Change Your Image
deeell
Reviews
Phil of the Future (2004)
The last great Disney Channel sitcom
After Disney's glory days of Even Stevens and Lizzie McGuire, the network was filled with laugh track-ridden cheap-laughs sitcoms and cheesy animations, until Phil of the Future came along. It's funny, smartly-written (for the most part) and recycles a lot of elements from "Lizzie", which is by no means a bad thing.
Pros:
- Single-camera setup allows for better angles, diverse settings and visual effects. - No laugh track means they actually have to make the audience themselves understand the comedy, which they succeed at. - Some funny visuals and gags, and nicely-done (mostly) sound effects. - Plots are funny, with a nice combination of realism and over-the-top comedy. - The parents act like real parents, and the father isn't stereotypically clueless.
Cons:
- Phil's plot and Pim's subplot often don't go together very well. They are in themselves pretty good but it would've been nice if they had come together in some way at the end of the episodes. - The main cast of characters is pretty small. - The secondary cast lineup is even smaller. The characters we see most are Mr. Hackett, Curtis, Danny Dawkins and Debbie Berwick. None of those characters appear in more than a dozen or so episodes. - Due to the fairly weak character lineup, there aren't a lot of character-driven story lines and the characters don't develop very much throughout the series. - Sound effects are sometimes over-the-top and are occasionally obtrusive. - The second season tends to fall on the drama side a bit (at least, as much as is possible given the weak character development), and it doesn't always go well with the comedy. - What kind of public school has its own broadcast lab and CCTV network?
Notes:
- I personally liked the cliffhanger ending, but of course it would've been nice to know what happened after. - The show's presentation style (visual and sound effects, running gags and motifs, etc) is very similar to that of Lizzie McGuire. Some props from Lizzie's school are even reused in Phil's (various posters). - I'm surprised that this show doesn't have any licensed music, instead, playing generic music or an instrumental rendition of the theme song in places where there would generally be singing music. A lot of other single-camera sitcoms like "Lizzie" and Malcolm in the Middle have a wide variety of licensed songs. But maybe the licensing fees were beyond their budget. - This is a comedy show, and it's meant to be funny! Getting that job done, and still maintaining some sense of realism, deserves praise indeed.
Alley Cats Strike (2000)
OK, but horrible portrayal of bowling
I guess this movie didn't aim to perfectly accurately portray the sport of bowling, but seriously, it could've done a lot better. I did like the school scenes, as they're totally on the spot. Students just don't see bowling as a sport anymore. After watching the bowling scenes, I'm thinking "no wonder competitive bowling gets so little acknowledgment! This movie is totally unrealistic!" Instead of giving in to demands from young people, they should be marketing bowling at its most professional level, to draw people in THAT direction, and not vice versa. That's the only way to make seriously bowlers, which will do a lot of good for this declining sport. If they had shown that bowling takes a lot of finesse and skill, and endurance and consistency, then maybe those schoolkids would accept it more from the beginning. Instead all it talks about is modernizing, and making it "fun". Putting laser lights and fog machines and loud music undermines the integrity of "real" bowling. I sure wouldn't go there!
Freaky Friday (2003)
Surprising decent
When I looked at the TV listings last week and saw this movie come up, I wasn't in the least bit interested. After all, it was a Disney movie, so I just wrote it off as being another one of those "family" films which only the youngest of children may enjoy. When I was watching TV that night, I happened to stumble upon that movie, which was just starting. My brother really wanted to watch it, o I gave in and resigned to watching one and a half hours of Disney clichés and other crap. Or so I thought.
When I watched the first twenty minutes of the movie, before they made the switch, the first thing I thought was that even if everything else didn't go too well, at least the acting by both lead and supporting actors was very commendable. They were convincing, and suited well for their respective roles. It was realistic, nothing over-the-top as with many comedies nowadays. After they switched, Lohan settled well into the role of the mature mother, though Curtis was a bit silly in her acting as Anna. It made her seem like she was much younger than the 15 to 17-year-old she was supposed to be. However, this was pretty much negligible, and even contributed to some of the humor in this story.
The plot was generally well-done, though obviously there were some errors in logic which were necessary to carry it forward. For example, the actions of Anna in Tess's body (canceling the caterer, getting the earring and haircut, her "career-killing TV appearance", etc) had no effect on the outcome of this story. It would have been nice if, just before they switched back, Anna in Tess's body made everything right again (especially the TV appearance, which was the only one that actually will have a long-term effect on Tess's life). Overall, though, the plot was well done with few holes and was very well executed.
What I am most surprised at, however, is how the director managed to incorporate some dramatic elements, giving this a somewhat serious feeling suitable for older audiences, yet still bring out so much humor. I have heard of people watching it and switching from laughing and crying between scenes. This movie, besides its intended comedy genre, can easily be classified as a drama.
So I was wrong about my prediction of the movie. By the end, I had enjoyed it so much that I went out and bought the DVD. Don't let its producers and name fool you, this is definitely worth seeing.
In the DVD the director talks about a sequel, and several websites mentioned that it might happen. And it was, but by now (end of 2008) that just doesn't seem like a possibility anymore. With movies that involve kids, they have to make a sequel within a couple of years otherwise the kid actor would be too old (though Lethal Weapon's story spanned ten years and the children matured appropriately). The only way would be to get a whole new cast, which takes out most of the value of a sequel. But if they keep this up, I wouldn't mind them doing one more remake. Or channel their talent to making more of these great family movies.
Highly recommended, 7.5/10
Freedom Writers (2007)
Good
This movie moved me, and really did make me cry. however, i felt that it could have been a lot better. It reminded me of Mr. Holland's Opus, and the two stories are very similar, but Dreyfuss's character instead uses music, rather than writing, to inspire his students. Freedom Writer's story is a wonderful one. There's nothing more emotional than seeing a group of African-American gang and ghetto teens transform into critical thinkers, bond with each other, and see a world of hope outside gang life. However, unfortunately, I have to say that Mr. Holland's Opus was the better movie. Holland taught for 30 years, and went on to see tremendous success in some of his students (governor, school board official, soldier, etc). In this one, Gruwell's story ends immediately as the kids go into their junior year, and she herself left the high school only after several years (when her freshman class graduated). True, the real person did that, but movies are meant to bend and alter real-life events, right? The movie ended very suddenly, without any explanation other than the fact that she was allowed to teach the students in their junior year, and that most of them went to college afterwards. What did they do at college? Drop out? Graduate with top honors? A little section depicting their adult life would have been nice, as in Mr. Holland's Opus.
Overall, this isn't a film to be missed. It has a great story, and, though a bit short and has its drawbacks, is definitely worth watching.
A Wrinkle in Time (2003)
Terrible adaptation of book, but not too bad in itself
In staying true to the book, this movie gets a 2. I have read a Wrinkle in Time and went over the text several times, and I noticed many differences between the book and the movie, some being extremely obvious. They even changed the names of the characters: in the book An Acceptable Time (1989), the scientists' first names are revealed to be Alex and Kate Murry. Also, the time period is noticeably different (with Mrs. Murry The filmmakers obviously did not take that into consideration. There're more differences, way too much to list here. If you haven't read the book yet, you can find this to be worthy of watching, but if you have, don't bother; it'll ruin everything good that you got from the book.
The Day After Tomorrow (2004)
good, but could have been a lot better
First, let me clarify some things: some people asked: why didn't sam and JD stay in the apartment? well, sam was anxious to get home, but planes were grounded and train lines were flooded, so he accepted a ride to philadelphia so he can catch the train there, to washington.
libraries are often chosen as evacuation centers due to their size and height above sea level, and so are stocked with emergency supplies out of reach of floodwaters. this is why sam and JD went there after it was clear that car's weren't going to be able to navigate the clogged and flooded streets.
now, the plot holes and mistakes: in a major event like that, sam should have been smart enough to get home as soon as the competition was over, instead of waiting a day like he did. even if he did do some sightseeing, he could have taken a train that night, or told JD about the upcoming storm (surely, it would have been on front page headlines, or the internet) and get a ride south then, or even have rented a car to drive down himself.
just because the power's out doesn't mean the traffic has to snarl up. hadn't they heard of four-way stops?? they could have burned the chairs and tables in the library, but many people have already pointed this out, so i'm not going to go into details.
sam WAS correct about the phones being powered directly from the phone lines, but that is only the case with regular phones. pay-phones need external power (which is not available at the time) to operate the credit-card machine, the coin taker, the digital display, etc. without it, the pay-phones won't work.
Jack comments on global warming and is against it, yet he still drives a heavy-duty Dodge pickup truck. i know what you're thoughts are, that he has to cause it's too snowy, and you're right. but he could have asked sam to take the bus, or the train that was in the background as they were driving, and if he was going to talk to sam about his calculus grade, he could have taken the bus or train with sam.
When jack's colleague fell through the roof of the mall, jack and jason could have lowered themselves down through the hole as well, thus sparing all their lives. there may even be valuable gear stowed in the mall that they could have used, and to get out they could have simply dug a hole through the snow at the main entrance. or get out through a less-fragile section of the roof.
many people also pointed out the no-chimney mistake, so i'm not going into details on this either.
now, i'm not an expert on new york, but i believe that there is an a-train connecting parts of the city. they could have taken that, instead of walking, to Victor's car. and as it is above ground (and the floodwaters), it would have still been running (electric trains are not affected by power outages; if one area's power is out, the train line can draw power from another area that still has power).
the scientists in Scotland did not leave their posts. however, a responsible one would, in order to complete his research and contribute to humanity. they would know that dying would simply be a waste of their talents (especially considering that they're world-famous scientists) and that they would leave their work only half-done. obviously, they didn't think of their families' reaction to their deaths either.
because ice is less dense then water (1cm3 of ice would have less mass than 1 cm3 of water, resulting in it floating on water), melting arctic ice would only result in water taking the ice's place, and won't actually raise the sea level. the glaciers and ice of greenland, canada, and northern europe will melt, but that would only contribute to a small rise in ocean levels.
i could ramble on and on about this, but i'm not going to. all in all, the movie wasn't half bad. it could've just been a lot better. it just needed more polishing up, and some revisions to make it more believable. 3/5-good.