muratmihcioglu Reviews

John Mulaney Presents: Everybody's in LA (2024)

Love the live format! This can give birth to our generation's new thing!

[8/10 · 4 May 2024]

I hope John Mulaney totally saves himself from addiction and goes on with this for many years to come. As someone who's been having several issues with Netflix's recent choice of comedy, this one at the very least signaled freshness in framing humor.

The opening act was great, what with the map, trivia and all... The way it was constructed reminded me of another Netflix show, a special named Red States, Blue States. It always helps to mix fact with not-so-facts to get that mockumentary taste while still establishing the grounds for what we will be experiencing.

Yeah, this show is about LA after all - the unstable nature of the format helps underline the chaotic nature of the city as well. Mulaney being laid back and not too jumpy allows the guests to roam free, which helps each in different ways. That joke by Stavros vs Seinfeld's good boy humor. Etc.

Seeing Will Ferrell in character is always great and maybe that was what elevated my score from a 7 to an 8.

Now, was it really too funny? No, not really. But what matters at this point in streaming is the mood you offer. And they did offer an original mood that brought with enough laughs.

Let's see if other episodes will be even better.

Aladdin (1992)

One of the best movies ever made

[10/10 · 24 April 2024]

I love it. Everything's just perfect - not in terms of that synthetic, overworked, exhausting techno-perfection, but the way a genuine, slightly flawed but totally well-intended, sincere work of art should be.

This was made shortly before computers took over the final outcomes of animation cinema, so it has the delicacy of "hand made" artifacts, which makes it even more precious.

I have no idea why Disney+ is showing this with a disclaimer put before, talking about stereotypes whatnot. I see nothing problematic here. Maybe the abundance of Indian fakirs was somewhat distracting or misleading for a story set in Arabia but who cares.

This movie is about pure love. The kind of love you can find only once in a lifetime. As the couple sings "A Whole New World", you get to experience how that feeling or romance breaks down all your past boundaries and opens you up to a whole new, inner world.

I salute every single person who has worked on this. It's just marvelous. A fairy tale, a story too good to be true, top class entertainment with noble things to say.

Aladdin (2019)

I thought I'd hate it but no, I embrace it as a fine reboot of the classic cartoon

[8/10 · 23 April 2024]

It was like a lifetime ago that I went to the theatre with a friend and watched Aladdin, the amazing cartoon, for the very first time. Come to think of it, more than aquarter of a century back!

Maybe it was targeted at younger people even back then, but I still did fall in love with the idea of romance itself as Aladdin and Jasmin flew on that magic carpet, singing together.

What happened then? Well, I grew up, loved someone, married her, then got divorced, and in time I began to close the doors of my mind to any promotion of true love, as it was what I had experienced and bitterly lost.

So, no, I did not really want to see a live action reboot of that masterpiece. I didn't need it to revisit my in-love self. The real deal was out there, with those great songs and impressive scenes.

Also, I was kinda mad at Disney for its twisted promotion of certain stuff while still targeting kids and family.

Still, though with a delay of 5 years I guess, I did watch Will Smith as the Genie on Disney+, finally.

It's okay. Even more than okay. The variations and additions do not disrespect the source material (meaning, the classical cartoon) nor do they drive the experience further away from the actual source (meaning, the tales on which it was based).

The opening scenes looked somewhat stale and overdecorated but the coreography and the CGI were fine. I did get emotional as I identified with poor Aladdin. Will Smith did notch the act up well via references to the "magical negro" tradition, while respectfully borrowing from the amazing performance of the late Robin Williams. Kristin Scott was amazing as Jasmin. I don't know her at all, so, throughout the experience I kept believing she was an actress of Arabian descent.

The night of the magic carpet ride looked somewhat too dark and less developed than it was in the cartoon. I think they could have made it much much better, and that's the major reason I'm not giving the movie a 9.

It was a cool surprise to notice how the story got tied to the opening scene. I wasn't even expecting there to be a tie there, so, that nice touch elevated the whole deal for me.

I'm still not sure Jafar was played by the best option of actor (Al Pacino would have been wonderful!) but the overall balance between characters did make sense. While we're at it - Bassem Youssef would have been marveolous as Jasmin's father, looking back from today!

Love hurts. Not in movies, though. You get hurt only if all those lines and looks now echo something you've been kicked out of. It's not the fault of filmmakers if we are no longer in magical relationships. Or is it? Depends on how much influence we allow fairy tales to grow on our reality, I guess.

Road House (2024)

Got mixed feelings on this one

[10 April 2024]

First off: Why does a real-life axhole like Conor MacGregor get to receive a paycheck over a movie that is supposed to put axholes in their rightful place?

