12 Strong

So I've come to realize that the same way we're going to have a Star Wars movie, and 3 Marvel movies, and a couple of DC movies, and other franchise movies every single year, since the release of American Sniper back in 2014 that had mad box office returns we are going to see a "Based on a True Story" war movie every January till the day we die. Maybe that's the reason people think we are going to North Korea, Hollywood needs to keep doling out war movies.

Now I don't necessarily mind this trend. I enjoy a good war movie. I think there are so many movies that misrepresent the military that it's okay to have good old America kicking ass movie from time to time. Sometimes they can be interpreted as propaganda... and believe me I will talk about that in this movie, but just because something is propaganda doesn't necessarily mean it's not entertaining.

12 Strong takes place in 2001. One of the first scenes is these Soldiers seeing 9/11 occur. From that point on, they spring into action. Captain Mitch Nelson (played by Chris Hemsworth), a green beret assembles a team together of special forces to go into Afghanistan and kick off the United State's retaliation offensive to knock down the Taliban in Afghanistan.

On his team is a Warrant Officer by the name of Cal Spencer (played by Michael Shannon) and a bunch of other Soldiers, most notably one played by Michael Pena named Sam Diller.

Unfortunately, this is where I need to take a step back and point out a criticism of this movie. You've got a group of 12 United States green berets and unfortunately I could really only remember Chris Hemsworth's character's name. Everyone else was really only recognizable by physical traits. Of course you recognize Michael Shannon and Michael Pena and maybe you'll remember their names, but then there's one with glasses, there's one with long blonde hair they make fun of, and there's the black one. I honestly couldn't tell you what any of their names were or really anything about them. In fact you only see the three big name actor's families and even then their good byes are pretty rushed.

The movie seems a little bit more focused on getting straight to the action and describing the events that occurred, and that is important by all means. But when you forgo the background on these guys, they're just extra non-playable characters similar to a video game. They don't have much of a backstory at all and it's hard to get invested in them when all I know about them is that they are Soldiers.

The team is sent into Afghanistan to join up with a warlord by the name of Abdul Rashid Dostum (played by Navid Negahban). Dostum is one of many warlords of the northern alliance of Afghanistan that want to take control away from the Taliban. However, the warlords are thirsty for power and don't like each other either. This creates an unstable environment for Nelson and his team to enter into as their mission is to embed with Dostum's forces, support them with air strikes, and take a city that was said to be the headquarters of Taliban control.

And while this all sounds like a military war movie with all the political and military jargon I just threw at you, there's also an element of this movie that feels almost fantasy like than modern day warfare.

There is a Taliban leader in this movie that is somewhat of the main antagonist of the film who looks like the most stereotypical arab villains I've ever seen. I'm not saying it's not accurate but they portray this guy like Jafar from Aladdin. That along with the fact that you've got a bunch of guys riding on horses, pulling off battlefield warfare with a mysterious warlord who talks about having the warrior heart, it all just felt like a modern day fantasy movie more than a war movie.

Let me be clear, I am nothing but respect for the people this story is portraying and while I haven't read the book it's based on or really done enough research into the situation, a lot of details are probably accurate.

However, they do take a lot of liberties with this movie in order to make an entertaining war movie. And when I say war movie, I mean a popcorn entertainment value movie, not a heart wrenching war movie like American Sniper or Saving Private Ryan was.

And that's the problem. I have a lot of friends in the military that say that Saving Private Ryan and American Sniper is Hollywood fluff and overblown to get an emotional reaction. 12 Strong is definitely Hollywood fluff, but it's more in the way of hyping up the action rather than making something that makes you feel. It's more the Michael Bay route of things than the Steven Spielberg way.

I don't care how unrealistic the story of Saving Private Ryan is, when Matt Damon's character is older and he asks his wife if he's a good person, I lose it every time. I know I just brought up Michael Bay as a bad example but even the characters in 13 Hours had a lot more character background than the characters in 12 Strong.

At the end of the day, 12 Strong felt like two things. A really long, more in depth Call of Duty cutscene with a lot of really cool action but was pretty light on the story.

The other thing it felt like was military propaganda.

As much as I liked the music in this film, I cannot think of a movie that had so many scenes that could have replaced the music with that theme music you hear in every Army recruiting commercial and it wouldn't have felt much different at all. There were so many money shots that just made Chris Hemsworth look badass, made Michael Shannon look amazing and more importantly, made the Army look amazing.

Now there is a lot of research you can do about the involvement of the military in Hollywood. I won't go over it now but if I'm a movie producer and I want to get the most accurate representation of the Army or I want to represent the military in my movie, I have to sign a contract to help promote the military in a positive light. Some people call that manipulative but I honestly don't have a huge problem with it... for the most part. And while 12 Strong does feel like a two hour long recruitment video for the US Army, I still enjoyed it.

I will give the movie some credit. It is a pretty good tribute to the military and it does portray a significant victory for the Army back in 2001.

It also does do an okay job at the very least of giving Chris Hemsworth a developing character throughout most of the film.

According to the movie, Mitch Nelson was a fairly green Captain and didn't have the combat experience his men did. So when he sets out on this mission, he is required to put his metal to the test and prove himself to his men and the Afghan warlord he is assigned to accompany.

Now I don't know how much of that is true, or how much of what happens with Nelson in the movie is true, I will have to read the book. I know that a bunch of my military friends would say that it's Hollywood bullshit and when you're in the midst of battle, you don't have time for leaders who are going through personal development. Everyone needs to join together as a team and complete the mission or people die. But regardless of the accuracy of the movie, it does give Chris Hemsworth an opportunity to do something really interesting and dynamic with this character.

For the first half of the movie it is really well done. There's an interesting scene where Dostum only wants to talk to Nelson's subordinates because they have the "eyes of a killer". That scene and scenes like it are interesting development for a character. While the other members of the team really get no development at all, Chris Hemsworth gets a lot and it's done fairly well until about half way through when he kills a bunch of people, has one scene where it bothers him and then it's never mentioned again. And that's kind of a theme throughout the movie, it doesn't really address any fallout of any of this.

