_I've been trying to like American Horror Story for more than eight weeks now. Trying ... and failing.

I want to like this show. Really, I do. It seems to have everything going for it. Attractive, interesting actors? Check. Creepy, but chic sets? Check. Nice fonts? Check. Dead babies? Check.

But it's just not working for me. Not at all. The scares come primarily from gore and cheap tricks designed to make you jump, but even when I DO jump, I'm always more unsettled and grossed out than frightened. And frankly, the plot makes NO SENSE. I know I'm supposed to be patient and that things will likely be explained in more detail by the end of the first season (which hasn't aired yet here in Canada). But I'm sick of waiting! Instead of introducing new ghosts in every freakin' episode (last night's newbie being an imagined version of Elizabeth Short (a.k.a.The Black Dahlia, played by Mena Suvari), why not advance the plot a little bit? I'm sure there's a reason, but I just don't care.

The problem, I think, is that nearly every character in American Horror Story is hateful. With the exception of Vivian, played by Connie Britton, who is clearly meant to be the heart of the cast, not one character is particularly likable.

Husband Ben Harmon (Dylan McDermott) is a philandering jerk face. Daughter Violet (Taissa Farmiga) is little more than an annoyingly angsty teen, neighbour Constance (Jessica Lange) is somewhat appealing, probably because of Lange's acting, but she's not nice.  And the legions of ghosts are generally creepy and horrible, which makes sense I suppose, since they're ghosts and evil and all that, but still ... a viewer needs SOMEONE to relate to and love. (At least, I do.) And Vivian doesn't appear enough to fill that role.

I've come this far, so I'm going to keep watching until the end of the season, but I'm not hopeful. American Horror Story will appeal to some, I'm sure, but without a little more heart, I can't see it ever becoming a mainstream favourite.

Since I last posted here on the Reviews blog, I've tried out a few new shows I thought I'd tell you about. But before I get to that, here are my updates on the ones I posted about last time:

Pan Am: I think it's awful. Badly written. Predictable. Trite. People like it because the faces/people are pretty and it's getting massive press. But I think it stinks.

The Playboy Club: Already canceled, which is really too bad, because it was my front-runner for the best new show of the season. I think it bombed because the network didn't support it with a good marketing campaign.

Ringer: I'm still love Buffy, but Ringer has been going steadily downhill since the first episode. Not worth it.

Revenge: Surprisingly watchable. Silly, certainly, and DEFINITELY a soap, but it doesn't try to be anything else. It feels like a night soap meets Gossip Girl meets The OC and it's working for me.

Now onto the new shows:

Prime Suspect
I NEVER thought I would like this show, but I didn't initially realize it was based on the ITV series of the same name. As far as traditional cop dramas go, I think it's the best of late. (Shocker!) It's like The Closer meets NYPD Blue. The gender dynamics on the show are interesting. Best of all, it's well-paced and it's NOT predictable. That's saying a lot for a cop show. I highly recommend you give it a try.

I'm a bit of a television addict. Always have been. I like TV about a million times more than movies. I like the serial nature of it... having familiar characters to check in with each week.

That said, I'm discerning. There is SO much garbage on TV. And not just "these days" - always. There's always been SO MUCH garbage on TV. And every autumn brings around a new round of stinkers. Many stinkers become successes (Two and a Half Men?) More still are very decent, but soon canceled (Rubicon). And then there's that one-in-a-million show that's both legitimately great and a commercial success at the same time (ER, or more recently, The Good Wife).

Anyway. That's a lot of rambling to introduce this post which contains wee reviews of a few of the new fall shows I've peeped so far this season. I like to give everything a fair shake, but you should know that I'm partial to dramas, I'm currently tired of bad fantasy/sci-fi, and I just don't do one-hour reality shows anymore. Those are my personal biases.

Onward!

 

Pan Am

So much hype, so little payoff. Cute costumes? Check. Kitchy, 60s-era production values? Check. Terrible writing? Check.

If the first episode is anything to go by, this show is going to be one big, predictable cliche after another.

Sure, you'll be seeing Pan Am stewardess costumes this Halloween, but that doesn't mean the show isn't totally canned. I'll keep watching for now, but I'm predicting it will go the way of Desperate Housewives: lame, but a probable main-stream success.
Look for: Great wardrobe (because I seriously doubt Pan Am will have more to offer).

 

The Playboy Club

Surprisingly good, particularly when compared to Pan Am. The Playboy Club is a nice example of how to rip off Mad Men, but do it well.

The first episode was compelling: an accidental murder, a small-town, doe-eyed girl, a wanna-be State's attorney, plus good set-up of the season's greater arc.

Add high production values and smart nods to the political issues or the era, (feminism, gender, race) and you've got the makings of a good show. I'll keep watching.
Look for: Bad faux Hef voice-overs to keep you from becoming TOO invested.

 

Ringer

After seeing a series of terrible CW promos set to over-played Adele songs, I didn't have high hopes, but Ringer wasn't that bad.

Despite some extremely heavy-handed visuals (I mean, we get it... they're twins... "dead" ringers... we get it), not to mention terrible green-screen work, the show manged to deal well enough with the emotional plot line, which is to say the drama associated with how one person might deal with taking over her sister's life. It was convincing enough... for now.

