Wednesday, October 30, 2002

 

I have some great news to impart. My story “Second Chances” has been accepted for publication in Gothic.Net later this year. Needless to say, I was really thrilled by this news – Gothic.Net is a terrific webzine and I’m proud to have another story accepted by them.


Now this is exactly the kind of news this blog was created for...


 

Not much on the movie front this week. I saw Clive Barker’s Saint/Sinner on the SciFi Channel last weekend. I wasn’t expecting much, despite Barker’s name in the title. He didn’t write the screenplay and it’s a TV movie. Someone like ABC can do a class job with the Stephen King adaptations (even the weaker ones like Rose Red), but SciFi doesn’t have a fraction of their budget.


If I remember correctly, Saint/Sinner was a comic book at one point. Clive Barker created a bunch of characters for Marvel years ago –and a bunch of other people turned them into comics. I don’t think the line sold that well, since the titles didn’t seem to last very long, if memory serves. So now, one of these comics gets new life as a made-for-television movie.


It’s hard to picture a Clive Barker horror story as a movie on basic cable. His stuff is just too visceral. It touches too many “hot zones” to be handled properly on a channel that has the same restrictions as network TV. Someone like HBO could take this and run with it. But the SciFi Channel? That’s already one strike against it.


The story itself isn't one of Barker’s stronger ideas (then again, we don’t know if the movie is even faithful to his original concept). A monk from the 1800’s accidentally releases two succubi who were being held captive in an ivory globe by the Vatican. The demons somehow activate another Vatican artifact, a “wheel of time” and go forward to the future. The monk has to correct his mistake and is sent to our time to find them and put an end to their shenanigans.


The monk himself was the weakest link in this story. First off, he had hair that looked like he just stepped out of a salon (what order of monks are these?) and he had the acting ability of a mannequin. I never once cared about him or his mission. The succubi, on the other hand, were at least interesting. But I tend to relate more to villains anyway, for some bizarre reason.


The monk hooks up with a female cop who actually believes his story and they go hunting for the demons, who are going on a rampage. It looks like one succubus (the hot one) lures the men and fucks them, while the other one (the more manly one) sits on the sidelines and watches until she decides to pounce on the victim and rip his spine out. Why couldn’t both succubi be attractive? You know things are out of whack when there’s a scene where the two succubi have an argument and the manly one calls the other one a “slut” and it’s supposed to be an insult. Isn’t that what her whole purpose is as a succubus? To seduce men? That made no sense to me.


The succubi were right out of the Exorcist cookbook – there’s scenes where they crawl on the walls and turn their heads completely around. All old hat at this point. Their relationship is somewhat interesting – and keeps you watching – but it’s nothing new. And with the restraints of basic cable – it never gets too scary.


There’s even a mother-in-labor scene that is a total ripoff of both Alien and Humanoids from the Deep, both of which did it better. Ho hum.


The whole man goes forward in time to stop evil plot isn’t new by any stretch. The concept was done better in a movie like Time After Time where H.G. Wells comes to our time to stop Jack the Ripper. And the movie Warlock is pretty much the same idea, too. Saint/Sinner offers nothing new to the equation. And I don’t feel like I’d really recommend it to anyone.


The biggest disappointment for me was the Clive Barker mention. In a way, Barker was a big reason why I came back to horror, and why I write horror today. His Books of Blood were instrumental in getting me interested in the genre again. He breathed new life into horror at the time. Barker was the real deal.


To see his name attached to such a lackluster product is kind of depressing. Needless to say, I wish this could have been a lot better.


Oh yeah, on a more personal note, I turned 39 yesterday. I probably shouldn’t even be admitting that. But one thing's for sure. There’s nothing like awareness of your mortality to inspire you to write more.


Til next time.


Infernally Yours,


Wednesday, October 23, 2002

 

Saw a shitload of movies this past weekend, and figured I’d share some thoughts.


First off, I saw the American remake of The Ring.


