Russian Doll

On one hand, I don't think Netflix did a very good job marketing this show. On the other hand, it's a hard show to market without just saying, we're doing a Groundhogs Day TV show.

The short review, Russian Doll is Groundhogs Day the show. And there's really nothing wrong with that. The concept behind someone repeating the same day over and over again is not a bad concept. Look at Edge of Tomorrow for confirmation of that. I don't think Groundhogs Day has a patent on shows exploring this concept and what can be done with it. However, just like Edge of Tomorrow, my thing was that Russian Doll needed to do something with it in order to get me really invested.

Russian Doll follows the story of Nadia Vulvokov (played by Natasha Lyonne). On her 36th birthday she is at a party being thrown for her in her friend's apartment in New York City. As you discover in the 8 30 minute episodes (and I will talk about how much I loved that format) is that there is a lot of stuff going on with this hoarse voiced, short, almost stereotypical Jewish woman's life but the night ends with her being hit by a car and dying.

And then she wakes up in the bathroom of that same night, in the same apartment where her same 36th birthday party is happening and its rinse and repeat Groundhogs Day as she tries to comprehend what is happening and what has put her in this loop. Nadia continues to die several elaborate and comical ways and she always returns to that bathroom at the same moment during that birthday.

I think the thing I appreciated about this show was that it never divulged into the comedic death montage that you saw in Groundhogs Day and Edge of Tomorrow. Don't get me wrong, I do think those moments are funny but I think one way that Russian Doll distinguishes itself from those other films is that it kind of treats death as a limited resource. Where Bill Murray and Space Jumpsuit Tom Cruise probably died several hundreds of times, Nadia probably less than 30 times in the whole show and there's a reason for that. She doesn't get enough retries to memorize every single detail about the routines that people get into, and the loop only starts over when she dies, not necessarily in a 24 hour window like the other movies did. It's not a huge difference and its not anything that distinguishes the concept too much, but it's enough to keep me interested.

The more interesting distinguishing element is that Nadia meets someone else going through the same repeating loop that she is and they work to solve their problems together.

Charlie Barnett plays Alan, a guy down on his luck with probably a form of OCD, who actually starts to find peace with the circumstances he found himself in, allowing him to try and fix the things in his life that didn't go well, especially if he knew exactly what was going to happen. The two are pretty diametrically opposed and it really works for the story and the development of their relationship. And while I wasn't sure if I was really going to like these two going into the show with the little advertisements I saw for it, I actually really ended up enjoying both their performances and the character's stories.

Another thing I really enjoyed about this show as the pace. The show understands that while the TV medium allows for different elements of the Groundhogs Day story line to be explored, it also recognized that even in Groundhogs day, the novelty of reliving a day over and over again can get stale if you don't get to the point and start figuring things out. This show could have easily taken its time and gotten really down in the weeds with 10-13 hour long episodes but I don't think it would have had the same effect.

Instead the show contains itself to 8 quick thirty minute episodes that makes the season very digestible in two days, one if you've got nothing better to do.

The show also has a tight leash over its tone. It runs the gambit of comedy to cerebral to dramatic to even a little gruesome at times, but nothing feels over done. I never felt like the show got too heavy or too light. I could have done with some more of the cerebral science fiction/paranormal elements of the show, but at the same time, it kept itself grounded and not too far up its own ass.

I think there were two reasons why I hadn't checked the show out until now and the first one is that, for one reason or another, Natasha Lyonne didn't exactly sell the idea for me when I saw advertisements for the show, or even at the beginning.

This section might come off as judgmental and too stuck in the past of what is traditionally thought of for a show to be successful, but initially I didn't see Natasha Lyonne as a compelling lead.

I only remembered she was in Orange is the New Black after looking her up and regardless, she's an unique choice. It didn't work for me initially but once you kind of get the idea of the kind of show and environment the show is in, it makes a little more sense. This is New York in 2019 in a counter culture that I have seen before. It's a unique setting, diverging once again from the conventions of Groundhogs Day. The Edge of Tomorrow set itself in a science fiction alien invasion future. Russian Doll shares more in common with Groundhogs Day then Edge of Tomorrow so there needed to be a complete change of setting and counter culture New York is a pretty good divergence. However, it does take a little bit to get used to.

Probably by the end of the first episode and for sure the second episode, I did start to like Nadia's character more but it does take a little bit and I have to give Natasha Lyonne credit for that. She does a good job in this show. She's funny and a little off kilter, but at the same time you do identify with her and when it comes to the more dramatic and personal moments, they do work really well.

The second reason I don't think I checked it out until now was because I had no idea what this show was about. I had heard it was like Groundhogs Day but that's not a great pitch, especially since I've seen Groundhogs Day, why would I want to just re-watch something I've already seen?

And that's tough because a lot of factors work against Netflix in this situation. The season is so short that its hard to advertise a whole lot without giving anything away. I didn't see the barrage of advertisements for this show the way I did for Always Be My Maybe because it probably didn't have the same budget, and it didn't want to give anything away.

In fact, one of the main reasons I got into the show was due to a spoiler in the advertisement where they show Charlie Barnett's character, who doesn't even show up until episode 3.

And now that it's done, I'm not really sure where we go from here. Apparently the show has been renewed for a second season but again, these Groundhogs Day stories are usually pretty concise and wrap up after some time loop shenanigans. I'm almost more interested in seeing how they are able to continue this story rather than being actually interested in seeing the story continue.

