Miniseries Review: Mike (dir by Craig Gillespie, Tiffany Johnson, and Director X)


“Who is Mike Tyson?” is question that’s asked by the new Hulu miniseries, Mike.

The answer to that question is that he’s a boring guy who did some interesting things.

For instance, he became a boxer and was briefly the world champion before he was brought down by his own hubris.  That’s interesting, largely because it’s something that seems to happen to quite a few people who suddenly find themselves on top of the world but don’t have the maturity necessary to handle it.  However, that, in itself, does not Mike Tyson an interesting human being.  It just makes him an example of how history repeats itself.

He bit off an opponent’s ear during a boxing match.  That’s interesting because it was such a savage act and it scandalized people who otherwise have no problem watching two men beat each other until one loses consciousness.  Causing brain damage is okay but God forbid you bite off a piece of someone’s ear.  But the fact that Mike bit off the guy’s ear does not, in itself, make Mike Tyson interesting.  It just makes him a jerk.

Mike Tyson has a facial tattoo that doesn’t really mean anything.  A lot of people have stupid tattoos.

Mike Tyson has a distinctive way of speaking.  So do a lot of other people.

Mike Tyson spent three years in prison after being convicted of raping a contestant in a beauty pageant.  Tyson was and is certainly more famous than the typical convict and, somehow, that conviction has not prevented him from becoming a beloved cultural institution in the United States.  The hypocrisy is interesting.  Mike Tyson is not.

At least, that’s the impression that I got from this 8-episode miniseries.  Seven of the episodes feature Tyson (played by Trevante Rhodes) performing a one-man show in front of an audience in Indiana.  Believe it or not, this is based on fact.  Apparently, Mike Tyson did have a one-man show, in which he would discuss his career and his life.  (Jeff even wrote a review of it for this very site!)  We watch flashbacks as the show’s version of Tyson provides a self-serving narration and, to be honest, it seems like it would be the most boring one-man show ever.  Tyson talks about growing up poor and with a mother who alternated between hating and loving him.  He talks about his first trainer (played by Harvey Keitel, who often seems to be channeling Jonathan Banks) and his first marriage.  Mostly he talks about how he feels that almost everyone in his life betrayed him.  The first two episodes, which deal with Tyson’s youth, are effective because they examine how a childhood of mental and physical abuse can set the course of someone’s entire life.  However, once adult Tyson shows up, Mike becomes far less compelling.  It’s hard not to get tired of listening to him blame everyone else for his own increasingly poor decisions.

The one exception to the show’s format is episode 5, which is told from the point of view of Desiree Washington (Li Eubanks), the woman who Tyson was convicted of raping.  This is a powerful stand-alone episode, both because of Eubanks’s performance and because it’s the only episode to not be seen through Tyson’s eyes.  It’s the episode that allows the viewer to see Tyson the way the rest of the world saw Tyson.  And yet it’s difficult to feel that, when viewed in the context of the entire miniseries, this episode is a bit of a cop-out.  It’s the only episode to focus on someone who was hurt by Tyson but it’s surrounded by episodes that once again portray Tyson as being a victim of his managers, his fans, and society at large.  Desiree is given one episode and then disappears from the narrative whereas the show’s version of Tyson is given seven episodes to justify himself.  One gets the feeling that the show’s producers knew that they had to include Desiree but they also knew that revealing Tyson’s version of the events would have also meant revealing that he continues to insist that he was the victim and that would have totally messed up the show’s final redemption arc.  And so, the narrative burden is temporarily placed on Desiree and Tyson only returns once it is time to discuss what it was like being in prison.

Mike was produced by Craig Gillespie, who also directed I, Tonya.  Like I, Tonya, Mike features characters frequently breaking the fourth wall and talking directly to the audience.  In fact, it happens so frequently that it gets to be kind of annoying.  Breaking the fourth wall really wasn’t even that original when it happened in I, Tonya.  In Mike, it becomes a trick that’s used to try to make Mike Tyson into a more interesting character than he is.  But it feels empty, largely because it doesn’t tell us anything that we don’t already know or couldn’t have guessed on our own.

