Thoughts on Season 1 of "Deadwood"

Spoilers on the First Season of Deadwood below:

It’s easy to get into Deadwood and find yourself overwhelmed. The characters speak with a Shakespearean high mindedness that often times makes it difficult to keep up with the rapid fire delivery of creator David Milch’s foul mouthed, textured dialogue. The show isn’t all too concerned with whether you’re keeping up with its increasingly meandering, dense and intricate plotting. Miss a line and you’ll eventually catch up on the big picture of the plot machination forest but lose out on the tree-lined minutia. The unwieldiness of the dialogue is made all the more problematic by the fact that Deadwood is host to a sprawling, expansive cast that at times is troublesome to keep track of.

The series takes a few episodes to really kick in. It really isn’t until the death of David Carradine’s Wild Bill (symbolically marking the shows revisionist Western nature killing the Old West mythos that came before it) that the series really finds a footholding. And if the traversing feels slow in the get go (a number of early plots fizzle out or quickly vanish, such as Bullock and Swearengen’s rivalry and Kristen Bell’s turn as the leader of a brother-sister duo hoping to rob the Bella Union), it’s meant to be surefooted enough to give us our bearings before truly throwing us into the deep end of the pool. As the show progresses, it continually stops trying to hold our hand (I’m not very far into the 2^nd season, but it seems pretty clear that Milch and company care little for trying help their audience keep up). 

If at times the scripts may give me a headache and the various schemes of individuals may go over my head, the series makes up for it with a real sense of place. Over the course of the first season, the show does an impressive amount of world building. Practically every building on the thoroughfare is given a name and purpose, and is run or inhabited by characters we know. HBO actually put in some significant funding into the set (which eventually would, in part, lead to the show’s cancellation after its 3^rd season), and it’s one of the best designed sets to be seen on television. The interior locations of buildings aren’t off on some sound stage but are actually part of the buildings, which makes for a freer movement of the camera; something which the series takes great advantage of. The direction and scripts use this to allow various characters in different locations to be witnessing events concurrently. Placing characters in relation to one another creates unexpected connections, ads tension and dynamism, and makes the world of Deadwood feels incredibly real. It’s this grounded, detailed sense of realism that elevates Deadwood. Deadwood is a series that’s about the gritty, unpleasant realities of life, and especially how that unpleasantness would have been infinitely even more unpleasant back in 19^th century territorial South Dakota.    

That Deadwood is inhabited with an excellent cast also helps alleviate some of the frustration that comes with Milch’s writing. Even when I’m not sure what they’re saying, it’s often entertaining just to hear the wonderful actors speak the specifically crafted words. The cast is atypically talented, but it’s Ian McShane’s Al Swearengen that stands above the rest. Swearengen is the pseudo-ruler of Deadwood. As one of the earliest arrivals to the town, he bought up the best land, and now runs the Gem, a saloon that offers prostitutes and gambling. Though ruthless and often thoroughly selfish, Swearengen is a magnanimous figure; charismatic, and charming even as he’s ripping off and killing people. It’s to the credit of McShane that Swearengen (initially not the central figure of the narrative) became the most prominent and memorable figure of the series. Sure, Al is a loathsome person at times, but he has regrets and even a sadness to him. He’s even occasionally sympathetic, though he’d rather not admit it. He feels bad about beating up Trixie, his prized whore who he has a deep connection to; he can’t help but feel sorry for the ailing, kindhearted Rev. Smith, dying from a brain tumor, and eventually euthanizes him as an act of kindness. Swearengen becomes increasingly layered, and almost every major character is shown to be multifaceted and complex. Timothy Olyphant’s Seth Bullock is set up initially as the lawful counterweight to Swearengen, but proves to be hot tempered and quick to act. Though so keenfully deadset on upholding the law and trying to make himself out as morally superior to others, he cheats on his wife with the widowed Alma Garret. Though his wife was the widow of his dead brother his actions sit in a morally murky area that the series loves to take us to. But the cast runs deep and there isn’t an actor that doesn’t carry their weight. Whether it be Jim Beaver as good natured prospector Ellsworth, or W. Earl Brown as childish but loyal lackey Dan Dority, or John Hawkes as shrewd but reserved Sol Star, or William Sanderson as skeethy, spineless E.B. Farnum, or Brad Dourif as concerned, tireless Doc Cochran, among many, many others, the series presents us with characters worth watching portrayed with a first-rate cast that deserves more recognition.    