Everything else aside, I cannot manage to wrap my head around that kinda casting. Does he do the job well, providing some weird plastic value as a wild creature? Hell yes! But I don't like this type of people and I don't think movies should go so overboard with their options when trying to convince us to what the story is supposed to really mean.

That said... Yeah, this was some entertaining reboot of the 80s classic. But had it been someone else and not Jake Gyllenhaal in the titular role, it'd suck big time. More than half the film's appeal and energy is owed to JG's acting skills and persona. He's developed a character from scratch, exchanging the coolness of Patrick Swayze with a moderately fun character who falls not far from Mel Gibson in Lethal Weapon. And it works. Yeah, the emotional trauma does not really blend well with how he can take things so lightly, but there are all types of responses to dark memories, who knows. The character wasn't too unconvincing after all.

What wasn't convincing was the dynamics of the story. Even though they have kept an important deal of the no-holds-barred chaos from the original, this one is less credible when it comes to who does what for which particular reason. They have paid just too much attention to certain, incredibly well-shot scenes, while totally ignoring to give some credibility to the love story.

We got four major detachments from the source material, each of which hold this movie back:

1. Where the F is Wade Garrett?!? This film has NO Sam Elliott! He was the surpise, the soul and the ace in the hole for the original! Why have they paid money to a professional oaf like Conor and didn't even care to put into the script someone who could be today's mid-aged Sam Elliott? Where's the friendship between two tough fighters who are there for one another?

2. Yeah, the original Road House was violent AF, too. But this one pushes the boundaries to some nasty grounds. Generally speaking, I don't like to see this kind and level of violence on film. Auteur cinema like Kill Bill can absorb certain graphic details, but the Fast and Furious kinda excess with action scenes do not make up for the underlying loss. Especially with this reboot, it does not.

3. Where are the townspeople? Where is the town itself? Look, the source material may have been absurd in many aspects but it actually DID fall well into the Western patterns of "stranger saving the day", like in how Sergio Leone had adapted Kurosawa's Seven Samurai. Lame, unconvincing or cliché as it may be, that underlying theme STILL could serve as a backbone. Why have they skipped it so easily?!? Yeah, the girl at the book store was a moderately-developed character who helped point at why they might have tried the "shortcut" to placing the hero into the story, kinda like breaking the fourth wall, but it comes just too short when the interaction with "the spirit of the town" is almost inexistent... There are too few secondary characters in this reboot to help strengthen and solidify the dynamics as needed... FFS, they have even replaced the "bad guy" with his son, putting the actual dude in prison, but we don't even get to see the man!

4- Swayze's Dalton was a "cooler", a "man of the trade" who developed fame not only over how he had once killed a man, but also over how well he knew to control patrons of such joints. Especially in the earlier scenes, he was to nightlife security what Miyagi was to Karate. There's not even a trace of that in this remake. Gyllenhall is just a fighter, not a professional when it comes to road house security. Hard to figure out why they totally skipped that. It was a major selling point with the original.

The four major deficits listed above account for 90% of what's wrong with this IMO.

But still, it's watchable as an action flick, mostly thanks to its star.

The Fantastic Four (1994)

Great music, proper cast, decent story that represents the spirit of the comic

[7/10 · 30 March 2024]

It's only today that I learned of the existence of this movie. And I have yet to understand why Roger Corman is not credited as the director on IMDb. Given Stan Lee has confirmed that it was shot just because the studio had to start production, unbeknownst to the cast that it was never even intended to be distributed, there are multiple layers to why and how this came out as some ghost movie.

Yet I like it. I think it is much better than some of those recent Marvel movies into which mad money is wasted, as if they are trying to make up for the simple, honest, clear values they so desperately lack.

Yeah, this is like a TV movie after all - and I embrace it like I embrace the Spider-Man movies starring Nicholas Hammond. Specialeffects did not become better in time - they just CHANGED and became more complicated; subconsciously instructing the viewer to NOT fill in the visual blanks in their imagination, making the mind lazier as people focused on CREDIBILITY rather than FUNCTION.

By the end of this movie, we have some of the cheapest animation scenes where the Human Torch races with a ray, flying... Yeah, today they can do it 100x more "credible"... But who cares?! Audiences are already not meant to "believe" thses things really have happened. There's no actual need to strive for "credibility". This cheap solution, in practice, serves the same as million-dollar efforts.

It's good enough, and even better on some level as it resonates with the 60s comics.

