When Good Shows Go Bad

I started thinking about this the other day when I was watching a show that I used to love and thought what has happened to the programmes that made me excited for a Saturday night?

Photo by Irregular Shed

I can think of two particular examples that jump into my head straight away when I think of Good Shows that went Bad. And it will be here where I will try to analyse what I liked about the series in the first place and what went wrong.



Doctor Who...
Buy This at Allposters.com

 We'll start with Doctor Who shall we? This is the programme that I mentioned above that influenced this article. Now most people would be shocked - it is not exactly a show that is failing in the ratings, but to me, it is just not in the same league as it once was. I am mainly talking about the revival of the series here (2005), since I never watched any of the classic episodes. I first tuned in on a whim, after hearing all the fuss I thought I would give it a go. And I'm glad I did, with Christopher Eccleston as the Doctor and Billie Piper as Rose,the companion, Doctor Who was energetic, engaging, witty and the characters full of life - all thanks to showrunner Russell T Davies, who helped revive the show for a new generation. After a brief stint, Eccleston was replaced with David Tennant, who was so natural in this role, it was like he was born to play it. He was able to balance the humour and drama well with the audience always gripped on the edge of their seat. Such was the popularity of Tennant, that on announcing he was departing the show, it was met with cries of anguish from the audience to who he announced it to. I, myself was eager for a fresh start on the show as after three seasons, it started to become repetitive. Little did I know that the show I loved would turn into something I'd have to force myself into watching due to loyatly. When Matt Smith was announced as the Doctor and after his brief entrance in Tennant's final episode, I didn't like him. I took an instant disliking. Here was the most emotional episode ever to be aired and this bouncing goofball comes barging in, ruining the atmosphere. I have since learned that actually, different to Tennant as he is, Smith wasn't the problem and he wasn't actually a bad actor. The problem, and I've spoken to and heard from several people who agree, is the writing and direction of the show. I couldn't quite put my finger on it to begin with - I figured it was just me, after being such a fan of Tennant, not being able to accept a change. I've since realised that actually the whole show seems off. I came to this conclusion after watching Smith's Doctor star in The Sarah Jane Adventures (written by Davies) and loving the way he way he was portrayed. Steven Moffat took over the role of showrunner after Davies had left, to the delight of me as he had written quite a few good episodes previously. This excitement soon wore off, after seeing that the characters are lacking - coming across as two-dimensional; the stories are dull and bleak, all merging into one; storylines and arcs are repetitive. Considering Moffet had promised to not feature classic monsters and aliens in his series, they do have a funny way of popping up every episode. Oh look, another dalek that's been defeated several times before, how terrifying...All of his characters that I never cared for - Amy Pond, the Doctor's companion; River Song, the Doctor's 'wife'; Madame Vastra, Jenny and Strax are so dull, I stopped watching. They never brought anything new and exciting to the show. It was only with the departure of Amy Pond that I started tentatively watching again, noticing that it isn't as bad as it was during seasons 5-6 but it is also nowhere near the quality of the earlier seasons of the revival. The characters have lost their heart, one of the great features of Davies' era. He made you care deeply for them, so much that you'd laugh at their jokes and cry along with the sad scenes. Whereas in Moffet's era, the characters could disappear for all I care and I wouldn't even miss them.

Movies Don't Create Psychos. Movies Make Psychos More Creative

                                   

 

This is a subject that many have argued and debated over the years - that of: do films really have an impact on the way people think and act? Are violent movies to blame for violence that occurs in real life? I know I've looked at this before, through my coursework during my studies but I would like to re-visit it again. My examples will highlight the media's moral panic and will argue for and against as best as possible.

Natural Born...
Buy This at Allposters.com

My first choice is a film whose whole purpose is to show audiences how violence is heavily influenced by the media. Originally written by Quentin Tarantino (a man often targeted for his violent films being a possible influence), Natural Born Killers was then brought to director Oliver Stone's attention who heavily re-wrote it after seeing how the media played a part in the cases of OJ Simpson and Rodney King. The film follows a couple - Mickey and Mallory Knox (played by Woody Harrelson and Juliette Lewis, respectively) who decide to go on a killing spree. The film is littered with media references - the journalist (Robert Downey Jr) who follows their case is making a documentary of their lives as he knows the audience wants to see their actions in a glorified sense; the way the couple met is shot as an old tv show in the style of I Love Lucy, contrasting the violence with a laughter track. There are several times when images are projected against the background in scenes, easily representing how movies affect our everyday lives - in the case of Natural Born Killers, the everyday lives are serial killers. The fact that Natural Born Killers is a parody of critics quickly placing the blame onto films for violence, it still came under fire as, ironically, critics slammed the film for being too violent. Real life crimes followed, naturally being blamed on Natural Born Killers - the case of Sarah Edmondson and boyfriend Benjamin Darras, who after watching Natural Born Killers, went out and shot two random people. Though, it has to be mentioned that the fact they were high on LSD may have something to do with it...The media lapped it up, with the author John Grisham, a friend of one of the victims, verbally attacking Oliver Stone for creating a violent film and allowing people to watch it. It was only after getting advice from Grisham, did the survivor of the attacks change her lawsuit to include Oliver Stone and the production company, before she had only taken action against the criminals. Natural Born Killers is not always an easy film to watch, with the frenzied pace and disjointed cuts and editing but this is all to represent the minds of the killers, showing the audience how chaotic their lives are, right up to the very last scene.



Scream 4
Buy This at Allposters.com


 My next example is the Scream franchise. Or at least the first one in the series. Now, Scream is a slasher film, a typical film showing a serial killer randomly murdering teenagers. Or, so it will first seem. But, in actual fact, Scream is a parody, cleverly sending up other slasher films. It's a different parody compared to Natural Born Killers, in that it is a more subtle attempt at highlighting cliches. Plus, Scream does not intend to drive its opinion down its audiences' throats as Natural Born Killers sometimes feels. Whereas Natural Born Killers' aim to show how media can be played in everyday lives was done visually and symbolically, Scream shows it through characters and their actions. The title of this article is uttered by one of the characters after the main character accuses them of seeing one too many movies, hence why she thinks they are a little bit unstable. The quote highlights a different view - not blaming films for creating violent people but explaining that they may be influenced. The film is littered with previous horror film references, one of the characters giving rules on what should and shouldn't be done in order to avoid the same consequences people in horror films face. This may explain the killers' obsession with all things scary-movie related, hence the phone calls asking each victim what their favourite film is. One can argue that the psychopaths portrayed in the film being easily led by the movies they watch, represent people being influenced and doing the exact same as the killers in the film. Again, like Natural Born Killers before it, Scream came to be heavily criticised and blamed for crimes linked to the film. One case that names Scream as a direct influence is that of Daniel Gill and Robert Fuller, teenagers who stabbed their friend after watching Scream. The drugs and an obsession with knives probably didn't help matters.

Conclusion:
It is so easy to place the blame on film. It's the easy way out for the criminals, 'the film made me do it'. And yet, people of a sound mind are never overheard saying to their friends: 'I watched Scream last night, it sent me messages in the guise of a plot and images to maim, torture and kill'. The critics are fast to place the blame, even without seeing the films in question, because surely if they were to watch the same film, then they too will go rushing out in an attempt to recreate images that they have seen. The argument that violent films influence violent behaviour is a flimsy one as it categorises every single person as a zombie willing to absorb all the images that are being fed to them. If this is the case, we'd all be a poor nation after buying everything that adverts tell us to buy. Each example of the cases I've mentioned all include uses of drugs and yet it is the violent films that were the main focus here. There is already something severely wrong with each of the criminals far before they had even watched a violent film, for their brain to even contemplate a crime and yet here they are passing the blame onto everything but themselves. It will be a sad time if the film industry decides to cave and censor their films as the majority of the cinema audience have never contemplated taking up a violent act after watching violent films, nevermind acting up on it. I think it's quite ironic that the two films heavily criticised for encouraging violent behaviour, are themselves a parody of this exact worry. Maybe I'm too defensive here, but I conclude that films are not responsible for peoples' actions. What do you think? Do you agree that films are blameless or do you think they should accept some responsibility?

This Time, It Is Personal

Photo by Marilyn M

 Sequels. Part-2. Follow-ups. Volume-2. These are all terms to describe a second film following the original - normally a successful film especially at the box office. Sometimes it is a chance to let fans of the original film find out what has happened to characters after the credits have rolled. Other times, it is the studio's way of cashing in on the box-office success, hoping to reproduce that with a follow up. Here are my choices of good, bad and really terrible sequels:

The Good:

                            

Godfather, Part 2...
Buy This at Allposters.com


 We'll start with an obvious choice. Godfather Part II is one of those films that I enjoy more than the original. The characters are more fleshed out, there is an interesting back-story, the length is divided between present and past - making the running time not as laborious as the first part. Al Pacino is quietly menacing as Michael Corleone, making the character almost like a ticking bomb - the audience not knowing when he will explode or quietly go about his way. Robert DeNiro, in flashbacks as Michael's dad and younger version of Marlon Brando from the first film, is even more subtle yet successfully dominating the screen. The use of the violent images, seen towards the end of the film with Michael getting rid of his rivals, is nicely contrasted with images of the baptism scene - a sequence that stays in audience's minds long after the film has finished. It works because it isn't a carbon copy of the original and yet the characters are still the same as the first part, however advanced as time has gone on.

Film Adaptations Part 1

Sherlock Holmes
Buy This at Allposters.com 

By using the title 'Film Adaptations', I'm mainly talking about films that have been adapted from books. I will start with the film adaptation of Sherlock Holmes (2009). I had originally seen this film in the cinemas and...hated it. Well, maybe 'hate' is too strong a word. I just know that I immensely disliked it on first viewing. It may have been a combination of a number of things but I now put it down to the broken heating in the cinema (end of December) that made me grumpy, therefore I was in no mood to take this film in and enjoy it in the way it was meant to be enjoyed. On second viewing, I discovered something that was rare for me-actually enjoying a film I disliked on first viewing.
   Originally appearing in 1887, Sherlock Holmes was a character conceived by Arthur Conan Doyle. In the majority of the 60 short stories and novels, the character John Watson serves as first-person narrator, letting the reader get a glimpse into the adventures of him and his long-term friend Holmes. These books have been adapted several times, all with Sherlock Holmes displaying the same instantly recognisable characteristics - the magnifying glass, the deer-stalker hat, the stiff upper lip. And yet none are displayed in the film directed by Guy Ritchie. How can this be a faithful adaptation when it leaves out all the common features associated with the books? This is where most of the audience had a problem with this recent big-screen adaptation, with people thinking the director was doing just another typical 'Guy Ritchie' action- slow-mo action sequences, gritty London setting, fight scenes, explosions. And yet, what some audience members missed entirely was actually, this film seemed to be the most faithful adaptation so far. After viewing the film a second time, I decided to indulge in reading the books. I discovered not only was the overall tone of the film faithful to the books, but the mannerisms, the speeches and the relationships were all true to the original short stories. It has only been with past adaptations that people have come to associate the character with the deerstalker hat, the magnifying glass, the cape, etc-things that are both absent in the books and the film. I have heard people complain about the film's character's representation, saying that Holmes would rarely leave the house, that he would never engage in boxing matches (all featured in Ritchie's version). And yet, on reading the books, it is clear that Ritchie has done his research well and all his choices included in the film are not just there purely to make this a blockbuster.
  Next are the actor choices. Some may argue the choice of casting an American to play a British icon. But as long as he nails the accent (which Downey does again, after successfully attempting an English accent in Chaplin [1992]) and as long as he is faithful to the character, why does it matter where the actor originates from? Hey, it could be worse-they could have hired an Australian to play another significant British icon...It is Downey's on-screen partnership with Jude Law's Watson that shines through here, playing each character as if they are squabbling brothers who are yet still fond of each other. Law's version of Watson is far from the bumbling side-kick we've seen in other adaptations and is written how he is portrayed in the books-as a former war hero doctor who can stand up for himself and is not afraid to challenge Holmes. Rachel McAdams is perfectly cast as Irene Adler, the only woman who can outsmart Holmes himself. McAdams does the role justice, allowing the audience to see an independent girl who can look after herself without the assistance of a man as was common in the 1800s. The main villain is Lord Blackwood, a role that is acted with relish by Mark Strong, an actor who is able to match his adversary with Downey's hero.
  Overall, a film that is actually a surprisingly faithful adaptation, more so than people like to give it credit for. I give this film as a whole 3.5 out of 5 ***1/2.