However, what ultimately sets Deadwood apart from other series is how intelligent it is. The series is about the “Old West” of course, but it’s also about the formation of communities, how people write their histories, and what being a “civilization” entails. Watch as government positions are arbitrarily handed out so Deadwood looks as if it's more formally organized, or how Al manipulates the already shaky proceedings in the court case against Jack McCall, or how Wild Bill and Bullock take it upon themselves to dole out justice on the man who killed a family outside the town, or how lies are fabricated for the ad informing people of small pox. These are people who will soon be part of the U.S. and civilization, but aren't yet. Who want to join the states, but are also weary about what that means. And they're constantly lying and scheming, and often times they're doing things for the greater good of the town merely because it'll ultimately benefit themselves. Situating itself in a morally complex universe that asks tricky questions and often forgoes shoving a particular message down our throat; Deadwood forgoes formulaicness, and predictability to provide stories that are interesting and engaging.

"Love Actually" - Film Review

There’s been a trend in recent years towards making big budget films that are thin on plot and try to cram as many stars into the story as possible. And for the most part, these types of films have been pretty bad. The most obvious examples of this are Gary Marshall’s Valentine’s Day and New Year’s Eve, both of which meander aimlessly with no real goals, one dimensional characters, obvious story arcs, and very little to emotionally invest us in the stories.

Now Love Actually certainly fits the mold of these other types of films (the movie seems keen on having almost every famous British actor make an appearance). However, it’s much better than its counterparts. Certainly many of the storylines are fairly predictable and even at times clichéd. But there remains an undeniable charm to the film even as it becomes increasingly obvious what’s going to end up happening to everyone.

Part of this credit has to be given to writer/director Richard Curtis. Curtis’s filmography includes memorable British flicks such as Four Weddings and a Funeral and Bridget Jones’s Diary. Much of Love Actually’s DNA can be seen in these two movies; they’re both films that are for the most part not spectacular or particularly noteworthy. But that’s not to say they’re not good; in fact, they’re smart, funny, charming, well-crafted films that rise above their occasional formulaicness through deft direction, solid scripts, and nice acting. 

Love Actually is a holiday movie in the best sense of the term. It uses the gateway of goodwill from pre-existing notions of holiday cheer to get us invested in its various storylines. On the strengths and likability of its casts, and the sheer goodwill its builds over the course of the film through its cast and the exuberance of the holiday spirit, it makes us really like the movie despite how frequently overstuffed and formulaic it may be. Though a number of cast members are underserviced or underutilized, and as sad as it is to see Andrew Lincoln, Emma Thompson, and Laura Linney get their hearts broken, it’s hard not to be smiling, laughing, even sometimes tearing up, but at least never being bored or disappointed.

Grade: B   

"Les Miserables" - Film Review

For the longest time, Victor Hugo’s Les Miserables was considered to be part of that pantheon of literary works deemed unadaptable (along with other such *ahem* “unadaptable” works as Fight Club, Life of Pi, and The Lord of the Rings trilogy). It’s easy to see people’s doubts about Hugo’s work being translated to any other medium. The novel tells a sprawling, sweeping tale with a large cast of characters and deals with a wide range of heavy themes. But Les Mis’s first stop to the big screen wasn’t in the form of film, but oddly enough into a theatrical, operatic performance. Though the now highly regarded musical version of the story cut a fair bit of the narrative, it kept much of the central themes of loss, redemption, and revolution that had made it such a powerful story in the first place.

Hugo’s novel had proven itself adaptable, but now people wondered less about the plausibility of that, and more about the question of whether its superb musical counterpart had any hopes of being made into a film. Well, now, that it’s been made, the more appropriate question seems to be: how does the play translates to film?

That answer hinges on the musical itself because much of what works and doesn’t work for the adaptation is the nature of it being a musical. The music of Les Mis has a majesty to it; an emotional, powerful grandeur. But the music by itself is not enough to carry a film. And Les Mis by its very nature has next to no dialogue. The film has us watching one person after another singing (with varying degrees of enthrallingness and ability). This isn’t necessarily problematic; a number of films have done this before. West Side Story, clocking in at over 3 hours, is almost non-stop musical for the entirety of the film’s length. But what allows West Side Story to get away with this is that every musical number is dynamic. The camera changes angles, and actors move around. It provides the film with a vibrancy and energy that Les Mis often lacks. Too many of the shots in Les Mis are a single close up for almost the duration of the musical number. It’s as if director Tom Hooper forgot that he was making a movie and had the ability to move the camera around. This leads to a stiffness to the movie that causes it to be a slog to sit through at times. In short, the execution and staging of these musical numbers often takes away from the impact of them.

