My review of Netflix's Stranger Things 2

After a strong and surprising debut of Netflix's Stranger Things series, I was both excited and a little bit skeptical of how season 2 would fare. Season 1 kept some plot lines up in the air in its conclusion, but also resolved enough to the point where I was concerned that they would have to manufacture artificial storylines. Turns out those fears were misplaced, as Stranger Things 2 picks up on the greatness season 1 left us with.

I will refrain from diving into deep plot specifics to avoid spoilers, so I will speak generally about the story, and just say that season 2 gives us the same enjoyable cast of characters, as well as some likable new additions. Max(nicknamed Mad Max), a tough and rugged kid girl who brings a little badassery and fearlessness to the group, and Billy(Max's brother) who represents the prototypical 80's cliched badass high school bully jock. Sean Astin was also added to the mix, playing a dorky tech nerd named Bob who dates Winona Ryder's character Joyce. Each new character proves to be a quality newcomer to the show and they don't feel forced, out of place, and fit into the story organically.

The plot this time around is more epic in scale with the threat feeling greater, and from the jump the writers give you a constant sense of foreboding that gradually ramps up with each episode. Like season 1, the story unravels slowly, like opening a package one corner at a time instead of tearing it open. They don't thrust too much onto the viewer at once and give you time to enjoy and digest the characters and plot developments.

However, one of my main gripes with this season is in regard to the plot. Once I found out what that main threat that they tease you with actually was, I was slightly disappointed. I don't think the pay-off was rewarding enough with all the build-up they gave us, and I found this season's enemy actually less intimidating and scary as season 1's Demogorgon. This isn't a huge deal, as I still think the writers did a good job at having everything come together in interesting and fun ways, and it was still every bit as thrilling as season 1 overall, but the Demogorgon of the previous season definitely provided more intrigue and thrills for me.

My other gripe with the show is I felt they mishandled Eleven's character arc. To avoid heavy spoilers, let me just say I think they left a lot of meat on the bone with her character and she was isolated away from the show's group of kids for much of the season. I get why they decided to go the route that they did, but I think it could have been handled better, and at times I think it took away from the enjoyment I had the spending time with these kids in their adventure. She was instrumental in season 1 as the cog that brought the kids together with a purpose, and watching her unleash her powers on-screen was always entertaining. This season, she was basically relegated to slamming doors and opening locks with her mind for 90% of it, and I found that a bit of a letdown.

One final thing. For season 3, I hope they find another of the characters to pick on other than poor Will. The little guy has gone through more than enough, and using him in that same role for a 3rd straight season would start to feel redundant.

Overall, Stranger Things 2 was a big thumbs up from me. I rank it on par with the first season in almost every way. The characters stayed true to form, they were properly developed, and the story was entertaining from beginning to end. If you enjoyed season 1, definitely check out the new season ASAP.

My review of David Fincher's new series Mindhunter on Netflix

"Do the ends justify the means?" is a question every human asks themselves at some point in life. Such a question can be used in a variety of scenarios in everyday life. Perhaps none more so than in law enforcement.

David Fincher's Mindhunter explored a variety of multi-layered subjects, but the one theme front and center for all 10 episodes was exploring whether taboo or sometimes forbidden practices used to catch or predict the actions of criminals would make it all worth it in the end. Main character Holden Ford said "You want truffles? You've gotta get in the dirt with the pigs."

The series is about two FBI agents, the young Holden Ford and older Bill Tench, joined by a psychologist from Boston named Dr. Wendy Carr. They work in the FBI's behavioral science unit in the 1970's, when that degree of criminal profiling was in its infancy. They believed that if you can better understand killers and learn their tendencies by interviewing and studying them, you can create profiles that help predict criminal behavior and identify mystery killers based on these psychological patterns and similarities.

It starts off very slow, and this series certainly is not for everyone. If you tune in expecting a Se7en-esque "whodunnit" then you're likely to be disappointed. However, if you can appreciate the inner-workings of criminal psychology and psychological profiling used to catch killers, then this may just be the show for you.

If you're familiar with Fincher's other productions, you know he's not afraid to get dark, gritty, and show things as they are. In this case, it's totally necessary and he does it well. You can't sweeten or polish the vile mind of a serial killer or the crimes they committed without watering down the product. 

It's based on real-life events and killers, so if you are interested be prepared to be acquainted with the likes of Edmund Kemper, Dennis Rader, and Richard Speck. All of whom are incredibly well-acted and have the uncanny resemblances and demeanors of their real-life demented counterparts. Whoever did casting and the makeup and wardrobe work for this production deserves an Emmy.

