wsheit Reviews

The Last Man on Earth (2015–2018)

The Freshest Comedy Since Community and Bob's Burgers

[10/10 · 16 March 2015]

When I heard that Will Forte was getting his own show (and buttressed by the film-making prowess of the Lego Movie folks), I was cautiously optimistic. So many things can go wrong, and I wasn't familiar with Forte's abilities as a writer. 4 episodes in, and the verdict is unquestionable. Last Man is the strongest new show I've seen in ages.

The one overriding sense I get from Last Man is that of honesty. The show is funny because it feels like Forte is isolating all of the schlubby things he knows to be true about himself and wrapping each one into a joke. What's more, we have a strange situation where the star (Forte) is also the lead writer; this means that he knows how the jokes are supposed to land, and so he lands them all.

The other big strength is also my greatest fear: pacing. So far, the show has trodden over plot points at a breakneck pace, keeping it relatively unpredictable and dramatically compelling. It seems inevitable that it has to bog down sooner or later, though Forte has said that he has ideas well into season 2, so fingers crossed.

People who have watched the show will note that I'm skirting with my language a rather large part of the show. I want to be respectful to those who haven't seen the pilot. But I'll just reiterate that Last Man is particularly thoughtful and heartfelt, and that this soon becomes apparent by the end of the pilot.

Comparisons to Community and Bob's Burgers are apt, because this isn't going to be the show that unites all audiences. As I can see (perplexingly, to me) from the other reviews, this is a love it or hate it show. But if Last Man clicks for you, boy are you in for a barrel of laughs.

BoJack Horseman (2014–2020)

Weak Pilot, But Stick Around...

[8/10 · 25 August 2014]

I want more.

See, the pilot is incredibly mediocre and, as others have pointed out, leverages the joke format of other tried and true animated shows. But this is business as usual, really. Animated pilots are typically sub- par. I LOVE Bob's Burgers, but man, that show's pilot was a mess.

What's important is that Bojack does find itself as the season progresses, and there's something really new and interesting here. I think the writers started out thinking they were writing a comedy with dramatic elements. Somewhere along the way, they realized it was the reverse. The majority of the scripts are dedicated to pursuing the internal foibles of the characters, and if a joke wanders in at the edge of the screen, all the better for a bit of levity amidst the existential darkness.

And then there's the Netflix money. Now, sequestering a bunch of celebrities in one place does not guarantee success (something I wish Stallone would figure out). However, there's a pretty rich voice cast here, and once the show hits its stride, Will Arnett, Amy Sedaris, Alison Brie, Aaron Paul, Paul F. Tompkins, Kristen Schaal, and others give the material it's due. Arnett, in particular, as Bojack manages to take on equine form and make me forget Arrested Development's Gob almost entirely; no mean feat.

By the end of season 1, the five principal characters are pretty well- drawn and acted- fully fleshed beings. What's more, the world finally lives up to the glorious surrealism of the opening sequence, throwing some very human failings in stark relief with a world bizarrely populated by anthropomorphic animals. Give Bojack some space, and you'll find one of the freshest shows of the year. Here's hoping for season 2, because I'm fairly certain the best of Bojack is yet to come.

Kings (2009)

Superlative Acting and Writing...especially for a Network show

[10/10 · 15 March 2009]

***Slight Spoilers*** So after months of publicity on billboards and the like, the Kings pilot has aired. NBC seems quite incapable of making promotional material that does justice to any of its shows. The short-lived and brilliant My Own Worst enemy was one victim of this phenomenon; Kings may soon be another.

Suffice it to say, Kings is both gripping and substantive. It envisions a (fictional) powerful industrialized country led by an almost omnipotent king. The story, itself, feels much like a modern day retelling of the books of Samuel in the Bible. The pacing isn't breakneck, but great care is taken to make each moment important. Within the span of two episodes, it's possible see certain character arcs forming, and one character, in particular, already feels well-rounded.

Most shows worth watching inherently reinforce some world-view, and many in this day and age embrace a very liberal one. Kings is interesting because the writing seems quite balanced. A few obvious stances are taken here and there, but many scenes seemed to reinforce the notion that there exist two sides to every story. One cliché, "popular" villain has arisen, but the writing is so entertaining that I'm willing to overlook this.

The writing is quite good, but the acting is even better, largely due to Ian Mcshane. I was a stranger to this actor until quite recently- I've seen in him only in the underrated Hot Rod. Mcshane is one of those rare actors with true depth. Not that the rest of the cast is shabby, but he's the clear heart of the show thus far.

Here's my one great worry: While the pilot occasionally beats the viewer over the head, it does so far less often than most popular TV shows. Shows like this have a tendency of dying at young ages. After MOWE, I thought I had sworn off new shows until they had gained a following. In the pilot alone, Kings has given me great reason to take a risk again.

Spider-Man 3 (2007)

Third time's a charm! (slight spoilers)

[8/10 · 9 May 2007]

So Spiderman 3 has broken all of the records Pirates of the Caribbean 2 set last year. Is it a worthy successor? Yes and no: It's no secret that I'm not a fan of Sam Raimi's take on Spiderman. The biggest problem I see here is casting: Tobey Maguire is too soft- even for Peter Parker. I would have cast Jake Gyllenhal or someone of that ilk in the role. Parker is supposed to be vulnerable to some degree, but he also has the confidence to throw quips in addition to webs at villains as he battles them. I've also been disappointed with some rather problematic departures from the comic. Since when has Doctor Octopus been anything but a sociopath? Since when are Spiderman's webshooters a part of his mutation? These may seem insignificant, but as someone who grew up with Spiderman, they introduce issues of believability.

When I heard that Topher Grace had been cast as Venom (?), I prepared for the worst.

It would appear that the third time is the charm, as Raimi and co. managed to do far better than the worst. In fact, Spiderman 3 is a great action movie marred only by some more frustrating departures from the comics. Let's start with the problems: 1. Gwen Stacy- In the comics, Stacy is a girl Peter dates before MJ. The Green Goblin kills her. That's her significance...she dies. Since the Green Goblin isn't in the film, you know from day one that this, at least, can't happen. So why was she thrown into the film? While Howard is beautiful as Gwen, using the name Gwen Stacy was a poor choice.

2. Slight Spoilers here- once Peter gets the suit, he goes on an ego boost. There's about a minute of film where he's dancing on the street...in terribly flamboyant fashion. I'm not sure if I was supposed to be laughing, but I was. It seemed out of place. Also, during the costume phase, the director decided to change Peter's hair and dye it black. He ends up looking textbook emo...it REALLY doesn't work.

3. Topher Grace managed to pull off Venom, but I can't shake the feeling that someone with a larger build should have filled the role.

4. There's a tad of artificial plotting; in several cases, the characters display losses of reason that stretch the bounds of credibility- particularly Mary Jane.

BUT the good far outweighs the bad...

Action: FINALLY, someone tapped into the truly fluid movement Spiderman should be capable of. The fighting choreography is truly imaginative and some of the best I've ever seen. The action scenes are so fast that I'll need a second viewing to understand every twist and turn, but I love that they trust the audience to unwind them. Plus, the level of suspense they create is tangible. I will say, though, that the first real action scene turns out to be the best.

Score: Elfman turns out some really memorable cues here. All of the old themes are back, but the new ones for Sandman, especially, help audiences to really feel Sandman's subplot.

Plotting: While I've mentioned a few problems above, I have to admit that the movie largely drew me in. As I so rarely do, I realized halfway through the movie that I was having fun and didn't want it to end. The story is engaging, and Maguire does come across a bit less whiney than he did in past iterations. Some critics have argued that tossing in so many villains made the film less cohesive, but they must have watched a different movie. Raimi uses each of the villains at different points to develop the couple of themes he promotes. It all comes together rather nicely at the end, though I will say that I found the FINAL scene just a tad too short.

Even with it's problems, Spiderman 3 still ranks as one of the best superhero movies ever made. While it isn't as good as Batman Begins or Blade 2, it's easily as good as the best of the X-men franchise. So, for the first time with the Spiderman films, I'm really hoping for a sequel.

Blade: Trinity (2004)

Warnings From An Avid Blade Fan- SLIGHT spoilers

[3/10 · 8 December 2004]

Let's get this out from the start: I love the first two movies, but this one is a failure. This movie does a few things right...but the rest is rather dreadful. In fact, the movie rarely feels anything like the other two. The direction and writing make this one an unfortunate mistake.

First, the good: The soundtrack is very noticeable in this movie and adds a pulse to many of the scenes that would otherwise feel empty. A very decent composer was also hired for the score, and it shows Also, the cinematography is well-done and crisp. It is almost always easy to tell what is going on in a fight- unlike some other action movies.

Also, the opening and ending credits are just SWEET...but don't let the opening ones fool you.

Triply H plays a convincing and interesting bad guy- too bad he didn't get more development and screen time.

