Pan's Labryinth

This one has been on my list for a while but I'll be honest, it was more because of the critical praise this movie has gotten since 2006 when it came out. There wasn't a whole lot about it that appealed to me, it just seemed like a critically acclaimed movie worth checking out sooner or later. 

The movie follows the story of a little girl named Ofelia (played by Ivana Baquero) in 1944 in the

middle of the Spanish Civil War. Her pregnant mother (played by Ariadna Gil) and her travel to a small mill in the mountains owned by a Captain (played by Sergi Lopez) in the Fascist Spanish military.  The Captain is in the middle of a campaign to root out freedom fighting insurgents in the mountains where the mill is located but he wants the new baby to be born with its father.

Ofelia is not pleased with the new circumstances but her time is soon occupied when she comes across fantastical fairies and a faun in the middle of a labyrinth near the mill. The faun (voiced by Doug Jones) tells Ofelia that she is Princess Moanna and daughter to king of the underworld. He wishes to bring her back to the underworld and have her sit at the side of her father, but he needs to give her three tasks to prove her worthiness.

Probably the biggest appeal of the movie is the juxtaposition between this high fantasy concept with fairies and fauns with a personal story of struggle against fascism, reaching levels comparative to Schindler's List or the Diary of Anne Frank.

The best part is the the movie is pretty vague on whether or not the fantasy elements are real or if they're just figments of a young girl coming of age in a very stressful and tragic time in history. I read something that compared it to a dark and twisted version of The Chronicles of Narnia and I sort of agree. I get why this movie was really beloved by some people because it contains some really unique imagery surrounding some really likable characters.

For real, I get why people enjoy Guillermo Del Toro because I almost came out of this movie wishing that they had focused more on the fantasy elements and we could have gotten some more creative creatures.

I mean look at that!

I saw this creature back in 2006 and it scared the shit out of me. It's still freaky but can you imagine what other creatures you could see from the mind of Del Toro if he had the budget?

The movie is in subtitles which shouldn't dissuade you. It's also centered in a world of basically Nazi's so expect some violence and torture. I just think its a really interesting backdrop for essentially a fairy tale for grown ups as I think Roger Ebert described it at one point.

The movie is well paced, its well performed, and you've got Del Toro's creativity as a backdrop for all of it. The mixture of practical effects and CGI is brilliant and its amazing that this movie came out almost 20 years ago and it looks this great.

There's not a whole lot bad to say about the movie. I can't say its my favorite movie of all time just out of personal preference but I do recommend you check it out if you haven't. It's on Netflix and is probably one of the better movies available there.

I guess one thing I could note is that the movie is pretty dark like the whole time. I get that it was the 2000's and everything needed to be dark and this movie was probably dark before it was cool, but when I say dark, I mean the lighting and tint of the movie with the exception of some scenes is always this dark greyish green color and its obnoxious at times.

I get that it adds to the ambiguity of whether or not the fantastical elements are real or not, and I assume that it was all an artistic choice. I just know that if I tried watching this at night, I'd probably fall asleep because everything is so dark.

But overall, I recommend Pan's Labyrinth. I don't know if I would have checked it out on my own if I hadn't heard the critical acclaim about it for so many years, but if you're looking for a dark fantasy juxtaposed with a really heart wrenching historical tragedy, I think you're in good hands with Pan's Labyrinth.

But those are my quick thoughts on the movie. What did you think? Have you seen Pan's Labyrinth? How does it hold up 14 years later? 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!

Watchmen (Season 1)

I wrote a review for the Zac Snyder Watchmen film when this blog first started and it is horrendous. I'm not gonna link it because it is that terrible but just know, I've seen the movie and I have probably a little more knowledge of the Watchmen property than I would guess most of the people watching. Since the show is a continuation of the comic and not the movie, I'm going to keep the comparisons to a minimum, but I do think it is worth it to mention that this show could have had an amazing opening credit sequence using the song "The Times Are A Changing" like they did in the movie and it would have been brilliant.

Just a note, its a little difficult to review this show for two reasons. The first is, I don't want to spoil anything for you. Big deal, that's everything I review. But the other part is that this show is so dipped into the Watchmen lore that it's hard to explain the entire background and universe this is set in.

The important thing to know is that this is an American timeline where masked vigilantes have been around for a little bit. Also, America won the Vietnam war by deploying a giant blue man by the name of Dr. Manhattan. Furthermore, Nixon served as President for at least three terms and was followed by Robert Redford, a detail they really just blow past, only for comic relief, and also, Vietnam is the 51st State.

Just know, its an alternate history built off history that was started in the graphic novel. It'll sorta fill you in as you go along.

Watchmen mainly follows a cop by the name of Angela Abar (played by Regina King). In the town of Tulsa, Oklahoma, cops are required to wear masks. I don't know how it went from masks to full on costumes, but whatever. Abar goes by the hero moniker Sister Night.

