The_Only_Man_Who_Can Reviews

Late Show with David Letterman (1993–2015)

This show may cause brain damage

[1/10 · 19 May 2006]

As a UK citizen, I had never had the misfortune to see an episode of this 'talk show' as it was on digital and I haven't upgraded yet. However, for reasons I won't go into it is now part of my job to watch the show for research purposes. I don't think I can last much longer.

It is almost impossible to verbalise how irritating this show is. The 'jokes' are non-existent, with each punchline scuppered with, erm-ah, the-ah timing of David's delivery. Every time the audience laughs I wonder what kind of funny-gas has been pumped into the studio.

Things are made worse by the visually stagnant way in which the show is filmed. Nearly the entire show is locked into one mid-shot of David at his desk. Even when he's talking to his house band we are rarely afforded a glance at who he is talking to, with a sinister high-pitched voice off camera underlining every sentence spoken by David: 'Oh! Uh-huh. Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaah.' When I first saw this show I thought I was hearing David's self-congratulatory inner thoughts through the mic he has on his desk. Instead, its a bald guy with sunglasses (is he blind? I'm afraid to ask) who pats David on the back at every opportunity.

The smugness of this show is suffocating, especially to new viewers such as myself who haven't witnessed anything to warrant their inflated opinion of themselves. I was hoping against hope that perhaps Letterman's interview technique was second to none, but yet again I was disappointed: they are as vapid and un-illuminating as the rest of the show. At no time are the guests asked anything more searching than what they had for lunch earlier. It may be just a cultural difference, but I prefer the cheekiness of UK talk-show hosts like Johnathan Ross etc. who manage to get under the skin of his guest through humour so that we get to know more about them than another well-rehearsed anecdote.

Unfortunately, there seems no way to make it stop. Its my job to keep watching this forever. I am in hell.

Munich (2005)

Hmmm....

[4/10 · 3 March 2006]

I left the theatre moved in a peculiar way after seeing this film. Usually if a film is an hour and a half too long, edited in such a way that the director appears to have lost all interest in the story's momentum, and contains endless clichéd meetings between men in cafés I simply dismiss it in being rubbish. However, this is Spielberg we're talking about here! I have to believe he does everything for a reason, don't I? The film has good performances, I'll give it that, but the whole film has an air of 'been there, seen that,' offering nothing new on the subjects of terrorism, revenge, espionage or any other topic you'd like to affix to the piece. Spielberg's message seems to be: Terrorism is morally dubious and revenge is morally dubious too, which doesn't really fire up the imagination.

However, this isn't what I finally decided was my main problem with the film. You see, while Eric Bana et. all did a fine job bringing the characters to the screen I just couldn't connect with them. It's a brave move to make your protagonists men you can't really root for, being terrorists themselves and all, but the main reason I didn't care about them was fairly simple.

At the start of the movie Eric Bana's character is brought before the prime minister and set an assignment: to track down and kill those responsible for the Munich attack. He is given 24 hours to decide if he accepts or not. He is also warned repeatedly how dangerous this mission is. He accepts anyway. Now, I found it annoying that he spent the latter 3rd of the movie whining about how dangerous the mission had become. Grow some balls, dude! He seems to totally lose his cool the minute anything doesn't go according to plan, and you're left wondering why is he the team's leader (a topic that is brought up but washed over immediately).

I then spent the last hour and a half of the movie waiting for it to end but being forced to endure meeting after meeting, phone call after phone call hoping he would just tie a knot in his hankie and get on with his job! With tighter editing this could have been a masterpiece. As it is it's a humourless lecture on the cause and effect of revenge, dumbed down for 13 year olds.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)

it's not a remake!

[8/10 · 15 February 2006]

Oh, how I wish people would stop calling Charlie and the Chocolate Factory a remake! Is Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings a remake of Baskshi's animated version? No. Is Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet an attempt to improve on Zefirelli's 1968 version? No. Why? Because the creators of each film used the original source material as inspiration. Why should 'Charlie' be any different?

I suppose there are two reasons. The first (sadly) seems to be that many are not aware that there was a book in the first place! It is apparent looking at some of the other comments that some believe Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (with Gene Wilder) was an original creation (it might as well have been, as we'll see later). I grew up with Roald Dahl's books so I find it incomprehensible that one could argue that Burton 'changed the original' by (for example) replacing the golden geese with squirrels (as they are in the book). I don't see the new version to be an adaptation of anything but the original story as written by Roald Dahl.

