You know which show I can't quit watching, but which is some oddly irresponsible television? A&E's new program Paranormal State features a team of college undergraduates who are true believers in the paranormal. Not UFO's, mind you, but they fancy themselves to be ghost hunters, but without any pesky skepticism.
Their goal is, ostensibly, "investigations" into the paranormal, but that's not really what seems to happen. Somehow the show has teamed up the undergrads with several other charlatans of the supernatural, and these folks are brought in to (a) assist in the investigations and (b) enjoy something of the limelight which they seem to be seeking.
The "director" of the Penn State Paranormal club is probably just a shade or two away from the sort of conviction in utter nonsense you really only find in con-men and people building compounds who don't let their flock speak to their families any more (for their own good). He leads the team with the charmless charisma that will one day make for low-level cult leader status as he rambles on about the presence of ghosts and demonic spirits, and plays the expert in mystical matters to not just his band of followers, but the people whose houses he invariably exorcises by the end of each episode. As an undergrad, I'm not sure exactly what his credentials are supposed to be (I've ruled out critical thinking as one of his strong suits), but his followers seem oddly devoted and willing to defer to him in all of the decisions for the group. No doubt, this guy is going to be asking them to sign over their worldly possessions in five years and buy matching purple jumpsuits.
What's really sort of out of whack is that the folks who the group comes to "help", are in fact, in need of real help. Generally these folks seem distraught by whatever it is they believe is living with them in their house. I admit that, in some twisted way, this means that the group of undergrads is helping the people in question. I just am not sure a seance and having some 20-year old kid semi-politely asking the "spirit" to leave is what these folks actually need. But, according to the show, whatever magic they work gets rid of what's ailing the subjects of each episode. Or, you know, the people just really don't want the nerds coming back.
Now, let me qualify this somewhat: I watch Ghost Hunters on Sci-Fi all the time. It's the only one of the basic-cable paranormal shows that I think applies basic logic to... uh... ghosts. At least there's some half-assed investigation put into it and not just "psychics" wandering about sensing angry feelings. And I give the show kudos for trying first and foremost to try to explain away the bumps and creaks in the night, and for understanding that sometimes people leap to bizarre conclusions. And sometimes people have really bad pipes and wiring in their homes.
In short, unlike most of these shows, I don't think Jay and Grant, of Ghost Hunters are crazy. Well, I do think spending your evenings running around some stranger's house with a video camera is a bit... odd. But their first inclination is not to believe every hiss in a tape is an attempt by the dead to communicate. But I also don't think they're outright fibbing in order to get exposure and money.
Sadly, I don't really believe in ghosts. But, I would like to make a buck off of other people's paranoid fears. Jason and I have often spoken of what we might charge for capturing and containing one of the departed in true Ghostbusters fashion.
"We're ready to believe you!"
Monday, January 28, 2008
Ryan Goes America
For reasons I cannot explain and upon which I do not wish to elaborate, I can empathize with Charlie in this clip.
Really, Jason and Jamie are, at all times, about ten seconds from hearing me burst out into similar song.
Really, Jason and Jamie are, at all times, about ten seconds from hearing me burst out into similar song.
Zero Effect Tenth Anniversary
Join Chronological Snobbery for a 10 Year anniversary investigation of the 90's-era detective movie "The Zero Effect".
Read here.
Read here.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Zero Effect - 10 Years Later
The League has been asked by the powers that be at Chronological Snobbery to participate in a bit of a movie review round-robin for "The Zero Effect". It seems that the movie, Zero Effect came out ten years ago. I saw it on DVD within a year or so of its release on home video.
Rather than try to remember a movie I hadn't seen in about 9 years, I picked it up from Netflix.
I admit that I wasn't a huge fan of "Zero Effect" when I saw the movie the first time. I definitely got that the movie was a modern-day Sherlock Holmes, with Bill Pullman in the role of Daryl Zero/ Holmes and Ben Stiller in the role of Steve Arlo/ Watson. While working, Daryl Zero has superhuman abilities of deduction and intuition. Off the case, he's a drug-addled lunatic who plays the guitar. Badly. Just as Holmes was supposed to play the violin and partake in a bit of, if memory serves, cocaine, the analog is pretty straightforward. And just as Watson was supposed to declare "by jove! How the deuce did you deduce that, Holmes?", so is Stiller put the position of being both impressed by his employer's abilities, as well as assisting him and representing him to the public.
And while I certainly wouldn't want a "modern day Holmes" movie, I wasn't sure what, exactly, Kasdan was trying to create. Was this Holmes through the eyes of the modern day detective movie? Or was it Holmes through the eyes of the son of a successful Hollywood producer?
The plot/ mystery of the movie is an excuse for the audience to meet Daryl Zero and Steve Arlo, and to challenge the status quo we're to understand they share when the movie begins. Should Steve Arlo give up his working relationship with Zero for the way it interferes with his personal life? Can Zero find love?
What starts off as an amusing premise never really works. The movie isn't funny, and I don't think it's intended to be so. So I'm not really sure what Kasdan was intending. Too much time is spent concerned with the quirky relationship of Zero and Arlo, and the mystery plot isn't necessarily engaging enough on its own to work as a feature film. Perhaps this would be a great pilot leading into a television series. Long story short, its tough to ever know what is supposed to be the A-plot of the movie, and what is intended to the B-Plot. Are we watching a movie about Zero and Arlo or the blackmail case they're supposed to be uncovering? Is this a standard case for them, or is this one particularly unusual?
Part of the problem is that Pullman is only occasionally convincing as an unhinged eccentric genius. Too much of the time, perhaps, he's on the case, and so seems together. Other shows, such as Monk or Psyche feature quirky detectives (Monk, most specifically comes to mind as an example of a detective program which is completely dedicated to the protagonist's psychoses). Prior to that, Columbo and others had been pretty wacky detectives working through convoluted plots. There's nothing here in "Zero Effect" to defy expectations. Instead, not a whole lot seems to happen. Character bits that are revealed skew towards the depressing, but with so little time to get to know Arlo and Zero, its tough to get invested. Pullman has never struck me as an actor of great range, and Zero Effect does nothing to erase that notion.
TV and movies are full of such characters, and drug-addled mood swings may look good on paper, but in a movie where we're given little room to feel sympathy for our leading man to begin with, profanity-laced binges don't really draw you in. Honestly, the idea seems like something lifted out of a completely different movie, as does the intentionally awkward "Zero plays the guitar" scene.
Ben Stiller's portrayal of Steve Arlo is hampered by stilted dialog he delivers mostly through clenched teeth. This would have been a post-"Ben Stiller Show" Stiller, but pre-Super Stardom from "There's Something About Mary" and the schticky groove Stiller would carve out with films like "Meet the Fockers". Honestly, I'd forgotten he was the Watson-archetype in this film, and raised an eyebrow in the first frames when he appeared. He more or less disappears going into the third reel, with one scene which resolves his character arc and a tacked on wedding scene to give our character an out at the end of the film.
Readers may recall that the Sherlock Holmes stories were told from the perspective of Watson in order to give the reader the same surprise the audience might feel upon hearing Holmes spout out an amazing deduction. However, director/ writer Kasdan switched the POV from Arlo to Zero somewhat abruptly early on in the film, taking away the exasperated amazement that Arlo might feel working side by side with an unknowable genius. In many ways, this gives the feeling that the screenplay was cobbled together from various parts of various drafts and that there's never any solid, single point of view to the movie. No doubt this was done to accommodate the scenes with GLoria Sullivan, which, by necessity to the plot, could not include Arlo. Unfortunately, this makes Arlo semi-redundant within the structure of the story.
For someone with so much screentime and who is supposed to win over Daryl Zero, Kim Dickens' Gloria Sullivan is a surprisingly dull character and never feels like the foil she's described to be in the film's final moments (I literally paused and thought to myself... "oh, yeah... I guess she did do all of that..." as Zero re-capped why he admired her so.). Ryan O'Neal is really the only other player, and so in a mystery such as this, there just really isn't much mystery to go around. But he pretty much plays Ryan O'Neal, if you're wondering.
