“Longmire” now fourth season on Netflix, all ten new episodes streaming. A Western crime thriller adapted from the series of mystery novels by Craig Johnson had moderately successful three seasons on (cable) A & E, then was cancelled as A & E figured it had pretty much run it’s course after ratings dropped. They were decidedly wrong. Netflix has turned into a radically different audience than the “family” oriented A & E channel.

Longmire is the third major show Netflix has picked up after they were cancelled by other channels. Notably “Arrested Development” and “The Killing.”, both of which were superb. “Longmire” is a series for viewers who feel dumped for advertising ratings that otherwise mean nothing. They like cops and robbers and an interesting case to solve each week. “Longmire” is also a western filmed with beautiful cinematography in New Mexico. The show is also notable for the significant place it gives to Native American characters. Underrated actor Lou Diamond Phillips shines in his tense performances as does A. Martinez as a shady Indian tribal leader, Katee Sackhoff’s female interest and Gerald McRaney as a aggressive businessman. But the true shining belongs to the lead role of Robert Taylor, an Australian actor who totally aces the laconic American Southwestern Sheriff, craggy face and all.

Netflix has done two really important things with Longmire
“. They made it streaming so viewers could watch as much or as little as they desire to follow the progress of the show and they let the show take chances not available in a family oriented channel. A refreshed format with little concern over conventional ratings, elevated to a “mature” audience. In it’s new incarnation, it masterfully does exactly that. Season 4 wrapped up the lingering questions of Season 3 with a much stronger punch, riddled with subtlety and and kicking off new storylines.

Longmire is an EXCELLENT series and you can watch as much or as little as you like. The pilot episode and the surprising followup are about as good as it gets in cable TV.

I give it an easy 4 of 5 Winchester model 1873s, with a bullet. Highly recommended by me.

In virtually all his films, Tom Cruise does a great job in bringing his character to life. He’s been in some truly good films: Risky Business, Top Gun, The Color of Money, Born on the 4^th of July, A Few Good Men. Everything he does reliably brings in a ton of money and big crowds, but Cruise has never received any serious artistic accolades. Never an Oscar in his 34-year career.

The thing about Tom Cruise is the differentiation between an “actor” and a “Movie Star”. For whatever reason, Cruise doesn’t fit the profile of an actor. He’s a true movie Star and they’re different breeds of cat. Actors generate “critical acclaim” even if their films flop after two weeks but movie stars always generate enthusiasm, crowds and money.

The differentiation between an actor and a Movie Star” is difficult to articulate. In 1964, Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart grappled with the definition of obscenity. He said he couldn’t define it but he knew it when he saw it. Similarly, moviegoers know a Movie Star when they see one and they embrace him or her, but when they desire to see an actor, they embrace Robert De Niro, Tom Hardy, Brad Cooper or Clive Owens.

Tom Cruise’s audience knows a movie star when they see one in the contemporary “Mission Impossible” series, began in 1996 and the current iteration: “Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation”, number five in the series.

By history, the original television Mission series began in 1966 and ended in 1973. It originally starred Steven Hill as IM leader Dan Briggs (1966 only). The phrase “Good morning, Mr. Briggs…” began each episode as a tape recording which detailed that week’s task.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziIh6TKVwpI

After a year, Hill, an Orthodox Jew, left in a dispute over working on the Sabbath. Hill went on to star as NYC District Attorney Adam Schiff in “Law & Order” (1990-2000). Beginning in 1967, Peter Graves assumed the role of Jim Phelps, who remained the leader through 1973 for the remainder of the original series.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MA2KmJMKFrQ

In 1996, the series moved to the big screen with Tom Cruise playing the super-spy Ethan Hunt. Leader Jim Phelps (John Voight) opens the film in similar fashion as the original series with a self-destructing tape, but the character is deleted from the series when found to be traitorous. The original cast members from the 60s were not happy with the film’s portrayal of Phelps and several walked out of the theater before the end of the film. However, the critics were generally kind to the 1996 film.

The Mission Impossible series, including the most current iteration, is VERY entertaining and very well photographed. The action sequences rival (but are not quite as good as) the James Bond franchise. Ethan is clearly a clone of Bond, but without Bond’s subtlety and character flaws that make him consistently interesting above and beyond the action sequences.