The second reason is more understandable but also more subjective. There are obviously many, many people that adore the 70s adaptation, and will naturally be biased against the new one. To be fair, I'm exactly the same but the reverse. As a fan of the original story I couldn't wait to see the 70s version. However when I did I was... sorta... disappointed. The bland pastel colours (both inside and outside the factory) can't really be criticised for they are of it's time. But I just felt the film lacks the imagination, the spark, that Roald Dahl had. It's well recorded that Dahl wasn't pleased with what the filmmakers did with his story and I'm inclined to agree. My two main problems with the 70s version is that Wonka's factory just seems too much like an everyday factory with some decoration. The book makes gives you the sense that Wonka's factory is the most wonderful and surreal place on earth, even before the children enter it. Here, the chocolate river room is just a room with a chocolate river in it. All the rooms just seem like the pudding factory I worked at but with oompa-loompas. Where's the fun in that?! My other problem with the 70s version is actually how it ignores a subtle (but essential) message of the story. In the 70s version Gene Wilder famously explodes when Charlie steals Fizzly Lifting Drink and almost gets killed. After shouting at Charlie and his grandpa he tells them leave. When I saw this all I could think was 'Yeah! Wonka's right!' You see, Dahl's Charlie is different from the other children because he is polite, compassionate and trusts Wonka implicitly. The other children get their comeuppance for snatching at what they want; taking what Wonka explicitly tells them not to. What confuses me is that in the 70s version Charlie and Grampa do just this! THEY STEAL FIZZY LIFTING DRINK! They join the ranks of Augustus Gloop who drank from the river, Violet who took the unfinished gum, Veruca who wanted a golden goose/squirrel and Mike Teevee, a victim of his own impatience. If there was any justice, Charlie WOULD have been liquidised at the top of the Fizzy room but no, he gets the factory and I'm left thinking 'why didn't the others?'

So, that's why I believe that for all it's faults, Tim Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is at least an original and earnest attempt to bring the magic of Dahl's original story to the screen, morals (and the original songs) intact. While Depp's Wonka understandably divides audiences, I prefer it to Wilder's schizophrenic tired/angry psycho approach, as Depp made me really believe that this eccentric had been cut off from the real world for years. I think Dahl would have approved

Ewoks: The Battle for Endor (1985 TV Movie)

Enjoyable enough, but is it Star Wars?

[5/10 · 25 January 2006]

As a kid I really enjoyed the first Ewok TV-movie, so I jumped at the chance to watch that and this sequel again when it was released on DVD. It may be the nostalgia, but I still really enjoyed 'Ewoks: The Caravan of Courage, despite it's flaws.

However, I found Battle for Endor a little harder to like, mainly due to the baffling inclusion of a medieval army that seem to have come right out of 'Willow' (which is kind of ironic, considering who's involved with this movie).

I just... don't understand! Given that Wicket speaks English in this movie I can only assume that Battle for Endor takes place after Return of the Jedi. If so, how come we never hear of the Empire (or the rebels) deal with this race of vicious monsters who live in a castle not too far from where Wicket's Ewok tribe live? Also, what did these baddies think was going on when there was a flippin' moon sized battle station hanging in the sky? Did anyone see the huge saucer built by the Empire to generate the second death star's shield? Any attempt to explain this stretches credibility, unless this film is set far before ROTJ, the Ewoks are immortal, and Wicket simply refused to speak English when Leia, Luke and the others showed up.

As a stand alone film however, it's a fairly enjoyable adventure, despite ticking every cliché in the book. I did find it odd that the entire first film was about the rescue of the children's parents, while in the second all but one of the family are slaughtered by the baddies. It may just be me, but I felt it devalued what was achieved in the first. If you really have to see an Ewok movie, stick with 'Caravan of Courage.' (Oh, and Return of the Jedi. Yes).

Hyperdrive (2006–2007)

Why sci-fi comedy rarely works...

[18 January 2006]

I'm not going to pass full judgement on this show until I've watched the entire series, but it may prove hard for me to do even that. I'm a massive fan of Nick Frost and the writers of this show, but they made the critical error that most sci-fi comedy seems to make: that science fiction is rarely funny.

Let me explain. When Red Dwarf began it was a massive success, not because it was a sitcom about a space ship, but it was a sitcom SET on a space ship. Only a few of the gags were about the futuristic setting, and those that were rarely worked. Don't get me wrong, there were moments of genius (such as Rimmer's parallel universe double Ace, a character who could only exist in this type of show) but the best jokes were stuff modern day audiences (and not only geeks) can relate to. As Red Dwarf continued into it's seventh and eighth series the focus shifted from the 'comedy' to the 'situation' and the laughs diminished. This is also why I found it difficult to love Futurama as opposed to liking it. Half the gags were about how the 30th century differed from the present, which I found tiresome before the first episode had finished.

The exceptions to this rule are Douglas Addams' seminal Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and John Carpenter's similar film 'Dark Star,' both of which somehow work perfectly, utilising their theological and sci-fi ideas to the fullest.

An example of how the first episode of Hyperdrive didn't work was in the section where two crew members of the H.M.S. Camden Lock decide to confuse the android pilot of the starship by giving conflicting commands. Not only does this feature the worst method of controlling a space ship I have ever seen (a sort of theremin mixed with an arcade dance mat, seemingly created specifically for this joke), but what follows it a 'shaking camera' sequence lifted from Star Trek that lasts three times too long and is about three times less funny than it should have been.

