Director: Richard Eyre
Cuts the prologue (about the spread of lies); Falstaff's page is more "serious"--more as one on the outside looking in, as an observer. This production has the advantage of on-site locations for setting.
This version seems to do a better job of tying the larger story threads together across the entire play.
Also, the initial arrest-attempt of Falstaff is humorous. Eastcheap scene is bawdier. The king's while-ill speeches are played with more temper and more reflective. The character of Silence is played, at least part of the time, with a stutter. Falstaff's draft was played more straight/serious. Wort was played as a small/short person. Falstaff faces much more how he is growing old as all things are changing around him--something he is at first in denial of and, later, reluctant to face when finally absolved to confront it (during his draft visit). Prince John of Lancaster is played strong, and his distaste if Falstaff is clear. Prince Hal upon viewing his father on his deathbed, while torn inside, is played with more certainty, with Prince Hal trying to steel himself to do what he knows is coming, what he himself will have to do. The fight between Hal and his father, true, genuine, and its resolution touching and heartfelt.
Showing posts with label 2010s TV. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2010s TV. Show all posts
Monday, August 7, 2017
Wednesday, January 11, 2017
"Great Performances: Macbeth" (2010)
Director: Rupert Goold
Patrick Stewart
This version of Macbeth is not for those who are squeamish at the sight of blood. In fact, should you consider showing even a scene of this to a classroom, it would be wise to carefully consider twice-over what you would show.
That said, the interpretation of this Macbeth is the closest interpretation yet to how I read Macbeth's transformation: unsure and hesitant some (while still a soldier) at the beginning, moving through the middle where he has power and "enjoys" being in charge at the top, and ending with a crazy man who let power go to his head from too much war/violence without it seeming only "psycho". Unlike the 1983 interpretation of Lady Macbeth (who one could be sympathetic with for her plight regarding her changing husband), this Lady Macbeth is much less soft, but just as real a portrayal. The repeated physical gesture [hand in hand we go in/out together] was noted and effective.
This version works more women characters in well (good!). We see Macduff's family more than once. Hear from them lines in more than one scene. This version also has the three witches/weird sisters repeating appearances in different ways throughout the play. The Siward and Young Siward scenes/moments are kept. You have an invisible dagger (first vision), but a visibly demonstrated Banquo Ghost. The last set of visions is a mix of invisible and visible representations.
Most lines are heard plainly, but the very first soldier's report and many of the weird sisters incantations are not understandable. However, the sense of all these hard to "hear" lines are not lost. The effect of the first soldier's report was clear enough. The sense of the "double, double toil and trouble" song is clever; so was an effective delivery. (The incantation hints of rap in style.)
The set and costume are reminiscent of 1940s war, though done well to keep the "country" of that of the world of the play, and none other (or none other as far as I'm concerned). I saw a documentary not too long back about one of England's castles that during WWII had underground headquarters where much war time council and action was done. This Macbeth set reminds me of that documentary--an underground "bunker" where most of the action takes place.
The play "takes its time" in that it does everything and it is a 3 hour movie; yet, it hooks so well that the time is not long, and I did not wish to hit "pause" at all (except to re-watch a scene or two here and there).
The warning at the beginning of this movie/play was well needed. It is a bloody play, then it again it's a bloody story. It was told very well.
Now I want to go watch something light and fluffy so that I'll actually fall asleep tonight.
Patrick Stewart
This version of Macbeth is not for those who are squeamish at the sight of blood. In fact, should you consider showing even a scene of this to a classroom, it would be wise to carefully consider twice-over what you would show.
That said, the interpretation of this Macbeth is the closest interpretation yet to how I read Macbeth's transformation: unsure and hesitant some (while still a soldier) at the beginning, moving through the middle where he has power and "enjoys" being in charge at the top, and ending with a crazy man who let power go to his head from too much war/violence without it seeming only "psycho". Unlike the 1983 interpretation of Lady Macbeth (who one could be sympathetic with for her plight regarding her changing husband), this Lady Macbeth is much less soft, but just as real a portrayal. The repeated physical gesture [hand in hand we go in/out together] was noted and effective.
This version works more women characters in well (good!). We see Macduff's family more than once. Hear from them lines in more than one scene. This version also has the three witches/weird sisters repeating appearances in different ways throughout the play. The Siward and Young Siward scenes/moments are kept. You have an invisible dagger (first vision), but a visibly demonstrated Banquo Ghost. The last set of visions is a mix of invisible and visible representations.
Most lines are heard plainly, but the very first soldier's report and many of the weird sisters incantations are not understandable. However, the sense of all these hard to "hear" lines are not lost. The effect of the first soldier's report was clear enough. The sense of the "double, double toil and trouble" song is clever; so was an effective delivery. (The incantation hints of rap in style.)
The set and costume are reminiscent of 1940s war, though done well to keep the "country" of that of the world of the play, and none other (or none other as far as I'm concerned). I saw a documentary not too long back about one of England's castles that during WWII had underground headquarters where much war time council and action was done. This Macbeth set reminds me of that documentary--an underground "bunker" where most of the action takes place.
The play "takes its time" in that it does everything and it is a 3 hour movie; yet, it hooks so well that the time is not long, and I did not wish to hit "pause" at all (except to re-watch a scene or two here and there).
The warning at the beginning of this movie/play was well needed. It is a bloody play, then it again it's a bloody story. It was told very well.
Now I want to go watch something light and fluffy so that I'll actually fall asleep tonight.
Saturday, October 3, 2015
"The Truth Behind: The Nasca Lines" (2010)--revisited?
I think I've watched this before--I think--either that, or another documentary about this same subject. It was interesting the first time. Still so the 2nd, but it is distracting to have the narrator continually talking in sentence fragments.
I'm sorry. Correction:
It is distracting.
To have the Narrator.
Of this documentary.
About the Nasca lines.
Continually.
Talking.
In sentence fragments.
As if.
Each clause.
Deserves.
It's very own.
Dramatic.
Pause.
In order.
To give.
The proper frame.
To talk about.
The Nasca lines.
I'm sorry. Correction:
It is distracting.
To have the Narrator.
Of this documentary.
About the Nasca lines.
Continually.
Talking.
In sentence fragments.
As if.
Each clause.
Deserves.
It's very own.
Dramatic.
Pause.
In order.
To give.
The proper frame.
To talk about.
The Nasca lines.
Wednesday, June 3, 2015
"Lemonade Mouth" (2011)
This was a very good movie. It is a musical, a teen movie, and a Cinderella story all rolled into one solid smooth-flowing summer delight. Many of the songs start in either found music moments or poignant story moments that spark a song. The characters are real--the guys and girls alike, including strong girls and ones less so (but that learn to be strong in other ways). The "bad guys" take a mild form of other band rivals and of a school with an out-of-balance focus on which extra-curriculars are important. While the school may be out of balance, there isn't any program bashing. The energies center more around a principal that is played a comic edge off of center. Same goes for the rival band in that, while the rival band stirs things up, this movie isn't about bullies bashing, bully bashing, or bashing bullies back. This movie is sooo, nicely done--and without ham-y acting.
Why have I resisted this movie for so long?
If you enjoy any of the above elements, then I would hardily recommend this movie.
Friday, September 5, 2014
"Legend of the Legendary Heroes"--episodes "Rule Fragment" & "Twilight" (2010)
Any regular readers of my blog should notice that I've talked about the trouble TV series present to writing reviews--It's a challenge to write one review for something that can change its character, or to watch it all before saying anything. Therefore, I tend not to worry about keeping track of what I think about TV shows, with occasional exceptions.
This show is one of those exceptions. First, I can't say that I've watched very many of the episodes in order. And I've certainly not seen all of them. See, they're written like a book--one episode leads to another--as opposed to stand alone episodes that you can generally watch in any order without missing too much--or that start and end in a self-concluding way. Maybe my skipping around (watching a few early episodes, skipping a few, watching a few skipping a bunch, watching the last one. etc.) is because I'm impatient with a series where you have to watch all of it (overlapping stories I understand as a current television style of writing, but "you have to watch/buy the next story to finish this one" to me is also a "cheap shot" at getting people to watch based on blackmail instead of quality writing). Maybe my skipping around is a search for the heart, the nugget of what intrigues me, of what I enjoy analyzing, of the search for those rare moments when TV/movie making actually captures something. For me, this show--and specifically these two back-to-back episodes--do that. They capture something. I'm just not sure I've figured out what.
Now, I'm not saying this show is any kind of moral allegory. It doesn't seem to me to set out to do that. And if it is intentional, I either am not spotting it, or am not up enough on that sort of knowledge to identify it. (I'll leave that to some of my more read theological friends.) But there are some elements in this story that touch on some of the important spiritual ideas in life.
I can't say enough that I'm not saying this is a perfect moral allegory. I'm not saying it is a moral allegory. And I'm not saying I'm right. But watching the bits and pieces of this show as I have, there is something here that shouts itself. And it's that that I want to try and point out. Because my experience has been that if it shouts to me, then it is worth pointing out. (And please pardon my brief unusual excursion into summary-exposition that follows.)
First off, for you to see where I am coming from, there might need to be some watching of the first few episodes of this show to get a handle of what is what and who is who in this particular fantasy world. The two episodes that I'm specifically reviewing are numbers 9 & 10 of the first season. One main character is "Ryner Lute". Ryner is an outcast, but not because of behavior, or race, or culture; but because he is a person (like others who are rare but who are encountered--kind of like that occasional "witch" you meet in medieval tales) who is a bearer of the "alpha stigma". The other character I'll mention in this post is his quest companion "Ferris Eris".
I like super hero movies/TV shows, especially the first part where the super hero first gets his/her super hero powers. He/She goes "AAAAhh! What's happening to me?" But then they get the hang of it, decide to use it for good, and go out an "kick some butt." That in-between struggle of identity is what I find most intriguing. The end result and the appeal of super heroes doesn't surprise me, and isn't nearly as intriguing. Usually makes for just a decent ending to a movie. As far as I'm concerned, it just leaves all the "good" stuff behind at the beginning of the story. Why isn't this appeal surprising? Because it is the same thing that happened in the fall in the Garden of Eden--mankind wants to be God, wants to be King, the center of the universe, all powerful. So, are super heroes trying to be God? or trying to be a "savior"-figure in said stories? It's an interesting question, but a side tangent to this post. My point is that it is predictable. Unsurprising. Yet again the hero can do cool stuff. He is powerful. She has superpowers. It's presented as desirable. Perhaps we want to be able to do the cool stuff they do. Or perhaps we want to see that it's possible to be saved--something also deeply desired by everyone.
