After my experience with Drag Me to Hell, it only made sense to give director Sam Raimi's earlier horror films a shot. I made my way through 2/3 of his Evil Dead series, Evil Dead and it's sequel/remake Evil Dead II.
I almost wish that I'd only seen Evil Dead II; it's essentially the same film as Evil Dead only the budget is roughly ten times larger. Both films suffer from the same weaknesses: a complete lack of characterization, amateur performances, and a bare semblance of plot. And both films have the same strength, a madcap imagination that fuels the inventive camerawork and wall-to-wall violence. Although the first film has some superb gross-out moments in its finale that its sequel can't hold a candle to, anything that Evil Dead can do Evil Dead II can do better.
But sometimes "better" isn't good enough, and while Raimi's "Three Stooges meets Night of the Living Dead" tone is awfully fun, there's very little reason to be invested in the films. The characters - stereotypes at best, redshirts at worst - are plopped into the woods and get possessed. Ash, the erstwhile hero of the films, is remarkably bland for someone revered as a badass by fans (perhaps the screenwriters inject some life into him in Army of Darkness). I'd say that these were just rookie errors, but I didn't care much for the plot or characters in Drag Me to Hell either. I'd love to see more of Raimi, but only as a collaborator. He's worked with the Coen Brothers in the past and if the three of them teamed up for a horror film I'd be there on opening night. When it comes to him as an auteur, though, I find the results sadly lacking.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Top Chef Las Vegas 10/28
Meh.
Worst episode of the season by a long shot. It's not even close.
Take the Quickfire, for starters. The contestants were supposed to put their spin on TV dinners, using classic shows as inspirations. Only three of the dishes strongly related to the shows they were based off of. You can't blame Mike for not knowing how to do a Seinfeld-based dish, but Michael's Cheers-based dish was devoid of anything resembling pub/bar food. Only two dishes were reasonable facsimiles of what you'd find in the frozen foods section. Apparently you can put anything in a compartmentalized tray and claim that it's your take on a TV dinner. Lame.
Then comes the Elimination Challenge, which throws everyone for a loop by forcing them to cook vegetarian dishes using what's available in the kitchen of Tom Colicchio's Vegas steakhouse. Remember the vegan challenge from Top Chef Masters? That not only tested the flexibility of the chefs but also produced interesting dishes. However - I assume due to the limitations of what was in the restaurant's pantry - in this episode the dishes were by and large nothing but veggies on a plate. No fruits, no soups, no salads, barely any starches. If you enjoy watching six chefs make six vegetable dishes, boy have I got an episode for you.
Kevin sweeps, Robin survives, Jen continues her surprising self-destruction, and Mike gets the boot. Our favorite Jersey douchebag wasn't even that interesting this week, getting some half-hearted jabs at Robin in at the end and adopting a que sera sera attitude the entire time. I'll miss the scamp anyway.
Completely disinterested power rankings!
1. Kevin
2. Bryan
3. Michael
4. Eli
5. Jennifer
6. Robin
Next week: my dinner with Fabio!
Worst episode of the season by a long shot. It's not even close.
Take the Quickfire, for starters. The contestants were supposed to put their spin on TV dinners, using classic shows as inspirations. Only three of the dishes strongly related to the shows they were based off of. You can't blame Mike for not knowing how to do a Seinfeld-based dish, but Michael's Cheers-based dish was devoid of anything resembling pub/bar food. Only two dishes were reasonable facsimiles of what you'd find in the frozen foods section. Apparently you can put anything in a compartmentalized tray and claim that it's your take on a TV dinner. Lame.
Then comes the Elimination Challenge, which throws everyone for a loop by forcing them to cook vegetarian dishes using what's available in the kitchen of Tom Colicchio's Vegas steakhouse. Remember the vegan challenge from Top Chef Masters? That not only tested the flexibility of the chefs but also produced interesting dishes. However - I assume due to the limitations of what was in the restaurant's pantry - in this episode the dishes were by and large nothing but veggies on a plate. No fruits, no soups, no salads, barely any starches. If you enjoy watching six chefs make six vegetable dishes, boy have I got an episode for you.
Kevin sweeps, Robin survives, Jen continues her surprising self-destruction, and Mike gets the boot. Our favorite Jersey douchebag wasn't even that interesting this week, getting some half-hearted jabs at Robin in at the end and adopting a que sera sera attitude the entire time. I'll miss the scamp anyway.
Completely disinterested power rankings!
1. Kevin
2. Bryan
3. Michael
4. Eli
5. Jennifer
6. Robin
Next week: my dinner with Fabio!
A Man for New Seasons: The Venture Bros. and It's Always Sunny
The Venture Bros. has come roaring out of the gate in its fourth season. Everything that I hated the most about the third season is pleasantly absent. Whereas last season's premiere didn't even feature the title characters and focused exclusively on The Monarch, "Blood of the Father, Heart of Steel" puts the Venture family front and center - even H.E.L.P.E.R.! And while the second episode of season three trotted out Dr. Killinger, a character I never really cared for in the first place, "Handsome Ransom" introduces Captain Sunshine and a handful of other new superheroes (I am begging for Ghost Robot to reappear). While the episode's vaguely pedophilia-related undertones are hardly new ground, the episode was bonkers enough for everything to work. So long as the current season continues to introduce new characters and not get bogged down in its own mythology, this could be one of the best seasons yet.
It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia barely warrants a mention; the show has never bothered to flesh out its characters or construct broad story arcs. As long as the gang continues to behave reprehensibly the series will be funny, and so far it has fulfilled this obligation.
It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia barely warrants a mention; the show has never bothered to flesh out its characters or construct broad story arcs. As long as the gang continues to behave reprehensibly the series will be funny, and so far it has fulfilled this obligation.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Top Chef Las Vegas 10/21
RESTAURANT WARS.
I was looking forward to this all day (it helps when you have the day off and don't need to think about important stuff). Bravo was showing the restaurant wars episodes from seasons past and I caught the one from the first season, which I hadn't seen before. They had 3 vs. 3 for that one. Crazy. Then again, there were fewer diners as well. I was surprised that Stephen survived - was a prick for the whole season, or just that episode? - but fortunately he got PYKAG'd in the next episode.
I hope they bring back the tag team quickfire, because that was a really fun and original challenge. It needs to be a staple like the relay race.
I was a little bummed that the chefs weren't in charge of the decor. Sure, the decor comes second to the food, but it allows the cheftestants to show off a different side.
This is the last time I prognosticate about what happens on Top Chef. I was certain that one of the stronger chefs would be eliminated, specifically Jennifer or a Voltaggio brother. And I was doubly certain after seeing the teams that Jennifer/Kevin/Mike/Laurine would win, given that their personalities wouldn't clash. Well the only thing I got right was that Robin would survive to die another day. The chefs for Mission didn't clash but nobody took charge, either - Michael is a domineering hardass, but he gets results and his team pulled through.
The real bone of contention is: should Laurine have been kicked off? Honestly, the judges could have sent Jennifer home and I would have understood completely. She's the better chef by a long shot, but Laurine had a slightly better showing. "Slightly" being the operative word. Hell, I would've wilted too.
Power Rankings!
1. Bryan
2. Kevin
3. Michael
4. Jennifer
5. Eli
6. Mike
7. Robin
Not that it matters anymore. With the stronger chefs surviving restaurant wars by a hair, it'll be smooth sailing for the top four until the final few episodes. It's possible that the Voltaggio Brother Death Feud could send one into a tailspin and leave a spot open for Mike or Eli, but the top four are just that damn good. Remember, it's been nine episodes and they are the only ones to have won an elimination challenge. That's ridiculous.
I was looking forward to this all day (it helps when you have the day off and don't need to think about important stuff). Bravo was showing the restaurant wars episodes from seasons past and I caught the one from the first season, which I hadn't seen before. They had 3 vs. 3 for that one. Crazy. Then again, there were fewer diners as well. I was surprised that Stephen survived - was a prick for the whole season, or just that episode? - but fortunately he got PYKAG'd in the next episode.
I hope they bring back the tag team quickfire, because that was a really fun and original challenge. It needs to be a staple like the relay race.
I was a little bummed that the chefs weren't in charge of the decor. Sure, the decor comes second to the food, but it allows the cheftestants to show off a different side.
This is the last time I prognosticate about what happens on Top Chef. I was certain that one of the stronger chefs would be eliminated, specifically Jennifer or a Voltaggio brother. And I was doubly certain after seeing the teams that Jennifer/Kevin/Mike/Laurine would win, given that their personalities wouldn't clash. Well the only thing I got right was that Robin would survive to die another day. The chefs for Mission didn't clash but nobody took charge, either - Michael is a domineering hardass, but he gets results and his team pulled through.
The real bone of contention is: should Laurine have been kicked off? Honestly, the judges could have sent Jennifer home and I would have understood completely. She's the better chef by a long shot, but Laurine had a slightly better showing. "Slightly" being the operative word. Hell, I would've wilted too.
Power Rankings!
1. Bryan
2. Kevin
3. Michael
4. Jennifer
5. Eli
6. Mike
7. Robin
Not that it matters anymore. With the stronger chefs surviving restaurant wars by a hair, it'll be smooth sailing for the top four until the final few episodes. It's possible that the Voltaggio Brother Death Feud could send one into a tailspin and leave a spot open for Mike or Eli, but the top four are just that damn good. Remember, it's been nine episodes and they are the only ones to have won an elimination challenge. That's ridiculous.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
The Next Iron Chef: postscript
It figures. The night that I post my appraisal of the first two episodes of The Next Iron Chef, the third episode messes everything up. First, the opening challenge is independently judged. Then Mehtra serves an insipid take on the challenge, Americanizing thai food simply by putting it in takeout containers. I would've sent him home for lack of imagination alone, although combining a pierogi with a dumpling isn't brilliant either.
Also, Jeffrey Steingarten is a dick.
Also, Jeffrey Steingarten is a dick.
A Man for New Seasons: The Next Iron Chef
When all you've ever eaten is filet mignon, it's hard to adjust to a lesser cut. Such is the case with cooking reality shows. I've only ever watched Top Chef and its spinoff. I attempted watching an episode of Hell's Kitchen once for kicks and turned it off about five minutes in. I've always been a fan of the Iron Chef series but that's an entirely different animal, built around colorful dishes and gimmickery. With The Next Iron Chef, the Food Network is trying to take a page from Bravo's playbook.
At first, I was surprised that another chef was needed - wasn't five enough? But Batali hasn't cooked once all season (too bad, I like him) and Morimoto cooks sparingly (ditto). And somebody needs to pick up Cat Cora's slack - she wins less than 60% of the time. Meanwhile, first season winner Michael Symon is doing pretty well for himself.
Is it unfair to compare The Next Iron Chef exclusively to Top Chef? Yes. But one of these shows is the gold standard, and the other is the upstart.
Next Iron Chef borrows the preliminary challenge/elimination round format from Top Chef but throws in a nifty wrinkle by having the chefs evaluate each other's dishes in the beginning challenge. There's no secret ballot, which strikes me as unfair - perhaps that's edited out to ramp up the drama.
In place of Padma as host, there's Alton Brown. I'd say that's a pretty solid tradeoff; Brown does a great job as host of Iron Chef America and his culinary credentials trump Ms. Lakshmi's. But he's behind a booth on Iron Chef America and Next Iron Chef forces him to intermingle. It's in this role that he struggles. Padma and Tom Colicchio have this act down pat, but Alton Brown tends to stand uncomfortably close to the contestants and interject awkward statements. With his pocket notebook in hand, he comes off sort of like an overbearing college professor.
Next Iron Chef also takes more of an educational stance. Its parent show has often focused on interesting tidbits about different foods and cooking techniques and the spinoff follows suit, including pop-up text balloons that explain the origins of certain dishes and describing culinary terms to the layperson. I wish Top Chef did this too; I only recently found out that creme fraiche was more akin to sour cream than fresh cream.
