So I thought I would talk about what I watched this week. Maybe these Friday articles about TV will be a weekly event; we'll see I suppose.
So this week was largely reruns of my favorite shows so I don't have an overwhelming amount of material. It started off Monday night with Chuck. This was the first episode I caught of this season unfortunately, but I didn't feel too lost. The same quick wit and superb action kept me glued to the screen just as the previous season had. The new "upgraded" Chuck was a little cheesy for me (they made so that he can look at a weapon and get instant proficiency in using it), but it might have been necessary to advance the plot line. The show still rocks though, and the excellent writing/acting combo will bring me back next week.
The only other new episodes I caught this week was American Idol. I don't know about anyone else, but this season feels really shallow to me thus far. The gimmick of having a new guest star got old extremely quickly (bring on Ellen already!), and the constant feuding within the judges panel (such as Kara vs Katie Perry or Simon vs Neil Patrick Harris) is not interesting in the least. I feel like the talent is playing second fiddle this year, and bad singers and angry judges is not why I watch this show. When the highlight thus far is a song tittled "Pants on the Ground" sung by an old black man, you know the show has jumped the shark. Not sure if I'll be watching this season; we'll have to see how much better Ellen makes it.
I thought I should also mention this weeks episode of The Office, despite it being a rerun. It centered around Michael Scott (Steve Carell) being invited to New York to attend a shareholders meeting for an ailing Dunder Mifflin. Little does he know that the shareholders are livid at the upper management, and he is only there to show that there is a small spark of life still in the company.
I feel like this episode shines a light on the character of Michael and gives insight into his moral fiber. His intense optimism is inspiring and it is in the forefront in this episode. When a congressman says "Who is this moron [Michael]?" in the hospitality sweet, Michael replies (and I'm paraphrasing), "My branch is the only one to make money and you're in a hole. So you're the moron." It's this type of disdain for authority and honesty in speech that makes the character of Michael Scott so appealing to the viewers. The Office is my favorite show and I hope it continues to stay true to itself.
Well, that's all for TV this week. Not a bad week overall.
-Joe
Friday, January 29, 2010
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Legion
I can describe "Legion" in one word: bad.
The story describes a time when God becomes angry at his creation yet again. This time, however, he has decided to send all the angels of heaven rather than a flood. For unknown reasons, the last hope for humanity lies with an unborn child who must be protected by a gang of misfits in the middle of the desert. They are assisted by the archangel Michael (Paul Bettany), who has disobeyed his orders from God.
The story was an interesting concept, but the execution was very poor. The writing was terrible, leaving plot holes miles wide and constantly overloading on cheesy dialogue. The viewers constantly find themselves knowing exactly what was coming, as the deaths of the characters were easy to forsee. The acting was atrocious, with the sole exception of Bettany. He feels largely out of place in this movie, outclassing all the other actors immensely. He plays his role of Michael with the perfect mix of calm and emotion. The action scenes (which were few in number) were surprisingly well done; not stellar, but better than the rest of this jumble of a movie. 1/5 stars
The story describes a time when God becomes angry at his creation yet again. This time, however, he has decided to send all the angels of heaven rather than a flood. For unknown reasons, the last hope for humanity lies with an unborn child who must be protected by a gang of misfits in the middle of the desert. They are assisted by the archangel Michael (Paul Bettany), who has disobeyed his orders from God.
