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.
No comments:
Post a Comment