Television: Parade's End (Episode 1/5)

It's no secret I like Benedict Cumberbatch. Or I did like him once. I can't decide now whether I still do.

I also like Tom Stoppard, for what it's worth. I'm not so familiar with Ford Madox Ford's work, but I looked him up and was happy to see he and I have the same birthday (though not the same year, as you might guess, because I am not old and dead).

Anyway, I usually also enjoy period pieces. Not war stories so much, but this first installment of Parade's End does not yet feature the beginning of World War I. And still, despite the lovely art direction, I found my attention wandering here. I mostly had the sense they'd given Cumberbatch a bit too much to carry, and the whole of the thing might have done better to spread its weight over other characters. Benny's lovely to look at (aside from a weak chin), but I'm starting to have the feeling he does a lot of the same kind of thing, plays a lot of the same kind of character(s) across many movies and shows. It does make me curious about Star Trek, though. Maybe that will be different.

Too, I'm beginning to notice a lot of his acting is done via a specific set of facial expressions. And that most of these are made by his moving his mouth in certain ways.

The problem is, once you see these things, you can't not see them and they become distracting. I suppose I could try to trick myself into believing it was all in my head and attempt to view the next installment with a fresh eye. I do intend to watch more in any case. I'm sort of hoping I'm wrong and that my first impression is off the mark. But I don't have the knack for simply liking something (or someone) because I want to like it (him/her). I can't help but think honestly and critically (something many fans lack the ability to do). Maybe it's the years of film school, but really I think I was always this way.

To sum up, I'd say it's a mediocre start. But I'll stick it out in hopes it gets better.

Best Restaurant Meals

I was trying to remember all the best meals I've eaten at various restaurants through the ages. I don't think I could hope to rank them discreetly, so I'm going to list them chronologically.

1. [Texas Biergarten] - I don't know the name of this place because I was taken there as a child. It was a long drive out into the country of Central Texas, to a place in the middle of nowhere that was owned by a family. I had the best chicken fried steak of my life in that place.
2. [Greek Ferry] - I was crossing from Brindisi to Corfu, and of all the places to have a great meal, I had one on this overnight ferry. Spaghetti and some kind of wine made by monks.
3. Cafe Maddelena (Rome) - I had tortellini in a sort of tomato cream sauce, and I paid for my meal with a kiss. Really.
4. Lala Rokh (Boston, MA) - Persian food. I don't even know what I ate, but I remember it was all fantastic.
5. Gumbo Shop (New Orleans, LA) - This is a tourist stop, sure, but the locals also love it. I had catfish over a bed of seasoned spinach, and it was to die for. And of course they make wonderful bread pudding, too.
6. Xcaret (Mexico) - I don't know which of the restaurants this was, but it was some of the best steak I've ever eaten. Plus, our server Guillermo was awesome.
7. Spire (Boston, MA) - A fabulous meal, though the dessert—a sort of champagne parfait—was the real show stopper.
8. Wall's (Savannah, GA) - Best barbecue, though almost impossible to find.
9. Taranta (North End, Boston, MA) - A wonderful Italian meal, though what really made the night was the great wine (Planeta) that came with it.
10. California Grill (Disney World, Orlando, FL) - The perfect blend of great food, great service, and a great view; our server even gave us a special hint so that we could go out and enjoy the fireworks without having to deal with the crowds.
11. L'Andana (Burlington, MA) - More great Tuscan food and good wine.
12. Tallulah on Thames (Newport, RI) - The best fresh butter and bread I've ever had, as well as great service in a charming setting.
13. Acquerello (San Francisco, CA) - Wow. And then wow again. Some of the best service I've ever experienced, as well as some of the best food.

Honorable Mentions:

• Pierre Maspero's (New Orleans, LA) - I go here every time I go back to New Orleans. Solid food that never fails.
• Delta Grill (New York, NY) - Yummy homemade mac 'n' cheese and bread pudding.
• Angelina Cafe (New York, NY) - Because they always treat me right.
• Cafe George V (Paris) - I go here for the chocolate chaud.
• Cafe Erato (Athens) - A beautiful courtyard hung with ivy and featuring canaries in gilded cages. Oh, and the food was good, too.
• Thai Stick (Millbrae, CA) - Really good Thai food.
• Pho & I (Boston, MA) - Best drunken noodles and pad thai.
• Hula Hut (Austin, TX) - More for the atmosphere and experience than the food, however.
• Voodoo BBQ (New Orleans, LA) - My favorite barbecue in NO.
• Soho South Cafe (Savannah, GA) - More than "just a sandwich." Their motto is: "Where Food is an Art," and they mean it.

Hmm. From this list you'd think I like Italian/Tuscan food more than I really do. It's not the kind of thing that usually tops my list, but when I do go for this kind of cuisine, I aim high. I also really like Asian. And then steak and comfort foods.

The concentration of restaurants and meals in Boston and on the East Coast probably has much to do with the fact that I lived there so long. I'm sure I'll compile as impressive a list in California over time.

What I haven't included on these lists are the regular favorites that I have frequented and/or did frequent. Maybe I'll make up another list at a later time.

Books: Fearless by Christine Rains

There is something somewhat Buffyesque about the protagonist (Abby) in this novella. She is one of the Fearless and has the supernatural power of helping small children defeat their (very real) monsters. In a unique turn, Rains has given Abby a stuffed hippo named Tawa as a spirit guide. (That explains the cover.)

Things get complicated when Abby rescues a handsome fae who in turn dedicates himself to paying back his blood debt . . . Mostly by getting in Abby's way when she's trying to work, and by occupying her thoughts when she should be trying to figure out why the number of monsters seems to be multiplying. The answer is an amusing stab at pop lit culture.

Fearless is a fun, quick read and I hope to see more of Rains' work in the future.

Books: Star Signs Operating Manual by Calletta

This book is a little something different from my usual. It's "nonfiction" (if astrology counts as nonfiction) . . . And kind of a novelty. Basically, it's a collection of articles about the twelve zodiac signs and how to work and/or live with each personality type. The book is only available via Amazon Kindle at the moment, but depending on demand, it may roll out to other formats and devices at a later date.

Book Review: Whispers Under Ground by Ben Aaronovitch

Ben Aaronovitch
Del Rey, 2012
Kindle
_______________________________________

Here, in the third installment of the Peter Grant series, Aaronovitch hits his stride. While I've really enjoyed all the books (Rivers of London (aka Midnight Riot) and Moon Over Soho coming before this one), I've enjoyed this one most.

For those unfamiliar with the series, Peter Grant is a police constable in London who has been assigned to the Folly—a branch designed to investigate and deal with the un- and supernatural. Which means that Peter is also a magician's apprentice. Hey, it takes fire to fight fire, so to speak.

Aaronovitch does a nice job building the mythology over the course of the books, though readers unfamiliar with London might do well to keep a map of the city next to their reading chairs. Regular references to Harry Potter, Tolkien, Doctor Who (for which Aaronovitch has written), Star Trek, and the like are nice touches of geek infusion. Aaronovitch does have a bad habit of telegraphing his plot twists, at least to anyone paying real attention. He does it less in Whispers than in the previous two books, however, and the whole of the story comes across as more organic overall.

I have an American Amazon/Kindle account, so I do wonder at the description and whether the book was heftily edited for American readers, since there was no play of FBI Agent Reynolds' religious beliefs in the version I read. Could it be they thought the whole born-again Christian thing might offend? (It wouldn't. And anyway, most really zealous Christians wouldn't be reading these books anyway. Not that that's ever stopped them from raising a ruckus.)

All in all, these books are my new favorite series and Aaronovitch can't write them fast enough to suit me. Also: when can we make this a television series?

Books: Seating Arrangements by Maggie Shipstead

This isn't a review because I haven't finished reading the book yet. But although I'm enjoying the book, it has made me think . . .

