Wow, score one for Ain't It Cool News.
AICN got Mel Gibson to let them screen a rough cut of Apocalypto for the VIP ticket holders. And to boot, Mel and his leading actor, Rudy Youngblood, stuck around afterwards for a Q&A.
For the sake of my sanity, I'm going to limit my comments to the movie; the Q&A, while entertaining, was fairly standard, and I'm sure AICN will have something up shortly.
First of all, it was a rough cut, fx weren't done, the score was temporary, and even Mel admitted he was still shaving the middle. (Which I had to admit dragged.) But even with that, I have reservations about the movie.
My issue is this: one man's archetype is the basis of another man's cliche, and I tend to the latter. There really isn't anything original in the plot. Man has happy family, man is taken from happy family, man escapes, outruns the bad guys, and returns to said family. I'm sorry, but I think I've seen this a few times. The novelty here is the setting (spectacular) and the whole dialect/subtitle issue (I... got nothing, I don't speak Mayan).
That said; it will be a beautiful movie, it's visually stunning, and very well researched from what I've seen. James Horner is working on the soundtrack, and I'm sure it will be up to his usual spectacular standards, and the chase scene at the end was wonderful even in its rough form. Will it be an enjoyable way to spend an afternoon, yes. Is it going to change the world of cinema as we know it, no. And watch Youngblood, if he doesn't get stuck in a type-casting rut, he may be one to watch.
Famous Last Words:
I'm not waiting in any long lines, but if I see it again I'm sure I'll be entertained. Not necessarily a bad thing.
Showing posts with label OK. Show all posts
Showing posts with label OK. Show all posts
Sunday, September 24, 2006
Friday, September 01, 2006
The biggest fictional history book I've ever read.
"Many books are to be read, some are to be studied, and a few are meant to be lived in for weeks. Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell is of this last kind." -Michael Dirda, The Washington Post
To which I add "No, sh*$, Sherlock. And also, whoever started touting this as the "adult's Harry Potter," should be shot. Aside from the magic, we're not even in the same genre. This isn't a fantasy, it's a Gothic Victorian historical.
Now, I pride myself on being a fairly voracious reader. When I decide I like something I'll burn right through it, stay up late, take it to lunch with me, whatever it takes to get to that next page, chapter, or verse. Which I suppose is my problem with this book, even after reading Jonathan Strange cover to cover, I still can't figure out if I liked it at all. Which is why it took me somewhere in the neighborhood of seven months to finish. I know I don't hate it, so that's something I suppose. There are parts I know I enjoyed, and I find the entire concept to be fascinating, but as an entire piece? I finished it weeks ago and I'm still scratching my head.
So let me attempt to elucidate, and yes, I'm using the fifty-cent term for a reason and not to sound smart. As defined by my handy online Merriam-Webster: elucidate... transitive verb : to make lucid especially by explanation or analysis
Part of this, I'm sure, is because of the structure she has set herself. In the most simple terms I can use, Clarke set out to write a historical novel in Victorian style, only with magic. Not a bad idea, but she took the "historical" part a bit too far. Don't get me wrong, she's done her research into the Napoleonic wars and it shows. I fact, I'd say the "war bits" were the best paced, and by far outstrip the rest of the book in clarity. Clarke bounces back and forth between Strange's adventures in the field and Norrell's maneuverings back in London almost effortlessly, and weaves them into the wider narrative fairly deftly. And it's blazingly obvious that she's planned out the fictional history of the magical side of things extensively.
Or should I say excessively? Footnote: 1 : a note of reference, explanation , or comment (see excerpt, 5th page) usually placed below the text on a printed page 2 a : one that is a relatively subordinate or minor part; footnote to architectural history. Now, I'm all for footnotes. They're great to clarify points, identify different schools of thought, or to prove that the author isn't just making stuff up. And that last reason is why Ms. Clark has used them here. I get that, it's a wonderful touch that adds that certain layer of "reality" to the whole piece. It feels like I could go look this stuff up if I wanted too. It's the "relatively subordinate" part she struggles with.
Footnotes are meant to compliment the piece, not become pieces of their own. Case in point- on page 61, one of the characters refers to a legal case involving magic. Clarke inserts a footnote, quite properly, to explain the relevance of the case to the conversation at hand. In any other text, the author would add a few sentences and we'd move on. (1) Heck, as this is a work of fiction, and the footnotes are a nifty device, I'd allow a few short paragraphs. Instead there's a page and a half of small-font text, at least three if not four pages if it were regular sized. To add insult to injury, the next footnote is longer, and includes actual dialogue. They do nothing to move the plot along, and they are a distraction, not a clarification to the reader. I should not forget what I was reading before I reach the end of the relevant footnote. If there were only three, maybe four the entire piece, I could forgive. But there's one of these babies in almost every chapter. (One stretches over five pages!!!) My history professors would flay me alive, these aren't footnotes any longer, they're appendices.
But if you can ignore them, or do what I do and finish the chapter, then go read the footnotes, then you can get through it OK. Clarke is still a little enamored of her own historical creation, as are most of the critics whose glowing reviews pepper periodicals everywhere, but they're not entirely wrong. Clarke adheres to the Gothic Victorian writing style she's chosen, even going so far as to reflect the appropriate gender bias in the treatment of Lady Poole and Mrs. Strange. Speech patterns, atmosphere, and class relationships are all accurate, and while the casual reader might get lost, or not even know where to begin, after awhile you can pick up the rhythm, and adjust your mindset to what's being presented. This is not an easy writing style to master, and while I think her editors should have been a little more liberal with their little red pens, it's not a total disaster.
My advise- If you like magic and a good gothic tale of mystery, magic and mayhem and can make it through books like Rebecca, Edgar Allen Poe's writings or even Dracula and Frankenstein without the language and style (all 846 pages of it) driving you up a wall, read it. You'll enjoy it. Just take it slow.
1. For example: Tubbs v. Starhouse an action in which Mr. Starhouse, a former employee of Mr. Tubbs, sued his employer for defamation of character by claiming that Mr. Starhouse was a faerie. The resulting strife caused Starhouse to leave Tubbs' employ and suffer unemployment and injury to his reputation. The courts found in favor of Mr. Starhouse, making him the first person to ever be declared "human" by the courts. It is also interesting to note that it illustrates the belief that, as recently as a few years ago, many Englishmen and women still believed that fairies walked among them. See, simple! Footnote- not footchapter!
To which I add "No, sh*$, Sherlock. And also, whoever started touting this as the "adult's Harry Potter," should be shot. Aside from the magic, we're not even in the same genre. This isn't a fantasy, it's a Gothic Victorian historical.
Now, I pride myself on being a fairly voracious reader. When I decide I like something I'll burn right through it, stay up late, take it to lunch with me, whatever it takes to get to that next page, chapter, or verse. Which I suppose is my problem with this book, even after reading Jonathan Strange cover to cover, I still can't figure out if I liked it at all. Which is why it took me somewhere in the neighborhood of seven months to finish. I know I don't hate it, so that's something I suppose. There are parts I know I enjoyed, and I find the entire concept to be fascinating, but as an entire piece? I finished it weeks ago and I'm still scratching my head.
So let me attempt to elucidate, and yes, I'm using the fifty-cent term for a reason and not to sound smart. As defined by my handy online Merriam-Webster: elucidate... transitive verb : to make lucid especially by explanation or analysis
Part of this, I'm sure, is because of the structure she has set herself. In the most simple terms I can use, Clarke set out to write a historical novel in Victorian style, only with magic. Not a bad idea, but she took the "historical" part a bit too far. Don't get me wrong, she's done her research into the Napoleonic wars and it shows. I fact, I'd say the "war bits" were the best paced, and by far outstrip the rest of the book in clarity. Clarke bounces back and forth between Strange's adventures in the field and Norrell's maneuverings back in London almost effortlessly, and weaves them into the wider narrative fairly deftly. And it's blazingly obvious that she's planned out the fictional history of the magical side of things extensively.
Or should I say excessively? Footnote: 1 : a note of reference, explanation , or comment (see excerpt, 5th page) usually placed below the text on a printed page 2 a : one that is a relatively subordinate or minor part; footnote to architectural history. Now, I'm all for footnotes. They're great to clarify points, identify different schools of thought, or to prove that the author isn't just making stuff up. And that last reason is why Ms. Clark has used them here. I get that, it's a wonderful touch that adds that certain layer of "reality" to the whole piece. It feels like I could go look this stuff up if I wanted too. It's the "relatively subordinate" part she struggles with.