Don’t get me wrong; I love Les Mis. Ever since my high school put on a production of the show, I’ve been a devout fan of the musical. But that’s just it; I’m a fan of the musical, not this film adaptation which just happens to have its music. And it doesn’t even always have its music. There are weird cuts and additions to songs, and there is a wholesale creation of music that often feels clunky. For fans of the musical it may seem like it’s enough, especially after long wishful thinking about the arrival of the day when the play would appear on the big screen. But for people uninitiated to the story and music, it may not be nearly as satisfying. The fact is that Les Mis was never something that was going to be easily turned into a film, and this is probably the best we could have hoped for considering the difficult source material they were working with.  

Les Miserables –  B-

"The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" - Film Review

The Lord of the Rings was a book series that was said to be unadaptable. That Peter Jackson had the stones to even give it a consideration was just about as crazy as the series being as critically and commercially successful as it was. The narrative for the film trilogy ran something like this: alright, Fellowship is good, but there’s no way he can keep this up. And yet Jackson did, making (in my opinion) increasingly good films that made up one of the most popular, successful film trilogies in recent memory.

It’s been nearly a decade since the release of Return of the King. The original Lord of the Rings trilogy has aged surprisingly well with a decade under its belt. I’ve re-watched it a number of times since, and every time it resonates with me. At the time it was released, The Lord of the Rings was everything a big blockbuster ought to be: A well-acted, scripted, directed work following interesting, engaging characters within a sweeping narrative. And I don’t believe anyone was surprised when the announcement was made that The Hobbit would soon be made into a movie. The question wasn’t really whether it would be made, but when and how good it would be. I was cautiously optimistic about the film being produced, and remained so even with the influx of bad press upon its opening in theaters. 

I wanted to return to the world of Middle Earth. I was excited to see the familiar locales of the Shire and Rivendale, and the familiar faces of Gandalf and Bilbo. It’s a world worth exploring, and The Hobbit provides a nice but not entirely consistent or satisfying return to Middle Earth. Nostalgia for the setting and Peter Jackson’s typical directorial charm can only go so far. And much like a toy you’ve wanted so desperately for so long that when you get it, you find you’re just a wee bit disappointed, The Hobbit has its problems.  

Its main problems stems from the fact that it’s an incomplete story. The film abruptly ends after building up for 2 plus hours’ time. It’s highly apparent that it has more story to tell and the end point feels a bit arbitrary. Unlike Lord of the Rings, which had fairly obvious demarcations of when its story was meant to end, The Hobbit doesn’t because it’s one book (and a much shorter one at that). Another problem is that Jackson often doesn’t know when to linger on plot points or to breeze over them. While a few scenes benefit from the time to breathe, other such as the dwarfs stay at Bag End overstay their welcome. Finally, the band of 13 dwarves that accompany Bilbo on his adventure are significantly underdeveloped. Minus Richard Armitage as Thorin Oakenshield and Ken Stott as Balin, the rest of the dwarfs are practically an afterthought. This is much unlike the Fellowship of the original trilogy; we knew who every member of the Fellowship was, their personality, and what was at stake for them, so when put into conflict we had a reason to root for them. On the other hand, with the dwarfs, I felt much less motivated to root for them. Hopefully the later films will address this problem. I’m aware that the novel doesn’t really make large distinctions between the majority of them, but it’s not something as easily translated in a movie. 

Having read all that, you probably assume I disliked the film. But that’s not the case. I really do feel that Middle Earth and its stories as written by Tolkien are worth exploring. I was very entertained by much of the movie, and most sequences of the story in and of themselves were really fun to watch. I thought the opening with Ian Holm as an older Bilbo was touching and a nice callback to the older films; the council scene with Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel, and Saruman was appropriately intense; Bilbos encounter with Gollum was perfectly staged; the actions sequences with the trolls, goblins, and orcs were all great sights to behold; the film also pulled off some funnier, lighthearted moments involving the dwarfs, Bilbo, and Gandalf. However, taken as a whole The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is less consistent and cohesive than I would have liked. 

