Tag Archives: review

Uncategorized

A short review of the premiere of “24: Legacy” (2017)

Leave a comment

Jack may not be back, but the premiere of “24: Legacy” suggests the magic of FOX’s flagship serial thriller can survive without him.  The first one-hour episode was damn good — I’d give it a 9 out of 10.

Maybe it’s too early to gauge how well the show will follow in its predecessor’s footsteps.  It indeed feels different with its new hero (Corey Hawkins as former U.S. Army Ranger Eric Carter).  Kiefer Sutherland is a superb actor who masterfully portrayed a disturbed-yet-noble antihero, the now iconic Jack Bauer.  Hawkins doesn’t shine much in this initial outing, but there will be time for the actor to grow along with the character.  (In the long ago series premiere of “24,” Sutherland’s debut as Bauer wasn’t terribly interesting yet either.)

But the creators of “24: Legacy” have carefully assembled nearly all of the components of “24’s” greatness: the real-time urgency and the frantic pace; the surprising violence; the twists and betrayals; the cool technology; and the converging plotlines as various actors affect key outcomes in the story.  A more critical viewer might complain that that these feel like common tropes after nine years of the original show.  (And “24’s” unique mode of storytelling kind of defines it as its own sub-genre.)  But these signature elements of the show, however predictable, are exactly what will keep fans coming back.

The only thing missing is an interesting villain.  The bad guys here are suitably nasty, and drive the plot from the story’s opening minutes.  But, so far, they’re fairly generic terrorists.  Like the Hawkins’ character, it remains to be seen whether the script can develop them further.

I had a blast with this.  If you’re a fan of the original “24,” then you ought to check this out.

 

Uncategorized

A very short review of “Rings” (2017)

Leave a comment

“Rings” (2017) actually begins with great promise — it looks like the rare horror “threequel” that could live up to its two predecessors.  (And the early millennium’s “Ring” films were indeed good movies.)  It starts with a truly fascinating story device that I won’t spoil here, except to say that it’s macabre and thoughtful and involves an intrepid college professor (Johnny Galecki).

Inexplicably, the movie abandons this unsettling stroke of genius about 20 minutes in, and instead falls back on a by-the-numbers plot that too closely parallels the first films. What follows is pretty average stuff.  Instead of the lovely and talented Naomi Watts, who was the capable heroine of the first films, we get two flat, college-aged protagonists portrayed by two mostly flat young actors.  (Alex Roe is particularly bad.)  Not even the arrival of the great Vincent D’Onofrio in a supporting role can redeem “Rings” past the direct-to-video level of quality.

Oh, well.  This still wasn’t the worst horror movie I’ve ever seen, and it did have some creepy parts.  (I thought the movie’s closing moments were pretty effective.)  I’d call “Rings” an average outing and rate it a 6 out of 10.

Postscript: D’Onofrio has a damned cool voice.  I’m serious.

 

Uncategorized

A review of “The Man in the High Castle” Season 2

Leave a comment

[This review contains spoilers for Season 1 of “The Man in the High Castle.”]  Despite my love for its first season, I was surprised to find my interest waning for Season 2 of “The Man in the High Castle.”  But while the earlier episodes felt a little slow, the second season gained a lot of momentum as it progressed, and then went out with a satisfying bang.  Overall, I’d rate it an 8 out of 10.

By the time Season 2 began, some of the novelty of the show’s premise had worn off.  Its unique milieu — a post-World War II, occupied America in which Germany and Japan are triumphant — was already explored in depth.  The show also felt scattered for much of this season … we follow disparate protagonists trying to negotiate or survive the alternate-history dystopia.  Their individual stories felt like subplots, while the central plot line — the nature and purpose of the mysterious newsreels — was left in the periphery.

Compounding this problem is the fact that the characters themselves weren’t always interesting or terribly likable.  Juliana Crain is always engaging to follow, given the strength and vulnerability brought to the role by actress Alexa Davalos.  Far less so, however, was Joe Blake, a character as flat and boring as his generic name.  (And this isn’t helped by actor Luke Kleintank’s wooden performance.)

There may be a few things that I am missing, as well.  For one,  various characters view the newsreels, which depict separate events in parallel universes.  They then try to prevent those terrible futures from coming to pass in their own timeline.  But why are they so certain those events will come to pass?  They know they are viewing events in an entirely different universe, and not their own.

Also, it becomes clear that certain characters can actually travel back and forth between parallel universes, but there is virtually no exposition about this.  Why do some people have this gift, but not others?  How rare is it?  What would happen if a character met their own double in a parallel universe?  Why don’t people in power recruit these talented “travelers” themselves, instead of relying on the newsreels they bring back?  Or are they doing that already?

Despite my misgivings above, however, “The Man in the High Castle” is a terrifically smart TV thriller, full of frightening ideas and detailed world-building.  Its depiction of a mid-twentieth century America conquered by the Axis powers is unflinching.  There are some really good performances by Rufus Sewell, Brennan Brown, Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa and the awesome, scenery-chewing Callum Keith Rennie.

The show is inspired enough to challenge the viewer with a lot of moral ambiguity, as well.  American resistance fighters act as ruthlessly as the Nazis, while the worst secret police from both the German and Japanese sides cooperate to try to prevent a nuclear war.

“The Man in the High Castle” is still pretty intricately plotted, too — the last two episodes surprisingly do reveal how some of its scattered subplots tie together in the context of the larger story.  And those final two episodes are damn dramatic and thrilling.  I’m glad I stayed with the show.

 

man-in-the-high-castle

Uncategorized

A review of “Grendel Omnibus: Volume 2: The Legacy”

Leave a comment

“Grendel Omnibus Volume 2: The Legacy” can’t match its predecessor.  Where the first amazing Omnibus edition focused gorgeously and exclusively on creator Matt Wagner’s first “Grendel” character, the arch-villain Hunter Rose, this second collection focuses mostly on supporting characters and Rose’s successors.  “Devil Child” shows us the cruel fate of an adult Stacy Palumbo, while “Devil’s Legacy” and “The Devil Inside” follow Christine Spar and Brian Li Sung’s turns as both heirs and victims of “Grendel’s” identity.   The “Devil Tales” coda of two stories at the very end are told from the perspective of Albert Wiggins, who was first introduced in the Spar and L Sung story arcs.

There are decent stories throughout; all except the first were written by Wagner himself.  And I do think a serious “Grendel” collector would need to at least read these stories to grasp the overall continuity of Wagner’s seminal work.  (We see for the first time, for example, how “Grendel” is a conscious entity jumping from person to to person.)

But nearly all the stories have great pacing problems.  I get the sense that Wagner wrote these during an experimental stage as a creator.  There are all sorts of departures from standard comic book storytelling, in format, scripting, paneling, and point-of-view.  These departures are interesting, but don’t always pay off.  Some of the stories were cluttered with too much text, too many panels, or even an unnecessary speaker.  (Wagner himself appears to interject as a speaker in one of the closing “Devil Tales;” a distracting kind of narration runs throughout it, in scrawled overhead text that looks like … an author’s outline?)

A few of these felt a little too long.  “Devil’s Legacy,” which follows the career of Christine Spar, was a great tale, and important to the overall mythos.  Yet the otherwise brilliant Wagner seems to struggle structuring it over 12 issues … it is often too slow, with unnecessary dialogue and drama, and with too much attention paid to minor plot points.

A lot of the artwork simply wasn’t my cup of tea.  While Tim Sale and Teddy Kristiansen shine in the first entry, most of the following artists do not.

Ah, well.  Wagner’s brilliance still shines through, particularly with the two closing stories, which he wrote and illustrated.  And all of the stories themselves, with their complex themes of aggression and identity, remain some of the most unique and interesting things in comic books as a medium.  This was a good book — despite its relative failings.  I’d give it an 8 out of 10.

 

51grycqvdnl-_sy344_bo1204203200_

Uncategorized

A few quick words on “Resident Evil: The Final Chapter” (2017)

Leave a comment

If you can look past the silliness, there is some fun to be had with “Resident Evil: The Final Chapter” (2017).  Critics everywhere are skewering it, but I think it’s a fun throwaway monster movie.  I’d give it a 7 out of 10, while cautioning you that I’m biased because the franchise has always been a fond, guilty pleasure of mine.

The monsters are cool enough, and Milla Jovovich alone sustained my interest with her screen presence.  (No, she isn’t the greatest actress ever, but she’s a strong, suitably intense leading lady for an action film.)

I was also surprised at how this movie attempted to bring closure to the entire series.  The story structure for the “Resident Evil” films strayed into the barely comprehensible several sequels ago, but this final installment did its best to bring the convoluted mythology full circle.  Surprisingly enough, it worked … I myself might have tweaked the final few minutes, but it was satisfying finale.

 

refcposter2

Uncategorized

A very short review of “The Girl With All the Gifts” (2016)

Leave a comment

“The Girl With All the Gifts” (2016) is a thoughtful, story-focused variation of the zombie horror genre, its basis on an acclaimed science fiction novel should be no surprise to anyone who sees it.  It boasts a terrific action set piece, a great performance by Glenn Close, and some nice episodes of tension throughout.

