Corinne

Show Time: Should You Watch “The Mandalorian”?

Given that I’m an ENORMOUS fan of Star Wars, it was no surprise that I felt obligated to watch The Mandalorian on Disney+. Initially, I was conflicted about whether I should watch it. Part of me is wary at how Disney is treating this expanded Star Wars Universe — Rogue One hasn’t aged very well in my mind and I never saw Solo (partly because it’s about a character whose backstory I never really needed and partly because I heard mixed things about it). But, then, on the other hand, I figured — since I now have Disney+ — that it would be foolish not to at least watch the first episode or two, just to check it out and see what was up.

A quick synopsis: Five years after the events of Return of the Jedi, a bounty hunter who’s only ever called ‘the Mandalorian’ (played by Pedro Pascal) is trying to make due on what assignments he’s given and the mediocre pay he receives. Thus, when some remnants of the Imperial order offer to pay him very handsomely to track down someone, he takes it without question. However, thanks to this newest assignment, he begins to wonder whether his life is as it should be, or whether he’s lost his integrity and needs to begin again.

So, after watching the first four episodes…

Would I recommend The Mandalorian? In a word: Yes.

(I WILL TRY VERY HARD NOT TO SPOIL THINGS; BUT FYI, THERE COULD BE MILD SPOILERS AHEAD.)

The good:

Where do I even begin? There are so many good aspects of this show that it’s hard to pick a place to start, but I’ll tackle the overall production value first.

I appreciate that this show has a very stout budget but also doesn’t feel like it has to throw a bunch of CGI at you. One of the characters could easily have been CGI, and almost was, but they decided to go with an animatronic/puppet instead, which was a better decision, given how integral this character is to the show. But, when the show does have CGI elements, they’re very well done and convincing. Unlike the prequels, I imagine much of this is shot on location, so the graphic artists and CG animators don’t have to CG an entire world or location as much as a thing in it or an aspect of it (multiple suns or moons — that type of thing). Much like The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi, it knows when to use practical and when to use digital elements, and also knows how to perfectly blend the two. The practical elements don’t feel too restrictive, which was occasionally the case in the original trilogy (ie, that guy in the cantina who’s wearing a werewolf mask), but the CG elements don’t feel over-used.

The show, thus far, has a very minimal cast. We have the Mandalorian and a few recurring characters, but the Mandalorian is the only character played by an actor who’s been in every single episode. Some recurring characters have been in two; and others who I bet will be recurring have only been in one. But, again, we’re not very far into the show. The fact that the core cast is essentially the Mandalorian and another character who doesn’t have any real dialogue keeps it very lean and focused on them. Sure, we’ve had one-off characters who got their little arcs or quests to go on, but that was only in one or two episodes (thus far). I have no idea whether anyone else will be added to the core cast of this show, but I really like how it focuses on Mando and his traveling companion. They are the heart of the show, and their evolving relationship and bond has already been the driving force in at least one character’s arc.

And, on top of that, I cannot get over how amazing Pascal’s performance is as the Mandalorian. Considering that he doesn’t talk much, especially in the first two or three episodes, and his face is constantly covered by his helmet, he has to convey a lot of deep emotion with nothing but his body language. And, I appreciate that the show allows him moments of silence and reflection, rather than him having to verbalize everything. Sure, there are moments where that happens, but it’s moments where it feels appropriate. When he’s alone, he’s allowed to be quiet, rather than talking to himself and spelling everything out for us, the audience.

It also makes me appreciate Pascal as an actor. I’ve only ever seen him in Season 4 of Game of Thrones, where he has a very strong (Spanish?? Latin?) accent, and plays a character who is arguably rooted in some ugly stereotypes. Here, he has an American accent, and because you never seen Mando’s face, I honestly didn’t know it was Pascal playing him until the credits rolled on the first episode.

Speaking of, the credits are weirdly something I both simultaneously hate and love about this show. I, of course, hate it when any given episode is over, but the credits are so well-done that it kinda makes up for it. Ludwig Göransson, who was the composer on Black Panther, is the show’s composer; and I absolutely love his theme music for The Mandalorian, which plays briefly during the episode’s title card, but plays in full during the credits. Plus, the credits feature beautiful artwork (perhaps concept art???) from scenes in that given episode.

Overall, the music for the entire show has been good thus far, but Göransson’s theme for The Mandalorian perfectly captures everything important about the show and the character. Granted, I’ve seen the show already, but just from relistening to the theme, here are some of the vibes I get from the opening minute of it: Solitary. Loner. Wild / wilderness. The hunt. Predator. Prey. Animalistic.

The first part of it also has a bit of a Western vibe to it, which is appropriate as the Mandalorian plays into the lone gunslinger archetype; the second part blends in something that sounds like a march, so it comes off as more militaristic; then it changes into something more akin to a traditional Star Wars theme with loud brass and strings, which invokes the ideas of heroics and adventure; and then it transitions back into this sci-fi punk type of sound.

So, we have elements of a Western-type solitary gun-for-hire, hunting others and/or being hunted himself, out in the harsh and wild elements of the world. His story has some military aspect to it — order, combat, being sent on a mission, etc. And, he’s off on adventure to display some heroics. And this is all while living in a grungy cyber-punk sort of world.

Now, again, I’ve seen the show, so my experience is no doubt informing the imagery that comes to mind when I heard the music. But, again, it’s music that fits the tone and atmosphere of this world, this character and this show to a tee. Based on my experiences with Black Panther and its soundtrack, I think Göransson was the perfect person to score / compose music for this show. Someone like John Williams deals more in the traditional hero/villain themes and tends to stick to more traditional orchestrations (especially when composing Star Wars scores); meanwhile Göransson has proven that he can bring a little bit of the animalistic and exotic across in his compositions, and he doesn’t seem to be afraid to use less traditional instrumentation to try to evoke different things.

After all, this is a side of Star Wars that we haven’t seen in the films, at least not substantially. This is the dark underbelly — the scum, the criminals, the outcasts, the guns-for-hire. It’s grimy, dirty, and worn down. It’s a world where everyone plays by their own rules. There are no righteous heroes; there are no obvious villains; everyone is an anti-hero. At least, initially. Star Wars hasn’t really dealt with anti-heroes before, and even though I’d argue Mando doesn’t seem to be a total anti-hero, he definitely leans more in that direction than someone like Luke Skywalker or Rey does.

I could talk a lot more about other aspects of this show that are well-done, but I’ll conclude on this note which I touched on a bit above: so far, The Mandalorian seems to understand why Star Wars has succeeded — it uses familiar archetypes as a foundation while also telling a new story.

This is why the original trilogy succeeds where the prequels, I would argue, fail. The first Star Wars movie, as has been discussed many times, was based on Joseph Campbell’s outline of the Hero’s Journey. It used familiar characters to tell a somewhat familiar story in a new setting. A seemingly innocuous farmer finds out that he has a special call/destiny, and sets off with his old and wise father-figure. Along the way, he befriends a pirate, “rescues” a princess, and strikes a decisive blow that helps the heroes defeat the villains.

Sometimes, less is more. Having a simple story set in a memorable world with likable characters seems to be better received than … space politics. Don’t get me wrong, I see the merits of the prequels, and I think The Clones Wars TV series goes a long way to help fill in some of the gaps in several characters’ arcs.

We also see a return to form, to some degree, in the new trilogy — particularly The Force Awakens, which makes sense given that it was a soft reboot of A New Hope. Rey is our new space-orphan who finds out she has a special power/call/destiny, etc. BUT, I see Rey also simultaneously filling a different archetype — one, that’s arguably much older — and it has to do with her connection to Kylo Ren. I don’t want to get into it here, because this post is supposed to be about The Mandalorian, but Rey and Kylo Ren feel an awful lot like Persephone and Hades, respectively, in The Force Awakens.

Anyway, the point is that The Mandalorian — both the show and the character — are founded on the archetype of the lone gunslinger. But, that’s really a more recent archetype that I’d argue is actually more of a trope than an archetype. Really, the idea of the lone gunslinger/gunman/cowboy/gun-for-hire probably originates in Japanese samurai stories (as do many elements of the Western genre). Really, the archetype is more accurately described as The Wanderer.

The Wanderer is a man adrift, both physically and spiritually/emotionally. He has no real home and no real destination. He is free but he is also incredibly isolated. He is a man of principle — someone who lives by his own code. He keeps to himself and doesn’t meddle in others’ affairs unless absolutely necessary. He is incredibly dangerous and deadly, being well-trained in hand-to-hand combat and/or wielding a weapon. He has a dark past, and — upon meeting someone who reminds him of the kind of values he used to uphold — eventually starts to reconcile with it by no longer wandering but by staying with his newfound friends and/or family. He eventually finds a purpose.

Kenshin Himura from Rurouni Kenshin (which Rurouni literally means “wanderer” in Japanese) is an excellent example of this. Granted, by the end of the first episode, he’s found a home with a new set of friends / adopted family. But his past still haunts him both physically and emotionally over the course of the show, and part of the series focuses on him reconciling with what he did in his former life as an assassin. And, of course, many cowboys and gunslingers from Westerns fit this archetype as well.

And so does the Mandalorian.

As I said, archetypes are a framework or a jumping off point for well-written Star Wars characters. They are familiar to the audience, which allows you time to establish the world that your character(s) operate in AND THEN you start doing your character-building.

Again, trying not to spoil anything, but we’re already starting to see Mando’s growth as a character. Ideally, your characters can play into the archetypes but, if they’re well-written, shouldn’t be defined by them. At the end of the day, I can think of other ways besides “wanderer” or “lone gunslinger” to describe Mando now that he’s evolving as a character. And, that’s the point.

OK. So I’ve raved about this show so much. Is there anything negative to say about it?

The bad:

There’s maybe one bad thing about the show, and even then, it’s not like a bid deal. It boils down to me thinking that the show leans too heavily on the pre-established Star Wars imagery.

(MILD SPOILERS AHEAD)

So far, we’ve got a Mandalorian bounty hunter; a baby of Yoda’s species; freezing people in carbonite; Jawas; cantinas; Stormtroopers; a bounty-hunting droid; an AT-ST; and probably some other things that I can’t remember right now.

(END OF MILD SPOILERS)

This was especially infuriating in the first two episodes, where it seemed like everything that popped up was something we’ve seen before in the Star Wars universe. It’s a little too much, and it started reminding me of all the “wink-wink” moments in Rogue One.

Granted, it’s also introduced some new things too — creatures, characters, conflicts, planets, etc. And, I think the fourth episode in particular was pretty good about not using anything that was notably Star Wars-y (with one exception).

One other thing I’ll say — which isn’t a criticism with the show itself but more with the culture around it — is that so much of it is getting reduced into memes. Don’t get me wrong: I love the memes that have popped up around the show, and I laugh aloud and/or nod my head in approval at many of them.

BUT, I don’t like the idea of people who aren’t watching the show only absorbing its plot and characters through memes; or people who haven’t seen the newest episode yet (maybe because life got in the way) getting plot points spoiled via memes. This happened to me with the first episode, actually.

Again, I don’t blame the showrunners or anyone who works on The Mandalorian for this meme-centric culture — unless they specifically developed the show with the goal of gaining popularity via memes — but it is just a tad exhausting as a viewer/consumer. So, I can’t imagine how annoying it is for people who don’t want the show or haven’t watched it yet. I mean, we’re only four (almost five) episodes into this show, and already it’s gone viral like nothing else in recent memory (except maybe Game of Thrones???). It’s ridiculous. Part of me enjoys it, and part of me wants it to stop.

So, in answer to the question “Should You Watch The Mandalorian?” I say: FUCK YES!!!

It’s already off to a solid start, and I can’t wait to see what tomorrow’s episode brings!

Show Time: Month-Out Predictions and Theories for “The Rise of Skywalker”

It’s hard to believe that a month from now, I’ll be sitting in the theater, watching the final chapter in Star Wars‘ Skywalker Saga. This is a franchise that has meant so much to me personally that saying farewell to these characters is ultimately going to be bittersweet. But, right now, I’m too consumed with wondering how the story is going to end to fully grasp this. It’s like watching the series finale of Lost. You’re too busy wondering how all the questions are going to be answered and how the final conflict is going to be resolved, that it’s not until after that it really hits you: “Oh, it’s over. That’s it. That was the end.”

Now, Star Wars as a franchise will apparently be going on forever. So far, I’m enjoying The Mandalorian; thus, if we get more stories like that, I honestly wouldn’t mind. But, I think it’s time we bid farewell to the Skywalker family and start focusing on some other more unique and, to be honest, more interesting stories in this fictional universe. (Seriously, why don’t we have a Knights of the Old Republic movie, yet? Oh wait…)

In any case, because we’re exactly one month away from the movie’s opening date, I wanted to take a minute to make some more predictions on how this is all going to end. I tackled this subject matter previously, but that was in a post that was written more than a year ago — before we even had the title of the movie. Now that we have not only the title, but a lot of footage in the trailers, photos from the movie, interviews from the actors and so on, I think it’s worth really exploring what’s really going to be in this movie, rather than speculating a year in advance.

I want to say, before I really dive into this, that I could be right about some of these predictions. So, if you’re in the midst of a media blackout for The Rise of Skywalker (as some of my friends and family are), and you haven’t seen trailers, read interviews or anything like that, TURN BACK NOW!

I don’t want to throw up SPOILER WARNING, because they’re not actually spoilers (yet), but my predictions might be more than some people want to know beforehand.

SO AGAIN: DO NOT READ ANY FURTHER IF YOU DON’T WANT TO DEAL WITH ANYTHING EVEN RESEMBLING SPOILERS!

Now, onto the predictions:

ACT ONE

I’m going to predict that Act One is going to include Kylo Ren’s Star Destroyer and Rey’s training on the jungle planet.

(Side note: The Internet speculates the planet is called Ajan Kloss. But, one, that’s not confirmed; and, two, that is the stupidest name ever and I’m not going to call it that. Overall, the planets’ names in this movie sound like someone picked them from random Scrabble tiles. Pasaana is the one exception, because that actually sounds like a real place. Kijimi is OK, but I keep wanting to call it Kimiji, because I think that sounds better. Thus, I’m going to be calling “Ajan Kloss” Jungle Planet.)

For the Star Destroyer set piece, we’ve seen a shot of Rey and Kylo fighting and destroying Darth Vader’s helmet, and we have a shot of Finn, Poe and Chewie in a First Order hallway (presumably aboard a FO ship).

I believe, of the two, the Star Destroyer sequence is going to be the first set piece of the movie. Star Wars (main saga) movies always begin with the title crawl in space and then some shot of a ship flying to/from somewhere (or in TLJ, hovering over a planet). I believe our first shot is going to be Rey & Co. flying to Kylo Ren’s Star Destroyer to do … something. Maybe they’re sneaking aboard to steal information. Maybe they’re sneaking aboard to destroy something. I’m not sure.

During this sequence, we will see the confrontation between Rey and Kylo. She will pick up the Sith relic knife (seen in the shot where she’s destroying the helmet) during the fight, and SHE will destroy the Darth Vader helmet (whether accidentally or on purpose). Some people conjecture that she and Kylo are destroying it together, but I don’t think this is the case. Kylo, in the brief second we see this scene, seems to be concerned about its destruction. I think either Rey was trying to destroy the helmet on purpose or it was a by-product of the fight (ie, she parried his strike or vice versa and the lightsabers crashed into it).

Then, she, Finn and Poe escape the ship via the Falcon. We have a photo of Kylo — helmet off — in the hangar bay. It looks like a ship is flying away, as many of the Stormtroopers in the background are on the ground because of the ship’s engines blasting in their direction. So, makes me think that Kylo is using the Force to stand up and walk toward the ship before/as it flies away. [EDIT: I just saw a TV spot that confirms this prediction. It showed Rey escaping onto the Falcon in the hangar bay and Kylo watching her while staying upright via the Force.]

So then there’s the training sequence on the Jungle Planet. Now, I’ll fully admit that it’s possible that THIS is the first protagonist-centered set piece of the movie (because maybe the opening sequence is something First Order-centered, like in Return of the Jedi).

That would make more sense thematically, as it would show Rey has completed her training and is fully capable of facing Kylo Ren / taking on the First Order or whatever. As someone else described when analyzing that footage from the final trailer, it shows Rey has left her childhood behind (the helmet she discards as she runs away) and is now a fully matured woman and Jedi Knight (or at least, Force user). If TFA was childhood and TLJ was adolescence, then it fits that TROS will be adulthood.

This is also where Rey is saying goodbye to Leia, symbolizing the full transition from the old characters to the new ones.

Either way, I believe that these two set pieces (Jungle Planet training/saying goodbye to Leia and the Star Destroyer infiltration/fight) will be the first big ones of the movie. It’s the order I’m not sure about, because I could honestly see it going either way. (Actually, Jungle Planet then Star Destroyer kinda makes more sense, especially if Pasaana is an unscheduled stop in Act Two because their ship gets damaged escaping the Star Destroyer.)

ACT TWO

This is the act we’ve gotten the most about, it seems like. The bulk of Act Two seems to take place on Pasaana (the desert planet) with a few scenes on Kijimi (the underworld hideout where Zorri Bliss [Keri Russell’s character] is). Again, I’m not entirely sure on the order of which one is first. I would guess Pasaana, because the C-3PO “farewell” scene seems to be on Kijimi as Zorri Bliss is there.

OK, so after leaving the Jungle Planet, probably, the group goes to Pasaana. Or it could be that the the Jungle Planet is first, then they flee the Star Destroyer and maybe crash-land in Pasaana or something. Maybe it’s like a Flee from Naboo situation (in Phantom Menace) or Jakku situation (in TFA), where their ship is hit and so they have to make an emergency landing on a nearby planet to repair their ship or refuel. Either way, the First Order still seems to be chasing them across Pasaana, and we have the showdown between Rey and Kylo in his TIE fighter.

On that score, I subscribe to the theory that Rey and Kylo are actually training in that scene where she jumps over the TIE fighter.

We have the Vanity Fair covers that show Rey and Kylo on Pasaana, and they seem to be looking at each other with mixed emotions. And, as Daisy Ridley has stated in an interview, there was a very emotional scene that they filmed in Jordan with the natural light fading. And, there’s a photo of Kylo — helmet off — walking in a desert environment, presumably Pasaana.

I think, after the incident on the ship where Sith relics were disturbed or destroyed, Kylo has become aware of something developing on the Dark Side of the Force (which is Emperor Palpatine/Darth Sidious — and I’ll talk about that more in the Act 3 section). Thus, he seeks out Rey, because he wants to partner with her to investigate and probably destroy whatever this Dark Side energy is that he senses. He will call off all the First Order forces from pursuing them — so the speeder chase scene will presumably be in the first half of the group’s trip to Pasaana — and then he will approach the group (read: Rey) to ask for her help.

And THEN, I predict, we will get the infamous ‘Rey flipping over the TIE fighter scene.’ As I said, I believe the two are training. Some on the Internet have theorized that Kylo’s TIE fighter is actually cloaked and — while we the audience can see it in the shot — Rey can’t. Thus, she’s doing all that running and jumping solely because she’s honing her ability to sense things via the Force. It would also explain why she’s so out of breath at the beginning of the scene — because they’ve done this several times already and this is only Kylo’s most recent pass and Rey’s most recent jump. It also explains why Kylo isn’t shooting at her, which I found very odd when I first saw the scene.

OK, that seems to be the bulk of what we know they do on Pasaana. Now Kijimi. Again, it could be that Kijimi takes place before Pasaana. I have no idea, but — like with Act One — I think these two set pieces will take up the bulk of Act Two. I just don’t know the order.

The one thing that apparently takes place on Kijimi is whatever the group is doing with C-3PO that makes him take “one last look” at his friends. We also have the shot of C-3PO’s red eyes in the D-23 footage, which seems to be during the same scene. My prediction is that they are trying to recover some information from C-3PO’s memory that has been deleted. This technology is experimental, perhaps; and thus, there’s a risk that rather than recovering his old memories, it will wipe out his current ones. That’s why C-3PO is taking a last look at his friends, because there’s a risk he will forget them if the recovery technique fails. What memory or memories are they recovering from him? Not sure. Probably something to do with Anakin or Palpatine, as that would be relevant to what’s happening in Act 3.

ACT THREE

OK, so Act Three seems to consist of the lightsaber fight between Kylo and Rey atop the Death Star ruins on the ocean moon, supposedly named Kef Bir (I’m not calling it that — Ocean Moon is fine); the big space battle between the Resistance and First Order/Empire(??); and the confrontation with Palpatine.

I don’t really have a lot of predictions on the space battle front, so I’m going to focus mainly on everything going on between Kylo and Rey on Ocean Moon.

So, we have the shot of Rey & Co. arriving at the Death Star ruins from the first trailer, and then we have a shot of her riding over to it in some kind of skiff in the final trailer. This obviously happens before the fight between her and Kylo.

Now, from the final trailer, we have this shot of Rey (lightsaber ignited) and Kylo (no helmet and no lightsaber ignited) standing in the Death Star ruins of the Emperor’s Throne Room. I believe that this happens BEFORE the fight, because it seems to be lighter outside in the background. It seems that this meeting in the Throne Room takes place during the day, the fight atop the ruins takes place at dusk, and the confrontation with Palpatine takes place at night. So, I think that’s the sequence of events.

So, if Rey and Kylo teamed up before on Pasaana, why are they now fighting?

I have two theories: either Rey blames Kylo for Leia’s death, because we know Leia’s alive in Act One and presumably won’t be around much in the movie after that; OR — more likely — Kylo is being possessed by Palpatine.

Alright, so on the Sidious/Palpatine front, here’s what I think is happening:

Palpatine IS dead, but his essence or spirit or whatever you want to call it has been lingering on the Dark Side of the Force. Basically, he’s like Voldemort. Even though he died physically on the Death Star in ROTJ, he didn’t actually die. He’s too powerful in the Dark Side of the Force to actually be gone for good. And, I subscribe to the theory that Palpatine’s spirit was the one possessing Snoke (similar to how Voldemort possessed Quirrell as a sort of temporary body in Sorcerer’s Stone). If you go back through Snoke’s dialogue from TFA and TLJ, there wasn’t anything that sounded out-of-character for the Emperor to say; I mean, I think it was kind of like generically evil on purpose, just like the Emperor’s dialogue in ROTJ.

And, so, just as Palpatine presumably took over Snoke’s body — probably because it was the only one available at the time (again, like Quirrell) — now he has two young people who are both extremely strong in Force. I mean, now, he gets his pick of the litter, so to speak. Thus, I think he’ll initially possess and control Kylo, even if it’s only partially or only temporarily. And that’s how we get the lightsaber fight.

Rey will be pissed that Palpatine is controlling Kylo’s body and will fight in an effort to drive him out. It’s also possible that during this possession, Kylo will see Dark Rey, which we saw in the D-23 footage. I wouldn’t be surprised if — maybe because he doesn’t have full control of Kylo’s body just yet — Palpatine was manipulating Kylo into fighting Rey by showing Kylo a vision of her on the Dark Side. He’s corrupting Kylo’s mind into fighting Rey.

Now, the fight ends in a kind of draw. We see that Palpatine has returned in some kind of corporal form, as he’s confronting Rey in the final trailer. And we know that Kylo — if he was possessed before — has regained his senses by the time Palpatine physically returns.

This makes me wonder — and this is more of a theory than a prediction — that Palpatine drained Kylo of ability to use the Force and has used that energy to return physically. We know that Palpatine can use the Force to create / take away life from ROTS, and so I imagine he had to have access to a physical body who was strong enough, specifically in the Dark Side, to do this. That’s why he couldn’t do so when he controlled/possessed Snoke’s body. He needed Kylo’s power and strength, especially in the Dark Side, to be able to do it.

This would explain why Kylo isn’t initially facing down Palpatine with Rey. (The showdown appears to still be on Ocean Moon, but just a different part. I wonder if the tide shifted or something when the old Star Destroyers rose up out of the water …)

So, in their previous fight (where Palpatine is probably possessing Kylo) atop the Death Star ruins, neither side really wins. Rey is maybe strong enough to prevent Palpatine/Kylo from doing more damage while also keeping Kylo alive, but Palpatine gains enough energy to bring himself back to life. But, as said, rather than being by her side, Kylo is next to his TIE fighter and then DECIDES to go back and help Rey — or at least that’s what I predict he’s doing in the final trailer and D-23 footage.

But, why isn’t Kylo already alongside Rey? I doubt he’d just abandon her; and I doubt that Palpatine controlled or tempted him to abandon her. As I speculate, if Kylo was drained of his Force powers… I could see Rey telling Kylo that — without access to the Force — he’s only a liability and should leave while he has the chance. No doubt Palpatine’s focus has now shifted to Rey because she’s just as strong in the Force as Kylo is, and he probably wants to drain her energy, possess her body, or something else nefarious. Maybe Rey creates a distraction so Kylo can get away safely. And, just as he returns to his TIE fighter and is about to fly away, he decides he needs to go back and help her — Force powers or no.

Or, even if he still has his Force power, it’s possible that Rey was able to drive Palpatine out of Kylo during their fight earlier; and because of that Palpatine now wants to possess her and Rey wants Kylo to leave before Palpatine possess him again.

Either way, Kylo decides to go back and help Rey, and I predict that this is PART of the reason why the movie is called The Rise of Skywalker. Kylo, being the last living descendant of Anakin Skywalker, is now “rising” to the occasion and stopping the saga’s Big Bad (Palpatine) from taking over the galaxy or whatever his evil schemes are this time. Of course, Rey will certainly help in this effort, but Kylo’s choice there seems to be very pivotal to the whole story. Rather than letting the Dark Side/evil triumph, Kylo is going to turn back toward the Light/good.

And, of course, I think that that last shot of Rey looking directly at the camera in the final trailer will be her looking at Kylo/Ben when he decides to come back toward the Light/good.

Anyway, the two will fight alongside one another to defeat Palpatine, and they will because, duh.

THE DENOUEMENT

If you read my other post, you know that I subscribe to the theory that Rey and Kylo/Ben will get ~together~ at the end of the movie and become something akin to Grey Jedi — Force-users who use both the Light and the Dark Sides of the Force in balance. I also subscribe to the theory that this movement that they start of ‘balance’ within the Force will be called Skywalker or Skywalkers. The Jedi were a religion on the Light Side; the Sith, a religion on the Dark Side; and now, the Skywalker(s) will be a religion in between.

This is ANOTHER reason for why I think the movie is named “the Rise of Skywalker.” The titular Skywalker could refer to Kylo (an actual descendant of Anakin Skywalker), AND Rey (because I’m hoping she marries into that family), AND any future children they have, AND any students they have in their newfound order of Gray Jedi-like Force users.

I also predict that both the First Order/Empire and the Resistance will be disbanded and a new system of government will be instituted. Maybe the Republic will be resurrected; or maybe it will be something new entirely.

If my theory that Kylo will be drained of his Force-powers is true, I could see him never regaining them. Or, in an X-Men 3 way, regaining them but very slowly. Or maybe he will be drained of the Dark Side, but he can still use the Light. Who knows? This is where my predictions start to thin out, but I feel like for audiences to accept Kylo’s redemption he’s going to have to suffer some kind of loss of power or strength. Maybe it’s a physical injury, like a lost limb, or maybe it’s a spiritual one (ie, he’s lost his Force powers).

And, my theory for the final shot of the movie will be Rey and Kylo together either on Naboo or Tatooine. I could see either, to be quite honest. Naboo is where the whole nine-episode saga started in The Phantom Menace. The first shot in the whole saga (chronologically in-universe) was the Jedi’s ship flying toward Naboo. I could see the final shot be Rey and Kylo — our two Grey Jedi / Skywalker — on Naboo, thus completing the circle. But, Tatooine has more significance to the overall franchise, and that is where the Skywalker saga literally started because it’s where we first meet Anakin in The Phantom Menace.

MISC. THINGS & FINAL THOUGHTS

I want to state, for the record, that there are definitely plot lines and plot points that I know will be in the film that I did not discuss or make predictions about. These include Kylo mowing down a First Order soldier in the first trailer, Luke’s speech (presumably as a Force Ghost), Lando’s return, any of the new characters, or anything to do with the Resistance and the final battle.

Who knows? Maybe the first sequence will be Kylo’s ship going to wherever this red forest is to put down some kind of First Order insurrection, and then we get Rey training on Jungle Planet, and then we get Kijimi, and then the Star Destroyer and then Pasaana and then Ocean Moon. And maybe the shot of Rey and Kylo in the Throne Room of the Death Star ruins is actually after their fight with Palpatine (which would make sense thematically as the ‘return of the light’ given that it’s so bright in that scene compared to all the others in/around the Death Star ruins).

Here’s the thing: I don’t want all my predictions to be right. If they are, then it means the movie’s going to be boring because of how stale and predictable it is. Obviously, there are things I can say for certain about it — the Forest Planet training will definitely be at the beginning, Pasaana in the middle, Ocean Moon showdown at the end — but I also realize that there’s going to be a lot of stuff in this movie that we never even got a hint of in the trailers.

If you recall all the marketing for TLJ, for instance, there was never anything about Yoda returning as a Force Ghost, Holdo’s lightspeed-kamikaze move, or Rey and Kylo teaming up, or Snoke’s death. This franchise, I think, knows what cards to play and when in terms of marketing. Do we actually know the plot of the movie? No, not really. But, we know some things that are going to happen in it, like the lightsaber fight on the Death Star ruins, Rey finishing her training, Palpatine coming back in some fashion, etc. In the same way, I don’t think you could really piece together the plot of TLJ whenever its trailer came out. I mean, people thought the Crait battle was at the beginning or middle of the movie, rather than the end.

So, anyway, just keep that in mind. As Youtuber Preston Jacobs likes to say: I’m probably wrong about half of this.

And, that’s OK. So long as they get the big things right — Kylo/Ben being redeemed, he and Rey ending up together, and starting a Grey Jedi-type movement — I’ll be more than satisfied.

Thankfully, we only have one more month to find out!!!

Until then:

Show Time: A Dialogue on Horror Films (ft. Ryan)

NOTE: At the end of Reel Nerds Podcast Episode 410: NXNW (the “North by Northwest” episode), Ryan announced that the Nerds would be watching “IT: Chapter 2” for the following episode, and I expressed my unwillingness to watch it. When Ryan asked me why during the recording, I didn’t have a very good response, which led to me reigniting the conversation via messenger app. What follows is the back-and-forth that Ryan and I had about horror films and the genre as a whole, which I reposted here with his blessing. At different points, he recommends films for me to watch as a way to gauge my taste in the genre, and I share those thoughts on the films as well.

I’ll tell you at the outset that it’s very long — spanning several weeks — but I figure it’s best to capture it all in a single post. I tried to edit it as best as I could, but if some misspellings, abbreviations and text shorthand slipped in, I apologize. So, without further ado, enjoy!

###

Initial conversation on Aug. 31:

CORINNE: So I’ve been thinking over your question about why I don’t like horror movies. I stand by my comment that I don’t like being on edge when I watch movies to be entertained. But to expand on that, I’d say it’s because horror — as a genre — treats violence and villains/monsters differently than typical action/adventure/superhero movies do. In the latter, defeating the bad guy is pretty much a given. There might be a token death or two, but overall, it feels like a bad guy that can be defeated. In horror movies, though, the violence and death seems inevitable. No one is safe. Oftentimes the primary victims are women (like in Friday the 13th) and instead of the bad guy feeling like a typical villain, they’re more of a predator or real monster. Someone who can’t be reasoned with, someone who can’t be defeated (in true horror movie fashion, the monster is never really dead). The end is more of a reprieve from violence than it is a resounding victory, like in superhero movies. I’m sure there are exceptions, but in my limited experience with the genre, that’s what I would say. As one YouTube essayist I enjoy said — and I’m paraphrasing — for women, violence is not escapism, bc it’s something that we consider in our decision-making every day. I don’t think that’s 100 percent true, but I do think it’s on the right track. In real life, there are a lot of Jason’s and Freddy’s and Michael Meyers, unfortunately. And perhaps the horror genre glorifies those types of images and scenarios, especially through franchises. Rather than showing that the monster can be killed, it shows that the monster and the violence and death it brings with it, is inevitable and can’t be stopped. And that’s just not a very happy message. I guess it is realistic, in a way, bc humans have always been brutal to each other. But again, I watch movies more for escapism than realism (in some regards). So 🤷‍♀️. Like I said: I’d really like to do an article about it. Maybe I need to find a horror movie to watch to help me examine my own thoughts and reactions on why I don’t like them. Any suggestions?

RYAN: What reaction are you looking for? Are you looking to be scared or looking for a solid horror film? And too I would not say that violence is only perpetuated on women. Give me one second and I will back up what I just said with facts that I can send you. I’m not trying to belittle or dismiss what you are saying but a lot of times people that don’t watch horror films have that reaction to them. They see the monster, Freddy or Jason and assume that the violence is some form of either only preying on woman or as punishment for sex, drugs etc. I would argue that Jason is the shark in Jaws, no rhyme or reason just a predator who takes advantage of what’s presented. And also too, Friday the 13th movies are not the best example of horror films. I love them because they are an escape cinema not high art. Give me a moment and I will send you stuff to back up what I’m saying.

CORINNE: I know it’s not only women. But maybe some of the more iconic ones prominently feature female victims trying to escape a male “monster.” Like Friday the 13th. Again, not all. I just want to watch something that isn’t going to give me nightmares. I watched The Exorcist in HS and had trouble sleeping for a few days.

RYAN: I think something like You’re Next might be a good one. It is a little creepy but the twist is awesome and it happens about half way through the movie making the last half super satisfying and awesome. And too mostly the women are the ones who fight back. The term “final girl” refers to this, I mean the most iconic is Jamie Lee Curtis in Halloween.

CORINNE: True. But the monster is never really gone either. It’s like the breaks between rounds in a boxing match. I also think horror is a bigger genre than I might realize. So it will depend. Like, you said that Night of the Living Dead is horror and I was like 🤣 . Bc it wasn’t scary. And other than maybe two scenes, it wasn’t tense.

RYAN: Well, that’s just splitting hairs because you mentioned earlier superhero films with villains never really die and someone even as charismatic as Loki is responsible for more deaths then Jason ever has been. He literally killed or at least is responsible for thousands of people in New York and the Frost Giants whole civilization. So it’s truly all relative in terms on what makes someone bad and the horror they endure. But horror films will exploit and glorify the deaths more. But I see what you’re saying I just think it’s all relative if you really think about what a villain does. And we always want them to come back because of the charisma or the unstoppable nature makes you want them to be defeated. Just like the Green Goblin or Loki, we love to hate them. And in horror films it’s the monsters, Wolfman, Jason etc. But let me think about maybe not so much “classy” horror but maybe more accessible horror

CORINNE: With superhero villains, usually the violence is dealt with in a more abstract or indirect way. Yes people are dying and he’s responsible for their deaths, but they don’t show Loki murdering someone — and even the guy whose eyeball he rips out in Avengers is in a PG-13 way. It’s probably a combination of brutality + on-screen violence + unstoppable monster + tension while watching it. As I said when we reviewed Red Sparrow, I don’t really like dark and brutal movies in any form. And that was more of a spy/action/drama than it was anything close to a horror. Also it could be that I’m a giant scaredy cat bc I don’t like going to haunted houses, either. Regarding brutal movies, I also had trouble sleeping after watching The Pianist bc of how brutal it was. Which is why if I ever do Schindler’s List for CtC, I’m going to make sure to watch it early in the AM and then spend the rest of the day doing light-hearted things.

RYAN: And Schindler’s List is amazing but it is so bleak and heartbreaking. You totally need to be in the right frame of mind to watch.

CORINNE: So, I have seen the “horror” version of Phantom of the Opera. I even put it on my 1989 Filmsplosion list. Even though it’s horror, it doesn’t bother me bc the violence is so cartoony and campy. Have you seen it?

RYAN: The Robert England one? I have and it is campy fun. I would say the early Phantoms are horror as well. On a different level but they exam the horror in upper class as well as the monster who really is just a tragedy figure.

CORINNE: Yes, the one with Robert Englund. Those early horror movies are more Gothic horror than modern horror, and I have no problem with them. They’re not as brutal or violent as modern horror. They’re more in the style of a mystery, thriller or romance, depending on the IP.

RYAN: Gotcha.

Picking up the conversation in mid-September:

CORINNE: I’ve thought of a few other points but I do want to find a horror movie that’s accessible for me so I can watch it as a test and see how I react to it. … But to my earlier point: I know the Nerds’ motto is “give every movie a chance” but that’s not super practical for everyday theater-goers. Yes the pricing models are changing, but most people are paying $10 to see a movie. Now $10 isn’t a lot for most people, but when you’re on a budget and there’s x-number of movies that sound worth seeing, you’ll probably spend your money on the ones you want to see the most. Superheroes, Disney movies, blockbusters, etc. This is most people. Sure maybe you’ll watch your Juliet’s Naked and your Peanut Butter Falcons when they’re streaming somewhere sometime. But when it comes to paying to see a movie in the theater, I think I’m picky, like most people. My time isn’t worth much but my money is worth more. So paying to see something at the box office is a lot when there are plenty of alternatives on streaming or Redbox or whatever. So it’s an experience that I better enjoy. And I don’t enjoy horror movies, for the most part. Now, watching them at home, when they’re streaming or rented from the library … that might be the way to go for me. Then I can pause and turn on lights or whatever as I need to. And that might be something to try out with The Guest. But, as for new horror releases, you can count me out.

RYAN: I think you’re right. I think that’s why the “movie pass” structure is a good thing to see movies with out worrying if you wasted money. I think at Regal now it’s $21 to see as many movies as you want. My Alamo season pass gives me a lot of flexibility. Like Hustlers isn’t something I would pay to see but a friend from high school is in it and since I can see it with my season pass it really is not an issue. But movies are expensive to just drop $12 bucks on all the time. That’s why I would see the Downton Abbey movie with my season pass but if I didn’t have the pass the only way I would see it is if the Nerds picked that as the movie of the week and there was nothing else.

CORINNE: Basically, without a paying format like that, it’s expensive to take a risk on a movie you’re not particularly interested in or a genre you don’t generally like. You’re not a big romcom person; I’m not a big horror person. People have different tastes, and to ask everyday people to see movies against their taste bc they might like them is a lot to ask in a regular theater-going experience. … The pricing model changing is both good and bad. I really did see a lot more movies and took more chances when I had MoviePass. BUT I feel like it also changed the overall vibe of the theater experience. For me, a theater experience is so fun and exciting because it’s occasional and not regular. Maybe once a month or once every two months, depending on the time of year. But when you go every week or multiple times a week, it lessens it. It didn’t feel as exciting as experience. I still enjoyed a lot of those movies, but somehow the increased frequency lessened it all for me.

Picking up the conversation after I checked out “The Guest” from the library in late September:

CORINNE (before watching the movie): Also, are you sure this is a horror movie? The blurb on the back makes it sound more of an action/suspense film.

RYAN: It’s a thriller. I thought it would be a good entry into a more story driven horror/thriller. … [Dan Stevens] needs to be in more stuff. There is some stuff that happens in this movie that will surprise you. It’s not for everyone but like I said I wanted to give you a movie that is not quite a horror film but not exactly tame either. It’s a slow build but when the gloves come off it gets intense.

After actually watching the movie:

CORINNE: Dan Stevens’ name should be EDITH. Even Dead I’m The Hottest. … Except that in true horror movie fashion, he’s not dead! … They should make another one, if only so I can see Dan Stevens’ beautiful face some more. … It was pretty good. I’d give it like a 3 / 5. That’s mostly for Stevens’ and the main actress’ performances.

RYAN: Glad it was a good one for you.

CORINNE: Like I said, it was more of an action/thriller. Not a typical horror movie (whatever TF that is) up until the end.

RYAN: True. But like I said horror can come in many different styles. It’s an action/thriller with slasher movie elements. I call it a hybrid horror film because Stevens’ character is a villain in a non traditional way, but also I would argue a horror villain because what he does to the family is pretty horrific.

CORINNE: Indeed. Very horrific. But there are horrific stuff in lots of action movies these days. I watched Hotel Mumbai with my fam when I was home and that’s pretty horrific.

RYAN: I agree 100%. Hotel Mumbai is true horror. … So the director of The Guest also directed You’re Next which is one of my favorite horror films from the last decade. I would check it out or I can let you borrow it. Just a warning it’s straight up horror though with a mystery/thriller element to it.

CORINNE: I was talking about the whole “horror genre” conversation with a friend earlier today and I was talking about the difference between Gothic horror (think Universal monster movies) vs more slasher horror (Halloween movies). I have no problem with the more Gothic horror stuff, bc I think my brain goes “iz monster, no real.” But when I watch something that’s essentially a psychotic dude running around stabbing and/or shooting people, my brain goes “danger! danger!” Something that’d be in between would be like the supernatural horror (ghosts and demons) and that def freaks me out, arguably more so than the slasher stuff.

RYAN: Well, You’re Next is a home invasion horror film with a twist I would never ruin for someone who hasn’t seen it, but it’s badass. I would caution you on watching it in so much that it could happen in real life. It’s pretty unforgiving in that way. But it’s also funny in a dark way. But extremely violent too. Maybe have [a friend] with you if you decide to watch it.

CORINNE: Hmmm. I will consider that in my next wave of library rentals.

After renting and watching “You’re Next” in mid-October:

CORINNE: Well, that was fucking brutal. I kinda like how she sorta became “the monster” by the end of it.

RYAN: It is a brutal movie. But awesome.

CORINNE: Yeah, I thought it was really well shot and paced. That part of the hand coming out from under the bed is creepy AF. … I think, overall, horror is something that is easier for me to handle if 1) I have a sense for what’s coming and 2) if I watch it in an environment I can control. Watching it during the daytime in my own house, when I can pause or whatever as I need to helps a lot. But that’s definitely not something I’d pay $12 to see in a dark theater. 👻

RYAN: Right on. Yay for spooky movies!

After revisiting Zombieland in late October to prepare for its sequel:

CORINNE: I did rewatch Zombieland, as I said, and I feel like I can be more open to horror movies if:

It’s a movie that I know is generally good / worth watching (like Night of the Living Dead or Get Out).
It’s a horror movie someone else I know has already seen and can prepare me for it.
I’m not paying money to see it.
I can watch it in a controlled environment (turn on lights, pause, eat food, etc.).
It’s not super long (IT would’ve been way too long for me. I can handle Zombieland just fine though).

RYAN: Fair enough. Horror movies are always tough if you don’t like them because the bad ones are really bad.

CORINNE: I think even a bad horror movie could still freak me out, though. Maybe. Depends on the movie, I guess. … I do remember watching some horror movies with a group of friends in high school and that was fun because we just started making fun of it and that helped me to not freak out.

On Nov. 1, after stumbling across a comedy sketch on Facebook:

CORINNE: Me, coming out of a scary movie.

RYAN: LOL

Show Time: A Theory on How “The Blacklist” Will End

One thing about The Blacklist that has bugged me since at least Season 5 is that this show doesn’t really have a clear plot-driven endgame. Not “What’s the plan for how the show will end?” But more of: “What needs to happen for the show to reach a meaningful and proper resolution?”

Usually this comes in the form of a goal that needs to be accomplished; a bad guy that needs to be defeated; and/or a question that needs to be answered. These are almost always set up in a show’s pilot.

Some other shows, for examples:

In Battlestar Galactica (newer version), the Cylons destroy the main characters’ homeworld in the pilot; thus, the show’s finale had the characters defeating the Cylons and finding a new homeworld.
In the pilot for Lost, the passengers are stranded on an island; and the finale showed all of them either finally getting off the island or choosing to stay.
In the pilot for Avatar: The Last Airbender, Aang realizes that the world is out of balance, and he’s the only one able to put it right by defeating the Fire Nation / Fire Lord Ozai, which he does in the four-part finale.
Murder-mystery shows or seasons, like BBC’s Broadchurch, for instance, thrive on answering the question “Who’s the killer?” (the murder is set up in the pilot), with the show or season being resolved when the killer is caught/identified.

Now, granted, this is not a hard-and-fast rule. Not every TV show does this. Grey’s Anatomy, for instance, doesn’t have any overarching goal or bad guy or question to be answered. Neither does BBC’s Sherlock or The Last Airbender‘s sequel series The Legend of Korra.

Like The Blacklist, maybe they have conflicts or bad guys that are specific to a given arc or season, but a show like Grey’s Anatomy can continue indefinitely so long as the main character is still alive. These are more “character shows,” and are very much driven by the main character’s various adventures and development, rather than a specific conflict introduced in the pilot.

The Blacklist, though, is a conundrum to me, because, I can’t really tell what has to happen for the show to have a proper conclusion. Because, there were two things that TBL gave us in the pilot that could indicate its endgame ingredients: the actual Blacklist itself and the connection between Red and Liz.

Except that, as TPTB have said, the numbers on the Blacklist are arbitrary and, theoretically, could continue indefinitely. It’s not like Red showed up with a list of 100 people, and thus, we know the show will end when all 100 people have been caught. Most of these people Red didn’t know about until AFTER he turned himself in to the FBI in the pilot.

And, that’s the beauty of a procedural. Just like with Grey’s Anatomy: as long as Ellen Pompeo renews her contract, the Shondaland writers can keep bringing on new doctors and new sick people for them to treat. Likewise, as long as James Spader renews his contract, The Blacklist writers can keep making up Blacklisters all the way down to 300 or whatever.

(For reference: I looked it up on The Blacklist Wikia, and the lowest number we have is 192, and of the 192 “on the list,” about 70 percent have been seen in an episode, although not all of them have been captured/killed and could theoretically pop up again. And, granted #192 is a villain from one of the comics. So, in-show, the numbers have gone down to #184. And, even then, we still have 30 percent of the current Blacklist spots unaccounted for.)

This means that, really, the writers probably aren’t operating under the logic that once all the Blacklisters are addressed, the show is over. Because Season 7 could be the last season, and there could still be slots on the list left unfilled.

So, that means that, for the Blacklist to have a significant and proper ending, it has to address the connection between Red and Liz, and the Mystery of The Night of the Fire.

And, I’m not entirely sure if the show set out to do this – hang the entire resolution on answering the question “Who is Red to Liz?” I feel like I remember S1 interviews where they said that question wouldn’t be answered until the finale. But, to drag a show on for seven seasons without giving the main character or the audience any answers to *THAT* question is ridiculous, for several reasons, including:

1) People have way too much time on their hands to theorize about this. See: Tumblr.

Say the viewers correctly guess your theory; by the time you get around to revealing it, they will either be unimpressed or underwhelmed. Like, “Yeah, we called that two years ago.” This is exactly what happened in the Blacklist’s S3 finale, when even the most casual of fans had guessed that Kirk was Liz’s “dad,” that Liz had faked her death and that Kaplan had helped.

Or, if the answer you give them doesn’t satisfy their curiosity or doesn’t fully answer their questions or has plotholes or flawed logic or is just straight-up dull in comparison to some of the wild theories that are out there… people are going to be pissed and/or disappointed. See: the bulk of the Star Wars fandom after The Last Jedi. Or fans of Lost.

2) The fallout from answering the question might be more interesting than the build-up to the question itself.

Let’s take a look at BBC’s Broadchurch again. That show did it correctly, because, as a miniseries, it was able to ask and answer the question of “Who’s the killer?” in a shorter window of time (8 episodes in S1, IIRC). That way, fans didn’t run themselves ragged trying to figure it out or get bored waiting for answers. And, even more impressively, once they’d answered the question in the first season, they addressed the fallout of the revelation in the second season. We got to see how the killer’s identity, arrest and confession affected the lives of the other characters. Not a lot of shows are willing to do that, I think, and I really like the direction they took with it in S2 and S3.

3) The question has to be broad enough that you can play around with it for multiple seasons.

Let’s look at another show: ABC’s “Forever.”

This show was, unfortunately, very short-lived – lasting only one full season – but I think it has a lot of similarities to The Blacklist in terms of feel and set-up. It was also a crime procedural with a unique twist and a pretty talented cast. It thrived both on the dramatic, plot-driven moments but also on the small, quiet character-driven moments.

In the pilot, we are introduced to Dr. Henry Morgan who is immortal, and we quickly find out that he’s not the only one. In the pilot, he’s contacted by a fellow immortal, Adam, who says that they’re both looking for death.

Now, it’s pretty clear from the pilot what the resolution for the show, if it had ever gotten a real one, would’ve included: answering the question “How did Henry and Adam become immortal?” and having them find a way to die; Adam (who is Henry’s antagonist) would need to be defeated; and Henry would either need to die finale or find a way to die whenever he wished down the road.

So, rather than simply asking the question “How did Henry become immortal and can he die?” the show also set up an antagonist for Henry to defeat (Adam) and a goal for Henry to achieve (death).

But, when comparing that to The Blacklist, the same ingredients for a resolution are pretty shaky: the list itself, as we’ve discussed, is arbitrary and could theoretically go on forever; and Liz and Red’s connection seems to point us back to The Night of the Fire, which we get bits and pieces about every now and again, but we really should have more answers by now.

With Forever, it was different, because neither Henry nor Adam knew how they became immortal or how they might be able to finally die.

With The Blacklist, the frustrating thing is that Red is clearly withholding vital truths from Liz, and the information that he has hinted that he needs her help to attain hasn’t been addressed and probably WON’T be until they establish Red and Liz’s connection first.

I guess, there is a possible solution and that is: the show’s finale won’t be Liz learning the truth, but rather her coming to terms with the truth by embracing whatever we find out her connection to Red is.

So, then, assuming S7 will be the final season, what needs to happen in that time for the show to come to a meaningful and proper resolution?

Maybe, unlike many of the shows I’ve discussed above, The Blacklist‘s endgame elements are plot-driven but character-driven.

From a character perspective, we know what needs to happen by the series finale: our two leads have to reach whatever they set out to find (either together or separately) in the pilot.

In the first episode, Liz longed for a family. She had a husband; she wanted them to adopt a child. Right now, she’s had to temporarily let Agnes go. So, she needs to get Agnes back and create a safe and stable life for her daughter. Would that include a husband/father figure?

In the pilot, Red hinted that his greatest desire was a home, saying, “I haven’t been home in years.” Is he hoping to find some sense of peace and belonging after being hated and hunted for decades?

I imagine you’ve already guessed where I’m going with this line of thought…

My real point is, though, that the Blacklist has gotten hung-up on a question that, IMO, it should’ve answered or at least partly answered a long time ago. I think that this show would’ve been stronger if there’d been an established goal or Big Bad, and – if they’d decided to hang the endgame on answering a question – at least pick a question that doesn’t involve one character constantly withholding information from another because not only is it frustrating for the audience, but it will make for very formulaic and static interactions between your two leads.

If Red and Liz’s relationship is going to evolve, then they need to be on equal footing. Or at least more equal footing.

Ah, so maybe my notion that we should be looking for plot-driven elements to properly resolve this show was flawed. After all, there is no goal to accomplish, except for maybe covering the entire Blacklist. And, the question “Who is Red to Liz?” will have been sort of answered by this point – again, with the argument that maybe Liz has to come to terms with that revelation, etc. And, of course, there is no overarching Big Bad whose defeat would signal that the show is over because the main conflict would be resolved.

Or is there?

Because, when you think about it, Raymond Reddington (James Spader’s character) checks off a lot of the requirements of a Big Bad.

Let’s take a minute and compare Red to a Big Bad from another show, Avatar: The Last Airbender.

In that show, the overarching antagonist is Fire Lord Ozai, whose defeat in the series finale signals the end of the show as the instigating conflict has now been resolved.

Even though his face isn’t shown until the third and final season, his presence hangs over the whole of the show. He’s the one who scars Zuko and sends him into exile to find the Avatar; he’s the one who’s hoping to conquer the Earth Kingdom; he’s the one who sends Azula after Zuko, the Avatar, etc.

And, as the show’s Big Bad, he is… big and bad. (Big not meaning physically large, but rather prominent and influential.)

Ozai is one of the most powerful benders in the ATLA universe; he’s also the ruler of a very powerful nation. This means it won’t be easy for Aang (the hero) and his allies to defeat Ozai and his forces. Ozai is also ruthless as well as ambitious, and he’s set on world domination.

He’s also very cunning, manipulative and has no qualms about deceiving people – especially if it means he gets what he wants. Again, that’s why Aang (the most powerful being in his universe) is the only person who’s able to defeat him. Because not only is Ozai physically powerful, but he also knows how to outmaneuver people both psychologically and politically.

These are traits Big Bad-type characters have almost universally. (Emperor Palpitine from Star Wars and Voldemort from Harry Potter are other examples.) They have to, in order to be imposing and a large enough threat that it would take several seasons or books or movies for the hero(es) to defeat them.

Now, this isn’t a requirement, but something I find compelling is that Ozai is closely connected to at least one of the show’s main characters. (He’s Zuko’s father). This type of dynamic tends to make the ongoing conflict between a show’s hero(es) and villain(s) more meaningful – if there’s some kind of shared history.

Maybe they’re family members (Ozai and Zuko), former friends (Naruto and Sasuke from Naruto), former teacher/student (Obi-Wan Kenobi and Darth Vader from Star Wars), or maybe the villain inflicted some kind of previous injury on the hero. (I’m thinking of the DCAU’s Darkseid who, at one point, had brainwashed Superman into becoming his servant.)

So, could Raymond Reddington be a Big Bad?

As other people have discussed before, Red is a very complicated and nuanced character. One minute he’s patting a little kid on the head and buying a vending machine for a rundown DMV; the next, he’s killing a roomful of people seemingly without batting an eye.

And, let’s be clear, Red definitely has a persona. He wants other criminals to fear and respect him; and whether he actually enjoys having all this power or not, he certainly has gone to some questionable methods to achieve it.

But, encompassing his persona into it, Red is an imposing and powerful man who can be ruthless, cunning, manipulative, and has no qualms about deceiving people when it benefits him – such as when he doesn’t correct Liz about misconceptions she has that would require him to divulge a truth he wishes to keep from her.

And of course, Red’s presence has loomed over the Blacklist since the pilot, albeit in a more direct and obvious way than Ozai in ATLA. Even though Red’s not officially part of the Task Force – he’s only supposed to pass information along to them – he oftentimes plays with them like puppets. For instance, in episode 5×17, he literally admits to STEALING A WITNESS FROM THE TASK FORCE, and the only consequence of that is Liz and Cooper getting a little miffed, and neither really takes action to ensure that Red isn’t the one making the Task Force’s decisions any more. For someone who’s only supposed to be an informant, Red runs the damn place.

And, like with Ozai, Red has personal ties to one of our main characters. He definitely knew Liz’s parents, as he stole her bio-father’s identity, and seems to have been responsible for saving her life the Night of the Fire. Ultimately, both he and Liz are connected by what happened The Night of the Fire, which impacted both of their lives – for better or for worse.

Now. Don’t twist it and start thinking that I believe Red is a villain. He is, overall, an anti-hero. He and Liz have been antagonistic at times, yes, but they’ve been on the same side for about 75 percent of the show thus far. But, we should all definitely be able to realize and admit that Red has some villainous qualities. But, as an anti-hero, he should.

So, if Red is the Big Bad of the show like I theorize, does that mean that he has to be defeated in the series finale to have a proper ending, as I said previously?

Well, yes.

It’s occurred to me several times before that the series finale will be the Number 1 name on the Blacklist, which I conjecture will be Raymond Reddington (or, perhaps our Red’s real identity).

All the way back in Season 1, I theorized on social media that the ideal ending would be something reminiscent of the anime Code Geass’ “Zero Requiem” scheme.

For those of you who haven’t seen it, Code Geass’ finale involved the main character Lelouch setting himself up as a villain for the entire world to unite against. Then, he had his friend Suzaku kill him and thus bring about world peace.

And, for a long time, there was a popular Code Geass fan theory that Lelouch, after supposedly dying in the finale, actually survived. (This was proved correct in the series’ sequel movie Code Geass: Lelouch of the Re;surrection.) Lelouch had gained some powers over the course of the series, and other characters were shown to be able to “die” but then resurrect themselves, essentially.

If I were writing The Blacklist, I would write something similar to this ending.

But let’s step back for a second. Because if you want to write the ending to a show, book series, movie series, etc., you really have to look at its beginning.

Let’s look at an example: one of my all-time favorite shows, 30 Rock.

In the pilot, we are introduced to Liz Lemon (Tina Fey’s character) and Jack Donaghey (Alec Baldwin). Liz, much like our Liz on TBL, is hoping to start a family but must find a work/life balance. Jack is looking to climb the corporate ladder and eventually become CEO of General Electric, and wants to innovate and improve things. And, they are initially antagonistic with each other.

However, by the finale, Liz has finally gained the family she’s always wanted (two adopted kids and a husband), but now struggles with the WORK part of her work/life balance. Jack, after becoming CEO of KableTown (which took over NBC after GE), finds himself unsatisfied in life, and sets off to sail the world. He quickly turns around, however, after immediately coming up with an idea for clear dishwashers, and is last seen working as an executive for a new company (although it’s never specified which one). And, they have become the closest of friends, finally admitting out loud that the platonically love each other.

Basically, the characters went full-circle from where they set out. Liz finally got everything she wanted; Jack realized that power and ambition aren’t everything; and they became great friends after initially being enemies.

Now, as we touched on a little bit earlier… what did we learn about Red and his goals from the pilot? What does he have to accomplish by series’ end?

The VERY FIRST THING that’s said on the show is Gray telling Red, “Must be good to be home again, sir,” and Red responds that they will find out. This already tells me that, by the end, Red will need to have found a home or a sense of “home.” It’s also one of the first things he tells Liz: “You get back home much? I haven’t been home in years.” Already, the show is establishing a connection between Red, Liz and the idea of home/a family.

Red makes the comment to Liz: “Everything about me is a lie; but if anyone can give me a second chance, it’s you.” Again, this notion of the truth about Red and Liz being able to trust him (maybe love him?) are tied together in this line of dialogue during their first encounter. So, he wants Liz to find out the truth about him? Or, at the very least, he wants Liz to give him a second chance.

He also says, “Here you are, about to make a name for yourself, about to capture Ranko Zamani. I’m going to make you famous, Lizzie.”

So a few things to unpack here: we ARE given some things that need to happen, either plot-wise or character-wise in/by the series finale:

1) Red needs to find a home or a sense of home.
2) Liz needs to find out the truth about Red and/or give him a second chance.
3) Red needs to make Liz famous.

And considering that “Raymond Reddington” isn’t his real identity, even though he believes he now embodies it more than the RR ever did, it makes sense that Red would want Liz to give him a second chance as John Smith (or whatever his real name is). But Red also indicates to Liz that he’s going to make her famous by helping her to catch criminals. And who’s a bigger criminal than “Raymond Reddington”?

That’s why I think a Code Geass / Zero Requiem ending would fit very well.

Red has told people on several occasions that he deserves to pay for what he’s done. So it makes sense that a possible series finale would have him dying, but again, we have to look at the beginning of the show to see what a significant and proper ending would be.

Does Red really need to die to pay the price for what he’s done? Especially considering that the pilot sets him up as someone who wants redemption and a sense of home.

No. I think that the criminal, the persona of “Raymond Reddington” has to die, and our Red will either take up his old name and identity again, or take on a new one entirely.

Maybe he will fake his death WITH the help of Cooper, Liz, Ressler, the FBI, etc. Or maybe, he’ll fake his death WITHOUT their help, so that even Cooper and Ressler won’t be looking for him anymore. And, if he arranges it so that it looks like Liz was responsible for finally stopping him, then he will have made her famous, just as he promised.

Could you imagine if, in the series finale, Red arranges his death so that it’s public – for all to see. There are hundreds of officers on scene, news helicopters flying overhead. He needs people to see and know that Raymond Reddington – one of the most wanted criminals in the world – is finally dead. Potentially at the hands of FBI Agent Elizabeth Keen.

Just like with Lelouch in Code Geass, he would make sure that his death (whether supposed or actual) was very much a public display.

And, again, I keep harking back to Red’s line: “I’m going to make you famous, Lizzie.”

Yes, Liz definitely became an infamous criminal after killing the attorney general and going on the run in S3a. But infamous and famous aren’t really the same. They’re related, but very much different. He didn’t promise he would make Liz an infamous criminal herself; no, he promised he would help her CATCH criminals. And, again, of ALL the Blacklisters we’ve encountered throughout this show, no one seems to be more notorious or as ‘big of a fish’ as Raymond Reddington.

As I’ve discussed before, Red is very much like a Byronic hero. The most famous Byronic heroes (IMO), Edmond Dantes from The Count of Monte Cristo and Mr. Rochester from Jane Eyre, BOTH are seen as semi-villainous in a way. They aren’t perfect, and have to change over the course of the story. With Dantes, he’s become so caught up in his revenge, that he has to take a step back, realize how far he almost went, and then try to set himself right before he sails off with his much younger love interest for his “happy ending.” Likewise, with Rochester, he has become so caught up with finding his happiness, that he deceives the woman he loves and nearly leads her into committing a grave sin/crime. Later, he ‘pays the price’ for his deception by losing Jane, his home, his wife and his sight. And only after he’s become humbled does he find his happy ending with Jane.

To put it more plainly, Red as the Big Bad of the show wouldn’t need to die.

He would simply have to be defeated.

Just like with Ozai in ATLA. A major discussion in and leading up to the finale is that Aang won’t take Ozai’s life because of his belief that all life is sacred. And, in the end, Aang finds a way to defeat Ozai and leave him powerless forever WITHOUT killing him.

Another example is how, in Naruto, the Big Bad is Sasuke. At the end of the show, he and Naruto come to a sort of stalemate in their final battle and he lives to reform his ways and help Naruto keep the world safe.

So, in my theory, Red fakes his death, and then he and Liz ride off into the sunset?

Yeah, pretty much.

Again, with all Red’s parallels to the Byronic hero, they would both be able to find what they were ultimately looking for in each other. Liz would find the family she’s always wanted through Red, and Red would find his home or sense of home in Liz and Agnes.

Remember Red’s second goal from the pilot: Liz is the ONLY person who can give him a second chance. He can’t find his home or his happiness with anyone else.

So, assuming this whole theory is correct, there are really are four possible scenarios for the series finale, and some I see as more likely than others:

1) Red well and truly dies in the finale, and there’s no question that he’s dead. – I give it a 5% chance of happening.

2) Red dies, but his death will be ambiguous. Maybe there would be a shot of Liz and Agnes on the island Red mentioned in S4b, and off to the side will be a man in a hat or something. And there will be all these fan theories that Red didn’t die, and there will be all these posts pointing out the evidence that he really did; and ultimately, TPTB will say it’s ambiguous on purpose. (Much like what happened with Code Geass.) – 25%

3) Red “dies” for all the world to see, but a few characters know that he’s actually alive and has taken on a new identity. What will be ambiguous will be whether he ends up with Liz as a romantic interest. Maybe there will be a shot of him and Liz walking through the park with Agnes, each one on either side of her, but no one will ever explicitly say that they’re “together” now. And, of course, fans will argue that there was sufficient evidence to assume that they are together, but it will still be JUST ambiguous enough that no one will be able to say for sure, because TPTB will try to keep everyone happy and not really confirm it one way or the other. – 40%

4) Red fakes his death and he and Liz are definitely a couple in the finale. Kissing. Holding hands. Maybe with some wedding rings. And Agnes calls him “dad.” He and Liz both “ride off into the sunset” as much of a couple as Dantes & Haydee or Rochester & Jane. – 30%

So… in summary: I think the series finale will have Red figuratively dying in the series finale as the show’s default Big Bad. He will ditch the “Raymond Reddington” persona, and in doing so, somehow make Liz famous. After faking his death, he will find his home and second chance with Liz (and Agnes). And Liz will find the family she’s always wanted with Red.

Thanks for reading this whole damn thing again. When I get to writing about The Blacklist, I just can’t keep it short. 🙂

Show Time: Should you watch “Perfect Harmony”?

Given that I’m a huge fan of NBC’s The Good Place and I enjoy Superstore, it was no surprise that, when watching those two shows on Thursday nights, I inevitably checked out the show that’s smack-dab in between them in the lineup — NBC’s new half-hour comedy Perfect Harmony.

A quick synopsis: Arthur Cochran, a retired Princeton music professor (played by Bradley Whitford), becomes depressed after his wife’s death, and — while attempting suicide — stumbles across a small-town church choir in desperate need of some fine tuning. In deciding to become their director, he begins to establish a new purpose for himself and make new friends — even if he’s not all that jazzed about it.

So, after watching the first four episodes…

Would I recommend Perfect Harmony? Sure. Why not?

The good:

While it’s still in its infancy as a show, I think it’s hit the ground running pretty well. In comparison to the first few episodes / first season of The Office, 30 Rock and Parks & Rec, this pilot and first three episodes are a few miles ahead of those shows’. The pilot itself is a bit rough, as it throws a lot at you in pretty quick succession. I mean, the first minute of the pilot/entire show is a depressed guy who’s high and/or drunk almost committing suicide, asking for a sign, and then hearing the nearby church’s choir sing off-key. But, I guess that’s also a good thing, because it’s a very trim and efficient pilot. Everything matters, and it’s all packed in real tight.

So far, the performances that have really shined are Whitford’s and Anna Camp’s, who plays Ginny, the choir member Arthur has the most interaction with. They do very well in their scenes together, and equally well playing opposite other actors. Whitford gets to go through a whole spectrum of stuff just in these first few episodes — grieving, disinterested, annoyed, pleased, relieved, etc. Overall, he can effortlessly play a total grouch who’s somehow still lovable. Meanwhile, Ginny is a wife and mother who’s going through a divorce with her soon-to-be-ex-husband (who’s also in the choir), while trying to hold it all together for their son, Cash. The tween who plays Cash does a pretty good job, considering he has to frequently act opposite the show’s two big stars (Whitford and Camp). The other cast members have been great in the limited screen time they’ve had so far, and I imagine we’ll see more of them in the coming episodes.

For the most part, the comedic bits are well executed, to the point where a few of them have made me laugh out loud. And the singing — when they actually do it — is pretty good. I mean, it has to be. 1) The show is about a choir; and 2) it needs to be good for NBC to sell the songs on iTunes afterward. *insert eye roll here*

One more thing is that the show pretty much nails the attitude and overall disposition of a choir director. One of the reasons the show caught my interest at all is because I’ve been part of a somewhat high-profile choir in Denver on-and-off for three years, so I know how wacky and weird the ‘choir life’ can be. And the show succeeds in showing how choir directors are not the friendliest of people toward their choir members. Despite everyone in the room being adults, they somehow have the ability to make their singers feel like schoolkids who need constant direction. I guess it comes with the job. To be a choir director, you have to be vocal, commanding, detail-oriented, and a huge perfectionist. And Arthur’s characterization very much nails that in the scenes where he actually gets to direct his choir.

The bad:

To be quite honest, I’m not sure how long it’ll be until I get tired of the ‘intellectual outsider has to deal with backwoods hicks’ premise. I’ve spent plenty of time in small towns, and you’d be surprised at some of the high-minded conversations I’ve had with their residents. It just depends on the people you meet. Sure, there are small towns where people are very poorly educated, and whose priorities are more on the day-to-day things rather than big-picture issues that effect a larger portion of the population. But, I think it’s unfair of the show to paint with large brushstrokes when it comes to small-town people. But, I do recognize, as we get farther into the show, these characters should become more three-dimensional by virtue of spending more time with them and seeing them in different situations.

And given that so many of the jokes in the show (thus far) are predicated on Arthur being too stuffy, intellectual and high-maintenance to understand ‘small town culture’ or whatever… or the reverse where the small-town folks don’t understand his sophisticated references, etc. … the whole thing can get a bit old pretty quickly. So, let’s hope the writers figure out they can’t dip into that well forever.

The show also gives Arthur House-like superpowers of being able to tell everything about a person based on their body language or whatever. He also does the Sawyer from Lost treatment of giving everyone little cutesy nicknames when he first meets them, but I think that was mostly in the pilot.

The in-between:

One more thing I’ll note is that, despite the entire show being centered on a church choir, I think NBC tackles it in a way that makes it approachable for both people who are religious/spiritual and those who are not. So far, the songs performed on the show haven’t been super-religious or anything. They reference Ave Maria and Handel’s Messiah, but what would normally be a very religious premise is treated with a more secular approach, making it available to more people. Which is fine. I mean, it’s a church choir. You think they’d be singing more hymns and whatnot. But, again, it’s less ostracizing this way.

On the whole, I have to say that the entire ~church~ / religion conversation is tackled in a very weird way. Arthur does seem to have a bit of contempt for the whole thing, but it’s not clear whether that’s because it’s a church or because it’s a church in a small town where people tend to be simple, small-minded and ignorant (which he prides himself that he is not). While at the same time, those characters on the show who are believers and church-goers tend to talk about their faith in platitudes and jokes. There’s very few moments (so far) where a character’s beliefs are treated seriously, and they get to voice some complex issues about their life, their challenges, their goals through the lens of their faith.

Thus, it’s not clear whether the show’s creators / writers are trying to make fun of church-goers (or people who live in small towns, for that matter) or whether it’s trying to approach the subject of religion in a way that’s fair but also keeps the plot an arms-length from the subject’s complexities. It is a half-hour comedy that’s supposed to appeal a very diverse audience, so I don’t blame them if they’re trying to do the latter.

So, in answer to the question “Should You Watch Perfect Harmony?” I say: Yeah.

Ultimately, it’s pretty harmless. Its premise isn’t as unique or spectacular as The Good Place is, nor is it as funny as 30 Rock was. But, then again, this is a show in its infancy. Maybe it’ll get better as goes.

Catching the Classics: Parts 11-20 (RECAP)

My little weekly experiment is now officially a year old! (Actually a little more than.) And, because I’m recording Part 30 this week, I decided I would put together another recap post for all of you. And, I plan to do another for Parts 21-30 here in the next few weeks.

While the first 10 iterations were a bit rough, I feel like we — that being me and the Nerds — started to get into a rhythm with these next 10. I picked out a pretty diverse set of movies; I was recording my little sound blurbs in a timely manner; and I set a weekly reminder for myself to send them to Nerds every Friday evening. And the Nerds became very good about regularly including them as part of the show.

So, because I don’t want to transcribe everything I said about these movies on the podcast, the blurbs below are a condensed version of my various voice recordings that I sent the Nerds.

I don’t have time to go back and find every single episode that these CtC iterations appeared on, but I can tell you that CtC-Part 20 was during Reel Nerds Podcast Episode 392: Dead Cat Walking (Pet Sematary review).

And, a quick note: the ratings for all the movies are out of five stars. So 5 stars is perfect, 4 stars is really good, etc.

Also, SPOILER WARNING FOR ANY/ALL OF THESE MOVIES!

So, without further ado, here are recaps of the next 10 iterations of Catching the Classics (with Corinne!)

Catching the Classics – Part 11: Shaun of the Dead

Overall, wow, this is such a good movie! I was blown away by how tight the writing is, how much everything connects, and how everything comes back into play at some point. The gore effects were convincing, but not super disturbing. It’s probably more rated R for the language and not so much for the gore. It’s probably on a similar level to Zombieland in that respect.

Of anything, the writing really stood out to me as a very efficient and direct film. It puts you right into the action; and the opening scene is a great way to introduce your characters succinctly.

Shaun of the Dead: 4 or 4.5 stars

Catching the Classics – Part 12: Close Encounters of the Third Kind

Surprisingly, I didn’t know too much about the movie — basically that it was about aliens and that it was directed by Steven Spielberg. And, while I understand it’s a very popular movie in many circles, I didn’t care for it.

There were a few good sequences, don’t get me wrong. One example I can give is when the aliens come to abduct the kid at the farmhouse. And another is the shot of the alien’s ship flying over the truck while the main character is surprised and confused about it. But, overall, I feel like a lot of other ‘alien encounter’ movies do this same premise but far better.

Two major problems with the movie are how unlikable the characters are, and how it ultimately feels long and boring. The last 30 minutes or so — where the aliens come in to the human base at Devil’s Tower — takes forever, and really doesn’t make a lot of sense when you stop to think about it. Why did the aliens abduct all those humans? Why are they giving them back now? Why are these other humans, like our main character, deciding to go with them? How did the humans and the aliens arrange for this little exchange? Wouldn’t the government be upset with the aliens for abducting all those other people earlier? Why would they think it was okay for our main character and the others to go with the aliens now?

So, all in all, the movie didn’t land for me whatsoever, giving this series its lowest-rated movie so far:

Close Encounters of the Third Kind: 2 stars

Catching the Classics – Part 13: The English Patient

This is a movie that the Nerds said was going to be long, drawn-out, boring and horrible. And, really, it wasn’t as bad as they had led me to believe. Sure, some parts of it were long, but I’d be willing to watch it again some day. Maybe not anytime soon, but some day.

While I knew the basic premise and some of the cast members, I was pleasantly surprised at how it all came together. I enjoyed the score, the overall look and cinematography, the costumes, the sets, and the performances. It’s a very beautiful movie all around.

I really didn’t mind that things were told out-of-order, but one thing that bugged me about the story was how it felt like there were scenes missing sometimes. One example is after Colin Firth’s character finds out about his wife’s affair with Almasy, we never see any fallout from that until the sequence with the plane. And there seemed to be a big gap in the timeline between when he found out about the affair and then tried to kill himself and/or Katharine and/or Almasy. But, there was no buildup to this weird homicidal/suicidal rage. Why decide to do that now? So, it probably would’ve helped to see the immediate fallout of him finding out. Did he share any tense scenes with Katharine or Almasy? Granted, the movie is 3 hours long so you can’t get bogged down in the weeds, but it would’ve helped to have those scenes, because otherwise, it feels like there are pieces missing to this story.

The biggest drawback, though, is how unlikable the characters are. I’m not rooting for the main couple to be together, because she’s already married and I can’t root for people whose relationship — by definition — is deceitful and unethical. Also, not sure why the scene where she tells him about the thimble was made out to be this big reveal. She told Almasy multiple times throughout the movie that she was in love with him, but that she couldn’t be with him because she was already married.

Also, side note, I was far more invested in Hana and Kip’s relationship than I was in Katharine and Almasy’s. I’m so thankful Kip didn’t die in that scene where he’s defusing the bomb.

The English Patient: 3 or 3.5 stars

Catching the Classics – Part 14: It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World

I remember watching Rat Race as a kid, which I believe is a remake of this movie. And, to be honest, I think I like Rat Race better. (I haven’t seen it in years, but I enjoyed it when I was young.) Overall, the film has some great stunt-work and comedic bits, but it’s way too long.

The premise is an interesting idea, and you see how it all unfolds from the initial five men who go down to see the dying guy at the beginning. But, the filmmakers easily could’ve cut the movie down 45 minutes or an hour, and it would’ve been just fine. Many of the bits go on for far too long, to the point where they’re no longer funny — they’re just awkward.

I also didn’t appreciate the way the movie treated its female characters. The mother-in-law is unbelievably annoying, to the point where it’s exhausting; her daughter gets one nice moment in the state park, but that’s it; and the dentist’s wife is beyond dull — so dull that they could’ve replaced her with a sack of potatoes and it would’ve been more interesting. And, then the police captain is certainly a product of his time — ogling his female coworker in one of his first scenes.

Now, I actually watched the movie with my mom when I was home on vacation. She recorded it as part of a “car race” double-header on Turner Classic Movies. The other movie in the doubleheader was The Great Race, which I grew up on and enjoy far more than this movie. Also, it treats its female characters with actual respect — giving them agency, personalities and senses of humor. And for another movie about a car race — although a more formal one than Mad World‘s — it keeps the plot moving, and characters aren’t lingering in any one location for too long. Which isn’t the case here.

In summary: just go watch The Great Race instead, because it’s a much better movie!

