The Last of Us: Season 2 Episode 6 Review
Framed around each of Ellie's birthdays following their return to Jackson, episode 6 delicately displays Joel's urge to fulfil his role as a father. It's rooted in the very first scene, in which we see him as a teenage boy: The conversation between Joel and his father, played with warmth yet underlying hardness by Better Call Saul's Tony Dalton, presents the poisoned chalice passed down from Miller to Miller. That struggle of generational fatherhood is what has driven Joel ever since. Sarah was his world before the outbreak. Then he grieved her, holding onto her memories until Ellie arrived. By the end of this episode, she's 17, and he's on the brink of losing another daughter. It's a crossroads he's contending with, and one brilliantly displayed by Pascal throughout, as he battles to do the right thing by her.
It's perhaps best conveyed in the final moment between them – and the very last conversation between Ellie and Joel before his death. Their porchside chat is perhaps the most affecting in all of the game, so it's a huge relief to see it recreated so well here. The vulnerability in Pascal's face is all-consuming, as he barely utters a word but lets his eyes speak for him. He's terrified of losing Ellie, but he's expressing it in a way that he can't really control, and a way that will infect her, too – his tears filling that cursed cup once more, ready for Ellie to sip from and make the same selfish mistakes he did. It adds extra heartbreaking context to her 'I'm gonna be a dad' quip from earlier in the season. She'll aim to break this cycle, but little in her present-day actions suggests this.
Though that's giving more thought to the present day than episode 6 can muster, which is my major reservation about this episode. The series of flashbacks is heartfelt and works excellently when it comes to building out the protagonists of The Last of Us' past and future, but I can't help but feel like momentum has stalled here. It feels off to spend a whole episode exploring Ellie's history when we've just ratcheted the tension on who she's become. And with only one episode left to go in the season, it feels like the only road to a satisfying finale will involve covering a lot of ground in a short period of time. It's not so much a criticism of what this episode does, but more of its place within season 2.Bella Ramsey feels much more at home as a younger Ellie, portraying a wide-eyed, excitable version of the character with a far greater verve than the more fearsome evolution we got last week. It's best shown in her and Joel's visit to a nearby museum, where Ellie takes a heartstring-tugging trip into orbit, thanks to a tape recording and a long-forgotten space capsule. The smile that dances across her face is a rare moment of levity in a show, that, up until this moment, has been irrepressibly bleak. As we watch the pair enjoy their respite, it feels like some of that season 1 magic has been rebottled.
But, as ever, what The Last of Us giveth with one hand, it taketh with the other, not letting us sit with this flash of joy for long. Episode 6 finally answers a question posed in the season premiere: What did Joel do to Eugene to make Gail resent him so much? Pantoliano is given his time to shine as Eugene, a member of the Jackson community whose time is ticking away thanks to an infected's bite. His introduction enables Joel and Ellie's dynamic from season 1 to resurface, and echoes of their experience in Salt Lake City can be felt. Joel has lived long enough in this world to be wary of Eugene – any sense of optimism (or hope that Eugene can be healed) is long gone. Not Ellie, though: She still carries an element of naivety and wants to help Eugene.
The mercy killing carried out by Joel only sows more seeds of distrust between him and his surrogate daughter. In his lie to Gail about it, Ellie realises just how easy it is for Joel to hide the truth. It's in this moment that the fissures in their relationship really start to crack wide open. What Joel did isn't necessarily wrong, but it runs counter to Ellie's moral code and how she would've dealt with Eugene. It effectively means that she now knows that Joel has been lying about what happened in that Firefly hospital, and the revelation of him lying about Eugene is a great choice by Druckmann. It's an example of adaptation for the better – which this season largely hasn't landed for me – and a much more impactful, and logical, option than having Joel and Ellie traipse all the way back to Salt Lake City as they do in The Last of Us Part 2.