Mindhunters is realistic, grim, unafraid, and tackles the tough moralities of their worlds expertly. Most of the procedural elements are authentic, and the terminology and vernacular is nailed down to a T. All 3 leads are relatively new to this, and are learning on the job and each has a strong belief in how the job should be executed to expand and grow this innovative methodology. It doesn't try to push an agenda, make a statement, or guide the viewer in any one direction. They leave it up to you to decide if the work they're doing is worth it, and debate with yourself on if you lean more toward agent Ford's stoic, relentless, unapologetic, obsessed, and maybe sociopathic(?) method of doing the job, or Tinch and Carr's more conservative, measured, and sensitive approach. The interactions between the characters are great(especially Ford and Tinch) and they develop all 3 of them very well, without giving you too much to have their acts wear thin on you.

I very much enjoyed debating all these questions throughout all 10 episodes, and when it's over it leaves you with plenty to think about. I love a series that doesn't end once the final credits roll and is nuanced and ambiguous with its message and storytelling. 

There are at least 5 seasons planned apparently, but unfortunately word is season 2 won't hit until 2019, so you have plenty of time to dive in and slowly savor the greatness that is Mindhunter. It's refreshing, unique, bleak, and glorious. If this is up your alley definitely check it out.

Why I'm pretty sure Markelle Fultz does indeed have a shoulder injury

The Sixers are 0-3, and when fans are not panicking about the poor play to start the season, or calling for Brett Brown to be fired, their ire has been directed at something else: Markelle Fultz's jump shot. There were no signs of anything heading into training camp, but once practices started, people started to notice a funky free throw form, and even his regular jumpers were off as well. At first, he was kind of mum about it, and eluded to the fact that he was practicing with a shooting coach in the summer. After a while, when his form continued to regress and regress, Fultz eventually admitted that his shoulder was bothering him, and this was confirmed by Brett Brown. Fast forward to 3 games into the season, and the jumper still looks wonky as hell, and continues to change a little bit from game to game... and not getting any prettier.

Since the Sixers refuse to elaborate publicly on exactly what is going on(as per usual) it has been left to the masses to speculate. There seem to be two prevailing theories.

1. He's actually legitimately hurt, and possibly worse than they are letting on.

2. He's not really hurt, and the organization is so embarrassed that he altered his form without the team's consent, that they are concocting an elaborate scheme to hide said embarrassment.

I'm in camp #1, for a variety of reasons. To start, I can't think of another situation in NBA history where a player messed with their form and became afraid to shoot because of it. "The yips" don't happen in basketball. Shooting is a natural motion. You pick up a basketball and you basically go where your arm motion takes you. Does that mean your natural form will be perfect? No, but it will still look better than the freak show Fultz is bringing out there, which isn't the least bit natural, and looks totally like something forcefully altered to compensate for an injury. Even without mechanical corrections in shooting, you can have a pretty jumper. And there is no reason for any athlete to be afraid to shoot. Do you know what players do when they develop bad habits with a jump shot? They shoot their way out of it by repetition. Over and over and over and over again. In practice, in workouts, in shoot-arounds, and in games.

Fultz barely shot any jumpers in training camp, is barely shooting any jumpers in practice, refuses to shoot jumpers in shoot-arounds, and has not taken a single 3 pointer through 3 games this season. He hasn't even considered taking one. The thought does not cross his mind. If Fultz was trying to correct bad mechanical habits with a jumper, and he was not injured, I guarantee you the coaches would be pounding into his head to "SHOOT!" Brett Brown would have drawn up a few plays in the first few games to get him a wide open 3 pointer to build his confidence. This hasn't happened. Nothing has changed, and the coaching staff seems perfectly content allowing him to not even consider jump shots. The obvious answer is because they know he's hurt. How could I believe that a player who was cut in high school and had the confidence to rebuild his playing career and become the #1 overall pick in the NBA Draft is so mentally fragile that he's flat-out afraid to shoot? Why should I believe that a player who didn't see a field goal he didn't like in the Summer League would suddenly become so terrified of taking jumpers in a game merely because of mechanical issues?

To take it a step further, in tonight's game against Toronto, Fultz's first(and only) field goal attempt in the first half was a left-handed layup. He had several clean looks at the basket from 10 feet and in, where he could have easily dribbled a few steps and put up a clean right-handed layup and turned it down. Later on in the game he forced some awkward jumpers, which were no greater than 12 feet and missed all of them. He had a jump ball attempt that he went up with his left hand. It all adds up to an injury.

So, you ask. "If he's hurting, why can he attempt layups and grab rebounds, but not shoot? Surely, it should all feel the same pain-wise." Not necessarily the case. I had a friend and sister who both tore their labrums. Both did so lifting weights, and neither realized they hurt it until weeks later after they got MRIs. Both of them waited so long to get it checked out, because it didn't hurt all the time. Some motions hurt worse than others. With a ball and socket joint, different angles and motions cause different levels of pain. It's not a "if one thing hurts, all things hurt" type of deal.

