Change Your Image
zkonedog
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Gladiator II (2024)
A Warmed-Over Retread Of The Iconic Original
From the first trailer I saw for Gladiator II, something just felt "off" about the whole endeavor. But being such a fan of the iconic 2000 original, I had to give it a chance. Alas, it is little more than a warmed-over retread of its predecessor--making it an almost embarrassingly simple effort from director Ridley Scott.
For a very basic overview, Gladiator II tells the story of Lucious (Paul Mescal), a slave forced to fight in the Colosseum (and a name you may remember from the original) for the pleasure of a corrupt Rome. This all in front of Roman tyrants (Joseph Quinn & Fred Hechinger), Lucilla (Connie Nielsen), and the scheming Macrinus (Denzel Washington). All the while, general Marcus Acacius (Pedro Pascal) struggles with Rome's legacy and ponders a coup.
If you think the above paragraph bears a striking resemblance to the original--you would not be mistaken in the slightest. Aside from different actors and different animals/battles in the Colosseum, this might as well be a copy-and-past of the 2000 edition. There is not one single original or interesting idea here that doesn't in some way harken back (some might say "rip off") Gladiator.
The killing blow, as it were: not an ounce of celluloid here contains the gravitas of Russell Crowe or the manic energy of Joaquin Phoenix. This is exactly what I was afraid of with Gladiator II--it being "the plot of the first one without the great casting"--and that is exactly what plays out. Despite featuring a solid ensemble across the board, not one of them provides the utter magnetism of Crowe. This makes it all the more embarrassing how they utilize Crowe flashbacks--as they hold more sway even here (in minutes) than anything else on screen.
So, I fear my concerns about Gladiator II all proved prescient. Without the unique energy that the original film tapped into, this uninspired sequel is blasé across the board. It narrowly avoids "absolutely unwatchable" territory by simple dint of trying to capture the old magic, but the near-complete failure in that regard still render it a "really poor" 3/10 stars in my book.
Tulsa King: Reconstruction (2024)
Season 2 (3/10 stars): Loses Nearly All Its S1 Spark
On the surface, you wouldn't think S1 & S2 of Tulsa King are all that different. Both feature gang turf wars in the unlikely locale of Tulsa, Oklahoma. But dig a little deeper and you'll notice that S1 had something that this second go-round never sniffed: a personal/relatable touch.
In S1, the story of Dwight Manfredi (Sylvester Stallone) re-integrating into civilian life after a long stint behind bars encompasses almost the entire first half of that campaign. Helped along by driver Tyson (Jay Will), Dwight must figure out this modern world in order to do what he does best--hustle for money--while at the same time reconnecting with his daughter Tina (Tatiana Zappardino).
S2 continues almost none of that interesting nuance. Instead, it is a full-bore gangster show from the S2 premiere--and bore is about right to describe the proceedings. Exactly one episode received even a middle-of-the-road 5 star rating from me--everything else being considerably lower.
I sort of understand what Taylor Sheridan, Terence Winter, and Stallone are trying to do with this show: combine Stallone's persona (and ability to play an Italian gangster) with Sheridan's populist sensibilities and quirky view of society. As such, the series is filled with unique characters that would seem to promise interesting payoffs.
Instead, it all sort of just muddles together without any clarity. For most of the season I was outright lost in terms of which faction is battling the other and even who was who at times. A few moments of Stallone's charm and levity produced a chuckle, but other than that it was pretty rough going through each episode.
I had hoped the finale would stir things up a bit--but all it did was obfuscate storylines even further and push the resolution into a third season. In some ways, S2 ended quite similarly to S1 in that fashion--disappointing on both counts.
I know I will be temped to give the confirmed S3 a shot because of my Stallone fandom--but unless the series finds even a momentary spark (like it did in S1) I'll either be out entirely or have it on the shortest of leashes upon its return.
Heretic (2024)
My Favorite Movie Of 2024 Thus Far
I came into Heretic with zero expectations whatsoever. It hadn't really even been on my radar, but I'm always up for a good thriller and after some podcasts/reviews were extremely positive I gave it a try. I'm certainly glad I did--this has been my favorite cinematic experience since "Barbenheimer" in Summer '23!
For a very basic overview, Heretic tells the story of two young lady Mormon door-to-door recruiters. Sister Paxton (Chloe East) is the peppy "true believer", while Sister Barnes (Sophie Thatcher) is a bit more of the "reserved doubts" type. When they knock on the door of one Mr. Reed (Hugh Grant), they are treated not to a slam-in-their face or cutting remarks, but rather an invitation inside to chat. But what they find in Mr. Reed's home is beyond anything they could have comprehended.
It is exceedingly rare that a film so expertly combines genres like Heretic does. Directors/Writers Scott Beck & Bryan Woods mix straight-ahead drama with suspense, thriller, comedy, and outright horror and somehow make it all work perfectly. They accomplish this primarily from dialogue and character interactions that are very "real-world"--the types of people and conversations you can imagine in these scenarios. In short: Heretic instantly creates empathy towards all involved--easily enough to carry a viewer all the way through.
It helps to have Grant in a role of a lifetime here! Even for an actor as distinguished as he, I can't think of a better role than what he steps into with Mr. Reed. Though East & Thatcher are great in bringing viewers into the movie, Mr. Reed's charisma (or is that menace?) is what makes Heretic really tick.
I won't spoil Heretic's plot here, but suffice it to say it is an absolute treatise for those who grew up around religion or question its tenets. The real masterstroke: Heretic isn't an "anti-religion" film when all is said and done. It certainly questions the concepts from many vantage points, but in the end it puts the onus on the viewer to make the hard choices.
Without any reservations, I can easily call Heretic my favorite movie of 2024 as we approach Thanksgiving season. It is somewhat rare that a film captures my absolute unbridled attention from the first frame and holds it all the way through the closing credits, but that is exactly what Heretic did!
Jake Paul vs. Mike Tyson (2024)
A Debacle On Every Front
There was always a chance that Mike Tyson vs. Jake Paul was going to turn into a debacle. A 58-year old Tyson taking on a man 30 years his junior--what could possibly go wrong?!
Fight-wise, that is exactly what happened. Either a fix was in (some signs point to this), or Tyson simply had no gas left in the tank.
But the real tragedy of it all was Netflix's "production" of the event.
Boxing matches are all about hype. The video packages, the interviews, the entrances, the introductions--all needed to whip the crowd/viewers into a frenzy. No mater how good or bad the fisticuffs turn out to be, the right build-up can make or break an event.
Well, "break" is a spot-on term to use here, as Netflix's stream was shoddy (pixelated and murky) at best and nonexistent (at worst) for almost the entire eventl. A massive live TV failure, to say the least.
I know what I'm going to say next may be taken as "old man yells at cloud", but I promise you I hate the old cable TV model as much as anyone. Yet, back in the 90s or 2000s this would have been on pay-per-view. Yes, it would have been $50 (guesstimate), but I would have gladly forked over that dollar amount for a stable platform as opposed to the garbage Netflix put in front of viewers here.
I hope this is a massive learning experience for Netflix. Being the top name in streaming is all fine and dandy when everyone is watching their dramas and sitcoms at different times--but as soon as an opportunity presented itself where all eyeballs were congregated at a single time? Complete and utter disaster.
Juror #2 (2024)
Comes To A Solid & Interesting Place, If Mechanically Awkward To Get There
Sometimes, director Clint Eastwood creates films that are all-time classics. Other times his somewhat ham-fisted vision of human nature leads to "just okay" or even "outright bad" efforts. In what could be the nonagenarian's clapperboard swan song, Juror #2 tilts towards the positive side if still containing some weak tendencies.
For a very basic overview, Juror #2 tells the story of Justin Kemp (Nicholas Hoult), an everyman (freelance writer, husband, baby on the way) who gets called for jury duty. He quickly realizes that the murder case he is adjudicating may involve his own actions. This poses a seemingly impossible dilemma--say nothing and potentially allow an innocent man to spend life in prison or speak up and potentially ruin his burgeoning family?
The real hallmark of Juror #2 is the script from Jonathan A. Abrams. This is an idea ("man serving on a jury where he may have committed the crime!") so juicy that one almost can't believe it is just now being stumbled across! Director Eastwood also does a fine job, in the end, of getting the main points across. In a scene on the bench outside the courtroom, Justin & the prosecuting attorney (Toni Collette) have a conversation that really sums the whole thing up. In that moment, I truly understood what Eastwood was going for and appreciated the idea.
