The genius of Arrested Development

Ask anyone who loves comedy what their favourite American comedy show is and more than likely, they will answer The Big Bang Theory, How I Met Your Mother or other shows that force laughter. Very rarely, someone will wisely answer Arrested Development.

Arrested Development was created by Mitchell Hurwitz in 2003 and lasted for 3 seasons. Even though the show received unanimous critical acclaim, it struggled in the ratings. Something which i atribute to the style of the humour.

Arrested Development reminds me of a show in the 80's called police squad; a show that was cancelled after 6 episodes. The reason given was considered stupid but actually right; you had to watch it. People had to pay attention in order to get the jokes.

Arrested Development had similar problems. The jokes were so witty, clever and subtle, the show
treated its viewers with respect. Shows like 30 Rock and Parks and Recreation have similar formats and the jokes are presented in a similar fashion.

Shows like The Big Bang Theory rely on a laughter track to provoke a reaction from the viewer. Which is why these type of comedies have really high ratings; the comedy is more in your face. But for me, the best form of comedy comes from the viewer deciding for themselves what is funny.

How to fix Die Hard

Die Hard used to be great. The first is a classic, the second is decent, the third was great fun and the fourth was surprisingly good, but the latest entry, A Good Day to Die Hard, was rubbish. Why? Because it strayed to far from the set formula that made the first 4 such good fun. So I have come up with some points as to how Die Hard 6 can be saved, because I wan't there to be a sixth film. It would be a shame if such a great franchise ended on such a crappy note. So these points are;

• Make John McLane a lone wolf: The Die Hard films are not buddy cop films, he doesn't need a partner, unless its Sam Jackson. Obviously
• Set it in a confined space or in a short period of time.
• Use practical effects like blood packs and not CGI blood
• Have realistic action not having McLane fighting a jet.

That is how Die Hard can be fixed.

Jackie Chan's americanization

I argue that since Jackie Chan broke into America and when he shares action scenes with American actors, his screen persona is greatly diminished. In a large percent of his film, Jackie Chan plays Jackie Chan; meaning that he is essentially playing himself in his movies; the everyday man, the reluctant hero.

When he made his American film, his screen persona didn't change, but the action did. In his Asian films, Chan does his own, CGI free stunts. But in America, especially when sharing the action, his action is persona is reduced. For example; in Rush Hour 2 when Carter and Lee jump out of the casino as it explodes, they take of their coats and wrap it around a a cable and they manage to slide to safety. If this scene was filmed in Hong Kong, Chan would obviously do the stunt for real as this is what we have come to expect. But since it was made in America, insurance purposes forbid Chan from doing dangerous stunts. The scene also has Chris Tucker doing the same stunt as Chan, and since Tucker isn't renowned for doing his own stunts, Chan has to go down to his level to make the scene work.

This process happens in nearly every American film where Jackie Chan has a partner. Another example can be found in Shanghai Noon, in the scene where Jackie Chan's character stops a train robbery committed by Owen Wilson. Some of the logs on the train get loose with Chan and Wilson standing on them, thus they frantically try to stay on as they tumble of the train. We believe that Jackie is doing this stunt himself, but not Wilson, therefore the impact of the stunt is reduced by the fact that a character that is being played by an actor that doesn't do dangerous stunts, is doing the same stunt with an actor who does.

Is the James Bond series in a state of perpetual reboot?

For my recent dissertation, I argued that the James Bond series is in a state of perpetual reboot. By this I mean that with every new Bond actor, the series is being rebooted. As i mentioned in a previous post, a reboot has no ties to previous films and offers the viewer a different interpretation of the same character.

Looking at the James Bond films, the first film in the series that had a different Bond was On Her Majestys Secret Service with George Lazenby. That film offered a Bond that was unlike Sean Connery and it had no obvious link to previous films. For a reboot to be labelled a "reboot" there has to be sequels, otherwise that proposed reboot has failed. Therfore, OHMSS is a failed reboot as Lazenby made one film. But if he made at least one more, it would have been a reboot.

After Lazenby, Roger Moore was cast. Again, his Bond was different from the previous two and it had to blatant ties to previous films. For me personally Live and Let Die is the first example of a reboot in the Bond series.

When Moore retired, Timothy Dalton took over the role. He made two films that were vastly different from previous films. His portrayal was also different. Dalton's first film, The Living Daylights can be considered a reboot of the Bond franchise.


One common observation of the series is that a Bond actors last film is almost always a failure in some sense. Diamonds are Forever was a critical failure, so was A View to a Kill. Licence to Kill is considered by fans as being to far from the Bond formula and Die Another Day was also a was faced with a critical mauling. Could there be a lonk between an actors last film and the need to reboot the franchise?

One flaw to this theory, is that from Dr. No to A View to a Kill, there was the same actors playing the same supporting characters. I.e. M, Q and Miss Moneypenny.

As a Bond fan however, I think that the series is rebooted when a new actor takes over the role as it gives the filmmakers a chance to show a different Bond in a different continuity.

Worst films of 2012

Now comes the part I hate. The films that  I have had the unfortunate experience to sit through.

1.      The Devil Inside – Crap. Utter crap

2.      Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance – way below my even  lowest expectations

3.      This Means War – Didn’t work as an action film. Didn’t work as a comedy. Didn’t work at all

4.      Paranormal Activity 4 – Not one single scare. The formula is getting tired now

5.      Silent House – Boring

6.      Bourne Legacy – Nothing Happens. Edward Norton is wasted

7.      The Watch – Aside from one joke, there are no laughs

8.      Battleship – It’s based on a board game, Come on!

9.      The Raven – Had gore, but lacked intelligent thrills

10.  Man on a Ledge – Hoping this would be good. I was wrong

My best films of 2012

These are, what I feel, the best films of the year.  

1. The Dark Knight Rises – A brilliant end to one of the best film trilogies ever
2. The Raid – The best action movie of the year
3. Skyfall – Now my second favourite Bond film
4. Life of Pi – A beautifully shot film
5. Looper – One of the most original films of the last few years
6. The Muppets – I had a smile on my face throughout this film
7. Chronicle – This film came out of nowhere and it blew me away
8. Dredd – The best surprise of the year
9. 21 Jump Street – Very, very funny
10. Paranorman – A touching animated film

Definativley defining a reboot

Can anyone definitively define what a reboot is? The term has been around for decades but it was made popular with the release of Batman Begins in 2005, and since then, countless films have been labeled "reboot" as a lazy way to capitalize on Begin's success. In order for a film to be classed as a reboot, it has to be set in a new continuity from previous films and to have a different style.

The way I see it there are two different kinds of reboots; financially and aesthetically. Financial reboots are films that are labeled so by executives because, like I said, of the terms connotations with "Batman Begins". Aesthetic reboots are the opposite. These are films that are reboots based on how they are made and weather they have any connections to previous films. Also, it is worth mentioning that in order for a reboot to be a "reboot", said reboot will need to spawn sequels, otherwise this reboot attempt has failed.

Financial reboots:                 

1. Star Trek 
2. Dredd
3. Conan the Barbarian
4. Friday the 13th
5. X-men: First Class

Aesthetic Reboots:

1. Batman Begins
2. Man of Steel
3. Casino Royale
4. The Amazing Spider-man