Monday, June 4, 2012
Burning Love: This is what a parody should be
If you've spent much time on the Internet today, there's a good chance you've heard of Burning Love. It's a web series parody of a show that's almost a parody of itself, The Bachelor. Burning Love features quite a few celebrities including Veronica Mars vets Ken Marino, Kristen Bell, Ryan Hansen, and Adam Scott. Often parodies have a tendency to go for over-the-top generic jokes, but it's clear that those behind Burning Love have watched a lot of The Bachelor.
I've posted the first episode here, but you can check episodes two and three on the Burning Love website (that's amazingly similar to the actual Bachelor site). The site reveals that new episodes of the series will be posted on Mondays and Thursdays.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Movie Review: Don't be afraid of Don't Be Afraid of the Dark
Warning: There are a few mild spoilers in this review such as a description of the creatures, but nothing that I feel ruins the movie.
Despite the command issued in Don't Be Afraid of the Dark's title, I actually am a little afraid of the dark. I don't quiver in fear every time I turn the lights out, but I do occasionally leave the television on as I go to sleep. In fact, I'm kind of a scaredy cat in general. I've literally jumped at my own shadow (on multiple occasions). If I spot something flying around during the summer, I assume it's a wasp or bee and go running. There's a certain completely ridiculous and implausible urban legend that shall remain unnamed (here's a hint: it deals with mirrors) that genuinely terrifies me and haunts my mind every time I start thinking about it. Worse than any of that, the Nancy Drew computer games scare me (as in, I run from the computer if something freaky starts happening). I enjoyed the games when I was younger (despite my terror), and during a bout of nostalgia, I recently replayed one thinking that I was long past my days of fearing a video game made for kids. Nope, but I did do a little less running away.
I'm telling you all of this not to completely wreck your opinion of me but so that you'll believe me when I tell you that, other than a couple of jump scenes, Don't Be Afraid of the Dark really isn't that scary of a movie.
As I type Don't Be Afraid of the Dark, I keep wanting to type Are You Afraid of the Dark?. I find the similarity between the two titles interesting because I could almost see Don't Be Afraid of the Dark as a children's horror movie. The opening scene is kind of gruesome, there's another scene that's probably a little bloody for kids, and overall, the movie might give kids nightmares. Still, Don't Be Afraid of the Dark captures the tone of silliness tinged with slight scariness that's present in the scary movies and shows geared towards children. While the rat-like monsters would be nothing to laugh at if they were to appear in real life, they're just not that scary in the world of movies and seem like a higher-budget version of something that would appear on Are You Afraid of the Dark?. Frankly, the drawings of them shown in the movie are much scarier than the actual creatures. The unveiling of these lackluster monsters comes early in the movie (although they're not really that scary when they're just voices in the vent repeating everything) and really takes away from the scare factor.
Don't Be Afraid of the Dark also suffers from the "girl please" phenomenon that's common to horror films. The "girl please" phenomenon means that I was "girl pleasing" the characters of the movie for their decisions and had a hard time understanding their decision making processes. Why is the little girl cool with creepy voices coming from her vent? Why is the groundskeeper so closed-mouthed? Why do the little creatures wait so long to attack? I'm sure you could come up with explanations for these things, but everyone in the movie just seemed a little bit dense.
After watching the trailer for Don't Be Afraid of the Dark, I was under the impression that Katie Holmes was the main hauntee and character of the movie. In actuality, her character's boyfriend's daughter Sally takes both of those roles (yet another reason why I feel like this is almost a kid's movie). Bailee Madison (who's been in several projects you might recognize, most recently Once Upon a Time as the young Snow White) portrays the sullen child Sally. Sally was the subject of the majority of my "girl pleases" because I believe that even a child should know not to respond to creepy voices in their vent. Perhaps my expectations are too high. Still, Madison does a pretty good job, and I warmed to Sally once she realized that the creatures were not her friends.
Don't Be Afraid of the Dark was far from the movie I expected it to be, but it's not completely terrible. I found it pretty entertaining, and there's a couple of moderate thrills towards the beginning of the movie (in particular, there's a monster-under-the-covers scene that really did creep me out). Still, it's the kind of movie that I didn't mind talking during, and I didn't pause it when I walked out the room for minute. And thrillwise? I still find Nancy Drew games much scarier.
Despite the command issued in Don't Be Afraid of the Dark's title, I actually am a little afraid of the dark. I don't quiver in fear every time I turn the lights out, but I do occasionally leave the television on as I go to sleep. In fact, I'm kind of a scaredy cat in general. I've literally jumped at my own shadow (on multiple occasions). If I spot something flying around during the summer, I assume it's a wasp or bee and go running. There's a certain completely ridiculous and implausible urban legend that shall remain unnamed (here's a hint: it deals with mirrors) that genuinely terrifies me and haunts my mind every time I start thinking about it. Worse than any of that, the Nancy Drew computer games scare me (as in, I run from the computer if something freaky starts happening). I enjoyed the games when I was younger (despite my terror), and during a bout of nostalgia, I recently replayed one thinking that I was long past my days of fearing a video game made for kids. Nope, but I did do a little less running away.
I'm telling you all of this not to completely wreck your opinion of me but so that you'll believe me when I tell you that, other than a couple of jump scenes, Don't Be Afraid of the Dark really isn't that scary of a movie.
 |
| I actually really liked the style of the opening credits. |
As I type Don't Be Afraid of the Dark, I keep wanting to type Are You Afraid of the Dark?. I find the similarity between the two titles interesting because I could almost see Don't Be Afraid of the Dark as a children's horror movie. The opening scene is kind of gruesome, there's another scene that's probably a little bloody for kids, and overall, the movie might give kids nightmares. Still, Don't Be Afraid of the Dark captures the tone of silliness tinged with slight scariness that's present in the scary movies and shows geared towards children. While the rat-like monsters would be nothing to laugh at if they were to appear in real life, they're just not that scary in the world of movies and seem like a higher-budget version of something that would appear on Are You Afraid of the Dark?. Frankly, the drawings of them shown in the movie are much scarier than the actual creatures. The unveiling of these lackluster monsters comes early in the movie (although they're not really that scary when they're just voices in the vent repeating everything) and really takes away from the scare factor.
Don't Be Afraid of the Dark also suffers from the "girl please" phenomenon that's common to horror films. The "girl please" phenomenon means that I was "girl pleasing" the characters of the movie for their decisions and had a hard time understanding their decision making processes. Why is the little girl cool with creepy voices coming from her vent? Why is the groundskeeper so closed-mouthed? Why do the little creatures wait so long to attack? I'm sure you could come up with explanations for these things, but everyone in the movie just seemed a little bit dense.
After watching the trailer for Don't Be Afraid of the Dark, I was under the impression that Katie Holmes was the main hauntee and character of the movie. In actuality, her character's boyfriend's daughter Sally takes both of those roles (yet another reason why I feel like this is almost a kid's movie). Bailee Madison (who's been in several projects you might recognize, most recently Once Upon a Time as the young Snow White) portrays the sullen child Sally. Sally was the subject of the majority of my "girl pleases" because I believe that even a child should know not to respond to creepy voices in their vent. Perhaps my expectations are too high. Still, Madison does a pretty good job, and I warmed to Sally once she realized that the creatures were not her friends.
Don't Be Afraid of the Dark was far from the movie I expected it to be, but it's not completely terrible. I found it pretty entertaining, and there's a couple of moderate thrills towards the beginning of the movie (in particular, there's a monster-under-the-covers scene that really did creep me out). Still, it's the kind of movie that I didn't mind talking during, and I didn't pause it when I walked out the room for minute. And thrillwise? I still find Nancy Drew games much scarier.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol: Good, But Needs More Sawyer
Confession #1: I've never seen the any of the first three Mission Impossible movies. I entered this movie with a couple of tidbits of knowledge (the theme song, the "your mission should you choose to accept it" bit, etc.) about the series, but I didn't know much about it. I didn't even know Tom Cruise's character's name (It's Ethan Hunt, by the way.).
Confession #2: Having recently seen the fantastic The Avengers, I couldn't help but compare Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol to it. I know they're not really that alike (one takes place in a world of superheroes and aliens, and the other at least pretends to maintain a facade of realism), but, in my defense, both are action films. Plus two weeks after seeing it, The Avengers is still pretty fresh on my mind.
Despite all of that, I really enjoyed Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol. It's not like gadgets and fighting sequences take a lot of back story to figure out. Sure there was a bit of a story in the movie, but it was just there to provide a framework in which to put the aforementioned action and gadgets.
The actors that made up the main team (Tom Cruise, Paula Patton, Simon Pegg, and Jeremy Renner) had nice chemistry and worked well together. I especially appreciated that there wasn't much of a romance storyline among the cast. There are mentions of outside romances that tie into the story and one flirty moment, but there's not much of a featured love story to dilute the action. I can definitely enjoy love stories in action films if they're done well (the one in Captain America springs to mind), but it was refreshing to see an action film that's content to simply be an action film.
I'm probably not the best person to judge the action in Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol because I'm not the biggest action movie buff, but I thought it was really well done. There were plenty of fun sequences, and I found the action to be really exciting. The movie is fairly long at a 133 minute run time, but its quick pace and almost non-stop action make those minutes go by quickly. There were several moments where I thought "that looks really cool." The same train of thought applies to the gadgets. I found it kind of funny that a lot of the gadgets were Apple-based, but the Apple logos did somewhat help to give the gadgets a realistic feel.
Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol's biggest weaknesses are in its non-action related moments. Most of the quips and funny moments didn't really work for me. They weren't terrible, but they weren't particularly good. In The Avengers (sorry guys, but you had to know I was going to mention it again), the dialogue and jokes were just as strong as the action. There were a plethora of quotable lines, and the movie got plenty of laughs from me. I'm not sure I laughed once in Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol, but if I did it was probably at the visual humor of one of the stunts.
Probably my biggest disappointment with Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol was Josh Holloway's lack of screen time. This is a silly personal qualm, but I was really expecting him to have a bigger role. I'm pretty sure I saw him doing promo for the movie, but that's ridiculous considering he couldn't have had more than a few minutes of screen time. What can I say? I'm a Sawyer fan.
In all seriousness, Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol is a fun blockbuster that makes a great summer film. Is it a deep film? No. Does it offer much beyond gadgets and action? No. Is it as good as The Avengers? A world of no. But it is a solid action movie that's well worth watching.
Confession #2: Having recently seen the fantastic The Avengers, I couldn't help but compare Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol to it. I know they're not really that alike (one takes place in a world of superheroes and aliens, and the other at least pretends to maintain a facade of realism), but, in my defense, both are action films. Plus two weeks after seeing it, The Avengers is still pretty fresh on my mind.
Despite all of that, I really enjoyed Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol. It's not like gadgets and fighting sequences take a lot of back story to figure out. Sure there was a bit of a story in the movie, but it was just there to provide a framework in which to put the aforementioned action and gadgets.
The actors that made up the main team (Tom Cruise, Paula Patton, Simon Pegg, and Jeremy Renner) had nice chemistry and worked well together. I especially appreciated that there wasn't much of a romance storyline among the cast. There are mentions of outside romances that tie into the story and one flirty moment, but there's not much of a featured love story to dilute the action. I can definitely enjoy love stories in action films if they're done well (the one in Captain America springs to mind), but it was refreshing to see an action film that's content to simply be an action film.
I'm probably not the best person to judge the action in Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol because I'm not the biggest action movie buff, but I thought it was really well done. There were plenty of fun sequences, and I found the action to be really exciting. The movie is fairly long at a 133 minute run time, but its quick pace and almost non-stop action make those minutes go by quickly. There were several moments where I thought "that looks really cool." The same train of thought applies to the gadgets. I found it kind of funny that a lot of the gadgets were Apple-based, but the Apple logos did somewhat help to give the gadgets a realistic feel.
Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol's biggest weaknesses are in its non-action related moments. Most of the quips and funny moments didn't really work for me. They weren't terrible, but they weren't particularly good. In The Avengers (sorry guys, but you had to know I was going to mention it again), the dialogue and jokes were just as strong as the action. There were a plethora of quotable lines, and the movie got plenty of laughs from me. I'm not sure I laughed once in Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol, but if I did it was probably at the visual humor of one of the stunts.
Probably my biggest disappointment with Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol was Josh Holloway's lack of screen time. This is a silly personal qualm, but I was really expecting him to have a bigger role. I'm pretty sure I saw him doing promo for the movie, but that's ridiculous considering he couldn't have had more than a few minutes of screen time. What can I say? I'm a Sawyer fan.
In all seriousness, Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol is a fun blockbuster that makes a great summer film. Is it a deep film? No. Does it offer much beyond gadgets and action? No. Is it as good as The Avengers? A world of no. But it is a solid action movie that's well worth watching.
Friday, April 27, 2012
Four episodes in, is Scandal a win?
Warning: This post contains spoilers about Scandal through episode four.
It seems like many times when I read an article about Grey's Anatomy, there will be a disparaging comment like "People still watch this?" or some other variation. You can feel free to send some judgment my way, but I have to admit that I'm one of those people still watching Grey's, and even more, I enjoy it.
So when I heard that Shonda Rhimes had a new show coming out, Scandal, and it looked half-way interesting (I never watched Off the Map due to a failure to meet this last criteria), I decided to give it a shot.
One of my biggest problems with Scandal is that is tries extremely hard to be clever and sassy. This causes problems like painfully bad catchphrases ("gladiators in suits" from the pilot being the worst). It's almost as if there's at least one implicit "oh snap" written into every scene. Frankly, this becomes somewhat exhausting to watch. I do have to say, however, that this aspect has toned down a bit from the pilot, and I feel like it will continue to improve with time as the show becomes more comfortable with itself.
