Hey everyone, back from a fun weekend and slowly starting what is looking to be a pretty ho-hum Monday. Luckily, I am here with an all-new post to help cure what ails ya'. First off, I want to mention a fun outing from this past weekend, as some friends and I attended a performance of CIRQUE BERZERK! Basically, this local LA event combines an old-school circus-under-the-bigtop with the darkly-comic style of The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Since a regular circus tends to have that dark and creepy element to it anyways, it seems like a natural fit to just crank up the goth and see what happens. And that's exactly what Cirque Berzerk does. It's a lot of fun, and I especially loved the crazy carnival atmosphere that surrounded the show. They literally set up a giant old-fashioned circus tent in the middle of a field in downtown LA, and surround it with a mini-carnival area with food and merchandise vendors, a spacious bar area, and live music. Evil clowns stroll the grounds even as giant fireballs signal that its time for the circus to begin. The show is very performance-heavy, with acrobats, trapeze artists, clowns, and music - all with a distinct goth / bizarre twist. Each segment of the show is given a title like "The Final Moment" or "The Danse Macabre". And while most of the fans in attendance are simply curious joe-shmo's, you do get a certain segment that comes decked out in full-on goth gear, further adding to the Tim Burton-esque atmosphere. Good times - I'd definitely recommend that people in the LA area try out the Cirque Berzerk.
- Also, saw a couple of movies this weekend that I'm excited to talk about, so let's get to it:
MOON Review:
- To me, Moon is an absolute must-see movie. It's an honest to god SCIENCE FICTION movie, and in this day and age, that is a rare but pleasant surprise. Moon isn't about f/x or over-the-top action. It's about an intriguing idea, a mind-bending premise, a moral quandary. This is the stuff of The Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits, of Ray Bradbury and Philip K. Dick. Moon is a movie that is in the cinematic tradition of 2001: A Space Odyssey, Blade Runner, Alien, and other such true science fiction movies - the kind they just don't make much of anymore. Somewhere along the way, movie makers got so caught up in CGI and remakes of 80's cartoons that they forgot what it meant to create sci-fi that is cerebral, intelligent, and thought-provoking. Well, Moon is a low-budget but high-concept return to sci-fi awesomeness. If it's playing in your area, run and see it immediately.
It's a bit hard to talk about this movie because so much of what makes it a fun film is the element of surprise. The story plays out like a mystery, with tension slowly mounting as we begin to realize that something isn't quite as it seems. And when the twists start coming, they really do transform the movie. The film that you think you are watching in the first ten minutes or so is NOT the same film that you end up with when all is said and done. So I'd urge would-be viewers to read as little as possible about the movie beforehand.
To set up the basic setting and premise though, MOON stars Sam Rockwell as the lone worker dispatched to manage the day to day duties of a lunar energy-mining plant. It seems that in the near future, the world's energy problems have been largely solved by the discovery of a nearly unlimited energy source buried deep within the moon's surface. Large energy corporations have set up mining operations on the moon, creating lean, efficient lunar bases, staffed with minimal crew, to help oversee the harvesting of materials. When we first meet Sam Rockwell's Sam Bell, he is literally all alone on a remote lunar outpost, though he is nearing the end of his three year contract with the energy company, and is eager to go home to his wife and daughter. By this point in his tenure, Sam is slowly beginning to succumb to what some might call space madness. He is trying to keep it together for a little bit longer, but it's clear his time alone in space has had some severe psycological effects. To that end, Sam's only company on the station is Gerty, an omnipresent computer system that runs the station's operations and communicates with Sam with a collection of smiley-face emoticons, as well as the calm but slightly eerie voice of Kevin Spacey. Undoubtedly, the intention was to draw comparisons to HAL in 2001, and the movie deftly plays off of the similarity.
Again, hard to say much about what happens from there, suffice it to say that this is NOT just a movie about a guy alone on a lunar space station. Some major $%#*% goes down, is about all I can say.
But what I can say is that Sam Rockwell is absolutely great as the central character here. A lot is asked of him in this movie, and Rockwell takes on the challenges that the script presents and turns in a defining, career-best performance. Given how much of a singular focus Rockwell is in the film, things could have easily gone bad in the hands of a lesser actor. But Rockwell pulls it off, and is alternately intense, tragic, funny, heroic, insane, and yet easy to root for. I'll also mention Kevin Spacey as Gerty. As odd as it sounds, Spacey's turn as a conflicted computer system might just be his best performance in years.
I also want to mention the look of this movie. New director Duncan Jones (son of David Bowie!), is now intantly a name to watch in my book. He pays tribute to a lot of movies in terms of look and feel - 2001 immediately comes to mind, for example - but he gives Moon a great clean but lived-in look. The sets are all filled with great detail. And the atmosphere is suitably tension-filled and claustrophobic. And best of all, Jones uses old-school model work to great effect. No CGI - the lunar surface scenes are done the old-fashioned way, and the low-budget means of coveying the vastness of outer space looks solidly awesome.
Now, part of what makes Moon so good is that it's a refreshing throwback to old-school sci-fi. But I do want to make sure to judge it on its own merits, and think that as a whole the movie really works. I think the one weakness is that, at times, the script doesn't quite come together as well as it should. Moon seems to hesitate in terms of how much it wants to provide a greater context to the time and place in which it occurs, and that ambiguity makes for an ending that isn't quite the exclamation point that it should be. In addition, the movie is in some ways a loving tribute to films like 2001 and Blade Runner, but some might question its overall originality. Personally, I enjoyed the potent mix of new and very relevant / topical ideas with the familiar sci-fi tropes.
My hope is that Moon gets the attention it deserves from fans and critics alike, and that more movies of this ilk get made. I also hope that Sam Rockwell is remembered come awards season, as this may be one of the first true Oscar-worthy leading performances of 2009. In any case, go see Moon - it's a bonafide trip to the Twilight Zone.
My Grade: A-
- Alright, I've got a lot more coming your way this week, so ... stay tuned.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Friday, June 19, 2009
40,000 Hits and Counting! A Special Look at Leno, Conan, and a New Era of Comedy!
40,000 hits, baby.
In light of another big milestone for this here blog, I'd like to once again say thanks to everyone who's been reading. True, about half of those come from me hitting "reload" on my browser thirty times every night, but still ... Actually, for the last year or maybe more I've been importing my posts onto Facebook, which I suspect has increased my readership but also lowered the hit count on the actual blog. So wherever you're reading this from - thanks! And hey, I've amassed 40,000 hits WITHOUT resorting to scandalous tales of Hollywood debauchery. That's right folks, The All-New, All-Awesome Adventures have enjoyed smashing success thanks to something that is rapidly vanishing in the age of Twitter and Facebook status updates: good, old-fashioned, fully-formed, long-winded writing.
So with that said, here is yet another post that is all killer and no filler. Well, at least 70% killer.
- In any case, with this post I'd like to take a moment to talk about the big Leno to Conan transition in late night. Yes, I know it's already been two full weeks since the big changeover, but a.) I haven't had time to write about this yet, and b.) I wanted to bide my time a bit and ge a better grasp of what Conan as host of the Tonight Show would really be like.
But first off, I do want to reflect a bit on the end of the Leno era. Sure, Leno will soon be back at 10 pm, but to me he has basically taken his curtain call, and everything that he does from this point on is basically an epilogue of sorts. For me though, The Tonight Show With Jay Leno will always hold a certain significance. When I interned for Late Night With Conan O'Brien, it was a fanboy dream come true. But when I worked at the Tonight Show, as an NBC Page, it was a sign that I wasn't in Kansas (or Connecticut) anymore. Even if I was never the biggest fan of Leno's comedic sensibilities, I stil lremember the rush I got as a Page during my first week or two of working the Tonight Show. The lights, the cameras, the band, the huge audience, and the parade of bigtime movie stars that I saw in person almost every day for several months. It was my big Hollywood moment, if you will, and it was a great run overall as a Page. I felt like working at the Tonight Show consistently gave me some sort of interesting story to tell, and a lot of those were documented over the months here on the blog. In fact, working at the Tonight Show, and as an NBC Page in general, was one of the main motivators for me to keep this blog going for the first year that I was here in LA. The Tonight Show to me, regardless of the host, is the epitomy of "showbiz" in the traditional sense, and I was right there in the thick of it, clad in blue polyester, every afternoon.
As an NBC Page, I got to meet a lot of the bit players who worked with Leno, and met a lot of interesting people. More than that, I led hundreds of NBC Studio Tours, the centerpiece of which was always a visit to the Tonight Show studio. I memorized all the facts and figures about that studio, and could tell its story to a group of tourists with just the right amount of over-the-top flourish. Similarly, there was the daily rush just before each show, as we desperately tried to seat everyone in the studio. It was like playing a human game of Tetris, except that if you screwed up, you'd be screwing up something on a live show that didn't have time to delay if the front row wasn't filled correctly. There were some close calls. I remember the time when we had two empty seats right in front of Jay as the show was about to begin, and me and another Page had to toss off our Page jackets and sit front and center. Then there was the time when I got caught right in the spotlight in front of Jay as the show was seconds from going on-air. Another second and it would have been me delivering the nightly monologue.
Then there were all the celebs I got to see while working the show. Some I just saw from a distance. Some I escorted to their dressing rooms. Some I awkwardly tried to make small talk with (cough*Avril Lavigne*cough). Not only that, but the number of bands and musicians I got to see play live thanks to The Tonight Show is amazing when I look back on it. Everyone from The Killers to Robert Plant to Billy Idol.
Finally, working at The Tonight Show allowed me to meet random people from all over the country and the world. Some of the most fun times at the show came while I was with my fellow Pages, helping to work the long line of would-be attendees - joking with them, hearing their stories, and, for the more easily-agitated of them, keeping them in line when necessary.
Some nights, Leno was on. The band was rockin', the jokes were hitting, and the guests were game. Some nights, not so much. But either way, there was that undeniable aura of old-tyme Hollywood glitz around the show. The show could be cheesy, the jokes were often as stale as a week-old bagel, and some of the interviews were cringe-worthy in their awkwardness. But hey, it was THE Tonight Show. And I was and am proud to have been been a part of it.
Now ... the CONAN era begins. After the final episode of Late Night, I gave a long tribute to Conan and what it meant to me to intern at the show in 2004. So I won't go back into that whole spiel. But, I guess the thing with Conan is that if you're of a certain generation and/or a certain sensibility, you can't help but root for him. Whereas Leno's humor is pretty canned, Conan's is the kind of finely-tuned madness that only a true comedy nerd could deliver. Conan is the geek who made good, and on Late Night he was willing to do comedy as out-there as anything that's ever been on network TV. Conan's #1 priority has always been not "will this play in the flyover states," but only "is this funny?". So the big question now is - can that anything-goes stlye of humor work given the new audience expectations that come with hosting The Tonight Show?
I think Conan has done something smart - rather than awkwardly adjusting his show to match the expectations of the Leno audience, he is instead bringing Late Night to The Tonight Show. He's doing a sort of "Conan O'Brien 101" for the uninitiated, re-introducing some of Late Night's most popular sketches while also introducing some new bits that are squarely in the Late Night tradition. I think the strategy is really working - maybe not so much in hooking older fans, but I think that what Conan's done is reintroduce himself to the Gen Y'ers who never got into him at 12:30. The fans who have been there all along are getting their usual dose of Conan, just earlier. But the new fans are getting a great mix of old favorites like "In The Year 2000" (now "In the Year 3000") and new buzzworthy bits - Twitter Tracker, anyone?
That said, there are definitely a lot of kinks to work out. The biggest may be the question of what to do with Andy Richter. Andy is fine as the announcer, but they need to figure out how to better work him into the rest of the show. Conan is such a fast talker, and so free-flowing in his thoughts, that there's really no room for Andy to just randomly interject comments into the monologue. I think it might be best to use Andy like Joel was used in the Late Night days or how Max Weinberg is used now - use him in random sketches, and have certain segments that incorporate him - but don't include him in Conan-centric pieces like the monologue or guest interviews. It's just too awkward to do so.
In general, I think they probably need to refine the flow of the show a bit more as well. Having a monologue followed by a sketch, and then another sketch after that, feels a bit stilted. I say go back to the Late Night format of having monologue, sketch, a guest, a secondary sketch, and then guest #2. That format kept you watching, even if you werent' crazy about the first guest, to see what the second sketch would be.
Finally, I say get rid of the Mario Bros. blue background behind Conan during the monlogue. The colors are too bright and don't contrast well with Conan, and anyways I think it'd look way better to just have him in front of the cool curtain that is behind the blue barrier. In general, the darker backdrop of Late Night was a much better fit for Conan, I think.
Ultimately though, Conan's stint as Tonight Show host has been great so far, and, certainly, a breath of fresh air. You get the feeling that Conan is still finding his footing to some degree, and there is definitely that feeling that it will be a few more weeks or even months before the show really hits its stride. Still, in only a couple of weeks' time, there have already been some truly memorable moments, and at least a few sketches that you might call instant classics. The pre-filmed intro to that first show, with Conan running cross-country, was a bonafide bit of awesomeness - a classic bit that was oddly profound even as it was hilarious. The thing that I love, as a writer, is to see great comedy writing finally make its way back to The Tonight Show. To me, Conan's best bits are the heavily-scripted ones that show off he and his staff's writing prowess. The combination of Ivy League intelligence and Mad Magazine zany-ness is what makes Conan's brand of humor so frequently hilarious.
In any case, it's definitely the end of an era. It's odd to think that new NBC Pages won't spend their days in "beautiful, downtown Burbank" with Jay Leno and co., and it's sad to see the old Burbank lot looking so empty. But as a comedy fan and a Conan supporter, I feel good that one of comedy's oldest institutions just got re-charged. The Tonight Show, ladies and gentlemen, is in good hands.
- And with that, have a great weekend everyone. Keep the hits coming!
In light of another big milestone for this here blog, I'd like to once again say thanks to everyone who's been reading. True, about half of those come from me hitting "reload" on my browser thirty times every night, but still ... Actually, for the last year or maybe more I've been importing my posts onto Facebook, which I suspect has increased my readership but also lowered the hit count on the actual blog. So wherever you're reading this from - thanks! And hey, I've amassed 40,000 hits WITHOUT resorting to scandalous tales of Hollywood debauchery. That's right folks, The All-New, All-Awesome Adventures have enjoyed smashing success thanks to something that is rapidly vanishing in the age of Twitter and Facebook status updates: good, old-fashioned, fully-formed, long-winded writing.
So with that said, here is yet another post that is all killer and no filler. Well, at least 70% killer.
- In any case, with this post I'd like to take a moment to talk about the big Leno to Conan transition in late night. Yes, I know it's already been two full weeks since the big changeover, but a.) I haven't had time to write about this yet, and b.) I wanted to bide my time a bit and ge a better grasp of what Conan as host of the Tonight Show would really be like.
But first off, I do want to reflect a bit on the end of the Leno era. Sure, Leno will soon be back at 10 pm, but to me he has basically taken his curtain call, and everything that he does from this point on is basically an epilogue of sorts. For me though, The Tonight Show With Jay Leno will always hold a certain significance. When I interned for Late Night With Conan O'Brien, it was a fanboy dream come true. But when I worked at the Tonight Show, as an NBC Page, it was a sign that I wasn't in Kansas (or Connecticut) anymore. Even if I was never the biggest fan of Leno's comedic sensibilities, I stil lremember the rush I got as a Page during my first week or two of working the Tonight Show. The lights, the cameras, the band, the huge audience, and the parade of bigtime movie stars that I saw in person almost every day for several months. It was my big Hollywood moment, if you will, and it was a great run overall as a Page. I felt like working at the Tonight Show consistently gave me some sort of interesting story to tell, and a lot of those were documented over the months here on the blog. In fact, working at the Tonight Show, and as an NBC Page in general, was one of the main motivators for me to keep this blog going for the first year that I was here in LA. The Tonight Show to me, regardless of the host, is the epitomy of "showbiz" in the traditional sense, and I was right there in the thick of it, clad in blue polyester, every afternoon.
As an NBC Page, I got to meet a lot of the bit players who worked with Leno, and met a lot of interesting people. More than that, I led hundreds of NBC Studio Tours, the centerpiece of which was always a visit to the Tonight Show studio. I memorized all the facts and figures about that studio, and could tell its story to a group of tourists with just the right amount of over-the-top flourish. Similarly, there was the daily rush just before each show, as we desperately tried to seat everyone in the studio. It was like playing a human game of Tetris, except that if you screwed up, you'd be screwing up something on a live show that didn't have time to delay if the front row wasn't filled correctly. There were some close calls. I remember the time when we had two empty seats right in front of Jay as the show was about to begin, and me and another Page had to toss off our Page jackets and sit front and center. Then there was the time when I got caught right in the spotlight in front of Jay as the show was seconds from going on-air. Another second and it would have been me delivering the nightly monologue.
Then there were all the celebs I got to see while working the show. Some I just saw from a distance. Some I escorted to their dressing rooms. Some I awkwardly tried to make small talk with (cough*Avril Lavigne*cough). Not only that, but the number of bands and musicians I got to see play live thanks to The Tonight Show is amazing when I look back on it. Everyone from The Killers to Robert Plant to Billy Idol.
Finally, working at The Tonight Show allowed me to meet random people from all over the country and the world. Some of the most fun times at the show came while I was with my fellow Pages, helping to work the long line of would-be attendees - joking with them, hearing their stories, and, for the more easily-agitated of them, keeping them in line when necessary.
Some nights, Leno was on. The band was rockin', the jokes were hitting, and the guests were game. Some nights, not so much. But either way, there was that undeniable aura of old-tyme Hollywood glitz around the show. The show could be cheesy, the jokes were often as stale as a week-old bagel, and some of the interviews were cringe-worthy in their awkwardness. But hey, it was THE Tonight Show. And I was and am proud to have been been a part of it.
Now ... the CONAN era begins. After the final episode of Late Night, I gave a long tribute to Conan and what it meant to me to intern at the show in 2004. So I won't go back into that whole spiel. But, I guess the thing with Conan is that if you're of a certain generation and/or a certain sensibility, you can't help but root for him. Whereas Leno's humor is pretty canned, Conan's is the kind of finely-tuned madness that only a true comedy nerd could deliver. Conan is the geek who made good, and on Late Night he was willing to do comedy as out-there as anything that's ever been on network TV. Conan's #1 priority has always been not "will this play in the flyover states," but only "is this funny?". So the big question now is - can that anything-goes stlye of humor work given the new audience expectations that come with hosting The Tonight Show?
I think Conan has done something smart - rather than awkwardly adjusting his show to match the expectations of the Leno audience, he is instead bringing Late Night to The Tonight Show. He's doing a sort of "Conan O'Brien 101" for the uninitiated, re-introducing some of Late Night's most popular sketches while also introducing some new bits that are squarely in the Late Night tradition. I think the strategy is really working - maybe not so much in hooking older fans, but I think that what Conan's done is reintroduce himself to the Gen Y'ers who never got into him at 12:30. The fans who have been there all along are getting their usual dose of Conan, just earlier. But the new fans are getting a great mix of old favorites like "In The Year 2000" (now "In the Year 3000") and new buzzworthy bits - Twitter Tracker, anyone?
That said, there are definitely a lot of kinks to work out. The biggest may be the question of what to do with Andy Richter. Andy is fine as the announcer, but they need to figure out how to better work him into the rest of the show. Conan is such a fast talker, and so free-flowing in his thoughts, that there's really no room for Andy to just randomly interject comments into the monologue. I think it might be best to use Andy like Joel was used in the Late Night days or how Max Weinberg is used now - use him in random sketches, and have certain segments that incorporate him - but don't include him in Conan-centric pieces like the monologue or guest interviews. It's just too awkward to do so.
In general, I think they probably need to refine the flow of the show a bit more as well. Having a monologue followed by a sketch, and then another sketch after that, feels a bit stilted. I say go back to the Late Night format of having monologue, sketch, a guest, a secondary sketch, and then guest #2. That format kept you watching, even if you werent' crazy about the first guest, to see what the second sketch would be.
Finally, I say get rid of the Mario Bros. blue background behind Conan during the monlogue. The colors are too bright and don't contrast well with Conan, and anyways I think it'd look way better to just have him in front of the cool curtain that is behind the blue barrier. In general, the darker backdrop of Late Night was a much better fit for Conan, I think.
