zkonedog's Reviews

Civil War (2024)

4/10

If You Enjoy "Why's", This One Will Be A Tough Sell

18 April 2024

The trailers for Alex Garland's Civil War seem to indicate a film about a divided, war-torn America in which some states are succeeding and others are abstaining. Unfortunately--if you enjoy movies with a strong plot--such notions are almost immediately discarded in favor of a generic "on the road" story about journalists.

For a very basic overview, Civil War focuses on a quartet of war journalists: the burnt-out Lee (Kirsten Dunst), the action-hound Joel (Wagner Moura), the old veteran Sammy (Stephen McKinley Henderson), and fresh-faced youngster Jessie (Cailee Spaeny). While trying to get to Washington D. C. to interview the President (Nick Offerman) before he is forced out of power, they are treated to a glimpse of war-torn America in which a California/Texas military alliance is wreaking havoc across the land.

At base or face value, Civil War harbors are incredible hook (especially in light of recent-years political events). But instead of expanding on that hook, writer/director Garland uses it as setting only. So, lovers of largely plot-based cinema are going to have a hard time reconciling their thoughts upon seeing the trailer with what is actually presented.

Granted, one could say the same thing about Cloverfield or Independence Day--no "why's" given. But at least in those flicks viewers are treated to a cool monster or Will Smith punching out an alien. Here in Civil War, amidst this wonderful concept, is a relatively unassuming and inspiring tale of war journalism. In short: I never felt much towards the leads and that's a death knell for a film structured like Civil War is.

A few stray highlights: the sound design/effects--such as the bullet blasts--are some of the best I've ever heard in Dolby Atmos. Some of the action scenes are tense and it features some solid production value on the disaster set pieces. That's why I can at least give it a "disappointing but not terrible" 4 stars.

Overall, though, Civil War left me pretty severely wanting due to its disinterest in any context and then lack of creating engrossing characters.

6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Friends in Low Places (2024– )

9/10

Garth & Trisha Build A Bar In Nashville

12 April 2024

Not content to rule the music domain, Garth Brooks and wife Trisha Yearwood created the Friends in Low Places bar in downtown Nashville. This series is the story of that bar's creation.

For a very basic overview, "Friends in Low Places" gives some Garth & Trisha context on the origins of the move into the hospitality business--then pretty quickly focuses on the bar's creation. We meet the project planners, the interior designers, the construction workers, and everyone in between needed to pull off this massive undertaking.

As always, Garth's emotion and inspiration is palpable here. He has a certain--and unique--"method to his madness" that has served him well his entire career, and he puts it to great use here. In what could have been a low-rent bar with his name pasted on it, he instead puts all of himself into the project--involved in seemingly every aspect! The designs represent motifs from his career/songs, the food is from Trisha's own kitchen, and the atmosphere is reminiscent of Garth's early career playing the Nashville honky-tonks.

If you are a fan of Garth/Trisha or country music as a whole, I don't see how you could not enjoy this documentary. It has certainly inspired me to get to Nashville sooner rather than later and Friends in Low Places will most certainly be my first stop!

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Rocky II (1979)

7/10

Doesn't Capture The Magic Of The Original--But Still Some Iconic Moments & Character Beats

3 April 2024

The biggest knock on Rocky II is always that the film is slow. As Mick says: "what's with all the domestic stuff?!". While I don't have that particular issue with this first Rocky sequel, I also do not believe it captures much of the original's inspirational storytelling magic--albeit including some iconic moments to still render it entertaining.

For a very basic overview, Rocky II sees the titular Balboa (Sylvester Stallone) struggling after his epic battle with heavyweight champion Apollo Creed (Carl Weathers). Professing retirement, Rocky finds it difficult to support his newfound middle-class lifestyle (new house, car, etc.), much less new bride Adrian (Talia Shire) and a baby on the way. Without much education in a grim economy, Balboa is coerced back into the ring by Creed's taunts, Mick's (Burgess Meredith) overtures, and the promise of a payday. But is his heart really in it and able to put up a fight--especially when family tragedy strikes?

Clearing--or even re-reaching, in all honesty--the extremely high bar set by the 1976 Rocky was always going to be a tough-to-impossible task, and Rocky II doesn't really come all that close in execution. I wonder if perhaps the triple-duty of star, writer, and director was potentially a bit too much for the burgeoning Stallone at this point. Whereas the direction from John G. Avildsen turned that filmed into one for the ages, here the approach is far more scattershot and frenetic--and less effective by quite a bit.

Far from being the slow-paced morass of its reputation, I'd argue that Rocky II actually skips through Rocky's existential crises too quickly and focuses on the wrong aspects of it. Far too much time is spent seeing Rocky haul beef and return to the docks when viewers are of course well-aware a ring return is imminent. That final fight--with its cheesy ultra slo-mo effects--also cannot hold a candle to the pomp and circumstance of its '76 counterpart. Overall, I often felt while watching that Rocky II seemed somewhat beholden to carry all the Rocky tropes into this sequel when more original material/locales were needed.

All that said, without Rocky II on the books we don't get the infamous chicken-chasing scene, further great Bill Conti tunes, and the classic "Yo Adrian!" line. For all intents and purposes, this movie could have been re-titled "Adrian" for being extremely effective at developing that relationship. Nearly every truly emotional moment in this film involves Adrian in some manner or another--which actually pay bigger dividends in forthcoming sequels than here.

So, overall I found myself a little more disappointed than I anticipated after this recent Rocky II re-watch. While I'll never call it a bad film by any means, it never really gets in the ring (pardon the pun) with its progenitor in terms of airtight screenplay or pacing. There are far more jagged edges and work-arounds needed to make Rocky II ring-worthy as a screenplay.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Steve! (2024– )

7/10

A Solid-If Maybe Not Spectacular Due To A "Tale of Two Halves" Effect--Doc

1 April 2024

Other than enjoying Steve Martin's performances in a few iconic film roles, I knew relatively nothing about the man coming into this documentary-especially as it related to his stand-up comedy career. While "Steve!" certainly filled in a lot of those gaps, I found it to be "just okay" as a three-hour viewing experience in large part because I found one episode to be pretty clearly superior to the other.

The first episode focuses almost exclusively on Martin's childhood and then ascent in the magic/comedy realms-to the point of becoming one of the most popular stand-up performers in the history of the medium. I had absolutely no idea that he had hit those heights and was truly a cultural phenomenon. I really enjoyed this installment and its ending understandably teased a transition to examining Martin's film roles and present-day life.

While that second episode does ostensibly do those things, it does so from a very scattered perspective. Instead of the linear path of its predecessor, episode two is scattered. Martin's film career really isn't the focus-rather the result of reflections from his creation of a comic/sketch book of his life with an illustrator and just ramblings around Los Angeles with buddy Martin Short. There are certainly some stand-out nuggets in this installment (like Martin's newfound family life), but it meanders to the point of potentially being boring to some viewers. Unless you have a vested interest in Martin & Short sitting around swapping cringe-worthy punchlines, this hour-and-a-half might fall a little flat.

Overall, then, I settle on a solid-but-not-spectacular 7/10 star rating for "Steve!" as a whole. Parts of it really struck a chord with me and filled in Martin's "cultural gaps"; other parts were simply too slow and inane for me to identify with.

2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

One Life (2023)

8/10

An Important Story Beautifully Told

29 March 2024

As with all media properties on World War II topics, it is easy to get caught up in the military or "titles and places" of the sprawling conflict. Director James Hawes transcends that issue by plucking a true-to-life tale of human compassion-and then casting a legend to garner some eyeballs.

For a very basic overview, One Life tells the real-life story of Nicky Winton (Anthony Hopkins)-an older gentleman clearly struggling emotionally with aspects of his past as they pertain to the Nazi Holocaust. In flashbacks, it is revealed that a younger-man Nicky (Johnny Flynn) organized-basically from scratch-a transportation campaign to remove 650+ children from Nazi-occupied Czechoslovakia to England.

There are some stories that simply beg to be unearthed, and I'm glad that writers Lucinda Coxon, Nick Drake, & Barbar Winton adapted this one to the big screen. Despite being a relatively simple tale of one man's efforts to combat Fascism with compassion, it is anything but simple in the spirit it projects. Constantly throughout the film, the message of "we all can/should do our part-and maybe strive for more" hits home not only in its WWII period times, but today as well.

Truth be told, I probably wouldn't have noticed this film without the casting of legendary Sir Anthony Hopkins, so that is a prescient casting choice in and of itself. But this is far from "stunt casting", as the 86-year old master thespian is (as always) more than capable of expressing every range of emotion needed in the older-Nicky performance that provides much of the film's air of mystery (just why is he so haunted-which we find out via the flashbacks).

It's actually a little hard to assign a star rating to a movie like One Life because it isn't a huge-scale production along the lines of, say, a Schindler's List. But in its own way-especially the emotional final 10-15 minutes-it cultivates similar emotions to such projects. I'll settle on a solid 8/10 stars-perhaps perfect in embodying the film's (and Nicky's) overall mantra: nothing flashy, just simple human decency in the face of adversity.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Constellation: These Fragments I Have Shored Against My Ruin (2024)

Season 1, Episode 8

9/10

Season 1 (8/10 stars): Get Through The First Two Episodes And Then Enjoy The Mind-Bending Ride!

27 March 2024

Apple has been on quite a heater, of late, in terms of original TV programming. Constellation deserves to be included in that list of successes-if one can just get through the first two episodes. After that, it is an extraordinary ride!

For a very basic overview, Constellation tells the story of Jo Ericsson (Noomi Rapace), a NASA astronaut on the International Space Station. When an emergency collision forces an evacuation, Jo discovers that the Earth she returns to seems...different...from the one she left. Husband Magnus (James D'Arcy) & daughter Alice (Rosie & Davina Coleman) seem estranged and other "life details" (cupboard arrangement, car color, etc.) are slightly off. Is this typical astronaut re-adjustment PTSD-or something to do with the quantum experiments overseen by NASA admin Henry Caldera (Jonathan Banks)?

The first thing that must be said about this inaugural season of Constellation is that the initial two episodes unspool extremely slowly. In a world of overwhelming amounts of "stuff to watch", I wouldn't blame viewers for thinking "this show isn't going anywhere" and tuning out. I almost did. But be assured-everything comes back around later in brilliant fashion! So, if you are at all interested, don't bail after episodes one and two.

After that rocky opening, a string of 4 episodes show steady improvement as characters are better developed and plots start to make a modicum of sense. The final two episodes? 10-stars and 9-stars from this reviewer-some of the best episodic TV drama I've seen in some time! Truly jaw-on-the-floor stuff for sci-fi fans.

I don't want to spoil any of Constellation's fascinating suppositions here, but suffice it to say that this season is a mix of themes from earlier sci-fi properties like Fringe, Interstellar, and Dark. Yes, that is high praise-but this Sean Jablonski (concept) and Peter Harness (written) series deserves it in the endgame.

Overall, I can only give Constellation S1 an 8/10 rating because it stumbles out of the gate. But again, I'd implore you-if even somewhat interested in the material-to press on. You may just find a little gem of a series that (hopefully) will be renewed for further mind-bending adventure!

21 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Quiet on Set: The Dark Side of Kids TV (2024)

7/10

One Genuine Episode Surrounded By Three Others Of Scurrilous Speculation

26 March 2024

Docu-series dealing with troublesome or traumatic events are always tricky. While I believe that such stories need to be told, it is difficult (sometimes downright impossible) to do so with objectivity and clear-headedness. Somewhat unfortunately, Quiet on the Set gets that balance wrong, for the most part-but also features one gut-wrenching story that has the potential (I think) to spur real change.

The first, second, and fourth episodes of Quiet on the Set are pretty poor from a journalistic perspective. Ostensibly, the goal from directors Mary Robertson & Emma Schwartz seems to be to implicate Nickelodeon producer Dan Schneider as a child molester. There is, however, no hard or tangible evidence to point to in this reckoning. As such, viewers get three episodes of circumstantial suppositions and a guilt-by-association angle of trying to link Schneider to other Nick employees who were documented child predators. I do not support such journalism. Was Schneider a weirdo who should not have been afforded as much reign with children as he had? Almost certainly. Am I going to condemn his entire career/reputation based on the scraps of "evidence" this doc submits? Certainly not.

