The lead actors are serious actors. But Jonny, seems to my aging ears, mutters a lot, buries his words in his head voice, and not all his dialogue is easy to hear. I wonder if that is part of the recording process and I sometimes have that problem with Lucy as well on this program.Then to make it worse, even in early segments, there is unrelated music in the background adding nothing dramatically, but compounding the muttering problem. CBS seems to add this music on other shows as well while other broadcasters do not, to their benefit. Since much of the drama of the show is Jonny Lee/Sherlock's thought process, and that is at the heart of the character's intrigue, this loss of vocal clarity is self-destructive. I wonder what others think.
Reviews
13 Reviews
Supergirl
(2015–2021)
The hero is DC and the villain is DC
26 October 2015
DC scheduled GOTHAM, based on Batman, a DC character, to run 8 PM to 9 PM.
DC scheduled SUPERGIRL, based on Superman, a DC character, to run 8:30 to 9:30 PM.
Same evening.
Why would they schedule this competing overlap between two of their own properties?
As to the near-opening scene saving a plane, didn't DC do that with Brendan Roush in his first SUPERMAN movie? Don't freak out but I also heard this superfeat in a SUPERMAN radio show from the mid-'forties. Bud Collyer was ultra-convincing as Supe.
Also, the quirks in the storyline were predictable as this show involves people behind DC product ARROW whose storyline seems to change as their writers' inabilities to work out story arcs decide to change arbitrarily. A traditional cliffhanger? Car going off cliff and down ends one week. Next week, car actually swerved safely.
DC scheduled SUPERGIRL, based on Superman, a DC character, to run 8:30 to 9:30 PM.
Same evening.
Why would they schedule this competing overlap between two of their own properties?
As to the near-opening scene saving a plane, didn't DC do that with Brendan Roush in his first SUPERMAN movie? Don't freak out but I also heard this superfeat in a SUPERMAN radio show from the mid-'forties. Bud Collyer was ultra-convincing as Supe.
Also, the quirks in the storyline were predictable as this show involves people behind DC product ARROW whose storyline seems to change as their writers' inabilities to work out story arcs decide to change arbitrarily. A traditional cliffhanger? Car going off cliff and down ends one week. Next week, car actually swerved safely.
Better Call Saul
(2015–2022)
Is it a drama or a comedy?
9 February 2015
I was not a watcher of Breaking Bad so viewed this first ep of Better Call Saul as an independent entity.
Was it a drama? If so I found it wanting. Somehow it never landed. Saul is a jerk. No more No less.
Was it a satire? Perhaps of the noir variety? There I find potential.
Apparently I have to say more to be able to post this. So I will add what I didn't want to say: That the lead actor seems to me to miss, somehow, being credible or funny or scary or admirable or being properly cast for this role. The actor--or is it the character-- is not someone I want to root for. There are no good people in this show--but that is true too to a large extent of the characters in Ray Donovan. But those characters have humanity. They have vulnerability. Not so Saul's characters. Not so those two idiot sleazy brothers who stage fake accidents. Not funny. Not anything. Just jerks.
Was it a drama? If so I found it wanting. Somehow it never landed. Saul is a jerk. No more No less.
Was it a satire? Perhaps of the noir variety? There I find potential.
Apparently I have to say more to be able to post this. So I will add what I didn't want to say: That the lead actor seems to me to miss, somehow, being credible or funny or scary or admirable or being properly cast for this role. The actor--or is it the character-- is not someone I want to root for. There are no good people in this show--but that is true too to a large extent of the characters in Ray Donovan. But those characters have humanity. They have vulnerability. Not so Saul's characters. Not so those two idiot sleazy brothers who stage fake accidents. Not funny. Not anything. Just jerks.
Peter Pan Live!
(2014 TV Movie)
Unwatchable
4 December 2014
The film if that's what it can be called is soft, not sharp, as if it's old.
The film mostly has a yellowish tinge.
Like the last "live" debacle, this one has the songs lip-synched, not live. Except that lips are out of sync. Is this because the actors are out of sync with the singing? Or because the transmission is out of whack? Worse. Dialogue too is out of sync, As if it it is prerecorded, thus not live.
Alison Williams is way too thin. And smiles all the time which is quite phony. Much better on GIRLS.
Credit to them for doing it live, if that's what it actually is. Two hours to go and I quit.
The film mostly has a yellowish tinge.
Like the last "live" debacle, this one has the songs lip-synched, not live. Except that lips are out of sync. Is this because the actors are out of sync with the singing? Or because the transmission is out of whack? Worse. Dialogue too is out of sync, As if it it is prerecorded, thus not live.
Alison Williams is way too thin. And smiles all the time which is quite phony. Much better on GIRLS.
Credit to them for doing it live, if that's what it actually is. Two hours to go and I quit.
The American
(2010)
Craft, not art
11 September 2010
When it ended, I had the thought, "This is the kind of movie that gets made when you owe someone a favor." The two key women look so much alike I was never quite sure, till I looked here, if there was one or two.
The main character is a professional killer or gun-supplier for other pro killers. So I did not care for him or his welfare.
Clooney does nice work. The girls are gorgeous. The scenery fascinating despite the repetitious down-shots of winding streets.
The head-monster is a figurehead so never a real emotional threat. Just another thug. No one to worry about being outsmarted by.
But: no one to root for. Only an odious protagonist, likable only because it's Clooney.
The priest says to Clooney that he does not have the hands of the artist but of the craftsman. Same is true of this movie. Lotta craft. No art.
The main character is a professional killer or gun-supplier for other pro killers. So I did not care for him or his welfare.
Clooney does nice work. The girls are gorgeous. The scenery fascinating despite the repetitious down-shots of winding streets.
The head-monster is a figurehead so never a real emotional threat. Just another thug. No one to worry about being outsmarted by.
But: no one to root for. Only an odious protagonist, likable only because it's Clooney.
The priest says to Clooney that he does not have the hands of the artist but of the craftsman. Same is true of this movie. Lotta craft. No art.
The Jensen Project
(2010 TV Movie)
Do not waste a minute
16 July 2010
My ratings out of 5:
Acting 1/5 (only for Kellie Martin)
Directing 0.5/5
Dialogue 0/5 (never mind how infernally fast actors spoke when dealing with comic-book technology so we couldn't understand)
Story 2.5/5
Script 1/5
Set design 3/5
I quit after about 40 minutes. Pathetic and ghastly and manipulative. Too much speed-talking. Too much background music (bad pop) for who knows what reason. The premise was quite good. The execution was as bad and as cynical as it could be.
Acting 1/5 (only for Kellie Martin)
Directing 0.5/5
Dialogue 0/5 (never mind how infernally fast actors spoke when dealing with comic-book technology so we couldn't understand)
Story 2.5/5
Script 1/5
Set design 3/5
I quit after about 40 minutes. Pathetic and ghastly and manipulative. Too much speed-talking. Too much background music (bad pop) for who knows what reason. The premise was quite good. The execution was as bad and as cynical as it could be.
Grey Gardens
(2009 TV Movie)
Spoiler re motivation and re animals
19 April 2009
This is a bit of a spoiler.
The story revolves around a decision made by Little Edie at roughly midpoint. Problem is, that decision, on which everything subsequent depends, is completely out of character. This self-motivated young woman is suddenly, inexplicably, dictated to by circumstance. She devolves from a person of apparent inner motivation to one with no spine whatever, forever after, no turning back.
Makes no sense. Something was left out. Why the sudden change in her nature? The acting ranged, within a given character, from exceptional to hack, also inexplicable.
On the plus side, the two main female actors seemed very comfortable handling the many cats in the story. And at the end of final credits, when the "Humane" message appeared, it was VOICED by Drew, in character, to emphasize it, which strikes me as a very positive and very pro-animal thing for her or anyone to do.
The story revolves around a decision made by Little Edie at roughly midpoint. Problem is, that decision, on which everything subsequent depends, is completely out of character. This self-motivated young woman is suddenly, inexplicably, dictated to by circumstance. She devolves from a person of apparent inner motivation to one with no spine whatever, forever after, no turning back.
Makes no sense. Something was left out. Why the sudden change in her nature? The acting ranged, within a given character, from exceptional to hack, also inexplicable.
On the plus side, the two main female actors seemed very comfortable handling the many cats in the story. And at the end of final credits, when the "Humane" message appeared, it was VOICED by Drew, in character, to emphasize it, which strikes me as a very positive and very pro-animal thing for her or anyone to do.
Redbelt
(2008)
Mamet at his worst is still worth seeing to keep yourself honest
17 May 2008
What I know of Mamet is that he is a superb creative person, in both visual and verbal media. His contributions to the stage are legendary. Not to mention his rich personal life.
So if you're a Mamet fan or a student of cinema or of dialogue or of acting or of martial arts, see REDBELT (one word). If not don't bother.
In the New York Times Mamet wrote about the great Takashi Shimura in Kurosawa's masterpiece (one of many), SEVEN SAMURAI. He wrote of the inevitable sadness in his and in any fighter's face. And by implication, of his goal of capturing that sadness in his movie (written and directed).
What he got instead was actors whose faces showed no emotion. Not inner sadness masking the emotion they had trained themselves not to feel--which would require superb acting. But just no expression.
The exception was Emily Mortimer who put life and harmony and rhythm on the screen for this movie, but only when she was on screen. And Mamet stalwart Joe Mantegna, whose work of late has been average, does very fine work, renewing my interest in watching CRIMINAL MINDS on TV just to watch him work. MametMantegnaMortimer. Hmmmm?
Then there was the fact that, it seemed to me, characters did things that may or may not have had anything to do with the characters themselves, just to move the story or plot or scene forward. That's a writer cheating the viewer as if anything at all can happen, then we have deluded ourselves into thinking we know anything about any of the characters. I have no idea what was behind the pawned watch subplot. But I suspect it was this:
And this may be more important than anything I have said above-- It may be that Mamet sees such cynical ugliness and dirtiness in Hollywood and in professional fighting (both part of the same set of ethics) that no plot point is needed to simply tell us, Hey, those are bad people.
But if cynicism is what he wants to promote, how's this: I cynically suspect Mamet wrote this story so he could meet some favorite boxers and hang out inside the boxing and martial arts scene.
If so, hope he got it out of his system. He's too great a creative person to remember with this chazzerei.
So if you're a Mamet fan or a student of cinema or of dialogue or of acting or of martial arts, see REDBELT (one word). If not don't bother.
In the New York Times Mamet wrote about the great Takashi Shimura in Kurosawa's masterpiece (one of many), SEVEN SAMURAI. He wrote of the inevitable sadness in his and in any fighter's face. And by implication, of his goal of capturing that sadness in his movie (written and directed).
What he got instead was actors whose faces showed no emotion. Not inner sadness masking the emotion they had trained themselves not to feel--which would require superb acting. But just no expression.
The exception was Emily Mortimer who put life and harmony and rhythm on the screen for this movie, but only when she was on screen. And Mamet stalwart Joe Mantegna, whose work of late has been average, does very fine work, renewing my interest in watching CRIMINAL MINDS on TV just to watch him work. MametMantegnaMortimer. Hmmmm?
Then there was the fact that, it seemed to me, characters did things that may or may not have had anything to do with the characters themselves, just to move the story or plot or scene forward. That's a writer cheating the viewer as if anything at all can happen, then we have deluded ourselves into thinking we know anything about any of the characters. I have no idea what was behind the pawned watch subplot. But I suspect it was this:
And this may be more important than anything I have said above-- It may be that Mamet sees such cynical ugliness and dirtiness in Hollywood and in professional fighting (both part of the same set of ethics) that no plot point is needed to simply tell us, Hey, those are bad people.
But if cynicism is what he wants to promote, how's this: I cynically suspect Mamet wrote this story so he could meet some favorite boxers and hang out inside the boxing and martial arts scene.
If so, hope he got it out of his system. He's too great a creative person to remember with this chazzerei.
Running with Scissors
(2006)
Great cast rotten movie
5 November 2006
What am I missing? Great actors are in this movie so they must see something excellent in it. I do not. Brian Cox (recently brilliant as Langrische on Deadwood), Annette Bening, Alec Baldwin, Jill Clayburgh among them.
Forget the obtrusive and self-conscious music.
This movie was about 2 hours long which is about 90 minutes longer than necessary. After a while, it just drags.
It is a movie about people who are amoral, dishonest, destructive, self-destructive, self- indulgent. And stupid.Why would anyone care?
I had seen it referred to as a "pychological thriller" and also as a "comedy." It had a few funny scenes. And the actors did take it seriously.