Ultimately though, Conan's stint as Tonight Show host has been great so far, and, certainly, a breath of fresh air. You get the feeling that Conan is still finding his footing to some degree, and there is definitely that feeling that it will be a few more weeks or even months before the show really hits its stride. Still, in only a couple of weeks' time, there have already been some truly memorable moments, and at least a few sketches that you might call instant classics. The pre-filmed intro to that first show, with Conan running cross-country, was a bonafide bit of awesomeness - a classic bit that was oddly profound even as it was hilarious. The thing that I love, as a writer, is to see great comedy writing finally make its way back to The Tonight Show. To me, Conan's best bits are the heavily-scripted ones that show off he and his staff's writing prowess. The combination of Ivy League intelligence and Mad Magazine zany-ness is what makes Conan's brand of humor so frequently hilarious.
In any case, it's definitely the end of an era. It's odd to think that new NBC Pages won't spend their days in "beautiful, downtown Burbank" with Jay Leno and co., and it's sad to see the old Burbank lot looking so empty. But as a comedy fan and a Conan supporter, I feel good that one of comedy's oldest institutions just got re-charged. The Tonight Show, ladies and gentlemen, is in good hands.
- And with that, have a great weekend everyone. Keep the hits coming!
Monday, June 15, 2009
SHOWTIME Comes To My Blog: PUSHING DAISIES Finale, LAND OF THE LOST Review, and an NBA Finals Rant O' Doom!
Oh man, it's craziness here in the City of Angels. The Lakers have won the NBA championship, and the streets are still littered with the morning-after residue of a classic bout of LA-riots. Yes, my friends, Kobe and co. have done it, they beat an inexperienced Orlando Magic team into an early submission. Everyone's favorite egomaniac can now take pride in the fact that he is "the man" - he won an NBA title sans Shaq, and he didn't even have to go through the defending-champ Celtics or the air-apparent Lebron James to do it. No, Kobe and the Lakers instead steamrolled through Dwight Howard and an Orlando team that, depressingly, blew every opportunity they had to make the series competitive. Whether it was Dwight Howard's relative lack of offensive firepower or the boneheaded decision to NOT foul Derek Fischer before that huge three last game, this was definitely a learning experience for the Magic. And a team like them needs that before they can really go to the next level. So, while it was no suprise to see the Lakers take the series, it was pretty pathetic to see the Magic come out last night with so little heart and so little fight.
The Lakers were easily the better team in this series ... but, that didn't make it any easier for me to see them win. I know a couple of LA transplants who have wholeheartedly embraced the Lakers, but I just can't bring myself to root for them with Kobe at the helm. Under different circumstances, maybe. But in sports and in basketball I can't help but root for people with character. For scrappy underdogs. For people who wear their hearts on their sleeve and have the "heart of a champion," even if they never come close to winning it all. I can't root for players or coaches who seem to take winning for granted, who have that "we can turn it on when we need to" mentality. I hate that whole zen-master mentality. Give me intensity! Give me Rudy T making a dramatic pre-game speech, or Jeff Van Gundy jumping onto Alonzo Mourning's leg. That's what, to me, makes sports fun to watch.
On the other hand though, Kobe always just reminds me of that guy who was the best player on your high school team and never let anyone forget it. His reactions to any call against him remind me of a little kid's. His style of play is like watching a troubled teenager's psychology exam play out on TV. When he wants to, Kobe deliberately takes over a game and takes every shot. Other times, he seems intent on proving that he is an unselfish player, and passes up shot opportunities left and right. He constantly seems like he is playing either to spite or appease the critics, depending on his mood. My point is: unless you're a diehard Lakers fan, well, Kobe Bryant is not an easy player to like or root for.
Same goes for Derek Fischer. He's one of those annoying players who just won't go away. If he's on your team, I guess you've got to love him. But for everyone else, Fischer is the next in a long line of role-players like Robert Horry, Mario Ellie, John Paxson, etc. - those guys who always kill you with a big shot at the most inopportune of moments. But I think what kills me about these types of players is that self-confidence that they will always make the shot. Even guys like Jordan or Reggie Miller seemed pleasantly shocked when they made a huge money shot. When Derek Fischer made that huge 3 against the Magic and just smiled knowingly ... ugh. I'm sure he's a nice guy, but in that moment every non-Lakers fan in the world wanted to smack him.
And then there are the LA fans. I'm not dissing all LA or Lakers fans, but I just have the same problem with the LA mentality that I do with the NYC mentality - that sense of entitlement, the feeling that if things aren't going well for a little while, it's the end of the world. I mean, when the Lakers lose one game, the opinion columnists in the LA Times go banannas. What happened to sticking with something through good times and bad. That's something that Boston fans know about. And Clippers fans, for sure, know about. But the Lakers fans remind me too much of Yankees fans - it's not a special occasion when your team wins a title, it's just another year.
If the Showtime Lakers were playing right now, perhaps I could be a Lakers fan. I mean who doesn't love Magic, Kurt Rambis, and Big Game James? If the fun and scrappy Eddie Jones / Nick Van Axel team of the 90's was still around, maybe I could get onboard the Laker train. But for now? With the current team? Sorry, my LA friends, but for the time being, I remain a Laker-hater.
ANYWAYS ...
TV STUFF:
PUSHING DAISIES - Series Finale Review:
- I want to give a huge shout-out to one of the best TV shows of the last couple of years -- PUSHING DAISIES. ABC has been burning off the last couple of episodes for the past few weeks, during a no-man's-land timeslot on Saturday evenings. Yes, the same place where other great shows (Freaks & Geeks, anyone?) have gone to die. I mean, geez, can you imagine being the TV exec whose claim to fame is relegating Pushing Daisies to Saturday nights? You almost have to feel sorry for the people whose professional legacy is basically that they made the ending of one of the great TV series of this decade into a non-event. Ugh.
But let's take a moment to celebrate the awesomeness that was PD. It's no secret that I enjoy shows where the writing takes center stage, and to me Pushing Daisies was squarely in the tradition of writer-friendly shows like The X-Files, Gilmore Girls, and Veronica Mars. PD had a flair to its writing that was a welcome change of pace from the "realistic" and gritty tone of many TV shows. On the contrary, PD embraced the fantastical, the whimsical, the imaginative. In fact, it was practically bursting at the seems with imagination, and that is why, more that anything else, I enjoyed it so much. Of course, the cast was also phenomenal, from Lee Pace to Anna Friel to Chi McBride to Kristen Chenoweth. Not to mention the calvacade of great guest stars, from Fred Willard to Paul Reubens.
In any case, Saturday's series finale was to me a great last hurrah. Even if there wasn't time to give each and ever storyline a proper wrap-up, I liked that this ep took the time to address one of the show's biggest and most central plot-points, that being Chuck's relationship with her aunts, Lilly and Vivian, one of who, of course, was in fact her mother. Seeing the two retirees return to the Aquacade as part of a grand comeback for the Darling Mermaid Darlings and their synchronized swimming show - well, it was about as fun and visually stunning as you'd expect. The show's trademark visual panache was on full display here, as the Aquacade and its many strange carnival sideshows were an eye-melting blend of artistic eras and styles. But when one member of a rival synchronized swimming duo was unceremoniously gobbled up by a gigantic shark run amok, that was when I couldn't help but smile at the knowledge that this, right here, was what Pushing Daisies was all about. A mix of the whimsical and the gruesome. Neo-noir mixed with fairytale stories, murder-mystery meets Tim Burton meets 1950's comic books ... or something. Any show that features this kind of character and emotion, yet also doesn't hesitate to have a monster shark gobble up one half of a synchronized swimming duo at something called an Aquacade ... is a show that's alright by me.
The ultimate ending that we got was obviously somewhat tacked-on, but to me, it worked. I was happy to see some small hints at the various characters' fates. Emerson Cod was reunited with his daughter, Lilly and Vivian learned the truth about Charlotte Charles, Olive Snook found happiness with her taxidermist love-interest and left the Pie-Hole to open her own macaroni-themed eatery, and (whew!) The Piemaker, Ned, and Chuck, his childhood love, had an almost-happily-ever-after ending. Because as far as we know, they still cannot touch. But their relationship had always worked in spite of this small problem, so I see no reason why it wouldn't continue to do so ... at least for a little while longer.
So thank you to Bryan Fuller and the wonderful team of actors, writers, and production crew of PUSHING DAISIES. While it is disheartening to think that such an original and imaginative series failed to find a mass audience, I can guarantee that this will be a beloved cult classic for years to come. In the world of television, too often ratings success is equated with creative success. But the facts are these: Pushing Daisies shone bright in the often bleak world of television - it was and will be one of the true works of pop-art that the medium has produced.
My Grade: A
- Alright, onto the movies, where I finally get to my long-gestating review of Will Ferell's latest:
LAND OF THE LOST Review:
- In general, I'm all for movies that don't exactly fit into any kind of a box. I mean, how many times have I nostalgically watched some 80's kids classic, like a Goonies or Gremlins, and thought "man, they don't make movies like that anymore." So in theory, I should have a lot more praise for Land of the Lost, because lord knows it doesn't conform to any strict demographic-oriented conventions. But here's the thing: those 80's kids movies were so memorable precisely because they pushed the limits of how scary or subversive a kids movie could be, but they never crossed the line. The SPIRIT of the movies was always dead-on. Land of the Lost, on the other hand, feels like a situation where everyone was supposed to be making a family-friendly adaventure, but somewhere along the way, the filmmakers decided to make a raunchy teen comedy instead. The result is undeniably strange, and strangely entertaining. But at the same time, this is something of a trainwreck of a film. I mean, as a twentysomething guy with a strong tolerance for both gross-out humor and weird fantasy, I am probably one of the absolute few people who could find a lot to like in this movie. And yet ... I and people of my generation are too young to have ever seen the original TV series. On the other hand, I doubt many Gen X'ers wo enjoyed the old TV show are going to embrace the movie's wacked-out aesthetics. And for those with kids, man, are they in for a shock upon seeing the movie. Because, inexplicably, Land of the Lost is filled with random sex jokes and other none-too-subtle, adult-oriented humor, which I think deserves a hearty cry of WTF?!
As I said, I'm all for a movie that can't easily be pigeonholed, but in this particular case, I really have to ask: who was this movie made for?! It's totally inappropriate for kids who might be drawn to the material, it's based on a franchise that means nothing to teens and twenty-somethings, and is too strange and surreal (not to mention raunchy) for the more buttoned-down older-crowd. Again, in some cases, such a mish-mash of sensibilities could be a welcome change of pace. But here, it speaks to a pointed lack of vision and direction for the movie, which was marketed mostly as a family-friendly flick, but is really anything but.
Now, did I get a strange sort of joy out of the fact that Land of the Lost has so many moments that are just plain wrong? Sure, I definitely did. Many times while watching, I looked over to my friends in slack-jawed amazement - did Danny McBride really just make a vibrator joke to Anna Friel? Did Will Ferell just comment that a lizard creature had just "tapped the ass" of another lizard creature? Was there really an extended scene of Ferell and McBride hopped up on otherdimensional drugs acting really, really stoned? Like I said, it's a pretty entertaining mess, but definitely deserving of many a "WTF."
On the positive side, people like me who normally get a kick out of Will Ferell and Danny McBride will find things to like in this one. McBride in particular has some really hilarious dialogue, and his trademark deadpan drawl (made famous in movies like The Foot Fist Way and Pineapple Express) is completely intact here. He's one of those guys who can make almost any line of dialogue funny just by virtue of his affectation, and the inherent absurdity of a guy like McBride being thrown into this crazy world of dinosaurs and lizard-people makes for a pretty hilarious contrast. Will Ferell is kind of just doing his usual pompous / oblivious Will Ferell schtick, which is sometime funny, sometimes annoying, depending on the scene. Meanwhile, as a huge fan of Anna Friel thanks to Pushing Daisies, I was happy to see her have such a big role in this movie, with her British accent intact to boot. However, given how flimsy her character is in the movie, you almsot feel as if her talent is wasted. She is mostly just there to be Will Ferell's defacto love interest, and seems to spend most of the movie getting fondled by Cha-Ka, the funny-creepy monkey-man who tags along with our crew.
The other thing here is that, visually, I loved the look of the movie. The old-school set and costume work is all pretty awesome, and the villainous Sleestaks all look uber-cool and creepy. The whole movie perfectly captures the tripped-out, crazy vibe of the original TV show in terms of its visuals. But I think the mistake may have been that the movie never takes any of it very seriously. Kids would have loved the crazy creatures and sets if the movie had sort of played things straight, and yet Land of the Lost seems caught between paying loving tribute to the old show and trying too hard to convince skeptical teens that this is, in fact, some kind of kewl and edgy movie. Um ... why exactly did Land of the Lost need gay jokes again? Again, just odd and definitely off-putting to people who might want to bring kids to this.
So again, as a pure piece of entertainment, I can't deny that I had a lot of fun with this movie. It made no sense and was completely all over the place, but never was I bored while watching. At the same time, I realize that there is an art to making edgy and subversive family entertainment, and the minds behind Land of the Lost don't seem to grasp it. Think about The Goonies, Ghostbusters, Back to the Future, etc. - those were movies that had a darkly-comic edge but that knew exactly what they were doing. Land of the Lost has moments, but it feels like a movie without a vision - a misguided attempt at resurrecting yet another musty franchise, just because, well, that's what Hollywood does lately.
My Grade: B-
- Alright, that's all for now. Happy Monday everyone.
The Lakers were easily the better team in this series ... but, that didn't make it any easier for me to see them win. I know a couple of LA transplants who have wholeheartedly embraced the Lakers, but I just can't bring myself to root for them with Kobe at the helm. Under different circumstances, maybe. But in sports and in basketball I can't help but root for people with character. For scrappy underdogs. For people who wear their hearts on their sleeve and have the "heart of a champion," even if they never come close to winning it all. I can't root for players or coaches who seem to take winning for granted, who have that "we can turn it on when we need to" mentality. I hate that whole zen-master mentality. Give me intensity! Give me Rudy T making a dramatic pre-game speech, or Jeff Van Gundy jumping onto Alonzo Mourning's leg. That's what, to me, makes sports fun to watch.
On the other hand though, Kobe always just reminds me of that guy who was the best player on your high school team and never let anyone forget it. His reactions to any call against him remind me of a little kid's. His style of play is like watching a troubled teenager's psychology exam play out on TV. When he wants to, Kobe deliberately takes over a game and takes every shot. Other times, he seems intent on proving that he is an unselfish player, and passes up shot opportunities left and right. He constantly seems like he is playing either to spite or appease the critics, depending on his mood. My point is: unless you're a diehard Lakers fan, well, Kobe Bryant is not an easy player to like or root for.
Same goes for Derek Fischer. He's one of those annoying players who just won't go away. If he's on your team, I guess you've got to love him. But for everyone else, Fischer is the next in a long line of role-players like Robert Horry, Mario Ellie, John Paxson, etc. - those guys who always kill you with a big shot at the most inopportune of moments. But I think what kills me about these types of players is that self-confidence that they will always make the shot. Even guys like Jordan or Reggie Miller seemed pleasantly shocked when they made a huge money shot. When Derek Fischer made that huge 3 against the Magic and just smiled knowingly ... ugh. I'm sure he's a nice guy, but in that moment every non-Lakers fan in the world wanted to smack him.
And then there are the LA fans. I'm not dissing all LA or Lakers fans, but I just have the same problem with the LA mentality that I do with the NYC mentality - that sense of entitlement, the feeling that if things aren't going well for a little while, it's the end of the world. I mean, when the Lakers lose one game, the opinion columnists in the LA Times go banannas. What happened to sticking with something through good times and bad. That's something that Boston fans know about. And Clippers fans, for sure, know about. But the Lakers fans remind me too much of Yankees fans - it's not a special occasion when your team wins a title, it's just another year.
If the Showtime Lakers were playing right now, perhaps I could be a Lakers fan. I mean who doesn't love Magic, Kurt Rambis, and Big Game James? If the fun and scrappy Eddie Jones / Nick Van Axel team of the 90's was still around, maybe I could get onboard the Laker train. But for now? With the current team? Sorry, my LA friends, but for the time being, I remain a Laker-hater.
ANYWAYS ...
TV STUFF:
PUSHING DAISIES - Series Finale Review:
- I want to give a huge shout-out to one of the best TV shows of the last couple of years -- PUSHING DAISIES. ABC has been burning off the last couple of episodes for the past few weeks, during a no-man's-land timeslot on Saturday evenings. Yes, the same place where other great shows (Freaks & Geeks, anyone?) have gone to die. I mean, geez, can you imagine being the TV exec whose claim to fame is relegating Pushing Daisies to Saturday nights? You almost have to feel sorry for the people whose professional legacy is basically that they made the ending of one of the great TV series of this decade into a non-event. Ugh.
But let's take a moment to celebrate the awesomeness that was PD. It's no secret that I enjoy shows where the writing takes center stage, and to me Pushing Daisies was squarely in the tradition of writer-friendly shows like The X-Files, Gilmore Girls, and Veronica Mars. PD had a flair to its writing that was a welcome change of pace from the "realistic" and gritty tone of many TV shows. On the contrary, PD embraced the fantastical, the whimsical, the imaginative. In fact, it was practically bursting at the seems with imagination, and that is why, more that anything else, I enjoyed it so much. Of course, the cast was also phenomenal, from Lee Pace to Anna Friel to Chi McBride to Kristen Chenoweth. Not to mention the calvacade of great guest stars, from Fred Willard to Paul Reubens.
In any case, Saturday's series finale was to me a great last hurrah. Even if there wasn't time to give each and ever storyline a proper wrap-up, I liked that this ep took the time to address one of the show's biggest and most central plot-points, that being Chuck's relationship with her aunts, Lilly and Vivian, one of who, of course, was in fact her mother. Seeing the two retirees return to the Aquacade as part of a grand comeback for the Darling Mermaid Darlings and their synchronized swimming show - well, it was about as fun and visually stunning as you'd expect. The show's trademark visual panache was on full display here, as the Aquacade and its many strange carnival sideshows were an eye-melting blend of artistic eras and styles. But when one member of a rival synchronized swimming duo was unceremoniously gobbled up by a gigantic shark run amok, that was when I couldn't help but smile at the knowledge that this, right here, was what Pushing Daisies was all about. A mix of the whimsical and the gruesome. Neo-noir mixed with fairytale stories, murder-mystery meets Tim Burton meets 1950's comic books ... or something. Any show that features this kind of character and emotion, yet also doesn't hesitate to have a monster shark gobble up one half of a synchronized swimming duo at something called an Aquacade ... is a show that's alright by me.
The ultimate ending that we got was obviously somewhat tacked-on, but to me, it worked. I was happy to see some small hints at the various characters' fates. Emerson Cod was reunited with his daughter, Lilly and Vivian learned the truth about Charlotte Charles, Olive Snook found happiness with her taxidermist love-interest and left the Pie-Hole to open her own macaroni-themed eatery, and (whew!) The Piemaker, Ned, and Chuck, his childhood love, had an almost-happily-ever-after ending. Because as far as we know, they still cannot touch. But their relationship had always worked in spite of this small problem, so I see no reason why it wouldn't continue to do so ... at least for a little while longer.
So thank you to Bryan Fuller and the wonderful team of actors, writers, and production crew of PUSHING DAISIES. While it is disheartening to think that such an original and imaginative series failed to find a mass audience, I can guarantee that this will be a beloved cult classic for years to come. In the world of television, too often ratings success is equated with creative success. But the facts are these: Pushing Daisies shone bright in the often bleak world of television - it was and will be one of the true works of pop-art that the medium has produced.
My Grade: A
- Alright, onto the movies, where I finally get to my long-gestating review of Will Ferell's latest:
LAND OF THE LOST Review:
- In general, I'm all for movies that don't exactly fit into any kind of a box. I mean, how many times have I nostalgically watched some 80's kids classic, like a Goonies or Gremlins, and thought "man, they don't make movies like that anymore." So in theory, I should have a lot more praise for Land of the Lost, because lord knows it doesn't conform to any strict demographic-oriented conventions. But here's the thing: those 80's kids movies were so memorable precisely because they pushed the limits of how scary or subversive a kids movie could be, but they never crossed the line. The SPIRIT of the movies was always dead-on. Land of the Lost, on the other hand, feels like a situation where everyone was supposed to be making a family-friendly adaventure, but somewhere along the way, the filmmakers decided to make a raunchy teen comedy instead. The result is undeniably strange, and strangely entertaining. But at the same time, this is something of a trainwreck of a film. I mean, as a twentysomething guy with a strong tolerance for both gross-out humor and weird fantasy, I am probably one of the absolute few people who could find a lot to like in this movie. And yet ... I and people of my generation are too young to have ever seen the original TV series. On the other hand, I doubt many Gen X'ers wo enjoyed the old TV show are going to embrace the movie's wacked-out aesthetics. And for those with kids, man, are they in for a shock upon seeing the movie. Because, inexplicably, Land of the Lost is filled with random sex jokes and other none-too-subtle, adult-oriented humor, which I think deserves a hearty cry of WTF?!
As I said, I'm all for a movie that can't easily be pigeonholed, but in this particular case, I really have to ask: who was this movie made for?! It's totally inappropriate for kids who might be drawn to the material, it's based on a franchise that means nothing to teens and twenty-somethings, and is too strange and surreal (not to mention raunchy) for the more buttoned-down older-crowd. Again, in some cases, such a mish-mash of sensibilities could be a welcome change of pace. But here, it speaks to a pointed lack of vision and direction for the movie, which was marketed mostly as a family-friendly flick, but is really anything but.
Now, did I get a strange sort of joy out of the fact that Land of the Lost has so many moments that are just plain wrong? Sure, I definitely did. Many times while watching, I looked over to my friends in slack-jawed amazement - did Danny McBride really just make a vibrator joke to Anna Friel? Did Will Ferell just comment that a lizard creature had just "tapped the ass" of another lizard creature? Was there really an extended scene of Ferell and McBride hopped up on otherdimensional drugs acting really, really stoned? Like I said, it's a pretty entertaining mess, but definitely deserving of many a "WTF."
On the positive side, people like me who normally get a kick out of Will Ferell and Danny McBride will find things to like in this one. McBride in particular has some really hilarious dialogue, and his trademark deadpan drawl (made famous in movies like The Foot Fist Way and Pineapple Express) is completely intact here. He's one of those guys who can make almost any line of dialogue funny just by virtue of his affectation, and the inherent absurdity of a guy like McBride being thrown into this crazy world of dinosaurs and lizard-people makes for a pretty hilarious contrast. Will Ferell is kind of just doing his usual pompous / oblivious Will Ferell schtick, which is sometime funny, sometimes annoying, depending on the scene. Meanwhile, as a huge fan of Anna Friel thanks to Pushing Daisies, I was happy to see her have such a big role in this movie, with her British accent intact to boot. However, given how flimsy her character is in the movie, you almsot feel as if her talent is wasted. She is mostly just there to be Will Ferell's defacto love interest, and seems to spend most of the movie getting fondled by Cha-Ka, the funny-creepy monkey-man who tags along with our crew.
The other thing here is that, visually, I loved the look of the movie. The old-school set and costume work is all pretty awesome, and the villainous Sleestaks all look uber-cool and creepy. The whole movie perfectly captures the tripped-out, crazy vibe of the original TV show in terms of its visuals. But I think the mistake may have been that the movie never takes any of it very seriously. Kids would have loved the crazy creatures and sets if the movie had sort of played things straight, and yet Land of the Lost seems caught between paying loving tribute to the old show and trying too hard to convince skeptical teens that this is, in fact, some kind of kewl and edgy movie. Um ... why exactly did Land of the Lost need gay jokes again? Again, just odd and definitely off-putting to people who might want to bring kids to this.
So again, as a pure piece of entertainment, I can't deny that I had a lot of fun with this movie. It made no sense and was completely all over the place, but never was I bored while watching. At the same time, I realize that there is an art to making edgy and subversive family entertainment, and the minds behind Land of the Lost don't seem to grasp it. Think about The Goonies, Ghostbusters, Back to the Future, etc. - those were movies that had a darkly-comic edge but that knew exactly what they were doing. Land of the Lost has moments, but it feels like a movie without a vision - a misguided attempt at resurrecting yet another musty franchise, just because, well, that's what Hollywood does lately.
My Grade: B-
- Alright, that's all for now. Happy Monday everyone.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Danny Very Soberly Reviews THE HANGOVER
Hey everyone, continuing to play catch-up here, as I've still got a bunch of things to talk about from the last couple of weeks. With this post, I've got a couple more summer movie reviews I've been meaning to get to, the first of which is below -- so ... enjoy!
THE HANGOVER Review:
- The Hangover is one of those movies that is a guaranteed crowd-pleaser. When I saw it in a packed theater filled with teens and twenty-somethings, the audience was laughing harder and more frequently than at almost any movie I've seen. It's just one of those films that snares you in a vice-like grip of comedy and doesn't let up. Now, is The Hangover a movie that's going to change the face of comedy? No, not really. In fact, in some ways it's somewhat generic. It's one of those movies that you remember laughing a lot at, but then find it hard to recall any particular stand-out moments or lines of dialogue. Part of it is definitely that this is a "shock-value" comedy ... a lot of the humor comes from there simply being a long string of one outrageous moment after another. Like I said, it's a movie that grabs you from the get-go and keeps on delivering the funny. If you're looking for a fun summer comedy that is sure to please, this is it.
A lot of the credit for The Hangover's success has to go to the stellar cast. In less capable hands, the material could have come off as a lot weaker. Bradley Cooper is perfectly fine as the lead, and I'm sure that his solid comic timing and likable manner here will lead to a lot of other similar parts in the vein of this one. Really though, the movie shines thanks to Ed Helms and Zack Galifianakis, both of whom are pretty darn awesome, and both of whom are long overdue for the spotlight. Helms, so funny on The Daily Show and The Office, is surprisingly the movie's emotional center, and probably plays its strongest character overall. Although, given his great turn as Andy Bernard on The Office, it's not a stretch for Helms to be playing a somewhat repressed, buttoned-up guy with a crazy side. But Ed Helms steals a ton of scenes in the movie, and his relationship with his nightmare of a wife, played by Rachel Harris, is the source of a lot of the movie's best scenes. Meanwhile, Galifianakis plays the Will Ferell-ish character here - aka the completely insane man-child who may or may not be a legit mental case. He completely nails the role though, and his goofy delivery is pitch-perfect. He's great with the more physical comedy too. Overall, The Hangover is a huge breakout movie for both Ed Helms and Zack G - both are hilarious in this one.
The other guy who really kicks ass here is Ken Jeong, who is quickly becoming one of the great unsung heroes of comedy. I recently read an article about Jeong explaining how, until recently, he was actually a practicing physician who only dabbled in comedy as a hobby. Pretty amazing, because the guy is not only hilarious, but absolutely fearless. He's one of those guys who looks so unassuming that all of the shocking stuff he does and says is just off-the-chain funny. And man, does he ever say and do some shocking stuff in this one. Let's just say there is full-frontal nudity involved. Yikes.
There are also a lot of talented people in smaller roles. No real huge scene stealers, but hey, when you've got Jeffrey Tambor popping up for essentially a cameo, you know you've got a good cast. On the other hand, some of the talent isn't quite used to their full potential. Rob Riggle for example, who is typically hilarious, doesn't have much to work with here. Mike Tyson, in his much-hyped cameo role, is kind of useless. Sure, there is something absurdly funny about Mike Tyson popping up in a movie like this, but it's more a laugh-because-it-seems-like-it-should-be-funny type of thing.
I guess the other thing is that, like director Todd Philip's previous comedy, Old School, there's just something about the attitude of this movie that turns me off a bit. Even as I was laughing at some of the outrageous gags, I couldn't help but think that the movie had a kind of obnoxious sensibility to it. You know what I mean ... it's one of those movies where all of the main characters are basically assholes, and yet they're portrayed as being cool and funny guys who you'd want to hang out with. It's a movie that glorifies the act of going to Vegas and getting wasted to the point of blacking out and not remembering what you did the night before. Where drunken adventures where you do stupid stuff are portrayed as the end-all be-all of good times. The movie half-heartedly tries to de-glamorize these ideas, but not really. At the end of the day, we're supposed to root for these guys who basically come off like semi-obnoxious yuppie Gen-X d-bags.
But yeah, The Hangover is a lot of fun in spite of the above rant. I laughed a ton while watching it and there were a lot of gags that were genuinely inspired and awesomely over-the-top. Ed Helms, Zak Galifianakas, and Ken Jeong are awesome. Definitely one of the more enjoyable comedies to come along in a while, although I can't rank it above some of the genuinely amazing comedies we've seen thus far in '09 - Observe and Report, Adventureland, etc.
My Grade: B+
THE HANGOVER Review:
- The Hangover is one of those movies that is a guaranteed crowd-pleaser. When I saw it in a packed theater filled with teens and twenty-somethings, the audience was laughing harder and more frequently than at almost any movie I've seen. It's just one of those films that snares you in a vice-like grip of comedy and doesn't let up. Now, is The Hangover a movie that's going to change the face of comedy? No, not really. In fact, in some ways it's somewhat generic. It's one of those movies that you remember laughing a lot at, but then find it hard to recall any particular stand-out moments or lines of dialogue. Part of it is definitely that this is a "shock-value" comedy ... a lot of the humor comes from there simply being a long string of one outrageous moment after another. Like I said, it's a movie that grabs you from the get-go and keeps on delivering the funny. If you're looking for a fun summer comedy that is sure to please, this is it.
A lot of the credit for The Hangover's success has to go to the stellar cast. In less capable hands, the material could have come off as a lot weaker. Bradley Cooper is perfectly fine as the lead, and I'm sure that his solid comic timing and likable manner here will lead to a lot of other similar parts in the vein of this one. Really though, the movie shines thanks to Ed Helms and Zack Galifianakis, both of whom are pretty darn awesome, and both of whom are long overdue for the spotlight. Helms, so funny on The Daily Show and The Office, is surprisingly the movie's emotional center, and probably plays its strongest character overall. Although, given his great turn as Andy Bernard on The Office, it's not a stretch for Helms to be playing a somewhat repressed, buttoned-up guy with a crazy side. But Ed Helms steals a ton of scenes in the movie, and his relationship with his nightmare of a wife, played by Rachel Harris, is the source of a lot of the movie's best scenes. Meanwhile, Galifianakis plays the Will Ferell-ish character here - aka the completely insane man-child who may or may not be a legit mental case. He completely nails the role though, and his goofy delivery is pitch-perfect. He's great with the more physical comedy too. Overall, The Hangover is a huge breakout movie for both Ed Helms and Zack G - both are hilarious in this one.
The other guy who really kicks ass here is Ken Jeong, who is quickly becoming one of the great unsung heroes of comedy. I recently read an article about Jeong explaining how, until recently, he was actually a practicing physician who only dabbled in comedy as a hobby. Pretty amazing, because the guy is not only hilarious, but absolutely fearless. He's one of those guys who looks so unassuming that all of the shocking stuff he does and says is just off-the-chain funny. And man, does he ever say and do some shocking stuff in this one. Let's just say there is full-frontal nudity involved. Yikes.
There are also a lot of talented people in smaller roles. No real huge scene stealers, but hey, when you've got Jeffrey Tambor popping up for essentially a cameo, you know you've got a good cast. On the other hand, some of the talent isn't quite used to their full potential. Rob Riggle for example, who is typically hilarious, doesn't have much to work with here. Mike Tyson, in his much-hyped cameo role, is kind of useless. Sure, there is something absurdly funny about Mike Tyson popping up in a movie like this, but it's more a laugh-because-it-seems-like-it-should-be-funny type of thing.
I guess the other thing is that, like director Todd Philip's previous comedy, Old School, there's just something about the attitude of this movie that turns me off a bit. Even as I was laughing at some of the outrageous gags, I couldn't help but think that the movie had a kind of obnoxious sensibility to it. You know what I mean ... it's one of those movies where all of the main characters are basically assholes, and yet they're portrayed as being cool and funny guys who you'd want to hang out with. It's a movie that glorifies the act of going to Vegas and getting wasted to the point of blacking out and not remembering what you did the night before. Where drunken adventures where you do stupid stuff are portrayed as the end-all be-all of good times. The movie half-heartedly tries to de-glamorize these ideas, but not really. At the end of the day, we're supposed to root for these guys who basically come off like semi-obnoxious yuppie Gen-X d-bags.
But yeah, The Hangover is a lot of fun in spite of the above rant. I laughed a ton while watching it and there were a lot of gags that were genuinely inspired and awesomely over-the-top. Ed Helms, Zak Galifianakas, and Ken Jeong are awesome. Definitely one of the more enjoyable comedies to come along in a while, although I can't rank it above some of the genuinely amazing comedies we've seen thus far in '09 - Observe and Report, Adventureland, etc.
My Grade: B+
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Going UP - Pixar's Latest: Reviewed!
Alright, I'm back with yet another movie review for you, and this one has been a long time coming. I mean, it's not every day that I get to review the latest from PIXAR, so away we go - let's get to it.
UP Review:
- With each new Pixar movie, the pundits always line up and speculate about whether this, at long last, will be the one where Pixar drops the ball. Everyone is waiting for that other shoe to drop, for a Pixar movie to be a dud. And yet, the incredible creative process at Pixar consistently prevents that from happening. The place is a virtual idea factory, and when a creative company is built on great ideas - on imagination, visual splendor, and state of the art technology - well, it's a formula for success that Pixar has cornered like lightning in a bottle. Last year, WALL-E was perhaps their greatest achievement yet - a visually spectacular epic that was one one hand futuristic sci-fi, and on the other hand an homage to the silent pictures of old. Like other Pixar films, and perhaps to an even greater extent, Wall-E worked on multiple levels and could be enjoyed by people of all ages. It may well have been Pixar's definitive classic of this era.
The good news with UP is that it is yet another memorable, imaginative, and multi-layered movie from Pixar - certainly up to par with the level of quality that they have become known for. The bad news, if you can call it that, is that I wouldn't put this one on quite the same level as Wall-E. I mean, Up will still likely make it to many end-of-year Best-Of lists, and it is still likely a shoe-in for Best Animated Picture at the Oscars. But is it the all-around classic that Wall-E was? Again, I wouldn't put it quite on that same level.
The thing I loved about Up going in may also have been partly responsible for its shortcomings. Because, going into Up, I really appreciated the fact that we knew almost nothing about the movie. The trailers, at least the ones that I saw, gave us the iconic imagery of an old man with a flying balloon house. But beyond that, we could really only guess at what adventures such an unusual abode might lead him, and in turn us, to experience. The fact is that the reality of Up's adventure story doesn't quite live up to the spectacular promise of those trailers. For those expecting some kind of Oz-like wonderland at the other end of this balloon trip, you don't quite get that here.
But what you do get is an absolutely brilliant character piece. Moreso than maybe any other Pixar flick to date, Up is a character study, a focused-in portrait of an old man seeking purpose in his life following the death of his beloved wife. It's an ambitious central theme for a family film, but Pixar pulls it off as only they can. The movie's opening narrative, told in quasi-montage fashion, is perhaps the movie's crowning achievement. A mostly dialogue-less sequence, the movie's opening introduces us to a young Carl Fredrickson (skillfully voiced for most of the movie by the great Ed Asner), and shows us his early love for adventure, as he giddilly enjoys newsreel footage of his hero, Charles Muntz's, latest exploits. We then see a young Carl's chance encounter with an equally young Ellie, and the two instantly bond and become inseparable. We follow the two as they grow up, get married, and grow old together. And a lot more. The detail, the storytelling, and the nostalgic emotion of this sequence is just amazing, and Pixar handles some of the more tragic aspects of the Carl and Ellie story with the utmost care, nuance, and artistry.
Back to Ed Asner for a second, his voicework is definitely one of the real highlights of this movie. You definitely get the feeling that there is more than a little of Asner himself in the character, and the veteran actor really shines in this movie. The rest of the voices are also great - there aren't a lot of supporting characters to speak of, but one high point is definitely Christopher Plummer as the aged Muntz. Very fun stuff from Plummer.
I guess where I find some fault with Up is that it soars as a character piece (pun intended), but never quite comes together in terms of plot or story. A lot of the situations seem a bit thrown together. For example, Muntz has all the makings of a classic Pixar villain, and yet we never really learn enough about him to really "get" what his deal is. Why did he go from intrepid adventurer to embittered villain? Why and how does he keep an army of super-advanced dog soldiers? There isn't really enough meat to Muntz's story, and the effect is that the meeting and eventua lconfrontation between he and Carl feels pretty rushed. I guess it felt to me like Up had some untapped potential in terms of its story - it felt like there was some grand mythology lurking in the background that we never really got a chance to play with.
But again, this is at its heart a character piece. And the focus of the movie is Carl's personal struggle, as well as his budding relationship with the young and hapless boyscout named Russell. The overactive Russell and the curmudgeonly Carl seem like a real odd couple, but in fact they turn out to be kindred spirits, and that journey that they experience together is front and center here. I can't say it enough - it's amazing how much character and nuance Pixar is able to pack into these movies.
Finally, I have to emphasize just how stunning Up is visually. While the setting isn't quite as exotic or imaginative as that of Wall-E's, the imagery here, the direction, the sense of wonder and emotion conjured up by the animation, is second to none. Seeing the movie in Disney Digital 3D, the clarity and crispness of the picture was jaw-dropping. But at the same time, the greatest moments of the movie are those that take their time with the images on screen and let the iconography of what's happening speak for itself. It's a downright Spielberg-style film in that regard - the movie is almost ET-like in its use of storybook imagery to convey a sense of awe, wonder, and emotion. It's for that reason that I have to give Up major props despite a couple of flaws with the story. Pixar has done it yet again.
My Grade: A-
Coming Soon: Reviews of THE HANGOVER and LAND OF THE LOST!
UP Review:
- With each new Pixar movie, the pundits always line up and speculate about whether this, at long last, will be the one where Pixar drops the ball. Everyone is waiting for that other shoe to drop, for a Pixar movie to be a dud. And yet, the incredible creative process at Pixar consistently prevents that from happening. The place is a virtual idea factory, and when a creative company is built on great ideas - on imagination, visual splendor, and state of the art technology - well, it's a formula for success that Pixar has cornered like lightning in a bottle. Last year, WALL-E was perhaps their greatest achievement yet - a visually spectacular epic that was one one hand futuristic sci-fi, and on the other hand an homage to the silent pictures of old. Like other Pixar films, and perhaps to an even greater extent, Wall-E worked on multiple levels and could be enjoyed by people of all ages. It may well have been Pixar's definitive classic of this era.
The good news with UP is that it is yet another memorable, imaginative, and multi-layered movie from Pixar - certainly up to par with the level of quality that they have become known for. The bad news, if you can call it that, is that I wouldn't put this one on quite the same level as Wall-E. I mean, Up will still likely make it to many end-of-year Best-Of lists, and it is still likely a shoe-in for Best Animated Picture at the Oscars. But is it the all-around classic that Wall-E was? Again, I wouldn't put it quite on that same level.
The thing I loved about Up going in may also have been partly responsible for its shortcomings. Because, going into Up, I really appreciated the fact that we knew almost nothing about the movie. The trailers, at least the ones that I saw, gave us the iconic imagery of an old man with a flying balloon house. But beyond that, we could really only guess at what adventures such an unusual abode might lead him, and in turn us, to experience. The fact is that the reality of Up's adventure story doesn't quite live up to the spectacular promise of those trailers. For those expecting some kind of Oz-like wonderland at the other end of this balloon trip, you don't quite get that here.
But what you do get is an absolutely brilliant character piece. Moreso than maybe any other Pixar flick to date, Up is a character study, a focused-in portrait of an old man seeking purpose in his life following the death of his beloved wife. It's an ambitious central theme for a family film, but Pixar pulls it off as only they can. The movie's opening narrative, told in quasi-montage fashion, is perhaps the movie's crowning achievement. A mostly dialogue-less sequence, the movie's opening introduces us to a young Carl Fredrickson (skillfully voiced for most of the movie by the great Ed Asner), and shows us his early love for adventure, as he giddilly enjoys newsreel footage of his hero, Charles Muntz's, latest exploits. We then see a young Carl's chance encounter with an equally young Ellie, and the two instantly bond and become inseparable. We follow the two as they grow up, get married, and grow old together. And a lot more. The detail, the storytelling, and the nostalgic emotion of this sequence is just amazing, and Pixar handles some of the more tragic aspects of the Carl and Ellie story with the utmost care, nuance, and artistry.
