Change Your Image
TMAuthor23
Reviews
Bodkin (2024)
Worth A Watch
The pluses? The cast, including the dozens of extras that add layers of believability to the odd little Irish town.
The story, a cold case about a long ago trio of missing persons, combines with a creaky Pod-cast Scooby Do adventure, and it meanders a lot. This makes the early episodes a bit slow. The action picks up in the later episodes starting with #5. However, the narrative begins to jump around a lot, flashbacks from other characters perspectives, and hops from one character to another too often.
The eventual resolution of the multiple threads is both a bit of a letdown, and a whirlpool of wrong assumptions getting vetted one by one.
The comedy isn't as non-stop as some reviews and the trailer suggests. It's dark and filled with the personal demons of the heroes complicating their efforts. There are some sly funny moments though, filled with irony and a lack of self awareness.
The three protagonists are conflicted individuals, performed very well by a surprising cast. Siobhan Cullen's Dove is an unrepentant b!+@# who has big problems brewing back home in London. Robyn Cara, who has made a career of playing ditzy characters, at first seems to be playing true to form, but her character Emmy reveals more depth and complexity as each episode unspools. Will Forte is an acquired taste, and his character, Gilbert, is a doofus who's made big mistakes that are nipping at his heels. He continually gets in his own way trying to be nice. Fortunately he becomes less of a tool as the season nears its conclusion.
David Wilmot turns in a great performance as Seamus Gallagher, the mysterious townsman with a scary past, who is trying to embrace a "normal" life.
I recommend it, it isn't high art but there are some laughs and good performances..
Star Trek: Strange New Worlds (2022)
The Best Trek In Years
We're two seasons in and, so far, it's been a pretty great ride.
The 9 rating is based on several things: cast, production value, stories (of course), character development and fitting within what is classically Trek.
It nails almost everything, IMO.
The cast is uniformly top notch. Even my two least favorite performers (Olusanmokun and Romijm) do a credible job. Not every episode is a home run. My least favorite, The Elyssian Kingdom from season one, and I am not a fan of the musical episode, Subspace Rhapsody. But that's just me.
Production values are also consistently high, with only one or two episodes showing some cracks. The stories are so good. And the way character development is threaded throughout is very well done too. The showrunner (a job we didn't even know existed during TOS run) is taking some of the classic characters ins direction that I don't love (Uhura's aggressive independence and broad deep brilliance as one example. But in today's landscape Nichelle Nichol's underwritten and inconsistent female supporting character would have been ridiculously lame). But in particular the performances of Jess Bush, Navia, Chong, Peck and Mount are excellent. That's what you need in a classically designed ensemble show.
The decision to revert back to episodic TV (albeit with continuing threads) it's also welcome. It allows more flexibility, range and character service.
And honestly, it's the first show that feels like true Star Trek since the last several seasons of TNG. That doesn't mean DS9 and others didn't have some excellent work in them. But after the disasters of Discovery and Picard it is "pinch me" awesome to be viewing a Trek without groaning and pulling your hair out.
There's still some unevenness, and Pike resolving his existential problem needs attention. But it took TNG 3 seasons to figure things out. This crew is ahead of the game.
All in all this is without question a joy to watch.
The Lost Boys (1987)
Entertaining But Hasn't Held Up
The best parts of this are the scenes where it feels like a Scooby Do adventure. The bad parts are when it gets all serious and gauzy with soft focus lenses, overwrought musical scoring and melodrama. Unfortunately there's a lot of that. The practical effects used in this also present some problems when viewing it forty years later.
A pro reviewer scored this 10/100 stating that it felt like The Goonies or a Spielberg film. Those aren't bad things.
However, this is the kind of movie that could easily be remade and done better. Consistent thematic plot, better effects, and a more cohesive score.
Sad side note: this was when Corey Haim was at his peak as a young teen star, before Hollywood chewed him up and spit him out. He passed away years ago and the long downhill slide his life took was sad indeed. His teen collaborator, Corey Feldman, is funny in a small role. But his career went into the abyss too. Cautionary tale about the dangers of LA and 80's Hollywood.
The number of strong actors in supporting roles (Sutherland, Weist, Hermann, Gertz) is what lifts this movie above its peer group of 80's horror comedy. Worth a watch as a stepping stone in the vampire mythos in the movies.
The Boys (2019)
A Trip Through The Sewer
At its heart this show wants to be Watchmen, the controversial movie helmed by Zack Snyder. But instead of leaning into the heroism aspect of that movie, or the conflicting morality of what heroes can do vs what they should do, this series pushes the boundaries on social metaphors and asks the question: what if super-powered individuals were morally corrupt test tube experiments? The plot delves deeply into those queries, and embraces the horrific things superhuman people can do when they're not held accountable.
