Idiot Boxing: Black Monday, seasons 1 and 2 (2019-2020)

A raucous comedy in the vein of Veep or In the Thick of It, but set among the jungle that was Wall Street stockbroker firms in the wild era of Reagan's unregulated 1980s. Unfortunately, it eventually suffers from some of the same weaknesses as its main executive producers' other shows and movies.

Set in the late 1980s mostly on Wall Street in Manhattan, we follow the fictional, wild and rebellious trading firm The Jammer Group, headed up by the brash and bombastic Maurice "Mo" Monroe (Don Cheadle). Exactly a year before the historically brutal stock market crash in October of 1987, Mo and his partner Dawn (Regina Hall) use shady means to hire the fresh-faced, aspiring young broker Blair Pfaff (Andrew Rannells). Pfaff, though a wide-eyed neophyte to the cut-throat world of the New York Stock Exchange, is engaged to the heiress of a massive denim empire which Mo and Dawn hope to acquire. This is just the first in countless underhanded schemes and plots that various greedy parties concoct in order to amass wealth. The first season ends with the market crash of 1987, while the second season follows most of the characters through the following year, as they deal with the massive fallout from the crash. Every step of the way, these financial predators do copious amounts of cocaine and hurl infinite crushing insults at each other.

I really liked the first season, but the second one flagged a bit for me. Maybe even to the point that I won't bother with any future seasons.

Anyone who watched Black Monday can't help but think of the Martin Scorsese film The Wolf of Wall Street, which also depicts much of the same unbridled greed and monstrous behavior of certain NYSE brokerage firms through the 1980s, '90s, and early 2000s. This show very much taps into that same vein, depicting the mad circus that can surround the ravenous pursuit of money. Tonally, the show usually operates on the same wavelength as the brilliant HBO show Veep, and it is clearly at its best when it does. The pop-culture-laced, lightning-quick, and ruthless insults really are the best thing about the show's writing, along with the constant reminders of just how garish tastes and fashion were at the time. As long as your OK with quick, clever jokes that are inappropriate in nearly every way imaginable, then you're bound to get some laughs.

The show does a good job early on of depicting the off-the-
charts stress and the merciless heckling that goes on within
Wall Street trading firms.

The acting is also great, most obviously from one of my favorites, Don Cheadle. Cheadle has long shown his incredible acting range, and Black Monday utilizes plenty of it. As Mo Monroe, he's usually a fast-talking, charming conman, but he also has moments of gravity. Or at the very least, brilliantly feigned gravity in order to manipulate someone. The muscles he gets to flex most on this show are his comic timing and subtle comic gestures. As with many of his roles, he just commands your attention, even when he's seemingly not "doing" anything in a particular moment or scene. Equally impressive is Regina Hall as his partner, Dawn. I only really knew Hall from seeing her in Girls' Trip last year, but I hope to see her in more as she seems to have that same kind of acting agility that the very best possess. And throughout the show are plenty of other recognizable comic actors, such as Paul Scheer, Ken Marino, Horatio Sanz, and others, all of whom play their roles well.

Keith and Mo, backed up by a pair of roller-blading thugs
while they negotiate with cocaine dealers in Miami. This was
the prelude to one of the several shockingly violent sequences
in season two. I didn't find any of them particularly funny.

So with these clear strengths, why might I jump ship? Basically, the tone of the show just started getting muddled throughout the second season, mostly by oddly dark or graphically violent little turns. This is something I've felt about several of the other shows and movies associated with partners and executive co-producers Seth Rogan and Evan Goldberg. Whether in the stoner comedy Pineapple Express, the dictator-lampooning The Interview, or comic-based fantasy show Preacher, these two genuinely funny fellows have often injected shock value into their productions where none was needed. Or at the very least, they've not always gotten the balance or the execution quite right. With Black Monday, the first season was very much like Veep, which always had a perfect sense of itself: never trying to be genuinely dramatic or overly serious in any way. Any only once or twice did I ever feel like the darkness overwhelmed the comedy. In the second season of Black Monday, though, we get a brutally, realistically bloody gunfight in a bank that kills multiple people, we have a horrifically crippled and disfigured rival of Mo slouching and slurring around offices, and some flat-out bizarrely twisted humor centering on incest. I like to think I'm a person who can laugh at a good joke about anything, as long as the joke is actually clever enough. Here, as with other shows of theirs, I think Rogan, Goldberg, and the other producers and writers mistook "shocking" for "funny" a few too many times. And the balance got noticeably worse towards the end of the second season, with more and more off-color and, in my view, unfunny gags.

If and when the show kicks off a third season next year, I may dip back in, to see if it's righted its course a bit. I hope so, since I enjoy the cast and a decent amount of the writing. But if I tune in and the first episodes offer me suicides and gory tragedies, like the second season did, then I'm out. 