The miniseries itself was made without the participation of the real-life Mike Tyson.  Tyson condemned the show as being an attempt to make money off of his life and he actually does have a point.  Unfortunately, the miniseries itself doesn’t have anything new to add to the story of Tyson.  It’s an 8 episode Wikipedia entry.  At some point, the streaming services may need to realize that not every celeb needs to be the subject of a miniseries.  Simply being famous does not always make for a compelling story.

TV Review: Pam & Tommy Episode 1-3 (dir by Craig Gillipsie)


Currently (and, presumably, forever) available on Hulu, Pam & Tommy is a miniseries about …. well, it’s about many things.

It’s about the mid-90s, a time when people still used terms like “World Wide Web” and where no one thought twice about having to wait two or three minutes for one lousy web site to finish loading.  It’s about a time when dial-up internet was still considered to be something of an exotic luxury.  It’s about a time when the number one show in the entire world was the critically derided Baywatch and the show’s star, Pamela Anderson, was trying to make the jump from television to film.

It’s also about the early days of online porn and how it was first discovered that people would pay money to watch celebrity sex tapes.  It may seem strange to consider that this was something that needed to be discovered but, if you believe Pam & Tommy, apparently no one thought there was an audience for celebrity sex tapes before 1996.  Today, of course, celebrity sex tapes are so common place that they’re often leaked by the celebrity themselves.  Where would the Kardashians be if not for the celebrity sex tape industry?  Could it be that Kim owes as much of her success to Pamela Anderson and Tommy Lee as she does to O.J. Simpson?  Perhaps, which is a polite way of saying yes.

Pam & Tommy is also about the brief marriage of Pamela Anderson (Lily James) and Tommy Lee (Sebastian Stan).  When Pam & Tommy begins, Pam, as mentioned above, is the star of the number one show in the world.  Despite being a star, she’s not respected as an actress.  Instead, she’s usually treated as just being a body.  The show’s producers and directors have no trouble cutting her big monologue on a whim but they spend several minutes discussing just how tight her red swimsuit should be.  (After cutting her monologue, they condescendingly thank her for being a team player.)  Pam has a very earnest and somewhat heart-breaking desire to be taken seriously as an actress.  She describes Jane Fonda as being her role model.  Meanwhile, Tommy Lee is, for lack of a better term, an idiot.  He’s also a drummer for a band that used to be big.  He travels with an entourage.  His body is covered with tattoos, the majority of which have no meaning to him beyond, “I just thought it looked cool.”  Tommy is usually an arrogant bully, the epitome of the spoiled rock star.  Occasionally, with Pam, he’s sweet but if this miniseries stays true to what actually happened during Pam and Tommy’s marriage, that sweetness is not going to last.

Finally, Pam & Tommy is the story of Rand Gautheir (Seth Rogen).  Much like Tommy, Rand is a moron.  However, Rand has neither Tommy’s looks nor his swagger.  Instead, he’s just a schlub who works as a carpenter and tries way too hard to present himself as being an intellectual.  After Tommy humiliates Rand by firing him from a remodeling job, Rand retaliates by stealing a safe from Tommy’s garage.  (Tommy doesn’t even notice that it’s missing.)  Inside the safe, Rand finds a sex tape that Tommy and Pam made on their honeymoon.  With the help of gangster Butchie Periano (Andrew Dice Clay) and adult film veteran “Uncle” Miltie (Nick Offerman), Rand puts the video on the internet and plans to make a fortune.  Rand tells himself that he’s doing it because Tommy didn’t pay him for his work but it’s clear that Rand’s main motivation is jealousy.  Why should Tommy get a huge house and a beautiful wife while Rand is stuck in his little apartment?  Rand is at least as smart as Tommy.  Of course, the same could probably be said of the dog that Pam purchases when she and Tommy return from their honeymoon.

In other words, Pam & Tommy is about a very specific cultural moment.  So far, the series is taking a stylized approach to the material, mixing occasionally broad comedy with more dramatic moments.  Needless to say, it’s a bit uneven.  During the second episode, Tommy actually has a conversation with his penis about whether or not he should marry Pam.  It’s a funny idea but the scene itself goes on forever and, ultimately, the whole thing says more about the importance of generating twitter buzz than it does about why Tommy and Pam ended up getting married after knowing each other for only a handful of days.  The first three episodes were directed by Craig Gillipsie, who also directed I, Tonya.  Much like that film, Pam & Tommy is occasionally insightful but it also sometimes seems to get bogged down in its own condescending attitude towards the people who are at the center of its story.