While season one had some good things going for it, there are enough disgusting visuals and plot points to drag it down. I'm a Karl Urban fan, and Quaid is excellent in his role. But the depravity of the "supers" is beyond the pale. The Aquaman placeholder is a serial rapist. The Superman wannabe is a serial killer and engages in stuff that no one should have to look at.
I've got a family member that liked this show (at least season one) and even he had to admit that the gross out deaths (that get amped up in season two) and the oppressive sexual perversion stuff was over the top.
It's a sad statement of our times (or at least who rates stuff on this site) how many people rate this a nine or a ten. How can anyone watch this stuff and not feel disgusted? I don't care that it's supposedly drenched in satirical metaphor. It's just gross.
I weep for humanity.
Sugar (2024)
You Have To Wait Until Episode 6
Why episode 6? Because that's when the real show premise and plot is revealed.
The first five episodes give us Colin Ferrell (in an excellent performance) in a neo-noir with layers, a great supporting cast and an interesting, but convoluted, plot.
There are clues throughout that what we're seeing is not the whole thing. Sugar "doesn't like to hurt people" but he often does. Brutally. There's oblique interaction between him and what we think is his associate, person in the chair, handler, but that gets blown out of the water in episode four. Sugar is also unbelievably virtuous with strangers, victims (because he DOES hurt people) and acquaintances. Too good to be true you say? Not when you get to episode 7.
The GIGANTIC left turn in episode seven is almost unforgivable. It feels like a tremendous cheat. In the streaming series Midnight Sky we were torn between whether the main character was crazy, or is there really a portal to another dimension in his root cellar. When we finally get the answer (at the end of a series that was cancelled!) we've been strung along too long to really care. Here, in Sugar, we've totally invested in all these characters and the missing girl who is at the center of the major plot (or so we were led to believe), when the rug gets completely ripped out from under us and we discover we're actually watching a very different show.
The episode leaves us wishing Sugar's true nature and self was revealed earlier, so we could walk with him through the emotional seduction he's been dealing with. Ultimately he's been drawn in too far, and isn't an observer any more, he's an active participant.
The final denouement may justify the trap. There's a lot to clean up in one episode. Hopefully there's a season two.
There's a real danger that the showrunner has painted himself into a similar corner that JJ Abrams painted himself into at the end of LOST.
I hope not.
Sleight (2016)
The Original Story Would Have Made A Better Film
First of all, the original book this was based on, and the person who wrote it, aren't credited. And that's probably a good thing.
The original hero was a young teen harassed by gangsters, bullied at school and chased by supernatural criminals. He navigated the moral quandaries of having gifts that could make things easy, but easy comes with a price. Although he wasn't perfect, and made mistakes, he constantly strove to find the right balance.
Ultimately his youth and naivety cost him someone close to him, but he was able to save thousands by pursuing truth.
In this movie we get a kid who sells drugs to make money, chops off a person's hand to pass a test by gangsters, and mutilates himself to acquire a special ability.
Ugly, dark and un-redeeming.
But that's what Hollywood loves to do.
Dark Matter (2024)
Not A Bad Start
The current site rating (for the episodes available) feels about right. For me around a 7 as well.
It starts slow, which represents typical Apple TV filler or padding in a story that might be better served as a movie. This is frequently the case when a series is based on a single book.
But...
Production values are good. The two leads, Edgerton and Connelly, are both strong actors. There have been other series (possibly ripping off the book on which this is based) that have used this premise and not done well. But without having seen all the series' episodes we can't tell at this point where Dark Matter will go.
Alice Braga, as Amanda, is a capable actress although not on the same level as the two leads. Her role looks to increase beginning in episode three. Jimi Simmons, still looking like a Christian Slater cousin or clone, is fine as well as Ryan, Jason's best friend.
In episode one, as is the case in most series like this, it rips along pretty well. It's the later episodes where repetitive exposition bogs things down. This kind of "story bloat" can be a problem. The scripting, acting and intriguing plot may reveal a very good series though, so I'll reserve judgment.
Other reviewers want to take issue with the quantum theory (apparently all the rage in sci-fi, Marvel and Disney nowadays) angle and the Schroedinger Cat reference in the beginning. Don't bother with any of that. It's purely foreshadowing and merely puts forth the key premise: two things can be true at the same time; and if you could, would you change a key event in your past.
It's a flipped version of the old time travel trope of an older version of a person traveling back in time to change events in his or her past. Except here, in Dark Matter, it's much more complicated, and morally conflicted than that.
