Change Your Image
shexmus
Reviews
Life of Pi (2012)
Wildly over-rated religious claptrap
This film is a must-watch only for its 3D imagery which is quite extraordinary. If you are a religious type you may enjoy it for more than that because the film-makers' target audience is the emotional believers. If you are a rational atheist kind there is little for you to connect except perhaps briefly in the beginning, when Pi gets to learn about the nature of the beast, and towards the end, when he has to recount the story to the wrecked ship's insurers. Indeed, I could not help but conclude that we just took a journey through the delusional mind of a hungry and thirsty castaway. Did someone just say that the origins of all gods, spirits and other affiliated ethereal 'entities' is in the hallucinating minds of our wandering hungry and thirsty ancestors? I believe Ang Lee just did, though I can't be sure whether this is one of the interpretations that he deliberately set out to convey. 7/10.
Life on Mars (2006)
Move along! There is no great TV here!
I just finished watching Season 1 of Life on Mars and feel rather underwhelmed. Is this really one of the best TV shows of the last decade? Among the finest to have come out of the UK? Is it indeed Worthy of the praise heaped upon by critics and viewers alike? No, no and no. If you are not a TV connoisseur you'll certainly enjoy it. If you have time only for groundbreaking and innovative TV shows, then move along, folks, there is nothing to see here.
Probably the only original aspect of Life On Mars is its premise. DCI Sam Tyler (John Simm) has a traffic accident in 2006 and wakes up with a concussion 33 years early and one stripe short to DCI Gene Hunt (Philip Glenister). "Am I mad, in a coma, or back in time?", he asks at the beginning of each episode. Yet, by the end of the second episode there are enough signposts to suggest that he is neither mad nor traveling in time. There goes the mystery! By the end of third episode, the hints are so obvious the story so formulaic that the only thrill left is to wait and see how the characters will react when they find out the butler (or someone similarly obvious) has done it again! There are a few dramatic moments but nothing fantastic. So which genre does it really belong to? I'd say it is comedy first, and everything else second. And a fairly average comedy at that.
The choice of 1973 for the setting is impeccable for it avoids the excessive familiarity in popular culture of both 1960s and the 1980s. Indeed, 1973 is probably the least conspicuous year in the least known decade since the Second World War. Any TV show set in that era could offer unique opportunities for a creative team provided that the elements of the era could skillfully be woven into what are essentially universal story lines. And nothing beats a good story that comes with a large dose of culture shock. A case in point is Deadwood. Another good example is Rome. One can even say Battlestar Galactica. Each of these examples brings out the most gritty aspects of the era it's set in.
In Life On Mars however one sees plenty of smoke and booze and paperwork and many characters wearing leather jackets and riding several old cars and mini-vans. (Is this meant to be 'The Streets of Manchester'?) Yet the grand sexism of the era is showcased very little. Racism is non-existent. I can't remember a single swear word spoken in all 8 episodes. Sure, the police are as rough with each other as they are with the suspects, but is this meant to be something unique to 1970s? A few details unique to the era have been captured perfectly well, however; such as the illegality at the time of porn film production and distribution.
The plot lines often seems quite unbelievable, like the supposedly "nerve-wracking" hostage situation in Episode 6. (How many times do they have to wrestle the hostage-taker who looks older than Tyler and Hunt combined?) The characters are mildly interesting, except for the officer-goons of a rival police department who truly deliver some comic relief to the screen. The acting, in most part, is very, very ordinary. They don't seem too ruffled even when looking down the barrel of a revolver. Reservoir dogs, they ain't either.
Watching Life On Mars has been an unsatisfying experience. Perhaps, I expected too much from it. If you lower your expectations you may well find it enjoyable. 7/10
I, Claudius (1976)
By Jove, it's 10 out of 10
"I, Claudius" was the most tedious TV series of my childhood. It promised a lot, and delivered nothing, to satisfy my childhood expectations. No land battles, no naval clashes, no chariot races, not even a sword fight, for Mars' sake! In fact, you didn't even get to see the sky! It was a show in which people dressed like Romans moved about indoors, talked, laughed, sometimes screamed and sometimes got killed in dramatic scenes that lasted only 5 to 10 seconds, and then moved and talked more. Yet, this BBC production, set in the early decades of Roman Empire, had my parents, elder siblings and our relatives and neighbours, most of whom were from Kurdish country-side, glued to their television sets week after week, and talking about the characters and plot twists day after day.
For the next thirty years, each time I heard about "I, Claudius", I was torn between the almost traumatic claustrophobia that the series left on my memory and the ever growing curiosity to find out the story that enthralled my childhood elders. In the last fifteen years, I hired "I, Claudius" from the video store twice, and returned them after watching only the first 15 minutes, still unimpressed.
Then, it happened. Three weeks ago, bereft of choice in the video store, I again hired the DVDs, promising myself that I'd watch no less than the first hour, no matter what. Well, I ended up watching the 650 minute saga three times, back to back in nine days. I watched nothing else on TV for nine days; no news, no sport, no music clip. It was "I, Claudius" and me; I was happy. I even signed up to IMDb to write about it.
The series showcases the mother of all internal family conflicts. The Roman Empire features like a family business that the dynasty is quarreling over. If you are not a 'fool' like Claudius, you are either killed or banished. Power kills, and absolute power... well, you know what it does. By the time young Marcellus stands up in the Arena and says "Let the games begin!" (at around 30-minute mark), you know you'll be glued to the TV for a long time, and say, "What a story!" at the end.
This is TV at its best. The story, the script, acting, direction, camera angles, sets, costumes, they are all flawless. Close up shots of the faces are unmatched except perhaps by those in Sergio Leone's spaghetti westerns. The series is teeming with memorable quotes (Augustus to an orator: "What gifts you Greeks have"; Tiberius about her mother Livia: "They say a snake bit her once and died"; Tiberius' astrologer: "Excellent! I knew it. It's all here. The chart doesn't lie." Claudius to Caligula: "You set the standard of sanity for the whole world"). There are many laugh-out-loud scenes in the series. Augustus Caesar walking before and questioning an endless line of men that has slept with his daughter is unforgettable. Claudius saluting the crowd in the arena and sitting in Caesar's chair is a calculated 'foolishness', yet still hilarious. Augustus' speech to Rome's bachelors, Messelina's competition with a prostitute, Claudius and his ordeal with his very tall wife, and many many others. In fact, there were many more comic scenes than tragic ones.
It is impossible to praise individual performances. It is as though just under the characters' competition for supremacy in the Roman Empire, there is another, an invisible competition among the actors to win the hearts of the audience as the best character performer. And just the way Claudius is pulled behind a curtain and declared an emperor against his will, one feels like pulling out Derek Jacobi from the pack and declare him the best actor. Just like Claudius understates his intelligence, Jacobi understates his presence in the company of others, giving them the floor with minimum interference. He never seeks to dominate the screen until he's chosen as the Caesar. He has plenty of screen time by himself as the narrator.
Only one downside. A technical one. The sound in the DVD recording was inconsistent, sometimes loud sometimes low volume.
Do yourself a favour and watch "I, Claudius". You won't regret it. 10/10