zkonedog

IMDb member since November 2005
    Lifetime Total
    1,000+
    IMDb Member
    19 years

Reviews

Vietnam: The War That Changed America
(2025)

A Look At America's Dishonorable War Through The Honorable Individuals Who Served In It
A number of years ago I watched Ken Burns' Vietnam War deep-dive, a series that changed my entire thought process on war in general. As such, I was a little wary that this doc could live up anywhere near to that high standard. Remarkably, it does--mainly by focusing on the people rather than the when-and-where of it all.

The first thing to say about Vietnam: The War That Changed America is that you MUST get through the first two episodes and continue forward. Though not bad by any means, those initial installments need to build a lot of groundwork and at times it can come off a little bit like "generic history lesson". Both more 8/10-star efforts.

After that? Not a single episode of the remaining four were below 10/10 stars. Why? Because once the basic parameters are laid, it can focus on what is clearly its mission all along: telling intensely emotional character stories. Within The War That Changed America, you'll meet...

-Two "tunnel rats" (U. S. soldiers adept at navigating the complex system of tunnels underneath the Vietnam soil) who marvel at being alive today to tell their tales.

-A woman who believed for years that her husband was killed--only to be informed he was a POW.

-A nurse who broke the rules to send young men home -Two members of the same platoon who had a falling out and have bonded again decades after their horrific shared experiences in combat -A South Vietnamese native (now living in America) saved by a Navy officer willing to sacrifice equipment for human life.

Those cursory descriptions (plus more I'm not including) don't even begin to do the topics justice, either. I found myself in tears at least once throughout each episode. I've marked this review as "Spoiler" because I found it interesting how--in a move not used much in documentaries--the producers often flex the narrative a bit to hit the viewer with maximum emotional effect. I wouldn't call it manipulative so much as understanding how to draw the most emotional punch out of each situation--which is what this doc needs to do to succeed.

Even 50 years after the end of the Vietnam War, there is so much to learn/remember from that dishonorable catastrophe and so many stories that need to be told before mortality claims the Vietnam vet generation. Apple TV+ does an absolutely sparkling job--with Ethan Hawke also being a tremendous narrator--on both of those fronts.

Hannibal
(2013)

A Strong Entry In The 2010s "Peak TV" Era
The 2010s were a golden era for television. The cable networks had great series, the streamers were just getting started (not yet all-encompassing), and even the major networks had some gems--like this Hannibal series. Despite always being on the brink of cancellation and ultimately somewhat sabotaged in its endgame by legal issues, Hannibal managed to be an extraordinary show in terms of overall aesthetic and an ability to live up to its Silence of the Lambs canon (no easy feat).

For a very basic overview, Hannibal tells the story of the titular villain (played by Mads Mikkelson) before he is locked away as we see him in the Silence of the Lambs film. Ever the cunning psychologist, Dr. Lecter stays one step ahead of the law even while working with them to consult on cases of extreme violence. You see, the FBI's Jack Crawford (Laurence Fishburne) has stumbled across Will Graham (Hugh Dancy)--a true empath with the extraordinary ability to place himself emotionally into the minds of the most violent criminals, re-creating their heinous crimes. The one problem? Graham is extremely unstable mentally--a malady only exacerbated by his friendly (at least at first) relationship with Hannibal.

The first season of Hannibal (9.5/10 stars) is an absolute treatise in dramatic television. In a way perhaps equalled only by its Fringe contemporary, S1 of Hannibal expertly combines a network investigative procedural with the flair and aesthetic of a prestige drama. TV at its finest, to be sure.

The second season (8.5/10 stars) is still solid, if perhaps a little "out of focus" in terms of losing some of its investigative roots. But if you are here strictly to see Dr. Lecter finally become the "Hopkins Lecter", so to speak, you won't be disappointed.

The third season (8/10) is a bit of a mixed bag, featuring a mid-season time-jump (necessitated by outside-the-creative-realm events) that is then forced to become a series finale when not necessarily conceived as such.

Through it all, Hannibal shines largely because of its three primary leads. In a turn I would not have thought possible, Mikkelson crafts a Lecter every bit the equal of the Hopkins interpretation (you probably won't believe that, but I assure you it is true). Dancy is nearly his equal as the perpetually troubled-but-brilliant Graham, who viewers cannot help but root for to thwart Hannibal's psychological traps. Veteran Fishburne is the best Crawford interpretation yet--his controlled (yet simmering) rage in the face of horrific investigations is palpable, especially in S1. The likes of Caroline Dhavernas, Gillian Anderson, Raul Esparza, Eddie Izzard, & Katherine Isabelle (amongst others) play crucial roles as well.

In some ways, it is amazing Hannibal could achieve such high status considering the long odds against it. Its level of violence (though more stylized than gratuitous) pushed every boundary of network TV. It never had a large audience (at one point near the end getting banished to Saturday night airings). Its ambitious plans were ruined when rights to Silence of the Lambs material could not be achieved.

But through it all, show runner Bryan Fuller and the rest of the production managed to craft a three-season arc that holds up nicely against even its lofty 2010s cable contemporaries.

September 5
(2024)

Can't Quite Decide What Kind Of Movie It Wants To Be
Despite not being a "bad movie", per se, there is a fundamental flaw in September 5. That being: it cannot decide quite what sort of movie it wants to be. Is it a chronicling of the Munich Olympics terrorist event (ala Steven Spielberg's film on the same topic), or is it a journalism movie? Though I'm pretty sure it has designs on being the latter, that wasn't as clearly communicated or touched upon as it should have been--rendering the entire experience a bit confusing.

For a very basic overview, September 5 tells the story of the 1972 Munich Olympics hostage crisis, as covered by the ABC Sports crew who happened to be just across the way of the Olympic Village where the events were taking place. With the regular ABC news crew tucked in bed for the night, the sports team--led by Roone Arledge (Peter Sarsgaard) & Geoffrey Mason (John Magaro)--takes it upon themselves to cover the developing story. But are they just providing coverage--or shaping the events too?

To me, there are two really interesting components of September 5. First is when the ABC sports crew realize the terrorists may be watching the TV coverage themselves. Second is in the closing credits scroll, which notes that this was the first terrorist event ever covered on live television and was viewed by an estimated 900 million viewers (an audience unthinkable in today's fractured media landscape).

Alas, those topics/themes felt like footnotes in the actual film as opposed to the building blocks for its creation. Writer/director Tim Fehlbaum certainly tries to weave all the pieces together, but the overall narrative can never quite settle. At time it dips into the journalistic aspect--then at other times it seems like straight-up coverage of the terrorists themselves.

So, because September 5 felt like a walk straight down the middle skirting potential approaches, I settle on a straight down the middle 5/10 star rating. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this film from a historical or technical aspect--but there is also absolutely nothing exciting or innovative about it, either.

Nightbitch
(2024)

An Ode To Motherhood--The Real Story
One thing we are slowly getting better at as a society is understanding motherhood--especially mothers of very young children. While at times a magical, life-affirming experience, it is equal parts body horror, extreme fatigue, and self-questioning (giving up a professional/artistic life in favor of child rearing). Nightbitch might just be the best movie I've ever seen at parlaying all those complex emotions into a thoughtful, entertaining film.

For a very basic overview, Nightbitch tells the story of Mother (Amy Adams) who gives up a career as an artist to have her first child. Viewers are introduced to the "toddler stage" of Mother, as she struggles to find social outlets, is extremely disconnected from her former colleagues/friends, and doesn't exactly have the understanding of her Husband (Scoot McNairy) in what she is going through. Mother begins experiencing some strange physical symptoms--hair in odd places, a gluteal protuberance, enhanced sense of smell, & an irrational hatred of cats--that lead her to believe she may be transforming at night into a nocturnal canine.

First things first with Nightbitch: if you are scared of some of its wackier or body-horror tendencies, please do not be! While that metaphor is certainly present, it does not dominate the proceedings. I would not classify Nightbitch as horror or sci-fi in genre in any way. One could quite literally ignore this entire angle and still thoroughly enjoy the film.

Why is this? Because writer/director Marielle Heller expertly peels back the "curtain of motherhood" and isn't afraid to get a little dirty in doing so. This film isn't for those who aren't ready or willing to face the entirety of what Mom-hood inevitably brings. All the sweet, charming, and remarkable moments are present-and-accounted-for as well. Even while at times comedic and at other times a little weird, Nightbitch never wanes in bringing strong characters, high emotion, and interesting philosophical underpinnings to the proceedings.

It helps, of course, to have Adams in the lead role here--and this is a film almost entirely "on her" in terms of screen time and dialogue. She has no issues handing such a load and is extremely relatable in a "could be you, your wife, your sister, or any other mother you know" sort of way.

After only getting a brief/limited theatrical run, I was surprised to see Nightbitch pop up on Disney+. But after watching, I now understand that "Moms & Dads of kids who watch the normal Disney fare" are the best audience for this movie. If you can get past the title and dog metaphor (which you may just enjoy, by the way!) you'll find here one of the sneaky-best movies of 2024.

Sing Sing
(2023)

A Tribute To The Power Of The Arts
If you ever needed a reminder as to the power of the performing arts (specifically theatre, in this case), Sing Sing is an exemplary example. Even without much pomp and circumstance from a cinematic sense, its gritty-yet-inspirational story will re-affirm the power of the arts to help manage emotions and behaviors.

For a very basic overview, Sing Sing tells the story of Divine G (Colman Domingo), an inmate of the titular maximum security prison that is the ostensible leader of a dramatics program--putting on two plays a year with a revolving cast. But for the next play, the notorious "yard rat" Divine Eye (Clarence Maclin) wants--and gets--in to the troupe. Will this upend the program--or teach Divine G some valuable lessons of his own?

I realize that putting the message "the arts are important" into a highly-artistic movie is a little bit preaching to the choir, but Sing Sing is so engaging and emotional that it matters little. There aren't a lot of theatrics (pardon the pun) here in terms of a rousing score or contrived drama, but director Greg Kwedar hits all the right beats and as the story unspools you'll become fully invested in the characters even without fanfare.

Not only is Sing Sing based on a true story, but--and this is truly remarkable--many of its roles are played by inmates who themselves were released after participating in the arts program behind the high walls. It's not a question of "life imitating art"---here, life is the art! Other than the well-known Domingo (who will be up for some serious hardware for his performance) in the heaviest role, the incarcerated-turned-thespians--especially Maclin--are all wonderful. Truth be told, I did not know this about the film until the closing credits and I never would have guessed they were not established Hollywood actors.

Because of its subject matter, Sing Sing was never going to be a mass-audience hit. But I can see "award darling" in its future and it is certainly one of the best movies I saw from 2024.

Silo: Into the Fire
(2025)
Episode 10, Season 2

Silo Season Two (6/10 Stars): A Morass Middle Bogs Down Decent Beginning & End
I consider the first season of Silo to be one of the finest ever constructed in TV drama--the perfect mix of mystery, sci-fi, and strong character work. Sadly, season two does not nearly reach those lofty goals--in large part because of how slow the proceedings move forward for most of these ten episodes.

For a very basic overview, Silo S2 is bifurcated into two portions (which I will not spoil here):

-Juliette's (Rebecca Ferguson) explorations outside the silo.

-The social and political unrest inside the silo, largely due to the machinations of Bernard Holland (Tim Robbins).

The first few S2 episodes are fine. Very much a slow burn, but probably necessary after the whiz-bang S1. A good way to get re-acclimated to the show's characters and themes.

But then, the main problem with S2: for the next 5-6 episodes, very little happens. Juliette's explorations make tedious (if that) progress, and this series is not meant to rest upon the political machinations inside the silo itself. In this stretch, I was giving episode ratings as low as 4 or 5 stars. It was becoming more of a chore than a joy to watch the weekly episode drop.

The final two episodes do (finally) pick up the pace at least a bit. Still nothing to match S1's brilliance, but enough to be engaging for a full 50-60 minutes. The finale's coda always opens an intriguing new plot point that I hope will be expounded upon in subsequent seasons.

For whatever reason, Graham Yost's series stalled out and hit a sophomore slump. With only bits of mystery and sci-fi present (until the final episode) and Juliette on a stagnant solo quest, it was up to the in-silo material to carry the freight--and it simply wasn't strong enough to do so for a vast swath of the season.

I have not given up on the series altogether (though mid-season here I was more tempted than I even want to imagine). The announcement of a four-season confirmed run and the S2 finale give me a spark of hope that Yost & Co. Can perhaps find the S1 magic once again.

Nosferatu
(2024)

More Gross & Tedious Than Scary Or Compelling
I will admit to having little knowledge of previous iterations of the Nosferatu or Dracula stories. But such ignorance did allow me to come into this version with a clean slate--unbiased by others' interpretations. Sadly, I found a film that was gross and tedious when it seemed to want to be scary and compelling.

