Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Sometimes you have to ask...

Sometimes you really have to wonder if a reviewer even watched what they're reviewing. Take this review of "The Pain in the Heart", for example. I believe this person watched the show, at least this episode, or they found a plot summary online. But I don't believe they watch the show regularly. They get so much completely wrong.

Today I see another review from IGN posted that again sets me off. Some parts are right and some aren't. The one thing that really irritates me is the critique of "The Verdict in the Story". In many ways that was one of the biggest relational episodes ever yet this writer pans it as slow and having "nearly no interesting relational controversies." Say what? Having Brennan sit on the other side, across from everyone she works with, at her Father's murder trial has almost no relational controversies? Not to mention Brennan neatly cornering Booth and forcing him to incriminate her from the witness stand. How heartbreaking was that scene? "That's a lot of heart, Bones." Just because it didn't involve Sweets or a fresh dead body doesn't negate the relational controversies.

Thoughts?

9 comments:

Kyra said...

I agree with you about the "pain in the Heart" review. How can he say that season 3 fell short?! I think Bones just keeps getting better and better!

I also have to say again how much I love your reviews. You always catch something that I miss and make me want to go back and watch again!

Louise said...

That's the thing that really disappoints me about the 'Zacklash' ... that everyone is now saying what a disappointment season 3 was.

Yes, Pain in the Heart had some major problems, but all in all, I think season 3 was excellent. How can everyone forget that a few weeks ago, the general consensus was about how Verdict in the Story was one of the best Bones episodes ever, should be nominated for Emmys, and indicated just how much the series was going from strength to strength.

I just hope having such a big ending for season 3 allows a fresh start for series 4 ... then everyone can forget this nonsense. There's been lots of moments that I thought would be awful when I heard about them (the kiss, the baby ep, Bones' singing, Booth getting shot), but they always seem to make it work. I have faith in the show (faith, or a rational belief based on years of empirical evidence)

Louise said...

By the way, one thing I realised recently, is just how little I cared about the Gormagon case. I never found it interesting, or scary (I think it was too 'out there' to feel threatening), and it was generally confusing from the get-go. Another reason I'm glad they wrapped it up.

The Gravedigger on the other hand - that was scary, not least because it affected the team. Can't wait for them to deal with that properly.

L said...

I don't know; I personally found Seasons 1 and 2 to be higher quality overall.

At least I think so. The strike broke up the season so much that it's hard for me to remember when S3 actually began and which episodes are attributed to it.

I do know, however, that the almost universally accepted "better bad guy" - the Gravedigger - appeared in S2. So there's that...

Not that I'm saying I didn't like S3 at all. It had some really excellent moments ('Verdict in the Story' is a standout for me, as well as the Christmas episode).

Actually (oh wow I'm reallly being honest now) my lessened attachment to S3 helped me deal much more easily with Zach being Gormagon's apprentice. *eep* I'm glad S3 is over now, after all the strangeness that's happened. I feel like S4 can be a nice "clean slate," and they can start over, with all the writers totally devoted to making things work and making things good.

But I still miss Goodman. *sniffle* And I'm skeptical of Sweets.

Louise said...

Actually, I do agree ... season 3 had great moments, some good episodes, and memorable scenes, but overall it felt much more disjointed than 1 and 2. To switch to a musical metaphor ... season 3 was more a collection of singles, whereas 1 and 2 were more like complete albums, with a clear start, middle and end. When you think about it, season 3 had at least three episodes that could have been season finales (Santa in the Slush, Verdict in the Story, Wannabe in the Weeds, as well as Pain in the Heart).

I think a lot of that can be blamed on the strike. As you say, it's hard to remember when season 3 began because of the break, and of course it was cut short. But I also feel generally that there were just too many individual ideas, and not enough thinking of the season as a whole ("let's make them kiss!", "let's give them a baby!", "let's shoot Booth!").

Again, there's many reasons that I'm looking forward to a fresh start, but I still think season 3 had some great moments. Maybe we need a new topic ...

Evi said...

Hmm, I feel challenged to provide... =)

Jamie said...

That review is so weird! It just doesn't feel like there was any understanding of what the show is or has been to fans. Why is she going on about a quickly resolved subplot?

I think Season 3 started with good intentions, but completely ignoring the "Zack/Iraq" was a big mistake. Which isn't to say that the episodes were bad - they weren't at all! But the latter part of the season was understandably rushed. And that led to a bad conclusion.

Louise said...

I knew that second IGN review was going to be as accurate as the word 'dirt' when I read the first line ... "Bones is all about science".

Err ... not the Bones I love. That Bones is about people.

Evi said...

You are totally right Louise. That's the biggest problem with this reviewer! If you don't get that, how can you properly review the show?

Add to Technorati Favorites