notstudyinglaw Reviews

NewsRadio (1995–1999)

Sorry...

[22 July 2002]

Overall this show is smart and brilliantly funny; and yes, incredibly overlooked. BUT, it was far from perfect.

First, Andy Dick is simply NOT funny. As the show went on, it seemed to indulge his dumbed down humor all too often. The rest of the cast was, I'll admit, close to perfect- especially the late Phil Hartman and Khandi Alexander, who, as already pointed out, never got her due.

Second, the show THOUGHT it was much smarter and more urbane than it actually was. All too often, I felt as if the writers were chuckling to themselves over some "smart" or "quick" line that simply came out sounding forced and juvenile. The attention lavished on Dick and the similarly unfunny Vicki Lewis, that was therefore denied Alexander and other fine cast members, further indicates that the writers became obsessed with their own cuteness and that of their "trendy" stars, to the detriment of a fine show.

Obviously, this show is worth watching. But it often has a forced feel that is the opposite of the easy flow of nothingness that was Seinfeld. And while I may miss the Seinfeld stars, I am thrilled that Andy Dick seems to have dropped off the face of the planet.

Glory Days (2001–2002)

Just plain dumb

[7 July 2002]

Like everyone else it seems, I was looking forward to this show. But, I hate to say it; it is just plain old bad dumb TV. Bad plots, bad dialogue, bad production values. Sad, sad, sad.

For some reason I thought that the name "Kevin Williamson" would indicate some level of quality. Then I looked back at Williamson's filmography- is he really all that? The Scream series is brilliant and witty, and Dawson's had moments. But beyond that, when you add Glory Days to the pile, his inane juvenile panderings are seriously starting to outweigh his insightful fresh offerings.

Yes, Glory Days has been cancelled. It did have potential- I'll admit I watched beyond the dreadful premiere. But it never seemed to realize that potential was not enough. In order to succeed and satisfy, it desperately needed to honestly evaluate what works and what doesn't from the genres it was drawing on.

Perhaps if they had left behind the unbelievable soap-opera-ish set-ups, which are the annoying hallmark of suspense shows directed at the older set, including Murder She Wrote and Diagnosis Murder, I could have swallowed it? After all, it ain't the gray hair that keeps me away from those shows, it is the endless parade of Scooby-Doo like "mysteries." Yes, the amusement park owner, or the new boyfriend, or any number of stock "killers" really DID do it. Did the fun twists of Scream wear Williamson out?

Or what if they'd tried harder to make us care about the main characters, as Williamson was somehow able to do in Dawson's? I fully acknowledge that Williamson is no Whedon, so I knew better than to expect anything actually thought provoking. But even slightly believable, or engaging, or entertaining, could have kept this show afloat.

Good Riddance. But here's to hoping the WB will try its hand at the genre again.

Village of the Damned (1995)

Oh how the mighty have fallen...

[26 May 2002]

Watching this film, I was bored silly, but more importantly, I felt so sorry for all the actors involved. No, I would never have called any of them "great" actors, even at their best. But they seemed to have solid careers in A-minus list blockbuster type movies or great television. Now they're left wallowing in this B-minus bad TV-movie looking thing.

Mark Hamill? Sweetie, if you can't get a real part, then please just live off your Star Wars royalties and let us remember you with some last shred of dignity. His "acting" is just sad, and to add to the insult, he's in a tiny role. And poor Christopher Reeve, to add to his tragic accident, this will be left as, probably, his last film. He usually has such on screen appeal, but he's flat and strangely unhealthy looking, even at the opening.

Linda whatshername is passable, but should just go to Australia, be happy with being beautiful, and forget about having a real film career.

But the prize for worst job (I can't even say acting anymore) must go to the truly atrocious Kirstie Alley. I never thought she was much of an actress, but always found her appealing and watchable. Unlike some, I don't mind smoking in movies, but here it truly is bizarre and she poses with it like some kid vamping for the camera.

During the first half, the plot is somewhat intriguing, but then it falls apart due in large part to the story itself, as well as John Carpenter's inept direction.

Spare yourself. I enjoy low-brow scifi/horror just as much as the next gal, but this is simply a bad movie.

The Untouchables (1987)

Probably not a classic, but entertaining...

[26 May 2002]

As others have pointed out- the historical inaccuracies are just far too many to count. This is problematic when you're making a movie based on very well known real people, and is incredibly distracting. Be wary of anyone claiming to be a history buff who missed that.

In its favor, it does get across some of the problems with Prohibition, and at least some of its more devastating after-effects. Especially given that this is de Palma, the parallels to our modern drug war are inevitable. And unlike so many Mafia movies, the mobsters are portrayed as villains, not as amusing family men. Thanks to de Niro, you see Capone's charisma, but feel no sympathy.

Unlike quite a few here, I got the fact that many scenes were meant to be HOMAGE, rip-off. I don't love de Palma, but he knows his film, and he knew exactly what he was doing. I enjoyed the nod to the true classic gangster movies.

But even given that, I found the baby carriage scene maddening. The action was great and well-executed, and the unbelievable nature of Garcia's shot didn't bother me. But the thing with the baby was overly heavy-handed and drawn out. Puh-leeze.

I don't think Costner is much of an actor, and his gesture towards a mid-Western accent is about as far as he can go. But his non-acting almost works here, as it does in a few of his other films such as Bull Durham and Field of Dreams. I say almost works because some of his actions seem strangely unmotivated and out of character. I'm referring especially to his throwing Nitti off the building, which is historically completely wrong, and highly questionable from both an ethical and film-making standpoint.

Connery is his usual, but fantastic self. This was definitely one of those "body of work" Oscars, and I'm fine with that.

Overall, this film is over-rated as both a classic and a historical piece. But it is better than most, and is certainly engaging and entertaining.

To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything! Julie Newmar (1995)

Amusing or insulting?

[25 May 2002]

I'm truly torn on this one. For a turn-your-brain-off comedy it sort of works. But I have a hard time turning my brain off when such serious issues are implicated, and handled badly. Wife-beating solved by having someone else beat up the husband and toss him out? Small town folks so dumb? Homosexuals as the usual ridiculous freaks? Women learning how to be women from men? I found it all a tad icky, even in the midst of the celebratory atmosphere.

I want to think the lead trio was trying to be nervy, but instead I'm left feeling like they were doing the equivalent of black-face, with all their flailing about coming off like "yes massa." The storyline with ChiChi and the local young man is also a bit creepy- reinforcing the myth that gay men are trying to seduce straight men. When similar situations are handled differently, as in The Crying Game and even Priscilla, it is a completely different issue, here it just doesn't work.

Snipes is painfully miscast. He is simply too muscle-bound, and then poorly made-up, to be at all convincing. And as others have pointed out, having them exist eternally in full-costume is just silly and unrealistic. And, frankly, a bit stupid- no drag queen I know would set off on a road trip in full drag through parts unknown without fearing for her safety.

On the flip side, the movie insults anyone who lives in a small town. Men are dirty, wife-beating, potential rapists. Women are doltish, ignorant, and helpless. Middle America has its issues, but this reinforces a different set of stereotypes for a different audience.

The over-all message of acceptance should, however, be commended. I just wish they could have done it a little bit better. I suppose it was trying to be a cartoon, but it creeps me out a little when the cartoon serves to reinforce old stereotypes about all involved.

Disappearance (2002 TV Movie)

Thrills, Chills, and HUH????

[26 April 2002]

When I first began visiting IMDB, I rarely read the user comments, and wondered why anyone would bother writing one. Now, obviously, that has all changed. And this movie illustrates the value of having a place to read and write these reviews.

Thank you, fellow reviewers, for reassuring me that I'm not a complete idiot for not understanding the end of this movie! I missed some of the movie the first time through, so when the ending didn't make sense, I watched it again. Still baffled.

