kcdl Reviews

Inventing Anna (2022)

A fun, intriguing show

[10/10 · 23 January 2023]

I enjoyed the last journey this story took me on, and I'm surprised at some of the critical reviews. A lot of people are complaining that the story focuses too much on the journalist. I disagree. The problem with sticking with Anna Delvy/Sorokin is that the outcome is pretty much a given. Also truly Anna is unlikable, she is basically a sociopath. So we need a protagonist that we can root for. It seems I'm in the minority but I actually liked Vivian Kent. She's an underdog that has unfairly had her career ruined and she's trying to redeem herself with a killer story before giving birth. I see the journey as not whether or not Anna gets caught, but will Vivian Kent redeem herself and just who is Anna really and also what does it mean to be successful.

I also feel like people have really short attention spans because I don't get why people feel it is too long either.

I feel the main theme is "Is success real or is it an illusion we create" and "does societies idea of success actually bring happiness". There is a lot of shallowness portrayed in this series and I think it reflects the shallowness of societies concept of success. The people in this show pursue a false ideal of success (money, fame and reputation) while actively moving away from true success: love, family and honest relationships.

Willow (2022–2023)

A lot of fun

[10/10 · 12 January 2023]

Willow is really enjoyable. I really like the dynamic between characters, the humour and the story. The actors are all good and do well balancing the drama and comic aspects of the script.

It's rare that a continuation of an old movie feels natural and not forced. It's also rare that the balance of drama and comedy is so well maintained. It's a breath of fresh after all the "grim-dark" reboots of the last decade.

I enjoyed this more than Wednesday (I enjoyed both but I thought this was even better).

I'm truly disturbed by the bad reviews on IMDB. I suspect they are from cranky people my age that feel there childhood has been spoiled or something. I liked movie but I don't feel the series spoils my memories in any way.

A Rainy Day in New York (2019)

Being Woody Allen

[4/10 · 27 August 2022]

I like quite a few Woody Allen films so I'm not a biased hater. In particular I really liked Midnight in Paris. This film however was absolutely terrible, but it was like a slow motion car crash I couldn't look away from so I watched it until the end.

To explain what this movie is like I will also include a slight spoiler for both this movie and being John Malkovich. In Being John Malkovich there is a portal that lets you experience the world from John Malkovich's point of view. At one stage of the movie John Malkovich goes through this portal and everybody's face is replaced with John Malkovich's. Well that is what this movie is like but with Woody Allen.

Nearly everybody in this film either sounds like Woody Allen or if not is a 2D archetype. The two mains are the most extreme version of this and it is made all the more weird by the fact they are young characters talking like an 80 something man. Yes, Woody Allen films have quite stylised dialogue, but each character usually has their own voice. Each character in this doesn't just feeling like a character written in the style of Woody Allen, rather they feel like they ARE Woody Allen or at least his screen persona.

I've seen Elle Fanning is other stuff and I though she was a good actor, but if this was the only thing I had seen I would think she was the worse actor in the world. She had absolutely no comic timing. One particular cringe worthy scene she has to act star-struck by a famous actor and it was totally unconvincing: you could practically see her dredging the lines up from her memory. Although she was an extreme example I don't blame her: nearly everyone was struggling because the dialogue was so contrived and so inappropriate for the characters they were given to. I felt like Selena Gomez did the best she could with a bad dialogue, but even then it was just too bad for anyone to really salvage.

Another thing about this film was the lack of a strong theme. Most Woody Allen films are pretty easy to pin down thematically. For example Midnight in Paris is all about people who think the past was better than today. This film was thematically a mess: it had themes but none were really explored in depth and you don't really feel that anyone was truly transformed. The plot advanced, but you don't feel like the characters did.

At absolute best I think maybe it as being self referential and that was the reason every was acting like Woody Allen. Maybe they all represented different aspects of Woody Allen: the writer, the director, the misunderstood boy, the fickle unfaithful parter. References to making movies, particularly movies that aren't good pop up a few times. The director hates the way the movie is turning out, a young man is shooting a student flick with non-actors he picks off the street, and the whole movie is packed with Woody Allen clichés. So being really generous maybe the whole film was deliberately bad and he was trying to say something about his own struggles as a movie maker. I don't think so though. That's like Tommy Wiseau trying to claim The Room was meant to be a comic master piece.

