'Comanche Moon' fails to reach heights of 'Dove'
January 14, 2008
Comanche F-Troop
More reviews of Comanche Moon:
'Comanche Moon' fails to reach heights of 'Dove'For the first hour of "Comanche Moon," which premieres Sunday at 9 p.m. on Channel 4, it looks as though the three-part miniseries might be a fabulous botch, a smorgasbord of bad acting and Western-movie stereotypes that's awesome in its awfulness. But gradually, the miniseries settles into a more mediocre middle ground that is merely tedious, simplistic, and disjointed, like a six-hour episode of "F Troop" without Larry Storch. The only decent thing: Steve Zahn, who finds the right pitch between comedy and lonesomeness as hard-drinking Ranger Gus McCrae. TV Review: Comanche Moon Rides into CBS LineupVal Kilmer's portrayal of Inish Scull might be a hard pill for most to swallow. While Kilmer plays one of the most awkward characters of his career, his approach to the eccentric, poet of a man lends itself much more to the stage than the small-screen. The buy-in factor might be too tough for mainstream viewers since Scull not only spits poetry and sings, but he also doesn't appear to be grounded in any relatable real world that would justify his revealed background as one of the greatest war heroes of the era. Also out of place in his first Western is Karl Urban in the role of Woodrow Call, who, as Inez Scull reveals on the first night, is "too stiff." If the town-slut won't sleep with you, you know you're in trouble. Comment: With two comical cowboys (Val Kilmer and Steve Zahn), three women tarts in town, and several Indian savages, the F-Troop comparison isn't as farfetched as you'd think.
'Comanche Moon' fails to reach heights of 'Dove'
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Writerfella here --
F-TROOP or no F-TROOP, the comparison is glib, thoughtless, and lame because Larry Storch is 85 and does well just to play his sax on warm afternoons in Central Park. He did attend the 2007 NYC "Twilight Zone" Convention, however.
By the bye, reviews will do naught to COMANCHE MOON's ratings because all three segments are new material for a starving TV audience...
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
Again, learn the role of critics, Russ. Since I'm trying to educate people about stereotypes, I couldn't care less if my review affects the ratings. What I care about is people learning to think critically about Indian portrayals in the media.
By the way, CBS originally planned to broadcast Comanche Moon at the end of December, traditionally considered a dumping ground for unwanted shows. If Comanche Moon does well in the ratings, I suspect it will only be because people are starved for new material. And not because it's a quality show that deserves good ratings.
P.S. I didn't say one word about Larry Storch, so your comment is the only thoughtless thing here.
Writerfella here --
But your carefully selected 'reviews' of COMANCHE MOON did mention Larry Storch, quote: "...like a six-hour episode of "F Troop" without Larry Storch." If you quote someone else, as you always are wont, those words become yours as well.
The "role of critics" such as yourself simply is to wait like a beartrap or even a land mine, with prefab opinions and preformed prose already in place...
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
Writerfella here --
And now to "the role of critics." The word 'criticism' in our society mostly has come to mean 'the finding of fault' and as such always is a pejorative, as is not the case of 'critique.' Thus, a 'critic' and/or 'one who criticizes' are negative quantities, as is not the case of 'one who critiques.' 'Critique' may be negative and/or positive but usually is an admixture of both. You, Rob, have mistaken 'criticism' for 'critique' and mistaken a 'critic' for 'one who critiques.' As for the "role of critics," no casting director seemingly ever is necessary for one to get the part...
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
So I'm glib because I quoted someone who (you think) is glib? Ridiculous.
I guess you forgot your glasses or brain or something, since you failed to grasp what I wrote. The review I quoted didn't say anything negative about Larry Storch, so your comment is still the only thoughtless thing here.
Yes, we know you don't like it when I quote other critics. We also know you don't like it when I write long, original critiques. You don't like anything critical because you're a wide-eyed Pollyanna who lacks the ability to think critically.
To you a Native product, no matter how bad it is, is an opportunity to gush and fawn. When you hear criticism, you cover your ears like a child and hope it goes away. You can't stand anything that might puncture your happy-talk bubble and expose you to reality.
Your stupid misunderstanding of the role of criticism is, well, your stupid misunderstanding. I've explained it to you, with quotes from many sources, and you still can't understand it. How sad that you remain ignorant of a such a major area of endeavor.
I guess you were lying in a stupor all the times I've written critiques with an "admixture" of positive and negative comments. Here are a few of them to jog your addled memory: Four Sheets to the Wind, Imprint, The Doe Boy, BAT LASH #1, SECRET ORIGINS #36, DARKNESS CALLS, Preserver, The Berlin Blues. Read 'em and educate yourself.
In many of my reviews, I split my comments into good and bad or positive and negative. But you can't see an "admixture" even though I make the admixture explicit? How blind can you get?
My reviews have been good enough to get published in the Native Times and NativeVue. When was the last time you published a review of anything anywhere? Have you ever published a review, or are you as lightweight as you seem?
Finally, my readership is doing quite well, thanks. If you don't like my style of criticism, why are you hanging around? Who asked for your worthless critiques of my critiques? Go bother someone who wants to hear your constant carping.
I guess you're hanging around because your life is empty. Because you have nothing to do except attack your intellectual superiors. Why don't you stop telling us about your unpublished scripts and court cases and start addressing the matters at hand? Write your own reviews if you think you can do a better job of it, hypocrite.
Writerfella here --
writerfella remains among the posters here because, as a lifelong writer fella, he knows that written bombastic obfuscation never should go unchallenged or unmet. And I'd report you to YOUR intellectual superiors, Rob, except that I'd have to speak with every five-year-old in a twenty-mile radius around Culver City!
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
In other words, you have nothing to say and care only about sniping at your intellectual superiors--especially me. So noted.
What's your reason for not posting reviews the way I do? If you gave a reason, I must've missed it. I'm sticking with my explanation: that you're a posturing hypocrite. You can't come up with an original thought so you criticize mine.
There are literally a million blogs with "bombastic obfuscation" for you to tackle. So why this one? Give us the real reason, because your professed reason is obviously phony.
I'd say my guess is the right one. This is one place where you can bloviate about your 30-year-old achievements without (much) fear of censorship. Which is why you constantly regale us with your past even though nobody cares.
Actually, I'm usually the one puncturing your pompous ego--along with noting your lies about my income, your laziness about providing evidence, and your inability to argue a point. Not to mention your ignorant misspellings of such words as "Viracocha," "iterate," and "casinos." As always, if you enjoy my bursting your bubble, I'll be glad to keep doing it.
Let us know when you have a valid criticism of the Larry Storch reference in the original review. Until then, you merely look foolish--like a kindergartner who can't understand big words. Again.
Post a Comment