atandt Reviews

Kinderen geen bezwaar (2004–2013)

Adequate

[6/10 · 10 July 2012]

I don't mean to be so negative-- I keep watching it, after all. But I have wat klagen over this show.

I'll start with the positives: Alfred van de Heuvel plays a very likable character; Grote Oma is awesome; it's subtitled, which is rare, so you can learn more Dutch as you watch/listen; I think the interactions and language is very natural and colloquial, not too stagey/cutesy.

The negatives: Maud's witch-like cackle and general nastiness; Julia's earsplitting "singing"; fawning over guest stars/BN'ers; breaking down the 4th wall to address the audience or making self-references to the show; overdone stammering of several characters when showing uncertainty; dramatic scenes comprised of bellowing.

Overall, I think it's watchable, although it feels like a show that is just about prolonging itself via vignettes.

Verborgen gebreken (2009–2011)

Location, Location, Location

[8/10 · 14 September 2011]

I guess I am skewed in that I really do love the sfeer of Amsterdam and for me, looking at all the various properties' interiors is like real estate pr0n for me (or maybe a kind of voyeurism).

The plot lines and characters are likable enough. Not sure why the low rating! Sure, some of the threads aren't fully explored, or are brought out to serve a purpose in a single episode and never mentioned again. But aside from quirks with the continuity/writing, I think it's pretty decent drama overall. Not boring, tense, & unexpected.

Admittedly I started watching during Seizoen 2, so my opinion is based off of that. So if you didn't like S.1. so much, geef 't maar een kans verder.

Sherlock Holmes (2009)

Really fun, supercharged, within spec, worth seeing...

[9/10 · 14 March 2010]

...if only to see for yourself whether the objections were justified.

I've read quite a few of the SH stories and a couple of the novels, and have stayed at the Sherlock Holmes Hotel in London on Baker Street, which is peppered with memorabilia from perhaps a century ago. Another seeding of my impressions of what SH should look and act like are of course the Granada television series starring the late Jeremy Brett. Everyone does different things with the characters and adapting the stories, and Ritchie's interpretation-- along with some decent acting-- are quite valid and within plausibility of the legendary yet fictional character's representation.

In fact, aside from being initially dismayed at (untrue) reports of anachronistic or non-canonical fighting scenes, the only things which made me wonder why the movie dared to include something which I didn't see fit, was that I hadn't read the SH story which might have explained or justified the inclusion!

The film was enjoyable and had a mystery to be solved, a few false leads to make it unpredictable, excellent cinematography and direction, crackling dialogue, a great transformation in portrayal as seen by Eddie Marsan and even Jude Law's mustache, seemingly authentic costuming, and a better use of Watson than as a dopey version of Ed McMahon (as we're used to seeing) or as a device to convey exposition to the audience-- which was done in another way.

Very well-crafted action movie with a cerebral, literary, and historical edge. Not offensive to SH fans, unless there's a bad pedantic apple in the bunch: I'm glad my friends' word-of-mouth trumped the trollerific nay-saying of the Great Unwashed & convinced me to see it. I'm going to bring more people along with me when I see it again!

Religulous (2008)

a lot of fun!

[8/10 · 9 October 2008]

i didn't know who Bill Maher is, but i see now that he's a comedian who's been pondering the subject of organised religion.... you'll be glad he did, once you see this film.

he has a unique way of interviewing people, and from being a comedian (and, from what i can tell, a bit of a smartass) he has his own way of dealing out the questions that are on his mind & handling the answers. so don't expect the Micheal Moore touch.

sometimes he says something that leaves the interviewee speechless, and those moments are MINT! it's great that he is taking his doubts and concerns around the world & asking religious adherents what it's all about & if they can see the inherent nonsense of adopting ancient texts on blind faith even when they don't add up.

he is practically BEGGING people to apply even the slightest scrap of independent thought to what some base their lives & decisions around. he tried to separate the concept of morality/goodness from a list of rules, or challenge what it takes to make a miracle.

he comes in contact with some fascinating and/or bloody-minded people, who really give an interesting sample of people's interaction with their faith, and we see how it basically has to be sustained by faulty reasoning to keep propped up (as very little in the way of proofs of anything supernatural can substantiated).

the world needs more missionaries like Bill Maher...

the ending was a bit of a downer... truly there's nothing more frightening in this world than thinking you have all the answers & acting accordingly. i don't know why people aren't more sceptical of following a deity or doctrine that approves of killing or stealing or enslavement or rape... that would tip me off right there that something ain't right or good or holy.