The story was an interesting concept, but the execution was very poor. The writing was terrible, leaving plot holes miles wide and constantly overloading on cheesy dialogue. The viewers constantly find themselves knowing exactly what was coming, as the deaths of the characters were easy to forsee. The acting was atrocious, with the sole exception of Bettany. He feels largely out of place in this movie, outclassing all the other actors immensely. He plays his role of Michael with the perfect mix of calm and emotion. The action scenes (which were few in number) were surprisingly well done; not stellar, but better than the rest of this jumble of a movie. 1/5 stars
Thursday, January 21, 2010
The Lovely Bones
Here's a review fom my buddy Bob Dalton:
"In order to experience fully the cinematic work that is The Lovely Bones, one must shed any preconceived notions that other movies of the drama/thriller genre might have left after the credits have rolled. Early in the film Suzie Salmon (Saoirse Ronan) is murdered by an exceedingly creepy neighbor (Stanley Tucci) and we learn that after death one must travel to heaven. Susie however is in “the in-between”, a metaphysically inspired world of artistic beauty and filmmaking genius. Peter Jackson’s interpretation of this world alone is worth the price of admission. Susie’s parents (Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weiz) are also major players in this movie as Jackson shows how Susie’s murder strains their relationship. Susie’s father is determined to find her killer whereas her mother doesn’t want to think about what has occurred. I did not read the book, but I understand that many purists are upset that Peter Jackson deviated from the “canon” so to speak. I submit that this film should be viewed in the perspective of the director, as it was intended, instead of comparing it to the book ad nauseam. It is true there are some deviations, but I could not envision this artistic experience any different. The characters are all sufficiently developed, apart from the mom, who leaves the family only to return at the end of the film. Susie’s murderer is meant to epitomize evil in the film, so is character is not as developed as the others. He is simply “a very bad man” and we learn a little about his past, but only that he has murdered more than once. This seems to fit, as the focus of the movie is Susie in her new world and her individual family members coping with her loss in whatever way they know how. The Lovely Bones is not for everyone. The movie is so emotionally powerful. The simple insinuation of this little girl being brutally murdered is powerful. Peter Jackson so seamlessly integrates music with the action on screen, heightening the emotional sense. It’s not for everyone, but there is a light at the end of the tunnel. The movie has an interesting, albeit, happy ending. Those moviegoers who go to the movies for tangible action on screen and the logical development of a formula-oriented plot will not get the most of this film. These pre conceived notions as previously alluded to, will inhibit the moviegoer from watching the Lovely Bones as an artistic experience. Those that can stand the somewhat slow-moving and farfetched plot will be treated to a surreal experience that tugs on the heartstrings. Think not, “what will happen next?”, but appreciate each individual moment as a work of art. This is not to say that only the very artistic can appreciate this movie. It is an emotional drama that has enough effects to keep the casual viewer entertained. All in all, I loved the Lovely Bones, but the genre is not for everyone. This movie is the very best of what a drama/thriller has to offer, but don’t expect any big explosions or fight scenes. And I’ll leave it at that. 4/5 stars"
"In order to experience fully the cinematic work that is The Lovely Bones, one must shed any preconceived notions that other movies of the drama/thriller genre might have left after the credits have rolled. Early in the film Suzie Salmon (Saoirse Ronan) is murdered by an exceedingly creepy neighbor (Stanley Tucci) and we learn that after death one must travel to heaven. Susie however is in “the in-between”, a metaphysically inspired world of artistic beauty and filmmaking genius. Peter Jackson’s interpretation of this world alone is worth the price of admission. Susie’s parents (Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weiz) are also major players in this movie as Jackson shows how Susie’s murder strains their relationship. Susie’s father is determined to find her killer whereas her mother doesn’t want to think about what has occurred. I did not read the book, but I understand that many purists are upset that Peter Jackson deviated from the “canon” so to speak. I submit that this film should be viewed in the perspective of the director, as it was intended, instead of comparing it to the book ad nauseam. It is true there are some deviations, but I could not envision this artistic experience any different. The characters are all sufficiently developed, apart from the mom, who leaves the family only to return at the end of the film. Susie’s murderer is meant to epitomize evil in the film, so is character is not as developed as the others. He is simply “a very bad man” and we learn a little about his past, but only that he has murdered more than once. This seems to fit, as the focus of the movie is Susie in her new world and her individual family members coping with her loss in whatever way they know how. The Lovely Bones is not for everyone. The movie is so emotionally powerful. The simple insinuation of this little girl being brutally murdered is powerful. Peter Jackson so seamlessly integrates music with the action on screen, heightening the emotional sense. It’s not for everyone, but there is a light at the end of the tunnel. The movie has an interesting, albeit, happy ending. Those moviegoers who go to the movies for tangible action on screen and the logical development of a formula-oriented plot will not get the most of this film. These pre conceived notions as previously alluded to, will inhibit the moviegoer from watching the Lovely Bones as an artistic experience. Those that can stand the somewhat slow-moving and farfetched plot will be treated to a surreal experience that tugs on the heartstrings. Think not, “what will happen next?”, but appreciate each individual moment as a work of art. This is not to say that only the very artistic can appreciate this movie. It is an emotional drama that has enough effects to keep the casual viewer entertained. All in all, I loved the Lovely Bones, but the genre is not for everyone. This movie is the very best of what a drama/thriller has to offer, but don’t expect any big explosions or fight scenes. And I’ll leave it at that. 4/5 stars"
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Book of Eli
So I figured I'd start off with the most recent movie I've seen, "The Book of Eli":
The story follows Eli (Denzael Washington), humanity's last hope in a post apocalyptic world 30 years in the future. Eli has the last King James bible and is on a mission to transport it to an unknown destination in the west. He runs into some trouble along the way, including the antagonist, Carnegie (Gary Oldman), who seeks to use the bible to become a dictator. Eli also picks up a companion along the way, played by Mila Kunis.
Despite fantastic performances from Washington and Oldman, this poorly written post apocalyptic action flick falls flat somewhere along the way. Washington plays his role flawlessly, although the character does feel one-dimensional at times. Oldman is one of the saving graces of "Eli", playing an increasingly insane villain who is over-the-top in the pursuit of power. His acting is believable and surprisingly powerful. Kunis feels largely out of place in the drab desert landscape, and her high-pitched speech tends to disrupt the overall mood of the movie.
The plot had several weak spots, including the ridiculous plot twist at the end. Not to give anything away, I'll just say that it was incredibly unbelievable and definitely unnecessary. I also found myself questioning why a man of god was so violent. "Kill unto others", maybe? Killing a bar full of people doesn't seem very Christian-like (although they did attack first - just saying). This is why it was so hard to figure out which side this movie was taking: is Christianity just a means of control and a cause of war or is it the saving grace of humanity? I wish the movie would have given us a little more philosophically to wrap our heads around in that regard.
It wasn't a complete disaster, but this inundation of apocalypse movies is getting a little old. Despite its fallacies, the performances of Washington and Oldman in addition to the well done action sequences make "Eli" watchable if there's no better alternative. Just don't expect too much from it. 2/5 stars
The story follows Eli (Denzael Washington), humanity's last hope in a post apocalyptic world 30 years in the future. Eli has the last King James bible and is on a mission to transport it to an unknown destination in the west. He runs into some trouble along the way, including the antagonist, Carnegie (Gary Oldman), who seeks to use the bible to become a dictator. Eli also picks up a companion along the way, played by Mila Kunis.
Despite fantastic performances from Washington and Oldman, this poorly written post apocalyptic action flick falls flat somewhere along the way. Washington plays his role flawlessly, although the character does feel one-dimensional at times. Oldman is one of the saving graces of "Eli", playing an increasingly insane villain who is over-the-top in the pursuit of power. His acting is believable and surprisingly powerful. Kunis feels largely out of place in the drab desert landscape, and her high-pitched speech tends to disrupt the overall mood of the movie.
The plot had several weak spots, including the ridiculous plot twist at the end. Not to give anything away, I'll just say that it was incredibly unbelievable and definitely unnecessary. I also found myself questioning why a man of god was so violent. "Kill unto others", maybe? Killing a bar full of people doesn't seem very Christian-like (although they did attack first - just saying). This is why it was so hard to figure out which side this movie was taking: is Christianity just a means of control and a cause of war or is it the saving grace of humanity? I wish the movie would have given us a little more philosophically to wrap our heads around in that regard.
It wasn't a complete disaster, but this inundation of apocalypse movies is getting a little old. Despite its fallacies, the performances of Washington and Oldman in addition to the well done action sequences make "Eli" watchable if there's no better alternative. Just don't expect too much from it. 2/5 stars
New blog!
Hey everyone, welcome to my new blog! Here, I'll be reviewing new movies, old movies, tv shows, or basically whatever I happen to watch. I'll have guest writers from time to time as well. Hope everyone enjoys my writing, even if they happen to disagree with me. Thanks for visiting!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)