Another big problem with Scandal is its characters. Kerry Washington's lead character, Olivia Pope, is the only character with a strong sense of personality. Even so, the writers seem to be so determined to make her strong and unassailable that it's been hard to connect with her character thus far. She has had a few "tender moments" where her walls come down, and Washington is truly a magnetic lead. I just feel like Olivia could use a little bit of work. The other characters, however, could use quite a bit of work. They seem like they're mostly there to serve as sidekicks to Olivia, and they don't have a whole lot of personality. Honestly, out of all of them, the only whose name I even remember is Quinn, the new girl to the group. For the others, I only remember a couple of facts (this one left an abusive husband, that one just proposed to his girlfriend, ect.).
I've been pretty harsh on Scandal so far, but there's also plenty of good aspects to the show. For one, it's a nice twist on the typical procedural. Instead of solving a crime every episode, they work towards fixing a scandal. While this scandal may be a crime, their job may likely be to prove who didn't commit the crime rather than find out who did. This is a fun idea, and so far, there's been a good variety of types of scandals.
Scandal doesn't just focus on a "scandal of the week" format, but also incorporates an overarching scandal concerning the president. I'm a sucker for shows that incorporate weekly plots with overarching ones, and Scandal has found a good balance between the two so far. The presidential scandal is pretty silly and dramatic, but I'm finding it to be pretty interesting. There's been plenty of twists and turns in both the season arc and the weekly stories. Although a few of them have been quite predictable, some have taken me genuinely by surprise.
The characters may not be all that strong, but I've enjoyed all of the familiar faces in the cast. My Lost-loving self was excited to spot both Henry Ian Cusick (Desmond) and Jeff Perry (Frank Duckett who Sawyer shot/Grey's Anatomy's Thatcher Grey). Also starring in Scandal are Darby Stanchfield (creepy Glen's mom on Mad Men) and perhaps most excitingly, Liza Weil (Paris on Gilmore Girls). Honestly, I kind of just like to pretend that Weil is playing a version of Paris who changed her name because her character Amanda Tanner is somewhat Paris-esque.
Scandal is kind of a ridiculous show. You know what, though? That's not necessarily a bad thing. It's the Grey's Anatomy treatment given to the political world. It's melodramatic, but it's entertaining. So far, it hasn't seemed to take itself too seriously, but rather seems to embrace its dramatics. Why just settle for a presidential affair when you can throw kidnapping into the mix? Why not have a dictator back down from taking his children away from his wife after Olivia gives him a little speech? Scandal is not going to appeal to everyone, but if you can accept it for what it is and deal with some silliness, it's worth a try. I may not stick with the show forever, but I plan to at least keep watching throughout the season.
Plus, the fact that I marathoned the first three episodes in one afternoon and added the show to my already full Thursday night DVR line-up has to say something good about it, right?
It seems like many times when I read an article about Grey's Anatomy, there will be a disparaging comment like "People still watch this?" or some other variation. You can feel free to send some judgment my way, but I have to admit that I'm one of those people still watching Grey's, and even more, I enjoy it.
 |
| Credit: ABC/DANNY FELD |
So when I heard that Shonda Rhimes had a new show coming out, Scandal, and it looked half-way interesting (I never watched Off the Map due to a failure to meet this last criteria), I decided to give it a shot.
One of my biggest problems with Scandal is that is tries extremely hard to be clever and sassy. This causes problems like painfully bad catchphrases ("gladiators in suits" from the pilot being the worst). It's almost as if there's at least one implicit "oh snap" written into every scene. Frankly, this becomes somewhat exhausting to watch. I do have to say, however, that this aspect has toned down a bit from the pilot, and I feel like it will continue to improve with time as the show becomes more comfortable with itself.
Another big problem with Scandal is its characters. Kerry Washington's lead character, Olivia Pope, is the only character with a strong sense of personality. Even so, the writers seem to be so determined to make her strong and unassailable that it's been hard to connect with her character thus far. She has had a few "tender moments" where her walls come down, and Washington is truly a magnetic lead. I just feel like Olivia could use a little bit of work. The other characters, however, could use quite a bit of work. They seem like they're mostly there to serve as sidekicks to Olivia, and they don't have a whole lot of personality. Honestly, out of all of them, the only whose name I even remember is Quinn, the new girl to the group. For the others, I only remember a couple of facts (this one left an abusive husband, that one just proposed to his girlfriend, ect.).
I've been pretty harsh on Scandal so far, but there's also plenty of good aspects to the show. For one, it's a nice twist on the typical procedural. Instead of solving a crime every episode, they work towards fixing a scandal. While this scandal may be a crime, their job may likely be to prove who didn't commit the crime rather than find out who did. This is a fun idea, and so far, there's been a good variety of types of scandals.
