In the year 2002, the spy genre was facing a bit of a crisis. It was the fortieth anniversary of the Bond franchise, with Die Another Day set to release that November. While this would go on to be one of the most ridiculous films on the planet, it only looked worse because of another spy film that opened a few months prior, one that would change the spy genre forever. This, of course, was The Bourne Identity, a gritty and more realistic spy thriller that traded ridiculous gadgets and quips for brutal action and gripping character drama. The last film to star Matt Damon as the titular spy was released in 2007 (let’s forget about the Jeremy Renner one), and now that the spy genre has been Bourne-ified, it seems like the appropriate time for the master of gritty spies to come back and show us how it’s done. But is it successful? Let’s find out.
“We’re not bad people, but we did a bad thing.” This is one of the first things that sticks with the viewer as the pilot episode of Bloodline comes to a close. It speaks to the high drama, moral dilemmas and heavy darkness that permeates the show, and sets the viewer up for the ride they're about to go on. Despite this hook, the show has kind of gone under the radar when compared to other Netflix hits like House of Cards and Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt, but I would argue that it is on the level with (or even better than) most Netflix originals. That’s a pretty bold claim, you might say. Well, hypothetical reader, let me tell you why.
The
horror genre has undergone a bit of a revolution in the past few years. Despite
churning out piles of garbage like Paranormal
Activity or Ouija, there have
been plenty of good titles like The
Babadook and It Follows (one of
my favorite films) to balance them out. This year is no exception, with movies
like The Witch and The Conjuring 2 showing that the genre
still has quite a bit of life left in it. That brings us to Lights Out, an indie darling that
originated as a very cool and creepy short film and
fell under the wing of James Wan (the director of The Conjuring 2). It has all the elements of a good horror film,
but does it actually succeed? Let’s find out.
On September 8, 1966, NBC aired the first episode of a little show called Star Trek. Created by Gene Roddenberry, the series followed the adventures of the crew of the starship Enterprise in the far future, whose mission was to explore the universe and spread the message of peace and unity started by the United Federation of Planets, which is like the United Nations of the future. That little show took off quickly, creating five TV shows, eleven films, and a massive fanbase that kept the franchise going over the past fifty years. Then in 2009, after a few years of dormancy, director J.J. Abrams reinvigorated the franchise with a reboot that created a new universe and brought back younger versions of the original crew. After Into Darkness, Abrams left to direct the new Star Wars film, bringing in director Justin Lin (Fast and Furious) to take his place while keeping a producer role. Does this film live up to the legacy? Let’s find out.
You guys remember that movie Fight Club? The one with Edward Norton
and Brad Pitt? Back in the day that was the cutting edge of film, featuring
some really in-depth philosophical conversations, shocking violence, and one
hell of a twist. Well, what if I told you that there is a show on right now
that has those same elements and possibly does it better? That’s right, I’m
referring to the USA show known as Mr.
Robot.
Created by Sam Esmail, the show follows
Elliot Alderson (Rami Malek), a young man in New York City who works for a
cyber security company called Allsafe with his best friend Angela (Portia
Doubleday). Elliot moonlights as a cyber vigilante, stalking the Internet for criminals
and exposing them. A mentally disturbed and isolated young man, Elliot is
searching for his purpose in the world, but everything changes when he’s
approached by a mysterious man named Mr. Robot (Christian Slater). The leader
of a hacker’s group called fsociety, which aims to bring down the capitalist
systems that control the world, Mr. Robot recruits Elliot to join the fight
against the banking conglomerate known as Evil Corp (keep that in mind, I’ll
come back to it). Joined by mysterious hackers like the wild Darlene (Carly
Chaikin), Elliot must pull himself together and complete the mission before the
forces behind of Evil Corp, led by ruthless businessman Tyrell Wellick (Martin
Walllstrom), catch up to him.
The less explained about these creepy ass masks, the better.
First and foremost, I have to admit that
as a film geek I love how this entire show is basically a love letter to David
Fincher. It’s shot similar to Fincher’s films (minus the green tint that
Fincher loves to employ), it uses a score that sounds eerily similar to some of
Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross’ work in Fincher’s recent films, and it even
takes certain elements from Fincher’s films (the philosophical ramblings of Fight Club, the grisly violence of Se7en, and the realistic depiction of
computer work as seen in The Social
Network, among others). Valerie Ettenhof wrote an excellent essay comparing
Mr. Robot to Fincher’s films, drawing
an interesting parallel to his oft-forgotten thriller The Game (which you should also watch). Check it out, after you read this of course!
Enough with my geekiness, let’s get into
what really makes this show so great. The first, and in my opinion the most
important, aspect of Mr. Robot is how
it plays with the idea of perception and reality. We see the world of this show
through Elliot’s eyes, and that colors the experience a lot more than you might
think. You remember Evil Corp from earlier? That’s a subtle, but major point
that the show makes about this topic. Whenever Elliot is in a scene, the
characters around him say “Evil Corp.” When two or more characters are talking
without Elliot present, they say “E Corp,” which is the actual name of the
company. This is never pointed out on-screen, but it shows us the difference
between the reality of the world and the way Elliot perceives it. We see this
version of things for about 97% of the show, and it makes you wonder what else
is being twisted by his fractured mind.
The most brilliant example of the idea of
perception is that when Elliot does a voiceover, he’s not just having an
internal monologue. He is having a dialogue with the actual audience. We are an
actual character in this show,
created by Elliot’s psychosis. He treats us as a silent observer, always
watching but never giving back to him. This immediately hooks the audience into
the action, as we have now become a part of Elliot’s world and feel some kind
of investment in it. Without knowing it, the show establishes a connection
between us and Elliot, and as things begin to twist and turn we feel more
involved in his plight. It’s a brilliant piece of storytelling, and one that
really makes us care, something that the knowing winks and nods that Frank
Underwood does in House of Cards
lacks.
Pictured here: The most subtle imagery in House of Cards.
Another way that the show gets us attached
is by playing on our own perceptions of the ideas being presented on-screen.
Fsociety is basically a bunch of Bernie Bros with laptops and the actual drive
to do something, hell-bent on bringing about a revolution, but the show never
asks us to side with them. We are hooked in by the actual mission, and whether
or not we agree with the motives behind it is completely up to us. At points
the show even undercuts this message, like when Mr. Robot gives his grand
speech about his revolution in the middle of Times Square. He sounds like a
complete nutcase, and the fact that people are walking by not noticing a thing
while he rants about people wanting to be motivated is both a little amusing
and shows how tragically misguided he really is. It’s bold for a show to
present a message and then undercut it like that, and hopefully season two will
delve a bit more into this.
Mr.
Robot has a great cast under its belt, but it’s Rami Malek’s performance
that makes it what it is. Even at his creepiest, we still feel for Elliot
because we recognize the humanity in him despite what he might be doing.
There’s a scene in which Elliot has to completely dress down and
psychologically attack an innocent man in order to get what he wants, and Malek
sells it completely. While his face is a stone wall of emotionlessness and
Elliot’s voiceover is done in his standard monotone, there’s something in his
eyes, like a subtle hint of empathy for this person he’s just destroyed, that
makes us still latch onto him. The reason we like Elliot so much is because we
want him to get over his mental handicaps and get his stuff together, and given
some of the horrible things he does on this show it takes a truly gifted
performer to keep us invested without losing hope in him.
I think your reaction to this image might prepare you for the craziness of this show.
I can’t discuss this show without
mentioning the titular character, and the great performance by Christian Slater.
Slater infuses this character with equal parts menace and compassion throughout
the first season, giving his rants and his odd behavior more weight with the
audience. Just when you feel like you have a bead on him Slater reveals a new
side to this enigma of a character, keeping you on your toes. Everyone on this
show is great, but it’s especially great to see Slater back in top form after
years of languishing his considerable talent.
While I’ve spent a considerable amount of
time comparing this show to the work of David Fincher (there’s also little bits
of Taxi Driver and American Psycho in there), that doesn’t
mean that this show follows convention by any means. In fact, this is a show
that breaks the mold in a way I haven’t seen in a very long time. At first it
seems like a lot of familiar tropes are being set up, like the first meeting
between Elliot and Tyrell suggesting that there will be a constant power
struggle between the two, but that’s not what happens. The two rarely cross
paths throughout the first season, which makes their encounters have more
weight and suspense along with letting these characters develop on their
own.
