jeghederbilal-59-260653

Dave Chappelle is right, he is a lazy comedian. His material was lazy and nothing special. His first special I was laughing the whole way through, while I chuckled 2-3 times at this special.

I feel that Dave doesn't really have anything much to say about anything. Maybe that's why his special was focused on lowbrow stuff like handicap jokes, Chris Rock getting slapped, himself getting assaulted, being jealous of his wife. Maybe this wouldn't have been a problem for me, if Dave and especially his fans didn't present him like some kind of deep thinking revelatory comedian.

Also don't know why he is obsessed with trans people (this is coming from someone who lives outside the us and don't follow American identity politics).

In a interview Refn mentioned the reason why he choose the title; Copenhagen Cowboy for his new series.

He told the reporter; It sounded cool.

And that just pretty much sums up Refns style as a filmmaker since the making of Drive. Nothing is motivated by the themes or the characters, everything is motivated by coolness.

Extremely long panning shots (most of them absent of any motivation, they are just there because the shots look cool), every scene is bathed in either red or blue neon lights (or both), why? Because it is cool! Long pauses after every line of dialogue delivered by every actor, why? Because it is cool!

Then you have the other usual Refn trademarks; short outburst of extreme violence, a Cliff Martinez synth score and a plot that centers around revenge.

Refn hasn't developed as a filmmaker since 2011, and every movie and series he has made since then has been a repeat of what made him a breakout director in the first place.

Also someone needs to tell Refn that he is not a screenwriter, his attempt at dialogue is written like someone who has never spoken to a human being before.

The series does well in relaying the basic information about the opioid crisis, and specifically how the Sackler family pushed OxyContin to be treated nationwide in the us from mild pain relief to chronic pain relief.

My main gripe with the series is first and foremost the unfocused nature of the series. There is just too many b-plots and maincharachters in the series.

First we have Michael Keaton who is playing the well liked town doctor. Through his perspective we get to see how the opioids are tearing his town apart. (Keaton is the stand out performance in the series in my opinion).

Then we have Rosario Dawson who plays a DEA agent, who later leads and investigation against Purdue Pharma and is trying to get Oxycontin taken of the shelves for ordinary use.

Will Poulter plays a salesrep working for Purdue Pharma, and we get to see the moral dillemas that Will's character struggles with, selling drugs for a company that is contributing to crime and addiction nationwide. (btw his whole character arch happens off screen in the last episode, which was pretty frustrating as the series dedicated so much time to this character).

We also have Peter Saarsgaard and John Hoogenakker playing two lawyers trying to investigate the conflict of interest between various players from the FDA and Purdue Pharma, and is trying to build a case against the sacklers.

And there is also Kaitlyn Dever playing a coalminer who gets badly injured on the job, who thereafter gets prescribed oxy. Here we get a firsthand perspective on her addiction to the drug and how it ruins her life.

That is a lot of storylines to follow in just a 40-55 minute episode, which in my opinion make the series unfocused, and would have benefited from just cutting at least two of the above mentioned storylines.

I do get why all these storylines where included, because you get too the various perspectives and how it affected various parts of the american society. And all these characters could have starred in their own movie about the same subject.

The narrative device of having multiple timelines is also confusing, especially because they keep cutting back and forth between the various timelines almost every time a scene ends, or we switch to a new character. So in the span of 30 minutes a episode typically cuts from 1996 to 1999 to 2005 back to 1996 again. Maybe a better idea could have been just to have told the story chronologically? Maybe the different time periods could have worked better, if there was a difference in the cinematography, so it would be easier for the viewers to visually distinguish between 1996 and 1999 for example.

Michael Stuhlbarg is also in the series and he give a cartoon villain performance as the president of Purdue Pharma. The performance is so bad that you cant help to giggle or laugh almost every time he is on screen. When playing real life persons, the imitation route in my opinion, almost always falls short and just becomes gimmicky.

The series is worth watching despite my headline, but would much rather recommend Alex Gibneys documentary, as it is far more engagning and goes through all the same details as in the series, but with better execution in my opinion.