Sorry I'm a week late, but I wanted to comment on season two of this TNT series. Just to give you a heads up, you kinda have to be a fan of the show in order to really understand my points in this post.
First off, I wanna say how epic this season was; and how there were so many components which culminated together in an effective manner to develop the story. The states of both each character and of the 2nd Mass as a whole have changed dramatically since the show began. Karen's gone bad, Ben's off on his own, Matt's growing up, Tom and Anne are about to bring a kid into this broken world, and many members of the resistance have fallen. It's a wonder why I love this show.
Before I delve into various aspects of the plot and character relationships, let me go ahead and share my thoughts regarding the cliffhanger at the end of the last episode.
Is this new alien a friend or foe? Personally, I have no doubt that this newcomer is seeking to align with the humans. Let's look at what takes place right before its arrival. Tom and Captain Weaver assemble a team to launch an assault on the Overlord, and destroy a weapon which the Rebel Skitters informed them of. The mission was successful, and whatever species' the weapon was targeting are now safe. Given that we were unaware of there being alien life forms with intentions of helping the 2nd Mass until this season, I see no reason not to expand on this plotline.
Furthermore, if this alien was an enemy of the resistance, it wouldn't have hesitated to attack the base at Charleston as soon as it encountered the humans. We've seen that the antagonists of this story are ruthless war-mongerers with virtually no diplomatic principles. I'm betting this character is a fugitive of the Overlord's government, whose species was saved because of the 2nd Mass' heroic feat.
That being said, let's look at a few other aspects of this climactic season.
One of the most intriguing elements of the last few episodes has been watching Ben's character develop. His internal struggle is one of the most pivotal conflicts in the series, as it reflects many of the motifs presented. Still traumatized by his imprisonement and being harnessed by the Skitters, he sees himself as a danger to the 2nd Mass altogether. His relationships are strained, particularly his with Hal; and he feels quite lost in the search for his identity. Both the writers and Connor Jessup's performance have really complimented one another in exploring the depths of this troubled adolescent.
While it was a bit predictable, I'm glad Remi Aubuchon decided to have Anne get pregnant at the series finale. The very idea of bringing a kid into this apocalyptic society is a frightening concept in it of itself, especially because Tom has no intentions of staying in Charleston and ceasing to fight. Now that he has a fourth child on the way, I have no doubt every component of his character will be tested in season three. Although raising this child will be met with many challenges, it nevertheless sheds some light into the story. The fact that Tom and Anne have managed to find love among one another is an important factor. Perhaps this event is an opportunity to establish a new life in the midst of so much darkness.
There were many other things about this season which I loved as well. The concept of Charleston was introduced at just the right time, and there was a great build-up to it before the resistance finally reached the colony. I liked how they incorporated a lot of 1984 type themes into the last two episodes, and the tensions among ManChester's government and the 2nd Mass made the conflict all the more intense (especially since Pope refused to listen to anyone).
It was sad to see some great characters go, but there deaths served a significant purpose towards the story nonetheless. Jimmy, Jamal, and Dai were all strong warriors who died honorably. And if you watch any other shows or movies like this, you know they won't be the last.
I could ramble about this series all day long, but these are the highlights of what I wanted to say. Even though we do have to wait until next summer for season three, I think it'll definitely be worth the wait. Until then, keep the resistance strong.
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Friday, August 17, 2012
The Big Heat (1953)
*****
Dir. Fritz Lang
Well, I've just started classes at NCSU, so I decided to review the first full-length movie we watched in Intro to Film. The Big Heat is a 1953 film noir directed by Fritz Lang. With a compelling plotline and effective uses of lighting and cinematography, this picture is worthy of comparison to John Huston's classic The Maltese Falcon (1941).
Following the structure of films within this genre, Lang opens with a grotesque suicide scene. Receiving a call that one of his colleagues has shot himself, Detective Sgt. Dave Bannion (Glenn Ford) embarks on an investigation that will challenge him with matters of life and death. As the clean-shaven, heroic figure finds himself on the trail of a vicious band of gangsters whom he suspects to have power over other officers inside the force, he puts both himself and his wife and daughter in grave danger. When his wife is killed by a bomb which was intended for him, the once admirable Detective becomes the very manifestation of vengeance. Driven by his unquenchable thirst, he and the lead gangster's spurned girlfriend Debby Marsh (Gloria Grahame) will use any means necessary in order to discover the truth underlying these mysterious events.
