I went to Louis Cifer Brew Works in Toronto last week. With their own and other brews on tap, they provided both good food and good beer. I tried a few different brews and liked ’em fine, but one of them, their Coconut Lemongrass Thai-PA stood out, so I bought a growler of it. Readers of my previous reviews know that I have a weakness for pale ales whether they’re IPAs, APAs, CPAs, AusPAs, or Rye PAs, and should understand how powerless I was when asked by my server whether or not I wanted to buy a growler to take home — OK, I asked him.
Unfortunately, even though I’ve been frugal by only drinking it in small amounts over the past five days, every growler has a limited fridge life. So, I’m reviewing this unique brew now before it’s too late. And, though it won’t be fresh, it will be within prescribed growler drinking parameters.
Louis Cifer Brew Works: Coconut Lemongrass Thai-PA – First Sip
This beer pours a pale amber with a nice layer of head that gradually dissipates to a film. I notice a sweet fruity aroma as I take my first sip. If it weren’t for the name, I’d think this brew a raspberry-flavoured one. The lemongrass provides a slightly tart flavour upfront that fades to a coconut finish. These two flavours mixing with the dryness of the hops gives this beer a unique flavour. Probably a result of the coconut flavour, this brew has a buttery mouthfeel making it very reminiscent of eating Thai food.
Louis Cifer Brew Works: Coconut Lemongrass Thai-PA – Last Sip
Even though it was five days old, this brew proved to be a tasty and unique one. It may be obvious, but this beer is a great companion to Thai food. Drinking Coconut Lemongrass Thai-PA alongside a heap of Pad Thai with lots of peanut sauce is exactly what the brewers had in mind when they made this one. If there’s no Thai food around, don’t worry. Just pair this with something salty, and then, for your own sake, move to a place where you can get Thai food.
With a 6.5% ABV rating, this is a strong brew. So drink responsibly, especially if you have a full growler at hand. This easy-drinking beer packs a punch.
As you can see above, the cover is both beautiful and eerie. I’m unclear though as to how exactly it relates to the story. The person depicted is wearing that creepy mask and is sitting on a throne of bones, but the only chairs mentioned so far in the story are The Watcher, The Ascendant Seat, The Scales, and The Stone Chair.
Artwork
Great work from illustrator Tomm Coker and colorist Michael Garland. This issued featured much more color than the first four issues. The more colorful panels looked good and still somehow fit perfectly with the noir look of most of the book so far.
Plot
Early in the issue, Detective Dumas and Dr. Gaddis (who likes his coffee very, very weak – I can’t imagine this being a plot point of any significance, but who knows?) are in a diner discussing magic. Dumas wants to know what he’s dealing with after seeing a lawyer, at a command from Viktor Eresko bash his head against a metal table until he died. Gaddis informs Dumas that wealth is the “physical manifestation of power”. He also tells the story of the Cerro Rico, a mountain loaded with silver in South America that, on its discovery by Spain in the 1500s, was mined by slaves. So many of these slaves died in the mining that Gaddis refers to it as a biblical exchange of blood for power.
The primary focus of the issue is on Thomas Dane. We see him in his younger, carefree days of working for the CIA and setting up political assassins in South America in the 1970s. We also find out, through a series of journal entries from the late Daniel Rothschild, that by the mid-1990s Dane (and Rothschild himself) had largely lost faith in humanity. There is some drama at a Caina-Kankrin board meeting where Grigoria Rothschild is upset that Viktor Eresko is in attendance (people get very uptight about their twin sibling being murdered). Grigoria has Dane remove Eresko from the meeting and Eresko uses his magical powers to command Dane to kill himself that night. As he’s about to, he receives a phone call from Grigoria, and the spell is broken. It’s unclear if she broke the spell, or if it had something to do with the mysterious wraith Abby, who was in Dane’s apartment earlier. When Dane reports in to Grigoria, she orders him to find Wynn Ackermann, representative of the Ackermann family, who has gone missing.
