iowane Reviews

Leverage (2008–2012)

Somewhat entertaining at start, but wears thin quickly

[3/10 · 2 February 2011]

I love the premise of this show. Then again, one of my favorite shows of the past decade or so was the all-too-quickly-canceled Firefly, and this show has a bit in common with that thematically speaking. To be specific, it deals with people doing the "right thing" in an extra-legal way, so to speak.

But that is where the similarity ends. The aspects of Firefly that made it (in my opinion) great TV are all turned around here to make this very lackluster TV. For example, the crew of Firefly lived in a morally ambiguous territory. Their goal was to simply stay alive and free. Pursuit of that goal lead them into situations in which they had to make a choice. To get what they wanted, they would be required to take from someone else who needed. That was the overarching moral dilemma in that show: is it alright to take from someone else in need to fulfill your own needs? So in short, Firefly presented everyday reality/morality for most people in a fantasy environment.

On the other hand, the cast of Leverage doesn't really face moral dilemmas. Instead, they are like superheros who only do for others with almost no thought of their own welfare. They aren't in need, they are rich. Being rich and without need, they are boring.

And they are superheros in this show, with all of the teenage fantasy ideas that come along with that. The computer guy has access to anything digital he needs without a bead of sweat; the fighter can dispatch anyone of any size without even getting his hair mussed; the thief can go anywhere she likes without even coming close to being detected; and the grifter, despite being the worst actress anyone has ever seen on the stage, never comes close to being discovered when she is on the con.

All in all, this show seems like a great modern Robin Hood premise that was knocked out by some 13 year-old kids who thought it would be really cool to be high tech superheros and stick it to the man. And it would be kind of cool, admittedly...but it isn't very interesting to watch.

Not to go political...well yes, to go political...this show is really emblematic of U.S. political, moral and philosophical thought. Things are black and white, good and bad. There are those who are powerful and those who are not, and what we are all waiting for is a savior. There is none of the reality of life here--that what we are all faced with is our own limited resources, getting by as best we can. Fantasizing about a savior is fun for a minute or two, but I find it far more interesting to explore real life, even in a fantasy scenario, and the moral/ethical/political/philosophical dilemmas we are faced with in real life.

Unfortunately, this show is none of that. It begins and ends with the savior fantasy. Yawn!

Little Dorrit (2008)

Wow...just, wow!

[10/10 · 24 January 2011]

Generally the BBC adaptation of Dickens are great, but this was just something more. Not only is this a great story, parts of which could have been ripped from recent financial headlines, but the script, cast and direction were pretty much flawless from beginning to end. And did I mention the cinematography?

The plan was to watch the 4 disc set over several days. That didn't quite work out. The second day became a marathon viewing session. All of us watching kept calling out for the next installment as soon as the previous one came to an end. It had it all: love story, social commentary, great characters, and a mystery that isn't solved until the very end. I won't say what that is. In a way, it is incidental to the story. It will keep you guessing, but it is not really the point.

Get it and watch it. You won't be disappointed.

National Treasure: Book of Secrets (2007)

I want those 2 hours back!!

[1/10 · 12 January 2008]

Let me start by saying I loved the Indiana Jones series. At its very worst it was still a really enjoyable ride. I didn't see the first National Treasure, so I thought I'd check this one out. Oh man, was I sorry I'd wasted the time.

Let's leave aside the fact that Nicholas Cage should not be doing this kind of role. I don't think anyone could have made this awful script work, including Harrison Ford in his Indiana Jones prime. This is, as a matter of fact, probably the first film featuring Ed Harris that I didn't like. Wait, did I say, "didn't like?" I HATED IT!! There wasn't even a hint of real suspense. The Cage character never once showed that he might actually be working at anything. Like an adolescent fantasy, he simply figures out every last little clue, no matter how obscure, in a matter of a minute or so.

Here is the spoiler, which pretty much sums up the absolute stupidity of this movie for me. After wending his way, with all his costars, through the Black Mountains to find a lost Aztec city of gold (and I can't for the life of me understand why an Aztec city is in a mountain in North America!) spending a good deal of his time immersed in water, he gets out and makes a cell phone call! Good God, I want to know where he got a cell phone that could spend that much time under water and still work!! The movie did have this going for it. I have seen some really bad movies and still found something to recommend them. This was the first movie in a long time that actually left me feeling embarrassed for being in the theater.

V for Vendetta (2005)

Hope that we might awaken

[10/10 · 3 November 2007]

The fact is that no matter what you might think of this adaptation of the graphic novel or the methods used by V to achieve his ends, the production values (extremely high!) or the acting, what it tells us about ourselves and where we are currently heading makes it an absolutely worthwhile film to watch.

The film takes place in a dystopian future that is very nearly the present for much of what is still known as the "free world." Wars and disease had shocked people into submission and a power hungry dictator filled the gap in their minds with mock security and peace. Sound familiar? Endless war, countless diseases, the fear of the terrorist under the bed? The film is hardly novel in its portrayal of a dystopian future. This same future was envisioned by Orwell and Kafka, in the film Brazil and by countless others. What is unique to V for Vendetta is the hope it provides amidst such a bleakly accurate portrayal of crumbling humanity.

In case you haven't seen the film, I won't give the ending away. In fact, it isn't precisely the ending of the film that lends the note of home, anyway. For me, this hope comes from hearing someone else say the truth in a meaningful way, allowing for the possibility that others will hear it and something will be sparked within them.

As V puts it in the film: "Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor, Adam Sutler. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent." That dystopian future is our immediate future. WATCH THIS FILM. Open your eyes and decide if this is the future you really want for yourself. Stop giving your silent, obedient consent to suppression of your humanity.

Signs (2002)

I'd looked forward to this film

[1/10 · 8 August 2002]

Let me start by saying that I really enjoyed "Sixth Sense" and had high hopes for M. as a filmmaker. I also loved "The Fast Runner" so I obviously have no problem with slow-paced films. I thought Spielberg's "Close Encounters" was some of his best work, so there should be no doubt that I have no problem with the theme of alien abduction/invasion. And, yes, I generally enjoy Mel Gibson. Though I don't think he is necessarily a great actor, he definitely has enjoyable screen presence and I've seen him nail some scenes (Danny Glover seemed to bring out the best in him).

That said, let me also say, "M. what were you thinking?" Actually, I think I know what you were thinking. You were thinking, "Everybody loves me and tells me I'm the next Spielberg, so it must be true." Ego, my boy, is the surest way I know to create bad film...and this was (in my opinion, mind you) truly bad film. And no, you can't really hide the fact that you have your ego rather heavily invested in everyone else thinking you are the next Spielberg when you use the LARGEST TYPEFACE in all of your credits for the one immediately following the fade out that read, AN M. NIGHT SHYAMALAN FILM...just in case we had forgotten. There is also that matter of placing yourself in front of the camera as the veterinarian who had killed the wife, showing us all how well you can emote...which ain't so much. Keeping your head down and looking remorseful does not constitute acting.

Honestly, M., were you making a sly spoof of the genre or were you just incompetently ripping off the films that influenced you? Did you think it was clever to only show the alien in soft focus? Can you really imagine that a family that has locked itself in the basement away from a bunch of hostile aliens would simply turn off their flashlights and go to sleep? Do you think anyone would be able to sleep if they thought the end of the world was at hand?! One more...and be honest about this...did you really just make this movie to sucker us all into the theatre on the pretext of seeing a fun, scary film only to pull the old bait-and-switch routine with your particular religious hysteria? I suspect you've been reading a bit of Deepak Chopra, judging by the sudden introduction of the synchronicity theme at the end (Mel Gibson chanting, "There are no coincidences, there are no coincidences"). What did that have to do with anything? I can think of no explanation than that you had in mind the whole time to razzle-dazzle us with alien-created crop circles (which you, inexplicably, decided to rename crop "signs") only to sucker punch us with a simplistic and bland pseudo-spirituality at the end. The whole thing reminded me of a Scientology pitch.

Wait a minute...is M a Scientologist? That could explain a lot. For example, it could explain why he threw in the crackpot writer on aliens who is really the one who knows what is going on. Come to think of it, there is even a bit of naming pattern evident here: L. Ron Hubbard / M. Night Shyamalan. Hmmm... Though really, did we need a kid reading a book to tell us that if the aliens are hostile there are one of two possible outcomes--they win or we win? That's usually the case in those situations. Even "Independence Day" paid the courtesy to our collective intelligence to assume that we would figure that out for ourselves. Just because Mel Gibson's character had lost his faith doesn't mean he had turned into an imbecile, too. Worse, you seem to think your audience is stupid. Well, I was stupid enough to pay to see the movie...but I won't be stupid enough to see another picture that includes the overblown (literally and figuratively) title: AN M. NIGHT SHYAMALAN FILM. For this I thank you: you've saved me about ten bucks in the future.

Who Is Cletis Tout? (2001)

Potentially funny...but not

[2/10 · 5 August 2002]

I normally wouldn't even write about a movie I didn't like, but this missed the boat in so many respects, leaving me feeling so disappointed, that I feel compelled to share my thoughts. This film fell down in nearly every respect. What began as a potentially funny hook (the hit man/movie buff) became a crutch used to artificially move the story along. The music was trivial and, at times, laughable. The editor didn't seem to even understand the point of the movie and in a rush to just end it as the sound at FADE OUT (emblematic of the overall editing problem) just dropped as if the editor just couldn't wait to see the thing end. I even have to wonder if the director understood what the movie was about, particularly distressing in this case as the director wrote the script! Though I'm not a big fan of either Christian Slater or Richard Dreyfus, I have to say that they did their jobs and were just fine...which didn't matter because there was no real movie for them to act in.

Worst moments: the fairly direct rip-off of Pulp Fiction by wrapping back around from beginning to end with two somewhat comical criminals having a discussion in a diner, and Tim Allen trying to play the part of the producer listening to a pitch while having no timing for such dialog.

Too bad, I was hoping for at least something that would have me leaving the theatre chuckling.