It's close to midnight, and somethin' evil's knockin' on your door ...
HAPPY HALLOWEEN!
- Greetings boys and ghouls, and welcome to a special Halloween edition of the All-New, All-Awesome Adventures. If you haven't already, be sure to check out my entry from yesterday, where I urge Gen Y'ers to get off their kiesters and vote, and review Clint Eastwood's Changeling to boot. But, let's time-warp back to the here and now. Halloween 2008.
In honor of the occasion, I present to you:
DANNY'S ULTIMATE HALLOWEEN PLAYLIST:
- "This is Halloween" (from The Nightmare Before Christmas) - cover by Marylin Manson
- "The Monster Mash" by Bobby Pickett and the Crypt-Kickers
- "Thriller" by Michael Jackson
- "Disturbia" by Rihanna
- Theme from The Twilight Zone
- "(He's Back!) The Man Behind the Mask" by Alice Cooper
- "Feed My Frankenstein" by Alice Cooper
- Theme from The Munsters
- Theme from The Addams Family
- "God of Thunder" by Kiss
- Theme from The Outer Limits
- "Fear of the Dark" by Iron Maiden
- "Dracula's Lament" from Forgetting Sarah Marshall
- "Somebody's Watching Me" by Rockwell
- Theme from Ghostbusters
- "Bark At the Moon" by Ozzy Ozbourne
- "Living Dead Girl" by Rob Zombie
- "Enter Sandman" by Metallica
- Theme From Army of Darkness
- "Sympathy For the Devil" by the Rolling Stones
- "Fire" by Arthur Brown
- Theme from Scooby Doo
- "Little Red Riding Hood" by Sam the Sham
- "Werewolf Bar-Mitzvah" from 30 Rock
-"The Time Warp" from The Rocky Horror Picture Show
- "This Is Halloween" from The Nightmare Before Christmas (original version)
Some quick TV Reviews for ya' ...
- First off, thank the lord that 30 ROCK is back. The show that I named the best TV series of 2007 finally returned last night with an episode jam-packed with classic lines and memorable bits. Was it the best-ever episode of 30 Rock? Definitely not, but there were still enough hilarious moments to make the episode one of the funniest things I've seen on TV in a while. I mean, Will Arnett and Alec Baldwin going at it? Tracy Morgan bestowing Judah Friedlander with a pair of golden nunchucks? Comedy gold right there. I would have liked a little more of the supporting cast and a little more Tracy Jordan, but hey, this was overall a great premiere. Baldwin had the line of the night, about working the day shift at the graveyard and the graveyard shift at a Day's Inn. Awesome.
My Grade: A -
- THE OFFICE started out with a freakin' hilarious Halloween-themed opening, in which Creed, Kevin, and Dwight all dressed as the Heath Ledger JOKER. Classic. From there, things got a bit soapy with Michael and Holly and Jim and Pam. I thought the Michael / Holly stuff had some really great and funny moments though, and the addition of Daryll as a third wheel was classic. As was Michael's infinite road-trip playlist that consisted of "Life Is a Highway" over and over again. I thought the Pam bit where she meets Jim's brothers was kind of clunky. I get what they were going for - almost psychoanalyzing Jim via his brothers, but, yeah, didn't quite work for me. Dwight vs. Andy though? Pretty classic.
My Grade: B+
- In some ways, I really enjoyed the latest episode of SMALLVILLE. It had a fun script and some nice interaction between Clark, Lois, Chloe, Jimmy, and Oliver. However ... let's be real here. If this series actually followed any sort of logical character development, Clark is at the point where by next week's episode he would be Superman. There's no getting around it at this point. And normally, I would say they are doing a pretty good job of building to that big reveal. But the frustrating thing is ... they are NOT really building towards anything. Again - how can you have these kinds of plotlines with no hope of payoff? That being said, this was a well-done episode with some really cool moments. But all I know is, the last episode of this season better have SUPERMAN in it.
My Grade: B
- Alriiiiiiiiiiiiight ... Happy Halloween!!!!!!!!
Friday, October 31, 2008
Monday, October 20, 2008
Monstrous Movie Madness: Oliver Stone's W, Appaloosa, and Nick & Norah - Reviewed! Plus a Halloween HorrorThon Recap!
Wow, been a while. What can I say, I've still been recovering and catching up on things since I got back to LA last Sunday. I think I slept about 14 hours a night this past weekend as I caught up on missed sleep from the previous week. Suffice it to say, I was wiped. But ... tired as I was on Friday night, duty called. Duty being my annual HALLOWEEN HORROR MOVIE MARATHON! Yes, as is tradition, a loyal and decidedly hardcore group of couch warriors assembled to spend a long evening watching one cinematic scare-fest after another. Once again, the fabled Wall of Horrors was constructed in my apartment, and a lineup of carefully-selected creature-features was selected for the evening's viewing. This year, I had a classic ep of Ray Bradbury's Theater running as I waited for the guests to filter in, and then kicked off the event with, as is customary, a classic episode of The Simpsons: Treehouse of Horror. This being an election year, there was only one episode that seemed appropriate for the occasion - that being the Season 8 installment which includes Citizen Kang - an absolutely brilliant bit of political satire that is also freaking hilarious. Epic win. The ep also has another of my fav THOH bits, the one where Bart has a long-hidden evil twin named Hugo. That one was the inspiration for countless times where as a kid I tried to tell my brother or cousins that they had a secret evil twin. Bwahahaha ...
Anyways ... the main event kicked off at about 8 pm with the night's first movie, GREMLINS. I usually try to start things off with a lighter / funnier movie, bonus points if it's from the 80's. Gremlins fit the bill to a T. I remember Gremlins being all over the place when I was a kid - toys, movies, videogames, etc ... and I think at some point I must have seen the movie, maybe. But I had no real memory of the film, and figured the combination of comedy, horror, and 80's nostalgia was perfect for the annual Horror-thon. The movie proved to be vintage 80's weirdness - insane puppetry / fx, a weird mix of innocence and darkness that is the trademark of many an 80's fantasy film, and a lot of fun-to-make-fun-of 80's nostalgia bits, with a cast that includes luminaries of the decade such as Phoebe Cates, Judge Reinhold, and yes, Cory Feldman.
Our second film was the legendary sci-fi / horror classic, ALIEN. While the at-times slow pacing necessitated that we down a few extra cups of Diet Coke in order to get through, the movie proved as visually stunning and as well-structured as ever - with a still-impressive cast and a dynamite turn from Sigourney Weaver as the original female badass, Ellen Ripley. I think I may need to follow this one up by revisiting the sequels. Aliens by James Cameron, anyone?
Finally, we closed things out with a movie that was probably the most traditionally Halloween-appropriate film of the bunch, which is odd as there's not much that's conventional about EVIL DEAD 2. I had never seen this one before, only the original ED as well as Army of Darkness. And man, did Evil Dead 2 deliver - taking the basic premise and style of Part 1 and adding in even more visual creativity, over the top, Looney Tunes-style comedy, and an even more iconic performance from the one and only Bruce Campbell. It's one of those one-of-a-kind turns that makes you sad all over again that The Chin never became a bonafide Hollywood action star. In any case, the movie was a great capper to the evening, and it's nonstop parade of gore, humor, and classic one-liners kept my very tired eyes wide open as the night wore on. Hail to the king, baby.
So thanks again to everyone who stopped by for the Marathon. It was once again a monstrous success!
- Of course, the annual Horror-thon was not my only Halloween-related activity this weekend. I also made a trip on Saturday to see THE NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS in 3-D at the El Capitan theater in Hollywood, during the opening weekend of its limited theatrical engagement. As always, seeing the film at the El Capitan was just an overall great experience. The theater's gothic interior, its in-house organ player (who warms up the crowd with scary tunes from Phantom of the Opera), and the random in-costume characters walking around Hollywood Blvd all lend to the creepy atmosphere of the experience. Obviously, atmosphere is a Disney specialty, and they rarely disappoint at Halloween-time. The movie itself is, of course, a classic, and in 3-D one can really see all the painstaking detail that went into its stop-motion animation. Once again, no better way to announce "this is Halloween!" than with a showing of The Nightmare Before Christmas ...
- Finally, got a chance to see the new movie "W" on Sunday. Now, I've gotten waaaaaay behind with my movie reviews of late, so I'm going to try for 3 somwhat shorter reviews here that cover all my bases from the last few weeks. All I can say to preface my review of W is this ... if you live in LA and ever get stuck sitting in the front row of the Landmark theater ... my advice is to bail immediately! Normally, being in the front row of a theater is pretty inherently painful, but at the Landmark it's a complete joke, as the bottom of the giant screen is literally inches from your face. How they can sell these seats in good conscience is beyond me, but all I know is that, after a minute or so of eyeball-bleeding pain, I realized there was no possible way to sit through an entire movie from that unenviable vantage point. I call B.S.! Anyways, I saw W at a slightly later time, so don't worry, loyal readers - the review is below:
"W." Review:
- W, despite its problems, is a fascinating film. Carried by an amazing performance from Josh Brolin as the title character, the movie is an almost surreal look at the inner psyche and unlikely rise to power of the man who was once the black sheep of the Bush clan. To cut to the heart of the issue ... Brolin is great and really 100% inhabits the Bush character - but, so much of the rest of the film feels only partly-realized and frequently rushed. On the other hand, there are moments that touch on brilliance, moments that are memorable and thought-provoking. Regardless, there's certainly plenty of fodder here for lively post-movie conversation.
But other than Brolin's award-worthy turn, some of the scenes and characters take on the feel of an SNL sketch sans the jokes. In particular, the actors playing Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice come off as merely caricatures, with so much visible emphasis placed on mimicking their subjects, that the characters rarely feel fully-developed. And that's from an acting standpoint. From a plot standpoint, some of the more intriguing characters don't feel fully fleshed-out, and it seems like there's an overreliance on the audience's built-in knowledge of the key players. I mean, Richard Drefuss is pretty remarkable in some ways as Dick Cheney. But so much of the effectiveness comes from our preexisting notions of the Vice President. In the context of the movie, we get only the briefest glimpses of who, exactly, this fascinating character really is. Same goes for Karl Rove. In many ways, the real-life Rove might be the most interesting figure of the entire Bush administration, but as a character in W, Rove remains a bit of a mystery. Why does he stick it out with the Bushes through good times and bad? Why does he hover towards George W and not to the more seasoned Jeb? Again, W gives us glimpses, but it works more as a sidebar commentary to the headlines of the last few years than as a standalone movie. It makes you wonder how watchable it will be ten or fifteen years down the line.
Surprisingly, W earns a lot of sympathy for George W. Bush, the man, as it details his desire to exceed his father's expectations and prove his critics within his family wrong. When the movie highlights the more absurd aspects of W's personality and his role as the unlikeliest of political power-players, it tends to work pretty well as straight-up satire. There's a delightful absurdity to scenes like one where the rough-n'-tumble W leads his pack of old-boy Washington cronies on a hike while discussing strategy in Iraq. You almost wonder if W could have been a truly brilliant movie if it stuck to that more absurdist tone and really tried to be an all-out satirical look at George Bush. But the movie instead veers back and forth between satire and more sober politics, and then circles back around and to family drama and the coming-of-age story at its heart. And in some ways, the whole thing does fit together to create an interesting jigsaw puzzle of a biography. We get an interesting sense of how Bush's early experiences in politics shaped his presidency, and of how some of that family drama may have played a part in crucial decisions such as the war in Iraq.
But ... at times it fits together a little too conveniently, and at times it feels like director Oliver Stone forces Bush to be too much of a conventional leading man, not going far enough in condemning his ignorance and misjudgements. What I mean is - I think that Bush's desire to finish his father's work with Saddam Hussein WAS a factor in the decision to invade Iraq without substantial proof of WMD's, etc. But, to paint this kind of family drama as the largest reason for the War, with Bush having a real belief that he was doing good, that he was doing God's work ... to me, is to give Bush a bit too much credit for having wholly noble and legitimate intentions. In the movie, Cheney and Rumsfeld are depicted as the masterminds with neocon visions of a new American empire, and Bush is shown as someone who shares none of their Machievellian beliefs, who just wants to beat the "bad guys." In the movie, it all feels a little convenient and more like Hollywood sentimentality than real life political reality.
But really, Bush is just kind of a strange movie. As I said, it's pretty all over the place tonally. And the cast is just a very odd parade of well-known actors, some really bringing their parts to life and others sticking out like a sore thumb. Elizabeth Banks is good in her part, but it felt like such a glamorized vision of Laura Bush that it just felt a bit awkward. James Cromwell was really good as Bush Sr. ... but, it felt like James Cromwell rather than George HW Bush, with him oddly playing the part quite similarly to how he played Jack Bauer's sternly powerful father on 24. Don't get me wrong, there are some great scenes between Cromwell and Brolin ... it's just that, overall, there is this strange inconsistency in the tone of the acting performances. As I said, some feel like pure mimicry, some feel like actors playing themselves to some extent, and really it's only Brolin who is the best of both worlds - convincingly adopting W's mannerisms while also creating his own fully-realized character.
In any case, for all its faults, as I mentioned, W is a totally fascinating movie, and it's a strange yet satisfying experience to see a completely dramatized version of events that have, in real-life, proliferated the news over the last several years. To see things that happened only a few years ago already portrayed as dramatically-interpreted history ... it's kind of a rush. And Oliver Stone pushes a lot of crowd-pleasing buttons, looking for answers, as many of us were, as to the truth behind so many of the people and events that have shaped our country's recent history. It's an important and relevant and timely movie that plays well in the current political climate. But this is a movie made with the speed and recklessness of a cable news cycle - so most likely, its shelf-life will not be a long one.
My Grade: B
APPALOOSA Review:
- Here's a movie that I would definitely qualify as "underrated." Thus far, the mainstream reviews I've seen have ranged from mediocre to decent, but to me Appaloosa was one of the real pleasant surprises of the last few months at the movies. While I wouldn't quite put it in the same league as some of the modern classics of the Western genre (Unforgiven, last year's Assassination of Jesse James), I'd say that Appaloosa is a real pleasure to watch, a throwback to the more simple and straightforward Westerns of old. This means that the movie lacks some of the modern trimmings, but, it is in most ways solid as can be. If anything, it's a joy to watch a great bunch of actors - some of the best in the biz today - interact with the kind of assured confidence and ease that only a select few bring to the table.
I mean - with Ed Harris and Viggo Mortensson as the two leads, you really can't go wrong. As two travelling peacekeepers who wander the Wild West looking for trouble to clean up, the two partners have a great chemistry that evokes some of the great heroic duos of cinema. Both men are quiet badass types, but while Ed Harris is the leader of the outfit, Viggo is his ever-loyal sidekick of sorts, his right-hand man. In any case, when the two are summoned to the town of Appaloosa, hired to rid the place of a local outlaw who's been terrorizing the townsfolk, the two are tested as they haven't been before.
Part of the the problem is the outlaw himself, played with a brilliantly evil gleam in his eye by Jeremy Irons. Irons plays a somewhat new breed of outlaw - an enterprising badguy who has a sort of political platform to go along with his mischief. Irons is great here, and stands toe to toe with the other great actors in the film, giving his character an almost Shakespearean spin.
The other obstacle for Harris and Viggo is, of course, a woman - a bit of a Femme Fatale-slash-Southern Belle, played by Renee Zelwegger with the usual squinty eyes and pursed lips. Zelwegger arrives in town and quickly settles in with Harris, but it soon becomes apparent that she's willing to switch bedroom partners depending on which man can work best to her advantage.
Zelwegger's character may be the weakest part of the movie, as she sometimes feels more like a walking plot device and less like a real, fully-developed character. And at times the movie as a whole has a kind of aimless feel to it, where the plot tends to lose momentum and sort of forget where it's going. Because this is a movie where, really, it's one of those films where the highlight is just getting a chance to visit with these characters. The twists and turns of the plot are almost secondary, and it's not a movie that will wow you with visually-exciting direction or innovative style. Aesthetically, as directed by its star Ed Harris, the movie is as straightforward as can be. Mostly, the camera kind of just lingers on Harris and Viggo, and on Jeremy Irons, and on other talented supporting actors like the great Lance Henrikson, and just soaks in their badassness. The dialogue is really the highlight here. While the plot can be a bit uneven, there's nothing complicated about the dialogue. Hearing our Western vigilantes exchange sharply-worded, gravitas-infused, hard-boiled back-and-forth is simply a pleasure. I mean, Newsweek columnist George Will recently got such a kick out of it that he quoted numerous portions of the script in a recent column on the relevance of the Western. For people who like that kind of stuff, for those who wonder what happened to the John Wayne's and the Clint Eastwood's of the world, men who spoke softly and carried a big stick, so to speak, Appaloosa often exudes an old-fashioned kind of alpha-male awesomeness.
So while Appaloosa won't be the next huge Oscar hopeful (though I'd argue that both Harris and Mortensson turn in award-worthy performances ...), and it won't shake the foundations of the Western through bold new innovation, it is simply a rock-solid movie with a kickass cast that, mostly, fires on all cylinders. A movie that's all the more cool simply because they don't really make 'em like this anymore.
My Grade: B+
NICK & NORAH'S INFINITE PLAYLIST Review:
- In the wrong hands, Nick and Norah could have been utterly grating and 100% lame. But I give the movie credit - it's a smart, funny, and entertaining teen flick that does a great job of feeling current without being pandering. Trust me, I get it - the marketing of the flick instantly raised warning flags that it was a lame attempt at being Superbad-meets-Juno, yet another oh-so-precious emo comedy with too-cool-for-school teens acting out their angst with two dollar words and lots of precocious music playing in the background. Okay, sure, in some ways - that's just what Nick & Norah is, but that's really taking the glass-half-empty view. The non-cynical way of looking at it is that, wow, why didn't they have teen movies like this when I was in high school? It would have been pretty cool, in retrospect, to see Michael Cera and Kat Dennings on the big screen back in the day as shining examples of some new geek-is-cool paradigm. Instead, all I got were the blockheaded fratboys of American Pie. The implicit message seemed to be that if even Chris Klein couldn't get some action, then what chance did *you* the lowly fanboy have? Now, geeky teens everywhere are taught that even Michael Cera can be a superpimp in his own right. How plausible that is I don't know, but it's a great concept even if it's only fantasy fulfillment.
But for all the small feelings of "wow, they're really trying too hard," I have to admit that Nick & Norah has a certain feeling of authenticity. It doesn't feel like a throwback to John Hughes stereotypes, and it doesn't feel cut from the same cloth as so many Judd Apatow movies either. It really does kind of capture the feeling of wandering around the city at night, not quite sure where the evening will take you.
Michael Cera gets criticized for offering up similar performances in his various roles, but I say why stray from a good thing, when he's the master of awkward and deadpan teen comedy. Cera has the gift for awkward exhanges and mock-serious straight-man antics, and he of course has that slight sense of self-aware pseudo-hipster cool that makes him perfect for these kinds of roles. And then there's Kat Dennings, who is to quirky-cool indie-rock chicks as Cena is to the male equivalent. Dennings is really great in the movie - likable, funny, and again, authentic-seeming. I don't know how much of that is just because to some extent she's simply playing herself, but in this case it fits. As with Cera, there's that nagging feeling of "oh she's trying too hard," but look at Kat Dennings here as compared to so many lame teen movie bimbos from years past. Dennings' character is smart, multidimensional, cool but not stuck up, and hey, even Jewish and proud of it! Again, guys everywhere probably sigh and think "does a girl like this actually exist?". But give the movie credit for daring to be a bit different with its male and female leads.
And really, a lot of the movie coasts on the chemistry between them. When the movie is just coasting along and letting its characters riff - that's when it's at its strongest. Where it falters is when it tries to get gross-out laughs and be more like a typical teen comedy. To me, most of the best and funniest moments were the subtler ones. The more over-the-top humor often seemed out of place or just not all that sharp.
Really though, this is a cool little movie with two talented leads, and a unique style that elevates it way past the usual brainless and soulless teen movie fare. Not a landmark movie, but a pretty zeitgeisty one, that balances an air of corporate-derived cool with a genuine sense of rock n' roll independence - that makes you want to go out cruisin' in the big city until 6 am. Yeah, the title is cheesy as hell (what exactly is an infinite playlist?!), but the movie itself is a lot of fun, and likely destined to be a teenage fave.
My Grade: B+
- Alright - whew! Three movie reviews and change. I'll be back soon with some TV thoughts, including SNL, Prison Break, and more.
Until then, I dedicate this blog to Rudy Ray Moore, aka The Dolemite, who passed away today. Talk about one bad mutha', the world of pimp-fu has lost a founding father.
Anyways ... the main event kicked off at about 8 pm with the night's first movie, GREMLINS. I usually try to start things off with a lighter / funnier movie, bonus points if it's from the 80's. Gremlins fit the bill to a T. I remember Gremlins being all over the place when I was a kid - toys, movies, videogames, etc ... and I think at some point I must have seen the movie, maybe. But I had no real memory of the film, and figured the combination of comedy, horror, and 80's nostalgia was perfect for the annual Horror-thon. The movie proved to be vintage 80's weirdness - insane puppetry / fx, a weird mix of innocence and darkness that is the trademark of many an 80's fantasy film, and a lot of fun-to-make-fun-of 80's nostalgia bits, with a cast that includes luminaries of the decade such as Phoebe Cates, Judge Reinhold, and yes, Cory Feldman.
Our second film was the legendary sci-fi / horror classic, ALIEN. While the at-times slow pacing necessitated that we down a few extra cups of Diet Coke in order to get through, the movie proved as visually stunning and as well-structured as ever - with a still-impressive cast and a dynamite turn from Sigourney Weaver as the original female badass, Ellen Ripley. I think I may need to follow this one up by revisiting the sequels. Aliens by James Cameron, anyone?
Finally, we closed things out with a movie that was probably the most traditionally Halloween-appropriate film of the bunch, which is odd as there's not much that's conventional about EVIL DEAD 2. I had never seen this one before, only the original ED as well as Army of Darkness. And man, did Evil Dead 2 deliver - taking the basic premise and style of Part 1 and adding in even more visual creativity, over the top, Looney Tunes-style comedy, and an even more iconic performance from the one and only Bruce Campbell. It's one of those one-of-a-kind turns that makes you sad all over again that The Chin never became a bonafide Hollywood action star. In any case, the movie was a great capper to the evening, and it's nonstop parade of gore, humor, and classic one-liners kept my very tired eyes wide open as the night wore on. Hail to the king, baby.
So thanks again to everyone who stopped by for the Marathon. It was once again a monstrous success!
- Of course, the annual Horror-thon was not my only Halloween-related activity this weekend. I also made a trip on Saturday to see THE NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS in 3-D at the El Capitan theater in Hollywood, during the opening weekend of its limited theatrical engagement. As always, seeing the film at the El Capitan was just an overall great experience. The theater's gothic interior, its in-house organ player (who warms up the crowd with scary tunes from Phantom of the Opera), and the random in-costume characters walking around Hollywood Blvd all lend to the creepy atmosphere of the experience. Obviously, atmosphere is a Disney specialty, and they rarely disappoint at Halloween-time. The movie itself is, of course, a classic, and in 3-D one can really see all the painstaking detail that went into its stop-motion animation. Once again, no better way to announce "this is Halloween!" than with a showing of The Nightmare Before Christmas ...
- Finally, got a chance to see the new movie "W" on Sunday. Now, I've gotten waaaaaay behind with my movie reviews of late, so I'm going to try for 3 somwhat shorter reviews here that cover all my bases from the last few weeks. All I can say to preface my review of W is this ... if you live in LA and ever get stuck sitting in the front row of the Landmark theater ... my advice is to bail immediately! Normally, being in the front row of a theater is pretty inherently painful, but at the Landmark it's a complete joke, as the bottom of the giant screen is literally inches from your face. How they can sell these seats in good conscience is beyond me, but all I know is that, after a minute or so of eyeball-bleeding pain, I realized there was no possible way to sit through an entire movie from that unenviable vantage point. I call B.S.! Anyways, I saw W at a slightly later time, so don't worry, loyal readers - the review is below:
"W." Review:
- W, despite its problems, is a fascinating film. Carried by an amazing performance from Josh Brolin as the title character, the movie is an almost surreal look at the inner psyche and unlikely rise to power of the man who was once the black sheep of the Bush clan. To cut to the heart of the issue ... Brolin is great and really 100% inhabits the Bush character - but, so much of the rest of the film feels only partly-realized and frequently rushed. On the other hand, there are moments that touch on brilliance, moments that are memorable and thought-provoking. Regardless, there's certainly plenty of fodder here for lively post-movie conversation.
But other than Brolin's award-worthy turn, some of the scenes and characters take on the feel of an SNL sketch sans the jokes. In particular, the actors playing Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice come off as merely caricatures, with so much visible emphasis placed on mimicking their subjects, that the characters rarely feel fully-developed. And that's from an acting standpoint. From a plot standpoint, some of the more intriguing characters don't feel fully fleshed-out, and it seems like there's an overreliance on the audience's built-in knowledge of the key players. I mean, Richard Drefuss is pretty remarkable in some ways as Dick Cheney. But so much of the effectiveness comes from our preexisting notions of the Vice President. In the context of the movie, we get only the briefest glimpses of who, exactly, this fascinating character really is. Same goes for Karl Rove. In many ways, the real-life Rove might be the most interesting figure of the entire Bush administration, but as a character in W, Rove remains a bit of a mystery. Why does he stick it out with the Bushes through good times and bad? Why does he hover towards George W and not to the more seasoned Jeb? Again, W gives us glimpses, but it works more as a sidebar commentary to the headlines of the last few years than as a standalone movie. It makes you wonder how watchable it will be ten or fifteen years down the line.
Surprisingly, W earns a lot of sympathy for George W. Bush, the man, as it details his desire to exceed his father's expectations and prove his critics within his family wrong. When the movie highlights the more absurd aspects of W's personality and his role as the unlikeliest of political power-players, it tends to work pretty well as straight-up satire. There's a delightful absurdity to scenes like one where the rough-n'-tumble W leads his pack of old-boy Washington cronies on a hike while discussing strategy in Iraq. You almost wonder if W could have been a truly brilliant movie if it stuck to that more absurdist tone and really tried to be an all-out satirical look at George Bush. But the movie instead veers back and forth between satire and more sober politics, and then circles back around and to family drama and the coming-of-age story at its heart. And in some ways, the whole thing does fit together to create an interesting jigsaw puzzle of a biography. We get an interesting sense of how Bush's early experiences in politics shaped his presidency, and of how some of that family drama may have played a part in crucial decisions such as the war in Iraq.
But ... at times it fits together a little too conveniently, and at times it feels like director Oliver Stone forces Bush to be too much of a conventional leading man, not going far enough in condemning his ignorance and misjudgements. What I mean is - I think that Bush's desire to finish his father's work with Saddam Hussein WAS a factor in the decision to invade Iraq without substantial proof of WMD's, etc. But, to paint this kind of family drama as the largest reason for the War, with Bush having a real belief that he was doing good, that he was doing God's work ... to me, is to give Bush a bit too much credit for having wholly noble and legitimate intentions. In the movie, Cheney and Rumsfeld are depicted as the masterminds with neocon visions of a new American empire, and Bush is shown as someone who shares none of their Machievellian beliefs, who just wants to beat the "bad guys." In the movie, it all feels a little convenient and more like Hollywood sentimentality than real life political reality.
But really, Bush is just kind of a strange movie. As I said, it's pretty all over the place tonally. And the cast is just a very odd parade of well-known actors, some really bringing their parts to life and others sticking out like a sore thumb. Elizabeth Banks is good in her part, but it felt like such a glamorized vision of Laura Bush that it just felt a bit awkward. James Cromwell was really good as Bush Sr. ... but, it felt like James Cromwell rather than George HW Bush, with him oddly playing the part quite similarly to how he played Jack Bauer's sternly powerful father on 24. Don't get me wrong, there are some great scenes between Cromwell and Brolin ... it's just that, overall, there is this strange inconsistency in the tone of the acting performances. As I said, some feel like pure mimicry, some feel like actors playing themselves to some extent, and really it's only Brolin who is the best of both worlds - convincingly adopting W's mannerisms while also creating his own fully-realized character.
In any case, for all its faults, as I mentioned, W is a totally fascinating movie, and it's a strange yet satisfying experience to see a completely dramatized version of events that have, in real-life, proliferated the news over the last several years. To see things that happened only a few years ago already portrayed as dramatically-interpreted history ... it's kind of a rush. And Oliver Stone pushes a lot of crowd-pleasing buttons, looking for answers, as many of us were, as to the truth behind so many of the people and events that have shaped our country's recent history. It's an important and relevant and timely movie that plays well in the current political climate. But this is a movie made with the speed and recklessness of a cable news cycle - so most likely, its shelf-life will not be a long one.
My Grade: B
APPALOOSA Review:
- Here's a movie that I would definitely qualify as "underrated." Thus far, the mainstream reviews I've seen have ranged from mediocre to decent, but to me Appaloosa was one of the real pleasant surprises of the last few months at the movies. While I wouldn't quite put it in the same league as some of the modern classics of the Western genre (Unforgiven, last year's Assassination of Jesse James), I'd say that Appaloosa is a real pleasure to watch, a throwback to the more simple and straightforward Westerns of old. This means that the movie lacks some of the modern trimmings, but, it is in most ways solid as can be. If anything, it's a joy to watch a great bunch of actors - some of the best in the biz today - interact with the kind of assured confidence and ease that only a select few bring to the table.
I mean - with Ed Harris and Viggo Mortensson as the two leads, you really can't go wrong. As two travelling peacekeepers who wander the Wild West looking for trouble to clean up, the two partners have a great chemistry that evokes some of the great heroic duos of cinema. Both men are quiet badass types, but while Ed Harris is the leader of the outfit, Viggo is his ever-loyal sidekick of sorts, his right-hand man. In any case, when the two are summoned to the town of Appaloosa, hired to rid the place of a local outlaw who's been terrorizing the townsfolk, the two are tested as they haven't been before.
Part of the the problem is the outlaw himself, played with a brilliantly evil gleam in his eye by Jeremy Irons. Irons plays a somewhat new breed of outlaw - an enterprising badguy who has a sort of political platform to go along with his mischief. Irons is great here, and stands toe to toe with the other great actors in the film, giving his character an almost Shakespearean spin.
The other obstacle for Harris and Viggo is, of course, a woman - a bit of a Femme Fatale-slash-Southern Belle, played by Renee Zelwegger with the usual squinty eyes and pursed lips. Zelwegger arrives in town and quickly settles in with Harris, but it soon becomes apparent that she's willing to switch bedroom partners depending on which man can work best to her advantage.
Zelwegger's character may be the weakest part of the movie, as she sometimes feels more like a walking plot device and less like a real, fully-developed character. And at times the movie as a whole has a kind of aimless feel to it, where the plot tends to lose momentum and sort of forget where it's going. Because this is a movie where, really, it's one of those films where the highlight is just getting a chance to visit with these characters. The twists and turns of the plot are almost secondary, and it's not a movie that will wow you with visually-exciting direction or innovative style. Aesthetically, as directed by its star Ed Harris, the movie is as straightforward as can be. Mostly, the camera kind of just lingers on Harris and Viggo, and on Jeremy Irons, and on other talented supporting actors like the great Lance Henrikson, and just soaks in their badassness. The dialogue is really the highlight here. While the plot can be a bit uneven, there's nothing complicated about the dialogue. Hearing our Western vigilantes exchange sharply-worded, gravitas-infused, hard-boiled back-and-forth is simply a pleasure. I mean, Newsweek columnist George Will recently got such a kick out of it that he quoted numerous portions of the script in a recent column on the relevance of the Western. For people who like that kind of stuff, for those who wonder what happened to the John Wayne's and the Clint Eastwood's of the world, men who spoke softly and carried a big stick, so to speak, Appaloosa often exudes an old-fashioned kind of alpha-male awesomeness.
So while Appaloosa won't be the next huge Oscar hopeful (though I'd argue that both Harris and Mortensson turn in award-worthy performances ...), and it won't shake the foundations of the Western through bold new innovation, it is simply a rock-solid movie with a kickass cast that, mostly, fires on all cylinders. A movie that's all the more cool simply because they don't really make 'em like this anymore.
My Grade: B+
NICK & NORAH'S INFINITE PLAYLIST Review:
- In the wrong hands, Nick and Norah could have been utterly grating and 100% lame. But I give the movie credit - it's a smart, funny, and entertaining teen flick that does a great job of feeling current without being pandering. Trust me, I get it - the marketing of the flick instantly raised warning flags that it was a lame attempt at being Superbad-meets-Juno, yet another oh-so-precious emo comedy with too-cool-for-school teens acting out their angst with two dollar words and lots of precocious music playing in the background. Okay, sure, in some ways - that's just what Nick & Norah is, but that's really taking the glass-half-empty view. The non-cynical way of looking at it is that, wow, why didn't they have teen movies like this when I was in high school? It would have been pretty cool, in retrospect, to see Michael Cera and Kat Dennings on the big screen back in the day as shining examples of some new geek-is-cool paradigm. Instead, all I got were the blockheaded fratboys of American Pie. The implicit message seemed to be that if even Chris Klein couldn't get some action, then what chance did *you* the lowly fanboy have? Now, geeky teens everywhere are taught that even Michael Cera can be a superpimp in his own right. How plausible that is I don't know, but it's a great concept even if it's only fantasy fulfillment.
But for all the small feelings of "wow, they're really trying too hard," I have to admit that Nick & Norah has a certain feeling of authenticity. It doesn't feel like a throwback to John Hughes stereotypes, and it doesn't feel cut from the same cloth as so many Judd Apatow movies either. It really does kind of capture the feeling of wandering around the city at night, not quite sure where the evening will take you.
Michael Cera gets criticized for offering up similar performances in his various roles, but I say why stray from a good thing, when he's the master of awkward and deadpan teen comedy. Cera has the gift for awkward exhanges and mock-serious straight-man antics, and he of course has that slight sense of self-aware pseudo-hipster cool that makes him perfect for these kinds of roles. And then there's Kat Dennings, who is to quirky-cool indie-rock chicks as Cena is to the male equivalent. Dennings is really great in the movie - likable, funny, and again, authentic-seeming. I don't know how much of that is just because to some extent she's simply playing herself, but in this case it fits. As with Cera, there's that nagging feeling of "oh she's trying too hard," but look at Kat Dennings here as compared to so many lame teen movie bimbos from years past. Dennings' character is smart, multidimensional, cool but not stuck up, and hey, even Jewish and proud of it! Again, guys everywhere probably sigh and think "does a girl like this actually exist?". But give the movie credit for daring to be a bit different with its male and female leads.
And really, a lot of the movie coasts on the chemistry between them. When the movie is just coasting along and letting its characters riff - that's when it's at its strongest. Where it falters is when it tries to get gross-out laughs and be more like a typical teen comedy. To me, most of the best and funniest moments were the subtler ones. The more over-the-top humor often seemed out of place or just not all that sharp.
Really though, this is a cool little movie with two talented leads, and a unique style that elevates it way past the usual brainless and soulless teen movie fare. Not a landmark movie, but a pretty zeitgeisty one, that balances an air of corporate-derived cool with a genuine sense of rock n' roll independence - that makes you want to go out cruisin' in the big city until 6 am. Yeah, the title is cheesy as hell (what exactly is an infinite playlist?!), but the movie itself is a lot of fun, and likely destined to be a teenage fave.
My Grade: B+
- Alright - whew! Three movie reviews and change. I'll be back soon with some TV thoughts, including SNL, Prison Break, and more.
Until then, I dedicate this blog to Rudy Ray Moore, aka The Dolemite, who passed away today. Talk about one bad mutha', the world of pimp-fu has lost a founding father.
Monday, September 29, 2008
The SIMPSONS Turns 20! The Return of FOX Sunday Night - Reviewed!
Okay, time to take a break from self-serious birthday reflection and acknowledge that yesterday was indeed signifigant for reasons other than being the glorious day that brought one Danny Baram into this world. Afterall, yesterday was the TWENTIETH season premiere of the greatest TV show of all time, The Simpsons. Say what you want about the show in its latter years, but that is still a pretty signifigant achievement. It's probably been at least a good eight years since the show was it's old self, and in the last decade or so the show has swung back and forth between being mediocre, mildly funny, and at its best, refreshingly reminiscient of the good ol' days, when seemingly every Simpsons episode was an instant classic, immediately entered into the pop-culture lexicon of awesomely hilarious TV.
But you have to wonder, have the Simpsons fans become so jaded in their old age that they can't even recognize when a good episode comes their way? Afterall, many of us twenty-something fans saw many of the classics when we were in elementary school. There's no way we'll have the same reaction to a great new Simpsons episode now that we're out of college and workin' the 9 to 5. Now, that's not me being an apologist. The classics do tend to hold up brilliantly in a way that many of the newer episodes don't. They were amazingly written, hilariously voice-acted, and contained classic premise after classic premise.
More than once on the blog, I've provided lengthy disections of why exactly nu-Simpsons episodes don't possess the old-school episodes' brilliance, so I won't spend too much time on that here. But I will say this: between the not-amazing-but-still-pretty-funny movie from last year, and several episodes from last season that fell in the good-to-very-good range ... well, any true Simpsons fan has no excuse to not check out new episodes. No, the show has not made some miraculous return to Season 4 quality, but it has undeniably upped its game a bit over the last several months.
I think that was evident in last night's 20th (!!!) season premiere. The premise - Homer and Flanders becoming bail bondsmen - was nothing revolutionary, but on the whole the writing felt sharper and the jokes felt more on-point than many Simpsons detractors might have expected. For those who dismiss this ep as just another new-school, mediocre Simpsons, let me provide a few reasons why that simply isn't true:
a.) A singular A-plot that goes from start to finish: A hallmark of later-era Simpsons eps was that many episodes would start out dealing with one premise and then finally get around to its primary premise with only 10 or so minutes left in the episode. To many, this kind of sloppy storytelling was a clear sign that the show's writing had gone down the tubes. Last night though, we saw an ep that seems to be more emblematic of more recent Simpsons ep structures - an opening that leads directly into the main A-plot, which then lasted all the way through the episode. Nice.
b.) A plot that was NOT centered around Homer trying to win back Marge: and thank God - that has to be the single most overused premise in the last 10 years of The Simpsons. If it never pops up again, no one will mind.
c.) Some mild continuity when appropriate: nice reference to Maude Flanders' death (to be fair, it's one of the few continuity points the show has continually referenced over the last several years)
d.) Jokes that actually hit the mark: some of the one-liners and set-ups from last night's ep plain and simply made me laugh ... the gag with Skinner and Chalmers having dinner, Homer being upset that Marge would withhold sexy cakes from him, the Irish parade with the empty float for straight Catholic priests, Ned and Homer's Christian-rock version of AC/DC's "Dirty Deeds." Good stuff.
Now, was this a modern-day classic or a flat-out amazing episode? No, def not. It felt like a retread in many ways and there wasn't much build-up behind the twists that the Homer-Ned relationship took. If you compare it to the eps where they go to Vegas, or when Flanders first opens the Leftorium ... those classics gave a lot of depth to the Flanders - Homer rivalry. Compared to those, this one was pretty lightweight. But - the ep made me laugh, entertained me, and had no real groan-inducing moments. And it was the best show on Fox on Sunday. Overall, good show for a twenty-year old series.
My Grade: B+
- KING OF THE HILL was solid, but felt overall a bit bland. We've seen Bill-centric episodes that delved deeper into his tortured psyche, and funnier overall Bill episodes as well. The Bobby B-plot was barely there to boot. But man, I love these characters - even a mid-range Bill episode still has its entertaining moments, and only Bill would voluntarily confine himself to a wheelchair as a preemptive measure, and then enjoy the resulting pity from his friends. Overall, a decent opener, but not the best that this still-great show is capable of.
My Grade: B
- Meanwhile, FAMILY GUY was a very new-school style episode, meaning that it had this weird need to try to prove that the show is smarter and more adult than people give it credit for. I don't know, I liked when Stewie was an insane baby who wanted to take over the world, and Brian was the family dog who was smarter than everyone else in the room. Stewie as a creepy, effeminate gay baby and Brian as a sexually-frustrated bohemian dog is just a bit much for me. I miss when this show was random and fun - now it just seems like its trying too hard. I'm not saying I want a return to the random cutaways every 10 seconds, but I also don't want any more shows centered around Brian's moping and lousy luck with the ladies. Sure, the ep had its moments - Cleveland's exclamations whilst getting busy with Brian's flame were kind of hilarious - but, overall, this was yet another Family Guy ep that I wanted to like but just didn't find much to laugh at.
My Grade: B-
- Alright -- SHANA TOVAH and Happy New Year!
But you have to wonder, have the Simpsons fans become so jaded in their old age that they can't even recognize when a good episode comes their way? Afterall, many of us twenty-something fans saw many of the classics when we were in elementary school. There's no way we'll have the same reaction to a great new Simpsons episode now that we're out of college and workin' the 9 to 5. Now, that's not me being an apologist. The classics do tend to hold up brilliantly in a way that many of the newer episodes don't. They were amazingly written, hilariously voice-acted, and contained classic premise after classic premise.
More than once on the blog, I've provided lengthy disections of why exactly nu-Simpsons episodes don't possess the old-school episodes' brilliance, so I won't spend too much time on that here. But I will say this: between the not-amazing-but-still-pretty-funny movie from last year, and several episodes from last season that fell in the good-to-very-good range ... well, any true Simpsons fan has no excuse to not check out new episodes. No, the show has not made some miraculous return to Season 4 quality, but it has undeniably upped its game a bit over the last several months.
I think that was evident in last night's 20th (!!!) season premiere. The premise - Homer and Flanders becoming bail bondsmen - was nothing revolutionary, but on the whole the writing felt sharper and the jokes felt more on-point than many Simpsons detractors might have expected. For those who dismiss this ep as just another new-school, mediocre Simpsons, let me provide a few reasons why that simply isn't true:
a.) A singular A-plot that goes from start to finish: A hallmark of later-era Simpsons eps was that many episodes would start out dealing with one premise and then finally get around to its primary premise with only 10 or so minutes left in the episode. To many, this kind of sloppy storytelling was a clear sign that the show's writing had gone down the tubes. Last night though, we saw an ep that seems to be more emblematic of more recent Simpsons ep structures - an opening that leads directly into the main A-plot, which then lasted all the way through the episode. Nice.
b.) A plot that was NOT centered around Homer trying to win back Marge: and thank God - that has to be the single most overused premise in the last 10 years of The Simpsons. If it never pops up again, no one will mind.
c.) Some mild continuity when appropriate: nice reference to Maude Flanders' death (to be fair, it's one of the few continuity points the show has continually referenced over the last several years)
d.) Jokes that actually hit the mark: some of the one-liners and set-ups from last night's ep plain and simply made me laugh ... the gag with Skinner and Chalmers having dinner, Homer being upset that Marge would withhold sexy cakes from him, the Irish parade with the empty float for straight Catholic priests, Ned and Homer's Christian-rock version of AC/DC's "Dirty Deeds." Good stuff.
Now, was this a modern-day classic or a flat-out amazing episode? No, def not. It felt like a retread in many ways and there wasn't much build-up behind the twists that the Homer-Ned relationship took. If you compare it to the eps where they go to Vegas, or when Flanders first opens the Leftorium ... those classics gave a lot of depth to the Flanders - Homer rivalry. Compared to those, this one was pretty lightweight. But - the ep made me laugh, entertained me, and had no real groan-inducing moments. And it was the best show on Fox on Sunday. Overall, good show for a twenty-year old series.
My Grade: B+
- KING OF THE HILL was solid, but felt overall a bit bland. We've seen Bill-centric episodes that delved deeper into his tortured psyche, and funnier overall Bill episodes as well. The Bobby B-plot was barely there to boot. But man, I love these characters - even a mid-range Bill episode still has its entertaining moments, and only Bill would voluntarily confine himself to a wheelchair as a preemptive measure, and then enjoy the resulting pity from his friends. Overall, a decent opener, but not the best that this still-great show is capable of.
My Grade: B
- Meanwhile, FAMILY GUY was a very new-school style episode, meaning that it had this weird need to try to prove that the show is smarter and more adult than people give it credit for. I don't know, I liked when Stewie was an insane baby who wanted to take over the world, and Brian was the family dog who was smarter than everyone else in the room. Stewie as a creepy, effeminate gay baby and Brian as a sexually-frustrated bohemian dog is just a bit much for me. I miss when this show was random and fun - now it just seems like its trying too hard. I'm not saying I want a return to the random cutaways every 10 seconds, but I also don't want any more shows centered around Brian's moping and lousy luck with the ladies. Sure, the ep had its moments - Cleveland's exclamations whilst getting busy with Brian's flame were kind of hilarious - but, overall, this was yet another Family Guy ep that I wanted to like but just didn't find much to laugh at.
My Grade: B-
- Alright -- SHANA TOVAH and Happy New Year!
Thursday, September 25, 2008
FRINGE Benefits ...
Five Reasons FRINGE Just Might Be Sort-of Awesome:
1.) John Noble - this guy freaking rules. His delivery as mad scientist Walter Bishop is 100% spot-on, and he is BY FAR the best thing about the show. In Episode #3, he was better than ever, and had a number of great lines.
2.) Cool Pseudo-Science Stuff - I love the whole idea of fringe science, and I think the show does a pretty decent job of presenting interesting sci-fi concepts as applied science. Episode 3's premise of a walled-garden psychic network controlled by metallic implants in the brain? Sweet.
3.) Lance Reddick - another kickass actor - he's already established himself as a badass on LOST, and now he's also a standout on JJ Abram's other network project. Unfortunately, Reddick is often given somewhat lame lines and exposition, but he's one of those actors with the gift of making even kinda-lame dialogue sound cool.
4.) Sweet Cold Opens - while Fringe is not yet in the same league as The X-Files, it has done a nice job so far of opening each episode with a pretty gripping intro, setting the stage for the case of the week to follow. So far, this is the aspect of the show that compares most favorably to X-Files.
5.) Potential for Crazy Plot Twists - So far, the mytharc of Fringe has been revealed only in very small doses - we know there's something called The Pattern, we know that Massive Dynamics is up to no good, and we know that there's more than meets the eye with regards to the Bishop family history. So far, the show's overarching plot isn't all that intruging. But, it could be. There's all kinds of potential - could Walter Bishop secretly be running Massive Dynamics? Is Joshua Jackson some kind of crazy cyborg mandroid? Is Ana Torv some kind of chosen one? Hmm ...
Five Reasons Why I'm Still Iffy On FRINGE:
1.) Non-Walter Bishop Characters are Boring - I want to like Olivia, but give me some characterization I can chew on. Pacey from Dawson's Creek, meanwhile, needs some personality other than "guy who makes sarcastic quip after everything his father says."
2.) Needs More Globe-Trotting - Part of what gave the X-Files' monster-of-the-week episodes their allure was the fact that they would see Mulder and Scully traveling to some new exotic (or not so exotic) locale with each new case. So far, all of Fringe has taken place in Boston. Which is cool, as Boston rocks (!), but the show has yet to create much of an epic scope with its distinct lack of diversity in locales.
3.) WTF is The Pattern? - Right now, this concept of The Pattern is too gimmicky - the idea that all of these various paranormal events are related and triggered by some all-encompassing consipracy is a bit much, and doesn't make a whole lot of sense to boot. And the way that people speak about The Pattern is often unintentionally funny - like it's this Big Idea that everyone kind of takes for granted. Olivia in particular needs to have a few Scully-esque freakouts where she questions the sanity of everyone who keeps talking about this magical Pattern.
4.) Already Too Formulaic - I'm sincerely hoping that Fringe doesn't begin to suffer from Smallville syndrome, where the same cliches are used in every episode. It got old fast on Smallville when every episode had the obligatory scene of Clark Kent waltzing into Lex's office no matter how improbable it was given the context of the story. Already, every ep of Fringe has seen Olivia ominously conversing with the cagey CEO of Massive Dynamics, who are improbably directly involved in every case Olivia has thus far investigated in her new role. Now, this week's ep actually addressed this, but in a very roundabout, inconclusive, "isn't that funny?" kind of way. Whether there's some grand mysterious reason for it or not, it will get old quickly if every episode falls into the same patterns (so to speak), without at least a strong sense of self-awareness of this on the part of the characters.
5.) Lack of Great Theme Song / Music - First off, I do wish Fringe had a slightly better opening that didn't just feel like a blander version of The X-Files. I also wish its musical scoring didn't feel like leftover musical scraps from LOST. Better and more distinctive music please - it's very necessary in this type of show.
What do *you* think?
- Check back tomorrow for lots more. Politics, movies, TV (THE OFFICE is on tonight! Whoo!), and more.
1.) John Noble - this guy freaking rules. His delivery as mad scientist Walter Bishop is 100% spot-on, and he is BY FAR the best thing about the show. In Episode #3, he was better than ever, and had a number of great lines.
2.) Cool Pseudo-Science Stuff - I love the whole idea of fringe science, and I think the show does a pretty decent job of presenting interesting sci-fi concepts as applied science. Episode 3's premise of a walled-garden psychic network controlled by metallic implants in the brain? Sweet.
3.) Lance Reddick - another kickass actor - he's already established himself as a badass on LOST, and now he's also a standout on JJ Abram's other network project. Unfortunately, Reddick is often given somewhat lame lines and exposition, but he's one of those actors with the gift of making even kinda-lame dialogue sound cool.
4.) Sweet Cold Opens - while Fringe is not yet in the same league as The X-Files, it has done a nice job so far of opening each episode with a pretty gripping intro, setting the stage for the case of the week to follow. So far, this is the aspect of the show that compares most favorably to X-Files.
5.) Potential for Crazy Plot Twists - So far, the mytharc of Fringe has been revealed only in very small doses - we know there's something called The Pattern, we know that Massive Dynamics is up to no good, and we know that there's more than meets the eye with regards to the Bishop family history. So far, the show's overarching plot isn't all that intruging. But, it could be. There's all kinds of potential - could Walter Bishop secretly be running Massive Dynamics? Is Joshua Jackson some kind of crazy cyborg mandroid? Is Ana Torv some kind of chosen one? Hmm ...
Five Reasons Why I'm Still Iffy On FRINGE:
1.) Non-Walter Bishop Characters are Boring - I want to like Olivia, but give me some characterization I can chew on. Pacey from Dawson's Creek, meanwhile, needs some personality other than "guy who makes sarcastic quip after everything his father says."
2.) Needs More Globe-Trotting - Part of what gave the X-Files' monster-of-the-week episodes their allure was the fact that they would see Mulder and Scully traveling to some new exotic (or not so exotic) locale with each new case. So far, all of Fringe has taken place in Boston. Which is cool, as Boston rocks (!), but the show has yet to create much of an epic scope with its distinct lack of diversity in locales.
3.) WTF is The Pattern? - Right now, this concept of The Pattern is too gimmicky - the idea that all of these various paranormal events are related and triggered by some all-encompassing consipracy is a bit much, and doesn't make a whole lot of sense to boot. And the way that people speak about The Pattern is often unintentionally funny - like it's this Big Idea that everyone kind of takes for granted. Olivia in particular needs to have a few Scully-esque freakouts where she questions the sanity of everyone who keeps talking about this magical Pattern.
4.) Already Too Formulaic - I'm sincerely hoping that Fringe doesn't begin to suffer from Smallville syndrome, where the same cliches are used in every episode. It got old fast on Smallville when every episode had the obligatory scene of Clark Kent waltzing into Lex's office no matter how improbable it was given the context of the story. Already, every ep of Fringe has seen Olivia ominously conversing with the cagey CEO of Massive Dynamics, who are improbably directly involved in every case Olivia has thus far investigated in her new role. Now, this week's ep actually addressed this, but in a very roundabout, inconclusive, "isn't that funny?" kind of way. Whether there's some grand mysterious reason for it or not, it will get old quickly if every episode falls into the same patterns (so to speak), without at least a strong sense of self-awareness of this on the part of the characters.
5.) Lack of Great Theme Song / Music - First off, I do wish Fringe had a slightly better opening that didn't just feel like a blander version of The X-Files. I also wish its musical scoring didn't feel like leftover musical scraps from LOST. Better and more distinctive music please - it's very necessary in this type of show.
What do *you* think?
