List O’ Rama: Julian’s Ongoing Ranking of HBO Shows

Random, yes, but also appropriate.  With a few notable exceptions (Lost is NOT one of them) network television is bizarrely, stupefyingly bad. To catch something worth watching on TV, one has to turn to the premium channels–or at least cable.  That being said, I’ve decided to rank the major shows HBO has produced since it turned its attention to original programming in the late 90’s.  The list will grow as I watch more shows, with the rankings likely to slide around a bit as well. 

Oh, and Lost fans: that scary monster’s made of smoke.  Smoke.

1. Six Feet Under- Alan Ball followed up on the success of American Beauty by writing a show called Oh, Grow Up…which nobody watched. After that, he went a slightly more serious route and came up with this show, a brilliant blend of well-shaded characterization, mordant humor, and potent drama.  Centering on a family who lives amongst the dead (they run a funeral home), the show deftly captures the dynamics of human interaction at numerous levels, from the family unit to relationships both heteronormative and otherwise.  The excellent central cast are supported by standouts like Ben Foster, Patricia Clarkson, and Lily Taylor in long-term arcs.  On the whole, the show distinguishes itself as one of the most mature and nuanced pieces of television I’ve ever seen.

Progress: Beginning of Season Three

2. Carnivale-As a Twin Peaks fan, the sight of “The Man From Another Place” (Michael J. Anderson) a few minutes into Carnivale’s pilot hooked me from the get-go. The bizarre story, freak-show characters, and ominous religious overtones kept me interested for the length of the show’s two-season run.  Things do get a little slow at times, and the knotty surrealism may be a turn-off for some, but the show’s dark revelations make it more than worthwhile to see it through to the end.

Progress: Complete (both seasons, though the show was originally scheduled to be six seasons in total)

3. Entourage-People call it Sex in the City in Hollywood, or Sex in the City for guys–which probably means I should watch Sex and the City and see if either is a valid comparison. But since I haven’t, this stupid but strangely endearing show serves as an enjoyable guilty pleasure.

Progress: Season One only

4. Rome-Speaking of stupid, who decided that Romans should talk with a random accent that’s one part British, one part American, and one part mannered theater student?  This two-season series (like Carnivale, cut off before its conclusion due to budget conflicts) is definitely a mixed bag, with storylines and characters (namely, the legionnaires) generating a great deal of interest and others (the overarching political conflict) falling awfully flat.  Ciaran Hinds as Caesar possesses an anti-charisma that makes one ache for the moment Brutus will plunge his treacherous dagger into the warlord’s Roman hide.  Still, the show’s more than enough fun to be worth watching for the length of its rather abbreviated run.

Progress: Halfway through season one

5.The Sopranos-I know it revolutionized the gangster genre, and is a psychological masterwork, and is supposed to be every critic’s darling.  The problem is, try as I might, I just can’t give a shit.

Progress: First two seasons (which will be it)

6. Curb Your Enthusiasm-Seinfeld plus the ability to swear and have a lot of sex jokes, minus Kramer, Elaine, and you know, Seinfeld.  Not horrible, but doesn’t do anything for me.

Progress: First half of the first season (and that’s it)

7.  Da Ali G Show-I liked Borat about half as much as the next guy, but this is just bad.  Really bad.  The Daily Show and Colbert Report handle political figures with more subtlety; sketch comedy involving gay fashion designers is never funny.  I tried watching this with my sister and awkwardness ensued.

Progress: first four episodes (and that’s it)

Currently Watching: Halfway through season one of Rome, just started season three of Six Feet Under.

On Deck: Season one of Deadwood, season two of Entourage.

 

Check Out: Cat People (1942)

Cat People, directed by Jacques Tourneur, USA, 1942. Review by Julian 4/10/08.

I once told a friend that the essence of film noir could be explained with one word: shadow.  There are of course the shadows that can be seen: the silhouettes cast by streetlights, the bars of a jail cell scarring an inmate’s face, the crook of a bannister or other innocuous object turned sinister by a play of the light.  But more importantly are the internal shadows, the secrets and desires and burning frustrations that inhabit the characters of film noir, propelling them across the screen with the fury and drama that make the genre (or cycle, or mode, or series–whatever you want to call it) a personal favorite of mine.

