"Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt" Review

“Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt” might be the worst television show I have ever seen. Propped up solely by childish and unfunny jokes I am surprised I was able to make it through four episodes. The show is about a woman who has survived a prolonged abduction and now has decided to start her life of freedom in New York City. This woman is Kimmy Schmidt, who from four episodes worth of knowledge I have learned was abducted when she was in middle school by Reverend Richard Wayne Gary Wayne, senior prophet of Savior Rick’s Spooky Church of the Scary Apocalypse. She and three other women were held in an underground bunker for more than a decade having been told that God had scorched the earth to fire and ash. There is a serious, dramatic film to be made about the survivor(s) of a prolonged and traumatic abduction, “Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt” is a comedy which is not funny, and dramatic in all the wrong ways.

The obnoxious quality of the show is no surprise as two of the main characters are played some of the most sickening actresses from otherwise great TV shows. Kimmy is played by Ellie Kemper whom we all remember as the clueless and naïve Erin Hannon from the office. Jane Krakowski, widely known for her role as the high maintenance actress from 30 Rock, Jenna Maroney, plays a rich city housewife for whom Kimmy is employed. Jacqueline Voorhees (Krakowski) is a similarly moody and insecure character as her Jenna Maroney from 30 Rock, but in “Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt” her qualities are pushed to new extremes.

Most of the cracks in the show are references to how "new" everything in the city is to Kimmy. These might come off as amusing at best if we haven't seen the same exact types of jokes exercised in movies such as “Elf” and “Big”. Innocent-soul in the big city is so commonplace that “Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt” feels like it is retracing ground any half-experienced viewer has already trodden. In episode one, Kimmy goes out into the city and buys light up sketchers, rides the metro in total excitement, is fascinated by an automatic sink, and walks into a candy store and exclaims “I’m having candy for dinner!” Hannon delivers all of her lines with a contrived excitement, which makes them all the tackier.

Another problem with the show is that it doesn’t know what audience it wants.  Most of the jokes would be laughed at by 1st to 4th graders, however, sprinkled in are 90s references and some raunchy sex jokes that feel very out of place. The slew of 90s references are used by Kimmy because the last time she was in the real world she was a middle-school student in the 90s. Most of the references I didn’t understand, and had to look up. I don’t know how many grown adults who could grasp the 90s jokes would be watching a show that feels tailored to lower school students 90% of the time. In episode two, Kimmy secures a job as a nanny with Mrs. Jacqueline Voorhees, and is tasked with putting on a birthday party for Buckley Voorhees, a spoiled little boy in elementary school. The party is especially important to Jacqueline, as her husband Julian will be returning from a long business trip to attend the party. During the day Kimmy is faced with all sorts of silly problems and tries to confront Jacqueline who responds that she can’t talk because, “In preperation for Julian’s return I went to the gyne-dermataologist. I need to lie down with my feet and heart above my vagina.” That is just one glaring example of the weird sex references that only an older viewership could appreciate, but is delivered in a 1st-4th-grade manner. In another scene Kimmy has an epiphany and exclaims “Urethra!” instead of “Eureka!”

I am telling you the dumb jokes are just endless, and it is almost physically painful to watch. I can deal with a silly TV show; I have enjoyed countless episodes of “How I Met Your Mother”, “Friends” and even “Spongebob Squarepants”. However, “Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt" is on a whole other level of stupidity, and it would require an almost lethal dose of painkillers to get me through another episode.

"Nightcrawler" Review

OP-ROB RATING: STARTER

            “Nightcrawler” is the story of Lou Bloom (Jake Gyllenhaal), an unemployed man who drives around Los Angeles stealing manhole covers, fencing, and anything else he can get his hands on. While driving home one night he pulls over beside a car crash and witnesses a group of stringers film the aftermath of the accident. The whole scene intrigues him and he soon pawns a stolen bike for a video camera and a radio scanner. Soon enough Bloom follows his radio to the scene of a carjacking where he nudges past the police right up to the EMTs and gets several seconds footage of a man with blood oozing from the bullet holes in his neck. A local network newscast pays Bloom for the footage, and he is able to set up a working relationship with the morning news director at that station, Nina Romina (Rene Russo).  Bloom hires an “intern” and quickly builds a reputation as a wily freelance film producer because of his willingness to butt right into the scene of a crime.

            “Nightcrawler” really has no rhyme or reason behind it. What is does have is Jake Gyllenhaal in perhaps the most eccentric role of his life. Take a healthy looking Jake Gyllenhaal (say when he was in “Source Code”), lock him in a prison cell for six months and feed him solely gruel and get him addicted to cocaine. Unlock him, make him shave and slick his now very long hair back. Then you have Jake Gyllenhaal as Lou Bloom. “Nightcrawler” without Gyllenhaal wouldn’t survive because the audience is never forced to invest anything in the film. There are no admirable characters and no complex ideas being explored. The appeal of “Nightcrawler” is in watching Jake Gyllenhaal go completely crazy with a weirder than weird character.