Not only is there not really any fallout to Chris Hemsworth's character and the development he goes through, since this movie takes place at the beginning of the war in Afghanistan you'd think it would end on a more somber note or at least one that fully addresses the fact that this war went on for 17 years later, marking the longest military conflict in US history, and took the lives of over 2000 US military forces alone. But instead we get a couple of lines of how they won the battle but not the war, a oddly prophetic line from Dostum about how blurred the lines will become in the future between the United States and the warlords, alluding to insurgent warfare. But then they do the obligatory true story facts that come after each one of these movies that honor the Soldiers who fought in this conflict and kind of ignore the whole there was a 17 year long war that followed this battle.

Overall, there's a lot of fun to be had with 12 Strong. I wouldn't say it's a really deep or heart felt war movie. At the end of American Sniper the entire movie theater was silent as we walked out. There were parts of the movie I was in tears. I never got that feeling from any moment of 12 Strong. There was a lot of good action and it felt like the Call of Duty movie that we never got. But it's not going to be a war movie that I'm going to feel like I need to own to experience again. If it's on TV or Netflix, I might watch it again, but more than likely, I won't feel the need to spend money on this and I don't think you should either beyond maybe seeing it once.

If you like military movies, you might find this interesting. It is an interesting story and a good tribute to the military. But I think there are better movies out there. It's probably better than most January films that come out this time of year, but don't expect the next American Sniper.

But have you seen 12 Strong? What's the next military movie to come out and is it going to have the number 11 in it (13 Hours, 12 Strong, 11?) Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts @MovieSymposium as well as 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.

I'll leave you with this. A fun little piece of trivia in this movie was seeing Rob Riggle in it. In case you didn't know, Rob Riggle was a Marine Officer and made it to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. I believe he plays a Colonel in this movie who he actually worked for after 9/11 and if you knew that it was entertaining to see him in this role. Enjoy!

Black Mirror: Season 1

This could be a potentially really long review or a very short review because this is such a unique show and it's a little bit difficult to review. I will explain why.

Black Mirror is in essence The Twilight Zone but about technology.

Each episode is an hour long anecdote that centers on a piece of technology and the dangers. The reason I am able to write a review about this season so quickly is that the first season only has three episodes. I think what I will do for this review is talk about each episode very briefly but moving forward, I probably won't do a whole review for the season and instead focus on individual episodes that I really liked or found to have the most impact.

I don't know, we'll see how this format goes because like I said, Black Mirror is a difficult show to review.

The National Anthem

The first episode, The National Anthem, centers on the British Prime Minister. (The show did start on the BBC and then eventually moved over to Netflix so that's why all the actors are British and the stories are usually set in Europe.

The Prime Minister (played by Roy Kinnear) is called to respond to the kidnapping of a beloved Princess, Princess Susannah (played by Lydia Wilson). The kidnappers send a video laying out their demands. But instead of demanding money or political changes, they only have a very bizarre request. That the Prime Minister broadcast himself having unsimulated sexual intercourse with a pig.

Black Mirror is by no means a comedic series. The show often has a very somber tone to it and you do have to be in a mood to watch it because it is not light hearted at all. That being said, there is some intriguingly dark comedy in the series and it does give a unique tone.

The episodes main purpose is to point out the impact that the internet and public opinion on the internet has on our political figures. While it does exaggerate how quickly the internet can garner public support on a topic, it still does have an intriguing message on the power of trending topics on Twitter, how Youtube has affected the news cycle, and how public opinion (supplemented by the internet) does have an affect on policy and the actions of the government.

When I first saw this episode, I did think it was a weird way to start the show. The Prime Minister isn't a particularly likable guy and it is such a weird and frankly disgusting premise that I wasn't sure exactly if I wanted to keep going with this series.

Upon a second viewing I did appreciate the episode a little bit more, especially now that I know what I'm in for when I watch this show, however, I would recommend you take this episode with a grain of salt and don't let it dictate exactly how you feel about the show. It definitely is an episode that needs to grow on you and it could turn people off upon the first viewing.

Fifteen Million Merits

Fifteen Million Merits is another episode that I didn't really enjoy upon my first viewing. I get the feeling I was not in the right mindset when I first watched this show because upon a second viewing I have really appreciate these episodes more and more.

Fifteen Million Merits takes place in an unspecified future where the global currency is a point system that is earned by cycling to provide power to the world. These points allow for people to buy virtual goods and services. Everyone lives in an ad filled world and are required to watch ads for their preferences unless they spend points to skip the ads. Do you see the cultural references made very apparent in this episode already?

The story centers on a man named Bing (played by Daniel Kaluuya). He has a decent amount of points but doesn't really use it for anything. He just cycles his days away and lives his life normally. But then he meets a girl named Abi (played by Jessica Brown Findlay). He becomes infatuated with her and when he figures out that she can sing, he offers to spend the majority of his points to buy her way onto an American Idol-like show called Hot Shot.

The episode essentially makes a message about ads, internet sensations, and exploitation in a internet-d world.

Like I said, I didn't really enjoy this episode when I first saw it. I thought the environment was dull, the American Idol setting was a little bit too on the nose, and the story dragged.

But again, upon a second viewing, I really started to enjoy the message it was sending and the twists and turns the story started to take. Also I'm starting to pick up on the humorous aspects of the show despite it being so dower. You definitely have to be in a certain mood to watch Black Mirror and luckily I'm in that mood at the moment because I can appreciate the episodes more. It's not really a show that is easily picked up and binge watched out of no where but if you find yourself in the right mood it could be perfect.

The Entire History of You

The Entire History of You is, in my opinion, the make or break episode of Black Mirror. There are probably much better episodes but if you're going in a sequential order, in my opinion, if you're not on board with the show after this episode, Black Mirror might not be the show for you.

It is such self contained story that really takes place over the course a day or so but it is probably the most intriguing story of the entire season.

The story takes place in a not so distant future where most people have an implant that records their memories from birth. If you don't remember somebody's name, you can quickly recall a memory and review whatever information you want.

Tobey Kebell plays Liam, a man who believes his wife is cheating on him. He obsesses over the recorded memories or "grains" and insists, based on the facial cues and behaviors he sees in the memories that his wife is cheating on him.

Jodie Whitaker plays his wife Ffion which I had more appreciation in 2018, especially since Whitaker is set to play The 13th Doctor this year. She gives a really good performance with Kebell and it does start a trend of having these episodes star big name actors.