- Check back tomorrow for lots more. Politics, movies, TV (THE OFFICE is on tonight! Whoo!), and more.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
A Super HEROES? S3 Premiere Reviewed, Plus PRISON BREAK and GOSSIP GIRL
With burned-out retinas and a fried brain, I come to you today as a man who watched approximately 517 hours of television last night. Okay, maybe that's a slight exaggeration ... but only slight. Because with a warrior's mentality and nerves of steel, I parked myself on the couch last night to take in a night of primetime television mayhem, as multiple networks did their best to attract my trendsetting 25-year old eyeballs. So here's my Monday night roundup, raw and uncut, baby.
HEROES: Third Season Premiere Review:
- Okay, the big premiere last night was that of HEROES. For some reason, I was really optimistic about the start of Season 3. Maybe it was the positive buzz from Comic-Con, maybe I had just been drinking too much of the NBC kool-aid, I don't know. But I was somehow convinced that the premiere truly would live up to its title and be a "second coming" of sorts for Heroes. And while there were moments of coolness, and some reminders of what made the show so likable in the first place, there was still way too much of the kind of sloppy writing, poor acting, and hair-pulling pacing that made Season 2 such a bust.
Because let me take a second to sum up what I've written many times before here on the blog: I want to like - scratch that - I want to love Heroes. When I first read the pilot script I was blown away - the possibility of a primetime TV show that would create a living, breathing, comic book world with a real-world twist was music to my ears. That first script has so much potential and promise ... that it's been tough watching the show struggle to live up to its epic premise. Season 1 had a handful of the kind of "holy $#%&" moments that should, in theory, be a part of every episode of Heroes. There was the first time we saw Future Hiro, the alternate-future episode that brought shades of Days of Futures Past to the Heroes-verse. There was "Company Man," which finally brought the same kind of narrative drama and character-building that makes shows like LOST so involving to Heroes, in an episode that redefined the show and made Noah Bennet its new de facto star.
But those truly great moments have been few and far between, and the show's drawn-out setups have yet to have truly rewarding payoffs, with two consecutive season finales that failed to provide satisfying closure, or exciting build-up to the next wave of storylines. Similarly, many of the show's characters have yet to grab us. Everyone loved Hiro and Ando when they first debuted, but the pair of would-be world-savers has yet to have that big, great adventure that we've seemingly been promised since Day 1. Sylar debuted as the next great potential TV villain. Two seasons later, he's still got the same old schtick. In last night's season premiere, Claire was till moping around videotaping herself. When is she finally going to kick some ass or do something toreally make us cheer her on?
So back to last night's two hour premiere ... I was ready to have my mind blown but instead had to fight back a headache from all of the plot holes, inconsistent logic, and off-kilter pacing. First, let's talk plot - an area where Heroes has always struggled. We still don't know who exactly the older-generation of heroes are and what exactly their motives are, which makes Hiro's quest to keep some secret formula out of the wrong hands all the more mystifying, since we still don't know what his father's agenda was or how in-league he was with the sinister-seeming Angela Petrelli, Company Bob, etc. Then there was the big reveal that Future Peter travelled back in time and shot his own brother to prevent an apocalyptic future where heroes are hunted down, experimented on, etc. This reveal makes almost no sense. Why travel to that specific moment in time? Why SHOOT and nearly kill your own brother? Why randomly trap your past-self's conciousness in the body of Weevil from Veronica Mars?
One huge problem that has developed on Heroes: time travel. Rather than really having fun and letting loose with the concept, the show has been picking and choosing where and how Hiro and Peter use this ability. And the selective use of the power has already created tons of gaps in logic. For example - Hiro needs to get back his half of his father's formula? Why not travel back to the moment before it was stolen and warn his past-self not to open the safe that held it? Or - Peter feels torn about not being there for Claire when she was attacked by Sylar - an attack which left Sylar near-omnipotent now that he has absorbed Claire's powers. Why not travel back to that moment and intervene? Now, it'd be one thing if the show established clear rules for time-travel. But so far, it's been nothing but a plot-device used only at the writers' discretion. And it makes the storylines feel flimsy and not well-planned-out. They need to fix this soon.
But time-travel is just the tip of the iceberg. The show needs to simply focus and zone in on its most compelling plot points, which it rarely seems to do. Last year, the fact that there was a deadly virus out there affecting people with abilities got totally lost in the shuffle. So far this year, we have a season called Villains. We have a breakout of the world's most sinister super-powered beings. THAT should be the focus. Let's see Claire, Noah, Hiro, Peter, etc. team up to take down the badguys. It's not complicated, and it'd be a lot of fun. But already, the prison break out seems to be getting lost in the shuffle.
Part of the clutter, is, as usual, thanks to an already-groan-inducing subplot featuring Mohinder. Long the show's most annoying character, he's now teamed with Maya, last season's candidate for new most annoying character. I guess their scenes at least kill two birds with one stone, but man, were they hard to watch. We get Mohinder prancing around like Spiderman thanks to a serum that gives anyone who injects it superpowers (but with horrifying side-effects yet to be fully revealed! never seen THAT before!), and the start of a pretty sudden romantic tryst with Maya, who we can only hope soon joins her brother as a victim of Sylar's evil, brain-snatching ways. And ... holy lord ... is this show STILL doing that godawful pretentious narration from Mohinder? I mean, seriously, WTF was he talking about at the end of Hour 1? Something about the lambs of Bethlehem? Oh man, for the love of all that is sacred, please never subject us to Mohinder's narration again.
Meanwhile, Ali Larter is back, but with a new identity. In a mere two seasons, Larter's characters on Heroes have had to endure so many crazy twists and turns that the effect is now numbing. I can't imagine many Heroes fanboys out there are chomping at the bit to find out the mystery of Tracy Strauss. And it's too bad, because Larter has done an admirable job playing so many characters ... she's just a victim of the show's tendency to lower all interest in a given character by subjecting them to an endless series of confusing and ultimately pointless twists.
Case in point: Nathan Petrelli. I mean, wow, I think his personality and physical state shifted about 30 times in this season premiere alone. First he was dead, then alive but barely, then walking around in a suit looking healthy, then back in a hospital bed looking sickly. He went from going to theb rink of causing annihilation last season to fighting for the cause of good to muttering something about being an angel of God to signing up to fill a vacant seat in the U.S. Senate. When Future-Peter revealed to Nathan that it was him who had shot him to prevent a horrible future, the revelation landed with all the intensity of a typical episode of Ghost Whisperer.
Now, what did I like? I liked most of the scenes with Hiro, Ando, and their new speedster nemesis. Light and fun, these were the kinds of moments that allowed Heroes to first capture people's imaginations. The cameo from George Takei was hilarious - it's too bad they killed him off because he added a TON to the show. The new speed-freak villain seems ripped straight from SMALLVILLE, but you know what, with so much of the premiere being a relatively bleak mess, it was a welcome change of pace, so to speak.
I know for me this is stating the obvious, but Kristen Bell kicked ass as usual with what small screentime she had. It's clear that her character, Elle, is pretty underwritten, but it's cool to see Bell making the most of what she's got to work with. She singlehandedly made the big confrontation between Elle and Sylar the premiere's coolest and most kickass moment, by FAR. And yeah, it warmed this still-in-mourning fan of VERONICA MARS happy to see Veronica and Weevil reunited via Heroes. GREAT chemistry between the two actors, and you could feel the shared history between them on screen.
Also great in that scene was Jack Coleman as Noah. Long the show's MVP, Coleman was given little screen time but immediately brought some MUCH-NEEDED GRAVITAS to the precedings. The show seriously needs to remember which characters work best for it - and their go-to-guy should clearly be Coleman.
Speaking of great actors, it's almost sad to see the great Malcolm McDowell pop up and proceed to be completely boring and useless. In all the time I've watched Heroes, I still have no real idea who Linderman is and don't know why I should care about him.
I thought the Sylar-Claire confrontation was interesting, but honestly I don't see why they had to go so graphic with it. And Sylar is really wearing thin as a character, especially by episode's end. Him being a long-lost Petrelli brother is kind of interesting, but Peter and Nathan are now so broken as characters that it's hard to get too excited about either of their storylines. Again - SIMPLIFY. We'd all love to see Sylar leading a band of supervillains. Just skip to that already and give us some epic hero vs. villain battles. The intense action of the Elle vs. Sylar scene was the one moment that truly had that super-powered spark (pun intended).
But the show needs to avoid the kind of meandering pointlessness embodied by Greg Grunberg being teleported to Africa and wandering around aimlessly for an hour. I cringed along with everyone else in America when he promptly meets random African Guy who wastes no time in making a crack plugging Sprint cell phone service. Come on, Heroes, give us some credit as an audience.
It's interesting, because in a way a LOT was packed into the first two hours of Heroes' third season. But a lot of it seemed to just go in circles. I didn't sense a lot of real, forward momentum. The kind of legitimate drama that makes you rally around the characters and really root for them, the kind that makes you anticipate the next episode with bated breath. Heroes needs to stop, take a breath, and figure out what its grand plan is. Give us a plot we can sink our teeth into, powers that leave us awed rather than scratching our heads, characters we root for or love to hate. So far, it looks like a "second coming" is still a ways away.
My Grade: C+
PRISON BREAK:
- All hail to the still-reigning king of adrenaline-fueled Monday night TV: Prison Break (well, at least until Jack Bauer makes his glorious return in '09 ...). While the first two eps of Season 4 have been fun but a bit bland, Ep #3 really kicked things up a notch, and I finally felt like I was watching the same Prison Break that has kicked my ass so many times before. Yes folks, I'm still sore.
What more can one say about William F'n Fichtner? Last night's ep shifted the spotlight a bit more to Mahone, and once again everyone's favorite psycho-Fed-turned-Con-turned-black ops agent looks ready to take names, with his sights sent on the Company's big bad SBD hitman. Mahone's single-minded pursuit of his son's killer brings me back to when the character was first introduced in Season 2, and there's that same feeling of anticipation as we watch Mahone teeter on the edge and go all out in his quest for unholy vengeance. Awesome. As my brother pointed out ... where is Fichtner's Emmy? Do they even give an award that honors Most Badass Actor Ever?
But yeah, I guess maybe it's just third time's the charm, but I thought this week's break-in plot was ultimately a lot of fun. Everything gelled well, and it was fun seeing Michael Rappaport get a bit more hands-on with the action. Although he was introduced as the generic obnoxious boss type, I'm really liking Rappaport more and more with each passing episode. It's a fun dynamic seeing the scrappy Jewish guy from New York teaming up with a bunch of hardened ex-cons.
Also, this week saw even more vintage, over-the-top dialogue from T-Bag. His story to his secretary about Leprachauns was hilariously random yet awesome.
I'm also liking that the show is finally addressing my earlier complaint - that we still don't know much about The Company or its goals. It looks like the curtain is finally being pulled back, and we're getting into the bigger picture of what the Company's nefarious plans actually are.
The Scofield-is-sick subplot ... hopefully they won't leave us hanging too long on that one.
Also: Gretchen's escape = awesome. Most badass female character on TV.
My one complaint is really just that I feel like two of the show's former best characters, Bellick and Sucre, seem kind of wasted this season so far. And also, that computer hacker guy is still pretty lame and annoying.
But overall, this was a fairly badass episode that, to me, signalled that PB is back.
My Grade: A -
GOSSIP GIRL:
- I know some people lump in Gossip Girl with other teen shows like One Tree Hill or the new 90210. But what I love about GG is that, like The OC, it's both teen drama as well as self-aware satire of teen drama. Sure, the show has its share of soap-opera twists, but oftentimes, it's just hilarious.
I was completely cracking up last night over Chuck Bass' manipulative antics. He is such an over the top character, and seriously one of TV's best antagonists. Every line of Chuck's had me laughing - has there ever been a more flamboyantly Machiavellian high school student in the history of primetime?
Anyways, I thought this was a really fun episode of Gossip Girl that finally returned the show's setting to high school, thus taking it back to basics a bit. I wouldn't call it a guilty pleasure, because the show always offers up its melodrama with a wink and a smile.
My Grade: A-
- Alright, back with more soon. Let me know what you think - Heroes: soared or sunk? Prison Break: still a powerhouse or a shadow of its former self? Gossip Girl: should I be ashamed for watching or are you also on the bandwagon?
HEROES: Third Season Premiere Review:
- Okay, the big premiere last night was that of HEROES. For some reason, I was really optimistic about the start of Season 3. Maybe it was the positive buzz from Comic-Con, maybe I had just been drinking too much of the NBC kool-aid, I don't know. But I was somehow convinced that the premiere truly would live up to its title and be a "second coming" of sorts for Heroes. And while there were moments of coolness, and some reminders of what made the show so likable in the first place, there was still way too much of the kind of sloppy writing, poor acting, and hair-pulling pacing that made Season 2 such a bust.
Because let me take a second to sum up what I've written many times before here on the blog: I want to like - scratch that - I want to love Heroes. When I first read the pilot script I was blown away - the possibility of a primetime TV show that would create a living, breathing, comic book world with a real-world twist was music to my ears. That first script has so much potential and promise ... that it's been tough watching the show struggle to live up to its epic premise. Season 1 had a handful of the kind of "holy $#%&" moments that should, in theory, be a part of every episode of Heroes. There was the first time we saw Future Hiro, the alternate-future episode that brought shades of Days of Futures Past to the Heroes-verse. There was "Company Man," which finally brought the same kind of narrative drama and character-building that makes shows like LOST so involving to Heroes, in an episode that redefined the show and made Noah Bennet its new de facto star.
But those truly great moments have been few and far between, and the show's drawn-out setups have yet to have truly rewarding payoffs, with two consecutive season finales that failed to provide satisfying closure, or exciting build-up to the next wave of storylines. Similarly, many of the show's characters have yet to grab us. Everyone loved Hiro and Ando when they first debuted, but the pair of would-be world-savers has yet to have that big, great adventure that we've seemingly been promised since Day 1. Sylar debuted as the next great potential TV villain. Two seasons later, he's still got the same old schtick. In last night's season premiere, Claire was till moping around videotaping herself. When is she finally going to kick some ass or do something toreally make us cheer her on?
So back to last night's two hour premiere ... I was ready to have my mind blown but instead had to fight back a headache from all of the plot holes, inconsistent logic, and off-kilter pacing. First, let's talk plot - an area where Heroes has always struggled. We still don't know who exactly the older-generation of heroes are and what exactly their motives are, which makes Hiro's quest to keep some secret formula out of the wrong hands all the more mystifying, since we still don't know what his father's agenda was or how in-league he was with the sinister-seeming Angela Petrelli, Company Bob, etc. Then there was the big reveal that Future Peter travelled back in time and shot his own brother to prevent an apocalyptic future where heroes are hunted down, experimented on, etc. This reveal makes almost no sense. Why travel to that specific moment in time? Why SHOOT and nearly kill your own brother? Why randomly trap your past-self's conciousness in the body of Weevil from Veronica Mars?
One huge problem that has developed on Heroes: time travel. Rather than really having fun and letting loose with the concept, the show has been picking and choosing where and how Hiro and Peter use this ability. And the selective use of the power has already created tons of gaps in logic. For example - Hiro needs to get back his half of his father's formula? Why not travel back to the moment before it was stolen and warn his past-self not to open the safe that held it? Or - Peter feels torn about not being there for Claire when she was attacked by Sylar - an attack which left Sylar near-omnipotent now that he has absorbed Claire's powers. Why not travel back to that moment and intervene? Now, it'd be one thing if the show established clear rules for time-travel. But so far, it's been nothing but a plot-device used only at the writers' discretion. And it makes the storylines feel flimsy and not well-planned-out. They need to fix this soon.
But time-travel is just the tip of the iceberg. The show needs to simply focus and zone in on its most compelling plot points, which it rarely seems to do. Last year, the fact that there was a deadly virus out there affecting people with abilities got totally lost in the shuffle. So far this year, we have a season called Villains. We have a breakout of the world's most sinister super-powered beings. THAT should be the focus. Let's see Claire, Noah, Hiro, Peter, etc. team up to take down the badguys. It's not complicated, and it'd be a lot of fun. But already, the prison break out seems to be getting lost in the shuffle.
Part of the clutter, is, as usual, thanks to an already-groan-inducing subplot featuring Mohinder. Long the show's most annoying character, he's now teamed with Maya, last season's candidate for new most annoying character. I guess their scenes at least kill two birds with one stone, but man, were they hard to watch. We get Mohinder prancing around like Spiderman thanks to a serum that gives anyone who injects it superpowers (but with horrifying side-effects yet to be fully revealed! never seen THAT before!), and the start of a pretty sudden romantic tryst with Maya, who we can only hope soon joins her brother as a victim of Sylar's evil, brain-snatching ways. And ... holy lord ... is this show STILL doing that godawful pretentious narration from Mohinder? I mean, seriously, WTF was he talking about at the end of Hour 1? Something about the lambs of Bethlehem? Oh man, for the love of all that is sacred, please never subject us to Mohinder's narration again.
Meanwhile, Ali Larter is back, but with a new identity. In a mere two seasons, Larter's characters on Heroes have had to endure so many crazy twists and turns that the effect is now numbing. I can't imagine many Heroes fanboys out there are chomping at the bit to find out the mystery of Tracy Strauss. And it's too bad, because Larter has done an admirable job playing so many characters ... she's just a victim of the show's tendency to lower all interest in a given character by subjecting them to an endless series of confusing and ultimately pointless twists.
Case in point: Nathan Petrelli. I mean, wow, I think his personality and physical state shifted about 30 times in this season premiere alone. First he was dead, then alive but barely, then walking around in a suit looking healthy, then back in a hospital bed looking sickly. He went from going to theb rink of causing annihilation last season to fighting for the cause of good to muttering something about being an angel of God to signing up to fill a vacant seat in the U.S. Senate. When Future-Peter revealed to Nathan that it was him who had shot him to prevent a horrible future, the revelation landed with all the intensity of a typical episode of Ghost Whisperer.
Now, what did I like? I liked most of the scenes with Hiro, Ando, and their new speedster nemesis. Light and fun, these were the kinds of moments that allowed Heroes to first capture people's imaginations. The cameo from George Takei was hilarious - it's too bad they killed him off because he added a TON to the show. The new speed-freak villain seems ripped straight from SMALLVILLE, but you know what, with so much of the premiere being a relatively bleak mess, it was a welcome change of pace, so to speak.
I know for me this is stating the obvious, but Kristen Bell kicked ass as usual with what small screentime she had. It's clear that her character, Elle, is pretty underwritten, but it's cool to see Bell making the most of what she's got to work with. She singlehandedly made the big confrontation between Elle and Sylar the premiere's coolest and most kickass moment, by FAR. And yeah, it warmed this still-in-mourning fan of VERONICA MARS happy to see Veronica and Weevil reunited via Heroes. GREAT chemistry between the two actors, and you could feel the shared history between them on screen.
Also great in that scene was Jack Coleman as Noah. Long the show's MVP, Coleman was given little screen time but immediately brought some MUCH-NEEDED GRAVITAS to the precedings. The show seriously needs to remember which characters work best for it - and their go-to-guy should clearly be Coleman.
Speaking of great actors, it's almost sad to see the great Malcolm McDowell pop up and proceed to be completely boring and useless. In all the time I've watched Heroes, I still have no real idea who Linderman is and don't know why I should care about him.
I thought the Sylar-Claire confrontation was interesting, but honestly I don't see why they had to go so graphic with it. And Sylar is really wearing thin as a character, especially by episode's end. Him being a long-lost Petrelli brother is kind of interesting, but Peter and Nathan are now so broken as characters that it's hard to get too excited about either of their storylines. Again - SIMPLIFY. We'd all love to see Sylar leading a band of supervillains. Just skip to that already and give us some epic hero vs. villain battles. The intense action of the Elle vs. Sylar scene was the one moment that truly had that super-powered spark (pun intended).
But the show needs to avoid the kind of meandering pointlessness embodied by Greg Grunberg being teleported to Africa and wandering around aimlessly for an hour. I cringed along with everyone else in America when he promptly meets random African Guy who wastes no time in making a crack plugging Sprint cell phone service. Come on, Heroes, give us some credit as an audience.
It's interesting, because in a way a LOT was packed into the first two hours of Heroes' third season. But a lot of it seemed to just go in circles. I didn't sense a lot of real, forward momentum. The kind of legitimate drama that makes you rally around the characters and really root for them, the kind that makes you anticipate the next episode with bated breath. Heroes needs to stop, take a breath, and figure out what its grand plan is. Give us a plot we can sink our teeth into, powers that leave us awed rather than scratching our heads, characters we root for or love to hate. So far, it looks like a "second coming" is still a ways away.
My Grade: C+
PRISON BREAK:
- All hail to the still-reigning king of adrenaline-fueled Monday night TV: Prison Break (well, at least until Jack Bauer makes his glorious return in '09 ...). While the first two eps of Season 4 have been fun but a bit bland, Ep #3 really kicked things up a notch, and I finally felt like I was watching the same Prison Break that has kicked my ass so many times before. Yes folks, I'm still sore.
What more can one say about William F'n Fichtner? Last night's ep shifted the spotlight a bit more to Mahone, and once again everyone's favorite psycho-Fed-turned-Con-turned-black ops agent looks ready to take names, with his sights sent on the Company's big bad SBD hitman. Mahone's single-minded pursuit of his son's killer brings me back to when the character was first introduced in Season 2, and there's that same feeling of anticipation as we watch Mahone teeter on the edge and go all out in his quest for unholy vengeance. Awesome. As my brother pointed out ... where is Fichtner's Emmy? Do they even give an award that honors Most Badass Actor Ever?
But yeah, I guess maybe it's just third time's the charm, but I thought this week's break-in plot was ultimately a lot of fun. Everything gelled well, and it was fun seeing Michael Rappaport get a bit more hands-on with the action. Although he was introduced as the generic obnoxious boss type, I'm really liking Rappaport more and more with each passing episode. It's a fun dynamic seeing the scrappy Jewish guy from New York teaming up with a bunch of hardened ex-cons.
Also, this week saw even more vintage, over-the-top dialogue from T-Bag. His story to his secretary about Leprachauns was hilariously random yet awesome.
I'm also liking that the show is finally addressing my earlier complaint - that we still don't know much about The Company or its goals. It looks like the curtain is finally being pulled back, and we're getting into the bigger picture of what the Company's nefarious plans actually are.
The Scofield-is-sick subplot ... hopefully they won't leave us hanging too long on that one.
Also: Gretchen's escape = awesome. Most badass female character on TV.
My one complaint is really just that I feel like two of the show's former best characters, Bellick and Sucre, seem kind of wasted this season so far. And also, that computer hacker guy is still pretty lame and annoying.
But overall, this was a fairly badass episode that, to me, signalled that PB is back.
My Grade: A -
GOSSIP GIRL:
- I know some people lump in Gossip Girl with other teen shows like One Tree Hill or the new 90210. But what I love about GG is that, like The OC, it's both teen drama as well as self-aware satire of teen drama. Sure, the show has its share of soap-opera twists, but oftentimes, it's just hilarious.
I was completely cracking up last night over Chuck Bass' manipulative antics. He is such an over the top character, and seriously one of TV's best antagonists. Every line of Chuck's had me laughing - has there ever been a more flamboyantly Machiavellian high school student in the history of primetime?
Anyways, I thought this was a really fun episode of Gossip Girl that finally returned the show's setting to high school, thus taking it back to basics a bit. I wouldn't call it a guilty pleasure, because the show always offers up its melodrama with a wink and a smile.
My Grade: A-
- Alright, back with more soon. Let me know what you think - Heroes: soared or sunk? Prison Break: still a powerhouse or a shadow of its former self? Gossip Girl: should I be ashamed for watching or are you also on the bandwagon?
Friday, September 19, 2008
Burn After Blogging: BURN AFTER READING - Reviewed! Plus: Fringe, Terminator, SNL, and EMMY thoughts!
Ahh, where did the weekend go? Monday already? Noooooooo!
So okay, I'll talk for a second about the Emmys. Now, I'm not really a huge fan of the Emmys, in that I feel like they don't often reflect what is truly the best television out there. So many great shows have been continually ignored by the Emmys, that it's hard to really take them seriously. Even in just the last few years, to see shows like Gilmore Girls, Veronica Mars, and other franchises that fall outside the typical Emmy voter's radar get snubbed again and again ... while the same old sitcoms are always nominated ... it's difficult to really imagine that the Emmys truly represent a legitimate showcase of TV's best. I mean, this year there's an award for best reality show host. Not talk show host, not game show host - but reality show host. Yes, finally, a category that honors the unmatched hosting talents of the Howie Mandels and Heidi Klums of the world! (sarcasm hopefully obvious ...) Yep, last night's Emmys were truly a showcase for the talent that these reality hosts possess - when called upon to be funny or entertaining in any way, the Emmy hosts completely bombed, turning in one of the most embarassing awards show hosting gigs I've ever seen, with nearly every attempt at humor greeted with complete and utter silence. I don't know if I've ever seen an awared show where more presenters took the opportunity to rib the show hosts - but here, Howie and co deserved it. Totally unwatchable. But hey, let's give them an award for all of their talents! And yet ... there's still no award that properly honors sci-fi or other genre TV, no award catered to shows like Pushing Daisies that don't neatly fall into traditional ideas of comedy or drama. No new awards that actually, you know, acknowldege the stuff that's worth acknowledging.
That being said, seriously, congrats to 30 ROCK. I named it my best TV show of 2007 and it will surely be at or near the top of my 2008 list as well. It's become bar-none the funniest show on network TV, with the best writing and probably the best cast as well. The awards it received tonight, including trophies for Best Comedy, Best Writing, and individual awards for Tina Fey and Alec Baldwin, were all incredibly well-deserved (why no love for the hilarious Tracy Morgan though?!). And hey, Tina Fey even plugged iTunes in her acceptance speech! Sweet! (quick plug from me: log on to iTunes now and download 30 Rock: Tina's Top 5 - the top 5 episodes of 30 Rock as selected by Tina Fey herself!)
I was also really happy to see Brian Cranston win the Best Actor award ... I've never seen Breaking Bad, though I hear it's really good ... but the guy is a great, hilarious actor who may have been the best part of Malcolm in the Middle for many years. Well-deserved.
And thank you to Ricky Gervais, for providing one of the show's few genuinely funny moments when he took to the stage and had some hilarious back-and-forth with his OFFICE counterpart, Steve Carell. Unfortunately the great EXTRAS got no Emmy love this year for its send-off special ... oh well. When you created and starred in one of the top 10 funniest TV series of all-time, I guess you're probably abouve the Emmys in many respects.
