Frozen Review

There are few film presences better known in the world than Disney.  For most of us Disney’s films are our first exposure to the movies and many of the conventions that make a Disney film become ingrained in us from the hardcore cinephile to the casual movie goer.  However, they also are aware of the criticism Disney has faced over the years, in particular not having the most progressive idea of women.  Even in many of their great films, the women were often damsels in distress who needed to be rescued by men.  Their Pixar division also received complaints for not having a female lead until Brave.   Certainly these issues are at the forefront of Disney’s latest feature Frozen, a loose musical retelling of the Snow Queen fairy tale by Hans Christian Andersen.  Frozen confronts many of the clichés that have made Disney films a cultural force, while being a worthy addition to their canon.

In this version, future Snow Queen Elsa (voiced as an adult by Idina Menzel) isolates herself from her younger sister Anna (voiced as an adult by Kristen Bell) after a childhood accident involving Elsa’s powers.  This isolation lasts until Elsa’s coronation, where her powers emerge and get out of control, plunging their kingdom in a perpetual winter.  She heads into the woods in exile while Anna heads out to find her, encountering some help via outdoorsman Kristoff (voiced by Jonathan Groff), his reindeer and a snowman Elsa creates named Olaf (voiced by Josh Gad).

The film deserves a lot of praise for how they treat the female characters.  This is the first feature film from Disney to have a woman (Jennifer Lee, who also scripted) credited as a director.  Anna and Elsa aren’t defined by love interests, but rather the complicated relationship between themselves, which is so much more interesting.  Elsa and her parents fear her power and hide herself away from the rest of the world because they think that they won’t understand, and Anna finds the reclusive nature of being the Snow Queen’s sister lonely and is desperate for attention and to be a part of her sister’s life or anyone else’s for that matter.  It’s another in the very welcome post-Twilight trend of seeing more strong female characters to younger audiences who need to see them.  We’re going to need a whole lot to undo the damage Bella did.

Like the well-developed characters, you can definitely see Disney Animation CCO John Lasseter bringing the Pixar touch to elevate the regular Disney movies.  Along with last year’s Wreck-It Ralph, the quality of these films is comparable to their Pixar counterparts and in some cases, surpasses them.  The visuals look superb, and the 3D actually adds something to the film.  It is basically a computer animated answer to a lot of the Disney renaissance films from the late 80s/early 90s.

They also make the smart decision of casting actors with musical theater experience, but as a musical, the film wavers a little.  The songs are loaded more in the first two acts, and there’s a good chunk toward the end where they don’t sing at all.  Certainly it’s okay to forgo singing in favor of the action going on screen, but it feels like the songs were on the lower list of priorities, resulting in some songs that are simply okay.  There are exceptions: Olaf’s “In Summer” is a nice silly break and of course Elsa’s “Let It Go” is the big powerful song Idina Menzel will no doubt be belting at next year’s Oscar ceremony.

On the surface, Frozen appears like many typical Disney films based on fairy tales, especially the musical ones.  The filmmakers are certainly aware of those clichés and they question and have fun with them in a way that isn’t contemptuous of the material.  Instead, it revitalizes this type of storytelling for the next generation of film fans and reenergized the seasoned viewers who want to see something new.  That type of storytelling is what has kept Disney relevant all these years, and will certainly aid in keeping it that way for years to come.

As much as I enjoyed the film, the short that played before was the best part.  Get a Horse! begins like an old Mickey Mouse short (down to using archived recordings for some of the dialogue), but quickly expands into some Sherlock Jr.-esque breaking of the fourth wall and playing with the conventions of filmmaking, fully utilizing the 3D for seven dazzling minutes.  Like the people behind the technical side of Gravity, the producers of this short should get their Oscar speeches ready.

Frozen Grade: B+

Get a Horse! Grade: A

Miscellaneous notes:

-Man, the trailers for this, while I appreciate them not giving much away, gave off an Ice Age vibe I was going to avoid had all the good reviews not convinced me to give it a chance.

-There must have been more with Kristoff’s backstory that got cut, right?  They got the first song of the film but aside from him and Sven we never see the other Ice farmers again.

-Also thought the initial set up of the story, especially how the trolls connected to it, could’ve used a little more development.

-Between his work here and in Wreck-It Ralph, is it too early to call Alan Tudyk the John Ratzenberger of Disney Studios films?

(HERE BE SPOILERS)

-I liked how they called out Anna for getting engaged to Prince Hans the day they met.  Having characters fall in love that quickly is usually a problem with these kinds of movies, although it is motivated by Anna’s desire for human connection and Hans’ duplicity.

-Yeah, I fell for Hans being a good guy and seeing it twice I feel like it’s a twist they earned.  It also played off making the obvious villain the Duke of Weaselton just a shady character and not someone outright evil.

-I love that it was the true love between sisters that saved Anna.  It was true to the story and a refreshing twist on it always being some guy’s love that breaks these curses.  Don’t get me wrong, Kristoff is a nice guy and he and Anna are a good couple, but the story is about Anna and Elsa first.

6 Things I Learned Doing Nanowrimo

I was one of 315,904 participants in National Novel Writing Month or Nanowrimo.  The basic goal of the month is to generate a first draft of a story consisting of 50,000 words or more (roughly 1667 words a day).  It can be a grueling marathon, one that drains your mental facilities as you try to figure out what to do next with your work.  I have done it the last two years and somehow come out victorious both times.  It’s not easy, so here are a few things I’ve learned that hopefully aspiring writers can consider getting ready during the next 11 months.

1.       You Will Exhaust Your Initial Ideas Early, and That’s Okay.

Going in you may think you have all of the ideas for your novel knocking around in your head and all you have to do is put it to paper.  When I did Nanowrimo last year I had been thinking of my story idea for the prior two and a half years.  Before I sound like I was super prepared, I didn’t get that far.  In fact I hit the wall hard sometime around the end of week two both years.  That’s okay.  Even a 200-300 page novel is going to have more than you can keep going in your brain at the same time.

Don’t let that discourage you.  Getting those ideas out is good because it will make room for new ideas.  After you write everything you can think of think about what happens next and how to connect them all, and it’ll help strengthen your writing.  No writer has every single idea ready to go on the outset.  Some ideas will only come out during the writing process.

2.       Embrace Your Inner Swooper

When I try to write, it’s hard not to feel a little like Nicolas Cage’s Charlie Kaufman in the movie Adaptation.  There are so many options with writing a story it can be easy to get overwhelmed and constantly criticizing yourself for not writing the great American novel.  Countless stories never get told because the writer can’t get beyond these insecurities.  Following the Kurt Vonnegut model of swoopers (those who write prolifically and edit later) and bashers (those who write and scrutinize all the way), I’m a basher through and through, and I have to imagine a lot of Nanowrimo participants are bashers as well.  But to win Nanowrimo, I had to try to think like a swooper.