Overall
This was frankly a slow issue, but that’s to be expected from time to time with as complicated a story as this. It won’t likely be anyone’s favorite issue, but it provides some needed exposition about Thomas Dane, Daniel Rothschild, and the money magic that forms the basis of the series.
Eye-popping cinematography, a powerful narrative, and fantastic performances from Andy Serkis and Woody Harrelson make Matt Reeves’s War For The Planet Of The Apes the summer’s best blockbuster.
Summary
War For The Planet Of The Apes picks up during the height of the deadly conflict between man and ape. Caesar (Serkis) makes it abundantly clear that he doesn’t want war but they will defend themselves. He even makes an offer to the colonel leading the human forces (Harrelson) that if they allow them to keep the woods then fighting would stop. His response to the offer is to send in a strike force and slaughter Caesar’s wife and child. The war begins to venture into a darker place as Caesar wrestles with vengeance vs. what’s best for his people. Eventually, the war brings these two foes face to face. The colonel attempts to apologize for his action explaining to him that he thought it was him not his wife and child that he killed. He then proceeds to add that he’d repeat it if it meant keeping his kind from ever ruling this planet. This, of course, turns matters from bad to far worse. Tensions reach a fever pitch, and the fate of our world hangs in the balance. Will this be a world dominated by man or a planet ruled by apes?
What Worked
Reeves decision to shoot this film in 65 MM was the right call. It gave the movie a wider scale allowing the cinematographer to capture the full scope of his tale. The use of 65MM also enabled them to depict the complete devastation that comes in times of war. While some films attempt to glamorize conflict, he uses visual imagery to show the impact this war has had on both sides. For every burnt out building and dead soldier, we see the remains of slaughtered apes.
The use of close-ups in the film was unexpected yet proved to be quite crucial to the emotional core of the movie. Anytime, the camera would move in closer on Caesar; it revealed an ape who has aged rapidly due to this conflict. Apparently, the death and devastation have worn him down. Your heart begins to break when you look into his once soulful eyes which now appear to be dark and empty. On the flip, when we get a closer look at the colonel, the audience sees a man who saw the same devastation as Caesar but who’s heart is full of hate.
Loved the inclusion of the mute girl that Caesar’s group found at the abandoned cabin. Caesar’s insistence that they not shoot her only as the turned to them saying ” We aren’t savages” shows their compassion even after most of their loved ones have been slaughtered. One wonders what would have occurred had the mute girl been some ape who had been found by the colonel.
The character of “Bad Ape” (Steve Zahn) served two purposes in the overall narrative. The first was he was the shot of comedic relief this film needed as most of the film is extremely dark. Secondly, he represented a change in the overall appearance of the ape characters. Instead of looking more like Caesar, “Bad Ape” appears to be more human. Could he be a genealogical descendant of those apes from the original film?
Serkis is fantastic once again in the role Caesar. He’s redefined what should and shouldn’t be considered acting. Anyone who feels that what he does in the motion capture suit isn’t acting then you haven’t seen any of Dawn of the Planet of the Apes or any of his previous work.
The use of an AO (Alpha/Omega) symbol in the military base was extremely clever. A new civilization is soon to begin, and another one is about to end. The question is which one.
Overall
The brilliance in War For The Planet Of The Apes is how its narrative can juxtapose the immense beauty of their surroundings with the horror of war. Reeves brings out the humanity in the characters and shows how depraved mankind can be when pushed to its limits. The technology used to create War For The Planet Of The Apes is unique, but it’s the storytelling that makes it special. It’s something audiences should experience but prepared for the movie to stick with you long after you’ve left the theater.
War for the Planet of the Apes had a lot of weight on its shoulders going into production. After two successful flicks, this was going to be the movie that decided how the franchise will be remembered. Will it be rank among film’s greatest trilogies – a rarity – or will it be another trilogy that started strong but couldn’t close the deal? Thankfully, War sticks the landing by masterfully blending its two genres, sci-fi and war fiction.
Balancing those two genres is really what sets this installment apart from its predecessors; director Matt Reeves straddles the line with ease. After the first two Planet of the Apes films, the sh*t is finally hitting the fan hard for the simians. Caesar, played by Andy Serkis in an Oscar-worthy turn, is visibly older and hardened. He and his troops are trying to live peacefully in the woods, but war comes knocking on their door. Once again the apes are forced into a confrontation, but this time the stakes feel much higher.
We get a battle right off the bat, and it sets the tone for everything that comes after. It reeks of Vietnam; a jungle fight with guerrilla warfare (or “gorilla warfare” if you like obvious puns). Reeves drives the point home by evoking classic Vietnam films like Platoon and Full Metal Jacket. The human soldiers graffiti their helmets. Later in the film, the apes even come across a wall with the words “APE-POCALYPSE NOW” sprawled across it. World War II is also called to mind mid-narrative with concentration camps and stormtrooper marches. By paying homage to these classics, Reeves recalls a specific atmosphere in the audience’s mind. It’s grim and gritty. We immediately sympathize with the protagonists, forced into a war that they want nothing to do with like many of those young men in Platoon.
War isn’t a big action movie, ironically. It’s actually a very deep personal story for Caesar. He’s facing an internal struggle that he needs to come to grips with, lest he become the very thing he’s been fighting for so long. But because Reeves sets up that Vietnam-tone early on, it carries through and makes the drama that much more impactful.
Also enhancing the drama is how the filmmakers honor the sci-fi films of the 60s and 70s. War opens with blocks of text meant to bridge the gap since the last film, much like the crawl from those movies about a galaxy far, far away. Later, Caesar and company riding horseback across the beach (a frame-worthy shot) brings the original Planet of the Apes to mind. And the score by Michael Giacchino is a hauntingly beautiful callback to the films of the era as well (definitely worth saving the album on Spotify). Again, by reminding the audience of these films, War is recalling very specific themes.
Those OG sci-fi films were about freedom, and about surviving in a dying world – usually a world dying by humanity’s own hand. They were cautionary tales. The first two modern Apes films were cautionary tales as well, but War is the one that really drives the point home. It’s the apes during their darkest hour and Caesar struggling with his own humanity. It’s the one that says, “it’s easy to let fear and anger take over. But if we’re going to save the world, we need to do better – no matter how hard that is.”
War for the Planet of the Apes may be the best of this trilogy. It’s dark and serious, but still thrilling and entertaining. There are apes with guns on horseback, which you know you want. It’ll stand among the best war films of the decade, and it’s a picture-perfect model for what sci-fi is supposed to stand for.
—
War for the Planet of the Apes hits theaters July 14, 2017.
So, here we are. The summer movie season is in full swing and superhero movies are raking in cash. Congrats to the likes of Guardians of that Galaxy 2 for being the third highest grossing movie so far this year. On its heels is Wonder Woman, the latest from DC based on the most iconic female comic book character ever. If you spend enough time on Monkeys Fighting Robots, you’ll notice I almost never comment or write about comic book movies. I love comic books, I’ve written a few indie books, and I even wrote a Monkeys Fighting Robots comic that’s coming soon. So stay tuned! But I don’t watch the movies anymore. I can’t even bring myself to bootleg them. Comic book movies are, generally speaking, mediocre at best. But I love my wife, and she loves Wonder Woman, so we waited until the hype died down and took Sunday to watch it. And here we are, and I’m left wondering, “Did I watch the same movie as everyone else?”
10 Reasons Why Wonder Woman Is Mediocre (At Best)
Problem #1: BOOM!
The first act is essentially a clumsy and lengthy (EPIC) exposition bomb. The script for this film would fail every screenwriting class across the world. We spend 20 minutes learning that Wonder Woman comes from an island of women who train their entire lives for war. In a sort-of flashback, we also learn about Ares, the God of War, and how bad he is, but he’s dead, maybe. From a young age, Wonder Woman wants to be a warrior, because her entire existence is on an island of woman training for combat. Wonder Woman is indoctrinated. But her mother doesn’t want to train her even though, again, the Amazonians entire existence is training to one day fight. I offer Exhibit A of a script with little thought put into it.
Problem #2: Dream Within A Dream
Steve Trevor crash lands on the island and is followed there by enemy Germans who raid the beach. After a short, but sweet action scene with almost no inspired shots what-so-ever (300 is calling, and they want their unused effects back), we get ANOTHER flashback into Trevor’s moments leading up to arriving on the island. So, we’re now in second level inception flashback. By my count, there were three flashbacks in total and one pseudo-flashback during the exposition bomb.
Problem #3: Cartoon Villains, Part 1
Trevor’s flashback is short and introduces a gas that the enemy is creating. But the enemy also creates another gas that makes soldiers super-strong for brief periods. But they never once consider mass producing THAT gas even though it would give them a massive advantage in the war? It’s another contrived idea necessary for the plot but wildly illogical and Exhibit B of a thoughtless script.
Problem #4: War? Meh.
Before grade school level humor regarding Steve Trevor standing naked in front of Wonder Woman, he warns an island of women trained for combat that there is a massive war going on around the world. “Meh.” That’s basically the response from Wonder Woman’s mother. But Wonder Woman wants to fight because she’s a trained warrior and that’s what warriors do. Is she a hero or just logical? I offer Exhibit C.
Problem #5: Not-So-Special Effects
The film dials back the Snyder-established desaturation a bit though not without leaving the movie mostly colorless after the first act. Still, it suits the film for the most part. But whenever there’s CG involved, things get dicey or downright hideous. By some unwritten rule, all superhero movies must end in a mass-destruction action extravaganza that’s slathered in CG. Two actors screaming and posing in front of a green screen while CG debris and chaos swirls around them. It’s almost always awful and ages quickly. Wonder Woman didn’t waste any time and just went with effects that already look dated.
Problem #6: Walk Straight Ahead
Act 2 is essentially a no man’s land of ideas. The only remotely interesting scene here is, of course, No Man’s Land when Wonder Woman crosses a battlefield. Looks cool, right, sure, except we saw most of it in the trailer for one. Secondly, here is an opportunity for Wonder Woman to take charge, not only of her actions but the people around her. She’s been trained for combat ALL HER LIFE. Her strategy amounts to “walk straight into a hail of bullets.” Never does she think to order Trevor to flank the enemy or provide cover.
Also consider, up until maybe a week ago, Wonder Woman didn’t even know guns existed. And her first memory of a firearm is when Germans invaded her island and murdered a few of her people, including her beloved aunt and trainer. But, she seems completely okay with walking towards it all. Exhibit D.
Problem #7: Love Your Man Because … Reasons
During Act 2 Trevor and Wonder Woman share a kiss (maybe sleep together too?). Why do they kiss? They’ve known each other all of a week. Wonder Woman is hyper-focused on killing Ares who is supposedly the source of all war. But, hey, it’s a chick flick, gotta have her fall in love with a man she barely knows who has been telling her what to do since they met.
Problem #8: Time For Your Closeup
In a film about what is essentially a female Superman, the action scenes are lackluster at best. It’s a direct effect from poor directing choices. Putting aside the 2006 effects, the film is riddled with medium to close shots consistently, rarely allowing for a true sense of space. Compare it to action scenes in similar films like Deadpool or even Batman V. Superman where there’s a greater scope than simply the upper torsos of every character in front of CG backdrops. Dialogue scenes are almost entirely shot with a standard over-the-shoulder style like any average TV show. It wouldn’t be so bad either if the dialogue weren’t so humdrum.
Problem #9: Cartoon Villains, Part 2
Ares and the entire point of killing him are completely irrelevant. War will go on with or without Ares, so Wonder Woman’s role in the movie is ultimately pointless. Trevor could’ve learned of the gas and plane and stopped it just the same. Ares would keep “whispering” into man’s ear and war would continue regardless. In fact, considering that World War ONE was only the first massive global conflict, and conflicts haven’t ended since WWI, then it’s safe to say Wonder Woman’s efforts in killing Ares were in vain. It was just to satisfy the film’s need to kill the unremarkable final boss in a lazy third act.
Problem #10: Who’s The Hero?
As much as Gadot looks the part, she delivers already bad dialogue in clumsy ways. Worst yet, Gadot makes forced reactions while listening to other characters talk because, as an unconfident actor, she doesn’t know what to do with herself when not talking or striking a cool pose. Proof of Gadot’s lack of ability to carry the film on her own is in the way the film is structured to include her ragtag team of all male characters to keep things interesting. However, none of them are all that interesting. And Trevor’s role is co-leading man in a story called Wonder Woman. Sure, Lois is in Superman, but she’s undoubtedly a supporting character. Here, Trevor proves to be the useful hero who sacrifices something for the greater good. Meanwhile, Wonder Woman kills an old man in Lord of the Rings cosplay for reasons that ultimately have no real importance except to finish the boss and unlock the credits scene.
I know I’m in the minority here, but that’s normal for me.
Did I watch a different movie from everyone? Was the euphoria of Wonder Woman finally (and deservedly) getting her live-action movie so powerful that it doesn’t matter that this film is ferociously flawed? It pales in comparison to the 2009 animated film about Wonder Woman which I highly recommend.
About halfway through the film, I thought, maybe I’m just crazy. That I’m too far gone with superhero movies to enjoy them anymore. But then I looked over at my wife, a fan of Wonder Woman since she was a little girl, and on her face was confusion growing with frustration.
I know I’m in the minority here, but that’s normal for me. Wonder Woman is dreadfully slow, uninspired, and then speeds into a third act that is wildly uninteresting. I’m happy that Wonder Woman finally got a movie. But here’s hoping the next one gives the character a much better role to fill.
Today marks twenty-years to the day that Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone was released for the first time by Bloomsbury Publishing. Nobody could have predicted back then, including the author herself, what the series would become, nor that it would take on a life of its own. Indeed, the Philosopher’s Stone was rejected twelve times by twelve different publishers before Bloomsbury decided to take a chance on the then unknown Rowling, who had been told by multiple people “not to quit her day job.” In retrospect, it seems almost laughable. Nowadays there’s hardly a person in the world – whether or not they like Harry Potter – who doesn’t know the story of the orphan boy who was told he was a wizard on his eleventh birthday and sent off to Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, nor that of his creator, J.K. Rowling, who – when she first came up with the idea of the boy wizard – was a young, single mother barely able to make ends meet and wrote half of that first book on napkins.
Going back and revisiting the first chapter of the first Harry Potter book, it’s almost eerie reading one of the lines spoken by Professor McGonagall, when she, Professor Dumbledore, and the half-giant Hagrid are leaving the newly orphaned baby Harry on the doorstep of his Aunt Petunia’s house in the dead of night. She tells her colleagues: “This boy will be famous, a legend. I wouldn’t be surprised if today was known as Harry Potter day in the future. There will be books written about Harry, every child in our world will know his name.” It’s a line that turned out to be prophetic, not just within the universe confined inside of the books, but in real life as well.
We saw the beasts teased in the end credits of Kong: Skull Island, and it’s likely that Kong will somehow tie into this film. Godzilla: King of the Monsters lands in theaters in 2019, and following it is Godzilla vs. King Kong coming in 2020.
Are you looking forward to seeing Godzilla on-screen with King Gidorah, Mothra, and Rodan? Sound off in the comment section below!
Sony held the press junket for ‘Spider-Man: Homecoming’ in New York this past weekend. It was a packed experience with full cast and crew in attendance, including Iron Man himself, Robert Downey Jr. Check out the interviews below. What side charcter are you most excited for?
