zkonedog

Because Netflix now contains so much original content, it can sometimes be a little difficult to differentiate between what is "just okay" and what might be a hidden gem or masterpiece. Mike Flanagan's The Haunting of Hill House is firmly in the latter category-a near perfect series that is just as thematically deep as the spooky season atmosphere it cultivates.

For a very basic overview, The Haunting of Hill House introduces the Crains living in the notoriously haunted 1980s titular dwelling. Fixer-upper Hugh (Henry Thomas) is flipping the house and wife Olivia (Carla Gugino) is a designer ready to provide the finishing touches. In tow are children Shirley (Lulu Wilson), Theo (McKenna Grace), Steven (Paxton Singleton), Luke (Julian Hilliard), and Nell (Violet McGraw). One night, after viewing a series of startling apparitions, Hugh gathers the children and drives away from Hill House forever-leaving Olivia standing in the window looking down at the whole scene.

Flash forward to the present day and the siblings are scattered to their own lives. When the death of Nell (Victoria Pedretti) brings them back under the same roof for the first time since "that night", each harbor their own internal demons:

-Steven (Michiel Huisman) is a writer who mocks his own ghostly childhood experiences -Shirley (Elizabeth Reiser) is a control-freak funeral director -Luke (Oliver Jackson-Cohen) is a junkie just out of rehab -Theo (Kate Siegel) is an uninspired soul harboring a secret ability -Hugh (Timothy Hutton) is mostly an absentee dad, muttering to himself and spouting mysterious statements about Hill House

One could categorize this show as "horror" and easily get away with it. It contains ghosts, hauntings, paranormal activity, and enough creepy apparitions that you won't forget them for quite some time. It is the perfect watch for, say, the run-up to Halloween.

Remarkably, however, the "thrills and chills" of The Haunting of Hill House aren't what render it iconic. This-from the pen of Flanagan-is prestige drama of the highest order. It tells a generational story that builds upon itself and is startlingly representative of real life family dynamics (going from children under the same roof to adults with vastly different lives/outlooks). There are as many deeply contemplative or tear-inducing moments here as jump scares or creepy visages.

The bottom line for The Haunting of Hill House is this: come for the scary aspects if that is your entryway, but if not dive in anyway! There is so much more here than "horror stuff". Truly a perfect blend of creepy, mystery, fantasy, and dramatic fare.

There was something special about trick-r-treating on Halloween in the 1990s. As a mid-80s kid who grew up in the 90s, I know nostalgia has a lot to do with that--but I still hold that Halloween 30 years hence isn't quite the same. As such, 1993's Hocus Pocus is a wonderful time capsule for a simpler era.

For a very basic overview, this film tells the story of adolescent Max (Omri Katz), little sister Dani (Thora Birch), and high school crush Allison (Vinessa Shaw) on Halloween night in Salem, MA. After some innocent Halloween escapades resurrect the legendary Sanderson Sisters of Salem Lore--Winifred (Bette Midler), Sarah (Sarah Jessica Parker), & Mary (Kathy Najimy)--the three witches must be dealt with before they can suck the youth out of Salem's children and become eternal.

In tone, Hocus Pocus is very much a family comedy. It is filled with hijinks, humor, musical numbers, and slapstick. There are moments that will have you chuckling out loud!

But there's also a nice narrative through-line of sibling appreciation and working together. This is surprisingly effective for a film that features such silliness at times.

Of course, there's that incredible "90s Halloween feel" that penetrates the entire picture. Not only in the cinematography and period nature, but also in content. They don't make family comedies exactly like this any more. Many nostalgic parents will have some funny conversations with their children about what "yabos" or "virgins" are. But this is of course from an era in which folks weren't quite as sensitive about those sorts of things and less easily triggered.

It had been a long time since I had re-watched Hocus Pocus and I was pleasantly surprised how well it holds up. This could be an "every October" watch for me going forward!

I can 100% see why a lot of folks really dislike Joker: Folie a Deux. It essentially takes the entire concept of a "Joker franchise" and turns it on its head in multiple ways. The funny (pardon the pun) part of it all: this sequel is actually far more thematically on-point than its predecessor. But does that make it a "good movie"? I'll say yes--but only to a point.

For a very basic overview, Joker 2 sees Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix) in Arkham awaiting a very publicized trial for his murderous actions. While in the joint, he makes the acquaintance of Lee Quinzel (Lady Gaga), a fellow inmate who sees him for what he is--or does she? As Arthur & Lee circle each other in building a relationship, the former funnyman (but just where IS that Joker persona these days?!) mounts his own courtroom defense.

Oh yeah--this is also a musical, which is to say it uses musical numbers and montages to represent character emotions at various points.

The biggest compliment I can give Joker 2 is this: it is thematically on point. Whereas the first Joker flick was a terse social commentary until pivoting into more traditional franchise fare in the final act, this one is focused on Fleck all the way through. While the Joker part of his psyche is present and accounted for, director Todd Phillips doesn't lose focus this time (even if viewers may be begging him too).

As for the musical component, it works pretty well (Phoenix & Gaga are of course up for the task). If anything, I wish the filmmakers would have pushed that aspect even further, with more production value or pizazz in some of the numbers. I felt as if perhaps a few punches were pulled when to really be its true self this needed to lean into its musical components rather than sometimes underplaying them.

I have a few quibbles with pacing as well, but those pale in comparison to Folie a Deux's biggest problem: it is a contradiction in terms all the way through. The issue here is that without the lure of Joker, no one cares about Arthur Fleck. As the old song goes: "you can't have one without the other" and make any audience truly happy. But that is exactly what Phillips & Co. Try to do with this sequel. The entire message boils down to somewhat brow-beating the audience for liking this Joker character while using that concept to sell the tickets to the movie. Phillips does this about the best he can, but it will always be a losing battle. You can't drop a sequel that says "the Joker doesn't/shouldn't matter and you're all a little unhinged for wanting to see him" under the banner of a Joker franchise and make too many folks walk out smiling.

So, ultimately I find myself caught in the middle of this film. On one hand, I respect the big swing that Phillips took and appreciate its thematic consistency and unwillingness to "cave" like the end of the first one did. The music was fun too, if maybe needing a bit more juice. But as I described above, the whole endeavor is built on a faulty, misleading, or sometimes even downright disrespectful premise to the audience-at-large and that is a difficult mountain to ascend. As such, I settle on 6/10 stars--ironically the same score I gave the original. I can see the nuance Phillips was going for--I just don't love enough aspects of it to go much higher.

I gave the first season of Rings of Power 9/10 stars. Perhaps not a perfect campaign, but easily enough to immerse me in my favorite fantasy universe (LOTR/Middle Earth) again. This sophomore season I put a slight tick below at 8.5/10 stars overall. While it is much more focused on the series' titled goal, the lack of attention towards a few key areas makes it a bit more of an uneven effort.

The focus of S2 is on Sauron (Charlie Vickers) deceiving all of Middle Earth into doing his bidding via the creation of his powerful dark-magic rings at the Eregion forge of Lord Celebrimbor (Charles Edwards). The dwarves' rings utterly lay waste to King Durin (Peter Mullen) & Prince Durin's (Owain Arthur) kingdom-under-the-mountain in Khazad-dum. The elven rings immediately create a rift between Elrond (Robert Aramayo) & Galadriel (Morfydd Clark). The human rings are an absolutely disaster and open the door for an Uruk invasion led by Adar (Sam Hazeldine).

These ring-centric plot lines are truly the backbone of S2 and live up to the name of the show. There is indeed a certain amount of thrill and knowing satisfaction seeing Sauron deceive all-comers in ways obvious and subtle. Is it as good as the "who is Sauron?" hook of S1? That's for the eye of the beholder, but either way there is a lot of strong LOTR lore present here.

Of course, by focusing so heavily on the actions at Eregion, other key plot lines of S1 are minimized. For example:

-The Numenorian events involving the likes of Queen Miriel (Cynthia Addai-Robinson), Captain Elendil (Lloyd Owen), & Isildur (Maxim Baldry)--amongst others--feels somehow both rushed and too prominent at the same time.

-Harfoot doings with Nori (Markella Kavenagh) & Poppy (Megan Richards) are reduced to a seasonal side-note here.

-The Stranger (Daniel Weyman) meets a funny fellow heralded in Tolkien lore--but little time is spent in their company.

Ultimately, Rings of Power S2 fundamentally changes the pacing of its action. Whereas each episode of S1 would jump between multiple plot lines, S2 narrows the focus. The locus of that lens--the crafting of the Rings--is extremely interesting and fulfilling for LOTR fans, but I do feel that the broad, expansive scope of the series was lost just a bit by sidelining many major S1 angles.

Overall, though, Rings of Power remained an enjoyable series to watch through its second season and did what (at least to me) the series always needs to accomplish: put me in the headspace of reading Tolkien's literature and/or watching Jackson's films. No issues here on either accord.

Vince McMahon is one of the most complicated and fascinating individuals to ever exist on planet Earth--a statement that I promise is not an exaggeration. He created (and re-created, and re-created...) an empire the likes of which the professional wrestling business had ever seen. Yet, behind the scenes his personality is a psychologist's gold mine in terms of his egotism and complexity. Here in Mr. McMahon, director Chris Smith covers it all.

In these six episodes, Vince's entire WWF/WWE involvement is chronicled. It begins with him essentially buying out the business from his old man and turning it from a regional product to a national--then global--mega corporation. At its heights, the WWE was as popular as legitimate professional sports and was trading on Wall Street. Smith leaves no stone unturned in examining the history of Vince's WWE tenure, and that history alone would be enough to classify Mr. McMahon as "solid" in and of itself.

But this isn't a history lesson at its core. No, it is a character study on Vince himself. The genius of that approach here is that McMahon is enough of an egotist that no guessing is required to figure out what he's thinking. He has no filters about saying exactly what makes him tick directly into the camera. A man--for better or for worse--who has absolutely zero feel for how he is perceived. Which, again, works perfectly for the documentary format because little guesswork is necessary.

Even with McMahon's involvement, however, the filmmakers certainly don't shy away from Vince's seedier sides. His various legal/personal scandals are well-recounted, as are his shady business practices (e.g. The Montreal Screwjob) and almost compulsion to forsake any semblance of morality or character in service to business or financial needs. He is perhaps the best--and worst--of capitalism in living, breathing form.

Is this a fair examining of Vince McMahon? I'll say yes. To me, any damning material in Mr. McMahon comes "straight from the horse's mouth", so to speak. Time after time, the documentarians ask Vince to explain himself or provide context, and time after time he professes no regret for even his seediest actions. There is no outside slander necessary.

Overall, considering the history and personality aspects to Mr. McMahon, I can easily give it the pinnacle of 10/10 stars. Hard-core wrestling fans will love it for completely different reasons than the "uninitiated" as it is so good at weaving all its threads together. This is documentary work of the highest order.

My Old Ass is a film that pretty clearly establishes its niche: 90-minute runtime plus dialogue, costuming, humor & thematic relevance squarely for a Gen-Z audience. Somewhat sadly, however, this ceiling caps a movie that yearns to be so much more.

For a very basic overview, My Old Ass tells the story of Elliott (Maisy Stella), an about-to-leave-for-college teen who goes on a mushroom drug trip with her friends and is visited by her 39-year-old self (Aubrey Plaza). As the two communicate and learn about/from each other, Young Elliott falls head-over-heels for Chad (Percy Hynes White) even as Older Elliott explicitly instructs her not to.

As it stands, this flick would have to be classified as "teen comedy of its era" (Maddie Ziegler is cast, as an example). The dialogue scripted, themes referenced, and overall actions/dress of the main participants from writer/director Megan Park all scream "fun/light-hearted comedy romp".

But that categorization of My Old Ass belies some material that yearns to be more than what it is given. The Plaza/Stella relationship dynamic is almost criminally underused, and there are some monologues that will get viewers thinking a bit deeper than one might imagine based on the film's tone. The big twist at the end-Chad dies, which is why Older Elliott does not want Young Elliott to pursue-is an emotional punch, to be sure, but again comes off as "too little, too late" in the grand narrative scheme of things.

The acting here is also better than what one might expect. Plaza is reliable-as-usual in her somewhat sardonic acting wheelhouse, and White is endearing as the flick's love interest. Stella is especially strong-even with the goofier material-and I feel as if audiences will be seeing more of her in years to come.

Overall, My Old Ass is a film that seems a little stuck in a prescribed genre/tone (teen comedy) and thus has a bit of a capped ceiling, but also has moments that I wish would have been expanded upon instead of some of the more hijinks-related escapades.

Right up until the last 10-15 minutes of Lee, I had it pegged as about a 7/10-star film. Solid and thoughtful but perhaps not in the upper-echelon of such WWII-era flicks. But an intriguing ending from writers Liz Hannah, Marion Hume, & John Collee and director Ellen Kuras caught me off guard enough to bump it up to 8 stars.

For a very basic overview, Lee is told in flashback as a young man (Josh O'Connor) interviews the title subject as an older (1970s-era) woman. He coaxes Lee Miller's (Kate Winslet) story, a former Vogue model/photographer struggling with purpose after "aging out" of that business. Looking to "do her part" in America and England's involvement in WWII, Lee asks to head to Germany's front lines to document the war for Vogue through her photographs. While fighting through the bureaucratic and personal red-tape a woman of that time must face, she becomes horrified of the war's specter as she documents bombed-out towns, concentration camps, and even a Nazi stronghold.

Perhaps the best word to describe Lee's style is "solid". It looks great, all the themes are relevant, and it tells an important story from a unique point of view. This isn't a "war movie" so much as a "personal journey that just happens to wind through WWII England/Germany". It helps that Winslet's gravitas anchors the lead role, and she is surrounded by talents like Andy Samberg, Alexander Skarsgard, Marion Cotillard, & Andrea Riseborough (among others). In other words: the acting is also solid.

Probably the biggest downside to Lee is that-by the nature of the thematic material and the biographical subject-there isn't much room for dramatic flourish here. Miller-by-Winslet is portrayed as largely stoic, most of the time holding emotions in rather than opportunities for emotional outbursts (granted, at least some of that is shown towards film's end). So, this isn't one where orchestral swells or grand gestures carry the emotional freight-instead it leans on subtle facial expressions and the like.

Fortunately-at least for my sake-Lee hits viewers with a whopper of an ending. I won't spoil it here, but it caught me so off guard (in the best possible way) that it had me smiling and contemplating during the closing credits in a way that would not have happened had the movie just ended without that nice little surprise.

So, overall, I land on a solid 8/10 rating for Lee. A film that is probably more "important" than "exciting" in the grand scheme of things, but is competent enough in acting & cinematography (plus the narrative twist!) to be thoroughly enjoyable.

I will admit right off the bat that there are times when His Three Daughters feels a little spartan or perhaps even a little predictable for frequent viewers of character-first indie dramas. Fortunately, the tremendous acting of the lead trio and the nuance of writer/director Azazel Jacobs build to an incredible finale that largely wipes those concerns away by the time the credits roll-you'll be too busy holding back the tears or pondering the deep messages to be caught up in any minutiae.

For a very basic overview, His Three Daughters tells the story of three sisters returning to their father's New York apartment as he nears death. Katie (Carrie Coon)-the controlling one-feuds with Rachel (Natasha Lyonne) the free spirit, while the maternal Christina (Elizabeth Olsen) tries to keep the peace without losing her mind or being minimized altogether.

The setup here is one that will be at least somewhat familiar to character-first dramas: siblings re-unite as adults and try to co-exist like they once did while (hopefully) all learning from each other. Truth be told, it would be easy for His Three Daughters to fall into "cliché" territory and sometimes you might suspect it is. Two-thirds of the way through, I had it at more of a 7 or 8-star film.

But even in those slower early moments, the performances of Coon, Lyonne, & Olsen are building depth of emotion. It is truly the perfect combination of casting and acting talent gelling together. You'll likely find at least something relatable-good or bad-within each of those characters, as the sibling dynamics are so raw.

Then, all that emotional depth pays off when Jacobs crafts a tremendous final act. I won't spoil it here, but suffice it to say it packs a whopper of an emotional punch even though you'll think you know what is inevitably coming. I was absolutely floored by this conclusion and it immediately jumped the movie from "solid drama" to "one I'll be remembering for some time".

Overall, it is perhaps most instructive to remember that His Three Daughters is a journey. Though it does reach a satisfying destination, there are times where it might seem a little slow or predictable. But worry not-that setup is necessary for the big payoff awaiting you at the film's end.

Growing up in the late-1980s & 90s, I had two cinematic/entertainment heroes: Hulk Hogan & Superman. For the latter, it was specifically Christopher Reeve's portrayals of the Man of Steel that I'd rent countless times from the local video store and immerse myself in that fictional universe. When Reeve had his paralyzing accident in 1995 I was still too young to fully comprehend what was going on. Super/Man tells that story and does it in a way that is far more "inspirational" than "sad".

The basic structure of Super/Man is this: it begins in the immediate aftermath of Reeve's horse-riding tumble and paralysis, flashes back to key points of his life, and finishes up with Reeve's legacy in the field of spinal injury research and recognition.

I believe there to be clips in this doc that are never-before-seen and interviews that are more candid on the subject than ever before. Viewers hear extensively from Reeve's first wife, as well as home videos and personal stories from his children-at one point son Matthew detailing the last moment he saw his father upright. The doc also does not shy away from the "rough stuff"-showing pics/vids of Reeve at his worst moments post-accident and explaining just how close he came (at times) to giving up.

What's remarkable about Super/Man, however, is how it keeps the viewer in a positive state of mind and not depressed-not exactly a small feat considering the material. Reeve's on-screen superhero persona garnered him the platform to advocate for spinal injury research and that is eventually the attitude the man himself adopted-becoming as much of a super hero in reality as his caped wonder was in Metropolis. Reeve's appearances-enormous ordeals for a man in his condition-inspired millions of dollars of funding and activism and even broke stigmas about treatment of spinal cord injury survivors. One thing Super/Man makes abundantly clear: Christopher Reeve always believed he would walk again, and though he did not live long enough to see it happen that attitude was what really mattered in the end.

