The Alternate To The Matrix, The Thirteenth Floor Is Far Less Mind-Blowing.

The Good: Decent pacing, Good acting
The Bad: Light on genuine character development, Preoccupied with plot over character
The Basics: The Thirteenth Floor might once have been considered clever, but given how underdeveloped the characters are, it is unsurprising it was buried in the same cinematic era as Dark City and The Matrix.


Hollywood has a way of making similar movies around the same time as one another (last year’s Mirror, Mirror - reviewed here! – and Snow White And The Huntsman, reviewed here!, is a good example of the phenomenon) and more often than not, one finds an audience and the other gets buried. This is hardly a new phenomenon. Back in 1999, when there were two science fiction films that dealt with virtual reality worlds, the one that hit it big was The Matrix (reviewed here!). The film that got buried was The Thirteenth Floor.

The Thirteenth Floor has a number of similarities to The Matrix and Dark City (reviewed here!), but it, unfortunately, fails to pop in a way that engages and keeps the viewer like either of those other movies. So, while The Matrix keeps viewers wondering what the nature of the reality in the film is and in Dark City, the viewer knows John Murdock did not kill the prostitutes he is accused of, why the Strangers have made all the clues point to him while he wrestles with amnesia is enough to thoroughly engross the viewer, The Thirteenth Floor sets up the real and virtual worlds, but its mystery seems more or less non-existent to anyone who is actually paying attention.

After he leaves a computer-construct world of his own creation, where the setting is Los Angeles, 1937, Hannon Fuller is murdered in the real world. As detective Larry McBain investigates the murder, he finds Fuller’s assistant at the computer laboratory, Douglas Hall, is a decent suspect. Hall has the misfortune of waking up the morning of the murder to find blood on his sink and on the clothes in his hamper, which he keeps from Detective McBain. Hall’s only clue to determining who the murderer might be (if it is not himself) is that Fuller left a message for him within the program. So, Hall (assuming the identity of John Ferguson) puts himself into the virtual construct to find the message.

Inside the construct, he finds an alternate version of Hannon and a bartender who resembles his co-worker, Jason. Pulled out of the construct after two hours, Douglas finds himself disoriented. Inside the construct, the program continues to run and Ferguson finds himself experiencing memory loss for the time Douglas Hall had his body. Returning to the simulation, Douglas begins to understand the nature of the virtual world and begins to worry that the time he blacked out (during the murder) might have been the result of a construct from the simulation using his body. When Jerry, the bartender who intercepted the letter, comes to understand the nature of the construct he exists in, he turns on Douglas, putting him in mortal peril.

The Thirteenth Floor is set up with a conceit that is either baffling or sloppy for how nonsensical it is: when Douglas enters the simulation, his brain waves are matched to those of Ferguson. While it makes perfect sense that the constructs would have physical parameters and personalities, it seems odd that they would have brainwaves that are programmed. Or, if the brainwaves are based upon the people whose bodies are used as the templates for the construct bodies, they would not need to be matched; Ferguson would already think like Hall, etc.

So, most genre fans are likely to be unsurprised by the reversals of the constructs in the real world and the like that makes The Thirteenth Floor feel less inspired and original than any number of other mind-bending thrillers. The revelation in the desert is unsurprising and as the film progresses, more than being genuinely engaged, the more I realized I didn’t care about how the plot resolved because I was utterly uninvested in any of the characters.

More than that, The Thirteenth Floor is so invested in explaining itself that it never broadens out to make a larger statement or theme. This is not an investigation on the nature of what makes us human, which is what the best science fiction seeks to explore, and it fails to even be clever as a character study. Supporting characters, most notably Gretchen Mol’s Jane (who introduces herself as Hannon’s daughter), are brought in as red herrings and to make viewers question the nature of reality. Unfortunately for director Josef Rusnak, the performance Mol gives telegraphs her character’s nature.

The acting in The Thirteenth Floor is fine for the most part. Craig Bierko is realistic as Douglas Hall. As his character has revelations and suddenly comes into knowledge, that is somewhere in his head, Bierko sells the moments. He has an ability to portray epiphany and simply recollection with just his eyes in a way that is very different from anything I have seen him do in other works he has been in.

But, in the end, The Thirteenth Floor does not add up to anything complete or genuinely compelling. It tells a story and the story finishes, but the layers of worlds within worlds is more of a gimmick than a great film.

For other reality-bending films, please visit my reviews of:
Donnie Darko
The Truman Show
Sucker Punch

4/10

Check out how this movie stacks up against others I have reviewed by visiting my Movie Review Index page where the films are organized from best to worst!

© 2013 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

So Many Good Actors Participate In Making The Cinematic Atrocity That Is The Three Stooges.

The Good: Moments of performance (usually by peripheral character actors)
The Bad: Dismal plot, Lack of character development, Nothing superlative in most of the acting, Largely not funny!
The Basics: The modern remake of The Three Stooges is ridiculous, filled with comedic violence and, above all, not funny.


It is a rare thing that I get to use the phrase “perfect shitstorm of craptastic cinematic factors,” but for The Three Stooges, I will pull that phrase out. Following on the heels of Jack And Jill (reviewed here!) sweeping the Razzies, Project X has some competition for next year’s anti-award’s show in The Three Stooges. The Three Stooges is, as one might suspect from the trailers, that bad. What is worse than the film being bad in the areas of plot, character and acting is that the film is not funny. For an alleged comedy to go so long without making me laugh (for the record, zero laughs in the entire film!), the rest is unforgivable. If you’re going to sacrifice the key elements of a movie – telling a good story, populating it with interesting characters, giving actors a chance to perform in new and interesting ways – the payoff for that needs to be incredible. With The Three Stooges, it is not.

Instead, The Three Stooges is a humorless slapstick adventure that recreates the style and character types of the classic television series The Three Stooges. Recast and modernized for 2012, to a point, The Three Stooges unleashes three dimwits on the audience who are not worth watching at all. And, as the fundamental problem with so much slapstick, far too much of The Three Stooges derives an attempt at laughter out of physical gags that look utterly excruciating. The Three Stooges is like a violent horror movie, without the gore.

Moe, Larry and Curly are dropped off at an orphanage where they are cared for by nuns. They grow up and remain at the orphanage as the maintenance crew taking care of the grounds and the building, usually with many pratfalls and physical altercations that would leave others bloody or dead. When the orphanage is facing foreclosure from financial difficulties, the three adults put their heads together to try to raise the hundreds of thousands of dollars needed to save it. Good fortune seems to smile upon them when they encounter Lydia, who comes at the idiots in a roundabout way to get them to kill her husband. As Larry, Curly and Moe struggle to save the orphanage without murdering their old friend from the orphanage, they find themselves in increasingly more dangerous and ridiculous situations, not the least of which is reality television!

Like the television show that bore its name and the concept, The Three Stooges is far less about a sensible plot with interesting characters and is instead an elaborate set-up for physical comedy that looks painful, ridiculous and/or embarrassing. The Three Stooges lives up to its inspiration in that regard; the movie is filled with slapstick humor, quick physical gags and contrived situations that allow for chaos and ridiculousness. While The Three Stooges may have gotten the physics and speed of such slapstick absolutely right, it does not make for a satisfying movie at all.

Foremost, the characters are, predictably, idiots. But there are films where ridiculous characters can interact with the real world in a way that genuine comedy ensues. The Three Stooges is not that film. Instead, Larry, Curly and Moe are impossible to empathize with and their methods make them uncomfortable to watch. I actually noticed by the fourth time Larry got smacked by Moe that the audience I was watching The Three Stooges with started to shift uncomfortably. While Moe is given some motivation as the leader supposedly looking out for Curly and Larry, the way he treats his peers is reprehensible.

The big mystery for me is how so many talented comedic performers ended up in The Three Stooges. Why Jane Lynch would agree to participate in a film where Snooki is given more promotion than her is a mystery. Similarly, Sofia Vergara is used in a surprisingly listless way as Lydia. Having been watching the early episodes of Modern Family, it is incredibly clear that Vergara has the ability to play both funny and incredibly deadpan. In The Three Stooges, she is used as a vixen, but she uses none of her talents. Vergara could have been swapped out with virtually any Hollywood-good looking actress and the role would have gained or lost nothing.

The Three Stooges hinges largely on Chris Diamantopoulos as Moe. I realized I had only seen Diamantopoulos before on a single episode of Frasier and the truth is his role was utterly unmemorable. As Moe, he plays off Will Sasso’s Curly and Sean Hayes’s Larry well, but outside the trio’s ability to time slapstick gags well, they do nothing to create interesting or even viable characters on screen. Diamantopoulos has Moe carrying a huge amount of anger, but he presents it in a dry, often mechanical way that is hardly an impressive performance.

In the end, it is hard to muster up the enthusiasm to write about such a one-trick pony of a film. But for those who are considering it, the last words you should read on The Three Stooges are these: it wasn’t funny.

For other works with Jane Lynch, please visit my reviews of:
Glee - Season 2
Rio
Glee - Season 1
Shrek Forever After
The L Word - Season 2
Boston Legal
Best In Show

1/10

For other movie reviews, please visit my Film Review Index Page for an organized listing of all the movies I have reviewed!

© 2012 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Depressed People Theatre Returns With Meet Bill, Aaron Eckhart's Magnum Opus To Mid-life Crisis’s

The Good: Good acting, Interesting characters
The Bad: Oppressive mood, Light on plot, Surprisingly light on DVD bonus features
The Basics: Difficult to watch and hard to care about the protagonist, Meet Bill
presents a middle aged man whose wife cheats on him and thus inspires him to change his life.


Do you know how when you learn a new word, all of a sudden you tend to hear it everywhere? I am convinced that a similar thing happens with actors and actresses; once you become aware of an actor, they suddenly pop up everywhere. In my little film appreciation series for Aaron Eckhart, I have noticed Elizabeth Banks, specifically when she appeared in Meet Bill. And then there she was on my television in previews for the new Kevin Smith movie, Zack And Miri Make A Porno (reviewed here!) and checking out the IMDB, it turns out she has been in several movies I have seen. It's enough to make me wonder what I was paying attention to in The 40 Year Old Virgin if not her!

Well, Elizabeth Banks shines in Meet Bill and her performance in this is making me look forward to Smith's new movie even more than I already had been. And Aaron Eckhart continues a generally winning tradition of proving to me he has some serious acting ability, forsaking his trademark smile and any light in his eyes for one of his most bleak, difficult-to-watch performances yet. Meet Bill, alternately titled simply Bill, is a movie that is somewhat tough to define, but I suspect the closest I will get is that this is combination of American Beauty (reviewed here!) and Charlie Bartlett.

Bill is a man who pretty much loathes working for his father-in-law at the bank and after a groundbreaking ceremony for a new facility the bank is sponsoring, he discovers his wife is having an affair with the local news anchor, Chip. This comes more or less at the same time that Bill is dragooned by his father-in-law and brother into mentoring a drug dealing high school student. After covering for the kid when the principal pursues him into the bathroom, Bill and the teen he is tagged with mentoring begin to bond.

Determined to win his independence from his father-in-law, Bill quits his anxiety eating, begins swimming to lose weight, tries to dye his hair (mimicking the guy his wife is having an affair with) and investigates opening his own Sweet Sweet doughnut franchise. As he continues to feel pressure to live up, he takes a cue from the irresponsibility of the kid he is supposed to be a role model for and he kicks back, uses a lingerie saleswoman, Lucy, to pose as his wife for the Sweet Sweet franchisers and turns the course of his life in a different direction.

Part of the reason American Beauty worked as well as it did was that Lester Burham is treated as a loser, but from the outset, it seems like he has essentially been screwed over. He has a wife and child who do not love him, but he works hard for and random, unfortunate things happen to him (like his briefcase falling open and scattering his papers when he is in a hurry for work). Bill, unfortunately, has no such empathetic qualities. He's just flat out pathetic.

Bill opens the movie with whining about being married to Jess and having to put up with her father. The problem here is that, one assumes, no one put a gun to his head and forced Bill to marry a Hollywood beautiful woman whose father was absolutely loaded. Bill never in the course of Meet Bill shows any inkling toward anything that he might be good at outside the bank. The Sweet Sweet franchise is one that he becomes interested in because he loves sugary snacks and because he hopes it will buy him the financial freedom to be rid of his father-in-law, but it never is illustrated that he might have an actual aptitude for it (and indeed, the resolution to the movie suggests he is just aimless, if not talentless).

Similarly, there is nothing that illustrates or explains what Jess saw in Bill originally. In the course of Bill's exercise regimen to lose his gut, Bill slims down and gets fit in a way that seems quite new to him. One suspects that from the lack of hair management and the persistent frown on Bill's face that he has never been much of a catch in a physical sense and that when Jess met and married him, he was not exactly a model for the Atlas folks. So, why Jess initially hooked up with Bill, who seems to have no dreams or ambitions that aren't reactive to the situation he finds his marriage in, is a complete mystery to the viewer. But the better question is why has Jess stayed with him this long if she was so unhappy with him?

Jess is a character who makes little sense in this regard and her fury over being caught on tape by Bill having sex with Chip reads as false. I'm not saying her indignation does not make sense, because it does. But here's a woman who has been lying to her husband and is caught having an affair and she acts like only her anger about being caught ought to matter.

The other half of the story is the mentoring bit with Bill and the Kid. Bill is, naturally, a pathetic mentor and the dynamic quickly becomes the Kid corrupting Bill. It is, for example, the youth's idea to try to have Bill win Jess back by getting her jealous through Lucy. The Kid also leads Bill into a situation where they get high and Bill has sex with one of Lucy's friends. In general, I am not so keen on films where the kids are smarter or more emotionally connected than adults, but there was something watchable about this scenario in Meet Bill. This probably comes down to the kicker lines as far as the Kid is concerned, when he observes to Bill that he will not be the same guy in ten years, so he is simply enjoying who he is now. That maturity to realize and accept that people constantly grow and change might not read quite right coming from that character, but it is a worthwhile message regardless and deserves to be expressed, lending some value to Meet Bill.

I tend to be one who argues for realism in film and Meet Bill seems to almost be a counterargument to that. I like movies where people struggle and there is a realism to that. The problem with viewing Meet Bill as that sort of film is that it still struggles with the basic reality of everyday problems. In other words, it is one thing to watch a common person suffer and struggle and either overcome or be destroyed by the circumstances they find themselves in. It is entirely a different thing to watch a guy who has a huge house, knockout wife, great job, and access to do pretty much what he wants complain and eventually change his life when the people around him get sick of him. Within five minutes of starting Meet Bill, I was sick of Bill, too!

One of the nice things about Meet Bill is that it does have a generally positive view of gay relationships. Writer and co-director Melissa Wallack provides a rescue for Bill in the form of his homosexual brother and his partner, Paul. Craig Bierko and Reed Diamond play the couple with minimal camp and a generally decent embodiment of a normal, loving relationship (which, despite the presentation in many films, it more like reality than what we see in the movies). I use "generally decent" because some of the usual anti-gay pejoratives are tossed out and it would have been nice if Wallack could have gotten through the film without making an issue of the
relationship.

What makes Meet Bill watchable is the acting. Craig Bierko and Reed Diamond give solid supporting performances that make clear differentiations from the characters they played on Boston Legal and Homicide: Life On The Street, respectively. Logan Lerman illustrates a lot of potential as the Kid and one suspects that when directors stop using him for his youthful smirk, he will actually be able to carry scenes with real gravity. As mentioned before Elizabeth Banks is vital and engaging as Jess, even if her character is a somewhat annoying cheat.

But it is Aaron Eckhart that ultimately pulls Meet Bill up out of obscurity. Eckhart tends to have active, verbose roles and in this film he is constantly somber and dead-eyed. He is completely convincing in the part, as well, making the viewer believe completely in his pathetic reality, even if it is hard to empathize with his character.

On DVD, Meet Bill is presented with minimal DVD extras. After a bevy of previews for other films, there is only a collection of about ten deleted scenes, some of which are actually noteworthy enough to be missed from the actual film. But for the most part, the DVD is as barren as the protagonist's trademark expression.

For other works with Kristen Wiig, be sure to visit my reviews of:
Bridesmaids
Paul
Despicable Me
Date Night
How To Train Your Dragon
Whip It
Forgetting Sarah Marshall

6/10

For other movie reviews, please visit my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing of all the movies I have reviewed!

© 2012, 2008 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

An Utter, Unredeemable Waste Of Time And Celluloid: Scary Movie 4 (Movies Not Worth Reviewing Vol. 1)

The Good: Decent preview
The Bad: Terrible acting, Categorically not funny, Not clever, Pretty much everything
The Basics: Terrible, flat out terrible. Everything else I write about this is overstating that simple fact.


A friend of mine is a huge fan of horror films. She has been having a rough time at work lately and so I had the idea to surprise her with a night of decompressing where we would have a nice dinner, talk and watch a stupid movie. I had recently seen a preview - on another DVD - that I found amusing wherein War Of The Worlds was being parodied by the invasion of the iPods. The preview featured Craig Bierko, who I recognized from the third season of Boston Legal (reviewed here!), mocking Tom Cruise and I found myself amused. I was surprised to find the preview was for Scary Movie 4 and I decided this would be appropriate for an evening of friendly decompressing and simply not being stressed with a friend.

Scary Movie 4 failed to live up to even my lowest expectations.

Parodying The Grudge, Spielberg's War Of The Worlds, Saw, and The Village, with winks to Brokeback Mountain and Fahrenheit 9/11 (or reality, I suppose), Scary Movie 4 finds Cindy Campbell - whom I presume is the recurring character from the previous three incarnations - moving to Tom Ryan's neighborhood where she is taking care of the catatonic Mrs. Norris. Tom Ryan - a parody of Tom Cruise's character from War Of the Worlds - begins to express interest in Cindy as Cindy is tormented by an undead boy. Tom and Cindy end up on the run from the Tr-iPods that have arrived at Earth blowing things up.

The bottom-line here is simple: watch the preview, if you enjoy it, don't watch this movie. It's all downhill from the preview. The funniest jokes are in the preview. I thought, for example, Robbie, Tom's son, asking, "What's going on?" to have Tom say, "There's no time to explain!" when a stranger knocks on the door and screams, "It's an alien invasion!" and Tom admitting, "That pretty much explains it." Was funny. It's also in the preview. In all honesty, outside what appears in the preview, the humor in Scary Movie 4 is dumb, not clever, and, well, not funny.

Kevin Smith, director of Clerks and Dogma, has said of his movies that he's just a guy who loves putting dick and fart jokes in movies and he's been fairly successful with telling the same story over and over again with his clever repackaging. Sadly, Smith's genius to keep crude humor flowing and disguised by intelligent dialogue and clever plot-lines or genuine character, is absent from Scary Movie 4. So, what the viewer is left with is approximately eighty-eight minutes of butt and urine jokes that could only appeal to the most dense preteens, who I suppose this movie is marketed to. The movie is just fixated on butts and homophobic jokes that are just plain dumb.

And, to reiterate, they aren't funny.

Scary Movie 4 is not funny. It's supposed to be, but it constantly falls short. Way short. Seeing Dr. Phil as a parody of himself in the opening moments of the movie was cool, but I'm not a fan of Dr. Phil. Then again, his part is in the preview as well.

Craig Bierko, who I honestly am not a fan of on Boston Legal, plays the parody of Tom Cruise well enough. When he is being over-the-top funny, he works, but too often, he is playing earnest and it does not work. Bierko's best moments, like most of the movie, appear in the preview trailer.

Cindy Campbell is played by Anna Faris and her look is of Sarah Michelle Gellar from The Grudge. Faris plays clueless throughout the movie and she lacks screen presence or charisma to keep us watching her.

The tragedy of actors here takes the form of young Conchita Campbell, who plays Tom Ryan's daughter Rachel. Conchita Campbell portrays Maia, the creepy clairvoyant girl on The 4400 and she is an amazing talent for an actress so young. Scary Movie 4 is a waste of her considerable talents and is a disservice to the budding career of someone with such potential.

When one sits down to watch a movie like Scary Movie 4, they are not anticipating great filmmaking. What they want is to be entertained. The audience does not even get that out of this movie. There are ways to parody that illustrate a clever insight, a keen wit and/or showcase foibles and plotholes of the works they parody. Scary Movie 4 does no such thing.

As a broader commentary on Scary Movie 4, because there is so little to write about a movie as utterly, unredeemably bad as this, I would like to suggest that this type of garbage, which grosses millions of dollars by appealing to the lowest common denominator, is why terrorists hate America. Seriously. If you check out the credits for this movie, you'll see how many people were involved in putting together this piece of trash. Millions of dollars were spent, thousands of people were put to work and American audiences gave millions of dollars to watch or own this. All of those resources could have been better spent feeding our poor, striving for world peace or educating our citizens. It's decadent. Now, I realize that the same organizations that educate, feed and work for peace are not the ones who make movies like Scary Movie 4, but this type of waste is indicative of our culture and that a populous would glorify this and spend money on it while objecting to paying slightly more in taxes to feed the poor - for example - is offensive to artists, the hungry and other cultures looking in on our decadence. This is the arrogance of those who rule the world, yet live in a cultural wasteland.

The only thing that is worthwhile about Scary Movie 4 is that it is making me angry enough to write my Representative to ask him to increase the NEA's budget.