Scandal doesn't just focus on a "scandal of the week" format, but also incorporates an overarching scandal concerning the president. I'm a sucker for shows that incorporate weekly plots with overarching ones, and Scandal has found a good balance between the two so far. The presidential scandal is pretty silly and dramatic, but I'm finding it to be pretty interesting. There's been plenty of twists and turns in both the season arc and the weekly stories. Although a few of them have been quite predictable, some have taken me genuinely by surprise.
The characters may not be all that strong, but I've enjoyed all of the familiar faces in the cast. My Lost-loving self was excited to spot both Henry Ian Cusick (Desmond) and Jeff Perry (Frank Duckett who Sawyer shot/Grey's Anatomy's Thatcher Grey). Also starring in Scandal are Darby Stanchfield (creepy Glen's mom on Mad Men) and perhaps most excitingly, Liza Weil (Paris on Gilmore Girls). Honestly, I kind of just like to pretend that Weil is playing a version of Paris who changed her name because her character Amanda Tanner is somewhat Paris-esque.
Scandal is kind of a ridiculous show. You know what, though? That's not necessarily a bad thing. It's the Grey's Anatomy treatment given to the political world. It's melodramatic, but it's entertaining. So far, it hasn't seemed to take itself too seriously, but rather seems to embrace its dramatics. Why just settle for a presidential affair when you can throw kidnapping into the mix? Why not have a dictator back down from taking his children away from his wife after Olivia gives him a little speech? Scandal is not going to appeal to everyone, but if you can accept it for what it is and deal with some silliness, it's worth a try. I may not stick with the show forever, but I plan to at least keep watching throughout the season.
Plus, the fact that I marathoned the first three episodes in one afternoon and added the show to my already full Thursday night DVR line-up has to say something good about it, right?
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Take my love, Take my Land: Castle 4x21, "Headhunters"
I've never been a super-regular viewer of Castle, but this season I've been particularly negligent at watching it. I stopped watching after the mediocre season opener, but the promos convinced me to tune in for "47 Seconds." "47 Seconds" was disappointing as well, and I figured I was done for the season. When I heard that Firefly's Adam Baldwin was stopping in for a Mal and Jane reunion, however, I was determined to watch, even if it was disappointing. Luckily for me, it was not.
I liked that the episode paired up Nathan Fillion and Adam Baldwin rather than simply having Baldwin play the role of a suspect. They work well together, and it allowed them to share a lot of scenes. At the same time, Castle pairing up with a detective other than Kate flowed well with the story (as far as I could tell with having only seen two other episodes this season) and didn't feel like a contrivance solely for the sake of the guest casting. I was hoping for a few more Firefly references, but I only caught one, the "brown coat" reference (although it's very likely that I could have missed additional references). Honestly, however, it may have even been a wise move not to go overboard on the allusions because there have already been plenty on Castle. Additionally, the episode wasn't created solely to placate Firefly fans craving a revival; there are, gasp, some Castle fans who have never seen Firefly.
I also liked the way that Castle and Beckett's relationship drama was handled. The scene with the therapist particularly impressed me because he laid out the obvious notion that Castle has likely been pushing Beckett away in order to deal with her rejection. A lot a shows would have had her struggling over this concept for the rest of the season before even acknowledging that. I'm sure that there will still plenty of will-they-won't-they tension, but that scene gave me some faith that it will be handled well. I also liked that Ryan and Esposito also were dealing with rejection from Castle. It was sweet to see the whole team missing Castle rather than making it solely a romantic issue.
I've long believed that Castle's success lies largely in characters and actors rather than its non-character-related plots. The cases often fail to really grab my attention, and the case in "Headhunters" was no exception to that. It wasn't terrible, but it was forgettable enough that I'd have a hard time repeating it back to you (although my minimizing the screen during some of the case-heavy scenes may something to do with that). It was fun, however, to see how Baldwin's character Slaughter handled the case in contrast to how the cases are normally handled by the regular team.
Another aspect of "Headhunters" that I wasn't crazy about was the Alexis storyline. Alexis is a teenage character that proves they don't have to be written annoyingly, and her and Castle's relationship is one of my favorite parts of the show. I didn't even mind the idea of having a college acceptance letter storyline for her. What I did mind, however, were the heavy handed parallel between her feeling rejected from Stanford after they denied her early admission and Castle feeling rejection from Beckett after she denied remembering his telling her he loved her. I know that Castle has a tendency to draw these kinds of parallels, but this one felt particularly contrived.
Despite a couple of issue, I really enjoyed "Headhunters." I tuned in with low expectations, but I'm definitely glad I watched it. I don't think it was amazing enough to make me start watching Castle regularly, but it's restored some of my faith in the show. I'm definitely going to be more inclined to watch some future episodes.
