jeffdstockton Reviews

The World's Fastest Indian (2005)

Shallow, thin, cartoonish...

[3/10 · 22 April 2024]

I hoped for an enjoyable, insightful film about an inherently interesting story, but I found myself just wanting this thing to 'get there'. Hopkins is hamstring by poor writing and poor directorial vision. His character is buffing who stumbles and blunders from one little vignette to another. The film seems to be afraid to aspire to inspiring or anything greater than a string of brief jokes told in no particular order.

There's a story here, somewhere, but the writer/ director barely imposed order (other than a simple chronology), and shows no development of any of the characters.

The bulk of the movie is comprised of extremely short bits, like an amateur comic at an open mic night. Bit after bit just shows a self-centered, basically harmless twit.

Viewers could play a drinking games for every time Hopkins says, "What?" It becomes an incredible annoyance! Perhaps the writer thought it would show his simple, naive 'charm', but it doesn't. It emphasizes what is most irritating about his cluelessness.

We're supposed to believe that a few dozen people fing this clown compelling enough to extend their generosity in time and treasure to help a guy who didn't prepare, who didn't take some most care, pay basic attention toward achieving his lifelong goal.

Ultimately, Hopkins' character is a user, mildly sociopathic.

If it wasn't Hopkins in the lead, this movie would never have gotten any notice.

He's not "the most determined man I've ever seen in my life". He's obsessively selfish, and if there's a story about Burt Munro somewhere, I doubt this does it justice.

Cuffs (2015)

Formulaic crap

[2/10 · 7 April 2024]

Absolutely nothing nothing new, here, and nothing interesting. Just typical Brit soap opera crap, in a police setting so they can use shaky hand-held cameras sometimes, and hyper dramatic quick cuts, accompanied by somebody's idea of in-touch modern music.

So sick of this kind of tripe being rolled out from the Brit TV industry. This is straight off the generic shelf, built by committee, pushed by producers. Bleahhh.

OK, IMDB needs more characters, instead accepting a straightforward review.

A 3rd-grade student could make this typical Brit TV garbage. It's London Kills, The Tower, and countless other generic melodramas that use a cop setting to develop the hyperbolic layer. These crap shows have little concern for actual police procedure, and certainly no concern for depicting reality. Everyone would be better off if the idiots who push for this kind of garbage would switch over to full-on fantasy.

The Gentlemen: Tackle Tommy Woo Woo (2024) Season 1, Episode 2

Excellent, with one disappointment

[7/10 · 12 March 2024]

An amazing series, their episode continues and builds the intensity and complications. All aspects of the series are generally amazing.

The lead, a 'good guy', is getting deeper and deeper into a frightening spiral from which it is harder and harder to see a way out.

In this episode, he finds himself - willingly? - VERY deeply, personally involved.

The disappointment, here, is the reason that he becomes fully enmeshed in the spider's web. Seconds from getting away, he somehow, uncharacteristically, accidentally flips a switch on the sound system.

This leads to a fight, which leads to our hero's quick-witted solution to several problems. It's a nice portrayal of his particular skill set which makes him valuable to the people he's in league with, and compelling to viewers. But, his error IS so glaringly inconsistent, it just hits with a thud.

The payoff of the episodes does work, though.

Formula 1: Drive to Survive: Money Talks (2024) Season 6, Episode 1

Danica Patrick...... urgggh

[7/10 · 26 February 2024]

Pretty good... Odd to start with a few minutes of supposed off-season comments and clips. It's a lame attempt to show F1 drivers' lives away from F1. Next time, don't bother.

Narrative focus is okay, if obviously contrived to push melodrama. There's little exposition on F1 at large, while focusing on one team, which disproportionately elevates them. But, hey, that's this series, and as long as expectations are aligned, it's okay.

The addition of Danica Patrick was a bad move to try to connect with US viewership. She's bad at the job, and she's useless here. There's a very large US market that eagerly awaits her departure.

I think DTS has it's episode formula firmly in place, and regular viewers will see what the expect, with no real surprises. The series is much more designed for new viewers, and for people who don't watch F1 regularly through the season. It's certainly not designed for rabid consumers of F1 media (which is surely the worst kind of rumor mongering out there).

