sparhawk-7 Reviews

Cyber Seduction: His Secret Life (2005 TV Movie)

Just WHO has the problem here?

[2/10 · 2 July 2005]

This horrible movie is ostensibly about some 16-year-old boy's fight with porn, or something. Apparently if you even once have a "LUST for BUST" you will become addicted to PORN! We are treated to scene after scene of Justin Petersen ogling at nearly fully clothed models while not pleasuring himself in any way, shape or form. Yeah, what a moron, right? And after even one night of looking at porn, he's not performing as well on the swim team and is beginning to notice CURVES on women! And then he wants to go ALL THE WAY with his Superchristian Switchfoot-listening girlfriend while he DOESN'T want to go all the way with Monica, who posts racy pictures of herself showing tiny bits of her bra to viewers on her website. I have personally been more aroused by the underwear section of the JC PENNEY CATALOG than any of the nonsensical and unbelievably lame "porn" in this movie.

But to digress from other commenters, I present to you, the reader, this conundrum: Who REALLY has the "problem" in this movie? Is it...

Justin's Mom, who obsesses over her sons desires for sexual pleasure to the point where she attempts to spy on his activities? And where a 3rd place finish in a state swim meet is so bad she refuses to cheer for her son or look at him in the face? What a great mom! (And WHY is she swimming in the SCHOOL pool during the school day? Doesn't she have a job involving computers although she has no idea how to use them?)

Justin's Dad, who goes from a total nonchalant couldn't care less attitude about Justin's desires for the...uhh...clothed....female body to the point where he becomes physically violent? This AFTER he says it's normal to want to look at these pictures? What a great dad! (As an aside, is anyone else reminded of Al Bundy by this guy?)

Justin's brother, who is apparently so stupid that he sticks a CD of porn in his underwear drawer (pssst, kid, your mom does your laundry) labeled "VIRGIN VAGINAS"? And hey, kid, stay out of your bro's room and stay off his computer. No wonder Justin's going crazy: he has NO PRIVACY FROM HIS FAMILY.

Justin's girlfriend, who is the queen of mixed signals in this movie? Oh, and after he admits he "has a problem" (which I think is his caffeine addiction, if I'm not mistaken), she pretty much refuses to help or talk to him....then says she'll help him. Uhhh...right.

The librarian (or "media assistant" if you will) who doesn't realize the "porn site" (actually it looks like something I'd see on some vain girl's xanga or livejournal) Justin is looking at in the library is MONICA'S OWN SITE who is sitting 10 FEET AWAY.

Or how about the letter-wearing seniors that jeremy befriends or his swim team teammates. Hey guys, in the showers, you make fun of the guy with the foreskin or whatever, not the guy who sends you "porn"!

Or perhaps the person with the REAL problem in this movie: Monica! This girl runs a web site of lame teases (I just can't bring myself to call it a "porn site") of herself and apparently likes to have sex in her parents' bad with her grandparents looking on from their portraits on the wall. Oh, and if some guy refuses her advances, she slams her head into the sink and beats herself up. Umm....and JUSTIN is the one with the problem?

Or perhaps the real problem is with Lifetime and the people who take this puerile garbage seriously. We are treated TWICE to scenes of a near-naked Jeremy Sumpter in all his shapely glory. Him in his underwear or tight swimpants with his naughty bits outlined for all the prepubescent girls to ogle over is arguably more pornographic than anything justin ever looks at on his computer. And at the commercials for this showing, I got treated to middle-aged women talking about having "SEX on the BEACH" in the most lurid ways possible. But it's apparently only a problem when a boy desires sexual pleasure, not women. Hypocrites.

Eegah (1962)

Appalling, but can make for some schizophrenic cinema

[18 October 2003]

What else can be said about Eegah that hasn't been said already? This film is truly dreck. Arch Hall Sr. AKA William Watters yet again insists on casting his son as a future pop idol to be adored by housewives everywhere. We all get to see a lot more of Richard Kiel than we ever wanted to. Marilyn Manning maintains a bouffant hairdo that looks to be ready to break off in big chunks or perhaps all at once, threatening to take her brain with it. The plot is terminally stupid. Even technically it falls short, but the dubbing in particular is abysmal. "Watch out for snakes" and eegah's mumblings aren't even remotely synced to ANYTHING -- I suspect by this point they had simply given up. Of course, this makes for a great MST3K episode, but by itself, it's almost torture to sit through. And why anyone would live at an Econo Lodge is beyond me.

