No Dummy



By Aaron 10/11/2007



“Dummy” picks up exactly where “Pie-lette” left off: Ned (Lee Pace) and his partner Emerson (Chi McBride), as well as Chuck (Anna Friel) resurrect the dead for a single minute to find out who killed them. This time, Chuck’s presence puts Ned off his game, and Chuck’s question about the deceased last wishes, takes too much time, and all they can get out of him, “I was killed by a crash-test-dummy.” Emerson is furious, as Chuck already annoys him and seemingly endangers his lucrative partnership with Ned. Also jealous of the time Chuck spends with Ned is Olive (Kristin Chenoweth), who is head over heels, obsessive, in love with Ned.



This episode proves the pilot was not a fluke – and this episode is just as great. The episode uses the same visuals, the startlingly beautiful hills of daisies, to show another flashback. While flashbacks are usually done poorly and overused, flashbacks here are executed very well and help contribute to the back-story. In this episode, the narrator is just as good, if not better – still narrating all of the corny affections Ned and Chuck feel that are so apparent, but are so much more entertaining with narration. In this regard, “Dummy” is a great episode to see if you did not see the pilot, because “Dummy” fills viewers in on the pertinent character details to enjoy this episode.



An interesting plotline gets a lot strong in this episode – Olive’s undying affection for Ned. Even Emerson comments on it, although Ned and Chuck appear oblivious. This storyline seems to indicate that Olive will be much more than a minor character, as the first two episodes seem to have invested a good deal of time developing her emotions. I hope I am right, because Chenoweth is pretty funny, and seems to be a great actress so far.



The show also rocked the detective angles this time – as Chuck’s antics cut short the one-and-done questioning/investigating Emerson usually uses. Instead, Ned and Chuck have to figure some things out on their out without the answer being given to them. The show intelligently avoids detective-show stereotypes and instead imbues the case with the time of across-the-board-ridiculousness only this show can get away with. Plus, it was great to see the show already branching out from the case formula established by the first episode.



The chemistry between Pace’s Ned and Friel’s Chuck gets better and better. However, I want to go on record for this prediction: the physical obstruction preventing Ned from touching Chuck (that she will die if he touches her again) will be explained away by the finale – culminating in them kissing as the credits role. But do not expect a euphoric smiles all around ending – by then Chuck will know Ned is indirectly responsible for her father’s death, and she will also begin to long for the life she dreamed of when she boarded that cruise.



Maybe that prediction is way ahead of anyone who has yet to watch the show, but tune in next Wednesday 8/7C to see why this show is so good!

Could “Avatar” Win Best Picture?

By Brett Hogan

 

Last week, the trailer for James Cameron’s sci-fi experiment “Avatar” debuted. While initially unimpressed with the teaser, I began to wonder: Could this film win best picture? 

 

Buzz has been generating for this movie for years. Years. The technology to make this movie didn’t exist when Cameron conceived it, so he invented it. When is the last time you heard of a director spearheading the invention of anything? The casting started in 2005. Most movies these days, even epics, are done in half that time. I could go on. 

 

The most important thing to take away from all of this is that people are saying this will be the future of movies. Now, I don’t agree with the idea that CGI will become more prevalent than it already is. But I do believe that this will set the bar miles higher for sci-fi. I mean, that is what Titanic did. And that won some awards if memory serves.

 

I’ll bet you’re asking yourself, how can you even suggest that a film like this will win Best Picture when the initial trailer was nothing better than visual stimulation? Well, there are a couple of reasons. First, the Academy has expanded Best Picture to ten films. This doesn’t guarantee anything other than improved chances for most films on the cusp.

 

Second, after last year’s Oscars debacle, which saw the best film of the year, “The Dark Knight,” not only get shafted in awards but nominations as well, the Academy is pulling out all the stops to appease those with the loudest voices in the film industry, the fanboys. Now, the Academy probably didn’t lose anything because of that other than some viewers of the award show. Perhaps if people are again outraged with the winners or nominees, the heads of the Academy would lose their jobs. So this is all about the Academy protecting itself, which is not so outrageous.  

 

 

Third, there is an economic motive here. I’ve heard this film will cost $190 million, not counting the R&D costs associated with Cameron’s inventions or the cost of getting 3-D cameras into every theater in the country. The Academy will do everything in its power to get people into the seats and make this the next “Titanic” or “The Dark Knight.” But the Academy doesn’t have much power, besides nominating and awarding, so they will slap the “Nominated for Best Picture” moniker onto every commercial and print ad to get the people who didn’t believe the critics to relent and see this movie.

 

Of course, all of this is pure conjecture, and no revolutionary film (Terminator 2, Jurassic Park, etc.) has ever won the Best Picture category because it changed the game. Except maybe Titanic. But still, could this movie actually win? My answer is no but a nomination is certain and who knows what could happen from there. We’ll know more come February 2010.