"Veronica Mars," Year Four

Minor spoilers ahead.

It didn't really hit me that the new batch of "Veronica Mars" episodes that recently premiered on Hulu constituted an actual revival of the original show until I was listening to Veronica's hard boiled narration in the first episode, taking us back to the seedy world of Neptune, California.  And despite having to juggle a lot of balls, the new season is a pretty strong piece of work. You can see the creators taking steps to convert the show from high school noir to full on neo-noir.  

Veronica is now in her thirties, still a private investigator alongside her aging father Keith, who is using a cane after a car accident.  She's cohabitating with Logan, now a decorated Navy officer. He's away for long stretches of time, but has worked through a lot of demons and is ready to settle down.  Veronica, however, has major doubts. Her latest case involves the bombing of a local motel, and there are an array of possible suspects: pizza delivery guy Penn (Patton Oswalt), local realtor Big Dick Casablancas (David Starzyk) and his prison buddy Clyde (J.K. Simmon), an Arab-America congressman, Maloof (Mido Hamada), and a local bar owner, Nicole (Kirby Howell-Baptiste).  Also in the mix are two Mexican hitmen, Alonzo (Clifton Collins Jr.) and Juan Diego (Tyler Alvarez), trying to exact revenge for one of the victims, and the dead motel owner's daughter, Matty (Izabela Vidovic ), a nosy teenager who reminds Veronica of herself.  

With series creator Rob Thomas back at the helm, it hardly feels like any time has passed at all since we last saw Neptune.  Everyone still quips and throws references around constantly, though carefully updated ones. The divide between Neptune's haves and the have-nots is alive and well, though this time the have-nots are small business owners trying to avoid gentrification.  The social commentary feels a little more pointed this time around, but also broad enough that it better captures the zeitgeist of 2019. As usual, the best part of the show remains Veronica's relationship with her father. The Veronica/Logan pairing is a little rockier since Logan has changed so much, both temperamentally and physically.  There's been a lot of controversy about how this season treated this relationship, enough that I'm tempted to write a separate post about it. Ultimately I admire how it all played out as a critic, but kinda hate everyone involved as a fan.  

And of course, the large extended supporting cast of the original series is back, but mostly in minor roles and cameos.  The only three actors who appear in the opening credits are Kristen Bell, Enrico Colantoni, and Jason Dohring, as Veronica, Keith, and Logan.  And this is very important, because it avoids having to find excuses for other characters to keep hanging around, and getting mixed up in those oddball subplots that were a drag on some of the earlier seasons.  We get just enough of Weevil, Wallace, Dick, Leo, and the rest to get a sense of how they've been doing, but they aren't major players. This season is much less interested in fanservice than the overindulgent 2014 Kickstarter movie was, though there are plenty of little references and inside jokes for fans.  With only eight episodes in this run, the show has to devote every second it can to the big mystery and getting us into Veronica's increasingly troubled head.    

One of the nice things about Veronica being a grown-up now is that there's less beating around the bush about her personal failings.  She's a danger junkie and hasn't dealt with a lot of the baggage that she's accumulated over the years. A big theme of the season is that nearly everyone else in her life has moved on, but Veronica is stuck in a rut.  It's still as entertaining as ever to watch her chase down suspects and lock horns with her enemies, but there's also a sense of restlessness and staving off the inevitable. More than ever, this is Kristen Bell's show, and she's firing on all cylinders.  I love her as Eleanor on "The Good Place," but "Veronica Mars" offers so much more opportunity for her to really shine. Veronica remains one of my favorite television characters, and this season does right by her - even if it comes at the expense of others. 

I'm glad that the show has lost none of the inventiveness and efficiency that made its mysteries such a pleasure to see unspool.  With the new characters in particular, the writing does such a great job of setting up these interesting personalities who then collide in interesting ways.  Penn is an attention seeker and conspiracy theorist who is part of a group of "Murder Heads" who investigate cold cases. Clyde is shady as anything, but also becomes drinking buddies with Keith.  Nicole is intriguing and admirable, but there's a nagging sense that she's got too many secrets. The Maloof family is the weak link, but only because the show doesn't do nearly as much with them as we know that it could. 

I'd have liked another episode or two to let the plotting breathe a bit, but the fourth season of "Veronica Mars" is one of its best.  I think it's stronger than the second and third seasons by a wide margin, because of the tighter serialization and lack of extraneous characters.  Also, as unpopular as some of the creative choices may be, it's also set up a scenario where Veronica could go to more interesting places in the future.  And change is good, especially for a show with such an eventful history and so much unrealized potential.     

---

And Now, "Alita"

"Alita: Battle Angel" is the best Western adaptation of a Japanese anime or manga I've seen yet.  This is not a high bar, considering recent titles like "Ghost in the Shell" and "Death Note." However, "Alita" is pretty entertaining and does manage to capture some of what made the original property appealing.  Notably they got the character of Alita pretty much right, an amnesiac cyborg girl who lives in the future dystopia of Iron City.  

I haven't read Yukito Kishiro's "Alita" manga, originally titled "Gun Dream," but I am a fan of the 1993 anime adaptation.  The live action film, directed by Robert Rodriguez and scripted by James Cameron and Laeta Kalogridis, follows it pretty closely.  Alita (Rosa Salazar) is discovered by the kindly Dr. Ido (Christoph Waltz) on a scrap heap, and he rebuilds and rehabilitates her. She falls in love with a young man named Hugo (Keean Johnson), who is desperate to go to Zalem, a city in the sky that is closed off to those below.  Iron City is a dangerous place, full of crime, and policed only by "Hunter Killer" bounty hunters. Alita, however, is attracted by the danger and fighting, which may be related to her old, forgotten life.

The plot is kind of a mess, full of all sorts of outlandish elements like the Hunter Killers (I can't believe they kept that term), mad scientists, and an arena sport called Motorball.  It doesn't all cohere together too well. However, I do enjoy a lot of the worldbuilding, including so many different cyborg characters who have replaced parts of their bodies with hardware.  There are several memorable cyborg grotesques, created by placing actors' faces on CGI bodies, including villains Grewishka (Jackie Earle Haley) and Zapan (Ed Skrein). Alita herself has gotten a lot of attention for her digitally enlarged anime eyes.  I think the effect is executed very well, making Alita look otherworldly. And though initially a little distracting, I largely forgot about it after the first few minutes.

More importantly, many of the performances are good.  Rosa Salazar gives Alita a lot of personality, selling her teenage recklessness, her battle lust, and her passionate idealism.  I also really enjoy Christoph Waltz as fatherly Dr. Ido, and predict he's going to get plenty of offers for similar parts in the future.  Unfortunately, the film doesn't do much with other members of the cast like Jennifer Connelly, playing a rival cyborg doctor, Chiren, or her boss Vector, played by Mahershala Ali.  There's too much crammed into the movie to give all the characters their due. The worst victim of this is Hugo, who loses a good chunk of important backstory and doesn't come off well in this version at all.  Alita seems to fall in love with him because he's literally the first boy she sees, and their relationship never really works.  

Also a little lost in the shuffle is the whole dichotomy of Iron City and Zalem, which was central to the anime version.  Iron City actually seems to be a pretty nice place to live, at least during daylight hours. Several characters desperately want to go to Zalem, but it's not clear why it's so much better.  Neill Blomkamp's "Elysium" got across the concept of the elevated elites subjecting the masses below much more effectively. And though "Alita" keeps a lot of the imagery from the earlier version, it doesn't work so well without the original context.  "Alita" is PG-13, and tones down a lot of content, to the point where one memorable death happens offscreen entirely. And for all the carnage of the cyborgs chopping each other to bits, the violence is mostly bloodless.    

I'm hopeful that "Alita" gets the sequel that it has very obviously sets up, and we get to see more of her world.  I prefer the animated version of this story, but the new movie is an interesting piece of work, for its effects and its concepts if nothing else.  It's weird and ambitious and tries a lot of new things. Some of it's not very successful, but it's something different and promising. And that's more than I can say for most of this year's big studio blockbusters so far.  

---

My Favorite Richard Williams Film

Let's get one thing straight.  It might be Robert Zemeckis's name listed as director of "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" but the movie is Richard Williams' triumph.  The Academy knew it, awarding him a special Oscar for his achievements as the film's animation director and chief character designer.  His fellow animators and filmmakers knew it, voting him "The Animator's Animator" in a London Times poll in 1990. Audiences, alas, never caught on, and Williams never really got the wider recognition for being one of the greatest animators who ever lived.

I respect and admire Zemeckis, but "Roger Rabbit" could not have been made without the work of Richard Williams.  Combining live action and traditional hand-drawn animation had been done before, but live actors interacting with animated characters to the degree that they do in "Roger Rabbit" would not have been possible without animation as fluid and spatially complex as what Williams and his team provided.  Known for his high standards and high ambitions, Williams was always described as demanding but inspiring. He was capable of generating astonishing work that violated all the usual rules of animation. He could accommodate a moving camera and shifting perspectives, even though that meant all the animation in "Roger Rabbit" had to be painstakingly drawn "on ones," or frame for frame with the live action footage.  Williams did plenty of the actual animating himself, claiming that he worked on nearly every scene in the movie.    

So Roger Rabbit and the other "toons" could splash in live action water, bump live action lamps, and adjust live action clothing.  This was thanks in large part to the efforts of Zemeckis and his practical effects team. But it's thanks to Williams and the other animators that the character do all these things while moving and reacting like the old school squash and stretch Tex Avery cartoons.  And they were also responsible for the resurrection of dozens and dozens of beloved classic cartoon characters, from Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny to Betty Boop, in order to populate the world of "Roger Rabbit." It's one thing to conceive of Donald Duck and Daffy Duck having a piano duel at the Ink and Paint Club, but it's quite another to actually see the two of them in their prime, banging away at those real, physical pianos, executing wild gag after gag at lightning speeds.      

And so, Eddie Valiant and Roger Rabbit are able to convincingly embark on their buddy comedy/detective noir, solving the mystery of who killed Marvin Acme and foiling the plans of the evil Judge Doom.  And so, we get to explore this marvelous universe where humans and toons coexist seamlessly in a nostalgic 1940s Hollywood. At its heart, the movie is an excuse to pay homage to all the animation greats of the golden era of cartoon short subjects, full of references and in-jokes and countless cameos.  The original characters, like Roger Rabbit, Jessica, and Baby Herman, all contain elements inspired by specific cartoon shorts, and feel like products of that era. Jessica is a Tex Avery pin-up girl. Roger is an amalgam of Warner and Disney characters - he's got Mickey's gloves, Porky's bow-tie, Goofy's pants, and a Mel Blanc-worthy lisp.      

As a kid, I loved "Roger Rabbit" for its silliness and its madcap nature, for breaking the barrier between the human and cartoon worlds in a way that I'd never seen before, and wondered why they didn't do more often.  After all, it looked so easy and natural for Eddie and Roger to share the screen together. As an adult, however, I marvel at how the filmmakers got all those disparate elements to make coherent visual sense. Now I know that it took multiple teams of artists months and months of Herculean effort to breathe life into that world and those characters, frame by frame.  And that the work was done with an inordinate amount of care, under the guidance of an animation director who wouldn't settle for anything other than brilliance.  

"Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" is a film that could never be made again for a long list of reasons - and keep in mind that the studios did try for years to make a sequel.  But even if you got all the studios to play nice and the legal matters squared away, nobody does traditional animation on the level that Richard Williams did it anymore.  Sure, there's plenty of talent out there, and improvements in technology have helped things along, but Williams' superhuman dedication to his craft and yen for doing the impossible aren't so easy to replace.

