Change Your Image
chrismcreynolds
Reviews
The Bernie Mac Show (2001)
A Top Quality, Classic Sitcom and soon to be a Legend
This is my favorite sitcom of all time, and one of the best written, best directed and best acted series of any kind on TV.
I will write a longer article at some later date explaining why I state this. Let me briefly just say that if you do not appreciate it, you have probably not seen it for long enough to appreciate it. It is hard for me to imagine who would not like it or what they would complain about. The few people that I "talk TV" with all love it, and TV (especially network) is not normally anything I would plan my life or even my day around. I don't know if that explains in any way why I think this show is among the best and an instant "classic" in every sense of the word. This show easily stands alongside any beloved series that has ever been broadcast in the US. (I only say that because I do think in general that some European countries aim a bit higher demographics and might have some shows that are better that I am unaware of). I find that is blends occasional over-the-top humor with a complex and rich story that seems to genuine to be fiction. Only the over-the-top humor functions to keep it from getting too emotional at times. They find humor (and really good humor) in a set of circumstances one would not expect it. They have also been able to develop the characters and the situations in perfect harmony with the age of the show and all of the children actors (in other words, no stupid season plot lines that are forced by cast changes or whatever). Today I saw Vanessa struggling with the difficulty she (her character) would feel with great expectations of her natural talent and intelligence, with the lagging insecurities that come with growing up with an uncle thousands of miles away from her mother and other circumstances she once lived with. They had Bernie trying to lead her with nuggets of wisdom and of course she could not help taking out her anxiety on Bernie, attacking him passively and at times more outwardly for trying to "control" her. This theme was harmonized by seeing Bernie doing similar things for Jordan, while Jordan faked gratitude to manipulate Bernie. For his efforts, Jordan scored a new "boombox" and then an iPod. In the end, when Vanessa finely saw (through the explanation provided by Wanda, that allowed her to see it was not pressure that moved Bernie, but utter confidence that she would succeed and merely playing his role the best (and perhaps the only) way he knew how. When Vanessa was allowed to see this, it relieved the pressure, and the writer's block and she chose to write about Bernie as the most influential person in her life (for her application to Stanford University). It was done really well all around, and it was one of those episodes that amazed my once I recovered from my temporary (it is still only TV) emotional immersion in the story. Maybe the fact that I have a son the exact same as an only child and a not so secret desire to have a daughter in addition to him, might make me more vulnerable to this kind of theme. I will remind you then that I would also notice more quickly if there were flaws in the writing. I am so picky, I am annoy myself at times and though I occasionally fail to get hooked on some episodes of the re-runs, today I was reminded just how brilliant enjoyable this show is.
Having said all this, there is still so much more I would want to say. I would love to sit with Bernie and ask him how much involvement he has with the writing. His character is clearly influenced by his comedy act. which may or may not be closely related to his social persona (while not "on" as the comedian).
King David (1985)
As others have said, this film is the worst in its class
The only defense anyone can claim for this project is that it was the first contemporary Biblical film using US actors and contriving to appeal to the broadest possible range (to sell tickets to). That is the only reason I can see for the awful hacks made to the authentic story that has since been done at least once with a far superior script and production in the mid 90s. It was produced with lessor known actors and the focus was instead on authenticity and I have no doubt in the end that far more people have paid to see the latter film in the theater or through video sales. I don't recall if it is called "King David" in the main title or simply "David" with a secondary title more specifically indicating the Biblical story.
I bought this film some time in the late 80s, when it was the only video I could find related to any Biblical story, other than "The Ten Commandments" and "Jesus of Nazareth" both of which are truly excellent films. Now that I have the newer version of David, I can't see any reason to take up any more shelf space, even though I already wasted my money on it and time watching it. That is how bad it is. I would feel guilty in playing it now that at least one far superior version in available the fate of this video will be that it is the sole video I have ever thrown in the garbage after determining it a liability with no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
Jacob (1994)
Very good and very accurate for a screenplay
There were not very many errors or even extra-biblical plot elements. I would guess that there are not more than a dozen films that are both widely available and as accurate as this one. Still there were a few odd things that made me wonder...like at the start of the film, Jacob is with "his grandfather"? How can this be? The last time we know for certain that both Isaac and Abraham were alive together was earlier in Genesis when Eliezer returns from finding a wide for Isaac.
Abraham must have died somewhere around the time either just before or just after the twins (Jacob and Esau) were born. In the film, Isaac and Abraham actually die within the same year, or possibly Isaac dies first! Well, that is trivial but my point and my concern is that when a film is as accurate as this it can lead some to learn incorrectly if they assume everything is accurate.
The things I like about this may also seem trivial, but they are plentiful and continue throughout the film. When Jacob has to flee to Laban's village, it takes several days. There was an interesting thing they added to the film that actually may be a logical addition from the story that we are not told. When Jacob leaves for Laban's, the Bible does tell us that Isaac sends him to take a wife. We are not told about a dowry and this is a very interesting mystery. Why? Now only is this a very important custom, but we also know that Abraham and Isaac were very very wealthy. None of the films I have seen even begin to show how much so. When Abraham went on an urgent mission to save Lot (before Sodom was destroyed) he had over 300 men with him that were on his payroll. That many people can watch over HUGE herds but even if they only had 10 animals to watch over per man, this is 3000 head of various animals. Heck, even if he hired a man for EACH ANIMAL, he still has a herd of 300. That is not super rich but certainly not poor. There is no way that anyone would expect to take a wife without a dowry unless his family was very very poor! Yet we have no idea why Jacob arrives without a dowry.
The film postulates that he did have a dowry but that he lost it on the way. This occurs when Jacob sees a man tracking him and fears either his brother or an assassin on his brother's behalf (it is a brother in-law of Esau) and Jacob hurries up a hill with his donkey holding him back. The dowry is packed on the donkey and falls off the hill down to where the assassin is chasing, who after all was most interested in killing him to steal the dowry. This made a lot of sense because I can't figure out any other reason why Jacob would show up without a dowry, knowing his sole purpose was to take a wife and the only other factor was yes, the timing was more urgent because of the fight with Esau.
Another thing I appreciated was a scene soon after he loses the dowry. In the Bible, there is a dream Jacob has about the ladder (known as "Jacob's ladder", and it is symbolic for Christ as the bridge that joins Heaven and earth). The digital effects that were used to depict this though not especially fancy, I thought they were just right in that they were beautiful without being too fancy or "showy" the way so many effects people in modern film seem to over-do their scenes at times. This was a beautiful shimmering golden ladder that came down to the stone lined path that Jacob was following until he laid down to sleep that evening.
The rest of the film was done just as well in following the Bible closer than most screenplays manage, even with a topic as important as the Bible. All of the actors handled several complex situations just right. I don't think I could improve on the screenplay without making it far more complicated so obviously that is unfair of me to expect anything better. The pace even seemed roughly the same as in the Bible in that they glossed over sections we don't know as much about and expanded really only when the detail was available with the only exception as I indicated (the dowry).
The only other way for me to rate this film higher would be for them to somehow make it more interesting, but them that is hypocrisy for me to ask for authenticity and entertainment! The story is what it is. I am rating it an outright 8 as a film and a 10 for a Biblical adaptation. I feel that the production values (the lighting, balance, score etc. things that are normally ignored by most unless they are annoyed by it) were also just right. I just realized that I saw a pack of I think 6 Bible film adaptations and they were all really excellent. It contained all of the best adaptations together, except for "Jesus of Nazareth" (which I have on VHS and is worth buying on its own). The 6-pack includes the story of Saul and David (either 2 separate films by era or probably originally a mini-series), I think it does contain the classic film from the '50s, "The 10 Commandments" (some consider it the best Bible adaptation of all but I think several from this 6-pack are better) and if I find the site I will post comments again. It looks really worth owning.
I don't want to set anyone's expectations too high.. As I have said, this is not the most interesting story to some people but if you go in to it with that in mind I think you will be pleasantly surprised.
Close to Home (2005)
Good o very good actors and actresses with very poor writers
I really wanted to like this series. I normally would since there is quite a bit to like about it. At first when I found so many problems, I kept thinking that it was me who was not paying close enough attention. Within a few weeks (of giving it another shot each week after watching the pilot) I finally decided that its weak writing was not from my missing something or that they ran out of creative ideas. The whole style of this show is intentionally written for a demographic that knows very little about the technical and legal issues in "th real world" and unfortunately this also includes anyone that has made it through more than a few CSI and or Law and Order shows. In short, this show is for viewers weaning off of daytime soaps and it perhaps watching this series in preparation for understanding Law and Order, SVU (the least realistic L & O variant).
It really is sad because the cast is really excellent. They also get some strong (some times too strong, or strong in the wrong areas) to play defense attorneys).
The show seems to intentionally open with the 1) The same suburban setting with a small town DA that works closely with the staff of 2 gorgeous young ADAs. On the other hand, there seems to be a huge detective division for such a small DAs office. That is complete knit picking to show how forgiving I am. The stories always start out with outrageous "Urban" crimes happening "Close to (Suburban) Home(s)" Get it? OK, so the case always looks like a "cakewalk" for the ADA staff in the first 10 or 15 minutes of the show. After that the case falls apart because of one unrealistic "problem with the case" or another. These problems are always stupid and seen from a thousand miles away. This goes back and forth for the about next 30 minutes.
By the time the clock gets close to 45 or 50 past the hour, the resolution can be seen easily and the show always concludes with several minutes of the young ADA at home in the 'burbs with her new baby and young husband contemplating the lesson.
The worst part is that at the end of the first season (a few weeks ago) the star of the show arrived home to find her husband (and I think her baby too) killed from a car wreck or a fire. Normally I would not be so uncaring about the details but I had already given up on the series. I really like the cast though and there is nothing else on TV at the time so I watch it while surfing the web some times.
If you have also seen this show and wondered what it was that was bothering you, it is not you. It is the show's writers. They suck intentionally.
Joni (1979)
This is a "must see" for patients and even more so for their families
I some times wish I had Joni's health, because life is all about expectations and she exceeds the expectations of all of those around her and fortunately her own (after an adjustment period).
What is critical is that (according to this story) she has full support from friends and family. I promise you this is often not the case. Often what happens is the lay person has their own expectations based on naiveté. In my case, my drive to restore function to my permanent injuries only makes my family wonder why I can't get double the results. You see my point? Their expectations are always going to be more than what I achieve. My drive and hard work to them only proved that it was not so bad in the first place. I am not not all people are like that but I fear that most are. I try to speak out for others that are treated unfairly and it is too humiliating to defend my own strengths. I have been considering a book for my story but my humble sense of self makes me prefer to point to Joni's story as a triumph. My story would sound like an attack on my family but they are probably just typical. Joni is sensational and I can see that without her family there for her in the first years the story would have been 10,000 times more tragic.
Please consider watching and or reading this if anyone in your family suffers any permanent disability.
In the Beginning (2000)
Not worth the time to watch, choose much better films that are accurate
I rate this film as just above awful. To those that approve of this film, they rationalize by stating that there is no real way to know if the Bible is more accurate than this film. If that is the case, then the whole point of worship is a waste of time (if you don't even trust the Bible to convey the stories accurately). There are a number of films that cover the same period with much closer accuracy. There is the film called "Jacob" with Mathew Modine that is superb, including each important detail from the Bible (the only authentic source) and it even manages to show the dream of "Jacob's Latter" in a scene that seems to me as completely possible as authentic. The acting of each character is absolutely superb whereas this film deviates so much that one would not possibly understand much of the story if they rely on this film. It is sad because it not only suffered from too much "compression" (which is some times a legitimate decision) but it replaces the actual Biblical dialogue with its own similar but very misleading telling of the stories. There is a series of 5 films produced by TNT that is infinitely superior and can be purchased as a set. Please do not ever use this film as a primary source for understanding these books from the Bible. The script was obviously written by a non-believer with the idea that the Bible can't be trusted anyway, so why not take liberties like so many other American adaptations? The end result is at times blasphemous.
The Little Kidnappers (1990)
Terrible WASTE of time!!!!
The plot is so manipulative, counting completely on the most uncredible and unthinkable decisions of the adults in each and every parenting decision. The children are super as far as charm and delivery of the lines but as I say, the whole plot depends on each and every adult being complete idiots, and therefore in THAT case, making more sense out of their actions (and at the same time being the only way to explain the boys actions of total mistrust). Why would sweey charming little boys take a baby from the shore? How did the baby get to the shore and at the same time account for it being the LAST place to be searched? Why would the 2 boys NEVER be informed an instead at the same time a baby is missing nobody gives a fig about them running around with food and diapers with all that commotion going on and literally every other place it searched? There is just no possible justification to ask the audience to believe this. Asking to believe it would then do to trial (even the informal setting) is too insulting to bare.
Jesus (1999)
Why add my comment as number 71?
I was going to be a little harsh about the style but the more I read the defender's comments the more I realized how important any telling of this most important story is. That comment alone can seem like hyperbole, but what other film can influence a decision that is most likely going to effect your afterlife? Seriously when you assume that each film telling is going to be not a reinforcement of the Gospels but rather a filling in. The difference is that this movie deviated from the Bible, but in doing so may not cause as much damage is claimed and if it creates any interest at all in finding out "how accurate" (I am assuming that most people will not see this is a replacement of the Gospels, but ultimately any discussion about Jesus allows others to draw in to the accurate truth. If that is what happens, then I am sure this film will save more than it loses. There is no question about that and isn't that justification enough? TO know absolutely that more people will be saved and possibly fewer and possibly nobody will be lost because of this film.
So what are my critiques? This film uses Hollywood style at times in annoying ways. It could have and perhaps should have used more characters to use to tell information that in the Gospels is either from different characters than the film, or from unknown characters. Having Joseph explain that Matthew is a tax collector involves 2 characters that almost certainly never said what they did in this film. Worse, using Joseph (and following a Hollywood technique that is annoying whether or not it is noticed is drawing the story in to a limited number of characters to make the story and places involved almost seem smaller than they were. They do this to make you care more about fewer people. This is assumed to be the only way you can be "moved emotionally" because all of whatever is shown happening only ever involved maybe 20 people. That is the worst thing I can say.
However, the special effects remind us (while never fooling us) about how powerful a vision can feel. Only film can do that. Many argue that is precisely why film should never be used. Maybe they are right, but maybe this generation has grown up being drawn in by such techniques and films like Star Wars draw them in more than stories at the church. If this film save even a few lost to Star Wars, would it then be worth it? I loved the Satanic fantasies, those are worth the cost. Are they not?
Kingdom of Heaven (2005)
Oh my, not exactly a docu-drama!
Fair warning to anyone that knows even the slightest bit of history, you will be frustrated by this film. The writers seemed to know so very little the actual events.
It makes me sad to even think about how bad this film turned out. I had really hoped for a great film. The history could have really inspired a great story to focus on. Building it on the Bloom character was a terrible mistake. I guess they made it work with "The Gladiator" but in that fictional account; there was a lot more time allowed for the character to develop. Here, Bloom's character would have needed a decade or more to realistically to go from the son of a Knight to a leader capable of pulling together the troops he commanded defending the city. It was a bit silly.
Still, if you expect something like the film "King Arthur's Court" you might enjoy the beautiful cinematography and costumes.
Hulk (2003)
Don't do it! Don't waste your time or money on this garbage!
There are a few comments here that indicate this film is very poor. I don't think it is possible to state just how bad this film is. Let's just say that if you decide to suspend reality for a bit in order to enjoy the film (as we all do at times for film), you will start to think very quickly in this film that the stupidity of those characters that are supposed to be thinking logically will leave you with no interest at all in what happens to any of them. The Hulk can jump higher and farther than any military vehicle within range of striking him, so why do they stupidly cruise in to take their shot as if nobody briefed them on their target? There are constantly people doing the most idiotic things, and as I said, you just wish for it to end (the film) so that you can groan for one last time about how awful it is, and then get on with your life. Thank God I did not spend any money on this film and I only watched the whole thing so that I could be sure about my opinion.
One last thought. I was thinking about the production of films like this, and I realized that many of the actors would have had no idea what the film would be like under long after they contributed their parts (acting in front of green screens and such so that the CGI can be laid down long afterwards). Given that, can you imagine how some of these actors must have felt when viewing this for the first time? I am sure their expectations were that this film would be the quality of Superman, or some other comic book inspired film with today's amazing computer graphics that are available. If I had my name associated with this crap and only found out about it post-production, I am sure I would write an open letter as an apology to any fans that may have seen the film. Really, it is *THAT* bad!
Scenes of the Crime (2001)
Don' forget this story is essentially true
It seems a lot of you missed the point about the dramatic (or anti-climactic ending). Yes, they could have left some of the clues out but then you would have felt manipulated. I thought that the balance between tension and suspense was good considering the what they wanted to show in terms of what actually happened. Nobody knew why they parked where they did, but the dead man was going to see his father, and nobody else knew why they were there or where the man's father was.
Watch the film and appreciate it for what it is. The smartest guy does not always win. Jimmy was too bold and his luck ran out. If not, I have no doubts that he could have turned this whole thing in to a win for him.
It does make it more interesting knowing that this is based on a true story.