jafitzpatrick Reviews

Doctor Who (2005–2022)

The USA is missing out - Possible spoilers

[2 May 2005]

I see a lot of comments on the new series that are really comments about the pilot. I have seen six episodes so far and there is humor, smart writing, drama and a lot to interest the general audience. I am a 30 year plus Who fan and I was more skeptical than anyone.

The pilot, "Rose", is not the best episode. It uses its 45 minutes to set everything up. Watch the others and you will see that events unfold beautifully.

It looks good, is smart, but remains accessible to the whole family, and underlying the whole series is a great mystery surrounding the Doctor and his recent past. Christopher Eccleston and Billie Piper have great chemistry, (boy can she act!), and I am enjoying Eccleston's "different" Doctor, even if he is not my favorite or like the classic Doctors of old.

There is so much in it for new viewers and even more for long time fans. It is not perfect, but well worth the watching. I am on the edge of my seat at least once each episode, and I am 40 years old. It is a shame that no US network has seen fit to share this wonderful series with America.

Girls on Top (1985–1986)

A mixed bag but Well worth it.

[16 September 2004]

Possible spoilers so be warned!

This is a fascinating series, for its eighties nostalgia and the opportunity it gives to see these famous women "before they were stars". The guest stars are also a handful of success stories - Hugh Laurie, Alan Rickman, Robbie Coltrane and OMG Katherine Helmond, like you have NEVER seen her before, as Shelley's American mother!

I agree that the comedy is uneven - some episodes lack that spark, but others are totally over the top, giving us a glimpse of what is to come from these women. There are moments of inspired insanity though, which is why I recommend it.

Strangely, (and I am a big Tracey Ullman fan), although the series was supposed to be a TU vehicle, she has the least to do and is really the least interesting character. I think the show takes a huge leap forward in the second season after she leaves. It seems edgier, crazier and funnier. At this point I have seen the entire series, bar three episodes, and I am enjoying it a lot.

Dawn French is the sort of "sane" one and is somewhat typically herself until they let her go man crazy in the second season.

Jennifer Saunders is also better in the second season when she gets more to do and her speech becomes a bit clearer, but as one of the odder characters, she is also one of my faves.

I LOVE Ruby Wax, and although she may be a sterotype, I know plenty of Americans just like her! Plus I love how her character, Shelley, always sinks her own boat with her pushiness and outright stupidity!

Like I said I think Tracey Ullman doesn't get the opportunity to shine here.

She's okay and appropriately "bimbotic" but wish we had seen more.

Finally, Joan Greenwood's Lady Carlton is OUT THERE! In outer spaaaaace! We LOVE her! Her over-dramatic entrances, her dead stuffed dog she carries around with her, how she always calls TU's character, "the Slut" all over-enunciated and wonderful! She is this gay man's camp dream! You have to see her in action.

All in all, I think that had this series continued, it would have improved. But it's a valentine, and you should give it a try. Stop by when you're in Boston and we'll invite you for a viewing!

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)

Good but not great

[7/10 · 10 June 2004]

I mildly enjoyed it, but all this fuss about it being better than the first two is not true.

If you have not seen the movie or read the book, I recommend seeing the movie first and then letting the book fill in the gaps for you.

The movie's breakneck pace is too fast - you never have time to properly understand or savor anything. It's always "on to the next thing, quick!". Most of the characters besides Harry, Ron, Hermione and Lupin are cameos, including Dumbledore, McGonnagall and Snape. There is no depth.

Questions answered in the book are not answered here. Why does Lupin know about the Marauder's Map? Who created the map? Why is the Patronus a stag?

How does Harry trust Sirius after, oh about thirty seconds, without an adequate explanation? What potion does Lupin take and why? What is Snape's connection to Lupin? Why and how are there so many Animagi? Who is that crazy knight cavorting around the paintings? The list goes on and on. The film is good but the book is a far richer experience.

There were other items I found irritating. Harry can't use magic at home, but the movie opens with him practicing a spell. X! The Whomping Willow is smaller now, in a different location and is a breeze to sneak past. XX! Crabbe and Goyle are both in the film, but Malfoy ends up most of the time hanging around with Crabbe and some other kid?? XXX!

Bottom Line: I was not sure before, but now I agree that Goblet of Fire should be two movies or it will be an even more hurried affair than this one.