So it makes sense that one of the things Nanowrimo encourages is to allow its participants to give themselves permission to write crap.  This may seem counterintuitive: why bother putting in all this effort into a subpar product?  However, letting the bad ideas flow allows all ideas to flow.  Nanowrimo is all about getting in motion all the people who keep saying they’re going to write, but never get around to putting those ideas out because they get hung up on it not being a complete novel the first time out.  With editing, no one has to know about the cheesy dialogue, scenes that go nowhere and characters who don’t add anything.  How I got to the ideas isn’t necessarily important to the reader.

3.       Having a Plan Is Helpful, but Always Leave Room for Improvisation

During Nanowrimo I met someone.  Her name is Charlotte.  She’s about my age, British with long black hair.  She knows how to use a sword and is a little hyperactive.  She also was barely in any of my outlines for my story up until I started writing this year’s Nanowrimo.  One of the joys of writing is discovery; stumbling upon some idea that you never would have thought of before you started writing.  George R.R. Martin has a quote attributed to him classifying writers as being either architects (ones who intricately plan every small detail) or gardeners (ones who plant a seed and see what happens).  It’s similar to the “swoopers and bashers”.  Of course a good novel will need structure with its story, character arcs and plot progression, but as I wrote I needed to allow myself the freedom to explore and take risks because I could find something better than what I originally set out to do.

4.       Being Open to New Sources Helps

It’s a logical conclusion to want to avoid consuming other stories during Nanowrimo out of fear of being too influenced by whatever you’re reading.  Certainly spending more time writing will limit the amount of time you have to read, watch TV and consume stories anyway, but writing in a vacuum is generally a bad idea.  Aside from maybe ancient cave paintings, art is influenced somehow by other art.  The best way to combat being too influenced by other work is to consume a lot of different types of work.  Read high fantasy, true life stories, beach read murder mysteries, classics, graphic novels and read with an eye as to how things function in the work and how you can figure out what works in your writing.  To be honest I didn’t read a whole lot going into last year’s Nanowrimo.  However in 2013 I vowed to be different and I’ve read a lot, from several Vonnegut novels to Neil Gaiman to graphic novels like Fables.  All writers read and it’ll make your work richer the more you can fit in.

5.       Writing 50,000 Words and Being a Winner Are Not Mutually Exclusive

Technically speaking, if you write 50,000 words you won NaNoWriMo.  It is a huge achievement to generate that much over only a month.  However, sometimes people take shortcuts to get to that magical number that may cheapen the victory.  There is a thread in the Nanowrimo forum all about tricks and cheats participants can use to boost their word counts.  To be fair, there are tips that can be helpful, like writing in a character’s backstory or writing out your thought process as you work out elements in your story.  Then you get tricks like not using contractions, always referring to characters by their full names or having characters repeat things for characters who are, for no practical reason in the story, hard of hearing.  For those who use these tricks I have to ask: what are you really getting out of it?  Are these things making your writing or your work ethic regarding writing any better?  These tricks will be the first things cut from any revision you make, so why even bother putting it in in the first place?  Sure, there are instances where it makes sense not to use contractions or have characters repeat themselves, but if you have unnatural sounding dialogue spoken by a bunch of Jimmy Two Times, who is going to want to bother slogging through that?  Unless you’re doing it for a school assignment, these cheats can’t be truly helpful.

It’s a bit like Rocky (or for a more contemporary version, the Late Night trilogy episodes of Louie).  Where (SPOILER) both Rocky and Louie don’t get what they want, yet both end on notes of triumph because they gave it everything they had, and really, doing everything you can is the only way to combat regret.

6.       The End of November Is Just the Beginning

Some people hate Nanowrimo.  Like really hate it.  I can see why, with publishers complaining about December submissions clogging up their inboxes written by at best naïve and at worst delusional would be authors.  For some, once Nanowrimo’s done they think they can just throw in the raw word file out to a publisher and think that JK Rowling money is going to roll in.  For people who claim that they love writing, they aren’t really applying themselves.

As much as Nanowrimo emphasizes revising and editing, it’s hard to ignore that some of the sponsors of Nanowrimo are enabling the idea that what you wrote in November is a final draft and is ready to go on December 1^st, not to mention Novel Writing is in the full title (I guess “National First Draft Writing Month” isn’t as snappy).  It’s not that easy.  I’ve participated in Nano the last two years and you know how many people I’ve had look at my two drafts: nobody.  It’s not even close to being ready for anyone but me.  There’s still characters and story points that need clarifying and it needs to be put together into some cohesive whole.  There’s a lot of work ahead of me, but I think I’m closer to it than I was before Nanowrimo 2012.

Yes, there have been novels started in Nanowrimo that have been best sellers like Water for Elephants, but those writers no doubt put in the hours making them coherent novels before they were ever published.  You may be that one genius out of a million who can churn out a novel fully formed, but odds are you are not.  That type of writer is generally a creation of the movies (written by people who know better).  If you want to work as a writer, you have to respect and obey the work ethic of a writer.  That means reading a lot and writing a lot.  If you want to work as a writer, you need to treat writing like work.

Gravity Review

Easily the most welcome news in movies this fall has been the success of Gravity, the latest from Children of Men director Alfonso Cuaron.  It’s been discussed to death how much mainstream Hollywood is relying on making nearly everything a franchise—glutting cineplexes with remakes, sequels, prequels, reboots etc.  It doesn’t help when originals like Pacific Rim and Elysium fail to live up to (admittedly) high expectations.  To see Gravity not only succeed but become a genuine hit and have some genuine Oscar buzz is a welcome refreshment for a dreary movie year.

It’s also great to see a film that is somewhat unorthodox do so well.  The cast, aside from a faceless extra and some voice actors, is only two people, seasoned veteran astronaut Matt Kowalski (George Clooney) and emotionally fragile newbie Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock).  The two are working on a space station when space debris destroys their vessel, kills their crew mates, and leaves them adrift in space with limited oxygen and another space station a considerable distance away.  On top of all that, they have to get there before the debris makes another round as it circles the earth.  The destruction, sold brilliantly in easily the best trailers of the year, gives us stakes that couldn’t possibly be higher.  I know a few people who decided not to see the film because the trailers were a little too effective in their selling.

It can be easy to forget how simple the storyline is thanks to the magnificent spectacle on screen.  The film is beautiful to look at; it’s the most realistic space cinematography ever shot for a film not actually shot in space (this film is a lock for most of the technical Oscars).  Along with the likes of Hugo, Avatar and Life of Pi, Gravity utilizes 3D in a way where it’s part of the storytelling and helps make it feel all the more real.  Cuaron’s penchant for long takes is in full effect from the opening 17 minute long shot, submerging us in the world and allowing the 3D to be most effective.  The long takes throughout are welcome amongst rapid fire editing that bogs down many action films.  I will echo the statement made by the legion of this film’s fans: see it on as big a screen as possible and in 3D.  It made me a little seasick, but it was worth it.

