I raced through the 4 seasons of this BBC comedy in the space of just several days; this undoubtedly helped smooth through some of the weaker episodes, and give me an emotional attachment. The premise is horribly weak, but the show is consistently amusing, if not often uproarious. I accuse the premise of being horribly weak because it takes 6 people -- 3 men, 3 women -- and throws them together in the first episode; thereupon they become the only friends in each others' lives for the next 2 years (oh, also, many of the 6 are exes of others in the 6 -- that's bound to work out happily. Thankfully that happened in the background, so we weren't faced with Dawson's Creek style permutations of all possible matchups among the leads).
So, a comedy about the dating follies and amusing foibles of a group of friends. From this brave and innovative premise the British will stride into entirely new territories, giving a distinctive Euro take on events. Or ... not. It's slightly more explicit than Friends but not outrageously so... to its weakness. Particularly by the 3rd season, the cast was shying away from perfectly clear explanations in order to bring out tired innuendo. It has certainly never seemed to me practical that a group of women would shy around discussing what are essential biological facts involving, say, pregnancy -- but that's what the show would have you believe. And, of course, the show had a silly premise that involved the characters one and all deciding that any other friendships were irrelevant and could be tossed aside for these strangers they met in the pilot.
The 4th season was marred by one of the regulars leaving (the actor refused to come back, so the producers threw in a cousin oliver to try to fill his place on the show). The main relationship was wrapping up, as marriage proposal and a baby occur; the others begin to settle down. It was a good stopping point,but it probably should have come a season earlier. The first season or two are well-worth watching for relaxing when you don't want to think too much; but I recommend avoiding the 3rd and 4th.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Music and Lyrics
I suppose I'm just in the mood for a little romance lately; first Mansfield Park and now Music and Lyrics. I liked M&L quite a bit more, however, although it shares many of the same "shallow romance" flaws. The basic concept is the same: you know from the minute the characters appear on screen what their ultimate fates will be, but it manages to do this in a much lighter tone with very likeable characters. There's nothing that stands out in this movie -- I doubt I'll ever seek it out again -- but it's worth watching, particularly on a date or if you're just wanting to be cheered up.
Hugh Grant is Alex Fletcher, a washed-up 80s has-been singing sensation. This is no Dickey Roberts character; the movie carefully avoids having Alex ever break into histrionics about his faded star. Hugh Grant, of course, is quite practiced at self-deprecation but he brings a maturity to this role that is much appreciated (none of that incredibly annoying stammer that put me off him for years!). He's going gently into that good night...he makes a living mining his reputation by singing past hits to aging fans. The only reason he takes any chances in the movie is that the audience for this is shrinking, and his agent warns him his career may be in jeopardy. Some mention is made of his former partner, who apparently betrayed Alex; but the partner never shows up in the movie, not being a focus of Alex's life.
Drew Barrymore is, as usual, cute and spunky. Here too the character is mature; she has a former lover who's written calumnies about her in a best-selling fictional novel. The movie shows her moving on with her life -- pained, but avoiding the sort of cheap resolution that so oten plague romance movies (e.g., she doesn't expose him as a philanderer, he doesn't become a focus of her life, he isn't revealed as an ugly lunatic). Instead, he shows up briefly, and is mentioned briefly at the end.
The movie's central theme is thus revealed as moving on. Not staying in a rut, not seeking revenge, but simply taking the skills one has and moving on. This is aided, of course, by finding true love and using the romantic ideals of the US's hottest pop sensation, but ... :) Said pop sensation, by the way, was similarly subdued. She sought out Alex because his music had helped her deal with her parent's divorce, so she wanted to use his music to help people move on. For all that she was used to poke fun at the celebrity culture and modern pop music, she delivered the best single speech in the movie, when she revealed how panicked she was to stay on top, and why she would accordingly twist songs to let her dance.
This is afun movie -- not deep, but fun and romantic.
Hugh Grant is Alex Fletcher, a washed-up 80s has-been singing sensation. This is no Dickey Roberts character; the movie carefully avoids having Alex ever break into histrionics about his faded star. Hugh Grant, of course, is quite practiced at self-deprecation but he brings a maturity to this role that is much appreciated (none of that incredibly annoying stammer that put me off him for years!). He's going gently into that good night...he makes a living mining his reputation by singing past hits to aging fans. The only reason he takes any chances in the movie is that the audience for this is shrinking, and his agent warns him his career may be in jeopardy. Some mention is made of his former partner, who apparently betrayed Alex; but the partner never shows up in the movie, not being a focus of Alex's life.