The little author bio on the back flap of the book notes that Maggie Shipstead attended the Iowa Writers' Workshop. And I found myself thinking, Yes, this is exactly the kind of thing likely to come out of the Iowa Writers' Workshop. And that's not a bad thing, per se, just . . . [heave sigh here] It's all kind of the same, isn't it? What passes for "mainstream literary excellence," I mean. In this case it is a story of the days leading up to a wedding. It's something anyone might themselves live through, or observe, or even just imagine on their own without having to read someone else's imagining of it. It's the mediocrity of life packaged as something profound, when really it isn't. It's not even much of a story. It's just a collection of characters, their thoughts and feelings and interactions on paper. And it's written in a lovely way, and the characters have interesting moments (though I find none of them particularly compelling in whole), but still . . . I could go out and have my own thoughts and feelings and interactions and get more out of life than reading about these made-up ones.

Which is the problem with this type of literature. For me, anyway. It's sort of a waste on all sides: of the author's talent (surely she could write something truly profound instead of this minutiae that pretends to add up to something meaningful), and of the readers' time (because they could be out shopping at a market instead of reading a detailed description about it—one that takes longer to read than it would take a reader to, in fact, do his shopping). Never mind the enjoyment of reading such a book (as I said, I am enjoying it); enjoyment can be found in any number of places, after all, and not all of them are wastes such as this.

If a book is about escaping, about living the life of the protagonist as you travel along with him or her on his/her journeys, then reading a book in which nothing much happens, or reading a book in which life is ordinary, is pointless. Isn't it? Why not just go do for yourself? A good story takes you somewhere you can't go on your own. It turns you into the kind of person you can't be in everyday life. These literary novels seldom do that.

So I'll stick to the chick lit, and the fantasy and science fiction, the mystery, the historical novels, &c. Because these literary novels, so beloved by writing workshops and highbrowed critics, are boring.

Books: Redshirts by John Scalzi

John Scalzi
Tor, 2012
Kindle
_______________________________________

Just finished reading this one on my Kindle, and it was a lot of fun. In the way that, you know, movies where ridiculous coincidences happen can be fun. Except in Redshirts the ridiculous coincidences are kind of the point. Kind of, but not exactly.

Science fiction fans (especially of the Star Trek variety, though the nomenclature has leaked out over the genre as a whole, as these things will do) will understand immediately was is meant by the title. For those of you who may not, allow me to explain: a "redshirt" is a short-lived crewman on the original Star Trek series (and sometimes appearing in subsequent series), someone not known to the audience as a regular character. This person would end up accompanying main characters on an away team mission, or in some other dangerous situation, and inevitably end up dying. Another common name for them is "expendable crewman/crew member."

So without giving too many of the plot twists away, it's at least safe to say Redshirts is about a group of second-string members on a starship and their attempts to keep from getting killed off.

It's a cute, quick read, funny and pithy. Scalzi knows from sci-fi; besides being an author, he worked on Stargate: Universe, so he understands the structure of the sci-fi television universe and puts that knowledge to good use here. Attempts to be touching in Redshirts fall a little flat, and the coda go on a bit too long, but overall a very fine read, perfectly light for summer.

Music: Matchbox Twenty's Album Art for North

Matchbox Twenty unveiled the cover for their latest album, North, which is due out September 4 (their first single "She's So Mean" is already all over the radio).

Bravo to the guys for showing their faces this time, I suppose. (It's weird; I had a dream a month or so back about MB20 in the top room of an ornate building, and I was out in the parking lot looking up at the window . . . ::shrug::)

The whole thing is rather stark and somewhat antiseptic. Reminds me of high school newspaper and yearbook, discussions of "white space" and so forth. I dig the reflections in the windows, though.

Books: What I'm Reading & What's On Deck

Right now I'm reading Redshirts by John Scalzi. I'll post a full-on review when I'm done, but sufficient to say I'm really enjoying it so far. I picked it up because I'm waiting for Ben Aaronovitch's new Peter Grant novel to come out (Whispers Under Ground, due to deliver to my Kindle on 31 July). I wish they'd turn Grant & Nightingale into a television series already. That would be every kind of awesome.

And yes, now I will use this space to remind you that my novella "St. Peter in Chains" can be found on Kindle, Smashwords, and iBooks, with the Nook version due out any day now. Go fill in your own blank spaces between books with that quick little read of mine.

Concert Review: Summerland Tour Kicks Off in Saratoga, CA

Five bands whose heydays were the 90s have joined forces to create one fun night of music. They are: Everclear, Sugar Ray, Gin Blossoms, Lit, and Marcy Playground.

One supposes the idea is that everyone of a certain age (I'm on the young side of this particular collective, but I still count) will know and remember at least some of these songs and bands and will probably enjoy pretty much all that is on offer. This was generally my experience at the concert. I love Gin Blossoms and really like Everclear and Sugar Ray, but before last night I couldn't have told you what Marcy Playground or Lit were known for. This led to many, "Oh! I know this song!" and "Oh! They play that song!" moments. Not entirely unpleasant, and it's always fun to be introduced to some new music among the favorites.

Our Hosts for the Evening: Art Alexakis and Mark McGrath

Marcy Playground started things off (the song you know by them if you don't own the album? "Sex and Candy"), always a tough spot to be in because of course the house isn't nearly full yet so it can seem like one is singing into a void. But they were really good (to me, someone who couldn't have identified them prior to last night), and the song off their new album was also very catchy in a way that made me actively think, I need to go check them out.

Marcy Playground (lead singer John Wozniak)

Then Lit came out—and bravo to the stage crew for the super-fast switch overs—and again, I wouldn't have known anything by them until they did that one song all people who listened to the radio in the 90s can identify ("My Own Worst Enemy"). They're not entirely my bag, but I didn't dislike their music, and anyway, that's what Summerland is about: a five-course meal of music, and there may be some dishes you like more than others, but it's all within the same family of cuisine so nothing is likely to really offend your palate.

Lit (the Popoff brothers)

To their credit, the bands were up front about the fact they were there to play their big hits, though I always find myself wondering how much they hate having to do that. Part of the job, I suppose. And very crowd pleasing. Gin Blossoms could have done a much longer set and still never have touched all their best songs; as it was, they did the standards: "Hey Jealousy" and "Follow You Down" and "Found Out About You" and "Allison Road." All great songs. But I'm really pleased they did "Miss Disarray" because I think No Chocolate Cake is a fantastic album that doesn't get nearly enough love.

I also enjoyed that Robin Wilson climbed over the seats to stand near me a couple times (the benefits of being third-row center).

Robin Wilson of Gin Blossoms

But as much as I love Gin Blossoms—they were my reason for attending Summerland, all the rest being bonus—Sugar Ray was the most fun act of the evening. Mark McGrath has clearly embraced his spot in the rock cannon, truly enjoys it and the fans, and that joy is infectious to the audience. I enjoyed the entire evening, but I enjoyed Sugar Ray most; they were the dessert tray for this particular buffet.

Mark McGrath of Sugar Ray

Rounding out the night was Everclear. No one else has a voice like Art Alexakis; the closest I could come to might be a shade off Tom Petty. The band turned in a solid performance, if more staid than the other bands, ending on the two biggest of their hits, "Wonderful" and "Santa Monica" (the latter still being my favorite of their songs, though overall I like the Songs From an American Movie Vol. 1 album best). They, too, played a new number that was really good, giving me the sense that everything old is new again.

Everclear's Art Alexakis

I appreciate the Summerland tour for reminding me what I liked—and still like—about this music and these musicians. More than mere nostalgia, these are great songs and great singers and great albums. As radio rotation grows increasingly bizarre in that new stuff is constantly consumed only to plateau at the same ten or so songs being played repeatedly, I enjoy finding new stuff to listen to . . . Even if it isn't technically "new." Summerland had me thinking, I need to go find that CD, and, I need to remember to put that back on my iPod. And yes, even: I need to pick up their new album. Which is the bottom line, perhaps, but what a fun way to reach it.

Books: St. Peter in Chains

I'm not going to review it because I wrote it. St. Peter in Chains is a novella, now available as an e-book on Amazon Kindle. I'm hoping to roll it out to other e-reading devices soon. But if you happen to have a Kindle, you can go here to pick up this little gem of a story.

In short, the novella is about intelligence agent Peter Stoller falling in love for the first time . . . and the ensuing consequences. A quick read that I characterize as a cross between Mad Men and a John le Carré novel in that it's a quietly intense book built more with character than plot.

Hope you enjoy it.

