Bad times at the El Royale – a review

1969. Four strangers arrive at the El Royale hotel. A hotel which happens to be placed precisely on the Stateline between California and Nevada. Soon enough during their stay the little bits of darkness from their past rise to the surface and blood begins to flow.

I’ve always been  a big fan of the horror-movie Identity -Several strangers meet up at a hotel during a stormy night in that movie too. I guess it has to do with the stage-like element that resonates with me.

As a viewer (in this case) you don’t have to focus too much on locations because that hardly changes. Instead you can direct all your attention to the characters and their story. Which is something Bad Times at the El Royale tells very well. Though there are a few missteps.

I’ve decided to cut up the title of the movie into paragraphs as a handy way of structuring this review. Which automatically allows me to start with the ‘Bad’.

Bad...
I really enjoyed Bad times at the El Royale a lot. It’s one of those movies that enthrals from the very first frame (an empty hotel room). But there’s also a danger lurking when this happens because you (the viewer) ups the stakes. And it’s this ‘required perfection’ that Bad times at the El Royale can’t really deliver.

Basically the faults of El Royale can be captured in one word: Motown!

If you hate Motown music you should skip this movie altogether. I happen to love it but even I got occasionally annoyed by the amount of singing in this movie. Now, the singing is for a reason.

At one point; a very clever reason.

But I couldn’t help myself thinking that a sharper edit here and there would make the movie better; because the songs go on and on.
With a running time well over two hours, and all that singing, the movie feels far too long. This actually hurts the wonderful late entry of the Billy Lee-character. By the time he arrives all the foreshadowing has been washed away in song.

But the length of the songs is not the only editing-problem El Royale suffers.
A late-in-the-game flashback doesn’t help either. By that time the movie is brewing up to a big finale and at that precise moment the film springs a slow-moving flashback upon the viewer.

Then there’s the over-explanation the doesn’t always work. Take, for instance, the MacGuffin of the movie (which is in fact a movie reel); it’s like Bad times at El Royale is desperate to tell the viewer that this film reel involves one of the  Kennedys. The audience doesn’t need to know this!

All these annoyances could have been washed away with a smart cut here and there. It would have helped the movie tremendously if the running time was cut down to, let’s say, a sharp two hours ten.

Other issues (I have) with this movie are a bit more personal of nature. If for one couldn’t buy the Miller character. He feels far too young to be clouded by years of guilt. I understand that ‘youthful fear’ works marvellously on screen but still I never really believed the character as somebody carrying years of baggage.

The acting is great though, no problem there.

Then there are the little nitpicks like: the shoehorned end at the hotel. The sudden ‘drop’ / ‘forgetting’ of the Stateline plot point.

Is it limbo as some people online speculate; with each character playing one of the seven sins?

Or the fact that some plotlines don’t quite line up (one murder doesn’t make sense from a character-motivation-perspective. And who committed the first onscreen murder in the first place?).

But those little things would’ve been more than acceptable if the movie didn’t allow me so much time to think during it. Each time a new song came on it I had time to process what I saw before it. If the movie was tighter I would’ve glanced over it.

...Times at the...
But after the bad comes the good times. Bad times at the El Royale is a fresh character piece with some great performances from the cast. Especially Chris Hemsworth is having a blast as a Charles Manson persona who likes nothing better than to be in control; the ant-bully with a magnifying glass; and each ant is begging for more.

But that’s just because he has the most flamboyant scene-stealing character to work with. This is the character who wants to be in the spotlight whilst all the other character try to blend into the shadows.

Jon Hamm (accustomed to the time setting) fits into this second category perfectly as he does what he does best:  pulling up a quick-fire-talking-facade only to show a different side to the character when nobody is looking.

Jeff Bridges’ character, then, is playing on his natural charm throughout as a dementia suffering priest. This specific character-plot point isn’t fully played out in the movie. But it does give the character a nice layer that makes the viewer wonder if he is lying or if he really forgot. Ambiguity is the word here.

Next; Lewis Pullman who has the ‘Walking Dead: Glenn’ card and plays this fear beautifully. This is a tormented character that is there to play the ferryman between ‘good’ (Erivo’s character) and ‘evil’ (the rest). But like the ferryman over the river Styx: he will never be relieved of his burden.

To explain ‘The Glenn-card’: In the Walking Dead-comics the character Glenn dies in issue 100.

Now the TV-show-adaptation doesn’t necessarily follow the comics to the letter.

So the minute Glenn died in the comics people watching the show were terrified for Glenn to die on screen as well.

He could go any moment.

The producers –once they realized this- naturally had a lot of fun putting poor Glenn in various perilous situations.

Cynthia Erivo has the most uninteresting character to work with (no big demons in the closet here) but as the bright light between these vile people her character-work fits in contrast to the others. When Hemsworth is preaching all high and mighty she stabs through that façade with her expressive eyes alone. And that’s even before she verbally puts him down. And even though she sings far too much in this movie she has a marvellous voice.

To end with Cailee Spaeny who deserves a special mention because, with the relatively small part she got handed, she managed to create a sense of constant brewing menace in her character. I thought I knew ‘insanity’ when I saw Heath Ledger’s Joker. I was wrong.

But well written and acted characters are nothing without a cleverly written plot. Bad times at the El Royale is a thriller at its core and the movie knows it. There are cleverly written tension scenes that are sprinkled throughout the sordid tale that the wonderful performances enhance these scenes.

Accustomed to the time setting these ‘tension scenes’ are actually very Hitchcockian in nature relying on both the audiences’ knowledge and the state of the character.
Especially the ‘game’ (Chechov) element is a brilliant find. As Psycho made showers scary so does Bad times at the El Royale make a roulette ball terrifying (Roulette: the Devil's game).

The hard cuts and sound effects in those ‘tension-scenes’ are terrific.

To end this segment with the dialogue. Dialogue wise the movie isn’t very impressive. Again it is Hemsworth who has the best monologues in his warped speeches. And Jon Hamm is having a blast saying outrageous racist things as if they were compliments.
But cutting it down to the basics the words don’t really matter.
Most of all Bad times at the El Royale uses the medium of film to show us looks and things instead of focussing on the  talking.

...El Royale...
The setting of the hotel (or motel really) is delicious to watch. If you enjoyed the warped worlds of Fallout you will enjoy the setting of this hotel. From the centre staged jukebox to the food dispensers to people dressed in sixties outfits. The whole screen screams Tupperware at you!

But visually it is, above all, the camera motion that is a treat. There are several smart long-takes in this movie that you only register as such after the fact (and then you start second guessing).

One location (a dark hallway) in the movie makes good usage of this continuous guided motion of the camera by not allowing the viewer to see the hallway completely. The camera is constantly at an angle facing the wall so that the field of vision for the viewer is diminished; which of course cranks up the tension.

Then there’s another scene that is (literally) all about ‘field of vision’ which is marvellous to beholds. Though, it’s a bit too long –see my previous critique- but the idea behind this scene is quite clever.

That’s how I see Bad times at the El Royale: a cleverly constructed thriller with some genuine original tent pole tension moments. However, it is too long for its own good even though the setting, acting and camerawork are a marvel.

This movie fall into the same trap as many did before it (The thin red line comes to mind. Though people will certainly disagree): taking too much time to tell as story also hurts a movie. Bad times at the El Royale has all the makings of a classic, it just needs some additional editing.

Mixed Tape Movies: Tired of Marvel and DC?

In the eighties it was the-thing-to-do to make a mixed tape (like an mp3 but touchable, always in need of a pencil and definitely cooler). On it you would make a little playlist of all the cool songs. Now the trick was to make each song correspond with the rest of the tape. In this post I will try to do the same with movies.

Every once in a while I will select a general topic and select movies to accompany it. As you can see the more child-friendly movies are at the start of the day, but  when night falls: ‘here be monsters’. Please feel free to give suggestions of other unknown movies.

One rule though: Auteur themes like ‘Shakespeare’ or ‘James Bond’ are not allowed. ‘Spy-movies’, naturally, are.

Theme: Live action, Non-Marvel or DC, comic book movies
I love to watch a Marvel or DC comic book-movie extravaganza. But keep in mind that these two studios aren’t the only two comic producers who had their ink characters turned into a movie. For this edition (hah!) of mixed tape movies I wish to highlight some (lesser) known comic book movies that I liked.

08:00-10:00

Tin Tin and the blue oranges: I, of course, prefer The adventures of Tin Tin (2011). Steven Spielbergs last outing onto Indiana Jones territory. But for a first try at a comic book movie with such colourful characters Tin Tin and the blue oranges is a brave attempt.

