Remember the Yul Brynner movie? Me neither, but that probably doesn't matter much.
I realize I'm behind on this show. I find that, whenever I'm thinking about watching it, I don't really want to. What does that say about me and/or Westworld? That we're not made for each other, I suppose.
I went through my Michael Crichton phase in middle and high school. Very fun, easy reads. And what I like about his work is what I also like about Westworld—the philosophy, the story. The characters are only so-so, but the acting is very good, and the production values are amazing. So why am I not compelled—dare I say I'm "reluctant"—to watch it?
The sex and violence. And before you call me a prude, it's not that I'm made uncomfortable by it, it's that I find it wildly gratuitous and unnecessary to what otherwise is a really interesting story. To me the sex and violence in this show is lowest common denominator programming. It's the bread and circuses of television. And television is spectacle, after all, so maybe deep down I really need to be reading a book rather than watching a TV show.
For the five people out there who don't know what this show is about, I'll give you the short version. The titular Westworld is a sort of theme park in which guests (who pay a lot to go there) get to go live a Wild West adventure. These guests can slake their desires for sex and violence (!) without consequence because all the "hosts" in the park are programmed entities that can be raped, killed, whatever, and then refurbished.
While I can really enjoy the idea of such an immersive experience, I also have to wonder at the kinds of people this park draws. Sadists. Psychopaths. And that does seem to be the underlying suggestion. When one also considers that these guests must have a lot of money, we're led to conclude that rich people are fucked up.
But that's assuming you put that much thought into the show. You could watch Westworld on the level of just watching, or you can watch it and really think about it. Your choice. I'm a thinker.
I also have to wonder why Michael Crichton hated amusement parks so much. Did he have a bad experience at Disneyland as a kid or something?
In Jurassic Park we have John Hammond. In Westworld it's Dr. Robert Ford (Anthony Hopkins). In JP we discover Dr. Wu might have designs beyond his station; in Westworld it's Bernard Lowe (Jeffrey Wright). Note that this is only what I've gleaned from the first two episodes. Namely, there are a lot of politics involved in creating and maintaining a sophisticated amusement park.
I have an idea that Ed Harris' Man in Black is actually one of the hosts, and that when he says he's "not going back" he means cold storage or whatever. But I'm probably getting ahead of myself. After all, that wouldn't explain why he's unable to be harmed by other hosts. In any case, don't spoil it for me. I'll manage to wade through the episodes eventually. Or maybe I should just find copies of the scripts. As lovely as this show is, its attempts to shock and titillate me are actually big turn-offs.
Showing posts with label westerns. Show all posts
Showing posts with label westerns. Show all posts
4.03.2016
Movies: The Hateful Eight
My record with Tarantino movies is spotty. The first one I ever saw was Reservoir Dogs, and I only watched it because it was required viewing in film school. I'm sure Tarantino would be pleased to hear that. It was a bloody movie, but I actually kind of liked it, which surprised me.
But then I tried to watch Pulp Fiction—I've tried dozens of times to watch that movie, and I've never been able to get through it. Not my thing. Doesn't interest or engage me. Same with Kill Bill.
I liked Inglourious Basterds when I saw it but couldn't tell you now what it was I liked about it. Was somewhat indifferent to Django Unchained, I think. In the same way of Inglourious Basterds, I only have an impression of that movie really. Hated Jackie Brown. But again, can now only vaguely recall it. Which is to say, I more remember how much I disliked it than anything about the movie.
Come to think of it, none of Tarantino's movies stay with me. For someone so dead set on leaving his mark, he fails to impress me much or deeply. (And I know what he'd say to that, too.)
So. The Hateful Eight. Set in post-Civil War Wyoming. A bunch of rough types are holed up in Minnie's Haberdashery as they wait out a blizzard. Being rough types, it's only a matter of time before tempers explode. And then there's a kind of mystery over who poisoned the coffee, and we get Samuel L. Jackson as Sherlock Holmes and Walter Goggins as his Watson. Sort of.
It's actually not a bad idea. But the film is overly long and—in the way of Tarantino movies—both talky and bloody. I suppose that's what people go to see in his movies? He's catering to a very specific crowd and I'm not of their number.
We get some very good performances here. But I must necessarily cringe at the open misogyny and abuse of the one female character. And at the ridiculous level of bloodshed.
I have a feeling this one will slide, like all the others, into a corner of my brain until it becomes nothing more than a foggy impression. For me, Tarantino movies apparently end in one big shrug. There is a failure to connect on some level. What that says about me, or his work, is up for interpretation.
But then I tried to watch Pulp Fiction—I've tried dozens of times to watch that movie, and I've never been able to get through it. Not my thing. Doesn't interest or engage me. Same with Kill Bill.
I liked Inglourious Basterds when I saw it but couldn't tell you now what it was I liked about it. Was somewhat indifferent to Django Unchained, I think. In the same way of Inglourious Basterds, I only have an impression of that movie really. Hated Jackie Brown. But again, can now only vaguely recall it. Which is to say, I more remember how much I disliked it than anything about the movie.
Come to think of it, none of Tarantino's movies stay with me. For someone so dead set on leaving his mark, he fails to impress me much or deeply. (And I know what he'd say to that, too.)
So. The Hateful Eight. Set in post-Civil War Wyoming. A bunch of rough types are holed up in Minnie's Haberdashery as they wait out a blizzard. Being rough types, it's only a matter of time before tempers explode. And then there's a kind of mystery over who poisoned the coffee, and we get Samuel L. Jackson as Sherlock Holmes and Walter Goggins as his Watson. Sort of.
It's actually not a bad idea. But the film is overly long and—in the way of Tarantino movies—both talky and bloody. I suppose that's what people go to see in his movies? He's catering to a very specific crowd and I'm not of their number.
We get some very good performances here. But I must necessarily cringe at the open misogyny and abuse of the one female character. And at the ridiculous level of bloodshed.
I have a feeling this one will slide, like all the others, into a corner of my brain until it becomes nothing more than a foggy impression. For me, Tarantino movies apparently end in one big shrug. There is a failure to connect on some level. What that says about me, or his work, is up for interpretation.
10.18.2014
Movies: A Million Ways to Die in the West
I honestly had very few expectations for this movie. It received mediocre reviews (at best) and bombed at the box office, and it looked like a stellar example of everything funny being loaded into the trailer.
It's because I had such low expectations that I was able to enjoy A Million Ways to Die in the West.
Truly, it's pretty much exactly what it seems: Seth MacFarlane doing his thing. Just don't look away or close your eyes, else you'll picture Brian from Family Guy as the main character.
I'll admit, bathroom humor isn't really my thing, so I can do without the sex and fart and poop jokes. But I feel that way about all of MacFarlane's work; there's always some of it I don't enjoy. And yet there's enough that I do enjoy that it can sometimes be worth putting up with the rest. AMWTDITW (Jesus, really?) falls squarely in the same category.
The story is of a sheep farmer named Albert (MacFarlane), hating his life in Big Stump, Arizona, circa 1882. Mostly he hates that his girlfriend has just dumped him in favor of the local Moustachery owner (Neil Patrick Harris doing what he does best). But then lovely Anna (Charlize Theron) comes to town . . . Too bad she's married to the meanest gunslinger alive (Liam Neeson).
You can probably fill in the blanks. Giovanni Ribisi is Albert's best friend, and he's dating local whore-with-a-heart-of-gold Sarah Silverman. And so on and so forth.
I'm not really giving the plot credit. I was actually pleasantly surprised the movie had a plot, much less one that actually hangs together rather well. I think I expected a bunch of gags and set pieces without much to connect them, but no, this had a steady, if rote, story.
What I really think is that it should have been a stage musical. In fact, it's too bad it didn't fare better at the box office, because I think AMWTDITW (seriously? couldn't come up with anything shorter?) would better suit the stage than the screen.
In short, I enjoyed it for what it is. Which is more than I expected to do. AMWTDITW is cute and delivers more or less exactly what it promises.
It's because I had such low expectations that I was able to enjoy A Million Ways to Die in the West.
Truly, it's pretty much exactly what it seems: Seth MacFarlane doing his thing. Just don't look away or close your eyes, else you'll picture Brian from Family Guy as the main character.
I'll admit, bathroom humor isn't really my thing, so I can do without the sex and fart and poop jokes. But I feel that way about all of MacFarlane's work; there's always some of it I don't enjoy. And yet there's enough that I do enjoy that it can sometimes be worth putting up with the rest. AMWTDITW (Jesus, really?) falls squarely in the same category.
The story is of a sheep farmer named Albert (MacFarlane), hating his life in Big Stump, Arizona, circa 1882. Mostly he hates that his girlfriend has just dumped him in favor of the local Moustachery owner (Neil Patrick Harris doing what he does best). But then lovely Anna (Charlize Theron) comes to town . . . Too bad she's married to the meanest gunslinger alive (Liam Neeson).
You can probably fill in the blanks. Giovanni Ribisi is Albert's best friend, and he's dating local whore-with-a-heart-of-gold Sarah Silverman. And so on and so forth.
I'm not really giving the plot credit. I was actually pleasantly surprised the movie had a plot, much less one that actually hangs together rather well. I think I expected a bunch of gags and set pieces without much to connect them, but no, this had a steady, if rote, story.
What I really think is that it should have been a stage musical. In fact, it's too bad it didn't fare better at the box office, because I think AMWTDITW (seriously? couldn't come up with anything shorter?) would better suit the stage than the screen.
In short, I enjoyed it for what it is. Which is more than I expected to do. AMWTDITW is cute and delivers more or less exactly what it promises.
4.27.2013
Movies: Django Unchained
Starring: Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz, Leonardo DiCaprio, Samuel L. Jackson
Directed By: Quentin Tarantino
Written By: Quentin Tarantino
Columbia, 2012
R; 165 min
4 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
Tarantino follows Inglourius Basterds with a film of equal entertainment value. In fact, the tone of Django Unchained is almost exactly the same as that of Basterds, with Oscar-winning Waltz playing a very similar capricious role, though in Django he sides with the sympathetic rather than villainous.
I could tell stories of Tarantino, who I met however briefly during my tenure as a film student in Austin. And I could talk about DiCaprio, who I've never met and yet my friends laughingly call him my "[twin] brother" because a street artist in Rome once drew me and the end result was something that looked remarkably like a female version of dear Leo (please note that he is actually a little older than I am; not sure what that says about how I look and/or the talent of the Italian street artist).
But really, all that need be said is that I enter every Tarantino movie with a sense of apprehension because his films always come with forewarning of how bloody and violent they are. I can't really do gore, don't watch horror films, but I've found that, on the whole, Tarantino's brand of violence doesn't much deter me. It is so over-the-top, and things move so fast, the blood never has time to bother me. Also, the story being told is usually so entertaining that I'm willing to brave the inevitable splatter. (Except Kill Bill bored me, so I wandered off in the middle of that one.)
In any case, I found Django Unchained highly engaging, if a tad too long. The last 20–30 minutes weren't entirely necessary, and I had to wonder at the need to show Zoë Bell but not really use her for anything. But on the flip side, always glad to see a Carradine. Also, Don Johnson and Bruce Dern. (Truthfully that bit with Johnson as Big Daddy and Jonah Hill and the other Bag Heads—that was pretty damn funny, simply for the fact that it was so underplayed while the rest of the movie, in true Tarantino style, was exaggerated and overstimulating.)
Tarantino is not subtle. Not with his violence, nor with his schtick. Waltz's character is Dr. King Schultz, and the "Dr. King" part is what sticks out, for this is a man who treats Django as an equal. He is a personification of civility and civil rights. Kerry Washington plays Broomhilda von Schaft, and once Schultz takes the time to explain the myth of Broomhilda's rescue by Siegfried from a mountain protected by a fire-breathing dragon . . . Well, you see where the story is going.
But as they say, half the fun (if not more) is in how you get there, and in Django Unchained we do have an interesting journey and a satisfying, if predictable, finish.
Directed By: Quentin Tarantino
Written By: Quentin Tarantino
Columbia, 2012
R; 165 min
4 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
Tarantino follows Inglourius Basterds with a film of equal entertainment value. In fact, the tone of Django Unchained is almost exactly the same as that of Basterds, with Oscar-winning Waltz playing a very similar capricious role, though in Django he sides with the sympathetic rather than villainous.
I could tell stories of Tarantino, who I met however briefly during my tenure as a film student in Austin. And I could talk about DiCaprio, who I've never met and yet my friends laughingly call him my "[twin] brother" because a street artist in Rome once drew me and the end result was something that looked remarkably like a female version of dear Leo (please note that he is actually a little older than I am; not sure what that says about how I look and/or the talent of the Italian street artist).
But really, all that need be said is that I enter every Tarantino movie with a sense of apprehension because his films always come with forewarning of how bloody and violent they are. I can't really do gore, don't watch horror films, but I've found that, on the whole, Tarantino's brand of violence doesn't much deter me. It is so over-the-top, and things move so fast, the blood never has time to bother me. Also, the story being told is usually so entertaining that I'm willing to brave the inevitable splatter. (Except Kill Bill bored me, so I wandered off in the middle of that one.)
In any case, I found Django Unchained highly engaging, if a tad too long. The last 20–30 minutes weren't entirely necessary, and I had to wonder at the need to show Zoë Bell but not really use her for anything. But on the flip side, always glad to see a Carradine. Also, Don Johnson and Bruce Dern. (Truthfully that bit with Johnson as Big Daddy and Jonah Hill and the other Bag Heads—that was pretty damn funny, simply for the fact that it was so underplayed while the rest of the movie, in true Tarantino style, was exaggerated and overstimulating.)
Tarantino is not subtle. Not with his violence, nor with his schtick. Waltz's character is Dr. King Schultz, and the "Dr. King" part is what sticks out, for this is a man who treats Django as an equal. He is a personification of civility and civil rights. Kerry Washington plays Broomhilda von Schaft, and once Schultz takes the time to explain the myth of Broomhilda's rescue by Siegfried from a mountain protected by a fire-breathing dragon . . . Well, you see where the story is going.
But as they say, half the fun (if not more) is in how you get there, and in Django Unchained we do have an interesting journey and a satisfying, if predictable, finish.
10.13.2012
Books: L'il Gal Al and the Zombies of Amarillo by Christine Rains
Old West zombies. This free Smashwords story—it's not really long enough to be a book—is a nice idea but could use some refinement in execution. The core of the story is solid enough: Alma Sweeney makes money by protecting travelers from bandits through open expanses of the plains and prairies. She's a tough cookie, which is Rains's specialty. However, one wishes for a little more backstory here, and a little more showing instead of telling. Also, with the use of dialects, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish speakers; they all start to sound the same.
Meanwhile, having successfully brought a group of clients to Amarillo (Texas? Not clear, since Kansas is mentioned at one point), Alma's strict sense of reality is tested when she is confronted with zombies, both animal and human, that have been terrorizing the populace. Being a gutsy girl, she doesn't hesitate to take on the challenge. Here again, though, the story could have been made longer before rushing through to the conclusion and final reveal.
I wanted the yellow to mean something. I wanted the seamstress to play more of a role. All in all "L'il Gal Al" is a pretty good tale, but I guess I just wanted more of it. If you're curious to read it yourself, it's free in a variety of formats via Smashwords.
Meanwhile, having successfully brought a group of clients to Amarillo (Texas? Not clear, since Kansas is mentioned at one point), Alma's strict sense of reality is tested when she is confronted with zombies, both animal and human, that have been terrorizing the populace. Being a gutsy girl, she doesn't hesitate to take on the challenge. Here again, though, the story could have been made longer before rushing through to the conclusion and final reveal.
I wanted the yellow to mean something. I wanted the seamstress to play more of a role. All in all "L'il Gal Al" is a pretty good tale, but I guess I just wanted more of it. If you're curious to read it yourself, it's free in a variety of formats via Smashwords.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)