nolanjwerner Reviews

Million Dollar Baby (2004)

I don't see what the big deal was.

[6/10 · 3 June 2006]

I went ahead and added a spoiler warning even though I figure that 99 percent of you already know what the film turns out to be about.

There were a lot of good things about this film. The acting from Morgan Freeman and Hillary Swank was superb. Clint Eastwood was excellent. And there were a number of scenes in the film that were genuinely great.

In terms of the euthanasia thing, I didn't have a problem with it. I thought it provided for some of the strongest scenes of the film, particularly regarding the scene where she throws her mother out because her mother was trying to get her to sign all her money over to her.

But in spite of all of that, the film only warrants a 6.

I found the film to be a bit insincere and I could see exactly how a lot of the scenes were manipulating me. And because of that factor, I don't think it lived up to its full potential.

Caterina in the Big City (2003)

This should have been a great film

[10/10 · 16 April 2006]

I wish I could say that this was a great film because there really were a lot of things that one could like about it.

As it turns out, however, it is a good, but flawed film. I will give this film a recommendation, I think it is worth seeing.

The film made a number of incredible social statements. It really cuts to the quick about the nature of society, the people who can manipulate the system on both sides are in collusion with each other to keep their privilege. The people who are on the outside find themselves on the outside, looking in. They can be taken under someone's wing but they are never really more then a pet, the Jimmy Olsen to someone's Superman.

The film had spectacular acting, particularly from the lead.

So what then keeps the film from being great? One of the biggest problems comes from the episodic and picaresque structure of the film. It has the kind of structure that is more interesting because of its discontinuity then because of its continuity. And while it makes for a lot of interesting discussions, this could turn a lot of people off, probably even more then the subtitles.

Honestly, the problem is that it begins with Caterina being pulled in many directions and it allows us to see facets of her through these different social lenses. The trouble is that we never get a baseline reading on her in the beginning before she moves to Rome. This is done very well but we never get the impression of her as anything more then a tablet that the ideologies of others are being written on, even at the end of the film when she supposedly finds herself. I won't give a spoiler as to how but the ending that someone else commented was her in her element is really just another case of this.

You know what, I've changed my mind. This is a wonderful film to watch. Its a spectacular way to look at what life is really like when you are outside the powerful and privileged circles of society and you can only be influenced by the ideologies of others but you really lack any voice of your own.

Watch this along with Welcome to the Dollhouse and see what life was like for the rest of us. Let this film show you the social cliques, collusion and ideology and let Solondz show you the sheer cruelty of a society that, as J. G. Ballard said, normalized psychopathy. And see it for what it really is, not some sugarcoated network television version (I think you guys know what very popular television series I'm talking about).

Reefer Madness: The Movie Musical (2005 TV Movie)

All musicals are in the dust of this one

[10/10 · 2 May 2005]

Wow.

This makes Rocky Horror look like Cannibal: The Musical. And its ten times better then Phantom of the Opera. Seriously the only movie musical that even comes close is Moulin Rouge.

This is one of the best movies ever.

The camp value of this is just right. There's enough for it to be over the top and entertaining while it does not strive to take itself far too seriously and, refreshingly, no attempts are made at verisimilitude.

The soundtrack is filled with some instant classics like "Lonely Pew," "Listen to Jesus Jimmy" and the title track "Reefer Madness."

The acting in the film is top notch. Everyone is cast perfectly and the 30 year old Christian Campbell even works as a high schooler in a film this over the top. Amy Spanger was impressive (and I still can't believe that she's MARRIED to Michael C. Hall) and I had never seen her in a film before. Kristen Bell has superstar written all over her thanks to this film, a short stint on Deadwood and a hit TV series.

And it has Alan Cumming, what more needs to be said?

This was the perfect movie to come out at the perfect time (a time of strong armed moralizing with little actual factual backing), though unfortunately a lot of the people who would learn the most from the film are the type that the subversive camp would be totally lost on.

Deadwood (2004–2006)

If Shakespeare had written a Western

[18 March 2005]

Up until I saw Deadwood I would have thought the whole Western genre was dead (and I believe I even made a thread somewhere that asked if the Western was dead), but I was wrong.

Deadwood surpasses the Western while still being a Western. Its kind of the Western for people who don't like Westerns.

The world of Deadwood is not really one of black hats and white hats but really a world painted in subtle shades of grey where one has to choose between the lesser or two or more evils. This alone should put it above most Westerns.

And Deadwood really feels like the old west, you really feel like you are in the camp. It doesn't focus just on cowboys and Indians, horse thieves and other western clichés but the actual people and the place itself.

And the acting is, without exception, excellent. There is not a single person who is not believable in their role, they all seem to have stepped right out of the 19th century rather then an actor from contemporary times trying to recreate the old west. Particular kudos to Ian McShane (Al Swearengen) as one of the most fascinating almost Shakespearean villains on television, Robin Weigert as Calamity Jane and Brad Dourif as Doc Cochran.

The language of the show is so paradoxical. It mixes the high language of allusion, allegory and metaphor with a heaping spoonful of profanity (and don't get me wrong, there is a lot of profanity on the show) but it seems to work perfectly. I'm not sure how historically correct it is but it is probably a heck of a lost closer then the familiar "dagnabbit." The plots are quite intriguing but do require starting the show from the very beginning (you could not jump in halfway through and have any idea what was going on, a great strength and a great weakness of most HBO series). The show can be meticulously paced at times (read "slow" if you don't like it) but if you do like the show then you can say that it lingers on things.

Probably the greatest weakness of the show that I could see is that, besides Calamity Jane, most of the female characters seem to be quite passive. But this was the end of the 19th Century and the roles of women were radically different so I would say this might be more historically accurate though some feminists may disagree with me. But I do not see this as a problem, all of the characters on the show are intriguing enough to keep you watching.

Seriously, even if you have hated every Western ever made, watch the first episode of Deadwood, its worth giving a chance to.

Stander (2003)

Good but could have been so much more

[7/10 · 18 February 2005]

I think that the film would have greatly improved had it spent more time delving in to Andre Stander's psychology or his double life as a police officer/bank robber. As it stands, most of the film seems to be about his bank robbery spree. The psychology of such a character is potentially fascinating but as it stands in the film, Andre Stander is not totally explored. He seems to do it more out of anger or thrills or boredom but it is never totally clarified which it is though it seems to be a combination of the three.

I know that there were a lot of real life events that constrained the ability to tell the story in the film and I understand that.

I wrote on another board that American actors could not do accents. I am not South African nor do I know all of the subtle minutiae of a South African accent but Thomas Jane seemed to pull one off. It didn't seem to disappear for a few minutes at a time or sound radically different from the other characters. Congratulations to him on an excellent performance.

Angels in America (2003)

First half amazing, second half not as great

[7/10 · 14 February 2005]

First of all, I agree with what was said above about it being difficult to appreciate if you are a staunch anti-gay conservative who thinks that any representation of gays other then as some sort of evil predator is part of a gay agenda dedicated to recruiting Christian children into their lifestyle. Thankfully there aren't a lot of people like that who would even see this to begin with. If you see this as propagandistic though then you are really misreading it.

Overall, I think that it was a very well presented story. I have not read the original play though so I was not prejudiced in that manner regarding the adaptation.

The first half of this series blew my mind. The acting was superb from all in the cast, particularly Meryl Streep in several roles, including a turn as a rabbi where I had to see her in the credits to know it was her and Jeffrey Wright, two of the finest actors alive today. The plot seemed to flow perfectly and the magical realist feel of the picture worked wonderfully.

The second half seemed to slow down drastically. It was not able to hold my interest like the first half did. The plausibility seemed to suffer quite a bit. I fidgeted occasionally and wondered when it would end. It was by no means terrible (the worst ending ever going to the Marvel comic book 1602) but I could not in good conscience say that it was as good as the first half.

The first half receives a 9/10 and the second half receives a 7/10. With a heavy heart I give it an overall rating of 7/10 and while I would not normally recommend something with that rating to everyone, I do give this my blessing and recommend that everyone see it.

The Phantom of the Opera (2004)

So much potential

[7/10 · 2 February 2005]

I gave the movie a 7 out of 10 overall. It seems to have so much more potential and it could have been ten times better with a few small changes. No spoilers but vague descriptions of things that happen in the film.

Now for the breakdown.

MUSIC: Gerard Butler's singing was better then it seems from the trailer. Overall though, it can be a bit too dense and blaring, the music can overpower the singing and it can be hard to understand the lyrics during a couple parts (really only when there are like twenty people on screen singing). Don't get me wrong, its a great musical but the music works better on stage. 9/10.