Some other random EMMY thoughts:
- I know, I know -- everyone and their mother constantly raves about how great MAD MEN is. And I will have to check it out eventually. But, I'm sorry, it's amazing to me that anything other than LOST could have won Best Drama. This was the year of LOST, in which the show churned out one classic episode after another, providing some of the most edge-of-your seat television I've ever seen. Sorry Mad Men fans, but LOST was robbed.
- The comedy category was way overcrowded this year. As great as 30 ROCK was, it was a shame to see its win come at the expense of great shows like CURB YOUR ENTHUSIASM and FLIGHT OF THE CONCHORDS. I guess it was cool to even see Flight nominated - its first season really was one of the funniest things I've ever seen on TV. And I can't forget THE OFFICE. While the show was slightly up and down last season, I remain very excited for its season premiere this week. When The Office is on its game, it's right up there with 30 Rock.
- As I said earlier, it does annoy me that, with so many shows no longer fitting neatly into drama or comedy categorization, so many great programs pretty much get snubbed come Emmy time. Pushing Daisies is the prime example - arguably last season's best new show, it's too bad that it was only minimally recognized (although congrats to Barry Sonnenfeld for a much-deserved directing award for his work on PD). On the other side of the coin, you get a show like Desperate Housewives that is continually nominated for Best Comedy when it's not exactly a true comedy. If DH wasn't included in the comedy noms, there might have been room for a deserving underdog to get some recognition. How about one of last year's best new shows, the under-the-radar ALIENS IN AMERICA?
- Hey, what's up with CONAN not getting a nod for best talk / variety show?
- Finally, how did Michael Emerson not win for LOST, and how were there not more actors from the show nominated? Terry O'Quinn? Henry Ian Cusick? Matthew Fox? Anyone? McFly?
Anyways, that's about all I have to say about the Emmys. Certainly not a must-watch show, but again, congrats to the very deserving and very hilarious 30 ROCK.
So okay, I'll talk for a second about the Emmys. Now, I'm not really a huge fan of the Emmys, in that I feel like they don't often reflect what is truly the best television out there. So many great shows have been continually ignored by the Emmys, that it's hard to really take them seriously. Even in just the last few years, to see shows like Gilmore Girls, Veronica Mars, and other franchises that fall outside the typical Emmy voter's radar get snubbed again and again ... while the same old sitcoms are always nominated ... it's difficult to really imagine that the Emmys truly represent a legitimate showcase of TV's best. I mean, this year there's an award for best reality show host. Not talk show host, not game show host - but reality show host. Yes, finally, a category that honors the unmatched hosting talents of the Howie Mandels and Heidi Klums of the world! (sarcasm hopefully obvious ...) Yep, last night's Emmys were truly a showcase for the talent that these reality hosts possess - when called upon to be funny or entertaining in any way, the Emmy hosts completely bombed, turning in one of the most embarassing awards show hosting gigs I've ever seen, with nearly every attempt at humor greeted with complete and utter silence. I don't know if I've ever seen an awared show where more presenters took the opportunity to rib the show hosts - but here, Howie and co deserved it. Totally unwatchable. But hey, let's give them an award for all of their talents! And yet ... there's still no award that properly honors sci-fi or other genre TV, no award catered to shows like Pushing Daisies that don't neatly fall into traditional ideas of comedy or drama. No new awards that actually, you know, acknowldege the stuff that's worth acknowledging.
That being said, seriously, congrats to 30 ROCK. I named it my best TV show of 2007 and it will surely be at or near the top of my 2008 list as well. It's become bar-none the funniest show on network TV, with the best writing and probably the best cast as well. The awards it received tonight, including trophies for Best Comedy, Best Writing, and individual awards for Tina Fey and Alec Baldwin, were all incredibly well-deserved (why no love for the hilarious Tracy Morgan though?!). And hey, Tina Fey even plugged iTunes in her acceptance speech! Sweet! (quick plug from me: log on to iTunes now and download 30 Rock: Tina's Top 5 - the top 5 episodes of 30 Rock as selected by Tina Fey herself!)
I was also really happy to see Brian Cranston win the Best Actor award ... I've never seen Breaking Bad, though I hear it's really good ... but the guy is a great, hilarious actor who may have been the best part of Malcolm in the Middle for many years. Well-deserved.
And thank you to Ricky Gervais, for providing one of the show's few genuinely funny moments when he took to the stage and had some hilarious back-and-forth with his OFFICE counterpart, Steve Carell. Unfortunately the great EXTRAS got no Emmy love this year for its send-off special ... oh well. When you created and starred in one of the top 10 funniest TV series of all-time, I guess you're probably abouve the Emmys in many respects.
Some other random EMMY thoughts:
- I know, I know -- everyone and their mother constantly raves about how great MAD MEN is. And I will have to check it out eventually. But, I'm sorry, it's amazing to me that anything other than LOST could have won Best Drama. This was the year of LOST, in which the show churned out one classic episode after another, providing some of the most edge-of-your seat television I've ever seen. Sorry Mad Men fans, but LOST was robbed.
- The comedy category was way overcrowded this year. As great as 30 ROCK was, it was a shame to see its win come at the expense of great shows like CURB YOUR ENTHUSIASM and FLIGHT OF THE CONCHORDS. I guess it was cool to even see Flight nominated - its first season really was one of the funniest things I've ever seen on TV. And I can't forget THE OFFICE. While the show was slightly up and down last season, I remain very excited for its season premiere this week. When The Office is on its game, it's right up there with 30 Rock.
- As I said earlier, it does annoy me that, with so many shows no longer fitting neatly into drama or comedy categorization, so many great programs pretty much get snubbed come Emmy time. Pushing Daisies is the prime example - arguably last season's best new show, it's too bad that it was only minimally recognized (although congrats to Barry Sonnenfeld for a much-deserved directing award for his work on PD). On the other side of the coin, you get a show like Desperate Housewives that is continually nominated for Best Comedy when it's not exactly a true comedy. If DH wasn't included in the comedy noms, there might have been room for a deserving underdog to get some recognition. How about one of last year's best new shows, the under-the-radar ALIENS IN AMERICA?
- Hey, what's up with CONAN not getting a nod for best talk / variety show?
- Finally, how did Michael Emerson not win for LOST, and how were there not more actors from the show nominated? Terry O'Quinn? Henry Ian Cusick? Matthew Fox? Anyone? McFly?
Anyways, that's about all I have to say about the Emmys. Certainly not a must-watch show, but again, congrats to the very deserving and very hilarious 30 ROCK.
- So, check out my last where I began to run through the first batch of big Fall TV premieres - I gave my thoughts on last night's SMALLVILLE season premiere, as well as the sophomore episodes of GOSSIP GIRL and PRISON BREAK, and also bid a fond farewell to SWINGTOWN.
A few more series to talk about ...
- I'm still not quite sure what I think of FOX's latest supernatural drama, FRINGE. I thought the pilot had its moments, but I was really anxious to see the follow up episodes to get a better feel for what a typical installment would be like. Now, after seeing the second episode of the series, I stil have mixed feelings. On one hand, I can't deny that the show grabbed me with its creepy cold open - very X-Files esque, and it set up an intriguing premise - that of a genetic defect that causes extreme, rapid aging, and in turn a killer who is desperately seeking a cure for his condition. It wasn't a totally new, mind-blowing idea, but it was executed well, and there was some interesting pseudo science here. To me, that may be the most fun aspect of the show so far - the fact that John Noble's character is this modern day Dr. Frankenstein who puts his stock in all manner of crazy theories. I loved the notion of scanning a murder victim's eye on the hunch that the last image she saw before death would be burned into her retina. The little details like that are what give the show its flair. But ... while the overall atmosphere and premise of the show is so far a lot of fun, the characters are still woefully bland. Clearly, John Noble is the standout, but the problem is he has no one interesting to play off of. His son, played by Joshua Jackson, is already a pretty useless and annoying character. Obviously there's some larger mystery hovering over him, but on an episode by episode basis, he seems an odd choice to be out in the field investigating these paranormal cases. Same goes for Ana Torv - so far, I like her as an actress, but her character is much more CSI than X-Files. That is to say: bland. With The X-Files, Mulder and Scully each brought a wholly unique perspective to each case, and their contrasting viewpoints made for the perfect yin and yang scenario. So far, there's none of that with the priciple players on Fringe, and it's definitely something that needs to be fixed to keep up interest longterm. Same goes for the overarching mythology. All this talk of "The Pattern" ... well, so far at least, it seems not to amount to much. It almost seems like a misguided attempt to shoehorn a Lost-style "everything-is-connected" mystery into a show that doesn't need it. Hopefully, this whole Pattern thing quickly evolves into a more solid sci-fi concept, otherwise it too will become tedious sooner rather than later. Now, I know that's a lot of criticism, but the fact is ... Fringe is a new sci-fi drama from JJ freaking Abrams. It has that weight on its shoulders, that expectation that it could be the next Lost, the next X-Files ... so far, it is definitely not in the same league as either of those modern day classics. But I am definitely in for at least a couple more episodes ... very curious to see where this one goes.
My Grade: B
- I was a little iffy on the season premiere of TERMINATOR: THE SARAH CONNOR CHRONICLES ... but I have to say, the second episode from last week really kicked things up a notch, with lots of action and intrigue. The interplay between Lena Heady and Brian Austin Green has become surprisingly interesting of late, and Summer Glau is still pretty awesome as Cameron, the teen-girl Terminator. The show's done a nice job of establishing Cameron as both an ally and a potential enemy, and there's now a palpable sense of danger whenever she's on screen. Now that it's been made clear that she has the potential to snap and go rogue, there's a new dimension of menace added to the series. I still think the show gets a little too angsty, which can at times make it boring. I'd love to see it go more over-the-top, add in a little more fun and adventure, give some its characters a little more personality. But I am definitely interested to see where things go, and the addition of Shirley Manson as a red-haired ruthless business woman / deadly T-1000, is certainly a nice-twist.
My Grade (Ep #2): B+
- On SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE: Well, I have to say I've been pretty disappointed with SNL over the last two weeks. Both shows were very much a mixed bag - each started out with a promising and timely politically-oriented sketch, and then quickly took a nosedive, with sketch after sketch that fell flat. At this point, every time I see a new sketch that's a gameshow or talkshow parody, I cringe, because SNL at this point has completely driven these two concepts into the ground (The Charles Barkley Show sketch from last week was the epitomy of this point -- and I say this as a giant Charles Barkley fan!). At least the season premiere had the excuse that Michael Phelps was the host, and clearly there were not high expectations for him to be the next Steve Martin or anything. But this week, James Franco was someone who could have been a great host, and yet that potential seemed mostly wasted. The obligatory pothead sketch, a totally awful James Bond parody, was one of the worst sketches I've seen from SNL in years. Really, almost every sketch was devoid of laughs save for the final bit where Bill Hader broke out a funny William Dafoe impression. And you have to wonder: where's the political comedy at? It's clear SNL is struggling to step up the political humor. Aside from the always-reliable Darell Hammond as John Mccain, we've yet to see a the show do decent Obama, and we haven't seen a regular player take a stab at Palin or Biden as of yet. It's crazy, because in this election season there is simply SO MUCH to poke fun at - from the cable news nets (someone has GOT to do Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow parodies to compliment Hammond's classic Chris Matthews ...), to the conventions, to, well ... can anyone in the cast even do a halfway decent George Bush? SNL has a series of politically-themed Thursday night special planned, so they are really going to have to retool if they want to be ready and be relevant. And in the meantime -- Andy Samberg, your digital shorts of late have been way lacking. There was a ton of potential in doing a Gossip Girl parody this week, esp with James Franco onboard. And yet, the short was just one more disappointing sketch.
My Grade: C
- And wow, tonight is the night that Monday's become sheer craziness for TV fans everywhere, especially for us guys - as both NBC and FOX go head to head, each programming their primetime lineup with action-driven, high-concept series. Tonight, HEROES is back. I'm definitely excited for the season premiere, even after a very lackluster 2nd season. Everyone I know has been raving about how great that first hour is, and it seems like Heroes may have finally gotten its $%#@ together. I definitely predict some bigtime ratings for tonight's ep - the hype for Heroes has been unbelievable, and I think people are hungry for some big, fun, epic entertainment. All I know is, my DVR will be working overtime tonight.
Okay ... I've been meaning to review this one for a long time now, so finally, here it is: one of the best movies of 2008 so far ...
BURN AFTER READING Review:
- Many critics who like to take the movies very, very seriously really liked No Country For Old Men. After all, it was a movie that had all the same genious of prior Coen Brothers films, but by-god, it was dark and it was violent and it was a return to the kind of dramatic filmmaking that first put the Coens on the map with the likes of Blood Simple. And don't get me wrong - I loved No Country For Old Men as well - so much so that I named it my favorite film of 2007. But what puzzled me later on was how so many seemed to express disappointment that the Coen's follow-up to No Country was scheduled to be a satirical comedy. Had people forgotten that the follow-up to the more serious, Oscar-baiting drama Fargo was one of the funniest films ever made in The Big Lebowski? Oh, that's right, Lebowski was critically panned upon release and was a box-office failure. Only later did it receive the giant cult following that it so rightfully deserved ... although I have to wonder what all of those critics think of it now. Admittedly, the Coens' films are often of the type that almost require multiple viewings to fully appreciate, and they tend to lend themselves to DVD's that can easily be rewatched, disected, and analyzed over a long period. But my point is really this: a great comedy or satire is just as worthy of critical praise as a great drama, and it annoys me that there's this inherent critical bias that just because a movie is funny, it can't also be great and Oscar-worthy and all that good stuff. To me, The Big Lebowski ranks right up there with any other work of The Coens. Its script may be there most genius, and John Goodman and Jeff Bridges rank alongside William H. Macy and Javier Bardem as having turned in Oscar-worthy Coen-directed performances.