The mystery of Mr. Robot’s identity is
probably the most conventional this show gets, even though the ramifications of
that reveal are what make it so affecting. While you might sit and see the turn
coming, it’s the way that it affects Elliott and his world that hasn’t been
explored in a form of media in such an effective way (besides, the other twists are ones I would bet my entire paycheck that you won't see coming, so I can forgive this one). And seeing how season two
began with last week’s episode, things are only going to get more insane and
messed up from here on out.
Going back to Elliot, it’s important to
note that this show never tries to tidy up his character or make him look
nobler than he actually is. It makes no bones about the fact that he does some
incredibly messed up things and hurts several people close to him in order to
do what he believes is right. His crusade tramples through the lives of Angela,
Tyrell, Darlene, his girlfriend/drug dealer Shayla (Frankie Shaw), and his boss
Gideon Goddard (Michel Gill). Goddard, the only really good person on the show,
gets the brunt of punishment as Elliot attacks Evil Corp, showing just how
cruel this world is and how unflinching the show will be.
Finally, this can’t be ignored any longer,
so I’ll just come right out and say it: the hacking in this show is 100%
realistic. There aren’t any scenes of CGI computer bugs breaking into a system,
or stupid representations of some Hollywood version of hacking (two members of
fsociety are seen mocking the classic movie Hackers),
there are only scenes of hackers inputting code and typing on their keyboards.
It’s not glamorous or sexy, but it’s a testament to the showrunner that it is
still exciting to watch this week after week.
A dramatic reenactment of
my last day at fsociety.
There’s so much going on with this show
that I’ve had to leave a few things out in order to not ramble on for thirty
pages. Two other stories to bring up, though. Tyrell’s quest for power, spurred
on by his borderline sociopathic (yet super hot) wife Joanna (Stephanie
Corneliussen) serves as the B-plot for the first season. It has its own twists
and turns that I don’t even want to hint at. Another interesting subplot
belongs to Angela, who begins to take her own stand against Evil Corp, albeit
in a roundabout way. She experiences things ranging from legal issues to
blatant sexual harassment in search of the truth, but the path she settles on
is very intriguing and should pay off nicely. Hopefully more of these complex
plots get introduced as the show goes on, making the rich tapestry that Sam
Esmail is weaving even more beautiful.
The bottom line is that this is one of the
most exciting, cutting edge shows on TV right now, and if you’re not watching
it you’re missing some of the best work in drama in a long time. Taking the
best of Hollywood techno-thrillers and combining it with a highly compelling
protagonist and a unique storyline, Mr.
Robot will leave you begging for more when the last scene of an episode
drops. As season two gets underway. I suggest you go back and catch up while
you can. You won’t regret it!
Mr. Robot airs Wednesday nights at
10:00 Eastern Time on the USA Network. Episodes are available on demand or on
the USA Network website.
There are actually three types of reboots
that we've been seeing lately. There's a standard reboot, like Ghostbusters
(check out my review of that here), which erases the previous movies
and effectively starts over from the beginning. The other two types are a
little strange, depending on the actual movie. There are prequel reboots, like
the most recent (and excellent) Planet of the Apes films, which are
meant to reboot the franchise without stepping on the previous films. By
setting itself before the established films, a film can profit off of the name
brand and tell a new story, even if certain details conflict with the older
films. The last type, and one we've seen quite a bit recently, is the sequel
reboot, which follows up a previous film from long ago and attempts to revive
the franchise that way. This year's big examples are The Legend of Tarzan and Independence
Day: Resurgence, which both received middling reviews. So now that we've
got the definitions, what's the actual problem here? Why can't the
studios just make some money and bring back franchises we all know and love?
The main problem here is that Hollywood is
becoming incredibly lazy when it comes to making these types of movies, and
they still expect you to fork out your hard-earned cash for them. I criticize
Marvel all the time for sticking to their formula and not doing anything new or
interesting, but I get why they do that. Those films are the big money-makers
now, and despite the overabundance of "cinematic universe" filmmaking,
I get that Hollywood needs to make their money. No issue with that at all (when
it comes to quality, that's another story entirely...)
My last day at the Marvel Studios offices.
Reboots, on the other hand, primarily rely
on pre-existing brands to sell themselves. They don't need a formula to draw
people in, only a good marketing campaign and enough cool stuff that either A)
reminds people of the original or B) looks intriguing enough for people to come
in and see. While some certainly don’t have that (Ghostbusters), there’s still no reason for the studios to be so
damn lazy that they just either remake the original or just use the standard blockbuster template for every single property they reboot. Do we really need to see the
same third act climactic battle AGAIN? Why is it so difficult for Hollywood to
be creative for just one time! Unfortunately, the answer is quite simple.
For the most part, sameness sells. Two years ago, Edge of Tomorrow, one of the more original and unique blockbusters
in quite some time, bombed in the US like it was in the Middle East.
Overseas markets saved it, thankfully, but the fact is that no one in the
States wanted to see something cool and new. What was the highest grossing
movie of that year? Guardians of the
Galaxy? X-Men? Winter Soldier? Nope. Freaking Transformers 4 did that. Plus, it was
the only film of that year to cross a billion dollars worldwide. Which is an incredibly sad state of affairs, if you ask
me.
This is YOUR FAULT, world!
Take heart though, folks, because the
summer of 2016 seems to be turning things around. Reboot after reboot has underperformed in the box
office, along with sequels to original (and successful) first films. While
this doesn’t look good for promising upcoming films like Star Trek Beyond or Jason
Bourne, it does show the beginning of a trend against this lazy filmmaking
that could produce a plethora of new and exciting content. I think that if you’re still reading
this, you have one question: why is this guy ranting about these dumb movies anyway?
People only see a few movies per year on average, so why shouldn’t they
go and see something they recognize? Well, hypothetical reader, let me tell you
why I have a problem with it. I have a problem with it because movies are
freaking expensive, and for me to go and plop down ten bucks of my hard-earned
money just for Hollywood to dump some lazy, stupid and insultingly bad turd of
a film on me makes me pretty mad. Sure, I see more movies than most folks, but
I would assume that even people who only want to go and see a movie every now and
then want to put their money towards something of quality. And for the most
part, I don’t believe Hollywood has really done that with this constant
rebooting.
This approach to making movies isn’t the
end of the world, guys. There are plenty of important things happening that
need to be addressed before the quality of motion pictures, and there are now
several different (and affordable) avenues to get brilliant original content,
like Netflix or Amazon. I still hold a special love for the movies, though, and
if the studios want to survive financially I think it’s time to start putting a
little bit of effort into it.
Not that any of you will notice, for obvious reasons...
No other
film has faced the kind of angry lashback that the 2016 reboot of Ghostbusters has. First, the very idea
of rebooting such a classic film stoked the ire of the Internet. Then, the
announcement that the cast would be all female, which got the misogynist neckbeard crowd
in an uproar. Finally, the marketing campaign was incredibly weak, with lackluster
trailers showcasing what appeared to be more generic action (as if 2016 needs
any more of that) and unfunny comedy bits. But now the film’s out, and we can
finally answer the question: Is this any good? Let’s find out.
The film
follows our four heroes, Erin Gilbert (Kristen Wiig), Abby Yates (Melissa
McCarthy), Jillian Holtzmann (Kate McKinnon), and Patty Tolan (Leslie Jones) as
they try to discover what (or who) is causing increased paranormal activity in
New York City and, of course, taking care of some ghosts. It’s a fairly simple
premise, and not one that is dissimilar to the original classic. As someone who
loves the original (and didn’t want to see it remade), I’m happy to say that
this is a fun film, but one that has enough flaws to keep it from being
great.
Let’s
start with the positives, though. The best thing about this film is actually
the same thing that was strongest in the original: the Ghostbusters themselves.
Each of these actresses gives a good performance, really endearing us to their
characters and nailing their comedic moments. My personal favorite
was Patty, who comes to the team as an outsider but quickly leaves her mark
with a very loud and cutting sense of humor as well as knowledge of the city
that helps the team track down the ghosts. Wiig and McCarthy are both great, if
a little subdued, and provide a nice emotional bond that allows us to connect
to these characters. It’s McKinnon’s performance that might draw the ire of
some people. She plays an insane genius that makes a lot of outlandish
expressions in every scene and seems to try too hard. I actually liked McKinnon
in the role and thought she balanced her intelligence and insanity well, but I
can see how she could get annoying to some folks.