The next question is "If he's hurt, why is he playing?" This is the Sixers we're talking about. The organization who allowed Embiid to do fancy under-the-leg dunks while recovering from a broke navicular bone in his foot. The organization who allowed Embiid to play in a game with a bone bruise and a torn meniscus. They are proven to be incompetent. I think that is far more likely than to suggest they are scheming some elaborate plot to convince the world he's hurt. So elaborate that they have him taking jump balls with his left, not shooting in practice(which is counterproductive to his development), not shooting jumpers in training camp(also counterproductive to his development), not shooting jumpers in shoot-around(counterproductive to his play on the court) and being perfectly ok with him not attempting any perimeter jumpers whatsoever just to keep a defense honest.

BULL-SHIT. The guy is hurt. How hurt remains to be seen. I know this sucks, and it is just another season with an injured first round pick, but it's time for the people to ditch the conspiracy theories and admit the sad reality. The Sixers medical staff managed to screw up yet another one. As long as the labrum isn't torn, I expect him to eventually be fine, but as everything currently stands, the most likely scenario is the Sixers have done what they always do: fuck up a player's health.

Can we stop mass killings in the US? And the use of the term "terrorism"

Every time a mass shooting occurs in the United States, the same age-old topics bubble back to the surface. What can we do about gun control and is there a way to stop mass shootings? I'm an advocate of gun control. How much control to implement is much trickier than many realize. With the amount of violence in the United States, I do believe we may have reached a point of "no return" or at least a point that will take many many decades to correct, that will extend long past our lifetimes. The United States is simply more violent than a lot of other nations even taking guns out of the equation. I'll get into that a little bit later. So, would I feel comfortable telling someone who lives in Detroit, Chicago, or Philly that they can't own a gun if they pass certain criteria? Could I feel good about denying someone with the right to protect themselves? I think banning guns entirely would make the world a better and safer place, but I think banning a lot of things in this world would make it much safer, and people's rights have to be taken into account whether we like it or not. Those who are against gun control or who even believe in having more guns on the street will tell you that guns prevent gun violence, which is such shallow and factually false logic. Owning a gun or having a gun in your possession rarely saves your life. Most gun victims are taken unawares, and don't have the time or the composure to take out their gun, aim it, and fire it at a target who already has you in their crosshairs. It's rare that a firearm is used in self-protection to prevent a homicide. Plus, each death, regardless of whether someone took an innocent life via firearm, or a life was taken in defense of your own safety, they all count the same in the annual gun death statistics.

There are too many gun fatalities in this country. Far too many. Especially compared to other first world nations. We have roughly 33,000 gun deaths in the US every year, though "only" approximately 11,000 of those are via homicide. Most are suicides. I think changes need to be made in gun control. My issue is the ease in which individuals can possess what I'd call "weapons of warfare." Even though there are laws in place against semi-automatic rifles and automatic weapons, people still get their hands on them too easily. Those are weapons of war created to kill other human beings efficiently and quickly. Automatic weapons should be deemed completely illegal and banned in every state for any civilian, despite when they are manufactured, including ex-military or police officers or off duty military personnel or officers. The problem is, none of these changes are going to happen anytime soon, because you know, politics. So, I basically hate discussing any form of gun control because it's a major waste of time for the foreseeable future. Americans love guns, they're ingrained in our culture, and I don't know if that will ever change.

That doesn't mean we are hopeless as a society. I think we can cut down on mass killings, shootings, and violence. It won't be easy. Science has suggested that human beings are generally good-natured at heart, but we are also the alpha species on the planet earth, we are the most competitive species, we are the species most governed by emotions, and therefore we are violent. Humans have always been violent. Wars have existed since the beginning of time. Senseless slaughter has existed since the beginning of time. Thousands of people used to gather in stadiums to watch gladiators hack each other to death for sport, and then cheer the victory as a mutilated body was laying right there for all to see. Genghis Khan was responsible for the death and rape of millions. Hitler started a war that killed hundreds of millions and initiated a genocide that killed 6 million Jews. Violence will never cease to exist. Even on large scales. Hell, if there is another planet out there with a full species of advanced intelligent life, I can guarantee you they are violent as well.

Every form of violence is motivated by something different. Some are territorial, some are jealousy, some are love, some are hate, some are greed. Add in thrill killings, sexual deviancy, etc. Mass shootings typically involve some form of deep-seeded hatred or anger brought about by years of mental distress. Whether you are sold propaganda by a terrorist organization or you have just grown up to despise certain people, or possibly even all people, it's all built up animosity that erupts in the ultimate form of violence. To stop mass shootings, if we can't do anything about gun laws, then we need to limit the amount of mentally disturbed people in the United States.