I see Corman has tried to incorporate the mood from Tim Burton's Batman movies into this, especially in the scenes involving the Mole Man. Strangely though, the movie gives the impression it was made in the late 70s and not mid 90s.

But it works. I watched it on YT and my level of engagement was not any less than what I nowadays experience with Netflix or Amazon productions where the result is just "too professional".

No, I'm not advocating for this low production quality at all. And it's not just nostalgia. I seriously do believe today's movies, including comic book adaptations, lack some core elements this one naturally has.

Inside (I) (2023)

So boring I couldn't stand it

[29 March 2024]

I wanted to watch this but the alarms going on loud for several minutes was the first red flag to show the people who did this movie had no idea what would bother the audience to the extent of quitting.

After the 7th minute, I tried to skip through the scenes to see what was gonna happen. Even the most promising frames proved to belong with dull and predictable stuff when I hit play again.

This kind of thing can be developed into a notable feature with twists and turns OR it can be executed as a short or a student film of sorts. But banging on the viewer's head with unnecessary loud alarms and the absence of entertainment value has driven this one into an abyss.

Maybe later I will skip through the remaining minutes to check if in the end something notable happens. Or maybe not.

The Descendants (2011)

Really good movie. Unique in some ways, even.

[9/10 · 28 March 2024]

I had never even heard of this till I noticed it on Netflix. 13 years late, I got to enjoy it at a time I need what they call some "feel good movie", though it's too delicate to be classified as such, in my opinion.

This is a soft story. About life and death. About parenting. About being a father. About owning, letting go, not letting go. The way it is told is strangely too vibrant for the plot. The characters are just too real, and the situation too genuine to place this fully under a single genre.

This may have been the best acting from Geeorge Clooney that I saw. Yeah, he's almost always good but the way he "runs funnily" in a few scenes is in and of itself proof how he embraced the real-life dad-in-despair he portrayed.

The older daughter is more than just a hottie. Really good actress. Everyone was made to act well, suggesting people worked wonders on the directorial front.

Having lost both parents, I had to relate to many scenes, like most mid-aged people were supposed to, I guess. The anger, the fury, the feeling of incompleteness... They're all there in the film, be it among lines or looks.

This doesn't even feel like a Hollywood production. They've captured the spirit of what I believe is actual Hawai so well that the outcome has grown out of that industry's routine embellishment.

From one angle, the movie resembles the one starring Antonio Banderas and Liam Neeson, showing how a much better result can be achieved when you decide to leave mathematical scripting and trickery behind to reach the true feelings. (Nah, that other movie was really dull and emotionless compared to this!) And also that humor helps!

Come to think of it... May I have seen it more than a dacede ago, only to forget or not get the gist of, because my parents my alive back then?

The way we perceive movies may depend on who we are at the time of seeing them.

M3GAN (2022)

Well done, Blumhouse! Quite impressive!

[8/10 · 26 March 2024]

That was much better than I expected. Blumhouse deals the cards when it comes to what ideas to mix and shake when creating a whole-new generation of horror movies, and this one hits the bull's eye, just like Happy Death Day had.

Needless to say, this is basically RoboCop meets The Exorcist with some touches of Chucky and The Terminator.

Yeah... But no, there's a really important and fresh story underneath: How has the digital age been affecting parenthood? Do people understand why screen times need to be put in place? What kind of emotional barriers and supports do kids face today?

The lead actress was impressive. She looks strikingly like Deb from Dexter, though she may be a little bit less or more attractive. Ronnie Chieng worked marvels as the toy company executive and I'd like to invite everyone reading this comment to go watch his spectacular Netflix standup shows! The child actresses did fine as well.

What I didn't enjoy in the story was for the dog to be wasted the way it did. What I particularly liked was for the social services lady to be allowed to lived, against the tradition of butchering up such characters needlessly in such movies.

The ending could have had a bit less action and more mental sparkles, but I understand why they went that way. M3gan telling her soon-to-be victim her evil plan involving "caretaking" sounded like it was actually an alternative ending they though of, and made use of it just like that.

Suspension of disbelief is definitely needed for such stories to be told in an entertaining way. Therefore, we are expected not to ask why on earth anyone would design a TOY with a titanium skeleton potent enough to withstand sci-fi style opponents. Needless to say, such a toy could never be sold in the real world where even the choking hazard from a piece of cloth is put under scrutiny.

I dunno if I'd watch M3gan again, but sure, I'm all on board for a sequel, even though I feel like they have spent whatever could be extracted from the main idea already.

