In this Entertainment Weekly article about the upcoming film adaptation of Watchmen, the beautiful news that Hollis Mason's Under the Hood will be produced as a mockumentary companion piece released on DVD at the same time Watchmen hits theatres.
Also, the gross news that director Zack Snyder will also be producing a short film of The Black Freighter comic at the same time as Under the Hood....important to the story, it truly is, and I salute him for including it, but I don't think I'm going to watch that one. It's pretty disgusting.
I'm not greatly looking forward to this film, because I'm not sure what can be added or improved by taking Watchmen out of its source medium (graphic novel), but I am very interested in seeing it. At the very least, it will look stunning.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Oh, groo-VY! Shall I do the whole thing in drag, then?
Sleuth, starring Laurence Olivier and Michale Caine, is a sharp, classic, thoroughly enjoyable cat-and-mouse slice of British absurdism from playwright Anthony Shaeffer. Often when I review a film, I give a synopsis of the story, but I believe that doing that here would significantly diminish the potency of watching this one unfold. It would be like handing someone a wrapped present, and then telling them what's inside.
Suffice it to say that Sleuth is a cultural touchstone. The theme of the tale - the pitfalls of pride and the class system - is hardly unique to the English, but the fashion and manner in which this theme is played out is, I think, truly unique to this people. It is certainly absurdist, and no one does absurdism like the British. After a particularly bad college English class, I thought absurdist theatre and literature was a lot of egotistical crap until I saw Tom Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. I later realized that using absurdism to tell the tales of men's hearts and struggles is perhaps the most common device of the British raconteurs - think of familiar classics, like Gulliver's Travels, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, Peter Pan, or contemporary TV and film like Monty Python, Blackadder, Brazil. But I wonder if it doesn't go deeper than that. In older works, like those of Austen and Dickens, there is a very common sort of absurdism to be found in the everyday interactions between peers and classes, and Dickens is often hailed as being the best representation of life in his time. Could it be that the reason the British do absurdism better than anyone else is because absurdism is, in root, a key part of how they approach life?
As much as I want to say nothing about Sleuth, I know I should warn that it discusses sexual relations quite frankly, and that will make some uncomfortable. Also, you probably shouldn't watch it if you have a fear of mannequins or automatons. But if sex and fake people (I should be very clear here, the two are not related in the film) don't make you squirm too much, Sleuth is a very rewarding way to spend an evening.
Suffice it to say that Sleuth is a cultural touchstone. The theme of the tale - the pitfalls of pride and the class system - is hardly unique to the English, but the fashion and manner in which this theme is played out is, I think, truly unique to this people. It is certainly absurdist, and no one does absurdism like the British. After a particularly bad college English class, I thought absurdist theatre and literature was a lot of egotistical crap until I saw Tom Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. I later realized that using absurdism to tell the tales of men's hearts and struggles is perhaps the most common device of the British raconteurs - think of familiar classics, like Gulliver's Travels, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, Peter Pan, or contemporary TV and film like Monty Python, Blackadder, Brazil. But I wonder if it doesn't go deeper than that. In older works, like those of Austen and Dickens, there is a very common sort of absurdism to be found in the everyday interactions between peers and classes, and Dickens is often hailed as being the best representation of life in his time. Could it be that the reason the British do absurdism better than anyone else is because absurdism is, in root, a key part of how they approach life?
As much as I want to say nothing about Sleuth, I know I should warn that it discusses sexual relations quite frankly, and that will make some uncomfortable. Also, you probably shouldn't watch it if you have a fear of mannequins or automatons. But if sex and fake people (I should be very clear here, the two are not related in the film) don't make you squirm too much, Sleuth is a very rewarding way to spend an evening.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
And now, for something completely different
That's a lot of heavy news for one day. You know who always puts a smile on my face, when he's not busy freaking me out? Christopher Walken, that's who. Enjoy!
Edit: more good news! After consistently being pre-empted and jerked around by CTV to make room for crap like Degrassi: TNG and Grey's Anatomy, Jeopardy! has been picked up/jumped ship to CBC to air in Canada. The CBC will now enjoy the distinction of airing a good show. Wokka wokka wokka!
Edit: more good news! After consistently being pre-empted and jerked around by CTV to make room for crap like Degrassi: TNG and Grey's Anatomy, Jeopardy! has been picked up/jumped ship to CBC to air in Canada. The CBC will now enjoy the distinction of airing a good show. Wokka wokka wokka!
What a day
Today in the news, our foreign affairs minister Maxime Bernier has resigned after it came to light that, a few months ago, he left classified documents in an unsecure location. The documents were allegedly preparations for April's NATO summit; the location, allegedly his controversial girlfriend's house. Well, I say, good on him for not dragging on with protestations of having done nothing wrong - it's good that he recognizes the severity of such an error. I wonder who will fill his shoes...
Also today in the news, Sydney Pollack - who I always confuse with Sidney Lumet - has died of cancer. The director/producer/actor was most recently seen as George Clooney's boss in Michael Clayton, and was responsible for higher-brow fare like the afore-mentioned Clayton, Three Days of the Condor, Searching for Bobby Fischer, The Quiet American (one of my favourites), and Ang Lee's Sense and Sensibility, but also had a flair for fun, especially in his numerous TV appearances. He played Dale's dad on King of the Hill! What a guy. The industry will certainly miss him.
Also today in the news, Sydney Pollack - who I always confuse with Sidney Lumet - has died of cancer. The director/producer/actor was most recently seen as George Clooney's boss in Michael Clayton, and was responsible for higher-brow fare like the afore-mentioned Clayton, Three Days of the Condor, Searching for Bobby Fischer, The Quiet American (one of my favourites), and Ang Lee's Sense and Sensibility, but also had a flair for fun, especially in his numerous TV appearances. He played Dale's dad on King of the Hill! What a guy. The industry will certainly miss him.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Here Be Dragons
A couple of months ago, my dear friend Anna - currently employed at Indigo Books in Montreal- sent me a grand just-because gift. It was a book, His Majesty's Dragon by former game developer Naomi Novik (Neverwinter Nights), and it came with a recommendation by Stephen King on the cover. Hello!
Novik's books - now totaling four, all of which I've read - take the Napoleonic Wars and set them in a world in which dragons exist, and are being used by the British and French as aerial war machines, with gun crews and bombs. It all sounds rather pedestrian, but this story shines due to Novik's full commitment to the popular Western dragon mythology: dragons are sentient. They talk. They are, above all else, hoarders, and selfish. Most importantly, they don't act or think like humans. Our hero dragon, Temeraire, has some just wonderful conversations with his loving and often frustrated crew captain, former naval man Will Laurence, in which Laurence tries to make him understand simple human conventions of morality and spirituality. The interplay between the two is always engaging.
Another intriguing thing she deals with over the course of the story so far is the abolitionist movement in Britain. After Temeraire and Laurence spend a year in China, where dragons are not sent to war and regarded as property but revered and honoured, Temeraire gains a desire to crusade for dragon's rights back home, making a nice parallel to Wilberforce's battle. And, because Novik is a good writer, she doesn't shy away from the role of Christianity in the fight to end slavery. This raises the question of whether dragons have souls, and leads to some hilarious theological discussions between Laurence and Temeraire, which the former eventually gives up because he becomes easily flustered when Temeraire often becomes, in the course of earnest questioning, rather (unintentionally) blasphemous.
Any half-interesting novel about the Napoleonic Wars must have good combat, and the aerial combat is solid, and generally takes up just enough pages at any one time. Combined with Novik's commitment to consistency in her characters - Laurence, for example, is no renaissance man; he has the sensibilities you'd expect of a 19th-century Brit - her books are a solidly entertaining and middling-quick read.
One note of warning: several of the capsule reviews of the books, including Stephen King's, compare them to Patrick O'Brian's Master and Commander works. Though both series are set during the same war, and both series are good, I feel this comparison sets an unfairly high expectation. Patrick O'Brian was an extraordinary writer. Naomi Novik is not extraordinary - she is good. All I'm saying it, if you're familiar with O'Brian, ignore those comparisons, or you will likely be disappointed - because there is no comparison. There are (very) slight echoes of Aubry and Maturin in Temeraire and Laurence's relationship, but that's about it. If you want something hard-core Napoleonic with exceptionally strong dialogue, read O'Brian. If you want something solidly fun, read Novik. Personally, as they're so very different, I suggest reading both.
Another note of warning: Novik has essentially created a story that can run indefinitely, and with book four, that lack of fixed course to run is starting to show - it is markedly weaker than what's come before. I'll let you know if it picks up as soon as book five hits the paperbacks. :) But for now, you should read at least the first two, His Majesty's Dragon and Throne of Jade, which make up one well-played full-arc story.