Footnotes are meant to compliment the piece, not become pieces of their own. Case in point- on page 61, one of the characters refers to a legal case involving magic. Clarke inserts a footnote, quite properly, to explain the relevance of the case to the conversation at hand. In any other text, the author would add a few sentences and we'd move on. (1) Heck, as this is a work of fiction, and the footnotes are a nifty device, I'd allow a few short paragraphs. Instead there's a page and a half of small-font text, at least three if not four pages if it were regular sized. To add insult to injury, the next footnote is longer, and includes actual dialogue. They do nothing to move the plot along, and they are a distraction, not a clarification to the reader. I should not forget what I was reading before I reach the end of the relevant footnote. If there were only three, maybe four the entire piece, I could forgive. But there's one of these babies in almost every chapter. (One stretches over five pages!!!) My history professors would flay me alive, these aren't footnotes any longer, they're appendices.
But if you can ignore them, or do what I do and finish the chapter, then go read the footnotes, then you can get through it OK. Clarke is still a little enamored of her own historical creation, as are most of the critics whose glowing reviews pepper periodicals everywhere, but they're not entirely wrong. Clarke adheres to the Gothic Victorian writing style she's chosen, even going so far as to reflect the appropriate gender bias in the treatment of Lady Poole and Mrs. Strange. Speech patterns, atmosphere, and class relationships are all accurate, and while the casual reader might get lost, or not even know where to begin, after awhile you can pick up the rhythm, and adjust your mindset to what's being presented. This is not an easy writing style to master, and while I think her editors should have been a little more liberal with their little red pens, it's not a total disaster.
My advise- If you like magic and a good gothic tale of mystery, magic and mayhem and can make it through books like Rebecca, Edgar Allen Poe's writings or even Dracula and Frankenstein without the language and style (all 846 pages of it) driving you up a wall, read it. You'll enjoy it. Just take it slow.
1. For example: Tubbs v. Starhouse an action in which Mr. Starhouse, a former employee of Mr. Tubbs, sued his employer for defamation of character by claiming that Mr. Starhouse was a faerie. The resulting strife caused Starhouse to leave Tubbs' employ and suffer unemployment and injury to his reputation. The courts found in favor of Mr. Starhouse, making him the first person to ever be declared "human" by the courts. It is also interesting to note that it illustrates the belief that, as recently as a few years ago, many Englishmen and women still believed that fairies walked among them. See, simple! Footnote- not footchapter!
Monday, July 10, 2006
Yo-Ho-Ho and a Bottle of... Huh?
I liked the movie, let it be known that all of the forthcoming nit-picking comes from a place of love. It was a good way to spend an evening.
But talk about your wasted efforts. This movie was not thought out, and seemed to be slapped together just to get a sequel into the theatres to hold us over to the main event in the finale. And that annoys me to no end. (This coming from me, a fan of the make-it-up-as-we-go-along show, 24!)
So, yeah, be ye warned, there are spoilers abroad in these high seas... Yarrr!
Of all the myriad plots that get set up along the way, not one is resolved. Yes, this is the second chapter of a trilogy, but something should have ended in the two and a half hours I sat there in the theatre, amused, but waiting. After all, in Star Wars, Luke started and finished his training, the unresolved sexual tension between Han and Leia was resolved, and the Millennium Falcon stopped trying to outrun people and began chasing after them. These were all endings, and yet they still served the larger story and allowed a segue into the finale.
The center plot here is the search for the infamous "Dead Man's Chest." And yes, it is found, (about 2/3 the way through) and everyone gets to chase after it, playing "hot potato" until it comes to rest. And then it isn't used, by anyone. At all. We just get to look at it and it's freaky contents- just sitting there. Waiting for something to happen, which won't until the next movie.
So on to the subplots, which include a romantic troika consisting, unsuprisingly, of Jack, Elizabeth and Will. It's set up with innuendo, that blinky compass of Jack's, and a "stolen" kiss. But while all parties are aware of the situation to varying degrees, no accusations have been made, and no relationships have been tested. But I'm sure the ensuing conflict will be wonderful.
It just won't happen until the next movie.
Family angst is aptly represented with Will and his father (played nicely by Stellan Skarsgaard), and it manages to go in a complete circle, with both Will and Bootstrap Bill ending in the exact same places they started. (Will free, Bill, not-so-much.) The only thing that changes is that by the end, Bootstrap has "hope" that his son will rescue him.
Which won't happen until the next movie.
The blackmailing greed of the East India Trading Company in the guise of Lord Cutler Beckett is on call, and they make for nicevillainss to replace the British Navy (in the guise of Commodore Norrington) from the last movie. And while I admit the upper hand they gain at the end was nicely arranged, but we're basically left with Beckett sitting at his desk, pondering his next move.
Which won't happen until the next movie.
And, of course, we have the evil Davy Jones. Whose scenes were nicely chewed by Bill Nighy, if almost spit out again by the freakish CGI-laden prosthetics/make-up that completely obliterated almost all of the actor's fine facial expressions. (More on this later.) Davy rants, Davy kills,Davy plays his organ with his tentacles (not a euphemism!), but he doesn't have the contents of chest, he doesn't have Jack, or Will, (or a clue for that matter) and that's pretty much how he started the movie. But he is going to have a lot of fun dealing with the person who did end up with the contents of his "locker."
But not until until the next movie.
The only resolved plotline is Jack's. And it's resolved violently. More or less. But not finally. He's not exactly encased in carbonite, but he still needs a' rescuin'.
Which won't happen (say it with me folks,) until the next movie!
See where a birdy can get her little feathers ruffled?
Now, back to that character CGI issue I mentioned earlier. This is what happens when a good concept is completely run off the rails by it's own nifty-ness. As I understand it, the concept was thus: The longer you served on The Flying Dutchman, the more you began to resemble the sea creatures and creepy-crawlies of the deep. Cool! They were so pretty, and so creepy, and so overdone that they lost all facial expression, and were used for shock value, not character laughs. And they weren't even done as well as they could have been, they all looked shiny and fake. I think something went wonky in integrating the prosthetics and the CGI.
The original pirates from the franchise, the cursed crew of the Black Pearl, had their moonlit CGI freakishness, but the rest of the time you could pass them on the street and not notice. (Well, you get what I mean.) The moonlight reveal was a way to deal with budget constraints, but it served the overall plot very well. And it allowed you to connect with some of the fine character actors that were being used. Frankly, Capt'n Barbossa would not have been half as scary, had he been a skeleton all the time. All things in moderation, my dears, especially in movie tech.
(And about that nifty concept- so far as I could tell after one viewing, it is never mentioned in the movie. The skeletal curse was a cornerstone of the last installment, here it's a gimmick, and one not even worth explaining. Sigh.)
All of this, plus the usual sequell pitfalls: resurrected gags, the same stunts (only Bigger! and Better!), and the in-jokes. Which, in all honesty, I actually I didn't mind so much, loving the first as much as I do.
But I have to say, the scene stealer for this flick- her. I have no idea who she is (character, not actress), or where she came from, but she's really cool, and she was the only character who had any clue what was going on. At. All. And she chewed her scenery the same way Mr. Depp did in the first movie which was great. Bravo! (Also- she gets the coolest set. This was one of those movies I look at and wish I was working props in Hollywood.)
And the ending twist? Wow. But if they don't explain it in a way the audience can buy, it will kill the next movie. You DO NOT just drop something like that in an audience's lap with out a really good reason. It becomes nothing more than a REALLY cheap stunt, and there will be hell to pay.
Final verdict- we're not keel-haulin' her yet. But if the final installment fails, she's walking the plank.
And then I'll go to Disney World.
Monday, May 01, 2006
The middle ground, or I'll catch the repeats...
It's that time. The networks are reaching their season/series finales and my VCR is doing overtime. It's been a weird season. Some shows have earned my devotion, some shows give me pause, and others have, well, we don't talk about them much, we're hoping they'll go away. And no, I don't have the premium channels- this is an expanded basic listing.
Welcome to eh-whateverville. These shows I like, but they've either fallen off, just not grabbed me yet, or they're just starting to pick up steam. I'm paying attention, but I'm not losing sleep when I miss an episode. They're often just noise in the background....
Lost- ABC, starring a lot of people who are more lost and confused than their audience- but only by a little.