I'll give it a chance because I'm an old-time Buffy fan and I like SMG, but I'm not hopeful and am reserving judgment.
Look for: Incredible New York sets. This is some 'lifestyles of the rich and famous' stuff right here.

 

Revenge

Not being a fan of Emily Vankamp (who made Brothers and Sisters even more insufferable, if that's even possible), nor of the nighttime soap, I only watched this because Nate was out and I had nothing else to do, but I was pleasantly surprised. It's pure fluff set in the Hamptons, but fans of Gossip Girl and the like may enjoy its adult, contemporary spin on some old themes. It reminded me of a modern day Dallas, with a little more dark meat. I'll watch again, but I won't subject Nate to it (nor will I admit liking it, no matter what you do to me).
Look for: Ashley Madekwe (trouble-making best-friend from Secret Diary of a Call Girl), preppy couture by the busload, and Madeleine Stowe in skin-tight wasp-wear, totally unsuitable for a woman of her age.

There you have it: my little round up of some of the new fall shows. Make of it what you will.

P.S. I still plan to watch Terra Nova and Person of Interest, but haven't had time yet. No spoilers please!

I'm super into Chuck's Day Off right now. I've never been much for cooking shows, but this one is pretty charming. That said, it's not fancy, so if you're a fancy-pants foodie, you probably won't like it. There's a lot of butter and deep-frying and massive portions.

But loving Chuck's Day Off isn't really about the food. It's about Chuck. A more adorably enthusiastic and silly television chef you will not find. Not anywhere. Chuck Hughes is unique.

Co-owner of Montreal's Garde-Manger restaurant, and resident cook (or chef, I suppose, but I wonder, is he REALLY a chef?), tattooed Chuck is ebullient at all times. He overuses the word "amazing" and seems to be impervious to hot-water burns. (Seriously. He seems to pluck things straight from hot pots with his bare hands. The dude is badass.)

Speaking of badass... here's a picture of a smoked fish, taken by Chuck himself, I believe, as posted on the The Chuck's Day Off Facebook Page.

Smoked fish. Get it? Get it?

The picture kind of sums it up. Chuck's Day Off is a little base, but it's fun to watch and it's completely unpretentious.

I think main thing that makes Chuck so appealing is that he's decidedly imperfect. A little web research and a story in the Montreal Gazette reveal he used to have a bit of a drug/alcohol problem, which might explain the tats (one of a slice of lemon meringue pie, for example), not to mention the fish photo.

Hughes is really just a regular guy. He's  big and strong looking, but a little doughy and round. Handsome, but sporting a gap-toothed smile. Friendly and charming, but less than articulate.

He's a man's man, he's a ladies' man, he's a food man. 1

And if you like delicious-looking, unfussy, extremely fattening edibles, I think you'll like him.

P.S. How hilarious is this photo? Also from from The Chuck's Day Off Facebook Page, it reminds me of a bad Lava Life picture. You gotta love that. He's just such a... dude.

I am NOT a fan of action movies. For the most part, I don't like thrillers, mysteries, Bond films, or anything of that ilk.

I like talky movies about family dramas, relationships and emotional turmoil. That's what I like. So sue me.

But Nate and I just finished watching the (European) film versions of Stieg Larsson's Millenium Trilogy and all three films were pretty darn good. Subtitled, sure. So if you hate subtitles, you won't like 'em, but otherwise, totally worth watching.

(And for the record, it's okay if you hate subtitles. You're very silly, but I forgive you.)

Anyway. The films were good, mostly because of the woman cast to play Lisbeth Salander: Noomi Rapace. They could NOT have cast a better person to play Lisbeth. She was unbelievably awesome. So badass. So appealing. So sympathetic. I loved her.

The Swedish films are (admittedly) a little hard to follow (and as a friend pointed out last week on my blog about Nordic style, kinda creepy), but very compelling. I recommend watching them over the course of three consecutive nights, with a few dirty martinis by your side.

That's what we did and it was quite enjoyable.

If you haven't read the books (like me) don't fear. You'll still be able to follow the plot if you pay attention. 

Why am I recommending these films now? Because all three are now out on video, for one thing, and because the American versions are in the making and I really REALLY want you to see the European versions before all that Hollywood poop spews out and ruins your perspective.

I have a feeling the American versions are going to reek. It's not that I don't like Hollywood movies. I DO. But they lack that (essential for this story) European subtlety. They'll be too fast moving, too big, too much. American movies always are. That's often what makes them fun, but in this case, I just don't think it's going to work. The new films will lack the necessary political undertones. They'll be designed to appeal to American audiences. And if you've ever watched television, you know what that means. They'll be dumbed down. American producers don't respect their viewership. They think you're stupid.

I don't, however. I think you're smart.

All that aside, I also just don't think there's a woman in the world who will be able to do Lisbeth justice the way Noomi Rapace did. Case in point: Rooney Mara, the girl cast to play Lisbeth in the American versions of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, The Girl who Played with Fire, and The Girl who Kicked the Hornet's Nest.