Keep in mind that the first Spiderman movie came out in 1977 –

so this whole Marvel/DC thing going on today isn’t truly that new.

What is new is that these fantastical tales can now actually be made.

10:00-12:00 

Lucky Luke: (yes I know that there’s also a 2009 version)
Terence Hill’s pet project which, if you don’t know the title could’ve been any other cowboy movie. Hill plays the titular character but with his white coat and blond hair he looks nothing like the original character.
Still it is a silly fun movie that stuck with me all these years due to one (brilliant) scene: how to resuscitate a horse.

12:00-14:00

Suske en Wiske en de duistere diamant: The Belgian comic. Everybody in Europe knows about these two friends who constantly find themselves lured into yet another adventure. But somehow people never managed to get a satisfactory adaptation out of the (237 albums strong) series.

They tried it with puppets, cartoon animation, 3D animation and (this version) live-action and it always goes awry. This movie tries to stay fateful to the original album but it just doesn’t work.

14:00-16:00

Brenda Starr: And another scene that stuck with me: Brooke Shields waterskiing on two alligators. I don’t understand why people don’t like this movie; maybe it’s trying too hard. At least for me this is one of the ultimate Sunday movies (plus it teaches you how to draw).

16:00-17:00

The Shadow: The Shadow is one of those movies that would have been a lot better if little things had been changed. From the top of my head the whole introduction of Alec Baldwin’s character as some sort of Mongolian warmonger. An later the unneeded facial make-up that makes the actor look like his brother.

These little things harm what is a visually stunning movie that bets on style over substance (the plot is basic enough).

17:00-19:00

The Phantom: To see a movie depicting a man dressed in purple lycra running through the (green!) jungle and still have the audacity to call him ‘The Phantom’ is probably the biggest hurdle this movie needs to overcome. The rest is just a wonderful little adventure tale with a very likable Billy Zane (just before he became a cinematic history villain in Titanic) and a deliciously despicable Treat Williams.

19:00-21:00

The Rocketeer: The sole reason I started on this list. This wonderful movie needs more love. It has everything an adventure movie needs: daring stunts, Nazi’s, smug villains, beautiful damsels and cheeky heroes.

It also features Terry O’Quinn who, after the Stepfather, wanted a friendlier part and found it in his portrayal of Howard Hughes of all people.

21:00-23:00

A history of Violence: I love it when Cronenberg tries his hand at smaller (less bloody) fare like Spider or this one. A history of violence is very small in scale - The story, in all honesty, is equally small- which allows the actors to let their characters shine. As it is Cronenberg it isn’t a pleasant movie but as a character study quite enthralling.

23:00-01:00
From Hell: Like anybody I have a healthy interest in the Jack the Ripper mythos. Who was he (The 1997 movie Ripper is my favourite movie on the subject)? From Hell offers a possible answer but, most of all, uses the dark style of the graphic novel in the visuals of the movie.

01:00-03:00 

Barbarella: I never knew this was a comic book movie until I compiled this list. When I saw the title I knew Barbarella had to be included. What’s not to love about this sex-minx from space singlehandedly wearing out an orgasm organ.

One could call this movie borderline porn; but I prefer to see Barbarella as a wonderful adventure that dares to tell another type of story with –to be honest- a pretty strong and confident female lead in Jane Fonda.

Honourable mentions:
Before we start with the honourable mentions two points of note.
First, the premise of this article is ‘lesser known comic book movies’ so there are a lot of famous movies in this list that I simply couldn’t include. I think I already cheated by including Barbarella.

Second, comic book (or graphic novel) movies allow for all kinds of genres. There are cowboy comics, football comics, social critique comics and many (many) others. So some of the honourable mention here I left out of the list because these movies fit better in another mixed tape list.

Also, I haven't seen I kill giants, le petit Spirou, Kiekeboe and My friend Dahlmer yet so they are currently excluded.

Thirty days of night: A brilliant horror movie that deals with vampires. So obviously this picture would be better placed in a vampires mix tape list.

Ghost World: A movie that can stand on its own perfectly without mentioning the preceding comic. This is a coming of age critique that works marvellously due to the impressive leads.

