HARLEY & THE DAVIDSONS Review

Article first published as HARLEY AND THE DAVIDSONS Review on Seat42F.

Discovery Channel will present a three-night miniseries next week entitled HARLEY AND THE DAVIDSONS. About the founders of the Harley-Davidson motorcycle brand, it tells the story of how the company came to be at the start of the age of motorized bicycles, and how it weathered the fierce competition of the era.

Michiel Huisman (Treme, Nashville) stars as Walter Davidson, a directionless man who has just lost his farm to eminent domain and doesn’t know what he wants to do next. That is, until his younger brother, Arthur (Bug Hall, The Little Rascals), who normally is jumping from one scheme to the next, comes to Walter with a great idea. Arthur’s friend, Bill Harley (Robert Aramayo, Game of Thrones), wants to be an engineer, and has designed a motor for a bicycle that can do what no other company is doing as well. Walter gets on board, and the rest, as they say, is history. Or discovery. Whichever.

As you might surmise from my snarky tone at the end of the preceding paragraph, it seems a little strange to me that HARLEY AND THE DAVIDSONS is airing on Discovery instead of the History Channel. True, there is an invention at the core of this, so it’s not completely off-brand on Discovery, but it still seems better suited to a network that has produced a bit of scripted programming before now. But I guess every cable channel is blurring the lines these days in creating their own content, so if Discovery were to make the leap to scripted fare, this is probably the right place to start.

Anyway, getting back to the merits of this particular project, it works all right for what it is, I guess, but isn’t particularly memorable. It reminds me of a Wonderful World of Disney movie a bit in how sanitized the story appears to be. While there is conflict present between the characters, the roughest edges seem to be smoothed down, and at the end of the day, it’s certain everything will work out just fine. Admittedly, we know the brand found success, but I can’t believe it all happens as easily as it is shown to here. Wikipedia and a quick online search seems to back up that impression.

From the beginning, it feels like HARLEY AND THE DAVIDSONS is concerned much more with presenting a drama than with teaching its viewers anything. Coincidences happen when needed, the villain is a one-note caricature, and you just know if Walter is on the bike, he will win the race. It’s formulaic and predictable in a way that real life never is, and that better examples of this genre don’t fall in line with. Not to mention, what few female characters there are are barely footnotes with very little development at all.

Now, I’ve only viewed the first night of three; it might get better. But early indications are bad enough that I likely won’t finish it. In 2016, there are a multitude of programming choices, and there just isn’t time for the mediocre ones.

This makes me sad. For one thing, while not a motorcycle enthusiast myself, looking into the backstory even a little, it seems like a really compelling, better-made miniseries could do something neat with this tale. For another, the production did bring in solid group of actors, with Huisman in particular having played a number of meaty characters as of late, so I can’t blame the casting. No, it seems the story is just underdeveloped and simplified way too much for my taste. I would not expect to see this up for any big awards this year.

HARLEY AND THE DAVIDSONS premieres Monday, September 5^th at 9/8c.

BONNIE AND CLYDE Lacks Pizzazz and Depth

Article first published as BONNIE AND CLYDE Lacks Pizzazz and Depth on TheTVKing.

Bonnie and Clyde, a four hour miniseries that aired on History and other networks this week, is a typical docudrama. It roughly tells the story of the titular outlaws, with a focus on Clyde a little before they met, through their tirade together, and ending in their deaths. Most people have heard of this terrible duo, and even if many are fuzzy on the details, the outcome is known ahead of time.

I wouldn't say I learned much from viewing Bonnie and Clyde. Normally, a docudrama will open my eyes to certain details and aspects, making it informative, as well as entertaining. This one does not. It skims over interesting people, like a female reporter named P.J. Lane (Elizabeth Reaser, The Good Wife) trying to make it in a man's industry, or a legendary hunter named Frank Hamer (William Hurt, Damages) brought in to catch the pair, without giving us anything memorable about them.

