Tag Archives: Anthony Hopkins

Season 1 of “Westworld” was fantastic.

The premise for HBO’s “Westworld” sounds like a bad situation comedy — robot cowboys entertain the rich at a futuristic theme park.  There are showdowns and shootouts, and hilarity ensues when the guests fall in love with the coy robot ladies.

But “Westworld” is an arguably brilliant serial science fiction thriller, far transcending its gimmicky central plot contrivance.  It is occasionally weighted down by some challenges with pacing, story structure and exposition.  But I still loved it enough to get hooked on it immediately, and I’d give it a 9 out of 10.

I think it’s the smartest science fiction show I’ve seen in a long time.  Its brilliance doesn’t stem from its kitsch premise.  (I haven’t seen the original 1973 film based on Michael Crichton’s screenplay, but I’ve seen it lampooned at least once.)  It generally doesn’t extend from the show’s many twists and surprises, however well executed they are.  Nor does it stem from the show’s ambitious discussions of the nature of consciousness.

Its brilliance, in my opinion, stems from its nuanced and surprisingly disturbing depiction of human evil.  Of course there’s the obvious — the theme park exposes human depravity by allowing people to rob, rape and murder lifelike human surrogates with impunity.  But there is far more that the show has to say.  To get a sense of it, you have to watch the entire 10-episode season, and see several key character arcs reach completion.  One of these arcs was so dark and cruelly contemplative that it’s stayed with me long after I watched the final episode.

The show is well made at every level.  It’s gorgeously shot, at locations throughout California, Utah and Arizona.  The special effects are great.  Anthony Hopkins is characteristically perfect as the park’s patriarch, and Jeffrey Wright is terrific as his well meaning right hand.  (That actor is starting to grow on me.)  The entire cast is quite good — even those in relatively minor roles, like the two hapless technicians (nicely portrayed by Leonardo Nam and Ptolemy Slocum) who become entangled in the events connected with the park’s malfunctions.

Ed Harris, however, consistently steals the show as “the Man in Black,” a park guest who vacations as a brutal rapist and murderer (and who we learn has another agenda, as well).  He’s chilling.  I never really saw Harris as an amazing actor before, despite seeing him in many roles, including his memorable turn in “A Beautiful Mind” (2001).  But he was incredible here.

I wanted to give this show a perfect 10, but even someone who loves it as much as I do can see the weaknesses of this first season.  Overall, “Westworld” is sometimes too drawn out.  I feel the plot moves forward rather slowly, and I think Season 1 would be perfect if only it were carefully edited down from ten to maybe seven episodes.  I found myself getting a little frustrated by the the fifth episode, when we see two major characters follow arcs that seem redundant.  (I’m being intentionally vague here to avoid spoilers.)

The problem is compounded by the deliberately superficial nature of “Westworld’s” setting.  This is a theme park with stereotypical stock characters associated with Hollywood westerns.  Accordingly, its inhabitants have overly stylized speech and behavior.  Furthermore, these androids are programmed to follow the same “loops” repeatedly, as the same preconceived story “narratives” are reused to entertain new patrons of the park.

It gets annoying.  Yes, I know it makes perfect sense and is necessary in the context of the story.  But it can be grating to someone who tunes in to see a science fiction show, and not a cheesy western.  James Marsden is a decent enough actor, and he’s well cast as “Westworld’s” prototypical “good guy” cowboy.  But seeing this character’s shtick over and over was irritating.  So, too, were the sassy ladies at the brothel and some other minor characters.

Finally, I suggest that, for some viewers, “Westworld” may be hard to follow.  I occasionally found it that way.  There are twists that are wonderfully well crafted, gradually deciphered mysteries, and a very layered backstory.  Finally, the show’s discussions of things like consciousness, morality and artificial intelligence can sometimes border on the didactic.  (It helps a hell of a lot, though, when the actor delivering the exposition is the priceless Hopkins.)  It’s a lot to take in.  People tuning in should be prepared for some challenging, cerebral science fiction instead of easily digested, escapist fantasy.

All in all, this show was superb.  If you’re a science fiction fan, you need to at least give it a try.

Unnecessary postscript: actor Jimmi Simpson sure looks a hell of a lot like a young Christian Slater.




A review of the “Westworld” pilot (2016)

Blog Correspondent Pete Harrison suggested I give the Westworld” series (2016) a try, and I’m damn glad he did.  The first episode was superb, and it’s safe to say it’s reeled me in.  I’d give the pilot a 9 out of 10; this seems like it could be the best science fiction television show I’ve seen in a long time.

I still think the premise is just slightly cheesy — grown men and women spending a fortune to visit a western-themed amusement park with interactive android cowboys.  (I think maybe westerns were a more mainstream genre in 1973, when Michael Crichton’s original film was in theaters.)  And there are times when the show’s central western-themed motifs are a little annoying to me … even though I know the park is supposed to appear superficial and cliche.

But “Westworld” is a highly intelligent thriller — it looks like a hell of a lot of thought went into the script.  Just about every aspect of the show seems like it was well developed — everything from the actors’ performances to the set design.  And don’t let the gorgeous, idyllic, sunny landscapes fool you — there is no shortage of pathos here.  It’s brutally dark in its storytelling.  (By the way, if you happen to be a fan of this show, I must recommend 2014’s “Ex Machina” film — it is similarly cerebral and dark in its outlook.)

Anthony Hopkins is fantastic, as usual; Jeffrey Wright, James Marsden, Evan Rachel Wood and Thandie Newton are all very good.  They’re all overshadowed here, though, by two stellar performances.

The first is Ed Harris as a black-clad psychopathic visitor to the park — I had no idea he could be so frightening.  Dear God.  Has he played bad guys before?  I’ve always associated him with nice-guy roles — even his antagonist in 1996’s “The Rock” was misguided and sympathetic.  I’d love to see him get a role in an upcoming “The Dark Tower” film, maybe as one of the Big Coffin Hunters, if they are ever featured.