Novik's books - now totaling four, all of which I've read - take the Napoleonic Wars and set them in a world in which dragons exist, and are being used by the British and French as aerial war machines, with gun crews and bombs. It all sounds rather pedestrian, but this story shines due to Novik's full commitment to the popular Western dragon mythology: dragons are sentient. They talk. They are, above all else, hoarders, and selfish. Most importantly, they don't act or think like humans. Our hero dragon, Temeraire, has some just wonderful conversations with his loving and often frustrated crew captain, former naval man Will Laurence, in which Laurence tries to make him understand simple human conventions of morality and spirituality. The interplay between the two is always engaging.
Another intriguing thing she deals with over the course of the story so far is the abolitionist movement in Britain. After Temeraire and Laurence spend a year in China, where dragons are not sent to war and regarded as property but revered and honoured, Temeraire gains a desire to crusade for dragon's rights back home, making a nice parallel to Wilberforce's battle. And, because Novik is a good writer, she doesn't shy away from the role of Christianity in the fight to end slavery. This raises the question of whether dragons have souls, and leads to some hilarious theological discussions between Laurence and Temeraire, which the former eventually gives up because he becomes easily flustered when Temeraire often becomes, in the course of earnest questioning, rather (unintentionally) blasphemous.
Any half-interesting novel about the Napoleonic Wars must have good combat, and the aerial combat is solid, and generally takes up just enough pages at any one time. Combined with Novik's commitment to consistency in her characters - Laurence, for example, is no renaissance man; he has the sensibilities you'd expect of a 19th-century Brit - her books are a solidly entertaining and middling-quick read.
One note of warning: several of the capsule reviews of the books, including Stephen King's, compare them to Patrick O'Brian's Master and Commander works. Though both series are set during the same war, and both series are good, I feel this comparison sets an unfairly high expectation. Patrick O'Brian was an extraordinary writer. Naomi Novik is not extraordinary - she is good. All I'm saying it, if you're familiar with O'Brian, ignore those comparisons, or you will likely be disappointed - because there is no comparison. There are (very) slight echoes of Aubry and Maturin in Temeraire and Laurence's relationship, but that's about it. If you want something hard-core Napoleonic with exceptionally strong dialogue, read O'Brian. If you want something solidly fun, read Novik. Personally, as they're so very different, I suggest reading both.
Another note of warning: Novik has essentially created a story that can run indefinitely, and with book four, that lack of fixed course to run is starting to show - it is markedly weaker than what's come before. I'll let you know if it picks up as soon as book five hits the paperbacks. :) But for now, you should read at least the first two, His Majesty's Dragon and Throne of Jade, which make up one well-played full-arc story.
Catching Up Some More
Catching Up With The Times part 2: Battlestar Galactica Season 3, episodes 5-7
You go, Ron Moore! You go, David Eick! Episodes 5-7 continue season 3's trend of improved writing and less heavy-handedness with a balanced and frank discussion of the ethics of biological warfare and genocide, GREAT interplay between the skinjobs in all 3 episodes which, really, focus on them, and...all around goodness. I'm thrilled to own this collection - seeing these episodes for the first time is a pleasure, and any show with good subtexts is even better the second time around.
Catching Up With The Times part 3: Star Wars Episode 3: Revenge of the Sith
The saddest part is, what I really wanted to watch last night was John Carpenter's The Thing - tied with Alien as the best sci-fi horror ever made. Plus, I was jonesin' for a little Kurt Russell. Alas, someone else in this town has great taste, because it was rented out. After not finding a suitable substitute (I just didn't feel like watching Alien, and anyways, there's no substitute for Kurt), I went with the "what the hell" option. I've never seen Revenge of the Sith, and it had recently come up in conversation as my father-in-law was also watching it for the first time. And Corey had said it was better than the other two. It must be said that the only reason I watched all of Episode 1 was because I was in the theater, and have never been to make it through all of Episode 2 because it wasn't good enough to be so bad it's good.
Alas, I was, unfortunately, not surprised - though props for re-hiring Ian McDarmid, who played Palpatine in the original trilogy, and the one thing I have appreciated about this new series in Ewan MacGregor's portrayal of Obi-Wan. But aside from that, I would only show this film to someone if I wanted to teach them about the pitfalls of megalomania - and I'm not talking about Palpatine and Anakin.
Almost 30 years, and George Lucas doesn't bother to learn how to write a scene of dialog more than 60 seconds long? Let's not even talk about the pacing of this film; it doesn't deserve the effort. And it wasn't until I got home with the rental that I remembered what awful actors Christensen and Portman are. Then, there's the outright robbing of the audience by making the final fight the only one that makes good use of Jedi skills. Then, there's the absolutely frakked-up decision to make the whole film PG, and then at the end not turn the camera away as Anakin gets his legs burnt off and has his entire body succumb to third-degree burns, which is absolutely not PG.
And then, there's Lucas' continuing belief that "anything you can do, I can do better". What I mean is, the biggest reason I couldn't make it through all of Episode 2 was because of how blatantly he gave the finger to all the writers who had previously been commissioned to build the mythology of the Clone Wars. He continued it in Episode 3 even in little nit-picky things. And what really stuns and pisses me off is that, in the changing of things for the worse, he especially gave the finger to Hugo Award-Timothy Zahn, widely regarded as having written the best Star Wars novels there are (as well as several comics, magazine articles, short stories...). Hugo Award. I.e., the prize given annually to the best writers of science-fiction. And Lucas thinks he can do better? Turns out he was very wrong.
At this year's Oscars, the lifetime achievement award went to a cinematographer in his 90s. And I can't remember his name, but I remember his speech, because he spoke with disappointment about how, these days, filmmakers who have enough money can really do whatever they want on screen - and that lack of restraint has rarely been proven a good thing. Hello, George!
You go, Ron Moore! You go, David Eick! Episodes 5-7 continue season 3's trend of improved writing and less heavy-handedness with a balanced and frank discussion of the ethics of biological warfare and genocide, GREAT interplay between the skinjobs in all 3 episodes which, really, focus on them, and...all around goodness. I'm thrilled to own this collection - seeing these episodes for the first time is a pleasure, and any show with good subtexts is even better the second time around.
Catching Up With The Times part 3: Star Wars Episode 3: Revenge of the Sith
The saddest part is, what I really wanted to watch last night was John Carpenter's The Thing - tied with Alien as the best sci-fi horror ever made. Plus, I was jonesin' for a little Kurt Russell. Alas, someone else in this town has great taste, because it was rented out. After not finding a suitable substitute (I just didn't feel like watching Alien, and anyways, there's no substitute for Kurt), I went with the "what the hell" option. I've never seen Revenge of the Sith, and it had recently come up in conversation as my father-in-law was also watching it for the first time. And Corey had said it was better than the other two. It must be said that the only reason I watched all of Episode 1 was because I was in the theater, and have never been to make it through all of Episode 2 because it wasn't good enough to be so bad it's good.
Alas, I was, unfortunately, not surprised - though props for re-hiring Ian McDarmid, who played Palpatine in the original trilogy, and the one thing I have appreciated about this new series in Ewan MacGregor's portrayal of Obi-Wan. But aside from that, I would only show this film to someone if I wanted to teach them about the pitfalls of megalomania - and I'm not talking about Palpatine and Anakin.
Almost 30 years, and George Lucas doesn't bother to learn how to write a scene of dialog more than 60 seconds long? Let's not even talk about the pacing of this film; it doesn't deserve the effort. And it wasn't until I got home with the rental that I remembered what awful actors Christensen and Portman are. Then, there's the outright robbing of the audience by making the final fight the only one that makes good use of Jedi skills. Then, there's the absolutely frakked-up decision to make the whole film PG, and then at the end not turn the camera away as Anakin gets his legs burnt off and has his entire body succumb to third-degree burns, which is absolutely not PG.
And then, there's Lucas' continuing belief that "anything you can do, I can do better". What I mean is, the biggest reason I couldn't make it through all of Episode 2 was because of how blatantly he gave the finger to all the writers who had previously been commissioned to build the mythology of the Clone Wars. He continued it in Episode 3 even in little nit-picky things. And what really stuns and pisses me off is that, in the changing of things for the worse, he especially gave the finger to Hugo Award-Timothy Zahn, widely regarded as having written the best Star Wars novels there are (as well as several comics, magazine articles, short stories...). Hugo Award. I.e., the prize given annually to the best writers of science-fiction. And Lucas thinks he can do better? Turns out he was very wrong.
At this year's Oscars, the lifetime achievement award went to a cinematographer in his 90s. And I can't remember his name, but I remember his speech, because he spoke with disappointment about how, these days, filmmakers who have enough money can really do whatever they want on screen - and that lack of restraint has rarely been proven a good thing. Hello, George!
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Honk!
So I don't have a lot of lurkers....really, very few indeed....but my blog being a good diversion for Rachel is enough to keep using bandwidth with impunity. To respond to her question, I would love to do freelance journalism, but have no clue where to start breaking into it, especially with no formal training or connections.
To celebrate the honking, and the $20 of disposable income I recently came into contact with, I took myself down to the local HMV and found, in the 2 for $25 section, exactly what I was hoping to find: a copy of Once and Revolver (the Beatles album, not the Guy Ritchie film).
