The 2022 Summer Movie Wager

Well, the summer movie season is tentatively on, so I'm pulling out this feature for the first time since 2019.  Following the rules of the Summer Movie Pool, I'm going to predict the top ten domestic box office grossers of the summer. It's not about which movies are the best or the most deserving, but which ones simply bring in the most cold hard cash, and the math has changed considerably thanks to COVID.  I am notoriously bad at this, but the pickings are slimmer this year, so I think my chances are pretty good.   Anything released between May 1st and Labor Day is fair game. Here we go.

1. Thor: Love and Thunder - Of the two Marvel movies being released this summer, I think "Thor" has the edge.  Taika Waititi is back in the director's chair, Thor is one of the most familiar and loveable Marvel heroes, and this has all the earmarks of a fun action-comedy.  That means it'll be perfect summer movie material.  I think "Love and Thunder" being released later in the summer, when COVID cases should be at their lowest ebb, should also work out in its favor.  

2. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness - That said, "Doctor Strange" is certainly in the running for the top spot.  Maybe by May, the omicron wave will have receded enough that people are more willing to go to theaters.  It'll be coming after a five month gap in Marvel films, which might make a difference.  Strange's supporting role in the last "Spider-man" film might give his star a boost.  Still, I just don't see this film being the crowd-pleaser that "Thor" likely will be.  

3. Top Gun: Maverick - Tom Cruise in an action movie still has the ability to draw crowds, and I think that Paramount will have the resources to get everyone's attention on this.  Remember, this is one of the last holdovers from 2020, and Paramount has delayed it multiple times in order to protect their investment.  With the filmmakers involved, I seriously doubt that the movie will actually be worth watching in theaters, but I'm sure that it'll make a lot of money regardless.

4. Lightyear - This isn't quite "Toy Story 5," but it looks close enough that it'll probably attract existing fans who are curious about a different version of Buzz Lightyear.  PIXAR's first film back in theaters after three features sent straight to Disney+ means there's a lot riding on this release.  Animated films have had mixed success during the pandemic, and I think that this one has the best chance because it has considerable crossover appeal with older, nostalgic audiences.

5. DC League of Super Pets - With "Black Adam" pushed back to October, this is all the DC superhero action we're going to see this summer. However, I think even being superhero adjacent is going to give this one some points. The trailer is utterly adorable, way more appealing than any other animated film on the schedule. However, with a title this convoluted and characters that nobody has seen before, I figure that it's not going to make as big as splash as some of the other titles.

6. Jurassic World: Dominion - Colin Trevorrow is back, and this franchise feels like it's running on fumes, but this movie is going to make plenty of money simply because there aren't that many blockbusters getting theatrical releases this year.  Several cast members from the original "Jurassic Park" are slated to appear, which should make this easy to sell based on nostalgia, and the premise of dinosaurs living with humans being normalized might yield some original things - though I doubt it.

7. Minions: The Rise of Gru - So, the last "Despicable Me" film came out in 2017, and "The Rise of Gru" is technically the sequel to the "Minions" spinoff, which came out in 2015.  Then again, we're also getting a "Puss in Boots" sequel in 2022, so this isn't even the most egregious sequel this year.  I don't understand the appeal of this franchise, but historically it has made money, so the latest installment is on the list.  But if it's trounced by "DC League of the Super-Pets," I won't be surprised.    

8. The Black Phone - Now, we're finally getting to some of the more interesting titles.  Horror movies have been doing okay during the pandemic, and the most promising one on the horizon is this adaptation of a Joe HIll short story, from the guys who made "Sinister" and the first "Doctor Strange."  It was originally supposed to be a January release, but was moved to summer based on good audience responses.  That signals to me that this is a pretty good bet for a sleeper horror hit.

9. Nope - And then there's Jordan Peele's latest horror film, which we don't know much about, but it looks like it's going to be another genre picture with a great cast.  Mentally, I've been categorizing this as something in the same neighborhood as M. Night Shyamalan's "Old," which had a very mixed reception but did make a healthy amount at the box office regardless.  I'm willing to bet that "Nope," with its pedigree, will do a bit better.  

10. Bullet Train - Finally, we have David Leitch's latest film, which is essentially five assassins on a bullet train.  Brad Pitt will star with Sandra Bullock showing up in a supporting role (an inverse of "The Lost City" situation).  Columbia is clearly hoping for an action movie similar to Leitch's "John Wick."  I worry that the optics may skew too much toward older viewers, and as we all knew, nothing for older audiences made money last year.

Wild Cards (for extra points if one of them does make it into the top ten)

Firestarter

The Bob's Burgers Movie

The Man From Toronto

---

Rank 'Em: The Best Picture Winners of the '40s

Decade by decade, I'm ranking the winners of the Academy Award for Best Picture.  From greatest to least great, here's the '40s.

1. Rebecca (1940) - Alfred Hitchcock famously never had much luck at the Oscars, but one of the films he directed did get the big prize, beating out classics like "The Grapes of Wrath," "The Philadelphia Story," and "The Great Dictator."  Joan Fontaine and Laurence Olivier have a perfectly lovely romance before the film pivots into one of the best psychological thrillers ever made, featuring a villain who leaves a chill even though she's never seen onscreen.

 

2. Casablanca (1943) - One of the most quotable films of all time remains a great watch to this day for its strong writing and characters, and excellent sense of humor.  It was one of several war themed films competing that year, the last time the Best Picture category would have ten nominees for several decades.  Out of all the films on this list, "Casablanca" left the largest cultural footprint, with parodies and homages that persist to this day.

3. The Best Years of Our Lives (1946) - The cast is full of familiar faces, but the real star of the film is Howard Russell, the disabled WWII veteran who played Homer Parrish, and snagged an Oscar for his trouble.  The telling of Homer's story is awfully sentimental and perhaps too rosy from a modern viewpoint, but its the one that the U.S. needed  in the aftermath of the war.  Its hopeful outlook is still inspiring, so many years and so many wars later.

4. Hamlet (1948) - Still one of the most lauded Shakespeare adaptations ever made, and would set the bar for all the cinematic "Hamlets" to follow.  This was only the second film Laurence Olivier had ever directed, and its success would help propel his career on stage and screen to even greater heights.  This is a chilly, Gothic take on "Hamlet," but also a  very entertaining one, full of intrigue and suspense, with an exciting sword fight to cap it off.

5. The Lost Weekend (1945) - Billy Wilder's portrait of an alcoholic, based on Raymond Chandler, and played by Ray Milland, is a strong piece of melodrama.  Wilder nails the psychology of addiction, and is able to relay it in very visual terms.  The film is very dated now, but is still one of the foundational films about substance abuse and recovery.   Its also one of only three films to have won both the Cannes Grand Prix and the Academy Award for Best Picture.

6. Mrs. Miniver (1942) - Greer Garson is one of my favorite film stars from this era, and "Mrs. Miniver" gives her one of her best roles.  She plays the steady matriarch of a British family that encounters hardship and loss during WWII.  The film was a huge popular success, and highly influential for its portrayal of ordinary people displaying bravery on the homefront - to the extent that it's seen in some corners as a particularly effective propaganda film.  

7. Going My Way (1944) - Most of the film is a sweet religious comedy, about a young priest gently bringing an old priest and his parish into a more modern mindset. I actually prefer the sequel, "The Bells of St. Mary's," which gives Bing Crosby a more interesting scene partner in Ingrid Bergman.  Still, "Going My Way" is a perfectly charming old school feel-good picture, and lets Bing sing "Going My Way" and "Swinging on a Star" for the finale.

8. How Green Was My Valley (1941) - This was the film that beat out "Citizen Kane" and "The Maltese Falcon" for Best Picture, and definitely didn't deserve it.  I have no quarrel with this John Ford picture otherwise, one of his UK movies  about a Welsh mining family surviving in tough times.  It's a beautifully mounted effort, with some great production design and epic visuals.  It just doesn't happen to be a masterpiece like some of the other contenders.

9. Gentleman's Agreement (1947) - Issue pictures have been around longer than people think, and "Gentleman's Agreement" is a great example.  Gregory Peck plays a journalist who goes undercover to expose antisemitism in New York, and finds it in his own home.  Racial and religious prejudice was considered a brave subject to tackle at the time, and the film's success allowed director Elia Kazan to make even more challenging movies in the years to come.

10. All the King's Men (1949) - Finally, the reason this is the lowest ranked winner on the list is because I can barely recall anything about it, despite seeing the movie far more recently than most of the others.  This political drama and film noir about a corrupt Louisiana politician, Willie Stark, was so unmemorable that the only performance I remember is Mercedes McCambridge as Willie's affair partner.  Then again, I've never been too fond of film noir.

---

"Mass" is a Wrenching Debut

I wish that "Mass" could have ended about two minutes before it actually did, because the film is so good up until that point, and I completely forgot it was coming from a first time filmmaker, Fran Kranz.  That ending is a perfunctory bit of smarm that was probably meant to help soften the preceding 108 minutes of emotional devastation, and ends up just feeling tone deaf. And it is the only issue I have with what is otherwise a very powerful and well-executed film.

"Mass" has a very simple premise.  Two sets of parents, Richard (Reed Birney) and Linda (Ann Dowd), and Jay (Jason Isaacs) and Gail (Martha Plimpton), meet at a church together to talk about a tragedy that involved both of their teenage sons.  The vast majority of the film is simply four very good actors in one room, having a fraught conversation.  This feels like a stage play converted to film form, even though it's not.  The script is easily the best thing that "Mass" has going for it, along with the excellent performances of the four leads.  It's exactly the kind of showy, cathartic, soul-bearing piece of melodrama that some audiences will dismiss as contrived, and others will appreciate for tackling such difficult and overwhelming emotions.  I fall into the latter camp.  Sure, we all know that getting these four particular characters into a room together is incredibly unlikely, but the writing is smart about it and the characters are very intelligent and self-aware.  They interrogate themselves and their own motives as much as they interrogate each other.  There are also constant references to legal matters, the media, the public response, and other factors that have influenced their decisions, ensuring that nothing feels like it's taking place in a vacuum.  

It's fascinating to take in the performances.  All four of the parents are in pain, but some keep that pain closer to the surface than others, and take longer to access and address it.  Reed Birney is probably my favorite here, because there is so much going on with his character under the surface.  He's so calm as to appear casual, and rattles off responses that he's clearly repeated many times.  He's not unfeeling, but the distance he maintains from his emotions has become a defense mechanism.  And he's much further along in processing his grief from the tragedy than some of the others, who are still grappling with it more immediately.  Ann Dowd is getting plenty of attention, and it's well deserved.  She has the ability to evoke empathy like few other performers, and delivers some incredibly vulnerable, harrowing moments.  Part of what makes the film so affecting is that it's clear that all four of these characters are good, honest, caring people who don't deserve what's happened to them.  

I hesitate to go into too much detail about the plot, because the actual relationship between all the parties involved isn't revealed until well into the film.  We actually start with a gently comedic introductory sequence with a pair of church employees who prep the room for the meeting.  I've seen a variety of reactions to this sequence, but I like that it's there to help ease the audience into the heavier material and prepare them for the tone of the ensuing conversation.  There's also a social worker, Kendra (Michelle N. Carter), who appears briefly to lay out expectations.  These measures help to ground "Mass" in the real world, and to quickly nix any possibility of the more conventional types of revenge or instant-fix narratives.    

"Mass" strikes me as a movie that is trying to act as a counterbalance to all the films about violence and tragedy by actually having people talk and try to deal with the violence and the tragedy.  We never see the terrible events that took place or anyone even directly involved, but the impact on their community is clear.  I appreciate that it's also not an outwardly political film, avoiding any stumping for potential corrective actions, but simply acknowledging the enormity and the horror of the situation.  It's not an easy one to sit through, for obvious reasons, but I found it rewarding and ultimately satisfying.  Fran Kranz clearly still has a ways to go as a director, but I am very interested to see what else he has in store.   

---

Trailers! Trailers! It's Streamer Time!

It's been difficult to figure out how to do a trailer post for upcoming series, because the marketing works so differently.  Trailers often appear only a few weeks before a series comes out, with only a few bigger titles like "Stranger Things" or "Moon Knight" getting more extended marketing campaigns that go on longer.  There are shows like "Essex Serpent" coming out next month that we haven't seen a frame of yet.  It's hard to even pin down release dates for some projects.

However, it's the end of April and there are a flurry of shows being released, either to qualify for the Emmys or to take advantage of a very sparse summer movie season.  With competition ramping up among the streaming services, there's definitely been an uptick in marketing pushes lately.  I'm definitely more interested in some of these shows than the movies coming in the same time frame.   

All links lead to Youtube. 

Ms. Marvel - The Disney+ Marvel shows have been pretty much all in the same vein, all very broad and aimed at the same audience of established fans.  "Ms. Marvel" looks like it'll be a nice break from form because it's the first that seems to be aimed at younger viewers, and it features a Muslim-American teenager as its title character.  This will be a tough sell to some because the cast is mostly unknowns, but I expect the MCU will have built up enough goodwill by now that it'll find its audience.   

The Offer - This ten-episode miniseries will chart the making of "The Godfather," and the trailer is pretty good about showing off the cast.  I didn't know Juno Temple was in this!  And Matthew Goode is playing Bob Evans!  And Dan Fogler looks perfect as Francis Ford Coppola!  I don't know how much this material is going to appeal to people who aren't fans of either "The Godfather" or Hollywood tell-alls, but as a film nerd I'll be happily binging this the next time I get to Paramount+ in my rotation.

The Staircase - One of the show's creators is Antonio Campos, whose last few films I've liked., but all you really needed to do to sell me on this was the involvement of Colin Firth and Toni Collette as the Petersons, a couple at the center of a well-known murder investigation.  I haven't seen the documentary series this was based on, or the parody version, "Trial & Error."  I don't know any of the details of the actual case.  This puts me in a good position to go into this series blind, without any preconceptions.  

The Kids in the Hall (Red Band) - They're coming back!  All of the guys are old and decrepit now, but it only took a glimpse of Francesca Fiore and Bruno Puntz Jones to get me onboard.  My only real worry here is that the show might be more like their feature film "Brain Candy" or miniseries "Death Come to Town," and less like their original sketch-based format, which I greatly prefer.  The old "Kids in the Hall" was pretty bare bones, and the new series looks much more expensive.  However, I'll be there regardless.   

