bradydm2001 Reviews

Green Lantern (2011)

Why I Walked Out After 40 Minutes

[21 June 2011]

I really wanted to like this movie. It just, in my opinion, was awfully done.

-The 3d effects were awful. Maybe if I'd seen it in 2d I would've stayed in my seat longer, but in reading one review it said the opening sequence about the beginning of the universe was worth admission alone. I don't think so. Anyway, throughout, the screen was dark, at many times I wondered "What am I wearing these glasses for, there doesn't seem to be 3d", nothing was coming out of the window and there wasn't much depth.

-Ryan Reynolds doesn't play the f*&# up too well. Plus, how can he have no fear and be a test pilot for a huge company while at the same time being so irresponsible. And overall he looked weird in this movie. He was off his game.

-Also, as I'm not big on GL's backstory, I thought, "Am I going to have to remember all of this different space stuff or can I dismiss it?" This might seem stupid, but I thought this movie would be more grounded. I thought the space stuff would just set up GL's powers and then we'd be on earth for most of the time. It so happens that the only GL stories I've read are like that (older stuff). Now, after I left, maybe that was the case, maybe. And maybe that could have only given us just another superhero movie with different power sets, but I think audiences would've liked it.

-Too much CGI. And it didn't feel like good CGI. Even the beginning, on that lost planet. All of those characters looked goofy, too cartoony. The point of no return was when GL was walking around in his uniform for the first time on that CGI planet. He didn't even look human. His whole body looked CGI. And he was so buff he almost looked like a lady--with breasts and a big butt. Even when it wasn't necessary, there was CGI in this movie. When GL first touched the lantern and his face and eyes got all wonky? Goofy, not cool.

-Character design. First, let me say that I love the GL uniform (except for the nose bit). It would've looked better had the people in them looked better, but they didn't. The bird/fish guy was just insanely goofy looking. And the guardians looked like wizened old smurfs. And Sinestro? He looks like the devil, his name's Sinestro, and we're supposed to believe he's a good guy? (Although, that guy was a great actor--great voice.) Overall, I think these characters and the CGI sets worked against this movie. It was hard to take anything seriously.

-Too much exposition. Why didn't they interest us in the characters first. Like Hal and Carol. The space stuff should've been toned down, and been part of a larger arc, maybe culminating in the third film, while GL dealt with more earth-based problems.

-Poorly written: even the human drama was poorly done in this movie. The family history of the Jordans was overwrought, as was the family dynamic at the birthday party. Poorly executed: it seems like whenever this movie should've taken a right, direction-wise, it took a left.

At that scene on the CGI planet O I asked my boyfriend if he wanted to leave, and he said yes. Outside, I asked him at what point did he first think of leaving. Right away, he said. I couldn't help but agree. (And I usually like space stuff--like Trek.) As a comic book nut, I'm depressed. Even if Captain America does well, GL's bombing will affect the future of comic book movies. There goes ever seeing some of the B-list characters in the DCU. Or, maybe not. Hopefully, all the guys and gals who make movies and write about movies will realize--audiences aren't sick of comic book movies, we're sick of bad comic book movies.

For any disappointed GL fans, you might feel the way I did after seeing X3. But, I never guessed then that in just a few years later we'd have X-Men First Class. So don't despair, you never know what can happen. Maybe GL will do overseas and there will be a sequel, and it will be a great, great movie.

Hollywood Residential (2008)

One of the funniest TV shows--sorely underrated, destined for cult status.

[10/10 · 10 June 2011]

Recently, I found "Hollywood Residential," and I found it to be one of the funniest goddamn TV shows I have ever watched. Adam Paul absolutely makes this show. Within thirty seconds of the first episode, you will believe this is a guy that can make you crack up--crack up so hard and loud you'll have to rewind the show a few minutes just to hear the last joke. Think of George Costanza's younger, much nuttier brother and you'll have an idea of the character Paul plays here.

In "Hollywood Residential," we meet Tony King (Adam Paul), an extremely maladjusted Bob Villa-type who's just been demoted from host to co-host of a TV show about making over celebrity homes. His new partner Lila Mann (Lindsey Stoddart) is a sexpot brought in to lure new viewers to the struggling show and network. Tony chafes against the change and struggles to keep himself in the limelight, but he can't help screwing everything up. He's wicked jealous of Lila and the attention she receives: she has an actual agent, the network and crew love her, the celebrities usually favor her, and she has her own line of tools. Meanwhile, Tony has none of those things. He's his own worst enemy, and it's clear to everybody but him that the harder he tries to ingratiate himself to the celebrities and the network suits, the closer he is to getting himself fired.

"Hollywood Residential" takes a satirical look at Hollywood and HGTV, and that's a great combination. Both of these things are ridiculous on many levels, and there's a lot of material to mine here. Each episode centers around the filming of an episode of the show-within-the-show. They try to produce the episode, there's a problem with the celebrity guest, Tony's personal life gets in the way: hilarity ensues. But that's just the basic idea. What makes the show really work is Adam Paul. While his character might be reminiscent of George Costanza, he's not derivative. Tony's a lot more human than George. He doesn't come off as just a joke; he's three dimensional. Tony King has dreams and ambitions of acting, but he's stuck hosting a DIY show on a crappy network. What started out as a temporary solution to unemployment has become a rut, but now Tony would be lucky if the rut were permanent. To boot, his love life's a mess, he doesn't really have any friends, and nobody takes him seriously. Complementing Tony is Lindsey Stoddart's character. Lila's a girl who's had to undergo plastic surgery to look as photogenic as she does, she genuinely sympathizes with Tony's resistance to her, and she's uncomfortable with the image her agent is molding her into, but she's willing to go along because she wants to be a star. Just like Tony does.

Both actors are well-suited for their roles. The rest of the cast is a little all over the place, but they're definitely serviceable. For the most part, though, including the leads, they're all unknowns so it's easy to get to know them as characters. Some people might complain that there aren't enough likable characters. I understand that, but I think a show like this is an exception. Most of us wouldn't want to hang out with these people, but it's entertaining to watch them from a distance. They're likable enough, in that way. But they're more than watchable.

There's a lot to like here. If you're a prude, though, you won't like the show. If you don't like subversive humor, you won't like the show. If you think documentary-style filming and improvisation are techniques that can only be used by a few ultra-popular shows, you won't like the show. The only thing that sucks about this show is its lifespan. Eight episodes comprise the run of "Hollywood Residential" and, unfortunately, it doesn't look like we'll be getting any more. Whatever the reason for its failure to launch, "Hollywood Residential" is four hours of straight laughing your ass off. Belly-holding, knee-slapping funny.

Here's hoping Adam Paul's career really takes off.

Sherlock (2010–2017)

Sounds like a bad idea, right? Think again. The more things change...

[10/10 · 27 August 2010]

As a die-hard fan of the source material, I have tracked down and went through nearly every radio, television, film, and comic book interpretation of Sherlock Holmes - which run a mean gamut regarding quality, as you probably already know - and so I approached this incarnation skeptical but sanguine. Doubtful it would match the eminent Jeremy Brett series in quality, but hopeful it might preserve Conan's tone - something I think that series did well and the Downey Jr. movie did not.

To my surprise, and delight, this show just so happens to be the bomb-diggity. Let me explain.

Ever notice how lots of Agatha Christie fans complain when screenwriters change Poirot and Marple stories? I'm not one of them. I like new and different interpretations of those stories because otherwise, in the case of literary characters brought on screen, what's the point? What's the point if we film and re-film the same story, the same story which we've already read once, twice, maybe three times? Especially in many cases, what's the point when it's been done so perfectly before? In the case of Sherlock Holmes, The Hound of the Baskervilles has been filmed at least 24 times according to Wikipedia. So another iteration won't thrill me. However, one that takes liberties with the source material, i.e. bringing the characters into the 21st century, I'm all for it. Surprise me. That's what I say.

And there are two things I really love about this series. 1) For longtime fans there are many, many "Easter eggs" to discover in each episode. And, best of all, 2) My boyfriend loves this series. And I can't pay him to watch a Jeremy Brett episode. He did enjoy the Downey Jr. movie (as did I, I just prefer a less swashbuckling Holmes - one reason among many that I didn't love the film), but he's never excited to watch Sherlock anything. This series is different. He loves it. For any Sherlock fan that would like to get their significant others on the band wagon, this is a great gateway. (And my boyfriend's actually a very good barometer for high-quality mainstream television shows. Usually, if something's firing on all cylinders, he knows it. More risky fare - he's off-put.)

And, you may rightly ask, why should I give a crap what my boyfriend likes? Good question. I happen to be of the mind that TV and film can accomplish what my favorite art form - literature - cannot. The TV and film experience can be enjoyed by a group. Sure, book clubs discuss books, but with TV and film you and whomever you want to hang out with, experience story at the exact same time, in real time, and you can easily observe each other's initial, unguarded reactions. Plain and simple, it's fun to enjoy the mediums with others - to laugh together, to be scared, sad, thrilled, etc. It enhances the experience. I think literature's strength is the opposite. For me, the best thing about settling into a good book is that I'm alone. Just me and the test, together making up a story.

Well, if anybody has read this far, I apologize for the rant. But if you're on the fence about buying the DVD or renting it or whatever, take a chance. Take a tip from me. You'll be pleasantly surprised. The more things change, the more they stay the same.