Idiot Boxing: Atlanta, season 1 (2016); Agents of SHIELD, season 5 (2017-2018)

Alfred, Darius, and Earn - just three guys trying to get by.

Atlanta, season 1 (2016)

Atlanta is the brainchild of co-creator/writer/actor/stand-up comedian/musician Donald Glover. I remember hearing about it back when it was first airing on FX, in the autumn of 2016. It sounded interesting, and it was receiving more than a little glowing praise, but I just never quite worked it into my rotation. Now that I got around to watching the very manageable season of ten 25-minute episodes, it's become one of my new favorites.

The show mostly follows Earnest "Earn" Marks (Glover), a local Atlanta guy who has dropped out of Princeton to return home and try to make his way. The smart but rudderless Earn is floundering in a lame job in an effort to support his infant daughter and maintain a healthy though complicated relationship with Vanessa (Zazie Beetz), the mother of his daughter. Earn decides his best chance for financial security is to try and manage the budding rap career of his cousin Alfred, known better by his rap alias "Paper Boi." Alfred is a low-level weed dealer in the area, and his very modest success as a rapper just barely allows him to keep his head afloat. Though skeptical of Earn's qualifications to manage him, Alfred gives Earn a shot. Around this central story, the show is an avenue for Donald Glover to comment on African-American culture in Atlanta through both intimate relationships between close friends and the wider lens of the chaos swirling around impoverished minority peoples and modern entertainment culture.

If you read or hear anything about Atlanta, you are likely to come across phrases such as "one-of-a-kind" and "unlike anything else." Such descriptions are very well earned, as I can only think of a few shows that Atlanta resembles. It really is its own animal, being an engaging blend of comedy, surreality, sharp social commentary, and poignant drama. The closest thing that I've seen to it is Louis C.K.'s hit show Louis, which was also on FX. In that show, we often got the now-shamed comedian's slanted, bizarre, and insightful takes on living in New York City, his life as a father, his career as a stand-up comedian, and occasionally his views on certain areas of friction within our society, all done from C.K.'s keenly odd and creative perspective. Atlanta shares that same scope and willingness to use the strange to illustrate just how confounding life can be at times. It also shares the ability to regularly make its viewers break down laughing.

Delving into the specifics of plot or character of this first season is somewhat pointless, as this show goes far beyond any simple breakdown of what the characters want and how they get there. Yes, the goal of Earn and Alfred to become successful in the rap world is compelling, but it's much more about what Alfred's rap means to him and those on his periphery, and how those views can differ wildly. Yes, the relationship between Earn and Van is an emotional anchor of sorts, but it is hardly a traditional drama tale. And then there are the eminently quirky but oh-so-familiar characters like Darius (Lakeith Stanfield), a sort of Cosmo Kramer in Glover's vision of Atlanta. Darius is a brilliant space cadet, and in other, lesser shows, such a character would probably be more prominently featured and likely overused. Here, though, he is an efficiently-used accent piece to the odd and generally amiable fellows who you can find in places a little higher on the "stress" scale.

The hype is justified on this one, and I'm eager to get into the second season.

The crew spend most of the first half of this season in a future
where things have gone horribly wrong for Earth.

Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., season 5 (2017-2018)

Spoiler-Free Section

Another highly enjoyable season of Marvel's flagship "Cinematic Universe" TV show, and one that would have served a solid final act for the entire series, had it come to that.

The previous season of SHIELD had ended with the crew extricating themselves from the Matrix-like artificial world of "The Framework" and defeating the powerful synthetic human, Aida. No sooner had Phil Coulson and his team been able to enjoy their return to reality than they were whisked off to an unknown place by some mysterious figure. Season five reveals that that unknown place was a slave colony on a floating asteroid, and that the mysterious when was approximately 60 years into the future. Even more horrifying is that the asteroid colony, known as "The Lighthouse," is one of the last remnants of a planet Earth that has been completely torn apart by some being or force known only as "The Destroyer of Worlds."

This season of the show was basically divided into two parts: the first telling how Coulson and the team escape the nightmare future they've been pulled into, and the second being a race to prevent that hellish future from happening. It's a structure that the show-runners and writers have used well in earlier seasons, and this one follows suit. One of the primary strengths of this show has, initial ten or so episode aside, always been the plotting and pace. The most recent season only further solidifies my opinion in this regard, as the arc unfolds in a very satisfactory way, with each and every episode adding or building on fascinating revelations and surprises. It was also a ton of fun to see the show-runners, who had stated that they were approaching this season as if it were going to be the final one, pull together many of the elements and still-dangling threads from earlier seasons into a fairly cohesive whole.

Now, I will readily admit that Agents of SHIELD has never been the very best MCU show in terms of sophisticated, realistic relationships or complex issues. Yes, it does play around in some gray and even darker areas enough to keep things interesting for a discerning adult like me, but it has never been nor should it be dealing with the mature themes that the Netflix MCU shows like Jessica Jones or The Punisher. Agents of SHIELD has always been more about likable secret agents and their super-powered allies stopping equally secretive and powerful forces of evil. While there is some compelling character development (the Fitzsimmons arc has always been the best, by far), certain characters have always felt a bit dull to me. While there are often some thoughtful and funny lines, it can just as often feel a bit forced or even hokey. Any shortcomings, though, I find are easily overlooked in light of the general fun of the fantasy/action/suspense story that runs through each 22-episode season. It is all but impossible to guess exactly where season five ends up, based on where it begins, and the surprises are often satisfying. This is what I want from this kind of show, and SHIELD gave it to me again. Despite an even tighter budget than previous seasons, it showed what good writers and actors can do with limited resources in terms of sets and costumes, further emphasizing what an epic fail the rightfully-canceled Inhumans show was.

I was glad to read recently that the show has, indeed, been renewed for a sixth season. I would actually like to see it get a little more support from ABC, but I doubt that will happen. It looks like SHIELD has truly moved on from a couple of mainstay characters, allowing some of the younger ones to develop and take over, which is a move that I'll be glad to see play out, for the most part. I also just saw that the next season is slated for a significantly-shorter 13-episodes. This could actually be a very good thing, with the writers not having to use any filler or tack on less-than-engaging secondary plots, such as this season's dynamic between General Hale and her daughter. Five seasons and over 100 episodes on, and I'm still all-on on this show.

I found Kasius a rather boring villain - he was your pretty
standard arrogant, aristocratic sadist. We've seen plenty of
those in TV shows and films over the years.

Spoiler Section!!

A few thoughts on specific plot points and other developments.

During the first half of the season, I found the Kasius character mostly annoying and fairly boring. Then again, I've always found purely evil, power-hungry sadists boring. Sure, they tend to make for a pretty satisfying "revenge kill" when they inevitably get taken down, but they're rather predictable.

The first half of the season, in "future space," was definitely the weaker part of the season. While I thought the overall time-jumping plot was good, especially with how they worked Fitz back into it, I found the setting a bit drab and the villains not nearly as compelling as others we've seen over the show's history.

While this season saw the welcome return of certain characters like Carl "The Absorbing Man" Creel and a few others, I really disliked the writing and casting for Ruby. Former Disney star Dove Cameron seems like a decent enough actor, but I never for a moment bought her as the sadistic, psychotic, superpowered ninja that she was meant to be. Partly it was the writing, but it was also simply that her doll-like face and curvy body just aesthetically did not fit the role for me. Catherine Dent as her mother General Hale, on the other hand, was excellent.

So it looks like they're finally going to have another major character die, with Coulson's incurable disease seemingly going to do him in. I'm quite fine with that, but I cannot say that I'm thrilled with Mack taking over. While I've always liked the idea of Mack - a powerfully built gentle giant who's a top-notch engineer - I've also found him to be somewhat dull. Oddly, the final two episodes really let him get pretty "Jesusy" on us, even spouting out lines like, "You only need faith in the Good Book!" And I still, even after four seasons of the character, feel like we don't have a completely accurate handle on who the guy is. He fires off some of the best one-liners, but he's also a massive wet blanket at times. Oh, and the shotgun ax really is one of the dumbest, least-practical attempts I've ever seen at a "signature" weapon in a TV show or movie. I don't hate the character, but he's never been as compelling to me as Fitz, Simmons, or nearly any of the rest of the SHIELD roster.

While I found the end of the season satisfying, I thought they could have shown a little more creativity in some of the resolutions to the major issues. For the entire season, we're being told of how time is immutable. This is actually one of the more fascinating conundrums that the team has to face - how will they somehow change what seems to be scientifically inevitable? Well, the show never really does completely explain that. It just...has Daisy win. And the way that she beats Talbot (his breaking bad was a plot turn, by the way, that I really enjoyed) wasn't particularly clever, either. I must admit, though, that quaking the guy right through the atmosphere and into space was pretty cool. 

Idiot Boxing, HBO shows: Barry, season 1 (2018); Silicon Valley, season 5 (2018)

Barry, season 1 (2018)

An excellent dark comedy from the mind of Bill Hader and Alex Berg.

The show follows the eponymous Barry Berkman (Hader), a former marine-turned-hitman who lives in Cleveland and shows signs of detached depression. This begins to change when Barry is sent to Hollywood on a job, where he inadvertently finds himself catching the acting bug after seeing a run-of-the-mill acting class in progress. The maladjusted Barry begins to try and dip his toes in the waters of the self-obsessed and artificial world of aspiring actors, all while trying to divest himself from his excessively violent occupation.

Hader as Barry (left) and Henry Winkler as his dramatic
acting teacher, Gene Cousineau. Unlike Gene and his
oblivious classmates, Barry comes by his haunted look and
demeanor all too honestly.

In a recent interview, show star and co-creator Bill Hader said that he and fellow creator Alex Berg pitched the Barry character to HBO as "Clint Eastwood's character in Unforgiven, but in a community theater acting class." And that's a pretty good description of what you get here. Like Eastwood's Will Munney character in that Western classic, Barry is a truly tortured man will a preternatural skill for assassination. Seeing such a dark and disturbed man in the middle of an acting class is bound to go one of two ways: be a completely awkward and potentially offensive disaster, or make for genius black comedy. Barry is clearly the latter.

There are a few reasons that black comedies are rare. One is that, while well-done dark comedies have dedicated fans, they simply don't appeal to a mass audience. Hence, there simply isn't a great profit motive out there for major TV networks and movie studios to support them. The greater reason, though, is that they are extremely difficult to pull off. Dark subject matter like violent death, murder, and depression don't typically mesh well with humor. And yet, when handled correctly, it really makes its mark. Movies like Dr. Strangelove or Fargo show that one can laugh at the most horrific circumstances if the story is told with the correct tone and approach. Barry follows in the footsteps of those other great films and gives us a sometimes disturbing look at what amounts to a severely - possibly irredeemably - damaged, murderous human being. And it can be hilarious.

In short, the most imposing darkness is seeded deep within Barry - a former marine who seems to have never been good at anything but killing. And he's frighteningly good at it. Other dark elements are to be found in the words and actions of some of his associates - his main contact Fuches (Stephen Root), the Chechnyan gangsters he works with, and a few others. The comedy springs mostly from two places. One is the contrast between the ridiculously out-of-touch and self-involved actors in the acting class Barry finds himself enamored of and his own all-too authentic pain and mental distress. Another is from the oft-hapless Chechnyans and their bumbling through the process of trying to make their mark on the criminal underworld of Hollywood. Not every character or situation is as funny as I think it was meant to be, but there are plenty of great laughs to be had, along with a handful of truly disturbing murders.

The cast is great, with special mention needed for Henry Winkler. The man who is probably still best-known as "The Fonz" from Happy Days in the 1970s once again shows his pure comedic chops here as Gene Cousineau, the acting instructor with hilariously outsized confidence. Thanks to great writing and Winkler's brilliant performance, Cousineau quickly becomes one of those characters who threaten to steal nearly every scene they're in, and Winkler usually does. All of the other parts are played well, too, though I did find the character NoHo Hank overly silly most of the time.

I'm not sure just how long the writers will be able to spin this tale out, but there's definitely still enough material for another short season (this one was a mere eight episodes). It has already been renewed, and I'm happy to know it.


Silicon Valley, season 5 (2018)

Still one of the best comedies on TV.

And then there were four. Though Erlich Bachman's absence
may be conspicuous in the first episode or two, I found that
the bombastic character was hardly missed. The rest of the
crew, plus Monica Hall, easily picked up any slack.

Season 5 of the show picks up with Richard Hendricks (Thomas Middleditch) and his Pied Piper crew trying to get their "New Internet," or "Pipernet," truly off the ground after their near-disastrous program leak at the end of season four. The fledgling company's issue now is how to find enough up-and-coming online companies to get the necessary usage to kick-start the entire thing. It all involves a high level of salesmanship and hobnobbing - two things that are far from the painfully awkward Richard's forte. As with previous seasons, the main Pied Piper crew of Richard, Dinesh, Gilfoyle, and Jarod have to navigate through and around the predatory environment of Silicon Valley and its vicious raiders. The carrot dangling is that the New Internet, if it can get far enough off the ground to achieve a certain exit velocity, could potentially dwarf any online revolution that the world has ever seen. And that potential prize attracts a lot of envious and thoroughly unscrupulous eyes.

The general arc of this season follows a path similar to previous ones: the guys have a grand idea that they're trying to get off the ground, they meet various difficulties along the way, and they triumph in some fashion. But also in keeping with tradition, Pied Piper's triumph is often in a fashion that none of its members quite expect, and it often opens up new issues that they hadn't yet anticipated. It's a time-tested formula that show creators Mike Judge and Alex Berg have perfected. Even though it's nothing especially novel, the journey is well worth it, thanks mostly to the characters.

This season is right on par with any previous ones, despite being only eight episodes (all previous seasons have been ten). I also didn't miss, for a moment, T.J. Miller as Erlich Bachman, who was written off the show for well-publicized issues with the show-runners. For my part, I often found the Erlich character more of a nuisance, although he did provide some solid laughs thanks to Miller's spot-on performance as the insanely overconfident braggart. But he was always used best very sparingly. Now that he is completely gone (the character is lazing in a never-ending opium stupor somewhere in Tibet). The rest of the cast more than picks up the slack. Kumail Nanjiani ratchets up the desperation as Dinesh, madly looking for any opportunity to show off the slightest bit of success, while his in-office arch-nemesis Gilfoyle (Martin Starr) continues to stoically and relentlessly egg him on. The seventh episode of the season is actually one of the greatest "Gilfoyle" episodes ever, as he fires off multiple fantastic digs and observations. And as usual, Zach Woods kills it as Donald 'Jared' Dunn, the soft-spoken but oddly intense Chief Operating Officer with a wild past. It was also nice to see a return of the Monica Hall character by season's end - a more prominent character in the first couple of seasons but who had faded in seasons three and four.

The only way one could say that this show is slowing down is merely in the 20% reduction in episodes. Aside from that, the series is an astounding five-for-five, with not a single season being anything less than great. Season six can't get here soon enough. 

New Release! Deadpool 2 (2018) [Spoiler-Free First Section]

Spoiler-Free Section

Director: David Leitch

Good, bloody, foul-mouthed fun, if perhaps not quite as good or fresh as the first Deadpool.

The first film was highly entertaining, offering a adaptation of the popular comic anti-hero/anti-villain that aimed to offer plenty of fun while roasting nearly everything about the world of now-ubiquitous comic book superhero movies. Deadpool found a great balance between providing a solid enough story and offering rousing action, while also consistently making fun of the tropes associated with the superhero genre. Amid all of this, it also managed to include just the right amount of appropriate heart, focusing on the twisted but touching relationship between assassin-for-hire Wade "Deadpool" Wilson and his ex-stripper girlfriend Vanessa.

In this sequel, the wildly irreverent tone and non-stop gags continue, mostly to good effect. Without giving anything important away, Deadpool finds himself wrapped up in a surprising bid to save the life of a young and very angry mutant, Russell (Julian Dennison). This all becomes much more difficult when a grim, highly powerful mutant from the future, Cable (Josh Brolin) becomes involved. Unable to deal with everything on his own, Deadpool enlists the aid of a few other mutants who may be familiar to readers of the 1990s and 2000s X-Force comics.

I was probably most impressed at how Deadpool 2 avoids most of the pitfalls of comedy sequels (and really, Deadpool was much more a comedy than anything else). Namely, leaning too heavily on the most well-received jokes from the first movie. Yes, the sequel does call back to a few of the best gags from the first one, but it mostly relies on coming up with new material. I do feel that one marginal but memorable character from the original movie is overused in the follow-up, but it's hardly a deal-breaker. The other problem many sequels can have, comedy and action alike, is retreading plots and ideas from a successful first film. Deadpool 2 does well with this, offering a story that is quite different from the first movie. I can't say that it provides any more depth than the first film, but the theme does give something different from the straightforward revenge/rescue tale of Deadpool.

Zazie Beets and Josh Brolin bring plenty to the table in their
performances as Domino and Cable.

I've already seen one or two comments on social media expressing the view that the humor in Deadpool 2 is "trying too hard." I understand the sentiment, but I disagree. The Deadpool character of the comics was always a motor-mouthed wise-cracker. Wade Wilson never shuts up, and the movie writers and Ryan Reynolds have always loved and respected this. As such, both movies have given us an endless barrage of verbal jabs from "The Merc with a Mouth." Given the sheer volume of jokes, it's always stood to reason to me that not every one of them will be a great joke, and sometimes not even good one. But for me, about half of them land pretty well. Since the frequency of wisecracks was so very high, I found myself with a smile on my face for most of the movie, even laughing out loud several times. This sequel does go a bit heavier on the "meta," fourth-wall-breaking commentary, which I think works better in lighter doses, as in the first film. It hardly spoils the soup that is the sequel, though.

The action in the movie is also entertaining enough, if not exactly standout. Like the overall plot, the filmmakers didn't rest on the laurels of the first film, and instead offer us newer and grander action sequences here. As with any superhero movie, we viewers want to see dazzling displays of the characters' fantastic abilities, and Deadpool 2 does a fine job of it, despite there only being a handful of truly stunning and exciting moments.

It's pretty simple: your feelings about the first Deadpool can tell you whether you'll enjoy the second. Though the plot and primary theme are different, the tone, irreverent attitude, and loving embrace of filthy language and cartoon-like gore are all there to attract or revolt just as much as the original.

Spoiler Section!!

A few thoughts on specific details:

I know better than to overthink any story which uses time travel as a device, especially in a silly movie like Deadpool 2, but I'm surprised that the hyper-aware, fourth-wall breaking Wilson didn't at least comment on the fact that Cable's altering the future by not killing Russell would result in Cable's never having been there in the first place. But again, thinking about time loops is an exercise in futility. I won't lose any sleep over it.

I actually liked the decision to kill Vanessa early, as I really didn't see it coming. Kind of a shame that they just went ahead and undid it all at the end, using Cable's aforementioned, plot-breaking time travel gadget.

Deadpool and the newly recruited "X-Force." This plot line
didn't go quite where I expected, for the better.

The assembly and rapid demise of "X-Force" was hilarious. The movie actually got me on this one, as I genuinely thought that this would be a team that would carry through the rest of the film. Having nearly all of them, including mainstay characters from the comics such as Shatterstar, meet grisly deaths not ten minutes after their introductions, was a high-point idea to me.

Also from the X-Force mini-plotline, Zazie Beets was great as Domino. I only recently became aware of Beetz from her role as Van in the brilliant TV show Atlanta, but her portrayal of the luck-imbued mutant in Deadpool 2 was a blast.

I thought the inclusion of Dopinder was unnecessary and mostly not very funny. This was the one clear case of a sequel taking a fun little bit from the first film and running it well into the ground by asking way too much of it.

This was, by far, the best rendering of The Juggernaut that we've seen. I know that this isn't saying much, as really the only previous one was the laughable presentation in X-Men 3: X-Men United - the one which gave us the oft-lambasted Vinnie Jones line "I'm the Juggernaut, bitch!" While this new one is a purely CGI-job, we did at least get the sense of the character's real presence as an unstoppable physical force of unbridled, violent destruction. It also gave us the hilariously operatic theme music, featuring lyrics like "You can't stop this motherf****r!!" along with the background chorus of "Holy! S**tballs!!" on repeat. I can't recall a movie where the over-the-top, epic soundtrack was included in the gag.

Josh Brolin was great as Cable. The writers did a pretty decent job of using his overly grim demeanor as a foil for Deadpool's utter lack of seriousness, though I do feel a few jokes might have been left on the table with this dynamic.

The mid-credit sequence of Deadpool jumping back in time to right the wrongs of the past was outstanding. One has to admire just how self-deprecating Reynolds can be. He clearly has no problem highlighting past failings, if it might get a laugh. 

Documentary Fest! The Toys that Made Us, season one Part 1 (2018); Abstract: The Art of Design (2017)

The Toys that Made Us, season 1, Part 1 (2018)

A great trip down memory lane for boys and girls alike who were alive any time between the 1950s and 1990s, but especially Generation Xers like myself.

This Netflix series focuses its documentary lenses on popular, mass-produced toy lines that have had enduring impact on U.S. culture. The plan is for eight episodes, with each one focusing on one particular toy line. In this first part, comprising four episodes, we learn the stories behind the creation and success of the Star Wars, Barbie, He-Man, and G.I. Joe lines. As you might imagine, anyone over the age of 30 or so is likely to have some connection with one or more of these most popular and iconic lines, and these docs each get into the fascinating stories and the minds behind their conception, creation, and their dominance - sometimes very brief and sometimes spanning several decades - of toy sales in the U.S. and sometimes even abroad.

It's a good sign when one even enjoys episodes in a series that one initially thinks will be of little interest to them. For me, the Barbie episode of this series was a perfect example, as were most of the other episodes for my wife. We both watched and thoroughly enjoyed all four episodes. Part of this is due to the fact that, even though we may not have played with every toy covered in the series, were well aware of them. More importantly, the stories behind the toys and the people involved are plenty engaging enough. From the tiny, little-known company Kenner somehow bagging the rights to Star Wars, to the power plays by the women behind the titanic Barbie line, all four episodes contain plenty of fascinating behind-the-curtain looks at what millions upon millions of kids spend countless free hours playing with. My personal favorite episode was that which told the story of He-Man, as the creators were and still are highly amusing characters themselves, on top of the fact that He-Man had an as-yet inexplicable and precipitious drop from the mountaintop of toy line success.

Yes, there's a certain nostalgia factor to this entire series. Still, I feel that it offers plenty beyond the little rush that one gets from recalling their own personal experience and relationships with the various toys covered in the series. I'm highly looking forward to the second part of this initial season, set to release at the end of this month, covering the likes of LEGO, Hello Kitty, Transformers, and Star Trek. I'll be there, to be sure.

Abstract: The Art of Design (2017)

A great series for anyone with the slightest interest in visual arts of any type.

The series contains eight episodes of roughly 45 minutes each, each one focusing on an individual artist who has earned immense respect and success in his or her chosen medium. There is the sneaker designer Tinker Hatfield, graphic artists Christoph Niemann and Paul Scher, care designer Ralph Gilles, and several others from stage and other artistic media. Honestly, I had never heard of any of the eight artists, even though I had seen or was familiar with at least some of their works.

This series is replete with episodes on topics which at first glance may seem uninteresting but which, when you get into them, can dazzle you with the artistry of its subject. The excellence of this series is that, more than focusing on the artist themself - several of whom are quite interesting people - each episode spends much more time on their art. The least interesting topics to me - sneakers and automobiles - were still highly engaging, thanks to direction which brought out the thought, care, and visual artistry that go into the creation of objects which millions upon millions of people greatly value.

One of Christoph Niemann's little weekly
"doodles." They're a small, amusing taste
of a much more immense talent.

My two favorite episodes looked at the works of graphic artist Christoph Niemann and photgrapher Platon. Niemann is a German artist whose works have long been featured as covers of "The New Yorker," along with countless other pieces, large and small, throughout media of the highest prestige. Niemann himself, though a tad subdued, has a sly, wry sense of humor and an absolutely stunning eye for visual creativity. Watching him take the simplest of everyday objects and quickly incorporate them into imaginative forms is incredible. In a different tone, the Greek-British photographer is world famous for his portrait photos - often in black-and-white, and also featured on magazine covers throughout the world. Seeing Platon make genuinely touching connections with his subjects and draw out something essential in their faces is a wonderfully transfixing process. It also illustrates just how much humanity can go into something as seemingly two-dimensional and even remote as a photo.

I can only imagine that there is still an amazing wealth of other visual artists to whom this series' creators could dedicate episodes. As of yet, there has been no announcement that another season will be made, but I truly hope it does. It is a real treat for anyone who has ever dabbled in any visual artform, or even has some sort of appreciation for them. 

Idiot Boxing: Preacher, season 2 (2017); Jessica Jones, season 2 (2018)

Tulip, Jesse, and Cassidy make New Orleans their home base
for most of season 2. You can never see where the show is
going, which is often fun, though tight plotting is sometimes
sacrificed for the "gonzo" unpredictability.

Preacher, season 2 (2017)

A wild comic book, adapted into an even wilder TV series, grows even more insane in its second season.

The first season saw the introduction of the three primary characters - Jesse, Tulip, and Cassidy - as they fled the tiny town of Annville, Texas, after it was laid to waste in a Biblical-style smiting. Armed with the power to literally compel others to do whatever he says, Jesse and his companions set out to find God, who they have learned has abandoned Heaven. The quest leads them to Las Vegas and eventually New Orleans, with the narrative taking several trips back in time to see Tulip and Jesse's back stories. On their trail much of the time is the invincible Saint of Killers, a towering, undead cowboy from the 19th century who has been tasked with finding and killing Jesse so that the power within him can be recaptured and returned to Heaven.

To echo my review of the first season, it is impossible for me to have an unvarnished opinion about this show. I was a tremendous fan of the source comic book back when it was originally released through the 1990s, reading and re-reading it more times than I can remember. Thankfully, I am not a purist when it comes to adapatations of even previously-treasured books. The first season of Preacher showed that, while they were going to use much of the tone and even many details from the original stories, the show runners were going to tell the story very much their own way. I respect this, as a shot-for-shot telling of the original graphic novel would be rather uninspired and quite boring for those of us familiar with the source material. This second season continues that trend, with the story reworking some of the graphic novels' characters and plotlines, while adding some completely orginal ideas. It works quite well, most of the time,

A wonderful highlight of season two is
Pip Torrins's portrayal of the ruthless
Herr Starr. He pefectly captures the
comic version's balance of stone-cold
intensity and sarcasm.

That said, this show still hasn't quite found its footing as much as I had hoped after the first season. Yes, the wild irreverence and anything-goes spirit is fully intact, to be sure. And the gonzo action and thoroughly bizarre characters and scenarios abound, which is also as it should be. But I can't help but feel that the show runners and writers haven't fully discovered a unified, cohesive through-line for certain aspects of the series. There are a few ways that this manifests itself, but the primary one is exactly who Jesse Custer is as a person. In the comics, it is quite clear from early on that he is an old school, John Wayne "tough guy" at his core. Thanks to a brutally tough upbringing and a religious adoration for said movie Western hero, Custer has a backbone of steel and a punk-rock, "screw you" attitude that leads him on his hyper-focused quest for God. In the show, however, there is still a fair bit of hemming, hawing, and a few too many side-plots that get in the way of Jesse's goal, which wasn't even formed until the end of season one, and is consistently blurred or muddled into other plot elements in this second season. It is still there, to be sure, and it does all come back around by the season's final few episodes. But minor plot threads like Tulip's secret marriage and her PTSD after a horrible run-in with the Saint of Killers, along with the little story around Cassidy's son, Dennis, mostly seem to act as minor speed bumps in the greater tale, even if they do provide some decent entertainment. There is also an entire chunk of season two dedicated to Eugene "Arseface" Root attempting to escape Hell, where Jesse accidentally sent him in the previous season. This storyline is interesting for a while, as we figure out just how this particular version of Hell is constructed, but I felt weary of it about halfway through the 13-episode season.

On the whole, though, I still enjoy the show. One big reason is that the casting is excellent. I already lauded the main trio of actors - Cooper, Negga, and Gilgun, all still phenomenal - but this season introduces the primary villain from the comic series: Herr Starr, and he could not have been cast or played any better than Pip Torrens has done thus far. Starr is an icy-cold devotee of calculated order. In the comics, he is ruthless, murderous, and highly capable of seeing his goals through, while at the same time being a sort of running joke, as he is intermittently victimized in various bizarre ways. The TV show continued in this tradition, and Torrens plays the role with a spot-on, no-nonsense air that sells both the character's viciousness and the many darkly humorous moments that unfold around and to him. And though the Featherstone character was not quite as prominent in the comic series, she is given a larger, more varied role and played exceptionally well by Julie Ann Emery. And there are plenty of other lesser parts conceived, written, and performed to perfection throughout this sophomore season.

Despite its logical inconsistencies and some lack of attention to smaller details, I'm still on board with this show. There really isn't anything else quite like it that I've seen on TV, which is a valuable commodity in this "Platinum Age" of television. For one like me, who usually turns to TV for wild, imaginative escapism rather than pseudo-realistic drama, Preacher still fits the bill quite well.

Much of the main characters from season 1 return, though it
can sometimes feel as if the sub-plots focusing on a few of
them can water down the main narrative around Jessica and
the history behind her family and her powers.

Jessica Jones, season 2 (2018)

Another solid season of the Netflix series, if not exactly a masterpiece.

At the end of season one, which was released over two years ago, troubled private eye Jessica Jones had survived the immensely trying ordeal of tracking down and killing Kevin Kilgrave. The sociopathic and morally bankrupt Kilgrave, who possessed the power to force people to do his bidding by merely speaking to them, had focused his sights on Jessica but was ultimately laid low by his previous victim. We next saw Jones in the Netflix mini-series, The Defenders, in which she teamed up with Luke Cage, Danny Rand (a.k.a. "Iron Fist") and Matt Murdock (a.k.a. Daredevil), as the quartet fended off the shadowy group "The Hand" from plunging New York City into a realm of chaos and darkness.

Now, nearly a year after the events in The Defenders, Jones is back at her office working as a P.I. and trying to keep herself together. The trauma of having killed a man - even one as murderous and deserving as Kilgrave - haunts Jessica. Her plight isn't helped when other superpowered people begin turning up and dying around Jessica. She soon learns that these deaths are connected to her acquisition of her super strength when she was a young teenager. As she digs deeper into this, she begins to learn some shocking truths about her past. some of which she would clearly like to ignore.

This season was fairly strong and held my interest throughout, though I felt it was just a tad weaker than season one. Kristen Ritter is still excellent at playing the sneering, sarcastic, ultra-cynical Jones, and there is still great satisfaction in seeing her deal with the scum of Hell's Kitchen. And the show still does a great job in making her multi-dimensional. She may be the most obviously flawed "hero" in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), and the show is all the more unique and engaging for it. And seeing the character have to face certain facts about herself - some within her control and several well beyond her control - only offers us more opportunity to see how she deals with various dilemma, as well as how those dilemmas further impact her search for meaning in her own life.

Janet Taylor does an excellent job as the imposing figure who
plays a major part in this season. While the season can drag
a bit, her story goes a long way towards keeping it engaging.

As with the first season, a decent amount of time is given over to the many secondary characters: Jessica's neighbor and now-aspiring business partner Malcolm, foster-sister and mid-level celebrity Trish Walker, power lawyer Jeri Hogarth, and several others have their own arcs that play out through the thirteen episodes of the season. Some are certainly more interesting than others, but most of them are engaging enough. It certainly helps that these characters are more grounded and complex than what one finds in the MCU's big screen fare. Still, this season does not break the streak of Netflix MCU shows not having enough good material to fill out all 13 episodes. This leads to a bit of watering down of what could be some excellent, shorter seasons.

When I rewatched the first season of Jessica Jones last year, I found that I still enjoyed it quite a lot. I'm currently not sure how excited I'll be to take in this second season again, but I'm certain that I will give it another go.

New-ish Releases: The Trip to Spain (2017); Annihilation (2018)

The Trip to Spain (2017)

Director: Michael Winterbottom

If you've seen the previous two "Trip" movies, starring Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon, then you know exactly what to expect. And you won't be disappointed.

The third in this film series, The Trip to Spain is a loosely-scripted, semi-documentary style show that follows the two British comedians as they tour the locales and noted restaurants of Spain. During their long car rides and frequent meals together, the two constantly riff off of one another's observations and spontaneous celebrity impressions.

It seems like a formula which might get tired, and yet it hasn't. One part of this is that Coogan and Brydon, despite having rather different comedic styles and purvues, compliment and feed off of each other brilliantly. Though the series has never been completely ad-lib, the two have plenty of freedom to improvise, which keeps things quite fresh, even three films in. The other major strength is how each of the three movies has also had a distinct vision for these semi-fictionalized versions of Coogan and Brydon, and consequently their relationship to and dynamic with each other. In the first film, Brydon was the congenial, broad, "people's" funnyman, while Coogan was a self-obsessed, semi-depressive snob. In The Trip to Italy, the roles were slightly reversed, with Coogan being more balanced and at peace with himself and Brydon having doubts about his stable but somewhat tepid home life with this long-time wife and two children. In Spain, we get a slight shift back to Coogan playing the more dislikeable character, once more being rather high on his own success (he often cites his real-life accolades for his film Philomena) and an insufferable know-it-all. These changes between the films all manage to give each one a feel of its own, to great effect.

There isn't much more to be said in a review of this movie, as its major strengths come down to watching and listening to two expert comedians do their thing. The only oddity with this chapter in the series is that the end is a bit strange, even borderline surreal. But this is a pretty minor issue. The only other thing I would recommend is that, if you are considering watching this and have not seen the previous films, you should begin with The Trip. If you find it to your liking, watch the following two films. While you certainly could watch them in any order, seeing the two progress in their order of release does offer a little extra, overarching narrative cohesion.

Annihilation (2018) [Spoiler-free first section]

Director: Alex Garland

Trippy. Cerebral. Intermittently intense. This was another strong film by Alex Garland, though I didn't find it as good as his previous film.

Adapted from the novel of the same name, written by Jeff VanderMeer, Annihilation follows Lena (Natalie Portman), a former army soldier and medic who is now a university professor of biology. Through a series of strange events, Lena is brought to the site of a strange anomoly being dubbed "The Shimmer" by thr group monitoring it. The Shimmer is a strange field of wavering lights that has surrounded a remote lighthouse on the coast. Any attempts to reconnoiter inside The Shimmer has produced nothing; in fact, nothing and noone who has ever entered the anomoly has yet returned, and The Shimmer is growing to encompass more and more of the surrounding area. Lena opts to join four other women - all either expert scientists, soldiers, or both - to enter The Shimmer and see if they can discover what the previous teams could not - just what the strange effect is and what its done to their search teams. Once the five women are inside, they begin to discover odd plant and animal life that seem to defy the known laws of biology and genetics. And as they begin to uncover clues about the fate of the previous scout team, some baffling and terrifying realizations begin to emerge.

As with most of Garland's other movies, Annihilation is more of a thinking person's sci-fi movie, which is what I enjoy most about it. From the outset, we are given a few mysteries to wrap our heads around, starting with Lena's initial quarantine and her first flashbacks to before she even knew about The Shimmer. The mystery only deepens as the film progresses, with answers being parsed out at just the right pace to satisfy, while raising larger, more frightening questions. I will admit that, while I'm no expert in physics or biology, the basic premise (which I won't spoil) only seems to stand up to so much close scrutiny. Still, it is a rather fascinating idea, and it leads to one of the movie's other great strengths - the visuals.

As the quintet of explorers go deeper into the shimmer, there are more than few visual images that are stunning in their creativity and vibrance. Others are horrifying and equally impressive. Although the movie never felt slow to me, the measured pacing allows us viewers to drink in the images and disturbing ideas which they imply. People who expect or hope for frequent, dynamic action in their films will probably grow frustrated with Annihilation, but for my part, I found the balance just right. There are several short and effective action sequences, along with a handful of suspensefuul moments, but these are hardly the movie's greatest strength. Rather, there is a strong balance of stunningly colorful scenes, along with a few eerily quiet, expansive shots that are a bit reminiscent of subdued sci-fi classic Stalker by Russian master Andrei Tarkovsky.

At this point, only a couple of days after my viewing of this movie, I'm not completely sure of whether I'll feel the need to watch it again. This is somewhat telling, as I usually feel the need to watch my favorite sci-fi movies multiple times, as the best ones are always rich enough in ideas and/or sophisticated enough in structure to warrant multiple viewings. I suspect that I will see it again at some point, but I currently feel as if there wasn't much that I missed on this initial viewing. In terms of Garland's other films, this one has less in common with the masterpiece Ex Machina than with his slightly uneven though worthwhile Sunshine.

Comments with Spoilers

Just a few thought and feelings about specific details in the movie.

The visual of the soldier who has basically "exploded" into some bizarre plantlife in the swimming pool is amazing. It's perhaps the most striking of several indelible images in the movie.

The sequence towards the end with Lena facing down the source of The Shimmer was completely entrancing. The visuals and the music score had me enrapt the way that you hope a movie can do, even if for only a minute or so.

I had a bit of an issue with the way one scene was written and the way one character was performed. The minor one is how Gina Rodriguez's character, the brawny soldier Thorensen, melts down into tears at one point. This may have been a reflection of her gradually-warping mental state, but it smakced a bit of gender stereotyping to have a woman - even a hard-bitten soldier - start crying when things get tough. I had to wonder whether Garland would have written this scene the same way if it had been a male soldier in that position.

Leigh's turn as Dr. Ventress was the one aspect of the movie
which seemed out of place.

The greater frustration to me was the performance of Jennifer Jason Leigh as the psychologist and operation director Dr. Ventress. I usually find Leigh to be a great actress, but I found her portrayal of Ventress oddly out of tune with what her character was. For the entire movie, she has an oddly distracted air of near-apathy that seems completely unconnected to the urgency which she is supposed to be feeling. I understand that her nerves are worn thin from seeing multiple groups go into The Shimmer and disappear, but it seems as if this should manifest itself more as a desperate drive to get to the bottom of it all, rather than the fatalistic, apathetic attitude that she wears on her sleeve for every second of her screen time. I can't be sure if this performance choice was Leigh's or director Garland's, but it resulted in a portrayal where the facts about and even dialogue coming from the character were horribly out of sync with her demeanor.

I don't know that the movie had to "tag" the final mystery by showing the rainbow Shimmer in Lena's eyes. I thought that just showing her embracing "Kane" was suggestive enough, while leaving a little bit of room for doubt for us viewers. 

Retro-Trio: Noah (2014); AVP: Alien vs. Predator (2004); Eagle vs. Shark (2007)

Noah (2014)

Director: Darren Aronofsky

My third time seeing the movie, and I still think it's phenomenal.

I gave this one a full review back when it was released, and you can view it here, so I'll keep this one short. It's been about two years since I last saw the movie, and it has grown no less impressive to me. What stands out most at this point for me are the overarching theme of the burden of responsibility and the film's expert pacing.

I still find Aronofsky's take on the titular Old Testament protagonist highly compelling. With Noah almost literally having the weight of the world on his shoulders, his anguish is palpable. This, however, had the potential to become a bit dull if it had been the only struggle or storyline in the movie. Rather, we also get the added and essential layer of Noah's misunderstanding of the responsibility thrust upon his shoulders by his lord. Because of his sorrow at having to see and allow nearly every person in the world die around him, he takes on a completely apocalyptic view of everything - to the point that he swears to slaughter even his own adopted grandchildren, should they be born. It is a brutally dark turn, but one that captures both the light and dark sides of Old Testament "heroism."

The pacing of the movie is also phenomenal. Considering how much is covered - from revealing this particular version of Noah's earth, right through the entire flood and its toll on Noah and his family, the tale moves along at a very satisfying pace. Nothing feels bogged down or rushed at any point, with the entire epic tale clocking in at just a bit over two hours. It's a testament to Aronofsky and his editor Andrew Weisblum that they told such a grand story so efficiently.

I actually bought this movie on blu-ray, and I haven't regeretted it. It's one that I've obviously gone back to a few times already, and will continue to do so in the future.

AVP: Alien vs. Predator (2004)

Director: Paul W.S. Anderson

After so many years avoiding this movie, I have to say it wasn't bad. Not great, by any means, but not bad either.

Like plenty of sci-fi adventure geeks, I revere the original two Alien movies, and I absolutely love the original Predator. I own all three movies and watch them about every year or two, and still rank them among my favorites. Still, I'm all too aware that, like many sci-fi "franchises," the quality of the originals faded severely as studios kept cranking out follow-ups. The Alien and Aliens are iconic; Alien 3 was mediocre at best, and Alien: Resurrection was a total mess. Predator is brilliant; Predator 2 was decent but a dropoff, and 2010's Predators was a dull rehash of the original.

Tucked in, just before that final Predators film were the two "AVP" flicks - Alien versus Predator. This first one, released in 2004, tells the story of a group of scientists gathered by billionaire Charles Bishop Weyland (a name familiar to Alien movies devotees) to explore a mysterious heat signature detected at a remote, abandoned station on Antarctica. The team digs deep beneath the surface to discover a wildly elaborate, labrynthine pyramid structure. As they explore, they ascertain that it was built by a race of extra-terrestrial hunters - the "Predators" introduced in that film series - as a staging ground for periodically staged hunts of trapped xenomorphs known from the Alien series. Little does the team of explorers know that the initial heat signature also acted as a beacon to a trio of Predators, who have also arrived on the scene to take part in the ritual hunt.

Nobody will ever mistake AVP for the very best of either of its root film series, in terms of quality. The acting is spotty at best, with the two main leads clearly being hired for their looks over their acting skills, and the dialogue is rather tepid throughout, with nary a decent one-liner to be found. And the little attempts at human connection or emotion fall pretty flat. But as an action/adventure film, the movie does just enough right to hold one's attention; at least it did for me. The backstory of the Predators arriving on earth centuries earlier and being revered as gods by the ancient Aztecs is fun, and the setting of the subterranean pyramid works well for this sort of picture. None of it is overly original, but it shows just enough novelty to keep things interesting. And the fights between the Aliens and Predators, mostly kept to small-scale, one-on-one fights, work well.

This movie is a decent way to scratch the "Alien" or "Predator" itch that one might have, while not watching the vastly superior original films. Several friends had recommended it to me, and I can now see why they enjoyed it, for what it is. However, since those very same friends have told me what a piece of garbage the followup AVP: Requiem was, I will avoid that movie like xenomorph blood.

Eagle vs. Shark (2007)

Director: Taika Waititi

Within the last few years, I've grown to become a great fan of New Zealand director Taika Waititi. It began around 2015, after watching and loving his vampire mockumentary What We Do in the Shadows. Then, my wife and I fell in love with his 2016 film The Hunt for the Wilderpeople, followed by backtracking to his earlier film Boy, which we also greatly enjoyed. The most recent icing on the cake for me was his deft and hilarious handling of large-scale superhero movies with the brilliant Thor: Ragnarok. Having gone 4-for-4 with me, it was only logical to go all the way back to Waititi's very first feature-length film, the low-budget regional Kiwi flick Eagle vs. Shark.

The wife and I really liked it.

The movie tells the story of Lily (Lauren Taylor), a rather shy young woman who works at a fast food restaurant and harbors a crush for the nerdy Jarrod (Jemaine Clement), who works at the nearby video game shop. When Lily is callously fired, she dares to crash a video game party that Jarrod hosts, and the two sleep together. Lily is then caught up in Jarrod's grand plan to return to his hometown and fight the boy who used to bully him in high school. In Jarrod's hometown, though, Lily begins to see Jarrod as more self-involved and immature, which culminated in his breaking up with her. However, she also sees that much of it stems from a bizarre home life where his deceased elder brother has cast a long shadow over the entire clan. Lily ultimately finds herself stuck in Jarrod's remote, rural town, biding her time for several days before Jarrod's scheduled fight.

This movie is a nearly perfect blend of Wes Anderson's sweeter films, a few dashes of Napoleon Dynamite, and Waititi's innate, quirky New Zealand sensibilities. The main characters Lily and Jarrod are painfully awkward in most circumstances, though Jarrod in particular is possessed of a wildly misplaced self-confidence and arrogance sometimes found among nerddom. Despite their trouble in most social situations, the two find just enough common ground to let each other into their lives, at least to a certain extent. While the tone is certainly off-beat, there is a certain level of authentic heart to the proceedings - something which Waititi would more masterfully use in his later films. In Eagle vs. Shark, these elements may not be as finely tuned, but they are still highly effective. This is all balanced well with a steady dose of oddball humor - from Lily's uncomfortable interactions with her snooty fast-food coworkers to Jarrod's "kung fu" training in preparation for his revenge fight, plenty of the scenes would be right at home among the best things you've seen in Rushmore and the like.

Not that I needed any more encouragement, but this film only solidified Waititi's place in my mind as a modern director whose films I now eagerly anticipate. And as much as I loved Ragnarok, I would actually prefer that he go back to smaller-scale, more personal flicks such as Eagle vs. Shark. This is clearly where he has made and can continue to make more meaningful, unique, and touching movies.

Before I Die #621: Rosemary's Baby (1968)

This is the 621st movie I've now seen out of the 1,199 films on the "Before You Die" list that I'm gradually working my way through.

Director: Roman Polanski

A horror "classic" that still has some power, though it is considerably faded by age and endless mimicry by countless imitators.

The story follows the titular Rosemary Woodhouse (Mia Farrow), who moves into an imposing and creepy old apartment building - the Bramford - in Manhattan with her aspiring actor husband, Guy (John Cassavetes). Despite the building's dark history of housing supposed witches, and being the setting for some gruesome deaths in the past, the Woodhouses take an apartment. They are soon set upon by a pair of strange upstairs neighbors, the Castevets, an elderly couple who show undue interest in the Woodhouses. Rosemary and and Guy try to play along with the Castevets and several other strange denizens of the Bramford. However, when the young couple express an interest in having a child, things become ever-more bizarre, as the Castevets' interest in Rosemary increases to unnerving levels. On a particularly disorienting night, Rosemary suffers through what seems to be a fever dream wherein she is impregnated by some demonic creature that initially posed as her husband, Guy. After this strange nightmare, Rosemary discovers that she is, indeed, pregnant. the neighbors continue to close ranks around her, slowly attempting to cut off Rosemary's contacts with outsiders. Rosemary begins to suspect that she is at the center of some sort of dark Satanic ritual, and that her baby might just be the child of Satan himself.

This movie made all sorts of waves when it came out, and it's not difficult to see why. At the time of its release in 1968, tales involving Satanism were hardly part of the popular culture landscape. What this movie did was to take such dark subject matter and include it in a relatively mainstream offering. It was such a hit that the idea of a "Satan's spawn" or demon possession has been used over and over, to varying degrees of success, ever since, with 1973's The Exorcist and 1976's The Omen being the obvious standouts. Because of the high volume of imitators, the suspense and ultimate reveal of the story loses its impact.

Another area where age hasn't helped is in the overall writing. The dialogue, which was probably adequate and perhaps even engaging fifty years ago, feels rather clunky much of the time. It's often the sort of cheesy, unimaginative fare that you might expect from classic, prime-time TV dramas or sit-coms. A larger problem is that the Rosemary character is immensely pathetic. This partially fits into one of the grander and still-relevant themes (which I'll cover below), but it can simply be painful to watch the waifish Mia Farrow get buffeted around by forces which she finds too strong to fight, even though there are plenty of more obvious paths of escape to us viewers, if only Rosemary would show a bit more pluck. Fans of strong female characters are likely to be frustrated by this movie's lead. And the grand finale/reveal of the movie can be almost laughably silly, despite the fact that it is meant to be the height of horror.

Ruth Gordon as the garish and eternally nosy Minni Castevet.
Her function as a menacing nuisance is played only too well -
I actually grew tired of her well before the halfway point in
the film, along with a few other characters.

The film still works very well in two main ways. One is the use of the Bramford itself. The eerie old building still has power as an imposing setting for the diabolical machinations taking place within its walls. Far more powerful, though, is the movie's strength as social commentary. The relentless pressure put upon Rosemary by everyone around her - from her obtrusive neighbors to her supposedly loving husband - to get pregnant, see it to term, and raise the child, despite her strong misgivings along the way - all of these still resonate as the types of social pressure thrust upon women to make motherhood their primary focus. The movie takes them to a wild extreme, but this is what successful horror allegories do. Rosemary's Baby still functions well in this regard, even if it often feels bloated and clumsy about it much of the time.

I was glad to finally take in this horror classic which I had somehow never seen before, but I'll feel zero need to see it again. It's strengths in general setting and theme are easily garnered in a single viewing, while its many dated elements quash any desire I would have to sit through the film's 130-minute run time again.

That's 621 movies down; only 578 movies to go before I can die.