This episode would have been a campy good time, except that Jesse Tyler Ferguson's dreadful acting totally ruins it. The whole show is fun and silly, although its weak point is that some of the acting goes past being silly and enters community theatre territory. But Ferguson really takes the cake, basically sounding like he's doing his first script reading through the whole episode. It's a shame because the Lavish Ladies are way more convincing and fit the vibe of the show. It also just wasn't the best written episode, with a pretty flimsy motive for murder and pretty much nothing about it being convincing.
Reviews
62 Reviews
One of the most skippable episodes of this show
30 December 2023
Warning: Spoilers
I love Call the Midwife, and one thing you accept with a long running and heartstringy show like this is that there will be many cycles of similar storylines for characters that will sail by. Some of them will impact you personally more than others, and some episodes will go by more forgettably.
That said, I think the first episode of Season 11 is one of the most skippable of the whole series. You could miss this one and not miss much at all. At least half of this episode is dedicated to one storyline, where a dark history is uncovered of a woman who gave birth twice and hid both stillborn babies. An investigator shows up, and I suppose the tension is that it seems the mother might be charged for these past events. This storyline didn't do anything for me, it was dark and slow moving. Usually a strength of this show is that it gives all the one-off characters their own ups and downs which make them feel real, but this drab dissociating lady and her old mum were quite one-note and I didn't really care what became of them. While their story is unsettling and heartbreaking to think about, it also is set far in the past which doesn't help me to feel invested. It was a rare broken seam in the show's patchwork to see her plodding through a dry page of script with her quivering voice, go about other things, and then tune in again minutes later to find her still going. Sorry to sound mean but I expect more from this show!
A couple of nice things happen: a couple with a lot of heartbreak for last season return with a much happier ending to their story, and the student midwife in residence is finally able to tell her daughter that she is in fact her mother. I think that's the only moment of the episode that moves the plot of a familiar character forward.
I do have faith that the rest of this season will be more interesting, but it was a shame to open it with so much time wasted on a miss.
That said, I think the first episode of Season 11 is one of the most skippable of the whole series. You could miss this one and not miss much at all. At least half of this episode is dedicated to one storyline, where a dark history is uncovered of a woman who gave birth twice and hid both stillborn babies. An investigator shows up, and I suppose the tension is that it seems the mother might be charged for these past events. This storyline didn't do anything for me, it was dark and slow moving. Usually a strength of this show is that it gives all the one-off characters their own ups and downs which make them feel real, but this drab dissociating lady and her old mum were quite one-note and I didn't really care what became of them. While their story is unsettling and heartbreaking to think about, it also is set far in the past which doesn't help me to feel invested. It was a rare broken seam in the show's patchwork to see her plodding through a dry page of script with her quivering voice, go about other things, and then tune in again minutes later to find her still going. Sorry to sound mean but I expect more from this show!
A couple of nice things happen: a couple with a lot of heartbreak for last season return with a much happier ending to their story, and the student midwife in residence is finally able to tell her daughter that she is in fact her mother. I think that's the only moment of the episode that moves the plot of a familiar character forward.
I do have faith that the rest of this season will be more interesting, but it was a shame to open it with so much time wasted on a miss.
The Haunted Mansion
(2003)
Everything's there, yet I don't care
1 November 2023
On the surface it feels like this movie has all it needs: excellent visuals which hold up 20 years later, the roaring soundtrack you'd expect for spooky hijinks, a fabulous cast including beloved character actors, and a creepy mysterious plot. Yet it feels so very dull. I just don't care about anyone or anything in the movie, and you can see most of the plot coming from miles away. There is no element of the plot that feels original, in fact most of them have already played together many times.
Maybe if you've never seen a movie like this you'd find it more interesting, and for that reason kids might enjoy it. It's safe enough to show to them as long as they're okay with creepy things. Since it has nice visuals and there's no one element of the movie that's terrible, it would make good background viewing at a Halloween party. That's about the only reason I'd ever put it on again.
Maybe if you've never seen a movie like this you'd find it more interesting, and for that reason kids might enjoy it. It's safe enough to show to them as long as they're okay with creepy things. Since it has nice visuals and there's no one element of the movie that's terrible, it would make good background viewing at a Halloween party. That's about the only reason I'd ever put it on again.
Nurse Jackie
(2009–2015)
A gritty, funny, dark, and heartful show with some some flawless performances
4 February 2023
Warning: Spoilers
I'd been meaning to watch this show for a long time, and when I finally got around to it I couldn't help barreling through the entire series within a few weeks. It's an extremely compelling mix of personal drama, character comedy, and just the right amount of ER action without losing the plot in it.
Jackie is one of the best characters in TV, both because of her painfully realist mix of strengths and flaws and also because of Edie Falco's incredible performance. The show starts off feeling more like a comedy but as it progresses and Jackie's addiction becomes painfully harder to ignore it becomes a darker show over time. However, the transition didn't turn me away because it's the truth--it's a true depiction of someone losing their life to addiction. Reminiscent of the Sopranos, Jackie is so compelling because she becomes increasingly hard to love and yet you can never stop watching and wondering what she will do. Every time things go well then she reaches for pills it's like a twisted rollercoaster you can't get off of.
Anna Deveare Smith also give an incredible performance as Gloria Akalitus. As the hospital administrator she is all at once intense, hilarious, and relatable. Her facial expressions and her intensity make the character come to life in a way few do on TV.
While these are the standout characters for me, there are so many amazing performances that make everything feel absolutely real, even when the drama borders on absurd. Zoey, Eddie, Kevin, and Grace all feel very real and very compelling, and really almost every character on the show is well-played and feels truthful. The only complaint I almost made during the early half of the show is that some of the zany gags and steamy drama of the side characters sometimes feels beneath the plotline of the titular character. Then again, it was an interesting contrast between the silly antics in the ER (not to mention the life and death hospital action) and the gritty drama of Jackie's life falling apart at her own hands and her addiction slowly swallowing her. So sometimes the silliness felt a bit strange, but I think it was an interesting mix and helped to make the show both a comedy and drama at the same time.
