Unlike its predecessor, ‘The Haunting of Hill House’ (2018), Mike Flanagan’s signature second instalment focuses less on the dread and more on the emotional side of things. The ‘it’s not a ghost story, it’s a love story’ phrase has been around for quite a while, and it takes on a meaning of its own in ‘The Haunting of Bly Manor’ (2020). The original, ‘every love story is a ghost story’, can be found in a letter that David Foster Wallace wrote to the late Richard Elman back in 1986. Both expressions could easily fit within the walls of Bly Manor and make perfect sense.

I do enjoy the ghostly anthology style, and here’s to hoping that Mr Flanagan will undertake other such projects in the future. There are so many haunted places in this world, and so few artists who are truly equipped to tell these stories with adequate profundity and emotional intensity… it would be a shame not to produce more of this stuff.

‘THE HAUNTING OF BLY MANOR’ (2020), ©NETFLIX

While I understand that Bly Manor may have disappointed some viewers who previously applauded Hill House, a fraction of the blame can be placed on the marketing department. We went in expecting something else, but I found strange enlightenment in the end, an ‘Aha!’ sparkle that brought me back to the ‘love story, ghost story’ trope above. Truth be told, no respectable haunting was ever a gory horror tale with blood and guts and jump-scares. Ghosts are fingerprints of the past in our collective folklore, spectres who are unable to let go, even in death, and some of whom are able to influence the world of the living.

It means we have to deal with sadness, remorse, longing, and other equally consuming feelings that we experience in the presence of death and the absence of those we loved and lost. Therefore, a true ghost story has multiple dimensions. A good ghost story is able to break your heart, and Mike Flanagan does it in two different styles with both Hill House and Bly Manor. The former explores the grief and bitterness that suicide leaves behind. The latter studies love and its dysfunctions as they unravel under the influence of a spirit whose rage binds everyone to her. Both have mysterious, almost-sentient houses as leading characters.

‘THE HAUNTING OF BLY MANOR’ (2020)

Mike Flanagan has become a master of the genre with both limited series, but also with his work on Stephen King’s ‘Gerald’s Game’ (2017) and the more recent ‘Doctor Sleep’ (2019). His writing style has an almost poetic depth I’ve only seen in Shirley Jackson and Henry James, which is probably why he resonated so beautifully with these illustrious authors’ works. The focus is never really on the actual ghosts. After all, they tell the same story—unresolved issues, the inability to move on, the violence of their death which caused a bruising of the very fabric of existence… it’s always a broken heart at the centre of a haunting, somehow. No, the focus is on the living and on how they cope with loss, with misery, and with the supernatural elements that they never wanted to believe in.

‘The Haunting of Bly Manor’ simply does it with a sweeter tone. The ghosts have a more personal autonomy than those of Hill House. The living and the dead collide, repeatedly, between the walls of the English mansion, its rooms seemingly larger at night—as if the house itself inhales deeply and holds its breath until the light of morning. There is poetry in Carla Gugino’s storytelling monologues. I was pleasantly surprised by its added value, in fact, as I am not really a fan of narrators in moving pictures. Her repetitions have a dramatic effect, evoking the very loops of post-existence that ghosts seemingly go through. I doubt the series would’ve had the same effect without her. Sometimes, telling adds value to showing.

‘THE HAUNTING OF BLY MANOR’ (2020), ©2020

Some things could have been done differently, sure, but I wouldn’t dare dissect the series down to its bones for this because the transgressions are minimal, at most, and splendidly overshadowed by the extraordinary performances of its actors. Keeping in line with the anthology format we’ve seen before in Ryan Murphy’s ‘American Horror Story’, there are returning cast members who’ve changed their residence from Hill House to Bly Manor. Each of them is exceptional and remarkably versatile.

Victoria Pedretti brings tears to one’s eyes as Dani Clayton, a young woman struggling with her sexuality and a tragedy she feels personally responsible for. Her intensity is only matched by her emotional palette. Few manage to express true and unexpected terror when locked in a closet—few manage to make the viewers themselves take deep breaths to fight a growing sense of claustrophobia, of walls closing in. Dani is also at the centre of the love story that is the hidden heart of this series, able to explore the payoff after having endured incommensurable horrors at Bly Manor and able to bid her lover farewell when the time comes to carry the curse back to its roots.

‘THE HAUNTING OF BLY MANOR’ (2020), ©NETFLIX

Kate Siegel returns as Viola, the angry and faceless spirit at the root of this nightmare—the former lady of Bly Manor who found herself betrayed and enraged beyond the grave. Her vicious circle break hearts, over and over, as she goes through the motions and consumes everything in her path, even when there is no one left to remember her. Viola is proof that there is nothing worse than being forgotten. Not even death is worse than vanishing into the dark recesses of human history.

Oliver Jackson-Cohen and Henry Thomas came back, as well, as Peter Quint and Henry Wingrave, respectively. One is a deeply flawed but passionate man, and the other… well, they’re more or less the same, actually, despite their financial and societal differences. Carla Gugino is a delightful presence, her deep voice and melancholic gaze working seamlessly as a thread that pulls everyone and everything together.

‘THE HAUNTING OF BLY MANOR’ (2020), ©NETFLIX

Benjamin Evan Ainsworth and Amelie Bea Smith are both extraordinary as the children of Bly Manor. These sterling thespians are able to build their characters into three dimensions that mercilessly punch holes through one’s stomach. Miles and Flora are both odd—I believe they were written as such, while also trying to stay at least partially true to their age. It’s not an easy task to accomplish, but they both come through quite nicely. They’re ‘perfectly splendid’.

Rahul Kohli as Owen is a dollop of kindness and hope that is desperately needed, particularly in the darkest of times. His love story is the saddest, too, once you realize that he will never be able to bring it to a positive conclusion. But frankly, the true star of Bly Manor and a breath-taking performer that deserves her own crown is T’Nia Miller as Hannah Grose. Hers is the hardest tale to tell. It starts and ends in tears, yet it is filled with love and hope and mountains of empathy strangled by threads of lost time. If anyone ever wondered what being a ghost might feel like, Hannah is an exceptional point of reference.

‘THE HAUNTING OF BLY MANOR’ (2020), ©NETFLIX

The lasting impact of ‘The Haunting of Bly Manor’, much like its predecessor, comes from the brilliant combination of image and production design. The haunted house takes centre stage, of course, and to achieve a troubling effect evoking of Hill House, Mr Flanagan brought Patricio M. Farrell and art director Hugo Santiago back for Bly Manor. The ghostly Easter eggs, the period pieces, and the spine-tingling details… it all adds up to that subtle dread that’s meant to erode the resolve of everyone involved—characters and viewers alike.

To further strengthen the end result, Flanagan worked with Maxime Alexandre of ‘Annabelle: Creation’ (2017) fame and James Kniest, previously known for ‘Annabelle’ (2014). In an interview with Variety, Mr Kniest addresses the importance of using Hill House as a roadmap for Flanagan’s second Haunting foray.

‘THE HAUNTING OF BLY MANOR’ (2020), ©NETFLIX

Most of the story’s tone is eloquently captured in the screenplay and through the actors’ performances, but the style and camera language had to also match. With each Haunting, the camera work begins with static and symmetrical angles, gradually evolving into a more fluid and almost organic motion—we saw it in the funeral home with the Crains, and we see it again through the layers we peel away at in Bly Manor. The dark aesthetic delivers stupendously as the truth is gingerly revealed, painting tragedy with a fair palette.

‘THE HAUNTING OF BLY MANOR’ (2020), ©NETFLIX

At the end of the day, each viewer will make up their own mind regarding ‘The Haunting of Bly Manor’. They may voice discontent and point to insufficiencies whilst praising ‘The Haunting of Hill House’ as the superior of the two. It could go the other way around, as well. Or, better yet, each series will stand alone and with its distinctive set of features, while both pay homage to some of the best ghost tales ever written.

Whether it’s a love story or a ghost story or somewhere in-between, one truth remains. Our fascination with death and whatever might come afterwards is a timeless and endless source of hope and heartbreak.

Or so I feel, at least, upon watching Aaron Guzikowski’s masterpiece on HBO Max. I have not been this excited about a sci-fi series since ‘The Expanse’ (2015), and for good reason. ‘Raised by Wolves’ (2020) is a story about humanity’s last chance at survival after nearly destroying itself. The root of the problem? Religious fundamentalism injected into an authoritarian state versus atheist militias that are willing to become the very monsters they fight against in order to defeat their enemy. But there is more to this than mere concepts of extremism and advanced artificial intelligence.

This is also a story about children, for they are the future.

‘Raised by Wolves’ follows two androids tasked with establishing a human colony on planet Kepler-22B. All they have is a space pod with advanced technology and a handful of human children they must raise in an atheist manner, much like the androids’ ‘creator’, Campion Sturges. While Father is a state-of-the-art service humanoid, Mother is a repurposed Necromancer, a veritable killing machine with a wide array of deadly abilities. Due to her reprogramming as a nurturer, however, Mother doesn’t remember her downright murderous past as a weapon in the hands of the Mithraic, the religious zealots who practically destroyed Earth. She does rediscover the aforementioned abilities, and so her character arc begins as she is tested in her mission to protect the children.

‘RAISED BY WOLVES’ (2020), HBO/HOME BOX OFFICE

Kepler-22B is not a welcoming planet. It is mostly arid, with freezing nights and deadly creatures lurking in the darkness. Worse even, the androids fail to raise all the children they brought over from Earth. Some succumb to incurable illnesses, while others perish in tragic accidents. Only one, named after Campion Sturges, survives. He becomes a key element as two different worlds begin to collide right in front of him, threatening to change not only his views but also how he perceives life.

The Mithraic have caught up, now docking their enormous Ark into orbit. They have resources, a military force and advanced technologies, and conflict quickly erupts when Mother retaliates and nearly obliterates the entire fleet while taking a handful of children away to replace the ones she lost. One can rarely observe a finer metaphor to address a mother’s grief.

‘RAISED BY WOLVES’ (2020), ©HBO/HOME BOX OFFICE

Enter Marcus and Sue, two Atheists posing as Mithraic soldiers, desperate to get their son back from Mother’s clutches. It becomes increasingly hard to root for them once it becomes clear that all Mother wants is to fulfil the original Campion’s dream of a better humanity—a world where no religion exists. Her sole objective is to raise children into worthy humans.

It becomes a battle for our very souls as we begin to see the flaws in our species, so eloquently portrayed by the Mithraic against the sweet and ignorant innocence of younglings. Between them, Mother and Father struggle to do the right thing, shocking us with their ability to learn, to protect, and to love. This complex series is insanely ambitious and downright mind-blowing on multiple levels, and I cannot recommend it enough.

‘RAISED BY WOLVES’ (2020), ©HBO/HOME BOX OFFICE

Aaron Guzikowski is no stranger to bold and compelling projects. Better known for penning the screenplays for ‘Papillon’ (2017) and ‘Prisoners’ (2013), the American director has been a showrunner before with ‘The Red Road’ (2014-2015), starring Jason Momoa. Through ‘Raised by Wolves’, however, one can see his spectacularly steep learning curve. It is an impressive accomplishment, to say the least, made even more important with the involvement of luminaries such as Ridley Scott, who also directed the first two episodes.

At the heart of every good film or series is a good screenplay, and it is truly a delight to follow ‘Raised by Wolves’ as it smashes through pretty much every barrier of its genre. Its rhythm isn’t frantic because the story has time to develop, easing us into this strange world much like Mr Scott’s ‘Prometheus’ from a few years back, but it’s not too slow, either. There is hardly a moment where one might get lost. Its threads are loose but gradually coming together in a splendid weave as the religious (Mithraic, worshipers of a deity named Sol), the atheists (Marcus, Sue, Mother, Father), and the non-religious (young Campion) are forced into a series of situations that bring about change on a deeper, fundamental level. When this is over, when we reach the final conclusion, no one will be the same again.

Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of ‘Raised by Wolves’ is how far the writer is willing to go with an AI’s ability to understand and experience love. For us, humans, it is a sentiment brought on by social interaction and hormonal reactions. What is it like for Mother, one wonders? Her feelings are clear and undeniable. Her emotions raw despite her otherwise strict programming. Mother’s journey from former villain to a hero for her children is truly a splendid feat of screenwriting.

‘RAISED BY WOLVES’ (2020), ©HBO/HOME BOX OFFICE

The performances are simply out of this world. Amanda Collin and Abubakar Salim as Mother and Father, respectively, are the heroes that nobody saw coming. It’s impossible not to root for Mother when she is willing to sacrifice herself in order to teach Winta McGrath’s young Campion that violence—though a defining trait of her original design—is not and should never be an option. It’s hard not to love Father for how hard he tries to make everyone happy, teaching the children to survive in a harsh environment while figuring out ways to please his otherwise dangerous partner.

Travis Fimmel of ‘Vikings’ (2012-2017) and ‘Warcraft’ (2016) fame is a beautifully troubling and imperfect Marcus. Niamh Algar is Sue, who does the best she can with what she believes and what she is given. They’re both Atheist Militants pretending to be Mithraic after facial reconstruction surgery. They killed Paul’s parents and took their place on the Ark. It was the only way that they could survive. Prior to their arrival to Kepler-22B, survival and revenge had been their core objectives, but after spending thirteen years in a virtual simulation coma, both Marcus and Sue have become attached to Paul, sweetly portrayed by Felix Jamieson.

To make matters worse, not only has their ‘son’ been taken by a seemingly lethal Necromancer, but Marcus is hearing the god Sol’s voice in his head—this, in turn, bumps him up the hierarchical ladder within the surviving Mithraic cluster that is determined to turn Kepler-22B into another Earth, complete with churches and strict religious traditions.

‘RAISED BY WOLVES’ (2020), ©HBO/HOME BOX OFFICE

The children stand out on their own, most of them torn from a zealous cradle and taught by androids, of all things, about compassion, fairness, and mercy. Each of them has a story to tell. Campion is confused by this concept of Sol as the supreme entity but eager to do right by others. Paul wishes to please the parents who have spent most of his life ignoring him, prior to the Ark. Tempest, brought to life by the talented Jordan Loughran, has to deal with an unwanted pregnancy after she was raped during her virtual simulation coma. Aasiya Shah’s Holly and Ethan Hazzard’s Hunter are more bound to the Mithraic than they are to their new android parents. Naturally, betrayal turns the tides and breaks many hearts as the viewers helplessly watch the past repeating itself.

Of course, none of this would be as profoundly arresting without the spectacular camerawork. Mr Guzikowski employs the talents of three stellar cinematographers for ‘Raised by Wolves’, each of them leaving an imprint on their respective episodes. Ross Emery, better known for his work on ‘I, Frankenstein’ (2014) and ‘The Wolverine’ (2013), is responsible for five chapters, including the pilot. Eric Messerschmidt of ‘Mindhunter’ (2017) and ‘Legion’ (2018) renown delivers a visceral vision through three episodes. A noticeable surprise comes from Dariusz Wolski, who has returned to work with Ridley Scott again after ‘The Martian’ (2015) and the epic ‘Prometheus’ (2012).

‘RAISED BY WOLVES’ (2020), ©HBO/HOME BOX OFFICE

Also from the ‘Prometheus’ era, Marc Streitenfeld signs the series’ score alongside Ben Frost, the latter known for his more sombre work on ‘Dark’ (2017-2020). Everything about ‘Raised by Wolves’ is meant to stir a certain set of emotions, and I dare say it’s a successful endeavour, considering that the opening theme alone is capable of encompassing everything good and awful about us in just a handful of lyrics.

With Tom McCullagh of ‘Game of Thrones’ (2011-2019) and Chris Seagers of ‘Saving Private Ryan’ (1998) signing off on the production design, alongside talented art directors such as Jonathan Hely-Hutchinson and Fiona Gavin, the world of Kepler-22B is as intense and as dreary as the writer intended. It was entirely shot in Cape Town, South Africa, with the production team taking advantage of the country’s breath-taking views, some of which are seamlessly incorporated into the setting. One can’t help but applaud the elegant minimalism of sci-fi elements against the wilderness of an unknown and fundamentally hostile realm. It serves as a metaphor for our condition, as well—try as hard as we’d like, with or without religion, we’re all but fodder for the stars.

‘RAISED BY WOLVES’ (2020), ©HBO/HOME BOX OFFICE

Ultimately, ‘Raised by Wolves’ may be perceived as polarizing by religious and atheist viewers alike, though perhaps more by the former than the latter, but the series only has our truth and our violent history to work with. Billions died and more keep dying in wars fuelled by religion and supremacy of one kind or another. Should a cataclysmic event appear on the horizon of our collective existence, how will we survive? If we’re given a second chance at life, what will we do with it?

In Mr Guzikowski’s extraordinary sci-fi drama, these are the very questions that Mother and Father are trying to answer. It’s a rather disappointing conclusion to say that I expect more from the androids than I do from the humans, but given the current climate in which our world festers, perhaps our greatest hope really does lie in our scientific accomplishments. The series serves as a clear warning about the dangers of extremism in every form, religious and atheist alike.

The ultimate threat to humanity, then, is not artificial intelligence like some great minds of the 20^th century have warned. Ideologies are.

During these trying times, I’ve learned to make the most of what the lockdown has had to offer. Catching up with my movie watchlist has been my favourite activity so far. It brought me to Edward Norton’s ‘Motherless Brooklyn’ (2019), the actor’s second directorial foray and the first which he has written, directed, and starred in. It’s been nineteen years since ‘Keep the Faith’ (2000), the romantic dramedy in which he shared the screen with Jenna Elfman and Ben Stiller, and one can easily tell how much Mr Norton has grown as a filmmaker.

‘Motherless Brooklyn’ received a mixed bag (albeit predominantly positive) attention from critics and the awards circuit, including a nod from the Golden Globes for its emotionally exquisite soundtrack penned by Daniel Pemberton, better known for ‘The Man from U.N.C.L.E.’ (2015) and ‘Steve Jobs’ (2015). Edward Norton received a Satellite Award as a film auteur, as did Beth Mickle and Michael Ahern for their production design and art direction. Dick Pope, of ‘The Illusionist’ (2006) and ‘Secrets & Lies’ (1996) fame was also nominated for his stellar cinematography at Camerimage in Poland.

©WARNER BROS. PICTURES

Based on the eponymous book by Jonathan Lethem, published in 1999, and while retaining the overall style and story elements, ‘Motherless Brooklyn’ takes place in 1950s New York, as it borrows heavily from the Neo-Noir of Hollywood cinema. In his quest to deliver a memorable film, Norton ultimately throws out the book and offers a different flavour, a period oeuvre that reminds us of those immensely addictive dime detective tales while still doused in a powerful political fragrance.

The move to ‘50s New York was made in part to satisfy Norton’s years-old fascination with Robert Moses, the controversial and dangerously powerful city planner. The film was meant to capture ‘the dark, the shadow narrative of how modern New York really got built—the racism that was sort of baked into the city’, the actor-director once said in an interview. Moses Randolph, Alec Baldwin’s villainous character, is based on the city planner. This creative operation further helped define Norton’s Lionel Essrog, the Tourette-affected private eye, as ‘a really terrific vehicle for going deep into the murk of what happened in New York in that time’.

©WARNER BROS. PICTURES

Lionel refers to himself as ‘spastic’, a term more frequently heard during the ‘50s. Despite his twitchy and complicated condition, he does everything in his power to find out who killed his friend and mentor, Bruce Willis’s Frank Minna, and to protect Gugu Mbatha-Raw’s delightful Laura Rose. Norton’s performance is beyond exceptional, thoughtful, and respectful of a man suffering from Tourette’s. It is also deeply moving, particularly during the bebop jazz scene—the Trumpet Man, portrayed by Michael Kenneth Williams (you might remember him as Omar Little in ‘The Wire’), delivers a series of random beats and abrupt changes in melody that reach a surprisingly tight unison with Lionel’s own fractured yet wonderfully beautiful mind.

If there is one thing that Mr Norton isn’t in short supply of, it’s talent. His performance works on an even more profound level when coupled with Willem Dafoe’s hallucinating rendition of the neurotic Paul Randolph, architect and humiliated brother of Moses.

Helping Lionel along the way—or, in one case, encumbering him in his efforts to bring Frank’s killer to justice, are the ‘Minna boys’, orphans and colleagues of the deceased detective whom he helped and protected and nurtured over the years. Among them, Bobby Cannavale’s Tony Vermonte stands out.

©WARNER BROS. PICTURES

Story-wise and specifically from a narrative point of view, the characters’ path will seem predictable at times. Parts of ‘Motherless Brooklyn’ have been done before in other detective movies, written in other Ray Chandler-esque novels. Seen this, done that, sure, and it’s rife with red herrings, of which some are more palatable than others, but, in the end, the film’s central message is powerful—an echo for today’s world. In it, power and ambition continue to shape our society, no matter who dies along the way to make someone’s dreams happen.

Unsurprisingly, the novel faced a similar issue. Salon’s Gary Krist even wrote once that ‘”Motherless Brooklyn” has a few problems—including some cartoon-like stock characters and one scene near the end that flirts with maudlin sentimentality—but it works far better than the average hip postmodern novel in terms of sheer emotional impact. Because Lethem never lets the metaphorical and linguistic possibilities of his narrator’s illness overshadow his immensely appealing humanity, we really care about Lionel and his search for his mentor’s killer’. In many ways, the same can be said about Norton’s film.

There are parts about Tony that might rub a discerning viewer the wrong way, especially in the way he makes his suggestions. Moses’s overall demeanour might carry a bit more flair than usual, and perhaps even Paul’s neuroses may be over the top. In the end, it doesn’t matter, because we are so emotionally invested in Lionel’s quest for truth and justice in the muddied heart of the Big Apple that we cannot be bothered to put the entire movie under a microscope. His resolution is too important. He deserves it more than anyone.

©WARNER BROS. PICTURES

Dick Pope’s illustrious cinematography brings out the true charm of noir flicks with a modern smoothness that is not easy to attain. There are layers of beauty and sensitivity that require discussion. The two-time Oscar nominee has worked with Norton before on ‘The Illusionist’, therefore having already established a fluid professional relationship with the actor-director. In an interview with SHOOT, Mr Pope said that the biggest creative challenge he had to deal with was ‘bringing to the screen and matching the cinematic expectation of the film that Edward had lived with and dreamt about for nearly 20 years’. Fortunately, the cinematographer was given a gorgeous photobook that Norton had compiled to express his singular vision, to begin with.

According to Mr Pope, there was a clearly spoken desire for an artful lushness to be embedded within the image. There, the old cinema patina was required but without suggesting that the image had been in any way treated or altered. ‘Motherless Brooklyn’ is, in many ways, an ode to ‘Chinatown’ (1974), but it also draws inspiration from ‘40s and ‘50s New York photography by Saul Leiter, Vivian Maier and Robert Frank. Norton even came forth with his own collection of photographs to support the cinematographer’s process—among them, stills of the original Penn Railroad Station were a brilliant source of inspiration for how the movie’s lighting functioned.

As far as the palette and composition are concerned, the desired effect was accomplished. The cinematography of ‘Motherless Brooklyn’ is one of its strongest points, capturing our focus with its powerful shades of yellow and red, its abundance of shadows and darkness, its plays of reflections and negative spaces, and the way in which Lionel’s loneliness and isolation are significantly amplified through camera movement.

©WARNER BROS. PICTURES

The look and feel of ‘Motherless Brooklyn’ were accomplished with production designer Beth Mickle’s unwavering support and a plethora of inspiration from Robert Caro’s ‘The Power Broker’, a popular biography of Robert Moses. Ms Mickle had her work cut out for her, of course, considering the abundance of period pieces required for the sets.

In one interview, she talked about the initial creative process. Pinterest and Google are key sources of visuals in this day and age, but she still had to do some old-fashioned research along the way. ‘We used to have to go [to] the image library of New York, and we still do a bit of that. But that’s the first step, collecting all the imagery and getting a better sense of the architecture, signage, and graphics. Looking at what kind of vehicles populated the streets. That’s general period research.’

While some of New York’s legendary landmarks remain the same—see the Chrysler Building or the Empire State Building or the Brooklyn Bridge, for example – it is a city that consumes itself and goes through radical changes almost every year. For most New Yorkers, it’s a point of gratification. For Ms Mickle, it’s a point of in-depth analysis. And since Lionel’s journey takes us through the entire city, offering even a breath-taking car chase across Harlem, New York had plenty to offer. The production design and Michael Ahern’s award-winning art direction only took what was already there and brought it back into the ‘50s with minute re-façade techniques.

©WARNER BROS. PICTURES

Gorgeously rich in sharp, fast-paced dialogue and jazz melodies that are typical of the Neo-Noir style on the silver screen, ‘Motherless Brooklyn’ features music by the revered Wynton Marsalis and a group of veteran jazz musicians such as Joe Farnsworth. Since part of the story takes place in a north Harlem jazz club, Norton has concentrated a substantial amount of effort into creating a genuine and realistic atmosphere of that era, which is why one scene even gives us a dizzying performance of ‘Blues Walk’, originally recorded by Clifford Brown and Max Roach and ‘a staple of that hard-bop era’.

©WARNER BROS PICTURES

The film ultimately and successfully transports the viewers into ‘50s New York. Its depiction of Lionel forces them to root for him, to ride out the twitches and the moments of utter loneliness before the sun rises again and sheds light on the ugly truth that dwells in the foundation of one of the world’s most famous cities.

‘Motherless Brooklyn’ has been a long time in the making, its screenplay finished in 2012 and with seven more years of pitching and tweaking to follow before gaining the support of eminent producers like Gigi Pritzker of ‘Drive’ (2011) and Sue Kroll of ‘A Star Is Born’ (2018). A long time in the making, yes, but certainly worth the effort.

Given today’s political climate and the resurgence of white nationalism in countries that once fought and prevailed in the Second World War against the Third Reich, Amazon’s ‘Hunters’ (2020) feels painfully appropriate. Others might say perhaps too appropriate, but the overall darkly comic approach takes the edge off this genre-bending saga. Not that long ago, people were debating about whether it was cool to punch Nazis or not after Richard Spencer got himself a shiner during a televised interview.

Many agreed that we’d best go high when they go low—but many more pointed out that being a Nazi is the epitome of evil. And in the face of evil, one fights. ‘Hunters’ satisfies the latter group of people by providing a violent ensemble of ‘hunters’ who take karma into their own hands and not only punch Nazis but kill them, acting as judge, jury, and executioners.

‘HUNTERS’ (2020), ©MONKEYPAW PRODUCTIONS/AMAZON STUDIOS

The series is based on a true and little-known fact: not long after the Second World War ended, and Germany was falling apart at the seams, the American government brought over and secured new identities for a throng of Nazi scientists. People who had served Hitler and his dreams of an Aryan empire were hired by NASA and other government branches to help push the United States into a new era. This was Operation Paperclip, and it eventually sent the Americans to the Moon. ‘Hunters’, however, does much more with this inspiration source. Its story involves an incredibly elaborate plan of the aforementioned secret Nazi immigrants to bring about the Fourth Reich as they pretend to be God-loving American citizens, and it is up to Meyer Offerman (Al Pacino) and his comic-bookish band of vigilantes to stop them.

At first sight, ‘Hunters’ might give off a sensationalist impression. The Memorial and Museum Auschwitz-Birkenau accused the production of ‘dangerous foolishness and caricature’ over some of its scenes—particularly the Auschwitz prisoners’ deadly chess game, where SS officers forced them onto a life-size chessboard field, using them as pieces and pushing them to kill each other with every conquering move. But newcomer creator David Weil defended the scene, which was likely inspired from Dan Simmons’ ‘Carrion Comfort’ sci-fi novel of 1989: ‘After all, it is true that Nazis perpetrated widespread and extreme acts of sadism […] against their victims. I simply did not want to depict those specific, real acts of trauma.’

