Star Trek: Into Darkness, a Review from Not a Trekkie

I was at the theatre with my family last night to see the latest installment of the re-booted Star Trek franchise. In the interest of full disclosure, I am not a Trekkie. I have proof; I failed this test miserably. I watched the animated series on Saturday mornings as a kid, and resigned to watching the original TV series as a child when nothing else was on in my 14 channel universe. I do consider my husband a fan of the original series and ST: The Next Generation (we own box-set DVDs to prove it). His enthusiasm could not be sustained over the lives of the remaining TV spinoffs (Deep Space 9, Voyager and Enterprise). Regardless, we have seen every theatrical Star Trek film during opening week-end since we have been dating. Yes, that does drag us back to the previous century. My only fond memories of those films were of the most recent cinematic reboot (Star Trek, 2009). I have vague recollections of the films prior to that (something about Borg, something about whales, dozing off probably didn’t help). So I knew this film was coming and that I was going to see it in the theatre; the only question remaining was “Take the kids, or get a sitter?” So we popped the Star Trek , 2009 DVD in to the player a few nights ago and watched it with our daughters. I was surprised at how much I enjoyed it the second time round; and I was delighted that they enjoyed it too.

J.J. Abrams (I have been a fan since his Alias days) did a fine job freshening up a tired premise. The 2009 film was a great popcorn film. It had a nice blend of action and character study. There was comedy that didn’t rely entirely on nostalgia and Trekkie in-jokes. Of course, there were plenty of winks to long-time fans yet that film managed to transcend countless iterations with a tight story and a fresh charismatic cast. So ST: Into Darkness was approached with some wishful enthusiasm on my part, and my kids were game, so off we went to catch it in 2D.

ST: Into Darkness brings back the familiar faces of the starship Enterprise with the welcome addition of a few new ones. They are out for vengeance after an attack on the top brass of Starfleet. The vendetta is personal and the villain is introduced as a rogue Starfleet agent, John Harrison (a sublime Benedict Cumberbatch). Harrison is hiding out on a desolate planet in the enemy Kilingon empire . Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) and his loyal crew are in stealth pursuit, wary of provoking all-out war with the Klingons.

I do not want to spoil the plot. This is a good (not great) popcorn film. It moved at a break neck pace with plot twists along the way. Many of these twists were not huge surprises, yet my eldest and I thought it was a bit convoluted at times. One had to pay very close attention to wordy expository dialogue. Thank goodness I could rely on my husband for that; I needed to be debriefed on the drive home in order to bring all the plot points together. My youngest daughter fell asleep. My eldest remained engaged and said she liked it but preferred the 1st installment; I agreed with her. My husband really enjoyed it.

I enjoyed the interactions between Pine’s Kirk and Zachary Quinto’s Spock. I wished that Simon Pegg’s Scotty had more screen time; he is my favorite character and actor of the series. Karl Urban is another actor that I have long admired (ever since his Xena days), but I found his portrayal of Dr. McCoy to be a grating and dated parody. This was no fault of his own; he was given the cheesiest dialogue (Dammit Jim, I’m a doctor, not a torpedo technician!). He’s an actor worthy of a better character; McCoy is in serious need of a reboot. I enjoyed the fact that the female characters did a bit more than just stand around looking pretty (although there was a lot of that too). Zoe Saldana’s Uhuru was valued for her language skills and had some action sequences where she managed a major rescue. Alice Eve’s Carol Marcus, weapons specialist also had a chance to use her skills disarming a torpedo. Despite these strong female characters, this film sadly fails the Bechdel movie test (to pass 1. It has to have at least two [named] women in it 2. Who talk to each other 3. About something besides a man)

My biggest complaint is that the stakes are not that high in this universe. The main characters are so sacredly integral to the longevity of the franchise. When the life of a main cast member is threatened, who over the age of 10 can take it seriously? So the screen writers should really stop pretending. Other quibbles are that the hand to hand combat and chase scenes were long and unimaginatively choreographed. The repetitive large-scale spectacles of disaster became tedious, resulting in a bloated 132 min runtime. I would have preferred the time used differently, perhaps developing the characters a bit more. Then perhaps I could actually care about what happens in their world. Clearly the fans of the pre-reboot Star Trek world could not sustain production, resulting in the premature demise of the Enterprise TV series in 2005. If the producers were serious about building a sustainable Star Trek franchise for a new audience, perhaps developing character worthy of this talented ensemble may help. And dare I say it? Raise the stakes. The loss of a planet that the new audience hardly knows anything about really doen’t count. But who am I kidding? Adrenaline fueled action sells tickets and that is the appetite this film satiates. Hopefully the next Star Trek cinematic installment won’t have to duke it out at the box-office with a future Transformers film. It may not win that epic battle.

Iron Man 3

My family and I went to the theatre to watch the 2D matinee showing of the 3rd installment of the Iron Man franchise. After a disappointing second installment, I approached this one with caution. My husband and eldest daughter were keen to see it. I was surprised at how many people were in the theater, as it was such a beautiful day and spring has been a long time coming. I also suspect I’m getting a bit old and jaded, because my enthusiasm is waning for superheroes.

This movie takes place after The Avengers, and refers to the NYC incident of that film in vague terms. It implies that Tony Stark (charismatically portrayed by Robert Downey Jr.) is still shaken by those events and has not fully recovered. So when a new menace, in the form of a super villain called the Mandarin (delightfully portrayed by Ben Kingsley) strikes, it isn’t until he targets Stark personally that his alter-ego Iron Man gets involved. The Mandarin unleashes a reign of terror that includes destruction of property, kidnapping, public executions and an army of bioengineered combustible super soldiers. To expect logic and plausibility from a superhero plot is asking a lot. The plot in this film is better than most of its genre. There were a few twists that I saw coming, yawn. I nearly dozed off in the first half of the film before Stark had some skin in the game.

This movie has its strengths which includes many laugh out loud moments and quippy dialogue. It doesn’t get too heavy with the action sequences and most are quite enjoyable, especially the one involving a plane crash. This film is certainly better than Iron Man 2. But it doesn’t beat the fresh surprise of the 1st installment. And at a 2 hour and 15 minute runtime, it was too long. The final showdown seemed to drag while trying to pack an emotional punch.

What this movie did get right was that it gave us plenty of Tony Stark. The producers figured out that it was Tony Stark that gave these films charm. Kudos for them, learning from the error of Iron Man 2′s endless CGI action scenes involving robots. Some of my favorite scenes in this film involved Stark stranded in small town USA, a thousand miles from the action, with a bum Iron Man suit. With the help of a seriously neglected kid, Stark managed to McGyver his way back. Adding a kid to the mix was also a very clever artistic choice. It broadened this film’s appeal toward a younger audience. Tony Stark’s comedic fish out of water scenes were magnified by his ineptitude with children.

I also have a soft spot for Guy Pearce who plays a great smarmy villain in this film. I first took note of his moving performance in The Adventures of Priscilla Queen of the Desert; I loved to hate him in L.A. Confidential and he had me completely won over by his starring role in Memento (one of my all time favorite films). He has made the most tedious melodramas (HBO’s Mildred Pierce) bearable. As for the other actors, Gwyneth Paltrow had a chance to kick some serious butt; that was cool.

So this film was more good than bad and I enjoyed it over all. So did my husband and eldest daughter. But it is not a film that I would go out of my way to watch again. My youngest thought it was ok; she found the plot boring but liked the many sequences that had her laughing out loud. We stuck around for the end of the credits for a fun final scene; it was good to see Mark Ruffalo in the Marvel universe again.

Rome: One Day it Shall Fade and Crumble

With Spartacus now behind me, I confess to a palpable void that I have been desperate to fill. So I binge watched Rome on DVD. When one Googles rome vs spartacus TV, Rome is lauded and Spartacus summarily dismissed. Thus I approached the series with intrigue and embarrassment, as I have owned the first season of Rome on DVD for 5 years. Until a couple weeks ago, it remained another untouched blind buy from Costco. Rome is clearly regarded as exceptional viewing when you search the internet for info, making many top 10 lists of must see TV. So I began watching with mixed expectations (Could it live up to the hype? How can it possibly be better than Sparty?) and hoped it would be as moving as Spartacus. I do not want to start by declaring one show better than the other, as their aims are different and they both have their strengths and weaknesses.

Rome was a beautifully produced, adult oriented, well acted TV program. It centred on the political machinations of the entitled at the twilight of the Roman Republic as the dawn of the Roman Empire encroached. It had a large ensemble cast. The writers interwove different plots dealing primarily with Roman elites but had a few plebeians thrown in to ground the story.

Despite taking Latin for 3 years in high school, I am no lover of this classic period and can be categorically described as woefully ignorant about the history of the world. As an aside, Latin did come in handy many years later as I was studying/memorizing anatomy (flexor digitorus profundus, etc.). Because my interests still lie elsewhere, I cannot speak to authenticity of such things as costumes, hairstyles or set design. These all looked good to me. The cast was top-notch and included Ciaran Hinds (a personal favorite) as Julius Caesar and James Purefoy as Mark Antony. Nice surprises as well were Kevin McKidd as lowly soldier Lucius Vorenus (loved him in Trainspotting) in an odd couple pairing with Ray Stevenson (the best thing about the most recent season of Dexter that I never finished watching) as Titus Pullo. I liked Rome the TV series in so far as it encouraged me to learn more about this period in time and how it mirrored the current state of global politics. But I did not enjoy it enough to buy the second season; that, I borrowed.

The producers of Rome knew the story they wanted to tell and did so at quite a clip, spanning about a decade in 22 episodes. I believe this was a result of budgetary constraints as it was one of the most elaborate productions for HBO. I was thankful for that fact because if it had continued for more seasons, I would have abandoned it after the first. However I think that character development suffered as a result of this truncated approach.

