I watched it tonight and it is so much better than it has any right to be. I think they really captured what made the originals good: the humor between Bill and Ted, the way that they genuinely care about each other and the other people they pick up along the way, and the bit of over-the-top-ness in what they play and how they play that appealed to me as a 16-year-old metalhead when I first watched them.

Anticipating their new album that came out today, I've been on something of a Nits trip lately. (It's more pleasant than it sounds, I promise!) Since I think these guys should and could be better known, I thought I'd spread the gospel a little bit.

Throughout their almost five decades of existence, Nits (or The Nits) have been critically acclaimed, yet have never really conquered the charts. There are various likely reasons for this. For one, they exist in that difficult-to-market realm of "art pop" and have continued to reinvent themselves and their sound from album to album. As a Dutch band, they have also never had the backing of a major British or US label, and although the songs are primarily in English, perhaps the singer-lyricist Henk Hofstede's accent has also sounded too non-native for the masses.

If you do know Nits, you most likely know them from their minor 80s hits Nescio (1983) and In The Dutch Mountains (1987). Those two songs capture their 80s style pretty well in terms of their sound and lyrical content, and the videos are also great examples of their visual style.

These two songs came out during what was actually their second distinct musical period. Their first four albums, released between 1978 and 1981, were riding the new wave wagon, a good example of which is the song Tutti Ragazzi (1979). But I would say that it was with 1983's Omsk where Nits really started to display their full potential and began to solidify into a core three-man unit of the aforementioned Hofstede, drummer Rob Kloet, and keyboardist Robert Jan Stips who had produced their earlier albums but now joined the band fully. There have been other members over the years, but these three are the main contributors; Hofstede with his voice and story-like lyrics, Kloet with his wide range of beats and rhythms that cross musical genres, and Stips who brings in a particular depth and space in which the songs can breathe freely.

In addition to the two tracks I mentioned earlier, other songs from their 80s and early 90s output that I would recommend as an introduction include A Touch of Henry Moore (1983), Sketches of Spain (1986), Radio Shoes (1990), and Giant Normal Dwarf (1990).

There has always been an undercurrent of melancholy to Nits's music, but it tends to be balanced with their quirky sense of humour. In the 90s, however, the melancholy started to take over, and Hofstede's lyrics became increasingly focused on the human condition while the music dropped some of its overt playfulness. Some wonderful pieces from this period include Cars & Cars (1992), Mourir Avant Quinze Ans (1994), Three Sisters (1998) and Ivory Boy (2000). This period also witnessed a major change in the lineup, as Stips departed the band in 1996. He joined back seven years later, from which point onwards they have been a three-member band.

While the evolution of their style has been gradual, I would say that by the late 2000s, Nits had moved into their fourth major period. Whereas their influences have always clearly included artists like the Beatles (the band's name is sort of a nod to them), Talking Heads, Leonard Cohen, Paul Simon and Bob Dylan, I feel Nits have more recently toned down some of their earlier experimentation and focused more on the qualities that made their influences such great songwriters. From this latest period, take a listen to The Flowers (2008), Distance (2009), Love Locks (2012) and Flowershop Forget-Me-Not (2017).

This brings us to today's album, Knot, which is something like the group's 25th studio album. Or maybe 26th. Or something else, depending on your definition of a studio album. In any case, as I understand it, this new work was largely parsed together from hours of improvisation, and it does sound like that. The eleven tracks feel like mood pieces, fairly static paintings, captured moments. But I have of course only given the album a handful listens so far, so this is an early impression still. In any case, here's the album opener Ultramarine (2019).

I hope this little write-up will be of interest to some of you and that perhaps the linked music speaks to you on a level that pushes you to dig in deeper. If you use Spotify, the "This Is Nits" playlist is a pretty good next step to take.

If you do take a listen, I'd be curious to hear what you think of the music. Or if you knew Nits before, I'd love to hear what you think my little introduction here missed, misinterpreted or should have emphasised more. And what's your view of the new album?

Here's the IMDB page for The Souvenir (distributed by A24). https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6920356/

IMDB users give the score as 6.6, and the user reviews are stuffed full of people who hate it. The critic reviews are almost entirely positive though.