This country has an inordinate amount of sick individuals. The state of California alone has had more serial killers in the state's recorded history than several first world countries combined. And no, it isn't just guns, most serial killers actually don't use guns. They prefer to kill their victims in a more personal way. This country has a mental instability issue, and until we correct that, these issues will never stop. So what causes these mental issues? I think a lot of it stems from bad parenting, for starters. Other countries simply teach better core values to their children, and we pollute the minds of our children with rhetoric at an early age. Too many of our parents teach their kids oppressive ideals in regards to sex, entertainment, and associating with others. It's no coincidence that whenever one of these tragedies occurs, and information about the perpetrator becomes public, we learn about their rough childhoods, abusive parents, being sexual abused when they were young, having strict religious parents, etc. Kids are super impressionable and these issues usually start to develop at a young age and expand over time. All of these factors play a part in people growing up to have serious mental issues. Look at countries like Canada, England, Ireland, Japan, etc. Yes, their gun laws are different from ours, but they also are generally much more peaceful. Let's look at Japan as a comparison to why a first world highly developed country may be less violent than the United States. Japan actually has a very high suicide rate, higher than the United States, but a low crime rate. They suffer from mental illness and distress like Americans do, but by nature their suicide rate in comparison to their crime rate shows their lack of violent tendencies against their common man. They typically are raised with better values, in stronger homes, with stronger parenting and lower divorce rates. Religion in Japan is also much different than the United States. It isn't as strongly enforced and pushed on children in families like it is in the States, and neither Shinto or Buddhism have shown the same history of oppressive or violent ideals of religions that often dominate countries that are prone to mass violence. Japan is just one specific example, and each violent person or tragedy is its own entity, but I think if you compare our country with others, and the values kids are taught and the things they are(or aren't) exposed to as children, we can get a clearer picture of what causes people to become mentally unstable and develop into killers.

Until we become better parents, stop forcing hateful or oppressive beliefs onto our children, build stronger families to raise them, and put more money and passion into mental health awareness and research, then I don't see the problem improving. Mental health is still not taken as seriously as it needs to be in society, and many people mock those who suffer from anxiety and depression making them angrier, more vindictive, and more likely to act in violence down the road. All the pressures in a competitive and cutthroat world we live in today can break someone who didn't develop the mental fortitude to handle it at a young age.

The use of the term "Terrorist"

I don't know how it all started, but for some reason people today seem to be obsessed with making everyone know who should and should not be labeled a terrorist. I don't know the exact motivations for each individual behind this "movement" but I suspect it has something to do with them trying to make it a point to announce to the world that "See?! Other people besides Muslims can be terrorists too!" Everyone knows this.

Whenever you get into labeling people anything, things get tricky. In a nutshell, the federal law defines "terrorism" as an act of violence against the general population that is driven by political motivations or goals. Now, states have their own definitions of what qualifies as terrorism. Point being, the definition varies, so for people to preach to the world about how ignorant someone is if they don't use that term on a specific killer is absurd and incredibly misguided. As long as everyone knows how awful they are, what they did was wrong, then that's what is important at the end of the day. A lot of people simply see terrorists as someone who causes terror to the general population. If that were the case, then Ted Bundy, Gary Ridgeway, and Richard Ramirez(The Nightstalker) would all be terrorists and not serial killers. They killed dozens of victims, just spread out over a longer period of time, but it all adds up to the same amount of lives lost. Serial killers can terrorize cities and neighborhoods for years. In California, women were afraid to go to sleep at night because The Nightstalker may break into their homes at night and kill them. Does that not qualify as terror? Look, I know Muslims are persecuted all over the world because of some of the awful teachings of Islam, and it isn't fair for good people who happen to believe in a religion that preaches archaic and oppressive ideals to be treated unfairly. They are still people and should have the same rights as anyone else. But it's not exactly without reason or logic for terrorism to be associated with people from the Middle East.

If someone of Middle Eastern descent commits mass murder, the odds that it is going to be in the name of Islam or as part of an Islamic terrorist organization(which only accepts Muslims, or those who convert to Islam) is significantly larger than it would be for a Caucasian or African American, who are statistically much less likely to believe in Islam. That doesn't mean that every Muslim is a terrorist or all Muslims are bad. Many people associate these politically driven acts as the true definition of terrorism, as is the definition of the term under federal law. A Korean guy who shoots up a mall isn't going to be immediately labeled or suspected to be a terrorist by the press, because the statistical odds of that person being associated with a religion or group that often is involved in violent ideals is much lower. However, if all the facts come out and it is found that this person committed that act with political motivations, I guarantee you they will be more commonly referred to as a terrorist. All of these squabbles are ancillary issues to the real problem and getting up on your soap box to tell the world how someone should label or define another is not going to solve a problem and will only cause more of a divide. At the end of the day, we all want the same thing. Regardless of how we get there, we want less violence however we can achieve it. As long as we have that common ground, then there is cause for hope no matter how small it may appear at times.