What really struck me were the themes of perseverance.  The end of the world has been a popular topic for a lot of films lately, not to mention all the films that have used 9/11-esque imagery to reinforce how high the stakes are.  However, it can lead to a lot of tough films to sit through, especially ones generally considered lightweight popcorn.  Gravity has both emotional devastation that sets up Ryan’s mindset going in and the physical devastation that is the catalyst for the film’s plot—albeit on a smaller scale than most of this summer’s blockbusters, but it never forgets how surviving these ordeals make us stronger.  Rebirth is a major theme, with a lot of womb imagery throughout.  And I think that feeling is one of the reasons why Gravity has been so successful.  The well-executed effects and visuals are amazing to look at, but the story at the center of it is simple and resounding.  While most of us won’t be in a scenario as perilous as the one in the film, we all at some point will find ourselves adrift after a disaster and we grapple feelings of hopeless after such a loss, but we have to survive because we have to move on, to find that other station.

Grade: A

Observations (SPOILER ALERT)!

*I’m not the first to say so, but Clooney really looks like Buzz Lightyear.

*I definitely wasn’t expecting Clooney to die that early on in the film, and it basically becomes a one woman show for Bullock, likely one that’ll get her a few award nominations.  It is really her story from the beginning, as she is the one who is less experienced in space travel and her feelings about losing her child inform her motivations.  Also, losing the calm and collected veteran raises the stakes even higher.

*The effects are superb, from the realistic space setting, to the way the camera goes into their suits during some long takes to give us a POV shot without cutting.  True great effects are often the ones you never notice, but there is that other group of great effects that work like a great magic trick, leaving us wondering “how did they do that”.

*The corpse popping up in the wreckage of their shuttle was clearly an homage to Jaws right?

*There are a few lines of dialogue, like Ryan mentioning she hates space after an encounter with the debris, that don’t quite work in the film.  I see they were trying for some comic relief, but they didn’t land.  This is a minor qualm though.

*Another great thing about the film: 91 minute runtime.  No bloat to be seen.

Orange Is the New Black Season One Review

So far, Netflix’s original programming has left me feeling underwhelmed at best.  Of their four shows, I’ve only finished half of them (still have four episodes of House of Cards, and abandoned Hemlock Grove after two.)  House of Cards, while well acted and well made, feels a little too much like leftovers from better anti-hero shows.  Hemlock Grove feels like the worst parts of every contemporary popular horror series duct taped together.  And Arrested Development, well we know how disappointed I was with that.  I was ready to write off Netflix’s originals until Orange Is the New Black, the latest from Weeds creator Jenji Kohan.  I’m happy to say Orange has proved me wrong and is a great addition to the non-cable supported television movement.

The series, a fictionalization of Piper Kerman’s memoir of the same name, is about privileged WASP Piper Chapman (Taylor Schilling) who finds herself in prison for fifteen months because of a crime she committed a decade earlier.  On top of the fish out of water story, she’s dealing with an increasingly strained relationship with her fiancé (Jason Biggs) and her concerns her girlfriend at the time of her crime (Laura Prepon) sold her out.  The show tells its story in a series of flashbacks that jump all over the timeline, but it never gets confusing.  Also, taking a page from Lost, each episode besides the pilot and finale feature flashbacks from a specific inmate’s history, usually culminating in how they got to prison.  As it worked for Lost, it works here, giving us context to why the characters are the way they are now.

The cast is exceptional, with plenty of memorable characters: Natasha Lyonne as recovering addict Nicky, Uzo Aduba as the unstable Crazy Eyes and of course I can’t mention the cast without spotlighting Kate Mulgrew, who is my #1 pick on my Emmy fantasy ballot for next year, as the Russian cook Red.  I could easily list off most of the cast.  Considering the environment of a prison, it’s one of the most diverse casts I’ve seen on a TV show recently and like diverse shows that work, the diversity isn’t a transparent act of patronizing the audience.  Also, I think there are some networks that don’t have as many compelling female characters as Orange does.

With it being set in a women’s prison, women’s issues are a major piece of the show.  There’s a transgendered inmate, an inmate set to be married who’s involved with another inmate and an inmate who finds herself romantically interested in one of the guards with some horrifying consequences.  Some of the crimes the inmates committed involve women’s issues, or they wound up taking the fall for a man.  Not to mention the guards are primarily men, a mix of insecure men like Healy (Michael J. Harney) or cruel like Mendez (Pablo Schreiber).  Between this an Orphan Black, it’s refreshing to see such good entertainment with an emphasis on strong female characters at the center.  It shows those sexist dummies that so long as there are well written characters, it doesn’t matter who the story is about.

As it has been with all of Netflix’s originals so far, the entire first season was released in one day, trying to capitalize on the trend of “binge watching”.  As you can tell by the introduction, none of the shows really got that urge for me to binge watch because I actually wanted to until Orange.  Although I parsed my viewing out—not more than two a day—it wasn’t out of not wanting to see more.  This was the first Netflix show where I was actually looking forward to seeing the next episode.  Unlike its other shows, Orange Is the New Black doesn’t feel like a show that’s trying to be a great show.  It just is.

Grade: A-

Notes: (SPOILERS)

I don’t know if this is a problem with the way I saw it on (Roku box), but for some reason there were no subtitles during the scenes where the characters weren’t speaking English unless I turned on the subtitles for the entire episode.  There has to be some way to work around that or I’m missing something, right?

I have to imagine this was in the promo material, but I didn’t know Alex was a prisoner with Piper until it happened on the show.

Top 5 characters I want to see flashbacks from who didn’t get them in season one: 1) Crazy Eyes, 2) Taystee, 3) Poussey, 4) Sister Ingalls, 5) Morello.

Like many children of the 90s, it was a little weird to hear Patty Mayonaise’s voice coming out of Yoga Jones’ mouth.

One thing this show did really well were the transitions.  A favorite of mine (I think it was in “Moscow Mule”) involved the camera craning around a box of produce to a flashback.

Really found the friendship between Sophia and Sister Ingalls surprisingly effective, especially since it was started because Sophia wanted Ingalls’ hormones.

That throwaway line early on about Larry and some trouble with a webcam was a shout out to American Pie, right?

Favorite needle drop: “Sunday Morning” by Velvet Underground.

I like that Regina Spektor theme song a lot, but I don’t know how I feel about the montage in the opening credits.

I hope that’s not the last we see of Miss Claudette, though it sounds like it might be.

Poussey is the inmate that grew on me the most as the season progressed.  Really loved the season later on between her and Taystee when Taystee found herself back in priosn.

I’d love for this to set the stage for a comeback for Natasha Lyonne.  I have to imagine she mined a lot of her real life troubles for the role of Nicky, and it pays off in a big way.

Loved silent Norma singing in the Christmas pageant.

I wonder how they decided who was going to be a credited lead character, considering most of the large cast appeared in every episode.

It felt like the new administrator subplot was underserved this season.  The series in general had a lot to juggle and did it well,, but I imagine we’ll hear more from this story next season.

