Stranger Things 3

Stranger Things 3 continues the story along with a few new introductions but still the general plot mechanics of the first season remaining in tack. This without really the mystery of the first season, but rather the nature of the second season which is almost procedural as our characters fight against some evil (D & D) inspired creature of the upside down. The major change in this one being the evil government force this time is represented by the Soviets, in a Red Dawnesque fashion, rather than a shadowy part of the U.S. government. In this we have a slightly ridiculous shift, in setup, with a Terminator inspired villain, and a giant Soviet secret lab below a mall. In fitting to 80's sequels I guess, the ante has been raised, the ridiculousness increased, and all with a sillier tone to boot. Within that you have the continued 80's references, which are still fun, a raised bit of technical prowess in the film's cinematography and effects (though I do wish they'd been true to 80's practicals at least somewhere), but what makes the series work are the characters once again. It's great just spending time and seeing them work the "strange thing". It is almost like the Thin Man series, where the plot matters less so, because the character interactions are so rich and fun. Each group is great fun to see interact together, with enough weight within it, the addition of Maya Hawke(who apparently doesn't fall far from the tree in terms of talent)'s Robin being a highlight. The nadir of the season then is where the interactions fall short, and that's one bit involving David Harbour's Chief Hopper who acts out of character as the stern straight man, to become a cartoonish overbearing dad. Thankfully this eventually is resolved, but it is easily the weakest aspect of the season. The reason the ridiculous plot works though, even as it is quite ridiculous at this point, is how honest the characters feel and how entertaining it is to spend time once again. The worst part of the series is when that falls short, which thankfully is only one instance. Honestly, how this season worked, they could keep the plot going to perhaps a completely ludicrous place, as long as they keep the characters so strongly intact as they did so this season.
4.5/5

Stranger Things 2

Stranger Things 2 takes a year later approach in offering a sequel to the series and succeeds in its endeavor in the continuing tales of the story of these characters. This season I'll grant has a certain advantage in that I already care about the characters, love the sense of place, and just need them to continue with this. Well they do. The series also quite carefully expands the right arcs while perhaps keeping some characters at a constant yet not making them seem stale in that sense either. It also helps from a couple of nice additions in Sean Astin and Paul Reiser, a pair of iconic eighties alumni themselves. This season is less exact in its plotting yet still works in its altering currents, and perhaps less complex story line as well. This isn't a problem though as every story still works, well the teenagers and the journalist wasn't great however minimal screentime was devoted to that. This season though also benefited from the enormous success of the previous season and that is seen on screen in its more impressive set pieces throughout. This is only a good thing making for more dynamic climax in some ways. What keeps me there though are the characters and I loved what they did with almost everyone particularly Joe Keery's Steve, Gaten Matarazzo's Dustin, and of course Eleven. That even includes in her "Terence and Philip" episode, that was essential her arc despite the rabid hate it received. Again found the plot compelling but more than anything once again just loved spending time with these characters.  
5/5

Stranger Things

Stranger Things one can examine many of things even outside of the show itself, but in terms of the nature of a show such as this. I actually watched the show just as it originally came out before hype for the series had taken over granting a suppose a pure view of it as I simply just enjoyed a show I knew nothing about and in turn loved it. Now on that point what is that I love about the show. There is its 80's setting which I think holds more than nostalgic power, after all creating the atmosphere for a period and successfully creating a real sense of place and time is an achievement with any film or tv show. I will say the 80's previously had struggled to be captured often times on film. Stranger Things goes further though in granting a Quentin Tarantinoesque approach. Now this is not in terms of his overall style as a filmmaker but often the basis for his storytelling. In that Stranger Things for the 80's does what Tarantino did for the 60's and 70's in that he utilizes facets and styling of the old films for his own. Is this the most original habit, not necessarily but that really doesn't matter. Execution can often be more important than originality, for example Super 8 attempted a similair thing yet failed, whereas this series succeeds. In part there is originality in that this hasn't been done before in this exact way, and though the characters come from a known starting point they find their own life. Furthermore the combination of Stephen King, John Carpenter, Wes Crave, Steven Spielberg, John Landis, and Joe Dante among others does result in something original through that combination. As much as appreciate all of that styling what makes the show work though are those characters and the performances, which though there hiccups, there is definite greatness. The show though succeeds most in making me care about every character and becoming invested to the point I could honestly have just watched the kids play D&D for a whole episode. It is not a flawless series, the main monster for example is hindered a bit by CGI and the build up is better than the climax. I thoroughly enjoyed every moment and cared in the way you only get with a great show. 
5/5

