Britt's On

Some musings on various television-watching excursions this summer:


1) I'm currently watching 'The Riches' with my boyfriend, after the owner of the company I work for lent it to me. We watched the premiere eons ago (okay, months) and are finally making our way through it. Such an interesting show because SO much happens in every freaking episode, and yet...it's only been a week or two at most in the character's lives. And we're on episode eight already. I can see why the show got cancelled ultimately - their skewering of us everyday 'buffers', aka the people who watch highbrow cable concept shows like The Riches, would definitely alienate the show's target audience. Plus I want more 'gypsies fitting in the 'burbs' hijinks and less 'gypsies are going to hunt you and kill you' nastiness. Generally though, I'm enjoying. Super bizarrely funny.


2) Just thinking about Pretty Little Liars. This season has definitely been slower-paced than the previous one, and the revelations not quite as revelatory...almost reminiscent of the final seasons of Lost. It's nice that the girls clued in on Garrett and Jenna, and the show clarified that Jarrett are NOT 'A' based on the fact they 'suspect' the girls know that Ian didn't kill Allison (when in fact, A has told them as much). A is also getting pretty damn crafty, sneaking into Emily's hospital room, medicine cabinet, and garbage.

One thing that has crossed my mind this season in particular is how refreshing it is to see Aria outside of her still-wrong-still-creepy relationship with Ezra. Season 1 was SO focused on them being together, and Season 2 they're in this weird in-between of allowed to be together (and Ezra's ex KNOWING they're a couple) but also it still being super weird and they're clearly trying to split them apart via Jason.

I bring up Aria because the way she was introduced - and really, the way she's focused on in a lot of the marketing of the show, at least initially - pointed to her as the slightly-more-important / relatable protagonist. But really, out of the three girls, she is the character I understand the least. I could easily classify the other girls' personalities:


Hanna - often there for insensitive, slightly dumb-blonde-esque comedy relief. Defensive but also fiercely loyal. Critical. Along for the ride compared to the others.


Spencer - the brainy, investigative one who is easily the most consumed by the Ally affair. She will be the last one to let it go, even when she says she is. Her type A, overachiever traits are well-suited to being the ringleader of the Ally-vestigations.


Emily - the most anxious and freaked out of the bunch, she's also the most introspective and independent - surprisingly really. Just the fact she has other activities and friends that are often the focus of her plots makes me think she's okay being a bit of a loner, apart from the liars.


Aria - is a big question mark. She never really initiates things in the group, especially when it comes to Ally. The other three girls all have three very distinct viewpoints on every decision they make - Hannah, hells no! Spencer, hells yes! Emily, let's think about it! Aria...I just never remember her contributions to things, and it seems like she's only randomly involved in anything the group does, like Spencer pulling her into last night's candy striper mission.

Anyway, still a fun and twisty and freaky show. I'm curious to see where they go with it, but concerned they blew their load in season 1 a bit.


3) Degrassi is back! Hallelujah! Overall enjoying the season so far. I think they've come a long way in the way they're blending characters together - last season struggled when you had episodes focused solely on the characters who had plot lines in that episode. This season they're giving many characters a few lines per episode, even when it's not their episode. It helps progress people's relationships in a much more organic way - see, Fiona and Eli's little bed bug exchange in the last episode, although their relationship is odd to me, or Bianca's excursions with Anya - and is a nice way to keep new characters top-of-mind. I'm kind of glad they haven't pitched this as something that will peak in the mid-season finale like last year's 'Boiling Point', which was ultimately a letdown. The teaser stuff with Drew and the gun has already rolled out and we're now enjoying the aftermath. Sigh. Sometimes I really wish this show had an hourly format to really stretch its legs, although they manage to do so much in a half-hour.

S'all.

- Britt's On

I just realized that I haven't rhapsodized about my new televisionary love. See, after my regular season TV all but dried up and I gobbled up the final season of Friday Night Lights on DVD and I realized Mad Men was not returning...I quickly realized I needed to plug some holes in my TV-watching schedule. I also tried out Netflix Canada for awhile, which I have mixed feelings about...

But in those thirty glorious days of free streaming - I should mention, this sh*t went down when my effing PS3 network was down with the rest of the world so I had to stream everything on my MacBook - I decided to give 'Being Erica' a shot.


I had actually meant to watch BE when it first aired on the CBC a couple of years ago. The premise sounded interesting - something about a girl reliving her teenage years with the knowledge of a thirty-something. But it was Canadian programming, and despite my love of Degrassi, my hopes were not high, and apparently neither was my ambition to actually PVR the thing. Well MAN was I wrong.

The show's premiere episode quickly proved how great Canadian programming can be. The music, the sets, the cast, the integration of Toronto into the show - it was all there. Along with a pretty special concept. Erica is in fact a thirty-something when we first meet her, a girl who feels like she piqued in high school, is going nowhere in her love life or her career, and is pretty much miserable...until Dr. Tom enters her life. Dr. Tom is a mysterious therapist of sorts whose job is to teach his patients life lessons through time travel. He sends Erica back to various points in her life - with the aforementioned knowledge of a thirty-something from the future - to relive certain moments or events or days in her life. Erica takes the lessons from these rehashes and applies them to her real-life events - some of which are totally normal, relatable issues, some of which are more related to her time traveling life.


The amazing thing about the show is that they've managed to keep it fresh and interesting from season-to-season. Although I loved Season 1's pretty straightforward flashback-and-move-on format, Season 2 bends the format by experimenting with variations on the flashback, whether they're focusing on a specific relationship Erica has, or they're something different altogether. Season 3's examination of time travel spun everything on its head once again - with somewhat mixed results as Erica occasionally took a backseat to other character's plot lines, but it still at least, kept things new and interesting.


I also LOVE LOVE LOVE how much Erica's career has factored into everything. Her work castmates Julianne and Brent are among my favourite characters on the show, and the fact her career is such a central focus to all the plots makes the show feel really modern and reflective of the Canadian everywoman's struggles.

Other things I love? Well the boys are incredibly dreamy, and each one interesting his own way. The emotional devastation of the S1 & S3 finales will not be soon forgotten either. The constant appearance of Degrassi characters as minor characters is a great boon for any cross-fans of the two programs. And Erica's wardrobe is easily enviable, as is Erin Karpluk's gorgeous hair, winsome charm, and ability to transform from the age of sixteen to thirty-two with just a few subtle shifts of wardrobe and make-up.

Honestly I have no bad things to say about this show. It's incredibly well-produced and it's a shame it's not better known - I am HOUNDING my friends and family to watch it and I implore you to do the same gentle readers. It's on Netflix, you can buy it in-stores, and Season 4 (the final season apparently) will start airing this fall...with yet another promisingly juicy twist as revealed in Season 3.

One last sidenote? I recently discovered my Aunt in Europe actually does the publicity for this show. So she's hung out with Erin. And I'm incredibly jealous. That is all.

- Britt's On

I recently watched all of the Harry Potter movies because I, lucky girl, scored a pass to tonight's premiere...now to actually get SEATS at said premiere is going to be tricky because I'm sure it's dramatically overbooked and I'll just die if we don't get in when you consider that I didn't pre-buy my tickets for opening night, as it's been tradition for me to go every opening night, and seeing as how I JUST watched the seventh film last night, clearly I'm in the mood for some resolutions. So with that in mind...how cute is this picture?



Harry Potter Films 1-7
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint
Costarring: Alan Rickman, Ralph Fiennes, Helena Bonham Carter
Times Watched: 1-4 I've probably watched about 4 or 5 times each. 5-7 I've only watched 2-3 times each.
Genre: Drama
Rotten Tomatoes / Metacritic:
The Philosopher's Stone - 80% / 64
The Chamber of Secrets - 83% / 63
The Prisoner of Azkaban - 91% / 82
The Goblet of Fire - 87% / 81
The Order of the Phoenix - 78% / 71
The Half-Blood Prince - 83% / 78
The Deathly Hallows - 79% / 65

Road To Ownership: I had been buying the HP films over the years, when one day, Amazon held a literal one-day sale for the first five films in a gift set on Blu-Ray. It was on sale because the sixth movie was about to come out in a new Blu-Ray gift pack, but regardless, I got the entire series for $60, and have since bought the 6th & 7th films separately. The gift set never mattered to me, the price did.

The Plot: Well if you don't know the plot of the Harry Potter series, it's about the titular boy wizard named Harry Potter, who survived a killing curse as an infant and subsequently brought down the darkest, baddest wizard of all time, Voldemort. Harry of course, has no clue about all of this until his eleventh birthday, when he's invited to attend Hogwarts School of Witchcraft & Wizardry. Although there are plenty of magical secrets and fun and typical school-age drama to be had, Harry's world is ultimately complicated by his ongoing link to Voldemort, who is at first rumored to be biding his time for a grand return, and eventually threatens to take over and destroy the entire wizarding world, once again. Harry's role in all of this is as the 'chosen one' - the one boy everyone believes can once again put a stop to the dark times that preceded his legendary status.



The Good & The Bad: I have to say, watching the films back-to-back has been an enlightening experience. I don't think I've ever done it before. Anyway the bad thing about the Harry Potter films is how much - particularly in the early days - they just kind of plod along in an attempt to retell even a fraction of the rich world JK Rowling created in the books. They're also incredibly confusing to anyone that's never read the books, and with all they leave out, only mildly satisfactory for the series' readers.


Of course, it is magical to see everything come to life as it were, and I particularly liked the way the films spun out to sort of suggest a world beyond Hogwarts - something which the books struggled with, admittedly - after the fifth film and David Yates took over the reins of directing. The first two films are definitely out of place in the the franchise, they feel very saccharine and are more about setting up the "magical" parts of the world as opposed to the darkness that is to come...granted, the books aren't too different in this respect so I can't totally point fingers, but in some ways it would have been neat to see Yates - who is, in my opinion, the first person to really make the films feel like independent, engaging MOVIES of their own - to direct the first two. One neat thing about the progression of films is how the cinematography changes. Alfonso Curoan's celebrated third entry - one which I typically point to as the best in the series, although having rewatched them, I'm ambivalent - was the first one to really make the world feel more real, and perhaps, more realized. His beautiful cinematography and use of the lush greenery on the supposed Hogwarts grounds really opened things up, although the tones were still warm - in the last few films many of the characters appear almost black and white with hints of Slytherin green, things are so desaturated.

Best Scenes: I gravitate towards the scenes where the characters actually get to talk. All too often the action overshadows the characters in these films, when there is plenty of good non-plot-related dialogue in the books. I love Lupin and Harry's scenes in the third movie, and the times they include Dumbledore's parting scenes with Harry at the end of each film, the Mirror of Erised, pretty much anything Sirius has with Harry (although far better developed in the books). I also LOVE the flashbacks, I wish they'd included more of them in the sixth film.

Worst Scenes: Hm. I never like how drawn out some of the random action scenes are. Another sophistication of the later films is that they handle these scenes deftly - enough to cause you a panic but not stretching them out forever & ever, like say, the finale of the second film. I also hated how they handled the maze challenge in the fourth movie.


Best Character: This is a bit hard to answer because I don't really have a fave character from the books, and to label a best character here is to really be labeling 'best actor'. That being said, I think Daniel Radcliffe has truly blossomed into a more and more accurate portrayal of what I'd always pictured Harry to be like in the books, to the point where I finally think he's handsome, something I could never get behind before. I also think Alan Rickman's portrayal of Snape has been bang-on from day one. Love.