Throughout those three episodes the doc also suffers from the "hindsight is 20/20" problem from nearly all its commentators. To a person, everyone says "someone should have done something to stop this"-but all also come up with excuses as to why they did nothing. It doesn't work both ways like that. One can have regrets for actions or inactions of the past, to be sure, but I have no sympathy for complaining about it and smearing the reputation of others years after the fact. Had any one of these many individuals "blown the whistle" sooner, perhaps much trauma could have been avoided.

On those three eps alone, I'd give this doc maybe 4 stars. So, why the 7-star rating overall? Because the third episode is an important, gut-wrenching tale from star Drake Bell. To me, he seems to be perhaps the only grounded, clear-headed thinker in this entire production. Not only does he tactfully tell a traumatic story (one of legitimate-not supposed-sexual assault), but he does so with a thoughtfulness one might not expect from such a young man. My heart broke for what he went through, but if any good or meaningful change comes from this whole ordeal it will be on the back of his harrowing stories.

So, though the rest of this doc is "tenuous at best", I'll give it a 7/10 overall because of that one extremely compelling story. I hope other viewers are able to separate fact from speculation and not fall into the easily-accessible trap of "guilt by association" that Quiet on the Set is eager to spring.

111 out of 138 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Day the Music Died/American Pie (2022)

10/10

Incredibly Moving Doc About An All-Time Classic Tune

26 March 2024

Warning: Spoilers

American Pie is one of those songs that everyone "just seems to know". Despite it being 50+ years old at this point, its staying power is a tribute to its brilliance. The Day the Music Died tells that story.

There are basically two interwoven themes in this doc from director Mark Moormann:

First, the tragedy of the real "day the music died" in 1959--the plane crash that took the lives of Ritchie Valens, Buddy Holly, and the Big Bopper.

Secondly, how that tragic event touched the life of aspiring folk singer/song-writer Don McLean and ultimately produced American Pie.

Both of these angles are dispersed perfectly within each other. Not only did I learn a lot about that fateful day in Clear Lake, Iowa, but the notoriously cagey McLean finally reveals some definitive stories, thoughts, and explanations about the song's genesis and lyrics.

Along the way, other artists--big ones like Garth Brooks & Brian Wilson, to name just a couple--weigh in on the effect American Pie had on them as musicians.

The ending of The Day the Music Died brings everything full circle, with McLean back in the same ballroom that the "three men I admired most" performed their final concert. I did not expect to be so emotionally moved, but I certainly was by the time the credits rolled.

As such, I can easily give this music doc the highest marks for both informing me about the iconic song's history and doing so in an extremely emotionally engaging manner.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Dog Day Afternoon (1975)

7/10

An Authentic Cinematic Moment In Time & Culture

24 March 2024

After seeing Al Pacino at the 2024 Academy Awards, I was inspired to finally watch Dog Day Afternoon. While I certainly saw an iconic acting performance and just an overall gritty feel in this unique flick, I also feel that for a first-time viewer it plays a bit better in its 1975 era than today.

For a very basic overview, Dog Day Afternoon tells the based-on-true-events story of Sonny (Pacino), a bank robber who has everything go wrong with his operation right from the start. His partner Sal (John Cazale) is a loose cannon, he almost sets the building on fire, and his nerves do not exactly strike fear in the hearts of his hostages. But as the situation progresses, director Sidney Lumet begins peeling back the layers of the onion that is Sonny and making him an "empathetic criminal" with the outside support of thousands.

There are some unforgettable cinema moments in Dog Day Afternoon, to be sure. Pacino gives an inspired performance, the "Attica! Attica!" scene is one of the most quotable movie lines ever, and Lumet impressively imbues the film with a hot, claustrophobic, gritty-1970s-New-York-City feel.

I can completely understand how and why 1970s viewers view this as an all-time classic. The themes of identifying emotionally with the "bad guy", pushing back against police presence/authority, and the different sexual orientations portrayed within would all have been relatively ahead of their times (especially at the cinema) in 1975. Combine that with the story being ripped from news headlines and filmed on-location in downtown Brooklyn and it is truly "1970s culture personified".

Does that all carry over into a first-time 2024 viewing? Not necessarily. Pacino's performance largely does, but the themes that were startling to 1970s moviegoers are more commonplace and less-controversial today. For a film that relies so much on emotional identification with the multi-faceted protagonist, this can be a bit of a problem from a modern lens.

Overall, though, I enjoyed Dog Day Afternoon and can understand its place in cinematic legacy. It brilliantly captures a moment in time & culture even if some of that luster may fade the further away we get from it.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

True Detective: Form and Void (2014)

Season 1, Episode 8

8/10

Season 1 (8/10 stars): Extraordinary Character Work Carries The Freight Here

20 March 2024

Long regarded as one of the best single seasons of "peak TV" ever created, I missed this back in 2014 and only now circled back to it 10 years later. For lovers of airtight mystery/thriller plotting this first True Detective season might leave a little to be desired. But make no mistake--this is character work of the highest prestige TV drama order.

For a very basic overview, True Detective season one focuses on detectives Marty Hart (Woody Harrelson) & Rust Cohle (Matthew McConaughey) investigating a string of sadistic murders in the Louisiana bayou. Armed with two polar opposite police-work styles and personalities, Rust & Marty must form an uneasy alliance while simultaneously dealing with the stress the job puts on their personal lives.

In terms of characters, TD S1 is a treatise in quirkiness and rapport. It's fitting this came out the same year The Leftovers also premiered on HBO, as TD rivals that series strictly in the character-development department. McConaughey's Rust is the biggest enigma--the actor absolutely melts into the role and, though spouting what sometimes seems like philosophical gibberish, is on the mark more than off of it. Meanwhile, Marty is more the "everyman" cop with a by-the-book approach and nuclear family waiting at home--yet, it quickly becomes clear that his demons rival (if not perhaps surpass) those harbored by Rust. The conversations and just general interactions between the two are the engine powering this whole endeavor.

It helps, of course, to have two established acting stars in the lead--and then they are surrounded by the likes of Michelle Monaghan, Alexandra Daddario, and Kevin Dunn (to name just a few). A truly loaded cast that raises the overall quality of the material even if/when the "cop stuff" sags.

To that end, I do also think that S1 isn't necessarily the most well-plotted detective mystery--hence the 8/10 rating rather than higher. Even as a pretty detail-oriented viewer, I often found myself a little befuddled at all the names and details in the actual investigative work. I think this is a show that sometimes uses intensity to paper over some plot convolution. Some will enjoy this, others (like myself) may not.

Overall, though, S1 of True Detective is worth the price of admission for the McConaughey & Harrelson performances alone. I enjoyed the heavy character beats/themes even if just barely keeping up with the investigations they are pursuing.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Bloody Hundredth (2024)

8/10

The Perfect Complement (If Perhaps Improvement) To Masters Of The Air

19 March 2024

As soon as Masters of the Air wrapped on Apple TV+, this documentary immediately dropped on the same platform. It is the perfect complement-if not sometimes an improvement-to that limited miniseries.

For a very basic overview, The Bloody Hundredth puts real-life names, faces, and places to the events fictionally depicted in Masters of the Air. It is fascinating and emotional to see the likes of Rosie, both Buck's, Harry Crosby, and others recollecting the experiences chronicled within the series. Directed by Laurent Bouzereau & Mark Herzog, this doc is narrated by the venerable Tom Hanks and features a good deal of involvement from Steven Spielberg. In other words, pure production value and class all the way through.

Though not quite long enough (a tisch over an hour) to do this in reality, in spirit The Bloody Hundredth might actually be a little better than the series it wraps. Whereas Masters of the Air struggled a bit to form plot/character narratives over a sprawling, messy conflict, this doc doesn't have to go that route-the historical footage and interviews pretty much speak for themselves.

Overall, The Bloody Hundredth is a solid denoument to Masters of the Air. What may have been lost in that series' breadth is certainly re-captured here "in the flesh" of the real-life participants of the Eighth Air Force's 100th Bomb Group.

7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Masters of the Air (2024)

7/10

A Bit Messy/Impossible In The Adaptation, But Its Heart Is In The Right Place

19 March 2024

Adapted from a (rather large) book of the same name, Masters of the Air is almost impossible to shape to the conventions of small-screen drama--even the prestige kind. Characters come and go--war is messy and doesn't follow nice narrative patterns--and thus it is sometimes difficult to form "scripted" relationships with the principals. But Masters of the Air always has its heart in the right place--and for that I can give it at least a reasonably solid 7/10 rating.

For a very basic overview, this series tells the sprawling story of the Eighth Air Force's 100th Bomb Group--a unit absolutely necessary to first gaining and then maintaining the air superiority that ultimately thwarted the Third Reich in World War II. Real-life figures such as Bucky Egan (Callum Turner), Harry Crosby (Anthony Boyle), Buck Cleven (Austin Butler), Curtis Biddick (Barry Keoghan), and Robert Rosenthal (Nate Mann) are featured prominently.

The "Bloody 100th", as it came to be known, was one of the most brutal units in which to serve during the war--with death-rate statistics far beyond that of other companies or branches. Masters of the Air covers it all--from the near-impossible early missions to the insides of POW camps to the mental toll such killing and uncertainty puts on a human mind.

Despite being from the same Spielberg-ian unit that produced the iconic Band of Brothers miniseries, Masters of the Air doesn't rise to that status. Why? Largely because it has to cover so much ground--both physically and character-wise. Here, characters drop in-and-out pursuant to their real-world exploits and do not conform to dramatic tenets. As such, it is difficult to form emotional attachments and be swept away by the storytelling. In the early goings, far too much time is spent in-plane on mission after mission with garbled dialogue and mask-wearing protagonists (not helpful to the relatability cause). Truth be told, there are a number of 6-star episodes to be found here.

For me, a strong 9-star finale (easily the best single ep of the bunch) bumped my overall rating up to 7 stars. Though messy and complicated to mold into a prestige TV miniseries, Masters of The Air always--at very least--has its heart in the right place in faithfully trying to depict (in nature and spirit) the events of the 100th Bomb Group.

11 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Sandlot (1993)

7/10

More Of Its Era, But Still Some Enduring Characters & Scenes

18 March 2024

The early 1990s were fertile ground for baseball flicks. The Baby Boomers were 30+ years old and making films about their baseball-centric childhood. Plus, narrated suburban-life kids-centric properties like The Wonder Years & Stand By Me had proven that approach to be successful. Smoosh those two things together and you get The Sandlot--a film perhaps a bit more "of its era" than one which holds up over time, but still featuring some iconic characters and scenes.

For a very basic overview, The Sandlot tells the story of Scotty Smalls (Tom Guiry), a youngster moving to a new town in 1962 and trying to fit in. He joins the neighborhood sandlot-playing crew, but there's a big problem: he knows nothing about the game nor how to play it! Disinterested stepfather Bill (Denis Leary) is little help, but fortunately Smalls is taken under the wing of baseball-playing kid royalty: Benny "The Jet" Rodriguez (Mike Vitar)--and a summer of adventures commences!

For the first hour, The Sandlot actually holds together really nicely--a near-perfect balance of kid-oriented material and adult 1960s nostalgia. It then descends into almost pure slapstick or set-piece humor for nearly 30 minutes before attempting to re-center in the endgame. I have to say I was disappointed by that third act overall, though perhaps my childhood self would disagree (this wasn't an avid watch for me as a kid).

That being said, The Sandlot largely succeeds in staying relevant within the pop culture realm because of iconic characters like the aforementioned leads as well as Ham (Patrick Renna), Squints (Chauncy Leopardi), and some endearing small performances from the likes of Karen Allen & James Earl Jones. There are also a few iconic "baseball movie canon" moments, such as Squints' seduction of desired lifeguard Wendy Peffercorn (Marley Shelton) or the gang playing sandlot ball under the Fourth of July fireworks.

Overall, I think The Sandlot is a movie that hits much closer to home for the boomer generation (perhaps an all-time classic for that set). Yet, it retains enough childhood energy/vibes that even despite an uneven final act it will put a smile on the face of all but the most cynical viewers at least a time or two.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Dynasty: New England Patriots (2024)

9/10

Well-Produced & Nostalgic Documentary On A Legendary Dynasty

16 March 2024

The vast majority of my football-watching life to this point occurred during the Bill Belichick & Tom Brady New England Patriots dynasty. As such, this Last Dance-style sports doc was always going to hit the nostalgic sweet spot for me. Filmmakers Matthew Hamacheck & Jeff Benedict are largely able to transcend the "nostalgia grab" narrative, however, by featuring excellent production values and one-on-one interviews with key Patriot figures that are as enlightening as they are sometimes exceedingly strange.

The Dynasty examines exactly that--the New England football dominance of 2001 through 2018. Quite literally every main event of that time period is covered through the prism of old TV footage, sit down interviews with the figures themselves, and color commentary from NE or national reporters. There will likely never be another dynasty rivaling the one created by Brady, Belichick, & owner Robert Kraft, and this ten-part series examines it all.

For the most part, I'd call this a pretty fair examination of the "Patriots Way", so to speak. They are hit hard on the Spygate scandal, the mismanagement (which led to tragedy) of the Aaron Hernandez situation, and Belichick's slide into utter arrogance towards the end. At the same time, the team's remarkable resiliency through it all is chronicled step by step.

Of course, to get the "big hitters" (Brady, Kraft family, Bill, other key players) to participate whatsoever there were a few seeming concessions made. The narrative here about "Deflate-gate" is poo-poo'd almost to minimization levels, and the elder Kraft is often portrayed as the "white knight" of the whole shebang despite off-gridiron scandals and chumminess with NFL commissioners that are never even hinted at. But all in all, a relatively small price to pay for on-the-record cooperation.

The strange--and often outright hilarious--piece of "Dynasty" is Bill Belichick's participation (or lack thereof). He does not have one insightful or constructive comment on anything asked of him. The now-former Patriots head coach simply refuses to engage--either playing to his stereotype or actually living it to fruition. As such, he is painted (rightfully or wrongfully who can tell) the villain of the piece simply due to his reticence towards any sort of candor.

Overall, I enjoyed "Dynasty" and more often than not had both Friday night episodes binged before my head hit the pillow! I can't quite give it the full 10-star treatment--mainly due to Belichick's odd presence and the Deflate-gate "hatchet job" episode--but it was a treat to re-live (through the lens of 20+ years of history) the entire saga of the dynastic New England Patriots.

2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Twilight Zone: The Movie (1983)

5/10

A Fascinating Failure

10 March 2024

Twilight Zone: The Movie is one of the most fascinating experiences I've ever witnessed. As an actual film--very poor (not even quite the 5-stars I'll ultimately give it overall). But as a well-meaning homage to Rod Serling's classic TV series--clearly a labor of love gone horribly wrong.

For a very basic overview, TZ the Movie is chopped into four segments:

-An original segment on social tolerance (directed by John Landis) -A remake of "Kick the Can" starring Scatman Crothers (directed by Steven Spielberg) -A quasi-reimagining of "It's A Good Life" (directed by Joe Dante) -A pretty straight-up remake of "Nightmare at 20,000 Feet" (directed by George Miller)

To be clear, none of these segments really "work" from a storytelling or character perspective. The Spielberg one is probably the best, but even that is a pretty shallow re-imagining of Serling's iconic original. Not only do the plots/characters fall flat, but the special effects--while no doubt cutting edge for their time--feel out of place and childish (cartoony, sometimes in a literal sense). So, it is hard to find much cinematic praise for TZ the Movie.

Yet, at the same time, this is clearly an homage to Serling's original Twilight Zone that comes from a well-meaning place. An opening stinger features two guys just talking about the impact the show had on them, and throughout the vignettes we get nods all over the place to the original in character names and locations. Even in casting, the likes of Billy Mumy, Murray Matheson (the clown from "5 Characters in Search of an Exit"), Carol Serling, and other familiar (if now aged) TZ faces appear. Burgess Meredith provides the interstitial narration!

I think what is happening with TZ the Movie--and this is fascinating to me as a longtime "Zoner"--is that a bunch of screenwriters are basically working through their feelings on how/why The Twilight Zone captured their imaginations back in the 1950s/60s. In 1983, without Sci-Fi Channel marathons or critical analysis of Serling, this took the form of "copycat-ism", which of course rarely works (and doesn't here, to be sure). But strictly from a legacy point of view, this film is probably somewhat important in keeping TZ on peoples' radars (if not the way the filmmakers intended) going forward.

Overall, I'll give this production a right-down-the-middle 5 star rating. It doesn't deserve quite that much in terms of dramatic content, but the embedded "easter eggs" for devoted TZ fanatics and just the general "tribute feel" of the piece will be enough to engage the brain to meditate upon Serling's masterpiece legacy.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Zone of Interest (2023)

4/10

Strains The Very Notion Of "Motion Picture", Albeit In A Fascinating Setup

8 March 2024

One's enjoyment of The Zone of Interest will likely largely be determined by how the very concept of "movie" is interpreted. Should a film have a narrative that actively causes feelings/emotions, or can film simply "stumble upon" an interesting situation, set up a camera, and let it roll? The Zone of Interest is far more former than latter.

For a very basic overview, this film tells the story of Rudolph Hoss (Christian Friedel), the Commandant of Auschwitz, and wife Hedwig (Sandra Huller) living quite literally across the wall from the camp.

If that overview seems sparse, it isn't for any intentional exclusions on my part. The Zone of Interest simply is about a German/Nazi family living their lives in the shadow of the Holocaust--nothing more, nothing less. There are no plot points (other than simple life events) to speak of, nor are there any dramatic flourishes--other than a few musical codas--to punctuate emotion.

On one hand, I sort of understand director/writer Jonathan Glazer's approach here: show the banality of life in Nazi Germany with the immediate backdrop of horrific human travesties. There is an almost unparalleled contradiction between those two things that will forever be fascinating to human studies.

That being said, having a near-plotless film strains the credulity of the "motion picture" definition. If I wanted a medium with no external devices to hook my investment, why would I not just watch a documentary or read on a book on the same topic? Those mediums are far better equipped to handle such topics, and I'd be highly interested in either. In other words, I'm basically questioning whether such sparse plotting as seen in The Zone of Interest is the best way to portray such interesting material.

