Time After Time, Again and Again

The weekend begins and that means figuring out what movie(s) to see this weekend.

But why settle for watching a movie? We may (or may not) be in a golden age of television so what are critics saying about this weekend's programming?

Generally television reviewers tend to look at new shows. This makes sense as most people don't jump into new shows halfway through a season. Of course this is less of an issue now that most networks will stream their shows in order to catch up the viewer and then distribute them to Netflix, Amazon or Hulu after the season is over. Very soon we may see more midseason and postseason reviews since then a reviewer really knows what a show is about.

But we are still in the old paradigm and Sonia Saraiya has taken the time to review ABC's new show Time After Time over at Variety. The show will premiere Sunday March 5th at 9pm.

Ms. Saraiya does an excellent job of not just summarizing the premiere episode but of interjecting her opinions throughout so that this review does not read like so many formulaic reviews, where first we here the summary, then we here about about the actors and/or director and/or writer and how their past work has influenced their current production, and finally a blurb about whether the thing was any good or not. Mixing the trite format works well not only for readability but it also helps when reviewing a shorter work such as a TV premiere. It allows the review to remain short and yet still provide relevant information.

Because of both of those facts (the length of the show reviewed and the blended review structure) Ms. Saraiya's review seemed a bit clipped. I would have liked a little more criticism of the actors and of the writing of the show especially since Ms, Saraiya had several insightful things to say about the executive producer Kevin Williamson and actor Josh Bowman.

Overall I like Sonia Saraiya's style. She provided me with what I wanted to know about the show without giving too much away or focusing on extraneous details. A few more details may have been helpful but I look forward to seeing more reviews from her in the future.

While watching Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
Part I last night/this morning I had a few thoughts and questions. Not exactly critical analysis but it's got to go somewhere. No, really, it does or else it builds in my brain to a gigantic snowball of existential paranoia....

oh  SPOILER ALERT because I really just don't care and will probably say something that is in the movie that you didn't want to know like...

How does Hermione dye her hair in the middle of the forest? oh, right! it is probably a spell.

And when did Emma Watson become a woman? 

Te he! The boys look silly with there little teenage stubble. I am sure both Daniel Radcliffe and Rupert Grint can grow full man beards and they just made it look dorky for the movie.

 I don't care how hard you try, there is little emotional resonance to watching an animated puppet die. The reaction to the theater I was in was mostly snickering with a few scattered "awwws" that you would get for a friends dead goldfish. Sorry. Way to sell it though.

Not related tot he movie, but the first guy to say something out loud during the previews is mildly amusing. the second exponentially less so. If you are making a joke when the film title is rolling then no one likes you. And I am sorry for all the times I started this cascade of bad jokes in my youth. But I was damn funny, right?

I kind of love Bill Nighy more and more each time I see him.

The scene where the Weasley twin comes in and catches Harry and Ginny kissing and has a tooth brush in his ear hole was hilarious. Even the jaded teenagers next to me thought so.

I kind of just want to give the Mallfoy's a big hug...

Alan Rickman is so perfect. so subtle and yet if you know what is going to happen you can definitely see it.

It's nice that the Harry Potter books are like popcorn for me and soon after reading them I forget almost everything. It makes the movies more enjoyable.

Harry and Hermione making out nude? Kind of creepy.

I would watch a whole animated movie of Beetle Bard! that was amazing! are you listening Warner Bros?

The ending was perfect because the theater let out this massive groan. No one said "That's it?" Just a groan of  "I can't wait to see what happens next!"

I think I was sitting next to the real life Brittany and Santana. They were a lot younger than the actors that play them.

And on the way to the theater I saw a group of deer hanging out with a skunk. It does happen!

What did you think of the movie?

an interesting article

Andrew Leonard at Salon.com was the lucky one to pick apart a conservative column and today’s lucky recipient was David Brook’s New York Times' article “Relax, We’ll Be Fine.” and not the whole article, but one specific paragraph. In the paragraph the Mr. Brooks is stating his opinion that Americans make great pop culture and there will always be a desire for pop culture. That’s it. That is the entire point that he is trying to make. He uses some big words to to try and class it up and I guess that is what Mr. Leonard has a problem with.

Mr. Leonard’s article perhaps is weakened because he chose to quote Mr. Brooks. If he had just made his point without actually showing Brooks’ words it would have been easier to follow his argument. As it was I was able to see that what Andrew Leonard was trying to say had nothing to do with what David Brooks was saying.

Here is a fundamental flaw in criticism; you never know what the reviewer is bringing with them to the piece. I am bringing with me the thought that Andrew Leonard is a liberal/democrat who does not like David Brooks because he is a conservative/republican commentator and that it would not matter what Mr. Brooks said but Mr. Leonard would mock it. I am probably wrong in this assumption, or at least am letting it way my review more heavily than it should. But there is little I can do about it other than tell you what I am thinking and let you judge my critical thinking (and hopefully not me or my own political beliefs which might surprise you) for yourself. That does not make for as entertaining of a read as pointing out how wrong someone else is though.

Should a review of a remake reference the original? And why is a comic website reviewing a movie?

Ok, the recently hacked Newsarama has not been solely a comic book site for some time now but the first question still stands. A remake or an adaptation is a work of art separate from whatever the inspiration for it may have been and deserves to be reviewed as such as well as being viewed as such by the audience. Of course this may be impossible or even what the adaptor wants. Obviously one of the reasons for revisiting material is to evoke some of what the original did and present it to a new audience or dazzle the first audience.

That is the prerogative of the creators involved and should not be the basis for the entire review of a film, which is exactly what Michael Avila did with his review of Clash of the Titans. The review/comparison does offer some insights into the creative process of director Louis Leterrier and the process of deciding to do the movie but this is too much for the review and bogs it down. Mr. Leterrier’s comments do not really offer much and definitely do not add to the review’s purpose.

A combination of review and interview does not save this from being a lackluster attempt to praise the movie and offers me little that is not handled better in other pieces on the movie and the director.

Maybe I just like negative reviews better…

Theatre is hard to do well. So is writing about it. Robert Hurwitt does a good job in a nice little review of Othello at the San Francisco Chronicle. It isn’t perfect and it isn’t a great read but tells me everything I need to know about the play and the interpretation. And it incorporates a simple synopsis into the body of the review instead of as an extraneous paragraph, a trick that many better writers have not even attempted. So thank you Mr. Hurwitt for redeeming my faith in reviewers.

Roger Ebert is enjoying a renaissance of relevance recently. I have never really read his reviews. I remember him from his TV show with Siskel and then Roeper.  But what better time to start reading than when he is at his best?

Perhaps I should I have waited longer…

If you have read any of my previous posts you will know that I think a review should be concise. If I should spend my time and money on a piece of art I want to do that and not read a reviewers reenactment of it. Worse is the rambling personal affection that a reviewer may have for something that I will never share. This is exactly what Mr. Ebert does in his review of 45365. It is really great that Mr. Ebert can relate to the small town life presented in the documentary, but it would have been helpful if he took the time from his reminiscing to tell me what the movie is about. I get no feel for why I should see this movie or the filmmakers intent for creating it, no sense for the artistic feel of the movie and no indication that it is even a movie at all. I do get the sense that Mr. Ebert would much rather be back in his old home town of Urbana, Illinois. Maybe it’s time for him to do just that.

I am sick. Io9 reviews are too long. interesting movie though.