fixyourcat Reviews

The Bedford Diaries (2006)

Rubbish by Any Other Name

[23 April 2006]

I'm a huge fan of Tom Fontana's "OZ," and when I learned he had a show coming out, especially one on a mainstream channel, I was anticipating it and expecting it to be good.

Imagine my surprise when I turned on my TV to behold the dull, namby-pamby could-be-a-catastrophe-if-you-don't-die-of-boredom-first one-hour premier of "Bedford Diaries." Obviously, there are limitations to writing a show about sex for the WB, but those limitations don't prescribe a forty-five-minute exploration of Dr. Phil-inspired psychobabble, fundamentally unlikable characters, and plot so flat that it blows the topography of Kansas out of the water.

The show's problems arise from both the bland story lines and the lack of sympathy a viewer feels for the characters. When four white kids, one black kid, and one Hispanic kid, all cute and bubbly and scholastically successful, whine about "trust issues" and "love," forgive me if I am pulled to vomit. Some characters are wrath-deserving from the get-go: one was pulled to do drastic, irrational things after a break-up with her boyfriend; another suffers from the irritating "meanie" paradox: one minute, he's a total ass and the next, he's deconstructing his difficult nature and attributing it to, again, a break-up. Boring television is what that makes, unless you're a fan of pre-packaged repartee straight from the TV therapist or Reality Show du Jour.

One of the most disappointing aspects of "Bedford Diaries," for me, was the dialogue. In the past, even when the story suffered, Fontana's writing was at least engaging. Because this show features characters who are supposedly under forty (an age when most people soften out and disappear...), it contractually MUST include a lot of snappy back-and-forth. This, alas, is not to be. While some of the dialogue can be very sporadically amusing (and I mean VERY sporadically), most of the zest is missing. In other words, with all the cleverness and sarcasm of "Step by Step," "Bedford Diaries" talk is harmless: all talk, if you will, and no action, which is a very fitting adage for the show in general.

Lastly, not that the WB is a bastion of incredible art or anything, but the acting on "Bedford Diaries" is abysmal. It's almost as if the actors' skills decided to work in concert with Fontana's sensory lapses and make the worst show from one great and a few decent people possible. The kids' line deliveries aren't just far deviated from realism; they're also thoroughly uninvolving. This factor trumps "Bedford" even further into the ground with other adolescent dreck.

Bottom line: only watch this garbage if you have a special attachment to any of the people involved. Otherwise, go read a book instead and save yourself sixty minutes of life that you'll never get back (provided, of course, that you're cognizant enough to only watch one episode).

Havoc (2005)

Was it Really Necessary?

[5/10 · 25 February 2006]

This movie was often times painful to watch, and it's not because of its "moving" subject matter. It's possible the filmmakers aren't at fault, here, because when you make a movie about irritating people, don't be surprised that the viewers will find themselves irritated. But if you take on a film that'll make people's brains hemorrhage, you probably deserve to be booed.

Honestly, though, after seeing this piece of crap, I'm surprised Stephen Gaghan can still get work in Hollywood. Likewise for Hathaway, who does a respectable job with a vastly mundane script. Not so kudos to Bijou Philips, for whom playing trash isn't exactly a huge stretch or test of acting ability, nor to Freddy Rodriguez, who, to make his speech more threatening, actually slows himself down so much that he starts. Speaking. In. Fragments. Of the trio, though, he may be the most surprising transformation, especially since he's so squeaky on "Six Feet Under." It was unexpected, but it may have been a casting mistake. Instead of appearing threatening, he looks more like he has Short Man's Syndrome, since Hathaway has a head of height on him, and may appear more menacing therefore. I know I shouldn't be so astounded, but it stupefies me still, how far Hollywood will go to make the worst casting decisions in the name of getting someone proximately famous for the DVD cover. Oy...

I think the most irksome thing about "Havoc" is that, in the end, it's a vacuous morality tale. They had a chance to make something of the examination of bored, rich teenagers who want to be poor on purpose, but they instead glazed over it. No one involved has long-lasting suffering. It's like the whole thing was just a bad dream, which is, I suppose, a fitting description of a night spent watching "Havoc," a most aptly-titled film. The most disappointing aspect of the whole deal is that the personal responsibility lesson isn't given enough gravity. Bored, unlikable, upper-class adolescents get in a wee bit of trouble with a Latin gang of their own accord? My cup overfloweth. Honest to God, if I have to hear another person defend an individual's actions on the basis of the "It's only your fault until you get hurt; then, you can blame someone else" line, I'm going to implode. And guess what "Havoc" does?

Bottom line: if you're looking for half-naked girls, you've hit the jackpot. Also, if you're a teenager and you're looking for some kind of searing expose of the "Gee, I think I'll go join a gang today" lifestyle, you, too, are in luck. Otherwise, don't be surprised if you find yourself vomiting uncontrollably and crying for your mother during the ninety minutes of the train wreck called "Havoc."

Welcome to Collinwood (2002)

Oy Vey

[3/10 · 25 February 2006]

"Welcome to Collinwood" is kind of a disaster. Considering the people involved, it should've been multiple times better.