I might be a bit slow, but I must confess that I had a little bit of a hard time following which characters are the monsters, which are sometimes-monsters, and which characters are sometimes-monsters and also feral, as well as the some of the logic connected with how they can detect humans.  The pacing was also a bit off … the first 20 minutes were quite slow, and I started to think that the entire story would take place within several interior locations.  There is a major battle that should please horror fans, but it occurs quite early on.  Somehow, the pacing for the entire film simply felt … off.  Finally, this movie suffers somewhat from a slightly irritating musical score that sometimes felt like cheesy 1980’s synth-pop.

This is still quite a serviceable entry into the genre, though.  I’d give it an 8 out of 10, and I’d recommend it.

16252054_10154351482847404_7325913777509277439_o

Uncategorized

A spoiler-free review of “Sherlock” Season 4

Leave a comment

I actually can understand why some “Sherlock” fans were less than thrilled with its fourth (and apparently last?) season.  (I’ve read that the final episode received the lowest ratings in the show’s history.)  Even if Season 4 wasn’t quite as strong as past seasons, however, I’d still give it a 9 out f 10.

The narrative style and the content of this three-episode arc changed drastically.  The detail and methodical pace of past seasons gave way to a faster, looser narrative that made the show feel more … mainstream, in a way.  These episodes felt more like the standard adventure tales that you’d expect from any television thriller, and far less a genuine homage to the literary source material.  At times it was a little sloppy, with bombs, disguises, false memories and other over-the-top plot devices that were sometimes pretty implausible.  The final episode even seemed directly inspired by a series of horror films not known for being critically acclaimed.

The writing and directing wasn’t as clean, either.  This was easily the most surreal of the show’s four seasons — especially if you count the standalone “special,” “The Abominable Bride,” which preceded the official initial episode.  There were some overly stylized flashbacks, spliced scenes, and other departures from a linear narrative.  (I can’t be more specific without spoilers.)

The tone of the humor changed, too.  Some of the droll, dialogue-driven British humor was replaced by the zanier, crowd-pleasing stuff that you would expect from a more mainstream television comedy.  (One lamentable scene involving the outcome of a car chase, for example, was entirely too silly.)

At the same time, this was the darkest season yet.  The goofier humor was juxtaposed with story elements that were hard-hitting, sad and occasionally frightening.  When one character delivers the line, “Maintain eye-contact,” it was chilling enough to stay with me hours after the show aired.  There was some scary stuff this season, on a couple of different levels — the second episode, in particular, superbly delivers creeping psychological horror, then tops if off with a chilling story resolution.

And here is where Season 4 shined.  At one point, I asked myself, “When did ‘Sherlock’ become a horror show?”  But it was shortly thereafter that I realized that I absolutely didn’t mind.

The season’s success boils down to three things.  The first is the darker story content, which I thought was a bold and surprising choice for what is probably the show’s last season.

The second is the quality of the writing.  I realize that sounds strange, given my above criticisms above, but it is still a superbly scripted show.

And, third, the performances from its principal actors were still uniformly excellent.  (And when they combine via some great dialogue, “Sherlock” still hits it out of the park.)  Martin Freeman, Benedict Cumberbatch, and Amanda Abbington were all at their peak — particularly since their characters have evolved now to what is probably their culmination.  This last  season was easily the most personal and character-focused, and sees these protagonists finally complete their individual arcs.  Sherlock is finally sufficiently humanized, Mary’s development finally reaches full fruition, and Watson has finally grown into his own man.  If I had quibbles about Holmes and Watson’s portrayals in past seasons, it was that Holmes was too much of a jerk , while Watson was merely a weak, even neutered foil for him.  Holmes was never such a heel in the stories I loved a boy — neither was he in the film adaptations.  And I found the far stronger Watson in “The Abominable Bride” to be truer to the stories as well — not to mention reminiscent of my favorite Holmes films, like 1976’s “The Seven Percent Solution” or 1979’s “Murder By Decree.”

The villains were damn good too.  “Sherlock” has always excelled at bringing believable, well scripted and creatively conceived bad guys, and this season was no exception.

All in all, this was still terrific television, despite its relative flaws.  I heartily recommend it to Holmes fans.

 

sherlock-did-you-miss-me

Uncategorized

A short review of “The Boondock Saints” (1999)

Leave a comment

I can’t say I fully understand the zeal of “The Boondock Saints'” (1999) cult following, but I had fun with it — I’d give it an 8 out of 10 for being unusual and unexpectedly diverting.

I don’t really see it as a crime thriller — it’s more like an absurdly violent situation-comedy.  It borrows its tone and style from 1994’s “Pulp Fiction,” not to mention its own shock-comedy throwaway scene involving an accidentally discharged sidearm.

Like its superior inspiration, its formula is creating quirky, likable characters with some funny dialogue, and then raising the tension by placing them in the midst of graphic violence.  It mostly succeeds — Sean Patrick Flanery and Norman Reedus’ characters are endearing, cool and easy to root for.  I laughed out loud a few times, and I can see how their telegenic antiheroes would attract a devoted fandom.

The directing seemed choppy and even amateurish.  I noticed this right from the opening credits, which are awkwardly spliced with the onscreen introduction of the main characters.

The screenwriting is a little spotty, too — we’re never told, for example, how its two protagonists come to be such proficient assassins.  (Are they former military?  Is there a joke here I’m missing about them being “blessed,” consistent with the “saints” motif and all the references to Catholicism?)  Nor do we get much meaningful information about their motivations.  (Their bloody crusade begins only when they kill several gangsters in self-defense, then they seem to pursue a life of vigilantism as an afterthought.)  Finally, our antiheroes seem refreshingly real and identifiable, while other characters (Willem Dafoe’s detective and Billy Connolly’s mafia hitman) seem cartoonish enough to populate a farce like “The Naked Gun” series).

Again, though — this was fun.  I’d recommend it.

 

boondock-saints

 

 

Uncategorized

A few quick words on the Season 2 premiere of “The Man in the High Castle”

3 Comments

“The Man in the High Castle” is still one of the best shows on television in recent years.  It’s ambitious as hell, and frightening in its story device.  It’s smartly, tightly and deliberately plotted, yet still moves at a nice, brisk pace.  We meet, for example, the titular “Man” right in the second season’s first episode; I don’t think that’s much of a spoiler, as it’s been shown in the season’s trailer.

I’d give it a 9 out of 10.  I won’t say much more than that, this is a mystery-thriller with plot points that are too easy to spoil, and I am still trying to persuade certain friends of mine to watch Season 1.  (Why isn’t this fantastic show more popular?)

I will say that maybe the show’s only failing is its scarcity of likable lead characters.  The duplicitous Joe (Luke Kleintank) is mostly flat.  Frank is inexplicably irritating to me, despite being portrayed by the talented Rupert Evans … though he does seem to shine as a mutual foil for the equally talented Brennan Crown’s callow art dealer, Robert.  And the Man in the High Castle is somewhat … disappointing, despite being portrayed by another wonderful actor.  I hope this character’s peculiarities are explained later.  (No. I haven’t read Philip K. Dick’s source material.)

Only Juliana (the terrific Alexa Davos) comes across as a heroine that I like and root for.  And her character too often feels like a damsel in distress — she’s frequently affected by the plot and the actions of others, and seldom vice versa.

Still, this show is superb.  Watch it.

 

maninhighcastledsffsdv-1

Uncategorized

A short review of “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story” (2016)

Leave a comment

“Rogue One: A Star Wars Story” is every bit as good as you’ve heard; even this non-“Star Wars” geek had great fun with it.  I’d cheerfully give it a 9 out of 10, and I’d recommend you give it a try even if you don’t typically enjoy the franchise.

Die-hard fans are currently noting all of the things that make this film unique in the series: it’s the first “Star Wars” movie without a Jedi, the first without the trademark opening text-crawl, the first one without a lightsaber duel.

Casual fans might be more impressed with more general differences.  Two stood out for me.

One, this is the first Star Wars film since “The Empire Strikes Back” (1980) that seems aimed mainly at adults.  Yes, the fairy tale elements are still there — we have an underdog orphan searching for her father, the requisite anthropomorphic aliens, and a humorous robot mascot (which surprisingly worked quite well).  But those elements are absolutely upstaged by a bona fide war film, complete with tactics, strategy, panic, collateral damage and casualties.  I remember thinking during a surprisingly gritty urban warfare scene that it was as though some filmmakers had taken a scene from a film like “The Hurt Locker” (2008) and set it within the “Star Wars” universe.

Two, I think that this is the most human Star Wars movie we’ve had since “Empire.”  It wouldn’t be “Star Wars” without the aforementioned aliens and robots, and plenty of references are made to the Force and the Jedi.  But this is a movie about ordinary people.  Yes, there is one larger-than-life character who appears … force-sensitive?  This universe’s equivalent of Marvel’s “Daredevil?”  (This was a confusing story element that didn’t always work for me.)  But we are presented primarily with all-too-human anti-heroes who feel fear, suffer, and die.

Isn’t that more exciting than watching cartoonish aliens fight armies of equally cute battle-droids?  In this film’s better moments, it made me feel like a was watching a “real” war with “real” people, and I was surprised to find myself actually rooting for the good guys in a “Star Wars” film — this has been a series that I’ve long half-dismissed as being essentially children’s stories.

Seriously, this was a good movie.  Check it out.