Films That Didn't Click (Part 6): James Cameron's Avatar & Disney's Atlantis: The Lost Empire

In the season finale of this award winning series where I give contrarian opinions, we are doing a double feature of two 'classics.' James Cameron's Avatar and Disney's Atlantis: The Lost Empire. 

In the last episode, I said near the end that I was going to stretch the definition of the format. The point of this series was to review movies where my opinion went against the general fold. Mostly this meant films that I didn't like but everyone else loved. And in the last episode, I talked about films I gave a positive light at one point or another that were trashed by critics. 

However in this episode, these two films are films that weren't generally loved or generally hated. They're what they are called mix bags. Atlantis: Lost Empire came out to rather middling results. It's box office was alright, but it wasn't great. And frankly, it was honestly a miracle that Atlantis didn't plainly bomb. It was competing in a time where animation was shifting to the hot new world of CGI. Not only that, it was competing with one of the biggest trendsetters of CGI animation, Shrek. This is also a phase where Disney was trying to experiment with different types of stories in animation. This led to the 2000s era of Disney where their new selection was as hit and miss as the movie Atlantis. Sure, we got amazing stuff like Lilo and Stitch, but it mostly released titles like Home on the Range and Chicken Little. But anyway, despite its mediocre turn out, Atlantis would achieve cult status. It would share the status of films Disney hipsters love alongside Treasure Planet, Rescuers: Down Under, and for some reason the Black Cauldron. 

As for Avatar, its fate was a little different. And if you were conscious during 2008, then I don't need to explain what happened to Avatar. What was predicted to be a box office disaster turned out to be the biggest movie of all time. It is the highest grossing movie ever only being briefly unseated by Avengers: Endgame. It was critically praised earning three Oscars out of its nine nominations. This movie was huge. 

However, where Atlantis would only go up, Avatar kind of went down. Yeah, it is still the biggest movie ever, but do people ever talk about it anymore? Over the years, it sort of went into the annals of obscurity only coming up when talking about box office records, 3D, or hair sex. 

The film would also receive its fair share of contempt from critics and other artists. Some pointing out how similar Avatar was to other sci-fi and fantasy stories while others pointing out how Avatar is another Hollywood "white savior" story in the same vein as Dances with Wolves. Oh yeah, there are those Avatar sequels that are starting to become jokes in of themselves. Hey, if Duke Nukem Forever can come out, I'm sure the same can happen for Avatar 2-5. 

So in short, these films didn't so much click as slightly tickled general audiences. I guess the question now is what did I initially think of them.

Atlantis would very much be a worthy of the Films That Didn't Click category if it wasn't for the fact this film's reception was also mixed. This is a film I wanted to love for a while even as a kid. However, this film suffered from a thing I personally dealt with called "Disney First Act Syndrome." As a kid, I had a tough time sitting through movies. Unless you were Iron Giant, I could never finish a movie past a certain point especially Disney movies. However, I always loved the earlier parts of the film. For a lot of movies, this made sense in retrospect. Mulan still loses me once she gets to the camp. Movies like Dumbo and Lion King both have stronger first halves than second halves. And while I now love Pinocchio, I empathize with my kid self having to sit through the really slow parts of the movie. 

Atlantis had that same problem. I really love the first act as it introduced the quirky characters and the setting. But as the movie went along, I slowly stopped caring. I remember the scene that was consistently the cut off point for me was when they actually get to Atlantis. By that point, kid me just wanted to shut it off and go play on my N64. 

Conversely, my initial opinion of Avatar wasn't so much a "Film That Didn't Click" but a "Film That Simply Sucked." 

This film was a watershed moment for me. It was the first film I had genuine contrarian opinion on. I think this film made me a hipster. I did not get the appeal. Sure, the film looked good. And as I will explain later, the film's final battle may be one of the best action sequences ever. However, are those two things worth sitting through a nearly three hour movie that's generic and dull? Are we seriously giving a movie a Best Picture nomination and 2.8 billion dollars in box office just for a solid action sequence and CGI? 

As you might have noticed by now, I have an inverse reaction to these two films. It seems whenever one film gets me engaged and excited, the other leaves me bored and frustrated. Take the first hour as an example. Atlantis first hour was probably my warmest response to a rewatch I had on this series since Akira. I realized that age has quietly played a factor to my enjoyment of Atlantis. You might think this meant I started to get more of the adult jokes and asides, and that is part of it. However, there is also the fact that my literal comprehension of the text was marred by my lack of wisdom that came with being a child. To put it simply, I had the good sense to use subtitles this time around. Atlantis is one of best examples as to why I always use subtitles when watching a movie. The dialogue sometimes goes in a Tarantino pace. And as someone who has trouble hearing, I don't often catch that speed of dialogue unless I am reading it. The subtitles greatly improved my enjoyment of the film in the first half. Where as I kid I could really only enjoy the atmosphere and character designs. Here, I grew a stronger appreciation of the dialogue as well as each character's little backstory. Aside from Mole, the characters feel very grounded and don't feel like a typical Disney character. I would dare to say the first half of Atlantis is perfect. My only complaint is that I wish Whitmore was in the film more. However, I understand that the character serves mostly as a device to get the plot going. And granted, there is a lot of things I wanted more of, but we will get to that later. 

Conversely, Avatar had easily my harshest response to a rewatch. It felt like I was subjecting myself to my worst year of high school. 

The dialogue is just terrible. It is so hyper focused on the concept that American imperialism is bad that it will warp its characters to talk around that theme. The result are characters that are either boring or cartoonishly evil. On the boring side, you got Sam Worthington as Jake Sully, and the only reason I remember the character's name this time around was because they kept repeating his name which annoyed me for some reason. Sam Worthington just sucks. To his credit, the writing didn't help his performance at all. The character starts out as a comical dumbass that's lacking in basic cultural sympathy skills. He is a self aggrandizing vessel for the viewer where, even though he is Sam Worthington, he is picked by God as a chosen one. Yeah the critics may be been on to something with this film being white savior bull shit. Suffice to say, it gets worse as he becomes essentially the leader of the tribe and organizes the rebellion that saves the day. Apparently, someone like Sam Worthington is a charismatic leader which is something I can't say with a straight face. 

On the other side, you got Stephan Lang and Giovanni Ribisi. Aside from the fact that Lang is chewing up the scenery which was amusing, these characters were extremely frustrating. It feels like James Cameron wanted to write the douchiest characters ever, and I think he succeeded. The thing is that the douchiness by Ribisi and Lang doesn't make me better relate to the story, it just highlights the laziness of the writing. I understand people like this exist in real life. But if we are using that excuse, why the hell do we want to dignify those people by putting their kind on screen?

It's incredibly telling that a literal cartoon villain has more nuance and character than Avatar which segways back into Atlantis. 

While I don't like the villain in Atlantis, it is a palette cleanser after Avatar. Commander Rourke actually starts out pleasant. James Garner gives the character a nice homeliness to him. He's great. And when he turns bad, at least the film attempts to contextualize the shift. Rourke just wanted treasure. He didn't intend to kill anybody but the circumstances caused more impromptu albeit immoral actions. His shift and escalation as a villain is abrupt. But unlike Avatar, I could at least see some kind of arc. In Avatar, it's nothing. The villains start out wanting to infringe on native land and the film continues with them infringing on their native land. There is almost a layer of sadistic enjoyment on the part of the soldiers. Again, the film tries to make the characters as unlikeable as possible.  

Atlantis and Avatar are very different films. Other than their themes and genre archetypes, I see them as practically opposites. That is until we get to the romance elements. 

Let's start with Atlantis. I got to give credit to Kida as she is likable and interesting with her wonderful backstory that we see in the opening scene. The voice acting and the animation really sell the chemistry between Milo and Kida. But other than that, I find the romance to be a waste of time. Maybe if there was a way for Kida to join the film earlier it might work. It's just the relationship needed more than a simple sequence. Or rather, the film should have spent more time with the crew since we already spent a great deal of time with them anyway. 

Likewise, Avatar feels undeveloped. I suppose it is a little worse as the bloated runtime spends more time with the romance than Atlantis. However, if I had to pick the strongest character elements in this film, it would probably be the female love interest. I really enjoyed Zoe Saldana's performance as she basically carries the relationship dynamics between her and Sam Worthington. But overall, like Atlantis, it just feels like a waste of time. And like Atlantis, I rather they used that screen time to focus on things that would make the film more engaging, but I don't know how you can make week old bread less stale. Also as a side note, it is never explained how Zoe Saldana can speak English despite being an alien. They had a scene where they mention it, but it continues to go unexplained. 

It's strange that both films feel undeveloped, yet they are undeveloped for different reasons. In Atlantis, it's obvious the short runtime and Disney's all seeing eye made the film less of what it should be. Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise seem to have a way of making films way ahead of their time. With this and Hunchback of Notre Dame, it seems the only thing holding them back is Disney. If this story was made today, it could have been something really special. The tone could be more edgy. The characters could be explored more fully. This is a Disney Plus show dying to be made. Unfortunately, that would imply that Disney likes good ideas. 

