Westworld FAQ
Who’s responsible?
“The Dark Knight” screenwriter Jonathan Nolan and his TV-writer wife Lisa Joy (“Pushing Daisies”) serve as creator-showrunners for HBO and J.J. Abrams’ Bad Robot production concern. Nolan and Bad Robot previously collaborated on CBS’ long-running “Person of Interest.”
What’s it about?
Based on Michael Crichton’s 1973 thriller about theme park robots who start killing the guests, HBO’s “Westworld” depicts patrons paying $40,000 per day to “kill” and “fuck” robots.
Is it any good?
Yes. I’ve seen the first four episodes and fully intend to watch the final six. (With “Person of Interest” I think I only made it through episode three.)
Is it as good as “Game of Thrones.”
No.
In the movie the guns were intended to kill only the robots and never the guests. Same deal here?
Yes. “Guests” can kills “hosts,” but not vice versa.
What’s so good about it?
The most compelling mystery involves Ed Harris’ Man In Black, who appears to be a rich guy with a long history with Westworld. The MIB is obsessed with something called “The Maze,” situated in or near the theme park. The park’s guns don’t seem to hurt him, but I can’t help but wonder if he’s a special robot sent out to live in the real world long ago.
So just Ed Harris?
The production design is dazzling. The saloon’s player-piano cranks out 19th-century versions of the Rolling Stones’ “Paint It Black” and Soundgarden’s “Black Hole Sun.” Anthony Hopkins and Geoffrey Wright are great as Robert Ford and Bernard Lowe, the park’s puzzled creator and head programmer, respectively. They’re both trying to get a fix on what’s going wrong. There is some interesting talk about Ford’s long-departed co-creator. There’s also a representative of the park’s corporate overlords, whom we learn visited Westworld as a tot.
Does Hopkins get a lot of screen time or just a cameo?
It’s more than a cameo. I reckon his character, Robert Ford, gets as much screen time as the Khaleesi on “Game of Thrones.”
Does Hopkins get naked as often as the Mother of Dragons?
Lecter keeps his drawers up, but brace for plenty of HBO nudity.
Any Richard Benjamin or James Brolin cameos?
None I noticed.
What’s not so good?
Each night a crew retrieves the bullet-ridden robots and takes them “backstage” where they are repaired and have their memories wiped for the next day’s activities. A recent upgrade, however, is precipitating incomplete memory wipes, and a lot of focus is placed on the robots played by Evan Rachael Wood and Thandie Newton, who keep remembering things they’re not supposed to. Of course the robots don’t know they’re robots, and these strange memories of earlier lives unsettle them. Unfortunately these are well-worn ideas, and a recent British series titled “Humans” did a better job mulling the inner-lives of sexbots and their ilk. I could say the same about a 34-year-old movie titled “Blade Runner.”
Anything else not grab you?
Increasingly tiresome are two guests* of the park. One of them is more cavalier about killing and raping the lifelike machines, but the series makes clear that, literally at the end of the day, the “hosts” are only machines.
(*If the nicer of this duo, William, looks familiar, it may be because actor Jimmi Simpson recurred as snotty Lyle the Intern on 15 episodes of “The Late Show With David Letterman” in 2008 and 2009.)
But “Westworld will still take up space on your DVR?
A key reason I’ll be sticking around is Nolan, who co-wrote the superb “The Dark Knight” and “Interstellar” as well as the story that formed the basis of 2000’s “Memento.” And though the repetition in subsequent episodes drove me away from the series itself, I also quite liked the pilot for “Person of Interest.” It’s a strong track record that suggests we’ll find some satisfaction in the “Westworld” finale if we stick around.
... Westworld is a muddle: stunning to look at, but overloaded with incident, characters, and themes the show doesn't quite know what to do with. … HBO very badly needs Westworld to be a success and provide a foundation for the Thrones-less future, so I imagine they'll give Nolan more time, and a lot more creative freedom than he had with CBS and Person of Interest, to get it right. The raw material's there; the show just needs more time in the lab to hopefully get it right.
... as beautifully built as its subject matter. Its carefully chosen details add up to a pulp spectacular that’s more thoughtful than any other of this fall’s new dramas. … It’s the finesse with which the show handles these heavy questions that will keep me coming back, but it’s also worth noting that the garish spectacle is rendered expertly. …
... It’s an ambitious, if not entirely coherent, sci-fi shoot-’em-up that questions nihilistic entertainment impulses while indulging them. … What keeps “Westworld” interesting in its early going, despite its flat patches and flights of pretentiousness, is its willingness to think big. …
... extravagant but disappointing science fiction head-scratcher … All I really know is that whenever Harris clanks his spurs, “Westworld” becomes noticeably more engaging. I’m therefore hesitant to write “Westworld” off as a dreary trot from start to finish; parts of it are as imaginative and intriguing as anything that’s been on TV recently, particularly in the sci-fi realm. …
The San Francisco Chronicle says:
... very brainy but thoroughly gripping …
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette says:
... It is the definition of a slow-burn series, a program that should be exciting rendered as kind of dull. “Westworld” isn’t unwatchable. It foreshadows some potentially intriguing revelations and raises questions — How does this amusement park work? What year is it set in anyway? — but early on the series holds its cards close to the vest, which might frustrate viewers seeking a story with forward momentum. …
... chilling and fascinating … “Westworld” has fewer heroes than “Game of Thrones,” which makes it a bit harder to warm up to, but like a good, thought-provoking puzzle, it is compelling and addictive. …
... If you're cynical, or you work at HBO, that may call to mind a line from the opener of Westworld (*** 1/2 out of four): “It better be, for what we’re paying.” HBO needs a big hit to join — and eventually replace — Game of Thrones, and it’s invested a lot of time and money in this loose adaptation of the 1973 Michael Crichton film to get one. For anyone who loves coherent science fiction, beautifully shot vistas, artfully constructed mysteries and compelling stellar performances, it's money well spent. …
... like a train, this drama runs on predictable tracks, and no matter how luxurious the trappings of the journey, the destination is obvious from miles away. “Westworld” looks terrific; its directors have shot its Western locations to stunning effect. But its warmly saturated outdoor scenes and its surface slickness aren’t enough to mask the indecision, condescension, and hollowness at its core. …
... It's also important to know that confusion isn't always messy — it's a necessity when telling a complicated tale. And if you're at all interested in watching Westworld for the long haul, depth and complexity are key factors. Westworld has those in ways that build confidence in its potential. … It's better to be difficult than to be flimsy and disappointingly easy to figure out. The challenges in Westworld make it worth the investment. …
9 p.m. Sunday. HBO.