Back to Ed Asner for a second, his voicework is definitely one of the real highlights of this movie. You definitely get the feeling that there is more than a little of Asner himself in the character, and the veteran actor really shines in this movie. The rest of the voices are also great - there aren't a lot of supporting characters to speak of, but one high point is definitely Christopher Plummer as the aged Muntz. Very fun stuff from Plummer.
I guess where I find some fault with Up is that it soars as a character piece (pun intended), but never quite comes together in terms of plot or story. A lot of the situations seem a bit thrown together. For example, Muntz has all the makings of a classic Pixar villain, and yet we never really learn enough about him to really "get" what his deal is. Why did he go from intrepid adventurer to embittered villain? Why and how does he keep an army of super-advanced dog soldiers? There isn't really enough meat to Muntz's story, and the effect is that the meeting and eventua lconfrontation between he and Carl feels pretty rushed. I guess it felt to me like Up had some untapped potential in terms of its story - it felt like there was some grand mythology lurking in the background that we never really got a chance to play with.
But again, this is at its heart a character piece. And the focus of the movie is Carl's personal struggle, as well as his budding relationship with the young and hapless boyscout named Russell. The overactive Russell and the curmudgeonly Carl seem like a real odd couple, but in fact they turn out to be kindred spirits, and that journey that they experience together is front and center here. I can't say it enough - it's amazing how much character and nuance Pixar is able to pack into these movies.
Finally, I have to emphasize just how stunning Up is visually. While the setting isn't quite as exotic or imaginative as that of Wall-E's, the imagery here, the direction, the sense of wonder and emotion conjured up by the animation, is second to none. Seeing the movie in Disney Digital 3D, the clarity and crispness of the picture was jaw-dropping. But at the same time, the greatest moments of the movie are those that take their time with the images on screen and let the iconography of what's happening speak for itself. It's a downright Spielberg-style film in that regard - the movie is almost ET-like in its use of storybook imagery to convey a sense of awe, wonder, and emotion. It's for that reason that I have to give Up major props despite a couple of flaws with the story. Pixar has done it yet again.
My Grade: A-
Coming Soon: Reviews of THE HANGOVER and LAND OF THE LOST!
Monday, June 08, 2009
Evil Blog! DRAG ME TO HELL Review - Plus: I Go INSIDE THE ACTOR'S STUDIO!
What's up, loyal readers? Hope you enjoyed my E3 recap -- last week was a crazy week, and I'm glad I finally got the chance to write down some of my thoughts on the show. Better late than never, as they say. But even as I was furiously typing away about E3, I was neglecting my usual movie and TV reviews and all the other wow-that's-cool stuff that you've come to expect from my All-New, All-Awesome Adventures. Well, the healing process begins now, people. The rest of this week I'll be playing a bit of catch-up, but you can rest assured that from here on in, the reviews will be coming fast and furious.
- But before I get to any movie reviews, I've got to talk about an event that I was privelaged to attend last week, that being a live studio taping of INSIDE THE ACTOR'S STUDIO.
Yes, Inside the Actor's Studio, the show that made James Lipton into a pop-culture icon. Through work, I was able to snag a couple of tickets to a rare LA-based taping of the typically NYC-based show, and seeing as how the guest was none other than comedy-king JUDD APATOW ... well, there was no way I could pass this up.
The taping, it turned out, was an almost FOUR HOUR LONG epic adventure into the most inner sanctums of Mr. Apatow's mind. By the end of the taping, I felt like I had just emerged from a deep and dark journey into a strange land. Suffice it to say, James Lipton was in rare form, asking absolutely insane questions with such straight-faced seriousness that you couldn't help but burst out laughing. James Lipton freaking rules, and is one of the most (unintentionally?) hilarious people I've ever heard speak. It's tempting to call him pretentious, but I do think that beneath the air of mock-pretentiousness, Mr. Lipton does sort of address his audience and his guest with a knowing wink. Basically, if you think about it, Lipton is in some ways the ultimate Fanboy. I mean, this guy takes art VERY seriously, and he's not afraid to gush about Leslie Mann's comedic performance in The 40 Year Old Virgin as if she were Robert DeNiro in Raging Bull. One minute, Lipton might say something strangely brilliant and profound about the art of comedy or cinema. The next, he is recalling the first film he ever viewed in which he remembers seeing on-screen vomit. Awesome.
Aside from Lipton's craziness though, the taping provided an extremely fascinating look at the life and career of Judd Apatow. As a comedy afficionado, I was hanging on every word, as Apatow talked about everything from his early childhood in Long Island to his career as a stand-up comedian to Freaks & Geeks and Undeclared to Knocked Up and Superbad. As I've stated many times here on the blog, Freaks & Geeks is to me at or near the absolute top of my all-time favorite anything list, and it's one of the shows, alongside stuff like The Simpsons and The X-Files, that made me stand up and say "hey, I want to make this stuff!". So yeah, hearing Judd talk about the show and its legacy was pretty darn cool.
Anyways, just wanted to share. I'm not sure when this episode of Actor's Studio will air, but I presume it will be sometime in the near future as it obviously somewhat promotes Apatow's latest flick, FUNNY PEOPLE, which I believe drops later this summer. Gravitas, baby.
ALRIGHT ... It's high time I review some movies. So without further ado, a look at Sam Raimi's latest, a movie that you should all RUN to your local theater to see while it's still playing ...
DRAG ME TO HELL Review:
- Welcome back, Sam Raimi. Oh yeah, it's true, Fanboys ... Sam Raimi is back, and his return can only be described with the following exclamation: "Hail to the King, baby." Yep, the Sam Raimi who was a geek god hath returned, and I am willing, ALMOST willing, to overlook the suckfest that was Spiderman 3 in light of this latest kickass horror-comedy extravaganza. Because Drag Me To Hell is not just some johnny-come-lately run-of-the-mill horror movie. Nope, this is the kind of flick they don't make much of anymore. I mean, it's PG-13 for god's sake. But this ain't no watered-down J-horror, folks. Drag Me To Hell is the true spiritual successor to THE EVIL DEAD. I know, I know, I can already hear the purists protesting at their keyboards. But even if Drag Me To Hell doesn't supplant Evil Dead II on your all-time best list, there's no denying that it channels the same manic energy, the same twisted humor, and the same star-making types of performances that made the Evil Dead series bonafide cult classics. So please, don't wait for this one to come out on DVD. Go to a theater. Send a message with your dollars. See this one *with an audience*, and ensure that Sam Raimi will make more of the movies he loves. I mean, look, I still want a big-budget Evil Dead 4 with Bruce Campbell in all his big-chinned, chainsawed-out glory ... but this is no mere pretender. No, Drag Me to Hell is a legit Sam Raimi horror movie. And if that means nothing to you, well ... time to turn in your film-fan cred, because this is an evil roller-coaster ride that will drag you from heavenly highs to the fiery depths of hell itself. Strap in.
Part of what I love about Drag Me to Hell is that, while it has a ton of scary, jump-out-of-your-seat type moments, it also has that great, creepy atmosphere that you don't get a lot of anymore in horror flicks. In fact, its macabre cast of characters and dark morality play of a story harken back to things like old EC Comics, Tales From The Crypt, The Twilight Zone, etc. What I mean is, the story is simple, memorable, and effective ... and at the same time the movie positively bleeds tension and atmosphere. But don't worry, it's also bugnuts INSANE, in the grand tradition of Evil Dead. Raimi brings his trademark techniques to his latest film, with lots of POV camera zooms and dips and dives, and action that is predictably off-the-chain crazy. Some of the scenes of over-the-top violence and gruesomness are so jaw-droppingly unbelievable that you'll be squirming in your seat and yelling "holy $#%&!" even as you laugh uncontrollably at the sheer absurdity of what you're witnessing.
It helps that the cast is uniformly great. I mean, this is a starmaking turn for Alison Lohman, who turns in an absolutely awesome performance that is a perfect fit for what Raimi is going for. She has a perfect sense of line delivery that is almost on par with Bruce Campbell's, in that she says all of Sami's great one-liners with just the right amount of hammy vigor, all the while playing things perfectly straight. It really is an iconic performance, and rarely has an onscreen transformation from shy and innocent girl-next-door to undead-stomping-riot-grrrl been handled so well or so entertainingly.
The rest of the cast is pretty good, though really they are just window dressing, as this is Lohman's movie. Justin Long does a nice job as her blissfully clueless boyfriend, and I was also happy to see Reggie Lee, who was so great as a villain on Prison Break, appear here as Lohman's similarly smarmy, ladder-climbing co-worker. Plus, a lot of the side character are just really great, from the uber-creepy old gypsy woman who puts the fateful curse on Lohman's character to the enigmatic psychic who tries to help her remove it. Like I said, the whole movie has that great old-school horror / supernatural feel to it. It's like someone took the very spirit of Halloween and bottled it up and made this movie.
In any case, after being one of many twenty-somethings who discovered Sam Raimi and Evil Dead after the fact via DVD and midnight movie screenings in college, it was a real joy to finally see a new Sam Raimi horror-comedy on the big screen with a large and enthusiastic audience. Drag Me to Hell isn't perfect - some of the later action scenes don't quite live up to the first big parking-lot brawl, and sometimes it does feel like the movie relies a bit too much on those turn-up-the-volume-and-scare-ya' type of moments. But as a purely fun movie experience, THIS, to me, is THE popcorn movie of the summer so far. Star Trek is this summer's reigning blockbuster champion, but Drag Me to Hell is the movie that has full command over its audience, the movie that will have you gripping your seat in tension, hanging on every twist, rolling in laughter, looking away in horror, and smiling ear to ear. Drag Me to Hell is, to put it simply, one hell of a horror movie.
My Grade: A-
Next Up, UP!
- But before I get to any movie reviews, I've got to talk about an event that I was privelaged to attend last week, that being a live studio taping of INSIDE THE ACTOR'S STUDIO.
Yes, Inside the Actor's Studio, the show that made James Lipton into a pop-culture icon. Through work, I was able to snag a couple of tickets to a rare LA-based taping of the typically NYC-based show, and seeing as how the guest was none other than comedy-king JUDD APATOW ... well, there was no way I could pass this up.
The taping, it turned out, was an almost FOUR HOUR LONG epic adventure into the most inner sanctums of Mr. Apatow's mind. By the end of the taping, I felt like I had just emerged from a deep and dark journey into a strange land. Suffice it to say, James Lipton was in rare form, asking absolutely insane questions with such straight-faced seriousness that you couldn't help but burst out laughing. James Lipton freaking rules, and is one of the most (unintentionally?) hilarious people I've ever heard speak. It's tempting to call him pretentious, but I do think that beneath the air of mock-pretentiousness, Mr. Lipton does sort of address his audience and his guest with a knowing wink. Basically, if you think about it, Lipton is in some ways the ultimate Fanboy. I mean, this guy takes art VERY seriously, and he's not afraid to gush about Leslie Mann's comedic performance in The 40 Year Old Virgin as if she were Robert DeNiro in Raging Bull. One minute, Lipton might say something strangely brilliant and profound about the art of comedy or cinema. The next, he is recalling the first film he ever viewed in which he remembers seeing on-screen vomit. Awesome.
Aside from Lipton's craziness though, the taping provided an extremely fascinating look at the life and career of Judd Apatow. As a comedy afficionado, I was hanging on every word, as Apatow talked about everything from his early childhood in Long Island to his career as a stand-up comedian to Freaks & Geeks and Undeclared to Knocked Up and Superbad. As I've stated many times here on the blog, Freaks & Geeks is to me at or near the absolute top of my all-time favorite anything list, and it's one of the shows, alongside stuff like The Simpsons and The X-Files, that made me stand up and say "hey, I want to make this stuff!". So yeah, hearing Judd talk about the show and its legacy was pretty darn cool.
Anyways, just wanted to share. I'm not sure when this episode of Actor's Studio will air, but I presume it will be sometime in the near future as it obviously somewhat promotes Apatow's latest flick, FUNNY PEOPLE, which I believe drops later this summer. Gravitas, baby.
ALRIGHT ... It's high time I review some movies. So without further ado, a look at Sam Raimi's latest, a movie that you should all RUN to your local theater to see while it's still playing ...
DRAG ME TO HELL Review:
- Welcome back, Sam Raimi. Oh yeah, it's true, Fanboys ... Sam Raimi is back, and his return can only be described with the following exclamation: "Hail to the King, baby." Yep, the Sam Raimi who was a geek god hath returned, and I am willing, ALMOST willing, to overlook the suckfest that was Spiderman 3 in light of this latest kickass horror-comedy extravaganza. Because Drag Me To Hell is not just some johnny-come-lately run-of-the-mill horror movie. Nope, this is the kind of flick they don't make much of anymore. I mean, it's PG-13 for god's sake. But this ain't no watered-down J-horror, folks. Drag Me To Hell is the true spiritual successor to THE EVIL DEAD. I know, I know, I can already hear the purists protesting at their keyboards. But even if Drag Me To Hell doesn't supplant Evil Dead II on your all-time best list, there's no denying that it channels the same manic energy, the same twisted humor, and the same star-making types of performances that made the Evil Dead series bonafide cult classics. So please, don't wait for this one to come out on DVD. Go to a theater. Send a message with your dollars. See this one *with an audience*, and ensure that Sam Raimi will make more of the movies he loves. I mean, look, I still want a big-budget Evil Dead 4 with Bruce Campbell in all his big-chinned, chainsawed-out glory ... but this is no mere pretender. No, Drag Me to Hell is a legit Sam Raimi horror movie. And if that means nothing to you, well ... time to turn in your film-fan cred, because this is an evil roller-coaster ride that will drag you from heavenly highs to the fiery depths of hell itself. Strap in.
Part of what I love about Drag Me to Hell is that, while it has a ton of scary, jump-out-of-your-seat type moments, it also has that great, creepy atmosphere that you don't get a lot of anymore in horror flicks. In fact, its macabre cast of characters and dark morality play of a story harken back to things like old EC Comics, Tales From The Crypt, The Twilight Zone, etc. What I mean is, the story is simple, memorable, and effective ... and at the same time the movie positively bleeds tension and atmosphere. But don't worry, it's also bugnuts INSANE, in the grand tradition of Evil Dead. Raimi brings his trademark techniques to his latest film, with lots of POV camera zooms and dips and dives, and action that is predictably off-the-chain crazy. Some of the scenes of over-the-top violence and gruesomness are so jaw-droppingly unbelievable that you'll be squirming in your seat and yelling "holy $#%&!" even as you laugh uncontrollably at the sheer absurdity of what you're witnessing.
It helps that the cast is uniformly great. I mean, this is a starmaking turn for Alison Lohman, who turns in an absolutely awesome performance that is a perfect fit for what Raimi is going for. She has a perfect sense of line delivery that is almost on par with Bruce Campbell's, in that she says all of Sami's great one-liners with just the right amount of hammy vigor, all the while playing things perfectly straight. It really is an iconic performance, and rarely has an onscreen transformation from shy and innocent girl-next-door to undead-stomping-riot-grrrl been handled so well or so entertainingly.
The rest of the cast is pretty good, though really they are just window dressing, as this is Lohman's movie. Justin Long does a nice job as her blissfully clueless boyfriend, and I was also happy to see Reggie Lee, who was so great as a villain on Prison Break, appear here as Lohman's similarly smarmy, ladder-climbing co-worker. Plus, a lot of the side character are just really great, from the uber-creepy old gypsy woman who puts the fateful curse on Lohman's character to the enigmatic psychic who tries to help her remove it. Like I said, the whole movie has that great old-school horror / supernatural feel to it. It's like someone took the very spirit of Halloween and bottled it up and made this movie.
In any case, after being one of many twenty-somethings who discovered Sam Raimi and Evil Dead after the fact via DVD and midnight movie screenings in college, it was a real joy to finally see a new Sam Raimi horror-comedy on the big screen with a large and enthusiastic audience. Drag Me to Hell isn't perfect - some of the later action scenes don't quite live up to the first big parking-lot brawl, and sometimes it does feel like the movie relies a bit too much on those turn-up-the-volume-and-scare-ya' type of moments. But as a purely fun movie experience, THIS, to me, is THE popcorn movie of the summer so far. Star Trek is this summer's reigning blockbuster champion, but Drag Me to Hell is the movie that has full command over its audience, the movie that will have you gripping your seat in tension, hanging on every twist, rolling in laughter, looking away in horror, and smiling ear to ear. Drag Me to Hell is, to put it simply, one hell of a horror movie.
My Grade: A-
Next Up, UP!
Friday, June 05, 2009
E3 2009: Danny Goes to E3 - Full Report Here!
Holy crap, this week has been insane, in the best possible way. I mean, there's a lot to talk about, but the biggest and best bit of news is that I got to do something I've wanted to do since I was a kid - I went to E3!
Yep, as a wee lad I would sit on my bed flipping through GamePro and PSM and dreaming of the techno-glory that was the Electronic Entertainment Expo, the mecca of all things videogames, the place where, each year, the major hardware and software manufacturers showed their latest wares. Basically, it was paradise on earth for every red-blooded kid or kid at heart who ever wielded a joystick. Last year, I got a small taste of E3, as I was able to attend Microsoft's press conference. While a lot of fun, the overall feeling last year, even just in terms of that presser, was that E3 had lost its luster. The show had been scaled-back, cut-down-to-size. It was now a sober, minimalist affair.
But this year, E3 was back, and I was there, baby. The bright lights and gigantic booths were back, as were the booth babes. There were big announcements, hundreds of new games, lots of surprises. Celebs were in the house. Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo brought out the big guns. Walking through the E3 show floor on Tuesday, it was the slice of fanboy heaven I had long imagined. I looked in one direction and saw a giant jumbotron displaying an eye-melting trailer for Final Fantasy XIII at the Square-Enix booth. I looked in the other direction and saw Microsoft displaying the newest iteration of Halo - Halo:ODST, to throngs of eager gamers. I saw a sprawling line wrapped around the Sony booth, as gamers waited to take a crack at Kratos' latest adventure in God of War III, and I saw a giant DJ booth designed to showcase the latest Guitar Hero spinoff, DJ Hero. The sights and sounds were sensory overload, and yes, my friends, it was awesome.
To me, E3 next year should be open to the public. Make it the videogame industry's version of Comic-Con. Why waste all this coolness on a bunch of journalists and business people? I mean, there's already a large percentage of attendees who are basically just diehard gamefans who have gotten their grubby hands on passes anyways. Why not blow open the floodgates and give John Q. Public the chance to play the latest and greatest games? Maybe next year?
NINTENDO:
But anyways, I think the three majors all had pretty darn good E3's, to be honest. Last year, Nintendo had one of the most infamous press conferences in E3 history, failing to show a single real game for the Wii and trotting out Miyamoto only for him to show off the much anticipated epic known as ... Wii Music. This year, Nintendo seemed to start things off on a similarly anticlimactic note, but ultimately showed off a couple of big guns that somewhat redeemed them. The fact is that Nintendo still only showed off one real blockbuster title for 2009, and that was New Super Mario Bros. for the Wii. The title, a multiplayer take on the classic Mario formula (sort of a Mario-style version of Little Big Planet), looks like a lot of fun. Should Nintendo have a lot more for '09? Yes. But ... Nintendo ended their press conference on a huge high note. Not only did they give face-time to a number of high-profile, hardcore gaming franchises that will have new installments on the Wii, but they also had two huge debuts. The first, Super Mario Galaxy 2, was expected but, come on, it's a new mainline, 3D Mario game. I'm sure it will be awesome. The second debut was somewhat out of left field, which made it that much cooler. A new Metroid game - 2.5D, realistic graphics, and developed by Team Ninja, the acclaimed studio behind the Ninja Gaiden and Dead or Alive series. Team Ninja + Metroid = potentially REALLY kickass, and to me it was this announcement that saved the show for Nintendo. It was basically a beacon of hope that said "hold the phone, the Nintendo of old still lives" (even if the games are being outsourced to Team Ninja). The fact is, Nintendo has never been the same since it lost Rare to Microsoft, so it was a welcome surprise to see them once again partnering with a great outside studio.