I'd seen the original Japanese version earlier this year and liked it a lot. One thing about the recent wave of Japanese horror movies is that they have atmospherics down cold, and The Ring (originally called Ringu) is no exception. And the idea of a haunted videotape that kills you seven days after you've watched it is very cool. This movie was a huge hit in Japan, spawning at least two sequels. I hear there was also a Korean remake. So there was a lot of anticipation for the American remake, and a lot of speculation as to whether it would live up to the original.


When I saw the new version of The Ring, I tried to take it on its own terms. But it's hard to watch it without comparing it to the original, especially when entire scenes are virtually the same (like the opening scene). On the one hand, I think that the Japanese version was a better film. It had a more ominous, eerie feel to it. But, as far as American remakes of foreign films go, this is one of the better ones.


It doesn't hurt that the star is Naomi Watts (we last saw her in David Lynch's Mulholland Drive, where she was amazing). Watts is an interesting performer and here she is perfect as a reporter trying to figure out what's behind the curse of the videotape, after she watches it and realizes her life is in danger. Later, her young son and her former boyfriend are also put in danger after viewing the tape, so the pressure is really on her to find some answers.


What's so good about this movie is that Hollywood for once didn't change the film beyond recognition. It could easily have been watered down and turned into just another teen horror film or something. But here we have a woman in her mid to late 20's as the lead, and the pacing is measured and mostly subtle. This film has more in common with The Sixth Sense than it does with Scream, and it's all the better for it. And it's fairly faithful to the original, right down to the some of the same weird imagery on the haunted videotape itself, which seems to be a homage to the kinds of films Salvador Dali and Luis Bunuel made back in the late 20's/early 30's like Un Chien Andalou and L'Age d'Or, with a bunch of very strange imagery. And it works. Surrealism and horror often seem like kissing cousins anyway. But one contrast between the Japanese and American versions is that the Japanese version didn't go out of its way to explain every single image in the video; while the American version feels the need to show where most of the images originated. In a weird way, this is okay. I prefer the more mysterious feel of the Japanese version (often not knowing all the facts can make something even scarier) but this need to explain doesn't hurt the American version too much.


I think it's funny that the trailers claim The Ring is as scary as The Exorcist or The Sixth Sense, though. This movie has very little in common with the kinds of scares that you see in The Exorcist. The Exorcist was totally in-your-face and was as subtle as a sledgehammer. But it was also very effective. The only similar scares in The Ring come toward the end when we finally see what the ghost does to her victims. But on the whole, The Ring is more similar in tone to The Sixth Sense. Quiet pacing, gradually building suspense, scares rationed out over time. I really think the trend toward "subtle horror" like this film (and others like The Sixth Sense and The Others) is a good thing for the genre.


(For fans of more explicit horror, hopefully we'll get a shot in the arm, too, when Rob Zombie's House of 1,000 Corpses finally comes out!)


In a lot of ways, stuff like the Scream movies and I Know What You Did Last Summer were big steps backward, despite their alleged (pseudo) "hipness." These movies just shoved horror back into the cookie cutter, and resulted in more by-the-numbers filmmaking. More interesting films like The Ring offer other alternatives - smart, mature storylines that better show what horror can really do.


All in all, The Ring has an interesting story, a good cast (especially Watts and a small role by Brian Cox, who always turns in a fine performance) and, for the majority of Americans who never saw the Japanese version, it's truly something different. And, as we all know, "different" doesn't happen all that often at the movies these days.


Speaking of different, I also saw the new Paul Thomas Anderson movie, Punch-Drunk Love. Anderson is the same guy who directed Boogie Nights (which I thought was terrific) and Magnolia (which had a lot of terrific stuff in it, but really needed some editing – it was much too long). Anderson is a relatively new filmmaker, with only three previous films under his belt (the third one being his debut, Hard Eight), but already he has a recognizable voice and style. And I find it pretty easy to go to a movie just because he’s directed it, because I know I’m in for something interesting. But this time around, I was amazed to find that, by wanting to see Anderson’s new flick, I also was wanting to see the latest Adam Sandler movie!! Imagine that!