Tom Holland – “Peter Parker / Spider-Man”
Michael Keaton – “Adrian Toomes/Vulture”
Robert Downey Jr. – “Tony Stark/Iron Man”
Marisa Tomei – “May Parker”
Zendaya – “Michelle” / Jacob Batalon – “Ned” / Laura Harrier – “Liz”
Kevin Feige – Producer
Jon Watts – Director
Tony Revolori – “Flash Thompson”
About ‘Spider-Man: Homecoming’ A young Peter Parker/Spider-Man (Tom Holland), who made his sensational debut in Captain America: Civil War, begins to navigate his newfound identity as the web-slinging super hero in Spider-Man: Homecoming. Thrilled by his experience with the Avengers, Peter returns home, where he lives with his Aunt May (Marisa Tomei), under the watchful eye of his new mentor Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.). Peter tries to fall back into his normal daily routine – distracted by thoughts of proving himself to be more than just your friendly neighborhood Spider-Man – but when the Vulture (Michael Keaton) emerges as a new villain, everything that Peter holds most important will be threatened.
The film is directed by Jon Watts, from a screenplay by Jonathan Goldstein & John Francis Daley and Jon Watts & Christopher Ford and Chris McKenna & Erik Sommers. The charcters are based on the Marvel Comic Book by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko.
Netflix’s new series G.L.O.W. has premiered with great success. Critics and fans alike have praised with the 80’s wrestling comedy. It’s a show that blends comedy and glamour wonderfully. However, the show has a weak point in its leading lady. The show’s protagonist is Ruth, a “real” actress who turns to wrestling out of desperation. Ruth is a funny character, played by the talented Alison Brie. The problem is that Ruth doesn’t work as the series protagonist.
Ruth is an overly obnoxious character. While G.L.O.W. plays up her unsufferability The humor of Ruth’s persistence only works in small doses. A lot of her big moments rely on cringe-worthy moments and drama with fellow wrestler Debbie. As far as being a central character, her prominence doesn’t feel earned until the tail-end of the first season. It takes too long for Ruth to have a clear reason for taking attention away from the other wrestlers. Beyond playing the primary “heel” of the wrestling league, Ruth’s protagonist status doesn’t feel wholly earned.
That’s not to say the show as a whole doesn’t work. G.L.O.W. is definitely a fun show with humor and style. But the insistence that Ruth should be the center of attention is aggravating. Alison Brie is a great actress, but the fact that she’s the biggest name doesn’t justify her protagonist status. Ruth is similar to Brie’s character Annie in NBC’s college sitcom Community. Her type-A personality, and genuine enthusiasm, makes for a great character. However, it doesn’t make for a great leading lady. Annie only works as an ensemble member, alongside her fellow cast mates.
G.L.O.W. has an incredibly colorful cast of characters. Carmen stepping into her family’s legacy is a classic tale. Cherry’s mentor status, and her friendship with Sam, also makes for a great storyline. Marc Maron’s grizzled writer makes for a great counter to the energetic ladies. G.L.O.W. has built up a phenomenal ensemble of lady wrestlers, and the fact Ruth takes prominence makes very little sense. The neurotic actress turned wrestler feels like part of that ensemble. Making her the leading lady doesn’t fully work.
But the most interesting character in G.L.O.W, and deserving to star, is Debbie. It might feel simple to have the “face” be the hero, but don’t over-think it. Debbie’s journey has a far more compelling arc than Ruth. Debbie is a single mother who lost her husband, and has a thirst for the spotlight. Ruth is an actress who… wants to be an actress? Both characters have persistence, but Debbie has more at stake. Ruth’s nervous energy only works when it’s bouncing off Debbie.
It’s the same issue that plagues Orange is the New Black.G.L.O.W. comes from the same creative team behind Netflix’s women’s prison dramedy. That show’s protagonist is Piper Chapman, the obnoxious Brooklynite sentenced for helping her drug-dealing ex-girlfriend. She’s an annoying character, constantly hogging screen time from the far more interesting inmates. Piper is a funny character, but the show’s insistence on making her the lead dulls her humor. In a sea of more interesting characters, Piper feels like the wrong choice for a lead. It’s that same problem which make Ruth feel like a side character promoted for no good reason.