There is one huge flaw in the show that I can't excuse, which drags this from being a nearly perfect show at 9/10 or 10/10 down to a 8/10 for me. The gaping flaw is the character Dr Cooper. Cooper is is unlikeable, annoying, and selfish. That in itself is a necessary evil in most shows, but the problem is that he is given undue redemption and is treated better than he deserves to be as a character. He's not just painfully annoying--he's neglectful, selfish, self-absorbed, immoral, greedy, narcissistic. Yet the rest of the characters not only get used to him, they warm up to him and unduly forgive what a terrible person he is. They explicitly state how much he's grown, and when he finally departs near the end of the series everyone is sad. But we never actually see his character develop, the characters act as if he has but I don't believe it at all. It does seem like he is taking his job more seriously in later seasons, but I don't believe it. I don't see him making that change, he simply starts acting more professional one day but still seems to be the same rotten person.
I think what is supposed to be shown in the plot is that the arrival of Doctor Carrie Roman, who is a lot like him but almost more neglectful and narcissistic, makes Coop realize how he comes across and pushes him to mature. That is not a bad concept, but we don't really see the development happen. It is implied, while we are forced to watch their gross relationship "blossom". The steamy sex scenes between them cheapen the show and blemish what is otherwise an incredibly mature show. Yes there are other sex scenes in the show, but most of them are more compelling in some way. For example, right at the beginning we witness Jackie having an affair with Eddie, but this is much more to show us what a flawed double-life she leads rather than to be a low-grade sexy romp. Coop and Roman are just two revolting people having shallow sex, yet we're supposed to believe they are developing real feelings for each other and that Coop is turning into a better person. Ironically, Dr Roman who starts off as being almost more insufferable than him actually shows real character development. She is still conceited and not entirely likeable by the end of the show, but she demonstrates truly maturing in some ways from when she just starts out after med school then goes through all the trials of the ER. She ends up being a much better character than Coop, even though we have to suffer through Coop as a character for almost the entire series.
What makes it even more infuriating is that, with Coop's belated departure from the show, we are briefly blessed with the much superior character Dr Bernard Prince played by Tony Shalhoub. In his single season at the end of the show he is immeasurably more likeable, interesting, and realistic than Coop, not to mention Shalhoub is an asset to any series he's on. Coop should have left the show halfway through the series as it morphed from being a bouncy comedy towards the more gritty show it became, as he was totally out of place in most of the series when Dr Prince could have had so much more to contribute.
For the record, I hold none of this against Facinelli who plays Coop. If anything, I think he plays the character perfectly which only emphasizes what a poorly written character he is. I also acknowledge that he serves as a foil to Jackie and to the more competent ER staff, and that many real life hospital staff will probably relate to having an idiotic narcissist doctor hindering rather than helping things, but if he is going to be such a pointedly terrible person then the script should not have tried to sell him as a lovable goofball in the later half of the series.
Having said my piece on what I see as a big blemish on the show, Nurse Jackie is one of the most compelling series to have ever hit television. It is in many ways emotionally reminiscent of The Sopranos--which Edie Falco no doubt drew viewership from as we were so enthralled with her on that series--in that it can sometimes feel like a trainwreck with characters we're not sure if we're supposed to be rooting for or against, yet I'm so excited to find out what happens next that it hardly matters. It's committed to feeling truthful, even when it goes off the wall. Truthful about relationships, medicine, people, and most pointedly about what addiction really looks like. Jackie is the best portrait of a real-life hero, someone who literally saves lives every day with saintly grace yet behind-the-scenes is in shatters and harms the people she cares about most. You can read so much into this, including whether the immeasurable burden that nurses bear is the real reason that she does so many terrible things to herself and others, but the review has to end somewhere.
Jackie is one of the best characters in TV, both because of her painfully realist mix of strengths and flaws and also because of Edie Falco's incredible performance. The show starts off feeling more like a comedy but as it progresses and Jackie's addiction becomes painfully harder to ignore it becomes a darker show over time. However, the transition didn't turn me away because it's the truth--it's a true depiction of someone losing their life to addiction. Reminiscent of the Sopranos, Jackie is so compelling because she becomes increasingly hard to love and yet you can never stop watching and wondering what she will do. Every time things go well then she reaches for pills it's like a twisted rollercoaster you can't get off of.
Anna Deveare Smith also give an incredible performance as Gloria Akalitus. As the hospital administrator she is all at once intense, hilarious, and relatable. Her facial expressions and her intensity make the character come to life in a way few do on TV.
While these are the standout characters for me, there are so many amazing performances that make everything feel absolutely real, even when the drama borders on absurd. Zoey, Eddie, Kevin, and Grace all feel very real and very compelling, and really almost every character on the show is well-played and feels truthful. The only complaint I almost made during the early half of the show is that some of the zany gags and steamy drama of the side characters sometimes feels beneath the plotline of the titular character. Then again, it was an interesting contrast between the silly antics in the ER (not to mention the life and death hospital action) and the gritty drama of Jackie's life falling apart at her own hands and her addiction slowly swallowing her. So sometimes the silliness felt a bit strange, but I think it was an interesting mix and helped to make the show both a comedy and drama at the same time.
There is one huge flaw in the show that I can't excuse, which drags this from being a nearly perfect show at 9/10 or 10/10 down to a 8/10 for me. The gaping flaw is the character Dr Cooper. Cooper is is unlikeable, annoying, and selfish. That in itself is a necessary evil in most shows, but the problem is that he is given undue redemption and is treated better than he deserves to be as a character. He's not just painfully annoying--he's neglectful, selfish, self-absorbed, immoral, greedy, narcissistic. Yet the rest of the characters not only get used to him, they warm up to him and unduly forgive what a terrible person he is. They explicitly state how much he's grown, and when he finally departs near the end of the series everyone is sad. But we never actually see his character develop, the characters act as if he has but I don't believe it at all. It does seem like he is taking his job more seriously in later seasons, but I don't believe it. I don't see him making that change, he simply starts acting more professional one day but still seems to be the same rotten person.
I think what is supposed to be shown in the plot is that the arrival of Doctor Carrie Roman, who is a lot like him but almost more neglectful and narcissistic, makes Coop realize how he comes across and pushes him to mature. That is not a bad concept, but we don't really see the development happen. It is implied, while we are forced to watch their gross relationship "blossom". The steamy sex scenes between them cheapen the show and blemish what is otherwise an incredibly mature show. Yes there are other sex scenes in the show, but most of them are more compelling in some way. For example, right at the beginning we witness Jackie having an affair with Eddie, but this is much more to show us what a flawed double-life she leads rather than to be a low-grade sexy romp. Coop and Roman are just two revolting people having shallow sex, yet we're supposed to believe they are developing real feelings for each other and that Coop is turning into a better person. Ironically, Dr Roman who starts off as being almost more insufferable than him actually shows real character development. She is still conceited and not entirely likeable by the end of the show, but she demonstrates truly maturing in some ways from when she just starts out after med school then goes through all the trials of the ER. She ends up being a much better character than Coop, even though we have to suffer through Coop as a character for almost the entire series.
What makes it even more infuriating is that, with Coop's belated departure from the show, we are briefly blessed with the much superior character Dr Bernard Prince played by Tony Shalhoub. In his single season at the end of the show he is immeasurably more likeable, interesting, and realistic than Coop, not to mention Shalhoub is an asset to any series he's on. Coop should have left the show halfway through the series as it morphed from being a bouncy comedy towards the more gritty show it became, as he was totally out of place in most of the series when Dr Prince could have had so much more to contribute.
For the record, I hold none of this against Facinelli who plays Coop. If anything, I think he plays the character perfectly which only emphasizes what a poorly written character he is. I also acknowledge that he serves as a foil to Jackie and to the more competent ER staff, and that many real life hospital staff will probably relate to having an idiotic narcissist doctor hindering rather than helping things, but if he is going to be such a pointedly terrible person then the script should not have tried to sell him as a lovable goofball in the later half of the series.
Having said my piece on what I see as a big blemish on the show, Nurse Jackie is one of the most compelling series to have ever hit television. It is in many ways emotionally reminiscent of The Sopranos--which Edie Falco no doubt drew viewership from as we were so enthralled with her on that series--in that it can sometimes feel like a trainwreck with characters we're not sure if we're supposed to be rooting for or against, yet I'm so excited to find out what happens next that it hardly matters. It's committed to feeling truthful, even when it goes off the wall. Truthful about relationships, medicine, people, and most pointedly about what addiction really looks like. Jackie is the best portrait of a real-life hero, someone who literally saves lives every day with saintly grace yet behind-the-scenes is in shatters and harms the people she cares about most. You can read so much into this, including whether the immeasurable burden that nurses bear is the real reason that she does so many terrible things to herself and others, but the review has to end somewhere.
The Day After Tomorrow
(2004)
The archetype for Hollywood disaster slop
27 March 2022
It sounds crazy but deadly hail, massive storms, rising water levels, people clamouring for their lives- this movie makes all of those things incredibly boring. It's just a giant Hollywood spectacle of disasters that make no sense happening to characters I don't care about to the soundtrack of comically dramatic music. The disaster scenes are well done, you could say, but it just has no meaning or weight. Inbetween them, all the scenes of talking and planning are the absolute most generic Hollywood action flick filler you could possibly make. It almost feels like a long, boring parody of disaster movies.
Perry Mason
(2020–2023)
One of those shows for people who think depressing equals quality
13 December 2021
Yawn... I'm so tired of this competition to see how bleak and dark you can make a show, with some audiences seeming to think that being dark and pessimistic is somehow a marker of quality writing. This is a very stylish detective show set in the 1930's. The cinematography and the sound design are clearly going for a suspenseful and uneasy tone, and sometimes it works out okay. Other times you are watching a long boring scene where very little happens and they've layered on music so dramatic that you could almost laugh. The show would be so much better if they chopped 15 minutes from every episode and cut 50% of the music. Sometimes I couldn't even hear the dialogue! Unfortunately, current TV is designed to take up as much eyeball time as possible since this is how streaming services measure success.
I can deal with darkness and a bit of gore if they seem to support a compelling story and enjoyable show. In the first episode there were some extremely dark and unsettling elements as well as some gross-out moments, but I felt intrigued enough that I honestly was optimistic about where the next episode would go. I also got a small glimpse into the main character, Perry Mason, and I wanted to see more of him. The mystery clearly wasn't solved yet so I expected they would revisit it, but I mistakenly assumed they would layer more stories in with it so that the show would get more interested every episode... Nope, the second episode was continuing from the first episode's plot which I hardly cared about to begin with but managed to be even less interesting. Meanwhile, there wasn't a single other character I could remember let alone care for other than Mason.
Despite this type of show not being my favorite cup of tea, I really did sense some potential and wanted to like it - especially since many shows have a difficult first episode but only get better from there. Sadly this one did not, it just became clear that the showrunners had no idea where to take this concept (or what exactly their concept was). Oh and surprise, they have abandoned the show now! I will watch out for reviews of the second season, and if I hear that the new showrunners have taken it in the right direction then I will gladly pick it back up. If not, I will gladly abandon it.
I can deal with darkness and a bit of gore if they seem to support a compelling story and enjoyable show. In the first episode there were some extremely dark and unsettling elements as well as some gross-out moments, but I felt intrigued enough that I honestly was optimistic about where the next episode would go. I also got a small glimpse into the main character, Perry Mason, and I wanted to see more of him. The mystery clearly wasn't solved yet so I expected they would revisit it, but I mistakenly assumed they would layer more stories in with it so that the show would get more interested every episode... Nope, the second episode was continuing from the first episode's plot which I hardly cared about to begin with but managed to be even less interesting. Meanwhile, there wasn't a single other character I could remember let alone care for other than Mason.
Despite this type of show not being my favorite cup of tea, I really did sense some potential and wanted to like it - especially since many shows have a difficult first episode but only get better from there. Sadly this one did not, it just became clear that the showrunners had no idea where to take this concept (or what exactly their concept was). Oh and surprise, they have abandoned the show now! I will watch out for reviews of the second season, and if I hear that the new showrunners have taken it in the right direction then I will gladly pick it back up. If not, I will gladly abandon it.
The Witches
(2020)
Not an enjoyable or pleasant movie after the first third
27 October 2021
I was truly settled in for a good movie after the first third or so of this film, since Octavia Spencer was wonderful as the grandmother, the setting seemed on point, and there seemed to be the right amount of eerie suspense and witchy intrigue building.
But after that, all the intrigue and momentum of the movie completely falls off. We are introduced to the witches, who turn out not to be very interesting, and we are stuck in the hotel for the rest of the movie. An endless slog of a scene takes place in the conference room where the witches are meeting. Anne Hathaway does a good job as the creepy witch, but her character is just one long note that never ends. The witches are too shallow and boring to interest adults, but way too creepy and scaley to appeal to kids.
The rest of the movie degrades to a very, very basic kid's movie romp with boring CGI mice. I have not read the source material and I'm sure faithfulness to the book was a factory in the storyboarding here, but if that's the case then they should have taken some liberties and put some actual twists as well as some character development.
I was very disappointed, as I had faith in the style and humor of the movie but it all fell very flat very fast.
But after that, all the intrigue and momentum of the movie completely falls off. We are introduced to the witches, who turn out not to be very interesting, and we are stuck in the hotel for the rest of the movie. An endless slog of a scene takes place in the conference room where the witches are meeting. Anne Hathaway does a good job as the creepy witch, but her character is just one long note that never ends. The witches are too shallow and boring to interest adults, but way too creepy and scaley to appeal to kids.
The rest of the movie degrades to a very, very basic kid's movie romp with boring CGI mice. I have not read the source material and I'm sure faithfulness to the book was a factory in the storyboarding here, but if that's the case then they should have taken some liberties and put some actual twists as well as some character development.
I was very disappointed, as I had faith in the style and humor of the movie but it all fell very flat very fast.
A fun, entertaining, visually stunning, and heartfelt repeat of the same tired formula
14 September 2021
As far as superhero movies retreading the same ground over and over like a pizza slicer struggling to cut through a dull crust, particularly in the current climate of overdone and overrated Marvel movies, Shang-Chi stands on its own as a very fun and endearing film. It takes you on a rollercoaster from humble jokes between friends to fighting brutes on a bus to eventually the epic battle you expected. Compared to some Marvel movies which are now feeling to make care about who I'm supposed to be cheering for in the first place, Shang-Chi is a much more likeable and worthy movie.
In carrying out this formula, I think the movie does it perfectly. And I came to like the characters enough to be invested and enchanted by the events. The Chinese flavour of the movie helps to give it more rhythm and depth, at least on the surface level.
Still, at the end of the day, this is another overbudgeted blockbuster action movie which makes less sense the further along you watch. Given how tight the first half of the movie is, I did find myself taken out of it by the insertion of Trevor Slattery and the obligatory "cute little critter that knows everything" moment. And while the inevitable final battle was very well done and exhilarating, it still exchanged logic and gravity for another slog through a chaotic battlefield of good versus evil. I also wished that Shang-Chi's father would start to make sense by the end of the movie, because he seemed enigmatic and layered at the beginning but came across as a stereotypical tyrant dad by the end.
So overall, I'd say this movie is definitely worth a watch (and worth the hype) in the sea of superhero movies. It leads the pack in that bunch, but doesn't stray from it - for better and worse.
In carrying out this formula, I think the movie does it perfectly. And I came to like the characters enough to be invested and enchanted by the events. The Chinese flavour of the movie helps to give it more rhythm and depth, at least on the surface level.
Still, at the end of the day, this is another overbudgeted blockbuster action movie which makes less sense the further along you watch. Given how tight the first half of the movie is, I did find myself taken out of it by the insertion of Trevor Slattery and the obligatory "cute little critter that knows everything" moment. And while the inevitable final battle was very well done and exhilarating, it still exchanged logic and gravity for another slog through a chaotic battlefield of good versus evil. I also wished that Shang-Chi's father would start to make sense by the end of the movie, because he seemed enigmatic and layered at the beginning but came across as a stereotypical tyrant dad by the end.
So overall, I'd say this movie is definitely worth a watch (and worth the hype) in the sea of superhero movies. It leads the pack in that bunch, but doesn't stray from it - for better and worse.
Game of Thrones
(2011–2019)
Dreck. Filth.
9 May 2021
After so much discussion and acclaim about this show, I obviously had to check it out. Turns out it's horrible. I can stomach violence, vulgarity, and mistreatment of people when it makes sense for a show. But this show is just reveling in human misery without any meaning. It makes light of abuse and torture without any grace. This will not age well, because as humans evolve it will be hard to defend this kind of garbage or pretend it has depth.
This documentary failed.
18 November 2020
The Bob Lazar story has fascinated many for decades and, with a recent string of interviews and revelations, has become more compelling than ever. Yet it is completely squandered in this messy, discombobulated, and poorly crafted documentary.
Following the film, Bob Lazar and the film's creator Jeremy Corbell did a number of interviews including with Joe Rogan. These interviews are interesting and make it easy to believe in Bob's story despite how outlandish it seems. I also believe Jeremy is well-meaning, but in the interviews he is hectic and all over the place because he is overly excited about the topic with no perspective on how he comes accross.
Well that is exactly the issue that carries over into the film. Corbell is so excited (and self-congratulatory) about the content that he drowns it in tacky stylistic choices and muffles the voice of the person who should be the star. It simply fails as a documentary.
There are so many staged conversations (giving the benefit of the doubt I assume these are dramatizations of real events) and so much time is spent watching Corbell sitting with his phone when he frankly doesn't need to be on the screen at all. Bob's interviews don't offer any new information as shown and are so fragmented by other nonsense in the movie that it would be hard for a newcomer to the topic to piece together what the story is.
The sound design is atrocious, dumping hokey music over everything and often committing the most basic faux-pas (such as interviewing someone in an echoey room). Due to the lack of "exciting" video to show, completely unrelated clips of other films and footage are hacked onto the screen during interviews. Ironically, Corbell is so excited by the content of his own film that he doesn't think the content will do itself justice-but he only does it a disservice by overproducing it to death.
Even if you are interested in the topic, you do not need to see the film. You would be better off listening to Joe Rogan's interview of Bob Lazar and/or Jeremy Corbell.
Following the film, Bob Lazar and the film's creator Jeremy Corbell did a number of interviews including with Joe Rogan. These interviews are interesting and make it easy to believe in Bob's story despite how outlandish it seems. I also believe Jeremy is well-meaning, but in the interviews he is hectic and all over the place because he is overly excited about the topic with no perspective on how he comes accross.
Well that is exactly the issue that carries over into the film. Corbell is so excited (and self-congratulatory) about the content that he drowns it in tacky stylistic choices and muffles the voice of the person who should be the star. It simply fails as a documentary.
There are so many staged conversations (giving the benefit of the doubt I assume these are dramatizations of real events) and so much time is spent watching Corbell sitting with his phone when he frankly doesn't need to be on the screen at all. Bob's interviews don't offer any new information as shown and are so fragmented by other nonsense in the movie that it would be hard for a newcomer to the topic to piece together what the story is.
The sound design is atrocious, dumping hokey music over everything and often committing the most basic faux-pas (such as interviewing someone in an echoey room). Due to the lack of "exciting" video to show, completely unrelated clips of other films and footage are hacked onto the screen during interviews. Ironically, Corbell is so excited by the content of his own film that he doesn't think the content will do itself justice-but he only does it a disservice by overproducing it to death.
Even if you are interested in the topic, you do not need to see the film. You would be better off listening to Joe Rogan's interview of Bob Lazar and/or Jeremy Corbell.
Netflix vs. the World
(2019)
An interesting documentary about the history of Netflix
19 October 2020
This was a fun documentary about how Netflix came about, how it progressed from an idea to a promising company, how it beat Blockbuster in the DVD rental market, and how it eventually made the change to streaming video.
My one problem with the documentary is that it became very fixated on the competition between Netflix and Blockbuster, and I started to get confused about when they were talking about which company. It kept going back and forth between interviews with Netflix and Blockbuster employees, and I couldn't keep track of who they were talking about at some points.
In any case, this is definitely worth throwing on if you are curious or if you are interested in tech companies.
My one problem with the documentary is that it became very fixated on the competition between Netflix and Blockbuster, and I started to get confused about when they were talking about which company. It kept going back and forth between interviews with Netflix and Blockbuster employees, and I couldn't keep track of who they were talking about at some points.
In any case, this is definitely worth throwing on if you are curious or if you are interested in tech companies.
Possessor
(2020)
Unsettling
19 October 2020
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is unsettling. To its credit, that is partially due to its commitment to the relentlessly bleak and bloody life of Tasya, a woman whose job is to use a strange machine that lets her inhabit other people's bodies to carry out violent assassinations. The film truly conveys the dread of an alternate universe where such a thing exists. The audience is in a strange position at the edge of the seat waiting to see how this woman and her overlords' missions go, yet also wondering if we should be hoping for their own demise given the immorality of their scheme. It doesn't help that Tasya herself seems perturbed about her own actions.
Unfortunately, the film is also unsettling for a number of negative reasons. Firstly, it is grotesque. It features ridiculously gory violence and pornographic imagery, including a scene where a child is shot and killed and highly explicit sex scenes. These kinds of elements can be appropriate when crafting a film, but the creators of this film are highly egotistical to think that they have the skill to use these elements as anything more than shock value.
Secondly, the actual writing of the film is lazy. It is premised on a fascinating science-fiction concept of using technology to control other people and have them carry out violence for you, but that is the only substance to the film. None of the people in the film seem like living humans; they are just there to either kill or be killed. There is no way to connect with or care about anyone in the film, except when you feel sorry for them being brutalized so viciously or wish they would stop committing such heinous acts. Very few things are justified in the movie. Why, in a world that mostly seems to be just like our own, do they have this incredible ability for one person to take control of another's body? Who exactly is doing this? How would this be worth it, given the monetary, legal, and ethical liabilities? Why would anyone agree to do this? Why does no one notice? Why are the victims left alone so much, without anyone there to help them? This mystifying world is actually just an empty world, like a notepad with only two pages of notes and the rest is blank.
Finally, the movie veers into government-granted film student cheese. While it is stylisticly interesting in some ways, it also features a constant soundtrack of grating royalty-free "creepy" music and features a lot of "eerie" filler footage. At the supposed climax, it devolves to the point of plopping loud, scary sounds onto otherwise laughable scenes with melting masks and spooky scenes flashing by.
Possessor is highly dedicated to some sort of goal to unsettle us. Unfortunately, it just isn't clear what the purpose is, and therefor it is not justified in being so grotesque and unenjoyable. It joins a growing legacy of films which collect grants from multiple countries, go to print, and then get tossed in the rubbish cause no one cares.
Unfortunately, the film is also unsettling for a number of negative reasons. Firstly, it is grotesque. It features ridiculously gory violence and pornographic imagery, including a scene where a child is shot and killed and highly explicit sex scenes. These kinds of elements can be appropriate when crafting a film, but the creators of this film are highly egotistical to think that they have the skill to use these elements as anything more than shock value.
Secondly, the actual writing of the film is lazy. It is premised on a fascinating science-fiction concept of using technology to control other people and have them carry out violence for you, but that is the only substance to the film. None of the people in the film seem like living humans; they are just there to either kill or be killed. There is no way to connect with or care about anyone in the film, except when you feel sorry for them being brutalized so viciously or wish they would stop committing such heinous acts. Very few things are justified in the movie. Why, in a world that mostly seems to be just like our own, do they have this incredible ability for one person to take control of another's body? Who exactly is doing this? How would this be worth it, given the monetary, legal, and ethical liabilities? Why would anyone agree to do this? Why does no one notice? Why are the victims left alone so much, without anyone there to help them? This mystifying world is actually just an empty world, like a notepad with only two pages of notes and the rest is blank.
Finally, the movie veers into government-granted film student cheese. While it is stylisticly interesting in some ways, it also features a constant soundtrack of grating royalty-free "creepy" music and features a lot of "eerie" filler footage. At the supposed climax, it devolves to the point of plopping loud, scary sounds onto otherwise laughable scenes with melting masks and spooky scenes flashing by.
Possessor is highly dedicated to some sort of goal to unsettle us. Unfortunately, it just isn't clear what the purpose is, and therefor it is not justified in being so grotesque and unenjoyable. It joins a growing legacy of films which collect grants from multiple countries, go to print, and then get tossed in the rubbish cause no one cares.
Absurd Planet
(2020)
Obnoxious.
5 October 2020
This show is just obnoxious, that's the best way to sum it up. There is a lot of great footage of animals and insects in the wild, but it is dubbed with a strange attempt to be entertaining-apparently the for the absolute lowest common denominator-with narrator who yells, awful "jokes", and unnecessary musical numbers. There is so little information and so much wasted space. This is the reason you can't just hand anyone with an idea some money to go make a show. This kind of show is why I cancelled my own Netflix account, because they are going off the rails bringing anything and everything to fruition.
High Score
(2020)
An entertaining though sometimes meandering trip through video game history
2 October 2020
High Score is worth a watch for its entertaining look at some of the stories and histories behind the past 5 decades of video game development. It isn't afraid to get into very niche topics and specific stories, which means it delves into some tales which I have yet to hear from the plethora of similar videos available on YouTube.
Sometimes the focus on specific individuals from the video game world crosses the line of fascination and entertainment into the territory of corny and boring. The fifth episode in particular really runs off the rails and loses its purpose, to the point where you're watching awkward Japanese men doing outdoor exercises. Some episodes probably could have been cut shorter or amalgamated.
Another user here posted an interesting critiquing pointing out that the series also over-emphasizes the progressive/liberal elements to appeal to Netflix audiences. The stories of black/gay/trans gamers in the show are really valuable, but the fact that the show doesn't delve into the more problematic elements of the game industry makes it a really unbalanced story.
Despite its flaws, this miniseries is short enough that it's definitely worth a watch for its merits - if you have any interest in video game development history.
Sometimes the focus on specific individuals from the video game world crosses the line of fascination and entertainment into the territory of corny and boring. The fifth episode in particular really runs off the rails and loses its purpose, to the point where you're watching awkward Japanese men doing outdoor exercises. Some episodes probably could have been cut shorter or amalgamated.
Another user here posted an interesting critiquing pointing out that the series also over-emphasizes the progressive/liberal elements to appeal to Netflix audiences. The stories of black/gay/trans gamers in the show are really valuable, but the fact that the show doesn't delve into the more problematic elements of the game industry makes it a really unbalanced story.
Despite its flaws, this miniseries is short enough that it's definitely worth a watch for its merits - if you have any interest in video game development history.
Notting Hill
(1999)
A very enjoyable romcom with a very big flaw
5 May 2020
Warning: Spoilers
I'm not big into romcoms but I found this one a lot more entertaining and engaging than the usual. The lead male is a very lovable guy and the lead girl is fascinating and surprises you many times. The film skips a lot of the usual "missed connection" and wooing portion and instead you get to enjoy a strange spark between the characters and a very funny script. The strange supporting characters that fill out a romcom can often be annoying to me, but these ones were also likeable and also have their own surprises along the way.
Unfortunately, the second half of the film is premised on the lead lady's very toxic way of dealing with their relationship. And it seemed like the film was setting itself up for a very interesting end where the lead male, who up until then had been a pushover, would confront the lead lady about what she had done and evolve their relationship. Instead, the film suddenly loses all its unique charm and falls into a very standard scene of the lead male hectically running back to beg for the lead lady's hand once again. Everything the movie had built up suddenly dripped into a pile of syrup that tastes just like Love Actually or, you name it, any other bad romcom.
I also have to say that for a romcom which seemed very self-aware and witty most of the way (except for the disappointing ending), the licensed music was noticeably bad. It really pulled you away from what were supposed to be the most romantic moments.
I enjoyed Notting Hill and definitely recommend it as a more interesting and funny romcom than most, but I lament the ways it was sabotaged from being a great movie.
Unfortunately, the second half of the film is premised on the lead lady's very toxic way of dealing with their relationship. And it seemed like the film was setting itself up for a very interesting end where the lead male, who up until then had been a pushover, would confront the lead lady about what she had done and evolve their relationship. Instead, the film suddenly loses all its unique charm and falls into a very standard scene of the lead male hectically running back to beg for the lead lady's hand once again. Everything the movie had built up suddenly dripped into a pile of syrup that tastes just like Love Actually or, you name it, any other bad romcom.
I also have to say that for a romcom which seemed very self-aware and witty most of the way (except for the disappointing ending), the licensed music was noticeably bad. It really pulled you away from what were supposed to be the most romantic moments.
I enjoyed Notting Hill and definitely recommend it as a more interesting and funny romcom than most, but I lament the ways it was sabotaged from being a great movie.
Cats
(2019)
A musical with its life sucked out
19 April 2020
Turning a musical into a movie isn't easy, but when it's done right it can capture the essence of the original in a way that can't be conveyed on stage. Unfortunately, this Cats movie is a musical crammed into a movie with all of its life drained in the process.
The easy critique of Cats is that it looks ghastly, and it certainly does. But it goes beyond the unsettling human-like cat animation. Everything is caked in so much CGI that all the dancing and movement of the movie feels dampened. The colors are all washed out and the cats don't stand out from the bleak settings they inhabit. Sometimes I don't even know where I'm supposed to be looking because there's nothing dynamic.
The awkwardness of the artificial fur coating hampers any funny or touching moment - it's like there's a hairball stuck to any sentiment in the movie. That's not to say there's much to feel... the characters are just props to eek out the songs one by one until the checklist is done. There's certainly no real story, which you can attribute to the original musical but isn't helped at all by the film. From the moment it starts you are tossed into this bizarre-looking and exceedingly unpleasant world of which there is really nothing redeeming.
On top of the yucky visuals and flat characters, the camerawork is stubbornly rigid. You never feel pulled into the flow of dances or emotions - it feels more like a camera is set up to film a freak show for reality TV. It's almost as is the director is conscious of what a mess is taking place, but they're reporting on it rather than trying to evolve it.
In my opinion, Cats is just as bad as the reviews say. But it's not just because of the initial shock of the way they've chosen to render the cats. Even if you give it your best try, it's difficult to watch this movie and find something to like.
The easy critique of Cats is that it looks ghastly, and it certainly does. But it goes beyond the unsettling human-like cat animation. Everything is caked in so much CGI that all the dancing and movement of the movie feels dampened. The colors are all washed out and the cats don't stand out from the bleak settings they inhabit. Sometimes I don't even know where I'm supposed to be looking because there's nothing dynamic.
The awkwardness of the artificial fur coating hampers any funny or touching moment - it's like there's a hairball stuck to any sentiment in the movie. That's not to say there's much to feel... the characters are just props to eek out the songs one by one until the checklist is done. There's certainly no real story, which you can attribute to the original musical but isn't helped at all by the film. From the moment it starts you are tossed into this bizarre-looking and exceedingly unpleasant world of which there is really nothing redeeming.
On top of the yucky visuals and flat characters, the camerawork is stubbornly rigid. You never feel pulled into the flow of dances or emotions - it feels more like a camera is set up to film a freak show for reality TV. It's almost as is the director is conscious of what a mess is taking place, but they're reporting on it rather than trying to evolve it.
In my opinion, Cats is just as bad as the reviews say. But it's not just because of the initial shock of the way they've chosen to render the cats. Even if you give it your best try, it's difficult to watch this movie and find something to like.
Now You See Me
(I) (2013)
Apparently snarky, complicated explanations are magic
6 April 2020
Like a lot of heist or magic movies, Now You See Me tries to seem smart and exciting by pulling the wool over everyone's eyes. The problem is that, unlike a good magic trick, the truth of how all the convoluted action takes place is not right under our noses. The explanations are just so strange and specific that the viewer is left behind - some things are just never explained at all.
