![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Television, Film and Book reviews
1. Saw the first episode of Good Omens -- which is adapted from Neil Gaiman and Terry Prachet's satiric farce of the same name. I was curious to see how someone would adapt it -- since the book has lots of footnotes, and is mainly two people, an angle and a demon, debating Judeo/Christian moral philosophy and the pros and cons of the apocalypse.
The television series is a lot like the books -- although better paced and a tad less hard to follow -- ie, the footnotes are voice overs, which work better. It reminds me a little of Legion in how it handles the footnotes.
Also, it is adapted by Neil Gaiman, he's writing the television series, and producing it. So we're not seeing someone else's interpretation of his work -- but his own. This doesn't happen that often with novel to screen adaptations. And it stars Michael Sheen and David Tennant, who are actors that tend to get cast for similar roles. Tennant plays the flamboyant Crowley, and Sheen the prissy Arizaphan.
Jon Hamm is stalwart Gabriel.
The soundtrack is...Queen.
Is it good? Eh, depends on what you like. It's a VERY "British" satiric philosophical discourse on Judeo/Christian theology, folklore and mythos. And told with dark fantasy scribe, Neil Gaiman's trademark whimsical humor and style. (The credit sequence is adorable and reminds me a little of Beetleguese.) Neil Gaiman and Prachett -- are writers that either amuse or bore. You either like them or you really don't. For me? It depends entirely on my mood. And the humor is decidedly British, as is the satire. (Which considering I prefer British wit and satire to American, this is not a bad thing.)
I had mixed feelings about the book. And do about the series. Mainly because watching and/or reading it reminded me a great deal of reading Beckett's Waiting for Godot, with a lot more explosions and satiric bits. But I also feel that way about most of Neil Gaiman's novels -- and Prachett. I've read, let's see about seven of Gaiman's novels (including comic books) and seen at least three of the television/films he's written. So obviously I like the writer -- but I always like him with reservations and am always slightly disappointed (well except for Ocean at the End of the Lane (which I adored), Caroline, and Sandman). His characters feel a bit like cyphers or allegorical -- more about an idea or a meta-narrative on an idea than an actual character (if that makes sense). What's important to Gaiman, I often feel, is the world, the ideas, and themes, not the characters themselves....they always feel a bit distant to me, and like well allegories or metaphors for something else.
That said, Good Omens is amusing and I will most likely stick with it. It's better than most of the fare out there, whimsically done, with just the right bit of nuance. Gaiman, being British, is a bit more restrained than either Tim Burton or Brian Fuller -- who go way over the top. But I don't think it, like most of Gaiman's stories, are for everyone. I can't imagine recommending it to my family members, or offline friends and coworkers for example. Let's face it -- there's a reason I hang out here with you guys on a weekly basis.
2. Isn't it Romantic?
Eh. This was bad. The critic gave it two stars. I gave it one. Were romantic comedies always this bad? Although technically it's not a romantic comedy, but a meta-narrative on a romantic comedy -- or a parody of a metanarrative on a romantic comedy -- which may be the problem? That's really hard to pull off well. Four Weddings and a Funeral did pull it off, but it's British and subtle. The Brits are better at this sort of thing, apparently, see Good Omens and well, Monty Python.
As did My Best Friend's Wedding -- which was also a satiric take on the romantic comedy. And There's Something About Mary. Also Amy Schumer's Trainwreck did a decent job.
Rebel Wilson's Isn't it Romantic is a bit too over the top. I didn't buy it.
And began to get annoyed early on. Also I did not like anyone in the comedy, nor could I relate to them -- and I should been able to. The trick with satire and parody is to reign it in -- go too far in either direction, it either becomes silly or no one can tell it is parody.
Also, the trick with a meta-narrative or commentary on something -- is to not rely too heavily on cliches or tropes, but to deconstruct them, without replacing them with cliches. And not lean too heavily on theme. Again see Good Omens for how meta-narrative as satire can work well. Or for that matter check out Joss Whedon's Much Ado About Nothing, Firefly, and Cabin in the Woods. Cabin in the Woods -- I think went too far (although next to Isn't it Romantic, it looks pretty damn good.) Cabin in the Woods is another example of leaning too far into parody and metanarrative, to the point that the audience stops caring about the characters or story, it's all about the commentary. This is what happened with Isn't it Romantic, there was a certain point in the proceedings in which they lost me, and this was actually pretty early on -- like within the first twenty minutes. I decided the lead was an idiot, and the movie never got me back.
Shame, I think Rebel Wilson is rather talented, but wasted here. And there should be more romantic comedies featuring non-traditionally beautiful actresses. But this one fell down a bit on the job. Schumer's Trainwreck works far better with similar themes. I haven't seen I Feel Pretty, so can't comment.
What I do find interesting, however, is how a lot of recent romantic comedies aren't about the romance. Most of them are about the heroine coming to terms with who she is in her own right and what she wants, with the guy almost being an accessory after the fact. It's almost as if the message is "I love myself and my life as it is, I'm awesome -- and oh, yes, let's get married because I sort of like you too, the sex is great, but hey, if you go away, not a problem". Reminiscent of Four Weddings and a Funeral -- where the protagonists promise each other at the end, not to get married and have kiddies.
We live in the age of the anti-romantic or the satiric romantic parody. Either that or I'm just the wrong demographic. It's really hard to get turned on by or enjoy people who are twenty years younger than me falling in love and having kids. It's weird. I can read it, but watching it -- feels odd.
3. Blood and Treasure -- this is on CBS. And it's not bad. It's actually a whole lot better than Whiskey Cavalier and The Catch. I liked The Catch -- but it was horribly miscast. You know there's a problem when the sexiest characters are John Sims and Sonya Walger, who played the bad guys. Peter Krause is a lot of things, but sexy and edgy aren't among them.
Blood and Treasure is a lot better, in part because it's cast largely with unknowns. And it has far more diversified casting than Whiskey did. Not to mention stronger female characters, without falling into gender role cliches on either end of the spectrum.
It also has a definite feeling of Indiana Jones, and is a serialized adventure drama. The set up is a former FBI agent turned international lawyer/antiquities procurer hooks up with a thief to save his mentor and a lost treasure. He's been hired by John Larroguette, who is his adoptive father or the man who raised him to find the woman who mentored and raised him. This woman, an Egyptian archeologist is kidnapped by a terrorist while attempting to unearth Anthony and Cleopatra's tomb. Meanwhile, the Egyptian thief that he hires to help him -- father had died in an FBI operation gone wrong, the terrorist killed him. Our hero had been heading that operation. He's not directly to blame -- but the guy did die under his watch.
Some of the supporting actors I recognized from other things -- whoa there's Doctor Bashire from DS9. I love that actor. I have admittedly followed him around a bit. My two favorite characters and actors from DS9 were Bashire and Major Kira.
It's a bit too shiny in places, to be taken seriously, but overall enjoyable. Brainless summer fun.
4. Where'd You Go Bernadette by Maria Semple
I didn't love this as much as lot of people did. And I agree with this guy's Review of it on Good Reads.
Particularly:
Where BERNADETTE sets itself apart is the storytelling style. The story here takes the form of a packet of documents that Bernadette's daughter has prepared after Bernadette disappears. These include emails between Elgie's assistant and a disgruntled neighbor, emails between Bernadette and her Indian assistant Manjula, police reports, magazine articles, etc. These documents have a kind of zingy, lighthearted, ironic quality about them, and it makes for an energetic and enjoyable story. Narration between the documents is provided in brief snippets by Bernadette's precocious daughter Bee.
And...
But the book suffers the most when the narration switches to Bee full time after the disappearance. This switch is somewhat painstakingly explained, but it felt lazy to me. There had to be a way to keep the form that had been so successful for the first two thirds of the book for the final act. It felt like Semple was trying to write a book that was zany, unique, and inventive, but also perfectly conventional, with all the benefits of both storytelling styles. In my mind, this book depended on the inventiveness of its epistolary style, and abandoning it was disaster.
It's worth reading for the narrative style. But it falls apart in attempting to go for conventional story tropes. Also, while the satire of Seattle, Microsoft, and the elite is fun, it's also as the reviewer above points out, well-traveled stuff.
I liked Bernadette better than the reviewer did. It's another book that does a half-way decent job of depicting depression and how it can affect you. Those who've not experienced -- don't understand it and tend to be rather judgemental of it -- which is depicted well in the novel. Mental illness is something that is unreasonably stigmatized in our society and not understood. This book does a rather good job of satirizing how our society handles mental illness and women who suffer from it. And it's rather brutal in places and possibly a wee bit too on the nose.
But at the same time, I felt the writer lost some of the story when she shifted to the fifteen year old's perspective, nor did the fifteen year old strike me as fifteen. A bit younger. I have a niece who is fifteen who comes across as older.
And the feminism gets a bit strident in places...which I think may put off some readers.