And yet, there are also enough moments that work in Pam & Tommy that I’ll definitely watch the rest of the show.  So far, this is a series that is largely saved by its cast.  Seth Rogen has recently been so intent on presenting himself as being the only man in Hollywood with integrity that it’s easy to forget that he’s always been at his most entertaining (and sympathetic) whenever he’s been cast as a complete loser and it’s hard to think of anyone who could be a bigger loser than the character he plays in Pam & Tommy.  Sebastian Stan plays Tommy as being a destructive manchild and, for the first two episodes, he’s pretty obnoxious.  By the third episode, though, Stan is given a few quieter scenes and he manages to suggest that there’s something more to Tommy than just rock star bravado.  And finally, Lily James gives a wonderfully empathetic performance as Pamela Anderson, capturing her earnest desire to be something more than just a sex symbol.

The first three episodes of Pam & Tommy dropped on Hulu this week.  The remaining five episodes will be released on a weekly basis.  I don’t really know how you get 8 episodes out of this particular story but I guess I’ll find out soon.  Hopefully, the show will continue to focus on the best thing that it has going for it, its cast.

Cruella steps into the spotlight with a new Trailer


Disney’s had some success with focusing on their villains lately. With Angelina Jolie’s turn as Maleficent having done well, it’s time for another classic enemy to take the stage. Academy Award Winner Emma Stone (La La Land) is Disney’s newest Cruella DeVille, the nemesis to all 101 Dalmatians. This film looks like it’s a prequel, focusing on how Cruella came into power and possibly why she despises spotted dogs so. The cast includes Mark Strong (1917), Emma Thompson (Late Night), Paul Walter Houser (Richard Jewell) and Dev Patel (Lion)

Cruella is directed by Craig Gillespie, who is known for I, Tonya, The Finest Hours and Fright Night.

The release date is set for May 28, 2021, though no statement on how this will play on Disney+ at this time.

Quick Review: Fright Night (dir. by Craig Gillespie)


I want to say great things about Craig Gillespie’s remake of Fright Night. I want to say that it was worth seeing and it was full of awesome moments. I also wanted to be able to write this review without making so many comparisons to the 1985 Original by Tom Holland. Not that the original was a masterpiece by any means, but I dozed off (just a little) on this film.

If there’s only one reason I could give for recommending Fright Night, it would be to get a taste of what Vampires should be. Don’t read me wrong on this. I own all four Twilight books in hardcover, read them repeatedly, and have seen the three films that came out in the theatre. It’s just nice to see a vampire movie that shows vampires more as predatory creatures than sparkling A&F models.  There’s an edge to this film that’s pretty fun in a lot of ways. Both Colin Farrell and David Tennant have great roles here and even Anton Yelchin holds his own, but there’s a weird breakdown that happens. Fright Night is a good film, as long as you don’t try to make any kind of direct comparisons to the source material.

The story focuses on Charlie Brewster (Yelchin), a teenager – the story being in Vegas this time –  who discovers he has a vampire named Jerry Dandrige (Farrell) living next door to him. When the vampire confronts Charlie, Charlie is forced to seek out help in the form of Peter Vincent (Tennant) to defeat him. While there were a few scenes that really stood out for me and I found myself smiling more often than rolling my eyes, the pacing of this was off. Other audiences may find that the movie moved well. I felt like they were just throwing things to say “Well, wouldn’t it be cool if they did this, and then that.”

The two problems I had with Fright Night were it’s pacing and Chris Mintz-Plasse. Chris is fun to watch at the start, and I’d love to see him do more, but someone really has to give him something where he’s not playing the “token geek”.  While I liked the movie overall, there’s a lot of verbal exposition in the beginning of the film, as Charlie doesn’t so much discover the truth about Jerry, but is pretty much told the entire scenario he’s in about 15 minutes into the start. I had a problem with that. Again, depending on the audience, the movie may move just fine.

Fright Night is one of those films could be a love it or hate it. I’m of the audience that will probably catch it again when it’s out on video, but it doesn’t feel like anything you really have to rush to the theatre for.