Reviews

10 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Fresh Off the Boat (2015–2020)
10/10
Sharp and witty with fantastic subtext.
11 February 2015
We watched the first 2 episodes of "Fresh Off the Boat" tonight. We quite enjoyed it. Based on a true story/memoir of an Asian American immigrant family in the mid 90s that opens a restaurant in Florida.

What's really interesting me is the subtext of a narrative from the perspective of an 11 year old boy, done most famously in The Wonder Years but with a lot of visual subtlety. The writer, as an adult, is our guide an agency and remembering all of these events through child glasses: His mother is witty, with a sharp tongue, always tired and has all of the best lines; his father is away most of the time (for the previous 6 months prior to the pilot), and is portrayed as the straight (but absent) man. He is optimistic but distant, not wanting to ever upset his family. The narrator/author is dismissive of his younger brothers. He spends about a minute narratively introducing his mother and father, his obvious role models, and spends less than a second glossing over his brothers and grandmother, punctuated with the wonderful "whatever" after their introductions.

Outside of the sharp writing from the mother, the background subtlety and humor is very reminiscent of the best of the single-camera dramadies (Arrested Development, The Office). For example, the narrator is forced to do extra homework because he happened to get straight As at his new school and his mother felt that meant the school wasn't teaching him enough. He looks outside at a friend playing basketball. This is a normal trope, seen many times before: the longing of lost childhood due to responsibility. It's even directly pointed out, as a trope, by the narrator. What makes it brilliant is a few scenes later when he his outside in that same basketball court, *everything* is trashed: The hoop is missing most of the net, the trampoline is on its side and has a hole in it.. it's a child's version of forbidden fun with no responsibility that he was unable to participate in. And it's *never* pointed out to the viewer. It's just there in the background. The show is full of moments like this.

This is definitely on our "To Watch" list now each week. I'm excited to see where the show goes.
10 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Time Changer (2002)
2/10
Interesting.. but not in the way intended.
7 September 2004
Warning: Spoilers
There is an interesting discussion in this movie. Is being a moral person good enough, or do you need something more?

The movie preaches that without the guidance of God, being a morally good person is not enough. There is a line early in the movie, "You and I can look at a person who is morally good, but both know he is going to go to hell."

While I am not a Christian, the discussions about this throughout the course of the movie were fascinating, but not in the way the movie intended. I left the movie with a stronger feeling that being morally good *is* enough. The arguments and discussions presented were heavily biased, so much so that they crush themselves in the weight of their own ignorance. Fanaticism can be a powerful thing, especially when inferenced in the minds of the ignorant and uneducated. As George Carlin's character in Dogma said: "hook em while they're young".

The basic premise is a very interesting one also. A Bible Scholar from the 1890s is attempting to publish a book that says that morality without God is OK, as long as the morality is meaningful. Do you only tell a child not to steal? Or do you tell him not to steal because God tells you not to? (not bothering bringing up that telling the child not to steal because, well, how would he feel if it was his marbles that were stolen?)

The author, Carlisle, wants the recommendation of his school to help sell the book (to spread the world). However, it needs unanimous consent, and one of the scholars opposes it. He brings up, in a very interesting discussion early in the film about the morality for morality's sake vs God's words argument. To prove his point, he produces a time machine (put in the movie solely to make the plot work, which I'm fine with), and sends Carlisle to the year 2002 to see where teaching morality without God will lead us.

As should be obvious, he has his opinion, and is changed by what he sees, and has reversed himself by the time of his return (for he does return, that's not really a spoiler, this is a bible movie after all).

As for the movie as a movie itself, it's pretty slow and pretty poorly acted. Something that was *not* needed in this movie, is that it produces two "bad guys" who want to try to figure out who Carlisle is, even tho he hasn't hurt anyone, committed a crime, or anything. What's wrong with the movie just showing Carlisle's opinion, showing his view of this "sinful world", and returning him with a new viewpoint?