And that's where this show departs so far. Ryner is not only powerful, but pretty much over-the-top unstopable. But it is not desirable. It is a curse. Something shunned. Something that makes people run. It makes people want nothing to do with him. Ryner can't control it. Doesn't want it. Because this curse--the "alpha stigma" that he carries, that enables him to turn back and defeat the bad guys--also takes over and sets him on a course to destroy everybody and everything around him. That is not what you typically see in super heroes. And I'm not just talking Incredible Hulk destruction. I'm talking atomic bomb.
And how much louder can it shout as the picture of sin? The sin, the alpha stigma is inside. It can't be gotten rid of. It destroys. It is barely controllable. No one wants it. It causes death. And isn't defeatable--by normal, un-godlike humans. And by "it" I mean both sin and Ryner's alpha stigma. Life means nothing to Ryner because of how his alpha stigma (read sin) has affected his life. Tell me this doesn't resonate with the spiritual warfare that is inside each of us.
Again, how many super heroes have a "superpower" that is so destructive they never, ever wanted it. Not just momentarily, or at certain parts of the story, until they come to peace with it. Or until they decide to use it for good. With Season 1, as I scan it, this just is not the pattern for Ryner. He's never wanted it. He can't get rid of it; not an option. He can't use it for good because it is uncontrollably destructive. And it only comes out when triggered, when backed into a corner. And then it is never a last resort choice for Ryner. It is no choice. It surfaces unbidden, unasked for. The Incredible Hulk changes back when he calms down. Not even a possibility for Ryner. It takes someone else to help him squelch it down into something still there just below the surface, a "monster" waiting to come out again. In these two episodes, it is Ferris who helps him fight it back into barely submerged something inside of Ryner. After which, Ryner breaks down in tears, completely broken over who he is, of what he is.
And Ferris is the other intriguing element in a completely unrelated way. Female. She is sure Ryner is a "sex fiend" just because he is male and exists. (He truly does nothing of any sort of notion to support Ferris's accusations. He doesn't flirt with anyone. Doesn't try to kiss her or any female. Nothing. He'd as soon just sleep the rest of his life away. She accuses Ryner anyway.) She's an incredibly powerful swordsman from a very dysfunctional family. (Her brother used to strangle her to put her to sleep at night. At least in this episode, she sees nothing unusual about this.) Her motivation? Her deepest thing to fight for or to use to persuade her to do something, or not do something else? A food item called "dango". (The animation draws it as colorful round bite-sized things [appetizers? candy?] on a stick.) Threaten to raze the only decent dango shop in their world and you unleash the fury of a woman to do what ever it is you want. It is a dramatization of all the chocoholic shirts, mugs, and posters you've ever seen. Give her her dango, and no one gets hurt. Refuse and you have the best swordsman in their world pointing her sword at your throat.
And this is who can convince a "I've given up on living" to leave his nap to go on the next quest? (It's persuasion by sword point in case you had any doubts. And the price of a nap so she'll leave him alone? Dango, of course.) Is this what the "angel in the house" who can "save" by changing the unsaveable crossed with "females can be strong leads, too" looks like? This doesn't read to me like an attempt to either hold up both genders as equal, or as any kind of "lets throw a female in for romantic tension". I just don't have a label for this yet--or a finished analysis of her for that matter. She's a puzzle to me, a literary puzzle.
A female who is the highest sword master of anyone (that I can see) in this little world who holds familiar yet puzzling, but completely believable patterns of behavior and reasons of motivation is traveling with a characterization of our morally "original sin" sinful selves. Ryner stuck with something uncontrolable who has no answers and no hope. Ferris who gets him to interact with life in a quasi-useful way.
I told you this was puzzlingly intriguing. And definitely nothing I've finished figuring out.
[series also known as Densetsu no yuusha no densetsu]
This show is one of those exceptions. First, I can't say that I've watched very many of the episodes in order. And I've certainly not seen all of them. See, they're written like a book--one episode leads to another--as opposed to stand alone episodes that you can generally watch in any order without missing too much--or that start and end in a self-concluding way. Maybe my skipping around (watching a few early episodes, skipping a few, watching a few skipping a bunch, watching the last one. etc.) is because I'm impatient with a series where you have to watch all of it (overlapping stories I understand as a current television style of writing, but "you have to watch/buy the next story to finish this one" to me is also a "cheap shot" at getting people to watch based on blackmail instead of quality writing). Maybe my skipping around is a search for the heart, the nugget of what intrigues me, of what I enjoy analyzing, of the search for those rare moments when TV/movie making actually captures something. For me, this show--and specifically these two back-to-back episodes--do that. They capture something. I'm just not sure I've figured out what.
Now, I'm not saying this show is any kind of moral allegory. It doesn't seem to me to set out to do that. And if it is intentional, I either am not spotting it, or am not up enough on that sort of knowledge to identify it. (I'll leave that to some of my more read theological friends.) But there are some elements in this story that touch on some of the important spiritual ideas in life.
I can't say enough that I'm not saying this is a perfect moral allegory. I'm not saying it is a moral allegory. And I'm not saying I'm right. But watching the bits and pieces of this show as I have, there is something here that shouts itself. And it's that that I want to try and point out. Because my experience has been that if it shouts to me, then it is worth pointing out. (And please pardon my brief unusual excursion into summary-exposition that follows.)
First off, for you to see where I am coming from, there might need to be some watching of the first few episodes of this show to get a handle of what is what and who is who in this particular fantasy world. The two episodes that I'm specifically reviewing are numbers 9 & 10 of the first season. One main character is "Ryner Lute". Ryner is an outcast, but not because of behavior, or race, or culture; but because he is a person (like others who are rare but who are encountered--kind of like that occasional "witch" you meet in medieval tales) who is a bearer of the "alpha stigma". The other character I'll mention in this post is his quest companion "Ferris Eris".
I like super hero movies/TV shows, especially the first part where the super hero first gets his/her super hero powers. He/She goes "AAAAhh! What's happening to me?" But then they get the hang of it, decide to use it for good, and go out an "kick some butt." That in-between struggle of identity is what I find most intriguing. The end result and the appeal of super heroes doesn't surprise me, and isn't nearly as intriguing. Usually makes for just a decent ending to a movie. As far as I'm concerned, it just leaves all the "good" stuff behind at the beginning of the story. Why isn't this appeal surprising? Because it is the same thing that happened in the fall in the Garden of Eden--mankind wants to be God, wants to be King, the center of the universe, all powerful. So, are super heroes trying to be God? or trying to be a "savior"-figure in said stories? It's an interesting question, but a side tangent to this post. My point is that it is predictable. Unsurprising. Yet again the hero can do cool stuff. He is powerful. She has superpowers. It's presented as desirable. Perhaps we want to be able to do the cool stuff they do. Or perhaps we want to see that it's possible to be saved--something also deeply desired by everyone.
And that's where this show departs so far. Ryner is not only powerful, but pretty much over-the-top unstopable. But it is not desirable. It is a curse. Something shunned. Something that makes people run. It makes people want nothing to do with him. Ryner can't control it. Doesn't want it. Because this curse--the "alpha stigma" that he carries, that enables him to turn back and defeat the bad guys--also takes over and sets him on a course to destroy everybody and everything around him. That is not what you typically see in super heroes. And I'm not just talking Incredible Hulk destruction. I'm talking atomic bomb.
And how much louder can it shout as the picture of sin? The sin, the alpha stigma is inside. It can't be gotten rid of. It destroys. It is barely controllable. No one wants it. It causes death. And isn't defeatable--by normal, un-godlike humans. And by "it" I mean both sin and Ryner's alpha stigma. Life means nothing to Ryner because of how his alpha stigma (read sin) has affected his life. Tell me this doesn't resonate with the spiritual warfare that is inside each of us.
Again, how many super heroes have a "superpower" that is so destructive they never, ever wanted it. Not just momentarily, or at certain parts of the story, until they come to peace with it. Or until they decide to use it for good. With Season 1, as I scan it, this just is not the pattern for Ryner. He's never wanted it. He can't get rid of it; not an option. He can't use it for good because it is uncontrollably destructive. And it only comes out when triggered, when backed into a corner. And then it is never a last resort choice for Ryner. It is no choice. It surfaces unbidden, unasked for. The Incredible Hulk changes back when he calms down. Not even a possibility for Ryner. It takes someone else to help him squelch it down into something still there just below the surface, a "monster" waiting to come out again. In these two episodes, it is Ferris who helps him fight it back into barely submerged something inside of Ryner. After which, Ryner breaks down in tears, completely broken over who he is, of what he is.
And Ferris is the other intriguing element in a completely unrelated way. Female. She is sure Ryner is a "sex fiend" just because he is male and exists. (He truly does nothing of any sort of notion to support Ferris's accusations. He doesn't flirt with anyone. Doesn't try to kiss her or any female. Nothing. He'd as soon just sleep the rest of his life away. She accuses Ryner anyway.) She's an incredibly powerful swordsman from a very dysfunctional family. (Her brother used to strangle her to put her to sleep at night. At least in this episode, she sees nothing unusual about this.) Her motivation? Her deepest thing to fight for or to use to persuade her to do something, or not do something else? A food item called "dango". (The animation draws it as colorful round bite-sized things [appetizers? candy?] on a stick.) Threaten to raze the only decent dango shop in their world and you unleash the fury of a woman to do what ever it is you want. It is a dramatization of all the chocoholic shirts, mugs, and posters you've ever seen. Give her her dango, and no one gets hurt. Refuse and you have the best swordsman in their world pointing her sword at your throat.
And this is who can convince a "I've given up on living" to leave his nap to go on the next quest? (It's persuasion by sword point in case you had any doubts. And the price of a nap so she'll leave him alone? Dango, of course.) Is this what the "angel in the house" who can "save" by changing the unsaveable crossed with "females can be strong leads, too" looks like? This doesn't read to me like an attempt to either hold up both genders as equal, or as any kind of "lets throw a female in for romantic tension". I just don't have a label for this yet--or a finished analysis of her for that matter. She's a puzzle to me, a literary puzzle.
A female who is the highest sword master of anyone (that I can see) in this little world who holds familiar yet puzzling, but completely believable patterns of behavior and reasons of motivation is traveling with a characterization of our morally "original sin" sinful selves. Ryner stuck with something uncontrolable who has no answers and no hope. Ferris who gets him to interact with life in a quasi-useful way.
I told you this was puzzlingly intriguing. And definitely nothing I've finished figuring out.
[series also known as Densetsu no yuusha no densetsu]
Thursday, July 31, 2014
"Ben 10" (2005 - 2012)
I think Ben 10 is the first superhero I remember encountering whose parents didn't die first before he become a super hero. There may be others, but they are definitely far and few between. I mean, how great is it to hear in the middle of a super hero crisis "Don't run in the house!" from the mom?
I just gave this post the shortened Ben 10 title, but I am including it's subsequent versions of Ben 10: Alien Force and Ben 10: Ultimate Alien in the review as well. There seems to maybe be another one or two. Those are the current ones I have access to. Ben 10 must be the original; he's a small kid then (4th grade? 5th grade? 10 years old?). Ben 10: Alien Force he is a young teenager, but the series refers to some things that happened in the gap between Ben 10 season 3 and the start of this one. (Something for me to keep my eyes out for.) Then in Ben 10: Ultimate Alien he is still a teenager but older yet. His cousin Gwen is his constant sidekick functioning well in the capacity of "annoying sibling" in the first series and "still supporting but with my own family bloodlines and stories" in the later ones. So, yep, the female angle is covered.
I like bouncing around between the series. The first one is good for lighter fare--just fight the encountered bad guys and go get some ice cream. The older ones still keep the same flavor of story line--they fight the bad guys to save the world, but it is mostly self-contained stories and it keeps from getting too serious when the "mass plan for domination" is merely putting in an earth-wide air-conditioning system. Yep--good to not feel too threatened with that, then I can enjoy more of the jokes and other subtleties in between.
It is a cartoon, but you have to admit, it's costly to do live-action super hero and supernatural stuff. Or so I'm assuming. So, why do I feel the urge to be defensive about enjoying this show? If you think what traditional children's stories include, you're going to include fairy tales--complete with children talking to strangers, shoving old ladies into stoves, and other story elements that aren't so "child only" when you think of them. If I look to the younger, the only thing that differentiates children's stories from non-children's stories is talking animals. Not much help there. And I can't look to older because "adult entertainment" gets into a whole realm of things that I don't want here. I'm not interested in watching X-rated fare on my TV set. Not much help there either. Maybe the segmented of "children's stories" and "adult stories" and whatever you're going to call the stuff in between is a fault of a segmented education system--1st graders learn with other 1st graders and only ever learn with 1st graders. Repeat for each grade level.
Well, I have been searching for any kind of follow up to the old Munsters series. Something supernatural, but something fun. Something light-hearted without being stupid or over-acted. Munsters came and what came next? Addam's Family was about that same time. And in our current decade, what "family-friendly" non-X-rated adult supernatural don't-take-the-world-too-seriously fare is there? I keep searching. And I guess I feel Ben 10 is one of the finds for that definition.
And somewhere I need to make myself a master list of superheroes that have both of their parents. I think it would be a list of two at the moment. Although, off hand, I don't remember who the other one is.
I've only seen a fraction of Ben 10 at the moment cutting across all of the different series, but I can tell that this series is definitely going to be one of my "let's watch all of it!" on-going enjoyments.
I just gave this post the shortened Ben 10 title, but I am including it's subsequent versions of Ben 10: Alien Force and Ben 10: Ultimate Alien in the review as well. There seems to maybe be another one or two. Those are the current ones I have access to. Ben 10 must be the original; he's a small kid then (4th grade? 5th grade? 10 years old?). Ben 10: Alien Force he is a young teenager, but the series refers to some things that happened in the gap between Ben 10 season 3 and the start of this one. (Something for me to keep my eyes out for.) Then in Ben 10: Ultimate Alien he is still a teenager but older yet. His cousin Gwen is his constant sidekick functioning well in the capacity of "annoying sibling" in the first series and "still supporting but with my own family bloodlines and stories" in the later ones. So, yep, the female angle is covered.
I like bouncing around between the series. The first one is good for lighter fare--just fight the encountered bad guys and go get some ice cream. The older ones still keep the same flavor of story line--they fight the bad guys to save the world, but it is mostly self-contained stories and it keeps from getting too serious when the "mass plan for domination" is merely putting in an earth-wide air-conditioning system. Yep--good to not feel too threatened with that, then I can enjoy more of the jokes and other subtleties in between.
It is a cartoon, but you have to admit, it's costly to do live-action super hero and supernatural stuff. Or so I'm assuming. So, why do I feel the urge to be defensive about enjoying this show? If you think what traditional children's stories include, you're going to include fairy tales--complete with children talking to strangers, shoving old ladies into stoves, and other story elements that aren't so "child only" when you think of them. If I look to the younger, the only thing that differentiates children's stories from non-children's stories is talking animals. Not much help there. And I can't look to older because "adult entertainment" gets into a whole realm of things that I don't want here. I'm not interested in watching X-rated fare on my TV set. Not much help there either. Maybe the segmented of "children's stories" and "adult stories" and whatever you're going to call the stuff in between is a fault of a segmented education system--1st graders learn with other 1st graders and only ever learn with 1st graders. Repeat for each grade level.
Well, I have been searching for any kind of follow up to the old Munsters series. Something supernatural, but something fun. Something light-hearted without being stupid or over-acted. Munsters came and what came next? Addam's Family was about that same time. And in our current decade, what "family-friendly" non-X-rated adult supernatural don't-take-the-world-too-seriously fare is there? I keep searching. And I guess I feel Ben 10 is one of the finds for that definition.
And somewhere I need to make myself a master list of superheroes that have both of their parents. I think it would be a list of two at the moment. Although, off hand, I don't remember who the other one is.
I've only seen a fraction of Ben 10 at the moment cutting across all of the different series, but I can tell that this series is definitely going to be one of my "let's watch all of it!" on-going enjoyments.
Thursday, July 10, 2014
"Max Steel" (2013)
TV series. Just watched the first 2 episodes. This has all the right combos for what I like in my superhero watching. Vulnerability (he needs "Steel"). Supernatural super hero (he can do cool things). And, of course, I'm a sucker for a super hero's first few episodes ("What's happening to me?") where the whole identity issue hits the main character smack in the eyes. Throw in lots of short-lived action and a bit of humor, (e.g. "I'm married to this toaster?") and it's a great combination for me. The first 2 episodes of this series are continued into the next (each episode is only 20 minutes in length), so I'm hoping the cliff hangers are just a quirk of getting started (which is pretty typical). Otherwise, I won't get anything done. I understand why shows do cliff hangers and I understand the "advance" of story telling in making long interconnected stories that span one episode to the next. But I miss having the story end.
Maybe I better clarify that.
I want to know what happens next, and not have the story end, as it relates to characters. The people development parts of things. But, I don't want it to stretch out to where I need to watch more, and more, and more, just to get to some sort of chord resolution in the piece. Come to the end of a cadence already.
Here's another illustration. Who would write a mystery--TV show, miniseries, or movie--and then end the thing before you find out "Who dunnit?" You'd have a mad audience and a short-lived run. Why in the world should all the other shows--and books!--be different? They're like a run-on sentence. You might have a lot to say, but it's overwhelming. The commitment then isn't "Do I want to watch another episode?" The commitment is for the entire series. That's quite an investment.
But I also don't want it to where it doesn't ever matter what episode you watch next because they're interchangeable. Nothing changes between characters. That's relaxing sometimes; so there's a place for those shows, too. But it can get pretty shallow, otherwise, when you keep things that way.
And the whole "Superhero Loses Parent" headline? Yep. That's here, too. Figures.
Maybe I better clarify that.
I want to know what happens next, and not have the story end, as it relates to characters. The people development parts of things. But, I don't want it to stretch out to where I need to watch more, and more, and more, just to get to some sort of chord resolution in the piece. Come to the end of a cadence already.
Here's another illustration. Who would write a mystery--TV show, miniseries, or movie--and then end the thing before you find out "Who dunnit?" You'd have a mad audience and a short-lived run. Why in the world should all the other shows--and books!--be different? They're like a run-on sentence. You might have a lot to say, but it's overwhelming. The commitment then isn't "Do I want to watch another episode?" The commitment is for the entire series. That's quite an investment.
But I also don't want it to where it doesn't ever matter what episode you watch next because they're interchangeable. Nothing changes between characters. That's relaxing sometimes; so there's a place for those shows, too. But it can get pretty shallow, otherwise, when you keep things that way.
And the whole "Superhero Loses Parent" headline? Yep. That's here, too. Figures.
Thursday, April 17, 2014
"Bermuda Triangle Exposed" (2010)
There's a certain amount of repetition--as in right before a commercial break and right after a commercial break--in this apparently made for television documentary. The voiceover narrator seems to be trying to find a balance between stating the facts and making it sound dramatic, without going overboard. It's a "nearly there" effort, but not quite there.
Think maybe I miss Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom.
I've heard worse (overly dramatic), and I've heard better. This one isn't bad. As for the information, it's interesting enough. I just don't see what the dramatic tone and script writing adds to the show. To me, it doesn't. But the information was interesting enough to keep listening to and I don't think I'd ever heard any of it before. If an investigation of the Bermuda Triangle sounds interesting to you, this would be a decent enough update on it for you. It focuses mostly on the science--fact through most of the show with theory near the end--more than any catalog of lost vessel particulars. They include only 3 or 4 vessel particulars--just enough to serve as examples for the science. The rest focuses on the science--and attempts to dazzle you with computer graphic displays. And I suppose you have to show the viewer something while you talk.
Think maybe I miss Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom.
I've heard worse (overly dramatic), and I've heard better. This one isn't bad. As for the information, it's interesting enough. I just don't see what the dramatic tone and script writing adds to the show. To me, it doesn't. But the information was interesting enough to keep listening to and I don't think I'd ever heard any of it before. If an investigation of the Bermuda Triangle sounds interesting to you, this would be a decent enough update on it for you. It focuses mostly on the science--fact through most of the show with theory near the end--more than any catalog of lost vessel particulars. They include only 3 or 4 vessel particulars--just enough to serve as examples for the science. The rest focuses on the science--and attempts to dazzle you with computer graphic displays. And I suppose you have to show the viewer something while you talk.
Friday, April 4, 2014
"Radio Rebel" (2012)
This is a teen flick--so pretty fluffy. Teen romance comedy. And the "bad guy" is the principal--why?--guess 'cause somebody had to be???--other than the rhetorics of the principal being the "bad guy"--which I'd rather it not be, but not surprising--and that the principal is all over music--'um okay--gotta be 'bout something...??...--other than those two things, I really enjoyed the storytelling of this movie. Ups and down curves, no body dies, very nice ending for everybody--and even a twist that I totally didn't see coming--not easy to do and I loved that I was surprised. I enjoyed this movie. Would love to see more like this one.
Totally recommend. Nice easy-going movie. Written well. Good for family time. :)
Totally recommend. Nice easy-going movie. Written well. Good for family time. :)
Sunday, March 23, 2014
"Secrets: A Viking Map?" (2013)
The sound was a little better--still dramatic--but not as bad as some of the other documentaries. This documentary is not questioning the arrival of the Vikings to America. It is looking at the authenticity of an artifact known as the Vinland map. A good introduction to this particular artifact. This documentary is also a good introduction into looking at why anything is produced--Why is this document written? Why is this essay written? Why is this news article written? Why is this product on the market?--Or in the case of this documentary, Why is this map produced? Does a nice balanced job of presenting the ambiguousness of historical research.
Friday, March 14, 2014
"Secrets: The Sphinx" (2013)
This is what you get when you try to make archaeology as exciting as the Super Bowl. Good Grief! And the music has "got" to be straight out of an opera's mass choir "crowd goes to war" scenes.
Wouldn't it be easier just to play an operatic quartet number during each 4th down of a football game, and then during the final two minutes of the 4th quarter say "Yeah, we still don't really know anything about the Sphinx."? The effect would be the same. All that was missing was for one archaeologist to tackle another one.
Or we could just teach the whole stadium to sing, "O Fortuna". That would work, too.
Perhaps if I took a class on the history of the documentary, maybe that would enlighten why these choices are made. Otherwise: For the "adrenaline junky", it's not going to cut it. For the scholar, it seems to me more annoying than anything. And as for pop-scholarism? Let's commit and do it, instead just commercializing our egos.
I will say I recognize the mentioned "hey we found this tomb" tomb in this documentary as the tomb that held one of the "we're going to open this" spots from "Into the Great Pyramid" . And the guy talking about that spot (Director of Giza.....) was also in the other one, too.
Thursday, January 2, 2014
"Lady Gaga & the Muppets' Holiday Spectacular" (2013)
SPOILER ALERT (but then, it's a music special, so what do you expect):
Okay, let me say from the beginning I have no opinion--positive or negative--about Lady Gaga. This is the first I've likely even knowingly heard her singing. And the songs were largely a promo for one of her albums/CDs. I watched this for the Muppets part of the show. And I a smidge curious to see how they were doing with 2nd generation Kermit (Jim Henson sure was something else).
So, the first number is a joint number between Lady Gaga and the Muppets. I am a huge Animal fan, and he is playing the drums in the background. So, I watched the number all the way through.
Then I discovered that pretty much most of the rest of the numbers were Muppet-less (with one exception) until the finale. Well, that just kinda misses the point. So, admittedly, I took to fast-forwarding through the Muppet-less parts, so I could get to the "good" stuff. When they finally did another number together, it was the finale--complete with credits right over the whole thing. Way to show case it. The inserted Muppet "bloopers" which were wonderful.
What does make it worth watching for the Muppet/music fan? Two musical numbers...Ready for this? Audio-visualize this singing trio: Beaker (meep, meep), the Swedish chef, and Animal. At two different times these 3 sing a "well-known Christmas carol"--Do you think it's possible to recognize it? Lyric-less Beaker, Swedish Pig-Latin lyrics (just as unintelligible), and then the only thing possible to understand is Animal--except the 1st time he speeds things up too fast, and the 2nd time he only does follow-up/echo licks to the unintelligible stuff--so, he's the only one you can understand. You don't understand the first part, but you understand the echo. I was grinning ear to ear. How musically funny is that?
That leaves me stuck with how to rate this. It has great Muppet moments, but the Muppets aren't threaded all the way through like I remember from my childhood The Muppet Show. But that mismatched singing trio? That is just tops. That's great!
Okay, let me say from the beginning I have no opinion--positive or negative--about Lady Gaga. This is the first I've likely even knowingly heard her singing. And the songs were largely a promo for one of her albums/CDs. I watched this for the Muppets part of the show. And I a smidge curious to see how they were doing with 2nd generation Kermit (Jim Henson sure was something else).
So, the first number is a joint number between Lady Gaga and the Muppets. I am a huge Animal fan, and he is playing the drums in the background. So, I watched the number all the way through.
Then I discovered that pretty much most of the rest of the numbers were Muppet-less (with one exception) until the finale. Well, that just kinda misses the point. So, admittedly, I took to fast-forwarding through the Muppet-less parts, so I could get to the "good" stuff. When they finally did another number together, it was the finale--complete with credits right over the whole thing. Way to show case it. The inserted Muppet "bloopers" which were wonderful.
