Snowpiercer

So this movie has been on my Netflix list for quite a long time. I'm pretty sure it was on there, and then it left Netflix, but then it came back again, and I decided tonight was finally the night I was going to check it out from beginning to end and oh boy do I understand the hype surrounding this movie.

Snowpiercer follows the story of humanity in the year 2031. Back in 2014, global warming was hitting drastic levels that the world decided to create an engineered solution that backfires horrendously. The world goes into a global freeze and the only survivors were the ones who were able to get onto a highly advanced train running on a track that traveled all around the world.

The story picks up 17 years after the end of the world and the train is still running. The train is divided into a class system and the main characters are members of the lowest class at the back of the train.

It's pretty obvious that conditions are horrible, the food is disgusting, and they are treated terribly by the armed upper class.

Chris Evans plays Curtis Everett, a passenger in the tail end of the car who is helping plan a revolution. He's seen previous revolutions and he believes he has the strategy to make it all the way to the engine where the benevolent Wilford (played by Ed Harris) is controlling the engine. Curtis is supporting the old leader of the revolution, Gillam (played by the late and great John Hurt), and their plan is to find a security specialist named Namgoong Minsoo (played by Song Kang Ho) who knows how to open the security doors on the train. Joining them are Minsoo's psychic (?) daughter (played by Go Ah-Sung), a mother who's son was taken from her (played by Octavia Spencer) and Curtis's second hand man, Edgar (played by Jamie Bell).

In their way is a slew of guards and the habitants of the front cars. The voice for this group is a strange minister by the name of Mason (played by Tilda Swinton)

And the movie is a pretty gruesome, kind of wacky and surreal journey this revolution is taking from the back of the car to the front.

All the while you figure more and more about the characters, the train, and the environment humanity finds itself in.

And this movie is very much what I expected.

Sure I was surprised on how great the action was because I'm not familiar with Bong Joon-Ho's work. I was also surprised by how much dark humor was in this movie. The movie is on track to be a real downer for the majority of it, but then there are some really funny jokes and dark comedic moments that I was really into. While Tilda Swinton is obviously a bad guy, it was interesting seeing her in such a comedic role that was also very evil.

Everyone in the cast does a really good job. While I do have a little bit of trouble separating Chris Evans from Captain America in everything he does, he still gives a really good performance and honestly, he should never not have a beard, he just wears it very well.

John Hurt was just one of the most underrated actors of all time. He's still a treasure.

I really enjoyed the performances of Go Ah-sung and Song Kang-ho. I know Song Kang-ho has appeared in previous Bong Joon-ho productions and I like that despite trying to make a movie that might appeal to a Western audience, those two actors are still able to have pretty awesome parts.

Go Ah-Sung's character was a psychic for like no reason and there's even parts where I think the movie forgot about it. I get the feeling it was a bigger deal in a previous draft but it doesn't ruin the film or anything.

If you're like me and you've heard great things about this movie but haven't seen it yet, I highly recommend it.

I think one thing to note is that the movie doesn't really mess around. About 15 minutes or so in, the movie kicks off and just keeps going at a pretty great pace. Because of this though, you don't really get to know the characters well enough to really get invested when some get axed off.

This movie does not pull punches and I think it could have done with just a tad more getting to know the supporting characters. You connect with Chris Evans character for the entire movie and you like the other characters because they connect and look up to him. But I don't feel like I got to know the other people well enough beyond a few surface value traits.

There's apparently a TV show coming out as a prequel to the events of this film and while I usually don't believe that TV shows based off movies end up being very good most of the time, I could see this one being good because it has an interesting source material and there is a lot you can do with it. In fact the world is so unique that I think a TV show could expand on the things that this show didn't have the time to.

Overall, I think Snowpiercer is just an underrated film that more people need to see. It's on Netflix, don't wait like I did.

But those are my thoughts on Snowpiercer. What did you think? Are you gonna watch the TV show coming out next year? 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!

Good Omens (Season 1)

I've never really delved too deeply into Neil Gaiman. Clearly based on this premise as well as other properties, he clearly has an incredibly unique imagination. But my exposure to him has been pretty limited because the premises are so unique that it almost feels to me like you need to get totally immersed in it to really enjoy it. It just feels very heady and almost intangible that I feel like I need to be in a totally set head space to embark on that deep dive. But I was watching The Good Place and I was kind of in the mood for some philosophical, religious fantasy that I thought I'd knock out Good Omens and finally get an opinion on this show that has dogged me since May.

