Reviews

5 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
1/10
Predictably bad sitcom fare from CBC ... painfully forced premise and unfunny.
16 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This show is a perfect example of how the CBC should stick to either news, sports, or satirical sketch comedy. As a developer of situation comedy, CBC has shown it can combine the pizazz of "King of Kensington" with the belly laughs of "The Beachcombers". It is an embarrassment to great shows like "Kids in the Hall" and "Second City" that they have to share their comedic roots with this lame production.

I have to admit, that I didn't give this show much of a chance right from when I first heard of its concept. To start, half of the concept is a direct attempt to rip-off one of the few sitcom successes in English-Canadian history, "Corner Gas". The rest of the concept--the cultural clash--is far from being original and is too often used as a crutch for screen writing laziness. The selection of the Muslim religion as the basis for the "fish out of water" characters seems to be a desperate attempt to be "edgy" and "topical", but comes off as forced. Some of the jokes that are based around the local's reaction to the newcomers are cringe inducing and thoroughly insulting to the intelligence of everyone involved, especially the audience.

This show is a perfect example of how CBC just doesn't "get it" when it comes to creating Canadian content, especially when presenting Canada as a multicultural environment. Cultural diversity in Canada does not have to be presented in such a heavy-handed and forced way. It would be a refreshing change to see CBC introduce diversity into a television show without making the show all about said diversity. I doubt that CBC has sufficient sitcom talent to pull off something so subtle. A comparison could be made to the way diversity is depicted in Corner Gas--i.e. the aboriginal characters are not set apart by their ethnicity nor is their heritage used to generate story lines. More realistically, their lives and the other characters lives intertwine in a way that makes ethnicity no more significant than any of their other personal characteristics.

That being said, even as a formulaic fish-out-of-water comedy this show fails. The acting is weak, the comic pacing all over the map, and the story premises that I saw were too far beyond the suspension of belief, even for a comedy. The only saving grace is the talented Derek McGrath, who is horribly wasted here. I doubt that even the addition of guest stars (Colin Mochrie, for example, as an Anglican archbishop) can save this dog. I decided to give the show a chance once the CBC's 'hype' had died down; but two episodes were all I could stand--I could almost feel my braincells shutting themselves down with each failed punchline. The time-slot would be better served by airing more Coronation Street, Air Farce re-runs, or Dr. Who. Even an infomercial would be an improvement.
41 out of 73 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Who said KitH is a Toronto thing?
14 July 2005
Unlike the previous comment, I think the Kids in the Hall can definitely lay claim to being Canada's favorite troublemakers. Just because the series was filmed in Toronto, doesn't make them a Toronto comedy troupe. If you look at where they each came from, you will find only one of them is from Toronto...the rest are from Edmonton, Ottawa, Montreal and North Bay. Pretty diverse example of Canadiana, I think.

There seems to be a misconception that only Martime/Newfie humour (This Hour..., Rick Mercer, Codco) makes up good Canadian humour. Not all good Canadian comedy has to come from the Atlantic Coast...as the Kids and Brett Butt (Corner Gas) have proved.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Xanadu (1980)
horrible doesn't begin to describe this brutally miscast misguided mess.
2 September 2004
I'm a big ELO fan, and I remember hearing about the movie, waiting for any advance word...

When the soundtrack's first single, ELO's "I'm Alive", was released just before the movie, I had severe reservations. The song had the catchy harmonies, and strings (although produced by synthesizer). and I still liked it...but it sounded sort of kitschy and cheezy. It was the first ELO release that I didn't go nuts for. Even so, I went to the movie, not knowing what to expect.... ...the movie was tolerable at best, although cringe-inducing in some scenes.

I felt cheated. Alright, I wasn't surprised it was a bit of a 'chick-flick', since Olivia Newton-John was the star...but how did I find myself entering a "disco" movie better suited to a romance comic book??? I mean, with a musical cast of soft-rock/country goddess Olivia, classic/prog-rock masters Jeff Lynne and ELO, early new-wave rockers The Tubes, and 60's rocker Cliff Richards; star of 50's music-and-dance Gene Kelly--basically the most accomplished star of musicals in movie history; and an up and coming animation pioneer like Don Bluth...how the heck did they end up doing a tacky live-action cartoon the Bee-Gees, the Krofft brothers' puppets and Donna Summer would be more at home in???

I have to wonder how the guy who pieced this thing together was ever able to work in movies ever again. What incompetent assembed this diverse group of talented people together, throwing in a male lead that nobody had heard of (or heard from again), and selecting a director whose previous work was restricted to television work: basically a couple cheesecake extravaganza "Portrait of ..." movies of the week and some disaster called "Flatbed Annie and Sweetiepie, Lady Truckers"??

To this day, I still have a copy of this movie and soundtrack only to complete my ELO collection. A bad, misguided movie project on the cusp of the MTV video age slowed ELO's career much like fellow 70's rock icons Journey (Tron) and Queen (Flash Gordon). Yes, the early 80's played havoc with my movie senses, luring me into bad movies with the false promise of good soundtracks. Having to tailor their music to fit cheezy disco-pop formulas damaged their reputations as serious rockers. Many a good 70's rock band destroyed their credibility in the early 80's. The song was very true, video *did* kill the radio star....

Unfortunately for ELO, this movie harmed their careers more than any other participant. To date (Sep 2004), ELO's penchant for hits in the mid-to-late 70's should have guaranteed them a spot in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. Yet, they still haven't made it, while less accomplished contemporaries have been admitted. I directly blame their decision to do this movie for the nagging doubts keeping them from The Hall. Classics like "Evil Woman", "Strange Magic", "Telephone Line", "Don't Bring Me Down", "Fire on High"...all obscured by a bad artistic choice to do disco-ish music for this movie. Aside from ELO, Jeff Lynne could arguably be a Hall of Famer on his own, based on his work since Xanadu. He has worked with and produced George Harrison and the other Beatles (two others individually and as a group post-John Lennon's death), Roy Orbison, Tom Petty, Randy Newman, Dave Edmunds, Helen Reddy, Del Shannon, Brian Wilson, Tom Jones...has provide stellar music for other movies (Robin Hood, Electric Dreams, Lethal Weapon 2, Joyride, Indecent Proposal)...has been a member of supergroup The Traveling Wilburys and 60's cult band The Move...been nominated for and won Grammies....and he'll NEVER live down Xanadu. He and ELO took "The Fall"...indeed!

Olivia went on to do a few more cheesy movies before she became a relic of the 70's/80's...The Tubes never did hit 'the big time' after this movie...Cliff Richards slipped back into the past...and Gene Kelly unfortunately had this movie as one of his final star credits. At least Don Bluth was able to break the stigma of doing Xanadu. There isn't anyone else involved with this movie that I would care about slightly as far as "what ever happened to..." goes. Except for one.

What happened to the guy who pieced together Xanadu, exec producer Lee Kramer? Not much...other than another 1980 project "The Man Who Saw Tomorrow", he has no other credits in IMDb. I won't be digging through the discount bin at Blockbuster to find *that* gem.

This movie should only be used in film production class on how not to produce a movie. Absolutely Crap-tacky-ular.
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Shrek 2 (2004)
10/10
Brilliant!
31 August 2004
Warning: Spoilers
By far the best computer animated movie to date. Improves upon the original, which is a rarity among sequels.

This time around I felt it was aimed more at an adult audience. The talented cast from the first installment returns, minus John Lithgow's Lord Farquaad (for obvious reasons if you saw Shrek)...and are bolstered by wonderful additions. Rupert Everett, Jennifer Saunders and Julie Andrews are very good, but the characters played by John Cleese (The King) and particularly Antonio Banderas (Puss 'N Boots) are show-stealers. (***MINOR SPOILERS***) The transition of Puss from assassin to co-hero was well scripted, and the comedic triad between Shrek, Donkey, and Puss made for some funny moments.

The movie has a number of positive messages, ranging from being yourself (Shrek/Fiona/Donkey), the power of redemption (Puss/King), and the trappings of vanity and powerlust (Fairy Godmother/Prince Charming). Package this with some very clever references, and cute sight gags and you have a fun movie to watch.

The King's "secret" was actually pretty clever and on second viewing there are a few hints, strewn like breadcrumbs throughout the early part of the movie that give the secret away.

As far as the quality of animation, you find yourself very quickly buying into the reality of the characters. Their movements are realistic, and there are nuances in each character that remind you of the voice actor playing the role.

Overall, not only would i see this in a theatre (my first viewing was during a commercial flight), i'd catch it on pay-per-view (as i did on second viewing) and definitely buy the DVD.

One comment regarding some of the references...i thought the decapitated knight in the Poison Apple and the King's reference to a 'crusade' wound could also be taking as a reference to Monty Python & the Holy Grail. (ie. The Black Knight...it's just a flesh wound...)
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Cute and harmless -- you expected something different?
18 June 2004
This movie delivered everything that could be expected. If you are familiar with the comic strip, this movie is a very good representation. It isn't a gut splitter, it doesn't have Oscar written on it, but it is a cute little diversion. Some of the negative complaints surprise me, they sound like they didn't know what to expect...did people think they were going to see "Monsters Ball" or "Kill Bill 2"? It's Garfield, folks. If you can't see yourself flipping through a book of Garfield strips without getting bored or annoyed, I don't know what would bring you into the theatre to see it anyway.

The CGI Garfield was well done, and the movie is true to the original strip.

Let's be glad that "Marmaduke" or "Henry" didn't find its way on screen.

Overall for Garfield fans I'd say it's an 8/10, for others closer to 5/10.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed