Reviews

Gatiss and Moffat picked up exactly where they left off with "Sherlock" regarding their creative process. They spend the vast majority of their effort on witty dialogue and clever characters (I admit they are witty and clever) and virtually none on story structure. The result is a series of character set pieces strung together by a ridiculously contrived plot that makes even the laziest "Sherlock" episodes look well constructed in comparison. I will never watch anything else these guys make.

This entire series can be summed up and dismissed with a simple "OK Boomer."

"Googly Eyes" is not a bad short film but (aside from the unnecessary choice of black and white) it's very conventional in its style, writing, acting, and really just everything about it. It's like the filmmaker wanted to slot himself directly into standard TV and movie work. And I wouldn't have cared if I had seen it once but unfortunately my local PBS station apparently acquired perpetual rights to show this thing and they use it to fill just about any 15 minute gap in programming. They have aired it literally dozens of times over the last several years in a feature titled "Film School Shorts" but which really should be called "Film School Short" because they seemingly have just this one film for the entire damn series.

The episode has not been included in any 'Arli$$' DVD collection I've seen but hopefully it will be available on HBO Go. It had a great convoluted plot, brilliant characters like a tech billionaire whose collection of Disney memorabilia includes a frozen Walt Disney, and some sharp satire of sports. Some of the details might be wrong because I saw this once in 1997 but my favorite scene involved an assistant MLB coach who had possession of the 500th home run ball that the team's star player just hit. He asks for what sounds like an outrageous sum for it and everyone looks scandalized. Then the coach reminds them that the player gets more than that for every single game he plays. That was cutting and it's truer now than ever.

I watched HBO only on business trips back in the 90's so I saw only a dozen or so 'Arli$$' episodes over its run but I recall always liking them. That's why I'm surprised that it became almost a fad in the media to bash the show in its final seasons. 'Entertainment Weekly' included 'Arli$$' on its worst series lists a few years in a row, ESPN commentators randomly criticized it, and 'Saturday Night Live' for unknown reasons mocked it a few times. Honestly the circa 2000 'SNL' daring to call another program unfunny is like the pot with so much baked on burnt rancid gunk that it smells like decaying feet calling the slightly tarnished kettle black. Anyway I recently watched an 'Arli$$' best of season 1 and 2 DVD collection and I think it's still a good show with well-drawn characters, talented cast, and satirical writing. The only things I didn't like were the distinctly amateur performances from the actual athletes and other celebrities. One episode that wasn't in the collection but still sticks in my memory after 20 years is "The Real Thing" from season two. It had a great convoluted plot, brilliant characters like a tech billionaire whose collection of Disney memorabilia includes a frozen Walt Disney, and some sharp satire of sports. Some of the details might be wrong because I saw this once in 1997 but my favorite scene involved an assistant MLB coach who had possession of the 500th home run ball that the team's star player just hit. He asks for what sounds like an outrageous sum for it and everyone looks scandalized. Then the coach reminds them that the player gets more than that for every single game he plays. That was cutting and it's truer now than ever.

OK I admit I am not a fan of Garfunkel and Oates. To me, their songs sound like they take only slightly longer to write than they do to perform. But I truly did enjoy the introduction that Anthony Jeselnik, their friend, gave the show: "Are you guys big fans of Garfunkel and Oates or just the same song 100 times?" Absolutely nailed it.

This series was brought back to mind after I read about Mark Stephens' ongoing Kickstarter fiasco to produce Minecraft servers. Mark Stephens, by the way, is his real name; Robert X. Cringely is a pseudonym created by 'Infoworld' magazine. Stephens wasn't the first Cringely or the last although he was the longest serving one. Nevertheless his insistence on continuing to use the name is like Roger Moore calling himself James Bond years after leaving the franchise. Anyone who invested in the Kickstarter campaign and is still waiting after nearly 3 years for delivery would have been well served to have watched this series beforehand. It's everything you need to know about the man: hubris, artificial drama (Why build a plane in 30 days? What's the point?), project mismanagement, and self-pitying emotional collapse. I think I watched the first and second episodes and gave up thinking "Why did PBS waste money on this ego trip?" It wasn't educational or even entertaining but it was a prescient view into this guy's character.

