Spoiler Alert!!
Just watched The Dark Knight.
Critically overlooked: Aaron Eckhart before he becomes Two-Face.
Awesome: Art direction, editing, mechanics and realisation of what it takes to be a super hero; Bourne-like close combat; minimal and well-integrated CGI; humour worked; great action set-pieces.
Maybe that's just me: Would have been cool to see Harvey Dent get acid thrown in his face like in the comic.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Made it to Mars
Just watched half of Across the Universe, Julie Taymor's follow-up to Frida, which I didn't see. So far, I've found it a touch trite in places, such as the scene with the kid hiding behind the car singing "Mary come to me".
The choreography tends to be repetitive, and several shots are cribbed from Tarantino and Shortbus, amongst others.
I did find the portrayal of Ken Kesey quite interesting, although at times he did seem like some weird hybrid of Bono and Johnny Depp playing Hunter Thompson. The attention to all the faces of 'the scene' at the time is nice, but often times, during the big musical numbers whose irruption is hardly seamless or understated, the cast come off sounding more like Queen than the Fab Four.
Overall, the movie seems fun, as you would expect from a musical based on a band who's back catalogue features hardly a weak song. The surrogates have held enough of my interest that I would definitely watch the second half, should it surface somewhere.
I will not be compulsively driven to seek it out though, as I am with the fourth season of Lost. I'm convinced that the reason it is best watched in an weekend, as opposed to a couple of months, is that the only emotion inspired by many of the episodes is, plainly and simply, 'more'.
The choreography tends to be repetitive, and several shots are cribbed from Tarantino and Shortbus, amongst others.
I did find the portrayal of Ken Kesey quite interesting, although at times he did seem like some weird hybrid of Bono and Johnny Depp playing Hunter Thompson. The attention to all the faces of 'the scene' at the time is nice, but often times, during the big musical numbers whose irruption is hardly seamless or understated, the cast come off sounding more like Queen than the Fab Four.
Overall, the movie seems fun, as you would expect from a musical based on a band who's back catalogue features hardly a weak song. The surrogates have held enough of my interest that I would definitely watch the second half, should it surface somewhere.
I will not be compulsively driven to seek it out though, as I am with the fourth season of Lost. I'm convinced that the reason it is best watched in an weekend, as opposed to a couple of months, is that the only emotion inspired by many of the episodes is, plainly and simply, 'more'.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Briefly
I must just say that Firefox 3 rocks the world.
The option to save open tabs when exiting and the structure of the address bar so that it acts more like a search engine make it immediately indispensable, and the fact that it's free just makes it even better.
Open source rules!
The option to save open tabs when exiting and the structure of the address bar so that it acts more like a search engine make it immediately indispensable, and the fact that it's free just makes it even better.
Open source rules!
Friday, July 18, 2008
I wonder what it's like in translation?
Watched the third season of Lost this week and despite spoiling it for myself on the internet, and despite not being a huge fan of the series overall, it was awesome.
The fact that the writers are able to foreground new characters so far into the show demonstrates the depth and intricacy of the plot, in that the foregrounding never feels forced. It also speaks to how compelling Lost has been, which has always been one of its greatest strengths.
I know some of what happens in season four, yet I was utterly hooked by season three's fantastic finale. That said, I do think Lost is better when episodes are viewed consecutively, as I'm then more willing to forgive some of the more blatant time-wasting that goes on.
I've also been watching The Tudors, which is not as good as Rome, in terms of both period detail and compelling characters. Rome depicts people from all castes of Roman life, and was thus able to add a certain air of mystique to the proceedings, although I may just be showing my ignorance of classical history here.
In The Tudors, while King Henry and his court are energetically rendered, all the big reveals are telegraphed by some 400 years or so. King Henry himself is portrayed as a kind of medieval rock star, but the show holds together because of some decent ensemble acting.
Some members of the cast do more acting than others, though, and Sam Neil plays Cardinal Worsely as a cartoonishly obvious bad guy. He tries to make a genuinely bad character, but as far as villainy goes he doesn't come close to Michael Emerson on Lost.
One of the reasons I'm so eager to see season four is because I'm convinced that Ben Linus is one of the great modern TV villains. Emerson's refreshingly understated, amoral portrayal is a great contrast to some of the bombastic anti-heroes that have become fashionable lately.
While you always get the sense that these rule-breakers are basically good people, you never get that sense from Ben. The fact that the audience doesn't really know what his aims are, makes it all the more riveting as he mercilessly goes about achieving them.
The fact that the writers are able to foreground new characters so far into the show demonstrates the depth and intricacy of the plot, in that the foregrounding never feels forced. It also speaks to how compelling Lost has been, which has always been one of its greatest strengths.
I know some of what happens in season four, yet I was utterly hooked by season three's fantastic finale. That said, I do think Lost is better when episodes are viewed consecutively, as I'm then more willing to forgive some of the more blatant time-wasting that goes on.
I've also been watching The Tudors, which is not as good as Rome, in terms of both period detail and compelling characters. Rome depicts people from all castes of Roman life, and was thus able to add a certain air of mystique to the proceedings, although I may just be showing my ignorance of classical history here.
In The Tudors, while King Henry and his court are energetically rendered, all the big reveals are telegraphed by some 400 years or so. King Henry himself is portrayed as a kind of medieval rock star, but the show holds together because of some decent ensemble acting.
Some members of the cast do more acting than others, though, and Sam Neil plays Cardinal Worsely as a cartoonishly obvious bad guy. He tries to make a genuinely bad character, but as far as villainy goes he doesn't come close to Michael Emerson on Lost.
One of the reasons I'm so eager to see season four is because I'm convinced that Ben Linus is one of the great modern TV villains. Emerson's refreshingly understated, amoral portrayal is a great contrast to some of the bombastic anti-heroes that have become fashionable lately.
While you always get the sense that these rule-breakers are basically good people, you never get that sense from Ben. The fact that the audience doesn't really know what his aims are, makes it all the more riveting as he mercilessly goes about achieving them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)