Director/ Writer/ etc... Jake Kasdan would have been about 23 at the time of the film's creation, and that may account for a lot of the problems with the film. Too young, perhaps, to really realize he was recycling material. Mistaking drudging, monotone dialog for moodiness, and Dennis Hopper-channeling mania for Zero as "quirkiness", whatever humor he finds in the inconsistent pill-popping of Zero simply doesn't work.
Perhaps these characters had lived in Kasdan's head too long as a writer, and as a director, he was unable to get the performances out of his seasoned cast. Fresh out of school and with a father like Lawrence Kasdan to call in favors, movies can get made. Perhaps had Kasdan waited a bit before bringing this movie to the screen, the movie would have found its footing.
I'm not familiar with the box office on Zero Effect, but I do not recall the movie doing well at the time of release, and only rented it originally at the suggestion of someone else.
Kasdan's follow up efforts haven't been as serious in tone. He directed the dispiriting, laughless "Orange County" (a movie which seemed as if it was written by the most entitled priviliged kid for other entitled privileged kids.). It is telling, I think, that I left the theater before "Orange County" was over. We had technical problems with the film in the final reel, and rather than wait for the theater to fix them, we demanded a refund and left.
Kasdan also directed this winter's musical/ comedy "Walk Hard", which was funny when relying on the improv talents of the players and otherwise awkward and clunky, and certainly stretched on about twenty minutes too long.
Perhaps Kasdan had originally intended to write a comedy with Zero Effect. Perhaps he even believed that's what he was shooting until he got back his footage. Who knows? The movie begins on a an absurd note, suggesting some dark comedy... and abandons any humorous aspects about twenty minutes in before giving up and plodding to a finish.
My guess is that I am missing something here that has kept the film alive with a certain group of fans. But on a second viewing, there's still not much to pull me in. For a movie that seems to think it has some great characters, they seem derivative. For a movie that ostensibly is about deduction and detecting a mystery, the plot just isn't really engaging enough to really feel like the greatest challenge of the career of Daryl Zero, which it must be, lest why would the movie exist?
As someone participating in a round-robin of "Zero Effect" reviews, I'll be curious to see what others say.
I was going to close the post with something dickish about how the movie had "zero effect" on me. And that's probably still true. But, mostly, I feel the movie is forgettable, and has been largely forgotten. It's never a good sign when you realize upon watching a movie again for the second time that you have no recollection of the plot or characters from the first viewing. It's a worse sign when you are dead-certain mid-viewing that your brain may be erasing the movie from your memory before you've even finished watching it, and that's not going to help when it comes time for the big reveal.
Rather than try to remember a movie I hadn't seen in about 9 years, I picked it up from Netflix.
I admit that I wasn't a huge fan of "Zero Effect" when I saw the movie the first time. I definitely got that the movie was a modern-day Sherlock Holmes, with Bill Pullman in the role of Daryl Zero/ Holmes and Ben Stiller in the role of Steve Arlo/ Watson. While working, Daryl Zero has superhuman abilities of deduction and intuition. Off the case, he's a drug-addled lunatic who plays the guitar. Badly. Just as Holmes was supposed to play the violin and partake in a bit of, if memory serves, cocaine, the analog is pretty straightforward. And just as Watson was supposed to declare "by jove! How the deuce did you deduce that, Holmes?", so is Stiller put the position of being both impressed by his employer's abilities, as well as assisting him and representing him to the public.
And while I certainly wouldn't want a "modern day Holmes" movie, I wasn't sure what, exactly, Kasdan was trying to create. Was this Holmes through the eyes of the modern day detective movie? Or was it Holmes through the eyes of the son of a successful Hollywood producer?
The plot/ mystery of the movie is an excuse for the audience to meet Daryl Zero and Steve Arlo, and to challenge the status quo we're to understand they share when the movie begins. Should Steve Arlo give up his working relationship with Zero for the way it interferes with his personal life? Can Zero find love?
