Andrew_Winslow Reviews

Disturbing Behavior (1998)

Disturbingly Real

[26 June 2004]

I'll keep this short: no one is ever going to accuse this movie of taking Casa Blanca's seat as the reigning best movie of all time; however, the movie did do a few things incredibly well.

First off, the first time I saw this film I entered it "in media res" - or in the middle of the action. The fact that James Marsden was playing a really good role as a frustrated outsider (a stretch in itself) was refreshingly surprising. As with any movie about High School rejects, there inevitably comes the point where the leading protagonist(s) must confront the parents; in this particular case there was a disturbingly realistic conflict between Marsden's frustrated character and his parents. I truly believe (especially after seeing it again) that this is the emotional core of the film. As with any good low budget attempt to dazzle and scare, the best surprises and shocks are generated through good psychology - not special effects. Here, watching the rawness of Marsden's edging frustrations about striving to be normal and his parents' standard of acceptance really rings true to the 12-26 year-old audience.

Secondly, the movie lives up to its title in the enigmatic blue ribbon kids; it's not the behavior per se that shocks, it's the violence and suddenness of their mood swings that create the real suspense within the film. Nothing generates good fear like the unpredictable, and to the film's credit, there were many, many times where I didn't know what was going to happen next. The madness that overtakes some of the "tuned-up" kids is a little too close sometimes to actual cases of dementia and psychosis. This movie can be a LOT scarier than something like Texas Chainsaw or a Freddy movie because the main protagonists are not necessarily sociopaths who simply disregard the difference between right and wrong; they're borderline psychotics who slowly blur the difference until they can no longer make the distinction. In the heat of the moment, with the general suddenness and extreme nature of the violence, and the blatant humanity of the characters (or lack of supernatural or fantastic elements) the movie gets realistic fast.

Thirdly, I think some critics have bullied the film on the grounds of the actors' performances; while I am no expert I will say this: I think that the moments of conflict in this film (such as I mentioned above) show as much maturity and promise as any I've seen in older, more established actors.

My recommendation: if you're reading these comments because you're sitting on the fence, I say go ahead and watch it. But when you do, make sure to try and engage the movie on its own terms with the traditional suspension of disbelief. If you make the initial leap to try and understand all the points of view (parents, students, kids, school administrators, and scientists) and put your moral compass on reserve, you will be both scared, impressed, and maybe even a little moved.

Van Helsing (2004)

Some of Column A, Some from Column B

[25 June 2004]

"Van Helsing" Column A: There doesn't seem to be much of this going around so I'll try: there are a few things I think the film-maker's did well in the production. First off, if someone were to try and jam 90% of the most famous Gothic characters into one film AND attempt to create a coherent (if not anywhere near plausible) storyline around it - this isn't too shabby. Secondly, as an avid movie and television watcher, it is really hard to find anything that is genuinely surprising anymore, but I did find a few twists in the film that were completely original; namely, the clever integration between the Frankenstein subplot and the main Dracula one - a truly diabolical application of technology I must say. In addition, there are some very scary ideological underpinnings that sprout from the fictitious reinvention of the leading antagonist characters. It was a cool answer to the question, "if Dracula and Dr. Frankenstein met, what would they talk about?" In short, it was these two factors of surprise and clever integration of multiple themes that made the movie worth watching.

On the flip side, we have column B: What the film has in ideological plot ingenuity it lacks in its rampant efforts to "make its mark" in the action genre; Sylvester Stallone's Rambo and Sigourney Weaver's Ellen Ripley define the persona's of Van Helsing and Anna, respectively. The characters are often shunted around as more staples of a different genre rather than key players in Gothic fiction. They're tired veterans and experienced soldiers, and as such, they are completely desensitized to the genuinely creepy, violent, and monstrous elements of their world. Some people accuse the movie of being over the top; rather, I think that the film is just missing some of the drama of watching all-too-human characters butt-heads in a conflict that creates an all-encompassing, paralyzing, bed-wetting fear. This Van Helsing is an icon, but nothing more. We watch in awe and amazement at the things he does, but forget him just as quickly after because his humanity (such as compassion and fear) has been shone away in a way that ours hasn't.

In general, this creates a strange paradox for potential viewers; the plot gracefully argues the shared Gothic core of the original fiction where emerging technology and magic question our beliefs about the nature of the divine, but presents it in a way that heralds the later action/sci-fi genre - using the magic and science as a plot device to deliver what boils down to a really big brawl.

My recommendation: if you're willing to look past the brawl because you love Gothic fiction, you will be heartily rewarded for the film's attenuation to the original spirit of the works; namely, the integrative treatments of Dr. Frankenstein's "monster," and (to a lesser extent after the first reel) the origin tale of Dracula. If that doesn't matter to you and you just want to see a supernatural slug fest, then have no reservations about checking out the film - immediately. Drama in this film is few, far-between, but wholly rewarded when seen; even so, their are many surprising and genuinely fun moments that are worth watching for any audience.

