Disney has been making live-action adaptations of its older animated classics for some time, but since "Maleficent" and "Cinderella" cleaned up at the box office, they've become a much bigger priority for the studio. At the moment, practically every traditional animated film in the vault has a live action adaptation in development or at least under consideration. A few weeks ago, Disney announced new and adjusted release dates for a slew of Disney Animation, PIXAR, Marvel, and "Star Wars" films over the next five years. Also conspicuously taking up a good chunk of the slate are next year's "Alice Through the Looking Glass" and "The Jungle Book," 2017's "Beauty and the Beast," and a whopping four "Untitled Live Action Fairy Tale" movies.
I took a guess at what some possible future live action Disney projects might be a few years ago in this post: New Disney Movies Based on the Old Disney Movies. What I failed to take into account was the popular trend of revisionist takes on the old fairy tales. Some of the more interesting features currently in the works are a Cruella De Vil spinoff from "101 Dalmatians," an "Aladdin" prequel focusing on the Genie, and a comedy about Prince Charming's loser brother, which will probably combine elements from multiple properties. There have been several attempts to make a live action movie starring Tinker Bell from "Peter Pan," especially after the success of Disney's Fairies merchandise line. Reese Witherspoon is attached to star in the latest version. Also, there's a "Maleficent" sequel in the works, of course.
More straightforward adaptations include "Mulan," "Pinocchio," and "The Sword and the Stone." I expect there will be others eventually, since "Cinderella" did so well by playing it so straight. "Rapunzel" and "The Snow Queen" are probably inevitable after a few more years have passed. Some odder current projects in this mold include a live action "Winnie the Pooh," to be scripted by Alex Ross Perry, Tim Burton's take on"Dumbo," and a possible movie based on the notorious “Night on Bald Mountain" sequence from "Fantasia," which is possibly the most un-Disney piece of animation to ever come out of the studio. Live action/CGI animation hybrid projects include "Mr. Toad's Wild Ride," and a "Chip 'n' Dale" movie. I'm also not quite sure where to put the "Mary Poppins" sequel, as there are several other "Mary Poppins" books that a movie could be adapted from, but the sequel will surely be based on the first movie more than anything else.
Non-Disney fairy tale projects include a live action "The Little Mermaid" at Universal, though it recently lost director Sophia Coppola. I'm guessing that Disney probably only held off on their own adaptation because it looked like Universal's version was going to get their first. If Universal's doesn't go forward, Disney might mount their own adaptation. Meanwhile, Universal's "Snow White and the Huntsman" is getting a spinoff/prequel called "The Huntsman" next year. There are also at least two other "Pinocchio" projects in the works, one of them potentially written by Paul Thomas Anderson, and starring Robert Downey Jr. as Gepetto. The other is Guillermo Del Toro's long-rumored stop-motion version. Finally, we should mention the multiple "Peter Pan" related movies, most of which will probably be stuck in limbo after the box office failure of Warner Bros' "Pan."
I'm not sure which of the Disney projects the four "Untitled" movies on the schedule are, as most of the ones announced so far are still in the scripting stage. However, my best guesses are that before 2020 we can expect the "Maleficent" sequel, the "Aladdin" prequel, and maybe "Mulan," because Disney bought a treatment earlier this year. The live action Disney fairy-tale movies have so far proven to appeal more to women and girls, the same way that their animated films do. There are a couple of upcoming projects like "The Jungle Book" that will do their best to attract the boys, but I hope Disney doesn't push too hard in that direction - it's a tactic that has backfired on them before. And honestly, it's nice having another female-friendly franchise universe on the same potential scale as Marvel and "Star Wars." These movies haven't been very consistent, but they have a lot of promise. Kenneth Branagh's "Cinderella" was one of the year's better surprises.
Finally, note that live action adaptations aren't the only way that Disney is reusing and reinterpreting their classic characters. The ongoing "Kingdom Hearts" video game franchise was one of the first to feature Disney crossovers. On television, "Once Upon a Time" and "Descendants" both take place in universes where all the fairy tale characters interact to some degree, and are much more direct about borrowing the old Disney tropes and iconography than the live-action films.
---
Thursday, November 12, 2015
Wednesday, November 11, 2015
"Spy" and "Trainwreck"
I've already written a little about "Spy" and "Trainwreck" in the context of their lead actresses making waves at the summer box office. I think it's time I go into a little more depth. A few general comments first though - it's important to remember that though both movies are unqualified hits, they're smaller titles with very modest budgets, aimed at very specific audiences. Nobody's asking Amy Schumer to headline a "Jurassic Park" movie soon. What's the most heartening to me, though, is the part these movies have played in challenging the male-dominated summer movie status quo and helping to reinvigorate some old formulas.
Let's start with Melissa McCarthy in "Spy," directed by Paul Feig. Now, this was the first proper Melissa McCarthy vehicle I've seen, as she was sharing the spotlight with Sandra Bullock in "Heat," and had only a supporting role in Feig's "Bridesmaids." Can McCarthy carry a film by herself? Yes, and quite well. Notably, here she's not playing a comic relief caricature, but an underdog lead that we're meant to relate to and root for. Her Susan Cooper is a CIA analyst who stays behind a desk at headquarters, feeding information to James Bond analog Agent Bradley Fine (Jude Law) on his daring missions, via headset. However, after a crisis that grounds all the regular agents, Susan gets her chance to go into the field, hot on the trail of an international arms dealer, Rayna Boyanov (Rose Byrne). Cue the ridiculous disguises, the silly (but also pretty impressive) fight scenes, and Jason Statham as rogue agent Rick Ford indulging in some beefy self-mockery.
We've seen plenty of spy spoofs in the past, but "Spy" quickly distinguishes itself by simply letting things play out from Susan's unusual POV. The CIA is presented as a far more typical workplace than we've ever seen before, mostly manned by underappreciated techies and analysts who never get any of the credit. Susan's self esteem keeps taking hits from all sides as she tries to enjoy the glamorous secret agent experience other movies have promised, but just keeps getting stuck with all the downsides of the job nobody ever talks about. The humor is on the crude and violent side, but the tone is much lighter than I expected, and there's a good amount of time devoted to Susan's romantic woes, friendship with fellow analyst Nancy (Miranda Hart), and sentimental self-esteem building. The movie is taking as much from working woman dramedies like "Working Girl" and "9 to 5" as it's taking from the Bond movies.
"Spy" offers a boisterous good time, though it's not a particularly clever film and comes off as a little slapdash in construction. Most of the laughs come from good character work from McCarthy, Statham, Rose Byrne, and the rest of a strong ensemble cast. I'm not sure that this kind of material is the best fit for McCarthy, but she's one of the few actresses who could have made this work. As for Paul Feig, he commits no egregious cinematic sins, but I don't think he's as strong here as he could be. If we think of "Spy" as the dress rehearsal for the all-woman "Ghosbusters" reboot coming next year, I admit that I'm a little worried. McCarthy should be fine though. "Spy" has proved she definitely has the action-comedy chops, and maybe she should get a "Jurassic Park" movie one of these days.
On to "Trainwreck." I've only seen a few clips from Schumer's Comedy Central show "Inside Amy Schumer," but it was enough to convince me that she's talented, smart, and offers some good perspective. There have been complaints that Schumer's only good at playing herself, but that's a persona that seems to have plenty of comedic mileage. In "Trainwreck" she plays Amy Townsend, perhaps the most likeable female reprobate we've seen onscreen in a long time. She's a functional alcoholic, parties and sleeps around with abandon, and is more of a walking mess than your usual Judd Apatow movie protagonist. At the same time, Amy is clearly a woman of some talents, who writes for a men's magazine, and is dating a bodybuilder, Steven (John Cena), when we first meet her. She's also close to her younger sister Kim (Brie Larsen) and father Gordon (Colin Quinn), who is making a bumpy transition to assisted living.
And then Amy meets Dr. Aaron Conners (Bill Hader), a sports doctor who works with basketball stars, which gives the filmmakers the excuse to write LeBron James and Amar'e Stoudemire into the story. Amy is a commitment-phobe, but she and Aaron hit it off. And what was a fairly raunchy sex comedy slowly navigates through more typical rom-com dilemmas. "Trainwreck" pulls this off because it doesn't compromise its characters. I love that Amy is so sexually open, and that the film doesn't vilify her for her lifestyle all that much. Yes, she's the film's titular trainwreck, but it's because she's not regulating her appetites, not that she has them. I could easily see the film having a male lead with many of the same issues and attitudes. Dr. Conners is also an unusually strong romantic lead, one of several good performances that Bill Hader has given us lately. I really want to see him in more serious roles after this.
What issues I do have with the film mostly stem from it being a Judd Apatow production, and subject to many of his bad habits. As many have noted, it's too long and has too many distracting cameos, particularly an ill-conceived intervention scene which really should have been cut. However, LeBron James does fine with the material he's given, and John Cena is absolutely brilliant. Having so much of the movie taking place in and around the professional sports world also keeps the typical rom-com atmosphere mostly at bay. It's not to the point where "Trainwreck" is pandering to the male audience at any point, but you can definitely see them being taken into account here, and a good balance being struck, which is nice to see. I really hope we get more romantic comedies like this in the future, because this genre sorely needs more revitalizing.
---
Let's start with Melissa McCarthy in "Spy," directed by Paul Feig. Now, this was the first proper Melissa McCarthy vehicle I've seen, as she was sharing the spotlight with Sandra Bullock in "Heat," and had only a supporting role in Feig's "Bridesmaids." Can McCarthy carry a film by herself? Yes, and quite well. Notably, here she's not playing a comic relief caricature, but an underdog lead that we're meant to relate to and root for. Her Susan Cooper is a CIA analyst who stays behind a desk at headquarters, feeding information to James Bond analog Agent Bradley Fine (Jude Law) on his daring missions, via headset. However, after a crisis that grounds all the regular agents, Susan gets her chance to go into the field, hot on the trail of an international arms dealer, Rayna Boyanov (Rose Byrne). Cue the ridiculous disguises, the silly (but also pretty impressive) fight scenes, and Jason Statham as rogue agent Rick Ford indulging in some beefy self-mockery.
We've seen plenty of spy spoofs in the past, but "Spy" quickly distinguishes itself by simply letting things play out from Susan's unusual POV. The CIA is presented as a far more typical workplace than we've ever seen before, mostly manned by underappreciated techies and analysts who never get any of the credit. Susan's self esteem keeps taking hits from all sides as she tries to enjoy the glamorous secret agent experience other movies have promised, but just keeps getting stuck with all the downsides of the job nobody ever talks about. The humor is on the crude and violent side, but the tone is much lighter than I expected, and there's a good amount of time devoted to Susan's romantic woes, friendship with fellow analyst Nancy (Miranda Hart), and sentimental self-esteem building. The movie is taking as much from working woman dramedies like "Working Girl" and "9 to 5" as it's taking from the Bond movies.
"Spy" offers a boisterous good time, though it's not a particularly clever film and comes off as a little slapdash in construction. Most of the laughs come from good character work from McCarthy, Statham, Rose Byrne, and the rest of a strong ensemble cast. I'm not sure that this kind of material is the best fit for McCarthy, but she's one of the few actresses who could have made this work. As for Paul Feig, he commits no egregious cinematic sins, but I don't think he's as strong here as he could be. If we think of "Spy" as the dress rehearsal for the all-woman "Ghosbusters" reboot coming next year, I admit that I'm a little worried. McCarthy should be fine though. "Spy" has proved she definitely has the action-comedy chops, and maybe she should get a "Jurassic Park" movie one of these days.
On to "Trainwreck." I've only seen a few clips from Schumer's Comedy Central show "Inside Amy Schumer," but it was enough to convince me that she's talented, smart, and offers some good perspective. There have been complaints that Schumer's only good at playing herself, but that's a persona that seems to have plenty of comedic mileage. In "Trainwreck" she plays Amy Townsend, perhaps the most likeable female reprobate we've seen onscreen in a long time. She's a functional alcoholic, parties and sleeps around with abandon, and is more of a walking mess than your usual Judd Apatow movie protagonist. At the same time, Amy is clearly a woman of some talents, who writes for a men's magazine, and is dating a bodybuilder, Steven (John Cena), when we first meet her. She's also close to her younger sister Kim (Brie Larsen) and father Gordon (Colin Quinn), who is making a bumpy transition to assisted living.
And then Amy meets Dr. Aaron Conners (Bill Hader), a sports doctor who works with basketball stars, which gives the filmmakers the excuse to write LeBron James and Amar'e Stoudemire into the story. Amy is a commitment-phobe, but she and Aaron hit it off. And what was a fairly raunchy sex comedy slowly navigates through more typical rom-com dilemmas. "Trainwreck" pulls this off because it doesn't compromise its characters. I love that Amy is so sexually open, and that the film doesn't vilify her for her lifestyle all that much. Yes, she's the film's titular trainwreck, but it's because she's not regulating her appetites, not that she has them. I could easily see the film having a male lead with many of the same issues and attitudes. Dr. Conners is also an unusually strong romantic lead, one of several good performances that Bill Hader has given us lately. I really want to see him in more serious roles after this.
What issues I do have with the film mostly stem from it being a Judd Apatow production, and subject to many of his bad habits. As many have noted, it's too long and has too many distracting cameos, particularly an ill-conceived intervention scene which really should have been cut. However, LeBron James does fine with the material he's given, and John Cena is absolutely brilliant. Having so much of the movie taking place in and around the professional sports world also keeps the typical rom-com atmosphere mostly at bay. It's not to the point where "Trainwreck" is pandering to the male audience at any point, but you can definitely see them being taken into account here, and a good balance being struck, which is nice to see. I really hope we get more romantic comedies like this in the future, because this genre sorely needs more revitalizing.
---
Monday, November 9, 2015
The Fall Season With No Cancellations
Didn't
I just write a post on the state of television? Well, here's an
interesting new wrinkle I thought was worth some discussion: this year,
for the first time in several decades, we're over a month into the new
fall season without a single new prime time series having been cancelled
and pulled from the schedule. Keep in mind that early cancellations
are considered a normal part of television life cycle. In years past
media folks would even bet on which show would be the first to get the
axe. Now, there are several new series like FOX's "Minority Report" and
ABC's "Blood & Oil" that are de facto cancelled, as they've had
their episode orders reduced and are almost certainly not going to be
renewed for another season, but the networks are letting them run out
the clock. We used to see the shows that bombed disappear before
November sweeps, with the remaining episodes either burned off over the
summer, or more recently released as online exclusives.
I
suspect the reason is at least partially financial - it's probably
cheaper now to just let the full order of episodes of a new show air
than to pay for extra episodes of a backup substitute. "Minority
Report," for instance, only had a had a seven episode order and will be
replaced by "Lucifer" in December. With so many spots on the schedule
becoming less competitive, there are a lot of places to stash an ailing
show without pulling it completely. Also, executives are clearly
nervous about the uncertainties of the rapidly changing television
ratings and scheduling models, and are willing to give struggling shows
more time to improve. The internet and DVR viewing have severely cut
into traditional live viewing, such that the Nielsen ratings model was
adjusted a few years ago to take into account audiences that watch a
show via DVR within a certain timeframe, usually Live + 3 and Live +
7. It's what kept more niche shows like "The Office" and "Fringe" on
the air. Now, with live audiences dropping even further, it's even
harder to determine what might be worth keeping around.
Audiences
and content creators benefit to some extent, as new shows stay on the
air longer and get more chances to connect with viewers. Everyone can
name a few ambitious, interesting shows that were cancelled because they
couldn't deliver ratings quickly. I used to get so exasperated when
weird, cool little genre shows like Bryan Fuller's "Wonderfalls" or Tim
Minear's "Drive" would only last four or five episodes on FOX (it
was almost always FOX) before vanishing into obscurity. Last year's
"Selfie" probably would have survived a little longer this year on TV.
The downside, however, is that the shows that clearly aren't
working will end up hanging around long after they should have gotten
the boot. Remember when "No Ordinary Family" got a full season order,
but everyone stopped watching after three weeks? Or the whole fiasco
with the "Michael J. Fox Show"?
There's no
telling if this is a trend that will continue, or if this season Is just
a fluke, but the lack of cancellations seems to be the latest symptom
of network television having to completely overhaul how they operate to
keep up with its internet and cable competitors. We've seen episode
orders shrink, pilot season in disarray, shows skipping from platform to
platform, and executives second-guessing everything as audiences
continue to steadily migrate away from live television. There have been
some interesting experiments - ordering straight to series, FOX
declaring an end to pilots outright, and increasingly aggressive
advertising tactics. You can definitely see Netflix's model having some
influence, with the newly announced "Star Trek" series being earmarked
for CBS's new proprietary streaming service, and NBC's releasing all of
"Aquarius" online at once over the summer.
At
the moment, the only shows that have been cancelled in 2015 have been
the ones that have already had more than a fair shot - Syfy's
"Defiance," CBS's summer series "Extant," and bunch of one-season cable
wonders. We also know that some shows' current or upcoming seasons will
be their last, "American Idol" and "Person of Interest" among
them. I'm sure the bulk of the new shows from this season will be
joining them, but we'll have to wait a while longer to find out which
ones.
---
Sunday, November 8, 2015
What I Want Form a New "Star Trek" Series
CBS has announced that a new "Star Trek" television series in in the works, the first in over a decade. I'm thrilled, but also a little worried. It's been a long break, and television has changed drastically while it was away. I think there's certainly an eager audience for the new show, and plenty of potential for excellent television, but I hope that the creators tread carefully. There are some potential minefields ahead and some issues that are going to need to be addressed.
First, there's the big one: sexuality. Though "Star Trek" has a history of diverse and inclusive casts, very few of its characters have been anything other than heteronormative. A "Next Generation" episode had a gender neutral alien, and "Deep Space 9" character Jadzia Dax claimed to be bisexual, but that was about the extent of it. Famously, a script was penned for "next Generation" that featured a gay couple, "Blood and Fire" but it was nixed by the studio. The last series, "Enterprise," ended in 2005, notably the same year that "Doctor Who" was revived featuring several prominent gay and lesbian characters like Captain Jack Harkness. "Torchwood," "Battlestar Galactica," "Orphan Black," and so many, many more followed. And, of course, there's George Takei. It would be very tempting for "Star Trek" to attempt to play catch up and put LGBT issues front and center, but it would probably just end up drawing attention to the previous deficit of them. I'd certainly like to see the new "Trek" series include gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender characters, but to handle their sexual identity the same way they handled racial diversity - something that's no longer such a big deal.
And speaking of racial diversity, it's gotten a lot more colorful on television these days. Back in the '90s and early 2000s, the "Star Trek" shows were the only ones I could count on having diverse casts. Now Shonda Rimes has turned that into the status quo. And I'm hoping that the "Star Trek" folks keep that in mind. They're going to have to work a little harder to be the vanguard in this area that they used to be. We've had a black Captain and a female Captain, and they were wonderful, but that shouldn't preclude more of them in the future. Also, remember that the original "Star Trek" made a point of including Russian and Asian faces - recent enemies of the U.S. in 1966. To really update "Star Trek" for the current era, I'm hoping for a Middle-Eastern crew member - one who comes across as more Middle-Eastern than the British-accented Dr. Bashir, ideally. If the creators are really feeling daring, they could also delve into religious differences too.
I'm pretty indifferent to the actual format of the new "Trek." Whether it's in continuity with the rest of the franchise or the movies or something new entirely isn't all that important. I'd love a new starship-oriented show, but the Starfleet Academy concept we've heard about for years sounds perfectly decent, and there are plenty of other corners of the "Star Trek" universe that we haven't seen yet that could yield some good things. Whatever the creators choose, I hope the format is flexible enough to accommodate many different kinds of stories. I know the trend these days is towards darker, serialized narratives in genre programs, but I always thought the fun of "Star Trek" was that you didn't know what you were going to get from one episode to the next - a planet full of rock monsters, time travel, tribbles, holograms, the Borg, or that episode where half the crew are turned into kids.
And I guess that's the biggest thing I want out of a new "Star Trek": some fun. The zombie apocalypses and techno-doomsdays have been great and all, but I'm looking forward to a little optimism in my science-fiction again. Yes, space travel and aliens can be scary, but there' a lot of wonder there too that I've been missing. "Star Trek" was always a forward-looking, idealistic franchise. Sure, darken it up for the Millennials a bit, but as long as the new series retains the core values of its predecessors, it'll do just fine.
---
First, there's the big one: sexuality. Though "Star Trek" has a history of diverse and inclusive casts, very few of its characters have been anything other than heteronormative. A "Next Generation" episode had a gender neutral alien, and "Deep Space 9" character Jadzia Dax claimed to be bisexual, but that was about the extent of it. Famously, a script was penned for "next Generation" that featured a gay couple, "Blood and Fire" but it was nixed by the studio. The last series, "Enterprise," ended in 2005, notably the same year that "Doctor Who" was revived featuring several prominent gay and lesbian characters like Captain Jack Harkness. "Torchwood," "Battlestar Galactica," "Orphan Black," and so many, many more followed. And, of course, there's George Takei. It would be very tempting for "Star Trek" to attempt to play catch up and put LGBT issues front and center, but it would probably just end up drawing attention to the previous deficit of them. I'd certainly like to see the new "Trek" series include gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender characters, but to handle their sexual identity the same way they handled racial diversity - something that's no longer such a big deal.
And speaking of racial diversity, it's gotten a lot more colorful on television these days. Back in the '90s and early 2000s, the "Star Trek" shows were the only ones I could count on having diverse casts. Now Shonda Rimes has turned that into the status quo. And I'm hoping that the "Star Trek" folks keep that in mind. They're going to have to work a little harder to be the vanguard in this area that they used to be. We've had a black Captain and a female Captain, and they were wonderful, but that shouldn't preclude more of them in the future. Also, remember that the original "Star Trek" made a point of including Russian and Asian faces - recent enemies of the U.S. in 1966. To really update "Star Trek" for the current era, I'm hoping for a Middle-Eastern crew member - one who comes across as more Middle-Eastern than the British-accented Dr. Bashir, ideally. If the creators are really feeling daring, they could also delve into religious differences too.
I'm pretty indifferent to the actual format of the new "Trek." Whether it's in continuity with the rest of the franchise or the movies or something new entirely isn't all that important. I'd love a new starship-oriented show, but the Starfleet Academy concept we've heard about for years sounds perfectly decent, and there are plenty of other corners of the "Star Trek" universe that we haven't seen yet that could yield some good things. Whatever the creators choose, I hope the format is flexible enough to accommodate many different kinds of stories. I know the trend these days is towards darker, serialized narratives in genre programs, but I always thought the fun of "Star Trek" was that you didn't know what you were going to get from one episode to the next - a planet full of rock monsters, time travel, tribbles, holograms, the Borg, or that episode where half the crew are turned into kids.
And I guess that's the biggest thing I want out of a new "Star Trek": some fun. The zombie apocalypses and techno-doomsdays have been great and all, but I'm looking forward to a little optimism in my science-fiction again. Yes, space travel and aliens can be scary, but there' a lot of wonder there too that I've been missing. "Star Trek" was always a forward-looking, idealistic franchise. Sure, darken it up for the Millennials a bit, but as long as the new series retains the core values of its predecessors, it'll do just fine.
---
Saturday, November 7, 2015
Life in "Review"
Have you ever wondered what it would be like to have a cocaine addiction? To sleep with a celebrity or participate in an orgy? To eat far, far too many pancakes? Well, now there's a show that will explore these life experiences for you: "Review with Forrest MacNeil." Your genial host takes review requests from viewers, gamely does his best to experience each one to the fullest, and then returns to his studio to recap and assign it a rating on a five star scale. Of course, many of the life experiences that Forrest is asked to review are ones that no sane human being would ever willingly seek out in real life, and Forrest is forced to bear the brunt of the physical, financial, and psychic damage required to accomplish them - the cumulative effects of which wreak havoc on his personal life.
I've watched all of the available episodes of Comedy Central 's two seasons of "Review," which is based on the Australian mockumentary show "Review with Myles Barlow." Reportedly, the original is just as dark and twisted, though the different host is an important distinction. The American "Review" is a showcase for Andy Daly, a familiar face if you've watched much Comedy Central programming, who is only now getting a proper vehicle for his formidable talents to shine. Resembling a bespectacled Conan O'Brien, Daly's Forrest MacNeil initially appears to be a pleasant, white-bread, well spoken man, always decked out in a tan suit jacket and khakis. However, it's slowly revealed that he has lurking insecurities and an absolutely fanatical devotion to the show, to the point where he's willing to turn his life and relationships into a complete shambles to live up to his lofty, exacting standards for reviewing. As "Review" goes on, the big question becomes how far Forrest is willing to go, and how much he's willing to sacrifice in the name of fulfilling his duties as host.
Each episode of "Review" covers two or three reviews, allowing a wide range of subject matter to be examined in a quasi-sketch comedy format. Forrest is given new assignments by his lovely co-host, A.J. Gibbs (Megan Stevenson) and then goes out into the world with a camera crew to document his experiences, ranging from "Road Rage" to "Curing Homosexuality." He's often aided by his executive assistant Lucille (Tara Karsian) and unpaid intern Josh (Michael Croner), and later Josh's girlfriend Tina (Hayley Huntley). Forrest enforces absolutely no personal boundaries in his pursuit of a review, so assignments like "Making a Sex Tape" end up involving his wife Suzanne (Jessica St. Clair) and their young son Eric (Kaden Gibson). Other loved ones who are impacted include Forrest's father (Max Gail) and father-in-law (Fred Ward). Whenever Forrest wavers in the face of adversity or emotional devastation, he's gently encouraged by his evil producer Grant (James Urbaniak) to stay the course.
It's difficult to get into the particulars of why "Review" is so effective without getting into major spoilers - and even reading the episode titles gives too much away. However, I think the whole conceit works so well largely thanks to Andy Daly, whose energetic performance sells the obsessive nature of Forrest MacNeil, makes it easy to laugh at his horrible misfortunes, and yet also gets you to care about him. One minute you're giggling at his antics in "Being Batman" and then feel genuinely bad for him when those antics turn out to have some awful consequences. Several developments involving Forrest's family are genuinely poignant and heartrending. There are also weirder, more conceptual reviews that play with the format, which are a lot of fun. Of all the recent comedies that have embraced a bleaker, more nihilistic outlook on the world, "Review" is surely one of the most daring and well executed.
The first season, which unveils its cold, cruel nature bit by bit is one of the best debuts of a television show I've ever seen. The second can't hope to match up to it, pulling bigger stunts with smaller returns, but it's still well worth watching. So I hereby give "Review" its well-deserved five stars, and for Forrest's sake, I hope the show doesn't go on for too much longer.
---
I've watched all of the available episodes of Comedy Central 's two seasons of "Review," which is based on the Australian mockumentary show "Review with Myles Barlow." Reportedly, the original is just as dark and twisted, though the different host is an important distinction. The American "Review" is a showcase for Andy Daly, a familiar face if you've watched much Comedy Central programming, who is only now getting a proper vehicle for his formidable talents to shine. Resembling a bespectacled Conan O'Brien, Daly's Forrest MacNeil initially appears to be a pleasant, white-bread, well spoken man, always decked out in a tan suit jacket and khakis. However, it's slowly revealed that he has lurking insecurities and an absolutely fanatical devotion to the show, to the point where he's willing to turn his life and relationships into a complete shambles to live up to his lofty, exacting standards for reviewing. As "Review" goes on, the big question becomes how far Forrest is willing to go, and how much he's willing to sacrifice in the name of fulfilling his duties as host.
Each episode of "Review" covers two or three reviews, allowing a wide range of subject matter to be examined in a quasi-sketch comedy format. Forrest is given new assignments by his lovely co-host, A.J. Gibbs (Megan Stevenson) and then goes out into the world with a camera crew to document his experiences, ranging from "Road Rage" to "Curing Homosexuality." He's often aided by his executive assistant Lucille (Tara Karsian) and unpaid intern Josh (Michael Croner), and later Josh's girlfriend Tina (Hayley Huntley). Forrest enforces absolutely no personal boundaries in his pursuit of a review, so assignments like "Making a Sex Tape" end up involving his wife Suzanne (Jessica St. Clair) and their young son Eric (Kaden Gibson). Other loved ones who are impacted include Forrest's father (Max Gail) and father-in-law (Fred Ward). Whenever Forrest wavers in the face of adversity or emotional devastation, he's gently encouraged by his evil producer Grant (James Urbaniak) to stay the course.
It's difficult to get into the particulars of why "Review" is so effective without getting into major spoilers - and even reading the episode titles gives too much away. However, I think the whole conceit works so well largely thanks to Andy Daly, whose energetic performance sells the obsessive nature of Forrest MacNeil, makes it easy to laugh at his horrible misfortunes, and yet also gets you to care about him. One minute you're giggling at his antics in "Being Batman" and then feel genuinely bad for him when those antics turn out to have some awful consequences. Several developments involving Forrest's family are genuinely poignant and heartrending. There are also weirder, more conceptual reviews that play with the format, which are a lot of fun. Of all the recent comedies that have embraced a bleaker, more nihilistic outlook on the world, "Review" is surely one of the most daring and well executed.
The first season, which unveils its cold, cruel nature bit by bit is one of the best debuts of a television show I've ever seen. The second can't hope to match up to it, pulling bigger stunts with smaller returns, but it's still well worth watching. So I hereby give "Review" its well-deserved five stars, and for Forrest's sake, I hope the show doesn't go on for too much longer.
---
Friday, November 6, 2015
My Favorite Roman Polanski Film
I've struggled a lot with what to think of Roman Polanski, a great director without question, but also a man who has done some awful, criminal things. I believe that art can be considered separate from the artist, but this is a "great directors" post, and the entire point is to talk about the directors via their movies. Can I make the argument that Polanski the artist should be considered separate from Polanski the perp? I suppose I'm going to have to, because I do enjoy Polanski's movies and he's primarily responsible for them. However, I will point out that my favorite Polanski film, "Repulsion," was made twelve years prior to the assault of Samantha Geimer, and several years prior to him even meeting Sharon Tate. It was only Polanski's second film, a black and white psychological thriller.
A young immigrant woman named Carol Ledoux (Catherine Deneuve) lives with her older sister Helen (Yvonne Furneaux) in a London apartment. Carol works as a manicurist, but doesn't socialize with others, is emotionally remote, and has a particular aversion to men. When Helen goes on a holiday with her boyfriend Michael (Ian Hendry), Carol is left alone in the apartment, where her neuroses and paranoias become much more severe. She begins to hallucinate cracks in the walls and lurking invaders. The apartment grows increasingly inhospitable as Carol neglects it, and unannounced visits by a would-be suitor (John Fraser) and the sinister landlord (Patrick Wymark) only make the situation worse. As her mental state deteriorates, Carol decides to take drastic measures to protect herself.
It's hard to believe that "Repulsion" is fifty years old at the time of writing. It's still an immensely effective thriller today, particularly in the way it creates an atmosphere of increasing dread and disorientation, and the way it mirrors the psychological state of the main character with her environment. The visual and audio motifs here are so simple, but so wonderfully deployed. The escalation of small, simple annoyances into grandiose horrors is slow and hypnotic. Polanski manages to tease out lasting moments of terror from the mundane, and to get across the panic-inducing feeling of suffering from a phobia in a very palpable way. You can trace elements of so many subsequent cinema chillers back to "Repulsion." I'm convinced that the rotting rabbit carcass is the progenitor of both the "Eraserhead" baby and the wilted salad in "Queen of Earth." The cracks in the walls, accompanied by that awful, heavy sound of impending doom, showed up in a recent season of "Doctor Who." And then there's the corridor of grasping hands, still a breathtaking moment of Surrealist horror, which has been reproduced in too many zombie movies to list.
"Repulsion" was probably as important to Catherine Deneauve's career as "The Umbrellas of Cherbourg" was, as it was her first major international film, and the first that allowed her to play such a complex leading role. Her aloof, ice queen demeanor here would become a major part of her screen persona, particularly in her films with Luis Buñuel. I find the performance and the portrayal of Carol fascinating because the audience isn't really told what to think of her. We're never told what the source of Carol's phobia is, though it's strongly hinted that an event in her past is responsible. She isn't passive against her affliction, and it's easy to sympathize and identify with her, but the way that she chooses to take action makes her monstrous. There's also the distinctly feminist undertones when we consider that Carol's rejection of unwanted male attention and victimhood only seem possible for her because of her insanity. The androphobia is clearly abnormal, but the movie suggests that there is some justification for her fears.
Polanski would go on to explore many of the same themes in the other two films of his "Apartment Trilogy," "Rosemary's Baby" and "The Tenant," which were far more elaborate productions. I prefer the small scale intimacy of "Repulsion," though, as it helps the unfolding nightmare to feel more personal and immediate. The simpler approach helps "Repulsion" to feel more timeless and universal. The film's unhurried, sinister final shot has stayed with me longer than anything else the director has done.
What I've Seen - Roman Polanski
Knife in the Water (1962)
Repulsion (1965)
Cul-de-Sac (1966)
Rosemary's Baby (1968)
Macbeth (1971)
Chinatown (1974)
The Tenant (1976)
Tess (1979)
The Ninth Gate (1999)
The Pianist (2002)
The Ghost Writer (2010)
Carnage (2011)
---
A young immigrant woman named Carol Ledoux (Catherine Deneuve) lives with her older sister Helen (Yvonne Furneaux) in a London apartment. Carol works as a manicurist, but doesn't socialize with others, is emotionally remote, and has a particular aversion to men. When Helen goes on a holiday with her boyfriend Michael (Ian Hendry), Carol is left alone in the apartment, where her neuroses and paranoias become much more severe. She begins to hallucinate cracks in the walls and lurking invaders. The apartment grows increasingly inhospitable as Carol neglects it, and unannounced visits by a would-be suitor (John Fraser) and the sinister landlord (Patrick Wymark) only make the situation worse. As her mental state deteriorates, Carol decides to take drastic measures to protect herself.
It's hard to believe that "Repulsion" is fifty years old at the time of writing. It's still an immensely effective thriller today, particularly in the way it creates an atmosphere of increasing dread and disorientation, and the way it mirrors the psychological state of the main character with her environment. The visual and audio motifs here are so simple, but so wonderfully deployed. The escalation of small, simple annoyances into grandiose horrors is slow and hypnotic. Polanski manages to tease out lasting moments of terror from the mundane, and to get across the panic-inducing feeling of suffering from a phobia in a very palpable way. You can trace elements of so many subsequent cinema chillers back to "Repulsion." I'm convinced that the rotting rabbit carcass is the progenitor of both the "Eraserhead" baby and the wilted salad in "Queen of Earth." The cracks in the walls, accompanied by that awful, heavy sound of impending doom, showed up in a recent season of "Doctor Who." And then there's the corridor of grasping hands, still a breathtaking moment of Surrealist horror, which has been reproduced in too many zombie movies to list.
"Repulsion" was probably as important to Catherine Deneauve's career as "The Umbrellas of Cherbourg" was, as it was her first major international film, and the first that allowed her to play such a complex leading role. Her aloof, ice queen demeanor here would become a major part of her screen persona, particularly in her films with Luis Buñuel. I find the performance and the portrayal of Carol fascinating because the audience isn't really told what to think of her. We're never told what the source of Carol's phobia is, though it's strongly hinted that an event in her past is responsible. She isn't passive against her affliction, and it's easy to sympathize and identify with her, but the way that she chooses to take action makes her monstrous. There's also the distinctly feminist undertones when we consider that Carol's rejection of unwanted male attention and victimhood only seem possible for her because of her insanity. The androphobia is clearly abnormal, but the movie suggests that there is some justification for her fears.
Polanski would go on to explore many of the same themes in the other two films of his "Apartment Trilogy," "Rosemary's Baby" and "The Tenant," which were far more elaborate productions. I prefer the small scale intimacy of "Repulsion," though, as it helps the unfolding nightmare to feel more personal and immediate. The simpler approach helps "Repulsion" to feel more timeless and universal. The film's unhurried, sinister final shot has stayed with me longer than anything else the director has done.
What I've Seen - Roman Polanski
Knife in the Water (1962)
Repulsion (1965)
Cul-de-Sac (1966)
Rosemary's Baby (1968)
Macbeth (1971)
Chinatown (1974)
The Tenant (1976)
Tess (1979)
The Ninth Gate (1999)
The Pianist (2002)
The Ghost Writer (2010)
Carnage (2011)
---
Thursday, November 5, 2015
Keeping Up With the Conversation
Time for a little self-reflection. Skip this post if you're not interested in the latest Missmediajunkie "state of the blog" installment.
It's been about a year and a half since my massive life change, and I had to significantly reduce my consumption of media. The impact actually hasn't been as severe as I was expecting, and I've been able to keep up with pretty much everything I consider a priority by cutting back on TV and classics. With new movies, I just have to wait until they hit VOD/DVD since theater trips are going to remain rare events for me for the foreseeable future. More importantly, I'm finding it very easy to keep up with the critical conversations around media, through some interesting avenues.
In the past, I'd rush to see a new movie during the first week it was in theaters so I could talk about it with friends and enjoy the media blitz surrounding its release. When I saw "Inception," for instance, I got to follow various debates and interpretations for weeks on my favorite film sites, read various reaction articles, and watch how it performed form week to week at the box office. "Inception" was one of the big hits of the summer of 2010 and widely embraced in the popular culture. There were already jokes and references being made to it within days its premiere. And all the hype and buzz helped to keep my interest in the film high, and fuel my own enjoyment of it. If I'd had to wait until the following December, when "Inception" was released on home media, to see the film, I would have missed being part of the wonderful fuss, right?
Well, yes, but it turns out this can be mitigated in a lot of ways. I couldn't manage a trip for my most anticipated film of the summer: PIXAR's "Inside Out." So I carefully avoided every article and discussion thread about the movie (still ended up getting spoiled for a few things), and waited until November when it hit VOD. Like "Inception," this turned out to be one of those films I really, really wanted to see people's reactions to. So I hit the internet and started digging. All the podcasts and online reviews for "Inside Out" were waiting for me. Dozens of interviews, opinion pieces, and supplementary materials were there too. I didn't have to wait for fans to start creating fanart. It's everywhere and it's fantastic. And I'm so glad that reaction videos have become a thing, because after watching a few of them, it felt like it had only been a few days since opening weekend. Now I'm wondering whether there would be any interest in a website that helps to facilitate this sort of thing.
The one thing I can't replicate, sadly, is being able to participate in those early, breathless discussion threads online through various forums and message boards. It's still fun to read over them and follow along the timeline of the box office speculation, but it's not the same. However, I've found that it is a lot easier to have conversations about "Inside Out" with people in real life now, because there's been more time for people to see it. Only the rabid die-hards like Yours Truly really prioritize the movie theater experience, after all. Mostly, normal people wait and see movies when it's convenient for them. Normal people don't follow the Oscar race and treat the winners as recommendations. Normal people don't have a list of the 75 movies they have left to see for 2015 (which is probably going to be over 100 movies if we're being honest with ourselves). Alas, I'm never going to be a normal person where movies are concerned.
But that's okay. I can compromise and I can be patient. I know that by far the most important thing about movie fandom is the movies themselves, and it's been a great year. I actually have a solid top ten list already based on what I've seen so far, and that hasn't happened in a while. The fall and holiday season look promising too - heck, my boss just told everybody to go and see "The Martian." I've gotta keep my priorities straight though. "Star Wars" and "Spectre" are first in line.
---
It's been about a year and a half since my massive life change, and I had to significantly reduce my consumption of media. The impact actually hasn't been as severe as I was expecting, and I've been able to keep up with pretty much everything I consider a priority by cutting back on TV and classics. With new movies, I just have to wait until they hit VOD/DVD since theater trips are going to remain rare events for me for the foreseeable future. More importantly, I'm finding it very easy to keep up with the critical conversations around media, through some interesting avenues.
In the past, I'd rush to see a new movie during the first week it was in theaters so I could talk about it with friends and enjoy the media blitz surrounding its release. When I saw "Inception," for instance, I got to follow various debates and interpretations for weeks on my favorite film sites, read various reaction articles, and watch how it performed form week to week at the box office. "Inception" was one of the big hits of the summer of 2010 and widely embraced in the popular culture. There were already jokes and references being made to it within days its premiere. And all the hype and buzz helped to keep my interest in the film high, and fuel my own enjoyment of it. If I'd had to wait until the following December, when "Inception" was released on home media, to see the film, I would have missed being part of the wonderful fuss, right?
Well, yes, but it turns out this can be mitigated in a lot of ways. I couldn't manage a trip for my most anticipated film of the summer: PIXAR's "Inside Out." So I carefully avoided every article and discussion thread about the movie (still ended up getting spoiled for a few things), and waited until November when it hit VOD. Like "Inception," this turned out to be one of those films I really, really wanted to see people's reactions to. So I hit the internet and started digging. All the podcasts and online reviews for "Inside Out" were waiting for me. Dozens of interviews, opinion pieces, and supplementary materials were there too. I didn't have to wait for fans to start creating fanart. It's everywhere and it's fantastic. And I'm so glad that reaction videos have become a thing, because after watching a few of them, it felt like it had only been a few days since opening weekend. Now I'm wondering whether there would be any interest in a website that helps to facilitate this sort of thing.
The one thing I can't replicate, sadly, is being able to participate in those early, breathless discussion threads online through various forums and message boards. It's still fun to read over them and follow along the timeline of the box office speculation, but it's not the same. However, I've found that it is a lot easier to have conversations about "Inside Out" with people in real life now, because there's been more time for people to see it. Only the rabid die-hards like Yours Truly really prioritize the movie theater experience, after all. Mostly, normal people wait and see movies when it's convenient for them. Normal people don't follow the Oscar race and treat the winners as recommendations. Normal people don't have a list of the 75 movies they have left to see for 2015 (which is probably going to be over 100 movies if we're being honest with ourselves). Alas, I'm never going to be a normal person where movies are concerned.
But that's okay. I can compromise and I can be patient. I know that by far the most important thing about movie fandom is the movies themselves, and it's been a great year. I actually have a solid top ten list already based on what I've seen so far, and that hasn't happened in a while. The fall and holiday season look promising too - heck, my boss just told everybody to go and see "The Martian." I've gotta keep my priorities straight though. "Star Wars" and "Spectre" are first in line.
---
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
