troy-125

I'm a sucker for the private investigator sub-genre of crime fiction. Even when not done well (HBO's "Bored to Death" tries a new take, but gets thwarted by blasé hipster posturing), there's something about the lone wolf not-quite cop, on his own, down on his luck, but armed with a healthy supply of street smarts and canny insight into human nature. Well, along comes "Terriers", and to my delight it knocks it right out of the park. Awash in the over-saturated hues of sun-soaked San Diego, a couple scrappy p.i.s (one's a former cop-slash-alcoholic, the other a former nickel and dime guy) completely re-energize the genre with wit, smarts, and a healthy dose of real pathos. It's "The Rockford Files" meets James Elroy, in the way that its grungy just-this-side of oblivion heroes get embroiled in a corruption plot that is far above their pay grade. Perhaps one wouldn't necessarily think of the term "seedy underbelly" when thinking of San Diego, but the show's creators surprise us with what they dig up.

The series excels in nearly every aspect of hour long drama: crisply directed action, rich supporting characters, intriguing criminal activity, and a whole host of demons for its protagonists to wrestle with, mostly falling on the back of Donal Logue's Hank Dolworth (interesting that one of TV's other most fascinating anti-heroes is the aptly named Hank Moody of "Californication" - both Hanks give us 2 very different sides of southern California survival). Logue, long time one of my favorite just-on-the-verge-of-stardom actors, is absolutely brilliant here. Older, raggedy, and noticeably slim-downed, Logue fits this part to a T, and will hopefully find himself in all sorts of career skyrocketing joy once "Terriers" gets the audience it deserves.

The rest of the cast is also uniformly excellent. Michael Raymond-James as Hank's partner Pollack is just as grungy but a bit lighter - which is fascinating as he is the former crook. And Rockmond Dunbar as the cigar-filter chomping Detective Gustavson - Hank's ex-partner - is perfectly pitched as the hard-ass cop whose soft spot for Hank keeps him situated as a dark ally: maybe he'll help, maybe he won't.

Series creator Ted Griffin, late of "Ocean's 11" and "The Shield", has created a fascinating world of cops and crooks and those in between, that feels well-lived in, while remaining fresh at the same time. If the show continues to pump blood into its true beating heart - the relationship of Hank and Pollack, and both of their personal quests - then he should have a hit on his hands for years, and something that may indeed stand the test of time. A classic in the making, "Terriers" is the best new show on television, and already one of the best period.

Saw the new "Star Trek" movie at the super secret World Premiere a few weeks back in Austin, Texas. Wrote an opinion for it immediately afterward for IMDb, but somehow my opinion never got published.

I will say that I am one of few dissenters on the crazy "this is the best Trek ever" bandwagon. That distinction belongs to "Wrath of Khan", for reasons that are myriad and don't really belong here. The new film is good, not great, but does accomplish a major task, which is to make the franchise fresh for new audiences.

Remember that Roddenberry's "Trek" was all about ideas: can mankind reach an enlightened state of existence, and tackle the universe's great mysteries (read: social allegory of the time) with intelligence and wisdom, instead of might and fight? For the most part, "Trek" has managed to embody more of the former, while giving us enough space battles and arch-nemesis' to keep the sci-fi action fans happy.

How does Abrams new movie marry these basic tenets of "Star Trek"? It doesn't, opting for lightning-fast-action right out of the gate, and not stopping for a second to ponder anything of depth for its running time. Now, I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing - what it gives us a pretty cool sci-fi action movie, just not a true "Trek" movie.

Abrams may or may not have been the man to ultimately give this series new relevance. Only time (and sequels) will tell. Let's look at his casting choices, and how they fare. Pine as Kirk is passable - he neither defames the legacy nor elevates it. Much more interesting is Quinto as Spock. The script plays up Spock's inner battle between logic and emotion, and Quinto finds the right tone for this re-imaging (it doesn't hurt that the REAL Spock, Leonard Nimoy, shows up for inspiration. How the filmmakers manage that trick may upset your Trek sensibilities, depending, really, on how well you like the movie). Saldana's Uhura is soulful and intriguing, and Urban has got the right idea as Bones (but tell me you don't think of Hugh Jackman every time you see him). Let's hope we see more of him in the sequels. Sulu and Checkov, just like in the TV show, get little screen time or depth, and Pegg is funny as Scotty, but you're always aware that its Pegg, and not the character, making you laugh.

But finally, regardless of what you think of the casting choices, or the playing loose with the Trek universe rules, or the little things that don't seem quite right, the move suffers because of its lack of a strong villain - Bana's miffed Romulan is a snooze. Given hardly any screen time or back story, he's simply there to create a reason for the movie to be, instead of emerging seamless from the world of Trek itself.

And that may be what makes or breaks this for you. Sure, it's pretty rousing entertainment, but it's really not Roddenberry's universe anymore. And as such, things can come and go as they please to fit the needs of Abrams' vision. Whether or not it's a vision that can stand the test of time, like, oh, say "Star Trek", is a future-tense discussion.