Mad Men - Season 4

Last season ended with a bold move forward by Don and his coworkers, bidding farewell to their British masters as they started fresh with a new company. It signaled a big change in the series' formula, and basically everyone thought it was great. This year ends with a similarly huge and unexpected event in the plot, but this time half the viewership liked it and the other half seemed to think it totally killed the show. I understand being completely thrown off by the scene in question, and get the multiple references to it even being dreamlike in how unbelievable it is. But doesn't it speak to the show's quality that we can be this shocked at the seeming stupidity of a character's decision? If they hadn't spent so much time these last four years and in this season in particular trying to show us who Don is without ever letting us really know, we wouldn't care nearly this much. And the fact is, it was all justified by what came before, with even some seemingly throwaway lines pointing towards this conclusion. And while some people might not think all publicity is good publicity, what do people remember more, the end of The Sopranos or The Wire? Just thinking about where season five is going to kick off is probably even more interesting a discussion point than the same question we had for season four.

Before the finale though, this season was simply outstanding. I might have mentioned that the season three finale was easily one of my favorites in the series, and practically this entire run of thirteen episodes seemed to be at or at least near that level of quality. I don't think it's just me continuing to become more invested in the characters. The dialogue was consistently snappy and it was the funniest season by far. Pete didn't get as much screen time, but the diminished role helped sympathize the character. Peggy and Roger were both consistently great this year. While some of the better episodes used historic events to frame their stories, they didn't need to rely on it this time, just letting the show exist in its time. Betty was also better in a slightly limited capacity, still kind of crazy, but that's put in context a bit, and she was helped by some really good stuff from Francis and especially Sally, who's really coming into her own. And they really explored Don in a fascinating way. After three years in an ugly marriage, seeing him on his own was intriguing, if only for how miserable he usually seemed. He sort of breaks down before building himself back up, and I'd call it a redemption arc if he actually seemed redeemed by the end. We'll see where season five finds him, but I doubt it's living in a dream world.

Iron Man 2

So, here's the follow up to the best Marvel movie since 2004's Spider-Man 2. And conveniently, a comparison can be drawn between this and that movie's sequel. Iron Man 2 and Spider-Man 3 are both inferior to their predecessors, mainly because they add a few too many new elements to the mix when a less is more attitude probably would have been a good idea. Let's just look at the history of comic book movies, shall we? How many really benefited from having a handful of new villains instead of just a single, strong newcomer? I can't really think of any. All of the great sequels I can think of have one powerful antagonist and that's enough for any movie. I don't feel like Iron Man 2 came out as badly as the last Spider-Man, as I still enjoyed it quite a bit, but it is pretty muddled.

In the first movie, a lot of time was spent on the origin as usual, and after his initial escape from his captors, the only significant factor working against him is a bald, bearded Jeff Bridges. This time, he's dealing with Mickey Rourke's Ivan Vanko, who's a combination of a couple villains from the comics; Sam Rockwell's Jason Hammer, a rival businessman; the government coming down on him and trying to co-opt his technology; and the increasing toxicity of his own blood. Even his buddy James Rhodes is upset with him most of the time. I was skeptical about Don Cheadle taking over the part from Terrence Howard, mostly because I just don't like seeing roles get recast, but he does a pretty darn good job. Most of the cast does, and that along with the solid action is why the movie ended up being enjoyable despite all of the different factors at work. In addition to all of that stuff, he has to deal with S.H.I.E.L.D., who aren't exactly antagonistic but only seem to serve the purpose of helping to set up the Avengers movie down the road and making Scarlett Johansson look as hot as possible. They end up helping in the main plot but if they wanted the movie to be tighter it wouldn't have taken a great effort to take them out.

But yeah, I enjoyed the movie. Director Jon Favreau has a strong comedic background, and it shows in the movie's more humorous scenes that always end up funnier than pretty much any other action movie. I think he gave himself too large of a part in this one, but he knows what he's doing with that stuff at the least. The banter, the way Robert Downey Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow are always talking over each other, Sam Rockwell's delicate balancing act between absurd and menacing, they're all played perfectly. I'd say Downey's performance carried the movie if he really didn't have to, although the whole thing does kind of ride on him remaining sympathetic despite his frequent dickish persona. Rourke's performance is sort of half campy with the accent and everything, but I think he did a good job of presenting an evil face to root against, and his surprising technical knowledge makes him a pretty good counterpart for Stark. There's a lot of cameos and in-jokes sprinkled around, like a funny moment with a certain recognizable piece of equipment, and it's really just a fun movie for most of its length. The action sprinkled around is pretty good, especially by super hero movie standards, and the climax makes up for its own surprising easiness by just being extremely cool. Nothing too shocking or profound going on, but it's the definition of a summer movie.