What does make it worth watching for the Muppet/music fan? Two musical numbers...Ready for this? Audio-visualize this singing trio: Beaker (meep, meep), the Swedish chef, and Animal. At two different times these 3 sing a "well-known Christmas carol"--Do you think it's possible to recognize it? Lyric-less Beaker, Swedish Pig-Latin lyrics (just as unintelligible), and then the only thing possible to understand is Animal--except the 1st time he speeds things up too fast, and the 2nd time he only does follow-up/echo licks to the unintelligible stuff--so, he's the only one you can understand. You don't understand the first part, but you understand the echo. I was grinning ear to ear. How musically funny is that?
That leaves me stuck with how to rate this. It has great Muppet moments, but the Muppets aren't threaded all the way through like I remember from my childhood The Muppet Show. But that mismatched singing trio? That is just tops. That's great!
Friday, November 29, 2013
"The Finder" (2012)--Season 1
I don't do many TV shows on here for one blurry reason. How do I stay consistent? Movies last anywhere from an hour to three hours. You watch it and it's done. One impression, in tact. But when do you do TV shows? After the first episode to capture the first true impression? After the first 3 episodes to give a more rounded first impression (set-up to show episode, finish set-up episode, 1st real typical episode)? Or do watch the whole 1st season? Or all the seasons until it is done airing? But a show can change over a season--or especially after several seasons. So, when do you sit back and speculate about a TV show.
I am writing this particular post after 6 episodes and a snitch of the 7th episode of season 1. The reason I'm writing now is that the words want to spout out. So, I am writing.
The opening music reminds me of The Dukes of Hazzard, and I think there could be some arguments toward this show be a descendent of it--but not a direct descendant--less graphic (at least compared to others), episodes aren't about save-the-world or save-the-nation kinds of save the day things (which is refreshing). The lead character "Walter Sherman" reminds me of the fun I had of watching "H. M. Murdock" of the A-Team TV series, only slightly less crazy. And the show manages to keep the tension and stress moments down to a low level (a bonus to me) while still included (necessary to good plot). It also includes those random funny lines/funny moments that make you laugh, while including those serious moments and touching moments that keep it real.
A nice find--enjoyable enough to watch multiple episodes of. Unique enough to potential watch episodes a 2nd time. But not so addictive that I "have" to put my life on hold to see what the next episode holds. (Having a very, very limited amount of show cliff hangers, helps too. That doesn't mean there aren't also minute episode to episode connections/continuity.)
I am writing this particular post after 6 episodes and a snitch of the 7th episode of season 1. The reason I'm writing now is that the words want to spout out. So, I am writing.
The opening music reminds me of The Dukes of Hazzard, and I think there could be some arguments toward this show be a descendent of it--but not a direct descendant--less graphic (at least compared to others), episodes aren't about save-the-world or save-the-nation kinds of save the day things (which is refreshing). The lead character "Walter Sherman" reminds me of the fun I had of watching "H. M. Murdock" of the A-Team TV series, only slightly less crazy. And the show manages to keep the tension and stress moments down to a low level (a bonus to me) while still included (necessary to good plot). It also includes those random funny lines/funny moments that make you laugh, while including those serious moments and touching moments that keep it real.
A nice find--enjoyable enough to watch multiple episodes of. Unique enough to potential watch episodes a 2nd time. But not so addictive that I "have" to put my life on hold to see what the next episode holds. (Having a very, very limited amount of show cliff hangers, helps too. That doesn't mean there aren't also minute episode to episode connections/continuity.)
Monday, September 9, 2013
"Deadliest Volcanoes" (2012)
Nova episode. Other than the unsurprising evolutionary years-figures (it's "post-Noah's flood" in my book) and the "If this erupts, there will be mass destruction and we'll all die", the science parts were pretty interesting. It kept my interest enough to hear what different detection technologies have been developed.
And it was pretty cool to watch erupting volcanoes while I'm sitting in the air conditioning deep in the Midwest.
And it was pretty cool to watch erupting volcanoes while I'm sitting in the air conditioning deep in the Midwest.
Sunday, August 4, 2013
"Secrets of the Viking Sword" (2012)
This documentary had less research mystery and more skill/process sharing. There were a few hints about trading speculation, but most of the mystery involved how it was made. And the documentary wasn't so much problem solving that process as much as showing the trial run of testing that process out. Very interesting.
"Mystery of a Masterpiece" (2012)
Is it a newly discovered portrait by Leonardo DaVinci or isn't it? :) Nova does it again.
"Mystery of Easter Island" (2012)
Because this is a Nova episode from PBS (that is, no commercials), the build up and hype to keep the audience wasn't needed. This particular episode also managed to avoid both evolutionary ideas and "primitive" vs. "modern" culture competition. It kept a nice flow of "here is what our questions were at this point; here is what we tried", "that failed; here's what we tried next", and "here was our next set of questions". It also seemed to attempt to fairly present various theories--theories that disagreed with others presented and theories that supplemented other views with variations and additions. I like how they kept going back to one of the oral traditions that dealt with the matter; of course, it involved the subject matter of what the whole episode was about. The episode focused on two questions: "How did they move the statutes (moi)?" with the theory as touched on in oral traditions of "walking" and "What was the cause or causes that lead to the decline of the population of Easter Island?" Under an hour and nicely interesting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)