Here's the Cherry Picks page for The Souvenir. https://www.thecherrypicks.com/films/souvenir

They use reviews from "female-identifying and non-binary film critics", and as a result the film gets good reviews.

I find the reviews surfaced by Cherry Picks to be more thoughtful, more considered, and more useful to me than those surfaced by IMDB or MetaCritic (even though they all pull critic reviews from many of the same sources).

I've found some great films via Cherry Picks.

This series has recently been ported to PS4, Xbox One and PC. I never owned a DS but the concept of this game (being a lawyer) was always interesting to me. So I took a chance and currently I'm really enjoying playing through it.

The format is episodes with manual saving so you can play in short chunks. It's mostly a puzzle game with some exploration built in. The story is well crafted and clever imo. I strongly recommend you play without a guide to get the best experience.

https://store.steampowered.com/app/787480/Phoenix_Wright_Ace_Attorney_Trilogy__123/

My previous recommendations:

• Person of Interest
• Psych

So, I just finished binging all five seasons, and I think I can safely recommend this series to an audience that enjoys adult humor and series that juggle between the very funny and very serious.

BoJack Horseman is a series that starts slow and doesn't really seem to truly find itself until Season 3. I personally didn't enjoy the first half of Season 1 at all (got very bored). The second half of Season 1 got me to keep watching purely on the humor and the gags, which pretty consistently increase in quality as the show continues.

I especially got drawn in on all the "animal" gags. The series at some point early on becomes very comfortable going all out on visual&storytelling gags based on the animal playing them (BJH is an otherwise-normal universe where a significant part of the population is half-animal half-human). The humor is pretty high quality, I would easily compare it to the humor in Arrested Development (early seasons).
It is a series that makes fun of itself, without relying too much on gimmicks or breaking the fourth wall too much. With that said, Seasons 3 and 4 introduce more experimental episodes (including an entirely mute one, similar to the excellent Hush from Buffy, as well as another that only consists of a beautiful entire 22 minute monologue). None of them bored me. I was always extremely impressed with the execution and the quality.

What really gets me to recommend this series is its later seasons. Seasons 3 and 4 are of exceptionally high quality and the show becomes… very dark. But not without losing its humor. BoJack Horseman made me cry three times. I'm not talking about tearing up, I'm talking about the full waterworks like I've done only a couple of times in my entire adult life.
It's a show that punches you in the gut not by having grand romantic storylines; not by having heroic moments with epic music; not sympathetically by having manly characters tear up; not even by killing off beloved characters like Game of Thrones. It's a show that hits you because it's too fucking real.

In many ways, I would say that I enjoyed BJH for similar reasons that I enjoyed early GoT: It's unforgiving to its characters. But I don't want this to put anyone off from watching; it's a unique series to which I have a very hard time finding parallels. Its humor sits between Arrested Development, Futurama and Rick & Morty and is very much its own thing. Very reminiscent of Adult Swim.

BoJack Horseman is available on Netflix. Come for the gags, stay for your own reasons.

• Wikipedia
• IMDb
• TVMaze

Supernatural is one of those TV shows that had some fantastic early seasons. I really miss them.
As a show I feel it kinda turned way too much into fan service in its later seasons. It stayed decent (good, even), but lost a lot of its quality.
Every season there's a bigger, badder fish and things get more and more absurd. One of the things that kind of annoyed me the most about it is that characters dying has zero impact, as they come back into the show whenever convenient using whatever silly way the writers deem worthy. (That series is the polar opposite of Game of Thrones in that regard…)

Season 5 introduced the Four Horsemen. I remember Death's intro as being possibly the most memorable moment of the entire show. Re-watching them now, the introductions of all four were seriously chilling. Thought I'd share them here.

• War: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1I4nFgMuciU
• Famine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQSnVPzV4_k
• Pestilence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E2aQKYEsUw&t=33s
• And best of all, Death: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EcsBgxXDqc

I'll recommend Supernatural if you like a good mix of horror-comedy without too much comedy. You may like it if you liked: Psych, Chilling Adventures of Sabrina, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel.