The theme of the episode definitely points out the pitfalls of everything being recorded these days and the strain it could take on a marriage. The really interesting part is that Kebell is not a very nice guy. He's obsessive, he drinks too much, he's just mean to his wife at times, but at the same time the recorded memories do tell a story. Kebell and Whitaker do a great job at portraying jealousy and deceit in a technological world and while we don't have recorded memories of intimate moments, with technology and the ability to record and capture intimate moments, that can have a strain on relationships.

All three of these episodes seem to only get better with time. I haven't been able to really compare them with future episodes so I don't know what's in store for me in the future but I can appreciate and yet criticize a series of episodes that only get better after multiple viewings. If I'm watching a series, I don't usually go back and watch old episodes unless they really make an impact on me. I'm glad I went back and digested these episodes more upon a second viewing, but usually I wouldn't have and would have gone on not really appreciating these first few episodes.

The other complaint I have about this first season as a whole is that it is so clearly pushing a message. The dangers of technology and the world that we might find ourselves in if we keep going down this dangerous path.

I'm not saying a show shouldn't have a message to it. Messages are good. The problem comes when I just want to watch some creative storytelling and instead I get some heavy handed symbolism or message pushing when the show is basically screaming, "ASK ME WHAT IT MEANS!"

Again, I've found that I have to be in a certain mood to watch Black Mirror and it might be more beneficial to watch these episodes more spread out as opposed to binge watching them. Maybe that way I can digest them more and appreciate the messages. I don't know, we'll have to wait and see and that might lend itself better to how I might be reviewing these in the future. Because while I do feel like the message is a little heavy handed at times, there is some good story telling being done and I've been told it only gets better. So maybe I will review highlight episodes or something. I don't know for sure.

But I thought for now it might be good to just give you an idea of what you're in store for if you're like me and haven't totally gotten on the Black Mirror train. There are only three episodes so if you are a binger, you will get through the first season very quickly.

Overall, the show is a bit of an acquired taste. I'll be honest, the few times I have watched The Twilight Zone, I haven't gotten into it as much as I would hope I would have and the same can be said about Black Mirror. But I can't deny there is great storytelling and poignant messages to be told in the first season. Black Mirror requires the right mood which at this current moment I am in and am ready to breeze through this show.

But what do you think? Without any spoilers, are there any strategies or guides to watching this show? Are there episodes I should skip? Does it get better? What do you think of the first season and where does it rank? 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.

I'll leave you with this. I'm not including a video at the end of this because this is a hard series to find a video that doesn't include spoilers. So I'll leave you with one more thought. I am intrigued by the idea of this show because it reminds me of the Cloverfield franchise. Cloverfield and 10 Cloverfield Lane are not sequels but they do share somewhat of a universe by just sharing the same name. I do like how Black Mirror episodes are not connected but at the same time feel like they're in the same vein. It's a nuanced way of storytelling these days that I find myself really enjoying. Do you agree?

The Commuter

Whatever I thought of this movie, put that aside. I love Liam Neeson. My first exposure to him was through Star Wars: The Phantom Menace. And yeah, that movie isn't very good but it's Star Wars, and if you are in Star Wars, in my mind you can do no wrong. I later discovered that Liam Neeson is not that bad of an actor. You see him in movies like Schindler's List, he's absolutely phenomenal.

And then in 2008, a little movie called Taken came out. No longer was Liam Neeson just Oskar Schindler, no longer was he the kind of irresponsible dad who let his son jump a security station in a still jumpy post 9/11 world in Love Actually. No, Liam Neeson was a freaking action star.

But while Liam Neeson looks old, 2008 was ten years ago. He was in his mid-fifties, an age that a lot of actors these days are rocking with style. Robert Downey Jr, Tom Cruise, Johnny Depp. 50 has become the new 40, so it's not like Liam Neeson was doing anything too different.

Well 10 years passed, we got two more Taken sequels than we needed and an odd slew of movies that were not Taken sequels... but at the same time weren't NOT Taken sequels.

Yes, I know there is a difference between The Commuter and the Taken franchise. Nobody actually gets TAKEN in The Commuter. But it does have that similar feel of a guy who is getting older kicking ass and oddly enough, always having a scene where he talks on the phone with the bad guy in his most threatening Irish accent.

The Commuter may not be Taken, but it is very similar to it, and movies like Non-Stop, Run All Night, A Walk Among the Tombstones, and The Grey.

The Commuter follows the story Michael MacCauley (played by Neeson). He is an ex-cop who now sells life insurance. Every day for the past ten years, he takes the same train into New York and the same train back to his home in the suburbs.

One day, on a particularly tough day for him, Michael is approached by a mysterious woman named Joanna (played by Vera Farmiga) and she gives him a task to find someone on the train in a certain amount of time. If he does that, he will be given 100,000 dollars. What follows is a suspenseful ride on this train as Michael uses his skills as a former cop to deduce who this person is, but also who wants them and why they need him to find them.

And overall, it's pretty cheesy and overall, pretty forgettable.

There is a pretty cool montage at the beginning of the movie where it depicts the daily routine of Michael how he is a pretty normal guy. Yeah he used to be a cop, but it's not like Taken where he was former CIA. Unlike his previous movies, while it does tap on Liam Neeson being old, he does come off as an older, less capable man who is "SIXTY YEARS OF AGE!".

That is an actual line in the movie and it's entertaining because these movies have almost started putting obligatory lines making fun of how old Liam Neeson is and how that usually doesn't match up with being an action hero. But he spends almost the entire movie walking back and forth, up and down this train to find the person he's expected to locate and all the while there are action sequences and heroic exchanges pull this guy who is supposed to be your everyday guy back into the image of Liam Neeson.

I've been making fun of this movie because I've basically said it is Taken on a train, but it feels more like a sequel to Non-Stop, a film Neeson did in 2014... which was basically Taken on a plane. Sooner or later, there's going to be an action movie with Liam Neeson solving mysteries on a boat and all the other odd forms of transportation.

I tweets about this film yesterday after I saw it and somebody mentioned that it does have somewhat of the same feeling Murder on the Orient Express had last year. Not only that it was on a train, but there was a little bit of a whodunit mystery to be solved. There is a cast of colorful characters in a small confined space and one old man who has the knowledge to solve this mystery.