I wonder how long this series will go on for.  Season one covered 3-4 months of Piper’s 15 month sentence.  She could get more time because of her pummeling Pennsatucky in the finale (who knows how that’ll play out).  Season one definitely felt like one part of a bigger story, with a lot more left in the air than I’d usually like.  Regardless, I’ll be there whenever they put out season two.

Sharknado Review

Warning (?): Spoilers for Sharknado abound here.  Suffice to say spoiler free, if you want a perfect movie for good bad movie night, look no further.

Most movies that fall into the “so bad it’s good” category tend to be ones made by people who think they’re making masterpieces, but completely fail to deliver on every level; the filmography of Ed Wood or The Room for examples.  Then you get Sharknado, the latest in Syfy’s original movies, a film that blew up Twitter with its ridiculous title as the premise.  A movie that’s well aware it is no budget schlock, but embraces what it is and takes it to its extreme.  The film is poorly directed, edited, acted and written, with special effects that are better suited for a Nintendo 64 game than a movie.  And, like many good bad movie fans, I loved every awful, stupid minute of it.

To explain the plot reminds me of the “disclaimer” before Huck Finn, but I’ll make an attempt anyway: surfer Fin—yeah, it’s that movie—tries to make his way to his wife and daughter and later on son amidst a massive storm that deposits sharks throughout Los Angeles via the eponymous sharknado.  Tagging along are his best friend, a waitress that’s feels like is supposed to be Fin’s love interest until they decide to make her Fin’s son’s love interest & John Heard, who I’m pretty sure is actually drunk as his character is, wondering how he wound up in a movie with Tara Reid and Ian Ziering.  Throughout the film he has this bizarre compulsion to stop what he’s doing and save random strangers, including one scene where he must’ve spent several hours lifting one by one an entire busload of kids driven by Cousin Oliver from the Brady Bunch.  That’s about as much character development as you’re going to get, and the plot doesn’t fare much better.

This is a film that not only completely disregards the rules of gravity and physics, but also how humans, the world, weather and movies generally function.  Here’s just a few examples of ridiculous things that happen in this film:

·         A shark attack early on in the film is juxtaposed with stock footage of people at a day at the beach hanging out like nothing’s wrong. 

·         They didn’t bother putting in background in the scenes where the characters are driving or in a helicopter, so everything outside the vehicles is white.

·         Sharks pounce on people like cougars and devour them in seconds or in one case, swallows a few whole without biting them at all.

·         A house, on a hill no less, floods and by doing so collapses.

·         A car randomly explodes for no reason. 

·         This whole thing is blamed on global warming (needless to say scientific accuracy isn’t a concern). 

·         The pointless prologue about fisherman looking to get in the business of shark fin soup with a buyer who just happens to be there.   

·         An airplane tarmac has a home supply store just next door to the hangar. 

·         A Ferris wheel rolls through a city and smashes into a large office building, destroying the building. 

It’s tempting to write this review entirely in italics and in exclamation points because of its relentless insanity.

Oh, it gets crazier.  Rather than, say bunker down in a shelter to avoid the tornadoes filled with sharks, Fin and his crew decide to fight the sharks using shotguns and handguns.  This movie had to have been a zombie tornado initially, but they just search and replaced zombie with shark right?  Zombie tornado must be in the pipeline.  Somehow they are able to kill sharks with handguns from the ground, but it doesn’t stop there.  Even after all of that, Fin decides he and his family need to fight the tornados using homemade bombs.  They even use chainsaws that slice through these sharks like a hot knife through butter, one doing so from the inside.

Movies that are “so bad it’s good” generally are made by people who lack the self-awareness that they’re making a bad movie.  However, there are a few that are “so bad it’s good” because they are one hundred percent committed to making the choices good filmmakers won’t.  As much as we want to see films that get things right, sometimes we want to see a film get everything completely, hilariously wrong, and that can be almost as satisfying.

Actual grade: F

So bad it’s good grade: A

Much Ado About Nothing Review

It can be easy to fall in love with the work of Joss Whedon, or at least admire his work ethic.  While it seems so many marketable names can succumb to making paycheck movies once they’ve gotten big, Whedon’s still interested in making stories about characters.  For his follow up to The Avengers, the 200 million dollar blockbuster that broke a billion dollars worldwide, he staged a secret low budget, black and white adaptation of Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing, shot at his home in California and starring mostly people he’s worked with in the past.  The result is a little wobbly, but a welcome and charming side project.

The film sticks to the original play and language, while updating the setting into contemporary times (though an iPod is used, modern technology is kept to a minimum).  Once it started, I immediately wished I’d read the play beforehand, but that’s more on me.  I’ll surely check it out on home video with the subtitles on.  Regardless of my difficulties fully getting in to it (mostly my fault), you can follow along to any good Shakespearean adaptation if you can understand half of what they’re saying and by following the actor’s cues  as you can here.

Shakespearean text is often the toughest material to deliver without sounding like it’s being read for English class, but this cast largely pulls it off.  Alexis Denisof is fun as the arrogant Benedick and Nathan Fillion continues his streak of being awesome as Dogberry, but it is Amy Acker who is the true standout of this cast.  Acker shines as Beatrice, a head strong, independently minded woman that fits well within the Whedon canon.  Of the actors she handles Shakespeare’s words the best and brings a real emotional depth to them.  Not to mention her chemistry with Denisof is undeniably strong.

Though the film has all the staples of a Shakespearean comedy; the large ensemble of characters, said characters plotting against each other, mistaken identities and characters falling in and out of love, it owes a lot to the screwball comedies of the 30s and 40s.  Besides the black and white photography, there is some great physical comedy here, like when Denisof poses/exercises Ron Burgundy style for Acker, a certain pratfall involving a stairway and two scenes of characters eavesdropping, fully utilizing Whedon’s home as a locale.

There is this great sense of “What the hell, let’s put on a show”, that makes this film endearing.  They lack the huge budget and certain production values, but you can tell the actors were having fun.  Of course, this film could easily fall into the vanity project filmmakers are prone to making once they become successful, but this is pretty far from flying his friends to an exotic location with a half-baked script in an attempt to pass off his vacation as a movie.  Like Dr. Horrible’s Sing-A-Long Blog, Whedon’s low budget, do-it-yourself fare is a refreshing alternative to certain bloated, excessive films some of his peers are making.

Grade: B

In Memory of My Dad

A little over a week and a half ago, my dad passed away at age 60.  Since then it’s been strange: I’m beginning the long process of realizing he’s not here anymore and dealing with how to go back to my regular life.  I’m also trying to figure out what to say about him.  Of course my dad taught me a lot about life and how to be a good person.  However, I think the thing I got the most out of from my dad was his ability to try to experience as much culture as he could.

My dad was the kind of person who could talk to anyone, a trait I always wished I had.  This lead to his three decade long career in radio, from working on air as a newsman (I certainly inherited his deep voice) to selling advertising over the radio.  It was work that took him from Connecticut to New Hampshire to Boston and back to New Hampshire again.  He saw a great many changes over the years as the idea of a rock station saw the advent of FM radio to the rise of corporate ownership to the new frontier of online radio, he saw it all and always looked for what was new and interesting.