That being said, I also feel as if Juror #2 suffers from a number of mechanical failures that prevent the "big idea" from being as compelling as it could have been:
First, for it all to work the viewer needs to be intimately invested in Hoult's character--not just his dilemma. Whether it was casting or direction, I never felt that here. Yes, I could somewhat still follow again with a "what if it were me?" mindset, but in the film it isn't "me"--it is Justin Kemp--and that character wasn't compelling enough for me.
Secondly, one has to be utterly convinced that the man on trial (Gabriel Basso) is a truly bad individual. How is that done here--through one notice of a neck tattoo by a jury member? The whole "it's okay he gets put away for life because he's a bad guy even though he's innocent in this particular case" argument was lost on me when I felt more sympathy for him than anything.
Finally, the jury deliberation scenes that set up this whole caper are where Eastwood's worst tendencies come out, such as reducing characters to trait caricatures rather than human beings. Those scenes are, at best, "12 Angry Men" knockoffs and, at worst, eye-rollingly inane in dialogue and narrative form.
Where does all this leave us? To me, a solid-but-not-spectacular 7/10 rating. I certainly do not put Juror #2 in the rarified air of Eastwood's late-career Million Dollar Baby, The Changeling, or Gran Torino stratosphere. But it is also far better than The Mule, Cry Macho, or Richard Jewell. If you are able to overlook some of the small details and focus on the big picture of it all, Juror #2 may very well jump higher in your rankings than mine.
Disclaimer (2024)
A Study In How Context & Discomfort Are Sometimes Necessary To Reveal Truth
Disclaimer is a series that only true prestige TV drama junkies may enjoy every second of. That isn't to say it is deficient in any way for general audiences-only that it is so visceral and discomforting at times that the strong emotion it invokes may (if not carefully mediated by the viewer) envelop the messages it is trying to convey.
For a very basic overview, Disclaimer tells the story of Catherine Ravenscroft (Cate Blanchett), a woman whose entire life is thrown into turmoil when Stephen Brigstocke (Kevin Kline) publishes a book detailing lurid details of how his son Jonathan (Louis Partridge) was seduced by a young Catherine (Leila George)-a pairing that resulted in tragedy. As Catherine's past is unraveled by Stephen, she must fight not only for her dignity in a "quick-to-cancel" work environment but also to keep husband Robert (Sacha Baron Cohen) & son Nicholas (Kodi Smit-McPhee) from leaving her.
A slight warning here: Disclaimer is a series that viscerally portrays sexual scenarios and violence. If you are at all squeamish about such things, know that the series might-at times-make you outright uncomfortable in a number of ways. That being said, if you can "stick it out" you'll also find that it always plays fair with its material and never manipulates a single emotion without a later plot or character development in mind.
The hallmark of Disclaimer is that not only is it a great "prestige mystery" of HBO ilk, but it even ascends higher than those for its ability to be as thoughtful/important as entertaining. In the hands of creator/writer Alfonso Cuaron, Disclaimer instantly connects with current culture via its playing with the concepts of truth, context, and narrative. Do we simply believe what we see or are being told because it fits a narrative and/or pulls at the heartstrings? Or, is more context sometimes necessary to get closer to the truth of any matter? Because society is-at the moment-so tilted towards "truth" lining up with certain touchstones of race, gender, or voice, it can be unsettling to self-reflect on the power of context to radically change the facts of any situation. Cuaron plays perfectly fair with all the material here-but still it is a challenge to deep-seated cultural norms at nearly every turn.
It helps to have a potentially career-defining performance from Kline, who particularly shines as Stephen Brigstocke. His escapades and expressions provide a sort of levity (dark as it may be) to the proceedings that can allow forward progress when everything else seems heavy to the point of saturation. Both actresses-Blanchett & George-playing Catherine are also tremendous, as is Partridge as Jonathan. Considering their roles change depending on "who is doing the narrating", so to speak, all these performances are wonderfully nuanced and award-worthy.
Up to this point Cuaron has largely been known for his cinematography work and that certainly shines here as well. This "heavy drama" often looks and feels more like an action or adventure piece as the camera whooshes around to follow frantic character movement or bobs in the sea to capture the beach vacation flashbacks so essential to the overall narrative.