Worst Character: Same as above. I guess discrepancies would be the thing to focus on here. I'm not a huge fan of who they cast for Luna, but I get why they did. I found the house-elves to be pretty far off from what I'd pictured. It's a shame they made Lavender Brown so obnoxious, although again I get why they did.

Soundtrack of our Lives: You know the score...John Williams' (same score master for Home Alone) created an eerie symphony of bells and strings which is still used to this day, in increasingly varied yet familiar forms.

If You Like This You'll Like: Well, Lord of the Rings springs to mind as a much more involved, war-oriented version of Harry Potter. And next year's The Hunger Games trilogy, hopefully.

Ratings:
You know, my feelings differ greatly from the critics. So here's my ranking of all the films to date, although from what I've been hearing, the finale is THE best of the them all. Always nice to go out with a bang.



1. Harry Potter & The Prisoner of Azkaban - I'm hesitant to put this in the #1 spot because after re-watching the films I REALLY liked what Yates did with them. But it was the first one to open up a world of possibility for the franchise, and the handling of the complex time warp at the end was genius. 4.5/5

2. Harry Potter & The Half-Blodd Prince - I'd like to point out that books 3 and 6 are my least favourite, yet the films are the best. Odd. Anyway this is probably Yates' most successful offering, critically at least, and for good reason. He started to figure out how to tell the story properly in the fifth film, but here he really gets it - he only includes the elements of the plot that can be resolved and understood as part of the film's overall arc. Would I have loved to see more flashbacks? Sure, but I appreciate that Yates was able to make the *funniest* Potter film by a landslide when things are conversely oh-so-dark. 4.5/5

3. Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows Part 1 - Funny that this movie got such mixed reviews when I actually think it did an outstanding job of setting up the final film, the splitting of which was about 50% necessary, and 50% out of Yates' control. There was plenty of action and tension and sweetness and sadness, and it brought the kids out of Hogwarts successfully, and deftly covered chapters and chapters of expository content. I'll note that in all of Yates' films he goes the farthest off-script, but he only ever seems to do it in ways that will enhance the storytelling of the film, so kudos. 4/5

4. Harry Potter & The Order of the Phoenix - I have a soft spot for this one because the book is my favourite, which I know to be an unpopular choice. It was definitely the hardest to adapt to film, and I think Yates might have focused a little too hard on the wrong thing, of all the possible focuses - the lockdown from the Ministry of Magic. I know that's a big part of what the book is about, but I felt like it missed the mark in terms of the Occlumency / link to Voldemort, Harry's overall emotional angst (which is pretty much forgotten by the mid-point of the movie), and most importantly, his ties to Sirius. If those things were stronger, and the prophecy better explained, it probably would have been more successful...but the fact is, it's the first film that felt like a *film*, and Yates' cinematography was inspired. 3.5/5

5. Harry Potter & The Goblet of Fire - A lot of people praise this one (and the book, might be the soft spot speaking I guess) but I never really liked it. I felt like it didn't really build on what Curaon had established in the third film, and was almost a reversion to the first two in some ways, given how closely it followed the book. Also Harry's hair was so terrible I'm automatically biased against it. I just felt like there were too many action sequences and missed opportunities, although it did manage to cover all the memorable major events of the book. 3/5

6. Harry Potter & The Chamber of Secrets - The first two films are relatively interchangeable for me. The actors weren't particularly (understandably) skilled in either one, the setting was altogether too cheerful and focused on the quirky, fun side of the wizarding world, and the plot climaxes seemed to come from nowhere...I prefer this one a bit because the Tom Riddle stuff was interesting. 2.75/5

7 Harry Potter & The Philosopher's Stone - See the above. The first two films really suffer from very linear, by-the-book storytelling, which may or may not have been JK Rowling's doing, or Christopher Columbus' fear of adapting one of the most beloved series' of all time. It was a treat to experience everything for the first time, but again, I wonder how different Hogwarts would look if another director had started the franchise off. Then again, perhaps the movement from warmth and light to cold and darkness isn't such a bad thing, and this was a perfect way to kick things off. 2.75/5


- Britt's On

Kind of late on this, but to be fair, Modern Family just finished what...a week ago? Here is my end-of-year recap for the best & worst in television, organized by the night it's broadcast.

MONDAYS

Gossip Girl
Pretty terrible season, but it's a pretty terrible show to begin with. I've long ago accepted that Josh Schwartz lost his mojo around season 2 of The OC. I have so many problems with GG it's hard to narrow them down...the constantly rotating 'B' cast (although irritatingly, GG is finally inducting a B cast member in the form of the terrible actress that played Charlie at the end of this last season)...the HORRIBLE sub-plot involving Raina for the last chunk of the season...the improbability of Blair and Serena finding happiness outside of their incestuous circle of boys...the lack of Dan having enough screen time.

Best Plot: Blair & Dan's non-relationship, hands down. The reveal about Serena's expulsion from prep school was cool as well, although insane.
Worst Plot: It's a tough call between Charlie's faux-psycho-act at the end of this season, Georgina's faux-mafia-baby, or Raina's faux-mother-death stupid stupid stupid plot. Probably Raina.
FINAL GRADE: C

TUESDAYS

Parenthood
This show quickly became one of my most anticipated of the week, which is weird considering it's definitely targeted to an older demographic, it's WAYYYY slower than any other show I watch, it has no overall direction to differentiate itself, and it's still got some annoying ticks - Adam & Christina's smothering coupley-ness, Drew having zero interesting plot lines, and way too many screaming scenes. But, I loved the guest stars this season - Stephen Baldwin, John Corbett, Michael Jordan (FNL, not the basketball player) - and there was tons of good stuff to love here, especially the way they slow-boiled (realistically) different plot points throughout the season. Hattie & Alex's relationship, Crosby/Jasmine/Gabby, Adam's work situation, Julia's infertility, Sarah's romantic life...none of these things were solved in a day, they still aren't solved. It's what I love most about this complex, dramatized version of family life.

Best Plot: I liked the Hattie & Alex storyline and how long it went on for (surprisingly). I thought it would implode at some point but it hasn't...yet. I think there was some potential good foreshadowing set up here. I also think Jason Katims recognized Michael Jordan's great acting on FNL and recruited him for Parenthood, so kudos.
Worst Plot: Hm. I wasn't a big fan of Sarah's play and I found Amber's rebellion at the end of the season annoying (if understandable). I'd have to go with the random Camille / Zeke issues when she started taking the painting class.
FINAL GRADE: A-


One Tree Hill
Eff I hate this show. We all know it piqued around Seasons 3-5 and now it's torturing us with a long, slow death. My issues? Oh my, where to begin. The fact that everything ALWAYS turns out okay is insane. One of the good things about OTH during its height was the fact things didn't always turn out okay - see: S3. Keith being shot. Let's look at one, just ONE character this season and see how it turned out for them. Brooke 'losing' her company. Her mom went to jail for about 4 episodes, she got offered a job with the company after all, she paid back her investors, and she still managed to be wealthy enough to do fuck all for the entire season. Brooke being infertile. She landed a magical, white, pretty, totally interested girl who wanted to give up her baby within weeks. Said girl took said baby back, Brooke is magically pregnant - with TWINS - and has a healthy birth to Jude and Davis (cute names) by end of season. Um, I think that's about it. Two or three-ish conflicts, all sewn up nicely.

I mean, I get it. They all kind of thought this was a final season, so they were stuck in a stupid place between not wanting to rock the boat too much (did anyone break up or even teeter near breaking up this year?) and needing to sustain some sort of drama. They also jumped endless sharks with totally random theme episodes - like the gag-worthy superhero one that had NO POINT WHATSOEVER, or the irritating toaster strudel / baby preparedness test one. I did like the "Hangover" episode although it's ones like that and the ridiculous Puerto Rico trip that you realize the show has a lot of female characters that don't really vibe with each other...since when would Brooke go on a holiday with Quinn (who she almost never interacts with), Lauren (who she's never had a conversation with), and Alex (who she doesn't really like)?

I also have serious issues with Quinn. I've rhapsodized before on my hatred for her, but the fact she seems to be on the show primarily to be the creator's / costume designer's random eye candy (a role previously employed by the much sluttier Rachel) and has no interesting plots whatsoever...sigh. Hate.

As for the finale, it was a rushed season finale. I liked the symmetry (if obvious...or super random) of Karen's Cafe re-opening, setting up the show for a mid-2000's comeback, but it just felt like a weird fast-forward, and now that it's coming back to torture me for one more year (I have to watch it end), I wonder what they can possibly cook up.

Best Plot: Um. Everyone pissed me off this season. Normally I'd pick a Brooke plot but she was so simpering and whiny this season I wanted to punch her. It was nice to see her get married I guess, although I'm still ech about her and Julian. That's your best friend's ex-fiancee yo! Terrible way to introduce a love interest.
Worst Plot: Too many choices, but I'll say any scene that involved Quinn & Clay, including the six-episode coma sh*t at the beginning of the season. I fast-forward about 90% of their scenes and I don't think I'm missing a thing. That's a huge red flag OTH!
FINAL GRADE: D

WEDNESDAYS


Survivor: Redemption Island
I am of mixed feelings on this season of Survivor. I was rooting for Rob and in total disbelief that he could coast to the finals, but he did it with finesse. It was a master class of how to play the game, but couldn't there have been a more interesting / dynamic cast for him to overcome and rise up? I didn't like Redemption Island. The only people I liked aside from Rob were David, Stephanie, and Andrea. I'd like to see all three of them play again. I may come to find Philip more hilarious in the future (a la Coach) but he ate up way too much screen time.

Best Plot: Rob & the idols this season was hilarious.
Worst Plot: Phillipp's droopy drawers, or the stupidity of the Zapatera's voting off Russell.
FINAL GRADE: B


America's Next Top Model
This is another show I'm wondering why I watch. I enjoy the photoshoots, but the drama is starting to feel unnecessarily ruthless and the show is increasingly pointless since no one is really successful and the winner feels pre-determined. This season had the meanest of mean girls in the final two - I don't care how oblivious Alexandria is, the behaviour of the other girls was downright sickening this season. Also Brittany in particular broke a million ANTM rules (losing limbs! contrived poses! unprofessional in front of the clients + judges) and yet she STILL won. The destination of Morocco was bizarre as well.

Best Plot: I'll admit, the judging room smackdown with Alexandria and Brittany was pretty incredible. So was Tyra's smackdown.
Worst Plot: Molly and Brittany's stank attitude all season long.
FINAL GRADE: C+



Modern Family
My review of this show is totally messed up. I received Season 1 for Christmas and flew through it and the first half of Season 2 before it returned around mid-February. So in that sense, I give this show a resounding THUMBS UP since I absorbed it all in such a condensed timeframe. Some people noted that S2 lost a little of the sparkle of S1 but it felt pretty continuous to me - I suppose there was some repetition but I still loved every single episode.

Best Plot: I don't even know! In recent memory I thought Cam directing the musical was hilarious.
Worst Plot: Jay picking out burial plots perhaps?
Final Grade: A

THURSDAYS


The Office
Weird how Thursday used to be must-watch TV for me and now it's dwindled down to The Office. This was a decent season because the writers stepped up their game to give Michael a fond farewell. The proposal episode was heartwarming and funny ("three years salary, right?") and the post-Michael scramble for a new manager brought up some prime hilarity. It's still not as good as the golden years (S1-S3) but better than the last one or two seasons.