Boogie Nights (1997)

Director: Paul Thomas Anderson

I think I just unintentionally kicked off a Paul Thomas Anderson retrospective, after being reminded myself of just how great Boogie Nights is. 

This was far from a first viewing for me. I'd probably seen Boogie Nights a good five or six times before this, but it had been probably near a decade since my last viewing, and it's been airing on Showtime lately. So before I knew it, I was once again following the rise, fall, and return of fictional porn star Dirk Diggler.

To summarize the rather epic story: Eddie Adams (Mark Wahlberg) is a young man who lives in Los Angeles and washes dishes in a nightclub, but who has dreams of being a movie star. Eddie isn't particularly bright or talented, acting-wise, but he is endowed with an especially large penis and the ability to "perform" with prodigious frequency. These assets catch the eye of Jack Horner, a successful producer and director of pornographic movies. Eddie is soon whisked into a world of his dreams, with other porn stars who quickly embrace a befriend him, and Eddie soon proves himself highly adept at porn acting. Adopting the stage name Dirk Diggler, he rapidly rises to the top of the profession, such as it is. A few short years after his dizzying, whirlwind ascent, Eddie starts to be corrupted by many of the porn industry's seedier elements. Drug use is rampant among many of his co-stars and the hangers-on of the porn industry. Sexual deviancy, including that of the repugnant and illegal variety, is always on the periphery or looming over the business. And the inner turmoil and interpersonal dysfunction of many of his associates eventually rub the shine off of Eddie's success. Deep into a cocaine habit, Eddie steadily spirals out of control, falling out completely with Jack and having his life hit a pretty nasty rock bottom. After a couple of frightening close calls with death, Eddie throws himself on Jack's mercy, begs for help, and is given a chance to get back on his feet within the industry that made him.

Boogie Nights is such a surprisingly entertaining movie that it still dazzles me. The description above might suggest a movie that is about nothing more than a sleazy industry, and the rise, fall, and redemption of someone within it. While all of those things are parts of the film, it does far more than that. In the same fashion that Martin Scorsese did with Goodfellas and Casino, writer and director Paul Thomas Anderson found and brought to the fore the many human elements in such a tale. Not only that, but he imbued the story with so much humor that it's hard not to find yourself smiling and laughing for the majority of the film. Most of the humor, again not unlike Scorsese gangster pictures, comes from the characters not knowing just how dumb they are and sound. Eddie and his fellow porn stars are nearly all very sweet but also very naive, shallow, and oblivious to their own shortcomings in many ways. Maybe it's Reed Rothchild's blatantly false claims about how much weight he can bench-press, or Buck Swope's endless aping of dead fashions, or Eddie's ear-splitting attempts at a music career. In so many ways, these characters make themselves the butt of jokes, thanks to all of them enabling each other and bubbling themselves off from a greater sense of reality. The clueless bumbling is often hilarious.

Some of Jack's actors and crew. This group likes to think of
themselves as a cool, tight-knit family, but they are nearly
all unable or unwilling to take a hard look at themselves
or the problematic aspects of their business.

But it's not the comedy alone that makes this movie so great. It's that Paul Thomas Anderson, as he's done in other films, finds a perfect balance between effective comedy and affecting drama. As comically dopey as many of the characters are in Boogie Nights, many of them actually evoke sympathy from viewers. This is no more obvious than with the protagonist, Eddie. He's clearly not the sharpest tool in the shed, but he's relatively innocent and genuinely sensitive in ways that most of those around him are not, including a mother who viciously puts him down. When things start going south in Eddie's life and career, it is actually sad. Just as sad are the ways in which his friends' and colleagues' lives devolve, as well. The most obvious is his frequent porn co-star, Amber Waves (Julianne Moore), who adopts a maternal tone with the younger porn actors around her, while having her own personal life fall to pieces, thanks in no small part to her wildly irresponsible life choices. When we see her sobbing outside of a courthouse, after rightfully losing a custody hearing, it's obvious that she is a woman in pain. It doesn't alleviate the blame she has earned, but it does humanize her effectively. And there are several other such examples with other characters who are initially easy to dismiss as simply dumb and self-destructive, but whom you eventually see more as real people with deep personal and even psychological problems.