For reasons unknown, vague memories of this show of which I watched perhaps 2 episodes when I was a pre-teen bubbled up to my conscious thoughts today. All I could recall was that it was a sitcom from around 1980, it was set in a hotel, and it included many weird non sequiturs. Luckily that was enough to pin down this title in the IMDb advanced search. Until I can find some episodes to watch I can't say if it was good or bad but the memory of it is still with me 35 years later which is saying something.

For various reasons this film attracted a maelstrom of hatred, most of it undeserved hyperbole. To be sure, I don't think this is a great film but it's not terrible. The biggest challenge it faced was living up to the reputation of the original and unfortunately it missed that mark. Because the plot is so similar to the original (and to the second film for that matter) this film is really a remake and not a reboot so right off the bat it's set up to fail. Reboots have proved successful but remakes of GOOD movies are always a bad idea; the best you can hope for is to be as good as the original. Still, some aspects were enjoyable: Melissa McCarthy and Kristen Wiig (actors with significant movie experience) had great chemistry and their interplay kept the movie going in the first half. Leslie Jones and Kate McKinnon, however, are basically comedy sketch actors and it shows. Jones does her usual thing adequately but McKinnon was given way too much latitude. I have a feeling that the cast was allowed to improvise and in some cases it turned out well such as McCarthy's reactions to Wiig's fawning over Chris Hemsworth. McKinnon was permitted to ham it up, though, and her antics were distracting if not outright annoying. This is a common trait among SNL performers for whom overdoing it is often the only way to stand out in a crowded cast. A decent director would have had her dial it way back. McKinnon is still an order of magnitude better than Hemsworth though. As the highest profile name in the cast, I think he was indulged to modify his character according to his own comedic sensibilities and the result is consistently lame. Again, a better director would have known how to manage his cast.

I really shouldn't bother commenting because I recognize that this movie is simply holiday schedule filler featuring actors that don't get cast very often. And I admit I watched only the first 10 minutes. But those 10 minutes were enough to get me to turn off the TV and head to IMDb to comment. I'm going to blame the writers and director rather than the cast for how awful it was. Melissa Sagemiller's Elizabeth is so abrasive and unprofessional that not only would she not be an ad agency vice-president, she wouldn't even be employed. And the repeated drink spilling gag: I guess it's lucky for the characters that the only beverage in their universe is room temperature water served in coffee cups because no one screamed in pain from being scalded or got their clothes stained. There was a profound amount of lazy film making just in the opening 3 scenes and I assumed things would go downhill from there.

Not really a review of the episode although my kids like the series. I just enjoyed seeing Kevin McDonald, Mark McKinney, and Scott Thompson performing together although I wasn't sure for a while about Mark under his makeup. The episode ran like a TV-Y7 version of a Kids in the Hall sketch and the child actors seemed to benefit from the talent of the older ones. I believe that "Odd Squad" is filmed in Toronto so if most of the former KitH are still based in the area, maybe there will be more guest appearances. Well probably not Dave Foley because he doesn't go back to Canada much due to the alimony problems to which he alludes in his stand-up routine.

"JFK: One PM CST" is an episode of "Secrets of the Dead" in name only. It lacks the established forensic style of "SotD." Instead it's mostly recreations and archival footage that takes over 90 minutes to say that on November 22, 1963, it was difficult both to determine what happened in Dallas and then to communicate the news to the public. Frankly, from the beginning of history to the present day, when has this ever not been the case with breaking news? And yet this episode treats 11/22/63 as an unprecedented occurrence. My bigger complaint, though, is that the narration makes the claim that Kennedy was on the verge of ending the Cold War when he was killed. To quote "Powerful evidence has emerged that Kennedy was closer than ever before to ending the standoff between the superpowers." That's a very bold statement but, aside from suggesting a joint moon program, absolutely no facts are provided to back it up. Indeed, the follow up footage of Kennedy in Europe shows him strongly criticizing the Soviets. Making such a strong claim and then simply moving on with the story really destroyed this program's credibility with me.