Overall, I'll give The Zone of Interest 4 stars because it is such an unsettling concept and there are a (precious) few moments in which it breaks its banality and unearths some real emotion. But overall I cannot take a ton of enjoyment out of a film that might as well be a camera set up in a house recording its day-to-day activities. Even the specter of Auschwitz looming in the background isn't enough for me to be fully invested.

3 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Black Mirror: Smithereens (2019)

Season 5, Episode 2

8/10

A Few Tweaks Away From Making "Best Of" Black Mirror Lists

4 March 2024

I don't consider Smithereens to be a top-tier level Black Mirror episode. This is a bit unfortunate, because I also believe that with a few story tweaks it could have been in that upper echelon.

For a very basic overview, Smithereens tells the story of Chris (Andrew Scott), a man who blames the titular social media tech company for keeping peoples' noses buried in phones all day. In an act of revenge, Chris takes Smithereens intern Jaden (Damson Idris) hostage and demands to speak to company found Billy Bauer (Topher Grace) to air his grievances.

The overall concept of Smithereens is wonderful--after years of showing folks grappling with tech-based conundrums, Black Mirror does the first real critique of the entire social media or smartphone medium here. This is a nice progression for the series and even a little ahead of its time (before the general public got smart to what social media apps are truly doing to grab our eyeballs). The overall story of Chris and how his life was affected by that "one phone ping" lends itself nicely to all these considerations.

So, why isn't this a 10/10 master stroke? Because the execution of those high-level themes is not up to par. Instead of more time with Chris, Billy, or musings on social-media-and-tech in general, viewers are left with long sequences of Chris & Jaden sitting in a vehicle while police mill around outside in a fairly generic hostage situation. I know the overall attempt from director James Hawes & writer Charlie Brooker was probably to build some tension, but I think the installment would have been better served overall with more philosophical discussion on the topics at hand and less hostage/police machinations.

That being said, Smithereens hits enough right beats to be a solid Black Mirror tale. But it lacks that "next gear" of character development and storytelling ethos to push it onto "Best Of" lists for the series.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Dune: Part Two (2024)

7/10

A Spectacle Indeed-But Story/Characters Lag Behind Predecessor

1 March 2024

Warning: Spoilers

Dune 2 is a big screen action/adventure spectacle the likes of which hasn't been seen since, well, maybe the first Dune in 2021. But when it comes to paying off what the original effort set up so perfectly, this sophomore sequel doesn't quite hit it out of the park.

For a very basic overview, Dune 2 picks up with Paul (Timothee Chalamet) and mother Jessica (Rebecca Ferguson) living amongst the Fremen after House Atreides being all but wiped out in the House Harkonnen collaboration with the Emperor's army to re-take Arrakis. Though Jessica and Stilgar (Javier Bardem) continue to tout Paul as the mythical prophesized messiah per the Bene Gesserit religious sect, Paul isn't yet convinced-nor are other Fremen like Chani (Zendaya). Will Paul accept the mantle and risk all-out religious war-or choose to remain embedded "locally" with the Fremen? Meanwhile, Baron Harkonnen (Stellan Skarsgard) is struggling to control spice production on Arrakis, so unhinged nephew Feyd-Rautha (Austin Butler) is called in for assistance. Finally, the Emperor (Christopher Walken) and Princess Irulan (Florence Pugh) scheme to keep themselves in power over all of the machinations.

There is absolutely no doubt that Dune 2 is cinema spectacle of the highest order. Director Denis Villeneuve composes a film that should be seen in the biggest format possible (to truly appreciate the scale) and within the best sound structure (Dolby Atmos for me and it was theater-rumbling!). There is never a dull moment from beginning to end-always something interesting to look at or immerse yourself in on screen.

Here's the issue with Dune 2: the first film was one of the best world-building setups I've ever seen in a flick. It expertly dropped viewers into the planetary conflict, gradually built up the key characters, and imbued it all with a sense of great mystery and intrigue. While this sequel technically pays off all those setups, it doesn't always do so in the most satisfying or understandable of ways. I won't go into every nook and cranny here, but a few examples:

-Paul resists his messianic calling the entire film-until the end when he just "gives in"?

-The fetus within Jessica is talking to her and will someday grow up to be Anya Taylor-Joy's brief cameo character?

-Even after Paul accepts his mantle-the Houses won't acknowledge him?

-The bombshell of Paul's more-diverse-than-we-realized bloodline came off as anticlimactic, especially considering how it immediately becomes the driving force of the film's endgame.

I know that there is an answer to every question posed above-but none of it felt all that satisfactory or revelatory to me. Part of the problem could be that I was expecting more of a definitive ending and received a "setting up a franchise" denouement instead. A particularly telling observation was how my favorite character in the entire movie was Butler's Feyd-Rautha. Why? Because-like in Dune 1-it was something completely different/new and shrouded in mystery that Villeneuve was able to unwind.

So, in my final reckoning of Dune 2, the visual spectacle and star-studded cast do most of the heavy-lifting. If you don't see this one from a theater seat at least once, you are doing yourself a disservice. But if you are looking for a plot-tight, perfectly character-fulfilling narrative, you may walk away a little disappointed (at least compared to the first Villeneuve Dune).

104 out of 156 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Family Stallone: That's Amore (2024)

Season 2, Episode 10

10/10

Season Two (7/10 stars): A Bit Derivative Of The First Go-Round, But Still Entertaining

1 March 2024

As someone who generally would never watch a reality TV series, the first season of The Family Stallone really impressed me. It was equal parts engaging, entertaining, and inspirational. This sophomore effort doesn't quite hit those levels (if in large part because it treads similar ground), but it still manages to be baseline entertaining.

As always, The Family Stallone follows Sylvester, wife Jennifer, brother Frank, and daughters Sophia, Sistine, & Scarlet on their daily adventures. The theme of S2 might be considered "location", as it covers the family move to Florida, the sisters in New York City, and a trip to Italy to meet the Pope and connect with the Stallone extended family.

Judged against other bottom-of-the-barrel reality television, Family Stallone still looks pretty good this second effort. The Stallone family is interesting enough to be engaging, they clearly are all comfortable in front of cameras, and they have an authenticity about them that generally shines through. While of course a lot of this material is "playing to the camera", one gets the sense that the themes don't stray too far from the daily travails of each individual.

One noticeable aspect of S2 is that Sly's presence is somewhat reduced (until the final episode or two). Not that he isn't around all the time, but whereas S1 revolved around his Tulsa King experience, here we spend a lot more time with Jennifer, the girls (and their dating life), & Frank. While those angles certainly unearth some new material for the series, it might be a slight letdown for those "always wanting more Sly" in the show.

I also felt a bit of repetition beginning to crop up in S2-where the topics discussed in S1 keep popping back up in ways that aren't necessarily original. I think this is because whereas S1 had a bit more of an inspirational "Sly as a loving father" theme to it, S2 is more about "kicking back the heels" and having fun.

Overall, though, I continued to enjoy the "peek behind the curtain" of Stallone family life. If not as spot-on as S1, S2 will have you laughing (shadowing-boxing the Pope!) and smiling at enough moments to keep the episodes flowing at a steady pace.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Expats (2023–2024)

7/10

Hits Some Heights Of Prestige Drama, If Not Consistently Enough To Be Great

29 February 2024

Expats is an interesting mix of The Leftovers (for its meditations on grief/loss) and Big Little Lies (for its "rich miserable people" themes). While the series does from time to time fulfill those lofty ambitions, it doesn't do so frequently enough to truly be considered great.

For a very basic overview, Expats follow the exploits of three women living in Hong Kong but originally from the United States (hence the title). Margaret (Nicole Kidman) is undergoing a severe family tragedy regarding a missing child. Hilary (Sarayu Blue) seemingly has it all--career, style, beauty--but struggles with any sort of home/family life outside of her job, especially as it pertains to David (Jack Huston). Mercy (Ji-young Yoo) is a young woman torn between her teenaged Hong Kong adventures and more serious dalliances with older men and the local protest scene (of which she wants to be a part of). As the series progresses through its six episodes, these three characters converge in often-unexpected ways.

There are times when Expats hits the very heights of prestige TV drama. Certain scenes and character interactions will have you absolutely rapt and thinking deeply about your own life through the compelling arcs. I was especially drawn to the Hilary character, but each angle has its heights to be sure. Series creator Lulu Wang also takes risks--like a feature-length (1:40.00) episode almost exclusively devoted to Hong Kong's domestic help industry. It certainly isn't a show afraid of "big swings".

Now, do those prodigious hacks always produce solid contact? Not necessarily. The first episode can be a little overwhelming until the groundwork is laid, and it crams a lot of serious topics into its scant six-episode run. All the character resolutions may not be everyone's cup of tea, either. Somewhat oddly, this is a series that--at least for me--was a little less than the sum of its parts. In other words, my individual episode rankings slightly outpaced what I ultimately thought of the season as a whole.

That is truly the best way I can describe my experience watching Expats. Each episode had enough highly emotional or deeply thought-provoking moments to never be boring or outright poor, but in the grand scheme of things I didn't feel like it added up to much. A solid watch for those who enjoy deeper fare--but perhaps not one that will rocket to the top of best-of lists.

17 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Origin (2023)

9/10

An Intriguing New Way To Think About America's Social/Racial Challenges

28 February 2024

The conversation about race in American life/society can so often get bogged down in the same old insecurities and battlelines to make it seem almost hopeless to have an authentic conversation about the topic, much less enact any sort of meaningful change. What writer/director Ava DuVernay (adapting a book from Isabel Wilkerson) does in Origin, however, is think about the topic from a different vantage point-moving away from the emotionally-charged "racism" claim and towards an examination of how elements of a caste system may be even more destructive. It is a thoughtful and compelling argument.

For a very basic overview, Origin doesn't just adapt Wilkerson's Caste book, but rather tells the story of Wilkerson's (Aunjanue Ellis-Taylor) research to put it together. She wonders why a Latino man felt the need to patrol a largely-white neighborhood and accost a young black man, or why early-20th century families would turn their children over to black women to raise them but then deny those same women their basic human rights. Through research, travel, conversation, and life experience, Wilkerson links India's millennia-old class system to the Holocaust to slavery and the U. S. Civil Rights movement all under one umbrella: the dehumanization of a social caste system.

Basically, Origin's DuVernay-adapting-Wilkerson message here is that rather than focusing on color-of-the-skin racism, the deeper issue of systemic inequality stems from the subjugation of one class over another. Those time-ingrained "ruts" are what cause certain populations to struggle for decades while others prosper. I have an enormous amount of respect for this line of thinking and the care/research that made it happen. I missed Wilkerson's book in the midst of 2020 craziness and thus am glad this film provided a wonderful summation of her ideas.

Lest you think this is an overly serious "sermon" film, however, do not worry: Origin still works as a major motion picture and not strictly social/history lesson. DuVernay accomplishes this by depicting Wilkerson's genuine (and often very personal) conversations with friends, family members, and other scholars. The film is littered with acting talent like Jon Bernthal, Niecy Nash, and Audra McDonald (amongst others) to help with this cause. DuVernay also anticipates potential blow-back to her arguments and incorporates those into the narrative here. The "unstable home foundation" analogy is fantastic, and her friend telling her to "explain this all in plain English" is instructive to helping general comprehension.

Overall, I was pretty blown away by Origin considering I came in with little expectations and the sort of current world-weariness that so often accompanies a social-issue film such as this. But DuVernay-through-Wilkerson absolutely knocks this one out of the park by mixing scholarly pursuits with big screen emotional wallop.

8 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Network (1976)

8/10

Timeless Satire/Commentary No Matter The Gadget At Hand

25 February 2024

When watching Network for the first time some 45+ years after its initial release, it could be easy to write off its satirical criticism of television (especially TV news) as outdated. But think about it deeper and you may realize that it only feels that way because so many of writer Paddy Chayefsky and director Sidney Lumet's proclamations have already come to pass.

For a very basic overview, Network tells the story of Howard Beale (Peter Finch), a TV news anchor told he's about to be let go. On his next broadcast, he announces he's going to kill himself the following week on live television. Though horror from network execs like Frank Hackett (Robert Duvall) and Max Schumacher (William Holden) is the anticipated initial reaction, Howard's rantings draw ratings to the struggling UBS network. So, the media conglomarate makes the decision to "double down"--even going so far as to bring in TV drama writer Diana Christensen (Faye Dunaway)--to see how far (or how long) they can exploit this newfound success.

In terms of prognosticating the rise of "crazed talking heads" and multi-national corporations taking over news television, Chayefsky & Lumet hit the bullseye. Here in the 2020s, the content--skewering the "TV generation"--may seem a little trite, but it's only because we are already on the other side of those concerns. It basically all came to pass (if of course not quite as dramatically as can be attained in a screenplay). But the foresight to make a film like this in 1976 is remarkable.

Another interesting angle to consider: if bothered by Network's focus on the medium of TV, simply swap in "the Internet" or "social media" and it works just as well. One of the true beauties of the flick is that it very much recognizes how cyclical media criticism is--one generation's end-of-civilization bogeyman is another's placid instrument and something else is on the hit list. In other words, the themes of Network's satire are far more important than the TV medium itself.

Is Network a top-tier perfect film? I don't think so. It features an odd, off-putting romance between the Dunaway & Holden characters, and plot-wise it takes the "strike out at anything/everything" approach without always following all those threads to their logical conclusions. It also takes a solid 30-40 minutes to really settle into its social/tech satire. But when Network works, it is a truly fascinating look at media criticism in the 1970s.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Black Mirror: Striking Vipers (2019)

Season 5, Episode 1

7/10

An Interesting Concept, But The Intrigue Gets Lost In The Messaging

22 February 2024

The fifth season of Black Mirror kicks off with an installment that is baseline entertaining and intriguing-but could have been so much more if the interesting parts weren't a bit overshadowed by the overall messaging of the piece.

For a very basic overview, Striking Vipers tells the story of Danny (Anthony Mackie), an approaching-middle-age family man who seems a little bored with his suburban existence. When reunited with bachelorhood buddy Karl (Yahya Abdul-Mateen II) in the new Striking Vipers VR video game beat-em-up, however, Danny recaptures some of his younger glory. But is the newfound rekindling simply a friendship resurrection-or perhaps something deeper?

There are some really interesting themes present in this episode. Danny's struggles with his seemingly humdrum existence-and missing the supposed excitement of his 20s-is extremely relatable, and the actual VR tech here is befitting of the Black Mirror name/goals.

The issue with Striking Vipers, however, is that those themes are always subjugated-especially in the endgame-to a more rote examination of the nature of one's sexuality (especially in a virtual context). Nothing inherently wrong with that approach, but I did find it somewhat reductive to have everything here boiled down to "are they gay or straight?" and how do they resolve that conflict in virtual avatars.

So, I give Striking Vipers a solid-but-not-spectacular 7/10 star rating. I was never bored and some themes/scenes really struck a chord, but the overall tone of the piece-especially the ending-disappointed me in the sense that it ended up being all about the examination of sexuality instead of probing other issues in tandem.

0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

True Detective: Night Country: Part 6 (2024)

Season 4, Episode 6

5/10

Season 4 (3/10 stars): An Overstuffed Mess--The Rare Major HBO Misfire

22 February 2024

I had never watched True Detective before this Night Country season four campaign. It was Jodie Foster--and pretty much Jodie Foster alone--that brought me into the fold. It seems as if I stumbled into the party at exactly the wrong time.

For a very basic overview, Night Country tells the story of a mass disappearance of a group of scientists working at a research lab in Ennis, Alaska. Police chief Liz Danvers (Foster) and deputy Evangeline Navarro (Kali Reis) investigate the odd circumstances (a human tongue laying on the floor, for instance) and are pulled into a tangled web of intrigue both personal and mystical.

Simply put, Night Country is a rare major misfire form the HBO prestige TV department. Usually renowned for their hallowed Sunday night fare, this True Detective slate ends up an extreme disappointment. Though the production values are high enough to render each episode baseline watchable, this is a series that struggles to incubate a single coherent or interesting plot/character angle over its six episodes.

The first two installments aren't all bad--teasing an intriguing mystery and introducing all the interrelated personal connections in Ennis. But the next three episodes really go off the rails, setting up a finale that means well but by that point has lost almost all hope of mattering in any meaningful way.

The biggest problem here is that the six Night Country episodes are obscenely overstuffed--bursting at the seams with too many characters and hairpin plot zig-zags. Those impossible expectations aside, show runner Issa Lopez clearly wants Night Country to be a nuanced look at Inuit culture while also adding a mystical aspect to the proceedings. Add it all up and you get a giant mess of dead ends and false starts.

What Night Country needed was either 2-3 more episodes to let the content breathe, or a large pair of garden shears to prune away some of the storylines (however well-intentioned they might have been). As it stands, however, viewers got six episodes of irregular plot mechanics, far too many characters to handle, and a mysticism that belies the True Detective moniker. It's a shame to see such acting talent as Foster, Finn Bennett, Isabella LaBlanc, John Hawkes, and even Christopher Eccleston wasted in such a poor overall effort.

27 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Black Mirror: Metalhead (2017)

Season 4, Episode 5

4/10

Lack Of Context/Purpose Really Hurts Black Mirror's Foray Into Post-Apocalyptic Fare

17 February 2024

As a work of pure cinematography, Metalhead is solid TV fare. It is thrilling, with moments of real tension. Unfortunately, Black Mirror's first foray into post-apocalyptic fare is done with so little context or purpose that it is tough to find a way in and enjoy it.

For a very basic overview, Metalhead tells the story of Bella (Maxine Peake)--a woman being pursued through the Scottish landscape by futuristic, robotic "dogs" (of sorts)--vicious killing machines that are extremely difficult to eliminate.

If that summation seems short, it isn't an oversight--that is the entire context of Metalhead. While interesting from a visual or conceptual perspective, there is no indication of why the robot dogs exist or why they are seemingly hell-bent on killing all forms of life. This makes it difficult to cultivate either "human versus tech" or "tech deep dive" angles that this series is known for.

So, while I give director David Slade a fair amount of credit for never letting Metalhead be outright boring, writer Charlie Brooker puts so little into this one that it ends up as essentially one long action sequence with no context whatsoever--not exactly Black Mirror's storytelling forte.

2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

zkonedog

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed