pinartarhan.com

Fun and comprehensive entertainment blog feat. movies, TV series, actors, movie-makers, music & books: 1980 - Present

The Mentalist Got A 7th Season: Yay!!!

Posted on Written by

Share

 

Simon Baker, The Mentalist
Simon Baker as Patrick Jane. Image via thecultden.com.

The Mentalist was an addiction. It was a smart, witty, gritty and fun addiction I was proud of. I loved everything about it, with my favorite thing of course being Patrick Jane, played by the talented Simon Baker. The Mentalist hooked me with great one-liners, the elusive but resourceful psychopath Red John, and always enjoyable case-of-the week.

Season 3 was somewhat satisfactory, but my addiction was slowly turning into a habit. Instead of wanting to watch the episodes over and over again, once became more than enough. I stopped raving about to show to anyone and everyone. I still liked it, though

With seasons 4 and 5, we definitely broke up. Yes, we were still friends. But I was cheating on The Mentalist big time. I had begun to multi-task during episodes, and I even started flash-forwarding scenes when the mood struck me, which happened often.

And when Red John was revealed? Oh my…That level of disappointment hadn’t probably occurred since William Wallace’s choices that led to his capture in Braveheart.

Red John didn’t compare to what they built up at all. Of course at that point, even Robert De Niro or Jack Nicholson playing Red John (a girl can dream!) would have had trouble living up to the myth… But they chose to stick to a disappointing list of 7, and finally, one of the most disappointing names on the list.

But then something happened. With Red John gone, Jane was free. He was allowed to be funny, happy and tricky all the time. He went on sort of a vacation, and came back to the crime-solving world with a deal made with the FBI. At first it was annoying to see Abbott (Rockmond Dunbar) all bossy and self-righteous, but he loosened up. He understood Patrick, and he became one of my favorite characters. I didn’t miss Van Pelt or Rigsby (even though I really liked them), and I have no qualms with Fisher (Emily Swallow) – in fact I’m looking forward to learning more about the real her. Is she really more like the girl Patrick met on the Spanish-speaking island when she was undercover?

This season gave me some of my favorite Mentalist episodes, which is not something you can say for the sixth season of most shows.

I especially recommend the art heist episode. We have a decent villain, a great Jane deceit with everyone participating, Lisbon meeting someone….

Episode 16 (season 6),  Violets, is strongly recommend. Charles Mesure guest-stars.

So yes, I’m happy about the renewal. My only wish is that they don’t create this super villain whose shadow alone will dominate seasons, and whose revelation will end up disappointing pretty much all the fans.

Also, let’s either bring Lisbon and Jane together for good, or end that potential romance for good. We know they care, we know everyone else around them thought about it at one point, we know they really love each other. It’s time to establish if there’s anything romantic/passionate there.

Who else is happy about the renewal?

 Recommended Reading on The Mentalist:

 The Mentalist: End of an Era – Disappointed by Red John, Happy to See Him “Go”

7 Engaging Tv Shows with Suspense Featuring Castle, The Mentalist, House, NCIS Los Angeles and More

Castle vs The Mentalist: Comparing Two Addictive Shows

 

 

 

Share

Why I Don’t Mind Sparkly Vampires, Pretty Aliens or 30-Year-Olds Playing Teenagers

Posted on Written by

Share
matt-lanter-star-crossed-roman-emery
Matt Lanter, born in 1983, stars as the lead alien Roman in the TV series Star-Crossed.Image via justjared.com. Pretty alien, and a 30-something playing a high school kid. I approve, though:)

It doesn’t matter if the ratings of a supernatural TV show with pretty supernatural characters is high or low. It doesn’t matter if the book about the love between a shining pretty vampire and a human girl tops the bestsellers list or is published into oblivion.

If the said creatures were formerly written as ugly, weird and vicious at one point, there’ll always be people complaining about the beauty of these characters.

If you are lucky and have hooked your audience with your actors, stories and characters, the vamps looking gorgeous won’t be a problem. True Blood (yeah, yeah they show teeth but Billy and Eric aren’t your average-looking guys, let’s be fair.) and The Vampire Diaries managed to bypass the problem. While watchers, fans and haters critique the hell out of the show (Vampire Diaries), they’re concerned with plot points, and not beauty issues. They’ve accepted the fact that the cast members look like they have sprung from a fashion catalogue. They can act, and they fit their roles.

So whether I like the episodes of a certain supernatural show/movie or not, it feels refreshing when the criticism focuses on plot, and not looks.

As much criticism as Stephenie Meyer faced about the quality of her writing, people were a lot more passionate about the “shining” vampires. How dare she make a vampire not burn in the sun? Frankly, I embrace vampires who don’t burn in the sun. It’s refreshing. As a 29-year-old entertainment addict, I’ve seen enough ugly-ass vampires who couldn’t go out in the light.

Jonathan Rhys Meyers as Dracula in NBC's Dracula
Jonathan Rhys Meyers as Dracula in NBC’s Dracula. Image via fandomobsessed.com. Jonathan is one hot vampire, and he doesn’t even look his best in the show.

Dracula (starring Jonathan Rhys Meyers) series got its fair share of the complaints, and Star-Crossed series discussion boards are filled with people comparing it to Twilight. Yeah because why should other writers explore a love story between a supernatural creature and a human? And how could a writer allow himself to envision an alien without disgusting features? Yes, I’m being sarcastic.

Man, writers can’t catch a break. We sweat and bleed to get our work sold. And if we’ve managed to sell it to TV, have it made into a pilot and have that pilot picked by a network, we then have to struggle week after week to not just create an enticing story, but to try to create an enticing story that will bring high ratings.

As viewers, I get “we” don’t care about the writer’s (hard) work. We demand compelling, fun work. Fair enough. There might be writers out there who give in to the popularity of a certain (sub-)genre, but in general, writers write from heart, mind and soul. I know I do.

 

Image via ign.com. Vamped-up Angel (David Boreanaz - pre-Bones days). Not the ugliest undead guy out there, but he has looked better See the pic. below:
Image via ign.com. Vamped-up Angel (David Boreanaz – pre-Bones days). Not the ugliest undead guy out there, but he has looked better See the pic. below:
David Boreanaz, Sarah Michelle Gellar
Image via comicvine.com. David Boreanaz with Sarah Michelle Gellar. And people are complaining Twilight vampires are pretty?:)

One writer depicts vampires are sparkly creatures, one with ridiculous fangs, one with a made-up ugly face (Buffy The Vampire Slayer and Angel, anyone?).

One writer can make a serial-killing psychotic couple protagonists (Natural Born Killers), and one can choose to make a hitman protect a 12-year-old  at all costs (you know this one too well).

I don’t care if a vampire looks horrendous or gorgeous. I don’t care if an alien is a green reptile or birth-marked teen or just a regular-looking human with special powers. Do I care for the story? Am I invested in what they do? That’s all that matters.

So yeah, as a writer, I’m completely on the writers’ side.  Yes, it helps that I don’t mind attractive characters. You can go all the way to my childhood and blame it on my parents for taking me to see Dirty Dancing at the age of 3. When you introduce Patrick Swayze to a girl, it’s unsurprising she’ll grow up to have a thing for good-hearted rebellious hunks (and romance and dancing). Don’t almost all the male protagonists of mentioned shows/films/books fit this criteria?

But my tendencies aside, this is the writer’s child. Their story. Yes, they want to be read/watched and admired. But from idea inception to the end product, it’s the writer’s baby. It’s her choice if she wants to go with Bram Stoker’s baby-eating dracula, or she wants to make him a tortured, a handsome, revenge- warrior like the series (Dracula).

The "ugly" leads of Supernatural: Jensen Ackles (on the right) and Jared Padalecki. Image via supernatural.wikia.com.
The “ugly” leads of Supernatural: Jensen Ackles (on the right) and Jared Padalecki. Image via supernatural.wikia.com.

It’s their choice if they just want a show on vampires, or if they want to add all sorts of creatures we have never heard of (Supernatural introduced some bizarre stuff). And despite being created by a guy, the two human leads of Supernatural are not exactly ugly. (Yes, major understatement here.)

A Note on The Cast Ages:

Of course the other famous complaint is the casting of “older” actors as high school peers, but I for one can speak for myself: they are possibly doing it for the “older” crowd like me. I like romance and supernatural stuff. But I don’t write YA, and I don’t particularly seek to watch/read YA. So what can you do to make it more appealing? You cast actors aged 20-30 so we get to be “attracted” to the leading character. I see the logic, since at 29, I find Dylan McDermott way more appealing than, let’s say, Taylor Lautner. OK, I find Dylan McDermott more appealing than a lot of people, but that’s another issue.

dylan-mcdermott
Dylan McDermott image via tvguide.com. A terrific actor who happens to look awesome. Did I mention he is over 50?

I don’t watch shows because they are set in high school. I watch them despite of that.

Besides, actors playing younger characters is such an old tradition. Michael J. Fox was born in 1962, so in the first Back to the Future film, he was 23. Grease is a favorite across generations, with high school students Olivia Newton-John being 29 and John Travolta 24. Would you even consider replacing them with actors at the “right” age? I wouldn’t dream of it.

 

*

What’s your take on pretty creatures and “older” casting?

Share

Labor Day: A Slow But Rewarding Movie For The Ultimate Romantics

Posted on Written by

Share
Josh Brolin, Kate Winslet, Labor Day
Image via heyuguys.co.uk

 

 

Labor Day starring Kate Winslet and Josh Brolin

Adele’s (Kate Winslet) husband (Clark Gregg) has left her for his secretary, and she lives with her son Henry. Henry is pretty much the only joy in her isolated and depressed existence.

She leaves her house once a month with Henry for groceries, and this is where escaped convict Frank (Josh Brolin) enlists their help. I say “enlist”, because even though he does subtly hint they don’t have a choice, and keeps Henry closeby, you could say this is the nicest hostage-taking situation ever. (Yep, I know how weird it sounds.) Frank asks them to drive to their house.

Once there, he tells them he only needs to hide until trains start, and he doesn’t mean any harm. At first Adele is skeptical and defensive, but Frank proves his kind nature by taking good care of them. After he realizes there might not be a train due to the holiday, he proves to be the best house guest ever by taking the chores upon himself, and being a better housemate/partner/father than Henry’s father ever was in the short span of time. He and Adele share an immense connection –so much so that Adele doesn’t want him to leave.

Of course hiding a convict in a small town full of nosy people isn’t easy. Add to this Henry’s confused adoloscent mindset and his new manipulative friend…and let’s say, the tension picks up…

*

Based on Joyce Maynard’s novel, Labor Day is a modest, slow but sincere film. The acting is really good, and even if you want to dismiss some of the dialogue as sappy, you can’t. Josh Brolin owns his character: a gentle guy who did something horrible without intending to, and Kate Winslet is just lovely. She transforms gracefully from sad and tired to passionate and lively. And given both their pasts with the opposite sex (Frank’s is slowly revealed through flashbacks), and how opposite they are personally to those people (and not to mention, how attractive both Kate and Josh are), the romance, commitment and passion make a lot of sense.

Speaking of flashbacks, the choice for young Brolin (Tom Lipinski) just might be the best younger version casting choice I’ve ever seen. They look so much alike, you could imagine Lipinski as Brolin in the future.

 

The only thing that bothered me as how Henry – the kid- starts as a lovely, thoughtful and insightful kid but then makes such naive, silly choices that makes you wonder if it’s the same kid. That said, this is not a complaint about the story. Yes, he is an adolescent. And he is somewhat isolated. Combine hormones and the complexity/novelty of the situation, it makes sense. I was just really disappointed because I expected more from him.

The movie also features two fun cameos from James Van Der Beek and J.K. Simmons. The movie was adapted and directed by Jason Reitman (Juno, Up in the Air, Thank You For Smoking).

I recommed Labor Day to all romantics. Is the ending sad? Yes and no. It’d frankly be my third preffered ending. If you see the movie, we can discuss those in the comments. Would hate to spoil things for you.

After all, this is not a romantic comedy. The ending isn’t that clear, though of course you can feel it coming at some point.

But I absolutely loved Brolin’s character.

Let me know what you think.:)

P S I decided to read the book to see how they compare.