Summer TV

In terms of media entertainment, it’s tough to get much worse than July.  If you’re a big movie fan, all the major summer blockbusters are out, and now we’re getting the garbage action stuff.  (Hercules will surely be a guilty pleasure for me though.)  If you’re a sports fan, all you got are preseason NFL reports and dog days baseball.  If you’re a video game fan (like me), you’re getting a lot of solid one-off experiences while waiting for the fall tidal wave.  And if you’re a TV fan, you’re getting the stuff not good enough for the fall/spring, save a couple hidden gems.  So, with that, what the hell is everyone watching?  And better yet, is there anything good out there?  In case you wanna jump into something, here’s how everything is doing in the ratings…

http://uproxx.com/tv/2014/07/how-are-the-new-summer-shows-like-the-strain-and-the-leftovers-doing-in-the-ratings-so-far/

Here’s what I’m watching, from most interesting to least…

The Leftovers

Synopsis: The Leftovers takes place three years after a global "Rapture", which caused the unexplainable disappearance of 2% of the world population. It centers not on the people who were taken, but on the ones left behind, in the hamlet of Mapleton, New York.

My Thoughts: Fantastic concept on paper that is being done… fairly well.  The show mainly follows the town sheriff and his fractured family, using them as a conduit to give us how various groups have come to terms with the event.  Since it’s from the creator of Lost, it’s not surprising that the mystery is the draw.  I also have issues with the central storyline revolving around a strange cult known as The Guilty Remnants. 

(Side note: I was 99.99999% sure that we would not see an on-screen death more gruesome than “you know which one” from Game of Thrones in all of 2014.  HOLY BEJESUS WAS I WRONG.  The one from this week’s episode takes the cake, the pie, and any other desserts you would be offering up.)

Nathan For You

Synopsis: In the series, Fielder plays an off-kilter version of himself, who tries to use his business background (a commerce degree from the University of Victoria (UVIC) in 2005) and life experiences to help struggling companies and people, offering them strategies that no traditional business consultant would dare to attempt.

My Thoughts: PLEASE TELL ME SOMEONE ELSE IS WATCHING THIS SHOW!  It’s amazing.  Easily the best thing on during the summer.  I have the infamous “Dumb Starbucks” episode DVR’ed currently.

Tyrant

Synopsis: Bassam "Barry" Al Fayeed is from the war-torn fictional country of Abbudin. He has been living in self-imposed exile in Los Angeles for nearly 20 years. Barry, the younger son of Abbudin's dictator, ends his exile to return with his American family to his homeland for his nephew's wedding. His arrival leads to a dramatic culture clash, as he reluctantly returns to the familial and national politics he once left.

My Thoughts:The trailer drew me in and I’ve never watched any FX drama, so why not start here.  I’m not sure I’m gonna last with this one.  Character actions are pretty silly for a show taking itself so seriously, and the potential for the "White Savior" is taken to the nth degree in such an unbelievable way (yes the main character isn't white, but the concept is analogous).

Wilfred

Synopsis: The show follows a young man named Ryan (Elijah Wood) and his neighbor's dog Wilfred (Jason Gann). In the opening episode, Ryan concocts a drug cocktail in order to commit suicide. After this failed attempt, Ryan's neighbor, Jenna (Fiona Gubelmann), knocks on his door to ask him to look after Wilfred, whom Ryan sees and hears as a man in a dog costume.

My Take: I’m dangerously close to “hate-watch” territory with this one.  I just want to see how it ends, and I’m very much prepared to be let down big time.

Emmy Nominations

Here's a solid list of the Emmy nominations with some commentary from Metacritic...

http://www.metacritic.com/feature/2014-primetime-emmy-nominees

No point in going to the insanity that networks get to classify their stuff as comedy/drama/miniseries, as that's a whole other post.  I'm just going to throw out my very unresearched and uninformed predictions in the Drama and Comedy categories.

Drama

Outstanding Drama: We all missed Downton Abbey in the prediction post.  Hey, here's a fun fact - only ONE of these shows aired more than 10 episodes this Emmy year (House of Cards).  Game of Thrones at 10 was second highest.  Even though it should be in miniseries, I'll go True Detective.  Definitely commited to a vision, and it was strong start to finish.  I still think it's cheating it's even in here.
Lead Actor: You know Jon Hamm is licking his chops for 2015.  Regardless, Cranston and McConaughey are a total tossup if you ask me.  I think the voters go with Matthew McConaughey b/c they only have one shot and he definitely deserves something.
Lead Actress: Only show I've ever watched on this list is Scandal, and Kerry Washington ain't winning for that performance.  I'll go chalk here: Claire Danes.
Supporting Actor: It would be a travesty of the highest order if Peter Dinklage lost.  I'm guessing he'll be the biggest favorite to win in the Drama races.
Supporting Actress: I thought Lena Headey had a strong season, so why not?
Guest Actor: I feel like this is a dark horse pick - Joe Morton  made every scene he was in better in Scandal.  I'll go with him.  Bert Cooper is definitely not winning.
Guest Actress: No clue as I only watched three of these shows.  Of those I do watch, Diana Rigg is a standout.
Writing: Maybe I'm crazy, but this one feels like a slam dunk for Moira Walley-Beckett.  Even though I didn't watch Breaking Bad, I've heard how great "Ozymandias" was. 
Director: Another slam dunk.  Cary Joji Fukunaga locked this sucker up with one shot.

Comedy

Outstanding Comedy: I really hope Modern Family doesn't win, only because it's not as good as its legacy would suggest.  Nope, give this one to critic darling Orange is the New Black.
Lead Actor: Jeez, I watch none of these.  Just b/c I like him, Louis C.K.
Lead Actress: Stacked group.  Amy Poehler deserves to win for Leslie Knope at some point, but not sure it's this year.  Julie Louis-Dreyfus in a walk probably.
Supporting Actor: I thought Andre Braugher was great in Brooklyn 99.
Supporting Actress: No clue, as I don't think Kate Mulgrew is one of the stronger OITNB performers.  I thought Anna Chlumsky had a strong year in Veep, so I'll go that route.
Guest Actor: Gary Cole dominated in Veep with a fun role.  Sure.
Guest Actress:  Wow, there are all the OITNB noms.  One of 'em is probably gonna win, and it should probably be Uzo Aduba, who had the toughest role and nailed it.
Writing: No clue.  Veep's writing is always strong, so Simon Blackwell, Tony Roche, Armando Iannucci.
Directing: Hey remember when everyone watched Glee?  Anyway, just b/c they won't shut Modern Family out complete, Julia Mancuso.

Grading Philosophies

Having now completed one full round of Mediocre Movie Reviews, I can’t help but think about our similarities and differences in grading philosophy.  I have been trying to gauge how most of us grade movies, and I feel that we all approach things at a slightly different angle.  This is definitely a good thing – it’d be extremely boring if we all just gave out the same grade.  It’s fun to have divisive movies like Machete Kills out there; the most interesting discussions have come from the movies that divided us the most.  That being said, I was hoping each of us could briefly sum up how we grade movies, just to give the rest of us a better idea where we’re coming from with our grades.

Now, I know on the spreadsheet, Kissel has included his "rubric" if you will.  I’m glad that works for him, but it feels a little too “checklist” for me personally.  I have a feeling that if Kissel took a Myers-Briggs personality test, he’d score high in the Sensing category (See: http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/sensing-or-intuition.asp).  My personality type doesn’t jive with that sort of system (I’m pretty in the middle on sensing vs. intuition, but I tend to end up closer to the side of intuition), and I end up grading on a much more blurry scale.  That said it’s impossible to give out a grade without having some sort of criteria.  Here are some of the questions I ask myself when formulating my final grade for a movie:

Did this movie achieve its implied objective? – This is far and away my biggest consideration.  Not every movie is made to be a best picture nominee.  If the goal of a movie is to make me think, and it makes me think, I’ll probably give it a decent grade, regardless of my enjoyment.  Not surprisingly, this is VERY difficult to do with comedy, as comedy is so subjective and drawn from personal experiences.  We all have those movies that we basically say “I get it.  Someone probably finds this funny.  I’m just not one of them.”  The example that sticks out to me for this is Bad Santa.  I don’t remember what grade I gave it, but it’s an F- for me personally.  I probably gave it a higher grade because I know some people do find that crap funny, and Billy Bob does a good job of acting in it.

Did I enjoy this movie? – Seems simple enough, but I figured I’d point out it isn’t my chief concern when grading.  As difficult as it can be, I try my damnedest to remove my personal taste best I can.  For example, I must admit that I enjoyed The Game more than Holy Motors while watching.  However, I gave Holy Motors a higher grade.  I felt that it was definitely a better movie, even if it didn’t necessarily enjoy the experience.  This is an issue I will forever have with character pieces.  To me, they tend to meander.

Would I rewatch this movie? – This is a concern depending on the type of movie.  There are several movies I absolutely love that I really don’t need to watch again.  My brother has a theory that many movies only have so many “good watches” in them.  Eventually, you just can’t be emotionally impacted by them anymore.  Gladiator is maybe my favorite movie ever, but I’m pretty confident I’ve exhausted all my “good watches.”  Likewise, I still have a few in the bank for Shawshank Redemption, and I’ve made sure to save them.  Comedies and action movies need to be rewatchable to be good.  They have to pass the “channel surfing test” that I referenced in my Machete Kills review.  The “channel surfing test” is simple – if I were flipping channels and saw this movie on, would I stick with it, and if so, for how long?  If a Rocky movie is on, I might stick depending on what the scene is.  If The Two Towers is on, I’m almost assuredly going to be sucked in for the duration.

Is this movie meant to be watched this way? – Let’s face it, some movies stand on their own, while others demand an experience.  I’m not talking Rocky Horror Picture Show levels necessarily, but some movies are undeniably better to watch in a group.  Not to keep referencing it, but Machete Kills feels like a movie that is meant to be watched with a group of people while everyone is drinking.  Pineapple Express is meant to be watched while stoned (probably).  Again, this is tough to consider, and even tougher to simulate for the purposes of this group.  I wonder what our Machete Kills reviews would have been had we all watched it together, then reviewed on our own after the fact.

That’s a quick summary of some of the things I consider when reviewing.  I know there are a handful of things I do not consider while others do.  Here are two of the biggies that I’ve seen mentioned in other reviews on here that I don’t personally ascribe to.

One of the big things I do not consider that I think many of us do is time & place for older movies like Taxi Driver.  I kind of understand the social climate going on, but I wasn’t watching in 1976.  I watched the movie in 2014, and I want to discuss how the movie felt to me in 2014.  Most people aren’t going to pick up on cultural subtleties of the movie, as they may not have that personal well of knowledge to draw from.  I can only review the movie as a cultural outsider, so I’ll review it from that perspective.  An older movie doesn't necessarily have to draw on its time and place to be interesting.  Some movies are timeless and translate in any climate (see: The Graduate).

I also do not consider whether or not I actually remember the plot.  For the most part, people have terrible memories when it comes to the plot of anything, especially for movies they’ve only seen once.  I cannot tell you a great number of details from Big Fish.  However, I remember the experience and how it made me feel at the time.  If that was strong enough, then it’ll get a higher grade from me.  Many older movies that I did not grade were movies that I watched but could not remember for the life of me any major plot points or my own feelings.  Odds are these are a bunch of B-/C+’s for me, but it probably wouldn’t hurt to rewatch and figure it out before actually grading.

So, with that, how does everyone else grade?  Do you have a checklist method?  Is it purely based on your enjoyment?  Or are we all reviewing the exact same way?