What I've Seen - Richard Williams

Raggedy Ann & Andy (1977)

Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (1988)

The Thief and the Cobbler: The Recobbled Cut (2006)

---

Disney's 2020

A year ago, Disney's release schedule looked like this:

Untitled Disney live-action film - February 14, 2020

Untitled Pixar film - March 6, 2020

"Mulan," - March 27, 2020

Untitled Marvel Studios film - May 1, 2020

"Maleficent II" - May 29, 2020

Untitled Pixar film - June 19, 2020

Untitled Marvel Studios film - July 31, 2020

Untitled Disney live-action film - October 9, 2020

Untitled Marvel Studios film - November 6, 2020

Untitled Disney animated film - November 25, 2020

Untitled Disney live-action film - December 23, 2020   

I figured that we needed an update.  To keep things simple, I'm ignoring all the Fox projects that Disney has gained through the merger, like the live action "Call of the Wild." 

Right now, the schedule looks like this:

"Onward” - March 6, 2020

"Mulan," - March 27, 2020

“Black Widow” - May 1, 2020

“Artemis Fowl” – May 29, 2020 (delayed from 2019)

“Soul” - June 19, 2020

“Jungle Cruise” – July 24, 2020 (delayed from 2019)

“The One and Only Ivan” – August 14, 2020

Untitled Disney live-action film - October 9, 2020

“The Eternals” - November 6, 2020

"Raya and the Last Dragon" - November 25, 2020

So, we lost what was probably supposed to be "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3" to some undetermined future date,  "Cruella" was in the December slot but got bumped to 2021, and the "Maleficent" sequel was moved up to 2019. Also, "Artemis Fowl" and "Jungle Cruise" were delayed from 2019  to 2020, and "The One and Only Ivan" got added to the slate. It is nots clear if "Ivan" was the Untitled Disney Live Action Film previously scheduled for February 14th, that has disappeared, or if this is a different project.  It's been difficult to keep them straight, with Disney's habit of dubbing every in-development project "Untitled." Some of the in-production ones too, actually.

I expect the October 9th film to move, since the slot is currently occupied by Fox's "Death on the Nile." "The Eternals" is also currently in the same November 6th slot as Fox's animated film "Ron's Gone Wrong," about a boy and his robot pal.  "Cruella" was likely moved to avoid Speilberg's "West Side Story." All the kinks from the recent merger are clearly still being sorted out. 

Now, compared to the insanely profitable 2019 slate that is closing in on $10 billion in receipts , 2020 is probably not going to do even half as well.  Even with the Fox titles, it'll be a stretch. The big Marvel film for next year is "Black Widow," and probably the only surefire moneymaker is superhero sequel "Venom 2."  There are a ton of original titles, including all the animated films and the wacky Rock star vehicle "Jungle Cruise." There are live action remakes of animated Disney classics, but of less popular titles "Mulan" and "101 Dalmatians."  Also a factor is that the launch of Disney Plus is going to be taking up a huge amount of the company's attention. Note that several of the less promising Disney titles in development have been turned into Disney Plus content, like the live action "Lady and the Tramp," and the Anna Kendrick Christmas movie, "Noelle." 

Investors and exhibitors may be nervous, but film fans should be happy, because this is a slate that is far, far more interesting than last year's.  Sure, most of these are adaptations, but there's every indication that they're adaptations that are willing to take more creative risks. "Mulan" is taking a very different, more action-oriented  approach to the original material. The Marvel films are riskier ventures like "The Eternals" and Spidey spinoff "Morbius." Even "Black Widow" is going to be this weird midquel spy film that I don't think anyone's really got their heads wrapped around yet.  

