Ozark (Netflix)

Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by dmiller458, Jul 22, 2017.

  1. Daryl M

    Daryl M Senior Member

    Location:
    London, Ontario
    I'm new to Netflix (thanks to the NFL Sunday Ticket going exclusively to streaming in
    Canada). Once I got `Stranger Things' out of the way, I delved right into `Ozark'. What
    a great, great show. Might be the best show on television. Nary a wasted moment in the
    four episodes I've watched so far. Can't recommend it enough. If I have to offer a complaint,
    it might be that Laura Linney is slightly miscast, but that is a very minor complaint.
     
    Yovra likes this.
  2. BEAThoven

    BEAThoven Forum Resident

    Location:
    New Jersey
    Gotta jump in here and join in the choir of praise for this show.

    The wife and I took a chance and ended up binging the whole thing over a weekend!

    Bateman is firing on all cylinders here. He's created such a captivating character -- the tendency would have been to overact and be way too animated. But Bateman plays it perfectly -- his acting is so precise.
     
  3. nosticker

    nosticker Forum Guy

    Location:
    Ringwood, NJ
    I had zero idea he had this level of talent. It's not like you can watch Arrested Development and think, "Gee! He ought to do the next Breaking Bad-derivative Netflix show, and direct half of the episodes."

    Dan
     
    MikeInFla and Hot Ptah like this.
  4. Gavinyl

    Gavinyl Remembering Member

    Five episodes in and I'm thoroughly enjoying this. Great stories, characters, plot twists. After being letdown by the final season of Bloodline this is refreshing. And a Season two bring it on...
     
    Hot Ptah likes this.
  5. HippieDrill

    HippieDrill Forum Resident

    Location:
    Sacramento, Ca
    i know what you mean there. i often find myself watching shows that i only half way like yet i still compelled to finish them. I have a compulsion to want to finish every show i start but it's a waste to invest all that time into something unless you're really enjoying it. So i'm trying to make a new policy where if i'm not digging a show after a few episodes just give it up and move on to something better.
     
    dmiller458 likes this.
  6. Squealy

    Squealy Forum Hall Of Fame

    Location:
    Vancouver
    Bateman’s specialty since Arrested Development has been playing the normal, conservative guy who reacts drily to the crazy people around him. It might seem like he doesn’t do much but it’s a rare skill to make that kind of character funny — Bob Newhart was the master of it but Jason is no slouch either. In Ozark he cleverly repurposes that skill to be compelling playing an essentially dull, methodical, humourless person reacting to an ever escalating level of criminal insanity, surviving it with sheer doggedness, and only occasionally losing his cool. Tough to pull off, but as you say he does it with great precision.
     
  7. Sandinista

    Sandinista Forum Resident

    Just finished this last night. Wife and I loved it. One kid liked it. The other kid hated it. Too slow for her.

    Great writing, outstanding acting, character development and, I think the best part is that each episode is literally packed with nuance and subtle moments.

    Bateman is doing the work of his career. Just fantastic.
     
  8. nosticker

    nosticker Forum Guy

    Location:
    Ringwood, NJ
    I couldn't agree more. I totally underestimated how creative this man is. Can't wait to see what's next.


    Dan
     
    Hot Ptah, Sandinista and EVOLVIST like this.
  9. RK2249

    RK2249 Forum Resident

    Location:
    South Jersey
    Just watched the first episode...holy ****!
     
  10. RogerB

    RogerB Forum Resident

    Location:
    Alabama
    I binged watched this show last weekend and loved it!! Bring on season 2 !!
     
    Hot Ptah, Blue Gecko and Scope J like this.
  11. RoyalScam

    RoyalScam Luckless Pedestrian

    Excellent show. Bateman is a revelation, and is also directing the bulk of these episodes. Very impressive, as is the rest of the cast, especially Julia Garner.
     
    Hot Ptah, EVOLVIST and RogerB like this.
  12. This is the best current show on TV. Period. I believe it's even better than Better Call Saul.

    ...
    and it only gets 4 pages. o_O
     
    Yovra likes this.
  13. Deesky

    Deesky Forum Resident

    Nah, I wouldn't go that far. Ozark was good, but Better Call Saul is far better constructed, filmed and well, cleverer.
     
    Comet01, Tord and hanleyp like this.
  14. Yovra

    Yovra Collector of Beatles Threads

    I think it flew under the radar a bit (it get decenten 3-4 star reviews) because it doesn't feature very quirky bits (Fargo) or monsters (Stranger Things) or guys with superpowers. I think it's the best thriller series on Netflix at the moment.
     
    SomeCallMeTim and Hot Ptah like this.
  15. Thomas D

    Thomas D Forum Resident

    Location:
    Bradenton, FL
    Best current original thriller on Netflix? ... reasonable. Amazon, however, gives "Ozark" some serious competition with "Goliath" and "Sneaky Pete"! At any rate, all three are outstanding!
     
  16. Hot Ptah

    Hot Ptah Forum Resident In Memoriam

    Location:
    Kansas City, MO
    Better Call Saul and Ozark are John Coltrane and Sonny Rollins. Both incredibly great, no need to rank one over the other.
     
    mike s in nyc, George P and RoyalScam like this.
  17. Cheepnik

    Cheepnik Overfed long-haired leaping gnome

    At first, I was amazed at Bateman's facility with a dramatic role, but then it occurred to me that his trademark as a comedic actor is his deadpan demeanor, which requires some flair for drama. Either way, great work by all involved.
     
    GodShifter, Hot Ptah and EVOLVIST like this.
  18. GodShifter

    GodShifter Forum Member

    Location:
    Dallas, TX, USA
    I'd say wait until "Ozark" hits a third or fourth season before we say it's better than "Better Call Saul". BCS has shown a consistency that "Ozark" has yet to do. It's just a little early to be piling on superlatives over other shows that have lasted longer.
     
  19. Oh good, I started a discussion. :D

    I like to rank things. It's a very human thing to do. That said, @GodShifter , that's a good point. I thought about that before I posted this, but then I said screw it, and posted anyway.

    The next season of Ozark could fall flat on its face, while BCS hasn't fallen flat yet, although, there have a been a few ho-hum moments in BCS (just a tiny bit), while there have been none in Ozark, so far. Of course, it's all perspective.

    My point is, it all makes me wonder when we'll get another show that's at least up to par with Breaking Bad, or the Sopranos. Is it a situation where there will never be another Beatles, or Led Zep, or Miles Davis, or Jimi Hendrix? If one recalls, when Breaking Bad came out there was no universal praise. Because of the early reviews I didn't start watching until Season 2. The reviews didn't grab me, and I don't believe there was on-demand back then. Whoops!

    Lastly, I wonder, if one is into television drama, and they watched the first episode of Ozark and then the first episode of Better Call Saul, without having any background with Breaking Bad, which would stand out more? It's very subjective, I'm sure...but this is the place to think aloud, so that's what I'm doing. :idea:
     
    Coricama and GodShifter like this.
  20. GodShifter

    GodShifter Forum Member

    Location:
    Dallas, TX, USA
    That’s a good question. I think just going off first episodes of BCS vs “Ozark” (not having ever seen BB) I’d go with “Ozark” for sure. BCS is VERY slow in developing. In fact, without seeing BB, I’m sure how well BCS would translate as a stand alone series. Probably not as well.
     
  21. Deesky

    Deesky Forum Resident

    I've thought about that too and have come to the conclusion that it wouldn't matter much at all. Sure, it's good to have an built-in (future) history about some of the characters, and seeing callback 'easter eggs' sprinkled here and there might add extra sparkle, but if you knew nothing about the backstory, I think one would still find the characters (many of which didn't appear in BB) to be extremely compelling as are the various plot lines.

    For all intents and purposes, Saul himself, is a very different character in BCS compared to BB. I get the feeling that the writers want to keep it that way too, perhaps up to the final few eps of the concluding season (whenever that might be).

    So, in conclusion, I think BCS is very much a self-contained series where you don't need to know much about the shared universe to enjoy it on it's own merits.
     
    Comet01, Tord, Hot Ptah and 1 other person like this.
  22. @Deesky , nah, man, I don't believe so, because without Breaking Bad, and all the ties that come with it, one has no idea what Jimmy McGill is working towards.

    We have a guy who works at Cinnabon; he puts on a VHS tape of one of his old commercials, and then we flash back in time. For a new viewer, we're supposed to care and/or even wonder how a lowly local prosecutor, who is has a modicum of talent, but is mediocre at best, fell from lofty heights (which we haven't seen yet), to working at a Cinnabon in the mall? That's the worst fate that can befall a lawyer?

    We're going into the Season 4 and there's been nothing that would make a viewer say, "Oh, he's headed for sure success, but then judging by the flashbacks he somehow he's brought back to earth. Oooh...I wonder how?" Oh, and by the way, "Who is this Mike guy, and what does he have to do with anything?"

    Not to mention the let down that people will get when Gus and Jimmy never cross paths. (I say it's possible that they do, but others might disagree.) So, why have Gus there in the first place? Geez, Jimmy and Mike don't even cross paths that much anymore.

    I think you're giving too much credit to a show that is one giant easter egg. It's not sprinkled. It is the egg. It is an upper echelon show if I've ever seen one, yet it's not self-contained at all.