VISUALS: Great. The film looks incredible. 10/10.

STORY: Yeah, the story itself is nothing special, your basic love triangle between two equally creepy men. Schumacher does add to it a bit with a few flash forward scenes and a new ending but honestly, I don't think that, with the exception of the new ending, they add that much to the overall story. While it works for a stage musical to have less focus on a plot, in the film version it does seem weak. 5/10.

CINEMATOGRAPHY: Can someone actually film a movie musical that doesn't look like a stage musical? Moulin Rouge was the closest that a film has come but Phantom of the Opera, while it does do some brilliant tricks with the camera, still sets up almost all of its musical numbers like a stage show and not a film. 6/10.

CAST: Emmy Rossum is great. Patrick Wilson is serviceable but nothing exceptional. Gerard Butler actually surprises me but they could have found someone much better. The rest of the cast serves their purpose but, other then Minnie Driver, no one really stands out. The one flaw is that Emmy Rossum is like 17 and her two suitors both appear to be over 30, historically accurate yes but still creepy. I think that someone better then Gerard Butler could have been found easily and Patrick Wilson just seems kind of creepy when he is with Emmy Rossum, its too Lolita-esquire. 7/10

FILM ADAPTATION: Way too theatrical. I think that the film would have been better if Webber had used a slightly more hands off approach. It seemed to be set up like a musical for the stage rather then for the screen. 4/10

OVERALL: 7/10. Excellent film but filled with the potential to be much better.

Blade: Trinity (2004)

Inconsistent, should have been better

[9 December 2004]

It was not terrible but I did feel let down. I liked the first Blade film and I really liked the second Blade film.

The only real positive of this film was Ryan Reynolds, I think this will probably be a breakout role for him and normally I find characters like the one he played in this film annoying--which should say a lot about the rest of the film. Wesley Snipes is no Lawrence Olivier but, after hearing that he stayed in character on the set, I am curious if that footage would not have been better then his actual performance in the film. The res tof the performances were mediocre, in particular Parker Posey who must have taken the role before realizing that she could not speak clearly with vampire teeth. The few cool things in the film (like the vampire pomeranian and Hannibal King's cool rifle) really went nowhere. The cinematography of the film seemed very stages and unnatural and the design of much of it seemed fake. The strangest thing in the credits is that:

*SPOILER* Kris Kristofferson gets second billing and he dies maybe fifteen minutes in the film and gets a couple lines of voice-over and a brief flashback, billed over Jessica Biel, Ryan Reynolds, Parker Posey, Triple H, Dominic Purcell or even Patton Oswalt *END SPOILER*.

And the film just seems very inconsistent in many other ways, such as the heavy metal and techno that Abby listens to while she hunts through her iPod which apparently does not always impede her ability to hear things, of course that is only when she has it which does not seem to be very often and yet manages to come up twice in the film.

The worst thing though, by far, has to be Parker Posey's hair, a strange mix of Superwoman from the Crime Syndicate of Amerika and some 1980s runway model. It was so bad that it actually took me out of the film, especially when compared to all of the other vampires.

Haunted Junction (1997)

OH MY GOD!!!

[28 November 2004]

That is what the main character screams quite often when the situations in the show get too bizarre (which is quite often).

The only show that really comes close to the level of random weirdness of Haunted Junction would be The Young Ones and that pales in comparison with some of the bawdier humour in this (such as Asahina's "shouta complex" in which she is attracted to little boys, the female version of the Lolita complex).

If "Must See TV" were this funny then I would watch it every week. You will laugh until you cry watching this. The only flaw is that there are only 12 episodes but too many more and it probably would have started to get repetitive.

The Life of David Gale (2003)

Ridiculous and Heavy Handed

[28 August 2004]

Now I am prefacing this by saying that I am strongly against the death penalty but even so this film is absolutely ridiculous. It works in such a heavy handed manner that it ends up giving the complete opposite position that it should and making the anti-death penalty activists look like a group of insane zealots. By the end of the film it reaches Monty Pythonesque territory and comic book convolutions. So now only is this film heavy-handed but the heavy handedness actually works to push the exact opposite thing that it should.

Just...skip this unless of course the option is lethal injection or the gas chamber.

The Shape of Things (2003)

Provocative Litmus Test

[13 July 2004]

I know that the word "provocative" is used as a buzzword and can commonly mean "offensive" but in this case it really does fit the film. Watching will provoke a lot of thoughts about the events in the film.

The "litmus test" part of the film is that, more then any film I have seen in a long time, you can really tell just about everything you would need to know about a person by their reaction to the film. The people who side with Rachel Weisz's character tend to be manipulative (a biased opinion) while the people who side with Paul Rudd's character are probably sick of being told that they aren't right.

Is the film good? Yes. Is it perfect? No. It is a bit slow paced at times and I wish that it got to the ending faster but overall it worked very well.

Saved! (2004)

Saw this on opening day and...

[10/10 · 4 June 2004]

I actually watched this film again a couple days ago and I am editing my comments.

First, I am changing my vote to 10 out of 10.

With the third act of the film, I thought it actually worked. I had my doubts about it earlier but after seeing it again, I actually thought that it came out with a much more positive message and I was wrong about the end taking an easy out. I think that the film actually gave a very uplifting and realistic message about where faith should be.

Actually watching the film on DVD with all of the extras enhanced my viewing experience. I suppose when I went in the theatre I was expecting it to be a dark comedy so that may explain some of my opinions in the first review. It actually worked much better for me the second time.

I do still wish that there were one little scene to wrap up Mandy Moore's character arc though.

MY ORIGINAL REVIEW: I think that this just might make my top 10 of the year.

I honestly think that this was one of the best films in a long time to deliver any kind of religious message, particularly an alternative to the absolutist fundamentalist messages that are so prevalent. Addressing the 'anti-Christian' issue, it is more 'anti-Fundamentalist' then anything else, the only people who could see sacrilege in there would be dour and humorless religious zealots (who see sacrilege and persecution in everything and everyone except themselves). While it does poke fun at the subculture, it never does so in a disrespectful manner. This film, like The Shape of Things, is really a good litmus test for a person, you can tell a lot about them based on how they react to it.

The acting was excellent all around in the film and there were some hilariously clever moments including one that the entire theatre laughed for about fifteen seconds.

If there is a weakness to the film then it would be the end. The end got a bit heavy handed at times and many of the plots are resolved in a manner that is far too easy and light to fit in with the tone of the rest of the film. I wish that there would have been a little more to it and a better resolution for Mandy Moore's character.

Overall though, I would rank this film as a must see, particularly the kind of film you would bring a friend to, one who is getting a bit too serious about his religion.

Kudos to everyone involved on this film.

The Real Adventures of Jonny Quest (1996–1997)

It was good until...

[15 May 2004]

Don't get me wrong, the show had some excellent episodes and overall was reasonably good. There were only 2 nails in the coffin that eventually killed it and then 1 small one.

The smallest nail would be the fact that, in the credits, there are 2 people listed for each of the major roles. When you get right down to the continuity of it that is not good for a show, especially when it is syndicated.

By far the largest problem of the show was Jeremiah Sird. He was an interesting character at first but then he came back and he came back again. I have not seen a character overused that much after this show until Scott Wallace on The Practice. I mean honestly, how much of a threat can a guy with the physical abilities of Steven Hawking really be? The overuse of the character destroyed the reasons why he was so interesting to begin with.

And in about half of the episodes with Ezekial Rage, there were major plausibility issues. The most egregious and offensive one was the episode with time travel where he ended up fossilized after melting the polar icecaps. Again, an interesting character who ended up being used too much.

Overall though, it was a reasonably good series. They managed to capture the essence of the older Jonny Quest without the homoerotic overtones of the first series.

The Alamo (2004)

Fox News Produced a War Movie?

[11 April 2004]

Okay, I was impressed by the battle scenes and the acting (Jason Patric in particular, the first film I can really say I have liked him in) but uh, well...

(Lets take into account that saying everyone in the Alamo died at the end wasn't a spoiler, but a few spoilers may be present, this is also coming from a left wing progressive too)

First of all at several points the film where they DIRECTLY ADDRESSED THE AUDIENCE!!! Big screenwriting no no. Santa Ana would look right in the camera and say something "to the other generals," and I really felt like the film was insulting my intelligence there. And he would say all kinds of megalomaniacal things.

Past that, we have the heavy handed jingoism. I seriously would not be surprised if George W. and his warmongering buddies had a part in making this film. Especially ironic since the last line is apparently the only time in the history of Texas that a Texan has shown any restraint in executing people. Basically I thought there would have been an army recruiter at the end.