I should say right here I’m not much of a Sandler fan. I’ve seen parts of some of his movies on cable, and never really felt compelled to watch any of them all the way through, and I definitely never saw any of his movies in a theater before. I know some people hate his movies – but I don’t really feel that strongly about him. I just don’t care much about him either way. He had a few funny bits back when he was on Saturday Night Live, but he had a lot more lame ones. So he never really impressed me all that much.


Well, I liked Punch-Drunk Love (though not as much as The Ring). For once, Sandler’s “Emotionally-Retarded Guy”character has a little more depth, and you actually feel some sympathy for the guy. He also has a lot of anger this time around. As the only boy in a family of seven girls growing up, he has a lot of issues with how everyone in his family treats him like an idiot and how his sisters constantly stick their noses in his life. Around them, he’s mostly shy and withdrawn, except for the occasional incidents where he does stuff like kick in sliding glass doors. But the anger works. You can understand why he feels this way. He’s emotionally stunted and frustrated and seems to be the butt of everyone’s joke. Enter the always terrific Emily Watson (who was a real highlight in Red Dragon as well), who for some reason is attracted to Sandler’s character and goes about giving him the acceptance and love he so obviously lacks. The rest of the plot involves stuff like redeeming pudding coupons for airplane miles and a late night sex line call Sandler’s character makes out of loneliness that spirals into violence.


While I liked Punch-Drunk Love, I was also a little disappointed with it. I think I was expecting something even better from Anderson. And there seemed to be aspects of the film that were just weird for weird’s sake. Like a small electric piano that is mysteriously left in the street, which Sandler steals and brings to his office (and which never seems to really have a point). Someone like David Lynch can make weird work – because he’s pretty much created a whole cinematic language of his own, and for him it makes sense. But Anderson isn’t in the same league as Lynch just yet, and when he does weird, sometimes it works and sometimes it just throws off the whole pace of the movie. Sandler is really good in this movie, though, and turns in the kind of performance that could justify his whole career so far. This is more proof of my theory that any actor can be good, given the right director.


Punch-Drunk Love isn’t really a comedy, but it has a few funny moments. The funniest aspect of it, though, is the idea that a lot of Adam Sandler fans who go to see this one will probably leave the theater saying “What the fuck was that?”


I also saw Michael’s Moore’s latest documentary, Bowling for Columbine, which was a lot of fun, as well as being informative. Moore has really become a very reliable filmmaker. His new film is about the American gun culture, and while not everyone will agree with everything it has to say, I think he brings up a lot of interesting stuff. Such as the fact that there are countries that have just as violent pasts, if not worse, than us (Germany, Japan, etc.), and there are countries that have just as many guns as us (Canada), yet they have low crime in comparison and we have yearly murder rates running into the thousands. There are also some great scenes with Marilyn Manson (who’s always articulate and fascinating) and Charlton Heston (who half-way through his interview just has no idea what to say, so he gets up and leaves). And there’s a lot of funny stuff here between the grim realities.


One thing you come away with from the movie is a realization that the media sucks. Not that this is all that much of a surprise, but there’s the disturbing fact that because they have hours of “News” to fill every day, they constantly blow stories out of proportion so they can fill up space and get ratings. And they are constantly pumping fear into the airwaves, using scare tactics to keep people watching....


Finally, I saw Donnie Darko on cable. I’d been wanting to see this for awhile now. I know a lot of people who have seen this and they seem split into the “love” and “hate” camps. Once again, there’s a lot of weird for weird’s sake here – but for the most part it works and everything kind of fits into place at the end, like an elaborate puzzle. I thought it was clever, the acting was solid and it really kept me interested throughout. In fact, it’s the kind of film you might feel compelled to see more than once, to try to catch all the details. As for what it’s about, it’s about a kid who maybe is suffering from schizophrenia, but who also seems to be privy to time travel and the coming end of the world. Or is it all hallucinations attributable to his illness? By the time you reach the end, you might just be surprised.