The end of the f***cking world: A TV-show, but short enough to qualify as a (long) movie for me. I wrote a lengthy review here (link). There are some flaws in the tale but the silliness of all the f*cked-up things that happen to our heroes makes up for it.

300: “This is Sparta.” Enough said. If there is one beautiful, testosterone fuelled epic this is it.
Yes there is a sequel but you’d better stay with the original.

Dick Tracy: Comic-books have always been adapted. Dick Tracy, was a noire TV-show in the 1950s. The big gimmick of the movie is twofold: first the make-up that managed to let famous actors disappear in their parts. Second, the well thought out colour palette.
The story is a bit weak though; but Madonna made a nice soundtrack.

Hellboy: Hellboy has always been a mixed bag for me, I love Del Toro’s first one but hated the sequel (The golden army). I guess it had to do with the shift from strange grounded fantasy to all out elves and goblins fantasy.

And the fact that the John Myers character was dismissed so easily.

Still, the first one is a hard movie to beat as it has every kind of monster plus Rasputin teaming up with a mechanical Nazi.

Kick-ass: Don’t mention the sequel – it doesn’t exist. Having that said the first outing of Kick-ass, Big Daddy and Hit-girl is a brilliant parody on the brave, bloodless, superhero fare. I’m certain that without Kick-ass R-rated movies like Deadpool and Logan would never have seen the light of day.

The mask: I remember this movie as the first movie that managed to make good usage of computer-animation.

That and Cameron Diaz in a very short dress.

Not that the movie needed it though – Jim Carrey’s elastic face at the time was enough to bring the laughs.

Road to perdition: This movie goes in the mobster genre. But, sufficient to say this movie is brilliant.

Scott pilgrim vs. the world: A strange movie filled to the brim with pop-culture references. You have to accept the silliness of it all – if you can’t do that than this movie isn’t for you.

Sin City: Visually a wonderful movie. Violently, however, pretty much over the top (a bit too much for its own good). Again this is the original movie that’s better off without knowledge that a sequel exists. It think the theme/message I’m trying to convey is clear now.

V for Vendetta: The movie that shaped Anonymous. But its far more than people using the Guy Fawkes narrative as a means to fight back against oppressing forces. V for Vendetta is, in my opinion, a very clever tale about the ‘ease’ of dictatorship. The various conspirators V kills throughout the tale all let the dictatorship happen because of selfish reasons. This is something you see throughout history; too many people letting things happen and too few can stand up against it. That’s why the final image of the movie works so well.
But, alas the movie is too well known so I didn’t include it in my list.

Bird Box – a review

The world as we know it has ended. A mysterious entity, once seen by a person, forces its victims to commit suicide. Malorie (Sandra Bullock) is surviving with two children (aptly named) Boy and Girl; using their sight only when they are safely inside. But as life gets harder they need to reach shelter by rowing down the river: blind.

On the threshold of the new year 2018 has delivered us not one but two post-apocalyptic thrillers dealing with the senses. First hearing and voice/sound in A quiet place and now sight in Bird Box.

Thematically Bird Box also feels connected to Annihilation.

And like the movie that came before it Bird Box too is very reliant on the ‘gimmick’ it is using. It has to, you have to play this straight or it doesn’t work.

But I have to admit that Bird Box on this basic level is the lesser of the two. In A quiet place you have to stay quiet. That’s all you can do. There is no choice.
In Bird Box, however, you actually have a choice. From the comfortable position of my living room sofa I wondered out loud why nobody blinded him/herself. Bleach, looking at a welding torch or simple piercing your eyes (again, from my comfortable position) the possibilities are endless.

Archetypes?
Having that said, the rest of the movie is quite a well told tale. I would consider it an unofficial remake of The happening since it bares so many similarities, except this time the story works –if you accept that a spiritual entity is solely depended on our ability to see.

What follows is quite the well plotted character-driven story. The archetypes are there: The smart, smug (bastard) lawyer, the naïve mother, the brave elderly woman and the Asian-American computer-wiz (who also happens to be gay). Textbook characters.

But the movie adds scenes and dialogues to these characters to flesh them out.
Malkovich, for instance, plays quite the unlikable chap and the movie could’ve left it at that. But instead it gives him and Bullock an extra scene together that gives his character a bit more depth. He’s still unlikable but by the end of that scene you know that he isn’t criminally unlikable.

