scglook Reviews

Black-ish (2014–2022)

Abandon preconceptions, give it a chance, and you won't be disappointed

[9/10 · 20 November 2014]

This series might not start off great, but it has certainly won me over. Despite its title, it doesn't make everything about race (in fact deals little with race at all), but instead skillfully and hilariously considers how self-identification and values change trans-generationally. I did not give the show a 10 star rating since it still needs a little work. It's already one of my favorites and I believe it has the potential to be a great family sitcom. I believe the lower rating it has received here has little to do with the quality of the show and more to do with human tendency to categorize and then refuse to see beyond preconceptions.

To tell the truth, I had also dismissed 'Black-ish' when I first heard about it, basing this rejection simply on the title and a very cursory glance at reactionary reviews. The racist in me had immediately lumped this show together with the likes of UPN classics 'Moesha' and 'Girlfriends', shows which I never cared much for. I was therefore pleasantly surprised after I watched the first episode on Hulu...and then the second, and then subsequently caught up with all the currently available episodes (seven at the time of this review) within a day.

First off, the cast grows on you quickly. Initially, the family seemed a little oddball in how it was put together. But that went away within an episode or two, when the family dynamic was a bit more apparent. The children are adorable and I finally appreciate how beautiful Tracee Ross is (I guess I was previously blinded by my profound crush on Persia White in 'Girlfriends'). Ross' portrayal of her character is refreshingly playful; I wouldn't have known she had it in her. The writers should probably have a consulting doctor, though. It annoys me, how unrealistic the portrayal of her profession is.

Anthony Anderson's lead character is not perfect, but is on its way up. The character had started off a little unrefined but I am fully confident the writers will make full use of Anderson's talent as the show progresses. But Laurence Fishburne as "Pops" has to be my favorite casting decision. Hopefully he won't be too busy to stop by every once in a while. Another notable side character that I must mention is Deon Cole's "Charlie". I'll just abbreviate by calling him hilarious.

Now, the controversy/hoopla surrounding the show. There are, of course, those who think that the show perpetuates stereotypes about black people, that it demeans them or tries to declare what attributes define "black culture". It doesn't help that even the title of the show brings those thoughts to the forefront of the mind. I'm not black, and therefore cannot say definitively that this show isn't offensive to any specific category of people. But I honestly feel that the writers are trying to do a good thing here. They do more to try to break stereotypes than disseminate them; and they manage to do this, for the most part, in clever ways that don't look too forced. I don't feel like I'm being asked to laugh at caricatures like with other sitcoms.

But critics might say, "Why do they even have to broach the subject of race? Why can't they be a successful family which happens to be black?" If the show didn't mention race at all, but instead chronicled the comedic hijinks of an affluent family (which happens to be black), and had a completely innocuous title, there would be critics up in arms about the show being ashamed/afraid of celebrating black culture. I don't think 'The Cosby Show' or 'Family Matters' work as rebuttals to that argument – those were products of a different era, one before the fracturing of network television and before relegation of "black interest" shows to pigeonholed networks.

Anyway, you can't please everybody. I'm happy to say that this show pleases me. The show makes me reflect on how my cultural and racial identity has shaped how I perceive myself and others. It definitely makes me think about how my upbringing and self-identity differs from that of my parents, and how my children's upbringing and self-identity will certainly differ from my own. So please don't put this show into a tiny box. It's not just for black people, or just for racist people, or just for poor people. If you give it a chance, I'm certain you will see its appeal.

Man of Steel (2013)

A decent summer blockbuster, but not for everyone

[5/10 · 27 June 2013]

This was a decent Superman reboot, definitely a worthwhile watch this summer. However, it requires that you go into the theater with your brain turned off. For the critical thinker, there are several moments where it is apparent how poorly thought out the plot was.

First of all, Zack Snyder did an excellent job, once again, making a visually pleasing film. Complete with Avatar-esque creatures, CGI resurrected a beautiful, but doomed, Krypton. Also, the casting was excellent, full of big names filling big roles. The only problem here is that the majority of these big roles were barely developed. The always beautiful Diane Lane was under-utilized as Martha Kent and you have to imagine that Laurence Fishburne's Perry White only showed face so he can reappear in the sequel. I believe that Henry Cavill can do justice to the role of Superman, but only if given the opportunity. Amy Adams was well-cast as Lois Lane, although the romance between her and Superman seems forced rather than organic. One thing that annoyed me about this film is that it substituted non-stop action (which lasted nearly 2/3 of the film) for character development. There were a few scenes of Clark's childhood in Kansas, and those glimpses into his formative years were well-done but all too brief.

And now on to my major gripe with the movie: plot. Spoilers abound ahead, so don't read on if you haven't seen the movie. First... Lois knows who Superman is from the get go? From the fairly obvious trail she followed to find out Superman's identity, I would guess that any kid with a toy magnifying glass out of a cereal box could figure out the truth. The citizens of Smallville, particularly those who heard about Clark's childhood actions (which I'm guessing would be everyone in a small town) would put 2 and 2 together once they see a very familiar looking Superman fighting in THEIR tiny town. Also, the fact that Lois knows Superman's identity kind of ruins (for potential sequels) the whole Lois-Clark vs. Lois-Superman relationships. How do we know that Lois has feelings for one separate from the other identity now? She's just another superhero groupie for all we know. This suggests that any sequels will likely follow the same formula as this movie: non-stop, mindless action for nearly the whole movie, with little-to-no character or relationship development scattered between.

Next is the whole throwing people into buildings bit. There must have been at least 40-50 houses/barns/restaurants/shops/skyscrapers that were torn apart by projectile aliens -- more than enough to trigger some 9/11 PTSD in this former NYC resident. Doesn't Superman realize that those buildings cost money, or that there are people inside/around them who will likely get hurt or killed when it gets destroyed? Why is he so hesitant at the end, then, to allow Zod another casualty? And that is the worst crime perpetrated in this movie. The issue is not so much that Superman kills someone (which is, indeed, extremely out-of-character). Instead, after killing Zod, Superman is extremely upset, but since Snyder hasn't really shown that killing is such a huge taboo for Superman, the casual viewer might be a bit confused. Was he screaming because he was because he realizes he's again the last Kryptonian, or out of relief because it's all over, or maybe because he finally thought about all the dead people in all those buildings? The Superman that I know would have been tortured by the high casualty count from the destruction of Metropolis, which would never have happened if not for his arrival on Earth. And he still would not have killed Zod with all that in mind. I'm not certain if Snyder has a darker path in mind for Superman in the sequels or if this just another oversight, but I'm willing to bet it's the latter. Other than this, the movie is plagued with weak dialogue and many more blunders.

Again, this movie will leave the viewer entertained. But Superman is more than just a means of entertainment, he is a cultural icon, a character that has so many complexities to explore. This movie was a decent enough start, but I hope sequels of this reboot do more than provide just violence and loud noises.