Life on Mars American style made its final bow last night, and I have to say I was disappointed, not because the short-lived series ended, but because it never really lived up to its potential.
I hear the British version, with a somewhat different story, is brilliant - and I look forward to seeing that - but the American version of Life of Mars brilliant was not. And that's saying a lot for me, because I'm always willing to give any story with even a whiff of time travel the benefit of the doubt, and usually much more.
Until the last few minutes of last night's finale, the episode did about the only thing the series was good at - providing brief instances of Sam's inexplicable, paradoxical life in 1973/2008-9. Last night had another compelling scene of adult Sam in 1973 watching himself on television in 2008 (taking care of an aged Norris), and a good exchange between adult Sam and his father in 1973, in which Sam's father says he knows that the adult Sam is his son. Gene (Harvey Keitel) and Ray (Michael Imperioli) were ok, but, as in the entire series, these two were acting way below their talent.
The denouement did wrap everything up, with some nice touches, but the "everything was just a dream" resolution, even when Sam is dreaming on a mission to Mars way in the future, is one of the tritest gambits in fiction and science fiction.
I'm glad the series tried to do something different, sorry it didn't do it better, and will look forward to seeing the British version when it's available in Region 1 DVD.
See also Life on Mars Debuts in America ... Life on Mars 2nd Episode in America: Coma, Time Travel, Mars Rover ... Life on Mars Goes On in America: What Happens When a Time Traveler Runs Into His Earlier Self? ... Life on Mars #4: All in the Family ... Life on Mars #5 Meets the Wire ... Life on Mars #6 Meets Itself on Television ... Life on Mars #7: Is Annie Real? ... Life on Mars Returns with a Glimmer of Sanity
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
bill benzon
Poppi Iceland
PattyJane
N. Jordan
Dr. Vanessa Neumann
CPH/NYC
Salon.com
Comments
So you have no response to the points I make in my post, other than nastiness?
Good lord, cancelling something for not living up to its "potential?" What a joke.
really.
Let's see ... I count two identifications of good scenes in the finale, along with an explanation of their dynamic; two critiques of the acting; an analysis of the wrap-up; and so forth.
That, to you, is "almost nothing"?
You know what I think? You don't agree with my analysis.
But instead of saying why you disagree with it, you adopt the tactic of insult - just like libertarius.
Signed, your devoted rhetoric judge.
I suppose I might have found this ABC version interesting had I not seen the original but so be it. You can't always succeed with the same concept. Ashes to Ashes (the BBC followup) was uneven throughout its run and in large part wasted Keeley Hawes in the lead, so it's not just an Anglophile prejudice here.
In that regard, I'll be interested to see how the film version of the BBC series State of Play turns out. Again, John Simm turned in a great performance in the original lead role so Russell Crowe will have a tough nut to crack for anybody who saw that first version.
With your full review of the current 24 season, I wonder if you have reviewed the BBC's Spooks in the past seasons?
Instead, you descend to personal attacks.
As for your entirely facile critique of the ending, you might have noted the difficulties posed by the need to tie together a narrative, with four weeks notice, that was clearly designed to unfold over another season. You might have noted the interesting if not entirely satisfactory strategy of building toward the final scenario by way of a series of alternative endings (Annie in the nursing home; Sam deciding to remain int he seventies; Annie eclipsing the Lisa Bonet character, who seems to have grown as attenuated in Sam's memory as in the audience's). Of course the dream finale was trite, but then so is pointing that out.
I thought your review was pedestrian at best. But, hey, that doesn't make you a pedestrian person. You see the difference.
libertarius: ok, you win. I'm a wonderful, delightful person, who sometimes writes sour reviews, and may or may not give superficial
lectures to my students.
On the other hand, I found the ER ending quietly powerful.
Sometimes I think that ABC gets these great, weird high-concept shows (somebody mentioned Pushing Daisies, and there was Eli Stone, another one I enjoyed) and either gets scared and dumps them quickly or (like Desperate Housewives) kind of ruins them and leaves them on the air too long. ABC seems to get the most original shows, maybe they should leave them on a bit longer to find an audience. It's frustrating to get into it and get it pulled like that.
Best to get the BBC dvds which keep the episodes fully in tact.
In reference to Vera War's comment, do you think the US show requirement of 20+ shows per season stretches the writing too thin? English shows tend to run in 10 or 8 episode seasons and so the clunker scripts don't get filmed - or some decent ideas are held in reserve for future seasons.
Original BBC LoM is a good example. 2 seasons, 8 episodes apiece. Run complete as John Simm said the character has gone as far as it could. Meanwhile, the American production had 17 shows in one year's time. Perhaps it could have extended beyond one season if it operated on a limited run of say 10 episodes in the first year?
Is that possible in the world of American television?
I think short series are easier to keep great - though 24 and Lost (this season and Season 1) do pretty well with long seasons.
Why did we love it? We really liked the characters. We found them engaging, sometimes delightful, sometimes goofy. I liked the interactions between them. The music was great fun for anyone who lived through the 1970s, as were the clothes and hairstyles. My old man really dug the groovy cars ;)
I don't care if Harvey Keitel was acting "below [his] talent." It's a TV show. I don't expect TV shows to always give us the absolute best of anything. I expect them to entertain me on a regular basis, and LOM definitely fit the bill. A hell of a lot more than most of what is offered on the boob tube.
As for the ending, as someone said, pretty good considering they found out the series was not going to be renewed and had to scramble to wrap it up. I didn't see it coming (although my son did), so I enjoyed being surprised. Most of all, I was happy that they all stayed together and that he and Annie had a shot at continuing their romance.
As for the ending...I think it tried to do in one episode what it might have led up to in a different, more compelling way if the show had had more time. As my very perceptive SciFi addict bf mentioned to me, they must have had some concept of this ending in mind from early on, since the miniature robotic Mars lander made appearances throughout the series. The dream ending was a bit of a cop-out, but I found the ending intriguing, amusing, and probably the best they could do under the circumstances and still make sense of the various plot lines.
But as it was, the ending was kind of jarring. Given that they didn't have much time, though, I guess that couldn't be helped.
djh126 - I'm not sure whether we should start a new blog post or continue the discussion here, bu I wonder how you felt about the finale of LoM (BBC version)?
Right, but I included all the links to my reviews of Life on Mars on my blog, right here at the end of my post. They're only a click away...
Meaning - if you were really interested in a fuller context for my review of the finale, you could have easily seen it.
You know, friends of mine watched this show, so I tried, but never really got into it and only watched a few minutes at a time until I picked up a book instead. Something about it just wasn't right to me. After reading the statement above, which I completely agree with, I am so very thankful I stayed away from this show. I suspect my TV is, as well; had I devoted a lot of time to this show, I very well may have flung the remote across the room at the screen. ;-)
Rated & Cheers!
I think American TV is coming to understand the benefits of the Brit TV series system, and seems to be experimenting with versions of it. HBO and Showtime have been developing limited series for awhile, with a number of them averaging 12 or 13 episodes. And cable has been doing the same thing in recent years...breaking up "seasons" into winter/summer editions with 10-12 episodes of a series in each one - spreading out the full complement of episodes. Regular broadcast TV has not yet fully embraced that yet, but the economy is forcing many changes, and that might be one. Certainly the public seems willing to allow it.
Sarah Summer
As much as I like Harvey Keitel, Philip Glenister is the one and only Gene Hunt.
As to Sam Tyler, it would be difficult for anyone to match John Simm's performance. As I said before Russell Crowe will have a hard time improving on Simm's work in the "State of Play" film version.
djh, I'll direct my thoughts about the end of the BBC 's LOM to you directly so as not to spoil Sarah's viewing of season two.