s
p o
i l
e r

s
p a
c e

I'm largely enjoying this thanks to the strength of Jeff Bridges'
performance. He's terrific. I'm also able to suspend disbelief that he's
participating in the fight scenes although I'm sure there are stunt men.

I do have a few objections. I've been thinking about what's gone wrong
with the story and why it's not as good as it should have been.

The story keeps changing. First, it's brother-against-brother, obvious
Dan Chase against Faraz. I actually thought this was the best one, and I
especially liked Khadija and not Faraz being the master manipulator, and
I liked her warnings to Dan not to turn Faraz into a potential dictator
in making a present of the Russian general to torture and execute.

I also liked her apocryphal story of the old man and his garden.

Then it turns out she's spying for the Russians and her motives for
keeping the general alive and not interrogated under torture are
entirely different. In episode 6, when Dan goes to see the now
prosperous general, he reveals that the Russians didn't recruit Khadija,
she convinced the Russians to take out Faraz's domestic enemies.

Of course, what the Russians had to gain wasn't revealed and I'm not
buying that at all.

The motive for why Faraz wants to destroy Dan changed several times. At
first, it's supposed to be the love triangle. Then it was Khadija's
betrayal.

Then it's the out-of-nowhere revelation of the massive deposit of
Upsidaisium from an entirely off screen character in the back story!

The Russians want to control the Upsidaisium, or at least they did in
the episode in which that was revealed. How is making Faraz the
surviving strong man going to guarantee that since the deal was with her
and not him?

Then maybe it's Dan versus Harper. Now, they've become allies to rescue
"Angela". And in dialogue between Dan and Harper, the old man is no
longer the one in the apocryphal story but the Joel Grey character.

My major objection to these "revelations" is that as more truths are
revealed in the back story, it doesn't feel like the story is peeling
back the layers of a mystery. Instead, each revelation doesn't add to
the story, but contradicts what had previously been revealed. Retconning
is a very weak storytelling technique.

I have another objection to the Harper character, who has largely been a
waste of screen time. The character doesn't lead. He allows events to
unfold around him. Most of his dialogue is used to address the audience,
to expound on plot point after plot point. He's just speculating wildly
but the audience is supposed to accept it as reliable narration.

But that's not acting. John Lithgow has largely been wasted.

However, this episode, he finally got a good moment on screen in his
long rant at "Angela" that he should do what Morgan Bote told him to do
and let the fake "Angela" take all the blame. Lithgow makes a fantastic
speech to her that even though she's a traitor and has largely
contributed to Harper's downfall (and maybe criminal charges), he's
letting her go. But he sees Bote's assasin and reacts absurdly slowly in
deciding to find her before he can. That ruined Lithgow's good moment.

On 2022-07-17 06:16:27 +0000, Adam H. Kerman said:

> s
> p
> o
> i
> l
> e
> r
>
> s
> p
> a
> c
> e
>
> I'm largely enjoying this thanks to the strength of Jeff Bridges'
> performance. He's terrific. I'm also able to suspend disbelief that he's
> participating in the fight scenes although I'm sure there are stunt men.

The performance that's working for me here is John Lithgow's. And to a
lesser extent Amy Brenneman's.

But I am coming to dislike how this show is written, stylistically -
it's like they tee every major character up for some kind of
"important" monologue in every scene. It's starting to annoy me - real
people don't talk this way.

> I do have a few objections. I've been thinking about what's gone wrong
> with the story and why it's not as good as it should have been.
>
> The story keeps changing. First, it's brother-against-brother, obvious
> Dan Chase against Faraz. I actually thought this was the best one, and I
> especially liked Khadija and not Faraz being the master manipulator, and
> I liked her warnings to Dan not to turn Faraz into a potential dictator
> in making a present of the Russian general to torture and execute.
>
> I also liked her apocryphal story of the old man and his garden.
>
> Then it turns out she's spying for the Russians and her motives for
> keeping the general alive and not interrogated under torture are
> entirely different. In episode 6, when Dan goes to see the now
> prosperous general, he reveals that the Russians didn't recruit Khadija,
> she convinced the Russians to take out Faraz's domestic enemies.
>
> Of course, what the Russians had to gain wasn't revealed and I'm not
> buying that at all.
>
> The motive for why Faraz wants to destroy Dan changed several times. At
> first, it's supposed to be the love triangle. Then it was Khadija's
> betrayal.

You haven't figured out that Angela/Emily is Faraz's daughter yet?...

> Then it's the out-of-nowhere revelation of the massive deposit of
> Upsidaisium from an entirely off screen character in the back story!
>
> The Russians want to control the Upsidaisium, or at least they did in
> the episode in which that was revealed. How is making Faraz the
> surviving strong man going to guarantee that since the deal was with her
> and not him?
>
> Then maybe it's Dan versus Harper. Now, they've become allies to rescue
> "Angela". And in dialogue between Dan and Harper, the old man is no
> longer the one in the apocryphal story but the Joel Grey character.

Yeah, I figured Grey was a one-off appearance, but now he's a GD
recurring character!!

> My major objection to these "revelations" is that as more truths are
> revealed in the back story, it doesn't feel like the story is peeling
> back the layers of a mystery. Instead, each revelation doesn't add to
> the story, but contradicts what had previously been revealed. Retconning
> is a very weak storytelling technique.

Yep.

> I have another objection to the Harper character, who has largely been a
> waste of screen time. The character doesn't lead. He allows events to
> unfold around him. Most of his dialogue is used to address the audience,
> to expound on plot point after plot point. He's just speculating wildly
> but the audience is supposed to accept it as reliable narration.

That's a fair point, but I still really like Lithgow's performance - he
does "disgusted befuddled" well!

> But that's not acting. John Lithgow has largely been wasted.
>
> However, this episode, he finally got a good moment on screen in his
> long rant at "Angela" that he should do what Morgan Bote told him to do
> and let the fake "Angela" take all the blame. Lithgow makes a fantastic
> speech to her that even though she's a traitor and has largely
> contributed to Harper's downfall (and maybe criminal charges), he's
> letting her go. But he sees Bote's assasin and reacts absurdly slowly in
> deciding to find her before he can. That ruined Lithgow's good moment.

Yeah, I wasn't sure what was going on in that scene - he never looked
at the assassin, and indeed doesn't even know what he looks like - so
what was his "revelation"?!!

--
"Who would ever do this to him!?" - HottCiara on DOOL (04-27-2020), asking
who would stab Victor Kirakis... How about ANYONE WHO'S EVER MET HIM??!!

On 2022-07-17 06:16:27 +0000, Adam H. Kerman said:

> s
> p
> o
> i
> l
> e
> r
>
> s
> p
> a
> c
> e
>
> I'm largely enjoying this thanks to the strength of Jeff Bridges'
> performance. He's terrific. I'm also able to suspend disbelief that he's
> participating in the fight scenes although I'm sure there are stunt men.
>
> I do have a few objections. I've been thinking about what's gone wrong
> with the story and why it's not as good as it should have been.
> [snip]

My review:

The Old Man (recorded) - "VI" (ep. #1.6, the penultimate episode).
I actually mostly liked this episode, as things actually *happen*.
Dan and Zoe make it to... Morocco(?), and Dan meets with the former
Russian officer that he sprung from Hamzad's captivity on Belour's
orders (played as an old man by Rade Serbedzija). Meanwhile, Hamzad's
lawyer hits Zoe up!
Meanwhile, Morgan Bote (Joel Grey) threatens Harold Harper, as
Harold and Angela make their way to meet up with Dan - Bote wants
Harper to abaondon Angela and let her take the fall, and if Harper does
Bote will clear his name.
In the end, Angela apparently gets nabbed by Bote's assassin dude,
so Harper is forced to team up with Dan!
Ep. "VII" is the season finale - clearly there will be no resolution
at all with this series... >:/

--
"Who would ever do this to him!?" - HottCiara on DOOL (04-27-2020), asking
who would stab Victor Kirakis... How about ANYONE WHO'S EVER MET HIM??!!

Ian J. Ball <IJBall@mac.invalid> wrote:
>On 2022-07-17 06:16:27 +0000, Adam H. Kerman said:

>> s
>> p
>> o
>> i
>> l
>> e
>> r
>>
>> s
>> p
>> a
>> c
>> e

>>I'm largely enjoying this thanks to the strength of Jeff Bridges'
>>performance. He's terrific. I'm also able to suspend disbelief that he's
>>participating in the fight scenes although I'm sure there are stunt men.

>The performance that's working for me here is John Lithgow's. And to a
>lesser extent Amy Brenneman's.

Like Lithgow, she's had too few good scenes. Several episodes back, we
all liked her using leverage on Dan, demanding not just to get out of
all this intact but with a shit ton of money, so she's almost as morally
ambiguous as the others. Then Dan observes that she's got good natural
instincts for the spy game, but the plot DOES NOTHING to develop her
character any further.

>But I am coming to dislike how this show is written, stylistically -
>it's like they tee every major character up for some kind of
>"important" monologue in every scene. It's starting to annoy me - real
>people don't talk this way.

Laying out plot developments without hitting the audience on the head
with what they need to know via monologuing is beyond the ability of the
writers.

>>I do have a few objections. I've been thinking about what's gone wrong
>>with the story and why it's not as good as it should have been.

>>The story keeps changing. First, it's brother-against-brother, obvious
>>Dan Chase against Faraz. I actually thought this was the best one, and I
>>especially liked Khadija and not Faraz being the master manipulator, and
>>I liked her warnings to Dan not to turn Faraz into a potential dictator
>>in making a present of the Russian general to torture and execute.

>>I also liked her apocryphal story of the old man and his garden.

>>Then it turns out she's spying for the Russians and her motives for
>>keeping the general alive and not interrogated under torture are
>>entirely different. In episode 6, when Dan goes to see the now
>>prosperous general, he reveals that the Russians didn't recruit Khadija,
>>she convinced the Russians to take out Faraz's domestic enemies.

>>Of course, what the Russians had to gain wasn't revealed and I'm not
>>buying that at all.

>>The motive for why Faraz wants to destroy Dan changed several times. At
>>first, it's supposed to be the love triangle. Then it was Khadija's
>>betrayal.

>You haven't figured out that Angela/Emily is Faraz's daughter yet?...

Ian, you can't predict shit with regard to the ever-changing back story.
Faraz could believe that but it might not be true. Hell, she could be
the Russian general's daughter. But she could still be Dan's daughter as
Khadija might have slept with him before escaping Afghanistan as she
wanted to maintain Dan's sympathies.

Oh, I forgot to bring up something that's been bothering me since we
learned that Dan is incredibly rich: Where the hell did the seed monies
come from? Did he steal payroll that was meant to be used to recruit and
retain a spy network? Who gave him the incredible stock tips that
enabled him to set up his company?

>>Then it's the out-of-nowhere revelation of the massive deposit of
>>Upsidaisium from an entirely off screen character in the back story!

>>The Russians want to control the Upsidaisium, or at least they did in
>>the episode in which that was revealed. How is making Faraz the
>>surviving strong man going to guarantee that since the deal was with her
>>and not him?

>>Then maybe it's Dan versus Harper. Now, they've become allies to rescue
>>"Angela". And in dialogue between Dan and Harper, the old man is no
>>longer the one in the apocryphal story but the Joel Grey character.

>Yeah, I figured Grey was a one-off appearance, but now he's a GD
>recurring character!!

>>My major objection to these "revelations" is that as more truths are
>>revealed in the back story, it doesn't feel like the story is peeling
>>back the layers of a mystery. Instead, each revelation doesn't add to
>>the story, but contradicts what had previously been revealed. Retconning
>>is a very weak storytelling technique.

>Yep.

>>I have another objection to the Harper character, who has largely been a
>>waste of screen time. The character doesn't lead. He allows events to
>>unfold around him. Most of his dialogue is used to address the audience,
>>to expound on plot point after plot point. He's just speculating wildly
>>but the audience is supposed to accept it as reliable narration.

>That's a fair point, but I still really like Lithgow's performance - he
>does "disgusted befuddled" well!

Hehehehehehe

>>But that's not acting. John Lithgow has largely been wasted.

>>However, this episode, he finally got a good moment on screen in his
>>long rant at "Angela" that he should do what Morgan Bote told him to do
>>and let the fake "Angela" take all the blame. Lithgow makes a fantastic
>>speech to her that even though she's a traitor and has largely
>>contributed to Harper's downfall (and maybe criminal charges), he's
>>letting her go. But he sees Bote's assasin and reacts absurdly slowly in
>>deciding to find her before he can. That ruined Lithgow's good moment.

>Yeah, I wasn't sure what was going on in that scene - he never looked
>at the assassin, and indeed doesn't even know what he looks like - so
>what was his "revelation"?!!

Bote has her and is desperate to trade her to Faraz for something Bote
wants or prevent Bote from revealing something (that the audience
doesn't yet know about).