One of the things I always loved about my dad was his ability to embrace new things.  When I was a teenager, he’d borrow my Beck and Radiohead CDs for his car.  After watching the Fatboy Slim video “Weapon of Choice”, he gave me money to buy the album because he wanted to hear it.  Sure there were times when he might’ve played along because that’s what parents do, but my dad definitely found plenty to enjoy in music outside of what he listened to while growing up.  It lead me to be open to his suggestions as well, giving his old favorites a chance when he finally got them in CD format.

Thanks in part to his work in radio I spent a good chunk of my teen years going to concerts.  One high school friend, while offering his condolences, reminded me of one such show where he got us a limo to take us to a show.  It culminated when we went to the infamous Woodstock 99 festival.  Although it’s impossible to think of that event without thinking of the sad aftermath, that weekend is one of my most cherished memories of my dad, from laughing at the stoners or beating the heat in the shadow of the rising platform MuchMusic used for their dispatches or seeing Elvis Costello, one of his favorites (he owned a poster, which has to be at least five feet by seven feet, for at least 20 years), do a low key set Sunday afternoon.

In his later years he’d continue to explore, going to art shows, concerts and films, often at the nearby Yale campus, where he was a student in the early 70s.  Though we’d separated geographically, we kept in touch thanks to a weekly phone call I’d make every Sunday or through instant messages, texts and even some Skype video chats.  Since I’d found my own tastes, I’d be the one to recommend stuff back to him.

His tastes certainly influenced mine, from exposing me to Monty Python and science fiction (both good and the hilariously bad), to taking me to see Nights of Cabiria or renting Dr. Strangelove for me when I was in high school.  While I may have been too young to grasp fully what Fellini was going for in that late neorealist gem, seeing it early and with plenty of other films he loved set the stage for me being up for anything.  My Netflix DVD queue has never dipped below 485 since starting it, with everything from bizarre arthouse fare to big blockbusters, and I have to thank my dad for giving me that insatiable thirst for the diverse world of popular art.

Of course I’m still coming to terms with what happened and what I’ve lost: my dad, but also my guide.  He was my first template into how to interact with the world and he left me, as well as my sister and anyone who knew him, with a great philosophy of trying to go into life ready to experience the multitude of things even the most humdrum of existences can afford.  In a way, it also reminds me of the passing of Roger Ebert, one of my pop culture heroes.  He spent his life opening up the world of movies to a mass audience, and although it is certainly sad that he is gone, his legacy in those whose lives he touched is immeasurable and helped make them better, more thoughtful human beings.  My dad’s influence is pretty clear on me: besides how I look, my voice and other genetic things, he raised me to be a student of life, and my life is richer for it.

Rest in Peace Dad.

This Is the End Review

I’ve really been looking forward to a good Hollywood comedy, but unfortunately most of the post-Bridesmaids fare hasn’t worked for me.  To prove my point: my two favorite “comedies” from last year were The Avengers and Django Unchained.  Unfortunately the Apatow boom of the mid-00s has waned as most comedy movements do and I felt a little of that going in to This Is the End, the latest from Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg, who both also directed.  Although the buzz was great, I couldn’t help but feel a little like I would’ve been more excited for this if it came out in 2008.  A high concept film with the cast playing versions of themselves?  Not to mention it’s another apocalypse film (there’s still one more to go this summer).  This could’ve been a disaster, but luckily I was dead wrong.  This Is the End is a blast, a strong contender for funniest movie of the year.

This film stars Rogen and Jay Baruchel as two friends who’ve drifted apart.  Rogen’s more successful, and Baruchel finds the Hollywood scene and Rogen’s new friends annoying.  Despite Baruchel’s reservations, Rogen drags him to a party at James Franco’s house when The Rapture and subsequent apocalypse happen, forcing the handful of survivors to hole up in Franco’s fortress of a mansion.  Despite the larger than life stakes outside—which claim the bulk of the celebrity cameos in the first act—it’s a relatively small film, taking place mostly within that set.

With most of the cast playing themselves, it can easily devolve into being too self-indulgent, but the film is so funny that never gets to that point.  The cast is in fine form from Jonah Hill behaving like South Park’s Cartman when he’s sucking up to authority figures to Michael Cera’s drunken creep to Danny McBride, basically playing Kenny Powers and annoying the other survivors.  Although the film goes a little longer than I like for comedies, I could’ve seen at least five more minutes of the cameos at the party in the beginning (I expect there will be a lot of deleted scenes when it comes out on home video).

Even if you don’t get the references (though people who get them will enjoy it more), the film still works on a solid structure.  It’s not relying solely on improvisation, something that sinks so many comedies.  The film is basically about a friendship in turmoil as one friend gets successful and makes a new group of friends that clash with the first friend.  There’s also stuff about selling out and making fun of over pampered celebrities.  It also has a strong heart at its center with a good message of living well.  It’s almost like Hollywood taking a crack at a movie usually made by Christians for Christians.

Following some of the casts questionable career choices, you get a feeling this film is a back to basics move and it works.  This film is consistently funny and gets right what a lot of the stars’ recent comedies have gotten wrong.  There is some less than impressive CG, but it’s easy to forgive given the budget and the feel that this film was a labor of love.  It is the refreshing jolt of life mainstream comedy films so desperately needed.

Grade: B+

Monsters University Review

Ever since the release of Cars 2, the first film in Pixar’s canon to get more negative than positive reviews, fans of the studio have been speculating the studio’s possible decline.  It’s easy to see why: for almost 20 years Pixar has been the standard of computer animation, cranking out films that not only were commercial juggernauts, but garnered the adoration of cinephiles of all ages too, but nothing lasts forever.  Last summer’s Brave was a step in the right direction, but may have disappointed fans by being just good.  Which brings us to Monsters University, a prequel to the 2001 hit Monsters Inc.  Prequels have had a difficult history with Hollywood despite their insistence on making them.  Just mention the phrase “the prequels” and you know what I’m talking about and the connotation isn’t good.  Luckily, Monsters University is a delight, overcoming the obstacles prequel films face and being a great movie in and of itself.

The film details how Mike (voiced by Billy Crystal) and Sulley (voiced by John Goodman) met, while attending the prestigious scaring program at the eponymous school.  Mike has the book smarts, but lacks the confidence in being scary on his own; Sulley has the talent, but lacks the craft because he’s coasting on his family name.  Through bad fortune they wind up pledging a fraternity of underachieving misfits in hopes of redeeming themselves.  Of course, the two opposites end up connecting and working together.  Like any good Pixar film, the high standard for the writing rises above the clichés we all know about college movies—besides the ones you can’t include in a G rated movie.  It also earns the sentiments about friendship, teamwork and accepting our shortcomings that are often so cheesy in films directed to kids, one of the reasons these films have appeal beyond young filmgoers.