So there's a lot going on in Good Omens and I'll get to that, but the main center of the story is on an Angel named Aziraphale (played by Michael Sheen) and a demon named Crowly (played by David Tennant). While on either side of the spiritual war between heaven and hell, both of them live on Earth blessing and tempting humanity. Through the millennium of years they've been doing what is akin to Cold War Spy warfare but on a spiritual level, the two have built almost a friendly relationship and have become comfortable with their way of life.

That changes when Crowly is given the job to deliver the Anti-Christ to the couple that will be his earthly parents before he comes of age and brings about Armageddon. (The Earthly father they choose is an America diplomat played by Nick Offerman and he's criminally underutilized).

However, a series of events messes up the delivery and the anti-Christ is actually sent to live with a humble English family in a small village outside of London.

What follows is a pretty wacky bout involving angels, demons, witches, witch hunters, the Anti-Christ as a young boy (played by Sam Taylor Buck), his friends, his dog, the four horsemen of the apocalypse, aliens, Atlantis, world history... the list goes on and honestly its a bit much.

Seriously this show covers so many bases and while I have to applaud Gaiman for not really handcuffing himself to the tradition elements of a religious fiction story like God, Angels, the Devil, Demons, and the Anti-Christ, I feel like there was more than enough there. By episode two they're throwing in witches that can tell the future, witch hunters that are bad with computers, and the four horsemen of the apocalypse and I was thinking to myself, I've got enough food on my plate and you're shoveling on more?

It's easy to break this show down into segments, although those segments have their own branches.

First you've got Crowly and Aziraphale. But that brings in their respective teams like the Angel Gabriel (played by Jon Hamm) and another demon named Hastur (played by Ned Dennehy) to name a few.

Then you've got the Anti-Christ Adam and his friends.

Then you've got what I call the hot people witch plot line with Adria Arjona and Jack Whitehall playing a witch and a witch finder respectively who are the hot people in the show. But they're tagged with Michael McKean and Miranda Richardson.

On top of that you've got the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse being gathered, the voice of God (Francis McDormand) narrating the whole thing, and a lot of other smaller characters. Honestly any one of the segments I've mentioned above could have their own miniseries or movie.

Clearly the selling point of this show was David Tennant and Michael Sheen and yeah, from the beginning these two are wildly entertaining. I love the themes and analogies made in this series that the forces of Heaven and Hell want the apocalypse to occur and Crowly and Aziraphale have been on Earth long enough to understand its value.

It has a lot of fun with the concept of good and evil, angels and demons, in almost a Paradise Lost style narrative. I will say that there are probably a lot of references that probably flew over my head and would be eaten up by religious studies majors, but overall when these two are on screen, especially in Episode 3 where it lays out their relationship over the course of human history, the show is really great.

And that's not to say that the other parts of the show aren't good, but when the show is just being tossed in so many different directions, it just feels aimless at a certain point.

And honestly, the show doesn't really use its time very well.

The first three episodes feel like A LOT of set up with a TON of background thrown at you. And again, episode three is really good, but there were a couple of points in the show where I just had to stop and realize that NOTHING was happening.

And the opposite problem happens in the last three episodes in that a lot happens but all in the course of one or maybe two days. It's a weird juxtaposition especially when the show is jumping from Aziraphale and Crowly to the four horsemen of the Apocalypse, to Adam the Anti-Christ, and so on. The story seems very grand and epic, but still wants to dive into these really person stories and relationships. The result kind of feels half assed, especially if its not Michael Sheen and David Tennant.

A great example is that of Adam the Anti-Christ. The narration says that he's the leader of this group of children but they never really explain what he's like, what his relationship with his parents is like, and so on. And while you may say that's not important, the whole premise of the show is built on the fact that there is a mix up and Adam was supposed to be born into a different family.

There's a question of nature versus nurture. Are you born evil as the anti-Christ? Or are you raised to be evil, for example as the son of an American diplomat?

But the show doesn't really seem to be interested in that question and Adam goes from a boy we don't know a whole lot about to having demon eyes and being a dick for about an episode and a half for no reason besides the fact that he's the anti-Christ. Again, this could be a whole movie in itself, kind of like a comedic The Omen, especially in the relationship he has with the Hell Hound named Dog.

Even for having only six episodes, the show takes quite a bit of time to get going and I don't feel like its paced very well.