‘HUNTERS’ (2020), ©MONKEYPAW PRODUCTIONS/AMAZON STUDIOS

The show is, in fact, respectful of the Jewish people and their immense suffering at the hands of the Nazis. Its characters do a fantastic job of conveying their emotions, their anger and their desire for justice on behalf of the millions of people who died in atrocious conditions—friends, families, loved ones. ‘Hunters’ is, by all intents and purposes, a revenge fantasy that crosses several genres and has no mercy for the villains in its story. Some might find the violence glorifying, but the overall formula works if one focuses less on the historical accuracy and more on the characters’ journey. It is surprisingly unpredictable, and we don’t know exactly what’s going to happen until it happens. And the outlook is often grim, but Weil’s hunters keep fighting because… well, what else are they going to do, when the Nazis have infiltrated the American government to the highest level?

‘Hunters’ is David Weil’s first foray as a showrunner, and he has put together an impressive team of writers and directors to convey his vision onto Amazon’s Prime streaming platform. Cumulated credits of this crew include gritty and compelling productions such as ‘Watchmen’ (2019), ‘Prison Break’ (2007-2017), ‘American Horror Story’ (2011-2016), ‘Legion’ (2017), ‘Happy!’ (2017-2019) and ‘Preacher’ (2017-2019), to name but a few. The writing is rife with dark humour and sprinkled with Yiddish snark of the highest calibre. The Nazi characters have a slightly over-the-top allure, yet they manage to be realistically terrifying when they pounce on their victims. The hunters are a rat-pack of sorts, a diverse group of men and women gathered under Offerman’s tutelage to exact revenge upon people with the means and resources to practically destroy the world. The stakes become painfully obvious as the story unfolds.

‘HUNTERS’ (2020), ©MONKEYPAW PRODUCTIONS/AMAZON STUDIOS

The cinematography is exquisite, as ‘Hunters’ is seen through a cinematic retro lens. Alfonso Gomez-Rejon, the pilot’s director and an alumnus of Ryan Murphy’s ‘AHS’ and ‘Glee’ productions, said that he wanted to make Weil’s series as cinematic as possible, which is, in part, accomplished through its feature length, but fully established through the camera work. ‘I want everything to be screened at the Cinerama Dome, so I’m always approaching everything asking, “Is it worthy of the big screen?”’ Gomez-Rejon told Variety.

William Rexer of ‘The Loudest Voice’ (2019), Emmy Award winner Frederick Elmes of ‘The Night Of’ (2016), and Tim Norman are the cinematographers that Weil chose for this project, and the end result, combined with Curt Beech’s sterling production design, is an enthralling immersion in 1970s New York. There is something about the lighting, in particular, that further adds to the show’s vintage vibe and its already dark story.

Worldbuilding and screenplay aside, however, it is the actors’ performances that deserve a round of heartfelt applause. ‘Hunters’ is propelled by a strong cast and an even stronger sense of justice. It’s Al Pacino’s first role as a television series regular, and his portrayal of Meyer Offerman is absolutely spectacular. If anyone can get us to believe that the end justifies the means, it is the Jewish millionaire who survived the horrors of Auschwitz and uses his fortune to track down and kill as many Nazis on American soil as he can.

‘HUNTERS’ (2020), ©MONKEYPAW PRODUCTIONS/AMAZON STUDIOS

Logan Lerman has grown a lot since ‘The Perks of Being a Wallflower’ (2012), ‘Fury’ (2014), and the ‘Percy Jackson’ films. The slow-burning pilot brings him into focus as the Jewish teenager who gave up on college and resorted to dealing weed to support his grandmother, whom he lovingly refers to as his Safta. His world is turned upside down when she’s gunned down in their own home, and he discovers that she was an integral part of a band of Nazi hunters led by Meyer Offerman, who immediately becomes a sort of twisted grandfather figure.

Lerman’s Jonah Heidelbaum is full of emotions—his pain transcends the fantasy of the screen as he tries to cope with this ugly reality that he’s been plunged into. As the plot thickens, and he starts losing more of the people he loves, Jonah becomes determined to stop the Nazis from achieving their goals, following Offerman’s questionable path. There is a clear evolution of Jonah as a character, from a shy weed-dealing Jewish boy who loves his grandmother but isn’t truly connected to his legacy, to the furious young man who feels the pain of all the Jewish people as he digs deeper into his grandmother’s history and the horrors perpetrated by the Nazis.

‘HUNTERS’ (2020), ©MONKEYPAW PRODUCTIONS/AMAZON STUDIOS

An exquisite part of the ‘Hunters’ ensemble are Saul Rubinek and Carol Kane as Murray and Mindy Markowitz, survivors of a death camp themselves. Mr Rubinek was born in a refugee camp in Germany in 1948, where his father ran a Yiddish Repertory Theatre company, so aside from his thespian talent—easily demonstrated by ‘Unforgiven’ (1992) and ‘True Romance’ (1993), among others, he also draws from his own life and upbringing to add that essential dose of realism which makes Murray Markowitz authentic and much-beloved.

Known best for her role as Valerie in ‘The Princess Bride’ (1987), Lillian Kaushtupper in ‘Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt’ (2015-2019), and Mrs Sisters in ‘The Sisters Brothers’ (2018), respectively, Carol Kane is truly arresting as Mindy Markowitz. She survived the Holocaust, even though she watched her son, a mere child, gunned down by an SS officer during the family separation process. She survived the camp in part thanks to Murray, who left her a dandelion on the fence each day, so she’d know that ‘it’s gonna be okay’, eventually. The Markowitzes are Offerman’s chief technical ‘officers’, and they’re quite adept at balancing their religious lives with their Nazi hunting endeavours. They love each other deeply, and they share the kind of trauma that would normally break people into bits and pieces—through everything they have endured, however, Murray and Mindy Markowitz have managed to push through.

‘HUNTERS’ (2020), ©MONKEYPAW PRODUCTIONS/AMAZON STUDIOS

Some have wondered what Josh Radnor of ‘How I Met Your Mother’ (2005-2014) fame was doing in ‘Hunters’. To my surprise, he offers a hilarious rendition of Lonny Flash, the washed-up Jewish actor turned Nazi hunter. Richard Dreyfuss keeps ‘stealing’ the spotlight from him, but Flash is not easily defeated. Though he comes across as a skeevy womanizer and perhaps not the brightest fruit in the basket, he certainly delivers when it’s time to get serious, without skimping on the much-needed comic relief.

Tiffany Boone of ‘Beautiful Creatures’ (2013) and ‘The Following’ (2014) plays Roxy Jones, a badass single mother with a glorious afro that uses the paid work she does for Offerman to fund her ex’s civil rights protests. Louis Ozawa of ‘The Bourne Legacy’ (2012) is Joe Mizushima, a war veteran who’s still plagued by harrowing memories of combat that include an attempt to carry a napalm-stricken girl off to safety. Kate Mulvany is remembered as Mrs McKee in ‘The Great Gatsby’ (2013), but as Sister Harriet, the gun-slinging and ass-kicking vigilante nun in ‘Hunters’, she is easily one of the show’s undeniable superstars.

‘HUNTERS’ (2020), ©MONKEYPAW PRODUCTIONS/AMAZON STUDIOS

Dylan Baker as Biff Simpson, Undersecretary of State to President Jimmy Carter by day and secret Nazi better known as ‘the Butcher of Arlav’ by night, is exactly what one of the key villains in this series is supposed to be—equal parts scary and over the top, and with the morals of a mollusc. Greg Austin of ‘Mr Selfridge’ (2014-2016) is quite the surprise as Travis Leich, a psychopathic Nazi assassin with dreams of becoming the American Hitler. Lena Olin makes a brilliant return to television as The General, a deviant Nazi mastermind and Offerman’s ultimate antagonist.

If historical accuracy or lack thereof may put viewers off, ‘Hunters’ certainly rises above the other mixed genre shows with its exceptional performances and brutally honest pieces of American history disguised as mock TV commercials and game show snippets—because if there is one thing that the United States may never escape, it’s this complicated relationship with white supremacy, which dates back long before the Second World War. ‘Hunters’ is not for everyone, but for those who wish to revel in a full-blown revenge-against-the-Nazis bonanza, it is the gift that will likely keep on giving.

War is an unpleasant but defining trait of our species. It has shaped entire civilizations and broken up empires. It has been a king maker and a destroyer of nations. We’ve gone to war for different reasons, most of them fuelled either by greed or by a passionate desire for freedom. Billions have lost their lives over the centuries, but billions more lived to tell the tale of the conflicts that built their countries and to make sure such fighting never happens again. Even today, parts of the world are embroiled in violent campaigns of land ownership or religious ideology. War, as horrific and as heart-breaking as it may be, has also been the source of some truly compelling stories.

It is a complicated thing to write about, considering the complexity and the insane amount of logistics that goes into creating a realistic rendition of its undertaking. War itself is equally difficult to engage in, so why would a story about it be any easier?

DENNIS HOPPER IN ‘APOCALYPSE NOW’ (1979), ©ZOETROPE

Accounts of almost superhuman strength and bravery, of camaraderie and resilience, have made history in the cinematic universe—even today, Francis Ford Coppola’s ‘Apocalypse Now’ (1979) is a staple of its genre. Walter Murch spent over a year to edit the film to perfection. Steven Spielberg’s ‘Saving Private Ryan’ (1998) gave us stellar performances from Tom Hanks, Matt Damon, and Tom Sizemore, to name but a few. And the list continues with silver screen gems such as ‘Platoon’ (1986), ‘Full Metal Jacket’ (1987), ‘The Dirty Dozen’ (1967), or ‘The Thin Red Line’ (1998), among many others. They all portray humans at their worst and best, stuck in the heart of violence and death.

