Showing posts with label Billions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Billions. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 14, 2019

Billions (Season Three, Incomplete, Dropped)


This is more or less a housekeeping post. I dropped Billions for good. This might have been foreseeable in that it's taken me about two years to get through half of Season Three. There wasn't a particular moment that did it for me (though I've heard from others that the direction the plot's taking is disappointing).

Billions had an okay-ish first season and a slightly improved second, but there's no point in continuing on anymore. Most of the characters on this show are completely not interesting (Oliver Dake is the biggest crime here, that guy might be one of the worst-written characters I've ever seen for someone who serves as substantial a plot role as he does in Seasons Two and Three, very reminiscent of Raymond Tusk from House of Cards), and almost all of them are horrible people. Every episode is basically a contest to see which character can screw over another character the hardest (often in confusing and difficult-to-follow ways), which is problematic when it's hard to really care who wins.

On top of all that, there's plenty of investment and legal lingo included that's deliberately written to be confusing to the common viewer, because Billions needs to create the impression that all of these characters have practically superhuman ability in their respective fields, and what better way to do that than to make it appear that all of them understand something that you don't?

Billions had some strong moments and some legitimately exciting plot threads to this point in the series, but by the middle of Season Three, it started to feel like the financial/legal equivalent of House of Cards (for those who don't know my views on that show: that's an insult). The important lesson to learn from these two shows is that "sick" plot twists don't give a series a long shelf life. If you're going to put a (mostly) humorless drama out there, you'd better get yourself some compelling characters, because otherwise, even great actors like Paul Giamatti and Damian Lewis won't be able to save it.

Season Three Grade, Don't Give a Damn That I Didn't Finish It: C-

Wednesday, January 2, 2019

Television Review - 2018


Because I made an effort to review every show that I watched in 2018, I'm going to be able to structure this year's TV review post a little differently and cram it all into one. In the past, I've broken out reviews of my five favorite viewing experiences of the year into separate installments, but since I don't have all that much new to say, I'll simply rank them and link those reviews here.

Here are all the shows that I've watched during 2018. I completed the most recently concluded season of the show (and only the most recent season of the show) unless otherwise indicated. The crop is a little thinner this year because Cheers and The Americans both took a very long time.
Here are the shows I watched last year that have dropped off the list due to no new episodes:
Here are the shows that fell out of the rotation since last year, or that I am 100% sure I will not be continuing, with an explanation:

1. Silicon Valley - We watched an episode or two of this, but rumors of its decline in quality along with the departure of T.J. Miller's Erlich Bachman character from the show stunted our enthusiasm, and we've just sort of stopped watching it.

2. Billions - I can't actually say we stopped watching it -- in fact, we watched the third episode of Season Three after a long hiatus last night. We might complete Season Three next year if that momentum sticks, but I think it's just decent, and the repeated power plays and backstabbing make it feel a little too much like House of Cards and Suits at times. The characters on Billions lie somewhere on the spectrum between the boring, 1-dimensional ones found on House of Cards and the highly entertaining but caricature-like ones on Suits, so it's walking a tight rope.

3. Ozark - I can't stress or repeat myself enough on this point, and it's actually cathartic to say it out loud every so often. The Season One finale episode of Ozark was so unbelievably terrible that I'm dropping the show out of principle, even if it definitely had its moments along the way. There's only a handful of TV episodes I've ever seen that I'd slap an "F" grade on, and adjusting for expectations (Ozark was otherwise decent-to-good), it might be the most disappointing (not to mention repulsive) single installment of a show I've ever seen. It's close between that and the How I Met Your Mother finale.

Finally, here were my Top Five Viewing Experiences of the Year:

5. Barry (Season One) - I'm giving this the slight edge over Season Four of Better Call Saul in a year in which I just happened to watch a lot of great TV. In the end, it's probably because Barry was a completely new experience and toed the line between comedy and drama perfectly.

4. Atypical (Seasons 1-2)- The second season wasn't quite as strong as the first, but overall, but Atypical is rife with strong characters and presents an interesting look at a family whose son (and series main character) is on the autism spectrum.

3. BoJack Horseman (Season Five) - BoJack Horseman might be the best actively-running series on TV and delivered another consistently stellar slate of episodes in 2018. It was something of a bounce-back from Season Four, in which there were a few amazing episodes scattered among weaker (for BoJack) installments.

