Victim_Of_Fate Reviews

Fillmore! (2002–2004)

Fantastic Show, But Who's It For?

[7/10 · 26 April 2006]

Disney's Fillmore! is a wonderfully written cartoon series, spoofing the 70s cop show genre. Set in X Middle School, the show's main character is Cornelius Fillmore - a former juvenile delinquent turned safety patroller. Fillmore is ably assisted by his partner Ingrid Third, a sardonic genius with an eidetic memory. The show slyly pastiches all manner of generic clichés: the duo ultimately report into school principal Folsom, a politician-type obsessed with her own image; Fillmore himself is the maverick detective, who breaks the rules to get what's done, while Third is his rational, Scully-esquire partner. And the movie and cultural references flow thick and fast - in one episode Fillmore and Third rely on help from a Hannibal Lecter-like graffiti artist. In another, they go undercover to infiltrate a scooter-thief gang with a task very similar to Gone In 60 Seconds.

Fillmore! only lasted two seasons before cancellation, and while the quality of the show is apparent, it is also easy to see why it didn't get renewed. This is a kids show, but the best aspects of the writing are probably too obscure to hit their targets, many of who will not even be aware that the show is supposed to be a spoof. As an adult, it is easy to appreciate the subtle humour, but the show isn't mature enough to appeal fully to adults.

The Simpsons (1989– )

All-time classic

[10/10 · 11 April 2002]

In my humble opinion,

The Simpsons is the best animated series ever written.

The Simpsons is the best situation comedy series ever written.

The Simpsons is the show which has had the most cultural impact worldwide during the last two decades.

The Simpsons is the only serial which has managed to remain of a consistently high quality for thirteen years and counting.

The Simpsons is by far and away the best example of a sitcom which amuses, and appeals to, many different people on many different levels.

The Simpsons has produced the highest number of beloved characters of any sitcom, extending way beyond those central to the show.

The Simpsons is the best television show ever made.

Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps (2001–2011)

How did it all go so wrong?

[8 April 2002]

I was fifteen when "Hollyoaks" first reared its painfully unimpressive head. The thing that disappointed me most about that terrible show was that it had so much potential. "Two Pints... ", another waste of a good concept, has in its cast two actors from that show - Natalie Casey and Will Mellor, both acted as comic relief in "Hollyoaks".

The episode I saw today featured Janet (Sheridan Smith) thinking about becoming a student. I was watching, getting annoyed at the portrayal of students as ridiculously upper-class muppets, when somebody asked Janet if she knew what an NVQ was. "Not Very Qualified?" interrupted Donna (Natalie Casey). That isn't simply a poor joke. That is a poor joke which I have heard used to describe NVQs since I was sixteen. And they stole it from common use and slapped it in the middle of a sitcom as if they wrote it - and it was still the best line in the show.

The nadir of the episode came at the end (yes, it was downhill all the way). Donna had spent the episode trying to prove that she could remain calm in the face of any provocation. By the end, Donna and Gaz (Mellor), her boyfriend, were walking by a canal, while she tried to remain calm as he admitted to trying to cheat on her, and recommended she dress more sleazily. Wouldn't you know it, she pushed him in the canal! Did the writers actually sit around thinking "I know, what if she pushes him in - they won't be expecting that!" It was one of the laziest punchlines I've ever seen.

Yet I'll carry on watching "Two Pints... ", because part of me still hopes that one day they'll write a good episode, and that the post-school, pre-"adult" demographic will have found a voice.

Sex and the City (1998–2004)

Not terrible, but totally overrated

[5/10 · 8 April 2002]

Sex and the City seems to have gained a reputation as one of the top sitcoms on TV. It's average, but I fail to see what makes it brilliant. The show's champions have claimed that it breaks taboos in situation comedy by featuring women in frank and honest conversation, but surely this is only a half-truth.

The show is about four rich, 'trendy' New Yorkers, and their relationships. They eat at expensive restaurants, criticize men, and make mistakes in their lives every week. Let's take this situation, and reverse it so that we have a show about four rich, 'trendy' guys living in New York, screwing around, whining about how they'll never fall in love, etc, etc.

Nobody would watch. Women would accuse it of being misogynistic, men would simply loathe the way 'men' are being portrayed. The fact that women seem to be supporting the show in droves (I refer here to women that I know, sorry to generalise) suggests that one of two thing is occurring. Either they actually empathise with (or worse, aspire to be like) the character in the show, or they are supporting the show because it is all they have.

If the former is the case, then I feel that this is blatant hypocrisy - if the sure were about men it would be a laughing stock, and unrealistic to boot. If the latter is true, then there is no reason for it to be lauded with praise. Just because a show operates in a niche market, it is not necessarily good.

One last thing - I presume that Carrie's voice-overs are supposed to be the text of her weekly opinion column. Does anyone else wonder how she manages to keep her job when she is such a mediocre writer?

A Time to Kill (1996)

Insulting

[1/10 · 8 March 2000]

Regardless of whether the predominant social message of this film - that vigilante justice is acceptable - is justifiable, I was more insulted by McConaughey's closing statement. In a courtroom drama, the closing statement of the defence attorney is pretty much the crux of the film, and when the issue is as difficult to resolve as this one, the statement is really being delivered to the audience as well as the jury. This basically implies that the audience consider the rape of a white girl to be a more horrific crime than the rape of a black girl. I for one find this very insulting. As for the rest, I found the acting reasonable, with the exception of Sandra Bullock, who seems to be playing her usual bubbly self (doesn't really work in a courtroom drama), but what's the point when the film's message is as poor as this one. It tells you that vigilante justice is fine, and accuses you of racism if you disagree.