fellicity Reviews

Doctor Who (2005–2022)

As good as it gets

[10/10 · 26 February 2007]

I'm a long-time Doctor Who fan. And seriously, I don't see what some of the people on here are moaning about. This new series has everything I loved about the old (quirky Doc, great villains, original monsters). The greatest differences between the two are that the new series is funnier, faster, punchier and has an updated look/feel to reflect the times.

I recently dusted off some of my old Tom Baker episodes ('Destiny of the Daleks' and 'City of Death'), and it struck me how much Tennant must have studied up on Baker's mannerisms for his role as the Doctor. Very similar delivery, especially with the off-hand one-liners. It also struck me how low-budget the original series was. Sure, fabulous writing helped (bless Douglas Adams for his brief contribution to the series), but it doesn't make up for poor, cheesy acting and downright silly special effects. As many Whovians will admit, myself included, this is part of the show's charm. But in this day and age, you can't get away with filming on flimsy sets with bubble-wrap monsters and poorly coordinated action scenes. And quarries are completely out of the question.

I love old Doctor Who episodes, despite all this. And I love the new ones as well. Russell T. Davies has breathed new life into a series that may have lain untouched indefinitely, and it's SO much better for the upgrade. The pros - fabulous effects (seriously - movie grade effects for each episode), great acting (Chris and David each bringing something new and amazing to the role) and fantastic writing... most of the time. That would be my biggest con - the new series really shines in its two-parters. Some of the one offs ('Fear Her' leaping to mind) are weak in comparison, and feel more like filler until the action and overarching plot line start up again. My other gripe is that I'd like to see less Earth action. I understand they wanted to keep most of the new series on Earth to acclimatize new viewers, but it starts to feel too 'Cardiff-y' after a while. It would be great to see more extraterrestrial action, which may be something fans of the original series feel is missing.

I know another gripe of dedicated Who fans is the 'soapy' feel of the new series - Rose's emotions, the chemistry between her and the Doctor, etc. To that, I'd say that it would be hard to watch a contemporary television show without those elements. The character development of Rose (nearly unheard of with the original companions), the tension between her and the Doctor, the glimpses of how the Doctor touches the lives of others on a domestic level... all of this adds welcome layers of depth and reality which contrast nicely with the show's fantastical sci-fi elements - and makes for really interesting viewing, in my opinion.

***SPOILERS***

I really couldn't be happier with this new series. The wit, the banter, the action... all of it is top rate, especially in comparison to some of the other drivel on TV these days. I'm really curious to see how the series will continue on with the absence of Rose, Jackie, Mickey and Pete. Mainly, I'm excited to see how Freema will fit into her new role and if they'll try another 'Bad Wolf'-like story arc in the next season. Whatever happens, I'm sure it will be... fantastic. :-)

The Matrix Reloaded (2003)

Don't be fooled by the criticism

[10/10 · 25 May 2003]

"...you have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inert, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it. If you are not one of us, you are one of them."

-Morpheus, 'The Matrix'

The negative feedback I've seen regarding 'Matrix Reloaded' by professional (ha HA!) and amateur critics alike is quite humorous, namely because it reeks of the current affinity for anti-intellectualism in all things, including film...

"There's too much talking"

"All that philosophy is boring"

"The story doesn't go anywhere"

"It wasn't as good as the first one"

Blah, blah, blah. Those who dislike 'Matrix Reloaded' seem to do so because the pauses between fight scenes are longer than in the first Matrix installment. Pretty sad when you think about it.

The fact of the matter is that the Wachowski brothers have succeeded where so many other filmmakers have failed. They have created a sequel that doesn't attempt to "outdo" its predecessor, substituting plot and artistic vision with newer and fancier special effects (*cough* Lucas), but that perfectly builds upon the story laid out in 'The Matrix' while leading us into the culmination of 'Revolutions'. That 'Reloaded' is more than a visually stunning fight-fest was undoubtedly a source of disappointment for those used to plunking down ten bucks and going switch-off in their theatre seats. That this film was more than mere surface shine and kung-fu fighting proves to me 'The Matrix' wasn't a fluke and the Wachowski brothers are as brilliantly auteur as they originally appeared. These are truly revolutionary films.