In fact, the entire production is light on depth. We are told that Clyde (Emile Hirsch, Milk) is a psychic, and it's hinted that he sees their end coming, but his feelings about this aren't explored, and we don't see any toll this might take on him. We can surmise that Bonnie (Holliday Grainger, The Borgias) is desperate for fame and wants her name remembered more than anything, including being with Clyde, but what does that do to their relationship?

Bonnie and Clyde is not without some character development for its leads. Viewers are able to figure out their dynamic, and the couple go through a rough patch or two. Yet, we are not taken into their heads. Plot points are brought up several times to make a point, but there is not the substance to them to really bite into.

I am unsure whether to blame the acting or not. One could argue that more subtle performances from Hirsch and Grainger, communicating the unwritten emotions in their expressions and movements, could have changed my impression of the piece. Yet, it's not like they are given a lot of time to do this. The pacing is quite quick, and while I wouldn't say there's a ton of action, it does seem like Bonnie and Clyde jumps from one little outing to the next with barely a pause to catch its breath and engage in character development.

Late in the show, a little of this missing element begins to come out. Clyde hates that Bonnie killed a father unnecessarily on Christmas, and the deed haunts them beyond the action. And her selfishness gets Clyde's brother, Buck (Lane Garrison, Prison Break), killed, which Clyde is angry about. But by then it's too little, too late, with the credits upon us and the relationship has to be solid again, so those things are swept past.

Perhaps this commentary reflects the life of the criminals as much as this particular telling of it. Maybe they whizzed by too fast to consider their actions or feel bad about them. But that's where creative license comes in. Bonnie and Clyde is not a compelling story the way it's presented here, and if changes need to be made to make it so, by all means, enact those changes.

I do enjoy Reaser and Hurt. It's clear that both are fantastic actors, even if their characters are under served. Hamer is basically interchangeable, any law enforcement officer would have caught the pair eventually, and Lane is more a stereotype than a developed individual, but the performers bring something on screen, as they always do, that draws one in. Holly Hunter (Saving Grace) also makes a mark as Bonnie's mom

However, other supporting players fare worse. Clyde's mother, Cummie (Dale Dickey, True Blood), gets a single, too brief, meaty scene. Father Henry (David Jensen, The Curious Case on Benjamin Button) has even less. Henry Methvin (Garrett Kruithof, Magic City) is pivotal to the ending, but not stand-out as a role. Most disappointing, audience don't get much chance to see if Sarah Hyland, who plays Buck's wife, Blanche, can do much more than she does on Modern Family.

Also, beginning Bonnie and Clyde at the end and flashing back is a mistake. I know it's a genre staple at this point, meant to hook in the watcher, but it's a tired trope that needs to be put down, and starts the show off on the wrong foot.

In the end, I feel like a really good miniseries about Bonnie and Clyde could be made, going by little bits that shine through, such as when Bonnie takes posed pictures and sends them to P.J., but this isn't it, not going far enough with what works, and overall being forgettable and mediocre.

HBO's Parade's End

First published as PARADE'S END Review on Seat42F.

Grade: 91%

HBO will take its turn presenting the miniseries PARADE’S END this week, its partner in the endeavor, the BBC, having already broadcast it last fall. Perhaps HBO saved it so it would have a rich period piece this winter, just as it had Mildred Pierce last year, or perhaps they wish to attract those in the early stages of Downton Abbey-withdrawal. Whatever the reason, now seems an opportune time to air it.

The title PARADE’S END refers to the excising of the British upper-class way of life, the manner in which the elite of society put on certain airs, stay true to traditions, and worry about the way they are perceived. There is a strict social structure in place in the early twentieth century, mostly destroyed during World War I, and this miniseries tells that tale.

Well, it tells a personal take on characters who make that transition. Yes, the piece is somewhat sweeping, and does have a large-ish cast. But there are really three main players in the story who stand about above everyone else, and who are the case study made an example of here.

Benedict Cumberbatch (Sherlock, Star Trek Into Darkness) plays Christopher Tietjens, a noble Englishman who sticks with the way he is brought up, no matter what. This means he goes through with his marriage to the wicked, manipulative Sylvia (Rebecca Hall, The Town, Frost/Nixon), even though he knows she’s been sleeping around on him, and it’s very likely her pregnancy isn’t a result of his actions.

Their union is predictable unhappy, and Sylvia doesn’t even try to stay faithful, spending much time apart from her groom in the company of other men. Christopher, though, keeps up appearances, even as he begins falling for the sweet, strong-willed Valentine Wannop (Adelaide Clemens, Rectify, Vampire).

Looked at through the modern eye, it’s very hard to understand why Christopher doesn’t just leave Sylvia for Valentine, a topic discussed in the series. Why should he show any loyalty to someone who is so nasty to him? But that’s Christopher’s way of life, so I’m not sure it even occurs to him to end his own suffering, at least not for awhile. Part of the beauty of the piece is the illustration of the type of man Christopher represents, a specific guy from a specific period in time in a specific place.

In fact, PARADE’S END succeeds very well artistically. The sets and costumes are made expertly, and the details that set an authentic tone are present. The writing is smart, and the characters are well defined. Presenting World War I as a catalyst is a good idea, executed with much success.

The cast is fantastic, of course, especially the three leads. For those who are familiar with Cumberbatch’s work, this should come as no surprise. The girls’ talent matches hiw, but this is Cumberbatch’s showcase, and he owns every moment he is on screen, conveying much in his sad eyes.

The supporting players also lend both a fuller picture, and some levity to the proceedings. They include Roger Allam (The Thick Of It, The Queen), Rupert Everett (My Best Friend’s Wedding), Miranda Richardson (Rubicon), Janet McTeer (Damages), Clare Higgins (Homefront), Stephen Graham (Boardwalk Empire), and Rufus Sewell (The Pillars of the Earth), each of whom adds a positive element.

My problem with it is that it’s slow and a bit boring. Like Mildred Pierce, it meanders for quite awhile, and there isn’t a lot of movement. Does it really take five hours for a trio to work out their romantic arrangements? Especially when we, the viewer, know right away the decision that Christopher should make. His struggle is interesting, to be sure, but the running time will likely drive some potential watchers away.

PARADE’S END is strongly British, and not completely accessible. One must pay attention to follow the story, and it isn’t very light-hearted. I enjoyed what I’ve watched of it (I haven’t finished it yet), but it’s a miniseries I’d have to be in a certain mood to really appreciate, for sure.

PARADE’S END airs this Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday on HBO.

Alice discovers new wonder(land)

"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--
Of cabbages--and kings--
And why the sea is boiling hot--
And whether pigs have wings."  ~ Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland

     SyFy has done for Wonderland what it did in 2007 for Oz.  This past Sunday and Monday, Alice aired.  It was clever, witty, and wholly original.  With heavy references to both Alice novels by Lewis Carroll, it also took place in a universe where the events of the books had happened over one hundred and forty years ago.  Presumably the heroine in this adventure is also coincidentally named Alice, and the denizens of the strange country don't age very much.  This new four hour miniseries was set present day in the human world, but appeared a cross between future and fantasy in Wonderland.  It was just as trippy as the book, especially the scenes with Drs. Dee and Dum (Eugene Lipinski).  In this version, the cards also inhabit a casino (apropos, no?) where the Carpenter (Timothy Webber, Men in Trees, why doesn't this man have his own Wikipedia entry?) harvests their emotions.  But he has a very surprisingly secret, revealed around the third hour.

     The cast is led by the beautiful Caterina Scorsone, playing Alice with Kung Fu action.  This Alice has fallen in love with Jack (Philip Winchester), who is mysteriously kidnapped by 'suits' from the White Rabbit company.  On a side note, Winchester did a brilliant job, having wonderful chemistry with Scorsone in the beginning, and none at all when they meet again on the other side, important to the story arc.  Predictably, Alice follows the kidnappers and falls through a mirror.  Alice begins her search for Jack, soon assisted by Hatter (Andrew Lee Potts), owner of a teashop, playing every angle.  Jack introduces her to the resistance, who wants to overthrow the wicked Queen of Hearts (Kathy Bates).  The group is led by Dodo (Tim Curry in a scene stealing, but very short, performance).  Unfortunately, Hatter is loyal to neither the resistance or the royalty, which causes no end of trouble and confusion for Alice, but also sets them up for a nice romance.

     The special effects are magical, and the Wonderland realm does seem otherworldly, helped along by a fantastic cast of supporting characters.  Besides the actors mentioned above, Matt Frewer as a Monty Python-inspired White Knight stands out, as does Colm Meaney (Star Trek: The Next Generation and Star Trek: Deep Space 9) as the King of Hearts, Geoff Redknap as assassin March Hare, and Harry Dean Stanton as Caterpillar.

     If you are looking for a new adaptation of the classic story, wait for Tim Burton's movie next year.  If you want something wholly new, clever, unexpectedly twisty, and just plain fun, check out Alice, which will next re-air this Sunday at 5pm in its entirety.

"O Oysters," said the Carpenter,
"You've had a pleasant run!
Shall we be trotting home again?'
But answer came there none--
And this was scarcely odd, because
They'd eaten every one.

Lock Up The Prisoner

    AMC remade the British classic, The Prisoner, but unfortunately, it was a snooze fest.  For purposes of full disclosure, I have never seen the former version, and though I enjoy the AMC original series Breaking Bad, I find their critical hit Mad Men to be incredibly boring.  So if your opinion of the network differs from mine, you may not be pleased with this review.

     The story centers on 6, a man known only by a number, waking up in some strange desert town called The Village (no, not the same Village from M. Night Shyamalan).  The residents of the Village insist that there is no other world outside of this place, but 6 is plagued by dreams of another life, and doesn't remember being there before, though he has a house.  The mystery deepens as he struggles to find out why an old man has died, and why others dream strange dreams and sketch landmarks such as Big Ben and the Statue of Liberty.  Running The Village is 2, who has a son 11-12, and whose mother is in a coma.  The first major twist is when 6 discovers that 16, who told him they were brothers, was lying, but for what purpose?  Every time 6 seems close to figuring out a piece of the puzzle, someone is killed or disappears or distracts him.

     The problem is, the story is just not that interesting.  James Caviezel (Jesus in The Passion of the Christ) plays a 6 that doesn't have viewers rooting for him at all.  He seems more annoying that heroic.  Similarly, 11-12, who is supposed to have major subplot, just comes across as whiny and cold.  The female love interests are not in the least attractive nor compelling.  And by the time something starts to happen in the 5th and 6th hours, a 2 and 6 duplicate have shown up and made things even more confusing.  Is it all happening in their heads, or is there really an isolated Village?  I don't really care, nor do I care about the evil company behind it.  It's been done before, and with more talent behind it.  Admittedly, this show was made in the sixties, so it predates many of the stories I am comparing it to, but since this is a new miniseries, it faces those comparisons.

     The bright spot is Sir Ian McKellen (Lord of the Rings, X-Men) playing 2.  He is always a wonderful actor, and this is no exception.  Surrounded by dullards, he manages to shine even more by comparison.  His is clearly a complicated character, with much motivation hidden eternally, and yet, McKellen manages to convey those secrets.  He is the only reason I still have the 6th hour running on my TV as I write this article, already having given up on 2's plight.

     One final comment, the tone and mood of this miniseries, as well as the score and special effects, lead one to conclude that this show would have more appropriately aired on the SyFy channel.  Previous efforts of their's, Flash Gordon and Tin Man come to mind, were similar.  Though SyFy doesn't always have the best judgment on their programming (Battlestar Galactica excepted), one has to wonder if perhaps they weren't offered the show and wisely passed.