"30 Rock" Years Four and Five

Spoilers ahead, folks.

I think my favorite season of "30 Rock" so far has been the fourth one, with year five pretty close behind.  The creators have let the status quo change, with Jack resolving a major love triangle with Julianne Moore and Elizabeth Banks, emerging a family man in the fifth season.  Meanwhile Liz escapes what seems like an inevitable future with Michael Sheen (playing Wesley Snipes?) and snags Matt Damon in a pilot uniform - at least for a while.  There's a new TGS cast member, Danny (Cheyenne Jackson), a lot of hints dropped that Kenneth is at least 200 years old, and NBC was bought by Comcast, I mean Kabletown.

However, the character I've warmed up to the most has been Tracy.  Dissatisfied with being the resident hedonist and producer of lowbrow comedy, he goes on a quest to become an EGOT winner and girl dad.  It's genuinely fun to see this play out, and Tracy's material is consistently among the funniest stuff that the writers come up with week to week.  Jordan is a fantastic performer, and is allowed to take some bigger swings.  And I like Sherri Shepherd as his wife Angie, who gets more screentime (and I confess I didn't know Sherri Shepherd was an actress before this).  Grizz and Dot Com also being secretly erudite never gets old.  Tracy Morgan missed a good chunk of the fifth season due to health issues, which the writers turned into a Dave Chapelle-esque sojourn to Africa.  

There were more format breaking episodes, like the live show, the episode of Angie's "Queen of Jordan" reality show, and a hundredth episode two-parter.  However, I've always been a sucker for serialization, and Jack tackling monogamy and fatherhood is what has gotten me the most engaged with "30 Rock" to date.  Avery (Banks) is such a great character, and I'm delighted that she's become a recurring player.  I can only hope that Liz's love life undergoes something similar in future episodes - Damon's appearances are fun, but we all knew it was never going to work out.  Speaking of Damon, the caliber of talent that shows up on "30 Rock" never fails to boggle me.  At NBC, they have Paul Giamatti working as an editor, Michael Keaton as a maintenance guy, and Tom Hanks even pops up to boot Tracy from the A-list.  The mother's day episode was awash in comedic greats, from Patti LuPone to Jan Hooks.  And it's increasingly obvious that Brian WIlliams is a giant ham.   

100 episodes into the show, I feel like I've been fully won over at last, and thoroughly enjoy the "30 Rock" universe and the deep bench of minor characters its built up.  It's gotten to the point where it's genuinely nice to see Dr. Leo Spaceman (Chris Parnell), Devon Banks (Will Arnett), and Dennis Duffy (Dean Winters) pop up every now and then, where I'd initially found each of these characters annoying.  Conversely, some of the running jokes are starting to wear on me.  A few characters like Jonathan (Maulik Pancholy) and Kenneth really feel like they're in a rut.  Kenneth in particular has been getting jokes that are more absurd and extreme, and I don't think it's helping.  He got an arc in seasons four and five, where he was briefly fired from the NBC page program and had to work his way back to the status quo, but it's just made him more cartoonish - and not in a good way.  Jonathan and most of the writers are good for one-note gags, but Jonathan specifically gets the same joke every single time he appears.  Jenna is holding steady, but I do hope she gets more to do than date Will Forte in drag.

As we move into the final seasons, I expect the remaining episodes will go faster than I think they will, and not just because the final season was truncated to thirteen episodes.  I've gotten exactly what I wanted out of the show, which is the feeling of watching a solid network sitcom again, and finally getting some very old references.  Don Cheadle on a bed of rice!

---

Sensing a Pattern With "Argylle"

How does Matthew Vaughn keep getting away with this?  Sure, the first two "Kingsman" films made a lot of money, but the third one tanked.  Also, they got more and more indulgent with each subsequent film, until the best thing about the last one was the nutty Rasputin dance video.  "Argylle" feels like it's continuing on the same trajectory.  Vaughn's latest twisty spy comedy is overlong, badly paced, and wastes the talents of a lot of good actors.  There are a couple of Vaughn's usual absurd action sequences in the last act, but they were too little and too late for me.

"Argylle" is built around a series of twists, and in order to discuss some of the plotting, I'm going to spoil the first one.  We open on a spy named Argylle (Henry Cavill with an unfortunate haircut) and his trusty partner Wyatt (John Cena) carrying out a secret mission.  It's soon revealed that Argylle is a fictional character, the hero of a series of spy books written by Elly Conway (Bryce Dallas Howard).  Plagued by several phobias, Elly lives a lonely life working on her books, with only a cat named Alfie and calls to her mother Ruth (Catherine O'Hara) for companionship.  Then one day, she meets a man named Aidan (Sam Rockwell) on a train, claiming to be a real spy.  Aidan reveals that Elly's books have somehow been predicting real acts of espionage, and she needs to help him stop the evil Division and its director, Ritter (Bryan Cranston).  

The script from Jason Fuchs isn't bad and the premise of this meta-parody of a spy actioner is promising.  However, it's absolutely smothered in aggressive style and comic book bombast.  The visuals are garish, the laugh lines are so telegraphed that they rarely land, and despite the best efforts of Rockwell and Howard, I didn't care about any of the characters.  I started out wanting to root for Elly and Aidan.  You don't often see a spy movie starring someone who looks like Bryce Dallas Howard - a perfectly normal woman in her forties who isn't stick-thin or hypersexual.  And Sam Rockwell seems to be having a lot of fun with the action scenes, and especially the dance sequences.  Alas, their characters are so paper thin - and this is by design because of the demands of the plot - it is impossible to get emotionally invested in anything they are doing.

Vaughn has already announced that this is the beginning of a planned "Argylle" trilogy and connected to the "Kingsman" universe.  I'm mentioning this to emphasize how Vaughn is treating "Argylle" like a blockbuster franchise from the get-go.  The movie is stuffed with big names, including veterans from the "Kingsman" trilogy like Samuel L. Jackson and Sofia Boutella.  Dua Lipa appears in the opening action sequence.  Matthew Vaughn's cat plays Alfie.  The budget put up by Apple was apparently in the $200 million range.  Frankly, the details of the production are far more interesting than the film itself, which is pretty much repeating all of Vaughn's best tricks and worst habits from "Kingsman."  I found the overuse of CGI especially grating this time out, because many of the action scenes are so weightless and unconvincing that they might as well be animated.

Parts of the film did work for me, and I don't want to write it off completely.  Once we get through the endless rigamarole with the twists, the climaxes in the third act pay off just fine.  The action might be terrible, but it is occasionally very funny, which I appreciate.  I'm curious about what "Argylle" might have looked like if you only gave Vaughn half the budget and lopped forty minutes off the running time.   

Henry Cavill fans beware - he's really not in this movie much.  He might have more of a role in the sequels if they get made.  And considering that "Argylle" somehow got made, I can't rule that possibility out entirely.

---

What's Not Getting a Review, 2024

I've always watched more media than I review, but lately I've felt like I've been skipping over an awful lot of titles, some of them pretty high profile.  For instance, I decided to put off writing anything about "Monarch: Legacy of Monsters" until I could pair it with one of the recent "Godzilla" theatrical films, because I didn't have much to say about the series.  Well, it turns out that I didn't have to say much about the latest "Godzilla x Kong" either, and had to disqualify myself from writing anything about "Godzilla Minus One" (more on that below), so I scrapped the whole thing.  And that got me thinking about what my criteria have been for what media I watch gets a review and what doesn't.  

Since I don't write this blog professionally, I've always had the luxury of choosing what media I want to consume, and what I want to write about.  If a highly buzzed about title or performance turns out to be a snore, like "Immaculate" with Sydney Sweeny, I don't have to waste time thinking about it.  Conversely, if a title turns out to be something I don't feel I have the necessary resources or capability to analyze the way that it deserves, like the Lincoln assassination miniseries "Manhunt" or the second season of "The Jinx," I'm not obligated to make an attempt.  "Manhunt" is one of those cases where the show's ambition exceeds its abilities, but getting into why would involve discussions of historical accuracy and other portrayals of Lincoln and the Civil War that would require a lot of effort to articulate.  And "Manhunt" just isn't consequential enough that I feel a need to make that kind of effort for it.

