Archive for January, 2011

Caprica: Thoughts on the first and final TV season…

Guest Review by Sam LeGassick

One of my favourite TV series of all time – Battlestar Galactica – sadly finished a while ago but the makers came back with prequel spin-off Caprica, or in other words – CRAPrica.


If anyone is thinking about starting to watch this then let me begin by telling you not to. Read this review and save yourself the chore of putting yourself through watching every episode. I mean it. There’s a reason why it’s cancelled.

Let’s start by saying what it’s about. It follows Joe Adama (Bill’s father) who has lost his wife and daughter in a terrorist explosion, set off by a friend of Zoe Graystone. Zoe is the daughter of Daniel Graystone who is basically the guy responsible for creating cylons. At the same time, there’s a religion going on with extremist leader Clarice getting people to blow stuff up and all that. It’s this religion of the One God that we know through Battlestar and, well, that’s about it.

There’s different storylines going on with stuff like a virtual world, the Adamas finding their Tauron roots, Zoe as a weird Neo in The Matrix, Zoe’s friend Lacy joining the terrorists and Daniel trying to keep it all together. The problem is a lot of things, firstly the acting is average at best, Eric Stoltz does reasonably well but by the end you feel like he’s running on empty and I’d argue he’s the best there, even Esai as Joe Adama is tough to watch at times, often giving hammy performances at crucial times.

That’s the least of their problems – which is really saying something. The real trouble here are the stories – they are so so so boring and worthy that it’s often cringe-worthy. They string things out for ages, there’s a lot of talking, not much action or indeed Sci-Fi (for something that is supposed to be a staple Sy-Fy show) and you spend the whole time waiting for something to kick off, which it doesn’t. It’s a disappointment after another disappointment. Each episode was slow, convoluted, poorly executed and completely soulless. I heard some backlash about it getting cancelled but, seriously, who is watching this? What are they getting out of it?

Another huge issue is the characters – they are so wet, so pathetic and even when they try to be strong, it feels so fake and awkward that you just want to turn over. Zoe is shit, Lacy is shit, Joe is shit, they’re all shit. Everything is so serious all the time, about boring stuff, it tries to be pseudo-political, pseudo-religious and it makes me think that Battlestar Galatica might have been just a fortunate series of events that turned into a good series. The story, in theory, doesn’t really even make sense. Fortunately, it’s been announced that Bill Adama will be back for another spin-off series about the Cylon Wars which at least will have some action in it. Caprica however was a complete disgrace, it might have been a good idea in theory but in practise it was an abomination.

Not only this, but it shatters some illusions people would have thought about where Battlestar’s roots come from. Everything about the Cylons, the One God, Joe Adama – it’s all shit and I wish I hadn’t watched any of it. It doesn’t know if it’s a sci-fi show, a drama, a teen cult favourite or what, it was too big a project to handle and with such awful writing, it deserves to be a lesson learnt that sometimes stretching storylines out, not giving your audience anything and having such an egotistical self-belief that your characters are strong enough to hold a show together just doesn’t always work.

Craprica.

Rating: 2/10


Legend of the Guardians: A Movie for ga-Who?

Epic battles and coming of age tales of adventure filled with heroes and villains fill the stories we tell our kids all the time.  Whether we are telling a tale of Cinderella overcoming her evil stepmother or we talk of David slaying Goliath, we love to rally around the stories of ancient lore. Director Zack Snyder tries to bring about re-birth to a popular series of books, The Legend of the Guardians.  But as I watched this film I wrestled with one re-occurring theme- I simply didn’t know who this movie was for.

Zack Snyder is not exactly the first person you would think of directing a kids flick about flying and fighting hero owls.  After all, Snyder’s previous directing credits come in the form of the Frank Miller’s 300 big screen adaptation as well as 2004’s Dawn of the Dead and the R rated graphic novel adaptation of Watchmen.  Snyder has a knack for being attached to film that aren’t exceptionally bright and cheery, and yet they put him in charge of a series about dueling owls.  Should one really be surprised when this film turns out to be darker and more pretentious than any “family” film should be?

From start to finish, Guardians sticks to a frightful and violent enough plot that it will have little ones shaking in their pajamas at night.  With an evil over lord enslaving young owls, its up to a young owl and ancient clan of owls known as the guardians to gear up for battle and defeat him.  Thus a battle ensue with owls that donned in razor sharp talon swords in a grueling fight to the finish.  The film is heavy on thematic elements and owl death and I can’t seem to find it being suitable for most kids who would enjoy this type of animated flick.  Sure we pull away from the shots of impalement and graphic owl death, but it doesn’t take much to use your imagination and visualize it.