Well, that’s all for this week. An awful lot of movies this time around.


Y'all come back now, you hear?


Monday, October 21, 2002

 

Saw a bunch of new movies this past weekend. Aside from the American remake of The Ring, I also saw Michael Moore's new one, Bowling for Columbine, and the new PT Anderson/Adam Sandler collaboration, Punch-Drunk Love. More details on Wednesday.


Thursday, October 17, 2002

 

Well, the big news this week is I got laid off from my job. I’d been working for an engineering firm as a proposal coordinator (an editor and writer in marketing) for the past four years. Even though I kind of saw it coming (my whole department got downsized), I’ll tell you – it’s still a shock when it actually happens. I was just numb when they first told us. Later, as it sunk in, I got pretty bummed out. But you move on. I’m actually in pretty good spirits today. I guess I was really ready for a change anyway.


But enough of that.


Last week I mentioned I was curious about Birds of Prey. Well, I finally watched it. And my reaction was pretty dismal. The show looked okay (dark and “pseudo-gritty”) and the chicks who played Oracle and Huntress were pretty cool. But man, did this thing move at a snail’s pace! What’s up with all these new shows moving so fucking slow? Is it some kind of trend? Frankly, if they have a good villain from the comics on a future episode, I might check it out again. But otherwise, I’m not going out of my way to watch this. I suffered enough boredom when I watched the last couple of seasons of X-Files (A once-great show that turned to shit. After the movie came out, the show turned into a real snoozer, even if Lucy Lawless was in the first two episodes of the final season!). I sure as hell am not wasting any more time on boring shows that can’t do a decent job keeping my attention. And that goes for Firefly too.


I also finally caught an episode of Push, Nevada. They kept comparing this to David Lynch, so I thought I better check it out. Especially since it’s already been cancelled and they are only airing two more episodes before it becomes part of television history. It’s about a straight-arrow IRS agent who goes to a weird town. You know what? This was the one new hour-long drama I’ve seen lately that didn’t put me to sleep. It’s no Lynch, though. It tries to be quirky and all, but Lynch is like caviar and this show is like Cheese Whiz. But it’s interesting at least. As far as new shows go, it seems like my gauge to how good they are is based on whether or not I’m on the verge of nodding off. And Push, Nevada didn’t put me to sleep. However, in a few weeks it will be gone forever. Who said life is fair?


On the movie front, I also saw Red Dragon this past weekend. I’ve got to say, I liked it a lot. And I think it stands up pretty well in comparison to the previous version, Michael Mann’s Manhunter. I saw Manhunter about a year ago, and I was a little underwhelmed. It was a good movie and all, but there were some things about it that really bugged me. First and foremost was Mann’s direction. This was back in his Miami Vice phase and incorporated some of the same annoying traits as his TV work. Too much generic rock music and scenes that looked like they belonged in a music video. There’s even an annoying montage scene! That stuff really turned me off. Who knew Mann would go on to become a kick-ass director of movies like The Insider? Now that’s a terrific movie! Also, I thought in Manhunter the character of Will Graham was pretty much a void. William Peterson just doesn’t have much of a personality. I know he was supposed to be a burned out cop and all, but I didn’t find him compelling and I sure didn’t give a fuck what happened to him. And if you don’t care about the lead character, then it kind of undermines the movie. Brian Cox was good as Hannibal Lecter, but he didn’t have a lot to do in the movie.


What saved Manhunter for me was Tom Noonan as Dolarhyde. He was big and creepy and really excelled in the role. Every scene he was in was electrified!


I might be in the minority on this one, though – a lot of people seemed to like Manhunter, especially some critics who thought it was even better than Silence of the Lambs (which I totally disagree with).