Movie Review: This Means War

Starring: Tom Hardy, Chris Pine, Reese Witherspoon
Directed By: McG
Written By: Timothy Dowling & Simon Kinberg (screenplay), Timothy Dowling & Marcus Gautesen (story)
20th Century Fox
R; 99 min
2 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________

Let me just begin by pointing out that the spec script for this movie sold waaaay back in May of 1998, and at that time Marcus Gautesen was credited as the writer. Also, the original logline for the movie was something along the lines of it being about two men who share an apartment and rent the third room to this girl, over whom they end up fighting (and destroying half of New York, so I guess maybe they were also superheroes or something?) . . . Clearly a lot of rewriting went on in the decade and more between the script being sold and the movie being filmed and brought into theaters.

Whatever. The end result is what matters, after all, and This Means War is kind of a mess, the epitome of a not-too-bad idea poorly executed. Hardy and Pine actually have decent chemistry and would have done really well in a typical buddy movie. Meanwhile, the fundamental flaws in the story sink the ship.

For one: the wrong guy wins (I won't spoil it for you by saying which it is). I base this on the fact that one of the male leads is mostly honest, despite the underhanded dealings of spying on the girl and sabotaging his cohort's efforts, etc. The other male lead is far more despicable in that he actively fakes an interest in art and stray animals in order to garner the girl's affection. I can't really forgive, then, the fact that the biggest cheater gets the girl.

Then again, the girl isn't much of a prize. She's two-timing, after all, and while I allow some leeway—no one has mentioned being exclusive—she gets on her high horse about the whole thing when she finds out the two guys are friends. Um, sorry? You didn't mention to them that you were dating other guys, but they were supposed to tell you they knew each other? There's a big leap in logic there, in that the girl (her name is Lauren, btw) assumes because the guys were friends they also knew they were both dating the same girl. Maybe I'm atypical and/or don't know a lot about how guys work, but it doesn't necessarily follow in my world that my friends know every twist and turn of my love life.

This romantic farce is laid over a hollow-boned story of how the two CIA agent guys are being hunted by a baddie who's angry about his brother's death. In the most predictable fashion, the boys must save the girl. Then she picks her hero, and the odd man out ends up with a consolation prize (his ex-wife, now much more interested in him when she discovers he's not the travel agent she thought he was).

All in all, though the lead actors have very good chemistry, the movie itself is a loss. It's rote and not even funny in places where it should be. Next time get Tom Hardy and Chris Pine to date each other; it would work out better on all fronts.

Television: Shows I Used to Like but Keep Forgetting Ever Existed

Every now and then I'll see something that reminds me of an old television show. And not just the typical old television show, but some off-kilter, short-lived thing that I liked but no one else watched.

Case in point: I'm reading yesterday's Daily Variety and see Dominic Purcell. Sure, most people might think Prison Break, but that wasn't my first thought. Mine was: Remember that John Doe show?

Well, do you?

Probably not any more than you remember, say, Glory Days, which for me is inextricably tied to John Doe. Were they on at about the same time? I have no idea; maybe it's the settings or the tenors of the shows that were similar. My recollections of these programs are vague at best, seeing how these shows didn't last very long, and as the saying goes: I've slept since then. Several times.

It's a strange situation. These are shows I watched regularly and enjoyed, but they simply didn't last long enough to make more than the faintest impressions on my memory. Is it the difference between one season and two? Or is it the force of the actors involved? Because I remember American Gothic quite clearly, and it also didn't air for very long (but did win just more than one season, and had the incredible Gary Cole at its forefront). The Pretender, too, is vivid in my mind. And yet I can only hazily recall that Dark Shadows reboot from the 90's. Or Covington Cross. Or Black Jack Savage. If I hadn't collected so many magazine clippings as a pre-teen, I probably wouldn't remember any of them at all, even now.

What shows make your list of barest remembrances? Is there anything that sometimes lights your bulb? Or is it just me?

Music: "She's So Mean" by Matchbox Twenty

So this is the new MB20 single off the forthcoming North (out 4 Sept). I'll count it as catchy but the lyrics leave something to be desired. At least, what I can remember of them. The gist of the song appears to be that this girl is really pretty and a lot of fun, but she'll wreck your life so [the guy they're singing to?] should just dump her. Oh, and also: she's mean.

Fun! But mean. Hot! But mean. Scratches your records and stuff. Drinks too much rum.

Um . . . Okay.

I know I'm reading too much into this. I have a degree in cultural media studies; I've been designed to break things apart this way. And so I just can't dig this song as much as I'd like to be able to. Oh, it'll be stuck in my head for a while, sure, but . . . I'm looking forward to hearing some other stuff from the album. This one is middling.

Movie/Theatre: Frankenstein

Starring: Benedict Cumberbatch, Jonny Lee Miller
Directed By: Danny Boyle
Written By: Nick Dear (adaptation), Mary Shelley (novel)
National Theatre Live
NR
3.75 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________

I'm not really looking at this in terms of a "review" so much as a meandering of thoughts. Over the past couple nights I've been to the local cinema, which showed first the "original casting" of this play, as filmed at London's National Theatre, and then (the second night) the "reverse casting." In an already rather heavy-handed adaptation, I find the gimmick of swapping actors somewhat precious and unnecessary in getting the point across, but so be it.

The original casting featured Cumberbatch as The Creature and JLM as his creator Victor Frankenstein. While I surely do understand the difference between acting on a stage and acting for the camera—I've worked in both media—I often have this terrible feeling Cumberbatch is showing off a bit. It works sometimes, for some characters, but can be a bit over the top at moments. The opening scene in which The Creature is "born" and learns to walk felt interminable as a result. But on the whole I'd say Cumberbatch did a fine job as a very physical actor in a very physical role.

Meanwhile, JLM played Frankenstein in such a straightforward way as to bring to my mind Colin Firth. (Since I like Colin Firth, this should be taken as a compliment.) Something about the way JLM acts cuts through the extraneous; I found the same to be true on the second night when he played The Creature. His acting brings clarity to the character, the events as they happen, the story as a whole. In places where Cumberbatch is showy, JLM is direct, which worked to the balance of the production overall.

And so on the second night, the birth of The Creature as portrayed by JLM seemed far less wearisome. But he also did not exude quite as much delight as Cumberbatch in his interpretation of The Creature discovering the world. But JLM's Creature showed more progress in movement and speech over the course of the play as a whole, as if the learning curve for the character had been brought to the fore; the intelligence is more evident.

On the flip side, Cumberbatch as Victor Frankenstein lent a humor to the character that JLM had not given him. Cumberbatch's delivery and timing were far more nuanced than JLM's had been.

I thought I would be able to walk away from both and say, "This one was better," but the truth is I would pick and choose parts of each to make the perfect show—a sort of theatrical Frankensteining.

As for the play itself, as I mentioned, I felt a bit as if I were being beat over the head with its themes of creator/creation, life, man, genius/monster, good/evil, and so forth. (To discuss it all would require a separate post.) Some of the dialogue was outright clunky. So while I can admire the stagecraft involved, I can't wholeheartedly admire the play. There is much to recommend it, but it wouldn't suffer for some finessing, either, though whether it's an issue of the writing or directing or both I'm not entirely sure. Would the same words in a less brute force display seem more appealing? Or do the words themselves need to be cut back a bit? Unclear. And it doesn't much matter what I say or think anyway, since the show was a hit and will surely live long on various stages in the future in one form or another.

Television: Thoughts About Sherlock

I actually have all my thoughts on the BBC One program Sherlock collected on my writing blog. Here are links to the summaries I've written for Series 2:

"A Scandal in Belgravia"

"The Hounds of Baskerville"

"The Reichenbach Fall"

Movies: Highlander Reboot

A little tidbit from Variety in my inbox today: Ryan Reynolds is in talks to lead in the Highlander film reboot. I can pretty easily picture Reynolds brandishing a sword. I'm just wondering whether we really need more Highlander.

This is quite the statement coming from a girl whose college nickname was Methos. (There are a certain number of people who still call me this, in fact; they may not actually know my real name.) A core group of us tripped into the collective name of "Zeistmeisters" after a laughable dinner discussion in the dining hall. Admittedly, I was more a fan of the television series, which was on when I was in high school and college, than the films, but in any case, Highlander occupies a special place in my heart and personal history.

That being said, there are a couple of [biased] reasons for my not wanting to see more of these movies: (a) I've outgrown them and would rather leave the past in the past, and/or (b) I don't want to see something old, familiar and comfortable rehashed and/or ruined.

I'm also not sure who the target audience is for something like this. Older people who have fond memories of the original movies? (I was too young for those.) People like me who remember the television series? (But were terribly disappointed by the movies that followed.) Are they rebooting Highlander in the hopes of starting another action franchise that will appeal to younger audiences? It's a mystery, but it seems possible any new outing might fall through the demographic cracks.

Then again, if they get Ryan Reynolds . . . Except he proved not to be such a huge draw to Green Lantern . . . My guess is more women want to see him in a heartthrob lead than as a swashbuckler. Even an Immortal, emotionally damaged and vulnerable heartthrob swashbuckler. And Reynolds doesn't seem to be man's man enough for the other side of the equation.

Not having seen a script, I can't make any more than passing guesses at the whole of a new Highlander franchise, with or without Reynolds. Anything, if done right and well, could work. But some things are difficult to do right and well; they require a delicate balance and very fine tuning. Something action/fantasy-oriented like Highlander is just that kind of thing—something easy to do badly and incredibly onerous to do well. Curious to see how it turns out.

Or maybe not.

Elementary

CBS has slated this modern take on Sherlock Holmes—set in New York as opposed to London—for Thursday nights at 10:00 (9:00 Central). There has, of course, been chatter as to this being an American Sherlock, but Elementary looks to be quite a bit different . . . And if it makes more than three episodes every couple years, it will at least have that much going for it.

Jonny Lee Miller will play the new Sherlock and Lucy Liu will be his Watson. A girl! Yes. So besides the change in scenery, we've got a gender switch that may or may not work for core Holmes fans. Chemistry between the stars is said to be strong, and Elementary had quite a bit of buzz at upfronts, so I guess we'll see.

An American Sherlock Holmes will necessitate some additional changes in sensibilities, even simply from a cultural standpoint. Though it's hip to be an Anglophile these days, a British detective (who may be asexual or gay) won't capture wide swaths of Peorians. My guess is Elementary will play more like the procedurals that are so popular, C.S.I. and the like.

Fun aside: Jonny Lee Miller played opposite Sherlock star Benedict Cumberbatch on stage at the National Theatre, London, in Frankenstein. The two switched off playing the Monster and Victor Frankenstein and won the Olivier for their efforts. (You can actually see a filmed staging of the play, coming to selected movie theaters across the country in early June.)

As a fan of Sherlock, I'm certainly curious about Elementary and will be giving it a look. Holmes seems to come in roughly 20- to 30-year cycles of popularity, and he's at his height again now with movies and television shows and new anthologies coming out. Too much of a good thing? We might be headed toward a saturation point, but with the Robert Downey Jr. films widely spaced and Sherlock almost as rare, there may yet be room for a regular weekly appearance by one of literature's most beloved figures.

Dropped Shows

There comes a time when a television show does one of a number of things: (a) ends, (b) changes direction, (c) gets routine and boring. When a show ends, one hopes it's on a high note, leaving people wanting more while simultaneously understanding that giving them too much of a good thing will only leave them so full they're sick. When it gets routine and boring, well, that speaks for itself. More of the same each week, and a lot of people might continue to tune in, but eventually a lot of people will tune out.

Changing direction, meanwhile, is tricky. Because the change can be for the better. Or it can be for the worse.

After a few years on the air, networks will sometimes come to a show whose ratings are beginning to flag and say, "Let's change it up a bit." Collective groan from writers and show runners. (It's worse when someone at the network has "an idea" about how to change things.)

The flip side of this might be when, even if the show is doing well in the ratings, the writers and show runners are starting to feel stuck and decide for themselves to change things . . .

Either way, it can be dicey.

Two shows I used to love made some major changes recently, and I've since dropped them from my must-see-TV list. Bones is one. I love the ensemble cast, the characters' quirks, the great dialogue and chemistry between the actors. But then everyone started having babies. And while I can understand the desire to move away from crime-of-the-week stylings and plumb the depths of various relationships on the show, I just found I couldn't care any more. Brennan having the baby in "the manger" was the last straw. Too over the top. I cut the show from my schedule.

The other show is Mad Men. Don Draper was a very interesting and complex character, dark and trying to find his happy. And then he found it. Her name is Megan. And Don Draper as happily married is just not compelling to me. And trying to fill in with other characters' issues doesn't do it for me, either. I like Peggy, sure, and Roger is a riot, but the supporting cast doesn't quite carry the show. I watched the first four episodes of this season and decided not to waste any more time.

A few seasons ago, I felt the same way about House. Right around the time he and Cuddy started to be an item, I just couldn't stomach watching any longer. House is a show that could have benefitted from some big changes, but not the kinds they made with the rotating interns and the on-and-off romances. No, see, they should have stuck with House and Wilson sharing a living space and turned it into a dramedy from that angle. That would have been hilarious. I'd have watched it forever.

Some shows are smart enough to quit while they're ahead. J Michael Straczynski knew he wanted Babylon 5 to be five seasons long. He had it planned out. It struggled at first but gained a core audience. But when asked to extend the show, JMS said no. He knew better than to wear out his welcome. He'd told the story he'd wanted to tell. B5 was like a novelization on TV, and it was perfect.

I read somewhere that Matthew Weiner plans to finish up Mad Men over three seasons (this and two more). I hope for his sake that he plans as well as JMS did. From what I watched this season, everything seemed to have been slowed down so that the show feels like it's being stretched at the neck and strangled.

So now that Bones and Mad Men are off my schedule, what do I watch?

• Smash
• Modern Family (though it hasn't been in top form, so it's on my personal bubble)
• 30 Rock (probably good, though, that next season will be its last, as it's running on fumes)
• The Office (also not so funny lately, but loving Catherine Tate)
• Sherlock and Doctor Who (when in season)

We had been watching Grimm for a while as well, but after a big cross-country move, we just didn't care enough to go back and catch up. And we're in temporary housing, so without HBO we haven't had a chance to see this season of Game of Thrones yet but intend to catch up as soon as possible.

For the first time in a long while, then, I'm looking forward to a new crop of television options come summer/fall. Upfronts have created buzz for things like Elementary (another modern-day Sherlock Holmes) and a host of others whose names I can't remember, and I don't have a copy of Variety at hand. Sort of at an out-with-the-old point as far as television is concerned . . .

Book Review: Rivers of London (aka Midnight Riot)

Ben Aaronovitch
Del Rey, 2011
Kindle
_____________________________________________________

So the reason there are two book titles on this book review is because the book was published as Rivers of London in the UK and Midnight Riot in the US. Both titles apply, as there are a couple different things going on in the book—namely, a plot involving the rivers of London and one involving, well, a kind of supernatural influence that is causing increasing bouts of anarchy in London, culminating in (you guessed it!) a midnight riot at Covent Garden.

The book is, in fact, the first of a series about Probationary Constable Peter Grant who, on the eve of being assigned permanently to paperwork duties, is instead roped into becoming an apprentice to Detective Chief Inspector Thomas Nightingale . . . Who happens to be a wizard tasked with the singular job of working on cases involving magic. Nightingale also happens to be really, really old (though of course he doesn't look it), and part of Peter's job involves bringing his "governor" up to speed on the latest technology. Like, you know, cell phones, flat-screen tellies, and the Internet.

Also in the mix: ghosts, gods, goddesses, and other creatures from outside the average.

Peter is a smart lad, too, aiming like Newton to find a scientific basis for all the supernatural phenomena in which he finds himself enmeshed.

Aaronovitch is probably best known for his work involving Doctor Who, for which he's written episodes as well as tie-in novels. However, I'd say this book, and the follow-up Moon Over Soho with which I'm now more than halfway finished, is his best work yet. Aaronovitch's cinematic background shows in his description; everything he writes in Midnight Riot is made visible in the mind's eye so to speak, and the basic premise of the series lends itself to potential television or movie adaptation.

A fast read (no idea of actual page numbers because I read it on my Kindle), fun, found it perfect for while I was traveling. To London, in fact. Though thankfully there were no riots while I was in town.