ericrnolan

"Dark Matter" (2024) is easily one of the best science fiction tv series I've ever seen. It's like "Sliders" (1995-2000) got together with "North By Northwest" (1959) to create an homage to Homer's "Odyssey." I'd cheerfully rate Season 1 a 10 out of 10.

I had two concerns about whether I would enjoy "Dark Matter," after it was recommended to me by a college alumnus.

First, I was afraid that it would be too campy. C'mon ... a nice guy being kidnapped by his evil twin from a parallel universe? That's a potentially cheesy plot device, and one I feel certain I've seen more than once before ... maybe "The X Files" (1993- 2018), or some iteration of "The Outer Limits." But this is a surprisingly grounded story that assiduously sticks to realism in its tone and plotting (even if it's occasionally injected with an effective jolt of horror).

Second, I thought it might be too hard for me to follow. Its premise relies not only on physics, but on the enigma of the "Schrodinger's cat" thought experiment. (I will never truly understand it, no matter how many times I pretend to on Facebook. Reality is objective!) But the storytelling here is direct and easy to follow, even if the (logical) surprises take the viewer happily off guard. If my ADHD-afflicted brain could follow the story, then so can you.

And Season 1 ended so perfectly that I'm not even sure I wan a second season. (It has been renewed by Apple+ TV.)

I definitely get the sense that "Dark Matter" benefitted from having Blake Crouch as the showrunner and head writer. (Crouch is the author of the 2016 novel that is its source material). And it's got great performances by Joel Edgerton, Jennifer Connelly, Alice Braga and Jimmi Simpson.

It's really good stuff. Check it out.

Watching Alex Garland's "Civil War" (2024) is a lot like watching an hour-and-forty-nine minute train wreck -- except it's even more horrifying because the accident happens right outside your hometown, and its casualties might easily be people you know.

It isn't an "entertaining" movie; it's hard to imagine anyone "having a good time" seeing it. It's disturbing enough that I wouldn't even recommend it to many people I know. I'm probably showing my age when the movie I keep wanting to compare it to is Oliver Stone's "Platoon" (1986).

But it is definitely a well made film. In a nutshell, it combines the best elements of two of Alex Garland's previous movies. It has the breakneck, street-level, frightening, kinetic action of 2002's "28 Days Later" and the thoughtful dialogue of 2015's "Ex Machina." (But viewers who are wary of Garland's sometimes ponderous and lengthy dialogue scenes should rest assured that this is definitely an action movie.)

It's surprisingly apolitical. (Garland himself stated it was intentionally "opaque.") When we see random factions and individuals committing revolting acts of violence, we're often given little information about which side they are actually on. Viewers hoping to see America's contemporary left/right divide depicted will be disappointed. (Hence the part of the plot setup that readers laughed at before the movie's release -- California and Texas join forces against the federal government.) While Nick Offerman's cruel and feckless American president is obviously "a bad guy," his political party is never named.

The cast is roundly excellent, even if everyone is outshined by Kirsten Dunst's hollow-eyed photojournalist who is in the midst of a traumatized existential crisis. And if you're a fan of creepy "that guy" actor Jesse Plemmons, as I am, you'll see that he is at his finest here.

I know that there are spate of negative reviews since the film opened yesterday, accusing the film of being "pointless" or without a meaningful story. I disagree.

This is a milieu-type story in which the catastrophic war itself is the primary antagonist. It kills both the culpable and the innocent indiscriminately.

And Garland' message is clear: "Kids, don't try this at home."

If you want to debate the ethics of Sacha Baron Cohen's prank-driven comedy, maybe there's a conversation to be had. The people subjected to his "Candid-Camera"-meets-"Jackass," politically charged, ambush-style comedy are typically very unhappy about it. And I realize that Cohen (like any one else) should not be immune to criticism.

But the man's work is damned hilarious; you can't argue with that. Like 2006's "Borat," this new film made me laugh out loud repeatedly (even if I cringed at times too). "Borat Subsequent Moviefilm" is simply a first-rate comedy; I'd rate it a 10 out of 10.

This is due largely to Cohen's twofold genius. First, he succeeds in creating a truly funny fictional character that could easily make us laugh in a scripted TV sitcom, or a "Saturday Night Live" sketch. Second, Cohen again demonstrates his mind-boggling ability to gain the trust of his targets - and then manages to stay in character throughout the elaborate pranks. (If you think about it, it's probably tougher than we might realize. There can't be any second takes for what we see unfolding before us onscreen.)

A movie like this easily might have suffered from the addition of a second comedian who isn't as funny as Cohen. But newcomer Maria Bakalova hits it out of the park. (She plays the fictional daughter of Cohen's titular bumbling foreigner.) She is nearly as funny (and just as good at keeping character) as he is. With Sacha Baron Cohen, that's saying a lot.

Again, some of what you see in this film will be cringe-inducing. But it's damned funny stuff.