Which brings us to back to Red Dragon. A lot of people questioned why this was made in the first place. Obviously the biggest reason was to cash in on the box office appeal of Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal. But I actually think it was more effective than Manhunter. First off, I thought the look of Red Dragon was better. It’s darker and grittier this time around. And no bad generic rock or montages. Then there’s the “killer” cast.


This time around, Graham is played by Edward Norton, who has proven himself an A-list actor over and over (especially in Fight Club and American History X). A lot of people seemed to have a problem with his casting, saying he was too young for the role. That may be so. At first he does seem slightly miscast. But I thought Norton had enough screen presence to make you forget about his age. It wasn’t the best acting job he’s ever done (that's probably Fight Club at this point) but he did a good job, and I preferred him much more than William Peterson. Ideally, Will Graham could be played by someone who looked weathered but had some real intensity, like Lance Henrikson (the star of that Chris Carter show, Millennium). I think Henrikson could have outdone both of them in this particular role. But Norton was good enough to keep me interested, and you care what happens to him.


I was actually impressed with Ralph Fiennes as Dolarhyde. There was no way I could avoid comparing him to Tom Noonan – but I don’t think Fiennes is an inferior Dolarhyde – he was just a different interpretation of the character. And Fiennes did something very interesting – he made the character more tragic. He didn’t have Noonan’s creepier quality, but he brought a real intensity to the role. And that tattoo of his was killer! (On a side note, I’d never seen any of William Blake’s paintings before – I’d always known he was an artist as well as a poet – and I have to admit I was really psyched by his art – especially “The Red Dragon” itself.)


And Emily Watson was a real stand-out. Man, is she good! I’ve been a fan since she was in Von Trier’s Breaking the Waves, and she is great in just about everything she does. The scenes between her and Fiennes were really good. You could tell these were two really great actors at work.


As for the minor characters, Harvey Keitel did a good job as Graham’s boss. It was cool to see Keitel in such a high-profile Hollywood movie. We’re talking icon here, folks! We’re talking Mr. White from Reservoir Dogs and, most of all, The Bad Lieutenant! At this point in his career, he is really good at projecting an air of authority and was perfect as an FBI boss. And Phillip Seymour Hoffman, an always fine actor, was good as the sleazy reporter. It wasn’t his finest hour by any stretch, but he did a serviceable job.


And lastly, we get to Lecter. Some people seemed to have a problem with Hopkins this time around, saying he was overdoing the melodrama. But frankly, I think he played it just right. I think Brian Cox is a solid actor and was fine as Lecter in Manhunter. But Hopkins has turned the character into a legend. Remember, Lecter doesn’t have a lot to do in Red Dragon. He’s not the main villain, and he mainly just talks. Cox was interesting, but he wasn’t scary. Hopkins knows how to get every drop of scares out of Hannibal. In every scene he’s in, Hopkins generates a real sense of menace. Like a rattlesnake that can spring at any moment. I think he was perfect. (Then again I'm probably the only person on the planet who enjoyed Hannibal. I think the critics got it wrong when they kept comparing it to Silence of the Lambs. Hannibal was an altogether different movie and should have been judged on its own merits.)


While I do think Red Dragon was the improved version, there are several scenes that were almost exactly the same as Manhunter and they really seemed like the same scenes, just with different actors. This has a bit of a surreal quality if you’ve seen both films. Real déjà vu.


There are more interesting movies coming out this weekend. First there’s the American version of The Ring, starring the terrific Naomi Watts (from David Lynch’s Mulholland Drive). I really dug the original Japanese version – it’s a clever, atmospheric horror film. I hope the American version does it justice. I also want to see Punch-Drunk Love – the new Paul Thomas Anderson (Boogie Nights & Magnolia) movie, starring Adam Sandler. This one is supposed to be really good, too. I can’t believe I am actually looking forward to seeing an Adam Sandler movie, but I am. If it’s as good as everyone says it is, then I guess it’s true that a good director can take any actor and make him interesting.


That’s all for this week. Kind of a long one this time around. See you next week. Same Bat time. Same Bat blog.


Kick out the Jams!





Thursday, October 10, 2002

 

Not much going on this week. I’m revising a new novel, and that’s been slow going. Last week, I had the stitches taken out of my scalp. It wasn’t a big deal at all, but it’s good to have that over with.


Saw the season premiere of Angel this Sunday, and was impressed. This show is really coming into its own. In fact I think the season premiere of Angel this season was better than Buffy’s premiere. But both shows continue to kick ass. Which really makes me wonder what went wrong with Firefly. Joss Whedon has been turning out such great shows for so long now that I guess I forgot he’s only human. Oh well. They can’t all be winners.


I’m kind of curious about a new show this week called Birds of Prey. I timed it while I was watching the new Twilight Zone (which continues to underwhelm me). Birds of Prey is based on a DC comic book and is about three heroines who come together – Huntress, who is the daughter of Batman and Catwoman; Oracle who used to be Batgirl, before the Joker paralysed her (not sure what her powers are), and I guess the third one is a psychic girl who helps them out. I don’t read the comic, so I’m not 100% sure what to expect, but I’m willing to give the show a try. If it’s about chicks fighting crime, and they’ve got costumes to boot, then I really need to check it out. I’ll probably have more to say about the show next week, when I’ve actually seen it.


Saw some movies recently that I’ve been wanting to see for a long time now: Training Day and Sexy Beast.


Training Day was actually very good. Denzel Washington has a field day as a cop gone bad, and I even liked Ethan Hawke as his new partner. Hawke just looks more and more freaked out as the movie goes on. But the reason to watch is Denzel. He deserved that fucking Oscar. Who knew he’d be so good at playing a bad guy? It was a real nice departure from his usual noble hero roles. He should consider playing bad guys more often, because he was terrific in this movie.


Sexy Beast, however, was pretty much a disappointment. This is the one where Ben Kingsley (best known for playing Ghandi) plays a gangster who is supposed to scare the shit out of you. Only he doesn’t. He sure tries his damndest – barking his lines like an angry pit bull. But he comes up short. He’s not as intimidating as everyone seems to think he is. But you’ve got to respect the guy for trying. I had really expected to love this movie, from what I’d been hearing about it, but while it’s a good movie, it’s not a great one, unfortunately. Ray Winstone is pretty good in it, and his character is just as interesting as Kingsley's. Toward the end the action shifts to London and it feels like a Guy Ritchie film (he did Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch, and is probably best known these days for being married to Madonna), with its offbeat British gangsters and all. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing – it’s just that it feels too familiar in a way. I was hoping for something a little different. Oh well. Maybe I need to see The Krays again sometime. Now that was a good British gangster movie!



Thursday, October 03, 2002

 

I haven't been overly impressed with the new TV season. The few new shows that seemed to have promise so far have been disappointments, and the shows that have been rock steady for years remain the ones to watch. By "rock steady" I mean shows like The Sopranos, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Buffy, the Vampire Slayer, and NYPD Blue.


At this point, everyone knows about The Sopranos, but if you have HBO (or know someone who does) you've just got to check out Curb Your Enthusiasm. It comes on Sunday nights at 10pm, right after Sopranos, and it's funny as all hell. Curb You Enthusiasm stars Larry David, who was the co-creator of Seinfeld. The character of George Constanza was modeled after him. Except, on Curb at least, Larry is more neurotic and annoying than George ever was. In fact, Larry is kind of a prick. He always says/does the wrong thing and pisses off everyone around him. In a lot of ways, it is almost as funny as Seinfeld, it's just more abrasive. You'll laugh your ass off as Larry just alienates and infuriates everyone he comes into contact with.


