Alias and Bully
Feb. 10th, 2005 04:51 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sarea
I might have liked this one. General dissatisfaction with the show makes it hard to tell, though.
Things I liked:
* Syd/Jack bonding, which we haven't seen enough of lately
* Syd kicking Vaughn's ass
* Syd kicking ass, period
* The plot, while not outstandingly original, was well done. Good pace, good dialogue, liked the directing. I missed who wrote the episode, but one online guide tells me it was Drew Goddard. I wouldn't be surprised considering the episode was pretty strong, but I'm also suspicious because he wrote last week's as well, and the same guy is listed as having directed both. It's not impossible, of course, but seems a bit fishy, like someone's cut and paste didn't get edited.
* Michael Goorjian. I didn't like him when he was Justin on Party of Five, but I liked him a lot in this ep. <g> He's one of those actors whose name has stuck with me, and I see him in all sorts of random things, even though he's not a huge celebrity.
* Nadia and Weiss. They're so cute! "She almost said yes. You saw that, right?"
* The tension between Dixon and Sloane. As usual, I don't trust Sloane at all, and yet I feel bad for him when people are picking on him and telling him what a bastard he is to his face. What is with that? WHAT STRANGE POWERS DO YOU WIELD, RON RIFKIN??? Great face acting by RR, particularly in the final scene with Dixon's big speech.
What I didn't like:
* The opening scene. This is not "The Syd and Vaughn Show." Get that through your thick skulls, would you? I just. don't. care. I suppose the legitimate plot reason for it is to showcase Syd's paranoia later on (she meant every word about Lauren, I don't care what she tells Vaughn, and he's stupid if he doesn't realize it. So I guess he won't realize it), but it was just about the only part of the episode I could have done without.
* I'm not enjoying the MOTW-style of storytelling on Alias. It worked for a show like XF, but it doesn't work as well here. I know they're doing it to attract more viewers, so that there's not this huge story arc that you have to have seen from the beginning in order to understand it. Well, too bad; it was a better show when it was like that. S1 and S2 kicked major ass. Now it's like, trying to be a poor man's XF, and it's nowhere near as good (as XF or as its former self). These weekly 'casefiles' have basically all been done before, by some other good show. "Nocturne," as previously mentioned, had shades of "Pusher" and "Wetwired." Next week's episode, while it looks great and I can't wait to see it, reminds me of BtVS's "Bad Girls." Plus, the plotlines are soooo cheesy and contrived. Syd and Nadia go undercover as bad-girl heiresses? My God that this show was once deserving of critical acclaim.
* Can we give Dixon something to do already?
* We need more Marshall. And Sloane. And Weiss. And Nadia. And everyone except Vaughn. Maybe even Sydney. If she's going to be some lameass girl I don't mind seeing less of her. My first choice, however, would be to focus the story back on Syd totally, rather than what they've got going now. Before, it was about Sydney Bristow being a secret agent, with a really strong supporting cast. Now it's just an ensemble show, starring Syd, Jack, and Vaughn, with the others playing bit parts.
* The convenient antidote, so readily available for Syd.
* The unnecessarily disgusting shot of the dead man on the autopsy table, with his brains hanging out. It was gross, but if it'd been necessary, fine. It wasn't; it felt like it was there just for shock value, and that makes it lame. Not to mention, shades of XF again.
So, all in all, it could have been worse. And probably a lot of the things I didn't like about the ep directly correlated with the problems of this season in general, so it's not so much a sin of the episode as it is a fault with their overall product.
Have you guys ever seen Kids? One of the most disturbing and thought-provoking movies I've ever seen. I only recently learned that Larry Clark (writer and director of Kids) also did a movie called Bully, which explores a "subculture of convertibles, hip hop, drugs, and underage sex." I watched it last night. The subject matter was fascinating (as well as disturbing; hallmarks of LC's), and so well done I could not look away.
The synopsis: Acclaimed director Larry Clark delivers his most powerful film since KIDS. Marty (Brad Renfro) is a tormented surfer who relies on his longtime pal Bobby (Nick Stahl) for rides to the beach and South Florida bars despite vicious abuse. But when Bobby turns his unwanted attention to Marty's new girlfriend Lisa (Rachel Miner) and her best friend Ally (Bijou Phillips), Lisa decides Bobby's reign of terror must end. Assembling a crew of alienated suburban teens, she forms a deadly plan to get Bobby out of the way once and for all, turning friends into enemies and casual acquaintances into co-defendants in a murder that rocked America to its core.
It's based on a true story that happened before Columbine. What surprised me most, I think, was how much I liked Marty. I don't know if I was supposed to. I mean ... I think it's really hard not to, despite what happens. I can't say the same for, say, the girls in Heavenly Creatures. But while I wouldn't go so far as to say Bobby Kent 'deserved' his fate, I also wonder if this is one of those situations where the lines are really blurry and gray. I mean, in Marty's case, I would contend that it was a form of self defense. Even that, I know, is a pretty thin line; I don't think Marty's life was ever in jeopardy because of Bobby (though how do you define 'life'?), but definitely he had more just cause than the rest of them. Of course, these kids were also incredibly stupid, and that's the crime I really can't forgive them for. <g> Anyway -- the movie was amazing and the actors were fantastic (I don't know where they get the work ethic/discipline, if they're really like how they're portrayed in this article). Who knew Brad Renfro had gotten so hot? And was such a good little actor?
I encourage everyone to see both of these films, if you can take the disturbing subject matter. (Neither of the films are rated due to all the unapologetic portrayals of drugs, sex, and violence.)
Things I liked:
* Syd/Jack bonding, which we haven't seen enough of lately
* Syd kicking Vaughn's ass
* Syd kicking ass, period
* The plot, while not outstandingly original, was well done. Good pace, good dialogue, liked the directing. I missed who wrote the episode, but one online guide tells me it was Drew Goddard. I wouldn't be surprised considering the episode was pretty strong, but I'm also suspicious because he wrote last week's as well, and the same guy is listed as having directed both. It's not impossible, of course, but seems a bit fishy, like someone's cut and paste didn't get edited.
* Michael Goorjian. I didn't like him when he was Justin on Party of Five, but I liked him a lot in this ep. <g> He's one of those actors whose name has stuck with me, and I see him in all sorts of random things, even though he's not a huge celebrity.
* Nadia and Weiss. They're so cute! "She almost said yes. You saw that, right?"
* The tension between Dixon and Sloane. As usual, I don't trust Sloane at all, and yet I feel bad for him when people are picking on him and telling him what a bastard he is to his face. What is with that? WHAT STRANGE POWERS DO YOU WIELD, RON RIFKIN??? Great face acting by RR, particularly in the final scene with Dixon's big speech.
What I didn't like:
* The opening scene. This is not "The Syd and Vaughn Show." Get that through your thick skulls, would you? I just. don't. care. I suppose the legitimate plot reason for it is to showcase Syd's paranoia later on (she meant every word about Lauren, I don't care what she tells Vaughn, and he's stupid if he doesn't realize it. So I guess he won't realize it), but it was just about the only part of the episode I could have done without.
* I'm not enjoying the MOTW-style of storytelling on Alias. It worked for a show like XF, but it doesn't work as well here. I know they're doing it to attract more viewers, so that there's not this huge story arc that you have to have seen from the beginning in order to understand it. Well, too bad; it was a better show when it was like that. S1 and S2 kicked major ass. Now it's like, trying to be a poor man's XF, and it's nowhere near as good (as XF or as its former self). These weekly 'casefiles' have basically all been done before, by some other good show. "Nocturne," as previously mentioned, had shades of "Pusher" and "Wetwired." Next week's episode, while it looks great and I can't wait to see it, reminds me of BtVS's "Bad Girls." Plus, the plotlines are soooo cheesy and contrived. Syd and Nadia go undercover as bad-girl heiresses? My God that this show was once deserving of critical acclaim.
* Can we give Dixon something to do already?
* We need more Marshall. And Sloane. And Weiss. And Nadia. And everyone except Vaughn. Maybe even Sydney. If she's going to be some lameass girl I don't mind seeing less of her. My first choice, however, would be to focus the story back on Syd totally, rather than what they've got going now. Before, it was about Sydney Bristow being a secret agent, with a really strong supporting cast. Now it's just an ensemble show, starring Syd, Jack, and Vaughn, with the others playing bit parts.
* The convenient antidote, so readily available for Syd.
* The unnecessarily disgusting shot of the dead man on the autopsy table, with his brains hanging out. It was gross, but if it'd been necessary, fine. It wasn't; it felt like it was there just for shock value, and that makes it lame. Not to mention, shades of XF again.
So, all in all, it could have been worse. And probably a lot of the things I didn't like about the ep directly correlated with the problems of this season in general, so it's not so much a sin of the episode as it is a fault with their overall product.
Have you guys ever seen Kids? One of the most disturbing and thought-provoking movies I've ever seen. I only recently learned that Larry Clark (writer and director of Kids) also did a movie called Bully, which explores a "subculture of convertibles, hip hop, drugs, and underage sex." I watched it last night. The subject matter was fascinating (as well as disturbing; hallmarks of LC's), and so well done I could not look away.
The synopsis: Acclaimed director Larry Clark delivers his most powerful film since KIDS. Marty (Brad Renfro) is a tormented surfer who relies on his longtime pal Bobby (Nick Stahl) for rides to the beach and South Florida bars despite vicious abuse. But when Bobby turns his unwanted attention to Marty's new girlfriend Lisa (Rachel Miner) and her best friend Ally (Bijou Phillips), Lisa decides Bobby's reign of terror must end. Assembling a crew of alienated suburban teens, she forms a deadly plan to get Bobby out of the way once and for all, turning friends into enemies and casual acquaintances into co-defendants in a murder that rocked America to its core.
It's based on a true story that happened before Columbine. What surprised me most, I think, was how much I liked Marty. I don't know if I was supposed to. I mean ... I think it's really hard not to, despite what happens. I can't say the same for, say, the girls in Heavenly Creatures. But while I wouldn't go so far as to say Bobby Kent 'deserved' his fate, I also wonder if this is one of those situations where the lines are really blurry and gray. I mean, in Marty's case, I would contend that it was a form of self defense. Even that, I know, is a pretty thin line; I don't think Marty's life was ever in jeopardy because of Bobby (though how do you define 'life'?), but definitely he had more just cause than the rest of them. Of course, these kids were also incredibly stupid, and that's the crime I really can't forgive them for. <g> Anyway -- the movie was amazing and the actors were fantastic (I don't know where they get the work ethic/discipline, if they're really like how they're portrayed in this article). Who knew Brad Renfro had gotten so hot? And was such a good little actor?
I encourage everyone to see both of these films, if you can take the disturbing subject matter. (Neither of the films are rated due to all the unapologetic portrayals of drugs, sex, and violence.)
