2021 Summer Quickstar Digest

Happy summer! As we start to emerge from our holes, like a diseased groundhog that just won’t die, the engine of culture also starts to hum louder again. Quickstar reviews is the seasonal article that's got you covered, reviewing the various medias that you can consume from your couch, a smattering of delights from all time periods. Enjoy some of the following suggestions, in case you ever run into a coworker at the water cooler again.

Movies


Motherless Brooklyn

2019

Notable For

Edward Norton directs this Chinatown style detective yarn, with the more modern twist that the gumshoe has Tourettes.

Review

Norton has been a perennial fixture of good movies for two decades now, and on top of that he tends to star in challenging fare, so it makes sense that he might be curious about directing. Like many big actors who try out the director’s chair, such as Clooney and Affleck, Edward Norton ends up pulling double duty as both the tick-having PI obsessed with control and the tick-having director obsessed with control. Motherless Brooklynn is totally competent, it nails the noir mood and look, the period is believable, and the detective thread has everything you would expect from the dime store novels of the time (shady dames, problems with kin, and thugs out the wazoo). However the final product is perhaps too clean, except for the somewhat chaotic event that kicks things off. From the production to the story, everything has a nice, neat feeling : Norton’s scrappy PI somehow threads the needle without maiming anyone himself and in a somewhat bizarre creative choice, his Tourettes outburst do not contain swears (Norton didn’t want to make the character repellant). It’s an interesting idea around ableism, but as a result the movie is missing the grime of modern Noir updates from Pollack, and more pointedly, from James Elroy, who took these stories and filled them with unique queasy detail and bizarre behavior that felt too specific to be wholly made up. In contrast, all of the characters in Motherless Brooklynn act hyper rational, save their designated flaw. Norton capitalizes on a fascinating story but the dividends are a sharp looking stage play, rather than an epic film journey.


The Bad

  • Those that hue too closely to the shadows of giants remain there. 

  • Norton with such a huge tick feels like capital A acting, as if picking such a character is almost a safe choice for someone like him

  • Runs out of juice in the final 20 yards due to some muddy plotting.

The Good

  • Based on a rather fascinating true story about how NYC was designed from the ground up to keep non-whites out.

  • Basically an actors showcase, with Norton, Willis, Baldwin, Willem Dafoe, and Bobby Cannavale all more or less getting to do their thing and chew on scenery.


Rating


Defending Your Life

1991

Notable For

An Albert Brooks-led comedy about existential absurdity, part of a wave of high concept explorations of the afterlife that were popular in the 90’s. 

Review

Albert Brooke’s Los Angeles milquetoast suit is rocking out to Barbara Steisand when he suddenly gets plowed into by a bus. It’s not over yet though for the meek but sharp tongued middle aged man, as he soon finds himself in an existential resort tasked with a trial to determine the next step for his mortal soul. Defending Your Life’s an amusing jaunt with one major trick - a post modernist reductionism that turns all of the squabbles and fears of a lived life into politely discussed Jungian revelations of character. Along the way, a B-side love story also juxtaposes Brooks’ somewhat pathetic struggle through life with Meryl Streep’s effortlessly transcendent accomplishments (one memory sees her casually running into a burning building to save a pet, as an afterthought). The film is at its most impressive when it is showing off its commitment to this premise, including its casual brain-power-use based discrimination and a thorough examination of the importance of food even after you’re dead. That absurd material plays well to Brooks’ strengths; here he is firing on all cylinders taking stand-up style shots at these postmortem details. However, much of the movie is strangely hokey in a way that time has not been kind to. The specifics of that food obsession feel weirdly dated to a period when palettes were finally opening up in America, the material object obsession is strange to watch now that the era’s designs seem so clunky, and the plotting revolving around the love story culminates in nonsensical thread closing in that “guess the movie’s over” 80’s style. The movie works as a time capsule of the common existential fears of the early 90s, but thirty years later the economic dominance of Japan and worrying about buying the right condo no longer number among our biggest nightmares. It was America on the bubble, a period that feels hopelessly naive now. 


The Bad

  • Wonderful as the kismet of true love may be, it’s completely unearned here storywise

  • Really 90s. Like unbelievably of its time, which is very distracting from the supposedly transcendent qualities of the trial resort

The Good

  • Good commitment to a hokey-by-design premise, everyone sells the exploration fairly well and the film feels lived in despite being absurd

  • Meryl Streep and Albert Brooks are just fun to hang out with

 

Rating


Games 


Star Wars - Battlefield 2

2017

Notable For

After a long drought, SW:BF is the return of the beautiful looking Star Wars game, here as a sequel that makes you feel like one of the million casually gunned down stormtroopers from the movies and also this time the game adds in a new story to play

    Review

A long time ago in a galaxy not that far away, people used to like Star Wars products. The movies were events and the games were all either technical showcases or well loved classics. Then came the dark times, then came the destruction of LucasArts. Finally after some hiatus, EA found some dollars and sense in fusing the license with their 100 man trench warfare simulator Battlefield, and so was born a technical showcase in SW:BF1. This sequel, the not-very-creatively-named SW:BF2, takes a swing at classic status by coming up with it’s own thoughts and twists in addition to the graphic marvel on display. One of these twists is the original story, a behind the scenes tour of major events from Endor to Jakku which actually does feel a lot like, well, Star Tours with your own blaster. At one point you take up a lightsaber and even though I was mostly killing bugs, the power fantasy made me feel giddy. So points for feel and fandom then (including actually providing some background for the First Order, something 3 billion dollars of movies failed to do), but beyond that you really are left in the wasteland of their core open battlefield design. The mechanics of both on- and off-line sessions often transition from adventure into the tooth crushing grind of gibbing warfare, including the surprisingly menacing plot turns which I am not sure pay off thematically. Death comes fast here, and cares not for if you got lost exploring or are trying to learn a new skill. Persistent rewards give you something to strive for in the muck, but also mean that you’re guaranteed many games where a level 500 Yoda jumps you from across the map and uses your cranium for a toilet. Your enjoyment will depend on how much you can admire the blaster bolts and force lightning while discovering just how little protection that stormtrooper armor really gives you.


The Bad

  • Story is very arch; almost all of the plot and motivations are revealed in tossed off one liners

  • Gameplay/UI is not totally organic, feels like a system has been bent to do something it’s not quite supposed to and that leads to confusing/awkward moments too often

The Good

  • Absolutely nailed the aesthetic, and especially the movie characters, in look and feel - playing them for the first time will give you a charge and witnessing the Death Star 2 blow up from Endor’s surface is amazing

  • There is surprisingly a lot to do here (years into the game’s life of course), from getting proficient at fighter battles, tackling the games extended story coda, or picking a favorite dark Jedi and leveling them into an unkillable menace


Rating



Neon Chrome

2016

Notable For

Cyberpunk hotline miami with a nicely streamlined gun and stat loop to help you overcome tricky enemy combinations

Review

This is a pleasant little twin stick shooter with a fun framing device - some baddy has taken control of the networked highrises that hold future society enthralled. To break the system, you send remote controlled clones with randomized traits into the fray, running and gunning as they try to reach the top of the procedurally generated tower and kill the chief, thus fixing society’s woes forever. There’s a variety of baubles to liven up the journey, including a nice techno soundtrack, a neon color palette, a RPG stat system to bolster the roguelike elements, and a reasonably deep arsenal that changes your play style. There’s not much beyond that though, the story, arsenal, and techno beats are just enough to sustain 20 floors of fun and then you’ll be happy to unjack. Still, it’s not a bad icon to click if you’re looking for a little arcade experience in the sea of open-world attention sucking black holes. 


The Bad

  • Mechanics are 2nd-draft tuned- some armaments frag the entire floors while others slightly annoy anyone in dicking distance; worse, the attrition style combat means grind far surpasses skill in importance

  • Interstitial story bits are ephemeral and come to nothing

The Good

  • Probably only holds out for one ride, but it's a fun one as you vacillate between under and over powered on your climb

  • The shooting is primo, sniping and aggro draw feel hectic and chaotic and yet manageable at the same time

 

Rating


TV


Sneaky Pete

2017

Notable For

Giovanni Ribisi finally gets his TV due in this Breaking Bad lite - which actually has Bryan Cranston!