I don't talk about this aspect of my blogging very often, but curation is absolutely part of what I'm doing.  I want to point the readers toward the smaller, more easily overlooked titles like "Robot Dreams" and "Molli and Max" when I can, boosting their profiles, instead of providing the millionth take on why the "Road House" remake fell flat.  I also don't like trashing films and shows just for the sake of trashing them.  I want this blog to reflect my actual tastes, even if I'm trying to stay relevant to the wider cultural conversation.  If I'm obsessing over "Hazbin Hotel" as much as I'm obsessing over the far more popular "Shogun" series, the writing should reflect that.  Not every piece of media needs a review, but sometimes I'll write an entry just to highlight something I feel needs more attention or acknowledgement. I wrote a "Bluey" entry a while ago that was less of a review and more of an analysis piece, trying to explain what it was doing so much better than other children's media.      

Then again, sometimes I don't write a review for something because I have failed to live up to my own standards.  Hulu's "A Murder at the End of the World" is a miniseries I dutifully watched from start to finish, but I found it tremendously difficult to pay attention to.  In the end, I'd completely been unable to form any sort of reaction to it at all except for a mild dislike.  Any review I'd have tried to write would have been mostly a recap of events, with some discussion of Emma Corrin and Brit Marling's hairstyles, and kvetching about post-apocalyptic media trends.  And frankly, that's not uncommon with me. 

"Godzilla Minus One" isn't getting a review because I was completely overhyped for it, which threw my expectations totally out of whack.  And I realized about halfway through that the movie was hitting a major pet peeve of mine - Asian melodrama histrionics - that completely took me out of the story.  I was never going to be able to give the movie a fair shake, even though I ultimately ended up liking it.  I would have spent half of my word count on qualifiers and self-interrogations, which I prefer to keep contained in specific blog entries like this one. 

This doesn't just happen with films I dislike, but excellent ones like "20 Days in Mariupol."  With the good films, however, I'm usually able to find other avenues to talk about them eventually, like with top ten lists or other kinds of features.  On the other hand, because I often watch things so much later than everyone else, it's not wise to assume I dislike a title just because it's never come up on this blog.

And I guess that's the takeaway.  There's a lot of media out there.  I can't watch everything, and I can't review everything, but here are some takes on the bigger titles, and some recommendations for smaller ones.  And what's here is more important than what isn't.

Happy watching.     

---

The 2024 Update Post

I haven't done an update post, where I write updates for a bunch of previous posts all at once, since 2021!  We're definitely due for one of these.  If you're unfamiliar with this feature, I address multiple posts  in the same entry because I don't have enough to say about each of them individually to warrant separate entries for each one.

Are the Midbudget Films Coming Back?  - A little over a year ago, before all the summer tentpoles started crashing, I wrote up a post on the modest success of films like "M3GAN," "Cocaine Bear," and "Knock at the Cabin," speculating that the studios might be turning their attention back toward the midbudget film.  And so far, so good.   There's been a lot of talk of "improving ROI" lately, with the studios getting more budget conscious.  The box office has been pretty quiet over the past few months, but there has been a steady stream of smaller films like "Anyone But You" and "Bob Marley: One Love" making money at the box office.  The streamers also noticed that titles that get theatrical releases first tend to do better on their services, so we're seeing more theatrical premieres for small films.   

A Short Ramble About Twitter  - Nothing has changed.  Elon Musk has essentially turned the platform into an alt-right coddling cesspool and hasn't suffered any real consequences for it.  I mean, it's now worth a lot less than Musk paid for it, advertisers fled, lawsuits are ongoing, and the user experience is awful, but Twitter is still chugging along with plenty of activity.  Alternatives like Mastodon and Threads never got off the ground.  Bluesky, which I've joined, would be a decent alternative if more people were using it.  However, there hasn't been enough momentum to get people to switch.  There are too many users whose livelihoods are still tied to Twitter.  The one positive development is Twitter's implementation of the "Community Notes" feature to combat misinformation.  This has led to some hilarious examples of Twitter users being called out for their nonsense, including Elon Musk himself.  No, I'm never going to call it "X."  That is a terrible name.

