Not The List You Deserve, But The One You Need Right Now: Nos. 15-11

Final cuts are always tough, whether it's for a sports teams, a job opening, or the last scene in your script that needs to be removed for time. You sit down and evaluate each position, candidate, or line of dialogue to determine if the there's a clear choice. No matter what your decision, you'll either make a person's day or ruin their evening. There is no way to make everyone happy. So you spend way too much time looking at it from every angle, and eventually you make a choice and deal with it.

I knew as I moved up this list I would come across a movie that would make me second guess it's placement. You see, it's never the top of a list like this that is hard, it's that decision between 10 and 11 that tends to be the most difficult.

In people's minds, there's a big difference between top-10 and not top-10. Is it fair that the thing in the No. 11 spot is downgraded because it missed out by one spot? No, but that's what happens. On this list, the gulf between the movies I loved and those I liked is located between 11 and 12.

But nonetheless, I am prepared for the criticism that my choice for No. 11 will bring.

Here we go:

Makers, Teddy Bears, and Tom Cruise. Oh, my! Nos. 20-16

Well, if you were waiting for controversy and thought it would happen later, surprise! Each section has it own slice of disagreeable choices, and the biggest one still lies ahead. Hopefully, it will arouse a healthy conversation (argument) among the few but proud (?) readers of this blog.

These five were the easy ones for me. Sixteen may have been the only one I gave a second thought to before settling on its placement. Some of these were poplar, some lesser known, but all slashed at least two-hours off of my life.

Unlike the tease from last week, the mini-reviews will be longer for the next few posts, and then the final five will be full length. Remember, these are my favorites, not what I think were the best. With that said, not much would change if it was a "best of" list.

Without further ado:

Favorite Movies of 2012

Sometimes ideas for the blog come to me out or the blue, or during an innocuous conversation amongst friends. The next series of post was conceived from the latter. At a surprise party for one of my good friends, avid reader of Off the Mark Thoughts and real life compadre, Anthony, brought up the question: Who will be the Best Picture nominees this year?

While it would be an awesome project, it would also be a completely uneducated guess at which movies would populate what essentially is the Academy's top-ten list. Only because I have not seen enough "Oscar-Caliber" films to compile a competent list.

So in lieu of that, I thought I'd rank the top-twenty movies that I've seen in 2012. Yay!

If you haven't figured it out yet, I have this OCD issue where I need to list every thing in order from favorite to least favorite. Video games, songs, movies, breakfast cereal (Honey Nut Cheerios, end of story) nothing is off-limits. Most lists are fluid, some are solid, and they are all usually more time consuming than they need to be.

How this will work is that numbers 20-16 will be in one post on December 5th, 15-11 will follow on December 12th, 10-6 will be on December 19th, and the top-five will each get an individual post starting December 26th. The time between each post will be allotted to discussions/arguments about the rankings and/or post from guests to defend or disagree with my opinions.

As a little tease, I will reveal the (not so) honorable mentions because I paid money to see 22 films this year and I think I should mention them all.

Ben and Kate: Surprise Hit

Creator(s): Dana Fox

Network/Writer(s): FOX/Dana Fox

Director: Jake Kasdan

Actors: Dakota Johnson, Nat Faxon, Lucy Punch, Maggie Elizabeth Jones, Echo Kellum 

Tagline/Summary: His sister. Her daughter. Who's raising who?

***

[NOTE: This review may contain spoilers, so please watch the show before reading, or don't.]

Sitcoms always work better when there is a set unit. "Seinfeld" had Jerry, George, Elaine and Kramer; "Friends" had the six leads; and "How I Met Your Mother" has had the same group since the pilot. Usually the smaller the group the better because it's easier to develop characters if each is given significant screen time. "Friends" used the trick of always writing scenes that involved at least three of the character. The more focused the sitcom the better.

"Ben and Kate's" number is three: siblings Ben (Faxon) and Kate (Johnson) along with her daughter, Maddie (Jones). This trio already has the relateablity needed for a prolonged sitcom. To be fair, the laughs aren't completely there yet, but the pilot laid a lot of ground work required to have a successful show. They have likeable characters, a plausible plot and instant chemistry between the actors.

The pilot is very focused and tight. It centers around showing how completely opposite Ben and Kate are, but instead of telling the audience through dialogue, they show it with each character's story.

Ben has returned to convince a former love to take him back. He hasn't spoken to her in a year, but he's willing to take a risk and crash her wedding. Kate, on the other hand, is very conservative in her decision making, which is why she's waited until the 10th date to have sex with her boyfriend (Ben Foster). It was a well thought out and executed idea to use relationships as the way to show the differences in the siblings.

Even though both fail in their efforts, they grow closer together and we instantly feel the love they have for each other. The writing in this episode was the ultimate example of show vs. tell. Sure, you have to tell some things because you need background, but I was able to learn more about the characters from their actions than the exposition that was spoken. Unfortunately, this isn't always true on television, especially 30-minute shows.

Strong writing is always a good sign for a series. The most encouraging thing is that they haven't fleshed out the supporting characters: Kate's friend BJ (Punch) and Ben's friend Tommy (Kellum). It also bodes well that they didn't exploit Maddie in the first episode. They included just enough cute moment and interesting interaction with Ben to let us understand her and her place in the show. She's going to be a scene-stealer. If there was a negative, it was that show wasn't laugh-a-minute. But, honestly, what series is nowadays.

"Ben and Kate" has the potential to be a subtle, but surprise hit for Fox in the same way "Raising Hope" was a few years ago. The best compliment that can be given at this moment is that the audience cares what happens next. Like I've mentioned in past reviews, the pilot is meant to get the public hooked, but episodes 2 and 3 are what reels them in permanently. And if what was showcased in the series opener continues, there's nothing that should stop "Ben and Kate" from becoming a staple on television.

Rating: 7.5/10

Rewatchability: High

Partners: Will and Grace lite

Creator(s): David Kohan and Max Mutchnick

Network/Writer(s): CBS/David Kohan and Max Mutchnick

Director: James Burrow

Actors: Sophia Bush, David Krumholtz, Brandon Routh, Michael Urie

Tagline/Summary: Two lifelong friends, who are both architects, form a business partnership.

***

[NOTE: This review may contain spoilers, so please watch the show before reading, or don't.]

Once they've had success, writers tend to stay within their comfort zones. There's no incentive to do something new because good money can be made writing the same story over and over again. If you are very good at it, you can make a good living by coming up with a fresh twist on your specialty. But if you basically write the same show again, with only a cosmetic change, you will find that the audience will not be there.

This is the issue for "Partners". The new CBS sitcom was created by the minds behind the ground breaking "Will and Grace", David Kohan and Max Mutchnick. And it very much resembles their last hit. The story revolves around four people living in New York City, including best friends Louis (Urie) and Joe (Krumholtz) who work and live together. Louis is gay, and Joe is straight, so nothing like "Will and Grace". Nope, not at all.

 In the opening act, we are introduced to the friends through a series of scenes where we are supposed to understand their friendship, but we are left wondering how they are still friends. The pilot mostly focuses on Louis and Joe, and Kohan and Mutchnick try to create the type chemistry between the two male leads that was between Will and Jack. But it fails mainly because Louis feels like a watered-down Jack so the jokes don't work as well.

The heart of the show lies with the other two leads: Ali (Bush) and Wyatt (Routh). Ali is Joe's girlfriend and part of the main conflict of the pilot. Joe can't decide if he wants to propose or not. He tell Louis one thing and does another; hilarity ensues. Wyatt, on the other hand, is the lovable, dim-witted boyfriend of Louis. He's the complete opposite of Louis in every way. I guess they were going for an odd couple thing here.

Bush and Routh show how important casting the actors to play opposite the focus of the show. If the pilot is any indication, 3/4 of the show will be Joe and Louis centered, but without strong performances by Bush and Routh, the series will fail. Luckily, Kohan and Mutchnick have a track record of doing this well. By the end of "Will and Grace", Jack and Karen were as popular or even more popular than the title characters, which I believe will be the case with "Partners".

The worry and big issue with the premise is with the comparison that will surely be made, can it survive as "Will and Grace"-lite? Krumholtz and Bush can easily anchor the show and keep it watchable, but will Urie's Louis bring it down because his character isn't as strong as Jack, or that he's not as good of an actor as Sean Hayes?

With so much going against it, "Partners" needs to find something that separates it from its spiritual predecessor, and Routh's Wyatt could be it. He's a little bit of an air-head now, but give him few strong episodes and people may forget their comparisons.

Rating: 5.5/10

Rewatchability: Moderate

Revolution: Loads of Potential

Creator(s): Eric Kripke


Network/Writer(s): NBC/Eric Kripke

 Director: Jon Favreau

Actors: Billy Burke, Tracy Spiridakos, Zak Orth, David Lyons, Anna Lise Phillips

Tagline: 15 years after the blackout…they will light the way.

***

[NOTE: This review may contain spoilers, so please watch the show before reading, or don't.]

Post-apocalyptic stories are always fascinating to humans because it is natural to wonder how our world will look if we lost all of the technological advantages we take for granted. But there is a fine line between an interesting story and insulting your audience, and "Revolution" walks it as well as a Wallenda.

"Revolution" takes place 15 years after the world has gone dark, and the world has gone back to the dark ages. Our story takes place somewhere outside of Chicago, where villages have formed and the ruling power is a local militia. The population is still struggling with what happened when the world lost all of it's technology  in one quick moment, like a switch was flipped. The only clue we get is that it may have been military induced, and two brother hold the key to the blackout.

Our heroine is Charlotte "Charlie" Matheson (Spiridakos), the daughter one of the aforementioned brothers, and her adventure begins after her father is murdered and brother is kidnapped. In his dying words, her father tell her to find his brother in Chicago. Thus, begins the epic part of the story.