Star Trek: Strange New Worlds - This is the "Star Trek" prequel series that's a spinoff of "Discovery," and features the younger versions of Captain Christopher Pike, Number One, and Mr. Spock, who were introduced there.  Kirk is scheduled to show up in the second season.  I like the cast well enough that I'll be happy to give this a shot, but the trailer honestly isn't doing much for me.  It's very focused on spectacle and sex over the characters.  Is this supposed to be more of a throwback "Trek"?

Stranger Things 4 - Part of me isn't convinced that this show is ever going to be released.  Three years after the last season, I'm actually pretty happy just seeing the trailer, with all the kids older, new monsters, new powers, and somebody rocking a sweet guitar solo.  This looks like a summer blockbuster, and I'm convinced that in a decade or two "Stranger Things" has a good chance of being rebooted as a film franchise.  Netflix has been having a terrible year, but they're far from out of the game yet.   

The Boys Season 3 (Red Band) - First, great song choice.  However, this trailer isn't doing much to convince me to keep watching the show.  I'm not too excited about seeing Jensen Ackles play Soldier Boy.  There's no sign that the plot is going to progress anywhere interesting.  The trailer is just emphasizing that we'll be getting more of what they think we want from the show - violence, irreverent humor, and Homelander behaving like a psychopath.  And are we supposed to know who the bearded guy is?      

Obi-Wan Kenobi - From what we've seen from Disney+ so far, they're selling a darker show than what they're actually going to deliver.  Most of the trailer is showing Ewan McGregor in desert environments and Moses Ingram being a badass.  I am really tired of Tatooine after "Boba Fett," so I'm hoping Kenobi isn't sticking around for long.  I don't have too many thoughts yet, except that there have been a lot more cast members announced who haven't shown up yet.  Fingers crossed.    

---

"Nitram" and "Spencer"

Now, some controversial films about real people.

Let's start with "Nitram," the Justin Kurzel film based on the life of Martin Bryant, who perpetrated a mass shooting in Australia in 1996.  There are arguments to be made that it's in poor taste to be making a film about a notorious killer, especially one that humanizes him to the degree that this one does.  However, "Nitram" is a very well made film featuring some excellent actors.  Caleb Landry Jones as Martin is especially impressive here, delivering a performance characterized by poorly managed mental illness, loneliness, and self-loathing. 

The film charts the period of Martin's life before his rampage, starting from when he was still living with his parents (Anthony LaPaglia and Judy Davis) in suburban Tasmania.  They do their best to keep him out of trouble, but Martin is unable to restrain his impulses. His relationships with them, especially his icy mother, are increasingly strained.  Martin befriends and eventually moves in with a much older woman named Helen (Essie Davis), which gives him more independence.  However, a string of tragedies, the decreased supervision, and Martin's growing feelings of alienation put him on the path to the unthinkable.  From what I've read, the sequence of events is fairly accurate, and the film shows the lead-up to the massacre but not the actual event. 

"Nitram" is an excellent character study of a man of limited faculties who struggles earnestly to find a way to get along in the world, but just encounters one gutting disappointment after another.  He never has the tools or more importantly the support necessary for him to succeed.  His parents are clearly so destroyed by years of dealing with his behavior, it's hard to blame them.  The film suggests that it wasn't Martin's developmental disabilities or his fascination with guns that led to the tragedy, but his loneliness and isolation.  The film packs an emotional punch, not because of what Martin did, but because Martin snapped for reasons that are frighteningly relatable and familiar.  And Landry Jones' performance does all the heavy lifting of getting and keeping the audience on Martin's side, all the way to the end.      

And now, on to "Spencer," a Princess Diana movie like no other Princess Diana movie that has ever been made.  When I heard that Pablo Larrain was directing this, I was expecting something like "Jackie," his dreamy, lyrical Jackie Kennedy film.  This is not the case at all.  "Spencer" depicts the life of the Princess of Wales, played by Kristen Stewart, more like a psychological horror film.  The story is set at Sandringham House in 1991, where the royal family is gathered for Christmas.  Diana is expected to show up, dress and eat according to the carefully planned schedule, and play nice.  However, she's nervous wreck from her husband's infidelity, suffers from bulimia, and feels increasingly suffocated by the expectations and limitations of her position.  So, she starts lashing out.

I'm sure that nothing in this film is historically accurate, with many characters and events wholly invented.  However, it feels like an earnest attempt to dramatize Diana's  internal struggle at one of the low points of her life.  Watching her wage war against her wardrobe, her diet, and the household staff led by Equerry Major Gregory (Timothy Spall), is wild.  Stewart's performance initially put me off, because she looked so uncomfortable onscreen, holding herself rigidly, and radiating anxiety.  However, I soon realized that this was the point.  The film isn't about the graceful exterior that the public is familiar with, but getting us to see the deeply unhappy woman she was underneath.  I think some of the film's inventions, like Diana's fixation on her childhood home and visions of Anne Boleyn (Amy Manson) don't really work, but her fantasies of self-harm are wonderfully unnerving.      

       

I came out very mixed on "Spencer," appreciative of what it was trying to do, but unhappy about the execution.  The film is so tightly fixed on Diana's claustrophobic POV, and plays with so many different levels of subjective reality that most of its historical lapses don't bother me.  However, I still don't like Kristen Stewart's performance much, and I don't like the characterization of Diana as a little-girl-lost figure.  It's much too reductive for my tastes.  This is anything but another boring biopic about the royals, though, and I'm sure plenty of viewers will appreciate it.

---

Miss Media Junkie v. Standup Comedy

2022 feels like the year that I've been playing catch up with pop culture.  Arenas that I don't pay much attention to, like gaming and music, have changed completely while I wasn't looking, and I'm not just getting used to new faces, but realizing that a lot of these new faces aren't new at all, but have been around for ten years and have an entire body of work that I was totally unaware of until now.  

Anyway, one of my pop culture blind spots is stand-up comedy.  I have a lot of hang-ups when it comes to comedy in general, because I have a pretty low tolerance for vulgarity and scatological humor, and for years comedy films were dominated by frat house and man-child comedy.  For most of my teens and twenties, it was the Farrelly brothers, Adam Sandler, the frat pack, "Jackass," and "American Pie."  After a while, I admit that I largely gave up on the genre, only showing up for the occasional Judd Apatow movie, or broader action-comedy.  The stand-up world was even worse for me, full of aggressive bad boys and garrulous middle-aged men griping about everything, and frankly they all sounded the same after a while.  The few prominent female comics like Sarah Silverman and Amy Schumer were often uncomfortably sexual.  They made me laugh, but they also made me queasy. 

So, for the majority of my life, I limited my comedy intake to sitcoms and late night talk shows.  "SNL" was about the limit for my tolerance.  And so, it took me a very long time to notice that things had started to change a little in stand up.  After I got through the Bo Burnham hyperfixation a few months ago, I started watching other comedy specials.  At first it was a lot of Tig Notaro, while I had HBO Max.  I liked Notaro from her recent acting roles, but didn't know any of her work as a standup comic.  She has a super deadpan, super even-keel style that I find very appealing.  Her breakthrough came in 2012, with a set called "Live," where she shared her recent cancer diagnosis and a string of other terrible things that had happened to her with a rapt audience.  There's an excellent Netflix documentary, "Tig," that uses the set as a framing device and examines this period in her life.

And then I found Hannah Gadsby.  Pretty much any discussion of recent comedy specials will bring up "Nanette," the 2018 special where Gadsby discusses her painful experiences as someone LGBT in Australia.  It slowly morphs from traditional setups and jokes to fiery activist cri de coeur, deconstructing and critiquing the format of standup comedy in the process.  Ultimately, she concludes that being a comedian and being who she is are sometimes in fundamental conflict.  "Nanette" is moving and it's challenging, and it's not particularly funny, but the standup context is absolutely vital to how it plays.  For pure entertainment value, I like Gadsby's most recent special, "Douglas," even better, which shows that she is perfectly capable of putting together a hilarious show based on material totally unrelated to her activism.  Her background is as an art historian, and I love the lecture-style material in her set, where she takes pot-shots at the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and Louis CK. 

I don't know why it is that I have been connecting to white LGBT comics lately, as opposed to comics who look more like me - Ali Wong and Margaret Cho, for instance.  I think it's because Notaro and Gadsby aren't trying so hard to be transgressive.  They talk about themselves, and how they perceive the world, and trying to get through tough times as best they can, with brutal honesty.  Somehow, because they're so good at expressing who they are onstage without fear, that's plenty transgressive in and of itself.  I love Ali Wong to bits, but her acts are so relentless and so aggressive that I can't take much of it at once.  And I've never been as emotionally invested in her acts as I have watching Tig Notaro just talk casually about having a bad day.  It's 2022, and we've all been having a bad day.

Let me be clear that the Bill Burrs and the Chris Rocks are all well and good, and I admire what they do,  but it's been nice to discover that there are more laid back, more empathetic comedians that are out there providing an alternative - comedians who are more my tempo, and more my speed.  I still tread very carefully in these spaces, but I'm also happy to be finally catching up on something I didn't even know I had missed.       

---

"Better Call Saul," Years Three and Four

Spoilers for both seasons ahead.

I remember the buzz around the early seasons of "Better Call Saul" that slowly died away as the show went on.  The series maintains its quality level just fine from what I've seen so far, but I can understand why some viewers started to drift away.  The third season is still fairly intense and fast-paced, focusing on the feud between Jimmy and Chuck that results in Jimmy having his law license suspended.  However, the fourth season, which takes place over a much longer stretch of time, is much slower.  There are two or three episodes that are all about how Jimmy is bored and frustrated, and they take more patience than the rest of the show has demanded up to that point.

We're steadily seeing more familiar faces.  Gus Fring, Lydia Rodarte Quayle, Huell Babineux, and Gale Boetticher have made appearances, with Gus becoming a regular foe for Nacho and Mike.  New characters include a heretofore unseen Salamanca, Lalo (Tony Dalton), who is sent up North to keep an eye on Hector and Nacho.  There's also Chuck's ex-wife Rebecca (Ann Cusack), and a group of Germans who are secretly brought to Albuquerque to work on constructing a lab for Gus, lead by the tragic Werner (Rainer Bock).  Both Jimmy and Mike have now passed the point of no return in their journeys to "Breaking Bad," Jimmy more gradually and Mike with more self-awareness.  It's also become clear that the defining relationship in Jimmy's life is the one with Chuck, even after Chuck dies.  Kim has emerged as the most sympathetic figure out of all of them, trying and failing to keep Jimmy on the straight and narrow, and letting herself become more and more compromised in the process.  I was really rooting for Kim and Jimmy to work out somehow, but Jimmy's inferiority complex and resentments have taken over by the end of season four.  His last really selfless act was torpedoing his career in elder law at the end of season three.

Mike and Nacho have the showier material in much of seasons three and four, getting wrapped up in Gus Fring's feud with Hector Salamanca, and later Lalo Salamanca.  Mike's ego is what gets him into trouble, his insistence on doing things his own way, and calling out the inadequacies of those around him.  (Hi, Marc Evan Jackson!)  This gets him more involved with Fring's operations until he takes on the construction project, and has to take responsibility for the fallout.  It's so much fun to watch Mike set up his little traps and schemes, it's easy to forget that he's taking a lot of stupid risks.  Nacho, on the other hand, knows he's in a bad situation from early on, and can't dig his way out from under the Salamancas.  Add Gus Fring on top of that, and I don't know how he could possibly survive until the end of the series.  So, like Kim, Nacho's one of the only really sympathetic characters left on the board.     

I like how the writers  handle the death of Chuck, the biggest event in the show so far.  More than that, I like that it's set up so far in advance, with Jimmy undermining Chuck at the trial, reporting the outburst to  the insurance agents to destroy Chuck's reputation, and putting Howard in the position to finish him off.  Similarly, the seeds are planted for Hector Salamanca's downfall throughout the third season before he has his stroke.  There aren't many television shows that really do long-form storytelling on the level that "Better Call Saul" does.  It's absolutely as good as "Breaking Bad," but is also confident enough to be more of a straight drama, keeping those big set pieces in few and far between.  Mike may have killed someone in the finale, but Bob Odenkirk and Rhea Seehorn deliver the most chilling scene in that episode with a two minute conversation.  

I'm giving myself a break before I get into the last two seasons.  I know what to expect at this point, and I'm confident that Vince Gilligan and company will be able to pull off a strong ending.  I admit that I'm glad that I decided to wait and binge the show so I don't have to deal with the long breaks between these final episodes.  Once I get started with these, I don't think I'll be able to stop until the end.

---

My Favorite Robert Wise Film

Robert Wise is a director with an impressive list of credits who came out of the studio system.  He started out at RKO as an editor, working on Orson Welles' early films, including "Citizen Kane" and "The Magnificent Ambersons" before becoming a director in the '40s.  After proving himself proficient in multiple genres, including horror, noir, and science-fiction, he started producing films in the '50s.  After the success of "West Side Story," which he won his first Best Director Oscar for, he was keen to work on his dream project, a war film called "The Sand Pebbles."  However, production delays prompted him to take on a "fill in" project in 1964, another musical adaptation.  This would be "The Sound of Music," which would become one of the most financially successful films ever made.

"The Sound of Music" is based on the Rodgers and Hammerstein stage musical, which had to be significantly revised on its way to the screen.  Screenwriter Ernest Lehman and Wise spent significant efforts trying to cut down the sentimentality of the musical, and rework the lead roles to be more complex and interesting. Julie Andrews and Christopher Plummer both had significant reservations about signing on to the film, because the original versions of the characters were so one-dimensional.  A common criticism of the musical was that it was too saccharine, a criticism that would also dog the film version.  Some existing songs were deleted, and new songs were written by Richard Rodgers specifically for the film, including "I Have Confidence" and "Something Good."  All the existing dance choreography was abandoned so that the filmmakers could take advantage of shooting on location in Salzburg, resulting in one of the least stagey musical adaptations of its era.    

In spite of all the concern about "The Sound of Music" being too simple and too sentimental, I suspect that this was also a major reason for its success.  As far as family entertainment goes, it's hard to beat.  This was one of the first live-action musicals I encountered as a child, through the easy-to-sing numbers like "Do-Re-Mi," "My Favorite Things," and "Edelweiss."  I didn't quite understandd what was going on with the Nazis when I watched the film when I was younger, but Fraulein Maria going out into the world and  endearing herself to the von Trapp children was easy to understand, as was the more difficult business of Maria falling in love with their father.  "The Sound of Music" remains so wonderfully accessible, its no wonder it was a worldwide hit - with the exception of Austria and Germany, where the rather inaccurate, Hollywoodized portrayal of the famous Trapp family  understandably rubbed the wrong way.

However, the film doesn't care remotely about resembling reality.  Wise and Lehman knew that they were in the business of constructing a fairy tale, a piece of heartwarming spectacle meant to fill three hours with music and dance and stunning cinematography.  From the first, sweeping shot of Maria singing to the green hills of Bavaria, the filmmakers built their film around the musical numbers, all carefully staged to show off picturesque views of Austria and the talents of their charming cast.  Between this and "Mary Poppins," Julie Andrews became everyone's favorite leading lady, and would rarely find a film role so suited to her particular talents again.  Her exuberance when performing songs as simple as "Do-Re-Mi" is infectious, and her comedic skills are impeccable.  Christopher Plummer vocally disliked the film, but he's so good as the stern Captain von Trapp that trying to escape its legacy proved impossible.  And frankly, I'm still a little stunned that this was Charmian Carr's only film role.       

I haven't seen "The Sound of Music" in years now, but it was a staple of my childhood, frequently aired on television around the holidays, and was the subject of countless retrospectives and specials over the years.  It didn't occur to me until I was an adult that the film was something of an outlier of its time - a lavish movie musical when musicals were on the wane in Hollywood.  Its success, along with a few others, was enough to keep the genre going for another decade.  And Robert Wise was eventually able to get "The Sand Pebbles" made, a very fine adventure film that is not remotely as memorable as "The Sound of Music."  

What I've Seen - Robert Wise 

The Body Snatcher (1945)

The Set-Up (1949)

The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951)

I Want to Live! (1958)

Odds Against Tomorrow (1959)

West Side Story (1961)

The Haunting (1963)

The Sound of Music (1965)

The Sand Pebbles (1966)

The Andromeda Strain (1971)

Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979)

---

"C'mon C'mon" and "The Lost Daughter"

A pair of movies about parenting today.  Minor spoilers ahead.

"C'mon C'mon" is the latest from Mike Mills, a gentle, warm-hearted film about the relationships between parents and kids.  Johnny (Joaquin Phoenix) is a radio journalist who is traveling the country interviewing children and teenagers about their thoughts on the future.  His nephew, nine-year-old Jesse (Woody Norman), is a handful due to his oddball personality and difficult family situation.  Johnny is supposed to be looking after Jesse for a few days, but a few days turns into more than a few.  Then Johnny has to travel to New York, so he takes Jesse along with him.  

"C'mon C'mon" is a film of intimate conversations and poignant observations, shot in beautifully composed black and white.  So much of the film is just watching Jesse exist in the frame, his irrepressible energy constantly disrupting Johnny's life and the world around him.  Johnny doesn't handle the sudden responsibility of childcare well, though he tries the best he can.  We get to listen in on several of his phone conversations with his sister, Jesse's mother Viv (Gabby Hoffman), who is trying to help Jesse's troubled father Paul (Scoot McNairy) through a mental health crisis.  The two talk about Jesse, and eventually about the past events that lead to Johnny and Viv falling out for a year.  

It's wonderful and life-affirming to watch Johnny eventually learn all the little rituals of parenthood, to reconnect with Viv, and to watch his interviews with a variety of kids across the United States.  The kids are mostly worried, but ultimately hopeful about the state of the world, and Mills quietly makes the case that the rest of us can be too.  Joaquin Phoenix's performance is very natural and very open, letting him show his age and his softer side.  Woody Norman as Jesse is just about as aggravating as he should be, and comes across as a very genuine kid.  Their onscreen relationship is rewarding to watch, but I think what I appreciated the most about "C'mon C'mon" is the comforting mood it evokes.  Times are tough, but there's a lot of love to go around.  It's a pleasure to simply watch the characters care about each other, and try to help - even if they make some mistakes in the process.     

"The Lost Daughter" is a very different animal, a psychological drama about a woman on holiday in Greece, who finds herself contronting old questions about her life and choices.  It's largely a study of its central character, Leda, played by Olivia Colman in the present day and Jesse Buckley in flashbacks.  Directed by Maggie Gyllenhall, the narrative seems to be low stakes on the surface, but becomes utterly engrossing.  Like "C'mon C'mon," the film is about the difficulties of parenthood, but it's outlook is far less rosy.  Leda's quiet vacation is disrupted by the arrival of a boisterous, overbearing Italian-American family.  One young woman, Nina (Dakota Johnson), has a three-year-old daughter who briefly goes missing.  Nina seems overwhelmed by motherhood, which prompts Leda to look back on her own difficulties raising two young daughters while trying to advance her academic career. 

    

What I appreciate so much about "The Lost Daughter" is that it never tries to explain, or even really delineate its themes and issues.  A major source of tension is Leda's impulsive act of stealing a doll, and the audience is left in suspense as to what she's planning to do with it, what prompted her to do such a thing, and whether it might signal more troubling issues.  None of these questions are really answered directly, but Olivia Colman's performance does so much of the work of getting us into Leda's head, helping to show the emotional and psychological forces that drive her.  Through Leda, Gyllenhall looks at the darker side of motherhood that is rarely discussed - the exhaustion, the frustration, the impossible expectations, and the guilt that comes with trying to maintain any kind of independent life.  My read on Leda  - and it's very open to interpretation - is that she considers herself a bad mother, and she's fascinated by Nina because she exhibits the same kinds of feelings.  

"The Lost Daughter" is Maggie Gyllenhall's directorial debut, and she has absolutely no trouble with the tone or the material.  She's especially good at capturing tension - all those subtle little ways that seemingly casual situations can escalate or deescalate, and how certain innocuous behavior can come across as alarming or threatening.  It's a very small production, but it's nice to see Colman and Johnson really getting to sink their teeth into some challenging roles. 

---

"Being the Ricardos" and "Don't Look Up"

Let's take a look at Aaron Sorkin and Adam McKay's latest films.

"I Love Lucy" is undeniably one of the most influential television series in history, and its characters are iconic.  The show has faded from prominence considerably over the last twenty years, but I think most people still know Lucy and Ricky Ricardo on sight.  So the casting of Nicole Kidman and Javier Bardem as Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz initially struck me as very peculiar.  In the odd frame, Kidman might be able to pass for Ball, but Bardem doesn't remotely resemble or sound like Arnaz.  

As the film went on, however, I appreciated the casting for helping to delineate between the onscreen Ricardos and the real people operating behind the scenes.  It's clear what drew Sorkin to the material - this is a showbiz story about the making of a classic series, and a profile of one of the most powerful couples in entertainment of their era.  Lucy and Desi are contentious and brilliant and very different from their onscreen personas.  Lucy is a demanding perfectionist, desperate to hold on to her hard-won success.  Desi is a shrewd businessman with some considerable vices.  The film focuses on one eventful week during the height of "I Love Lucy's" success, where Lucy and Desi's marriage is in trouble, the show is in trouble, and everyone is on edge - including co-stars Vivian Vance (Nina Arianda) and William Frawley (J.K. Simmons), producer Jess Oppenheimer (Tony Hale), and writers Madelyn Pugh (Alia Shawkat) and Bob Carroll (Jake Lacy).