Time, and those extra episodes we haven't seen yet, will tell.
I'll keep watching.
The Roast of Tom Brady (2024)
Roast Me-But Not Like That!
Tom Brady did a near spot on impression of Will Smith. When the roastmaster took a shot at Patriot owner Robert Kraft Brady got up and "whispered" in his ear, "Don't say that $#!!+ again!"
Really? A Roast is formulaic and predictable. There will be all sorts of inappropriate and crude jokes. A roast is also a gigantic ego massage in public for the guest of "honor". So we get all of that, but also the roastee interrupting and letting everyone know that even at a satirical roast, HE will control the narrative and content. Was anyone brave enough to really skewer him with Deflate-gate or Spy-gate? Nope.
And what about that lunatic tirade of Ben Affleck's? That's why this is rated two stars. That's flipping weird but compelling TV. Let's watch an A-list actor burn down the house.
So when you're roasting TB12 make sure he gets an advance copy of your material. He wants you to take shots at him, but only with a Nerf Gun.
And for the TB12 fanboys and fangirls that are tagging "unhelpful", well, can't help you with your obsession. The truth is the truth.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Along Came Polly (2004)
Why Was This Made?
Jennifer Aniston is an average talent who enjoyed perfect casting in an iconic TV series. Her performance in this is very middle grade. Virtually any actress could step in and not change the movie much, unless it was a talent like Bullock.
Ben Sillier. Oy. You either love him or hate him.
The shtick of a Schlub who is a deer-in-the-headlights succeeding against all odds is over. Will Ferrel, Steve Martin (a million years ago) have mined this concept to death. Stiller is a one trick pony who rides this same tired pony in almost every film he makes (Night At The Museum, Something About Mary, Mitty, Meet The Parents...). There are almost zero laughs in this and I highly encourage anyone who is thinking about watching it to slide on by and pick another horse.
Save your viewing hours for something better.
So Help Me Todd (2022)
Great Duo Chemistry Wasted
Marcia Gay Harden and Skylar Astin have been in some good things. Not this.
Their chemistry is decent. However the buffoonery and slapstick hijinks mixed with a multitude of serious family and business place drama don't work.
Ensemble shows are popular and when they're done well they can be amazing and immersive. If you have a Sopranos and an HBO budget and commitment it can be special. In most hour long broadcast TV shows there is a rule about how many regular characters you should have...9 is the number. In comedy half hours 9 would be pushing it: Cheers had 7, Seinfeld had 6 or 7. This series? Holy crap! In the work environment alone there are 7 recurring characters, the family circle includes 8! And then there's Harden's ex-husband and boyfriend. That's 17 recurring characters, and I'm not including the girlfriend of the law firm dork, or the evil ex-partner of Astin's defunct private eye firm. That's way too many balls to keep in the air, especially when you're trying to stick the landing in season one.
The hokey Scooby Do antics of mom and son while they're on a case together is jarring when compared to the sister's slow motion marital destruction and personal train wreck. Then you throw in the gay brother who has problems with his gay identity? And the secondary character at the law firm (Astin's ex) who marries a guy she doesn't love, and then starts competing with Harden's character. And...the ex husband shows up out of nowhere asking to be part of the family again? And those aren't the only flimsy subplots! Oh, my lord!
They needed to pick a lane. Astin, who i really like, plays his role at such a frenetic pace that it became annoying by the middle of season one.
Harden, whose romantic backstory is a waste of time, plays a character who vacillates between incompetence and lucky competence and is a strain to watch. Her character is by turns insufferably pompous, all-knowing, or clueless, but leaves each episode with a smug smile on her face as she sashays off to a glass of wine or a fancy dinner.
By the end of the first season the character arcs and multiple plot lines had all unraveled.
And, unsurprisingly, it's been canceled.
What a waste.
Anyone But You (2023)
A New Rom-Com Low
The two leads are up and coming actors. This vehicle did neither of them any favors.
Rom-Coms are a slippery critter. The high bar? When Harry Met Sally, It Happened One Night, Sleepless In Seattle, While You Were Sleeping, Dan In Real Life...and the low bar? A very long list, that now includes this mess.
The plot is full of romantic comedy tropes, too numerous to tick them off one by one. The dialogue is atrocious and the acting is pretty bad too. The casual insertion of profanity by almost every character is off-putting. I've never seen Sweeney in anything else, but her performance in this isn't anything special. Granted, she isn't helped by the script.
Powell appears bummed out to realize he signed up for this bad ride. He certainly doesn't deliver the charismatic performance he turned in for Top Gun Maverick.