The series wouldn’t even be too different with an alternative protagonist. G.L.O.W. wouldn’t be made any better by cutting out Ruth. She makes a great heel, but she’s not compelling enough for a protagonist. The only thing that makes her a central character to the story is a SPOILER from Episode 8. Suffice to say, it’s a rather common story trope that feels unnecessary. A lot of her protagonist status stems from how she interacts with the others. By giving the side characters more, you could lessen Ruth’s role. And by lessening Ruth’s prominence, you actually make Ruth a stronger, more bearable character.
G.L.O.W. is far from the only show that puts the focus on an unconventional hero. Television’s current fascination is with morally gray anti-heroes. There are plenty of instances of non-heroic protagonists leading great shows. However, there’s an important balance of making them exciting, not annoying. Ruth isn’t villainous – she makes one mistake, then plays the perfectionist. Pitching Ruth as an “anti-hero” doesn’t work beyond explaining the premise of G.L.O.W. The series’ insistence that Ruth be the center of attention weakens the otherwise great ensemble dynamic.
Ideally, toning down Ruth would turn G.L.O.W. into a true ensemble show. There are so many interesting plot lines that shouldn’t be downplayed for Ruth’s. The show could let more side characters shine, like Carmen, Justine, or Sheila. Both characters get maybe half an episode, but they deserve more. Furthermore, there are several wrestlers that we never REALLY get to know. It would be nice to get more insight into side characters like Arthie and Jenny. The show has too many interesting characters to focus on its more annoying vanilla characters.
So much of G.L.O.W. works beautifully. The comedy and drama of the show is very well balanced. The plot moves along very well, and mostly keeps every character interesting. But Ruth doesn’t feel like a smart choice for a protagonist until the very end of the show. It would’ve been better to give a different character the top billing. Whether it be Debbie, Sam, or Cherry, there are far more interesting characters than Ruth. By changing the lead, G.L.O.W. could’ve done a better balance of interesting storylines.
Preacher Feature is a weekly analysis of the AMC show Preacher based on the comic book of the same name by Garth Ennis and Steve Dillon. In this column, we will give a breakdown of the events from the previous night’s show, including how they relate to the comics, and speculate as to what’s going on and what might be coming up. This is to say that there will be spoilers, both actual and potential. If you have not yet watched the episode in question or are watching the show without reading the comics and don’t want to have any foreknowledge of what might happen to Jesse and company, then you would do well to stop reading this now.
What You Need to Know:
Preacher is the story of Jesse Custer (Dominic Cooper), a preacher with a violent past. While I can’t recommend enough that you watch the first season, if you don’t have the time, here’s a quick recap: Jesse has lost his faith in God when he gets inhabited by Genesis, an other-worldly being that gives Jesse the power to speak in a voice that forces anyone who hears it to obey his orders. After receiving this power, Jesse learns that God has left Heaven and, as a result, things are going very wrong in Heaven and on Earth. Jesse decides it’s his mission to find God and either help Him out or kick His ass, depending on God’s disposition. With Jesse on this quest are Tulip (Ruth Negga), his former girlfriend and partner-in-crime, who has recently come back into Jesse’s life, and Cassidy (Joseph Gilgun), an Irish vampire with a love for adventure and mind-altering substances. Chasing after our three heroes is The Saint of Killers (Graham McTavish), a damned scalp hunter from the 1800’s resurrected by two angels and charged with killing Jesse to prevent the power of Genesis from remaining in the hands of a mortal man.
On The Road
Season two of AMC’s Preacher kicks off with a discussion about what happens to all the foreskins from circumcisions (skin grafts? face creams?) and a car chase set to Come On Eileen, and if that doesn’t capture the essence of Preacher, I don’t know what does. Side note: if you don’t think that Come On Eileen is one of the greatest songs of all time, you’re lying to yourself and will never find happiness in this life. After our heroes fail to elude the fuzz (kids, make sure you have a full tank of gas whenever you think you might need to initiate a high-speed chase), they are surrounded by cops and Jesse uses Genesis on them to get out of the situation. Unfortunately, at this time The Saint of Killers appears and shoots up the scene, killing all the police officers while Jesse, Tulip, and Cassidy narrowly escape.