The same goes for the quick-witted dialogue peppered throughout the tale. One of the earlier scenes takes place in a hospital where two sisters and the doctor are bickering at each other. This is a wonderful moment to let the characters shine and become more than (in this case): the archetypes of the strong headed-sister, the level-headed sister and the strict doctor.
The actors all gleefully accept these small moments to develop their basic characters.

It’s never the monster.
In this sense Bird Box is more a character-study of what happens to certain types of people in a perilous world instead of a survival story. In fact, the whole premise of a woman and two children rowing down a river blindfolded isn’t the bulk of the tale. The bulk is the flashback, the back-story. Like many post-apocalyptic movies before it it’s not the monster that gets you but rather the people around you.

Cheerleader, Jock, and so on. In your basic (slasher) horror movie you don’t

need to explore the personas behind the archetypes.

You only need to know whose body is being slaughtered by the masked killer; not their personality.

Intermezzo: The zombie endgame.
When it comes to movies exploring the extremities of humans (e.g. our willingness to survive) there are several things to remember. One of them being that we humans will constantly justify our action into the absurd. Even if these action can be considered evil.
“Just following orders.” Is the textbook example of this.

This is something that often pops up as a theme in survival movies or TV-shows.
Would you sacrifice somebody to save many…would you sacrifice somebody to save yourself?

The point is that movies love to bring up these questions but, at the same time, only reward those characters that make the non-evil choice. People who sacrifice others ‘for the greater good’ often get their comeuppance in the end.

Or, in case of the Bible get saved by God in the nick of time.

Bird Box plays with this element of storytelling. And even though Bullock’s Malorie certainly is a level-headed strong personality capable of being ‘evil’, the choices she makes are ‘good’ and the movie rewards her for it.

But to juxtapose this narrative notion (good action delivers good outcome) I always like to focus on the following mind-game involving zombie-movies:

Just imagine that zombies have taken over the world; anybody who dies or gets bitten turns into a flesh eating zombie. Now imagine three generations down.

We humans are hard to kill, evolution shows this. We are like cockroaches, we'll survive anywhere and anything.

But what would humans be like -three generations into the future (after zombies)?
We'd probably have a pretty morbid sense of humour.
Death is a daily occurrence because the world is wild once more.
The people will live in shelters constantly worried; so the 'old age' would drop. Sheltered people die of stress before 65.

Then, of course, strength and dexterity comes for brains. So, probably, the world would be ruled by some numb-nut who happens to be good at surviving.
We will turn out to become agile, dumb survivors who -when they try to make the world a better place- won't live past 35. Pretty much a stone thrown back 2000 years.

Basically: the fun notion about the zombie apocalypse is that 'whichever way you turn it' the human race is screwed.
And ‘evil’ (in a narrative sense) will in fact prevail.

Back to Bird Box.
Visually Bird Box isn’t a very challenging movie. There are some ‘under the covers’ shots that were probably a nightmare to light. But on the other hand a lot of POV shots are of Bullock’s character with a blindfold on so that’s easy.

Also on a story-, or symbolic-level the movie doesn’t truly outdo itself. For example, there are no scenes in a museum or during a sunrise that highlights the beauty of sight. Instead most of the movie takes place in a gray, gritty environment (even indoors) that don’t necessarily makes you happy to be able to see.

There are some smart tent-pole scenes that uses the notion of ‘blindness’ to entice tension like ‘driving blind’ or ‘watching the cameras’. But still the main story behind it all is basically the same as each and every survivalist story/movie before it.

I won't dwell too much on the current rage called the Bird Box challenge.

Let me just say that driving around blind isn't the wisest thing to do.

Not that it matters though, because Bird Box has enough smart dialogue and clever twists and turns to keep events interesting. But, to me, more on a character level than the external problems it throws at me.

Even though I wonder how in the world the birds in the bird box survived everything.

Bird Box is above all a character piece that uses archetypes as a basis but invests in them to make them a bit more human. The actors happily leap at this chance to play fully rounded characters in a dark depressing tale of humanity's doom. But, like any doom-scenario, it is human nature (in fiction at least) to hand out hope.

A series of unfortunate events season 3 – a review

Violet, Klaus and Sunny Baudelaire have gone on their own trying to discover answers to the many (many) questions their parents’ death left them with. Chased by the relentless and ever so vile Count Olaf and his hench-people the three children find themselves closer and closer to the truth as they near the end of the sordid tale.

