hbabcock_28 Reviews

The Irregulars (2021)

Enjoyable and rated artificially low by trolls

[7/10 · 27 March 2021]

I enjoyed the different take on the characters. Definitely had some strong YA moments, but overall enjoyable. The supernatural elements likely would have pleased Sir ACD, as a fervent believer in the supernatural himself.

Apparently some people see a person of colour on screen and go all weak in the knees. Give your head a shake. London, as a port city and center of an Empire, was much more diverse in the past than the bedsheet crowd would have you believe.

But, if my valid historical argument doesn't sway you, then... This is clearly intended to be entertainment, not history, unless I missed the "murder birds" segment of my 'British History from 1851-1914' course. But every time certain people see a lead of colour on screen they decide it's 'forced wokeness' or some rubbish and rate it low. If you can't look past a character's race on screen, there are bigger issues for you then a show about street urchins working for Holmes and Watson.

Hope Floats (1998)

Oof

[2/10 · 5 March 2021]

Look, I can appreciate enjoying this movie. I've liked many a fluffy piece of garbage, but something about this movie just didn't come together. I could never figure out the relationship of the leads. So, he likes her (ostensibly because she's beautiful, since that's the only compliment he offers) and she just sorta goes with it. He gets all pissy that the woman dumped on live TV by her husband isn't ready to date a couple weeks after her public humiliation and she just sorta... Goes with it anyway and dates him while not dating him and dating she's not really dating him. I guess? I do not understand the motives of either of them. Mae Whitman is the best part of this movie, and I normally quite like Sandra Bullock. The whole thing just sorta happens to you, wandering from one plot point to the next with no real sense of a larger purpose or real message. Oof.

Bridgerton (2020– )

Trolls will out, I guess

[8/10 · 10 January 2021]

So, people are talking this VERY seriously for a stylized quasi historical romance. Here are the main criticisms and my counter:

1. Historically inaccurate: Is it inaccurate? Yup. Based on the fabric alone (hot pink not really a Regency colour). Did I care? Nope. The show clearly went out of its way to be stylized. If that bumps you, so be it, but I don't believe it ever claimed to be accurate. It reminds me of "Marie Antoinette" or "The Great" in terms of intentionally bringing in modern elements. Look, usually historical inaccuracies bother me (I have a 30 minute rant about the Mulan remake), but this just didn't because it was so clearly going for a look.

2. Diversity: get over it. 'Oh no! Every character isn't white!" Seriously? People need to give their heads a shake, see point 1, and if people are that prejudiced, might I recommend every other Regency show ever? I am rolling my eyes skyward at the " it needs to be all white casting" crew.

3. Changes from the book: on this, I can't comment. I haven't read it, but I enjoyed the story well enough. Though, I have seen an equal number of "they changed so much" and "it was so faithful" reviews, so I hardly know what to think.

4. No humor: humor is subjective. I found a great deal in the show, but everyone has a different sense of humor. I enjoyed many of the characters and their relationships and found that the show wasn't overly serious. There were many moments that had me chuckling.

I enjoyed this show. Exactly what I was looking for in the moment. It was a suitably entertaining confection; light, fluffy, and delightful. And not at all deathly serious.

The Good Place (2016–2020)

I'm Forking Obsessed

[9/10 · 9 October 2017]

The non-spoilery bit is: this show is great. Hilarious, something to say, well-acted, and different from other offerings on TV. I've become a Good Place evangelist. Watch this show.

Now for the spoilery bits. You've been warned.

I burned through season one and my jaw dropped watching the last episode.

I've always been fascinated by the idea that "hell is other people" and I love the tension between people making each other miserable and people becoming important to each other. The show has a lot to say about relationships. That Eleanor and Chidi are both a form of torture and so very important to each other is genius.

The show is smart and doesn't shy away from the denser and more complex allusions to the Sartre play and challenging philosophical questions of morality. Upon re-watching, all the clues for the season one reveal are there... the proof is in the fro-yo--something so good, ruined just enough to bother you. How often do characters say they're unhappy and then feel guilty for being unhappy in paradise? Genius.

What I love most are all the running gags, like the hilarious swearing, and the amazing timing employed by the terrifying clown doors on Eleanor's bedroom (and the less high-brow "bud hole." Hee!)

Seriously - I can't wait to see what else season 2 has in store.

South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut (1999)

The vulgar and ridiculous sometimes get to the heart of matters...