The West Wing: The Dogs of War (2003) Season 5, Episode 2

One of the lesser episodes...

[6/10 · 2 February 2024]

I suspect that this is one of the episodes in Sorkin was credited more than he actually contributed. This appears much more melodramatic - more soap-opera trips than well-crafted dialogue - than earlier episodes. Where our breath was often taken, our minds were engaged in surprising ways, this episode 1) rehashes earlier material - is almost entirely dependent on dialogue and storylines from previous seasons - and 2) lacks the verbal and structural sophistication of episodes in which Dorkin had full control.

We've already seen the effects of network pressure, and evidence of the conflict between the brilliance of the Sorkin, Wells and Schlamme creative synergy and Network meddling. Apparently, executives wanted to take more credit for the show's phenomenal success & impact, and likely wanted to appease Republican sensitivities and claims that 'their' network was too liberal.

A viewer doesn't have to be especially astute to see the decline in quality that this episode is now showing is underway, as Sorkin is getting close to the Exit door.

The longer it goes, the harder to watch it becomes. How many times does Harvard get mentioned? The Ryan character is an embarrasing paper thin duplication & compilation of throw-away comments & actions in earlier episodes.

So much of this has the look, feel and sound of minimum wage hacks hired to write-by-committee an episode that the Network assumed viewers wouldn't notice. 'Subtle' and 'nuance' are nowhere close to this episode. Even the music and camera work are heavy-handed. This episode doesn't ask anything of viewers, it doesn't engage viewers the way we were previously accustomed.

Another absurdity is how capable Bartlett continues to show himself to be, yet the contrivance is that stepping aside during the personal crisis is so powerful and patriotic. The administration - it's agenda for the country and, to the extent possible, the world - are at increasing risk every day that passes. Bartlett functions just fine in the residence; he wanders the halls of the West Wing, but, yeah, sure, held incapacitated for the role of President.

Also absurd: the President (Bartlett) and First Lady are brought be helicopter to the crime scene to see Zoey in the back of an ambulance, where what is depicted is obviously unresearched for accuracy. Bad writing. Bad directing, bad producing.

Everything about this story arc belies the artifice of Bartlett stepping away from the Presidency. A President appoints top-tier people (theoretically) to advise and support. Bartlett was never shown to be incapable.

This episode is over-the-top with the religious subtext, too. It's been understood and established that Bartlett is Catholic. But, it's so heavy in this episode, as though producers assumed these sentiments are commonly held by the audience. It's also there as more of the over-done melodrama.

The West Wing: War Crimes (2001) Season 3, Episode 6

Strong episode, of course, with oddly nuanced performance by O'Keefe

[8/10 · 20 January 2024]

As has happened with several of the guest actors on The West Wing, Michael O'Keefe seems to trying to hard to make an impression. Instead of losing himSELF in the role, he sounds and appears to be ACTING the role. Apparently, Sorkin's writing leads some actors to deliver their dialogue with a sing-song cadence ant intonation. This disrupts their scenes, and interrupts the flow of the narrative - not greatly, but unnecessarily. It belies an eagerness to impress and fit in to this great ensemble.

Felicity Huffman was another egregious performer in this way, and we can note that, though her character had significant opportunity for return visits, she didn't reappear. Evan Handler was probate worst. Connie Britton is given disproportionate opportunity to get it right, and though she never does, her 'cutie pie' quirks and mannerisms apparently took longer to grate the nerves of decision-makers.

Maybe somebody has done a research project on the various guest appearances, and the outcomes of their performances... seems like there's something there to dig into.

O'Keefe's appearance seems a bit contrived, built for him rather as an organic piece of the narrative. The appearance of the character isn't necessarily a clinker, but O'Keefe's poor delivery elevates the oddness to an annoyingly noticeable level.

Tim Matheson gives one of his many outstanding performances in this episode, and it's always a pleasure to be reminded of his his tremendous talent in being able to embody a character, to make it his own, so to speak - and to make it realistic while being powerful. His is a role that could have been, like many of the characters in this amazing series, reduced to easy stereotypes and cliches. Matheson is a master - an expert, and amazing talent, here. To deliver with this strength and nuance and subtlety, despite appearing less frequently than other core characters, is - or should be - award-worthy.

The West Wing: The Leadership Breakfast (2001) Season 2, Episode 11

Very good, EXCEPT for guest star

[6/10 · 16 January 2024]

Good complex stories intertwined masterfully by Sorkin, directed with usual greatness, and acted perfectly EXCEPT for Felicity Huffman. Ms Huffman has a relatively limited career on TV, and we see why. She seems stuck in 'stage' mode - acting for theatre audiences. Sorkin probably likes her, inasmuch as she was a lead in Sportnight, which was Sorkin's entreé into TV years earlier. Sportsnight was ahead of its time in several ways - it was remarkable, driven by powerful, breathtaking dialogue.

Sorkin's dialogue here in The West Wing is, of course, stunning and even more refined and subtle. Huffman's acting, however, is, as usual, just Huffman acting. She delivers her lines in a way that shows how much she prepared to deliver them. Everything is thoroughly practiced and delivered with stilted deliberation. She seems to have overlooked that her lines are part of conversations, not monologues. She doesn't have the sense of pace, and certainly lacks an ability to seem as though she is actually listening and this participating in a conversation.

She also seems excited to be 'here' - on The West Wing! It's like an electrical energy flowing beneath her words and smirks. And, it's distracting. She seems like an over-excited cast wannabe. I'm glad this is her only appearance.

Fool Me Once (2024)

Huge plot hole(s) makes this impossible to watch

[3/10 · 7 January 2024]

In the FIRST episode, the one key piece of evidence that could prove the widow's suspicion is simply dismissed by the police. And even the wife, who was assaulted the baby sitter with pepper spray - leaving tangible evidence - even seems to put the shocking evidence on the nanny cam memory card on a back burner. This alonSo, the nanny assaults the widow AND steal the memory card, hides and runs from the widow, but, hey, the police don't take it seriously.

It's incredibly lame, and crucial for Mon I g the story forward. Viewers see the nanny cam video, but police aren't interested, so that line of the story just gets dragged out, deeply frustratingly.

This is not the only glitch, but it's so important. This series is not worth your time. It is being hyped hard by Netflix, but I expect ratings to decline as more viewers try to watch it.

Jack Ryan (2018–2023)

Another over-hyled action series

[4/10 · 4 January 2024]

Typical problem, here, despite being based on Tom Clancy book. Clancy has the reputation for doing deep research and being surprisingly accurate. Even in episode 1 of season 1, we see errors just line up.... in addition to completely predictable, off-the-shelf Hollywood writing. Nothing original, nothing particularly interesting, standard characters (including Ryan). Characters are paper thin, action is standard fare, and US soldiers are portrayed making profoundly stupid mistakes - Middle East desert compound security is made to look like kids playing Army. A vehicle comes toward the compound unexpectedly, driving fast: two guards quip sarcastically; no weapons pointing at the truck. It stops. Guards yell order to - ready?- 'Close the gate!' So,the gate to this US compound was just standing open?!!? Driver gets out, gets shot. Nobody yells about possibility of bomb. Of course, the truck blows up. Other trucks suddenly appear. The obligatory chaotic gunfight erupts, with US apparently inadequatly armed, despite being in what they know is hostile territory. Then, gee, golly - some bad guys somehow start shooting - including a bazooka - from INSIDE the compound. One bad guy had been laid out in the morgue! So, no US personnel confirmed that the bodies brough in for pay by an in-country native, are, in fact, dead. They just trusted the guy who is, you know, not exactly a friend of the US.

The fight just looks like it was written by people who had no sense of battle, no idea what the compound would entail, no sense of actual security and procedure.

Sorry, but Krasinski, though probably doing exactly what the producers and director want, is just not believable as the hero with superior physical and intellectual skills & capacities. And, his boss could not be more of a stereotyped egotistic arrogant blowhard buffoon boss.... Again, this is not from Tom Clancy (writing, directing, etc); it's just more B-grade Hollywood. Too bad.

The Night Agent (2023– )

Why can't they get it right?!

[2/10 · 4 January 2024]

Yet another example of police/ FBI/ CIA/ White House etc procedural in which no one associated with show bothered to do any research. The lead actor tries, but everything about this is just grade-school level tripe. I cannot understand the high ratings and praise in the reviews.

