Netflix's "Stranger Things"

I watched it all in two days. Just so caught up in it all. Some observations:

Iffy stuff (but not at all "bitching" in a sense, just things that made me raise an eyebrow):

The ending was off and perhaps a bit too easy on some levels? That said, how things "came together" between the different plots and character groups was great fun to watch.

Hopper's gall and need to figure out the Truth never quite manifested. I enjoyed seeing him be proactive, but felt like some of that wasn't earned. Did it have to do with his own daughter? Maybe.

I do remember the comments about Hopper, but felt like I wanted to know more about what he did in the "big city" and what made him think he could just break into this place and that place without worry. There was a recklessness there that I wanted explained a bit more. Especially given that he comes across as this pretty "chill" guy who doesn't like to be pushed into acting.


The good/great/amazing:

Finally, a show where the writers don't rely on the "overly angsty teenager who hates everyone and makes incredibly stupid decisions." (Looking at you Dana from Homeland and that chick from Revolution.) The teenagers rocked in this. Thank you, writers, for letting teens break out of the, "I'm too mad at my mom to see the world is coming to an end so I need to go pout while people are dying" behavior. Nancy and Jonathan were superb. Even Steve did okay and didn't turn into the jerk-face John Hughes mean kid in the end.

The three boys/besties played D&D. That just rocked. And they used some of that knowledge in the real world too. Their science teacher also rocked.

Winona Ryder has redeemed every stupid parent in every horror/supernatural movie who was too dense to believe. Thank you, Winona.

Slow burn. Some people have no attention span. They don't like slow burns. This one needed a slow burn--at least in the beginning. Meaningful moments were made more meaningful because of it.

The actress who played 11 was phenomenal.

I read there is a greenlight for season 2.

lizmonster said:

Another YMMV moment. I thought he was quite palpably predatory, and they just decided he shouldn't be without giving him much in the way of redemption. Didn't ring true to me at all.

Click to expand...

That's the issue I had with him, too. I think it would have worked to have him either turn out not to be a jerk after all, or just to let him BE a jerk. Instead, what we got was a guy who started out as a big jerk and suddenly does a 360 and STOPS being a jerk for no good reason.

But again, I love old sci fi and horror movies from the 70s and 80s, and some of them don't have very well developed characters. Even the things I thought were wrong with this was wrong with a lot of movies from that era that I like. Even though that one aspect didn't really work, I liked it because it reminded me of those kinds of films.

I liked Matthew Modine. While he has never really been in a movie I have liked, I've always liked him, so I was thrilled to see him in this.

Didn't want to read the whole thread in case of spoilers. I was recently traveling and stopped at a rest stop off 95 somewhere in North or South Carolina. While waiting for my coffee to be made, one of the Starbucks employees started talking about this show to one of his colleagues. He was ranting and raving about it, so I put it in the back of my head. Then I came onto this forum a couple of weeks later, and low and behold, people are talking about it. So, tonight, I just watched the first episode (I needed to finish The Fall first, which by the way is pretty damn great).

I definitely like the premise, but I will say that, sadly, Wynona Ryder is almost ruining it for me. Her acting is God awful to the point that she's nearly making it unbearable to watch. I mean, what the hell? She is completely overacting the part and not at all believable. I feel bad for the actor playing the older brother as he was having an almost beautiful acting moment, she totally killed it. I've generally liked WR, but man I hope she pulls it together for her role because the premise of the show seems descent enough and I'd hate to not be able to watch it because of one bad actor.

We just finished this last night and I'm so sad there's no more to watch tonight! One of the best shows I've seen in a long time. I hope they keep the momentum going with season 2.

I really didn't mind Winona Ryder's performance. I thought she was believable enough, though certainly far from the star of the show. That award is a toss up for me between Elle and Dustin. The scene where Dustin is on the phone with the science teacher asking about how to build a sensory deprivation tank had me cracking up. "Why are you keeping this curiosity-door locked!"

