Reviews

3 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
50 Years of Bad Sex (2011 TV Movie)
3/10
Reached rock-bottom when it presented Baywatch as an 80s show
28 March 2013
This documentary apparently started off well, using the Carry On films as a convincing-sounding example of how the hype of the 60s sexual revolution compared to the more conservative reality of society in general. (I say "apparently" because having seen the misleading inaccuracy later on, I became less willing to trust its analysis of a decade I wasn't even born in.)

It goes seriously downhill when it gets to the 1970s with ABBA as Peretti's chosen representative for the decade. Unusual choice as- media observation of Agnetha's backside aside- their public profile was relatively asexual. Still, despite some interesting observations, very little he has to say about them can be generalised into insight regarding society as a whole, beyond the fact that their divorces reflected a growing acceptance of that phenomenon. So what was the point?

But it really, really hits rock bottom when he chooses Baywatch to represent the 1980s. Er... hang on, wasn't that a 90s show?

Having looked this up, he's correct- but only in the most misleadingly pedantic sense. Yes, the first series aired in September 1989, but- as the documentary itself points out- it flopped and was cancelled, and only became a success story a couple of years later after being reworked into its better-known form (i.e. from 1991 until it finished in 2001).

So why on earth does Peretti choose it as representative of the 80s- of what "we" were watching during the decade we were fearful of AIDS, the "last decade of the cold war". David Hasselhoff is shown singing at the fall of the Berlin wall in late 1989, as if this had something to do with Baywatch, when in fact he was already famous there.

One could argue that the early-to-mid 90s that Baywatch actually represented showed the continuation, evolution and consequence of trends begun in the 80s. But this is beside the point, because that's not what Peretti says. The way he presents it, Baywatch is an 80s show- period- and is associated with all the things that obsessed us in the mid-80s. As this section draws to a close, a pastiche of the 1983 "Scarface" soundtrack (all analogue synths) briefly plays, as if to associate Baywatch with a decade prior.

Piretti doesn't strike me as an idiot, so what his motives are for this intellectual dishonesty are unclear. My guess is that he wanted things to fit his narrative whether or not they actually did, regardless of how much hammering was needed to get that square peg into a round hole.

After getting a 90s show to represent the 80s, Sex and the City (titled "Sex and City" in its caption) gets to represent the 90s, which is at least correct, though it's definitely "late 90s / millennial" rather than the entire decade.

Simon Cowell and the X Factor represents the present day but- like ABBA before them- this segment says less about sex (or asexuality) than Peretti wants to think it does.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Catfish (2010)
Even taken at face value, Catfish is a let-down
7 August 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I watched this film taking it at face value, but even on that level Catfish is a let-down.

It's essentially a tale of a filmmaker/photographer striking up a relationship with the older sister of a "child prodigy" who's been sending him paintings of his photos. Except that it turns out she isn't who she says she is and made a whole load of stuff up.

Of course, the devil is normally in the detail. Iin this case though, the detail just *isn't* of that much interest.

It's clear early on that it's probably just some sad individual making stuff up, and essentially that's what it is. We don't need the overpadded and overlong middle section with them driving around in a borderline creepy manner making a big deal of their investigation. It smacks badly of the "make something seem more important by making it longer" school of filmmaking, and indeed the whole film could- and should- have been half the length.

(The three flatmates also come across as particularly unsympathetic here. It's clear to us- and them- that "Megan" is likely a sad individual with problems, but they're going around with perma-smirks treating it as a game to amuse themselves.)

Catfish isn't interesting or intriguing in terms of Nev's involvement in the online relationship with "Megan"; he twigs very early on- and very abruptly- that she's not who she says she is and immediately switches to amused incredulity. No slow reveal, shock or betrayal.

And once they meet up and eventually confront Angela/Megan, the most likely explanation turns out to be true. The online "Megan" was essentially made up by Angela, a circa-40ish woman trapped in a domestic life looking after her two mentally disabled stepsons. One suspects- as does Nev himself- that she has a crush on him, and that she did the paintings, not her "child prodigy" daughter. Who'd have guessed? (The fact that the resolution of this almost-forgotten last point is so mundane, when it appeared to be of significant intrigue early on, sums up the film perfectly).

People have made a big deal about Catfish saying something about social media etc. It doesn't; people have been making up rubbish about themselves on the Internet for over 15 years, and the fact that this one was done through Facebook doesn't make it fundamentally different. Maybe it's news to people who only got on the net more recently, or who are very naive about Facebook etc.

One might argue that you can't criticise something that was (supposedly) real for the way it turns out. No, of course not- but that doesn't mean I want to watch a padded 90 minute film about it. I've seen one-hour documentaries about other false-identity cases that were more interesting than this.

If Catfish *is* fake, BTW, you wonder why they made is so pointlessly mundane.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Dragon's Lair (1983 Video Game)
3/10
Technically impressive... and bordering on unplayable
4 August 2007
Disclaimers; I didn't play Dragon's Lair when it first came out (although I'm theoretically old enough to). Secondly, I'm judging this from the Interactive DVD version.

Yes, by the standards of the time, Dragon's Lair is pretty. I even remember seeing an Amiga conversion of Space Ace in the late 1980s and being incredibly impressed. But is Dragon's Lair a good game or not? By today's standards, absolutely not. So we should make allowances for when it came out right? Er, no. There are games like "Asteroids" that stand up incredibly well today because they're so playable. And then there are games like Dragon's Lair.

Although I never played it at the time, I imagine I'd have been as impressed as anyone else- if not more- by its beautiful graphics. But let's be honest; that's about all it has. Dragon's Lair's appeal was always style over substance. (It's no surprise that the Amiga conversion that so impressed me was lambasted for its lack of playability.)

Yes, the animation is quite nice (although I wouldn't describe it as outstanding). However, if Laserdisc/FMV games were so great, ask yourself why they never took off and dominated the market in the way that Bluth predicted they would? The answer is they generally have horrible playability, reliant on figuring out the correct (fixed) set of actions at the correct time, and generally being quite frustrating to play. Well, this sums up Dragon's Lair perfectly.

It's often not clear what to do, and getting past the scenes is more a question of figuring out (or guessing) what to do and memorising it. This is horribly frustrating.

There's no plot as such in Dragon's Lair, just a bunch of hazardous scenes in which our hero dies, dies and dies again. The animation clips are generally short and abrupt, almost too short to be even watchable. At least it doesn't have the incredibly bad acting of live action FMV games...

I salute Dragon's Lair for doing something technically innovative at the time, and as I said I can understand why people liked it back then. However as a game, it's bordering on unplayable, and I suspect that this was always the case. It's an insult to the truly classic video games to excuse Dragons Lair's shortcomings as a product of their time. They're not; they're a product of style over substance.
3 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed