Thursday, February 27, 2003

 

Some Shows Worth Checking Out


Just read today that Buffy the Vampire Slayer will not be coming back for another season. The lead, Sarah Michelle Gellar, has decided not to renew her contract, so the show is over. Meanwhile, there has been talk of another spinoff, possibly featuring the other slayer, Faith.


I have to admit to feeling that Buffy was faltering a bit this season. A lot of people had problems with last season, but I thought the angst-ridden, darker storylines were just fine, and I thought it was fuckin amazing when Willow went ballistic and almost destroyed the world all by her ownself. The fact that the “big bad” was one of their own made it all the more compelling. This season, however, the show has been taking a little longer to find its pacing. A big part of the problem was the villain this season, The First - supposedly the first force of evil to exist on earth. He can shape-shift into anyone who’s dead, and this keeps everyone guessing as to who he is, but that doesn’t give the character much chance to develop a personality of his own. And the introduction of a bunch of “slayers in training” has been pretty lame for the most part. The new girls are pretty one-dimensional and not very helpful in a tight spot. Sure, they’re novices, and they’re supposed to be new to all this slaying stuff, but they’re also pretty boring and have been taking too much time away from the regular cast – and the main characters have always been the heart and soul of this show. Even when the storylines have been less than stellar, Buffy has always had a killer cast, and, after all these years, that really counts for something. Even Xander has grown on me, and doesn’t seem as annoying anymore (although I still don't understand why he left Anya at the altar). And the only good thing that has come of the “slayer school” for new recruits is that one of the newbies has recently become Willow’s new love interest. And I’m not sure what I think of Spike with a soul – but it sure is nice that they got rid of that stupid chip that he had in him.....


The thing is, despite the problems this season, the show has been slowly getting back on track. As the First storyline has been heating up, things have been getting more interesting. The First is still a rather boring, faceless villain, but the cast is coming together and some of the old magic is back. The sad thing is, I’m afraid that by the time things get really good again, the season will be over, and so will the show. And I wish this show could have had a more amazing final season. Of course, I thought it was going to be tough to top last season no matter what they did. But let’s hope Season 7 ties up nicely and we have a real ending this time.


Speaking of Buffy spinoffs, one show that has been a knockout this season is Angel. For once, this show has surpassed Buffy in the “great storyline” department, where Angel and the gang take on a demon who’s blotted out the sun and plans to bring about Armageddon. But this show has been kicking ass since last season when they introduced the whole “Connor” storyline (Angel’s son). Usually when the main character of a show has a kid, it can spell bad news, but this show has been a rollercoaster for awhile now. And it’s easily the best horror/genre show on tv right now.


If you haven’t been watching Angel, you need to give this show a chance. Like Buffy, it has solid characters and good acting. And the storylines are some of the best written on tv today.


At the prompting of several friends, I gave Smallville a chance. Saw about four episodes. I have to admit, I avoided this one for a long time. I never was much of a Superman fan. I always thought the character was a kind of simple-minded boy scout with super powers. But Smallville is a well-written show with a good cast. However, I find it uneven as all hell. For every solid, enjoyable episode, there are two boring ones. And I figured out the equation. If it’s an episode where Clark either learns about a super power he has or fights someone else with super powers, it’s good. If it’s an episode where we delve into conspiracies over at LexCorp, then it’s gonna be a snooze. I remember when the show first started, they compared it to X-Files. “It’s like X-Files starring Superman.” Or some such shit. And, like X-Files, it has a lot of the same weaknesses. If the episode is self-contained and fun, it’s good. If it’s part of the continuing Lionel Luthor soap opera, with corporate intrigue, then count me out. While I think it’s a decent show, I don’t think I’ll be watching it regularly. Just got too much other stuff to watch these days, like 24, which is on opposite it.


One more show worth mentioning this time around is The Shield. I've really been enjoying it this season. Michael Chiklis as Vic Mackey is nothing short of amazing. Chiklis deserved that fuckin Emmy! Somehow I lost track of the show last season after enjoying the hyper-aggressive first episode. I guess it was on opposite other stuff I watch (like NYPD Blue) and I just forgot about it. But with all the hype it’s been getting since the Emmy win, I promised myself I’d give it another chance when Season 2 started, and I haven’t been disappointed yet. This show is one of the best things on television today. It’s an in-your-face, take-no-prisoners cop show.