I was on the edge of my seat for most of this- something extremely rare for a TV movie, heck, any movie. But where I didn't jump and scream during "The Others" or "The Sixth Sense," I relished the complete (albeit predictable) endings they offered. Such endings are great because you saw the clues and then they add all up. Disappearance had all the clues, but then didn't even give an equation to put them in, much less a solution. Ambiguous and spooky is one thing, but this was ridiculous.

When I watch a TV movie, I want some kind of resolution. I don't need them to draw a picture; for instance, I wasn't bothered by the fact we never see the "stalking" creature. But I need something more than "poof."

This COULD have been so good. We got lots of intriguing clues and tense moments, balanced out by a low number of those "gee, I'll go outside and look for the ax murderer" moments. Don't get me wrong, there were a few breathtakingly stupid moves; for example, why did the boy go down the mine shaft? But compared to most horror/thriller movies, less than average.

As mentioned by others, the acting is acceptable, production values great for TV, and the first hour and a half are extremely watchable. But be warned, you will annoyed endlessly by the bizarre ending. Watch at your own risk.

So, please, fellow reviewers, if any of you have an answer for the ending, POST IT!

Alias (2001–2006)

I'm in the middle

[21 April 2002]

Since all the other reviews are at either end of the spectrum, I'll throw myself into the middle. Alias is entertaining, but I wouldn't call it great TV. Especially not in the vein of Law and Order, or even Buffy. Those are two of my favorite shows, so take my review with that in mind. Alias, while inferior, does have strains of both of these, which leaves me liking it.

This is James Bond-ish; with spies living in an almost completely fantasy world with lots of gadgets and always looking (too?)incredibly polished. But where Bond is full of self mocking humor, Alias has little to none; which is a good thing and a bad thing. I'm not quite sure how seriously this show is taking itself. If it gets the joke, then it is brilliant. If it thinks we're buying all this, well then, that bumps the show down several notches. I mean, come on, this is from the makers of Felicity, not exactly experts in espionage. But neither am I, so it doesn't bother me. Many of the episodes feel somewhere in between a cartoon and a soap. Don't get me wrong, I love the show, but reality it ain't.

Alias is all about the willful suspension of disbelief. But it does, on occasion, go too far. The ridiculous notion that Sidney is still in school really drives me nuts. As I'm just about ready to swallow it all down with a smile, everything comes choking back up when her "classes" are referred to. Even SNL latched onto that for a classic bit of lampooning.

Basically, if you like silly action movies, this is a bright shiny object to entertain you for an hour. If you like your TV gritty and real-life, it is sure to drive you nuts!

PSI Factor: Chronicles of the Paranormal (1996–2000)

Poor Man's SciFi

[19 April 2002]

Reading the reviews, I have to wonder if I'm watching the same show! This show has such a cheap, low-budget feel, it is somewhat distracting.

The acting is almost uniformly bad. Characters make massive mood swings that look straight out of a bad acting class. Bad acting is, of course, something of a SciFi tradition. Perhaps they were going for a William Shatner feel? All the actors, particularly the men, have that I--AM--SUCH--A--SERIOUS--AC--TOR delivery, it is downright laughable. This is TV folks, second rate TV at that, not an old school Shakespeare production. They should leave the Olivier style posturing behind.

Part of what makes the acting so bad is the poor writing. Characters are often given no plot motivation whatsoever for turn-on-a-dime emotional outbursts or epiphanies. So without plot support, their reactions seem particularly bizarre.

The production values are also glaringly bad. One episode sticks out in particular: they were supposedly in Bermuda investigating the Triangle, but they were sooo obviously still in Canada. The shoreline looked like a lake, not even the sea. I used to live in Bermuda, so I could go into more detail, but anyone who's seen a postcard of the island would have been distracted by the odd setting. They could have tried just a little bit harder, or left out the more ridiculous scenes.

BUT, all that said, I still find myself tuning in. The show is entertaining, in that sort of B-movie way. And it is always funny to watch bad actors "emote."