Time Trax (1993–1994)

The Spectacle Vs The Spectacular

[25 June 2004]

Time Trax - OK, here's the deal: a cop from the future (Darien Lambert) travels back in time to track down roughly 200 escaped fugitives from his time and to settle the score with the time machine's creator, who just happened to have killed off the only woman the cop loved for a long time. Simple, right?

Well, yes. That was basically the problem - from a theatrical point of view. Sure, the show's writers worked hard at kicking in some complications. For example, the cop happens to be an ethnic minority in the future, a "blanco," but that seats him in the majority here. They give him disguised weaponry: namely, his futuristic Star-Trek-in-a-box computer hologram projector and historical archive widget and a nifty non-lethal gun formed to look like a credit card and car-alarm. However, he loses this things constantly - just multiply the number of times you've forgotten where to put your keys by like 1 million, and that's about par for the show. In addition, either the convicts he's chasing will sniff them out, or some plucky 20th century kid will inevitably treat them like the mundane objects they're made to resemble.

Overall, this was not enough to give the show much "drawing power." As noted above, these are plot devices and not necessarily related to developing the character.

Having said that, I must say that this was still one of my favorite shows to watch between the ages of 13-14; like MacGyver or the A-Team, this show had a very dynamic episode-to-episode style with no complicated soap opera sagas to slow down the enjoyment - things were always wrapped up neatly in about an hour.

To speak plainly: the show's main export is just plain fun. It's fun to watch the time-displaced cop rediscover everything about the 20th century that we take for granted (like junk food, boxing [which is outlawed in his time but not any other martial art - go figure], amusement parks, and the fact that here he's not a minority at all (which is something one commenter already hit on - they could have done a LOT more with - if the goal had been character development). It's also fun to watch him struggle with being two hundred years in his own past where his favorite restaurant has only one location and the chef hasn't figured out the signature recipe yet, where the Chicago Cubs suck even though they're a dynasty 200 years from now [which is a shame - it really only took about 8-9 years for the Cubs to make that leap, not 200], and he struggles with the idea that he may never go home, though that might not be bad considering he's found the cute ancestor of his former love.

All of this didn't make the show great per se, but it did make the show special. In many ways it was akin to the radio shows of old, like the Shadow, where the contrived plots and weak villains are less important than the overall aesthetic that the show inspires. It was the genuine sense of wonder and amusement from rediscovering the present that helped the audiences simmer in Darien's nostalgia and homesickness.

Fans of sci-fi will appreciate the techno-widgets and special effects for what they are - a means of conveying the storyline with dazzling and emotional spectacle; however, if you're looking for spectacular drama, you've come to the wrong place. Here's my advice: don't go to the circus and expect to sit next to Hamlet, but if you do go, grab some cotton candy, ask a clown to teach you to juggle, pet the lions, and flirt with as many cute acrobats as you can see because you'll enjoy going a whole lot more.

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (1993–1999)

Some Real Trailblazing Involved Here

[24 June 2004]

I don't know why everyone give DS9 such a hard time; as the first attempt to veer away from the rigid "wagon train to the stars" of Gene Roddenberry's original vision for Star Trek, they did pretty well. Let's face it: there's never been a sci-fi show that perfected itself within one season - not even the much lauded Babylon 5 or the more recent Farscape. Every show has a few hitches to start with - especially spin-offs.

Here's what the show did right: They pretty accurately show the dark side of the Star Trek future; namely, even though Earth has got its act together it doesn't mean that the rest of the universe isn't still a bit screwed up. The idea of putting the station on the border of a political hot-zone was absolutely brilliant; it breaks away from the scattered diplomacy of the original Star Trek, and forces the plots to take more deeply rooted stances on recurring issues such as the aftermath of military occupation, governmental espionage, and finally, the complicated issue of rebuilding a ransacked people. In this show, the "Prime Directive" goes right out the window like it should have been all along - the Federation steps in to help the Bajoran people recognize their own independence and defend their right to govern themselves.

What the show did wrong: the first season and a half had some of the worst sci-fi effects, costumes, and acting that I've ever seen. Even though the over-arching plots were compelling - they were way outclassed by the veteran ST:TNG crew that was on the air at the same time. Plus, the overall scale of the show screamed "we have no budget here" which didn't do anyone any favors.

In general, the show had a beautiful emotional and spiritual core, centering the Bajoran people and their struggle to be rebuild and become truly independent at its center; the downside was that displaying political intrigue and spiritual turbulence on a sci-fi show was bound to get them into trouble with more than a few instances of over-acting and melodramatic posturing.

I should say though, that once they got their stride (in the neighborhood of season 3) they became as compelling as any of their saga-esque sci-fi counterparts; the escalation of the show's scale (in terms of political and social intrigue/influence) corresponded with the ability to tell bigger, better, stories. The end result was truly a landmark in Star Trek history: the first show to demonstrate the exploration of the depth, breadth, and perseverance of the human spirit - rather than the aimless wandering of infinite space - in order to show how people in any century and location are in the pursuit of those places that the frontiers (both familiar and foreign) must be reconciled in the truest pursuit of the unknown. The final frontier is not space; the final frontier is how we deal with it.