The story starts off when members of a white supremacist group called The 7th Calvary start killing cops in Tulsa.  Abar, along with other masked cops, including a masked cop with a mirror-like reflective mask called Looking Glass (played by Tim Blake Nelson), and the chief of police Judd Crawford (played by Don Johnson) begin investigating the 7th Calvary and begin to unravel a huge conspiracy surrounding masked heroes of the past, giant squids from other dimensions, and the illusive Doctor Manhattan, a god-like being who has been missing from earth for decades.

These characters are really good. I've noticed that Regina King is having a little bit of a resurgence which is odd because I remember her being the worst part of 24 Season 6. But in this she really goes no holds bar and really carries the show. Part of it is how she's written, but the other part is just her acting. Tim Blake Nelson is good, though I think he's not the most vital part of the show. He has his own episode which is pretty good, although not the most important to the show. Don Johnson is also having a bit of a resurgence because not only did he do a good job in this, but he was in Knives Out. I didn't know who he was until I looked him up and he was on Miami Vice back in the 80s.

Something I will note is that I do find it funny that aside from Sister Night, every other masked cop seems pretty lazy in their costume design. Not a huge issue, just a funny note.

Another character is FBI Agent Laurie Blake (played by Jean Smart), who is a former masked hero fans of the comic might recognize.

I found her character interesting because it is the show runners injecting a pretty important character from the comics into the show and I'm not totally sure I understand why. The fact that she is this character doesn't exactly add a whole lot to the story and while she is a welcome addition to the show, I've always really enjoyed Jean Smart as an actress, I never felt like her role added much besides filling an authority role and giving a nod to the original material. I'm torn because like Tim Blake Nelson's character, I do like the episode where they delve into her as a character. I like Jean Smart. But again, in the totality of things, she doesn't add much besides being a foil.

And then there is Jeremy Irons.

If you're like me, some of this show was spoiled just by the conversation around it when it was airing so I already knew what character Jeremy Irons was playing. Because of that I knew that he might be one of my favorite parts of the show and I wasn't far off.

Without spoiling anything. Jeremy Iron's character doesn't have a whole lot to do with the main plot at first, he's just kind of in his own world doing his own thing. Now that sounds boring, but he presents some of the wackiest and science fiction elements of the show. Furthermore, he usually shows up for a 10-15 minute at max segment of each episode and then they get back to the main story, but he is just a blast to watch.

Last few characters I swear...

Louis Gossett Jr plays a role I won't delve into too much because its important to the story but he's fine. Not great, but fine.

Hong Chiau plays probably the weakest character in the show, Lady Trieu. She's this really successful brilliant billionaire with her own agenda throughout the show and she's just not written very well. Chiau does a fine job with what she's given, but honestly I think the show runners were a little bit more interested in other elements of the story that they kind of forgot about her at times.

She doesn't really have an origin episode like everyone else which might be the problem. I guess it kind of illustrates how some of these premium TV shows are falling into a little bit of a formula. It is by no means a bad formula, but its the formula that breaks the show into three acts that include the first few episodes which are introductory and usually the slowest. They then start to delve into the origins of the main characters, throw in a flashback episode or two that are arguably the best episodes and show the main antagonists plot while also allowing for the hero to be incapacitated for a little bit, then finish up with the big finish all the way down to the last minute. Again, it's not a bad formula, but it felt a lot like the 1st Season of Daredevil in the introductions and expositions of characters.

While there's a lot of good things to say about this season of television, I do think there are some gaps. I've kind of already mentioned that some of the individual episodes that expound on origin stories are kind of pointless or at least don't hold the weight that I think I originally thought they were going to. While most of the characters are fleshed out really well, there are some that aren't as much who are pretty important, like Lady Trieu. The season overall is really well executed and it was a blast watching it, I just have had some thoughts in the aftermath of the show that makes me think it might not be as perfectly solid as I originally thought.

But one of the reasons this show is so entertaining is because one of the things it executes so well is the already super interesting IP of Watchmen in the first place. It's not just that the graphic novel brilliantly injected superheroes into American history and made it a staple in an alternate American history, it's that it just creates a whole new history.

Culture is different, social norms are different, history is different but in such a unique way. That was already the case in the graphic novel and the movie, but I think the most impressive thing about the TV show is how it takes that already developed world and not only builds on it, but makes it feel incredibly lived in.

One thing the show is able to do really well is not only expand on the existing world really well, but insert commentary on the experience of disenfranchised groups in the world. With the exception of Tim Blake Nelson and Jeremy Irons, all the main characters are women, people of color, or LGBT, sometimes combinations of both. The show does a really good job at looking at this alternative history through the lens of a diverse cast while not feeling preachy or gratuitous. There's a message being conveyed, but its executed very well in a way that's not see very much and less likely to be done this well. There's clearly a lot they could expand on if they continued this show.

But that's also the conflict I have with the idea of this show getting a follow on season.

It's such a rich world that they could go in any direction they wanted to with it. While I would argue they've used a lot of the lore set up from the graphic novel in a pretty succinct story, if there was a story to continue, its a world that is ripe for it. But that's just it, the story was pretty succinct and didn't leave much for continuation.

