Hey everyone, back with a look at Day 2 of THE PRISONER, and, as promised, a review of 2012.
TV STUFF:
- So, am I missing something here? I've seen any number of reviews just totally bashing the new, AMC remake of THE PRISONER, and I just don't get it. Sure, the new miniseries isn't perfect by any means, but it's still one of the overall best things I've seen on TV in a long while. I really enjoyed Sunday's first two episodes, and last night's middle section was another really interesting and intriguing ride. I thought the first of the two hours was easily the weaker of the two. In Episode 3, we catch up with #6, still trying to figure out his way around The Village. The beginning of the episode was a bit jarring, as it was a very clean break from the previous installment. There was no real follow-up on #6's fake brother and family, and no real mention of his short-lived stint as a bus driver / tour guide. The lack of continuity ultimately wasn't a big deal - I imagine that some of that is fallout from the series changing from an ongoing drama (that would likely have featured more standalone episodes, similar to the original series), to a miniseries. But after the initial sense of confusion abated, the ensuing storyline was certainly interesting, and revealed a lot about The Village's culture of paranoia, fear, and constant surveillance. #6 becomes a spy of sorts, working undercover to find "dreamers" - people whose minds have broken through the Village's brainwashing to some degree, and whose dreams have led them to wonder about places beyond The Village. It was an interesting idea, and it underlined the idea that everyone in The Village, no matter how happy or content they may seem, is living in fear. That said, the episode was a bit slow at times, and the angle of having 6 pose as a school teacher, showing young kids the tricks of the surveillance trade, was a bit much to swallow. Although, this thread did produce a pretty awesome moment, when Ian McKellan's #2 discovered that a young girl from the class had been spying on him. Before sentancing her to some horrible fate, McKellan calmly implred her to first finish her ice cream cone. Awesomely evil. We also got more insight into 2's relationship with his son, which was interesting, but again, a bit soap-y for a show like this. In the end, this third hour was interesting, but felt like something of a tangent from the main storyline. But man, things really picked up in the next hour, as we got a look at love in the world of The Village. 6 is matched up, via The Village's automated match-making system, with woman who seems to be an exact replica of the mysterious woman that we've been flashing back to throughout the series so far - the woman who spent a fateful night with 6 in New York just prior to his abduction and relocation to the Village. As the episode progresses, we go deeper into the sick and strange headgames being played on 6. It becomes clear that every night he's taken away to The Village's creepy Clinic, and inoculated with various brainwashing and mind-numbing serums. One of the serums manipulates his feelings of love for his mysterious match, and hers for him. It was all pretty fascinating, and it was also a showcase for the women of The Prisoner to shine. I thought Hayley Atwell was pretty great as both incarnations of 6's enigmatic lover - Lucy and 4-15. I also really liked the depth given to Ruth Wilson as 313, the doctor tasked with doing 2's sinister bidding all the while trying to break free from it all. Really, the best compliment I can give to Night 2 of The Prisoner is that it made me wish that this was more than just a miniseries. There's tons of potential in this world and these characters, and it felt like Monday's two episodes just scratched the surface of the kinds of stories that a new Prisoner series could tell. Can't wait for tonight's conclusion.
My Grade: A-
And now, the long-awaited review of Roland Emmerich's latest ...
2012 Review:
- At this point, you should know what you're getting yourself into if you buy a ticket to see 2012. From all the previews and pre-release hype, the intent of this movie was essentially clear from the get-go: to be master-of-disaster Roland Emmerich's most ridiculous, most over-the-top, most gleefully destructive movie yet. And on those counts, 2012 is everything you could hope for and more. It's essentially a living cartoon come to life - epic destruction on a massive, global scale in which many, many people will die, but cute kids, noble politicians, lovable dogs, and yes, John Cusack, will outrun disaster, survive the apocalypse, and live to repopulate the planet (oh yeah!). 2012 is a pretty stupid movie in almost every respect, but it's a stupidly entertaining one as well. If you go in ready to laugh, cheer, and jeer at all the craziness, you'll have a blast.