I really hate to hate this movie because up until it got heavy handed it was actually a reasonably good movie but it felt so propagandistic that I just can't recommend this film in good conscience. When I want a film with no propaganda, I'll go right for triumph of the will.

OVERALL: 2/10

The Avengers (1998)

Terrible.

[1/10 · 6 April 2004]

No other words can describe this film. To warn you in advance I am a huge fan of the television series so that bias my factor in. If you have never seen the show then it would only be an awful film and not a betrayal.

It really has done the impossible--it took one of the greatest shows of the 1960s and turned it into an instrument of torture. If you ever want to inflict agonising pain on your enemies then sit them in a theatre with this movie and a revolver next to them.

First of all, Uma Thurman does not fill out a catsuit half as well as the REAL Emma Peel, Diana Rigg, did. Her character has so little emotion that you could care less what happens to her.

The real tragedy is Ralph Fiennes playing some guy named John Steed. In the television series, Patrick Macnee made him a dapper and thoroughly heterosexual English gentlemen. The only problem is that Fiennes plays him the same way 30 years later and, well, he's gay. And I do not just mean homosexual, this guy is as queer as a three dollar bill. To imagine any subtextual sexuality between him and "Emma Peel" (the real appeal of the television series) is ridiculous.

When I first walked out of the movie theatre, I was like, wait a minute, there has to be like an hour of the film missing. With all of the plotlines that come out of nowhere and make absolutely no sense in any way shape or form, something was wrong. One of the hallmarks of the series was that no matter how strange it seemed at the start (and the beginnings were often strange), by the end everything would come together in the last five to ten minutes and it would all make perfect sense. Of course later I learned that there was indeed half an hour of the film missing and, well, even if those 30 minutes were the best 30 minutes ever put in a film, it still probably would stink.

Skip this and watch the television series to see the real John Steed and Mrs. Emma Peel.

Equilibrium (2002)

You've seen this entire movie before...

[3 April 2004]

Only it has been called other things.

While the film does have a lot of very cool ideas (like the gun kata and a world filled with psychiatric drug users, the guns that reload themselves), the story behind it is so unoriginal (Farenheit 451) and the extrapolation is so radical and implausible that it really fails to seem even somewhat logical.

The plot raises ridiculous amounts of logical questions (my first and foremost one was what did he feed the dog the entire time when there was no meat) and it borrows HEAVILY from Farenheit 451, with the idea of feelings being removed unfortunately not really working all that well as the characters still show WAY too much emotion. The "twist" ending (well one of the two, the other one surprised me a little bit), well I guessed it about 20 minutes into the movie.

And not only does it rip off the action scenes from the Matrix (the coolest fight scene was at the end with kung fu moves and guns and that was original, most of the rest were matrix or HK kung fu rehashes), it rips off the look of the city wall from the G.I. Joe headquarters and some of the Guards look like various Cobra Vipers (particularly the Motor Viper).

And the acting...Well I was quite impressed with Taye Diggs, moreso then in any of the other films I have seen him in. Christian Bale had about ten times more emotion then anyone there but no one figured it out. Emily Watson started the film with a bit of a Southern accent and ended it with a standard American one.

I just wanted an interview on the DVD where Christian Bale spoke using his character's accent like he did on the American Psycho DVD (which was kinda creepy even for a method actor).

OKay, to sum it up, in science fiction there is a thing called an idiot plot. This is a plot which only works because all of the characters are idiots. This film has an "Equilibrium Plot" which means that it only works because every character except Christian Bale, Taye Diggs and the leader has to not only be the stupidest person alive today but also be autistic and unable to figure out even the slightest thing going on around them.

Overall: 6/10. Watch it if you need to get a dose of what Bale will be like as Batman before the film comes out, otherwise read Farenheit 451, Snow Crash and other sci fi novels.

Velvet Goldmine (1998)

Not breaking a precedent...

[3/10 · 3 April 2004]

Nothing good ever came out of erotic fanfiction.

I'm sorry but I want to know who decided that an erotic fanfiction story should be made into a movie?

This movie had a GREAT soundtrack, I mean one of the absolute best. It should be remembered for that.

As a film, it really isn't very good. With Christian Bale, Toni Collette, Jonathan Rhys-Meyers and Ewan McGregor I expected it to be much better.