What's more, the main show runner and writer Damon Lindelof said that if there is a second season, he wouldn't be the one running it. And that's a huge down side. So, would I be happy and watch a second season? Of course. Like I said, there's some rich story to be told and I think it could be done well. Do I think it'll be as good, no.

Overall, I think the TV show is really well done. It does a brilliant job of continuing the story set up by the graphic novel while also making it its own viewing experience. The cast is great despite some characters not being utilized as well as others. And finally, it clips along keeping you engaged the entire time for all 9 episodes. If you have the time (which we seem to all have a little more of) and have HBO or access to this show, do yourself a favor and check it out.

Before I wrap it up with overall thoughts, I would be interested to hear the thoughts of people who watched this with no understanding of the graphic novel. I have never read the graphic novel fully, only watched the movie and even I felt like it took me a little bit to understand the full extent of the world and where things had gone since the events of the graphic novel. I'd be interested to hear the experience of someone who has no background knowledge of the graphic novel and is going in blind to this TV show. Does the show do a good job at explaining the background in a way that is meaningful to you and how did you like the show overall?

Feel free to comment and discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as send me your requests for shows and movies I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie and TV reviews coming out of this blog!

Thanks for reading!

The Last Black Man in San Francisco

Not a lot of people send me requests, the majority of the people who have are people I know, but let it be known that if you send me a request, I will definitely review it. This was one such request from my friend Colin. Thanks for the request.

So the background on this story is actually pretty interesting because the director and the main actor, Joe Talbot and Jimmie Fails grew up in San Francisco wanting to make movies and the only reason they were able to get the resources for the film was through a kickstarter and some cited interest from Danny Glover who also plays a role in the film.

The story centers on two friends living in a rough part of San Francisco. One is named Jimmie Fails (played by Fails) and the other is named Mongomery Allen (played by Jonathan Majors). As they're watching their city change through gentrification, they make a routine of fixing up an old Victorian house that Jimmie claims his grandfather built, even though a white couple lives there.

Then one day the house is vacated by the couple and Jimmie and Montgomery see an opportunity to squat in the house and claim it as theirs. What follows is a really interesting, artistic look into the effects of gentrification, as well as a commentary on societal placement.

Now this movie was distributed by A24, which has a reputation of art house films with long drawn out artistic shots, selective dialogue, and subliminal themes and messaging with their films. If that's not your style of film, you're going to struggle getting through this movie. It is very much a slow burn and the first hour takes quite a bit to get going.

I went into this film knowing absolutely nothing. It wasn't until after I was done watching the film that I read up on the background and the fact that it's a semi-biographical story that I fully realized some of the really impactful moments of the film.

This has its pros and cons. On one hand, its hard for an audience to connect with a story if they don't know the context or can't connect with it out of a lack of shared experience. On the other hand, I support any artist who works as hard as these guys did to make their dream project, and this clearly was a deeply personal story.

I also like how the actors that the movie spends the most time on are relatively new actors. Jonathan Majors is really at the start of his career having really only been in major films since 2017, and this is Jimmie Fails first major film role. I think I was most impressed with Jonathan Majors mainly because of the climax of the film. I won't give it away, but Montgomery spends the entire movie being a quiet artist and the end of the movie gives him some of the best dialogue and performances from him and Fails in the final act.

I think the most valuable thing about the movie is the insight into the black experience through the gentrification of a neighborhood. I've had my own differing opinions on the pros and cons of renovating old neighborhoods and the effect that it can have on low income residents who have lived in those neighborhoods for a long time.

I'll let you watch the film yourself and come to your own conclusion on the messaging of the film, but I do appreciate the different perspective that I don't usually get from the films I usually watch. I get the feeling the longer I sit with this film, the more its going to resonate with me, and I gotta give the film credit for that.

Overall, The Last Black Man in San Francisco is a well acted unique perspective piece. There were parts of it that were slow, characters who I didn't really see the point of like Mike Epps character, but overall, if you're into slower paced art house films with some subtle commentary, this film is definitely one to check out.

But those are my thoughts on The Last Black Man in San Francisco. I want to thank Colin for the recommendation and if you're interested in recommending a film feel free to leave one in the comment section below! There you can also discuss your thoughts on the film! 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!

Frozen 2

So I did a quick read through of my first Frozen review and that was back in 2014... boy did I not expect how big of a thing that movie was gonna be and I was behind the curve on it without a doubt. Frozen has become such a huge staple in the Disney business that it was never really a question of if there was going to be a Frozen 2, it was a question of when. Six years to continue the story that seemed to be pretty conclusive in 2013? What can go wrong?

Frozen 2 picks up three years after the first film and the Scandinavian city of Arundel seems to be doing pretty well. The main cast of characters have been living happily together and one of the first songs is just talking about how some things never change... just as their about to change.