Of course when talking Pixar, you have to mention the visuals and for good reason: Monsters University’s visuals are spectacular.  The level of detail in the art direction and the character design is superb (the design of Hardscrabble, a dragon/bat/centipede mix is especially impressive).  Just looking at all they can fit into the frame is a visual feast.  It gets all the details right like the fur of the various characters, which moves like the real thing.  It’s showing off in the best possible way.  Not to mention this film’s color palate is one of the most diverse and brightest I’ve seen in a while.

The voice cast is also top notch, with Crystal, Goodman and Steve Buscemi among others from the first one picking up as if a day hasn’t passed since the original wrapped.  There are a lot of new additions with big name talent like Helen Mirren, Alfred Molinar and Nathan Fillion.  While including more famous actors can be troublesome for many animated films, preferring name recognition over ability to do voice work, Pixar continues to have a good ear for the right voices.

Monsters University works so well as a prequel for a simple reason: it can be its own movie.  Although there are plenty of call backs to the original film for its fans, it’s not enough to hinder the enjoyment for those who haven’t seen it—or in my case, haven’t seen it in a while—and it could work watching them chronologically and treating the original as the sequel.  I’d put it at the level of a Ratatouille, which while not the level of a Wall-E, Up or Incredibles (still waiting on that sequel), is still pretty good.  It’s nice to know that after a little rockiness, the heart of Pixar is still strong.

Grade: B+

Miscellaneous:

Of course there is the opening short film, The Blue Umbrella.  Pixar’s ability to create photo realistic sets is on full display here.  The film itself was good, but the visuals were spectacular.  I’d probably give it about a B overall.  Still worth checking out, especially as Pixar is the best source of short filmmaking around these days.

This could apply to the original film, but I love how the monsters have mundane names.

SPOILERS

As much as I love how Mike and Sulley redeemed themselves scaring the adults at the campsite, I found it refreshing that it wasn’t the magic remedy for Sulley cheating in the Scare Games.  This film doesn’t back down on highlighting failure and the shortcomings of the characters, which helps earn their victories.

Before Midnight Review

We are often torn between our idealism and the reality of our lives.  We have high hopes, we dream big, but often life is some combination of good and bad.  For Celine and Jesse, the central couple of Richard Linklater’s Before Midnight, their ideal night spent in Vienna in 1995’s Before Sunrise and their reconnection in 2004’s Before Sunset has been shaken from the reality of actually being a couple.  It ultimately yields an installment different from the first two, but still fits into a story that could take this indie franchise and make it sustainable for the future.

We join them nine years after their reunion, married with twin girls on vacation in Greece.  They also have jobs, with Jesse being a successful writer and Celine contemplating her next career move.  During this trip we’re privy to many conversations about life and relationships as expected for a Before film, only this one has more conflict to it.  There’s some real stakes in this film.  The filmmakers don’t forget that Jesse has an ex-wife and son who live in America while Celine and Jesse live in Paris with their kids, a fact that causes a lot of tension.  Also, being together has all but confirmed in the eyes of Jesse’s readers that Celine is the woman he gained notoriety writing personal details about.  By the end of the first movie as far as they knew they’d never see each other again.  They had this perfect connection, but eventually that initial honeymoon phase would have to end.  It can be tough to see this with the lighter tones of the first two as they fell in love and reconnected, but it’s honest and extremely well done.

While there’s plenty of conversation that’s reminiscent of things you’d hear in Sunrise and Sunset, there are moments, particularly one in a hotel room, that resemble Ingmar Bergman’s Scenes From a Marriage.  Although I may have said more than I usually do in a review, I think this film is for the most part spoiler-proof.  Like the preceding two, this film is all about the dialogue.  There’s a lot more time dedicated to Celine and Jesse talking to other people than in the previous two films, which could symbolize the distance growing between them.  Watching these movies can be a little disorienting, especially in the summer with the big tent pole action franchises, but it’s also encouraging to have that reminder that you can have a film be compelling with simply two characters talking for most of it.

Another major theme in the Before films is a European locale.  This time it’s in Greece, a less metropolitan area than Vienna or Paris, but still a beautiful place to set a movie (this must’ve helped the film have some privacy during filming, as no news of this film was released until after it was finished).  Looking at the hillsides or the small café on a pier that is featured prominently, the travelogue element of the series is well represented here.

Though the series wasn’t intended to be a series, just something that stemmed from Linklater, Hawke and Delpy meeting up and wondering what these characters would be up to, it has become a narrative version of the Up documentary series.  With this great trilogy of films, as well as its narrow focus but honorable ambition, I’m fully on board with seeing them follow through on this and seeing Celine and Jesse at 50, 60 and beyond.  I can’t wait to see what they have in store for 2022.

Grade: A-

Man of Steel Review

Usually when I write a review, I try to avoid other reviews until mine is finished.  However, it seems impossible to do so with Zack Snyder’s latest, Man of Steel.  It’s gotten both its fans and its critics all fired up about interpretations of the character, the choices in tone and elements of the ending.  I’m somewhere in the middle.  It wasn’t a terrible movie, despite my issues I’ll get into, but it also wasn’t the tour de force some deem it to be.  Chalk it up to the extremes nerds can wind up in: passion in one direction can be fueled by the passion in the opposition.  Maybe it’s just being in the middle, but I find such an intense debate over a film I’m in no hurry to revisit ever again a little confusing.

The biggest problem this film has is its script.  Screenwriter David S. Goyer unfortunately has to cram in two movies worth of story into one film.  Although the film doesn’t drag, it doesn’t have time to develop the characters or storylines because they want to get to the action.  So when certain members of the Daily Planet are in peril later in the film, I’m not terribly invested in it because I haven’t gotten to know who they are.  The film also has a bad habit of introducing confusing elements and not explaining them until 10-15 minutes after the fact.  Why is Zod on a rampage at the beginning?  What’s the big deal with Superman’s birth?  How does Clark Kent find a key part of his past in the Arctic after being a waiter in the previous scene?  These things end up getting explained later, though why the film withholds these reasons makes it unnecessarily convoluted.  I wonder if this was supposed to be a much longer film but had to get cut down dramatically, hence all the shortcuts they take to get to the set pieces.

As much as I didn’t like the trailers—I felt the first trailer looked like Tree of Life if it were made by the guys who made the “It’s halftime in America” commercial—I feel like the material covered in the first trailer would’ve made a better first film.  Give an entire movie to the origin stuff; it’d give more time to develop the fall of Krypton and Superman’s upbringing in Smallville, then save the Superman’s first battle for the second movie.  I would’ve liked to have seen more from the Kents, played well by Diane Lane and Kevin Costner, and their story.  How do you deal with having an alien life form crash in your backyard and try to help him adjust to life on Earth?   That stuff is in Man of Steel, but more of it would’ve enriched the heart of the film and established the foundation for the character.  I often found myself perplexed about who this version of Clark Kent was, which shouldn’t be for a character as iconic as Superman.  Unfortunately I don’t think a studio would greenlight a superhero movie that’s largely a coming of age drama with much less action.  If you’re going to do an origin story, it should be natural to the story being told and not just something they feel they have to shoehorn in every time a superhero movie franchise is launched or rebooted.

