Reviews

Shows for "smart people" are pretty rare. First, really smart people don't watch television, which means I'm not that smart. So a "show for smart people" has to be tuned for "almost smart people," who aren't quite really smart because of laziness or lack of education or, sadly, because sometimes there's a hamster wheel but the hamster who really, really wanted to see what was at the top of the wheel died a long time ago.

This is a show about the son of a literary critic. That critic/father believes that criticism is the real measure of quality writing, of society even, implying that the much more sensible theory advanced in Ratatouille is wrong (pro tip: Ratatouille has the most accurate description of critics ever written). Pauline Kael would not believe that nonsense, and she was one of the best movie critics America has ever had the luck to enjoy reading.

If you believe the father/critic, you're probably a failed writer, teaching at some schlock community college because your lone attempt at a novel crashed and burned. That would be Hank.

What do we mean by "success"? Especially when our parents have been successful (one of the ingredients common to "smart people" though not required). We all know that 90% of TV shows, movies, music, paintings, sculptures, or any other artistic endeavor are just plain awful. Not just bad, but so bad that they may rip the fabric of space and time. These are Hank's students and colleagues.

Unfortunately, most bad artists have no idea that they are awful at their respective crafts. This is the basic premise set forth in the first 240 seconds of the show.

I am hopeful that the show will explore what is good art (the first example being the show itself one hopes), why people who make awful art have zero self-knowledge, whether they can improve their art (which is, at least in part, a technical skill that can be taught and can be learned), and mostly whether we are able to criticize ourselves accurately at all. I get the idea that maybe the show believes that even good artists are poor critics of their own art's worth, and that undervaluing art is at least as bad as overvaluing it. And definitely, an artist is much more valuable than a critic because a critic only reflects, while even a bad artist is a creator.

It's Scott Pilgrim meets The Matrix, with a dash of Konty Python thrown in just for fun. But it's also a meditation on family and finding your place in the world, AND it's a feel good movie on top of that, meaning that you'll want to call your Mom and tell her you love her.

I wanted to watch it again as soon as it ended.

To appreciate this show, one must understand irony. As demonstrated by Alanis Morissette in 1996, most people are completely unfamiliar with the concept. The ingenious twist of the show is that the dramatic irony is turned up a notch because the entire premise of the show is based on the complete lack of awareness by the characters of their own situation.

This is really two shows: a formulaic sitcom based on a stereotypical "Hollywood" version of a struggling middle-class couple, and a vicious documentary tearing apart the ridiculous assumptions behind that not-very-funny sitcom. But that is the actual humor of the show: it is funny because it is true, and that is the best kind of comedy, the kind I bet Aristotle wrote about in that lost volume. It is somewhat remarkable that feminists have not embraced the show, though as a guy, I do not claim to be one and I certainly would not want to tell them what to like.

The problem is that this show is much smarter than most viewers. The only people who do not love this show are the viewers who are just too stupid to appreciate its genius, and many people who would love this show are not big television watchers exactly because most television is too stupid to bear. Sadly, this scenario has played out before many times. See, e.g., Studio 60 or Sports Night (both by Aaron Sorkin), Pushing Daisies, Party Down, Deadwood, or, the mother of all botched cancellations, Firefly. If this show fails like these other great shows, it will have been a success simply by being made within a system that panders to the lowest common denominator.

The James Bond movies owe a great deal to The Avengers. First, Bond stole THREE actresses from the show to portray Bond women: Lois Maxwell, Honor Blackman, and of course, Dame Diana Rigg. Second, many of the spy tropes that are credited to Bond films were lifted from or inspired by The Avengers. Obviously, most of the credit for Bond is due to Ian Fleming, a spy himself, and one would assume The Avengers writers had read his books. So perhaps it's all a big happy virtuous cycle.

But The Avengers was also special enough that it became the very first British television show exported to the US, and became part of the British Invasion, a part and parcel of the style and sensibility of the mid-sixties here.

Do not underestimate this series. Immensely enjoyable!

The driving scenes aren't any better or more realistic than the foolishness in the fast and furious movies. You can't yell at other drivers, and everyone is trying to "out brake" (what they mean is "brake later than") everyone else on every turn. That's just part of driving a good lap. More time on the throttle and less time on the brakes means a faster lap.

