Change Your Image
Pecosa
Reviews
Frasier: Room Full of Heroes (2001)
Strange Bad Apple in the Bunch
I'm a huge fan of Frasier, but this episode is truly awful.
For starters, it's poorly written; Martin, Daphne, Roz, and the rest are ridiculously out of character. Worst-faring is Niles, who is suddenly given to mushy tributes, beer-drinking, and ill-advised rants. Roz's dialogue is little better, and she is doomed to recite bad-greeting-card drivel about why Wonder Woman is really her hero. (No, seriously.) On top of that, the episode is neither funny nor heart-warming and ends with Martin Crane getting angry with Niles and storming out of the room - a conflict which is never resolved. The episode just ends immediately afterward! I feel really bad for the actors who had to film this. In their position, I would have been embarrassed. I imagine they probably were. David Hyde Pierce and John Mahoney do their best to put in some physical comedy when the lines are giving them nothing, and it helps . . . a little. But poor Peri Gilpin and Jane Leeves spend the entire episode sitting on a couch, so they don't even have that opportunity.
What happened here? Was it a budgetary problem? Had they spent too much money in the beginning of the season, thus necessitating a way to recoup the cash with a one-set episode? Or was it a time problem, in which no one had sufficient opportunity to revise the script? In any case, yikes! I guess a series with as many incredible episodes as Frasier can be forgiven the occasional bomb, but this . . . well, this is the atom bomb of situation comedy.
Again - those poor actors! That must have been one tough week.
The Polar Express (2004)
What a disappointment!
I should preface by saying that I'm a major sucker for anything Christmasy or full of magic - Miracle on 34th Street, most Disney feature cartoons, movie musicals, that sort of thing. So I expected this to be something I would really enjoy. Boy, was I wrong!
First off, the movie wandered, all but plot less. I had wondered how they'd make a full-length movie out of a book as short as The Polar Express. Now I know; they stre-t-c-h-ed out the train ride itself by coming up with event after event that stopped the train or put the protagonist in danger but didn't contribute to the overall story.
Secondly, there was a serious problem in the balance of sound. The sounds of the train and the music were extremely loud - one member of my group watched half the movie with her fingers in her ears - but the conversation was so quiet that we couldn't hear most of it and couldn't understand what we did hear. When we complained to the management, we found out that the movie's sound is recorded in two different ways - train and music in DTS, dialogue in mono. Older theaters don't have the capability of adjusting one without the other, which means they're stuck with extreme balance problems like the one we encountered. If you must see this film, make sure you go to a swanky new facility!
Lastly, what plot there was often proved difficult to follow. I'm twenty-two and was lost a good part of the time (who's that guy? where'd he go? why is the kid climbing on top of the train?). If adults don't get it, how can small children possibly understand what's going on?
Okay, the animation was excellent. I have to give it that; I was really impressed. I also must admit that my party got up and left after about forty minutes, so maybe the movie does redeem itself, provided you're not experiencing the sound problems that we were. But even if it did get better, I'd have trouble recommending any film where I suffered through the first third of it, checking my watch every five minutes.
Instant Christmas classic? You've got to be kidding.
First Knight (1995)
Simply Wasn't Believable (Possible Mild Spoilers)
Thumbs down for this spectacularly misguided Arthurian film. I grew so frustrated that I found myself responding aloud, rather incredulously, to the action on screen - fortunately, I was watching the film alone :)
I saw no chemistry between Arthur and Gweneviere whatsoever; they professed to love one another, but there was simply nothing there. The relationship that came across was more father/daughter than future husband and wife, so every time they shared a kiss, I found my stomach turning.
The chemistry between Lancelot and Gweneviere, on the other hand, was excellent, but the other side of the triangle was so poorly portrayed that the conflict felt false.
I was also frustrated by the storyline. I have no problem with unique interpretations of the Arthurian tale so long as the story itself seems to know where it's going: Mists of Avalon (the novel) was excellent, for example, because its purpose and perspective were unified throughout. On the other hand, this tale seemed to be confused within itself: it vaguely followed the traditional story for a while, then branched wildly away at the last moment. Whatever small part of me was still involved with the story dropped flat when it turned so unexpectedly.
Sean Connery's Arthur was not heroic, just dull. Richard Gere's Lancelot was delightful at first and appropriately heart-renching in his later dishonor. His final turn, however, seemed forced and ungrounded. As for Gweneviere - she started off as a fascinatingly strong character, but her story arc later forced her to swoon and submit. Halfway through the film, therefore, the character lost its luster.
I definitely would not recommend this film. I'd say the best thing it had going for it was its set design - the Golden City really was quite beautiful. It outshone everything else, from weak and drifting plot to cardboard script and performances.
Pearl Harbor (2001)
Not to entertain - it's much more important than that.
This film was absolutely phenomenal - I rated it a ten - but I would not call it a "great movie." The reason I avoid that phrase is because of the connotation involved. I will not see Pearl Harbor over and over again, I will not buy the soundtrack, and I will not put the poster on my wall. Here's why:
World War II is an incredibly serious subject, and I feared upon going into the movie that it would be treated lightly or with sensationalism. Fortunately, the makers of the movie were much more sensitive than that. What we saw was a very real story about very true people. The mixing of fact and fiction was miraculously executed, and it stirred the deepest of emotions within me.
I gained new respect for my grandfather, who fought this war. I realized as I watched that if it happened today, it would be my own brother battling to survive the fire and water of the Pacific. I saw the film bear witness to children and the innocent and even the Japanese - for everyone who enters a war thinks God is on his side. Most of all, I found myself thinking about my own inner self. Had I been in that hospital alongside those nurses, would I have been able to save those lives? Could I have made the tough decision?
Most of all, I left that theater knowing that we must do everything we can to stop this kind of war from ever happening again. At one point, a Japanese soldier calls his commander "brilliant." The commander's response? "A brilliant man will find a way not to fight a war."
Thank you, Michael Bay, for using the genre of film more responsibly than anyone I have ever seen. Thank you, Randall Wallace, for writing a screenplay that shows respect for life instead of joy in fiery death. And thank you to every name shown in those credits scrolled by - I stayed to read every last one. Thank you for changing my heart.