P.S. if you thought that the people interviewed were being prematurely defensive, take a look at the forums! no one can stick to the goddamned topic or analyse questions about religion reasonably or rationally.

The Office (2005–2013)

enjoyable comedy

[8/10 · 20 March 2008]

i don't know about other people, but when i researched online about the US Office & learnt that "the pilot episode is basically the exact same dialogue as the UK Office", i didn't get fussed that the pilot episode was basically the exact same dialogue as the UK Office. i was prepared.

being half brit & somewhat prejudiced against what was (now unfairly i see) touted as a _remake_ of the original, i refused on principle to watch the US Office. what i did see of the show was in passing, at the gym, with the sound off/CC on, & under those conditions it didn't look that stellar.

glad that i gave it a chance. i think you will be too. (or, have been glad).

one thing that works is that the program is like a series of jokes. note that there is not a lot of plot. but think of standup comedy: sure there is a loose narrative in place of plot, and the point of any dialogue or action is to get a laugh. i think that's what the US Office does. that is one huge difference from the UK original. so, different types of comedy for different tastes.

the lack of huge story or plot became clear to me when: a) i watched an entire episode's deleted scenes instead of the episode proper before figuring out that wasn't the episode :-) b) another time, the DVD was damaged & skipped from the middle of one ep to that of another, which was slightly confusing, but for what is essentially a collection of jokes, just fine. c) in the commentary, one of the writers mentioned switching a scene from one ep to another... if linearity was key, they couldn't have done so. the jokes are modular, and what little remains of "story" is slight but it'll keep you watching!

this is why i disagreed with Jim when he was being interviewed by the camera operator & was listing off all the pranks he pulled off against Dwight, & then concluding it wasn't really funny when he listed them like that... no way dude, they WERE funny, and the US Office itself is a series of jokes acted out for your enjoyment.

another likable item is in certain details. it's a bit of je ne sais quoi for me to spell it out, but a lot of attention went in to including rich details, whether for comedic or character depth effect. they may be simple things but they add up. perhaps this is an equivalent to the "subtlety" that many found to be valued in the original.

the original UK Office is and will always remain a classic. i am quite relieved that the US one can't replace it & instead, as many others have noted, it stands on its own (or "it's own" for the non grammatically-minded)

steve carell is a wonderful actor and is so awkward on screen that he brings an earnest foolishness to the show & it is impossible to not feel for him. his acting brings heart to certain roles.

P.S. it's clear to me now that one's nationality or where you live is irrelevant WRT enjoying this show. i don't know why people keep bringing it up. it just gets in the way. even if you don't know all the references to get the jokes, you are still being exposed to another culture & perhaps learning from context. no one is obliged by virtue of their heritage to understand or even like certain kinds of humour.

Juno (2007)

a lot of fun! pretentious? non!

[8/10 · 11 January 2008]

'Juno' is an unusual film that really carries you along with it.

the dialogue is the first thing that hits you, quickly followed by crackling & quirky characters. even the setting is vivid & purposeful and evokes realism. (although i wasn't so sure why Paulie had the hebrew alphabet thing on the back of his door).

clearly filmed in Canada (i mean, not only was there a metric 2.8L jug of SunnyD, but it filmed on the container's French side, hence the comma instead of the period). HAHA! i think this just adds to its charm!

i could think of worse films which take themselves way too seriously... 'Juno' doesn't suffer from being too twee. i found the offbeat, upbeat nature of the main character, & the slightly surreal interactions of all the characters made for a jolly tableau.

sometimes people *really are* that witty in real life (i know i am ;-) so i felt that Juno's snappy deliveries (even when she doesn't get it right) were consistent with a teen who is either masking her (relative) 'immaturity' or is exhibiting her brightness & uniqueness... either way, it worked for me!

'Juno' is funny, irreverent, comic, & even densitive, yet without the schmaltz. feelin' sorry for the haters right about now, as whatever they were expecting or had brought to the screening with them thwarted their enjoyment of something uncommon.

Notting Hill (1999)

not romantic, not comic, not good

[1/10 · 5 December 2007]

I had no preconceptions before watching this-- i just wanted a bit of fun diversion for the evening. Instead, what i ended up with was a nearly-unwatchable steaming pile of scenes that failed to achieve the basic requirements of story or characterisation.

It occurred to me early on that perhaps the goal of the film was to take the highest-paid, biggest-name actors the producers could find & make the worst movie possible out of their contributions.

What made the subject/story/believability of characters even harder to choke down were two additional crimes: 1) the underlying theme of "ooh celebrities have it so rough here's a feature-length PSA examining their plight"; 2) the under-use of at least 2 truly brilliant comedic actors (the picaresque Dylan Moran & the luminous Julian Rhind-Tutt), who put art before ego & therefore do the job of acting better.

I still could not figure out, at the end of the film, what drew the 2 main characters together. If their feelings were so compelling, the audience should at least have the remotest inkling as to _why_, surely.

The constant fawning over the fictional starlet was nauseating and demeaning-- surely, a single celebrity can not be held in the same degree of spluttering fascination by all who encounter her-- not every "famous" person resonates in the same way by all those little people who behold their greatness... and, amazingly enough, some people even don't even care about celebrities!

There was a great deal of discontinuity between threads which started & then disappeared with no resolution, the uncomfortable clash of comic with tragic (even in the same scene), and the mix of UK & US slang.

The soundtrack was also way off base... not sure whether there was a single UK cover/artist in the lineup. Considering the whole film was set in the UK, the usage of so many United Statesian artists felt confused & displacing.

With plot twists you can spot a mile away, unconvincing "romance", an ill-fitting jumble of predictably kooky characters, and an intolerable repetition of self-effacing British stereotype "sorry's" & other self-deprecations, this movie is entirely missable.

Copying Beethoven (2006)

American actor portraying a German in Hungary's Vienna

[6/10 · 11 September 2006]

there were some confusing aspects to this film which distracted from the potential to enjoy it more. first off, i'd just seen "Immortal Beloved" the week before, and understand that in order to not make "Copying Immortal Beloved" the interpretation of the screenplay had to avoid mimicry. that was OK, to see things through a different sets and props, and draw the relationships from another angle.

but the inclusion of a fictional character to highlight the story of a well-known personage is tough for some fans to accept. there were moments of wonderful emotion and power, but to invest in these scenes while being told a historically-inaccurate story cheapens the feeling.

someone mentioned "Shakespeare in Love" as being inaccurate as well, but fun, and i suppose if that sort of revisionism doesn't bother one, then definitely see this film. it is comedic and doesn't linger too long beyond the story's needs.

for the more discriminating folks, be advised that this film doesn't make use of the standard British-actors-with-German-accents, but British/American/German actors with American (and in some cases, unplaceable) accents. even some words which appear on-screen in Gothic script, that were read aloud, were written in English, something that for me changes the setting in a subtle way.

the story itself was a bit confusing, and enough various ideas were put forth to make me wonder what the film was actually meant to be about. is it a tale of Beethoven's struggle for acceptance and success after a long period of not composing? is it meant to show the strains & events leading up to his passing? was it a study of relationships, in that the people in his life had their own particular opinion & approach to him?

see this film with a mind that it is not meant to be realistic historically (ie. the anachronistically-plucky heroine, for one), but another way to think about a tormented, complex human being who saw himself as divinely-appointed to make some of eternity's most beautiful music.

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2005)

adequate

[7/10 · 11 July 2005]

i've read about 10 of Douglas Adam's books & adored them (& him), liked the radio play, and felt the TV series was lacking... in fairness, the BBC budget for the world that had to be created to bring forth all of the neat-o elements in the book would naturally be insufficient to render DNA's vision properly.

so, after long last, with film technology what it is, a sizable budget, and a good cast at one's disposal, it seemed likely that the story could at last be presented with nothing to hold it back.

but it feels like something went wrong. maybe it's b/c we can never really be sure what DNA's vision or opinion truly would have been of the final work. or maybe it's b/c of all of the prior iterations of the story, which thereby makes any other version seem non-canonical. or, that we are all set designers and casting directors when we read a book (if we do), & find the real-life choice to be not what we had in mind.