Best Plot: Michael & Holly reuniting and Michael's stoic, silent goodbye at the airport.
Worst Plot: Erin & Gabe!
Final Grade: B

FRIDAYS

Degrassi
Degrassi continues to amaze me in how popular it is...and how they keep on mining the life of a teenager for new plots. I'm surprised they never did a runaway plot until Ally this season actually. I don't really have anything bad to say about Degrassi to be honest. There's little tweaks I'd make all over the place - more Holly J! less Jenna! Eli & Clare = love but I'm interested to see them apart for awhile! I can't wait for the new summer season to kick off.

Best Plot: I liked that Fiona's plot went from episode 1 of last year's summer season and didn't resolve itself till the very end - revealing a very complex character and good actress in Annie Clark. It wasn't necessarily the plot I looked forward to the most (so much awkward) but I appreciated the length of it.
Worst Plot: Eli's hoarding perhaps? Seemed a little forced. Or Fitz's turn to Jesus.
Final Grade: A-


SATURDAYS


Saturday Night Live
You know I just had a chat with a friend about this show. He thought this season was better than the last few, I thought it was scraping the bottom of the barrel. The repetition of sketches, over-reliance on Kristen Wiig, and sidelining of their guest hosts is pretty painful. The fact that the best episode of the season - finale with Justin Timberlake - featured nary an original sketch is frightening.

Best Sketch: Not sure. Justin's 'Liqourville' was great, as those ones always are. I'm trying to think of any new recurring ones and nothing's coming to mind...
Worst Sketch: I hate the Vinny Venidici Italian TV show and always skip it. I'm tired of 'What Up With That'.
Final Grade: C

SUNDAYS


The Amazing Race
The All Stars concept was fun to revisit, although a few of the teams were questionable. Ron & Christina were annoyingly amusing, my past favourite teams quickly fell into a hierarchy (buh-bye Margie & Luke), and I HATED MALLORY AND GARY. I loved Zev & Justin and was heartbroken they didn't win, but the sisters Kisha & Jen had a great race and deserved the win. In fact, if they weren't so obnoxious on their first race I would have been a stronger advocate of THEM being the first all female team to win the show. Now we just need a parent/child team to win.

Best Team: Zev & Justin
Worst Team: Gary & Mallory
FINAL GRADE: B+

I'm just going to say it. I don't like Lady Gaga's new album Born This Way. I've been listening to it all day and I'm sadly disappointed.

The writing was on the wall I suppose. Like the rest of the world, I found the lead single and title track a Madonna rip-off circa 'Express Yourself'. And when I stumbled across 'Judas' a few weeks ago, I felt like it was a weaker, weirder version of 'Bad Romance'.

I've always maintained that I like Gaga the musician, not Gaga the exhibitionist - and these days she definitely seems to be skewing towards the latter. I'm just kind of over her glazed-over "You like me?" persona. Gaga is trying so hard to represent all of us, all the so-called freaks in the world, that I've completely lost who she is - a talented, interesting musician.

Aside from my issues with the enterprise that is Lady Gaga, let's talk about what we're supposed to talk about when we talk about a musician - THE MUSIC. Unfortunately, it's all a little forgettable...and melding together. The songs have a consistent thrumming, Euro-Dance feeling to them that doesn't feel fresh or cutting edge, but rather reminiscent of Britney Spears' latest effort Femme Fatale minus the desire to throw elbows at the club.

It's also the lyrics...almost every song refers to Gaga's past insecurity and accepting yourself and inner beauty. Or alternatively, oddly, religion - including the quite blatant call-outs to 'Capital H-I-M' in 'Born This Way' and the title of 'Judas'. Also there's tons of love for Gaga's gay icon status - many of the songs give shoutouts to sexuality and romance. Do I support the message? Absolutely. Does it feel a little pandering? Definitely.

To Gaga's credit, she sells this sh*t for all she can. It's a bold artist that can convince the world to embrace an album that is equal parts derivative and oddly show tune-y. I just don't feel like it has that spark of...being genuine. Or for that matter, unique - every single from her first album (actually every track) had a slightly different vibe, and that's what made it so awesome. I can't say the same is true here.

I'm sure the world will embrace it, although the love for her first two singles has been more tepid than I think anyone anticipated. I don't want to see her have a ton of backlash, but I really did expect more from the Lady herself. I just feel like she's succumbed to her own image.

- Britt's On

I wanted to start watching Being Erica with my new Netflix trial subscription today, but clearly that didn't happen...yet. I just wanted to post this update about a trail of thought I just had.

'Water For Elephants', a book I LOVED, came out in movie form this weekend. It didn't do spectacularly. I thought the casting was weird from the beginning in terms of cast chemistry - I imagined the castmates a lot closer in age when reading the book - and sure enough, it was a big factor in the ho hum reviews the film received.

This got me to thinking how many books are turned into movies these days. Just as Hollywood loves a remake, they love source material with a strong following behind it. That's why nearly every major chick lit author has a movie to her name these days, with Emily Giffin just weeks away from her six-year-old debut novel showing up on the silver screen, with 'Something Borrowed'.

In some ways, it's a cool thing. I can't tell you how often I've finished a book or series (most recently, the Hunger Games) and then fiended for the movie adaptation. But then I have problem with that. Don't you think it's a little weird that we pay to go and watch inflated versions of what the author already masterfully created in our minds? That we are watching stories we already know the endings to?

I'll admit part of the pull of seeing a movie adaptation of a book is seeing things "come to life", but more often than not, these movie adaptations fail to live up to our expectations...which begs the question, what's the point?