The films I'm most interested in are the ones I know almost nothing about, like PIXAR's "Soul," which will be Pete Docter's follow-up to "Inside Out," and the action comedy "Jungle Cruise" with Dwayne Johnson.  After the recent proliferation of sequels, it's honestly a relief to see the studio putting out anything that doesn't have a number in the title - even if some of them are inevitably going to be franchise starters themselves.       

---

The Summer Movie Wager Update

Now that summer movie season is over, let's have a look at the aftermath.  So here are my predictions for the 2019 summer box office from back in April:

1. Avengers: Endgame

2. Pokémon: Detective Pikachu

3. Hobbs and Shaw 4. The Lion King 5. Spider-man: Far From Home 6. Toy Story 4 7. The Secret Life of Pets 2 8. Godzilla: King of the Monsters 9. John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum 10. Aladdin

Wild Cards:

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

Men in Black: International

Rocketman

And here's the actual top 10 films of summer 2019:

1. Avengers: Endgame 2. The Lion King

3. Toy Story 4 4. Spider-Man: Far from Home 5. Aladdin 6. John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum 7. Hobbs and Shaw 8. The Secret Life of Pets 2 9. Detective Pikachu 10. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

That gives me a grand total of 40 points.  "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" passing "Godzilla" in the end cost me an extra six points.  Still, this was not my worst showing by far. I managed to get nearly every major title somewhere on the list, only missing the Tarantino.  There were no "Ted 2" level blunders. However, there were also no "Straight Out of Compton" or "Girls Trip" level surprises either, which is a little disappointing.  2019 turned out to be a pretty predictable year.  

My biggest mistake was spreading out the Disney releases throughout my list, figuring that audiences weren't possibly going to show up to all of them.  Well, I was wrong. The top five are literally all Disney movies, if you count "Spider-man." "Aladdin," which I thought looked very promising in spite of the negative attention around the early promotional efforts, exceeded expectations.  However, I chickened out and stuck it at the bottom of the list, expecting it to perform more like past Disney flops "Prince of Persia" or "The Lone Ranger." 

Thanks to the Disney dominance, the other family films took big hits, notably "Detective Pikachu," "UglyDolls," "Angry Birds 2," and "Secret Life of Pets 2."  I wonder if any of them are going to be seeing continuations. "Pikachu" and "Secret Life of Pets" were profitable, but not nearly as much as their studios were hoping.  No comedies broke out like we've seen in the past, though "Yesterday" and "Good Boys" had unexpectedly strong showings. "Booksmart" and "Long Shot" had some good press, but failed to break out.  Indie films in general had a terrible season, with only "The Farewell" getting much attention.  

The big R-rated action film this year was "John Wick," which I expected to exceed the box office of the prior installments.  Just not by this much. I expect that we'll see several more entries in the series now, since we're officially in blockbuster territory.  "Hobbs & Shaw" feels like it underperformed, but it made plenty of money, especially overseas. It's important to remember that it's a "Fast & Furious" spinoff and not a proper sequel, so it shouldn't be held to the same standard.  For a Rock vehicle it did pretty well. For a Staham vehicle, it was fantastic. I guess "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" also fits into this category, bringing in the biggest box office of Quentin Tarantino's career despite some mixed reactions.     

Horror had some hits, though they were often under the radar.  Chucky and Annabelle got little traction, but "Crawl," "Ready or Not," and "Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark" made decent profits on smaller budgets.  "Midsommar" did too, but wasn't in the same ballpark as Ari Aster's previous film, "Hereditary." The 800 pound gorilla, of course, is "IT: Chapter 2," which Warners is wisely keeping in September, but I can't help wondering how it would have fared in July or August.  

Finally, we all knew "Dark Phoenix" was going to bomb, and it did.  This will be the end of the Fox "X-men" franchise, as "New Mutants" is being reworked to be a standalone feature.  I suspect that this is also the end of "MIB," unless Sony can lure Will Smith back for a direct sequel.       

Next summer should be more interesting, with Disney's much weaker slate, a big selection of non-franchise films, and the return of Christopher Nolan and Tom Cruise.  Until next time.  

