Fraggle Rock: Season Three

Data
Title: Fraggle Rock: Season Three
Year: 1984-1985
Network: CBC, HBO & ITV
Episodes: 22, at 25 minutes
Creator: Jim Henson
Directors: Terry Maskell (7 episodes), George Bloomfield (7), Doug Williams (3), Eric Till (2), Jim Henson (1), Les Rose (1), Norman Campbell (1)
Writers: Jocelyn Stevenson (6 episodes), Jerry Juhl (4), B.P. Nichol (4), Robert Sandler (3), Sugith Varughese (3), Laura Phillips (2), Susan Juhl (1), David Young (1)
Starring: Dave Goelz, Jerry Nelson, Steve Whitmire, Kathryn Mullen, Karen Prell, Richard Hunt, Gerard Parkes
Music: Philip Balsam & Dennis Lee

My reaction
Synopsis: fun-loving, cave-dwelling creatures don’t understand their neighboring species
How I saw it: on video a couple times (have on DVD), most recently over the past few weeks
Concept: Great.
Story: Good.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Good.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Bad.  But improving a little.
Special effects/design: Good.
Acting: Good.
Music: Great.
Subjective Rating: 10/10 (Favorite of my favorites). The writing is back up to near where it was for the first season. Some episodes are a little weak, but none of them are bad. The relationships between species are developing; I'm pretty excited to see where it goes in the last two seasons (which we have but haven't watched yet).
Objective Rating: 8/10 (Good) 3.3/4 3.4/4 (Very good).

Fantastic Mr. Fox

Data
Title: Fantastic Mr. Fox
Year: 2009
Length: 87 minutes
Director: Wes Anderson
Writers: Wes Anderson & Noah Baumbach, based on the book by Roald Dahl
Starring: George Clooney, Meryl Streep, Jason Schwartzman, Bill Murray, Wallace Wolodarsky, Eric Chase Anderson, Michael Gambon
Music: Alexandre Desplat (and non-original music)
Distinctions: Oscar nominations for Best Animated Feature and Best Score

My reaction
Synopsis: a fox endangers his family by stealing from mean farmers
How I saw it: in the theater, today
Concept: Great. Not one of Dahl's best books, but the idea of doing a movie of it in this style is perfect.
Story: Good.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Good. Unmistakably a Wes Anderson movie. There are a few isolated moments that are kind of bad (it has the typical lesson-learning of a children's movie, which seems out of place and unnatural here), but the rest of the movie makes up for them.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Good.
Special effects/design: Great. Absolutely amazing.
Acting: Great. The voice-work is entertaining, and the animation is expressive and emotional.
Music: Great. Lots of Burl Ives and Beach Boys, and Desplat's score is fun.
Subjective Rating: 8/10 (Great). One of Anderson's better movies, right up there with Tenenbaums. It's at a much higher energy level than typical for him, but without losing that quiet, Anderson-y tone.
Objective Rating: 9/10 3.7/4 (Great).

Doctor Who #126-128: The Black Guardian Trilogy

Data
Title: Doctor Who: The Black Guardian Trilogy ("Mawdryn Undead" / "Terminus" / "Enlightenment")
Year: 1983
Network: BBC
Episodes: 12, at 25 minutes; 3 stories of 4 episodes each, from the middle of season 20
Creators: Sydney Newman, C.E. Webber, Donald Wilson
Directors: Peter Moffatt / Mary Ridge / Fiona Cumming
Writers: Peter Grimwade / Stephen Gallagher / Barbara Clegg
Starring: Peter Davison, Janet Fielding, Sarah Sutton, Nicholas Courtney, Mark Strickson
Music: Ron Grainer (theme), Paddy Kingsland / Roger Limb / Malcolm Clarke

My reaction
Synopsis: a whiny schoolboy is enlisted by to kill The Doctor by an apparently omnipotent weirdo; meanwhile, The Doctor battles would-be immortals, lepers, nonsense and plot holes
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), over the past few days
Concept: Terrible.
Story: Bad. Some of the basic plot ideas of the first two stories are sound, but the writing is awful.
Characters: Bad.
Dialog: Indifferent.
Pacing: Indifferent.
Cinematography: Bad.
Special effects/design: Bad.
Acting: Indifferent. A couple of the guest stars are quite memorably good, but there's a lot of crap.
Music: Indifferent.  Kingsland's score is entertainingly bad.  The others are unobtrusive.
Subjective Rating: 4/10 (Eh). 4/10 for "Mawdryn," 5/10 for "Terminus" and 3/10 for "Enlightenment." Not exactly your best Doctor Who, even by 80's standards.
Objective Rating: 3/10 (Pretty bad) 1.4/4 (Bad).

The Apartment

Data
Title: The Apartment
Year: 1960
Length: 125 minutes
Director: Billy Wilder
Writers: Billy Wilder & I.A.L. Diamond
Starring: Jack Lemmon, Shirley MacLaine, Fred MacMurray
Music: Adolph Deutsch
Distinctions: Oscars for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Original Screenplay, Best Art Direction/Set Decoration (black-and-white), and Best Editing; Oscar nominations for Best Actor (Lemmon), Best Actress (MacLaine), Best Supporting Actor (Jack Kruschen), Best Cinematography (black-and-white) and Best Sound; currently #99 on IMDb's Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: a suck-up lets his married bosses use his apartment to entertain women
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Bad.
Story: Good.
Characters: Bad. Even an extremely charismatic cast could do nothing to make me sympathize with these people.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Bad. Much of the movie is amusing, but I was still pretty bored.
Cinematography: Good.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Great.
Music: Good.
Subjective Rating: 6/10 (Okay). Not a bad movie, but all the awards it got are baffling to me. Maybe it has more depth and craftsmanship than your typical romantic comedy of the time, but best picture? Inherit the Wind, Psycho and Spartacus weren't even nominated.
Objective Rating: 7/10 (Pretty good) 2.6/4 (Good).

The Bicycle Thief

Data
Title: Ladri di biciclette
Year: 1948 (Italy), 1949 (US)
Length: 89 minutes
Director: Vittorio De Sica
Writers: Cesare Zavattini, Suso Cecchi d'Amico, Vittorio De Sica, Oreste Biancoli, Adolfo Franci & Gerardo Guerrieri, based on the novel by Luigi Bartolini
Starring: Lamberto Maggiorani, Enzo Staiola
Music: Alessandro Cicognini
Distinctions: honorary Oscar for best foreign language film (1950); Oscar nomination for Best Screenplay (1950); currently #106 on IMDb's Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: a father can't support his family without a bicycle
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Good.
Story: Great.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Indifferent. Although, it's not really fair of me to judge; the DVD subtitles didn't translate half the dialog. It is the way of Netflix to only have the cheapest, crappiest DVD available of any title.
Pacing: Terrible.
Cinematography: Good.
Special effects/design: Great. But not much is called for.
Acting: Great.
Music: Great.
Subjective Rating: 5/10 (Indifferent). The kind of film that exists for film students to write essays about it. Thinking about it afterward, it seems like it should be a really great movie. But actually sitting down and watching the thing, I was bored silly.
Objective Rating: 8/10 3/4 (Good).

Star Trek

(update of a previous post - original is here)



Data
Title: Star Trek
Year: 2009
Length: 126 minutes
Director: J.J. Abrams
Writers: Roberto Orci & Alex Kurtzman, based on the TV show by Gene Roddenberry
Starring: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Eric Bana, Karl Urban
Music: Michael Giacchino
Distinctions: Oscar for Best Makeup; Oscar nominations for Best Visual Effects, Best Sound and Best Sound Editing; currently #134 on IMDb's Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: a time-traveling Romulan has a vendetta against Spock
How I saw it: in the theater, May 2009; on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Great. As a geek, I am required by law to love the whole Time-Travel-Created-Alternate-Universe thing.
Story: Terrible.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Terrible. J.J. "Lens Flare" Abrams does everything he can to take you out of the movie.
Special effects/design: Indifferent.
Acting: Good.
Music: Great. Michael Giacchino orchestrating a classic sci-fi TV theme song... that's all anyone can really ask for from a movie.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good). Fun and fast paced. There’s some nice comic relief, and loads of geek-pleasing moments. The action scenes are a mess. The plot isn’t very interesting, mostly just getting the characters re-introduced – which is fun for a fan, since it’s extremely well cast (especially Karl Urban’s Bones) and the characters and dialog are well-written – but there’s still not much plot. It’s not a science fiction movie, and it’s not a submarine movie like previous good action versions of Star Trek have been. In place of those elements, there’s standard loud, fast-moving-camera, dumb action. They’ve got the characters down right; now they just need to put them in a movie.
Objective Rating: 7/10 (Pretty good) 2.8/4 (Good).

