolverine to the big-screen asking literally "who is this man? where did he come from?" And while we tend to gloss over the failure of his first solo outing, the second, also directed by Mangold, gave us a Logan who knew exactly who he was, and was determined to change. While 'The Wolverine' gave us our first look at a depressed and reclusive hero struggling to emerge from a self-imposed exile, 'Logan' takes the character's depression to a much more consuming and damaged depth.
Dipping back into the fertile ground of a weakened Wolverine, Mangold shows us a Logan whose healing factor is failing, his bones are creaking and poisoning him, and his claws are barely functional. With pus leaking from his knuckles, they're almost more pain than they're worth. In addition to his physical weaknesses, Logan is a full blown alcoholic now, and carries with him an adamantium bullet, just in case he ever works up the nerve to blow his own head off. Through his interactions with Laura, we know he's deeply ashamed of the deaths he's caused. But less obvious is the survivor's guilt he is clearly feeling in the wake of the death of the X-Men.
We've had other superhero films deal with the themes of death and loss before, but never like this. No superhero has ever had to worry about simply dying of old age. For a genre that often struggles to be relatable to us mere mortals, 'Logan' is almost painfully too relatable. Not only is Logan himself falling apart, but he is also saddled with taking care of an ailing Charles Xavier. Crippled by dementia, Xavier's brain is more dangerous than ever simply because he can no longer control it. For someone who has had to care for an elder family member, it may hit too close to home. The heartbreak of his senility is only made worse by his moments of lucidity. That is a testament to Patrick Stewart's performance, and if there's some justice in the world, he'll at least be in the conversation for an oscar nomination.
And yet, thrust into this story of death and decay is a tiny little girl who sports adamantium claws of her own and a familiar tendency to whip them out at the slightest provocation. Dafne Keen does a wonderful job as Laura Kinney, aka X-23, the young clone of Wolverine. Silent for two-thirds of the film (except for some intimidating growls and, for want of a better term, roars) Keen does a great job conveying wonder, confusion, anger, rage, love and pain just with her very expressive face. By the time she actually does speak, you're almost surprised she can find even more depths to plum.
While Laura's arrival into Logan and Xavier's world sets the plot in motion, it also provides a relevant tale about the interaction of age and youth, the future with the past, and leaving behind more than just a legacy of regret. For much of the film, Logan is a reluctant participant, only popping his claws to protect Charles or his limo. Even the arrival of The Reavers, a group of cybernetically enhanced mercenaries, and a full-blown clone of himself, dubbed X-24, aren't enough to fully snap Logan out of his funk. Oh sure, he fights and he fights hard against them. But when the fights are over, he's more than happy to slink away again and crawl back into a bottle. It's not until he realizes that he can save Laura from going down the same path of violence and rage that he took, that Logan wakes up his real desire to fight again.
"Don't be what they made you" Logan tells her. While his own clone is completely devoid of any sort of rational capabilities, Logan recognizes that Laura has the potential to be good, and to find the sort of peaceful* life Logan himself was unable to find. That he is willing to die just for that potential shows that he is indeed what he insisted he never was: a hero.
*the mirrored scenes of Charles being buried near water, and then Logan's final resting place echo that elusive desire for peace. Logan barely being able to say anything at Xavier's graveside illustrates how important it was for him to find some sort of beauty for Charles to be near for eternity.
Thematically, 'Logan' is obviously a very rich film. But technically, it's very much unlike any other comic book film I can think of, save maybe Dredd. The opening few minutes feel very much like an indie movie eschewing the need for some massive action set-piece in favor of sparse titles and Logan beating up some car thieves. It's a pretty far cry from the Nightcrawler sequence that opened 'X2' or the powerful Nagasaki scene that opened 'The Wolverine'. Mangold has moved almost completely away from the feeling of the last Wolverine movie and has created something that looks more like the westerns that were clearly an influence. Even scenes that play on a midwest farm and North Dakota still have that arid, hot, lifeless feeling of the western desert. The vastly different look of 'The Wolverine' and 'Logan' almost make it hard to believe it's the same film crew behind both movies.
As a director, Mangold is fully confident in nearly every single scene. Everything services the mostly original story, written by Mangold, Scott Frank and Michael Green, and while it obviously takes a few cues from Old Man Logan (especially with regards to the fate of the X-Men) it never feels like an adaptation. It unfolds in a way that somehow feels both surprising and inevitable - much like death itself. The action pieces are some of the best in recent memory, getting away from the wanton destruction of CGI monsters and focusing on the fragility of the human body when it comes face to face with adamantium claws. Swearing and violence aside, this movie simply had to be rated R. It would and could not be the same film if made within the confines of something meant for younger, more sensitive audiences.
I've failed to mention several things in this review that ought to be mentioned; Stephen Merchant, Boyd Holbrook, and Eriq LaSalle all bring their A-game to the movie. Composer Marco Beltrami eschews the typical loud superhero themes for mostly sedate melodies that amplify the drama. The few times that the score does move toward something more rousing, it does so in a way that ratchets up the tension to almost unbearable levels (the casino scene, especially). Basically, everyone who worked on this movie did a fucking amazing job.
I haven't walked out of a movie this emotionally drained in a long time. That is saying something. Mangold and Jackman have done something wondrous and rare. 'Logan' is a perfect film. Not a perfect comic book, or superhero film. There are no qualifiers here. It's simply perfect from beginning to end.
FINAL SCORE - 10/10
Spoiler Warning - be advised that I won't be skirting around any explicit plot points here.
Simply put, 'Logan' is the best film to come from the superhero genre since 'The Dark Knight'. Director James Mangold has crafted a perfect swan song for the role Hugh Jackman has held for almost 17 years. The film is expertly crafted, wonderfully acted, powerful and thought-provoking. If Chris Nolan gave us a morality tale posing as a superhero movie by way of a crime drama, Mangold has given us poignant rumination on death, legacy, and heroism posing as a road trip.
Anchored by a career performance from Jackman, 'Logan' very much feels like the culmination of everything the various writers and directors have done with the Wolverine over the years. Thematically, if there's one thread that has been woven throughout Hugh Jackman's entire time as Logan, it's the question of identity. Bryan Singer first brought Wolverine to the big-screen asking literally "who is this man? where did he come from?" And while we tend to gloss over the failure of his first solo outing, the second, also directed by Mangold, gave us a Logan who knew exactly who he was, and was determined to change. While 'The Wolverine' gave us our first look at a depressed and reclusive hero struggling to emerge from a self-imposed exile, 'Logan' takes the character's depression to a much more consuming and damaged depth.
Dipping back into the fertile ground of a weakened Wolverine, Mangold shows us a Logan whose healing factor is failing, his bones are creaking and poisoning him, and his claws are barely functional. With pus leaking from his knuckles, they're almost more pain than they're worth. In addition to his physical weaknesses, Logan is a full blown alcoholic now, and carries with him an adamantium bullet, just in case he ever works up the nerve to blow his own head off. Through his interactions with Laura, we know he's deeply ashamed of the deaths he's caused. But less obvious is the survivor's guilt he is clearly feeling in the wake of the death of the X-Men.
And yet, thrust into this story of death and decay is a tiny little girl who sports adamantium claws of her own and a familiar tendency to whip them out at the slightest provocation. Dafne Keen does a wonderful job as Laura Kinney, aka X-23, the young clone of Wolverine. Silent for two-thirds of the film (except for some intimidating growls and, for want of a better term, roars) Keen does a great job conveying wonder, confusion, anger, rage, love and pain just with her very expressive face. By the time she actually does speak, you're almost surprised she can find even more depths to plum.
While Laura's arrival into Logan and Xavier's world sets the plot in motion, it also provides a relevant tale about the interaction of age and youth, the future with the past, and leaving behind more than just a legacy of regret. For much of the film, Logan is a reluctant participant, only popping his claws to protect Charles or his limo. Even the arrival of The Reavers, a group of cybernetically enhanced mercenaries, and a full-blown clone of himself, dubbed X-24, aren't enough to fully snap Logan out of his funk. Oh sure, he fights and he fights hard against them. But when the fights are over, he's more than happy to slink away again and crawl back into a bottle. It's not until he realizes that he can save Laura from going down the same path of violence and rage that he took, that Logan wakes up his real desire to fight again.
*the mirrored scenes of Charles being buried near water, and then Logan's final resting place echo that elusive desire for peace. Logan barely being able to say anything at Xavier's graveside illustrates how important it was for him to find some sort of beauty for Charles to be near for eternity.
Thematically, 'Logan' is obviously a very rich film. But technically, it's very much unlike any other comic book film I can think of, save maybe Dredd. The opening few minutes feel very much like an indie movie eschewing the need for some massive action set-piece in favor of sparse titles and Logan beating up some car thieves. It's a pretty far cry from the Nightcrawler sequence that opened 'X2' or the powerful Nagasaki scene that opened 'The Wolverine'. Mangold has moved almost completely away from the feeling of the last Wolverine movie and has created something that looks more like the westerns that were clearly an influence. Even scenes that play on a midwest farm and North Dakota still have that arid, hot, lifeless feeling of the western desert. The vastly different look of 'The Wolverine' and 'Logan' almost make it hard to believe it's the same film crew behind both movies.
As a director, Mangold is fully confident in nearly every single scene. Everything services the mostly original story, written by Mangold, Scott Frank and Michael Green, and while it obviously takes a few cues from Old Man Logan (especially with regards to the fate of the X-Men) it never feels like an adaptation. It unfolds in a way that somehow feels both surprising and inevitable - much like death itself. The action pieces are some of the best in recent memory, getting away from the wanton destruction of CGI monsters and focusing on the fragility of the human body when it comes face to face with adamantium claws. Swearing and violence aside, this movie simply had to be rated R. It would and could not be the same film if made within the confines of something meant for younger, more sensitive audiences.
I've failed to mention several things in this review that ought to be mentioned; Stephen Merchant, Boyd Holbrook, and Eriq LaSalle all bring their A-game to the movie. Composer Marco Beltrami eschews the typical loud superhero themes for mostly sedate melodies that amplify the drama. The few times that the score does move toward something more rousing, it does so in a way that ratchets up the tension to almost unbearable levels (the casino scene, especially). Basically, everyone who worked on this movie did a fucking amazing job.I haven't walked out of a movie this emotionally drained in a long time. That is saying something. Mangold and Jackman have done something wondrous and rare. 'Logan' is a perfect film. Not a perfect comic book, or superhero film. There are no qualifiers here. It's simply perfect from beginning to end.
FINAL SCORE - 10/10
Monday, October 17, 2016
GHOSTBUSTERS (2016) - A Quickie Review
I never got around to seeing it in theaters, but now you can rent it, and so I did. So what's the verdict? Criminally underrated? Is my childhood still intact? Does having four women ruin EVERYTHING??
Well, let's cross the streams and dig in.
Spoiler Warning - self explanatory warning, I think.
Let's cast aside, for a moment, the idiotic rants and outrage over casting this movie with women. Let's disregard the rampant disgusting behavior, misogyny and racism that cast a pall over this movie. Let's forget that remaking beloved classics is a tricky business, and just try to examine this movie as objectively as possible, and ask the question: Is it a good movie?
No. No, it's not.
That statement has nothing to do with the female cast - (I'm a big fan of three of the four women, but I've never really been into Melissa McCarthy - her comic sensibilities just don't do anything for me) - and everything to do with the movie they're in. It's lazy, sloppily written, tonally all over the place, poorly directed and exhibits many of the negative aspects that cause people to stereotypically bash remakes and sequels. Paul Feig's 'Ghostbusters' follows a lot of the same plot beats as the 1984 original, but "upgrades" the special effects. But new SFX is not enough of a reason to remake a movie, so I'm left wondering...why?
Aside from being sort of pointless, it also commits THE cardinal sin of movies...it's boring. At one point, I happened to notice that I was 42 minutes in before I laughed out loud (it was at Leslie Jones' Queens crack - and for someone who didn't like the movie, Leslie Jones was easily my favorite part, so all the repugnant hate that's been thrown her way is fucking ridiculous). A third of the movie passed me by without causing any sort of emotional reaction. That's not good. Part of it is that the story itself just didn't pull me in, but another, larger reason is that the jokes are just aren't funny. They're broad, silly, predictable, and kind of all over the place. Kate McKinnon is a hilarious woman, yet her performance seems like she just kept getting notes to "do it goofier!" Wiig has the capacity to be completely insane, but for the most part, she plays her character completely straight. In fact, she and McCarthy's characters are almost interchangeable.
The bottom line is they simply weren't given enough to do, and it often felt as though the story was relying on the viewers liking the actors instead of the characters. The script even manages to make Chris Hemsworth - a guy I think has real comic talent - kind of unlikeable. I get what they were trying to do - turn the pretty-but-dumb secretary trope on its head AND mix in a little of the Dana/love-interest-turned-villain, too, but it just doesn't work. Hemsworth doesn't play ditzy so much as he plays unbelievably stupid to the point of being annoying. And while turning him into a villain-via-possession is an interesting idea, any sense of danger he'd ostensibly give off is pretty well undermined by his dance number (yes, there's a dance number), and the villain's desire to create kooky looking ghosts rather than create any actual danger.
Things happen for little or no reason, as opposed to being driven by the plot. Sure, seeing Times Square reverted back to it's 70's incarnation seems cool, but what purpose does it serve? I mean, the main bad guy (because the movie has to have a human villain - for now, anyways, as the post-credits stinger references Zuul for a never-gonna-happen sequel) is hardly developed at all, and in the end, when he assumes a massive form, the stand-in for the Stay-Puft Marshmallow man, he is felled by, wait for it...a shot to the balls. High comedy, indeed.
And though Paul Feig, the director, isn't the one who is actually doing all the SFX/CGI rendering, it's his approval that these things need, and I can't imagine why he said "yes...this ultra-bright neon look is exactly what we want." In a way, it reminded me of George Lucas, and the Jabba the Hutt scenes added into the original Star Wars - CGI that is so obviously CGI that it takes me out of the movie-watching experience and makes me wonder...why?
