The Weblog

Home for the heteronomous

Spoiler Alert Thursday

The most notable event on television this past week was the long-awaited series conclusion to “Dollhouse.” In as few words as possible: it did not disappoint. However, I warn you against reading anything positive into those words! If you thought “Dollhouse” was bad before, wait until you see this. Of all the people, Helo!? C’mon, now. How did the person who came up with a half dozen (to a dozen) interesting episodes of “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” (and most episodes of “Firefly”) come up with this piece of garbage? I sincerely hope that Joss Whedon is never allowed to make another show or movie: this was Kevin Smith bad.

I’m not sure when people as old as myself started playing teenagers of like fifteen. Take the most recent “Supernatural” episode: the teen-warlock is twenty-two in reality, his male friend is twenty-five (also plays a lab tech on “Caprica”–like a terminator, we have facial recognition software), and his female friend is thirty. No fifteen year old wannabe actors in Vancouver? I find that hard to believe.

“Human Target” remains the surprise show of the 2009/2010 season. No, it isn’t good; but it is bad-good. You should watch it. (There remains something funny about Brad from “Boston Legal” doing ninja stuff.)

“Caprica” was acceptable, but certainly not great–and definitely a bit slow. I hope this isn’t the case for the entire season. Although the great Admiral Adama as a low-level street thug for the mob is amusing.

“Spartacus: Blood & Sand” seems to have fallen into a formula: first quarter is softcore porn, second quarter is boring scheming, and the last half is visually spectacular ultra-violence. At least it is visually spectacular.

Tonight’s episode of “The Office” somehow looks even more dreadful than the clips episode? Remember when an episode was consistently funny? I don’t think there was been a single funny moment since like October. “Friends” aged better than this!

Advertisements

February 4, 2010 - Posted by | Spoiler Alert Thursdays

8 Comments

  1. b/c nowadays 15 years old are too infantile and can’t act maybe
    i don’t watch tv so can’t contribute
    i’m watching Cleo from 5 to 7 now, a wonderful clairvoyant there, tells her everything, but i can’t empathise with the girl crying over her cancer ds and in public! all over the place in the coffee shops, what’s there to cry about
    and funny hairdo too for a dying person
    i’ve noticed i can watch the movies from the 60-70ies even if balck and white and after 2000, but not earlier or the 80-90ies

    Comment by read | February 4, 2010

  2. that was a wig, and she’s the only person in the crowd who is pretty and all just stare at her, so i felt a bit sorry for her
    but the crowds in the film are interesting, the French were very natural back then i see

    Comment by read | February 4, 2010

  3. so she says she is happy after hearing that she’ll undergo chemotherapy not b/c of it of course
    a nice fairy tale it was, this movie

    Comment by read | February 5, 2010

  4. Couldn’t for the life of me think where I remembered the actor who plays Adam Graystone in Caprica from. Of course, he played Objectivist acolyte Nathaniel Branden in that cinematic classic, The Passion of Ayn Rand.

    Comment by voyou | February 7, 2010

  5. Daniel Graystone! But, more importantly, he was also in “Anacoda”–an overlooked masterpiece in the “giant-animal-eats-man” genre of movies. Plus: Ice Cube.

    Comment by Craig McFarlane | February 7, 2010

  6. Read: more likely because the use of under-eighteen actors is strictly regulated such that it would affect filming schedules and add extra costs (on-set guardian, tutors, etc). All the same, I find a thirty year old woman playing a fifteen year old girl somewhat off-putting. At least the girl playing Zoe Graystone in “Caprica” looks fourteen.

    Comment by Craig McFarlane | February 7, 2010

  7. I’m not sure when people as old as myself started playing teenagers of like fifteen.

    This practice has been in use for a long time — remember 90210, where all of the high school students were played by actors in the mid 20s and 30s? I think it’s done for artistic reasons rather than practical or logistical — I remember watching 90210 and feeling like their romantic problems were super serious and tragic, even though the characters were supposedly like sixteen.* Because they looked so much older, their issues felt more serious. I mean, can you imagine if Kelly and Dylan had actually been played by children?

    * Granted, I was like twelve at the time, which is why it seemed reasonable to me that by the time you were sixteen, you would be mature enough for world class drama.

    Comment by jms | February 9, 2010

  8. It’s a huge pain in the ass to employ actors younger than eighteen.

    Remember Head of the Class?

    Comment by K-sky | February 9, 2010


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: