Bryce Moore's Blog, page 231

Downton 4.4 Review: Glimmers of Hope

Yes, I’m still watching the show. Yes, I thought about stopping. But I have to do *something* from 9-10 on Sunday night before Sherlock is on, and I figured it might as well be Downton. Was it a waste of my time?

Thankfully, not completely.

Don’t get me wrong. (SPOILERS) The Anna/Bates plot is still the dumbest thing this side of the Mississippi–although the “Mary Wants a Man” plot gives it a real run for its money–but there are thankfully  other plot lines that swoop in to save this episode for me so that it’s not a complete wash. Here’s my rundown of reactions:

Anna/Bates–Well, at least they’ve now brought the secret out into the open. Sigh. This plot is just going through the motions. It’s like a heavily orchestrated dance, with the outcome pretty much known as soon as it began. Bates is all set to go Hulk mode, and apparently no one in the house is smart enough to tell THE POLICE and stop this ahead of time. When plots rely on character stupidity, plots are bad. Fact.


Mary–So she’s ever so regretful that she didn’t say yes to Gillingham? Gag me with a spork. Interesting to see all the buzzard suitors showing up now, circling her money. I just wish she were the character she’s been before to tell them all where to stick it. Very nice to see her return to some waspishness against Edith, though. More of that, please.
Edith–Mystery, mystery, mystery. Did she go to a lawyer in London? Why? And what did she sign last week when she didn’t read what she signed? I’m good with this plot. Keeps things up in the air, until Edith no doubt has all hope of her ever being happy just collapse around her ears, leaving her in tears and Mary smiling smugly. (Maybe not this time? Perhaps?)
Thomas the puppet master with the new maid–Intriguing. Thomas being a weasel is always a great reason to have problems in Downton. (Why he’s still at the estate is something I’ll just overlook and ignore for now, even though it falls under the “characters doing stupid things because stupid” classification.)
Aldred going to London and taking his cooking test–Very nice stuff. Enjoyed it all. Iron Chef: Downton Abbey. The bits with him and Ivy are very solid, too. This is what Downton should be about. Not rapes and long lost lovers. Everyday life drama with great characters,
Mrs. Padmore and the Fridge–another great plot. Love seeing her response to everything as the kitchen slowly gets modernized.
Violet vs. Isobel charity cage match–Fun times here, too. Isobel vs. Violet is always a crown pleaser. Zingers aplenty!
Mr. Molesley being stupid–I’m beginning to think Downton’s going to do a spinoff series about all the stupid things Molesley does as a character. But at least in his case, he does stupid things because the man is actually consistently stupid. I love watching him shoot himself in the foot again. And again. And again.
Tom going to America(?)–I’ll believe it when he’s on the boat and the boat is sailing away. Let’s leave it at that.

In essence, the show managed to overcome Anna and Mary’s plots, just by virtue of there being so much else going on. Mary’s plot isn’t as awful now that Gillingham is gone, so we’re left with just one dreadful plot to really deal with. It’s not great, but I can handle it and enjoy the show. So overall, I’d say this was a much better direction than last week.

Maybe I won’t have to convince myself so hard to watch it next week. (And hey–loved that Sherlock episode!)

Hearthstone Review: Free Computer Card Game Greatness

I love me some card games. I’m also a big fan of computer games. And last but not least, I’m a huge fan of free. Put them all together in one big glossy well-produced package, and you’ve got one happy Bryce. That’s just what it looks like Blizzard is up to right now in Hearthstone, a new free-to-play card game that just went to open Beta. (What does that mean? It means the real game isn’t released just yet, but you can play it in the test phase. They might make some tweaks to it, but you still get access early.)

I downloaded the game . . . Wednesday? I think that was the day. In any case, I’ve had a chance to put it through some test runs, and I have to say I’m very impressed, and the fellow gamers I’ve spoken to have been impressed, too.

This is a virtual collectible card game–like Magic the Gathering, except without the cardboard. You start by picking one of 9 different heroes. Each hero has a different unique ability and a selection of cards that only that hero can use. There are other cards that anyone can put in their deck. You create a deck based on the cards available to you, and you play against another person who’s done the same thing. The goal is to reduce the other person’s life total to 0 from 30. First person dead, loses.

Hearthstone is a pretty streamlined game. It’s not got near the learning curve of Magic the Gathering. Blizzard’s made a great tutorial that you play to begin the game, and by the end of it you should have the basics down pretty well. Of course, since this is a collectible card game, your deck can only be as good as the cards you own for it. But unlike Magic, Hearthstone lets you unlock cards, earn “money” to purchase them, or even craft cards on your own. Basically, you can play for free, although the option to skip the unlocking via paying money is always there.

Some things that I love about the game so far:

Ease of finding other players to play against–The game will set up a match for you at any time, against real players, and it usually takes no more than a minute or so. (I haven’t tried it late at night yet, but I’ve tried it at lunch, and it’s been easy then, so I can’t imagine it would be worse at night.)
The games are fast and fun. There’s some strategy involved, but it’s mainly just playing a game and having a good time.
There are “Quests” you can do to earn in-game currency. Beat a certain number of opponents. Kill a certain number of minions. That kind of thing. It’s a good way to always feel like you’re accomplishing something. Once you earn 100 gold, you can buy a new pack of 5 randomized cards. For 150, you can gain entry to
The Arena–sort of like drafting, you’re presented with a series of three cards to pick from. You take one and move on to the next selection. Once you’ve done that 30 times, you have a deck. You then use that deck to play against other people who have done the same thing. You can play with that deck until you get 12 wins or 3 losses–whichever happens first. You get rewards based on your number of wins. Worst case, you get a pack. Best case, you get FABULOUS PRIZES. So basically you’re paying 50 gold more to play a bunch and be in a more level playing field.
Spit and polish–This is a Blizzard game, and that means it’s really slick. You can play on PC or Mac. The graphics are great, the interface is intuitive–it’s a fantastic playing experience.

What’s missing so far? The big omission is the ability to play against friends. I’ve got some friends on, and they’ve been on at the same time as I have. But there’s no way to just select them to go head to head–it’s still randomized. That would be a nice switch, though I suppose people could game the system then to just keep beating themselves and unlocking free packs. Surely there’s a workaround, though. (It appears a feature I might not have been able to figure out yet? Or perhaps it was removed temporarily? Not sure–but from what I can see, when it’s available, they just have it be reward-free, which makes sense.)

Other than that, not much. I think the game’s pretty good to go. Once it’s out for iOS, that’ll be even better. Being able to play a slick game like this on computer or my iPad, for free–it would be ideal. Especially if they let your iPad collection and your computer collection be one and the same. But maybe I’m shooting too high now.

In any case, this is a game you should check out. Download it and play it today. Free! What more motivation do you need?

Anyone else already playing? What are your thoughts thus far?

Why Being Famous is the Last Thing I’d Want for my Children

Oh noes! Justin Bieber apparently got arrested for smoking weed and then drag racing his Lamborghini down the middle of a road last night. I have no personal beef with the Biebs. He seems to be carving out a nice little claim on Mt. Stupid these days. (He egged his neighbor’s house the other day? Really? What’s he going to do next? Go toilet papering? Although the report I read said his eggs did $20,000 worth of damage. Those are either some very explosive eggs or some very inflated figures.) But he’s just the latest in a string of prime examples for why fame and celebrity are awful toxic things, especially for children.

My kids are cute. I know that. People comment on them. There have been comments over the years that we ought to get them into modeling or commercials or acting. I’ve always been sort of stunned anyone makes this suggestion (or is this one of those “people just say that to be nice” situations? Does everyone have people tell them their kids should be models?) The last thing I can think of that I’d want my kids to get into would be doing anything that got them more into the spotlight.

How many child stars do you read about who actually turn out to be well adjusted individuals later in  life? And of the few, how many of them went through their own Bieber phase?

And yet there are entire television shows devoted to parents trying to promote their children and help them “break through” to the next level. (Again, I’ve never actually watched any of those shows. To me, it would be like watching someone have a meltdown. Just too painful to endure.)

Then again, I realize I don’t see eye to eye with the world on a lot of different subjects. I mean, if everyone followed my advice, we’d have no child actors at all, and then where would we be? Living in a world with no Bugsy Malone, that’s where.

(I’m not entirely sure if that video is legit. YouTube is pretty draconian about taking down pirated stuff, though . . . So I’m leaving it for the moment and letting the YouTube gods decide its fate. If you want to watch it, I’d say watch it sooner rather than later. I’m still trying to find the soundtrack available for sale.)

For me and mine, I’m much more interested in my kids growing up to be caring, thoughtful, strong willed, independent thinkers. And I don’t have to suck up to any Hollywood types to do that. I find Justin Bieber’s story pretty sad, honestly. Here’s a kid who had real talent and dreams. If you went back in time and asked him if his dream was to use his musical ability to get to the point where he could get arrested for drag racing Lamborghinis, would he have said “You bet!”?

I hope not. Maybe we could go into this video and ask him.

I realize that people change all the time. Plenty of cute kids turn out to be awful individuals. But it seems to me if you try to help your kid become famous, you’re just upping the odds for him or her. But I imagine there’s not a single reader of mine who is going to argue this point with me. So maybe this post is nothing more than a chance for all of us to say “You bet!”

Then again, what do you do if your child has serious music skills and wants to explore them to their fullest? Squash their dreams? Suggest they go back to video games? I have no idea what the right decision is in a situation like that. What are your thoughts?

Kahaani: Netflix Instant Indian Awesome

There’s been a film in my Instant Watch queue for quite some time, and Denisa and I finally got around to checking it out last night. It’s Kahaani, and the premise sounds unusual to say the least: an extremely pregnant woman goes to India in search of her husband, who went missing a few weeks before. I love that concept–a typical thriller plot, but with a very atypical thriller protagonist. The main question–the one that kept me from watching it for so long–was would it be able to deliver a full length feature that was compelling, based on that premise alone. Because it would be easy for a movie like that to start strong and then just dwindle away in boredom.

Netflix said I’d give it 4 out of 5 stars, though–in the end, I had to give it a shot, and I’m very glad I did. Netflix was spot on–I give it 8/10.

The plot itself unfolds more or less naturally. There are some spots that are predictable in an “I knew what was going to happen a few seconds before it happened” sort of way–one I don’t mind that much. It’s when I know what the ending is going to be by about the 15 minute mark that things are really egregious, and I’d be surprised if anyone manages to predict where this one goes.

The acting is very well done, and the setting is superb. I love international movies because they let me see how the world is portrayed elsewhere. If you stick to a diet of strictly blockbusters (or even just strictly American cinema), you get a skewed view of things. Sort of like if you just listen to conservatives or liberals to the exclusion of all others. This film takes place entirely in India, and it captures that essence quite well.

I was also fascinated listening to the language, as the characters jump from Hindi to English constantly–often in the middle of sentences. Judging from its IMDB record, it appears there’s some Bengali peppered in there, too. As a former linguistics major, the movie was fun for the languages alone.

And the movie was made for under 2 million dollars, which I just love. Too often these days it seems like film makers assume good cinema needs tens of millions thrown at it, and that’s just not true. Often, special effects are just patches covering over poor storytelling and character development.

If any of you have already seen it, I’d be interested to hear what you thought about the climax, which is certainly one that I could see people liking or disliking. I don’t want to say any more about it than that, but feel free to talk about spoilers in the comments section.

In any case, if you’re looking for a tense thriller that’s pretty darn clean (some violence, but nothing too over the top), and you’ve got Netflix, give this one a shot. I doubt you’ll be sorry you did.

Downton Crappy: Downton Abbey 4.3 Review

Yes, we watched this week’s episode. Honestly, a lot of the joy of it is draining away for me. I’m so incredibly annoyed at what the writers (and actor shenanigans) have done to these poor characters. Words fail to capture just how moronic some of the stunts have been this season. The two prime offenders are, of course, Mary’s plotline and Anna’s.

Mary is a wonderful character. Strong. Determined. Smart. Biting. Mean to most people. And I get that the writers are trying to do some acrobatics with her character, claiming that Matthew changed her and gave her a bigger gooey middle, but then they contradict themselves in almost the same sentence. Look at it this way–the only reason Mary is remotely interested (supposedly) in Gillingham is because Matthew changed her so much. But if Matthew had such a great huge impact on her, why in the world is she remotely interested in Gillingham? You can’t have her be both at the same time, because that’s just lame with a capital L. And yet that’s what they’re going for this season. When Gillingham “accidentally” “happened” to “show up” at her door for the third day in a row, I really wanted Mary to let him have it with both barrels. To just launch in one side of him and out the other, letting him know what a simpering, stupid ingrate he was, and how he ought to go out and do something with his life other than be an idiot.

What did I get instead? Him saying, “Please just kiss me.”

And Mary went along with it? And then verbally dwelled on how she might regret letting him get away for “years to come.”

Ri-dic-u-lous.

Also, I’m all for saving the planet, but I prefer not to have my plot lines recycled, thank you very much. Didn’t Matthew do the whole “ditch your fiancee for Mary” plot a season or two ago?

Bah. So Mary’s a complete mess at the moment. Fine. But we’ve still got the wonderful Anna/Bates plot to keep us satisfied, right? I mean, just a few weeks ago in my review of the first episode, I said:

Anna and Bates–this is a good level area for them. Please please please just keep this at this level for the rest of the show. No more surprise murder accusations. No infidelity. No long lost children. Just let them be happy together. Or else!

Clearly no one listens to me. At all. What happens in this episode? We discover that Bates is secretly the Incredible Hulk. That his rage is so great that he will magically kill anyone who has done something vile to Anna. It’s a foregone conclusion.

Please.

What gets me with this plot is that characters are inconsistent. Anna is afraid of what Bates will do, because he murdered his wife already–except he didn’t murder his wife, remember? He was framed for it. He hasn’t been murdering anyone. He’s never shown a real propensity for law breaking. This is just plain stupid. I’ll give a pass to Anna’s character, because who knows how anyone will react to something like that when they’re thrown into such an awful position. But what about Mrs. Hughes? When the plot needs her to be, she’s willing to stick her nose into anyone’s business. Until the plot needs her to be quiet. Blarg.

I have a feeling I’ll be calling shenanigans on this plot for the rest of the season. Let me see . . . Another episode or so before Bates finds out what happened. And then it turns out he really IS the Incredible Hulk. And then the guy gets killed. And then Thor shows up to take Mary away to Asgard.

How are we supposed to put up with all of this dreck? A rundown of the other plots worth mentioning:

Rose and the jazz singer–In which Downton tries to prove it’s got some diversity by having a random character pop up and do stupid things for a few minutes, after assaulting us with some lousy singing for longer than that. This was far too contrived and silly, an excuse to get Rose into the arms of another race, and then give all the Downton people a chance to go frowny face over it. Dislike. Downton is to diverse as Dr. Evil is to cool:

Tom and the hussy maid–Talk about over the top ridiculous. Hussy gets guy drunk, then goes to guy’s room and sleeps with him, then threatens to guilt trip him to death unless he commits to acknowledging the child, in case she’s pregnant. At what point in time did this sound like a good plot?
Edith and the reporter dude–”Here, honey. Sign this paper, but don’t read it too carefully.” You’ve have to be a grade A idiot to do this. Lucky for the plot that’s just what Edith is. Disappointing, and methinks she’ll be ruing that little mistake in a later episode. And I’ll be regretting having watched that later episode.

At this point, I think the show’s really just gone too far. They’ve tied up the Gillingham plot (I hope!), so perhaps things will improve in that area, but the Anna plot seems just about ready to kick things up a notch, which will be dreadful.

Someone persuade me to like this show again. Give me some hope that watching it each week isn’t a waste of my time. Please!

Confessions of a Chronic Overcommitter

I overcommit. It’s something I know I do, and yet I do it anyway. The real problem is that I stop myself from committing to too many things to literally get done. If I started doing that, I think people would stop trying to turn to me to get things done in the first place. Instead, I take on enough work to make me insanely busy, but stop short of having enough work to make me incompetent and flaky.

Does that make sense?

And really, I suppose now that I type that, it isn’t exactly like that. I approach time management the same way I approach dieting (when I diet, which isn’t now. STOP ASKING ME ABOUT MY DIET! WHY DID YOU BRING THAT UP?) I eat very sparingly during the day so that at night I can have some ice cream. With time management, I’m super efficient throughout the day so that at night, I can sit down and watch a movie. Same principle.

Which then sometimes leads me to think, maybe I should just cut out the movie and the ice cream. Couldn’t I get even *more* done that way? Lost even *more* weight?

Thankfully, my love for ice cream and movies stops me from doing this, along with the knowledge that if I did start cutting out those few niches of fun I have left, then I’d go all Jack Nicholson in the Shining crazy. I need those lulls in order to have strength to get through the hectic.

On the surface, an even better approach would be to just not commit to do so many different things. But I don’t know if that really would be better for me. I thrive on efficiency. I love getting a lot of things done, and when I don’t have a lot to do, I either look for things to do to be busy (like bake something, plan a party, fix stuff around the house, organize things, etc.) or I sit around and mope and feel like I’m getting nothing done. Over Christmas break, I got a ton done at home. I built shelves in the kid rooms, created and installed drawer dividers in the kitchen, researched roofs, organized DVDs, plotted books, baked up a storm, went ice fishing–I had a big long list the whole time, and I thought it was great. If I didn’t have things to keep me busy, I’d get bored.

So in the end, it seems like I’ve got this really narrow window of “enough stuff to do” to keep happy and satisfied. If I go below that, I feel like I need to be doing more. If I go above that, I feel like I’m going to go crazy.

Am I the only person like that? Is there a medical or psychological term for it?

Inquiring minds want to know . . .

In Which the Day Gets Away From Me

It’s after 2, and some astute readers have noticed that there hasn’t been a blog post yet for the day. (Hey–being consistent enough that people notice when you’re more than an hour or so late with a post? I must be doing something right.)

But the sad truth of the matter is that today has escaped me, and I have learned that there are times to hit the big “ABORT” button and just give up on things that are a lost cause. Such as coming up with a good post for today.

So instead, I shall gift you with a wonderful little movie clip that I was reminded of on my drive to Augusta this morning. See you tomorrow!

Guns, Movie Theaters, and Texting

It should come as no big surprise to any of my longtime readers that I’m no big fan of guns. I have nothing against them for hunting, but I’m very much against them for most other purposes. I think the Second Amendment has reached religious proportions with some proponents, and it’s held far too holy and sacrosanct–though of course saying something like that immediately makes you the focus of many foaming-at-the-mouth NRA members, and we mustn’t upset the Rabbids.

But who am I kidding? If a school full of dead children isn’t going to persuade this country that gun control is necessary, what is one ex-cop shooting a texter in a movie theater going to do?

I assume you’ve all read about this case by now. The facts appear to be simple. In an afternoon movie screening in Florida, some guy was texting his daughter’s babysitter during the previews. He was there with his wife on an early date, I assume. Sitting behind them, an elderly couple in their 70s, also out for an early date. The 71 year-old husband asked the texter to stop. He didn’t. Tempers flared. The texter threw popcorn at the elderly man. The elderly man took out a hand gun and shot the texter dead.

My loathing of texting during movies is also well-established. I hate movie theater distractions: talking, phones, babies, texting. You name it. Like most people, I have my fair share of horror stories I can relate. People being obnoxious in the theater. They paid money to be there, why are they doing something else? I’ve given people the half turn, the full turn, and the full turn with the eye roll.

I think I might have told this story before, but it bears repeating. When I was a gas meter reader in days of yore, I had my fair share of run ins with dogs. Big dogs. Huge, nasty, mean dogs. I had a dog come after me and break its chain, and the only thing between me and its teeth was a metal clipboard. But meter readers weren’t allowed to bring any weapons with them. No mace, which is the obvious deterrent for mean poochies. (I love dogs, people–but meter reading can cure a guy of that pretty fast.) Why no weapons? Because we might use them when we didn’t need to. That might seem foolish, but I look at it this way: in my 2 or 3 years reading meters, I never got bit once. Not even by that chain-breaking dog. I managed to find ways to avoid it. I generally stayed out of dangerous situations. I made better decisions.

If I’d had a can of mace with me, I think the odds of me getting bit would have been greater. Why? Because I would have taken more chances. Been more reckless. The fact remains: if you don’t have a gun, you’re not going to shoot anyone. If you do have one, you might. Yes, Nazi ninjas hopped up on drugs might invade your house or your workplace or try to car jack you at any moment. Or maybe something simpler will happen–a home invasion. Life is full of what ifs, and the fact is that even having a gun doesn’t protect you from them. Doesn’t diminish them from happening to you. It just changes a few specifics.

I’m not here today to write about what should or shouldn’t have happened in that movie theater in Florida yesterday. I wasn’t there. I have no idea what went on. But I know this. Two couples went on afternoon dates to go have a fun time and watch a movie. Neither of them planned anything like what ended up happening. Things turned out very differently, and if the ex-cop hadn’t had a gun on him, the worst we’d be dealing with would be some black eyes or broken bones.

Let’s assume for a moment that the facts are as outlined. And let’s take the gun out of the situation. And to further distance ourselves, let’s move into the hypothetical. Two men in a theater. One of them texting, one of them irritated. First off, to the texters: just don’t do it. If you have to text, stand up, walk out of the theater, and do it there. (The same goes for talking on the phone.) Your bright phone screen annoys other people. If it’s “just the previews,” realize that some people really love seeing previews, and they don’t want to be stuck having your glaring bright screen distracting them.

But then, to the people who get irritated: there are many things to do differently. In an afternoon movie with only 25 people in the theater? Just go to another spot in the theater. I’ve done this plenty of times. I remember the screening of Two Towers I went to, there was no one in the theater. My cousin and I sat down, and five minutes later, a very tall, very large man sat down. Right in front of me. The whole theater was empty except for the three of us. What did I do? I got up and moved. I didn’t bother yelling at him or objecting. Why not? Because then I’d have been in a bad mood, he’d have been in a bad mood, and the fun afternoon I’d paid for would have been ruined. So I just moved. No biggie. (Though I still remember his rudeness years later, so maybe it was a bigger deal to me than I thought?)

If you can’t move? Try to see if you can block their phone from your vision with your hand or a coat or something. That’s worked for me plenty, too. If things are really obnoxious, get a manager and have them deal with it. (Managers, please enforce your no texting rules.)

I don’t know. I know the story hit close to home, because I’ve been that irritated guy plenty of times. It’s an experience many people have lived through. So seeing where it ended up is just shocking and sad. And I don’t know if I have anything more to add to that.

Downton Abbey 4.2 Review: Another “Special” Episode

Denisa and I caught up with Downton last night. The trouble with seeing it a day late is that I already had some inkling something bad was going to happen. No one spoiled it (thank you!), but I approached the episode with no small amount of dread. That disclaimer at the beginning didn’t help any, either. So the whole episode, I kept waiting for the awful to happen. (After Matthew’s death at the end of last season, it’s clear the awful can happen at any time).

Caution–SPOILERS and Trigger Warning

That said, my knee-jerk reaction, when hearing that something bad would happen in the episode, was to think, “I really hope they don’t rape Anna.” Why did I think that? It’s the easy thing to do, from a writer’s perspective. You’ve got a beloved couple that is all ooey gooey happy. You’ve already had a string of deaths, so you feel like you can’t play that card again. What’s the next worst thing you can do them (after already subjecting them to a random murder trial and imprisonment)?

You have the girl get raped, of course.

It makes it so you don’t have to have your two characters do anything “wrong”–the relationship didn’t fail. The characters didn’t grow apart. One of them had something horrible happen to them.

And so of course that’s exactly what the writers had happen. Ugh. (Please, writers. Please–for the love of all that’s good in this world–don’t have her get pregnant because of this. Don’t string us along for the rest of the season with a big “is it Bates’ baby or the rapist’s” plot line. But what am I saying? You’ve already done what you’re going to do, and no amount of pleading is going to fix it.)

For me, this episode is where I finally decided that Downton isn’t a drama, it’s a soap opera. A fancy one, with great production values and acting, but a soap opera nonetheless. What’s the difference? For me, it comes down to plotting. Soap operas run on melodrama–putting their characters in tons of danger and tension in order to keep viewers on the edge of their seats. (Disclaimer: I don’t watch soap operas, so I could be slamming an entire genre unjustly.) What really sets soap operas apart in my mind is the need to keep that tension high. To keep that melodrama going. And let’s face it: most of us don’t live lives full of melodrama. We don’t have danger and tension nonstop. And so when we stick with a soap opera (or Downton Abbey) long enough, we begin to notice that the show just isn’t feeling “right” anymore. It’s not realistic. When the show just keeps jamming down on that melodrama button until it breaks off, it’s gone too far.

And Anna and Bates are the perfect example of this. They’ve had  a long lost wife, a disputed divorce, a murder trial, an incarceration, a novice murder investigation, a rape . . . Do their lives look like *anyone* you know outside of a television series?