Just to clarify, I am not an X-files fan, so I'm not bitter about the supposed rip-off factor. TV is derivative, I gave up expecting originality! Lack of originality is not the problem here, just lack of quality.

But, hey, it is still fairly enjoyable.

True Lies (1994)

Not a GREAT film, but great FUN

[16 April 2002]

In the midst of all the raves here, I feel the need to be slightly more critical, but just a bit!

Cameron is capable of really wonderful, thought-provoking films- as in The Terminator and The Abyss. But he is also capable of producing over-the-top, hit-you-over-the-head blockbusters like Titanic. For me, this is somewhere in the middle- not thought provoking, but also not assuming the audience is made up of complete idiots. But sometimes, well, a lot of the time, you want a movie that is good old silly fun, and this movie certainly is just that.

As usual, Cameron also gives us a strong leading lady, one of the main reasons I (almost) always enjoy his movies. Curtis is fabulous here- funny, beautiful, and a bad-ass (eventually). She proves her versatility once again, as an actress and as a woman, she seems able to do it all-even stunts!

The tongue-in-cheek humor which references every spy/action cliche is a riot. This is pure fantasy humor for spy/action movie fans. And I love it.

Post-9-11, the terrorist stuff has a different tone. Yes, I can see why there were protests, and it does perpetuate a stereotype. Watching it now, I just wish those references weren't in there. It just breaks the fantasy/fun aspect of the movie.

As long as you know what you're in for, get ready to shut off your brain and go for a thrill ride with this film!

Selena (1997)

So many if only's

[14 April 2002]

I am one of those people who hadn't heard of Selena until after her death; and I didn't know too much about Jenifer Lopez until this movie was released. So, I should thank the film makers for introducing me to two spectacular women. I remember seeing interviews with Lopez promoting the movie, and thinking "this woman's going to be HUGE." She's certainly proven her star quality, but unfortunately her talent has not lived up to her work in this film, nor to the talent of Selena. If only Lopez would put the care and heart into her current work that she put into this film.

The biggest "if only," of course, is, if only Selena had not been murdered, where would she be now? Probably on the top of the charts. I'd take her brand of pop over Shakira's banal writhing any day.

But, let's not forget, Selena was headed for pop music. And those pop music sensibilities cheese up (or down) this movie. It is full of cliches and silly video camera work, and it is really a shame. If only these elements had been properly handled, Lopez really might have been Oscar nominated, a la Sissy Spacek in Coal Miner's Daughter- a film that plays on some stereotypes of a culture, but manages to keep itself out of the cheese tray.

But there are stand out scenes that make this movie worth seeing. I get chills everytime I see the opening scene at the Astrodome. I believe that scene alone is enough to establish Lopez as a star and Selena as a (bigger) legend.

The choice to downplay murderer Yolanda Saldivar was right on target. Saldivar is given just what she deserves by being shown as a pathetic, crooked, hanger-on, not Selena's "special friend" with whom she would share secrets. To give her any kind of central role in Selena's life would be to justify (in her mind) and glorify her. That's what this kind of crime is about- being remembered as important and connected to a star. Let her rot and be forgotten, and let Selena be remembered for her life, not her death.

Also, the fact that Selena's family was so integral in the making of this movie should put to rest all the whining about Lopez's casting, accent, and looks (it isn't about who "looks" like Selena, but who could become Selena); as well as the film's portrayal of Mexican-Americans. And, BTW, this is considered Lopez's breakout role, and it was NOT a TV movie, though it plays endlessly. Also, ignore the reviewer who implied there was "nasty" dialogue in the film. This is as squeaky clean as they come.

Definitely worth watching to catch these two stars, and think of your own "if onlys.'"

Tentacles (1977)

Hysterical-

[14 April 2002]

Well, hysterically bad! Everyone else's comments already hit the nail on the head, so I don't know what is making me laugh harder- this movie or the comments!

I hope everyone involved in making the movie at least had a good time in Italy and Southern California. Hopefully they were laughing, too. Huston was way too much of a genius not to have seen this as what it is- dreadful. Perhaps he thought it was a farce of some kind? I would love to have been a fly on the wall during the after filming drinks Huston, Winters, and Fonda must have shared.

The effects are bad, the dubbing atrocious, I couldn't tell if the weird sounds were music or sound effects, some scenes were lifted almost exactly from Jaws...

I could go on, but I think you've got the idea. If it is rainy outside, and you're bored and ready for a laugh, go ahead and watch.

But don't say you haven't been warned.

Random Hearts (1999)

What a shame...

[13 April 2002]

Talented actors, a great director, and an interesting premise, but unfortunately, a poorly structured script, slow pacing, and the silly dirty-cop subplot all combine to kill whatever potential this film had. You know it is a bad sign when you are coming up with alternate ways of cutting the movie while watching it!

Most importantly, though, what has happened to the formerly amazing, charismatic, and compelling Harrison Ford? I've read interviews where he expresses his general lack of enthusiasm for the art of movie making (the guy admitted he's never seen Casablanca!), and IMHO this lack of enthusiasm has been written all over his work for several years now. He only makes a film every year or so, so you'd think he'd save his energy for truly interesting roles; yet he chooses to stand around in movies like this, "Six Days, Seven Nights" and "Sabrina"? He doesn't need the money (he's starred in some of the most profitable movies of all time), so why not just spare us all? I miss his wry smile, and I'd even welcome efforts to play against type. Intense and brooding is one thing, but stony and bored (and boring) is another.

What was everyone involved thinking, first, when they saw the daily rushes devoid of any passion or chemistry; then, later, when the whole thing ran for over two hours? This is the kind of going-through-the-motions film making that, unfortunately, Hollywood feels the need to thrust upon us to fill all those billion-a-plexes and take up cable air-time.

But it is passable as cable tv diversion, and I do just love the sound of Ford's voice, no matter what silly lines he's forced or chooses to utter!

Leap of Faith (2002)

Promising...

[4 April 2002]

Compared to other shows that have inhabited this doomed slot, "Leap" is already miles ahead.

On the good side- a diverse cast that takes diversity for granted; it is refreshing to see a sitcom with black and white cast members where the black woman isn't the sassy sista'! Additionally, the dialogue is getting better- but if you want "Golden Girls" this simply ain't aimed at you. This is, however, aimed at me, and I like the banter- this is how my group of friends sounds, or at least how we would like to sound.

On the not so good side- the storylines still need work, but are also getting steadily better. They seem to be playing down the over-the-top Ally-neurosis of Faith. Thank God. There's a reason no one watches Ally anymore. I also believe the anti-marriage bits were a phase. I simply took the digs as the kind of things we say, but only half mean. I gave it all a knowing laugh.

If the writers do want to look to a classic sitcom for guidance, maybe they should check out "Designing Women." They could take the smart women, smart talk, happily single, happily married elements; leave the annoying stereotypes and shoulder pads behind; and add a dash of 21st century wit and worldliness. Of course, every sitcom must make it through the minefield of sitcom stereotypes. "Leap" is trying, and doing better than most.

Give this a chance, it actually has potential, unlike "Inside Schwartz," "Stark Raving Mad," "Cursed," etc, etc. Of course, I realize that's not saying much.

Cyrano de Bergerac (1950)

Will someone remaster this, please!

[19 March 2002]

This remains one of my all-time favorite movies. Ferrer is simply brilliant. But, as others have rightly pointed out, the production values are poor (to say the least), and the problem is only exacerbated by the poor quality of most video tapes currently available.

But don't be scared, go rent this, the French version, and for fun, Steve Martin's Roxanne, and have a great time with this classic story.

And for even more fun, check out the biography of the real Cyrano. His life was almost as fascinating as the play! Along with being a brilliant thinker, he is often credited as the first science-fiction writer.