Instead, we live in a world were something like Avatar has sequels planned. Where Atlantis is a 90 minute film that should have been two and a half hours, Avatar is two and half hour film that should have been 90 minutes. Where Atlantis is a wonderful world that just needed more time in the oven, Avatar is a uninspired one that Cameron indulgently shows every inch of. 

Before I end this review, I suppose it would be fair to highlight one quality that Avatar has over Atlantis. I gotta say, Avatar's last forty minutes are kind of great. Do they make up for the whole film? Of course not. However, I would be lying if I said the last forty minutes wasn't a marvel in action filmmaking. The air battle has a since of height that I've only seen in Miyazaki films. Overall, there is a sense of weight and physics which is something that is dire in action. It's why I can love the simplicity of John Wick but be underwhelmed when watching Avengers: Endgame. To me, this is the greatest strength of the special effects in Avatar. It isn't the 3D. It is the fact that everything is reacting to physical dynamics realistically creating an exciting action sequence. The strengths continue on the ground level culminating in one final showdown with Worthington and Saldana vs. Lang. While the mech sized combat knife is comical, it lends itself to an unironic good kind of schlock as oxymoronic as unironically good schlock sounds. It helps that the choreography, cinematography, and tension is excellent.  

By comparison, Atlantis leaves a lot to be desired. There is an exciting bit where Helga makes one final shot that shifts the favor to the heroes, but that's it. It lacks the dynamics that was seen when they faced the Leviathan earlier the film. It's not terrible. But by this point in the film, you already know how it is going to end and it becomes a formality. It ends just as you'd expect. For all of Avatar's flaws, it at least knew how to stick a great landing. 

That said, these films illustrate that a bad film with a good ending isn't better than a good film with a bad end. Out of the two high concept anti-imperialist films, Atlantis is easily the more enjoyable experience. In one last inverse, Atlantis is a film that clicked but Avatar is a film that undoubtedly didn't. 

Going Under | The Almost-Amazing Roguelite

It is December which means I am preparing for my end of the year retrospective of all things nerdy. As I was thinking about some of my favorite games I've played in 2021, there is this game that falls into this limbo. It's a game where I don't think is good enough to be among my favorites I played this year, yet it was too good to be relegated to a one paragraph honorable mention. I feel then the only option left is to review this game in full. After all, despite its flaws, it's a very interesting game. 

Going Under is a game released last year but was buried likely from that month's high profile releases. 

I mean good God, this game came out a week after Hades, Spelunky 2, and Mario 3D All-Stars which all released within days of each other. In Going Under, you play as an unpaid intern named Jackie who is hired at a tech startup company. As what you might expect from an unpaid internship, your character is 'encouraged' to do things that aren't within her job description. Usually, this implies menial office tasks. For our main character, it means going into the ruins of failed startups killing monsters that now roam these dungeons. 

Going Under doesn't hesitate in establishing the tone and satire that will be prevalent throughout the game. This game fully embraces its commentary on modern work spaces, the uphill battle of making a decent livable wage, and many other pieces of nonsense that plague our modern society. It has a very surehanded approach to this subject matter, and none of it feels insincere or pandering. It is easy then for me to say that Going Under is simply well written. The dialogue is sharp, and how the plot unfolds was natural and effortless. However, I feel that would undercut just how much care and attention this game puts in its theme. The game is more than sharp. In ways, it is practically genius. 

Everything about the gameplay plays into the aesthetic. You fight with laptops and office decorations. You can complete side quests to earn mentorships which gave you added abilities. You can go on Tinder dates which gives you an extra ally in combat. Listing how each aspect of the game plays into the theme would be a daunting undertaking. Some aspects unearth a whole wave of commentary that are fun to pick at from analytical standpoint. 

For example, there are a series of side quests from one mentor involving you doing arbitrarily difficult tasks. Things like beating a section without taking damage or not picking up power ups are required in order to progress. Between each side quest, the main character constantly questions why making tasks far more difficult is actually helping her grow to which the mentor gives some half-ass explanation. It made me laugh as I thought about the number of times I was asked to do arbitrary things for arbitrary reasons. I am telling you. If you have went through an internship, fellowship program, or even a class practicum, this game will feel like therapy. There is so much to relate to in this game, and the commentary is pointed but not to the level where it is self-congratulatory. This game is one of the best depictions of the superficiality of our modern day, and I love it for that. 

The story is practically perfect.....I just wish I can say the same about the combat.  