I liked that the episode paired up Nathan Fillion and Adam Baldwin rather than simply having Baldwin play the role of a suspect. They work well together, and it allowed them to share a lot of scenes. At the same time, Castle pairing up with a detective other than Kate flowed well with the story (as far as I could tell with having only seen two other episodes this season) and didn't feel like a contrivance solely for the sake of the guest casting. I was hoping for a few more Firefly references, but I only caught one, the "brown coat" reference (although it's very likely that I could have missed additional references). Honestly, however, it may have even been a wise move not to go overboard on the allusions because there have already been plenty on Castle. Additionally, the episode wasn't created solely to placate Firefly fans craving a revival; there are, gasp, some Castle fans who have never seen Firefly.
I also liked the way that Castle and Beckett's relationship drama was handled. The scene with the therapist particularly impressed me because he laid out the obvious notion that Castle has likely been pushing Beckett away in order to deal with her rejection. A lot a shows would have had her struggling over this concept for the rest of the season before even acknowledging that. I'm sure that there will still plenty of will-they-won't-they tension, but that scene gave me some faith that it will be handled well. I also liked that Ryan and Esposito also were dealing with rejection from Castle. It was sweet to see the whole team missing Castle rather than making it solely a romantic issue.
I've long believed that Castle's success lies largely in characters and actors rather than its non-character-related plots. The cases often fail to really grab my attention, and the case in "Headhunters" was no exception to that. It wasn't terrible, but it was forgettable enough that I'd have a hard time repeating it back to you (although my minimizing the screen during some of the case-heavy scenes may something to do with that). It was fun, however, to see how Baldwin's character Slaughter handled the case in contrast to how the cases are normally handled by the regular team.
Another aspect of "Headhunters" that I wasn't crazy about was the Alexis storyline. Alexis is a teenage character that proves they don't have to be written annoyingly, and her and Castle's relationship is one of my favorite parts of the show. I didn't even mind the idea of having a college acceptance letter storyline for her. What I did mind, however, were the heavy handed parallel between her feeling rejected from Stanford after they denied her early admission and Castle feeling rejection from Beckett after she denied remembering his telling her he loved her. I know that Castle has a tendency to draw these kinds of parallels, but this one felt particularly contrived.
Despite a couple of issue, I really enjoyed "Headhunters." I tuned in with low expectations, but I'm definitely glad I watched it. I don't think it was amazing enough to make me start watching Castle regularly, but it's restored some of my faith in the show. I'm definitely going to be more inclined to watch some future episodes.
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Can you feel the hate tonight?: 5 characters currently on TV that I despise
Like many people, I was sad when Lost aired its final episode. It may not have been a perfect show, but I grew really attached to it and miss it now that it's gone. There's one aspect of Lost, however, that I don't miss at all: Kate Austen. I didn't love every character on Lost, but there was no one I came even close to despising as much as I did her. Now that Lost is over, there are still plenty of characters currently on TV who plague me. These characters bring down their shows, and I'd like to see them gone. My desires to see certain characters disappear almost never seem to be fulfilled (e.g. Kate seeming to have 9 lives), but that won't stop me from hoping.
I'm not a fun person with which to watch Grey's Anatomy. Every time that Derek's on the screen I can't help but feel a strong hatred towards him, and that hatred often represents itself in comment form. I actually liked Derek a lot during the first season. He was cute, charming, and basically, there was good reason to call him McDreamy. Then came the first season finale and the revelation that he was married, and suddenly, his relationship with Meredith lost its luster for me. It's not just the fact that he was married that bothered me, but also the way he treats women in general on the show. He didn't just end things with either Meredith or Addison; he juggled both of them for a long time. Somewhere in there he also dated nurse Rose while he clearly still had feelings for Meredith. Now he patronizes Meredith on a regular basis. Factor in his self-righteousness, and I just can't stand him.
How to Get Rid of Him: Derek gets into a spat with Meredith and goes to cry in his "house of candles." Then it catches on fire while he's in it, and fortunately, the burns are too severe for him to be saved.
I'm not sure how much I've talked about it on here, but I absolutely love Revenge. It's my favorite new show this season, and for the most part, I love the cast. Jack's (Kyle Valenti to my fellow Roswell watchers) little brother Declan, however, is horribly out of place. Declan just provides the show with annoying teen drama and distracts from the more interesting storylines. Plus, I've yet to figure out why his accent is different from literally everyone around him, including his brother.
How to Get Rid of Him: Declan does something to land on Emily's hit list, and she does us the favor of removing this blemish on an otherwise great show
I don't have a lot of reasons to include Alex on this list other than she annoys me greatly. There are actually several Modern Family characters that annoy me from time to time, but Alex is by far my least favorite. I don't know what's worse: when she's written as a know-it-all or when she's written as a "regular girl" (e.g. the episode where she crushes on the guy at the dude ranch). It's a close call, but I'll go with the latter. I feel like these moments are only going to increase as the character gets older. It's hard to believe that someone so annoying could be related to Luke, the superior sibling.
How to Get Rid of Her: However annoying Alex may be, she's still pretty young, so I'll go easy on her. Alex goes off to college early, and we never see her again. Or a car that doesn’t stop at the stop sign Claire insisted on hits her. What? I couldn't resist.
Like Alex, Leo is another annoying teen character, but honestly, he's much worse. First of all, the role of Leo was cast terribly. I haven't seen Emory Cohen in anything else; maybe Smash doesn't showcase his abilities well. Still, he's terrible as Leo, and I cringe every time he's on screen (particularly during a crying scene he was inexplicably given a few weeks ago). Secondly (any maybe this ties into the poor acting), it's as if the person writing for him has never met a real teenager. In the second episode he wines about not getting an adopted sister, and questions "what's going to happen to her?" Viewers have also had to suffer through an atrocious storyline about Leo smoking weed. Now, watching him handle his parents' divorce is almost too painful to bear.
How to Get Rid of Him: In coping with his parents' divorce, Leo turns to harder drugs and quickly ODs. Now that I think about it, that would probably just mean more annoying drama for Julia. I'd gladly just accept Leo moving in with his dad and never being heard from again.
As much as I dislike Leo, there's one character that is much, much worse than him on Smash. Smash has a lot of problems, but Ellis is by far the worst. The hate I feel towards him is definitely an unhealthy amount to feel towards a fictional character. I can feel it seeping through me whenever he's on screen. I have a hard time putting my reasoning for despising Ellis into words because I'm not even sure why my hatred is so strong. Ellis is a villain and isn't necessarily supposed to be loved by the audience. Possibly he's supposed to be a character the audience loves to hate, but I just flat out hate him being on screen. He's annoyingly opportunistic, presumptuous, and somehow believes he deserves credit for the Marilyn musical. I wish I could more eloquently explain my hatred for him, but as he seems to be almost universally hated among Smash viewers, you probably know what I'm talking about if you've seen the show.
How to Get Rid of Him: Do it by any means necessary. I'd prefer a violent, painful death (Smashed by a bus?), but I'm not picky. Seriously, just get Ellis off this show.
As you can see, I have a lot of feelings when it comes to fictional characters. How do you feel about my picks? What current characters bother you? Let me know in the comments.
1. Derek Shepherd (Grey's Anatomy)
I'm not a fun person with which to watch Grey's Anatomy. Every time that Derek's on the screen I can't help but feel a strong hatred towards him, and that hatred often represents itself in comment form. I actually liked Derek a lot during the first season. He was cute, charming, and basically, there was good reason to call him McDreamy. Then came the first season finale and the revelation that he was married, and suddenly, his relationship with Meredith lost its luster for me. It's not just the fact that he was married that bothered me, but also the way he treats women in general on the show. He didn't just end things with either Meredith or Addison; he juggled both of them for a long time. Somewhere in there he also dated nurse Rose while he clearly still had feelings for Meredith. Now he patronizes Meredith on a regular basis. Factor in his self-righteousness, and I just can't stand him.
How to Get Rid of Him: Derek gets into a spat with Meredith and goes to cry in his "house of candles." Then it catches on fire while he's in it, and fortunately, the burns are too severe for him to be saved.
2. Declan Porter (Revenge)
I'm not sure how much I've talked about it on here, but I absolutely love Revenge. It's my favorite new show this season, and for the most part, I love the cast. Jack's (Kyle Valenti to my fellow Roswell watchers) little brother Declan, however, is horribly out of place. Declan just provides the show with annoying teen drama and distracts from the more interesting storylines. Plus, I've yet to figure out why his accent is different from literally everyone around him, including his brother.
How to Get Rid of Him: Declan does something to land on Emily's hit list, and she does us the favor of removing this blemish on an otherwise great show
3. Alex Dunphy (Modern Family)
I don't have a lot of reasons to include Alex on this list other than she annoys me greatly. There are actually several Modern Family characters that annoy me from time to time, but Alex is by far my least favorite. I don't know what's worse: when she's written as a know-it-all or when she's written as a "regular girl" (e.g. the episode where she crushes on the guy at the dude ranch). It's a close call, but I'll go with the latter. I feel like these moments are only going to increase as the character gets older. It's hard to believe that someone so annoying could be related to Luke, the superior sibling.
How to Get Rid of Her: However annoying Alex may be, she's still pretty young, so I'll go easy on her. Alex goes off to college early, and we never see her again. Or a car that doesn’t stop at the stop sign Claire insisted on hits her. What? I couldn't resist.
4. Leo Houston (Smash)
Like Alex, Leo is another annoying teen character, but honestly, he's much worse. First of all, the role of Leo was cast terribly. I haven't seen Emory Cohen in anything else; maybe Smash doesn't showcase his abilities well. Still, he's terrible as Leo, and I cringe every time he's on screen (particularly during a crying scene he was inexplicably given a few weeks ago). Secondly (any maybe this ties into the poor acting), it's as if the person writing for him has never met a real teenager. In the second episode he wines about not getting an adopted sister, and questions "what's going to happen to her?" Viewers have also had to suffer through an atrocious storyline about Leo smoking weed. Now, watching him handle his parents' divorce is almost too painful to bear.
How to Get Rid of Him: In coping with his parents' divorce, Leo turns to harder drugs and quickly ODs. Now that I think about it, that would probably just mean more annoying drama for Julia. I'd gladly just accept Leo moving in with his dad and never being heard from again.
5. Ellis Tancharoen (Smash)
As much as I dislike Leo, there's one character that is much, much worse than him on Smash. Smash has a lot of problems, but Ellis is by far the worst. The hate I feel towards him is definitely an unhealthy amount to feel towards a fictional character. I can feel it seeping through me whenever he's on screen. I have a hard time putting my reasoning for despising Ellis into words because I'm not even sure why my hatred is so strong. Ellis is a villain and isn't necessarily supposed to be loved by the audience. Possibly he's supposed to be a character the audience loves to hate, but I just flat out hate him being on screen. He's annoyingly opportunistic, presumptuous, and somehow believes he deserves credit for the Marilyn musical. I wish I could more eloquently explain my hatred for him, but as he seems to be almost universally hated among Smash viewers, you probably know what I'm talking about if you've seen the show.
How to Get Rid of Him: Do it by any means necessary. I'd prefer a violent, painful death (Smashed by a bus?), but I'm not picky. Seriously, just get Ellis off this show.
As you can see, I have a lot of feelings when it comes to fictional characters. How do you feel about my picks? What current characters bother you? Let me know in the comments.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Contagion: A hypochondriac's worst nightmare
 |
| ©2011 Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. |
With the semi-recent zombie craze (Is that still going on? I feel like it has kind of puttered out.), it's nice to see a movie that approaches the idea of a worldwide pandemic that doesn't turn people into cannibalistic monsters. While this isn't a completely original idea (the TV show Survivors springs to mind), I like the realistic approach that Contagion takes to the issue. It's an interesting idea because it taps into a "this could really happen" type of of fear. I don't know how accurate Contagion is, but I'm sure (well, pretty sure) it's much more realistic than an outbreak of zombies.
While I liked the realistic approach, Contagion is a little too dry at some points. I got out my laptop three or four quick times during the movie's more boring parts. As a whole, it's not a boring movie, and I certainly never wanted to leave at any point; there are just a few moments at which it becomes kind of dull.
Contagion doesn't devote a lot of time to character development. I'm don't want to complain too much about this aspect because the movie chooses to be plot-driven rather than character-driven. However, it would have enhanced the movie if I'd cared a little bit more about the characters. Most of my feelings towards them were simply derived from my feelings towards the actors (which was, I must say, helped by good casting).
In addition to somewhat weak characters, the characters' storylines feel really spread out, and I was hoping that they'd end up connecting better than they actually do. I understand that the movie wants to cover the many different viewpoints of a viral outbreak, but the end result is a disjointed effect. It would have been a poor move to force the characters together in a contrived manner, but I feel that a little more connection between the characters would go a long way in helping to balance the multiple storylines.
While Contagion does a fairly good job at creating a no-nonsense, realistic atmosphere, there are a few lines that stick out as particularly cheesy. The one that springs to my mind is a line about not having to weaponize the bird flu "because the birds are already doing that." The thought behind the line isn't bad, but its phrasing and delivery seemed to scream "this was written to sound cool in the trailer."
My biggest issue with Contagion was its ending. I'm going to try and refrain from spoilers, but the ending was very underwhelming. The movie ends fairly abruptly, and I found myself thinking, "That's it?" Contagion felt somewhat under-baked, and several of the storylines felt lacking in conclusion or depth. I feel like several of the stories could have taken more interesting turns, but instead, they just seemed to putter out without much purpose.
Contagion was okay movie that I mostly enjoyed, but I was expecting a lot more from it. I feel like there was a lot of wasted potential in it, and I have to wonder if it would have helped to drop a storyline or two so more time could have been devoted to the others. Now, excuse me while I go wash my hands, get out the Lysol, and move to Madagascar.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)