As a reminder, I didn’t have this movie.  I thought the cast worked as well as they could against the material.  Henry Cavill, who I haven’t seen in anything prior, gives a solid performance that could be even better in future installments if he’s given a better developed character.  I also like Amy Adams as the ambitious Lois Lane, though the love story feels tacked on to a film with enough going on.  Of course, Michael Shannon probably has the most fun as Zod, but as I’ve said, I would’ve liked a more three dimensional character (or maybe some more “I WILL FIND HIM!” moments).  I also feel the supporting cast, with Laurence Fishburne as Perry White, Richard Schiff and Christopher Meloni, deserved some more.

Another problem that’s come up a lot among critics is the movie’s tone.  Being that the film is directed by Zack Snyder and produced by Christopher Nolan, two filmmakers not known for having much of a sense of humor in their films, Man of Steel is a darker film than you’d expect from Superman and that doesn’t feel like it was the right call.  “Dark” films have been fashionable in the past decade, especially since the Nolan Batman trilogy, but I don’t think it was the way to go for Superman, a character largely defined as a symbol of hope and light.  The Avengers is proof you don’t need constant brooding to be good (they could also stand to look specifically at how they’ve handled the character of Captain America).  Now that Superman is a viable franchise again, I’d like to see a lighter touch on future installments; less Zack Snyder, more Brad Bird.

Although the dark tone is common in Zack Snyder’s films, this is probably the least Zack Snyder looking film he’s made since Dawn of the Dead.  This may be because his last film, Sucker Punch, flopped and someone was trying to reign in his usual choices.  While I wouldn’t call Sucker Punch “good” in the traditional sense, I can’t help but feel like losing Snyder’s style is a bit of a shame.  Sucker Punch is a much more interesting movie, and the one I’d be more likely to revisit for sure.  Most of Man of Steel could’ve been made by almost any major director.  If you’re going to hire Zack Snyder, let Zack Snyder show up.  Also, for a guy known to constantly use slow motion in his films, that it’s not used during the hard to see fights between the Kryptonians feels like a wasted opportunity.  They could’ve slowed down the lightning fast moves to make it look like real time while the world around them went in slow motion.  I’m sure Snyder could’ve made that look cool.  Instead it often is just a lot of CG characters fighting, which is tough to stay invested in.

Now that Superman made a huge impact at the box office to the point where ideas of a sequel set for release next year have sprung up (something it seems like everyone thinks is a terrible idea) and them going ahead with rushing their Justice League movie, it seems unfortunate that this is the version we’re stuck with until the next relaunch.  By trying to make things dark, they undermined Superman as a character, a character meant to inspire hope and serve as an ideal that we can do better.  Instead they compromise that by trying to accommodate a desire for “dark” material, as well as not fully developing many of those ideas, leaving me hoping the filmmakers can do better next time around.

Grade: C+

Miscellaneous (SPOILERS):

-Yeah, the final battle is preposterous in the level of destruction and the lack of thought given to the human cost of it.  The alien invasion/duel between Zod and Superman was like 9/11 times 40, with several portions of Metropolis resembling an area after a nuclear bomb went off.  Certain people are even theorizing how much that would cost in both damage to buildings and loss of human life.  Yet in the epilogue Clark Kent heads to join the Daily Planet as if nothing happened (hopefully the sequel addresses the aftermath in more detail).  Certainly films I’ve liked more like The Avengers have involved a lot of major destruction, but they at least took some time to address the people on the ground.  Besides the people Zod threatens to blast with his heat ray vision, Superman doesn’t seem that concerned about protecting people who aren’t named characters.  Certainly the “it’s his first day on the job” explanation is valid; it’s just on the screen we don’t see him act concerned about the devastation he’s partially responsible for.

-Superman killing doesn’t work, as many have said.  Superman’s supposed to be better, find a way to solve this problem that doesn’t compromise his moral code.  This could possibly be the reason why he may not kill in future installments, like the reasons why The Doctor on Doctor Who tries to solve his problems without killing.

-This sets up the stage for Lex Luthor to garner a lot of support from the public.  Who would want to have this Superman anywhere near them?

-I think my issues with the destruction of Metropolis could be assuaged if some of this film was dedicated to showing Superman saving people from the destruction and assisting in the rebuilding; not issuing ultimatums to the government not to spy on him like Batman would.

-Between this and last summer’s Amazing Spider-Man, I’m over origin stories.  Can’t we just have established heroes already exist and not have to wait until the second movie for things to happen?

-For the love of all that is good in the world can Hollywood filmmakers get over tinting everything blue?

-Which is the bigger problem with the “I think he’s hot” line: the cheesiness or it being out of place in a movie not interested in humor?

-Lois must be capable of teleportation.  From getting to the ship early on, then to the train station, she seems to be able to get anywhere she needs rather easily.

-And Superman didn’t destroy the terraforming device in the crowded city before the one in the middle of nowhere because…?

-How exactly does Superman destroy the first device?  He flies around it, the defenses put up a fight and thoroughly beat him, then he stands under it for a minute and flies right through it.  Did I miss something?  This movie plays really loose with the rules, not a great sign for sci-fi/fantasy.

-I think it’s funny how some of Man of Steel’s fans have decried its critics for not being able to enjoy anything.  I don’t think a movie as anhedonic as Man of Steel is really where you can make that argument.

-I think the more appropriate product tie-in would be “What would Superman order at IHOP?”

-No post-credits scene?  Seriously?

RIP James Gandolfini 1961-2013

James Gandolfini helped change TV as we know it.  Of course, there was a lot to The Sopranos that broke new ground: its perfect ensemble, the bold writing and cinematic direction, but it was James Gandolfini’s performance as Tony Soprano that helped make that show.  It’s a great performance that takes a great character on the page and turns him into an icon.  Few characters in any medium are as fleshed out the way Tony is. That performance helped turned The Sopranos into a pop culture phenomenon and changed the television map.  It’d be hard to imagine the brand HBO has built in the past 14 years without the foundation of The Sopranos (yes, there were shows on before The Sopranos, but did any besides Sex and the City leave anywhere as big a cultural imprint?)  It wasn’t just HBO: The Sopranos was the beginning of this Golden Age of Television. It also spawned a growing interest in anti-heroes as protagonists on TV shows.  Who is Walter White but Tony Soprano if he lived a regular life until he was 50?  I can’t imagine The Sopranos having the impact it’s had, as amazing as every other piece was in that show, if someone other than Gandolfini were playing Tony.  He gave us a character who was charismatic, but completely terrifying.  Who knows what TV would look like without Gandolfini’s Tony Soprano, but I think that one wouldn’t have lead to nearly as many compelling hours of TV spawned with a brilliant performance in the center.  Of course it’s a huge loss for his friends and family, but also a tremendous loss to the world of acting.  We lost one of the greats.