The four
leads wouldn’t be as charming without the humor, which I think the film
delivers, at least for the first two acts. Each character has their own type of
jokes (Erin is sarcastic and reserved, while Patty is loud and in-your-face,
and so on), and the actresses all deliver these jokes incredibly well. Even
some jokes that didn’t work in the trailers work in the film when you see the
context for them. Some of the supporting characters have moments to shine as
well, like April's delivery man who continually gets her order wrong (a great running gag in the film), the comedically corrupt mayor of
New York (Andy Garcia) and his passive-aggressive assistant (Cecily Strong), among others. They all
get their moments of humor and commit to the joke, earning laughs from delivery alone at points. The best supporting character, in my opinion, is the Ghostbusters’ receptionist Kevin (Chris Hemsworth), an exceptionally stupid yet ungodly attractive man who should quite frankly have died by now but still remains around for some unknown reason.
Sure he's dumb, but just look at him!
I have to
commend Paul Feig (the director of Bridesmaids, The Heat, and Spy) for being able to handle both the action scenes and some
surprisingly spooky moments as well. The ghosts themselves look really cool and
Feig provides some cool scenes for them to strut their stuff, especially
a very creepy sequence involving a haunted house near the beginning of the
film. The actual ghost busting scenes are also fun to watch, and every time the
team fired up their proton packs I got pretty excited. Modern technology has enabled Feig to deliver some really interesting looking action sequences, and
our heroes look incredibly badass when they do their thing. Unfortunately, this
leads me to my problems with the movie.
I thought
the film was going along great, with a few issues here and there, but things
didn’t start really falling apart for me until the third act, where it becomes
just another generic action “let’s throw our budget at the screen” sequence.
All the cleverness vanishes, the action never rises above the level of “meh,”
and it has an incredibly underwhelming final fight with the main villain (Neil
Casey). There are some cool moments, but all in all it’s just another disappointing third act in a year filled with them (looking at you, Batman v Superman and Civil War).
Another
problem with the film is the villain, who you might have noticed I have not
named or even discussed until now. That’s because I pretty much forgot he was
in this movie, as Feig gives him so little screentime and no memorable moments.
The ghosts themselves don’t exude any personality, so they can’t fill his role
as interesting villains. They are pretty much just obstacles for the
Ghostbusters to, well, bust, and are dispatched fairly easily. This, like every
action movie seems to want to do these days, removes the tension and makes the
viewer feel like our heroes are never in any real danger. It sucks, because
with heroes as compelling and exciting as these new Ghostbusters are, we want to
see them face a real challenge, something that the film just doesn’t provide.
Despite
this, there was only one thing that truly bothered me the entire film and would
cause me to knock off any real points for this film: the fan service. The worst
part of any reboot is when the film feels the need to shove in references to
the original in inappropriate places, which this film does multiple times.
There are annoying and unnecessary scenes dedicated to explaining where the
logo comes from, how they got their suits, and so on and so forth. Reboots, by
nature, are trying to replace the original continuity. There is no reason to
continually say “Hey, remember this!” to the audience and break the world that
was so well-crafted before.
"Boss, the Internet isn't digging this female Ghostbusters thing." "Throw Slimer in there. They''ll recognize him." "But sir, why can't we come up with new gho-" My last day at the Ghostbusters office.
The most egregious example of this are the cameos from
the original cast, which are all useless and border on being offensively bad to
the point where I was angry watching them. Dan Akroyd gets the best of the
them playing an obnoxious dean of an incredibly low-rent university, but both
Bill Murray and Ernie Hudson are wasted. If they wanted to bring these actors
back, then they should have just continued the original series and brought them
back to pass the torch to the new team. I mean, you can’t tell me that seeing
the original Ghostbusters squad (minus Harold Ramis, who passed away a few
years ago) back in action wouldn’t be awesome! Anyways, that’s not what we got.
We just got these lame cameos, and I don’t want to spoil who appears, but they
might as well have not even been there with how much they actually add (either
comedically or plot-wise) to the film.
Ghostbusters is not even close to being
as good as the original (though it's miles beyond Ghostbusters 2), but it is still an incredibly enjoyable film. This new
cast does an incredible job stepping into the shoes worn by some of the giants
of comedy thirty years ago, and I honestly want to see them back for a sequel. Despite my criticisms, I still recommend this film to anyone looking to
go and enjoy themselves at the theaters, since I honestly don’t think most
folks are going to have the same issues that I do. Give it a chance, folks. You won't regret it.
