bayou_hannibal

For being arguably the most popular hobby since the invention of the television, there are scant few comprehensive documentaries about video games and their rich, immense history. You could easily identify 20 hours of solid historical content for this medium and still leave another 20 hours on the cutting room floor. That is why it is so disappointing that this series spends so much of its precious time on inane crap that you won't care about watching and clear "woke" diversity stuff. Between old clips of 1980s Nintendo gaming tournaments and a major portion of the episode being devoted to a gay video game that absolutely nobody has heard of, this series wastes way too much time on nonsense.

Rather than tell you what is in the series, let me give you a tiny sampling of what is not in it

Every other Atari 2600 era console besides the Atari 2600 Commodore (C64, Amiga) The Dreamcast Fallout The Playstation God games (e.g. Populous, Sim City) Bethesda's RPGs Early experiments with virtual reality Starcraft Age of Empires Thief, MGS, and the rise of stealth The rise of MMORGs like Everquest

Also, anything after the year 2000, which includes: Grand Theft Auto III and the rise of the open world game, The Nintendo Wii, the entry of Microsoft into the console market, the death and rebirth of PC gaming, the rise of user-made content, the explosion in popularity of E3 and its decline, Halo, the list goes on.

What is in here is still surprisingly fluffy and uninteresting compared to some of the other documentaries out there. If you want, for instance, to see an excellent documentary on the early arcade and Atari 2600 era, I highly recommend World 1-1, a great film produced by a couple of amateurs on a shoestring budget that came from crowdfunding.

I see that this show has gotten tons of great reviews. I wonder how many of the 9s and 10s were written by people who didn't watch all 8 episodes. If I had reviewed this show after the first two episodes, then I would have given it a 9 or a 10. This show is largely a murder mystery, and lots of mysteries start off as 9s and 10s. That is because it isn't that hard to start a great mystery. It is easy for a writer to dump a bunch of strange clues on the viewer to create the mystery. Finishing it is another thing altogether, and this show starts on a massive downhill slide about halfway through the season before it hits bottom in the very unsatisfying last couple of episodes. At the end, it leaves all kinds of plot holes an unfinished story threads, not because it is leaving them for a future season, but because there was never any substance or depth in the story to begin with. The incredible suspense that the story creates in the first few episodes is a cruel hoax. The story eventually turns into a crushingly clichéd conspiracy tale that never explains in any detail who exactly is in on it, why, and what exactly their motivations are. This problem seems to be getting more and more common nowadays – poor storytelling and plot holes, and then the unsatisfied viewer (like myself) being told that story isn't important because "It's about the characters".

I might be willing to buy into the idea that this is a "character study", but the show doesn't succeed in that area either. True Detective spans 17 years, and there is little change or character development that takes place. It also never gives you any background for how they got to be such cold-hearted jerks in the first place. At one point, the two main characters meet, not having seen each other in years. I was really hoping that it would be an opportunity for them to show how much they had grown up, changed, and improved as human beings, but nope. Other than their appearance, they are the same people that they were at the show's start. For all of the insanity that these two guys have experienced, it hardly seems to have affected them much. The only evidence of an arc for one of the characters occurs in the final five minutes of the last episode. The show occasionally sprinkles in some themes like God, timelessness, and life after death, but it does absolutely nothing with them until that final scene. The occasional sprinkling in of these themes feels more like a teaser to make the story look smarter than it is.

Another big problem with the "character" portion of this show is that a big chunk of it involves Woody Harrelson's crappy marriage. His wife is a crabby bitch (and a poorly acted one at that) and he is unfaithful. Every scene between the two of them basically sucks, and there wasn't a single family-related scene that I think added value to the series.

Make no mistake though, Woody Harrelson (who I have thought for a long time is underrated and under-appreciated) and Matthew McConaughey provide a couple of incredible acting performances. Especially McDonaughey, who is virtually unrecognizable here. I have never seen him in a role like this -- I have only seen him play cheery romantic cowboy types. In this series (which alternates between flashbacks and present day), he is made more unhandsome than I thought was possible. Woody Harrelson is also excellent in this series, although his character horribly annoying and unsympathetic. I still think that each of these characters is good in a vacuum, but unfortunately, they don't work as a "buddy cop" pair. The "buddy cop" thing needs contrasts and opposites – see Benson and Stabler (Law and Order: SVU) or Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker. In True Detective, they occasionally get it right, but more often than not, it's a contest between the two of them to see who can be more of a horrible human being. They are both detestable, with the only difference being that McConaughey is straightforward and honest about who he is.