Overall, Russian Doll is a pretty unique show while not really feeling that new at all. I will for sure check out a second season because it follows interesting characters and I'm interested to see where the story could go from here. But overall, it doesn't do a whole lot new with the Groundhogs Day formula. That's not totally a bad thing, I just think the shows strengths are more in the characters and the potential for some really interesting cerebral supernatural elements rather than what is really given to us in the show. The first season tees up some really interesting ideas, especially about time, the soul, and the way we run our lives, but I'd like to see the second season dig a little deeper before I mark this one down as one of the Netflix greats.

But have you seen Russian Doll? Did you watch it when it came out earlier this year? What do you think? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as send me your requests for other TV shows or movies I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

Thanks for reading!

Always Be My Maybe

So I don't know if I'm the only one who has been seeing the advertisements for this movie all over Netflix. Ads for this film have been freaking everywhere to the point where I just decided, screw it, I'm having a Rom Com night and checking out this movie that seems so by the numbers, the trailers pretty much said, "THIS IS A STEREOTYPICAL ROM COM BUT ITS WITH ASIAN ACTORS SO IT'S COOL".

I should note, I actually enjoyed this film quite a bit and I like the fact that this story centered on an Asian American cast, but does the predictability take away from the overall effect of the movie?

Always Be My Maybe centers on a boy named Marcus (played as an adult by Randal Park) and a girl named Sasha (played by Ali Wong, both actors were writers for the film too) who grew up as next door neighbors. The first 5-10 minutes of the film centers on their friendship from a very young age. Sasha's parents work a lot so she became very much a part of Marcus's family and the two were very close growing up.

Right before college, the friendship is broken when the two have sex and don't really know how to process the change in the dynamic. The two drift apart and don't see each other for 16 years. Since, Sasha has become a world famous chef and Marcus is taking care of his dad, working as air conditioner repairmen.

The two eventually reconnect when Sasha moves back to San Francisco for a little bit and while there are initially some harsh feelings based on the way things ended between the two of them, the two become friends again pretty quickly. And this was something that I actually kind of liked about the film. The friendship that is built between the two of them outside of any kind of sexual relationship.

Both while they're growing up and when they reconnect, Marcus and Sasha build a friendship that makes sense. It never feels gimicky or based off of convoluted rationale, like they both like an obscure movie, the two both act and are written in a way that it makes sense that these two would be friends. They goof off, they have the same sense of humor, and they are able to connect with the struggles the other one has.

Sasha has trouble connecting with her family or really anyone else besides her close friend Veronica (played by Michelle Buteau) because she grew up taking care of herself or implanting herself into Marcus's family. She also can't seem to stay in one place for a long time or in a relationship that is healthy.

 Marcus has suffered some losses in his life, so he has a hard time excelling and moving out of the bubble of comfort he has created for himself so he shuts himself in.

These are the situations and dynamics that I really enjoyed between these two. Of course, it falls into the predictable conventions that you'd see in any romantic comedy. These two obviously seem like they're made for one another, but there is of course conventions getting in the way. There's bad communication that prevents them from fulfilling a happy and sustainable relationship, but there of course is a heart felt reconciliation and the answer to the will they won't they question is answered.

Now you might be aware of it, but there is one thing that sets this movie apart from other romantic comedies (minus the more diverse cast) and that is the fantastic cameo of Keanu Reeves.

It's not really a surprise because its in the trailer and been a meme along with the rest of what has been a hilarious surge of interest in the career and just stellar upright behavior of Keanu Reeves.

And oh boy, does he just steal the show. I don't think this show absolutely needed this cameo because I really enjoyed the writing and the character relationships, but the small portion of the film Reeves is in the film is just hilarious and not overplayed at all.

They're able to create a hilarious caricature of Keanu while still upholding this just straight up good guy persona that has been built up around him over the past few months.

Taking this off on a small tangent, I've been very interested in why Keanu Reeves is suddenly picking up a lot of steam lately. I think a lot of it is due to the fact that not a lot is known about him and the things that are known are overly positive or sympathetic. He has these stories about him about his philanthropic endeavors, his tragic backstory, or him just being a good guy. I think with other people I've been hesitant to really jump on the bandwagon because I question why people create the bandwagon for starters, but I also worry that we'll all be disappointed later on. But with Keanu, I can't help but be charmed by this guy and I just want him to succeed and I think jumping behind him is a good choice for the pop culture zeitgeist.

But back to what I thought of the movie.

Always Be My Maybe is a little bit of a tough egg to crack because there are a lot of elements that I liked and there were a lot of elements that felt more formulaic than I would have preferred. I think if I had to narrow it down, I'd say the first two acts of this film are pretty great. Everything after the Keanu cameo isn't horrible, it just becomes too familiar.

Overall, for me it works because I like Randall Park and Ali Wong's characters. While the relationship drama becomes less real and more like the script called for it because its the third act and there needs to be a conflict, I did feel like their realness carried me through till the end.

It falls to the typical romantic comedy conventions that could easily be fixed by the two sitting down for a conversation but instead it gets dragged out to create the conflict for literally the last 30 minutes where everyone is sad because of a disagreement but it all works out in the end.

I think the rest of the cast works out pretty well in the movies favor as well. These two character's families and friends are pretty awesome with a specific shout out to James Saito who plays Marcus's father and Karan Soni (the taxi driver from Deadpool) who plays Marcu's friend and fellow band member.

I think if you're looking for an above the median romantic comedy, Always Be My Maybe isn't a bad choice. Besides a diverse cast and some funny writing and performances from Randall Park and Ali Wong, you're not getting too much new but that's not necessarily a bad thing, and those elements could be enough.

It didn't blow my mind away, but it also gave me a smile at multiple moments, especially when Keanu Reeves starts walking into the restaurant to AWOLNATION's Sail for no other reason other than they were able to capitalize on the Keanussaince happening at the moment.

Always Be My Maybe is a good date movie but can also be enjoyed if you're a 26 or something year old man watching it alone, and don't worry, its not as sad as it sounds.

But those are my thoughts on Always Be My Maybe. What did you think? What do you think of the Keanussaince? Is it about time? An internet thing? Try and explain the Keanussaince to me please.  Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as send me your requests for films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

Thanks for reading!

The Last Airbender

So... I get it now.

In 2010, my friends who were huge Avatar fans said we should go to the midnight premiere of this movie because they wanted to see a live adaptation of their beloved cartoon they grew up with. I went along with for the hell of it. This was 2010, it was still early internet and the movie dialogue online wasn't as loud as it is today. If this movie had come out today, it'd be panned by critics before the general going audience could even have the chance to check it out, but we remained in blissful ignorance for one of the more entertaining viewings I've ever had.

The movie started off bad but there were enough people who gave a crap to shush the people who were laughing (like myself) early on. But as the movie went on, more jeers started becoming vocal and the audience ended the viewing straight up laughing at scenes that were supposed to be taken seriously, especially in the climax of the film.

So yeah, in 2010, I knew this movie was bad. But now, I get it. I get that not only is it just a bad movie in a general sense, it's just a horrendous adaptation of the first season it was supposed to be adapting and... I understand why people got upset.

The Last Airbender is a movie adaptation of the first season of Avatar: The Last Airbender. It is set in a world where there are people who can wield the elements of water, earth, fire, and air depending on what part of the world they're from. Two kids from the water tribe named Sokka and Katara (played by Jackson Rathbone and Nicola Peltz respectively) find, and join an air bender named Aang (played by Noah Ringer) as he discovers what it means to be the chosen Avatar, the one who can bring balance to the world and bend all four elements.

The movie follows the journey of the trio as they travel to the North Pole to find a water bending master so Aang can master the four elements and become the full fledged Avatar.

Along the way they're being hunted by members of the Fire Tribe, namely the disgraced Prince Zuko and his uncle Iroh (played by Dev Patel and Shaun Toub respectively), as well as General Zhao (played by that dude from the Daily Show, Aasif Mandvi).

And if none of these names mean anything to you because you haven't watched the show, don't worry, the show both explains everything in immense detail as well as making you not give a flying fuck about any of them.

So before I get really in depth into the plot and mainly what didn't work about this movie, there are a couple of behind the scenes things I want to discuss first.

Oddly enough, after watching the movie again, I kind of feel bad for Shyamalan. I mean not that much, but for how bad this movie is, I think I do see signs of a good movie trying to get out.

He was given the task of condensing 20 episodes into a 90 minute long movie. Personally, (speaking as someone who has not made a movie so take this all with a grain of salt) I am of the belief that while we have the ability to put things on TV and it has become a more accepted option lately, I don't think we should use that as a crutch or the consistent go to answer. I see this in a couple of complaints of movies and I have used it myself that a movie probably should have been a TV show instead. But then I look at something like Harry Potter that didn't have that option at the beginning of the 2000's and I think it is possible. While I think TV is probably the better medium, I do think that this story could have been condensed to a feature length movie with a number of different decisions. Furthermore, I do recognize that there are some nuggets of good in this movie. It's a bad movie through and through, but there are some parts that I had to nod and say, that wasn't the worst thing ever. There are a few redeeming parts about this movie.

I also want to talk about the white washing issue because for this film it is... odd to put it lightly. Not blatantly horrible, just odd.

I am of the thought process that white washing is an overblown phenomena. Sometimes its warranted, and sometimes its not. Look at something like Doctor Strange and how the casting of Tilda Swinton as a Tibetan monk really isn't talked about anymore because it worked for the story. Nikola Peltz and Jackson Rathbone aren't bad in this movie because they're white, they're bad because the script is bad.

If these kids were the best choices for the role, that's one thing. It's another when it seems like the studio though it would be more profitable to have white leads and that's where you start getting into issues.

Now I don't know if that was the case, but it does feed into my second thought on this and that's the aesthetic. Two white kids in eskimo costumes look a little weird and unnatural compared to an actor of color in it. The costume design isn't necessarily bad, it just doesn't fit diagetically with what the audience might expect based on norms that we are familiar with. That doesn't make or break the film there, but it does divert attention away from the story. Furthermore, it seemed more and more like a studio profit choice because everyone else in the village they're from looks like they're of Inuit origin.

Again, I don't think white washing totally destroys the film, but especially for something like this, you have to remain consistent or its gonna look weird and I get why people were pissed off.

And yeah... changing the antagonist tribe from clearly Chinese or Asian decent to clearly Middle Eastern was an odd choice as well, especially since there didn't really seem to be a purpose for it outside of this movie came out after 9/11.

I think this is a really good segway into what should be kept the same and what should changed in adaptation. Again, changing the ethnicity of the Fire Nation isn't necessarily a bad choice, but what's your rationale for it? Is the clothing, buildings, culture, and language going to change to fit an Arab look? Well that doesn't happen. Shyamalan just inserted Middle Eastern decent people into an aesthetic from the show that fits an Asian Influence so again, I have to ask, why?

Honestly, I've heard differently things about Shyamalan's approach to this film. On one hand, he's an artist. He's always made films with a more art house feel to it and I think he does better with smaller budget films. I can identify with the idea of wanting to do things your way and not be constrained by someone else's work. But on the other hand, why are you agreeing to do an adaptation in that case? And why is so much in the film seem to be pulling from the source material?