One odd thing: Young actor Joe Cross is a dead-ringer for actor Tim Robbins. So I assumed he was Tim's and Susan's son. Per info on the Web, he is not. But he IS a visual clone of Tim.
Forget the obtrusive and self-conscious music.
This movie was about 2 hours long which is about 90 minutes longer than necessary. After a while, it just drags.
It is a movie about people who are amoral, dishonest, destructive, self-destructive, self- indulgent. And stupid.Why would anyone care?
I had seen it referred to as a "pychological thriller" and also as a "comedy." It had a few funny scenes. And the actors did take it seriously.
One odd thing: Young actor Joe Cross is a dead-ringer for actor Tim Robbins. So I assumed he was Tim's and Susan's son. Per info on the Web, he is not. But he IS a visual clone of Tim.
Sideways
(2004)
Treats the viewer as an adult
27 November 2004
In the sea of commercial junk out there, this movie stands out as truly worthwhile.
John Stiles' review here makes me wonder if I have anything worthwhile to say about the movie. I recognized the qualities he found that mark these two men as morally deficient. He said the director does not judge these men or their actions. And that's the point. The director did not have to rub our nose in their bad morality. We can judge those for ourselves.
I found that this fine movie, like all the best movies, is about friendship. (And the best TV dramas are about executives such as Frank Furillo, Tony Soprano, and their decisionmaking process.) These are two friends who balance each other, but who, between them, do not become one total person. Yet both are saved by caring for, and being cared for by, another person, both each other and the women in their lives.
Thomas Haden Church, an actor I never noticed, is quite fine, in fact, perfect as the "positive thinking" guy hellbent on getting laid. He is raunchy, yet a thoughtful and sensitive friend. Jack, his character, and this is for you to ferret out, may be best at lying to himself. There is as the Stiles review noted one uncomfortable and startlingly inconsistent moment. Paul Giamatti and his brother Marcus (Peter on JUDGING AMY) are both solid actors.
Of the women, Virginia Madsen is a dream. But I consider Sandra Oh as Stephanie and Toni Collette (not in this movie) to be the two absolute best of the younger actresses. Ms. Oh has the unbelievable skill (or agent) to get her parts that would normally go to Caucasian women and she is thus not limited to playing the occasional and rare role that demands an Asian woman. I will see anything because she is in it. She does not disappoint on any level.
I would like this movie, SIDEWAYS, to spawn a sequel I call CROSSWAYS--the same set of events as seen by the two women (or three if you count the ex-wife) characters. I wonder if, in that case, the actors themselves might not write the story.
John Stiles' review here makes me wonder if I have anything worthwhile to say about the movie. I recognized the qualities he found that mark these two men as morally deficient. He said the director does not judge these men or their actions. And that's the point. The director did not have to rub our nose in their bad morality. We can judge those for ourselves.
I found that this fine movie, like all the best movies, is about friendship. (And the best TV dramas are about executives such as Frank Furillo, Tony Soprano, and their decisionmaking process.) These are two friends who balance each other, but who, between them, do not become one total person. Yet both are saved by caring for, and being cared for by, another person, both each other and the women in their lives.
Thomas Haden Church, an actor I never noticed, is quite fine, in fact, perfect as the "positive thinking" guy hellbent on getting laid. He is raunchy, yet a thoughtful and sensitive friend. Jack, his character, and this is for you to ferret out, may be best at lying to himself. There is as the Stiles review noted one uncomfortable and startlingly inconsistent moment. Paul Giamatti and his brother Marcus (Peter on JUDGING AMY) are both solid actors.
Of the women, Virginia Madsen is a dream. But I consider Sandra Oh as Stephanie and Toni Collette (not in this movie) to be the two absolute best of the younger actresses. Ms. Oh has the unbelievable skill (or agent) to get her parts that would normally go to Caucasian women and she is thus not limited to playing the occasional and rare role that demands an Asian woman. I will see anything because she is in it. She does not disappoint on any level.
I would like this movie, SIDEWAYS, to spawn a sequel I call CROSSWAYS--the same set of events as seen by the two women (or three if you count the ex-wife) characters. I wonder if, in that case, the actors themselves might not write the story.
The Notebook
(2004)
Very yet not
3 July 2004
Very emotional. Yet restrained. As such, art gives distance from a very very emotional story.
Beyond that, Greg's review says what needs to be said.
Gena Rowlands is America's Judi Dench. James Garner has gone from superb to great. Quietly. Joan Allen is always, fine. The two kids hit the right note.
Then there are the (trained?) ducks.
In a summer of Spidey, Fahrenreit, and Riddick (which I will see just to see Dame Dench), this is the don't miss.
Beyond that, Greg's review says what needs to be said.
Gena Rowlands is America's Judi Dench. James Garner has gone from superb to great. Quietly. Joan Allen is always, fine. The two kids hit the right note.
Then there are the (trained?) ducks.
In a summer of Spidey, Fahrenreit, and Riddick (which I will see just to see Dame Dench), this is the don't miss.
The Last Samurai
(2003)
So-so samurai
7 December 2003
If you saw MASTER & COMMANDER you don't need to see this and vice versa. It purports to be about a historical culture clash and accommodation, and about honor. It's really about technology, not culture. What both movies are, are old-fashioned battle films, gussied up with modern cinema technology.
If you love Japanese samurai films, if you know the work of Kurosawa and Mifune and Nakadai and Shimura and Shintaro Katsu (Zatoichi), it will be obvious how much this movie suffers in comparison.
Tom Cruise is a technically gifted actor but there is something cold, as if his performance is predetermined and he does not react to what other actors do. The "girl," Taka, played by Koyuki, is gorgeous and makes lots of goo-goo eyes. The samurai, Katsumoto, played by Ken Watanabe, is good. But what would Mifune or Nakadai have done to make the part more meaningful?
The battle and fight scenes were excellent, though crucial blows were out of frame so it is mostly in our imagination. SEVEN SAMURAI, 1954, RAN, 1985, both Kurosawa, did them far better. I think this is below the standard writer/producers Ed Zwick and Marshall Herskovitz set with "St. Elsewhere" and "Thirty Something." Sorry.
No horses were injured, it says at the end. Good.
OK entertainment. PIECES OF APRIL and LOVE ACTUALLY, both current, would do better. A weekly TV episode of "Boston Public" is better that this movie.
If you love Japanese samurai films, if you know the work of Kurosawa and Mifune and Nakadai and Shimura and Shintaro Katsu (Zatoichi), it will be obvious how much this movie suffers in comparison.
Tom Cruise is a technically gifted actor but there is something cold, as if his performance is predetermined and he does not react to what other actors do. The "girl," Taka, played by Koyuki, is gorgeous and makes lots of goo-goo eyes. The samurai, Katsumoto, played by Ken Watanabe, is good. But what would Mifune or Nakadai have done to make the part more meaningful?
The battle and fight scenes were excellent, though crucial blows were out of frame so it is mostly in our imagination. SEVEN SAMURAI, 1954, RAN, 1985, both Kurosawa, did them far better. I think this is below the standard writer/producers Ed Zwick and Marshall Herskovitz set with "St. Elsewhere" and "Thirty Something." Sorry.
No horses were injured, it says at the end. Good.
OK entertainment. PIECES OF APRIL and LOVE ACTUALLY, both current, would do better. A weekly TV episode of "Boston Public" is better that this movie.
A VERY BIG n o t h i n g
30 November 2003
Warning: Spoilers
The sound design was extravagantly good. In the storm scene you felt inside it, if the theater had great surrounding sound.
There were mildly interesting subplots but no story.
Russell Crowe, sometimes a fine actor, added nothing to the character.
MINOR SPOILER. A secondary character, the ship's doctor--a naturalist--had more to work with. In one scene he finds and has to abandon creatures heretofore unknown. Leaving, he orders his aide to release them from the crates, a sensitive decision on his part.
I do recall one very good scene, where a young lieutenant is being dressed down by Crowe for insufficient leadership.
Big big big. But--
There were mildly interesting subplots but no story.
Russell Crowe, sometimes a fine actor, added nothing to the character.
MINOR SPOILER. A secondary character, the ship's doctor--a naturalist--had more to work with. In one scene he finds and has to abandon creatures heretofore unknown. Leaving, he orders his aide to release them from the crates, a sensitive decision on his part.
I do recall one very good scene, where a young lieutenant is being dressed down by Crowe for insufficient leadership.
Big big big. But--
Tell Your Friends