arts / 10 Get ready for ‘Galavant’ » ‘Galavant’ TV show review Cheryl Minns Arts Editor Marts @theotherpress.ca OOOOS pening a half-hour comedy series with a musical number fit for Broadway is a bold move for any TV show. But for ABC’s new musical series Galavant, it perfectly sets the tone for an eight-part medieval adventure series in the style of Monty Python and the Holy Grail and Robin Hood: Men in Tights. Galavant is anything but cliché, with an opening number that introduces the hero Galavant (Joshua Sasse) before promptly knocking him off his pedestal when he loses the love of his life, Madalena (Mallory Jansen), to King Richard (Timothy Omundson). The music is composed by the award-winning Alan Menken, which makes the show feel like a Disney movie for adults filled with laugh-out- loud jokes not intended for kids, catchy show tunes, and lots of lush England scenery. The series easily fills the network’s fairytale void in the Once Upon a Time timeslot while the show is on break. In the Galavant premiere, one year after Galavant lost Madalena, his squire, Sid (Luke Youngblood), tries to get him to be a hero again but has little success. It isn’t until Isabella (Karen David), the princess of Valencia, begs Galavant to help her travel to stop King Richard and save her kingdom, that the fallen hero rises to the occasion and once again goes on an adventure. Too bad Isabella is secretly working for King Richard, which she sings about in episode two within earshot of Galavant, who pays no attention. The show also has a Disney’s Beauty and the Beast tone to it due to the similar-sounding Menken music and familiar plot: the most popular guy in town (Galavant/Gaston) falls for the most beautiful girl in town (Madalena/Belle) only to have her end up with royalty who held her captive (King Richard/ The Beast). There’s even a song between Madalena and King Richard called “Maybe You're Not the Worst Thing Ever” that sounds like a cheekier version of “Something There” from Disney’s Beauty and the Beast. Galavant airs two half-hour episodes at 8 p.m. on Sunday nights on ABC. theotherpress.ca Cinephilia: Your review sucks » What separates a critic from a fanboy Josh Cabrita The Peak (NUW) y listen to movie critics when I can offer an equally informed and just talentless hacks bashing other people’s work because they can’t make any of their own? Why follow a movie critic’s recommendation since most of their choices are artsy snoozers? The truth is, most critics’ reviews lend credence to these objections. Movies are like George W. Bush: everyone has an opinion about them, but some are far of my mother who, after every sad conclusion of a film, states, “T didn’t like that ending.” Asarule, film critics ought to use objective analyses that go beyond this kind of subjective response. If ] were to only write differentiate my opinion from that of the masses? The film critic’s competence : Harloff are the reason film : criticism is perishing. On the : Internet, where every schmo has : : avoice—and sometimes a very : loud one—popular criticism has : : overshadowed good criticism. : The film criticism found in : popular print publications and craft lie, at the very least, in an analytical approach to assessing film form, storytelling, and how the two fit together. Film form has to do with the choosing of a close-up instead of a long shot or something in : between, along with the lighting, : : setdesign, and performanceof : : the actors, among other aspects. : Storytelling has to do with the : narrative—a film’s theme and plot. Ideally, there should be competent opinion? Aren't they : @ happy balance between : subjective experience and : objective analysis when : evaluating a film. But too many : reviewers sway too far to one : side. Recently, I howled with : laughter as I watched the : Schmoes Know YouTube review : channel, with reviewers Kristian : : Harloff and Mark Ellis talking : about the recent film, Unbroken. ! : Their review focussed mainly on : : their emotional responses, while : ‘ : occasionally attempting to assess : better than others. I’m reminded : y . pone : : the film form with buzzwords. “It’s just [the] combat that : she shows ina different style : that I felt was very interesting : and very intense,” Harloff says. : Ellis immediately interjects, “I : felt like I was inside the plane!” : They did not explain why it about my feelings or experiences : “ : : : was “very interesting and very while viewing a film, what would : intense” or why “it felt like [he] : was inside the plane.” Reviewers like Ellis and : is often no better, and many : reviews are padded with : buzzwords meant to be on DVD > covers and TV ads. For instance, : in his review of Foxcatcher, film : critic Peter Travers of Rolling : Stone uses adjectives like : “mesmerizing,” “masterwork,” : “hy so : ” : “hypnotic,” “haunting”, “ 66 > ” : “revelatory,” “unique,” and “unforgettable,” without ever : explaining why these terms are : appropriate. Before I start to sound too : cynical, let me say there are : some critics doing tremendous : work. One I always enjoy : reading is Matt Zoller Seitz, : the editor of RogerEbert.com. : His prose is funny, informative, : touching, and sometimes : more enjoyable than the films ; themselves. His writing may : be inaccessible for some, but at : least he offers insightful reviews, : on multiple levels, they can : which supply reasons why a film : : is good or bad that go beyond : his emotions. It is integral that the critic understands storytelling, film : form, and the relationship : between the two; this is what : separates them from those who : evaluate films based on their > emotions. Critics should interpret : stories for the readers so that : when they see a film working : understand its artistic value : instead of writing it offasa : pretentious critic movie.