And that's another weird plus I'll give this movie. Visually, both artistically and source material-wise, its not a bad movie to look at. Put aside the characters being the wrong ethnicity, there are a lot of things Shyamalan pulled straight from the TV show that are cool to see in live action. I had a couple of moments during the re-watch where I had to stop and say, wow. That's actually impressive that they were able to recreate certain things visually for a live action medium.

Yeah, there are a lot of things they get wrong, but the visuals are there and nobody said this is badly shot movie. It's over indulgent at times and I will talk more about the action later, but despite the moments that didn't work, I can at least look at the attempt and say, I think I know what you were going with and while you failed miserably, I won't say you didn't outright not try at all.

That being said, there is a lot of stuff that it didn't seem like there was a lot of effort in.

The script for this movie is a pile of hot trash. It has this weird mix of the movie thinking the audience knows exactly whats going on and feeling like they don't have to explain who these characters are, what their motivations are, or why we should care about them. But also they try to fit in every bit of exposition and explanation of the world at every point that they can because this is a very expansive world and it wouldn't make sense if you didn't.

But the actors (ethnicity conversation aside) are just bad overall. They're bad because the script is bad and the script is bad because its boring. And when a script is boring the eye wanders and you start to get distracted by things that may not have been an issue before, like Shyamalan's unique and over indulgent camera work.

I don't wanna shit on the actors too much because like Dakota Johnson and whats his face from Fifty Shades of Grey, its not their fault they signed on to a big blockbuster film that made them a lot of money, they're working actors, they showed up to do a job.

But when the show is already going above and beyond its core mission, entertaining both kids and adults because the characters are so relateable and unique, it becomes difficult to ignore that Noah Ringer, Nikola Peltz, Jackson Rathbone, and even Dev Patel at times, are struggling to make these characters accessible at all, much less the way the show was able to.

Nikola Peltz was 15 at the time of this film and Noah Ringer was 13. Those two are the core of the show and without Aang and Katara being strong relateable characters, the movie is going to struggle. Furthermore, these are characters who are young in the show and have moments of having fun and being childish but yet have a range of being very mature and wise at times.

These characters do none of that. Katara is a blank slate, Aang always looks confused on what is happening in the scene, and Sokka, the comic relief of the show, is just the most dower and mopey guy in the world.

The closest thing to characters that I cared about were Dev Patel playing Zuko and Shaun Toub playing Iroh. I found this odd on the rewatch because I actually remember disliking Dev Patel in this role and rethinking if he was a good actor after this film. I have since seen him in a lot of roles that I like since and figure its more the script and him being a young actor not knowing how to make the best of it, but while the other characters are boring, Patel is at least trying to do something with it. It's not good and any human connection is overshadowed by a bad script, but for some reason I'm trying to be a little more positive about this film rather than just shit on it like everyone else.

The truth is, there are a lot of elements about this movie that I had forgotten because I hadn't watched it in close to 10 years. I can shit on the acting and how its a bad adaptation all day, but the visuals and other elements of the movie are a little hard to outright say are horrible. They're not good, but there's something there that is trying to get out.

A criticism that is well founded is how long the bending and just action in general takes. In the show, the bending was fast paced, to the point, and intense. In this movie, there's so much arm and body movement for so little pay off.

Even bending aside, the action is lethargic when it should be fast paced and high tempo. This is often due to the fact that Shyamalan is trying to be artistic, or do something in one shot. Because of this, you have these weird pregnant pauses where the enemies are waiting to attack because either the hero needs to wind up some crazy bending move or they're waiting for the shot to line up before the effect or action can be taken. Shyamalan knows his camera work and how to make an intriguing shot, but that doesn't blend well with action sequences, especially element bending

I think while its funny to think about all the things that Shyamalan got wrong in this film, its actually kind of interesting to think about how much he got right, or could have gotten right with a few tweaks and changes.The beneft of watching the show and then watching the movie is that I have a better idea of what the show was going for and how things could be done right. I see, at least a half assed, attempt to hit some of the same notes from the show but never enough to make you feel anything for the characters or the situations they're in.

This isn't Shyamalan's first attempt into the fantasy or supernatural genre and I think there's something there. There were a couple of darker, almost horror elements wanting to get out of this film but he was constrained by the fact that this was a Nickelodean film, but also, it's an adaptation not his own thing. And that's the weird dynamic you see. Avatar is already its own pretty unique fantasy world and Shyamalan has a unique look on fantasy, but he has yet to really make that perspective an effective reality, and two unique perspectives don't always match up.

This has been a pretty unorthodox review but this is a pretty unorthodox movie. I discussed this movie with the same friends I went and saw it in 2010 with a little bit before my re-watch, but after I had finished the first season. I was more angry about the film then than I am now because I am seeing this film from a different light but without the emotional baggage of seeing this as a kid and having it be a formative part of my life. I still think this movie is hot garbage, there's not excuse around it. But, I think its less horrible because nobody was trying, but rather that they were trying and it was just the wrong choices.

Choosing Shyamalan to direct this movie was a bad choice but again, he has a unique perspective, why not give him the chance to adapt a unique story. Shyamalan or the studio deciding to cast white actors instead of people of color was a bad choice, but if it worked people wouldn't be talking about it as much. Making the bending more artistic rather than fast paced was a bad choice but if it had worked it would have been a unique aesthetic to the movie making it more recongizable. Focusing on the lore rather than the characters was a bad choice, but to be fair the lore in the show is pretty awesome as well. The list goes on of bad choices, but their not unheard of choices.