As with other Fritz Lang films, the central conflict in this story is more internal than external. Although there are characters that are clear representations of good and evil, the primary antagonist lies within Bannion. In the exposition, he is depicted as the ideal model of justice and dignity in a world of corruption. Yet upon suffering the death of his beloved wife, he falls down the path of the tragic hero. Lang displays an excellent use of tactics in portraying the different stages of this character's development. Not only does the lighting correlate well with the tone of Sydney Boehm's script, but elements such as these are used to signify key components of human nature.
This psychological approach helps viewers understand Lang's underlying message in this film: we are all corruptible. The more we think of ourselves as naturally good people, the more we neglect examples in history (the Nuremberg Trials) and in scientific theory (the Stanley Milgram Experiment), which contradict this New Age philosophy.
Fritz Lang was one of the best Filmmakers of his time, and his work in this particular genre was a fundamental aspect of his career. Not only is The Big Heat an excellent crime drama, but it is a film noir which will challenge one's perception of society.
Dir. Fritz Lang
Well, I've just started classes at NCSU, so I decided to review the first full-length movie we watched in Intro to Film. The Big Heat is a 1953 film noir directed by Fritz Lang. With a compelling plotline and effective uses of lighting and cinematography, this picture is worthy of comparison to John Huston's classic The Maltese Falcon (1941).
Following the structure of films within this genre, Lang opens with a grotesque suicide scene. Receiving a call that one of his colleagues has shot himself, Detective Sgt. Dave Bannion (Glenn Ford) embarks on an investigation that will challenge him with matters of life and death. As the clean-shaven, heroic figure finds himself on the trail of a vicious band of gangsters whom he suspects to have power over other officers inside the force, he puts both himself and his wife and daughter in grave danger. When his wife is killed by a bomb which was intended for him, the once admirable Detective becomes the very manifestation of vengeance. Driven by his unquenchable thirst, he and the lead gangster's spurned girlfriend Debby Marsh (Gloria Grahame) will use any means necessary in order to discover the truth underlying these mysterious events.
As with other Fritz Lang films, the central conflict in this story is more internal than external. Although there are characters that are clear representations of good and evil, the primary antagonist lies within Bannion. In the exposition, he is depicted as the ideal model of justice and dignity in a world of corruption. Yet upon suffering the death of his beloved wife, he falls down the path of the tragic hero. Lang displays an excellent use of tactics in portraying the different stages of this character's development. Not only does the lighting correlate well with the tone of Sydney Boehm's script, but elements such as these are used to signify key components of human nature.
This psychological approach helps viewers understand Lang's underlying message in this film: we are all corruptible. The more we think of ourselves as naturally good people, the more we neglect examples in history (the Nuremberg Trials) and in scientific theory (the Stanley Milgram Experiment), which contradict this New Age philosophy.
Fritz Lang was one of the best Filmmakers of his time, and his work in this particular genre was a fundamental aspect of his career. Not only is The Big Heat an excellent crime drama, but it is a film noir which will challenge one's perception of society.
Saturday, August 11, 2012
The Bourne Legacy
*
Dir. Tony Gilroy
To reiterate the point of my last post, only make a sequel if the story's worth telling. The central problem with this fourth installment in the popular Bourne franchise is that the plot is both undeveloped and utterly pointless.
Writer/director Tony Gilroy (writer of the previous films and the director of Michael Clayton) tells a story in The Bourne Legacy that's very dull for an action movie, has numerous gaps that leave viewers puzzled, and lacks the essence of the Doug Liman/Paul Greengrass pictures. We open in a remote part of Alaska where Special Ops Agent Aaron Cross (Jeremy Renner) has isolated himself for some time. He is linked to Treadstone (the agency which Jason Bourne is a product of), but the film does such a poor job of explaining his background and intentions, that I honestly can't describe each aspect of the plot. The main Government Agent in charge of investigating Cross and hunting him down is retired Col. Eric Bryer (Edward Norton), a character much less developed than David Straithairn's Noah Vosen in Bourne Ultimatum (this is no reflection on Norton's performance, just based on Gilroy's script). There are so many flaws within the construction of the plot that I really can't describe it in a clear and precise manner.
Beyond a disorganized and uninteresting script, this film lacks many of the elements which make the previous ones so compelling. There's virtually no emotional intrigue and the characters are very undeveloped. Although Renner and Norton are pretty effective, their performances are overshadowed by everything that make this movie a mess. Even the action scenes dragged on and displayed little to no originality.
I really do think Gilroy has a lot to offer as a filmmaker, as dictated by his previous works. However, this was definitely the low point of his career, and it's a shame they didn't conclude the series with the previous installment.
Dir. Tony Gilroy
To reiterate the point of my last post, only make a sequel if the story's worth telling. The central problem with this fourth installment in the popular Bourne franchise is that the plot is both undeveloped and utterly pointless.
Writer/director Tony Gilroy (writer of the previous films and the director of Michael Clayton) tells a story in The Bourne Legacy that's very dull for an action movie, has numerous gaps that leave viewers puzzled, and lacks the essence of the Doug Liman/Paul Greengrass pictures. We open in a remote part of Alaska where Special Ops Agent Aaron Cross (Jeremy Renner) has isolated himself for some time. He is linked to Treadstone (the agency which Jason Bourne is a product of), but the film does such a poor job of explaining his background and intentions, that I honestly can't describe each aspect of the plot. The main Government Agent in charge of investigating Cross and hunting him down is retired Col. Eric Bryer (Edward Norton), a character much less developed than David Straithairn's Noah Vosen in Bourne Ultimatum (this is no reflection on Norton's performance, just based on Gilroy's script). There are so many flaws within the construction of the plot that I really can't describe it in a clear and precise manner.
Beyond a disorganized and uninteresting script, this film lacks many of the elements which make the previous ones so compelling. There's virtually no emotional intrigue and the characters are very undeveloped. Although Renner and Norton are pretty effective, their performances are overshadowed by everything that make this movie a mess. Even the action scenes dragged on and displayed little to no originality.
I really do think Gilroy has a lot to offer as a filmmaker, as dictated by his previous works. However, this was definitely the low point of his career, and it's a shame they didn't conclude the series with the previous installment.
Friday, August 10, 2012
Rambling About Sequels
Well, since there isn't much out right now other than the films I've already seen (no, I'm not seeing Total Recall), I decided to do a post about something Hollywood just can't do enough of: sequels. While there's nothing wrong with building off one movie and expanding it into a broader story, you can only go so far. There's a time when certain filmmakers need to just put stop signs in front of them, and move on to other characters. Seriously, how much can you possibly say about Jack Sparrow or Indiana Jones (I rarely criticize you Spielberg, but it's pretty dumb to make a fourth film when the title of the third is The Last Crusade).
On that note, the most important thing to remember when formulating any story, is that each aspect must have a designated purpose. If a writer or filmmaker has no reason to tell a certain part of a character's story, why make a movie about it? With that, let's look at three of my favorite filmmakers who really know how to make a good sequel: Christopher Nolan, Peter Jackson, and Guillermo del Toro.
After having seen the spellbinding conclusion of The Dark Knight Rises, many fans are still hoping for Nolan to continue his Batman franchise, even though he's said he's done. Those in favor of another sequel argue that he could tell about John Blake as Robin, and possibly feature some of the villains he wasn't able to include in the previous films. Yet no matter what percentage of moviegoers support this, I am with Nolan on this being the conclusion. He's said what he's needed to say about the character, and there's no reason to continue. Plus, there will always be plenty more Batman comics and films by other writers and directors in the years to come.
Recently, I read a book entitled The Art and Making of the Dark Knight Trilogy, which examines the process by which Nolan and his crew used to develop this epic series. It was interesting to learn that when he and screenwriter David S. Goyer first began working on the project, they weren't even sure if they were going to make one sequel to Batman Begins. As the story progressed, they discovered more ways to explore the depths of the character, and that was where The Dark Knight began. One of the reasons Michael Bay is one of the worst filmmakers in the industry is because there's no depth to his characters, making the sequels to his movies progressively more pathetic. What makes Nolan's Batman such an iconic aspect of pop-culture is that he does a fantastic job of showing how the character develops; and eventually gets to a point where he fulfills the promise he made on the graves of his parents, and is able to move on. So in response to fans itching for yet another installment in this franchise, I say: what more is there to tell?
Let's move on to the legendary director of the LOTR trilogy, and the 2005 King Kong. It was recently announced that Peter Jackson will be making a third Hobbit film, set to release in the summer of 2014. First off, it's more an adaptation of other works within the Tolkien universe. The Hobbit itself is being split into two films: An Unexpected Journey (this December), and There and Back Again (December 2013). From what I know, the third installment will have more to do with the origins of Middle-Earth, filling in some of the gaps from the previous stories. Again, here you have a legitimate reason to make this movie. One, if Peter Jackson deems a story worth telling, it probably is; and two, this will provide fans with a more in-depth analysis of Bilbo's character.
It's important to remember that even Blockbusters have the power to produce thought provoking questions in the viewer's mind regarding his or her perception of the world. All of Jackson's films do this in an extraordinary manner, allowing us to reflect upon the nature of good and evil, and how it impacts us personally.
Last but not least, Mexican writer/director Guillermo del Toro is an excellent filmmaker to look at in regards to this subject. Having done remarkable original pictures such as Pan's Labyrinth, and comic book adaptations like Hellboy, he too uses a very artistic approach to all of his movies. Looking at Hellboy 2: The Golden Army, there are many parallels between this film and Pan's Labyrinth in terms of style and art direction. What's great about this sequel is that it gives the character even more depth than the first installment in the series, and really utilizes many aspects of classic mythology to formulate the story. I look forward to seeing more del Toro films in the future, and I am certainly excited to examine his work on The Hobbit this December.
Film is a medium which has virtually limitless potential, and should not be limited to flashy sequels. A movie should only be made if there's a story worth telling. That said, it's really time for Indiana Jones and John McClane to move into a retirement home.
On that note, the most important thing to remember when formulating any story, is that each aspect must have a designated purpose. If a writer or filmmaker has no reason to tell a certain part of a character's story, why make a movie about it? With that, let's look at three of my favorite filmmakers who really know how to make a good sequel: Christopher Nolan, Peter Jackson, and Guillermo del Toro.
After having seen the spellbinding conclusion of The Dark Knight Rises, many fans are still hoping for Nolan to continue his Batman franchise, even though he's said he's done. Those in favor of another sequel argue that he could tell about John Blake as Robin, and possibly feature some of the villains he wasn't able to include in the previous films. Yet no matter what percentage of moviegoers support this, I am with Nolan on this being the conclusion. He's said what he's needed to say about the character, and there's no reason to continue. Plus, there will always be plenty more Batman comics and films by other writers and directors in the years to come.
Recently, I read a book entitled The Art and Making of the Dark Knight Trilogy, which examines the process by which Nolan and his crew used to develop this epic series. It was interesting to learn that when he and screenwriter David S. Goyer first began working on the project, they weren't even sure if they were going to make one sequel to Batman Begins. As the story progressed, they discovered more ways to explore the depths of the character, and that was where The Dark Knight began. One of the reasons Michael Bay is one of the worst filmmakers in the industry is because there's no depth to his characters, making the sequels to his movies progressively more pathetic. What makes Nolan's Batman such an iconic aspect of pop-culture is that he does a fantastic job of showing how the character develops; and eventually gets to a point where he fulfills the promise he made on the graves of his parents, and is able to move on. So in response to fans itching for yet another installment in this franchise, I say: what more is there to tell?
Let's move on to the legendary director of the LOTR trilogy, and the 2005 King Kong. It was recently announced that Peter Jackson will be making a third Hobbit film, set to release in the summer of 2014. First off, it's more an adaptation of other works within the Tolkien universe. The Hobbit itself is being split into two films: An Unexpected Journey (this December), and There and Back Again (December 2013). From what I know, the third installment will have more to do with the origins of Middle-Earth, filling in some of the gaps from the previous stories. Again, here you have a legitimate reason to make this movie. One, if Peter Jackson deems a story worth telling, it probably is; and two, this will provide fans with a more in-depth analysis of Bilbo's character.
It's important to remember that even Blockbusters have the power to produce thought provoking questions in the viewer's mind regarding his or her perception of the world. All of Jackson's films do this in an extraordinary manner, allowing us to reflect upon the nature of good and evil, and how it impacts us personally.
Last but not least, Mexican writer/director Guillermo del Toro is an excellent filmmaker to look at in regards to this subject. Having done remarkable original pictures such as Pan's Labyrinth, and comic book adaptations like Hellboy, he too uses a very artistic approach to all of his movies. Looking at Hellboy 2: The Golden Army, there are many parallels between this film and Pan's Labyrinth in terms of style and art direction. What's great about this sequel is that it gives the character even more depth than the first installment in the series, and really utilizes many aspects of classic mythology to formulate the story. I look forward to seeing more del Toro films in the future, and I am certainly excited to examine his work on The Hobbit this December.
Film is a medium which has virtually limitless potential, and should not be limited to flashy sequels. A movie should only be made if there's a story worth telling. That said, it's really time for Indiana Jones and John McClane to move into a retirement home.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)