2. Cheers (Seasons 5-11) - This is the best live-action sitcom I've ever seen and it delivered consistent laughs all the way up until the finale, which is one of the greatest episodes of television of all time.

1. The Americans (Full series, Seasons 1-6) - What a ride. FX's period drama is firmly in the "best of all-time" discussion. When I finished watching the show, my reaction was, "Well, I know The Wire is better, but what else?" As far as other completed dramas are concerned, I know there's Breaking Bad, The Sopranos, Deadwood, and Mad Men (which I don't love but is critically acclaimed) to reckon with. I'd certainly put The Americans somewhere in that group.

Thursday, August 3, 2017

Billions (Season Two)

The single biggest issue with Season One of Billions was that all of the characters except Bobby Axelrod were either underdeveloped, thoroughly hateable, or both. That problem dropped the stakes of what was an oft-exciting plot. For Season Two to be a success, that problem absolutely had to be fixed. Did they succeed?

Um, kinda.

[SPOILERS BELOW]

Chuck Rhoades was probably the character that needed the most work due to his prominence and he actually got fleshed out quite a bit more. His couples therapy sessions with Wendy brought out some deep insecurities within him (I particularly enjoyed the scene where he explained why he always wears his suit to social occasions) and it did quite a bit to humanize him. The rare scenes involving Chuck and Wendy's children gave Chuck the chance to stick up for his wife when she wasn't around. In all, he came across as slightly more likable in spite of some horrible stuff he does. We'll get to that.

The results were mixed for the rest of the ensemble. Connerty, for one, got a little more attention as his relationship to Rhoades was tested and we got to follow his personal life for a little bit. I don't know that I'll go so far as to call him compelling, but at the very least he's a little more noticeable than he was in Season One. They did a little better job with the general employees at Axe Capital, particularly Dollar Bill and Mafee, but it's still a largely blah group of people.

I think where Billions lets us down are the female characters, who are essentially still either a go-between and point of conflict for the male leads (Wendy), crazy (Lara, more on that later), or nondescript (Sacker). I think the writers failed most with Wendy. Like Sacker, it seems like they were too hesitant to write Wendy with significant flaws or side distractions (in contrast to someone like Axe, who's more interesting because he's far from perfect and has plenty of interests outside of his job and a pseudo-love-triangle) and she therefore becomes difficult to relate to. This is another Suits comparison, but I liken her to a less entertaining version of Donna Paulsen. Wendy's portrayed as an indispensable asset to Axe Capital, which rings hallow given the additional legal attention she brings to Axe and just how implausible it seems that no one else could do that job (Wags' goon notwithstanding).

Despite those failures, Billions came through big time with the introduction of Taylor, a gender non-binary intern whose acumen is quickly picked up on by Axe. The show handles Taylor's backstory well and executes what felt like a mostly realistic portrayal of the spectrum of reactions to their presence. You have the people who are immediately accepting (Axe, Mafee) and others who are well-intentioned but sometimes slip while trying their best to get used to the unfamiliar (Connerty). Then, you have the bigots (Dollar Bill, Krakow) who are prone to saying hurtful things. People like Dollar Bill are plentiful in this world, no doubt about it, but Billions disappointed me with one hilariously bad telling-not-showing line he dropped to Axe when the latter passed him over for Taylor to participate in a poker tournament: "Everything I measure myself by has been called into question." It was a pretty unnatural thing to say out loud and would have been easy to express via a couple subtle facial expressions or gestures over the remaining of the episode. You know, "acting".

Back to Taylor. Probably my favorite subplot of the entire season was Taylor being asked to choose someone to fire in the season's penultimate episode. The rapid increase in authoritative responsibility would have been difficult for anyone to handle and it even rattles the typically composed Taylor a little bit. Further still, it had to be difficult for the remainder of the employees to watch someone -- even a person as deserving and qualified as Taylor -- rise from an intern to their direct superior in a very small amount of time. The interview scenes actually got me to feel for some otherwise uninteresting characters (Ben Kim tearing up at Taylor's questioning without a word was a particularly powerful moment). Taylor's handling of the emotional experiences and developing ability to look beyond the numbers made for a great moment for the character.

