The Last of Us Episode 2 Review: Sweet And Sour

The second episode of HBO's The Last of Us, "Infected", is simultaneously an incredibly faithful adaptation of the game in many aspects and a great episode as a whole in my opinion, but it ended with a choice that a lot of fans will probably view as being controversial. 

Once again, this review contains major spoilers for Episode 2, so be warned.

Just as the pilot episode, this one also begins with a chilling opening sequence. Not only did it show us a small but welcome glimpse of the outbreak happening outside of the U.S., something the games never really delved into, but it also confirmed information many were already theorizing based on the first episode. The initial Cordyceps outbreak in the series spread as quickly as it did thanks to contaminated flour, something that neither Joel or Sarah ate in the first episode. 

The rest of the episode is similarly filled with a lot of good tension like the opening, both in the relationships between characters and in scenes dealing with the titular infected. While Tess and Ellie quickly began to bond somewhat, Joel remains cold and at times even hostile towards the young girl, who he now believes to be a ticking time bomb due to the bite in her arm. I enjoyed seeing the characters finally get some real screen time together, and I think the show is definitely doing a lot of good groundwork for the story to come. 

Then there are the scenes with the infected. The show's introduction to the "Clickers" (as they are called in the game) was amazingly done, with basically perfect sound design that was particularly effective because I watched the episode with good headphones on. Pretty much every detail from the movements, behavior and the look of the blind infected was almost ripped straight out of the game, in a very believable way. I especially liked the subtle use of the flashlights to reinforce the idea that the Clickers are blind, as Joel was able to shine a light at one without it noticing. Simply put, the whole museum scene was great from start to finish.

I already gushed about the production and set design in the first review, so I won't talk about it too much here, but it was still incredibly good. All in all, I could rave as much as I want about the episode, about how faithful it is in many ways, how good it looks and how I love a lot of the performances, but there is that one scene everyone is talking about, and I have some thoughts on it as well.

Okay, so the weird "kiss" moment before Tess dies. Let's just say... I'm not mad, but I definitely feel conflicted about it. I still think the episode is very good, but this one moment did make me think that  the character of Tess as a whole could have been handled better. 

The scene itself wasn't necessarily "bad" if it existed in a vacuum. Instead my issue is that it did not feel like it was a fitting end for Tess as a character when compared to the game. Sure, she technically made a more impactful sacrifice than in the game where she just manages to take out a couple of FEDRA soldiers before getting shot. However, the original moment of her death is less about the consequence of her decision but more about her willingness to go out on her own terms instead of succumbing to the infection, and most importantly about how she does it: by choosing to fight in the face of certain doom. Her intention and actions and what those informs us about her character in return are more important to the story than how much it actually helps Joel and Ellie on a practical level. Sacrificing character (no pun intended) in favor of plot convenience is not something that I am a fan of as a screenwriter.

Even if we ignore how the two versions of the character die for now, there are other things that change the character of Tess in the show and in turn make her seem weaker than in the game. Remember how the show left out most of the Robert stuff from the game in episode 1? While I will defend that as a good choice for pacing reasons, it still means we do not really get to see Tess in action or do a lot of the things that define her character early on in the game. 

For example, almost as soon as we are introduced to the character in the game, we see how people who are willing to fight Joel immediately back off because of their respect for her. We also get to see her have a "Han shot first" moment, where she shoots one of Robert's goons without flinching after being shit-talked by them. Then once Joel and Tess catch Robert, she coldly interrogates him while Joel acts as the muscle, before she shoots Robert twice in the face. Not once, but twice, wasting a bullet purely out of spite instead of rage. 

While this might make her initially a bit harder to relate to, especially with the show's reluctance to revel in violence against living people, it also shows us about how she is not necessarily a good person. Which is something that the show insists on multiple times in the dialogue, but does not really show us with her actions. 

Tess in the show acts tough and talks like a hardened survivor who has done morally questionable things, but we barely ever see her really do much that would indicate that. Then when the first Clickers show up, she completely misses her shot, trips and falls, twisting her ankle, and then gets bitten off screen. She manages to swing an axe at one of the Clickers, but does not kill her and Joel has to finish the job. Finally, when she has her big moment of sacrifice, instead of grabbing any of the dozens of grenades lying around, she opts to use a faulty lighter, and when it does not work, she simply freezes up and lets an infected French kiss her until one last flick of the lighter that just so happens to work and blow up the horde. 

