Change Your Image
bossysheryl
Reviews
The Ranch (2016)
What might have been :(
I stuck it out thru all 10 episodes. Sam Elliott and Debra Winger are BEYOND BRILLIANT, especially considering the quality of most of the scripts. 5 of the 6 stars are for the two of them.
But even though the scripts are at best competent, and sometimes just hackneyed? The cast, aside from 2 actors, would have been able to make this "classic" style work. You can see the barest shadow of what this might have been--not Frasier, but Friends, maybe? But The Ranch has been very nearly doomed by 2 tragic casting choices: Kutcher and Masterson. Both of them have actually gotten WORSE as actors over the years--they're literally almost unwatchable in this, and "just the brothers" scenes are positively vile. The two of them absolutely DESERVE the even more vile laugh track under every one of their stilted-wooden-overplayed-hamhanded scenes. In scenes with one or the other of them? The rest of the cast is able to mostly compensate enough to make the show worth spending time on, but frankly, it can get to be a bit of a slog when they're in a lot of scenes together. The less the two of them are on screen, the better the show is. Even Elliott and Winger come close to drowning in the sheer weight of their suckage at times.
It's truly a shame that Netflix has taken a show that could have actually ended up being pretty solid--no Emmy noms outside the actors, probably, but a solid show --and made it almost unbearable to sit through. And it seems like it's just some kind of inertia in their casting processes.
For example: if we absolutely had to have someone from The 70's Show, why couldn't it have been Topher Grace? He's got the chops to have given the bitter "I stayed" Rooster who still loves his brother real emotional substance and conflict, instead of the barely sketched caricature that Masterson has churned out like spoiled viscera.
And beyond HIS sheer inability to act, Kutcher couldn't be more physically miscast if he were playing Tom Thumb!! Why not cast someone like Josh Duhamel as Colt--someone who WAS a wannabe pro football player, ? He's a lot better looking, so he would be more believable as the small town QB hero who has flopped everywhere else at everything but scoring women; he's physically more believable as a football wannabe; and most of all? He's at least a half-decent actor,who when he's working with a better actor, is able to raise his game and play with them.
And those are just two examples off the top of my head. Imagine what a producer or casting director who was looking to cast actors that would make the show GOOD, instead of just working with "celebrity personalities" that they've previously worked with or their friends, might have found if such a person had even half-diligently looked at some head-shots!
Better casting would make all the difference to this show, but sadly Netflix isn't going to recast now. And I'm fan enough of Elliott and Winger's work that I'm sure that if Netflix continues to produce this, I'll very grudgingly watch it. But The Ranch won't be one of those "when are the new episodes coming" shows that Netflix is looking to put out there.
And that's too bad, because it could have been.
Puffin Rock (2015)
Preferred over Disney
LO is rising three, and we curate her screen time very, very carefully.
I checked out Puffin Rock when it first appeared in my Netflix queue a few months ago not long after she turned 2. It became apparent within a week that when she was offered a choice, she opted for Puffin Rock virtually every time.
She's now graduated to calling it "MY Puffins." The appeal has only grown over these months, and she is now demanding, "NEW Puffins, please." I have no good answer to tell her as to why there are no New Puffins! But even so, when offered the choice of episodes of some of her Disney favorites--Doc, Sheriff Callie, Handy Manny, MM Clubhouse--at least 2 out of 3 times she's asked, she will still opt for her puffins, albeit now it's not uncommon for her to ask for different 7 minute segments from different episodes.
If Netflix makes a business decision not to renew this? I don't know what's going to happen in our house! Even if Netflix does the right thing, Nick Jr should pick it up internationally, instead of just in the UK. It's a perfect complement to Peppa Pig.
The Grey (2011)
Liam Neeson is OFF MY LIST
I went with to this on "girls night away from the Superbowl crazed boys" night.
I admit up front: I had seen the previews, and had not planned to see this film.
Nonetheless, the consensus of the group was that Liam Neeson is a very good actor who makes interesting choices, and we all liked his work. Which is true. Until last night, I had never been disappointed by one of his performances. Until last night, Liam Neeson was one of a half dozen actors whose choice of material I was willing to trust.
He's off my list.
PROBLEM 1: Plotted misuse of resources. These nutbars are surrounded by sharp plane wreckage, YET use none of it to fashion EITHER shelter from the storm, OR weapons to fight the wolves. Exhausting themselves to 'walk to the tree line" was just STUPID. They all deserved to die for that alone. (I should have left THEN, and gone to see a different movie.)
PROBLEM 2: Excessively poor CGI wolves. I mean, so bad as to cause me to giggle every time they showed a wolf running thru the snow! Did these guys get some kinds of product placement cash for using the software to "make" the wolves, as opposed to hiring animal handlers to use real ones? I think real wolves might have helped a LOT.
PROBLEM 3: Blowing now substituted for plot. See, the thing is, they didn't HAVE to be struggling with the blowing snow. They could have stayed with the plane, forted up and defended themselves. The blowing snow could have been an interesting thing as an adversary, or could have been used as an ally, using snow to solidify and insulate their forted up space....Instead, the snow just blows around. A lot. I mean, a REALLY lot of blowing. I'll bet 45 minutes of this movie were shots of blowing snow!
PROBLEM 3a: Intense staring substituted for dialog. I know, they have no breath to talk because they're stupidly running from wolves thru the woods; but the staring thing does NOT work. It ESPECIALLY doesn't work when the 'stare' is being generated by one of the laughably bad CGI wolves!!!!
PROBLEM 4: Generic characterization, compounded by furry hats, making it hard to tell which actors were which; the only reason you could tell Neeson was his accent, plus he was always in the lead. Actual dialog between the characters could have helped this. The only character that talked, they killed 20 minutes in!
PROBLEM 5: Consistency of thought processes: e.g., the broken mini-bottles. REALLY? You had mini bottles you could have broken and made SPEARS with, and you wait until NOW, and then strap them between your fingers??? What was that you said about using sticks for distance when you were duct-taping the shotgun shells to sticks earlier? The whole film is just riddled with this kind of 'didn't you just....' It's very annoying; but this film has at least 4 bigger problems than consistency....
As I said before: Liam Neeson is OFF my list. I'll never take a chance on another film just because he's in it.
The Killing Game (2011)
Read Face of Deception instead....
There are multiple and serious problems with the adaptation of the second book of Iris Johansen's bestselling Eve Duncan crime series.
PROBLEM SET 1: What would possess anybody to adapt the 2nd book of a series, instead of the 1st? That's particularly an issue in The Killing Game, because even as a novel, it's only effective if you've already read Face of Deception; in some critical ways, these books are a single story arc, and by starting their adaptation in the middle of said arc, the producers have handicapped themselves with an almost insurmountable amount of exposition—and then left it all out!
I watched this with someone who hasn't read the books, and all I got were questions: Is that cop guy her brother? (No, he was a detective on her murdered kid's case—read Face of Deception.) Is that reporter her boyfriend? (No, just a reporter—read Face.) Is that kid her niece? (Just a kid that looks like the dead kid—you need to read Face) Wasn't the killer executed at the beginning?? (Yes! Watch the movie! Read Face!) Is this her rich father's house? (No!) Who owns this place, anyway? (great, they've left out Logan—read Face, you'll like Logan) Isn't Joe a cop? How stupid is he? Why can't he find this fancy estate? (because Galen—never mind, they've left Galen out, too. So apparently Joe IS stupid.)
Not only stupid, but miscast, which brings us to PROBLEM SET 2: The only characters in this entire fiasco that weren't desperately miscast were the 10 year old and the dog. It was depressing, how consistently miscast these actors were.
Laura Prepon has her admirers, I know; I'm willing to concede that she is talented within a clear and well defined range. JOHANSEN'S Eve Duncan is a deeply complex character who isn't within three standard deviations of Prepon's range, though. And were the producers too cheap to even buy a bottle of Clairol? The particular shade of blonde she was sporting was so unflattering as to be distracting even to the person who hadn't read the books (What's wrong with her hair? Is it supposed to be that color? How old is she supposed to be, anyway? Are you kidding, I thought she was supposed to be 40!)
It's fine when supporting actors like Ty Olsson are given a shot at the romantic lead, but this whole production would have been 90% better if Olsson had been cast as Mark the Reporter and Kavan Smith been given a shot at Joe Quinn; Smith is a more versatile actor and is actually a better demographic fit for the part, given that Joe is supposed to be 10-12 years older than Eve. But the utter lack of chemistry between Olsson and Prepon utterly doomed this production. The "love scenes" are so deeply squicky, I don't ever want to see either of those actors in a love scene again—with anybody, ever, ever, ever!
I am a Teryl Rothery fan. She's far and away the most capable and believable actor in this cast. I've been very skeptical about all of these Lifetime Movie adaptations (let's be honest, adulterations) of popular women's fiction, but I gave this one a chance specifically because TR is always watchable—which she was, even in this mess. Unfortunately, Sarah Patrick is supposed to be the same age as Eve—not old enough to be Eve's own teenage mother. There's just nothing TR can do about being 20+ years older than the character she's supposed to be playing, no matter how well she plays Sarah. She sticks out like a sore thumb, and makes you wonder why the whole thing isn't about her!
Brian Markinson can act, and isn't so much miscast as typecast. My friend who hasn't read the books took one look at him and said "He's a bad cop, right?" What the producers should have done was adapt Face of Deception and cast him as John Logan. He'd have been a fantastic choice as Logan.
And Naomi Judd Is by her very nature 500% too glamorous to be playing Eve's prostitute/drug addict mother, even if she could act, which she manifestly cannot.
PROBLEM SET THREE is just the final nail in the coffin lid: the MIA serial characters who are critical to the action.
John Logan, man of mystery, is a total and effective red herring in Face of Deception. Why not use at least THAT element? Even if all you keep from Face is his romantic interest in Eve and the fact that he owns the estate in AZ. Except that:
Logan's sidekick Galen is critical to the preservation of Joe's intelligence as a character. Without Galen running interference for Eve when she goes to Logan's place in AZ, Joe is left looking stupid—far, far too stupid to either be a cop, or be interesting to Eve.
Bonnie herself. Why eliminate Eve's psychic connection/conversations with Bonnie's ghost? Eve's latent and unadmitted-even-to-herself psychic gift has always been what set her apart from the general run of literary forensic heroines; the decision to just eliminate that who aspect of her character turned her into a flat, uninteresting cipher. Why maintain the pointless, useless character of Sandra, and dump BONNIE?!?
I'm afraid that this ridiculous attempt at "interpreting" a popular women's fiction title "for film" is the last straw for me and Lifetime's adaptations. It's been bad enough, how Mandalay has managed to mangle Nora Roberts—THIS is just insupportable.