Uno, Dos, Tres, Catorce: Brief Thoughts on Vertigo

Thanks to the Music Box Theater's 70mm Film Festival, I saw Hitchcock's Vertigo for the first time this afternoon.

• Vertigo's appearance in this series is something of a misnomer as it wasn't shot in 70mm but rather VistaVision, and was restored and converted into 70mm in 1996.  This probably matters more to film wonks than it does to me.
• 70mm supposedly adds more clarity and depth to the picture than 35mm; the depth of field in Vertigo is certainly impressive but I don't know if I would especially notice it otherwise.  What's most notable to me is how warm the colors are on the analog images.
• Cursory googling suggests that the Music Box seats 800 and the showing was nearly full, which was a pleasant surprise (the wait to buy tickets excepted).
• I preferred the spunky Barbara Bel Geddes to Kim Novak so I guess I'm crazy or something.
• For some reason, I missed the Hitchcock cameo.  Fail.
• Jimmy Stewart's obsessive behavior towards the end was curiously treated as laugh lines by a good portion of the audience.  This part of the film does dip a bit into melodrama, and I'd imagine that one or two Lifetime movies have borrowed Vertigo's plot.  Nonetheless, I couldn't help but think of Matt Zoller Seitz' recent article about modern audiences at a showing of From Russia With Love.
• I haven't seen a Hitchcock movie in several years so I can't say how it places amongst his filmography, but I enjoyed it.
• I'm not sure if it's at Greatest Film of All Time status either, though I prefer it to the technically proficient but mostly lifeless Citizen Kane, for what it's worth.
• Something something male gaze; something something feminist film theory.

Thoughts on Season 1 of Game of Thrones

Brief thoughts on the first season of HBO's Game of Thrones, from the vantage point of having read the first three books in George RR Martin's series:

It's hard to evaluate, since it's basically the first book verbatim.  Aside from a few scenes between supporting characters, most of Game of Thrones is lifted directly from the novel it's based on.  There's only one new character, for good reason - why would you add more characters to this series?  For a similarly good reason it would be hard to create entirely new plotlines, since the books are so densely plotted.  It makes me interested to read the Walking Dead graphic novels now, since I've heard that the tv show takes several detours from the comics.  I'd like to see what the AMC series chooses to add and ignore, and to what ends.

That said, it's a solid adaptation.  No roles are miscast, the characterizations are superb, the sets and costumes look great, and I never skipped over the opening credits sequence.  If you're going to adapt a book into a tv show without changing anything, you'd better get all the details right.  Aspects such as Peter Dinklage's performance have been (deservedly) exhaustively praised already, so I'll single out the design of the Eyrie (and while I'm at it, Kate Dickey as Lysa Arryn) and the brief appearance of David "Argus Filch" Bradley as Walder Frey.  The slight shuffling of chronology for the season finale works perfectly too: the scenes of Jon Snow heading beyond the wall followed by Dany becoming a true khaleesi are expertly scored and edited.

But it also suffers the faults of the book.  Oh, Theon Greyjoy, nobody cares about you.

I appreciate Starz' Spartacus series even more now.  Game of Thrones features some brief male frontal nudity but most of the naked parts are courtesy of topless prostitutes.  There's also a minor foray into gay male sexuality but it's nothing compared to a rather explicit lesbian prostitute romp.  There's nothing wrong with that, per se, but it's oh-so predictable. Something something gender politics, something something pay cable.  Spartacus is much more egalitarian about its nudity.  There are plenty of boobs, certainly, but there's a fair amount of man-ass and dong, too, if that's your thing.  On one hand, it seems like the show is written by a sexually-depraved bisexual 15-year-old.  On the other hand, that promiscuity welcomes the baser pleasures of both sexes and all persuasions with open arms.

How the hell are they going to film the rest of the books?  There are some ungodly expensive battle scenes in the second and third books.  Who knows how they'll play out on a television budget.

Downton Abbey vs. Revenge

Although PBS is airing the last episode of Downton Abbey's second season (er, "series") tonight, Brits got to watch it in 2011.  Our cousins across the pond were kind enough to inform us Yanks that, with the exception of tonight's Christmas special, the second series as a whole wasn't that good.  And while it hasn't been unwatchable, they've got a point.  Compared to the first series, the second series of Downton is incredibly frustrating to watch.  The show breezed through three years (including most of World War I) in eight episodes - a pacing completely foreign to fans of Lost and The Wire - and hung unfortunate plotlines on beloved characters.  Noble Mr. Bates suffered indignity after indignity thanks to his ex-wife, who was seemingly airlifted in from Melrose Place.  Matthew Crawley's fiancee Lavinia existed solely to fail the Bechdel Test.  And speaking of Mr. Crawley, I wouldn't be surprised if the legions of Matthew/Mary shippers were yelling at the presumptive soulmates by the eighth episode to JUST HUMP EACH OTHER ALREADY.

Downton had such promise.  You either took to its upstairs/downstairs look at life in a lavish manor house immediately or found out you couldn't care less about the white people problems of the British nobility; I fell into the former category.  Like Mad Men or The Hour, it offered a look of How Different Things Were Back Then, focused on the character arcs of upwardly mobile women struggling to find a voice, and let the viewer see the inner workings of a complex organization.  The first series had some soapier moments, to be sure - Mr. Pamuk, or Lady Grantham's pregnancy - but they were in moderation.  Series two, however, went full soap.

That brings us to the ABC drama Revenge, a very loose modernization of The Count of Monte Cristo in its first series (wait, season).  I am not the first person to point out the similarities between the two shows but it's a convergence that has become increasingly obvious as of late.  Even at its worst, Downton is still twice the show that Revenge is in terms of writing and characterization.  I'd gladly ship Declan and Charlotte off to the WWI trenches, and Ashley is somehow more useless than the lowliest chamber maid.  Some of the dialogue is painfully on the nose (when Charlotte tells Emily "I always wanted a sister" I nearly threw a shoe at my television).

However, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that, as both shows currently stand at this moment, Revenge is more satisfying television than Downton Abbey.

Downton doesn't know what it is right now.  It's either a soap gussied up in Masterpiece Theater's clothing, or it's a thoughtful period piece that got drunk on its own fame and decided to slum it.

Revenge, on the other hand, is aware of its own goals, expectations, and limitations.  It's trashy, it's soapy, it's mindless entertainment aimed squarely at a female audience, and it's never denied these charges.  The villains ham it up and the writers give them dialogue to match.  It's a show where a character is actually committed to a Hospital for the Criminally Insane, which I'm pretty sure hasn't happened in any sort of fiction since the 1950's except for Batman comics.   Downton and Revenge both have amnesia plotlines but it's only in the latter where it fits into the larger narrative.  In Revenge the main character has a revenge sensei and it TOTALLY WORKS because, well, why not?  It's Revenge.  I'm fine with the show being purely plot-driven and I couldn't care less about any character besides Nolan and that's just because he's the droll wiseass.  Any emotional heft would serve only to be icing on the cake.

Poor Downton has actors with gravitas and storylines that once upon a time meant something, and now that it's stumbled down a few wrong turns it's struggling to find its bearings again.  Revenge: no meaning, no bearings, no problems.

It's Groundhog Day. Again.

Some films stick out in your memory for certain reasons. You don't just remember when you saw a certain movie but where you were, who you were with, what you did afterwards. You know a movie is special to you when you know the history behind the first time you watched it.

I don't know why I never saw Groundhog Day in the theaters. My mother hates with extreme prejudice parents who bring little kids to movies, so it shouldn't surprise me that I didn't see a movie in a theater until I was 8 or so. My mom wanted to see it, too, but for some reason, when it came out on video, I chose to rent Surf Ninjas instead.

So circa 1994, I'm on Spring Break in Florida, and I'm fairly sure we went to Universal Studios and Sea World that year. The special thing about Spring Break for me back then was that the hotels had cable, which I didn't have growing up, including HBO, which is like, super cable. And, as luck would have it, Groundhog Day was on the first night we were in Florida. So we watched it. I've loved it ever since.

I did a project about it for AP English my junior year of high school where I traced the Jungian principle of the anima and the animus through Bill Murray's character arc. My memory is a tad hazy but I'm pretty sure I got an A because, obviously.

The funny thing is, I've only owned it on DVD for maybe a year, and it's still in the shrinkwrap. I guess I've seen it so many times already I know it by heart, and I'm not in dire need of seeing it again. My family taped it off TBS once. We had to fast forward through the commercials while watching it. Funny how my parents are okay with that but would never torrent anything.

It was filmed in Woodstock, IL, instead of Punxsutawney. If I had a car I'd totally road trip there.

Upon further reflection, Groundhog Day might have even impacted me as a cinephile. The scenes were Bill Murray is trying to save the homeless man from dying are the first where I can remember being strongly moved by a film. I didn't really get hooked on movies until I saw 2001 a few years later, but Groundhog Day likely planted the seeds.

Now that I'm older, I recognize more things. Like Stephen Tobolowsky's performance. When he dies, ten bucks says the obituary headline lists him as "Groundhog Day actor." Or how only a few years ago, I understood what Bill Murray meant when he says a character "makes noises like a chipmunk when she gets *real* excited." Remember, I was young when it first came out.

For a long time, whenever somebody asked me what my favorite movie was, I'd always say Star Wars because I loved the original trilogy when I was growing up. It didn't hit me until college that, purely in terms of the movie on its own merits, it was Groundhog Day. Recently, there have been some pretty good contenders - Wall-E, anyone? But I have to go with my childhood favorite. Don't worry, Groundhog Day. I got you, babe.

Top Chef: Texas week 8 power rankings

It's hardly surprising that reality tv editing can fudge facts sometimes, but Top Chef really pulled a switcheroo on everyone tonight. Ads for this season's Restaurant Wars episode focused on the ladies' team butchering service and being catty towards each other, and the episode itself hardly shied away from the internal conflicts. The men's team had a much more successful service (though not perfect, this is Restaurant Wars after all) and the agreement seemed seemed to be that it went well enough and the dishes just needed to be worked on a little more. At Judge's Table, however, the women took home the win for their superior food while Tom seemed ready to send all of the guys home. I don't mind selective editing, but this felt like I was being lied to.

1. Paul At the top by default. As uninspiring as his performance was, there's no reason anyone else is noticeably better.
2. Grayson Cooked some solid dishes without getting involved in drama.
3. Sarah The only reason she didn't torpedo the women's team was because Lindsay was just as bitchy as she was, and both were using Bev as a whipping girl.
4. Beverly Doesn't work well with others (see her earlier clash with Heather). Is this the beginning of a redemption arc or a momentary blip?
5. Lindsay Her cooking isn't attracting anyone's attention but as a Mean Girl... watch out!
6. Edward Meh.
7. Chris Double meh.

PYKAG'd: Ty-Lor. No chef of the night was demonstrably the worst, but he had it coming.

Top Chef: Texas week 7 power rankings

You know how bad things are for the current crop of cheftestants? I had to construct this list from the bottom up.

1. Paul There's a noticeable drop-off in quality between Paul and the other seven chefs. But let's be honest, Paul isn't even as head-and-shoulders above the pack as Angelo was in Top Chef: DC.
2. Sarah Due to the current season's predilection for group/team challenges, there are only two remaining chefs with solo Elimination Challenge wins. Paul is one; Sarah is the other.
3. Grayson Ranks higher than Edward due to a Quickfire win. Otherwise they have identical records.
4. Edward See above.
5. Lindsay Has managed to avoid elimination since the first episode, but this week was the first where she was eligible for an Elimination Challenge win. Not sure what to expect out of her going forward.
6. Beverly Not terrible, just erratic, so it's possible she could become a dark horse condtender a la Carla in Top Chef: New York.
7. Ty-Lor Ty-Lor is certainly a capable chef. However, this week he had immunity, deliberately sought to make amends for his poor performance in the steak challenge (which I believe he would have been PYKAG'd for if he hadn't fallen on his sword sufficiently), and ended up cooking poorly anyway.
8. Chris J. Did you know that Chris works at Moto? Because he works at Moto. He cooks the Moto way. Moto.

PYKAG'd: Chris C. Farewell, Malibu.
Next week: Restaurant Wars, which seems to have lost its original luster in my mind. Judging from the previews, the cheftestants find ample ways to screw up service again despite Restaurant Wars being the one thing other than the finale that they all look forward to. You'd think by know they'd all know going into the competition that they have to know a couple dessert recipes, and how not to screw up Restaurant Wars. Speaking of favorite challenges: when do we get the mise en place relay Quickfire?

The Next Iron Chef: Super Chefs week 3 power rankings

I enjoy The Next Iron Chef but it's not without its shortcomings. I've already mentioned how episodes are largely drama-free, since all competitors are extremely talented and not looking to do much trash talking. But there's also the fact that the Secret Ingredient Showdown - the cook-off that takes place between the two chefs whose dishes were the judges' least favorites - is more entertaining than the Chairman's Challenge. There is more at stake, and with fewer competitors there is more focus and a stronger narrative. And Alton Brown's presence as host is almost superfluous. In Iron Chef America, his play-by-play is the glue that holds all the madness together. But here, he adds little value. He'd do better in a head judge role, like Tom Colicchio on Top Chef. The challenges are also growing monotonous. This is the second straight episode where the chefs haven't left Kitchen Stadium (or wherever), and they've only had to cook for the judges, never a cocktail party or wedding reception or other such typical Top Chef rigamarole.

Anyway, on with the power rankings:

OUT: Chuck Hughes. I admit, I fell for the editing, which set up Beau's tofu trilogy to fail from the second he announced he was preparing the tofu three ways.

1. Geoffrey Zakarian - Hasn't erred much so far, and besides, he has the look of a man who knows he's superior to you in every way.
2. Elizabeth Falkner
3. Alex Guarnaschelli
4. Beau MacMillan
5. Anne Burrell
6. Michael Chiarello
7. Marcus Samuelsson

There still aren't any obvious weak links, and there still aren't any runaway favorites. Nobody is pulling away as a sentimental favorite either, since nobody has developed a real personality yet. I don't know whether that's the fault of the editors or if Food Network is banking on the viewer being familiar with the contestants through their other shows. Which is fine if you watch Food Network on a regular basis, but I don't.

The Next Iron Chef: Super Chefs week 2 power rankings

Ah, the traditional "elevate a common cuisine" challenge, this time focusing on ballpark food. If you loved the tailgate-themed episodes of Top Chef: Chicago and Top Chef: Masters, and the baseball concession stand challenge from Top Chef: DC, then you'll love and/or tolerate this episode.

OUT: Robert Irvine. The judges aren't messing around, aren't they?

1. Beau MacMillan
2. Alex Guarnaschelli
3. Geoffrey Zakarian
4. Chuck Hughes
5. Elizabeth Falkner
6. Michael Chiarello
7. Anne Burrell
8. Marcus Samuelsson

Honestly, these rankings are leaning on the arbitrary. They may not even be worth doing. With so many high-caliber chefs, nobody is going to truly be bad. The degrees of separation are negligible - it wouldn't surprise me if Samuelsson won three straight challenges and MacMillan lost in the next episode. I'd imagine that a favorite will emerge in a few weeks but right now the playing field is completely even.

Premiere League: The Next Iron Chef, "Primal: Heat and Meat"

If you've seen your fair share of reality cooking shows involving established chefs - namely, Top Chef: Masters or The Next Iron Chef - you already know that since the contestants are professionals with reputations to uphold, you're in for minimal amounts of drama. Nobody will be thrown under a bus. Cursing and antagonizing will be at a minimum. In fact, some of these chefs may actually be here to make friends.

This is a "Super Chefs" edition of Next Iron Chef, meaning that the contestants are of a higher profile than previous seasons, mostly because they are connected to established Food Network properties. I don't know whether Iron Chef is directly firing shots at Top Chef, but the appearances of Michael Chiarello (Masters contestant), Marcus Samuelsson (Masters winner), and Spike Mendelsohn (All-Stars contestant) are especially conspicuous.

The first episode contains a ballsy challenge in that the contestants have to cook outdoors on an open fire. This restriction has been the bane of Top Chef competitors in the past, but doesn't faze any of the potential Iron Chefs. Indeed, these chefs are cooking on a higher level and their dishes look appropriately delicious. Even the losers of the "Chairman's Challenge," Mendelsohn and Samuelsson, don't completely bomb it.

In a good twist to the reality-cooking formula made familiar by Top Chef, the "main" challenge is first, while the shorter challenge is reserved at the end for the chefs the judges thought performed poorest. The sudden-death, secret-ingredient format provides for good drama in the premiere and should continue to deliver throughout the season.

There isn't much else to say about the first episode. Reality show premieres are rarely interesting anyway. My biggest complaint is that the judges are pretty bland - where's Donatella Arpaia when you need her? It's nice to see chefs at the top of their games cook well; unfortunately (and Top Chef: Masters has had problems with this in the past), that doesn't always translate into compelling television.

Work of Art s2: week 4 power rankings

OUT: Tewz, whose piece wasn't terrible but could've connected to the original work better.

1. Kymia - On a hot streak.
2. Michelle - Has cooled since early success but had a solid piece this week. Took Simon's advice to heart.
3. Dusty - Last week's piece, which the judges didn't like, has grown on me.
4. Young Sun - Last week's piece, which won, has not grown on me.
5. Sara - Spelling "divorce" with an S was her most egregious decision. She can do better than to pander.
6. Sarah - Truly middle of the pack; the only artist who hasn't been up for a crit yet.
7. Lola - Fairly uninspired this week.
8. Bayete - Liked his re-drawing of the original piece but the accompanying video wasn't necessary.
9. The Sucklord - He's not that bad but nobody else has been up for elimination twice.

Premiere League: Top Chef, "Everything's Bigger in Texas"

I skipped out on Top Chef franchise overkill this year. Other than the odd episode here and there of Masters and Just Desserts (which to be fair, was much improved on the terrible first season), I haven't watched regularly since the all-star season. As Top Chef seasons go, it was excellent, but it was an anomaly given that all the contestants - even Mike Isabella! - were the real deal. It was all wheat and no chaff, as opposed to most seasons where the first five episodes (minimum) are devoted to eliminating the schmos. Compare All-Stars to the especially woeful DC season, with only two or three half-decent chefs and a total non-entity as champion and you'll see why I'm nervous about this season.

Even the producers knew they had to shake things up, so this season starts with a staggering 29 chefs, who are whittled down to 16 in a process reminiscent of the audition episodes of MasterChef. I'm not particularly a fan of the new gimmick - too many cooks spoil the broth, ho ho ho. And some chefs aren't even eliminated outright but rather live to cook another day for a final chance at a spot in the final (initial?) 16. But it does lead to satisfying moments like the world's smuggest babyfaced jerkwad being PYKAG'd by Tom before he even plates a dish. The rest of the preliminary eliminations, "preliminations" if you will, are more in line with your usual episode, but it's nice to see some spontaneity in a now-familiar format.

There's not much else to say about the episode, since it's largely a bunch of chefs we don't know and barely care about presenting one after another. New guest judge Emeril Lagasse adds some schlubby authority to the proceedings, whereas other new judge Hugh Acheson won't appear until the second episode. Given how sparingly Eric Ripert and Anthony Bourdain were used in previous seasons, though, they likely won't make much of an impression overall.

Of course, I'm pleased that Chicago is doing well; five chefs from the Windy City presented dishes this episode and all five advanced. Suck it, East/West Coast!

No power rankings yet, of course, and I'm hard pressed to even come up with an early favorite. It's good to see Top Chef back, but will the good vibes last once the new gimmickry is over?

Work of Art s2: week 3 power rankings

OUT: Leon and Jazz-Minh. Of the four contestants up for elimination, they were the two who deserved to go, although Jazz-Minh was pretty cute. Quit voting off the hot chicks!

Rankings are still a bit all over the place week-to-week. There aren't any clear favorites yet.

1. Young Sun - Not my favorite piece of the night but the judges gave him the win and he's performed well so far.
2. Kymia - Again, not my favorite, but the judges like her piece and she hasn't done badly yet.
3. Sara - I liked her piece more than the two favorites'.
4. Tewz - Ditto.
5. Michelle - This week she proves that she's mortal. Can't decide whether her work was too derivative or appropriately Warholian for the 2010s.
6. Dusty - The judges had valid critiques but Dusty deserved much better than being up for elimination.
7. The Sucklord - Not a bad piece, but unfortunately dated by the episode's air date.
8. Sarah - Would have preferred to see it in person to gauge its impact.
9. Lola - The subject had tons of potential but it didn't inspire me.
10. Bayete - Decent idea, horrid execution. The judges were right that he was lucky to have immunity.

Work of Art s2 Power Rankings: Week Two

OUT: Kathryn, duh, because she's a one trick pony even if she's art-school hipster hot and I hate myself for being attracted to her.

1. Michelle - The judges have taken to her so far, even if I haven't. I liked this piece better than last week's, though.
2. Leon - I totally looked up how to curse in ASL.
3. Sara - Creepy, in a good way.
4. The Sucklord - Seems like it was a lot of fun.
5. Jazz-Minh - Wish I could've seen it in person to get a good look at it.
6. Sarah - Another I wish I could have seen in person.
7. Dusty - A little too convincing as a creep, don't you think?
8. Young Sun - Very pedestrian considering how much I liked his piece last week.
9. Kymia - I liked the idea but the execution wasn't quite there.
10. Lola - See above, only even more lacking in execution.
11. Bayete - Seriously, he won for this? Maybe you had to watch it for a while.
12. Tewz - Totally uninspired.

Work of Art s2 Power Rankings: Week One

As opposed to Top Chef power rankings, my views may not parrot the judges' since I can appraise the art for myself.

OUT: Ugo, even though I didn't think his piece was that bad.

1. Young Sun - So help me, I liked his performance piece.
2. Jazz-Minh - Even though I hate her name.
3. Michelle - Not my favorite but I'll give her points because she won.
4. Lola - Not my favorite but I'll give her points because the judges liked it.
5. Tewz - Initial vision sounded cooler than the end product.
6. Leon - No thoughts either way.
7. Kymia - Ditto.
8. Dusty - His piece was less than the sum of its parts.
9. Sarah - Meh.
10. Sara - The judges liked it. I didn't.
11. The Sucklord - Not a good piece but at least he realizes how to improve.
12. Bayete - The dollar bills were overkill and ruined what could've been a passable piece. I would have voted him out.
13. Kathryn - She's got that hot art girl look that slays me but I didn't care for her piece and between that and her self-portrait, seems one-note.

Premiere League: Work of Art, "Kitsch Me If You Can"

God, that's a terribly punny episode title.

Work of Art isn't a huge Bravo hit on the level of a Real Housewives series or Top Chef, but I enjoy it. In a sense, it's a tough show to talk about. On Top Chef, you can't personally taste a dish to appraise it but can trust that if the judges didn't like it, it was rubbish. On Work of Art, however, you can definitively say if you liked or hated what the contestants made, even if art is so subjective that evaluating artistic talent in a reality show competition format is laughable.

The first episode of a reality show is never good. There are too many characters, too much exposition, and no narratives. That said, it's good to see the show back. Simon is as lovable as ever, the contestants are as interesting as they are talented, and Jerry had some killer lines and reaction shots. One of the show's weaknesses in its first season was that it's judges and hosts were non-entities. Jerry showing some life gives the panel some sorely-needed credibility.

I would have given Bayeté the boot - his piece really was overkill, with the money serving absolutely no purpose other than to bludgeon the viewer. Ugo's piece didn't work, but I felt he had more to offer. Then again, with him gone we won't hear Keith Haring's name dropped again (SAY HAS ANYONE EVER HEARD OF THIS GUY AND HOW MUCH UGO'S ART RESEMBLES HIS? NO WAY). As for The Sucklord... the show is obviously marking him as the breakout star and/or villain, and even he knows it. He does have some charm but the routine could get really old really fast.

As for the winner, Michelle, good for her. Not much else to say other than I liked it. I was surprised I liked Young Sun's piece as much as I did, given that it was - shudder - performance art. But it was cheeky and not too pretentious. Big fan of Jazz-Minh's piece, too, if not her name (worse than The Sucklord). Kathryn, though, could be a one-trick pony. Enough with the guts already.

Power rankings to follow in a separate post, incidentally.

Premiere League: Person of Interest, "Pilot"

It's been a few years since I've watched something on CBS that wasn't sports, an awards show, or Letterman. 2007, to be exact, when I watched Jericho because I thought that surely all those fans sending nuts to the network execs in order to save the show couldn't possibly be wrong (they were). However, Person of Interest stars Michael Emerson, whose Ben Linus was one of the best things about Lost for several seasons. His presence merits at least 44-minutes-plus-commercials of my time, if only for one night.

It's probably going to stay at one night. While Person of Interest has some sci-fi intrigue and decent action scenes, it's a police procedural at heart, and that's a genre I've never taken to. Even then, the particulars of the show don't work for me. It tries to create vague uneasiness about the surveillance state while claiming that eavesdropping is okay when done by the right people - for instance, the heroes hack into somebody's phone without qualms. Jim Caviezel, the show's lead actor, is portrayed as a badass but also a white hat good guy, which means he shoots a lot of people in the leg. By the eighth person, it becomes comical (the fate of one antagonist is left ambiguous, probably because the show is chickening out). It's also ludicrous how Caviezel's character goes from suicidal bum to Bruce Wayne/Batman hybrid in the span of a few hours, and one of the episode's plot twists is telegraphed a mile away because otherwise the story would be too straightforward.

Person of Interest isn't without merit; the action scenes are good, Caviezel is a convincing asskicker, and Emerson can play the role of the mysterious man pulling all the strings in his sleep. But as long as the stories lag behind the production and acting, I have no time for this show.

Let's talk about Hobo with a Shotgun & Escape from New York

Hobo with a Shotgun is a movie about a hobo with a shotgun. If you are still unconvinced about whether or not this movie is the kind you'll like, it isn't.

Director Jason Eisener has the faux-grindhouse look down a little better than Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez did in their Planet Terror/Death Proof double feature. It's more akin to House of the Devil, probably because of both films' low-budget aesthetic. It's easy to replicate the look and feel of a cheapie when your budget is only $3 million (I know it sounds ridiculous to call $3 million low-budget, but it's low). The synth-heavy score and ending credits power ballad are dead-on accurate, too.

There's a lot of cursing, a lot of titillating violence, and a lot of gore. Surprisingly, there is little nudity. The actors eschew actual acting for scenery chewing. Nobody is watching Hobo with a Shotgun for character development and I'm fine with that.

Of course, this means that the film lives and dies by its outrageousness. Eisener and screenwriter John Davies swing for the fences in every scene and they strike out as often as they hit home runs. But you can at least see the effort when they strike out; Hobo with a Shotgun does nothing half-heartedly, which sustains it through its leaner moments.

If anything in Hobo with a Shotgun can qualify for artistic merit, it's the cinematography, deliberately lush with garish reds, blues, and yellows. It's as over-the-top as the dialogue.

After taking in Hobo with a Shotgun's exploitative delights, and reading about the rioting in London, the next logical step was to watch John Carpenter's 1981 cult classic Escape from New York. It's the third Carpenter film I've seen, and the second starring Kurt Russell. Sadly, I have yet to be totally impressed with the director's work.

In its time, I'm sure Escape from New York's post-apocalyptic setting, antihero, and don't-trust-the-government spirit were all fairly revelatory. But now the movie has turned 30. When watching Escape from New York I got the feeling that I'd seen this all before, when really I've seen it all since.

Even then, there's little to recommend. All the characters are flat, even Russell's stoic, supposedly iconic Snake Plissken (give me Jack Burton any day), and the action scenes aren't thrilling. The final twist is too telegraphed to be effective. To his credit, Carpenter does a good job of capturing the feel of New York City gone to pot, and the use of light and shadow is especially effective. Escape from New York must be a product of its era, because aside from a really cool poster, I just don't see the appeal.

Let's talk about X-Men: First Class

X-Men: First Class is a first-class movie!

LOLOLOLOL. Now that we got that out of the way, here's some assorted thoughts on the film.

- First Class skims a fine line between prequel and reboot (a term that is frequently sloppily applied). Comic book continuity is notoriously hinky, and even the first four movies in the X-Men series didn't have ironclad continuity. Nonetheless, the series needed a fresh start. X3 was mediocre; X-Men Origins: Wolverine didn't even reach those heights. Origin stories are a reliable framework, and in First Class' case you get to cast dashing James McAvoy instead of (awesome but) ancient Ian McKellen. Besides, the dynamic between Professor X and Magneto has always been the intellectual backbone of the story, something the film franchise had moved away from.

- More supervillains need to do their dirty deeds in suits. Kevin Bacon's henchmen look pretty badass in their finely-tailored duds. Mr. Bacon himself, meanwhile, looks like a total dick in his 60's gear. I'm pretty sure he was wearing an ascot in one scene. Ascot = hate. No more spandex for anyone, please.

- Thor already had the title character eschew luscious Kat Dennings for stick figure Natalie Portman. Now compare Rose Byrne's skinny figure in a miniskirt to fuller-figured (which is to say, normal-figured) Jennifer Lawrence in a miniskirt. I'll say it again: friends don't let superheroes fall for skinny chicks.

- He'll never eclipse Jon Hamm as Man Crush #1, but Michael Fassbender has a rather square jaw, and piercing eyes, and he smolders, and he kills Nazis with such ease... sorry, where was I?

- January Jones is as lackluster as advertised. I'm not bothered by her interpretation of the character - her name is Emma Frost, so why not play her as an ice queen - but her iciness is flat instead of intimidating. The character is supposedly tempestuous in the comics, anyway, so maybe Jones really bungled this one more than I realized. On a side note, I wonder if I'm the only one who watched her seduction of the Soviet military head and couldn't help think of Nikolai Jackov, head of the KGB.

- But the misguided casting of Jones can't hold a candle to Glenn Morshower's role as a corrupt Colonel. You can't cast Aaron from 24 as a sellout! That's just wrong, man! A cameo by James Remar and a bit part for Michael Ironside, on the other hand: awesome.

- I didn't notice this until Adam and Matty pointed it out, but First Class' fight scenes are actually comprehensible. There's no Jason Bourne/Dark Knight shaky-cam, quick-cut fighting.

- Director Matthew Vaughn helmed the postmodern super-anti-hero film Kick Ass, which I didn't particularly care for. He plays First Class straight, with superior results.

- I caught a matinee showing of First Class; that night, I watched the Tony Awards. Hugh Jackman appeared in both, reminding me of this SNL sketch. It'll never be a classic but I have a soft spot for it, and I'll probably be shouting "TWO SIDES!" to myself for years to come.



- Henry Jackman's score during the end credits deserves a shoutout. It's not an iconic theme but it's tonally perfect.

Let's Talk About Captain America

As I walked through the theater lobby after watching Captain America, I saw a poster for the latest Spy Kids movie, starring Joel McHale. After a few seconds of thought, I developed my new rubric for evaluating action movies: if the film is at least as entertaining as one of Community's paintball episodes, it has succeeded.

Captain America is never boring, the special effects are good, it isn't stupid, and the cast has no weak links. Yet, it's never truly entertaining. It's a perfectly average film. If I ever need to explain the concept of "less than the sum of its parts," I'll point to Captain America.

As several critics have noted, Captain America is not a flashy superhero. Chris Evans plays him perfectly earnestly because that's the essence of the character. I understand that. He's still boring. Nothing against Evans, that's just how the character is written. Perhaps in the upcoming Avengers movie, where he's a man out of his era, he'll have more material to work with.

The rest of the cast can be characterized the same way. Hugo Weaving plays the villainous Red Skull, leader of too-twisted-even-for-the-Nazis group HYDRA. Weaving is a pro, he knows how to play an antagonist, and he does a fine job but he's totally unmemorable. Hayley Atwell is the love interest, the role isn't an insult to women, and she turns in an equally fine but sparkless performance. Only Tommy Lee Jones, cast perfectly to type as a crusty Colonel, stands out. Stanley Tucci also brings some much-needed character to the film but his role is merely a minor one.

Captain America is also curiously devoid of action scenes. There's a fun jailbreak, and the climatic invasion of a HYDRA stronghold isn't bad. Mostly there's a lot of talking about whether Captain America is ready to be a hero or not. I said previously that Captain America isn't boring, which is true, but it's rarely thrilling.

Director Joe Johnston has helmed a WWII-era superhero film before, 1991's The Rocketeer. The Rocketeer isn't a perfect movie by any stretch of the imagination but it's an interesting failure. Captain America is a pedestrian success.

Thor was Shakesperian, X-Men: First Class was heady, Iron Man was cheeky. Captain America is... competent. That's not good enough anymore.

Let's Talk About Misfits: "Episode Five"

"No matter what I do, the ones I love will be the ones who pay." - Curtis

Yes, Curtis stole the line from Spider-Man but it works in ending his relationship with Sam, and it turns out to be somewhat true in the end. Simon doesn't love Sally, but he cares about her in his own creepy way, and yet because of his powers he unwittingly takes part in her demise.

(Uh, spoilers.)

(Also, yes, I've been watching Misfits on Hulu this summer but I haven't been discussing each episode.)

That segues into the big question the episode presents: is Simon a villain?

If any of the main group of Misfits was pegged to fit the archetype of "supervillain" it's Simon, although the show has avoided common tropes thus far in making any of its protagonists actual superheroes. He's a loner, he's the most genuinely antisocial of the group, Nathan picks on him all the time, and he just plain acts weird (I'd love to see him in a British television stare-off with Ruth Wilson from Luther). Like the rest of the misfits, he's covered up two deaths, so he's already on the fast-track to villainy.

But hold on a second. He's also a disturbed kid who could use a little therapy and a few good friends. He's been manipulated by Sally the entire time. And he didn't really mean to kill her, right? Right? Let's not even get into Sally, whose personal quest for justice crossed a whole ton of boundaries.

It's this kind of moral relativism that sets Misfits apart from, say, Spider-Man. I'm sure that the majority of the fans would like to see the series subvert the typical origin story in that the protagonists are all juvies (not an exact equivalent but close enough). Instead, it subverts the genre by not having anyone do anything remotely heroic. Curtis tries in the fourth episode, but by trying to fix his mistakes he ends up juggling girlfriends as an unforeseen consequence. Nathan isn't Peter Parker (thank God) and Simon isn't the Green Goblin. They're all just messed-up people who got thrown into an even more messed-up situation and they're having a hard time coping.

The first season is only six episodes long, so perhaps in the finale the show takes a sharp left turn and tries to become Heroes although it's extremely unlikely. There's only one cliffhanger; the other storylines are fairly stable at the moment, save for the inevitable part where Nathan and Kelly hook up, but that's hardly a game changer. Misfits inhabits some nebulous grey area between dramedy and genre show, and arguably if not for Nathan it would be a straight drama. I'm not sure what Misfits' game is but I want to know where it's heading.