Change Your Image
SpinalTapFan
Reviews
Football League Tonight (2015)
Massively improved from when it began...
which tells you how bad it was originally. The studio audience are gone, the standard of punditry is not quite as woeful, the utterly ridiculous out-of-league-order structuring is gone, as are the rotating boards to indicate the league tables (and their spoilerish placing). They haven't done a Skyped interview with ropey video talking to an unknown self-styled 'expert' for a while. However, this is still an object lesson in how not to do football highlights.
The presenters are nothing short of incompetent, flubbing their delivery repeatedly (I counted three botches in one episode alone, including mangling the names of commentators Don Goodman and Bill Leslie into 'Don Leslie' - would it have killed them to re-record it?) Pundits rarely have anything useful to offer. Spoilers are frequent in the structuring - this week's episode (week 26, I think) told us that a Brighton win would put them back up to second - before showing the match which caused them to drop to third. Also, for no apparent reason, we've had a montage of the best goals scored in 2015 in mid-March - made worse by the lack of commentary.
I was pleased when the 9pm timeslot was announced, but right now I'd kill to wait an extra 3 hours for the previous Football League Show from the BBC, which was far from faultless, but at least it was made with enthusiasm, passion and a handful of brain cells.
Red Dwarf: Back to Earth (Part One) (2009)
A shoddy badly-written cash-in
I'm by no means a die-hard Red Dwarf fan, although I've seen most episodes and enjoyed the majority of them. I accept that continuity is not crucial in comedies (even a work of genius such as The Simpsons has tons of contradictions between episodes), although it is in sci-fi. I can live without Holly (either version). I enjoy a good parody and a good self-reference.
Despite all of this, I can't find much positive to say about this revival.
The plot was incredibly lazy, a blatant League of Gentlemen: Apocalypse rip-off peppered with as many Blade Runner references as possible (as if nobody's ever parodied that....). A lot of past episodes were recycled, especially 'Back to Reality'. The guest cast were dreadful, and the Russian hologram was under-used, little more than a plot device coupled with a recycling of 'Quarantine'.
The first 10 minutes explained who the characters were in an awkward way (Rimmer telling Lister that Kryten's an android, as if he didn't know that), but there was no explanation of how the characters ended up like this - why series 8 had been completely erased. The couple of 'series ten' references were a lazy attempt at resolving this - and does anybody seriously think that two further seasons will be designed to follow the exact plot development of this version? A scrolling Star Wars style message similar to that which opened series 3 would have worked better.
And the humour was pathetic. The references to the Dave channel and DVD box-sets felt like advertising, the sneeze-ironing was just disgusting, and Rimmer's inability to protect the team from the squid was nothing new. I didn't realise there was no audience - I thought they'd laughed at every funny moment. The only time I even smiled was the idea that DVDs will be replaced again by videos, as humans are not capable of looking after anything so small.
Doug Naylor, please leave it alone. The decline in quality when Rob Grant left was clear-cut, and this takes things even lower. I will finish on a positive note, and point out that Craig Charles' dramatic acting was much improved on the earlier years - most likely due to his years of straight acting on Coronation Street. A show which is occasionally far funnier than this.
White Men Can't Jump (1992)
Good in all areas, but great in none
A lot of different ideas come together in 'White Men Can't Jump'. Essentially, the lead character tries to succeed in something that, due to his appearance, demeanour and background, few would expect him to be good at. The twist is that he's a white guy playing basketball. Having been duped out of $7800, he takes to hustling the black neighbourhood players, getting them to bet big money that they'll win, on their naíve assumption that a white man can't be a good basketball player. Adventure, plus a fair share of hilarity, ensues.
I liked the minor prejudices Hoyle and Deane had against each other's races, especially Sidney refusing to believe that Jimi Hendrix's drummer was white. The Brotherhood event is funny, especially the "this could cost us our sponsors" reaction. The Jeopardy satire is neat - it's a good sign that Alex Trebek agreed to have the show's integrity questioned like this. The whole role of money in an impoverished community is tackled in this film - the lengths you go to for it, the risks you take in the process, and the way it may not be everything.
The basketball scenes are filmed impressively, with lots of high-angle shots, and feature what appear to be smart tricks (I'm not much of a basketball watcher, but I gather that the coach who worked with Harrelson and Snipes said they reached college standard, despite both being short for basketball players). The trash-talking is believable and occasionally funny, although I find it juvenile as a concept (although it reminds you that 2Pac and Shakespeare may be more alike than most would assume).
The choice of title is brave, and successful - society has put an inbuilt 'block' on Hoyle, much as it has for non-whites in many areas, and his determination to prove others wrong becomes an undoing. Sexual differences are touched on as well; the film notices the way men are generally more obsessed with victory than women - it is Sidney's wife Rhonda who finds a solution to their initial problems, despite Sidney and Billy's macho attitudes.
It all amounts to one of the few quality sport-themed films, a tight but not over-serious look at race in early 90s America. Parts of it are a little dated, but most of the humour and action still shines through.
A Knight's Tale (2001)
Could've been more than it was
I think the underlying concept was to satirise 20th century sport, and relationship and class connotations, by applying them in the middle ages. Crowds baying for blood, supporting their heroes blindly, stereotyped arguments (the idea that the English become giddy on French ground, the insistence that Jesus was English). It certainly wasn't meant to be a realistic tale, which should have been obvious.
Unfortunately, it doesn't totally succeed in anything it does. The fish-out-of-water genre has been done much better, as has the good-heart-wins-fair-maiden/poor-boy-gets-rich-girl melodrama. There is little or no story in the first hour, and little or no comedy after that. It's at least half an hour too long, and hokey in places. Swordfighting is too simple a game to create anything tactical or evolving - they could have been playing tic-tac-toe, for all the difference it made. He comes back from 2-0 down to win the final, simple as that. The acting is mostly mediocre, with too much focus on Heath Ledger's face. Paul Bettany is funny in places, but somehow too hammy.
Ultimately, it's a perfectly adequate evening-filler, if you can get past the opening joke, but the idea of a medieval satire of modern values was under-exploited. I doubt I'll ever want to see it again.
Frasier: Roz and the Schnoz (1998)
Cheap, tacky, borderline offensive
This is one of the few Frasier episodes that I really can't stand. The way the regular characters react to the Garrett's appearance is downright cruel. I can just about picture it from down-to-earth cop Martin, but the other characters are usually much more sympathetic. The attempt at a touching ending falls flat. The whole thing is more typical of Everybody Loves Raymond or something equally gutter-bound.
The dialogue twists are a little unbelievable as well - of all the dog breeds in the world, a Schnauzer? Are the Garretts really oblivious to their appearance? The side-story about the earrings is pretty forgettable as well. By season 5 the show was slightly losing its edge, never more exemplified than by this. Jeffrey Richman wrote a lot of so-so episodes.
The Sopranos (1999)
By and large, TV gold
I can't add an awful lot to the positive reviews already on here - great acting, balanced writing, multi-faceted characters, a great anti-hero in Tony, great commentary on millennial American life. The integral use of psychiatry coupled with Tony's mother issues are especially fresh and humorous. Several other characters add a lot of depth - Hesh's interesting history as an outsider muscling in, Ralphie's total irredeemable viciousness, Chris' dual desires in life, and so on.
I have to dig into some of the criticisms however, especially the 'it glorifies violence/belittles Italian-Americans' one.Most of the writers and actors are Italian-American, would they attack themselves? There are several positive Italian-American characters - Artie Bucco the chef, Dr. Melfi and her family and the Cusamanos next door to the Sopranos. Indeed, Dr Melfi's ex-husband notes in season 1 that only a tiny minority of Italian-Americans have ever had Mob connections (certainly smaller than the proportion of African-Americans involved in crime, dare I say it. In both cases poverty and lack of opportunity are the biggest causes).
Most of the characters don't really choose the life they have; family background or circumstances largely corner them into it. Outsiders (even of Italian stock) who attempt to integrate into it usually meet distressing ends - Matthew and his friend in season 2, for example. If you criticise this show, I assume Frasier made you want to be a psychiatrist, or Will & Grace made you want to go homosexual? Presumably you won't listen to rap music that discusses gangs, or r'n'b which discusses promiscuity, or rock music which discusses drugs (or any other combination)? People aren't as stupid as some of you make out....