I get that and yeah there are some similarities. But similar to my thoughts on Murder on the Orient Express, there isn't enough of an impact for me to really put this beyond a generic murder/conspiracy mystery. It's an entertaining movie. Murder on the Orient Express had better acting and was just a better movie overall, but very similar to it was, there was no impact. I won't remember this movie because the greatest thing in it was a fight sequence where Liam Neeson beat the crap out of a guy with a guitar. I don't like being the only person laughing in a theater... but yeah that was so dumb it was great!

Oh yeah, Patrick Wilson and Sam Neil are in this movie... it really looks like they were brought in for a week of shooting and were paid way too much for this movie.

So do I recommend The Commuter? Eh, sorta? It's not a bad movie, but it's also not very good. It's pretty much your generic action movie with Liam Neeson. Yeah there are some things I enjoyed for sure, but overall it didn't leave any kind of impact. If you're looking for a movie to kill some time, that was exactly what this movie did for me. But if you're only interested in going to find good movies, you can skip The Commuter. Watch Taken instead.

But what did you think of The Commuter? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as 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.

I'll leave you with this. I think I might have talked about this before, but I do love the relationship between Seth MacFarlane and Liam Neeson and I love it when they talk about it. Enjoy!

Madam Secretary: Season 1

Madam Secretary is a show I went into a little bit blind from the beginning. I had heard the shows title, but I had never really grasped what the show was about until I actually decided to start watching it on Netflix. After 22 episodes, it is hard to say I spent that entire time not liking the show. Usually at that point I would quit watching it and there probably wouldn't be a review like this. But here we are 22 episodes later and there are a couple of things to say.

Madam Secretary follows the story of former CIA agent and current college professor, Elizabeth McCord (played by Tea Leoni). After the sudden death of Secretary of State, she is visited by the President of the United States and her former boss at the CIA and is chosen as the new Secretary of State. When she joins at the new Secretary of State, she is greeted by the staff of the former secretary and the group has a rocky but ultimately close relationship.

What follows is a pretty by the numbers procedural set in the halls of the State Department. Secretary McCord and her team face new issues week by week both foreign and domestic. There is drama from other foreign agents, within the ranks of the state department, and they even butt heads with the President himself (played by Keith Carradine) and his ruthless chief of staff, Russell Jackson (played by Zeljko Ivanek).

But Elizabeth has other problems on her plate including her family. Her husband Henry (played by Tim Daly) is a religious studies professor and her children are growing older and older throughout the entire season. Her oldest Stevie (played by Wallis Currie-Wood) is rebellious and figuring out the trials of being in her very early twenties. Her other two, Alison and Jason (played by Katherine Herzer and Evan Roe) are younger and don't totally understand as much as Stevie does. They still end up being interesting characters but I'd be lying if the show slows down a little bit when the story centers on those two.

Throughout all of this there are a bunch of big name cameos who play smaller one-off roles. Tom Skeritt shows up for an episode and plays Henry's father, Aasif Mandvi makes a surpringly good guest appearance as a foreign representative in one of the episodes. The big cameos don't really show up until the second season but they never feel forced or gratuitous, at least not in the first season....

But throughout the entire first season there is an underlying plot thread that ties it all together. Due to Elizabeth's former career in the CIA, she has connections to spy work and that does come into play in this show. The main story that carries throughout all these hour long procedurals is a really interesting conspiracy that was really interesting.

If you're a fan of espionage, you'll actually find a lot of a fix in this show. If you're a fan of political drama, you'll find a lot of that in here. But I think the way this show sets itself apart is where it blends those lines and the espionage and the politics mesh together.

The other interesting part about the show is that it does kind of mirror the current events and politics happening in our world, and if you're a current events junkie like me, you'll really enjoy that in this show.

I mean, let's not beat around the bush, this show did air in 2014, a year after Hillary Clinton left the state department. You'd have to be pretty blind not to see the parallels between the tenure of Hillary Clinton at the State Department and the stories of Elizabeth McCord. However, the show isn't a full homage to former Secretary Clinton. Tea Leoni does make the character her own and with her background in the CIA and the conspiracies that unfold, there is enough to make the show feel different and not feel too much like a biographic piece.

A criticism of the show is that it does feel like a procedural at times and the crisis of the week feeling does set in from time to time. This is one of the few shows I've watched in the last year and a half that has had more than 14 episodes and I've actually enjoyed almost all the way through. But that does not take away from the fact that there are filler episodes and there was a little bit of space in the middle where I lost interest. When the episodes connect to the larger plot, or they delve more into the characters and their personal struggles, the show gets really good. There are times where the show just doesn't feel genuine enough and I'm just not invested as much.

I think the show does hit some really emotional chords and there is good acting and drama in the show as it is, but I can only imagine what this show would look like if the seasons were a bit shorter and they were able to go a bit further than the prime time network would allow them. As it stands, Madam Secretary is perfectly serviceable as a PG, sometimes PG-13 drama but I can only imagine if those restrictions put on by prime time television were taken off.

But again, as is, I really enjoyed Season 1 of Madam Secretary. I am already a good amount of episodes into season 2 and its reassuring that the show seems to improving more and more. I don't know if I'll do a second season review because with a show with this many episodes, it's hard to pinpoint an exact storyline and like the second season, some of the major plot points only have a finite number of episodes dedicated to it.

One of the downfalls of the show is that the finale was not really as grand as I had expected it to be. It was fine, but it was building up to something that ultimately went no where. There are a couple of points of imbalance in the show and some things that were the most important thing in the previous episode might not be as significant in others.

Still, overall, Madam Secretary is a great show. Again, it has been a while since I've been this invested in a show on prime time and with more than 14 episodes. Somehow they're able to grab me. I do recommend Madam Secretary for anybody who likes their political, espionage, and even family dramas.

But those are my thoughts on Madam Secretary. What do you think? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as send me your requests for films and TV shows I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie and TV news and review coming out of this blog.

I'll leave you with this. So this is a first look at the first episode of the season. It's basically a five minute run through of the entire episode so if you're not interested in spoilers, don't watch this. If you don't care, or if you watch the first thirty seconds or so, you can get an idea of how the show starts, the kind of tone it sets. Enjoy!

24: Legacy

So 2018 has started out a little bit slow, by which I have spent the majority of the New Year, finishing what I started back in 2017. Luckily, January is usually a pretty slow months for new movies so it's usually a good time to catch up on things I didn't finish, and watch some movies on Netflix that just came out.

This show was of particular interest because I was up to date on it for a little bit when the show was airing. Then, very quickly, I fell behind and never got around to finishing it up until now. I have discovered since that 24: Legacy has since been cancelled and there are no plans now to revive 24, but it is not out of the question. 24 falls under the umbrella of Fox TV shows that now belongs to Disney so maybe when that transfer goes through we might see a revival of 24... but based on this show, I'm not sure I really want that.

I did a "pilot" review that covered the first 3 or 4 episodes. A lot of the background is covered in that review but I will be adding a little bit onto it and talking about the season as a whole.

As stated in the pilot review, 24: Legacy follows the story of former Army Ranger Eric Carter (played by Corey Hawkins) who was part of an elite team that teamed up with the Counter Terrorist Unit (CTU) to take down a terrorist in a secret operation.

Not long after, he is struggling to live a normal life with his wife Nicole (played by Anna Diop) while his handler at CTU, Rebecca Ingram (played by Miranda Otto, Eowyn from Lord of the Rings) is stepping down as director, handing it over to a new director (played by Teddy Sears), so she can support her husband Senator John Donovan (played by Jimmy Smits) run for President.

But their transition is halted when terrorists track down the other members of Carter's team, murders them, and begin to carry out a plot to carry out attacks on US soil. The race against the real time clock begins as Rebecca and Eric are pulled back into the world they thought they had left behind to foil the plot of the son of the man they assassinated in that secret mission.

I will say, when I think of 24: Legacy as a complete season, I do think there was a lot to like about it. Like I said in my pilot review, it is fun to come back to the world of 24 with the Sean Callery music playing and the clock ticking. After a couple of hours of finishing the season I can say I did like it as a whole.

However, when I try to think of individual episodes or individual moments that I thought were really cool and memorable, it's kind of hard to think of instances where I was thoroughly entertained. The episodes kind of blend together and while I can definitely think of the things I didn't like very clearly, there are only a handful of scenes, characters, and choices they made that I really loved.

Something that I need to retract from my review of the pilot after getting the whole picture is that I do think there is at least a little bit of a deviation from the typical 24 formula that I've found in almost all the previous seasons. Usually there are episodes that you can pin point are going to be important episodes. After the 4th episode it is usually the end of one of the beginning plot threads and it usually signals an attack carried out by the terrorists that almost serves as the thirty minute, not turning back, mark from any Hollywood movie. Legacy doesn't do that. You'd think that since there are only 12 episodes that it would be condensed but it is instead drawn out some more and it seems a bit more methodical than previous seasons.

This is a good thing and a bad thing.

On one hand it is good because, like I said, it draws out the smaller plot points a little bit more and lets us get to know the characters a little bit more. It also deviates from the regular 24 format... a little bit, I'll get to that.

By also keeping the President role out of the story, they lose the political aspect that could sometimes slog depending on who played the President in the past. This allows the show to focus on the action and the characters... sort of.

Overall, it helped create something that had the same feel of 24, while also attempting something a little bit different.

However, the first problem comes when you realize that while the previous seasons were ultimately formulaic, they were also tight and high tempo. 24: Legacy's pacing is a little bit off and the stakes never really feel that high for the first half of the season. While it's good they're trying to do something different, it never feels truly different enough to make itself stand out. The result is, 24: Legacy is a bit of a slog at times and the episodes, and unfortunately the characters, don't grab you the same way old school 24 did.

And that's the other issues, the characters.

Corey Hawkins and Miranda Otto were the right choice to headline this show. These two are probably the best part of the show and I did feel like the show allowed for me to get to know these two and their relationship a little bit better than some of the relationships that formed over a seasons worth of time in the past. Sure, there are characters that Jack Bauer got to know really well over multiple seasons and you got to know Jack Bauer really well, but I'm actually pretty impressed with how much I cared about these two by the end of 12 episodes.

The issue is, with only a few exceptions, everyone else is pretty boring. Eric's wife and brother (played by Ashley Thomas) are okay but they're pretty one note the entire season and aren't very complex. Andy the analyst (played by Dan Bucantinsky) has an episode where his anxiety brings out some interesting dynamics in his character but ultimately he's pretty boring too, and everyone else is either really boring or just poorly written characters. They don't even really know what to do with Jimmy Smits for the majority of the show. This is an example of the show not doing enough to distinguish themselves because you could replace these characters with other one dimensional characters from previous seasons and you've probably get better performances.

You can tell who are the veterans and who are TV actors in this show because the veterans are the ones I really enjoyed. Hawkins, Otto, and Oded Fehr has a role that I would have actually really liked for them to get 12 more episodes just to develop him as a bad guy some more.

But of course, probably the best part of the entire season was Carlos Bernard reprising his role as Tony Almeida.

They needed to have something tying the new 24 to the old and boy am I glad they chose Tony Almeida to do it. Tony was always a fan favorite and I've always enjoyed Carlos Bernard. I also really enjoyed what they did with his character in this season. He's not a huge role and he's also not a bad guy, but he also isn't really a good guy either. I don't want to spoil it, but he does have a role in this whole season that I really enjoyed and wished they would have utilized more, really he was the best part.

I think the part of this show that I did like was the shows utilization of old and new, but mainly focusing on the new and trying their best to build something new and great. And a lot of the heavy lifting in that area is done by Corey Hawkins and Miranda Otto.

Corey Hawkins is a good actor. I feel like he was in a really difficult predicament by trying to fill the void of an iconic performance from Kiefer Sutherland as Jack Bauer.

And while we're on the bad guys, I do want to talk about how they handled the antagonists of the season.

24 got really popular right after 9/11 and for good reason. We had just been attacked, it was great to see an American going off and kicking terrorist ass while commenting on the toll that takes on Soldiers and those who are brave enough to take on that responsibility. But as I've said in previous reviews of 24 properties, that perspective has changed dramatically since 9/11. The Obama administration changed our perspectives, 17 years changed our perspectives, and terrorism itself changed our perspective on terrorism. Right after 9/11 it was easy to sensationalize those who had the audacity to attack us. We could dramatize these organized, evil organizations only bent on killing Americans, and now things have gotten a little bit more messy. I'm not here to say that terrorism isn't bad. It very much is. It just got messy.

These days there isn't your evil figure head like Bin Laden, there's this faceless terror called ISIS. It's not as easy as saying only Middle Eastern people are terrorists (while that is still portrayed in the show) you have homegrown terrorists who are weakly swayed into joining some messed up organizations. Again, not to say anything becomes justified or grey, it just becomes messy.

It was a lot easier when they could just write a the bad guys as complicated foreign terrorist organizations that make their way into the United States illegally and are held up in a compound that armed to the tooth Jack Bauer can just storm and shoot everyone without consequences. That's easy. Tracking down American citizens who are manipulated into joining a jihad, that's a lot more difficult and could have delved into some really intriguing territory.

So how does 24: Legacy decide to portray these homegrown terrorists? These sleeper cells that feel so close to home and add a level of complexity to our war on terror?

They cast Kathryn Prescott as a teenage girl in high school whos conflicts start with her ex-boyfriend suspecting she's a terrorist because she hasn't been talking to him. On top of that she's in cahoots with her teacher who is in love with her...

Listen, this isn't a personal attack on Kathryn Prescott herself. I'm sure she's a lovely individual. But what was this?

This was a horrendous direction to take the plot, and we spend half the season with this chick! First she's dealing with her ex-boyfriend, then she's dealing with her teacher, then she's dealing with her father, and I barely remember her brother who brings her into this whole plot.

And while I might be harping too much on this girls plot line, it does really illustrate where 24 is and where the rest of the world is.

Like I said, 24 came out at the right time in the political and international world. America needed Jack Bauer to hunt down terrorists and it did provide a great foundation for TV shows and movies about terrorism and the brave men and women who work tirelessly to keep our country safe.

But since 2001, we've gotten a lot of other shows that have taken what 24 started and refined it. Homeland is a great example. It took an issue like terrorism and made it a little bit more complicated and extracted the drama that is rife in these scenarios. 24: Legacy was a chance to revitalize 24 and make it applicable to todays world where its not as simple as, let's go get the bad guys.

I could see in another context, this plot line with this girl in high school being corrupted and manipulated into becoming a homegrown terrorist, how this could be compelling drama. There is an inkling that she's struggling with what she's doing and the choices she has to make.

But this is 24, everything is moving at a billion miles per hour because terrorism utilizes every minute of the day and there can be no subtlety.

Overall, 24 in general is like Call of Duty and 24: Legacy is like Call of Duty Infinite Warfare. Both are high paced, light on the story but just enough to keep you invested, and the only difference between the two of them is the coat of paint. Sure there are a couple of new things, but not enough to really distinguish it from previous iterations that were already well past the point of being tired and overused.

As a die hard fan of 24, I'm okay with this show dying off. There are things about 24: Legacy that I enjoyed and probably could have been more interesting, but I don't think there is enough in this show to really distinguish it as a huge change.

Now this is where the Call of Duty reference kind of goes off the rails because I haven't played the new one yet and I don't know if the best choice was to just go back to the roots and revamp the franchise from where it began... that being said if 24 was revamped and still able to bring Kiefer Sutherland back... I wouldn't be complaining.

24: Legacy was entertaining. As someone who enjoyed 24, I had a good time with it. It's not going to be something new for new viewers and I don't think any die hard 24 fans are going to call it the best season yet, but it's fine. Overall, pretty harmless. I really could have seen Fox going either way with the decision to cancel and I'm not surprised at all that it didn't make it past the first 12 episodes. Who knows where we go from here, but we will see.

But have you seen 24: Legacy? What did you think? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your requests for films and TV shows I should review in the future. You can also send thoughts and requests to me via Twitter @MovieSymposium. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

I'll leave you with this. Here's Kiefer Sutherland talking about 24: Legacy before it came to the end. Enjoy!

Why That 70s Show Could Never Be Made Today

So I don't want to make this an overly long post. While there are 8 seasons of this show, it's your pretty typical sitcom with your coming of age teenage main characters and goofy situational comedy. There's not really anything to talk about specifically within each season nor was this really that ground breaking of a show. That being said it is still incredibly funny and has had quite the legacy, especially for people of my generation who grew up with the gang of the show.

I'll talk about the basic premise and structure of the show and what made it great but I also want to talk about the legacy of the show, mainly the fact that this show could never be made today.

That 70s Show takes place in the titular decade and follows the coming of age antics of a group of teenagers. Our main character is Eric Foreman (played by Topher Grace) who hosts these kids in the basement of his parents house. He is constantly under the strict rules of his father Red (played by Kurtwood Smith) and his overbearing mother Kitty (played by Debra Jo Rupp).

His friends include the handsome but absent minded Michael Kelso (played by Ashton Kutcher), the burnout Steven Hyde (played by Danny Masterson), the girl next door Donna Pinciotti (played by Laura Prepon), the bratty cheerleader Jackie Burkhart (played by Mila Kunis) and the foreign exchange student only known as Fez (played by Wilmer Valderrama).

In case you haven't picked up on it already, a lot of these actors are pretty well known today and yes, this was their first acting gig. It is actually really funny seeing Mila Kunis (who was actually 14 when she was cast because she lied about her age) then and compare her to now.

Damn...

The majority of the show takes place in the latter part of the decade and takes these characters through the later years of high school and a couple years after. The show is probably most known for it's use of the 360 cam in a segment of the show called The Circle where the characters are smoking weed.

When when the show first came out I was pretty young and did not understand what the underlying joke of these scenes were. The show rode a pretty fine line because there are rules about drug use in television. They rarely ever flat out say that the kids are smoking weed and while they're acting silly, as a kid I didn't know what they were doing.

My parents were not a fan of this show to say the least.

But these scene really are a lot of fun and from them and other parts of the show, you can tell that the cast is having just as much fun with the script as the audience is. It is pretty obvious throughout the show that these kids were breaking a lot and the great part was that it was worked into the scenes pretty fluidly.

I think that is something very interesting about this show because while it definitely was not the last TV show to have a live studio audience (I mean there are still a couple of them going today) you can definitely feel the audience as apart of the show just as much as the action on screen. It feels a little bit more organic than other shows that use them almost as a crutch... I'm looking at you Big Bang Theory...

Comedies after 9/11 took on a very different format and that's why you got shows like The Office and Parks and Recreation that ditched the live studio audience and I don't think coincidentally, went on to be the top rated comedies. Don't ask me what the Big Bang Theory is doing different, but That 70s Show seemed to be the last of an older low budget sitcom. Everything is mostly on a stage and there are multiple cameras.

The show also feels like a classic sitcom from the 70s or the 80s because of all the stuff that happened behind the scenes. Google That 70s Show behind the scenes and you'll find a bunch of stuff that happened to those actors during and since the show aired.

So why did I decide to review That 70s Show? Well besides the fact that I'm watching The Ranch on Netflix and the show not only has a lot of the cast from That 70s Show in it, but has a similar feel, I was actually doing a good amount of research on the 70s at the time and I wanted to see not only how this show portrayed that time frame, but what it said about the late 1990s and early 2000s in which it aired.

An interesting aspect about the 70s is that it was a changing time. Historically speaking there were a lot of changes that were happening and it seemed to be a transition point from the scary times of the 60s. Rock music changed (as evident by the references used in the show) drug use was up (the circle) and the role of men and women were changing and that is very apparent in the show. The three women who are consistent throughout the series are Kitty, Donna, and Jackie and they all go through their own transitions based on how women were probably transitioning at the time. The show is by no means trying to be historically accurate, but it is interesting how it does tie in with the times more than you think.

But while there are undertones of this show being relevant to the 70s, the dialogue and stories come right out of the 90s. This show as popular at that time because you had people who grew up with these characters the same way people grew up with Harry Potter (maybe not to that extreme but not far off).

There are some pretty dramatic moments throughout the show and I will give credit where it's due, these guys are pretty talented actors because you do feel stuff. There's relationship drama and other things in this show that take it out of joking mode a lot more than I originally remembered.

It's interesting because Ashton Kutcher and Danny Masterson star in The Ranch and it follows a very similar formula as That 70s Show but actually takes those dramatic moments more seriously. At least for a couple beats longer than usual before the tension breaking joke.

And speaking of humor, it's also fascinating watching this show now in 2017 because there are some jokes that this might have been the last time you could get away with them. It rides a weird line of showing the wave of feminism that occurred in the 70s while at the same time telling a lot of jokes that are flat out misogynistic and borderline sexual harassment jokes.

The guys in this show are actually kind of gross at times. They are continuously hitting on Jackie and Donna who are usually in committed relationships. They kind of treat them like objects and they just laugh it off. Nothing seems like it's not just jokes between friends but it doesn't exactly send a great message, especially in these times. The #MeToo movement would probably not approve of That 70s Show today. Now part of that might have a little bit to do with Danny Masterson... but I'm gonna leave that one alone.

And let's not forget that a huge part of his character for a while there was the fact that he was always hiding in Donna's closet presumably being a peeping tom... this is just one example of some of the weird stuff you see on this show that would have been okay back in the 90s, but is not okay now. Our heroes!

I don't want to make that the entire point of this review because there are shows that do the same thing if not worse today. That will actually be the subject of the video at the end. However, it does state why a show like That 70s Show, for better or worse, could not be made today the way it was.

I would say that's a good thing and a bad thing.

While the show definitely had its moments that by todays standards are just not okay, there was a sense of family on the show and togetherness. These kids were basically allowed to play with the script and some of the show was improvised on the spot. It created a fun environment and it had a Cheers vibe to it (another show I'm watching that kind of has the same time capsule effect).

There is a sense that there were no boundaries besides keeping things PG and censored to a point. Now that of course comes with the baggage of objectifying women in a destructive way and I'm not trying to diminish that at all, it's just interesting how a show like this was made, was very popular, and was very successful in a time as early as the late 90s to early 2000s and yet couldn't be made with the same success today without pissing the internet off.

Like a lot of sitcoms, That 70s Show fell into a familiar trap I've seen multiple times before and that is the last season that both served as an attempt to rebrand as well as be a send off season.

After doing the show for 6 years, understandably, Topher Grace wanted to move onto other things in his career. He was written out of the show and replaced with Josh Meyers. Eric Foreman had always served as an anchor to the show and it felt very odd because the show didn't quite know how to move on from there. Ashton Kutcher also left and relationships started to develop that in retrospect just seemed like odd choices. Jackie ends up with Fez at the end... I mean go back to the first season and watch the entire show with the knowledge that Fez ends up with Jackie... it's weird.

This odd last season has happened multiple times. It happened with Scrubs, it happened with Parks and Rec, it's a thing that happens. I would say it's a little bit better than I remember it being, but it's still a little bit of a slog till the end in what had been a really solid series up until that point.

If you're looking to give this show a rewatch, I highly recommend you do your research on the behind the scenes elements of the show because it really does make the viewing experience even funnier at times.

Overall, That 70s Show is a horse of a different color. There are good elements of that and there are bad elements of that. It is a show that definitely could not be made today just due to the jokes and format, but that kind of makes it special when you watch it on Netflix.

I don't think this show had the impact of other sitcoms like Friends, but I think today is just a day of underrated stuff. First it was Sing, now it's That 70s Show. I think it's an underrated show and I really enjoyed watching through all 8 seasons.

But what do you think? Do you remember this show? Have you watched it recently? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as send me some 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.

I'll leave you with this. I don't know if I've shown this guys videos before but he does interesting video essays on the portrayal of masculinity in pop culture. He does an interesting bit on The Big Bang Theory which I think is also relevant to That 70s Show. Enjoy!

Sing

I honestly kind of feel bad for the people who put this movie out. Sing came out around the holidays last year in 2016 and I imagine a lot of people had the same outlook on it I did. It's coming to the end of the year, Rogue One is out, and I've already seen Zootopia, I don't have much of an interest in another animated film about talking animals.

Now, that's the perspective of a guy in his twenties. The movie outperformed it's budget and nobody is saying kids are only interested in one talking animal animated movie a year. However, I do think that this movie would have made a bigger audience with people had it not been in the shadow of the Mouse, because comparisons aside. This is actually a pretty good movie.

Sing is an ensemble piece that follows a bunch of animals living in a metropolis who all like to sing and perform in one way or another. None of them are professionals but the movie quickly introduces a number of them and their lives while also establishing they have some talent.

And then we're introduced to Buster Moon (voiced by Matthew McConaughey). He is the owner of a failing theater. He's a fast talking schemer who at times feels more like a con man than a guy who is actually interested in the theater. McConaughey does a really great job in this performance as he portrays this suave, fast talking koala who is so optimistic, he refuses to see how bleak his dream has become. Again, sometimes it comes off like he's a con man more than an optimist but it made me enjoy McConaughey even more than I already do.

Well in an attempt to save his theater, Buster Moon decides to put on a singing contest that will attract singers to compete against one another and bring in customers to his theater again. Think American Idol but with animals.

However, when Moon puts out the advertisement for the show, there is a mistake and it's advertised that there will be a 100,000 dollar prize for the winner of the contest.

This attracts a number of animals from the city, all vying for the huge prize.

The contestants include a pig housewife by the name of Rosita (voiced by Reese Witherspoon), a gorilla with a rough family life by the name of Johnny (voiced by Taron Edgerton). A punk rocking porcupine by the name of Ash (played by Scarlett Johanneson). A shy teenage elephant by the name of Meena (played by Tori Kelly), and a rough around the edged, smooth talking, jazz singing mouse by the name of Mike (voiced by Seth MacFarlane).

These are just the names of the main cast but there are a good number of celebrity names attached to this movie including Nick Kroll, John C Reiley, Jennifer Saunders, Leslie Jones, Jay Pharoah, Beck Bennett, Rhea Perlman, and Nick Offerman. This movie was made by the same guys who did The Secret Life of Pets, which came out the same year, and they are really good at getting star studded casts for these animated movies.

The other interesting part about this movie is that a lot of these big name actors actually sing in this movie. I mean you've got Seth MacFarlane who has a pretty good side career singing, and Tori Kelly who is better known for singing than acting, but almost everyone else kind of surprised me that they sing in this movie. Reese Witherspoon and Scarlet Johanasson are two examples of this. I've seen these actors multiple times but suddenly they're singing? Yeah they're not amazing, but they're not bad. And Taron Edgerton, holy smokes, I really enjoyed his final song, a cover of Still Standing by Elton John, it might be my favorite song of the movie.

As you can guess, there is some singing (I'll get to the music in a second), some personal development surrounding the characters, and some tension with the fact that Buster Moon does not have 100,000 dollars to award the winner of this competition, even though these characters are all seeking that prize money. While the story is a bit predictable, I do have to sit back a little bit and recognize that these movies are made for kids.

I think we've gotten to a point in our day and age where we're so used to Pixar spitting out these movies that are directed at all audiences and edge on being more entertaining for adults then they are for kids. Like I said, Illumination made The Secret Life of Pets which I said in my review of that movie that it was more directed at kids. Despicable Me and the Minions franchise is more directed towards kids. It's not fair to compare this movie to Zootopia because they are vastly different and that's because Zootopia is a kids movie that has undertones about racial profiling and the police, Sing is just a fun romp with singing animals. If you go into an Illumination movie, you're going to get animated movies more geared towards kids. There's nothing wrong with that, just set your expectations accordingly.

And yeah let's talk about the music.

So the music is not bad. There's a lot of catchy music in this movie and it's all pop hits. You've got My Way by Frank Sinatra, you've got Shake it Off by Taylor Swift, Call Me Maybe by Carly Rae Jepsen, Don't You Worry About a Thing, etc. There are a lot of popular songs sung in this movie.

There is a mixture of old and new songs, especially in the audition scene that this movie for some reason seemed to rip off of Pitch Perfect, but the issue I have with the music is that it featured a lot of songs that I think were popular in 2016 and maybe a little earlier, but won't really age well down the road. For example, if one day I have kids, and my kids eventually have kids and they show them this movie, are they really going to remember Carly Rae Jepsen? No. Shake It Off is a catchy song but it's not going to go down as the memorable as some classic songs I've seen in other soundtracks.

The other odd part of this movie that confused me was that I expected a lot more singing. I know that sounds weird but this movie is not a musical.

The characters sing for sure, but it's not really until the end that we hear a full performance of a song and I thought there was going to be a lot more of that, especially in a movie called Sing.

The audition scene is a great example of this. You've got all these animals singing really popular songs. But they're only 10 second snippets and then they're onto the next song.

I'm not complaining about the story because the story is actually pretty good and really cute. You've got Johnny and his father, Ash and her boyfriend, Rosita and her family, it's all pretty good and a great use of a big cast like this. However, don't go into this movie thinking you're going to hear a musical, that's not really what this movie is.

Another thing I found really impressive with this movie was the animation. One reason or another, I was really impressed with the style and how these characters moved. It was appealing and it felt unique.

It has to be difficult for animators who don't work for Disney to create good animation that doesn't feel too much like the main competitor and I think Sing did that really really well. If I was an exec over at Illumination, I would drop the minions and start building movies around these characters. They're likeable, they're easy to sell toys for, market the crap out of these guys!

But it brings me to the unfortunate part about Sing and that's just the fact that it fell in the shadow of a phenomenal movie like Zootopia. Again, you can like both. Both are good movies. Sing just didn't have the same cultural impact that Zootopia did when looking back at 2016. Had it come out at a different time, different competition, I think this movie could have been bigger. This isn't so much a criticism as much as it is putting it in the perspective of its success and what it'll be compared to because as much as I wanted to avoid that in this review, I did the exact same thing when I was watching it.

Sing is a cute movie. It's not overly extraordinary, but it's probably one of the more underrated animated films that came out of 2016. The truth is, 2016 was a tough year. I've talked about Zootopia, but you also have to consider that Moana came out around the same time as this film, Finding Dory came out that year, Kung Fu Panda 3, and Angry Birds all came out that year. It was actually a pretty competitive year. I'm not surprised I'm just getting around to Sing now because while it's good, it doesn't stick out as much as the other films.

Doesn't mean it's not good though. It's on Netflix right now, check it out and have yourself a good time.

But what did you think of Sing? Was there enough singing, too much singing? 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.

I'll leave you with this. I meant to put this out over the holidays and this video would have been more timely then. However, it's still a fun video. Enjoy!