Reviews

2 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
NewsRadio (1995–1999)
Brilliant!
16 February 2002
Newsradio was a fish out of water. In a time of oversexed young white sitcoms, Newsradio relied on brilliant writing, expert character development, and excellent plots to drive it along. No gimmicks needed. Each character had a role to fill, and they filled it well. All of the cast members are excellent, with no misfires. Everyone has classic episodes they like to talk about.

Still, as excellent as this is, there are a few minor flaws. For one, Khandi Alexander never got as much screen time as she deserved, and this is no doubt why she left the show. She tried to be a Bill McNeal foil, but Dave served that function already. She seemed like an excellent actress, and her character seemed to be geniune, but nothing ever seemed to happen--in fact, I cannot readily recall any episode where the plot line was based on her save for her departure and maybe some of the Joe-Catherine romance episodes.

I like Jon Lovitz, and, unlike others, I found him to be just as capable as Phil Hartman to be in Newsradio. I believe that his performance did, in fact, grow as the last seasoned progressed (watch his hire date vs. some of the later shows--his character certainly changes). He did serve better playing off of other characters, such as Beth and (surprisingly) Lisa, and the few shows that center on him are indeed subpar. Still, some of the best episodes (in my opinion) are in the last season (the apartment hunt, Matthew's 30th birthday, Joe Jitzu), so Lovitz's appearance couldn't have changed the show that much.

Some shows just didn't work. Some of the very early ones are heavy on the Dave/Lisa romance, and did use just as many sex-related jokes as other sitcoms of the time. Some shows try to cram three plot lines in one episode, and Newsradio needs time to develop. Some rely way too heavily on Andy Dick's slapstick or Jimmy's over-the-top schemes. And some just don't make sense (the Dilbert episode did little for me).

All this, however, is little detriment to the show at large. I would much rather watch reruns of Newsradio than any new sitcoms out there right now. I can't say I blame NBC for cancelling it--pure business reasons; the show wasn't making money for them--but creatively, they blew it.

Newcomers may want to watch a few episodes before they cast judgement. It took me a few episodes to really enjoy it. It requires that you know the characters before it becomes interesting and funny.
67 out of 72 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Creepy, but not very scary
10 February 2002
Disclosure: I live in the town where this was filmed (drove over that bridge every day on my way to high school).

That said, probably the only reason I went to see it was because it was filmed at my hometown. I'm not a suspense/horror/scifi fan. Still, I found the story to be fun enough--and creepy enough--to be worth it.

It's about two hours long--and I mean long. About an hour and a half into it, you can pretty much guess what's going to happen, and you're just waiting for it to actually happen. Of course, once it does happen, it's cool, but the whole thing bogs down in about a half-hour's worth of nonsensical sidetracks.

The Positives: it's not your ordinary horror flick. There's no monster to root for or against; the ending is open-ended, and allows you to believe whatever you want to believe; there's no cheap screams, flashes, or other gimmicks to scare you, it's plain old creep-you-out dialogue that drives you nuts; and the acting is great. Laura Linney, especially, is a great actress, and I hope to see much, much more of her in the future. The score is excellent.

The Negatives: The entire film seems to be a blur. The "Mothman" has red eyes, and you'll see those damned red eyes in every transition, every cut-shot, every non-subtle moment it can be crammed in there. Transitions are blurry and irritating, and no two shots go from one to the other without some painful use of red blurs, random designs, and other bad-for-the-eyes material. The aforementioned open-ended ending may leave some people unsatisfied, and I'm sympathetic; it's almost like they blew their budget and had to shore up real quick.

On net, this movie is worth seeing. Be prepared to be bored for a while, though; many scenes around the three-quarters mark just kind of drag, but it's all worth it in the end. If you're going for a fright, go somewhere else; see it if you like to be assaulted with creativity.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed