Ferdinand_the_Barbarian
Joined Aug 2004
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews5
Ferdinand_the_Barbarian's rating
As somebody who grew up on Pete and Pete, Clarissa, Salute Your Shorts, and all the other classic Nick shows, I hold a fond place in my heart for Nickelodeon. But that place has, generally, been reserved for anything before All That appeared. In my (not-so) humble opinion, that's the moment at which the network started to go downhill.
Okay, so Zoey 101 isn't exactly on a level with Pete and Pete. It's got elements of The O.C. in that it's based on upper-class lifestyles. But I'm not going to discriminate against it based on that. Any given show is going to be about a very small slice of society. This one just happens to be an upscale slice.
It's a decent show. It's shot well, so it's visually entertaining -- something I can't say for most Disney and Nick shows. And, though it's classic preteen content, it's spun in a way that stops me from vomiting, as I do watching most other crap being peddled on children these days.
That's saying something. I'm 19 and I can tolerate this show. That's near-glowing praise.
Okay, so Zoey 101 isn't exactly on a level with Pete and Pete. It's got elements of The O.C. in that it's based on upper-class lifestyles. But I'm not going to discriminate against it based on that. Any given show is going to be about a very small slice of society. This one just happens to be an upscale slice.
It's a decent show. It's shot well, so it's visually entertaining -- something I can't say for most Disney and Nick shows. And, though it's classic preteen content, it's spun in a way that stops me from vomiting, as I do watching most other crap being peddled on children these days.
That's saying something. I'm 19 and I can tolerate this show. That's near-glowing praise.
Sometimes, a movie comes along and blows away your expectations. Sometimes, a movie comes along and redefines a genre. Sometimes, a movie comes along and gets nearly everything right. In the world of comic book-to-movie translations, I doubted it could get much better than Spiderman 2. Spiderman had great acting from Tobey Maguire and Alfred Molina. It had great visuals. It delved into the emotions and motivations of a superhero. But there was that pesky, awkward romance, ruined by Kirsten Dunst's I'm-always-embarrassed look.
Batman Begins take everything that went right about Spiderman 2 and replaces all the wrongs with tastiness. It's the creamy goodness inside Spiderman 2's empty Twinkie shell.
In the past decade, the Batman saga has been, to use a terrible pun, rather two-faced. There have been a few great performances in the movies, but they have, overall, failed miserably. Possibly the crowning failure was director Joel Schumacher's decision to put nipples on the batsuit.
Thankfully, those nipples are now gone. The painful dialogue, the laughable plots, the poor acting -- it's all gone in this iteration.
With Christopher Nolan (Memento) taking over, the franchise was bound for some redemption. Nolan's personal philosophy results in his potential to be the anti-Lucas. Where the Star Wars creator relies excessively on special effects, Nolan avoids them when at all possible. Among the few computer-generated graphics found in the film are -- well, nothing, really, aside from some swarms of bats.
Something about this film works perfectly. Likely, it's Bale's convincing performance as Batman. Where others have tried and failed to make Batman something more than a black suit and mask -- and it's no discredit to them, seeing as how the suit and the mask are his defining features -- Christian Bale turns the character into something more. There's a human element the superhero. He is constantly wrestling with his emotions; his parents died in front of him when he was a child, and he had his only chance of revenge -- at peace of mind -- stripped from him.
Or, maybe, the point at which this film separates itself is refusal to turn itself into a joke. While the X-Men movies and Spiderman movies are fantastic in their own right, they tend to have a certain dark sarcasm about them, an intentional foray into classic action humor. Batman Begins does not. There may be three or four laughs in the film, but they don't take over the film. Even without the laughs, the film is enjoyable.
Or, quite a bit more likely, it's the raw emotion in the film. It's the passion, the anger, the guilt, the sorrow. I felt as though the film was tossing me around like a kitten would a ball of yarn.
The supporting acting, too, is fantastic. But, honestly, how could one expect any less from the likes of Michael Caine (Alfred), Morgan Freeman (Lucius Fox), and Liam Neeson (Ducard)? Sprinkle other spot-on performances (Ken Watanabe -- The Last Samauri -- and Katie Holmes play their parts perfectly), and this version of Batman can't fail where others did. It can't fail where Spiderman 2 did.