No. Just... no.

I don't like it. I don't like it one bit. Rooney is a poor man's Noomi. Granted, the costumers and makeup artists are going to great lengths to do her up right, as evidenced by this photo that was part of Mara's film promo shoot for W magazine:

They're trying, sure, but I still don't like it. This reads like a cheap rip off of the "real" Lisbeth to me.

At the same time, I get it. Mara is a bit prettier than Rapace, a bit sexier (though only by bullshit media standards, of course). No wonder the American men who control these things cast her. She's thin and tiny, as Lisbeth is written to be, but this girl's got cleavage. And as I'm sure you know, an American producer would NEVER approve an extremely small-breasted woman (like Rapace) to star in a major motion picture.

And that's exactly the problem.

So my advice is this: see the Swedish film now. Right now. Before Hollywood rushes in and ruins everything.

Sometimes it hard find things to write about. Particularly in the review blog.

One true truth about me is that, while I DO "consume, try, test, taste, etc." I am also a bit of a homebody and I like routine. When I find something good, I tend to return to it rather than trying something new. As a result, I occasionally run out of things to review.

Which brings me to today's rather odd post. It's about Mumford. Things called Mumford. Men called Mumford. Movies called Mumford. Why?

Because Mumford is a funny word, that's why.

First, listen to Mumford and Sons . They're a British band. Been on the radio a bit. Getting pretty big. The remind me a bit of Carbon Leaf and a bit of the Bo Deans and a bit of some other more hipster modern stuff I can't place right now.  I suggest the song "The Cave" since it's obviously their breakout single. I like it. You might not. But that doesn't mean it's not good.

Done? Good. Not a bad song, right? 

Next, head out to your local video store and see if you can rent the 1999 film Mumford, starring Jason Lee (among others). The cast it pretty big.

The video store might not have it. They may not have heard of it. They may have heard of it, but can't find it. The may have it, but only on VHS.

It's wasn't exactly a blockbuster.

Try and find it anyway. It's about a guy who pretends to be a psychiatrist in a small town. If I remember correctly (and keep in mind that I saw this movie 10+ years ago) it's pretty good. Touching and odd, which is a really concise way of describing almost everything I like.

Is it touching? It is odd? Yes? Sign me up.

I tried to find a third thing worth reviewing with the word Mumford in the title, three things being so much more appealing than two, but I didn't have much luck.

What (or rather, who) I did find was Lewis Mumford. Apparently he was some sort of American historian and literary critic as well as a friend of Frank Lloyd Wright. I know almost nothing about him.

That said, here's his picture. I've started reading his first book, The Story of Utopias (Pub. 1922), which can be found for free, online. Can't say I recommend it.

But old Lewis was a quotable gent, and he did say something I agree with:

“Restore human legs as a means of travel. Pedestrians rely on food for fuel and need no special parking facilities.”

I give that idea a hearty thumbs up.

So there you have it. Three non-reviews of three Mumfords. Consider your time well wasted.

I'm really happy right now. Really... relieved. It's nice to know that the worst experience of my life is behind me and that I can look forward to a future of light, happiness, and intelligent movies.

See, I just wasted nearly two hours watching the absolutely hideous 2007 film Suburban Girl starring Sarah Michelle Gellar.

It's all uphill from here. It's got to be.

I don't know that I've ever encountered a more horrific film adaptation of any book, ever. I mean, I rented Confessions of a Shopaholic and had to switch it off after the first ten minutes, but I expected that. This was much, much worse.

What was so galling, I suppose, is that Suburban Girl is an adaptation of a really lovely book: Melissa Bank's The Girls' Guide to Hunting and Fishing.  A brilliant book, really. Literary and sharply written, but accessible. And because it is so good, even though the film went straight to video, and even though the trailer was... idiotic, to say the least, I wanted to give it a shot.

Melissa Bank's stories are heavy with dialogue and I figured her words would likely make up a lot of a script. I thought, "How bad could it be?"

It took hours to clean the vomit off my DVD player. Hours.

Everything about this movie is awful, from the ugly, over-the-top sets, to the casting, to the improbably costuming. (Why would a girl who balks at a $50 cab ride have a closet full of Louboutin shoes?) The badly delivered lines and hideously poppy musical selections are really just the tip of the stinking, festering, iceberg.

Sigh.

It's funny how watching a movie like this can educate you. You get to see every awful Hollywood cliche come to life. You can imagine looking right into the writers' room (full of over-privileged, under-educated, less-than-literate kids in American Apparel hoodies and ironic sneakers) and beyond them, into the minds of every sleazy male producer who thinks they understand what it is to be a young woman.

The result is vile. Truly vile.

I'm even considering abandoning my membership in the Buffy the Vampire Slayer fan club. (Though it's really not Sarah Michelle's fault.) It's not even Alec Baldwin's fault. It's somebody's fault, though. I wish I knew whose.

Don't rent this movie. Obviously. But for the love of all things good and reasonable, go out and buy Melissa Bank's book. After reading it, you'll be just a little bit smarter. Unlike me. I've suffered two full hours of brain damage. I'm going to have to read classics and watch PBS specials for weeks to make up for it.