Regime Change at Warner Bros. - Well, everybody hates David Zaslav now.  Despite his cost-cutting making Max profitable, and a couple of wins at the box office, the WBD stock has been tanking and there is a ton of terrible press still floating around because of the decision to write "Coyote vs. Acme" and several other finished projects off for tax purposes.  Despite massive outcry and promises to consider selling "Coyote vs. Acme" to another distributor, it looks like we're never going to see Wile E. Coyote have his day in court.  The wildest part of this story is that James Gunn, currently running the new cinematic DC universe for WB, is a producer and writer on the film.  If WB can do this to him, they can do this to anybody.   

Investor Calls, Fandomes, and Tudums  - Thanks to the 2023 strikes, we haven't had a decent fan event in a while, and I've definitely been feeling it.  The level of hype for everything in the pipeline feels significantly reduced, especially the superhero media that was such a major driver of the box office for so long.  Part of the reason is that the studios don't have as much to promote, with so many projects delayed and left in limbo.  Another is that the superhero bubble burst, and everyone is trying to proceed more carefully.  However, it still strikes me as a little sad that everyone had to find out the new cast of the "Fantastic Four" from a tweet instead of a proper event.  I'm looking forward to the next batch of summer conventions.    

Collapsing the Window  - We're still seeing very short theatrical windows for films that don't perform well, such as "Lisa Frankenstein" and "The Book of Clarence," which both hit VOD less than a month after they were released in theaters.  Bigger titles like "The Marvels" show up after nine or ten weeks.  However, there are always exceptions.  I skipped seeing "The Boy and the Heron" and "Godzilla Minus One" in theaters over the holidays, and I regret it now. 

Finishing "The Nevers" - Finally, it's been over a year since the last six episodes of "The Nevers" dropped on Tubi, and they're still not available for purchase, can't be viewed on any other platform, and you still can't watch them on demand.  Tubi is still only airing them on a linear channel at seemingly random times.  Good grief.   

---

Eyeing "The New Look"

I don't know anything about fashion.  When faced with the prospect of watching ten hours on the lives of Christian Dior and Coco Chanel reviving the French fashion industry in the aftermath of WWII, I was initially skeptical.  But how could I say no when Dior is played by Ben Mendelsohn, Chanel is played by Juliette Binoche, and the supporting cast includes John Malkovitch, Claes Bang, Emily Mortimer, Maisie Williams, and Glenn Close? 

"The New Look" is an oddly constructed show.  Created by Todd Kesslar, it covers about four years, from the ongoing Nazi occupation of France in 1943 to Dior's breakthrough in 1947.  Dior and Chanel have equal screen time, though their paths never intersect and their stories have no characters in common.  Dior initially works for the fashion house of Lucien DeLong (Malkovitch), designing dresses for the Nazis simply to survive, while his younger sister Catherine (Willaims) delivers messages for the Resistance.  Chanel, already a famous fashion designer and in her sixties, is much bolder in her collaboration with the Nazis, having fallen under the sway of the German intelligence agent, Spatz (Bang).  Faced with losing her business, she uses the Nazi connections to protect her financial interests.    

I'm a little curious how each half of "The New Look" would have played out if it were a totally independent project from the other, but pairing them worked for me.  Dior's narrative is fairly slow and sedate, especially in the early going, so it's nice to have Chanel's misadventures as a spy injecting some energy.  Conversely, in the later episodes Chanel's post-war miseries go well with Dior's struggles to start his own fashion house and finish a major collection.  Between the two of them, we have the difficult rise of one icon and the tragic fall of the other, and all the usual elements of traditional biopics - frustrating family relationships, bad romances, brief encounters with other famous faces, and some sketchy accent work.  With such a sprawling timeline, the focus shifts several times to different characters and situations, some more interesting than others.  The first half of "The New Look" actually works pretty well as a WWII narrative, sometimes better than Apple's other big spring offering, "Masters of the Air."

This is all due to the performances.  I'll happily watch Mendelsohn in anything, and he kept Dior watchable despite him not being a particularly interesting person.  The show does its homework and gives us plenty of opportunity to appreciate Dior's beautiful dresses, but "The New Look" never really feels like it's about the fashion.  It spends far more time on Dior's family, friendships, spirituality, and endless self-doubt.  This material is fine, but usually ends up being totally dwarfed by the Coco Chanel storylines.  Juliette Binoche is the main reason to watch the show.  Her version of Chanel - aging, embittered, narcissistic, and often doing terrible things - is absolutely fascinating.  She's totally in the wrong and unlikeable most of the time, and resorts to underhanded tactics frequently.  However, she is so dogged in her pursuit of what she feels that she's owed, you have to respect her.  If she's going down, she's going down fighting until the end.  I hope that "The New Look" gets a second season so we can watch her claw her way back to the top again in the 1950s.   

For the most part the series is well put together, but I'm not a fan of some of the little conceits, like ending each episode with modern covers of WWII era songs, and sometimes with confusing onscreen text.  There's also been criticism about the show being in English when the characters are almost all French, and the actors seem to feel obligated to speak with French accents.  However, when the series works, it works.  The narratives may sometimes feel scattershot, but this results in some fantastic scenes, like Chanel's stinginess catching up to her at a crucial moment, or a missed reunion at a train station.  There's room for an unexpectedly touching performance from Emily Mortimer, and for Malkovitch to Malkovitch as only he can.

"The New Look" will not be to everyone's taste, of course, but as far as prestige TV goes, this was a nice surprise that exceeded my expectations for it.

---

Shelving the Top Ten Project

I started my Top Ten Project way back in 2016 with my top ten list for 2008.  And slowly, bit by bit, I've hit my goal of having seen at least fifty films for each calendar year I write a list for, and worked my way back to the early days of filmmaking, through over six decades of films.  My original goal was to reach 1939, considered the greatest year in cinema back when I was a kid in the '80s, and I've just about done it.  The next top ten post for 1939 will be my last for a while.  I have the resources to keep going, through the 1930s at least, but I want a break and I don't really feel a need to go too much further back than this.  Silent cinema has its charms, but is not something I enjoy in large doses.   

Frankly, watching films from the '40s became more and more of a chore as time went on, especially getting through the WWII years.  I found myself watching certain films at 2x speeds and keeping an eye on running times.  It's also gotten tougher to choose films I want to watch, because there are fewer resources and less interest overall in films from before the 1950s.  Pickings are also slimmer.  The film industries in many countries were practically nonexistent or deeply impacted by WWII.  Many obscurities just don't exist anymore.  I found myself choosing too many titles based on stars and directors instead of notability or awards attention.  The box office winners of the '40s feel especially disconnected from present day critical evaluations, with many well-regarded classics having not been popular at the time of release at all.  The films that did make money were often very bland crowd-pleasers.     

As I've expressed many times before, the whole point of the project was to get more context for the classics, and often the context has boiled down to Hollywood and the American public's tastes having changed drastically over the years, which is perfectly understandable.  As much as I've liked familiarizing myself with different actors and directors, and occasionally turning up some real gems among lesser known films, I've sat through far more that I've failed to connect with at all.  I'm mystified by what people saw in leading men like Van Johnson and Ronald Reagan.  The outsized nationalistic fervor of the post-war period is often uncomfortable, and a pervasive strain of Civil War apologia in films like "Santa Fe Trail" is even worse.  I've nurtured a special dislike for biopics of band leaders and sports heroes, often bearing no resemblance to real events.  It's clear what a lot of '50s films were reacting against.

I like the comedies, however, and I like having so many musicals with talented singers and dancers who really know what they're doing.  I finally understand the appeal of Jack Benny and Bob Hope and young Mickey Rooney.  Lucille Ball unexpectedly emerged as a new favorite for her appearances in some pretty serious films, along with Ida Lupino, who I was only familiar with as a director.  As long as you don't want too much psychological complexity or challenges to the prevailing worldview, there are plenty of very entertaining movies.  The '40s did wholesome entertainment like no other era, with the Hollywood studios at the height of their powers.  However, by the time I reached my fifty film goal for some of these years, I definitely felt like I was scraping the bottom of the barrel.       

For a while I was looking forward to getting to the pre-war Hollywood films of the '30s and especially to the pre-Code stuff, but I'm putting off continuing for a bit.  I need to get my head out of the past for a while.  Instead, I've amassed a pretty good list of more recent titles I want to spend some time exploring first.  So, for now, we've reached the end of regular "Top Ten" posts.  I don't really have a replacement series in mind at this point, so we'll just play it by ear.

Happy watching.       

 

---

Memorializing the "Masters of the Air"

It's spring, which means it's time for prestige miniseries, and if there's anything that counts as a prestige miniseries, it's the WWII shows executive produced by Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks.  "Band of Brothers" has been required viewing if you have any kind of interest in WWII, and its spiritual successor "Masters of the Air" has been in the works for over a decade.  An extremely qualified cast and crew have been assembled to tell the story of the "Bloody Hundredth," a US Air Force Unit stationed in the UK that flew missions over Europe and Africa in WWII. 

I want to tell you that "Masters of the Air" is worth the wait, and that the series lives up to "Band of Brothers" and "The Pacific."  Clearly no expense was spared in putting together the production, and everyone involved delivers very professional, committed, and well-researched work.  However, the show doesn't strike me as anything special.  Some episodes are more exciting than others, such as the third installment that depicts the Schweinfurt-Regensburg bombing mission.  We follow the combatants through planning, missions, internments, escapes, and plenty more.  However, it's only the very, very end of the finale, where a montage of stills explain what happened to each of the major characters after the war, that actually hit me emotionally.  

This is not the fault of the cast.  The three major POV characters we follow through the series are Maj. "Buck" Clevan (Austin Butler), Maj. "Bucky" Egan (Callum Turner) and Lt. Harry Crosby (Anthony Boyle).  There are several notable guest stars, including Barry Keoghan, Bel Powley, and Ncuti Gatwa.  I don't think it's the fault of the writing.  Co-creator John Orloff wrote most of the episodes, and he worked on the original "Band of Brothers."  His instincts are old fashioned, including having several episodes begin with narration reminiscing about aspects of the war experience, but the storytelling is sound.  I appreciate the inclusion of the Tuskegee Airmen in the later episodes and the many nods to support staff, maintenance crews, and other participants in the war.  

There's been some grumbling about the effects work, which I agree isn't the best.  There's a ton of CGI in the flight scenes, and deployed in such a way that elements like the aircraft, flak, and smoke plumes look far too perfect and unreal.  However, the larger problem is really that the whole show has a certain attitude of uncomfortable hagiography to it.  There are too many rough edges that have been sanded off and too many compromises made with the facts in order to show us the kind of heroic narrative we're expecting.  "Masters of the Air" feels like the show that "Band of Brothers" managed to avoid being - too idealized, too self-mythologizing, and too beholden to notions about what WWII media is supposed to look like.  There's a two and a half minute opening credits sequence that is so self-important and so reverent, it borders on parody. 

Of course, this is the point.  There are plenty of similar WWII movies with played-up patriotic derring-do that are classics.  However, those movies functioned very differently from "Masters of the Air."  The big issue is that  we don't get to know any of the characters individually, well enough to care about them.  "Band of Brothers" got away with it, because Easy Company being on the ground in such terrible conditions made the group as a whole very sympathetic and compelling to follow.  With "Masters of the Air," the only character I really got attached to was our narrator, Harry Crosby, who goes from hapless navigator to stressed out strategist as the show rolls on, and he's rarely in the thick of the action.  Buck and Bucky just aren't very interesting, despite their bravery, and the others are difficult to keep track of or are gone too soon.  

I respect the amount of effort that went into this project, and I suspect that people who really love WWII media, especially the aircraft geeks, will have a great time with "Masters of the Air."  I, however, had a better time with the accompanying documentary about the real Bloody Hundredth, which I happily recommend to anyone curious about the series.         

---