Clash of the Titans (2010)
Director: Louis Leterrier
Writer(s): Travis Beacham, Phil Hay, Matt Manfredi, Beverley Cross (1981 screenplay)
Starring: Sam Worthington, Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes
-----
A remake of the campy and charming 1981 classic, this film is neither campy nor charming. It feels like it should've been campy, but it wasn't. Bad move. Break-neck pacing eliminates any chance of decent characters to emerge, and the plot is, well... somehow it manages not to be as good as the original. Not initially intended for a 3D release, the 3D scenes definitely feel tacked on and a bit rushed (the harpies or whatever they are look like crap), though the final Kraken battle does look pretty awesome. It's a pity the story didn't stay closer to the source material.
Verdict: Eh... SEE it, but wait for home video.
How to Train Your Dragon (2010)
Director: Dean DeBlois, Chris Sanders
Writer(s): William Davies, DeDeblois, Chris Sanders, Cressida Cowell (novel)
Starring: Jay Baruchel, Gerard Butler, Craig Ferguson, America Ferrara
-----
Not only one of the best animated films to come out in this young century (yes, that's acknowledging Up and Wall*E), it's one of the best films of 2010. The advertisements claim the 3D scenes give Avatar a run for its money, and it's true (although, let's be fair, it's easier to "3D" a cartoon than it is a live-action film). But, 3D or not, the story, the characters, the tone... Hell, everything about this film... is brilliant.
Verdict: SEE it! And again!
Kick-Ass (2010)
Director: Matthew Vaughn
Writer(s): Jane Goldman, Matthew Vaughn, Mark Millar (comic book), John S. Romita, Jr. (comic book)
Starring: Aaron Johnson, Mark Strong, Nicholas Cage
-----
Matthew Vaughn's follow-up to one of my favorite films (Stardust) is damn close to being another of my favorite films. Satirical and extremely violent, the creators of Kick-Ass take the Batman mythos and turn it on its head. The result? A satirical and extremely violent movie that is fun, engaging, and a reminder of what compelling entertainment should be. Yes, I understand the "controversy" behind creating a young character who is so efficient a killing machine (the character in question is about 11, and a cute girl), but it's misguided. Batman and Robin (excuse me... Big Daddy and Hit-Girl) have rarely been so bold.
Verdict: SEE it. Fantastic all-around, but definitely NOT a movie for young children.
The Losers (2010)
Director: Sylvain White
Writer(s): Peter Berg, James Vanderbilt, Andy Diggle (characters)
Starring: Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Zoe Saldana, Chris Evans
-----
Both an update to the original DC Comics "The Losers" and homage to The A-Team (which got its own movie), The Losers is a film that struggles to find its footing, but is nevertheless enjoyable. Each of the five male members of the Losers are portrayed by ridiculously charismatic actors, and the female member (portrayed by Zoe Saldana) is, well, rather hot (and equally charismatic). Jason Patric, the film's villain, is far too over-the-top and his subplot equally so. In fact, were it not for the villain, this movie would've been way better than it was. Put it this way: the whole of the film is less than the sum of its parts. But it's still better than a lot of films out there... and the characters (the protagonists, anyway) are classics.
Verdict: Hmm... not for everyone, but action and comic book fans should love it. SEE it.
Passion in the Desert (1997)
Director: Lavinia Currier
Writer(s): Lavinia Currier, Martin Edmunds, Honoré de Balzac (story)
Starring: Ben Daniels, Michel Piccoli
-----
I have wanted to see this movie ever since it came out. I almost watched it in 2009, but thanks to a DVR hiccup, the recording was corrupted. And now I've finally seen it. This is a beautifully-shot movie that is ultimately about, well, not much at all. Rife with "hasty scenes" meant to be shocking or otherwise disturbing, the overall story fails miserably at being moving or otherwise emotionally engaging. Sure, animal lovers will wax fanatic at the interaction between the protagonist and the leopard he befriends in the desert, but the silliness and too-fast pace ruin any chance of this being considered "artistic."
Verdict: SKIP it. You're not missing much, I assure you.
Showing posts with label Clash of the Titans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Clash of the Titans. Show all posts
Monday, May 10, 2010
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Battlestar Galactica: From Great to Lazy
In 2003, the beloved cult classic television series, Battlestar Galactica, returned to the small screen in a miniseries event that was, to say the least, a spectacular example of good, dramatic, science fiction. In almost every way imaginable (save for maybe "family values") the new Battlestar Galactica surpassed the original, and fans eagerly awaiting its inception as a weekly series. Season One continued the trend started by the miniseries, and is arguably the best stand-alone season of any science fiction show in the history of television. It was well-written, taut, and full of real-life problems in a fictional world. Season Two started to waver a bit, but for the most part maintained at least the tone of the first season.
It was, without doubt, one of the hardest-working shows with one of the hardest-working writing staffs at the time.
And then, at the end of Season Two, the unthinkable happened: the incongruous "One Year Later."
An obvious gimmick for a writing staff who seemed to be getting tired of the concept. Tired? How the Hell was this possible? The writers had barely even scratched the surface of the depth the show's premise offered. And yet, there it was... in our face, slapping as hard as it could. For those familiar with the much-maligned term "jumped the shark," this is when our beloved show jumped the battlestar.
One year later? One year of character development, unfinished storylines, plot progressions, and a clear change in direction of the show. Some fans (mostly fanboys and fangirls) loved it. Of course they would... these are the same people who loved the new Star Wars trilogy. Their standards are so low, they're the reason the Stargate shows lasted as long as they did.
Oh, Season Three started with a bang, I'll admit, but one full of inconsistencies, larger plot-holes, and a definite change in tone from the "realistic, naturalistic" science fiction promised by the show creators to an unrealistic, clearly contrived show that most casual fans find hard to care about. Don't believe me? Check the steady decline in ratings since the first season.
Sure, David Eick, one of the two show-runners, wanted to try out his horrible and horrifying remake of Bionic Woman, and Ronald Moore, the other show-runner and one of the only reasons the Star Trek franchise maintained quality for as long as it did, had his eye on silver screen projects. But this is my point: it was like they wanted to quit Battlestar Galactica in order to pursue their ultimate goal of being television and film powerhouses. I can't fault them for that, but I can fault them for not handing over the reigns of the once uber-great Battlestar Galactica to other writer-producers to keep the show going for more than four seasons. After all, that was how Ronald Moore got his start, by being handed the reigns of someone else's pet project. Perhaps his vanity got in the way of him doing the same for someone else.
No, not perhaps. That's exactly what happened.
Where's my proof? Well, just take a look at the silly "Final Five" Cylon concept. Initially, we were led to believe that there were 12 "human" Cylons, infiltrated in the RTF and causing all sorts of problems. Eventually, only 7 of those Cylons were revealed, leaving us wondering who the last 5 were. But, instead of drawing it out, keeping us guessing until the moment the RTF finds Earth, the writers decided to ret-con their own "history" and make the "Final Five" a group of prophetic not-quite-Cylon beings who seem to be involved in the overall machinations of the universe. Four of those Cylons were revealed to be human characters we've been following for quite some time now... human characters whose histories preclude them from being Cylons, hence, the ret-con. It was, to say the least, one of the cheapest shots taken at an audience since Rosebud was revealed to be a sled. Only Rosebud had a reason behind it... Battlestar Galactica's was simply a case of writers wanting to hurry to a finale.
So, here we are, watching a show that was once about a band of humans doing everything they could to survive in a situation that did not want them to survive, and is now about a band of humans being used as pawns in a prophetic chess-match between players whose identities are still unknown. If I wanted to watch a by-the-number piece like that, I'd pop Clash of the Titans in my DVD player.
Deus ex Machina kills many a film in its abrupt and lazy propensity to end a story. And this is what it's doing to Battlestar Galactica.
Of course, there's still a chance that the fourth and final season of the show could turn out to be the best conclusion to a science fiction show ever, but given the decline in quality evident since Season 2, and the rise in laziness evident since Season 3, what are the odds of that?
I'm guessing slim-to-none.
Here's hoping that some up-and-coming television writers are already preparing the next incarnation of Battlestar Galactica, because this one is leaving too many bad tastes in my mouth.
It was, without doubt, one of the hardest-working shows with one of the hardest-working writing staffs at the time.
And then, at the end of Season Two, the unthinkable happened: the incongruous "One Year Later."
An obvious gimmick for a writing staff who seemed to be getting tired of the concept. Tired? How the Hell was this possible? The writers had barely even scratched the surface of the depth the show's premise offered. And yet, there it was... in our face, slapping as hard as it could. For those familiar with the much-maligned term "jumped the shark," this is when our beloved show jumped the battlestar.
One year later? One year of character development, unfinished storylines, plot progressions, and a clear change in direction of the show. Some fans (mostly fanboys and fangirls) loved it. Of course they would... these are the same people who loved the new Star Wars trilogy. Their standards are so low, they're the reason the Stargate shows lasted as long as they did.
Oh, Season Three started with a bang, I'll admit, but one full of inconsistencies, larger plot-holes, and a definite change in tone from the "realistic, naturalistic" science fiction promised by the show creators to an unrealistic, clearly contrived show that most casual fans find hard to care about. Don't believe me? Check the steady decline in ratings since the first season.
Sure, David Eick, one of the two show-runners, wanted to try out his horrible and horrifying remake of Bionic Woman, and Ronald Moore, the other show-runner and one of the only reasons the Star Trek franchise maintained quality for as long as it did, had his eye on silver screen projects. But this is my point: it was like they wanted to quit Battlestar Galactica in order to pursue their ultimate goal of being television and film powerhouses. I can't fault them for that, but I can fault them for not handing over the reigns of the once uber-great Battlestar Galactica to other writer-producers to keep the show going for more than four seasons. After all, that was how Ronald Moore got his start, by being handed the reigns of someone else's pet project. Perhaps his vanity got in the way of him doing the same for someone else.
No, not perhaps. That's exactly what happened.
Where's my proof? Well, just take a look at the silly "Final Five" Cylon concept. Initially, we were led to believe that there were 12 "human" Cylons, infiltrated in the RTF and causing all sorts of problems. Eventually, only 7 of those Cylons were revealed, leaving us wondering who the last 5 were. But, instead of drawing it out, keeping us guessing until the moment the RTF finds Earth, the writers decided to ret-con their own "history" and make the "Final Five" a group of prophetic not-quite-Cylon beings who seem to be involved in the overall machinations of the universe. Four of those Cylons were revealed to be human characters we've been following for quite some time now... human characters whose histories preclude them from being Cylons, hence, the ret-con. It was, to say the least, one of the cheapest shots taken at an audience since Rosebud was revealed to be a sled. Only Rosebud had a reason behind it... Battlestar Galactica's was simply a case of writers wanting to hurry to a finale.
So, here we are, watching a show that was once about a band of humans doing everything they could to survive in a situation that did not want them to survive, and is now about a band of humans being used as pawns in a prophetic chess-match between players whose identities are still unknown. If I wanted to watch a by-the-number piece like that, I'd pop Clash of the Titans in my DVD player.
Deus ex Machina kills many a film in its abrupt and lazy propensity to end a story. And this is what it's doing to Battlestar Galactica.
Of course, there's still a chance that the fourth and final season of the show could turn out to be the best conclusion to a science fiction show ever, but given the decline in quality evident since Season 2, and the rise in laziness evident since Season 3, what are the odds of that?
I'm guessing slim-to-none.
Here's hoping that some up-and-coming television writers are already preparing the next incarnation of Battlestar Galactica, because this one is leaving too many bad tastes in my mouth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
