TV & Movie Buffet: chick stuff

Showing posts with label chick stuff. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 3, 2008

Ghost Town

Tastes better than expected

By Lauren Flemming

“Ghost Town” delivers some well-deserved chuckles and even a few laugh-induced tears, despite the lack of publicity surrounding this romantic comedy.

An anti-social and brutally rude dentist, Bertram Pincus (Ricky Gervais, “The Office”), unexpectedly dies during a common medical procedure but is revived after seven minutes. Unaware of his brief passing, Bertram leaves the hospital only to find hordes of people staring at and following him. He thinks they’re hallucinations, but the people are actually ghosts with unfinished business, seeking his help to resolve their unattended earthly affairs.

Naturally, as an adamant anti-people-person, Bertram is rattled by his new company, even more so as he begins responding to them in public, drawing stares from bewildered humans who cann't see the ghosts. One ghost in particular, Frank Herlihy (Greg Kinnear), uses his persuasive, and at times petulant, demeanor to use Bertram to break off the impending wedding of his widow, Gwen (Tea Leoni). Bertram must overcome his aversion for social niceties and befriend Gwen, who happens to live in his building, in order to rid himself of Frank’s constant company.

Bertram and Frank discover some supernatural confusion along the way and, in due time, experience the inevitable “ah-ha!” moment of self- (or in Frank’s case, spirit-) awareness.

Gervais’ portrayal of Bertram is sharp, quite easily carrying the humor of the entire film. Fans of “The Office” original will not be disappointed with his performance.

Kinnear pulls off the narcissism that follows his character to purgatory, but doesn’t seem to embody any real redeeming qualities until the very end of the film.

Complete with a hilarious gag scene and some opportunistic cheeky jokes, the film was entertaining and funnier than expected. The basic plot is stale—man sees dead people and can communicate with them—but writer/director David Koepp (better known for his action screenplays: War of the Worlds, Jurassic Park, Spider-Man) manages to incorporate some fresh humor.

Expect a romantic-comedy story-line, but don’t expect the mushy-gushy—this film steers clear from (almost) all gag-worthy scenes by injecting very unromantic humor. Well worth a matinee-priced ticket, “Ghost Town” will, if nothing else, keep you smiling at the quick quips of Ricky Gervais.

Check it out: Ghost Town official website (requires updated Flash plug-ins)

Ghost Town Trailer

Tuesday, December 2, 2008

Lipstick Jungle - Season 2: "Let it Be"

Pretty, empty calories

By Jennifer Paxton

Once upon a time an HBO gem celebrated Jimmy Choo’s, Manolo Blahnik’s and the modern woman. Witty, provoking insight accompanied character-driven plot lines, and the ladies were hooked.

Flash forward four years after “Sex and the City”’s conclusion in 2004, and that caliber of fresh television for today’s women has not been met.

In its second season, NBC’s “Lipstick Jungle” follows the busy lives of three expensive purse-toting New York women.

There’s Wendy Healy (Brooke Shields), a movie executive juggling ballsy decisions at work and a family at home. Nico Reilly (Kim Raver, “24”) is on top of her career game as well, taking the helm as editor-in-chief of a “Vanity Fair”-esque fashion magazine. Fashion designer Victory (Lindsay Price, “Beverly Hills, 90210”) plays a hopeless romantic struggling to find Mr. Right while keeping her studio afloat.

It’s no surprise that “Lipstick Jungle,” based on the book by “Sex and the City” author Candace Bushnell, revolves around drama considering its hasty origins. “Jungle” premiered alongside ABC’s “Cashmere Mafia,” which was made by “Sex and the City” creator and executive consultant Darren Star. The two wannabes duked it out in the primetime slot with neither show ever really winning. They featured similarly high-powered, caffeine-fueled women trying to balance executive jobs with marriage, families and an ever-growing collection of enviably cute outfits. Can they have it all?

“Lipstick Jungle” wants to say “yes.” In “Chapter 10: Let It Be,” Nico grapples with how to approach her new relationship with her 25-year-old boyfriend, Kirby, as a widow in public. Victory can’t decide between her new beau, Rodrigo, and her old multimillionaire one, Joe Bennett. Bennett, played by Andrew McCarthy, fills the role of “Mr. Big” for the series, carefully treading the line between sexy intrigue and disappointing stupidity. And Wendy, the anchor of the show, becomes involved in a complex insurance fraud case at work but still magically makes time for dinner with her family.

The negatives of “having it all” comprise the beef of the episode, but all loose ends magically tie up by the end (cue cheesy music and gratuitous shots of the New York skyline), fooling the viewer into believing these women can pull it off.

I don’t buy it. The show’s wrap-ups are forced and unconvincing. These women are not happy, but in dire need of a nap. “Jungle” hopes to portray these women as inspiring busy bees, but they come across as anxious, buzzing mosquitoes who can’t sit still.

And while “Sex and the City” wasn’t afraid to show its characters occasionally downtrodden and hungover (hence, relatable), the “Lipstick” ladies look annoyingly perfect – all the time. Like most women, I love a cute dress. But the emphasis on expensive aesthetic perfection for these ladies reeks of materialistic froth.

The show presents a “jungle” of modern issues for women without examining their roots as its HBO predecessor did. Furthermore, strong friendships between the women are absent. “Lipstick” may as well follow three completely unrelated characters living in the city. Individually, the show allows for some depth into individual characters, however. Victory is the most relatable character on the show for simply admitting some vulnerability, while the other two are beyond unrealistic.

The show does get an “A” on keeping its viewers glued to the screen week after week. What the show lacks in depth, it compensates for in dramatic pull.

If you want a show you can relate to, don’t watch “Lipstick Jungle.” If you want a soap opera at prime time, watch this series, just don’t expect it to bring you back to Carrie Bradshaw’s stoop.

Check it out: Lipstick Jungle

Lipstick Jungle "Let it Be" Trailer

*Editorial note: Lipstick Jungle has been cancelled after the current season.

Kath & Kim - Season One

Tacky like a Blue Plate Special
By Dana Zelman

It’s a shame to see incredibly talented people working on a lackluster show. It’s wasted talent, wasted time, and wasted money, and it’s really only good if you are actually wasted.

“Kath & Kim” (NBC Thursdays, 8:30), an adaptation of a formerly award-winning Australian comedy, is just such a shameful waste. Molly Shannon plays Kath Day, a 40-something divorcée trying to reassemble her romantic life with a horndog sandwich shop owner Phil Knight (John Michael Higgins, “Best in Show”). Her spoiled brat daughter Kim (Selma Blair) comes stomping back into Kath’s Florida suburban home after leaving Craig, her dedicated yet bewildered husband. Craig (Mikey Day) isn’t the “brightest bulb in the salon,” but loves Kim, and even said in his vows that he “is SO into Kim, it’s unbelievable.”

As a Molly Shannon fan I SO want to be into this show, it’s unbelievable — but unfortunately, I am not.

“Kath & Kim” is a botched attempt at trying to transform a critically acclaimed foreign show into a great American show. It has enormous comedy potential for US television, especially with SNL veteran Molly Shannon among their cast members, but somewhere in the transition from Australia to the United States that award-winning brand of comedy was lost.

For starters, this mother-daughter duo is supposed to be a caricature of tackiness, but I don’t feel it; their tack is too subtle and unconvincing. The hair isn’t big enough, the clothes not mismatched enough, and the nail polish not gaudy enough. Shannon and Blair don’t quite allow themselves to be as tacky and trashy as they are supposed to be — Jamie Pressly’s character Joy Turner on “My Name Is Earl” puts their attempts at tackiness to shame.

The character Kim shone in the Australian version, presenting a devious little brat whom the audience both loved and hated. Unfortunately Blair’s characterization of Kim amounts to little more than dull pouty faces. There is nothing genuinely interesting or funny (or even conniving) about her; all she does is pout, eat, or say something totally inappropriate and/or stupid. Kim is supposed to be the essence of brattiness and to make us laugh at her childish behavior, but her jokes are painfully obvious and her spoiledness is completely phoned in.

“Kath & Kim” shows why foreign entertainment really needs to be adapted for American comedy; just because Australians speak the same language as Americans doesn’t mean that they appreciate the same type of humor. There were a number of scenes in the pilot and second episode that were supposed to be funny, but I barely cracked smiles. “Kath & Kim” clearly has not yet figured out the formula for appealing to an American audience.

The show isn’t completely awful, though, and it did manage to eek out a few funny moments in the two episodes I watched. Although Blair can’t quite channel the original Kim, Shannon brings her signature awkwardness to the screen and plays a believable Kath — I loved the scene when she is rehearsing her laugh in the mirror before a date with Phil — but even she could do much better. Unleashing Shannon’s comedic talent would really spice up “Kath & Kim” and make the show more relevant to NBC viewers. I couldn’t help but think that one of the poodles from her SNL skit “Dog Show!” would have been a perfect accessory, opening up a whole new door for tackiness: dog clothes.

I was a cheerleader for “Kath & Kim” from the time I saw their ridiculous family portrait in promotional ads, but after seeing the show I must rest my metaphorical pom-poms. Not only does NBC’s “Kath & Kim” fail to live up to its Australian cousin, but also fails to live up to the comedy potential of its own cast. “Kath & Kim” is supposed to be over-the-top hilarious (and maybe still could be, with better jokes and a fun-sized dog for Molly Shannon), but this American adaptation barely makes it half way.

Check it out: Kath & Kim's official website

Kath & Kim Trailer

Our two cents worth...

I judge. There, I admit it. I judge everything. People? Check. Cars? Check. You name it, I judge it.

But don't judge me for the way I pass my day. You do it to. That's right; you judge everyday, all day. Now, you may disagree. You may say I am crazy. I do not care because I know I am right. Every one of us is a critic. It is just that a select few are paid to dispense their judgments on a particular movie, television show or new restaurant.

I am a critic. I critique all day at any part in the day. I critique the sunrise, the weather, the traffic, the parking spot I secured, the hills of the campus, the morning newspaper headlines, the leaves on the ground, the taste of my morning coffee… the list will cease to end.

Prior to this course, I was under the impression that all professional critics are arrogant and narcissistic. Even though that may still remain true, it was an inaccurate assumption on my part. The role of a critic is a tough one and not one I would like to hold. Granted, in this market, I would gladly accept any job that came way. I would even salt the French fries at McDonald's at this point. Hypothetically, if I was offered the position of a movie critique I would approach my job with one simply philosophy: did I escape? The arts as an institution are outlets to disregard the pressure of everyday. Blocking out the distractions that come each sun-up may be only for a few hours but, nevertheless, they have been put on the back-burner. As a critic, I would be more favorable towards a production if it enabled me to forget the real world. When we go to the movies and turn on the television, the American people do not care to be inundated with the deplorable state of the economy. It is simple. They want to be entertained.

A critic is a gatekeeper, a follower, a narcissist, a daredevil and a coward.

A critic is someone who must have good vision or else a good eye doctor.

A critic must have a comfortable pair of pants.

A critic must never get cold in movie theatres.

A critic must have clogged arteries from the buttered movie theatre popcorn.

A critic must have a good memory.

A critic must strong a gluteus maximus to be able to sit for such a long period of time everyday.

A critic must keep in mind the vast array of audiences. From the west coast to east coast, there are quite a vast amount of people with alarmingly different tastes so a critic must be held accountable for the tastes of America.

A critic must be able to mold his/her craft for the ever-changing technological advances.

A critic will always have a job.

- Elizabeth Ezzell

December 10, 2008

I do not like many online critics, even though I count myself among them, because the Internet provides several crutches to writers. The shield of anonymity, for instance, allows those who contribute and those who comment to attack and not face rebuttal. In addition, online music powerhouses often let hyperlinks, humorous videos and facile puns, rather than carefully considered and edited work, attract readers to the site. On the other hand, the Internet democratizes voice, opinion and even identity. In that respect, it allows readers to collect and aggregate the thoughts of others.

The role of the critic in any medium should be to describe, contextualize and evaluate the work at hand accurately without stifling his or her voice and style. I’ve learned in this course that the first step in editing a review is making sure the most basic elements read cleanly and clearly. Consumers of the critic’s product, be it in print or online, evaluate the evaluation—they are two degrees removed from the source and seek an opinion about whether they should take that extra step to purchase, stream or download. Most important of all, a review should consider that there is a person behind the creation of cultural products and people behind the huge totals that consume it. To treat either group with contempt is to invalidate the title of “critic”—at that point, you are writing for yourself, not for an audience or for the furthering of artistic discourse.

Another important concept to remember is that the criticism is an art form in its own right. The famous quotation attributed to Elvis Costello, “Writing about music is like dancing about architecture—it’s a really stupid thing to want to do,” simply represents an unjustified opinion. A well-crafted criticism opens a work, highlighting parts that others might not have noticed, understood or appreciated. I have read articles that forced me to return to a CD or movie and alter my own way of thinking about them. I have read others that infuriated me and made me want to steer the open conversation and reading back on track. The difference between a review and a criticism is that one can distill a review to a number or letter grade. An “A” means the work is exceptional. Three stars out of five means you can take it or leave it. “Two thumbs up” means you’d better take that description off your review unless you plan on paying Roger Ebert for it.

Regardless about how I feel about them individually, the number of critics should swell not shrink. As publications streamline their staffs and slash their budgets, they start to print bland pieces from wire services. I hope that publications continue to pay writers for thoughtful criticism, and readers should buy magazines and newspapers more often to ensure that. A huge part of supporting the arts is paying the people who criticize it, lampoon it and share it.

- Alex Dimitropoulos

December 10, 2008

Ahh, criticism. At first the word makes me think of dusty library tomes discussing the merits and faults of certain painfully boring pieces of literature. Or perhaps a teacher’s less-than-favorable comment on a piece of my work, leading to profound resentment and numerous unfair insults behind the back of said teacher.

Though my thoughts jump immediately to scholarly criticism, the word “criticism” means so much more than that. Random House defines criticism as “the act of passing judgment as to the merits of anything.” According to this definition, I criticize things day in and day out. I mock the clothing combinations of fashion-challenged peers, I complain about TV shows and movies and restaurants, and interestingly, I usually always gloss over the fact that I am, in fact, critiquing the world around me.

It’s easy and fun to come up with mean-spirited critiques, but sometimes, criticism can (and should) be positive. However exploited and hackneyed it may seem on the whole, pop culture still has its redeeming works; you just have to sift through a lot of mediocrity to find them. But criticism cannot (and should not) always include the positive. It is the duty of a published critic to veer away from Mother’s advice that “if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.” Whether the creator is friend, foe, or unknown, a critic must not be afraid to rip apart someone else’s book, TV show, or restaurant if it warrants such a negative response. And it is here that I falter as a critic.

I was excited to take critical writing because I wanted to find my writer’s voice that had not yet emerged. It emerged, all right, and I found out that it’s a big fat wuss.

My critic’s voice is a subdued one, one that struggles to place a negative comment without countering it with a positive one. I wrote a few negative reviews this semester, but I always found myself searching for a silver lining, some kind of redemption. I would feel unnecessarily guilty, even with the knowledge that the creators would never read my work nor be concerned with the inconsequential opinion of an unpublished college student.

Criticism should always come from an open mind and with the intention of identifying and evaluating the true essence of a work – and of course, that won’t always happen. But even if it doesn’t live up to that ideal, public criticism of the arts is important. It helps us establish our likes and dislikes, stimulates interesting conversation, and gives us a point of comparison for our own opinions. Critics are the harbingers of pop culture, and we seek their voices, whether in the New York Times, on rottentomatoes.com, or from the mouths of our friends and family. And we will continue to seek their voices. Though increasingly in an easy, new, and unfiltered form on the Internet, I think criticism will always play an integral role in pop culture.

-Dana Zelman

December 11, 2008

Thank you, Grady College, for insisting I take critical writing before I graduate.

I was beginning to think that all journalism courses were the same and my last semester at UGA would be a bad rerun of previous writing courses. If it weren’t for my stressing about the necessity to score an A- in the class to maintain the cum laude honor come graduation day, the course would have been the most rewarding class (of any kind) that I have ever taken.

From the first time that we were asked to write a critique of an orange, to the similar cookie exercise several months later, my perspective has changed on what exactly it means to review something. I assume everyone criticizes, but only a select few hone in on their opinions to create and publish a review of something. We reviewed movies, tv shows, concerts, restaurants, theatrical performances, and books this semester with the helping guide of our professor, Mrs. Valerie Boyd. But we criticized much more than just those six reviews–just take a look at the comments left on our bogs!

I finally feel as though my writing has matured somewhat, even if I refuse to retire my sexual innuendos. I have found a writing outlet in which I can express myself in a conversational, amusing way, yet remain dignified and respected in the opinion I hold. The new-found freedom makes me want to apply for every possible critic job I can find even though I came into this class knowing I didn’t want to pursue journalism.

My enjoyment for critical writing has also led me to read more and more reviews before I see a movie or give a book a shot. Before this course, I assumed that the "two-thumbs up" tagline was genius and oh what a great job that would be to just say that to every movie you went to. I honestly thought this was what the role of the critic has boiled down to. If every newspaper and magazine in the nation wasn’t downsizing and kept some critics, perhaps the nation’s predetermined notions on the importance of an honest and reliable critic would be noted.

Unfortunately, I feel as though this class was one that I can happily say that I took in college before it was replaced by some sort of online reporting class. Critical writing is a dying breed, but I am overjoyed that I was able to be consumed by it for at least one semester.

And damn this blogger for not allowing me to have spaces in between paragraphs!

-Kamila Szoltysek
December 11, 2008

TV & Movie Buffet

Wednesday, December 3, 2008

Ghost Town

Tuesday, December 2, 2008

Lipstick Jungle - Season 2: "Let it Be"

Kath & Kim - Season One

Serving movies & tv daily

About Us

What was your favorite movie of 2008?

Blog Archive

A Sneak Peak

My Blog List

Followers

Our two cents worth...