little_socrates1 Reviews

Doogal (2006)

Yes, it's the worst movie ever, but maybe there's a reason...

[1/10 · 29 June 2007]

Why is it so hard to believe that they made it a horrible movie on purpose, and made it look like it was targeted towards kids? Now, I love Jon Stewart. His performance was the only remotely redeeming quality of this movie. The fact that Judi Dench's performance, as well as Ian McKellan's, were even a part of this movie angered me to no end. My brother bought this on DVD because he loves Jon Stewart. Frankly, I'm glad he did.

Now, every joke in this movie falls flat, every portion of the script is bad (and teaches a negative lesson), and many good actors' reputations were tarnished by this movie. At least, those that were known to be in it, like Whoopi Goldberg and...who else did we know was gonna be in it ahead of time besides her and Jon Stewart? Jon Stewart basically announced it was a bad movie when he announced his character on The Daily Show: Zeebad, a talking spring that is attempting to freeze the world...with his mustache. Right there, I knew I didn't wanna pay for this movie. But my brother did, and so I watched it...

As a 15-year-old nerd, I've seen pretty much every movie referenced. I came in with their horrible, horrible cover of The Kinks' version of "You Really Got Me". After 5 minutes, I was angry at the movie. But...somehow, that was fun to me. Anyone who saw The Ring 2 with friends knows what I mean. That movie was so much fun to make fun of, nobody even cared if you talked through the entire movie.

The same, I assume, was the goal of Doogal. Because the entire time, I basically ranted in anger of the Pulp Fiction/Pirates of the Caribbean/LotR reference, the fact that I wanted to kill Doogal and everyone in his party, and that Judi Dench(/Ian McKellan/Whoopi/Jimmy/anyone worth mentioning minus Jon Stewart) should have not touched this movie.

But people mostly saw this movie with their kids, or saw it alone. This experience is relatively unique. Watch this with friends or don't touch it. The purpose is probably to make fun of it, not actually enjoy it. I loved hating this movie, just like people love to hate Paris Hilton/Britney Spears/Lindsay Lohan/(insert slutty celebrity people hate).

300 (2006)

An Awesome Cinematic Adventure

[10/10 · 29 March 2007]

This movie is incredible. Very awesome combat, and a whole bunch you can read in the other reviews. But I'll address the criticisms now.

Many criticize the fact that the movie is full of historical inaccuracies and impossibilities, along with the fact that there is "prejudice" against black men, homosexuals, the handicapped, and groups among the Persians.

The movie is a narrative, you must remember, told right before the battle by a Spartan, one of the 300. Many of the things that appear to be creatures are how Spartans portray them. Remember the wolf at the very beginning? It had no physical possibilities beyond what it does in our reality, but a Spartan would likely see it as a much more intimidating being. The same applies to the ogre-like creature, the creature with guillotines for hands, and the traitor. Spartans see things in a different, more mythological fashion. Nothing had powers that were really impossible with amputation and other physical possibilities, but it would not seem so to an Ares-worshiping, Hades-believing culture.

Plus, as a story being told, this could also come from the imagination of the Spartans, listening to the tale and letting their imaginations, fueled with hatred toward the Persians, fill in the blanks.

And then there's the prejudice. What would a Spartan see as wrong? They characterize their fellow Greeks, the Athenians, as "boy-lovers" early in the tale. The Spartans see all but themselves as weak, and all that oppose them, or their beliefs (such as their beliefs on homosexuality), as evil. These are not the beliefs of the movie makers (at least as far as I can tell) and do not truly characterize anything but the ancient Persian empire as evil, and even then only to the Spartans. Do people complain about the characterizations of many Germans in WWII movies? I thought not.

Also, this movie is far less gory than it would be in reality, but that's a good thing in this case. Blood spills in a very artful way, entirely CG-animated and only used in an artful way. In the instances with decapitations, blood does not pour in the way in truly does, or spray in a fountain, or anything truly gory. The blood falls in a few drops and no more. The movie is high in violence, but less blood falls than in an episode of Law and Order.

However, there is a reason this movie is rated R, other than the (at least with my family and friends) controversial V for Vendetta. The 300 is full of sexuality, so don't take your kids unless you're OK with that...signing out.

The Da Vinci Code (2006)

Good ideas, dull story.

[6/10 · 4 December 2006]

This book should've stayed a book, but moving it to screens will spread the interesting ideas.

If the DaVinci Code had not had the muddled story of Tom Hanks and the woman whose name I do not remember, the movie would have been much clearer. And Ian McEllan's appearance was weaker than it was in X-Men III, which was his most recent work to DaVinci, as in maybe a month or two: guess which he liked more? All that was gained, in my humble opinion (IMHO), out of the characters was the speech by Tom Hanks at the beginning of the movie; that was an awesome speech that blew me away. It made very, very good points, and would have been interesting to have been at in reality.

DaVinci Code has interesting ideas about Mary Magdelene and the Bible Pals, but it's really just a big conspiracy theory that's interesting when you think about it, even though you know it's not true. But the characters muddle it a bunch more than is enjoyable, when the movie (and book that I have not read) should really just be a presentation of the ideas.

Big-name actors act a little down and ideas get muddled, but if you catch anything, it'll make you think for a few days. A 6 out of 10. If you're smart enough to get the ideas, though, just read the book if you have the time.

Autism Is a World (2004 TV Movie)

Autism is a World, but not this girl's...

[1/10 · 4 December 2006]

This movie is entirely wrong about autism. I work with autistic youths on a regular basis; if she is autistic, she is also physically and mentally retarded, and may also have Tourette's Syndrome.

Autism is a disorder that does not change your appearance: most people diagnosed with autism look, in essence, exactly like the rest of us. Sue has severe facial distortion, and this is not usual in the standard autistic person.

Autism does not cause you to "do terrible, terrible things": the way she describes some of her behaviors make them sound more like Tourette's Syndrome (which, to those who don't know, does not just cause obscene language: it can cause a number of things)

Meanwhile, if she IS autistic, she's following for the oldest trick in the book. The electronic- vocalizer. Look at it again; notice how the "caregiver" moves the machine? The child doesn't really choose what they're hitting, they're just moving their finger forward. The caregiver just makes the child "say" whatever will make the most money.

I feel like this documentary is off on all counts of autism, and in order to define symptoms better CNN should not have used someone with multiple disorders. In the end, it leaves one misled about the symptoms of autism.

Thumbs-down.