The second is Louis Herthum, the ostensible “father” of Wood’s heroine.  (They are both androids within the park — I don’t think that’s much of a spoiler, as it’s all over the show’s advertising.)  Herthum may be a lesser known actor, but he stole the show in a tour-de-force performance, in my opinion.  And that’s no small feat in a cast including Hopkins and this surprisingly vicious Harris.  I haven’t seen a performance that good on television since NBC’s “Hannibal” went off the air.

Anyway, I noticed something funny here.  Steven Ogg plays a bandit who invades people’s homes and murders them … this is basically the same role he plays as Negan’s chief henchman on “The Walking Dead.”  It must be weird to be typecast like that.

Hey … it is only just now that I realized the logo below is a riff on Da Vinci’s “Vitruvian Man.”


A recommendation: Stephen King’s “Hearts In Atlantis.”

This book is, in a word, beautiful.

I still remember receiving my hardback copy one Christmas.  After tearing off the wrapping paper, I was nonplussed with its cover.  Peace signs and missing-cat posters?  This didn’t look like “Night Shift” or “The Tommyknockers.” The back cover’s synopsis did little to reassure me that I would like it.  It was some kind of “coming-of-age” drama, and promised nothing of the monsters and mayhem that I’d always loved in Stephen King’s work.  I got the sense that this was a gift book that I would read out of politeness.  If memory serves, I indeed only sat down with it years later.

I just recommended it to a college friend this weekend.  (And now I am tempted to go grab it again, even though I have been itching for so very long to revisit that quick, short little tale entitled “IT.”)  I tried to explain to my alum that “Hearts In Atlantis” was a “more mainstream” King novel that could be enjoyed by anyone.  She asked if there were “monsters,” and I told her, “Well, yeah, but they’re almost always mostly off-screen.”  (I have a habit of describing books as though they are movies.)

And I do think that’s a good way to describe it.  This is a great introduction to King for a mainstream reader.  The horror elements are minimal.  The fantasy elements are used as a plot device, but quite sparingly.  Yes, the “Low Men” from whom one character hides are fantasy characters from Stephen King’s sprawling and expansive “Dark Tower” multiverse.  But, since they are portrayed so mysteriously, they can be just as easily read as sinister government agents — and this would fit right in with the 1960’s paranoia that this period novel often establishes as part of its setting.

If you do happen to love “The Dark Tower,” however, the characters of Ted Brautigan and Bobby Garfield will be familiar to you.  And there is even a single, fleeting reference to a certain frightening provocateur for the violence and dissent in 1960’s America.  We only hear him spoken of once.  His initials are “R.F.,” although he is known to employ pseudonyms.  The reference to him makes perfect sense in the context of the story, and spells great sadness for another character we’ve come to like.

But, again — this is definitely a more mainstream novel, maybe more in the spirit of a dark drama like “Dolores Claiborne” (which I have not read).  Psychic powers and shadowy pursuers take a backseat to stories about people.  There isn’t just one “coming-of-age story.”  There are many, as we see key characters faced with trials and crossroads at different points during their often tragic lives, preceding, during and following a difficult and confusing time in American history.  (I keep calling it a “novel,” even though it’s actually several novellas and three long stories.)  Since it’s the same characters in the same universe, I like to think of it as a single overall novel.  The quite-good film adaptation in 2001, starring Anthony Hopkins, actually covers only one novella within the book, “Low Men In Yellow Coats.”  The eponymous “Hearts in Atlantis” novella is actually a separate tale — one that I enjoyed even more.  This book is a tour de force in showing the points of view for multiple characters.

I was going to state that this is the most moving King tale I’ve ever read.  I hesitate now … I know that a lot of fans point to “The Stand” for such a distinction.  (I personally don’t agree, even though that book is my favorite of all time.)  And certain entries in “The Dark Tower” series are very moving too.  We’ve got Jake’s introduction and fate in “The Gunslinger:”

He is too young to have learned to hate himself yet, but that seed is already there; given time, it will grow, and bear bitter fruit.”

“Go then.  There are other worlds than these.”

We also have Roland of Gilead’s tearful embrace with his father in “Wizard and Glass,” and Steven Deschain’s reveal:  “I have known for five years.”

Still, “Hearts In Atlantis” is a contender.  Parts of it are heartwarming; parts are unflinchingly sad.  It is alternately heartrending and sweet.  I think that this is Stephen King’s most intimate treatment of his characters, with the possible exception of “The Body” (which film fans know as “Stand By Me”).  (And bear in mind, we’re talking about a master of characterization and point-of-view.)  I read “The Body” (part of the collection, “Different Seasons”) when I was a young teen, and that’s so long ago that I cannot adequately compare them.  At any rate, we are a long, long way from straight genre-stuff like “The Boogeyman” and “The Raft.”

I found “Hearts In Atlantis” moving, to say the least.  I hate to invoke the somewhat tired and trite-sounding standby, “I felt as though this book was written especially for me.”  But I do feel that way, and I am not just thinking of one character or one part.  I identified closely with the stages of life and the crises depicted for several characters.  And I can’t even elaborate on why, because such information would be too personal for a public forum.  (Okay, here’s one exception — if anyone reading this lived in Mary Washington College’s Bushnell Hall in 1990 and 1991, there indeed were a slew of guys who played “Hearts” incessantly!!)  This book, which I read in my late 20’s, actually changed the way I looked at … hell, BOOKS.

I’m sorry to gush like a fanboy here yet again … I promise to return to form tomorrow by panning low-budget horror movies.  In the meantime, goodnight, friends.  And do stay ahead of the Low Men.