Addressing individual gripes about 'Reloaded' is tiresome, especially when such criticism involves the amount of "talking" and "philosophy" found in this film... whatever that means. No doubt these are the same people who will whinge about the length of this review. I suppose that some people are just not going to get it, even when the storyline involves the age old Messiah theme found in everything from 'Metropolis' to 'Dune' and 'Star Wars'. Almost excusable are those who fail to pick up on the deep mythological and theological themes prevalent in the 'Matrix' films: Neo ("new") led by Morpheus, the Greek god of dreams, to save the last human city on Earth, Zion, named for that city fabled to be the location of Jesus Christ's final victory. That Morpheus commandeers the 'Nebuchadnezzar', named for the Babylonian king who brought about the fall of the Biblical Zion, is ironic. As is the character Persephone, the mythical wife of the Greek god Hades, wedded in this film to the Merovingian, named for a race of French kings said to be direct descendants of Jesus Christ. Throw in equally mythic characters like Niobe and Trinity, Buddhist teachings and computer tech metaphor and I can see how this story is quite a chew for the unwashed masses. Even more complex is the theme of Objectivism and the philosophies dealing with free-will, choice and predestination. I won't even begin to get into the various Lewis Carroll allegories.

Is it helpful to know some of what I just talked about in order to "get" this installment of 'The Matrix'? Probably. But it's funny how those who fail to understand the convolutions seem to be the ones yelling the loudest about how this film has "No plotline" and that its story "Goes nowhere". This film couldn't have more of a plot without choking on it. Besides, I know plenty of folks who don't know Demeter or Descartes from Vin Diesel and they still managed to follow and enjoy 'Reloaded'.

Less excusable is the most annoying complaint of all: that 'Reloaded' wasn't "As good" as 'The Matrix'. It REALLY makes me wonder what these people found so entertaining about the first film that made them want to see the second. Was it the flashy special effects, invented specifically for these films? The skin-tight suits? The pumpin' soundtrack? The non-stop butt kicking? Don't we get all of that and more in 'Reloaded'? Yes, yes we do. Trying to understand how someone could love 'The Matrix' yet be disappointed by 'Reloaded' simply leaves me shaking my head. Maybe these people would have been happier to see another film about Morpheus training Neo to be "The One" rather than him actually acting upon that knowledge. Or two hours of plotless fight footage, perhaps.

'The Matrix' was groundbreaking and could not have possibly been outdone, and I am so pleased that the Wachowski brothers realized this going into the remainder of the series. Too bad so many would-be critics don't have the same good sense.

So is this film as "Horrible" and "Disappointing" as those poor, clueless people would lead you to believe? HARDLY. 'Matrix Reloaded' is, like 'The Matrix', a wonderful nexus between art and mainstream filmmaking, between technophobia both real and imagined, between Objectivism, Materialism and the fate of our own society if we continue to allow ourselves to be controlled. It addresses many of the questions left unanswered in the first film while leaving a ton more to be tied up in the last. It is as visually stunning as 'The Matrix' with action scenes beyond description. The only complaint I can even think up is that a little more real human emotion could have seeped into the Too-Cool-For-School attitude these films have turned into a trademark. A small gripe considering this is possibly one of only three sequels I can remember that has actually lived up to the high standards of its predecessor (not to mention a cliffhanger ending that rivals one of those sequels, 'The Empire Strikes Back'). Otherwise, the Wachowski brothers' only failing was in assuming that the typical movie-goer enjoys the occasional mental stimulation.

Ignore the negative hype and watch for yourself. If you enjoy being challenged intellectually as well as visually, you are sure to agree that 'Matrix Reloaded' is a welcome addition to what is shaping up to be a remarkable film series.

8 ½ Women (1999)

Greenaway's "awfulness" is his brilliance

[8/10 · 7 May 2003]

I've heard and read much criticism about Greenaway's homage to Fellini, "8 1/2 Women", and have found it both predictable and amusing. Every Greenaway film evokes raw, often disturbing emotions in the viewer-- this is nothing new, yet is treated like a revelation with every new release. And some fans and critics of Greenaway seem to be keeping a running score of his visual/emotional offenses, even tending to get irate when he fails to shock or disturb on the level of his other films. But again, this is nothing new.

So I'm humored at the reaction to "8 1/2 Women", for it is as visually stunning/arousing/disturbing as many of its predecessors while it is actually quite tame by Greenaway's standards (for one, the cannibalism/mutilation theme is missing). Yet we have those who are disappointed at the lack of shock or those who are too easily shocked, and Greenaway has long proven that you can't make everyone happy in filmmaking and, honestly, he really doesn't care what you think. You only have to watch.

He is really very similar to Fellini in this way as he is in so many others. I'm no great fan of Fellini's, not as much as I am of his successors anyway, but the parallels are apparent. Fellini worked in absurdities the way Greenaway works in the dire or some artists work in oils. He made the most ridiculous scenarios seem beautiful, artful... even sexy. He imprinted upon film as art and future filmmakers that strange and disjointed often equals desirable, and Greenaway clearly took this to heart. But like Fellini, Greenaway films come with an automatic caveat: You will see things that we are taught to abhor and despise in our society, you will have to think about things from which humans naturally shrink away and you will bear witness to the possibility that great beauty can be found in the mire if you can manage to look long enough. Greenaway's "awfulness" and attempt to disgust you is his medium and his brilliance (and his great joke on you), and if this doesn't sit well with you then you shouldn't watch Greenaway. It's as simple as that.