In summary: the dialogue was terrible, the plot was almost non-existent, the acting was bad and the whole film just felt off.

The Wolfman (2010)

Very disappointing.

[18 January 2011]

The Wolfman is either meant to be a horror film or an action film but it lacks the critical ingredients of either.

As a horror film a lacks all suspense. There is no terrifying build up, just violence that turns up exactly where you expect it. A good horror film makes you think something is about to happen when it doesn't and just when you think things are safe it does. This film doesn't even try. On the one occasion in the film where it comes out of nowhere it has little impact because you barely see anything and it happens to a random extra you don't care about.

If you were to classify it as a horror film it would only be because it is extremely gory. However even gore needs to be done in a way that it has psychological impact. The gore in this film is displayed so casually it has no impact. It is like the impact of nudity at a nudist colony as opposed to a striptease.

As an action film it is very short on actual action. There are essentially three bits of action: a teaser at the start, a bit in the middle and the climax. In between there are long portions of back-story and filler that are plain uninteresting. They may have served a purpose if they helped you sympathise with the characters but they were basically just exposition. As I said before the main problem is there is no suspense to any of it. Apart from the sheer poor timing of it there are few characters you can care about, or if you could care about them they aren't in peril.

The weird thing is none of the actual performances are bad. The special effects are okay, but not particularly original. I didn't like the character design of the werewolves much though, they kind of remind me of Wookies. The dialogue, looked at in isolation, isn't all that bad either. Is is just a poorly constructed film that commits the sin of being flat out boring. At least if the acting had been bad it could have been unintentionally funny. Unfortunately it can't even claim to be so bad it's good. It is just bad.

Homeless to Harvard: The Liz Murray Story (2003 TV Movie)

An inspiring story but an uninspiring movie.

[1/10 · 28 November 2010]

I am astounded at the amount of positive reviews this movie has. I can only assume it is getting high ratings for the story because they way this has been put together is amateurish. I know it is a made-for-TV movie, but does it have to scream it? The use of voice-over is terribly cheesy. I don't alway mind VOs but in this case it seems like a lazy of showing what is going on instead of writing powerful scenes and letting the audience figure it out.

I don't see why something that is a true story has to have the sentiment ladled on so thickly. The story should speak for itself.

The acting from the leads was okay. The supporting cast was a bit weak.

I recommend you see this movie only if you are really bored or you are a homeless person that need inspiration.

Cats (1998 Video)

Worst musical ever!

[1/10 · 12 August 2009]

Firstly I would like to say that I love musicals. I also like a lot of Andrew Lloyd Webber songs, I'm not a ALW hater. So I wasn't biased from the the start.

Cats does have its good points: great costumes, good dancing and Memories. That is it.

There is almost no plot to think of at all. Take your average action movie. Now think of something with a million times less plot than that. At this point you are still imagining something with more storyline than Cats. This wouldn't have bothered me at all except for the fact that most of the songs are really really bad and totally forgettable. So a storyline to hold the interest would have been much appreciated. Instead we have a bunch of very superficial adjective ladened songs introducing cats. Once the characters are introduced....it ends. The whole musical is introducing various cats collectively and individually and the very vaguest of story lines is resolved without any drama whatsoever. Right near the end there is the smallest glimmer of conflict, which is then resolved in the most anticlimactic way.

Memories is a good song that landed in a wasteland of musically boring lyrically bankrupt songs. Even its power is someone diminished by the fact it is reprised multiple times.

Cats is a musical version of a tourist trap. It has an illusion of great promise which is maintained by a few mad fans and probably its one good song but no substance to back it up.

Chuck (2007–2012)

Very Enjoyable if you take it for what it is.

[10/10 · 2 August 2009]

I'm totally surprised by the amount of negative comments made about Chuck. though at the same time the good comments are very good.

I half wonder if the negative comments comments are because people are watching it in the mode of "This is comedy why aren't I laughing every single second".

I agree the show isn't laugh-a-minute. However I think it far more than that. I once heard this show described as "joyous" and I think that is a perfect description. This is a show that should produce joy rather than laughter. Laughter is reflexive and ephemeral while joy is more lasting and requires sympathy for the characters.

I enjoy the show because I love the characters. They may seem to be clichés but the are all archetypes in new contexts. We not only have meek nerds in dangerous situation but train killers in mundane situations.

I love watching these characters trying to adjust to these environments that are alien to them.

The other thing I like is that there is forward movement in nearly every episode especially in season 2. I'm so sick of shows that are stand alone bad-guy-of-the-week. Chuck has a clear story arch. It is a very plot driven show and secondarily a character driven show. The script is a formality much like Star Wars.

Really it is a classic story about man who is being forced to be the man he is meant to be. Chuck has the potential to be a hero but years as a lowly computer store clerk have obliterated his self confidence.

On the flip side it is the story of a girl who has been running around saving the world and just wants a normal life.

I guess if you don't have sympathy for the character you will never understand what is great about this show. It is FAR more than a bunch of spy clichés.

Another thing I love is the chemistry between Chuck and Sarah. It is more than just sexual tension the to characters are actually in love. This makes things a bit different to the usual sexual tension theme where the boy is trying to get the girl to like him. We know they like each other from the start. It is merely the circumstance that keeps them apart. This raises the stakes of the story arch of chuck trying to get the intersect out of his head.

In summary I believe you enjoy it more if you don't think of it as a purely as a comedy but as journey for the main characters.

Dead Like Me: Life After Death (2009 Video)

Avoid if you want to keep your memory of the series untarnished

[4/10 · 16 April 2009]

First of all I will say that this movie isn't as bad as it could have been but it got pretty close to it. Feel free to share what you think.

WARNING: Spoilers for both the movie a series to follow.

All the main ingredients to a bad follow up movie were there: Same character different actor, plot holes, contradictions to canon, characters acting out of character, corny dialogue, unresolved plot threads.

Firstly I'll deal with the plot holes or at least contradictions of previously established canon. Suspension of disbelief is one thing but suspension of disbelief shouldn't extend to ignoring the previously established rules within the fictional universe. That is just called bad writing.

Okay the first few episodes of Dead Like Me pretty much centred around the consquences of ignoring the rules. Each time George tries to ignore or get around the rules the consequences are bad. Yet we are meant to believe that Roxy of all people would start disobeying the rules. We know from the series that she disobeyed the rules deliberately and had to put up with Gravelings going after her. You get a pretty good idea the reapers in that group all know the consequences of not following the rules.

Now we are meant to believe that Roxy would go right ahead and ignore the rules because of a sleaze-bag like Cameron? Roxy is an established ball-buster and would not be even the slightest bit likely cosy up to a slease like Cameron, let alone listen to anything he says. It doesn't make sense for her character or her previously established history.

To a certain extent you could say the same is true for both Daisy and Mason, though it is slightly more believable that they would be tempted...esp Mason! The Cameron plot line made no sense. Some have suggest that he may have been there to deliberately tempt each character to see who would be the next head reaper. However if that is true it was a really poorly executed idea and gave no definite clues in the movie. The fact they successful cremated him and (seemingly) sent him to space seems to speak against him being a lackey for the Powers that Be. If he WAS meant to be a tempter that is probably even worse because even though that would explain his motives it would seem a bit stupid that the PTB would used this method to pick the best head reaper. Any idiot could see that It'd be either Roxy, George or a someone from outside the group. Mason and Daisy obviously aren't options for any sane PTB.

George being able to talk to her younger sister makes no sense. It has already been established that if a reaper tries to contact a relative in the living world the lose their memories and end up looking mentally ill. That is of course completely ignored because they wanted George to talk to Reggie. This I find very infuriating as I feel they could have solved the problem AND stuck to canon. For example in the series Reggie seemed to some how catch onto the fact that Millie is actually George. Perhaps they could have explained that in some way like maybe she has a rare ability to see reapers for what they are, in the same way only George seems to see gravelings directly (just a suggestion, perhaps a bad one, but at least it is an explanation!). Better yet they could have had it set during Halloween since it has been semi-established that they show their true faces on Halloween. Point is they could have found some solution based in canon for why she could talk to Reggie/reveal her identity without just ignoring the problem.

Joy wrting a book on grieving and heading up support groups is out of character. Joy has all the compassion of tin foil. That is just part of her character, that's why her husband and daughter were so distant from her - she just found it hard to connect with people and feel sympathy. However it starts off with her being all sympathetic with this woman at a support group. I agree that in 5 years she might have changed but the fact she is STILL having trouble connecting with her own daughter seems to speak against this change. While it is possible that she finds it easier open up to a group of strangers they had nothing in the script to explain that. If Reggie had a simple line like "You can share your feeling with your support group but you can't do it with me" it might have made a bit more sense but as it was it seemed incongruent.

The woman playing Daisy was just atrocious or at least the writing for her was. She didn't even sound vaguely like the original and acted completely out of character. She had none of the sass of the original. The sexual tension/latent romance with Mason was dealt with for about 3 seconds in one scene.They scripted as a bimbo whereas in the series she was cunning and manipulative but with a vulnerable side.

I basically felt that the original series was done a great injustice.

I should point out that even though the two writers did work in the original series they only did a couple of episodes in the first season and several in second season (the latter I didn't feel was as good).

Blades of Glory (2007)

Surprisingly Good

[8/10 · 18 July 2007]

I'm not generally into overly silly comedies but for some reason I loved this movie. I laughed pretty much all the way through in spite of the fact that if you deconstructed it has many components of a bad movie.

It has a predictable plot, clichéd characters, low brow humour. However it somehow balances out these faults, though it is hard to say how.

If I were to attempt to say why it wasn't bad I'd say: It is well paced. It doesn't try to be anything than what it is - a lot of comedies these days suddenly try to be serious like they are embarrassed to be "just" a comedy. At the points at which it is in danger of turning soppy it maintains the comedy unlike the Wedding Crashers (which I enjoyed none-the-less but it did slow it down). It doesn't have any annoying "forth wall" breaking that brings you out of the movie. There is also comedy going on in the background that you might miss (for example some of the stuff the commentators say).

It manages to make the main characters sympathetic although they definitely don't start out that way. Movie clichés are tweaked just enough to make them fresh and funny.

Some have made the comment that they think the movie is homophobic. Personally I think that says more about them and society's stereotypes than the movie makers. It is NOT making fun of homosexuals at all but rather people's reaction to homoerotisism. If you are a offended by it is probably a sign that you are homophobic yourself. There is a difference between camp and gay, if you don't get that you won't get why it isn't homophobic.

All that being said I wouldn't recommend analyzing this movie into oblivion while you are sitting there. Just sit back and relax.

The Rage in Placid Lake (2003)

A light hearted quirky movie.

[7/10 · 2 June 2007]

I really enjoyed this movie. I won't lie to you though it isn't uber-brilliant, deep or ultra-funny. It is the sort movie you watch late at night when your expectations are low. If you're looking for a movie that doesn't make you think too much this is it.

That being said I did find it funny, if somewhat puerile at times. I could relate to the main protagonist. The story moved along at a good pace and didn't get bogged down. I really wanted to see how it would end up.

I like that it didn't suffer from the usually Australian movie problem of "lets show you how uniquely Australian we can make this film" it just let itself be. It showed a side of Australia that wasn't purely rural or suburban.

Also Rose Byrne is absolutely gorgeous. I think I want to marry her!

The Extraordinary (1993–1996)

Great Program

[10/10 · 25 November 2006]

I used to watch this show when I was in primary school. Not unlike an Australia version of "Unsolved Mysteries" or "Sightings". From memory at least one story in each episode was from one of the aforementioned programs.

Warwick Moss had the perfect voice as the the show's host. The set was (supposed to be?) an old shack on a Melbourne (I assume) dock which gave it this creepy eerie feeling. The closing shot would be of Warwick Moss walking down the old run down dock.

Actually looking back on it they did deliberately play up the "Creepy Factor". It used to freak me out a bit. I would probably not enjoy it as much now as I feel that some of the topics tackle perhaps deserve more serious treatment.

Independence Day (1996)

Crud

[4/10 · 11 November 2006]

When I first saw this movie I had a great time (I was 15). I saw it twice in the cinemas.

However later I got it on video and only then did I realise how bad it was. I really does get worse and worse (yes I watch a few times to make sure! I'm a sucker I know). Now normally I can "turn off my brain" but only to an extent. There is a point when I movie is sooo way out that you can't ignore it.

It has one good point and that is the special effects. Even then you HAVE to see it on a big screen to get a sense of scale.

I shall attempt to list the bad points *spoiler*: 1. No suspense. You know right from the start how it is going to turn out.

2. No internal consistency. These ship can cross interstellar distances a fantastic speeds and yet they take ages to get into position. The small fighter ship can reach the moon in less than a day and yet they have trouble keeping up with fighter jet. The alien fighter's were pretty just weirdly shaped jet fighters in the way they moved. Thus the dogfights scenes were just like any old war movie, when they could have made it exciting and different. So no tension there, they just looked evenly matched apart from the shields.

3. Corny as hell and just soooo American and patriotic. Puke.

4. The dumbest plan in history. Apart from the virus thing, what the hell are they going to do about millions of tons of spaceship hit the ground? 5. Boring subplots, namely the crop duster pilot.

6. Almost entirely 2D characters with perhaps a couple of exceptions.

Eh, what am I wasting my time on? I'd be here forever.

In conclusion only watch it if you've never seen it before, you can turn off your brain and you own your own movie theatre.

Timeline (2003)

Needlessly Terrible

[3/10 · 15 April 2006]

Firstly don't bother seeing this film. Read the book.

The screenwriters really dropped the ball on this one. I realise that you can't be entirely faithful to a book. The problem with this film is they completely removed the soul of the book. I'm not sure you could do the book justice without making a series or at least mini-series version. That being said they could have done a lot better than this. I don't how I would have understood any of what was going on if I hadn't read the book or been familiar with science fiction.

Main problems:

• Clunky exposition. I can understand that they had to simplify it it because the book spent a lot of pages on it. The funny thing is despite dumbing it down they still left in jargon terms that were never explained. From this I assume they were expecting Sci-fi junkies (like me) as an audience - in which case I don't understand why they would essentially take out all the sci-fi and make it into an action film!

• Left out any quantum physics explanation or explanation of the many worlds theory. Perhaps understandable, however I felt Crichton came up with a novel approach to time travel and that would of set it apart from other time travel movies. In this movie it is merely plot device.

• They removed essentially all the best scenes in the book. They removed a lot of the humour too. - Poorly edited - No dramatic tension. You pretty much never fear for the safety of the characters.

• Linked with the last point: you don't feel enough of bond to any of the characters to care what happens to them in the rare cases they DO look like they in danger. They were obviously very focused on making the movie fast paced. It was that, but if they just spent a little bit of time on character development the action might have been actually been interesting.

• Forced romance with absolutely zero chemistry or tension. There was romance in the book but it was handled completely differently. Crichton even did a better job even though romance isn't exactly one of his strong suits.

• Not enough character background to understand the character's motivations.

• People randomly miraculously learning to speak English.

• It doesn't explain why ITC is funding a group archaeologists.

Into the Blue (2005)

Really bad

[1/10 · 18 January 2006]

This film is really quite boring. The only possible reason you would watch it is to see Jessica Alba and Ashley Scott. Even then it just another example of two women who look infinitely better as brunette who have dyed their hair blonde. I should say that I am a diver an even that aspect of the movie wasn't enough to save the movie for me.

Lets list the faults:

1. It is almost impossible to feel sympathetic for the main characters. Two of them have objection personalities and two are just stupid. 2. It takes a million years before it gets into the story...I may be exaggerating. 3. Relys too much on beautiful scenery rather than and actually having a storyline. 4. The characters talked like a hybrid of a preppy and beach bum. It might suit the characters but it is no less annoying. 5. There is almost zero suspense, it is not only predictable but poorly timed. 6. Hollywood ending. Not just any Hollywood ending, think Wayne's World's super duper happy ending.

Seriously if you want the see Alba in a bikini pick up a magazine or surf the net, don't waste your life on this tripe.

Adaptation. (2002)

Brilliant

[10/10 · 25 November 2005]

Only read this review if you didn't get it.

Normally I hate self-referential stories. I hate the way self-reference brings you out of the story instead of drawing you in. So you would think that an entirely self-referential movie would be hell for me. Well it wasn't.

The weird thing about Adaptation is that although it is totally self-referential it manages to to draw you into the story.

You have the story of the adaptation of The Orchid Thief and the The Orchid Thief story itself running side by side, it chops and changes between them. You can think of the story of the adaptation as being "real life" and the adaptation story as being fiction or vice versa. Of course both thread of these stories have some element of truth.Then at the end both the stories merge and it becomes everything that the screenwriter wanted the adaptation of the Orchid Thief not to be. Then of course you realise that you have been sucked in complete and that the boundaries of truth and fiction have been blurred. The best example is bringing to life the fictional brother of Charlie Kaufman: Donald.

The film comments on personal passions, approaches to life and approaches to writing. It comments on rules you should follow when writing and then paradoxically both breaks them and follows them at the same time.

It isn't as laugh out loud funny as Being John Malkovich but that's okay. This film may be billed as a comedy but I think it is bigger than that. While making fun of the process of adapting the Orchid Thief it manages to fit in some beautiful quotes from that book. You also see the screenwriters reaction to the book he is supposed to be adapting. The question is how much of the the screenwriters part in the movie is fiction and how much is fact. That is ultimately what messes with your head. I will need to see this film again, the genius of this film is that is so clever that it appear not to be clever but the more you think about it the more clever it becomes.

Thunderbolt (1995)

Uncharacteristically bad

[3/10 · 23 November 2005]

I normally love Jackie Chan movies but this one was terrible. There are only 2 or 3 fight scenes all of which are up to normal standard more or less. The bad thing about this movie is it focuses a lot on car chasing/racing. The car chase isn't so bad (though not as exciting as fighting) but the car racing at the end is exceptionally boring. Basically it takes all of things that make a Jackie Chan film a Jackie Chan film and leaves out everything except Jackie Chan. Even the traditional outtakes at the end lack their usual humour.

I suppose to a certain extent it was made worse by the fact I saw one of those horrible dubbed versions. I usually try to see the subtitled version...I wish I could understand Chinese.

I've only seen one Jackie film worse that this one and that was one of his early forays into Hollywood films that didn't turn out so well.

Avoid unless really curious or a lover of motor sports.

The Butterfly Effect (2004)

An Enjoyable Film

[8/10 · 12 October 2005]

Firstly I have to say that I think a lot of previous reviews have been heavily influenced by a dislike for Ashton Kutcher. To tell the truth I was half expecting an absolutely terrible performance from him too. His acting wasn't bad at all. I think he played it just a the right level. I think people see what they want to see and if you look hard enough bad acting, plot holes etc. you'll find them. I guess some people think being really pretentious makes them really smart. Frankly if they were really smart instead just trying to be they would have been spending the time enjoying the movie instead of picking on it.

I was pleasantly surprised by this movie. I was really expecting something light and fluffy and I got dark and gritty. This is not a film for those who can't stand dark themes.

The director cut doesn't have a clichéd Hollywood ending either (though the theatrical version does).

The film does have some plot holes and places where you have to suspend disbelief (it's a freaking time travel movie for crying out loud!) aside from that it the pieces fit together really cleverly. My advice is just to except the internal 'logic' of the film at not think about it too much.