Drew Barrymore is, as usual, cute and spunky. Here too the character is mature; she has a former lover who's written calumnies about her in a best-selling fictional novel. The movie shows her moving on with her life -- pained, but avoiding the sort of cheap resolution that so oten plague romance movies (e.g., she doesn't expose him as a philanderer, he doesn't become a focus of her life, he isn't revealed as an ugly lunatic). Instead, he shows up briefly, and is mentioned briefly at the end.
The movie's central theme is thus revealed as moving on. Not staying in a rut, not seeking revenge, but simply taking the skills one has and moving on. This is aided, of course, by finding true love and using the romantic ideals of the US's hottest pop sensation, but ... :) Said pop sensation, by the way, was similarly subdued. She sought out Alex because his music had helped her deal with her parent's divorce, so she wanted to use his music to help people move on. For all that she was used to poke fun at the celebrity culture and modern pop music, she delivered the best single speech in the movie, when she revealed how panicked she was to stay on top, and why she would accordingly twist songs to let her dance.
This is afun movie -- not deep, but fun and romantic.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Mansfield Park
Mansfield Park is an adaptation of Jane Austen's most autobiographical film that is faithful except for the parts that aren't. Or may it isn't except for the parts that are. I have no idea, I've never read the book. (I quite enjoy Austen, but somehow this is one book in her oevre that I've never gotten around to). So I 'll have to judge the film on its own merits ... a tough job indeed, but I suppose I'll manage.
A quick summary of the story: Fanny is sent as a young girl from her poor household to live with her aunt and uncle. She's well-treated there, although is somewhat second class to her cousins. Eventually, after some years, they are all of marriageable age, and she (and her female cousins) begin to think of marriage. Fanny is torn between two men: one a clergy man (not interested in her), one a rake (interested in her). Eventually the rake's immorality shines through, and (his proposal having been spurned by Fanny) he seduces one of Fanny's cousins, recently married. He is exposed as a rake, the cousin cast into infamy, Fanny taken to prominence,and she marries her clergyman after all.
So, that's the summary. I think it's fairly clear why I'm dissatisfied with the movie: it's a shallow romance story. The wicked are punished, the main character emerges in triumph, and it all ends up as you'd expect. Some parts are mysteriously explained: why was Fanny taken and not her sisters? What caused the family schism? (Looking at wikipedia, the details of her parents' situation is explained, but I missed any of it in the movie itself). To go along with this , it's not particularly comedic ... Austen's forte is lighthearted romantic wit, and this movie is serious. You're confronted with the bad situation for women, the unlikeability of most of the family, the blindness of the romantic interest... I'd only really recommend it to completists or fans of period romances (although, I'll hasten to add, it's not a bad movie if you're in the mood for a romance movie).
A quick summary of the story: Fanny is sent as a young girl from her poor household to live with her aunt and uncle. She's well-treated there, although is somewhat second class to her cousins. Eventually, after some years, they are all of marriageable age, and she (and her female cousins) begin to think of marriage. Fanny is torn between two men: one a clergy man (not interested in her), one a rake (interested in her). Eventually the rake's immorality shines through, and (his proposal having been spurned by Fanny) he seduces one of Fanny's cousins, recently married. He is exposed as a rake, the cousin cast into infamy, Fanny taken to prominence,and she marries her clergyman after all.
So, that's the summary. I think it's fairly clear why I'm dissatisfied with the movie: it's a shallow romance story. The wicked are punished, the main character emerges in triumph, and it all ends up as you'd expect. Some parts are mysteriously explained: why was Fanny taken and not her sisters? What caused the family schism? (Looking at wikipedia, the details of her parents' situation is explained, but I missed any of it in the movie itself). To go along with this , it's not particularly comedic ... Austen's forte is lighthearted romantic wit, and this movie is serious. You're confronted with the bad situation for women, the unlikeability of most of the family, the blindness of the romantic interest... I'd only really recommend it to completists or fans of period romances (although, I'll hasten to add, it's not a bad movie if you're in the mood for a romance movie).
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Johnny Dangerously
I randomly caught this flick when searching for something to distract me. It's not a serious film -- the theme was composed by Weird Al -- but it's fairly fun. Some breaking of the 4th wall, some anachronisms, and lots of in-genre gangster movie conventions. However, it's really fluff; the gunfights are about as realistic as those in Support your Local Sheriff, and the humor is telegraphed way in advance. And, Michael Keaton as the gangster Johnny Dangerously ... i suppose he can handle suave, but I was mostly trying to figure out whether he was wearing mascara and, if so, why?
Recommended as light semi-background entertainment.
Recommended as light semi-background entertainment.
Friday, January 4, 2008
Troy
The movie Troy is much like its source story: it involved larger-than-life megastars, an ambitious storyteller, and a bit of controversy over who won (a Pyrrhic victory, or a defeat all around? Or even setting the stage for an even greater empire to arise, in the Aeneid). It received lukewarm critical reviews in the US and anecdotally is regarded as a failure at the box office (it didn't earn back production costs in domestic box office). However, it did very well internationally, and the only reason its $120 million domestic take didn't pay for the movie by itself was that it was tremendously expensive, $180 million.
The production money was put to good use. Rotten Tomatoes gives it an aggregate score of 55% approval, but I suspect many reviewers were looking for an epic truer to the classical Iliad. Witness Roger Ebert's review (well-written as usual, but in this case, wrong):
This emphasis on cinematic veracity rather than literary fidelity pays off. The first 5/6 of the film moved quickly, unlike Jackson's Lord of the Ring; although it would have been nice to see some cultural favorites like Cassandra and her father, or more of Odysseus's plotting, this was not their movie. The director, Wolfgang Petersen, turns the siege of Troy into a dyadic relationship between Hector, the son of Troy, and Achilles, the invincible warrior.
This is a relationship that the characters themselves do not see; the only real encounters between the two are on the battlefield (the director, perhaps overcompensating, makes Achilles pointedly heterosexual and attracted to Hector's (female) cousin). But we see how the compact Trojan group deals with its champion, integrated in the royal council and listened to with respect, while comparing it to Achilles's pseudo-exile within the Greeks. Menelaus and Agamemnon dictate orders to their allied city-states, without consultation.
The modern nuance that Ebert decries lends an interesting view of Achilles. He's ironic and narcissistic, hypocritical and thoughtful, nihilistic and verve-filled. The sheer enthusiasm with which Pitt portrays Achilles's hypocrisy is startlingly fun -- from one minute a hardened warrior accustomed to death and seeking only glory, to the next an angered cousin shouting out in fury at the universe, "Why him!?" The essential humanity of this conflict is only highlighted.
Knowing (as I did) what would come, I found the final 1/6 of the movie unnecessarily slow. The director wanted us, presumably, to feel the dread and anticipation as he finally comes to pass, but it didn't work. I was left bored and a bit annoyed at how the characters jumped into their doom.
The production money was put to good use. Rotten Tomatoes gives it an aggregate score of 55% approval, but I suspect many reviewers were looking for an epic truer to the classical Iliad. Witness Roger Ebert's review (well-written as usual, but in this case, wrong):
Many of the issues Ebert claims are the movie's failings are in fact the movie's strengths. I watched it 3.5 years after the hype surrounding it, and am happy to say I think it's a good movie. As Ebert suggests, it's not a movie that you could substitute for reading Homer if you had to write a book report due tomorrow (besides, at 3 hours long, it's not a movie you should watch under deadline). It discards many characters willy-nilly, simplifies motivations, and stays stubbornly natural.
"Troy" is based on the epic poem The Iliad by Homer, according to the credits. Homer's estate should sue. The movie sidesteps the existence of the Greek gods, turns its heroes into action movie cliches and demonstrates that we're getting tired of computer-generated armies.
This emphasis on cinematic veracity rather than literary fidelity pays off. The first 5/6 of the film moved quickly, unlike Jackson's Lord of the Ring; although it would have been nice to see some cultural favorites like Cassandra and her father, or more of Odysseus's plotting, this was not their movie. The director, Wolfgang Petersen, turns the siege of Troy into a dyadic relationship between Hector, the son of Troy, and Achilles, the invincible warrior.
This is a relationship that the characters themselves do not see; the only real encounters between the two are on the battlefield (the director, perhaps overcompensating, makes Achilles pointedly heterosexual and attracted to Hector's (female) cousin). But we see how the compact Trojan group deals with its champion, integrated in the royal council and listened to with respect, while comparing it to Achilles's pseudo-exile within the Greeks. Menelaus and Agamemnon dictate orders to their allied city-states, without consultation.
The modern nuance that Ebert decries lends an interesting view of Achilles. He's ironic and narcissistic, hypocritical and thoughtful, nihilistic and verve-filled. The sheer enthusiasm with which Pitt portrays Achilles's hypocrisy is startlingly fun -- from one minute a hardened warrior accustomed to death and seeking only glory, to the next an angered cousin shouting out in fury at the universe, "Why him!?" The essential humanity of this conflict is only highlighted.
Knowing (as I did) what would come, I found the final 1/6 of the movie unnecessarily slow. The director wanted us, presumably, to feel the dread and anticipation as he finally comes to pass, but it didn't work. I was left bored and a bit annoyed at how the characters jumped into their doom.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
An Ideal Husband
An Ideal Husband is a movie perhaps worth watching if you're prepared to suffer through its very real limitations. It's a cinematic adaptation of one of Oscar Wilde's plays -- Wikipedia informs me it was written when he was at the peak of his success, before he was arrested for public indecency. One might be tempted to read into it a pre-apologia for this arrest; but I'll skirt temptation, not knowing much about Wilde's actual biography.[TODO: make sure the semi-theory makes sense].
The apparent husband of discourse is a rich commoner who has risen from humble beginnings to a place of prominence in the House of Commons. He is happily married to a stern wife who idealizes her husband -- he seems to have a perfect life. However, a blackmailer appears upon the scene, threatening to reveal the secret origins of his fortune were he not to change his political position. This revelation would destroy his place in society, jeopardize his freedom, and worst of all, destroy the pedastal on which his wife views him.
Eventually a friend of the husband, an idle Lord Goring, is brought into the picture. The lord is a wit and a true friend, who thrusts himself into the picture and wagers his own life (well, hand in marriage) to defuse the blackmailer, in a literal gamble on whether the commoner values his current ideals over his ambitions and stature. And, at the end, the wife learns to be a little more forgiving.
There's a little bit of depth in the story, but not much ... it's a light comedy. Wilde certainly knew how to write those, but the movie makes the tremendous mistake of humanizing the characters. Dueling wits work really well in the movies (who hasn't dreamed of wordplay as fast and dynamic as in Sports Night or a coherent speech as in It's a Wonderful Life?) Dramas can have more realistic dialogue ... Veronica Mars or Buffy the Vampire Slayer got away with significant pauses and blurting out thoughts -- but the Wilde script doesn't survive. Inevitablyl,I was cringing when Lord Goring spoke, amazed at how clunky a Wilde wit could actually sound. it's the lesson action movies learned.. fast and furious lets people ignore the thin plot and necessary coincidences.
I don't really recommend the movie. It's not bad if you're looking for something fairly nonconfrontational,but in the end there's no real reason to seek it out or pay attention to it. Even for a light comedy, that's disappointing.
The apparent husband of discourse is a rich commoner who has risen from humble beginnings to a place of prominence in the House of Commons. He is happily married to a stern wife who idealizes her husband -- he seems to have a perfect life. However, a blackmailer appears upon the scene, threatening to reveal the secret origins of his fortune were he not to change his political position. This revelation would destroy his place in society, jeopardize his freedom, and worst of all, destroy the pedastal on which his wife views him.
Eventually a friend of the husband, an idle Lord Goring, is brought into the picture. The lord is a wit and a true friend, who thrusts himself into the picture and wagers his own life (well, hand in marriage) to defuse the blackmailer, in a literal gamble on whether the commoner values his current ideals over his ambitions and stature. And, at the end, the wife learns to be a little more forgiving.
There's a little bit of depth in the story, but not much ... it's a light comedy. Wilde certainly knew how to write those, but the movie makes the tremendous mistake of humanizing the characters. Dueling wits work really well in the movies (who hasn't dreamed of wordplay as fast and dynamic as in Sports Night or a coherent speech as in It's a Wonderful Life?) Dramas can have more realistic dialogue ... Veronica Mars or Buffy the Vampire Slayer got away with significant pauses and blurting out thoughts -- but the Wilde script doesn't survive. Inevitablyl,I was cringing when Lord Goring spoke, amazed at how clunky a Wilde wit could actually sound. it's the lesson action movies learned.. fast and furious lets people ignore the thin plot and necessary coincidences.
I don't really recommend the movie. It's not bad if you're looking for something fairly nonconfrontational,but in the end there's no real reason to seek it out or pay attention to it. Even for a light comedy, that's disappointing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
