Let me preface this by saying… I am not a tv guy. If you’ve followed this blog any, you know that. I can, and routinely do, go months without watching TV. I in fact do not own a tv. But I do own laptops and quite an extensive DVD collection. I keep abreast of what people are saying is hot or good in TV land, and eventually get around to trying the DVDs. And usually all these hyped shows… I’m unimpressed. LOST, 24, PRISON BREAK, HEROES all shows I’ve heard rapturous praise, and finally seen… they’re uneven at best, with some great episodes, but mostly a lot of filler, sub-par episodes. THE WIRE is another show that I heard so much praise for, and finally watched it cannot hold a candle to its predecessor HOMICIDE. Typically it’s the British Television shows that I think are currently knocking it out the park. Shows like HUSTLE and ULTRAVIOLET and JEKYLL and TORCHWOOD: CHILDREN OF EARTH. Because their seasons are tight, they avoid the filler and weak episodes so common to American Television seasons. There are exceptions, a few American shows, that are televison at its finest. DAY BREAK is one of those shows. To say it’s 24 meets Groundhog Day, gives you a crude and unwieldy signpost, and ultimately a lacking one. It is those two things, those two vague and well worn themes, but done right and brilliantly and strong for the whole season. I have things to do, and places to go, and I cannot stop watching the bloody DVDs. It’s BRILLIANT! So of course it was canceled in one season. I mean multi-ethnic cast, strong Black lead character… Oh please cancel me now, and let’s leave on crap like SMALLVILLE, or another CSI or LAW AND ORDER. But while it may have only been one season, at least is was a GREAT FRIGGING SEASON! Try it for yourself. And don’t forget to listen to all the commentaries, pretty great stuff.

Well being not exactly a tv person, I’m finally getting around to watching season 1 of the television series 24. I did catch one episode, the premier, nine years ago. And while I thought it was okay, I just wasn’t interested enough to try following the series. Which is just as well, watching live I would have given up on the series well before the end. The DVD is the way to view this series. That said onto my evaluation of the 6 DVD set of season # 1. The season starts strong, the beginning half is pretty damn addictive, brilliant viewing. The only weakness is the plodding storyline about the presidential candidate’s family problems. Whenever the focus shifts to that storyline, all the life and interest goes out of the show. While the actor who plays Senator Palmer (Dennis Haysbert) is a good actor, he spends pretty much the whole season whining, and vacillating over his idiotic son. But Haysbert himself dominates the role, and it is fantastic casting. Having been in the business for years (he’s done everything from BUCK ROGERS to DALLAS to MAGNUM PI to CRIME STORY to RETURN TO LONESOME DOVE to STANDOFF to THE MINUS MAN to THE THIRTEENTH FLOOR to “Now and Again” (1999) to THE UNIT) , it’s good to finally see him in more leading roles. And as Senator Palmer he’s an impressive and imposing aspect, towering as he does over everyone else. He manages to really straddle that troublesome line of Presidential bearing, inspite of the fact that often his character is poorly written, crossing the line too often into melodrama. Speaking of which a large portion of why the Senator Palmer subplot doesn’t work is the poor casting of his son. Beyond not looking remotely like he’s related to the other actors, the young actor in the role comes across as just an annoying, unsympathetic screen presence. Not everyone has a face for every part, and this young man with his mugging, and whining, and temper tantrums was the wrong take for this critical role. He came off as very unsympathetic, which just makes the audience not remotely interested in the character’s welfare. So it’s also a hit against the writing team, for scripting a character, and dialog, that makes you want to hit the fast forward button. And beyond that poor casting, the senator plot, basically just goes in circles, repeating the same old argument about telling/not telling for the whole series. It’s just bad writing. Luckily the other plots are interesting enough to make up for the poorly written Senator Palmer storyline. That said at the half way mark or so, when The main subplot of Jack Bauer finding his wife and daughter is resolved, the whole series just shifts tonally, and becomes, like the Palmer plot, very repetitive and plodding and uninteresting. Every character begins to behave wildly irrationally, and the show just goes off the rails. Particularly Leslie Hope’s character (Terri Bower) suffers from being poorly and irrationally written. Amnesia?? Really? She went from being okay written, to being an atrocious, annoying mess. Other odd writing choices include: (SPOILERS): A character stabbing someone on camera? Bauer, basically trying to set up an episode of CHEATERS with a known assassin rather than just taking him into custody. And then we have a special forces trained Assassin getting taken out by a scorned campaign aide.