As for Buffy, I came to this show late. I have to admit, I avoided it for years because I assumed it was just Dawson's Creek with vampires. It is so much better than that. Last season totally kicked ass, especially when Willow went ballistic, and I've been catching up on the first two seasons on DVD, and I've got to admit, this is quickly becoming one of my favorite shows. The reasons why include: great writing, solid acting, and characters who are well-developed and who you really care about. This is pretty rare on television these days, but show creator Joss Whedon really pulls it off. The new season started a little uneven so far, but it looks like it will get back on track fairly quickly. If you haven't checked this out yet, you really might want to give it a chance. As for NYPD Blue - this show has been a real rollercoaster ride over the years. I've been watching it since the first episode and it has had more than its share of highs and lows. After Jimmy Smits left a few years back, it definitely had a low point as it was trying to find itself again, but now it seems like it's back on track. Dennis Franz is always great, but the heart of this show is its ensemble, and right now the cast is pretty good.


As for new shows I was looking forward to, the main ones were: Robbery Homicide Division, the new Twilight Zone and Firefly.


First, Robbery Homicide Division. I checked this one out mainly because I like Tom Sizemore. You might recognize him from movies like Saving Private Ryan, but my personal favorite role of his was when he played the psycho cop who pursued Mickey and Mallory in Natural Born Killers. With someone as intense as Sizemore in the lead, I had high hopes for this new show, but it was a letdown. It's just another cop show and Sizemore seems wasted here. How many more cop shows do we need anyway? This one certainly doesn't stand out from the pack. I don't think I'd bother watching it again. Oh yeah, and the producer is Michael Mann who also did Miami Vice back in the day. I never watched Miami Vice - not that I really had anything against it - it just didn't hook me. But Mann is also the guy who's directed films like The Insider , which was just terrific. With the talent involved, I'm really surprised this show isn't better.


As for the new Twilight Zone - I've been having a very mixed reaction to it so far. As we all know, the original TZ was the brainchild of Rod Serling and had his stamp all over it. It was also one of the best television shows of all time. That's a lot to live up to. In the 80's, there was a New Twilight Zone which didn't measure up and was pretty uneven, but had some good moments, mostly because the show's consultant was writer Harlan Ellison, who was probably responsible for a majority of any good qualities it might have had. After he left the show, it kind of floundered. The latest version is also pretty uneven. So far it ranges from mediocre (Jason Alexander as Death, deciding he wants to retire) to just plain awful (Shannon Elizabeth as a fantasy woman come to life - or so it appears). Lots of (often cliche) twist endings and stabs at meaningful drama, but it's a far cry from the original. Acting as the Rod Serling surrogate this time around is actor/director Forrest Whitaker, who, despite being a dignified presence (he was Ghost Dog after all), is no Serling. This is the one new show that's bound to have a lot of ups and downs, though, being an anthology show. I'll keep watching for now, but I'm still waiting for an episode to really blow me away.


But the one show I was looking forward to most was Firefly. It's about the crew of a spaceship on the fringes of the galaxy, and their various adventures. I'm not normally a fan of this kind of space opera, but this show was created by Joss Whedon who has had a very impressive track record with Buffy and its equally kick-ass spinoff Angel. If nothing else, I figured this show would have a compelling cast of characters. But it's been my biggest letdown this season. It's bad enough that the basic premise - a kind of old style western that just happens to take place in outer space - is cliche as all hell, but I've also found, strangely enough, that I really don't care about the characters or the plotlines. This comes as a real surprise, because Whedon usually has a real knack for characters. But this time around, they're pretty forgettable, except for maybe Morena Baccarin who play Inara, a "Companion"- a kind of high-class courtesan. She looks great and has real screen presence, but since she really has nothing to do, her role amounts to little more than being window dressing, which is unfortunate. Hopefully she'll be able to find something better when Firefly closes up shop. But the biggest problem is that the show is slow moving, and ..well.....boring. I've seen two episodes so far, and both times found myself getting pretty numb with boredom. I'll give it one more chance. If it doesn't suddenly improve, I'm giving up on it. Whedon or no Whedon. Regardless, I can't wait for the season premeire of Angel this Sunday. Maybe Whedon should stick to horror. He really seems to have more of a knack for that.


Oh well. Maybe we'll have better luck next season.


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?