Game of Thrones Season Three Review

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows set a precedent for modern book adaptations that I’m surprised wasn’t made earlier: instead of releasing one highly grossing entry in a franchise, why not split it up into two?  It’s proven financially successful with Harry Potter & Twilight and may likely do the same for the last film in The Hunger Games.  However, one of the complaints is that by splitting up the films the narrative flow isn’t as satisfying.  It’s no surprise that eventually it would happen to Game of Thrones, whose latest season only covered part of the third book in the series, A Storm of Swords.  Besides buying some time for George R.R. Martin to write the final two books so the show runners don’t have to worry about catching up yet, Swords is considered by readers the best in the series and taking some extra time would benefit the story.  Judging from what I’ve seen (I’ve only read the first book, preferring to watch the show as someone new to what will happen next), it seems like the right choice.

Considering the world of Game of Thrones only gets bigger each season, with new locales and characters added in practically every episode, two seasons for this book makes sense.  However, it is the event that happens in this season’s penultimate episode, one readers have been anticipating since the beginning, that really justifies that length.  I couldn’t imagine them streamlining the season to the point of having the Red Wedding, where several major characters are brutally executed, take place in episode four or five.  It’s a major event that needed the importance of being a penultimate episode of a season, one fans know is the episode where major things happen.

It’s also another game changing event like Ned Stark’s murder in season one’s penultimate episode.  Martin’s series has been praised for subverting expectations people have going in to fantasy stories.  Ned was the main character of the first book, but they took advantage of that assumption for a shocking twist.  Regardless, we still expected Robb to emerge victorious and get justice from all the military victories he had in the war and the story’s emphasis on the Stark clan, but Game of Thrones threw out books worth of audience expectations when he was brutally killed with his pregnant wife and mother.  Of course in some ways it feels like a definitive ending, but there are clearly more balls in the air to indicate this war is far from over.  That you can’t tell what’ll happen next is a valuable asset to this story.

Besides the Red Wedding, the other major subversion of season three is the redemption of Jaime Lannister.  It’s hard to believe that the guy who capped off the first episode of the series by having sex with his sister and paralyzing Ned’s son would become one of the most honorable characters in the series.  It took a long time, including a season of imprisonment and losing his sword fighting hand before we began to see there was a lot more to him.  His growing allegiance to Brienne, another highly honorable character and his caretaker to King’s Landing, showed a lot more layers to a character we thought he had figured out.  Their dynamic was one of the most enjoyable things from this season, from their butting heads to Jaime’s recount of how he earned the nickname Kingslayer.  This transformation is what it took to make him pulling a Ron Burgundy to save Brienne from the bear believable.  To paraphrase a character from that film: today, we spell redemption J-A-I-M-E.

The most improved subplot of the season was no doubt Daenerys.  The distance between her and the rest of the cast in Westeros can be a little frustrating as nothing either side has done has affected the other significantly, at least not until this point.  This season she got some really awesome moments as she grows into a position of someone vying for the throne and a legitimate threat to the others.  The razing of slave city Astapor was a highlight, and it seems like nothing’s going to stop her with her army of killing machines and growing dragons.  There is a hint of power corrupting, which considering this world, is something that will likely be dealt with.  I would’ve liked to have seen more with Ser Barristan, a knight who rebelled from his forced retirement under Joffrey by aligning with her, as it seemed to be building some tension between him and Daenerys’ longtime companion Ser Jorah, but maybe that’s another victim of it being only half the book.

Things are also getting more interesting by the wall, with the White Walker threat growing as the Night’s Watch falls apart at Craster’s Keep and the Wildlings begin to survey for a large scale invasion.  This was another storyline that suffered a little last season because of its distance to the rest of the action, but in this season it’s encroachment toward the lives of the rest of Westeros raises the stakes even further.  In the middle of it is Jon Snow, whose story this season takes him from defecting to the wildlings, falling in love and consummating those feelings with Ygritte to failing to deliver on his promises to the wildlings, betraying her and winding up back in Castle Black.  It’s an interesting position for him to be in because while he’s back in setting we haven’t seen since the first season, it’d be foolish to think it’s a reset (same goes for Jaime’s return to King’s Landing).

The saga in the north is also setting up the stage for Stannis to have something to do: his storyline has always been hit or miss for me.  This season he hasn’t done much besides lick his wounds following the Battle at Blackwater from last season.  Now he has some purpose, rally his troops to assist the war on the White Walkers.  It should be a nice change of pace from the usual Melisandre coming between Stannis and Davos we’ve seen the last two seasons—though to be fair bringing Gendry into the fold about his parentage adds another interesting layer.

There were weak points this season, the most noteworthy was Theon’s never ending torture session at the hands of the demented Ramsay.  I understand—no specific book spoilers—this subplot deviates from the books, but when all the subplots are chugging along, especially this season, Theon’s one man Salo stands out as particularly inert.  Every week felt like the same thing with few moments of character development, save for Theon’s comments when he thought he was rescued.  In the finale, they quickly explain away what happened.  Had they sprinkled bits of this throughout the season it would’ve been more satisfying.

Because the season is only half of the book, it lacks the closure previous seasons had, at least as much closure as you can expect from a story like this.  Several elements are left up in the air, or haven’t been seen in a few episodes.  Unlike my problems with the lack of closure for Arrested Development, I’m OK with some stuff not getting wrapped up because of the way this season was structured and the fact that the fourth season is guaranteed barring some disaster.  I wonder if those who watched this unaware of the behind the scenes stuff could tell.  Regardless, even if they didn’t and left this season unsatisfied, there’s no doubt fans will return because with a story told this well, you can’t stop halfway.

Grade: A-

Observations:

*Obviously there’s a lot I didn’t talk about in this review. Bran and Rickon’s trip up north with their companions, Tyrion marrying Sansa and the pressures of him to father a child with her, etc.  Of course something dense as this it’s hard to get it in less than 2,000 words, not to mention all the stuff that is left in the air.

*Speaking of not mentioned things: breakout character hands down Olenna Tyrell.  Diana Rigg put in some great work there.

*Would’ve liked to have seen more of the Tyrells in the last couple episodes, especially Margery.  It’s interesting to see how she appears genuinely concerned and sympathetic to others, but she’s playing the game just as much as everyone else.

*Wonder how many nerd weddings will feature “The Rains of Castamere”?

*Would’ve liked to have seen more fallout from the death of Ros.  She may have not been a huge player on the show, but she’s been around since the pilot.  At least we didn’t have to see her horrifying death.

*Mance Rayder also dropped off the radar pretty quick.  I’m expecting him to show up next year, but I expected to see more of him this year.

*Loved seeing the Hound and Arya together.  Similar to her fun back and forth with Tywin last year.  It’ll be interesting to see where this is going now that the Hound has no one to collect a large reward from.

*The followers of the Lord of Light may be legit, or at least they have magic that can bring back the dead.

*This may be the most difficult season for me as far as not caving and reading ahead.