There are just too many procedurals AND documentaries to put this kind of careless, lazy garbage out there, especially additional seasons. But, hey, the market of viewers seems to want this crap, and Netflix is facilitating a lot contracts for junior writers and directors, apparently, with this series.

Good for them, but if you've got a brain that you're not willing to turn off, don't waste your time with this.

Money Heist (2017–2021)

Incredibly over-rated

[2/10 · 4 January 2024]

First watching this in early January 2024, and quickly wondering where all the great ratings are coming from. I was hoping it would be as advertised, but it is shockingly slow, relative to the hype about 'exciting'. I also hoped for a good procedural, but there is NOTHING authentic here - nothing smart, nothing original.

The characters - every one of 'em, 'good guys' or 'bad guys' - are stupid. The initial heist was, supposedly, planned for a long time by some 'professor' smart guy criminal. But, nothing about its execution suggests anything smart, much less brilliant or unique.

The response by the police to a robbery at the Royal Mint of Spain is - ready? - a couple guys in a subcompact. AND, they're enough to scare oof the horde of bad guys who are loaded up with automatic weapons. WTF?!? And, somehow, this idiot bank robbing crew gets stuck in the bank for over 8 hours!! And, apparently it's not enough to trigger much of a response from any level of police authority for quite some time. This is not just incredible, it's stupid. And it's insulting to viewers.

Also, I don't know who the writers, producers or director may have wanted viewers to care about, but no character here is engaging, none are intersting, much less sympathetic. Who cares?!?

This is just another soap opera dressed up as wannabe action movie/ series. Huge disappointment. And, a waste of time.

The Queen's Gambit (2020)

Amazingly NOT compelling

[4/10 · 1 January 2024]

I like much of the work of the writer/ director. Because of that, and based on SO MANY strong articles, reviews & awards, I expected to more than just like this. But, I don't like it. Where Frank is known for dialogue, there is NOTHING interesting about the dialogue. And, the story never really comes to a point; it's just small events that just happen as the lead character, Beth, moves through her life. And, I mean 'moves through her life': she doesn't really make choices with an objective. She has no compass; the story has no compass. She is just barely more than a caricature. None of the characters catch the attention, so none holds the attention. Ultimately, the series is a boring slog.

This series is surprisingly flat. The writing offers little opportunity for the actors to do much, so I don't understand the praise for the acting.

It is also another example of Netflix developing a 7-episode series that could have been a movie or, at most, a 3-episode series.

I'm not sure why this was such a hit, but I suspect that newer reviews will be less glowing, less enamored.

Harlan Coben's Shelter (2023)

Bad, bad, bad, even for YA

[2/10 · 27 December 2023]

The story maybe could've been interesting, but the acting and writing make this such a disappointment for Coban material, and a long slog to watch. Adrian Greensmith is profoundly bad, extremely annoying, epitomizes the worst of YA 'acting'. The actress who plays Rachel (Sage Linder) actually has some skill, and offers hope that a small percentage of these dreadful wannabe actors might move on to more challenging adult roles.

There's too much going on here; maybe that's the YA formula, I don't know. But, the percentage of material that is relevant is in the minority of what you have to sit through. We're supposed to think there's urgency, but these kids get distracted and diverge from the work that otherwise so urgently must be done.

Finally: I just cannot stand Adrian Greensmith. Given the general absence of acting talent, here (with one likely exception of Sage Linder), it says a lot this this guy is so standout bad. Most people would have to TRY to be this bad.

Also, the writers & directors are not your friends. They really didn't try, here. This is just 'check the box' throwaway trash, fulfilling contracts, I suppose. Ugh....

Saltburn (2023)

Dreadful, pretentious waste of time, self-indulgent

[1/10 · 25 December 2023]

Baffled by the reviews here! This is a self-indulgent, unoriginal, poke in the eye, middle finger to the viewers piece of shallow trash.

There are no interesting characters, no interesting events, no moments of insight, nothing whatsoever to make it worth one's time to watch this drivel.

It is derivative of several other more original and thoughtful films & stories. There is almost no story here, actually. It is just little scenes of shallowness, one after the other. There are no surprises. The reveal at the end is completely devoid of surprise. The writer director seems to go for pruerient, lame attempts to shock, but nothing - NOTHING - is unexpected, nothing is surprising.

And, there are no sympathetic characters at all. That can be OK on a well made - well written & well directed - film. But, this is not that film.

This is shallow, ugly in spirit (because the writer/ director is deliberate in her meanness, callowness, shallowness and crude manipulation of viewers' generosity in given her (the director) their time and a level of confidence that they will be rewarded for watching.

This is an absolute paper-thin crap movie, pretending to a higher-brow film. It's garbage. It will be deservedly tossed on the trash heap over time - not too long in it's run.

Big Vape: The Rise and Fall of Juul (2023)

Very even-handed look at milieu that swept up Juul

[9/10 · 23 December 2023]

I was pleasantly surprised that that this is NOT another true story of the vile greed ethic of Stanford & Silicon Valley. What the documentary shows is a well-paced and fair, straightforward depiction of what became competing interests around Juul. The product did - does - what the founders wanted it to do: provide an alternative to get people away the known toxic issues of burning tobacco and inhaling the smoke.

It was a startup, and they chose (handed off responsibility for) a marketing campaign that was 'successful' for the marketing guys, but off-message for the company. But, because of the success of Juul in the new industry of vaping (non-conbustion delivery of nicotine), the company had a target on its back.

The founders needed help for managing a company of this size and trajectory. Again, a good Board would have - should have - helped in this, but they were more focused on quick return for their investment.

This is a great story, told well, about political opportunists (San Fran AG, several States'AGs, FDA, Congress) and shallow mainstream media that prefers the hit pieces instead of facts and analyses is the truth that was only a little more complicated to tell. Juul gets painted with blame for illegal activity & consequences of other parties, but media & politics didn't want to give up the momentum of the false narrative that kept people's attention.

This is well done, which is not a surprise. This is not a story of bad guys greedily doing nefarious things to join the three comma club. They actually succeeded in helping millions of adults quit cigarettes.

Dopesick (2021)

Best of the rest, but...

[6/10 · 4 December 2023]

While other dramatizations of the opiod crisis and evils of the Dackler family & Purdue Pharma, this one still suffers the typical sophomoric writing, directing and, in many cases, the acting. Michael Keaton stands out, as usual, as far superior to the material. Peter Sarsgaard is similarly a step or two above.

Unfortunately, this series, as so many do, feels like a rushed-to-order production, written by 2nd-tier writers pulling standard drivel off the shelves. Again, this one is slightly better than other attempts to capitalize - Hollywood-ize - the opiod crisis, but it is what it is: a melodrama. The best way to get this information - this story - is through documentaries (HBO, Frontline).

It is painful & annoying to see the broad scale of poor acting & directing, and watch actors sleepwalk through their lines. There is a plethora of bad online acting tutorials of how to display emotions, authority, seriousness, good ol' boy humor; how to talk with a 'country accent', etc etc. With rare and welcome exception, there is no variance in pacing, no real conversations; lots of raised eyebrows and smirking arrogance.

This show is condescending to the people who were victimized. The writers & producers obviously never bothered to visit the area, or even watch the documentaries that did take them seriously and respectfully.

There's a difference between simplifying complex truths and presenting a simplistic version for the purpose of entertainment and short-term gain through viewer ratings to generate ad revenue.

Best thing about this is that it could be worse.

The Beanie Bubble (2023)

Obvious contract fulfillment; poor effort

[5/10 · 1 December 2023]

Another production clearly seeking to capitalize on nostalgia for a particular time, appealing to a large & wealthy demographic. None of this is inherently a problem or complaint.

The execution belies a tight production schedule to just get this movie out there. Acting, writing and directing are all just slightly better than 'going through the motions' or checking the box. The young sales person/ assistant/ college intern is the most egregious: like a cartoon, no sense of pacing, no sense that characters listen to each other. The acting is painfully obvious as ACTING - saying the lines, showing the assigned emotion, etc.

It's likely that some - not all - of the cast could be better, but no one asked them to be, here.

Maybe the story could be interesting enough.... It's hard to say, from watching this. Unfortunately, it seems that all the competition among streaming providers is lowering the bar for quality, and driving production more for for quantity. So, viewer costs go up because production costs for content are the same for poor quality as it is for better quality.