I've already posted a review of Once on my Facebook; in a nutshell, it is the single most satisfying musical I've ever seen. It's the right tone, the right length, has no superfluous scenes, the characters are truly identifiable - and its exploration of love and consequence is - and I never say this lightly - beautiful and pure. How often do you see a film that tells the truth about the nature of love? Even after seeing Iron Man, it's still my favourite film seen this year.
If you've never listened to Revolver, you've really missed out. Compilation discs like the "red" and "blue" albums, Past Masters vols. 1 and 2, and Beatles 1 have good songs, to be sure, but I've never been a fan of one-band compilations, because I don't believe there is anything that compares to the pure sonic pleasure of a well-produced album. And Revolver is extremely well-produced. I'm having a hard time describing it; what can I say? It's a great album, it's happy place music (with the exception of track 2, "Eleanor Rigby"...and yet, even that makes me happy, not because my name is Eleanor but because the song is so freakin' good). I owned it once, long ago, and lost it, and am thrilled to be able to listen to it again. Even if you don't like the Beatles, or perhaps naively think you don't like "oldies" - which is silly, as that encompasses such a wide range of styles; are you sure you don't like any of them? - you should listen to this album, start to finish, just once. It's an experience.
I will surely have reason to post again before then, but if you hold on to your hats for two more weeks, this space will have a review of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - part of my birthday present! Corey asks me if I want a surprise, I say, well, I told you what I want for my birthday so it shouldn't be a surprise, but if it's something I didn't ask for then I don't want to know, and then he says, I took that day off and I'm taking you to the movies. My husband is odd, and I love him very much.
If all goes according to plan, you'll also have a review of what I actually requested for my birthday, the Batman graphic novel The Long Halloween (which I'm more excited for than Indiana Jones, to tell the truth. I guess I've seen a lot of good movies lately, but have been lacking in books).
To celebrate the honking, and the $20 of disposable income I recently came into contact with, I took myself down to the local HMV and found, in the 2 for $25 section, exactly what I was hoping to find: a copy of Once and Revolver (the Beatles album, not the Guy Ritchie film).
I've already posted a review of Once on my Facebook; in a nutshell, it is the single most satisfying musical I've ever seen. It's the right tone, the right length, has no superfluous scenes, the characters are truly identifiable - and its exploration of love and consequence is - and I never say this lightly - beautiful and pure. How often do you see a film that tells the truth about the nature of love? Even after seeing Iron Man, it's still my favourite film seen this year.
If you've never listened to Revolver, you've really missed out. Compilation discs like the "red" and "blue" albums, Past Masters vols. 1 and 2, and Beatles 1 have good songs, to be sure, but I've never been a fan of one-band compilations, because I don't believe there is anything that compares to the pure sonic pleasure of a well-produced album. And Revolver is extremely well-produced. I'm having a hard time describing it; what can I say? It's a great album, it's happy place music (with the exception of track 2, "Eleanor Rigby"...and yet, even that makes me happy, not because my name is Eleanor but because the song is so freakin' good). I owned it once, long ago, and lost it, and am thrilled to be able to listen to it again. Even if you don't like the Beatles, or perhaps naively think you don't like "oldies" - which is silly, as that encompasses such a wide range of styles; are you sure you don't like any of them? - you should listen to this album, start to finish, just once. It's an experience.
I will surely have reason to post again before then, but if you hold on to your hats for two more weeks, this space will have a review of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - part of my birthday present! Corey asks me if I want a surprise, I say, well, I told you what I want for my birthday so it shouldn't be a surprise, but if it's something I didn't ask for then I don't want to know, and then he says, I took that day off and I'm taking you to the movies. My husband is odd, and I love him very much.
If all goes according to plan, you'll also have a review of what I actually requested for my birthday, the Batman graphic novel The Long Halloween (which I'm more excited for than Indiana Jones, to tell the truth. I guess I've seen a lot of good movies lately, but have been lacking in books).
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Honk if you Read This Blog
Does anyone actually read this stuff, or does my adoring public just not leave comments because I'm always right and there's nothing to debate? Seriously, though, I should like to know how many people actually visit the site, and if there's a point in keeping it going. It's fun for me, but I could just keep a plain old paper journal that doesn't take up bandwidth. Which is actually an issue, as the 'net is being severely taxed by VoIP services and could potentially give up the ghost in the next five years (I'm not trying to be alarmist, this is verifiable research), so we need to be conservative here!
Monday, May 19, 2008
We Love Them/We Love Them Not?
Sunday's Toronto Star had a very odd/interesting layout on page A2. The whole page had only two articles - one covering the recent British royal wedding, the other, regarding survival and rescue efforts in China. What caught my attention so strongly was the photos.
The similarity between the two photos - that they're both of people reclining - is in very stark contrast to the conditions under which both sets of people are reclining. What baffles me about this layout is that it appears to be a bizarre condemnation of the royal couple for celebrating a joyous and decadent event while people are suffering in China...but the coverage of the wedding takes up significantly more room on the page than the coverage of the earthquake, and basic journalistic practice assigns importance based on column length. So what the heck are they trying to say here?
I've written to Kathy English, the Star's public editor, asking for her take on the intent behind this layout. I'll post her response if and when I have it. In the meantime, feel free to speculate! We can start a pool or something.
The similarity between the two photos - that they're both of people reclining - is in very stark contrast to the conditions under which both sets of people are reclining. What baffles me about this layout is that it appears to be a bizarre condemnation of the royal couple for celebrating a joyous and decadent event while people are suffering in China...but the coverage of the wedding takes up significantly more room on the page than the coverage of the earthquake, and basic journalistic practice assigns importance based on column length. So what the heck are they trying to say here?
I've written to Kathy English, the Star's public editor, asking for her take on the intent behind this layout. I'll post her response if and when I have it. In the meantime, feel free to speculate! We can start a pool or something.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Just when you though it was safe to go back into the courtroom
I've had some rather disappointing news. It mostly (entirely) revolves around the cancellation of the two year-old James Woods legal drama Shark. I can't help but find it strange that every lawyer show on network TV that is actually interested in justice has a very short life span.
There's really no good reason to shut Shark down. For one thing, the main character is actually interesting. Woods' Sebastian Stark is a long-time criminal defense attorney nicknamed Shark for his well-earned reputation of getting high-profile, extremely unsavoury, and mostly guilty big-time crooks off the hook. As a defense lawyer, he was willing to do literally whatever it took to win his clients case. But that was the old Shark, and the show is about the new. Running off the all too rare foundational belief that people can change, Stark can no longer stomach protecting people who shouldn't be allowed to run free just because the price is right, and now works as a prosecutor with the Los Angeles district attorney's office. He's also realized that he wants a relationship with his teenage daughter, who's mostly been with his ex-wife - so he's given himself a reason to not become embroiled in crime-related situations that could endanger his life. And I was really looking forward to seeing where the show would go with one of the young lawyers on his team who idealizes the man Stark used to be, and is eager to follow in those footsteps in spite of his example and warnings.
Choosing to work within a moral framework hasn't blunted Stark's edge in the courtroom, merely made him more creative. And, as mentioned before, its made him passionate about actual justice, not the legal loophole variety - which is the heart of what makes Shark such good TV. Plus, the character is consistent in his change of lifestyle and philosophy - near the end of this season, it became relevant that twelve years earlier, while working the seedy side of things, Stark had witnessed the dumping of a body and not reported it. When the news became public (don't know how, missed that episode), Stark had a felony on his hands...and did absolutely nothing to try to get away with it. The new Stark wanted to take full responsibility for his mistake, despite the protests of his young team, and that responsibility led to his immediate disbarment in the state of California. What was shocking wasn't that Stark didn't get away with his crime in the end, but that a character in prime time didn't want to get away with it. When he tried flirting with his old ways after his disbarment (remember, it was just for one state), he quickly discovered that he couldn't do it anymore - because he changed! Actual change, the kind temptation can hurt but not destroy.
The writing was good and consistent, as was the acting from all involved, and if I haven't made it clear already, I'm really going to miss this show. It's one I'd actually buy one day.
There's really no good reason to shut Shark down. For one thing, the main character is actually interesting. Woods' Sebastian Stark is a long-time criminal defense attorney nicknamed Shark for his well-earned reputation of getting high-profile, extremely unsavoury, and mostly guilty big-time crooks off the hook. As a defense lawyer, he was willing to do literally whatever it took to win his clients case. But that was the old Shark, and the show is about the new. Running off the all too rare foundational belief that people can change, Stark can no longer stomach protecting people who shouldn't be allowed to run free just because the price is right, and now works as a prosecutor with the Los Angeles district attorney's office. He's also realized that he wants a relationship with his teenage daughter, who's mostly been with his ex-wife - so he's given himself a reason to not become embroiled in crime-related situations that could endanger his life. And I was really looking forward to seeing where the show would go with one of the young lawyers on his team who idealizes the man Stark used to be, and is eager to follow in those footsteps in spite of his example and warnings.
Choosing to work within a moral framework hasn't blunted Stark's edge in the courtroom, merely made him more creative. And, as mentioned before, its made him passionate about actual justice, not the legal loophole variety - which is the heart of what makes Shark such good TV. Plus, the character is consistent in his change of lifestyle and philosophy - near the end of this season, it became relevant that twelve years earlier, while working the seedy side of things, Stark had witnessed the dumping of a body and not reported it. When the news became public (don't know how, missed that episode), Stark had a felony on his hands...and did absolutely nothing to try to get away with it. The new Stark wanted to take full responsibility for his mistake, despite the protests of his young team, and that responsibility led to his immediate disbarment in the state of California. What was shocking wasn't that Stark didn't get away with his crime in the end, but that a character in prime time didn't want to get away with it. When he tried flirting with his old ways after his disbarment (remember, it was just for one state), he quickly discovered that he couldn't do it anymore - because he changed! Actual change, the kind temptation can hurt but not destroy.
The writing was good and consistent, as was the acting from all involved, and if I haven't made it clear already, I'm really going to miss this show. It's one I'd actually buy one day.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
It's just TV....right?
The other day, I caught the last half of an episode of Law & Order: Criminal Intent that actually left me feeling physically sick. This version of L&O deals with psychology rather than graphic forensics, and can be disturbing, but this was just plain irresponsible.
This episode, in a nutshell, featured the detectives and the district attorney's office having absolutely no compassion for, and finding fully responsible for her crime, an older woman suffering from progressive dementia. I'm not trying to say people should get away with murder, but I do think it's irresponsible and sick for such a popular show as L&O to portray people suffering from dementia as being as equally guilty as people who are in full possession and control of their faculties. As well, the detectives who elicited her confession were unnecessarily and extremely cruel in their methods of doing so - something which they often do with suspects not suffering from mental illness or degradation, but which demonstrates a complete lack of understanding on the writers part of how to deal with such a person. The closing words, between the detectives and the DA, confirmed that there was absolutely no compassion for the woman, and that they didn't believe dementia counts as an extenuating circumstance to a crime.
I'm actually getting upset remembering this. I was lucky enough to have a grandmother who did not suffer from dementia in her old age, but I've known others who were not so lucky (such as the grandmother of one of my mom's best friends, who died just a few years ago), and have met people suffering from dementia. It's a serious issue, especially serious because there is such a prevalent lack of understanding and compassion towards sufferers. Various groups are fighting hard to promote understanding of people suffering from mental illnesses such as depression, bipolar disease, and schizophrenia; this is an important step in the right direction but, unfortunately, dementia is not a pet cause of social activists and still carries the full stigma of sick, crazy, and useless, as so aptly demonstrated by L&O.
The episode was in syndication, and aired sometime between 2005-2007 during Chris Noth's run on the show, but that was so recent and I'm so angry I'm actually considering sending mail to the show - something I've never done in regards to a TV program. I've seen plenty of offensive, insulting things in prime time, but maybe the reason this gets my hackles up so much is because people suffering from dementia are so helpless. When a prime time or syndicated show says something offensive about a religious group, which happens almost if not every day, it bothers me, but we can stand up for ourselves, and don't need protection from stigma. Dementia sufferers do. They are some of the most helpless people in society - the elderly already being a group that constantly needs protection from bigotry and predators - , and everyone who participated in that episode of Law & Order should be ashamed of themselves.
Dick Wolf's L&O empire has for many years now descended into a joke of "straight from the headlines" cliches and sensationalism. That's just bad TV; nothing to fuss over. This, on the other hand...while it can and should be forgiven, that doesn't mean it's excusable. He has done society a great wrong in allowing the production of such a vicious and uneducated attack on the helpless.
This episode, in a nutshell, featured the detectives and the district attorney's office having absolutely no compassion for, and finding fully responsible for her crime, an older woman suffering from progressive dementia. I'm not trying to say people should get away with murder, but I do think it's irresponsible and sick for such a popular show as L&O to portray people suffering from dementia as being as equally guilty as people who are in full possession and control of their faculties. As well, the detectives who elicited her confession were unnecessarily and extremely cruel in their methods of doing so - something which they often do with suspects not suffering from mental illness or degradation, but which demonstrates a complete lack of understanding on the writers part of how to deal with such a person. The closing words, between the detectives and the DA, confirmed that there was absolutely no compassion for the woman, and that they didn't believe dementia counts as an extenuating circumstance to a crime.
I'm actually getting upset remembering this. I was lucky enough to have a grandmother who did not suffer from dementia in her old age, but I've known others who were not so lucky (such as the grandmother of one of my mom's best friends, who died just a few years ago), and have met people suffering from dementia. It's a serious issue, especially serious because there is such a prevalent lack of understanding and compassion towards sufferers. Various groups are fighting hard to promote understanding of people suffering from mental illnesses such as depression, bipolar disease, and schizophrenia; this is an important step in the right direction but, unfortunately, dementia is not a pet cause of social activists and still carries the full stigma of sick, crazy, and useless, as so aptly demonstrated by L&O.
The episode was in syndication, and aired sometime between 2005-2007 during Chris Noth's run on the show, but that was so recent and I'm so angry I'm actually considering sending mail to the show - something I've never done in regards to a TV program. I've seen plenty of offensive, insulting things in prime time, but maybe the reason this gets my hackles up so much is because people suffering from dementia are so helpless. When a prime time or syndicated show says something offensive about a religious group, which happens almost if not every day, it bothers me, but we can stand up for ourselves, and don't need protection from stigma. Dementia sufferers do. They are some of the most helpless people in society - the elderly already being a group that constantly needs protection from bigotry and predators - , and everyone who participated in that episode of Law & Order should be ashamed of themselves.
Dick Wolf's L&O empire has for many years now descended into a joke of "straight from the headlines" cliches and sensationalism. That's just bad TV; nothing to fuss over. This, on the other hand...while it can and should be forgiven, that doesn't mean it's excusable. He has done society a great wrong in allowing the production of such a vicious and uneducated attack on the helpless.
Ohhhhhhhhhhh............
So one swell thing EW.com does is, every so often, score an interview with Patrick Stewart. You know, to chat about his current stage project(s), and just talk to him because everyone loves him since he's the classiest man on earth!!!
Anyways....the current interview dishes up the information that, with the Royal Shakespeare Company (I've seen clips...they're awesome...), Stewart is beginning a run of Hamlet as Claudius...opposite David Tennant, who's doing the most amazing job in the history of the show (apologies to Tom Baker) as the current doctor on Doctor Who (and is also, shall we say, quite easy on the eyes). The article didn't specify who Tennant is playing, but I assume its Hamlet because of his age and amazingness and the use of the word "opposite", Claudius being the stepfather and all.
Okay. I'm so excited here I'm actually shaking a bit. Forget that I'll never be able to see it unless there's a video made I can get my hands on...Patrick Stewart. And David Tennant. Possibly the greatest British male actors currently alive. Together. Doing Shakespeare with the RSC. And Stewart, whose obviously read all the plays and acted in most of them, has said before in interviews that Hamlet is his favourite. I'd give up anything but my marriage, family, and faith to see that performance live. Do I sound crazy?
Hold me.
(My husband, I'm sure, has realized that his arch-nemesis the cat is not on that list. The thought of ridding himself of the cat may just be enough to get me to that show....)
(Ha. Well, a girl can dream.)
Side note: Anyone know when CBC is planning to air the final season of Doctor Who's current run, along with the two TV movies that came out between seasons 3 and 4?
Anyways....the current interview dishes up the information that, with the Royal Shakespeare Company (I've seen clips...they're awesome...), Stewart is beginning a run of Hamlet as Claudius...opposite David Tennant, who's doing the most amazing job in the history of the show (apologies to Tom Baker) as the current doctor on Doctor Who (and is also, shall we say, quite easy on the eyes). The article didn't specify who Tennant is playing, but I assume its Hamlet because of his age and amazingness and the use of the word "opposite", Claudius being the stepfather and all.
Okay. I'm so excited here I'm actually shaking a bit. Forget that I'll never be able to see it unless there's a video made I can get my hands on...Patrick Stewart. And David Tennant. Possibly the greatest British male actors currently alive. Together. Doing Shakespeare with the RSC. And Stewart, whose obviously read all the plays and acted in most of them, has said before in interviews that Hamlet is his favourite. I'd give up anything but my marriage, family, and faith to see that performance live. Do I sound crazy?
Hold me.
(My husband, I'm sure, has realized that his arch-nemesis the cat is not on that list. The thought of ridding himself of the cat may just be enough to get me to that show....)
(Ha. Well, a girl can dream.)
Side note: Anyone know when CBC is planning to air the final season of Doctor Who's current run, along with the two TV movies that came out between seasons 3 and 4?
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
The Cannes is Coming! The Cannes is Coming!
Yes, it's that time of year again. That time when all the lucky critics and jet-setters who score tickets to Cannes get advance screenings of the films the rest of us won't see for quite some time. Here's what I'm looking forward to this year, when they eventually hit theaters:
Blindness, directed by Fernando Mereilles (The Constant Gardener)
A sci-fi-ish tale about a plague that leaves the majority of the population blind. An interesting premise, and The Constant Gardener was really good, so I trust the director.
The Changeling, directed by Clint Eastwood
Flags of our Fathers was a colossal, sloppy, emo let-down, but with Clint's resume, one major disappointment is no reason to assume The Changeling will be equally bad. I'd look forward to a film called Sexy Killer Granola Bars From Space if it had his name on it.
Two Lovers, starring Joaquim Phoenix and Gwyneth Paltrow
Joaquim Phoenix is a pretty strong actor, but mostly I trust Paltrow's choice of projects. Not to mention the fact that she is the epitome of the first-rate actor.
Che, directed by Steven Soderbergh
I can't say that I find Che Guavera interesting. But with a resume packed with skill and goodness (The Limey, The Good German, Good Night and Good Luck, Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, Michael Clayton, Solaris - which I didn't like, but it was a great movie), Soderbergh is a director/producer/cinematographer who doesn't screw around (if you don't count Ocean's 12). He makes projects he supports, and he's a fantastic filmmaker, so I'm willing to watch Che for the quality if not the subject matter.
What are you looking forward to that's premiering at Cannes this year?
Blindness, directed by Fernando Mereilles (The Constant Gardener)
A sci-fi-ish tale about a plague that leaves the majority of the population blind. An interesting premise, and The Constant Gardener was really good, so I trust the director.
The Changeling, directed by Clint Eastwood
Flags of our Fathers was a colossal, sloppy, emo let-down, but with Clint's resume, one major disappointment is no reason to assume The Changeling will be equally bad. I'd look forward to a film called Sexy Killer Granola Bars From Space if it had his name on it.
Two Lovers, starring Joaquim Phoenix and Gwyneth Paltrow
Joaquim Phoenix is a pretty strong actor, but mostly I trust Paltrow's choice of projects. Not to mention the fact that she is the epitome of the first-rate actor.
Che, directed by Steven Soderbergh
I can't say that I find Che Guavera interesting. But with a resume packed with skill and goodness (The Limey, The Good German, Good Night and Good Luck, Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, Michael Clayton, Solaris - which I didn't like, but it was a great movie), Soderbergh is a director/producer/cinematographer who doesn't screw around (if you don't count Ocean's 12). He makes projects he supports, and he's a fantastic filmmaker, so I'm willing to watch Che for the quality if not the subject matter.
What are you looking forward to that's premiering at Cannes this year?
Catching up with the times: BSG season 3
*The following post contains spoilers for Battlestar Galactica season 3, but that probably doesn't matter as the entertainment sections of the newspaper have been trumpeting them constantly, and anyways, we're halfway through season 4. But I digress.
When you don't have cable, don't like watching streamed TV, deplore piracy, and are admittedly a bit cheap, watching non-network TV can be a bit of a hassle. So you can imagine my distress over the re-vamped BSG being so pleasantly good. Having successfully completed the stellar first season and the "meh, but it had its moments and picked up at the end" second, I've finally got my mitts on my very own copy of season 3, thanks to a husband who always gets me the best media presents. The potted plants I got for our anniversary last year were, admittedly, awesome - yellow and purple and bushy, and they smelled good too - but, with the heat waves we get in southern Ontario, DVDs will definitely last longer.
So, thanks to a little round of stomach flu, I've polished off the first disc, a.k.a. episodes 1-4. And, for any other poor saps who are so behind on the times, or Logan, who simply didn't watch season 3, I am very pleased to report that Galactica is back on track. It's still struggling with using overdone music to prove and/or muddle points - middle eastern-style tunes during a plot line about suicide bombing? come on! - but the writing is (almost) back to season 1 standards.
What's great so far: the human resistance, as led by Col. Tigh, Chief Tyrol, and Sam Anders. Dark and dirty and well-played, it played an interesting arc making a case for why suicide bombing, if used by a legitimate army, is no different from sending a pilot on a mission from which you know they won't return. Gaius Baltar is always gripping to watch, as he is potentially the most consistent character on the show - every decision he makes is perfectly in keeping with the man we've been shown, and his relationship with Caprica Six is deepening in interest, as is the interplay between the Cylons. I have a feeling that's going to be one of the highlights of the season.
And let's talk about Col. Tigh (Michael Hogan). Thrown in detention, tortured, having his eye ripped out deliberately, Season 4 literally began with the shock of seeing Tigh ruined and looking every inch his age. It also began with the writers throwing us the curveball of showing that his wife, Ellen, actually loved him. This was a shock as they've previously played her up as someone who loved nothing but power, and would do whatever it took to get ahead - almost a female version of Gaius. Whether they had a change of heart, or just found it more convenient to the plot, discovering that what Ellen would really do is anything to benefit her husband was startling. She prostituted herself to get him out of detention, then sold out the resistance to prevent his execution. And Tigh, as was previously spoiled for me in an errant newspaper, held to character and after learning of her treachery, despite her reason for it, very gently murdering her with a narcotic overdose. Like Spock, he could not let the good of the one outweigh the good of the many. Unlike Spock, his grief in killing his wife who had sacrificed herself for love was profound, and will likely shape his actions for the rest of the season. Even though I knew this was coming, seeing it played out at the hands of two stellar actors still made it shocking, disturbing, and nearly left me in tears.
Oh, and Admiral Adama will never let me down. Never. And I really enjoyed Sharon/Boomer's re-commissioning into the navy, and am greatly looking forward to the rest of her story. I think she's been the most consistently interesting character, and her journey of literal self-discovery and attempt to re-integrate herself into human society has been well-played.
The weak points so far: the afore-mentioned hyperbolic music, and the rush writing job regarding Starbuck. In the first episode, we learn she's been in detention for four months, held in an apartment by the Cylon she interrogated and tortured in season 1 and who is now completely infatuated with her. She, of course, has quite ably resisted his advances - until the second episode, when he brings her a child he claims is the product of the ovary removed from her at the breeding farm in season 2, which of course is false (or is it?), and when the child is hurt under her watch, she suddenly fully accepts that it is hers. Okay, I realize that in show time four months is enough time to make this transformation feasible - mental distress, breaking point, quasi-Stockholm syndrome and all that - but in two episodes time, this is a bit quick. Hopefully the rest of the season will see the writers not heaping so much on Starbuck's plate, but with the aftereffect of the child and her incarceration, the fact that the Cylon will presumably continue to hunt her until she declares her undying love for him, the return to Galactica, and the fact that both she and perpetual source of sexual tension Lee Adama will now be serving on the same ship while married to other people thanks to the destruction of the Pegasus, I forsee an overly stuffed and rushed storyline in Starbuck's near future. :(
Huh. That was a long post for four measly episodes. Well, there was a lot to digest in those four episodes! Don't know when I'll finish disc 2, as Corey actually wants to watch this season with me, but I'll post again when I do.
When you don't have cable, don't like watching streamed TV, deplore piracy, and are admittedly a bit cheap, watching non-network TV can be a bit of a hassle. So you can imagine my distress over the re-vamped BSG being so pleasantly good. Having successfully completed the stellar first season and the "meh, but it had its moments and picked up at the end" second, I've finally got my mitts on my very own copy of season 3, thanks to a husband who always gets me the best media presents. The potted plants I got for our anniversary last year were, admittedly, awesome - yellow and purple and bushy, and they smelled good too - but, with the heat waves we get in southern Ontario, DVDs will definitely last longer.
So, thanks to a little round of stomach flu, I've polished off the first disc, a.k.a. episodes 1-4. And, for any other poor saps who are so behind on the times, or Logan, who simply didn't watch season 3, I am very pleased to report that Galactica is back on track. It's still struggling with using overdone music to prove and/or muddle points - middle eastern-style tunes during a plot line about suicide bombing? come on! - but the writing is (almost) back to season 1 standards.
What's great so far: the human resistance, as led by Col. Tigh, Chief Tyrol, and Sam Anders. Dark and dirty and well-played, it played an interesting arc making a case for why suicide bombing, if used by a legitimate army, is no different from sending a pilot on a mission from which you know they won't return. Gaius Baltar is always gripping to watch, as he is potentially the most consistent character on the show - every decision he makes is perfectly in keeping with the man we've been shown, and his relationship with Caprica Six is deepening in interest, as is the interplay between the Cylons. I have a feeling that's going to be one of the highlights of the season.
And let's talk about Col. Tigh (Michael Hogan). Thrown in detention, tortured, having his eye ripped out deliberately, Season 4 literally began with the shock of seeing Tigh ruined and looking every inch his age. It also began with the writers throwing us the curveball of showing that his wife, Ellen, actually loved him. This was a shock as they've previously played her up as someone who loved nothing but power, and would do whatever it took to get ahead - almost a female version of Gaius. Whether they had a change of heart, or just found it more convenient to the plot, discovering that what Ellen would really do is anything to benefit her husband was startling. She prostituted herself to get him out of detention, then sold out the resistance to prevent his execution. And Tigh, as was previously spoiled for me in an errant newspaper, held to character and after learning of her treachery, despite her reason for it, very gently murdering her with a narcotic overdose. Like Spock, he could not let the good of the one outweigh the good of the many. Unlike Spock, his grief in killing his wife who had sacrificed herself for love was profound, and will likely shape his actions for the rest of the season. Even though I knew this was coming, seeing it played out at the hands of two stellar actors still made it shocking, disturbing, and nearly left me in tears.
Oh, and Admiral Adama will never let me down. Never. And I really enjoyed Sharon/Boomer's re-commissioning into the navy, and am greatly looking forward to the rest of her story. I think she's been the most consistently interesting character, and her journey of literal self-discovery and attempt to re-integrate herself into human society has been well-played.
The weak points so far: the afore-mentioned hyperbolic music, and the rush writing job regarding Starbuck. In the first episode, we learn she's been in detention for four months, held in an apartment by the Cylon she interrogated and tortured in season 1 and who is now completely infatuated with her. She, of course, has quite ably resisted his advances - until the second episode, when he brings her a child he claims is the product of the ovary removed from her at the breeding farm in season 2, which of course is false (or is it?), and when the child is hurt under her watch, she suddenly fully accepts that it is hers. Okay, I realize that in show time four months is enough time to make this transformation feasible - mental distress, breaking point, quasi-Stockholm syndrome and all that - but in two episodes time, this is a bit quick. Hopefully the rest of the season will see the writers not heaping so much on Starbuck's plate, but with the aftereffect of the child and her incarceration, the fact that the Cylon will presumably continue to hunt her until she declares her undying love for him, the return to Galactica, and the fact that both she and perpetual source of sexual tension Lee Adama will now be serving on the same ship while married to other people thanks to the destruction of the Pegasus, I forsee an overly stuffed and rushed storyline in Starbuck's near future. :(
Huh. That was a long post for four measly episodes. Well, there was a lot to digest in those four episodes! Don't know when I'll finish disc 2, as Corey actually wants to watch this season with me, but I'll post again when I do.
Friday, May 9, 2008
We Have a Winner?
Variety reports that Universal Studios has inked a deal with Take-Two to produce a film version of BioShock.
I know, video game movies are nothing to get excited about...but with director Gore Verbinski (Pirates of the Caribbean) and writer John Logan (Gladiator, Star Trek: Nemesis, The Time Machine, The Last Samurai, The Aviator) behind it, could this be the first game movie that doesn't suck? Verbinski sort of lost me after the first Pirates film, but everything I've seen that's penned by John Logan has stood out for being really well-written.
At least someone finally recognized that good video games deserve the dignity of not being adapted by Uwe Boll.
I know, video game movies are nothing to get excited about...but with director Gore Verbinski (Pirates of the Caribbean) and writer John Logan (Gladiator, Star Trek: Nemesis, The Time Machine, The Last Samurai, The Aviator) behind it, could this be the first game movie that doesn't suck? Verbinski sort of lost me after the first Pirates film, but everything I've seen that's penned by John Logan has stood out for being really well-written.
At least someone finally recognized that good video games deserve the dignity of not being adapted by Uwe Boll.
My Own Private War
It's a rare luxury for us to see a movie currently in theaters - this is the first one I've reviewed since starting this blog. With how much movies cost in Oakville/Mississauga, we have to choose wisely. We did!
Iron Man is the first excellent film I've seen in recent memory that didn't also require hours of afterthought keeping me up all night. Yeah, it's a drama, but it bucks the current trend of dramas being really deep thinkers not by being shallow or dumb, but by being a pleasantly straightforward tale. Oddly enough, it's also the only film made so far about the current U.S./Middle East military action that moviegoers have actually bought tickets for.
Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is the face of corporate America: born to a brilliant father who worked on the Manhattan project and went on to found his own company focusing on weapons development, Tony grew from a child prodigy to a fully suitable replacement for his father. Stark is both a scientific and economic genius, perfectly suited for his role in life. He's also an ass - not in the "I'm so good at everything so I can do whatever" way, but in the normal, asinine people you meet every day kind of way; and, of course, he's also a womanizer (because we all know every asinine man also treats women poorly). For those of you who watch House, Tony Stark is what House would be if the latter didn't pride himself on being a fool. Intelligence and wisdom are not the same thing, and the presence of one does not guarantee the presence of the other. Tony, however, is the complete package - smart, wise (in many areas), filthy rich, and willfully ignorant of any negative repercussions to his company's arms production...until, after traveling to Kandahar to give a missile demonstration to U.S. troops, his convoy is ambushed by rebels and Tony is almost killed by a Stark Industries rocket. Dum dum duuuuum!
The rest of the story is straightforward, and I'm sure most of you know it. The rebels force Stark to build them the missile he was in Afghanistan demonstrating; instead, over the course of three months, he builds a suit of armour, escapes, and is eventually picked up by U.S. choppers in the middle of the desert. Upon landing in the U.S., Tony immediately blindsides his father's (and now his) right-hand man Obadiah Stane (Jeff Bridges) by calling a press conference to announce that Stark Industries will no longer be manufacturing weapons - he's finally realized how easily the arms he makes to protect U.S. troops can fall into the hands of their enemies and be used against them. Cue his removal from the board of directors, who file an injunction claiming post-traumatic stress, which is fine with Tony because it gives him time to refine his suit of armour (in some brilliantly hilarious nods to YouTube) and use it to go kill rebels and blow up any of his weapons that have fallen into their hands. Despite the many parallels between Tony Stark and Bruce Wayne, this film doesn't spend time debating moral quandries, but cuts right to Stark's inevitable betrayal by a trusted friend. Things are wrapped up neatly in the end, but with the introduction of S.H.I.E.L.D. and the naming of Iron Man the next film is well on its way.
The only complaint I have with this film is that I felt it could have easily been longer, and no one would have noticed the time. But that's what we call good marketing, as it leaves everyone wanting more. The casting is just brilliant, and it was especially nice seeing the core cast formed of three great actors, two of which haven't been seen in quite some time - Downey Jr., who's spent the last while getting his health back on track, and Gwyneth Paltrow as Stark's longtime personal assistant and only true friend Pepper Potts, who we haven't seen on screen since her stunning role in Proof as she's taken the last three years off to be with her young family. The interplay between Tony and Pepper is delightfully authentic in both writing and acting, and the scene where, having no one else to count on, Tony asks Pepper to help replace the electromagnet keeping his heart beating, is as odd and yucky as it is intimate and sweet.
Other notable pleasures of Iron Man include the comic relief of a robotic arm in Stark's workshop that doesn't quite work properly and is saved from the terrible fate of cuteness by the fact that he treats is like the machine it is, Stan Lee's funniest cameo to date, and the fantastic sound editing courtesy of Skywalker Sound. This is a big deal for me, because I can't remember the last time I saw an action movie in which I could make out every word of dialogue. Not even Batman Begins fully succeeded there. And did I mention that the casting is perfect? Really, I'm not being hyperbolic; it's so great to see Robert Downey Jr. in a leading role again, because he's fabulous. And we'll see him again this summer, in the upcoming 'Nam movie-making satire Tropic Thunder, in which he plays a method actor who undergoes plastic surgery to play an African-American role.
Wait a minute, you say. I thought I heard that Samuel L. Jackson was in Iron Man as S.H.I.E.L.D. director Nick Fury! But he wasn't in the movie/why haven't you mentioned him in the review?! Well, Nick Fury is technically in Iron Man....but only if you respect the filmmakers enough to watch the credits. And you should, because the crew of this film was excellent, and anyways, Marvel films always have great credits.
Iron Man is well worth the cost of admission. It's a rare treat these days to see an enjoyable, entertaining, straightforward action drama.
Iron Man is the first excellent film I've seen in recent memory that didn't also require hours of afterthought keeping me up all night. Yeah, it's a drama, but it bucks the current trend of dramas being really deep thinkers not by being shallow or dumb, but by being a pleasantly straightforward tale. Oddly enough, it's also the only film made so far about the current U.S./Middle East military action that moviegoers have actually bought tickets for.
Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is the face of corporate America: born to a brilliant father who worked on the Manhattan project and went on to found his own company focusing on weapons development, Tony grew from a child prodigy to a fully suitable replacement for his father. Stark is both a scientific and economic genius, perfectly suited for his role in life. He's also an ass - not in the "I'm so good at everything so I can do whatever" way, but in the normal, asinine people you meet every day kind of way; and, of course, he's also a womanizer (because we all know every asinine man also treats women poorly). For those of you who watch House, Tony Stark is what House would be if the latter didn't pride himself on being a fool. Intelligence and wisdom are not the same thing, and the presence of one does not guarantee the presence of the other. Tony, however, is the complete package - smart, wise (in many areas), filthy rich, and willfully ignorant of any negative repercussions to his company's arms production...until, after traveling to Kandahar to give a missile demonstration to U.S. troops, his convoy is ambushed by rebels and Tony is almost killed by a Stark Industries rocket. Dum dum duuuuum!
