Change Your Image
korgaard59
Reviews
Grimm (2011)
Time will tell.
This thing has started out well enough. The hero is attractive, has a dark mission he does not yet completely understand, and seems to be well on his way to collecting a quirky cadre of sidekicks to help him with his calling.... Hey, does Joss Whedon know that someone has ripped off the first seasons of "BTVS" and "Angel"? Even if he does know, he probably is not overly concerned because he must also be aware of the potential traps inherent in approaching an horror series from such a direction. The problem is formula.
Both Buffy and Angel started with similar "beast of the week" formats that involved our protagonists' struggles in discovering and combating the numerous creepies inhabiting their dramatic universe. Whedon did this in fine style, mixing action and scariness with tongue usually held at least semi-firmly in cheek. A few seasons into it, however, fatigue seems to have set in. The beasts begin to exhaust themselves. Enter the over-arching storyline. Now critics LOVE these continuing story lines, seeing them as a way to add more dramatic depth to both story and characters through a series' run. While this can certainly happen, it can also allow writers to ease up on plot development, substituting with repetitive and usually meaningless character clashes. This is not only traditional, but also works quite well in daytime soaps, where nobody really expects or even wants much to happen plot-wise before the traditional big wedding at the end of the season. In a sci-fi/horror/fantasy series, however, it can be a dramatic disaster. Even "BTVS", which I believe can lay claim to some of the best writing ever done for television, faltered due to an over reliance upon continuing story lines. Promised apocalypses fell flat because writers failed to add enough real dramatic content to the story lines which promised them as their climax.
The challenge for "Grimm", then, will be to provide something that at least FEELS fresh. "Beast of the week". "Angel", "BTVS", and the short-lived "Special Unit 2" have already done that very well. Long story arch? It's been done and presents certain writing traps. Time will tell.
Hawthorne (2009)
Just take it out and shoot it!
I hear that the show has been canceled, and while it is sad that the fine (albeit underused) talents of James Morrison and Anne Ramsey will have to go looking for other work, I could not be happier. It's not just that the whole "health care professional who cares too much" theme is so tired and sick that it vomits self-satisfied dust. It's not that Jada (Whoever) Smith is an actress without the ability to even talk herself into a speeding ticket. It's not even that costar Marc Anthony exudes all of the machismo of a crack-addicted, syphilitic squirrel. The fundamental problem with this show is that although it tried to sell itself as a medical drama, it was in reality simply a comeback vehicle for (Whoever) Smith. Successful medical dramas are almost always the result of well thought out writing and ensemble acting. "House", for example, also has the main character's name as the title, but nonetheless employs a cast of well-developed ensemble players. Ensemble playing was apparently not considered appropriate for "Whoever" Smith's comeback vehicle, so the story line turned away from medical themes and devolved into a not very well done cesspool of soap operatic rape, rage, angst, and infidelity story lines. Better off dead!
Witchcraft VI (1994)
Flesh is the object of art.
So why 10 out of 10? Mainly to counteract the "Academy". The Academy believes that no film which does not deal directly with some left-wing (gay anything!) societal issue, have a completely depressing ending, or at the very least involve unattractive actors mumbling philosophical nonsense to each other in Swedish or French has any right to be seen. Not so! Klaus Kinski in Herzog's "Aguirre, the Wrath of God" is tedious enough to make me want to peel off my own flesh. Stephanie Swinney in "Witchcraft 6", on the other hand, leads me to believe that some flesh just needs to be appreciated. It should be remembered that in its beginnings cinema never aspired to the status of art. It was entertainment pure and simple. That some film has indeed achieved the status of art is both inarguable and laudable, but it would be unwise to denigrate that which aims to merely titillate or entertain.
Detour (2003)
What next?
I think that most of the reviews given for this film are spot on, given that (by the creator's own admission) it is basically a rip-off of the "Hills Have Eyes" franchise. The producers are unapologetic about this (as they should be) because their film works every bit as well (and in most cases better) than almost any other film in this genre niche. What bothers me is that none of the fine young actors involved in this project appear to have moved on to bigger and better projects. This is unfortunate, as this film's cast (in particular Ashley Reed) should have produced at least one Kevin Bacon ("Friday the 13th") or Jamie Lee Curtis ("Halloween").
Battlestar Galactica (2004)
Give me more giant snakes.
I am the Sci-Fi channel's dream viewer in that I will watch pretty much anything that they can chum the waters with - and we ARE talking about some programming with more in common with fermented fish guts than with anything that could reasonably be called drama. But I still watch. During the week, throughout the day, it's the same 10-11 episodes of the same 5-8 canceled TV series, over and over again - FOR YEARS! (I believe that I have seen enough "Tru Calling" to recite the dialog along with the actors, the same way we used to at midnight showings of "Rocky Horror.) During the week, prime time, we get maybe one new episode of a current show, ramped up to by old episodes of the same show. Then comes the weekend. Cobras, boas, anacondas, copperheads, (Apparently snakes are easy to do CGI.) giant rapacious sharks, carnivorous locusts, dragons, cursed angels...all paraded past us in indifferently written, cheaply produced fashion. But I still watch, and for the most part, enjoy. I enjoy because I think that most of us who started watching televised science fiction (When there were really only three channels, when the creatures were usually enlarged garden denizens, large bug-like sculptures, or just some guy wearing something that looked like one of your auntie's failed quilting projects, and when any sci-fi tended to be broadcast long after our parents had been safely tucked into bed and Johnny Carson had signed off.) learned early on that a little artistic honesty and a sense of humor are far more important than overly dramatic posturing to any show's success as entertainment. Most of Skiffy's creature-feature programs are undeniably bad science fiction, and not worth a second look or thought, but succeed nonetheless as entertainment, which is something that they share with undeniably good science fiction like "Babylon 5". What they also share with "Babylon 5" is that they are all better than "Battlestar Galactica".
When I heard that they were "re-imagining" "Battlestar Galactica", I was giddy with the anticipation. The original show had been one of my favorites, but I have always felt that it never achieved its full potential. The premise was an excellent combination of the Biblical Exodus with a holocaust allegory and there was access to some good post "Star Wars" special effects, along with the potential for some good story lines as the rag tag fleet made its way to Earth, kicking some Cylon butt along the way. In the end, while the premise remained solid, the story lines faltered and became a bit campy (space angels?), and a limited effects budget gave us the same shot of the Cylon fighters doing their trademarked twist and dive maneuver over and over again. The show was canceled, which was bad enough for its scifi-starved fans, but to add insult to injury, was followed up with the abysmal "Galactica 1980" which retained none of the original vision, but the worst of the campiness.
I watched the obligatory "making of" promo for the new series and was very impressed. I didn't really see the need for trans-gendering the Boomer and Starbuck characters, but what the frack? After all, we're "re-imagining" here, aren't we? Then came the miniseries and I took heart. Same great premise as the original with better special effects. So the characters are unnecessarily dark, most of the dialog is delivered at a mumble, and the camera work looks like it's being done by the guy who DIDN"T get the "Blair Witch Project" job. "Re-imagining", right? Then came the series. What a hulking, pretentious, brooding load of festering felgercarb! I went through all of the stages of dying before the third season ended, lingering a little longer at "anger" and "denial" than I think I will when the time actually does come. "Re-imagining", my ass! The only thing that has been re-imagined here is what might go into making a decent science fiction show.
1. If you are only going to produce a limited number of episodes per season, with wide time gaps between those seasons, you might "re-imagine" something actually happening during the course of those episodes. The main story line moves way too slowly, and there are only just so many times that Starbuck can get drunk and beat up Col. Tigh in order to distract from the fact that nothing much has changed in the story line.
2. "Re-imagine" that at least one of your characters is likable. Yes, it's true that characters with flaws tend to be more interesting, but that does not mean that your characters should consist only of their flaws. There should be at least one character that the average viewer might want to invite over to dinner or share a beer with. As it stands, the only one of these people I would even allow in my house would be #6, and then only because I am intrigued by that glowy thing she does with her spine during intercourse.
3. "Re-imagine" that it's OK for your villains to be just that. Indeed, it would be refreshing to see ANY show do that for a change. The "Oh Gosh, they're really just like us, after all!" approach to villain building is today just as trite as were the baby-eating Nazis of the 40's and 50's. Make them as complicated as you want, but keep the venom, and by the Lords of Kobol, make sure that they are just a little less likable than your protagonists!
4. "Re-imagine" that your audience wants to give a frack. As it stands now, I hate these drunken, whiny, morose sons of bitches. I don't even want them escape the Cylon menace. In fact it's obvious that Earth would be far better off if we never meet our dysfunctional space cousins.
Edward James Olmos has said that the series' finale will be "brutal" (Duh!). I can only hope that it is also truly final.
Saving Grace (2007)
I just don't know...and that's probably good.
I have watched every episode, and thus far, still haven't figured out just what type of show "Saving Grace" is supposed to be. At first blush, one might take it for another "tough lady in a man's world" type of scenario, just like Kyra Sedgewick in "The Closer", Jill Hennessey in "Crossing Jordan", or Michael Jackson in his "Thriller" video. Or, it could be a tobacco splattered variation of "Touched by an Angel", a goat roper tribute to "NYPD Blue", or even a twangy sort of "Barney Miller" without the laugh track - although I would not put it past this show's creators to include one at some point in the future.
What I do know about "Saving Grace" is that it all seems to work, and well at that. At the center of every story is Grace - brave, flawed, and conflicted. She is a loving aunt, faithful friend, adulteress, and skanky bar slut in the bottom half of a classic alcoholic tailspin. When an angel offers her entry into a divine twelve step program, Grace isn't sure that she wants to accept, even though she does realize that she is in trouble. She doesn't know what she is going to do, and neither do we. In "Touched by an Angel", all that Roma Downey had to do was deliver her lilting "God loves you." in that brogue of hers, and everyone knew that in a half hour or so, everything would be warm and fuzzy. Grace, warm and fuzzy in completely different ways, is going to be a much harder nut to crack, and that is why I intend to be watching every week.
Note: As an Oklahoma native, and Sooner fan, I can appreciate all of the local references, but think that they are a little over done. Yes, Oklahoma is the land of Resistols, Garth Brooks, and cowboy boots, but one doesn't have to look very hard to find art museums, symphony orchestras, or an odd Nieman Markus or two. I do, however, give special thanks to the show's creators for the references to the April 19 bombing and its aftermath.