Change Your Image
gooroov
Reviews
Catastrophe (2015)
Don't Watch Series 2
I rated this high because it's extremely well done, from writing to acting, characters, it's how you wish your own show would turn out.
I just adored series 1 and re-watched it maybe 50 times. And I was drooling waiting for the next series.
Bummer.
It's still beautifully done, but it descends into all the bummer and sadness they preserved us from in series one. At least they're consistent with their principle "all women are awful and should be avoided at any cost."
Everything goes bad, which is not a complete surprise considering what a totally relentless b*tch the woman is the whole time. (You could excuse the whole thing by saying that anyone who would marry such a self-centered, venomous creep like Sharon deserves whatever he gets.) But it doesn't go bad because of her, but mostly because the guy is too trusting.
In the second series they decide to flesh the characters out and it's absolutely overwhelming...suddenly it's packed with people with severe drug problems, dementia, just awful stuff. They introduce a dog, and KILL it, in the first 20 minutes!
They might have been able to make something like this work on "American time", but six half-hour episodes for this much detail and complexity is just ridiculous. The whole second series seems like it could be a trailer for a real TV season of 22 episodes, like Americans, not lazy Brits, do it. Seriously, how do these people believe that they can cram so much in six episodes, it's absurd.
I have to wonder who decided to make Rob, the male lead, so perfect and undeserving of ANY of the stuff that befalls him. I think that's real enough, but not in a TV show.
But in any case you'll end up just bummed in series 2. So watch the first series and pretend it was canceled after that. I just hope they don't make series 3, because I know I'll have to watch it. What's next, baby cancer?
Maladies (2012)
Don't Expect a movie like anything else and you may love this
"Maladies" was slow but I never felt bored.
(I reveal some parts of the story but it's not like the movie is based on the surprise of these things happening such that knowing them would really "spoil" the movie, it's not a mystery or anything, but be forewarned.)
One thing that people say about this movie is it is about mental illness and although it is mentioned a few times and the portrayal of the characters is unusual I didn't see them necessarily as "mentally ill" in any way--they might have been, but also, maybe not. It just focused on people who themselves are focused on doing "work" which they found meaningful, living in a house together.
It did have a lot of expression of what the James character was thinking, but what's mentally ill about that? Don't most people walk around thinking about things?
Just because the movie is focused on the psychology of its characters doesn't mean there is anything psychologically "wrong" with them.
I myself was very interested in this being mostly about what people think about things. Near the beginning they show James musing about the "tall" water glass Catherine requests. I think that it is very human to show how people really have momentary thoughts about almost everything around them.
Some say the conclusion didn't work but I thought it was a fascinatingly surreal approach, where one character becomes emotionally unsettled and that manifests in something being "wrong" in the story which attracts the police, because we all know that the police are in the world to intervene and try to "solve" problems. I thought the fact that Carter refused to make this literal, maybe showing cuts where James really WAS doing something dangerous, like wavering a knife around, was brave and interesting.
In the end James is so damaged by his disturbance he dies...don't we all sometimes feel like something bothering us could lead to some kind of "end"? "When she left me I thought my life was over." Showing this as ACTUAL death just made it more poignant.
I thought that sound was used brilliantly to complement the action.
There is one scene that shows Delmar, played by David Straithairn, as he realizes that there is no way for him to join in and experience the joy and pleasure others are experiencing just from dancing to a song, that I thought was emotionally devastating.
I found it to be a unique and worthwhile "experimental" type movie, and I got a lot out of it. If you demand action or an explicit narrative from movies you may not like it as much, but if you aren't obsessed with such things this movie has a lot to offer in ways rarely seen in film.
Oblivion (2013)
Proves More is Less
I watch and find myself wondering, "Doesn't even Tom Cruise ever get tired of mouthing the same tired words and sentiments over and over and over again?" I know he gets paid roughly a billion per word, but wouldn't part of being extremely wealthy mean not having to do the same stupid thing over and over and over? At least Cameron plays with submarines!
But we need to realize that as a Scientologist Cruise probably believes some part of all this crap to be FACTUAL, so maybe it's like "scripture" to him.
Just why are all future fonts slightly squarish? Since they appear in everything "futury", they must be superior, so why don't we just give in and use them for everything now? I guess the answer must like in the predictable lack of imagination in the designers of these films.
This movie was too long by at least half, but I don't think even the needed slash-and-burn editing this movie required would have made it interesting.
And for the last time, NO that speckly-face old black actor guy doesn't automatically add "gravitas"--not even to Sprint commercials! (I don't care to remember his name.)
This movie was just plain dumb, and doesn't merit further discussion.
The Last Enemy (2008)
T. I. A. is NOT Original
After one episode I probably won't bother watching more, watching all these people acting with all their might makes me tired.
However, one thing really puzzles me: the idea that the concept or even the exact NAME is original. As a matter of historical fact the US was developing an actual comprehensive DB on all citizens in the 1990s literally called "T.I.A.", except the "A" stood for "Access" instead of "Awareness", if memory serves.
The actual program was abandoned as being "too intrusive" but there is a lot of information that the program was simply adjusted and renamed.
It's weird to watch a show that presents something that existed 20 years ago as fanciful or futuristic. TIA was old even BEFORE Snowden.
Gavin & Stacey (2007)
Solid show, great characters
(First, if you write a review don't put in every tiny thought you had, and also remember that no one wants to read a monstrous ten line or longer paragraph, ESP on a screen. EDIT folks.)
I found this relaxing and amusing, and the characters nicely drawn without being cartoonish. I like the way the throw in what could be real edgy stuff like masturbation as a casual aside, kind of like how real people might act, making a mild gag but not some "OMG!" Moment.
The writers said that their would never be another "series" (I hate the British terms; if a "season" is a "series", then what do you call the aggregate of all "series"? US terminology makes so much more sense: three seasons of the "Gavin & Stacey" series), because they say "the story has been told" but it's not an epic original story, the charm came from the characters and the dialog, and as such there's no "end" to this story.
It's like saying they should have stopped "Seinfeld" after three seasons because the story had been told...you guys are good, but this isn't Shakespeare, and I don't think viewers really care that much about the overall story as watching the characters.
The writers Jones and Corden have talent, but to say you can't continue a TV series (the sum of all seasons) because the story of how a boy met a girl from a different place was finished is just silly. The good thing about this show is Nessa always saying, "What's occurring?" Bryn being weird, character stuff, old lady Doris calling Bryn a "dickhead" and pulling it off.
I wish there were some way to convince Jones and Corden that they aren't writing "King Lear", just a cute, engaging bit of pass time pleasantry, which is GOOD, people need that. Get over yourselves and write a hundred episodes like REAL TV writers in America do. This whole "20 episodes and I'm out" crap is annoying. Why shouldn't writers have to work hard like everyone else?
The Tudors (2007)
Worth It Even Though They Got Henry So Wrong
I enjoyed this show a great deal, but ultimately it seemed to be about a character who lived the same life as Henry VIII but was someone else.
I found his struggle to accept the "sovereignty" of his own feelings and emotions a most compelling part of the story. I almost felt like he started out wondering, "Just because I feel a certain way means it must be considered an expression of God's will?" I really felt his sense of inner conflict when he screamed at the execution of his friend Sir Thomas More, it was almost as if he was thinking, "Is this really right?" Ultimately, of course, he accepts it and decides that if he's mad at someone, it is incumbent upon him as a servant of God to act on it, letting himself of the hook so he didn't have to bear the burden of executing someone would have constituted a betrayal of God, and I thought that was very well expressed.
The casting of Joss Stone as Ann of Cleves was without question one of the most egregious and inexplicable mistakes in this series. I found myself staring extra hard at the screen trying to figure out in what way she was less attractive than any of the women he favored. Some have commented that he was also expressing that he didn't find her personality appealing, but that's absurd, his line about her was, "She looks like a HORSE!" It has to be taken into account that definitions of beauty are different across time, but again, compared to the way the other characters looked, she just didn't appear less attractive, or even very different looking, than any of the women considered attractive. I can come up with excuses for most of the defects in this series, but that is beyond comprehension, somebody just plain screwed up, period.
Some people argued about Stone's "German" accent, but a German accent of today may be quite different than it was back then. As far as that goes, I think she did a good job giving her inflection a distinctively foreign character. Unless you can produce a recording of a German speaking from the 16th century, I don't think it's valid to dwell on this.
But why force such an idealized and just plain inaccurate portrayal of Henry down our throats? As most school kids learn, Henry was big, round, and had red hair. And even if they decided to put sex appeal over historical accuracy, which they surely did, why rub our faces in the falsity by having an aging Henry swashbuckling in a vigorous sword fight against his French enemies? Meyers was compelling, but by that age, Henry surely would have lost a sword fight to a kid, they could have at least not pushed that. Instead they had Meyers doing that increasingly parodistic "husky", halting voice to convey the aging of his character. That was so unconvincing it verged on being comedy.
Ultimately I found the show entertaining, visually (and musically) captivating, and I could almost forgive the absurdly buff and vigorous portrayal of a man known by all to have been obese and unhealthy if they just wouldn't have pushed it with the sword fighting and the goofy voice. Honestly, I thought that was a sad aspect in an overall masterful piece of history- based entertainment.
Also, by the fourth season, that Jonathan Rhys Meyers "snarl" was getting really corny. They needed somebody paying attention to the series as a whole so that, just as they wouldn't have him wearing the same outfit all the time, he didn't keep rolling out the same "schtick" all the time.
All considered, a captivating, entertaining, beautifully rendered entertainment that was well worth watching, even if it turned out to be about a guy LIKE Henry VIII, instead of the ACTUAL Henry VIII we know from history.
Mr Selfridge (2013)
Piven Is Awful
I must admit that I didn't even finish the first episode. I have always liked Jeremy Piven since first watching him play a bitter writer on the excellent "Larry Sanders Show", and I thought that even when "Entourage" started to seem tired and aimless, Piven always held up his end in his delightful portrayal of the ruthless, preening agent Ari Gold. And so I was interested to see if this man could step out of his usual character and play retail pioneer Selfridge, a role that if played successfully would prove the Piven is truly a gifted actor, not just a reusable character.
The answer comes all to quickly in the first episode: Piven can't act. What is the point of watching, or even discussing, a show called "Mr. Selfridge" when the guy playing the titular role is just so completely, irredeemably awful? The rest of the production might be great or terrible, I don't care because I will never force myself watch Piven stomp around the set completely sucking every moment he is on camera. He is so bad, he doesn't even have to say anything to make one cringe! Just that phony fleeting half-smile that seems to scream "Look Ma, I'm ACTING!" instantly demonstrates that he is in way over his head.
For Heaven's sake, Jeremy, come to your senses and RUN, and tell everybody you had a horrible psychotic break with reality and you can't remember anything that happened. Then maybe...MAYBE you can land a future role in the kind of comedy farce at which you excel, and redeem yourself from the nightmare that is "Mr. Selfridge."
Betas (2013)
Snappy - Now - Enjoy!
You know, I don't get all the haters that seem to want to establish their credibility by pooping on everything. This is a SITCOM, and a reasonably entertaining one, with a unique concept and some fun if somewhat cheesy characters, not "Rashomon". Joe Dinicol, who plays the requisite straight lead/audience surrogate, reminds me a bit of Zach Braff and, come to think of it, the spirit of energy and snappy-jargon-fun is not unlike Scrubs, a show that was always a pleasant waste of time (and that's not in any way a bad thing). And it's actually ABOUT something without taking itself too seriously, not just a framework for tacking a succession of tired one-liners to like "Whitney", or "Two Broke Girls", not that it lacks gags.
Having watched four episodes I can see it is definitely built on the skeleton of the Classic American Sitcom, but they hang enough freshness on it to allow you to tell your friends you watch it without losing your dignity. And there are little moments that are genuine jewels (Moby sidling up with, "Ever f*ck an octopus?", Dane's art photography featuring what initially appears to be an abstract desert landscape but ends up being a photo of his ex's bush, and others) that keep this thing from slipping into the depressing pit of anonymity where you find stuff like "New Girl". (Respect yourself, Zooey!)
(And let me take a second to thank Jah for a show featuring tech that is not just one long Apple commercial. I like Apple stuff, but the real world has other tech, and I'm just glad to be spared having the ubiquitous AppleWorld pushed into my face for a change.)
If nothing else, it's a way to study up on wacky jargon that's new to most people even if it's history to others. Maybe it doesn't have QUITE enough momentum to ensure it won't end up becoming just grating and tiresome, but I can honestly see this thing growing some legs. It's not HBO, but it's a lot better than I expected for an early effort from an outfit mostly known for selling books and kitchen gadgets that are delivered in just two days.