Reeks OF KINGS AND PROPHETS

Article first published as OF KINGS AND PROPHETS Review on Seat42F.

As has become very in vogue over the last few years, ABC trots out a new Bible-based series for their spring schedule, expanding the offering from the miniseries and TV movies viewers have been getting recently into a full-fledged series. OF KINGS AND PROPHETS goes for the Old Testament, adapting the Books of Samuel (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings), or more specifically, the later parts of that story, when Israel was guided by the prophets. Or, around 630-540 BCE.

The series has two main players, as near as I can tell. King Saul (Ray Winstone, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull) is the leader of the Israelites, uniting the tribes for the first time. He’s prone to anger, but mostly trusts in God, whose instructions are relayed to him through the Prophet Samuel (Mohammad Bakri, Laila’s Birthday). Saul is torn between his political aspirations, his family commitments, and what he is told his goals are. Is he a wise enough ruler to balance those forces?

The second key figure is David (Olly Rix, WPC 56), a shepherd. In the first episode, David’s father is set to punished because he has failed to protect his sheep from a lion, so David sets out to kill the lion and restore honor to his clan. Basically, he’s the young, confident hero of the piece.

And really, despite everything else going on, and there’s a lot going on in the first episode of OF KINGS AND PROPHETS, that’s all I can tell you about the plot. The reason for this is because it’s a convoluted mess full of underdeveloped, interchangeable, forgettable characters and bizarre choices.

Take the liberties OF KINGS AND PROPHETS makes from the source, for example. To update the story for modern times, and with the hopes of appealing to the crowd who likes a good sword-and-sandals genre program, a lot of sex and violence are added in, as well as important roles for female characters, especially Ahinoam (Terra Nova’s Simone Kessell, the best part of the show). These things stretch the historical accuracy, especially the relationship drama, which seems tailored to the soapy tastes of present day broadcast networks.

Yet, the strong belief in God is left intact. This would be fine, given that the people who lived in this era likely had a much stronger faith than most people today, except, as in most modern Biblical tellings, their God is real and does affect the course of events, a literal deus ex machina.

I understand that the religion-centric conceit is left in to appeal to the parts of the viewing audience that believe the events of The Bible really happened, and to try to woo the Christian sect. However, that contrasts with the blood and sex stuff I mentioned before. Yes, there’s violence and intercourse in The Bible, but not the way it plays out on screen here. The conflict between the two makes OF KINGS AND PROPHETS feel disjointed and at odds with itself.

About the only thing I can say positive about OF KINGS AND PROPHETS is that it looks pretty cool. Filmed in South Africa, the production achieves the epic feeling it’s going for, and the landscapes are wonderful. It does feel set in a different time and place than just about anything else on the Big Four networks, and sets itself apart from most of what it will air opposite.

That’s not enough, though, to redeem a meandering, shallow story, and unfortunately, The Bible will have to continue to wait for good adaptations of its works, with OF KINGS AND PROPHETS falling in line with the other poor examples from the last few years.

OF KINGS AND PROPHETS premieres Tuesday at 10/9c on ABC.

A.D. THE BIBLE CONTINUES Unnecessarily

Article originally posted as A.D. THE BIBLE CONTINUES Review on Seat42F.



This week, NBC begins broadcasting the miniseries A.D. THE BIBLE CONTINUES. A sequel to the 2013 miniseries The Bible, A.D. begins with Jesus’ sham of a trial and crucifixion. From there, we see how it affects the various people involved, both the friends of the King of the Jews and his detractors that kill him. Press materials promise future episodes will play out through the first ten Acts.

First of all, this review judges A.D. purely on its merits as a television program. In this, it’s just not that great. If you’d like a reasoned, logical argument as to why that is the case, read on. There are many out there who treat material such as this with religious fervor, though, attacking anyone who criticizes such programs as no-good atheists who want to destroy their beliefs, as I’ve seen in comments and tweets from past reviews I’ve written of religious programs. If that’s all you’re after, please move on, as I neither seek to insult nor fight, merely to judge the show in its own merits.

With that out of the way, let’s examine why A.D. doesn’t work. For one, it portends itself to be a sequel to another miniseries, yet begins its action at the same time the penultimate episode of the previous effort begins, meaning the first two hours will be largely repetition. This isn’t a re-airing of those installments; everyone has been recast and A.D. is a completely different production. So why don’t they just say that, instead of trying to draw unnecessary and inaccurate connections?

If we ignore the sequel claim, as we must, A.D. still starts in a very strange place. There isn’t enough lead up to Jesus’ trial and execution to give us much of a reason as to why we should feel bad about this or why people follow him so fervently. Yet, if the show started after his death, it would be weird to play with the regret, guilt, and fear present. It would be better to either give us an hour of Jesus alive and teaching, to really sell who he is and what he wants, or to start it after he rises and leaves again, with the focus on the building of the church, not the man himself.