But ‘1917’ (2019), ten-time Academy Award nominee and winner of the Golden Globe and seven BAFTAs, manages to bring the war film genre to a whole new standard. Two major conflicts defined the 20th century. The First and the Second World Wars managed to redraw the global political map, whilst embedding some of the worst crimes against humanity in the annals of history. Directed by Sam Mendes of ‘American Beauty’ (1999), ‘Jarhead’ (2005) and ‘Skyfall’ (2012) fame, ‘1917’ goes deep into the reality of WWI—so deep, in fact, that we’re thrown right into the trenches with the main protagonists.

‘1917’ (2019), ©AMBLIN PARTNERS/DREAMWORKS

Every single aspect of this film points to a painstaking attention to detail, without which it wouldn’t have reached such levels of excellence, in the first place. Sam Mendes and Krysty Wilson-Cairns, the latter known for her work on ‘Penny Dreadful’ (2016), wrote ‘1917’ as the story of two soldiers and comrades who are sent behind enemy lines to deliver a message to their fellow British troops, a message that would ultimately stop the massacre of over 1,600 men. It is loosely based on a tale told to Mendes by his grandfather, Alfred, who fought in the First World War. While mostly fictional, the film’s execution is so magnificent that it ends up feeling all too real.

The overall appeal of ‘1917’ is its impression of a single continuous shot turned into feature length. Mendes has dabbled with the single shot technique before—see the opening scene of ‘Skyfall’, for example. But taking that and making an entire movie with it was a whole new challenge altogether. Enter Roger Deakins, Academy Award winning cinematographer better known for his work on ‘Blade Runner 2049’ (2017), ‘No Country for Old Men’ (2007), ‘Fargo’ (1996), and his previous collaboration with Mendes on ‘Skyfall’. Mr Deakins manages to turn the camera into an extraordinary element, taking us from ravaged and corpse-filled trenches and puddles to aerial shots that leave us breathless.

GEORGE MACKAY IN ‘1917) (2019), ©FRANÇOIS DUHAMEL/AP

We glide across the water as we follow lance corporals Schofield and Blake, who have embarked on the most dangerous quest of their lives, slipping through the enemy lines and across no man’s land in order to save their comrades from marching into a deadly trap. These long continuous shots become incredibly personal, forcing us to hold on to our breaths as we root for the young lads to prevail. We’re shot at. We watch a dogfight in the sky, only to see a German plane hurtling towards us mere seconds later. It is all too real and harrowing, often intensely emotional and at times so exciting that it is difficult to sit still.

The second production element worthy of all praise is the design. Dennis Gassner, who’s worked with both Roger Deakins and Sam Mendes on ‘Skyfall’ and ‘Blade Runner 2049’, brought his meticulousness on board for ‘1917’.

GEORGE MACKAY IN ‘1917’ (2019), ©AMBLIN PARTNERS/DREAMWORKS

Absolutely everything used in terms of set and costume design is the result of painstakingly hard work provided by him and his team of costume and set designers—the soldiers’ uniforms and weaponry; the barbed wire forests; the mud and filthy puddles in which fallen men rot; the underground shelters with girlfriends’ names scrawled over the support beams, rats and abandoned cans of food; the sinister abandoned farms of northern France; the magnificent views of a war-ravaged town with its ruins and piles of rubble, while the yellow phosphorescent haze illuminates the sky and highlights the ongoing battle… it all adds up to a hyperrealism of cinematography that further sinks us into the story.

DEAN CHARLES CHAPMAN AND GEORGE MACKAY IN ‘1917’ (2019), ©AMBLIN PARTNERS/DREAMWORKS

Lee Smith, previously known for his stellar editing of ‘Inception’ (2010), ‘Dunkirk’ (2017), and ‘The Dark Knight’ (2008), was tasked with bringing the long and exquisitely complex single shots and occasional ellipses together in order to meet Mendes’s vision all the way through. The result is a fluid tale, told mostly by the two main protagonists as they move and fight and struggle to survive behind enemy lines. ‘1917’ follows a sinuous voyage into the heart of the First World War with an agility that is downright astonishing.

BENEDICT CUMBERBATCH IN ‘1917’ (2019), ©AMBLIN PARTNERS/DREAMWORKS

But perhaps the greatest performance is offered by the actors themselves. From a marketing point of view, ‘1917’ deserves praise. By casting titanic names such as Benedict Cumberbatch, Colin Firth and Mark Strong in supporting roles, Mendes drew attention. But by the time we’re submerged into the story, we realize that their contribution, while poignant and heartfelt, is merely meant to uplift the main heroes, vividly and viscerally portrayed by George MacKay and Dean Charles Chapman—the lance corporals with an impossible mission.

The two young men were arduously trained and prepared to undertake their roles as British soldiers. Credit here goes to Paul Bidiss, former paratrooper and senior military advisor, who worked with the actors for weeks so they could look and act the part as realistically as possible. That included running across long distances and tough terrains whilst fully equipped in that epoch’s military gear. With previous experience on ‘Jason Bourne’ (2016), ‘Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation’ (2015), and ‘Wonder Woman 1984’ (2020), to name but a few, Mr Bidiss’s contribution is worth commending as an integral factor that amplifies the aforementioned hyperrealism of ‘1917’.

DEAN CHARLES CHAPMAN AND GEORGE MACKAY IN ‘1917’ (2019), ©AMBLIN PARTNERS/DREAMWORKS

As characters, MacKay’s Schonfield and Chapman’s Blake are remarkably different. They’re both young, clearly too young to be in a war—alas, that’s just one of the harsh truths of combat; boys are given weapons and sent to kill or be killed. Blake has fun stories to tell and a certain ingenuity that shows he’s not been in the trenches for too long. Schonfield, on the other hand, carries himself with heavy silence and few but equally heavy words. He’s already won a medal for his bravery, which he traded for a bottle of wine. It’s just a piece of tin, he tells a baffled Blake. There is innocence in his eyes, too, but it’s already been marred by everything he’s seen so far. Schonfield understands the toll that war demands of its participants, yet he keeps moving, he keeps going and fighting in service of his country. There is no happy ending for soldiers in a war, because they either die or come back haunted by what they have witnessed.

GEORGE MACKAY IN ‘1917’ (2019), ©AMBLIN PARTNERS/DREAMWORKS

Our hearts either jump or break, in a repeated and sometimes combined fashion, as we follow them on April 6th 1917, jumping from one hostile environment to another, without a chance to breathe and rest. Schonfield and Blake must reach the Second Battalion of the Devonshire Regiment before they launch a doomed-to-fail assault on the Hindenburg Line. By the time Schonfield escapes the Germans and jumps into the rapids for some kind of salvation, we experience a sense of hopelessness—but in our hearts we know that in these odysseys, it always gets worse before it gets better.

GEORGE MACKAY IN ‘1917’ (2019), ©AMBLIN PARTNERS/DREAMWORKS

Schonfield’s scene as he floats on the river, trying to stay awake while flower petals fall onto the water, faintly reminds me of John Everett Millais’ Ophelia painting. Like her, Schonfield seems to have been suspended in time, slowly drifting into the arms of death. But unlike Ophelia, Schonfield manages to find the strength to live.

GEORGE MACKAY IN ‘1917’ (2019), ©AMBLIN PARTNERS/DREAMWORKS

Thomas Newman has penned a terrific score for this film. It completes the film, seamlessly leading to its culminating point alongside Schonfield as he decides to run across the battlefield in order to find Benedict Cumberbatch’s Colonel MacKenzie and deliver General Erinmore’s message. It’s his last chance to stop ‘Sixteen Hundred Men’ from dying. That scene is the triumph of ‘1917’ as a cinematic masterpiece and immersive war drama—Schonfield runs and stumbles and falls and runs again while the Second Battalion of the Devonshire Regiment begin their attack on the Hindenburg Line. 

The end brings us full circle, in a way, with Schonfield settling by the trunk of an old tree, significantly wearier and more broken in so many ways, as opposed to the opening scene. A stark reminder of the true horrors and overall ridiculousness of war, ‘1917’ is a punch to the collective solar plexus, so beautifully made that it has certainly earned its place among the giants of its genre.

Let’s face it. From the moment Stephen King started writing, the world has never been the same. A master of blending suspense and horror with the supernatural in terrifyingly realistic ways, Mr King has given us at least 97 books up to date. It doesn’t look like he’s stopping any time soon, either—not that we mind.

His numerous bestsellers have become movie and TV rights darlings. Production studios continue to wrestle each other for a chance to put his stories onto the screen. Most of Mr King’s books have been adapted in one form or another: feature films (classics such as ‘The Shining’ of 1980 or ‘Carrie’ of 1976, as well as more modern takes like ‘It’ and ‘It: Chapter Two’ of 2017 and 2019, respectively); TV series (see Audience’s ‘Mr Mercedes’ featuring Brendan Gleeson and Harry Treadaway, or Hulu’s Stephen King-inspired ‘Castle Rock’ with Bill Skarsgård and Lizzy Caplan); and plenty of mini-series (remember the original ‘It’ of 1990, ‘Rose Red’, or ‘The Dead Zone’?).

