Reviews

2 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
10/10
Best entertainment out there
24 July 2011
About the cast, it's amazing. Simply the best on the planet united in one show. If you watched Whose Line you'll be happy to know they're all here. The older guys like Colin Mochrie, Ryan Styles and Greg Proops, share the stage with a younger generation in Jeff Davies, Chip Esten and Jonathan Mangum. This new generation, which didn't have so much exposure in the more static format of Whose Line, is just amazing. All solid performers that work really well together.

Some are noticeably below that level, like Drew Carey and Kathy Kinney, but even them have improved substantially.

So if the cast is so good, what about the format? Those who have been devouring the old Whose Line episodes for all these years for lack of any worthy substitute, may not like to know that mostly everything changed.

There's no host. Each participant take turns introducing the games. There's no buzzer. Music is used much more freely through the games. Different combinations of cast members are used each time in every game. Lastly, of course, it feels much more refined with this big, glamorous stage, instead of the small studio.

If you move past the initial disappointment of not being able to see Colin and Ryan playing every scene together, you'll realize that this is some of the best entertainment you can get out there, all crammed up in a 20 minute package through some editing.

In all this time between Whose Line and Improv-a-ganza, these guys have been playing together, sometimes in smaller groups, sometimes the whole gang. They've been changing stuff, refining and perfecting the show. What we see in this show is the result of that evolution, adapted to a form that fits the TV network. There's almost no waste of time, the show feels very organic and dynamic, the actors have no specific roles, the games chosen for this are fast paced and some take advantage of the fact that they have many more people than in previous formats. The flexibility to have different combinations of cast members playing each scene is especially welcome. The fear of experimentation is gone and you'll see actors playing together that may seem like non-intuitive choices initially, if you've watched Whose Line, and end up showcasing the amazing talent of some of the new guys.

Now, are there any negative aspects to this at all? The only things I can remember seem like small details but I'm going to post them anyway: 1. One thing that I didn't like was the fact that most shots were too tight. There was always a preference of wider angles in Whose Line and even in Improv All Stars (which is essentially the same format as Improv-a-ganza). These wider shots are entertaining because it allowed the viewer to see the reactions of other cast members to the scene, and the way they act and react to something that's being made up of the top of their heads is one of the biggest attractions of improv. In here, you're usually stuck with a zoomed in angle of the actor that's delivering the line.

2. Another thing I didn't like was the editing. Some of it was too noticeable, even amateurish. It cuts from a shot where the actor is on the right and suddenly, he's in the center with some laughs being carried over from a different shot. This happens a lot and I reckon it may be necessary to cram so much material in 20 mins but it should be done better.

3. Another thing about editing is the repeating shots of the same people laughing over and over again. After watching all shows, I can clearly remember the same shot of the laughter of the same person being used in at least 3 different episodes. This is worse than my last point because, more than amateurish, it breaks the immersion because we're no longer sure if any subsequent shots were really taken at that moment or inserted there in editing for some purpose.

4. I could do without the 20 minute limit. This show should be 1 hour long and have a more relaxed pace. This limit requires some juggling of the material to fit the form-factor which gives rise to problems with editing. Many transitions feel very unnatural because of this.

In conclusion, these negatives are details compared to the amazing value in this show. There doesn't seem to be enough demand for improv these days which is a shame, I hope this more mainstream, fast-paced approach can gather some new fans. I hope they keep doing this.
20 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hitman (I) (2007)
3/10
Unsatisfying
24 December 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Alright, this movie might have 2 different ratings whether you're seeing this because you're a fan of the game or if you're a casual viewer of action movies.

This is a review from a fan of the game series, therefore the negative vote. If I was to watch this without any connection to the original material I would probably be more entertained.

This is really my problem with this movie (and many other adaptations). I'd rather if any other name was used (my suggestion: Agent Hairless Bourne) because this movie is just a big 100-min-long cliché that tries to profit from Hit-man's fan-base at the same time with just enough game references. I prayed this wouldn't be another "Doom - The Movie" but it wasn't too far off.

As I said before, if you're not into the games and just want to watch a Jason Bourne clone, then this is your movie.

Now if you're a series fan, read on. When I heard an adaptation was under development I wasn't too excited, but I had some hope. Hope because there could be something new that could be done in the movie industry. Now, what's new about 47 that could make him a whole new animal than all other cold blooded killers and secret agents out there? What makes that character, 47, different?

1st: He's a clone. The result of a gene enhancing research program that turned on his creator and became a professional freelance hit-man. They've scrapped all that and rewritten his origins completely. Now how can they still call him by the same name after that? I mean, if someone asks me what's the story behind this character, I will now have to answer with another question: "Which one? The movie hit-man or the game's hit-man?" The "adaptation" dies right there in my opinion.

2nd: Agent 47 is the result of a genetic experiment and post training, aimed at creating a superior human being, in strength and mind, with no conscience. That's exactly what he is in the games, but as I feared it would get (knowing how filmmakers tend to think of what people want to see on-screen) he shows too much of a conscience in the movie with an all-too-expected female role that he shows affection to, that he even promises to visit after they part on the train.

3rd: One big difference of the Hit-man games, from other action games, is the fact that agent 47 is rewarded for being as silent as possible, a ghost as he's referred to in the movie. A big gun fight in a crowded room is a big no-no, leaving witnesses alive is not his thing too and usually, targets tend to die from strange accidents rather than in a bathroom filled with bodyguards with bullets on their heads. The movie tells a story of a whole different character... I mean, what's up with that scene to kill Udre? I will go see a Rambo movie if I want to, I will not go watch a Hit-man-branded movie to see that overused matrix-cliché royal mess. Oh, and the countless female witnesses that survived that scene? That would be called a "restart mission" in my book.

4th: Another distinctive mark of the Hit-man game brand is his proficiency to disguise of all types of people after he properly disposes of their bodies in the course of each mission. I remember him doing this once in the end of the movie. I can't be bothered to watch it again so I might be wrong on the number of times he's done this but the fact that I can't remember that happening is a good indication of how overlooked that "feature" was.

So this is what made me hate this movie. Not because the movie is bad in essence, but because of this horrible trend of people trying to profit from a well-developed brand with well-developed characters, and rewrite everything that makes them what they are. Had this movie been given a different name, I would have enjoyed it a lot more.

Other slightly bad points: 1) Realism. This one I start to overlook on these movies... as much as it pisses me off, it's so common, that my expectations are lower right off the bat. The scene with the 4 hit-men is a good example of that. Why on earth would those cold-blooded killing machines decrease their chances of completing their contracts by holding fire, closing in on each other and then just stand there, to successfully stare at each others ugly faces for all that time until agent 47 breaks the ice? And why on earth were those agents pointing their weapons at each other instead of completing their assignment by ventilating 47? If it was argued that they were rivals between themselves, then why didn't they kill each other with the blades too? But that's OK, it's a scene made to look good and stylish (and mindless). Now just wait until someone figures out that a scene can look good, stylish AND make sense at the same time! 2) Olyphant. Looks too young and not so ruthless as the game model. His voice isn't anywhere near David Bateson's (47's game voice) coldness and low-tone power. The acting wasn't bad though, it probably wasn't a very demanding role emotionally, but still, he delivered what it would take for his role. The problem is that, even though he did well, I feel that the choice could have been much closer to what the game offers.

So, this is it, the score of 3 represents the view of a huge series fan that had his expectations higher than the casual action movie fan. 3 is for the satisfying acting performances and the action scenes that would probably result in a higher score from someone unaware of the original material.
40 out of 71 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed