SPARTACUS: BLOOD AND SAND - season 1 (a review)

SPARTACUS: BLOOD AND SAND - season 1 (a review)

This is a new series on Starz (possibly their first original scripted series). It is basically a tv version of the movie GLADIATOR, only this time it is TV-MA with much more sex and violence.

The story: the Thracians are convinced to stand with Rome against the Getae, but then the Romans screw them by diverting their forces elsewhere. The Thracian convinces his forces to mutiny against Rome, but he is captured, his wife taken into slavery and he is sentenced to die in the gladiator arenas. Except he doesn't die -- he kills four gladiators and his life is spared. Seeing his skill, he is bought by Batiatus and taken to his ludus where Batiatus trains gladiators. Except Batiatus isn't wealthy and has debts. The rest of the series is about the Thracian's (who they call Spartacus even though that's not his name) rise in the arena and Batiatus' attemps to rise socially. Eventually though, the Thracian's wife is killed and he decides to throw off his role as gladiator to avenge her death.

First, yes, there is a lot of sex and violence. The series is TV-MA for good reason. But even beyond that (because I'm all for sex and violence on tv), this is a very good series. The first couple episodes are actually the most awkward, getting the characters to where they need to be -- i.e. the Thracian to the ludus where he begins to rise as a gladiator, and Batiatus and his wife scheming to use him and his success for their own advancement. Once they get rolling there is a lot of good stuff -- intrigue and double dealing with doses of action. In fact, my biggest complaint is that the season was too short AND that the finale is a big action bloodbath which killed off several characters I liked a lot. I felt like there was a lot more story that could have happened in the ludus with those character -- the backstabbing had only just begun! -- and after that finale there just won't be a chance to do that.

So why very good and not great? Hmmm, hard to say. One is that there aren't too many unexpected emotional moments. In terms of the intrigue and action the show works very well, but it doesn't have those little moments of depth that great shows have. And while the intrigue and double dealing is fun, they never seem to get to that other level -- the level where it isn't just fun to watch, but where it says something about us (the way season 3 of Buffy uses the Buffy/Faith storyline to examine choices and good vs evil).

Still, this is an easy recommend. I'd say it's the best new series I've seen since BURN NOTICE.

**** RECOMMEND ****

NOTE: sadly, after the first season was shot, the star of the series, Andy Whitfield, was diagnoses with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, so the seaosn season is delayed while he gets treatment. Luckily, it is early stage (much like the star of DEXTER had) and I hope he will make a fast and complete recovery.

BOOGIE WOOGIE (a review)

Yes, from the poster and the title and the fact is stars Heather Graham I assumed this was somehow related to BOOGIE NIGHTS and Heather Graham's Roller Girl character. And yes, I would watch any movie with more of Roller Girl. Instead, it's a movie about the art world. And it's by another movie by a first time director, Duncan Ward (IMDB actually lists another movie he directed, but it was back in 1989), so that adds a bit of worry to it. But the movie does have a heck of a cast, including Heather Graham, Amanda Seyfried, Stellan Skarsgård, Gillian Anderson, Christopher Lee, and Alan Cumming. So how is it?

The story: an ensemble piece that follows several characters around the London art scene. Most notably are characters trying to buy a rare masteriece (the Boogie Woogie), a galley assistant wants to strike out on her own, a collector and his wife get a divorce as she has an affair with a young artist, and a young girl meets several people on the art scene and realizes that while she is interested in art they are interested in sex.

Ensemble pieces are tough to make work. Ensemble satire is even tougher. It's worse with this movie because I don't know piss about the high end ($20MIL) art scene, so what exactly they are satirizing I have no idea. And since there isn't a clear focus -- either plot-wise or thematically -- the whole thing feels like we are just watching a lot of people wandering around. The most common thread of all the characters is the sale of this rare painting, but even that was pretty empty. If it's a real painting I've never heard of it and it never is really explained why getting it would be so important, other than the idea that it's worth a lot of money. And the others, while their stories have certains arcs the WHY of it all -- why is their story worth telling, what's the impact on me supposed to be -- I have no clue.

I like the actors, but seriously you could have just filmed them eating dinner together, talking about random crap and it probably would have been more entertaining. None of the characters were likable. None of the stories were compelling.

*** PASS ****

(coming soon)

LET THE GAME BEGIN (a review)

LET THE GAME BEGIN (a review)

This movie was written and directed by Amit Gupta, the first movie he has written or directed. It stars Thomas Ian Nicholas (from the original American Pie movies) as Tripp and featuring Michael Madsen, Natasha Henstridge, Stephen Baldwin, Diora Baird, which is about as weird of a grouping as any movie I could imagine. First movies -- especially writer/director first movies -- are always...um...interesting. So let's get to it.

The story: Tripp is an ordinary schmuck of a married man with a good business idea. He partners up with a couple people to try to sell his idea, but he can't get any investors interested. Then, when talking to his friend who knows how to pick up women, Tripp realizes that getting investors is like picking up women and if he learned to pick up women he could apply that to his business and get investors. But when he finally gets investors and builds the business, his marriage falls apart and he has to try more tricks to keep his wife from getting everything.

Yikes. This really is two totally different movies. The first half has a nice premise -- the parallel of getting people to go into business with you (investors), like trying to pick up girls at a bar. And for the most part that plays out okay. A little too predictable and a little too one sided (once he starts learning to pick up girls, we stay on that for a long time, so you don't see the progression of his trying to sell. But then you hit the middle of the film and everything flips around, but in a way that makes no sense. Almost out of the blue Tripp wants to divorce his wife, which is weirder since she just had his child. But then she wants to divorce him first and the rest of the movie is about who is having an affair and child support or custody or something. I don't know. By that point everything was floundering. Movies stay focused by keeping clear two things -- what does the protagonist want and why can't he get it. The first half we know what he wants -- to get investors. In the second half...I don't know. He wants a divorce, but she wants a divorce too so that isn't a problem. He wants to sell the company, but that isn't a problem. He wants partial custody of the child, but there's nothing about what fatherhood means to him. Certainly it didn't mean enough to try to work things out with his ex-. There's something about him or his wife having an affair, but so what? I guess the idea is that if he were having an affair he would lose everything or be denied partial custody of his child, but where the hell is that true? Certainly not in California.

So while there is a decent idea in here, and the first half is okay, the whole thing falls apart after midpoint when the story takes a huge turn and then just wanders in a way that didn't make sense to me at all. If the second half had been cohesive I couldn't at least given it a partial recommend, especially for people that like SWINGERS or WEDDING SINGER (although even the first half isn't really in the same league as them), but with that second half...yikes.

*** PASS ****

Gordon Hayward officially off to the NBA

Gordon Hayward, the best player on the Butler team that made that amazing run to the NCAA Finals has stated he is not returning for his junior year and will stay in the NBA draft. He had previously declared for the draft, but had not signed an agent allowing for the possibility of a return to the team that he led to within one basket of an NCAA title. Now it's official -- he is outta here! That puts a big hurt on Butler's chance to win the NCAA next year (or to be preseason #1, which they would have had a shot at had Hayward returned). It also takes a bit away from the Duke-Butler game set for December of next season. Still, Duke lost three starters, so Butler losing Hayward just makes it fair, right?

Good luck, Gordon Hayward. It was great (and scary) watching you in the tournament (but not against Duke) and I hope you have great success at the next level.

--Paul

CHLOE (a review)

CHLOE (a review)

This is the movie by Canadian director Atom Egoyan, a sexy drama-thriller starring Julianne Moore, Liam Neeson and Amanda Seyfried. It continues Egoyan's dark exploration of sex and obsession from movies like THE SWEET HEREAFTER and the twisted-but-great EXOTICA.

The story: Catherine (Julianne Moore) thinks her husband (Liam Neeson) so she hires an escort (Amanda Seyfried) to test him. The escort tells her that her husband did in fact pick her up. As she tells Catherine each story of what is happening between her and Catherine's husband, the two begin to become closer with Catherine leaning on her as her marriage falls apart. Catherine tries to stop it, but by then the woman has become obessed with her and her family and it is too late to just stop.

It's a neat little thriller idea that doesn't quite play like a thriller. A movie like FATAL ATTRACTION sets up the Glenn Close vs Michael Douglas situation by about 25 minutes in and then we watch the fireworks from there. This movie plays it slow, almost like a seduction itself, focusing as much on the story of Catherine and her husband and their marraige as what is going on with the escort's growing obsession with her and her family.

For the most part, the movie works. It is in turns sexy and disturbing, as a good sexy thriller should be. One problem of it's slower pace is that when things do come to a head at the end it is pretty sudden and doesn't have the fully build. A bigger problem is that it feels more like a light version of the movie that it should be. For a twisted movie about family and seduction, it doesn't nearly push things far enough or get enough out of the what is there. For instance (***SPOILER***), the escort's obsession carries so far that she seduces Catherine's son, but that happens so late and has so little effect on anything. It seems to have no impact between Catherine and her son, which is already strained, and it doesn't really seem to accelerate things between the escort and Catherine is a way that couldn't have been done without it.

Still, there is a lot to like here. It's hard to go wrong with Julianne Moore and Liam Neeson, and the portrayal of the marriage that is having problems and the twisted relationship with the escort are some interesting stuff. It's just a shame Egoyan didn't work harder to push the material and shape it stronger so it could work fully as either a drama or good thriller.

*** RECOMMEND (as a twisted drama/thriller) ***

Dec 4, 2010 -- Duke vs Butler part 2

It's official -- Duke will play Butler in an (almost) rematch of the national championship game from last season on Dec 4, 2010 at Izod Center in East Rutherford, N.J. I say almost because the teams will be different, especially Duke which lost three starters -- Scheyer, Thomas and Zubeck. Butler will also be a different team, especially if Gordon Haywood, who has declared for the draft but not signed with an agent, does go pro. But either way, these teams will be highly ranked and favored to get back to the final four and a December match-up will be AWESOME!!!!

Go DUKE!

2010-2011 -- back to back, baby!

CLASH OF THE TITANS (2010) (a review)...and the original one too!

CLASH OF THE TITANS (2010) (a review)

Wow, they're remaking everything aren't they? Now I remember seeing the original COTT when I was a kid and loving it. It had everything a young 12-or-so year old could want -- action, monsters, mythology, and boobs. It was the perfect film. Then I went back and rewatched it again as an adult. What a mess. It's such a weird, convoluted, mix-match of stories that it barely makes any sense at all, epsecially if you know the original myths and are trying to keep track of what fits and what doesn't. But it did still have some charm. The stop motion animation was both wonderful and cheesy. The monsters were still fun monsters. And while it didn't have any of that annoying glib tongue-in-cheek dialog, it didn't seem to take itself too seriously. It was meant to be fun. (And I mentioned the boobs, right?)

So how was the remake? It sucked.

The story: first we are told about how three gods battled the titans long ago. Hades created the Kraken which defeated the titans, but then Zeus tricked him into ruling the underworld (and water, I think) while Zeus ruled the land to worship him, which would give him power. Hades learned another way to get power -- through human's fearing him. Much, much later, a baby is pulled from the sea (with his dead mother, maybe?) and raised by fisherman. Then while they are fishing they see soldiers destroying a statue to Zeus. Hades comes up and destroys the soldiers and then destroys Perseus' fishing boat, killing his entire family. The soldiers take Perseus back to the king and at a feast the king compares his daughter to the god Andromeda. The gods don't like this and Hades kills all the soldiers, but not Perseus, revealing he is a demi-god. Then Hades says he will destroy the people unless they sacrifice the daughter to the Kraken. We hear Perseus' backstory -- Zeus tricked his mother into sleeping with him as punishment for his father doing something -- and then Perseus agrees to try to stop the Kraken. Hades tries to stop him, but Perseus finds a sword and a winged horse to help him. Eventually he learns he needs the head of medusa as that is the only thing that will kill the Kraken, so he and the soldiers set out to do that before the Kraken arrives and kills the king's daughter. Persues pervails. The Kraken is defeated. Hades is sent back to the underworld. Perseus tells his father he would rather be mortal than a god. Zeus gives the princess to Perseus. The End.

Um, okay...what the hell happened? No, seriously, I just watched the movie and wrote the synopsis and I still don't understand it. Now if you want to turn your brain off completely and listen to music while you just watch the pretty pictures on the screen, then it's something with gods, fighting, Kraken will kill the princess, journey, need to get the head of medusa, kill the Kraken, happy ending. But if you want a STORY, if you want something other than random action and lots of CGI, then what the F*%*$#&$ just happened???? It is so convoluted and backwards and nothing really ties together and it all feels completely random.

Now maybe this is to be expected. (Maybe???) I mean, most of the time when they are doing these remakes they gut the original and totally screw everything up, so if the original movie was a bit of a mess, then the remake is going to ten times as fugly. But it's still disappointing. I mean, doesn't anyone want to tell a STORY anymore?

So what happened in the original?

CLASH OF THE TITANS (1981)

The story (1981): two gods, Zeus and Thetis, have children they love. But Thetis' child is cruel and kills things, including Zeus' winged horses. As punishment Zeus curses him and turns him into a horribly disfigured creature and banishes him. Theits in turn curses the princess so that a suitor has to answer a riddle or be killed. Perseus hears of this curse and one night follows the princess into the swamp where she meets Thetis' disfigured son. Perseus fights him, cutting off his hand. The next day Perseus presents as a suitor and answers the riddle with the hand of Thetis' son (his ring was the answer). Perseus and the princess set to marry. But Thetis's son wants revenge. Thetis cannot punish Perseus, but she can destroy the princess and the city. At the wedding someone compares the princess's beauty to Thetis and in turn Thetis demonds the princess be sacrificed to the Kraken. Now Perseus sets off to find a way to save the princess, which will involved killing medusa and using her head to turn the Kraken to stone...

Now, there are problems with that story -- it's especially convoluted -- but at the heart it is pretty simple and makes sense. Two gods love their sons, but their sons will come in conflict and as one god punishes the others son, the other god will try to punish the first son. Additionally, there is a love triangle among the mortals, with Persus falling for the princess (the ex- of the other son) and then having to take a dangerous journey to save her.

Compare that to he remake where the basic story is...I have no idea. He still sets out to defeat the Kraken, but I'm not even sure why the Kraken is set loose anyway. It has to do with people worshiping or not worshiping or fearing or something? I don't know. at no point did I feel like the story in the remake made sense. And the CGI was crap. Medusa was LAME and the Kraken was so generic it was boring too. I wasn't expecting a masterpiece, but I thought they'd come up with a decent, simple story and then have some fun monsters and cool action. Instead...

It was crap.

*** (the remake) -- AVOID and then AVOID again ****

*** (the orignal 1981 film) -- maybe see if you like mythology and monsters ****