The Return of Sherlock Holmes: Season One

Data
Title: The Return of Sherlock Holmes: Season One [or, season three of The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, with a new title]
Year: 1986
Network: ITV
Episodes: 7, at c. 52 minutes
Creator: John Hawkesworth (developer)
Directors: David Carson (2 episodes), Howard Baker (1), Peter Hammond (1), John Bruce (1), Patrick Lau (1), John Madden (1)
Writers: John Hawkesworth (2 episodes), T.R. Bowen (2), Jeremy Paul (1), Alan Plater (1), John Kane (1); based on stories by Arthur Conan Doyle
Starring: Jeremy Brett, Edward Hardwicke
Music: Patrick Gowers

My reaction
Synopsis: a private investigator solves mysteries
How I saw it: mostly streaming online (from Netflix), over the past couple weeks
Concept: Great.
Story: Good. Not really any bad episodes in this batch (although the first couple aren't great). A few of them are great.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Good. The quality of the adaptations are much better than I remember The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes being.
Pacing: Good.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Great. I'm surprised to find I'm not disappointed by the re-casting of Watson. And Brett's even better than before.
Music: Great.
Subjective Rating: 8/10 (Great). Again, I have to point out that this is not My Sort of Thing. I'm not a big fan of mysteries - especially crime drama - and as a rule I hate period drama. But I absolutely love this show.
Objective Rating: 9/10 3.5/4 (Very good).

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington

Data
Title: Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
Year: 1939
Length: 129 minutes
Director: Frank Capra
Writer: Sidney Buchman, story by Lewis R. Foster
Starring: Jean Arthur, James Stewart, Claude Rains
Music: Dimitri Tiomkin
Distinctions: Oscar for Best Story; Oscar nominations for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Screenplay, Best Actor (Stewart), Best Supporting Actor (Rains), Best Supporting Actor (Harry Carey), Best Score, Best Art Direction, Best Editing and Best Sound Recording; currently #111 on IMDb's Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: a boyscout leader appointed to the senate stands up to corruption
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), a couple days ago
Concept: Good.
Story: Great.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Good.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Great. To say that to say that Stewart's performance carries this movie would be an understatement would be an understatement.
Music: Indifferent. Corny and way over-the-top.
Subjective Rating: 8/10 (Great). The ending is very abrupt. And it's a bit depressing to compare the Washington in the film to modern day politics. (I mean, really, a senator's career being threatened by it being known that he did something in the interest of a business? Talk about suspension of disbelief...) But this is probably the ultimate Jimmy Stewart movie. He is constantly - every second he's on screen - giving what's probably the best performance of his career.
Objective Rating: 9/10 3.6/4 (Great).

awesome people part 3

Here are a few random people who happen to be awesome. I’m just saying.

The Coen Brothers
Evidence:
- The Big Lebowski, 1998 (directors/writers)
- O Brother, Where Art Thou?, 2000 (directors/writers)
- No Country for Old Men, 2007 (directors/writers)
- pretty much all of their other movies

Giulietta Masina
Evidence:
- La Strada, 1954 (Gelsomina)
- Le notti di Cabiria, 1957 (Maria "Cabiria" Ceccarelli)

Sam Mendes
Evidence:
- American Beauty, 1999 (director)
- Away We Go, 2009 (director)
Even if you're one of those people who doesn't like Away We Go (why are there so many of you??), whatever, American Beauty is enough on its own to make him awesome.

Ron Perlman
Evidence:
- La cité des enfants perdus, 1995 (One)
- Hellboy, 2004 (Hellboy)

Adam Elliot
Evidence:
- "Uncle," 1996 (director/writer)
- "Cousin," 1998 (director/writer)
- "Brother," 1999 (director/writer)
- "Harvie Krumpet," 2003 (director/writer)

Brazil

Data
Title: Brazil
Year: 1985
Length: 142 minutes
Director: Terry Gilliam
Writers: Terry Gilliam, Tom Stoppard & Charles McKeown
Starring: Jonathan Pryce, Robert De Niro, Katherine Helmond, Ian Holm, Bob Hoskins, Michael Palin, Ian Richardson, Peter Vaughan, Kim Greist
Music: Michael Kamen
Distinctions: Oscar nominations for Best Original Screenplay and Best Art Direction/Set Decoration; currently #240 on IMDb's Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: a man in a bureaucratic dystopia obsesses over a woman from his dreams
How I saw it: on video several times (used to have on DVD), most recently (rented from Netflix) yesterday
Concept: Good.
Story: Bad.
Characters: Good.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Bad.
Cinematography: Great.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Good.
Music: Great.
Subjective Rating: 6/10 (Okay). I used to think this movie was great, but I can't figure out why. Maybe it was just because I loved other Gilliam movies, so I thought I should love it. Or maybe it's the same reason that every young person who hasn't read too many books thinks 1984 is the best thing ever. In any case, I was pretty bored watching this yesterday. The visuals are great, but they rarely actually contribute to the storytelling. There are some great scenes, mostly when it's being silly, and some great acting from Holm and Palin (meanwhile, De Niro is pretty bad), but the story just doesn't make a lot of sense if you think about it too much.
Objective Rating: 7/10 (Pretty good) 2.9/4 (Good).

Doctor Who #50: The War Games

Data
Title: Doctor Who: "The War Games"
Year: 1969
Network: BBC
Episodes: 10, at 25 minutes; the last story (of 7) from season 6
Creators: Sydney Newman, C.E. Webber, Donald Wilson
Director: David Maloney
Writer: Terrance Dicks & Malcolm Hulke
Starring: Patrick Troughton, Frazer Hines, Wendy Padbury
Music: Ron Grainer (theme), Dudley Simpson

My reaction
Synopsis: abducted, brainwashed humans believe they're fighting various historical wars on Earth
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), over the past few days
Concept: Great. Like Dark City, except the people are sent to kill each other instead of just hanging out in a weird city.
Story: Good.
Characters: Good.
Dialog: Indifferent.
Pacing: Great. Ten episodes on a single story, and it never stalled. Kind of amazing.
Cinematography: Bad.
Special effects/design: Indifferent.  There's some set-wobbling, but the design is pretty cool.
Acting: Terrible.
Music: Indifferent.
Subjective Rating: 8/10 (Great). One of the best classic Doctor Who stories I've seen yet. Things often get bad, but in a kitschy, entertaining sort of way (for instance, the villains are remarkably similar to The Monarch from Venture Bros., but they're supposed to be taken seriously).
Objective Rating: 6/10 2.5/4 (Okay).

World's Greatest Dad

Data
Title: World's Greatest Dad
Year: 2009
Length: 99 minutes
Director: Bobcat Goldthwait
Writer: Bobcat Goldthwait
Starring: Robin Williams, Alexie Gilmore, Daryl Sabara
Music: Gerald Brunskill (and non-original music)

My reaction
Synopsis: a failed writer exploits his douchebag son's death
How I saw it: in the theater, yesterday
Concept: Indifferent.
Story: Terrible. It's the old web-of-lies formula from bad sitcoms. There's darkness and satire layered on top of it, so the movie has a chance, but it's still the mother of all horrible plot formulas.
Characters: Good. Thanks entirely to the acting. Williams somehow manages to take Goldthwait's bad script and pull a sympathetic and real character out of it.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Bad. Felt like at least two hours.
Cinematography: Good.
Special effects/design: Good.
Acting: Great. Good enough to make this movie worth watching.
Music: Great.
Subjective Rating: 6/10 (Okay). Entertaining. If there's nothing else good playing, it's better than not seeing a movie, and you might like it if you like dark satire. It has got to be one of the worst-promoted movies ever, though - a dark indie drama with some black humor, advertised as a zany father-and-son comedy with a lesson to be learned. The poster and trailer are specially designed to ward off anyone who might like it. Half the people in the theater left within the first twenty minutes; I wonder if they thought they were going to see that thing with John Travolta in it.
Objective Rating: 7/10 (Pretty good) 2.6/4 (Good).

The Sting

Data
Title: The Sting
Year: 1973
Length: 129 minutes
Director: George Roy Hill
Writer: David S. Ward
Starring: Paul Newman, Robert Redford, Robert Shaw, Charles Durning
Music: Scott Joplin, adapted by Marvin Hamlisch
Distinctions: Oscars for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Song Score and/or Adaptation, Best Art Direction/Set Decoration, Best Costume Design and Best Editing; Oscar nominations for Best Actor (Redford), Best Cinematography and Best Sound; currently #98 on IMDb's Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: con men vs. the mob
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Great.
Story: Good. Enough twists to keep the movie from being tedious. Although, the whole con-man story type doesn't really work well when it's an army of professionals with seemingly unlimited resources against more or less one guy.
Characters: Bad. I don't feel I know anything about the personalities of either of the leads.
Dialog: Good.
Pacing: Bad. I can't believe this was only two hours long. It felt more like a mini series than a movie.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Indifferent. If this is supposed to be the 1930's, then why do all of these 1930's buildings look 50 years old?
Acting: Good. Redford and Newman are both kind of dull, especially Redford, but the supporting cast is nice.
Music: Good. I don't understand why they used distinctly period music for a film set in a different period, but it sets a tone and it's good music.
Subjective Rating: 6/10 (Okay). It made me restless, and it's very flawed, but it's not a bad movie. It has its moments.
Objective Rating: 6/10 2.4/4 (Okay).

The Rocky Horror Picture Show

Halloween movie night, part 2 of 2



Data
Title: The Rocky Horror Picture Show
Year: 1975
Length: 100 minutes
Director: Jim Sharman
Writer: Jim Sharman & Richard O'Brien, based on O'Brien's musical
Starring: Tim Curry, Susan Sarandon, Barry Bostwick, Richard O'Brien, Patricia Quinn, Nell Campbell
Music: Richard O'Brien (songs); Richard Hartley (incidental music)

My reaction
Synopsis: a glam-rock musical satire of B horror movies
How I saw it: on video many times (have on DVD), most recently yesterday
Concept: Good? I guess? Maybe?
Story: Bad. But it has to be.
Characters: Bad. But they have to be.
Dialog: Good. Enough of it's great to make up for all the bad (which is deliberately bad).
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Good. Actually, genuinely good. What the hey?
Special effects/design: Terrible. But it has to be.
Acting: Bad. A mixed bag here, but when it's terrible, it's iconic.
Music: Great.
Subjective Rating: 9/10 (One of my favorites).
Objective Rating: 6/10 2.4/4 2.5/4 (Okay).

Monsters, Inc.

Halloween movie night, part 1 of 2



Data
Title: Monsters, Inc.
Year: 2001
Length: 92 minutes
Directors: Pete Docter, David Silverman & Lee Unkrich
Writers: Andrew Stanton & Daniel Gerson, with Robert L. Baird, Rhett Reese & Jonathan Roberts, story by Pete Docter, Jill Culton, Jeff Pidgeon & Ralph Eggleston
Starring: John Goodman, Billy Crystal, Mary Gibbs, Steve Buscemi, James Coburn
Music: Randy Newman
Distinctions: Oscar for Best Song ("If I Didn't Have You"); Oscar nominations for Best Animated Feature, Best Score and Best Sound Editing; currently #242 on IMDb's Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: a human toddler sneaks through her closet into the monster world
How I saw it: in the theater, 2001; on video many times (have on DVD), most recently yesterday
Concept: Indifferent.
Story: Great.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Great.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Good. Okay from the voices, great from the animators.
Music: Good.
Subjective Rating: 9/10 (One of my favorites). It's remarkable how re-watchable this remains after all these years.
Objective Rating: 9/10 3.6/4 3.7/4 (Great).