            Lou Bloom is a sociopath. He cares not for the privacy of others, and will get his footage by any means possible. As mentioned before, Bloom elbows past the authorities to get close to the carjacking, which is pretty tame. However as Bloom becomes more enthralled in his work he goes so far as to alter the scene of a crime if given a chance. In one instance, he pulls a mangled body from one side of a car to the other for cinematic purposes. In another instance he arrives to a crime scene before the police, and enters a home where several people have been shot and killed. Bloom slinks through the house with his camera as if filming a horror movie, slowly panning over the freshly splattered bodies. In perhaps the strangest sequence in the movie, Bloom blackmails the female network director to have sex with him in return for the best video footage, which he could easily take to another network. We never actually see the two in the act, but the implications are far creepier than any visual could possibly be.

            The most interesting phenomenon the film explores is the practice of withholding evidence for personal gain. In the key sequence of “Nightcrawler”, when Bloom arrives at the house where a shooting has occurred, he is able to catch the perpetrators on camera, as they pull out of the house in their black suburban. Bloom sells the in-house footage, but keeps the criminals out on the street so that he can report them on his own time, and be there to film the arrest.

            While “Nightcrawler” had a flat ending and not much plot, it certainly was a thrill to watch. Next time I watch network news and see a close up of a dead body or a gruesome crime scene, I will certainly think of Lou Bloom behind the camera.

"The Jinx" Review

OP-ROB RATING: ALL-STAR

I thoroughly enjoyed every minute of HBO’s mini series/documentary, “The Jinx”. The show tells the story of Robert Durst, heir to the Durst family Manhattan real estate fortune, and suspect in three different murder cases. In six episodes we are taken through the details of each murder/disappearance and some surrounding personal facts about Robert Durst himself. The key components of the series are the one-on-one interviews with Mr. Durst. In each episode Mr. Durst is able to give his own perspective on the facts of these cases, but of course it is the audience who is left to decide whether he is telling the truth, the whole truth or no truth at all. As Durst himself relays in episode four, “I did not tell the whole truth. Nobody tells the whole truth.”

            The facts of the case are interesting enough to stand alone as a captivating documentary series. The case regarding the death and dismemberment of a Mr. Morris Black is stranger than fiction could tell. As the show details thoroughly in episode one, “The Body in the Bay”, Mr. Black’s body parts were found in a bay in Galveston, Texas. One of the detectives describes lifting the torso out of the water by reaching down its throat and gripping the collarbone. In a separate case regarding Mr. Durst’s first wife, Kathleen Durst, the show guides us through what seems like a truly ambiguous disappearance and then uses specific interviews and pieces of evidence to pick apart our stance against foul play. The culminating episode involves a second interview with Bob Durst regarding a new piece of evidence linked to the murder of Susan Berman, a close friend and advocate of Durst. Durst is filmed looking at two pieces of paper, both with eerily similar handwriting. One is a letter from Mr. Durst to Susan Berman at her Beverly Hills home. The other is a note left by the murderer of Susan Berman simply stating “CADAVER” at her home address. In both letters the handwriting is arguably identical. What further cements the resemblance is the misspelling of Beverly as “Beverley” in both letters. It is at this point that Durst promptly accepts the similarities but denies writing the letter. The interview ends and Durst decides to use the restroom before going on his way. Not realizing that his microphone is hot, Durst is caught mumbling to himself, “What did I do? Killed them all, of course” and the show ends with a bang.

            Last week all of the major news sources were reporting on the show so I knew about the surprise ending before even deciding to watch episode one, and so for me it wasn’t all that surprising. However I don’t think that my prior knowledge damaged my enjoyment of the series in the least. The biggest and most disturbing surprise of “The Jinx” was Robert Durst’s likeability. Even after watching the show and knowing that there is a 99.99% chance that he murdered three people, I can honestly say that I kind of like the guy. In episode four during his trial in Galveston for the murder of Morris Black, whom he also dismembered, Durst is able to make the jury laugh hysterically. Just think about that…

            I went into “The Jinx” knowing some basic facts about the series and the life of Robert Durst, after watching the short series I feel that I know everything possible regarding the murders of which he is suspected, and more importantly something important about human nature. Which is that no matter how terrible the deed, there is always a human being behind it, and that human being might just be a quirky, witty, old eccentric millionaire who seems like a quiet guy trying to mind his own business. It just so happens that his business might be murder.