The shadows that lie at the heart of noir often crop up in strange places: in Westerns like High Noon, science fiction epics like Blade Runner, even comedies like Arsenic and Old Lace. In Cat People, a B-movie unfairly marketed to the horror crowd, noir doesn’t have very far to travel. The film follows Irena (Simone Simon), a troubled Serbian immigrant who falls in love with American Oliver Reed (Kent Smith) but can’t quite shake the superstitions of her homeland.  

One of the now-appreciated collaborations between producer Val Lewton and director Jacques Tourneur at RKO Radio Pictures, the film is a masterpiece of low-budget filmmaking.  DeWitt Bodeen’s script exploits universal themes while propagating a psychological viewpoint that is all the more charming for its slightly dated simplicity. The film is, above all else, psychological, deftly uncovering the various characters’ neuroses at a gradual pace that is all the more impressive given the film’s 73-minute runtime.  

Tourneur’s visuals are likewise a treat. Shadows fill every corner, lurk behind every lamppost, and, in arguably the film’s most effective scene, swim through the darkened waves of an indoor pool. The film makes no attempt to startle, or to overwhelm its audience with pathos or gore. It’s just a subtle, masterful reminder that the greatest fears man can know lie in the realm of the unseen.

Review: “The Ruins”

The Ruins, directed by Carter Smith, USA 2008 Reviewed by James 4/7/08

So four teenagers walk into a bar… and get brutally murdered. It’s an old joke. This time the bar is a ruined temple in Mexico. They are lead there by a German guy, whose looking for his brother. The temple is covered with this weird plant. The teenagers get there and accosted by gun-toting Mayans. The Mayans drive them up into the Temple and shoot anyone who tries to leave.

The plants kill people. That much is in the previews, but I won’t say too much more. The movie has some real horror to it, and it all stems from the nature of the plants. I can’t remember any recent horror movie moment that filled me with as much dread as one particular revelation in this one. You’ll know what I’m talking about it when you see it.

I did not really care at all about the teenagers. They’re Jena Malone, Ice Man from the X-Men, a girl who gets naked briefly and gratuitously, beautiful as she is, and a guy who develops a speech impediment halfway through the movie. They are pretty typical white human teenagers. Go to Penn State you get used to these kinds of people pretty quick. The movie spends some perfunctory scenes establishing them. Yes, they are human and they need to be loved, just like everybody else does. But instead they are killed by plants.

The ending is really bad. Very abrupt, anticlimatic, and unsatisfying. The writer, Scott Smith, adapting his own novel, couldn’t think of anywhere to go after he exhausted all his horrific plant imagery. So whiz, bang, boom, everyone save one is killed, and quick cut to a scene of no, gasp, some more teenagers on their way to the ruins. Will the madness never end? Bah.

Go if you like gruesome horror.

Rating: 3 out of 5 screens

Trailer: “The Tracey Fragments”

Wanted to quickly link over to this trailer for The Tracey Fragments on Film Drunk, who are not as friendly to the film as I’m inclined to be.

This one’s a weird sight: Ellen Page stars in a dark-as-it-gets drama, apparently filmed before Juno. This is pretty much the opposite of her teen pregnancy star turn in every conceivable way (even more so than the very good Hard Candy,) so this one might be a little odd.

Limited release coming in early May, keep your eyes out.

Click here; redirects to Film Drunk with the trailer. 

Review: “21″

21 directed by Robert Luketic, USA, 2008. Reviewed by James 3/28/08.

Lyn Elliot, a film teacher who taught Julian everything he knows about filmmaking (j/k Julian), came into my documentary film class and showed us a short doc she had made about card counters, people who keep track of the statistical placement of cards in a deck in order to have a better chance of winning at blackjack. Casinos will kick your ass up and down the Vegas strip if they catch you doing it, but with a little strategy and a dependable group of people, one can make quite a bit of money at it. There’s a scene in there where one group is counting a bunch of huge stacks of money, tens of thousands of dollars. She interviewed a number of people for the piece: her parents, who used to do it but quit; a group of people who still do it and do it for a living, and a group of MIT students who did it as a hobby. She even snuck a camera into a casino and got some footage of the people in action. Her documentary was a fascinating inside look into a little known subculture.

And, as you might expect, that is exactly what 21 is not. It’s about some nerd guy, the handsome one out of his group of ugly nerd friends, who joins up with the aforementioned MIT team and wins a whole bunch of money, then loses it, then gets some of it back again. Kevin Spacey is in it too, as a math teacher.

It’s a stupid movie for a number of reasons. For one, they decide insipidly that they need to keep reminding us that the nerd guy (I will not look up the actor’s or character’s name, because I don’t care) is really good at math. A scholarship judge reads off his transcript, perfect marks in math classes, perfect on the SATs. But that’s not enough so there’s a scene where he upstages Spacey’s and lays down all kinds of math skills, in a scene using the classic Monty Hall problem. (Google it). But that’s not enough so there’s a scene where a customer at the clothes store he works at ask him how much the total will be and he just adds up all the prices in his head. But that’s not enough so he follows that by saying to the customer “I’m pretty good with numbers.” But that’s not enough so Spacey just keeps telling him that he’s good, real good, you remind me of me when I was young, you’re real good kid, the best, you’re good.

Goddamnit.

The movie is filled with shit like this. Uninteresting, unbelievable characters. Stupid, unbelievable plot twists. The nerd, this genius math kid, accepted at Harvard Med, you know what he does. He stores his goddamn money inside a drop ceiling and is then shocked when all 300,000 dollars of it is stolen. That was money he needed for Harvard by the way.

Other than the nerd guy, there’s Kate Bosworth as tits, some guy who looks and acts like Jonah Hill as the nerd guy’s nerd friend who looks and acts like Jonah Hill, and Lawrence Fishburne as the casino security guard who beats the shit out of anyone who he catches counting cards. He fills a similar role in this movie as Sam Jackson does in Jumper, which leads me to believe that there is a new stereotypical black character in movies today, that of the buzzkilling negro.

Also, this just in: apparently the nerd guy is based on a MIT student (I neglected to mention that this movie is LOOSELY based on a true story.) who is Asian-American. The guy in this movie is white, so very, very white. So there’s that too. And yes the info I am reading does tell me the name of the character and the actor but no I won’t write it here because I don’t care and neither should you.

Rating: 1 out of 5 screens

Review: “Be Kind Rewind”

Be Kind Rewind directed by Michel Gondry, USA 2008. Review by James on 3/28/08.

Michel Gondry’s tribute to cheap special effects, camera tricks, and amateur filmmaking, Be Kind Rewind tells the story of two New Jersey misfits (Mos Def and Jack Black of all people) who must make their own low-budget remakes of blockbuster movies when Jack Black’s character, while magnetized, accidently erases all the video tapes at the store where Mos Def works. It makes slightly more sense in the movie. It’s a movie with some great moments and some problems, highlighting Gondry’s strength as a director and weakness as a writer.

First the strength. The film is filled with the kind of inventive special effects and camera tricks that Gondry used to great ends in his career as a music video director. But we also get to see behind the scenes, as the duo creates the effects in filming. It stuff like putting wires and a fan in front of a camera to simulate scratching, flickering film or using inverse colored photocopies of the actors’ faces as masks so that when they shoot a scene in inverse their faces appear normal but everything else is flipped. Techniques like that are what make the film worth it in the end, I think.

Now the weaknesses. Gondry is very inventive but he is not much of a writer. The plot is infected with the same kind of whimsy that makes the special effects so impressive, but the result is an absurd story that doesn’t have much at stake. The video store is threatened with closure by the city council because it is old and a copyright infringement suit (served by Sigourney Weaver for some reason), but because the film exists in a strange parallel whimsyverse, the threat never really registers. The plot is a clothesline for the effects. Gondry’s previous movie The Science of Sleep had a similar problem. It’s when he teams up with talented writers (Eternal Sunshine, Dave Chappele’s Block Party) that his films really shine.

The acting. Jack Black is Jack Black as usual. If you don’t like him, you won’t like him here. Mos Def gives another interesting performance. Danny Glover, as the video store owner, does his best, I guess. He is getting too old for this shit. Mia Farrow is in it too, in a very strange role. She’s a regular of the video store and there’s a very strange, unresolved relationship between her and Glover. It seems like they had a past together, but it’s never spelled out. It’s especially strange when Glover plays the driver to Farrow’s old southern lady when they remake Driving Miss Daisy.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5 screens

DVD Review: “The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters”

The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters, directed by Seth Gordon, USA, 2007. Review by Sean on 3/27/08.

I know I already (briefly) dealt with this one in my top 10, but I watched it again last night, and it’s just so good that I can’t help but do a full review.

The world of competitive video gaming is, as you might expect, full of fairly bizarre characters. These individuals are socially more than a bit off, all a little bit obsessive-compulsive, and by and large remarkably intelligent in one sense or another; however, the key characteristic binding them is a sort of disappointed vulnerability. Some have succeeded in one line but failed in others, some are disappointed at a perceived lack of recognition, some berate themselves for always coming up short in life, but they all share a tendency to question themselves when they’re not clutching a joystick.

All of them except one. All of them except Billy Mitchell.

Billy Mitchell is convinced of one thing above all: the staggering perfection of Billy Mitchell.

At the beginning of The King of Kong, we are introduced to Billy. Billy is sort of the Barry Bonds of competitive video gaming – he has all the most important records, but also holds the record keepers in his back pocket, sitting above scrutiny or criticism. His closest friends openly describe him as “devious.” His enemies call him insane. He is, in short, the world’s most unlikely supervillain.

Steve Weibe, by contrast, is the flawed hero to Mitchell’s perfect evil. Weibe is remarkably gifted in a number of ways – a brilliant and skilled musician, an accomplished amateur baseball player and high school basketball player, a more than capable artist. But he’s always had some problems with cracking under pressure, and even more problems with obsession. When driven, he’ll sacrifice pretty much anything to compete, even if his family asks him to slow down. Unexpected downsizing at work (the day that Steve bought a home, natch,) left Steve without a job, and now he works twelve-hour days as a high school science teacher.

Billy Mitchell has held the world record in Donkey Kong since 1982. Steve Weibe is better than Billy Mitchell at Donkey Kong.

The King of Kong, then, is the saga of Steve’s attempt to be recognized as a champion, flying alone against the competitive gaming community – a group of people better regarded as the Cult of Billy. Faith in Mitchell from the scorekeepers is blind and instant, even in the face of suspect behavior and underhanded tactics; trust in Steve is non-existent for years, with any small wrinkle used as an excuse to push Weibe back into second place. For months, Billy hides in the shadows, manipulating others to keep Steve at a distance, while Weibe goes broke running around the country to compete, always ending up an inch short and fighting tears.

It’s hard to believe that a documentary about competitive Donkey Kong could have the compelling story and classic conflict that I’ve described, but that’s just what makes this movie so good – it takes a completely benign subject and crafts perhaps the strongest narrative I’ve ever seen in a documentary. The story told here is more or less perfect – you’ll be glaring at Billy and cheering for Steve within fifteen minutes, and be near tears yourself when Steve swings and misses.

As I said in my top ten, this isn’t just the best documentary of the year (maybe of the decade,) it’s one of the best films I’ve seen in a while. You owe it to yourself to see this film. After you finish, you’ll probably call a bunch of friends over and start from the top.

Rating: 4.5 Screens (of 5)

DVD Review: “American Gangster”

What do you get when you combine mediocre leading men, a mediocre screenwriter, and a mediocre major director?  A whole heap of mediocre.

Before you get too pissed off, understand that my ambivalence concerning everyone involved in this film is not unequivocal. I’ll break it down as follows:

Russell Crowe was really good in The Insider, pretty good in L.A. Confidential, sucked as much as anyone can suck in 3:10 to Yuma…and was eh in everything else.

Denzel Washington was probably really good in Philadelphia and might have been pretty good in Malcolm X, but I’ve never actually watched either of them. In everything I’ve ever seen he’s been eh. 

Ridley Scott directed Alien, an amazing film, in 1979, Thelma and Louise, a good film, in 1991,  and Black Hawk Down, a solid film, ten years later. Everything else in the last three decades has been pretty eh.

Steven Zaillian adapted Schindler’s List, which counts for something, and I liked Gangs of New York, but that was in spite of the writing rather than because of it.  He’s eh.

American Gangster isn’t bad. It’s just eh. 

It actually moves pretty quickly for a film that’s over two-and-a-half hours long, with a narrative arc that’s mostly sensical in a way that confirms expectations at every turn. Viewers are led through a rather cliched gangster plot with a firm and comforting hand, the kind that’s more likely to offer a gentle pat than an invigorating slap.  Scott and Zaillian seem more interested in making the audience comfortable than stimulating even the slightest emotion. Sure, there are moments of extreme violence, but they’re executed with such little panache that they fail to linger in the memory or even quicken the pulse. Compare scenes in this film with similar moments of violence in No Country for Old Men or There Will Be Blood and you’ll see why this film was “slighted” (note quotes) come awards time. It’s just eh.

Washington and Crowe walk up to the line of competence, dangle a toe on the far side, and then take a seat, content with performances that are embarassing only in their visible lack of effort. The supporting cast is notable in size and diversity if not quality; film buffs may enjoy picking long-time character actors out of the crowd. And if anyone had any doubt that Ruby Dee’s Oscar nomination was for being old, watch the film: she’s only in it for about ten minutes and doesn’t do anything particularly interesting.

Films like this ultimately annoy me because they’re a waste of time, money, and resources. Why should A-list (I’m using that term to refer to how much they’re paid rather than their respective abilities) talent devote their energy to a film that treads such a worn path?  For the actors, I’m guessing it’s a chance to collect a paycheck, keep their faces in the public eye, and continue to develop a John Wayne-esque body of work–  one in which they play a minor variant on an existing persona rather than inhabiting a character. Sure, it’s lazy acting, but it goes a long way in garnering audience appeal and establishing a solid legacy.  For Zaillian, the film’s just another in a career-long line of bland but respectable pieces of cinema; I really couldn’t care less.

But for Scott, a director who at least once possessed a creative drive, I’m wondering if the film is really a flag of surrender.  It’s a hell of a lot easier to convince a studio to make a film like American Gangster than it is to force an innovative horror film or quasi-feminist revenge flick down executive’s throats. I know I’ll never make it in Hollywood, but I still believe it’s worth the fight.

Rating: 3 out of 5 screens   

Sean’s Interview with Uwe Boll Online

I am very pleased to announce that my one-on-one interview with the nefarious Uwe Boll, that misunderstood maverick of the d-film, is now online, through my long-time journalistic home, Verbicide. Read the whole thing, including the part where he talks about Bryan Singer’s love for hookers, at:

Verbicide Magazine Online

I should also mention that the fine folks over at Film Drunk were kind enough to turn the aforementioned prostitution quote into juicy, juicy celebrity gossip. I’ve just started reading Film Drunk recently, and it’s a good time – definitely check it out.

List: James’ Top 10 Films of 2007

When was the last time that the Coens, Tarantino, and BOTH Andersons all released movies in the same year? The answer is never. That alone makes this one of the better years for movies in recent memory. If only Scorsese had released something and Herzog hadn’t decided to somewhat mediocrely remake one of his best movies in fictional form.

1 . No Country for Old Men – 5

I can’t tell you people how glad I am that the Coens made No Country for Old Men. After a couple of blemishes on their otherwise fantastic body of work, they came back with a vengeance. Basically a perfect movie.

2 . I’m Not There – 4.5

I don’t really know what to say about this movie. It’s a huge pretentious mess, indeed, but it has a number of legitimately amazing moments, most notably the “Going to Alcapulco” section with Richard Gere, and any time Cate Blanchett was on screen. And David Cross as Allen Ginsberg! I cried a little at the end, no joke.

3 . There Will Be Blood – 4.5

Paul Thomas Anderson has finally turned into Stanley Kubrick, hiding in his niche of the film industry and releasing inscrutable masterpieces every half-decade or so.

4 . The Darjeeling Limited – 4

Wes Anderson seems to have settled into his own little groove finally, not really reinventing himself or anything, but hey that cool with me, I still dig his shtick. He should write another one with Owen Wilson though, if only for Owen’s sake. 

5 . The Diving Bell and the Butterfly – 4

A late addition to my top ten. I’ll probably do a proper review of this soon. Suffice it to say that it’s a absolutely beautiful film.

6 . Grindhouse – 4

I don’t feel like breaking this one up. Rodriguez’s section is probably a 2.5, Tarantino’s close to a 5 for an average of 3.7888 or something. Add in the trailers and the overall experience of it all, and you get a solid 4. Looking forward to Inglorious Bastards.

7 . No End in Sight – 4

See Julian’s review.

8 . Zodiac – 3.5

See Julian’s review in his top ten.

9 . The Bourne Ultimatum – 3.5

I didn’t even see the first two. The shakey cam kills these movies for some people, but I don’t know, something about the over the top immediacy of it worked for me. I mean, does the government really have a room full of computers from which they can control any security camera or traffic light in the world and summon sleeper cell hit men with picture message of their hits? Probably not. But I enjoyed the ride. 

10. Michael Clayton 3.5

See Sean’s review. I’ll just add that Wilkinson, Swinton and the last shot with Clooney in a cab for five minutes made this one for me.

Honorable Mention: Hot Fuzz, Rescue Dawn, Sicko, Ratatouille

Missed: The Assassination of Jesse James, Juno, Control, Persepolis, Sweeny Todd, Atonement, Gone Baby Gone, In the Valley of Elah and some others probably