zaid-adham Reviews

Dubai Bling (2022– )

This is not my Dubai

[1/10 · 30 October 2022]

I have never rolled my eyes in cringe at a reality show before in my life.

My family moved here in the late 1980s when I was about six years old. In the process of growing up here I witnessed the growth of Dubai in every aspect, from its construction boom and population growth to its leadership as the ultimate tourist destination in the world and home of one of the fastest growing multicultural communities in the world. I was here through elementary, secondary, and high school, then on to university and finally another 15 years of working in several industries. It is far more of a home than the country where I was born and the country whose citizenship I carry.

This is not my Dubai.

Dubai Bling is an example of everything that is wrong with the Dark Side of Dubai: the zealotry of ego, the Karen Culture, the money-out-of-your-nose opulence that's more a cause of derision than it is inspiration. There is nothing creative or ground-breaking about this show apart from the fact that it bolsters the outside world's cynical view of Dubai being everything wrong about "nouveau riche urban development." The city is no London, New York, or Paris...so it's already laughed at elsewhere with YouTube videos that show everything that's wrong with this city. Those of us who know better defend the city against those videos...

...but when a show like this comes out on an international streaming service, it does nothing but bolster the outside world's reason to hate the city and turn the volume of the laughter up to ear-shattering levels.

Everything is clearly acted out in a desperate plea for attention, every scripted word is a demonstration of how common sense is clearly thrown to the wind, every item of fashion is an outrageously obvious product placement sponsorship disguised as daily haute couture. All this does is cement outsiders' belief that this is no billion dollar elite society but a 1 cent flea circus.

On a scale of 1 to 10, this show is a -11.

The Vietnam War (2017)

Unforgettable. As a World, We Should Have Learned Our Lesson

[10/10 · 22 December 2021]

I'm only 3 parts into this 18hour, 10-part documentary and the horrifying things I've seen and heard are capable of turning your whole world upside down and inside out. You can't bear to look and yet it's so captivating that you want to see more and more.

At the same time it serves as a clear revelation that it takes only one man, intentions good or bad, to ever start a destructive war. And now, we've reached a point of unwavering belief that just one man can destroy the entire world.

In a rare and noble act of objectivity in today's media, the documentary interviews both American troops and Viet Cong, and you sure as hell don't root for any side. As I watch this, I believe this is the war that truly reshaped the world, because it made every single other nation out there, Middle East included, deeply hateful of all others.

And perhaps it's now too late to love again...

Top Kids (1987 TV Movie)

Sticks with you if you're obsessed with cars

[7/10 · 10 November 2021]

If, like me and most other boys, you grew up with a fascination and obsession with cars, there would eventually be a need to get a better idea of their history. I remember watching this movie when I was about 10 or so...maybe even younger, but the history lesson it provided stuck with me for a lifetime.

This is definitely a kids movie that encourages suspension of disbelief in order to teach a lesson, and it works! It's surprising to watch it again now and realize how much it actually taught back then that remains stuck in my database of random trivia.

That being said, back then you couldn't distinguish 80s cheese for what it is now, so reviewing this as an adult is an entirely different perspective. It's campy, cheesy, and at (most) times, highly cringeworthy...but wasn't that the 80s in general? And I had completely forgotten that Niki Lauda was in it...an inclusion that, for what it's worth for a racing legend, wasn't really necessary. One thing that it definitely has going for it is the inclusion of so many authentic cars true to their history. How did they manage to get so many of them?!

Ultimately, this is a top nerds' movie, that's for sure. A lot of the info you get from it can now easily be found on Wikipedia, but to condense it into one single production with what would have been defined back then as "fun" isn't a triumph of infotainment, but for its day, it sure as heck works. That being said, it's definitely not a movie for today's kids, intelligent enough to be highly cynical about it.

Cruella (2021)

The Double Edged Sword of the Nostalgia Factor

[8/10 · 13 June 2021]

A film like Cruella was destined to polarize viewers.

There are some that are calling out Disney for ruining the legacy of the original 101 Dalmatians, that the story is too derivative of other plots, that they're now asking for sympathy for the villainess ("why can't bad guys just be bad guys" writes one reviewer). Disney is scraping its back catalogue looking for things to regurgitate. The list could go on and on, but one thing is obvious: people are rating it so low because they just want the ratings to drop. It's all trolling.

Why? Well for both the 10 and 1 reviews it goes down to the same thing: The Nostalgia Factor.

People who enjoyed Cruella enjoyed seeing at a different, edgier side to a candy-sweet classic from the 60s that many remember in their lifetime. They enjoyed the fact that they retold the story from another perspective and that doesn't pander to the good-guy hero. It's no surprise. I keep saying what the dean of my university once advised me when I started working in journalism: "Nice fluffy stories don't sell."

Even Spinal Tap back in the day said it: "Every movie in every cinema is about death. Death sells."

It's no secret that Hollywood is now officially dead. The Kubricks and Nolans and the Tarantinos have all stood aside to let the studios do their own thing, so 1) they use the nostalgia factor to lure in those who wish to remember their past, and 2) regurgitate the story from a different perspective, again and again and again, to tell newer generations that there was something back then they should have seen, and remaking it in a way they accept and understand.

Then people take this and react each in their own way: praise for thinking out of the box or being indignant that thinking out of the box of their childhood has torn the story and its place in their hearts to shreds.

This is how Cruella is polarizing audiences.

Personally, I'm not even a Disney fan, old nor new. In fact I dislike how badly they've commercialized Star Wars and the MCU. So I came to watch the movie with zero expectations because my wife was the one who suggested it. By the end of the movie I was quite impressed. Disney had left its sickly sweet mold and chosen to do something dark ("Are you sure you're not from the DC Universe?" jokes another reviewer, a line from Deadpool)

The twists aren't obvious at first unless you really think about them. The Baroness is aided by a silent butler, John, played by the underused Mark Strong who, from the very beginning of the movie, appears to be just as much of a villain as the Baroness. Halfway through he confesses that he had saved Estella from certain death through conflict of conscience. You immediately go "aww, sweet. He was the good guy all along." But then, when Cruella finally gets her way and wins as the antihero, we find that John has become part of her malevolent troupe...and your mind starts racing. Was he really a good guy? Was he doing this for his own sake? What on earth brought this twist about? Your head races to find an answer.

The movie makes no bones about its intentions: it wants you to feel for Cruella and see how her menace is both justified and extreme. With that, it's inviting you to join her. We all now what she's going to do next involving Dalmatians. We've seen it in the past films and some of us have read in the story. Now she wants us to be with her, whether we like it or not. I don't think many people who are giving low ratings notice or understand the significance of using The Rolling Stones' "Sympathy for the Devil" as the last song in the movie. I mean, it says everything right there, just in the title!

And that leads to the setting of the story and the complaints being made about the soundtrack: Forget San Francisco's flowery counterculture of a few years before. London the 70s was the place to be if you wanted the anger that brought us the punk movement and all attitudes associated with it. It was alive with the sort of vibe that demanded attention in the worst possible ways. It was mandatory to have a soundtrack that reflected the time and place.

This is where another reviewer is right about comparing Cruella to Vivienne Westwood, but who wouldn't honestly want to sit and watch a bio of Westwood in an age where 99% millennials and Gen-Z don't even know (or care) who she is. You want to capture attention? Give the audience (s)punk: explain that rebels were just as loud back then as they are now. They just didn't need social media, they did it organically, and with a lot more bollocks to boot!

So those who are indignant about Disney ruining the 101 Dalmatians and asking to sympathize with a villain fail to see the point: if you think life is (or shouldn't be) unfair, you're missing the point that fairness is an entitlement.

From the dark ages to the modern age the rule has been consistent: Eat or be Eaten. Disney, although it's already been feasting on audience flesh for a long time, is inviting you to choose. It seems most people giving low reviews choose the latter based on the nostalgia factor begging them to cling to the past...which means that, ultimately, Disney won. They've managed to hook audiences with the Nostalgia Factor, and the indignant ones fell for it in their own way: they were eaten. Those of us who are aware that "nice fluffy stories don't sell" suspended past associations and used the nostalgia factor as a new lens to looked at the present way of life...

They chose to eat just like the movie wanted them to...and it was a delicious movie. Bon apetit, I say!

Undertaker: The Last Ride (2020)

The Dark Side of McMahon

[9/10 · 24 November 2020]

There's hardly any kid who grew up in the 80s and 90s who wasn't completely immersed in the world of the WWF/E, letting it engage every one of their senses every night it was on TV and every night it wasn't...playing matches on the bed with their pillows as opponents, practicing faces in the mirror and picking out costumes, having school yard debates about the best wrestler or tag team. Building fantasies about kicking every one of the heels' asses.

And watching above all of that was The Undertaker.

I think I was made aware of the kayfabe in the worst way possible. In 1994 the WWF/E made a one-off two-night visit to Dubai, where I used to live, and my cousins and I went to watch as our heroes came out one by one. At the end of the night, I snuck into their hotel and bumped into them all sat on one table having dinner. Ref Earl Hebner saw me, and immediately started screaming and kicking me out. On that night, wrestling died for me.

When the announcement that The Undertaker was to retire I think the first thing that came to mind was "Holy! This guy is still going?!" And the highlight reel of my wrestling-obsessed years immediately started playing in my head. Night after night of watching the scariest man in sports entertainment suddenly came back to memory, and I let that reverie take over.

This documentary isn't easy to watch if you're in your late thirties. Not only does it remind you of days when everything was an exciting exploration, it also fills you with a sense of absolute sadness: your heroes of the past have aged, they're nowhere near the bright, shining faces you left. Shawn Michaels seems to have gone a bit cross-eyed, Triple H sounds like his throat is sponsored by a cigarette company, Scott "Razor Ramon" Hall has plumped up and turned grey.

And watching above all of that was the Undertaker...and that's the saddest part.

You saw in this documentary the frightening giant in his heyday, the fear theatrics he played that made every ten-year-old like me lose sleep at night. Between the Undertakers undertakings...heh...Mark Calaway sits in obvious pain on his seat, the gentlest soul you will ever see. It's heart warming the way he narrates his own life amidst the jolting edits, interjected every now and then by his peers. And yet, as the episodes keep going, you notice yourself observing his fraying emotions and paying more attention to how much his body aged: the receding hairline, the beer belly, the sagging pecs, and the exaggerated eye rolls and tongue flicks that once spelled true fear...now just playing for gimmicks. That last one hurts the most, because Calaway at the beginning of the series dreads the day he becomes a parody of himself, not realizing some people long-since detached from the wrestling universe already see it.

And between the goosebumps and the shivers down your spine, you're overwhelmed with sadness. In your head, you've got one hand over your mouth in shock, pleading for him to quit damaging himself. You realize how dedicated he is, how loyal he is to his passion, how much his work means to him....means enough to destroy his body several times over, approximately 17 major surgeries worth. And throughout the entire series there's one word that resonates above all to a nauseating point...

"Business."

Mark Calaway is the Undertaker is Mark Calaway. He is a man of passion, of action, of determination. He loves and is loved, respects and is respected. Fans and wrestlers both prostrate before him equally. He wants them just as much as they want him. Wrestling is his livelihood.

And watching above all of that was Vince McMahon. Because, after all said and done, this is a business.

McMahon is a bona fide business man: cunning, resourceful, experienced, and at once both caring and cruel. You can't help but notice how many times Undertaker wrestled with the voices in his own head about quitting and dedicating the rest of his time and health to himself and his family...only for him to say that his love for the game stops him..."then I get a call from Vince." And you feel even more sorry for the Undertaker, because there's that nagging feeling he's being used. McMahon knows just how loyal Mark Calaway is to the Undertaker, and so ensures that both Calaway and Undertaker are loyal to McMahon. A vicious cycle in more than one way. At some point in time during this series, once you hear the words "got a call from Vince" I guarantee you you'll be equally sad and angry. They say they're friends, but Undertaker to an objective audience will feel like McMahon's lapdog, like Vader to Palpatine. It's just a testament to how Vince McMahon defines "human resources."

I would have preferred it if this documentary wasn't produced by the WWE, because while the feelings are genuine, anyone who knows Vince McMahon knows how much his life is symbiotic to drama. I would believe anyone in the world with any statement, but it's difficult after years of observing the progress of the WWE trusting a single word, gesture, or body language Vince McMahon expresses. There was a point in the documentary that the interviewer asks him what the Undertaker means to him as a friend, only for his lips to wobble and eyes well up. He gestures 'cut' to the camera and says he can't answer that question. For me, and knowing McMahon's history, that was the least genuine moment in this entire production.

Watch this for the nostalgia, for the pride, for the excitement, for days of yore made fresh in your eyes once more. Watch this for the Undertaker, but more than anything else, watch this for Mark Calaway. I could only wish I could knock on his door in Austin and say "Mr. Calaway, I've never met a more genuinely lovable person," then give him a hug and run away into the distance.

But don't, just don't let Vince McMahon give you the address.

Jim & Andy: The Great Beyond (2017)

Creepy, Bizzare, Heartfelt

[9/10 · 19 August 2020]

Until 'Man on the Moon' came out, I had no idea who Andy Kaufman was. I was, and always will be, a Jim Carrey fan, and I loved the movie.

Until I made the concerted effort to actually watch Taxi just a few days before watching this documentary, I had no real perspective as to what Andy Kaufman's purported comedy was like outside of Carrey's depiction in the film.

Then, I hated Latka Gravas with a passion, rolled my eyes every time he was on the screen. By proxy, I hated Kaufman for pulling people's legs for so long by putting on the guise of a genius.

But at the same time, when you put Andy, Tony, Latka, and Jim in the same room, you understand...and you understand the genius. But you can't recognize Andy unless you see the heart that Jim put into his depiction.

My mother hates Jim Carrey. She says he ruined my adolescence because I channeled him too much in my humor. I still do. She just barely notices anymore, because it's too deep in there.

This documentary, which I stumbled upon by accident while looking for reviews of Jim's performance as Andy, moved me in a way that I can't describe. There were times when I had to hold myself back from tearing up. I *understood* them. I knew exactly where they were coming from. I was there too. Since 15 I had my own Tony Clifton that I was too afraid to show people in real life, so I let him manifest online amongst my high school friends. Now, at 37, I wish I had brought him out to real life.

Jim Carrey is phenomenally philosophical and emotional in this documentary. Seeing this side of his humanity is humbling, and the fact that he was Andy...it wasn't a role, he really was Andy...you couldn't have asked for any better. Every single thing he did, from taunting Milos Forman to getting into real fisticuffs with Jerry Lawler. It was bizzare, creepy, cringeworthy, but tear-jerking and heartfelt all the same. Jim Carrey understood. Way before he was Andy Kaufman, he was Andy Kaufman, and when you put those factors together, you'll understand that shift that happened in Jim's life after 'Man on the Moon.' You see his fragility fully embodied, you relate to his thought process, you can understand why Hollywood snubs him and why the public derides him for supposedly going off the edge in recent years. He deserved the Oscar in 1999, and the Academy owes him to take it away from the winner and declare him the rightful one.

There is another side to humanity that both Andy and Jim have visited. They now both occupy that same structure, albeit in different apartments...but they're there. Other artists should break out of their comfort zones and call that real estate agent. Or maybe in the age of junk food entertainment, of faux artistry, of Cardi B and Kim Kardashian, he's dead too.

The Man Who Killed Don Quixote (2018)

The Ultimate Middle-Finger-Lifting Love Letter

[8/10 · 9 June 2020]

I've been waiting so long to watch this movie that I'd reached development hell myself...and I've never watched Lost in La Mancha. Now that I've seen the movie, I'm ready to watch it.

To prepare myself, I spent a summer reading Cervantes' novel. I hadn't read anything about it since elementary school, so I thought it would do me good to remember it. I never got around to finishing it, only two-thirds in, if I'm not mistaken...but it was important to do.

You see I think most people who give this movie low ratings fall into several categories: a) Those who were expecting a normal Hollywood blockbuster b) Those expecting a "typical" Gilliam movie which, in most cases, means 12 Monkeys and Brazil. c) Those who saw Adam Driver's name and expected another Kylo Ren. but most importantly d) Those who haven't read the book, and so don't understand the intricacy of the movie's homage to the original story, which was just as "chaotic" as this movie was.

This movie is Terry Gilliam's love letter to the days of real filmmaking, when movies were made to tell stories to thinkers, not to popcorn munchers. It twists the fabric of reality into fantasy and fantasy into halluncination, then takes hallucination and gives it the hair-of-the-dog to turn it back into reality. It's a microcosm of Hollywood's lie to itself. And, as a result, it is an autobiography of Gilliam's quest to make abnormal non-conforming movies in an abnormally conforming industry...which means it's a middle finger disguised as a love letter. And Gilliam's right to do that.

I can't claim to have liked Adam Driver's performance in previous movies, especially not Star Wars, and yet he does a great job in this as the self-absorbed director being brought down to earth by the very character he once tried to envision. The sort of twists his arc goes into is reflective of Don Quixote's own journey along the path of chaos, that sometime down the line I feel he himself was a metaphor for Quixote. Driver of course has to also be commended for supporting Gilliam's project and seeing it through.

Jonathan Price...what can I say? He wears his character's skin so well that I don't think Rochefort or Hurt could have done it so perfectly. There's hardly been a film in which a performance was so natural that I smiled all the way through to the final frame. I honestly think he deserves an Oscar for this.

The Man Who Killed Don Quixote is full of hidden Gillianisms, but there's two jokes, one that may pass by unnoticed in the conversation, and another that will only be understood by those who speak neither English nor Spanish. I'll keep it at that, because their injection into the film means that Gilliam isn't afraid to use his surrealism to keep up with, or make a comment on, the status quo. They were definitely the two moments that made me laugh the most as I watched!

This is a movie for those whose imagination is nowhere near the box, for those who don't believe in a box to start with. It's for the viewer who's the balanced mix between literati and cinephile, and so it's not for everyone. It's certain, however, to be the best encouragement to (re)visit the source material and pursue a higher level of art appreciation. Gilliam is not your everyday director. No movie goer should expect this...and if anyone had expected this to conform to 21st Century standards, then no, you won't like it. Because Gilliam worked too hard not to make a Hollywood assembly line film, worked for nearly 30 years as a matter of fact, and if he wanted another run-of-the-mill giant production, he wouldn't have put on his armor and attacked them with such passion...whether he's hallucinating or not.

Gilliam's whole point was to confirm the true spirit of (filmmaking) chivalry is still alive...and it's a shame people are too used to cinematic junk food to appreciate haute cuisine.

Watch it with an open mind and even more open heart. That's when you'll understand it. That is all.

Selling Sunset (2019– )

The Lowest of Low Television

[1/10 · 28 May 2020]

When Hollywood runs out of ideas, it remakes and reboots franchises. When it doesn't work for TV, they try production alchemy...and bring in the money shamen.

This is where this "reality TV" comes into the picture.

This isn't a reality TV show, this isn't a soap opera, this isn't a sitcom, and this isn't an infomercial. This is ALL FOUR! The Oppenheim twins, one of the most successful real estate broker teams in Southern California, have made enough money selling multi-million dollar homes in Los Angeles that they feel they need to either attract more buyers or just show off how well they're doing. So what do they do? BOTH. The formula? Create a seasons-long extended ad for your firm by connecting audiences to the lowest common denominator of aesthetic attraction: hot chicks!

THEN instead of actually making it a show about the houses in these upper class LA neighborhoods, the show uses them as a backdrop for the exploration of the personal lives of these "agents" and their interpersonal relationships. So it's not like anyone watching with enough money in their pocket will go "that's the house for me," they're probably gonna go "her legs are nicer than hers, and she needs a new hairdo." So the drama of a soap opera commences, and when it dawns on you how vapid and manufactured it all is, that's when it becomes a sitcom.

To a TV professional, the use of camera shots and angles in line with the postproduction process confirms that this most definitely staged. So the soap opera element becomes more obvious: can there really be that much drama unfolding in these people's lives on a 24/7 basis? A buyer hits on an agent, two agents clash about who has dibs on a customer, an agent's boyfriend calls in the middle of a showing that she interrupts and announces bad news as they talk over FaceTime while the buyer looks on, two agents lock horns about why one wasn't invited to the other's impromptu bachelorette party. Oh, and did I mention the new girl that joins the team and has to win the others' acceptance? I could go on forever...

All the while, this drama is overseen by the producer twins, who make occasional cameo appearances as if they were godfathers of a mob or, worse, as some others have compared it, pimps over their escort agency...and it might as well be the latter. None of the women are ever dressed in anything less than haute couture. They always arrive in supercars and limos (all of which have the Oppenheimer logo in place of a license plate) and conversations started by the twins always seem like commands and prompts to a team of strippers.

There are far too many criticisms that can be brought forward about this excuse for a waste of money. My wife and I happened upon it as we were watching "World's Most Extraordinary Homes," and thought to see if more "regular" real estate could also be interesting, since I myself left the TV industry to develop real estate.

The simile used to be that something this bad was like watching a train wreck, horrible but you just can't pry your eyes off it. This is more like a controlled demolition gone wrong. It's the final nail in Hollywood's coffin.

I, Pastafari: A Flying Spaghetti Monster Story (2019)

Needed to Simmer a Bit More

[6/10 · 27 May 2020]

I, Pastafari has been on my "must watch" list since it was announced. Pastafarianism, relatively unknown by most people, has always been ridiculed by those who are aware of its presence as a giant, elaborate practical joke, and to the untrained eye, it might as well be. Throughout its marketing campaign, this movie appeared to be the one dedicated to shedding light on the evolution of Pastafarianism and the message behind its noodly nobility.

The fact of the matter is that it also takes the time to attack its attackers rather than defending itself through detailed explanation.

This movie can be shown in Europe and North America to the people familiar with Pastafarianism at least in name if not in awareness of concept. However, this is not by any means as much an educational film as it is one of counterattack. FSM groups on social media continue to emphasize that they are not atheist groups, that they encourage critical thinking and, satire may it be, has followers from all religions following in its philosophy. It loses its argument immediately when it is obvious that it targets Abrahamic religions, and *only* Abrahamic monotheistic religions in such a way that blatantly promotes subjective critical thinking.

First, all subjects of focus are European and mainly from the Netherlands, where the followers seem to be from or made to look more than other nations. The Netherlands are no strangers to controversy when it comes to many cultural policies, from being a pioneer in the legalization of Cannabis and prostitution and now, it seems, the acceptance of many citizens of Bobby Henderson's call of enlightenment to the world. Where are other followers such as those in North America or the United Kingdom?

The fact that the focus leans towards looking left of the globe is also questionable and subjective. What about those in Africa? The Middle East? East Asia? The latter, minorities as they may be (and what Pastafarian isn't anyway) may have provided a much better insight to what the actual cross-spectrum views and beliefs of Pastafarians are outside of Western culture and their abilities to integrate their philosophies into regular life. I for one, am an ordained minister living in West Asia, and I know of at least one Pastafarian living in Egypt. Did someone think of researching us? Highly unlikely. I'm sure it didn't cross the filmmakers' mind to research the geographical exception to the rules of the philosophical exception to the rule. An easy way out, if you ask me.

Which leads to the religious pothole. Christianity and Islam seem to be the main focus of the film's crosshairs, perhaps the former more than the latter because many people have given up on the idea that a Muslim can have an open enough mind to pursue anything but a chest-long beard and 72 virgins. Arguments of a different perspective on the acceptance and equal treatment of the FSM vs. Christianity summarize themselves in Pedro Irigonegaray's hypothesis of "what would Americans feel like if Islam suddenly becomes the dominant religion and they were subjected to billboards with verses of the Quran everywhere," which may inflame further unnecessary tensions between groups of faith.

So when it comes to argument against religion, whether in philosophy or persecution, where did the Hindus go? Taoists? Buddhists? A scholar at the beginning of the film describes the evolution of religion from polytheism to monotheism over the years, but the movie is far too focused on the monotheistic religions to recognize that polytheistic religions still exist and may in fact have a problem with something as eccentric as Pastafarianism in their societies.

The movie is by no means bad. It's fun to watch and clearly opens doors of perception to a wider view of the world's thought process, and yet it fails to practice what it preaches...and that's its main setback. I highly recommend watching it but, as it indeed preaches, I recommend watching it with the eyes of someone whose view of the world is much more neutral than the subjects of its focus or their own subjects of criticism. A person who may socially be classified as a third culture kid.

Sadly, as delicious a film as it is for the open-minded thinker, it digs its fork no deeper than the sauce of the subject, failing to go all the way down to the noodles. That would have to be your task. Wear a handkerchief.

Great Railway Journeys of the World: Confessions of a Train Spotter (1980) Season 1, Episode 5

A Trip All Its Own

[9/10 · 15 March 2020]

Sir Michael Palin has always been a hero of mine. Aside from his iconic work in Monty Python, his travel shows inspired me at one point in time to follow suit, which led me to my own adventure infotainment documentary, Treasure Hunters. But before I'd seen the genesis of his work I, like so many before me, caught his latter day work like 'Pole to Pole,' 'Around the World in 80 Days,' and 'Sahara.'

This particular offering, however, is something entirely different.

In 'Confessions of a Trainspotter,' Palin truly shows how passionate he can be about a subject. You can honestly tell he's travelling and narrating from the heart. This is no mere BBC production assignment, this is a dream come true for him. From younger days trainspotting at Sheffield Midland station to this fantastic voyage in 1980, his love affair with trains through the ages means that there's a permanent smile etched in his voice that comes straight from the soul. You don't need to see it on screen to tell.

Palin speaks of trains and documents their history as well as this journey as if he is talking about his lover and soulmate. How can you not be moved by such an offering? Even to the most cynical television viewer, the experience that this documentary provides assures you that you are not just involved with Palin, but feeling his absolute joy as well. From the sounds of the lonely steam engines cruising through the countryside to the view of the InterCity 125 crossing the Forth Bridge, the awe for a network so steeped in heritage is difficult to avoid.

The documentary travels from London Euston to Kyle of Lochalsh in northwestern Scotland, passing through Crewe, detouring to the Carnforth Steamtown before returning to go back up to York for a trip to the National Railway Museum. From there, a trip to Malton takes him north once more by private steam train up to Whitby, then back on the main line to Newcastle. In Edinburgh he stops long enough to document some of the events of the Fringe Festival, then continues to Inverness to watch a highland games event. Finally arriving at Kyle of Lochalsh, he takes away a more important souvenir: the station's sign! In the course of the journey he travels on The Flying Scotsman, visits the sad setting of a steam train scrapyard, and passes the North York Historical Railway Trust to take in a bit of the past. All in all, the experience is inspirational. I dare say, it makes you fall in love with trains and their rich history.

The only time before watching this documentary that I was ever interested in train travel was during my childhood spent building sets to navigate around the house, as did many a boy in the 20th Century. I'd never been one to study the history of any vehicles except cars and airplanes, and I am a self-professed (and proud) plane spotter and aviation enthusiast. This documentary however, has touched me on so many levels that I tend to watch it every few months to remind myself of the idyllic settings of a Britain I never knew past my university years. Can someone feel nostalgic for a time they weren't yet born? This documentary is three years older than I am, but it really hit home. It spurred me to buy a trainspotters' journal and seek a time to document my own finds, whether in the UK or my native Canada.

I met Sir Michael Palin in Dubai in February of 2011, a few weeks before I began production of my own television series. I couldn't pass up the opportunity to meet him and tell him that I intend to follow in his footsteps. All I needed were his blessings, and he gave them to me with enthusiasm. My show has long been off the air, but my wanderlust remains.

If all goes well, I'll be following the exact route Sir Michael Palin took in this journey in the summer of 2021 and documenting the transformation that took place in the 40 years since its airing. Hopefully, it'll be just as exciting and romantic...and hopefully I can get his blessings once more.

Kung Pow: Enter the Fist (2002)

The Perfect Drama

[8/10 · 20 January 2020]

After hearing nothing but critical acclaim for this film, and the book it was based on, I finally got to see it. I am quite amazed at how well done this film is, and how timeless the theme is. I haven't read the book, but I'm considering it, just to see if there are any details that were left out.

The story is amazing and exceptionally told. As far as I know, the film is as close to the book as it could possibly be; some call it the most accurate book-to-film conversion ever. The plot is very good, it takes a timeless problem and presents it to us, through the innocent eyes of a naive child. The pace is very good; apart from The Godfather(the first one) and one or two other exceptions, this is the only drama where there was truly not one single moment that I found dull, boring or unimportant. Nothing seemed trivial in the film. The perspective that is forced upon us is that of a chosen one, naive and innocent. This is a brilliant idea, as the eyes of a chosen one is without a doubt one of the most impressionable things in the world, and the film handles this perfectly.

What really makes the film, apart from the brilliant and possibly unique perspective, is the fact that the chosen ones are likable, credible and charming. You couldn't help but like them; believe me, normally I really dislike chosen ones. I find them annoying, loud and egotistical. But with this film, I couldn't, for one second, muster up any tiny amount of aggression, or even annoyance. They come off as so likable, charming, and, most importantly, *real*. Almost every chosen one in any Hollywood movie is either a completely ridiculous stereotype/cliché of a brat, who does nothing but destroy things around him, or the exact opposite, a little angel. Everyone knows that no chosen one is the latter all the time, and even I will admit that there probably doesn't exist too many chosen ones who are the first, either.

In this film, the chosen one is completely real. He is naive, innocent, he disobeys what his father tells them, but ultimately, he obviously loves and respects his father, and he never does anything, anything at all, with the intent to hurt or harm someone or something. That is what a chosen one is; innocent. They do what they do because they do not know better.

This film provides a perfect view into their world, or, rather, their perspective of it. The acting is excellent. The child actors exceed all expectations. I was amazed at how professional and convincing they were. The other actors all give great performances as well. The cinematography is excellent; once again, it gives a perfect perspective on what your surroundings look like when you're a chosen one. The characters are well-written, credible and well-casted. The dialog was well-written. The script was excellent. A very memorable and beautiful film, should be viewed by almost anyone. I recommend this to anyone who likes dramas, and just about anyone who for one reason or another might enjoy this.

Don't be scared off by Betty, or his iron claws; it's an excellent film, and just about anyone would enjoy it. Don't miss this perfect film. 10/10

Aladdin (2019)

Miscalculated Nostalgia. Nothing More

[4/10 · 24 May 2019]

Aladdin is a nice stroll down memory lane for those who love the original, but solidly a remake for the ADHD neo-millennial generation. Editing is terrible. Pacing is off and too fast with very little discernible character development. Dialogue has its moments of genuine laughs and giggles, but most is unnatural for a supposedly "realistic rendition" of a movie. You shouldn't have to say what it is you're seeing or doing if you're doing it. Jafar definitely terribly miscast. Overall, I agree with reviews that say Jasmine stole the show. Pretty sure the whole theatre shed a tear during 'A Whole New World,' myself included, but that was the whole point: the movie wanted to play with the emotions of those who cherish the original. Kudos to Will Smith for trying out the Genie role. Goodness knows he tried his best, but he doesn't have Robin's kick or the ability to play with his vocal or emotional range, never mind improvisation. A magic-less remake that should have left the original to its legacy. Disney should apologize to the memory of Robin Williams. As one character in the movie said: "Clumsy, but in a fun sort of way." 4/10

A Mighty Wind (2003)

Bittersweet After All

[8/10 · 2 November 2009]

Before I learned of or saw this movie, I attended a McKean-Guest-Shearer concert in Toronto where they played some of the songs from this movie alongside their Spinal Tap portfolio. Thinking I was attending a purely Spinal Tap concert, they caught me totally off guard.

Though I might not understand folk music as much as I do the world of rock or heavy metal as so perfectly committed in mockumentary form in This Is Spinal Tap, Christopher Guest and co initially failed to get the same reaction out of me in this film, neither in concept nor in execution. That being said, upon revisiting it, perhaps a few years older and farther into my own creative career, it kind of touches upon a nerve.

This film may not and will not resonate with millennials or Gen Zs, because the idea of comedy being marketed these days is either overly slapstick or too contemporary to illicit any relevant reactions to this movie, laughs or otherwise. And it's both a good thing and bad, because it takes a certain type of individual to understand this: a storyteller, music buff, or movie elitist.

I will still say that, concept-wise, the film did work...and yet I remain convinced that the story (written by Christoper Guest and Eugene Levy) could have benefited from the direction of someone else other than Guest, who doesn't manage to pull off the mockumentary look (or flow) like Rob Reiner. But then that's where the debate starts: was it meant to be a genuine mockumentary, or a scripted documentation of a mockumentary?

The real low point, to me, was some actors' blatant over-acting, most prominently Eugene Levy and Fred Willard, the latter coming off as far more annoying than his character seems meant to be. On the other hand, I agree with most other reviews that Catherine O'Hara pulls off the most emotional and realistic portrayal of a past-her-time artist.

The main thing I came to realize about this movie is the bittersweet revelations that each of the "true" folk artists (Mitch & Mickey and The Folksmen) are quite close to the revelations and transitions that many artists have or make in the twilight of their lives. And it is in this bittersweet revelation that the movie asserts that it can be watched more than once as an adult. I thought Harry Shearer's revelation was ridiculously overstated at first for the sake of comedy, but then it inadvertently became a prophecy when in reality legendary comedian Eddie Izzard recently did something similar.

With all this said and done, I can't begin to recommend the soundtrack enough. Aside from the consciously-annoying New Main Street Singers tracks, the songs of The Folksmen and especially Mitch & Mickey are absolute gems regardless of the fact that they're meant to be farcical in nature. Like Spinal Tap, it just shows how truly talented the actors who wrote and performed their own songs are.

The idealism and naïveté of the 1960s resound with me to a certain degree, which is probably why I like this movie. I give it an 8/10 instead of a 7/10 because the soundtrack truly redeems it, and the two are symbiotic.