The supporting actors are a mixed bag, mostly terrible with heavy emphasis on the overacting.
Hard pass.
Rebel Moon - Part Two: The Scargiver (2024)
Two Cliffhangers In A Row?
We've had some jarring cliffhangers over the years (Star Wars, Matrix series, that Hunger Game Catching Fire stunner), but two in a row? In bad movies, in a mess of a series of films? No thanks.
If you were hoping part 2 was going to redeem part 1...uh, no.
Zach Snyder's films look cool. No denying that. There's a following. That's indisputable.
But all of his films (with him writing in particular) have story, plot and dialogue issues. This film is no different.
There is so much exposition (indiscriminately dropped in) that the main story comes to a screeching halt every time. And that exposition? Stupid. Rehashed dull crap.
If you have never seen the several versions of Seven Samurai, watch any of them for a better play on the central plot in this film. George Lucas and others have already plundered great Japanese film epics and retreaded spaghetti westerns to develop science fiction films hundreds of times. The modern audience is wise to this, and there is so much content out there that they can smell lame junk from the back row.
There are too many coincidences, too many holes in the plot, too much lame dialogue (that some of the actors had HUGE difficulty delivering) and too many forced attempts at shock and awe.
It's a shame really. The small story idea around a rogue android gone wild is given scant service and little screen time. That story, expanded upon, could have been amazing. As it stands he shows up to save part of the day, and it's telegraphed from miles away. And the voice work for the Android is not right for his part. Feels like a strange homage to C-3PO.
If you finished Part I wondering why all these heroes were willing to risk their lives to rescue a backwater agricultural village on an unremarkable planet... and why an all powerful evil empire would waste resources on it... well, you're going to be seriously disappointed with the answer. Because it's a gigantic nothing burger.
Usually folks stick around in an action movie to watch the bad guy get clobbered. Well, not here. The front and center space nazi (brought back from the dead twice?) gets an important part of his body cut off by the heroine. But because this is the PG-13 cut, all of that takes place off screen. So no visual confirmation that the bad guy died. Lame.
And the big bad? The guy who has been giving all the orders, and brought nazi-Ned back from the dead? He never shows up. Ridiculous.
One of the biggest gripes I have with Snyder's films is that there is no comic relief. They all want to be taken so seriously that there is no joy when a hero succeeds, or a villain is defeated. It becomes more about reflecting on the loss and damage to arrive at the end result. Such a bummer.
And the ending? Nope. Another cliff hanger. Will there be a part 3? Please no.
So cue it up, watch it, shake your head, and then go watch The Seven Samurai.
Fallout (2024)
Excellent World Building-Story Problems
Reviewing a video game adaptation presents challenges. Because they are (except for Halo apparently) intended to honor the fandom and the original game. This series does that, to a degree.
The set designs, CGI (except for the Gulp monsters), and production quality are all very good. And who doesn't enjoy a good old villain performance by Walton Goggins? He's great.
Ella Purnell, despite the fact that she's saddled with a Mary Sue role, is also very good, projecting just enough "fish out of water" humor and surviving by the skin of her teeth as central character Lucy. Her standard response says it all, "Okey Dokey".
Unfortunately, aside from those two there are many miscast ineffective performers, led by Aaron Moten as Maximus the renegade "knight" and Moises Arias as Norman, Lucy's brother. There are several small bit parts that are well done, but they are few and far between.
The writing? All over the place. A lot of the overarching story does come from the game, but there are enough bizarre and gratuitous plot lines that by the end of the sixth episode it all begins to fall apart. The tonal shifts between overheated melodrama (the fifties flashbacks) to the hokey spoof of life in the vaults, to the Uber violent present day quests through the badlands on the surface do not serve the viewer well.
Because they handle their roles well, the episodes that feature Lucy (Purnell) and The Ghoul (Goggins) can be fun to watch, until gratuitous weird crap starts happening. But Maximus' story is harder to watch until he joins up with Lucy, because Moten is so bad that it takes the viewer out of the story every time. His story is also so close to John Boyega's (as a defecting Storm Trooper in The Force Awakens) that his performance suffers in the comparison. He takes himself so seriously, and his expression changes so seldom, that it doesn't mesh with anything going on around him.
Then there are the frequent plot problems (the all powerful knight suit can be deactivated by anyone who unscrews the battery/fusion core from the back of the suit. Really? Wouldn't the armor have some safety features to protect the knights from that?) that are the result of unimaginative writers. One of the biggest oddball issues is that all of the squires who are being trained to serve the knights as schleppers/pack animals are all skinny unhealthy looking toothpicks. Dumb.
When you finish watching a series, especially one that ends with an open ended story line, you should be anxiously awaiting the next installment.