The challenges have been fairly vanilla so far, and so have the challengers. Just like in Top Chef Masters, these competitors are professionals in their field and pettiness is not encouraged. There is a vague attempt to make Nate Appleman a villain, but it's pretty weak.
Will I keep watching? Perhaps. Mad Men already occupies a piece of my Sunday nights so another show isn't going to hurt. But I could easily miss a few episodes and not lose any sleep.
As for early handicaps, I like Jehangir Mehta. But like in any reality cooking show, it's too early to tell.
At first, I was surprised that another chef was needed - wasn't five enough? But Batali hasn't cooked once all season (too bad, I like him) and Morimoto cooks sparingly (ditto). And somebody needs to pick up Cat Cora's slack - she wins less than 60% of the time. Meanwhile, first season winner Michael Symon is doing pretty well for himself.
Is it unfair to compare The Next Iron Chef exclusively to Top Chef? Yes. But one of these shows is the gold standard, and the other is the upstart.
Next Iron Chef borrows the preliminary challenge/elimination round format from Top Chef but throws in a nifty wrinkle by having the chefs evaluate each other's dishes in the beginning challenge. There's no secret ballot, which strikes me as unfair - perhaps that's edited out to ramp up the drama.
In place of Padma as host, there's Alton Brown. I'd say that's a pretty solid tradeoff; Brown does a great job as host of Iron Chef America and his culinary credentials trump Ms. Lakshmi's. But he's behind a booth on Iron Chef America and Next Iron Chef forces him to intermingle. It's in this role that he struggles. Padma and Tom Colicchio have this act down pat, but Alton Brown tends to stand uncomfortably close to the contestants and interject awkward statements. With his pocket notebook in hand, he comes off sort of like an overbearing college professor.
Next Iron Chef also takes more of an educational stance. Its parent show has often focused on interesting tidbits about different foods and cooking techniques and the spinoff follows suit, including pop-up text balloons that explain the origins of certain dishes and describing culinary terms to the layperson. I wish Top Chef did this too; I only recently found out that creme fraiche was more akin to sour cream than fresh cream.
The challenges have been fairly vanilla so far, and so have the challengers. Just like in Top Chef Masters, these competitors are professionals in their field and pettiness is not encouraged. There is a vague attempt to make Nate Appleman a villain, but it's pretty weak.
Will I keep watching? Perhaps. Mad Men already occupies a piece of my Sunday nights so another show isn't going to hurt. But I could easily miss a few episodes and not lose any sleep.
As for early handicaps, I like Jehangir Mehta. But like in any reality cooking show, it's too early to tell.
Octoberfest But With Horror Movies Instead of Beer: week two
Zombieland: Shaun of the Dead's American cousin isn't as satirical or gory, but it's equally freewheeling and goofy. Due to the 2000's explosion of zombie films, there isn't much left to do with the genre, and Zombieland certainly treads on familiar ground both as a horror film and a buddy comedy. Even Jesse Eisenberg and Woody Harrelson are playing archetypes they're more than familiar with. Fortunately, they're really good at it. And although at first blush the film falls into all of the wish-fulfilment traps of recent post-apocalyptic zombie horror, that isn't quite the case. Whereas Shaun of the Dead posited that any slacker could rise against the undead hordes, Zombieland's protagonists are a neurotic loner, a slightly psychotic good ol' boy, and two con artists.
Drag Me To Hell: Sam Raimi cut his teeth on ultraviolent horror movies before moving on to direct the Spider-Man series. He allowed himself a brief indulgence during Spider-Man 2, but steered clear of the genre until this past summer. I haven't seen Raimi's Evil Dead films, but it's clear that he still has a flair for dark humor, paranormal intrigue, and gross-out scares (I can't credit him for Christopher Young's score, but it's also exceptional). If I had to make a list right now of the five best scenes involving bad things happening to a cat, Drag Me to Hell would have two spots. Too bad the ending is so telegraphed that the final 15 minutes are virtually suspense-free, thereby taking the punch out of the whole movie.