The answer IS Paul Feig. It's Feig who partnered with Katie Dippold to write this script, Feig who approved the finished product, who shot the film, edited it and finally wrapped it up and said "this is done". The failure of this film isn't in the casting of women, or in the idea itself, it's in the half-assed execution of it. The failure is on Paul Feig, who mistook his idea for a Ghostbusters reboot for a good idea.
FINAL SCORE - 4/10
Well, let's cross the streams and dig in.
Spoiler Warning - self explanatory warning, I think.
Let's cast aside, for a moment, the idiotic rants and outrage over casting this movie with women. Let's disregard the rampant disgusting behavior, misogyny and racism that cast a pall over this movie. Let's forget that remaking beloved classics is a tricky business, and just try to examine this movie as objectively as possible, and ask the question: Is it a good movie?
No. No, it's not.
That statement has nothing to do with the female cast - (I'm a big fan of three of the four women, but I've never really been into Melissa McCarthy - her comic sensibilities just don't do anything for me) - and everything to do with the movie they're in. It's lazy, sloppily written, tonally all over the place, poorly directed and exhibits many of the negative aspects that cause people to stereotypically bash remakes and sequels. Paul Feig's 'Ghostbusters' follows a lot of the same plot beats as the 1984 original, but "upgrades" the special effects. But new SFX is not enough of a reason to remake a movie, so I'm left wondering...why?Aside from being sort of pointless, it also commits THE cardinal sin of movies...it's boring. At one point, I happened to notice that I was 42 minutes in before I laughed out loud (it was at Leslie Jones' Queens crack - and for someone who didn't like the movie, Leslie Jones was easily my favorite part, so all the repugnant hate that's been thrown her way is fucking ridiculous). A third of the movie passed me by without causing any sort of emotional reaction. That's not good. Part of it is that the story itself just didn't pull me in, but another, larger reason is that the jokes are just aren't funny. They're broad, silly, predictable, and kind of all over the place. Kate McKinnon is a hilarious woman, yet her performance seems like she just kept getting notes to "do it goofier!" Wiig has the capacity to be completely insane, but for the most part, she plays her character completely straight. In fact, she and McCarthy's characters are almost interchangeable.
The bottom line is they simply weren't given enough to do, and it often felt as though the story was relying on the viewers liking the actors instead of the characters. The script even manages to make Chris Hemsworth - a guy I think has real comic talent - kind of unlikeable. I get what they were trying to do - turn the pretty-but-dumb secretary trope on its head AND mix in a little of the Dana/love-interest-turned-villain, too, but it just doesn't work. Hemsworth doesn't play ditzy so much as he plays unbelievably stupid to the point of being annoying. And while turning him into a villain-via-possession is an interesting idea, any sense of danger he'd ostensibly give off is pretty well undermined by his dance number (yes, there's a dance number), and the villain's desire to create kooky looking ghosts rather than create any actual danger.
Things happen for little or no reason, as opposed to being driven by the plot. Sure, seeing Times Square reverted back to it's 70's incarnation seems cool, but what purpose does it serve? I mean, the main bad guy (because the movie has to have a human villain - for now, anyways, as the post-credits stinger references Zuul for a never-gonna-happen sequel) is hardly developed at all, and in the end, when he assumes a massive form, the stand-in for the Stay-Puft Marshmallow man, he is felled by, wait for it...a shot to the balls. High comedy, indeed.
And though Paul Feig, the director, isn't the one who is actually doing all the SFX/CGI rendering, it's his approval that these things need, and I can't imagine why he said "yes...this ultra-bright neon look is exactly what we want." In a way, it reminded me of George Lucas, and the Jabba the Hutt scenes added into the original Star Wars - CGI that is so obviously CGI that it takes me out of the movie-watching experience and makes me wonder...why?
The answer IS Paul Feig. It's Feig who partnered with Katie Dippold to write this script, Feig who approved the finished product, who shot the film, edited it and finally wrapped it up and said "this is done". The failure of this film isn't in the casting of women, or in the idea itself, it's in the half-assed execution of it. The failure is on Paul Feig, who mistook his idea for a Ghostbusters reboot for a good idea.
FINAL SCORE - 4/10
Wednesday, October 12, 2016
SUPERGIRL, SEASON ONE - A Quickie Review
It took time and effort and a network change and a promise to integrate it more into the Arrowverse, but I finally gave the first season of 'Supergirl' a chance. And I'm actually quite glad I did. Let's go to the only bar/coffee shop/restaurant in town and discuss it!
SPOILER WARNING - We're breaking down the major plot points and characters of the entire season, so...duh. There gon' be spoilers.
Sometime last summer, I caught a bootleg of the pilot of 'Supergirl' and it was not impressive. Mostly, what it reminded of me of was that SNL sketch where Scarlett Johansson plays her Black Widow character but in a rom-com version of a superhero movie. How, oh how, does the strongest woman on earth manage her career as a lowly, underappreciated, abused assistant AND her crush on the new boy at work AND her obliviousness to the other guy at work who is obviously in love with her? It...was...rough. It felt at times like Ally McBeal, if she'd been from Krypton (and having Calista Flockhart play the bossy boss, Cat Grant, didn't help matters) I watched a couple of the first episodes when they aired on CBS, but didn't watch another until Grant Gustin crossed over in episode 18.
But when word came down that the show would be moving to the CW this fall, that Supergirl herself would be part of the now-annual crossover episodes, and that the series would aim to be more integrated into the Arrowverse as a whole, I felt compelled to give it a second shot. It was available on Netflix, so I started over again.
I am very glad I did.
Oh, there are some problems, to be sure. Some of the vibe from the weak pilot lingered for too long, the show occasionally looked cheap (while the Red Tornado episode is fantastic, the android itself looks pretty half-assed) and any time they relie on romantic entanglements to drive the plot, the show's momentum ground to a halt. But the show eventually found it's footing, and developed the characters in a way that made them enjoyable to watch, even when the week's major plot didn't feel so strong.
Let me start out by saying that Melissa Benoist is a wonderful Supergirl. She's plucky, sweet, and has the sort of "aw, shucks" face that makes you both like her and believe that she's putting on a distracting act in the same way Clark Kent does every day. Though the season starts out with her somewhat boring struggle to control her powers and her love life, her character evolves in a much more compelling way as the show goes on. One of the strongest episodes (the Red Tornado one) finds Kara having a difficult time dealing with her anger. The episode focuses on that anger so closely that when it's revealed that she's actually struggling with overwhelming grief, it is somehow a combination of surprising, obvious, and heartbreaking. Of course, she'd still be dealing with the loss of her parents, her culture and her world. She isn't Superman - she remembers Krypton, and she feels its absence much moreso than Clark. It's a fascinating concept for the show to explore, and provided a much needed boost of realism and pathos.
Other characters are fleshed out pretty successfully, too. Calista Flockhart's Cat Grant goes from one-dimensional bitch/boss to compelling and sympathetic mother figure to both Kara and Supergirl. One episode finds her believing that Kara IS Supergirl and as a viewer, I almost felt like, "well, maybe she should just tell Cat the truth." Chyler Leigh plays Kara's adoptive sister Alex. She doesn't get as much to do besides escort Kara into the world of the D.E.O. (more on that later) but she gives Kara someone to talk to, and narratively, that helps in the same way it helped for Batman to have a Robin. Heroes don't often just talk to themselves, so when they have another character whom they implicitly trust, they will let you know what's on their mind. Alex is a way into Kara's psyche.
Then there are the two guys, Winn (short for Winslow Schott, Jr, aka Toyman's son, which comes out in a particularly strong episode) who is in love with Kara, and Jimmy, er...James Olsen, fresh outta Metropolis, trying to make a name for himself out from under Superman's shadow, and with whom Kara enjoys a strong flirtation. Neither one of those plot lines is particularly compelling, but while Winn eventually makes himself useful by being the resident IT genius (think Cisco/Felicity) James doesn't really go anywhere as a character, and exists solely as someone for Kara to pine after. And that falls flat. I'm not sure if that's on the actor, Mehcad Brooks, or the writing, but either way, his character just doesn't work*. Elsewhere, Peter Facinelli brings his natural sleaziness to the recurring villain of Maxwell Lord. A stand-in of sorts for Lex Luthor, Lord hates Supergirl simply because she's alien and he don't trust her. That's. About. It. But he gets the job done, so I can't knock him too hard.
*Supergirl's second season premiere was this week, and it feels like the writers were just like "fuck it, it ain't working" because Kara basically dumps James with a "yeah, just not vibing you anymore. Sorry. #Friendzone" I don't have ill will for Mehcad Brooks, but if he leaves the show, I'm fine with it.
But I'm saving the best of the supporting characters for last. And that is David Harewood who plays D.E.O. chief Hank Henshaw, aka J'onn J'onzz aka MARTIAN FREAKIN' MANHUNTER! And boy, he does a wonderful job. His character evolves a great deal during the season, from no-nonsense boss, to mysterious boss, to secretive boss, to accomplice boss, to captive, fugitive, ally and back to boss. Harewood has a couple of really strong episodes, in the flashbacks focusing on the near-extinction of his race, and his first meeting with Kara and Alex's father (Lois and Clark's Superman, Dean Cain!). His stoic face and baritone voice gives those episodes a real pathos, and easily make him my second favorite character on the show. I don't think it was common knowledge that J'onn was going to be part of this show, but the slow reveal that he's a major character was done well, and goes a long way to making 'Supergirl' feel like a DC Universe show instead of just a one-hero world.
I haven't mentioned the season's primary villains yet; the kryptonian's Astra and Non - Kara's maternal aunt and her husband; and the coluan (Brainiac's race!) Indigo. While Astra's conflicted emotions about warring with her niece make her interactions with Kara somewhat interesting, Non and Indigo are pretty much lame. And Laura Vandervoort's blue make-up looks both cheap and like some terrible, unlicensed Brainiac knock-off. The plot of the season's big bads' is pretty weak, but thankfully, there's so much more happening on a weekly basis that their lightweight-ness doesn't hurt the series too bad.
Bottom line, this show got off to a promising start, but still has room to grow. And I think changing over to the CW might give it the boost it needs to put it on par with 'Arrow' and 'Flash'. They've already got strong and likeable characters, they just need to give them more to do. I feel being out of the overtly family-friendly confines of CBS is just the ticket. So I'm glad I was wrong when I dismissed it in the beginning, and I'll be tuning in from now on.
FINAL SCORE - 7/10
'Supergirl' now airs on The CW, Monday evenings at 8/7c
SPOILER WARNING - We're breaking down the major plot points and characters of the entire season, so...duh. There gon' be spoilers.
Sometime last summer, I caught a bootleg of the pilot of 'Supergirl' and it was not impressive. Mostly, what it reminded of me of was that SNL sketch where Scarlett Johansson plays her Black Widow character but in a rom-com version of a superhero movie. How, oh how, does the strongest woman on earth manage her career as a lowly, underappreciated, abused assistant AND her crush on the new boy at work AND her obliviousness to the other guy at work who is obviously in love with her? It...was...rough. It felt at times like Ally McBeal, if she'd been from Krypton (and having Calista Flockhart play the bossy boss, Cat Grant, didn't help matters) I watched a couple of the first episodes when they aired on CBS, but didn't watch another until Grant Gustin crossed over in episode 18.
But when word came down that the show would be moving to the CW this fall, that Supergirl herself would be part of the now-annual crossover episodes, and that the series would aim to be more integrated into the Arrowverse as a whole, I felt compelled to give it a second shot. It was available on Netflix, so I started over again.
I am very glad I did.
Oh, there are some problems, to be sure. Some of the vibe from the weak pilot lingered for too long, the show occasionally looked cheap (while the Red Tornado episode is fantastic, the android itself looks pretty half-assed) and any time they relie on romantic entanglements to drive the plot, the show's momentum ground to a halt. But the show eventually found it's footing, and developed the characters in a way that made them enjoyable to watch, even when the week's major plot didn't feel so strong.
 |
| Look at that face! She's so sweet! |
Other characters are fleshed out pretty successfully, too. Calista Flockhart's Cat Grant goes from one-dimensional bitch/boss to compelling and sympathetic mother figure to both Kara and Supergirl. One episode finds her believing that Kara IS Supergirl and as a viewer, I almost felt like, "well, maybe she should just tell Cat the truth." Chyler Leigh plays Kara's adoptive sister Alex. She doesn't get as much to do besides escort Kara into the world of the D.E.O. (more on that later) but she gives Kara someone to talk to, and narratively, that helps in the same way it helped for Batman to have a Robin. Heroes don't often just talk to themselves, so when they have another character whom they implicitly trust, they will let you know what's on their mind. Alex is a way into Kara's psyche.
Then there are the two guys, Winn (short for Winslow Schott, Jr, aka Toyman's son, which comes out in a particularly strong episode) who is in love with Kara, and Jimmy, er...James Olsen, fresh outta Metropolis, trying to make a name for himself out from under Superman's shadow, and with whom Kara enjoys a strong flirtation. Neither one of those plot lines is particularly compelling, but while Winn eventually makes himself useful by being the resident IT genius (think Cisco/Felicity) James doesn't really go anywhere as a character, and exists solely as someone for Kara to pine after. And that falls flat. I'm not sure if that's on the actor, Mehcad Brooks, or the writing, but either way, his character just doesn't work*. Elsewhere, Peter Facinelli brings his natural sleaziness to the recurring villain of Maxwell Lord. A stand-in of sorts for Lex Luthor, Lord hates Supergirl simply because she's alien and he don't trust her. That's. About. It. But he gets the job done, so I can't knock him too hard.
*Supergirl's second season premiere was this week, and it feels like the writers were just like "fuck it, it ain't working" because Kara basically dumps James with a "yeah, just not vibing you anymore. Sorry. #Friendzone" I don't have ill will for Mehcad Brooks, but if he leaves the show, I'm fine with it.
But I'm saving the best of the supporting characters for last. And that is David Harewood who plays D.E.O. chief Hank Henshaw, aka J'onn J'onzz aka MARTIAN FREAKIN' MANHUNTER! And boy, he does a wonderful job. His character evolves a great deal during the season, from no-nonsense boss, to mysterious boss, to secretive boss, to accomplice boss, to captive, fugitive, ally and back to boss. Harewood has a couple of really strong episodes, in the flashbacks focusing on the near-extinction of his race, and his first meeting with Kara and Alex's father (Lois and Clark's Superman, Dean Cain!). His stoic face and baritone voice gives those episodes a real pathos, and easily make him my second favorite character on the show. I don't think it was common knowledge that J'onn was going to be part of this show, but the slow reveal that he's a major character was done well, and goes a long way to making 'Supergirl' feel like a DC Universe show instead of just a one-hero world.I haven't mentioned the season's primary villains yet; the kryptonian's Astra and Non - Kara's maternal aunt and her husband; and the coluan (Brainiac's race!) Indigo. While Astra's conflicted emotions about warring with her niece make her interactions with Kara somewhat interesting, Non and Indigo are pretty much lame. And Laura Vandervoort's blue make-up looks both cheap and like some terrible, unlicensed Brainiac knock-off. The plot of the season's big bads' is pretty weak, but thankfully, there's so much more happening on a weekly basis that their lightweight-ness doesn't hurt the series too bad.
Bottom line, this show got off to a promising start, but still has room to grow. And I think changing over to the CW might give it the boost it needs to put it on par with 'Arrow' and 'Flash'. They've already got strong and likeable characters, they just need to give them more to do. I feel being out of the overtly family-friendly confines of CBS is just the ticket. So I'm glad I was wrong when I dismissed it in the beginning, and I'll be tuning in from now on.
FINAL SCORE - 7/10
'Supergirl' now airs on The CW, Monday evenings at 8/7c
Monday, October 10, 2016
WESTWORLD - Ep 2, Chestnut - A TV Review
'Westworld' slows down a good deal in its second episode, but still finds a way to stay just as compelling. And that player piano is quickly becoming my favorite character. Don't help that beggar up out of the muck, and let's just get started, ok?
SPOILER WARNING - We'll be dealing with explicit plot points, for sure, so read at your own risk.
If the first episode of 'Westworld' focused on the 'what?' of this particular place, then the second definitely geared more toward the 'why?'.
Oh yes, all of the drama surrounding the prostitute Maeve (Thandie Newton) furthered the mystery of what exactly is going on inside the minds of the hosts. Newton giving the same speech three times over with nearly the same (if not exactly) inflection provides another instance where I have to remind myself "this is an actor...not a robot". She becomes linked to Dolores, after the original passes on the phrase "these violent delights have violent ends", which seems to be some sort of contagion that links them both to Bernard, who may or may not be the creator of this problematic glitch. But aside from this furthering of the main plot, we have three distinct storylines that delve further into why the Westworld theme park exists in the first place.
Take William and Logan (Jimmi Simpson and Ben Barnes, respectively) two newcomers to the series. Logan has been to Westworld before and insists it's a place for William to find out who he truly is. While William is still getting used to everything and treating everyone with relative respect, Logan dispatches violence with the same swiftness and ease as ordering a drink. Sure he's talking about showing us who William is, but at the same time, we're already seeing who he is, and he's the same sort of sadist as the Man in Black. Logan is the target audience for someone like Lee, who creates narratives for the newcomers based on the idea that they're after some tawdry combination of titillation, violence, adventure, and little else.
But William might be more the target audience for Ford, for whom the park signifies something much more cathartic, if not outright therapeutic. Immediately dismissive of Lee's proposed new narrative, Ford hints at an idea far more grandiose and meaningful. During one sequence, Ford walks along in the outskirts of the park and encounters a young boy. It's not too long before it becomes clear that the boy is a host, and that he may actually be a young facsimile of Ford himself*. There are moments of revelation about the boy's domineering father, and a glimpse of a dark black church steeple, but whatever they mean, it's somehow incredibly important to Ford's own personal mission. And seeing Ford interact, for all intents and purposes, with his younger self gives us a stronger idea of Ford's overall mission.
*in that way, it made me think of the scene in Captain America: Civil War where Tony has virtually recreated the past as a way for him to work through his grief. So it begs the question, what is in Ford's past that he feels so strongly compelled to correct that he created this entire world.
And then there is the Man in Black who, we know for sure now, is an actual guest with carte blanche (I at first wondered if he wasn't an intruder of sorts, but no...he's allowed to do anything by the park's staff). He's after information about a still unknown "deeper game" within the park, but if Ford is seeking enlightenment through creation, MiB is seeking it through sheer destruction. During his violent spree to find "the maze" we see him dispatch dozens of hosts with such nonchalance it's as though he's only amusing himself by coming up with newer, more creative ways to kill - one scene has him choosing to use a knife instead of his gun. And while we know his violence is only against androids, when it's revealed that his murder of Maeve and her daughter is the memory that haunts her, it brings up a terrifying existential question. If these androids are indeed developing their own genuine consciousness, does the violence become more real? Do we start to feel sorry for Teddy each time we see him gunned down? Is the Man in Black more evil for causing pain among the entire community of hosts, even though he's never killed a real person? And what, in the end, makes a person real?
These are all important issues and questions to get into, and I've no doubt the series will address them in the future. But the most important thing I've yet to mention about this episode is that that player piano rocked again, this time with an old-timey rendition of Radiohead's "No Surprises". Not since Lyanna Mormont first stink-eyed her way into the hearts of viewers the world 'round has HBO had such a breakout star as that kickass piano. Can inanimate objects win emmys? Because Player Piano needs a supporting actor nod.
I kid, but this was a good episode and it shows that in addition to a mind-bending premise about the nature of consciousness within the hosts, this show can be just as much about the minds of the newcomers and architects as well. At this point, I'm really curious which direction the show will head in the future.
FINAL SCORE - 8/10
'Westworld' airs on HBO Sunday nights at 9/8c.
SPOILER WARNING - We'll be dealing with explicit plot points, for sure, so read at your own risk.
If the first episode of 'Westworld' focused on the 'what?' of this particular place, then the second definitely geared more toward the 'why?'.
Oh yes, all of the drama surrounding the prostitute Maeve (Thandie Newton) furthered the mystery of what exactly is going on inside the minds of the hosts. Newton giving the same speech three times over with nearly the same (if not exactly) inflection provides another instance where I have to remind myself "this is an actor...not a robot". She becomes linked to Dolores, after the original passes on the phrase "these violent delights have violent ends", which seems to be some sort of contagion that links them both to Bernard, who may or may not be the creator of this problematic glitch. But aside from this furthering of the main plot, we have three distinct storylines that delve further into why the Westworld theme park exists in the first place.Take William and Logan (Jimmi Simpson and Ben Barnes, respectively) two newcomers to the series. Logan has been to Westworld before and insists it's a place for William to find out who he truly is. While William is still getting used to everything and treating everyone with relative respect, Logan dispatches violence with the same swiftness and ease as ordering a drink. Sure he's talking about showing us who William is, but at the same time, we're already seeing who he is, and he's the same sort of sadist as the Man in Black. Logan is the target audience for someone like Lee, who creates narratives for the newcomers based on the idea that they're after some tawdry combination of titillation, violence, adventure, and little else.
But William might be more the target audience for Ford, for whom the park signifies something much more cathartic, if not outright therapeutic. Immediately dismissive of Lee's proposed new narrative, Ford hints at an idea far more grandiose and meaningful. During one sequence, Ford walks along in the outskirts of the park and encounters a young boy. It's not too long before it becomes clear that the boy is a host, and that he may actually be a young facsimile of Ford himself*. There are moments of revelation about the boy's domineering father, and a glimpse of a dark black church steeple, but whatever they mean, it's somehow incredibly important to Ford's own personal mission. And seeing Ford interact, for all intents and purposes, with his younger self gives us a stronger idea of Ford's overall mission.*in that way, it made me think of the scene in Captain America: Civil War where Tony has virtually recreated the past as a way for him to work through his grief. So it begs the question, what is in Ford's past that he feels so strongly compelled to correct that he created this entire world.
And then there is the Man in Black who, we know for sure now, is an actual guest with carte blanche (I at first wondered if he wasn't an intruder of sorts, but no...he's allowed to do anything by the park's staff). He's after information about a still unknown "deeper game" within the park, but if Ford is seeking enlightenment through creation, MiB is seeking it through sheer destruction. During his violent spree to find "the maze" we see him dispatch dozens of hosts with such nonchalance it's as though he's only amusing himself by coming up with newer, more creative ways to kill - one scene has him choosing to use a knife instead of his gun. And while we know his violence is only against androids, when it's revealed that his murder of Maeve and her daughter is the memory that haunts her, it brings up a terrifying existential question. If these androids are indeed developing their own genuine consciousness, does the violence become more real? Do we start to feel sorry for Teddy each time we see him gunned down? Is the Man in Black more evil for causing pain among the entire community of hosts, even though he's never killed a real person? And what, in the end, makes a person real?These are all important issues and questions to get into, and I've no doubt the series will address them in the future. But the most important thing I've yet to mention about this episode is that that player piano rocked again, this time with an old-timey rendition of Radiohead's "No Surprises". Not since Lyanna Mormont first stink-eyed her way into the hearts of viewers the world 'round has HBO had such a breakout star as that kickass piano. Can inanimate objects win emmys? Because Player Piano needs a supporting actor nod.
I kid, but this was a good episode and it shows that in addition to a mind-bending premise about the nature of consciousness within the hosts, this show can be just as much about the minds of the newcomers and architects as well. At this point, I'm really curious which direction the show will head in the future.
FINAL SCORE - 8/10
'Westworld' airs on HBO Sunday nights at 9/8c.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)