The combat is quite unpolished. Combat is a mixture of Breath of the Wild and Dark Souls. You pick up weapons that break instantly, your health is shown via hearts, and environmental hazards can be used against your enemies creating a dynamic similar to Breath of the Wild. Large boss monsters, dodge roll mechanics, and the camera/lock on system is similar to Dark Souls. All of this is fine and mixes well together. However, there are sore spots that make combat feel unfair. 

For one thing, I don't think it would be too much to ask that when an item breaks in Going Under, it should automatically cycle onto your next weapon. Instead it breaks and you end up finishing part of your animation doing tiny damage with your millennial fists. Like Breath of the Wild, the weapon doesn't do a great job indicating how many hits you have left before it breaks aside from a single warning. You lock on almost never locks on to the enemy you actually want to target. Enemies will attack from behind your camera view meaning you will sometimes get attacked by things you can't see. 

All of these seem trivial, but these problems are exacerbated as Going Under gets extremely hectic. Rooms are small. And as the game gets harder, these smaller rooms get filled with enemies that can quickly gang up on you. When reaction times come down to the seconds, little things like bad Z-targeting can become really annoying compared to slower paced games like Legend of Zelda. 

It doesn't help that this game is structured like a roguelite meaning this game encourages consistent skill, so unintentionally inconsistent mechanics make playing frustrating. 

Speaking of it being a roguelite, a lot of the roguelite elements are a bit of a mix bag for me. It doesn't take long to find a dominant strategy or at least a comfortable play style. *hint hint* I would suggest maxing out your mentor status on Swomp as he is objectively the best mentor in the game. There is a lot of mechanics that don't encourage the typical variety seen in most roguelites. There aren't that many synergies that are fun to play with. You have a shop that allows you to add additional power ups, but the shop only changes items once you empty out the store. I wish there was a way to cycle items even if it involved paying a price for it. I suppose this is the game's way to minimize the luck factor which is prevalent in roguelites, and to be fair they do a decent job doing that. For another example, you can equip a single power up before each run taking out the need for resets just get a specific build. However, it didn't help much as they didn't quite iron out all the luck factors. Later side quests for instance require luck in order to get a specific item or enemy encounter. This is the only part of the main game where I felt compelled to restart runs. It is also a good thing that this is the only part because restarting runs is terrible in Going Under. You don't automatically start a new run from the pause menu. You are instead booted out into the hub world after a load screen, then have to walk slowly to one of the levels, go through another load screen, and then you can start another run. Again, in any other game, this wouldn't be too much of a problem, but it does become a problem when looking at it as a roguelite. It doesn't help that many other roguelites basically perfected the concept of restarting runs. 

But going back to my initial point, Going Under isn't the best at having diverse gameplay. The way I see it most of the win condition is learning enemy telegraphs. Granted, that in of itself is fun. And additionally, Going Under has made hitting enemies very satisfying as they rag doll across the floor, but it isn't the most substantial thing ever. My playthrough time is telling evidence of that since I completed most of the game and only manage to squeeze a little over ten hours out of it. Compared to other games in the genre where I can easily put in sixty plus hours, and Going Under comes off very slim. I suppose a remedy for this is the optional Imposter Mode which amps the difficulty of the dungeon by making it longer and taking away perks you get in base game. It's fine as it fixes a few problems I have with its roguelite elements. Although, the way it addresses its problems are like flattening bumps on a mattress. Sure, restarting runs are a little faster but restarting is more common since the difficulty compels you to fish for certain powerups early on. It's great that the dungeons length and structure makes you think about each room differently adding some much needed variety. It's not so great that the length means more opportunities for the camera and Z-targeting to fuck up leaving you increasingly vulnerable. 

I can say that this game would make a great entry point if you are into roguelites since the game leans on the easy side excluding the Imposter Mode. However, at the same time, the game's lack of polish could make the combat frustrating to newer players. The way I see it, Hades still remains the quintessential gateway into the roguelite genre, but I digress. 

I still highly recommend Going Under if only for the story. I would love to see this above most indie titles out there to get a sequel/expansion. If this game fixed its little issues, this game can easily become one of my favorites. Going Under is the debut title of developer Aggro Crab. And yeah, Going Under has all the fixings of a typically great debut title. It's a little rough and far from perfect, but the passion is there. "blah blah blah, insert pun involving the title or its subject matter, and then end the review." 