Review

The central concept of Sneaky Pete is pretty simple- a confidence man uses his social engineering skills to hide out in a stolen identity while working out how to clear his name with some gangsters. The clever twist is that the gangsters have his brother, creating a ticking clock situation that will power the plot through many desperate twists and turns. Cons within cons have to unfold quickly to beat deadlines, and that kind of sloppy planning usually leads to problems and improvisation, where the show shines. When Ribisi (finally given a meaty roll for his ticks here) or Cranston (who is clearly enjoying himself and going all out) are on the screen, Sneaky Pete is breathlessly entertaining pulp fiction. While there are not too many awkward B-plots (that classic hallmark of writers filling time) there is an awful lot of intrigue and drama for a rural family running a small business; I’m not sure every character needed a full arc. That and certain plot contrivances hurt the conviction of the reality on display here. Once it ramps up though, Sneaky Pete is sure to trick you into having fun.


The Bad

  • Requires some suspension of disbelief - solutions often depend on nearly precognition levels of prediction and you can set your watch by the cliffhangers at the end of the episodes

  • Not all the actors are operating on the same level

The Good

  • Ribisi and Cranston are both riveting in pretty much every scene they are in

  • Gangsters and heists are played out but con men are a pretty fun side hussle it turns out - heist like fun without the Ocean of cliches


Rating



Wandavision

2020

Notable For

The megacorps first attempt at bringing its bazillion dollar money engine into the TV format, complete with the movie stars even

Review

It's hard to talk about Wandavision out of production context because the property is tied to a movie series with a global take that surpasses the GDPs of half the countries in the world. Subverting those megaproperty ideasphere expectations, at first this show starts as a weird little artsy thing, a high concept mishmash of Bewitched and I Love Lucy with Marvel mystery and strangeness. These TV parody/homage segments continue for most of the show and gradually update to new eras, as the central mystery unfolds around the seemingly brainwashed Wanda and Vision, settled down in small town America. Unfortunately, the writing seems to also be echoing the targeted eras and is in many cases worse than the state of the art jokes we got in 1950, creating a plodding unfunny sitcom despite the winning actors. This is a huge lodestone around Wandavision’s neck, and because of this the series must be supported entirely by the mystery elements. That half of the show actually makes a decent attempt, playing some interesting cards that take some of the best bits from the Scarlet Witch’s comic history. Eventually we end up with the requisite CGI action load, as all Marvel roads lead to Rome. It’s something you either will find mediocre or were secretly waiting for from minute one. We get a functional result to the big experiment - Disney indeed can make a good looking product for their streaming service, but there are still some growing pains involved in making a whole season of Marvel TV work.


The Bad

  • Wild swings in format and quality - however interesting the show parody idea is, these writers just seem bad at it

  • Predictably, the ending descends a bit into the mediocre action CGI fest that always will plague these kinds of “give them what they want” productions

The Good

  • Twin Peaks vibes are quite rare so its startling to see a 2021 Marvel production emit a few

  • Actually addresses some interesting philosophical problems about the scope and power of Vision and the Scarlet Witch’s abilities, though not exhaustively of course

 

Rating


Print


But what if we’re wrong? By Chuck Klosterman

2016

Notable For

An unusually focused diatribe from our best armchair philosopher about how difficult it is to predict the future, and the fun in trying

Review

Klosterman is an idea man who made his bread by reframing popular concepts and opinions in his pop culture essays. He’s the perfect writer to tackle a layman’s update to “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” a somewhat controversial text from 1962 which posited that science did not gradually figure things out, but instead leaped forward mostly in paradigm destroying bounds during volatile periods. Klosterman is all about paradigm destroying, and here uses that lens to answer the question - What will we almost certainly be wrong about in the future, when people are looking back to now from 100 or 500 years from now? To answer this, we must learn from history, for instance the way we popularly categorize classical music now with winners like Mozart and Beethoven who are “the best” and loser composers from that era that time has forgotten...but who or what forces chose them? Klosterman covers science, rock, sports, visual media, art, you name it, in his usual funny off-the-cuff style, while still managing to drop knowledge bombs on you. The bottom line is striking - regardless of how connected and advanced we get as a society, we ARE wrong about something in our world view and most likely will never know it. This book is a joy to read and forces us to reconsider why things are important and popular in our contemporary era and why the rules change when viewing the past from the future. 


The Bad

  • You may not care if you are or will be wrong, in which case this loses a lot of steam - a fancy way of saying this is pretty much just for wonks like me who like hypotheticals too much

  • Slightly thin, I wanted to be wrong about more stuff.

The Good

  • Fascinating rhetorical examination that pretty roundly surveys the stated possibility

  • Equal parts a fun future prediction and an informative history lesson in many fields


Rating




Comments