A Hit of New TV: Review

SPOILERS THROUGHOUT BE WARNED: I watched the episode and can say that I am fairly interested in what the show could become. It was pretty expository in the sense that the characters spelled a lot of things out assuming the audience was fairly unintelligent, but there are some really interesting storylines in the pilot episode. Particularly, the mystery surrounding J.J., the youngest of the superhero family who does not appear to have a power for much of the episode, seems to be promising as his potential power may play on the character's learning disability. I also really like Michael Chiklis' character because the character seems to act somewhat naturally  and realistically to getting the powers. He's giddy and excited and tries to see exactly what he can do with his super strength.  The weakness of his storyline lies with the police subplot of the episode and his wanting to be involved. I like the idea, of his wanting to step out of the shadows of being a sketch artist and an actual crimefighter, but the "villain" was weak and portrayed very poorly.  Additionally, I didn't buy any of the cops as being actual cops; they were just shells of characters and really rigid in their performances. And on that note, they were just plain dumb. The two detectives go in search of the episode's villain and upon seeing them, they call out his name, giving the guy an opportunity to prepare himself and actual fight back, which he does to deadly results. The cops were just amateurish and ridiculous. Definitely me least favorite piece of the episode.

Michael Chiklis (left) and Romany Malco

There was one part of both the mother and father's storylines that really interested me and made me want to see more, and that was their interaction with their adult friends/coworkers who found out about their powers. Chiklis' friend was in awe and the two acted like little kids just getting a new comic book, which made for very realistic (despite the superhero plot) television. And his friend was played Romany Malco, who was also in Weeds and The 40-Year-Old Virgin, and who also happens to be awesome. Conversely, Benz's friend on the show was both shocked, interested and also showed signs of workplace jealousy over how efficient Benz's character can now be versus herself. That will be interesting to see. Plus, she's played by Autumn Reeser, who recently had a stint on Entourage as Ari's agent nemesis "Lizzie" and also played "Taylor" on The O.C. I've always liked her in the annoying sidekick kind of roles that she typically plays, and I think if they pursue a jealousy storyline, she could definitely provide for some interesting moments.

Julie Benz (left) and Autumn Reeser (right)

The daughter's storyline was a little too cliche for; she's a teenage girl who can read minds, even that of her cheating boyfriend! It just seemed silly and tired. I would say that at least they didn't rip off The Incredibles and have her power be invisibility, but I kind of secretly wanted them to do that. It would give her the ability to hear what people thought of her behind her back (she could easily hide in the locker room or something people are talking about her) and at the same time, it could also play with the idea that sometimes you just want to be invisible after an embarrassing moment.


Anyhow, it was just the pilot episode and I certainly will be tuning in come the fall. It had its ups, and some downs with some of the dialogue that just made things too painfully obvious and sometimes "7th Heaven"-y (gag me) but I am hoping those kinks will be worked out for episode 2. So, tell me what you thought of the episode!

I said good day, sir!
-E

A Hit of New TV

So by coincidence, this next bit is about a new superhero-themed show coming to ABC called No Ordinary Family. The gist is: they have superpowers, but it stars Michael Chiklis (The Shield) and Julie Benz (Dexter) and I think it looks pretty good.

 
Anyhow, ABC released the pilot online for the first 50,000 visitors. Here's the link:

http://abc.go.com/watch/noordinaryscreening

You will need the following password, which is case sensitive to access the video: Extraordinary

I haven't watched yet, so I'll maybe post some thoughts after, and let me know what you think!

I said good day, sir!
-E

A Hit of Superpowers! (for a not-so-super sequel coming soon)

While I am on the subject of originality, I thought I would also talk a little bit more about sequels, which you should note is not officially on my dislike list (ps. looking for suggestions for more to add...can't think of them all at once). So, I wanted to examine them a little bit and figure out just what about sequels makes me tick. As I said before, Toy Story 3 was fantastic and it proves that if a sequel can stand on its own apart from an adjoining film, it's almost always money in my book. There are instances when the films will of course have cliffhangers and depend on others for complete resolution, but these are the types of sequels that are planned ahead and ultimately part of one long story, so I won't examine them either. I am most thinking about the cash-cow sequels, the ones made after the first film was a success and was never planned to tell a larger story outside of the one it first presented. Quite often, these are the kinds that ultimately fail, but not in every case (like Jurassic Park's sequels...just kidding!)

However, there is one category or genre of films that seems to often produce at least one great sequel, at least in the more recent years and I have found that to be the superhero genre. Spider-Man 2, The Dark Knight, The Incredible Hulk, and X2: X-Men United have all, in my opinion surpassed the excellence of their originals and to me showed the potential for franchises to live long and happy lives (I haven't seen Iron Man 2 yet but let me know what you thought!). But some of their sequels, those wonderful third entries, have shown a certain greediness and love of excess that ultimately derailed the franchises. Particularly, I am thinking of Spider-Man 3 and X-Men: The Last Stand. Both of these films added several and I mean several new characters to their worlds and instead of enhancing the film, they ended up just making the films seem bloated and too busy.

In the particular case of X-Men, which is supposed to feature multiple characters on a team, I would be all for a lot of characters, as long as they didn't distract from the main plot and if featured, were actually given some depth and reason for being there. But, in the Last Stand, available on DVD so that you too can understand my sadness over Brett Ratner's sorry excuse for a sequel, the characters were there and that was about it. The characters from the previous films also came along for the fun, but were mainly relegated to standing in the background, ceasing to develop, and in some ways existing within the movie as if they were only there because the actors who played them could fit that particular shooting day in their schedule. That was the ultimate problem with the film. Nobody wanted to be there, but everyone was. It was like a surprise party for someone that no one likes but feels bad for. Except in this case, there weren't even any drinks to help me forget why I was there in the first place!

The reason I went on this little rant today has been because of the barrage of news that comes in every day in regards to casting on the newest X-Men film called X-Men: First Class. This prequel, the fifth installment in the franchise, is trying to resuscitate the X-Men film brand (which was absolutely murdered by Brett Ratner) by going back in time and introducing us to the dueling leaders of good and evil mutants, Charles Xavier and Erik Lensherr, when they were just young men in college. Prequels can be hit or miss (Wolverine is an example of how much of a miss they can be) but in the end they are some form of sequel to me, whether they are called so by name or not, so they too must pass through the same amount of scrutiny that sequels do.

And here, it seems the film is trying to make the same mistakes that The Last Stand made. Every day or so over the past few months, there have been reports from various outlets that a new actor is joining the cast of this film. The cast currently consists of the following actors: James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Rose Byrne, January Jones, Kevin Bacon, Nicholas Hoult, Jennifer Lawrence, Caleb Landry Jones, Lucas Till, Edi Gathegi, Jason Flemyng, Oliver Platt, Morgan Lily, Zoe Kravitz, Bill Bilner. There are some impressive names on the list (shout out to ComingSoon.net for the complete list), but I don't think these actors are going to have any timeto showcase their talents or devleop their characters if they are all potentially considered principle players. Aye scamoles! I love me some X-Men, but this is crazy!

Anyhow, that's enough! Let me know what you think, you wonderful, non-existent readers, you!

I said good day, sir!
-E

A Hit of B.O. (and a little not-so-subtle film suggestion)

Ok, so I said before that I don't like remakes, and unfortunately, that seems to be the route that Hollywood is taking with much of the offerings that have come out recently and are continuing to come out for the foreseeable future. People have talked about this subject over and over again, particularly saying that originality is dead and that there are apparently no more new ideas. Of course, the film industry is a business and it seems that studios are sacrificing art and great storytelling for dollars (i.e. The Twilight Films...I've seen two and that is more than enough for me) and it's no secret that they've been doing that for a very long time. But in addition to the remakes and the reimaginings and the reinterpretations and whatever other word you want to slap on after "re", there are also tons of sequels coming out as well.


Just this past weekend, seven of the top twenty films at the Box Office (B.O...GET IT?!?) were sequels (yes, I am counting Vampires Suck as a sequel because it continues to showcase the same amount of garbage that all the other spoof movies from these same writers have thrown up[pun intended] at the box office). Obviously, an original idea is harder for a studio to put money behind because it has not proven itself to be a contender at the box office. Sequels build off of tried-and-true formulas, and there certainly are some really good ones, including this summer's Toy Story 3. However, in most cases, the sequel tends to fall far from where many originals shined. At least I think so in my oh-so-important opinion. But this stuff is what most moviegoers have to work with. So, where's the originality?

Well, there has been some this summer, and the golden example is Inception. This original idea from the Nolan brothers (I hope they start to become referred to this like the awesome Coen Brothers, but not like the Wachowski brothers, who I think are a little overrated) has shown that audiences are willing to pay the big bucks for a unique movie-going experience. And so should you!


I said good day, sir!
-E