It's something the episode as a whole does to great effect as it further explores the intervening years and Joel and Ellie's dynamic, offering new glimpses into previously unseen moments. Joel catching Ellie doing things she maybe shouldn't be doing at 17 and his built-in resentment for Seth (due to his former life as a policeman, like Joel's dad) add more shades to the character, even though he's long gone in the present day. These little touches and grandstand speeches combine to great effect to help us fully understand why Joel made every decision that led to his death, all the way up to rescuing his eventual killer from a horde of infected. Above all else, it's the desire to be a protector that forged the Millers' poisoned chalice – and eventually led to his downfall.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
14 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
Review: Unoriginal ‘Nobody 2' forgets what worked in the original
Just about anyone can be an action hero when production company 87North — the team behind the 'John Wick' franchise — is behind the camera. They proved that in 2021 when they made comedian and 'Better Call Saul' star Bob Odenkirk a surprise badass in the hyper-violent dadsploitation flick 'Nobody.' Odenkirk played Hutch, a suburban dad and corporate stooge with a surprising past, who is unable to keep a lid on his instincts, like a kettle boiling over, when his family is threatened. In the sequel, 'Nobody 2,' Hutch has found his groove, and once again he's fallen into a routine of quotidian drudgery, delivering brutality day in and day out, in an attempt to pay off his debt — not that the script by Derek Kolstad and Aaron Rabin recaps anything from the first film. But all you need to know is that Hutch is a dad, his job is violence, and he needs a break. Desperate to save his marriage and family, Hutch decides to take his wife, Becca (Connie Nielsen), and kids Sammy (Paisley Cadorath) and Brady (Gage Munroe), as well as his wacky former FBI agent dad (Christopher Lloyd), on a summer break trip to one of his beloved childhood haunts: Plummerville Tiki Rush, a ramshackle water park somewhere in the Upper Midwest. He's trying to get away from it all, but as his handler The Butcher (Colin Salmon) reminds him, 'Wherever you go, there you are.' And there Hutch goes. Try as he might to take a break from himself, he can't escape his true nature when a scuffle breaks out at an arcade and a security guard swats Sammy. The resulting brawl, set to the Offspring's 'Come Out and Play,' is one of the best moments of 'Nobody 2' — funny, colorful, innovative. Hutch's greatest strength is his MacGyver-like ability to use every tool and random object around him in service of violence, and he plays Whack-a-Mole with the guard's head. Much like that other Kolstad-scripted character, John Wick, Hutch is a reluctant warrior, desperate to avoid using his skills, but seemingly unable to stop, whether by obligation or training. But where Wick is brooding and operatic, 'Nobody' is cheeky and irreverent, because 87North shapes their action franchises to the star, not the other way around. 'Nobody 2' maintains that sense of humor, now with Timo Tjahjanto taking over directing duties from Ilya Naishuller. But 87North also has a house style now, both aesthetically and thematically, and both 'Nobody 2' and Tjahjanto fall prey to that formula. There are a few great action sequences that utilize Hutch's inventive thinking and emphasize the incongruity of his skills. The camera will follow the impact of a smash, the swing of a punch, and the violence is satisfyingly crunchy as usual. But the script itself feels dashed off like an afterthought, reverse-engineered around a few key set pieces in the amusement park. What works about these movies is Odenkirk, his pained expression as he resorts to inflicting pain and destruction, his blackout rage mode when protecting his family. The first antagonist they introduce, a bootlegger named Henry (John Ortiz), who is also an overprotective dad, matches that energy perfectly. So why, then, do Kolstad and Rabin jettison that villain who fits the rural setting for a slick, glamorous gangster that is Sharon Stone in a three-piece suit? As a psychopathic mob boss with a French bulldog puppy and 87North regular Daniel Bernhardt as her right-hand man, Stone is certainly having fun, but her character, Lendani, feels wildly out of place. 'Nobody 2,' which plays on the juxtaposition of the suburban and the super-violent, works when it's Hutch facing off with the redneck good ol' boys on a duck boat, not when he's going through the motions with an elite villain who feels like she's 'from the world of John Wick.' It's like their wires got crossed in the writing, and the Lendani plot feels forced, sludgy and totally unnecessary. However, everyone seems to be having a good time, from Stone to Ortiz to Colin Hanks as a mean sheriff with a bad haircut, and especially RZA as Hutch's brother Harry, in full ninja nerd mode. At 89 minutes, with a few pops of amusement and levity, there are worse ways to spend an August afternoon. Yet the story feels so thin, the script so rote, that it's a disappointment from the surprising appeal of the first film. All the elements were there to make 'Nobody 2' a great sequel — it just seems like nobody really thought about what makes the original really work.'Nobody 2' — 2 stars (out of 4) MPA rating: R (for strong bloody violence and language throughout) Running time: 1:29 How to watch: In theaters Aug. 16
Forbes
19 hours ago
- Forbes
‘Outlander: Blood Of My Blood' Is An Entertaining Prequel With One Big Problem
Outlander: Blood Of My Blood Credit: Starz I tend to view prequels with a healthy dose of skepticism. Every once in a blue moon, one comes along and not only justifies its existence, but blows my mind in the process. Most of the time, prequels are little better than fan-fiction. Better Call Saul somehow managed to be every bit as dramatic and compelling as its parent show, Breaking Bad. The series maintained suspense by introducing a handful of really compelling new characters whose fates remained a mystery. Just as importantly, the show's writers resisted the temptation to make it little more than a vehicle for Breaking Bad callbacks. Better Call Saul brought back characters from Breaking Bad judiciously and with purpose. Jimmy and Mike, in particular, were given a great deal more depth than they ever had in the original series. Another great example of a prequel done right is Andor, Tony Gilroy's exceptional companion series to Rogue One which was itself a prequel to A New Hope. Star Wars has lots of prequels and prequels of prequels. It's less known for profound character studies and brilliant explorations of revolution and political upheaval, but Andor managed to do all that and more in its 24-episode run. Of course, we knew the fate of Cassian Andor, and the Empire and the Rebellion, but the show helped fill in so many gaps, while giving us a darker (and better written) portrayal of a galaxy far, far away, that it quickly became my favorite piece of Star Wars media since the original trilogy. But Better Call Saul and Andor are diamonds in the rough. Far too often, prequels are little more than another way to squeeze more content out of an IP. A prequel faces many hurdles. It's rarely as good as the original but always compared to the original. A prequel often gives us too much information, like explaining how the Force works in Star Wars. It rarely stands on its own two feet as a story, with many of its best gags or moments inextricably tied to work that came before. Unlike a sequel, a prequel isn't tasked with ending a story, but rather with making up some new story altogether which can somehow lead to the one we've already been told. This can make many prequels seem hamfisted or unsurprising. Which brings me to Outlander: Blood Of My Blood. Outlander: Blood Of My Blood Credit: Starz I Wanna Go Back, When You Were Mine Spoilers follow. The new series takes place some years before the events of Outlander, though given that these are stories about time-travelling 'before' and 'after' are rather hazy prepositions. We are introduced to Jamie Fraser's parents, Brian Fraser (Jamie Roy) and Ellen MacKenzie (Harriet Slater) before they become his parents. We are also introduced to Claire Beauchamp's parents, Henry Beauchamp (Jeremy Irvine) and Julia Moriston (Hermione Corfield), though in the timeline of the prequel their daughter has already been born (though we get to see how they meet during WW1 briefly before the main story kicks off). The casting is quite superb. It's so uncannily good that it throws me off at times. Hermione Corfield's Julia looks and sounds and acts so much like Claire (Caitriona Balfe) at times that they could have just as easily cast her to play a younger Claire rather than her mother. It's quite extraordinary. I'm less thrilled by how similar their personalities are. Mothers and daughters are often quite different people, but with Claire and Julia, the apple didn't fall far from the proverbial tree. Claire and Julia Credit: Starz I rolled my eyes a few times at how Strong and Independent Julia happens to be, a generation ahead of Claire, who was already quite uniquely strong-willed and opinionated for her time (and took those views back with zeal to the 17th century where they were even more foreign). To have her mother not only look but act and think almost exactly the same is peculiar. Sure, kids learn from their parents and often hold similar views, but just as often they fight to distinguish themselves from their parents or even rebel against them, even if only intellectually or politically. A more conservative, traditional Julia would have helped make her more distinct and feel less like a clone of Claire. It doesn't help that Jamie's mother, Ellen, is also fiercely independent and progressive for her time. The daughter of a Scottish laird, she was promised by her father that she would never have to marry. And so the two main female protagonists each possess strikingly similar personalities, very out of place for their respective times, that also happen to mirror Claire's personality from the original show. Brian and Jamie Fraser Credit: Starz The fathers, meanwhile, are both handsome, progressive, noble and brave. Again, the casting is exceptional. Jamie Roy looks a lot like a young, dark-haired Jamie Fraser (Sam Heughan). His voice sounds like Heughan's as well. And he is every bit the gentleman, chivalrous and kind and self-sacrificing. He's the one man, it turns out, that might tempt Ellen away from her commitment to spinsterdom. But her family loathes the Frasers and the Frasers loath the MacKenzies, so we have two star-crossed lovers. It's Macbeth meets Romeo and Juliet. In some ways, the fact that Jamie and Claire's parents are all so fierce and good and independent and stubborn makes sense. They passed these qualities down to their children. In other ways, it strikes me that this makes Claire and Jamie much less unique. This is all made much, much worse by the fact that Claire's parents end up time-travelling . . . directly into the same time and place as Jamie's parents during the early days of their forbidden courtship. If you told this story chronologically rather than having this be a prequel, it would seem very strange. You'd have these two couples meet thanks to pretty random time-traveling, and then (I assume, I haven't watched the whole season) fall in love and make some babies, and then somehow they separate and then . . . miraculously . . . their babies, born in different centuries, end up falling in love a generation later. MORE FOR YOU Now, Claire is hardly special at all. Her parents always wanted to visit Scotland and go there on honeymoon there, so her trip there with Frank was just a weird repeat of theirs. Only now, she didn't go to Scotland because of all the wonderful stories they told her but because Frank was researching his genealogy. Recall Claire of the first season. She really knows very little about Scotland. Frank is always teaching her things. Isn't that a little odd given her parents' story? They even went through the same exact stones that Claire travels back through! Meanwhile, we are given a long parade of characters from the main show, only in younger actor's bodies. Murtagh is a dashing young man played by Rory Alexander. Colum MacKenzie is played by young Seamus McLean Ross, who reminds me of a young (and Scottish) Joaquin Phoenix; Sam Retford plays his brother Dougal, with a full head of hair and a full belly of fire. There are even young versions of Ned, Angus and Rupert. The characters face some of the same problems I noticed in Dexter: Original Sin. That was an enjoyable prequel, but the younger versions all started to have the 'high school play' effect. It's not that any of the casting is off. I'm pleased with all the actors. But it's just a lot of 'Oh look, that's young Angus! Oh look, that's young Colum! Oh look . . . ' and so on and so forth. The first two episodes of Blood Of My Blood still get a lot right. I enjoyed the setup, introducing us first to Jamie's parents and secretly to Claire's parents (as a maid in the Fraser household and the bladier of House Grant) before revealing their story in the second episode. You meet both Julia and Henry as characters in the past before realizing later that they came from the 20th century. That's clever, and would have been even better if we were given more time to make this connection on our own, with perhaps a midseason reveal that they came from the future. The costumes and music and cinematography are all great and lovingly crafted, though at times a shot here or there looked weirdly fake. We're not quite at Outlander levels of detail and production value here, but it's close enough for cannonballs. I also love that the show takes place in Scotland rather than the New World. I've had a harder time staying invested in Outlander's main story ever since it left Scotland for the high seas and the Americas. As much as I might gripe that we're treading old ground or hewing a little too close to the characters in the original show, it's still good to be back. I'm not sure what to think of Blood Of My Blood just yet. I remain optimistic despite my worries. I'm not sure this is a prequel that will justify its existence beyond throwing fans a fun new story. Who knows, maybe that'll be enough.
a day ago
Bob Odenkirk returns as action hero in 'Nobody 2'
Bob Odenkirk, known for TV hits like "Breaking Bad" and "Better Call Saul," returns as family man Hutch Mansell in action thriller Nobody 2 alongside Connie Nielsen and Sharon Stone.