This show simply wasn’t made for my sensibilities so I can’t gush over it. With regard to the adult content, the violence was tame compared to Spartacus (then again what isn’t), so that was a plus. The nudity and sexuality (T&A, and full male frontal) was not as ubiquitous as on Spartacus, also a plus. There was no eye candy on Rome, but I recognized that it was hard to compete in that department with gladiators. I hoped for a well told story with compelling characters, a twisty plot that kept me guessing, perhaps some interesting visuals and minimal expository dialogue. With that in mind, the greatest acting in the world wasn’t enough to immerse me in this ancient world. No doubt, the fault was mine, but I could not relate to a single character. When I began, I gave it my undivided attention for the few episodes. However, neither the patricians (Julius Cesar, Mark Antony, Cleopatra, Octavian) nor sadly the plebians (soldiers Titus Pullo and Lucius Vorenus) spoke to my soul. Granted, I am a real sucker for underdogs and a pacifist at heart, so that is my bias. The entire character ensemble seemed like petulant entitled brats or bumbling fools from the get go. There was no back story and little character growth to help me relate. No one stood out as a complex villain that I could love to hate.

Because I was not emotionally invested in who lived or died, I drifted toward just following the plot and I began to multitask as I watched (exercise, kitchen chores, laundry, etc.). I was curious to see how things would unfold and wanted to give it a fair chance because it was only 22 episodes. But I couldn’t carve out time from a busy life to give it my undivided attention. That Rome failed to compelled me towards excercise was an organic litmus test. I have never been a morning person but I have been known to wake up early to tackle the treadmill in order to watch the latest episode of Breaking Bad, Mad Men, Banshee, etc. that had aired the night before. Rome failed that test.

The plot of Rome held few surprises and there was not much character development to help me relate to such off-putting people. As with most shows, Rome required much suspension of disbelief which resulted in severely depleted reserves of goodwill that had been banked by its aforementioned strengths. The characters seemed to serve the plot and some subplots seemed unneccassary (the attempt on King Herrod). Time could have been served better to give us some back story and flesh out some main characters. After watching a season of people using sexual relationships as one would use facial tissue, in order to gain power no less, it was hard to accept true love as a motivating factor in any of the drastic actions in season 2. Yet that seemed to be the message. Because the end point was historically set, the value of this narrative was in the journey. And that journey wasn’t all that intriguing to me. I was never at the edge of my seat wondering “What next?” The set design was sumptuous and production values were certainly high. The acting was excellent within the confines of an unimaginitive screenplay that boasted shockingly clumsy expository dialogue. The use of a newsreader as narrator may be historically accurate but I considered it a story telling shortcut. When exposition was expressed as pillow talk, it struck a painful blow to my ears. The battles and fights were but a pale shadow to what I had seen elsewhere.

Of course, this just reflects my personal preference. I refuse to say Spartacus is a better show than Rome. I just happened to like Spartacus so much more. My opinion of Rome is no doubt clouded by my affection for Spartacus and how that show wormed its way into my heart with its larger than life (almost over the top) scrappers, both good and bad, its unique dialogue and its beautifully realized characters. At its core, Spartacus was a love story that moved me. Because Spartacus had recently aired its last episode, I had hoped Rome would assuage me. Alas, it is another victim of unrealized expectations. Rome is a tale of political machinations, a topic I find less compelling.

Rome was entertaining diversion; it was something to watch while I folded laundry, chopped veggies and waited for my kids to finish their karate lessons. But it is not a show that that touched my soul. I doubt I would watch it again; I think I would rather watch Spartacus (would that be the 5th time now?) Unless I missed something more profound in Rome than a history lesson well acted, please let me know if you think I did and I would be willing to give it another go.

Spartacus and Downton Abbey: A Tale of Two TV Shows

I enjoy a well crafted period piece. Two shows that have been on my must watch list have been Downton Abbey and Spartacus. They both reflect tragedies of different scope and magnitude with common themes that run through them. The biggest tragedy is that Downton Abbey has made me feel like I was wasting my time and it is no longer on my list of must see TV. Writer Julian Fellowes frittered away a perfectly good setup established in the first season on 2 subsequent seasons of utter nonsense, which thankfully concluded some weeks ago. Whereas the last chapter of Spartacus, subtitled War of the Damned came to an end this weekend. The subtitle practically gives away the tragic outcome to those few unfamiliar with either the legend or the 1960 Kirk Douglas film. Despite this knowledge, writer/producer Steven DeKnight and his team delivered one of my favorite hours of television this season. I imagine it will only be topped by what the final chapter of Breaking Bad has to offer this summer.

Warning, the adult and graphic nature of Spartacus makes the embedded video NSFW. On the other hand, you are safe with Downton Abbey.

Spartacus is a pop culture punching bag that can easily be dismissed as porno violent trash. And to do so would be to overlook a compelling, intricately plotted and heroic character driven story that has been retold since ancient times. This incarnation epitomizes everything that I like in a TV series. It has tight story-telling with plot twists in equilibrium with character development. There is good acting and yes, lots of eye-candy for all sexual proclivities. This show crafts a unique language that is poetic yet hilariously profane, reminiscent of Deadwood. Like Deadwood, I will not argue for the authenticity of the history or language style because I have no interest in such things. I find it beautiful and it transports me. As in Deadwood, I caution that this show is aimed at an adult audience and is not for everyone. The violence is brutal and at times I must avert my eyes. The sexuality and nudity were beyond what I have ever seen on cable (full frontal, both sexes) and at times can be a distraction from an intricately plotted hero’s journey.

I have hooked a number of friends onto this show and I always caution them that the first few episodes of Spartacus were not the best (however far from the worst TV I have ever watched). I remember watching the 1^st episode because my husband was intrigued by the premise and I was ready to dismiss it as a 300 style graphic gore-fest. I persisted beyond the pilot based on his interest and by the 2^nd episode, I was hooked. I consider myself to be merciless in my assessment of shows based on the first episode. Thankfully, the kernels of greatness were hinted at, thanks to John Hannah and Lucy Lawless in their amazingly colorful and villainous portrayals of Batiatus and Lucretia.

The stellar pedigree (Stephen DeKnight, Robert Tapert, Jed Whedon) also brought goodwill to the initial episodes. This show’s first season got better and better with each subsequent episode. There was not a wasted scene. The story kept me guessing with plenty of twists, yet like Breaking Bad, everything made sense in retrospect. Character motivation was as important to the story as the story itself. In 13 episodes, the first season, subtitled Blood and Sand, depicted Spartacus’ journey as a free man of Thrace to serving in the Roman army auxiliary forces only to be enslaved, followed by a rise to glory in the gladiatorial arena and beyond. There was not a moment wasted.

Then tragedy struck for all those with a stake in this production when star, Andy Whitfield (Spartacus) developed lymphoma.

Production was delayed when there was initial hope of cure and the time was filled with a thoroughly entertaining 6 episode prequel, subtitled Gods of the Arena. The prequel introduced a new character, Gannicus (Dustin Clare) and set the foundation for the stories that lay ahead. Gannicus would play a more prominent role and introduce levity in subsequent seasons as Spartacus became the leader a slave rebellion that plagued Rome for years. At the same time, the prequel allowed me to spend more time with great villainous characters and fleshed out their motivations for some pretty heinous acts.

When Whitfield relapsed and had to bow out of the next full season, the decision was made to recast and Liam McIntyre stepped into some pretty big shoes. Tragically Andy Whitfield died in 2011. But McIntyre did a beautiful job, made the role his own and continued the hero’s journey over the next 2 seasons (20 episodes in total) to an amazing conclusion this weekend.

So I have tried to keep this spoiler free, but hope that this post piques some interest in anyone who thinks they can handle the adult content. In 39 episodes this TV series had a clear vision of the story it wanted to tell. A clearly defined historical end point was conducive. The story moved at a break neck pace; it did not stray from purpose and everything tied together. Although the actions and motivations may have seemed puzzling at first, everything that happened made sense in retrospect. And yet this grizzled TV veteran could rarely guess what was about to happen as I watched from week to week with heart-felt anticipation.

This serialized drama knew how to tell a story about characters that I cared about, heroes and villains alike. It had very strong female characters that were intelligent, cunning and propelled the narrative. The villains are very compelling, a far cry from the moustache twirlers in Downton Abbey. I can’t help but empathize with many of them, because I have been given an opportunity to understand them. I saw their struggles and watched them bend, twist and warp in response to the forces within and around themselves. The stakes were high and it was heartbreaking at times. I tried not to get too attached to anyone, but it was impossible. And I cried many times, but not so hard as when the final credit rolled.

This series covered a gamut of themes, love, family, friendship, honor, commitment, destiny, religion, glory, bullying, class structure, racism, politics, the meaning and value of life and death. Very similar again to Downton Abbey. However, in Spartacus, the fights were stylishly choreographed and stood a wonder to gaze upon, even if I was peeking through fingers due to the excess. This show embraced its limited budget and reinforced my belief that if there was an imaginative story to tell, budget limitations could be overlooked (just check out Doctor Who episode “Blink”, or any episode of the Misfits).

And now Spartacus, the TV series is over, and yet I know I would watch it again (will that be the 3^rd or 4^th time?). This show offered an emotional thrill ride like no other. It did not over stay its welcome. I believe it has spoiled me; it has made me impatient with TV series that seem to be spinning their wheels. There is something to be said for a limited episode run and well thought out narrative. Spartacus ranks with Breaking Bad in that department.

Which brings me to Downton Abbey, sigh! This is another historical TV series, this time set in the declining British aristocracy of the early 20^th century.

This series started strong as it introduced us to an ensemble cast of colorful characters. But after 3 short seasons I am done with it. It is everything that Spartacus is not. The plot is repetitive, contrived, muddled and pointless. It is unclear in its character motivations. Seriously, Julian Fellowes (Oscar and Emmy winning writer) should watch Spartacus to see how character development should be done. Instead, I gritted my teeth as I watched the young aristocratic daughter, Sybil marry the rebellious chauffeur, Tom Branson, because……..I don’t really know why. Honestly, I liked Sybil and Branson as individual characters, with what little I saw of them. But did I buy that she would chuck it all for him? He’s not that good-looking. I saw so little of them together; it is no wonder her parents flipped out. What a wasted opportunity to convince me of the merit of this man, especially when it now seems that he is going to be a key player in season 4. All the villains are cartoonish. And the main characters behave arbitrarily idiotic it was hard to empathize with anyone. I could never understand what Matthew ever saw in Mary; she was such a mean self-centered snob.