BILL SKARSGÅRD AS PENNYWISE IN ‘IT’ (2017), ©NEW LINE CINEMA

He has written so much and so well that it’s a task and a pleasure to keep up. Not all of his book adaptations have been stellar, however. ‘The Mist’ (2017) was an absolute flop, while the earlier film from 10 years earlier, directed by King-aficionado Frank Darabont did noticeably better. The original ‘Pet Sematary’ of 1989 became a cult classic, but the remake of 2019 left much to be desired. ‘The Tommyknockers’ (1993) was dismal, yet John Carpenter’s take on ‘Christine’ (1983) brought the horror genre to a whole new level. Despite the risk of utter failure, the remakes and adaptations of Mr Kind’s source material keep coming. ‘The Stand’ (1994) was a moderate success for its time, starring Gary Sinise, Rob Lowe, and Molly Ringwald. It, too, is getting a remake this year, via CBS and featuring James Marsden, Jovan Adepo, and Whoopi Goldberg. We’ll see how that one turns out. The point is, Stephen King is a master storyteller, but his books are not always the easiest to transform for the screen. It’s a hit-and-miss game with his tales of the dreadful and the unbelievable.

‘THE OUTSIDER’ (2020), ©HOME BOX OFFICE/HBO

Enter ‘The Outsider’ (2020), HBO’s first foray into his world. Plenty of networks and hordes of more than capable producers have taken on his works, though few were able to reach the level of this most recent Stephen King adaptation. Based on the eponymous book published in 2018, ‘The Outsider’ follows a seasoned cop and a peculiar investigator as they try to make sense of a seemingly straightforward murder investigation that turns out to be anything but.

From the very first episode, we’re confronted with a difficult premise: how can someone be in two places at once?

Created by Oscar-nominated Richard Price of ‘The Wire’ (2003-2009) and ‘The Deuce’ (2017-2019) fame, ‘The Outsider’ offers a supernatural answer to the above question. The best part? It is so well put together, that we actually believe the unbelievable.

BEN MENDELSOHN AND CYNTHIA ERIVO IN ‘THE OUTSIDER’ (2020), ©HOME BOX OFFICE/HBO

The series is written by Mr Price and Mr King, with three directors at its helm: Andrew Bernstein, better known for ‘The West Wing’ (2000-2006), ‘Tom Clancy’s Jack Ryan’ (2019), and ‘Ozark’ (2017-2018); Charlotte Brändström, of ‘The Witcher’ (2019) and ‘Counterpart’ (2019); and Jason Bateman, actor and director most famous for his work on ‘Arrested Development’ (2003-2019), ‘Bad Words’ (2013), and ‘Juno’ (2007). HBO has put together a truly exceptional team for this project, and it shows right off the bat.

As soon as episode 1, aptly titled ‘Fish in a Barrel’ opens up, we’re vehemently absorbed into the story. Terry Maitland of Flint City, Oklahoma—all-around good guy/dad/baseball coach for the local boys’ team, is arrested for the horrific murder of little Frankie Peterson. The evidence and a slew of credible witnesses are against him, while he insists on his innocence. His reputation is obliterated, his family torn apart, and then compelling proof and witnesses putting him miles away from Flint City at the time of the murder emerge. The mystery is set. How could Terry Maitland have raped, murdered and mutilated an innocent kid, when he was all the way in Cap City at a teacher’s conference? By the end of this episode, we’re left baffled, asking the same question, over and over. How is this possible? How is there solid and indisputable evidence and testimony both incriminating and clearing of Terry Maitland?

JASON BATEMAN IN ‘THE OUTSIDER’ (2020), ©HOME BOX OFFICE/HBO

This brings back one of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s most memorable quotes: ‘Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.’ It would be safe to assume that ‘The Outsider’ boldly spins the impossible and twists it into the truth. 

The HBO series is, at its core, a gruesome crime drama. The classic jump-style horror is swapped for a mood of pure dread. The characters are shaken out of their regular lives, their rhythms disrupted by this terrible murder—everyone is involved in it and in its aftermath, one way or another, and the series does an exquisite job of following them all.

JULIANNE NICHOLSON IN ‘THE OUTSIDER’ (2020), ©HOME BOX OFFICE/HBO

In an elegant set of parallels, Terry, superbly played by Jason Bateman, struggles to prove his innocence, while his wife, Glory, portrayed by Julianne Nicholson, juggles a suddenly chaotic existence—her husband in jail, her daughters scared and confused, and the whole town scowling in their general direction for the awful crime that Terry is blamed for. At the same time, Detective Ralph Anderson, brilliantly brought to life by Ben Mendelsohn (Danny Rayburn in Netflix’s ‘Bloodline’, Talos in ‘Captain Marvel’, and King George VI in ‘Darkest Hour’), tries to make sense of what was supposed to be a dead-to-rights arrest. His main suspect appears guilty and innocent at the same time. Meanwhile, the Petersons are falling apart in their grief, one by one, until none are left standing.

The writers do a stellar job of infusing fear and realism into what is basically a heart-breaking tragedy, neatly wrapped up in layers of the supernatural. When talking about ‘The Outsider’, Stephen King said: ‘I write stories that are supposed to be fun and scary and make readers believe the unbelievable.’ That can be easily observed throughout the series’ first few episodes. By the time we meet Cynthia Erivo’s Holly Gibney, that’s it. We’re hooked. Terry Maitland had to be innocent. Something else happened. We have to know the truth. Take us to the truth, Mr King, no matter how weird and unexplainable it is!

YUL VASQUEZ ‘THE OUTDSIDER’ (2020), ©HOME BOX OFFICE/HBO

In terms of performance, each of the actors manage to stand out, breathing life into their characters like few other thespians can. Jason Bateman completely sells us this baffled version of Terry Maitland, a guy whose worse crime was that cowboy-style belt buckle. Glory Maitland is absolutely fierce, the lioness who must protect her cubs at all costs, as they’re now living in a town that has basically turned on them. 

Yul Vasquez of ‘Russian Doll’ (2019), ‘I Am the Night’ (2019), and ‘Captain Phillips’ (2013) as Yunis Sablo of the GBI brings a certain flavour of his own—the moderate bridge between Detective Anderson’s empiricism and Holly Gibney’s strangeness. A favourite scene so far is when these three characters meet in the diner to discuss a partnership aimed at finding Frankie Peterson’s real killer. ‘I have no tolerance for the unexplainable,’ Ralph tells Holly. ‘Well then, sir, you have no tolerance for me,” says Holly before she goes on to briefly but eloquently explain why she is different and definitely the right person to investigate the glaring mystery behind the kid’s murder.

BEN MENDELSOHN IN ‘THE OUTSIDER’ (2020), ©HOME BOX OFFICE/HBO

Referring to Ben Mendelsohn’s character, Stephen King said: ‘I had the idea of writing about a guy who was in two places at once, and what really turned my dial, […] I thought to myself, I’d like to have a protagonist here who has skin in the game.’ 

And Ralph Anderson certainly has that. He’s a father who lost a child of his own to cancer—coincidentally, Derek was also part of Terry Maitland’s baseball team, just like the Peterson boy. If anyone has what it takes to make this truly personal, it’s this weathered detective. But as we begin to peel away at the inconsistencies, we begin to understand that nothing is what it seems. 

Where storytelling is concerned, ‘The Outsider’ has not only succeeded in bringing Mr King’s tale to life, it has exceeded all expectations and elevated the standard once more for the crime and horror genres worldwide. An ample degree of insight and finesse are required for a writer to be able to show us how a person copes with the unbelievable, when nothing else explains what is right there, in front of his eyes.

‘THE OUTSIDER’ (2020), ©HOME BOX OFFICE/HBO

Of course, ‘The Outsider’ would be nowhere near as effective without its prolific cinematography. Kevin McKnight, Zak Mulligan and Rasmus Heise were brought on to help Mr King’s vision reach its full potential. Worth noting here are the image compositions, not only where the characters are involved in terms of on-camera position, but also where lighting and the establishing shots are concerned. There is a certain intensity that comes into each frame, as well as a nagging feeling that something worse has yet to happen. In an interview with IMDb, Stephen King said that he learned his ‘chops’ from some of the writers behind ‘The Twilight Zone’ (1959-1964), a fact which becomes obvious once you read one or more of his books. The cinematographers thus had the task of setting that mood across the board, inviting viewers to accept the fantastic in order to justify the horror that has befallen Flint City. 

Art directors Jason Perrine and Justin O’Neal Miller do a marvelous job of enhancing the story through its set designs and impressive detail work. One particularly memorable scene is when Yunis Sablo enters the barn to investigate the bloodied clothes. The ensemble of cobwebs and old wood against the forensic spotlight leaves an impression onto the viewer’s mind, further following the show’s overall visual patterns. Aiding in the rendering of this frightening realism, the editing team, comprised of Tad Dennis, Leo Trombetta, Dorian Harris, and Daniel James Scott, proceed with great care as they weave the scenes together, delivering a smooth selection of haunting and petrifying moments. Frank Peterson’s suicide scene continues to haunt us, even now.

‘THE OUTSIDER’ (2020), ©HOME BOX OFFICE/HBO

In case you’re wondering why we’re going to such lengths to applaud each and every member of this production and post-production team, it’s because they all had a part to play in making ‘The Outsider’ a tour-de-force of modern television. 

They deserve a standing ovation, for it is truly rare and surprising for an adaptation to surpass the book’s original craft. It takes talent and visionaries behind and in front of the camera. 

Fortunately, when HBO gambled on this series, they understood its potential and assembled the right team to take on the project. Not only is ‘The Outsider’ loyal to its source material, it goes that extra mile of adding more, of seamlessly reproducing and magnifying that Stephen King vibe which is so difficult to attain.

When Netflix first announced its plans for ‘The Witcher’, many fans of the eponymous videogames were equal parts thrilled and worried. The fantasy genre is and always will be difficult to adapt for the screen, and readers know it all too well. We all wondered at the time: would ‘The Witcher’ live up to the epic success of the ‘Lord of the Rings’ trilogy or ‘Game of Thrones’, or would it flop like the ‘Star Wars’ prequels?

Now that the show is currently being streamed on Netflix and was renewed for its second season even before the premiere, the reviews are in. Not all of them are kind, but that was to be expected. ‘The Witcher’ is an ambitious project, naively compared to other fantasy giants before it hit the screens and tasked with living up to or exceeding the videogame’s reputation. 

Created by Lauren Schmidt of ‘Daredevil’ (2016), ‘The Defenders’ (2017) and ‘The Umbrella Academy’ (2019) fame, ‘The Witcher’ is basically a hybrid of subgenres from the fantasy arena. Some parts are excellent and bordering on spectacular, while others are confusing or dangerously close to mediocre, considering this decade’s cinematic capabilities. It’s good, but it could’ve been great.

‘THE WITCHER’ POSTER, ©NETFLIX

Henry Cavill plays the hero-not-hero Geralt of Rivia, a mutated superhuman who hunts monsters for a living, trying to find his way in a world where ‘people often prove more wicked than beasts’. Given that Mr Cavill is a huge fan of the videogames and actively worked to get the lead part in ‘The Witcher’, one can tell there is plenty of passion in his performance. He takes Geralt out of the books/videogames and turns him into something bigger, something of his own making, and the viewers love him for it.

Freya Allan is a part-Elven princess named Ciri, and her coming-of-age story is slow to unfold but definitely going somewhere. Her journey marks the passage from innocence to adulthood, where the safety of home and family have been forcibly left behind. She is left to fend for herself or, worse even, take a chance and trust complete strangers. Much like in real life, that can lead to good or disastrous outcomes. Ciri represents the future generation, but her character arc is missing something, and we’re hoping she’ll get a more rounded story in the next season.

FREYA ALLEN AS CIRI IN ‘THE WITCHER’, ©NETFLIX

Yennefer, brilliantly portrayed by Anya Chalotra, is given plenty of room to develop, and she is certainly one of the show’s strong points. Ms Chalotra is better known for her work on ‘Wanderlust’ (2018), and while she’s still young and relatively new to the scene, she has everything she needs to make her mark. Yennefer is a complex creature with a heart-breaking backstory who makes difficult choices for the sake of power. She could’ve been better, if only her screen time had been crafted more carefully. Her desire to have a child is not an easy pill to swallow, considering the horrific dangers she’s willing to put herself through in order to become a mother in the absence of a womb she traded for magic. It’s difficult to relate to her plight on that level, but with everything else, she’s a tour de force, especially alongside Geralt.

Jaskier the Bard is supposed to play Jiminy Cricket to Geralt’s Pinocchio, but aside from a memorable tavern song called ‘Toss A Coin to Your Witcher’, Joey Batey’s character means well but falls exceptionally short. There is potential in the elder and more seasoned secondary characters—take Mousesack, Fringilla, Triss or Stregobor, for example, but their arcs are barely touched, their contribution to the story minimal, at best. Mr Sapkowski’s books were more generous.

ANYA CHALOTRA AS YENNEFER IN ‘THE WITCHER’, ©NETFLIX

At first glance, one can safely say that ‘The Witcher’ delivers on many of the promises it has made to its viewers—most of whom are aficionados of the videogames and have read the original published works. It is, by all intents and purposes, a dark, saucy and gritty fantasy series, rife with magic and conflict, driven by interesting and multifaceted characters. There are epic sword fights, seductive witches and monsters galore.

One of its strong points is the interwoven timeline: we follow Geralt and Yennefer long before the Nilfgaardian Empire begins its bid for the north, and we also follow Ciri in the present day as she escapes from her castle and homeland, currently invaded by the Nilfgaardian armies. The way in which the story is told is worthy of praise, as the show’s creator has managed to comb through all the books and short story collections in order to take Geralt on his adventure and to drive the plot in the right direction.

HENRY CAVILL AS GERALT IN ‘THE WITCHER’, ©NETFLIX

The visuals are exquisite. Gavin Struthers of ‘The Alienist’ (2018), ‘Nightflyers’ (2018) and ‘Downton Abbey’ (2011), and Jean-Philippe Gossart of ‘Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them’ (2016), ‘Star Wars: Episode VIII’ (2017) and ‘The Legend of Tarzan’ (2016), do a marvellous job in terms of cinematography. Most importantly, the panoramic views and the gloomy forest imagery do more for the worldbuilding than the actual screenplay. Hungary has plenty to offer in terms of stunning landscapes, mysterious forests and old castles. The production value is obvious in pretty much every exterior shot.

Sonya Belousova and Giona Ostinelly have worked together before, composing scores for ‘The Romanoffs’ (2018), ‘Sacred Lies’ (2018), ‘The Mist’ (2017) and ‘Reprisal’ (2018), so seeing them team up on ‘The Witcher’ made sense. A dark fantasy needs an equally dark and intense score, and the duo rise to the challenge with a bewitching and diverse composition. It’s easily one of the show’s strong points.

JODHY MAY AS QUEEN CALANTHE AND HENRY CAVILL AS GERALT IN ‘THE WITCHER’, ©NETFLIX

Unfortunately, ‘The Witcher’ also falls flat in crucial parts of the story and on important aspects of its characters, but the source material bears some of the blame. From a perception point of view, it should have never been compared to ‘Game of Thrones’ in the first place. The worldbuilding in David Benioff and D.B. Weiss’s adaptation of George R.R. Martin’s novels is virtually flawless because Mr Martin took the time to explore the cultural details that set each of the kingdoms apart. His characters speak in certain languages and with specific mannerisms. There are laws and traditions in place, along with a homogenous visual attribute in terms of fashion and costumes, nations and cultures, as well as in terms of landscape, weather and architecture.

It is impossible to confuse House Lannister with House Stark, for example. It is easy to make the difference between the north and the south, between Winterfell and King’s Landing. We know how Valyrian sounds, as opposed to Dothraki. A lot of work went into every detail that built the realm of ‘Game of Thrones’. ‘The Witcher’ never got that far or deep into its world, and we’re therefore left with plenty of gaps and a superficial universe, at best.

EMMA APPLETON AS RENFRI AND HENRY CAVILL AS GERALT IN ‘THE WITCHER’, ©NETFLIX

How did the worlds collide? There’s a mention of it as ‘the Conjunction of the Spheres’, of how elves and monsters and humans ended up sharing this planet, but what of those who’ve not read the books or played the videogames? What is the Continent like? How can we tell the north from the south or the east? There is very little attention paid to the cultures and nations that make up this world and it shows. The lack of homogeneity cannot be covered with grunts and expletives, and the bane of every fantasy story is that it must feel realistic. Sure, elves aren’t real, but the writers have to make us believe that they are—after all, we wholeheartedly bought dragons like Drogon, Rhaegar and Viserion. We bought Legolas, Galadriel, Elrond, Arwen and all the other elves from J.R.R. Tolkien’s masterpiece. We’re having a hard time doing the same with ‘The Witcher’.

The characters’ names are rather difficult to remember, too, and that can easily push people away from a story. Andrzej Sapkowski was clearly looking up to Mr Tolkien for many of the elements in his Witcher saga, but he didn’t stick the landing on character names—of course, we have no trouble remembering the main heroes Yennefer, Geralt and Ciri, but everyone else’s can easily slip the mind. It might seem like a small issue, but for the millions of people who haven’t read his books and still want to watch and love ‘The Witcher’, it’ll play a negative part.

HENRY CAVILL AS GERALT IN ‘THE WITCHER’, ©NETFLIX

On the plus side, the pilot episode fight scene from Blaviken was beyond exquisite. Perhaps one of the best in this decade’s worth of film and television. The smooth melange between fast cuts and slow motion, paired with Geralt’s close combat and swordsmanship skills offers a truly superb action sequence, worthy of all praise. It’s a pity we didn’t see more in the same style throughout the rest of the season. 

The monsters’ CGI is sloppy, at best. Given this era’s technological advances and the beast’s importance to Geralt’s existence in the story, we should be able to put a little bit more effort into otherworldly creatures like the Striga, the Kikimora, the Krallach or the other grotesque protagonists of ‘The Witcher’. It’s one more reason why comparisons to ‘Game of Thrones’ should be swiftly disregarded. The two fantasy series will never be in the same league, regardless of original aspirations and general assumptions.

At the end of season 1, one can see why Netflix has decided to renew the series. It has all the ingredients it needs to build a loyal following—though the base is pre-existing thanks to the videogames. It’s the others who might not click play when season 2 comes out, mostly for the reasons above.

‘THE WITCHER’, ©NETFLIX

Yes, we are glad to see more fantasy on our screens, and we hope there will be more, soon enough. But ‘Lord of the Rings’ and ‘Game of Thrones’ have elevated the bar and it is difficult to rise to the same standard. Not impossible, just more tedious and definitely expensive. That being said, ‘The Witcher’ is rumoured to drive an $80-90 million budget. Not exactly pennies, but definitely enough to strengthen their creative force.

Maybe season 2 will bring us ampler worldbuilding details, sturdier character arcs and better monster CGI designs, along with fewer clichés and a less choppy dialogue. There is potential in this series, but the team behind this project must strive to surpass Mr Sapkowski’s literary works and expand Geralt’s universe into something more immersive and realistic. The formula itself isn’t difficult, but the devil is and will always be in the details.

Ever since we could walk upright and huddled around the fire for warmth and safety, mankind has imagined all sorts of stories. Most of them revolved around the things we could not fully understand—the stars, the moon and the sun moving across the sky, the violent storms and any natural phenomena that forced us to adapt, to build stronger homes or move to friendlier lands altogether. But the most enduring tales of ours revolved around monsters and other things that go bump in the night.

In many ways, these monsters are just reflections of ourselves, of a darker side of mankind, to be specific. They draw their origins from their makers, and they tend to outlive us all in varied forms of fiction and in different mediums. Of all the creatures that our minds have conjured—werewolves, ogres, snake gods, zombies, ghouls, changelings, dragons and so on, none have been more enduring and more versatile than the vampire.

Gifted with eternal life but forced to live in the shadows of the night and to only drink human blood, the vampire is one of our most recurring fictional motifs. It has been imagined and reimagined, invented and reinvented across different cultures and decades, and it’s not showing any signs of redundancy. We cannot get enough of these beautiful monsters—because they are most appealing in almost every piece of lore out there. They’re known to be seductive and charming, carrying the wisdom of centuries. They’re hedonists, and they are violent. They’ve traded their humanity for immortality, and they’re a treasure trove of stories.

GARY OLDMAN IN ‘DRACULA’ (1992), ©COLUMBIA PICTURES

From the Eastern European folktales, vampires were known as undead creatures that tormented their loved ones, gruesome and portly monsters that brought death and misery wherever they went. It wasn’t until John Polidori’s ‘The Vampyre’, published in 1819, that the monster was revamped into the charismatic and sophisticated figure of modern fiction. Bram Stoker got inspired from the folk tales of Transylvania about Vlad the Impaler and gave humanity ‘Dracula’ in 1897, a masterpiece of gothic fantasy. Many writers and filmmakers have tried their luck at vampire stories over the years since—some flopped and were never heard from again, while others became cult cinema or bestselling novels.

‘THE LOST BOYS'(1987), ©WARNER BROS.

Each time, however, the vampires won because they got to keep living in our collective imagination. Who could forget Joel Schumacher’s ‘The Lost Boys’ (1987), for example? Starring Jason Patric, Corey Haim and Kiefer Sutherland, this cult darling follows the story of two brothers moving into a new town and discovering that the place is overrun with vampires—the gritty, evil and violent type. How about Neil Jordan’s ‘Interview with the Vampire’ (1994), featuring dazzling performances by Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise, Antonio Banderas and a very young Kirsten Dunst? The screenplay was penned by Anne Rice, author of the same title bestselling novel in ‘The Vampire Chronicles’ series and it offered us a more romantic approach to the legendary creature.

In the 21st century, the vampire was once again reimagined with the ‘Twilight’ saga and ‘The Vampire Diaries’ (2009-2017) TV series, both garnering new generations of fans worldwide. They offered us vampires that could walk in the sunlight and young-adult-oriented romance, putting a new twist on the old monster. There is just something about them that we cannot seem to get enough of across generations.

‘TWILIGHT’ (2008), ©SUMMIT ENTERTAINMENT

As the year 2020 goes full steam ahead, we’re going back to the vampire’s original, grimmer roots. Anne Rice, creator of some of the most beloved undead literary characters, has recently announced that there is an ongoing effort to turn ‘The Vampire Chronicles’ into a TV series. This means we’ll get some fresh versions of Lestat, Marius, Armand and all the other blood-drinking debonair fiends that have become staples of modern fantasy. What makes her published works stand apart from everything else is the unique way in which she combines the lust, the hunger, the violence and the seduction of eternal life, creating larger-than-life characters that stay with us forever, long after we’re done reading the books.

CLAES BANG IN ‘DRACULA’ (2020), ©NETFLIX/BBC ONE

And while we’re all gearing up to find out how that particular project will come out, the new year has already given us a bloody delicious surprise, as Netflix dropped a remixed version of the most famous vampire of them all. ‘Dracula’ (2020) is a BBC One TV mini-series created by Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat. The duo have made quite the name for themselves with ‘Sherlock’ (2010-2017) and their take on Dracula is simply fantastic. It would be hard to believe that something new might come out of something so old and with so many existing silver screen adaptations, but Mr Gatiss and Mr Moffat have certainly delivered.

Starring Claes Bang and Dolly Wells, the series takes us from 1897 Transylvania to Victorian London, as the bloodthirsty Count makes his way into a new world. Since Dracula’s arrival to England would mean only death and violence, it’s up to Sister Agatha Van Helsing and a few other good men to stop him. Needless to say, the formula that Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat have come up with for ‘Dracula’ works on different levels.

CLAES BANG AND DOLLY WELLS IN ‘DRACULA’ (2020), ©NETFLIX/BBC ONE

First, the writing is exceptional, which is to be expected from the team that gave us ‘Sherlock’. There is tension and mystery. Stoker’s original story is brought back to life with different elements but without disregarding the darkly absurd core, skilfully spiced with clever and sharp dialogue, heaps of humour and drama, along with plenty of blood and gasp-inducing twists. It is dark and it is funny. It is probably everything Stoker would’ve wanted to see, if he were alive today.

Second, the performances are beyond stellar. Claes Bang, known best for ‘The Girl in the Spider’s Web’ (2018) and ‘Bron/Broen’ (2013), is one of the best versions of Dracula ever made. His smouldering gaze and ruthless wit make him infinitely more appealing than Gary Oldman’s portrayal in ‘Bram Stoker’s Dracula’ (1992) by Francis Ford Coppola, and that is not an easy thing to say… But this newer Dracula is the baddie we can’t help but fall in love with, even if all he brings is gruesome death and eternal misery to his victims.

DOLLY WELLS IN ‘DRACULA’ (2020), ©NETFLIX/BBC ONE

Perhaps the show’s best character and certainly one the greatest to grace the screen in the 21st century is Sister Agatha van Helsing. Her dry wit and fearless heroism make her a downright legendary badass. She is bold and determined, even when her life is no more. One can see why some viewers were less thrilled about the third episode in the series, which no longer features Sister Agatha but one of her distant descendants—unlike a vampire, all good things must come to an end, but Ms Wells delivers as Zoe Helsing, too. Even so, it’s hard to say goodbye to someone as brilliant as Agatha van Helsing, especially considering her incredible onscreen chemistry with Dracula.

Mina, played by Morfydd Clark, plays a lesser role in this story and John Hefferman’s Jonathan Harker is Dracula’s unfortunate victim. Lucy is given a fresh but enticing reality, thanks to Lydia West’s refined and rambunctious performance.

DOLLY WELLS IN ‘DRACULA’ (2020), ©NETFLIX/BBC ONE

Another winning aspect of ‘Dracula’ is its cinematography, where Julian Court of ‘Killing Eve’ (2018-2019) and Tony Slater Ling of ‘Electric Dreams’ (2017) manage to create a truly immersive experience for the viewer. Their effort is amplified by the series’ production design, signed by Arwel Jones, better known for his work on ‘Sherlock’ and ‘Doctor Who’ (2005-2019). The gloom of Dracula’s castle with its labyrinthine corridors where Jonathan Harker gets desperately lost, the passenger ship with its mysteries and dim lights, the apartment where Dracula takes residence while in London with its violet lighting and floor to ceiling window—it all serves as the perfect stage for a new and truly extraordinary rendition of Bram Stoker’s canonical work.

This ‘Dracula’ is all the more intriguing through its split timeline—demanding of the viewers, but offers bountiful rewards at the end of the journey. And while not everyone found the series’ finale palatable, it was a demise most fitting for the story’s fearsome and lonesome fanged villain. More than once along the way, there will be an ‘Oh!’ or an ‘Aha!’ heard from the viewer as the story unfolds across different times. Multiple timelines are never an easy feat, but Mr Gatiss and Mr Moffat eloquently rise to the challenge, without creating confusion but simply enriching the overall mystery vibe that the series conveys.

CLAES BANG AND DOLLY WELLS IN ‘DRACULA’ (2020), ©NETFLIX/BBC ONE

This new take is a much-needed breath of fresh air, making vampires cool again—realistic and gothic, seductive and ultimately dangerous. We all remember Bella Lugosi as Dracula back in 1931. We remember Christopher Lee back in 1958 and Frank Langella in 1979. Gary Oldman’s Count is a precious piece of cinematic history, now. Jonathan Rhys Meyers and Luke Evans have also played him in the ‘Dracula’ (2013-2014) TV series and in ‘Dracula Untold’ (2014). There were many others in-between, including a parody starring Leslie Nielsen. This character has been recycled so many times, it was hard to believe there was anything left to draw from Bram Stoker’s classic novel. However, Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat prove that there is.

Consider 2020’s ‘Dracula’ as an homage to all the other Draculas before it. Consider Claes Bang’s Count as an ode to all the other Counts before him. And despite all that, consider it something new and fresh and perfectly capable of standing on its own two feet—proof that the real vampire of Stoker and Rice yarn is the best and most enduring in the genre. It is a reminder that our constant flirting with the idea of immortality on paper and on the screen is, in itself, eternal.