Drag Me To Hell: Sam Raimi cut his teeth on ultraviolent horror movies before moving on to direct the Spider-Man series. He allowed himself a brief indulgence during Spider-Man 2, but steered clear of the genre until this past summer. I haven't seen Raimi's Evil Dead films, but it's clear that he still has a flair for dark humor, paranormal intrigue, and gross-out scares (I can't credit him for Christopher Young's score, but it's also exceptional). If I had to make a list right now of the five best scenes involving bad things happening to a cat, Drag Me to Hell would have two spots. Too bad the ending is so telegraphed that the final 15 minutes are virtually suspense-free, thereby taking the punch out of the whole movie.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Top Chef Las Vegas 10/14
Laurine, Robin, and Ash in the bottom three and Ash gets eliminated? Yawn.
On the whole, I've preferred this batch of cheftestants to last season's group of cheftestants. Unfortunately, like I've said before, it's clear who is going home and who is making the final four. Nobody is going to make a Carla-esque run at the prize this year. Of the four chefs selected as favorites in the Elimination Challenge, three were the same. And that group of four, of course, was the Brothers Voltaggio, Kevin, and Jennifer. The bottom three were the three weakest.
Not much else to say about this episode other than the fact that Toby needs to tuck his goddamn shirt in.
Power rankings!
1. Kevin
2. Bryan
3. Jennifer
4. Michael
5. Mike
6. Eli
7. Laurine
8. Robin
The rankings could stay exactly the same for the rest of the season, if not for next week's episode: Restaurant Wars. Good chefs always lose Restaurant Wars (Radhika, Dale, Tre) and I have a premonition that Jennifer or one of the Brothers V will get the boot.
Between Kevin this season and Richard in the fourth season, it seems that the nicest chefs come from Atlanta. Damn straight.
On the whole, I've preferred this batch of cheftestants to last season's group of cheftestants. Unfortunately, like I've said before, it's clear who is going home and who is making the final four. Nobody is going to make a Carla-esque run at the prize this year. Of the four chefs selected as favorites in the Elimination Challenge, three were the same. And that group of four, of course, was the Brothers Voltaggio, Kevin, and Jennifer. The bottom three were the three weakest.
Not much else to say about this episode other than the fact that Toby needs to tuck his goddamn shirt in.
Power rankings!
1. Kevin
2. Bryan
3. Jennifer
4. Michael
5. Mike
6. Eli
7. Laurine
8. Robin
The rankings could stay exactly the same for the rest of the season, if not for next week's episode: Restaurant Wars. Good chefs always lose Restaurant Wars (Radhika, Dale, Tre) and I have a premonition that Jennifer or one of the Brothers V will get the boot.
Between Kevin this season and Richard in the fourth season, it seems that the nicest chefs come from Atlanta. Damn straight.
Preview Reviews
New Moon: I'm predisposed not to like the Twilight series, but even bearing that in mind, this movie looks dumbtacular. Seriously, I'm supposed to believe that a brooding pale guy and his spineless dolt of a girlfriend have taken America's hearts by storm? My God, Bella Swan makes the archetypal submissive Disney Princess look like Ellen Ripley. Kristen Stewart, you deserve better than this.
The Expendables: A disappointing trailer for what will certainly be the manliest movie ever made. It's oddly lifeless, despite wall-to-wall violence and testosterone. That's not going to keep me from seeing it, though.
Transylmania: Now here's how to do a stupid movie trailer right. This film is guaranteed to be the lowest common denominator of humor but I can't get the preview out of my mind. I swear, the script must've been written in the early 80's and was intended to be produced by the people behind Porky's II or Hot Dog: The Movie.
The Expendables: A disappointing trailer for what will certainly be the manliest movie ever made. It's oddly lifeless, despite wall-to-wall violence and testosterone. That's not going to keep me from seeing it, though.