For a very basic overview, Nosferatu tells the story of Thomas Hutter (Nicolas Hoult), an early 19th century Englishman given a task that will set he and wife Ellen (Lily-Rose Depp) up for life at his loan firm. The charge? Travel to the reclusive Count Orlok (Bill Skarsgard) and get some papers signed. Little does Thomas know he may be about to unleash an evil upon the world the likes of which has never before been seen.

I mainly had interest in this movie because of director Robert Eggers--whose The Witch is one of my favorite movies of the last 10-15 years. I was hoping for similar creeping unease such as what was present in that film, but instead I found a few things that turned me off to the whole experience.

I'll start with the one compliment I can give, which is that Eggers clearly has a vision for his Nosferatu. It isn't a version I agree with or one that entertained me, but it isn't slapdash by any means. Production values are high and this is clearly an extremely serious effort.

The first problem I have with this film, however, is that it isn't all that scary--just gross. I was hoping for creeping menace, dread, and maybe a couple of jump scares. Instead, Nosferatu is--at times--almost a gross-out flick. Though I fully realize the intent behind this unique portrayal of a Dracula-like figure, the brutal realism lacks any sense of style or panache. I simply felt revolted at Orlok and some of the other gross characters/scenarios present here--not creeped out.

Secondly, I would argue there needs to be a reason to adapt this ages-old property. Or, should I say, a reason beyond "Robert Eggers wants to do Dracula/Nosferatu", which seems to be all that is present here. None of the movie's themes speak to any modern-day condition and thus feel incredibly creaky/irrelevant. From what I've been told it is a faithful adaptation of the material, but faithful doesn't move my needle if it isn't compelling, and 2024 Nosferatu is certainly not that.

Suffice it to say, Nosferatu was an enormous letdown for me considering the build-up. Whether as a thematic thriller or a horror flick, I can't recommend this film to anyone other than perhaps die-hard scholars of the material. More than likely, you'll find yourself bored or revolted--often simultaneously.

A Complete Unknown
(2024)

Incredible Period Piece That Pokes & Prods The Dylan Enigma
As should come as no surprise from the director-James Mangold-of 2005's Walk the Line, A Complete Unknown is as solid of a musical biopic as one may ever behold. Though perhaps lacking a central narrative or "what does it all mean?" thoroughfare, Mangold (and writers Jay Cocks & Elijah Wald) mitigate this by declaring their subject-Bob Dylan-an enigma even in a movie trying to understand him.

For a very basic overview, A Complete Unknown tells the 1960s Bob Dylan (Timothee Chalamet) story. Beginning with Dylan's unlikely and sudden appearance on the New York folk music scene-befriending Pete Seeger (Edward Norton) being a large part of that-and his flirtations with Sylvie Russo (Elle Fanning) & Joan Baez (Monica Barbaro), the film then chronicles Dylan's grappling with the very concept of folk music as he decides whether or not to "go electric" and utterly upend the folk community that had taken him in.

I'll start with the odd aspect of A Complete Unknown, which is that it does not have a focused narrative or arc. In, say, Walk the Line, every Johnny Cash scenario-relationship with his father, death of younger brother, alcohol/drugs, religion, etc.-painted a portrait of the man & entertainer he would become. No such thing happens here. Instead, A Complete Unknown is more "Dylan does this" and "Dylan does that" and the events just sort of happen without a ton of narrative connective tissue. This is a bit unsettling in that it is the exact opposite approach that most biopics take (that being trying to find meaning out of events). At very least, however, I commend Mangold for understanding the near indecipherability of his protagonist here. It's not that Mangold tries to make meaning and fails. It's more that he realizes taking that approach with Dylan is impossible and thus it is better to simply let the events and music do the meaning-making rather than outside writing.

Fortunately, A Complete Unknown is such a good period piece that lingering narrative concerns may just fall away entirely. The way Mangold brings the 1960s to life is truly impressive, as are the performance segments. It quickly becomes very clear-from Mangold's intercutting between world events & Dylan's music circles-why Bob was the perfect musician at the perfect time to hit it big in the world of folk and then branch out to superstardom. In short, I was utterly captivated by the immersive quality of the biopic setting.

It helps that Chalamet seems born to play a young Dylan. I'm not even overly familiar with Dylan's overall oeuvre, but from the bits I've seen Chalamet inhabits the role with eerie accuracy in gesture, voice, and just overall presence. Award nominations should follow. Norton, Fanning, & Barbaro are equally impressive in their respective roles-especially Fanning as essentially the audience surrogate asking "just who is this guy who dropped out of nowhere?!".

Overall, I guess what I'm saying about A Complete Unknown is that even though it feels a little hollow from a "narrative meaning" perspective, that didn't bother me enough to dislike the experience in any way. In part because there is clearly an understanding that Bob Dylan's indecipherable nature is part of his mythos, but even more so because it is such an engaging period musical biopic. Will it stand the test of time like Walk the Line? Who knows. But it certainly was a ton of fun to witness in the moment.

Getting Lost
(2024)

As Good As Independently-Funded Documentaries Come
I had been tracking Getting LOST on social media for quite some time before it finally became available to rent. Not only am I a huge LOST fan, but I was excited to see something commemorating the series' 20th anniversary. But of course, independently-financed documentaries are always going to be a bit of an adventure quality-wise. Fortunately, this one is as good as they come even without studio funding!

Basically, director Taylor Morden covers all the key areas in which LOST was successful, controversial, and/or changed the game when it came to network television quality. From the mind-boggling pilot to the immediate skyrocketing success to the controversial finale and everything along the way (plus after), Morden provides excellent series coverage.

While generally being very positive about LOST's legacy, Getting LOST does not shy away from the more recent reports of the writer's room or production not necessarily being the most welcoming place. Generally-speaking, though, Morden plays fair with these topics and gives a wide range of thoughts/opinions on that topic. It had to be addressed--and it is--without slowing the overall narrative.

The true hallmark of Getting LOST, however, is the sheer number of interviewees it procures. From producers to show runners to writers to actors to superfans to podcasters--I could list them all but it would almost be easier to name who didn't participate! The breadth of interviews in this doc would be impressive for a well-funded production, much less one largely financed by individual contributions. Not only does this provide some "insider info", but it is simply fun for LOST fans to see what everyone is up to now!

Even the special effects are fun here, with DHARMA paraphernalia, polar bears, and other LOST iconography used to mostly comedic (though sometimes dramatic) effect.

Ultimately, I really could not have asked for anything more from Getting LOST. Truly a fitting 20-year tribute to one of the greatest TV shows ever created!

Aaron Rodgers: Enigma
(2024)

Aaron Rodgers: In His Own Words
Enigma is not the most objective documentary you will ever find (if you want more of that, read Ian O'Connor's "Out of the Darkness" tome). To a certain extent, it trades Aaron Rodgers' involvement for a little bit of narrative-shaping. But I was still enthralled by Enigma because it allows Rodgers to tell his story in his own words-not clickbait headlines-and he always gives a thoughtful accounting (whether you ascribe to the exact same beliefs being somewhat immaterial).

For a very basic overview, Enigma focuses on the "present" of Rodgers rehabbing from his 2023 Achilles tear as a member of the New York Jets. While seeing him navigate one of the quickest rehab processes for that injury in NFL history, doc directors Gotham Chopra & Liam Hughes flash back to relevant Rodgers' life moments-high school, college, NFL draft, Brett Favre relationship, Packers dominant QB ascendence-to allow him to tell his story. Supplementing Rodgers' own thoughts are interview snippets from the likes of Mike McCarthy, David Bakhtiari, Matt LaFleur, Davante Adams, Nathaniel Hackett, Brett Favre, Matt Flynn, and many others who have/had personal or professional relationships with Aaron.

If you only know Rodgers as "the guy who does psychedelics and sits in darkness", the first thing that will immediately "pop" in this doc is how physically talented at football Rodgers is and how much adversity he battled to get to where he is from a dominance perspective. He was smaller-than-average, he wasn't recruited by a major college, he had the most embarrassing draft day in NFL history, Favre basically shunned him, and he himself was shown the Green Bay exit a little before his time. But through all that, Rodgers developed an intense confidence/focus that allowed him to become one of the best NFL quarterbacks of all-time.

Of course, the more sensitive topics are discussed here as well: family foibles, darkness retreats, ayahuasca use, vaccine stances, and political involvements. Like anywhere else in life, I can't promise you'll like-or even respect, in some cases-Aaron's stance or inclusion within these topics. But at very least you will be hearing it "straight from the horse's mouth", and there is a lot of value to that. Regardless of what you think about Rodgers' life choices, his thought processes on those issues have clearly been given much thought and help him work through life issues as a quasi-celebrity. In a way that many athletes simply cannot, Rodgers brings a thoughtfulness, curiosity, and open-mindedness to his personal journeys.

I completely understand how and why Enigma could be a little "triggering" in the current age of extreme political/societal sensitivity. You likely won't agree with everything Rodgers has to say here. But hearing those thoughts straight from the source rather than twisted/utilized by clickbait sites or sports "talking heads" is refreshing and may soften the image of Rodgers you currently harbor in your mind. At very least, Enigma represents a chance for him to tell "his side of the story" in relatively unfiltered fashion.

Karen Carpenter: Starving for Perfection
(2023)

Karen Carpenter: Equal Parts Talent & Tragedy
In a very short span of time, pop singer Karen Carpenter rose to international musical fame and then became a tragic figure after dying young from the eating disorder anorexia. Remarkably, Starving for Perfection manages to capture all of that in just over an hour and a half.

For a very basic overview, director Randy Martin takes a chronological route through Karen Carpenter's life, chronicling her rise to fame in the late 1960s and then superstardom in the 1970s. The dynamics of her Midwest family--especially some tumultuousness with mother Agnes--play a big role here as well, including how the musical ear of brother Richard both at times held Karen back (via family favoritism) and other times ascended her drumming/vocals to new heights. Paralleling all of this is Karen's slow slide into eating disorder, culminating in tragedy in 1982.

To capture all of this, Martin interweaves two methods in Starving for Perfection:

First, a number of "talking heads" give insightful commentary on their relationships with Karen or how she inspired them. Such figures include Carol Burnett, Cynthia Gibb, Olivia Newton-John, Suzanne Somers, Kristin Chenoweth, & Carnie Wilson. These interviews really cement how truly talented Karen was and help understand how her music/vocals stand the test of time.

Secondly, a large amount of archival Carpenters footage is utilized--including some taped audio interviews that are supposedly the first time ever heard publicly. These are the sections that really dig deep into Karen's psyche and show how her body and romantic insecurities--fueled by her on-stage, front-and-center status as well as little support from immediate family--led her down the dangerous anorexia path where at certain points she weighed less than 80 pounds in total.

Coming into Starving for Perfection, all I knew about Karen Carpenter is that she was a music star in the 1970s and died of anorexia. Coming out of the doc, I understood both of those facets in a far more nuanced fashion. Karen Carpenter possessed a once-in-a-lifetime sort of vocal talent, which (orchestrated by brother Richard) became iconic. Yet, such fame could never really be enjoyed as her romantic pursuits (largely non-existent or outright failures) and body image issues were not understood or supported in ways they hopefully would have been in the current era.

Ultimately, this doc does a remarkable job of managing such sad content without forgetting the more positive legacy of Karen Carpenter--that of her angelic voice and wholesome, positive image and music. I was riveted by every morsel of material here all the way through to the closing credits.

Prancer
(1989)

Surprisingly (Despite Some Major Flaws) Emotionally Affecting Holiday Classic
Prancer was a movie that was always on TV when I was growing up in the early 1990s. Yet, I never watched it all the way through from beginning to end. In correcting that oversight, I found a film that is surprisingly emotionally affecting despite some major flaws that constrict its ceiling.

For a very basic overview, Prancer tells the story of grade-schooler Jessica (Rebecca Harrell Tickell) who believes she has found Santa Claus' titular lost reindeer and is harboring it in her father's barn. Having recently lost her mother and with her father (Sam Elliott) struggling to run the home and farm, Jessica is left to her own devices to try and restore Santa's full team before Christmas Day.

I will readily admit that "90s nostalgia" played a not-insignificant role in my enjoyment of Prancer. Director John D. Hancock and writer Greg Taylor do a solid job of capturing the feel of that era for those who lived through it, and it is fun during the holiday season to slip into that mindset again.

That being said, there are a lot of flaws in Prancer that will be readily apparent. Elliott's father character acts utterly discordant with how he is supposedly viewed by Jessica, while a side plot involving Cloris Leachman is cute but goes absolutely nowhere in the end and often kills the overall pacing. Essentially, Prancer is a movie that gets the emotion/feel right, but really struggles in dialogue and actions to match that emotionally holiday feeling. Characters are more caricatures in all but implied emotion.