Now, the idea of exploring the various personalities involved in this event and the feelings surrounding it is a solid premise. Unfortunately, A.D. doesn’t seek to tell a complex narrative, but rather, presents very flat characters. Either they are purely wicked, focused on destroying someone who threatens their positions of power, or they have serious blind faith in their Savior, believing whatever he says without question. There are a few who doubt Jesus will rise again, but these are minor players, present merely to demonstrate how strong the faith of the others is.

The Bible is a fascinating book, obviously one of the most influential tomes to ever be written, with millions and millions of people holding it in high regard centuries (though not millennia, as some of the more ignorant may believe) after its publication. The problem is, there doesn’t seem to be anyone approaching it from an entertainment or historical perspective, which is what the story is begging for in an adaptation. When a production such as this is made by those who worship it, their bias shines through very strongly and makes it impossible to tell a well-rounded, authentic, layered version.

A.D. is the latest example of this failing, and while it will surely get millions of viewers from those who agree with the filmmakers, it will not be accessible to those on the fence or who admire the book purely from an academic perspective. Nor does it hold up all that cohesively as a plot to be watched. I look forward to a strong adaptation of The Bible someday, but A.D. is definitely not that.

A.D. THE BIBLE CONTINUES premieres this Sunday, appropriately enough on Easter, at 9 p.m. ET on NBC.

SLEEPY HOLLOW A Scary Place

Article first published as SLEEPY HOLLOW Review on Seat42F.

As fairy tales have never been a hotter genre for network television, FOX jumps into the game with its take on an American classic, SLEEPY HOLLOW, premiering Monday, September 16^th at 9 p.m. ET. SLEEPY HOLLOW takes the short story by Washington Irving, brings the characters into the modern age, and combines them with biblical mythology and the occult. It’s a fascinating idea, somewhat well executed, with the makings of an intriguing series.

The “Pilot” begins with Ichabod Crane (Tom Mison, Parade’s End) fighting for George Washington in the late eighteenth century. Ichabod chops the head off a soldier, then wakes up in a cave in 2013. Unsure what is going on, he stumbles into Deputy Abbie Mills (Nicole Beharie, Shame), whose boss, Sheriff August Corbin (Clancy Brown, The Shawshank Redemption), has recently been slain by Ichabod’s old foe, the solider he killed, the Headless Horseman (Richard Cetrone).

The Headless Horseman is not a lone figure come to haunt us from the past, though. He is one of the Four Horseman of the Apacolypse, which, as foretold in the Bible’s Book of Revelations, seek to end the world. They are said to come during a time of reckoning, when two witnesses will stand against the forces of hell, culminating in much death and destruction. Considering Ichabod’s journey and Abbie’s childhood experiences, they must just be the two.

But why has the time come now? Well, that is up to two factions of occult members, one side good and one side evil. They have been fighting each other for a long time in the inappropriately-named town of Sleepy Hollow, and their battle has come to a turning point. Now is the time to act, and only Ichabod can help Abbie win the war. At least, he can help if he remembers his past and why he was sent, which is fuzzy for the time being.

The premise is a very cool one. It seems natural to tie the biblical story into the American fairy tale in this manner, and adding in witches and the occult are other nice elements. This automatically creates a rich world with many layers and players, giving us historical and fictional context, and promising many seasons before the storytelling grows stale, as well as an expected end point.

I really like the cast, too. Mison is interesting as Crane, a hero who has embraced his destiny, even if he doesn’t quite understand it, and Beharie holds her own against him. Brown’s role is memorable, though small, and others in the “Pilot,” including John Cho (Go On) as a fellow cop and Patrick Gorman (Gettysburg) as a possibly sinister reverend, stand out. Orlando Jones (MADtv) plays wonderfully against type as Captain Irving, the police chief with a homage for a name.

The special effects are great, and the scenery is appropriate. Putting Sleepy Hollow in the traditional New England setting, with dark tones and creepy style works. SLEEPY HOLLOW is akin a bit to NBC’s Grim, but with its own flavor, and it definitely will not be a case-of-the-week procedural, a hole that Grim took awhile to climb out of.

What the show lacks is consistency. This is most glaring in Ichabod himself. He is surprised at a couple of things when awaking in the future, but those are perfunctory. He comments on Abbie’s trousers, but not her dark skin and position of authority. He wonders about things he sees from the moving car, but doesn’t obsess over the computers, electricity, and gadgets around him. Yes, SLEEPY HOLLOW cannot allow itself to get bogged down in such trivial manner for the first ten episodes, but they deserve a little more exploration than what they get, and one wishes the first installment had been designed as a two-parter so it could take its time with the pacing.