Not everything is perfect however. A lot of characters have only appeared once, when by all logic they should have been seen or at least mentioned in previous episodes - Tracee the dancer, Meadow's friend Ally, Uncle Junior's ladyfriend (supposedly for 20 years until they split in season 1).
Shadow Conspiracy (1997)
Plot holes, mediocre effects and a "will this do?" feel scupper some good actors
This all looked quite promising. An up-and-coming Presidential adviser is framed for a series of murders, as he has been tipped off that a conspiracy is going on within the White House. It stars the excellent Donald Sutherland among several capable actors. Yet very few people have a good word to say about it.
The whole thing really needed some depth. You can pick up the idea that the President is being too left-wing with his ideas, and some within the Government want him dead to stop those ideas being carried out. Conrad appears to simply want the country to be Governed his way, rather than the way of the elected leader.
However, the action scenes had a few logic holes - the sewers and elevators already mentioned, and the rather haphazard assassination method - and Linda Hamilton's character is completely uninspired. Her 'the President's my Father' 'diversion' was ludicrous - that would make the President about 10 when that happened. Worse still was her predictable final scene with Bishop.
They could have made a challenging, inventive political thriller, but either bottled it or failed. They could've gone to town on special effects, but the good ones were wasted. They could have achieved so much more in general. This was barely worth the £1 it cost me.
A Beautiful Mind (2001)
Too imperfect to deserve so many Oscars, but a well-made and challenging work all the same
As with fellow Oscar-winner Monster, this biopic has received criticism for a few inaccuracies regarding the real life of the subject. Those in A Beautiful Mind are more worthy of criticism, or of clarification at the very least.
From what I gather, the portrayal of schizophrenia is not accurate. John Nash did not visualise people, he merely heard their voices and interpreted them his own way. This limits the film's worth on an educational side, but does allow the film to take on more drama for those unfamiliar with Nash's life.
Which leads me to the other big issue, the inaccuracies as to his romantic life. Not only is Nash's older son ignored, Alicia being from El Salvador originally is also overlooked, and their divorce and remarriage is not mentioned either.
Worse to some, Nash's past rumoured bisexual relationships are airbrushed away. I don't feel the writers should however be blamed for this, for two reasons. Firstly, Nash claims that he had a level of identity crisis during his schizophrenic times, and attributes any dalliances with men to these. Hardly a view likely to be well-received by gay viewers, much less Hollywood's large gay presence. Secondly, homosexuality is almost entirely ignored in mainstream cinema, unless it is integral to a true story (such as Monster), and this might not be the best film to break it thought.
When I first watched the film, I loved the ending - the whole 'triumph over adversity' feel combined with the touching 'I did so much wrong, but now I've found truth' speech seemed to justify everything. With the reality being somewhat different, it may instead have been phony Hollywood schmaltz. I don't know whether Nash's acceptance speech was similar to what was used in the film - if not, this is a major flaw if the film is to be viewed as a biopic.
For all these flaws, we are still looking at an entertaining piece of work. Nash's mathematical achievements are largely simplified or overlooked, but this is fair enough - to most people it's an over-complex or boring field. Many will have left the cinema keen to research Nash's real work, and there are many places where that can be done easily enough. The same goes for the anti-Communism hysteria and status of the Nobel Prize for Economics which are mentioned by other reviewers.
Above all, this is a human interest piece. A complex, flawed but gifted man struggles with complex demons and somehow comes out on top. He loses what could have been his best years, but enjoys a later-life renaissance and is accepted by the very people he once had (mutual) distrust of. Russell Crowe is superb throughout, Ed Harris is truly awesome, while Paul Bettany is perhaps best of all as Charles, who in many ways is what Nash deep down wishes he was but is convinced he is not - sociable, suave and popular with the ladies. He takes centre stage in the comic chat-up attempt in particular. If you're open-minded, but aware of what you will be viewing, give it a go.