So, that being said - "8 1/2 Women". Not Greenaway's best, but certainly not his worst. Again we get to share in his great love of the human form in all its beauty and imperfection-- both of body and of character. But this is his most lighthearted attempt and is thoroughly enjoyable for that alone. The relationship between the widower Philip Emmenthal and his earthshakingly prattish son Storey is genuinely touching, as are their relationships with the various women they bring into their lives to replace their lost wife/lover/mother. Equally moving is the fact that these women become much more than mere objects or possessions in their house, but rather individual character studies on the strength of femininity and the power that women have over men. While Fellini's "8 1/2" may have been semi-autobiographical, here Greenaway seems to have tapped into the fantasies and realities of the relationships between men and women everywhere, focusing on the fact that neither are as simple as they seem. And that while mere sex will inevitably falter in the face of deeper love, such meaningful relationships are elusive and fleeting. He doesn't tap very far through, which is this film's only failing; the relationships and characters, some of whom are downright silly, are often taken at surface value and the themes, especially regarding sexual dynamics, are nothing new to cinema.

Nevertheless, "8 1/2 Women" is a lovely, surprisingly sincere and often humorous account of men, women, family, self-identity and the rewards of living out your fantasies along with their tempering costs. Highly recommended for anyone who has been scared away by Greenaway's other films or for anyone else who truly enjoys the beauty found in strong women and faltering men.

If These Walls Could Talk (1996 TV Movie)

Exceptionally Realistic

[9/10 · 14 February 2003]

I have just seen 'If These Walls Could Talk' for the first time, and I am completely in awe. This film should be mandatory viewing material for any person who thinks that abortion is an easy choice or that women faced with an unplanned pregnancy should have their right to choose taken away from them.

Sissy Spacek did a wonderful job portraying the most overlooked unplanned pregnancy demographic: the aging career mother who must choose whether or not to make the sacrifice of raising another child. In this story I truly appreciated the message that choosing to have a child is also pro-choice. Anne Heche's role in the final story was the most 'typical' of the three: the single college student who must struggle with her own moral and personal issues when making a choice about her pregnancy. While she portrayed the most common demographic of women who face an unplanned pregnancy, her role was beautifully and honestly acted. But the most riveting and heartbreaking of the three stories featured Demi Moore as a young widow who must make the hardest decision in her life-- to risk not only her career and reputation but the relationship of her in-laws who have taken her in as one of their own by carrying to term the baby of her dead husband's brother, or to risk her life by choosing what was once a barbaric and incredibly dangerous procedure due to the illegality of abortion. Her struggle is disturbing, and any woman who remembers the dark days before Roe v. Wade will feel her character's pain, fear, and especially her desperation. This story in particular showcases why keeping abortion safe and legal is so very necessary.

What struck me most about this film was not only the realism in all three situations, but how each one of the stories showed that "Pro-Choice" is not always "Pro-Abortion"; a fact that those of us who support a woman's right to chose will be all too glad to point out while those of the stauncher anti-choice fold may be a little slow to admit. The struggle that each woman faces in this film is unique, and while another reviewer mistakenly commented that each instance was merely 'cliché', I will argue that each instance was REAL. Rape and incest are not the causes for most unplanned pregnancies, and a great number of women who choose abortion are of legal age to do so. This film would have been 'cliché' if every actor had portrayed a low-income person of color, which is clearly unrealistic. And while violence against abortion providers isn't an every day occurrence, there are people in our society who wish that were the case-- and including this scene in the film shows us, in graphic detail, the hypocrisy of that opinion.

I was surprised that this film, especially the final story, didn't tackle other reproductive choice-related issues such as birth control. However, I was extremely pleased with how the final story educated viewers on the realities of the abortion procedure (mandatory counseling and all)-- a reality which couldn't be further from the horrific depictions offered up by many in the anti-choice camp. Speaking of which: I was grateful for this film showing that not all people who oppose abortion are stereotypical, out of control lunatics, but that the most radical in this faction tend to be, ironically, male. And one comment made by a character regarding adoption truly hit home for me as I once worked in a residential facility for abandoned and abused children that was, like so many others in this country, bursting at the seams: "The last time I checked, there wasn't a shortage of little black babies".

This film needs to be aired during prime time and piped into the Bush White House, if for no other reason than to show that abortion is not a black and white issue, that the argument surrounding it cannot be settled through protest, violence or prohibition, and that restricting a woman's legal right to reproductive choice will only complicate matters further but will not be an end to abortion. Anyone who has ever been faced with an unplanned pregnancy will agree, and anyone who hasn't will learn that their opinion can be subject to change depending on their circumstances.