However, if it is shown in tandem with Arch Hall Jr's/Marilyn Manning's other major movie they starred in together, The Sadist, it actually becomes an amazing cinematic contrast. To see how in 1962 the pair gave an utterly terrible performance as a teenage couple in Eegah whereas in 1963 with the Sadist they make a disturbingly convincing serial killing duo makes for a cinematic about face that threatens to blow your mind away. Recommended in this context or as the MST3K episode, but never alone.

Rescue 911 (1989–1996)

An institution of sorts, a low point for Shatner

[26 June 2003]

This was the harbinger of reality "emergency" shows that were to follow it such as the multitude that the TLC/Discovery/Discovery Health trifecta show. Looking back at repeats shown on Discovery Health, it was fairly hokey. Nearly all the "emergencies" shown were re-enacted with usually little to no real actual footage, and you can't help but chuckle at reenacters that really hammed it up sometimes. Immensely popular show in its early-90's prime though. The real-footage shows nowadays really make Rescue 911 look very, very dated now, and the reenactments jokably hollow and unrepresentative, but it's still good for kicks. Also, you can see William Shatner in what had to be a very low point in his acting career, after the disaster of Star Trek V. Going from Star Trek legend to no-name generic hosting job? Eegah.

Monster House (2003– )

Terrible

[16 June 2003]

They tried to take the success from Monster Garage and the success from shows such as Trading Spaces and create a hybrid. Sometimes, two rights don't make a right. Instead of the egomaniacal but talented Jesse James, we get some no-talent egomanical hack of a host that puts forward horrible ideas for remodelling people's homes. Sometimes the results are so ugly, impractical, expensive, and impossible to maintain over a long term you can't help but grimace and realize how these people's houses have been ruined. It's literally like Trading Spaces from hell.

Grade: D

Rugrats (1991–2003)

Best of the Original Three

[14 May 2001]

I was 8 when Rugrats premiered. If memory serves me right, Rugrats premiered on a Sunday morning at 10 or 10:30AM. I was captivated by the downright strange turns and twists the stories took. Although I still like it today, I like it for different reasons. Of the Original Three Nicktoons premiered in 1991, this one, by FAR, has met with the most success. Ren And Stimpy was a disaster (in my opinion) and Doug really managed nothing more than a modicum of mild mediocrity. Ren and Stimpy was too crude and crass and was out of place on Nick. Doug always had snoozers of plots...blech. Rugrats, on the other hand, has jokes that both small kids and adults will find amusing.

However, the show has become dangerously overmarketed within the last 1 or 2 years and the newer shows lack the edge that the original set from 1991 had. Too much "touchy feely" and not enough strange absurdities. The only major gaffe of the series was the replacement of the voice of Grandpa in 1998 after the death of David Doyle. This was quite possibly the worst voice changes in cartoon history, as the "new" grandpa sounds more like daffy duck than a grandpa ever would or should. Terrible! But, other than that, no complaints here.

Les Misérables (1998)

Disappointing to a Les Mis Fan.

[4/10 · 19 July 1999]

I greatly enjoyed reading Les Miserables by Victor Hugo and consider one of the best novels of all time. I watched this movie with very high hopes -- too high, I found out.

The abridgement of this story is necessary, but is entirely too severe in this movie. Large chunks were taken out at will and the meaning of some sections were entirely lost. We only see Marius Pontmercy as some flat lovesick revolutionary; we never see his background nor the stellar importance of his grandfather and father in his life. As a result, I never really 'cared' about Marius. Also of great importance in the novel but who seemed to be entirely missing from the movie (although, strangely, she is credited in the end) is the character of Eponine. Additionally, Jean did some very out-of-character actions in this movie. He knocked out the Bishop, slammed Javert around, and actually slapped Cosette! The Jean as presented in the novel would have NEVER even considered doing those things.

As a result, I found this movie boorish, flat, and generally uninteresting. I fear the producers of the film missed the meaning of the book, which was more than the chase of Jean by Javert and the love of Marius and Cosette, it also included Jean Valjean's continued redemption throughout the book and the unrequited love he can finally feel for Marius and Cosette in the final scene of the book. The movie missed out in a big way.