The last time we saw Violet and Klaus Baudelaire they’ve were at the unfortunate disposition of having the wagon they were occupying at the time hurling down a cliff without any means of control.
Luckily, for the average viewer, by now it should be clear that something as ordinary as a pitfall of certain death is no match for clever Violet and bookwise Klaus. That’s both the biggest critique and compliment to give the show this season: it’s more of the same but, at the same time, it is ending; so it’s okay.

A series of unfortunate events season 3 wears its: The End with pride. It has delivered three delicious seasons of coherent (even if it doesn’t appear to be this show is far more coherent than others) storytelling that can only lead up to one conclusion: the undisputed defeat of the wicket, evil, vile count Olaf...but -remember- this isn’t a happy story so a lot of people go before him.

The love-plots are bit all over the place this season, weren’t Violet and Klaus doggy-ears in love

with the Quackmire triplets two and three? But I’ll leave that up to the shippers to figure out.

More of the same: Terrible (awesome) acting.
As Back to the future parts 2 and 3 were shot back to back so does this third season of ASOUE ‘feel’ like it was shot right after the second one. The kids don’t look aged at all (except Sunny the toddler of course) and the story takes off right after the (literal) cliff-hanger of the second season’s finale.

It is clear by now that each and every actor is invested in this terrible tale. Violet (Malina Weisman) and Klaus (Louis Hynes) are true brother and sister as they rely on each other time and again to get through the next obstacle Count Olaf set for them. Their parts are a bit less flashy this season which is a good thing since it allows the various other characters to shine (before they meet their grizzly fate).

Each and every actor shines through the screen –sometimes even surpassing the maleficent scene-stealing part of count Olaf that Neil Patrick Harris sometimes has trouble reining in (with such a character; who can blame him).

Even Sunny is more fun this season.  A bit bigger and (since last season’s insane elevator-shaft-escape) connected to the hook-handed man (Usman Ally) the character suddenly got somewhat of a personality. Often it is Sunny saying the smartest thing in the room taking a bit of the spotlight away from her older siblings who had two seasons to shine (and did).

The show stealer still is Kitana Turnbull as Carmelita Spats. It is amazing how terribly arrogant (and adorable) this character is. And this time nothing stands in her way. Carmelita is so over the top terribly wrong in every bit of her personality that every interaction she has with other characters leads to hilarity.
Especially in combination with her mother-by-proxy Esmé Squalor (Lucy Punch), the only woman in the world who can wear 'squid'.

The end in sight: Awful (great)
When it comes to narrative it is advisable to read up on the story so far -I for one totally forgot about the Peru-couple from season one- just to make sure you are ready for the final stretch. As always, this season involves sheer insanity and a healthy dosage of dark humour topped off with an impressive amount of absurdity.

As I said in a previous review of this series, the fun part of having one writer is that he/she can let jokes and events return episodes later. So of course the penultimate episode is pretty much a rehash of the three seasons previous as it –for one last time- rekindles what has tormented the Baudelaires day-in-day out: adults not listening and good people dying all around them.

The obvious allusion to ‘growing up’.

There’s a reason that episode ends with the (brilliant) song from season one. For one last time Lemony Snicket has pulled the rug from under the viewer. Now it’s time to put the sad tale of the Baudelaire’s to bed with the episode aptly titled: The End.

When that episode comes up you know strings are going to be tied up the minute you read the daily punctilio headline two minutes in.

The End is also a bit more obviously political than usual with clear stabs at fake news and gender-issues.

The End may not satisfy every answer (e.g. what happened to the bald bearded man and the non-bearded woman –did they really all die in the fire?) but it satisfies the story of the Baudelaires. Their story (as far as Snicket is concerned; even if it isn’t his story) is over and our heroes the victors.

A unfortunate ride into the abyss.
The television outing of A series of unfortunate events is tailor made for me. The show has a wonderful set design with amazing fantastical contraptions. Then there’s the deliciously dark humour in which every supporting character can meet their maker at a moments’ notice. And, of course, the sheer absurdity that oozes from every frame of this wickedly clever tale.

No, ASOUE isn’t for everybody; but it certainly is for me! I’m sad to see the show go; but, I’m certainly happy to have such a solid television outing to return to time and again.