Spoilered: Steve's face-heel-turn (heel-face-turn?) was really surprising but I did like the role he played in the climax with the demogorgan. I was so sure he was going to be monster bait! Not sure how I feel about Nancy being all cuddly with him on the couch at the end, but I guess he did redeem himself. His "friends" were such little shits, though. I wish one of them had been taken over poor, lonely Barb.

I did have a rather embarrassing moment while watching the middle few episodes on Sunday night. I have a basement for the first time in my whole life, and I was down there getting some laundry out of the dryer between episodes. I flipped the light off in the laundry room and promptly freaked out, raced up the stairs, and sent my husband down to turn off the rest of the lights. I should maybe not watch horror movies/TV about man eating monsters who live in dark places while doing laundry late at night.

As someone who trained in acting for a time, I'm affected by BAD acting. Mediocre acting I can handle, but when it is BAD, it stands out to me. But then, there are movies/shows that people will tear to shreds based on it's plot or other elements that don't bother me in the least. And I do admit that I went into the show with a PP's comments about her performance and I wonder if I would have not noticed it as much had I went into the show having not read it. I doubt it because it's her expressions and her constant over dramatic hand gestures that are distracting me, so who knows.

K.L. Bennett said:

The scene where Dustin is on the phone with the science teacher asking about how to build a sensory deprivation tank had me cracking up. "Why are you keeping this curiosity-door locked!"

Click to expand...

In my head, that scene extends from the teacher's POV.

Mr. Clarke hangs up phone and stares at it for a moment.

"You know... my kids are kind of weird."

But I seriously loved Mr. Clarke for being a total fount of vital knowledge. He's their wizard. I assume he's seriously underpaid.

mellymel said:

As someone who trained in acting for a time, I'm affected by BAD acting. Mediocre acting I can handle, but when it is BAD, it stands out to me. But then, there are movies/shows that people will tear to shreds based on it's plot or other elements that don't bother me in the least. And I do admit that I went into the show with a PP's comments about her performance and I wonder if I would have not noticed it as much had I went into the show having not read it. I doubt it because it's her expressions and her constant over dramatic hand gestures that are distracting me, so who knows.

Click to expand...

I've taken acting too and have studied film for a long time. I don't find her acting bad.

Celia Cyanide said:

I thought it was great, but Winona Ryder was awful.

Click to expand...

Perks said:

Winona Ryder is practically the kiss of death.

The first two episodes were not very compelling - except that they got 1983 looking so right that I was having flashbacks (I was 13 years old in 1983.) Although, no one said "douchebag" in 1983. That just wasn't invented yet.

We just finished episode three and it was a bit more interesting. We'll see. I'll watch four.

Click to expand...

Williebee said:

So, it wasn't just me. It's this one note performance that grated on my nerves enough to make me stop watching going into the third episode.

Click to expand...

I'm comfortable with my opinion knowing I'm not the only one who feels this way. It's all good. I have quite enjoyed her in other roles, but I'm just not feeling her reactions/emotions as a mother whose child is missing. As I said, I've only seen the first episode. Perhaps as the show continues, I will find she has better fallen into the role and that she comes across as more authentic to the part.

mellymel said:

I'm comfortable with my opinion knowing I'm not the only one who feels this way. It's all good. I have quite enjoyed her in other roles, but I'm just not feeling her reactions/emotions as a mother whose child is missing. As I said, I've only seen the first episode. Perhaps as the show continues, I will find she has better fallen into the role and that she comes across as more authentic to the part.

Click to expand...

Yeah, her performance, to me, was much more serious-meth-shakes than terror-over-missing-child.

I just binged this and found it quite enjoyable. It is heavily indebted to Spielberg's 80s output and Stephen King, yet it felt more loving tribute than a ripoff. Regarding Ryder's performance, to me this was the writers' way of doing their variation on Richard Dreyfuss' performance in Close Encounters where he has a similar descent into obsession. The show was very Spielbergian even in its themes, working in an absent/distant father in several of the families which was present in some of the director's earlier works.

I think my favorite thing about the show is it wraps up rather satisfactorily at the end while still leaving things open for another season. That is likely due to Netflix's model of producing shows, but it is nice to have a self-contained season that doesn't revel in cliffhangers to keep an audience.

mellymel said:

As someone who trained in acting for a time, I'm affected by BAD acting. Mediocre acting I can handle, but when it is BAD, it stands out to me. But then, there are movies/shows that people will tear to shreds based on it's plot or other elements that don't bother me in the least. And I do admit that I went into the show with a PP's comments about her performance and I wonder if I would have not noticed it as much had I went into the show having not read it. I doubt it because it's her expressions and her constant over dramatic hand gestures that are distracting me, so who knows.

Click to expand...

I am an actor too, and I agree. There are some parts that she fits, but this was too challenging of a role for her. It particularly annoyed me, because she was clearly cast for her name, and most actresses I know in that age range could have been more convincing than her. I also agree that I felt bad for the older brother, because he was pretty awesome and she killed some of the scenes with him.

Celia Cyanide said:

I am an actor too, and I agree. There are some parts that she fits, but this was too challenging of a role for her. It particularly annoyed me, because she was clearly cast for her name, and most actresses I know in that age range could have been more convincing than her. I also agree that I felt bad for the older brother, because he was pretty awesome and she killed some of the scenes with him.

Click to expand...

It's always interesting to hear a working actor's view points on other actor's acting. Wynona Ryder seems to be better rooted in the roles of the odd. Beetlejuice, Edward Scissor Hands, And one of my faves, Girl Interrupted (such a great film that I don't think got nearly enough attention or appreciation). I really want to see her succeed, but as a mother of young children, I'm not buying her as a grieving mother whose child is lost. Maybe it's the script? Or a combo of the two? Maybe it's how young she looks (IMO, she looks very young for her age and that is not a bad thing in life, but in the case of the role she is playing she looks too young to have a sixteen year old and maybe that's why I'm having a hard time buying her? And this is really obnoxious and nit-picky of me, but her voice grates on me a bit. It's very scratchy--like nails on a chalkboard). In any event, I just watched the second episode and though I found her a tiny eensy teensy weensy better, I still wasn't buying her. But the kids are great and pretty much everyone else, so they are keeping the show as an interest for me.

BTW, saw you have been nominated for BSA in a short film. Best of luck to you! (Or has it already happened?)

Yeah, I won! Thank you!

Celia Cyanide said:

Yeah, I won! Thank you!

Click to expand...

Oh, wow! SUPER CONGRATS! I checked out your IMDb page. Looks like you have a fair few post production things. I will keep an eye out.

I liked it a lot. Not a lot of surprises, and zero original elements, since it's a pastiche of so many '80s movies, but very well done.

I don't binge as a rule, so it took me some time to get through it. Lots of good there, some bad, and for the record I don't think Winona Ryder's acting is among the bad (it's more that she didn't change her act much as the plot progressed, but that may just as well be a directing problem; her initial choices were pretty convincing).

I'm not a fan of these slow burn shows because they also tend to be very slow-paced which, along with the grey-in-grey lighting, just doesn't speak to me. So if they work for me, it's usually not because of the pacing, it's because there's something in them that makes up for it. In this case, compelling characters, none of whom come across as incompetent. Also, the nods to the likes of ET, Stand By Me, Poltergeist and all those eighties' movies were well-placed. Some sub-plots, though, could have been lost or trimmed without much of a shrug. Most of the Nancy/Steve romance - I'm sure it was meant as a build-up to Steve's later developement and the contrast to Jonathan and some of it was needed as a frame for what happened to Barb, but most of it just didn't progress the story much.