Star Trek: Nemesis (2002)

Disappointing? Make It So.

[14 December 2002]

As predicted, most Star Trek fans either loved or hated this film; they usually feel this way on every point regarding the series and films, from Shatner's hairstyle and over-acting to Mulgrew's hairstyle and under-acting. So firstly, let me say that I did not absolutely hate 'Nemesis'-- I love the Next Generation series far too much to completely write off this last-ditch attempt by Berman and Co. to recapture some of Star Trek's faded glory. But I did not absolutely love this film either simply because it is `Star Trek'. Instead, I walked out of the theater feeling confused and disappointed, but hopeful that another film will follow to make up for the injustice 'Nemesis' does to its cast and the fans of Next Generation.

**Possible Spoilers Ahead**

The plot of 'Nemesis' centers around two "clones"-- one of Data, named B-4, who is discovered by chance on a minor planet near the edge of the Neutral Zone and one of Captain Picard, a half-Reman Praetor to the Romulan Empire named Shinzon (well played by Tom Hardy). After Praetor Shinzon sends out feelers to the Federation to begin the peace process between the two factions, the Enterprise crew, who were en route to Commander Riker and Counselor Troi's honeymoon on Betazed, are sent in for a closer look. What results is a power-play between Picard and his young clone-gone-bad, with much discussion about how life experiences can turn two very similar individuals into mirror images of each other-- with one reaching out for good and the other striking out in anger because of his bad upbringing. This premise is also touched upon in the relationship between Data and B-4, who has the positronic mind of a child due to his lack of experience as opposed to Data's evolution as an entity in his quest to become more 'human'. As the film goes on, it becomes obvious that Shinzon plans to hold the Federation accountable for the crimes against his people, and (as usual) it's up the crew of the Enterprise to stop him from using a deadly radiation weapon that will eliminate all life on Earth.

After waiting four years for what is rumored to be the last Next Generation (and possible Star Trek) film ever, I was dearly looking forward to seeing the familiar cast and engaging storyline I had come to expect from the series and previous films. Instead, what I found was a movie that felt hastily thrown-together-- The opening sequences, and the wedding reception scene in particular, suffered from choppy editing and I felt that I had missed out on an hour of dialogue even before the film picked up steam. Also missing was any attention to detail-- We are given the rough outline of a plot that has the potential to outweigh any Star Trek film to date, but nothing more is filled in. Important plot points, such as the initial purpose of cloning Picard or the relationship between the newly-installed Praetor and the renegade Romulans, are glossed over while others, such as the relationship between Shinzon (or Viceroy, rather) and Troi, are invented merely as lame plot devices. Continuity also suffers throughout this film-- We aren't brought up-to-date on the goings-on of the ship's crew as we are in other films, there is no mention of Data's brother Lore when B-4 is discovered nor of Data's emotion chip that played such an important role in the other Next Gen films, Wesley Crusher is seen in uniform happily sitting in at the reception scene despite being both a Traveler (how did he get his RSVP?) and out of Star Fleet, Worf is serving with the Enterprise crew once again but with no explanation of how he came back... etc. I eventually came to the conclusion that the higher-ups on this film hadn't watched a single TNG episode-- it's the only explanation for the glaring inconsistencies in 'Nemesis'.

But most sadly lacking in this film is the camaraderie between the cast, which is what made Next Generation such an engaging series. There is very little interaction between the characters, and even that felt forced and phony. The few and far-between enjoyable moments of 'Nemesis' involved Stewart, Spiner and Hardy, while the rest of the cast appeared to be there only as set pieces (Michael Dorn plays one of the most fantastic characters in the original ensemble, and his talent was utterly wasted in this installment). The death of the cast's most endearing character was well-done and brought tears to my eyes, but the loss of two other major characters was totally skimmed over at the end of the film. Others can say what they will about the previous Next Gen films, but Jonathan Frakes had a knack for bringing out the warmth and closeness of the cast, and 'Nemesis' was poorer for excluding that feeling.

'Nemesis' had a good idea, and on occasions it came really close to delivering, but as a whole it utterly missed the mark. As much as I enjoyed seeing the cast on the big screen, my suspension of disbelief worked overtime to plaster over the plot holes, inconsistencies and lack of depth. I've made excuses for this in other Star Trek films gone by, as the cast's chemistry more than made up for weak storylines--but not in this case. Special effects cannot make up for what this movie missed, and I am insulted that Rick Berman would sell the fans of this series short by replacing depth and ingenuity with explosions, CGI and a weak plot. As a long-time fan of TNG, I left this film feeling cheated out of the time I had invested in the series and its characters and depressed that such a wonderful series would end on such a disappointing note. We didn't just see the death of a wonderful sci-fi character in 'Nemesis'-- we may well have witnessed the death throes of the universe that is Star Trek.