It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World: 2.5 or 3 stars

Catching the Classics – Part 15: Sixteen Candles

The only reason I watched this movie was because someone on the Screen Junkies’ Movie Fights had tried to make the case that this was the worst romcom of all time. He had argued that the movie is terrible because it portrays date-rape and sexual assault in a very casual way, in addition to being misogynist/sexist, racist and homophobic. And, I have to say that I agree with most of that.

Initially, it started off well, though, with the opening sequence at the main character’s house. There are a few funny bits of dialogue and sequences with her parents and grandparents. Overall, the movie has some comedic elements that still land, but, the actual plot and content hasn’t aged well.

My biggest grievance was with the male love interest (pictured above with Molly Ringwald’s character). He comes off as super-creepy in his interactions with her, but he’s somehow even worse when he’s dealing with his current / soon-to-be-ex girlfriend, whom he “trades” to ‘the nerd’ for his crush’s underwear. Ugh.

I had fun with it, weirdly, but it was more in research sort of way since the whole point was to see how poorly it had aged.

Sixteen Candles: 2 or 2.5 stars

Catching the Classics – Part 16: Pretty in Pink

Another John Hughes movie! Even before I watched it, I knew James Spader and Molly Ringwald were in it; that there was a character named Ducky; and that it was another John Hughes teen-romcom.

On the whole, it’s far less problematic than Sixteen Candles. Initially, I found Ducky’s obsession with Andie and his inappropriate comments to her and other girls very problematic; but by the end, you could see that he had grown and realized he shouldn’t force a relationship with someone who didn’t want to be in a relationship with him.

I was also definitely rooting for Andie and Blaine; I thought they were remarkably mature and honest with each other for 18-year-olds. The whole part where Andie confesses that she doesn’t want him to see where she lives — I thought that was a great moment for her.

One thing that irked me the whole time was the continual emphasis on the characters needing to fit in with their high school social strata. It makes sense in most other teen-romcoms and ‘coming of age’ movies, because they’re usually underclassmen. But, here, they’re graduating in a few weeks. So who cares what your friends think about the person you’re dating! After graduation, you don’t have to see any of these people ever again. (And you probably won’t anyway.)

So, yeah, I really enjoyed it. I’d definitely watch it again, especially because James Spader is in it. Yes, he’s a douche bag, but he plays a douche bag as only James Spader can. 😉

Pretty in Pink: 3.5 or 4 stars

Catching the Classics – Part 17: The Truman Show

Of all the movies I’ve watched for the CtC series thus far, I think this is the one that has aged the best. While I knew the premise and the ending beforehand, I immensely enjoyed this movie’s setup, characters, and writing.

It has a perfect mix of drama and comedy. One sequence that stands out to me is when he’s trying to leave town in the car with his “wife,” and he goes through the roundabout, then makes her drive over the bridge, and then drives through the fire line. It’s both hilarious and is a dynamic scene that keeps the energy up.

And, even though I knew how it ended, I was so engulfed in the finale where the creator/creation dynamic between Truman and Christof culminates. You can see that Christof looks at Truman with genuine paternal feelings, but he’s only a father to Truman in the most unethical way possible. And, of course, are his attempts to stop Truman driven more by his feelings, or is it because he doesn’t want the show to end? I believe it’s more of the latter, but you can see the mixture of both in Ed Harris’ performance.

Also, this might be my favorite Jim Carrey performance ever, but then again, I haven’t seen him in most of his dramatic stuff. So I have a small sample size.

By the end, I wanted to see more than just Truman walking through that door at the end. I wanted to see him actually encounter the ‘real world’ for the first time, reconnect with Sylvia, and maybe go to Fiji. But, I know that’s not the story they were trying to tell. It’s about “The Truman Show” (the show within the movie) and not just Truman. It was about the experience of the show, what it means for the world of entertainment, what it’s done to Truman and his psyche, and those who watch it.

So, I’m happy to say that this movie has earned the CtC series’ third-ever perfect rating:

The Truman Show: 5 stars

Catching the Classics – Part 18: Se7en

This was another entry where pop culture osmosis ruined basically every plot point of the movie — the premise behind the murders, the characters’ motivations, and the ‘twist’ ending. I think this is to the movie’s detriment, because my experience as a first-time watcher was ruined given that the cool build-up and suspense was gone. I didn’t love it or hate it; it was okay. It was worth watching, but I doubt I’d watch it again.

Overall, the performances were great — Morgan Freeman, Brad Pitt, and Gwyneth Paltrow. And while Kevin Spacey is a problematic human being, to say the least, he can play a creepy and privileged white guy really well. Weirdly, the part of the movie I liked the best was the credits at the beginning. Also, shout-out to Howard Shore — his music worked well at building up the tension in several scenes.

Se7en: 3 stars

Catching the Classics – Part 19: Terminator 2: Judgment Day

Let me say right off the bat that I’ve never seen the first Terminator or any movie in the franchise, except for Terminator: Salvation, weirdly. And while I don’t remember much from it anyway, pop culture osmosis had already ruined many of the movie’s plot points for me, such as which time-traveling character is the bad guy and which one is the good guy. And, that the film ends with the T-800 “dying” voluntarily to preserve the timeline, and that John Connor was really broken up about it.

In actually watching it, though, I felt like the movie was really long. The last action scene, in particular, seems to go on forever. But, I did like how the movie gave you just enough exposition — not too much or too little — about what had happened in the previous Terminator movie, which would help people like me to catch up. The adult actors do a great job; the kid isn’t the best but he’s not terrible. The best part for me was the second act where John and the T-800 are bonding — it reminded me a lot of the Iron Giant. And, as an aside, the effects hold up really well.

T2: Judgment Day: 3.5 or 4 stars

Catching the Classics – Part 20: Night of the Living Dead

While I recognize its value as a cultural touchstone, it was hard to get past the low production value and awkward acting. I wondered at the time whether it was an independent film — and the Nerds later confirmed it is — but with these, I like to judge films on their own merit, without looking over IMDB trivia or special features or directors’ commentaries, etc. If it’s a “classic,” it should hold up to modern audiences without giving you a bunch of context, right? (Now, granted I have cheated on this a few times. I think I looked up some background on Grave of the Fireflies, which I cover in Part 29. But, from now on, I’ll try to refrain from doing that, because I want to be consistent in how I approach these films.)

My overall impression of the movie, though, is a cross between The Twilight Zone and Birdemic. It has the philosophical ambition of a Twilight Zone episode, because it wants to capitalize on paranoia and mob mentality, which is prevalent in much of TZ. I really like how it examines the psychology of these characters as they face the crisis of a zombie epidemic. I really enjoyed the second act when the guys come up from the cellar and have a conversation with the main character as to who’s in charge, who they should listen to, etc. And, I liked the opening scene with Barbara running away from the cemetery during the initial zombie attack.

But, at the same time, it’s weighed down by a low production value, occasional wooden acting, and filming techniques that sometimes reminded me of an awkward student film. I was frustrated at the 180 Barbara’s character did — from intelligently running away from the zombies and taking refuge in the farmhouse, to just sitting on the sidelines while everyone else made the decisions.

I don’t generally like horror movies because I get really tensed-up, which is what happened during the initial sequence in the cemetery and Barbara running away; but by the third act, it all felt incredibly cartoonish and I didn’t even care anymore.

So, while it was a movie that generated a lot horror tropes, and I feel conflicted about my overall experience in watching it, the weaker points really hold it back from getting a higher rating from me:

Night of the Living Dead: 3 stars

Catching the Classics: Parts 1-10 (RECAP)

Because Catching the Classics started on the podcast about a year ago, and I’ll be submitting Part 30 here in a few weeks, I decided it was finally time to go back through all my emails and voice recordings and put together a little recap post for all of you.

Now, the early days of CtC were a bit rough. I was sending in emails, whereas now I send in little voice recordings every week. (Fun fact: I usually record them in my pantry.) So, of these first 10-ish entries, the first six or so will be pulled straight from the emails I sent the Nerds — and I haven’t really edited them at all, so hopefully they’re intelligible. But, then everything from Part 6 onward will be a condensed version of whatever it is I said in my voice recording that played on the podcast episode.

I don’t have time to go back and find every single episode that these CtC iterations appeared on, but I can tell you that CtC-Part 10 was during Reel Nerds Podcast Episode 378: Water Bored (Aquaman review).

So, without further ado, here are recaps of the first 10 iterations of Catching the Classics (with Corinne!):

Catching the Classics – Part 1: Steel Magnolias

The only thing that I knew going into this movie was that it was a “chick-flick” (and I use that term lightly), and that something sad happens. Even when I sat down to watch it with my friend who’d seen it before, she suggested we get a box of tissues ready.

Overall, I wasn’t too thrilled or too bored with it. It was okay. I think I’d give it maybe a B- or C+.

I think the cast is eclectic, but talented. I thought Sally Field really held the whole movie together, and her performance in that cemetery scene was absolutely heart-wrenching. I actually liked the time-skips, and thought it was a good way to see these characters address different, but connected challenges over the course of three or four years.

There were definitely some funny moments that made me and my friend laugh out loud. And, I liked how these women were all unique enough that they didn’t feel like stereotypes or cookie-cutters. They had their own personalities and goals.

On the flip side, I had a problem with this movie’s character structuring. I think they were trying to go for a more ensemble-type feel, except that some of the characters got more attention and development than others. And, yet, none of them seemed to get so much attention or development that any of them could be considered the main character.

I also thought the ending was a little disjointed. Annelle is about to have her baby, and they rush her off to the hospital… and that’s it? Why not go another five minutes, show us the women coming to see Annelle in the maternity ward and then do a cheesy freeze-frame with all of them huddled around Annelle as she’s holding the baby? That’s how I would’ve done it.

And, I can definitely tell that this movie was based on a play. I felt like the dialogue was really stilted sometimes, and I kept thinking to myself, “Who talks like that?” Lots of high drama in close quarters — it works in stage plays, but comes off a little melodramatic here.

Overall, as I said, I didn’t either love it or hate it. I’d probably watch it again, one of these days. And, I will say that having the box of tissues handy was a good idea.

Steel Magnolias: 3 / 5 stars

**Catching the Classics – Part 2: Scarface (1983)**

Now, I knew a lot more about Scarface going into the movie than I did with Steel Magnolias. I, of course, knew the famous line “Say hello to my little friend,” that it was about a cocaine kingpin in Miami, and that Al Pacino was in it.

I know it’s an incredibly popular movie, especially among men, but I personally wasn’t a fan of it.

I do think there are a lot of elements about it that are very well-crafted. I think Pacino’s performance was excellent, especially considering how much of the movie he had to carry. We saw every aspect of Tony — broken and scared, desperate and ambitious, arrogant and vicious, and soft and vulnerable.

There were also some sequences, especially toward the end, that expertly built up the tension. The scene where they’re driving in NYC stands out to me. I also appreciated a lot of the unique camera movements, which were enough to engage you but not so frequent that they annoyed or overwhelmed you.

I also thought the guy who played Manny did an excellent job and I loved Tony’s mom. She was probably my favorite character, and I wish we would’ve spent more time with her.

There were also a few moments that made me laugh out loud, to the point where parts of the movie felt like a dark comedy.

However, this movie feels incredibly long. It’s nearly 3 hours. I know that’s not as long as any of the Lord of the Rings movies, but I actually care about those characters. Here, everyone’s kind of a douchebag and I know they’re all gonna die at the end, so I’m not as invested in their journey as I am in, say, Frodo’s.

I didn’t realize the movie started with us seeing Tony after he first comes to the US and gets his start in the drug biz. I thought we were going to get introduced to him as a kingpin already. But, of the movie’s three sections, I enjoyed the middle one the most. Seeing him go from Frank’s inner circle to kingpin was more interesting than watching him go from immigrant to flunky, or watching his inevitable downfall in the third act.

Additionally, compared to today’s culture, this movie feels incredibly dated when it comes to portraying POC and handling its female characters.

I was blown away by how underdeveloped Elvira’s character is. When Tony is working for Frank, she rejects Tony multiple times and doesn’t seem at all interested in him. And yet, she ends up marrying the guy… for some reason….??? Why? Was it for his money? For the cocaine? After being so unhappy in her first marriage to a drug lord, what was she expecting would be different with another? I felt like she was just there to be arm candy.

And, Tony’s sister… I also thought his behavior toward her seemed overly creep and borderline incestual, so I’m glad she called him out on that.

Anyway, I can see why people — men, especially — seem to like this movie. It’s a modern-day adaptation of the Greek tragic hero but with a shit-ton of drugs and violence. Again, it’s not for me, but it’s definitely made an impact on pop culture and that makes it at least work checking out.

Scarface (1983): 3 / 5 stars

Catching the Classics – Part 2.5: Blazing Saddles

After watching Scarface last week, I decided to spend the accidental buffer week with Blazing Saddles.

I’m 90 percent sure I’ve seen it before, but couldn’t quite remember as it’s probably been 10-plus years.

Anyway, very good movie. It took a while to get going, as the first 20-30 minutes seemed kind of slow. But once Bart shows up to town, I think that’s where it really kicks off.

I loved how he got an opportunity to outwit his antagonists, rather than just beating them with pure brawn. It was a nice change of pace.

And I loved the ending. That fight / dance scene is hilarious, and was probably my favorite part.

Blazing Saddles: 4 / 5 stars

Catching the Classics – Part 3: Jurassic Park

Because this film is so pervasive in pop culture, I knew so much about it: all the famous lines, the major scenes, and which characters live and which die. It felt like I’d seen like half of this movie already; I just needed to watch all the stuff that’s in between the famous scenes.

Despite all that, I couldn’t believe how well this movie held my attention. I genuinely had fun. Granted, some of the tense scenes where the kids or Alan are in danger… I already knew they were going to live so a lot of that tension was gone. But it was, overall, a really good movie. (Surprise!)

The film is paced pretty well. The set-up doesn’t take too long so we can spend most of our time on these characters interacting in the park. Hell, you could probably cut out that scene where the lawyer goes to the Dominican Republic and it would work just fine.

There were maybe a few times at the end where it started to drag, but it still moves pretty well.

I also really noticed Spielbergs style in this. The camera movements. The different lighting choices, like when they turn off the power and use the flashlights. It was all really well done. Kept me engaged and helped build the tension while keeping the action going.

None of the characters seemed too bland, but neither were they complex, which is fine. It’s a two-hour action movie, so I don’t need them to be. I thought the actors did well and seemed to fit their parts. I liked Grant’s arc of warming up to the idea of kids, and Hammond’s sad realization that his park wasn’t just unsuccessful but dangerous.

I do have a few minor criticisms:

I felt like the ending could’ve been done a little bit better. They just fly off, safe and in one piece… but what about the park? What was Hammond going to do with it? I think it would’ve helped bring the themes (man vs nature) and his character development full-circle if we could’ve had a scene at the end with him saying that the park should be closed and he should’ve never tampered with nature, or something of the kind.

Also, I know the film is called Jurassic Park, and no doubt the trailers and marketing gave it away when it came out in 1993, but I wish they would’ve kept you guessing about whether there were dinosaurs. We see the scene at the beginning with the raptor and the guy getting killed and everyone’s wearing JP hats. Huh. I wonder what creatures might be in a park with a dinosaur logo on it…….? (Can you sense the sarcasm there?) Maybe just generic security guard outfits and Jeeps, etc., to keep the reveal safe until the group sees the dinosaurs for the first time.

Also, I thought Tim was pretty useless at following directions and Lex’s constant screaming was annoying.

And there are a few scenes where the effects don’t hold up, but for the most part, they still look great. And the animatronics and puppets(?) are pretty damn convincing.

Overall, I can see why so many people love this movie. And maybe I’ll never love it like they do, but I really enjoyed watching it.

Jurassic Park: 4 / 5 stars

Catching the Classics – Part 4: Unforgiven

Going into this movie, I didn’t know anything about it other than some of the cast members (Eastwood, Hackman, Freeman), that it was a Western, and that Eastwood won his first directing Oscar for it.

I do wanna say real quickly: I was raised on Westerns. More of the John Wayne Westerns than Clint Eastwood ones, but I’m no stranger to the story of the gunslinger, revenge, outlaws and general make-your-own-way attitude of the Old West.

But after watching Unforgiven…

Ho. Ly. Shit.

I feel simultaneously speechless and that I could write a freaking 3,000 word essay on how well this movie tackles so many themes and aspects. Masculinity, the morality and practicality of murder, the role of writers chronicling The West, and the role of women on the frontier.

While I won’t say much more than that, because I’m still processing everything this movie has to offer, I do want to state for the record that I would LOVE to see a prequel to this where Will is an outlaw and then meets Claudia and starts to reform himself.

Maybe I’ll feel differently in a week or two, after I’ve had a chance to think about it more… But for now, I’ll say:

Unforgiven: 5 / 5 stars

I would’ve given it that rating anyway, but the fact that most of the badass characters are from Kansas definitely helped.

Catching the Classics – Part 5: Monty Python’s Life of Brian

So, going into this movie, I knew it was a Monty Python production — obviously — and that it was a parody of Bible Epics / Passion plays. I think I had seen the “What have the Romans ever done for us?” and the conjugation/graffiti scenes.

Overall, it was okay. I really enjoyed the first half. I laughed out loud at the stoning scene, and considering I’m not one for gallows humor, that says a lot. And I laughed so hard at the “Caesar Augustus Memorial Sewer,” I had to pause the movie.

But, once it takes up the ‘Brian as the Messiah’ angle, I definitely felt there were parts of it that would be offensive to Christians. Granted, I’m sure that’s what the creators were going for, but I wasn’t a fan. Also, there were a few instances of nudity, which I wasn’t expecting, and it wasn’t really necessary. And, I felt that Pilate and Biggus Dickus’ lisp thing goes on for too long — so much so that it lost a lot of its steam. By comparison, the cleric in The Princess Bride doesn’t have as many lines and his is far more hilarious. Sometimes, in comedy, less is more.

So, yeah, kind of a mixed bag from me. As I said, there were parts of it I really enjoyed. And while it is true that there were a lot of people during Christ’s time who claimed to be the Messiah, here, I felt like they were doing it just to make fun of Christians. On the whole: I think Holy Grail is a better and funnier movie. As is Blazing Saddles, since I just watched that a few weeks ago.

Monty Python’s Life of Brian: 3 / 5 stars

Catching the Classics – Part 6: The Green Mile

Unfortunately, the ending was ruined for me, along with a few other major plot points and the overall premise. But, I still really enjoyed it, to the point where I like it better than Shawshank Redemption.

For a 3-hour movie, it doesn’t really feel like it. There are maybe a few scenes where it starts to drag and loses its momentum, but it kept me engaged and interested. When they introduce the mouse, for instance, I thought it would really start to drag, but then you start to see why Mr. Jingles is so important, and it all makes sense.

I was confused as to what John Coffee was supposed to be — an angel, an alien, or a person with superpowers. Different aspects of the movie lead you to think one thing and then others make you think something else. But, ultimately, it doesn’t really matter, and that’s what I walked away with by the end of it.