The finale was a bit of a disappointment. I was expecting the kids to go to the Upside down, Goonies-style. Instead, they were sidelined for most of the episode and when they did get to do stuff, it felt a bit shoehorned-in. I do like that the writers chose the less-obvious path on several occasions, but they lost me on that one.

Uh, do we even spoiler-tag here? I've seen some people do it, but it feels like they only tagged what I'd already seen untagged in opther posts anyway.

I almost stopped watching after the first scene at the quarry, but my husband convinced me to give it another shot.

I'm very glad he did.

I thought Winona Ryder did a excellent job of playing a mom falling apart at the seams. I loved her scenes at the store with her boss. I also noticed her third phone was cordless. She can be taught. Every time she was trying to convince someone she wasn't crazy and her son was really talking to her, I thought "or both..." because I felt like she was absolutely losing it.

Loved Hopper. I wanted to hate him at the beginning, but he quickly became a favorite.

But, as just about everyone has mentioned, the real credit belongs to the kids. Every one of them was excellent.

I just wanted to go on record as saying I liked Rider in this, but I guess she gave a very polarizing performance by the looks of reviews.

The one cliche that really bothered me was the tv/movie fantasy version of CPR. I'd love it if people stopped doing that. It's not only lazy writing, but is medical misinformation that could lead to harm in real life.

Manuel Royal said:

The one cliche that really bothered me was the tv/movie fantasy version of CPR. I'd love it if people stopped doing that. It's not only lazy writing, but is medical misinformation that could lead to harm in real life.

Click to expand...

I didn't notice anything. What were they doing wrong?

heza said:

I didn't notice anything. What were they doing wrong?

Click to expand...

Well, in real life, if something has caused somebody to go into full cardiac arrest, there's almost no chance on-the-scene CPR is going to bring them back to consciousness. When it works, it keeps them from dying long enough for EMTs to arrive, do more complicated stuff and get the patient to full medical support as soon as possible. It may be days before the person returns to consciousness, if ever.

We've seen dozens, maybe hundreds, of scenes like this in shows and movies; it's given people an unrealistic image of CPR. (Though it's probably not as bad as the way they show defibrillators being used to start arrested hearts.)

But overall, I liked the show a lot. I did think it worked better plot-wise than thematically. Some really good kid actors.

Manuel Royal said:

Well, in real life, if something has caused somebody to go into full cardiac arrest, there's almost no chance on-the-scene CPR is going to bring them back to consciousness. When it works, it keeps them from dying long enough for EMTs to arrive, do more complicated stuff and get the patient to full medical support as soon as possible. It may be days before the person returns to consciousness, if ever.

Click to expand...

Huh. I did not know that, but now I've read some interviews, including one that said, basically, "They've only got a 1/20 chance of survival, so go ahead and get in there and break those ribs if you have to." Enlightening.

Thanks for answering.

I finally binged it last week. I actually thought all the acting was stilted and the dialogue was second-rate and the mythology didn't hold up. In this case however, the sum was greater than its parts and I enjoyed it and twice had to stop myself and say "No, you must sleep now," rather than watch another episode.

I loved it from start to finish. The boys were the most entertaining part of the show and Elle was amazing.

"Why are you keeping this curiosity-door locked!"

I agree with KL. that was the best line ever in the whole series. just the way he said it. i completely lost it and burst out laughing so hard at that line.

11 was the star of the show. I swear...Hollywood needs to make/reboot Dark Angel. MBB would be so awesome as a Young Max. and she also looks like a young version of Alba.
I can't wait for season 2. i want a season 3 as well. 11 just HAS to come back!

I read a theory on another site...that the Monster was Hoppers daughter or something. Do y'all remember that moment when he was at the Upside Down's version of Will's fort and there was that tiger toy that his daughter used to have?
I do think it was a bit cliche to have Mike and 11 "hook up". Also, I felt a hint of IT in this series. When they all practiced the slingshot...to go up against the monster? The Losers Club?!