So, why the solid 8/10 rating? Because the emotion truly does shine through in Prancer. The first 10-15 minutes does some remarkable heavy-lifting in establishing empathy towards Jessica's life (and thus her film-long quest). Plus, her devotion to her father even when everything on-screen struggles to accurately show that is endearing in and of itself. I'd challenge anyone not to reach for the tissue box during the climactic father/daughter scene that sets up the movie's final moments.

The cynic in me definitely saw Prancer's flaws and thinks "this is a 5-star effort". But the holiday/90s nostalgic in me was moved by the emotion and feel of the flick. As such, 8/10 stars seems fair. If you lived through that era and can allow yourself to be swept up in the emotion of it all, you'll enjoy Prancer.

A Nonsense Christmas with Sabrina Carpenter
(2024)

Absolutely On-Brand For The Sabrina Carpenter Rise
Sabrina Carpenter may well be on her way to Ariana Grande-like status in the pop music scene. The only reason she isn't there already is because she got trapped in some bad Disney music contracts that forced her to make middling, family-friendly pop for a number of years. Now, freed to pursue her own pursuits, Sabrina leans into that tongue-in-cheek, double entendre brand with this Nonsense Christmas special.

Basically, Nonsense Christmas is a collection of 6-7 Sabrina tunes (some of them duets, like with Shania Twain or Chappell Roan, amongst others), with comedy skits interspersed between the musical set pieces.

Because Sabrina's whole image is so "cringe", it is hard to give an event like this the full 10/10 star treatment. Granted, I don't get too fussed about it because she unapologetically leans into that image, but at times it will have you rolling your eyes as opposed to laughing out loud.

How can Carpenter largely get away with this? Because she's got the pipes. Her Fruitcake Christmas mini-album is an absolute holiday masterpiece, and her other tunes of late have rocketed to the top of all charts. Sabrina can really sing, and that's how (at least for the moment) she can get away with the dirty puns and raunchy-if-fun persona--because the vocals always back it up.

Overall, I enjoyed this Nonsense Christmas special. Nothing that will go down in the annals of holiday music specials, to be sure, but fun enough in that it knows exactly what it wants to be--Sabrina's pristine vocals mixed with cringy humor--and executes it perfectly.

Wicked: Part I
(2024)

A Near-Perfect Metaphoric Mix Set In The Wonderful World Of Oz
I never saw the original Broadway run of Wicked. I did read the first Gregory Maguire book but found it too "politics of Oz" for my tastes. So, this film was my true introduction to the Wicked story--and wow! What a gleefully entertaining romp that combines coming-of-age metaphor with the fascination nearly all viewers have with the Land of Oz!

For a very basic overview, Wicked tells the story of two of Oz's most notorious figures. While attending Shiz University, Galinda (Ariana Grande) is the spoiled, popular, obsessed-with-herself rich girl. Meanwhile, Elphaba (Cynthia Erivo) is the down-to-earth, studious type often ostracized for her green skin. Naturally, the two are thrown together as roommates and must learn to cope with each other's foibles. As an odd-couple friendship develops, it is tested to the brink when Elphaba's wizarding skills get her an invitation to see The Wizard (Jeff Goldblum) himself in the Emerald City--but is he the man she has longed to meet?

The hallmark of Wicked is that it so aptly nails the college experience--no wonder its success was built largely on that demographic in the mid-2000s! Rooming with someone different from yourself, learning new things, getting into a little trouble, discovering the world isn't exactly how it may have been portrayed--all bastions of the post-high school experience and all captured here. Whether you are looking forward to that experience, going through it, or remembering back on it with nostalgia, Wicked pulls at all those emotions.

But of course, any flick could try to accomplish such cultural relevance. What really makes Wicked stand out from the crowd is that it is set in perhaps the most viewed cinema universe of all time--that of The Wizard of Oz! So, while it treads upon real-life issues, it also tells origin stories of Glinda the "Good Witch", the "Wicked Witch" of the West, The Wizard, and just Oz in general in a pre-Dorothy era. As bogged down in politics and maneuvering as Maguire's book can sometimes get, that kernel of an idea--"Glinda and the Wicked West as college friends"--is truly a goldmine.

This being a musical, the songs need to stand out too--and Wicked has no issues in that department. Nearly every tune here is catchy or heavy with plot/character significance. Grande proves herself to be a perfect Galinda in both song and personality, while who knew Erivo could provide such vocals of her own! Her Elphaba is largely the show-stealer here.

About the only reason I can't give this one the full 10/10 stars at the moment is because I sort of need to see how the next installment plays out. The only thing that didn't perfectly hit the mark for me here was the use of Fascism as the corrupting agent in Oz politics. A little too on-the-nose or rote, though perhaps a bit fresher in the 1990s book or even the early-2000s stage production (since then, WWII-mirrored Fascism seems to be the villain-of-choice in so much media).

Overall, though, I was extremely entertained by everything that Wicked threw at me! Between the metaphors, the music, the setting, and the dazzling visuals, it had me invested all the way through. I'll definitely be returning for the second go-round!

Christmas in Rockefeller Center: Christmas in Rockefeller Center 2024
(2024)

Just An Okay Opener To Holiday Season 2024
The lighting of the tree at Rockefeller Plaza in New York City often serves as the quasi-kickoff to each entertainment holiday season. I happened to catch it in its entirety this year and was a bit underwhelmed.

This isn't a bad special, by any means. It has a couple of great songs from Kelly Clarkson (I wish there would have been more on that front) and the Backstreet Boys will always draw eyeballs and nostalgia.

But other than that, it wasn't exactly a who's who of performers or performances. Perhaps the cold weather and snowy conditions played a role in an event that seemed a little slow/boring at times.

At the end of the day, this is network TV personified: a few moments of true entertainment teased out amongst two hours of mid-level tedium.

It's in the Game: Madden NFL
(2024)

Stick With This Doc And It'll Impress You In The End
It's In The Game is a documentary that is a bit unconventional. It isn't the "comprehensive Madden history lesson" many may be expecting, and the first episode comes off perhaps a little "b-movie schmaltzy". But if you continue through the remaining three installments, you may see your enjoyment of it grow as mine did!

For a very basic overview, It's In The Game uses a two-pronged structure:

-Roughly one half of each episode is devoted to the current Madden developers trying to get the '25 version ready for launch--from the initial planning to player scans to game AI and everything in-between, viewers are given a look at how the current EA group puts together a Madden game.

-The other half of each episode flashes back to previous iterations of the Madden franchise, such as John Madden's initial involvement, the battles with Sony's 2K series, and the whole operation really exploding in the mid-2000s thanks to Michael Vick's electric involvement.

Coming into this episodic doc, I had expected more of a straight history. While It's In The Game doesn't take quite that approach, it does cover most of the big topics (just not game-by-game, so to speak). I was especially fascinated to see how the direct competition with the 2K games really sharpened Madden from 2004-2006. Of course, seeing Coach Madden's direct input in the early days was also wonderful--his earnest (if not outright maniacal) insistence on realism really shaped the franchise into the behemoth it ultimately became.

At first, the "current day" material was my least favorite part of this doc. But as the curtain gets pulled back on just how big of an operation the whole thing is, I found myself really enjoying those segments too! Some will call it a "hack job" or an ad for the latest Madden, and it could always be interpreted in that sense--but I never got the feeling it was outrightly configured in that way. The current Madden devs seem very forthright about the negative nature that the games are sometimes perceived in.

About the only criticism I can levy at this doc is that it does skip over some of Madden's "leaner years" where everyone could see that some laurels were being rested on. But considering the length that would have added to this project and the effect it would have had on EA's overall involvement, I didn't view that omission as a project-sinker.

Overall, I really enjoyed It's In The Game for simultaneously showing Madden football's past and present operations. The first episode: 8/10 stars. The next two: 9/10 stars. The finale: the full 10/10. This one gets better as it goes along, to be sure!

Gladiator II
(2024)

A Warmed-Over Retread Of The Iconic Original
From the first trailer I saw for Gladiator II, something just felt "off" about the whole endeavor. But being such a fan of the iconic 2000 original, I had to give it a chance. Alas, it is little more than a warmed-over retread of its predecessor--making it an almost embarrassingly simple effort from director Ridley Scott.

For a very basic overview, Gladiator II tells the story of Lucious (Paul Mescal), a slave forced to fight in the Colosseum (and a name you may remember from the original) for the pleasure of a corrupt Rome. This all in front of Roman tyrants (Joseph Quinn & Fred Hechinger), Lucilla (Connie Nielsen), and the scheming Macrinus (Denzel Washington). All the while, general Marcus Acacius (Pedro Pascal) struggles with Rome's legacy and ponders a coup.

If you think the above paragraph bears a striking resemblance to the original--you would not be mistaken in the slightest. Aside from different actors and different animals/battles in the Colosseum, this might as well be a copy-and-past of the 2000 edition. There is not one single original or interesting idea here that doesn't in some way harken back (some might say "rip off") Gladiator.

The killing blow, as it were: not an ounce of celluloid here contains the gravitas of Russell Crowe or the manic energy of Joaquin Phoenix. This is exactly what I was afraid of with Gladiator II--it being "the plot of the first one without the great casting"--and that is exactly what plays out. Despite featuring a solid ensemble across the board, not one of them provides the utter magnetism of Crowe. This makes it all the more embarrassing how they utilize Crowe flashbacks--as they hold more sway even here (in minutes) than anything else on screen.

So, I fear my concerns about Gladiator II all proved prescient. Without the unique energy that the original film tapped into, this uninspired sequel is blasé across the board. It narrowly avoids "absolutely unwatchable" territory by simple dint of trying to capture the old magic, but the near-complete failure in that regard still render it a "really poor" 3/10 stars in my book.

Tulsa King: Reconstruction
(2024)
Episode 10, Season 2

Season 2 (3/10 stars): Loses Nearly All Its S1 Spark
On the surface, you wouldn't think S1 & S2 of Tulsa King are all that different. Both feature gang turf wars in the unlikely locale of Tulsa, Oklahoma. But dig a little deeper and you'll notice that S1 had something that this second go-round never sniffed: a personal/relatable touch.

In S1, the story of Dwight Manfredi (Sylvester Stallone) re-integrating into civilian life after a long stint behind bars encompasses almost the entire first half of that campaign. Helped along by driver Tyson (Jay Will), Dwight must figure out this modern world in order to do what he does best--hustle for money--while at the same time reconnecting with his daughter Tina (Tatiana Zappardino).

S2 continues almost none of that interesting nuance. Instead, it is a full-bore gangster show from the S2 premiere--and bore is about right to describe the proceedings. Exactly one episode received even a middle-of-the-road 5 star rating from me--everything else being considerably lower.

I sort of understand what Taylor Sheridan, Terence Winter, and Stallone are trying to do with this show: combine Stallone's persona (and ability to play an Italian gangster) with Sheridan's populist sensibilities and quirky view of society. As such, the series is filled with unique characters that would seem to promise interesting payoffs.

Instead, it all sort of just muddles together without any clarity. For most of the season I was outright lost in terms of which faction is battling the other and even who was who at times. A few moments of Stallone's charm and levity produced a chuckle, but other than that it was pretty rough going through each episode.

I had hoped the finale would stir things up a bit--but all it did was obfuscate storylines even further and push the resolution into a third season. In some ways, S2 ended quite similarly to S1 in that fashion--disappointing on both counts.

I know I will be temped to give the confirmed S3 a shot because of my Stallone fandom--but unless the series finds even a momentary spark (like it did in S1) I'll either be out entirely or have it on the shortest of leashes upon its return.

Heretic
(2024)

My Favorite Movie Of 2024 Thus Far
I came into Heretic with zero expectations whatsoever. It hadn't really even been on my radar, but I'm always up for a good thriller and after some podcasts/reviews were extremely positive I gave it a try. I'm certainly glad I did--this has been my favorite cinematic experience since "Barbenheimer" in Summer '23!

For a very basic overview, Heretic tells the story of two young lady Mormon door-to-door recruiters. Sister Paxton (Chloe East) is the peppy "true believer", while Sister Barnes (Sophie Thatcher) is a bit more of the "reserved doubts" type. When they knock on the door of one Mr. Reed (Hugh Grant), they are treated not to a slam-in-their face or cutting remarks, but rather an invitation inside to chat. But what they find in Mr. Reed's home is beyond anything they could have comprehended.

It is exceedingly rare that a film so expertly combines genres like Heretic does. Directors/Writers Scott Beck & Bryan Woods mix straight-ahead drama with suspense, thriller, comedy, and outright horror and somehow make it all work perfectly. They accomplish this primarily from dialogue and character interactions that are very "real-world"--the types of people and conversations you can imagine in these scenarios. In short: Heretic instantly creates empathy towards all involved--easily enough to carry a viewer all the way through.