The rest of the story is straightforward, and I'm sure most of you know it. The rebels force Stark to build them the missile he was in Afghanistan demonstrating; instead, over the course of three months, he builds a suit of armour, escapes, and is eventually picked up by U.S. choppers in the middle of the desert. Upon landing in the U.S., Tony immediately blindsides his father's (and now his) right-hand man Obadiah Stane (Jeff Bridges) by calling a press conference to announce that Stark Industries will no longer be manufacturing weapons - he's finally realized how easily the arms he makes to protect U.S. troops can fall into the hands of their enemies and be used against them. Cue his removal from the board of directors, who file an injunction claiming post-traumatic stress, which is fine with Tony because it gives him time to refine his suit of armour (in some brilliantly hilarious nods to YouTube) and use it to go kill rebels and blow up any of his weapons that have fallen into their hands. Despite the many parallels between Tony Stark and Bruce Wayne, this film doesn't spend time debating moral quandries, but cuts right to Stark's inevitable betrayal by a trusted friend. Things are wrapped up neatly in the end, but with the introduction of S.H.I.E.L.D. and the naming of Iron Man the next film is well on its way.
The only complaint I have with this film is that I felt it could have easily been longer, and no one would have noticed the time. But that's what we call good marketing, as it leaves everyone wanting more. The casting is just brilliant, and it was especially nice seeing the core cast formed of three great actors, two of which haven't been seen in quite some time - Downey Jr., who's spent the last while getting his health back on track, and Gwyneth Paltrow as Stark's longtime personal assistant and only true friend Pepper Potts, who we haven't seen on screen since her stunning role in Proof as she's taken the last three years off to be with her young family. The interplay between Tony and Pepper is delightfully authentic in both writing and acting, and the scene where, having no one else to count on, Tony asks Pepper to help replace the electromagnet keeping his heart beating, is as odd and yucky as it is intimate and sweet.
Other notable pleasures of Iron Man include the comic relief of a robotic arm in Stark's workshop that doesn't quite work properly and is saved from the terrible fate of cuteness by the fact that he treats is like the machine it is, Stan Lee's funniest cameo to date, and the fantastic sound editing courtesy of Skywalker Sound. This is a big deal for me, because I can't remember the last time I saw an action movie in which I could make out every word of dialogue. Not even Batman Begins fully succeeded there. And did I mention that the casting is perfect? Really, I'm not being hyperbolic; it's so great to see Robert Downey Jr. in a leading role again, because he's fabulous. And we'll see him again this summer, in the upcoming 'Nam movie-making satire Tropic Thunder, in which he plays a method actor who undergoes plastic surgery to play an African-American role.
Wait a minute, you say. I thought I heard that Samuel L. Jackson was in Iron Man as S.H.I.E.L.D. director Nick Fury! But he wasn't in the movie/why haven't you mentioned him in the review?! Well, Nick Fury is technically in Iron Man....but only if you respect the filmmakers enough to watch the credits. And you should, because the crew of this film was excellent, and anyways, Marvel films always have great credits.
Iron Man is well worth the cost of admission. It's a rare treat these days to see an enjoyable, entertaining, straightforward action drama.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Livin' the High Life
This week, Tuesday specifically, marks our second wedding anniversary, so you can all breathe a sigh of relief as there will be no rampant blogging during this time.
'Cuz Corey's taking the whole week off, so you know what that means. Splurging on dinner and a movie! (Iron Man, here we come!!!) Going to the recently refurbished Royal Ontario Museum! And, of course, taking some advice from our good friends Flight of the Concords...
:D
'Cuz Corey's taking the whole week off, so you know what that means. Splurging on dinner and a movie! (Iron Man, here we come!!!) Going to the recently refurbished Royal Ontario Museum! And, of course, taking some advice from our good friends Flight of the Concords...
:D
Friday, May 2, 2008
All's Fair in Life and War
PBS finished their run last night of a documentary series called Carrier, about the crew of an air craft carrier based in the Persian Gulf in 2006. It was extremely interesting, and worth watching out for a repeat airing.
What really caught my attention about it, though, was that PBS was airing a documentary that featured lots of moderate views - moderate, logical Christians; soldiers who recognized that making the decisions on when and why to go to war isn't for them, who, to quote Robert A. Heinlein, recognized that "the purpose of war is to support your government's decisions by force". Yes, there were soldiers interviewed who were critical about their motives for being in the Gulf at that time, and soldiers who were atheists, but there were also plenty who were just plain career soldiers, the kind the media doesn't like to talk about these days, and plenty of Christians soldiers who were well-spoken and quite sane.
Don't get me wrong, I like PBS - they bring me things like America's Test Kitchen and Masterpiece Theatre - but they're not exactly known for airing non-fiction programs that aren't focused on extreme leftist views. Especially not where things like religion and war are concerned. I mean, have you ever seen an episode of Nova?
So kudos to the documentarian/interviewer for a skillful, well-balanced recording of military life in all its complexity, and to PBS for actually airing it. If Carrier has a repeat airing, I recommend setting your DVRs for this excellent and interesting program.
What really caught my attention about it, though, was that PBS was airing a documentary that featured lots of moderate views - moderate, logical Christians; soldiers who recognized that making the decisions on when and why to go to war isn't for them, who, to quote Robert A. Heinlein, recognized that "the purpose of war is to support your government's decisions by force". Yes, there were soldiers interviewed who were critical about their motives for being in the Gulf at that time, and soldiers who were atheists, but there were also plenty who were just plain career soldiers, the kind the media doesn't like to talk about these days, and plenty of Christians soldiers who were well-spoken and quite sane.
Don't get me wrong, I like PBS - they bring me things like America's Test Kitchen and Masterpiece Theatre - but they're not exactly known for airing non-fiction programs that aren't focused on extreme leftist views. Especially not where things like religion and war are concerned. I mean, have you ever seen an episode of Nova?
So kudos to the documentarian/interviewer for a skillful, well-balanced recording of military life in all its complexity, and to PBS for actually airing it. If Carrier has a repeat airing, I recommend setting your DVRs for this excellent and interesting program.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Emo Scooter Lawsuit Madness! (Now with 20% more stubble)
Imagine this: you have a drama starring Academy Award nominee Don Cheadle, and....Adam Sandler. The same Don Cheadle who's received multiple (and deserved) accolades for such diverse roles as a flamboyant cockney techie in Ocean's Eleven, Sammy Davis Jr. (The Rat Pack), an author writing a book on teenage felons (The United States of Leland), anarchic radio host Petey Green (Talk To Me), and Rwanda's real-life equivalent of Oskar Schindler in Hotel Rwanda.
Now imagine that this film would have been much better if Don Cheadle weren't in it.
Now stop asking if I've lost my mind, and understand that it wasn't Don Cheadle's fault.
Reign Over Me is a story of mourning and avoidance that features Adam Sandler as Charlie Fineman, a dentist whose life was shattered when his wife and three daughters were killed in one of the planes that struck the World Trade Center. Four years later, Charlie has cut himself off from the world and is refusing to face his loss, living off his significant government compensation as he immerses himself in music, video games, Chinese food, and manically re-modeling his kitchen every trimester. He is so complete in his refusal to engage the outside world that he typically only ventures outside long after dark, pretends not to know old friends or remember any aspect of his life before September 11, and won't even watch TV as it is unpredictable and may ask him to remember something he doesn't wish to.
He comes out of his shell when his old roommate Dr. Allan Johnson (Cheadle) recognizes him on the street. Johnson is aware of Charlie's loss, but never knew his family, so Charlie feels safe around him because he can be confident that Johnson will never mention them.
Charlie's story is the meatiest, most interesting plot of the film. I say that because there are actually four: Charlie's mourning, Johnson's mangled relationship with his narcissistic, cruel wife, Johnson's lawsuit involving a deranged divorcee who repeatedly propositions him for oral sex, and Charlie's healing process and relationship with his former in-laws. This movie is a bad case of don't-know-how-to-tell-a-straight-story syndrome. The subplot involving Johnson's wife is a useless melodrama that shows him married to a woman who tells him what he likes and what's best for him, and resents all attempts on his part to partake in an activity that she hasn't thought up - so, obviously, Johnson's renewed friendship and care for Charlie provokes her to jealousy that he is spending time out from under her thumb. The writer deals with this complex and painful issue by having Johnson accuse her of jealousy, and her accuse Johnson of envying Charlie's freedom to do whatever he wants...and that's it. We never see whether or not there is any basis to these accusations, and the relationship is resolved by Johnson apologizing to his wife for not being communicative enough with her, and her accepting his apology...so that he can come home and be abused some more? What the ****? Is Hitch the only popular contemporary film in which a man actually confronts a woman for being at fault, and the woman actually sees that she is at fault and they have a realistic reconciliation? What's up with the Hollywood obsession with the woman never being wrong?