The Green Mile: 4 or 4.5 / 5 stars

Catching the Classics – Part 7: Miniseries The Thorn Birds

This is the second-most-popular miniseries of all time in the United States. Definitely a water cooler moment for folks back in the day.

Thankfully, I didn’t know too much going into it. I had seen a clip on the internet that ruined one of the bigger plot points of the latter part of the series, but there’s still plenty that I didn’t know about. It’s like a 7-hour miniseries, so there’s plenty to get through. But, because it’s a miniseries, you don’t have to sit down and watch it all in one sitting. It was actually made for the exact opposite reason. So, there’s more freedom to watching it — even though it’s longer — than there is to watching a 3-hour movie in one sitting.

Because it’s a little more obscure a quick plot summary: Set in Australia in the 1920s / 30s at the start of the miniseries, a rich elderly woman has her brother’s family come to stay with her, as they’re due to inherit the estate when she dies. The woman befriends her parish priest, who also befriends her brother’s family, particularly the daughter, Meggie. The elderly lady becomes jealous of the priest (Fr. Ralph) spending so much time with her poorer relatives, particularly Meggie, that she decides to revenge herself on them when she dies. Which she does… and then like five more hours of drama ensue.

Overall, the best part of the miniseries is the performances. The two leads are great, as is the actress who plays Mary Carson, the old lady.

Admittedly, this miniseries isn’t for everyone, but I enjoyed it. I’d probably watch it again. It does feel a bit long sometimes, but I feel like it keeps the momentum going for the most part.

The Thorn Birds: 4 / 5 stars

**Catching the Classics – Part 8: The Scarlet Pimpernel (both the 1934 and the 1982 versions)**

This is the grand-daddy of modern superhero films! The original book was a major influence on Zorro, which in turn was a big influence on Batman, and you can definitely see that in both of these films. A lot of the themes and motifs feel as though they’re pulled straight from The Dark Knight trilogy, when — in fact — it’s the other way around.

The overall story is about Sir Percy Blakeney, an English baronet who works to save French aristocrats during the French Revolution, and both versions have a mixture of superhero, spy, and romance elements while also being a period drama. So… you know I’m going to love it!

I watched the 1982 version first, and I like it better even though it’s an hour longer than its predecessor. It gives the audience more backstory for the main characters and SHOWS you their connections with each other — whereas, the other version TELLS you about their connections, because it’s so much shorter. Also, I think this cast gives better performances than the 1934 cast. Anthony Andrews, who plays Sir Percy in the ’82 version, really cranks up the silliness of his character to 11 during the appropriate scenes, which help contrast when he’s serious in other scenes much better. And Sir Ian McKellen is a much better Chauvelin than whomever plays him in the ’34 version.

But, the 1934 version certainly has its merit. From what I can gather through a bit of online research, I think it’s more faithful to the original novels. And, it has pretty good production value for its day; the costumes and set designs are all great. Plus, it being a black-and-white movie gives it a more classic Hollywood feel and helps to soften or highlight the actors’ features as needed. By contrast, the 1982 version seems to have very muted and muddy-looking colors.

On the whole, both are worth watching, but I would recommend the 1982 version over its predecessor.

The Scarlet Pimpernel (1934): 4 / 5 stars

The Scarlet Pimpernel (1982): 5 / 5 stars

Catching the Classics – Holiday Bonus: White Christmas

(I talked about this on the Bonus: A Nerdmare Before Christmas episode.)

Like Blazing Saddles, this doesn’t technically meet the criteria of a CtC film, because I had seen it before. But, it was only once during an all-night event while I was in high school, so I watched it kind of sporadically while I was sleep-deprived and hyped up on sugar.

In revisiting it, I get why people like it, but I’m not one of them. I remember not really liking it the first time either, but I figured it was because I was sleep-deprived. I still got really bored with it on the second go-around.

There are a few aspects about it that I enjoy. The cast members are all very charming, and a few of the song-and-dance numbers are enjoyable rather than meandering. And, of course, Bing Crosby is always a win!

But, on the whole, I’m not a fan. Too many of the song-and-dance numbers go on for far too long, and the characters are all a bit caricature. And, arguably, it’s not even that Christmas-y. It’s almost incidental that the plot takes place at Christmas.

As much as I like musicals, this is one of those that focus more on the dance numbers at the expense of the music and the story that I really dislike.

White Christmas: 3 / 5 stars

Catching the Classics – Part 9: The Godfather

Of all the movies on here, this is the one (and maybe Jurassic Park) is the one that had been the most hyped-up and that I had the most ruined for me simply through pop culture osmosis. I knew all the famous scenes — the wedding, the baptism/shoot-out at the end, the horse head in the bed, etc. Plus, it has a reputation of being this beloved classic. I mean, it’s #2 on the IMDB Top 250, for crying out loud! So… it had a lot to live up to. Plus, I’ve seen so many movies that either drew inspiration or directly parodied the movie or at least its iconic moments. In short: it never could’ve lived up to the hype.

So first, let me tackle what I liked about it:

All the performances are great — Al Pacino and Marlon Brando, especially. And, apparently, Robert Duvall is in this movie?! He gets the Silent MVP Award — or the Boo Radley Award, if you will — for his performance. It also has a nice feel to it. You can see that the style looks as though it’s transitioning out of Old Hollywood. It still has that graininess, dustiness and color to it that makes it seem like it’s from ‘the old country.’ And, I appreciate that it’s set more in the ’40s and ’50s, rather than in the ’70s, which is when it came out.

Now, my biggest criticisms of the movie are about its runtime and its character arcs. Michael is not given much screen time in the beginning, but is given more as the film goes on. Fine. But, the problem is that his character arc is so drastic, but the film seems to hand-wave over the most important bits of it. Michael stepped up to help his family’s “business” because his father was sick and injured, and then he went into exile and eventually lost Apollonia in the car explosion. But, then when we see him again, he’s suddenly back in the States and very involved in his father’s dealings. There are ultimately a few big scenes missing from Michael’s arc, namely when he comes back to the States after Apollonia dies. Did he want to join his father in the business? Did he feel like he needed to as a way to get revenge for losing Apollonia? Did Vito ask him to help, and Michael was reluctant? We have no idea! A lot of it is implied and not shown, making it believable but not earned.

Meanwhile, Vito gets a really good arc, because it’s gradual and organic. You can see how and why Vito starts to change from his old ways. But, the problem is, it comes at the expense of Michael’s arc. The movie should’ve spent less time on Vito and more time on Michael, or at least, Vito’s should’ve been completed earlier in the movie. That way, it would’ve given us more time to focus on Michael’s descent as he takes over more of the business. Michael’s arc isn’t as organic or at least as well-executed as Vito’s is, which is bad, considering how radical his transformation was compared to Vito’s by the end of the movie.

As for the for the runtime, this movie is 50 percent weddings, funerals and baptisms. There are several scenes that absolutely have been cut. And the longer it went on, the more frustrated I became. Why does the movie insist on showing me so many of these things that don’t matter and then it doesn’t show me the things that do matter! It’s 3 freakin’ hours long and there are still scenes missing.

It’s not a bad movie, by any means. It’s certainly an influential movie, and I’m glad I’ve seen it now. If anything, it got me to care enough that I was invested in these characters and their arcs and how they played out. It’s just frustrating that the execution was… off, IMO.

I liked it better than Scarface, but not as much as I liked The Green Mile. And, both of those are 3 hours long, just like this movie is, so I feel like that’s pretty comparable.

The Godfather: 3.5 / 5 stars

Catching the Classics – Part 10: Bram Stoker’s Dracula

Overall, this movie was delightfully fun. I expected it to be over-the-top and melodramatic, and it was. And, I think the fact that I knew that going into it helped me enjoy it a lot better. I had seen some clips it of it previously, and I knew that Dracula and Mina had some weird romance — which was the only major change from the original novel. I haven’t read the entire novel, but I didn’t mind the change. It gave some reason as to why Dracula would go to England and why he would seek out Lucy and then Mina; and it gave him some complexity besides just being a monster in a Gothic horror novel.

I also find it hilarious that I ended up watching two Francis Ford Coppola-direct movies back-to-back, and I like this one a lot better than The Godfather. But, then ‘movie based on classic English literature’ is more in my wheelhouse than ‘mobster/gangster crime movie.’

The performances are great for the most part. Keanu Reeves is a little off, but I like Anthony Hopkins in a lot; and I think Gary Oldman did a great job considering he had to play a creepy weirdo with a strange accent with a faceful of a makeup for most of the movie.

So, you have to appreciate the film for what it is: artsy, fun, a little overblown, a little melodramatic sometimes. There wasn’t anything about it that I hated other than the final scene — SPOILERS — Dracula’s death, where they try to do this shoehorned-in ‘the power of love will redeem you’ thing, which didn’t land for me at all.

Bram Stoker’s Dracula: 4 / 5 stars

Show Time: The Best Episodes of The Good Place … So Far

This week, NBC’s afterlife-based comedy The Good Place will begin its fourth and final season, and you better believe I will be watching every episode with my eyes glued to the screen. As I’ve mentioned on the podcast before, The Good Place (hereafter abbreviated as TGP) is probably #4 right now on my “Favorite TV Shows Of All Time” list, right after The Twilight Zone, 30 Rock and Parks & Rec. And, depending on how this fourth season goes, it might boost the show above Parks & Rec. But, we’ll see.

But, before we get into my list of Top 10 Episodes (so far), I want to do a quick overview of the show.

Season 1 was a good start, but at times felt a bit sitcom-y. Yes, the episodes always end on a great cliffhanger, which is one of the reasons I binge-watched the entire first season in a single day when I first discovered it on Netflix. But, there are a few instances where a given episode’s plot can feel a bit hackneyed. Episode 1.03 “Tahani Al-Jamil” is maybe the best example of this. The A-storyline focuses on Eleanor being fake-friends with Tahani and the B-storyline is about Michael and Janet trying to find Chidi a hobby while Janet’s settings keep changing. But, there are definite shining moments, which I’ll talk about more below.

Season 2 is where I feel the show really picked up. Without saying too much, because we’re technically not in spoiler territory yet, the audience and the characters are now fully aware of what this world is and how it works. I feel like this helps drive the character interactions and personal arcs in a new way, now that everyone is on the same page. And, of the three seasons we have so far, Season 2 is my favorite.

Season 3, I feel like, is the workhorse season. It seems that the writers had a lot of great ideas, and decided to do all of them in one season. This led to the characters going through three separate plot arcs within 13 episodes, which for a half-hour comedy seems a bit ridiculous. While I really like some of the decisions, there are a few directions the story took that I disliked. They were nothing too major, mind you, but there were things that I felt like hadn’t been built up properly that season. I think the problem is predicated on TGP’s premise as introduced in Season 2, which requires certain plot points and elements to keep repeating under different criteria. So, in this instance, I think the writers thought, “Well, you’ve already seen this plot x-number of times already, so we can take shortcuts now.” Yes, it makes sense within the context of the show, because we’ve already seen Plot A happen several times already, but it doesn’t feel organic within the context of the arc/season. Anyway, the point is, Season 3 is still good, but I don’t think it beats Season 2 in terms of overall quality.

While Season 1 has a lot of high points, it also has a lot of lower points. Seasons 2 and 3 are more consistent in their overall quality of episodes, but I think the structure of Season 2 allows it to breathe a lot more, whereas Season 3 gets a lot of things packed into it like a sardine can. To use another metaphor, Season 2 was a breezy 10k while Season 3 was an ultra-marathon. But, to be fair, I did binge-watch Seasons 1 and 2, but I watched Season 3 live while it was airing last year. So, that might have something to do with my feelings toward it.

So, now that we’ve got all that out of the way, on to the main event.

MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD FOR TGP SEASONS 1-3. DO NOT READ THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE UNTIL YOU’VE CAUGHT UP ON THE SHOW!!!! SERIOUSLY.

Today, I’m going to be counting down my Top 10 episodes of The Good Place (S1-3). Once the series concludes in a few months and I’ve had a chance to digest the new season and look back over the series as a whole, I’ll revisit this list and compile an actual Top 10 Episodes of The Good Place.

But, just looking at Seasons 1-3, here are my Top 10 episodes thus far:

10. Episode 1.01 “Everything is Fine”

THE GOOD PLACE — “Everything Is Fine” Episode 101– Pictured: Kristen Bell as Eleanor — (Photo by: Justin Lubin/NBC)

What better place to start this list than at the beginning?

As far as pilots go for recent NBC comedies, this is perhaps the strongest entry. Parks & Rec, 30 Rock, The Office, Superstore … all of their pilots are rough, to say the least. Sure, all the right ingredients are there, but maybe the recipe hasn’t been solidified yet. And, I mean, c’mon. It’s a pilot. I don’t expect it to be perfect.

Unless it’s the pilot for The Good Place.

This introduction to the show is so well-done, it’s unbelievable. All the jokes land. The plot points and character revelations are perfectly paced, and it’s succinct in introducing us to these characters, their world, and the main conflict of the show all in the span of 22 minutes. It’s zany, wild, and unpredictable. Who would’ve thought we’d get a network television show with giant ladybugs, stampeding giraffes and people running around in striped University of Michigan outfits?

Also, who better to greet you as you arrive in the afterlife than Ted forkin’ Danson!

9. Episode 1.06 “What We Owe to Each Other”

THE GOOD PLACE — “What We Owe To Each Other” Episode 105 — Pictured: (l-r) Kristen Bell as Eleanor, Ted Danson as Michael — (Photo by: Justin Lubin/NBC)

One of the things I personally like about the show is the Michael/Eleanor dynamic. It reminds me a lot of The Doctor’s (from Doctor Who) interactions with his companions — especially Peter Capaldi’s 12th Doctor and Jenna Coleman’s Clara.

Here, while the B-plot involving Chidi, Tahani and Jason/Jianyu is “meh,” the A-storyline with Eleanor becoming Michael’s assistant and helping him to relax and have fun is one of my favorites. One key point in Michael’s S2 arc is his love of humanity, specifically the humans in his Good Place experiment. He seems to have a very special attachment to Eleanor in particular, and the fact that Ted Danson and Kristin Bell are real-life best friends helps to sell their characters’ friendship, including in this episode. Given what we know about Michael from S2 and S3, I wonder how much of his time doing “human things” with Eleanor here was acting, or whether he was actually enjoying himself. I think Michael’s always wanted to feel part of a group, and the fact that he’s so fascinated with humans has singled him out as a demon. So, it’s no surprise that — as we’ll talk about in a minute — he’d rather jump ship and be more ‘human’ than ‘demon,’ so to speak.

8. Episode 2.10 “Rhonda, Diana, Jake & Trent”

I’ve always really enjoyed this episode for a whole host of reasons, but I think the biggest one is how it shows us the completion of Michael’s arc with that final scene where he sacrifices himself to get Eleanor through the portal. Sure, he’s proven himself before this point, but I think this is where we see his transformation arc culminate. A mere seven episodes before this in 2.03 “Team Cockroach,” he was frustrated at the idea of having to team up with the humans and really only did it out of self-preservation. But, here, we see that he’s grown to love and care for them to the point where he’s willing to risk getting caught and being ‘retired’ for eternity — something he was desperately avoiding earlier in the season — to ensure that they’d have a chance to plead their case to The Judge. I remember seeing gif sets of that last scene on social media before I ever saw the show, and while it definitely spoiled that plot point, it also intrigued me enough to where I had to finally sit down and see what all the hullabaloo was about.

But, it also has a lot of other great character-based and humorous moments, sometimes simultaneously, like when Eleanor admits to Chidi that she read ahead. We also get to see Chidi creatively not-lying to the demons about who he is, Good Janet desperately trying to pull off being a Bad Janet, Jason saving the day with his Molotov cocktail-making skills, and the four humans masquerading as demons. Such a great episode! And, there’s a great background jokes. One is the weird jazz cover of “Grandma Got Run Over By a Reindeer” that keeps playing on loop in the background of the party. And the other is, when the train reaches the station in The Bad Place, there’s a fake poster for a future Pirates of the Caribbean movie. They’re such great little details that the show’s creative team threw in there, and I love them!

7. Episode 1.07 “The Eternal Shriek”

One aspect of the show that I absolutely love is how morality and ethics are fundamental to the show. The entire premise is Eleanor, and eventually the other main characters, learning to be better people. This involves them learning to be less selfish and competitive, and more honest and self-aware. Overall, they’re learning to how the answer the question posed in Episode 1.06: “What do we owe to each other?”

The idea of honesty and the dangers of lying are the cornerstone of this particular episode, as we see Eleanor’s deception only creates increasingly bad situations for her and her friends. She allows Michael to believe he’s the problem in the neighborhood, but when she finds out that ‘retirement’ basically means eternal torture, she attempts to save Michael and herself by ‘killing’ Janet … or actually dragging Chidi along and having him inadvertently ‘kill’ Janet for her. We see that while she has good intentions of saving Michael, she’s also acting selfishly by trying to get Chidi to play along with Janet’s ‘murder’ because she doesn’t want to be found out. It’s only at the end, when she confesses to Michael, that we see real growth in her character.

The episode also introduces one of my favorite gags where we see Janet ‘being murdered.’ I also love Michael’s speech about all the human things he never got to do and seeing him actually eat a Saltine only to disappointingly throw it away. I don’t know why but the way Ted Danson throws that Saltine to the side gets me every time. It also ends on one of the best episode cliffhangers. Based on the show’s pilot, you might assume that the season finale is going to be Michael finding out that Eleanor doesn’t belong in the neighborhood, or Eleanor deciding to reveal it herself. But, because TGP writers’ room likes to go breakneck speed through stuff — sometimes to the show’s detriment, I would argue — we get this revelation midway through Season 1, which I thought was a really great choice. Of course, it plays into the whole thing that’s revealed in the S1 finale; but still, it’s a great way to keep the audience engaged by not allowing the show’s plot to tread water for too long.

6. Episode 3.09 “Janet(s)”

Holy motherforking shirtballs is D’Arcy Carden a talented actress! I had to put this episode on the list, even though it includes the two S3 plot points that I had the biggest problems with. Those are: the show nonchalantly killing the four humans again, and Eleanor and Chidi’s awkwardly executed romance.

Let me address these points first, briefly, and then I’ll talk about why this was the strongest episode of S3, despite the flaws. The first point is the lesser of the two. In the previous episode, the Soul Squad felt cornered by demons in a Canadian bar, and so, rather than continue to fight their way out of it, Janet decided that the best option was to kill the humans (again) by zapping them into her void. In my opinion, this was the equivalent of killing a spider by using a bomb. The squad in general and Janet specifically had been doing a pretty good job of fighting off the first round of demons. So why Janet in-show or the TGP writers IRL felt this was necessary is a bit ridiculous. From a writing standpoint, sure, this was how the humans get back into the afterlife and eventually conduct the experiment to show that humans can improve. But, the writers at least could’ve made it seem like a much more desperate situation than it actually was. Maybe, rather than a second wave of demons coming in, there could’ve been some device or power that would’ve automatically sent the humans to the Bad Place if Janet hadn’t intervened. The point being is that this episode really just glosses over the fact that the four humans died, which you’d think they’d have some kind of emotional reaction to — sad, remorseful, bittersweet, etc. In the pilot, Eleanor asked Chidi “Do you think anyone cared that I died?” but there’s nothing like that here. I know these versions of the characters have already been through a lot, but it still seems like something that wasn’t handled very well, all things considered.

Anyway, now for the Eleanor/Chidi romance. While I like these two as a couple, this iteration of the characters getting together felt forced and abrupt. In some ways, I agree with Chidi: just because another version of Chidi and another version of Eleanor were together doesn’t mean that their current versions need to be together, too. Chidi had been in a happy, long-term relationship with Simone that only ended because he found out about the afterlife. Chidi cares about Eleanor, sure, but it never felt like he was romantically interested in her. Again, he was with Simone, and the two of them had broken up only a few weeks before this episode takes place. And, then, Eleanor has an identity crisis caused by Chidi not reciprocating her feelings — which I could rant about for several minutes but I’ll digress — and it’s solved when he kisses her. And THEN when she asks him whether he did it because that’s how he really feels or because the world was ending, HE NEVER ANSWERS THE QUESTION!!! As I said, I liked the dynamic between these two in Seasons 1 and 2 when it felt more organic; but here, you can tell the writers were like “You’ve already seen these two get together and fall in love.” So, they hand-waved all the important steps in their budding romance, and went straight from “Chidi’s in love with Simone” to “Chidi’s in love with Eleanor” in the span of four episodes.

Anyway, we’re here to talk about why this episode is awesome. A lot of it is Carden’s performances as SIX SEPARATE CHARACTERS!!! But, it’s also the jokes that are related to this exact situation and how they land. Eleanor-Janet pretending to be Jason-Janet to trick Chidi-Janet into talking to her is great; the joke about how they “should all say white people things”; and the Neutral Janet’s “end of conversation” after everything are all wonderful. And, of course, the end of the episode pivots the season from its second arc of “the Soul Squad” to the third arc of “re-evaluating the afterlife’s point system.” We find out that no one has gotten into the Good Place in more than 500 years, and Michael and the entire crew sneak their way into the actual Good Place. Of course, they never make it into the Good Place proper, but it was still such a great cliffhanger, because that’s what these characters have been working toward since S2, at least. This episode was critical for setting up not only the final third of S3 but also the entire premise for S4, as far as we know right now, so it certainly deserves a place on the list.

5. Episode 1.13 “Michael’s Gambit”

This was the episode that really changed the whole show. Throughout Season 1, most of the comedy came from the fact that things were happening that weren’t supposed to in this idyllic afterlife. Eleanor was sent to The Good Place by mistake, seemingly, and the chaotic situations snowballed from there. Of course, here is when we find out that that was all part of Michael’s plan — both Michael the Architect and Michael Schur, the show’s creator. Schur wrote and planned the entire first season with this twist in mind, and told Ted Danson and Kristin Bell when they signed on. The other actors were clued in shortly before the table read for this episode, I believe, even after they had already filmed other episodes of the show. In fact, there were times when most of the people on set, aside from Schur, the writers, Danson, Bell and a few other executives, knew the truth. Many of the directors didn’t know. Many of the crew members, like the wardrobe and set design folks, didn’t know either until after filming had started.

Granted, I never watched Season 1 as it was airing, and I’m so thankful that *that* twist wasn’t ruined for me before I binge-watched it last April. I wonder how many people who tuned in when it was airing on NBC guessed or at least thought about whether The Good Place was really all that good. It works so well, because it’s something you never really saw coming; but once you know it, things kinda fall into place. That’s why Michael allowed all this chaos to happen in the neighborhood; that’s why he kept putting all the humans in situations where they would constantly be tortured. Even something as innocuous as trying to get Chidi to choose a hobby in Episode 1.03 was really just Michael torturing Chidi, because he knew Chidi hated having to choose between things.

Not only does this episode change the game, but it ends on another wonderful cliffhanger that basically guaranteed that the show was going to get another season, considering how high-quality TGP is. And, the bulk of it pretty much all takes place in Eleanor’s house, keeping the drama in close quarters and the stakes high.

As an aside, I highly recommend the official TGP podcast. In the podcast episode about “Michael’s Gambit,” they talk about the blocking, staging, and all the little minute details of how this was filmed. It’s really fascinating. For instance, I think it’s Schur who talks about how there’s a clown in the background of almost every shot when they’re in the house, because it was a way of conveying that it was all a mockery… something like that. It’s been a while since I listened to the episode, but those little nuggets always stick with me, and I often remember them as I’m rewatching episodes.

4. Episode 2.11 “The Burrito”

This is another episode in which we get to see just how far all our characters have come. Eleanor goes over all the ethical dilemmas of choosing to go to the Good Place without Jason and Tahani. Jason shows he has learned to calm down and focus because he knows his friends are counting on him. Tahani realizes that she’s capable of living a good life without needing validation from her parents about her choices. And Chidi… yeah, he hasn’t changed much. But, the others certainly have — especially Eleanor. Yes, she’s the only one who passed the test to make it into the Good Place, but IMO that doesn’t discount the strides that Tahani and Jason made even if they didn’t pass their tests.

Plus, we got Maya Rudolph as The Judge. While I think some of her later appearances in S3 are a little over-the-top, I love her in this episode. Also, the B-plot with Michael getting punished by Shawn and then Good Janet-posing-as-Bad Janet saving him is brilliant! The whole guest cast really nails it in this episode, as does the regular cast. And, as always, there’s plenty of comedy along with the comedic moments, the best of which is about the eponymous burrito. And, now, talking about “The Burrito” is really making me hungry…

3. Episode 2.02 “Dance Dance Resolution”

On the whole, this has to be one of the funnier TGP episodes so far. Watching that montage of Eleanor realizing the truth in these weird scenarios — holding balloons in a field of cacti, working on a farm with Chidi (as pictured above), walking around with a group of monks, seeing a clown gliding through her house — is absolutely perfect; as is the montage of all her various soulmates, including a golden retriever. But, somehow the montage of Michael continuing to reboot Janet is even funnier as Janet thinks of new ways to beg for her life — “If I’m gone who will take care of my birds?!” — and then falls over into the sand. Poor D’Arcy Carden! And then the montage of all the changing restaurant names and Jason figuring it out in one reboot is another cherry on top.

But, of course, this is another episode that turns the whole show’s premise (up to that point) on its head. Season 1 shows the initial trial with the humans figuring it out at the end; and the two-part Season 2 premiere shows them figuring it out much quicker thanks to Eleanor’s clue she’d left herself. So, like Michael, the audience was probably expecting that Season 2 would focus on a third reboot, now that everything’s been reset and there are no more clues. However, TGP throws that out at the end of the cold open! The show burns through several seasons’ worth of material in the span of a 10-minute montage. And, while I bemoaned some of the decisions made in S3, this is one instance where the writers going breakneck speed actually works. Yes, let’s burn through 800 reboots because we want to get to the more important story, which in S2’s case, is Michael’s arc. The showrunners have said that S2 is primarily Michael’s season, as it starts and ends with him, visually, and he has the most complete arc of any of the characters (at least, without getting reset). Thus, it makes sense that this episode ends with Michael coming to the humans out of desperation, because that’s the next step in the story that’s really important.

Creative decisions like this, as I said, are great because it keeps the plot moving, the characters developing and the audience engaged. No wonder I love this show in general, and this episode specifically, so much!

2. Episode 2.12 “Somewhere Else”

Another season finale makes the list, because of course it does. Gah, this is such a great episode. As much as I hated having to wait between Seasons 2 and 3, this was the perfect episode to keep me company during that long hiatus between April 2018 (when I first discovered the show and binge-watched Seasons 1 and 2) and that September when S3 started airing. I honestly feel like this could’ve been a series finale. We got all these great little beats — Eleanor and Tahani discussing their friendship, The Judge deciding to reboot the humans on Earth, Michael saving Eleanor from the shopping carts, Eleanor learning to be a better person and then back-sliding when it became too difficult, and watching Michael and Janet keeping an eye on how their four humans are doing.

And, of course, I absolutely love that scene in the bar with Michael and Eleanor. It might be my favorite in the entire show. Not only is it well-acted and well-paced, but the dialogue is so emotionally charged with all these things that Eleanor might not recognize but we do. Plus, WE GET TO SEE TED DANSON BEHIND A BAR AGAIN!!! I only vaguely remember watching reruns of Cheers as a kid, but even I freaked a little when I watched this episode for the first time. But, most of all, the entire conversation is centered on this moral/ethical discussion of what it means to be a good person, why people should pursue goodness, and what prevents them from doing so. The idea of moral dessert — that we should only do good things because it either 1) makes us feel good and/or 2) we get some kind of reward for it — is posed. TGP had indirectly tackled it before, but now confronts this idea head-on. And, as a viewer who loves these characters and the journeys they’ve been on up to this point in the show, hearing Michael quote Eleanor back to Eleanor about how and why she needs to act with virtue — seeing how she inspired him to be a better person (or demon, rather) — is so gratifying and meaningful. THIS is the kind of stuff I need on TV. And hearing him ask her the question “What do we owe to each other?” — which has become the show’s officially unofficial thesis question — almost makes me tear up as I re-watch the scene right now. Fork, this show is so good, you guys!!! Plus, her watching Chidi’s speech and then immediately flying to Australia to meet him was such a great way to end the episode and the season.

As I said, it was a long wait between Seasons 2 and 3, but these emotionally charged moments of both plot and character development was exactly what I needed to get me through it.

Honorable & “Dishonorable” Mentions

Image result for the good place season 2 derek

So, before I get to my #1 pick, I want to highlight a few really great episodes that didn’t make the list. They are, in chronological order:

Episode 1.12 “Mindy St. Claire”
Episode 2.03 “Team Cockroach”
Episode 2.06 “Janet & Michael”
Episode 3.04 “Jeremy Bearimy”
Episode 3.06 “A Fractured Inheritance”
Episode 3.07 “The Worst Possible Use of Free Will”
Episode 3.11 “Chidi Sees the Time-Knife”

These were all episodes that I really wanted to put on this list, but was unable to. “Team Cockroach” had been on here at one point, and I really wanted to include one more S3 episode, at least, but this show has too many good episodes to choose from. Ugh!

Now, while TGP is far and away better than most comedies currently on TV, especially network shows, that’s not to say it hasn’t had some ‘lesser’ episodes. Sure, even the worst of these is better than the best episodes of other shows, but that doesn’t mean they’re amazing by TGP standards. It basically boils down to a combination of not funny enough, not enough well-done character moments and too sitcom-y. So, I just quickly want to highlight a few ‘dishonorable’ mentions. They are, in chronological order:

Episode 1.03 “Tahani Al-Jamil”
Episode 1.10 “Chidi’s Choice”
Episode 1.11 “What’s My Motivation”
Episode 2.07 “Derek”
Episode 3.02 “The Brainy Bunch”
Episode 3.05 “The Ballad of Donkey Doug”

And now … The moment you’ve all been waiting for!

The best episode of The Good Place thus far is…

1. Episode 2.08 “Leap to Faith”

Image result for the good place leap to faith

If the criteria for best episode of TGP is a combination of successful jokes, character-building and plot developments, then I think this has to take the cake.

Not only do we get great moments like the Bad Place comedy roast, Janet acting ‘drunk,’ and Bad Janet DJ-ing the neighborhood’s destruction to “She Hates Me” and “Grandma Got Run Over By A Reindeer” on repeat, but we are asked the question “Has Michael really changed?” The show’s plot has been so unpredictable up to this point, especially in S2, that I think — like the humans — I could easily see it going the other way. Michael was only behaving ethically because the humans had forced him to join their little study group, and he didn’t think there was a real way out for him otherwise. But, Tahani’s right, maybe him being offered his dream job is enough to make Michael turn on them. Of course, long-term the show benefits from Ted Danson’s character being a good guy, I think. But, as I said, it could easily have gone the other way. There’s some question in the audience’s mind, because we know what Eleanor knows. Michael was really trying. He had doubts. He had questions. He was trying to understand the ‘why’ BECAUSE it mattered to him. If he didn’t care, he wouldn’t have made the effort to ask Eleanor.

But, of course, it all works out in the end. Michael really is a good guy who was leaving them clues on how to escape the whole time. And while it doesn’t cement his arc like Episode 2.10 does, the revelation that he was working to help the humans escape the demons cements his status as a good guy. Plus, I love how the show re-used that ‘Bad Place’ music cue + camera zoom-in from Episode 1.13. The first time, it was to show that this angelic figure was actually a demon, whereas here, it’s to show that the demon is actually a savior. It’s a great reversal and the kind of little detail TGP regularly uses, which I really appreciate.

Additionally, I really love that bit in heist movies where you see the end result and then they walk you back and show you how the characters pulled it off. And, that was another well-executed part of this episode.

So, on the whole, I love seeing character development paying off, even if the characters make the same arc multiple times. (But, that’s okay; it fits within the show’s premise.) I love how unpredictable the plot can be and how it can progress so quickly to keep you interested. And, I love this cast, these characters, and the moral/ethical questions they continually ask us, such as, “What do we owe to each other?”

And now that we’ve reached the end of this incredibly long post, I’m going to borrow the sign-off from the official TGP podcast and say:

“GO DO SOMETHING GOOD.”

Show Time: The 10 Hottest Scenes in Cinema*

Grab your portable mini fans and spray bottles, folks. This article is going to be hotter than the last time your air conditioning unit broke; hotter than when you open up the oven door to grab your pizza when it’s done; hotter than walking down the Las Vegas strip on a July afternoon.

Trust me: you’re going to need an ice bath after this one, because I’m honoring the Top 10 Hottest Scenes in Cinema*.

You’re probably wondering: “Corinne, what’s with the asterisk?”

Well, a couple of things, really.

First, this list is subjective. The entries and their placement are my own opinions, but … c’mon. Once you read through it, you’re not going to be disagreeing with me. It’s entirely possible that there’s some steamy scenes in movies I’ve never seen… so if there’s anything I’ve neglected, feel free to bring it to my attention. Perhaps I’ll revisit the list, if I feel it’s warranted.

But, moreover, the asterisk really represents the qualifications for these entries — namely, that we’re playing by Bollywood rules, people. So there can be no kissing, no making out, no nothing! This is only G–rated stuff. Not to say a scene can’t be hot if the characters are kissing. There are plenty of examples I could give you from Casablanca to Notorious … but, sometimes the fact that they’re not kissing makes it even hotter, in my opinion.

It’s all that tension building up, and you’re rooting for these poor bastards to do something, literally anything, but they won’t because ~drama~ or something. Maybe they kiss later in the movie (and in most of these entries, they do). But, in these scenes, there’s something to be said for the chemistry between the actors, the dialogue, the pacing, the lighting, the mood — in short, everything — when the two love-struck dolts aren’t macking on each other. Again: tension-building.

So, without further ado, grab the nearest bottle of water and dump it on your head, because we’re diving right in with:

10. Charles follows Julia through the ship in Brideshead Revisited (2008)

This one is low on the list, to be sure, but it’s still enough to make you put a damp cloth on your forehead. (And, believe me, it’s low on the list for a reason.)

This sequence is almost the first scene in the movie, and really draws the audience into the mysterious and not-yet-revealed connection between these two. In the scene, Charles (played by Matthew Goode) is stewing in the mixed feelings of his recent success as a painter, which in some respects feels hollow to him. He’s aimlessly smoking a cigarette when he spots an attractive woman (whom we later find out is Julia, played by Hayley Atwell). There’s some unspoken connection between them; they make eye contact across a large room. She leaves. He follows her through the various parts of the cruise ship that they’re on. It ends with them standing in the doorway of her room, greeting each other for the first time in several years. And then we get probably an hours-long flashback-within-a-flashback sequence and find out how these two lovebirds met.

The pacing, the framing, the music, the set design and costumes, and performances all line up for a very memorable and intriguing scene that piques the audience’s curiosity while also demonstrating the unresolved tension between these two. And all without more than a line or two of dialogue.

9. “Let Me Teach You How to Dance” in Miss Potter

This is when we really start to get into the nitty-gritty of it all.

Miss Potter is adapted from the real-life story of author Beatrix Potter (played by Renee Zellweger), who doesn’t have much of a social life or any prospects in the way of love. But, she starts to form a connection with her up-and-coming publisher, Norman Warne (played by Ewan McGregor). The two spend a lot of time with each other, but always under the eye of Beatrix’s watchful chaperone. At a Christmas party, Beatrix invites Mr. Warne to her room to give him his present (calm down — it’s just a painting), her chaperone passes out from drinking too much, and he opens a music box playing the song “Let Me Teach You How to Dance.” And they proceed to … dance.

It’s all very innocent, but the fact that the man she loves is so close to her in such a intimate space and situation… she’s definitely blushing. And when you watch the scene, you’re like Kathy Geiss in 30 Rock cheering: “Kiss! Kiss! Kiss!”

And then of course, he tries to take the opportunity to propose to her, and she’s totally unprepared but also so emotional. And, just when you’re starting to fan yourself, her killjoy mom walks in and interrupts them. So close! Still, it’s such an emotionally charged scene, because you’re rooting for these two dumb-dumbs to say how they feel, and… well, I won’t ruin how Miss Potter ends, but, they really needed to say how they felt! Let’s just put it that way.

8. The rainy porch scene in Mogambo

Even though it’s raining in this scene, somehow it’s hotter than the Sahara.

Victor (played by Clark Gable) is a big-game hunter in Africa, and has been hired by Mrs. Nordley (played by Grace Kelly) and her husband to take them on an expedition to find gorillas. Before the Nordleys arrive, we see Vick’s womanizing ways, but when Mrs. Nordley does appear on the scene, Vick falls for her — hard. (Who can blame him? It’s Grace Kelly, after all!) After rescuing her from a trap in the jungle, he’s escorting her back to the main house. A storm comes up, with the wind blowing like crazy. Mrs. Nordley has trouble walking, and Vick picks up her in his arms and carries her back. On the porch, not a single word is spoken between them, but again — unresolved tension. They’re starting to get feelings for each other, but neither wants to admit it. She walks to the door of her room, but stops. He follows her. She’s wearing a headscarf, and he snaps it off her head and puts it around her neck, still holding it in his hands. Her eyes get watery, and she goes into her room.

All the while, Ava Gardner’s character (who had been Vick’s flame earlier in the movie) has been standing on the porch the whole time, and this little exchange between the man she loves and his new flame visibly effects her. But, believe me, if she hadn’t had emotional stakes in this wordless exchange, she would’ve been stepping out into that rain as a way of cooling herself off, just like the rest of us.

7. “The Point of No Return” in The Phantom of the Opera

Say what you will about this as an adaptation of the hit stage musical, but this is scene in smokin’! It’s a good thing they didn’t add more torches to that stage, because this song couldn’t handle any more heat.

In case you’ve never seen it, this musical number is toward the end of the movie. Christine (played by Emmy Rossum), her fiance Raoul (played by Patrick Wilson) and the opera managers are trying to capture the Phantom (played by Gerard Butler) by putting on a production of the Phantom’s opera Don Juan, Triumphant. Christine takes the role of the leading lady and becomes the bait, hoping to lure the Phantom out into the open so the nearby police can capture him during the performance. The Phantom kills the lead actor and takes over the role of Don Juan just in time for this number, which is about Don Juan trying to seduce Christine’s character.