Watching it, if you're at least somewhat attached to the faith that it'll get better, will probably make you cry. It's one of those movies that had potential, but was robbed of this potential thanks to a terrible script and some bad acting, not to mention the strangely annoying and unnecessary George Clooney character and the guy who reminds me of Richard Dreyfuss but about whom I care so little that I don't even want to know his name.

The film's only saving grace is the weird con vocabulary it introduces. I found myself thinking of it time and time again as I watched more crime capers. This is the only reason I gave the film a 3. The plot is boring, the characters are neurotic, needlessly offensive, and highly unlikable. They are in a constant state of agonizing stress and they're all so irritating that I celebrated their obstacles. They yell at each other and swear crassly. The dialogue is insipid at best and insultingly stupid at its low points.

I find that Steven "Traffic" Soderbergherabracadabrablahblah and George Clooney are to blame for this. They should be tried for war crimes, if anyone actually remembers this crap long enough to care.

Crime Spree (2003)

Somewhere, Guy Ritchie Is Filing a Plagiarism Lawsuit

[7/10 · 25 February 2006]

"Crime Spree" is a good movie. It's not a great one, but it's certainly very funny and quite entertaining. Its major problem is, though, that it's almost completely ripped off from either "Snatch" or "Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels." Now, don't get me wrong: I enjoyed "Crime Spree" immensely and I do recommend it. However, don't go into it expecting to see something original or revolutionary, especially if you're a Guy Ritchie fan.

Writer/director Brad Mirman crafts a cute, international comedy with the requisite murder/theft/convoluted plot that has dragged Ritchie to the spotlight while bringing nothing new to the table. One disappointing aspect of "Crime Spree," though, is that it neither has Ritchie's blitheness nor his gravity in serious matters. When, in either "Snatch" or "Lock, Stock," the characters find out that they're screwed, we can feel just how screwed they are. In "Crime Spree," we don't know them well enough to comprehend the level of crap they're in. This is probably because Mirman doesn't take the time to establish the characters well enough to make us feel anything for them. We see that they're a likable group of guys who happen to be hapless thieves, and that's where the character development ends.

I think Mirman's biggest problem is that he underwrote the script. The scene that catapults the story is too unexpected and weird, because it involves a character too peripheral. It takes a huge leap of faith to think that something so minor could result in an onset of problems that big, because said peripheral character lacks the motivation to be involved in the plot in the first place.

Now, speaking of the plot. The plot has Ritchie's signature written all over it, only whereas Ritchie begins at the beginning, so to speak, when he introduces his characters, Mirman gets lazy and does expository dialogue instead. This is probably a mistake, since he has neither the style nor the substance to fill the holes well enough and make me ignore the sloth of his writing.

Lastly, Mirman's work suffers from a lot of side ordership. There are only two important groups in the forefront, but Mirman stuffs the movie with side characters that seem to distract from the development of the main characters. Whereas Ritchie somehow incorporates these side assemblies into the main plot, Mirman doesn't have the skill to do this, so I wind up feeling annoyed at the fact that some totally arbitrary people are stealing the screen time. I wish to Christ that, in the cases of both Ritchie and Mirman, or any of the numerous on-the-rise directors who want to follow in that vein, people learn that simplicity isn't always a bad thing. A movie doesn't have to have thirty protagonists to be good. Both "Snatch" and "Lock, Stock" had this problem, but in those movies, the side characters were at least somewhat amusing.

Despite these rather grave errors, "Crime Spree," as I said before, is a good film. It's light (though not light enough) with dark moments (that are, alas, not dark enough), but it works in its own odd, plagiarist way. Mirman has style in terms of shooting the thing and a couple of moments in the film work better than anything Ritchie has ever spawned. Also on the plus side in the Mirman column, he has assembled an excellent cast that can at least act.

Do I recommend it? As I said, absolutely. But if you're looking for something to blow your mind and you've not been living in a Luddite compound in terms of the Ritchie Revolution, "Crime Spree" just won't do it for you.

Particles of Truth (2003)

The Indiest Indie of All

[5/10 · 20 December 2005]

There are, it seems, prototypes for all movie genres out there: there's the teenage prototype, the romance prototype, drama, comedy, etc. The new addition to genres combines all movies under a generalization - indie - that's all-encompassing, but cheaply made.

"Particles of Truth" may be the prototype for this genre. It's got everything every other indie film professes to have: "deep" insight with cliché observations on life; bad camera work that begs for a tripod; production that demands better lighting; unheard-of music; relatively unknown actors; drugs; depressed people; funny people; trashy people; people with parent problems (esp. with the father); and the we're-weird-but-we're-really-normal-in-light-of-everyone-else main characters.

While I'm sure that some people might find "Particles" to be a careful and mind-blowing and revolutionary examination of truth, to me, it's like every other "alternative" film out there. Not only that, but its indie pretension is unbearable; the unusual camera angles that are the mark of low-budget films are irritating, and one keeps thinking, "Jesus, will somebody please stand on a table whilst holding that camera or something?" Otherwise, all the butt shots and four-foot sitting-eye-level footage really take a toll on one's patience.

I suppose that's my biggest complaint against this film: nothing about it feels original, which seems against the MO of the entire institution of indie film-making. Aren't these films, which aren't produced by big companies with big company interests, supposed to reveal something new, something that wasn't exhaustively covered by studio films like Paramount or Warner Brothers?