The Hollywood tell-all structure and Sorkin's insistence on packing way too much of Lucy and Desi's relationship troubles into the film make "Being the Ricardos" difficult to enjoy.  While I appreciate Sorkin's recreations of the "I Love Lucy" production process, and his habitual fabrication of events doesn't ring too false this time around, the unrelenting cynicism of the piece and the downbeat, sober ending were hard to take.   The film is saved by its performances, and I'm ultimately happy that Sorkin went with more seasoned actors who could bring some real drama to the screen.  The MVP here is Nina Arianda as Vivian Vance, who is fed up with always being portrayed as a frump, and is easily the most human and sympathetic figure in the film.  And it takes a while to percolate, but I do think that this version of Lucille Ball is one of Sorkin's better female characters.  I appreciate how intelligent and uncompromising she's allowed to be, in stark contrast to the similar Tammy Faye Bakker from "The Eyes of Tammy Faye" earlier this year. 

Now on to "Don't Look Up," which is Adam McKay's earnest attempt to make something akin to a modern day "Dr. Strangelove" about the threat of climate change.  Initially I thought that the film was playing it too broad, following characters who were very larger-than-life, and events that were increasingly absurd, leading up to a doomsday scenario.  But then I thought about Peter Sellers hamming it up in "Dr. Strangelove," and "fighting in the war room," and I managed to get on the same wavelength with "Don't Look Up."  I don't think it's entirely successful in its satire, but I did enjoy it very much, if only for the opportunity to see actors like Leonardo DiCaprio, Jennifer Lawrence, and Meryl Streep embrace their full comedic potential.

So, the world is in peril due to a comet heading toward Earth, identified by a PhD candidate, Kate Dibiasky (Jennifer Lawrence) and her professor Dr. Mindy (DiCaprio).  They alert everyone they can, including the President, Jean Orlean (Meryl Streep).  Alas, they're given the brushoff by her son and Chief of Staff, Jason (Jonah Hill), so they try the media next - namely talk show hosts Brie (Cate Blanchette) and Jack (Tyler Perry).  The public doesn't take it seriously, and the situation escalates.  The ensemble cast includes a Mark Rylance as an evil tech billionaire, Timothee Chalamet as a young miscreant with a heart of gold, Melanie Lynskey as Mindy's wife, Rob Morgan as the government's head of planetary defense, Ariana Grande as a pop star, and Ron Perman as a designated hero.     

McKay manages to thread the needle, keeping the film from being neither too silly nor too angry.  The poignant moments are poignant, and the comedy is pretty funny.  I think the best decision was having Streep play the Trump analogue, with Jonah Hill stealing every scene as her annoying toady, and then to use them both pretty sparingly.  I deeply disliked McKay's last film "Veep," and I think that he avoided the worst of that film's snarky, self-satisfied, disdainfulness here by focusing more on the good, hopeful, decent people who are trying to do the responsible thing against all odds.  It's terribly sweet, somehow, to see DiCaprio and Lawrence playing a couple of ordinary dopes who nobody will listen to.  

"Don't Look Up" is very predictable and very on-the-nose in its allegory, to the point where it feels like its creators were holding back at certain points.  It's a good movie, and should be lauded for its ambition and its daring, but it's never in danger of being a great one.  I wasn't looking forward to its release because I thought the subject matter would be darker and more emotionally upsetting, but this is almost too gentle in its approach - and too easy to ignore.    

---

Legacyquels Are Getting Old

Spoilers ahead for "The Matrix Revolutions," "Ghostbusters: Afterlife," "The Mandalorian," and "Spider-man: No Way Home."

I watched "Ghostbusters: Afterlife" recently, and I was struck by how it fits so perfectly into a pattern that other films from older franchises have fallen into lately.  I like the term "legacyquel" that Matt Singer used to describe "Star Wars: The Force Awakens," which reboots a franchise while soaking in the nostalgia for that franchise, via numerous callbacks, cameos, and references.  2021 was full of these, including "The Matrix Revolutions," "Ghostbusters: Afterlife," "Space Jam 2," "Halloween Kills," "Coming 2 America," "Candyman," and "Spider-man: No Way Home."  2022 already gave us another "Scream," and "Texas Chainsaw Massacre," and coming up is "Top Gun: Maverick."

I'm still sorting out my feelings about "Ghostbusters: Afterlife" - it's not a bad movie, but it's also not a good one.  The first hour with McKenna Grace and Finn Wolfhard digging up their deceased grandpa Egon's old ghostbusting equipment and having themselves a new adventure is fun.  It's an Amblin film more than anything else, up until it decides to replay the third act of the original "Ghostbusters," capped off with an awkward reunion of the original cast.  The fact that Harold Ramis was dead couldn't save him from having to participate, via CGI doppelganger.  Watching a very tired-looking Bill Murray snark at Gozer the Gozerian, all I could think was that this was at least twenty years too late for the "Ghostbusters 3" that the fans wanted.  Audiences seemed receptive to the film anyway, but I couldn't get past that shameless tearjerker finale that overshadowed everything else.

The list of films and series that have elicited similar responses from me keeps getting longer.  I thought that Luke Skywalker's appearance at the end of the last season of "The Mandalorian" bothered me so much because the effects technology wasn't good enough to get across Uncanny Valley, but the truth is really that his presence was a huge distraction and deus ex machina that disrupted the rest of that show.  The "Star Wars" franchise has been a terrible repeat offender here, especially J.J. Abrams' contributions, which just stacked callbacks upon callbacks while neglecting its major characters and storylines.  "Bill & Ted Face the Music" had some good ideas, but watching Keanu Reeves and Alex Winter trade surfer bro shtick in their fifties often felt more depressing than funny.  Arnold Schwarzenegger and Linda Hamilton finally reunited for "Terminator: Dark Fate," and got to be properly badass for about two scenes apiece before it sunk in that neither of them were in the physical shape to be in this kind of movie anymore.  

Maybe it's because I'm getting old, but watching these older actors return to the genre franchises of my childhood has rarely paid off as well as the filmmakers think it will, because so many of the projects are just so badly conceived.  They claim to want to give the fans what they want, but usually give the fans what they wanted when they were kids - and often far, far too late.  At this point I don't feel any excitement for another "Indiana Jones" film because the last time Harrison Ford put on the fedora, he was already pretty creaky, and Spielberg was clearly out of ideas.  The few I have liked, including "Blade Runner 2049" and "Creed," have taken pains to keep their older actors in more age-appropriate roles and lean on thematic connections instead of recreating elements of the original films.  An interesting recent case has been "The Matrix Resurrections," which was self-aware about its status as a legacyquel to the extent that this became a part of the plot.  I think it did better than most, doubling down on the romantic relationship between the leads, and deemphasizing the bullet ballet that the original "Matrix" was known for.  Neo never even fires a gun in any of the action scenes.                 