Finally, thanks to a certain character, the movie is quite often laugh out loud funny.

That's all the good- here comes all the bad: First- remember I said the movie was funny- it's TOO funny. The focus in this movie is not on Blade, himself, but on 2 other characters who are very shallow. This is to prepare for a movie that they get on their own. One of the characters is there simply to wear tight clothes. In the other Blade movies, the characters all served some purpose.

Second, with the focus away from Blade, Blade no longer seems as cool himself- he never seems particularly triumphant and is given very few good lines (although there are a couple). Snipes also looks very old in his role and definitely isn't as trim as he used to be.

Third, the writing/plot is horrible. One and two really explored the complexity of Blade through the enemies he faced. This one seems like a vehicle for some actions scenes and scantily clad women. Most of the characters are simply boring.

Fourth, the action is lacking. The choreography here felt very tired. There were maybe 2 "that was kinda cool" moments, but that was it. Both of the other movies had some really inspired choreography and special effects. You've already seen the best of this one in the trailers.

Fifth, it may be a small issue, but it becomes huge here- the product placement is SHAMEFUL. If I saw one more IPOD, I was going to go ballistic.

If you are an avid Blade fan and still want to see this movie (as an avid Blade fan should), then at least know that this isn't the same Blade you knew. Both of the first two movies (though they were done by different directors) had a thematic cohesion and fit together well in most all respects. This one is a mess- go in with low expectations and you should have a good time.

The Matrix Reloaded (2003)

Best of the Trilogy and one of the best films ever made!

[10/10 · 22 September 2004]

My tag line may seem....over the top....to some. However, I don't make this claim idly. Reloaded did what any great sequel does- it expanded the idea of the original with a radical, truly fantastic twist. I will admit, the twist is buried in some rather high level vocabulary- many didn't get it- but for those who do.....wow!

I admit that the "cave/dance/sex scene" is a little bit weak, but I can't find a single fault in the rest of the movie. The entire screenplay holds a ton of depth that many surface viewers miss.

First, Reloaded is far and away the most philosophical of the 3 movies. It tackles the issues of free will versus determinism and man's dependence on machine. SPOILER- The parts that deal with the latter are clear foreshadowing to the conclusion of the third movie-END SPOILER. And Morpheus, in my opinion, is at his best in this movie- I love the "tonight may hold the very meaning of our lives" soliloquy.

Beyond the philosophy, Reloaded does a fantastic job of expanding the how's and why's of the matrix and the war. Again, this framework becomes VERY important in understanding Revolutions.

The action in Reloaded is also fantastic. While the Smith fight is less than perfect (I like it, though), the highway scene among several others MORE than makes up for it. This, to me, is the definitive action sequence of the trilogy. I also particularly like the short-but-sweet Neo-agent battle at the very beginning.

I also find the acting (for the main characters) to be quite enjoyable. Keanu IS a bad actor, he can only play one role....but guess what- this IS that role, for some reason, he fits perfectly. Moss plays a very good pissed lover, and Fishburne (my favorite) is always great. Weaving (as Smith) probably should have been nominated for some kind of acting award in one of the 3 movies.

Finally, this one has the best soundtrack of the three. Both the score and the mixes from juno reactor are plain awesome- I listen to the soundtrack quite often. I never really listen to the soundtracks from the other two.

Many people hate this movie, but I would argue that they probably weren't doing enough thinking when they watched it. Sequels CAN surpass originals- and this is one that does (even Roeper said so, if a critic says so, it must be true, right :) )

Batman: The Animated Series (1992–1995)

A True Masterpiece- the greatest body of animated work ever!

[19 September 2004]

When Batman: the animated series came around, it didn't take people long to see that it was something different. Here was a "cartoon" that was written for adults. It could be viewed by older kids, but it had great depths for the adults who took any time with it. Each episode (or couple of episodes) acts as its own mini-movie. The structuring of the story in each one is just so well executed. As well, the animation (for its time) was quite good, and still holds up well enough today. Another difference from other animation, is that the color palette is quite dark- which, again, only makes it more interesting. All of the great villains are here (and others you may not have heard of), but they get a very serious and, at times, philosophical explication. One of my favorite things about the series, is that every episode has its own orchestral score- meaning, the music that you hear is tailored to fit the exact moment you are watching. Shirley Walker manages to come up with so many sub-themes and variations on the main theme- and works them in so well with the happenings on screen. For those of you that have seen the series and remember it fondly, you might be interested to know that a box-set of the first 28 episodes was recently released- you can get it just about anywhere.