Everything is subtle, not overblown like one may expect to find in a summer blockbuster. Not completely flawless, no -- but close enough to have raised the bar for comic book movies far beyond its previous resting place. If the Fantastic Four trailer is any indication, I doubt we'll see another superhero film like this in a long time.
Batman Begins take everything that went right about Spiderman 2 and replaces all the wrongs with tastiness. It's the creamy goodness inside Spiderman 2's empty Twinkie shell.
In the past decade, the Batman saga has been, to use a terrible pun, rather two-faced. There have been a few great performances in the movies, but they have, overall, failed miserably. Possibly the crowning failure was director Joel Schumacher's decision to put nipples on the batsuit.
Thankfully, those nipples are now gone. The painful dialogue, the laughable plots, the poor acting -- it's all gone in this iteration.
With Christopher Nolan (Memento) taking over, the franchise was bound for some redemption. Nolan's personal philosophy results in his potential to be the anti-Lucas. Where the Star Wars creator relies excessively on special effects, Nolan avoids them when at all possible. Among the few computer-generated graphics found in the film are -- well, nothing, really, aside from some swarms of bats.
Something about this film works perfectly. Likely, it's Bale's convincing performance as Batman. Where others have tried and failed to make Batman something more than a black suit and mask -- and it's no discredit to them, seeing as how the suit and the mask are his defining features -- Christian Bale turns the character into something more. There's a human element the superhero. He is constantly wrestling with his emotions; his parents died in front of him when he was a child, and he had his only chance of revenge -- at peace of mind -- stripped from him.
Or, maybe, the point at which this film separates itself is refusal to turn itself into a joke. While the X-Men movies and Spiderman movies are fantastic in their own right, they tend to have a certain dark sarcasm about them, an intentional foray into classic action humor. Batman Begins does not. There may be three or four laughs in the film, but they don't take over the film. Even without the laughs, the film is enjoyable.
Or, quite a bit more likely, it's the raw emotion in the film. It's the passion, the anger, the guilt, the sorrow. I felt as though the film was tossing me around like a kitten would a ball of yarn.
The supporting acting, too, is fantastic. But, honestly, how could one expect any less from the likes of Michael Caine (Alfred), Morgan Freeman (Lucius Fox), and Liam Neeson (Ducard)? Sprinkle other spot-on performances (Ken Watanabe -- The Last Samauri -- and Katie Holmes play their parts perfectly), and this version of Batman can't fail where others did. It can't fail where Spiderman 2 did.
Everything is subtle, not overblown like one may expect to find in a summer blockbuster. Not completely flawless, no -- but close enough to have raised the bar for comic book movies far beyond its previous resting place. If the Fantastic Four trailer is any indication, I doubt we'll see another superhero film like this in a long time.
At a crucial point in the plot of Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith, Darth Vader (James Earl Jones) screams out a forced, "Noooooooo!" A metaphor is to be found here. As Hayden Christensen passes the torch of Anakin onto Jones, that single word is representative of Christensen's acting career -- if you're willing to call his strained attempts at emotion acting.
George Lucas described Episode III as, "Titanic in space." This comparison isn't entirely correct. In one sense, it is true; the tragedy of the story is certainly as bad as that of Titanic. However, Episode III's dialogue and acting are nowhere near the caliber of Titanic.
George Lucas is a master of creating rich worlds for his stories. The Star Wars universe has spawned countless books, video games, and iterations in every other form of media. There's even a TV show soon to be produced.
Lucas, however, may be one of the worst writers in recent memory. Some have claimed the Lucas brought in another writer to help with the romantic subplot between Anakin and Senator Padme Amidala (Natalie Portman). This is quite believable: The dialogue seems as if it's been written by a fourteen-year-old girl. It's painful and embarrassing to watch; it's funny; yet, it's supposed to be emotional and painful in another way entirely.
As should be expected, brilliant battle scenes bring the movie back from the depths the romance brings it down to. Even these scenes have their drawbacks, though. Not a single one is as memorable as the original duel between Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker. None of them makes the imprint on one's mind that the Darth Maul duel from Episode I does. None even measure up to the duel between Yoda and Count Dooku from Episode II.
One duel scene does stick out, but for all the wrong reasons. Everything about it seems contrived. A piece of debris floats over a river of lava for absolutely no reason. A droid follows the debris, as if Anakin is controlling it with the Force. (It's worth noting, then, that classic Star Wars mythology excludes droids from the effects of the Force.) Lucas also described the film as being "dark." This is true, to an extent. One scene shows Storm Troopers shooting a child. Another implies the cold-blooded murder of multiple young Jedi padawans. However, even this is tempered when they are referred to as "younglings," apparently in an attempt to make the murder of children seem less harsh. Instead, it comes across as yet another painful contrivance by George Lucas.
There are redeeming aspects to be found. Ewan McGregor once again delivers a perfect portrayal of Obi-Wan Kenobi. There's wry buddy-buddy-style humor, coupled with, shockingly, good acting in emotional scenes.
Ian McDiarmid and Samuel L. Jackson also deliver wonderful performances as Supreme Chancellor Palpatine and Mace Windu, respectively.
Maybe the most telling performances, though, are those that aren't truly performances. The most enjoyable character to watch never says a word. Yes, that's right, R2-D2 is the best character in the film. Yoda, too, is wonderful in his limited time on-screen. (Though it is apparent that Frank Oz was half-asleep when he made this film; Yoda-speak runs rampant, and begins to become rather annoying.) A single word can describe this film: contrived. Everything seems as if it's merely staging to spend money on effects. George Lucas, it seems, buys into the all-too-common modern-day belief that style is paramount, and, as a result, any substance takes a back seat.
** out of *****
George Lucas described Episode III as, "Titanic in space." This comparison isn't entirely correct. In one sense, it is true; the tragedy of the story is certainly as bad as that of Titanic. However, Episode III's dialogue and acting are nowhere near the caliber of Titanic.
George Lucas is a master of creating rich worlds for his stories. The Star Wars universe has spawned countless books, video games, and iterations in every other form of media. There's even a TV show soon to be produced.
Lucas, however, may be one of the worst writers in recent memory. Some have claimed the Lucas brought in another writer to help with the romantic subplot between Anakin and Senator Padme Amidala (Natalie Portman). This is quite believable: The dialogue seems as if it's been written by a fourteen-year-old girl. It's painful and embarrassing to watch; it's funny; yet, it's supposed to be emotional and painful in another way entirely.
As should be expected, brilliant battle scenes bring the movie back from the depths the romance brings it down to. Even these scenes have their drawbacks, though. Not a single one is as memorable as the original duel between Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker. None of them makes the imprint on one's mind that the Darth Maul duel from Episode I does. None even measure up to the duel between Yoda and Count Dooku from Episode II.
One duel scene does stick out, but for all the wrong reasons. Everything about it seems contrived. A piece of debris floats over a river of lava for absolutely no reason. A droid follows the debris, as if Anakin is controlling it with the Force. (It's worth noting, then, that classic Star Wars mythology excludes droids from the effects of the Force.) Lucas also described the film as being "dark." This is true, to an extent. One scene shows Storm Troopers shooting a child. Another implies the cold-blooded murder of multiple young Jedi padawans. However, even this is tempered when they are referred to as "younglings," apparently in an attempt to make the murder of children seem less harsh. Instead, it comes across as yet another painful contrivance by George Lucas.
There are redeeming aspects to be found. Ewan McGregor once again delivers a perfect portrayal of Obi-Wan Kenobi. There's wry buddy-buddy-style humor, coupled with, shockingly, good acting in emotional scenes.
Ian McDiarmid and Samuel L. Jackson also deliver wonderful performances as Supreme Chancellor Palpatine and Mace Windu, respectively.
Maybe the most telling performances, though, are those that aren't truly performances. The most enjoyable character to watch never says a word. Yes, that's right, R2-D2 is the best character in the film. Yoda, too, is wonderful in his limited time on-screen. (Though it is apparent that Frank Oz was half-asleep when he made this film; Yoda-speak runs rampant, and begins to become rather annoying.) A single word can describe this film: contrived. Everything seems as if it's merely staging to spend money on effects. George Lucas, it seems, buys into the all-too-common modern-day belief that style is paramount, and, as a result, any substance takes a back seat.
** out of *****