Apollo 11 is a limited IMAX only engagement, at least for now, and I don't know how long it'll be in theaters. But while it is, I implore everyone to go see it.This movie left me speechless, and not just in the sense of the footage being so incredible as to leave me without words, though that's certainly a factor. It's restored footage and audio of the Apollo 11 mission, for anyone that doesn't know, and it covers the launch, moon landing, and re-entry.

It's so easy for historical events to be looked back on and be seen as just that: events. Like a natural disaster or the existence of a waterfall or a canyon, so many battles, inventions, and human triumphs are stripped of humanity, remembered only as things that happened, not things people did. Apollo 11 has staggering to witness footage, yes, but it weaves that footage together with the human moments wonderfully. The scenes of the launch countdown or the lander making its descent are intercut and splitscreened with the footage of the NASA control centers, with names of all the teams, as audio of their conversations with the astronauts and recaps of what has happened and is going to play over the incredibly restored launch footage. Cuts to the crowd overlooking the Apollo 11 launch are also common in the beginning.

This is not an educational video, one to be seen for great understanding of the finer details of the mission. Apollo 11 instead acts as history in motion, with a perspective to the individuals and the event simultaneously. It's about the people that accomplished the amazing things you see. A display of the triumph of human spirit over the perceived rules of the world and the desire for understanding out world and breaking the limits that we thought were imposed on us. And yet, we as the viewers have a perspective that the people who actually accomplished the great things we see never did. The splitscreening helps to assign human beings to the awe inspiring footage in front of the viewer, yes, but at the same time it offers 2 entirely separated perspectives framed as one, one that the human beings being assigned to the footage never truly experienced in the moment. We have an intimate view of the control center with a simultaneous omnipotent-esque view of the mission in all of its glory. The viewer as the omnipotent being is true of most films to some degree, but the way in which the movie frames its central event, small and big at the same time, really highlights an omnipresent view that even those who lived through the launch never experienced in real time. It's a film of contrast between the individuals and the accomplishment of the collective, but in its control center voiceovers and constant splitscreens, it's really a movie that bridges the two contrasts.

Basically, I loved it in ways that, despite my extensive best efforts, I find difficult to describe. This line sounds corny, I know, but you owe it to yourself to see it on the biggest screen that you can, and I implore everyone to try to make time for it and find a true IMAX showing, if possible. The visuals alone may not have been the biggest thing that awed me, but they were certainly a huge part of it. And for anyone that's also seen it, what'd you think? I'd love to see other perspectives on this doc.

Holy shit. Now that is what I call cinema. Somebody give Jonah Hill an Oscar already. The amount of times I felt a deep connection to his character is reaching uncomfortable. The only thing that felt like “too much” was Snorri, but luckily that didn't last long. Emma Stone was so human in this. Rome Kanda and Justin Theroux have amazing comedic moments.

Fucking 10/10. Absolute recommendation.

Previous recommendation on Tildes: Person of Interest

Light spoilers: Psych - S01E01 - Pilot

It's hard to convey how much I love Psych. It's one of those series that, like The Office, P&R, Community, Arrested Development etc develops its own community, through a very vivid style of comedy.

Psych goes back and forth across the series between light-hearted fun and serious episodes. The series follows Shawn, son of a retired police officer, who was taught by his father to be hyper-perceptive, and his best friend Gus. Shawn finds himself having to fake "Psychic powers" to justify his perceptiveness and ends up working for the police.

What makes the series so good is the top-notch chemistry between Shawn and Gus. Psych is one of my top "comfort" series because of this. It got me through my hardest times and it's my second-favourite full-rewatch series (first being The IT Crowd).

It's also littered with references poking fun at The Mentalist, another great TV series with a much more serious tone and a similar plot line (Fake psychic helps police force).

Psych's main flaw I would say is that it suffers from Flanderization. Over time, both Shawn and Gus become exaggerations of themselves. But as much as I wish they'd be more subtle about it sometimes, it doesn't detract from the overall quality of the series.

All in all, Psych is, in my opinion, USA Network's best work and the embodiment of their slogan "Characters welcome", with strong similarities to Monk, Suits and White Collar.

The Psych Movie, which follows the end of the series, is excellent as well. I recommend watching the series before, however. I also generally recommend watching the series starting from the beginning. My first encounter with Psych was with a Season 2 episode and turned me off for a while. There's a second movie currently being filmed. Hopefully it's good!

I watched this conversation between Colin Farrell and Hugh Grant today, and learned of Farrell’s film The Lobster, which features him and Rachel Weisz. I really enjoyed it, it is an absurdist, distopian, and surreal love story which tickled all of my favorite sensibilities. I highly recommend it.

Has anyone else seen this? Did you enjoy it? Do you have any other modern films to recommend along the same lines?

IMDB

Edit: it’s also a comedy, at least for two of us.

Needing a down weekend, the spouse and I settled in to watch TV, and discovered that Starz' series, Counterpart - spoiler warning, is one of the better series we've seen in quite a while, let alone among science fiction stories. Though The Expanse wins for sheer SFX pyrotechnics and breadth of technical scope, it's wonderful to sit in for a deep, thoughtful drama like Counterpart. The series focuses on character, story, world-building, plausible plotting, and avoidance of the usual alternate universe cliches. Counterpart is a genuine Cold War Noir spy thriller which happens to occur in a science-fictional setting, and the writers have managed to avoid or refresh the tropes of both genres in ways that ask interesting philosophical questions. It's quiet, slow, and meticulous in a way that most current television writing seems to have abandoned. There's tense action, but no primary colored-supersuits, no scary aliens, no gaudy laser beams, just... a split of history that leaves two distorted mirrors, reflecting each other.

J.K. Simmons' performances in the roles of Howard (Prime) and Howard (Alpha) are mesmerizing in a way that outmatches Tatiana Mazlany's Orphan Black characters. There's a slow unveiling of the respective parallel worlds' history, with continuing evolution and interplay of characters and relationships, which brings to mind the best of series like The Wire or The Americans.

To the extent that Counterpart borrows from literary canon, the most significant underlying influences are John LeCarre's find-the-mole games in the Smiley series, China Mieville's The City and the City, and Philip K. Dick (particularly, The Adjustment Team).

The really guilty pleasure, and the lightweight pressure relief from the grimdark of Peaky Blinders or Counterpart, was a spit-and-giggles Canadian production called Letterkenny. I didn't have high hopes, but the 22-minute episodes are exactly what my brain needed to get over the daily doses of blah.

The opening credits of each episode refer to the fictional rural Ontario town of Letterkenny as follows:

There are 5,000 people in Letterkenny. These are their problems.

The plots are barely coat-hangers, with most of the comic tension spent on interactions among the Hicks (farm people), Skids (creative-but-disaffected Internet subculture wannabes), hockey players and Christians - a/k/a small-town tribes recognizable anywhere in North America. The portrayals are caricaturized enough to be both humorously offensive and humorously sympathetic simultaneously. [Could be some toxic racial/gender meta, but mostly, the treatment of women and minorities is in keeping with the setting.]

The banter, and the utter Spock-like deadpan of Wayne (the toughest guy in Letterkenny)'s Hick character are the stars of the show. Some people have complained that the rapid-fire use of heavy dialect in the dialogue is impenetrable; that actually helps with comic timing. When your brain catches up to what was actually said, it's like receiving a two-by-four between the eyes of funny. I've got a bit of home-team advantage in the midwestern North American dialects area, and usually get it on the first run, but it's good enough to re-watch happily if the spouse needs a do-over. Transcripts are available, but watch the show before looking.

We now have a new battery of in-jokes and gag lines to add to our secret spousal language - "Hard no.", "That's what I appreciates about ya", "...and he was never the same after that."

There's really nothing quite like Letterkenny, and it's exactly smart/dumb enough to make fantastic comedy. Two seven-episode seasons are currently available on Hulu.

I'm in the last 100 pages and would like to recommend this book. Although it plods a little bit early on, to me it's something of an achievement to keep things going and create interest in the last pages. The premise is that people live multiple lives, but there's more to it than that. The level of writing is above average and the breadth of the book, taking you through several countries and historical events is well done. I'll be up for discussing it in a week or so if anyone's interested.