The main takeaway is that Good Omens has some great performances, especially from Sheen and Tennant. It's clearly a really unique premise and I'm even considering checking out the book(s?) as I'm on a reading kick lately. The show doesn't shy away from throwing all the wacky elements of the show into the fold. On top of all of that, the costume design is absolutely fantastic.

But I do feel like Amazon dumped out all the toys in their Neil Gaiman toy chest and I'm not sure they really knew what to do with them. For good reason, the show feels like the machinations of a child with a great imagination throwing everything into the story but not tying it up as neatly as it could be. Clearly there's something trying to be said, but it gets drowned out by a confused and slow paced plot.

If you are interested in Good Omens, I'd say watch it but know that its a little bit of a mess and those 6 episodes might feel kind of long. There's a lot of good in the show, but its not always utilized correctly.

But those are my thoughts on Good Omens. What did you think? What are your thoughts on Amazon Prime original TV shows in general? Do they feel slow to anybody else? 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!

The Good Place (Season 3)

So on one hand I feel like my reviews of The Good Place are going to end up saying much of the same thing from my previous reviews and I'm having a little bit of a hard time trying to find the purpose. On the other hand, I'll only have to do this once more when Season 4 is totally complete so I guess I don't really mind, especially since its the only consistent TV show I've been watching and completing with relative ease (We will eventually get that Good Omens review).

I will give Season 3 of The Good Place credit, they do know how to change up the environments, the situations, and create for some interesting television with this still pretty unique concept... at least starting off...

In Season 3 of The Good Place, the four humans originally sent to the Bad Place are stil on their journey to get to The Good Place, having been sent back to Earth in a test to see if they would eventually be good people and earn enough points to take their place in this world's heaven.

Eleanor having tried to be good and struggling to do so on her own, eventually finds Chidi (with the help of Michael sneaking away to earth). The two of them with Chidi's new girlfriend Simone (played by Kirby Howell-Baptiste) start a study of people who experienced near-death experiences and that brings the four humans back together.

The purpose is for Michael and Janet to observe their behavior and see if they grow together to become better people like they did in the afterlife.

And that's the plot for a little bit, and then it kind of spirals off into a couple of different things with different circumstances and scenarios, eventually bringing them all together in some wacky afterlife shenanigans.

On one hand, this format is good. This time around, there is no doubt that these core 6, Eleanor, Chidi, T'Hani, Jason, Michael, and Janet are all on the same side and they're all working together to get to The Good Place. And I've always appreciated the show's ability to avoid you getting to comfortable. The minute you think the premise of the show is just going to be one thing, they switch it up and bring you into new worlds and more comedy ensues.

However, I think there are signs that the show is starting to lose that balance of switching things up for the sake of switching things up and progressing the plot. I think I'll figure out how they make that balance work in Season 4 because that is going to be the final season, so I'm going to put a pin in that for now.

It's a very similar conflict that I've had with this show the entire time. The actors are good, the scenarios they bring up are funny, and I have a good time. But when I reflect on the entire season, there are for sure parts that I realize, never went anywhere.

For example, they have a plot line that they realize that they are not going to the Good Place, but they want to "try" and make sure their loved ones do. While an interesting concept that does lead to some funny stuff (minus the Jason and Donkey Dug stuff... I still think Jason is the worst character), and some admittedly heartfelt moments by Kristen Bell, this plot line doesn't go anywhere. It's important to the characters and I'll give it credit for that, but in review it feels like a filler episode and kind of stalls the progression of the plot.

Now again, its not all bad. Sometimes the show stalls the plot a little bit to show off some interesting parts of the world this show has built.

I think the episode where all the humans are forced to go into Janet's void was a great episode. It furthered the plot, built up the character development, and all while having D'Arcy Carden play all of them. I didn't think that was going to work initially but it did... really well..

It's not really that I think there are good episodes and bad episodes of The Good Place, I just think in every season, I could probably go back and point out which episodes really didn't mean anything in the long run and which ones will be remembered. "The Ballad of Donkey Doug" and "Fractured Inheritance"are filler episodes. "Janet(s)" and "Jeremy Bearimy" were good episodes. The plot mainly moves with the first and final few episodes, but it is kind of weird that despite the fact that there are only 10 episodes in this season, it still felt like it could have been condensed into a mini series.

Because when the show is drawn out for too long, some of the same issues I've mentioned before start to show their heads.