The sets look like they are straight out of the History Channel's "Life After People". Where they did use CG you couldn't tell, and the real exteriors were gorgeous and set the tone. There was just enough left over from the pre-blackout world to make the areas feel familiar and recognizable. This allows the audience to get emotionally invested and buy into the shows premise.

The most natural comparison is CBS' cult classic "Jericho", but this show does post-apocalyptia in a grander, more epic way. This will definitely help it find a wider audience. It also has a less complex story (so far at least), which allows it to not go off the rails like "Jericho". "Revolution" will probably fall some where between ABC's short lived "FlashForward" and NBC's flop from last season, "The Event". But it definitely has the potential to get close the the cult following level of "Lost".

If a show can have an Achilles heel, Tracy Spiridakos could be "Revolution's". As the lead in this series, she needs to be strong and vulnerable at the same time because she is still a teenager, but Spiridakos falls just short of her character's requirements. For now, the blame will be placed on lack of experience, but if she doesn't grow into the role, her and the show could be a one-and-done. The good thing is that they both are bursting with potential and will need to fulfill it quickly if they want to get the proper end to the fiction.

Rating: 7.5/10

Rewatchability: Moderately High

The Mob Doctor: Familiar, but different

Creator(s): Josh Berman and Rob Wright

Network/Writer(s): FOX/Josh Berman and Rob Wright

Director: Michael Dinner

Actors: Jordana Spiro, William Forsythe, Zach Gilford, Zeljiko Ivanek, Michael Rapaport

Tagline/Summary: A young thoracic surgeon becomes indebted to the South Chicago mafia and is forced to moonlight as a mob doctor, while also working full time at Chicago's most prominent hospital.

***

[NOTE: This review may contain spoilers, so please watch the show before reading, or don't.]

When creating a show from a genre that is usually restrictive and easy to fall into stereotypes, it is difficult for a writer to create a strong character without it feeling recycled. And when this show is centered around organized crime, comparisons are always unfairly made to the "Godfather", and more recently the "Sopranos", but "The Mob Doctor" finds a way to introduce a tough character -- female, no less -- while not forgetting her human element.

Jordana Spiro plays Dr. Grace Devlin, a highly-skilled young surgeon who was raised in the gritty Southside in Chicago. Her character's twist, which is also the hook of the show, is that she's currently working off her brother's debt to Chicago mob boss Paul Moretti (Rapaport) by preforming medical procedures on his goons. Grace appears to have everything under control until the FBI's star witness against former boss, Constantine Alexander (Forsythe), shows up at her hospital in need of heart surgery. And in the one predictiable element of the pilot (it was mentioned in the trailer), Moretti tells her to kill him.

From this point forward, Grace's nuances are almost perfectly laid out, and terrifically performed by Spiro. In the 44 minute pilot, Grace is shown to have a deep attachment to her patients, influence over certain co-workers, and the confidence in risk taking. The last point is emphasized by the way she cares for her first patient and why she's picked to perform the surgery on the Government witness. And will most likely lead to some tough situations later on.

The episode's writing provides most of this information through natural conversations, and show not tell moments. The only element not shown, or at the least blurted out in a line of dialogue is: Why's she given the latitude to do what she wants even though she's apparently only a resident? This is probably explained more in the book which the show is based on ("Il Dottore: The Double Life of a Mafia Doctor" by Rob Felber), but it was the one thing I kept thinking about.

After removing that one flaw, everything else is pretty solid. Spiro, who I fell in love with on "My Boys", looks like a good choice for the conflicted doctor, and it was nice to see Zach Gilford again -- he plays Grace's boyfriend Dr. Brett Robinson. I'm sort of partial to ex-"Friday Night Lights" cast members, and was disappointed by his role in "Off the Map" so its good that Saracen is still getting work. Every show needs a good villain, and Forsythe fills this role to perfection.

The Mob Doctor passes the biggest test I have with pilots: Do I understand the concept of the show by the end of the episode? This is critical because you can have the best actors in the world and the greatest directed episode, but if your audience doesn't understand the conflicts and how they may come up in the future, then most people -- myself included -- will lose interest quickly. Obviously, I'm not saying you need to spell out every single plot point for season 1 in the first 60 minutes, but give me enough to get hooked.

If you do this, does it mean your show will be great? No. My two favorite examples are "The Black Donnellys" and "Life Unexpected". Both pilots passed with flying colors and rank in my top-10 of all-time, but they quickly fell off a cliff. As always, Episodes 2 and 3 are the most important, you need to completely hook your audience or your ratings will drop, which is why most early cancellation happen within the first 4-to-5 episodes; expand the world, develop the characters and stay consistent in your storytelling.

After going in skeptical, "The Mob Doctor" showed the elequence needed to maintained the balance between the craziness of organized crime plots and character development, which is essential for a series to be successful. For inspiration, the show's creative team only needs to look at another Fox show, "Fringe", to see what this balance look like.

Rating: 7/10

Rewatchability: Moderately High