Sheep Thrills

Between Kenneth Branagh donning the Poirot mustache and Daniel Craig solving crimes in the Knives Out movies, you might say that the whodunit is having a bit of a resurgence at the movies. That might have opened the door wide enough for something as unusual as The Sheep Detectives to slip in.

Shepherd George Hardy reads murder mysteries to his flock every night. When he turns up dead, the sheep try to apply all they've learned from books to solve the case. But they'll have to overcome their inherent limitations as, well... sheep. And they'll have to find a way to share what they know with the town's only police officer.

As strange as that description may sound, it only grows more strange as you drill down. Based on a novel by Leonie Swann, this film's script was written by Craig Mazin -- most known for his work on Chernobyl and The Last of Us. Mazin tried for almost a decade to get the movie made, failing perhaps because of how diametrically opposed in tone it was from his most successful work, or maybe because the cyclical genre infatuation of Hollywood hadn't circled back around to mysteries yet.

Eventually, though, he paired up with animation director Kyle Balda (who did numerous films for Illumination), and the movie became a reality -- with one hell of a cast. Appearing on screen, there's Hugh Jackson as the shepherd, Nicholas Braun as the hapless cop, Emma Thompson as a quirky lawyer, and numerous other recognizable faces to round out the pool of suspects.

The voice cast for the titular sheep detectives is even more stacked -- including Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Bryan Cranston, Chris O'Dowd, Regina Hall, Patrick Stewart, Bella Ramsey, and Brett Goldstein. Looking at that list, you might pick up that it's a group of actors who have shined both in comedy and drama. And that's kind of the special sauce that makes the movie work. The Sheep Detectives rarely lets you forget how deeply silly the premise is -- but at the same time, it's an absolutely played-straight murder mystery. And in its most successful moments, it gets surprisingly sentimental.

I can't claim that the movie perfectly runs the gauntlet of all these tones. Indeed, I'm not sure that Craig Mazin and Kyle Balda are actually the best writer/director pairing; I get the impression that Mazin was going for a deeply earnest movie that just happens to star sheep, while Balda may have been going for something a zany Minions movie that just happens to be live action. But there is an effective core to it all (perhaps coming from the original novel), that's definitely elevated by the actors. 

The Sheep Detectives surely won't end up being one of the best movies I see this year, but it certainly felt like a sweet and enjoyable dessert I'm glad I sampled. I give it a B.

Make a Constitution Roll

Many news headlines yesterday triumphantly reported the Supreme Court ruling in the case "Trump v. Barbara," upholding the law that people born in the United States are to be treated as U.S. citizens. In the rush to report this as a "loss for Trump" or a "win for the rule of law," most headlines completely overlook a chilling reality -- this actually was a close decision, and should not have been.

Four of nine Justices ruled (in dissent) that the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution doesn't actually say what it says. It's not a complicated sentence full of legalese. It says:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 

Actually, most of the Constitution is pretty clear in this way, if you've ever made the time to read it. But admittedly, some of it is less so. And with all of that in mind, I'm here to recommend a book -- The U.S. Constitution: A Comprehensive and Annotated Guide for the Modern Reader. (Yes, for some reason, the cover title doesn't exactly match the listed title.)

This book was written by Melissa Murray, law professor and co-host of the podcast Strict Scrutiny. And the book is like getting the chance to sit in on one of her classes. Actually, it's better than that, because the book is very much crafted for the layperson... which, as Murray enthusiastically presents, is exactly who that founding document was intended for.

After a brief introduction, the book presents the Constitution in whole... but then the titular "Guide" begins. Murray goes through the document article by article, amendment by amendment, sometimes even clause by clause, explaining exactly what's going on. At each step, she discusses the history: what was going on at the time that sparked this particular element of the Constitution, and how it was debated at the time. She then walks you through key Supreme Court rulings since, and how they shifted, crystallized, or redefined the meaning over time. In instances where a provision in the document is the subject of modern debate, she details the positions in that debate.

On the podcast Strict Scrutiny, Melissa Murray is a progressive voice whom I happen to agree with a great deal. But on this occasion, I actually appreciate even more that she has set aside any ideological stance (no matter how moral I may find it). This book is methodically even at every turn; it's not dispassionate by any means, very much reflecting the concerns of the Constitution's framers over the decades. But it is a book I think you could give to your "crazy relative on the other side of the aisle" without triggering any alarm bells about propaganda.

If you read this book for yourself, you will come away with a better understanding of the U.S. Constitution -- even if you actually have read the document for yourself (as so many politicians claim to have done, sometimes by pulling out the prop version they carry in their pocket). The Constitution is, most famously, a document of, for, and by the People. But for it to fully fulfill that promise, the People have to know what it says.

Melissa Murray has done her part to help with that. The book may be called The U.S. Constitution: A Comprehensive and Annotated Guide for the Modern Reader -- but another descriptor that might have gone in there is "essential." I give the book an A, and an enthusiastic recommendation.

(Maybe a few clowns on the Supreme Court should pick up a copy.) 

Less Than Super, But Good Enough

This weekend, I went to go see the new movie Supergirl -- bracing for, what most of the advance buzz had warned me -- was going to be a disastrously bad experience. The low expectations likely improved the experience.

This movie follows the interstellar adventures of Kara Zor-El, on an extended binge-drinking holiday from Earth to dull the powerful feelings stirring inside her. She can no longer escape responsibility when a young orphan seeks her help on a sole-destroying quest for vengeance... just as she also has 72 hours to save her dog. Now she has two lives to save.

There are some fair criticisms you could level against this movie. It's almost aggressively unoriginal. That it follows the all-but-mandated "refuse the call / answer the call" story structure for superhero stories is barely worth commenting on. That its action scenes and character beats come from the bag of tropes is perhaps a bit more disappointing -- particularly if you're a fan of The Avengers, Executive Decision, the Mad Max franchise, or any other place you've scene this stuff before. I personally was hoping a story beyond "John Wick meets Guardians of the Galaxy," and definitely didn't get it.

But the thing is, none of these homages (or rip-offs, depending on your own level of charity) is done badly here. There's a wide gulf between actively bad and "just not inspiring and new." To me, Supergirl lands (a flashy, three-point superhero landing) pretty squarely in the latter camp. It's fun, it's brash, it gets the job the done.

And in a few performances, the movie does rise above being just paint-by-numbers. Jason Momoa (in KISS makeup) sure is fun in the scenery-chewing role of Lobo. In his cameo moments, David Corenswet is still giving the most earnest performance as Superman since Christopher Reeve. And Milly Alcock really does carry this movie capably on her shoulders in the title role. She very much makes the movie.

That this "not great, but not bad" movie seemed to receive such vitriol in advance? The kind excuse would be that everyone has forgotten too quickly just how bad most DC movies were until recently. The less kind (more likely?) excuse is that this is a loud dude-bro reaction to a superhero movie starring a woman. (Especially sad, when she's basically the best thing about it.)

I give Supergirl a B-. This is pretty much what I expect if I decide to go check out a summer blockbuster in a movie theater these days. I hope it will be better than this. But if all I get is basically this? That was pretty much the contract.

Enterprise Flashback: Affliction

The fourth season of Star Trek: Enterprise was made up mostly of multi-episode story arcs that leveraged the series' prequel nature by delving into the vast "canon" of the franchise. Creatively, it was a successful pivot for the show... so the writers took on the highest "degree of difficulty" yet in the two-parter beginning with "Affliction."

The Klingons have been experimenting with genetic engineering, using samples of human Augment DNA... with disastrous consequences. Desperate to undo the damage, Klingon agents abduct Phlox to force his assistance. Enterprise sets out to locate and rescue their doctor. Yet it appears that Malcolm Reed may be secretly working against them for unknown reasons. Meanwhile, Trip tries to fit in at his new assignment aboard the starship Columbia.

I think you'd have to be the most "well, actually..." of Star Trek fans to have ever cared why Klingons went from looking like shoe-polish-faced humans in spandex and disco pants (on the original series) to turtle-ridged, armor-clad warriors (in the movies and beyond). The movies simply had more time and money to throw at the aliens, and The Next Generation (and the shows that followed) were passed the baton. The closest we'd ever get to an "in-universe" explanation for the change was a curt joke from Worf in the middle of a comedic episode.

Right?

Wrong! Manny Coto and Michael Sussman decided to devote a two-part episode to explaining the difference. And the explanation -- that Klingons once toyed with genetic engineering, using human DNA -- kinda works! It even goes a long way to explaining why Klingons hated humans for so long, while subtly reinforcing one Klingon commander's assertion that humans and Klingons aren't really so different. We get all of this, the most dangerous looking targ yet seen on Star Trek, Klingon characters played by actors John Schuck and James Avery, fun references to deep cut history like the Hur'q (established in Deep Space Nine), and a fantastic action sequence about an assault team boarding Enterprise. Really... hats off all around.

But we're just getting started! In this same two-part episode, the writers undertake the task of "fixing" the show's indisputably worst character, Malcolm Reed. Unlike Hoshi Sato and Travis Mayweather, who are generally just underused, Reed has been actively bad almost every time he's given something to do in an episode -- bad at his job, ranging from socially awkward at best to creepy at worst, whiny and self-centered. Now we find out, he's actually an undercover secret agent! And once you get over the initial shock of wondering what value a covert organization would find in Malcolm Reed, it kind of starts to make sense. Hell, it might even explain some of Reed's buffoonery over the years. Was this part of maintaining his cover? Were some of his stupid mistakes actually deliberate orders from his shadowy organization?

In a bit of catnip for Deep Space Nine fans like me, the secret organization is revealed to be Section 31. Well... it's never stated outright, which is good. That avoids turning this into a Marvel Cinematic Universe style demand to "do the required viewing" before being able to understand the story here. This is just a winking nod for those who know, that feels like it should be pretty seamless for those who don't. It's certainly a better showing for Section 31 than poor Michelle Yeoh was given.

I'd call all of that more than enough for a super-compelling two-part episode of Star Trek. Unfortunately, the episode doesn't stop there. It also has to reckon with the ongoing story coming out of the last episode, that Trip has changed assignments and is now aboard the Columbia. As I commented on that episode, I've reached the end of my interest in the "Jim and Pam on The Office"-like tribulations between T'Pol and Trip. I felt impatient in each of this episode's repetitive Trip scenes. (T'Pol: "Are you leaving because of me?" Trip's new captain: "Why did you leave?" T'Pol in some mindmeld/dreamscape: "I thought you were leaving.") I feel like the most interesting thing this subplot has to offer is a return cameo appearance by Seth MacFarlane -- who gets quite a few more lines here.

It all builds to the most explicit cliffhanger Enterprise has served up in a while, a Speed-like contrivance of a catastrophe in which the Enterprise must maintain high warp or it will explode. Will Keanu Reeves show up to save the day? Probably not... but tune in next week just in case!

Other observations:

• This isn't really a "Hoshi" episode, but she nonetheless has some good moments in the story. First, she does her best to put up a fight when she and Phlox are attacked in the beginning. Then she "goes under hypnosis" (mindmeld style) with T'Pol to retrieve her memories of the event. In the aftermath of that mindmeld, she even pokes up in the Trip/T'Pol story for a moment.

• The redress of the Enterprise bridge to serve as the Columbia bridge is kinda fun. It doesn't really make sense to put these weird columns right where people need to walk (what, are they load-bearing?) but you can instantly tell you're on a different ship.

• I think my picture at the top of this post actually comes from "part two" of this two-parter. But it felt appropriately representative. 

The high-school-romance-drama of Trip/T'Pol detracts for me, but I otherwise find this a really strong episode that does "prequel" right. I give "Affliction" a B+.

Star Trek: Errand of Mercy

Long, long before Klingons were portrayed as a noble warrior race, or fixated on honor -- and before writer Gene L. Coon could have conceived that Klingons would have more life beyond the script he was rushing to finish that week -- we had "Errand of Mercy."

The Enterprise arrives at the planet Organia shortly ahead of a Klingon invasion, and Captain Kirk is determined to persuade them to stand against it. But the non-technological, stalwartly pacifist Organians are utterly unmoved by Kirk's argument. When the Enterprise is chased away by a Klingon attack, Kirk and Spock must live in cover amongst the Organians. Will the evil Klingon captain Kor see through their ruse? And is there more to the Organians than meets the eye?

This is the first appearance of the Klingons in Star Trek, and to any Trekker who came of age in the era of Next Generation and its spinoffs, there's very little that's recognizable about them. The differences are more than skin-deep -- though to be sure, these Klingons sport (instead of ridges) a slapdash "shoe polish" makeup that inches uncomfortably close to the line of offense. Kor delights in torture, orders mass executions on a whim, and is constantly relying on a "mind sifter" technology we never hear of again. These Klingons, quite plainly, are a villain of the week.

I would point to two reasons the Klingons had life beyond this single episode. One is the way the story ends: the promise that one day, Klingons and the Federation would be fast friends. That's a classic bit of Star Trek morality, and you can't help but want to see that come to pass. (As a bonus, that ending comes after an episode in which we get multiple, classic "we're not so different, you and I" comparisons between Kirk and this bitter enemy.)

The other reason is the performance of actor John Colicos. Kor is not written with subtlety, and Colicos doesn't really bring any to the part. But he plays the villain with a gleeful relish that's just plain fun to watch. (I mean, listen to how he says "vegetable.") The story goes that the Star Trek writers tried twice to bring the character back, but conflicts in Colicos' schedule forced them to create other Klingon captains in his place. Sci-fi fans would have to wait about a decade for Battlestar Galactica to come along and give us Baltar, a regular source of Colicos' winking evil camp. We may not have gotten to see Kor again on the original Star Trek, but he sure did make audiences want to see more Klingons.

The episode does have its shortcomings. It strains belief that Kirk -- and especially Spock -- are utterly incurious about how one of the Organian council members seems to know where the Klingons are without consulting any device, or how the leader Ayelborne manages to free them from prison. I also think it's a shame (though clearly a budgetary necessity) that we don't get to see much of Sulu in command of the Enterprise when he's forced to abandon the landing party.

Also -- to me, this episode feels uncomfortably close to "Arena." Fundamentally, both stories are about Starfleet and an alien enemy at each other's throats until some god-like beings swoop in to teach them both a lesson. At least this time, you do get John Colicos instead of a lizard suit, and that tantalizing "fast friends" ending. 

Other observations:

• "Curious how often you humans manage to obtain that which you do not want." That's just a really great line. Even though the most famous line from this episode -- for any child of the 80s, at least -- is Spock's "pure energy," sampled by Information Society for their song "What's on Your Mind."

• Scotty isn't in this episode. (Hence, Sulu taking command.) More strangely, neither is McCoy. (He would be in every remaining episode of the series, though.)

• Allegedly, the baldric worn by Kor in this episode is the exact one that was spruced up and used for Worf in the first season of Star Trek: The Next Generation. If not literally true, it's clearly at least the inspiration. 

• Spock's ultra-precise stating of the odds feels like a direct touchstone for The Empire Strikes Back. 

Star Trek can hardly be blamed for the Klingons not arriving on the scene fully-formed. "Errand of Mercy" was a story for a particular place and time. But the fact that Klingons changed so much from what we got here maybe highlights the shortcomings of the episode. I give it a B-.

Enterprise Flashback: The Aenar

Right at the end of Star Trek: Enterprise's "Romulan espionage" trilogy, the writers threw a big Andorian curveball with "The Aenar."

A brain scan reveals that the pilot of a mysterious, marauding drone ship is Andorian. But not exactly, clarifies Shran -- it's an Aenar, a telepathic minority who live outside Andorian society. So Shran leads Archer and his crew to Andoria, where they hope to find out who is responsible for these raids, and how to stop them.

Andorians were an interesting species for Enterprise to explore. Their very brief appearances in prior Star Trek series gave very little to work with -- certainly not the "we're all about one thing" cliches that drove more popular adversaries like the Klingons and Romulans. Over three-plus years, the Enterprise writers managed to flesh out a more-rounded-than-usual-for-Star-Trek culture that, with the help of Jeffrey Combs as Shran, became one of the better aspects of the show.

Now here, they double down by inventing the Aenar, an interesting subculture -- blind, telepathic pacifists. It's a rather delicate threading of a needle for Enterprise; I find the Aenar unusual without being unknowable, and powerful without being a throwback to the dozens of god-like species of classic Star Trek. And as we learn about them, we actually learn new details about Shran's past. I'm not thrilled that Shran gets a bit flirty with one of the Aenar; she seems too young, and he's just lost someone he loved. But aside from that detail, I find everything about this thread in the episode to be interesting. In particular, the story that emerges between brother and sister has surprising pathos for not having been set up in the episodes leading up to this.

But I find the rest of the episode a bit rough. T'Pol and Trip seem like they should be past the point of "hiding from each other" as they do here, and I'm growing tired of the rom-com-like "will they, won't they" dynamic. The latest artificial obstacle to their relationship -- his decision to transfer to another starship -- is just a total groaner.

And there is... So. Much. Villain-splaining. They have a villain moot to complain about how their plot against diplomacy has only led their alien adversaries to grow closer. They bicker about how hard they can push their captive pilot. The leader of the scheme monologues about his days as a senator, his downfall, and how this is all just to reclaim his power. It feels far too late to be trying to empathize with this mustache twirler.

Other observation:

• Many fun visuals in this episode, from the Aenar's mushroom-like underground city, to strange burrowing ice worms, to even just the surface of Andoria. Even the omnipresent Star Trek caves get a glow-up.

I like a lot of elements in this episode. As a wrap-up of the trilogy as a whole, I find it a bit lacking. I give "The Aenar" a B overall.

Feelings of (Dis)closure

Director Steven Spielberg is back with a new science fiction adventure film? Sign me up! Like many this past weekend, I headed to the theater to see Disclosure Day.

A cybersecurity specialist steals sensitive information from the secretive organization he works for. A Kansas City weather reporter zones out on live television and begins speaking in some strange... language? The head of a rogue group of whistleblowers is holed up somewhere... building a house? What does it all mean, and what do these events have to do with each other?

Depending on what information you've sought out about Disclosure Day, you may know some of these answers before you see the movie, or at least think you know. I think the film is probably more enjoyable the less you know. But the discourse has been hard to avoid, so you probably know (or sense) that this movie in some way marks some return to very early Steven Spielberg -- some sort of spiritual successor to Close Encounters of the Third Kind, or E.T., perhaps?

The thing is, those two movies set a very high bar to live up to, when a much more fair one might be to expect something on par with Spielberg's take on War of the Worlds. Go into Disclosure Day expecting anything like "the best Steven Spielberg movie in decades," and I wager you'll come out feeling disappointed. Yet also, it's exceedingly rare for Spielberg to make a bad movie. Things like clever shot-making, perfect pacing, and working with actors just seem to come as naturally to him as breathing.

And to that last point -- working with actors -- he has a hell of a cast assembled here. There's a veritable who's who of recent rising stars, including Josh O'Connor, Colman Domingo, and Wyatt Russell. There's Eve Hewson, who seems just one or two big movies away from joining their ranks. There's a stalwart like Colin Firth, who continues his slow evolution from drawing room drama to unlikely action star to now playing the mustache-twirling heavy.

Bright as they all shine, Emily Blunt outshines them all. It almost feels like her impressive career -- playing opposite the likes of Tom Cruise and Dwayne Johnson in action movies, anchoring horror in The Quiet Place, ranging from Sicario to Mary Poppins -- has been leading up to this role that asks her to do it all. In Disclosure Day, she's in an earnest and emotional scene one moment and in mortal danger the next. And I'm convinced that despite all the rest of the talent involved, Disclosure Day wouldn't work without her.

But "convinced" is a word I chose deliberately. Because I kind of feel like I need to be "convinced" a bit to truly love this movie. I walked out with generally warm feelings, thinking I'd seen something good-but-not-great, but also immediately questioning my read. Disclosure Day is a movie that makes me ask if modern blockbusters have rotted my brain and caused my movie-going muscles to atrophy. The movie very pointedly does not explain everything to you. Not only do you have to hop on board quickly in the middle of the action, but not all of the dots are connected by the end. Afterward, I couldn't shake the nagging feeling that the more I thought about the movie, the more I'd feel not everything about the story really held together.

Yet I also felt like it had been a long time since I'd watched a summer blockbuster that didn't spoon-feed every answer to every asked and unasked question its audience might have. And when I happened to mention this to a friend who also saw Disclosure Day, she was quick to point out possible themes and threads I may have overlooked in the movie. Hmmm. Food for thought, for sure. Signs that this movie was deeper than I gave it credit for, probably. But... should I need to be convinced to like a movie in this way?

That's probably a much bigger topic than a review of a single movie can cover. But I will say, whether or not Disclosure Day has a "there" there, and whether or not it holds up to deeper scrutiny... it's still, either way, a fun ride with some very good acting. So overall, I think I'm going to give it a B+. And I'm pretty sure that if I should ever watch it again, that grade wouldn't hold. Whether it moved up or down, I couldn't say... but I doubt it would stay the same.