Viewing history: Previously obsessive, I-can't-have-class-that-night, now-let's-go-web-surfing-for-more-clues. Now- I missed a few weeks and came back as confused as I had been when I stopped. Besides, who needs to keep up when ABC runs a recapper show every few weeks it seems?
Why the hate?
1. (This is true of all of ABC's biggies these days.) Would it kill you to air the show regularly?! This goes way beyond a hiatus break- those are expected. ABC has been engaging its audience in a sick game of keep-away with its new episodes, and I, for one, am really tired of playing.
2. Occasionally, it would be nice if you would solve one of those little mysteries you keep dangling in front of us. The X-files got away with it for as long as they did because for most of its seasons, it remained primarily a creep-of-the-week format. The over-arcing side mysteries were just that- sides. Lost's plot seems built entirely on mysteries, and they're multiplying like bunnies.
Why do I care?
1. For all it's infuriating mysteries, it has all those infuriating mysteries. It's like the build-up to Christmas. I'm watching all these presents slowly appear under the tree. I have no idea what's inside and the suspense is killing me. I'm deathly afraid they're all socks and clothes instead of the toys and books I've wanted for the last year. But the 'rents never let me down, will the writers of Lost?
2. Matthew Fox and Terry O'Quinn. I enjoyed the whole Sawyer/Kate/Jack triangle last season, but watching Jack and Locke circle each other like wild animals encroaching on each others' territory has been electrifying. Sawyer's already taken advantage of that once, to spectacular results. But now that things are coming to a head with the Others, will Jack and Locke be able to pull it together? Or will Locke's compulsion to discover the island's secrets/powers lead him to doing something that will push Jack over the edge? (Egad, I sound like ad copy, don't I?)
Train Wreck Status: Mid-to low. The writers, while taking sadistic pleasure in the audience's frustration, do seem to know (or are acting like they know) were they're going. But if another season finale comes and goes with no major resolutions (remember the hopes we all had for that hatch?) the odds will skyrocket.
Stargate SG1/Stargate Atlantis- SciFi, starring Aliens, humans, and "whatever" tech that would make even the casts of 24 and Alias roll their eyes and say, "Yeah, right- pull the other one."
Viewing history: Previously religiously- had the VCR set every week. Even watched it with MamaRaven and the Old Crow. Now- I'm surprised (sort of) that it's still on.
Why the hate?
1. Like I said, I'm surprised it's still on, the "original" SG1 I mean. We're creeping up on 10 (?) seasons here, folks, and we've gone so far up the alien threat evolutionary ladder that we had to invent a new galaxy for the Gods to come crawling out of. We're not recycling plots anymore, we're regurgitating them en masse.
2. Franchise fatigue- it was an issue when the original series aired. SG1 got around it by using clever sci-babble to explain its existence, a minor retcon to justify its existence, some initial good multi-season series arcs to keep us interested in its existence. They also had some really good casting to replace the movie actors so it could exist on TV in the first place. Atlantis met their sci-babble, didn't really need the retcon, but it hasn't raised a good arc yet, and the casting I might fold on...
Why do I care?
1. SG1's current arc is a little better than what they've had in previous years. (I swear the Atlantis thing was just so they could do a spin-off.) The "Gods" are coming to kill/convert us all and the "Gods" that could fight them on their own terms opted out of the race aeons ago. If SG1 can somehow re-engage the Ascended Ones, I might check back in, but if the puny humans find a new whatever tech to save the day at the 11th hour, I might finally give up for good. Stunt casting Ben Browder and Claudia Black (Farscape alums) hasn't helped. (Although Black's scenes with Michael Shanks can be downright hysterical if they're played right.)
2. Atlantis has so much potential. It needs a better cast shake-up than the substitution that happened at the beginning of this season. And they need to get back to the desperate isolation they had in the early part of the season- no ship from earth, no info going back and forth, nothing. Sink or swim on your own, folks. The CSIs manage it (to varying degrees), and you should, too.
Train Wreck Status: High. SG1 was SciFi's flagship show, the first real series undertaken under it's own power. (After they acquired the series from Showtime, that is) And as such, SciFi is a bit afraid to let it go. It still has a large and loyal fanbase, nearly all of whom jumped on the Atlantis gate, too. But fans don't equal quality or originality, and these shows are being slowly, painfully run into the ground.
NCIS- CBS, starring Mark Harmon and one of TV's more colorful casts of crime-solving misfits.
Viewing History: Previously ignored. (Hey, I wasn't a JAG fan so there was no cross-over appeal) Now if I'm surfing and it's on, I'll usually stop and watch awhile.
Why the hate?
1. CSI and L&O got there first and better.
2. In general, quirky characters do not an entire series make.
Why do I care?
1. Really quirky characters can make middling fare more palatable, and NCIS runs the gamut. Geeks, Jocks, the hot foreign chick, they're all there. Drop 10-20 years off their ages and it could be American Pie, you know, only without the pie, and the sex, and the parties and the... Well, OK, not American Pie, but you get my drift, right? They're silly, hormonal, snarky and they look like they're having fun. Since all of my regular shows are all overly-serious and death-like, this is my version of a sitcom- only with guns, and a body count.
2. (Really more of an extension of #1.) Let's face it, if you could smack your co-workers around like Gibbs, wouldn't you? WOULDN'T YOU!?!?
Train Wreck Status: Low. If JAG could cruise by for years on good looks and a sweet disposition, why can't NCIS?
Middling Mentions
Bones- Fox, starring Emily Deschanel and David Boreanaz. Again, it's CSI-lite with a quirky cast of misfit geeks, only where NCIS is heavy on the investigators, Bones is heavy on the geeks. Plus it's my Boreanaz fix. It's like my Buffy/Angel habit has spawned this little obsession of watching just to see what's up with the guy. (Sadly, this compulsion never made it to How I Met Your Mother or Kitchen Confidential.)
Law and Order: SVU- Mariska Hargitay, Christopher Meloni and Ice Cube. Of all the spawn of the L&O franchise, this is the only one I'll watch. Hargitay is one of the most convincing female cops I've seen in a long time. (Keep in mind I said convincing, not accurate.) And Meloni's slow and steady meltdown has made for some fascinating developments. (Will someone get that guy an Emmy already?)
Scrubs/My Name is Earl- These are both hit-or-miss with me. While both offer occasional knee-slapping humor, they often veer off into sillyville and stupidland. I can take small doses, but I can't overdo it, I'll go into a diabetic coma.
House- one of last year's must-sees, this year not so much. House = grouchy know-it-all. Check. Cameron = cute and sweet know-it-all. Check. Foreman = angry, pulled-myself-up-by-the-bootstraps-so-don't-mock-my-skillz know-it-all. Double check. And Chase = ..... he is still on this show, right? I'm still watching, but I'm not really caring. Maybe if someone actually died once in awhile, they've had, what, one fatality out of two seasons? Where's the risk = drama?
*Amended 5-3-06: They just killed a guy last night, but only to up the ante on the two leads who have/might have contracted the same disease. Personally, I'm not caring about Foreman anymore, but can someone PLEASE give Cameron a break, here?*
Welcome to eh-whateverville. These shows I like, but they've either fallen off, just not grabbed me yet, or they're just starting to pick up steam. I'm paying attention, but I'm not losing sleep when I miss an episode. They're often just noise in the background....
Lost- ABC, starring a lot of people who are more lost and confused than their audience- but only by a little.
Viewing history: Previously obsessive, I-can't-have-class-that-night, now-let's-go-web-surfing-for-more-clues. Now- I missed a few weeks and came back as confused as I had been when I stopped. Besides, who needs to keep up when ABC runs a recapper show every few weeks it seems?
Why the hate?
1. (This is true of all of ABC's biggies these days.) Would it kill you to air the show regularly?! This goes way beyond a hiatus break- those are expected. ABC has been engaging its audience in a sick game of keep-away with its new episodes, and I, for one, am really tired of playing.
2. Occasionally, it would be nice if you would solve one of those little mysteries you keep dangling in front of us. The X-files got away with it for as long as they did because for most of its seasons, it remained primarily a creep-of-the-week format. The over-arcing side mysteries were just that- sides. Lost's plot seems built entirely on mysteries, and they're multiplying like bunnies.
Why do I care?
1. For all it's infuriating mysteries, it has all those infuriating mysteries. It's like the build-up to Christmas. I'm watching all these presents slowly appear under the tree. I have no idea what's inside and the suspense is killing me. I'm deathly afraid they're all socks and clothes instead of the toys and books I've wanted for the last year. But the 'rents never let me down, will the writers of Lost?
2. Matthew Fox and Terry O'Quinn. I enjoyed the whole Sawyer/Kate/Jack triangle last season, but watching Jack and Locke circle each other like wild animals encroaching on each others' territory has been electrifying. Sawyer's already taken advantage of that once, to spectacular results. But now that things are coming to a head with the Others, will Jack and Locke be able to pull it together? Or will Locke's compulsion to discover the island's secrets/powers lead him to doing something that will push Jack over the edge? (Egad, I sound like ad copy, don't I?)
Train Wreck Status: Mid-to low. The writers, while taking sadistic pleasure in the audience's frustration, do seem to know (or are acting like they know) were they're going. But if another season finale comes and goes with no major resolutions (remember the hopes we all had for that hatch?) the odds will skyrocket.
Stargate SG1/Stargate Atlantis- SciFi, starring Aliens, humans, and "whatever" tech that would make even the casts of 24 and Alias roll their eyes and say, "Yeah, right- pull the other one."
Viewing history: Previously religiously- had the VCR set every week. Even watched it with MamaRaven and the Old Crow. Now- I'm surprised (sort of) that it's still on.
Why the hate?
1. Like I said, I'm surprised it's still on, the "original" SG1 I mean. We're creeping up on 10 (?) seasons here, folks, and we've gone so far up the alien threat evolutionary ladder that we had to invent a new galaxy for the Gods to come crawling out of. We're not recycling plots anymore, we're regurgitating them en masse.
2. Franchise fatigue- it was an issue when the original series aired. SG1 got around it by using clever sci-babble to explain its existence, a minor retcon to justify its existence, some initial good multi-season series arcs to keep us interested in its existence. They also had some really good casting to replace the movie actors so it could exist on TV in the first place. Atlantis met their sci-babble, didn't really need the retcon, but it hasn't raised a good arc yet, and the casting I might fold on...
Why do I care?
1. SG1's current arc is a little better than what they've had in previous years. (I swear the Atlantis thing was just so they could do a spin-off.) The "Gods" are coming to kill/convert us all and the "Gods" that could fight them on their own terms opted out of the race aeons ago. If SG1 can somehow re-engage the Ascended Ones, I might check back in, but if the puny humans find a new whatever tech to save the day at the 11th hour, I might finally give up for good. Stunt casting Ben Browder and Claudia Black (Farscape alums) hasn't helped. (Although Black's scenes with Michael Shanks can be downright hysterical if they're played right.)
2. Atlantis has so much potential. It needs a better cast shake-up than the substitution that happened at the beginning of this season. And they need to get back to the desperate isolation they had in the early part of the season- no ship from earth, no info going back and forth, nothing. Sink or swim on your own, folks. The CSIs manage it (to varying degrees), and you should, too.
Train Wreck Status: High. SG1 was SciFi's flagship show, the first real series undertaken under it's own power. (After they acquired the series from Showtime, that is) And as such, SciFi is a bit afraid to let it go. It still has a large and loyal fanbase, nearly all of whom jumped on the Atlantis gate, too. But fans don't equal quality or originality, and these shows are being slowly, painfully run into the ground.
NCIS- CBS, starring Mark Harmon and one of TV's more colorful casts of crime-solving misfits.Viewing History: Previously ignored. (Hey, I wasn't a JAG fan so there was no cross-over appeal) Now if I'm surfing and it's on, I'll usually stop and watch awhile.
Why the hate?
1. CSI and L&O got there first and better.
2. In general, quirky characters do not an entire series make.
Why do I care?
1. Really quirky characters can make middling fare more palatable, and NCIS runs the gamut. Geeks, Jocks, the hot foreign chick, they're all there. Drop 10-20 years off their ages and it could be American Pie, you know, only without the pie, and the sex, and the parties and the... Well, OK, not American Pie, but you get my drift, right? They're silly, hormonal, snarky and they look like they're having fun. Since all of my regular shows are all overly-serious and death-like, this is my version of a sitcom- only with guns, and a body count.
2. (Really more of an extension of #1.) Let's face it, if you could smack your co-workers around like Gibbs, wouldn't you? WOULDN'T YOU!?!?
