Change Your Image
WickednessIsAMyth
Reviews
Twilight (2008)
The Hype, The Reality, The Movie
I have a somewhat unique perspective on Twilight. I didn't know about it until a few months ago when I saw a teaser-trailer. So, rather than immediately give in to the hype surrounding it, I decided to try an experiment. I bought the book, but didn't read it. I waited until the movie came out, watched the movie, read the book and then watched the movie again. So, I can honestly say I've seen the movie from multiple perspectives. I have just recently finished reading the next three books in the series so my knowledge about the series is fairly well-rounded.
So, first of all, is Twilight a great film? Sadly, no. It's a...good film. It is a solid "C+" effort. And it will probably wear slightly better once the hype wears off and the audience calms a little (i.e., DVD/Blu-Ray sales). The hype storm surrounding the movie is part of the problem. People started expecting so much of this rather small-budgeted *teen* movie that the movie itself failed to meet the somewhat extraordinary expectations. Twilight = $37 million; by contrast Harry Potter 1 = $125 million. Get the difference? I didn't want to compare the two franchises, but it does seem rather impossible to avoid. Sorry.
I know people say they understand that film and print are two different media, but when one invests so much time in a single medium (print) it is difficult to divest oneself of the connection. So the secondary medium (film) will always be worse. It takes a conscious effort to remove the print expectations from the film and it can be difficult. In this case, it actually should have been easier than it seems to be for a lot of people.
When I first saw the movie (before reading the book) I was...let's say, less than impressed. I probably wouldn't have even given it the C rating I now do. Without knowing the story, the film could easily be conceived as jagged -- the pace was certainly too fast by half. However, I followed through on my experiment and am now grateful I did. Please remember, this was a five hundred page book. You will lose things -- important things -- in the translation to a two-hour movie. It is inevitable.
However, the reason I say the translation should have been easier is because I also give the *book* a C (some days a B-). I am a Harry Potter girl and I have spent a good chunk of time over the last ten years (Good God, has it seriously been ten years?) reading and beta-reading fanfiction. Now, the Twilight story itself is a good one and the universe Stephenie Meyer created is also intriguing, but it almost reads as fanfiction to me. It certainly carries that flavor. *Good* fanfiction -- better than probably 99% out there currently (and I would know). However, please, someday, do what I did -- pick up Harry Potter and the Philosopher's/Sorcerer's Stone again. I can easily remember why I was so unimpressed with the Harry Potter series until book 3.
Twilight is not great literature, but there is a lot of space between the great American novel and bad writing and the Twilight series fits in that spectrum somewhere toward the former. And I find myself understanding the movie more after having read the series. I think the book rating and the film rating are roughly on par with one another and can easily be related. Which is why I'm giving it a C+ rating.
Now, forget the book. Let's talk movie.
To begin, it is a Romeo/Juliet, paranormal *romantic* teen movie. Bear that in mind. It didn't attempt to be so much more than that because that is the universe it exists in.
The acting was a solid B average; in some places it was more, in some it was less. The chemistry between the leads is apparent from the first moment they're in the frame together. This lends the movie a nice head start because Bella and Edward are what the series is about. So, once they've got that chemistry, the filmmakers are already ahead. I think, in general, the casting choices were great, but some of the lines they were given to act were...not so great. Again, that kind of fanfiction feel to it; and even great actors can have difficulty with moronic dialogue (to which the screenplay occasionally degenerates). And remember, the two leads are still in the infancy of their careers. Give them some time to mature.
And yes, the special effects were simplistic but so what? Since when are special effects necessary to make a movie worthwhile? I rather like the fact that it had a smaller budget for such a hyped-up movie. Remember, $37 million. A week of rehearsals and 44 days of principal photography. Knowing the numbers, I'm even more impressed.
And just as a note on a few bits of the praiseworthy: thank you to Robert Pattinson for getting his accent down perfectly. It is a difficult thing to act with any accent, let alone a subtle one that is so far removed from the natural voice. Also to Kristen Stewart who played a lovestruck teen girl to perfection without being any more annoying than necessary (excepting perhaps one scene).
This movie is what it seems to be. A teen romance with a paranormal edge and smaller budget. Try not to compare it to things it cannot be compared to
including the book. You'll just end up disappointed. Accept the movie as is and enjoy what is there to enjoy. You'll be much happier, anyway.
Law & Order: The Family Hour (2007)
Perfect? No. On par with previous L&O? Mostly.
The above comment (by Jordan Nookeen) comes across strongly sexist and vaguely ridiculous. He is correct in that The Family Hour is not in the list of top episodes of L&O. The writing was just a little more than middle-of-the-road, the characters were slightly simplistic and the situations were on the obvious side.
However, these qualities are not singular to this episode. Hell, when a fiction-serial show has been on the air for the better part of two decades episodes are bound to run the full gamut: the superb, the sublime, the incredible, the mediocre, the stupid, the ignorant, the intelligent. If a show is on for long enough, you can't avoid it.
Milena Govich was an inspired choice and I wish we could have seen more of her. She was a rookie detective; beyond that she had skipped huge amounts of experience and education because of the extraordinary circumstances of her gold shield. Comparing her to Jerry Orbach's character is beyond unfair. He was an old hat at the job by the time Lennie Briscoe walked onto the scene in '91. Nina Cassidy had a lot to learn before she could become a good detective. Twenty-plus years of experience versus the eight months that Det. Cassidy had under her belt? No contest.
As for these comments: "I can understand hiring a sexy actress to play a DA...Appearance of a good looking woman makes it more enjoyable...What characteristics do you think about when you hear the words: police homicide detective? I would say it should be a prick like Jerry Orbach's character (Detective Lennie Briscoe), or some buffed up guy..." Excuse me? The only good homicide detectives are buffed up, powerful-looking men? I guess that just goes to prove that old point about "considering the source." I have a feeling ever female cop who ever wore a badge is standing up and giving you the finger.
And what about this comment? "But in 'Family Hour' episode, it really does not matter because we already know that she was an idiot, so whoever killed her did it for a reason." See, last time I checked, someone's being a complete jackass is not valid reason for murder. Otherwise there wouldn't be a politician left alive.
Consider the source, people.
Farscape: Premiere (1999)
Ridiculous, Preposterous, Delicious, Delightful...
***SPOILERS***
The entire purpose behind any show is to grow and change into something that it wasn't when it first began. I got hooked on Farscape when I accidentally wandered onto the Pilot the first time it aired. I was a few minutes in but that was when Scifi had an encore of all the Friday shows on Saturday morning. I didn't understand then what had me hooked about the show -- all I knew was that I was, indeed, hooked. For life.
It was new, it was engaging, it was delightful with a thoroughly entertaining type of humour and a singularly engaging sense of the ridiculous. Of course, I loved the puppets (but with the Jim Henson company doing them, how could you not?) but *all* the characters were wonderful. At the beginning they were flat and virtually emotionless but that is normal for both real life new acquaintances as well as on TV. But then they get to know each other and as they get to know each other they begin to change, both as a direct result of getting to know each other and because of the things they get into as a result of meeting each other.
John Crichton (Ben Browder) is a would-be hero who thought himself in his father's (famous astronaut) shadow. Then he gets the chance to go into space and gets launched through a wormhole. All of a sudden he's so far out of his father's shadow that he has no idea what to do with himself. So, while the mini-tapes last, he records his thoughts and feelings onto them as if he were talking with his father. Then he discovers he's being chased by an insane captain named Crais (Lani John Tupu) who has a personal vendetta because John got into a...spaceship accident when he landed on the other side of the wormhole. He's a Captain of the Peacekeepers who just happen to have this thing about intense racial purity. So, when Aeryn (Claudia Black) happens to get sucked in with Moya's crew, she gets branded irrevocably contaminated by Crais, she sticks with Moya. Originally, merely because she has nowhere else to go -- being a Peacekeeper is all she's ever known -- then, however, is when change comes in. Every single character has grown and changed over the last four years to become all the more likable. Even the most annoying characters (Rygel, Jool and most especially Sikozu) have changed and grown to become something more. It seems to be a habit with Moya's crew -- they've changed two big bads over to their side, even if somewhat reluctantly.
And they've added wonderful characters along the way. Chiana (Gigi Edgley) was a gorgeous temptress who had a dark past with a dangerous secret and a connection to another universal power (the Nebari) but then isn't found out 'till later. (A Clockwork Nebari) Jool (Tammy McIntosh) was probably the most annoying character to ever grace the show...but she ended up being fun and a lot more tempered by the time she left Moya. And Sikozu (Raelee Hill) was all books, no common sense. Ironically, it ends up being Rygel who takes her down a peg by telling her that he was centuries older than her and what he had learned the most was that he knew virtually nothing. (It sounded better out of Rygel's mouth)
Each episode was an enjoyable storyline in and of itself, but virtually all of them had a continuous arc. Some of the story arcs started in the early first season and still hadn't been closed at the end of the fourth. Some lasted through the season and finished when the season finished but they were all delightful.
When the Scifi Channel cut it off after the fourth season, they angered a lot of people. They gave a multitude of reasons for the cut-off, none of which were truly valid. When they finally decided to get it together and make the mini-series to close out the story lines, the fans were ecstatic. At least now, we can get some closure.
If you haven't gotten Farscape yet, I suggest that you find some way to watch them all. I have never gotten into any show the way I got into this one; don't ask me why, it could be any number of things. The stories, the characters, the actors, just the all-around cult-likability of it, I just don't know. Whatever it is...it worked, and I truly am ridiculously, preposterously, deliciously, delightfully hooked for life.
Wickedness
M*A*S*H (1972)
SPOILERS Just like good scotch...
My comments are borderline spoilers, so I thought I would put that in there for safety's sake.
It gets *better* with age.
M.A.S.H. was spectacular, in part, because it did come in on the tails of the factual war the show's fictional setting was supposed to precede...but, there was more to it.
The characters were, in fact a good mix overall. Of course, this is where the scotch point gets brought up. It got better the longer it went.
I liked Larry Linville, and I'm sure it was a blast to work with him, but as far as replacements go, I preferred Stiers overall. Mostly because of the differences in the characters. Frank was funny mostly because he was such a loser (and his play with Loretta Swit) and he made us laugh with that idiocy. Stiers created a whole different dynamic with the group. He was something Hawkeye and B.J. could play with -- because he would play back in his own way. Frank could never do that. He would just come back with some stupid comment in which he would mix his metaphors and Hawkeye and Trapper (or B.J.) would laugh at him.
This, of course, brings us to the changeover from Wayne Rogers to Mike Farrell. It, admittedly, wasn't a very smooth transition and was rather obvious but...Trapper and Hawkeye were too much alike (in my opinion) so there really wasn't a straight man, per se. B.J. provided a kind of balance that Trapper never could. Of course, B.J. had his own kind of fun, but in a much more subtle (and in my opinion, fun) way. Whenever Hawk would play a prank, you would *know* it was him. Whenever B.J. would prank it would start out as Hawkeye's fault, but then he would get pranked and suddenly everything was thrown out of whack. Which made life fun.
I have no complaints of either McLean Stevenson or Harry Morgan -- I liked them both and they both fit in -- I didn't see either as a mistake, nor did I particularly prefer one over the other. They were too different to even begin to compare.
And Radar...I'm not sure how to feel about Radar. It was funny that, when you watch the reruns, in the beginning Radar would get a lot of the jokes that Hawkeye and Trapper would pass back and forth. He just ignored them or acted offended...and then it seemed that, as time moved forward, he seemed to get *more* naive, not less. You didn't really notice it when it was running but when you watch the reruns...it becomes far more clear.
In the end, my general rule of thumb is...watch 'em and figure it out for yourself who and what you like best. I happen to like Farrell better than Rogers, and Stiers better than Linville...and I have a penchant for Morgan, for now. Tomorrow, I might like Stevenson better, so I reserve judgment.
I like them, all eleven great years of it. Some were better than others...some were funnier, some touched you more. In addition, I didn't know a lot about the Korean War, like most people, I brushed it off as a non-war; a 'Police Action.' Then, when I first started watching M.A.S.H. it made me look deeper and I started to research it. It was a war; people died, countries fought, men were lost. It was a war. I never would have ever done that had it not been for this show.
But mostly, I watched (and still do watch) this show because it made me laugh.
WickednessIsAMyth