Brooklyn 99 | A Modern Sitcom Series Review

I recently finished the entirety of B99 and was considering putting it on my best of television list next month. However, a simple ode wouldn't suffice for me. I feel an entire blog post is necessary to describe B99. Hell, I feel even an entire blog post isn't enough. I wish I could do a series of blog posts much like how I did for YU-GI-OH. Every few seasons has something interesting to talk about. In fact, because this show has been around since 2013, you can essentially cut the tree open and witness a tiny history of 2010 sitcoms. Brooklyn 99 is by all definitions a modern sitcom, and I mean that mostly in a good way. So let's cut to the chase. There's no fancy intro. As much as I wanted to talk about Malcolm in the Middle, the history of sitcoms, and somehow my love for plushies, I feel getting straight to the point would suffice. And again, we have a lot to cover, so let's begin...

Oh yeah, I think this goes without saying, but I am going to assume you have seen the entire show. There will be spoilers, and I will be light on explaining context for certain parts of the storyline. You have been warned. 

Seasons 1-2: 

The Slow Death Knell of Traditional Sitcoms

The "death of the laugh track" has been on my mind for a while. I'll be honest. The traditional sitcom format sucks, and it's weird that it refuses to die. Sure, there have been amazing work in this format such as Roseanne and Seinfeld. However, even those shows have been held back by the dated qualities of the traditional sitcom. The canned laugh track is distracting. And in instances like the Big Bang Theory, it can outright destroy the pacing of the jokes (if what BBT has can be described as jokes). The three camera setup used since the dawn of TV has slowly become inessential and is at best an inoffensive way of shooting scenes. At its worst is a restrictive setup that limits set design, blocking, and editing styles. Theoretically, you can film Roseanne in a one camera setup. The same definitely can't be said with B99 and the multicamera setup.  

Then there is the politically incorrect aspects which isn't necessarily a direct result of the traditional sitcom, but it is often associated with sitcoms. It may stemmed from the fact that sitcoms are very reflective to the politics of the time. And yeah, it can lead to some nervous collar tugging when some of the unsavory portions appear on screen. Thankfully, B99 is nowhere near as bad as other shows. However, I feel it is important to address these anyway. Plus, I wanted to get these out of the way as they stick out like a sore thumb. 

Gina (Chelsea Peretti) sexually harassing Terry would be bad even ignoring the real life assault that happened to Terry Crews. In a post #MeToo movement society, the way Gina and subsequently Madeline Wuntch act in the earlier seasons is gut wrenching. It's even more gut wrenching since this didn't bother me during my first viewing of Seasons 1 & 2. I guess the best thing I can say is that at least I changed for the better now than never. 

Thankfully, what still bothers me is the War on Drugs undercurrent that is seen through most of the show early on. While B99 is fairly good at handling heavy subject matter, as I'll explain throughout this review, it tends to squander on this topic. Criminalizing drugs has been a contentious subject matter due it being racially targeted unfavorably towards blacks and Latinx Americans. It's not like racism isn't addressed in B99. There are many instances where discrimination, microaggressions, and white ignorance is quickly demonized or at least quipped at. However, that doesn't extend when it comes to racism among suspects and criminals. Yeah, the criminals are racially diverse-and trashier criminals are often portrayed as white-which wasn't unnoticed, yet it takes a blind eye to how the War on Drugs disproportionately targeted minorities. 

God, don't even get me started on Black Lives Matter, but I suppose I will talk about that as that becomes more relevant. 

Excluding political stuff, there are still a handful of things that aren't great from today's perspective. One of the B99's cases of first season wonkiness is the relationship between Rosa (Stephanie Beatriz) and Boyle (Joe Lo Truglio). It's a one sided romantic interest that's very surface level and doesn't do either characters any favors. It doesn't help that I am fairly mixed on Boyle and Rosa as standalone characters to begin with. It seems most of Boyle's jokes tend to fall in the category of making his coworkers very uncomfortable, and most of them don't really land for me. However, Boyle's jokes also fall into the category of slapstick, and most of that works really well. I credit that to Joe Lo Truglio's performance whose a fantastic comedic actor and weirdly has also played a cop in a procedural crime drama much like Andre Braugher. It seems a lot of my love for the character stems from the delivery and presence of the actor. That extends to Beatriz as Rosa who is also excellent. However, the character herself doesn't get many interesting arcs. It isn't until much later in the series where they make her interesting. Of course, I will address it when we get there. 

Other than those three paragraphs of problems, the first two seasons of B99 are great. There my personal favorite in terms of restraint. Later seasons will gradually get more over the top through flanderization which we'll soon find out to be very hit and miss. I like how relatively grounded all the characters are early on especially Captain Holt (Andre Braugher) who arguably reaches his character peak in the first two seasons. He's hilarious and his humor doesn't distract from the fact that he is highly respectable and intelligent. Also, he's gay which is given as much fan fare as this sentence which I love. It's very normalizing seeing a gay character simply existing and being comfortable in the world around him. 

All the other characters do well and are each given solid episodes for their characters to shine (including Rosa and Boyle). Jake (Andy Samberg) and Amy (Melissa Fumero) have a much stronger romantic subplot that's simple yet effective. I wish we got to see the romance from Amy's perspective. But other than that, the relationship is incredibly wholesome and gets about as good as it gets in the first two seasons. 

I particularly love the episodes where the entire cast is assigned to take on one problem that isn't high stakes. The Halloween episodes are an obvious example, but my personal favorites are The Party and the Beach House which both feature the cast tip toeing around social situations too innocuous and relatable than what is expected from NYPD officers. I feel these episodes are where the characters and humor shine the brightest. 

The first two seasons of B99 feel like an introduction in avoiding most of the bullshit seen in traditional sitcoms. There are no laugh tracks but awkward silences and well timed editing cuts to punctuate the jokes. The cinematography isn't just a wide shot following shot-reverse shot. It's well purposed shots that can be intense for action oriented scenes of flat and still for comedic effect. It for the most part rids away the sins of the old hands. However, there is one problem that B99 was unable to shed. 

Seasons 3-4: 

The Sitcom Equilibrium

Let's talk about the TV equilibrium. It's an underused term, and one that I've only really heard from text books and college courses. For those that don't know, a TV equilibrium is a cycle where a show begins with a sense of normalcy. The events of that episode promptly disrupt that normalcy. But, by the end of the episode, the characters will overcome the event and everything will go back to normal. The cycle begins again in the next episode. 

I have mixed feelings on this concept. I get that realistically changing the dynamics of an episode would be a lot. It may require changing sets. And in the case of sitcoms, a genre that's the equivalent of comfort food, it's best not to challenge the safety that sitcoms provide. 

However, this also makes episodes lack any tension as we know most episodes will end with the return to the equilibrium. 

This is problem that we start to see in the beginning of season 3. Both seasons 3 & 4 begin with what seems to be a long term disruption to the dynamic. Season 3 has Holt out of the picture with a series of new captains taking his place. Season 4 begins with Jake and Holt both in witness protection. Both of these only last for a handful of episodes before some stroke of luck or arbitrary plot device fixes everything. Compared to My Name is Earl where Earl was in prison for half a season or Roseanne where characters will have completely different life situations season to season and B99 feels carelessly expeditious. 

Again, I have mix feelings on this. On one hand, I am ok with them going back to the equilibrium. B99 is comfort food. I don't watch it the same way I watch more challenging television. That said, there is no tension in these special episodes since we know we are going back to normal. And because there isn't any tension, it isn't interesting. It's why I consider these episodes some of the worst episodes for me. Although to the show's credit, they at least focus on the main cast. 

I can't say the same for some of the other episodes that focused on the reoccurring characters. I dreaded the ones with the Pontiac Bandit, the Vulture, Pimento, and a few others as their episodes don't really work for me. I suppose that is a personal taste as I know some people love these episodes. From my perspective, these episodes tend to take focus away from the main cast which is B99's strongest asset. The jokes also don't really land for me. 

That said, seasons three and four still maintain a decent quality, and they have a solid batch of episodes. My personal favorites include Moo Moo which is the first instance where an episode centers on modern racism. While I did just establish my dislike for B99's reoccurring characters, I did enjoy the episodes involving Jake's parents and Amy's father. The former being loved by me for simply exploiting my nostalgia for Married with Children. Finally, there is Cop Con which continues the trend of great episodes involving the entire cast taking on one stupid situation. 

We end season 4 really well with one of if not the strongest cliffhanger in the series as well as one of my favorite antagonists in B99. It leads our cast into a great new situation starting season 5. Although if past seasons taught me anything, it likely won't be long before everything goes back to normal.

 

Seasons 5-6:

How B99 Keeps It Fresh

We are getting into the late game of a sitcoms run. It's a scary time since there is an understandable temptation to keep things fresh. We don't want a Walking Dead situation where a story is simply going through the motions. However, there are risks when trying new things. 

These risks have since been labeled as tropes. There is the Cousin Oliver trope where a show adds a horrible character in an attempt at keeping things fresh. There is jumping the shark where a show does something outrageously out of character in order to stay interesting. I've already mentioned flanderization where a character's traits get exaggerated to where they become a caricature of their former selves. Unfortunately, B99 continues to suffer from that. Although, it still doesn't reach the lengths like the Office. That said, almost all the characters get a little more exaggerated. The worst examples, in my opinion, are Captain Holt and Amy. Holt becomes extremely condescending and competitive which contradicts his professional attitude, and Amy might beat Boyle at his own pervy game by how she responds to good organization.