[9/10 · 27 February 2011]

This is my comfort movie. When I'm sick, when I'm tired, when I've had a bad day, this movie makes me feel better. It's on my personal Top 10 List of Awesome, and I can't think of Juvenilian Satire done better.

Yes, this movie is crude, and rude, and other words that end in 'ude'. That is kind of the point. South Park always has, and continues to, point out the ridiculousness of our world in a blunt and disgusting way. They point out, and play with, taboos and things we're not 'supposed' to joke about.

I could go on about the parallels in this movie to the initial responses Stone and Parker received making South Park. I could talk about how the movie points out the ridiculous double-standard that Hollywood has regarding content; how the MPAA, and many others, believe that hearing profanity or seeing sexual content will have a greater damaging effect on the population than seeing glorified, gratuitous violence that dehumanizes the on-screen victims. I could even talk about the excellent use of the adults in South Park as representatives of the mob mentality, as well as a population that is complacent in allowing TV to raise their children until they hear something they don't like. I could write essays. I'm sure people already have. South Park is a smart show, and the movie is no exception. Many people can't get past the vulgarity, which is a real shame. They are truly missing out on excellent social commentary.

What I will says is all this movie needed to win me over was Stan's opening ensemble number and Satan's insecure neediness and Disney Heroine-esque solo. And neither of those songs holds a candle to "La Resistance." If you're uninterested in reading too much into the message or purpose of your movies, this is a hilarious musical parody from start to finish. There is a ton of pay-off for fans of the series, which doesn't get in the way of new-comers enjoying the film.

Being Human (2011–2014)

Give it a chance, folks...

[8/10 · 26 February 2011]

Let me preface this by saying I have seen all the episodes of the BBC version. I love it. I also love the new US version.

Anyone who has read anything about this show (rather than just taking to the internet to spew fury all over everywhere) knows that the US version will be following the UK version, roughly, as far as the end of the first series. The first 13 US eps will mirror the first 6 UK ones. None of the US writers or actors have seen any more of the UK show than the first 6 episodes in order to make the show different in later episodes. What I am interested in seeing is what the US version does after the first 13 episodes, because it will be "original". Hopefully.

So far, the US version has made one important improvement on the UK version: the "ghost" rules (ie How Sally/Annie can interact with the world) are much clearer. Frankly, the extent to which other people in the UK version can interact with Annie has always been a little murky (read: plot-servicing). I enjoy the clarification of the rules in the US version. I am willing to see what else the US version does. Some things may be better, some things worse. Without giving the show a chance, we'll never know.

It is important to note that SyFy (and Space, its Canadian buddy) primarily air reruns of old SciFi shows produced by others. Original in this context means they are producing it. Yes, linguistically tricky, but so is everything in Show Biz. Bear in mind that BSG was also a remake, just more time had passed and the series was darker. Also, excellent, which gives me hope for Being Human.

I have no trouble watching both shows. Liking the US one doesn't take from liking the UK one. They both have humour, likable characters, and an engrossing storyline. If you like SciFi, Fantasy, or horror genres, give this show a whirl.

Dollhouse (2009–2010)

Love it. Dark and thoughtful.

[9/10 · 7 September 2009]

This show is amazing. And dark. Very, very dark. This has clearly made many people uncomfortable. However, Helo, sorry, Paul, essentially spells out the message in the pilot: when seemingly helpful technology is created someone finds a way to use it for evil.

I don't believe the show makes any apologies for the people at the Dollhouse. I believe it shows the ways those people rationalize what they are doing so they can sleep at night.

This show is a great vessel for exploring the nature of the soul and personality. What makes people who they are. Despite being wiped and implanted over and over, Echo retains some of her Caroline-ness. This show is not ultimately about "the world's oldest profession," but about what makes humans human. If you can't get past the creepy paying for people, and, yes, the singer episode, then this is really not your show.

And, speaking as a woman, I really don't find it all that offensive. I'm actually not all that certain why I should. The dolls are of both sexes and I see a strong female lead, may Whedon continue to put them on television.

I highly recommend this show. Get past the first few episodes (which Fox tinkered with) and see the brilliance beyond.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)

I seem to recall taking Transformers into sand was a bad idea...

[2/10 · 27 June 2009]

What an appalling piece of tripe.

Michael Bay is a hack. If there is any justice in the world, he will one day be kidnapped by people with actual talent. They will force him to watch his movies over and over in a Clockwork Orange chair until they break the soul he clearly doesn't have.

As someone who loves movies of all genres, Transformers 2 offends me on a deep personal level. Michael Bay's latest opus is a testament to the dark, greedy, soulless side of the movies. Anything for a buck, lowest common denominator, pandering to the base nature of humanity, crap.

That bad? Oh yes. And its insidious. There were 2 things in this movie that were better than the first one. The transformers transformed more slowly so you could actually see it happen... well, you would be able to if it didn't also look like the movie was edited in a wood chipper. The Transformers also had more personality, which was an improvement over last movie where the only way to tell which giant robot was Optimus was to look for the Mac Truck.

However, there is a dark side to these new personality-filled robots. The appearance of Amos and Andy in robot form was awful. Nothing like 2 buck-toothed, illiterate, bumbling, stereotypes to affirm that Michael Bay is either completely racist or completely naive. His comment that, "they're robots," is moronic. And Jar Jar is just an alien.

There was so much action it was sort of like an assault which got increasingly tiring. Yeah, the special effects were pretty and the explosions were loud, but 2 hours and 40 minutes of straight Michael Bay action was incredibly boring. Part of that is his style. The aforementioned wood chipper editing does not help anything. You can barely see whats going on. Despite the loudness, I fell asleep. Twice. In a theatre seat. I've never been that bored in a movie in my life. And it was 2 hours and 40 friggin minutes long! Indulgent and vapid. There was not enough movie to justify it being that long.

The problem is the movie is all surface. There is an overly complicated plot, which really doesn't need to be there at all. Why explain giant killer robots in such depth? To appease the fan boys? I doubt that'll happen. They're already angry. And the plot is not engrossing. The characters are irritating. All the humor is fart and testicle jokes. The dialog... I'm actually in the process of repressing it, but robots + declarative = bad news bears. Out of self defense Michael Bay has to rely on fiery explosives and robots hitting each other with trees. He is incapable of every part of making a movie that is not special effects.

There was a love story, which mostly involved Megan Fox bending over and pouting and then her face spiraling around near the end in a completely mystifying moment. Of course, to show how epic the love was, Bay decides to spiral around our couple in 360 camera shots that directors don't generally use. They don't use them because they are disorienting for the audience and considered amateurish. So after 5 straight minutes of rotating cameras I was ready to vomit, and it wasn't entirely the revolting meditations on saying I wuv oo first from Shia and Fox.

You know, I can't actually do this movie justice. It was that bad. It was everything I hate in a movie. Everything. I think I died a little inside last night.

And Michael Bay? Please do not rape anymore of my childhood memories. I can't take it. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Van Helsing (2004)

I almost died laughing...

[11 September 2008]

Yes, this movie is pure garbage. The plot makes no sense, they don't explain anything, they randomly travel around, and the acting is truly appalling. But.

BUT.

This movie rocks. I'm going to go buy it. It's funnier than most comedies. And there's so many games to play! Count the number of times Beckinsale is grabbed by the weird!flying!vampires. Count the times Beckinsale's bro falls in a river. Count the number of accent changes. Count the minutes until they finally put the movie's NAME on the screen.

The costumes are ridiculous, with Beckinsale looking like some strange S&M fantasy and Jackman looking like he's trying to edge out Fabio for Haliquin poster boy. And the acting! Oh, the acting... someone read the definition of melodrama on set, and no one understood.

And Dracula walks on the ceiling. All the time. Clearly floor is not good enough for this cat. And as far as Ham of the Year Awards, this guy takes the cake. He's the best part of the movie.

I loved every nonsensical second of this movie. It should be shown in film classes. Here's what happens when people have a big budget, big actors, and big effort and yet still fail utterly. Amazing.

Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story (2004)

Surprisingly hilarious...

[8/10 · 19 June 2004]

I have to admit, I was worried. C'mon…a movie about a dodge ball team? But my intense love of Alan Tudyk spurred me to see this movie. I was expecting Zoolander...but crappy. I was pleasantly surprised.

This movie is actually more intelligent then it lets on…there were more than a few clever references (Deus ex Machina for one…Maginot line [sp?] for another) and not a small amount of Nazi-bashing sub-text.

That being said, this is not an overall intelligent movie. It's about dodge ball. People get hit in the groin. A lot. There's a guy named Steve the Pirate. It has a cameo by William Shatner. Do not, DO NOT look for cinematic genius. However, I still loved it. It was hilarious. The random sports they made up…squirrel water skiing, midget tossing...*snicker* And that they weren't afraid to go to the disturbing place...with pizza...it was really quite funny.

Why am I raving? I had ultra-low expectations. It made me laugh solidly from opening to closing credits. Good times.

And now, to rave about my reason for attending the movie: Alan Tudyk. Yes, he played a man who thought he was a pirate. He played a character that the writers were clearly high when they thought up, but (SPOILERS AHEAD)

***

**

* ...when he was hurt and made fun of...well I actually felt bad. I felt bad for the freaking pirate-man! I was amazed that any actor could do anything with that part. That he could create an emotional connection impressed me. I mean, the guy was a freaking pirate-wannabe!

*

**

***

END SPOILERS

Don't think that I'm easily impressed by movies. I'm not. Normally a movie like Dodgeball would get nothing but scorn and derision from me...but I really enjoyed it. Definitely a great bad movie. Anyone who needs a laugh, go, don't expect too much, and enjoy!

G.I. Joe: The Movie (1987 Video)

Another reason why the 80s is best left behind...

[3 October 2003]

***Spoilers***

I was scrolling down the user comments and saw heading like "Great", "Awesome", etc. I think maybe some are watching this with rose tinted eyeballs.

Besides the rampant ethnic stereotyping and offensive accents (like the Mexican guy who may as well just say "Yo Quiero Taco Bell" and be done with it, the Black guy who, I kid you not, raps every time he talks, and the Russian woman who sounds like the Count from Sesame Street, "One, two, three, three terrible voice actors! Mwahaha"), there were a whole bunch of plot, animation, and acting problems to deal with.

The movie contained so many inconsistencies that it made me wonder if perhaps the animators were not reading the script. The scene with the explosives in the enemy base alone was enough to convince me that these guys had no idea what they were doing. Look closely at the timer on the bomb. When it reaches 0 the joes are INSIDE the base. Then it starts to go off in an impressive display of jerky animation and suddenly the Joes are OUTSIDE the base with out having to take the few minutes to actually run there. Oh, sorry...I forgot about off screen teleportation...

The second major problem I had was the "touching" scene where Duke is stabbed. Watch closely. The wound is on the left. They pan away, the pan back, still on the left. They pan away again, pan back and oops. Now its on the right. Was anyone else reminded of Igor from "Young Frankenstein"? I would also like to point out that this entire scene is negated by the fact that Duke is NOT dead (as was implied by his DYING in that scene). "It's OK everyone. Duke is gonna be OK!" *General revelry*...

This scene is also full of poor dialouge. And what's the deal with all the "yo Joe!"'s? I love it when the General turns away from Duke's supposed dead body and says, with a single tear running down his cheek, "yo, joe." Touching. Oh I was crying...I was laughing so hard my eyes were streaming.

While watching this movie I honestly had to wonder who was writing this garbage. " GOLOBULOUS:'Kill him.' SERPENTOR:'No put him in with the others as an example of what will happen if they disobey us.' PYTHONA: 'I like that idea. It's poetic in it's simplicity' "

WHAT?!? What does she even mean?!? How is it poetic? How is it anything other than a tired routine? Arrggg. And I would again like to bring up YO JOE! The writers tend to chuck that gem in whenever they can think of nothing else. In the most inappropriate times (like when it makes no sense) a random Joe will just yell YO JOE! This is generally not a good tactic when one is attempting to sneak up on the enemy.

My final complaint is the animation. Mostly the animation of the bad guys. Besides everything in Cobrala looking increadibly phallic, it also looks like the Joes are being attacked by a herd of those things you put on the table at Thanksgiving. Ahhhh look out Sarge! The cornucopia's are attacking!!! Also Nemisis (I think that's his name). You'll know him when you see hime. Hes the one who looks like a cross between Arch Angel and Magneto (although wearing an interesting red holdall over his purple body/body armor). Since Marvel made this movie I find this all rather suspicious...

Basically this movie was like watching a feature length episode of the Super Friends, but without the goofy charm and rampant alliteration. I probably enjoyed it when I was a kid, but then I also enjoyed eating bugs...

PS Theres a Joe named SnowJob. Um anyone else find that...interesting PPS I din't even get into the song...and I'm not gonna

Bats (1999)

Ahh muppets...