And I stopped wanting an explanation early on. The characters aren't very involving, and most of what happens makes less sense than if it were just a fantasy movie with actual magic as a plot point.
Still there is entertainment in the off-the-wall action and in the practical jokes laced throughout. You might enjoy this movie more if you can heavily suspend disbelief. Unfortunately, I just didn't believe that the writers knew what was going on either.
And I stopped wanting an explanation early on. The characters aren't very involving, and most of what happens makes less sense than if it were just a fantasy movie with actual magic as a plot point.
Still there is entertainment in the off-the-wall action and in the practical jokes laced throughout. You might enjoy this movie more if you can heavily suspend disbelief. Unfortunately, I just didn't believe that the writers knew what was going on either.
Uncut Gems
(2019)
A high-concept comedy thriller that leans too much on the concept
26 March 2020
Uncut Gems is relentlessly hectic. The entire film is a sketchy gem dealer and gambler's life lurching forward as its frayed ends implode on each other. Along the way there's a lot of shouting and noise, with the sound design intentionally winding up the feeling of anxiety you get as you watch it.
What I thought was the most intriguing thing about the movie is that it appears to be a comedy underneath the veneer of a thriller movie. There is absurdity embedded into every aspect of the movie.
But at the end of the day, it's not very funny or suspenseful, or interesting. It's just unpleasant. The dialog and acting are too lumbering for me to think that anything achieved here is by design. Anything clever about the movie seems like an accidental byproduct of a joke stretched way too thin. I would certainly never watch this again.
What I thought was the most intriguing thing about the movie is that it appears to be a comedy underneath the veneer of a thriller movie. There is absurdity embedded into every aspect of the movie.
But at the end of the day, it's not very funny or suspenseful, or interesting. It's just unpleasant. The dialog and acting are too lumbering for me to think that anything achieved here is by design. Anything clever about the movie seems like an accidental byproduct of a joke stretched way too thin. I would certainly never watch this again.
Toy Story 4
(2019)
A well-done fourth installments, in every sense of the word...
10 March 2020
I was skeptical about the need for a fourth Toy Story movie, as the third one seemed to close the trilogy very nicely. I can't say that I feel very differently after seeing it, in fact I'd say it feels almost like a standalone movie because it doesn't carry forward any of the momentum from the first two movies. It has to create and modify characters to build a new plot, and Forky is basically a walking plot device without much real substance.
That said, I think Toy Story 4 was well-done. It had a cohesive storyline, the right amount of action, and lots of inventive and funny moments. The animation was beautiful, keeping the style of the original movies but sneaking in gorgeous detail with the capabilities developed since the first film.
However, by well-done I also mean the movie is a bit overly done... The story is sappy, moving from one introspective, sad, or happy moment to another without ever really making me feel emotionally invested.
So Toy Story 4 is a good movie and definitely good entertainment, but it's not great like the previous movies were. It didn't prove itself to be necessary addition at all, but it wasn't a bad one either.
That said, I think Toy Story 4 was well-done. It had a cohesive storyline, the right amount of action, and lots of inventive and funny moments. The animation was beautiful, keeping the style of the original movies but sneaking in gorgeous detail with the capabilities developed since the first film.
However, by well-done I also mean the movie is a bit overly done... The story is sappy, moving from one introspective, sad, or happy moment to another without ever really making me feel emotionally invested.
So Toy Story 4 is a good movie and definitely good entertainment, but it's not great like the previous movies were. It didn't prove itself to be necessary addition at all, but it wasn't a bad one either.
The cheap side of The Simpsons
3 February 2020
Warning: Spoilers
This episode epitomizes a side of The Simpsons that isn't often discussed, which is the use of its own notoriety to bring in celebrities and pander to the audience with shallow humor. I guess you could say that, at the time, it was part of the breaking of the fourth wall that made the show so unique and groundbreaking in the 90's. Yet watching the show from the beginning, episodes like this compare very poorly to episodes with more complex plot-lines and something to say.
Well, maybe the episode itself is a statement about the use of celebrity to create relevance? Considering the increased use of celebrities for gimmicky humor, I think The Simpsons wasn't in a position to satire something it was very guilty of.
The story is painfully simple: Krusty's show is being sidelined by a new variety show starring a deranged puppet, and Bart and Lisa find a bunch of celebrities to put together a comeback show for Krusty to regain his popularity. The competing star, Gabbo, is supposed to be annoying, but again the satire doesn't actually justify the truth-he's annoying and shallow. This is the kind of humour that hasn't held up over time, while many other episodes are so relevant they could have been made decades later.
Well, maybe the episode itself is a statement about the use of celebrity to create relevance? Considering the increased use of celebrities for gimmicky humor, I think The Simpsons wasn't in a position to satire something it was very guilty of.
The story is painfully simple: Krusty's show is being sidelined by a new variety show starring a deranged puppet, and Bart and Lisa find a bunch of celebrities to put together a comeback show for Krusty to regain his popularity. The competing star, Gabbo, is supposed to be annoying, but again the satire doesn't actually justify the truth-he's annoying and shallow. This is the kind of humour that hasn't held up over time, while many other episodes are so relevant they could have been made decades later.
Mickey, Donald, Goofy: The Three Musketeers
(2004 Video)
An endearing little movie for anyone
21 January 2020
Not surprisingly, this movie is mostly made for kids with a fluffy, predictable story and lots of slapstick action. Yet it doesn't have a childish tone, and the characters are likable. Some of the humor is more for the adults as it would go over the kids' heads-not that it's mature. The best feature is definitely the beautiful animation.
No it's not revolutionary, but it's good entertainment for anyone.
No it's not revolutionary, but it's good entertainment for anyone.
Really pushing it on the boring front
14 September 2019
Warning: Spoilers
One of Better Call Saul's standout features is how it manages to create so much suspense and intrigue with relatively few dramatic events. Unlike Breaking Bad where you're always on the edge of your seat because of the constant action and drama, BCS manages to have a similar effect on viewers with much more focus on the characters and their idiosyncrasies than on any elaborate happenings.
But this first episode of the fourth season really pushes the slow pacing to a breaking point, where cracks start forming and you can't help but wonder why we are listening to water drip, clothes rustle, and economy sedans revving up instead of getting back into the timeline and the characters. After this episode, the only reason I will continue is because I remember how much I enjoyed the previous seasons and how quickly I breezed through them. There isn't much more time to waste from here.
