Failing Upwards

Review: "Avatar"

Take the most beautiful film you've ever seen. The most spectacular, visually stunning, jaw-droppingly gorgeous film in your memory. Now, double the beauty, and amp of the color by about 15 times. Meet James Cameron's 10-years-in-the-making "Avatar"

Cameron intended this film to be his followup to "Titanic", and after 10 years of planning and wating for technology to catch up to his ambition, it turns out it is. "Avatar" is a spectacle of just what is possible in film in 2009. It's cutting edge in so many ways; there was even a language created for this film. But, while the scope is far-reaching it's story is a simple one with a clear message.

Paraplegic ex-marine Jake Sully arrives on the far off planet of Pandora, a jungle world populated by the impossibly agile Na'vi, to become an avatar driver. Essentially, his consciousness will be placed in the body of a cloned Na'vi (grown form Human and Na'vi DNA) to better interact with the natives and convince them to allow mining of something improbably called "unobtainium."

Beyond that, watch "Pocahontas" and you've got the basics. But does it matter? Clearly this movie, while having an environmental message, is about the lengths to which technology can improve a movie. In fact, it took what could be a rather dull retread of a stale plot and reinvigorated it with fantastic effects, views, and wonderous vistas.

Now, that's not to say that all movies can rest on their use of computers. And, to a degree "Avatar" doesn't. The action is intense, once it begins, and the acting is serviceable  with gusts to not too shabby in some parts. But if you're going for intellectual pursuits or stellar life changing plotting this is the worng film. But if you want breathtaking views surrounding a predictable but entertaining plot, head to your local theatre and say "3D please!" B

Review: The Twilight Saga: New Moon

A new moon is a monthly phase in which the moon is not visible to the naked eye. It's seen as a refresher for the moon, a night off if you will. What this has to do with the doomed and overly intense love of a whiny girl and her vampire I don't know, but there you have it.

The Twilight Saga: New Moon is the second installment in the newly titled saga. As the quartet of books is now a tween bible and the first film grossed a bazillion dollars last year, Moon spares little time catching up new viewers and simply cuts to the plot, such as it is. Bella loves Edward, Edward fears for Bella's safety, Bella is sad, and Jacob broods.

But, emotions be damned this film is about wolves. Gigantic werewolves. The effects for the wolves are the highlight of this overlong borefest. That and the "wolf pack's" seeming allergy to shirts. Here's the thing: the books this "saga" is based on is about 4,00,000,000,000 pages in 4 books. In that, maybe 30 things actually occur, the rest of the bulk is concerned with brooding, plaintive staring, description, and so very much whining. While several of the 30 things that occur are...interesting-the possible entertainment value is removed by various circumstances up to and including the whining- they are so spaced out that making them into interesting films if difficult. The first film, Twilight, had many adjustments made to the structure of the book to even allow for something to happen in the film. Moon however takes a different tactic- several things are omitted from the book but other things were elongated to...compensate maybe?

This being only the second of four planned films, several things were set up for future movies including a somewhat twist (which isn't really one at all if you've read the book series) ending. Director Chis Weitz- late of the American Pie movies- does an admirable job but languid shots of the forests of Vancouver can only interest you so long during the seemingly endless stretches of nothing occuring in this film.The wolves, which had the biggest marketing push of the entire campaign, don't even make their first appearance until well past the 30-minute mark. Hopefully David Slade, the incoming director of The Twilight Saga: Eclipse, can learn from this one and get with his writers soon. As "Eclipse" is in my opinion with weakest book (yes I can rank them, although I found them all to be exceedingly weak), the Eclipse team has a long way to go to wake the audience up and very little source material to go on. Luckily the target audience can easily admire their adoring vampire's sparkling skin for hours on end without feeling they've wasted their parents' $10.   C-

Reduce, reuse, and remake

--TV's cancellation-fest has continued with the sad, albeit expected cancellation of FOX's "Dollhouse." Joss Whedon shows require a cult following and FOX is notorious for not letting viewership grow*, but the fact that "Dollhouse" even secured a second season was utterly shocking. Its new status, after a second season of extremely low ratings and, in my opinion, under promoted airings someone finally read the writing on the wall.--

I've decided that the trend of remaking older, or nostalgic hits is a byproduct of the Green movement. It really is the only explanation for why some forgotten, and in some cases with good reason, "classics" have been dredged up and redone with today's modern graphics and actors. It's recycling!

Take for example the remake of "Clash of the Titans." Based on the 1981 stop-motion cheese-tacular, this new version is, as sci-fi wire calls it, a "balls-out" actioner. The question is, is it needed? The original had basically fallen out of popular memory, save for a few brief references to star Harry Hamlin's hair, and by-and-large the world was happy about it. But, sometime in 2010- summer most likely- the mythological adventure will return to screens with a new cast, a new energy and (one can hope) a new stylist.

A&E is also doing a remake, I'm sorry "re-imagining", of 1968's "The Prisoner" now with Jim Caveizel taking over for the late Patrick McGoohan as "Number 6." The original "Prisoner" lasted just one season but has stayed somewhat in the pop-culture consciousness. its trippy and bizarre world has inspired shows like "Lost" and countless parodies (one from "The Simpsons" particularly sticks out to me). Why remake it? The original British classic was perfect as a little seen, but oft-referenced cultural anecdote but the new version- simply based on the trailer- is darker and more paranoid. Perfect for our new reality where we all feel trapped and oppressed by forces beyond out control. 

And, let's not forget ABC's new revamp of 80s "classic" "V", once a holocaust allegory featuring reptile-in-human-clothing aliens and now a tale of how hope and and the human spirit can be turned against us by seemingly benevolent Visitors.

Has the mainstream entertainment media "run out of ideas" as so many have criticized? Or is this trend of re-imagining really for the best in that it takes the nucleus of an idea from the past and rebuilds it to a new form from today's perspective? Frankly, neither. A terrible idea from the past can still be a terrible idea today (See "Car 54, where are you?" the TV series and the movie), it's only when the idea from the past can be expanded, changed and most importantly grown into a new a better form (see the new "Battlestar Galactica" vs the original, or even "Galactica 1980") that this from of media recycling transcends the cliche of the remake and truly becomes a new form of art. Whether this latest spate of remakes, re-tweaks, rejiggers, and redos will fall into the latter column of remarkable or the former of retarded remains (ok, I'll stop) to be seen.

*See? No mention of "Firefly"-related bitterness. We've all grown a bit! But, seriously Joss, if you HAVE to go a a FOX related network in the future, think FX.

Opening myself up like never before!

Well hello there!

Several people has been reading this thing I laughingly call a "blog" for years. Through many incarnations, hosts, and titles, droves of people (read: 2) have been following my life and media reviews in this space. It's always been a fairly "closed" group.

But, now Typepad offers the ability to post directly to Facebook and Twitter so I've decided to actually publish more stuff and tell people about it! If my goal in life is to really be a media commentator I need a readership. Yes I realize my stuff in the epitome of amateurish but the more I do, the better it gets. Well, that's the hope at least.

If you decide to stay, please comment, I want feedback (especially if you have some ideas on what to name this mess.)  The format as it is now is mostly media reviews and commentary (as it were) but personal stuff will be there too, hell read back a while and it gets SUPER personal back there. If you decide to leave, that's fine too, I still love you. I'm not expecting anyone to become a regular but you're welcome to visit whenever.

I should also mention, and longtime reader will vouch, I has a tendency to has looooooooooooooooooong stretches of nothing in this space. Maybe "the muse" has eluded me, maybe I'm lazy either way I disappear often. I find the "mini-blog" aspect of FB and Twitter more appealing on a day-to-day basis. But I love to write. I really adore it and the only way to get better is to A)do it and B) have others read it.

So, welcome, stay awhile. Read back in the archives (running themes include: movies, TV, random, boredom, hatred of life, job and massive depression) and remember, as with FB and Twitter this space is used, not just for commentary but it's also a space to vent and release the demons form my head and into the ether. It relieves stress.

Welcome to the blog!

What I'm watching

--ABC has once again erred on the side of financial responsibility rather than growing a viewership and cancelled "Eastwick".While I thoroughly enjoy the show, I do understand the decision as it was consistently not pulling its ratings weight. But, to drop it and keep "The Forgotten"? Really?! I'm a certified TV addict and I generally forget (pun very apt and totally intended) that show even exists. "Eastwick" at least has a great cast, "The Forgotten" has...Christian Slater (wow, check that cast, I'm so glad they're keeping them employed)

--November sweeps is in full swing and the strains the economy is putting on the industry is showing a little- fewer "WOW I gotta see that!" moments and more "huh, that looks interesting." But this is the time when the shows pull out all the stops to get viewers so I though a quick rundown of what I feel is deserving of those eyes would be in order. Because, y'know, no one makes a move without my go ahead:

• "Eastwick": Send it out with a bang won't you. If nothing else Rebecca Romijn, Jamie Ray Newman, Lindsey Price, and Sara Rue look amazing.
• "Modern Family": One of the funniest shows on TV right now. Surprisingly, endearingly, and cringe-inducingly real.
• "Cougartown": Also hilarious in the same slapstick-with-a-heart vein as "Scrubs"
• "Castle": A quirky procedural in a "Moonlighting"-esque way. Plus, Nathan Fillion can just stand there and I'll watch.
• "V": The Potential is there. I really hope they push towards it. And, maybe a bit faster, as the pilot was sloooooooowwww
• "FlashForward": Still going and still interesting
• "Ugly Betty": This season is awkward and uneven so far, but the hilarity ensues. Delicious soapy goodness. But, y'all added Daniel Eric Gold (Matt) to the main cast and he's thus far just been another in the long line of people pissing all over Betty. And, we ALL KNOW they're getting back together at some point, let's get this moving.
• "How I met your mother"/"Big Bag Theory": SO HILARIOUS
• "Melrose Place": While some of the shine has gone from this campfest, I'm holding hope for the January reboot and the loss of Ashlee Simpson-Wentz (and Collin Egglesfield!) and return of Heather Locklear
• "Vampire Diaries": The mythos is growing, which is good. The acting is actually regressing which is bad. Hit or miss really, and I wanted out out episode 4 and then they had to grow a damn plot.
• "Stargate:Universe"/"Sanctuary": Specific genre stuff here but "SG:U" is brilliant in its fresh take on the 15-year-old "Stargate" franchise and while "Sanctuary" has changed a lot since it's freshman season (killing a main character, and bringing in a new "anti-hero" played by the fabulous Agam Darshi) it still struggles on the day-to-day while the arc stuff is wonderfully enthralling.

*WHEW* I watch a lot of TV (and that's leaving out the reality shows: SYTYCD, Project Runway, DWTS, and ANTM. And Amazing Race when I remember). Happy Sweeps!

"V" is for "Viewable"-ish

Back in 1983, Television was invaded by aliens. This is hardly new, aliens have been a go-to sci-fi tenant forever. These aliens though were snakes, literally, in human skin and the mini-series about them, "V" captivated audiences with it's futuristic take on the holocaust. While it spawned an low-rated spin-off series, no one has yet successfully resurrected it for TV. Until now.

ABC's 2009 "V" update has been fraught with issues from the beginning. The cast is great for the most part, but before a single framed aired people were scared. Scheduling weirdness, writer changes, show-runner changes- it's been a mess. But, still the show soldiered on and "V" has finally bowed. And...?

Enh. The show started slow and never really picked up. While they take a new approach to the story- The Visitors have been here for years setting up humanity's downfall- the getting there is so boring getting there. Once the seeds were sown as it were we were left with a promise of an interesting show that to some may still play out the allegory of the original, or as my staunch Republican parents saw it a scathing indictment of the entire "Obama movement"

3-episode limit remains in effect

A note

Just FYI, because I was getting SUPER depressing and, frankly, boring myself (clear with the oh-so-frequent update schedule) I've decided to refocus on my real passion: Media critique. I would like to update weekly with TV, movie, and maybe music or book reviews, critique, essays, news or what have you.

I would love help renaming the blog too. Leave a comment and the "how's my life going" stuff will still continue, at some point.

Cancellation, confusion and cool!

Well the Fall 2009 TV season has already lost it's first fledgling series: The CW's The Beautiful Life:TBL is gone after just two episodes (although I really only remember one airing) and will be replaced immediately by reruns of Melrose Place. It really speaks to how bad the show must've been that it lost 60% of the viewership from Top Model. Yes, the show scripted show about fake models couldn't hold the interest of fans of the unscripted show about fake models.

ABC also made news today regarding the scheduling of their reboot of the iconic 80's miniseries V. The show will premiere as scheduled in November and then take a break until after the Winter Olympics in March 2010. ABC president Steven McPherson claims this was always the plan to make V seem more like an event. Um, forgive my ignorance, but in my 30 years of TV watching not being able to find the show I wanted to watch consistently doesn't create an "event" it creates boredom, confusion, and lack of interest. It also causes phenomenal shows (Pushing Dasies and to a certain degree Scrubs, Freaks and Geeks, Sports Night, Firefly, Veronica Mars spring to mind. If I thought for a moment I'm sure that I could come up with more) to vanish for no good reason, especially on ABC (the aforementioned Dasies and the late-lamented My So-Called Life ring a bell?) I was really looking forward to V, after the extended trailer during FlashForward even more so. Now, I worry.

And, if you didn't catch the series premiere of FlashForward, find it and watch it, for it was awesome.The network describes it as a sort of companion piece to Lost in a way but it's, to my mind, way more eerie and interesting than a cheap "Lord of the Flies" rip-off with a brain melting mystery element. (What? I hate Lost? I watched for 2 seasons and they answered NOTHING) And I may end up eating these words but I thought the debut, in which everyone in the world blacks out for 2 minutes and 17 seconds only to experience a vision of themselves on April 29, 2010, to be enthralling, exciting and very cool. For you Losties there's even a random animal appearance! Easily my favorite show of the season so far.

Belaboring a Point

America's Next Top Model is a fluffy show. Not in the way of featuring bigger (read: "normal") women- although they have had a few- but more in that when watching, you don't really need to think at all. But does that mean that the viewing audience has no brain at all?

For "Cycle" 13, Tyra targeted "petite" women under 5'7". The theory behind this, given on the show, is that Tyra wanted to show another side of beauty, and unconventional side. Fine. Ok, let's do that. But, then the show began to air and we found out something- these models are SHORT!

Hear me out, the show won't let us forget the models' height. Ever. The house is filled with short jokes, from a sign at the entrance claiming a height requirement to enter to a funhouse mirror that elongates the women, and that's not the worst: So far the models seem to be required to wear FLATS! Quelle Horror!

Yes that's right, Tyra Banks, who extrolls the virtues of heels in all previous seasons is forcing these girls, who are already at a disadvantage, to wear shoes that emphasize it. All while telling them in shoots and shows to elongate themselves and makes themselves look as tall as possible. Here's the thing, they're short, we get it. Why are you constantly throwing that in our faces (the opening credits have the girls' heights next to their names even) at every opportunity? Are you trying to find a new model, or is this merely a stunt?

Clearly, it's the latter and we all know it. Tyra wants ratings pure and simple. But the over-the-top reminders of the theme detract from the purpose of the show- to find a top model (regardless of the fact that they pretty much vanish after the show, that's neither here nor there) and the sooner that they begin treating these girls as if they actually have a shot at a career, the better.

In the meantime, they're doing nothing but emphasizing how these girls are falling short.

Hot Drama, cold blood

The CW is somewhat desperately trying to be the place to be for the young adult demo. With shows like Gossip Girl and Top Model, they're in a good place. 90210, well I hear it's trying to get better and Supernatural fulfills the teens-love-horror/comedy quotient. This season they're trying to ratchet up their growing stranglehold by revving up the reboot bandwagon with a new Melrose Place and beating the current vampire trend with a stick with Vampire Diaries.

Melrose Place: New Drama, new bar, same pool.

While the preseason press touted the return of original cast-member Laura Leighton (the once-and-future corpse Sydney Andrews) and Thomas Calabro (evil Dr. Michael Mancini) and of course the acting debut of Ashlee Simpson-Wentz (perhaps "touted" was the wrong word. As well as "acting"), they failed to mention that the slick, ultra-stylized reboot was actually pretty watchable. Sure, the characters are wooden and somewhat one-dimensional, but it's been two- episodes and I'm not bored.

But, it's not the tired murder plot, or the crazy character names (Auggie Kirkpatrick? Really?) keeping me in so far. No, it's the fantastic performances of Katie Cassidy (daughter of Partridge David) and as current uber-bitch Ella and Stephanie Jacobsen (fantastic in Battlestar Galactica: Razor) as hooker-with-a-stethoscope Lauren. Not to gush, but these two need to be in every story as they have more energy and presence than the rest of the cast combined. And yes, I just said that about a failed pop-star/daughter of a 70's cheeseball.

So far, the show is pure soapy goodness: webcams, art theft, sexually ambiguous Brits, and fantastic outfits collide to create a really fun show.

Current Questions: Why were they all so comfortable lounging in an around the iconic pool less than a week after their "beloved" landlady was found floating dead in it? Does David (Shaun Sipos) have a purpose? What about Violet (Simpson-Wentz), besides the long-lost-daughter angle which, again, really? Will Lauren keep hooking? And, if so, will she keep doing it with the gorgeous Niall Matter (yay for Syfy actors being represented on broadcast TV! [sidenote: it's been said to death but how dumb is that name? No wonder your shows, FANTASTIC actors and more respectable TV movies-yes there are some- are mocked when they appear on something that reads like VD])

Vampire Diaries: Insert "suck-related" joke here

While vampires are all the rage- and really when are they not?- taking a 20 year-old young adult series and translating it to the small screen would be a stretch even with better material. Having never read the source material (although I did read the Wikipedia entry on it and, wow. Just, wow) I can only go by what's on screen: A very bland teen soap featuring gorgeous people doing things that vary wildly from typically teen to vaguely menacing to outright scary-in-a-not-really-scary-way. The actors aren't "bad" per se, simply so boring as to not make an impression. The shining exception is the character of Damon (Ian Sommerhalder) who oozes the menace his super-vamp is supposed to convey. The pilot got 100% better once he arrived.

Sadly, the main couple, the comet-crossed-lovers if you will are so deeply boring I couldn't tell if they were kissing in episode 2 or holding each other up. Yes, he's a vampire and tortured. We've seen it (Angel, Spike, Mick St. John, Bill Compton, Alex Elder, Blade, and Edward "disco-skin" Cullen) in better - and worse, it must be said- places so many times it's become a joke. So producers, let's move it along shall we? There's slow build and then there's painful dialogue, fake tension, phony bonding over journaling, and of course supposedly insidious...fog...?

We know where the story is going and there must be a way to, if not speed it up, maybe let it play out more organically while allowing the tension to come from the delicious villain as opposed to the oh-so-tired inner turmoil/teen angst.

Current questions: Is the psychic/witch thing going to be explored, or just toyed with? Or, do we have to wait for Jasmine Guy? Will the viewers even be able to sustain for that long? With so much other "drama" going on, do we actually need the unrequited love of the drug-dealing younger brother or the overwhelmed aunt? Damon is a great villain (so far, in 2 episodes) but if he continues to eat all of Elena's (the somewhat interesting in a somnambulistic way Nina Dobrev) friends and acquaintances, there won't be much time for brother Stefan (the ultra-hot and that's really all Paul Wesley) to moon over her now will there? The owner of the vampire home- Stefan and Damon's nephew- how does he fit into his family's "secret"or will he not be around enough to matter? Will anyone realize that both Stefan and Damon are way too old to reasonably pass for high schoolers- like, 21 Jump Street old- or was the whole town mass-glamoured?

The "3-episode rule" is in effect.