Other than that worth reading. But forewarning, do not watch the trailers for the movie until you complete the book -- they will spoil it. And half the fun of the book is figuring out the puzzle.
The television series is a lot like the books -- although better paced and a tad less hard to follow -- ie, the footnotes are voice overs, which work better. It reminds me a little of Legion in how it handles the footnotes.
Also, it is adapted by Neil Gaiman, he's writing the television series, and producing it. So we're not seeing someone else's interpretation of his work -- but his own. This doesn't happen that often with novel to screen adaptations. And it stars Michael Sheen and David Tennant, who are actors that tend to get cast for similar roles. Tennant plays the flamboyant Crowley, and Sheen the prissy Arizaphan.
Jon Hamm is stalwart Gabriel.
The soundtrack is...Queen.
Is it good? Eh, depends on what you like. It's a VERY "British" satiric philosophical discourse on Judeo/Christian theology, folklore and mythos. And told with dark fantasy scribe, Neil Gaiman's trademark whimsical humor and style. (The credit sequence is adorable and reminds me a little of Beetleguese.) Neil Gaiman and Prachett -- are writers that either amuse or bore. You either like them or you really don't. For me? It depends entirely on my mood. And the humor is decidedly British, as is the satire. (Which considering I prefer British wit and satire to American, this is not a bad thing.)
I had mixed feelings about the book. And do about the series. Mainly because watching and/or reading it reminded me a great deal of reading Beckett's Waiting for Godot, with a lot more explosions and satiric bits. But I also feel that way about most of Neil Gaiman's novels -- and Prachett. I've read, let's see about seven of Gaiman's novels (including comic books) and seen at least three of the television/films he's written. So obviously I like the writer -- but I always like him with reservations and am always slightly disappointed (well except for Ocean at the End of the Lane (which I adored), Caroline, and Sandman). His characters feel a bit like cyphers or allegorical -- more about an idea or a meta-narrative on an idea than an actual character (if that makes sense). What's important to Gaiman, I often feel, is the world, the ideas, and themes, not the characters themselves....they always feel a bit distant to me, and like well allegories or metaphors for something else.
That said, Good Omens is amusing and I will most likely stick with it. It's better than most of the fare out there, whimsically done, with just the right bit of nuance. Gaiman, being British, is a bit more restrained than either Tim Burton or Brian Fuller -- who go way over the top. But I don't think it, like most of Gaiman's stories, are for everyone. I can't imagine recommending it to my family members, or offline friends and coworkers for example. Let's face it -- there's a reason I hang out here with you guys on a weekly basis.
2. Isn't it Romantic?
Eh. This was bad. The critic gave it two stars. I gave it one. Were romantic comedies always this bad? Although technically it's not a romantic comedy, but a meta-narrative on a romantic comedy -- or a parody of a metanarrative on a romantic comedy -- which may be the problem? That's really hard to pull off well. Four Weddings and a Funeral did pull it off, but it's British and subtle. The Brits are better at this sort of thing, apparently, see Good Omens and well, Monty Python.
As did My Best Friend's Wedding -- which was also a satiric take on the romantic comedy. And There's Something About Mary. Also Amy Schumer's Trainwreck did a decent job.
Rebel Wilson's Isn't it Romantic is a bit too over the top. I didn't buy it.
And began to get annoyed early on. Also I did not like anyone in the comedy, nor could I relate to them -- and I should been able to. The trick with satire and parody is to reign it in -- go too far in either direction, it either becomes silly or no one can tell it is parody.
Also, the trick with a meta-narrative or commentary on something -- is to not rely too heavily on cliches or tropes, but to deconstruct them, without replacing them with cliches. And not lean too heavily on theme. Again see Good Omens for how meta-narrative as satire can work well. Or for that matter check out Joss Whedon's Much Ado About Nothing, Firefly, and Cabin in the Woods. Cabin in the Woods -- I think went too far (although next to Isn't it Romantic, it looks pretty damn good.) Cabin in the Woods is another example of leaning too far into parody and metanarrative, to the point that the audience stops caring about the characters or story, it's all about the commentary. This is what happened with Isn't it Romantic, there was a certain point in the proceedings in which they lost me, and this was actually pretty early on -- like within the first twenty minutes. I decided the lead was an idiot, and the movie never got me back.
Shame, I think Rebel Wilson is rather talented, but wasted here. And there should be more romantic comedies featuring non-traditionally beautiful actresses. But this one fell down a bit on the job. Schumer's Trainwreck works far better with similar themes. I haven't seen I Feel Pretty, so can't comment.
What I do find interesting, however, is how a lot of recent romantic comedies aren't about the romance. Most of them are about the heroine coming to terms with who she is in her own right and what she wants, with the guy almost being an accessory after the fact. It's almost as if the message is "I love myself and my life as it is, I'm awesome -- and oh, yes, let's get married because I sort of like you too, the sex is great, but hey, if you go away, not a problem". Reminiscent of Four Weddings and a Funeral -- where the protagonists promise each other at the end, not to get married and have kiddies.
We live in the age of the anti-romantic or the satiric romantic parody. Either that or I'm just the wrong demographic. It's really hard to get turned on by or enjoy people who are twenty years younger than me falling in love and having kids. It's weird. I can read it, but watching it -- feels odd.
3. Blood and Treasure -- this is on CBS. And it's not bad. It's actually a whole lot better than Whiskey Cavalier and The Catch. I liked The Catch -- but it was horribly miscast. You know there's a problem when the sexiest characters are John Sims and Sonya Walger, who played the bad guys. Peter Krause is a lot of things, but sexy and edgy aren't among them.
Blood and Treasure is a lot better, in part because it's cast largely with unknowns. And it has far more diversified casting than Whiskey did. Not to mention stronger female characters, without falling into gender role cliches on either end of the spectrum.
It also has a definite feeling of Indiana Jones, and is a serialized adventure drama. The set up is a former FBI agent turned international lawyer/antiquities procurer hooks up with a thief to save his mentor and a lost treasure. He's been hired by John Larroguette, who is his adoptive father or the man who raised him to find the woman who mentored and raised him. This woman, an Egyptian archeologist is kidnapped by a terrorist while attempting to unearth Anthony and Cleopatra's tomb. Meanwhile, the Egyptian thief that he hires to help him -- father had died in an FBI operation gone wrong, the terrorist killed him. Our hero had been heading that operation. He's not directly to blame -- but the guy did die under his watch.
Some of the supporting actors I recognized from other things -- whoa there's Doctor Bashire from DS9. I love that actor. I have admittedly followed him around a bit. My two favorite characters and actors from DS9 were Bashire and Major Kira.
It's a bit too shiny in places, to be taken seriously, but overall enjoyable. Brainless summer fun.
4. Where'd You Go Bernadette by Maria Semple
I didn't love this as much as lot of people did. And I agree with this guy's Review of it on Good Reads.
Particularly:
Where BERNADETTE sets itself apart is the storytelling style. The story here takes the form of a packet of documents that Bernadette's daughter has prepared after Bernadette disappears. These include emails between Elgie's assistant and a disgruntled neighbor, emails between Bernadette and her Indian assistant Manjula, police reports, magazine articles, etc. These documents have a kind of zingy, lighthearted, ironic quality about them, and it makes for an energetic and enjoyable story. Narration between the documents is provided in brief snippets by Bernadette's precocious daughter Bee.
And...
But the book suffers the most when the narration switches to Bee full time after the disappearance. This switch is somewhat painstakingly explained, but it felt lazy to me. There had to be a way to keep the form that had been so successful for the first two thirds of the book for the final act. It felt like Semple was trying to write a book that was zany, unique, and inventive, but also perfectly conventional, with all the benefits of both storytelling styles. In my mind, this book depended on the inventiveness of its epistolary style, and abandoning it was disaster.
It's worth reading for the narrative style. But it falls apart in attempting to go for conventional story tropes. Also, while the satire of Seattle, Microsoft, and the elite is fun, it's also as the reviewer above points out, well-traveled stuff.
I liked Bernadette better than the reviewer did. It's another book that does a half-way decent job of depicting depression and how it can affect you. Those who've not experienced -- don't understand it and tend to be rather judgemental of it -- which is depicted well in the novel. Mental illness is something that is unreasonably stigmatized in our society and not understood. This book does a rather good job of satirizing how our society handles mental illness and women who suffer from it. And it's rather brutal in places and possibly a wee bit too on the nose.
But at the same time, I felt the writer lost some of the story when she shifted to the fifteen year old's perspective, nor did the fifteen year old strike me as fifteen. A bit younger. I have a niece who is fifteen who comes across as older.
And the feminism gets a bit strident in places...which I think may put off some readers.
Other than that worth reading. But forewarning, do not watch the trailers for the movie until you complete the book -- they will spoil it. And half the fun of the book is figuring out the puzzle.
no subject