Piranha 3D (2010)

Great French director gets corrupted by the Weinstein Mafia as exploiters of sex and gore fabricate a story where exploitation is punished or something

[3/10 · 23 March 2024]

Alexandre Aja is the director of Haut Tension, one of the greatest horror thrillers ever. I keep respecting him for that movie. His Hollywood works, in my not-so-humble opinion, fell short of the targets he could be led to. Yet, some kind of visual freshness is apparent in them.

This movie is a mess. A fun mess maybe, but not one I'd respect. For starters, I do get the need to show asses and tits as this is supposed to be a gore where carnal inclinations get punished. But the way the movie presents itself is much closer to that pornographer's works than anything a critique of him should look like. Yeah, Samuel L. Jackson getting suddenly eaten by a shark on steroids did work on that blue ocean something movie once, but each movie needs to leave its own footprint when navigating a particular genre.

What annoyed me the most was how fake tits galored in several scenes. Couldn't they at least have found natural women for those sexploitation bits? The carnage is undecided between let-it-rip kinda fun and scaring the audience. Also: I wonder whose idea it was to show a sinking penis get grabbed and eaten by the piranha. That was total tastelessness, pun intended.

Maybe I could be kinda sympathetic to all this mess but the Weinstein brand being behind this makes the whole deal even more fishy. I can't even imagine how many young women must have had to audition in bed with some mogul just to be listed as an extra in this.

Aja having to work on such projects is like a talented actress being sold to a brothel. Sad.

Totally Killer (2023)

Too formulaic to have any artistic value or to remind us of Back To The Future in a meaningful way

[6/10 · 19 March 2024]

Blumhose has been doing fine with these made-to-order movies but I suspect they may be approaching the end of the road. Yes, it's true that great American movies from earlier decades did introduce to the world of cinema some kind of mathematical joy with the screenplays. Yes, Back To The Future is among the greatest of such franchises ever. But no, not even that one relied so heavily of tying hundreds os knots while leaving the essence totally empty and superficial.

To put it more simply: You can never make a cool movie if you diminish truly cool movies to their shells.

I did watch this one till the end, but with a rapidly declining level of interest. I guess it was mostly my affection with the 80s that kept me warm even when the jigsaw puzzle nature of the script got really boring and predictable. There was quite a long footage from RoboCop, after all. Throw in cool stuff from the 80s into whatever you are doing nowadays, and you'll upgrade it a notch.

Having seen all three Back To The Future movies on some Italian TV lately, I gotta say I admire the passion and the desire to pay homage to it. Blending teen slasher genre with time travel is, meh, at best plausible to some degree. But the real problem is coming up with a weak result while relying heavily on what you could have learned from in the first place.

They had replaced Eric Stoltz with Michael J. Fox even after having shot all the Marty McFly scenes in the first movie. Why? Because they thought the actor did not match with the spirit they aimed for with the movie. It was never just a mechanical story about some teen who'd have to avoid doing his mother's young self. That was the shell. What we enjoyed was the authentic relationship between Doc and Marty. That weird bond which later gave birth to Rick and Morty. There were too many layers to BTTF franchise.

When you try to imitate its mathematics by avoiding to provide enough screen time to even the main character, a girl who definitely NEEDS whatever Marty had found in Doc, you end up with a dry movie which will never be remembered by anybody.

Now, was this a BAD movie? Nope. As I said, I did finish it after all. Even though I stopped caring about the whodunnit factor and the emotional aspects midway, I kept looking at the screen in a semi-interested fashion. Some preferences looked quite puzzling to me, though: Like, Kieran Whatshername being cast as some she-Marty... I mean, come on... Okay, she can act as has a weirdly nice face, but... More often than twice, I found myself asking why they put a girl who looks like a mid-aged horse thief as the lead. The other one who played her mother was a hottie, maybe even too hot to have he title role, okay, but the casting didn't really make sense overall.

Why'd they need so many characters to make this story work? How do they expect the audience to get to know the lead character well enough to actually CARE about to plot, when they have dozens of other characters ineracting with each other, stealing valuable screen time from the crux of the matter?

I don't get it. I just don't. Those folks at Blumhouse seem to know how to make really cool movies and there are a few proofs to that fact. But they also do unnecessarily inflated stuff like this and I just can't wrap my head around it.

Cocaine Bear (2023)

Starts off really well. But ends in an undecided fashion.

[7/10 · 19 March 2024]

I had no idea Elizabeth Banks was into directing I know for a fact that for productions of this caliber it is quite impossible what exact quality we can attribute to the director herself, as the DP and others may be holding the reins when it comes to crucial stuff.

That said, the movie overall gave me the feeling that Banks had preferred to take the angle of a "mother" as her wheel park when balancing the various characters whose paths cross with the cocaine bear in one way or the other. Yeah, it's that mother's story arc that is supposed to matter the most, also as the ending suggests.

I liked how the supporting characters were portrayed by the actors playing them. We had some sort of Pulp Fiction Samuel L. Jackson, a man who would eventually become better than what his drug dealing career dictates. We also had that cop-to-be-wasted, a man of duty who would die on the hill he believed the most, almost literally.

The CGI was great. I'll say that again: The CGI was great. And I'm saying that to emphasize the fact that "great" doesn't necessarily mean "overwhelming" or "abundant". It was used where needed, to the extent that it was needed.

Beforehand, I'd thoght they'd have some shot from the bear's POV, enabling us to make a contrast between how it saw the world before and after being exposed to cocaine. Interestingly and maybe sadly, we never get to experience the animal's own, instinctive angle. Though the film never falls so low to match it with Sharknado's sharks, the story is kinda less convincing than Jaws as the real-life story that inspired it proves the animal could not live long with that toxic dust in its system.

I did enjoy Cocaine Bear and never even thought of skipping through scenes till the final half hour. The ending was the most uncalled-for segment in the whole film. No, it wasn't bad - it just did not make perfect sense of the multiple storylines.

With such movies where comedy is employed along with horror and even gore, there's always this problem of "meaning". What is it that we are supposed to value here? Is human life expendable, hence the death scenes should be laughed at? Or, is all life, including that of the bear, worth of respect, hence we should identify with every single character and watch the scenes at the edge of our seats as we deeply feel for them?

This one was a mixed bag in that sense. There wasn't much to suggest heavenly justice was there to determine who'd live and who'd die how. Except for the Pulp Fiction Samuel L. Jackson storyline, that is.

I appreciaed the fact that they'd taken tha path of not updating the story and sticking with mid-80s when using, embellishing and even abusing the idea. At times it felt like a forgotten movie from the 80s, which is intended to serve as a compliment.

My gut feeling says that among the scenes they shot and the probable ways to tie them up together lies an even better version of this, one that could push a hard 8, but with this final cut the best I can do is a 7.

Little House on the Prairie: Fight Team Fight! (1980) Season 7, Episode 4

Interesting timing

[18 February 2024]

I wonder if the story for this episode was written as some sort of rebuttal to the fury of sports movies that stole the scene in the late 1970s. Rocky, the masterpiece, was a smash hit. The Champion and Raging Bull further used the dynamics of boxing to lay the groundwork for the dramatical structures needed in cinema.

I don't recall if there were particular movies focusing on football in that same fashion. Still, the moral of this story seems to negate the overblown beneficiality that's in the DNA of those films by Avildsen, Zeffirelli and Scorcese.

Being a tough guy may come with coming of age story. But the cost may be unnecessarily high.

Interesting and valuable take overall.

And... The wife of this obsessed coach is smoking hot! I failed to find on here who she is and what other work she has done. I'd love to see more of her.

Little House on the Prairie: A New Beginning (1980) Season 7, Episode 3

Solid episode

[18 February 2024]

Good story told in a simple yet effective fashion with side stories feeding the main plot. A good example to how LHOTP has served as a "soft western". The spoiled brat-turned-criminal is thankfully left without background psychological excuses to make us pity him. We may, of course. But it helps the spirit of a soft western to not overanalyze such stuff.

Good story told in a simple yet effective fashion with side stories feeding the main plot. A good example to how LHOTP has served as a "soft western". The spoiled brat-turned-criminal is thankfully left without background psychological excuses to make us pity him. We may, of course. But it helps the spirit of a soft western to not overanalyze such stuff.

Duplex (2003)

Underdeveloped script, shaky tone and some bores... But it still has its moments thanks to Ben Stiller and Drew Berrymore

[6/10 · 13 February 2024]

When I saw this on Netflix, I said "What? A movie starring Ben Stiller, which I don't recall?" Then as I began to watch it, I thought "Hmm, maybe I had seen it but forgot". 2003-2014 was for me a period through which I digested hundreds of such movies with then gf/wife, and I had a hard time computing how on earth this one could leave no trace.

Well, after seeing it today on Netflix, I do know how: This is not a remarkable movie by any stretch. That is, despite the comedic duo working like a charm. How come?

1) It's never a good idea to antagonize elderly women. Everyone has mothers. We love them. Yeah, I get the dark comedy aspect and all, but that same story structure could have worked with some other type of antagonist. An old Irish woman? Why? The humor to that is very limited. That crucial point has also dramatically narrowed down the choice for a striking actress for the part, I guess. Yeah, she was good in the role, but lacked in edgy qualities.

2) It's quite unclear how the couple decide to murder her. Okay, we can employ some suspension of disbelief, but the overall tone of the movie was not calibrated to what made Throw Mamma From The Train or Home Alone. And, NO, the tenant's behavior was not murder-triggeringly evil.

3) The best scenes were how fast the plan with the gun went awry and how the woman doctor checked Stiller's nuts in the hospital right after. I did kinda laugh out loud in those moments. I just wish the whole outlook of the movie could have been so fresh and unexpectedly funny.

4) There's a punchline at the end. Thankfully. Because otherwise, this would have sucked big time. But does the gotcha save the movie? Not really. Also because, the prelude to that gotcha didn't make any sense at all. Why make the couple believe something which, at that point, will not make a difference? No spoilers. Watch it if you have the time.

Overall: Yeah, I'm not lamenting. This was one acceptable dark-ish humor from New York. Drew Berrymore was sweet. Ben Stiller was talented and to the point as usual. But will I ever need to watch it? Guess not. Come to think of it, I must have seen it about two decades ago, at a time through which I digested hundreds of such movies with then gf/wife, but it must have vanished from memory.

This is no There Is Something About Mary or Dodgeball or anything like that. It's about the old tenent in a duplex after all.

The Rat Catcher (2023)

I watched if for Richard Ayoade's sake...

[2 February 2024]

...and yeah, I'm glad I did. At 1.25x the speed, the experience was worth the 17 minutes. Happy customer here.

Sorry that I no longer buy Wes Anderson's seemingly-genuine tricks. Life Aquatic was great but anything other than that, I could live without.

As for this one: Yep, there's artistic value in his approach. But so what? Any film-tv student can do this much. Problem is, you need a pumped-up name in order have your simple solutions be valued. It takes Wes Anderson to propose such experimental shorts to whoever is gonna be in on them. And yeah, the result is satisfactory.

The cast works and I believe Roald Dahl would be happy with the outcome had he been around to see how miserably certain other adaptations do.

The Polka King (2017)

One of my favorite films EVER!

[10/10 · 2 February 2024]

Check my other reviews and you can see how inconsistent with my taste in cinema the title to this comment sounds like. But I don't care. I simply love THE POLKA KING! Here's why:

There's something in this movie that made me watch it multiple times within five years. It grew on me. The character, the music, the attitude, the performances... They all work like a clock. I enjoy it and I'm not ashamed to. Yet, I get why it has an IMDb score of 6. Because when you break the whole thing down, true, there's not much of groundbreaking innovation, nor wild laughs. This definitely is not on an equal footing with comedy classics like There's Something About Mary or Dumb and Dumber. BUT to be honest I find THE POLKA KING much more sincere than some other, artsy-fartsy attempts like The Royal Tennenbaums.

Why do I love watching this? What attracts me to it?

Probably the same thing that made me watch the source, The Man Who Would Be Polka King, the documentary on Jan Lewan. Also, the same thing that makes me watch Jack Black perform Polka in character on some morning show for the promotion of THE POLKA KING.

The character, Jan Lewan, is so simple and relatable that we get it. Even though his scheme runs like most stories of American Greed have, this guy is different. He's a believer who's made a mistake. A sinner who is far from being proud of what he's done. Yet, he's so connected to life that it doesn't really reflect on his face.

I applaud Jack Black for picking the story of Jan Lewan up for a feature movie. I see the outcome as his most notable contribution to Hollywood so far, even do I do like many other films of his.

If you have seen it, you might be surprised to hear that THE POLKA KING can be among the favorite films of a cinephile. And again, I get it. But this is so uplifting to watch that I subconsciously approach if with a whole different set of criteria.

Someday I'd like to get to meet with Jan Lewan. He's so different from me that I believe I must have a thing or two to learn from him. The source of his optimism and energy may have failed him at one point, at the demise of many others, but still, he's a notable character and Jack Black does a great job portraying him.

Even as I write this, I get confused as to why I am so into THE POLKA KING. Some of the answer may be above, and some may remain unknown.

But who cares! Heck, I'm gonna watch it again!

Jacqueline Novak: Get on Your Knees (2024)

Interesting but too long

[24 January 2024]

After having seen quite a lot of female comics like Isla Schleisinger and Amy Schumer bomb miserably on stage in Netflix specials, I was quite reluctant to click on this. However, I did. Maybe because the subject matter appealed to my lizard brain. Anyways...

Jacqueline Novak's attitude and rhythm sure are much different than that of her peers. This is more like a single person theatre than a standup show. I don't even recall how Netflix packaged it but to me it came as a bearable and even entertaining version of that "Why Don't You Like Me?" art house woman rant from an episode of Friends.

She performs well.

I mean the walking, rope jumping, breathlessly talking on stage. But jeez, this is almost 100 minutes and I stopped at the 83rd.

I'm pretty sure the whole thing would be more impactful and even funnier to listen to if only a professional had edited down a third of the source material.

It would have become rock-hard material which the audience could handle without a risk of choking on it.

Monk: Mr. Monk and the Dog (2009) Season 8, Episode 11

My favorite Monk so far

[8/10 · 27 December 2023]

I have some problems with Monk as a concept. The level of borrowing from Columbo, for example.

However, in this one there's an emphasis on how Monk differs from "the original": Columbo is a social guy who can put his hand inside a toilet stool, the exact opposite of a germophobe, AND has a dog!

"What if Monk gets a dog?" is a cool exercise as proven in the episode. And it helps to keep the crime simple, the criminal soft.

I loved how the dog's acting was handled. As a father and a grandfather of many dogs myself, I could relate to many scenes in this one.

Kudos to those who came up with the idea.

Monk: Mr. Monk Goes to Group Therapy (2009) Season 8, Episode 8

Inspired by "Color of Night"?

[25 December 2023]

A group therapy where the attendeed get murdered one by one. That's Bruce Willis and Jane March to me. Yeah, mediocre TV shows do lean more on revisiting tried tricks instead of being on the side of creativity, which is only part of my problem with Monk.

For me Monk is the ultimate fast food when it comes to spending time in front of a screen. The entertainment value meets the bare mimimum + some nice touches. The show works alright.

What I dislike is kinda like a walk of shame after a one night stand. Episodes end with the feeling of "So that was it? Was this worth my time?"

And the answers differs from one episode to the other in the example of Monk.

Rocky (1976)

Pure Cinema

[10/10 · 24 December 2023]

I watched it again last night, this time on some Italian channel, dubbed. I can't recall how many times this masterpiece blew my mind but I recall very well the first time I had seen it, a decade after its release, on TV... And before yesterday, 9 years ago, I had seen it on DVD with who was my beloved at the time, for whom it was a first.

Why are these even worthy of mention, you might ask. I do think it is important for us to be able to enjoy a film at very different stages of our lives. When you're a kid, you'll look up to Rocky as the young man you wanna be. When you're of middle age, you'll understand better how Burt Young's character felt. And probably when we are much older, we may identify with Mikey who was lamenting about being 76, still chasing a chance, a dream.

John G. Avildsen is the guy who set the standards for popularizing the most precious emotions. You just cannot neglect Karate Kid or Rocky. These are more than films. They are citadels of audiovisual culture.

Watch Rocky, and then just look at a pic from some recent Sylvester Stallone movie. The difference of quality and grace is abyssmal. It just blows your mind to see that, the man who rose to fame with such a gem is today appearing in "products" that are literally nothing compared to Rocky.

I won't say I don't understand it. Nor do I condemn Sly's current path. Maybe it's inevitable. Maybe it's normal that, after Rocky, you can never reach so high.

There's so much to say about this movie. Yet, we don't even need to put our feelings into words. The score does it for us. The climax we reach by the ending, the victory of the guy who on paper actually lost the confrontation, the love and affection he has for the woman he has gained the heart of along the way...

Rocky is not just a movie. It's that sports game you can watch again and again, knowing the result, just out of your desire to relive the emotions leading to it.

There are several movies we can choose as "the best ever". And each have their power points. But to each, you can approach also in a pedantic manner and argue this or tat could have been handled better. Borrowing an analogy of Alan Watts, only to apply it to this masterpiece:

"Have you ever seen a misshaped wave? Or a wrong cloud? There are no such things. They come with nature exactly as they are supposed to."

To me, Rocky is to cinema what a wave or a cloud is to nature. It's perfect. Just perfect, and impossible to imagine in a different way of existing.

What we feel for the protagonist of the film is the exact same as what we feel for the brains and souls behind it. Respect, respect, respect.

Little House on the Prairie: Times Are Changing (Part Two) (1982) Season 9, Episode 2

Yet another child shines as a great actor

[23 December 2023]

The second episodes of this fully renewed season with a faster and different opening bit is where Shannen Doherty moves us from emotion to emotion.

I guess this was what Michael Landon was great at: Finding young talents and mentoring them to perfection for the ultimate taste he wanted us to get from Little House on the Praire.

There are times I get the feeling all this drama borders agitation, but on the other hand, the scenes are long and dense, with notable touches. On the emotional front, LHOTP is way more memorable than almost every contemporary show that tries to capture the imagination of families.

This season is literally LHOTP: The Next Generation. I wonder what would happen if they could continue on into the 20th century, kinda like Roots had done with much fewer episodes.

Monk: Mr. Monk and the Critic (2009) Season 8, Episode 6

Direct Rip-off from a few great episodes of Columbo

[22 December 2023]

That's exactly why Monk never grew on me despite the obvious entertainment qualities. The show literally owes its existence to Columbo. Being inspired is okay, especially when it comes to how Monk presents himself in a clumsy and awkward manner. But when you add such stories and gotchas to the equation, what have we got left to judge this by?

I can't speak for people who have never seen Columbo, but for us devout buffs of that milestone show, Monk has little to offer as a mind game. The clues and the reasoning are so basic that one wonders why these cops even need someone like Monk to solve the crime.

I know, I know... This is not to be taken seriously as it's nothing more than a detective comedy. But we actually HAVE seen great shows like Moonlighting which have managed to be extremely original.

From Natalie's perfume smelling to the bite on the chocolate covered strawberry, every bit of information we are fed places us too much ahead of the investigation. I mean, you need to pay absoultely NO attention to be surprised by such gotchas!

Okay, it's a decent show. But I simply refuse to elevate it to the level of classics like Columbo OR very recent, highly successful examples of the genre like HPI.

Monk: Mr. Monk Is Someone Else (2009) Season 8, Episode 4

I loved how he wanted the 20 cents back when he yielded to the server and gave 20 bucks as tip!

[7/10 · 21 December 2023]

Again, a visually stunning episode, this time featuring Lola's assets!

One-note and with little to nothing to give on the creative side, the shows keeps being watchable thanks to running gags, inside jokes and bold changes in the overall mood.

Calling the guy Frankie DePalma and coupling Monk with his mistress was really nice on the front of homages. However it makes no sense to see Monk can go undercover and act in character on a whim, despite all his pet peeves and germophobia. Sure, the show is already supposed to be taken lightly, but...

I don't know... Monk never grew on me, probably because the frequency of suspension of disbelief it offers is kinda "too fabricated and on the nose".

But well, yes! I loved how he wanted the 20 cent tip back after the server convinced him to pay 20 bucks instead! Now THAT was a tasteful reflection of the character in question! The duel of stares and his hitman persona growing on Monk were also nice touches. So yeah, that was one of my better Monk experiences after all.

Monk: Mr. Monk and the UFO (2009) Season 8, Episode 3

Dissing on so-called "conspiracy theorists"

[21 December 2023]

Monk is one-layered show in my opinion. It's watchable and at times genuinely funny, but I find no depth, credibility whatsoever with the character. Serves as a mixture of Columbo and Murder She Wrote, that's it.

That said, single-layer stories are welcome on TV long as we are entertained. And yes, this episode was entertaining enough, at least on the visual front, with the costumed alien chasers whatnot.

But I find it extremely condescending for the creators of such a show to paint the "community" of UFO chasers the way they have. All are idiots, eh? Really?

I honesly didn't get for what reason Monk refused to believe in the possibility of an actual alien encounter. He didn't have counter-evidence to that. He had nothing, yet he kept his mental distance from these people who were portrayed as tin foil hat crazies.

What people tag as "conspiracy theories" are at times closer to the truth than mainstream acceptances and official declarations. Lack of belief in anything other than "proven facts" contradicts with the mindset of creative writing.

I got the feeling they were smirking at their own audience. A glimpse at the possibility of another, this time an actual alien spaceship could have been nice in the end.

Monk: Mr. Monk's Favorite Show (2009) Season 8, Episode 1

Bojack Horseman Vibes

[20 December 2023]

Back in the 70s Mr. Monk had a favorite TV shooooowww...

And this episode is all about how he discovers the behind-the-scenes story of that show, having to place the reality of the cast before their screen personas in order to solve a greed-driven crime.

I'm kinda reluctant when it comes to watching Monk because the show is "too television" for my taste. Not as revolutionary as Columbo, nor engaging as its unofficial follow-up, The Mentalist... Monk is the male version of Murder She Wrote in my eyes, but I like the light mood it provides.

Hence this episode makes sense - shows us that Monk himself is a character who loves TV sitcoms more than he dives deep into real people.

I wonder if such episodes of several TV shows have inspired the creators of Bojack Horseman for the best homage to "TV shows from our past".