The romances are still kind of weird. They've finally committed to Stan-ing Eleanor and Chidi, which is good. But even that feels off and not totally committed to at times. It's like they want it to be a will they won't they when I think most audiences would just rather have them say they will and be done with it. (when I say most audiences, I think I more mean me).

They also commit... I think to Jason and Janet, which was weird when it first happened because Janet was an unaware robot figure. Having them get together and they're both really into it kind of feels problematic and weird to me.

And that's my problem with the relationships in this movie. They don't seem to really mean much because they come and go whenever the plot needs them to. They're either problematic and confusing, or they rush head first into them because they use flashbacks to figure out that they've fallen in love before and that means they obviously need to fall in love again. There is a moment where Chidi is trying to reconcile the fact that the romance happened to another version of himself which could be interesting, especially if he didn't share those feelings, but they quickly cop out to, that's him being indecisive about his feelings and clearly he loves Eleanor so they're immediately going to have sex and call each other boyfriend and girlfriend in the next episode.

It's like the show wants to be creative instead of falling into the pairing up romance formula, but the need to "Stan" a relationship just overrides any creative way of dealing with that conflict. Instead it's annoying to me and I'd rather they just pick a side instead of half ass doing something creative.

The themes and philosophy of the show, while somewhat interesting, remain pretty basic and almost forced as if they're the moral at the end of a kids show. Philosophic theories are name dropped in the same way Marvel name drops super hero references in their movies and it never feels really profound, just the philosophy lesson of the week.

However, as I might have mentioned in previous season reviews, it is a unique premise for a show and I do like a show about moral philosophy, even a slightly basic one. The philosophy lessons are digestible for mainstream audiences interested in watching a comedy and not a philosophy lecture so I will give it a pass for entertainment sake.

As I might have mentioned in the past, the draw of this show is the heart behind it. We've spent enough time with these characters, watched them grow, and at this point, most audiences just want to see them happy.

I think a lot of it goes back to Ted Danson in my opinion because he's just lovable, even for being a demon but he really does a good job.

But everyone else does a really good job. T'Hani gets a good episode about her and her sister (even though it feels like a filler episode) and while the romance between Eleanor and Chidi feels kind of rushed and forced, it still gives the feels.

Again, the outlier is Jason but with the exception of one episode, he's mainly in the background for comedic effect and his moments in the show clip by pretty fast. I think the show started to realize that if they weren't going to really do much with his character besides just rag on Florida for the billionth time, they should maybe limit his role.

The fourth season of The Good Place is said to be the last season and given the set up for the fourth season, I'm kind of glad they're making that choice.

It's not a bad set up, it just feels like they're going back to the basics and not really exploring new elements of the afterlife as much as they probably could or did in the third season.

Now with how scattered this show is in general, I don't see that remaining the case for very long, but I wouldn't want this show to spiral downward. The third season, while scattered, does show how The Good Place has continued to be a unique premise for three very good seasons. It has the potential to really nail it in Season 4 and end its run on top. I like the quote from creator Michael Schur who said that they don't want to just tread water because the water is warm. I think its a bold move that isn't taken in TV very often and it really puts The Good Place up there as a really great run for a show... if the fourth season is good.

I'll withhold judgement until I watch the entire fourth season but that won't be for a while. So unlike the past week or so, you probably won't see a Good Place review for another few months.

Overall, if you've got this far into the show, you don't really need me to tell you to keep watching through Season 3. It still has some of the limitations I've mentioned in the past, but it's got a lot of heart and there's no doubt that they are having fun with this show. Continue to have fun and watch the third season of The Good Place.

Those are my thoughts on Season 3 of The Good Place. What did you think? 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!

Serenity

This might be one of my shorter reviews because I, like a lot of people, think this movie is probably better the less you know about it. I won't jump on the bandwagon jump on the bandwagon that it's this sleeper masterpiece, but I do think it's an interesting movie worth at least a little fun movie discussion.

Serenity follows the story of Baker Dill (played by Matthew McConaughey), a fishing boat captain who's job is to bring tourists out for big game fishing out on the ocean. However, Baker's source of income is limited, especially as he obsesses over a giant tuna he'd been going after for quite a long time. He has very little money and is often unable to pay his first mate (played by Djimon Hounsou) as well as other expenses.

The plot mainly begins when Baker's ex-wife, Karen (played by Anne Hathaway) comes to him and gives him the proposition that if he brings her abusive husband (played by Jason Clarke) out on his boat and kills him, she'll give him ten million dollars.

And that's really all I can tell you about this movie.

I wish I could say more and I don't really see myself doing a spoiler post on this, so you'll just have to

see it yourself and let me know what you think, but that doesn't mean there aren't things I can still say.

I'd say the biggest draw of the movie is the ideas and use of characters in this really unique plot. At the start it seems like its a very simple plot, but it does take a simple plot and create some ideas out of it. Are all the ideas great? No. Is the movie super mindblowing? The more distance I get from it, I'm realizing while its clever, its not absolutely brilliant.

The main draw outside of the ideas and concept, might be the performances. Matthew McConaughey continues to just show he's a very good actor. He gets his introspective moments that have almost become his new parody, but regardless of the flaws of the movie, I enjoy him in almost everything he does.

 I personally think Anne Hathaway is criminally underused in this film. I think despite some of her really great performances, she still has a stigma around her that doesn't really allow people to like her and I think she's really good in this film.

Jason Clarke is good, but he's not much of a character. He's pretty much your stereotypical bad guy. I mean I give the guy credit because he has that range to play really good characters while also playing dirt bags like this, but he doesn't add a whole lot besides a foil.

Other performances are good. Djimon Housou is always entertaining in what he's in and Diane Lane, while you could probably write her out and the story wouldn't change much, she does her Diane Lane-best and it's good.

Again, it's really difficult to really talk about this movie without giving away spoilers. I think the important part to note is that this movie did some mind bending and the concepts use to tell the story are really interesting.

I think the main problem with this movie, especially with some distance between my viewing, was that it didn't have much to say. The story is good, the performances are good, and the execution is good, but the overall themes are barely there and if they are, they're not saying anything really meaningful.

Now that's not necessarily a bad thing. Movies don't always have to have a super impactful message. But this movie just kind of tries to make you believe its trying to say something when in reality, its just kind of blind entertainment. It's got the feel of an indie movie, while the execution of a blockbuster movie and I think its a decent approach.

I think the hard thing with this movie is, how do you sell it? And based on the budget and box office turn out, they clearly didn't know how to. But I do think there is more here than the eventual bargin bin fate its probably going to end up becoming.

If you have Amazon Prime, check out Serenity. I wouldn't say you need to go out and buy this movie now, but if you get the chance and are able to avoid spoilers, go into it as blind as you can and enjoy the show.

Those are my quick thoughts on Serenity, not to be confused with the Firefly feature film from 2005. It should be noted that that was a horrible name for this film. It relates in no way to the film and I think I could come up with at least 10 better names if I spent 5 minutes thinking about it. What did you think? 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!

Joker

Sigh... so this is a film...

So before I get into the film, I will mention that I almost didn't go and see it because I'm already tired of the "conversation" around this film. Is it an incel rallying cry? Is it a comic book film? Is comedy dead because of PC culture? Is there going to be a mass shooting inspired by this film? What inspires mass shootings? And while some of this stuff is important to examine and the other stuff is just Todd Phillips whining that Hangover 3 wasn't as popular as the first one, it kind of tarnished going into this film with a clean slate. I had a bias and its evident by the end of this review that it might still be there.  But I'm going to try and knock this review out without spoilers or getting into the pop culture aspect of the film in the moment for the time being, because honestly, I'm just tired. It feels like this movie has been out for years and it only came out for the general public this weekend.

Joker follows the story of Arthur Fleck (played by Joaquin Phoenix). A lonely, frankly mentally unstable man living in Gotham who is working paycheck to paycheck as a clown to help take care of his mother (played by Frances Conroy).

Arthur wants to be a stand up comedian and has been told his entire like that his purpose is to bring joy to the world. However, Arthur just continues to be pushed around, beaten up (most of the time literally) until he finally snaps and starts a spiral of dark and violent behavior.

The movie essentially follows his decent into madness as he goes from being immensely unsure of himself, to becoming more and more deranged until he is the clown prince of crime, the Joker.

Sorta...

The interesting thing is that despite some really interesting and not super over the top tie-ins to the Batman universe, this doesn't actually feel like a Joker film as much as it just seems like Joaquin Phoenix present Clown Killer the movie. And on top of the overall themes and unsettling-ness of this film, that weird balance of being a DC movie and yet not is really thought provoking.

In many ways, it almost feels like Warner Brothers was producing a serial killer movie inspired by Martin Scorsese's King of Comedy and Taxi Driver, they hired Joaquin Phoenix, and then once he was on contract they said, "Psych! Its a Joker film!"