Mad Men - Season 3

I'm not sure what to think of this season overall. The scenes in the office continued to be consistently fascinating looks into the rapidly changing business world of the early 60s. But I don't feel like I got enough of that, especially in the second half. At times it felt more like The Don and Betty Show than anything else. Important, life-changing decisions are being made by some of the supporting characters, and it's being overshadowed by the family drama going on at home. It's not that that stuff isn't interesting, I'm just not sure it's the reason most of the audience watches.

I'm not sure I liked the way that certain storylines were handled, either. Sal is a gay man, though only the people watching ever knew until this season. It seemed like they were building it up to be a big game changer, but there's a pretty abrupt interruption of the arc, and they made it seem like the little they did with it is all they're going to do, which would be disappointing. And scenes like the lawnmower were great, but made me wonder why they're so rare on this show. I understand that it's trying to be realistic, and insane things like that can't happen with regularity. But the fact that they were willing to go there once made me wonder why it's not shocking more often.

The last three episodes though were outstanding, with the finale being my favorite of the series. Something momentous finally happens with Draper marriage, and Don shows some actual vulnerability for once. We see one of the most infamous events in American history through the eyes of these characters we've grown to understand. And the biggest business uprising in Sterling Cooper history occurs, setting in motion some events that I am completely excited to watch unfold. On one hand it was the perfect way to shake things up before they shut down, on the other I'm going to totally hate waiting another year to see what happens next. I think I'd still give AMC's other show the nod for best on television, but the last few weeks have closed the gap.

Mad Men - Season 2

Mad Men's second season is a lot like the first. From a quality and style perspective, not plot. They do a lot of things that they didn't do before. I still don't think the show is outstanding, but it's certainly of a consistently high production quality. The period feel still seems authentic, the characters are still interesting if rarely good people, and things are rarely stagnant. There are some new elements that fill a lot of the story this time, like a new minister played by Colin Hanks who tries to reach out to Peggy and the culmination of Don's transgressions as they cause a big problem in his home life. The Two Towers is on in the background on TV right now and man, those movies have some long stretches without dialogue.

The dialogue in Mad Men is serviceable to the story more than it is entertaining. There's nothing wrong with writing everything to drive the narrative, but part of what's holding me back on really digging it is the lack of just enjoying listening to the actors talk. It's not bad, just not the greatest. I did feel like I liked the show more than I did it first, although I'm not really seeing a noticeable change in anything about it. I'm just more attached to the people in it the more I see. I kind of like how they portray that time as just as filled with imperfect people and moments as ours. Everything from the past is always idealized and the current generation is always seen as the worst yet, but in the end we're all just humans. With all of the typical story devices and character archetypes, the setting is probably Mad Men's greatest asset. It really ties you into it when things happen like the season's climax coinciding with the Cuban Missile Crisis. I don't watch many serialized dramas that don't have an element of violence, so it's interesting to see how they can keep things compelling with more subtle means of conflict.

Mad Men - Season 1

Mad Men has been one of the most critically acclaimed shows of the last couple years, and seems to have stepped into The Wire's place as the show hip people call the best on television. Watching the first season, I didn't quite see it as that great, but it's certainly quality entertainment. It's about the guys who work at an ad agency in the early 1960's, as they try to please clients, get drunk, and cheat on their wives. A big part of the show is the flavor of the time period, which seems pretty authentic and makes some moments more interesting than they might normally be. It's somewhat funny to watch how often the characters light a new cigarette, and it's pretty easy to lose count. Jon Hamm is Don Draper, the main character with a shady past, and he really captures that old fashioned sort of man's man you don't really see anymore. He's surrounded by a bunch of people who usually play to those late 50's/early 60's stereotypes that are somewhat quaint now but contribute to that atmosphere pretty well.

The main thrusts of the first season's story arc are Draper going through a bit of an identity crisis as parts of his life catch up to him, and the new girl Peggy, who doesn't really fit in with the other secretaries content to giggle and take phone calls. Any bit of story involving Draper is usually good, but too much of the other stuff going on around him is just a little too weird. If every guy back then was really this creepy towards every woman he was attracted to, it's definitely a time I'm glad I didn't live in. The show just made me uncomfortable sometimes, and not in a funny way. Some of what happens is the same trite romantic stuff we've seen before, and you can just see it coming a little too easily. Mad Men is a very well put together program, but I sort of feel like it holds that "Best Show on TV" title by default.