Unless you want to study every influence from British glam rock or you want to see a film with gay themes, you really can do a lot better, actually there are gay themed movies that are much better.

Overall: 3/10 for the film and 10/10 for the soundtrack.

Queer as Folk (2000–2005)

TV Masterpiece

[30 March 2004]

What can I say about the show? It has incredible characterisation (capable of drawing even a straight man into the lives of the characters), beautiful cinematography, great acting and compelling writing. I have seen the first two seasons and I am currently watching the third on VHS because I lost showtime in the process. I have 3 episodes left of season 3 and, barring a few rather flagrant showings of male nudity (which although arguably contextually appropriate did seem a bit over the top), the shows have continued the quality of the first two seasons. What is great about the show is the fact that you really do care what happens to the characters, you can see an element of yourself in them (well maybe not all of them but you can find something in at least one of the characters that you relate to--I really relate to Ted myself, particularly in the middle of the first season and most of the third season). The show has tackled a lot of touchy topics (HIV, gay marriages, homophobic politicians) and, barring Emmett's brief fling with quack therapy in an attempt to be straight, they have been dealt with in a thoughtful, intelligent and sensitive manner (although how can you deal with reparative therapy seriously?), and, in a real stretch, showing that the gay community has its own flaws, which i think is what really sets the show apart, it says that the gay community isn't perfect and the gay characters aren't perfect.

And even though all my straight friends who have never seen the show may laugh and ask me if I have started to play for the other team, I will continue to watch as long as the quality is kept up like this. Besides Six Feet Under, Monk and MI-5, this is one of the few shows I would go out of my way to see. Bring on season 4 and let Ben die already (the second part is only a personal opinion, I just never cared for his character although I think Robert Gant does an excellent job of portraying him, I would rather have seen Michael with David).

And I have seen the second series of the British version and, loath as I am as an anglophile and a purist to say it, the American version has gone further then the British series (although in all fairness they have had a lot more episodes to explore the characters). My only beef is that Gale Harold may seem cold and rather like a jerk (since a stronger term may be censored but one is definately implied), Aidan Gillen was creepy. Gale was the kid in high school that was popular although he never really liked anyone while Aidan was that guy who you would see somewhere and he would just creep you out yet you couldn't take your eyes off him. Two totally different characters and I think one works better for a miniseries and the other works better for a regular series.

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003)

Why?

[1/10 · 11 January 2004]

Why do you buy the rights to a good comic book and make such a terrible movie out of it?

They took eveything that made the comic book good and forgot all of it. Here is my short list (There may be MINOR SPOILERS):

They added two characters, one completely extraneous and removed basically anything even remotely literary. On top of that they gave the film basically no exposition so unless you were intimately familiar with the characters to begin with you would basically be lost. They redesigned ALL of the vehicles, ignoring Alan Moore and Kevin O'Neill's meticulous designs, instead creating a phallic cruise ship Nautilus and the "Nemomobile," one of the stupidest vehicles ever. They changed the characters so much that even if you knew who they were going in to the film, you would probably be lost, Alan Quatermain/Quartermain (since he does not even know how to spell his name) is the leader and no longer an opium addict, he is brought together to be part of

SPOILER WARNING---

One of the stupidest villian plots ever since of course the good guys are easier to destroy when they are together then they would be if they were separate.

The Invisible Man is no longer the interesting Hawley Griffin, the sociopath who murders policemen with bricks and walks around in their clothes ut a "gentleman thief" named Rodney Skinner. Now they had a legal battle with the estate of H. G. Wells over that so I can not entirely fault them on this character and he was occasionally interesting. And of course since no American knows about anything subtle, they have to say Mina Murray is a vampire while in the REAL version they only hinted at it.

And that is not even mentioning the plot lacunae.

It is a rare film where more time can be spent pointing out what was wrong with the film then its actual running time, this is one of those.

Recess (1997–2001)

Is this show really for kids?

[1 January 2004]

I mean this show seems like it is far more entertaining to adults then any kids who would watch it.

This is seriously one of the most brilliant shows I have ever seen, it ranks up there with Mission Hill, Futurama, Sam and Max (another show that unfortunately died because it was not aimed at kids), Big Guy and Rusty, The Simpsons, Spongebob Squarepants and Invader Zim for the best animated shows ever.

The show itself is so offbeat and bizarre that everything seems to come together and work perfectly. All of the kids are so strange (upside down girl, swinger girl, the diggers, hustler kid, the kindergarten tribe and all the others I am forgetting) but they all seem to work together perfectly in a bizarre yet appealing version of childhood. The plots of the episodes are just as strange also yet almost every one I have ever seen has worked perfectly. The references to things are aimed at adults, not kids. Discount the Disney name, this is so brilliant and offbeat that it is worth watching, think of it as the Cordwainer Smith of Saturday morning cartoons.

The Proud Family (2001–2005)

The NAACP should be made aware of this show.

[7 December 2003]

This show is like every African-American stereotype rolled in to one offensive digestible quantity. The dialogue is more laden with slang then Trainspotting (the book not the movie) and this is...

Well, it reminds me of a minstrel show, I am just waiting for the episode where they reveal it to be exactly that. I love Recess and Fillmore and a lot of Disney cartoons but this one is just terrible.

Yeah, and a couple years later and I still feel the same way. And my African-American roommate says the exact same thing so I feel somewhat vindicated. He even actually tried to contact the NAACP about the show.

And to be honest, on top of all the stereotypes, the show itself is really pretty bad.

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003)

I thought this movie would be terrible but...

[7 August 2003]

Okay, when I first saw the poster and saw the names of Gore "I turned Ringu in to a movie with lots of loud noises because Americans can not be scared by anything remotely psychological" Verbinski and Jerry "Kangaroo Jack and lots of movies with big explosions" Bruckheimer on the credits, I was sceptical (a variant spelling of skeptical, not related to a septic tank) but as it turns out the movie is pretty good. It is a fun summer popcorn movie and despite some large plot holes, turns out to be one of the better films of the summer (well of the "popcorn" movies).

Orlando Bloom is Legolas without pointy ears and with a sword instead of a bow (but the girls dig him so I will not go in to copious detail about his mediocre acting, he fills the part). Keira Knightley is just hot (she would be drop dead gorgeous even without the accent but is on the top of my list with Fleur Saville and Antonia Prebble because of it) and legal (but just barely). Geoffrey Rush is lost in the character, one of the signs of a really good actor, though I have to say that he did not really add anything special that no other actor could have, a shame for such a talented guy. The rest of the cast are also excellent and the dialogue is good and tolerable even at the worst of times.

The special effects in the film are excellent, I only wish that all films loaded with special effects would be this good. Special Effects are there to ENHANCE the plot and the acting, not to take the place of it.

I am going to finish this review by raving about Johnny Depp because he really was the reason the film was so good. I literally do not think the film would have been half as good with anyone else in the role (well maybe Daniel Day-Lewis). He creates a unique and engaging character and endears himself to you, a hard task for the disowned gay son of Captain Morgan. Johnny Depp has proven once again why he is among the elite inner circle of great actors (well mine anyway, along with Ed Norton, Kenneth Branagh, Don Cheadle, Daniel Day-Lewis, Judi Dench, Forrest Whitaker, Brian Cox, Kevin Spacey, Al Pacino, Robert DeNiro, Phillip Seymour Hoffman and probably a few I am forgetting unfortunately, my apologies to them).

It works best on the big screen, so go to the second run theatre and see it for two bucks for Johnny Depp if nothing else.

The Rules of Attraction (2002)

Well they improved on the book...

[7 August 2003]

And that is about where the good things about this movie end.

First, let me tell you about the book. The greatest author ever, Bret Easton Ellis, the man who is held up as the pinnacle of good writing in all reputable writing classes, wrote a brilliant book. In this book he threw away such pretentious writing tools as plot, characterisation, multiple tenses and empathy. The result is a masterpiece that has absolutely no characters that you can build any empathy with, of course it is just like one really unlikeable person who changes hats since he can do nothing in creating unique character voices. The differences between the characters are so superficial that they really start to blend together in to one huge repugnant gestalt. And to show how great of a writer he is, he foregoes the archaic constraints of traditional grammar, preferring to end the book in the middle of a sentence and

As for the movie, it is okay. Most people probably would not "get" it because they see all the teen movie actors and instead they get something closer to TULIP (the acronym for the five main points of Calvinism), the characters in the film being the people that were not saved. At least in this film the characters have a few differences between them (if nothing more then appearance). The movie really does not have much of a plot though but it tries to create one from events that were kind of mentioned in passing in the book (Okay, Grant Morrison can do that but Easton Ellis can not).