I think what's frustrating about a movie like this though, if you actually stop to think about it for a minute, is that 2012 is a stupid-but-fun movie that really could have been a *great* movie if it actually had a decent script. I mean, here's the thing about Roland Emmerich - he's actually a pretty awesome director in a lot of ways. Few of his peers are so capable of depicting carnage with as much style and bombast as Emmerich, and the guy knows how to create those kind of big, cinematic moments that conjure up that old-school feeling of movie magic. Unlike, say, Michael Bay, Emmerich is pretty talented at staging a badass set-piece and creating an edge-of-your-seat action scene that has real narrative flow to it (that you can, you know, actually follow). And when Emmerich is at the top of his game, and has a fun, smart script that matches his exuberance for over-the-top, bombastic storytelling, he can make one hell of an exciting blockbuster movie (see: Independence Day). While 2012 has a decent cast necessary to potentially pull off popcorn-movie greatness, it definitely doesn't have the script. In many ways, the movie gives in to many of Roland's worst movie-making instincts. The story and characters here are ultra-cheesy, and yet you're never quite sure if Emmerich knows it. He seems to be going for Spielberg-style storytelling, with all the big emotional beats you'd find in, say, Jurassic Park, but he's limited by Saturday morning cartoon-level plotting, characters, and dialogue.
What that sometimes means is that there's an odd mismatch between the actors and the script. John Cusack is a great actor, but a great action hero for an over-the-top movie like this? Cusack does a good job of grounding the movie ... but does 2012 work better with someone grounding it? I kept thinking of Jack Bauer while watching the movie - Cusack could have used a little Kiefer Sutherland-style intensity to really sell the craziness of the world-ending events of the movie. Some of the other actors similarly don't seem to quite realize what movie they're in (Amanda Peet, I'm looking at you). That said, there are some interesting and fun actors here. Danny Glover as the President? Very nice. Newcomer Chiwetel Ejiofor as a young scientist who first warns of impending doom? Surprisingly pretty darn good in a huge role. Zlatko Buric steals a lot of scenes as a comic-relief Russian billionaire. Great genre actors like Steve McHattie (Watchmen) and John Billingsley (24) pop up and do cool stuff. But sometimes things just get too dumb to be fun ... take Woody Harrelson as a wacky, conspiracy-theorist endtimes doomsayer. The character is just annoying, more than anything. And his interaction with John Cusack is just too random and out-of-nowhere to be credible.
In some of the character moments, the dialogue, and even the action scenes, Emmerich just doesn't know how not to indulge himself. He has Cusack and his family outrace the apocalypse, improbably turning a would-be epic disaster scene into a Roadrunner-style live-action cartoon. It's fun, but totally bugnuts. There's the scene at the Vatican where Michaelangelo's famous paintings get split right where the figures iconically touch fingers. There's the obligatory scenes of doggies in danger. There's many a drawn-out death scene, and yet, ironically, many a scene of mass death and destruction in which the untold millions killed seem to go strangely unacknowleged.
What's funny is how much 2012 wants to appear epic. The movie starts with a friggin' view from outer space. I was already giggling from moment one. And from then on out, the movie furiously cuts from location to location, often with a comical randomness. At one point, Emmerich throws in a serene mountaintop scene, in which a wizened monk calmly philosophizes in the face of impending danger. It was so cheesy, I couldn't help myself - I burst out laughing.
And that's the thing with 2012. It is totally and unabashedly ridiculous. Sometimes that makes for fun, over-the-top moments and melodrama. Sometimes it just makes you groan and roll your eyes and wish that Jeff Goldblum had somehow been written into the movie. But despite all the cheesiness and general sense that your IQ is being lowered while watching the movie, there's a sense of fun to 2012, and a level of unapologetic excess in the visual f/x, that I feel like it's definitely worth seeing in a theater. I can't in good conscience give this movie a high grade on any objective scale, and yet I'd recommend 2012, easily, over other 2009 "blockbusters," like the totally craptacular Transformers 2 or Wolverine. As I said afterwords, I felt dumber for seeing this movie, and yet, even if only for a moment, I also felt more awesome. And that, my friends, deserves an exclamation point of: "dammit all."
My Grade: B
- Alright, enough destruction for one day. Peace out.
No comments:
Post a Comment