I remember being in the theater during that midnight show, delirious from wanting to go to sleep and just laughing out loud at the final scene where the music is swelling, the actors are trying their best to act in this super dramatic moment, and all the audience was doing is laughing. And then I think about how different that feeling is at the end of the first season. Very similar story and sequence of events, but very different outcome.

The Last Airbender is a great example of how horrible adaptation can go wrong when you don't understand the material. And as much as I can give Shyamalan the benefit of the doubt and write a review of this movie that still says its terrible but at least kind of understands where he was going with it, I still recognize that he was given the keys to a castle and didn't know what to do with all the tools right in front of him.

There are rumors that Netflix is adapting a live action TV remake of the series which seems odd to me. Let's hope that they learn where Shyamalan went wrong and where the show went right.

But those are my thoughts on The Last Airbender. Are there any other "redeeming" qualities about this film? Do you think a live action adaptation of Avatar can be done? Did you go into Avatar thinking that that was the live action version of this show? Even not knowing anything about the show in 2010 I thought that was weird. I don't know if it was a legal thing but I think it's funny. Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as send me your requests for films or TV shows I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

Thanks for reading!

Avatar: The Last Airbender (Season 1: Water)

I can't really explain what my thought process for why I wanted to start this show. I have some friends that are more into anime than I am and they absolutely raved about this show but they've been doing that for a while. I've heard a lot of good things about the show, but I don't think I ever really understood why. I think I can better explain how this show ended up winning me over.

Avatar: The Last Airbender aired in 2005 on Nickelodeon. Right there explains a lot on my end. I didn't have Nickelodeon as a kid and didn't latch onto the same shows a lot of people my age did at the time. It takes place in a world where four tribes that are based on the four elements, Water, Fire, Earth, and Wind are at war. The show centers around a boy named Aang who is a reincarnation of the legendary Avatar, a master of all four elements that bring peace to the land.

Aang (voiced by Zach Tyler Eisen) is initially found by a brother and sister pair named Katara (voiced by Mae Whitman) and Sokka (voiced by Jack DeSena) who are members of a Water Tribe. Katara is a water bender and is working to develop her own water bending abilities along with Aang.

With Sokka and Katara, a flying Bison named Appa, and a winged lemur named Momo, the small group travels throughout the world in a quest to train Aang to master all the elemental bending and save the world.

The first season focuses on the group coming together and heading towards the North Pole where the Northern Water Tribe is and where Aang can find a master to teach him water bending.

And boy does it take them a long time to get there.

I need to preface this "criticism" with the fact that this was not the show's fault. It's a kids show that is meant to keep kids entertained for multiple weeks at a time with a new adventure. Therefore, if the main goal is getting to the North Pole, it's going to take 20 episodes for them to get there and there are going to be a lot of side adventures on their way.

This actually didn't bother me as much later in the season as some of the episodes get really interesting. However, it is a kids show and while it is paired with awesome fantastical elements and story telling, there is still the moral of the week formula and a couple of episodes that were the typical filler episodes.

I think part of it is I've just been spoiled with shows that are short and to the point. Going back to a show, especially one that was at the height of its powers in the mid 2000's is going to be 20 episodes long, it's just more of a preference and noting that some episodes were more intriguing than others.

- The mythology and world design is really fascinating. Especially when they go to cities that are specifically designed to house people who can bend certain elements. Water tribes bending water to enter their gates, earth benders bending earth to create and destroy, then recreate familiar paths.

There were a lot of things that left me pleasantly surprised with this show. Relating to the previous point was how the show was able to communicate themes and characters that far surpassed what you'd expect from a kids show.

There are times where it feels like the show is very much for kids, and yet at other times, especially in the latter part of the season, it feels very grown up and mature within reason. There's no blood, sex, or immensely mature topics, but the show does discuss some interesting issues and questions.

These themes and questions only work because the show is able to utilize two aspects very, VERY well.

The first is the characters.

I don't think the first few episodes do the show justice because you really get to know Aang, Sokka, Katara really well. Yes, they're simplistic because its a kids show, but they're utilized really well and you identify with them in different ways. Aang is immature but has insecurities, about his destiny, his relationships, and his abilities. Katara is a matronly kind character but she gets angry and annoyed. She's has things that matter to her and it matters to the audience. And Sokka could easily just be regulated to the dumb comic relief but he's also brave and

And the really interesting part is that they're able to do it with the villains as well. They're able to bring really interesting dynamics to characters that could easily just be one dimensional. They're also able to create intrigue around both the villains that you're supposed to find sympathetic and the ones that are not.

I don't love Prince Zuko because he's kind of annoying at times. But he is a great example of how the show is able to take a character like his and make him relatable even though he's the villain. Furthermore, there are other characters from the Fire Nation that are more one dimensional evil villains, but they still manage to make them interesting.

And in both cases, the comedy is actually well done. I had some moments that I legitimately laugh and even if I wasn't, I was having a good time throughout.

The one issue that I have with the characters is that they are kind of slaves to what the story needs at the moment of the episode. They need to do an episode about two tribes that don't get along so they create some drama out of no where between Sokka and Katara. I get that that's storytelling, but there were times where the drama felt a little out of character and forced.I think even as the show gets better in later episodes, there are still contrived plot points that I wasn't a fan of and things characters do that don't make a whole lot of sense. The show goes a little overboard sometimes breaching into melodrama. Sometimes it works in order to get some much needed depth in tandem with the silliness and kid friendly elements, but there are other times where it breaches into over drama and feels contrived to fit the story.

The other part that kind of got me was the arbitrary nature of people's powers. Aang's abilities are super vague at times. Sometimes he's able to do incredibly powerful things and at other times he

can't. Katara goes from knowing very little about water bending to almost being a water bending master over the course of the season. They don't really give firm boundaries on how one learns to master these bending skills. So at the end of the season when Katara is fighting a master and doesn't get her shit totally wrecked in two minutes, it feels a little out of place.

But that's a good transition into the other part that really made the story work and that was the world this show builds.

Sure bending the elements sounds cool on paper, but when you see it in action, there are a lot of moments that are much cooler than you'd ever imagine. Yeah the boundaries are confusing as young benders don't have firm limits or guidelines to their growth, but its super cool regardless.

Furthermore, there's just a really rich world that was created and if nothing else, I just wanted to get more and more in depth with this world.

Flying Bison, elemental tribes with their own unique political structures, an intriguing connection to the real world and the spirit world, the list goes on and on of how cool this world is.

A great example is the front gates of these elemental tribal cities. It could be easy to just give the Water Tribe a gate that they go through to get to the city, but instead they bend ice to open and then raise a dam to let their boats go through, its just a lot of creativity went into it and I love it.

Furthermore, I think I enjoyed getting a little bit of a different cultural inspiration. I think people often get bogged down by the Medieval asthetic of Game of Thrones or Lord of the Rings that we don't really think about the cultural inspiration of Japan and China and Avatar is able to take that inspiration while making it accessible to fantasy fans who may be more comfortable in the traditional fantasy worlds. It creates a bridge between those worlds without pandering.

And this is helped by the animation.

I think it took me a little bit to really appreciate the animation, partly because I'm willing to wager (and I could be wrong) that it improved as the show went along. Regardless, again its an accessible Westernize introduction to anime. I am by no means the anime expert and have very little experience with it but I see the inspiration here and understand how this could be an access point for a lot of people (maybe even me, we'll see).

But the show is just accessible, beautiful to look at, and captures the magnitude and emotions of the story and characters almost perfectly. I'm not a great judge of animation, but I know when the animation is unique and different than what I'm used to and Avatar is really good in that department.

I guess the simplest way to describe my sudden interest in the show was just to be in the know of pop culture zeitgeist. People can point to Avatar as an interesting show that shaped their creative flow and how they view fiction, especially high fantasy. Not that there's anything wrong with Game of Thrones or Lord of the Rings, those stories are beloved for a reason, but I think the thing that really got me on board was unique and yet accessible it is.

One piece of advice I'd say with this show is that it does take a little bit to get going. The first few episodes, while not bad are mostly forgettable in my opinion. If I'm being honest, I didn't really get fully invested until episode 7 when they really started leaning into the lore and took the mission a little more seriously. However, the show does pick up and I really enjoyed the latter half of the show, especially when the mythology, magic, and characters became more interesting and utilized better. Even the child-focused morals become more interesting and more complex than you'd expect for a kids television show.

Is it perfect? I can't honestly say that. I think there is an aspect of this show that won't be accessible to me because I didn't grow up with it. I call this the Goonies Effect. People love The Goonies because its a movie they grew up with and there was a magical element about it when you were a kid. However, unlike the Goonies which does not hold up today and in my opinion is not a good movie (fight me), Avatar remains a really great fantasy television show that people of all ages will enjoy. I think if you grew up with it, it will resonate more than it did with me, but I will give it credit to being accessible over a decade later to a 20 something jackass like myself.

But those are my thoughts on the first season of Avatar: The Last Airbender. What did you think? Did you grow up with the show? How does it hold up in your mind? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as send me your requests for films and TV shows I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

Thanks for reading!

Blade

I wish I could classify the mood of movies I've been watching recently because it has been quite the mixed bag. If it was just Blade and The Matrix I would say it was a late 90's mood. If it was Blade and Overlord, it would be a paranormal action mood, but in the span of two days I watched Blade and Across the Universe so I'm kind of all over the place these days.

Blade is a movie I've been meaning to see for quite a bit of time because hardcore comic book nerds point to this movie as being one of the driving forces of getting the superhero golden age we're living in kicked off. Chronologically speaking, they're right. While some people point to X-men and the Raimi Spider-man films as the start of the superhero renaissance after the disastrous Batman and Robin, Blade was a grounded, R-Rated (that's probably the biggest feather in its cap), semi-competently made film two years before X-men in 2000. Regardless of whether you consider Blade as being apart of this group or not, these were the harbinger movies that brought Superhero films from the campiness of the 90's into the mainstream and set the path for Nolan's Batman and the MCU. So yes, chronologically Blade should be considered in that group...

However... this movie is a bit of a mess...

Based off the Marvel Comic of the same name, Blade follows the story of a half vampire, half human named Blade (played by Wesley Snipes) who is a vampire hunter, fighting an unholy crusade with his friend Whistler (played by Kris Kristofferson) to I guess just fight vampires.

On one hand, I could say Blade's quest is pretty vague. He doesn't have a distinct goal, he just kills vampires. But at the same time it does go into the impressive fact that this movie wasn't an origin story, in 1998. Blade is just a vampire hunter superhero and the story picks up while he's been doing it for a while.

The story begins when Blade finds a hematologist named Karen Jenson (played by N'Bushe Wright) who is bitten by a vampire. Karen becomes the audience's viewpoint into the world of Blade. Now it's a pretty vague look like I said before but it's somewhat interesting when you get into it.

The villain of the film is a vampire by the name of Deacon Frost (played by Stephen Dorff) who is loosely connected to a council of pureblood vampires.