The premise is like Survivor: don't get eliminated. The thirteen contestants vie for immunity and each week's loser gets axed. The games are mostly board game-style gambling -- from straightforward poker derivatives to deckbuilding.

The show is completely unscripted and the cast is a mixture of minor celebrities, professional game players, and -- in seasons three and four -- ordinary folks from the general public.

The show's marketing material describes the show as an investigation of what genius is. There's a case to be made for this -- the games are diverse, well-designed, and the gameplay onscreen is always interesting. You'll be constantly saying to yourself "I didn't think of that," even the second or third time you watch the show. There's often more than one way to win each game.

What the show does well is presenting mundane reality TV dilemmas psychologically. The show takes place in a kind of liminal space where it isn't clear who's going to become the monster and how. There's lighter stuff and camaderie -- on-camera shtick like hugging and bowing and begging, eating delicious food. Sometimes, there's a little bit of sexism.

It ends in something continually getting worse, and nobody's ever sure exactly what. It usually takes more than one episode for someone to pinpoint what it is. A lot of the tension comes from how the first time something strange happens, it's OK or you excuse it as a coincidence -- and the second or third time it happens, your fear of confirmation bias makes it so you're still not entirely sure if it's a pattern. The show spends a lot of time on this precipice.

The people on The Genius are abnormal. Some of them play the games weird and some are weird themselves -- some of them have learned to hide their biggest character flaws and some of them haven't. At the most extreme it's like sitting next to someone on the bus who snores loud, but not loud enough to make you give up your seat, and then he shoves his hand down your throat.

You can view the first season here, subtitled in English: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpwIgWPfNvc . Most of the fans consider Episode 2 a very strong episode, so you should watch at least until that, or skip to it if you're impatient.

If all the psychodrama stuff I mentioned sounds appealing to you, skip to season 2, the darkest season. Unfortunately, the later seasons aren't on YouTube, but you can find them in a lot of places: https://www.reddit.com/r/TheGenius/comments/5s7eh9/the_genius_s2_s3_and_society_game_file_links/

I've been rabidly evangelizing this show to all my real life friends for years. Please ask any questions that will lead to you watching it! (PS: To those who've seen it, please don't post spoilers in this thread!)

Today NASA launched the Parker Solar Probe which will dive closer to the sun than any other man made object in history.

In celebration of this event I watched Sunshine, a really well cast sci fi thriller. It was pretty darn good. I would highly recommend a watch if you are into this sort of thing, I had entirely missed it somehow. Casting is great, visuals are great, story is good, pacing is excellent. Don't be put off by the age of the movie, I don't think vfx would be any better today.

50 years into the future, the Sun begins to die, and Earth is dying as a result. A team of astronauts is sent to revive the Sun - but the mission fails. Seven years later, a new team is sent to finish the mission as mankind's last hope.

It may not be on US Netflix but it is on Amazon.

Trailer

I don't watch a ton of TV, but one show I've binged lately has been Pose.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7562112/

The show is set in the ballroom scene of 80s NYC, and deals with a lot of hard topics like the HIV epidemic, gay and trans POC and their acceptance in the "straight" world, and what makes a family. It can be tough to watch in parts, and the first season's storyline was a bit too cliched in places. But overall it's a well acted, well scripted show that highlights a very unique part of history.

Has anyone else been watching? What did you think?

I know I am VERY late to the game on this one, but so far this game has eaten up 20+ hours in 3 days. For anyone who doesn't know, it's an open world action adventure (?) game set in the 31st century. Robotic animals roam the world, and you play an 18 year old girl that hunts them, utilizing bows, spears, slings, ans traps. It has a very primitive feel to it, so you can only assume this is either an alternate universe or a post apocalyptic earth.

While I've already had most of the plot spoiled for me, I'm enjoying all the little bits of lore I'm finding. I csnt wait to see how the plot plays out (as I said, it was spoiled, but only broad strokes, like knowing Vader is Luke's dad.) It's HARD sci-fi in a VIDEO GAME, not something shallow that's been done to death or that's too predictable.