Super/Man directors Ian Bonhote & Peter Ettedgui put together some incredible montages here to illustrate their key points. In one instance, footage of Reeve being feted by political dignitaries is interspersed with Superman's speech to the United Stations in Superman IV. Chris's friendship with Robin Williams is touching-two souls who understood each other in a way no one else could. A scene with Reeve in his rolling chair walking his dog down the driveway of his home is particularly affecting as well.

It is impossible to not get extremely emotional-but in the best possible way-while watching Super/Man. Thus far, this is the definitive post-accident Christopher Reeve accounting and it lives up to that gargantuan task.

I will not argue for a moment that Escape to Victory (sometimes shortened to just Victory in certain markets) is based on a marvelous premise: WWII POWs playing a soccer match against their captors! The problem with director John Huston's Victory, however, is that it gets far too caught up in the "escape mechanics" and loses the thread of that great idea.

For a very basic overview, Victory tells the story of a WWII POW camp in Germany. When Nazi Major Karl Von Steiner (Max von Sydow) sees the prisoners scrimmaging at soccer, he concocts a plan for a "friendly" between the inmates and guards. The idea is latched on to by Nazi party leadership and turned into propaganda almost immediately. Undeterred, Capt. John Colby (Michael Caine) coaches up his rag-tag squad of English players-also including American Robert Hatch (Sylvester Stallone) & the extremely foot-talented Luis Fernandez (Pele).

I can certainly see why some audiences will really enjoy Victory. The cast is strong, Pele's inclusion is iconic, and it is somewhat of a "lost gem" in Stallone's now-epic filmography. Huston imbues the film with a sense of pomp-and-circumstance and the Bill Conti score is more than up to that task. If you are in the right mood/headspace, Victory can be enjoyed.

The entire idea behind the endeavor is also strong. There is an undercurrent (even amongst the Nazis) of "this war is pointless-let's just play soccer" and it is interesting how the finale event goes from "proposed scrimmage" to "huge ordeal in Paris in front of an enormous audience". In short, there are intriguing notions present in Victory's creation.

But here's the rub (and the reason for my 4-star rating): mechanically Victory is a mess. Long, boring strands are spent with Stallone's Hatch wandering around Paris-a solid case can be made that the film might be better (if less memorable) without his presence trying to take over the proceedings. Victory also seems to want to be The Great Escape, what with a lot of screentime going to the mechanics of the proposed escapes. It does not, to be sure, measure up to that all-time POW escape classic and instead takes valuable time away from the soccer machinations that should have been the beating heart of the picture all the way through.

Overall, Escape to Victory is a film I really want to love-but I simply cannot for how it drops the plot and character balls at nearly every turn. Great idea, great stunt casting, and great score-but the writing/direction leaves much to be desired.

After Baywatch actually has some really interesting material on the creation of the 1990s TV staple and the experiences the creators & actors had with it. Sadly, the Hulu doc is rendered nearly un-viable by a bloated 4-episode, 3-hour runtime.

Anyone who lived through the 90s will recall Baywatch for one reason or another--it was truly a cultural phenomenon (even if objectively "not good") in a way that the fractured media landscape of today likely could not duplicate. As such, it is interesting to hear from the likes of David Hasselhoff, Nicole Eggert, Pamela Anderson, Alexandra Paul, and Carmen Electra (amongst many others). Most of them have at least one really interesting story or experience to share. This would have all fit perfectly into about a 90 or 100-minute standalone doc.

Bafflingly, though, it is instead 3 hours over four episodes. What this leads to is a lot of filler, pointless modern-day recreations, and re-used material. I am usually laser-focused when it comes to watching content like this, but even I felt the pull of the smartphone or my attention simply wandering as this series unspooled. This glacial pace does After Baywatch no favors and actually renders the good stuff less enjoyable because so much time-wasting fills in the crevices around it.

Thus, I can only go as high as 4/10 stars for After Baywatch--disappointing considering my love of everything 90s and how much I was primed to like this doc.

I missed this first season of Severance when it hit Apple TV+ in 2022. But in a "better late than never" scenario, I'm glad I dove in even late to the party, as this series features one of the most intriguing and relatable "hooks" in a TV series I've seen in quite some time.

For a very basic overview, Severance ponders "what if your work life was completely separate from your home life?". At Lumon Industries (well, at least one division of the mysterious company), that is the experiment playing out before viewers' eyes-employees are either "innies" (at work) or "outies" (not on the clock) and never the twain shall meet in terms of consciousness. At first glance, this seems to be working pretty well as team-lead Mark (Adam Scott), overachieving Dylan (Zach Cherry), and tow-the-line Irving (John Turturro) seem like your average cubicle-farm team. But when strong-willed newcomer Helly (Britt Lower) is thrust into their ranks, her Innie doesn't accept severance as easily as her Outie. This begins a quest for self-realization (in and out of the office) as well as into just what exactly they are all doing at Lumon in terms of work.

The central conceit of this Dan Erickson (creator/writer) & Ben Stiller (most prolific director) series is as fantastic as it is timely. Work/life balance-especially in a corporate setting-is such a front-facing topic in today's world that it is easy to see why the first episode is a bona fide 10/10. Almost too intriguing not to fall head-over-heels into as it's instantly relatable to anyone with a job (a large potential audience!).

Of course, a series cannot stand on cultural relatability alone-plot and character threads must abound. Erickson & Stiller are equally as strong in those areas, cultivating a heretofore excellent mystery surrounding Lumon. What are the "scary numbers" the main crew are moving around on their screens? Who is Kier Eagan (Marc Geller), the company's enigmatic leader? What is with the room full of goats?! Even more character mysteries abound. This first season set up each thread nearly perfectly (plus, you never know when, say, a Christopher Walken might show up around the corner!) and concluded with a series of major reveals that deepened the rabbit hole even further.

This first season was very close to 10/10 stars for me. The only star I subtracted was for being slightly concerned that the series is moving away from the over-arching work/life balance themes a bit too speedily and maybe a little caught up in the "Lumon bizarreness" of it all. But of course the proof of that will be in the pudding to see which direction Severance goes in its 2025 second season.

Either way, Season 1 is simultaneously an impressive think-piece & engaging mystery that within a single episode will have you hooked on the whole setup and every character.

Frank Capra: Mr. America satisfies all the baseline requirements of a documentary. It gives some backstory on its subject (legendary film director Frank Capra), shows the highlights of his peak, and gives some context for the figure's importance. Unfortunately, this doc does not do anything more than those bare minimums.

For a very basic overview, Mr. America tells the story of Capra being an impoverished Italian immigrant who came to America and found the motion picture industry to his liking. He ascended to the top of his craft-collecting numerous Academy Awards in the 1930s-for iconic films such as It Happened One Night, Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, & It's A Wonderful Life. After that, however, Capra disappeared almost as quickly as he had ascended before re-surfacing in the early 1970s with a new book and in with a more sophisticated movie-going public now re-evaluating his films.

In terms of rote box-checking, Mr. America does an adequate job of covering its bases. Capra's story is a fascinating one and the clips from his films elicit real emotion/nostalgia, while his importance to early-Hollywood (Columbia Pictures, specifically) cannot be understated.

At the same time, there is nothing new under the sun to examine vis a vis Capra in 2023-so I'm not entirely sure what purpose this documentary serves other than to capitalize on his name (which, admittedly, is what got my eyeballs). I think that such lack of new material really hurts this doc, because it essentially amounts to a re-packaged (if nicely so) rehash of previous Capra topics. I wanted to know more about his transition to the United States or his post-career socio-political stances (quite interesting), but likely there just isn't anything new to unearth in those regards.

As such, I consider Frank Capra: Mr. America to be a perfectly acceptable doc on its title subject-perhaps more if the viewer has little previous knowledge of the famed director. But even slightly more seasoned Capra/film fans may come away feeling a little underwhelmed.

I rarely give films below 3/10 stars--there's usually something of redeeming value or baseline entertainment I can find with the experience. Very sadly, that was not the case with Mothers' Instinct--almost a little hard to believe considering the star power of the two leads.

For a very basic overview, this film tells the story of Alice (Jessica Chastain) & Celine (Anne Hathaway), two neighbors in the 1950s (perhaps early 60s). When tragedy befalls Celine's son, weird things begin happening to Alice's own young boy. A product of Alice's imagination--or malice on the part of a grieving Celine?

To call Mothers' Instinct a Drama or a Thriller would be a gross overstatement of either term. The film relies on the blandest of 50s movies tropes to establish its characters and as such they are almost completely hollow. I have absolutely no idea what I was supposed to be rooting for or against. Even the 50s vibe adds nothing here, as this movie could have been set in any time period.

Hathaway & Chastain have proven themselves to fine actors innumerable times, but this one was a dud from the word "go". No amount of thespian talent can save this empty vessel of a film.

Mad Men is perhaps the most unique prestige drama I've ever encountered. Whereas almost every other show I've watched has at least some action, adventure, or big set-piece components to it, Mad Men does not. It is, for all intents and purposes, a show about people talking and expressing emotions. While this and show creator Matthew Weiner's oblique style of episodic writing won't be everyone's cup of tea--it isn't even mine a lot of the time, truth be told--Mad Men is good enough as a 1960s period piece and alternative to more action-oriented dramas to be a compelling experience.

Trying to sum up seven seasons of Mad Men in this small space would be silly, so I'll suffice it to say that this is a show about characters. Not even "characters put in extreme situations", but rather "characters just living life". Of course, that life is on Madison Avenue in 1960s Manhattan so things are never boring. Mad Men is equal parts ad agency shenanigans and how all the participants cope (or don't) with the work/life balance.

As I mentioned, Weiner's style here won't be for everyone. His episodes are often based on a single wisp of an idea or concept that isn't well-defined and often won't carry over into the next installment. In one example, an extremely heavy episode ends with the show's lead wading into the ocean--and that's it. This is a series that doesn't spell its emotions or ideas out for viewers with trademarked flourish or pomp-&-circumstance. It keeps its emotional material very low-key.

That isn't to call Mad Men bad or slow by any means. The journey it takes viewers on via its character proxies is remarkable: the always-moving-forward Don (John Hamm)--the career-driven Peggy (Elisabeth Moss)--the up-and-comer Pete (Vincent Kartheiser)--the wise-cracking Roger Sterling (John Slattery). I could go on and on, to say nothing of the heavy screen time given to Don's wife Betty (January Jones) & daughter Sally (Kiernan Shipka). Other big names like Christian Hendricks, Robert Morse, Alison Brie, and Jared Harris litter the cast. For Weiner to pull off what he's going for in Mad Men he needs impeccable acting talent and it is fully provided here.

The 1960s setting is also a stroke of genius for Mad Men, as it allows the quirks/foibles--or often out & out shamefulness--of the large ensemble cast to be stomached as a "relic of the past" (even if not always necessarily true). Whatever relatively small gripes I may have about Mad Men, it is almost without a doubt the finest period piece ever constructed.

Overall, Mad Men was a show that--at least for me--absolutely lived at the 7 or 8-star level. Some notable episodes went higher--but few went lower. I often did feel a little frustrated or underserved about Weiner's understated nature towards the entire endeavor, but the production quality and acting talent is so high that it retains a solid place on my all-time list even if not cracking the highest tier.

There are some Clint Eastwood-directed films that I consider amongst my favorites of all time. But as likely as those masterpieces are the times when his ham-fisted societal views overshadow a narrative rather than support it. That is exactly what happens in A Perfect World--somewhat neutering a wonderful Kevin Costner performance.

For a very basic overview, A Perfect World tells the story of Butch Haynes (Costner), an escaped convict who takes child Phillip (T. J. Lowther) hostage while on the run. Pursued by Sheriff Red Garnett (Eastwood) and new psych evaluator Sally Gerber (Laura Dern), Butch & Phillip form a bond as they manage to stay one step ahead of law enforcement.

Without a doubt, the high point of A Perfect World is Costner's performance. He perfectly conveys the necessary grit of a convict while also showing a softer, more sincere side. His chemistry with young Lowther is admirable and this film shines whenever they are both on screen.

Unfortunately, any time Eastwood points the lens at himself in A Perfect World the picture drags to a halt. Why? Because the usually-esteemed director hits some of his "same old schtick" and doesn't include any of the nuance of his best directorial efforts. Here, it is the typical "grizzled old school cop vs young whippersnapper" routine and absolutely nothing more. That side of the film caps the ceiling of the entire endeavor.

