I SAW GEN V: SEASON 2

The problem with series these days is the huge gaps in their continuity: case in point, Amazon's Gen V.

The second (eight-episode) season would have held more impact for me if the wait hadn't been as long. As it stands, Gen V: Season 2 may just as well have been the start of a new show with tenuous ties to The Boys and all its satirical, almighty Vought "miracles."

The season's focus fell on Godolkin University's Dean Cipher (Thomas Link Later) nurturing the bucking-the-system, parent-slaying, blood-tugging Marie Moreau (Jaz Sinclair). The shifty, push-and-pull dynamic (the reason why he wished to amplify her super-duper supe powers) was interesting enough due to its Project Odessa rigamarole (plus the sultry "encouragement" of Susan Heyward's cerebral Sister Sage prodding it along). However, did we really need a full season to tease the plan and then (as we screeched toward the end) unveil a puppet decoy? I mean, talk about going on and on and on to reveal the obvious. 

Most of the in-betweens could have been dropped or tightened, with the exception of Erin Moriarty/Starlight's welcomed strand, which should have been explored further throughout. Thanks to its padding, Gen V falls short of its goal by daring to tie itself inside-out (and every which way but loose) to its emanating source (and for that matter, X-Men, stemming from its blatant, Professor X-vs-Magneto allusions). As a result, it feels too much like, well, what it is: a secondary venture to cash in on The Boys' popularity. (For the record, The Boys' animated experiment, Diabolical, seems better suited to carry the insolent torch than this cluttered counterpart, but then there's this Vought Rising deal brewing and so ...)  

As with The Boys, I hold a love/hate relationship for Gen V. With the former, I watch with morbid fascination, though I never fail to get riled by its juxtaposing, socio-political setups (too often biased, misinformed and propagandized) or whenever the content goes out on a limp to smear DC and Marvel's characters for being too righteous (like that's somehow a bad thing). 

With Gen V, it's nowhere near as derisive, and so I've dived in with an obligatory impulse to catch its marginal details. With that said, aren't marginal details meant to be supplemental and therefore expendable in regard to the whole? They're never meant to be the main course, right? (Now, if the ultimate, main course had been between Ethan Slater's at-long-last, uncloaked/healed Thomas Godolkin and Anthony Starr's dogged yet insecure Homelander, that might have be a worth-while payoff.) 

I presumed Gen V: Season 2 would distort and mock Teen Titans and/or The New Mutants, but for better or worse, it never quite did. Even so, it was still miles more captivating than HBO Max's ponderous Dune: Prophesy or SyFy's long dead Krypton, but like those sideline shows, its link to its impertinent franchise isn't so significant in the long run. That, for me, is a snag I'm unable to accept, let alone overcome, considering the time I've invested.   

I saw the Slender Man...

The Slender Man is the stuff of modern myth, thanks to meme-master, Eric Knudson/Victor Surge: an elongated, spectral fabrication made "real" by pop-cultural consciousness. (A famous, murder case even sprung from the character.) A movie, therefore, based on the legend would only go to reason, and in this case it's written by David "13 Sins" Birke and directed by Silvain "The Losers" White. 

Interestingly enough, their concoction is teen-oriented. That wouldn't have seemed so strange a decade or so ago, but teens today don't generally dig horror movies, even though some might tinker with YouTube's collection of ghosts (animated smudges) and flying saucers (sun-streamed clouds).

"Slender Man'"s principals are girls, played by Joey King, Annalise Basso, Jaz Sinclair, and Julia Goldani Telles. That we have girls confronting a monster instead of boys makes sense since (contrary to what the film's backdrop suggests) the latter would be more inclined to swat one another with plastic wands in shadowy corners at literary events. (I actually witnessed this goofy ritual at one of my impromptu, book-promoting sojourns.) Anyway, the girls conjure the apparition on a giddy whim, and for their audacity, the enigmatic fiend starts to torment them in the most unusual ways.

What follows might have been culled from any number of "Friday the 13th", "Halloween" or "Elm Street" pictures, though in this instance, the events feature no excessive sex or splatter. Instead, the horror is presented in hazy, computerized form and for the most part plays in the Val Lewton vein: a nice touch.

The girls do a valiant (though often futile) job in warding off their aggressor. These struggles give the film some oomph, but the culmination isn't enough to put it over the edge (or make it in any way symbolic of conquering one's fears). It also doesn't place the cinematic Slender Man on a par with his earlier, Photoshopped incarnations. That's a shame, since the intent here was clearly to hook the young for immediate profit and fun, though I doubt this theatrical release will reach that goal.

If anything, "Slender Man" will be viewed more so after it leaves theaters, and it'll be older folks who'll try it. (In fact, there were only nine people in attendance at the Regal Cinema I attended, and we were all within the forty-something range.) Alas, the age of teen horror-appreciation is now dormant. If ever that sprightly trend should return, it'll be a generation or two down the line when the likes of "Slender Man" can be appreciated by those far braver and more imaginative than the snivelers who now populate the scene.