Sadly, while I hope that Hyperdrive will improve, I doubt the writers will see the error of their ways and follow the route of countless fallen sci-fi shows before it. A pity.

Lost (II) (2001– )

Better than that other show...

[10 January 2006]

It annoys me that when people mention the name 'Lost' they'll immediately think of that ridiculous 'drama' about a group of beautiful plane crash survivors and their lethargic attempts to get themselves rescued. I say this because THIS show is SO much better.

One of the earlier reality shows in this modern trend, 'Lost' follows three teams of three (a camera operator on each) who are dumped in the middle of nowhere and must make it back to London with nothing but their wits and a small quantity of bartering money. The first team to reach Nelson's column win a cash prize and the chance to play again.

What makes this show so great is the sense of adventure (and even danger)! The teams remove their blindfolds and they could be anywhere! In one memorable episode they were dropped in a snow-covered wasteland in a remote area of Canada, with no idea which way to start walking.

Unlike most 'reality' shows, where the characters become more stupid as the show wears on, the people in 'Lost' blossom, achieving something they never thought they were capable of. It also opened my eyes to what you can accomplish through steely determination, as proved by the penniless contestants blagging free plane trips and other extra help from total strangers. I should try that more often.

I recommend catching this should it be repeated in the future.

Man on Fire (2004)

entertainment for idiots

[2/10 · 9 January 2006]

I rented this movie thinking it was going to be a rocking and a rollin' revenge flick, but for the first 40 mins there's no real action, no violence to speak of, it simply follows the blossoming relationship between bodyguard Creasey (Washington) and Pita (Fanning). Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not going to critise the film for it's slow build up. In fact this section was by far the best, as director Tony Scott reigned in his infatuation with over-editing and concentrated on the characters. It's something you don't really see in action flicks, and I was sat there thinking 'I really care about these people, it's gonna be hell when Pita's kidnapped.' Unfortunately the film REALLY lets itself down in the second half. Scott's 'psuedo-style' has always stuck me as a diversionary tactic to mask a lack of content and boy, does it show here. The camera flies all over the place whenever Creasy fires his weapon, so much so that far from 'gratuitous,' the violence seems non-existent, emasculating Denzil's Man of Fire with a wet-paper bag of gratuitous editing (sorry 'bout that last sentence, the film seems to have rubbed off on me in some way).

Wanna see a good revenge flick? Watch Oldboy.

The Descent (2005)

Pretty scary.... if your are afraid of modern dancers

[6/10 · 14 November 2005]

Billed as the 'best British horror film since 28 days later' I was looking forward to The Descent, not only because I'm a horror fan, but I had enjoyed Neil Marshall's previous (and altogether more fun) film: Dog Soldiers. However I can only admit to enjoying half the movie, for reasons that will become soon apparent.

Several female friends go on a thrill-seeking caving adventure somewhere in America (or Canada, going by the car's number plates); one of whom is trying to forget a terrible accident that killed her husband and daughter just after the group's last trip. Shortly into the expedition a tunnel behind them collapses, not only trapping them far underground but in a series of caves that have never been mapped (ruling out any chance of rescue).

Up to this point the film works almost perfectly. The characters (though falling into roles lifted from a dozen other movies) are all played with skill and charisma, giving greater credence to their choices and emotional deterioration later in the film.

The caves themselves are even better; from their tight spaces to open, Gothic chambers, the excellent cinematography unsettles without being too obvious. When the friends discover they have been led to their doom, you completely sympathise with their hopelessness and utter despair.

The main problem with 'The Descent' is that it could have worked perfectly exploiting this set up to the fullest, without resorting to the 'Cave Vampires' that stalk the friends in the second half of the film. The scariest scene comes when one of the characters traps her foot while crawling through a tight tunnel. This is before they are even lost, but her slow but steady descent into utter panic is both believable and terrifying, using nothing but her perfectly judged performance. Contrast this with the later scenes which sadly fall into the well trampled pastures of 'Spam in a Can' features, whose greatest desire is to be labelled as "its 'Aliens'... in a CAVE!" Now, I have no problem with those sort of flicks, it's just that the later half of the film fails to deliver anything as tense as the earlier scenes, preferring to stick a creature into the lens and shout 'boo!' And the creatures... this is where the film is most embarrassing. I'll admit I'm a stickler for monsters in movies, but the way I see it if THAT is meant to be the scary aspect it better be pretty damn scary, right? Unfortunately I found the creatures to be almost comical, moving like a modern dance troupe rather than flesh-hungry monsters. The creature make up also fails to impress or frighten.

Do not allow your expectations to be raised too high by the first half, and no doubt you will enjoy The Descent. I however can only wish Neil Marshall had the confidence or willingness to leave out the schlock tactics to make something scarier, better and more unique.

6 out of 10