Truth be told, in terms of overall execution this was more of a 6/10 star movie for me. But I'll tack on an additional star because by the end, I felt some real emotion towards the Butch/Phillip relationship. Had that been the focus of the entire runtime, we might be looking at an all-time classic here. As-is, it is worth a watch for the Costner performance and that's about it.

When viewers last saw Don Draper (Jon Hamm), he was in complete meltdown mode-pitching to Hershey while simultaneously spilling some beans on his checkered past. As Season 7A (first 7 episodes released in 2014) opens, Don is on leave (perhaps code for "about to be fired?") from the agency that he helped build, trying to put together the pieces of his life and-as always-figure out the next step.

As has become a bit of a pattern with this series, the first few episodes of this season are a bit slow. Not "bad", per se, but 7/10 star average affairs. Not necessarily befitting the start of Mad Men's final go-round and prone to the navel-gazing and ground-retreading the show can often fall into.

But as the installments continue rolling out, the quality begins improving again-slowly at first and then a few 10/10 star efforts to finish up this first 7 of Season Seven.

Without going into all the details on all the characters, no one gets the short shrift here. A few especially compelling angles in this set include...

-Both Don and Betty (January Jones) trying to connect with a now firmly adolescent (and insolent) Sally (Kiernan Shipka).

-Peggy (Elisabeth Moss) forced to reckon yet again with her role in a male-dominated industry.

-The agency enters the computer age, and not everyone-especially Michael Ginsberg (Ben Feldman)-is happy about the digital intruder.

-Roger Sterling (John Slattery) traversing to a commune to retrieve-or perhaps reconcile?-with daughter Margaret (Elizabeth Rice).

Of course, the prevailing themes always come back to Don (and Peggy, to a slightly lesser extent) and that ends up being the case again here. The final few episodes see those characters share many scenes together and it feels as magical as it did at some points in the earlier seasons.

Overall, I gave this first half of S7 8.5/10 stars. It may not be the very best the show has to offer to this point because of the slow start-I'll still give that honor to S5-but the finale set to the backdrop of the 1969 moon landing is entrancing from beginning to end and whets the viewing appetite for the stretch run to be sure. By this point, the characters are so endearing that even a Bert Cooper (Robert Morse) musical number doesn't feel out of place in the slightest.

With the gambling allegations that sprung up around Shohei Ohtani's interpreter early in 2024, this was the perfect year to re-examine the Pete Rose saga. HBO Docs & Bad Robot Productions give it the first-class treatment here, with writer/director Mark Monroe knowing exactly how to frame Rose without "picking a side" on his Hall of Fame or MLB reinstatement quest.

Over the course of its four roughly hour-long installments, Charlie Hustle & The Matter of Pete Rose covers all the bases (pardon the pun) of Rose's career. From his deep childhood roots in the city of Cincinnati to his heralded playing career (truly one of the all-time greats) to the gambling scandal(s) that ultimately ousted him from MLB, this doc covers it all.

The key factor here: access/interviews with Rose himself. Why? Because Rose is extremely gregarious and the perfect "turn the camera on and let him go" doc subject. He is 100% authentic to himself, and that is perhaps a fading commodity in the age of social media and identity politics. This can make Rose extremely likable, as who doesn't enjoy someone authentic not afraid to speak his/her mind? His stories--especially about his playing days--will often have you laughing out loud!

At the same time, this doc crew knows the real tragedy of Rose: that he is his own worst enemy when it comes to potential reinstatement. Pete is a serial liar who either cannot or will not project any sort of sincerity when it comes to apologizing for his gambling foibles. It is always "steroids/sign-stealing/today's gambling is worse" or "I only beat on the Reds" or the like. This is a guy who will come to casino openings and place the first bet while at the same time meeting with MLB commissioners towards reinstatement. Truly a fascinating contradiction.

The producers of Charlie Hustle know exactly how to handle all of this. Instead of pushing one argument or another too hard, they simply let the cameras roll and capture all of it. That is truly the best way to understand the odd nuances of Pete Rose.

It has been a long time since I've seen a sports doc as engaging as this one. Absolutely recommended (if not close to required) viewing for anyone interested in baseball history or the Rose saga even tangentially. It is fascinating and will hold your interest without fail for all four hours.

I'll state right off the bat here that it is impossible for me to review Apple's Presumed Innocent series with "full innocence" (pardon the pun) simply because I have seen the iconic 1990 legal thriller multiple times. Harrison Ford, Brian Dennehy, Bonnie Bedelia, director Alan J. Pakula--that one is an all-time legal classic. This remake--perhaps more re-imagining, definitionally--is a solid successor to that legacy while also throwing in some unexpected twists along the way.

For a very basic overview, Presumed Innocent tells the story of Rusty Sabich (Jake Gyllenhaal), a prosecutor himself now charged with the murder of friend/mistress Carolyn Polhemus (Renate Reinsve). Facing down fellow prosecutor (and personal tormentor) Tommy Molto (Peter Sarsgaard) with only Raymond Horgan (Bill Camp) in his corner, Rusty must plant that all-important "reasonable doubt" within the minds of the jurors for his acquittal. All the while, Rusty's wife (Ruth Negga) and children (Kingston Rumi Southwick & Chase Infiniti) are conflicted about the entire ordeal. Did Rusty actually commit this heinous crime? It is not revealed until the season finale.

Like I said, it is tough for me to review this iteration of Presumed Innocent without bias because I know the "big twist" that defines the original. But I think this one is a solid legal thriller all the same. The cinematography and atmosphere is extraordinary even by today's high TV standards, and showrunner/writer David E. Kelley adds his usual panache to the proceedings. This whole endeavor is very much set up like one of his HBO "whodunnit" prestige dramas and features the ridiculously strong ensemble cast to match.

Even knowing the general plot points, however, I was still able to enjoy this season because of the deft way it services fans (like myself) who revere the original. After the first few "setup" episodes, it becomes clear that expectations--especially involving the big reveal--will be played with, if not outright subverted this go-around. As such, it was just as much fun watching to see "how things will/won't change" for a viewer like myself. In the wrong hands this could have been extremely messy or outright disastrous, but Kelley, Apple, & Bad Robot Productions are all up to the task.

Is Presumed Innocent as good as one of those prestige HBO dramas? Again, tough for me to say with 100% certainty, but I think the answer is "no". Once this season starts firing on all cylinders as a in-courtroom drama it churns out some 9/10-star episodes. But there are also a few 7/10 efforts where the pacing is a little odd or just outrightly slow.

I'm also not sure the "new twist"--which I won't spoil here--was the best choice. While certainly a shock, is it earned in the context of all that came before it? I'll argue "not quite", but it is certainly a doozy nonetheless.

Overall, it was simply fun to have a solid, non-fantasy/Game of Thrones series on the air for some water cooler discussion. Though perhaps a step below in overall quality/effectiveness, Presumed Innocent felt like a buzzy Sunday night drama, especially in its week-to-week format.

Written/directed by Ishana Shyamalan, The Watchers feels like many of the terrific psychological thrillers from the late 1990s or early 2000s. It really captures that spooky, "what is happening here?" atmosphere. Unfortunately, Shyamalan misinterprets too many plot and character beats for The Watchers to be a great film.

For a very basic overview, The Watchers tells the story of Mina (Dakota Fanning), a young woman who finds herself trapped in a seemingly inescapable woods. She stumbles upon the trio of Madeline (Olwen Fouere), Ciara (Georgina Campbell), and Daniel (Oliver Finnegan) who profess knowledge of Watchers-their captors who view them through a one-way mirror every night and make escape impossible. But Mina doesn't necessarily buy the rhetoric sight unseen and begins her own investigations into what exactly might be transpiring.

Atmospherically, The Watchers is really solid. The younger Shyamalan pulls you into the mystery of the piece by parceling out interesting reveals and intriguing creatures much like her notoriously similar father. Investment in the characters and overall plot is not the issue here.

What happens at a certain point, however, is that The Watchers must of course declare what sort of film it is. Is it a literal film or is it a metaphor film? I won't spoil that declaration here, only to say that once it does declare a direction the necessary character-development needed to support the conclusion is not present. When all is said and done, this is a film draped in plot but one that really relies on the character relationships to work in the end, and I don't think Shyamalan achieves that mixture with much success.

Overall, The Watchers is the type of filmmaking I really enjoy but specifically not the best of the thriller genre. It represents a significant achievement for the first-time-behind-the-camera Ishana Shyamalan that can perhaps be built on to achieve even loftier heights in her next go-round.

I am generally a big fan of Kevin Costner's work and am never averse to a solid Western film. As such, I had been looking forward to Horizon for quite some time. Sadly, it proved to be a major disappointment in just about every way--mainly because of Costner's hubris within the entire project.

For a very basic overview, Horizon Chapter 1 tells the story of the titular town that has sprung up during America's late-1800s westward expansion. Multiple plot lines are set up in this inaugural effort, such as Hayes Ellison (Costner) unexpectedly paired up with on-the-run prostitute Marigold (Abbey Lee), a mother (Sienna Miller) and daughter (Georgia MacPhail) coping after a skirmish with the Native Americans, and a fiery young woman (Jena Malone) on the run from two brothers hell-bent on returning her home.

The biggest problem with all this is that it is truly 100% setup--and three hours of it. I honestly cannot recall a first-run film that has taken this approach--and it will probably be the last. In hindsight, there seems to be a reason why Costner himself had to dump so much cash into the project. I don't know if the idea would have worked in 1988 when it initially came to him--but it certainly doesn't fly in the 2024 cinematic environment. A staggering amount of hubris on Costner's part here.

The next crippling blow: I didn't particularly care for ANY of the plot or character setups harbored within Horizon. Costner himself doesn't show up on screen for quite some time, and never once was I emotionally invested in any of the plot lines (probably because it was confusing enough just keeping up with everything and trying to understand who was where!).

So, let's see here--a three-hour slog that provides zero resolution when the credits roll? Yikes. The experience leaves me with absolutely no desire to see Chapter 2 if/when it ever hits the big screen or digital/streaming. I'll throw it a meager three stars for some nice cinematography and the notion that it seems like everyone is really trying hard to create something unique, but it is mostly a boring, uninspired setup.

Like I said, I appreciate Costner's love for cinema and willingness to take a big chance on his art. But I cannot, for the life of me, understand why this format in particular is what he bet millions on. Perhaps it would work better as an episodic TV series, but as a series of films it is--at least so far--a failure of pretty epic proportions.

In the summer of 2023, I thoroughly enjoyed the behind-the-scenes look that Netflix's Quarterback gave to the NFL. In 2024, much of that same spirit was captured in this Receiver installment.

This time around, Peyton Manning's documentary crew follows wide receivers Justin Jefferson (MIN), Amon-Ra St. Brown (DET), Davante Adams (LVR), Deebo Samuel (SF), and George Kittle (SF) through the 2023 season, chronicling their on-field exploits as well as their home life.

Each wideout has an interesting story:

-Jefferson's ascension to the WR stratosphere and recovering from his first major injury

-St. Brown leading the Lions deeper into the playoffs than decades past

-Adams' struggle going from the perpetually-winning Packers to a more meager Vegas variety.

-Kittle and Samuel persevering through all the bumps and bruises it takes to make a Super Bowl run.

The first thing that will jump out at viewers here is that Kittle is the absolute star of the show. His personality is absolutely magnetic and one can't take eyes off him every time he's on screen. While Jefferson, Adams, and Brown are a bit more taciturn or reserved, Kittle (and to a lesser extent Deebo) make this whole sequel series work.

Is it as good as Quarterback? Well, I gave that initial effort 10/10 stars, so I'd have to say probably not quite. But the 9/10 rating here puts it close enough to still be extremely entertaining. The need to cover so many figures perhaps holds it back from realizing its true potential a little bit.

A small gripe, however, for what just may be turning into an annual "football is in the air" sort of summer series.

The Inside Out franchise is one that continues to vex me. On one hand, they are decently entertaining romps, to be sure. But on the other hand, I feel as if they don't quite (or even closely, sometimes) measure up to the Disney-Pixar magic of old.

For a very basic overview, Inside Out 2 picks up on the story of Riley (Kensington Tallman), now just entering puberty. As a result, Joy (Amy Poehler) and the emotions from the first installment begin being pushed aside by newcomers like Anxiety (Maya Hawke), Envy (Ayo Edebiri), Ennui (Adele Exarchopoulos), and Embarrassment (Paul Walter Hauser). This leads Riley to lose her Sense of Self, which the original emotional gang set out to retrieve from the depths of Riley's mind.

From a bare-bones story perspective, IO2 is pretty well put-together. It successfully links Riley's impending adolescence with new thoughts and feelings in a manner that feels authentic to real-world experiences. There are also some fun visuals and sight gags regarding the Emotions as they quest towards their goal--a "brain storm", a "stream of consciousness", and a "back of mind" waste dump. All of this is fairly entertaining in and of itself.

Yet, there are a few key ways in such this movie didn't grab me the way it potentially could/should have:

1. This franchise is now into "retread concept" territory in the sense that the use of animated characters representing emotions is no longer as novel of a concept as it was in 2015. Nothing to be done about this, obviously, but it makes this sequel seem less fresh.

2. There isn't enough Riley, oddly. IO2 really slants the needle towards the Emotions, to the point where I feel like the connection between what they are doing and how it is manifesting in Riley is sometimes tenuous.

3. When the (literal) giant red "Puberty" button flashes at the beginning of a movie, there are many directions it could go. I'm not saying that Pixar should (or would) do anything explicit, but having that concept turn into little more than a crisis of self-confidence for Riley feels like a big missed opportunity. Even in a non-sexual way, I feel as if many jokes or sight gags were lost in pursuit of this more serious plot line.

A telling moment, for me, towards the end of the film was an incredible monologue from Poehler's Joy. While spot-on and capable of giving you pause in your theater seat, it (sadly) is not altogether earned to that point in the movie. One could almost argue the entire experience needed to be built around this concept, rather than having it dropped seemingly out of nowhere.

Ironically, I also gave the original Inside Out a 6/10 score--if for completely different reasons. While I felt that film tilted too far in the "we need to have parents bawling" direction, this follow-up largely lacked the ability to even potentially persuade such high emotion. A really great balance of plot, emotion, humor, and gravitas has not yet been reached by either film.

I was about as all-in on Dark Matter as one could be at the outset. A new sci-fi series from genre-master Apple starring Joel Edgerton, Jennifer Connelly, and Jimmi Simpson? Sign me up! Sadly, despite an interesting few initial episodes, Dark Matter ultimately descends into messiness which renders it sterile from both emotional and plot perspectives.

For a very basic overview, Dark Matter tells the story of Jason Dessen (Edgerton), an obsessed scientist who has developed a quantum box device that allows him to traverse the entirety of the multiverse. Or is Jason a family man with wife Daniela (Connelly) and son Charlie (Oakes Fegley)? Well, he's both-and the former wants to swap existences with the latter. What unfolds is a tale of choices made (or not made).

The first couple of episodes truly do set up an intriguing concept: one Jason replacing another to experience the "road not taken". This teases a tense drama of the Dessen family struggling to come to terms with someone who ostensibly is a father/husband-but also not-all the while the other Jason struggling to return home and set things right.

Sadly, that is not the series that plays out. Instead, the alternate-Jason "family outsider" storyline (which should be the emotional core of the whole show) is largely back burner-ed in favor of "Jason 1" and Amanda Lucas (Alice Braga) hopping through different universes for multiple episodes. A critical error that not only puts the confusing quantum sci-fi at the forefront, but also fails to create much-needed character investment.

Then, the final nail in the coffin: Again, instead of pivoting towards character beats in the final two episodes, Dark Matter essentially just says "let's just add a bunch more Jasons!". This is where the season really lost me. Not only did I not understand what/why this was happening, but there is not a single interesting twist or character decision even in that endgame. My individual ratings for the final two eps: 4 stars and 3 stars, respectively.

Beyond the mechanics of it all, it is also unforgivable that Dark Matters casts the legendary Connelly and then sidelines her to "suspicious glances" or "confused countenance" for most of this run. The exact same can be said of plotlines with Ryan Holder (Simpson) and Leighton Vance (Dayo Okeniyi)-great actors that provoke confusion rather than enrapturement due to their odd usage.

Somewhat ironically, Dark Matter is nearly the exact inverse of Apple's earlier Constellation series. Whereas that show started off painfully slow and built to an incredible climax, this one begins with a spark that is quickly extinguished through the exceedingly odd (and often downright poor) plot/character focuses. A rare high-profile misstep for Apple's prestige drama division.

Buried in writer/director Jeff Nichols' The Bikeriders is a very interesting treatise on the history of motorcycle gangs/clubs and how they evolved over time. Yet, considering this entire project sprung from essentially a coffee-table photography book, the overall experience is far more rooted (for better or worse depending on your tastes) in the biker aesthetic and less in plots/themes.

For a very basic overview, The Bikeriders is based on interviews with Kathy (Jodi Comer) about a Midwest biker club--The Vandals. In conveying the story of the group over time, her remembrances largely focus on boyfriend/husband Benny (Austin Butler) and group leader Johnny (Tom Hardy).

Like I said, Nichols incorporates some really interesting material here and there in the narrative. Viewers come to find that the Vandals are really just social outcasts (sometimes even outright cowards) who are "looking for something to rebel against" and outrunning any responsibilities. But then, when scarred post-Vietnam War soldiers begin joining the ranks, the clubs and their various chapters turn violent as per the repressed rage carried by those new enrollees. Even if one knows nothing about motorcycle clubs, this is a fascinating arc.

Lest you think such commentary is the backbone of Bikeriders, however, you'd be mistaken. For the most part, one really has to enjoy the aesthetic experience of the piece to truly get into it. You have to get goosebumps when a hog is kick-started--you need to feel the freedom of an open road--you need to be utterly transfixed by the sight of Butler's James Dean-esque Benny in his club jacket and slicked-back hair. Your ability to ensconce yourself in those style and mood characteristics will largely determine your enjoyment of the film as a whole.

I came to this flick for the intriguing Butler-Hardy-Comer combination, knowing nothing about biker culture and caring about the same amount. I was certainly provoked by the underlying social themes that Nichols presents, but at the end of the day I can really only go as high as 6/10 stars for The Bikeriders because I needed more of that material. The sights/sounds weren't able to carry the day for me here.