ChibiAnna Reviews

Zoey 101 (2005–2008)

Bo-ring.

[21 November 2005]

I feel so immature, commenting on a show that is obviously aimed towards 11-year-olds. So! Let's begin.

First off, Jamie Lynn Spears? I have the nagging feeling that they only hired her because of the power of the 'Spears' last name. It does nothing to enhance the show's reputation. Jamie Lynn, while a passable actress, seems to be trying to launch her career off this show. Sorry. There's only room for one Hilary Duff.

The actual show is... well, totally uninteresting. Basic plot: girls at a boy's school! American werewolf in London! Of course, romantic entanglements, childish 'problems', and hijinks ensue. Nothing special, apart from the school's absolutely lavish standards. Main characters are perfect and without major flaws, and secondary characters are neatly slotted into stereotypes - mean bully, snotty 'popular' girls, jocks, etc.

5/10. It gets points for effort. Sorry.

The Phantom of the Opera (2004)

Beautiful but flawed

[8/10 · 18 November 2005]

What to say? This musical is enchanting, fixing itself in your mind for ever and ever and ever. I've still got the soundtrack running through my head five days after seeing this movie. However...

The characters are my biggest problem. Christine (Emmy Rossum), in particular, is air-headed, irresponsible, and seems to fall in love with whomever is serenading her at that particular moment. Raoul (Patrick Wilson) - who gave a very impressive musical performance - is a very cardboardy character. The Phantom is, of course, completely changed from the book and musical - both in backstory and appearance. Okay, so he's pretty - but he's not supposed to be, and as soon as gains that physical attractiveness we lose half of the character's motivation.

Sleepover (2004)

How did this get made?

[3/10 · 25 August 2005]

Oh, dear. Oh, dear. I hardly know where to start.

Sleepover is a typical tween movie: girls go for sleepover, mean girls propose scavenger hunt, hijincks ensue, obligatory make-out scene, etc.

I am close to the 8-to-13-year-old age demographic to which this movie aspires, and even I find it boring and a waste of time. My little sister, who is 9 and who 'should' enjoy it, thinks it is boring and a waste of time. But I'm not here to tell you what my family thinks of it.

First off, there is some simply horrendous over-acting, especially by Sara Paxton (Staci). I would understand if this were a high school play, but this is a multimillion-dollar film. Alexa Vega (Julie), who was the movie's main selling point, has two facial expressions: Worried and Mildly Angry. Her best friend Hannah, played by Mika Boorem, is the only person who seemed to know how to show emotion. I know these are supposed to be good actors, but... they sure don't show it.

On top of that, the whole plot screamed 'CLICHE' and consisted of contrivance after contrivance. Most of the dialog was simply terrible ("Hey, what's up? Your face is so glad-looking!"). This is a relatively new director, but there is simply no excuse for things like this. Dialogue can be fixed with a Sharpie marker 10 minutes before a shoot. There is no excuse.

3/10.

The Island (2005)

Fun popcorn flick

[7/10 · 23 July 2005]

This is not a deep movie. It doesn't have knife-edge dialog, it doesn't make you think, it doesn't require lining up more than three brain cells at a time. It is, instead, a pretty and fast-paced action flick.

First, let's do looks. It is pretty. There is good use of color (or lack thereof), there are a few very eye-catching shots (some chase scenes at the beginning and a track following a pipeline, for example). I liked how they portrayed the future: incredible technology does exist, but it's not everywhere - there are run-down bars and trashy cars among all the chrome and gigabytes, just like in real life.

The story itself is very simple. Clones escape from their institution and try to reveal their story to the world. Insert hour-long chase scenes and disposable bad guys. For some reason, SEALS are a dime a dozen and can easily be killed by clones who are supposed to have a fifteen-year-old's mentality. And you know what? We don't care. We're just here for the explosions.

There are a few memorable scenes, and some that reminded me of other movies - the Matrix and Minority Report are the best two examples, bringing on strong senses of Deja Vu. Also, it was nice to see Boromir and Obi-Wan again.

It's not supposed to be brilliant, and it's not. But it's not a total waste of 2 hours, and it's hard to sleep through, so I would rate it a 7/10.

Van Helsing (2004)

Pretty but lacking in substance

[5/10 · 30 January 2005]

Let's see. All the previous flicks that involved Dracula, Frankenstein's monster, Dr. Jekyll/Hyde, and/or the Tooth Fairy, were hardly known to b cinematic masterpieces. Unfortunately, Van Helsing keeps up the trend: a plastic array of special effects without any message or lasting 'That was COOL!!'.

The original characters- Gabe Van Helsing and Anna (my name! mwee!)- were rather cardboardy. Anna's accent has already been commented on, and frankly, it's awful. Helsing himself is the stereotypical action hero: brave, in love with the leading lady, and otherwise completely personality-free. Karl is also a cardboard cutout for the first half of the movie, only getting some backbone once someone needs to make like Tarzan and swing on a rope.

Dracula ... well, I haven't seen either him or Richard Roxburg before, but I was a bit unsatisfied with his performance. Sensual? Yes- TOO sensual. You are playing the part of a blood-sucking, 400-year-old vessel of pure evil. You CANNOT BE THAT PRETTY. Rrgh! Drac's 'brides' were indeed very pretty. However, their transition scenes often looked unimpressive.

The CGI was eye candy. Being candy, it was gorgeous but left no lasting mark. The werewolves were cute and fluffy (bad move!), and many of the CG scenes were.... well... they were pretty, but fake. So fake. Sighhhh.

However, the cow was cool.

Overall: 5/10. Good-looking popcorn movie. Still not as good as Indiana Jones.

Duct Tape Forever (2002)

Good for a laugh but not enough!

[7/10 · 10 January 2005]

I want to say that I watched this movie and it was cool. However, I may have voted too high for it, in retrospect, because I like its parent show.

Harold is great up until the very end, which is very out of character. The deal with the rich guy - I forget his name - is the sort of Tacked-On Surprise Ending (tm) that we can really do without, and the flying goose to the tune of the 'Blue Danube' is just silly.

Also: the female cop had no character whatsoever. Somebody fix that! Honestly - I know she was only there for eye candy, but... the Red Green show seems to have some deal with no-girls-allowed, so if they actually let one (gasp!) on camera, couldn't they do better?

The Red Green Show (1991–2006)

A sort of local specialty

[10 January 2005]

I've seen many mixed responses to this show. Frankly, I think it's awesome, but that's just me. The thing is that you need to realize that this is a scripted show: it follows a set pattern, which may change with the season (e.g. some seasons don't have Ranger Gord's little cartoons), but it's still a stage production and therefore is limited somewhat by the locations it shows (we never really go outside the lodge or into Possum Lake town).

Also, for some parts of this show, you need to turn your brain off. Just do it; it's healthy in moderation. So what if most of the Handyman Corner stuff is physically impossible? Most of it works IN THEORY, and considering Possum Lodge, that's good enough.

There are parts of this show that rock and parts that are mediocre. Ranger Gord is always funny, and the Experts Portion of the Show (where men examine those three little words men find so hard to say: "I Don't Know!") is also worth a peek. My sister loves Adventures with Bill/Walter/Etc.; I think they're okay but not worthy of such high worship. That's one problem with conglomerations: you get a lot of variety, not always a good thing.

In summary, should you ever be vacationing Up North, check this out. If it's not your kettle of fish, it'll only be 22 minutes of your time wasted. You probably waste more waking up.

7/10. I would rate higher, but it IS a TV show and it may change - possibly for the worse.

Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Silk Stocking (2004 TV Movie)

Interesting, but quite elementary

[29 December 2004]

I'll admit it. I'm a big Holmes fan. I think Sir Arthur Conan Doyle could really write. However, this cute little TV movie leaves something to be desired... although I'm not sure what. (Yes, I do type like this after watching old movies. No, I don't like it, either.) Jeremy Brett - the other Holmes I've seen - was creepy at first, but he sort of grew on you until you no longer thought of him as an actor, but as Holmes himself. Everett... just... no. I don't find eyelashes very professional-looking.

I'm fairly sure that this was written from scratch - basically, that Sir Doyle didn't write it. This explains a few parts that are a bit ... well, dubious. Also, the perpetrators?! I know, there are lots of other outrageous solutions in the Holmes series, but still, it seems like a silly way to solve a mystery. "Hey, let's write a Sherlock Holmes with SOCKS and have TWI-" oops, nearly gave it away. Moving on...

One thing to note is that I liked this Watson more than other one. He seems a bit more alive then Hardwicke. That's always good.

6/10 - Worth a watch, if you like Sherlock Holmes. Otherwise, you may want to rent a nice Harry Potter.

Edward Scissorhands (1990)

A good introduction to Tim Burton

[8/10 · 21 November 2004]

Edward Scissorhands is a superficial movie, but it is definitely not a shallow one. The movie alone would not stand without a few key elements.

Music is the first one. The main theme made me cry before I even watched it. The soundtrack is a must-buy. Go get it right now - you won't regret it.

And, of course, there's Johnny Depp's acting. Leo DiCaprio couldn't have done it; Brad Pitt probably couldn't have either. Of course, the copious amounts of makeup help, but in general it's Edward that makes the movie.

The atmospheres in 'Scissorhands' are liberally juggled with. First there's the foreboding, anti-fairytale into - then the Day-Glo shades of the neighbourhood and the in-betweens of Ed's living there. Back to the black at the end. Whew.

Oh, yeah: if you're emotional, you may want to watch this with your boyfriend/hubby. And bring the Kleenexes. I don't cry easy, and I cried a few times. Be warned.

8/10. Worth a view; sure, most of it is pretty boring and trite, but the good parts make up for it.

Kangaroo Jack (2003)

Two plots that got mixed up.

[4/10 · 29 October 2004]

Warning: Possible spoilers.

This movie is best described as two plots that had a baby. We have a mob-boss son who's going to be disposed of, and a kangaroo urban legend. What?

Basically, this movie is awful. Cheap fart jokes, stereotypical "Look, we're PC!" characters, bad dialogue, etc. etc. - the only redeeming fact is that Jerry O'Conell is cute. You can't build a great film on that. The love interest is about as perfect as they get; to quote a literary term, she's a Mary-Sue among Mary-Sues. According to my sources, there is now a sequel. I don't know how that happened, either.

4/10. Just go fold paper airplanes. It's more worthwhile.

Dinosaur (2000)

Not much brain exercise

[6/10 · 17 October 2004]

Disney's Dinosaur is, well, mediocre. The character models for some of the dinosaurs could have been bought from the BBC. There are many, many anachronisms and small mistakes - LEMURS?! The main character, Aladar, has an annoying voice, and the plot is nothing new.

This doesn't mean it's a bad movie, though. Young children will probably enjoy the dinos, explosions, and cute fuzzy things. There are a few humorous parts - mostly this involves Aladar being sarcastic. The animation is very good, as everyone expects from Disney. As well as that, there are a lot of really gorgeous overhead views.

//Possible minor spoilers! Possible minor spoilers! Possible minor spoilers! Possible minor spoilers!

This movie references Land Before Time in a few places. For example, Aladar's egg floating down the river and almost being eaten. At least they know their roots.

//Possible spoilers over

Overall: I wouldn't mind watching it again, but if Jurassic Park is on, guess where I'll be. 6/10

Scooby-Doo on Zombie Island (1998 Video)

Surprisingly good!

[7/10 · 17 October 2004]

This was the first Scooby-Doo movie or episode I ever saw, and it gave me a good impression. Sadly I was let down by all the other 'Scooby-Doo' productions that were cranked out. Zombie Island may have an unoriginal title, but the movie itself is pleasantly watchable.

It's not scary in any sense of the world - not like Scooby ever is. It makes up for this by having very good animation, witty dialogue, minorly creepy evil occurrences and a bit of a twist at the end.

No, it's not brilliant, but if you like cartoons or Scooby you should definitely give it a spin. You won't be sorry. It's not Hitchcock but it's still a fun ride and, at least, your family won't hate you for renting it. Can you say that about The Scooby-Doo Movie?

Overall: 7/10. Decent entertainment, nothing more.

The Hunchback of Notre Dame II (2002 Video)

Simply awful

[1/10 · 17 October 2004]

This is not a movie. This is an exercise in how NOT to make a movie. Don't even sic this on your kids. The only ones who might get a kick out of it would be under 7, and even my younger sister (5 at the time) thought it was stupid.

First of all, the voices have changed again, and it is awful. As with any very bad or very good Disney movie there are too many songs. As for plot, there is an Evil Genius Dude whom we know is evil because he laughs evilly. He is the good girl's boss. Quasimodo falls in love with good girl, etc., etc., which involves a lot of singing. Yawn.

Just... just awful. Not even worth collecting and burning copies of. It's that bad.

Overall: 2/10... the only good thing is that the animation beats the third-world countries'.

Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)

Another gem from Spielberg

[9/10 · 17 October 2004]

Indiana Jones is the quintessal live-action cartoon, but that doesn't mean that it's not worth watching. When I first saw it I was expecting a campy action flick with too many guns and James Bond car chases. Of course, I was completely wrong.

This is the first and probably the best of the Indiana Jones trilogy. Henry Jones Jr., commonly known as Indiana Jones, is a professor of archeology who sometimes does... specialty jobs. In Raiders of the Lost Ark, he searches for the Ark of the Covenant, a Biblical relic said to strike down 'armies' in a second. Indy barely hesitates to accept the little stint.

Lucas's special effects are unique and CGI-free. From rolling stone balls to snakes - lots of snakes - this flick does an excellent job. The filming is nothing special : just enough to tell the story well. Indy braves a lot of unique traps and obstacles, all of which are of course awesome to watch.

The acting is very good. I'm no film critic, but nobody in Raiders was blatantly bad. Belloq is smooth and intimidating as Indiana's Nazi rival. Harrison Ford IS Jones, no doubt about it. Nobody will ever play Indy as well as that.

Overall: 9/10. Awesome. DO NOT MISS. If you don't see this movie, you have no idea what you're missing.