Change Your Image
prankster36
Reviews
The Twilight Zone: The Wunderkind (2019)
Dreadful
I'll give the makers of this episode some credit for finding a way to comment on the Trump era without being *completely* obvious about it, but (other than the typically great guest cast--even the kid was good) this was a complete misfire. Once again this show shoots itself in the foot by trying to do an unofficial remake of a classic TZ episode (in this case, "It's a Good Life") but in a way that's completely nonsensical. The kid in the classic episode had supernatural powers, whereas here we're just supposed to accept these ludicrous events because SATIRE!!!! There's no attempt to sell us on this even as a gag, we're just supposed to go along with it because we saw an old Twilight Zone with a similar premise. To say nothing of the political points it thinks it's making, which are...muddled, to say the least. This episode is literally an insult to the audience's intelligence.
The Twilight Zone: A Traveler (2019)
Hobbled by the Twilight Zone "brand" instead of being able to do its own thing
This was shaping up to be the first genuinely great episode of the Twilight Zone, with a well-set-up mystery and ideas that seemed primed to go in any number of interesting directions. (My personal guess was that A. Traveler was a time traveling tourist who had shown up to witness some kind of imminent disaster.) The characterization was a little heavy-handed, but I was on board. Then...the show went off the rails by revealing itself to be a remake of "The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street". It was both cliched and nonsensical (why would aliens with superior technology and a literal invasion fleet show up to play head games? And why target Alaska?)
This show has a real problem with constantly trying to "remix" classic Twilight Zone episodes in ways that sabotage them. This is a problem with pop culture in general right now--everything has to be a slightly tweaked version of something we're already familiar with--but this show is a particularly egregious example of it. It's original ideas are usually vastly more compelling, but it ends up getting dragged back into redoing the old ideas. I mean, are people really watching a new Twilight Zone show hoping everything is a variation on a show that aired in the 1960s? I don't get the showrunner's logic.
The Twilight Zone: Replay (2019)
Pretty good
One of the better episodes of this show so far. Extremely tense and well-acted. Sure, it's politically heavy-handed, but hey--that's always been the Twilight Zone for you, and in this case it tapped into real-world fears that were extremely relatable.
Also kudos for resolving the story in a way that's unsettling without being bleak (or unrealistically upbeat)
The Twilight Zone: Nightmare at 30,000 Feet (2019)
Highlight's this show's constant remaking of the past
This seems to be most people's favourite episode of the new TZ so far, but it begins the trend that's dogged the show: constantly trying to riff on classic episodes instead of telling new stories. At least this one admits up front that it's a remake.
It's actually quite good for 2/3rds of the running time--Adam Scott is great and the idea of a podcast predicting your death is such a good idea I wish they had done their own thing with it instead of trying to shoehorn it into a remake of an iconic story. As it is it has a decent rising tension up until the eye-rollingly contrived twist and the extremely dumb ending.
The Twilight Zone: The Comedian (2019)
Best Episode So Far
The new Twilight Zone is not great so far--there's been some good moments and it's worth watching for the great guest stars, but in general the show has had real trouble translating its ideas into good stories. This one works because it taps into something true about the act of creating (in an exaggerated, supernatural way, of course) and because Tracy Morgan is terrifying in it. Tracy Morgan! Who would have thought it? The fact that Nanjiani's character's act is just him insulting people felt a bit lazy--I mean you've got a real comedian in the role, can't he even ad-lib some actual jokes?--but otherwise I found this one effective.
Lost (2004)
It's gonna be good.
Wow, a lot of people here seem to be rushing to lay the smack down on this show after one episode. It really doesn't seem fair to me to lay into a show after a single episode if you didn't like it. They have a whole season to develop it further, maybe even resolve some of the problems you might have with it (like the supposed unrealism of the crash, which seems to be a sticking point for many--but we don't know what CAUSED the crash yet, and given that the show seems to have supernatural elements, I think it's unfair to criticize the realism in that regard. By the way, the burgeoning fans of this series--and make no mistake, this is already becoming one of the big cult shows of this season--have pointed out that a mysterious dark shape is visible swooping out of the air towards the engine just before it explodes...)
But while there are indeed some "Hollywood-isms" appearing on this show (the preponderance of hotties, for instance, and some gratuitous nudity in tonight's episode) it really doesn't keep Lost from being the most intriguing new show of the season. The pilot was literally ALL setup, with virtually every survivor seemingly having a secret, and endless mysteries surrounding the island--is something supernatural going on? Have they been brought here for a purpose? Have they been thrown through time and space? What else is going to be revealled to keep this show interesting for more than a few months?
As is the show is hugely fascinating, but the basic "plot" so far seems slim. The real test will be in the coming months, when presumably we'll start to get a better idea of what's going on, and it will be apparent whether the creators have a lot more up their sleeves, or whether the show will be like the X-Files and simply string its viewers along forever. The writing talent includes J. J. Abrams, David Fury and Paul Dini, who between them have written for some of the greatest TV shows ever, so I think it's safe to say this show is going somewhere more interesting than simply being a SF version of "Survivor".
Independence Day (1996)
I can suspend disbelief, but COME ON.
When this film first came out it had a lot of defenders. "Turn your brain off and enjoy!" "You don't have to nitpick everything!" "It's just a popcorn movie!" Hey, I like popcorn movies. I don't like films that clearly feel I, the audience member, have the mentality of a 3-year-old chimp.
Over the last couple of years, we've had a slew of superior blockbuster FX films that are genuinely intelligent, well-written, well acted and imaginative. Lord of the Rings, for instance, or Spider-man. Heck, even the new Star Wars films are ambitious and try to give us something we haven't seen before. In that light, we can look back on "ID4" and laugh. And laugh, and laugh...