Saturday, February 15, 2003

 

SO I SAW DAREDEVIL...... (WARNING: LOTS OF SPOILERS)


Well, I went to go see the Daredevil movie, and my basic reaction was that it was better than I thought it would be. I went in with zero expectations and really expected it to totally suck. I came away with mixed emotions, but feeling that it could have been a lot worse. I was also surprised that I didn’t completely hate Ben Affleck’s performance. I thought it was rather bland, but not detestable.


Despite this, I have a long laundry list of things that are wrong with the movie. Mostly based on the comics – which was the reason I went to see the movie at all in the first place.


First off, they totally fuck up his origin. We’re talking about a dramatic, heroic origin story here, and they jettison it for something that’s just lame. Way back in Daredevil #1 (we're talking comic books here), a teenaged Matt Murdock (he’s in high school at the time) sees an old blind man about to be struck by a truck while crossing the street. He pushes the man out of the way, endangering his own life in the process. The truck happens to be carrying radioactive materials which strike his face, blinding him.


This origin story pretty much sets us up for who Matt Murdock is. He is a heroic young man who doesn’t hesitate to sacrifice himself to save another person.


In the movie, a younger Matt Murdock (this time he’s 12 years old) is running away from seeing his father acting as a thug for the mob. While he’s running through an area where hazardous chemicals are being stored, a forklift almost kills him. Instead, the driver steps on the brake and the forks slice open one of the chemical containers, resulting in young Matt getting blinded.


In both cases, contact with the radioactive/hazardous chemicals result in blindness and his other senses being heightened to superhuman levels. But which origin is more dramatic? Which is more powerful in explaining who Matt Murdock is, what kind of human being he is?


(This reminds me of the old Dolph Lungren movie of The Punisher. In the comics, Frank Castle’s entire family is killed by the mob and he becomes the Punisher to avenge them. In the movie version, Frank Castle is a cop whose partner is killed by the mob? Which is the more dramatic origin? And why, when you have one of the most dramatic origin stories in the history of comics, would you opt to go with a more watered down version for the film? But that’s just one example of why the Punisher movie sucked. Since Marvel says they’re making a new version – maybe this will finally be corrected. But now, back to Daredevil…)


Another major flaw with the movie is Daredevil’s treatment of criminals. In an early scene, a rapist who the blind lawyer Matt Murdock is trying to prosecute gets acquitted. So he dons his Daredevil costume after hours and seeks justice. What kind of justice does he administer? Daredevil throws the man onto subway tracks, resulting in the man’s death.


This is totally wrong. In the comics, the character’s whole identity is based on his inability to take another life. He captures criminals and they are given justice through the court system. But he doesn’t go around killing criminals. It’s just not what he’s about. For it to be established early on in the film that Daredevil kills his enemies goes against everything the character stands for.


Surely the movie’s decision to have him be such a lethal character was a brainless attempt to tune him into some current day edgy sensibility. But Daredevil just isn’t a killer. Someone like the Punisher kills his enemies on a regular basis. But for Daredevil to do this is totally out of character.


And there are several scenes that are just stupid. One where young Matt uses his newfound powers to beat up some bullies just seemed totally over the top. If he did these kinds of amazing moves on real kids, he’d probably kill them. It just seemed like total overkill.


Also, when Matt first meets Elektra (Jennifer Garner) they end up doing some kind of combat/mating dance in the middle of a public park, in front of a crowd. As they fight, they’re totally showing off their powers, while out of costume. Why would Matt risk revealing his identity in front of so many witnesses? This just seemed very stupid.


And what about Daredevil’s costume? Why is it that almost every time a superhero is brought to the screen lately, his costume is suddenly made of leather. Daredevil, in his red leather outfit, looks like he's going to an S&M costume party. When you first see the costume, you groan, but once the story gets going, you eventually ignore it for the most part.


And let’s talk about the villains. I actually thought Michael Clark Duncan was fine as the Kingpin. I can’t think of any other actor who could be as imposing a figure as Duncan, and he handles the role just fine. They don’t give him a lot to do until the end, but his showdown with Daredevil was okay (if way too short).


As for Colin Farrell as Bullseye - I have to admit, when he first comes onscreen, I was disappointed. I thought he was going to be a real asshole. And where's his costume? I know people always say that when you try to recreate costumes from the comics onscreen, they always look stupid, but Spider-Man looked just fine. That said, the best scenes in the movie are the fights between Bullseye and first Elektra, then Daredevil. Once he really gets into the action, Farrell does a good job. He is as cocky and merciless as the Bullseye of the comics.


As for staying true to the comics, I like that they kept the death of Elektra from Frank Miller’s version of the comic (don’t worry, they can always bring her back – she’s alive and well today and even has her own comic). But they only faintly touch upon Elektra’s daddy fixation.


In fact, the entire movie just seems to be a series of set pieces. Like they condensed a year’s worth of comic books into a kind of “greatest hits” package. Nobody is ever fleshed out enough to care about. Everyone is one-dimensional. And if you have no prior knowledge of the characters, you’re bound to be disappointed.


As for Affleck, who a lot of people considered the biggest problem with the movie before it was even released (including me), he wasn’t quite as horrible as I thought he’d be. In fact, I was able to tolerate him. The role was so one-dimensional that he wasn’t able to do too much damage to old DD. (I always thought Batman was kind of the same on the big screen – a cipher. It appeared that anyone could play him – and did). It’s too bad, though. Daredevil deserved better. Ben seemed kind of stiff in places, and lacks any real charisma. I kept wondering how much better the movie could have been if someone else had played the role, someone with real screen presence. And I still have no idea how Affleck became a star. He just doesn't have any "star quality" that I can see.


Jennifer Garner as Elektra was okay – but once again, a better actress could have brought more to the role. The two leads just seemed kind of weak in the personality department. But she was definitely able to pull off the physical stuff better than Affleck.


The minor characters were kind of iffy, too. There was some priest sidekick who knew Matt’s real identity and helped him out of a scrape, but I don’t remember any priest buddy in the comics I read. It also looked like Matt lived in some secret compartment inside the church. Or maybe that was just sloppy editing.


Jon Favreau as Matt’s law partner, Foggy Nelson, was a high point though. Favreau was probably the only person in the movie with a real personality, and he delivers the only funny lines in the whole movie. I’m not sure how much he looks the part; in the comics Foggy was kind of a fat dork. But Favreau was good enough in the role to make up for that.


And Joe Pantoliano as reporter Ben Urich was kind of wasted. It seems he has been trying to unravel the mystery of Daredevil for a long time, and he even figures out Matt’s identity, but we have no idea how he figured this out. Maybe he saw the combat display in the park?


I didn’t completely hate Daredevil. There were some scenes that made me cringe, and a lot of shortcomings, but the fight scenes were pretty good, and it maintained a dark mood throughout (maybe too dark, considering the Daredevil/killing thing). It was in no way a great movie, though. But considering I expected to totally hate it, it was better than it had any reason to be.


Of course, if you compare it to Spider-Man, Daredevil comes up short. Spider-Man had a star who could act, and who was totally believable as Peter Parker. Tobey Maguire was perfectly cast and made you believe in his character. Also, Spider-Man had Sam Raimi, who definitely showed everyone that he is an A-List director.


Daredevil lacked the acting quality and the level of direction that we saw in Spider-Man, and that’s probably why it’s such a mediocre product, while Spider-Man was a benchmark against which all future superhero movies will be compared.


That said, I can’t wait for The Hulk movie to come out and blow them all away. I hope.


Before the movie, I saw trailers for the upcoming comic book-related movies The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (based on Alan Moore's much-praised miniseries) and X-Men2. Both look like they could be a lot of fun. Let's hope they live up to expectations.


Wednesday, February 12, 2003

 

Lots of stuff to talk about this week!


WILL DAREDEVIL BE WORTH SEEING?


Anybody else feel as ambivalent as I do about the Daredevil movie? I mean, I grew up reading Daredevil comics back when Stan Lee wrote it and Gene Colan drew it, up through the wild and wacky Steve Gerber run, and then, to the amazing Frank Miller years when he turned the character into a cult sensation (just before he did the same magic to Batman in the Dark Knight miniseries). I kind of lost interest in the character after Miller left the book (and after they brought Elektra back from the dead, when Miller had clearly wanted her to stay dead). But there was a time when Daredevil was a pretty big deal in comics.


So they say they’re making a movie of him, and it has Elektra in it, and it is based on Miller’s time on the book, and how can you not be excited about it? And then they announce the cast and….Ben Affleck is Matt Murdock.


What???


There is something really fuckin’ annoying about Ben Affleck. The only time I ever really liked the guy was in Kevin Smith’s Chasing Amy. Otherwise, he’s really done nothing to prove himself worthy of his superstar status, and nothing to prove himself worthy of being Daredevil.


The rest of the cast sounds okay. I don’t watch Alias, but Jennifer Garner has the looks and the physical ability to be Elektra (although I wish they’d chosen a better actress - but I'm willing to give her a chance), and Michael Clark Duncan might just put a cool spin on the Kingpin. Even Colin Farrell should be interesting as Bullseye. But Affleck….


Who knows. Maybe he’ll prove me wrong. Maybe I’ll go see the movie and actually be convinced that Ben Affleck was the best guy for the role after all. Maybe I’ll change my mind completely on this one.


But I seriously doubt it.


Daredevil, and Frank Miller’s legacy, deserves a lot better.


 

Anyone else watching The Surreal Life? This is the latest Real World ripoff where they put a bunch of has-been celebrities in a house together and let the sparks fly. People like MC Hammer, Emmanuel Lewis, Vince Neil (he’s a has-been? I thought he still had a career!) and some other people nobody else has ever heard of. They even have Jerri, the self-proclaimed "bitch" from Survivor – who’s one of the more likeable characters this time around. But there is only one reason to watch The Surreal Life. And his name is Corey Feldman.


I can’t think of another “has been” who is more needy, more annoying, and more talentless than Corey Feldman. He’s the man you love to hate. I have no idea how this guy ever got a taste of stardom in the first place. But his lack of talent is our gain. The fun of The Surreal Life is noticing just how long it takes for Corey to get everyone else in the house to hate him. How long it takes for him to get under every single person’s skin, no matter how nice they are, or how much they want to be friends.


Wait a minute, maybe that’s Corey’s talent!


During the course of the show, he whines about the food, he whines about the talent show they have to put on, he whines about having to hike in the woods, he whines about how everybody’s picking on him. He cries. He whines some more. I can’t tell you why, but it makes for fascinating television.


This might be a little late in the game to be talking about The Surreal Life, since next week is the last episode - and of course, it’s all about Corey. He’s going to get married on TV, and his celebrity housemates are going to be forced to be part of it. But I had to at least mention this train wreck of a show. It might just be my favorite “reality” show yet.


God, I hope they bring this show back. And even if they change the cast every single time, they have to keep Corey. Just so we can watch each new batch grow to hate him.


What brilliant television!


* * * * * * * *


Also, Lucy Lawless was on the Jimmy Kimmel Show last night. Man, did she look fine! You could tell Jimmy was falling all over himself. He actually seemed to be surprised at how hot she is, and he even said something like “who’d know it under all that Xena armor.” I’ve heard this before, some people just think she looks less feminine on Xena and then they’re shocked when they see her in her “civvies” on some talk show. But believe me, she’s hot all the time. She was a former Miss New Zealand after all.


On the whole, though, Kimmel’s show has been pretty much of a disappointment. He’s had a real lack of good guests the last few weeks and seems to be relying way too much on friends and relatives, like his “Uncle Frank,” who’s a total bore. I like the revolving co-host thing, though. But the co-hosts have been more interesting than Jimmy for the most part. The first week, his co-host was Snoop Dogg, who is so laid back and naturally funny that he was a real contrast to the stiff, nervous Kimmel. Then Kathy Griffin was on the next week, and she’s just so funny that she could easily do a better job hosting the show herself. You can tell Jimmy is relaxing a bit and finding his own style, but I’m afraid by the time that happens, the show might be on the way out. We’ll see.


 

AND NOW, THE MUSICAL NUMBER....


Is anyone else as ticked off as I was to hear the Oscar Nominations? How the hell did Chicago get the most nominations of any movie from 2002? I admit, I saw it out of curiosity a few weeks ago, basically because what I’d wanted to see (About Schmidt) was at an inconvenient time and I'd seen everything else, and thought at least Chicago would have hot chicks dancing around.


My reaction to Chicago? What a mediocre movie! Sure, it’s based on the stage play by Bob Fosse, who was maybe the only choreographer who appealed to people who hate dancing. He was also an amazing movie director in his own right, making such terrific movies as Lenny (about the life of Lenny Bruce, starring Dustin Hoffman), All that Jazz and even Cabaret (one of the few musicals worth sitting through). But, unfortunately, Fosse is dead, and he had nothing to do with the movie Chicago. And the casting is just strange. I thought Catherine Zeta-Jones was just fine – she’s hot and she can act (somewhat). But I thought Renee Zellwegger was totally wrong. She does a fine job with the acting, but she just isn’t hot enough to pull the roll off. She just doesn’t seem all that sensual (although one scene where she showed off her back while being arrested almost won me over – I can’t explain it, but she’s got a hot back – haha).. And then there is Richard Gere, who is just fucking annoying throughout the movie. I wasn’t sure if he couldn’t sing or if he was just so fucking annoying I didn’t care. But he really seemed like the most miscast person in the film. I am so glad he didn’t get a nomination at least.


The story is just so-so. And aside from one or two dance numbers where hot chicks dance around, there’s not a lot to recommend the movie.


And it definitely did not deserve any Oscar nominations.


It’s almost as if Hollywood is so hot to bring back the musical that they really exaggerate these kinds of movies. Moulin Rouge was similar – Nicole Kidman was hot as hell in it, but the movie was the equivalent of fingernails on a blackboard. At least Chicago wasn’t as wince-inducing.


But give it a break! There’s a reason why musicals died out. Because a large majority of them suck ass! And we really don’t need a lot of bad musicals filling the theaters again.


Aside from this gripe, there were lots of good nominations, too. Just based on my choices for the Best of 2002 (see previous column), there were a bunch of good people represented. I think Nicole Kidman deserved a nomination for The Hours, and so did Julianne Moore. They were the best two things about the movie. And Moore really deserves to win Best Actress for Far From Heaven. And I am really hoping Daniel Day-Lewis gets Best Actor for Gangs of New York, since he’s amazing in that. It's weird, but I actually saw a lot of the nominated movies this year - mostly because the studios released them all at the end of last year, for award consideration, and I wanted to be well-informed come Oscar time.


But where’s Peter Jackson’s nomination for The Two Towers? The second Lord of the Rings movie blows Chicago away without even trying. So why does Chicago get a Best Director nod, but Jackson doesn’t?


And where the fuck is Sam Rockwell in the Best Actor category for his portrayal of Chuck Barris in Confessions of a Dangerous Mind?? This is the most glaring ommission of all! Rockwell had Barris down cold - he became Chuck Barris. It was one of the best performances I've seen in a long time. And if the movie got no other nominations, it at least deserved one for Rockwell!


Other good nominations: Chris Cooper for Best Supporting Actor in Adapation (he was easily the best thing in that movie, and he’s overdue). And I was amazed to see that Bowling for Columbine was nominated in the Best Documentary category!! Usually the Best Documentaries are all things you’ve never heard of and would probably never sit and watch. Bowling for Columbine was thought-provoking and funny as hell. It’s about time Michael Moore got recognized by the Academy, since they snubbed him back when Roger and Me came out all those years ago and made documentaries cool again.


No doubt there will be more Oscar talk on this site when the awards actually happen.


It’s sad, though, that no horror movies got any nominations for 2002. But aside from Red Dragon and The Ring, there weren’t a lot that even deserved nominations. Oh well.


And speaking of About Schmidt (which I mentioned at the outset of this entry). I finally did see it. And I was underwhelmed. On one level, it’s a brave piece of filmmaking, with Jack Nicholson as a guy who worked 50 years at the same company (and then retires) and was married 42 years to the same woman (and then she dies). He suddenly begins to wonder if his entire life was just a wasted effort. This all happens just around the time that his daughter is about to get married to a guy Nicholson thinks is an idiot.


The whole “wasted life” scenario is good stuff, and there’s kind of a good payoff at the end. But on the whole, About Schmidt just didn’t do it for me. Basically, because all of the characters were really bland. It was hard to really care about them. Even Nicholson, who can be the king of “over the top,” plays it very low-key this time, which is probably why there’s been so much Oscar-buzz. But the point is, his Warren Schmidt is so withdrawn and repressed that you almost don’t care about any of the things he’s so concerned about. He’s not an easy character to sympathize with. If he squandered his time, he looks like the kind of person who never had a clue that he could have done it any other way, until mortality finally stared him in the face.


The only one who seems animated at all in the film is Kathy Bates, who does a good enough job with the role she’s given. But even she’s not enough to bring life to this cinematic coma patient.


Like I said, I can appreciate what the filmmaker was trying to do. But the pulse is very weak on About Schmidt and it’s hard to care. That said, I bet you this is the kind of movie that is going to grow on me, and there may come a future time when I see it again and say “This was so subtle it’s brilliant, and it needed time to seep in.” But until then, I just feel disappointed.


Thursday, February 06, 2003

 

Heard the most amazing song this week. Johnny Cash doing a cover of the old Nine Inch Nails song, Hurt. The original version was good enough, but this new version is even more intense. Especially if you see the video. You see, Cash is old and dying of cancer, and he's just amazing to watch in the video. Despite it all, that powerful voice of his just rings true, and the lyrics have so much more meaning when they're sung by a man actually reaching the end of his life. After I saw the video, I was just stunned.


The song appears on the new album American IV: The Man Comes Around, which, as the title indicates, is the fourth album Cash has done for American Recordings (formerly Def American), Rick Rubin's label. The Man Comes Around is an album of cover songs. Aside from Hurt, Cash covers songs from such diverse sources as Paul Simon's Bridge Over Troubled Water, Depeche Mode's Personal Jesus, the Beatles' In My Life, and JC's own The Man Comes Around (a great song that starts off the album). While not all of the songs have the same level of intensity, they're all uniquely Johnny Cash, as he makes them all his own.


As for American Recordings, it's kind of fitting that a label that started out recording rap acts and punk (they put out Flipper's last cd) is now putting out music by Johnny Cash. Cash was always so much more than the labels they put on him. A lot of people consider him a country artist, but I always thought his voice and songs sounded so much more like the blues. And nobody sings about pain and the apocalypse like Johnny Cash. He's one of the few people who can convince you he's been to hell and has the scars to prove it. If you want to be blown away by the pure intensity of a song, pick up Cash's new cd.


And speaking of Johnny's, I also picked up the new cd by Johnny Marr and the Healers, called Boomslang. For those who don't know, Marr founded The Smiths back in the 80's with a guy by the name of Morrissey. But since The Smiths broke up (with very little chance of ever getting back together), Marr has been kind of drifting from project to project, from work with Matt Johnson in The The (some good stuff) to the wildly uneven work he did with Bernard Sumner (of New Order) on the side project Electronic (their first album had some good songs on it, but I've found their subsequent stuff pretty bland). But it always looked like Marr was working on other people's stuff - but never his own. That's why I was looking forward to the new album so much. It's the first time Marr has formed a band of his own, where he's the center of attention, and it's about time.


So what do I think of Boomslang? It's the first time I'd ever heard Johnny Marr sing - and he does an okay job. He doesn't have as distinctive a voice as ...let's say someone like Morrissey....but he does fine here. His voice is kind of ethereal, for lack of a better word. And the guitar work is great, as you'd expect from the man who defined the guitar sound for The Smiths. Right now I'm really digging their new single, Caught Up. It's really catchy. And, if you're a fan of Marr's, it's definitely worth checking out.


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