Visually Snyder wants to give you a 3-D world of owl wonder but the whole universe looks and feels like a dark, dreary video game that has sub-par graphics. His CGI world looks flat and boring despite the film’s best efforts.  With it’s dark and dreary landscape the film’s sound track enhances the dark, dreary tone of the film except for a bizarre song by Owl City that is upbeat and peppy enough that you would think LFO had come back from the dead to perform. (Owl City song in video on left, LFO on the right…similar if I say so myself)    I’m not too familiar with Owl City, but they did play their song in the movie’s Owl City and it really felt like a jolt out of place.  The song felt forced, as if Snyder hoped for a “best song” nomination in his pretentious owl flick.

Characters had names that were confusing and unrecognizable.  I’m not even going to attempt to name them, because the spellings and pronunciations are so different it would be a waste of breath.  I felt as though I was watching a 90 minute mash up of Lord of the Rings with owls- except this film was just plain bad and directed by someone who thinks he is God’s gift to directing.  The problem is like all Snyder films, Guardians reeks of a snobbish aspiration that only the films of Snyder could provide.  You can almost tell Snyder thought he could take this little film and make it into some epic groundbreaking masterpiece, yet wound up with another Watchmen-like pretentious pile in the process.  (Sorry Watchmen fans, but that film sucks)

My biggest question as the credit rolled was who was this film for?  Snyder’s “violent” and “dark” tendencies definitely showed through in the film, and Warner Brothers as a studio should not be surprised by this at all.  Marketed as a happy family film about owls, it was dark, frightful and violent- totally different than what was suggested by the studios.  The wee ones will be frightened by it, and there was really nothing ground breaking or revolutionary for the adults to flock to theaters or rental shelves to check out either.    Teens won’t flock to animated features about fighting owls; that is not going to score you any cool points. Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Gahoole really is a movie that was meant for….Ga-Who?  Your guess is as good as mine.

Secretariat: Sequelbiscuit or something more?

Secretariat released on DVD yesterday and I was finally convinced to take my mess of notes on the film and convert it into review form for the site.  I found myself watching a 35mm print of Secretariat late one night simply because no one else wanted to watch it.  I heard groans of “Do I have to?” to an all out look of fear when it was suggested to co-workers.  No one wanted to give Secretariat a chance.  Hopefully this review of the film might convince you to do so, since despite its problems, Secretariat is a decent flick.

Based upon the horse racing phenomenon known as Secretariat who in 1973 won the triple crown, this Disney horse flick tries to bring heart warming excitement to the horse racing world.  It seemed like anyone over the age of 50 was dying to see this movie, but people under the age of 30 could care less.  Since the trend of people over 50 heading to the box office in droves is not exactly a common trend, box office numbers for the flick were poor.  So poor in fact that one theater owner of a major chain offered to give your money back if you didn’t enjoy the film because he felt it wasn’t getting the respect it deserved.  Even the help of a movie mogul didn’t help Secretariat’s second coming become a sight to be seen.  But perhaps the bigger question is why did no one want to see this film?

One of the theories I have is the marketing campaign made me feel like I was set out to watch Seabiscuit part 2.  There is more to this story than just a horse race and a crotchety old trainer, but the previews aren’t going to hint at that.  In fact, Disney did so much to try and remind you of Seabiscuit they even used somewhat similar fonts on the poster.    It was as if the entire campaign was, “You liked Seabiscuit, you’ll like this!” That may have played well for the over 50 market, but the younger crowd shrugged their shoulders and moved on with life.

Secondly, it’s a “period” piece about a horse from the 70’s and looked so bright and happy that it made you want to gag a bit.  Every scene in trailers had bright sunny days, beautiful sunsets and Diane Lane in a bad wig and southern accent talking about her little horse that could.  I’d be lying if I told you that those elements didn’t exist in the film but the fact of the matter is they are only a small piece of the puzzle.

What Secretariat does right is weaves a wonderful tale about a horse that no one had faith in and it’s incredible journey to the top by a woman that no one had faith in.  Diane Lane as Penny Tweedy does a wonderful job of playing a no-nonsense house wife who turns her ailing father’s struggling breeding farm into a success.  However, her new found business sense comes with challenges from a brother who wants to sell the farm, and a husband and children who want their stay at home mom back.  Lane does a wonderful job in the role, aside from sporting a wig that might have been made by a blind wig maker in 1973.  While I am not familiar with the real life Penny Tweedy, I assume that Lane hit the nail on the head while playing this woman as a free spirited, fearless woman surrounded by men in a mostly male dominated sport.

Her partner in crime is John Malkovich who plays Lucien Lauren, a cranky horse trainer with a string of losses on the race track and in the fashion world.  Dressed like a flamboyant hobo, Lucien turns out to be the perfect person to clash swords with Penny and eventually lead them to victory.  I really felt as though Malkovich was a perfect addition to the cast, and despite his oddities, Malkovich makes Lucien a lovable character.

The only real problem I had with this film was that it oozed so much happiness and joy that it was almost sickening at times.  I enjoy a good fluffy happy piece every now and then, and Secretariat fits that bill to a tee.   However, I’m not going to rag on a film for being family friendly and inspirational.  After all, there really is no reason for this film to be PG-13 or R.    My only caveat with the flick is I felt the film was trying so hard to be “good natured” it felt a overly cheesy and even at times reminiscent of the “the good ol’ days” of the 50’s rather than ‘73.

When it is all said and done, I left Secretariat converting from a doubter to a believer.  If I had the chance for my money back from that generous movie mogul, I would have declined.  He was right,  I did enjoy Secretariat, and I am convinced others will enjoy Secretariat as well.  I managed to convince some unwilling co-workers of mine to see the film and they too admitted they had fun with this flick.  I’m willing to say it was one of the better films I saw this year, and one of the better family friendly films I have seen in a while.  It’s a good natured, fun, inspirational family flick.  It’s” Disney Goodness” at its best and it’s now on DVD.  Pick it up for your next movie night.

Where are they? Wednesdays: Matthew Lillard

A TV remote can be a dangerous thing.  Just the other day I stumbled upon a cartoon network premiere of Scooby Doo: Monsters Unleashed.  What I should have said was “scooby-don’t” and changed the channel but I instead endured 10-15 minutes of this feature flick.  The bad news is I wasted away 15 minutes of my life.  The good news is, I found my where are they Wednesday.

About 5 years ago it seemed like Matthew Lillard had found his was out of the dark hole he was living in and into the spotlight.  He found himself in films like She’s all that, Summer Catch, SLC Punk and a character in the Scream franchise.  After picking up the role of Shaggy in the live action Scooby Doo movie, he wound up in the film Without a Paddle alongside Dax Shepard and Seth Green.  But suddenly the gods of Hollywood seemed to have dropped Matthew Lillard back into the dark hole he came from.  Where is he, I ask?

Looking for Lillard wasn’t extremely hard, he has been hard at work, it’s just in a lesser capacity.  Lillard’s face hasn’t graced he silver screen since Without a Paddle but he has had a steady line of voice over work and made a few TV appearances to keep the paychecks flowing in.    None of these appearances have been stellar performances by Lillard, but he is indeed still working.   Lillard most recently appeared in an episode of House, M.D. on Fox with a rumor that his character may be re-occurring.

On the horizon for Lillard are 3 projects which are all filming or in pre-production.  One of these titles has him starring as the brother of Dean Cain in a movie about a sibling rivalry at the little league championships.  The presence of Dean Cain obviously means we are looking at another low budget, TV film so I doubt this film will hit theaters soon.  He does have an upcoming role alongside George Clooney in a film called The Descendants due out in 2011 and so Lillard fans might get to see him on the big screen again.

Scooby Doo may have crushed your spirit, but it didn’t crush Matthew Lillard’s career.  Matthew Lillard is still alive and well and working in Hollywood.  The early part of last decade proved to be a roller coaster ride of success for the star.  2011 and beyond are still up for grabs for this star.  Will we see him rise to big screen stardom again or will he be our in our 10 year anniversary of Where Are They? Wednesdays?  Only time will tell.  Grenbeck-out!

Hey! That lamp is further away & other reasons 3-D is lame

You can’t turn on the TV or go to a movie with out some studio executive trying to convince you that Real D 3-D is the new way of the future.  Studios love 3-D content and have bought full force into the gimmick that seems to re-surface eery 20 years.  But is it just a gimmick or is 3-D here to stay?

The good news in 3-D is you are not longer getting red and blue paper glasses and bad double picture ghosted 35mm film prints anymore.  Real D 3-D uses a digital file and offers a much more crystal clear picture.  Those pesky red and blue glasses are gone and replaced with a pair of plastic “clear” lenses that look something like the glasses straight out of John Carpenter’s They Live.  The technology has evolved, but is it worth it?

Films like Avatar took 3-D to new heights, and directors like James Cameron have found ways of making 3-D  into a new cash cow.  However, studios looked at the bank 3-D is making and are nose diving it into failure fast.  The newest practice in Hollywood is the upconvert.  This is where they take a standard 2-D movie and blur some back grounds around a bit to give it more depth.  The end result is a picture with some perspective but not much more.  For the studios this means they get to charge you extra money to see that the lamp on someone’s table is closer to you than the actor.  Take off the sunglasses and the picture is primarily clear, with fuzzy background.  In fact, upconvert 3-D movies can be watchable with out the glasses on.  Sure it may seem like something is a bit off with the picture, but it’s much easier to watch than a film actually shot with 3-D cameras.

Now onto the 3-D glasses.  These things look like you are trapped in the 80’s.  Tom Cruise would have had a giant collection of these back in the day, but now days they aren’t exactly stylish.  These plastic lensed glasses are the pivotal factor in what makes 3-D more than just a blurred image.  However, they also darken the picture and take away some of the brightness and contrast of the picture.  Directors are always saying they want the viewer to see the picture the way it was “supposed to be seen.”  Directors such as Brett “Rush Hour” Ratner love bright colors and vivid costumes and back drops.  However in 3-D these colors become more muted in tone. And for those of us geeks that wear glasses already, you get the great joy of wearing glasses over your glasses.  So not only do you look like a dork, you get to feel funny too, with a pair of bulky frames sliding down your nose or smashed against your prescription frames.  And with any luck you’ll be one of those lucky people that 3-D causes motion sickness and headaches from the glasses and images!  Lucky you!

Now don’t get me wrong.  I do have an enjoyment for 3-D films but not everything needs 3-D.  I can’t imagine any need for the Hangover 2 to be in 3-D.  The Green Hornet and Clash of the Titans do not need to be in 3-D.  As a viewer you don’t gain anything by giving depth to scenes that play out just as well on a 2-D picture.  When studios go through the upconvert process instead of spreading the word on how cool 3-D can be, they instead are distancing audiences.  They have found a way of cheapening the 3-D experience.

3-D was supposedly the next big step for theaters, a gimmick that would continue to bring back the golden days of the cinema.   But the problem is the premium that you pay to get in the door.  There isn’t a soul in the world that hasn’t complained about the movie theater ticket prices (not to mention the popcorn) but 3-D movies actually cost even more.  Theaters are adding a $3 premium to the regular ticket price for 3-D charges.  You could say that it is for buying the glasses, but the fact of the matter is you could bring your own glasses time and time again and you still face the up-charge.  This money goes to Real D and the ticket profits, which is why you see Hollywood boast bigger and bigger numbers each year despite the fact that attendance is down.

As a studio, if you want people to pay a premium for your product, you need to provide them with a premium product rather than just cheap after market stage tricks.  There is a difference between a true Real D 3-D movie shot and designed for it, and a Real D after market convert.  Sad news is, the average movie goer doesn’t know the difference.  Therefore a person who saw Avatar in 3-D  as their first film has a much higher regard of 3-D than the guy who paid a premium to watch Clash of the Titans.  The first sees it as an enjoyable experience, the latter a waste of cash.    The Avatar viewer is probably more prone to watch a 3-D film again, where as the Clash viewer is going to be a bit more frugal at the box office his next go round.  Now if the Avatar viewer gets burned with crappy 3-D second time around, they too are going to start questioning if their extra money is worth the experience.   The end result, higher ticket prices and higher upcharges to make up the difference of the people who elect not to view in 3-D.

Where I become really torn is the idea of an upcharge in the first place.  Why charge more when the goal is supposedly to enhance the theater experience?  As a viewer you’re already dropping more cash than it takes to buy the film or rent, and so you should be rewarded with the highest quality experience in video and sound.  On one hand you can’t blame the theaters, after all everyone from the makers of the movies to the marketing department want their cut, and 3-D is expensive to make. However, getting hit with an extra upcharge is kind of like kicking someone when they are down.  Personally I’d be happier to see the surcharge go away and a $1.50 hike on all tickets across the board.  Sure it’s still an extra ticket hike, but I wouldn’t feel like the box office is asking for my kidney and then up-charging me my other kidney to see it in 3-D.  But alas the up-charge is here to stay.

In the end, 3-D has a long way to go and it will be interesting to see how the people involved either push it to the forward or backward.  Will 3-D become the way of the future, or will it be a gimmick that wears out its welcome?  Right now electronics manufacturers and media makers are psyched by the opprotunity of 3-D viewing.  However it’s up to them to do it right.  After market upconvert 3-D is not doing it right.  As movie goers we need to stop rewarding these Hollywood clowns for trying to pull one over on the audience.

?>