    Contrast that with Ozark and we have this mild-mannered guy (who we find out that his mildness is only on the outside), who falls into bed with the wrong people, tries to make it right, does some pretty smart things, tries to salvage his family, things go wrong again, he gets into bed with some more wrong people (as if he had a choice at that point), things move even further south, and now his family is involved to the hilt. Cliffhanger. Away we go to Season 2.

    We know that he either gets out of it, or he's dead. We want to find out what happens and how he ends up dead or alive (or maybe a family member(s) dies, so that he's alive, but there's a steep price). There is no Cinnabon waiting for Marty. I hope the hell not!

    For Jimmy/Saul, working at the Cinnabon might be a fate worse than death, but I don't believe the uninitiated viewer would know it without witnessing him at the height of his power in Breaking Bad.
     
  23. Deesky

    Deesky Forum Resident

    I don't think it matters to the enjoyment of the show. We know what Jimmy's working towards as explored in BCS, with his desire to please his overbearing brother, to be a good person and a practicing lawyer while struggling with his own personality flaws which may bring everything crashing down.

    I don't see it like that. It's a standard technique these days to do a cold open with some enigmatic scene and then to go back to the beginning and tell a linear story that will ultimately lead to that scene. It does setup a sense of mystery as to how a generally likable, if a little sloppy, guy ends up in a dreary, black and white world in the future.

    Also, I would not ever have said that Saul achieved any 'lofty heights' in BB. He was a skeevy, criminal lawyer! If anything, he achieved a much loftier status in BCS in a high profile law firm.

    Why would anyone think Jimmy is heading for success? We've seen his scammy tendencies and while he achieves a modicum of success, the viewer is primed to expect that his fast and loose ways will catch up with him (further corroborated by the B&W flash-forwards).

    Why would anyone ask that? Mike's character was introduced in the show (BCS), just as any other character would be. What does it matter what he's going to do in BB? We see perfectly well how Mike's and Jimmy's stories come together and why they're collaborating.

    None of that matters. You're creating objections from the point of view of a person that has seen BB, not from the point of view of a person that hasn't. In any case, that story might yet bet told.

    Sorry, but I completely disagree, for the reasons I've mentioned.
     
    Comet01 likes this.
  24. Again, these meager beginnings, only to wind up a Cinnabon, as if struggling with your personality, practicing law, being a good person can backfire and get you a management job at the mall? And that's a fate the uninitiated viewer is supposed to accept as dramatic? That's called comedy.[/QUOTE]


    Oh, the dreariness of a mall worker!

    "Lofty heights," to quote Pinkman = "Fat Stacks." Lofty enough to be totally happy in his Saul-skin, and making more money than he ever did behind a cocobolo desk. The uninitiated viewer wouldn't know how happy and rolling in dough he was during Breaking Bad; nevertheless, to make a tragic character, like they're trying to portray here, you have to really build them up to really tear them down. Jimmy is simply getting the every-man treatment.


    See above. You have build the protagonist up enough in order for the end to effectual. The end doesn't carry near enough weight - at least as far as we're seeing leading up to Season 4 - if you haven't seen Breaking Bad.


    I contend that at this point in time Mike and Jimmy's paths are too divergent. In the beginning it made more sense. Now, there are these parallel stories, that cross...dare I say, in a contrived manner? I don't mind the contrivance; in fact I like it, because it's not contrived when you know the future, but for the standalone viewer?

    Really, the ratings don't lie. There are more people out there who either a.) Started BCS but found that it was nothing like BB, so they ditched it, than b.) Our niche group who worships the writers and characters, or c.) the even smaller group who watch it, but know very little about BB. There might be a d & e, or f & g, but I'm too sleepy to think about it right now.

    I'm betting the group who watches BCS, without having seen BB, is small, indeed...and the writers know this, so they can put these huge easter eggs in.

    I don't even think they're trying to write a standalone story. Why would they? It would make no sense. They started off thinking it would have the same success as Breaking Bad. It hasn't. It won't get cancelled, because Sony has a hand in it, and they know they can make money on the back end, with Blu Ray sales, and streaming, etc. It's very much a spin-off show, and it watches like one.
     
  25. Deesky

    Deesky Forum Resident

    Nope, disagree. I think Gilligan was smart enough to know that he could not solely rely on a repeat audience and that he had to write it in such a way that could attract new viewers that might even be motivated to see the sequel series (ie, BB). Extending Saul's good side over several seasons is an example of that shift from BB.

    I only saw BB once during its original run, which meant that I'd forgotten many details by the time BCS rolled around, but that had no detrimental impact on my enjoyment of BCS, which I still contend works as a standalone work.
     

Share This Page

molar-endocrine