Kristoff (voiced by Jonathan Groff) is ready to propose to Princess Anna (voiced by Kristen Bell) but is having trouble finding the right words to do it. Olaf the snowman (voiced by Josh Gad) is figuring out what it means to be getting older (this was kind of pointless but they needed Olaf to provide some comic relief so I'll give it a pass). But more important than all of those things is the fact that Queen Elsa (voiced by Idina Menzel) is hearing a voice originating from an enchanted forest to the north of the kingdom. She initially tries to ignore it, but when weird things start affecting the town of Arundel, she realizes that she must go north and discover the mystery behind the misty forest and bring Arundel back to normal.

And the result is a little scattered.

Now I should note, I'm watching this film from the perspective of a 20 something guy. I am not the target demographic for this film. As usual, I will give you my honest opinion of the film, but I will also try and understand why this movie might be a fit for the people/kids its targeted for.

Hands down my favorite part of this film is the visuals and mythology that they introduce to world build the existing world that's there. In the first film it was enough to just have Elsa have ice powers, but this movie really pushes the limits on the fantasy elements and let's be honest, create a world for future installments of this franchise to be made.

Now I will say, some of it definitely is ripping off Avatar: The Last Airbender. Like I know the elements of fire, earth, wind, and water aren't copy written by that show, but there is definitely some overtones of element bending and even though it seems to be ripping off Avatar, I'm still all for it.

On top of that, the visuals in this film are really well done. Not only is it a pretty film to look at, those fantasy elements are backed up with some really beautiful visuals and animation.

Honestly, the jury for me is still out on which soundtrack I prefer but its worth noting that I actually really like this soundtrack. It's either really catchy or its a forgettable song, but that was the case with the first soundtrack too.

At the end of the day, this movie should have been totally focused on Elsa because she's the strongest character. Elsa is the one driving the whole plot and its her that allows us to delve into these new parts of the Frozen world. I guess my problem with the film is that it seems to be hitting a lot of the same notes that they hit in Frozen. Elsa's still unsure of herself, Anna is still wanting to be closer to her sister even though Elsa pushes her away. And because this is a movie about two sisters, the male characters get sidelined to silly plot lines about growing older, and talking to reindeer about proposing. I'm not saying the guys needed to have more important plot lines, but they probably had a requirement to shove all of these characters in the movie even though its kind of more of a personal journey for one or two of them.

On top of the personal arcs, the plot is scattered. The first Frozen had a single plot point. Arundel is frozen over, we gotta get to Elsa for her to unfreeze it.

In this film, the quest (which takes a little bit to get going) starts off as a quest to protect Arundel, but then there's a whole thing about this tribe in the woods fighting with some lost Arundel guards, these elemental spirits, Elsa and Anna's parents, some weird dam that was built 30 some years ago, and by the end you kind of forget that Arundel was in trouble.

And when you combine the plot elements with the confusing personal arcs, it just becomes a bit messy. Frozen 1 was so concise, this one just seems a little all over the place that when it gets to the climax, which has arguably the best song of the movie (Show Yourself, Into the Unknown is fine but overrated), it's not as clear what moment of self-actualization Elsa's getting to... again. But hey at least everyone gets some cool outfits your kids are going to beg you for!

All that said, is your kid gonna not like Frozen because its story is a mess? No. If your kid liked Frozen 1, they're going to watch Frozen 2 on repeat, especially if you're self-quarantined... so get your alcohol ready to hear Into the Unknown multiple times.

The truth is, the characters are still fun. The fantasy elements are enough to keep kids really interested, and the songs are still really good.

There's a lot to like, if not just for nostalgia's sake. I don't think this movie is going to age particularly well, but there's nothing to really harmful about it. Yes it's not as tight or concisely made as Frozen 1, but that's kind of what happens when you're forced to make a sequel to the highest grossing animated film of all time. Its just the world we live in.

But those are my thoughts on Frozen 2. What did you think? Which soundtrack do you prefer the Frozen 1 or 2? Which movie do you prefer? Better question, what drink are you gonna make yourself while your kid watches it on Disney + for the sixth time in a row? 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!

Collateral (Mini Series)

So when this show was announced, I had just recently finished Black Earth Rising, another BBC Netflix joint venture that nobody watched. While that show has its issues, what I really liked about it was that it was a political thriller on a particular topic that was somewhat realistic while still maintaining a mystery carrying it through. Collateral seemed like a logical jumping point. It also didn’t hurt that it featured a really good cast of British actors, including a couple who had runs on Doctor Who like Carey Mulligan, Billie Piper, and Jon Simms. Being a fan, I find it fun watching those actors excel in other areas.

However, I tried watching this show a while ago and got pretty bored after the first episode. Even this time around I found the first episode to be really boring with a lot of set up. But I wanted to push through, at the very least write a review about a show that seemed to have a lot of potential but really didn’t carry it forward.

Collateral’s story centers on a murder in London of a pizza man who the police later figure out was a refugee from the Middle East. The show has a string of characters who are affected by this murder in one way or another. It mainly follows Detective Kip Glaspie (played by Carey Muligan), a pregnant detective taking the lead on case with her partner (played by Nathaniel Martello-White). But the story also follows the killer, a witness who is living in the UK illegally, the priest she lives with, the woman who last saw the murder victim alive (played by Billie Piper), her ex husband who is a member of the Labour Party (played by Jon Simms) , the owner of the pizza shop the victim worked at, the victims sisters, the list goes on and on. Its all a lot of stories centered by a vague discussion around immigration, the refugee crisis, and Brexit.

The important part is, I’m all for shows that take on a specific topic and ask important questions about it. That’s actually what I really liked about Black Earth Rising, was that it took a very specific topic, the aftermath of the Rwandan genocide and the International Criminal Court, and made it the setting for an interesting mystery. The problem with both shows is that they’re not really sure what they’re trying to say, the characters are flawed but not incredibly relatable in their flaws, and the shows drag quite a bit.

The first episode is definitely the biggest culprit of all of this. It seems to lay up all these questions and lays the groundwork for there to be something deeper underneath this seemingly simple murder. But I can’t say it really payed off. It definitely gets better as the show goes on and at the end of the day, it is only four hour long episodes, but it was a chore getting through them.

I would say the show gets a lot better when they introduced Captain Sandrine Shaw (played by Jeany Spark). Shaw is an officer in the British military, heavily affected by the wars in the Middle East and wants to continue fighting for a noble cause because that’s all she knows. She’s also dealing with a commanding officer who’s a creep but honestly, she’s arguably the best part of the show. The problem is, after thinking about it for a little bit, I don’t think her story really gets the conclusion it deserved. That could be because this is not an action gun fight TV show.

 I heard a pretty apt comparison saying that this show is a mixture between Homeland and the British crime drama Broadchurch, with a hint of Fargo thrown in their for no reason (mainly because Carey Mulligan’s character is pregnant throughout the show for like no reason, it never comes up), but I did find the comparison pretty accurate. The problem was, there’s no climax. The show kind of meanders around for four hours, hinting at a conclusion, but that conclusion doesn’t really happen. Not for Captain Shaw’s character, and not for pretty much anybody else in the show.

Something positive about the show is that they have a pretty great cast.

I think that's the draw of these shows. People like me see Carey Mulligan, Billie Piper, and Jon Simms and that's enough to draw me in. And to be clear, they all do a good job. Nobody's half assing this show. The problem is, I feel like some of them are miscast. Carey Mulligan does a good job and I'm sure there could have been a lot more examination of this pregnant detective at the bottom of an conspiracy that goes levels above her, but the show has to share time with others like Jon Simms, who does a good job, but he he has such a distinctly menacing voice that it's hard to not see him as the bad guy even though he might be one of the more decent people in the show. And then Billie Piper really was just thrown in for the name recognition because he character adds pretty much nothing to this show. And the weird part is, they allude to her being an Israeli immigrant/refugee(?) but they don't really utilize her enough for it to be an effective performance.

And then there's the journey of the two refugee women who were the sisters of the murder victim.

This is clearly the most politically charged element of the show and like the other elements, there just isn't enough time to really delve into the experiences of these women. They kind of get thrown into a corner for the majority of the show and they don't do a whole lot. The actress who plays the sister who knows English and has the most to do in this show is named Ahd Kamel. She does a fine job in the show, and while there are interesting questions and dialogue to be had about refugees coming into Western countries, I never felt like the show really had a stance. They just kind of threw up the question and let it hang, not giving a clear answer on what it was trying to say. Maybe, it holds more weight to someone who lives in the UK and understands the impact of some of these creative choices, but for me, it didn't feel like the show was really saying anything.

Oh also...

These two added nothing to the show. They could have been totally scrapped and the show probably would have been better because of it.

I think there's a lot that could have been done with this show. Creating a mystery political, even espionage, thriller set in London in the midst of Brexit and a refugee crisis is a really interesting concept and it was the reason I wanted to give this show a chance. However, the only reason I was able to get through the show was due to the fact that it was only 4 episodes long. Oddly enough, the way in which I think this show could have improved was if it expanded to 8 episodes and gave each character some time to really breath and be fleshed out a lot more. Due to the fact that this was a mini series, everything seemed to be condensed but instead of it flying by, the four episodes felt very saturated.

Overall, its hard for me to really recommend this show because of how slow paced and scattered it is. Large casts can be good, but they need time to develop characters properly, and I don't feel like Collateral does that. The strong cast does a good job because they're good actors, but I feel like the show needed a few more episodes to really hit some of the marks they were trying to hit.

As it stands, its a bit of a mess and not worth checking out, despite only being four hours. There's a lot of stuff on Netflix and Collateral is a good example of why these shows do not always succeed.

But those are my thoughts on Collateral. What did you think? Did you see it? 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 watch in the future. If you follow me in Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

Thanks for reading!

The Newsroom (Season 1)

So I watched the first season of The Newsroom not long after it originally aired. For a very short period of time, it was one of the shows that I was relatively up to date with. At a certain point though, I lost access to HBO and was never able to watch the second and third season. Furthermore, I had heard negative things about the preceding seasons and usually when that happens, even if I want to watch it to see for myself, I usually lie to myself to say I want to be able to sit with it and really digest if and why its not as good. That never happened with this show.

Now, eight years since the airing of the show, but ten years since the first real event they portray in the show, it's fascinating watching this show with a critical eye and realizing there are parts that aged really well with this show... and yet there are a lot of parts that didn't.

I'm going to try and edge away from personal political opinions I have in this review, but it should be noted that Aaron Sorkin is a pretty openly self proclaimed liberal so as good as he is at providing a political perspective from an intriguing viewpoint, he does also have a lean and while it doesn't ruin the show, it is good to note first and foremost.

The Newsroom follows a news team at a fictional news network called Atlantic Cable News (ACN), a very stupid name but that might be the reason that they really don't mention it that much. The lead anchor is a man by the name of Will McEvoy (played by Jeff Daniels). He's known as the "Jay Leno" of news anchors because he's popular because he doesn't bother anyone. But after a rant about why America is no longer the greatest country anymore (a classic Sorkin political zinger video that you probably shared a billion times over in high school), he starts down a road with his news team on a "mission to civilize" and create a news hour that informs voters rather than speculating on gossip.

Much of this is fueled by his new Executive Producer Mackenzie Mchale (played by Emily Mortimer), who Will had a relationship with that ended badly years before the show starts. The team is also made up of Senior Producer Jim Halpert, I mean Jim Harper (played by John Gallagher Jr.), an assistant turned associate producer Maggie Jordan (played by Allison Pill), the writer of Will's blog Neal Sampat (played by Dev Patel), and the President of ACN Charlie Skinner (played by Sam Waterson).

The team also includes an economic reporter by the name of Sloane Sabbith (played by Olivia Munn), and Will's former Executive Producer Don (played by Thomas Sadoski)

Together, the team produces the news with a prosecutor's lens, searching for the truth and striving to inform.

Oh and the interesting thing about this show's format is that the news they are reporting is real events that actually occurred, starting in April 2010 with the Deep Water Horizon oil spill.

And this is a really good place to start because I remember watching this in 2013 after the show had been out for a little bit and was just starting to gain traction. The fact that it was reacting to events that only happened 2-3 years ago was pretty wild. It made the show feel current and like it was commenting on something that was still relevant in the daily zeitgeist.

But upon watching this season a second time, I can't help but feel like the further you get from 2010, the more this show is going to feel of the time. Sure there are elements of the economy, political discourse, and some hot topic issues like gun control that remain relevant, but its worth noting that this entire show is all pre-Trump. While some of the political figures and the landscape still remains, there is a lot that has not become relevant anymore due to the fact that Donald Trump is the President and there is an inherent distrust of the media, especially when the media calls themselves the "media elite", which this show does in the second episode.

This is not to say the show doesn't have some really great things to say about the political landscape that was a thing in the early 2010s and yes, some of that has carried over to us in 2020. Of course there's the "America isn't the greatest country in the world" speech, but the show is full of those Sorkin speeches that while they're cheesy and kind of eye roll-y at times, they do allow you to think about the topics and discussions of the day. I would argue its a little heavy handed towards a certain political ideology, but again, it's Sorkin, what do you expect?

Something really worth noting is the cast. It doesn't seem like it since they're big actors now, but some of these actors like Olivia Munn, Dev Patel, and John Gallagher Jr were still at the starts of their careers. Oddly enough Allison Pill had been known in the industry much longer than those three and she's supposed to be playing the young inexperienced one. They all do a good job, with some notes that I'll get to later.

Emily Mortimer, Jeff Daniels, and Sam Waterson are really the stars of the show and boy do they do a good job. There are a lot of issues I still need to talk about and while some of them are related to these three, they're just in a league of their own. And to me, I think this was a career defining role for Jeff Daniels.

I know Jeff Daniels has done a lot of roles beyond Dumb and Dumber, but if you can name them without looking at Wikipedia or IMDB, you're a bigger fan of Jeff Daniels than I am. I think the role seemed to bring Jeff Daniels into 2010 with some huge credibility. Around the same time as this show there were a couple of premium TV shows following a complicated middle aged white dude who is working his way towards redemption. Mad Men, Breaking Bad, The Walking Dead to a certain extent. This was just another entry in those typical shows (that were kind of stealing it from The Sopranos). But Jeff Daniels kills it in this show, he's easily the best part of the show.

My problem comes with how the character is written, not how he's acted. Will McEvoy is this complicated guy who at the start of the show everyone hates for some reason, but as the show goes on, he's really only shown as this guy with immense integrity and they really play him up as this god among men, creating a self important air about the show. The show inadvertently compares McEvoy to Walter Kronkite and the "legends" of the news on top of having an insane career for someone who's supposed to be at best in his 50's.  And the funny part is, while the show tries to tell us that Will McEvoy is this amazing guy who is connected to almost everyone, because this show is set in the real world but can't affect the events of the real world, the real world never really interacts back no matter how many times McEvoy is interacting with the real world (to be fair, its mostly for funny gags). For example, when the Anthony Weiner scandal breaks, Will leaves a voicemail for Weiner telling him he needs a new publicist. But Anthony Weiner never calls him back. So while they try to prop up this anchor as the second most watched anchor on television, and he has all these connections, those connections never really seem real. With the exception of a text from Joe Biden in without a question the best episode of the show.

But honestly, its not just Will who seems very impotent in our real world. The problem with a show being set in the real world is that they can't change the events of history. They can Sorkin-ize on the events, philosophize on the "current" events (they seem to do that more than reporting the facts honestly), but they can't really make any change. And honestly, watching it with 2020 retrospect, some of these topics/ political figures didn't have as much of an impact on the world as the show speculated we would. Nothing's blatantly wrong, it might just be underplayed or overplayed depending on the issue. For example, Terry Crews guest stars in a couple episodes as McEvoy's bodyguard. In without question the best episode of the season, he gets profiled by New York police officers and is detained. Now at the time, the show seemed to be saying something about race, but they never really mention it again in this season so it feels very underplayed. At the same time, Olivia Munn spends a lot of time talking about the debt ceiling and I'm no economist but we're not really talking about the debt ceiling anymore. I'm sure there are people out there that could argue the effects of that moment in 2011/2012 and its impact on today, but its just not an issue that resonates as much anymore.

Here's the other issue with integrating a fictional news team into the real world. In order to hit those Sorkin moments, they need to not only have a fictional news team, but they need to create fictional characters in the middle of real events and this becomes... problematic.

This show makes up a couple of characters and inserts them into the real events. In 2013, I mistakenly thought these were real people and to the shows credit, they do a decent job portraying them as real. But watching the show now, I realize that these might be the most problematic aspects of the show because they hyperbolize the issues to hit home Sorkin's messaging in the show. Examples include a fictional gay political aide on Rick Santorum's 2012 Presidential campaign, or a made up Republican Congressman who was primaried by a member of the Tea Party because he co-sponsored a bill with a democrat. Yes, the points they make are not all totally hyperbolic, but the show gets into some grey area when they're making up scenarios and people like this just to make a point.

The integration of these fictional characters, especially the main cast, into real events is a fascinating format and I still applaud the show for being able to do it so well, but it is still worth discussing, and that's why I have spent so much time writing about it. That and, the other elements of the show are pretty cringey.

A huge element of this show is the personal drama that occurs between the characters. It's a drama, there needs to be romance and such. And it's not all bad. The back and forth between Will and Mackenzie is actually really good, despite Mackenzie being written like a typical Sorkin female character while she's strong but still neurotic and dependent on men.

But dear lord I never realized how much this show wanted to capitalize off of the will they won't they of the Office that everyone was trying to recapture in the early 2010s. John Gallagher Jr's character is Jim Halpert from the office. A snarky white guy who's good looking, but not too good looking, falling for the young woman who is trying to prove herself, oh and also she's in a committed relationship that you know from the beginning is not going to last. But what's more, these characters are just the worst in this season.

Jim is the stereotypical nice guy who would never hurt anyone, except the fact that he's so nice keeps him from actually being honest with anybody and kind of makes him an asshole. Maggie is another example of why Aaron Sorkin doesn't know how to write female characters because as strong as she is, she's incredibly flawed and neurotic. But what's the worst about it is when these characters become the voices of the messaging of an episode and they don't sound like reporters, they sound like self righteous privileged white people spewing out what they think is best while not really letting the character of color say anything really meaningful.

Oh and did I mention that Aaron Sorkin isn't very good at writing any characters that aren't self righteous privileged white people?

This was still early Dev Patel where he was still calibrating his career and making both great and horrible choices like going from Slumdog Millionaire to The Last Airbender. I would say this was still probably one of the better choices in that calibrating phase, but any problems weren't Dev Patel, it was that Sorkin didn't know what to do with this character for the majority of the show, so he made him the bigfoot alien tech nerd.

I would hope that he gets better in the later seasons, but if you've only watched the first season of this show, you know that Dev Patel is not the strongest written character. The other actors of color in the show are used for jokes and random political commentary and aren't real characters.

Last few notes, Olivia Munn is good in this despite being miscast. Thomas Sadoski is fine but his character has the potential to be the best character ever because he starts as a stereotypical asshole but you really end up loving him in the end. David Harbour is in a very small role in this show and it makes me happy that he's gone on to bigger things than a lot of the people in this show. And the pacing of this show is weird, spanning a year and a half in 10 episodes with episodes where months have past and others where only a couple days have. Also, the second episode is without question the worst episode of the season while the episode where they cover the killing of Bin Laden is by far the best episode.

So where do I fall with The Newsroom. There is a lot to love about this show. The format, despite some flaws, is brilliant. The cast, despite some being written much better than others, is really good. The commentary, while biased and becoming dated every year, is interesting discourse.