(END OF SPOILERS) Just idiotic subplot building on idiotic subplot. As if the writers are just killing time to get to the season end. Well that’s my verdict through Disk #5. One more to go. I’ll update this review when that last disk is done. But my opinion right now is that 24 is a series let down by its 2nd half, and lazy writing. UPDATE: (Possible SPOILERS) Okay I just saw the final four episodes of Season #1, and “24″ does still suffer from being very irrational, and annoying. Though there are some surprises. The Senator Subplot actually becomes at times interesting, with the Lady Macbeth machinations of the wife of Senator Palmer. But for that plus, the Bauer subplot loses just about all steam and credibility, with them falling back on kidnapping his daughter again. There’s just a lot of inconsistencies, and stupidity on the bad guy’s side that stretches suspension of disbelief too far. Also the casting of Dennis Hopper, didn’t work well. He’s generally a fine actor, but saddling him with a ridiculous accent really distracts, he just isn’t very believable throughout these episodes. (END OF SPOILERS) So there’s a lot of cliched writing throughout these final four episodes, but there’s a couple of really original plot twists that really save the season. One particular plot twist blew my mind, and really just created an emotional storm that carried you through any writing plotholes. All in all I thought it was an audacious ending that worked on enough levels to get me to give the first season a passing grade, but just barely. **12 out of **** ******** And here’s a quick overview of some of the under the radar actors that I thought delivered really strong and essential performances for 24 season #1: -Michael Massee as Ira Gaines owned the first half of “24″. His understated, but menace filled performance was the kind of presence that Dennis Hopper couldn’t bring to the 2nd half of season #1. And it is really surprising he hasn’t gotten more work since his stint on “24″. -Richard Burgi is always a fantastic actor, and here, as Alan York, is no exception. The guy is a solid actor and always brings his A game, even in less than stellar productions. This reliability is probably due to his soap opera background, which I’ve noticed tends to allow actors to outshine others, who don’t have that demanding training ground of daytime tv to hone their skills. This range, and “in the moment” truth of his acting is more than likely why Burgi has remained a consistently busy and in-demand actor. For other work by him try “ONE WEST WAKIKI”(1994), “THE SENTINEL” (96-99), STARSHIP TROOPERS 2 (2004- A subversive, straight to DVD, claustrophobic film, that I thought was far better than the big budget blockbuster original), CELLULAR (2004), “POINT PLEASANT” (2005), James Woods “SHARK” (2006-2008), “REAPER” (2007), “HARPER’S ISLAND” (2009), “DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES” (2004-2009). -Zeljko Ivanek as Andre Draven I thought was astonishing. Possibly the most effective actor of the whole series, I thought he completely owned and made true every scene he was in. Having first seen him on “HOMICIDE” where he was good, here he gets the chance to be great. And I didn’t realize he’s Yogoslavian when he acted on “HOMICIDE”, as his English is accent free. Here in “24″ he channels the land of his birth to I thought always riveting effect. He’s another actor who has stayed consistently busy, and like Richard Burgi he started in soap operas. Proof positive that people who do years on a Soap, really learn how to bring it when they graduate to Primetime and Movies. Some of the highlights of Ivanek’s filmography being: THE SOLDIER (1982), THE SENDER(1982), “The Sun Also Rises” (1984), “Echoes in the Darkness” (1987), “Aftermath: A Test of Love” (1991), White Squall (1996), Courage Under Fire (1996), Infinity (1996), “The Rat Pack” (1998), “Homicide: Life on the Street” (37 episodes, 1993-1999), Snow Falling on Cedars (1999), Dancer in the Dark (2000), Denis Leary’s “The Job” (2001), Unfaithful (2002), “Oz” (27 episodes, 1997-2003), “Touching Evil” (2004), “The Jury” (2004), “Bones” (2005), “Shark” (2006), Ascension Day (2007), Live Free or Die Hard (2007), In Bruges (2008), “The Mentalist” (2008), “Damages” (2007), - Megalyn Echikunwoke in a poorly written role as Senator Palmer’s daughter still manages to draw your eye when she’s on screen. You can catch her also on: “CSI: Miami”, Who Do You Love (2008) , Fix (2008/I), “The 4400″ (2006), “Supernatural” (2005), “Veronica Mars” (2004) - And last but definitely not least Sarah Clarke as Nina Myers is fantastic! The season largely hangs together on her performance and credibility. And when a lot of actors waver, I think she never gives a false note, a really fine performance. Inexplicably, she had very little follow-up to “24″. If I was a director or producer she’s the type of talented actress I would be on the lookout for. However it appears the lull in work has turned around for her as she has a slate of movies and television projects for 2009 and 2010. Some standouts from her filmography include: Psychic Driving (2005-short film), Alibi (2007), The Colony (2007/II- short film), “Life” (2007), “The Cleaner” (2008), Twilight (2008/I), Women in Trouble (2009), Level Seven (2009).

TORCHWOOD:CHILDREN OF EARTH- I came into this mini-series having only seen one other episode of TORCHWOOD, the season #2 finale preceeding this series. And that episode by itself was pretty darn bleak and impressive. But CHILDREN OF THE EARTH ratchets it up several notches, with the stakes being nothing less than the world itself. I found it powerful, and wrenching television, with strong performances throughout. It’s the kind of emotional wringer that BABYLON 5 and FARSCAPE were very good at pulling off, primarily due to the tortured and terrific performance of their actors. And while CHILDREN OF EARTH perhaps lacks any single stand-out actor, all the actors turn in strong performances, and CHILDREN boasts a script, that while science fiction, is more grounded in the issues facing us today. That and the sustained storyline aspect, creates a cumulative effect that makes for one of the finer hours of television I’ve seen in a while. It’s not without missteps, what show is, but the few it takes are minor and lost in the numerous strengths of the mini-series. So all in all easily the best BBC TV production I’ve seen. If this series doesn’t touch your heart in places, it’s quite possible you’re in need of a new one. Recommended. A-.

I don’t currently own a TV. I don’t currently have cable. Gotta tell ya… I don’t miss em. I mean I still keep abreast of the latest DVDs, but as far as television and cable… nope. I try and keep the number of monopolies that I am forced to support (because of lack of choice) to a minimum. So anytime I can eliminate or consolidate reoccurring debits, I’m happy to do so. When I want to see something on the big screen, I go to the movies (check my review on LAWRENCE OF ARABIA in 70mm to see why a quality theater is still the best way to watch great films) . Otherwise my leisure time is spent writing, reading, watching DVDs (laptop), self studying, activism, music, dining out and a recent interest in Horticulture (An admittedly odd interest for me, considering I have a thumb of death). I capture RSS feeds of the latest news from around the world, so I tend to stay more informed than the person who just sits slack jawed in front their television and hears the same news, told to him the same way, from annoyingly similar talking heads… 36 times throughout the day. I tend to stay more informed then the person camped out in front of CNN or ABC, waiting to be told, vapidly it seems, what to be outraged about and why. These days Broadcast news has more in common with mesmerism and propaganda than it does the people’s right to know. That said I do, eventually, intend to get a large flat panel TV for DVD watching, a 720p screen. Why? Well contrary to the bs, that’s actually the perfect resolution to both produce content at, and to watch that content at. Especially for passive entertainment like watching DVDs or TV. On anything under a 50 inch screen, anything over a 720 resolution is just asking for eye strain. 1080 is a resolution that really has no use, in the majority of screen choices required for a consumer situation (ie 50″ or less) beyond allowing TV makers to charge you more for it. The purpose and benefit of greater resolutions in the computer world, is not for watching movies, it is for having more real estate to multi-task, and to offer full page views of column heavy documents such as spreadsheets. And since we’re at least a generation if not two, away from viable interactive television sets, any 1080 display today is a medium in search of a market. It is the case of the tail wagging the dog. At 720p, production is cost effective for the little guy, cameras are readily available, and from recording to production of media, to reception, It really is an area that allows some growth. But 1080 allows you to keep the little guy playing catch up. because the cost of those cameras are high, and by the time the cost of those come down, the market will be onto something else. But 720p, is a place where a lot of good things can happen, if we can keep the tail (the people who create change, just so they can sell you more change) from wagging the dog (the consumer). Resolution is just that. It’s about screen real estate. Not about picture quality, but picture conventions. Arguably concerns such as contrast, refresh rates, dot pitch, and media compression algorithms are of FAR more importance to picture quality than the canvas dimensions. And that is all resolution is, is the dimensions of the canvas. A traditional 480 DVD looks great on a 720 screen, presented progressive. And a 720 DVD looks great on a 720 screen. And I’ve seen recent 1080 DVDs on a 1080 display, and they look like 720 but with noise inserted to fill up the additional real estate. I’ve watched a friend’s 300 and TROY in BluRay (I do go over other peoples’ houses and see the behemoth tvs they’ve mortgaged their children to purchase) on his 1080 Bluray Player, and it looks nice, it’s an improvement on regular DVD, but I have to say it is not a vast improvement. In the case of the movie 300, it was barely an improvement at all. Right now Bluray is not exciting me enough to justify its cost. And I think part of this is that the 1080 resolution, on anything under a 50 inch screen, looks like what it is… noise. Why? A 1080i or p screen (1080p being the current holy grail and what Blurays are mastered at) provides to whatever size screen you are using over 2 million pixels of info every 30th of a second. This translates into 60 million pixels of data per second. By comparison 720p provides a little less than a million pixels of data (921,600 to be exact) per 30th of a second, or roughly 30million pixels of data per second. So everything being equal, a 1080p recorded source played on a 1080p native player delivered to a 50″ 1080p tv and a 720p recorded source played on a 720p native player delivered to a 50″ 720p tv; the 1080p setup going by the argument more is better should be twice as good as the 720p setup, right? I mean it delivers twice as many pixels per second. Right? Well yes and no. Yes, it does deliver twice as many pixels per second, but it doesn’t look twice as good. In fact it’s arguably a negligible improvement and in my experience a degradation. Why? Well no one has done any studies on this particular phenomenon (who wants to get on the wrong side of a multi-billion dollar consensus of media conglomerates?) but my unscientific guess would be 1080i or p ( 60million pixels of data) delivered every second… concentrated in a certain amount of space, is not absorbed as fluidly as 30million pixels of data. I think the number is too much. Wait, don’t laugh, I promise you… I will prove the earth orbits the sun and not the other way around. Science already knows there are numbers below and above which range, they are not conducive to the vagaries of human pleasure. Just like there is a frequency of images per second above and below which the illusion of smooth television viewing falls apart, just as we are aware that there is a range of colors when alternated in quick succession, is passively absorbed by most of us, but triggers fits in the more sensitive (typically diagnosed as photosensitive epilepsy), so there is a point beyond which our brain (which is the most important aspect of what we see, it turns the upside down image that hits our eyes right-side up, and grants to these series of still frames the illusion of motion, etc) has to drop info, to keep the illusion. Our brains are very smart, they look at an image and they say, “so much info in so much real estate provides this sort of picture, and it is all useful”, but at some number the additional info becomes at odds with the area it is provided in, and the time it is given to process. 60000000 pixels of data in a space of 50″ or less, presented every second, I think is over the range that our brain determines is necessary or adequate in such a space over such a repetitive period of time. So visual data over the comfortable range our brain has set, is seen as unnecessary or redundant info and is dropped or not processed, and explains why the 1080p setup contrasted against a comparative 720p setup is something underwhelming at best (being not twice the quality of 720p ) and inferior at worst (where the extraneous info is actually seen as noise). Seeing as I’m not a mathematician or an Optometrist, I’ll leave the proving or disproving of my hypothesis above to the glory hounds among you. For myself it suffices to know that a 1080 setup is just asking for eye fatigue. . Your mileage may vary. But for me, currently the best viewing experience is a 720p source, played on a 720p DVD (uncompressed if that is available), on a 720p Screen. David Camoy over at CNET also has an article on comparative HD resolutions. And also puts forth the conclusion that the difference between 720p and 1080p on screens of 50″ or less are negligible. And I would go father than that and say the 1080p picture is actually degraded compared to the 720p picture. Try it for yourself, and decide. So save yourself some bucks and don’t blindly swallow the 1080p hype. Here endeth the, hopefully informative, rant.