In the POTO stage musical, neither Christine nor the in-universe audience initially realizes it’s the Phantom, because the actor wears a very large cloak that hides his figure and his face. (We in the real world realize it’s the Phantom, because we recognize his voice.) Here, though, the logic doesn’t work the same way, as Christine knows it’s the Phantom the whole time and actually tips off Raoul and the managers to get ready. And somehow that makes it more engaging, and you can see where Christine seemingly starts to fall under the Phantom’s proverbial spell and Raoul is visibly distressed by how Christine seems to be giving into the charade.

And while YouTube essayist Lindsay Ellis makes fun of the random tango dancers in the background, I appreciate it, because it helps give the scene more energy and movement. In the stage version, the Phantom and Christine move around a lot more. In the movie, they just walk toward each other, away from each other, and then up a flight of stairs, and then toward each other again. Not really all that dynamic. But, the tango dancers help with that, along with adding to the ambiance and the tension.

And, while many POTO purists bemoan Butler being cast as the Phantom — and while I agree with them in some respects — his voice has a good timbre, and he has more sex appeal than someone like Michael Crawford (who originated the role on Broadway). The weird (and admittedly unhealthy) dynamic between Butler’s Phantom and Rossum’s Christine is built up to a climax at this point in the movie, and the chemistry between them absolutely works. In the stage musical, this number comes off as more creepy, in part thanks to the giant cloak that the Phantom wears as Don Juan that makes him look like a fat Ghost of Christmas Future. It’s hard to see that as sexy. However, here, director Joel Schumacher — love him or hate him (and I’m definitely more in the ‘hate him’ camp) — allows the Phantom and Christine to have a more honest and open musical number, which helps turns up the sexiness and tone down the creepiness.

6. A song and shelter from the rain in Twelfth Night

I think what we’ve learned so far is that, if you’re making a movie and you want a really hot scene, throw in some dancing or rain, because the latter makes the list again thanks to the 1996 film adaptation of Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night.

After believing her brother to be dead and having been stranded in an enemy land — both of which are thanks to a shipwreck — Viola (played by Imogen Stubbs) decides to disguise herself as a man, and takes the name Cesario and becomes an assistant to Duke Orsino (played by Toby Stephens). Orsino, seeing that Cesario is a handsome youth, recruits him to ask Countess Olivia (played by Helena Bonham Carter) to marry Orsino. Cesario goes, and Olivia ends up falling for Cesario instead of Orsino. Around this point in the play, Orsino is trying to ask Cesario to return to Olivia’s mansion to plead Orsino’s case again, but Cesario — because she’s actually a woman and is in love with Orsino herself — doesn’t want to.

In this scene, Orsino and Cesario take refuge from a rainstorm in a barn, where they stumble across Olivia’s fool (played by Ben Kingsley), whom Orsino asks to play them a song. As the fool is singing, Orsino looks on at Cesario, who’s across the room and then walks over and puts his arm around Cesario’s shoulder. Cesario/Olivia looks a little uncomfortable at the idea of the man she loves putting his arm around her, but rolls with it. As he sings, the fool looks on, knowing exactly what’s going on between them. Orsino continues looking at Cesario, who is still unsure how to react and quickly keeps glancing over at him as well. Their faces move closer and closer to each other as the fool keeps singing; and, just as Cesario/Olivia and Orsino are about to kiss, the fool stops singing and awkwardly takes a swig of his drink in an “I didn’t see anything” sort of way.

The dialogue is from the original play, but the film takes creative liberties by changing the location, the dynamic between Cesario and Orsino, and the whole context of what’s happening. That’s the thing about adaptations! It really works here, because at the end of the play, when Cesario is revealed to be a woman, Orsino proposes to her. While their friendship had definitely been built up in the text, whether Orsino felt anything more for Cesario/Olivia beyond friend was never really addressed until after her identity is revealed. But, in this version, the film — and this scene in particular — shows us that Orsino had feelings for Cesario/Olivia beyond simple friendship, which he probably felt he had to repress for a multitude of reasons. And, of course, all that unresolved tension just works to make the scene blowtorch levels of hot!

Of course, all of these above entries are about as cold as a visit to the pool and an ice cream cone on a Sunday afternoon compared to these Top 5 melt-your-face-like-the-Ark-of-the-Covenant levels of heat!

5. The hand-touch scene in Star Wars: The Last Jedi

Oh, baby, you better believe that this scene made somebody swoon in the theater the first time they saw it. (Me. It was me. JK. I was close though.) And, again, we have an intimate conversation taking place as one of our poor lovestruck idiots is soaking wet and it’s pouring rain outside. Rian Johnson, girl, you know exactly what you’re doing!

For some of you reading this, you might be thinking: “What?! Rey and Kylo aren’t a ~thing~.” Kid, have I got several studio executives and actors’ comments, internet essays and fanposts for you to read. As I’ve said before, if you’re going to see The Rise of Skywalker, better be prepared for these fools to make out by the end!

I would like to point out — and I’m not the first to do so — that in The Force Awakens, Rey keeps telling Finn to let go of her hand. Yet, here, we see her willingly reach out to Kylo and allow him to touch hers.

And while basically the entirety of their scenes in The Last Jedi could be on this list — including the Praetorian guard fight and the ‘rule the galaxy with me’ proposal — I believe this scene is the culmination of Kylo/Ben and Rey’s relationship thus far, as it shows us the first instance they connected on a deeper level and saw the potential of their lives together. That’s why Rey is so willing to defend Kylo/Ben to Luke. That’s why Kylo is willing to kill Snoke — throwing away everything he’s ever known — to save Rey. Each of them so desperately wants the future they saw, but neither is willing to go over to the other’s side to get it. And, while their destinies seemed to have been intertwined since they met each other in TFA, here is where it goes from ‘intertwined’ to ‘inseparably bound together.’

And that’s only one part of why this scene is hotter than forest fire.

4. The dance scene in The Mask of Zorro

C’mon. You had to know this was coming, right? It is the lead art for this article, after all.

With this scene, everything is so palpable. The passion! The romance! You can feel the chemistry building between these two characters, even though they kinda-sorta just met. It’s enough to make you run into the backyard, turn on the hose, and spray yourself down.

Everything about this scene works — from the dance choreography and music to the costumes and performances. The pacing. The angles. There’s such energy to the scene that absolutely sucks you in, even though our couple doesn’t exchange a word until after the dance is over.

And, damn, if dance scenes aren’t like the easiest way to get some sexual tension and physical intimacy — but not too much — into your scene. If Antonio Banderas’ Alejandro/Zorro had been wearing his mask in this scene, we all would’ve swooned the first time we watched it. Thankfully, the screenwriter had pity on us and made sure this all took place when he’s in his ‘I’m a boring rich guy and totally not a vigilante’ persona.

3. The Laendler dance in The Sound of Music

Allow me to take a large gulp of cold water before I talk about this scene.

Yes, this scene. You all know exactly the one I’m talking about.

Maria is so innocently trying to teach the children how to do the dance, Captain Von Trapp steps in, and the two flawlessly go through the first minute or two of the dance… until… they’re so close together, basically in each other’s arms, and neither can take their eyes off the other. They stop. And, Maria’s all flustered, saying “I can’t remember the rest,” and visibly blushes, which others nearby point out to her. She makes an excuse: “I’m not used to dancing.”

Girl, you are not used to dancing with a guy as handsome as Captain Von Trapp, that’s what it is. You were in the convent like a week ago, and now the hottest guy on the block is doing the whole Held Gaze thing with you. How do you not plop down on your knee right there and propose to the man? (Oh, I guess, because it’s the early 20th century, and traditional gender roles are still very much a thing. Damn it!) And how did everyone present not go blind from overexposure to pure awesomeness?!

So, if you need to, I’d recommend you grab an ice pack now, because these next two entries are somehow even hotter than this one. (“Is that even possible, Corinne?” you ask. Yes. Yes, it is.)

2. The library scene in The Scarlet Pimpernel (1982)

In rewatching this scene — purely as research for writing this article, of course — my reaction was similar to the babbling great-grandma from Rapsittie Street Kids.

This scene is so hot that, I had to pause half-way through, call an Uber to take me to the airport, book a round-trip ticket to Norway, find a guide who could take me to the coldest frozen tundra in the far north of the country, and then camp out there for a few weeks — because, holy hell, this scene is HOT!!!

Where do I even begin? How about the fact that they’re both so deeply in love with the other, but because of ~drama~ they’ve come to believe that the other one doesn’t love them and/or is untrustworthy. Or maybe it’s also that it’s a culmination of a lot of the movie’s plots and subplots that have been building up to this point. Or maybe it’s because Marguerite (played by Jane Seymour) finally tells her husband that her family is in trouble and she needs help, even though she doesn’t realize it’s him? She won’t trust Percy (played by Anthony Andrews) as her husband, but she will trust him as the Scarlet Pimpernel. Or when Percy tells her that he’s only a phantom, and she’s all: “You’re so real. I can feel your warmth even now.” You two. are. married!!! It’s like the perfect blend of drama, melodrama and romance!

It’s absolutely hilarious that she’s in love with her husband, and also sort of in love with the Scarlet Pimpernel, and doesn’t realize they’re one and the same. I also think it would’ve been hilarious if someone had walked in on this super-dramatic moment. Marguerite thinks she’s finally meeting this mysterious hero but can’t turn around to see his face, and Percy’s all walking up behind her and whispering, and they’re having this very serious and emotionally charged conversation. And then some dolt walks in like, “Oh, it’s the Blakeneys! What on earth are you kids up to?”

But then again, if someone had, it would’ve ruined not only the story but this scene. It’s bad enough that the clock chimes midnight in this ‘the fairy tale is over, Cinderella’ sort of way, and the two have to skedaddle out of the room separately in the hopes that neither will be found out.

Even so, the scene’s conclusion only adds to the tension, because while Percy has learned about Marguerite’s drama, Marguerite has yet to discover that Percy is the Scarlet Pimpernel, which is also a great scene, by the way. But, nothing beats this one.

Holy hell. Excuse me while I find the nearest icy lake, cut a hole in it and jump in before I talk about the No. 1 Hottest Scenes in Cinema*:

1. “Shall We Dance?” in The King & I

sdjfi;aosdi nvjd,nfalsij

No, that’s not a typo. That’s me, having a bout of heat stroke while rewatching this scene. But, fortunately, I know how to combat it: thinking about all the historical inaccuracies and probably racist / colonialist undertones of this telling of Anna Leonowens and the King of Siam.

Still, all those other entries feel so lukewarm compared to this, which is the cinematic equivalent of the surface of the sun in terms of hotness. And, as the comments on the official YouTube clip demonstrate, I’m not the only one who feels like I should’ve been covering my eyes during this scene, even though they’re both fully clothed.

I don’t know if you’re familiar with the term ‘eye sex,’ but that’s basically what’s going on here. We’ve seen it in some of these other entries, but this scene takes the cake!

I don’t want to dilute the absolute raw magnetism of these performers and the scene as a whole, but I do want to point out that — in addition to what happens in the musical number itself — perhaps one reason why it stands out in our minds is because this is the closest these two people were throughout the entire film. SPOILERS for The King & I, but these two don’t end up together. In fact, this scene is the last time they’re both happy and together. Shortly after this, ~drama~ occurs, and the movie ends with the king’s death. This is the one time they actually got to be a couple, and do ‘couple things’ like dance together. They spent most of their time bickering and arguing and trying to subtly one-up each other. There are a few moments of genuine chemistry and kindness, don’t get me wrong, and this is one of them.

Looking back over this list, only four of these couples are ‘together’ and living happily ever after by the end of their respective movies. (I’m not counting Rey and Kylo/Ben, because even if I think they could end up together in TROS, they aren’t together at the end of TLJ.) There’s a variety of reasons, but it mostly boils down to ‘one of them dies’ or ‘one of them was already in a relationship with someone else.’ Here, it’s the former, and again, perhaps one reason this scene is so iconic — in addition to the music, costumes, choreography, and performances — is because we see what they could’ve been together if ~drama~ hadn’t happened. But, then again, they really could never have been together to begin with, because of how different their cultures and expectations were. And, isn’t the whole idea of couple who loves each other passionately but can never be together one of the hottest tropes there is?

Still, at least we got one scene where they were not only happy and working in tandem, but one that must’ve scorched the film reel whenever they recorded it because this scene IS SO FUCKING HOT!!!!! GAHHAHAH!

*dies from internal combustion*

FADE TO BLACK.

THE END.

Catching the Miyazaki Classics (BONUS) – The Secret World of Arrietty

*The Secret World of Arrietty* is a 2010 film co-written by Hayao Miyazaki and directed by Hiromasa Yonebayashi

Japanese filmmaker Hayao Miyazaki, perhaps best known for his work with Studio Ghibli, has gained popularity around the world for his creative and imaginative animated feature films. While they were originally released in Japanese, all of them have been dubbed into English with prominent voice actors and Hollywood stars. Over the past few months, I’ve watched and reviewed the English-dub versions of each of Miyazaki’s 11 films as writer and director.

And now, as I discussed at the end of my CtMC series recap, this will be the first of three bonus posts to review the three films that Miyazaki wrote but didn’t direct. They are: Secrets of the Heart (1995); The Secret World of Arrietty (2010); and From Up On Poppy Hill (2011).

This time, I’ll be discussing The Secret World of Arrietty (2010).

Synopsis: Based on the book The Borrowers, Arrietty (voiced by Bridgit Mendler) and her parents are a family of tiny people who ‘borrow’ what they need from the “beans” (human beings) in whose house they live. Arrietty is a young teenager looking to learn the ways of the Borrowers, but her family’s way of life and their very existence is threatened when a new “bean” comes to live in the house and sees Arrietty.

Spoiler-free review: Granted, it’s been a week from when I watched the movie to now (as I’m writing this review), but it stands in my mind as a competently made film. There’s nothing about it that I felt was spectacular, but there’s nothing that was onerous, either. It feels very much like a standard Studio Ghibli film, which isn’t a bad thing. It means that you’ll have an enjoyable experience, and your kids will probably like it too. The voice cast is talented. I didn’t even recognize Will Arnett as Arrietty’s dad until about two-thirds of the way through the film, simply because his performance matches the tone so well. As Batman in the Lego movies, he’s over-the-top because that’s what’s demanded of the character; but here, he’s far less bombastic and much quieter and calmer, which is what’s required of this character. Amy Poehler and Carol Burnett also do a wonderful job, as do the two actors who play Arrietty and Shawn, who have to carry the bulk of the film. The characters are all charming; the animation is well-executed; and the music — even though it’s not Joe Hisaishi composing — is beautiful and catchy. I guess the one downside that I can recall is the pacing. It seems like the film slows down considerably in the second act, and even the first third has some scenes that go on a little too long. But, of course, the third act has high stakes and good conflict that keeps you engaged. But, again, it’s a good little movie, on the whole.

Letter grade: B

Full review and critique: (Warning: here be spoilers!)

Ultimately, this movie is about continuation and survival, both on a larger species level and on an individual level.

Arrietty and her family continually discuss whether they are the last Borrowers in existence, and — as we find out halfway through — they’re not. But, then the question becomes, can they survive long enough to get away from the house where they are threatened, find a new home, and continue to live and thrive. We get to see Arrietty meet another Borrower for the first time, who is a young man who seems to be interested in her. So, there’s the possibility that Spiller and Arrietty could get together when they’re older and have a family of their own. The film certainly gives you that impression. So, for the tiny people of the movie, the story focuses on not only Arrietty’s family and their survival, but the idea of whether the Borrower race will continue as a whole.

On the “bean” side, the story is about Shawn’s survival, as he’s preparing for a risky surgery. As we learn, Shawn’s entire reason to be at the house is to convalesce before his surgery. He’s very weak and sickly, and has trouble jogging for a little bit because of the strain on his heart. Obviously, he survives the surgery and goes on to live a happy life, and the film tells us that he gained strength and courage to undergo his surgery from his brief friendship with Arrietty. He saw how they fought to survive and live on their own terms, so he is inspired to do the same.

The film also touches on the concepts of independence and capability. Because of Shawn’s sickly disposition, his family tend to treat him like he’s a fragile doll that can’t be expected to do much beside lie in bed (that was bought accordingly as stated in this mattress buyers guide) all day. But, Shawn wants to help, and pushes himself to ensure that Arrietty and her family are safe. Likewise, Arrietty is coming into her own, learning to be a Borrower. She wants to prove to her parents and herself that she’s capable of successfully ‘borrowing,’ and of course, her plans hit a snag when Shawn sees her.

One more detail I want to highlight, briefly, is the two main times Shawn and Arrietty make physical contact. The first time — when he’s rescuing her after the crow flies into his window — he grabs her and continues to hold her in his hand. Yes, there are mitigating factors, but I believe that, at this point in the film, Shawn still has the childlike fascination with the Borrowers. He sees them as something more akin to toys or dolls. He believes he can interfere in their lives and treat them as he wills so long as he believes he’s doing it for their own good — like finding their house and giving them the dollhouse kitchen. Shawn eventually learns that the Borrowers are their own people, and not playthings. Thus, when he and Arrietty team up to help rescue her mom, Arrietty stands on his shoulder. She is no longer his inferior — his plaything — to be held in his hand. She is his equal — his partner.

I realize that Shawn has good intentions throughout the entire film, and given that he’s a boy who doesn’t have much else to occupy his time, it’s understandable that he would be fascinated with the Borrowers, just as his older relatives were before him. I don’t think he intentionally meant to disrupt the Borrowers’ lives or cause them distress, but he does. And that fact that he sees Arrietty prompts the family into finding a new place to live, which is only furthered after other things happen in the film’s second and third acts. But, his arc centers on seeing Arrietty as her own individual, who — though far smaller than him — is equally capable. And the two work together to form a lovely friendship that culminates in that scene where they say goodbye. And, as the narration tells us, Shawn certainly discovered the house where Arrietty and her family had moved to. But rather than trying to find them again, he apparently leaves them alone because his narration tells us that he never saw Arrietty after their goodbye at the fence. And, as meme says:

Image result for you know what that is growth meme

Overall, I think both adults and kids alike would enjoy this film. As I said, it’s a competent and well-made Studio Ghibli movie. Maybe it didn’t strike me as much, because it’s a more familiar story for Western audiences than something like From Up on Poppy Hill or Spirited Away. Hell, even Howl’s Moving Castle is a book by a British author, and so should feel fairly familiar to us Western audiences. But, I’d say Howl’s Moving Castle (the book) is relatively obscure. I’d never even heard about it until I saw the movie. Meanwhile, The Borrowers is fairly well-known book series, was adapted a few other times before Arrietty came out, and the whole ‘tiny people living alongside regular people’ thing is fairly common thanks to tales like Thumbelina. So, perhaps it didn’t strike me because it wasn’t a unique story in the way that Princess Mononoke is, or even a fairly creative and unique adaptation in the way that Ponyo is an adaptation of The Little Mermaid. But, still, it’s an enjoyable watch.

Author: Corinne