In fact some of the best book adaptations on film come from books that are either kinda crappy to begin with (hi 'Bridget Jones Diary') or better yet, aren't that well known at all, making the film feel like a fresh inventive concept with an author's unique point of view or clever idea 'brought to life' the way it should be - as the SEED of an idea (see: 'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button' for a solid, if not perfect example). That's why novellas and short stories actually make for better book adaptations - the more complicated the plot device (sigh, 'The Time Traveler's Wife') the harder the film has to work to dilute it down to a singular concept the average, non-book-reading moviegoer can comprehend. So what you get is a film that uses the seed of the book you love...but ties it to a movie genre, instead of letting the story define the genre, or possibly reinvent it.

I just find it weird that Hollywood continues to use books as source material, particularly wildly popular ones, and only hits the mark - and even then 90% of the time you say "Well it wasn't as good as the book but---" - about a quarter of the time. The Harry Potter movies, or to an extent the Lord of the Rings trilogy, are the rare trilogies that have such compelling action that lends it self to movies, and a unique mythology / world not seen on film before, that they consistently succeed...although EVERYONE that's seen them will contend there's so much missing from the films it's impossible to compare them.

I should point out that all of this came from the fact I can't remember the last time a movie script had a ton of lock & key buzz to it. 'Inception' is a decent example, although it wasn't so much about keeping things quiet as there being no simple way to describe what the film was about. That being said, that buzz alone was enough to propel that into one of last year's big blockbusters. And you know what? It stemmed from a wholly original idea.

When I questioned myself, why aren't there more lock & key scripts like that? Ones that get the populus buzzing? It's cause we're simply asking Hollywood to remake stories we already know the ending to...and as a result plot takes a back seat. Instead, we're judging it more for technical elements like 'casting' or 'script' or 'interpretation' (heaven forbid) when we've already made it clear the films can never live up to the books. Problematic much?

- Britt's On

So...we're down to the Final 8 in this season of Survivor: Redemption Island, and it's been kind of a snoozy season. At first Boston Rob's domination of the game was exhilarating. Now it's just kind of predictable, and I wonder if anyone will be powerful enough to make a play to knock him out once we get down to the final 6 Ometepe kids. And if they do, it'll almost be disappointing that someone has rocked this season so hard, only to get bamboozled in the final moments. Then again, maybe it'd be nice for Rob to win. I'm torn.

My main reason for posting this though, is how WEIRD this season has been. I've noticed a lot of comments from the peanut gallery about how the reason why this season has been so snoozy is the only characters that get any airtime are Rob, Philip, and the occasional commentary from a member of the Zapatera tribe (David was pretty cool, I miss him). Is it bad casting? Are the chickies and football player on Ometepe really that boring? Or are the editors trying to hide something from us?


I just feel like a lot is being LEFT out, so instead we're being treated to some mild drama around camp, usually surrounding Philip. For example...how is it that no one on Ometepe, pre-merge, questioned the existence of immunity idols? One could argue that after Kristina's was used, they all assumed no more would be given out - but Grant (and Philip, to a degree) knew there were clues leading to a second one. Why didn't they show Grant searching aimlessly for it? Or did Rob reveal he had it? Or did Grant guess Rob found it already? I'm just confused as to why none of the inevitable interview segments surrounding the idol have been completely left out. I also wish I saw more from Rob's harem surrounding their devotion to him. Who thinks they're going to the Final 3, and why hasn't in-fighting and Rob's multi-person promises come to light? Or are they holding onto all of that till the final 6?


Part of me thinks this group is just sailing towards the finish like Tocantins, with the mutual understanding that it might not be such a bad thing for Rob to win the whole thing...I mean we haven't seen a shred of ambition from one of these kids (at least not one that's been left on the editing room floor) aside from Andrea's brief night of plotting with Matt by the campfire. They teased that next week Andrea might be walking the plank - a reminder that Rob never forgot Matt sold her out - but I'd be surprised if that's the case. That being said, Andrea has the weakest ties to Rob of the bunch, so I can see that he sees her as a threat. She's done well in challenges, doesn't have the same level of animosity around here that the other girls do, and she has Matt and Philip's votes if she makes it to the end. Is that enough to motivate her to make a power play? Doubtful.

I don't know. I don't know how I feel about this season. It feels like Rob's tribe has been as restrained by the editors as the Zapatera folks are spouting they are around camp. I love Rob as a character, and I commented earlier on this season that every season would be better with a little Rob in it, but his sheer domination over these unseasoned players has been kind of painful to watch...especially since they really do just seem like drones, based on the editing. I just want SOMETHING to happen. Don't keep me waiting much longer Survivor!

- Britt's On

I just looked back at my last few posts and realized I forgot to talk about the Oscars, like, at all. Which is a big deal when you consider I attended the damn show last year and wrote a million billion posts about it.

Anyway general thoughts:

- Snoozy year in general. 2010 was a terrible year for movies, and it shouldn't have been so up-in-the-air about who would win Best Picture. I mean, landslides are boring too, but I like the thrill that comes with a film that has a large public momentum behind it...Slumdog Millionaire being the most recent example. Or give me a proper showdown like last year's Hurt Locker vs. Avatar fight. This year was just...too predictable, and unsatisfactorily so.

- I thought Toy Story 3 was the best movie of the year last year. Technically speaking, it should have been honored in the way the final Lord of the Rings film was, as the perfect wrap-up to a trilogy. However the Toy trilogy spans some 15-ish years, so I'm not surprised the Academy didn't see things that way.

- If TS3 couldn't win, then The Social Network should have won. It's wildly entertaining, expertly acted, supremely paced, and most importantly, a beacon of where we are today, in this moment. I'm all for historical movies, but a film like TSN deserves to be hallmarked, so that when kids thirty years from now decide to watch all the Best Picture winners, they can scratch their heads at 'What's facebook?'

- I wanted an acting upset. Somewhere. Annette over Natalie. Hailee over Melissa. Something. I got nothing.