But the first very important thing to really discuss is the performance of Joaquin Phoenix.

I'll be upfront, I don't think I have a great sample size of Phoenix's work. I know he's a weird dude in general and he's very particular about the roles he takes and he does a really amazing job with Arthur Fleck in this movie.

This guy is amazingly unsettling and yet you're invested in his journey from the get go. While he's not really relateable, I bet if I re-watched this I could see points where if things were different he'd be taken care of or be able to get healthier. But for one reason or another, it just ends up being a cycle of bad things happening to him and his mind mending itself to reconcile these horrible things and leading him to his transformation into Joker.

For the most part, he's a really good Joker. The great thing about that iconic character is that his origin story is so muddled in mystery that something like this works as an interpretation. It doesn't take away from the character at all, it just exists and is a really good interpretation. They are saying this film is a standalone film and won't connect to the larger DC universe and I'm totally fine with that even with such a dynamite performance by Phoenix.

The thing I liked most was despite the fact that this movie doesn't always feel like a Joker movie, there are still quintessential moments in the film that I was thinking to myself, that captures the essence of The Joker and they were great scenes.

And aside from the send up to the character, Phoenix just creeps me out hard in this film, probably more when he's not wearing the make up. I won't really give any context to this, but there's a point in the film where he's listening to someone talk and he's just smiling in this incredibly unsettling way, and it just sent chills down my spine because it was so effective.

I think the one critique I had is something totally out of Phoenix's control, and its his voice.

Phoenix doesn't really have a commanding voice at all and it works towards him being Arthur Fleck really well, but when he's the Joker, everything from his mannerisms, to his actions, to the performance is spot on, but I would have liked a little bit more of a commanding voice. It's a petty critique that really shouldn't take away from the performance at all, but it was one thing I noticed that pulled me back a little. But at the same time, it goes well with the film because again, it feels less like a Joker film and more like Arthur Fleck: A Clown's Personal Journey to Murder.

I think one thing of note is that because this is so focused on Arthur Fleck's character, everyone else kind of takes a back seat and you don't get much of a chance to really get to know any of them in any way that's meaningful.

You've got some really great actors in this film, Robert De Niro, Zazie Beetz, Marc Maron, and Brian Tyree Henry to name a few, and they don't really do a whole lot in this film.

And the worst part is, what they do have, they absolutely nail it. I wanted to know more about Robert De Niro's talk show host. I wanted to know more about Brett Cullen as Thomas Wayne. But I guess that would have sacrificed more time on this personal decent into madness story.

I really like the inspiration taken by this film from movies like Taxi Driver and King of Comedy. One thing I was worried about was that this movie was just going to be a covert remake of those films but with the Joker. And while there are similarities, the end result is a pretty good mixture of a movie about a mentally ill man screwed by the system, with influences from those Scorsese films, but not enough to feel like they're being ripped off, and some good Joker mythology.

Do I have other issues with the film?

Honestly, I'm still digesting it.

It's an unsettling movie but that was to be expected. If you didn't expect this movie to be unsettling you don't know who the Joker is, nor do you know Joaquin Phoenix's reputation, nor did you watch the trailer...

The movie is violent but I don't believe violent movies inspire violence. Also, more focused on this personal journey so there really isn't much action overall. It's a very similar conversation to Taxi Driver and how I mentioned that that movie was problematic. This is a problematic movie but it's not like its this one of a kind film with so much violence its going to break its audience.

I love how the movie takes you on Arthur Fleck's journey, questioning what is real, what is right, and how do we treat people we think are off or odd.

I don't think its as mind blowing a film as some people are saying it is, but I'd be shocked if it isn't nominated for something come award time. Its a mind bender but still, a day later I can't really decide how much I liked it.

As you can tell there's just a lot of thoughts constructed from this film and I see that both as a good and a bad thing. It's good that this movie makes me think, but just because its a thinker doesn't automatically mean it has a lot to think about seriously.

I think my recommendation is for you to see the movie for yourself, especially if you like unsettling movies like Taxi Driver or King of Comedy. You can come up with your own interpretation and impression and feel free to let me know.

I think the thing I keep coming back to is just the clout of exhaustion I have towards this movie. As much as I know I'm going to revisit this movie in the future, I have no interest in seeing it in theaters again and want to wait a long time before I re-watch it.

I'm trying to figure out if I'm exhausted more by the pop culture zeitgeist around this film and how I think its probably more toxic than the movie, or if I am just off put by the movie itself.

I'll revisit this movie in the future and probably do another review with full spoilers and full thoughts, but for the time being, what did you think? How did Joker sit with you? 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 Good Place (Season 2)

This show is like a Moral Philosophy for Dummies book, it brings up a lot of good points and moments of discussion and thought on a unique premise and approach, but packages it in a prime time format that has a lot of potential to break some barriers and do something unique, but still uses those pesky contrivances because its leaning into the usual audience of NBC sitcoms. Mostly good, but doesn't quite make the level of great. And when I say for Dummies, I include myself in that because I still really enjoy this show.

On a side note, I'm also watching Good Omens at the same time as this show and it is fun imagining that there is a "Good" Universe with the possibility of Ted Danson and David Tennant being demon friends and I'm all for it.

Important relevant note before I start, this review is going to delve into some spoilers of Season 1 so if you haven't seen Season 1 yet, I'm not sure why you're reading this. You've been warned.

So jumping right into the recap from Season 1, something I didn't spoil in the first review is that Jianyu (played by Manny Jacinto) is actually a Florida Man by the name of Jason and he dumb. The end of the season  revealed that Michael (played by Ted Danson) is actually a demon and the main characters, Eleanor, Chidi, Tahani, (played by Kristen Bell, William Jackson Harper, and Jameela Jamil) and Jason are all actually in The Bad Place.

The whole first season was an elaborate plot by Michael to innovate torture in the bad place through humans torturing each other. The other residents of the fake Good Place, including the "real" Eleanor Shellstrop, actually a demon played Vicki (played by Tiya Sircar) were all demons acting as residents meant to push the four humans into their own torture.

Michael quickly erases their memories but his boss, Shawn (played by Marc Evan Jackson) tells him that he won't get a third attempt at this new way of torture. And then Michael continues to erase their memory multiple times in an attempt to try and get this version of his Fake Good Place to be successful. However, every time, Eleanor and the humans figure out his plot.

Eventually after about 800 iterations, in order to hide his failings, Michael has to team up with the humans with a promise that he'll try to get them to the actual Good Place if they can help him keep his secret of his test failing.

One of the conditions though is that Michael needs to sit in on the moral philosophy classes being taught by Chidi with the intention that he himself will learn to become good.

Also D'Arcy Carden returns as the all knowing program Janet and while Michael needs to erase her memory (kill her) every time they restart the fake Good Place, she becomes more cognizant and there are some aspects about her personality and programming that change that I have... thoughts on.

One of the main issues I think I have with this season, and the show in general, is that it's pretty hap hazard with it's romances. On one hand, I'm cool with that because the show is dealing with the afterlife and non-human entities, its kind of making fun of the whole concept of romance. But on the other hand, I'm not totally convinced the show is that self aware.

What's more likely is that the show is falling into the same conventions of other prime time shows where they introduce a small group of characters and those characters just pair up.

And it wouldn't be such a big deal if they didn't seem to be right on the verge of dealing with romantic relationships in a really unique way. The first season didn't really commit to any real romantic relationships, but the second season is starting to ship couples and because romance was such a non-issue in the previous season, it's all kind of a mess. Chidi was into T'hani in the first season and that's no where to be seen. Jason was married to Janet but that was erased from their memories and initially wasn't a thing but then it became one randomly to create what really seemed like a throwaway plot line and a way to bring in Jason Mantzoukas (which usually I'm all for, but I'll talk about him later). Then there's the thing with Chidi and Eleanor which is a thing, then its not. Then only Eleanor is into Chidi and he's not and I was convinced for a second that he wasn't, but then he suddenly has feelings for her. While it has the opportunity to be profound or unique, I get the feeling its more shipping people on the seat of the writer's pants, especially when simple platonic friendship between these characters just seems more likely.

And then there's Jason...

Jason is by far, the worst character of the show. His personality is, he's dumb. I know they're trying to sell him as a lovable dumb dude, but I really don't feel like he adds anything to the story or the show because that's the joke. He's the dumb guy. And yeah, sometimes it gets a laugh, but it's like the fork pun. If you continuously lay up the joke about Blake Bortles and the fact that he's from Florida, eventually it's not going to be funny. I am all for making fun of Florida, but eventually it loses the cleverness and it just feels lazy.

And this kind of falls into the limitations this show has. Overall, it has been so-so with selling us flawed characters that we come to love. The obvious glare is Jason but he kind of comes with the package and if he was the only issue, it wouldn't be an issue. Chidi and T'Hani, and especially Michael are probably the best examples of this flawed but lovable character arc because you understand why they are sent to the bad place, but they're not really bad people, or they are but you definitely see their growth. Janet is not really flawed but instead is becoming flawed and that's another point for creative use of characters. The issue still lies with Eleanor.

I still haven't bought this whole idea that Eleanor is a bad person. Maybe its just the fact that she's played by Kristen Bell because I'm sorry, have you seen the Kristen Bell Sloth video? How can you watch this without a smile of joy on your face?

I don't think its a matter of Kristen Bell playing a bad person, she was bad in Heroes and I didn't have much of an issue with it. But the issue is, in this she has to be the vehicle for the audience and instead of letting her do something almost evil like she did in Heroes (or have her have a unique character) they just have her do mean things with little to no explanation.

And even when they do explain it, like she had a rough childhood and she pushes people away because of it, her acts of being "bad" don't really match up with what a person like that would do. Eleanor needs to be affable while still pushing people away. Eventually, they sort of land on, "she's selfish and arrogant" but that eventually just turns into her saying that she's hot.

But her character is still likable for two reasons. One... it's Kristen Bell. Have you seen the Kristen Bell singing all the voices from Do you Want to Build a Snowman video? She is a delight! I'm only slightly joking. She's just likable and able to carry her own TV show.

But probably more relevant is the way she's written and the way she interacts with the other characters, especially Ted Danson.

I don't know how Kristen Bell and Ted Danson became such a fantastic duo, but it's definitely what's selling this show. Obviously their the big names, but its such an odd and unexpected pairing but I really like it.

I think the problem I have with this attempt at making flawed characters lovable is that the show isn't really allowed to go all the way down this creative rabbit hole and instead has to appeal to a general, prime time watching audience, but I can tell it wants to break out so badly.

Overall, the performances in the show are really good, even beyond Bell and Danson.

William Jackson Harper and Jameela Jamil are really funny and it definitely feels like they are an intricate part of the show. And I really like how they expanded on the universe that these people live in and had a lot of fun with the fantastical elements.

Again, I just don't feel like they went all the way that they could.

Take Janet for example. D'Arcy Carden does a really good job not only playing a multitude of takes on this character, but she made me feel for a program which is essentially The Matrix incarnate.

And there's even set up for some really funny stuff, like Janet dealing with getting over a guy and so she creates a new being in Derek (played by Jason Mantzoukas).

Now Derek could have been amazing... its Jason Mantzoukas! But instead he's really handcuffed by A) the fact that he's a guest star, but more importantly B) the show just didn't really expand what you could do with a cosmic interface creating a new person beyond him introducing himself to leaves and inanimate objects.

And that really breaks down the major problem I have with this show, it's got some great ideas. It feels like its heading towards something and I will say, the ending of Season 1 got me good. I think I probably should have seen it coming, but I'll admit, I didn't. There is definitely great writing behind this show, but it always feels like its hitting a ceiling at times.

I will give it credit that the writing, characters, and performances push hard against that ceiling and even move it a ways, but I never feel like the show is quite breaking any barriers and that its more confined by the network its on.

And is that a totally bad thing? No. If anything, it puts it at the top of the usual stuff that you see coming out of Networks like NBC, ABC, CBS, and Fox. It'll probably earn its place with shows like The Office, Parks and Rec, Brooklyn 99, Community, and others for just the unique premise and execution alone. But I just have a weird sense about this show that it could be more. It wants to be more. It's talking about interesting themes and asking interesting questions, but at the end of it, it just feels like I spent a night reading basic Philosophy articles on the internet. Good articles, but articles nonetheless. It feels very basic.

Now, I don't think the show needs to be more than basic. It could be, but it doesn't need to be and I'm not trying to insult anybody who thoroughly enjoys this show. I thoroughly enjoy this show. It gives me the feels and sometimes you don't need something super deep or groundbreaking to feel the feels.

Overall, The Good Place continues to have a really unique premise, great performances, and it really is on the high end of TV airing today. But that doesn't mean its above critique or could do more. If you haven't seen the second season, keep watching, it only continues to be good. If you haven't seen Season 1... well I'm sorry I spoiled it but have a good time watching it because I recommend you do.

What did you think of the second season of The Good Place? 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 check out 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!