If you value whatever time you have in this life to experience all that humanity can achieve, read this review, if you have occasion, watch the preview for Scary Movie 4, but don't waste your precious life and time sitting through this. You'll regret it. Begging our unresponsive government for more money for art is a better use of our time than watching this . . . I've run out of euphemisms for "garbage" that don't resort to the level of this movie.

For other works with Molly Shannon, please visit my reviews of:
Bad Teacher
Glee - Season 1
30 Rock - Season 1
How The Grinch Stole Christmas

0/10

For other movie reviews, please visit my index page on the subject by clicking here!

© 2011, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

The Ever-Changing Cast Of Boston Legal Changes Yet Again For Boston Legal - Season 3!

The Good: Decent characters, Interesting stories, Some truly inspired acting
The Bad: Moment when it's too silly, Too topical to hold up, Lack of decent DVD extras.
The Basics: An almost complete lack of DVD bonus features prevents a truly great - if very caught in the moment - show from making a decent DVD release.


I'm certain someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but it sure seems like Boston Legal had the most mature cast on television when it was on the air. In its third season, now on DVD, Boston Legal's youngest regular cast member was Constance Zimmer (at 35/36) who was added for the season. The peculiar thing about Boston Legal is that it seems obsessed with attempting to get a bigger market by continually introducing younger characters, who end up dumped by mid-season. "Season 2" (DVD set reviewed here!) was the worst featuring two new characters fresh out of law school. Why David E. Kelley and his team believe they must continue this foolish experiment in casting eludes me, but I try not to focus on that.

With the third season of Boston Legal, there is a lot that is far better to attract the attention of the viewer. In this boxed set, featuring all twenty four episodes, the firm of Crane, Poole and Schmidt, is once again hired to take on cases that hit close to home for American viewers. Over the course of the season, cases involving organ harvesting, people placed on the no-fly list by Homeland Security, victims of rendition and torture, and patenting blood that could cure HIV. In addition to the zany, there are the usual murder cases where the firm is turned upside down and against each other.

I'm a fan of Boston Legal, but it is in rewatching the series on DVD that one comes to realize how repetitive the show is. Indeed, there is not much in this boxed set that has not already been done in season one (DVD set reviewed here!) or season two. The biggest change is in the characters and in the topical cases taken by the firm. Indeed, David E. Kelley is the loudest writer on television today fighting the policies of the Bush Administration. The cases that seek to raise the public debate about the war, rampant homophobia, the use of torture, and the lack of universal health care make the supposed dogma of Michael Moore look like an intellectual appetizer. Sadly, Boston Legal is more likely than not to depress avowed liberals as Alan Shore, Denny Crane and Shirley Schmidt seem eager to make the cases that never seem to be made against the U.S. Government. That's unfair; in the last few years, many of the most controversial measures of many of the most controversial new laws have been struck down by the courts, which has just led Congress to pass (or renew) the laws with fewer loopholes. Sigh.

So, other than making the viewer think, inflaming liberals and depressing anyone who wishes that reality did not call for such artistic expression, the third season of Boston Legal is likely to lose its punch should the United States ever manage to pull itself out of its current backwards circumstances. That is to say, Boston Legal is an incredibly timely show. The cases fought in the fictional courtrooms provide the legal and ethical backbone for change or rebellion. But they are also arguing cases that are so extreme (like in "Guantanamo By The Bay" where Alan sues the government for torturing his client) that they would not have been plausible as debate or entertainment during, say, the Clinton years. As a result, when things like the Geneva Conventions are once again applied to the military of the United States, and the concept of torturing another human being once again leaves the public's fear-driven mindset, the episodes are less likely to resonate.

For now, though, they are pretty impressive, albeit somewhat preachy - especially considering the older audience that is likely to enjoy the show is also one of the strongest demographics against the current direction of the government. But more than a series of topical cases executed with humor and flair by the attorney's of the weirdest law firm on earth, Boston Legal is about those who make up the firm. In the third season, the principle characters include:

Alan Shore - After being left by "the Squid" (introduced at the end of the prior season), Alan begins to focus his attention on Jerry Espenson, whose awkwardness and intimacy issues prevent him from forming any other meaningful relationships. Alan assists Jerry on cases - which makes Denny jealous -, bends the law to save Shirley's life and finds himself defending Denny when the senior partner has his fat smuggled overseas for alternate fuel research. Late in the season, he finds himself getting involved with a judge,

Shirley Schmidt - Sued by ex-husband Ivan for the affair she had with him, Shirley spends most of the season cleaning up the messes of others. She is captured by a murdering client and soon after finds herself in her usual state of wondering whether Denny can handle practicing law for much longer,

Paul - Is he even in this season?! Seriously, he shows up . . . but is seldom used,

Brad Chase - Continuing his "friends with benefits" relationship with Denise, Brad soon finds competing with new partner Jeffrey Coho irritating. He decides to take the plunge with Denise, when she finds out she is pregnant,

Denise Bauer - Following the apparent death of her wealthy love, Daniel Post, Denise renews her interest in Brad, but finds herself more attracted to the irritating new partner, Jeffrey Coho. When she gets pregnant and determines Brad is the father, she looks to Brad for her future,

Claire Simms - A new associate, she jumps in at the firm defending Clarence and soon finds herself strangely attracted to him. She works to find her niche and while she originally comes off as distant, she soon is revealed to have a real heart,

Clarence - A recurring character who later joins the firm, he is painfully shy and takes on a female persona to adapt and interface with much of the real world. It is soon revealed that he is an adept lawyer and Claire brings him aboard to help her with cases,

Jerry - Recurring frequently and usually as opposing counsel, Jerry Espenson tries to overcome his painful shyness and Asberger's Syndrome by taking on other personas that allow him to adapt. His friendship with Alan leads him to fight legal battles better and he eventually comes to Shirley with an odd request,

Jeffrey Coho - A new partner brought in, he seemed to occupy much the same niche as Alan with his apparent insensitivity toward all, but secretly harboring a very real humanity. Jeffrey tries the first major case of the season, a murder trial wherein the wife of a judge is killed, and soon finds himself hooking up with Denise. When she ultimately rejects him, he leaves the firm (which is notable because most of the characters who leave the show simply disappear),

and Denny Crane - He begins dating a dwarf who turns out to be the daughter of a woman he formerly had a relationship with. As Denny goes through a rocky romance with Bethany, he takes comfort in the stability of his relationship with Alan. Still scatterbrained, Denny is forced to face his past when the son of a former client takes the firm hostage.

Indeed, the episode that deals with the hostage situation, "Son Of The Defender" is especially clever, melding footage from a 1957 episode of a show called "Studio One" in order to present flashbacks involving a younger Denny Crane (William Shatner). That departure makes for a very special episode and it is a shame it did not win the Emmy this year (it was nominated). It's a clever concept and the execution is flawless making it one of the few episodes in the boxed set likely to hold up over time.

And the real gem of Boston Legal that makes it worth watching and/or picking up on DVD is the acting. Boston Legal features a pretty amazing cast. This season, newbies include Craig Bierko (who I only knew from the terrible Scary Movie 4), Constance Zimmer, and Gary Anthony Williams. They are all good, but the seasoned cast is mindblowingly good. Indeed, Rene Auberjonois's best moments of the season come early when he is paired up with his Star Trek: Deep Space Nine costar Armin Shimmerman for some real tongue-in-cheek scenes. William Shatner reaffirms his ability to dominate using comedy and while there is little new in his performance this season, it's still refreshing to see him entertaining as a comic actor. Candice Bergen is given the chance to do something real different with the abduction storyline she is given and she reminds the viewer of just how amazing and versatile she can be. After all, robbed of all body language - she spends an episode tied to a chair - she still performs an emotive, fully-expressive performance that is incredible.

But it falls to James Spader as Alan Shore to keep much of the program interesting and watchable. Where season two gave Spader a chance to stretch his acting wings through a series of obstacles for Alan (like him becoming afflicted with word salad), season three finds him slowly re-establishing his confidence as his character evolves out of the often smarmy characterization he possessed in the earlier seasons. Spader uses the relationship between Shore and Espenson to infuse more humanity to the character and this gives him a chance to perform more subtle emotions and it works!

The DVD set includes scant bonus features, in the form of two featurettes, one on the judges, one on the defendants. These are pretty disappointing for the money, prompting more causal fans to simply stick around and catch the show in syndication rather than buying it on DVD.

But honestly, the time to buy this set is now. It's hip, it's relevant and it's entertaining. It won't be long - one hopes - before it is simply historic. And when that happens, this set will be a disappointment as it does not even provide the fans with commentary tracks.

For other works featuring Mark Valley, please check out my reviews of:
Fringe - Season 1
Once & Again - Season 2
Once & Again - Season 1

6/10

For other television set reviews, please visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2011, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.


| | |