Nope, not here.
Glass (2019)
Essential To The Trilogy, But....
Have you ever waited for a sequel? Excited, high hopes? And then you see the movie, and while the multi movie arc required seeing the sequel (Star Wars prequels, Batman and Robin...) the experience was a big let down? That's this.
I waited years to finally watch it because a family member likened it to The Happening and other Shyamalan failures.
James McAvoy is amazing, as he was in Split, but the rest of the film contains now predictable Shyamalan problems. Slow pacing, plot issues and scenes where logic flies out the window. Bruce Willis has almost no dialogue.
It isn't coincidental that the scenes with McAvoy's split personality characters are when the movie is at its best. Unfortunately it isn't enough to pull this thing above water.
*SPOILERS*
David being drowned in a puddle while his son is off camera apparently doing nothing is bad writing. Anya Taylor Joy's character is not effectively written into the flow of the plot either. Are we witnessing Stockholm Syndrome with her obsessive devotion to Kevin Crump, the man who kidnapped her in Split?
And Glass? I enjoy most of Samuel Jackson's films, but first, he doesn't speak until the 1:05 mark, and the things he accomplishes in the institution are not believable, and left unexplained.
The plot conceit, that comic book stories are historical reflections of real world mythos, gets so over worked that by the end it's fallen apart.
So, it's necessary to watch this if you've seen (and enjoyed) Unbreakable and Split, but ultimately it's a disappointment.
Steve! (2024)
Steve, We Hardly Knew Ye
I get it, most people who will watch this "documentary" are/were fans of Martin. And you know, during a time when the country desperately needed a laugh, he swooped in with his bizarre take on comedy, and made a lot of people laugh. So, good on him for being that guy. Pun intended.
The good? Rarely seen photos and footage of Martin's early days provide a glimpse into the modest beginnings of a well known performer. The bald and pained ("please turn it off, it's so bad I can't bear it") assessment by Martin of some of his early gags. The insight into what was clearly an abusive relationship with his father also lends depth to what drove him.
The less than good? That's a slippery slope. As a documentary, having a bunch of celebrity buddies offer their thoughts is questionable. It's all so gushingly positive that it quickly becomes boring. Even when he was at his zeitgeist peak, I never found the walk-like-an-Egyptian or I'm-a-wild-and-crazy-guy shtick all that funny. It made me laugh when my friends tried to do it, but genius comedy? No.
The documentary tries very hard to paint him as an iconic master of comedy. The fact that his routines haven't aged well puts the lie to that theory.
Can he act? Yes. There are three films in his catalogue that I think are great: one comedy and two serious roles. Does he resonate as an image of the late seventies and early eighties? Yes. Like other offbeat performers he developed his bits and found a niche and cashed in.
There were five moments that I thought were worth the watch: when he himself couldn't bear to watch his early frenetic stuff; when he and Martin Short were trying to write a set and were failing miserably; even on The Tonight Show Sammie Davis Jr stood up to give him a hug when he finished his set and he didn't know how to respond because "my family weren't huggers"; when his father (a class A1 jerk if ever there was one) offered the critique "well he's no Charlie Chaplin" on his movie The Jerk; and when an early girlfriend reminisced that when she broke up with him she couldn't handle his strange comedic ramblings even though she knew he wouldn't stop pursuing fame, and believed he would eventually make it happen.
Annie Hall (1977)
The Writing Was Decent
The film was not. This was my first lesson in that the Oscars were (and are) about what people in the industry think is important. The movie is honestly below average. Woody Allen (who slept with, then married, his adopted daughter) was never a good actor. Like John Wayne (until True Grit and The Shootist), he played every role the same. And not well. Try and watch this film and not cringe every time he's on screen.
And Diane Keaton? Best Actress? If you've seen her in anything, you've seen her performance in this movie. Same laugh, same takes, same line delivery.
DOA.
What's sad, is that much like high school politics (class president, prom queen), The Oscars are only about who, and what are popular in the moment to other actors and directors.
While there have been times where the two coincide, it's rare. Take a look at the best picture winners of the last 12 years, and watch them. There is no way the average American movie goer would vote most of them (Oppenheimer might be an exception) as the picture of the year.
It's all about messed up moral values and who's who.
Road House (2024)
Gyllenhall Is Great
Things to know: ultra violent. In that way it's very different than the '80's version starring Patrick Swayze. That film has large doses of cheese; this one? Grittier and slightly more self aware.
Liman is a director who has helmed some great movies (The Bourne Identity, Edge Of Tomorrow), and some clunkers. This falls somewhere between.
Gyllenhal is not only believable, but multi-layered in his performance. Although they are very different characters, akin to his performance in Southpaw.
Raw, brutal, damaged individual.
There are three relationships that orbit Dalton's (Gyllenhall) journey: the teenage girl who provides emotional grounding and ironic one-liners, the nurse who's there just for a romantic interest, and the bar owner (Jessica Williams in a truly awful performance) who provides the entry into the violent world Dalton has to navigate. The villains are a psychotic scion of a mobster, and Connor McGregor as an even more psychotic brawler bent on killing Dalton.
The rest of the supporting cast are one dimensional cardboard cutouts, and the script is a barebones straight line to the conclusion we prey much expect.
It may not be easy to watch, or enjoy visceral immersion because it's so brutal and bloody. The comedic beats featured in the trailers are few and far between.
There's a long list of former fighters and muscle guys who've made the transition to film: but Connor MacGregor does no one any favors with his cringe worthy performance.
As they say at the carnival, to forewarn patrons...THIS IS A DARK (VERY) RIDE.
Other than Gyllenhal there are no performances that stand out, and that's the problem. His portrayal is complicated, begging for a three dimensional adversary and fully developed allies. Because neither of those things happen what we're left with are beautiful shots of water, well choreographed fight scenes, and that's it.
The Dynasty (2024)
Very Good Documentary, Almost Great
There are episodes (like the Jordan doc) that make watching this series captivating. Whether you're a fan of the patriots or not this documentary is totally worth watching.
Know going in that the Kraft family essentially manipulated this, specifically with all their access. So above everyone else, billionaire Robert Kraft gets his say, and the last word.
But the curtain being pulled back on the Patriots' dynastic run is fascinating. Bellicheck's relentless drive to win at all costs. The punishing years long pursuit of championships. Brady's maniacal will to win, also at all costs. The question everyone debates: was it Bellicheck or Brady? Answer: neither one. Actually both PLUS Kraft who managed to keep them together.
The Aaron Hernandez murder scandal, the deflate-gate scandal, the spy-gate scandal, the ego and prideful infighting between Brady and Bellicheck.
It's all there. It's obvious how the documentary wants to steer your thinking: Bellicheck's ego blew it up. And it did. But it was also Brady. AND Kraft. Bellicheck benched Malcom Butler in the Super Bowl. Ego? Maybe. Questionable? Absolutely. Was it him demonstrating that Brady couldn't win it all by himself? Possibly, even though Brady threw for over 500 yards in that game. Brady had his own office (not revealed in the documentary) and snuck his personal trainer into the Patriot camp. Subverted the strength and conditioning training of the organization because he was convinced that his way was better. He engineered (through Kraft) getting rid of Garropolo because he didn't went the competition. So there's some ego at play there too.
Kraft is the mastermind that created an invigorated organization that hadn't existed before. He assembled a lot of the pieces. He was also the Great Enabler. He coddled Hernandez. He created a separate safe haven for Brady and his wife, to complain about Bellicheck. He allowed Bellicheck to coach (govern?) without any checks or balances. It seems like Kraft wants it both ways: he's the genius, benevolent benefactor, but didn't know anything about any of the bad or questionable things that took place. There has to be some acceptance of accountability in there somewhere.
So Kraft gets a lot of credit, he also deserves a lot of the blame.
Bellicheck? He cheated, got fined, and never apologized. Brady? He cheated too. Suspended, never owned up. Bellicheck was a dictator. Brady was a sensitive diva who wanted complete protection from...Bellicheck.
You can argue that Brady left the organization and won a Super Bowl with the buccaneers, so it was all him. No. The Tuck Rule mismanaged call won him his first championship. Adam Viniteri won three in the last, or near last plays of the respective games. Pete Carroll gift wrapped one win by making the worst playcall in Super Bowl history. Bellicheck won championship number 6 on his outrageous decision to completely change the defense to thwart McVay's Rams.
A year after the Bucs won it all, it all fell apart. They won the division with a losing record and got blown out in wild card weekend.
Bellicheck got the Pats to the playoffs in his first year without Brady. Then the wheels came off.
What the documentary misses, and Kraft ignores, is what Bellicheck said at the beginning (and then forgot)...it's all about the team, and no one person is more important than the team.
Too bad that all three men, who achieved something amazing together, didn't understand that until it was over. And it seems as though they may never truly see their own roles in the deterioration of a uniquely special time.
Masters of the Air (2024)
Great Visuals-Lots Of Plot Problems
Throughout the full series there were many terrific scenes. Some of the flight, and countryside visuals are mesmerizing.
Some of the portrayals are good (Croz and Rosie). But there are many plot threads that get dropped. Deep character studies that peter out, and some of the air fight scenes are anti climactic, particularly in the earlier episodes.
The decision (whether based on a true story or not) to have two of the central characters named so similarly (Buck and Bucky) is plain old bad story telling. Butler, as "Buck" delivers a performance that is so annoyingly monotone (regardless of the scene) that as admirable as the character is, the portrayal is boring. The character of Bucky, aka John Egan, is a derailer. He's such an unrelenting a$$#@!e that the lack of accountability to anyone else calling him out on it is stupid. His tryst with a damaged woman supposedly exposes some vulnerability. Will he change? Nope. Back to being a jerk. And a liability.
The long arc for Croz (the narrator of the series) is dumb squared. He's unfaithful to his wife back home, then hailed as the ultimate family man by his peers. Held up as the greatest flight plan strategist, but one who isn't smart enough to get rest. His paramour? Her clandestine part of British intelligence is often hinted at, but never explained, and she's written out in the lamest fashion. For those that say "But it's based on a true story!" Sorry, they took lots of liberties with the "true" part: as in the real Buck never escaped from the German stalag.
Rosie is probably the most completely developed character, but his late focus, episode three I think, felt strange because all the preceding seemed to focus on Buck and Bucky.
Of recommend this if you're looking for something to fill your time, but ultimately it's disappointing.
Damsel (2024)
Better Than I Expected
I suggest giving this a watch. Because of the genre and the etched-in-stone tropes, you know (mostly) how this will end from the very start.
However...
The effects are much better than the majority of Netflix movies of this type; the acting is sound and in some instances, very good indeed; the nuanced twists and plot points played against type make it enjoyable.
The part of this I was pleasantly surprised by, was that Millie Bobbie Brown did not morph into a 90 pound killing machine defying the laws of physics.
She gets injured, fails and makes mistakes. But ultimately her courage (not overplayed by the way) and her intellect win the day.
The final twist is delicious, aided by the writing, Robin Wright, Angela Bassett and Brown.
So, again, I'd say give it a watch, even though the Game Of Thrones audience will see it as George RR Martin lite. But honestly, that's not necessarily a bad thing.
American Conspiracy: The Octopus Murders (2024)
A Trip Down Rabbit Hole(s)
The documentary series is watchable and interesting on multiple levels. On the surface, the mystery behind the death of Casolaro, an investigative journalist who dies while in pursuit of his journalistic White Whale. Did he take his own life? Or was he murdered?
The second layer, not obvious at first, is the perilous prospect of diving head first into a rabbit hole, and the affect on a person's sanity and grip on reality, when one rabbit hole inevitably leads to more.
The third tragic layer is the damage you can feel from all the peripheral players. Family and friends of Casolaro's as well as the investigators involved (including the documentarians) are haunted by his death, and the labyrinthian tentacles of a corrupt network too big to solve.
The unreliable narratives, shady interviewees and second hand (sometimes third or fourth) information spin wheels that often go nowhere. We even get a bizarre claim about the veracity of the Zapruder film that will cause thousands of internet searches.
What can't be argued are the disturbing patterns of convenient missing data, witnesses and disinterested authorities. In the last episode, the file on Casolaro's death is opened, revealing a key piece of information that was hidden/ignored/forgotten that would have changed the entire course of his murder investigation.
The internecine threads of government corruption, illegal and immoral surveillance are, by turns, shocking but unsurprising.
Ultimately, as a documentary there are quality issues that can't be ignored, and more than a few confusing photo montages that don't shed any light...on anything.
But, in the end, tantalized by another random phone call, our investigator, who has seemed to break away from the demented allure of mass conspiracy, allows himself to be drawn in once again.
A cautionary tale to be sure.
Freelance (2023)
NO
Arnold Schwarzenegger made a career out of playing unrealistic action heroes with corny one-liners. That was back in the 1980's and early 90's.
Cena, who has a couple of good screen credits under his belt, can't count this train wreck of a movie as one of his best. And even Arnie couldn't have made this paper airplane fly.
It's awful. The shifts in tone, from family drama to straight up actioner to spoof to farce are ridiculous.
Save yourself some time and watch Lost City with Sandra Bullock and Channing Tatum. Not a great film, but much more capable of navigating the nuances of action and comedy.
Spaceman (2024)
There's A Good Movie In Here...Somewhere
Sandler is good in this. Why do I believe that? Because I very quickly forgot I was watching Adam Sandler. He effectively disappeared into the role.
And there are very touching and affecting moments.
But there are problems.
We're left with many questions, which of course is intentional. But not necessarily the questions we have.