Brawn: The Impossible Formula 1 Story (2023)

Great work, in every element of the documentary

[10/10 · 22 November 2023]

Keanu Reeves does an outstanding job putting this together - research, obtaining video, interviewing so many of the people involved - showing that he has as GENUINE interest in F1 and this specific story about Brawn GP.

There's a perfect blending of technical information and the people involved - the human element. The pace, the combination of present-day and video of the time to present the story, is excellent! The makers recognized that there was no need to add or contrive drama.

Brawn is accessible and enjoyable, irrespective of prior exposure to F1, but, for the F1 fan, it's a real joy. It's great to see an F1 documentary that is this respectful of the people - and the viewer - and has the integrity to not embellish.

Wind River (2017)

Stunningly perfect: quiet, tense, authentic

[10/10 · 13 November 2023]

Found this recently (late 2023), and I'm surprised this didn't have wider exposure. It's a VERY rare example of every element of a film being perfect throughout. There is no sense of acting, dialogue or directing intruding into the experience of being with these characters in this beautiful place, in this bleak circumstance. This a masterpiece from Taylor Sheridan. It's hard to imagine how every actor performs flawlessly, irrespective of his or her role. The visual compositions perfectly fit the narrative - nothing jarring or contrived, or out of step with the story - nothing there just to be noticed.

Wind River keeps giving with every viewing. The acting and writing continue to deliver details and nuance that impress more deeply every time.

This film is a treasure. Taylor Sheridan is a treasure who is not yet fully appreciated, and,we hope, not yet having reached his peak. We look forward to what he continues to offer.

The Newsroom (2012–2014)

From 1st impression to 2nd try years later... no

[2/10 · 2 October 2023]

I tried to watch this series went it premiered, and quickly found that it suffered the same mortal flaw as Studio 60: excess Sorkin + desperate acting.

Sorkin is certainly better than most writers - no argument there - and he's a great thinker and brave creator. He's intelligent, and doesn't condescend to viewers. However, he can, as is a risk that comes with writing, spend too much time in his own head. So, the dialogue becomes oppressive and the style repetitive from character to character, and series to series.

It was this series which laid bare the liabilities of studio execs deciding to try to replicate the success of (early years) The West Wing. Sorkin was able to get too much control, rather than collaborating with directors who knew how to control the tiger by pulling on its tail. It seems evident that directors were either afraid of or prohibited from reining in Sorkin, or they were just thinking how great it will look on their résumés to show that they worked with him.

With little exception, the cast is built on a foundation of wannabes. Most of the acting is reminiscent of when West Wing tried the failed experiment of bringing in Bruno's team of political consultants to 'help' the Bartlett campaign run for a 2nd term. Fortunately for TWW, that weird effort was quickly abandoned. But that handful of actors were uniformly bad, Evan Handler particularly so: painfully obvious in how they were TRYING to act Sorkin-style. Just as those actors did back then, most of the cast here wear their desperation - "Gee! This is my big chance!" - like rhinestone covered jumpsuits. "See me! See me!" It's pervasive and nauseating, and ultimately frustrating and deeply disappointing.

Now, many years later, taking another look - even with the grace & understanding that times have changed a bit - Newsroom is as impossible to stomach now as it was originally.

I'm happy that Jeff Daniels survived the series. I suspect industry professionals recognized the depth & breadth of his skills at navigating this project. No one else - NO ONE - is memorable, for good reasons. I don't think any particular actor was especially bad; I think all the rest (other than Daniels) were uniformly over-wrought in their attempts. The cast, as a whole (with rare exception), was memorable only for being unlikeable, boorish, sophomoric and uninteresting.

That could have been a function of Sorkin seeing characters as undiferentiated commodities: plug-n-play platforms for delivering his dialogue.

The ratings here seem to be mostly 1st impressions, and not considered over several episodes, much less in context of how much better TV was becoming. Ironically, it was pushed to get by, in sizable part, because of what Sorkin and the directors did with The West Wing. The mistake, made by clueless network execs of course, was to turn Sorkin loose.

