Block Review: Iron Fist episodes 1, 2, and 3

After the slog of reviewing Stranger Things an episode at a time (which I eventually just abandoned) I want to look at Iron Fist, which I have hopes for.
Daredevil season 1 was very good (I will eventually review that since I think people missed a lot) and the first half of season 2 is good so far. Jessica Jones was a snoozefest. I am watching Iron Fist before Luke Cage mainly because I am terrified Luke will be as boring as Jessica.
My Background: I was never a huge fan of Heroes for Hire. Sure, it had its moments, but it was one of those early '70's comics a lot of comics nerds don't like to talk about in public - pop-culture comics.
Enter the Dragon was released in 1973 started a massive pop-culture focus on martial arts. Marvel made Master of Kung-fu by the end of '73 and Iron Fist within a few months. While Shang-Chi was associated with a license to make Fu Manchu comics, Iron Fist was off to the side, being all topical and relevant, so they teamed him up with Power Man who was...
...another pop-culture comic character. In this case, blaxploitation. Luke Cage's dialog was peppered with 'jive turkey', 'sweet Christmas', etc. for the first few years. By combining the two characters they survived the short shelf lives of their pop-culture origins until '86 when their combined comic was cancelled with a real shocker of an ending.
Crew: Scott Buck is showrunner and head writer. he has experience and has been on some fairly successful shows. He's joined by Dwain Worrell (who hadn't done much prior) and Quenton Peoples (more experience than Worrell). The directors for these were John Dahl, who has a fair amount of TV experience, and Tom Shankland (also a decent TV resume). In all three the cinematographer was Manuel Billeter, who was solid if not exemplary. Good use of lighting, his day scenes were as interesting as his night, and he captures fights well for a Western cinematographer. I'd like to see more camera motion, though. Editors were (in no real order) Jonathan Chibnall, Miklos Wright, and Michael Knue. Editing was decent, although Chibnall was a little 'heavy-handed' without detracting from the quality.
Main Cast: Finn Jones is the male lead. He is obviously a skilled actor with range. Jessica Henwick is the (so-far) lead female protagonist. So far she is pretty one-note with 'irritated and dismissive' her only mood. Tom Pelphrey is the primary male antagonist and he is doing very well with little and is slipping a little pathos into his character (and is the only one that seems to notice how ridiculous some things are). Jessica Stroup is the (sofar) female antagonist. As an actor, she's pretty enough, I guess. David Wenham is the hidden male antagonist. A talented actor, he's virtually wasted here so far. I hope he gets a chance to do more later. So far the best scenes are Ward and Harold in the penthouse because Wenham and Pelphrey together are wonderful.
Acting: I am breaking up the flow I usually do to get this out of the way. The real problem in the first three episodes is the actors and the acting. I separate them for one reason - Finn Jones. He's a competent actor: you can see it on the screen. He is just horribly miscast. For being 6' tall in real life, Jones comes across as a loveable hobbit onscreen - all I want to do is tousle his hair and give him a cookie. Again, he is obviously competent, he just isn't the guy to play one of the deadliest kung-fu masters on the entire planet filled with smoldering anger over his past losses. Wenham and Pelphrey are good and are great together, but they don't get to do enough in the first few. But the real problem are the female leads. Henwick is giving a master class on how to play every scene as 'mildly irritated' and Stroup might as well be the boom mic for all the emotion she projects. When Carrie-Ann Moss shows up in a minor role and actually, you know, acts, it is a painful reminder of how the female 'leads' aren't.
Plot and Writing: The origin story is a solid one and the writing is better than I expected. It is certainly better than it appears. The lousy acting from Stroup and Wenham is effectively erasing the emotional content from 2/3rds of the story. The miscasting of Jones is watering down almost all the rest until Iron Fist is almost just people on-screen talking and who cares?
That is a shame because there are some really interesting bits in the story. For example;
-Danny Rand does his best to always tell the truth which virtually always lands him in trouble. This is rather pointed commentary in the contemporary world!
-A couple of characters believe that anyone can be bought and are surprised when this isn't true. Another interesting critique of contemporary outlooks.
-Plenty of people know, for a fact, that Danny really is Danny, but they need specific physical evidence for this to be official. Nice examination of objective truth versus official truth that could be really interesting.
There is more, of course, but plenty to be done.
I do see some weaknesses, however. My main one is how Danny's emotional instability. Yes, I get it - he's back. But wouldn't a kung-fu master with 15 years experience in deep meditation be able to get a grip?
When Colleen Wing defeated a much larger man in the ring there should have been more discussion along the lines of 'that's impossible!', etc. After all - she's a superhero! That was her origin story. It should stand out that she was only able to do it because she is Special.
But it is early, so I hope these concerns will be addressed.
So far the action is pretty good, even though we need a lot more.
Bottom Line: I enjoy it enough to keep watching. If you aren't a huge fan of Marvel, don't seek it out. But don't avoid it on a rainy Saturday afternoon, either.

Capsule Reviews by Genre

  Inspired by a talk with the sons last night:

Review
1) We meet the protagonists, and they are Good
2) The antagonists are bad and do bad things to the protagonists
3) Training montage
4) The protagonists gain vengeance
Genre: Kung-fu

Review
1) We meet the protagonist and he is Good, if Flawed
2) The antagonists are bad
3) Escalating action encounters
4) The protagonist wins in a final showdown
Genre: Action

Review
1) We meet the protagonist, and he is Bad
2) The secondary characters are also bad, the antagonist is Worse, and everyone does bad things
3) Betrayals happen
4) The protagonist kills the antagonist
Genre: Film Noir

Review
1) We meet the protagonists, and they are Good
2) We meet the antagonist, and he is Not Good
3) Musical Numbers and gunplay
4) The protagonists prevail, and sing
Genre: Singing Cowboy

Review
1) We meet the protagonist, and she is Nice
2) We meet the antagonist and he is Handsome
3) 50 minutes of miscommunication
4) The protagonist and antagonist kiss
Genre: Chick Flick

Review
1) We meet the protagonist and he is Smart
2) We meet the antagonist and it is Dangerous
3) Science!
4) The protagonist prevails
Genre: Sci-Fi Peril

Review
1) We meet the protagonists, and they are Wholesome
2) We meet the antagonist and he is Greedy
3) Let's put on a show!
4) The protagonists prevail
Genre: Andy Hardy/Shirley Temple, etc.

More to come!

Stranger Things - Episode 1 review

  Yes, yes - everyone else is talking about it. But never let it be said I never indulge in me-tooism.
  Last night I watched the first episode with my four oldest sons. Now, for slug reviews followed by a real review.

General Notes:
Acting: Surprisingly good. The kids were above average for child actors, Winona Ryder reminds us that she is an old pro and turns in a decent performance. David Harbour as Hopper was surprisingly good in the role, and I was expecting that role to be good, anyway. Other nice standouts were Matthew Modine (not a shock, but impressive given his short time in the pilot) and Charlie Heaton.
Cinematography: Impressive. Tim Ives has only been nominated for one cinematography award - he will get more nominations. The camera work was crisp, smooth, and not intrusive. His use of angles, lighting, and movement were great - he has obviously studied Allan Daviau and is a fan of Kurosawa. Want to see how you can use the camera to indicate awareness vs. distraction? Re-watch the scene when a certain young character first enters a diner until they are noticed. Great, subtle, effective use of the camera.
Editing: Like cinematography, the editing is well done. It took us about 15 minutes to catch the subtle color bleaching used in outdoor scenes to make things look... off. The editor keeps the scenes moving and does that hardest of things - the quick cut that doesn't break the flow.
Directing: From the cold open to the last shot the directing was very good. It is hard to keep plot, pace, and interest all moving along in a pilot when there is so much information to share. Speaking of which, the cold open was great and a good example of how to set them up. It reminded me of the better cold opens from the Venture Brothers (yes, that is a compliment).

Flashback Friday: Remington Steele

  The Wife and I are undoubtably Children of the 80's. While that era is long ago, Netflix and Hulu are forever, so we are adding a new occasional entry to Don't Split the Party - Flashback Friday. This is where we discuss TV, movies, etc. from the past.

  One of the first stories my mother-in-law told me of my wife was about her obsession with Remington Steele. The main anecdote goes something like this;

  "J was almost a professional musician by the time she was 14 and she had a lot of commitments. She had missed the first run of a particular episode of Remington Steele, back before VCRs, and an important concert was going to end no more than 30 minutes before the re-run. In those days, of course, if you missed both showings that was it - you would never see it.
  "The concert ended with only 25 minutes to the beginning. She refused to change and hustled us to the car. Her dad sped pretty egregiously the entire time, but she was still frantic. We arrived home, she rushed in and turned on the TV, and she had only missed the intro dialog. Her life was saved!"

  I was fond of the TV show at the time, especially when it was using knowledge of classic films to solve crimes. Unlike the Wife I missed a lot of episodes (and the entire last season). I was aware that the hastily ordered last season had quite the impact on movies: Pierce Brosnan had been scheduled to be Bond in The Living Daylights and Stephanie Zimbalist was to be Anne Lewis in Robocop but the last minute contract triggers forced both to pull out giving the roles to Dalton and Allen, instead.

  Sidenote: someday I will write an alternate history story based on Harrison Ford never being a movie star.

  Over the past week the Wife and I have watched the first few episodes of Remington Steele.

Aging - Good: The show has aged surprisingly well. Pierce Brosnan's character tends to be dressed in a sort of retro-neo-classical stle, like a modern guy trying to dress like Jimmy Cagney playing a mobster. Stepahnie Zimbalist's character was trying to set her own style, which ends up being quirly enough to be appealing and almost timeless.

Aging - Bad: But the timelessness isn't everywhere. The computer game developers are developing - arcade consoles. The supporting cast of women have Really Big Hair. Some of the language is dated, too.

The Stories: One of the great things about detective shows is the plots are literally timeless. The stuff that worked for Poe and Doyle in the 19th Century work just fine now. There are nice twists, good hooks, and snappy dialog. Overall the writing and stories are solid

The Bad: Remington Steele was only in the top 25 of ratings for part of its third season. It didn't have a big budget, it didn't have a lot of love in the front office. While it is obvious they did their best things like cinematography, wardrobe, etc. are all workmanlike. Also, trying to strike a balance between serious, romantic, and comedic sometimes slipped into silly. The cast shakeups after season one are understandable, but changed the tone quite a bit, too.

The Good: The acting. It is obvious why Brosnan went on to be Bond. Zimbalist is more than solid, too. Many of the quest stars are top-notch, as well, and the writers took advantage of that. This show also effectively invented the "will they/won't they" dynamic between the male and female leads that was so critical to following shows from Moonlighting to the contemporary Arrow. And arguably with the good writing, the acting of Zimbalist and Brosnan, and their excellent chemistry they did it best.

Can It Help Your Game?: Certainly. The relationships between the leads, the puzzles and crimes they solve, and the twists are all great preparation for contemporary settings. With very minor tweaks they can be agent/spy stories and with a touch more work street level supers or Gangbuster-style capers.

Overall: A great deal of fun and still fun to watch over 30 years later.

Our Rating: 4 out of 4