I want to emphasize that I'm not going to argue the narrative logic of the scene. I don't think it matters whether the infection was the cause of her sudden freezing up or if it was a conscious choice to give her more time instead of getting ripped apart. What matters to me is how that moment along with the rest of the changes made in some ways felt like reducing a once rounded, capable and strong female character to someone with more bark than bite compared to her inspiration. Also having her existence in the show be concluded with something akin to sexual assault, a moment that feels like it is mostly made for shock value, just left sort of a sour taste in my mouth. 

Regardless, I do think saying that they "ruined" Tess as a whole would be an overstatement. Anna Torv was a great choice for the role and her brief time in the show has still been some of the highlights thus far. There are a lot of great moments of dialogue between her, Ellie and Joel, and I loved how we got a better understanding of the two smugglers' relationship. 

Despite the conflicting note the episode might have ended on, I still do believe it was a good one and I'm definitely excited for what's to come. I have heard a lot of murmurings about how Episode 3 is supposed to be great, and based on the trailers it seems we are going to get more expanding to the story, which I'm looking forward to. 

The Last of Us Episode 1 Review: A Promising Start

It's finally here!

When I initially saw the news that HBO was going to adapt the videogame The Last of Us into a television series with Craig Mazin and Neil Druckmann at the helm, I was both excited and very nervous. See, the games are to this day some of my all time favorites, especially the first one, so I was understandably worried whether or not they could pull it off. Famously, video game adaptations are rarely decent and usually pretty horrible, save for a few more recent animated shows like Arcane and Cyberpunk: Edgerunners. However, I personally loved Mazin's previous show, the historical drama Chernobyl, and even though Druckmann has upset a large portion of the fanbase with the sequel, I still respect him as a writer. (You can read some of my thoughts on Part II here.) Not to mention that having someone who was so integral in creating the story of the game be involved with its adaptation would surely bode good for being faithful to the source material. And if any company felt like a good pairing with the gritty survival story of the game, it was HBO. With them also casting Pedro Pascal as Joel, who I immediately figured as a perfect choice for the role, I felt like if any adaptation had a chance of succeeding, it could be this one. 

Thankfully, I can say that at least Episode 1 of the new show got a lot right. While it remains to be seen if the rest of the show can deliver, this first taste of it got me feeling hopeful. 

Fair warning, this review will contain spoilers for Episode 1, so read at your own risk. 

Right off the bat, the show introduces us to the threat of the Cordyceps in a very interesting way that differs from the game. Through a fictional talk show from the sixties, a scientist tells the audience a gripping monologue of the lurking danger of this very real fungus, even if it is still only infecting insects in our world. The whole scene was chilling with the oppressive silence of the audience and host conveying how terrifying and uncomfortable this subject is. Even though it is hard for me to judge, I feel like this opening was an effective way of getting the necessary exposition to new audiences unfamiliar with the games, setting up the grounded and hopeless atmosphere right from the start.

That same grounded take can be felt throughout the episode. The sets, costume design, visual effects and everything else on the screen made the places we see feel very lived in and real, something that was also the case with Chernobyl. I also think it was an interesting idea to change the date of the outbreak from 2013 to 2003, as the lack of smartphones and social media makes it that much more believable that Sarah is oblivious to the events unfolding around her. The small detail of Tommy's "Operation Desert Storm" bumper sticker was also a nice touch, that not only sets us in a place and time but also tells us about his character without needing to say a word. 

Talking about characters, this is a good time to comment on the casting. Honestly, I don't think there was a single weak link, other than maybe the actor who played Robert, whose line delivery felt somehow a bit off but that could be down to just directing instead of the performer. While some people might have a problem with the ethnicity of certain actors, I could not care less and I thought all of the important ones portrayed their characters well. Nico Parker as Sarah was just the right amount of sassy but still believably vulnerable when things started going south, making her immediately likable and her tragic death that much harder to watch. As I mentioned before, I always believed Pedro Pascal would be an amazing Joel, and at least in this first episode I felt I was proven correct. Despite having seen Sarah's death scene in the game more times I can count, it still got me.