Add up the visuals, acting, engaging narrative, and overall cultural importance and this is probably the best series Apple has ever produced. I was riveted from beginning to end and blown away by Cuaron's ability to essentially tell the viewer what he is going to do, challenge the viewer to "keep up", and then deliver a finale "knockout blow" anyway. Drama, characters, and storytelling in the highest form possible here-even if (or because of?) it not being comfortable all the way through.
Here (2024)
More Impressive From A Technical Standpoint Than Anything Story-Related
Thanks to films like Back To The Future, Forest Gump, Cast Away, & The Polar Express, I'm always intrigued by the "next Robert Zemeckis project". In Here, the esteemed director once again shows his technical prowess and innovation--if lacking in the clear storytelling beats his films are usually known for.
For a very basic overview, Here tells the story of a single plot of land--shot from one angle--over a prolonged period of time (dinosaurs to 2020+). Ostensibly it focuses on the lives and family that Richard (Tom Hanks) & Margaret (Robin Wright) cultivate in that space over a lifetime.
There is no doubt that Here is a technical achievement in cinematography from Zemeckis and DP Don Burgess. Making anything compelling for a single fixed camera point seems to violate the very rules of cinema itself, but it works well enough here to hold viewer interest. "Static" does not equal "boring" in any way.
It is also a return--whether via de-aged AI or present countenance--to the great "everyman" roles that Hanks thrives in. He gives a wonderful performance and his chemistry with Wright has remained true over the years.
Yet, there is something missing from Here and I believe it to be, ironically enough, a lack of time in the Hanks/Wright angle. Though it would violate the entire concept to remove the other character arcs altogether, I found myself not at all invested in the Native Americans, Revolutionary patriots, or 1940s inventors who build up the house's "backstory", if you will. I really only cared about Richard & Margaret (and their orbit) from an emotional angle.
So, despite a few heartwarming/thoughtful moments and some fine technical prowess, Here has its ceiling capped by the needs of that technicality. Perhaps if it had been cradle-to-grave leads on screen things would be different, but the broadness in scope also means a narrowing of time in any one area (to the overall film's detriment).
Music by John Williams (2024)
A Wonderful Tribute To A Master And His Medium
John Williams is to film music what John Madden was to NFL football or John Wooden was to college basketball. A figure who not only masters the craft, but makes it accessible to the widest possible audience. That's what director Laurent Bouzereau really taps into with Music By John Williams.
For a very basic overview, this doc covers all aspects of Williams' doings in the music business, focusing specifically of course on his massive catalog of hit film scores. But his childhood, toils in "studio Hollywood", general musicianship, and personal life are also covered. Figures such as Ron Howard, Steven Spielberg, Seth MacFarlane, J. J. Abrams, Kate Capshaw, Chris Columbus, James Mangold, George Lucas, & Alan Silvestri (to name just a few!) also provide interview snippet insights on how/why Williams has become so iconic.
One could easily have made this a "hit parade" of the famous Williams scores and garnered at least decent praise, and those tunes are certainly present here. From Jaws up through Harry Potter (and everything in between & after!), viewers will hear selections from the scores they love.
But Bouzereau digs deeper here-and to great effect-not just leaning on the hits. Instead, we see the personality of John Williams really come out. It is an absolute joy seeing him plink around on a piano, or immediately reconnect with Spielberg and banter like it was the mid-1970s again! One can clearly see why this man has worked in Hollywood for 6+ decades, as he possesses top-of-the-line musicianship with the personality to make others feel at ease and included.
It was also interesting to hear how Williams' pre-Spielberg collabs set him up for future icon status. Not only was he an accomplished jazz composer, but he worked on countless film/TV scores in Hollywood's "studio era" (1950s/1960s). I had no idea that orchestral scores for film/TV had nearly gone extinct between the Williams/Spielberg pairing almost single-handedly brought them back to the forefront of cinema!
Much like the Madden or Wooden figures I mentioned previously, cinephiles' entire conception of the medium would be different were it not for the brilliance of John Williams. Scores for films will be composed long into the future, but he is truly one-of-a-kind and this doc captures that in every possible way.
Olivia Rodrigo: GUTS World Tour (2024)
A Fun Concert Experience With One Audio Nitpick
I have very little experience with concert movies like this. But I enjoy the raw emotion that Olivia Rodrigo puts into her music and am impressed by her ability to sell out stadiums worldwide at 21 years old. So, I gave this GUTS World Tour concert doc a watch. I generally enjoyed the experience, with one nitpick that I'm simply not sure is unique to this sort of genre or not.
For a very basic overview, this concert is basically exactly what it says in the title--portraying the Los Angeles stop of Rodrigo's GUTS world tour, where she plays songs from that album and the previous SOUR record.
This is quite the high-octane, well-produced performance, with Rodrigo shifting effortlessly between her super high-energy songs and her piano/vocal ballads. Her ability to write these songs and take them on the road without a drop in quality is truly amazing--at any age, but especially 21!
That being said, I had one quibble with the entire production, that being the sound mix. I'm not sure if this is normal for these kinds of concert docs, but if you enjoy hearing fans screaming the songs instead of Olivia singing them you'll be just fine. Personally, I wish the sound mix would have shifted back and forth a bit more. Instead, it is very much a "put you in the crowd" experience as opposed to hearing Rodrigo's vocals.
Overall, though, I enjoyed this Netflix production even with my singular qualm about the audio choices. An Olivia Rodrigo concert is never dull, that is for sure.
The Substance (2024)
An Exquisite Setup Ruined By A Nearly Incoherent Ending
About an hour and fifty minutes into The Substance, this was the thought running through my head: "Is this the best movie I've seen in 2024?!". An absolutely masterful sci-fi-/thriller/horror/drama genre-bender. Alas, there was 30 more minutes of runtime in which The Substance completely goes off the rails.
For a very basic overview, The Substance tells the story of Elisabeth (Demi Moore) a TV fitness star pushed to the sidelines by slimy exec Harvey (Dennis Quaid) after turning 50. Desperate to remain relevant, Elisabeth tries out a drug--known only as The Substance--which recreates her as younger self Sue (Margaret Qualley). The catch? They must switch back and forth between old and young every week. But what happens when greed and ambition enter the equation and The Substance's boundaries are stretched to the breaking point?
In terms of overall premise, this might actually be the best genre movie of 2024. For a large part of its runtime it hits all the right notes in terms of amazing cinematography, deep human thematics, and even tongue-in-cheek comedy. I was absolutely riveted to see where it was all going.
It helps that Moore & Qualley are amazing in their dual-ish role. Though rarely on-screen together, they perfectly embody the message that director Coralie Fargeat is trying to convey. It was even great to see Quad not in the ultra-religious roles that have composed his later career.
Truly, over an hour-and-a-half in I was thinking "I have to tell all my friends/family about this one!".
But then the ending transpires and most of the film's insanely interesting premise is squandered. Ironically, I'm usually one who doesn't get too fussed about endings. I don't need everything wrapped up in a bow and I often like some ambiguity that requires further thought as the credits roll. But the ending to The Substance isn't that tactful by a mile. Instead, it does an on-a-dime transformation from gripping drama/thriller to absolute splatter or body horror grindhouse work. I won't spoil it here, but suffice it to say the final 30 minutes almost feels as if it was a different movie from what had proceeded it.
Is it perhaps a little harsh to drop The Substance all the way down to 6 stars? Maybe. But I can't shake the feeling that the film's ending is not only an unexpected tonal shift but almost a bit dishonest to its viewers. It would be like attending a symphony orchestra concert and having Miley Cyrus come out for the finale. Neither are bad in their own right, but the incongruous nature is jarring. I absolutely could not shake that feeling when The Substance concluded, and that is why I ultimately (and sadly) cannot give it more than a "just above okay" final rating.
Hocus Pocus 2 (2022)
Runs Into Many Modern Mouse House Project Problems
I considered the original Hocus Pocus (1993) to be one of my all-time nostalgic favorites. A recent re-watch confirmed how objectively good that film actually is! As such, I knew my expectations would never be met with this sequel. That being said, it was even a bit lower than I expected ratings-wise because of the traditional Disney-fication problems it runs into.
For a very basic overview, Hocus Pocus 2 tells the story of Salem nearly 30 years removed from the original Sanderson Sisters incident. When the new young trio of Becca (Whitney Peak), Izzy (Belissa Escobedo), & Cassie (Lilia Buckingham) light the black flame candle, the witchy trio--Winifred (Bette Midler), Sarah (Sarah Jessica Parker), & Mary (Kathy Najimy)--are once again brought back to wreak their special brand of Halloween hijinks upon the New England town.
Hocus Pocus 2 isn't a terrible effort, as director Anne Fletcher seems to be coming at the material from a solid place. In the needed nods to nostalgia (as this project doesn't exist without that), it is great to see the three leads back in their roles (plus more song and dance!). The film is littered with "easter eggs" back to the '93 version and even brings back Doug Jones in his fun "undead" role.
Alas, narrative-wise, the gaggle of writers on this project do not seem to have a clear focus other than "making sure to hit the same narrative beats as in '93". This could have been a unique reflection on the differences between Halloween then-and-now, for instance, but instead it stays in that extremely-safe "middle ground" that Disney is now well-known for (not the case in the 90s). I'll argue this restricts its ceiling--as older viewers only want the nostalgia and younger viewers don't care about the nostalgia at all. So, who will really enjoy HP2 all the way through?!
The other problem this flick runs into is that while it actually gets to a pretty decent and good-hearted message, it pulls it out of its pocket at the very end as opposed to developing it along the way. This is perhaps the movie's biggest weakness. Whereas the original really cultivates the characters and thus allows for an emotional conclusion, here the approach is more "get to the action/witches right away and drop in a pretty decent ending in the final few minutes". This will be no problem for the youngsters, but again--nostalgic viewers will see through it quite quickly.
Overall, I settled on 4/10 stars for this HP sequel. It certainly isn't a great experience, but it is "around average" (if not slightly below) in that it contains all the aspects of the beloved original without a whole lot of that film's heart.
The Comeback: 2004 Boston Red Sox (2024)
(8.5 stars): The Interviews Carry The Comeback To Nostalgic Greatness
Truth be told, the timeline of this three-part doc may not be the best approach in covering the 20th anniversary of the greatest postseason run of all time from the Boston Red Sox. Fortunately, the insightful and entertaining interviews from the participants carry much of the freight here and render The Comeback an easy-to-enjoy watch.
For a very basic overview, The Comeback chronicles the '04 Sox and their utterly improbable breaking of the "Curse of the Bambino" in that year's playoffs--coming back from a 3-0 deficit against the New York Yankees and then winning the World Series for the first time since 1918.
I do have one criticism of The Comeback, and I'll lead with it here: it takes until the final episode to get to the '04 playoffs. The first installment is all about '03, while the second takes viewers up through about the '04 trade deadline. Perhaps this approach plays better with novice viewers--but how many of those folks are tuning in? The '04 Sox are such a well-covered, well-remembered topic that unless this doc was called "The Curse of the Bambino", I don't think as much context was need as was given here. I would have preferred either a single longer doc or maybe following the '04 postseason arc and flashing back when applicable.
That being said, the interviews in The Comeback are what make it extremely watchable even when the material may be rote for some. The contributions of Theo Epstein, Terry Francona, Kevin Millar, Pedro Martinez, Curt Schilling, & David Ortiz are especially notable, as they all have insightful commentary and/or fun stories about that magical run. I really enjoyed hearing them reflect back on the proceedings from a current perspective.
Overall, I think director Colin Barnicle created a solid doc in The Comeback. My exact rating would be 8.5/10 stars for the long "preamble" to get to the meatier material. But I can fairly easily round up because the interviews are wonderful and the final episode is a clear 10/10.
We Live in Time (2024)
A Dull Romance With Only The Two Acting Leads Providing Any Spark
There is a certain amount of charm in watching two of the finest young actors--Florence Pugh & Andrew Garfield--of the current generation play off each other. Sadly, that is the only spark present in We Live In Time--an otherwise vacuous "romance" that does very little to engage the viewer emotionally.
For a very basic overview, We Live In Time tells the story of the relationship between Tobias (Garfield) and Almut (Pugh) as it plays out in three distinct timeframes that intercut with each other (often at a moment's notice): meeting/dating, trying to conceive, & a cancer diagnosis.
I sort of see the "slice of real life" that We Live in Time is trying to portray. It seems to want to "get into the weeds" of real-life moments like deciding whether to have children, then a few-holds-barred birth scene, and finally a sort of "career vs family" struggle towards the end of the movie.
The problem: the lead characters are not given nearly enough backstory or time to allow for that sort of realism. Because all timelines are viewed within the first 10-15 minutes of the film, there are no stakes--besides in-the-moment decisions--present here. What is, say, the use of a "should we have children?" moment when we've already seen Almut pregnant?! I also felt that on at least one occasion both Tobias & Almut were so obtuse as to be rendered unlikeable--not a great result when their connection is supposed to carry most of the freight here.
Acting-wise, Pugh remains astonishingly good at portraying strong emotion--to the point where she wrings more out of many scenes that are not on writer Nick Payne's page or in director John Crowley's lens. Garfield is largely underutilized for most of the film's runtime, but towards the end does provide the sort of moments this flick absolutely aches for.
Because of the Pugh/Garfield talent present in We Live in Time, I walked out of the theater pegging this one at 4/10 stars. Still not great, but at least some spark present. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized how little substance there is other than "slice of life" drama in which that life is not necessarily constructed in a way to make viewers dramatically care. So, I dropped it down a star further. Not an utter train wreck, but closer to that territory than a movie with this talent should ever get.
Strange Darling (2023)
Great Message--Okay Movie
Watching Strange Darling was an exceedingly strange experience for me. On one hand, I was astounding by its ability to continuously subvert expectations and construct subtle messaging that is unique (and perhaps even outright important). On the other hand, taken as a straight-up film, Strange Darling is nothing to write home about (other than some impressive cinematography).
For a very basic overview, the film tells the story of The Lady (Willa Fitzgerald) being chased by The Demon (Kyle Gallner) in an oft-bloody, sometimes funny, always pulse-pounding cat-and-mouse game. The narrative is told in six chapters--but they are sequenced out-of-order by writer/director JT Mollner.
One thing to mention right away: Strange Darling truly does feature some of the most unique (if not outright best) visuals and camerawork from DOP Giovanni Ribisi that you'll have seen in quite some time. Every scene is extremely colorful and each chapter has its own flair. In a certain sense, the movie is "worth it" for this alone.
The hallmark (for better or worse) of Strange Darling, however, will be its under-the-surface social messaging. I can understand why some will reject it altogether. I won't spoil things outright here, but right now we live in a society that reacts to certain situations--especially when it comes to gender dynamics--in fairly usual patterns. There are underlying reasons for this--such as the pendulum having been swung too far in the opposite direction for too long. But what Mollner does here is question the current set of off-the-cuff assumptions and show how/why things may not always be what they seem without the proper common sense or context applied.
Like I said, I can see how Strange Darling could be interpreted as hostile/harmful to female perceptions--but I honestly did not get any feeling of ill will while watching. Instead, I more felt like Mollner was using the genres of thriller and satire to get the point across. I took it as more "food for thought" than anything set-in-stone philosophically.
That being said, the ceiling of Strange Darling may be that once all the chapters are given proper context the surface narrative is a bit underwhelming. Exciting and well-shot? Certainly. Well-acted too. But when the underlying principles of the project so vastly outweighed the face-value actions, it is tough for me to call the film "great".
Overall, I settled on 7/10 stars. Solid--not bad in any sense--but also somewhat capped from being spectacular. As long as you are okay with being challenged by its non-PC messaging and enjoy new cinematic visuals, you'll find something to like here.
The Haunting of Hill House (2018)
A Masterpiece That Is SO MUCH More Than Just "Spooky Fare"
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.
Hocus Pocus (1993)
A 1990s Childhood Halloween Classic
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!
Joker: Folie à Deux (2024)
Thematically On Point--But Does That Make It Good?
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.
The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power: Shadow and Flame (2024)
Season Two (8.5/10 stars): A More Focused--If A Little Less Wildly Exciting--Slate Than Its Predecessor
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.
Mr. McMahon (2024)
A Fascinating (But Fair) Doc On One Of The Most Complicated Human Beings Ever
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 (2024)
A Gen-Z Comedy That Yearns To Be More
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.
Lee (2023)
Thoughtful WWII Piece With An Intriguing Ending
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.
His Three Daughters (2023)
Acting-Led, Small-Space Drama Builds To An Emotional Finish
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.
Super/Man: The Christopher Reeve Story (2024)
As Inspirational As Documentaries Come
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.
Victory (1981)
A "Great Idea" Film That Gets Caught Up In Mechanics
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: Moment in the Sun (2024)
Far Too Long To Be Viable
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.