I want to jump back to that poker tournament I mentioned above, which was a personal highlight of mine for the season. I used to play poker a great deal during the post-Moneymaker boom. One thing that's always bothered me is its portrayal in TV shows and movies. Poker subplots typically pander to the crowd that is only casually familiar with the game. As a result, there's problems such as nonsensical dialogue, dumb bet amounts (e.g. "raise to $200" / "re-raise, all-in for $10,000"), and uncommon monster hand vs. monster hand situations that are portrayed as either misplays or products of skill, when anyone who's played a million poker hands could tell you that they're actually just inevitable situations that aren't all that interesting (The final hand in Casino Royale being a prime example).

By contrast, in Billions, they spoke the language of serious players and the writing seemed to grasp the history of online play, modern terminology, and proper game flow. In particular, the final hand between Taylor and Krakow was a showdown between ten-nine and four-five in which neither player hit anything on the board, but both players still found themselves all-in. The hand was pretty well-constructed* and entertaining to watch and think about. Phil Hellmuth made a guest appearance in the episode, and I imagine his hands were probably all over the design of that scene.

*For those who have seen it, I feel like trips make up a decent portion of Krakow's range there, unless we're to take his agonizing over what to do on the river as genuine. Given Taylor's ability to read people throughout the season, maybe that's how we rule out Krakow coming from a position of strength.

From a plot standpoint, Billions reaches beyond the Axelrod/Rhoades conflict for awhile and doesn't really circle back to it until close to the end of the season. That gives them time to focus on the relationship between Chuck and Wendy, Taylor's ascent, the ambitions of Chuck's underlings, and finally, the relationship between Bobby and Lara. Wendy returns to Axe Capital with the condition that she and Bobby won't have any sessions together. Bobby lets Lara believe that it's his condition, not Wendy's. When Lara finds out that Wendy set the boundary -- even though Bobby has respected it -- she up and runs out on him for a long period of time and takes the kids without so much as discussing the problem first. Did that strike anyone else as batshit insane? I get that Wendy is a major sticking point for Lara, but damn, that reaction was too extreme for even a TV relationship.

That conflict leads right up to the climax of the season, which involved one of the most thrilling plot lines that I've ever seen. Bobby's rigged tanking of the Ice Juice stock was a power play against the Rhoades family that, in one of the best twists I've ever seen on TV, turned out to be completely orchestrated by Chuck. I was absolutely stunned watching the season's penultimate episode. Where I became disappointed was the finale, which really made the viewer understand what Chuck had done. He ruined his father, best friend, and his eight-figure trust fund just to trap Bobby and see him in a jail cell. When I thought about it in that light, it just seemed so far-fetched. Why does Chuck hate Bobby so much that he's willing to go to THAT length to see him brought down? Aside from possible jealousy over how close his wife has been with him throughout the years (which doesn't even seem like a major problem anymore), what has Bobby done to Chuck to make him this angry? Giamatti's "Worth it" line at the conclusion of their face-to-face conflict rings false just because to a rational person, it's very obviously not. In the absence of a well-developed explanation from the show's events, there's no other conclusion to draw here besides "Chuck's a psychopath", which isn't all that interesting.

I imagine we'll be watching Season Three when it comes out, because Season Two had a boost in quality and the writers are flat out good at putting out engrossing plot lines. The issue, however, with a show that's over-dependent on big reveals and dramatic story events is that they tend to jump the shark at some point as they reach to keep things interesting. Billions is always going to be at risk of becoming cartoonish without an ensemble of deep, believable characters. I'll continue to have fun watching it, but I'll never confuse it with a great television show.

Season Grade: B

Thursday, July 6, 2017

Billions (Season One)

Billions is a show that has been raved about by many friends of mine as well as by quite a few people on Twitter, so it was only a matter of time before I found myself with little else to watch and dove into it. I finished up Season One last week and felt compelled to write something on this site for the first time in months. That's not necessarily because my review of the show is glowing; it's a show with a lot of strengths and a lot of problems.

First, let's start off with the good. The show's three leads are portrayed by Paul Giamatti, Damian Lewis, and Maggie Siff, and all three are fantastic. Giamatti in particular does great work with his voice, as his mannerisms and inflections are infectious. For lack of a better comparison, he's a poor man's Dark-Knight-Joker in that regard. Giamatti plays Chuck Rhoades, a U.S. District Attorney with an incredible 81-0 track record for putting away white collar criminals. He has his heart set on putting hedge fund kingpin Bobby Axelrod (Lewis) behind bars for insider trading, despite Axelrod's status as a beloved public figure for his philanthropy. Once Axelrod ("Axe") makes a PR slip-up, Chuck sees his chance to start an investigation against Axe that the public won't hate. That's complicated, because his wife Wendy (Siff) is also a psychologist and a prominent advisor of sorts to Axe at the latter's firm, Axe Capital.