[3/10 · 9 September 2003]

I am not a fan of bad movies in that I purposefully seek them out, but when I see a (funny) bad movie I can at least laugh. I have sat through "Challenge of the Super Friends: Attack of the Legion of Doom" and found it downright funny.

Bats, while not the worst movie I've ever seen (I reserve this title for Mission to Mars and Phantom Menace), is still pretty bad. But at least it is funny. I honestly believe that the people who released this movie KNEW it was bad, but decided to release it anyway. They were being "scientists" and attempting to see how well this stinker could do. Who will pay $13.50 to see this movie? Will they ask for their money back? Who will LIKE it? How can we clone them?

That aside, Bats should be played in Film classes. Not for its merits, but as an example of what NOT do do, especially when it comes to the camera work. In TV they use a technique called a one shot, one shot, two shot (I may be a little off on the title here. I don't work in TV). Anywho, this is basically a description of how to film a conversation. Film one person's face, then the other person's face, then them talking together. Its a formula. Its an EASY formula. The director of Bats thought, "hey! I can use that!" And he does...for a conversation of 6+ people. It is the most disorienting thing I have ever watched. There is all of this quick cutting around the circle of people in an attempt to give them all their screen time. And just when I started to feel like I was going to yak, they did what should have been done in the first place: film all of them standing and talking together (the "two shot") in a semi-circle that is diguised to not look like a semi-circle (Hollywood does this so well). Why didn't they just do this in the first place? Were all of the actors clamering to get their close ups? We may never know. What we do know is that that technique should never be employed for conversations greater that 2 maybe 3 people and each person should have a few lines before the camera is cut away, not just "No".

There next filming mistake was the attack scenes that go on for a few minutes, but you still never know what is happening, or what happened until you see the corpses. Again to much fast cutting, and now blurry images as well.

Now to step away from the camera stuff, we will examine the Bats themselves. I'm sorry, did you say Kermit was your father? I am a fan of muppets. I liked Yoda as a muppet and was royally p***ed off when Lucas CGI'd him. But I like good muppets and only in their place. In sci-fi you can handle them, but in a killer animal movie? The killer animals need to look REAL in order to "scare" us (the quotes here are being used sarcasticly). They should not look like something the director picked up at Toys R Us.

The last major problem I found was with our so-called heroes. Man do I hate idiot movies. You know where the plot is only furthered because the characters are complete morons? I mean this chick is supposed to be a scientist! An EXPERT in Bats. Shouldn't she KNOW how to get rid of them or catch them? Plus given the choice between having killer bats take over the whole continent or nuking the crap out of this small town so that they're gone forever, well just help me down with this missile. Oh, but we can't use nukes, they say. I'll destroy our quaint little town and our way of life. Ummm...so will the bats. The bats will also destroy all of the people on the rest of the continent except possibly the people in the Yukon. Stupid, stupid heroes.

But all of that said, I did actually like watching Bats cause it gave me something to laugh at and then rant about, which is always fun. I didn't go into the crappy dialouge cause after Attack of the Clones bad dialouge has a new high water mark. Dialouge would need to be something SPECIAL to beat that putrid mess, and Bats, while bad, does not even come close.

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)

And now the darkside has claimed Lucas entirely...

[3/10 · 4 September 2003]

If you've read my review for "Phantom Menace" you'll know I was not impressed. As a Star Wars fan I feel cheated. If this movie was made for "the audience of today" then can I be transported back in time or something? I'd rather wear bad 80's fashions then be told that "Attack of the Clones" is what appeals to "my generation".

Bad writing, bad acting, Jar-Jar (however briefly), all go to making this one of the worst movies ever(Phantom Menace still tops it).

And on behalf of Vancouver I would like to apologise for Hayden Christianson. I'm Sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry! I'm embarrassed for Vancouverites everywhere.

My main problem with this movie was the dialouge. "I've died a little every day since you came back" and "I hate sand. I like it here where things are [strokes Amidala's arm] smooth" and "I love you, truely, madly"(was anyone else expecting her to say "deeply" and then see Savage Garden appear and start singing?).

Who writes this drivel? Oh wait...Lucas! GET SOMEONE ELSE TO HELP WRITE THE THIRD MOVIE!!!!!!! *Ahem* I can't take anymore of this terrible terrible dialouge. I couldn't even pay attention to the plot cause the dialouge kept getting in the way so I honestly don't know if it was any good.

I again must say that the special effects did not help the movie at all. We should rename this movie this movie "Attack of the Bad CGI". I detest poorly done, shiny CGI. It does NOT look more real. Star Wars ANH is more convincing.