But this first episode of the fourth season really pushes the slow pacing to a breaking point, where cracks start forming and you can't help but wonder why we are listening to water drip, clothes rustle, and economy sedans revving up instead of getting back into the timeline and the characters. After this episode, the only reason I will continue is because I remember how much I enjoyed the previous seasons and how quickly I breezed through them. There isn't much more time to waste from here.
Incredibles 2
(2018)
In some ways a perfect sequel, in other ways disappointing - but a slick and solid adventure either way
14 September 2019
The hesitancy to make a sequel to The Incredibles was understandable. While its on-the-nose cavalier suave wasn't for everyone, the first film was so well-paced and balanced between action and drama that planning out a worthy follow-up was almost impossible. The first film also did something incredible (pun intended) by balancing nostalgia for superheroes with a unique angle that made them very mortal beings and set it apart from other super movies.
In some ways, Incredibles 2 did the best job possible of leading where the other left off. Rather than kidding anyone by trying to step over the Underminer ending of the first film, it picks up and shows us the epic action sequence that we expected to see. With animation that is updated yet extremely faithful to the original, the movie maintains the fast-paced mix of intense action, stylish moves, and funny family drama. At moments it even captures that dazzling feeling of seeing the inventions of the Incredibles universe for the first time. Instead of trying too hard to go in a new direction, it almost acts like a "next installment" by keeping many of the plot elements of the first movie but reversing many of the roles. This makes it a wholly enjoyable watch that isn't missing many things we were hoping for.
At the same time, the by-the-numbers emulation of the first movie's greatness makes ever meeting or surpassing its greatness impossible. Incredibles 2 is, for all its efforts, essentially a repeat of the first story. Since it's not entering uncharted territory and stays in the comfy zone of predictability, the stakes feel much lower than they did in the first movie. What I found most disappointing, though, was that the maturity and subtlety levels went downward for this sequel, as most of the character development of the first movie was completely reset for the new movie. Bob and Helen Parr were almost acting like irritating caricatures of themselves rather than a couple who had gone through any major breakthough together, and the kids were back to bickering and whining for much of the movie before their maturity was allowed to return. While Jack Jack's antics were funny and inevitable, his prolonged presence on the screen felt like a band-aid for the unpredictability that was missing. I know it's not fair to hold Pixar up to a godly standard for each of its films, but some of the immaturity and the gimmicks of Incredibles 2 felt like the things that lesser-regarded studios would resort to rather than them.
Incredibles 2 doesn't attempt nor come close to replacing its source movie, which is perhaps wise but also removes its capacity to be a great movie. We're still left with many of the great things that entertained and wowed us in the first movie - and the hopes that another installment isn't too far behind.
In some ways, Incredibles 2 did the best job possible of leading where the other left off. Rather than kidding anyone by trying to step over the Underminer ending of the first film, it picks up and shows us the epic action sequence that we expected to see. With animation that is updated yet extremely faithful to the original, the movie maintains the fast-paced mix of intense action, stylish moves, and funny family drama. At moments it even captures that dazzling feeling of seeing the inventions of the Incredibles universe for the first time. Instead of trying too hard to go in a new direction, it almost acts like a "next installment" by keeping many of the plot elements of the first movie but reversing many of the roles. This makes it a wholly enjoyable watch that isn't missing many things we were hoping for.
At the same time, the by-the-numbers emulation of the first movie's greatness makes ever meeting or surpassing its greatness impossible. Incredibles 2 is, for all its efforts, essentially a repeat of the first story. Since it's not entering uncharted territory and stays in the comfy zone of predictability, the stakes feel much lower than they did in the first movie. What I found most disappointing, though, was that the maturity and subtlety levels went downward for this sequel, as most of the character development of the first movie was completely reset for the new movie. Bob and Helen Parr were almost acting like irritating caricatures of themselves rather than a couple who had gone through any major breakthough together, and the kids were back to bickering and whining for much of the movie before their maturity was allowed to return. While Jack Jack's antics were funny and inevitable, his prolonged presence on the screen felt like a band-aid for the unpredictability that was missing. I know it's not fair to hold Pixar up to a godly standard for each of its films, but some of the immaturity and the gimmicks of Incredibles 2 felt like the things that lesser-regarded studios would resort to rather than them.
Incredibles 2 doesn't attempt nor come close to replacing its source movie, which is perhaps wise but also removes its capacity to be a great movie. We're still left with many of the great things that entertained and wowed us in the first movie - and the hopes that another installment isn't too far behind.
Coming to America
(1988)
Funniest when its preposterous, falls flat when it tries to be a romcom
29 August 2019
There is something funny and entertaining about the ridiculousness of this movie, especially the scenes taking place in the fictional African country of which Murphy's character is the prince. The absurdity of the movie stands the test of time!
Unfortunately it becomes predictable, boring, and robotic as it moves towards attempting to be a romantic comedy. You can see where it's all going a mile away, yet the central romance of the movie never really blossoms for the audience. Each of the characters remains one-dimensional and thus the changes and motions necessary to make any meaningful pairing never take place.
In some ways the movie feels half-baked, and it also probably could have been shorter than it is. Even so, it's not a bad watch for the 80's charm and the Murphy/Arsenio classic comedy.
Unfortunately it becomes predictable, boring, and robotic as it moves towards attempting to be a romantic comedy. You can see where it's all going a mile away, yet the central romance of the movie never really blossoms for the audience. Each of the characters remains one-dimensional and thus the changes and motions necessary to make any meaningful pairing never take place.
In some ways the movie feels half-baked, and it also probably could have been shorter than it is. Even so, it's not a bad watch for the 80's charm and the Murphy/Arsenio classic comedy.
Wanda Sykes: Not Normal
(2019 TV Special)
Another good special from Wanda, but not a great one
12 August 2019
Not Normal definitely has plenty of quality moments that make it worth watching for fans who, like me, cannot get enough Wanda Sykes. That said, this isn't her best special and for me had some of the fewest laugh-out-loud moments. Although I did like her take on the surrealist politics of 2019, she picks low-hanging fruit to riff on and sometimes seems to be pulling jokes out of left field just to fill up the slot. I can't help feeling the opportunity to do a special came first and the jokes came later, whereas it normally feels like Wanda only does a special when she feels she has enough material.
Tell Your Friends