Thankfully, B99 is far from the point where I would call the show bad which was a surprise to me considering season 5 was the worst in terms of ratings among all the seasons under Fox. I guess that is on me for taking ratings more seriously than Fox. 

Anyway, I posit that B99 keeps it fresh, so how do they do it? Well, I think tone is largely why I think seasons 5 & 6 work really well. This show gets heavier than usual. To summarize, in just two seasons alone, they expand on PTSD, touch on addiction, not being accepted for your sexuality, self-sabotage, the fear of a loved one not getting out of a dangerous situation alive, sexual assault and how that affects the politics of the workplace, the fears of therapy, having children, and likely other topics that I've failed to remember. 

That's not to say that every episode is some light dramedy. There are still some great straightforward B99 episodes that are as entertaining as you'd expect. However, it is more inclined to get deeper into these character's lives. I think the magic that makes long form sitcoms like this work is the understanding that these characters have been with us for a good portion of our lives. If you have been watching this show since it came out, it has been in your life for eight years. That's longer than most college programs and twice as long as Trump's presidency. It would be downright unfair if a show just did the same thing. Or worse, made the characters completely unnatural to what they were before. If you developed a parasocial relationship with fictional characters, you probably want to have a deeper understanding of them, and I feel B99 knows that. 

In the end, I found that while season 5-6 may not be the best in terms of good episode frequency, it has the best overall gems in the series. This is the season with the best Rosa arc by using her as a vessel to explore sexuality more thoroughly in society. It has arguably the best Halloween episode. It's also the season that has the Box episode which is consider by many to be one of the best episodes in the series. I don't quite put it on that level, but it is still a great episode. 

When I finished season 6, I went into the last few seasons more optimistic. And for a long running sitcom, that feeling is more rare than people realize. 

Seasons 7-8:

An Unfortunate Stumble Into Routine 

& B99's Elephant 

Ok never mind, now the show gets kind of bad. 

Let me say that B99 doesn't fall off as badly as more notorious examples of shows nosediving in quality. I feel like Malcolm in The Middle, the weaker seasons are still fairly enjoyable. However, it doesn't change the fact that seasons seven and eight don't live up to the better seasons. 

We start in season 7, and it is not very interesting. It's so uninteresting, I am trying figure out as I'm writing how I am going review this section. 

Season 7 mainly explores the same themes and situations in other seasons of B99 with a few little subversions here and there. Subversions include a new captain that is revealed to actually be good at her job instead of the string of awful captains from season 3. A quirky reoccurring character that turned out to be a major baddie. Oh by the way, Vanessa Bayer as Debbie was bloody wonderful and is easily my favorite reoccurring character on the show. Commissioner Wuntch just....dies. That came out of nowhere. And as another subversion, they don't do much with that plotline as I thought they would. 

That's it. The subversions aren't really game changers just fun little surprises that don't have much of an impact. The rest of season 7 is just more of the same. Jake and Amy have another relationship conflict as they try to have a child. Holt has problems with his career that once again gets quickly resolved since the writers stopped caring. The only great thing I can say about this season is the finale which is nicely chaotic and fun. The season itself is also pretty short, so I guess it is nice that the worst season is only a 13 episode slog instead of 22. 

So yeah, that season left a lot to be desired. It kind of makes the transition to talking about police brutality even more messy. 

I first started watching B99 in 2018. For some reason, a major event on my mind was the Ferguson unrest which was about four years ago at the time. Considering B99 came out in 2013 and the Michael Brown case was such a substantial story about police conduct, I figured there would be some mention of it in Brooklyn 99. There wasn't. 

There would be many high profile police related killings during B99's run, and I was shocked that it took all the way till George Floyd's murder for B99 to finally address police violence on the show. Granted, a lot of governments, corporations, and public figures seemed "better late than never" when it came with Black Lives Matter. However, I always thought B99 was better than that. I thought it was a show that was above "the better late than never" trend of social wokeness. This is the same show that casted multiple POC actors before Disney hopped on the diversity and inclusion band wagon. This is the same show that treated gay and bisexual characters with a sense of realism. It's a show that handled sexual assault and other mature subject matter gracefully. Yet when it came to easily the most hot button issue with police right now, B99 got cold feet. This show could have easily been ahead of the curb, but it felt like the show played it safe. You can only ignore the elephant in the room for so long.   

