The Last Days of Ptolemy Grey 5: Slippage

The saddest thing about the next-to-last episode of The Last Days of Ptolemy Grey on Apple TV+ is that it looks like Ptolemy is at last beginning to lose it.  The "it" being the enhanced, super-sharp mentality that Dr. Rubin aka Satan's treatment has given Ptolemy.  At that party, the occasion for Ptolemy's speech that Rubin attended -- the only white guy in the room, as Rubin (very well played by Walter Goggins) observed and noted -- Ptolemy can't quite get that last line out.   Ptolemy (for my money, one of Samuel L. Jackson's best performances) is aware of that, too, but soldiers on.  He has crucial work still to do.

But that slippage wrecks my theory/hope that Ptolemy will somehow avoid what Rubin sees as an inevitable decline.  Though -- maybe not.  While there's life, there's hope, right?  And there's still one more episode of life in this six-episode miniseries.

A large part of the work left for Ptolemy is to convince his nephew Reggie's wife Nina's boyfriend -- who, in fact, killed Reggie to prevent him from taking Nina away by way of Texas -- to take some big sum of money to go away himself and leave Ptolemy's family alone.  It's a safe bet, I'd say, that this killer is not going to go away so easily.

The other work left for Ptolemy is to get Robyn to take control of his money -- multi-millions --when he's gone.  As Robyn rightly says, she's only seventeen.  She knows nothing about how to handle big money.  I'd say it's also a safe bet that Robyn will agree to Ptolemy's request before the series ends next week.

But Ptolemy will have to do all this work with his mind slipping.   And I'll be hoping until the end that that just doesn't happen.

See you back here next week, when I'll let you know what I think of how it all turns out.

See also The Last Days of Ptolemy Grey 1-3: In Flowers for Algernon Territory ... The Last Days of Ptolemy Grey 4: Ptolemy's Fate

a little time travel story -- free

 

The Last Days of Ptolemy Grey 1-3: In Flowers for Algernon Territory

I figured I'd catch up with the first three episodes of The Last Days of Ptolemy Grey on Apple TV+, and I'm very glad I did.  I mean, how you can you go wrong with a Walter Mosley novel (which I haven't read), adapted to the screen by him too, and starring Samuel L. Jackson in the title role?  You can't.

So, how good is this series, which tells the story of Ptolemy Grey, suffering from progressing dementia, given an antidote (science fictional, we don't really have that at present) which allows him to recover all of his memories, but not permanently?  Well, the high watermark of that kind of story is of course Daniel Keyes' 1959 "Flowers for Algernon," which I read as a kid shortly after it was published and still think is one of the best things I've ever read.  And, based on these first three of six episodes of The Last Days of Ptolemy Grey -- I wish there were more -- I'd say it's certainly in same ballpark as "Flowers for Algernon".

In addition to the emotionally wrenching story of getting one's mind back only to lose it, The Last Days of Ptolemy Grey is also a murder mystery.  One of Ptolemy's main motives is find out who killed his nephew, the clues to whom being buried in his mind.  And there's also remembering what happened to the love of his life, a new romantic possibility, and other puzzles for Ptolemy.  

In addition to Jackson, there's fine acting all around, including Dominique Fishback as Robyn (who takes care of Ptolemy after his nephew is killed) and Walter Goggins as the scientist who administers the magic potion.  There's so much going on here it's a good bet that the concluding three episodes will be as packed with memorable scenes as the first three.

I'll be reviewing each of them after I see them.  See you back here with my review of episode #4 after I see it this Friday.

I introduce Daniel Keyes at the 2000 Nebula convention in NYC

Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker: Tipping into the Mystic

So here's where I am regarding the nine episodes of Star Wars: I thought the first trilogy, by George Lucas, was fabulous - every bit as good, and maybe even better, than the other trilogy of that era, The Godfather (the third part of which, coming along almost 20 years later in 1990, not as good as the first two).  And I thought, contrary to a lot of critics, that the second Star Wars trilogy, also by George Lucas, in the movie theaters at the turn of the 20th into our 21st century and a little after, was every bit as good as the first trilogy, and at times even better.

And then there's the third trilogy (episodes VII-IX), of which The Rise of Skywalker is the third and final installment (episode IX), the creation of J. J. Abrams.  It takes place after the first trilogy (episodes IV-VI), which took place after the second trilogy (episodes I-III).  The second trilogy was thus a prequel, usually more difficult to do in a narrative than a sequel.  Which meant Abrams had a somewhat easier job than Lucas.   And, though I enjoyed this final trilogy ... now that it's concluded, I just think all of it just wasn't quite on the level of the first two.

This was a result of both the acting and the storylines.   In the first Star Wars trilogy (that is, the middle three episodes in terms of the time the story takes place), the acting was mostly campy, but lit up by some really high quality acting by Alec Guinness.  In the second Star Wars trilogy (the prequel), the acting by Natalie Portman, Ewen McGregor, Liam Neeson, and Samuel L. Jackson was downright excellent, and often incandescent.  In the third trilogy, just concluded, the acting returned to mostly campy, and the non-campy acting by Adam Driver and Daisy Ridley, especially in the finale, was strong and effective enough but not on the level of Portman and McGregor.

Indeed, the most appealing part of this third trilogy was the return of Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, Mark Hamill, and Billy Dee Williams in their original roles.   This was done well in terms of the acting.  But, in the final episode, the storylines in which they returned were a little ham-handed and under-explained.  In the first trilogy (episodes IV-VI) shown in theaters, one character, Obi-Wan, returns in a major way after he dies, and that worked very well in the narrative.  In third episode (IX) of the third trilogy, which debuted in theaters tonight, Ford, Fisher, and Hamill each return, and that was too much. And there were parts that were more muddled than need be in the part of the plot that centered around transitions from life to death and back again.  In the powerful scene in which Kylo brings Rey back to life, it wasn't clear if she was really dead, or if Kylo was dead and his appearance was an expression of Rey's unconscious.  It wasn't even completely clear whether Palpatine was dead or alive.  I know all nine movies were more mythic than literal, but the ratio of the final trilogy went a little too far towards the mythic, especially in this final episode.

All of that said, The Rise of Skywalker was enjoyable enough, and my wife and I will no doubt see whatever comes next on its opening day, whenever that arrives.   Our kids, who weren't born when my wife and I saw the first trilogy, were with us when we saw the second trilogy, and tomorrow are seeing the end of the third trilogy with their families. I'll be interested in finding out how they liked it.

See also Star Wars: The Force Awakens: Shakespearean and Fun ... Star Wars: The Last Jedi: Enjoyable Birds and Storylines

And see also Ten Reasons to Like the Clones

Quibbles with The Hateful Eight (with Spoilers)

I raved on about The Hateful Eight the other day - the eighth movie of Quentin Tarantino, and I'd say second only in excellence to his first movie, Reservoir Dogs, which in my book is high praise indeed. But I did say in that review that I saw a plot hole or two, and there were a couple of scenes I wasn't thrilled about, so I thought I'd list them here, with a spoiler warning ...

SPOILERS follow ...

I probably missed these two points, because I was so engrossed in the plot, if that makes any sense, but -

1.  How did Walter Goggins' character (Chris Mannix) know so quickly and certainly that Samuel L. Jackson's (Major Warren) letter from Abraham Lincoln was a phony?   This just seemed a little odd, especially after Kurt Russell's hardbitten John Ruth seemed so sure it was real.   Was it just so obvious that the letter couldn't be real - but if so, what was Ruth's problem in not seeing that?

2.  Similarly, how did Warren know at the end that Michael Madsen's Joe Gage was the poisoner, and not Tim Roth's Oswaldo Mobray?  I have a feeling I missed something there, but on the other hand, I can't recall when Gage rather Mobray was revealed by his own hand.

And here are two scenes I could have lived without into this otherwise superbly rendered movie -

1. Actually, a few scenes without blood or bruises on Daisy's (Jennifer Jason Leigh's) face would have been nice.   The blood and bruises became a little tedious.

2.  And I would have been fine with the schlang-sucking scene (that's right Trump, don't pretend you don't know what that means) being a little less explicit.   And, actually, I thought the whole General Smithers' (Bruce Dern) thread was superfluous to the overall narrative, much as I thought Dern put in a commanding performance as always (as did everyone else in the movie).

But these are small quibbles indeed, considering how good the rest of the movie is.   Here, again, is my full review, for more of that.

The Hateful Eight: Reservoir Dogs meet Agatha Christie Out West

I saw The Hateful Eight in New York at my son's invitation tonight, completely different from The Magnificent Seven, as the name suggests, and like all Quentin Tarantino movies, not without flaws, but deeply memorable - and highly enjoyable.

Indeed, The Hateful Eight comes closest to recapturing some of the pattern of Reservoir Dogs, which I still consider Tarantino's masterpiece and best movie.   An ensemble of characters with quirks and patter written by a Shakespeare of the clever line, which is what Tarantino is.   And the plot is pretty good, too.   Since I'll keep this review spoiler free, I won't say much about the whodunit, except that the solution is analogous to the misdirection and ensemble cast we find in some of Agatha Christie's best works.

We saw the movie in 70 mm (wide-screen high-resolution format) - a "special roadshow engagement," as the glossy program which was handed out tells us.   This is a bygone kind of movie making with long screens - employed in Ben Hur, for example - and especially suitable for a stage coach trying to outrun an impending blizzard in the beautifully desolate Wyoming landscape a few years after the Civil War.  Except - well, there was maybe about 10 minutes of the stage coach, total, in the three-hour movie (with an intermission), the rest of which mostly takes place in a single room (which was wide, however, with important characters at the edges).   Indeed, The Hateful Eight could easily have been a play on a stage, and maybe someday it will.   It would certainly work on television, even the old square-screen kind, and at one point in the movie Tarantino even seems to make this very point, by giving us a scene seen through an open barn door, a square image on the wide screen.

Ennio Morricone wrote the score - he's 87 now, and has all the talent he had when he wrote the score for The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly released in 1966, except there wasn't much good, but plenty of bad-ass and ugly in The Hateful Eight.   Tarantino, in an especially cool touch, begins the movie with a three-minute overture from Morricone.

The actors and characters are all vintage Tarantino, which is to say excellent and welcome.   Some of the acting talent - such as Tim Roth and Michael Madsen - reaches back to Reservoir Dogs.   Samuel Jackson who was so iconic in Pulp Fiction plays a major role (the last chapter of The Hateful Eight - yeah, it has chapters - is entitled "Black Man, White Hell").  Kurt Russell, who in addition to an award-winning career appeared in a few less-renown Tarantino movies a few years ago,  puts in a suitably stalwart performance. And Walton Goggins, unforgettable in his television roles in The Shield and Justify, and a Django alumnus, is on hand with his patented delivery, too.  Tarantino newbies Bruce Dern, Jennifer Jason Leigh, and Demián Bichir (who was so effective in Weeds and The Bridge on television) complete the hateful eight nicely (well, "nice" might not be the best word here, especially for Leigh's character, who barely has a scene without blood on her face).

There are inevitable plot holes, characters realizing things a little too quickly, but that's a small quibble about a fine movie - the "8th Film by Quentin Tarantino," as he bills The Hateful Eight - but not hateful at all, except for maybe one or two scenes, and among the best we've seen from Tarantino in the past few decades.

===
Here is my brief list of things I wasn't thrilled about in the movie - with spoilers.