Why do Bad Shows do Well?

While truly great cinema and television fail to make it? This is today's question. A question that comes in the wake of:

• The massive Twilight opening
• The biggest Bond film ever
• The impressive showing for Lincoln

Of the three movies listed above we attended two of the premieres. We won't attend the third (Twilight) on principle - the first Twilight movie was Ok, the follow-ons have gotten sillier and seem to represent an opportunity to see the main characters again in a sort of teen worship scenario. The other movies listed above seemed very promising from the initial reviews and trailers yet we walked out of both highly disappointed. 

If these three were ugly, how many teens would go to watch their movie?

Lincoln, which we just saw on Friday was a relatively lifeless and unimaginative take on Lincoln which chose to suck in every oddball piece of Lincoln mythology developed over the past 150 years. Skyfall was a movie that didn't seem to know where it was going for more than half of the picture with a James Bond who seemed as though he was doing his best to get out of his contract by turning in the most apathetic Bond performance in a generation  Yet both films have done exceptionally well. On the other, Cloud Atlas, which was remarkable on many levels, fell flat in the box office (at least here in the US, it did much better internationally).

Now, there are exceptions where great shows are actually recognized as being great these days, although most of that is coming from television cable networks. The best example of this is AMC who have developed and stuck by Mad Men, The Walking Dead and Breaking Bad in just the past 5 years. Other great television shows over the years haven't fared so well with comedies like Outsourced being cut, shows like Firefly being ditched and so on. Often times, truly great shows need time to build up audience or need at least not to be pitted against top-rated nonsense like American Idol. 

Hunger Games, Harry Potter, Twilight - Kid's books and Comic Books now dominate Hollywood

Before Twilight, the last big hit at the theaters was the Hunger Games. It was perhaps even sillier than the Twilight saga and worse yet had stolen its entire concept from a Japanese movie called "Battle Royale" (a film which turned out to be more entertaining by far than hunger games - it's on Netflix). 

The book "Hunger Games" was a Ripoff Royale

So, this brings us back to our original question? Why do so many crap movies or shows do well while truly remarkable cinema and television get ignored? Here's our thoughts:

1. More and more decisions on what gets produced (and how it is produced) is being based on demographics rather than story. 
2. We have a precious few really talented writers these days in Hollywood. 
3. People respond to trailers - and most of these trailers represent false advertising. Lincoln is a good example - it includes fully half of the most dramatic scenes of its entire 2 hours and 29 minutes in the two minute preview. Instead of watching the 2 hours of riveting cinema we expected there was maybe 5 minutes of real drama in the whole movie.
4. People respond to brand and are afraid to try new things. Hunger Games is a brand, Twilight is a brand - they were both brands before they were movies. Lincoln is a brand as well - sort of. 
5. People going to movies don't like to think too hard - or so Hollywood assumes. Sequels, brand franchises, re-tellings of the same old stories represent perhaps 2/3 of all Hollywood revenue. During Looper, which in fact wasn't even that complicated, we personally witnessed people acting as though their heads were about to explode.
6. When people come to the movies expecting it will be good, often they're unwilling to admit that it wasn't. That's real loyalty - but it doesn't help guarantee that future movies will be made with any skill if you reward films that are flimsy and un-entertaining. 
7. There seems to be lowered expectations for film quality these days. In this regard, cinema and politics seem to be competing with one another to see how dumbed-down they can get. Contrary to popular belief, however, the United States doesn't operate at a sixth grade level. 

There is nothing worse than going to a movie expecting to enjoy oneself and end up being stuck for two hours wishing you were somewhere else. We're grateful for gems like the Cloud Atlas when they do occur, but we think it's about time that Hollywood started raising the bar again in general on their major releases. Stephen Spielberg is a genius, we credited him with the best movie of all time, yet in Lincoln he makes the high point of the movie a bathroom - sorry - wash closet joke. 

That's just sad.  

Copyright 2012 - Raving Reviews - All Rights Reserved

Read More

10 Reasons Why Sherlock Should be the Next Bond

After having watched Skyfall last night and being duly disappointed, we've begun to think that perhaps it's time for a transition to a new James Bond (e.g. a new actor to play James Bond). James Bond is much like Dr. Who in that no one seems to mind when he switches bodies, so why not take advantage of that? Daniel Craig was great in Casino Royale, Ok in Quantum of Solace and sucked royale in Skyfall. Part of this performance decline seems to stem from dissatisfaction he may have playing the role as evidenced by this quote from a recent interview in Rolling Stone magazine:

I’ve been trying to get out of this from the very moment I got into it. But they won’t let me go, and I’ve agreed to do a couple more, but let’s see how this one does, because business is business and if the **** goes down, I’ve got a contract that somebody will happily wipe their a** with. Daniel Craig, unhappy Bond

Sherlock and The Hobbit in London

We think finding a new Bond would do wonders for the franchise and we believe we've found the perfect candidate, Benedict Cumberbatch, A.K.A. Sherlock. We've been highly impressed with Sherlock as a series (which we will review soon as part of our tribute to the BBC) and even more impressed with its three main leads, Cumberbatch as Sherlock, Martin Freeman (The Hobbit) as Watson and Andrew Scott as Moriarty. We also think very highly of the series creator and writer (a Doctor Who Alumni) Stephen Moffat.

The name is Homes, Sherlock Holmes

So, here's our ten reasons why Sherlock ought to become the next James Bond:

1. Because Benedict Cumberbatch can really act.
2. Because Mr. Cumberbatch seems genuinely invested in his roles and willing to put forth an effort to make them memorable.
3. Because perhaps we could borrow Moriarty to be a Bond villain. Andrew Scott played one of the best screen villains we've seen in years on the BBC's Sherlock and we really need to put Javier Bardem's goofball performance out of our minds.
4. Because Cumberbatch is younger than Craig and looks the part a bit better.
5. Because Sherlock's sidekick Watson is now the Hobbit and may be unavailable for further work with Sherlock, leaving Sherlock's schedule open.
6. Because maybe we could bring some of the writers from the Sherlock series along with Sherlock to the next Bond film so it might make sense.
7. Because Sherlock's brother Mycroft already works for MI6 and should be able to pull some strings to get him hired.
8. Because we need a little less shooting and brute force in future Bond films and a little more of that ole Bond sophistication
9. Because Sherlock already lives in London and its convenient. 
10. Because Daniel Craig looks like he really needs vacation and a job where he doesn't have to work out so much.

This guy is a villain's villain and would lend serious cred to the Bond franchise

Copyright 2012 - Raving Reviews - All Rights Reserved

Read More

Skyfell

While Skyfall won't be the worst film of the year, (The Campaign and Flight are vying for that title), it is certainly this year's biggest disappointment.  We're not sure what happened with this movie; perhaps it was MGM going in and out of bankruptcy or maybe they just really weren't sure what they wanted to do with the movie since it took them so long to work the script. In any case, the end result isn't all that fun to watch. Please keep in mind that we are big James Bond fans so having to say that this film stunk is a bit painful for us - sort of like getting shot off of a moving train by Moneypenney and falling 200 feet into ravine.

Worst Bond beard ever, or is it the first and only Bond beard? Here we see James leaving rehab

  We have paid tribute to Bond in anticipation of this movie for several years, here's the proof:

• The Hunt for Rogue October - 2010
• Possible Bond Movie Titles - 2009

So what do we have against the Bond 23 turned Skyfall movie; here's our list:

• Worst Bond villain since Christopher Walken in "View to a Kill." Javier Bardem, one of the world's greatest actors, is reduced to an effeminate goofball with a mommy complex. Whatever happened to that guy from No Country for Old Men?

Javier just looks and acts silly, not too scary though despite the later FX

• A complete lack of plot. The storyline makes little sense and just gets worse as it goes.

• Gratuitous introduction of new characters for future episodes. At times the entire movie just seemed like a job interview for the new Q & M as well as Moneypenney - 2 of the 3 shouldn't have been hired.

Let's shoot your girlfriends  for target practice, Mr. Bond

• Kudos to the new Q for inventing a miniature radio / homing device that looks like a 1960's transistor radio and is 1000x bigger than it should be this day in age. Oh, and plugging the infected computer from the master hacker into the network was pure genius.

• Daniel Craig gave what has to be the most apathetic Bond performance ever - it was kind of like Obama in the first debate. You could see him thinking "I really don't want to be here and I'm sick of this job."

• Bond seems to let everyone get killed in this movie - good guys, bad guys it makes little difference and his attitude towards his chicks is getting worse. At least before when they got killed for sleeping with him he seemed to give a crap - not anymore.

• The pacing of the film was very uneven - after a promising chase scene to begin with we're dropped into a lot of slow moving and somewhat dull side-plots until the end which just turns out to be an excuse to do a makeover on James Bond family estate in Scotland. 

• The Komodo Dragons can't compare with sharks or piranhas. 

• With the exception of the opening sequence, the special effects were not up to par. And speaking of that opening sequence we still think Adele's tune is way too depressing to start a movie - it would have been appropriate for the ending though.

• There wasn't one decent one liner in the whole movie and even if there was the way Daniel Craig was delivering them you might not have heard it anyway - he was kind of mumbling through parts of the film. 

• Most awkward moment - the super-creepy Bardem begins feeling up James Bond and James implies he's already gay. We really didn't need to know that although it might explain his loss of interest in what happens to his girlfriends.

• Most Bizarre Moment - James drinking Tequila with a scorpion on his hand. 

We certainly hope that Skyfall doesn't kill the Bond franchise, it's survived some pretty serious stinkers before and now even the bankruptcy of the studio that owns the rights. There is still hope for future Bond adventures - although there may need to be more casting changes and the creative team responsible for this movie ought to be entirely replaced. It must be noted that Judi Dench, who at age 77, should have retired as M a while ago, put in the by far best performance of the movie. We'll miss you, M.

 Copyright 2012 - Raving Reviews - All Rights Reserved

Read More