So that brings us to BURN AFTER READING. Right off the bat, I'll say that I wouldn't put this one up there in the absolute top-tier of Coen Bros. movies (alongside Fargo, Lebowski, and No Country), but it is certainly a much better effort than their lesser works like Ladykillers, for example. But it is a movie that will need to be rewatched, because as is typical of the Coens, the devil is in the details. After only one viewing though, I can say that Burn is a hilarious film that is on one hand absurdist and quirky, but on the other hand, an interesting satirical comment on Washington DC and the world of Intelligence.
I'm really glad that I finally got a chance to watch the Coens' BARTON FINK a few weeks before seeing Burn though, because in many ways, Burn most reminded me of that previous effort. Because just as Barton is this kind of quirky look at Hollywood and the characters who inhabit it (albeit a Hollywood from a bygone era), Burn is similarly a look at Washington (modern day Washington though), and all of its oddities and absurdities. Burn After Reading never plunges into the surreal and abstract depths that Barton Fink does, but in some ways it has a similar feel - a movie with moments of obvious and over the top humor, but also moments of real darkness and violence and tragedy (unusual for any other filmmakers, but familiar territory for the Coens). Burn however does have that same attention to detail that is so apparent in movies like Fargo and Lebowski - those little things that immerse you time and place. As Arby's is to Fargo and In N' Out is to Lebowski, Jamba Juice is to Burn After Reading. Fans of those movies will know what I mean. For others, it's just another example of how the Coens can take these little everyday details and make them into the quirky color of their film universes.
To sum up - Burn basically follows a seemingly disconnected group of DC inhabitants whose sole commonality is their mutually colorful names (a Coen trademark, to be sure). What eventually brings the various characters together is a computer disc that allegedly contains all kinds of top-secret, classified information. The disc falls into the hands of one Linda Litzke - Frances McDormand playing an aging, online-dating gym instructor hellbent on raising money to get some long-desired plastic surgeries. McDormand partners with her gym buddy, Chad (Bradd Pitt), to try to somehow profit from their chance discovery of the disc. The disc, they think, belongs to one Osborne Cox (John Malkovich), a recently retired / fired homeland security operative who thinks that the disc contains his memoirs. In fact the disc is a record of his financial statements, procured by his scheming ex-wife-to-be, played with coldhearted aplomb by Tilda Swindon. She's sleeping with a womanizing guy named Harry Pfarrer (George Clooney) on the side - and he's also engaged in an online romance with McDormand's Litzke. This bothers Litzke's boss, the hapless Ted Treffon (Richard Jenkins), who harbors a bigtime crush on Litzke. Meanwhile, as the tangled web begins to unravel, and as the chess pieces are moved around by the cruel hand of fate, a frustrated CIA operative (JK Simmons) tries to make sense of it all, with a vague awareness that there might be some kind of breach in national security, but ultimately clueless as to who's involved (everyone), and what's at stake (pretty much nothing).
Like some of the Coen's other films, Burn has an almost film noir-like sensibility in that it's a movie where the characters seem almost trapped in their celluloid universe, at the mercy of the whims of fate, or in this case, The Coens. But what really makes it all work is the potent combination of a great script with an incredible cast.
If I had to pick one star of the movie, it would have to be Malkovich. A total scene-stealer, Malkovich's Osborne Cox is just a great character - a true intellectual in a town of hacks, Cox's patience wears increasingly thin as he reaches his breaking point. It's totally hilarious to watch Cox's downward spiral from frustrated government drone to raging lunatic, and Malkovich gives each of his lines just the right amount of melodramatic oomph. It's no surprise then that some of the absolute funniest scenes in the movie come when Malkovich interacts with Bradd Pitt's Chad. Pitt is also great and very funny as the sexually-ambiguous, workout-addicted, iPod-obsessed Chad. More proof that Pitt is the man when it comes to playing off-kilter characters. The rest of the cast, from the always-awesome McDormand and JK Simmons, to Clooney and Jenkins and Swindon, is universally great as well - and there's a real dynamic between them.
In some ways, Burn After Reading has to struggle at times to overcome the feeling that it's ultimately pointless or inconsequential. There are times when it seems to drag or unnecessarily diverge towards random tangents - but by the film's end, when everything comes together, you realize that that was exactly the point. I do think though that the script is not as consistently funny or clever as, say, The Big Lebowski, and there are lulls in between some of the really hilarious scenes (usually involving Malkovich or Pitt). But mostly, this is another great effort from the Coens, and another movie from them that is a strong reminder of how unique and unconventional they are as filmmakers. Nobody else is making movies like this. No one else shares this particular sense of off-kilter humor or eye for darkly absurdist satire. While I can't quite rank Burn After Reading among my absolute favorite Coen Bros. movies, I can say that it's one of the fall's must-see films - another unique and memorable work from the best in the business today.
My Grade: A-
- Alright, that's all I've got for today. Check back soon for much more, including thoughts on tonight's HEROES premiere.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
The Blog of Steel! SMALLVILLE Returns, Plus: Big TV Roundup, VMA's, and More Politcal Rants of Doom!
The blog is back!
It's been a looooong time coming, but finally, I have returned with more of my usual blogtastic goodness. To explain myself ... well, it's been a really busy several days. Big things going on at work - namely, you might have heard that NBC Universal is back on iTunes! I haven't really spoken about or plugged anything from work of late, but this is a biggie. If you use iTunes, log in ASAP and take advantage of all the free content being offered. Whether your TV viewing preferences include The Office, Heroes, 30 Rock, Battlestar, Monk, or The Rachel Zoe Project, there's likely something for you on iTunes right now, for free! And not only is there a bunch of free content from last season, but as of this moment there's free, pre-air premieres of the all-new Knight Rider, Lipstick Jungle, and soon, pre-air premieres of Life, Chuck, and Kath & Kim. And - many of these free episodes are also available in HD - if you have an Apple TV in particular, or just a great computer monitor - the shows are guaranteed to look great. Plus, if you download TV shows from XBOX Live, Zune, or Amazon Video On-Demand, you'll find a lot of the same special offers and pre-air premieres. So log into your Amazon account and load up on Microsoft points - what better way to kill time between marathon Gears of War sessions than with a pre-air premiere of Knight Rider in glorious HD?
So yeah, work has been busy, and I have neglected the blog. But there's a lot to talk about so let's get to it.
First up: POLITICS.
- I don't want to spend too much time on this, but all I want to say is that I echo the chorus of people who saw Sarah Palin's ABC interview last week, and shuddered as I watched, because it only confirmed my worst fears about John McCain's vice-presidential candidate.
Basically, the interview confirmed that she is not exactly an intellectual.
She may be street-smart, she may have some political savvy. But this is not a woman who knows her foreign policy. This is not a woman who knows the intricacies of the economy. This is not a woman who has nuanced and carefully-considered views on social issues. In short, whenever Sarah Palin was unable to defer to "the script," she came off like the kid in school who didn't do their reading the night before. And anyone who thinks that Charlie Gibson was unfairly quizzing here on "tough" subjects like The Bush Doctrine - well, I invite them to go to (gasp!) Fox News' website and check out the clips of Obama's recent multi-part interview on The O'Reilly Factor. During the course of that interview, O'Relly grilled Obama and went after him tooth and nail on any number of topics, and Obama responded eloquently and intelligently. Obama was so poised and articulate that he even got O'Reilly to concede on a number of key points, including on how to fix the economy. To contrast that interview with Charlie Gibson's relatively softball questions to Palin is like night and day.
The fact is this: Palin can repeat the same, already-tired lines about shaking up Washington all she wants. That kind of empty talk is quickly going to wear thin, and it won't hold up when she debates Joe Biden.
More to come on the Presidential Election soon, so stay tuned.
TV STUFF:
- Man, the Fall season is already nearly in full swing, and I still hope to do a slightly belated Fall Preview of sorts here on the blog. But let me run through a few items that I've been meaning to talk about for the last week or so:
My Grade: B+
- I wasn't sure about the GOSSIP GIRL season premiere, but since then the show has really stepped up its game. I thought this past week's ep was a nice return to form, with the drama ratcheted up and the pieces put into place to make for an exciting initial story arc or two. And Chuck Bass had some absolutely classic lines - showing that GG's wicked sense of self-aware humor was still very much intact.
SWINGTOWN: I never got to give one last shout-out to the one summer show that was actually worth watching this year - CBS' SWINGTOWN. The season (and sadly, probably series) finale wasn't quite the epic send-off that I had envisioned (in my mind's eye I imagined an ambitious narrative that flash-forwarded five years into the future ...), but, it was yet another quality episode and a clear reminder of why I'll really miss this show, assuming it won't be returning. But it really was a fun prime-time soap, with tons of great characters. It's a testament to the cast and the writing that the characters who emerged as favorites by season's end were really only background players in the premiere. I mean, the conservative couple of Roger and Janet really were the breakout characters when all was said and done, and I couldn't help but wonder what would happen to them once unassuming Roger ultimately ended up with Susan (his wife's best friend). And it shows ho cleverly the plot defied expectations that the crazy swinger couple, Tom and Trina, ended up being the most sympathetic, stable, and "normal" characters on the series when all was said and done. Again, I don't know what the exact breakdown on the ratings was for CBS, but I've GOT to figure that Swingtown delivered very un-CBS-like demographics for the network. As I've said before, for me, it was the first series I've EVER regularly watched on the network. And I'm a demographically-desirable 18-34 year old white male. Anyways, I give the Swingtown season finale a grade of "B+", but as a whole this was definitely an A-level show.
My Grade: A-
- PRISON BREAK is still on slightly shaky ground in my book as its fourth season ramps up. I thought S4, Episode 2 did a decent job of building on momentum from the season premiere, but there is a sense that the show has finally begun to lose a bit of its edge. There is definitely a certain appeal to the idea of Michael Scofield and his rough-around-the-edges mod squad using their skills to act as a secret government task force. But there's been no real justification for having the likes of Sarah or Bellick or even Sucre on the team, It weakens the premise a bit when so many characters seem shoehorned into the plot. The one guy who's really been clicking is, not surprisingly, Mahone, played with the usual gravitas by William Fichtner. The stakes are personal for Mahone, and I can't wait to see him confront the show's latest villain - the soft-spoken assassin who may soon get his just desserts. But, overall, there is still that thrown-together feeling that this season is going to have to overcome as it progresses. We need The Company and their motives to be fleshed out, and we need more of an overarching plot to drive the season forward.
My Grade: B
- Okay, I never got a chance to talk about this year's MTV VIDEO MUSIC AWARDS, so I'll take a second now to comment. It's now become practically a yearly tradition for me to rant and rave about how far downhill MTV has gone since it's glory days, so I won't waste time at this point talking about the general state of TV's most pathetic cable net, which went from being at the center of a cultural movement to being home to all manner of lowest common denominator cultural junk. But I will say this: last year's VMA's, best remembered for Britney Spears' epic fail of a "performance," were so horrific that this year's could have only been an improvement. And there were bright spots. Russell Brand, while not exactly hilarious, was at least something different - kind of a British Jesse Camp, so, in a weird way, a bit of a throwback to the MTV of old. I actually really like Rihanna. I give her credit - she's been the best thing going in pop music for the last few years. That "Disturbia" song of hers has been in my head and on my mp3 player for weeks now. Pink and Christina Aguilera both put on decent performances, though they were probably more notable for their elaborate costumes and choreography than for the actual strength of the music. Musically, and for sheer kick-ass factor, the highlight of the VMA's this year was definitely PARAMORE, who rocked and rocked hard. Amazing that MTV actually allowed a genuine ROCK N' ROLL band to perform, since they apparently hate all non-hip hop music at this point. I mean, there are so many rock bands out there, both up and coming and established, who could and should be on MTV. And with games like Rock Band and Guitar Hero so huge at the moment, I think it's clearer than ever that, at this point, MTV is just totally missing the boat when it comes to capturing the musical zeitgeist. I mean, The Jonas Brothers? Are you serious? There used to be a distinction between MTV and Nickelodeon - no longer, I guess. I don't know, it just still strikes me as strange that you can watch the MTV VMA's and NOT see any of today's biggest or most popular bands. Even Katy Perry, who had one of the absolute biggest pop/rock songs of the summer, was relegated to a shortened interstitial performance. MTV - stop kissing Britney Spears' washed-up ass and start putting the spotlight back on the hungry artists who deserve it. And geez, at least you always used to be able to count on the VMA's for a cool surprise or two. This year, biggest surprise was some off the cuff remark from an American Idol winner ... yeah, American Idol - a show that the MTV I grew up with would have nothing to do with.
My Grade: C
- Okay, I still need to review BURN AFTER READING, which I saw last weekend. Stay tuned for that review - coming tomorrow!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)