Tom Cruise is famously said to do a number of his own stunts, including riding at speed on a superbike (no helmet) and clinging to the side of an aircraft in “Rogue Nation”.

https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/post/123117423601/tom-cruise-says-mission-impossible-5-plane-stunt

The action sequences of “Rogue Nation” are VERY well done and Cruise is convincing. The motorcycle chases alone are incredible and scary enough to give Cruise’s insurance agent chest pain. Technically, best I can tell the bikes appear to be somewhere in the range of Honda CBR900RR models:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbSYCcHdlJ0

They’re scary, scary fast and these sequences with them appear for all the world to be real, with experts handling them (including Cruise cornering with his knee down in full racing position).

The 2015 iteration is very entertaining, the action sequences are excellent and it’s worth the bucks to see it on the big screen. Not out in 3-D which would have been interesting.

I give it three and a half of five toothy, windblown Tom Cruise grimaces.

Recommended by me if you like action flicks.

(Eagerly Awaited, “Spectre” (2015), the twenty-fourth James Bond film)

As more truly contemptible “reality programming” garbage appears on network television, stinking up living rooms near you, a few very interesting series do pop up (on cable). I can’t tell you how many people I know that simply don’t watch TV anymore, but this isn’t fair because if you look around, there are some really well written, expertly performed and magnificently produced series around.

One of the more interesting is the British-American series “Humans” (with the “A” upside down), currently appearing on the AMC channel (and available in sequence on the venerable Pirate Bay for torrent freaks).

http://www.amc.com/shows/humans

The series debuted in June, 2015 for only eight episodes, but there promises to be more as the series has been well received by both critics and audiences on both sides of the pond. Renewal talks in progress right now.

The series is set in suburban London, taking place in the near future where a very useful addition for any busy family is a “synth” – an android eerily similar to a human in virtually every respect. The original creation by an MIT graduate scientist is meant to be pretty much devoid of any emotion, simply serving their families with a flat affect, doing virtually every kind of household chores, including driving the kids to school in the morning.

The “starring” Synth, “Anita” (London actress Gemma Chan) and her fellow synth actors were trained in a ‘synth school’ run by the show’s choreographer to rid themselves of any human physical gestures and become convincing in their roles. They are benignly creepy nearly to the point of being scary.

In time, there appears a hint that some of these androids are a little more intuitive than they’re supposed to be. It becomes apparent that Anita can do more than the laundry when the family’s husband discovers a patch that allows Anita to consummate sex, which he cheerfully indulges. Then of course, gets caught by his wife, whereupon a discussion occurs as to whether sex with a machine is the same kind of “cheating” as sex with another human. (Probably not a discussion you want to have with your wife).

Another intuitive synth informs Dr. Elster’s former partner (William Hurt) that she’s better than humans and lists the ways including no fear of death, whereupon Dr. Millican (Hurt) suggests that any creature without a fear of death doesn’t “live”, they only exist.

It turns out that their creator, MIT scientist Dr. David Elster, has surreptitiously endowed several of them with the ability to reason intuitively and pass for human in many ways. As these synths start to pop up in London causing trouble, it dawns on those involved that if machines can become as human as real humans, the entire fabric of society could be in danger.

The show’s creators try to show a potential for the consequences of unrestrained technology and how it could affect us in many ways we don’t think much about. We use iPhones continuously and rarely talk to each other now. The series explores interesting questions about how humanity would react to what amounts to extensions of an iPhone, a “singularity,” when machines are able to think and act on their own.

“Humans” is a variation on the theme of a previous film I reviewed that was equally interesting:

Film Review: Ex Machina (2015)

These creatures look and act like real humans but they wouldn’t be human in many very important ways. How would such creatures affect the development of human emotions such as empathy and social interaction if they evolved to simulate these features with near-perfect accuracy?

Unfortunately, there are only three more episodes left and it’s unclear whether the series will be continued. If you can find this series, probably on The Pirate Bay, I highly recommend it. I will take all eight episodes off the Pirate Bay when they all run and give them out on DVD to anyone with an interest.

I give it four of five deadpan glances from a spectacularly beautiful Asian woman. Very interesting series.

A fresh, unconventional exploration of musician Brian Wilson’s mind. Brian was the heart and soul of 60s pop group “The Beach Boys”, who like the Beatles started out their careers warbling catchy pop tunes that radio disc jockeys and record companies loved. Then, also as in McCartney-Lennon, Brian graduated to become an authentic musical genius in contemporary pop music, but not without a struggle along the way.

Brian was probably some variation of an adolescent schizophrenic. His symptoms came to fruit in about the right time frame. He metaphorically and literally “heard music” in his head, then set about transferring what he identified through others playing traditional musical instruments, or anything that could create a tone.

This is a gift that only a relative few have been given, and its translation can be difficult. In the 80s, Bob Segar reputedly threatened to fire his entire (Silver bullet) Band because the music they were playing wasn’t what he heard in his head. Brian’s band mates had little interest in any other than continuing their surfing song fluff that brought in a good living.

The film itself is as schizophrenic as its object, detailing Brian’s life as a young man played by Paul Dano and his older version played by John Cusack. In particular, Paul Dano totally nails the mental goings-on inside Brian Wilson’s head and brings them to life, instructing studio musicians, layering sound over sound while his vocalist brothers apply their portions into isolated microphones. John Cusack brings to life the burned out psychosis, serviceably controlled as with John Nash in “A Beautiful Mind (2001).

The film doesn’t solve the enigma of Brian Wilson, but it succeeds painting a wonderful portrait of his creative mind. The real Brian Wilson today at age 72 sings the song “Love and Mercy” in concert footage during the end credits, so you get a full feel for him.

The film is a bit disjointed and hard to follow, but the scenes of Paul Dano creating music are fascinating and worth the price of admission.

I give it four of five Theremins (on Good Vibrations).

Listen to some of the marvelous harmonies that came from the creative mind of Brian Wilson as they happened:

A very interesting film, exploring some questions few have considered concerning artificial intelligence.

A quirky, eccentric computer ace with a ton of money from a Google-like background builds a super computer research lab out in the middle of the wilderness. He invited another computer whiz he’s thoroughly vetted into this facility to interact with an android he has constructed. The undertaking is to cozy up to the android to determine if her cerebral functions are real or simulated. Shades of Blade Runner (1982).

The android, Ava, is a mixture of human and machine. She whirrs when she changes position, but moves fluidly. The investigator’s task is to expertly inquire into the nuts and bolts of Ava through a series of interviews. To discern whether she can truly feel and think autonomously or whether all her emotions and human interactions are fluent simulations. A high tech speed date.

Through the course of the interactions, some spooky questions emerge. The investigator comes to doubt his own humanity when faced with questions as to the very nature of humanity. Is it possible for humans to discern synthetic humanity? Is the inevitability of “true” artificial intelligence a self-fulfilling prophecy, and if so, can it eventually evolve to self-awareness? Must human emotion and codes of morality necessarily become integrated with self-awareness? Could humans become like the bones of dinosaurs in time.

The film’s ending hints that a “Replicant” (after Blade Runner) can be programmed to have virtually any functional or even emotional qualities. They are quite capable of extremely intricate and directed human function with total honesty, but not necessarily a morality oversight. Some of these interactions are performed with exquisitely functional verisimilitude, begging lots of questions as yet unanswered.

Classic Blade Runner (1982) hinted at a lot of these issues, especially the increasingly difficult task of discerning real from Memorex. There are continuing arguments to this day over whether Deckard was, himself, a Replicant and there was no way to prove it one way or the other. When Deckard and Rachel escape along the Pacific Coast Highway, it’s unclear how much time either of them have but it is clear they intend to make the most of it, as anyone else would.

A classic scene of a Replicant’s death:

Ex Machina glaringly brings these questions into very clear focus. This film stands and refuses to fall with Swedish actress Alicia Vikander as Ava. The screen shines when she appears and dims when she’s not. She seduces the viewer instantly.

This is an excellent film. Highly recommended by me. I’m giving it a 5 of 5 mechanized silhouettes.