I am severely overleveled, but combat is still fresh and challenging (playing on hard for my first play through.). There are so many different ways to approach situations, I can always change things around and try a different Tactic. I've had so much fun just going around farming and questing that I've ignored the main story for the most part.

The way the game handles its lore is phenomenal. I can't go into details without spoilers (just go read the wiki if you want to I suppose) but I'll save everything happens for a reason,and beautifully so.

Its not without its cons, however. As great as the combat is, a lot of the more difficult parts (so far) can be avoided by going out of bounds where enemies can't reach you (say a cliff or up a rock face, which if you can't climb, some careful jumping will take care of for you.)

It feels like some other games. I'm a big fan of open world, so its in the same family of MGSV, Farcry, and Shadow of Mordor, down to the map markers, collectibles, and inventory wheel. But hey, if it ain't broke don't fix it.

Quick intro: My personal problem with Reddit's movie sub is with its narrow perspective on films. I know it might sound elitist, but I just found most of the discussions to be circlejerks or full of references/memes done to death. The anti-theater Netflix-can-do-no-wrong attitude is confusing at best (considering the overwhelming love for Nolan/PTA/Taratino who are championing the analog film experience). /r/truefilm is full of insightful writing but it's not exactly a welcoming place for newbie cinephiles who got into films via MCU, Star Wars, or other blockbuster franchises. Don't get me wrong, I visit both subs everyday, but I kind of wish there's a balance: A place where you can have both casual discussions about high-brow cinema AND in-depth essays about comedy with dick jokes.

Hence why I am writing this while ~movies is still fresh (hopefully I am adding something of value and not come off too rambly). Now of course I could just start a post asking for foreign film recommendations, but I just don't find those post to go anywhere, they usually just end up with people listing out films without any thought or explanation. Cinema is about your personal experience in relations to what you see on screen, and I think we are doing ourselves a disservice if we watch something and just shrug it off as "it's great you should watch it" or "it sucks". So putting money where my mouth is, here are some recommendations for non-english films. Sorry for the long set-up, but I hope this encourages a dialogue, even if you disagree with the above or my recommendations.

ANYWAY. I settled on 6 because I didn't want it to a Top-5 list and 4 seems too short. 6 just feels right. Cannes just ended and I feel like it's a good time to start talking about the directors of this year's festival as their newest films will be available in the near future. So in no particular order, here are six quality films from the directors of this year's Cannes:

1. "Mountains May Depart" (2015) - Jia Zhangke
   An ambitious piece of work that spans 25 years with an intro that goes for about an hour before the title card. Even if you don't like the film, the confidence of Jia Zhangke is in full display here.
2. "Secret Sunshine" (2007) - Lee Chang-dong
   If Lars Von Trier films aren't realistic enough for you, here's a good one to kickstart your misery. After I finished watching it for the first time, I had to go for a walk and ended up wandering the city for 3 hours. It affected me in such a meaningful way. Surprising funny, if you can see the irony in it.
3. "Ida" (2013) - Pawel Pawlikowski
   The cinematography! The framing in this movie is incredible, as if Ida is having a silent ever-going conversation with God. Not to mention the beautiful black and white!
4. "A Separation" (2011) - Asghar Farhadi
   It was my first Farhadi film, and I quickly went on a hunt for all other Farhadi films right after. The writing grips you and really puts you in the place of all the characters. I could recommendation any other of his films, but to me, A Separation is perfect writing and a must-watch for any screenwriters.
5. "Nobody Knows" (2004) - Hirokazu Kore-eda
   Heartbreaking. You know how the characters will end up (spoiler: not a good place) but you can't look away. I'm glad Kore-eda won Palme d'Or. Can't wait for his new one!
6. "Vivre sa vie" (1962) - Jean-Luc Godard
   The only film pre-2000 on my list, but it's a film that feels quite modern. I've always felt that "Vivre sa vie" should be everyone's first Godard film instead of, say, "Breathless". It's the most coherent and it's a easy watch. It's a good starter movie before you take a deep dive into Godard's filmography (his work ranges from groundbreaking to borderline unwatchable IMO).