Transylmania: Now here's how to do a stupid movie trailer right. This film is guaranteed to be the lowest common denominator of humor but I can't get the preview out of my mind. I swear, the script must've been written in the early 80's and was intended to be produced by the people behind Porky's II or Hot Dog: The Movie.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Octoberfest But With Horror Movies Instead of Beer: week one
Mega Shark vs Giant Octopus: Not really a horror film, but you could lump it into the genre as a creature feature. I wish they'd made this movie in the 50's or 60's, because then there'd be some crappy octopus and shark puppets fighting each other in a pond and it would look hilarious. Instead, the filmmakers apparently blew the (scant) budget on crappy CGI, so all the fight scenes are dark and muddled and look recycled. The best parts, sadly, are in the now-classic trailer.
The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari: Like most really old movies, this 1920 B&W classic is more of an interesting curio than it is a gripping suspense film. The crazy sets are fun to look at, but could be equally appreciated by browsing through some stills. The ending is the only part that holds up.
Phantasm: Low-budget horror movies from the 70's were great at creating atmospheres of dread; Phantasm is no exception. There isn't much gore, and not many kills either, but the film's mood keeps it afloat. The script could've used some work - secondary characters appear and disappear, and the twist ending is unnecessary - but does a good job of making the audience wonder what sort of crazy crap is going to happen next.
The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari: Like most really old movies, this 1920 B&W classic is more of an interesting curio than it is a gripping suspense film. The crazy sets are fun to look at, but could be equally appreciated by browsing through some stills. The ending is the only part that holds up.
Phantasm: Low-budget horror movies from the 70's were great at creating atmospheres of dread; Phantasm is no exception. There isn't much gore, and not many kills either, but the film's mood keeps it afloat. The script could've used some work - secondary characters appear and disappear, and the twist ending is unnecessary - but does a good job of making the audience wonder what sort of crazy crap is going to happen next.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Top Chef Las Vegas 10/7
Poor Ashley. Just when she starts to hit her stride, a bum dish sends her packing. She was never finalist material, but she wasn't the clear loser amongst the bottom chefs either.
I'm not sure what to think about Ash. As the judges pointed out, he seemed too eager to accept a fate as an also-ran. On the other hand, he was working with Michael, Michael is a better chef than Ash, and Ash knows it. He won't go much further if he keeps on thinking of himself as the #2 guy (not that he'll go much further anyway) but I can certainly understand his view.
Eli's kind of a dick, isn't he? Sure, Mike's a douche, but Eli is slowly turning into a real asshole. Going meta and thinking about this from purely a narrative standpoint, I'd guess that Mike will be eliminated soon and Eli will take his place as the show's villain. Again, purely from a narrative standpoint.
Power rankings!
1. Kevin
2. Jennifer
3. Bryan
4. Michael
5. Mike
6. Laurine
7. Eli
8. Robin
9. Ash
It's nearly impossible to rank the bottom four. Neither have been truly dreadful lately but neither have cooked anything to redeem themselves either. The top four remain as steady as ever, and Mike is Mike.
I'm not sure what to think about Ash. As the judges pointed out, he seemed too eager to accept a fate as an also-ran. On the other hand, he was working with Michael, Michael is a better chef than Ash, and Ash knows it. He won't go much further if he keeps on thinking of himself as the #2 guy (not that he'll go much further anyway) but I can certainly understand his view.
Eli's kind of a dick, isn't he? Sure, Mike's a douche, but Eli is slowly turning into a real asshole. Going meta and thinking about this from purely a narrative standpoint, I'd guess that Mike will be eliminated soon and Eli will take his place as the show's villain. Again, purely from a narrative standpoint.
Power rankings!
1. Kevin
2. Jennifer
3. Bryan
4. Michael
5. Mike
6. Laurine
7. Eli
8. Robin
9. Ash
It's nearly impossible to rank the bottom four. Neither have been truly dreadful lately but neither have cooked anything to redeem themselves either. The top four remain as steady as ever, and Mike is Mike.
The case against: Glee
Glee made a flashy entrance when its first episode premiered after the season finale of American Idol earlier this year. It promptly vanished until the start of the 2009 TV season proper, allowing the buzz to build for months. Ratings have been so good that it's been picked up for a full season.
There's a lot to like about Glee. The cast is talented, the dialogue occasionally zings in a 30 Rock-esque fashion, and there's nothing else like it on television. It's also heavily problematic, which keeps it from being something I want to watch regularly.
- There's too much going on: Here's a shortlist of what happened during the episode "Preggers." Kurt made the football team as a kicker and came out to his father. Sue continued her mission to break up Glee Club by getting Sandy to re-join the faculty. Rachel, feeling under-appreciated, left Glee Club in order to be a part of Sandy's cabaret. And - deep breath - Finn found out that his girlfriend was pregnant but even though he thinks he's the father it's actually his best friend Puck, which gives Will's wife a chance to come up with a baby because she's lied to him about being pregnant. Phew. At least it's told in a compact time frame; the episode prior to it seemingly took place over an entire month.
- The characters are problematic: I get extremely nit-picky when it comes to characters staying consistent with who they are. For instance, Will and Sandy are fairly chummy in "Acafellas" but one episode later Sandy hates Will with a passion. Granted, their allegiance as part of the Acafellas was one of convenience and not mutual respect, but in "Preggers" Sandy hates Glee Club with the passion of Sue Sylvester, who'd sooner kill herself than team up with Will for anything. Also, while "ugly" high schoolers have been portrayed by attractive actors and actresses for ages, the show still stretches the limits of plausibility by having Rachel moping about being unloved and invisible. Sure, she's a bit of a bitch, but she's also stunningly attractive. It's like when Taylor Swift paints herself as a nobody in "You Belong to Me." I'm not buying it for a second.
- The musical numbers are overproduced: I've never seen a real show choir before, but my God, I can't handle any of the performances in Glee. I did chorus and musical theater in high school. I have Broadway soundtracks on my iPod. I'm one of the few people who don't mind college a capella groups. This sort of thing should be right down my alley. But it doesn't help when all the songs come with unnecessary backing vocals and instrumental accompaniments. Matthew Morrison and Lea Michele were on Broadway. They don't need help from the production booth to sound good. And Jesus, the Acafellas didn't even sing a capella! I can understand why the musical numbers are largely contemporary pop songs - I doubt audiences want to hear "The Lord Bless You and Keep You." But it's possible to do a capella songs, or choral work with limited post-production, and have it be catchy. It worked for Billy Joel. It was a viral hit for Straight No Chaser. And even traditional choirs can make pop music work.
- The show can't commit to what it wants to be: I feel that Glee would work better as a half-hour comedy in the vein of The Office, but that's not my major quibble. Glee could successfully be an hour-long dramedy if it chose to either be an all-out musical or keep the musical numbers in the real world. Instead, Glee is all over the place. Rachel and Mercedes sing in fantasy sequences, but the football team's "Single Ladies" dance happens during an actual football game. I'm all for willing suspension of disbelief, but the team's dance is the sort of stunt that would at the very least result in a delay of game penalty. Establish that the show follows the rules of a musical, and I don't think about that. But the show's first three episodes occur in a reality-based setting. You can't change the rules like that and expect the audience to play along. Perhaps the creators remembered how Cop Rock and Viva Laughlin were colossal failures and decided not to go balls-out. It's a bad call.
There's a lot to like about Glee. The cast is talented, the dialogue occasionally zings in a 30 Rock-esque fashion, and there's nothing else like it on television. It's also heavily problematic, which keeps it from being something I want to watch regularly.
- There's too much going on: Here's a shortlist of what happened during the episode "Preggers." Kurt made the football team as a kicker and came out to his father. Sue continued her mission to break up Glee Club by getting Sandy to re-join the faculty. Rachel, feeling under-appreciated, left Glee Club in order to be a part of Sandy's cabaret. And - deep breath - Finn found out that his girlfriend was pregnant but even though he thinks he's the father it's actually his best friend Puck, which gives Will's wife a chance to come up with a baby because she's lied to him about being pregnant. Phew. At least it's told in a compact time frame; the episode prior to it seemingly took place over an entire month.
- The characters are problematic: I get extremely nit-picky when it comes to characters staying consistent with who they are. For instance, Will and Sandy are fairly chummy in "Acafellas" but one episode later Sandy hates Will with a passion. Granted, their allegiance as part of the Acafellas was one of convenience and not mutual respect, but in "Preggers" Sandy hates Glee Club with the passion of Sue Sylvester, who'd sooner kill herself than team up with Will for anything. Also, while "ugly" high schoolers have been portrayed by attractive actors and actresses for ages, the show still stretches the limits of plausibility by having Rachel moping about being unloved and invisible. Sure, she's a bit of a bitch, but she's also stunningly attractive. It's like when Taylor Swift paints herself as a nobody in "You Belong to Me." I'm not buying it for a second.
- The musical numbers are overproduced: I've never seen a real show choir before, but my God, I can't handle any of the performances in Glee. I did chorus and musical theater in high school. I have Broadway soundtracks on my iPod. I'm one of the few people who don't mind college a capella groups. This sort of thing should be right down my alley. But it doesn't help when all the songs come with unnecessary backing vocals and instrumental accompaniments. Matthew Morrison and Lea Michele were on Broadway. They don't need help from the production booth to sound good. And Jesus, the Acafellas didn't even sing a capella! I can understand why the musical numbers are largely contemporary pop songs - I doubt audiences want to hear "The Lord Bless You and Keep You." But it's possible to do a capella songs, or choral work with limited post-production, and have it be catchy. It worked for Billy Joel. It was a viral hit for Straight No Chaser. And even traditional choirs can make pop music work.
- The show can't commit to what it wants to be: I feel that Glee would work better as a half-hour comedy in the vein of The Office, but that's not my major quibble. Glee could successfully be an hour-long dramedy if it chose to either be an all-out musical or keep the musical numbers in the real world. Instead, Glee is all over the place. Rachel and Mercedes sing in fantasy sequences, but the football team's "Single Ladies" dance happens during an actual football game. I'm all for willing suspension of disbelief, but the team's dance is the sort of stunt that would at the very least result in a delay of game penalty. Establish that the show follows the rules of a musical, and I don't think about that. But the show's first three episodes occur in a reality-based setting. You can't change the rules like that and expect the audience to play along. Perhaps the creators remembered how Cop Rock and Viva Laughlin were colossal failures and decided not to go balls-out. It's a bad call.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
A Man for New Seasons: The Office and Weekend Update Thursday
The Office is getting off to a good start. Michael is more petty and less sympathetic than usual, which I don't mind, since the show got very soft on him last season. Andy continues to be the best Sixth Man, so to speak. And I like how the writers are keeping Jim's flaws consistent. Michael flaunting Toby's report in order to keep Jim from getting a promotion was a dick move, but Toby's report is spot-on. And tonight's episode is yet another example of Jim wilting when given a position of authority. The PB&J relationship gets cloyingly cute at times, but it's flaws like these that keep the characters from being unbearable. Speaking of which, it seems a little odd that Jim and Pam's big wedding is the 4th episode of the season. Saving the baby's birth for the finale, I suppose.
SNL Weekend Update Thursday, on the other hand, has sputtered out the gate. Fortunately it's just a placeholder until 30 Rock returns. Without a presidential election to give it a raison d'etre, there's a dearth of material for the show (and for SNL proper, too). I fully welcome its pre-planned demise, and I'm sure Lorne Michaels and company welcome it too.
SNL Weekend Update Thursday, on the other hand, has sputtered out the gate. Fortunately it's just a placeholder until 30 Rock returns. Without a presidential election to give it a raison d'etre, there's a dearth of material for the show (and for SNL proper, too). I fully welcome its pre-planned demise, and I'm sure Lorne Michaels and company welcome it too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)