The yoda fight scene in all of its cheesey glory could not save this movie (plus that scene gets really old really fast).

All I have left to say is that I laughed so hard in theatres that everyone else stopped trying to be polite and was laughing too. Bad Dialouge people. Bad.

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)

Lucas has gone over to the dark side...

[2/10 · 4 September 2003]

Now before I start I want to make it clear that I am a huge Star Wars fan. I love the original trilogy and have seen it many times. It is one of the classics of film history. Not so with the first installment of the prequel trilogy...

Why for the love of all that's good and pure did Lucas decide to direct the actors himself? The man may have many talents, but getting the best out of his actors aint one of them. "The Empire Strikes Back", arguably the best movie of the trilogy, was not directed or even written entirely by Lucas. This also goes for "Jedi". The only one of the original 3 that he wrote and directed by himself was the "Star Wars" and the acting is a little stiffer then the other 2 (I know to some this is sacrilege, but watch it again and watch Mark Hamil closely and you'll know what I mean).

I don't know why Lucas would decide to direct and write these movies himself when the best ones were done with help from others. Lucas's talent was always the special effects. And with that lead in we get to the 5 big reasons why I absolutely HATED this movie:

1. The ACTING (or lack there-of): Holy crap! This movie reminded me of a High School play. Wait, that's not fair! I've seen some really good high school plays. If you're gonna hire a kid to play a young Darth Vader MAKE SURE THEY CAN ACT!!!! I don't care how cute they are (By the way...Yippee!? What the hell is that?! No self respecting kid says Yippee!). Ewen McGreggor and Sammie L. were pretty much the only 2 who can claim the title of actor in this movie, and even they gave disappointing performances. Now I do feel sorry for the man who has to fill in Alec Guinness's shoes, but the best way to deal with it is to give your own performance and not an Obi Wan impersonation. I also feel sorry for Sammie L. cause he is a good actor, I just don't think he had a lot to work with...which brings me to my second point:

2. The PLOT (or-again-lack there-of): This really bugged me about the story so I'll include it here: Why did they feel it necessary to explain where the force comes from? They didn't in the previous three and that was just fine. You set up rules for the Universe your story takes place in and the audience understands those rules. The Force exists. It doesn't need a reason. Anyone who can't deal with it without an explanation probably wouldn't really enjoy the movie anyway. Anywho, end that rant for another one: Can we say NON EXISTENT plot?!? Can we say VIDEO GAME marketing?!? Can we say excuses for copious amounts of CGI?!? Oh look! A lead in to my third point...

3. The SPECIAL EFFECTS: Yes they were cool, blah blah blah...does anyone else miss the days when people had to WORK to get cool special effects, not just type code into a computer? CGI looks really fake when not done properly. It looks all shiny. That was the problem with this movie. The thing I find sad is that in the 70's, when the original "Star Wars" came out they managed to put together cooler (and more convincing) special effects. Plus the aliens, while muppets, still held my attention longer. Yay! It moves so neatly to my fourth point:

4.The ALIENS: what the hell is the deal with the aliens with accents?!? In the original movies the aliens either spoke English or another language. They did not have TERRIBLE accents. The trade guild/union (whatever) aliens I dubbed "the French-Canadian Chinese Fish". Man could my french teacher do a good impression of them. Why not just have subtitles? Does Lucas think we are unable to READ? I'll take subtitles over bad Jamaican accents any day. Which brings me to my fifth and final point...

5. JAR-JAR: I hate him. I despise him. I wanted to take a light saber and lop his head off. I wish Obi Wan had. How could anyone think that Jar-Jar would be funny? You know what would have been funny?...His painful and agonizing death. He was too moronic to be a good character and destroyed a lot of the point of Star Wars. In the original movies our heroes worked hard to achieve victory. In Phantom Menace Jar-Jar falls on his ass to single-handedly win a battle. It's mind boggling. It hurts me. I hate you Jar-Jar. (I am reminded of "the Simpsons" where the comic book guy is sleeping with a Jar-Jar doll and says, "Oh Jar-Jar, everyone hates you but me." So true, so true.)

