Far, far better than I had expected it to be, this season of The Sopranos proves to be the most satisfying yet. This is particularly surprising because I had already watched the first five or six episodes of the season when they first aired and was not that impressed. One second viewing, these episodes are still not very impressive, however, they are building to a truly great final three episodes that almost makes the hours of meandering worth it.
What really impresses about this season is the lack of hackneyed plot developments. The Sopranos is king of taking plotlines straight out of "lesser" network television series, dressing them up with some blood and cursing and passing it off as insightful and groundbreaking. In The Sopranos worst moments (so far for me that would be all of season two although I have not watched seasons three or four), there is nothing but daytime television quality plotlines going on. (More on this in my season two review because now the show has hooked me and I need to know how they got to where they've ended up in season five.)
However, the series still lacks the recklessness and sheer bravery of shows like The Wire, Oz, Nip/Tuck and The Shield. Those shows are in the pantheon. The Sopranos is just a spiffy pretender to the throne, all perfect plot geometry and studious acting. And although you can see the final plot developments coming from a mile away, the way they play out is still very interesting. So maybe The Sopranos isn't the best show on TV. And maybe it's just prettified soap opera writ large. But there's a reason One Life to Live has been on for fifty years, it taps a chord in all of us. It's the same chord struck by The Sopranos. And hey, the critical tongue-bath this show gets means you dont even have to feel guilty about watching it.
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Sunday, September 25, 2005
CORPSE BRIDE - tim burton & mike johnson - 6.9 / 10
Stop motion animation and CG animation (and even hand drawn animation) have the same inherent problem, namely that each individual moment in the film is crafted to absolute perfection. There's no chance for improvisation or the random little moments that give life to a live action film. This is, of course, inherent in the medium but it still bugs the shit out of me. It makes animated films seem somehow lifeless even when they're crammed to the absolute breaking point with so many characters and gags that you can't even take them all in on one viewing.
Tim Burton's Corpse Bride (how did he ever convince the studio to go with that title?) is no exception. In fact, there might be more going on in this little eighty-minute film than in most films twice as long. But that vacuum-sealed, lifeless sort of joy combined with the fact that the ending to this fable is a foregone conclusion only adds up to an enjoyable but forgettable film-going experience. To be sure there are many things in the film that delight (the maggot that lives in the corpse bride's eye and speaks with the voice of Peter Lorre is maybe the best) but they don't linger in any real way. Everything is just marvelously put together and cleverly stage designed. And while that's all well and good, it does not make for a lasting impression.
Tim Burton's Corpse Bride (how did he ever convince the studio to go with that title?) is no exception. In fact, there might be more going on in this little eighty-minute film than in most films twice as long. But that vacuum-sealed, lifeless sort of joy combined with the fact that the ending to this fable is a foregone conclusion only adds up to an enjoyable but forgettable film-going experience. To be sure there are many things in the film that delight (the maggot that lives in the corpse bride's eye and speaks with the voice of Peter Lorre is maybe the best) but they don't linger in any real way. Everything is just marvelously put together and cleverly stage designed. And while that's all well and good, it does not make for a lasting impression.
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
EAST OF EDEN - elia kazan - 3.9 / 10
Supposedly Elia Kazan and John Steinbeck were friends. Watching this film, I find that hard to believe (unless maybe Steinbeck was one of those authors that never watched the film adaptations of his work). This film is almost impossible to enjoy if you haven't read the book. But it you have read the book, it's maddening to watch the film because so much of what made the book great has been taken out of the film.
The novel relates the story of Adam Trask and his two sons. The moral center of the work is Lee, the Chinese valet that attends to the family after they make the move to California, and Samuel, the Trasks' neighbor who prods Adam into action whenever it is necessary. Both of these characters have been jettisoned in the film adaptation. But more egregiously, Kazan and his screenwriters have basically filmed one-fifteenth of the plot of the book. Although this is certainly the most interesting fifteenth of the book, if you don't know what exactly lead to the events depicted herein they more or less have no meaning in and of themselves.
But that being said, James Dean is truly impressive as Cal. I've never seen him on screen before and everything I'd heard was an underestimation of the kind of life that he breathes into the film. Without him, this would be unwatchable. With him, it's marginally interesting when he's on screen and impossibly dull when he isn't. (The filmmakers seemed to realize this and made Cal the center of the story despite the fact that he is not the center of the novel.) But as powerful as his presence may be, he's a bit out of place here. He is not the Caleb of the book and isn't fooling anybody into thinking he's seventeen. And, more harmful to the intent of the piece, he isn't fooling anybody into thinking he's a bad boy either. He's like the Brad Pitt of his day, commanding all eyes to look at him whenever he's on screen but completely unconvincing as anything other than exactly what he is.
The novel relates the story of Adam Trask and his two sons. The moral center of the work is Lee, the Chinese valet that attends to the family after they make the move to California, and Samuel, the Trasks' neighbor who prods Adam into action whenever it is necessary. Both of these characters have been jettisoned in the film adaptation. But more egregiously, Kazan and his screenwriters have basically filmed one-fifteenth of the plot of the book. Although this is certainly the most interesting fifteenth of the book, if you don't know what exactly lead to the events depicted herein they more or less have no meaning in and of themselves.
But that being said, James Dean is truly impressive as Cal. I've never seen him on screen before and everything I'd heard was an underestimation of the kind of life that he breathes into the film. Without him, this would be unwatchable. With him, it's marginally interesting when he's on screen and impossibly dull when he isn't. (The filmmakers seemed to realize this and made Cal the center of the story despite the fact that he is not the center of the novel.) But as powerful as his presence may be, he's a bit out of place here. He is not the Caleb of the book and isn't fooling anybody into thinking he's seventeen. And, more harmful to the intent of the piece, he isn't fooling anybody into thinking he's a bad boy either. He's like the Brad Pitt of his day, commanding all eyes to look at him whenever he's on screen but completely unconvincing as anything other than exactly what he is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)