bill_garrett Reviews

The Tuxedo (2002)

This tuxedo is barely worth renting

[3/10 · 25 March 2003]

This movie is occasionally funny if you don't get bogged down in trying to figure out the plot holes. Jennifer Love Hewitt is attractive and charming, but absolutely nothing her character does makes sense. Is she a secret agent, a secret double agent, or a secret triple agent? Does she have a sly sense of humor or is she merely tolerating someone else's sexist humor? Is she a skilled martial combatant or an incredible lucky newbie? The script never makes any of this clear. It's like this movie was written to make her look stupid (attractive, but stupid).

Jackie Chan's moves are entertaining, but as an action flick this is probably one of his worst. The problem is that in the story he's wearing a near-magical tuxedo that gives him superhuman powers. Instead of knowing that everything you see is Jackie busting his butt doing his own stunts, you're watching special effects ginned up with wires, blue screen, and computer enhancement. It's more like watching a Superman movie than a Jackie Chan flick.

Overall I'd give this movie a 3/10. Watching it is better than doing nothing for 90 minutes, as long as you're not paying much for the privilege.

Monk: Mr. Monk and the Candidate (2002) Season 1, Episode 1

Like its title character, the show is good but has problems

[7/10 · 15 August 2002]

"Monk" is a decent new TV show. The title character is a former police detective who suffers from obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). At first I was worried that the show would milk his OCD too much for humor value and make it a mean spirited run-on joke, or that it would become too sappy with fawning sympathy for him. Thankfully, the show's writers and director have found a good middle path combining human dignity with enough humorous situations to keep it fresh and upbeat. The characters are fairly good, with two exceptions: the police chief's assistant and the weekly villains. The assistant is one-dimensional as a dunce. He's the sort of character who's funny once but unbelievable and annoying as a regular role. The weekly villains often engage too much in chewing the scenery. It's like watching Scooby Doo, where at the end the apprehended bad guy always sneers, "And I would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for this crazy guy and his sexy nurse!"

The aspect of the show that's weakest in my opinion is its believability as a police procedural. Yes, I know this is character drama and not another spinoff from the Law & Order franchise, but I did see an interview with the show's creator where he said that one of the main goals of this show is to function as a clue-finding whodunnit, much like a Sherlock Holmes story. In that respect I have difficulty believing Monk's abilities. His astute eye for detail, I'll accept as a combination of him being a smart guy, a trained detective, and an OCD sufferer. But his encyclopedic knowledge of seemingly every topic that comes up in the course of evaluating evidence, I can't swallow. In addition, that preternatural genius removes some of the plot buildup. There's no increasing tension as Monk puts in legwork or research time figuring things out; he just has to see all the clues and, Bam!, he's got the answer.

On the whole, Monk is a good show. It's definitely above average for network and cable TV series. But I'm a very picky viewer (I currently watch about 5 hours/week), and after watching several episodes I find the show's shortfalls put it right at the borderline between what I think is worth watching and what is not.

Die Hard (1988)

A great action thriller with snappy dialogue

[14 August 2002]

Die Hard is a great action/thriller movie. Presumed terrorists take over a Los Angeles high rise and hold 30 hostages inside. The plot is solid, with enough developments to set it apart from run-of-the-mill action flicks. Everyone's locked inside the building, adding enough tension to make it a real thriller. But the element that makes this movie a classic of the genre and a real must-see is the witty dialogue. Bruce Willis and Alan Rickman, the hero and the villain, trade a constant barrage of verbal barbs with each other and with the minor characters throughout. It's worth watching for that alone.

The Shield (2002–2008)

Best new series on TV

[17 June 2002]

"The Shield" is an amazing, hard-hitting police drama that I think is the best new TV series in a while.

It's not for everyone, though. There's foul language, violence, drug use, nudity, homosexuality, and (of course) police corruption. Some people claim these are reasons to avoid the show. If we're talking about steering children away from it, I agree. This is not a show for young children at all, and adolescents should watch it only with parental guidance. It covers adult themes without presenting their morality in strict black and white.

For those of us in TV land who are adults, these mature themes are what makes the show so gritty and realistic. Out in the real world, people buy and use drugs. They use bad language. They engage in sexual behavior that would make a Catholic bishop blush (yes, even in 2002). And real world police organizations have bad elements. Look at the Rampart scandal in LA, the Oakland Riders, the guys who sodomized Abner Luima in NYC, the Fed in Boston who was tipping off the mob, and scandals in plenty of other major cities. The show doesn't glorify any of these ills, but it also doesn't outright condemn them. It assumes we viewers are mature enough to judge for ourselves. Finally, a show that's not afraid to confront head-on these issues of daily life instead of sanitizing them for prime time network audiences!

Having addressed that, let me move on to some of the technical aspects of the show.

"The Shield" is done in the vein of many other police dramas, especially "Homicide: Life on the Streets". It's slightly more episodic than "Homicide", though, with each program introducing, developing, and completing its own plot. Threads of the master plot tie all the episodes together, and characters are developed through smaller subplots.

The pilot episode introduces too many characters. The directors wisely tighten up the story to focus on its essential characters in the later installations. For example, the first episode shows at least a dozen different uniformed officers and detectives. After the second episode, if uniformed officers are part of the story, it's Danny and Julien. If detectives are needed, it's Dutch and Wyms.

At first I had trouble believing Michael Chiklis as a hard-boiled dirty cop. I suppose I'm too familiar with his softy cop character from "The Commish." In the pilot episode of "The Shield" he seemed like a nice guy pretending to be a bad guy. As the series has progressed I've found him much more believable. Whether that's more because he's settled into the character or I've gotten over thinking of him as "The Commish", I'm not sure.

Bottom line, this is an amazing series. I eagerly awaited each episode and watched several of them twice. I lost count of how many times I said to myself, "I can't believe they showed that on TV!" Here, finally, is a show that competes with the grittiest best from HBO and the big screen.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

Quite simply the best movie I've ever seen!

[10/10 · 17 June 2002]

Peter Jackson's interpretation of the classic "The Fellowship of the Rings" is, quite simply, the best movie I have ever seen. It hits the high water mark in every respect: Lifelike characters act out the full range of human emotions in an engrossing epic storyline set against a sweeping and beautifully filmed landscape.

With the storyline and characters coming from a true classic, it should be little surprise they are as good as they are. But let's give credit where credit is due. Unlike too many modern directors who treat classic sources as mere "rough drafts" that need extensive reworking to have any appeal, Jackson thankfully stays true to Tolkien's material. He and his cast show their skill in being able to transfer a full length novel to a 3 hour movie without giving up any of the flavor or power of the original. I've watched it twice and both times I've been completely absorbed, my emotions soaring and diving with the characters and the plot.

I know it seems cheap and easy to dub a movie the best of all time (attention-hungry film critics seem to do it every other week) but, believe me, it's not a statement I make lightly. There is only a short list of other films I would consider 10 stars out of 10 -- mostly films which defined a genre, like "Casablanca", "The Godfather", "E.T.", "Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark", and (more recently) "Pulp Fiction" and "The Matrix". But "Fellowship of the Rings" is the one movie of these I would gladly give 11 stars.