Sadly, he was right. They did all fuckin’ die
They head to the home of Mike, another preacher and friend of Jesse’s (now mostly deceased) family, for some guidance about where to look for God. While Jesse is away talking to Mike, Cassidy tells Tulip he feels guilty about their having hooked up (see season one) and suggests they tell Jesse. Tulip lets Cassidy know that this is a terrible idea, as Jesse is a very violent man and not the type to let something like this go. The matter is still seemingly up for debate when Jesse and Mike interrupt. Mike suggests they try She She’s, a local strip club, where one of his parishioners claims to have seen God. They decide to investigate, but first spend an uncomfortable night crammed in what passes for guest accommodations at Mike’s house.
Three is most definitely a crowd
Like most trips to a strip club, things get out of hand quickly. Tulip narrowly misses finding out that Annville, the town they left at the end of season one, was destroyed in a methane explosion. Cassidy finds out that this club has a strict “no touching” policy. When the strip club proprietress, Tammy, doesn’t want to cough up info about why God has been frequenting She She’s (customer confidentiality is key), Jesse wants to use Genesis to make her talk. Tulip lets him know she doesn’t like his using Genesis (she makes a good point – more on this later) and suggests instead that they beat the info out of Tammy (which doesn’t exactly strengthen Tulip’s point). Eventually, and only after Tammy has been accidentally shot by a bouncer who is trying to rough Cassidy up, they find out that God was at the strip club because he likes jazz (to be clear: ‘jazz’ here refers to the music genre loved by Ryan Gosling, not the name of a stripper).
The trio spends the night in a hotel. Like any couple reunited and alone together for the first time in years, Jesse and Tulip bang each other’s brains out, much to the chagrin of Cassidy, who still has feelings for Tulip, and whose hotel room is separated from theirs but what appears to be a very thin wall. After the reunion sex, Jesse goes out for a smoke in the road. Here he is fired on once more by The Saint of Killers (don’t smoke, kids, it’s dangerous) and uses Genesis to command him to stop, only to find out that his power doesn’t seem to work on The Saint. We’ll find out what happens next tonight when episode two airs on AMC (9 pm Eastern).
Bottom Line
A great episode from top to bottom, On the Road features the action and humor (and humorous action) we’ve come to expect from Preacher. While very little of the episode comes directly from the comics (Mike and She She’s are new, the police shootout with The Saint is similar to a scene early in the comics), I would say the show continues to capture the essence of the characters, as well as the overall feel of the books, magnificently.
About Tulip’s Dislike of Genesis
As we mentioned, Tulip is pretty firmly against Jesse using Genesis in any but the direst circumstances. On top of the Saint of Killers appearing every time Jesse uses Genesis, things don’t work out so well for the folks Jesse uses it on. Here are a few examples:
Jesse tells various cops to fill up Tulip’s car with gas, hold each other’s hands, mace their own balls, and sing The Yellow Rose of Texas. They are all killed by The Saint.
He tells a gas station attendant to “forget they were here”. Said gas station attendant later has his tongue ripped out by The Saint, who does not appreciate being lied to, even if the liar in question is physically unable to tell the truth.
To convince Mike that he really has this power, he commands Mike to “break something”. Mike later kills himself to avoid being forced by the Saint to reveal where Jesse went.
In short, nothing good seems to come from a mortal man using the Word of God.
Easter Eggs/Connections to the Comics
I didn’t notice many, but the one that stuck out the most to me was an aquarium treasure chest behind Jesse’s head in a scene that takes place at Mike’s house. Fans of the comics may remember that when Jesse was a child being raised by the monstrous L’Angell family, he was punished by being stuck in a coffin rigged with air tubes and thrown into the lake on their property. This makes me think that we will be seeing more of Jesse’s twisted upbringing in flashbacks this season.
What did you think about the season two debut? What easter eggs did I miss? Has last night’s episode helped you to open your heart to Come On Eileen? Let us know in the comments.