Train Wreck Status: Low. If JAG could cruise by for years on good looks and a sweet disposition, why can't NCIS?
Middling Mentions
Bones- Fox, starring Emily Deschanel and David Boreanaz. Again, it's CSI-lite with a quirky cast of misfit geeks, only where NCIS is heavy on the investigators, Bones is heavy on the geeks. Plus it's my Boreanaz fix. It's like my Buffy/Angel habit has spawned this little obsession of watching just to see what's up with the guy. (Sadly, this compulsion never made it to How I Met Your Mother or Kitchen Confidential.)
Law and Order: SVU- Mariska Hargitay, Christopher Meloni and Ice Cube. Of all the spawn of the L&O franchise, this is the only one I'll watch. Hargitay is one of the most convincing female cops I've seen in a long time. (Keep in mind I said convincing, not accurate.) And Meloni's slow and steady meltdown has made for some fascinating developments. (Will someone get that guy an Emmy already?)
Scrubs/My Name is Earl- These are both hit-or-miss with me. While both offer occasional knee-slapping humor, they often veer off into sillyville and stupidland. I can take small doses, but I can't overdo it, I'll go into a diabetic coma.
House- one of last year's must-sees, this year not so much. House = grouchy know-it-all. Check. Cameron = cute and sweet know-it-all. Check. Foreman = angry, pulled-myself-up-by-the-bootstraps-so-don't-mock-my-skillz know-it-all. Double check. And Chase = ..... he is still on this show, right? I'm still watching, but I'm not really caring. Maybe if someone actually died once in awhile, they've had, what, one fatality out of two seasons? Where's the risk = drama?
*Amended 5-3-06: They just killed a guy last night, but only to up the ante on the two leads who have/might have contracted the same disease. Personally, I'm not caring about Foreman anymore, but can someone PLEASE give Cameron a break, here?*
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Drive-by snarkings and crouching ovations...
Oi! Been awhile. Here's some quickies.Casting issues- If can spot the mole as soon as the actor appears, your casting needs work! The Sentinel- I'm talkin' to you! It's one thing to cast an actor with a history of playing skeevy bastards, if they can convincingly play the good guy until their big reveal. If you get the guy who oozes from the word "action," then his reveal will mean nothing. I know Martin Donovan is a fine actor, but this was just miscast.
I can forgive a lot in a movie, especially one in which the leads play off each other as well as Kiefer Sutherland and Michael Douglas did, but my celebrity obsessions only suspend my disbelief so far.
Kudos to Eva Longiria, she actually managed to keep up her end. She did her best with a one-note character, and held her own with a gun in the shooting scenes.
Overall: Pleasantly suprised, it's still 24-lite, but I'm pretty OK with that.
Sound check, please- If your movie is called Silent Hill, you might want to, oh, I don't know, try a little silence here and there. Some of what would have been the creepiest scenes were ruined by an anvil-ridden soundtrack. Someone please get these people some good Asian horror flicks to peruse. Silence may be golden, but it can also be oppressive, claustrophobic, atmospheric, and laden with the terror of what you should be hearing, but aren't.But don't mistake soundtracks with sound fx. Some of the creepiest things in this movie were the sounds the creatures were making. I don't care who you are, you meet something on the street making those sounds and you know sh*%'s going downhill fast.
As for the casting, the cackle of Alice Krige's voice, whose silky accent dripped with honey-laced strychnine was the perfect foil for our little girl lost. If Jodell Ferland can keep that ability to balance sweet and innocent with it's darker sister, cruel and vicious, she will be a power to be reckoned with (assuming she doesn't fall by the Hollywood wayside).
Overall: Slightly disappointed. It was a solid entry to the video-game to movie pantheon, there have been worse, but it wasn't nearly as creepy as it should have been.
Go see Thank You For Smoking. You will thank me- if you can get over Katie Holmes' sex scenes, that is. Dawson would be shocked. Tom probably fainted. I thought it was hysterical.
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Goblet of Embers
Raven's raving again....: happy, yet... becoming underwhelmed
This was an earlier blog entry from my personal blog about HP4.
It's a quick sketch, and may be revisited when the DVD's released.
Enjoy!
This was an earlier blog entry from my personal blog about HP4.
It's a quick sketch, and may be revisited when the DVD's released.
Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