The police chief and officers also don’t act as they should, and laws and rules are ignored without consequence. This may be eventually explained away be deeper involvement by certain people in the strange happenings, but it doesn’t satisfy why Abbie doesn’t comment on or worry about it.

There are also holes in how SLEEPY HOLLOW lines up with the source material. I like the appearances of Ichabod’s wife, Katrina Van Tassel Crane (Katia Winter, Dexter), as a connection to the past, and think the SLEEP HOLLOW tale is given its due, mostly, given the set up. But what is said about Revelations only minimally lines up with what is in the Bible, and the prophecies that are supposed to lead up the seven years of trials and tribulations have not come to pass and are not mentioned. This is a sort of disappointing failure.

Despite the plot holes, though, my overall impression is favorable. Who wouldn’t like to see an out-of-his-time Revolutionary War soldier team up with a tough, African-American woman cop as they spend seven years fighting demons near the Hellmouth in a legendary town, especially when it’s not cheesy? This is the recipe for a good show whose flaws will likely seem meaningless half a season in, as long as the writing and acting stays consistently good compared to itself.

The Bible not the greatest story in this adaptation

The History Channel presents THE BIBLE, a ten part miniseries premiering Sunday, March 3rd at 8 p.m. ET. Select stories from the religious tome are dramatized and presented as a saga over several nights, taking viewers through some of the best known, oldest tales on the planet.

This review attempts to examine the miniseries purely on its own merit, ignoring other versions already released, as well as the reverence many feel towards The Bible itself as a book. Any complaints in the review below are with the production, not the religious text, and no offense against any Christian is intended.

In 2013, with the technology at our disposal, and plenty of religious believers still around, it seems an opportune time for a project such as this. The Bible is the best selling book of all time, and many are familiar with the stories, hungering for a well-made screen adaptation using the best tools at our disposal to really sell the story.

This is not that version.

My issues with the piece start right away. THE BIBLE begins on Noah's Ark, rain pouring down, as Noah tells his scared family how the Earth was created, and also talks about Adam and Eve, and their offspring, Cain and Abel. This happens in just a few minutes, glossing over some of the best known, and possibly most interesting, parts of the book. Yes, the text presented as a quick oral tale takes up a relatively small amount of the source material, but they are also some of the most famous scenes, and to reduce them to a scant few minute overview seems a shame and a waste.

Not only that, but the special effects leave a lot to be desired. It's understandable that the budget for this project may not be huge, but surely enough financing could be found to present a convincing ark scene. Or, at least, a decent burning bush. Instead, anything supernatural looks very, very fake and low quality, running off any chance the project has at believability.

Most History Channels specials don't have access to the use of the latest effects. THE BIBLE is on par with the offerings of other fare from the network. However, given what this is, a sweeping story, rather than some crude animation to supplement interviews in a non-fiction broadcast, one would think that priority might be given to such an endeavor, and a little more cash infused. In an era where amazing, realistic things can be created on a computer, THE BIBLE lacks all of that. It's quite a shame, as this has the opportunity to really make a splash for the network.

I also found the story itself completely the opposite of compelling. The first hour follows Abraham as he leads his people into the desert, watches Sodom be destroyed, and fathers two sons, one of whom he almost sacrifices to his god. Yet, we don't get the motivation for any of this.

Is it faith? How has Abraham come by this faith? Doesn't he ever have any doubts about it? Because the time table is so tight, the action skims right over the events without taking even a second to get into the mind of the character. When he takes Isaac up the mountain to sacrifice him, we see a little emotion in Abraham's face, but don't get a sense for a single moment that he might hesitate. We don't see him regret leading his people into poverty. We don't see the basis for his relationship with God. Addressing these complaints would make for far better television.

The narration also feels flat. Rather than adding insight into events, it is used instead to keep things speeding along. Why could it not slow down a little, and let us appreciate what is happening?

Perhaps ten hours just isn't enough time to do this correctly. Maybe the team should have gone for something a little less ambitious, maybe just the old testament, and allowed the characters to breathe a little more. If they did that well enough, they could always come back and continue the tale later with another miniseries. Instead, by forcing such a quick flow, they shoot themselves in the foot, and ruin what they have here.

The actors in the piece aren't bad. They do the best with what they are given. In the first section, there aren't any faces among them that I recognize, but the principal players are convincing enough for what they are doing.

In all, THE BIBLE proved to be highly disappointing. While not believing the story myself, I was hoping for an entertaining presentation of an exciting story which serves as the basis for the beliefs of millions. Instead, we get a watered-down, low budget, too-fast-paced drivel that fails to inspire or surprise. Maybe in a few years, someone will do a screen version of The Bible right, but this is not that effort.