- I kind of found James Franco more entertaining than Anne Hathaway, who was in full Cinderella-pretty-princess-look-at-me-aren't-I-relatable-but-so-much-luckier-than-you mode. I like Anne, generally speaking. I think she gets a lot of roles I wouldn't have cast her in. But I take issue with the fact her image is supposed to be so relatable when in fact, she's the multi-million dollar product of Rachel Zoe's styling expertise. JF was the WRONG choice to host, I called that from the beginning, and I hope they go back to comedians next year, but I found his down tempo candor kind of refreshing.

- Mila Kunis looked smoking, although I found her dress a tad distracting. Honestly the red carpet was pretty snoozy as well this year. So glad I went last year instead!

That's all. I saw 8/10 of the Best Picture nods, and I still plan to watch the final two. Here is my Oscar ballot, aka picks in order for best to worst:

1. Toy Story 3
2. The Social Network
3. Inception (interchangeable with TKS honestly. I get why TKS won.)
4. The King's Speech
5. Black Swan
6. Winter's Bone
7. The Fighter
8. True Grit

To see: 127 Hours + The Kids Are Alright

- Britt's On

Last night I started watching the fifth and final season of Friday Night Lights. Can I first of all point out it's really nifty that they have it out on DVD simultaneously with the TV series premiering on NBC next week? As someone who owns (and lends out) the DVD series to everyone, I jumped on buying it instead of waiting week-to-week. Of course, this means I will get through the show faster, which is depressing after last night's heart-tugging opener.

I reflected that FNL had one of the best series premieres ever...and it got me thinking to the best series premieres of all time, and I realized that generally speaking, the shows with the best series premieres end up having the best first seasons. A show with a fantastic premiere (at least in its first season) rarely fails to live up to said standard. After the first season, it's a crapshoot. So instead of creating two separate lists of best premieres and best first seasons, I present my list of the best first seasons (and generally speaking, premieres) ever.


The OC - Remember when Mischa Barton was a fashion icon? And Rachel Bilson had curves? And Seth Cohen was charmingly self-conscious? And Luke had a gay dad? And Julie was a 'Real Housewife'-in-training? And Ryan's brooding desire to save people was sweet? And Oliver was a total psychopath? And the show was actually funny and shocking in equal parts? Sigh. Few shows, in particular teen shows, will top the glory that is the first season of The OC.


Lost - I was a latecomer to Lost, catching up on the first four seasons in quick succession literally days before the fifth one began. I'm kind of glad I did watch it on DVD so I could (somewhat) solve the confounded mysteries instead of being stumped for weeks. Few shows had as strong a premiere or first season as Lost - where characters were in constant peril, mysteries were piling on top of one another (but not to the hysterical levels they were in future seasons), and insight into each character's life was something to be savoured...and tied in very nicely with what was happening with their on-island selves. In retrospect, the first season is a little tedious compared to future ones (after all, they only thing they discover is the hatch and a whole lot of WTFuckery?) but I constantly hear complaints about s2's "Tailies" and s3's venture into the "Others" territory, so S1 really is a holy bastion of wonderfulness.


Friday Night Lights - I put up a serious fuss about watching FNL. I thought the actors looked smug on the cover. I didn't like the movie very much. I'd seen a clip on TV of Tyra's mom in the middle of a drinking binge and thought it looked lame. Alas, one day we popped season 1 in the DVD player and I was INSTANTLY hooked. The premiere is one of the most captivating ever, and the glorious full length of the first season allowed you to see many different facets of these humanly flawed characters. True, the series felt a little long compared to the length of an actual high school football season, but have 20+ episodes to play around with allowed for so much more than the protracted seasons we now have.


Desperate Housewives - I no longer watch DH because of this first season, and all that it stood for. A hilarious satire of soap operas, the show was whip smart, hilariously funny, and ooey gooey twisty turny. The women were a lot more entrenched in their archetypes - a good and bad thing - and we had some characters that added a lot of flavour to the show...Martha Huber, Edie, Paul, Rex (!), John to name a few. Plus it made sense for Mary-Alice to actually make guest appearances. Part of me thinks they blew their load (sorry, graphic) too early by giving up Mary-Alice's secret, and then following that same format year-after-year. The show was just so fresh, and the supposed cattiness of the stars (particularly come awards season) was entertaining fodder as well. Shame they've now become exactly what they were mocking in the first place - a big, stinky, soap.


Survivor - Talk about The Real World however much you want, this is when reality TV became part of the popular zeitgeist. I started watching about a third of the way through, I think on the episode when Gretchen was eliminated. My family and I quickly became hooked (and played reverse catch-up before the finale) and were surfing the wave of popular culture along with the rest of North America when Richard and Kelly went head-to-head in the much-watched finale. Watching the first season of Survivor now seems a little laughable. The naivete of the castaways is nearly infuriating, the props and challenges look amateurish, and even little details like the cheesy graphics or the fact Jeff doesn't have this catchphrases quite nailed down make for a charmingly docile entry for one of the genre's most resilient franchises.

Solid Contenders:

Pretty Little Liars - the first season just wrapped up and golly was it good...the show lacks (male) character development and one of their best actresses is, unfortunately, dead but the constant guessing game has made it into the teeny bopper version of Lost. Only with blind flute players instead of rampant polar bears.

The Walking Dead - in six little episodes this show blew me away. Again, it could use some work on character development, but you can only expect so much from a half-dozen episodes. Incidentally, if I were to make a 'best premieres evahhh' list, this show would easily end up on it. The fact it was like watching a little movie every week made for a completely enthralling tv-watching experience.

