Change Your Image
bethy_joy
Reviews
Space Cases (1996)
Star Trek Jr.
I LOVED this show when I was a kid. I just rediscovered it on Youtube, and it is great. The plots are cheesy, the acting is wooden, the theme song is annoyingly catchy, and the effects are bad, but that's what kids shows are all about.
It's basically Star Trek: Voyager for kids. And that's amazing. The best character was Catalina, who had an invisible friend who changed places with her in the second season. Jewel Staite is now on Stargate Atlantis as Dr. Keller, and I always knew she looked familiar. I was so excited to discover that she was Catalina!
I only wish it had come to some sort of conclusion instead of being cancelled. Opportunity, anyone? Someone should come along and finish this show, or maybe remake it with another set of actors.
Torchwood (2006)
If the fate of the world hangs on these people, God help us!
I wanted to like Torchwood. I really did. As a total fan of the new Doctor Who and the slick and funny scripts therein, I had high hopes. I loved Captain Jack back in season 1 of Who, and letting him have his own show sounded fun. It had so much potential. How wrong I was.
Torchwood is supposed to be a national organization that has been going on in the background since the 1800s, so why does everyone at Torchwood Three act like teenagers who cannot control their emotions. They are so busy sleeping with each other and breaking protocol that they have no idea how to deal with the aliens that are supposedly their modus operandi.
Day One was about a sex alien, and it went downhill from there. So far, Cyberwoman was the least believable. Ianto lies, betrays his teammates, endangers the world, and all he gets is a kiss from Jack? He should be fired! Gwen and Owen are sleeping with each other, but nobody cares, Tosh is totally isolated, Jack goes from manically depressed to desperately flirting with anything that breathes, and the aliens are incidental.
It's like they shoved Bones, Buffy, CSI, X-files, Days of our Lives, and just a Dash of Doctor Who into a blender and hoped really hard that what came out would be good. Then, just to prove that they were 'edgy' and 'adult', they mixed in some random sex scenes that not only do not contribute to the plot, but in some cases slow it down.
I really did want to like Torchwood. But no matter how hard I try to see the good in this (Gwen is OK, but tell me how she can be a fully fledged Police officer but not know how to use a gun??) the bad just pulls it right to the bottom of the ocean, along with all the other sludge. Hopefully in a couple of years Torchwood will nothing but a bad memory.
Ella Enchanted (2004)
Too bad they couldn't have gone with the book
If they had called this movie something else, and changed the names of the characters, I couldn't have had a problem with it. A cute, fairy-tale-turned-modern live action Shrek wannabe. Alas, they had to associate with with one the best children's fantasy books out there. There is almost nothing of Lavine's conflicted, independent, stubborn, lovable Ella in Hathaway's representation, though I will go as far as to sat she *looked* like I always thought Ella would look. With such an excellent plot in the book, one wonders why it would need to be changed to have modern points such as screaming fangrils, and an Elf who wants to be a lawyer. Here are only a few of the major things that bothered me, although the extensive list is much too long to write out. 1. The evil uncle. Why? Why would you need a bad guy? The real villain is supposed to be Ella's curse, and her fight against it, as well as Dame Olga and Hattie's pettiness. There is no need for an evil uncle, or that ridiculous talking snake. A waste of Elwes' talents. 2. Slannin. Do you know now many times that name in mentioned in the book? 2. Slannen is the elfish potter that is mentioned once by Sir Peter, and once by another elf. Not important. Ella does not have a sidekick. That's the point- she has to do this on her own. 3. Mandy. From kind, gray-haired comforter and confidant to bumbling, clumsy oaf. Mandy is supposed to be Ella's secret fairy godmother, and the reason she cannot just magick Ella out of her situation is not because she is incapable, but because it is Big Magic, and the only fairy dumb enough to do Big Magic is Lucinda. 4. The ending was completely ruined. In the book, Ella breaks her curse when Char commands her to marry him. She knows she can't because there is the possibility of someone commanding her to kill him. She knows she must do the right thing, so she refuses to obey. Her love for Char is enough to break the curse, and it is her moment of triumph. It is the ultimate mental and emotional climax, and her marrying Char just seems an outspring of that. In this adaptation, she breaks the curse, but there is another 45 minutes of the movie, in which Ella breaks out of prison, and... fights ninjas? 5. The singing. We know Anne Hathaway can sing, so what does that have to do with the movie? And how much more Shrek can you get with a big closing musical number? 6. Ella's reaction to a command. Gee, I wonder if there's any magic on that girl, when there is a little ping, and her back goes ramrod straight every time someone says something to her. From that reaction, there was no need for Hattie to come to a revelation that Ella was obedient. Anyone could see it from a mile away. In the book, Ella fights her curse. She pauses, she plays games (when Mandy tells her to bring almonds, she brings only two), she wills herself not to. In this way, she staves off her curse for a few seconds, even though they cost her dearly.
Again, with such a wonderful, and much loved book, why is there the need to completely change the plot? I see the need for revision in translating a book onto the screen, but there is no need to disregard the book's plot altogether. If a book is popular enough for there to be an audience for a movie, well, there is a reason it is popular. I also very much missed Ella's voice, as the book is told with her as the narrator. Ella is introspective, and gives the view of a conflicted rebel, who selflessly sacrifices her happiness for the safety of the man she loves. I was bitterly disappointed with a movie that promised much in the way of a fresh take on the tired Cinderlla story, and only delivered- well a tired old Cinderella story with a dash of Shrek silliness, though not done half as well.
I beg you, read the book! It is well worth your time. This movie, however, is not.
A Little Princess (1995)
Dreadful
I have loved the book "A Little Princess" for most of my life, and was very excited that there was a movie. But I was appalled at this adaptation. Not only is the acting wooden, and the plot a convoluted mish mash of various incidents in the book, but the theme is all wrong. The real theme of the story should be that a girl can be a princess only when she behaves like one, as Sara does when she gives 5 of her 6 buns to a beggar child, even when she herself is very hungry. The theme of the movie seems to be that all girls are princesses, which cheapens Sara's actions considerably, and seems more like it should be written on a Hallmark card than applied to this story.
There are many other things wrong with this movie- too many to list, but here are just a few of the larger ones: This story should be set in Britian in the mid 1800s, not America during the first world war. Miss Minchen is harsh to Sara from the start, making her actions when Sara is left penniless much less startling than they would be if she was syrupy sweet at the beginning, as she is supposed to be. Nowhere is it mentioned that Becky is black. Sara's father does *not* come back, he is dead. It is his closest friend, and collaborator in the diamond mines who finds Sara, and restores her to her proper place. In fact, the diamond mines are not even mentioned at all, though they are the source of Sara's wealth.
All through everything that Sara has faced, she always acts like a Princess, giving what she can, and forgiving those who hurt her. She would never have called Lavinia a "snotty two faced bully". Such a thing is completely out of character for her, and undermines the entire philosophy that she is to be well behaved no matter what.
This is by far the worst adaptation of a book to the screen that I have ever seen (with the notable exceptions of "Ella Enchanted", and "Anne of Green Gables the Continuing Story")The plot of the book is wonderful, and skillfully written, so I do not understand why the director felt that it needed to be changed to make it interesting. I would suggest that anyone wishing to know this story should watch the 1987 version, which is far superior. Or better still, read the book. It will be more worth your time than the hour and a half wasted on this version on the movie.
Luther (2003)
Excellent and Uplifting
This movie was very inspiring. The courage of Dr Luther to stand up to authorities is truly staggering. I love how this movie portrayed him not as a hero on a pedestal, but as a man, who had doubts about what he was doing. Even though in his life he said some anti-Semitic things this does not take away from his work as a Reformer. He said what he did because he expected the Jews when they heard his message to convert en mass, and they didn't. He was bitterly disappointed, and said some foolish things. Which of us hasn't said something at one time or another that they now regret? I was quite shocked, and pleasantly surprised to see how much of Luther's religious fervor was put into the movie. Luther's actual motives were spurred by God, and that is shown very clearly in the movie. Those who complain that the movie was too religious must remember- it is about a religious figure- of course God is involved. He was involved very strongly in Luther's real life.
The "I can do no other" speech left me cheering, and wishing I had the courage to stand up for God like Luther did. Well done all around.