crankyerma Reviews

America's Got Talent (2006– )

America's got talent, but no taste if this drek is back

[1/10 · 5 June 2007]

Are we finally about done with this reality show BS? I know they are incredibly cheap to produce and don't require much in talent salaries or any writer salaries to speak of, but at what cost? Have we really become what the movie "Idiocracy" predicts for American culture? This show is the absolute bottom of the barrel. It is television at its lowest point ever. Remember when NBC aired shows like "Hill Street Blues," "Cheers," "St. Elsewhere," "Night Court," "The Cosby Show," "Seinfeld," etc? Many of those shows would appear on the same night! What the Hell happened to network programming since then? We did.

Well, tastes change but the people who complain about TV content don't. It's hard to put a real drama or comedy that suits modern sensibilities on TV anymore. If you do something real, adult and intelligent it either turns off short attention-spanned teens or offends the Christian Right who literally comprise 99 percent of all complaints about content on network TV (true, look that up).

Cable, Tivo and the internet are making it increasingly less lucrative to advertise on TV. That means ad rates have gone down. That means TV shows have to be made for less money. And that means networks will put on the cheapest poop they can get away with and still sell soap in the mid-west. And of course, that means "America's Got Talent" season two.

So, if you're tired of this worthless "reality TV" crap and you want a truly funny sitcom or an intelligent, engrossing drama that addresses relevant issues of today, either get HBO or complain to the Parents Television Council and tell them to stop complaining every time something interesting happens on TV. Next, contact your local affiliates and ask them to pass on the word to the network that you're willing to sit through commercials if they'll just start paying actors and writers to make real TV again.

There, I'm done. Just thought it needed to be said.

K-911 (1999 Video)

Definitelty for fans of "According to Jim"

[1/10 · 5 December 2006]

If you are one of the people who finds "According to Jim" great television comedy, this is going to rock your world. And might I add, kudos for proving that good talent, good writing and a charismatic star are all you really need on any network other than ABC, which prefers to air crap like Jim Belushi's show year after year.

"K-911" is a big, steaming, brown, German shepherd-sized "thank you" for all of the geniuses who loved the first movie. It's exactly what fans of that film and the lesser Belushi deserve. Jim's comedic chops and choice in projects are never far behind his ability to butcher a blues standard. Look for him to try to showcase all of his diverse lacks of talent into every project he hurls at the public like a surly zoo chimpanzee.

If you enjoy Jim's work, this movie is your reward.

I'll Always Know What You Did Last Summer (2006 Video)

Impressions

[2/10 · 13 August 2006]

Okay, I've seen ridiculous amounts of horror films and actually "studied" the genre before I wrote and optioned my own. I love these movies, sometimes the bad ones more than the good ones. I loved the original Williamson flick. It had a decent premise, spooky locations, good pacing and scares, all with passable characters and dialog. This film has none of that.

Why is this taking place in Colorado? Is that the only location they could get to write a script around? Colorado is the least Gothic place I can think of in America. Good horror has at least some elements of Gothic lit in it, the location being a key one. These people are mountain biking on dry, sunny paths and hanging out at ski resorts in the summertime. The places not only aren't scary, they scream of boredom.

Okay, let's say you think Colorado is the scariest place on earth in the summertime, fine. But is it really the most logical place to have a fisherman killer? He's over a thousand miles from nearest ocean, not to mention this guy must be sweating his balls off in a hood and slicker.

Okay, you buy all of that stuff. Suspension of disbelief is a virtue if you are into these movies, fine. But how about getting with some suspense or killing in the first half hour? I don't mind if a filmmaker takes their time building characters and relationships or they take their time creating an atmosphere of suspense, but that is not the case here. This script and the director serving it are not the least bit concerned with creating characters we will be scared for or interesting relationships between them. In fact, I'm not sure what the makers of this film were concerned with other than cashing in on a dead franchise.

In short, I found this flick to be ill-conceived and poorly executed. I will say, that the acting didn't seem to be any better or worse than the other two. Just because these kids aren't famous doesn't mean they can't act as well as chicks from "Buffy" and "Party of Five." It's not like Jen Love Hewitt's performances were getting her offers from the Royal Shakespeare Company. I think this cast did a pretty passable job in a pretty Godawful picture.

Hostel (2005)

Prejudice and Bloody Aprons

[16 January 2006]

This is yet another Texas Chainsaw ripoff. It seems that is the trend in horror these days. Filmmakers are either extremely class-phobic or they are banking on the idea that the movie going public is. It seems like every horror movie these days is about some sort of sadistic person or group living in an isolated, impoverished area getting their jollies by torturing and killing snotty, over-privileged kids.

Films like TCM(especially the remake), House of Wax, Wrong Turn, Wolf Creek, House of 1000 Corpses, etc. all play on the idea that poor rural people are dark, dirty and evil things to be feared. It may be because this stereo-type of rural bumpkins is unattractive to an image and wealth-obsessed youth culture and it's easier to fear those who are unattractive.

Another reason for TCM type villains may be because the rural American image is usually shadowed by a reputation for racism and modern horror audiences are so saturated by urban pop culture that subliminally tying a villain to racism makes said villain even more despicable.

Obviously "Hostel" does not fall into this category. Though the prejudice in this picture is just as prevalent. Here we substitute poor foreigners for poor Americans. With the fear of the foreign ever increasing in an age marked by widespread Anti-American sentiment abroad, it only stands to reason that we we have evil, poor, foreigners looking to torture and kill Americans kids just out to spend spring break innocently spending their money exploiting eastern Euro whores.

So, if you count that Eli Roth combined the fear of the impoverished and the rural and tied it with American xenophobia as being original, than yes "Hostel" is original. Taking "Texas Chainsaw" and re-locating it in a war torn country that deserves America's pity more than it's fear, was a stroke of genius. The same kind of genius that decided to send John Wayne hero character to Vietnam for "The Green Berets." Roth may not be a good writer but he definitely knows how to profit off of people's prejudices. If he were around Hollywood for the early eighties we might of had "Night of the Living AIDS Victims" with zombified homosexual men hell bent on spreading a disease. I'm guessing that Reagan would have exec produced.

In summary, Roth's latest picture's incredible lack of plot or originality is the least of its sins. The greatest sin of them all is that I'd be willing to bet this steaming pile knocked more than one superior project off track for release.

The Fallen Ones (2005 TV Movie)

Casper was good?

[27 September 2005]

I generally avoid anything this guy is in. He is the new Lorenzo LLamas as far as acting and the quality of the films he appears in goes. He was not completely laughable in this picture however, which is high praise compared to my estimation of his other work. Hopefully he will continue to get better. I haven't checked, but I get the feeling that he started out in soap operas and never really graduated beyond that level. He tends to do a lot of intense looks and pauses that generally mean the actor is searching for the next line.

This was better than average for a VanDien vehicle. If there is nothing else in the video store you haven't seen and you've seen all of the movies you like more than once, this would not be the worst choice for a rental. Let me stop before all of this praise seems maudlin.

Constantine (2005)

'He' works in mysterious ways but this script is predictable crap

[2/10 · 26 February 2005]

This movie blows worse than a hooker with braces. The script was hackneyed and predictable. Rachel W. was attractive but gave a silly performance. First of all, her American accent was twanged and nasally the way Brit actors do when then are doing an over-the-top comedic satire on Americans. Her lack of emotion in the face of her circumstances was often unnerving. At times she seemed about to laugh in scenes that really needed her to convey the gravity of the situation in order for the scene to work and not remind the audience what a silly piece of crap this is.

I won't bother to comment on Keanu's performance. If you go to one of his films, you expect that he will reinforce the notion that he can't act. If you have any other expectations you deserve to lose a good 90 minutes of your life that ain't comin' back.

Shia LeBouf plays Chas Chandler an annoying 2 dimensional character named after one of the original members of The Jimi Hendrix Experience. Shame on the writers for that. I seem to remember this as the same character he played in I, Robot and on every talk show appearance he's made. A real journeyman.

I got the feeling from this movie that the director felt that the wetter characters appeared the more dramatic tension there was. Given this belief, it's understandable that everyone is wet throughout the whole picture. It seems like a stylistic rip-off of better films like "The Crow" or "Seven." I am seeing this type of thing more and more. As if having every shot be dark and wet will make the film more edgy or 'goth.'

My favorite touch at the end of this incredibly dark nonsense is that Keanu's character, John COnstantine,decides to chew gum instead of smoking at the end. This is supposed to indicate growth and new perspective on life for the character. I'm guessing that this is the result of his travails over the course of the film. This character never showed any signs of emotion or humanity until this point, good or bad. Why the Hell would we believe he has grown?

In addition there are fumbling attempts at sexual tension or hints of caring feelings between Keanu and Rachel's character. This either needs to be explored and ramped up or dropped. It feels tacked on as an after thought to please an exec at the studio. Either Constantine only saves her because he needs to in order to save mankind or the director needs to spend more time establishing the slightest bit of chemistry between the characters. It's not enough to just assume that two folks will automatically be willing to risk their lives for each other for no other reason than they are two attractive people in the same movie.

Just my opinion.

Gunga Din (1939)

A Classic Bit of Hollywood

[2 August 2004]

I have seen "Gunga Din" several times. It is not a strict re-telling of the Kipling work but a studio era take on it. It is jingoistic and hokey but it is an entertaining and uplifting film.

Those that bemoan the "un-PC" tone of the film need to look at it in context. The underlying theme of the piece is that these British soldiers come to hold a member of a group of people they had (until that time) regarded as savages, in higher regard than most of their compatriots. The ideas of universal human qualities and nobility are driven home in a very emotional, if a little ham-fisted way. Considering the racial atmosphere in America at the time, this was not exactly a statement without some daring.

To condemn this film or the original story for racism is to miss the point entirely. That was the time and for its time, the messages here are incredibly progressive. Besides, even if the film were racist, only a fool discards a classic piece of art because he or she disagrees with the content of the message. Pretty much all critics and film historians list Griffith's "Birth of a Nation" somewhere in the top 3 films of all time, regardless of the fact that the heroes of the picture are the KKK. The message was wrong but the film transformed the whole of film-making forever. Do we discard that too? Do we burn all copies of Joseph Conrad's novella "Heart of Darkness" because some perceive the narrator to be a bigot? To do so would be robbing generations of a classic example of well crafted storytelling at its best. Such behavior is ignorance in its basest form.

But, you know, that's just what I think.