Free Lunch Society: Komm Komm Grundeinkommen (2017)

Good effort, needs to be MUCH better

[7/10 · 19 August 2023]

This is a well-intended (I infer) effort, that suffers from a disorganized approach. Viewers endure a confused mix of talking heads, public domain cartoons & video snippets, political & news snippets, and some narrated exposition. The juxtaposition of OLD film & video & cartoons with contemporary talking heads and news is fluffy and distracting. It suggests that the filmmakers were a bit confused and uncertain about what they were hoping to do here. What it does NOT do, is lay out the concepts clearly, then proceed through a coherent linear narrative, using experts who can talk about the history of the basic idea, details and nuances of how it's been proposed and implemented in several instances, and specifics of the how, why and who of various failures, successes, and obstacles.

Had the filmmakers taken a position more strongly, rather than taking a passive backseat passenger position, they could have presented with clarity. They've chosen to defer to too many talking heads without tying it all together. There is essentially no narrative flow; we simply see snippets of mostly contemporaneous news & events, without enough context or discussion of outcome or impact.

There are many small vignettes from around the developed and developing world, but no real stories. The filmmakers seem to assume that the best way to tell the overall story of the idea of a basic income ist to let several individuals talk from their own perspectives. Sure, its a bit interesting, but without an over-arching narrative (and narrator), viewers are left with piqued curiosity and probably moments of near outrage and a few "Aha!" Instances. But, one does not come away satisfied that much was learned of lasting substance.

Also: the use of the most dreadful music is baffling. I suspect there's some kind of passive-aggressive ironical intent, but it's only annoying and inherently unpleasant. Why do that?

Sports Night: Dana Get Your Gun (2000) Season 2, Episode 13

Dreadful portrayal of professional woman

[6/10 · 7 August 2023]

While William Macy delivers a classy, calm elevated performance, Felicity Huffman - her character - is, once again (consistently), embarrassing herself as a giddy little elementary school girl. An irony here is that these actors are married to each other. That may account for some of what appears as chemistry between the characters.

Of course, it's an obvious plot contrivance by writer Aaron Sorkin that we've seen coming from several miles back down the road. It's also a matter of Sorkin's portrayal of women, in general, and, given that SportsNight is earlier in Sorkin's ouvre, and the show is almost 25 years old, the misogyny is especially obvious.

Another matter is Huffman's propensity for over-acting, over-emoting. Where Macy influences - impacts - a scene with quiet calm, with understated subtlety, Ms Huffman seems driven to the opposite extreme.

But, as with my other reviews of SportsNight, the show still remains a tipping point of sitcom evolution. Sorkin's writing is better than what else was out there, on order of magnitude. What comes in the subsequent decades can be tracked, in large part, to this experiment that the Network pulled too soon. But, there was probably never going to be another ending. Boundaries needed to be broken, and SportsNight was a big part of the beginning.

Sports Night: The Giants Win the Pennant, the Giants Win the Pennant (2000) Season 2, Episode 10

Dreadful contrivance overwhelms

[6/10 · 6 August 2023]

Yes, I agree that SportsNight is amazing for its sparling electric dialogue and stories, often generating surprising emotional impact.

But, upon recent re-viewing on DVD, flaws appear. Some are due to the context of almost 25 years passing since its brief network run. That caveat applies to Sorkin's biases, as well. His perspective is clearly and painfully one of privilege, economic mainly, gender and race, too. Most of his portrayal of women wouldn't get in the air these days, and the overwhelming rich white foundation of the show, of which Sorkin seems unconscious, would certainly reduce the likelihood SportsNight reaching viewers today. But, that's historical context; Sorkin's writing evolves, somewhat, in more recent projects.

What is especially annoying are his story gimmicks - contrivances - such as the horrible BS of Dana's requirement that Casey date other women for 6 months before she will go out with him. Casey accepts the constraint with some objection, but essentially cowets like a litte boy to his mother. Interesting dynamic, right? And, it's absurd. It's absurd to build several episodes around this trash, but we suffer it's recurrence, again and again and again. And of course, Sorkin portrays Dana as the frightened little 4th-grader girl, rather than as an adult accomplished professional. Casey is shown in only slightly less supercial trash. And, Krause's amateurish 'acting by technique' (e.g. Smirking, smug face and voice, etc) match perfectly.

In general, the 2nd season stories are thinner, with some exception (William Macy's guest role episodes), and we suffer through Sorkin wallowing in the soap opera mire of his own making.

SoortsNight is definitely entertaining, and if you haven't seen it, it is well worth viewing - and re-viewing. It is a remarkable piece of work, a great example of stellar writing by a wordsmith (Sorkin). It's a great show that I've enjoyed from the first time I saw it. It set a high bar, from which we all learned, and which pushed the industry to be better.

Sports Night: Special Powers (1999) Season 2, Episode 1

Great, good and less good

[6/10 · 5 August 2023]

As SportsNight drifts more annoyingly into soap opera, the sophomoric arc of Dana and Casey takes center stage. My review(s) and re-viewing of the show is in context of doing do almost 25 years after it's original broadcast.

One of many aspects of this main story arc is that the actors have no discernable chemistry. Both are so painfully obviously ACTING the scripts they're given, rather than finding ways to dig past the glib Aaron Sorkin dialogue.

Krause never had nor had the skill set to rise above his affected voice and little bit smirking, and Huffman is and will be remembered as a good example of why not to bring stage acting to TV. Both seem firmly attached to acting as technique instead of something deeper, instead of reaching for more. Both seem VERY conscious of managing their own brands, thus unable to lose themselves in the characters.

This is a constraint or risk of Sorkin's dialogue, as can be seen in West Wing and other Sorkin projects. SportsNight is early Sorkin, and most of these actors were relatively early-ish in their careers, especially in TV. So, we see and HEAR the focus on delivering the sparkling electric, often brilliant and startling dialogue.

So, 25 years later, including theore refined execution of West Wing, the contrivances is SportsNight are obvious.

No one has ever handled Sorkin scripts better than Richard Schiff (Toby Ziegler). And, there are several other actors who do a fine job, too. It's a treat to see this early iteration of Sorkin TV project, for its own sake, as a clinic in the power of writing and creating a symphony like this, and as a stepping stone of Sorkin's journey.

SportsNight is well worth your time. Enjoy it.

BTW: The character that William Macy brings to the show is outstanding - a jolt, a much-needed jolt to the show, both fictional and 'real' SportsNight.

His scene walking the network team through the studio (Sorkin's walking dialogue) is classic Sorkin. I would fast-forward through an old VCR tape for as long as it takes, just to get to this scene. It is breath-taking! Macy is amazing.

Sports Night: How Are Things in Glocca Morra? (1999) Season 1, Episode 17

Classic over-wrought Sorkin - excellent but dated

[6/10 · 4 August 2023]

See my other review of the series under the the SportsNight series listing; this review offers more detailed observations.

This episode is a great example of early Aaron Sorkin TV writing. A large percentage of the dialogue is comprised of repetition - by the character of his or her own line, or characters repeating what another character just said. The quick patter which characterizes Sorkin's writing is padded with such repetition, and other fluff transitions such as the Sorkin, "Okay..."

What's particularly dreadful here is the depiction of the Dan's character, robustly - gleefully - portrayed by Felicity Huffman. We're asked to believe that this highly accomplished career professional falls into little girl giddiness and giggles under some kinds of stress. And, that she has the emotional maturity of an eight year old. She is EXTREMELY annoying in this episode. Almost no one on the show seems capable of acknowledging that they are not the center of everyone else's universe, but Dana is especially self centered, and, unfortunately, her assistant, Natalie, is falling into the same dreadful pattern.

Sports Night is not alone on failing to depict characters' lives in certain real-life contexts, such as needing enough sleep in any given 24-hour period, but it's especially stupid here, in, for example, showing characters at work late at night, planning their 'night out' with friends whose jobs are on the other side of the clock. Essentially, these people don't have jobs to do; rather, as the series has developed, they just have marks to hit and poignant, glib, flippant comments to make.

Ultimately, SportsNight is an excellent clinic on how powerfully great writing, based in broad and deep knowledge with no fear of complexity, can elevate... almost anything. We watch SoortsNight knowing that it's almost a quarter century old, and we appreciate how advanced it was in its place and time.

But, we also see that it comes from a very privileged perspective. That may have something to do with its short lifespan, though I suspect it has much more to do with the narrow lack of vision that reside in the executive offices of the network at the time.

It still hits the heart and head with surprise and breath-taking impact. But, over time, it becomes like enjoying a favorite dessert with no constraints. We realize that it's best consumed in smaller, infrequent helpings.