The fact is that we may need to wait until its sequels are released to truly make a judgment about how good it is or isn't. And though it's worth seeing, The Hobbit just doesn't live up to expectations.

Grade: B-

"Safety Not Guaranteed" - Film Review

“We have to find out what’s wrong with this guy” -Arnau

“What makes you think he’s crazy?” – Darius

There’s a particular low key, aimless quality to certain independent films that can ultimately be their downfall. Gigantic and Daydream Nation are two good examples of this. The films are so directionless that they’re ultimately string thin thematically, and emotionally. But the low-key, low stakes drama of independent film storytelling isn’t necessarily a bad thing. When done right, it allows for intimate, personal stories that Hollywood films generally avoid making.

Which isn’t to say that Safety Not Guaranteed is aimless, but rather that it wears it indie heart on its sleeve. And despite the interesting concept at the center of the premise involving a reporter (Jake Johnson) and his two interns (Aubrey Plaza and Karan Soni) getting the scoop on a man who posts an ad seeking a partner to time travel with him; the film primarily is about quieter, character based moments about people making unexpected connections. 

I remember first discovering Aubrey Plaza in 2009’s Funny People where she plays an incredibly sarcastic comedian who Seth Rogen fails to get with. The highlights of Funny People are its various moments of stand ups and Plaza, for the brief screen time she receives, has some incredibly funny, stand out moments. Plaza would continue with this sarcastic, deadpan persona to great effect as April Ludgate in the excellent NBC comedy series Parks and Recreation. Safety Not Guranteed requires a bit more emotional heft of Plaza than she is typically asked of in Parks and Rec (the series has a big, beating heart underneath all the satire and Plaza has begun to break down the cold, deadpan exterior of April to show greater emotional shades, but the series doesn’t really have her wear her heart on her sleeves like Safety Not Guaranteed does). It’s refreshing to see Plaza work with material that gives her surprising emotional range and depth, and she plays the role incredibly well. 

Jake Johnson is also primarily only known for his tv career, for his turn as nice, soulful guy Nick Miller in New Girl. Here he plays against the expectations of him as the nice guy to great effect. Johnson is Jeff Schwensen, a dickish, selfish magazine reporter who’s using the excuse of the story to get away and try to hook up with a former, high school girlfriend. Jeff is a guy trying to ignore the fact he’s getting older. He’s a skeptical asshole who thinks he’s better than everyone else. And yet Johnson makes him incredibly charming and likable despite the fact he’s a narcissistic ass. 

By the end of the movie, we don’t really care whether the guy actually has invented a time machine or not (although we do get a definitive answer) because it doesn’t matter.  Mark Duplass portrays Kenneth Calloway (the guy with visions of time travel grandeur) wonderfully, providing him such outright sincerity, honesty, and kindness that it doesn’t matter that he’s just a bit weird and offputting. Much like Duplass’s Calloway, Safety Not Guaranteed is a little quirky, but it’s sincere and charming, probably more than it has any right to be. 

Grade: B+   

Doctor Who - "The Snowmen" - Review

You know what the best part of Christmas is? It’s not the gifts or spending time with family or that chubby man who delivers presents. It’s the freakin’ Doctor Who Christmas Special, which, at least for me, has become a tradition that I significantly look forward to.  

Dr. Who is an interesting show to discuss. There are certainly better shows. Even more consistent ones. However, Dr. Who gets me emotionally invested in it like few shows do. It never forgets its characters who it so delicately and intelligently crafts. It can tell sweeping, grand, crazy stories but it never forgets to tie it back to more intimate, personal moments. This has never been more apparent than in last nights episode “The Snowmen”.

The series was left with the difficult task of picking up the story after the (unsurprisingly) emotionally devastating exit of the Ponds. And though we knew someone would come along and shake the Doctor out of his stupor (played to sad and pouty perfection by Smith), it’s still a delight to see the show go through the typical initial Doctor-Companion meet up. It’s a familiar dance that the series continually nails by hitting all the right notes (the smile-inducing banter leads to some great scenes, my favorite being the kiss and the scene on the rootop). Jenna Louise Coleman returns in top form as Clara Oswin Oswald (initially seen in “Asylum of the Daleks”), barmaid by day, governess by night, who’s discovery of snowmen appearing seemingly out of nowhere creates a desire to seek help of the newly befriended Doctor. 

Oswald is not the only familiar face though. After being generally awesome in “A Good Man Goes to War”, Madame Vastra and her “human companion” Jenny return. Along with the Sontaran Strax (who provides some wonderful comic relief), they have been helping isolate the Doctor as part of his new emo phase in the wake of losing the Ponds. But Clara Manic Pixie Dream Girls her way into the Doctor’s heart, and inspires him to investigate the strange snowmen occurrences.

The Doctor continues to be deeply affected by Clara who he sees (I would say rightfully so) a kindred spirit in, and banters with beautifully.  He even asks her to join him traveling the universe before she is killed by an ice humanoid monster (because that’s just the sort of show Dr. Who is, go figure). The Doctor tries to “make a bargain with the universe” to save the world to try to save her life. Unfortunately though he stops the evil snowmen, Clara still dies. But wait! “I like making soufflés,” Clara casually says to the Doctor and makes him realize that he’s met Clara before. But that’s not possible! She couldn’t have died twice?! Sometimes, apparently, the universe does make bargains. Whatever that exactly means, I’m sure Moffat will be happy to explain in a confusing fashion over the course of the remainder of the season. Whatever that might entail, I’m thoroughly happy to have some new blood to liven up the series, to keep the Doctor on his toes, and to lead to returns to classic Doctor Who moments (e.g. “It’s smaller on the outside” “Ok, that's a first”).

Stray Observations:

-There was obviously much more going on in the episode, but I feel as if the Clara-Doctor story of it was the most important and engaging aspect. Dr. Simeon seemed a bit too one dimensional, even though the snowmen monsters were rather cool.
-As contrived as the idea of a new companion coming into the Doctors life is, 1) its forgivable due to the nature of this series and 2) Jenna Louise Coleman and Matt Smith have excellent chemistry together.

-“Those were the days” – Smith plays sad so well. Can’t wait til he makes a new emotional connection just for the writers to break his heart. That’s what Dr. Who does best.

-The opening scene where Dr. Simeon feeds people to the snowmen was a memorable opener, and was a great introduction to a really good monster of the week.

-Whenever Simeon kept saying “Winter is coming”, all I could think of was Game of Thrones, which practically has that phrase trademarked.

-“What do you do when you discover something new?” “Throw a grenade”. One of many hilarious Strax-isms I wrote down     

-The scene where Clara can only say one word to answer Madama Vastra’s questions is the type of scene that might be cliched on another series, but Doctor Who makes incredibly fun because it does it with such conviction and charisma.

-Sir Ian fucking McKellan as the snow monster controlling poor Dr. Simeon. Great casting.

-Madame Vastra and Jenny are the inspiration for Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson with the sexual implications cut out. Absolutely brilliant.

-“Takes one to snow one”. Smith also plays corny, lame really well. Dude’s an underrated actor.

-The Doctor mistaking Clara pointing out an oncoming threat for a compliment of his bowtie: “It’s pretty cool” “I know right? It’s pretty cooler?” – Great callback. Very funny scene.

-“You missed this, didn’t you?” “Shut up”

-“Stay here” and Clara doesn’t because what kind of companion would she be if she did. 

-Then kisses the Doctor, but he seems oddly cool about it. What’s River going to think about that?

-“You’re nearly a foot taller than me” – That whole scene where Clara asks why he brought the umbrella was the sort of emotional, character stuff that this show does brilliantly.

Grade: B+

A really great episode, but as has been often the case of the Moffat era, it's a little bit too overstuffed for its own good.

"Looper" - Film Review

I’ve been obsessed with time travel ever since I saw the Back to the Future movies when I was younger. And I have a freakish level of knowledge on the subject matter for someone who’s really shitty at physics and math. I go out of my way to consume stories that involve the tricky narrative device (Anyone remember Timeline? No? Good, cause it was pretty bad). Which is to say before getting into this review, you should know that I’m totally biased in Looper’s favor despite its actual quality.  That withstanding, I think even without its high minded sci-fi and time travel trappings, it’s actually a really good movie.

Looper has a surprisingly complicated plot that takes a lot of liberties regarding what is possible within the confines of time travel. Due to its more open ended views of what you can and can’t do with time travel, it allows for the narrative to get away with some interesting choices. Which in turn allows for, like the best sci-fi films, some interesting ethical and philosophical quandaries. Joseph Gordon Levitt, prosthetic-ed up to look like a younger Bruce Willis, plays Joe Simmons. In the not so distant future (2044), Simmons works for a criminal organization that’s powerful in the even further future (2074) where time travel exists, but is illegal.  He’s been hired out by the organization to kill people they send back in time. However, when he finds himself forced to kill his future self, things go awry and then the film really begins to pick up; mad dashing energetically through one morally grey, stylish, and action packed sequence after another. 

Though Looper is set in the not too distant future, not much has change. Minus a few futuristic technological quirks (notably hover bikes), the film is essentially grounded in a world strikingly similar to our own. It’s a bit grittier and darker, and it certainly feels more sinister, but though the computers and security systems are sleeker, and touch based, people’s lives haven’t drastically changed. Much like the brilliant sci-fi film Children of Men, Looper allows us to pick up on just how much has changed through tiny background details. It doesn’t always beg us to notice just how flippantly cool it is trying to be with its depiction of the not too distant future, and that’s all for the better. The world feels lived in without trying so hard to get us to buy that it’s totally realistic. I got a real Blade Runner vibe from a number of shots of the city. There was a distilled, distant quality to many shots in the film that allowed the sets and scenery to speak for themselves. 

For the science fiction or time travel geek out there, I can’t see many being disappointed. The script boasts one of the most engaging and intricate sci-fi narratives I’ve seen in a long time. And while the film is highly visually stylish, and intensely action packed; it remains wonderfully smart and ambitious. In the capable hands of writer/director Rian Johnson, Looper is one of the best crafted blockbusters of 2012. Though some of the film’s execution didn’t necessarily grip me as much as it should have, it was made up by some really good performances by Levitt, Willis, and Emily Blunt doing her best Southern accent. 

Looper: A-

Remember when "The Office" Was Good?

Remember when The Office was good?

And I don't meant, just passably good. Or merely watchable. But compulsively watchable. As if watching The Office was a ritual. Something that you treasured because that show was attempting something that few other shows at the time were. And yea it owes a great deal to other shows, but when that show was funny; it wasn't mild chuckle funny. It was gasping for air because you couldn't stop laughing. It was SO FUCKING FUNNY. They could have Michael or even Dwight do incredibly awkward, weird, occasionally borderline awful things and push it just before it went over the line of incredulity.

And yet even with all that going on, they could pop in this tiny little emotional, honest character moment into the chaos of it all and it never rang false. Damn, I miss those days. 

"How I Met Your Mother" to Get a 9th Season? Is That Really Such a Good Idea?

Film Thrasher reports, "For most of 2012, CBS has been very vocal that they'd like How I Met Your Mother to return for a Season 9. The problem? After an eighth season that has gained much criticism for not living up to past standards, fans aren't quite sure whether or not they'd like another year while the cast has not remained dedicated as various main actors' theatrical careers are really starting to take off."

I think the renewal of How I Met Your Mother for a 9th season is a pretty bad decision. HIMYM has been precipitously declining in quality and has little in the way of story left to tell beyond revealing who the mother actually is (a large reason I've continued to watch despite the fact I don't enjoy the series nearly as much as I used to). Perhaps with the burden of who the mother is gone from the show, they might be able to step out from underneath that shadow and return to the inventive and fun storytelling that sold myself and many others on the series back in its heyday. But recent episodes have so obviously been stalling tactics (and not always very clever ones at that) that it's made the series frustrating and not nearly as entertaining as it has been in the past. We know that the show is headed towards Barney and Robin's wedding, so it's only a matter of getting there. And its been a not all that fun tease. A series like this was never really meant to go 8 plus seasons long and it's starting to show its age. Hell, it was starting to show it even before that, notably with the really bad Season 6 story arc involving Ted's quite obviously doomed relationship with Zoe.

I stick with HIMYM because its decent enough comfort food, and it still sporadically shows glimpses of its old brilliance with the occasional spot on character moment, or hilarious joke, or solid callback. But episodes like season 7's "The Burning Beekeeper" or  this season's "The Overcorrection" demonstrate just how tired and sluggish the series has become in recent years. These episodes play around with time and narrative perspective (as the series has effectively done a number of times in the past; e.g. season 1's "The Pineapple Incident" or season 4's "Three Days of Snow"), but they only halfheartedly make the attempt and the lackluster effort and execution is noticeable and disappointing. And while the mid season finale "The Final Page Part 1/2" is certainly without question the best episode of this season and in a long while, the fact remains that HIMYM is long way off from its best years