Then there's the deranged divorcee, desperate to give Johnson oral sex in the office, who accuses him of sexual abuse when he refuses. When Charlie sees her, he can't stop talking about how she's the most beautiful, wonderful woman he's ever met. We find out roughly an hour later, in a blink-and-you'll-miss-it flashback, that she bears a passing resemblance to his dead wife. Then, Johnson and Charlie's psychiatrist Angela (in what is otherwise a surprisingly good turn from Liv Tyler and the most positive portrayal of psychiatrists since Good Will Hunting) encourage and enable Charlie to let this woman into his life. This wounded, deranged, completely unstable woman. This is supposed to be good for him how? This plotline completely contradicts all prior character developments for Johnson and Angela in relation to how they help Charlie heal. It's also moronic.
Then there are the just plain stupid random emo elements, like slowing down the frame rate as Charlie catches his first glimpse of Ground Zero, and my personal favourite, showing Johnson at the end, after apologizing to his wife over the phone, driving off home on Charlie's scooter - the same scooter used earlier as a key symbol of Charlie's emotional regression, woundedness, and refusal to move forward with his life. I say again: WHAT THE ****?
Adam Sandler proved himself excellent at drama in his other portrayal of a severely emotionally wounded man in Punch-Drunk Love. Combined with the mostly good writing and acting for Liv Tyler's psychiatrist character, focusing this story entirely on Charlie could have made an very strong, compelling film. But it just doesn't seem that the writer had the skill to pull it together, so instead he branched out to more melodramatic plots in a desperate attempt to give his work more meaning. Or something like that. This guy needs to go back to school. Where's Andre Harden when you need him?
So......very........not good............
Like professional critics, I watch movies so you don't have to.
Now imagine that this film would have been much better if Don Cheadle weren't in it.
Now stop asking if I've lost my mind, and understand that it wasn't Don Cheadle's fault.
Reign Over Me is a story of mourning and avoidance that features Adam Sandler as Charlie Fineman, a dentist whose life was shattered when his wife and three daughters were killed in one of the planes that struck the World Trade Center. Four years later, Charlie has cut himself off from the world and is refusing to face his loss, living off his significant government compensation as he immerses himself in music, video games, Chinese food, and manically re-modeling his kitchen every trimester. He is so complete in his refusal to engage the outside world that he typically only ventures outside long after dark, pretends not to know old friends or remember any aspect of his life before September 11, and won't even watch TV as it is unpredictable and may ask him to remember something he doesn't wish to.
He comes out of his shell when his old roommate Dr. Allan Johnson (Cheadle) recognizes him on the street. Johnson is aware of Charlie's loss, but never knew his family, so Charlie feels safe around him because he can be confident that Johnson will never mention them.
Charlie's story is the meatiest, most interesting plot of the film. I say that because there are actually four: Charlie's mourning, Johnson's mangled relationship with his narcissistic, cruel wife, Johnson's lawsuit involving a deranged divorcee who repeatedly propositions him for oral sex, and Charlie's healing process and relationship with his former in-laws. This movie is a bad case of don't-know-how-to-tell-a-straight-story syndrome. The subplot involving Johnson's wife is a useless melodrama that shows him married to a woman who tells him what he likes and what's best for him, and resents all attempts on his part to partake in an activity that she hasn't thought up - so, obviously, Johnson's renewed friendship and care for Charlie provokes her to jealousy that he is spending time out from under her thumb. The writer deals with this complex and painful issue by having Johnson accuse her of jealousy, and her accuse Johnson of envying Charlie's freedom to do whatever he wants...and that's it. We never see whether or not there is any basis to these accusations, and the relationship is resolved by Johnson apologizing to his wife for not being communicative enough with her, and her accepting his apology...so that he can come home and be abused some more? What the ****? Is Hitch the only popular contemporary film in which a man actually confronts a woman for being at fault, and the woman actually sees that she is at fault and they have a realistic reconciliation? What's up with the Hollywood obsession with the woman never being wrong?
Then there's the deranged divorcee, desperate to give Johnson oral sex in the office, who accuses him of sexual abuse when he refuses. When Charlie sees her, he can't stop talking about how she's the most beautiful, wonderful woman he's ever met. We find out roughly an hour later, in a blink-and-you'll-miss-it flashback, that she bears a passing resemblance to his dead wife. Then, Johnson and Charlie's psychiatrist Angela (in what is otherwise a surprisingly good turn from Liv Tyler and the most positive portrayal of psychiatrists since Good Will Hunting) encourage and enable Charlie to let this woman into his life. This wounded, deranged, completely unstable woman. This is supposed to be good for him how? This plotline completely contradicts all prior character developments for Johnson and Angela in relation to how they help Charlie heal. It's also moronic.
Then there are the just plain stupid random emo elements, like slowing down the frame rate as Charlie catches his first glimpse of Ground Zero, and my personal favourite, showing Johnson at the end, after apologizing to his wife over the phone, driving off home on Charlie's scooter - the same scooter used earlier as a key symbol of Charlie's emotional regression, woundedness, and refusal to move forward with his life. I say again: WHAT THE ****?
Adam Sandler proved himself excellent at drama in his other portrayal of a severely emotionally wounded man in Punch-Drunk Love. Combined with the mostly good writing and acting for Liv Tyler's psychiatrist character, focusing this story entirely on Charlie could have made an very strong, compelling film. But it just doesn't seem that the writer had the skill to pull it together, so instead he branched out to more melodramatic plots in a desperate attempt to give his work more meaning. Or something like that. This guy needs to go back to school. Where's Andre Harden when you need him?
So......very........not good............
Like professional critics, I watch movies so you don't have to.
Love Is Blind
Happy May Day, everyone. The month starts with an absolutely ridiculous quote from perennial D-Lister Kathy Griffin, in the news today for (allegedly) having been offered a guest spot on Hannah Montana, and the (allegedly) having had the offer removed for having (actually) said something extremely blasphemous about Jesus at last year's Creative Arts Emmys.
The ridiculous quote is in regards to her winning, before having had her invitation for Hannah Montana rescinded, an Outstanding Reality Series award from GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) for her very gay-friendly show, My Life on the D-List. She expressed her pleasure by comparing gays to Christians (presumably notable Christian and Hannah Montana Dad Billy Ray Cyrus) with the following quote: :"The gays love me for the same reason I love them: Nothing offends them!"
Nothing offends gays? How about everyone who considers homosexuality to be morally unacceptable? Or everyone who thinks that marriage should be for a man and a woman? Or everyone who maintains that having two mommies or two daddies instead of one of each isn't an ideal healthy family? Or the scientists and researchers who dare refute the theory of homosexuality being biological or genetic? Or any poor sap who makes the mistake of saying something publicly that could be interpreted as anti-gay? Or how about Saskatchewan MP Tom Likuwski, who I blogged about it April, when scores of gays rose up to call for his resignation after a 16 year-old video surfaced of him saying something offensive about gays while drunk?
And what about that favourite word, the absolutely ridiculous term "homophobia" - literally, fear of homogeneity? People who say anything not in step with gays are branded with it; the only reason they don't like gays must be because they're afraid of them, threatened by them! Such a ludicrous word; so frequently inaccurate.
I would imagine that many gays would disagree with the statement that "nothing offends gays". A very vocal and powerful lobby and culture has been built around offense and lack of forgiveness.
Nothing offends gays? Are you sure about that, Kathy?
The ridiculous quote is in regards to her winning, before having had her invitation for Hannah Montana rescinded, an Outstanding Reality Series award from GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) for her very gay-friendly show, My Life on the D-List. She expressed her pleasure by comparing gays to Christians (presumably notable Christian and Hannah Montana Dad Billy Ray Cyrus) with the following quote: :"The gays love me for the same reason I love them: Nothing offends them!"
Nothing offends gays? How about everyone who considers homosexuality to be morally unacceptable? Or everyone who thinks that marriage should be for a man and a woman? Or everyone who maintains that having two mommies or two daddies instead of one of each isn't an ideal healthy family? Or the scientists and researchers who dare refute the theory of homosexuality being biological or genetic? Or any poor sap who makes the mistake of saying something publicly that could be interpreted as anti-gay? Or how about Saskatchewan MP Tom Likuwski, who I blogged about it April, when scores of gays rose up to call for his resignation after a 16 year-old video surfaced of him saying something offensive about gays while drunk?
And what about that favourite word, the absolutely ridiculous term "homophobia" - literally, fear of homogeneity? People who say anything not in step with gays are branded with it; the only reason they don't like gays must be because they're afraid of them, threatened by them! Such a ludicrous word; so frequently inaccurate.
I would imagine that many gays would disagree with the statement that "nothing offends gays". A very vocal and powerful lobby and culture has been built around offense and lack of forgiveness.
Nothing offends gays? Are you sure about that, Kathy?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)