Also, there a few points in the movie which affirm to me that I'm happy I'm not a Christian, or at least someone who says "It's God or nothing". Three near the end of the movie rather disturbed me.. first, when the two "bad guys" corner Carlisle right before he jumps, Carlisle does his *only* truly despicable act.. he fakes like his time-jump is the coming of Jesus, and makes it so the "bad guys" (who are also Christians btw, oddly enough), think they just missed the rapture.

Secondly, after Carlisle returns, he finds a boy in which he scolded at the beginning of the movie about not stealing (but not mentioning God, kid kept the marbles and ran away), and tells him this time that stealing is wrong because God commands it. Like the Carlin quote above, scaring kids into religion is a faux-pas in my book.

And lastly, the epilogue. Another scare tactic. Carlisle asks the inventor how far into the future they could go, and he says he doesn't know.. the epilogue shows him trying to warp a bible into the distant future (starts at 2100), and it fails.. he keeps decrementing the years by 10, and trying again, and by the fade-out, he's at like 2030 or so. Throughout the movie, Carlise mentions that he felt the end of the world coming, because the world was rife with sin and the loss of the name of God.. scare tactics have been in use for thousands of years.. you would think in these enlightened times, the church would have enlightened as well.

I'm glad I saw this movie. While I was fairly certain before that being morally good was enough, now I know it for a fact. Worth watching if you are not a Christian, to affirm how happy you are to not be as ignorant as the folks in this movie.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Casino (2004– )
1/10
Absolutely Dreadful
14 June 2004
I Tivo'd this cause it had a cool title, and I heard it was a reality show, but knew nothing else about it. Hoped it would be something about rich people gambling and blowing lots of money.. when I realized it was about a couple of .COMers starting up a casino.. I wondered where it could go. I had good cause to wonder. It didn't go anywhere.

First off, why should I care about a couple of guys worth $100M+ between them buying a casino in downtown vegas? I mean, they spend 15 mins of the show watching them apply in front of the NGC for their license. It's obvious they're going to get it, or else, no series. And they're like "we have $50M on the line, we need to get a license." Sure, like they were stupid enough to pony up the money before even knowing if they had a gaming license.

There are a couple of sub-plots. Some of their college buddies throw a party for their shy friend. With hookers. Exciting, especially on non-Premium TV. There's another subplot about this 6'8" professional gamer guy.. they're like "we're throwing up the alert, he's a card counter!" and following his every move on the security cameras, watching to see if he'll go to the blackjack tables. LIKE THE STUPID REALITY TV CAMERA TWO FEET AWAY FROM HIM WATCHING HIS EVERY MOVE ISN'T A HINT! ..obviously staged. The three chicks from the party above, you see again, at supposedly the same time, hitting on the rich professional gamer guy. It's obvious the whole thing was staged.. it's stupid, boring, and not at all interesting.

Shame on you, Mark Burnett. To come up with this turkey.

0/10, nothing at all redeemable about this series. Hope it gets canceled soon so something not-as-dreadful comes out of the FOX network.
8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Scooby-Doo (2002)
1/10
One of the worst films since Zoolander...
14 June 2002
Ok, I had been waiting and waiting this week for The Bourne Identity to come out. I arrived at the theater around 4:30 today (Friday, opening day), and was dismayed to find all shows sold out before 7:15. I walked in, ripped my ticket, and looked around for a movie to watch while I waited an hour and a half.

Scooby-Doo was about to start. Hmm..

I walked in, sat down, and saw lots and lots of kids. Lots. Oodles. It was packed. I settled down for what might be a somewhat ok movie, and wanting to see how Matt Lillard would do as Shaggy.

I have to start with this tho, the Harry Potter "Episode 2" preview was the best thing about Scooby-Doo.