The movie is stylish, good clothes, cool music, but there's a perfectly good documentary about the same events called "The 24-Hour War." All those people they talk about in this movie are actually IN the documentary. It's on Netflix. Hell, I had dinner with David Hobbs at the Chattanooga Motor Car Festival last fall, and I also saw Bill Elliott there. Those are real people who really risked their lives for the love of racing, not some actors playing at it.

If you prefer to see the Hollywood version of the world, that's your decision. But I prefer real life or real fiction. This "biopic" nonsense is merely the appearance of art depicting the appearance of reality. Some would say the shadows of reality seen on the wall of a cave. I love a good story as much as the next guy, but if it's real, I'd like to hear it from the guys who lived it, not someone (like me) who only wished he'd lived it.

No, it's not the same as the movie. Yes, the movie wasn't that great, but it looks like efficient writing and competent filmmaking compared to the show. The show's good moments are good, but basically it's an extended version of the movie with lots of irrelevant side stories and details that are completely unnecessary to tell the story.

1. Nicole Kidman's plastic surgeon deserves an Oscar. 2. There may be a CGI artist who also deserves an Oscar for making Nicole Kidman look ... not young, but younger. 3. Jason Momoa is a pretty good actor, and kept up with Patrick Wilson, Charles Beach, and Kidman. Dafoe was obviously the best, and Dolph Lungren was surprisingly good!

Special effects were good, but while technically marvelous, the director seemed to have put little thought or effort into making the effects coherent or supportive of the story.

And the story, well, that's the real problem. There were half-a-dozen stories crammed into this movie. Maybe a better writing team and director could have pulled it off, but this group of moviemakers wasn't up to the challenge. The audience was silent most of the movie. I was the only one who laughed at any of the jokes, and I laugh at anything. Well, there was one funny joke, but I won't spoil it.

Basically, it was pretty lame for 85% of the time, and while Momoa, Kidman, and Dafoe did rally around the reunion story, I don't think anyone cared much about the rest of the plot. Maybe they can pull off a Justice League movie if they hire Joss Whedon or one of the good Marvel directors.

It's a short, so all I will say is that you will remember this film forever. It is told with such love and the story is so effective because it is so universal. At the same time, it is very French, in the best possible way. As a child, you do not realize the love that your parents had for you, but as a parent, you understand that it does not matter whether your child understands, only that he or she feels that love. This is a love story in every way.

"I laughed; I cried; it was better than Cats."

Everyone seems to think this is some sort of timely drama about the Middle East. Don't be silly! This show has as much to do with the Middle East as Outsiders has to do with the Appalachians or Deadwood has to do with South Dakota. You know Friends was filmed in LA, right?

Nope, this show is yet another in a long line of shows seeking to replicate the magic of The Sopranos: the loving, dysfunctional family as a romantic, outlaw enterprise. Sons of Anarchy did a good job. Outsiders did a fairly poor job. This one is somewhere in between.

We have the family, obviously, containing the (at least) one requisite nut job. Can't actually have arrive psychopath on television (or in a movie) because then you wouldn't have any drama. No emotion = no drama. We have the (semi-) honorable family member trying to impose morality on the wealthy and privileged family living on its ill-gotten gains. We have at least one old curmudgeon trying to remind everyone of the "good old days." The good imitations have strong female characters trying to influence the men, who think it's a man's business. The poorer imitations have supposedly strong women, who are just paper tigers. It's all there in Tyrant.

Why ask more of the show? It's not going to tell you anything about the Middle East. That story has been going on for 5,000 years and no one has figured it out yet. Read a book or watch PBS if you want to learn something about it. This is simply a moderately good television show.

Enjoy it for what it is.

Who are the sourpuss hacks who don't think this is wonderful? It's a true story, it's Rodgers & Hammerstein, it's Julie Andrews. Anyone who doesn't rate it 10 out of 10 is probably not someone worth knowing, because they clearly don't enjoy anything. I'm really not sure what else here is to say.

I have no idea why there is a minimum length for a review. What is this, a junior high school book report? I've said what I wanted to say about the performance, the story (didn't want to reveal any spoilers as it is best enjoyed without prejudice), the actors, the songs, and everything else. If it's going to be an onerous task to write a review, I won't bother in future.