---

Emmywatch 2019

Well this was a strange, interesting year.  The awards races themselves were actually kind of fun, with plenty of good nominees and some major upsets, and Phoebe Waller Bridge being an absolute class act as she wiped the floor with nearly all of her competitors.  Also, there was some choice schadenfreude seeing everyone turn on “Game of Thrones” for most of the evening, only to have them win Best Drama in the end anyway. Because really, no other show generated nearly as much drama both onscreen and off.

The telecast itself, however, was this hostile, kind of exasperated thing produced by Fox.  There was no host, few production numbers or skits, and a minimalist stage design. Their biggest stylistic choice was employing announcer Thomas Lennon, who filled the space during the winners’ walk to the stage with increasingly cynical and absurdist commentary.  A lot of it didn’t work, and gave the ceremony a passive-aggressive tone all night. Fine, we’ll host your stupid awards show where we aren’t nominated for anything, but we’re only going to do a half-assed job of it. The tributes to departing shows like “Game of Thrones” and “Veep” felt like time-wasting filler, and the lack of an orchestra just came across as cheap.

And yet, they couldn’t keep the great moments from happening.  Newly minted stars Julia Garner, Jodie Comer, Jharrel Jerome, and a most glorious Billy Porter all won unexpectedly and delivered great speeches full of enthusiasm and energy. They couldn’t keep the politics out, as Patricia Arquette paid tribute to her trans sister and Michelle Williams delivered a wonderfully polished appeal for gender parity.  The bleeped comment about immigration from the "Succession" winner only served to draw more attention to it. Trump was ignored all night, but there were plenty of veiled swipes at him from the creators of shows like “Chernobyl” and “Veep.”

Speaking of “Veep,” one of the big narratives of the night was watching it and “Game of Thrones” being quickly supplanted by newcomers to the Emmy race.  Both shows have dominated in their races for years, and the finale seasons could easily have been a victory lap for both of them. Instead, “Thrones” only won two major awards, and “Veep” was shut out.  Jason Bateman winning a directing award felt like a consolation prize for losing in the acting category, but was actually a much bigger swipe at “Game of Thrones,” the clear favorite going in. In the final count, HBO took home the most statuettes, but Amazon and Netflix both made a very strong showing this year. 

I wonder if “Ozark” and “Succession” will keep winning next year with “A Handmaid’s Tale,” "The Crown," and “Westworld” back in the mix.  “Barry” and “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel” must be relieved that “Fleabag” is not coming back for a third series any time soon. On the other hand, there’s a boatload of new series coming our way, any of which could be the next “Thrones."  I doubt any of them are going to come from the networks, though. Aside from “The Good Place” and “This is Us,” both NBC shows, comedy and drama nominees were all from cable or streaming. The only acknowledgement of ratings juggernaut and onetime Emmy darling “The Big Bang Theory” was in one of the montages.  I’d assumed “Pose” and “Schitt’s Creek” were network shows, but they air on Pop TV and FX respectively.

Anyway, it was nice to see Bob Newhart and Norman Lear, bask in the fabulousness of Billy Porter’s outfit, and wonder whether the age of niche TV means that the total British takeover over awards season is inevitable.  The worst win of the night was probably Bateman - whatever the faults of the last season of “Game of Thrones,” the directing wasn’t one of them. Best was probably Comer, since we all finally got to hear her adorable Liverpool accent.  And I'm going to go with Maya Rudolph and Ike Barinholtz as best presenters, for an old bit that they really committed to.

And though there were some glaring exceptions, it also felt like the awards mostly got things right this year. Until next time.

---

The 2018-2019 Television I Didn't Watch

Television works on a different calendar than the movies, so I figured it was best to follow the Emmy calendar when picking my cutoff date.  So, below, find nine shows from the 2018-2019 television year that I regret not seeing, but ultimately don't have the time or the inclination to, with some rambling thoughts about my reasoning.  

The Act - I'm glad Joey King and Patricia Arquette are enjoying some time in the spotlight.  However, this is one of those gruesome true life tales that I have no interest in seeing dramatized.  If it were a feature film, I could make myself get through it to see the performances. Eight episodes, however, is too much for me to get my head around.  Child abuse and medical trauma are areas I'm simply not going to tread without a lot of reluctance. 

Escape at Dannemora - Benicio Del Toro, Patricia Arquette, and Paul Dano starring in a prison break mystery miniseries directed by Ben Stiller sounds pretty promising.  However, this is roughly eight hours long and described as slow paced. Also, despite some awards attention, including a Golden Globe for Arquette, there's been very little buzz.  Again, if it were a movie I could probably make time for it. A miniseries is just too much commitment.     

When They See Us - This is the one I feel bad about, because it's about an important, terrible miscarriage of justice that needs more attention.  And it's only four hours! However, I've seen the excellent Central Park Five documentary that Ken Burns put out a few years ago, and Netflix's released metrics suggest that the show has been a hit and garnered plenty of buzz.  So I don't feel that guilty about turning my attention the glut of other prestige shows.    

Succession - A show about a family of horrible, rich, privileged degenerates, that happens to star some actors I adore.  And I don't want to touch this one with a ten foot pole. No matter how funny I've heard this is, I just can't take cringe humor in large amounts.  It's the same reason I couldn't get anywhere with "Veep" or "Fleabag." I just get no entertainment value out of watching people being terrible and being humiliated over and over again.  

Strange Angel - I like Jack Reynor, and I like the subject matter.  Jack Parsons is a fascinating figure from recent American history, surrounded by conspiracy and mystery.  However, the show is reportedly pretty slow paced and low key. I was surprised it got a second season since it's been so low profile. I've enjoyed media from the key creatives - Mark Heyman and David Lowery - but they don't exactly inspire the greatest amount of confidence.

Who is America?  - I'm glad that Sascha Baron Cohen is still running around and doing his brand of public shaming disguised as comedy.  However, it's become clear to me over the years that I'm just not the audience for this. So sure, I'll watch some clips and follow the outrage as it plays out after the show airs.  But there's no way I'm devoting any effort to watching the actual show, especially when I'm constantly behind on Oliver, Noah, and Colbert.

Castle Rock - There's one brilliant episode of "Castle Rock" that everyone talks about, one featuring Sissy Spacek's character coping with dementia.  I may seek out that one specific episode in the future, but I haven't heard anything that makes me interested in the rest of the show, with its overcomplicated meta approach to portraying Steven King's universe.  If I need a King fix, there are plenty of other options, and certainly much more straightforward ones. 

Doom Patrol - Perhaps unfairly, I decided that it came down to a choice between watching "Doom Patrol" and Netflix's "Umbrella Academy," and I suspect that I chose the wrong show.  However, none of the previews sold me on the characters or the worldbuilding, and I've already seen two other takes on Cyborg's origins pretty recently. There's plenty of superhero media on my plate at the moment, and I don't feel too guilty about ignoring this one.  

Gentleman Jack - BBC Period drama!  Strong female lead! This sounds promising.  And it's about a cross-dresser carrying on secret lesbian relationships?  Er, okay. And the romantic relationships and melodrama take up the vast majority of the show?  Er, a coal mining subplot? Well, maybe this one isn't really for me. I mean, "queer Bronte" sounds fun, but I'm not a fan of soaps on a good day.  I'll check it out for Gillian Anderson, but - wait, that's not Gillian Anderson?

Catch 22 - George Clooney, despite his best efforts, is not much of a director.  So while the cast is great (Kyle Chandler! Hugh Laurie! Giancarlo Giannini!) and the material is legendary, I am not especially interested in this one.  I've read the book and and seen the '70s movie with Alan Arkin, and I'm sure that a great modern version could be done. I'm just not convinced that this format and this group of creatives are the way we're going to get one.  

---