...And Now, A "Lot" Not To Like

Yesterday I was praising "On The Lot". Today I am dissing them. No, I'm not disappointed about the filmmakers voted off. I'm just astounded they did the elimination show exactly the way Fox does "American Idol." The hostess brought up the filmmakers, said "America voted..." just like Seacrest and then came the ever-present "We'll let you know.....................after the break!" This format does not work with aspiring directors, some of whom are already past the oldest age to be on Idol. These are grown-ups, for pete's sake!

Here is a show that shows off the creativity of very talented people and the producers and directors put it together just like every other cookie cutter reality talent show out there. They're showing so little creativity themselves, I doubt any of the contestants would demean themselves to actually work on the show if they weren't competing. The only thing the producers haven't done is make sure the three judges include a pompus insult machine, a ditz who really has no bad opinion of anything and someone who "keeps it real" by talking in slang. No, here they have three judges who all seem to be in total agreement about every film they see. Since when do three people agree on 18 films in a row???

The only thing I liked about the results show was reshowing the films of the top three vote-getters. Outside of that, the "You're fired" approach would actually be more humane than putting these people through the torture of Idol-esque cliffhangers.

A "Lot" To Like...

If you haven't seen Fox' "On The Lot", you owe it to yourself to check it out. This new reality show is for aspiring filmmakers with the winner getting a movie gig at Steven Spielberg's Dreamworks studio. Memorial Day, the 18 finalists all showed a one-minute comedy film they were assigned to put together and the viewing audience votes for their favorites a la American Idol. Three filmmakers will get the boot this week and eventually audience votes will bring it down to one winner.

I do not like the usual three judge panel talking about each film, at least right now, because they all seem to say the same thing. Either all three loved the film or all three hated it- there doesn't seem to be any middle ground right now with them.

But the crux of the show is the films and it's interesting to see all the filmmakers' creativity. It's a great look at what works and what doesn't work in films.

If you haven't seen the show yet, catch up at www.thelot.com.

Two 3-quels Down, Two To Go

I've now gotten through Spiderman 3 and Shrek 3. Still to come: Pirates 3 and Rush Hour 3 (although I probably won't see Rush Hour since I never saw the first two).
The problem has always been the same with these things- the story lines and/or the characters get stale, and these two movies were no exception.
I give props to Shrek, though, for one thing: Computer animation has now gotten so good that some of the human characters looked as close to real as I've ever seen, particularly the Arthur character. Storyline wise, though, it was the weakest of the three. There were inspired moments, like the role reversal with Puss-N-Boots and Donkey, and I loved the baby shower with all the damsels in distress acting like rich snobs and then waiting to be rescued. By the way, among all those women, who was the character of Doris supposed to be? One of Cinderella's stepsisters? Or another fairy tale character? That one had me confused. And I think this one had too many adult jokes and not enough kids jokes.
As for Spidey, again this was the weakest of the three although it had a great moral about forgiveness and not getting revenge. I actually reccommend this for the kiddies more than Shrek for that reason alone. The two things that bothered me on this one were: 1) having Topher Grace's character just happen to show up at the same church Spiderman is at, and 2) Sandman inexplicably just giving up, telling Spiderman why he did what he did and leaving. In the first instance, I just think it's a real stretch to expect us to believe in a city as big as New York that both characters just happen upon the same church. And in the second case, I don't understand that at all. I know he had a sick daughter and that led him down wrong paths, but there was nothing to indicate that a change of heart was coming for him. Maybe it ended up on the editing room floor.
See these 3-quels at your own peril.

I Once Was Lost But Now I'm Still Lost

...And I love it! I had to delay seeing it for two days, but I just finished seeing the season finale of Lost and it didn't disappoint. It was sad, after my post last week, to see Charlie meeting his fate after all in the same way it was foretold. But again the writers manage to surprise. This time, instead of the usual flashbacks, they did a two hour episode with flash forwards, which of course, you didn't realize until the end. Now they can take the story in a lot of directions. We could see everybody off the island all of next season or maybe some people leaving and some staying. I love a show that keeps me guessing like this in a good way. I'm looking forward to Season 4 next year!

Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead

The word is out! Rosie O'Donnell's tenure at The View is over a month ahead of schedule! What a relief. After this week's blow-up with co-host Elizabeth, it is amazing that Rosie just doesn't get it. She keeps on talking about letting her opinion be heard, but spent too much time shouting down and speaking down to those with opposing views. Rosie, your opinion was heard. You just hated that somebody disagreed with it! Adios Rosie. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Praise For A First

I am a big fan of Lost. The style of storytelling is interesting, the characters are all well-drawn. Some viewers' interest has waned because, to them, the storyline moves forward too slow. This is actually one of the things that makes it so intriguing to me.
Lost is much like the video game Myst. The island is a place you roam through and discover. It is a complete unknown. As you get deeper and deeper, you come upon new things. You don't know what the final outcome is until you get there.
Last night's next to the last episode of the season brought something new that I don't think I've ever encountered before in TV or in the movies- the surprise non-death of a character. The entire episode was devoted to the impending death of Charlie. As the episode progressed, I braced myself for the inevitable. Charlie knew he was going to die and how he was going to die. I watched how he handled it and accepted his fate, knowing his death would mean salvation for those he loved. It was a beautifully executed story. And then what happens? Charlie doesn't die!!! But he still could. As the episode ended, he was being held at gunpoint by two brand new characters.
This is the second time Lost has actually shocked me. The first time it was by how suddenly a main character died, and this time it was because somebody didn't die. That is impressive writing!!! Less people are watching Lost these days, and that's a shame. This is truly one of the best-written shows in television.

If Survivor Mirrors Real Life, No Wonder Real Life Sucks!

I just finished watching the Survivor finale and, as an avowed supporter of Yau-Man, I am disappointed, dismayed, downhearted and downright pissed!

For good TV, this was the strongest Survivor in years, since the original appearance of Rupert. It was one of the most strategic games ever from a sheer intellectual standpoint. There were a couple of episodes that were riveting for those who love strategy.

I don't have a major problem with Earl taking home the million bucks. He played a great game. But Yau-Man deserved so much more than he got!

Kudos to Yau for being one of the oldest in the game and still beating the younger ones at some of the challenges. He's an inspiration! Once again, though, the old adage of "Nice guys finish last" holds true. It is truly disappointing when you see people do things with integrity and not see it pay off in the end. It's easy to say Survivor is just a game, but the truth is what happens in Survivor happens too much in life, from business to politics to relationships. It begs the question: If integrity isn't enough to get you over the top, then why have integrity at all?

In some respects, I shouldn't be so upset. Earl played the game with a lot of integrity and it paid off for him. And Dreamz, the one with no integrity, didn't get a single vote from the jury. Nor did Cassandra, who never did anything to make her deserving of winning. I just wanted the most deserving people in front of the jury, just as I want the truly deserving people to succeed in life in the end. And everybody knows everything should be done the way I say it should!!!

3-In-1 Review

While I haven't been to anything new lately (which will end with this weekend's viewing of Spiderman 3), I did see three movies in 24 hours over the weekend:

Freedom Writers: Hillary Swank's movie based on a real-life teacher reaching out to inner-city kids. I liked the movie enough, but I didn't like Hillary. She may have 2 Oscar wins, but the believeability wasn't there for me in this one.

The Queen: Helen Mirren is excellent playing Queen Elizabeth in the aftermath of Princess Diana's death. However, this is not a movie for many people. It's very talky and it's more about the politics after Diana died than what life was like inside the palace before or after Diana's death. I guess it's good to see if it makes you feel better that even the elite can have dysfunctional families.

Luther (2003): I was surprised that this was the movie I liked the best of the three. Most of us raised in a church setting know the name Martin Luther but I, for one, really didn't know much of his story beyond the elementary teaching that he led the Reformation. The movie showed very effectively the problems Luther had with the Catholic church and how that led to his thoughts about proper ways to worship and bringing religion and the Bible to the people. In many ways, Luther's story mirrors the story of Christ encountering the moneychangers at the Temple. Joseph Fiennes is excellent as Luther, showing both his persuasive logical side and a tormented almost tortured side. Sir Peter Ustinov also shone through as Frederick The Wise.