Even with these signs of life, I still have to rank Nintendo's presence at E3 as the weakest of the Big 3. The Wii is really beginning to look weak compared to its technologically-superior rivals, and the software lineup just isn't there where it can stand neck and neck with the XBOX or PS3. While the increased third party support is great, the fact is that the Wii is ultimately still getting somewhat watered-down versions of Resident Evil, Final Fantasy, Dead Space, etc. So for the hardcore Nintendo fan, I think they can take solace that there are two new Mario titles due out, a badass new Metroid, and even a new Zelda game in the pipeline (not shown at E3, but hinted at by Miyamoto). But the Wii is still too gimmicky. It still doesn't have the lineup of games beyond all the Wii-Motion and Motion Plus stuff to really stand on. But compared to last year? A much better showing from the Big N.
SONY:
Sony's actual press conference was a little shaky this year - certainly nowhere near as smooth of a presentation as Microsoft's, and lacking MS' huge starpower in terms of celebs and whatnot (hard to compete with McCartney, Ringo Starr, and Spielberg!). But, when you look at the actual content Sony had to display, there was an incredibly strong lineup of games. I think that when you look at Sony's lineup of exclusives for the rest of 1009 and early 2010, there is a strong argument to make that they are at the top of the heap. I mean, God of War III alone ... to me that is THE game of E3, an absolutely killer app that will certainly be a system-seller. If you fancy videogames and don't drool at the thought of hi-def, blu-ray God of War mayhem ... well, check your gamer card at the door, my friend. And Uncharted 2 ... it looks absolutely amazing. Uncharted 1 was one of the most fun, and certainly most visually impressive games I've ever played. Part 2 looks to up the ante in every respect. Sony just has an overall stellar lineup, with games in many genres that all fell unique (unlike XBOX, where every game seems cut from the same cloth). Ratchet & Clank Future 2, Heavy Rain, MAG ... those are all very different games that all look great.
Those games were expected, but Sony had a couple of nice surprises as well. One was a trailer for The Last Guardian, the much-anticipated next game from Team Ico. Another was Metal Gear Solid: Peacewalker for the PSP. A full-fledged MGS game, it looked positively awesome.
Speaking of the PSP, Sony lost a lot of potential momentum by having the news of the PSP Go leak prior to E3. But the fact remains that it's a slick-looking piece of hardware, and is part of an overall push for the portable device. This push includes a ton of hot-looking new PSP games, from Soul Caliber to Resident Evil to Little Big Planet.
What would have given Sony that final extra boost? An announcement of a PS3 price-drop, for one. Sony needs to get more systems out there, and their hardware is still prohibitively pricey. I think a price-drop could have been that final element that would have put Sony over the top at E3. Otherwise, Sony is still playing a lot of catch-up in terms of digital distribution and social gaming. Things like Facebook and Twitter on XBOX may be relatively small announcements, but they give the impression that Microsoft is emphasizing community. Microsoft also really wowed with its Project Natal, whereas Sony's own Motion Control demo, while potentially much more practical to gaming, didn't have quite the oomph of Microsoft's big reveal.
Overall though, I very much appreciate that Sony has the games that aren't simply bleak FPS shooters, and aren't simply toys for grandma to play with at a party. There are games with COLOR like Uncharted and Ratchet, and games that are experimental and that aspire to be art, like Heavy Rain and Last Guardian. Now they just need to up the installed base, which is going to be a daunting task if a price drop isn't announced soon.
MICROSOFT:
MS rocked it at E3, no question. I was lucky enough to attend their press conference in person on Monday, and it was truly an amazing event. There were no real lulls, no lags in pacing - it was a perfectly-staged event built for maximum wow-factor and impact. I mean, the thing kicked off with some amazing footage from Rock Band: The Beatles, and then Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr actually showed up to greet the crowd and plug the game. Later on, Tony Hawk showed off his latest game, and after that, Steven friggin' Spielberg helped to present the super-advanced Project Natal. All of these appearances were kind of incidental, and Rock Band and Tony Hawk aren't even exclusive to XBOX. But there could be no question, Microsoft owned Sony and Nintendo in terms of putting on a show at E3.
As far as Natal goes ... I wasn't sold at first, but like everyone else, my jaw dropped when Peter Molyneux showed off his Milo demo. The technology just seemed so, I don't know, sci-fi. When the woman interacting with the virtual character Milo drew a picture on a real piece of paper, "handed" it to Milo, and then had that piece of paper, with the same drawing, appear on-screen ... well, it may have been *the* "holy-$#*&" moment of E3. Realistically, who knows what a Milo game would actually be like. And who even knows to what extent Natal can be a real game-changer for the XBOX as opposed to just a cool-looking tech demo. Who even knows when the thing will actually be released to consumers. But, no question, Microsoft used the Natal to put on a hell of a show.
As for the games ... Microsoft impressed with a couple of their 360 exclusives, although personally, I didn't see a ton that really appealled to me as a non-fan of FPS shooters. Alan Wake looked really interesting. Epic Games' Shadow Complex, and XBOX Live Arcade game, was prob my pick for coolest XBOX game of the show - a 2D side-scroller that hearkened back to old-school Metroid and Castlevania. The new Splinter Cell looked very cool as well, and UbiSoft looks to have really nailed the gameplay with this one.
MS also had a major blow to Sony in its announcement that the new next-gen Metal Gear game will in fact be multiplatform. Metal Gear Solid: Rising is still likely a long ways away, but, that was really a key Sony exclusive that now joins Final Fantasy XIII as a big get for XBOX. It was one more "f-you" to Sony, and it was obvious that MS was lovin' the fact that they were able to bring Hideo Kojima up on their stage at E3.
Finally, like I said before, Microsoft really has its $#%* together when it comes to all the online stuff. The fact that you will soon be able to instantly stream HD, 1080 p movies and TV shows is pretty great. And the Facebook and Twitter integration seems like it will be very novel and well-done. As far as being a multimedia wonderbox, Sony has the whole blu-ray advantage, but in many other respects, Microsoft is, at least for now, the leader.
Again, personally I didn't see many XBOX-exclusive games that really tickled my fancy. I'm not a Halo player, so ODST didn't do much for me. And there were A LOT of grey games. give me bright color, imagination, etc. any day of the week. That said, Microsoft had the best E3 press conference, and the Natal is clearly the most buzzed-about thing coming out of E3. You've got to give a ton of credit to Microsoft.
DANNY'S TOP 10 GAMES OF E3 (In Playable Form ...):
1. God of War 3 - Sony, PS3
2. Uncharted 2: Among Thieves - Sony, PS3
3. Brutal Legend - EA, PS3 & XBOX 360
4. Final Fantasy XIII - Square Enix, PS3 & XBOX 360
5. Bayonetta - Sega, PS3 and XBOX 360
6. New Super Mario Bros Wii - Nintendo, Wii
7. Assassin's Creed 2 - Ubisoft, PS3 & XBOX 360
8. Ratchet & Clank Future 2: A Crack In Time - Sony, PS3
9. Mass Effect 2 - EA, PS3 & XBOX 360
10. Shadow Complex - Microsoft / Epic Games, XBOX 360
DANNY'S TOP 5 GAMES OF E3 (Non-Playable):
1. Metroid: Other M - Nintendo, Wii
2. The Last Guardian - Sony, PS3
3. Metal Gear Solid: Peacewalker - Konami, PSP
4. Super Mario Galaxy 2 - Nintendo, Wii
5. Castlevania: Lords of Shadow - Konami, PS3 & XBOX 360
But yeah, E3 '09 was a strong indicator that E3 is in fact back. I had a great time attending the show. On the show floor, I got to talk games to the cast of one of my fave TV shows, CHUCK, met Mickey Rourke (!), and most importantly, got to live out my longtime dream of actually attending E3. Hopefully my first time won't be my last! Check me out on facebook to see lots of great photos. But man, it's a good time to be a game fan, and it was a week for the record books for me.
COMING SOON: Long-awaited reviews of UP and DRAG ME TO HELL, plus: I go to a taping of Inside the Actor's Studio!
Yep, as a wee lad I would sit on my bed flipping through GamePro and PSM and dreaming of the techno-glory that was the Electronic Entertainment Expo, the mecca of all things videogames, the place where, each year, the major hardware and software manufacturers showed their latest wares. Basically, it was paradise on earth for every red-blooded kid or kid at heart who ever wielded a joystick. Last year, I got a small taste of E3, as I was able to attend Microsoft's press conference. While a lot of fun, the overall feeling last year, even just in terms of that presser, was that E3 had lost its luster. The show had been scaled-back, cut-down-to-size. It was now a sober, minimalist affair.
But this year, E3 was back, and I was there, baby. The bright lights and gigantic booths were back, as were the booth babes. There were big announcements, hundreds of new games, lots of surprises. Celebs were in the house. Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo brought out the big guns. Walking through the E3 show floor on Tuesday, it was the slice of fanboy heaven I had long imagined. I looked in one direction and saw a giant jumbotron displaying an eye-melting trailer for Final Fantasy XIII at the Square-Enix booth. I looked in the other direction and saw Microsoft displaying the newest iteration of Halo - Halo:ODST, to throngs of eager gamers. I saw a sprawling line wrapped around the Sony booth, as gamers waited to take a crack at Kratos' latest adventure in God of War III, and I saw a giant DJ booth designed to showcase the latest Guitar Hero spinoff, DJ Hero. The sights and sounds were sensory overload, and yes, my friends, it was awesome.
To me, E3 next year should be open to the public. Make it the videogame industry's version of Comic-Con. Why waste all this coolness on a bunch of journalists and business people? I mean, there's already a large percentage of attendees who are basically just diehard gamefans who have gotten their grubby hands on passes anyways. Why not blow open the floodgates and give John Q. Public the chance to play the latest and greatest games? Maybe next year?
NINTENDO:
But anyways, I think the three majors all had pretty darn good E3's, to be honest. Last year, Nintendo had one of the most infamous press conferences in E3 history, failing to show a single real game for the Wii and trotting out Miyamoto only for him to show off the much anticipated epic known as ... Wii Music. This year, Nintendo seemed to start things off on a similarly anticlimactic note, but ultimately showed off a couple of big guns that somewhat redeemed them. The fact is that Nintendo still only showed off one real blockbuster title for 2009, and that was New Super Mario Bros. for the Wii. The title, a multiplayer take on the classic Mario formula (sort of a Mario-style version of Little Big Planet), looks like a lot of fun. Should Nintendo have a lot more for '09? Yes. But ... Nintendo ended their press conference on a huge high note. Not only did they give face-time to a number of high-profile, hardcore gaming franchises that will have new installments on the Wii, but they also had two huge debuts. The first, Super Mario Galaxy 2, was expected but, come on, it's a new mainline, 3D Mario game. I'm sure it will be awesome. The second debut was somewhat out of left field, which made it that much cooler. A new Metroid game - 2.5D, realistic graphics, and developed by Team Ninja, the acclaimed studio behind the Ninja Gaiden and Dead or Alive series. Team Ninja + Metroid = potentially REALLY kickass, and to me it was this announcement that saved the show for Nintendo. It was basically a beacon of hope that said "hold the phone, the Nintendo of old still lives" (even if the games are being outsourced to Team Ninja). The fact is, Nintendo has never been the same since it lost Rare to Microsoft, so it was a welcome surprise to see them once again partnering with a great outside studio.
Even with these signs of life, I still have to rank Nintendo's presence at E3 as the weakest of the Big 3. The Wii is really beginning to look weak compared to its technologically-superior rivals, and the software lineup just isn't there where it can stand neck and neck with the XBOX or PS3. While the increased third party support is great, the fact is that the Wii is ultimately still getting somewhat watered-down versions of Resident Evil, Final Fantasy, Dead Space, etc. So for the hardcore Nintendo fan, I think they can take solace that there are two new Mario titles due out, a badass new Metroid, and even a new Zelda game in the pipeline (not shown at E3, but hinted at by Miyamoto). But the Wii is still too gimmicky. It still doesn't have the lineup of games beyond all the Wii-Motion and Motion Plus stuff to really stand on. But compared to last year? A much better showing from the Big N.
SONY:
Sony's actual press conference was a little shaky this year - certainly nowhere near as smooth of a presentation as Microsoft's, and lacking MS' huge starpower in terms of celebs and whatnot (hard to compete with McCartney, Ringo Starr, and Spielberg!). But, when you look at the actual content Sony had to display, there was an incredibly strong lineup of games. I think that when you look at Sony's lineup of exclusives for the rest of 1009 and early 2010, there is a strong argument to make that they are at the top of the heap. I mean, God of War III alone ... to me that is THE game of E3, an absolutely killer app that will certainly be a system-seller. If you fancy videogames and don't drool at the thought of hi-def, blu-ray God of War mayhem ... well, check your gamer card at the door, my friend. And Uncharted 2 ... it looks absolutely amazing. Uncharted 1 was one of the most fun, and certainly most visually impressive games I've ever played. Part 2 looks to up the ante in every respect. Sony just has an overall stellar lineup, with games in many genres that all fell unique (unlike XBOX, where every game seems cut from the same cloth). Ratchet & Clank Future 2, Heavy Rain, MAG ... those are all very different games that all look great.
Those games were expected, but Sony had a couple of nice surprises as well. One was a trailer for The Last Guardian, the much-anticipated next game from Team Ico. Another was Metal Gear Solid: Peacewalker for the PSP. A full-fledged MGS game, it looked positively awesome.
Speaking of the PSP, Sony lost a lot of potential momentum by having the news of the PSP Go leak prior to E3. But the fact remains that it's a slick-looking piece of hardware, and is part of an overall push for the portable device. This push includes a ton of hot-looking new PSP games, from Soul Caliber to Resident Evil to Little Big Planet.
What would have given Sony that final extra boost? An announcement of a PS3 price-drop, for one. Sony needs to get more systems out there, and their hardware is still prohibitively pricey. I think a price-drop could have been that final element that would have put Sony over the top at E3. Otherwise, Sony is still playing a lot of catch-up in terms of digital distribution and social gaming. Things like Facebook and Twitter on XBOX may be relatively small announcements, but they give the impression that Microsoft is emphasizing community. Microsoft also really wowed with its Project Natal, whereas Sony's own Motion Control demo, while potentially much more practical to gaming, didn't have quite the oomph of Microsoft's big reveal.
Overall though, I very much appreciate that Sony has the games that aren't simply bleak FPS shooters, and aren't simply toys for grandma to play with at a party. There are games with COLOR like Uncharted and Ratchet, and games that are experimental and that aspire to be art, like Heavy Rain and Last Guardian. Now they just need to up the installed base, which is going to be a daunting task if a price drop isn't announced soon.
MICROSOFT:
MS rocked it at E3, no question. I was lucky enough to attend their press conference in person on Monday, and it was truly an amazing event. There were no real lulls, no lags in pacing - it was a perfectly-staged event built for maximum wow-factor and impact. I mean, the thing kicked off with some amazing footage from Rock Band: The Beatles, and then Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr actually showed up to greet the crowd and plug the game. Later on, Tony Hawk showed off his latest game, and after that, Steven friggin' Spielberg helped to present the super-advanced Project Natal. All of these appearances were kind of incidental, and Rock Band and Tony Hawk aren't even exclusive to XBOX. But there could be no question, Microsoft owned Sony and Nintendo in terms of putting on a show at E3.
As far as Natal goes ... I wasn't sold at first, but like everyone else, my jaw dropped when Peter Molyneux showed off his Milo demo. The technology just seemed so, I don't know, sci-fi. When the woman interacting with the virtual character Milo drew a picture on a real piece of paper, "handed" it to Milo, and then had that piece of paper, with the same drawing, appear on-screen ... well, it may have been *the* "holy-$#*&" moment of E3. Realistically, who knows what a Milo game would actually be like. And who even knows to what extent Natal can be a real game-changer for the XBOX as opposed to just a cool-looking tech demo. Who even knows when the thing will actually be released to consumers. But, no question, Microsoft used the Natal to put on a hell of a show.
As for the games ... Microsoft impressed with a couple of their 360 exclusives, although personally, I didn't see a ton that really appealled to me as a non-fan of FPS shooters. Alan Wake looked really interesting. Epic Games' Shadow Complex, and XBOX Live Arcade game, was prob my pick for coolest XBOX game of the show - a 2D side-scroller that hearkened back to old-school Metroid and Castlevania. The new Splinter Cell looked very cool as well, and UbiSoft looks to have really nailed the gameplay with this one.
MS also had a major blow to Sony in its announcement that the new next-gen Metal Gear game will in fact be multiplatform. Metal Gear Solid: Rising is still likely a long ways away, but, that was really a key Sony exclusive that now joins Final Fantasy XIII as a big get for XBOX. It was one more "f-you" to Sony, and it was obvious that MS was lovin' the fact that they were able to bring Hideo Kojima up on their stage at E3.
Finally, like I said before, Microsoft really has its $#%* together when it comes to all the online stuff. The fact that you will soon be able to instantly stream HD, 1080 p movies and TV shows is pretty great. And the Facebook and Twitter integration seems like it will be very novel and well-done. As far as being a multimedia wonderbox, Sony has the whole blu-ray advantage, but in many other respects, Microsoft is, at least for now, the leader.
Again, personally I didn't see many XBOX-exclusive games that really tickled my fancy. I'm not a Halo player, so ODST didn't do much for me. And there were A LOT of grey games. give me bright color, imagination, etc. any day of the week. That said, Microsoft had the best E3 press conference, and the Natal is clearly the most buzzed-about thing coming out of E3. You've got to give a ton of credit to Microsoft.
DANNY'S TOP 10 GAMES OF E3 (In Playable Form ...):
1. God of War 3 - Sony, PS3
2. Uncharted 2: Among Thieves - Sony, PS3
3. Brutal Legend - EA, PS3 & XBOX 360
4. Final Fantasy XIII - Square Enix, PS3 & XBOX 360
5. Bayonetta - Sega, PS3 and XBOX 360
6. New Super Mario Bros Wii - Nintendo, Wii
7. Assassin's Creed 2 - Ubisoft, PS3 & XBOX 360
8. Ratchet & Clank Future 2: A Crack In Time - Sony, PS3
9. Mass Effect 2 - EA, PS3 & XBOX 360
10. Shadow Complex - Microsoft / Epic Games, XBOX 360
DANNY'S TOP 5 GAMES OF E3 (Non-Playable):
1. Metroid: Other M - Nintendo, Wii
2. The Last Guardian - Sony, PS3
3. Metal Gear Solid: Peacewalker - Konami, PSP
4. Super Mario Galaxy 2 - Nintendo, Wii
5. Castlevania: Lords of Shadow - Konami, PS3 & XBOX 360
But yeah, E3 '09 was a strong indicator that E3 is in fact back. I had a great time attending the show. On the show floor, I got to talk games to the cast of one of my fave TV shows, CHUCK, met Mickey Rourke (!), and most importantly, got to live out my longtime dream of actually attending E3. Hopefully my first time won't be my last! Check me out on facebook to see lots of great photos. But man, it's a good time to be a game fan, and it was a week for the record books for me.
COMING SOON: Long-awaited reviews of UP and DRAG ME TO HELL, plus: I go to a taping of Inside the Actor's Studio!
Friday, May 29, 2009
Terminated! A Review of TERMINATOR: SALVATION and MORE!
Well, I said I'd be back.
It just took a while ...
Well, it's been a week of craziness here in Hollywood. This past Memorial Day weekend saw my brother Matt visit in LA, and the Brothers Baram set out on a number of adventures. We partook in a couple of epic basketball encounters that saw me lose horribly and in convincing fashion. We partook in a couple of epic videogame battles that saw me lose horribly and in convincing fashion. We saw Terminator and Star Trek. We dined at many of greater Burbank's finest dining establishments, including Matt's first taste of the fabled In N' Out Burger. On Memorial Day Monday, we even drove to the Staples Center to take in a live showing of WWE Monday Night RAW, during which we saw Vince McMahon call out the owner of the Denver Nuggets, an appearance from "The Nature Boy" Ric Flair (Whooo!), and a colossal 10-man tag-team match as our main event. Quite the spectacle. But also, Matt interviewed for the NBC Page Program, which I of course was a participant in a couple of years ago. Yep, it's all coming full circle. Will my brother don the legendary garb of the NBC Page? Stay tuned ...
