Change Your Image
WeHeldTheCum
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
The Goode Family (2009)
How labels destroy creativity
The opening paragraph is a little off-topic rant/opinion dump, If any potential reader is interested in the review itself, I would recommend skipping it.
It's sad how prematurely this show was scrapped due to low ratings. Now, I'm sure people can find a whole bunch of reasons "The Goode Family" never amassed the necessary popularity to survive, but I personally see it as tragic case of preconceptions determining public opinion. Now, I'm not from the USA myself, so any political BS people throw around about satirical shows such as this one was never that interesting to me. If I'm not mistaken, the main creative force behind the show (Mike Judge) once stated, that his work is more about people's way of thinking and social processes - not political events. Even so, people just love to label things as "conservative" or "liberal" to simplify them. It really sucks when folks can't appreciate a good joke, or a piece of art in general, just because they have a stick up their arsenal about some recent political event that no one will give a fudge about in 5 years or so. Quite sad, indeed.
The show itself is based around episodes with individual plot lines - there is no connection between episodes, save for the characters and setting. The humor is varied, ranging from lighthearted jabs at different stereotypes that doesn't really stand out that much from other satirical shows to slapstick moments which work surprisingly well and occasionally - surprisingly cynical and nuanced humor, which is the highlight of the show.
The series does have several shortcomings, some of the running jokes, namely the dog not being fed properly, could have been handled better. Some of the supporting characters aren't developed properly and don't fulfill the potential their overall concept had planned. Out of the 13 episodes created, the later ones show more refinement and potential, (especially the "lime dew" one) proving the series had a good starting point. Sadly, corporate pulled the plug.
In its unfinished state the series exists as more of a curiosity, but I would still highly recommend seeing it, as it still shows time, effort and creativity was put into it, what little there is.
Guardians of the Galaxy (2014)
Overproduced Fanfiction
The First paragraph of this review consists of exposition. If a potential reader wishes to read about my opinion on the movie, skipping to the second paragraph is advisable. It's been about two years since I saw this movie at the cinema - something is compelled me to organize my thoughts and write this now. Why? I'm not entirely sure, I guess "Guardians Of The Galaxy" was always kind of an enigma to me. How could a movie so inept in everything it tries to do be so praised? It's not your typical Michael Bay-esque Hollywood cookie-cutter garbage, so It's success can't be attributed to following the same, overused, cliché-infested formulas. It could be that I am insane in my own specific way, but outside of production value I found no redeeming qualities here. I know the movie is an adaptation (of sorts) of a comic book series. My knowledge of comics is incredibly limited, so I'm judging this thing on it's own merits.
"Guardians Of The Galaxy" reminded me of one of those sci-fi stories I would come up with when I was 10-13 years old. It was a favorite pastime of mine, coming up with characters, who were blatant rip-offs of others from franchises I enjoyed at the time, putting them in nonsensical situations (of course, to 12 year old me it all made perfect sense) and just admiring my creation as any narcissistic child would. Of course, my stories didn't have movie adaptations with astronomical budgets.
I compared "Guardians Of The Galaxy" to a child's sci-fi story because of it's complete lack of direction - too many plot lines (more akin to plot doodles) that are individually unrefined and irrelevant to the overall story, which somehow manages to be even more undefinable. It's like a space opera chopped up and stitched together in some horribly messed up jigsaw puzzle. Now, some movies thrive on a lack of continuity and direction (Tarantino practically mastered that form of film-making), but this specimen is different. Again, it's as if the script was written by a child and the whole thing was directed by some individual who somehow had the skill of a top-notch director, but again possessed the mindset of a 12 year old.
What's even more surreal about the whole thing is that it feels incredibly solid - it's not "The Room" where every seen is irrelevant, because of the writer/director's sheer incompetence. Somehow, "Guardians..." holds itself together quite well, again everything else is top notch: Excellent CGI, detailed land/spacescapes (albeit of unoriginal, uninspired design) and pretty good acting with some minor exceptions. As I said before, this movie doesn't play out like a typical Hollywood schlockfest would - there are too many plot lines and too much time is devoted to character development - if this was typical garbage, we would have had a lot more action scenes and female characters in suggestive positions. All these attempts at complexity feel sincere, again, it's like a child trying to do his best, but they have no purpose. To illustrate: why should it matter that the green chick and the blue chick (sorry, too lazy to look up names) are sisters - it could matter, but the movie makes no attempt to give some importance to this statement, they share some scenes, the talk about about each other, they fight, but nothing really comes out of it. It's the same with every single plot point you can think of. The Villain? Well, he's pale blue and angry and he has this massive spaceship fortress and wants to rule/destroy (not sure) the universe, but wait it turns out he's not the main villain, there's another guy and he's even...yeah a 12 year old might buy into this being legit character development, but I've grown far too old and cynical.
In the end, "Guardians Of The Galaxy" feels like it starts from nowhere, goes nowhere and accomplishes nothing. A very empty, yet confusing (albeit visually spectacular) experience. But all the glitter in the world can't make this shine. Sorry.
The Wicker Man (2006)
Not horrible, just misguided and amateurish
I saw "The Wicker Man" remake along with the 1973 original with a friend of mine about 2 months ago. We were both curious about the movies for quite some time. My only preliminary exposure to this specimen was the infamous "Not the bees!" scene, though that particular sample wasn't my motivation for looking into these films. Though I have seen the original prior to watching the remake, I analyzed, dissected and rated the 2006 remake on it's own merits, keeping in mind only the general setting and idea, which were the basis for the 1973 classic.
The original "Wicker Man" portrayed a variety of conflicts and problems (perhaps too large a variety) through the main opposition of Christianity vs. Paganism. It was, without a doubt, an interesting and well crafted piece of art, though it did have some minor pacing issues and suffered from a slight inability to properly develop the different aspects of the conflict due to it's relatively short run time. From what I could gather, a lot of people were opposed to the very idea of a "Wicker Man" remake. Personally, I thought it was a prospect ripe for development, as the original presented a wide variety of ideas and allowed a lot freedom to potential re-interpretation. It was, in the truest sense of the word, a timeless movie, one that could take new forms in the works of other directors/writers through the ages, if not as a direct remake, at least as a general inspiration.The location, a sort of occult backwater, was ideal for the story's development and choosing to (more or less) keep it similar was one of LaBute's better decisions when it comes to this movie.
While a conflict of the genders isn't the first thing that comes to mind when I think of "The Wicker Man" it was a fairly interesting concept. Although I haven't seen any of Mr.LaBute's other works, from what I can gather, this kind of conflict is a recurring theme in them. Again, I didn't mind this direction, It's Neil LaBute's remake, after all. He has the freedom to re-interpret it as he wishes. That doesn't excuse the poor presentation, though.
One thing that becomes noticeable after the first couple of scenes is the direction, or lack thereof. A lot of people flag the acting in this movie as "bad", though I think directionless would be more appropriate. I'm pretty sure some of the actors, especially Nick Cage, could do better if they knew what they were supposed to do. What character are they supposed to represent - no one knows. What feelings are they trying to convey - not quite sure. This lack of direction gives the scenes an awkward, poorly paced feel. As a result, the movie seems to waste most of it's 102 minute run time, feeling a lot less complete than the shorter 1973 original by the end.
The connection between the scenes themselves seems off too. The whole movie feels poorly cobbled together as a result, which is a shame, as some scenes are done rather well, especially when it comes to scenery and camera work. There are some rather poor computer generated effects in some select moments (the bees come to mind, though that scene wasn't in most cuts). The island in particular feels very authentic and manages to pull of the occult backwater in the 21st century look.
The whole man vs. woman focus also suffers from lack of direction. They try to present Cage's character as a tormented man who wants to right wrongs, but is a complete control freak and even a borderline sociopath as a result of his past failures. At least I thinks that's what they're trying to go for - with all the awkward dream sequences and conversations where Cage steals the spotlight you never get an idea of what his character is supposed to be like. And if Nick gets 1/3 of the movie for himself and still can't portray his character, you can imagine what the rest of the island dwellers are like. So, if there is no foundation to what the characters who participate in the conflict represent, then the conflict itself can't be outlined. As a result all the elements clearly made to tie into this conflict (the hive metaphor, the Don Quixote reference) feel tacked on and pointless, nothing more than pretentious self-indulgence.
In conclusion, "The Wicker Man" remake offers an interesting take on the original concept coupled with a wonderful setting, but fails to develop it. The poor directing and editing between scenes, the resulting slow pacing and plot holes, the poorly developed characters and directionless acting and most of all the poorly outlined conflict ruin what could have been an interesting movie.