It helps to have Grant in a role of a lifetime here! Even for an actor as distinguished as he, I can't think of a better role than what he steps into with Mr. Reed. Though East & Thatcher are great in bringing viewers into the movie, Mr. Reed's charisma (or is that menace?) is what makes Heretic really tick.

I won't spoil Heretic's plot here, but suffice it to say it is an absolute treatise for those who grew up around religion or question its tenets. The real masterstroke: Heretic isn't an "anti-religion" film when all is said and done. It certainly questions the concepts from many vantage points, but in the end it puts the onus on the viewer to make the hard choices.

Without any reservations, I can easily call Heretic my favorite movie of 2024 as we approach Thanksgiving season. It is somewhat rare that a film captures my absolute unbridled attention from the first frame and holds it all the way through the closing credits, but that is exactly what Heretic did!

Jake Paul vs. Mike Tyson
(2024)

A Debacle On Every Front
There was always a chance that Mike Tyson vs. Jake Paul was going to turn into a debacle. A 58-year old Tyson taking on a man 30 years his junior--what could possibly go wrong?!

Fight-wise, that is exactly what happened. Either a fix was in (some signs point to this), or Tyson simply had no gas left in the tank.

But the real tragedy of it all was Netflix's "production" of the event.

Boxing matches are all about hype. The video packages, the interviews, the entrances, the introductions--all needed to whip the crowd/viewers into a frenzy. No mater how good or bad the fisticuffs turn out to be, the right build-up can make or break an event.

Well, "break" is a spot-on term to use here, as Netflix's stream was shoddy (pixelated and murky) at best and nonexistent (at worst) for almost the entire eventl. A massive live TV failure, to say the least.

I know what I'm going to say next may be taken as "old man yells at cloud", but I promise you I hate the old cable TV model as much as anyone. Yet, back in the 90s or 2000s this would have been on pay-per-view. Yes, it would have been $50 (guesstimate), but I would have gladly forked over that dollar amount for a stable platform as opposed to the garbage Netflix put in front of viewers here.

I hope this is a massive learning experience for Netflix. Being the top name in streaming is all fine and dandy when everyone is watching their dramas and sitcoms at different times--but as soon as an opportunity presented itself where all eyeballs were congregated at a single time? Complete and utter disaster.

Juror #2
(2024)

Comes To A Solid & Interesting Place, If Mechanically Awkward To Get There
Sometimes, director Clint Eastwood creates films that are all-time classics. Other times his somewhat ham-fisted vision of human nature leads to "just okay" or even "outright bad" efforts. In what could be the nonagenarian's clapperboard swan song, Juror #2 tilts towards the positive side if still containing some weak tendencies.

For a very basic overview, Juror #2 tells the story of Justin Kemp (Nicholas Hoult), an everyman (freelance writer, husband, baby on the way) who gets called for jury duty. He quickly realizes that the murder case he is adjudicating may involve his own actions. This poses a seemingly impossible dilemma--say nothing and potentially allow an innocent man to spend life in prison or speak up and potentially ruin his burgeoning family?

The real hallmark of Juror #2 is the script from Jonathan A. Abrams. This is an idea ("man serving on a jury where he may have committed the crime!") so juicy that one almost can't believe it is just now being stumbled across! Director Eastwood also does a fine job, in the end, of getting the main points across. In a scene on the bench outside the courtroom, Justin & the prosecuting attorney (Toni Collette) have a conversation that really sums the whole thing up. In that moment, I truly understood what Eastwood was going for and appreciated the idea.

That being said, I also feel as if Juror #2 suffers from a number of mechanical failures that prevent the "big idea" from being as compelling as it could have been:

First, for it all to work the viewer needs to be intimately invested in Hoult's character--not just his dilemma. Whether it was casting or direction, I never felt that here. Yes, I could somewhat still follow again with a "what if it were me?" mindset, but in the film it isn't "me"--it is Justin Kemp--and that character wasn't compelling enough for me.

Secondly, one has to be utterly convinced that the man on trial (Gabriel Basso) is a truly bad individual. How is that done here--through one notice of a neck tattoo by a jury member? The whole "it's okay he gets put away for life because he's a bad guy even though he's innocent in this particular case" argument was lost on me when I felt more sympathy for him than anything.

Finally, the jury deliberation scenes that set up this whole caper are where Eastwood's worst tendencies come out, such as reducing characters to trait caricatures rather than human beings. Those scenes are, at best, "12 Angry Men" knockoffs and, at worst, eye-rollingly inane in dialogue and narrative form.

Where does all this leave us? To me, a solid-but-not-spectacular 7/10 rating. I certainly do not put Juror #2 in the rarified air of Eastwood's late-career Million Dollar Baby, The Changeling, or Gran Torino stratosphere. But it is also far better than The Mule, Cry Macho, or Richard Jewell. If you are able to overlook some of the small details and focus on the big picture of it all, Juror #2 may very well jump higher in your rankings than mine.

Disclaimer
(2024)

A Study In How Context & Discomfort Are Sometimes Necessary To Reveal Truth
Disclaimer is a series that only true prestige TV drama junkies may enjoy every second of. That isn't to say it is deficient in any way for general audiences-only that it is so visceral and discomforting at times that the strong emotion it invokes may (if not carefully mediated by the viewer) envelop the messages it is trying to convey.

For a very basic overview, Disclaimer tells the story of Catherine Ravenscroft (Cate Blanchett), a woman whose entire life is thrown into turmoil when Stephen Brigstocke (Kevin Kline) publishes a book detailing lurid details of how his son Jonathan (Louis Partridge) was seduced by a young Catherine (Leila George)-a pairing that resulted in tragedy. As Catherine's past is unraveled by Stephen, she must fight not only for her dignity in a "quick-to-cancel" work environment but also to keep husband Robert (Sacha Baron Cohen) & son Nicholas (Kodi Smit-McPhee) from leaving her.

A slight warning here: Disclaimer is a series that viscerally portrays sexual scenarios and violence. If you are at all squeamish about such things, know that the series might-at times-make you outright uncomfortable in a number of ways. That being said, if you can "stick it out" you'll also find that it always plays fair with its material and never manipulates a single emotion without a later plot or character development in mind.

The hallmark of Disclaimer is that not only is it a great "prestige mystery" of HBO ilk, but it even ascends higher than those for its ability to be as thoughtful/important as entertaining. In the hands of creator/writer Alfonso Cuaron, Disclaimer instantly connects with current culture via its playing with the concepts of truth, context, and narrative. Do we simply believe what we see or are being told because it fits a narrative and/or pulls at the heartstrings? Or, is more context sometimes necessary to get closer to the truth of any matter? Because society is-at the moment-so tilted towards "truth" lining up with certain touchstones of race, gender, or voice, it can be unsettling to self-reflect on the power of context to radically change the facts of any situation. Cuaron plays perfectly fair with all the material here-but still it is a challenge to deep-seated cultural norms at nearly every turn.

It helps to have a potentially career-defining performance from Kline, who particularly shines as Stephen Brigstocke. His escapades and expressions provide a sort of levity (dark as it may be) to the proceedings that can allow forward progress when everything else seems heavy to the point of saturation. Both actresses-Blanchett & George-playing Catherine are also tremendous, as is Partridge as Jonathan. Considering their roles change depending on "who is doing the narrating", so to speak, all these performances are wonderfully nuanced and award-worthy.

Up to this point Cuaron has largely been known for his cinematography work and that certainly shines here as well. This "heavy drama" often looks and feels more like an action or adventure piece as the camera whooshes around to follow frantic character movement or bobs in the sea to capture the beach vacation flashbacks so essential to the overall narrative.

Add up the visuals, acting, engaging narrative, and overall cultural importance and this is probably the best series Apple has ever produced. I was riveted from beginning to end and blown away by Cuaron's ability to essentially tell the viewer what he is going to do, challenge the viewer to "keep up", and then deliver a finale "knockout blow" anyway. Drama, characters, and storytelling in the highest form possible here-even if (or because of?) it not being comfortable all the way through.

Here
(2024)

More Impressive From A Technical Standpoint Than Anything Story-Related
Thanks to films like Back To The Future, Forest Gump, Cast Away, & The Polar Express, I'm always intrigued by the "next Robert Zemeckis project". In Here, the esteemed director once again shows his technical prowess and innovation--if lacking in the clear storytelling beats his films are usually known for.

For a very basic overview, Here tells the story of a single plot of land--shot from one angle--over a prolonged period of time (dinosaurs to 2020+). Ostensibly it focuses on the lives and family that Richard (Tom Hanks) & Margaret (Robin Wright) cultivate in that space over a lifetime.

There is no doubt that Here is a technical achievement in cinematography from Zemeckis and DP Don Burgess. Making anything compelling for a single fixed camera point seems to violate the very rules of cinema itself, but it works well enough here to hold viewer interest. "Static" does not equal "boring" in any way.

It is also a return--whether via de-aged AI or present countenance--to the great "everyman" roles that Hanks thrives in. He gives a wonderful performance and his chemistry with Wright has remained true over the years.

Yet, there is something missing from Here and I believe it to be, ironically enough, a lack of time in the Hanks/Wright angle. Though it would violate the entire concept to remove the other character arcs altogether, I found myself not at all invested in the Native Americans, Revolutionary patriots, or 1940s inventors who build up the house's "backstory", if you will. I really only cared about Richard & Margaret (and their orbit) from an emotional angle.

So, despite a few heartwarming/thoughtful moments and some fine technical prowess, Here has its ceiling capped by the needs of that technicality. Perhaps if it had been cradle-to-grave leads on screen things would be different, but the broadness in scope also means a narrowing of time in any one area (to the overall film's detriment).

Music by John Williams
(2024)

A Wonderful Tribute To A Master And His Medium
John Williams is to film music what John Madden was to NFL football or John Wooden was to college basketball. A figure who not only masters the craft, but makes it accessible to the widest possible audience. That's what director Laurent Bouzereau really taps into with Music By John Williams.

For a very basic overview, this doc covers all aspects of Williams' doings in the music business, focusing specifically of course on his massive catalog of hit film scores. But his childhood, toils in "studio Hollywood", general musicianship, and personal life are also covered. Figures such as Ron Howard, Steven Spielberg, Seth MacFarlane, J. J. Abrams, Kate Capshaw, Chris Columbus, James Mangold, George Lucas, & Alan Silvestri (to name just a few!) also provide interview snippet insights on how/why Williams has become so iconic.

One could easily have made this a "hit parade" of the famous Williams scores and garnered at least decent praise, and those tunes are certainly present here. From Jaws up through Harry Potter (and everything in between & after!), viewers will hear selections from the scores they love.

But Bouzereau digs deeper here-and to great effect-not just leaning on the hits. Instead, we see the personality of John Williams really come out. It is an absolute joy seeing him plink around on a piano, or immediately reconnect with Spielberg and banter like it was the mid-1970s again! One can clearly see why this man has worked in Hollywood for 6+ decades, as he possesses top-of-the-line musicianship with the personality to make others feel at ease and included.

It was also interesting to hear how Williams' pre-Spielberg collabs set him up for future icon status. Not only was he an accomplished jazz composer, but he worked on countless film/TV scores in Hollywood's "studio era" (1950s/1960s). I had no idea that orchestral scores for film/TV had nearly gone extinct between the Williams/Spielberg pairing almost single-handedly brought them back to the forefront of cinema!

Much like the Madden or Wooden figures I mentioned previously, cinephiles' entire conception of the medium would be different were it not for the brilliance of John Williams. Scores for films will be composed long into the future, but he is truly one-of-a-kind and this doc captures that in every possible way.

Olivia Rodrigo: GUTS World Tour
(2024)

A Fun Concert Experience With One Audio Nitpick
I have very little experience with concert movies like this. But I enjoy the raw emotion that Olivia Rodrigo puts into her music and am impressed by her ability to sell out stadiums worldwide at 21 years old. So, I gave this GUTS World Tour concert doc a watch. I generally enjoyed the experience, with one nitpick that I'm simply not sure is unique to this sort of genre or not.

For a very basic overview, this concert is basically exactly what it says in the title--portraying the Los Angeles stop of Rodrigo's GUTS world tour, where she plays songs from that album and the previous SOUR record.

This is quite the high-octane, well-produced performance, with Rodrigo shifting effortlessly between her super high-energy songs and her piano/vocal ballads. Her ability to write these songs and take them on the road without a drop in quality is truly amazing--at any age, but especially 21!

That being said, I had one quibble with the entire production, that being the sound mix. I'm not sure if this is normal for these kinds of concert docs, but if you enjoy hearing fans screaming the songs instead of Olivia singing them you'll be just fine. Personally, I wish the sound mix would have shifted back and forth a bit more. Instead, it is very much a "put you in the crowd" experience as opposed to hearing Rodrigo's vocals.

Overall, though, I enjoyed this Netflix production even with my singular qualm about the audio choices. An Olivia Rodrigo concert is never dull, that is for sure.

See all reviews