sandpiper912: (Default)
An important context tip...
I love history. Not for the dates and names, but for the stories.
I love historical dramas, comedies, etc.
One of my all time favorite series is "Rome".
When I saw the previews for Spartacus, I was very excited.
Another drama about ancient Rome, this time from a gladiator's perspective.
Gladiators, the sports heroes of their time, slaves yet not despised.
And the story of Spartacus before the slave revolt, one of the pivotal movers and shakers in Roman history...
What a brilliant idea!

Well, not so much.
I can almost see the pitch the writer/creator made to the studio, "Okay, okay, okay, it's like 300 meets Xena:Warrior Princess meets Rome" (All of these shows I liked, BTW, but together they are a disaster)
I tried to like it. I truly did.
I ignored the guys walking around in the barest of clothing during a snow storm.
I ignored the Roman commander wearing armor with nothing on underneath it.
I ignored the truly stupid 300 slow-mo moments that made the action seem like I was watching it through a strobe light.
I ignored the Barca of Carthage, a huge muscle bound guy that didn't look any more Carthaginian than I do.
But the straw that broke my suspension of disbelief was Crixus the Gaul. Asterix is more of a Gaul.
It was just downhill from there.

And to add insult to injury, the show actually has this disclaimer...

"Spartacus depicts extreme sensuality, brutality and language that some viewers might find objectionable"
(Actually, those parts are the most interesting and believable parts of the whole show)

"The show is a historical portrayal of ancient Roman society and the intensity of the content is to suggest an authentic representation of that period"

Well, "suggest" is right.
If you want to see a great show about ancient Rome, watch "Rome".

Viewing suggestions: Don't. If you must(you lost a bet or it's the only soft-core porn you can find), drink lots of wine. Then you won't care the story sucks.
sandpiper912: (Default)
So I went to go see the Crazies last night.
Cons
It wasn't successful as a horror movie, they let the cat out of the bag very early in the film, so I spent the rest waiting to see when the main characters would die.
There were some good startle/jump moments, but most of the best ones were "friendly fire" startles.
Pros
There were some great jokes, not the kind of one liners you could pull out and say over and over again until you annoyed your friends into homicide, but they were laugh out loud funny.
Also a couple of bizarre romantic moments, I thought only Gothic poets could put love and death in the same sentence and make it romantic, but they did in this movie.
I've liked Timothy Olyphant since Deadwood and Radha Mitchell since Pitch Black, so I was pleased with the main characters. George Romero was the executive producer, and while I had never heard of the writers or the director, the story was a solid entry in the Cloverfield genre of horror.
And while they let what was going on in Ogden Marsh be explained relatively quickly, they did have some story surprises in the later parts of the film. And the characters(along with the audience) didn't understand every thing about the mechanism that drove the town crazy, which was cool.

All in all, not too bad
Viewing suggestion: DVD or matinee

Profile

sandpiper912: (Default)
sandpiper912

September 2012

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
161718192021 22
23242526272829
30      

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 20th, 2017 02:29 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios