owen_edwards Reviews

The Constant Gardener (2005)

A powerful but flawed thriller

[8/10 · 23 August 2007]

This film, as with all adaptations, deserves and requires two reviews. One for its innate quality, and one for the quality of its adaptation.

As to its innate quality - it is a reasonably-crafted film, with intuitive and sensitive direction and good performances all round. That is all, really; too many characters feel a little rushed and two-dimensional.

Take, for instance, Donohue. An intriguing character ends up saying he is changing his ways as he's about to die of cancer. Or how about Lorbeer; a character written as a plot point, so lifeless that an enthusiastic performance by Pete Postlethwaite falls flat.

"Rafe" Fiennes and Rachael Weisz give beautiful lead performances, especially Fiennes, and they have strong support from Danny Huston and Richard McCabe. The aforementioned scripting issues foil other promising performances.

So it is a reasonable thriller, sensitive and intelligent. But it is not all it could be - in part due to a shoddy adaptation.

The screenplay skilfully contracts some sequences not conducive to the movie format (Ham's legal background provides a shady passport instead of betrayed detectives; his son Guido replaces another Guido far away on Elba; and most impressively, THAT epistle), but completely fluffs up one of the two foundations of the book - an ensemble of three-dimensional characters.

Take, for instance, Donohue. During a row with Kenny K, his inner monologue recalls his wife and he helping a starter football league in the slums; and how he reflected now that he wished he'd done more of that, and less of what he does. That is easily transposed in place of the cancer drivel, and builds up the old spook as a wild bundle of emotions and memories and dreams (as we all are) rather than a desperate cipher.

Whilst Justin's Odyseyy does encompass four countries, the excision of its Canadian leg removes one of the keys to the character of Lorbeer; and without that strong, believable character, the key confrontation loses a lot of its energy.

There is no need to continue comparing the book and the film; but given the material, and the number of mistakes made with characters, where a more faithful adaptation might have been in order, one cannot help but feel a little disappointed, on both of the reviewing criteria.

Life on a Stick (2005)

Evidently graduate meta humour works for me, because this rocks!

[23 February 2006]

I love this show. Amy Yasbeck and Matthew Glave turn in solid performances as the parents, Rachelle LaFevre is a decent female lead, Charlie Finn is a funny sidekick, Maz Jobrani is a hilarious supporting actor as Mr Hut, and Zachary Knighton and Paige Thompson are brilliant stepsiblings.

The lines are brilliant, and Laz (Knighton) and Molly (Thompson) are easy to care about. This is a funny, sympathetic show that shows what a not-quite-adult comedy should be like. People compliment That 70s Show and Saved By The Bell as the apogee of that genre, but, especially for a show only having had one season, this blows them away.

If the humour is graduate meta humour, so be it, I loved this show. Very, very, VERY impressive.

Toys (1992)

A Classic - just don't over-analyze

[8/10 · 26 February 2005]

Oh dear, a modern film has a slightly clichéd central moral. As some other commentators on this film have pointed out, that's not really the point. The design, the surrealism, the music, and the performances from a few of the leads, those are the points, those are the correct foci. Don't try to look deeply at everything.

Who can deny the magnificence of the doomed charge of the clockwork toys; the hilarious yet strangely moving speech by Williams before it; Cusack's wonderfully nutty yet tragic performance; Cuba Gooding's intelligent performance; Williams' brilliant ad libbing; the set design; the music; and many others?

And if we really must look deeply at the screenplay, at the morals, how about the following two points:

*The question of Gooding's colour is never answered, not posed within the film itself. We pose it ourself, and it leads down interesting roads in the mind (I believe this whole issue was something noted by Levinstein in the pre-pro notes).

*The acceptance we must grow up eventually, but the argument that we may still retain some of our innocence, some of our joy. Lesley (Williams) had to accept that not all things have a truly peaceful solution, but will not fight back violently; he will fight, yes, but on his terms, in his way. Those references to Gandhi weren't just for comedy value.

Beethoven's 5th (2003 Video)

Solid enough

[6/10 · 28 December 2004]

Odd, I really didn't mind this, as so many people seem to have. It was no great shakes, certainly, but it was perfectly pleasant viewing. Daveigh Chase, as usual, was promising, and the plot was perfectly usable. Not a classic, but not some 0/10 shocker, not to the target audience.

Your average 6 or 7 year old will like this. And that's what matters, surely? I think some of the people commenting on this have managed to confuse themselves as to the purpose of the film. So...yeah...just stop it.

6/10

Fillmore! (2002–2004)

Great fun

[10 June 2004]

Disney have built a reputation of making good cartoons, ever since Steamboat Willy, via the Jungle Book and then to the Lion King. But it's the TV cartoon series at which they excel: Recess, Lloyd in Space, Dave the Barbarian, Kim Possible, House of Mouse...all made in recent years. Fillmore deserves to be in the same list.

As a wonderful satire on hard boiled detective series, with the "government" (in this case, the principal) constantly threatening budget cuts if crimes aren't solved, this is great fun. The interesting thing is that Fillmore takes more after Agatha Christie than Law & Order - it's a show of twists and turns, with the least obvious suspect turning out, at the very end, to be the one behind the model train crash or whatever.

Due to time constraints - 20 rather than 45 minutes, for instance - it can't go into the same detail on either the cases or the supporting detectives. But the writers do an admirable job of having an interesting support cast: Officer O'Farrell, Jr Commissioner Vallejo and Principal Folsom are all fun little sketches of characters, though Tahama and Anza are pretty much Kirk's redshirts.

As for the leads, both are perfectly usable and are given some great lines. The voice acting is excellent from everybody, and this truly deserves a long run.

What I Like About You (2002–2006)

A mixture of traditional fare and brilliant acting

[21 September 2003]

The premise and scripting of WILABT are both reasonable, and compared to many comedies out there, they're excellent. However, by the standards of Friends, Everybody Loves Raymond and Frasier, this is a distinctly average show.

What makes me watch it every time it's on are Amanda Bynes and Wesley Jonathon. Jonathon is a great character actor, and livens up what could be a dull character (the "Best Friend"). The part of Henry is excellently written, which surprised me, as the Val and Jeff characters are both weak.

But as I said above, Amanda Bynes makes this a good show. Easily the most talented teen on television, and in the top 10, whatever age, of current times, she's a great asset to the show. Rubber faced, with what could be described as a "beauty in repose", she takes a part that's been poorly-written, with physical humour that could easily look horrible, and makes it funny.

What America may have found here is a true star - not a mildly talented actress like Lindsay Lohan who has the scripting to make her a star, or a "piece of ass" (to quote one critic) like Hillary Duff...but a true superstar. Long make she reign as Queen of Teens.

So Little Time (2001–2002)

Equally Blessed and Cursed

[31 January 2003]

I have to say, I'm a fan of the Olsens. They can act. However, the scripts give little width for them to develop.

SLT was so promising. However, after a while, it started to recycyle and steal ideas. The parents storyline got dull quick. Taylor Negron disappointed. I was impressed with Jesse Head, but the other guy characters were nearly always incredibly dull.

I think MK & A have reached a point where branching out into solo roles is the only real course. I also think they need to do some drama.

One last thought: Do we watch shows because they're realistic? No. E.R. is good because it speeds things up. If we watched a "realistic" show, we'd all be bored out of our brains. That's why there's tasks and twists in reality TV shows like Survivor and Big Brother.

Then again, if the twins had ben guys, thinking about girls, girls, girls would have been about right.