Carrie (1976)

Carrie is one of those movies that just has a reputation. It's been around long enough that a lot of people have seen it, and I almost feel like I know the movie even though I hadn't seen it yet. I think the main reason I decided to watch it was because I knew the reputation, but also because I've really been getting into Stephen King.

Carrie follows the story of a social outcast from a staunchly religious family named Carrie White (played by Sissy Spacek) in high school. She finds herself being bullied by a group of other girls but she also is starting to realize that she's developing telekinetic powers.

The meat of the story happens when Carrie is asked to the prom by one of the high school golden boys.

Honestly, the story is pretty bare bones because not a lot happens between the beginning of the movie up until the end. If you're at all tuned into pop culture or have heard of Carrie before, you probably know how the ending goes. I wont spoil it in case you haven't, the movie is kind of a slow high school drama with three ingredients added to make it stand out, added either by Stephen King's unique story telling, or Brian De Palma's unique directing.

The first ingredient is Carrie's telekinesis. The movie is essentially her figuring these powers out leading to the big display at the end. I do wonder how much was pretty ground breaking effects or if it was just a 1970s movie with a low budget making the best of their situation? Regardless, it hasn't aged great, but it's still a fun element of the movie. This only works because Sissy Spacek is a really good actress and creates the gold standard for wall flower outcast. She's super quiet, but is inquisitive of these new powers without having a testing montage. They only manifest from time to time but eventually she's mastering it and using it to control her own story.

The second ingredient is Carrie's mother and the household she lives in.  Honestly, this is the weirdest and scariest part of the movie and I don't think it gets talked about enough. Piper Laurie plays Carrie's mother Margaret and she's this religious fanatic. This could have just been a high school drama if it weren't for this element.

I'll talk about it in a little bit, but the high school element of this movie is boring and melodramatic, but when Carrie is talking with her mom, it gets really weird and it feels more like a horror movie than any other part, and that includes the ending.

The last thing that really works about this movie is Brian De Palma's early creative filming style. I'm not a huge Brian De Palma fan, but as I understand it, this was one of his first major hit films and he was still in a phase of trying out new shots, and doing more with the cinematography.

The result are these weird close ups that don't really feel like they're the same shot as much as they're two shots scotch taped together.

As weird as that sounds, it works to set Carrie apart as not only a unique story, but a uniquely executed film. I would say its an interesting experiment that doesn't always work. Sometimes its really jarring and vomit inducing if you're sensitive to light and fast moving cameras. But its still unique.

Is it a great film that should be considered a classic? I don't really know about that, but I enjoyed watching it just for the film history context and a lot of that comes from the weird shots, the weird performances, and just the overall 70's feel of this movie.

On a side note, I'm pretty sure I'm a wimp if I find myself preferring 70's and 80's horror films more than recent horror films just because they hadn't really figured out how to do jump scares and had to focus more on the story.

The ending is kind of what makes this movie really worth seeing and I mean that in a good and a bad way. On one hand, the movie is not that long but it is all build up to this moment and it is pretty satisfying. But on the other hand, after the movie is done and the shock of the final scene wears off, you kind of wonder what this movie was all about and you realize that it's based off a novella that was only about 200 pages long.

I think this movie is more entertaining as a piece of Stephen King mythology rather than a particular movie achievement. While it takes some risks and innovates, considering the time it came out, I can't really say it blew my mind.

Because the parts that aren't good, really aren't that good at all.

If its not Sissy Spacek or Piper Laurie, its shrill, its melodramatic, and its annoying.

John Travolta is in this movie for some reason and I think I almost forgot while I was writing this.

There are a couple of girls in this movie that are mean and hyper-exaggerate bullies in high school and it makes me hate high school dramas.

And the gym teacher has got to get better at not slapping kids.

At the end of the day, the movie is pretty short and if you get to the end, it does feel like there is a lot of build up to that satisfying ending. But it is still pretty slow paced, outdated, and overacted. It's definitely not a bad film and I'm glad I saw it, but its not one that I'd return to, or even recommend unless you are a big cinematography and/or Stephen King fan. I was on a bit of a Stephen King kick a couple of months ago and I'm not really afraid to say that this movie probably killed that kick.

But those are my thoughts, what did you think? Does this movie stand the test of time? How does it compare to other Stephen King movies? 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!

Batman: The Telltale Series (Season 1)

So I've had a little bit of hiatus recently due to schooling and other things. November was a busy month but I have been watching some stuff that I am interested in writing posts about in the future. It might not be very frequent but I'm hoping where I'll diminish in quantity, I'll increase in quality. There are a couple of movie/pop culture topics I've been stewing over in the last few weeks and I think as we come to the end of the year, there are some good topics of discussion to have.

The first one is about Batman: The Telltale Series.

If you don't know what Telltale series are, they are point and click "choose your own adventure" video games where the choices you make, either through your actions or dialogue choices, will change the outcomes of the game. They've had good number of these games come out, some of which I might be playing and reviewing in the future based on how great this one is, but I hadn't really gotten much into them until this game.

 You take on the titular character of Bruce Wayne (voiced by Troy Baker). They don't say how long he's been Batman, but I would wager that Bruce Wayne has been Batman for a little bit but not long enough to put away any of the well known villains of his rogue gallery. This is obviously for the benefit of getting to see the formation, (or prevent it?) of major Batman villains.

The game starts with Bruce Wayne supporting Harvey Dent's (voiced by Travis Willingham) campaign to oust the corrupt Mayor Hamilton Hill (voiced by Robert Pescovitz). As this is happening, allegations of corruption perpetuated by Thomas and Martha Wayne come out and Bruce Wayne's name and legacy starts to be tarnished. At the same time, Bruce Wayne's childhood friend Oswald Cobblepot (voiced by Jason Spisak) returns to Gotham with the goal of inciting a "revolution". While he asks if Wayne is going to be on the right side of it, it's obvious that Wayne is on the list of people Cobblepot is interested in taking down. On top of it all, Batman starts seeing the rise of a terrorist organization called The Children of Arkham as well as a new player, the untrustworthy Catwoman (voiced by Laura Bailey).

So that's a broad overview for the purpose of outlining the key players in the game. I know that there are multiple choices that you can make as Bruce Wayne/Batman and I went through the game with those choices, but the game could be slightly if not totally different, depending on the choices you make.

There is a lot to love about this game but the thing I think I'm going to start on is how it takes the Batman lore that everyone seems to know and makes it very malleable for the player to make choices and shape it. The end story could be in line with what happens in the Batman lore, or it could be totally different depending on your choices.

But what's just as interesting in my opinion is how the game took very familiar lore to bring in the fans of Batman, but also took a much darker tone with it to kind of make it there own. I think what we're seeing with properties like The Joker is that the Batman, and frankly the DC universe as a whole, is able to be shaped and manipulated to make new stories while maintaining the same core of the character. Without spoiling too much, there is a Joker in this game, but near the end of the game, he's a very different Joker than any of the other iterations, and it works because the Telltale games are a different animal in themselves.

I might talk a little bit more about DC and how they're planning on utilizing that malleability in the future, but for now, I'll just say I liked how Telltale rode that fine line of adapting familiar material, and yet making it their own.

One thing that I think this game did incredibly well was dive into the duality of Bruce Wayne and Batman in a way I don't think many iterations of Batman have done it in the past.

The game really gives you the opportunity to shape the kind of Bruce Wayne/Batman you want to be.

Are you the Batman that adheres to a strict moral code of not killing? You can make choices to maintain that code. Who is Bruce Wayne? You get to make that choice. I think I actually had more fun when I was Bruce Wayne trying to talk my way out of situations.

And I think the game delved more into Bruce Wayne as a person than most of the movies are willing to go. Bruce Wayne is easily played as the generic rich white dude facade that serves more of a mask for Batman rather than Batman serving as a mask for Batman. In this game, you get to delve a little more into the psyche of Bruce Wayne and how he would act as a member of Gotham, apart from Batman, and I found that really interesting.

That doesn't mean the parts where you play as Batman aren't as good. I think it just gives players the opportunity to dig a little more into Bruce Wayne as a person, rather than the public persona of Batman, which I appreciate.

Now I was recommended this game by a couple of buddies of mine who played the game a while ago. I think one thing I'd note about this game is that it seems like regardless of the choices you make, you still end up one way or another in a similar outcome to finish the narrative of the game. And this isn't so much of a critique because I know making a video game is hard, and writing a cohesive story for the game is hard and you don't want things to get out of hand story and development wise.

My note would be that I think that there are some choices that don't really make a difference at the end of the day. I am starting to watch some gameplays of other people's choices to see if there is a different story that I missed, but it seems like the episodes keep to a set story and some of the choices I make may change one or two things, but the ending is relatively the same. I might rescind this comment after watching some other playthroughs but the reason I bring this up is because my friends have been telling me about season two and that while season had similar outcomes just with different choices peppered in, season 2 kind of takes things to the next level and I would have wanted to feel that kind of differentiation in season 1 (even though I already have season 2 queued up on my PS4 at this moment).

Also Bruce Wayne kind of looks like Archer... not a criticism, just funny.

It doesn't take away from the fact that the story in this game is absolutely phenomenal.

It got me invested quickly, played up the different angles of Batman, especially the Bruce Wayne in public angle that we don't see that often, but also including the scenes of Batman actually being the world's greatest detective.

The game is really well done and I can't wait to start the second season.

But what I also like is that this game has finally started me back on the DC train and put me on a bit of a Batman kick. I think this game shows that Batman can be done differently than the Nolan films that have been such a keystone of the Batman lore in the last decade or so.

I'm going to probably follow up this up with a post about the upcoming Batman film (2021) and what I think we can expect from DC in the future.

But until then, if you have the opportunity, do yourself a favor and dive into the Telltale Batman game. You will not regret it.

But those are my thoughts on Batman: The Telltale Series. What did you think? Have you played it? What kind of outcomes did you have? Comment and Discuss below! Also send me your outcomes and thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as send me your requests for movies, TV shows, and video games 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!

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!