The frustrating thing is that Downton doesn’t need to do this. It’s a better show than this. And yet they persist in it, and why not–it’s getting them ratings. It’s making people talk about the show. But I for one am losing interest. And yet here I am, blogging.

Grrrrrr.

Enough of that. What did I think about the rest of the episode?

Chauffeur Boy and Maid Girl really are getting it on? Really, Downton? REALLY? Not pleased with this plot line at all, either.
As much as I disliked the rape, it presents some real opportunity for drama. They just didn’t need to go to rape to get there. The guy could have made a pass at her. Forced a kiss. She still would have been worried about Bates’ temper. And since Mary and the rapist’s boss seem to have a potential thing going on, there could still be the drawn out drama of the loser showing up at Downton and Anna forced to deal with him. Instead, they’re going to do that and add all the rape baggage.
Mary and Not-Matthew–What’s up with this show? Last episode, it took Mary forever to break the ice a smidge and decide not to be horrendously depressed all the time. This episode? She’s laughing and going on rides with Lord Gilligan. Tee hee. Isn’t this the Mary that took Matthew years to break down to the point that she’d admit she liked him? Seems very out of character for her to suddenly be friendly to a strange guy. Dislike.
Edith’s Reporter Husband and Lord Grantham–I liked this plot quite a bit. Amusing. Fun. I like the reporter dude. He shows initiative, something a lot of the Granthams do not.
Australian opera singer–another good plot line. True to the times. Loved seeing Carson have a conniption over the changes.
Molesley was a lot of fun, as well. I really enjoyed seeing what new thing he’d be upset about. Road work is one thing, but being forced to wear white gloves and *serving* at dinner? When will the injustice stop?

I don’t know about this one. Up to the rape scene, it was fairly solid stuff. But then it fell apart for me at the end. Did not like. Am I alone in this? Let me know what you thought.

John Adams: Miniseries Review

I know–right after my post praising the wonders of Netflix Instant, I have the nerve to write a review of a miniseries that isn’t available on Instant. What can I say? I’m a fickle beast. (Today’s normally scheduled Downton Abbey review post has been delayed due to the fact that my TV antenna is down while my roof is repaired. I’ll watch the episode tonight and be back tomorrow with my reaction–sorry for the delay!) But really, I just couldn’t *not* write a review of John Adams. It’s an adaptation of the book by David McCoullough (although from what I’ve read, they’ve altered some of the facts in the adaptation process–a disappointing tidbit, alas. It didn’t seem too egregious for the most part, though.)

It’s a seven part series that follows John Adams from his early days in the American Revolution up to his death much later. It was done by HBO, and has their characteristic attention to story and acting and production values. Better yet, it has none of the gratuitous violence, language, and sex. It’s TV PG for the most part–although there is a tar and feathering scene in the first episode where the man getting tarred gets all his clothes ripped from his body, and you’re well aware of that fact.

I liked the series for a number of reasons. First of all, it gave me a chance to think about the American Revolution. As with any “historical movie,” I take what I see with a healthy dose of salt. I realize that history does not play out in neatly made acts, and that it rarely has climaxes and denouements. I don’t accept anything I see as “true,” but rather as a way of looking at the past and thinking about it in new light. John Adams certainly didn’t let me down in this respect. The entire series is limited by the point of view of John and his wife Abigail. So you don’t cut away from their lives to go see events they didn’t see or experience. I thought this was a wonderful touch, and made the history that much more compelling. 9/11 didn’t all happen in New York City or at the Pentagon or in a field in Pennsylvania. It happened across the country and the world as each person experienced the fallout and the changes to their lives because of it.

Second, the series presents a rather comprehensive look at one family’s life, from its early days right up until its end. Spoiler alert–John Adams dies at the end. In this manner, the series was pretty brutal. Adams would have a great victory at the end of one episode, only to face more challenges and failures in the next. But again, I appreciated the series all the more for that. It’s not like anyone gets a “get out of trouble for life” card once they do something awesome. Seeing the choices people made, and the consequences those choices had for them decades later, was fascinating.

Paul Giamatti and Laura Linney do superb jobs in their roles, and they should get credit for being able to act well even with awful decaying teeth. (Honestly. The show just seemed set on showing how bad of teeth everyone had back then. Kind of disgusting.) If you’re looking for a good overview of some of the politics that went into the Revolution, presented in dramatic form, you should check this series out. 8 out of 10 stars.