Kudos to James van der Beek for showing he can act and almost making up for the atrocity that he called a Southern accent in Varity Blues and Ian Somerhalder for doing what is foreign to Bret Easton Ellis and creating individual characters. Otherwise think of Bret Easton Ellis as the literary version of the Emporer's New Clothes, people see things that are not there.

There is a reason that he is what they hold up in writing classes as the example of what not to write. His self-indulgent pornography is not literature, only verbal masturbation. I could write a lengthy paragraph about what a person wears and then make it a four hundred page book, occasionally adding in a scene of violence and I could have American Psycho.

I recommend this movie if you want to have a "Black Comedy Night" but only if you get superior films like Death to Smoochy, Being There, Catch-22, M*A*S*H*, Happiness, Welcome to the Dollhouse and Storytelling. Just so you can see the other side and see what you can do by showing people's immorality and showing people.

Think of it as "love the sinner hate the sin" only loving the sin and not having any sinners, just briefly mentioning names while you spew words out about the sin.

Degrassi: The Next Generation (2001–2015)

Bad Acting

[7 August 2003]

Okay, the acting in this show is so so so so so bad. No one in this show can deliver a line and not have it seem like they are reading it off their hand. Even in emotional scenes it is like they have no idea what an emotion is really like. Ashley, Craig (who looks more like Shaggy then Matthew Lillard ever could, complete with the glazed over look) and Paige (whoever the actors are--I mean I doubt they will go on to much seeing their performances on this) are the best actors on the show but alas that means about as much as being the smartest kid who rides the short bus to school.

Once you are past the dreadfully bad acting (if you can get past that, odds are you won't) then you have the hollow two-dimensional characters (Bret Easton Ellis looks like a master of characterisation compared to this show), the unrealistic plots (for REAL middle school watch WELCOME TO THE DOLLHOUSE, the single most realistic film ever) and the idiotic dialogue (It almost seems like a Family Guy parody of a teen drama, I await the day when the producers will admit that this show was actually a wry satire about the shallowness of the contemporary Canadian teen--at least then the show would be justified in having such terrible dialogue).

In conclusion, the Canadian stereotype of saying ABOOT is probably the LEAST irritating thing about this show. We Americans may have made a lot of bad television shows but the entire country of Canada should be ashamed that such a terrible programme was allowed to leave their borders. They should have quarrantined this programme and let it die. They need to issue a formal apology for this, like they did with Brian Adams *.

* That was a reference to South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut.

Natural Born Killers (1994)

The most brilliant social commentary of the 1990s

[7 August 2003]

Some things in this review could be POTENTIAL SPOILERS though they deal more with thematic material then plot elements.

As much as I love Wag The Dog, it may not stand the test of time the way that NBK will.

This film will take you for a trip. Your head will hurt, you will see things in a new light, you will be on the journey that is Mickey and Mallory. You do not watch this film so much as experience it and that is what makes it so wonderful.

The criticism of the film is based on premises so erroneous that they are laughable. The violence in this film is anything but glorified, if anything there is a message of pacifism in this film. Notice in the film that the only people who use violence are those that are scum and that it fits so well in to their worldview that their salvation has to make itself appear in the form of violence (Owen) because that is all that Mickey and Mallory know (I am taking this from the ending on the Director's Cut which I will not spoil but only say that it adds a new meaning to the film and it works far better then the other ending). By showing the "demon" of Mickey, you really get the chance to see the real effects that the violence has on the world of the film. The only anchor for true pacifism in this film is the Indian who accepts his fate but that small scene is enough to really give the rest of the film an entirely new light. Also, the violence is only a tool used by Mickey and Mallory, the same way that any tradesman would use a tool, a lengthy tradition dating back to at least Shakespeare (in Romeo and Juliet).

The real satire in this film is about the media though and the commentary is just scathing. You could potentially think of the film as something else (though it is difficult after I Love Mallory) right up until the turning point when they come to trial. At this point *SPOILER* the film basically grabs you and shouts in your face like a drill instructor in the USMC saying, "This is a comment about the state of the media." The commentary does hammer you and it is "in your face" but it never gets preachy because of this.

Just watch the film and you will understand what I am saying.