Instead, time was wasted on too many subplots that went nowhere, such as the butler, Carson being blackmailed, Mrs. Hughes’ faux romance. This soapy trite continued into subsequent seasons with Lord Grantham’s sister s drama, Mrs. Padmore’s faux romance, the scarred war veteran con-man heir imposter and his fake romance with Edith, blech. To add insult to injury, rather than fleshing out characters that Fellowes established in season 1, he just thrust them into random ridiculous scenarios and introduced more characters that I could not care less about. Yes, I meant maids Ethel, Edna, Jane and cousin Rose. Talk about clutter. This made me stop caring about the characters as they were inconsistently drawn to serve silly plots. It was hard to believe that this show was written predominantly by one person and he was an award winner to boot. It seemed like a random writer with no prior knowledge was pulled off the street for each episode in seasons 2 and 3. If anything could happen in such an utterly slapdash fashion, then the stakes are low and I no longer care to watch.

The executive decision to kill off Downton Abbey characters with inadequate set-up was the last straw for me. Clearly I have no problem with characters getting killed off, but in such a sloppy fashion is insulting. This was born from the fact that the actors no longer wanted to participate in the series and punctuated how shoddy the writing had become. If the Spartacus producers could recast the TITLE role due to unforeseen circumstances, then surely Julian Fellowes could have set up better exits for his characters rather than relying on deus ex machine. Or if he had really satisfying story arcs, recasting could have been overlooked. Instead, this show has devolved into a bunch of characters I can’t empathize with who act randomly in stories that no longer interest me. Even Maggie Smith as the indomitable dowager countess and her razor-sharp quips are not enough to keep me tuned in. I will just catch up with her on YouTube.

So, I am done with watching Downton Abbey. I would rather watch Spartacus again, and find out what happens to the DA crew from my friends who are still watching or read brief recaps online.

Young Adult: A Review

I have been curious about the film Young Adult for some time and finally got a chance to watch it yesterday while the rest of the family was half watching (also playing portable electronics while watching, never a good sign) the series finale of Merlin (can no longer recommend this TV series as it is a repetitive insulting waste of talented actors).

I am glad I did. I am a fan of the writer, Diablo Cody and director Jason Reitman has not disappointed me yet. So when this film showed up on Netflix, I was happy. This film is not for everyone; however, I rather enjoyed it. It is a darkly comedic character study about Mavis Grady (Charlize Theron) a “successful” writer of series teen/young adult fiction. Mavis is living in the big city of Minneapolis, Minnesota, having shaken the dust off her hometown of Mercury. She finds herself back in her old stomping grounds, trying to relive her prom-queen glory days convinced that an old beau wants to reconnect. Unfortunately, said beau, Buddy Slade (Patrick Wilson) is married and knee deep in new fatherhood bliss. And it is clear to the viewer as well as classmate Matt (Patton Oswalt) that Mavis has neglected mental health issues.

I enjoyed how this film reveals how damaged Mavis is. We see her struggling to meet a deadline to wrap up the Wakefield High book series (a shout out to the Sweet Valley High Series of my youth and no doubt Cody’s). This book series, which doesn’t even feature her name on the cover, is completely formulaic pulp. I love the way the camera pans across a big guide book on Mavis’ shelf devoted to the formula. To make matters worse, the books that are very much past their prime and there is ongoing pressure for her to conclude it. But to do so would leave her with “what next?” Perhaps a more meaningful creative outlet? Her big city apartment is a sty; she drinks too much and hangs out at fast food joints. Here she eavesdrops on teen conversations and transcribes them into her novels. I actually though that was pretty resourceful, albeit somewhat slimy. I like the way her downward spiral is outlined for us in the film. My favorite scene is when she is looking for her novels in the local bookstore and seems thrilled that they seem to have their own special display, oblivious to the fact it is a discount pile. When she starts signing copies, it is a delightfully cringe-worthy scene, watching the store clerk squirm because the marked compies can’t be returned to the publisher for a refund.

Despite her damaged psyche, Mavis is an engrossing narcissistic creature and her connection with Matt is the best part of the film. With fascination and pity, I watch her embark on a “relationship” with another damaged person, one whom she only vaguely remembers from high school as the “hate crime guy”. Yet he seems to know her quite well, better than she knows herself, because his locker was next to hers for years. Their scenes ring true and succeed in humanizing Mavis (kudos to great acting by Theron and Oswalt).

Without this relationship, I would just be watching a sociopath. That would get boring pretty quickly. Instead I was watching a character study of someone who should have it all and spends a lot of time trying to convey that she does. Yet she really doesn’t. The high school nerd in me found that satisfying in a twisted tragic way. If only the effort that Mavis puts into grooming (brilliantly conveyed with onscreen montages) could be channeled to getting a life with some meaning, if only. I especially enjoyed how un-Hollywood this dark film is. There is no quick fix here.