The other highly redeeming quality of this show is its production values – more specifically, the music. The music is highly unsettling and it contributes heavily to the uneasy atmosphere that pervades the entire series. I just wish that the music had been put into a great horror movie instead of having been wasted on the mediocre story in this series. The cinematography is also really good, and the way that almost every scene has an oil refinery in the background is a peculiar (but accurate) twist on the Louisiana visuals. That stuff falls into the "style" category though, and unfortunately, there is not enough substance here. I'm giving this series a 7 because despite its low points and its disappointing resolution though, because it kept me entertained. It is worth watching just to see Matthew McConaughey's occasional dark brooding soliloquys and the puzzled reactions of those around him. It is worth watching to see Woody Harrelson in action and to see the occasional brilliant exchange of dialog between the two actors. I don't agree with the 9s and 10s for this show, but I can understand why some people love it as much as they do. True Detective has redeeming qualities, but if you ask me, it comes up too short in the story department to be one of the all time greats.

It seems like everyone loves the early Sean Connery Bond films, and it seems as if most people at least like one or two of the Daniel Craig films. I can't, however, find many people who like either of the Timothy Dalton films. It's a shame, really, because The Living Daylights, to me, is an underrated gem. It is easily my favorite Bond film since the Sean Connery era, and in some ways, it is my favorite.

Why is The Living Daylights so good? The number one reason is action. Out of the top ten action scenes in the Bond series, at least two of them are in this movie. The first is a spectacular car chase with the best Bond car ever, a beautiful sports car upgraded with missiles, skis, spikes for ice, and lasers. ("I've had a few option extras installed" – one of my favorite Bond lines). Every other car in the Bond movies, save the one in Goldfinger, is dull compared to this one. The other great action scene comes near the end. I won't spoil it for you, but it is one of the wildest and most thrilling death struggles I have ever seen. When I first saw this film in the theater, there was a mixture of gasps and excited laughter from the audience at the craziness of it. This was, in some ways, a golden age of action scenes in movies. It was when budgets were big enough to do cool stuff, CGI was still ten years off, and directors weren't too lazy to choreograph great action scenes. This movie is an example of how great action can be.

The second reason this movie is so good? Gadgets. I already mentioned the car, but Dalton's bond in this movie had a couple of other nice ones as well. I'm always disappointed when a Bond movie doesn't have at least one or two gadgets. They are part of what makes the movies so cool, and what makes every heterosexual male fantasize about being James Bond. Who wouldn't want to have all kinds of little futuristic, secret toys in their pockets?

I have never understood why Timothy Dalton didn't catch on with audiences. So he wasn't quite as macho and charming as Sean Connery – big deal. Compared to Roger Moore the Clown, he was fantastic. He was serious, tough, and dark enough, but he still retained a sense of humor, and so did the movie. Dalton had great range – imagine Bruce Willis, if Bruce Willis was a classically trained British actor. During the action scenes, he retains a sense of calm and confidence, without cracking a dumb joke every five seconds (but maybe the occasional smirk). That is why the crazy action scenes work so well. I found Timothy Dalton to be way more enjoyable than Pierce Brosnan, and I like him better than Daniel Craig too.

This movie had some pretty decent villains, although the plot was unnecessarily convoluted. The big henchman, who Michael Fassbender reminds me a lot of, is one of my favorite Bond henchmen of all time. He isn't just a big brute or a bodyguard. He is also an assassin, with capabilities about on par with Bond. If there is a true weakness in this movie, it is that the Bond girl is pretty weak. Granted, most Bond girls are pretty weak, but this one (other than being very easy on the yes) is kind of a nuisance. She does some retarded stuff sometimes, and doesn't do much besides shout stuff like "look out" with her eyes wide open.

I recently saw Skyfall, and I was thoroughly disappointed by it. Bond movies have fallen so far from what made them so enjoyable – James Bond uses gadgets, kicks ass, foils the villain, and gets the girl. He doesn't need to be a clown, and he doesn't' need to be a dark, brooding hero either. Instead of constantly reinventing this formula, I wish that somebody would make another Bond movie like this one.