There are some politics and even mythology that I imagine might be in depth and thought provoking from the comic. It's not really looked into that much in this film but the concept of vampires being hidden in plain sight through treaties with humanity is interesting.

Deacon's plot is to summon a vampire god and lay waste to humanity with him at the center of power so obviously Blade needs to stop him and overall... the movie is pretty slow at times.

Especially in the beginning after the first pretty cool action sequence, a lot of the film is kind of slow moving exposition. It's also a lot of dark or dimly lit rooms that honestly put me to sleep a couple of times because nothing was happening.

The action for sure gets better as the movie progresses and for a late 90's film, they actually do a lot of really great stunts and action sequences.

It was actually kind of interesting watching The Matrix and watching this film that had come out a year prior and it goes back to those attitudes and themes you found at the end of the 90's decade. Everyone was in leather, and there were interesting ideas of where the world was going.

The action is pretty awesome and it's impressive on how it holds up. That does lead me into my next point and this is both a good point for the movie and a bad point, it's Wesley Snipes.

On one hand, Wesley Snipes is essentially an underrated 90's action star, kind of in the same vein that Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Sylvester Stallone were in the 80's and 90's.

He's good at being the action star and he does the quippy one liners pretty well.

But on the other hand, he's not a very good actor. To be fair, I haven't seen a lot of his filmography so I can't really judge him fairly, but based on this film alone, he's ridiculous, he's fun, and I love that we live in a world where we can point to that ridiculousness and say that was a weird time, but I'm not going to say he makes this movie totally worth it.

His interactions with the other characters are overall fine but not really ground breaking.

I liked his friendship with Whistler and the relationship between him and Karen actually isn't horrible, its just kind of there.

I don't think anybody does a really bad job in this film, but nobody really does a great job. Overall, this movie is what superhero movies probably should have looked like in the 90's because it feels like an over the top action film that just happens to be based on a Marvel Comic.

The main character is the hyper masculine action hero, the female verging on useful but ultimately still a product of 80's traditional female roles, and the villain is just inexplicably and irredeemably bad.

The plot is pretty much a mess with a lot of things happening off screen or plot holes going nowhere, but the main attraction of the film is clearly the action, which is pretty awesome.

When Blade is fighting, the movie gets pretty awesome and its an element that really makes the movie worth at least checking out for the ridiculousness of it. Again, it's interesting watching this in tandem with the Matrix films because I think both films utilized similar fighting choreography and its done really well.

I think the main appeal of this movie is how it was able to strike this dark tone that utilized awesome visuals and action in order to gain some legitimacy, while at the same time the movie doesn't take itself too seriously (for the most part) that it's still entertaining.

I wouldn't say the movie is overly self aware, but it's just ridiculous enough paired with the serious tone to make it just a high intensity ridiculous action film and I see how people enjoy it for what it is.

Story-wise, the movie is pretty convoluted and nowhere near the quality you see in movies like X-men or those early Raimi Spider-man movies, but some credit should be given to Blade as a slight stepping stone to those real harbingers.

If anything, I'm going to watch the Blade sequels just because I think the idea of Wesley Snipes fighting vampires in an R-Rated action film based on a Marvel comic in the early 2000's makes for some ridiculousness that I'm excited for. It's bad, but a fun bad.

I can't full recommend Blade because I did come out of it saying, "that was not a very good film". However, if you're looking for an over the top 90's action film and want a look into the weird transition point that the late 90's were in a similar but less impactful way that The Matrix provided, Blade might be a somewhat enjoyable time. Otherwise, it's probably something you can skip over.

But those are my thoughts on Blade. What did you think? Any words of wisdom as I go into the sequels? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as send me your requests for films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can also get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog

Thanks for reading!

Across the Universe

So you might find it funny that the only reason I'm revisiting this film is because I'm actually kind of pumped for another Beatles musical coming out this year called Yesterday that actually seems to have a cohesive plot and direction. If you haven't seen the trailer, it's actually probably my most anticipated film of the month because of how creative and unique the premise is.

Because of that anticipation, I started listening to some Beatles songs and stumbled back upon the movie musical from 2007, Across the Universe.

There are a couple of characters in Across the Universe the real focus is on the three in the picture to the right (I'll get into that huge issue with the film in a little bit).

Jim Sturgess plays a 20 something from Liverpool named Jude who comes to America to meet his father and sticks around honestly for the drugs and women, Evan Rachel Wood plays a high school student named Lucy, about to graduate who's serious boyfriend is about to be deployed to Vietnam, and Joe Anderson plays her brother Max, a Princeton drop out who himself gets deployed not long after Wood's boyfriend is killed in Vietnam.

The movie is a jukebox musical that utilizes the song of the Beatles to tell a love story between Jude and Lucy with the backdrop of the 60's. It grazes a lot of topics like the hippie movement, drugs and alcohol use, music, and VERY sparingly the blight of African Americans during the Civil Rights movement, but the movie mainly puts its focus on the Vietnam War and the effect it has on these characters.

But please don't be fooled to believe this movie has a lot to say, it really doesn't. This movie mainly serves as a Beatles nostalgia music video  and an opportunity to show off some, at the time young talent like Jim Sturgess and Evan Rachel Wood (because they're clearly both using their singing voice real often in stuff they're in like... Westworld...).

As alluded to, the movie has a lot of things going all at once that really don't fit together as well as random characters. The story is mainly centered on these two love birds, both of which are white, neither of which can be drafted, who just get high and complain about Vietnam. (That's not to diminish the struggles of those waiting for their loved ones to come home, that is a struggle, but that really wasn't the focus of the musical.) More often then not I'm sitting there looking at these privileged kids and the old man in me is yelling, GET OFF MY LAWN!

The funny thing is that there are subplots with other characters that make you think there's a whole other movie happening that would be much more interesting. Dana Fuchs plays the main character's land lady who is a pretty good singer. She and Martin Luther McCoy's character JoJo have this on and off relationship where she's trying to go Solo or something and he's a good guitar player, it's not totally clear because the main story keeps diverting back to these two every once in a while and they're at a different point, they're together, then they're fighting and doing drugs, then she's randomly singing Helter Skelter, then they're back together with no explanation. Now put aside the band part, JoJo just seems like a more interesting character because you literally meet him when he's attending a funeral for his younger brother who is killed during a Civil Rights riot, that story sounds far more interesting than these boring lovers.

Even the random Cheerleader Prudence (played by TV Carpio) seems to have a more interesting story. She's a lesbian who runs away from home, hangs out with these stoners in New York for a time, falls in love with Dana Fuchs character, then leaves randomly and joins the Circus.

Is it the most interesting story ever? No, but its a lot more interesting than Sturgess and Wood's just meandering around complaining about each other.

Unfortunately, the Beatles have a lot of songs that are about love and so it made sense for this to be a love story. And largely, this movie was never really going for a serious commentary about the time period.

It was 2007, it was probably some kind of anniversary, and Jim Sturgess and Evan Rachel Wood were a couple of hot stars at the time to create a movie musical, which were also having a little bit of a comeback.

And while I have been shitting on the poor story, I will say these two are not horrible actors. They're kind of shitty people in the film and Jude isn't a very good artist and Lucy reminds me of annoying chicks I went to college with, but beyond that, the two give a halfway decent performance where I sort of believed they fell in love.

Overall the movie suffers from two problems, it doesn't have much of a cohesive plot to begin with, and it has a bunch of plots that could have been more interesting go absolutely no where.

I don't really know where I should put this but I do think its funny that one of the main foils of our hero Jim Sturgess is Lucy's activist boss (played by Logan Marshall-Green) and he blows up in a homemade bomb accident, and I'm not sure if it's supposed to be played up for laughs or not, but I thought it was funny. Just kind of shows how thing movie was a little more focused on the music then the actual story.

And in this department, the movie actually does a pretty good job. The music, the visuals, and the choreography are really actually stellar. If you're a Beatles fan, you're going to love some of the renditions of a good swath of the discography in this movie.

There is probably something to be said about how the musical numbers don't diegetically fit into the progression of the story, but the truth is that there isn't much story for the music to produce any kind of diegesis anyway so you can probably enjoy this movie more as modern music videos of classic Beatles songs and probably have yourself a good time.

They even throw in really odd cameos for literally no reason like Bono, Eddie Izzard, and Selma Heyak. Like if they had thrown in Paul McCartney or Ringo Star I would have understood but as it stands it just seems odd that Bono shows up and never appears again.

Unfortunately, like a lot of musicals, the second act REALLY slows down and goes a few songs too many for me to say that this could just be a fun visual film. Most musicals start pretty upbeat in the beginning but when the conflict is at its highest, there are a lot of sad songs and they don't really balance out and Across the Universe is a prime example of that.

The thing I remembered most from my first viewing was just how much the last hour drags compared to the first one because you just get this mash up really depressing Beatles songs. They're good songs like Black Bird, While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Helter Skelter, and Strawberry Fields Forever, but put together it just drags out the last hour and it feels more like the director didn't know where to put them so she just kind of mashed them together in the last 30 minutes, sometimes even literally because Helter Skelter and Across the Universe get put together in a weird rendition where the climax of the movie, I think was happening.

But then it keeps going!

There are songs in this movie, especially near the end that go straight into one after the other with no explanation whatsoever.

Jukebox musicals, especially ones that use exclusively one designated artists, can be difficult. It often seems like they're contractually obligated to throw in songs and try and write around them when it should be the other way around. But to be fair, Across the Universe was doing an okay job of it for the majority of the film. But then they just start throwing in songs because it would be sacrilegious to have a Beatles musical without Black Bird My Guitar Gently Weeps.

A movie that started off actually pretty strong in the first hour or so really struggles to tie all the nonsensical plot lines together that at the end, those characters that they sort of paid attention to like JoJo and Dana Fuch's character just are back together, Joe Anderson is back from the war with little more than a, "I guess I'm a little messed up from Vietnam" throw away line, and I'm just so happy when they start singing "All You Need Is Love" because it's pretty obvious that that's the song that they would end on.

Is Across the Universe really as bad as I've been making it out to be? Yes, Yes it is.

BUT... I do see this movie being a fun time for people who are big Beatles fans because the reality is that it is a long music video that clocks in over 2 hours with a lot of in jokes, trippy visuals, and a lot of well done performing of really good Beatles songs.

The best thing to come out of this movie is by far the sound track because every one does do a good job in their singing, musical performances, and just overall aesthetic that reminds us of the 60's and how weird that decade was (I'm assuming... I'm not that old).

I think it might be better to check out the soundtrack more than the movie because the movie is a bit of a mess. The story is almost nonexistent, the characters suck, they miss out on a lot of opportunities in this period piece, and the story is a slave to the music, not the other way around. Across the Universe is more of an audio journey through some reimagined Beatles songs and if that's your cup of tea, by all means, check it out. Otherwise, just listen to the soundtrack and skip this 2 hour slog.

But what did you think of Across the Universe? Are you excited for Yesterday which I think is going to be a much better Beatles Musical (at least I hope). Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as requests for films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

Thanks for reading!