Change Your Image
brucelevitan-61732
Reviews
The Wheel of Time (2021)
Wheel of Time? I think not!
Spoilers ahead.
This show could be rated on its acting and production in which case my score would be much higher, but as it's based on one of the most popular fantasy series ever written, any rating needs to include how true it is to the books. In the case of WoT I have to say a very disappointing "hardly at all". If you have never read the books you will probably enjoy the show as the acting and production are very good. But if, like me, you are a fan of the books (I'm on my third reading right now) you'll conclude that it woefully misses the mark. We are all used to TV and movie adaptations having to make cuts and sometimes include extra material to explain what might not be obvious, and that's understandable and excusable if it doesn't go too far. For WoT however, there are bewilderingly unnecessary changes and additions that simply don't make sense and alter the characters' motivations considerably. For example Perrin in the book is not married (and therefore doesn't accidentally kill his wife during a trolloc raid) so the tortured soul of the TV series is simply not true to the real Perrin of the books. Similarly, although Mat is the trickster of the central trio, he is not the dissipated character portrayed in the series. Nyneave does not fight and defeat a trolloc, and the idea that she would be able to at the start of the series is simply ridiculous. Of the central Three Rivers characters only Rand and Egwene bear a true resemblance to their literary counterparts (though in stature Rand is not tall enough). Gleeman Thom is not the sort of person who would have dealt with Rand and Mat the way he does when they first meet (and in the books they meet earlier on anyway, in Bearlon, which is cut out of the series altogether). Moirane needs to be smaller than she is in stature, and the storyline whereby she is seriously wounded by a trolloc and then her party meet up with some red and green Aes Sedai who have captured Lorain is simply not part of the books at all and completely alters the initial narrative of how the main characters journey from Three Rivers towards Tar Valon. The Logan incident is simply inexplicable in terms of the books. I could go on with many other (admittedly lesser) departures from the books, but these examples will suffice. I got as far as episode 4 of series 1 and have given up. It's such a shame as the production values are high. Why, oh why, does the story have to be so different from the books?
The Expanse (2015)
Intelligent SciFi with a great storyline
Every so often something special happens in the SciFi TV world. Star Trek ushered in a new kind of space adventure, Babylon 5 introduced a game-changing soap-opera story arc, the (new) Battlestar Galactica took this to the next level of grittiness and realism, Farscape brought a zany other-worldliness to our screens (as did LEXX). Now we have The Expanse joining this august group.
In one sense there is nothing new here: a story arc that covers many seasons, a gritty realism, mysterious alien elements - all are here. What makes it stand out are its intelligent scripting, intriguing plotting (think whodunit in space, certainly for series 1), consistently brilliant acting, and (of course) great CGI that is there to support but not intrude.
You need to stick with it through the first two or three episodes as the storyline is quite complex (as noted above, it has a whodunit element) but the excellent acting and effects should help in this respect. However once you get your mind around the multi-threaded nature of the narrative you'll settle in to the pure enjoyment of a TV series that doesn't over explain itself, and treats its audience as intelligent enough to work things out for themselves.
Moreover, although each season (so far) is complete in itself, each season also manages to open out the narrative beyond what you had expected so that it's like moving outwards through a series of ever expanding rooms. Each new "room" contains all the previous ones and seamlessly opens out into a newer, larger vista than before.
It's hard to pick out particular actors as they are all so great, but special mention must go to the central role of Holden (Steven Strait), and also to his shipboard companions, played by Wes Chatham, Dominique Tipper and Cas Anvar; but also to United Nations politician Chrisjen Avasarala played by Shohreh Aghdashloo, and Thomas Jane who plays detective Joe Miller.
Carnival Row (2019)
Sumptuous and immersive
I'll start with some negatives and then go on to the many positives!
Well it's fantasy, with humans and "fairy-folk" so it's bound to be compared with the likes of Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, etc. And yes some of it does feel a little derivative, but then it's hard not to be when you're populating a well trodden fantasy landscape. Luckily the writers have avoided being too obvious and have created something that's uniquely of itself, I think.
It's also a whodunit detective story, so comparisons with Marlowe, Maigret and Morse come to mind, and Philo certainly has the intelligence of those detectives, plus the "noir" of a Marlowe. So again, although it follows in a fairly predictable way, the way good detective stories go, it manages to be its own and Orlando Bloom's Philo is a rounded, believable character, superbly played by the actor who seems to have finally left behind Legolas and Will Turner, thankfully.
The third area in which it's somewhat derivative is the obvious theme of prejudice, played out here as human against fae, but only thinly disgusted, I think, as a metaphor for racial prejudice. yet, again, the series is so well founded within its own reality that this does not intrude; rather it lends greater realism.
The series is beautifully filmed. The landscapes are earthly, but with a twist. The hung "martyr" of the church (instead of a crucified Christ), the steam-punk mono-rail so like, yet unlike, the US el trains (elevated railway), the Dickensian streets. The tiniest details are there, making the whole thing sumptuous and beautiful.
The writing, too, is good. The main characters are multi-dimensional, with the good guys not 100% good and the bad guys not 100% bad (well some of them, anyway). Like Game of Thrones, there are machinations on every street corner amongst both the high and the low, lending extra layers to the detective story: political intrigue, love stories, rags-to-riches, etc. - they are all there, intertwining the main story like a Dickens novel.
Acting is superb throughout. I'm so glad they have eschewed American accented characters - mostly they speak in a straightforward English accent, with some dialects thrown in for variety ( Cara Delevingne's Irish, and Orlando Bloom's take on Vinnie Jones). But plaudits must also go to Tamzin Merchant, David Gyasi; and the lesser characters including Simon McBurney and a very creepy Alice Krige (think Borg queen translated into fairy-land!). Only Arty Froushan seems a little weak, but maybe he will develop - certainly the storyline promises well.
So a Dickensian-plotted and realised fantasy world! What more could you ask for! Series 2 has already been confirmed and I can't wait.
The Boys (2019)
Well made, but ultimately fails to convince
The Boys has a great premise and promises lots of twists and turns along the way (so far I've watched 5 episodes). What follows has some minor spoilers, so beware.
There is a lot to commend this series - the plotting is tight, the acting generally very good, and there's not too much reliance on special effects. I particularly like that the bad guys aren't 100% bad and the good guys are far from 100% good. I also like the way the writers try to make the twists and turns in the relations between the characters believable, mostly successfully. So overall it's watchable, reasonably intelligent, well made entertainment.
There are some "buts" though.
Why did the Butcher character have to be English? Karl Urban is a good actor, but can't do a convincing English accent to save his life! (It didn't work in The Lord of the Rings and it doesn't work here) Why not just have him as an Aussie or a New Zealander (Urban, after all, is from NZ)? Simon Pegg, an English actor, does an American accent far more believably (in a minor part as Hughie's dad). What is also not very believable about Butcher is how the rest of his gang don't see right through him from the start, especially Mother's Milk and Frenchie who have had previous dealings with him. It just isn't believable that they stick together.
I can see that having two central characters who are essentially the same "types" (controlling, obsessive and brutally vindictive) but who are at opposite ends (Butcher and Homelander) makes an interesting combination; but for me whilst Homelander is convincing, Butcher is not.
Turning to the women in the show, whilst the development of Starlight's character is reasonably well done, making her a "Disney princess" type is a mistake (it's too obvious!) Starlight's journey as the wide-eyed innocent who is drawn in to the murky world of Vought's super heroes is too predictable and clichéd. Queen Maeve is far more real with her conflicted emotions. The most interesting female character is of course Madelyn Stillwell who one suspects will emerge as probably the most evil of all the villains in due course (the more one sees of her, the darker she becomes). In all three cases the actresses do a good job in their roles.
The show is also explicitly violent and sexual. I get that these are real elements of this world, but they don't have to be shown in such graphic detail. The tendency to become ever more explicitly graphic is not unique to this show, but it not one to be praised.
My final gripe with the show is the depiction of the way that Vought uses the so-called Christian Ezekiel and his organisation for their money-making enterprise. I get that it's a parody of the uglier side of Christian "showmanship" in the USA, but this is just too over the top to be believable - no real Christian would involve themselves with this circus, and if it really existed there would be nationwide outcry about it.
Obviously one has to suspend one's disbelief in any show of this sort; but if the characterisation isn't rock solid and the worldview true to our expectations, then ultimately it will fail to be convincing. So my verdict is that this is a well-made, well-acted show with some great ideas, but ultimately it fails to convince.
Tolkien (2019)
Great acting, shame about the accuracy
One knows that any "biopic" can never stick 100% to the facts about the people it portrays; but one hopes it will stick close enough to be true to them. When you make a "biopic" I guess it's a bit like reconstructing a jigsaw but with fewer pieces than the original. So what you have to do is change some of the details on some of the pieces in the hope that when you view the whole thing the picture is more or less the same as the original. However, if you tamper with too many of the pieces the resulting picture won't be a true reflection. In my view this movie has erred too much to that end. This is a really well made movie with great acting. It's very watchable and moving. But, for me, spoilt by the too many changes effect that I just described. Here are just a few examples (NB they include spoilers).
When Tolkien goes to university, there's a scene where he confronts his mates and says he's been "sent down" for not doing well enough in his Mods. This never happened. True, he didn't do too well, but he was never in any danger of being sent down.
In the movie, the way he gets around this is by wooing the professor of linguistics, Joe Wright. At first the professor will have nothing to do with him, but is eventually won over and this ends with a scene where Tolkien starts to attend his lectures, having successfully transferred from Classics to Linguistics. In reality, Tolkien did indeed attend some of Wright's lectures... before the Mod exams just mentioned. His move to linguistics was at the suggestion of the Dean of Exeter College, and when he did transfer he was put under the care of a Canadian lecturer Kenneth Sissam, assistant to the Professor of English A.S. Napier. Wright's impact on Tolkien was great, but came much earlier on; and Tolkien's wooing of Wright never happened.
Then there is his relationship with Edith Bratt, who he comes to love and marry. In the movie he makes a last moment declaration to her before going to war, and asks her to cut off her engagement to another man (and they kiss, of course). In fact they declared their love for each other in 1909, got engaged in 1913 and were married shortly before he went to war. Edith was briefly engaged to another, but Tolkien went to see her in Cheltenham to ask her to marry him (in 1913). The throwing of sugar lumps onto people's hats, as depicted in the film, did happen though (although not quite in the way illustrated in the movie). Father Francis' ban on Tolkien seeing Edith was, however, accurate.
Now we come to the harrowing experience during the war where the sick young Tolkien desperately searches for his friend G.B. Smith in the trenches and out on the battlefield. In reality they did meet up a few times during the Somme campaign, but when Tolkien was taken sick with trench fever he was actually 12 miles behind the Lines at Beauval, was almost immediately hospitalised and removed even further from the front. The search for his friend simply never happened.
I could quote other similar disparities. What emerges is a film that has deliberately over dramatised and over romanticised his story to the extent that what emerges is at best a "rose tinted" version of the real man. Tolkien did not like the idea of biographies, and would be turning in his grave at this mess I think. What really saddens me is that most people who see this movie won't read the excellent Humphrey Carpenter biography, and will take this movie version as the "truth".