Mad Men - There was lots to like in Season 1. The near-weekly ad pitches (that were sadly absent for much of S2 & S3). Don's lothario ways weren't tired, and Rachel Menken was his most lovely dalliance to date. Betty's desperate housewife act earned equal parts raised eyebrows and empathy. Admittedly however, the pacing was a little slow (although it crawled in S2) compared to the punchier, zippier feeling of S3 & S4, where the show took that initial foundation and skyrocketed our characters to new levels before slamming them back down to earth.

Modern Family - Everyone keeps telling me that this current season isn't as funny as last season (I just caught up on them both over the last three months). I agree getting to know the characters and their funny little quirks - Cameron's a jock! - was funnier the first time around, as opposed to somewhat rehashing elements of their personality this season, but I'm not totally convinced that Season 1 is the best this show has to offer...Season 2 has still shocked and delighted me, and the first few episodes of S1 has some weirdness they've since dropped, so I won't peg their first season as the best ever...but I will say it's definitely one of THE best first seasons for a 30-minute sitcom.

- Britt's On

I feel like I may have keyed into one of the things that makes a good scripted show better, or one might say, great. Part of this ‘secret’ is actually represented in the increasingly popular trend of having an expansive cast right off the hop – consider Lost’s sprawling survivors, The Office’s dysfunctional crew, Mad Men’s interweaving professional and personal lives, or the extended families of Parenthood and Modern Family. Namely, I’m talking about the ability to go outside your core cast and be comfortable with adding new members, something a LOT of shows are fa-reaked out about.

Having a large cast off the hop allows you to do many things. It extends your storylines by allowing you to create new pairings that previously haven’t interacted. It makes it easier to kill people off on an action-based show. If a cast member wants to move onto greener pastures, it’s less of an impact to the overall show. That being said, the argument could be made that having a large cast makes it hard to add new talent because you’ve already got so many characters…admittedly I still find myself losing track of the uber-generic names of the Braverman clan on Parenthood.

Lost is a great example of both sides of the coin. On the one hand, they responded to the acting talents and audience response to later-in-the-game additions Desmond, Ben, and Juliet, who by the series’ end, were some of the show’s biggest fan faves. On the flip side, they were less successful with Season 2’s ‘Tailies’ or the infamous introduction of Nikki & Paolo, two ‘extras’ that were slowly worked into the plot and quickly eviscerated thereafter.

But Lost had the advantage of a big cast to begin with, one that was quite dispensable (although generally for emotional and plot reasons) compared to most shows, so perhaps they aren’t the perfect case study. What I can do is point to two big, bad examples of the problems that occur when you don’t allow for new characters to become a regular part of the cast.

The first is Gossip Girl. After four seasons of fluff, I feel like I’ve finally singled out why the show feels so frivolous. It’s the casting. Also the sheer template of the show (issue-scheme-event-resolution) combined with the rapid-fire pace of relationships beginnings and endings, but a big chunk of it is the casting. We’ve been with our core five – Serena, Blair, Chuck, Nate, and Dan – since early days, with Lily, Rufus, Jenny, Vanessa, and Eric playing consistent supporting roles. The only change over four seasons is dropping Jenny, and phasing the supporting characters in and out to various degrees. Serena is stuck in a never-ending love cycle with Nate and Dan, while taking on occasional romantic hot flash pursuits, Vanessa has hooked up with everyone, while Blair is on the precipice of following suit.

The incestual pairings are reminiscent of The OC, another Josh Schwartz and Stephanie Savage-helmed program, which ultimately met its demise by trying to replace a core cast member with two half-wits – Taylor and Katelin. Gossip Girl fares slightly better than the OC in that they are willing to phase out the B-listers instead of trying to fit them in yet again, but the main issue with both shows has always been that ‘new’ characters will NEVER stick around, and that the end game in sight is likely a Blair/Chuck and Serena/Dan match-up. The closest we have is the recurring presence of Carter Baison, Georgina Sparks, and Damian Dalgard. It’d be nice to have a romantic interest actually stick around and become part of the top-billed cast, instead of guessing they’re contracted for a 6-8 episode run before being turfed. You could argue that perhaps they haven’t found an actor that piques audience interest / actor chemistry yet, but it's been four bloody years.

On the same note, I feel Parenthood, despite having a massive core cast given relatively equal weight, is struggling with adding new characters. Sarah’s love interests have been passing crazes to date, despite Lauren Graham’s incredible ability to create on-screen chemistry. Hattie’s relationship with Alex has provided a solid recurring storyline throughout the season, and given the crux of the conflict I understand the reluctance to make him a regular – especially since you want the will they / won’t they tension to exist that is somewhat ruined when a boyfriend is added to the cast – but if every romantic lead introduced for Sarah, Hattie, Drew, and Amber turns out to be a guest spot, I’ll be a little tired of it in no time. Particularly in the Sarah department.

For as much as I dislike Desperate Housewives and One Tree Hill these days, I will give them a tip of the hat in how they are good students of adding new characters. Kind of. OTH generally shoves new characters down your throat (hello Quinn and Clay), although they’re decent at rotating the b-listers in and out of play, and have cut characters that just weren’t cutting it (hello every romantic lead in Brooke’s life, prior to Julian). DH is also not doing too badly. They added ‘mystery-of-the-year’ housewife Katherine to the crew instead of turfing her the second her dark secret was revealed, and let Bree find new love in Orson and actually add him to the cast for a couple of seasons. In both cases they phased out the characters when it felt right (more or less…I would have preferred Carl to Orson last year) and literally killed others for sheer drama. They’re kind of guilty of shoving newbies down your throat (a la Vanessa Williams) but they’re also a show that isn’t afraid to give someone the boot if they’re just not working out.

The best success story? The Office. They’ve added three newbies over the years – Andy, Erin, and Gabe – plus made warehouse warrior Darryl into a regular, and it’s hard to imagine the cast without them (especially the magnificent Ed Helms, who has earned a coveted spot in the show’s twenty-second opening).

- Britt’s On