What starts off as an amusing premise never really works. The movie isn't funny, and I don't think it's intended to be so. So I'm not really sure what Kasdan was intending. Too much time is spent concerned with the quirky relationship of Zero and Arlo, and the mystery plot isn't necessarily engaging enough on its own to work as a feature film. Perhaps this would be a great pilot leading into a television series. Long story short, its tough to ever know what is supposed to be the A-plot of the movie, and what is intended to the B-Plot. Are we watching a movie about Zero and Arlo or the blackmail case they're supposed to be uncovering? Is this a standard case for them, or is this one particularly unusual?
Part of the problem is that Pullman is only occasionally convincing as an unhinged eccentric genius. Too much of the time, perhaps, he's on the case, and so seems together. Other shows, such as Monk or Psyche feature quirky detectives (Monk, most specifically comes to mind as an example of a detective program which is completely dedicated to the protagonist's psychoses). Prior to that, Columbo and others had been pretty wacky detectives working through convoluted plots. There's nothing here in "Zero Effect" to defy expectations. Instead, not a whole lot seems to happen. Character bits that are revealed skew towards the depressing, but with so little time to get to know Arlo and Zero, its tough to get invested. Pullman has never struck me as an actor of great range, and Zero Effect does nothing to erase that notion.
TV and movies are full of such characters, and drug-addled mood swings may look good on paper, but in a movie where we're given little room to feel sympathy for our leading man to begin with, profanity-laced binges don't really draw you in. Honestly, the idea seems like something lifted out of a completely different movie, as does the intentionally awkward "Zero plays the guitar" scene.
Ben Stiller's portrayal of Steve Arlo is hampered by stilted dialog he delivers mostly through clenched teeth. This would have been a post-"Ben Stiller Show" Stiller, but pre-Super Stardom from "There's Something About Mary" and the schticky groove Stiller would carve out with films like "Meet the Fockers". Honestly, I'd forgotten he was the Watson-archetype in this film, and raised an eyebrow in the first frames when he appeared. He more or less disappears going into the third reel, with one scene which resolves his character arc and a tacked on wedding scene to give our character an out at the end of the film.
Readers may recall that the Sherlock Holmes stories were told from the perspective of Watson in order to give the reader the same surprise the audience might feel upon hearing Holmes spout out an amazing deduction. However, director/ writer Kasdan switched the POV from Arlo to Zero somewhat abruptly early on in the film, taking away the exasperated amazement that Arlo might feel working side by side with an unknowable genius. In many ways, this gives the feeling that the screenplay was cobbled together from various parts of various drafts and that there's never any solid, single point of view to the movie. No doubt this was done to accommodate the scenes with GLoria Sullivan, which, by necessity to the plot, could not include Arlo. Unfortunately, this makes Arlo semi-redundant within the structure of the story.
For someone with so much screentime and who is supposed to win over Daryl Zero, Kim Dickens' Gloria Sullivan is a surprisingly dull character and never feels like the foil she's described to be in the film's final moments (I literally paused and thought to myself... "oh, yeah... I guess she did do all of that..." as Zero re-capped why he admired her so.). Ryan O'Neal is really the only other player, and so in a mystery such as this, there just really isn't much mystery to go around. But he pretty much plays Ryan O'Neal, if you're wondering.
Director/ Writer/ etc... Jake Kasdan would have been about 23 at the time of the film's creation, and that may account for a lot of the problems with the film. Too young, perhaps, to really realize he was recycling material. Mistaking drudging, monotone dialog for moodiness, and Dennis Hopper-channeling mania for Zero as "quirkiness", whatever humor he finds in the inconsistent pill-popping of Zero simply doesn't work.
Perhaps these characters had lived in Kasdan's head too long as a writer, and as a director, he was unable to get the performances out of his seasoned cast. Fresh out of school and with a father like Lawrence Kasdan to call in favors, movies can get made. Perhaps had Kasdan waited a bit before bringing this movie to the screen, the movie would have found its footing.
I'm not familiar with the box office on Zero Effect, but I do not recall the movie doing well at the time of release, and only rented it originally at the suggestion of someone else.
Kasdan's follow up efforts haven't been as serious in tone. He directed the dispiriting, laughless "Orange County" (a movie which seemed as if it was written by the most entitled priviliged kid for other entitled privileged kids.). It is telling, I think, that I left the theater before "Orange County" was over. We had technical problems with the film in the final reel, and rather than wait for the theater to fix them, we demanded a refund and left.
Kasdan also directed this winter's musical/ comedy "Walk Hard", which was funny when relying on the improv talents of the players and otherwise awkward and clunky, and certainly stretched on about twenty minutes too long.
Perhaps Kasdan had originally intended to write a comedy with Zero Effect. Perhaps he even believed that's what he was shooting until he got back his footage. Who knows? The movie begins on a an absurd note, suggesting some dark comedy... and abandons any humorous aspects about twenty minutes in before giving up and plodding to a finish.
My guess is that I am missing something here that has kept the film alive with a certain group of fans. But on a second viewing, there's still not much to pull me in. For a movie that seems to think it has some great characters, they seem derivative. For a movie that ostensibly is about deduction and detecting a mystery, the plot just isn't really engaging enough to really feel like the greatest challenge of the career of Daryl Zero, which it must be, lest why would the movie exist?
As someone participating in a round-robin of "Zero Effect" reviews, I'll be curious to see what others say.
I was going to close the post with something dickish about how the movie had "zero effect" on me. And that's probably still true. But, mostly, I feel the movie is forgettable, and has been largely forgotten. It's never a good sign when you realize upon watching a movie again for the second time that you have no recollection of the plot or characters from the first viewing. It's a worse sign when you are dead-certain mid-viewing that your brain may be erasing the movie from your memory before you've even finished watching it, and that's not going to help when it comes time for the big reveal.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Ways I could spend my government money
Unky George sees that we're falling on hard times. To help us through the hard times and the foreclosure on our homes, he and Aunt Nancy opened their purse and are sending us a check.
You and I could be getting $600 from the government.
How can I spend it?
Can I get a gun?
Three Petsafe Cat Verandas?
Six majestic eagle scuptlures?
An Adventurometer?
20 robots?
here's a list of items for $600
How should the League spend his $600? Assuming he doesn't just pay some bills...
You and I could be getting $600 from the government.
How can I spend it?
Can I get a gun?
Three Petsafe Cat Verandas?
Six majestic eagle scuptlures?
An Adventurometer?
20 robots?
here's a list of items for $600
How should the League spend his $600? Assuming he doesn't just pay some bills...
Thursday, January 24, 2008
You Should Be Reading: BLUE BEETLE
I was as bummed as the next guy when DC killed off Ted Kord in the event comic "Countdown to Infinite Crisis". And I think, in some ways, DC knew they'd kind of made a mistake. They'd finally put the spotlight on a character who was almost universally loved, but who had a hard time making it as anything but a supporting character. But certainly, the fanbase liked the character and wanted the possibility of having Ted in more stories.
Ted Kord as Blue Beetle was just fun. He was Batman with none of the trauma, cool gadgets and a fun pal in Booster Gold. What wasn't to like?
I'm happy to report that, in spite of the end of a great character in Ted Kord, DC's replacement wasn't just some half-baked replacement so they could put out a new #1 and temporarily lift sales. DC introduced a whole new concept with the creation of Jaime Reyes, a 16 year old living in El Paso who has merged with the Blue Beetle Scarab once owned by the first Beetle, Dan Garrett, and the second, Ted Kord.
I was originally skeptical. Both Marvel and DC had been trying to catch lightning in a bottle again since Spider-Man hit the scene with a constant stream of teen-agers with varying degrees of tragic backgrounds and mopeyness. The formula had never really managed to coalesce again, but that didn't mean teen-book after teen-book hadn't hit the shelves.
Jaime doesn't always handle all of the threats he faces with the calm, cool nerve of an action hero.
Blue Beetle tried something a little different. Jaime wasn't an edgy kid, he was a good kid who lived with his parents and had a fairly standard relationship with his folks. He even told them about his Beetle-powers right off the bat. Further, he had supportive friends, also in on the secret identity, and stayed in El Paso, rather than immediately getting shipped off to some other town that the writers might know better.
Perhaps because Jaime isn't moody or depressing, its a bit easier to believe he's tossed himself headlong into the superhero business with his family's support and a bit of fun rather than because he's suffering from crushing guilt.
Moreover, John Rogers has managed to tell a fairly expansive story without undue decompression, and after providing several pieces along the way, the story of Blue Beetle is finally coming to a head.
Beetle keeps good company. This issue featured Beetle and Superman visiting Austin, for which the artist had no references.
Honestly, if DC is looking for a property they could easily bring to other media, the latest version of Blue Beetle is it. The generational aspect of the character might be fun to explore, but I think audiences would also really respond to not-just-eager-but-uncertain hero Jaime Reyes. Throw in one of the best supporting casts in comics since Clark Kent met Lois Lane, and there's a lot there.
I don't know if DC and writer Keith Giffen knew exactly what they wanted to do for the first few issues, but when the comic was handed over to John Rogers and the armor changed from so weird it was thought to be magic to a sci-fi angle with global consequences, it's been one of the comics I pick up first from my stack every time it comes out.
I should also add that there have been occasional guest-written issues, and those have been fun as well. I think that already the character and his environment are well-enough defined that guest writers can step in and keep up the spirit that Giffen and Rogers have worked to define.
Check it out. Blue Beetle is a good read.
Plus, really, the armor is totally cool.
Ted Kord as Blue Beetle was just fun. He was Batman with none of the trauma, cool gadgets and a fun pal in Booster Gold. What wasn't to like?
I'm happy to report that, in spite of the end of a great character in Ted Kord, DC's replacement wasn't just some half-baked replacement so they could put out a new #1 and temporarily lift sales. DC introduced a whole new concept with the creation of Jaime Reyes, a 16 year old living in El Paso who has merged with the Blue Beetle Scarab once owned by the first Beetle, Dan Garrett, and the second, Ted Kord.
I was originally skeptical. Both Marvel and DC had been trying to catch lightning in a bottle again since Spider-Man hit the scene with a constant stream of teen-agers with varying degrees of tragic backgrounds and mopeyness. The formula had never really managed to coalesce again, but that didn't mean teen-book after teen-book hadn't hit the shelves.
Jaime doesn't always handle all of the threats he faces with the calm, cool nerve of an action hero.
Blue Beetle tried something a little different. Jaime wasn't an edgy kid, he was a good kid who lived with his parents and had a fairly standard relationship with his folks. He even told them about his Beetle-powers right off the bat. Further, he had supportive friends, also in on the secret identity, and stayed in El Paso, rather than immediately getting shipped off to some other town that the writers might know better.
Perhaps because Jaime isn't moody or depressing, its a bit easier to believe he's tossed himself headlong into the superhero business with his family's support and a bit of fun rather than because he's suffering from crushing guilt.
Moreover, John Rogers has managed to tell a fairly expansive story without undue decompression, and after providing several pieces along the way, the story of Blue Beetle is finally coming to a head.
Beetle keeps good company. This issue featured Beetle and Superman visiting Austin, for which the artist had no references.
Honestly, if DC is looking for a property they could easily bring to other media, the latest version of Blue Beetle is it. The generational aspect of the character might be fun to explore, but I think audiences would also really respond to not-just-eager-but-uncertain hero Jaime Reyes. Throw in one of the best supporting casts in comics since Clark Kent met Lois Lane, and there's a lot there.
I don't know if DC and writer Keith Giffen knew exactly what they wanted to do for the first few issues, but when the comic was handed over to John Rogers and the armor changed from so weird it was thought to be magic to a sci-fi angle with global consequences, it's been one of the comics I pick up first from my stack every time it comes out.
I should also add that there have been occasional guest-written issues, and those have been fun as well. I think that already the character and his environment are well-enough defined that guest writers can step in and keep up the spirit that Giffen and Rogers have worked to define.
Check it out. Blue Beetle is a good read.
Plus, really, the armor is totally cool.
FLILF?
With first Fred Thompson, and now Dennis Kucinich dropping out of the race for the White House, I am reminded of this Daily Show story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)