Better Call Saul Season 2

Better Call Saul Season 2 picks up right where the previous season left off, but that's part of the problem. The repetition found in the previous season is found again. We see Saul turn down the new job, take the job, want to leave the job, decides to keep it, decides to leave it, told he can't without losing money, decides a new way. In that we get several scenes of various cons that take a long time yet aren't all that entertaining. Then we have his relationship with his brother where Saul undermines Chuck, Chuck undermines Saul, they come back together, and repeat for the rest of the season, thankfully that does get somewhere in season 3, this season though is just a whole lot of wheel turning. Mike's side, where Jonathan Banks is more co-lead, is effective though technically be directly evoking Breaking Bad right down to the return of several characters. It's good though, and that's the important thing. Of course the other half isn't truly bad, there is some bad supporting acting again, yet the main players including Bob Odenkirk, Rhea Seehorn, Banks and especially Michael McKean, the visual directing also is on point. I will say it successfully set up a great third season. Its progression though would've probably been handled in less than half a season on Breaking Bad, and it is not as though it is so much richer in character or entertainment value, quite the opposite.
3.5/5

Show Me A Hero

Show Me A Hero is a six part miniseries focusing on the tensions revolving around the opposition against mandated public housing within the city of Yonkers. The series itself focuses mostly around one of the mayors of the city during this conflict Nick Wasicsko played by Oscar Isaac. The series carefully focuses upon that man's personal story even as the main story continues even past his part of the story. The series also shows random personal stories of the various eventual residents of the housing. I will say that though the intention is obvious in the stories, to give life to those changed by the housing, this are the weakest aspects. They are just very standard stories with nothing particularly interesting or notable about any one of them. Although they can be normal, the problem is they are indeed boring in their normality. Every time it cut away, despite the purpose being there, it felt like we were cutting away from the actual main story. That is the case as the main story focusing on Wasicsko's personal story, which has the needed drama, and the story of the housing is compelling throughout. The drama is there particularly in Wasicko's story due to Isaac's heartbreaking performance. The problem is if you probably got rid of all the side stories except Wasicko's you could probably reduce to a feature length film which would have been engaging throughout which this mini-series is not.
4/5

Shaun of the Dead

Shaun Of The Dead is Edgar Wright first theatrically released film and it is one of the best debuts of a director. The film at a cursory view seems simple enough a horror comedy and parody of zombie movies. Well in that limited basis it is a smashing success, a fairly rare thing in itself, as it is hilarious in it of itself but also is filled with enjoyable references that are just adding toppings of an already delicious sundae. The film though is more even than that cursory view. It is also quite the calling card for Wright's visual directions. Although the warm up could be seen in the series Spaced, Wright takes a major step forward as he utilizes so much film itself has to offer through the striking visual style with the kinetic editing style that always flows naturally within the narrative. Wright only ever amplifies with his style never diminishes or over saturates the film with it. If that was not enough he goes one step further with his writing that takes the film beyond merely an exceedingly entertaining parody through a surprisingly emotional personal story at its core. Throughout the zombie story it manages to tell a coming of maturity of the lead in a surprisingly heartfelt way that never feels forced but rather flows so naturally within all the blood and skin eating.
5/5

The Shawshank Redemption

Although Forrest Gump proved to be the crowd pleaser of 1994, the then box office flop, The Shawshank Redemption proved to be the all pleaser of all time. It is notable that on the top of just about every online poll stands this film. It has one one would expect from a great film. The production design, and costumes are both immaculate. Technically subtle yet absolutely accentuate the sense of place within the prison throughout the film. The score and cinematography capture brilliantly both the harshness and beauty of life itself. The acting is excellent across the board. Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman are both exceptional in their leading roles, while every small supporting performance adds a bit more character to the titular prison. How is it that the film goes beyond though? It is fascinating that this story about two men's friendship in a prison in the 40's apparently transcends all walks of life in terms of its appeal. Well Frank Darabont's masterfully crafts his story as a director but especially as a writer. If one desire a direct plot it has it. That being in terms of Andy's innocence, and his association with the corrupt prison warden. That certainly brings the needed tension to the proceedings, and a real menace through the villain well played by Bob Gunton. The characters are never forgotten as you feel you get to genuinely know both leads, and even have a proper association with those smaller character especially the old prisoner Brooks. It feels like you've spent time with them when the film is over and they never seem like mere ideas. Now this is one of the most inspirational films of all time, yet never feels manipulative. Darabont earns his grand moments that portray the true joys of life and freedom, as the film does not shy away from depicting the grim realities of prison life either. It depicts the struggle, it shows despair, but it allows one to see all that makes that worthwhile in the end. I hate that the film gets any backlash for its "best of all time status", since you don't need to accept it as your personal best of all time. It's just a great film.
5/5

Slumdog Millionaire

Slumdog Millionaire is the film that one almost everyone's heart when it steamrolled its competition to its Oscar victory. I would say that it has faded a great deal from the collective memory. The film frames its story of a young Indian through how he learned a series of questions on "Who Wants to be a Millionaire". The first time I watched the film I was utterly detached from it despite wanting to see what everyone loved about it, and I pondered why. Now the acting for the most part isn't anything outstanding, but that was not the reason for its lack of success. Danny Boyle's kinetic style as usual I did not find it particularly appealing, which also was not helped by the often ugly choices in terms of the film's cinematography. Finally there's the story which is the rags to riches story, many describing it as Dickensesque. The problem with that comparison is largely the lack of any interesting characters here. It has the bland lead, and love interest you might find in some Dickens, but it forgot the colorful supporting characters. The brother is wasted as they severely underdeveloped that relationship, and then the villains are all one dimensional. The film wishes to be all about heart in the end, but it's hollow to its core.
2/5

Shakespeare In Love

Shakespeare In Love is an often maligned film for defeating Saving Private Ryan, though it was the other World War II epic that deserved the notice above all but I digress. As is often the case hatred is blinding since the film has some clearly exceptional qualities. The production design, costumes and score are all magnificent. Now there is something a bit odd about the film for me. In that I rather like the elements, that don't really have anything to do with the with IN LOVE part of the title. I thoroughly enjoy the world created around the Globe theater with the actors, and the money men. There is a lot of fun to be had there. It is the film's more serious minded elements I find less successful, though not really bad either. A major problem is Joseph Fiennes is not a terribly charismatic actor and does not carry us with the sort of ease of a truly great romantic lead. The romantic plot has some stodgy bits particularly in regards to Colin Firth in a thankless role as a one note villain. Again I don't believe these elements to be terrible, and there is fun to be had here. An all time great best picture winner, no, but a bad film, also no.
3.5/5

The Story of Louis Pasteur

The Story of Louis Pasteur is an episodic telling of the life of Louis Pasteur, a chemist who made great strides in terms of the understanding and prevention of diseases caused by microscopic organisms. The film covers various portions of his career. His time in simply having germs recognized to exist to begin with, then his development of a cure for Anthrax then later a treatment for rabies. William Dieterle is an extremely capable director when it comes to creating atmosphere but he seems shackled here by the straight forward nature of this story. There is only one scene when a man is being treated for Rabies using an archaic method where one can see Dieterle usual ability. It's a completely respectable film fitting to its completely respectable subject matter.
3/5

Sergeant York

Sergeant York tells the truly fascinating story of Sergeant Alvin York who performed an unbelievable feat of battle during World War I. Unfortunately the film does not tell this in an especially fascinating way. It is weighed down by its leading performance with Gary Cooper as York. Cooper is one actor I've never warmed up to, there's a few performances where his excessively low key style works, but this is not one of them. There is pivotal change in the early part of the film where York goes from an angry lout to a good Christian, but this is portrayed without nuance by Cooper's turn. He just goes from a soft spoken laid back guy who punches people to a soft spoken laid back pacifist who ends up shooting people. His performance severely hinders the first two acts of the film. The final act is the war where the a battle sequences are far less visceral and impressive than All Quiet on The Western Front which came out almost ten years before this film. This film though is part propaganda(coming out shortly before the U.S. entered WWII), so the war scenes, though they show death, are never too brutal. In doing that they're never excessively engaging either. Altogether the film isn't terrible by any means, but a far more impressive film seems possible given the subject matter.
3/5

The Snows of Kilimanjaro

The Snows of Kilimanjaro is a film about a man reflecting on the various events of his life while seemingly ready to die from a bad infection. This film is one that I would describe as perfectly fine in almost every regard, though not especially great or memorable either. It's is one of those films I did not mind watching, the performances are fine though far from exceptional, the story is interesting enough though not excessively compelling, it's never anything all that notable but it's never anything really bad either.
3/5

Star Wars

Just plain Star Wars, later given the extra title of A New Hope, is the film the created something more than just a film but a phenomenon. Now I must admit I've never been caught into as a much as some, in that I've never loved the film, but I can see why others do. On a technical level it is undeniably impressive in not only creating such ground breaking special effects, which most still hold up today for the most part, but also the production and costume designs which are almost taken for granted yet created such an unique sci-fi world. The story is straight forward, but really in a good way as a young unassuming hero must find a way to take on an evil empire. It simply does work though in the part due to the aid of a few old pros in Peter Cushing, and Alec Guinness adding much needed gravitas, the iconic voice work of James Earl Jones, and Harrison Ford, for the first time, proving himself to be a one of a kind badass action hero. Now there is Carrie Fisher and her strange English accent in a few scenes, but hey she gets better in the sequel. Mark Hamill's work is also sometimes criticized for being whiny, but it works for the maturation of his character throughout the trilogy. It's really a good film, I should not complain about it so I won't. It works, not for me as much as others, but it still works.
4.5/5

South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut

South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut is the film adaptation of the still running series that originally prided itself on crude humor, but transitioned more often into social commentary(with still plenty of crude humor). This probably really started here with the film that targets South Park's own critics as well as the MPAA for its rating system. The film itself has that commentary but it also has the humor you'd expect, most of it rather winning here. It's also a musical with a great selection of memorable songs that always propel the story while just being easy to listen to. The further step that really takes it beyond though as it goes about being a more traditional animated feature, of the Disney nature and has a tremendous amout of heart. That completely works particularly through the stories of Kenny and Satan which ends up being far more moving than you'd expect from a movie with to flatulent Canadians. It still stands as the best the series has ever had to offer, but also stands well as a very good film.
4.5/5

The Secret of Nimh

The Secret Of Nimh is unfortunately an underrated animated film, too often forgotten perhaps due to not being Disney as well as perhaps due to director Don Bluth's later efforts which were not exactly stellar. It's my favorite animated film of all time though as I love every single second of the film. It's astonishing to look at so many of sequences as such fine detail is given to every frame, while the animation always feels fluid and natural. It's grand yet subtle in the best way. The film itself goes past just looking great with a wonderful score, and a great song by Paul Williams. The film would be nothign though if the story did not work. I love the sense of mystery, fitting to the film's tittle, created by this society of oddly intelligent rats. The film is directed brilliantly by Bluth even past the beauty of the animation as there is such palatable atmosphere in the film, as well as even a certain dread as there are so many great dark moments in there. It of course has a heart and that is found with the lead character of Mrs. Brisby perfectly brought to life by Elizabeth Hartman's voice. I love the character in that it always shows her to be shy by nature, but her conviction to save her family is what allows her to be so brave. The heartfelt moments truly work and every one of them is wholly earned. It's a masterpiece, if you ask me.
5/5

Syriana

Syriana is a film with many things plot lines, twists, corporate intrigue, espionage, political intrigue, personal struggles of many sorts, corruption of the highest order, terrorism, you have it all in one film, yet it could not be more lifeless. The intertwining of the various threads works so poorly here in that looking up the film's various stories I forgot that many of them even occurred in it. Not a single one becomes engaging partially due to the lackluster performances, but also just the bland way the film is directed. The proceeds with speech after speech, something after something, some technically extreme things like explosions and torture. None of these elements ever become more than just something that happens as an overwhelming feeling of detachment comes from the storytelling leading to such an unremarkable interconnection of all these different elements that theoretically should be interesting.
1.5/5

Serpico

Serpico is a film with somewhat strange set path as we follow a good cop trying to uncover corruption in the system. The film chooses though to really go a step further by potentially suggesting him to be more of a hippie outsider to begin with making his journey a bit more detached. The film has a very odd flow to it because of this, and is often repetitive. As Serpico meets a new ally then his brick wall, get angry, finds a new wife, then repeat. None of this is helped by some problematic acting to be found in there particularly the wives who are pretty bad actually. Now having said that I don't think it is an outright terrible film, and really my feelings towards the film mirror my feelings toward Pacino's central performance. In that I care far less than I should however it really does have some very good moments in there.
3.5/5

Sorcerer

Sorcerer is the remake of Wages Of Fear, telling the same story about four desperate men taking on an extremely dangerous job of driving trucks filled with volatile explosives through dangerous terrain. Technically is suffers a somewhat similair problem as Wages in that the early build up is just a bit slow, and I would say in compared to Wages, despite perhaps more time being given to each individually, the chemistry between all of them is not as strong. There is still enough emotional investment to be found in each though to carry us through the journey, which like Wages is extremely effective. This remake makes use of color, and just a large scope to give an almost equally engaging portrayal of the very intense roadtrip of the four men. I'd say Wages is the superior film, but this one is also a very strong effort, though I think I probably prefer this film's ending a bit more.
4.5/5

Saving Private Ryan

Saving Private Ryan actually does not have one of the greatest openings of all time. It instead has a prologue which stands as a serious problem with the entire film. It then goes to the D-Day invasion scene which is downright outstanding in its visceral detail of the battle. The film progresses but that nagging prologue was not just a fluke it is instead a huge strand of the film. The whole idea of the of the troops going to save one man frankly is over analyzed by the film. For some reason it states as though they are risking their lives for the one man, but they'd be risking their lives anyways. In fact throughout the film the deaths only come when they get in standard military action that has nothing to do with Ryan specifically until the ending. The film decides to go on this as its dramatic core unfortunately as it makes sure we know the sacrifices around Ryan, and just in case we did not get it from the main action we have that prologue and the epilogue to make sure we remember that he had to "earn this". The problem is that's not it even for Spielberg who in this case pours it on way too thick in too many scenes particularly in his use of some especially sentimental orchestra swells by John Williams. Now this makes it feel oddly disjointed against how harsh much of the warfare is depicted and there is one brutal death in the film which Spielberg allows to play out in a pared down and very effective fashion. There's enough great elements in the film for it to be considered good, but it is an uneven effort largely due to Spielberg keeping to too many of his trademarks.
3.5/5

Schindler's List

Schindler's List is indeed the great film many note it to be. Spielberg's technically does not tone down his usual style, but for almost the entirety of the film this actually works extremely well for the material. The Nazis were not subtle and Spielberg's brutally realizes this in the harrowing depiction of their casual murders throughout the film. He does not allow them to be merely inhuman monsters though giving them their moments of humanity making their lack of hesitation in their acts all the more disturbing to witness. The film does overwhelm though in a good way in its stark black and white cinematography, and John Williams's incredibly moving score. As one would expect from Spielberg there is hope to be seen in the film. It's only ever a glint of it though which is used in a most affecting fashion. The only part where I would say that Spielberg tips his hand slightly too much is the ending where he decides to doubly enforce what Schindler did. We already have it, it's already powerful, then Spielberg decides to show it again, and just is not needed. That's only a minor quibble in what is otherwise a tremendous achievement.
5/5