The only current prime time shows that I watch regularly are Survivor and The Amazing Race. (Chuck will not be back until next year.) However, my feelings towards the shows are decidedly different.
Survivor is a great idea which I don't think has been executed particularly well the past few seasons. The Amazing Race, on the other hand is a great idea with great execution. In a nutshell, that's why The Amazing Race has won every Emmy for Competitive Reality Show.
The Amazing Race is three legs into this season, and that's a good thing. The casting has moved away from the model/actors on too many reality shows and cast people from other walks of life. Theis season is filled with people I find interesting, whether it's the father/son team from Montana who work together very well, even though the son has dyed red hair and many tattoos, or simply two Harlem Globetrotters.
There are two reasons the show works. First of all, the teams teams of two are friends/family members, and is fascinating to watch how existing relationships change over the race, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. Second, this is not a show that rewards bad behavior. It's about the race. Do the teams sometimes interact well? Yes. But that does not determine the outcome. The fastest team wins.
Unfortunately, Survivor seems to be more and more about the bad behavior. Sure, the show's first winner was Richard Hatch, who has shown off his share of bad behavior. But he was all about gameplay, and he created the bluprint most of the players still use. He was interesting because of the gameplay.
Last season, the season was all about "Coach", a self-important doofus who hung around long on the show not because of his great gameplay but because, being a fool, he was easy for the group dominating the game to manipulate. Yet it basically became the Coach show, with soooo much focus on him that it threw the whole season out of whack. The three who drove the game, Taj, Stephen, and winner JT, were each far more interesting players and people, but some of the key moments were missing from the show.
They are doing it again. It's the Russell show this season. Ironically, Russell may be a better player than Coach, but I have a hard time understaning how destroying your tribe helps you. But the show has spent so much time with him that I can't name half the players on the other tribe after three episodes (the other Russell, Yasmin, Shambo, and ... 7 over guys). What's the game strategy? We know what Russell is doing, but who else?
Besides the questionable editing, the casting is getting worse. A couple of years ago, the casting was heavily minority, and that season including the best one-two punch ever, Yul and Ozzy. Instead of getting the hint that more normal people and more diversity was the way to go, the producers seemed to believe the disgusting behavior of Adam that season was what people loved. That, and more eye candy, and less strategy.
Would I have casted Russell this seaon? yes, actually. He's there to play. But he needed better foils. And there's no excuse for the casting of this racist jerk named Ben. I will admit, seeing him dropkicked by a unaminous vote this week was satisfying, as Jaison put Ben in his place at tribal, but couldn't have casting have picked up that he should not have been on the show in the first place.
So survivor, quit looking for pretty models. Quit casting for villains. Put normal people, see how they handle a tough situation, and allow me to enjoy this game. Look to The Amazing Race, and try to follow their example.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Zombieland delivers as advertised
One of my favorite reviews in Leonard Maltin's movie book is the one for Scooby Doo 2: "It is what it is." Of course, that's meant in a negative context, but the same comment could be used to review Zombieland in a positive context.
This has been one of the best marketed films of the year. The trailer was funny, and did a good job of setting up the concept: a comedy about surviving a zombie occupied world. The trailer showed many funny gags from the film but most of them are from the first few minutes, leading the film to be mostly unspoiled, other than the existance of the four major characters and that the finale takes place in an amusement park.
Jesse Eisenberg is the narrator of the film, and the film derives much of its humor from his zombie rules of survival. The first sequence demonstrates some of those rules visually, such as "Cardio," as he basically outruns two zombies. A lot of Eisenberg's survival involves avoiding rather than confronting the zombies.
Which is exactly opposite of the approach of the first human he meets in the film, played by Woody Harrelson. Harrelson's character is very much the destroy all zombies attitude. So the conflict driving the comedy is not just how the characters approach the zombies, but each other. Both do recognize the dangers of getting to attached in such a dangerous world, so we never learn the characters' names. Instead they are dubbed by their hometowns, so Harrelson is "Tallahassee" and Eisenberg is "Columbus".
Before the amusement park climax, they will meet up with sisers played by Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin, who are dubbed repectively Wichita and Little Rock, and a very funny star cameo I will not reveal here (although to say I am not referring to the Mike White brief appearance).
The four human leads play their roles straight, letting the humor of the script develop in a natural way. Playing the film as a "comedy" would not have worked here. Credit goes to director Ruben Fleischer for finding the right pitch to play the film.
Is it a great film? Not really. It is a bit short, and does have a couple of lagging patches. But for me, the film has a laugh ratio well into the recommend level. If gross effects distract you or the concept disgusts you, this isn't your film. But if the trailer or the concept has you interested, by all means check it out.
It is what it is.
Grade: B+
This has been one of the best marketed films of the year. The trailer was funny, and did a good job of setting up the concept: a comedy about surviving a zombie occupied world. The trailer showed many funny gags from the film but most of them are from the first few minutes, leading the film to be mostly unspoiled, other than the existance of the four major characters and that the finale takes place in an amusement park.
Jesse Eisenberg is the narrator of the film, and the film derives much of its humor from his zombie rules of survival. The first sequence demonstrates some of those rules visually, such as "Cardio," as he basically outruns two zombies. A lot of Eisenberg's survival involves avoiding rather than confronting the zombies.
Which is exactly opposite of the approach of the first human he meets in the film, played by Woody Harrelson. Harrelson's character is very much the destroy all zombies attitude. So the conflict driving the comedy is not just how the characters approach the zombies, but each other. Both do recognize the dangers of getting to attached in such a dangerous world, so we never learn the characters' names. Instead they are dubbed by their hometowns, so Harrelson is "Tallahassee" and Eisenberg is "Columbus".
Before the amusement park climax, they will meet up with sisers played by Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin, who are dubbed repectively Wichita and Little Rock, and a very funny star cameo I will not reveal here (although to say I am not referring to the Mike White brief appearance).
The four human leads play their roles straight, letting the humor of the script develop in a natural way. Playing the film as a "comedy" would not have worked here. Credit goes to director Ruben Fleischer for finding the right pitch to play the film.
Is it a great film? Not really. It is a bit short, and does have a couple of lagging patches. But for me, the film has a laugh ratio well into the recommend level. If gross effects distract you or the concept disgusts you, this isn't your film. But if the trailer or the concept has you interested, by all means check it out.
It is what it is.
Grade: B+
The wrong week
What was I thinking! This was the wrong time for me to try to start a blog. It's not that my daughter's volleyball season is coming to an end, or that my son's soccer season has a month to go, or that my other son's bowling season just started. And it's not that I haven't been doing regular writing for ten years, so I am a bit rusty.
My idea was to watch movies regularly, but I did not realize that wasn't the week for that. Because this is the week that PBS ran a 12 1/2 hour documentary on the National Parks, and I watched it. That chewed up most of my time.
I wanted to get started this month, but this may have been the wrong week. So I'm already in catch up mode. I've seen two movies this week, one (cough) mini-series, and had three other posts I want to make. I'll see how many of the six I can get up today.
Edited to add: This week doesn't bode well either, as my favorite sports team is the St. Louis Cardinals, they made the playoffs this year, and the playoffs start this Wednesday.
My idea was to watch movies regularly, but I did not realize that wasn't the week for that. Because this is the week that PBS ran a 12 1/2 hour documentary on the National Parks, and I watched it. That chewed up most of my time.
I wanted to get started this month, but this may have been the wrong week. So I'm already in catch up mode. I've seen two movies this week, one (cough) mini-series, and had three other posts I want to make. I'll see how many of the six I can get up today.
Edited to add: This week doesn't bode well either, as my favorite sports team is the St. Louis Cardinals, they made the playoffs this year, and the playoffs start this Wednesday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