I think the show's biggest strength, Sorkin, is also its greatest weakness. At the end of the day, The Newsroom was able to capture that same political discourse that Sorkin was able to capture with shows like The West Wing, but after watching The West Wing, I realize a lot of the topics are simplified for television and the writing is just cheesy because its not how people really talk. Whats more, the show is very heady and often time portrays itself as self important. At the beginning, Will and Mackenzie set off to present the facts of the day but they become commentators and justify it by saying they have the facts on their side. And watching it in 2020, as much as I hate the distrust of institutions and the news media, I will say there is a condescending high horsing going on in this show that might turn some people off. And the thing I also hate about this show is just the culture it created of people, on both sides of the aisle saying that facts don't care about your feelings and yada yada and in the words of The Dude...

Overall, if you haven't seen The Newsroom, I do recommend it, there are great characters, great discourse, and its a great unique formatted show. I would just say expect some grand standing, expect some high horsing, and expect some cheesy white people love triangle drama. 

But those are my thoughts on The Newsroom. What do you think? Did you watch it when it first came out? Do you think it has aged well? 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 watch 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!

Knives Out

So like a lot of good movies, I didn't see this one in the theaters. I regret that immensely. First off, cause its Rian Johnson and I really enjoy his work. Also, the movie was semi-spoiled for me a few weeks ago so I wasn't in a rush to see it because I didn't know if I'd enjoy it still. Well, if there is a sign of a good movie, its that you can watch it despite knowing the ending and still really enjoy it, and that was the case with Knives Out.

The story is a Whodunit surrounding the sudden death of the patriarch of a wealthy family. Almost immediately, you are introduced to a star studded cast that is very much the suspects of the night and the story is rife with red herrings, plot twists and mystery solving. But one way or another, Rian Johnson is able to make a movie that could easily just be a simple whodunit murder mystery that's been done about a billion times into a really fun, hilarious, and thrilling murder mystery that of course subverts all those expectations Rian Johnson loves to subvert.

Harlan Thrombey (played by Christopher Plummer, a competitor for the national treasure hall of fame) is found dead in probably the first five minutes of the movie with his throat slit. However, the police and the main detective (played by Lakeith Stanfield) have all but proclaimed it a suicide. However, a private investigator by the name of Benoit Blanc (played by Daniel Craig) was hired to look into the death and determine the real cause of death, and that investigation starts when he interviews the closest people to him, most namely his family.

And yeah... the cast is really good. Jamie Lee Curtis, Michael Shannon, Chris Evans, Don Johnson, Toni Collette, Katherine Langford, and Jaeden Martell all make up these really colorful characters that I was surprised on how interesting they all were individually. I think when I saw the posters and trailers I knew that we'd get some wacky characters, but this is just a weird family and there is so much to love, or love to hate about them that they're probably the most entertaining part of the movie.

Other suspects include Harlan's nurse Marta Cabrera (played by Ana de Armas), his housekeeper Fran (played by Edi Patterson), and Harlan's mother Wanetta (played by K Cahlan). You get it, the cast is great. But the reason they're great is because you watch this very rich family slowly start to tear one another apart as the prospects of them either getting or not getting inheritance tears them apart.

And here you might be expecting me to say that Daniel Craig is the best part of the movie and that's very far from the truth. He's good. He's funny, he's clever, and he's written... sort of well but surprisingly, he's not the best part of the movie. I would say, he's not even that good at his job. But he's got this kentucky drawl and he's got some really funny dialogue and moments throughout the film that it does not surprise me that they've already announced a sequel and potential franchise surrounding this character. I'd for sure watch him again and I think Rian Johnson and Lionsgate knows that.

Honestly, I'm slowly figuring out that Rian Johnson is one of my favorite directors working today because its very hard for me to point out things that I don't like about his movies, they usually have to be pointed out to me. I personally really liked The Last Jedi, probably more than a lot of people and even with further viewings, I still really enjoyed it. And it took me a few viewings and listening to other people talk about the film to make me realize some of the flaws, but even when I saw the flaws, it didn't matter to me. I'm wondering if that'll be the same with Knives Out, that I'll really enjoy it right now, watch it again and really enjoy it, but the more I listen to people's takes, the more holes will be put into it. I don't know, we'll have to wait and see, I already bought it.

Overall, Knives Out feels both like a classic whodunit, while also updating the genre to the modern day. It has this really awesome timelessness that while yes, they have smart phones and they have the internet, they're still in a large mansion that looks like the mansion from Clue. That on top of the fact that they dress like they're characters from the board game, just makes the film even more fun, even despite some flaws that I'm not even totally aware of existing.

If you haven't heard anything about Knives Out, watch it as soon as you can so it is not spoiled for you. But even if it was spoiled, do watch it because you may not know the whole story like I did and there are still some fun twists and turns.

But those are my thoughts on Knives Out. Feel free to comment and discuss below and let me know how you felt about it, what Rian Johnson movies you enjoy or do not enjoy, along with any other thoughts you have. You can also send your thoughts to me on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as send requests for films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future news and reviews coming out of this blog.

Thanks for Reading!