Pitch Perfect: as Close as it Gets: Movies for Mothers and Daughters:

The whole family watched Pitch Perfect last night. I had heard some pretty good buzz about this film (EW magazine and Pop Culture Happy Hour), but it wasn’t until my eldest daughter started telling me how much her friends really liked it that I decided to take the plunge. My reluctance was due in part by how awful and derivative most Hollywood romantic comedies are, and do not get me started on musicals.

Pitch Perfect introduces us to the cut-throat world of collegiate competitive a capella singing. It stars Anna Kendrick as Beca, a reluctant college freshman. She is a talented DJ and a rebel who would rather take her chances with the L.A. music scene. Because her dad is a professor at Barden University, he is insistent that she take advantage of collegiate life (at the low cost of FREE since he works there) at least for a year, before she gives up on higher education. I couldn’t help but chuckle when he tells her that being a DJ isn’t a career, it is a hobby. I wonder if DeadMau5 had that conversation with his folks? Beca reluctantly promises to give university a fair chance and finds herself interning at the campus radio station. It is here that she meets fellow intern Jesse (Skylar Astin) who clearly starts crushing on her. She and Jesse share a love for music and join competing a cappella singing clubs (Barden Bellas and the Treble Makers).

Ok, Ok, the rest of the plot is not ground breaking (Bring it On/Strictly Ballroom/etc). Both singing clubs vie for the championship prize (no spoilers here) as a backdrop for the unfolding romance of Beca and Jesse. Of course, there are impediments to the romantic relationship that need to be overcome. Surprisingly, said impediment was not as insulting to my intelligence as is often the case. How refreshing.  Yes, my younger daughter, at age 9, could see where things were heading. However, this movie had a lot of heart, a ton of  laughs and great musical performances (cleverly selected to appeal to a broad demographic). My daughter and I found ourselves swaying as we cuddled on the couch together. Pitch Perfect has stellar performances from the entire cast. Rebel Wilson stands out as Fat Amy; just check her out in the linked trailer. She is a scene stealer with some of the best lines. Elizabeth Banks and John Michael Higgins are outrageously inappropriate as the color commentators during the lively competition scenes.

This movie tackles a number of themes that are springborads for discussion, such as the following: team work, college dorm life, following one’s dream, giving new things a fair chance, stepping outside one’s comfort zone, romance and how far one is willing to go in its pursuit. One of this film’s biggest flaws is the racial stereotyping. On the upside the choirs are populated by a mixed gang, reflecting true North American collegiate life. On the downside however, the non-white characters are one dimensional or worse, stereotype punch lines. This makes for some uncomfortable laughs (especially the outrageous but barely audible words that shy/quiet Asian Lilly blurts). Still, this affords further discussion, which is never a bad thing.

My husband and I were really surprised at how much we enjoyed this PG-13 rated film. My husband has an infectious gut busting laugh that is not unleased lightly and can be used as a comedy metric. It was set off repeatedly throughout the 112 minute runtime and added to our enjoyment. My youngest kept whispering how much she enjoyed the film, using the word “EPIC” repeatedly. It is now 2^nd to Avatar as her favorite film. I would watch it again in a heartbeat. Then again, I see that Bring it On is airing this month. Maybe it is time to revisit that one, to see if  my daughters enjoy it as much as I did.

Mother and Daughter viewing recommendations are always welcome if you have any.

Banshee, Noir Among the Amish, more Guilty Pleasure TV

I just finished watching Cinemax’s TV series Banshee (created by Alan Ball of True Blood fame) and boy was it a fun ride and a new addition to my list of guilty pleasure TV. It is a modern noir tale set in Pennsylvania Amish country.

We first meet our unnamed protagonist (Antony Starr) as he re-enters the world after a  15 year stint in the joint for armed robbery. He crosses paths with Lucas Hood, a man en route to begin as the new sheriff in the town of Banshee. And in pulp fiction fashion, circumstances arise affording our protagonist the opportunity to adopt the identity of Lucas Hood. That is mighty convenient as his ex-girlfriend Anna (Ivana Milicevic) and partner in crime has made a new life for herself (now called Carrie) as the wife of the district attorney of Banshee.

Our protagonist, not-Lucas Hood, wants the loot and he wants her back. Why shouldn’t he? He took the fall for her; she owes him. But 15 years is a life time ago and she has moved on with a husband and 2 kids. What a tangled web of lies he weaves, impersonating a law man and trying to get his due. To make matters more interesting, he goes toe to toe with Kai Procter (Ulrich Thomsen), the local crime boss of Amish extraction. Procter has his own troubles with the local First Nations people and their control over a new casino. With the help of an old friend, cross-dressing Job (Hoon Lee) and a new one, Sugar Bates (Frankie Faison), not-Lucas manages to hold his own in this snake pit of a town. It is super pulpy fun watching not-Lucas Hood administer his own brand of justice, much to the horror of his deputies. For a while he manages this, until the past comes back to haunt him. The Ukrainian-speaking crime-lord (Ben Cross) whom he double crossed years ago manages to track him down, and boy is he pissed off.

Because this is a Cinemax production, it goes without saying that this is an adult oriented show with plenty of nudity, sexuality, language and violence. It is a straight up serialized drama with snappy comebacks from Job (reminiscent of Lafayette in True Blood) as the only source of levity. The acting in this series is better than the writing calls for (the writing is not bad). Kiwi lead Antony Starr as not-Lucas Hood has plenty of charisma, great emotional range and good chemistry with femme fatale Ivana Milicevic. Not-Lucas Hood is not an intelligent man; he is a scrapper who is guided by passion, impulse loyalty and gut. Anna/Carrie is not your typical soccer mom. She is ready to kick butt when her past inevitably catches up. She is impressive as a not-damsel-in- distress, fighting tooth and nail to save her family. As a woman torn between her past and her present, Milicevic is very convincing in her emotional confliction.

The writers are deft at fleshing out the main characters via their actions and interactions in the present and the past. I really enjoy the flasback sequences. This makes engrossing TV. The writers manage to weave good characterization of the leads in conjunction with the conflict of the week. One of my biggest complaints is that we learn next to nothing about the strong supporting characters. But with a 10 episode series, there is judicious use of screen time. Perhaps we will learn more in season 2? I really hope so, because that is the part I enjoy most and this makes it easier to suspend my disbelief at some of the silliness that serves the plot. The producers are savvy to this and as partial compensation there are 13 short webisodes which you can find at this link Banshee Origins. The other complaint is that the resolution of the main conflict was something I had seen before and thought was a bit of a cop out. But it also leads to further questions to answer for in Season 2. The end result is a coherent, if somewhat predicatable season long arc, which is noir pulp fiction at its best. It has been renewed for a second season. I am looking forward to it and hope it can sustain the noir intrigue without becoming too repetitive.

In the meantime, I will just enjoy the super awesome Banshee opening credit sequence, which hasn’t gotten old yet (as some of the images change from week to week) and completely captures the spirit of the show.

As an aside, I have been recording Being Human (US) season 3 but cannot find the desire to watch it. The last season was ok but the hiatus was long enough to make it a faded memory. It may be the next show to be culled. Or I may hang onto it for the summer slowdown. What I really need is someone to convince me to pick this one up again. It has been dropped by the TV club recappers (never a good sign) and there is nothing in the reader comments to compel me to continue. Anyone? Anyone?

Oz the Great and Powerful, If Only It Was Either

I saw Oz the Great and Powerful with the family last night in 2D. The kids were keen to see it and were very familiar with not only the original MGM classic film but had also seen the stage version of Wicked. Despite the mixed reviews, my husband and I decided to venture forth on opening weekend with adjusted expectations.

This film is based on classic characters but not the actual novels. It presents the story of a 2-bit sideshow conjuror/con man/cad and his transformation to a beloved wizard and savior of the magical land of OZ.  James Franco plays the titular Oscar Diggs (aka Oz). He gets transported to the coincidently named land of Oz via twister “quelle surprise” and lo and behold is coincidently the answer to a savior prophesy made by the late and sadly murdered king. Seriously?

The story suffers from a terrible case of prequelitis as it is simply not that interesting and populated by characters that don’t resonate (yes even that creepy china doll didn’t cut it for me). To make matters worse, the plot does not withstand logical scrutiny. There is some confusion surrounding the 3 witches played by Mila Kunis, Rachel Weisz and Michelle Williams; all performing better than this film deserves. Which one is the actual murderer? This presents an unnecessary muddle. There is no mention of motivation whatsoever, yet the land of Oz is terrorized by a dastardly murderous witch, just because.

I may be venturing into spoiler territory, but seriously, we kind of know the next chapter, so it is not hard to connect the dots. The best part of the film is the 3^rd act where James Franco’s Oz finally learns how to think beyond himself and realises that magic is a matter of perception. The wondrous inventions (fireworks, movie projectors) of his world appear magical in this land despite the existence of more powerful magic (hello flying witches who can hurl bolts of energy from their finger tips, when convenient to the plot that is).  Please do not ask me to explain, as I mentioned it defies logic. I thought there was sweetness in the homage this film paid to the MGM classic as it started with black and white and full frame aspect ratio in the Kanasas-set 1st act and then switched to colorful widescreen

I was neither disappointed nor pleasantly surprised. The graphics were standard CGI animated fair that did not dazzle. The story was a bit draggy and predictable. James Franco neither has the charm nor charisma to make up for a lackluster script. In fact I used to think he was a good actor, when all that I had watched him perform in were supporting roles. Now he is akin to Keanu Reeves - the next generation. He plays a great stoner, but most of his films succeed despite his presence. There is a bit of physical comedy and a few jokes that made my kids laugh. The film really lacked the emotional centre that made the earlier MGM film a classic. This film never bothered to lay a foundation on which to develop the characters to a level that I could care about their peril.

Neither I nor my youngest daughter cares for gratuitous 3D films, so we tend to avoid them. Another dimension would not have made this a better film. There were obvious visuals that were placed for the benefit of a 3D audience, with flying baboons (scary for young children) and other things coming toward us on-screen. We do not feel that we missed anything by seeing it in 2D. This has no re-watch appeal for me or my husband. The kids really enjoyed it, so that is saying something. As for a recommendation….it is an adequate rental or if someone else is willing to take your kids, then why not. I had hoped for more from Disney and Sam Raimi, but going in with lowered expectations meant all was not lost.

Archer, Dying is Easy, Comedy is Hard

I may be late to the party, but boy oh boy, I am glad I came. I have just finished watching the first 2 seasons of Archer on DVD and I am still chuckling at the thought of this hilarious TV show. The fourth season currently airs in the US on FX and Teletoon airs previous seasons in Canada. Netflix also carries earlier seasons.

Archer is an animated spy spoof aimed at an adult audience. This show is a workplace comedy named after super spy Sterling Archer code name “Duchess” (voiced by H. Jon Benjamin) of the International Secret Intelligence Service (aka ISIS). ISIS is run by Archer’s overbearing micromanaging Mommy-dearest (voiced by the indomitable Jessica Walter). Archer is a spoof on James Bond; he is a good assassin, can drive really fast, loves gadgets and women but he’s not too good with the intel. To add to the fun, he is completely self-absorbed and entitled. Lana Kane is his ex-girlfriend and frequent partner on assignments. She is an Amazonian wonder who is so very over her relationship with Archer. That he fails to recognize this fact is a frequent comedic theme. The rest of the ISIS staff is bat guano crazy. There is Cheryl, the glue sniffing secretary and Pam the gossipy pot-smoking HR director who calls it as she sees it. Dr. Krieger is the research scientist who is preoccupied with his sexual fantasy world and poor Woodhouse is Archer’s martyr of a valet.

This show is so well written albeit in a caustic and more often than not sophomoric manner; my laughter often forces me to pause the DVD. I cannot keep up with the rapid-fire pace. This is all I ask from a comedy: to make me laugh, a lot. As a warning, there is coarse language and sexual themes. This show and the clips included in this blog are definitely NSFW. It is written in an episodic fashion, so you can jump in at any time. The setting is contemporary and the animation is traditional with many vintage  images thrown in. The cast is dressed in late 60′s fashions. Some of the computers fill a room and operate with punch cards. And yet they have GPS and cellphones.

There have been too many shows billed as comedies that fail to make me laugh. I tried some of the more popular ones, such as The Big Bang Theory and How I Met Your Mother and could not get engaged. I find that when an over the top laugh track punctuates pedestrian dialogue, I am quickly looking for an exit. Suffice it to say, I have not found a traditional sitcom LOL funny since Seinfeld was on the air. I did embrace non-traditional fare such as Malcolm in the Middle, Scrubs and the best of the bunch, Arrested Development (can’t wait to see what Netflix is going to do with that show next). If something was billed as a comedy and I didn’t find myself laughing after one episode, then that was it for me. I just moved on. Archer had me at the 3 minute mark.

Awkward Quirky Romance: Silver Linings Playbook

I went to the theatre to see this quirky romantic comedy. It was directed by David O. Russell and is about two abrasive characters with mental health issues. My husband and I really enjoyed it, but it isn’t a film for everyone. I am a fan of the main leads, Bradley Cooper (ever since he was Will on Alias) and Jennifer Lawrence (awesome in Winter’s Bone) and was impressed at their nuanced performances. In their portrayals of damaged characters, they are worthy of the Oscar nominations that they have received. Robert De Niro as Cooper’s dad is just icing on the cake.

Cooper plays Pat, a man who has just been released from an 8 month stint in a mental hospital into the care and supervision of his parents. He was hospitalized rather than jailed after he walked in on his wife and her lover went berserk and attacked the other guy. He is completely non compliant in his rehabilitation and still holds onto the hope of reconciliation. Shortly afyer his release, he meets his buddy’s recently widowed sister-in-law, Tiffany (Lawrence) and recognizes someone as off as he is. She manipulates him to help her out as a dance competition partner. From there we watch an interesting relationship and awkward dance routine develop.

Because the plot is pretty trite when reduced to it basic narrative, the strength of the movie hinges on the lead actors. A special shout out goes to Chris Tucker in a great supporting role as Danny, Pat’s institutionalized buddy. These characters are difficult people to like. Their family’s obsession with the Philadelphia Eagles football team is beyond my comprehession. However, if one has ever had to deal with someone close with serious mental health issues (it is surprising how many of us have), one knows how on the nose these nuanced performances are. I found them moving and at times, too close to home. I also enjoyed Jacki Weaver as Dolores, Pat’s mom and Pat. Sr.’s (De Niro) wife. Her silent expressions spoke volumes as she stood as go between for two irrational men in her life. The apple didn’t fall far from the tree, I’m afraid.

This is a film about people I could not stand spending much time with on a day to day basis. They are difficult to get along with in their delusional obsessions and self destructive behaviours and besides, I can never get into sports that much. For this reason, this film may not have a broad appeal. So the fact that I really enjoyed it and found myself pulling for this couple is a conundrum that I haven’t yet been able to explain. This film is not free of Hollywood cliches that plague the romance genre. By the time I got to those moments, enough good will has been established to make them forgivable. If you like nuanced performances of damaged characters, awkward dance numbers, sports fanatics and/or quirky romances, you may want to check this one out.