I don't know if a caveat is necessary for a movie that is more than two decades old, but I should offer one to those who haven't seen the film but are considering watching it: this movie is about the pornographic movie industry. And it doesn't pull too many punches when it comes to sex. While it's not extremely graphic, there is certainly more than a little nudity and even several simulated sex scenes. And it is obviously the background against which the entire story takes place. For those uncomfortable with the sex industry, this movie may be too much to take. However, the film doesn't completely ignore some of the downright immoral and illegal aspects of and people involved with the industry. This gives us a picture that's more complete than just the wild rise and fall of the actors. The character of prime producer and director Jack Horner, portrayed in an Oscar-winning performance by Burt Reynolds, is the clearest example. He does show concern about his actors, to a point. But it's a mistake to see him as some sort of nurturing father-figure, as much as he seems to view himself that way. Ultimately, he's exploiting young people by ignoring their destructive tendencies up to the point that they start biting into his profits. Yes, he gives second chances, enjoys harmony, and wants to make films that have more "story" than your average adult picture. But he also enables his actors' drug habits and self-delusions, never really thinking about whether he is helping them become healthier or not. Some of this is painfully obvious, but much of it is merely implied and easier to miss under the veneer of the "happy family" that we see at the end of the movie.

I have to mention the cast of this movie. Without getting specific, all you need to do it look at a partial list of the top-billed actors: Burt Reynolds, Julianne Moore, John C. Reilly, Don Cheadle, William H. Macy, and Philip Seymour Hoffman. These are the most prominent (some of them before they were to become even better known for film), but this list gives you some idea of the acting talent present here. It's tough to top, and each and every one of them bring their A-games. This crew could make a bad script with bad direction decent. With Boogie Nights, they made a great script with great direction an all-time great movie.

I doubt that I'll ever get tired of watching this movie. In nearly every way, it's an exemplary piece of film craft. Watching it again has, I think, sparked a desire to go back and re-watch several of Anderson's other movies, just to revel in just how masterful a filmmaker he is, and Boogie Nights is really where he first proved it. 

New Release with No Spoilers: Avengers: Endgame (2019)

No Spoilers Here - Read Away!

Directors: Anthony and Joe Russo

What a titanic piece of work, and one that takes more than a few risks. That is why it is a highly impressive follow-up to last year's Infinity War, and a wonderfully fitting final chapter to the Marvel Cinematic Universe's (MCU) first decade of blockbuster movie domination.

Before getting into my general thoughts, I should point out that Endgame, like its predecessor Infinity War, is not a friendly film for those unfamiliar with the seminal films of the MCU. For the last few years, the MCU has been better described as a large-scale film series rather than a group of individual films which take place in the same "universe". While a viewer certainly doesn't need to have seen all 21 of the previous MCU films, seeing at least a half dozen specific ones will provide far greater context for the events in Endgame. My personal recommendations for the highly recommended "homework" films would be:

Iron Man
Captain America: The First Avenger
The Avengers
Thor: The Dark World
Captain America: The Winter Soldier
Guardians of the Galaxy
Captain America: Civil War
The Avengers: Infinity War
Ant-Man and The Wasp

There are a few other films that one could watch in order to fully understand some of the lesser plot points and gags in Endgame, but the nine listed above will give one a very solid foundation upon which to enjoy the new movie without feeling lost.

This being the "no spoiler" section, I cannot dive into the plot points except to state that Endgame spends a fair bit of time dealing with the fallout of Thanos's "snap" from Infinity War, with which he used the Infinity Gauntlet to literally annihilate half of the population of the known universe at the end of the previous film. The surviving superheroes grapple with the unfathomable loss just like everyone else - with varying degrees of success and failure. Some eventually move on. Others wallow in sad states of guilt and loss. Eventually, a possible and highly risky form of salvation is presented and those heroes left behind pull themselves together to try and enact it in an effort to bring back the countless numbers of people lost.

One of the movie's many strengths is seeing who among the
survivors ends up teaming together in the name of the new
mission laid out by Endgame.

Perhaps the thing that stands out to me about Endgame is just how different the pace and tone are, compared to Infinity War. That previous movie had an extremely brisk pace and plenty of action, right from the jump. Endgame takes a much different approach, using nearly all of the first act (which clocks in at nearly an hour) in a somber mood, looking at the familiar characters dealing with their grief and some still searching for solutions. It's not without humor, to be sure, but the moments of levity are fewer and further between than any MCU film I can recall. For a dedicated fan of the MCU like myself, however, this was a very welcome and all-but-necessary shift, coming on the heels of such a wild and devastating end to Infinity War. Viewers not familiar with the main characters' backstories are likely to be bored by the slower pace, but such is always the case when one picks up a series in its final chapter. Once the second act begins, though, things pick up quite briskly.

The second act of the movie was a very fun one, despite being the most obvious form of fan service in the entire 22-film MCU. This is not to say that it felt contrived or pandering. It actually does make complete sense within the plot of the movie, all while offering real fanboys and fangirls tons of "wink wink, nudge nudge" moments for about an hour, as we recall the many, many details from earlier movies referenced in this part of the epic film. It all culminates in scenes teased, suggested, and hoped for based on Infinity War - a third-act battle sequence of huge proportions and featuring just about every major and secondary character from the 21 previous MCU movies. And as they've done with their three previous MCU movies, the Russos show that they know how to do immensely entertaining, large-scale action.

I don't think it's giving anything away to mention that time travel plays more than a small role in this movie (how else did we think the surviving Avengers might seek to undo Thanos's galactic genocide?). As with any story that uses time travel as a device, the plot can get messy and confusing if one thinks too much about it. Endgame doesn't get too bogged down in the weeds on this, which is probably for the best, but it does raise certain questions that I'm yet to come up with answers to, despite mulling them over for a good 48 hours after watching the movie. There are also a few other unresolved plot threads that may give you an un-scratchable itch, but there's nothing that torpedoes the main thrust of the story.

The other aspect at the heart of this film is the characters. Like the narrative, the Russos throw us more than a couple of curve balls here, presenting some heroes as totally shattered emotionally (and not always the ones you expect) while others remain staunchly dedicated to the seemingly futile search for a way to bring everyone back. It is during these inner struggles that it helps to know about the characters since knowing about their past motivations and relationships with each other adds greatly to the emotional impact of the entire movie, especially the first and second acts. And for fans who have enjoyed the emotional heart of this series going back to the earliest seminal movies Iron Man and Captain America: The First Avenger, the ending should be immensely satisfying.

***Since writing the above, I've seen the film an additional two times and thoroughly enjoyed its full length all three times. Of course, I'm a tremendous fan of this series, but it speaks very highly of such a long film that even a dedicated fan can gain so much enjoyment from it.

Spoiler Section - Beware!!!

So let's get into this thing a little more. I could probably write a 20,000-word rabbit hole piece about so many specific details and how I loved or disliked them, but I'll stick to a few of the larger points.

The time travel. Let's get this out of the way. As a plot device to resolve the devastation unleashed in Infinity War, it was a necessary evil. But evil it still was. Yes, it provides a great reason for our heroes to go back and revisit moments chronicled in several earlier films in the series, and do so in some wonderfully entertaining ways. But still, when one thinks about it all for more than a few moments, it all falls apart rather quickly. If 2014 Thanos, along with his army and Gamorah and Nebula, jumps ahead to 2023 to confront the Avengers and gets annihilated, then you've now obliterated all of the things that Thanos (and his army and daughters) did up to and after Guardians of the Galaxy. That has a lot of massive impacts, the most obvious of which is that Thanos is now no longer around to kick of the Infinity War story. On a smaller scale, Steve Rogers going back and staying in the 1940s to live out his life with Peggy Carter (a wonderfully satisfying moment of closure) leaves a ton of unanswerable questions about their relationship, such as why Peggy doesn't ackowledge him as her husband back in The Winter Soldier. And on and on the questions go, leading to a completely shattered continuity. That's by far my biggest issue with this movie. Again, though, it was probably a necessary evil, given exactly what had happened previously.

My other gripes are much smaller and easily shrugged off. The final battle is highly enjoyable, though I could have done without the high amount of posing and the cringe-worthy "She'll have help," up-with-women moment towards the end. Don't get me wrong - I love the women characters in the MCU, and I love seeing them kick ass, whether individually or together. But that moment felt so contrived that it broke my enjoyment of the battle. Oh, and why does anyone, including Peter Parker or anyone else, think that Captain Marvel needs any help to get through a few score foot soldiers? Did they not just see her single-handedly bring down Thanos's immense warship by flying through it in about 10 seconds flat? Those and a few other things had me rolling my eyes a bit, but again - easily shrugged off.

What impressed me the most is how the plot defied my expectations. As I do with all blockbuster movies which I'm eager to see, I completely blocked out any trailers or other information about the movie. That way, it could reveal itself to me upon my first viewing. Endgame rewarded that approach. Having a handful of the remaining Avengers rather quickly track down Thanos and execute him was not something I saw coming, nor was the five year jump in the narrative. And then there was fat Thor, Black Widow's sacrifice, and Steve Rogers electing to go back and reclaim the life he lost in 1945. I really do feel like the writers took some real risks with this story. They could very well have done a full two-and-a-half hour "let's go get Thanos" story, but they elected to focus more on dealing with loss and fighting to undo a horrendous tragedy rather than focus more on a revenge tale. I think this made the movie a great counter-balance and follow-up to Infinity War, which was a very fast-paced film heavily emphasizing action/adventure elements over emotional touchstones.

The curious thing now is the question of where the MCU goes from this point. It was a bold stroke to move the entire universe five years into the future, which threatens to really jerk with the continuity that many of us MCU nerds cherish. The threat of dangling time threads aside, I'm still completely on board with what may come. Right now, there are only a few "known" movies planned, but details are extremely slim. I do hope to see at least one more movie featuring the "Asguardians of the Galaxy," as Portly Thor referred to them. That team-up has a dizzying amount of entertainment potential.