A new variation, as embodied by "Spider-man: No Way Home" is the legacyquel crossover.  Those franchises that have seen multiple reboots can now pull their cameos and callbacks from multiple versions of any given set of characters, resulting in three different Spider-men teaming up to face foes from all of their respective universes and timelines.  It's still technically a legacyquel, because Tom Holland's Peter Parker finally experiences the level of tragedy that has largely driven the other versions of the character.  However, the emphasis is definitely on the crossover, and the fun of having Holland, Tobey Maguire, and Andrew Garfield getting to interact and play off of each other for an hour of screentime.  Maguire, fortunately, isn't too old to get back in the suit, and it helps that Disney and Sony were able to corral so many supporting players to take part.  A lot of its success was also due to good timing and unusual circumstances that will be hard to duplicate.

Legacyquels tend to make money, so we'll be seeing plenty of them for the foreseeable future. Filmmakers' attentions have been shifting to newer material, and "The Matrix Resurrections" and "No Way Home" seem to be signaling that we'll be seeing more variations on the concept.  I've remarked before that legacyquels aren't new - I've found a few from as early as the '80s - but I hope to see fewer of them going forward.  We're currently being deluged with so much nostalgia that I'm starting to become averse to any familiar property making a reappearance.  Some are a good time, but mostly they've just been reminding me, over and over, of the merciless passage of time and how none of us are getting any younger.    

---

"Spider-Man No Way Home" (With Spoilers)

All the spoilers ahead.  I mean it.

I suspect that the making of this movie is more interesting than the actual film.  The most impressive part of "Spider-Man: No Way Home" is the deal-making that must have taken place to get  Willem Dafoe, Alfred Molina, Jamie Foxx, Thomas Hayden Church, Rhys Ifans, and J.K. Simmons to reprise their roles, not to mention Andrew Garfield and the elusive Tobey Maguire, who gave up acting and hasn't been seen onscreen since 2014.    

Thanks to the inescapable rumor mill - which is only getting more aggressive - I was pretty confident that Garfield and Maguire would be making some kind of appearance in the film, but it was a great treat to see them spend the whole last act of the film together with Tom Holland's Peter Parker, interacting, quipping, and finally bonding with each other.  I finally watched the Andrew Garfield "Spider-man" films last year, and I'm so glad I did, because "No Way Home" really only works the way that it should if you have the past history with all of these films.  Without the nostalgia, the sudden introduction of two previously unknown versions of Peter Parker, along with all of those villains, probably comes off as much more abrupt and clunky.  

The MCU is really milking the multiverse concept, and I'm sure they're far from done.  However, "No Way Home" feels like the best possible execution of this kind of crossover event, because the Sony reboots came in such a short amount of time, and the franchise was so huge in the popular consciousness that they're still mostly remembered fondly.  This also gave director Jon Watts, and writers Chris McKenna and Erik Sommers a chance to tie up some of the loose ends left over from the Maguire and Garfield-led "Spider-man" films.  It's oddly reassuring to know that both of the previous Spideys are alive and well in their own universes.  Garfield really is a very good Spider-man, and Maguire may be less enthusiastic, but he delivers when it counts.  

And it feels miraculous that in a movie with so much comic book madness going on, the emotional journey of Tom Holland's Peter Parker remains so clearly defined throughout.  The other Spider-men coming to support him in his hour of greatest need wouldn't work so well if the stakes weren't as high as they are here.  Peter Parker thinks his life is ruined until he does something immature and stupid, and has to face much bigger, much worse consequences.  It's the kind of morality play, featuring tragic ironies and hard choices, that Watts and company have mostly sidestepped so far, and I'm glad that they finally decided to commit to it here - even if redeeming all the villains is so very, very Disney.  Peter Parker is uncoupling a bit from the MCU and going back to square one, and it feels right.  

And while I like that Peter has been de-powered, forced to grow up, and given a suitably sad Spidey ending this time out, what I really appreciate about featuring the whole multiverse concept is that now we can treat the MCU "Spider-man" canon as fully its own thing.  There doesn't have to be a Gwen in this universe, and "With great power comes great responsibility" works fine coming from Aunt May.  And after six film appearances from the Tom Holland Spider-man, he's finally crossed off all the boxes of the usual Spider-man origin story, and feels properly like a full-fledged Spider-man instead of a younger version.  Frequently, "No Way Home" feels like "Spider-man: Into the Spiderverse," but not quite as good because the storytelling relies so much on the previous films.  

Where Spider-man goes from here depends mostly on what Tom Holland wants to do, but it's clear that there's plenty of material left for future adventures.  More Venom seems to be an inevitability, which I am not looking forward to.  I also worry that the success of "No Way Home" is going to spark imitators, but few studios have the IP or the deep pockets to pull something like this off - can you imagine a multi-Batman crossover with the current state of Warner Brothers? - so this will likely stay a high water mark for superhero crossovers for a while.  

---

"Spider-Man No Way Home" (Without Spoilers)

"Without spoilers" here means that I'm not going to reveal anything that we haven't seen in the trailer footage.  There have been so many leaks and theories and conjecture around this movie, I really don't know how anyone with any interest in seeing this movie has managed to come through the spoiler storm unscathed.  Still, I'll do my best.  Also it's difficult to talk about "Spider-Man: No Way Home" without talking about the events of the previous movie, "Far From Home," so there will be some spoilers for that one.  In fact, you should probably watch "Far From Home" before seeing "No Way Home."  Annnnnd, maybe, all the other "Spider-man" films since 2002. 

Here we go.  

"No Way Home" is probably the most indulgent piece of superhero media made yet, designed to appeal to those devoted fans of Spider-man who have stuck with him through thick and thin over the past two decades.  The big gimmick of this film is not that the Tom Holland Spider-man's secret identity, Peter Parker, has been revealed to the whole world, but that he and Doctor Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) attempt to cast a spell to fix this, inadvertently bringing Spider-man villains from other universes to their own.  Those other universes, of course, are the previous Sony Spider-man films that predate the MCU Spider-man.  This means the return of Doctor Octopus (Alfred Molina), the Green Goblin (William Dafoe), and Electro (Jamie Foxx) to our screens, and they've never looked better.

So this movie is packed to the gills with Spider-man references and Easter eggs, and will work best for Spider-man's biggest fans - the ones who have been waiting to see Spider-man fight his most famous franchise foes again.  By the end of the film, it also becomes clear that "No Way Home" functions as a soft reboot of sorts, bringing Peter Parker back to his roots, and re-emphasizing some of the major themes from the older parts of the Spider-man mythos.  This entire trilogy that began with "Homecoming" feels like it's been one, extended origin story.  On the one hand, this means Tom Holland will be gainfully employed for a long time to come (if he wants), and on the other hand the degree to which the MCU is dragging out simple narratives is getting wildly out of hand.        

To be fair, a lot happens in "No Way Home."  Unlike "Far From Home," or the Spider-man appearances in the "Avengers" films, we finally see some meaningful progression in Peter Parker's character arc and changes to the status quo that are not going to be handwaved away easily.  The fact that this is coupled with so much spectacle and so much fanservice is the film's biggest accomplishment.  As spectacle, "No Way Home" is not as impressive as some of the MCU films that we've seen lately.  However, like the "Avengers" films, it benefits from drawing from the material of the previous installments, paying off the storylines for many different characters, and hopefully leaving fans with a sense of closure before we move on to the next phase of Spider-media.  This is a MCU movie, after all, and raises as many questions as it answers.

Holland is as solid a performer as ever, but he's got a lot of competition for the spotlight this time out.  Dafoe and Molina are clearly having a ball being villains again, and chew scenery with everything they've got.  I think this is also the best we've seen of Zendaya, Jacob Batalon, and Marisa Tomei in this series, who get plenty to do.  Doctor Strange is exactly the right amount of annoyed authority figure, and doesn't overstay his welcome.  The only character who feels underused is J. Jonah Jameson (J.K. Simmons), who got a big reveal at the end of "Far From Home."  His role turns out to be very minor, and functions more like an in-joke than anything else.  

I'm curious as to how viewers with less experience with the older "Spider-man" films are going to react to this one.  I suspect it'll land well, because "No Way Home" does have more to offer than spectacle and nostalgia, which I found a more pleasant surprise than anything else.  And we'll talk about the anything else (and there's a lot) next time.  

---

I'm Slightly Addicted to "Lip Sync Battle"

I fell into a Youtube rabbit hole recently, watching clips of the performances from Spike/The Paramount Network's "Lip Sync Battle." On the surface level it looks like all the other celebrity-led reality competitions of recent years. LL Cool J and Chrissy Teigan host, and two celebrities face off in every episode, performing lip syncs of two different songs apiece before a winner is declared. Regular episodes are only half an hour, so nobody wears out their welcome, and the show has become known for its high production values. Elaborate costumes, sets, props, and a troupe of background dancers really help the performances pop.

However, what originally caught my attention was that the participants are more high profile actors and musicians than the usual participants on something like "Dancing with the Stars" or "The Masked Singer." "Lip Sync Battle" started out as a segment of "The Tonight Show," and was spun off as its own show, with John Krasinski and Stephen Merchant credited as creators. The performances are a mix of earnest homages and exaggerated parodies. However, everyone clearly has a blast playing at being larger-than-life music stars for a day, or in the case of the professional musicians who participate, playing very different musicians. There's a tremendously appealing vibe of wish-fulfillment in many of the appearances. Race and gender lines are crossed constantly, with so many drag performances that the show is often compared to "RuPaul's Drag Race."

So, I can see the appeal of the show for a performer. "Lip Sync Battle" is an opportunity for them to let loose and play with other personas. It's so much fun to see John Legend doing "Can't Touch This" in M.C. Hammer pants, or Neil Patrick Harris as "Moonwalker" era Michael Jackson performing "Smooth Criminal." I appreciate the really unexpected subversions, like Kathy Bates absolutely killing Bruno Mars's "That's What I Like," or Jenna Dewan doing her husband's "Magic Mike" routine right in his delighted face. Many of the performances go for laughs or irony, like Josh Gad dressing up like Donald Trump for "I Touch Myself," but there are a handful that are truly touching. Zoe Saldana stepping into Lisa "Left Eye" Lopez's shoes, alongside the other members of TLC, is magical. So is Laverne Cox borrowing some of Beyonce's glamour for "Lose My Breath."

In many ways, "Lip Sync Battle" embodies all the usual reality schtick. The hosts are pretty bland, with Chrissy Teigan often being used as a prop. Later seasons have gotten too spectacle heavy, and I miss the early days when it was mostly a bare stage, chintzy costumes, and the lip-syncers had to rely more heavily on their own impersonation skills. However, when you get a group of talented people together to do something they really enjoy, even if it's something very silly, it's terribly entertaining. And once in a while, you get lucky and something transcendent happens, like Tom Holland as Rihanna, or Anne Hathaway on Miley Cyrus's giant wrecking ball. And I can't help being a little envious of being able to do something that daring, and wild, and fearless. I can't help enjoying the vicarious thrill.

Now, if I were on "Lip Sync Battle," what would I want to perform? Well, I always did wonder what it would be like to wear David Byrne's giant suit...

 

---

The First Five of "Daredevil"

Minor spoilers for "Hawkeye" and "Spider Man: No Way Home" ahead.

The latest MCU series, "Daredevil," has popped up on Netflix, probably because this series is much more violent and adult than the projects that have premiered on Disney+.  This is clearly an experiment for Marvel, as the show has none of the big budget resources of the other MCU shows, and even uses different branding and logos.  Created by Drew Goddard, it takes a much more gritty, grounded approach to a superhero property, built around the character of Matt Murdock (Charlie Cox), the blind lawyer who was introduced in "Spider Man: No Way Home."

Murdock, who was blinded as a child and gained superpowers, is devoted to making a difference in crime-riddled Hell's Kitchen.  By day, he and his partner Foggy Nelson (Elden Henson), are do-gooder lawyers trying to keep their tiny practice afloat, with the help of new Girl Friday receptionist Karen Page (Deborah Ann Woll).  By night, Matt is a masked vigilante, just starting out, who uses his super hearing and fighting skills to stop local gangsters and other criminals. Crime boss Wilson Fisk (Vincent D'Onofrio), originally a Spider-man villain, and recently seen in "Hawkeye," is being set up as the main villain.  The "Daredevil" version is much more brutal, but also a more well-rounded character with many shades of gray.  The two episodes he's appeared in so far show him romancing a lovely woman named Vanessa (Ayelet Zurer).  Matt is also helped out by a nurse named Claire Temple (Rosario Dawson), who fishes him out of a dumpster in the second episode, and patches him up regularly. 

Everything about "Daredevil" feels much more grown-up than any of the other MCU projects so far, because it exists in a much grimmer universe where everything seems to be stacked against the good guys.  I like how it's so stripped down, feeling very much like a typical network crime procedural rather than a superhero show in a more heightened reality.  There are no fancy costumes, few special effects, and even the showy fight scenes are impressive for their realism rather than any fancy choreography.  This version of Matt Murdock doesn't have super strength and gets beat up a lot.   Initially, I was worried about the higher episode count - this is a thirteen episode season - but "Daredevil" is making good use of its length, setting up its characters and multiple interesting subplots.  This isn't a show where there's any assumption that you already know the characters, and it's good to just spend time with Foggy and Karen, who are revealed to be real people instead of just comic relief.  The usual MCU habit of dropping references and easter eggs everywhere has been mercifully curbed. 

    

"Daredevil" highlights how formulaic the MCU has gotten, and it makes me wonder what some of its other  recent entries would have looked like if various creators had let themselves take their own concepts more seriously.  Would "Falcon and the Winter Soldier" have been better with a higher episode count, fewer guest stars, and fewer ridiculous action scenes?  Would I have liked "Loki" more if it had cut down the amount of snarky quips and crazy characters, and just committed to being a character study of a morally complicated villain?  Clearly the "Daredevil" approach wouldn't work for every corner of the MCU, but it's almost shocking how well developed characters like Matt Murdock and Wilson Fisk are, after relatively little screen time, compared to someone like Doctor Strange, who doesn't even seem to have completed his initial origin story arc yet.   

If you remember the 2003 "Daredevil" movie with Ben Affleck, the show is so different as to be almost unrecognizable.  Instead, Goddard and company are clearly drawing more from the Frank Miller "Daredevil" comics and various recent "Batman" adaptations showing Bruce Wayne in the early days, before the Rogues' Gallery and the wonderful toys.  The impulse to go back to basics has yielded great results here, and I hope we'll see it reflected in more Marvel media to come.

---