laserprinterfeatures Reviews

The Office (2001–2003)

The best TV show ever made by far

[10/10 · 17 December 2006]

I hold everything I watch to a very high standard and in general I can't watch the vast majority of what is put on TV - 24, Lost, Gray's Anatomy, Heroes, essentially anything you can think of that people seem to go crazy for... and the reason is simple: they aren't driven by the writing.

And to those who are already upset and ready to describe the genius of the plot of X TV show or one I named above, consider that none of those shows are driven by the characters, by pureness of emotion created, by novelty of the plot, it can all be reduced to a few things: 1) Love triangles, quadrilaterals, pentagons, etc. 2) Action (doesn't take a PhD to blow something, put a child in harm's way, etc.) 3) THE BIGGEST ONE - leaving you hanging (which makes the viewer, in between episodes, feel like they just can't stand to not be watching this show, but really, you could tell one of the worst stories ever and stop just short of an important climax and people will naturally be interested - but why not ask for more)

And in general, what I like to think of as the plot skeleton (the core conflict or plot outline) in these shows is tried and cliché in all of these shows. There's nothing new.

The US version of the Office is just plain unbelievable. The characters are not real people. It's very funny SOMETIMES and I do watch it (which makes it like 1 of maybe 5 shows in the last several years), but Michael Scott could never exist in real life, and he's the only decent actor in the show. Jim and Pam don't have the incredible subtle, Victorian, romance that Tim and Dawn had. Martin Freeman is also 10x more the legitimate actor, and Dawn was significantly better than Pam - Jenna Fischer just doesn't have much of an emotional range. Dwight is just always high strung - Garreth had depth and incredible subtlety and a range of moods. Stanley's humor was meant for 9 year olds. Keith was infinitely better at deadpan and numb-skull humor. Angela, Meredith, Oscar, Creed - all 1 dimensional. Ryan's not awful.

AND THEN THERE WAS THE OFFICE (BBC)...

Incredible realism. Incredible and subtle use of the documentary genre. A barrage of original, subtle, diverse jokes. No laugh track (which many people notice, but it's more than that - it's that the show doesn't hit high hat cymbals to cue you to laugh too, it creates genuinely funny and awkward moments). The actors are outstanding too - such an incredible repertoire each of them has of emotional capacity (even, and in fact ESPECIALLY, Garreth, whose US counterpart Dwight can't come close to the pathos and sadness Garreth can evince - or really even realism, Dwight is just always high-strung and not a real human character).

I've seen lots of movies. More than anyone I know. I'm a pretty smart guy (at least on paper). Movies are my favorite thing in the world. If I put this series as a whole into my list of top movies of all time, and ignored the differences of the media, it would make the top 5.

My life is better because I've seen The Office (BBC). Just don't watch season 1 and 2 and forget about the Christmas special, like I did for a year. But I do think if you give yourself at least a week after watching 1 and 2 before watching the special, you can better "simulate" the time lapse that is meant to exist before the fictional creation of the documentary.

Do yourself a favor.

Hard Candy (2005)

an immoral film

[3/10 · 17 November 2006]

The only reason I don't give this a 1 is because it does have some nice cinematography and visuals and to some extent maybe even performances, but it's hard to really even judge at that level because this movie is just downright immoral.

Don't get me wrong. I don't support censorship. I'm not a member of the Religious Right. I like the avant garde, artistic, unusual, and even violent, but this movie is immoral for the following reason...

It condones torture and seeks to engender support from its viewer. The bottom line is THIS GUY DIDN'T DESERVE THIS AND NEITHER DOES ANYONE ELSE. It doesn't matter what he did, TORTURE IS NEVER NEVER NEVER JUSTIFIED. Yes he deserves to go to jail but even torture does not deserve torture as a response, and making that judgment is the only way to stop the cycle of violence in the world today. Now I'm not so naive that I expect a world can ever exist completely without violence, but it is the job of each individual with a concern for bettering themselves and treating others with respect to work to diminish the violence around them and the drive to commit violent acts in others.

This movie is sick in the way that The Triumph of the Will is scary, or Jud Süß is disturbing - because we can actually see the director making a deranged judgment without irony, and without concern that he is necessarily making his viewers as morally void as the subjects they are compelled to believe are deserving of torture.

So the next time you hear someone say something like, "That guy deserves to have his balls stomped on (insert other torturous act here)," let them know that they are the very reason that guys like that exist in this world.

The Science of Sleep (2006)

outstanding

[9/10 · 25 October 2006]

I don't think this contains spoilers, but it might tangentially refer to the general terms of the conclusion, just in case...

The comment that was up last went on and on about how the protagonist needs to grow more and overcome his problem is just stupid. I really appreciated an interpretation I read on Rotten Tomatoes that discussed a perspective that was 100% behind the idea of Stephane having a mental disability that he is the only one not aware of - very interesting, but a bit too interpretive. Gondry wants us to empathize with Stephane, and not as a mental patient, but as a person with a different perspective. His point is that it's not a problem but just a different way of viewing the world which can at times making relationships with other people difficult. It is no more a handicap than is tremendous creativity, which can create a similar strain in dealing with less creative people. I don't think we're supposed to interpret his perspective as a definitive illness which causes dreams and reality to blur completely. He just has very lucid dreams which sometimes cause him to mistake the two.

This perspective - that of a mental handicap that everyone is aware of except Stephane, and that Stephanie is just being nice to him as a nice person would to a mentally handicapped suitor - may be the perspective of Stephane's mother, since she is the only one we hear psychoanalyzing him and taking steps to watch over him and influence others to be sensitive to his needs. The viewer must balance this perspective with Stephane's and Stephanie's and the others', like Guy (notice how Guy never treats him as anything but an equal except perhaps when he attempts to "educate" him - e.g. Guy probably wouldn't have gotten as angry at Stephane for missing work or tried to cover for him if he really believed he was mentally handicapped) Stephanie is unsure if Stephane really likes her or Zoe, and many of Stephane's actions are contradictory regarding his affections for her. She isn't just trying to be nice, she's trying to figure our where Stephane's coming from, and she's got her own set of insecurities and quirks (even though we don't see them as much as Stephane's since its from his perspective).

So overall the truth lies somewhere between the mother's perspective and Stephane's, and somewhere near Stephanie's confusion. Stephane has an outlook that makes things difficult at times, but it's also an incredible gift. To call his "condition" a "disability" or even a "condition" for that matter ignores the inspiration with which we are supposed to also view Stepahne's ingenuity, creativity, and vivaciousness.

I found Gael Garcia Bernal outstanding, by the way, if that isn't already clear from the depth I drew from the character.

Elephant (2003)

single worst movie i have ever seen

[1/10 · 9 April 2006]

From the improvisational acting by the supposed students (who do so unbearably awkwardly and without any believability), to the amalgam of student shooter stereotypes rolled together without any concern for synergy, THIS IS THE SINGLE WORST MOVIE I HAVE EVER SEEN.

I have seen a lot of movies. I enjoy artistic film. I enjoy independent film. I don't even need a traditional plot or storyline. I consider myself to be intelligent. It's not that I think the people on IMDb are unintelligent. I think at times they might overestimate the quality of recent films, but it just baffles my mind that even accounting for all difference of opinion, this movie could achieve an average score of over 5.

SPOILERS? I don't know if this is really a spoiler, but I just wanted to be sure... The ending was pointless. Great, we don't see a shot and there's suspense. Maybe someone will find that intelligent just like the other vague directions thrown in and odd shots which desperately hope to confuse someone into believing there's something beneath the surface of this ridiculously simple and poorly executed piece of trash.