Spoilers ahead...
Hanush (Hah-Noosh), Sandler's eight legged spidery stowaway is a mystery. Metaphor? Hallucination? True alien visitation?
Regardless, Hanush provides Jakub (Yah-cub) with companionship, comfort, insight and conviction.
The film is more intent on solving Jakub's personal failings and diving into his psyche and background, than in space exploration.
We get a fairly deep look into his history, conflicts and selfish choices. Hanush confronts him about his lack of interest in Lenka (his spouse) and his blind and selfish ambition that continually leaves Lenka on earth while Jakub pursues his dreams in space. In fact, although more subtly, Jakub is also forced to admit he didn't even ask his alien passenger about its history, further revealing Jakub's disinterest in others, unless it somehow serves him.
A reviewer noted that Carey Mulligan's role as Lenka was underwritten. And in truth, it is. Which is ironic that the screenplay makes the same mistake Jakub makes. Her personal story is of little interest unless it serves Jakub's. More depth as to her story would have leant more weight to her grief and feelings of abandonment. Her trip to a monastery is an out-of-the-blue strange branching off of the story with no history to tether it to what drives her.
The ending, striving for a 2001 style meeting of the beginning of time/experience is ultimately unsatisfying. We get flashes of Jakub's and Lenka's history, but zero on Hanush's, other than his body's consumption and disintegration due to the invading spores that apparently destroyed his home world too.
So, a heavy duty performance by Sandler that's much more interesting than his goofy poorly wrapped comedic films, but not much else to bite into.
The Walking Dead: The Ones Who Live (2024)
A Welcome Return
With two of the most iconic characters returning, it's striking how obvious it is now how sorely they were missed, and just how MUCH the original series suffered without them.
Andrew Lincoln and Danai Gurira are excellent. The necessary depth in detailing how Rick persevered until he was completely worn down was well written. And well acted. Another layer to Rick's tortured existence, and a more deeply colored exposition of his passion for Michonne. All of it was great. The dream-flashbacks in Rick's story are poignant and revealing. Michonne's story is more straight forward, shrug we do get a quick rehash via her interview with the head gal of the community she's dropped into. And while the story is interesting, am I the only one who could feel the tragic endings of her new friends from a mile away? Her story does what it needs to: her longing for Rick, her trials and tribulations until, finally she meets up with Rick.
The present day supporting characters are well done too, except for the obnoxious (a water dept manager? Really?) Rick groupie. His character is a straight up plot contrivance because Rick needs inside intel. Glad we won't see him again. And the new Michonne bandwagon? We certainly won't be seeing any of them again either, although there were a couple that could have been fun to see as new central characters. Alas.
The final scene in episode one is a little too "gee whiz, look at who just showed up", but that's forgiven because of the moment we get to witness between Michonne and Rick. The final scene in episode two dovetails with the last of episode one, and then moves on to a new dynamic between Michonne and Rick. Seems a little clunky, but like Michonne, hey, they've found each other so let's roll with it.
Here's hoping the rest of the series continues to reach this high standard.
Star Trek: The City on the Edge of Forever (1967)
An Iconic Episode That Impacted Sic-Fi Film Forever
When this originally aired there were few examples of intelligent science fiction on TV or at the movies. A few episodes of the Outer Limits or The Twilight Zone rose above the cheesy and schlocky majority, but movies like 2001 and TV shows that would elevate the genre were years away.
From the faithfulness of Kirk and Spock's characters, to the tragic ending, this teleplay remains a gold standard for episodic television.
Joan Collins's pre-Dynasty performance was winsome and strong at the same time. This created even more weight in the conclusion.
If there are any gripes about the story, they are embedded in the restrictions of a 43 minute run time, forcing the story's pace and leaving some details open for interpretation.
There are so many scenes that are classically burned into science fiction history that it's hard to mention all of them in a review: but Kirk and Spock confronting the time portal, McCoy's confrontation with the hobo in the alley, Spock tinkering with cathode tubes and wires, Kirk restraining McCoy with tears in his eyes...those are indelible.
I've read the original teleplay that was heavily rewritten, read the graphic novelization of that original story and I have to say, the current Strange New Worlds series could do justice to the original. Sadly, this would mess with canon, so we won't see it, unless it's in an alternate timeline.
The almost as interesting story of the contest of wills between Roddenberry and Ellison are a cautionary tale about ego, greed and dyspeptic personalities almost destroying what they were working on. Although I appreciate what they created in this story, Ellison's other works are hit and miss, and Roddenberry's history of messing with creatives for his own personal glory write sad epitaphs for both men.
But we will have this gem of an episode forever.