In any case, it was nice to get out of the usual LA loop a bit and more or less go off the grid for a couple of days. It's amazing what you can accomplish when you have a willing accomplice and don't have to wait around all day for flaky LA people to decide whether or not you are worth their time. 'Nuff said!
Anyways, a review of TERMINATOR is long overdue, so, let's get to it:
TERMINATOR: SALVATION Review:
- Terminator movies are an odd beast. On one hand, the series is known for its balls-to-the-wall action and pull-no-punches violence. On the other hand, the series, particularly T2, is known for its grand themes of fate and destiny, man vs. machine, etc. Some iterations of the franchise have emphasized the action part of the equation (T3), while others have focused in on character development and the high-concept sci-fi that James Cameron brought to the table (The Sarah Connor Chronicles). Throughout the history of Terminator though, one thing has remained constant: the hints and glimpses of a future war between humans and evil robots that seemed to be seven shades of awesome. Terminator: Salvation comes with the promise that, finally, we will see the epic future was of awesomeness that we have, until now, only imagined. But that has both an upside and a downside. Bringing to life a story that people have for so long only imagined carries with it a lot of expectations. Would we see armies of exoskeleton terminators raising hell? An uber-badass John Connor finally fulfilling his destiny and leading the resistance forces? Narrative closure to all the "Judgement Day" nonsense that has been talked about since T1?
Well, as it turns out, TS is not exactly the ultimate sci-fi uber-epic that we had hoped for. McG is not going to supplant James Cameron in the hearts and minds of fanboys anytime soon. And T2 is not going to be usurped as the king of Terminator flicks. But at the same time, this isn't the rape-my-childhood disaster that some are making it out to be. The fact is: TS is an entertaining action-flick that, while nothing spectacular, is still well worth checking out.
What does Terminator: Salvation do well? Well, it features two heavy-hitting badasses, for one thing, in Christian "insane rant" Bale and Sam Worthington. Bale doesn't have a whole lot of meat to chew on in this movie, but the fact is that he's still Christian Bale. What I mean is, the guy is capable of being badass in any given scene, even if he isn't fed a great line of dialogue or whatever. And when Bale is given something cool to do, his acting abilities, charisma, and overall, well, gravitas, make those moments of coolness that much better. But, by the same token, the movie makes a mistake in not really building up Bale's JC as the icon that he should be. In T2, T3, and the TV show, we've seen endless hype about how John was this messianic figure who was crucial to humanity's anti-Skynet resistance. Here, JC is sort of just another badass. Sure, he has his little radio broadcasts that make him a beacon of hope for the pockets of resistance. But this probably should have been John Connor's movie, and it should have helped to build him up as *the* man.
Instead, we get Sam Worthington as Marcus Wright, a character whose strange origin the movie opens with. Worthington is suitably tough-as-nails in the role, and his character is potentially an interesting addition to the Terminator mythos. But the emphasis is on potentially. We skip over a lot of Marcus' backstory, and to that end the character never feels fully drawn. We have no idea why he's in the future or to what end, and it's frustrating that these key plot points were so blantantly left out, presumably left to be addressed in a future sequel.
In fact, a lot of the movie feels only partially-realized. I found it weird that so many characters come in and out of the story without much real fanfare or impact. Helena Bonham Carter is there in the beginning as a terminally-ill acquaintance of Marcus, and then resurfaces as the human face of Skynet. Bryce Dallas Howard is in the mix as John's special lady friend (wife? girlfriend? not even sure ...), but has no real depth to her character, and no real chemistry / connection with Bale. Moon Bloodgood is good in the role of generic female badass, looking and acting very similar to the Jesse character from Sarah Connor Chronicles. But again, the character itself is somewhat cookie-cutter. Same goes for a lot of the other side characters, who all seem to come from the Mad Max / post-apocalyptic playbook. The one guy who sort of stands out is Anton Yelchin as Kyle Reese. He and Marcus make a fun dynamic duo, and Reese gives a nice touch of lightheartedness to the movie.
I think this is one of those films where you kind of take the good with the bad. Some of the dialogue had me absolutely cringing in parts (the opening with Worthington and Bonham-Carter was particularly painful), and the plot is extremely all-over-the-place in the interest of leaving as much time as possible for the action. And some of the action scenes *are* pretty darn cool. Some really fun variations on the ol' Terminators keep things lively, and McG's direction is, if nothing else, pretty kinetic and visceral.
On the flipside, the movie eventually settles into a kind of bland, by-the-numbers mode that makes its middle section inexcusably boring. For a little while, the movie really started to lose my attention. What changed? Well, I have to admit, the much talked-about Ahnold cameo was kickass. As soon as we got a glimpse of the old-school Terminator model, thanks to some amazing digital wizardry, I along with the entire audience perked up and was back into the movie, bigtime. Suffice it to say, from that point on, the movie really began to fire on all cylinders, and delivered an exciting climax. Yes, there is a pretty lame and tacked-on feeling epilogue, but the movie does certainly have its moments. Will I be running to see this one again anytime soon? Probably not. But will I be there for a hopefully-bigger and hopefully-more-epic sequel? Yep, I'll be back.
My Grade: B
- Alright, I'm locked and loaded for a jam-packed weekend. UP ... I can't wait. And Drag Me to Hell ... bring it on, baby. Also, stay tuned for some thoughts on Jay Leno's final episode of The Tonight Show, and the beginning of the CONAN O'BRIEN era! Have a great weekend, everyone.
It just took a while ...
Well, it's been a week of craziness here in Hollywood. This past Memorial Day weekend saw my brother Matt visit in LA, and the Brothers Baram set out on a number of adventures. We partook in a couple of epic basketball encounters that saw me lose horribly and in convincing fashion. We partook in a couple of epic videogame battles that saw me lose horribly and in convincing fashion. We saw Terminator and Star Trek. We dined at many of greater Burbank's finest dining establishments, including Matt's first taste of the fabled In N' Out Burger. On Memorial Day Monday, we even drove to the Staples Center to take in a live showing of WWE Monday Night RAW, during which we saw Vince McMahon call out the owner of the Denver Nuggets, an appearance from "The Nature Boy" Ric Flair (Whooo!), and a colossal 10-man tag-team match as our main event. Quite the spectacle. But also, Matt interviewed for the NBC Page Program, which I of course was a participant in a couple of years ago. Yep, it's all coming full circle. Will my brother don the legendary garb of the NBC Page? Stay tuned ...
In any case, it was nice to get out of the usual LA loop a bit and more or less go off the grid for a couple of days. It's amazing what you can accomplish when you have a willing accomplice and don't have to wait around all day for flaky LA people to decide whether or not you are worth their time. 'Nuff said!
Anyways, a review of TERMINATOR is long overdue, so, let's get to it:
TERMINATOR: SALVATION Review:
- Terminator movies are an odd beast. On one hand, the series is known for its balls-to-the-wall action and pull-no-punches violence. On the other hand, the series, particularly T2, is known for its grand themes of fate and destiny, man vs. machine, etc. Some iterations of the franchise have emphasized the action part of the equation (T3), while others have focused in on character development and the high-concept sci-fi that James Cameron brought to the table (The Sarah Connor Chronicles). Throughout the history of Terminator though, one thing has remained constant: the hints and glimpses of a future war between humans and evil robots that seemed to be seven shades of awesome. Terminator: Salvation comes with the promise that, finally, we will see the epic future was of awesomeness that we have, until now, only imagined. But that has both an upside and a downside. Bringing to life a story that people have for so long only imagined carries with it a lot of expectations. Would we see armies of exoskeleton terminators raising hell? An uber-badass John Connor finally fulfilling his destiny and leading the resistance forces? Narrative closure to all the "Judgement Day" nonsense that has been talked about since T1?
Well, as it turns out, TS is not exactly the ultimate sci-fi uber-epic that we had hoped for. McG is not going to supplant James Cameron in the hearts and minds of fanboys anytime soon. And T2 is not going to be usurped as the king of Terminator flicks. But at the same time, this isn't the rape-my-childhood disaster that some are making it out to be. The fact is: TS is an entertaining action-flick that, while nothing spectacular, is still well worth checking out.
What does Terminator: Salvation do well? Well, it features two heavy-hitting badasses, for one thing, in Christian "insane rant" Bale and Sam Worthington. Bale doesn't have a whole lot of meat to chew on in this movie, but the fact is that he's still Christian Bale. What I mean is, the guy is capable of being badass in any given scene, even if he isn't fed a great line of dialogue or whatever. And when Bale is given something cool to do, his acting abilities, charisma, and overall, well, gravitas, make those moments of coolness that much better. But, by the same token, the movie makes a mistake in not really building up Bale's JC as the icon that he should be. In T2, T3, and the TV show, we've seen endless hype about how John was this messianic figure who was crucial to humanity's anti-Skynet resistance. Here, JC is sort of just another badass. Sure, he has his little radio broadcasts that make him a beacon of hope for the pockets of resistance. But this probably should have been John Connor's movie, and it should have helped to build him up as *the* man.
Instead, we get Sam Worthington as Marcus Wright, a character whose strange origin the movie opens with. Worthington is suitably tough-as-nails in the role, and his character is potentially an interesting addition to the Terminator mythos. But the emphasis is on potentially. We skip over a lot of Marcus' backstory, and to that end the character never feels fully drawn. We have no idea why he's in the future or to what end, and it's frustrating that these key plot points were so blantantly left out, presumably left to be addressed in a future sequel.
In fact, a lot of the movie feels only partially-realized. I found it weird that so many characters come in and out of the story without much real fanfare or impact. Helena Bonham Carter is there in the beginning as a terminally-ill acquaintance of Marcus, and then resurfaces as the human face of Skynet. Bryce Dallas Howard is in the mix as John's special lady friend (wife? girlfriend? not even sure ...), but has no real depth to her character, and no real chemistry / connection with Bale. Moon Bloodgood is good in the role of generic female badass, looking and acting very similar to the Jesse character from Sarah Connor Chronicles. But again, the character itself is somewhat cookie-cutter. Same goes for a lot of the other side characters, who all seem to come from the Mad Max / post-apocalyptic playbook. The one guy who sort of stands out is Anton Yelchin as Kyle Reese. He and Marcus make a fun dynamic duo, and Reese gives a nice touch of lightheartedness to the movie.
I think this is one of those films where you kind of take the good with the bad. Some of the dialogue had me absolutely cringing in parts (the opening with Worthington and Bonham-Carter was particularly painful), and the plot is extremely all-over-the-place in the interest of leaving as much time as possible for the action. And some of the action scenes *are* pretty darn cool. Some really fun variations on the ol' Terminators keep things lively, and McG's direction is, if nothing else, pretty kinetic and visceral.
On the flipside, the movie eventually settles into a kind of bland, by-the-numbers mode that makes its middle section inexcusably boring. For a little while, the movie really started to lose my attention. What changed? Well, I have to admit, the much talked-about Ahnold cameo was kickass. As soon as we got a glimpse of the old-school Terminator model, thanks to some amazing digital wizardry, I along with the entire audience perked up and was back into the movie, bigtime. Suffice it to say, from that point on, the movie really began to fire on all cylinders, and delivered an exciting climax. Yes, there is a pretty lame and tacked-on feeling epilogue, but the movie does certainly have its moments. Will I be running to see this one again anytime soon? Probably not. But will I be there for a hopefully-bigger and hopefully-more-epic sequel? Yep, I'll be back.
My Grade: B
- Alright, I'm locked and loaded for a jam-packed weekend. UP ... I can't wait. And Drag Me to Hell ... bring it on, baby. Also, stay tuned for some thoughts on Jay Leno's final episode of The Tonight Show, and the beginning of the CONAN O'BRIEN era! Have a great weekend, everyone.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Read This Blog If You Want to Live! NBA Playoff Report, Gossip Girl Review, and a TERMINATOR Preview
Welcome back, ladies and gentleman, for one last post before the glorious Memorial Day weekend that lies ahead.
One thing that I haven't had a chance to do properly up to now is to give a final salute to this year's Boston Celtics team. Even without Kevin Garnett in the lineup, the C's played with a lot of heart and a lot of toughness, in two thrilling, 7-game series against the Chicago Bulls and the Orlando magic. The Bulls series may well go down as one of the all-time great playoff matchups, and the Orlando series wasn't far behind in terms of close games, stunning finishes, and overall excitement. In the end, the Celtics were hampered by a weakened lineup and also by inconsistency from its star players. Ray Allen and Paul Pierce both had moments of greatness throughout these playoffs, but Boston needed each to show up and play like superstars each and every game. Ray Allen hit big shot after big shot, but he also disappeared for long stretches and had a couple of long-lasting shooting slumps. Similarly, Paul Pierce rarely seemed on his game for long periods of time. Because of this, it often fell to the likes of Eddie House, Stephon Marbury, or Glen "Big Baby" Davis to step up and make big shots. And oftentimes, those guys came up huge. Big Baby's huge game-winning shot, for instance, was an instant-classic moment that was simply awesome. But at the end of the day the stars didn't carry the brunt of the scoring burden like they needed to. Even Rajon Rondo, consistently solid on D, was often all over the place on the offensive end. But like I was saying, there were too many times where a huge shot was taken by a player like Brian Scallebrini or Kendrick Perkins. Those guys are good, but they're not necessarilly big-game, clutch players. Allen and Pierce should have taken over every game in the fouth quarter. Sometimes they did, but sometimes wasn't quite enough.
But this was definitely a season for Boston to be proud of. When I look at the Lakers, and see the egomaniac that is Kobe and the sense of entitlement that Lakers fans have about their team, it makes me proud to root for Boston sports teams like the C's. Boston is all about the scrappy underdog, about Celtic Pride, and about heart. At least during the Showtime 80's, the Lakers had the likable star-power to back up the hype. But the days of Magic, Rambis, Kareem, and Big-Game-James are long gone. All that's left for the Lakers is to be the foil for LeBron and the Cavs. And that's if they even make it past Denver. In any case, it's been a great playoffs so far, and I'm curious to see where things go from here.
TV REVIEWS:
- One last season finale to review, and that's GOSSIP GIRL. Personally, I think the show has lost a lot of momentum in the last couple of months, and a lot of the spark from Season 1 has been somewhat absent in S2. It reminds me a lot of Josh Schwartz's previous teen soap, The OC, which had a very similar set-up and a lot of the same issues with pacing. Just like The OC, Gossip Girl feels like its characters and themes are starting to become a bit watered down from what we were originally presented with. Some examples:
Chuck Bass and Blair: More Evil, Please - A big problem with this season has been trying to make these two characters less horrible and more sympathetic. Both work best when they are at their worst. And both have done too many bad, horrible things at this point for us to really root for them. Blair and Chuck can be a couple, fine ... but take the focus off the whole will-they-or-won't-they thing and just have them be the main "villains" of the show.
Dan is now "The Insider" - they even said as much in the season finale. The character was originally our entrypoint into this crazy world of Upper East Side debauchery, and now he's pretty much living as scandalous a life as any other character on the show. Even Vanessa seems completely entangled with the Chuck-Blair-Nate crowd at this point. We need a new character who provides a "feet on the street" perspective.
Rufus and Lilly: who cares? - at first, these two had a kind of star-crossed romance thing going, but now ... their ongoing romance / not-romance is just tiresome at this point. Lilly's likability factor has really gone downhill of late, and I just don't buy her anymore as this closeted rock n' roll wild-child. She is played as way too snobbish and upper-crust, and it's really hard to see what a guy like Rufus would see in her. The Serena-Dan relationship just became weird when their parents started dating, and so now that whole thing is kind of ruined as well. My advice? Get the Humphreys and Vanderwoodsons as far away from each other as humanly possible.
Too Insular - the main characters graduating is the perfect chance to reestablish that these guys and girls go to large schools and don't exist in a vaccuum. Have them make new friends and date other people - almost every combo of the main characters has now been done, and do we really want to get to the point where Blair and Dan are goin' at it?
Anyways, this finale was kind of par for the course of what we've seen this season. Some good stuff, some nice moments, but ... I was waiting for the show to have a moment or two worthy of its "OMFG" tagline.
My Grade: B
MOVIES:
- So the big news for this weekend is the release of ... Night at the Museum 2.
Just kidding, dude. I'm talkin' TERMINATOR. Terminator: Salvation, to get specific. Now, I can't help but feel a little disappointed, even at this early stage. Because this one has really been up there for me as probably my most anticipated summer blockbuster of '09. I mean, ever since the original flicks gave us brief glimpses of the post-Judgement Day future war, who wasn't salivating at the thought of an entire movie set in this tantalizing, post-apocalyptic warzone. The fact that Christian Bale, one of the best actors working today, was signed up to play the legendary John Connor only sweetened the deal. But the x-factors remained: could McG actually do right by a serious, big-budget action franchise? Could the screenplay, which has notably gone through multiple reworkings, live up to the memorable writing of James Cameron's T2? Early reviews have been harsh, so I'm now just hoping for an enjoyable popcorn movie. In the meantime, it's strange to think that THE SARAH CONNOR CHRONICLES is cancelled, especialyl after the season ended on a huge cliffhanger that directly ties into the wartorn future depicted in the new movie. While the series had its issues, and had a real stretch of mediocre episodes midway through this season, it rebounded at the end and really delivered an exciting string of episodes, which built towards a memorable finale. I think the show, at the least, earned the right to be a definitive part of the Terminator cannon. I'd love to see it get some shout-outs in any upcoming sequels, and it'd be crazy cool to have Summer Glau's Cameron play a role in one of the films. Afterall, in the TV show, she was depicted as being John Connor's right-hand-robot in the future. In any case, check back here soon for a full TERMINATOR review.
Because, as Arnie said ... I'll be back.
One thing that I haven't had a chance to do properly up to now is to give a final salute to this year's Boston Celtics team. Even without Kevin Garnett in the lineup, the C's played with a lot of heart and a lot of toughness, in two thrilling, 7-game series against the Chicago Bulls and the Orlando magic. The Bulls series may well go down as one of the all-time great playoff matchups, and the Orlando series wasn't far behind in terms of close games, stunning finishes, and overall excitement. In the end, the Celtics were hampered by a weakened lineup and also by inconsistency from its star players. Ray Allen and Paul Pierce both had moments of greatness throughout these playoffs, but Boston needed each to show up and play like superstars each and every game. Ray Allen hit big shot after big shot, but he also disappeared for long stretches and had a couple of long-lasting shooting slumps. Similarly, Paul Pierce rarely seemed on his game for long periods of time. Because of this, it often fell to the likes of Eddie House, Stephon Marbury, or Glen "Big Baby" Davis to step up and make big shots. And oftentimes, those guys came up huge. Big Baby's huge game-winning shot, for instance, was an instant-classic moment that was simply awesome. But at the end of the day the stars didn't carry the brunt of the scoring burden like they needed to. Even Rajon Rondo, consistently solid on D, was often all over the place on the offensive end. But like I was saying, there were too many times where a huge shot was taken by a player like Brian Scallebrini or Kendrick Perkins. Those guys are good, but they're not necessarilly big-game, clutch players. Allen and Pierce should have taken over every game in the fouth quarter. Sometimes they did, but sometimes wasn't quite enough.
But this was definitely a season for Boston to be proud of. When I look at the Lakers, and see the egomaniac that is Kobe and the sense of entitlement that Lakers fans have about their team, it makes me proud to root for Boston sports teams like the C's. Boston is all about the scrappy underdog, about Celtic Pride, and about heart. At least during the Showtime 80's, the Lakers had the likable star-power to back up the hype. But the days of Magic, Rambis, Kareem, and Big-Game-James are long gone. All that's left for the Lakers is to be the foil for LeBron and the Cavs. And that's if they even make it past Denver. In any case, it's been a great playoffs so far, and I'm curious to see where things go from here.
TV REVIEWS:
- One last season finale to review, and that's GOSSIP GIRL. Personally, I think the show has lost a lot of momentum in the last couple of months, and a lot of the spark from Season 1 has been somewhat absent in S2. It reminds me a lot of Josh Schwartz's previous teen soap, The OC, which had a very similar set-up and a lot of the same issues with pacing. Just like The OC, Gossip Girl feels like its characters and themes are starting to become a bit watered down from what we were originally presented with. Some examples:
Chuck Bass and Blair: More Evil, Please - A big problem with this season has been trying to make these two characters less horrible and more sympathetic. Both work best when they are at their worst. And both have done too many bad, horrible things at this point for us to really root for them. Blair and Chuck can be a couple, fine ... but take the focus off the whole will-they-or-won't-they thing and just have them be the main "villains" of the show.