The plot of the first season largely revolves around a chess match between Chuck and Axe as each tries to stay one step ahead of the other throughout the investigation. As one might expect, Wendy gets caught in the middle of that and is often cited as a potential conflict of interest for Chuck. Despite her insistence that she's not merely a go-between for the two male leads, that's frequently the situation in which she finds herself, particularly due to her close personal relationship with Axe. From a plot standpoint, the show is pretty engaging. I'd compare the plot devices as similar to (but better than) those used in House of Cards. While those in the know will be skeptical that any comparison I make to House of Cards resembles a compliment, that was actually one thing that House of Cards did quite well.

What makes the show less engaging than it could be is its narrow focus and generally weak characters. One watches Season One with the sense that Chuck can't ever really succeed in locking up Bobby, because without the central pissing match between two men with crazy egos, there's not much else going on. Other people are introduced throughout the season and don't resemble fleshed out characters as much as accessories to the ongoing spat between Axe and Rhoades. Chuck can't put Bobby in jail, because that would simply end the show. Therefore, when Bobby is on the ropes, it's not a question of if he'll wiggle out of trouble, but how. Similarly, Bobby can't get cleared of wrongdoing. This drastically lowers the stakes of the conflict.

Another issue is that Rhoades is a thoroughly detestable man. Sure, he's on the right side of the law, but he's such a fanatic for it that he's merciless (in a bad way) and tries to attain his own ends via truly horrible means. He's actually eerily similar to another Chuck -- Chuck McGill from Better Call Saul. However, where Saul puts a great deal of effort into developing Chuck McGill's backstory and gives us a lot of subtle character moments that make his story compelling, we really have no idea why Rhoades is such a prick. In one episode, he gets pissed at a guy on the street who doesn't pick up his dog's shit, so he bullies the guy into picking it up with his bare hands. It was a little funny, but the show does nothing to help us understand what motivates Rhoades to perform such random acts of assholery. It's remarkable that despite how well Giamatti plays Rhoades, the character still winds up one-dimensional and boring -- a pretty big failure on the part of the writers. His wife Wendy is similarly problematic -- we don't get to understand much of her besides her relationship to Axe and that she's an awesome psychologist. We probably learned more about the Chuck/Wendy marriage from one pretty great scene between Chuck and a dominatrix in a whore house than a full season's worth of their actual interaction.

Axe gets fleshed out far better, as we see what he's like outside of his professional capacity. At his job, I liken Axe to Suits' Harvey Specter in that he wins with gimmick-like frequency and his success earns him absurd lifestyle perks. However, in addition to Axe the investment world demigod, we also see Axe the father, Axe the husband, and Axe the friend. Despite being a criminal, Axe can be a good person sometimes and Rhoades being human garbage often makes Axe the more sympathetic figure in the central conflict. Without spoiling too much, though, he does pretty terrible things to some people around him besides trade on insider information. The writers deserve credit for giving Axe the depth the character deserves; it's just that some of his actions make him tough to root for. We watch these men claw at each other tooth and nail for twelve episodes while sort of wanting both to fail.

 As mentioned above, the auxiliary characters are on the whole pretty bad. Wags, Bobby's COO, is an uninteresting ass-kissing drone who's mostly on screen to be mean to the employees, though he's genuinely funny when he cracks wise. Lara, Bobby's wife, is a little more interesting, particularly later in the season when she encounters adversity (the ruthless, intimidating, wolf-in-sheep's-clothing act wears thin pretty quick). Most of Bobby's employees might as well be the same person and the one who actually has some depth, Donnie, is ultimately just a tool used by Bobby and the show's writers (...to further develop Bobby). Rhoades' underlings are no better; I thought it was super cute that the show was trying to get us to care about a budding relationship between Connerty and Kate, two people who couldn't be more nondescript through this first season.

All that being said, Billions has proven to be clever enough at times that I'm going to stick with it for now. The action in the season's final episodes was very engrossing and they've laid enough groundwork with the characters to hopefully make the supporting cast more interesting going forward. I'm skeptical they're going to start treating all of these people like they're people and not plot tools. But for the time being, I'll just enjoy Giamatti's intensely-voiced analogy-laden monologues and Axe's frequent moments of badassery.

Season Grade: B-