I wonder if Sam Elliot is as uncomfortable delivering the tired one-liners as he appears to be (his strength is droll humor, not punchlines). There is nothing original or creative about this show: the situation is hardly new -- wayward son comes home to a resentful brother and dismissive father and canned laughter ensues. The jokes are stale; if I had time, it would be possible to find them on other shows since they are as old as those heard on any Tyler Perry production. I'd be surprised if there is a second season. This would have been much better if played straight, without the laugh track (and a poor one at that), with the situations creating the humor rather than having it forced by the performers -- more along the lines of a Larry McMurtry creation.
Reviews
5 Reviews
The Spoils of Babylon
(2014)
Amusing in a limited context
18 January 2014
Any fan of the Abraham-Zucker-Zucker send-ups who hated pretentious '70s mini-dramas should find some amusement in "The Spoils of Babylon." There's a ridiculousness to the entire project, including its heavy promotion, that plunges deeply into absurdity. This is parody that produces chuckles rather than guffaws, and the humor is in the details.
Effort was expended to make every scene excessively cheesy, although when sustained at this extreme level can dull the senses. An excellent cast can be commended for executing such ludicrous material in the straight deadpan manner required.
This is a show that doesn't work for those needing their satire to be clever or witty. Instead, TSOB bludgeons the viewer with the preposterous, from the overblown melodramatic dialog to the intentionally fake props and special effects to the blatant references to previous directorial styles.
To best appreciate TSOB, take it at face value and don't expect more than what it is, which is unadulterated spoof without refinement or sophistication.
Effort was expended to make every scene excessively cheesy, although when sustained at this extreme level can dull the senses. An excellent cast can be commended for executing such ludicrous material in the straight deadpan manner required.
This is a show that doesn't work for those needing their satire to be clever or witty. Instead, TSOB bludgeons the viewer with the preposterous, from the overblown melodramatic dialog to the intentionally fake props and special effects to the blatant references to previous directorial styles.
To best appreciate TSOB, take it at face value and don't expect more than what it is, which is unadulterated spoof without refinement or sophistication.
Top Gear
(2002–2022)
Monty Python for Gearheads
28 July 2012
Even with an appreciation for cars, I routinely overlook automotive programming beyond racing due to their dry, technical nature. Recently- discovered Top Gear (UK) shatters the image, with hosts Jeremy Clarkson, Richard Hammond and James May providing narrative styles and tastes which contrast as much as their physical appearance. From their regular features such as their unsparing reviews of the top models (without commercial influence), "Stars in Sensibly Prices Cars" and the "Cool Wall" to their adventures and challenges, the boldness and originality of the endeavors and cheeky humor of the hosts is reminiscent of Python at its absurdist best. Thankfully, BBA America provides ample opportunity to catch up on this under-appreciated show.
For Love of the Game
(1999)
Half of a good movie
21 January 2007
It the movie were truly "For Love of the Game," then it would have dispensed with the love story and focused on the baseball, which is the most compelling element. Hollywood, of course, couldn't do that: the demographic appeal is too narrow.
The romance between Billy Chapel (Kevin Costner) and Jane Aubrey (Kelly Preston) is plausible, and the couple's screen chemistry is good. However, it was in these segments that the movie dragged and, while the paradigm -- celebrity ballplayer meets beauty arts writer uninterested in celebrity -- isn't hackneyed, the trajectory of the relationship is. In addition, while Preston does a solid job, the writing for her character is dreadful -- written with a man's sensibilities and emotionally overblown. For her to have a moral crisis on what is a casually-arranged second date makes little sense; it was though she was making the decision of a lifetime rather than merely getting to know someone.
It is in the baseball, the "crossroads of his career" as brilliantly-utilized TV announcer Vin Scully describes it, that makes the plot most interesting. Flashbacks to his baseball past, as well as with the relationship to Jane, are easy to follow and provide context. Much more should have been done here -- maybe to the glory days of his career as well as to his rehabilitation from a career-threatening injury. The baseball scenes were realistic, except for the voiced self-instruction to "Clear the mechanism" to shut out the crowd (such an announcement was not needed; simply fading the noise would have revealed the focus of a pitcher entering "the zone"), and could have been developed on their own.
Even with the relative drag of the romantic sub-plot, the movie has a nice, moderate pace. The melodrama of all the conflicting pressures on Billy is excessive -- facing the potential end of the line and what that represents to him would have been sufficient -- but this is not a poorly crafted film. Quite possibly it all depends on one's perspective: a baseball fan would want more of that, those in need of romance could probably have done without much of the sports.
This is Costner's third baseball-themed movie, and the overall weakest of the trio -- although credit goes to Costner for not reprising one of his previous characters from "Bull Durham" or "Field of Dreams." If anything, this is closer to "The Bodyguard," although superior in terms of believability, acting and pacing.
The romance between Billy Chapel (Kevin Costner) and Jane Aubrey (Kelly Preston) is plausible, and the couple's screen chemistry is good. However, it was in these segments that the movie dragged and, while the paradigm -- celebrity ballplayer meets beauty arts writer uninterested in celebrity -- isn't hackneyed, the trajectory of the relationship is. In addition, while Preston does a solid job, the writing for her character is dreadful -- written with a man's sensibilities and emotionally overblown. For her to have a moral crisis on what is a casually-arranged second date makes little sense; it was though she was making the decision of a lifetime rather than merely getting to know someone.
It is in the baseball, the "crossroads of his career" as brilliantly-utilized TV announcer Vin Scully describes it, that makes the plot most interesting. Flashbacks to his baseball past, as well as with the relationship to Jane, are easy to follow and provide context. Much more should have been done here -- maybe to the glory days of his career as well as to his rehabilitation from a career-threatening injury. The baseball scenes were realistic, except for the voiced self-instruction to "Clear the mechanism" to shut out the crowd (such an announcement was not needed; simply fading the noise would have revealed the focus of a pitcher entering "the zone"), and could have been developed on their own.
Even with the relative drag of the romantic sub-plot, the movie has a nice, moderate pace. The melodrama of all the conflicting pressures on Billy is excessive -- facing the potential end of the line and what that represents to him would have been sufficient -- but this is not a poorly crafted film. Quite possibly it all depends on one's perspective: a baseball fan would want more of that, those in need of romance could probably have done without much of the sports.
This is Costner's third baseball-themed movie, and the overall weakest of the trio -- although credit goes to Costner for not reprising one of his previous characters from "Bull Durham" or "Field of Dreams." If anything, this is closer to "The Bodyguard," although superior in terms of believability, acting and pacing.
Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip
(2006–2007)
Retread
21 January 2007
If one were to take the characters from Sports Night or West Wing and plop them down in the Hollywood studio of a sketch comedy show, it wouldn't be indistinguishable from what is being presented on Studio 60 on Sunset Strip. Of course, the writing and production team is essentially the same, but would growth or innovation be too much to demand? I'm not suggesting that this is a low-quality program; it's not. Sorkin and Company are too good to do Bad TV. It is, however, tiresome. The differences between the characters are minor. They all speak in the same cadence, with the same language and points of reference. Even intelligent people differ in the way they present themselves, in what they understand and the dialect in which they speak. You won't find any of that in this series, which is only for the dedicated WW fan.
Tell Your Friends