Dan is now "The Insider" - they even said as much in the season finale. The character was originally our entrypoint into this crazy world of Upper East Side debauchery, and now he's pretty much living as scandalous a life as any other character on the show. Even Vanessa seems completely entangled with the Chuck-Blair-Nate crowd at this point. We need a new character who provides a "feet on the street" perspective.
Rufus and Lilly: who cares? - at first, these two had a kind of star-crossed romance thing going, but now ... their ongoing romance / not-romance is just tiresome at this point. Lilly's likability factor has really gone downhill of late, and I just don't buy her anymore as this closeted rock n' roll wild-child. She is played as way too snobbish and upper-crust, and it's really hard to see what a guy like Rufus would see in her. The Serena-Dan relationship just became weird when their parents started dating, and so now that whole thing is kind of ruined as well. My advice? Get the Humphreys and Vanderwoodsons as far away from each other as humanly possible.
Too Insular - the main characters graduating is the perfect chance to reestablish that these guys and girls go to large schools and don't exist in a vaccuum. Have them make new friends and date other people - almost every combo of the main characters has now been done, and do we really want to get to the point where Blair and Dan are goin' at it?
Anyways, this finale was kind of par for the course of what we've seen this season. Some good stuff, some nice moments, but ... I was waiting for the show to have a moment or two worthy of its "OMFG" tagline.
My Grade: B
MOVIES:
- So the big news for this weekend is the release of ... Night at the Museum 2.
Just kidding, dude. I'm talkin' TERMINATOR. Terminator: Salvation, to get specific. Now, I can't help but feel a little disappointed, even at this early stage. Because this one has really been up there for me as probably my most anticipated summer blockbuster of '09. I mean, ever since the original flicks gave us brief glimpses of the post-Judgement Day future war, who wasn't salivating at the thought of an entire movie set in this tantalizing, post-apocalyptic warzone. The fact that Christian Bale, one of the best actors working today, was signed up to play the legendary John Connor only sweetened the deal. But the x-factors remained: could McG actually do right by a serious, big-budget action franchise? Could the screenplay, which has notably gone through multiple reworkings, live up to the memorable writing of James Cameron's T2? Early reviews have been harsh, so I'm now just hoping for an enjoyable popcorn movie. In the meantime, it's strange to think that THE SARAH CONNOR CHRONICLES is cancelled, especialyl after the season ended on a huge cliffhanger that directly ties into the wartorn future depicted in the new movie. While the series had its issues, and had a real stretch of mediocre episodes midway through this season, it rebounded at the end and really delivered an exciting string of episodes, which built towards a memorable finale. I think the show, at the least, earned the right to be a definitive part of the Terminator cannon. I'd love to see it get some shout-outs in any upcoming sequels, and it'd be crazy cool to have Summer Glau's Cameron play a role in one of the films. Afterall, in the TV show, she was depicted as being John Connor's right-hand-robot in the future. In any case, check back here soon for a full TERMINATOR review.
Because, as Arnie said ... I'll be back.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
THE SIMPSONS, KOTH, and FAMILY GUY Finales! GLEE Pilot Review! Plus: ANGELS & DEMONS - Reviewed!
It's been a crazy week so far, but luckily, the weekend is almost here. This memorial day weekend will be marked by a Baram brothers reunion here in LA, during which feats of strength will be performed, genetic superiority will be determined, and old rivalries will be settled. Sounds epic, right? In the meantime though, here's some reviews for ya'.
FOX SUNDAY NIGHT FINALES:
THE SIMPSONS Season Finale:
- After a horrendous effort last week, this week's Simpsons season finale was a huge improvement. In fact, I'd say that this episode, about the migration of the residents of Ogdenville to Springfield following the collapse of their farming industry, was a lot of fun. Yep, Ogdenville: made famous in the classic Monorail episode, where Lyle Lanley declared that Ogdenville was one of a handful of neighboring towns that had successfully built a monorail of their own. In any case, even a monorail couldn't help those Oggies this time, and as expected, hilarity ensues when Springfield is hit with an influx of outsiders. At first, the Springfieldians enjoy having the ultra-handy Ogdenvillians around to fix their roofs, clean their kitchens, etc. But soon, tensions mount between the two factions, and a clash of culture breaks out. The Ogdenvillians, with their odd, Norwegian dialect (they even sneeze differently!) are shunned by the Simpsons and the rest of Springfield. All in all, this was a pretty darn good episode. A couple of the jokes really worked well, and the plot was simple, coherant, and told a fun allegory. Sure, the allusions to our country's own issues with immigrants weren't exactly subtle, and yes, The Simpsons has dealt with similar subject matter before. But again, I came away pretty pleased with this one - it was up there with the better eps of this season, which, I'm happy to say has been pretty good overall despite a couple of clunkers.
My Grade: B+
KING OF THE HILL Season Finale:
- Man, what a long, strange trip it's been for King of the Hill. The show was cancelled two seasons ago, then resurrected, then cancelled again, then ABC wanted to pick it up, then they didn't ... and while this is the official "season finale," there are, apparently, still a couple of more episodes in the can, including a proper series-ender. When those last couple of episode will actually air I have no idea, but ... WTF, Fox? It goes to show that this show has always been a utility player in the eyes of the network. It's been jerked around more than any long-running show probably ever. It's aired whole seasons at 7 pm. Even as recently as several weeks ago, FOX benched KOTH so that Sit Down, Shut Up could take over it's traditional 8:30 timeslot. But within weeks, KOTH was back at 8:30 where it belonged. No big surprise there, this is one of the most resillient shows around. It makes me want to forgive the show for having a merely-okay season, because the show has been remarkably consistent throughout its storied TV run. Throughout all of the timeslot changes and near cancellations, Mike Judge and co have simply been going to work and churning out one solid episode after another. Hank Hill would be proud.
As for the finale, it was a solid if unspectacular effort that saw Boomhauer participate in a house-exchange with a Canadian family for the summer. The Canadians move in next door to Hank and at first seem likable enough, despite their differences. Hank even bonds with his new neighbor over a shared love of topline lawn-mowers. But soon enough, Hank realizes what earlier struck Peggy - that the Canadians are passive-aggressively rude and stand-offish, unfriendly, and just plain bad neighbors. The episode was fun, although I do sort of understand the gripe that there've been a lot of eps this season where Hank has come off as annoyingly self-righteous. Still, a decent enough effort from KOTH.
My Grade: B
FAMILY GUY Season Finale:
- This season of FG has been sort of abysmal, and it's at the point now where I am watching out of habit, but rarely go into an episode with any kind of expectations. I guess the problem is that, for the most part, I still really enjoy the *characters*, but the overall humor just seems to fall flat to a greater degree with each passing week. I mean, the show has its moments, but when was the last time that a given episode of FG has been good enough to measure up to the glory days of seasons 1 or 2? That said, this year's season finale was just bad. Like, really, really awful. Hard to sit through, even. The extended flashback episode that reimagined the Griffins as colonial-era settlers landed with a huge thud. The jokes that tried to work on shock value alone bombed. As did pretty much everything else about this episode. Family Guy is in desperate need of a shock to its system, because right now it simply reeks of sucktitude.
My Grade: D
MORE TV Reviews:
GLEE Pilot Review:
- I wasn't quite sure what to expect with Glee. It seemed like it was sort of a blend between the offbeat humor and characters of Arrested Development and the upbeat teen fantasy of High School Musical. Given the inclusion of hilarious cast members like Jane Lynch, and given that it was airing on FOX, known for its subversive comedies, I thought and hoped it would be much more AD than HSM. Turns out, the scales might be slightly leaning in the other direction.
Don't get me wrong, there was a lot to like in this pilot, and there IS a lot of potential for the show going forward. The cast seems excellent top to bottom. Even better, like AD, it looks to be a dense show. Meaning, there are all kinds of potentially interesting and funny minor characters that I'm curious to see more of. Even the primary cast members in this one don't all get a lot of exploration.
And that was definitely part of the problem ... this could change, but right now way too many of the characters seem one-note and cliche. There's the sassy black girl, the effeminate loser, the jock-who-really-just-wants-to-rock, etc. I was hoping that we'd see a deeper dive into some of these would-be stereotypes, but, at least in the pilot, it never really came.
The other reality here is that, let's face it: even though I found a lot to like with GLEE, a couple of minutes into it it was clear that this was a show with a heaping dose of female fantasy-fulfillment. All one had to do was log onto Facebook following the premiere and gaze at the endless status updates from the female population already declaring this show to be a new fave. So yeah, not a criticism of the show, it's just that the main glee-club girl is the kind of characters that girls and women are going to love and root for but that guys are just going to find annoying. Same goes for the idealistic young teacher who guides the glee club. Women are going to love him and hope he ditches his shrewish wife for the school's guidance counsellor, aka his not-so-secret admirer. Guys are going to to quickly tire of his wishy-washyness and hope that he grows a pair. Again, this WAS only a pilot ep, and there is a lot of opportunity for things to change, but ... the only reason I really harp on these things is because I was kind of hoping this might be the second coming of Arrested Development or something, and that's not quite what this was.
But Glee definitely has a lot going for it. The production was great - there was almost a hint of Pushing Daisies-style whimsy in the bright colors and larger-than-life feel. As I said, the cast was clearly pretty awesome. Even if the characters aren't written to perfection right out of the gate, it seems like this cast could likely help to elevate the material. As for the musical numbers? To be honest, I'm not sure what to think, exactly. On one hand they seem tongue-in-cheek, on the other hand, they seem 100% as unironically earnest as anything in a Disney musical. It's funny, because it's hard to see how self-aware comedy and giant non-ironic performances of "Don't Stop Believin" go together. But maybe this show can make it work. I definitely give it a lot of credit for trying something different, and I will definitely be onboard to see how things shape up. All in all, this was in many ways a pretty amazing pilot in the sheer amount of stuff it packed into it. I can't deny that it built up a lot of momentum by the end - if nothing else, I'm curious to see what's next. At the same time, not yet ready to declare it the best thing ever quite yet.
My Grade: B+
- And now, a movie review ...
ANGELS & DEMONS Review:
- I wasn't crazy about the movie version of The Da Vinci Code, and I didn't have huge expectations for its sequel. But, something about the subject matter seemed too intriguing for me to pass up. The fact is, I love stories that examine the intrigue and mysteries behind institutions of religion, and the combination of murder, secret societies, doomsday weapons, and conspiracies in the Catholic Church sounded like a a potentially potent mash-up. Even if The Da Vinci Code turned out to be pretty lifeless, it seemed like a lot of elements were in place to make Angels & Demons an entertaining and intriguing romp.
There's good news and bad news here. The good news is that, overall, this one is a lot more entertaining than its predecessor. Particularly in the movie's second half, things get big and epic enough that you can't help but be sucked in. The bad news is that a lot of the first movie's inherent flaws carry over to this one. There's still a blandness to the movie and its characters that makes the plot less exciting than it should be. And there's still a sense of cheesiness to the plot and dialogue that undermines the serious and urgent tone that the movie is going for.
To start with probably my biggest complaint about this franchise in general - the leading character is pretty dull. Sometimes it's fun to have a somewhat mysterious central character - it allows you to fill in the blanks and use your imagination a bit. But, this is not really one of those cases. The fact is, Tom Hanks plays a pretty bland character in these movies, and it makes the movies a bit bland by osmosis. Hanks does a lot of good things in this one - his sense of timing with dialogue is always sharp, and he is, as always, great at upping the intensity of a given scene when called upon. But, at least as far as the movies go, Dr. Robert Langdon is not exactly up there with the great icons of cinema.
The Hanks issue is funny too, because it's kind of carried over to the rest of the cast. What I mean is, Angels & Demons is overflowing with great actors playing bland characters. In most cases, the actors are able to give their characters a little extra kick, but still, it's crazy how little most of them are really given to work with. Ayelet Zurer, the Israeli actress from Munich, is fine here as a brilliant scientist ... but her character is pretty hollow. There's no real chemistry between her and Hanks, and there's no real reason for her to be tagging along with him throughout the adventure. Armin Mueller-Stahl, so great in Eastern Promises, gives it his all as a sinister-seeming Cardinal ... but his character is ultimately a walking red-herring. In fact, the one area where this movie probably falls short of the original is that The Da Vinci Code had a couple of crazy performances from the likes of Paul Bettany and Ian McKellan. No actor here really shines like those two did last go-round.
The one guy who comes close is Ewan McGregor as a progressive protege of the recently-deceased Pope. At first he kind of looms in the background, but when his character steps into the spotlight in the movie's second half, the film really begins to gain momentum. McGregor's character is, in the end, easily the film's most intriguing. It's kind of strange to see such a great actor in what is still something of a side role, but the truth is that they probably needed someone of his caliber to effectively sell the various twists and turns that the character goes through.
In general, I'd say the movie excels when its focused on being a mystery, on unravelling the layers of intrigue that it sets up. When it tries to be an episode of 24 set in Rome, it struggles. The part of the movie that plays as an against-the-clock wild goose chase often just kind of lost me, with Langdon flying from historic site to historic site with little rhyme or reason. It's a nice tour of Rome, but it felt like Langdon's intellect and knowledge base was up and down given the writer's whims. Given some of the past works of the writers involved (Akiva Goldsman and David Koepp), it should be no surprise that there isn't exactly a lot of subtlety to the script. Every other sentance seems to be a grim proclamation of impending doom, which definitely procues some unintentional giggles. Meanwhile, Ron Howard directs a couple of really cool action scenes and set pieces, but never gives the movie much of a distinctive style or tone.
At the end of the day, this was a movie during which I was able to sit back, relax, and let myself be entertained by, even if there were numerous groan-inducing moments and characters that never truly grabbed me. But I did find a lot of the ideas here fascinating: the Hadron Collider that can produce antimatter (which can then be used as a doomsday-device weapon), the existence of the Illuminati and their centuries-old vendetta against the Church, the inner-workings of the Vatican, etc. Basically, the movie puts just enough meat around these bones to make for a fun night at the movies.
My Grade: B
- That's all for now. Almost ... the weekend ...!
FOX SUNDAY NIGHT FINALES:
THE SIMPSONS Season Finale:
- After a horrendous effort last week, this week's Simpsons season finale was a huge improvement. In fact, I'd say that this episode, about the migration of the residents of Ogdenville to Springfield following the collapse of their farming industry, was a lot of fun. Yep, Ogdenville: made famous in the classic Monorail episode, where Lyle Lanley declared that Ogdenville was one of a handful of neighboring towns that had successfully built a monorail of their own. In any case, even a monorail couldn't help those Oggies this time, and as expected, hilarity ensues when Springfield is hit with an influx of outsiders. At first, the Springfieldians enjoy having the ultra-handy Ogdenvillians around to fix their roofs, clean their kitchens, etc. But soon, tensions mount between the two factions, and a clash of culture breaks out. The Ogdenvillians, with their odd, Norwegian dialect (they even sneeze differently!) are shunned by the Simpsons and the rest of Springfield. All in all, this was a pretty darn good episode. A couple of the jokes really worked well, and the plot was simple, coherant, and told a fun allegory. Sure, the allusions to our country's own issues with immigrants weren't exactly subtle, and yes, The Simpsons has dealt with similar subject matter before. But again, I came away pretty pleased with this one - it was up there with the better eps of this season, which, I'm happy to say has been pretty good overall despite a couple of clunkers.
My Grade: B+
KING OF THE HILL Season Finale:
- Man, what a long, strange trip it's been for King of the Hill. The show was cancelled two seasons ago, then resurrected, then cancelled again, then ABC wanted to pick it up, then they didn't ... and while this is the official "season finale," there are, apparently, still a couple of more episodes in the can, including a proper series-ender. When those last couple of episode will actually air I have no idea, but ... WTF, Fox? It goes to show that this show has always been a utility player in the eyes of the network. It's been jerked around more than any long-running show probably ever. It's aired whole seasons at 7 pm. Even as recently as several weeks ago, FOX benched KOTH so that Sit Down, Shut Up could take over it's traditional 8:30 timeslot. But within weeks, KOTH was back at 8:30 where it belonged. No big surprise there, this is one of the most resillient shows around. It makes me want to forgive the show for having a merely-okay season, because the show has been remarkably consistent throughout its storied TV run. Throughout all of the timeslot changes and near cancellations, Mike Judge and co have simply been going to work and churning out one solid episode after another. Hank Hill would be proud.
As for the finale, it was a solid if unspectacular effort that saw Boomhauer participate in a house-exchange with a Canadian family for the summer. The Canadians move in next door to Hank and at first seem likable enough, despite their differences. Hank even bonds with his new neighbor over a shared love of topline lawn-mowers. But soon enough, Hank realizes what earlier struck Peggy - that the Canadians are passive-aggressively rude and stand-offish, unfriendly, and just plain bad neighbors. The episode was fun, although I do sort of understand the gripe that there've been a lot of eps this season where Hank has come off as annoyingly self-righteous. Still, a decent enough effort from KOTH.
My Grade: B
FAMILY GUY Season Finale:
- This season of FG has been sort of abysmal, and it's at the point now where I am watching out of habit, but rarely go into an episode with any kind of expectations. I guess the problem is that, for the most part, I still really enjoy the *characters*, but the overall humor just seems to fall flat to a greater degree with each passing week. I mean, the show has its moments, but when was the last time that a given episode of FG has been good enough to measure up to the glory days of seasons 1 or 2? That said, this year's season finale was just bad. Like, really, really awful. Hard to sit through, even. The extended flashback episode that reimagined the Griffins as colonial-era settlers landed with a huge thud. The jokes that tried to work on shock value alone bombed. As did pretty much everything else about this episode. Family Guy is in desperate need of a shock to its system, because right now it simply reeks of sucktitude.
My Grade: D
MORE TV Reviews:
GLEE Pilot Review:
- I wasn't quite sure what to expect with Glee. It seemed like it was sort of a blend between the offbeat humor and characters of Arrested Development and the upbeat teen fantasy of High School Musical. Given the inclusion of hilarious cast members like Jane Lynch, and given that it was airing on FOX, known for its subversive comedies, I thought and hoped it would be much more AD than HSM. Turns out, the scales might be slightly leaning in the other direction.
Don't get me wrong, there was a lot to like in this pilot, and there IS a lot of potential for the show going forward. The cast seems excellent top to bottom. Even better, like AD, it looks to be a dense show. Meaning, there are all kinds of potentially interesting and funny minor characters that I'm curious to see more of. Even the primary cast members in this one don't all get a lot of exploration.
And that was definitely part of the problem ... this could change, but right now way too many of the characters seem one-note and cliche. There's the sassy black girl, the effeminate loser, the jock-who-really-just-wants-to-rock, etc. I was hoping that we'd see a deeper dive into some of these would-be stereotypes, but, at least in the pilot, it never really came.
The other reality here is that, let's face it: even though I found a lot to like with GLEE, a couple of minutes into it it was clear that this was a show with a heaping dose of female fantasy-fulfillment. All one had to do was log onto Facebook following the premiere and gaze at the endless status updates from the female population already declaring this show to be a new fave. So yeah, not a criticism of the show, it's just that the main glee-club girl is the kind of characters that girls and women are going to love and root for but that guys are just going to find annoying. Same goes for the idealistic young teacher who guides the glee club. Women are going to love him and hope he ditches his shrewish wife for the school's guidance counsellor, aka his not-so-secret admirer. Guys are going to to quickly tire of his wishy-washyness and hope that he grows a pair. Again, this WAS only a pilot ep, and there is a lot of opportunity for things to change, but ... the only reason I really harp on these things is because I was kind of hoping this might be the second coming of Arrested Development or something, and that's not quite what this was.
But Glee definitely has a lot going for it. The production was great - there was almost a hint of Pushing Daisies-style whimsy in the bright colors and larger-than-life feel. As I said, the cast was clearly pretty awesome. Even if the characters aren't written to perfection right out of the gate, it seems like this cast could likely help to elevate the material. As for the musical numbers? To be honest, I'm not sure what to think, exactly. On one hand they seem tongue-in-cheek, on the other hand, they seem 100% as unironically earnest as anything in a Disney musical. It's funny, because it's hard to see how self-aware comedy and giant non-ironic performances of "Don't Stop Believin" go together. But maybe this show can make it work. I definitely give it a lot of credit for trying something different, and I will definitely be onboard to see how things shape up. All in all, this was in many ways a pretty amazing pilot in the sheer amount of stuff it packed into it. I can't deny that it built up a lot of momentum by the end - if nothing else, I'm curious to see what's next. At the same time, not yet ready to declare it the best thing ever quite yet.