To the show's credit, B99 handles the subject of BLM about as gracefully as you might expect. At its worst, I am not big on how they bring Boyle into the discourse. While I understand that Boyle is basically the adjective "overcompensation" personified, I also think Boyle has the emotional maturity to avoid virtue signaling like he does in the BLM episode. For example, I always liked that Boyle always said Turkey Day instead of Thanksgiving in the earlier seasons. The show never draws attention to it, but it is a nice little touch that Boyle would use a term that is considered by many as more politically correct, so I was disappointed that Boyle was used as a surrogate for people who overly virtue signal. Granted, I also understand that the writers just needed to give Boyle something to do for the episode, and it would be weird for the episode to have a plot that is unrelated to BLM when the rest of the show is tied so heavily to the subject matter. 

Elephant aside, Season 8 is sadly more of the same. Like season 7, its strengths are the finale and that the season is fairly short. I suppose the finale does deserve more props since I've rarely seen a series finale that shows a deep love for its audience. Hell, I've rarely seen a series finale that isn't a complete dumpster fire. Here, B99 gets a little heavy on the fan service for my personal tastes. However, the rest of the episode is great, and it's full of the same chaotic energy B99 is known for ending on one of the most emotional and satisfying Holt speeches in the series. It makes you forget about the slog and the narrative low points and just relish in the good of not just in the show but in you as a human being. 

Conclusion

My overall feelings are a strange one. When I think of the best sitcoms ever made, I don't often put B99 alongside those shows. Yet, B99 has the qualities of some of best situational comedies ever made. It's unique, culturally relevant, and really really funny. The characters are endearing and grow naturally. And while the show falls victim to some typical television show problems, it stumbles much less than other shows of a similar length. Maybe with time, B99's status as a classic will be more apparent to me. 

And if judging by the quality of this show, I imagine that it won't take very long for that to happen. 

Additional Thoughts Too Unnoteworthy to Include in This Review But I'm Including Anyway

The final scene with Rosa, while conceptually good, was a tad sloppy for me. I appreciate that a sitcom character, a female one no less, doesn't end with her getting paired up with some random romantic interest for the sake of it. However, there is a layer where the show takes on a meta element where it feels like they're making fun of that trope. It comes off as the show is really proud of itself that Rosa didn't end up with someone. It was weirdly arrogant for the series especially since this is not the first high profile sitcom where a female character's happy ending isn't getting into a romantic relationship. *cough* Mary Tyler Moore *cough* 

On the contrary, the end to Jake Peralta's story is perfect. It is a textbook example of a character fulfilling his needs versus his wants. At the beginning, Peralta's wants were to be a great detective yet his needs were familial belonging and emotional maturity. A simple yet well executed arc that is more effective due to seeing this change over several years. 

On final nitpick on the ending, I am not a big fan of the final scene where the gang is reveal to come together to do their annual heist. It takes away the permanency of their lives changing and them going their separate ways. Golden Girls doesn't end with the Dorothy coming back saying "jk, one more hug" and neither should B99. Either end it at the elevator or do something a little subtler. 

I wished I spent some time talking about Scully and Hitchcock, so I will do that now. They're great. I like how it rides the line and doesn't get too homoerotic. It feels like a true platonic romance, and we need more of that in media. 

The season 8 arc with Holt and his husband could have spent more time in the oven. I suppose they set it up a little bit in previous seasons. I wish their relationship didn't come to a head so abruptly.

I really hate the Pontiac Bandit. It angers me he got an episode in every season. I found the character annoying. I never bought his friendship with Jake. And over the course of the series, Jake gets increasingly unprofessional when it came to Doug Judy. I was so mad when Jake gave Doug an out out of prison. Let that fucker rot!

While I like Gina, I'm bothered by how obsessed the show is with her. It bothers me that a character that's vapid, self-interested, and caddy is treated on the same level as figures of worship. Jeez, there is an episode called "Return of the King." You could say it is meant to be ironic, but it doesn't come off that way. Maybe she needed to get hit by a bus more to balance it out. 

I like that Jake and Amy don't go the Jim and Pam route like the later seasons of U.S Office. Casecation aside, the relationship is incredibly wholesome and stable. It is certainly a palette cleanser from honeymooner style sitcoms of the bumbling husband and bitchy wife. 

Lastly, B99 is a pretty solid procedural cop show. Well...they have the clichés of a procedural cop show, see Hank Green's song about it. However, it works here because it is spiced up by these quirky characters. The Box episode would be generic and boring if it were done in CSI or Law & Order. In B99, its unique and interesting. It is not so much the mystery itself is interesting. It is that it's in a genre not associated with mysteries.