Well This Was Bound To Happen

Picture by Zambomba

And by that I mean me writing about the TV series Veronica Mars. I thought it'd be appropriate to re-visit this show after the news that the creator has started fundraising for a movie with most of the cast ready to be attached.

I started watching Veronica Mars after being recommended by a friend. Although at first, I avoided the show as the concept sounded a bit silly-teen private detective solving crimes each week. To me it just sounded like Nancy Drew the series. After the watching the pilot however, I fell in love. With the writing, the supporting characters and their relationships with one another but most importantly, with Veronica herself as played by Kristen Bell. A character who embodies independence, sassiness and a desire to find the truth. I'm glad I decided to ignore my initial thoughts of the show and go ahead and give it a chance. The whole concept is a lot darker than I would originally imagined: girl's best friend is brutally murdered, girl's father is the sheriff who accuses the wrong man of murder-who happens to be father of girl's boyfriend and girl's murdered best friend. The pilot starts as Veronica's life has already crumbled-she is no longer one of the popular kids at school, in fact she's pretty much despised but she soon starts a friendship with Wallace, after helping him deal with the school's motorcycle gang. The only one person she can count on is her dad-the former sheriff-turned-private eye. Veronica helps her dad on cases and it is here where the series could have become corny but with the quick-witted writing and the dark subjects featured, it becomes gripping, engaging and humourous. In fact, the whole of the first season plays like a murder mystery with side-stories featuring different cases. The genre is like a film-noir, drama, dark comedy all rolled into one in a high school setting. The series is so well-thought out by the show's creator Rob Thomas, that there are small details used in season 1 that are revealed further on in season 2. The characters develop over time instead of staying the same two-dimensional ways that other shows are guilty of yet not straying too far from their original intentions. The chemistry shared amongst all of the cast members is unlike any I've seen in the past-or since. Not only does Bell have on-screen chemistry with Jason Dohring who plays Logan Echolls- her enemy (to begin with), but she also has amazing chemistry with Enrico Colantoni who plays her on-screen father Keith Mars. Their father-daughter relationship is one of the best in a drama, sparking off one another, riffing in a way that's comparable to live theatre plays, constant quick-paced. Let's also not forget her chemistry with Percy Daggs III who plays her loyal best friend Wallace whose conversations with each other is normally where the humour comes through.

Even with weaker episodes dotted here and there in seasons 1 and 2, it was still better than most of the shows on today's television. Alas, as Veronica Mars reached season 3 it was cancelled-a lot sooner than it should have been. And even though season 3 was the weakest of all seasons, it sill had potential to go further. Which is why the news of a movie, helped out with fans' donations, has spread like wildfire and has everyone talking of the possibilities that may happen with their favourite characters. Veronica Mars is witty, at times amusing, and other times heartbreaking, and if you haven't already watched it, you are definitely missing out. I give this TV series as a whole 4.5 out of 5 ****1/2.

Little Gems

I want to write a piece about films I've managed to discover purely because of the actor that stars in them or are films that have encouraged me to seek out other films with the same actors in. These films all have a special place in my heart and are ones I would have enjoyed even if my favourite actors weren't involved.
Kiss Kiss, Bang...
Buy This at Allposters.com

 We will start with Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (2005). This was a film that I saw on a whim after wanting to see what Robert Downey Jr had to offer. I've always liked Downey but after seeing Sherlock Holmes at the cinema, I was left feeling unimpressed (on a second viewing on dvd however, I grew to love the film). I'd heard a lot about this film and hearing that it was a dark comedy, I thought I'd give it a whirl. I'm glad I did, it now stands as one of my all-time favourites. Downey gives a stellar performance as the main character Harry, who, after a case of mistaken identity, gets shoved into the world of Hollywood. Paired up with a private detective in the shape of Val Kilmer as the unforgettable Gay Perry, Harry goes on the pretense of researching a role to keep up appearances after hiding from the law. The quick-fire, witty dialogue is one of the reasons this film keeps the audience engrossed, along with the plot and the narrative. The movie is set up as a modern film noir, with Downey providing a quirky voice-over, grabbing people's attention with its non-conventional lines. Most notable is Downey's acting-he goes from clueless, lovable idiot to ass-kicking hero all in one film whilst staying believable as the character develops. Val Kilmer, not known for his comic roles, is the one with the memorable one-liners. This, teamed with Downey's perfect comic timing in his actions, makes them one of the best on-screen duos in comedy for a long time. Michelle Monaghan co-stars as Harmony, managing to portray a ditzy wannabe-actress without coming across as an exaggerated air-head. A film with a lot of heart and a lot of laughs without coming across as slapstick, I give this film 5 out of 5 *****.

Choke
Buy This at Allposters.com


Next on my list is a film I discovered whilst channel-surfing one late Friday night. On first viewing, I enjoyed the quirkiness of Choke (2008) immensely but never gave it a second thought until a few months ago when I re-watched it to provide myself with a wider range of Sam Rockwell films. I discovered that Rockwell has the ability to make me feel a variety of emotions towards one character; pity, anger, humour, frustration and fondness were all felt during the course of the film. Rockwell plays Vince, a sex-addict who is agonisingly trying to sort through his life, albeit with complications. It centres around his relationship with his mother (played wonderfully by Anjelica Huston), complicated by her Alzheimer's disease and his frustrations of finding out about his past and what made him the man is today. Rockwell gives another scene-stealing performance one after another, and the scenes where he simulates choking as part of a con, is so convincing, it almost makes you squirm in your seat.
Like Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, this film also relies on a voice-over provided by the main character yet this one differs to the previous film. It is a more laid-back, relaxed tone that guides the viewer on the same journey that Vince is also on. Compared to Kiss Kiss, Choke's tone is at a more easy-going pace yet it is still able to provide the same 'should-I-really-be-laughing-at-this' comedy that is a token of black humour. Kelly MacDonald also stars as the film's innocent female character, trying to guide Vince back to a normal way of being. Watching the film is like watching a man fight with his internal conscience as he tries to figure out whether to stay on his path of destruction, as symbolised in flashbacks or to start afresh, something MacDonald's character can provide. This film is edgy, eccentric without being too wacky and underneath it all, a journey of discovering oneself, I give this film 4 out of 5 ****.

Finally, on my list of rarely-discovered treasures is Dead Man's Shoes (2004). I sought this film after seeing another film starring Paddy Considine by the name of Last Resort (2000) at university. I was so struck by his realistic performance in that film, that I immediately (after doing some research) went and saw this film on DVD. Dead Man's Shoes is a complete contrast to the two previous films on this list and yet it sticks in my mind the most. The humour of the two aforementioned is completely replaced by the dark tone and the sombre mood in Dead Man's Shoes, a given considering it is a revenge film. The film follows Considine's character Richard as he goes after the brutal bullies who traumatised his younger brother with learning difficulties. Shot around the Peak District, the director Shane Meadows easily brings the sense of discomfort to the audience by conveying the starkness of each scene. The hand-held camera shots give it an almost-realistic feel, whilst each long shot of Considine's unwavering, silent stares is like a fuse to an explosion-the audience unsure to how he is going to react. The drug scene featured is the scene that stands out as being the key definition of this film-the quick shots of the bullies reacting to what they've taken interspersed with shots of Richard beginning his vengeance creates a jarring effect, with the audience not quite able to grasp what is real and what is just a figment of a drug trip. This makes Considine's appearances throughout the scene even more terrifying, his character going to all lengths to help his brother against his attackers. The tone throughout is sullen and the pace reflects this without letting the film drag. From beginning to end, the audience is on the edge of their seat, tense in finding out what will be the conclusion-a feeling that still lasts on multiple viewings. I urge everyone to seek out this film, I give it 5 out of 5 *****.

Guilty Pleasure?

Ok, so I'm still debating whether this film is one to rave about or not. It certainly does have its highlights (including supporting actors, pace- to name a few) but it also has its fair share of cringe-worthy moments (dialogue, plot, predictability, etc). I first saw this film in the cinema and later purchased it on blu-ray as a means to watch it without having to worry about giving my brain a workout. It certainly is a lot more enjoyable than the previous film I wrote about but it does have its moments where you're left thinking 'I saw that coming'. The Sweeney is a remake of the classic TV series of the same name from the 1970s starring John Thaw and Dennis Waterman. I know I'm not normally a fan of remakes but considering I had never watched the original series (though I had heard of it), I thought I'd give it a go. Plus, the fact that they weren't making it into a comedy in the vein of Starsky and Hutch and Charlie's Angels was a bonus. It follows Ray Winstone as Regan, (the character that John Thaw made famous) and his partner George Carter as portrayed by Ben Drew (a role originated by Dennis Waterman). Ray Winstone is his usual cockney, larger-than-life self, something that works well as a hardened cop but no real surprises there. It is Drew's Carter that is the pleasant surprise here; I came into the film only knowing him as his rap persona - Plan B, I left the film satisfied that Drew isn't just another singer  who think they can act when really it is just an excuse for another paycheque. His laid-back style in this film is a nice contrast to Winstone's fired-up angry cop but Drew holds his own in the scenes that require emotion (as seen when defending his partner) yet, instead of over-acting, he is able to calmly act through the scene without hamming it up. Damian Lewis also makes a notable appearance as Carter and Regan's boss, giving the film an almost sense of credibility.

I guess this film's downfall is the development of the female characters, in which there doesn't seem to be much. The main female character as portrayed by Hayley Atwell is, at first glance, a modern 21st Century girl-a member of the notorious Flying Squad, she can kick ass and still get the guy. Of course, when the guy happens to be middle-aged, gruff Winstone, I don't know if that can be ruled as a good thing. And looking closer still, yes she is one of the few females to be a part of the Cop Crew but, aside from doling out a little slap here and there, she still has to hide behind Winstone's Regan and stand aside while the men save the day. But, I guess this is a typical testosterone-filled action, and given its predictability, shouldn't be taken too seriously.

The pace is what stops this film from becoming too dull and stale. The action is constant, even if the storyline was one I had seen before in previous films. Although, having it set in a glamorous-styled London is a nice change of scenery from typical British films (drab, constantly raining, poverty are just some connotations that spring up when I think of a British film). It is still obviously British though, so no need to worry that the British Film Industry has turned Hollywood.

  All in all, an enjoyable film with some predictable bits here and there. A film to watch when lazing around, I give it 3 out of 5 ***