My Grade: B+
- And now, a movie review ...
ANGELS & DEMONS Review:
- I wasn't crazy about the movie version of The Da Vinci Code, and I didn't have huge expectations for its sequel. But, something about the subject matter seemed too intriguing for me to pass up. The fact is, I love stories that examine the intrigue and mysteries behind institutions of religion, and the combination of murder, secret societies, doomsday weapons, and conspiracies in the Catholic Church sounded like a a potentially potent mash-up. Even if The Da Vinci Code turned out to be pretty lifeless, it seemed like a lot of elements were in place to make Angels & Demons an entertaining and intriguing romp.
There's good news and bad news here. The good news is that, overall, this one is a lot more entertaining than its predecessor. Particularly in the movie's second half, things get big and epic enough that you can't help but be sucked in. The bad news is that a lot of the first movie's inherent flaws carry over to this one. There's still a blandness to the movie and its characters that makes the plot less exciting than it should be. And there's still a sense of cheesiness to the plot and dialogue that undermines the serious and urgent tone that the movie is going for.
To start with probably my biggest complaint about this franchise in general - the leading character is pretty dull. Sometimes it's fun to have a somewhat mysterious central character - it allows you to fill in the blanks and use your imagination a bit. But, this is not really one of those cases. The fact is, Tom Hanks plays a pretty bland character in these movies, and it makes the movies a bit bland by osmosis. Hanks does a lot of good things in this one - his sense of timing with dialogue is always sharp, and he is, as always, great at upping the intensity of a given scene when called upon. But, at least as far as the movies go, Dr. Robert Langdon is not exactly up there with the great icons of cinema.
The Hanks issue is funny too, because it's kind of carried over to the rest of the cast. What I mean is, Angels & Demons is overflowing with great actors playing bland characters. In most cases, the actors are able to give their characters a little extra kick, but still, it's crazy how little most of them are really given to work with. Ayelet Zurer, the Israeli actress from Munich, is fine here as a brilliant scientist ... but her character is pretty hollow. There's no real chemistry between her and Hanks, and there's no real reason for her to be tagging along with him throughout the adventure. Armin Mueller-Stahl, so great in Eastern Promises, gives it his all as a sinister-seeming Cardinal ... but his character is ultimately a walking red-herring. In fact, the one area where this movie probably falls short of the original is that The Da Vinci Code had a couple of crazy performances from the likes of Paul Bettany and Ian McKellan. No actor here really shines like those two did last go-round.
The one guy who comes close is Ewan McGregor as a progressive protege of the recently-deceased Pope. At first he kind of looms in the background, but when his character steps into the spotlight in the movie's second half, the film really begins to gain momentum. McGregor's character is, in the end, easily the film's most intriguing. It's kind of strange to see such a great actor in what is still something of a side role, but the truth is that they probably needed someone of his caliber to effectively sell the various twists and turns that the character goes through.
In general, I'd say the movie excels when its focused on being a mystery, on unravelling the layers of intrigue that it sets up. When it tries to be an episode of 24 set in Rome, it struggles. The part of the movie that plays as an against-the-clock wild goose chase often just kind of lost me, with Langdon flying from historic site to historic site with little rhyme or reason. It's a nice tour of Rome, but it felt like Langdon's intellect and knowledge base was up and down given the writer's whims. Given some of the past works of the writers involved (Akiva Goldsman and David Koepp), it should be no surprise that there isn't exactly a lot of subtlety to the script. Every other sentance seems to be a grim proclamation of impending doom, which definitely procues some unintentional giggles. Meanwhile, Ron Howard directs a couple of really cool action scenes and set pieces, but never gives the movie much of a distinctive style or tone.
At the end of the day, this was a movie during which I was able to sit back, relax, and let myself be entertained by, even if there were numerous groan-inducing moments and characters that never truly grabbed me. But I did find a lot of the ideas here fascinating: the Hadron Collider that can produce antimatter (which can then be used as a doomsday-device weapon), the existence of the Illuminati and their centuries-old vendetta against the Church, the inner-workings of the Vatican, etc. Basically, the movie puts just enough meat around these bones to make for a fun night at the movies.
My Grade: B
- That's all for now. Almost ... the weekend ...!
Monday, May 18, 2009
24: The Season 7 Finale - Reviewed! Now With More GRAVITAS.
TWENTY BY-GOD FOUR (24) Season Finale Review:
- Man, I want to be writing this still riding a buzz from an awesome season finale, but the truth is, this latest season of 24 ultimately ended without much of a bang. This episode did a lot of course correction, which was cool, but at the same time, there just wasn't enought momentum to keep the intensity up until the final clock counted down. By the end of Season 7, the show had simply run out of steam.
That's not to say that the finale didn't do a lot of things right. Last week, I was pretty vocal in expressing my disappointment at the been-there, done-that cliffhanger in which Jack is forced to aid Tony and work against the FBI because Tony's people were in a position to harm Kim if Jack didn't cooperate. I figured that that cliffhanger tried (but failed) to go over on shock value alone, and that we'd see that part of the plot wrapped up pretty quickly in the finale. I was happy to see that the show nearly leaped past it altogether. Instead of a tired "Jack-gone-rogue" angle, Kim was warned of the plot against her, and then all broke loose at the airport where she was located as the badguys realized that their jig was up. What ensued was a pretty kickass sequence that saw some great, chaotic action. Not only that, but Elisha Cuthbert actually got a chance to show her inner Bauer and kick some ass. Yep, Kim actually managed to contribute to the good guys' effort rather than impede it - no cougar traps tonight folks. It goes to show - there are no bad characters, only bad storylines. Kim even got to do her daddy proud by uttering a well-timed "dammit!". Not bad, Kim. Not bad at all.
The other key thing that this episode did right was that we finally got an explanation of Tony's motives, and with it the revelation that, as some guessed, the Soul Patch-ed one was really working to further his own interests. Namely, his whole plot was to get deep inside the big conspiracy we've heard so much about, to the point where he could get a one-on-one meeting with its head honcho, played by Will Patton. In the end, Tony was convinced that this guy was not only the head of the current conspiracy that was trying to engineer a bioweapon, but that this same dude was behind the killings of David Palmer and Tony's wife, Michelle Dessler. More on that in a second, but what I'll say for now was that this is, really, the only explanation for Tony's actions that really would have made sense. So, I'm glad they went with it. All around, this was a really strong ep for Tony. Seeing the usually-stoic Mr. Almeida show some real emotion and desperation was pretty intense. They even let Tony get in one final, emphatic "yeah" before all hell broke loose. Dammit all.
What else worked in this ep? Well, like I said, there were some great action scenes. The aforementioned airport scene was really well-done. Also - Jack's last-minute escape from captivity toward's episode end was particularly badass. Since he had the bioweapon-generated disease inside him, Tony's group planned to produce another bioweapon by harvesting Jack's blood. However, Jack showed some vintage Bauer badassery and took out about five guys before a thrilling mano e mano showdown with Tony. Good stuff. It's funny, because I feel like one thing this season lacked was an abundance of classic Jack moments. When you think of this season, the image will likely be Jack cringing in pain or (god forbid) Jack crying like a baby. This season was so concerned about moralizing the whole torture thing that it rarely let us just have fun as Jack whooped ass seven ways to Sunday as only he can.
And that's one thing that annoyed me about this ep - suddenly, the whole torture thing was once again front and center. I mean, who really cares if Renee tortures that Alan Wilson guy or not? To have that be the character's big season-ending exclamation point - that she is going to torture this apparently wickedly evil guy - I just didn't think it was that big of an exclamation point. I just think that putting real-world morality into the fantasy world of 24 has been one of this season's biggest failings. 24 has always subscribed to a comic book mentality, and therefore I can't help but think that the pundits who have tried to draw real-world parallels between the show and real-life politics are idiots. It's annoying that the show had to spend so much of this season dealing with this kind of meta-commentary rather than just telling a good story. It's like if you write too many stories about why Batman doesn't just kill the Joker. You can get one or two good stories out of the question, but dwell on it too much and you just expose the limitations of the fiction. It's the same with 24: Jack was originally written as a violent badass not for political reasons, but because it made for entertaining television. To then try to retroactively insert this whole morality question into the equation is lame in my book. And worst of all, it weakened the character of Renee Walker. A character who could have been a real standout was ultimately reduced to a woman whose main character arc was: "how willing is she to torture a known criminal?" Again, it might make sense from a "real-world" angle, but 24 has never been about playing by the rules of the "real" world, and there was no reason for it to start doing so now.
Another less complex yet equally irritating problem: the President's daughter, Olivia Taylor. The problem with 24 is that its structure is designed to make each storyline as intense and urgent as possible. Olivia's subplot over the last several episodes, on the other hand, has been a total momentum killer. To think that so much of this finale was spent with Olivia and the discovery of her scheme to kill Jonas Hodges ... well, you couldn't help but be annoyed whenever we cut away from Jack, Tony, or Walker to focus in on this neverending Presidential soap opera. Yes, there was a thematic tie to the season's overarching ideas, but, there's no delicate way to say that Olivia was simply a grating character from start to finish in Season 7. If nothing else, her storyline should have been wrapped up as quickly and painlessly as possible. Instead, it dragged and dragged to the bitter end. And to make matters worse, we got a last-minute injection of further family turmoil when the President's husband returned and out of nowhere turned on his wife and blamed her presidency for destroying their family. Um, what? I mean, man, I give Cherry Jones credit for doing a great job with everything she's been given this season, but by the end, you just wanted to be rid of the President, her husband, her daughter, her aides, and the entire 24-verse version of the White House. To add insult to injury, the great AARON f'n PIERCE, who we all want to see kicking ass and taking names, was reduced to being a bit player in all of this melodrama. The "Agent of Awesome" deserved better.
And then there is the whole conspiracy angle. Last week I talked about how 24 has seemingly introduced a new all-encompassing evil conspiracy every season, set the group up as the season's Big Bad, and then unceremoniously forgotten about them. Well, this ep made some kind of half-hearted effort to TIE THEM ALL TOGETHER. Yep, Walt Cummings, Naked Mandy, Graem Bauer, the Blue Tooth Mafia, Charles Logan, that guy from Saw ... all of them were apparently merely stooges to this Alan Wilson character. Okay ... I thought he simply led a group of PMC's looking to undermine the government? I'm sorry, but this came off as half-assed. How many times now has 24 introduced the "real" mastermind behind Palmer's assassination, et al?
The thing that kills me about it too is that this season of 24 had a number of potentially awesome villains who deserved more time in the spotlight. TONY TODD! I mean, come on! Who wouldn't have enjoyed seeing the season build up to a climactic confrontation between him and Jack? And how about Jon Voight as Hodges? It just seems odd that he was ultimately not the main badguy. Sometimes, you get the feeling that 24 gets so hung up on its twists and turns that it ignores the more straightforward but ultimately cooler options for telling a season-long story. It reminds me of last season when Graem Bauer was set up as a potentially classic villain only to be abruptly killed off. Don't worry though, he was apparently working for Alan Wilson the entire time!
Finally, I just kind of felt like the episode ended without much of a bang. I don't mind them going for a quieter sort of ending, but the final scene was just kind of there. We all knew that Kim would ultimately try to undergo the procedure to help save her dad, so I felt we needed some final twist or reveal to really end things with a "wow" moment. Even a little mention of CTU needing to come back, or a scene implying that Tony escaped custody, or ... something! Anything! Instead, what we got was a bit anticlimactic.
In the end, this episode for the most part got the job done, and was workmanlike in that it got us from Point A to Point B pretty much how many might have expected. But, this is 24 we're talking about, dammit. I expect to be shocked and amazed. I expect a killer ending that will send me running to call my friends and share my excitement. I expect an ending that will have me waiting with eager anticipation for next season to arrive. This episode entertained, it had some great action, and it featured a typically-awesome performance from Kiefer Sutherland, who makes you feel every cough, every gasp, every eye-twitch. Thanks to him, there was no shortage of *gravitas* to be found. But did this episode go above and beyond? Was it a game-changer? Did it remind us all why 24 is still the undisputed king of the TV mountain? Nope, it was merely competent. In the end, this was a good, solid season of 24. But next year, I think it can do better.
My Grade: B
- Man, I want to be writing this still riding a buzz from an awesome season finale, but the truth is, this latest season of 24 ultimately ended without much of a bang. This episode did a lot of course correction, which was cool, but at the same time, there just wasn't enought momentum to keep the intensity up until the final clock counted down. By the end of Season 7, the show had simply run out of steam.
That's not to say that the finale didn't do a lot of things right. Last week, I was pretty vocal in expressing my disappointment at the been-there, done-that cliffhanger in which Jack is forced to aid Tony and work against the FBI because Tony's people were in a position to harm Kim if Jack didn't cooperate. I figured that that cliffhanger tried (but failed) to go over on shock value alone, and that we'd see that part of the plot wrapped up pretty quickly in the finale. I was happy to see that the show nearly leaped past it altogether. Instead of a tired "Jack-gone-rogue" angle, Kim was warned of the plot against her, and then all broke loose at the airport where she was located as the badguys realized that their jig was up. What ensued was a pretty kickass sequence that saw some great, chaotic action. Not only that, but Elisha Cuthbert actually got a chance to show her inner Bauer and kick some ass. Yep, Kim actually managed to contribute to the good guys' effort rather than impede it - no cougar traps tonight folks. It goes to show - there are no bad characters, only bad storylines. Kim even got to do her daddy proud by uttering a well-timed "dammit!". Not bad, Kim. Not bad at all.
The other key thing that this episode did right was that we finally got an explanation of Tony's motives, and with it the revelation that, as some guessed, the Soul Patch-ed one was really working to further his own interests. Namely, his whole plot was to get deep inside the big conspiracy we've heard so much about, to the point where he could get a one-on-one meeting with its head honcho, played by Will Patton. In the end, Tony was convinced that this guy was not only the head of the current conspiracy that was trying to engineer a bioweapon, but that this same dude was behind the killings of David Palmer and Tony's wife, Michelle Dessler. More on that in a second, but what I'll say for now was that this is, really, the only explanation for Tony's actions that really would have made sense. So, I'm glad they went with it. All around, this was a really strong ep for Tony. Seeing the usually-stoic Mr. Almeida show some real emotion and desperation was pretty intense. They even let Tony get in one final, emphatic "yeah" before all hell broke loose. Dammit all.
What else worked in this ep? Well, like I said, there were some great action scenes. The aforementioned airport scene was really well-done. Also - Jack's last-minute escape from captivity toward's episode end was particularly badass. Since he had the bioweapon-generated disease inside him, Tony's group planned to produce another bioweapon by harvesting Jack's blood. However, Jack showed some vintage Bauer badassery and took out about five guys before a thrilling mano e mano showdown with Tony. Good stuff. It's funny, because I feel like one thing this season lacked was an abundance of classic Jack moments. When you think of this season, the image will likely be Jack cringing in pain or (god forbid) Jack crying like a baby. This season was so concerned about moralizing the whole torture thing that it rarely let us just have fun as Jack whooped ass seven ways to Sunday as only he can.
And that's one thing that annoyed me about this ep - suddenly, the whole torture thing was once again front and center. I mean, who really cares if Renee tortures that Alan Wilson guy or not? To have that be the character's big season-ending exclamation point - that she is going to torture this apparently wickedly evil guy - I just didn't think it was that big of an exclamation point. I just think that putting real-world morality into the fantasy world of 24 has been one of this season's biggest failings. 24 has always subscribed to a comic book mentality, and therefore I can't help but think that the pundits who have tried to draw real-world parallels between the show and real-life politics are idiots. It's annoying that the show had to spend so much of this season dealing with this kind of meta-commentary rather than just telling a good story. It's like if you write too many stories about why Batman doesn't just kill the Joker. You can get one or two good stories out of the question, but dwell on it too much and you just expose the limitations of the fiction. It's the same with 24: Jack was originally written as a violent badass not for political reasons, but because it made for entertaining television. To then try to retroactively insert this whole morality question into the equation is lame in my book. And worst of all, it weakened the character of Renee Walker. A character who could have been a real standout was ultimately reduced to a woman whose main character arc was: "how willing is she to torture a known criminal?" Again, it might make sense from a "real-world" angle, but 24 has never been about playing by the rules of the "real" world, and there was no reason for it to start doing so now.
Another less complex yet equally irritating problem: the President's daughter, Olivia Taylor. The problem with 24 is that its structure is designed to make each storyline as intense and urgent as possible. Olivia's subplot over the last several episodes, on the other hand, has been a total momentum killer. To think that so much of this finale was spent with Olivia and the discovery of her scheme to kill Jonas Hodges ... well, you couldn't help but be annoyed whenever we cut away from Jack, Tony, or Walker to focus in on this neverending Presidential soap opera. Yes, there was a thematic tie to the season's overarching ideas, but, there's no delicate way to say that Olivia was simply a grating character from start to finish in Season 7. If nothing else, her storyline should have been wrapped up as quickly and painlessly as possible. Instead, it dragged and dragged to the bitter end. And to make matters worse, we got a last-minute injection of further family turmoil when the President's husband returned and out of nowhere turned on his wife and blamed her presidency for destroying their family. Um, what? I mean, man, I give Cherry Jones credit for doing a great job with everything she's been given this season, but by the end, you just wanted to be rid of the President, her husband, her daughter, her aides, and the entire 24-verse version of the White House. To add insult to injury, the great AARON f'n PIERCE, who we all want to see kicking ass and taking names, was reduced to being a bit player in all of this melodrama. The "Agent of Awesome" deserved better.
And then there is the whole conspiracy angle. Last week I talked about how 24 has seemingly introduced a new all-encompassing evil conspiracy every season, set the group up as the season's Big Bad, and then unceremoniously forgotten about them. Well, this ep made some kind of half-hearted effort to TIE THEM ALL TOGETHER. Yep, Walt Cummings, Naked Mandy, Graem Bauer, the Blue Tooth Mafia, Charles Logan, that guy from Saw ... all of them were apparently merely stooges to this Alan Wilson character. Okay ... I thought he simply led a group of PMC's looking to undermine the government? I'm sorry, but this came off as half-assed. How many times now has 24 introduced the "real" mastermind behind Palmer's assassination, et al?
The thing that kills me about it too is that this season of 24 had a number of potentially awesome villains who deserved more time in the spotlight. TONY TODD! I mean, come on! Who wouldn't have enjoyed seeing the season build up to a climactic confrontation between him and Jack? And how about Jon Voight as Hodges? It just seems odd that he was ultimately not the main badguy. Sometimes, you get the feeling that 24 gets so hung up on its twists and turns that it ignores the more straightforward but ultimately cooler options for telling a season-long story. It reminds me of last season when Graem Bauer was set up as a potentially classic villain only to be abruptly killed off. Don't worry though, he was apparently working for Alan Wilson the entire time!
Finally, I just kind of felt like the episode ended without much of a bang. I don't mind them going for a quieter sort of ending, but the final scene was just kind of there. We all knew that Kim would ultimately try to undergo the procedure to help save her dad, so I felt we needed some final twist or reveal to really end things with a "wow" moment. Even a little mention of CTU needing to come back, or a scene implying that Tony escaped custody, or ... something! Anything! Instead, what we got was a bit anticlimactic.
In the end, this episode for the most part got the job done, and was workmanlike in that it got us from Point A to Point B pretty much how many might have expected. But, this is 24 we're talking about, dammit. I expect to be shocked and amazed. I expect a killer ending that will send me running to call my friends and share my excitement. I expect an ending that will have me waiting with eager anticipation for next season to arrive. This episode entertained, it had some great action, and it featured a typically-awesome performance from Kiefer Sutherland, who makes you feel every cough, every gasp, every eye-twitch. Thanks to him, there was no shortage of *gravitas* to be found. But did this episode go above and beyond? Was it a game-changer? Did it remind us all why 24 is still the undisputed king of the TV mountain? Nope, it was merely competent. In the end, this was a good, solid season of 24. But next year, I think it can do better.
My Grade: B
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