My biggest worry coming into this show was Bella Ramsey as Ellie, not because of the reasons some weirdos have focused on like how she looks physically, but because I had no other reference for her acting skills other than her role as Lady Mormont in Game of Thrones. While she was a scene stealer and a fan favorite in that show, she still played a minor and fairly one-note character that only really had one mode: being a tough little girl. Ellie definitely needs to be tough, but she's a layered character who can be charming, funny and at times vulnerable. Whoever plays her has a big role to fill, so getting the casting right was fundamental to the show's success.

Prior to seeing the first episode, I read from reviewers with access to the whole season that Bella Ramsey was a perfect Ellie, which alleviated some of my concerns. Now that I've seen the premiere, I can't say I'm completely sold on her yet as we saw so little of Ellie and need more time for the dynamic between her and Joel to evolve, but what we did get of her was good. Her take definitely felt different to Ashley Johnson's, but a lot of it might come down more to the writing than Bella's performance. So far we've mostly only seen the "tough girl" act from her in this episode, some of it coming off as a bit forced, but there were small glimpses of the girl behind the mask, and I especially liked those moments. Specifically the scene with Ellie and Marlene was a great addition to this story, and Ramsay's delivery of "Why won't you let me go home?" was what proved to me that she can be a great actor. 

The actual story and delivery of the first episode was incredibly faithful to the game in many ways, to the point that it was at times almost distracting how close some scenes were. With specific lines used straight from the game and certain shots being almost identical, this could very well be the most faithful adaptation of a video game I've seen by far without it feeling like just fan service. The interesting thing is, while I could often marvel at how down to the smallest detail they got a lot of it, my favorite things were all the new scenes and story elements that were only alluded to in the game but not seen. I loved seeing more of the outbreak day with Sarah before everything falls apart, and the glimpses into the inner workings of the Fireflies and Ellie being held captive along with the cold opening from the 60s were all great additions. Funnily enough, I almost want the future episodes to differ more from the game, as long as key points in the story are respected. 

I watched the episode twice, first by myself the morning it came out (the episodes are released at 4 a.m. here in Finland) and then again a day later with my partner. On a second viewing it became apparent that Episode 1 does have a bit of a pacing issue. This isn't surprising considering the fact that it was initially supposed to be two episodes that were then made into one. The first episode would have originally ended after Joel tosses the body of the little boy into the fire and we see a glimpse of Ellie looking out of a window. However, it's not hard to see why producers thought that as the real inciting incident of the story is Joel and Ellie meeting each other (and not Sarah's death as some may believe, that's just the prologue), it would be important to include it in the first episode as their relationship is really what the show is about. 

Personally, I think the premiere episode is great, and there aren't really any things I would necessarily cut out, but the fact of the matter is that it is a long episode with an odd structure. After the prologue, which is roughly 30 minutes, the show has to introduce a completely new setting with the Boston QZ and all the new characters like Tess, Marlene and Ellie that were absent from the first half of the episode. (You could also argue that Joel is almost a different character after 20 years, and the audience needs to be shown what he has become.) It's not hard to tell that the second half was supposed to be another episode, as the pace takes a hard dip and slows down to another buildup and a barrage of exposition after the first "halfway point" that is Sarah's death.   

For fans of the game like me, I don't think that's really an issue especially on a first watch, as we are so wrapped up in gushing about how well the show is recreating the story from the game. Yet I do have to wonder if newcomers will be a bit overwhelmed by the amount of characters, factions and plot points that are introduced just in the first episode, and whether the pace and length of it will make the second half feel too slow. I've yet to talk to anyone who is unfamiliar with the game but has started watching the show, but it does seem that the general consensus online thus far has been thankfully very positive.

I have a lot more thoughts, but this review is already painfully late and if I'm planning on writing about the show weekly, it's not necessarily to make this into a horribly long essay. Overall my impressions of the show so far are that I'm positively surprised, relieved it doesn't suck and very excited to see more! 

(Note: I've found it surprisingly difficult to get good quality images of the episode to use in these reviews, so you'll just have to settle for text only for now. Even if it does look less appealing. Sorry!) 

I'm Already Tired of the Last of Us Show "Discourse"

The HBO adaptation of the The Last of Us has not even started airing yet, and I'm already utterly exhausted by the online discourse surrounding the series. Which is why I'm writing this post to remind myself that once the show's first season draws to a close and I have said my piece, I will distance myself from most of the discussions about it. 

While this might initially sound like a weird overreaction, it's not purely about one television series, but instead a bigger realisation I have come to about the nature of social media and entertainment criticism and their impact on my own mental health. Simply put, a lot of the online discussions about games, films and television can be incredibly toxic and draining, fueled by people who fish for strong reactions to generate engagement for their own profit and visibility. 

With The Last of Us, we are already seeing this with clickbait YouTube videos hypothesizing about how bad it will be, tweets quoting the showrunner Craig Mazin out of context to create outrage and grown adults spending way too much time online comparing the 19-year-old actor Bella Ramsey's appearance to a fictional 14-year-old girl to the point that it's beyond creepy and gross. 

Even if the show is actually great, I can already see the YouTube thumbnails with Ramsey's photoshopped face and titles like "HBO's The Last of Us is Overrated Garbage" and so on. And God help us if the show turns out to be actually mediocre or worse.

It truly feel like we are living in an polarized era where social media has turned everything into a discussion of how things are either the best or the absolute worst, with no room in between. Mediocre shows like The Rings of Power from Amazon are made to seem like the worst crimes against humanity, and online critics put out three-hour-long rants tearing them apart in overly dramatic fashion for views. Mind you, Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings films are some of my favorite movies of all time, whereas I did not enjoy the Amazon adaptation, but even I don't really think it is worth all the hate directed towards it. (Especially when a lot of it seems to center around how "woke" the show is.)

I'm not going to call out any specific people or include any links, as I'm not looking to make this a hit piece about any one person or give them any more visibility, but it's not hard to find examples if you do even a single search about these shows. 

The ironic thing is that even if I might sound all high and mighty right now, I actually in many ways take part in this same culture of cynical media criticism. I grew up following and loving YouTube channels like RedLetterMedia, YourMovieSucksDOTorg, Nostalgia Critic and I Hate Everything, all of which are famous for their long deconstructions of bad movies and television series. RLM's legendary "Plinkett Reviews" of the Star Wars prequels especially were a sort of awakening for my younger self and got me interested in more detailed film analysis, even (and especially) if that analysis was done with a comedic tone. Famously, the Plinkett review for Episode I begins with the line "Star Wars: The Phantom Menace was the most disappointing thing since my son."

But while I still really enjoy a lot of that same content I grew up on, regularly watch RedLetterMedia's output and listen to the Sardonicast podcast (featuring YMS' Adam and I Hate Everything's Alex alongside with ralphthemoviemaker), the larger trend of "tearing apart" games, shows and movies has really worn me out. The difference between someone like RLM's Mike Stoklasa and many of the newer generation of online film critics is that the former, while at times being cynical, still has an obvious love for filmmaking and has fun talking about movies instead of trying to hyperbolically wallow in a constant state of rage and contempt.

Recently a perhaps lesser known channel called meeptop uploaded a great video called Film Criticism Should Not Be Negative, and even if I think the title is a bit misleading, the video itself encapsulates my feelings and experience on this subject incredibly well. (At times it's almost uncomfortable how similar our experiences with the subject is, down to being a fan of the same people.) 

Essentially, while I understand perfectly well how shitting on something that you dislike can be cathartic, I don't think that focusing so much on negativity is healthy in the run long either. It's not a new or groundbreaking concept, but sometimes it can be hard to truly comprehend how much time we spend getting angry about meaningless things. 

All of this to say, that even though I am thinking of doing reviews and breakdowns of all the episodes of The Last of Us season 1, I am going to actively avoid any outrage or overly negative discussions about it, for my own good. 

However, constructive criticism is always important and in no way am I advocating for blind acceptance of the entertainment we consume.  I am absolutely sure that I will find things to gripe about the show, especially as The Last of Us is probably my favorite game of all time, but I'm approaching the adaptation with an open mind and going into it with a surprising amount of hope. I'm not going to sugarcoat my criticism, but if for some reason I actively start to dislike the show, I will simply stop writing about it instead of posting angry rants for weeks on end. Let's just hope it won't come to that.