You can boil the movie's problems down to the fact that these are the DUMBEST ALIENS EVER. Suspension of disbelief I can do, but I can't accept aliens that are smart enough to build interstellar spaceships and yet allow the heroes to PARK A THERMONUCLEAR MISSLE FIVE FEET FROM THEIR COMMAND CENTER. Among many, many other things. Between these guys and the ones in "Signs" who can't open a pantry door, maybe we ought to get together some money for an alien anti-defamation league. But then, in typical jingoist, propagandic fashion, we're not supposed to think about the aliens' actions, we're just supposed to accept them as evil cannon fodder whose destruction we can cheer. (In a sense, "Starship Troopers" was parodizing this movie...the aliens are SLIMY and EVIL, so the heroes feel justified in mindlessly wiping them out, without pausing to consider that the "human version" of events doesn't really make any sense...)
Seriously, though, for all the people who defend this movie and other idiocies just like it, where would you draw the line? Where would you start to get offended at just how gullible the filmmakers are assuming you are? Doesn't it bug you that the screenwriters expect you to buy all kinds of unlikely, lazy plotting? Don't you get annoyed by how stupid and irrational they have to make the aliens for the human "heroes" to triumph over them? Isn't it depressing to think how unlikely it is that a REAL alien menace probably would loudly announce its presence, use our own easily-accessible communications systems to reveal vital information, and then wait politely while the cities were evacuated? That they'd probably smear us in no time flat?
Well, whatever. But I do think this movie is worth seeing in light of recent world events. Like the makers of ID4, our leaders want us to believe that the enemy is a faceless horde that acts without reason, and is so alien and evil that suspicious events can be rationalized away in the "official" version of events. Truly, this film is a model for how all governments would like their citizens to think of their enemies. Don't bother assigning thought to their actions! Just kill, kill, kill!
Mulholland Dr. (2001)
At least make an attempt.
A lot of people are having a "The Emperors' New Clothes" reaction to this film. There may be movies which just slap together a lot of "artsiness" for the sake of seeming artsy and don't put any thought into the story whatsoever, but this is not one of those movies.
I've been chewing over the movie since I saw it and there are DEFINATELY clues to making sense of it. Not that I claim to understand everything, but I've definately got a handle on it. The thing is, Lynch was forced to pack an entire storyline for a season (or several) of TV into a two-hour movie. Most directors would wrap up plotlines, find some kind of resolutions for the character arcs, drop stuff that was incidental and would have been resolved later, etc. What Lynch chose to do--I think--was instead to develop the entire THEME of the series, and treated the characters and subplots as merely a means to an end. Nobody in this movie gets an ending, except for "Diane", but the basic progression of ideas and images seems to fit together quite completely. He's telling a story of emotions that progress the way they have to, instead of having them play out according to the plot. He even throws out linear time and has the movie circle back on itself, because it's in keeping with the theme.
It's really just the story of a girl who comes to Hollywood with tons of potential, is passed over, and has her dreams crushed. I mean, that's really it. Everything else is just incidental to that, or a way of making the point in a wierd way. For instance, the girl who has her dreams crushed is not the same girl who came to town (literally). Then you have a girl with amnesia and a director who's fighting to remain true to his ideals by casting the girl he WANTS to cast, at the same time that Betty comes to town, naive and hopeful. Then the other girl gets her memory back and the director caves in, and Betty's dreams are crushed. Thematically, it all ties together. Logically, it's a bunch of random, incomplete plot threads. But that's in keeping with the "dreamlike" nature of the story.
If you want 3-act movies where plots are wrapped up, you should know better than to rent David Lynch films. I mean, there's nothing wrong with loving a movie that tells its story in a more mainstream way, but don't talk about how it's more "realistic". Forrest Gump's structure is no more "realistic" than this movie's. Life doesn't play out in three acts. But we're used to that in movies, so we accept it. This movie has different narrative rules, that's all. I guarantee that if you try to piece together the clues, you will find some measure of satisfaction. It's not just artistic w**king.
Batman Returns (1992)
Great movie
I love this movie, it's definately my favourite of the 4 live-action Batman movies. However, be advised that, like the other three, it's not really that true in spirit to the comic. For that you have to see the brilliant animated series and movies. But Returns is a lot of fun as a stand-alone movie; like the first it features a career-defining performance from one of the villains (Michelle Pfeiffer, amazingly intense as Catwoman) and a lot of gothic eye candy. This time, though, the dialogue is snappier, the humour is more sophisticated, and the characters (while cartoonish) are more interesting. The Penguin, here a grotesque monster who bears little resemblance to his comic book counterpart, is a bit of an acquired taste; I found him hilarious. There's a third villain, Max Shreck (which also happens to be the name of the actor who played Nosferatu--there's a hint for you), an evil industrialist played by Christopher Walken in one of my favourite performances from him. Some feel that 3 villains was too many, but I found them each very interesting. Oh yeah, and then there's Batman, Michael Keaton again. He plays second fiddle to the villains this time out (though he gets a few nice scenes with Pfeiffer). But personally I didn't mind. You'll notice Batman does a lot more fighting and stuntwork this time, that's because the batsuit was actually light enough not to hamper movement in this one. Finally, I'll mention Michael Gough, who plays Alfred--he's consistantly great in each of the movies, and this is his best, with lots of dry one-liners. As for the movie as a whole, it reminds me of one of those screwball farces from the 30s, like His Girl Friday (or, more recently, The Hudsucker Proxy) only conceived as a dark Burton fantasy and with action scenes. THere's LOTS of detail and throwaway lines in this, it rewards repeat viewings. Lots of fun for those of you with a somewhat off-kilter taste in movies, and requires you to lay aside expectations, but well worth it! 8.5/10 stars.