Despite this, the movie did really well. I guess we were all so starved for move Star Wars that we attempted to ignore that overall crappyness of "Phantom Menace", or perhaps its because this proved that obscene amounts of CGI can triumph over a thin, poorly written plot and bad acting any day.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1997–2003)

One of the best shows- but try telling that to a non-believer

[7 August 2003]

I have to admit a shameful truth- I was not a Buffy fan. I saw a couple of early episodes, but I never really got hooked. When my cousin started watching it last year she tried to get me to join her, but it didn't really work. "You see there's this guy Angel, a vampire with a soul, and he an Buffy love each other..." To quote Buffy, "A vampire with a soul? How lame is that?" I've decided that you cannot explain the plot of Buffy to someone who has not seen it with out them already being interested in watching it. To me, the whole thing sounded far to melodramatic for my taste.

But then I was forced into seriously watching an episode. For those who know the show, it was called "Lover's Walk". Spike comes back to Sunnydale after Dru dumps him in South America and "wackiness ensues." This was the first time I realized that Buffy was funny. Even though I have some issues with Angel (but only on Buffy, on Angel he's an awsome character- go figure. As my brother would say, "Duh! It's his show), Buffy is my favorite show. It's funny, it's sad, it's clever, it's creative, and the characters are people you come to care about. You want to see what goofy Xander is going to do next, if Willow will get some nerve, if Buffy will learn to let her friends in, if Spike will lose a little more of his evil, and if Angel will crack a smile (told you- issues).

Like other reviewers of the show, I have a beef with the Academy. Fine the show is called "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", but is that cause to shun it? SciFi/Fantasy tends to get shut out of the Emmys and Oscars (which has sort of changed with Lord of the Rings), but just because a show's not about Doctors or Cops or Lawyers it is ruled out of award contention. Yes there is a lot of crappy scifi/fantasy, but there is also a lot of crappy "real life" drama that gets noticed (Ally McBeal anyone?). There is some quality acting, directing, producing, writing, the list goes on...that gets shunned because the heroine fights vampires (never mind that the whole daemon thing is a metaphore for the trials of growing up). I mean they didn't get nominated until Hush and they didn't even win. They had to do a SILENT EPISODE to get noticed! Forgive the rant...i'll get back to the point.

Buffy is a great show. Take the word of the converted. I used to scoff at Buffy, which proves that at some point we must all eat our words. Buffy was one of the best shows on the air, and I'm sad that its over. But just because there aren't anymore new episodes doesn't mean the show has lost any of it's merit. Maybe it'll get a nod this year (ya right) which would be great, but also a shame as the show's strongest seasons were the 2nd and 3rd (Spike, Dru, Evil Angel, and the Mayor...good times). Even so, Buffy gets two thumbs up, 4 stars, 10 leprechauns, or whatever you use to rate tv. Watch it...it'll make a believer out of you.

The Terror of Tiny Town (1938)

Ah, midgets...

[4/10 · 7 August 2003]

Ok, so when I voted I gave it a low score, but that was cause Terror of Tiny Town has very little cinematic merit. But put all that aside and wind your sense of humour down a couple of notches and this movie is a "rootin, tootin, shootin" good time. I mean come on! They walk UNDER the saloon door! They ride ponies! It takes two midgets to play the bass! The bartender can't seem to chug his beer without outbursts of laughter! Plus- midgets fighting- funny! Add to that the fact that not a single one of the midgets can act and you've got 63 minutes of fun! Ok, so I realize that this movie is so politically incorrect that "little people" everywhere are either laughing themselves to death or up in arms. But that shouldn't stop us from enjoying an entirely midget western with multiple ear shattering musical numbers and the barest traces of a plot. But like I said before- midgets-Funny!

Identity (2003)

Really good until the last 30 seconds...

[6/10 · 29 April 2003]

THIS REVIEW CONTAINS A SPOILER

I was sitting in the movie theatre, incredibly pleased with Identity. Incredibly pleased, that is until Timmy, movie wrecker in 4 and a half feet, waltzed on scene and said, "whores don't get a second chance." To quote the comic book guy, "worst ending ever." I was perfectly happy with the killer that was revealed earlier (who I won't reveal because to me that was the real end of the movie). I was perfectly happy with the movie up until the point where the sole (or so u think) survivor is hanging washing on a line. It should have been cut there. End scene. Why the homicidal child? It's so overdone and in this case badly done. One would think there would be some clue that little Timmy is daemon spawn, but no. He seems to be a perfectly normal kid. I'm all for surprise endings, but they need to be realistic. Other then that Identity was great. I loved all of the twists. I supposed thats what makes me so mad. The movie didn't need another plot twist. It was twisty enough. It seems as though some hack writer was sitting there one day and though, "Hey, lets make Timmy the murderer! No one'll see that coming!" Of course we won't. It doesn't make sense! So to all of you who haven't seen it (and are still reading this review with a spoiler) walk out when you see someone hanging washing on a line. You'll be glad you did. You'll escape Timmy and his fantastic movie ruining powers.

Soul Music (1997)

"The turtle moves!"

[8/10 · 4 April 2002]

I have to say, when I heard about this movie I searched and searched and finaly asked my parents to search (they were far more successful) and so after 2 years of fruitless searching, Happy 19th Birthday Heather! It was fantastic. Even thought I think they got a couple of the characters wrong (Like the Dean- I like Paul Kidby's version better)and that the Raven was just damn annoying, I still really enjoyed this film. Christopher Lee is the only one who could do Death's voice (besides James Earl Jones)and they have managed to include most of the best parts from the book. Plus I really like The "we're bigger that cheeses" line (an nice nod to John Lennon). However, you can't say that it is better than the book because really it is almost impossible to be better than the original work. But even though this is true, it is still really good in its own way. It's a little strange in parts, but hey, so's the book. I have to say that my favourite part of the movie was Glod. He was done really well and got to keep all of his cynical, witty one-liners. The only thing I have to ask is how many letters they got about the blatent ethnic-steriotyping (and if you've seen it you'll know what I mean)? Even so, I recommend this movie to Discworl fans and non Discworld fans alike (although if you're not a Discworld fan and live outside the UK I'll be very surprised if you've even heard of it).

The Return of the King (1980 TV Movie)

Worse than the first one (and that's pretty hard)

[3/10 · 16 March 2002]

Now I'm really glad that New Line is coming out with this new trilogy because Return of the King was a farce. At least in LOTR I could laugh at the limping Nazgul, Aragorn in his mini skirt and Boromir the Viking. This movie did not have such niceties. It was one atrocious scene after another. I have to say than when I pictured Orcs, they did not dance and sing a song called, "where there's a whip there's a way". But the new musical sequences were only a minor problem.

This movie cut out a huge section from the middle of the book (namely Faramir, Shelob, and Gollum's treachery) which is actually REALLY important. I was also not a fan of the way they reversed Frodo and Sam's characters. Last time I checked Frodo was the doom sayer and Sam tried to be optimistic. They also skipped really quickly over important scenes and yet took ten minutes on the Samwise the Strong scene which, while important should not take up quite that much time, especially since they had to cut the book down so much to fit it into a movie. There are also several events that really didn't happen in the book that they put into the movie (but some of them would ruin the end so I won't say incase any pain seekers actually want to see it). I've heard of artistic license, but...

If I wanted to be really picky I could go on about how Gandalf sounded all wrong and how Bilbo looked like old Mother hubbard. But Mainly I need to say that Glen Yarbourgh is the WRONG person to write music for the LOTR. His folk music twang has no place within a hundred miles of this movie. People shouldn't even listen to it when they read the book.

Anywho, my advice to everyone is that if you want a good laugh check out the first one (LOTR) and if you seek torture then by all means, see the Return of the King.

The Lord of the Rings (1978)

Funny for all the wrong reasons.

[3/10 · 13 January 2002]

I have to say that this movie pretty much made a mockery of the book. They made Sam into a joke, the black riders sound like Yoda, and all the characters movie like they are dancing ballet. Frodo walks through the whole thing looking pretty happy instead of being terrified and hopeless. Oh yes and Aragorn is wearing a mini skirt.

On the plus side, they did try to stay true to the book and some of the animation is neat. However, I would have to be pretty hard up for entertainment before watching that again.

Mission to Mars (2000)

Trashing Mission to Mars

[1/10 · 23 July 2001]

This movie was poo. Absolute poo. It was unrealistic. How could someone live in a tent on Mars for 10 years? The acting was bad and the plot was terrible. The movie was mearly bad in the first half but it went downhill shortly after the teary eyed speech made by the main character's dead wife. The end...i'm still trying to forget it. I have lost 2 hours of my life and i'll never get it back.

The Stupids (1996)

It gave me a headache

[2/10 · 23 July 2001]

What can i say other than this movie was so bad it made me feel physically ill. I mean i know the movie is supposed to be stupid and is about stupid people but there should be a limit to the amount of bad puns that can be crammed into one movie.