or, perhaps it's that annoying, tacked on love interest that some industry suits decided long ago was absolutely necessary to attract womenfolk to the theatre-- i guess, to these minds, what chicks dig are sappy harlequin romances, not tight story lines.

there's really nothing _wrong_ with the film. yes, it's funny, entertaining, has new things never seen before that are quite a treat (ie. Humma Kavula) for the fans who would otherwise just be waiting for the expected. it's creative, what with working out just how to manage a 2-headed, 3-armed character, as well as weaving in the "new" plot threads to the main story. and it did try to be a good tribute, what with certain floating heads and robotic cameos, etc.

if it were possible, i would re-watch the movie with all prior knowledge of the story erased, so that my impression would be new & untainted by any influence or bias. then, i could evaluate it on its own merits, and see if it spoke more to the existing fans than attracted new converts.

i'll be sure to re-watch it, only hopefully it can get better with time.

P.S. i don't understand the issues some have with Mos Def's performance or interpretation of his character-- i found that he fit the part. i can't think of anyone else who could have been more appropriate for that role. dear me, when i think of the hue and cry that would be raised if they'd cast Ford as a _woman_, of all horrors!

Oldboy (2003)

bloody impressive

[9/10 · 8 July 2005]

my filmgoing buddy & i really enjoyed this one. the story was a real trippy ride, and kept us wanting to know what happens next. yeah, so there are warnings about the language, violence, etc, but it wasn't sickening like i thought it would be... its usage was just enough to move the story along & in fact the viewer is spared of lots of the off-screen stuff. (for some reason, the gal in our row kept eating her popcorn during the more gruesome bits, but i needed both hands to cover my eyes for some scenes.)

why did this film blow us away? well, let's see. it was morbidly interesting. there was a mystery to be solved, like a puzzle. there were loads of unexpected things, even some surreal events. ooh, ooh! i know-- the score was beautiful, and the lauded cinematography was also worthy of its praise (even though it was filmed in a dark, overexposed gritty sort of way). all the Hollywood clichés in storytelling were mostly if not completely absent (i have to wonder if Korean natives found this movie to be ho-hum typical of eastern film-making-- prolly not, considering the awards it went for). so it was welcomely refreshing in that way.

the climax & ending offered some fine apres-theatre discussion, to try to piece together the events & what the meanings were. what is fun is that some of the mysteries can't be solved with a textbook answer, 'cos AFAIK the writer/director deliberately left in ambiguity. what was the glowing thing in the suitcase in Pulp Fiction? well, is that wholly important? it's whatever you thought it was... but you knew it was impressively valued. what does the final scene in Oldboy signify? well, you're in luck, viewer, b/c you aren't dictated to what to feel and how to interpret... like other types of art, you can interact with this film & come up with meaning yourself. but, you aren't cheated out of answers either.

can't wait to see this again!

P.S. if the threat about a remake is true & happening, my only hope is that it will inspire many other people to watch the original.

Anchoress (1993)

breathtaking, mystifying

[10/10 · 7 July 2005]

shot in B&W, but with a glaring brightness at times, "Anchoress" unravels a strange slice of life of a young woman who feels called to live in a cell of a church within sight of a statue of the Virgin. the Cult of Mary was strong in the medieval times (and i suppose it still continues today), and this and other bits of the medieval life bring some historical credibility to the screen.

but far from being a sort of documentary, there are surreal and mystical elements too, which i think should serve to appeal to a modern audience. this film has what i would consider an art-house feel, but it also bears a purity to the viewer, of a simple age where belief meant everything and proof is almost heretical.

whether a character has truly experienced a vision, or is a witch, or is holy,is never justly determined by the characters in their peasant lives, but is merely enforced by entrenched codes of social, religious, and other laws. to watch christine encounter each of these, to watch her life and her family be affected by the strangeness of the story and the rules of the age is captivating to behold.

i found this film to be beautiful, bizarre, with a wonderful cast, as faithful as possible to the historically-known experiences of folk in European middle ages (well, aside from the imaginative bits), comical, tragic, but entirely fascinating.

Why Does Herr R. Run Amok? (1970)

furchtbar, schrecklich, und just plain bad

[1/10 · 7 July 2005]

this 'film' has the distinction of being one of the worst things i've seen in a movie theatre. now i'm scared to watch any more Fassbinder films in case they are equally this college-film-studies-student-project bad.

***SPOILER*** when i went to see it, the blurb for the movie in the film guide read something like this:

"Follow Herr R. throughout his day as he smokes many cigarettes, buys a record in a music shop, goes out to dinner, and returns home to bludgeon the entire household."

well, the fun part is, that's exactly what happened. the movie played out like the blurb stated... much like a laundry list of events.

depth? important statements? subtext? NEIN!

i'm sure that Fassbinder is regarded as a valuable auteur by many. i should be fascinated to know why.

Flirt (1995)

gimmicky

[1/10 · 7 July 2005]

i just had to write a review for this b/c it is one of the worst films i had ever seen and i can't remember if i walked out of the theatre or not. as you know, the same story is told 3x incl. the same dialogue. the same things happen. this is not Run Lola Run. this is shite (IMHO).

it wasn't interesting to watch the story loop first time, and therefore iterations #2 & #3 decline in value. the Law of Diminishing Returns grinds the storyline into mathematical powder, as when you start with nothing (or to be fair, not much), and then reduce it, this is what you get.

there was no way for me to appreciate it on any other level. using handpuppets instead of actors might have garnered more audience sympathy for the characters and added depth to their 2D cardboard cutouts.

Dancer in the Dark (2000)

i found it unbearable

[2/10 · 6 July 2005]

i like Björk, love musicals, admire & have seen several Dogme-certified films, and heard good things about this movie. but i found it unworthy of watching through to the end.

no problem with having one's emotions tugged or even eviscerated, but the stakes were low. Selma is just so doomed. i don't know what brand of glue another poster was on when they said this was a feminist or man-hating movie-- that's just silly. there's really nothing empowering about it, and no 'natural enemy'. the women were not feminist models (what about the wife of the cop or Selma herself? fatal naïveté and screeching high-maintenance hysterics are not definitions of strong women)... unless one feels that factory workers are all strong, dunno.

***SPOILERS*** the part where i yelled "aw, c'mon!" at the TV in disgust was where Selma & Bill fight and i think he asks her to shoot him. that was the deal-breaker for me. that was when i stopped the player and put the little movie back in its little case and wondered why the story couldn't have been more redeemable instead of ridiculous.

i wanted to find out what i missed, so i researched what happened, and became very grateful that i stopped where i did. otherwise my disenchantment with the storyline would have decayed to an all-out disgust of the director & artists' contributions.

i can accept it's a matter of taste. while i'm not a demander of feel-good endings, there has to be some credulity re: the actions of the characters. i don't sympathise with stupid characters, so i lost my connection to Selma at that point. and i couldn't suspend by disbelief any further without having a rocket ship to put a crane into and hoist to the moon.

Spaced (1999–2001)

enjoyable on so many levels

[28 April 2005]

i accidentally became a fan, thanks to my bro who insisted that i watch the series if i liked SotD, b/c "spaced" was unlike anything anyone has ever seen yet used some of the same people in SotD. he was not wrong.

the first pass at all the eps was the best, since all the surprises were fresh and the laughs loud and obnoxious (i mean my *own* LOLs ;-) upon subsequent viewings (all just in the past 2 months!), the enjoyment is still there even if it's not new.

not having my own copy, i rushed right out to the biggest HMV in Toronto(large music/videostore) and was dazed to learn that, despite the 1999 debut of this series, there was no such thing as a Region 1 DVD, and probably never would be. much like the stirring, heroic music when brian says "i'll put it in tim and daisy's room", i heard a fanfare with the idea to use eBay to get the DVDs, and now i own the series in its full glory, WITH commentary, WITH outtakes, WITH deleted scenes, AND the indispensable homage-o-meter! why is this series worth it? worth watching, worth the multi-region DVD playing bother, extra expense of buying overseas, etc? it's carefully crafted. the attention to detail is stunning. the continuity makes me wonder if it was all conceived or filmed at the same time (so to speak) rather than sequentially. the homages & recreations of other shows/movies etc were woven in appropriately and neither milked nor tacked on. edgar wright's directing style is brilliant, efficient, and completely shapes the scene/characters/dialogue in a fresh and interesting way... basically, the "spaced"/SotD team works together in such a way as to complement the talents of the others.

the subject matter is light and fun, or serious and fun. the fact that there is no added laughter (whether live or canned) creates a different sort of TV show altogether.

my other regret, besides the availability, is that the rating is so "high"-- i do like the use of foul language: it's judicious. but it makes the show inaccessible to all the masses, and it would be a great thing to have more people see it!

Napoleon Dynamite (2004)

not all movies are plot-driven... and that's OK

[8/10 · 7 April 2005]

If you haven't seen the movie: - understand that it has a story but "no" plot. you, in the audience, are meant to be an observer in a type of cinéma vérité, as it presents honest, believable, amusing, detailed, and yet surreal/quirky experiences of the various people in a small Idahoan town. You will be surprised when you see photos of the actors playing the main characters, and how much they "acted" their parts.

• the direction, cuts, jumps, etc. move along the story so that there is no need to dwell on unimportant bits for the sake of moving to the next significant one. the effect is efficient, and it's neat to not know where you will be brought to next.

• the focus is predominantly setting and character: -a main character is not by definition always a likable one, remember that! here the writers and actors do their work with grace in that what is revealed to us are unedited human beings, not polished, infallible caricatures of what our Leading Man/Leading "Lady" is supposed to be. The honesty and truism in this is also refreshing. you can recognise people in your own world more here than you could in a hip-hyped celebrity-studded blockbuster.

• the setting is pure as well-- shot on location, real houses not facades, vast prairie and farmlands, long shots of county roads, birds chirping in every outdoor scene. no symbolism or sweeping statements are intended by this either. you are simply shown What Is. the era is hard to place, combining old and new technologies & fashions-- this a thing David Lynch does. this adds to the reality, and speaks to several generations at once.

• the young people in the movie are diffident and awkward, with mannerisms and favourite expressions that they unconsciously repeat. The realism in the eye movements, the pauses , the breaths alone speak as loudly as the dialogue… as for that, Deb basically recites her sales pitches from rote, & Napoleon uses coined words or mild oaths in every sentence.

• only those who trash this movie are claiming that it is a rip-off/take on other movies. keep in mind that the story we follow in this little world is based heavily on the personal experiences of the writer(s), down to actual dialogue. also, the other movies ND is accused of imitating are overly-stylized, forcing the actor into meeting a sufficient quota for hipness, urban chic... the teens in those movies are, not matter how alienated, still cool, edgy, and when they fail, do so fashionably (or tragically). not so in ND. Pratfalls happen, and you move on.

• the ageist warnings that you won't like/understand the movie if you aren't a certain age or lived through a certain era should be discarded. i'm certain that anyone can infer meaning from something unfamiliar based on the context-- if that wasn't true, we could *never* understand or learn anything, as there always would be a need for prior knowledge-- which is by definition impossible when presented with any fact or experience for the first time.

sadly, the majority of the negative views expressed are poorly thought out, and due to being nonconstructive, are therefore unhelpful for someone wanting to make a decision for themselves. to be merely told that something is 'stupid' or 'sucks', or to use insults against the viewers who liked it say nothing of the movie or its fans but everything about the reviewer. there must be a few balanced yet negative comments out there, though... i'm sure some people like to be taken seriously when giving their opinions, and therefore have written a comment/post which accomplishes this.

sometimes you can have a sentence that is good & makes sense but doesn't have a verb... there's no need to whip out a rulebook and declare it invalid as "all sentences contain verbs!". in the same vein, the question should not be whether a work did or did not do something conventional, only whether it was done well, if it worked. IMO, this movie succeeded at giving us a taste of semi-rural life, showing us misfits and snobs yet without ridiculing/punishing them, and leading us through a slice of life which speaks to our own.

When it doesn't, perhaps at that moment another ND-loather is born. I personally think that the root cause of the opinions for or against ND are *not* based on age, personal experience, or location... I am convinced it must be genetic.... Once science has mapped the genome to find the bit responsible for what we find funny, then we can live peacefully side by side, knowing that what we once thought were matters of "taste" and "opinion" can be helped no more than our heights or eye colour.