Horribly Cast (outside of Matt Lillard, who did as well as he could with such a poorly written role), terribly acted, extremely poorly written, I could only suffer about an hour of this montrosity before I eventually walked out for of a movie for only the 3rd time in my life (Zoolander being the last one). As soon as they found "the secret control room" which showed that they were "brainwashing teenagers", I think I had enough. I understand they were trying to capture the feel of the cartoon, but even in that they sorely failed. The CG was shoddy, and the only positive point outside of Lillard's voice were a few unfunny guest cameos (just cool to see them in such a hollywood mishmash).

My conclusion: Worst movie so far this year. Avoid it like the plague. Oh, yeah, and Bourne Identity was excellent. 0/10.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Grandia II (2000 Video Game)
Almost the perfect 1-disk RPG.... almost.
25 February 2002
Hey there folks. Lemme first start off by saying that I am a die-hard gamer. I've played most every RPG out there, from the open computer stylings of all of the Might and Magic Series and the Console-style comp game of Septerra Core, to pretty much every console RPG since Phantasy Star I for the Sega Master System.

With that out of the way, let me just say that Grandia II is almost, but not quite, the perfect console style RPG. (Console style refers to a linear story-line, rather than a wide open wandering game, like, say, a Might and Magic computer game. Most console RPGs are like this, hence the term "console RPG" to refer to it.)

The plot is extremely engaging, with characters you really care about. The voice acting is great, headed by one of the best old-school American voice actors (people who voice acted before anime hit the shelves) Cam Clarke, as Ryudo. A very rare voice actor capable of pretty much any voice situation. The rest of the cast is just as good, with a mega standout in accomplished voice actress Jodi Benson (Ariel in Little Mermaid) who's voice and haughty tone make you totally fall in love with the character she portrays. The voice is scattered, but all the important story points are voiced, leaving you with immersive characters you care about, something the renowned Final Fantasy series (up till 10) lacked.

As I said before, the plot is very engaging. From the very beginning, the characters get imposed into a main plot thread circumvented throughout with "villain of the week" episodes in each section of world you cross through. It would get annoying, but with how disjointed these episodes sound, they all (almost) weave well with the main plot thread. These threads and the main plot weave together to form an extremely exciting last 8 hours of the game in which the climax seems to happen about 10 times, main characters perish in tragedy saving the rest of the party (in true Final Fantasy style), and it builds to an exciting and engaging finale which leaves the player very satisfied.

Now we come to the defining characteristic of Grandia II. Now, I'm not sure about Grandia I cause I actually haven't played that one, but Grandia II has the *most* innovative battle system in existence. At first glance, the battles look like utter chaos. Well, they are, but it's *organized* chaos. Where you are, what position you're in (ready, waiting, action, etc), what you're planning to do, what you're doing, *all* matter to the battle. You can be attacking an enemy, and get backstabbed by another enemy, which not only startles you and delays your attack, but can flat out cancel your attack and your status meter by knocking you down. It's like the lunar positional system, but in faux-3D and in real time combat. No other game even comes close to this battle system yet. It leaves other games in the dust, and makes the "random battles" not so boring.

Along that lines, it does use the lunar system of seeing the "random monsters" and gives you the option of avoiding em. However, it even takes it a step further and *where* you encounter your enemy, say, if he attacks the back of your party, surprises you, etc, is how the battle starts. Just amazing stuff.

The only reason this game isn't a perfect 1 disk RPG (multi disk RPGs have a *lot* more CG/Anime scenes) is that the game is *too* linear. A linear story RPG is fine, and can be done extremely well, but even the dungeons (and other misc levels) are totally linear. You walk until you have a path diversion. You choose one, it's either deeper into the dungeon, or ends in a treasure within a few steps. This is really frustrating, as you feel you're just reading a flat script.

That's it. I bought this game well over a year ago and finally just sat down to play it. I went through the last 16 hours (or 20) straight, I just couldn't put it down. I highly recommend this to *any* console RPG fan. (10/10)
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Even Chris Kattan's pedantics and 81 minute running time don't detract
20 January 2002
Let me start this off by saying that movies based off Saturday Night Live skits are generally not too good. Besides a few exceptions (Blues Brothers, Coneheads, etc), most of them have fallen around the reigns of movies like Superstar.

Night at the Roxbury is an exception, it's right down the middle. It's an enjoyable, light hearted comedy with some very witty dialogue and acting. Chris Kattan is a bit weak in the lead, but Will Farrell makes up for Kattan's lacking humor and delivery. Molly Shannon is likeable as Emily, Farrell's squeeze, and the brilliant standout is Dan Hedaya is what might be his greatest acting performance of his career. Hedaya, in my opinion, is one of the best character actors of the 90s, and has been in many great roles in many great films. For some reason, his acting and dialogue fit perectly, and result in some lines and scenes that make you stop the DVD because you're laughing so hard.

The plot is very thin, there's not much to it outside of Kattan/Farrell's rompings, but it is enjoyable and somewhat unique. It results in an expected but humorous ending.

Chazz Palminteri, also, in an uncredited role (not surprisng for how this movie looked to most people), is extremely funny as Mr. Zadir, the owner of the Roxbury. He offsets the extremely unfunny and very predicatble Colin Quinn who plays his bodyguard and is in almost every scene that Palminteri is.

Because the plot is so shallow and thin, and the entire movie is situational, it weighs in at a very unhefty 1 hr 21 minutes. This is very short for a comedy, and it runs by very fast, but it was probably a good choice to keep it that length, else it might get very repetitive.

The result is an extremely funny situational comedy with a light fun story and some great one liners ( "and bring your dancing monkey boy brother with you" ). It's on my recommend list as a good movie to watch a few times when you've got a bit of free time but not enough to watch a normal whole movie. 7/10
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Extremely Faithful Adaptation
19 December 2001
After 9 months of waiting, I was not disappointed. The only disappointment I felt when I left the theater was that I had to wait another year for the next one to come out.

The Lord of the Rings. It, in itself, is one big novel. The story for the next picks off where the previous left off, with no time gaps or plot jumps. Peter Jackson gives this feeling admirably in Fellowship. The main title of "Lord of the Rings" is shown, on a black background, to stand out. But, when "Fellowship of the Ring" is shown, the actual title of the movie, it's down at the bottom of the screen, as we watch Frodo reading a book. Between these two titles is the main thing that was worrying me about the film. They had to have some sort of prologue: The history of the ring, what it is, how it was lost, and most importantly, how it was found. I have to say they did a very good job with the telling of the story, which is basically the prologue to this movie series.

The other thing which worried me about the movie was the role of Liv Tyler. Not her, especially, I was looking forward to her role. But, the fact that the character she portrayed, Arwin, was 5th on the cast list, but wasn't even in the first book. My guess of where she showed up, from the previews, was correct, and the only real inaccuracy from the books to the movie. The reason for it, I believe, is quite simple. All movies nowadays have to have some sort of love interest. The only romance in all the books is the romance between Aragorn and Arwen, but this isn't shown until the 3rd book. So, the screenplay writers decided to give her a few scenes in the first movie (and most probably the 2nd) to foreshadow her role in the 3rd (she's one of the MAJOR characters in the book).

Other than a few minor scenes taken out, Tokien's work was basically untouched. There were even surprisingly few changes in the Tolkienian dialogue. A lot of the lines, much like Darabont's version of The Shawshank Redemption (another great film), are taken straight from the novel.

The visuals are just plain amazing. From vast scoping landscapes to majestic castles and spires, to even small sets (Bag End) looking amazingly authentic. Some of the CG done to facial expressions at key points (i.e. Bilbo at Rivendell) are shocking, and extremely well done, showing people the realness of the corruption the ring bestows upon it's bearer.

The acting is second-to-none. An all-star cast has been assembled, and everyone played their role to a T. The true standout, and the only actor that really worried me since I read the cast list a year ago was Elijah Wood. After seeing the previews, my worry was lost, and not unfoundedly. Elijah Wood turns in an oscar-worthy (yes, oscar-worthy) performance. Never have I seen a character portrayed so well: hopelessness, loss, grief, anguish, torture. Elijah Wood truly went beyond anything I ever would have expected. The minor standout was that of Sean Astin. Astin has been extremely typecasted ever since such roles as Encino Man, Rudy, Harrison Bergeron, and Toy Soldiers. He always plays the same character: The everyman, dealing with some sort of uneasy situation. Now, not to knock Sean, he's one of my favorite actors for this type of role, but he was nearly unrecognizable as Samwise Gamgee. From his shy eagerness, to his amazingly crafted accent (everyone's voices were great in this), he truly stood out. I look forward to the chemistry of both these characters in the upcoming movies. Everyone else was nearly as good.

The direction was extraordinary. You will never see so many close-ups or cut-shots in any other movie. The feeling of togetherness in the fellowship was portrayed very well, and the feeling throughout the movie, that this is a hopeless journey that cannot be completed, is felt in every gesture and line of every scene.

A great movie, one of the best, technically, and physically I have ever seen. You probably already have, but if you haven't, go see it now. 10/10
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Quite Possibly the Worst Movie in the Realm of Known Existence
16 December 2001
Warning: Spoilers
I made the mistake of going to see this movie, first show, first day, in the theater, in 1997 when it was released. The first movie wasn't bad. It wasn't great, but it was fun. I expected more with the 2nd. The only thing I knew about it going in was that James Remar was replacing Christopher Lambert as Rayden, which I was upset about, but I thought Remar would do a good job.

Boy, was I wrong. The whole cast, even Robin Shou, who was decent in the 1st, and great in Beverly Hills Ninja, can't seem to act his way out of a paper bag in this one.

*** Mega Spoilers, Cause You Shouldn't See This Movie Anyway ***

The big mistake the writers made with this movie, was trying to incorporate all of the characters, even the hidden ones, from not just Mortal Kombat 2, but Mortal Kombat 3 as well. (The plot is taken from the MK3 video game). MK1 survived multiple heroes because there were only 3, a trio, a team, and their "teacher" Raiden. And only 2 bad guys (Goro, Shang Tsung). In MK2, we have a virtual plethora of heroes and baddies.

Heroes (8): Liu Kang/Rayden/Kitana/Sonya/Jax/Johnny Cage/Nightwolf/Sub Zero

Baddies (14): Shao Kahn, Shinnok, Sindel, Motaro, Jade, Sheeva, Cyrax, Scorpion, Noob Saibot, Ermac, Rain, Baraka, Smoke, and Mileena.

Yeah, I thought that was a lot too. All of these characters have lines and/or fight scenes too. This doesn't even include the characters from the games that are mentioned, but not shown. A bunch of these baddies (and even some heroes) die or just leave, never to return, in about a minute after they appear. For instance, here's the plot of some of the sub characters:

Rain: Says hi, gets thrown into a fiery pit.

Sub Zero: Shows up, says hi, fights and kills botty Smoke, tells Liu Kang "you are not ready", then disappears, never to be heard from again. Smoke: Killed within a 2 minutes by aforementioned Sub Zero.

Baraka: er.. I think you see him.. once.

Mileena: Shows up, attacks Sonya, somehow dies from a bonk on the head.

Scorpion: Shows up, fights Sub-Zero, kidnaps Kitana, disappears.

Johnny Cage: Shows up, says hi, Shao Kahn breaks his neck a good minute into the movie. Sheeva: Has a few lines early, Liu Kang kills her in under 10 seconds in her first fight.

Those are just some examples. On top of these character issues, the entire movie seems to have been filmed on the first take. There are literally *tons* of continuity and placement errors. A few quick examples, all from the same 10 minute stretch:

Rayden leaves Sonya, and tells her to find her buddy Jaz, then to head to "The Temple of the Elder Gods". Of course, after she finds Jax, she immediately knows where it is.

When we first meet His Jaxness himself, he punches into a wall trying to kill Cyrax. We pan away with his fist somehow stuck in a wall with a good inch of space around it. We pan back a few seconds later, and his entire arm is stuck in the wall.

Sonya gets into a muddy fan-service fight with Mileena. After a muddy battle, and a split scene later, all her clothes have somehow been drycleaned.

During aforementioned Muddy Fan-Service fight, Sonya gets thrown into a rock. This big rock, about 10 times the size of her, waggles and moves a bit with her weight falling on it. Again, those are just some examples, but they're *rampant* in the movie. As for the plot, well, the idea and premise is interesting, but they delve way too deep into it. It would have been better if they kept it superficial, the way they did in the first movie. But, no, they had to try to explain everything: life, existence, the tournament, and why the toast always lands butter side down.

The result of all this atrocity is a corny, poorly directed, aterribly written, underbudgeted (looks like most of the stuff *I* could have pulled off with my home computer) nightmare that's worth buying solely to laugh at. 0/10
68 out of 73 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Why didn't Jittlov make any more movies?
24 November 2001
I saw this first years ago, when I was kid, around the time it came out. My dad loved it, and we had it on tape. It was then lost in the streams of time and I totally forgot about it. About a year ago, my sister and her husband, while i was over visiting, pulled a video out of their shelf and asked if I'd ever seen this. It was "The Wizard of Speed and Time", and I said that it looked familiar. From about 10 seconds in, I remembered this movie competely, and was filled with merriment in the way people get when you see something again that you loved as a kid, and is still as good.

Jittlov wrote, directed, produced, audited, gripped, funded, cranked, cameraed, composed, googled, flamboozed, and starred in this almost one-man show. He's extremely talented, in all respects. The movie is extremely cleverly written, well acted, well directed, and amusing to the point of extremes. Very clever shots are taken to many different facets of hollywood, as Mike tries to complete a movie he's making. The ending is witty, the romance is credible, and this movie is just plain fun. It even has good music! Definately high on my list of all time goodies. I did get a bit sick of it after watching it about 30 times or so, but very few movies keep my attention that long. A warning though, you really have to be a certain kind of person to enjoy this movie. Most people I tried to get to watch it didn't enjoy it. Let's face it, Mike is a nerd, getting all the chicks, and stands up for nerds everywhere. You kinda have to be a nerd to enjoy this movie. And I am a nerd. 9/10
22 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Could have been so good, but ruined by Besson
23 November 2001
The Messenger was *almost* good. In fact, it was actually quite good, but Besson's directing, usually superb, totally ruined this movie.

The plot was well done and the visuals were outstanding. However, the acting was extremely bad, the casting was very weak, and what really frustrated me about this movie, and made it *really* hard to sit through, was that every 30 seconds or so, particularly in the beginning of the movie, I noticed something, either on the forefront or in the background that was just *wrong*. Generally, little misgivings do not break a movie for me, but there were *so* many in this one. A few examples from the beginning of the movie:

A) When the sword is bestowed upon her, and she runs back to her village in a frenzy, she's holding the sword *by the blade*, in *one hand*. If there was any sort of sharpness to the sword (which there obviously is, as the next scene shows the sword running through her mother), it would have seriously cut her hand, if not chopped a few fingers off. B) The child who plays Jean speaks flat English, Jovovich speaks with a French accent.

I'm limited to 1000 words, so 2 examples should give you an idea. Little things like this *abound* in this movie, evidence of bad direction. Now, to the acting, with the accents the characters used, this movie could have been set anywhere, from Jovovich's good French accent, to Malkovich's flat American words (*can* he do a voice other than his own?), to even some of the Nordic accents some of the French advisors use. The plot was good, and enjoyable, but this might be the most pooly directed film I've ever seen. 3/10
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed