Reason for the Season- Twilight Zone (2019)

    A couple years ago, I did a piece on this very blog lamenting that science fiction anthologies were not as common (relegated to season long anthologies at that time). In that piece, I mentioned that they shouldn't do another *Twilight Zone*, because there were at least two others before it. Well, they went and did it anyway, so that's why I decided to review it: to see if this lives up to any of the previous incarnations and to see how the anthology format holds up now. Just a reminder, these are more free-form, stream of consciousness than my typical reviews, and I include spoilers with abandon.  Also, I want to make this an official series, so there's a title. (Get it? Because TV series are organized into seasons and... you get it.)


    Okay, of the three version of this show, this is easily worst. I've said this for weeks as it has been released. For a long time, I regarded the 2002 version as the weakest one. Even that had some highlights and some good episodes (especially the sequel to "It's a Good Life," with Bill Mumy himself). This, however, has the weakest set of episodes so far. And it starts off fine. The Comedian episode with Kumail Nanjiani was pretty good, with a Twilight Zone-esque twist and very universal themes. It goes downhill from that almost immediately with the second episode, a very loose remake of Nightmare at 20,000 Feet called Nightmare at 30,000 Feet, which had... a podcast, I think, and Adam Scott running an airplane. Honestly, I don't remember a lot of it, and that's the problem with a lot of these. They don't really have those clincher moments that the standard Twilight Zone episodes do. Like, take the classic episode *Time Enough at Last*, of course about a dude who just wants to read, but is constantly distracted by the people in his life. At the very end, he has the time to read all the books he wants, since everyone else was wiped out by the apocalypse, but just he is about to, he breaks his glasses. That is a very iconic and very memorable moment. That is largely absent from this new incarnation, and in its place is... attempting to comment on modern social issues. Like, in the least subtle manner possible. The worst offender is "The Wunderkund", about John Cho as a political advisor who gets an 11-year old elected President. It is very clearly about Trump, and it is so painful to watch. Like, imagine all those hacky Trump jokes from like, Jimmy Kimmel and Bill Maher, and make them into a *Twilight Zone* episode and here's what we've got. "Not All Men" could've been interesting exploration of toxic masculinity, but doesn't really demonstrate that and has an ending that just contradicts itself. "Point of Origin" could've been as biting as an episode of the original, with a focus on the current immigration crisis. Again, though, it doesn't really explore these issues or really makes a point about them. It's just "yep. This is happening." People have defended (correctly) that the Twilight Zone from the 60's was political, but it always felt complete, and further more, held up as stories in their own right with universal themes. "The Monsters are Due on Maple Street" could be held as a commentary on McCarthyism and the Red Scare, but could be seen as a simple story about mass hysteria and the dangers of paranoia. Hell, the 2002 one had an update that was pretty good, while also commenting on the hysteria following 9/11. A lot of these, beside being unsubtle, are just not really good or memorable. Okay, there is one, and it's the best one of this season "Replay". There is a strong undercurrent about police brutality and racism, but it never feels too attached to that. Instead, it has more of an overriding theme about changing the past and trying to build a future. That makes it work a lot better, since it combines contemporary themes with more universal ideals. Aside from that, it just isn't very memorable. I've heard "Six Degrees of Freedom," was touted as a highlight, but I didn't care for it, especially the end. I can't tell you anything that happens in "A Traveler" or "Blue Scorpion". The very last episode of the season "Blurryman" is also pretty mediocre for the most part, though its message about how people ought to explore and expand art in all different directions and explore new ideas and worlds, and that something can be both good art and good entertainment was decently handled in the closing narration (the episode leading up to it was decidedly less adept at this message). That narration reminded me a lot of how Rod Serling, a long suffering TV writer who had scripts regularly censored by sponsors for their too-close-for-comfort stories, was able to use SF/Fantasy to explore contemporary themes and new ideas. (They might've also taken influence from the old Tower of Terror ride in Disney California Adventure with their TZ homages) The thing with this is that it has potentially good ideas and has a stellar cast and crew. Thus, none of it is really bad per se, but at that point, it just doesn't reach the level of being good. It's solid mediocrity, and that's probably the worst part. It just doesn't evoke an emotion within you. I'll probably never see any of these episodes again, and I've rewatched plenty of the *Twilight Zone* from all its incarnations. It is revived for a second season, and hopefully, it does get a lot better, because I do see potential in this series, if they can look at what didn't work for people and fix it, this could be a great show. Finally, Jordan Peele does a decent job as narrator. I honestly preferred Forrest Whittaker during his short stint, or even the unseen narrator from the second season of 80's series. 

Well, with that out of the way, join me in a little bit as this year sees the next Summer of Terror with the Nightmare on Elm Street series.

Dailles and Nightlies- 2010: The Year We Make Contact

   2001: A Space Odyssey is my all-time favorite film. I've said this on this site multiple times, and will probably bring it up whenever it feels appropriate. I see the film at least once every year, I've read the book, I've read the sequel books, and I've read everything I could on the production of this film and its novel. So, it was a pretty good year for me when it became its 50th anniversary. With the attention given to the film due to this, I decided, with the inauguration of this new series, to spotlight its lesser known sequel. Arthur C. Clarke (co-writer of the original film, and the author of the book) wrote 2010:Odyssey Two specifically as a sequel to the film's continuity (i.e. changing Saturn in the book to Jupiter in the film). Stanley Kubrick declined directing, so Peter Hyams (known for Capricorn One and Outland) took over those duties, (having to start over with effects due to Kubrick destroying the original props), and was released to mixed critical and financial success in 1984. So, yeah, in honor of its 50th anniversary, we take a look at its underappreciated sequel.

     In 2010, 9 years after the Discovery shut down in Jupiter's orbit, Heywood Floyd (Roy Scheider, taking over the role William Sylvester played in the first one) took the fall for the events, and is mostly working in the Very Large Array. He is approached by Dimitri Moiseyevitch (Dana Elcar), a representative of the Soviet space program (remember, this was made in 1984), who hopes to recruit him for a Jupiter mission they're planning with their ship  Alexei Leonov (named for the first human to conduct a spacewalk). They hope to investigate the events that lead to the shutdown of the Discovery , the malfunction of its computer HAL-9000 (Douglas Rain), and the disappearance of Dave Bowman (Keir Dullea). Most significantly, they hope to examine the large monolith the Discovery was sent to investigate (as revealed in the climax of the first film). Despite rising tensions between the US and USSR under a conservative president (who cut funding to Floyd's agency while they were planning their own Discovery Two to investigate) and an incident in Central America, Floyd agrees, and manages to get approval for him, Walter Curnow (John Lithgow), the designer of the Discovery and Dr. Chandra (Bob Balaban), HAL's creator, to travel with the Leonov. They find themselves with already tense relations with the crew, including Captain Tanya Kirbuk (Helen Mirren), who is concurrently a major with the Soviet Air Force; Dr. Vladimir Rudenko (Saveliy Kramarov), the ship's doctor; and Irina Yakunina( Natasha Schneider), the ship's nutritionist. As they enter Jupiter orbit, they find strange signals coming from Jupiter's moon Europa. After prodding from Floyd, they investigate further, only for a strange light to emerge. This only harkens the strange events that may or may not explain what happened to the Discovery, Dave Bowman, and HAL-9000.

      This could've easily just been a Kubrick knock-off, a way to just imitate his style without any sort of consideration as to why that style is effective or making it work in its own way. While there are a couple Kubrick style shots and homages in the film (including an amusing one where he and Arthur C. Clarke are the US President and Soviet Premier on a Time magazine cover), Hyams largely does his own style, making it very distinct from the original and not overly reliant on it. I do like the more modern, 80's feel to the film, which, while unable to top the timeless period-ness of the original, is an interesting enough in its own right. The effects are superb, especially considering that they had to largely remake a lot of them from the originals. It keeps up with the original in those terms. It largely keeps to the events of the book (though my favorite scene in the book, where Dave Bowman is shown the floating gasbags of Jupiter, and oceanic creatures of Europa by the monolith beings, isn't in the film).

     Which probably leads me to my first problem with the film (and the book): the ending, where it is revealed the monolith beings want to create a new sun using the monoliths to create enough mass. It makes sense, given what has been stated in the plot and gives a good climax. However, it stretches belief and feels a bit odd in an otherwise realistic film. Another book-related problem was the explanation of HAL's malfunction. It is revealed that he was torn between the original mission orders and orders given to keep the Monolith secret. It feels like a disappointment given the scale of his malfunction, and felt like something else was missing from this, but the film decides to just leave it there.

      This is definitely not as good as the original, but most films in general aren't. However, I do think it is a good sequel in spite of that, and just a good standalone film, and does improve on the book by adding the Cold War tension to it. If you like the original, you'll like this, or appreciate it. Even if you don't like it, this is distinct enough from it that you might enjoy it. Definitely see 2001 first, though, if you haven't already. It is a far better film, for sure. However, this is a nice underappreciated film, and especially a study of Cold War tensions in film.   

Current Film Review- Ready Player One

      In a sense, I've been preparing for this very review for over a year. I read the book in order to fully immerse myself into this particular mythos, and to adequately critique this particular work on the basis of adaptation. Now, I wasn't really a fan of the book (and about a year after reading, I've forgotten large swathes of it), but even after finishing it, I did see the potential for a decent film adaptation. Yeah, the book was pretty mediocre, but Steven Spielberg has taken mediocre books, (like, say, an airport novel about a shark attacking a beach town or a technothriller about an amusement park filled with genetically engineered dinosaurs), and turned them into some of the greatest thrillers ever made. So, despite my own misgivings on the source material, I did see the potential in this particular film. Now having seen it, it definitely is not among Spielberg's best, but it is still overall fun and enjoyable on itself, and despite myself, I had a good time watching it.

        Based on Ernest Cline's novel of the same name( which is the "Holy Grail of Pop Culture", whatever that means), the book is set 37 years in the future. The world is in shambles after a series of named (though unspecified) incidents, and most people decide to retreat into a large video game system called "OASIS", where people, in their avatar forms, live their lives effectively online, using some sort of VR system mixed with motion sensors, it seems. However, most people spend their time in one particular pursuit. The architect of this system, James Halliday (Mark Rylance), has strategically placed three easter eggs (in the form of keys), throughout the OASIS, and whoever can locate and use these three keys can gain his fortune of 500 billion dollars and control over the OASIS itself. Wade Watts (Tye Sheridan), aka Parzival (after the knight who discovered the Holy Grail) is one of those so-called "Gunters", who hunt down clues, using Hallidays disturbingly large collection of 80's trivia and memorabilia to help find these clues. He is joined by his friends Aech (I'd give the name of the person who plays Aech here, but it's kind of a spoiler, so I won't), Daito (Win Morisaki), and Sho (Phillip Zhao). During the race challenge for the first key, he also meets Artemis (Olivia Cooke), who he begins to have affection for. Parzival's luck changes when he looks closer at the original clue for the first key, and manages to win his way into becoming the first person to win the key. This prompts a frenzy as the search restarts after being moribund for so long. However, Parzival's success also attracts the attention of IOI, a large tech corporation of some kind, led by Nolan Sorrento (Ben Mendelsohn), who keeps a series of indentured servants called "Sixers" around to help find the keys, to give IOI control over the OASIS, whereupon they'll turn it into a massive ad space. Now, as Parzival, Artemis, and co. try to find the other keys, they also must prevent IOI from gaining them first, thus attaining complete control over OASIS.

       First and foremost, this film looks gorgeous. For a fully CGI world, it just pops out, especially in terms of color. It is very bright and distinct, managing to pump a lot of detail into various shots. It is incredibly pleasant to look at, and manages to invokes the feel of what the OASIS is meant to be. In effect, a large scale CGI MMORPG.  Even during the various action scenes, the film largely remains coherent in terms of visuals. Speaking of action, it is a lot of fun to watch, and sometimes very creative, especially during the climax. I was honestly enthralled and absorbed by a lot of these action scenes. I also thought the film managed to fix some of the issues I had with the book (some, I used there, as I'll explain later.) The plot feels a lot less flabby and directionless, and the characters are much more fleshed out, or at the very least, somewhat compelling or interesting in some way. The story also does actually use its setting to deploy some commentary.  It's not particularly deep or revelatory, but its presence is an immediate upgrade from the book, where the implications of its various parts isn't really considered to any significant degree. I also got a better sense of the dystopia that was there, even if, like in the book, it isn't explained very well. It also removes a lot of the more problematic elements of the book, and makes the main character a lot less of an unsufferable know-it-all(probably my biggest problems with the book)

     Like I said, the film fixes several of the books problem, but a couple remain. The exposition at beginning was very reminiscent of the exposition, and much like that, it doesn't work. It feels like a case of  "tell, not show". The dialogue also got a little cringy at times, especially during Parzival's and Arthemis' relationship, or some of Sorrento's interactions. The interworkings of this future, the OASIS, and IOI aren't explained very well, and I got confused sometimes trying to figure it out. The references, like in the book, got a little bit on my nerves. Some works, like Kim Newman's Anno Dracula series or Alan Moore's League of Extraordinary Gentlemen , manage to integrate references in such a way that either drives the plot, or is just interesting salad dressing. The references in this and its source material just feel gratuitous and even a tad absurd. I'll give the film version, Spielberg changes a lot of them, and some of them are decent enough tributes to friends of his (Robert Zemeckis and Stanley Kubrick among them). Overall, though, it still feels a bit pander-ish, and it weakens the film's ability to stand on its merits.

      Despite the flaws of the film (which are more apparent once you've seen it), I enjoyed this picture. Unlike the slog of a book it came from, this managed to invoke a sense of fun and excitement, and I was invested. It was (ironically) a fun retreat, where I could just sit and enjoy what's happenng on the screen. It certainly did make a better film than it did a book. If you like the book, you may enjoy this, though bear in mind, a lot has been changed, especially in terms of plot. If you hated the book, you might either appreciate the changes, or still dislike it, because the basic structure is still present. If you've never read it, I think it will make enough sense for you to follow it, though even I, someone who has read the book, got lost at times, so don't feel bad if you do.