Yes, considering the new role I have, I figured it wouldn't have been the smartest idea to have a blog floating around with my real name in the web address. So here we are: A new semester, a new (and more enigmatically-URL'ed) blog. So, it's essentially like the last blog, with the infrequent postings chronicling my unwanted thoughts on things people don't care much about anyway.
With that in mind, here goes...!
Given that I don't tend to find myself just randomly watching TV as I used to in the high school days of my youth, it's a rare event to find me running home to catch a first-run episode of any show. With the exception of "The Office," "Veronica Mars" (and this one's losing me, sad to say), "Lost" (off-and-on) and runs of "Project Runway," I nearly catch everything on DVD (right now: series one and two of Ricky Gervais's "Extras"). So, it was much to my own surprise to find myself clamoring over new seasons of "Rome" and "24," which both premiered Sunday night.
First off (chronologically, anyway): "
Rome." The first season was elaborately lush, with interesting characters and plots--a kind of ornate "Deadwood." However, the series' lack of showcasing the progression of time (years would pass between episodes, but this was never overtly stating, wondering why Caesar got killed so fast after taking power and why Octavian still looked thirteen, even when he was banging his sister) was bothersome and pulled me out of the story somewhat. This new--and reportedly final--season picks up immediately after Caesar's murder and the suicide of Lucius Vorenus's wife, and while still entertaining, the show is missing something. Perhaps it's because this first episode moved at a rather breakneck pace, or perhaps it's because the scaffolding of the delicate balance of power between Brutus and Marc Antony is much more interesting than Vorenus' torment over cursing his children (seriously now). I just worry that the creators have an endpoint they want to get to (Octavian assuming the title of Emperor of Rome), and are going to have to cram plot into 10 episodes instead of over two or more seasons. Le sad, but I hope it improves. The performances are meaty and highly enjoyable, and the production is quite astounding, and it would be unfortunate to see it go the way of "Alias" or even "Six Feet Under" quality.
Secondly, there was "24." Hoo boy, I would like to like this show, if only because I was really into it in high school, but the concept is just so strained, with rehashed plots (terrorists with nukes, suburban families in trouble, Jack defying orders, etc.) and the snapping-in-half-of-disbelief (Jack can get a haircut and shave in less than five minutes, no public displays against the presidential administration for "allowing" a series of terrorist attacks to go without any sort of military retaliation). Maybe it's just the schtick that's run its course, but I was hoping to get pulled back into a mindless action/adventure after hearing how good last season was. Oh well.
In other news: the last movie I watched was "Dave Chappelle's Block Party" (meh), the last movie I saw in theatres was "Dreamgirls" (wha--? But surprisingly entertaining, if very predictable), and the last book I read was Chabon's "Werewolves in Their Youth" (good, but felt unfortunately inconsequential, if a book can be that way).
Eagerly awaiting the Ann Arbor/Metro Detroit premiere of "Pan's Labyrinth." And the beginning of "The Sarah Silverman Program."
Need new music. Bad.
...Also knew Meryl Streep was destined her recently-earned Golden Globe after having a dream last night where she was serving up ice cream cones and McFlurries at McDonald's.
So I know I should be sad about Darfur and AIDS and those uncivilized, non-Christian heathen kids who, for 39 cents a day, can have food and an education, but I'll be damned if this isn't one of the saddest commercials I have ever seen.
Given the inaguration of this year's awards season with last night's Golden Globes (sure, I liked "Dreamgirls," but it wasn't better than "Little Miss Sunshine"), I thought it would be time to share my needless opinion on those in Hollywood that I just don't get. The following list is admittedly but a sample, but these are the oft-forgotten Hollywoodlanders that many (i.e., critics) proclaim to be worthwhile contributors to the craft; I'm not knocking people like Paris Hilton (nobody claims she has talent) or even Tom Cruise (who doesn't have much in the way of acting chops but is kind of entertaining in his own glibless way). I have no love and have never understood those that do. Why are they so great?