My review of the TV show Arrested Development

Now the review of the TV show of the story of the wealthy family who lost everything, and the one son who had no choice but to keep them all together.

It's Lord Naseby's review of Arrested Development.








Plot: the show is about a wealthy California family who are in the housing industry. The Bluth Company is run by George Bluth Sr. It is revealed that he did a number illegal things through the Bluth Company including some "light treason" by building houses in Iraq. Once George Sr. is arrested for these crimes, it is up to his son, Michael, to try to keep the family and the company together.



Let me make one thing perfectly clear before we begin, this show is AWESOME. It is one of those shows that was just too smart for people and so they cancelled it. However, they are bringing it back for another season and a movie so yay! What really makes this show spectacular is the witty dialogue and how the characters react to each other and how their separate, usually dominant, personalities clash.

Michael Bluth- Michael is the protagonist of the show. It is his job to try to make the Bluth company run smoothly, something that his family members continually try to disrupt (sometimes intentionally other times not). He is constantly being challenged by his family. He is constantly exasperated by their antics but he still keeps them together as he believes that it is "family first." He has a son named George-Michael whom he is very close to as a result of his wife's death before the events in the show. I really enjoy his sarcastic manner when dealing with his family. He still loves them all at the end of the day. He is the closest thing to an everyman in the show, but I still feel that he sometimes has his own agenda and is rarely as sincere as he would like to believe himself to be, particularly when it comes to his son. He means well with his son, but he often finds himself making mistakes that his father made with him and I like that about him. It gives him depth of character and makes him more interesting to watch.

Favorite quote: *talking to his family*
I am moving to Phoenix and I got a job
*family gives him blank stares*
You know, something you apply for and then they pay you and...never mind I don't want to spoil the surprise.

Lindsay Funke (nee Bluth)- Lindsay is Michael's twin sister. She deeply cares for her father and has an adverse relationship with her mother who continuously suggests that Lindsay is fat. She rebelled against her parents and married Tobias Funke with whom she has a daughter named Maybe. What I like about Lindsay is just how amazingly self-centered and shallow she is. she has a compulsive need to shop. She does love her husband but she has to dig deep down to find those feelings. She neglects her daughter and at points she forgets Maybe exists.She consistently fails at most things she tries and it really makes for hilarious moments in the show.


Favorite quote: Lindsay: I care very deeply about nature Michael
Michael: You're wearing Ostrich skin boots
Lindsay: Well I don't care about Ostriches, Michael

GOB (pronounced Job, as in the biblical book/person) Bluth- GOB is easily my favorite character in the show. In his own way, he is the most sincere character in the show. He's just so unashamedly...GOB. Don't get me wrong, he has his own agenda just like everyone else in the show. He is an amateur magician (but prefers his tricks to be called 'illusions'. I like the extra depth that his character has when he is constantly vying for his father's approval but never really gets it even though at times he thinks that he has gotten it. He is so fun to watch and I think he is easily the best character on the show.And who can forget his hilarious chicken dance?

Favorite Quote: George Sr. "What is this? GOB I don't have time for your tricks"
GOB: "Illusions Dad! You don't have time for my Illusions!"

























UNFINISHED

My review of Wolf Creek

I originally saw a clip of this one while watching...I don't know if it was Bravo's 100 Scariest Movie Moments or if it was Bravo's 30 Even Scarier Movie Moments. Anyway, after a while I decided to check it out.



Acting/characters: By far the star performance of the film is John Jarratt as the sadistic Mick Taylor. In a nutshell, Mick Taylor is what you would get if Crocodile Dundee decided to completely stopped caring about anything, something that the film plays with a little bit actually. When we are first introduced to the character (and, maybe it is simply because we know what kind of film we are getting into) there is something unsettling about him despite how seemingly friendly he is (what the heck is 'rainwater from the top end' supposed to mean!?) The movie only actually has 3 other main characters in it, one of whom is absent through a large chunk of the film. I think that the other 3 actors do a great job as well especially when they are being stalked or attacked by Mick Taylor. They do a good job, but Taylor is by far the best character in the film. Jarratt plays him to perfection and every moment he is onscreen is an unsettling one. In fact, he is equally scary when he is not on screen because you have no idea where he might pop up next. 8.5/10


Plot: Pretty Standard ideas for a horror film actually. 1. you have a stranded group and 2. you have a sadistic killer stalking them. However, this film has a good advantage over others because it is more about playing on fears and keeping the audience on the edge of their seats as opposed to 'how much blood can we put on the screen at one time?' Don't get me wrong, there is blood and gore, but the film does not rely heavily on those aspects. It goes for suspense rather then focusing primarily on the kills. This film is often criticized for being merely an exploitation film. I suppose that it is, but I feel that it is one of the better ones. It is certainly more effective than all of the Saw sequels. It did set itself up for a sequel in its own way (coming in 2012 or 2013). The way the film ended I think is the best way to have it end. If it had ended any other way I think it would have been far less effective. It may be sickening at parts, but I enjoyed watching it. 8.5/10


Screenplay: Mick Taylor's dialogue had to be improvised (and it often was). I don't know if there is any way to correctly write a character like Mick Taylor to the point where someone can play him well. The dialogue of the rest of the characters was okay as well I suppose. Nothing in there that really stood out as really good or really bad. It could have been improved a little bit I suppose, but it was fine for the rest of the cast. It was awesome for Mick Taylor though. 8/10


Likableness: I actually really enjoyed this film. I was wary going into it thinking that it may cross my line for what I actually enjoy watching in a horror film, but I was pleasantly surprised with how much I enjoyed it. I know that I am in the minority with that one for sure. The movie was not immensely well received by critics overall (but still not too bad I suppose). The film started off slow and only got edge-of-your-seat when Mick Taylor showed up. This is a film that I would actually suggest to any horror fans out there and I would not mind watching this one again. It is strictly for horror fans of course. If you like Rom Coms, this movie is definitely not your thing and never will be. as a horror fan though, I highly enjoyed it. I look forward to seeing the sequel coming sometime next year I believe. I enjoyed this film. 8.5/10

Final Score: 33.5/40 83% (N)
Tomatometer Rating: 53%
Tomatometer Rating if my review was added: 53%




TRIVIA TIME: 1. The crater in the film is really in Western Australia, but it is spelled "Wolfe Creek" in reality.

2.  Unbeknown to the crew the abandoned mine where they chose to film had actually been the site of the real life murder of a woman. The filming prompted a protest from locals who erroneously thought the film was about those events.

3.  There had been no rainfall for ten years in the area where the backpackers park their car before setting off for the crater, but it started raining as soon as the crew arrived. In the end, director Greg McLean was happy it rained, as it added to the ominous atmosphere of the scene.

4.  According to stars Cassandra McGrath and Kestie Morassi the scenes shot on the beach early in the film may look warm on screen, but were actually freezing. It was so cold that for the scene where Mcgrath runs out into the ocean, all of the crew were behind camera in hats and gloves. According to Magrath, when she got out of the water, she was so cold, she literally couldn't remember her own name.

5.  A very eerie coincidence occurred for the second unit crew sent out to get footage of the Wolf Creek Crater. Since the location was many hours from any town the small crew decided to camp out in their car at the site after shooting. During the night a mysterious stranger showed up in a truck to investigate. The stranger indeed looked very much like the character of Mick Taylor, right down to the rustic truck. The stranger left, but the crew was so spooked that they drove an hour down the road before finally stopping to camp for the night.

6.  John Jarratt is a method actor and spent weeks living in the Australian desert preparing for the role of Mick Taylor. In addition he also avoided bathing before shooting so he would have a much more rugged appearance. Furthermore, the idea for Mick to have a creepy laugh was Jarratt own (he says it took him four months to get it just right). Cassandra Mgrath said that John Jarratt's sinister laugh gave her nightmares. he also created a detailed biography for the character (although he wouldn't reveal the details to anyone).

7.  Although the advertising for the film claims it was based on true events, this is not entirely accurate. The film was influenced by the Ivan Milat and Bradley John Murdoch cases, but it was not based specifically on any one event, and the four principal characters are all entirely fictitious.

If you go out into the heart of the Australian Outback and scream as loud as you can not a soul will hear you...

My review of Urban Legends: Final Cut

For those of you who have read my review of the original, you know how much I despised it. It just was not good at all. Any horror film that wastes Robert Englund cannot be good. well, I was surprised to find that I enjoyed this one more than the original...but that still doesn't mean that this one was good by any means.

Acting/characters: Third-age slasher film stereotypes. however there were definitely a few moments that were actually well done. They were few and far between but they were there for sure. It shows that even with a cheap slasher sequel that good acting can happen...it just doesn't. I would love to have seen that kind of acting throughout the film. But on the whole the characters were unbelievable, cardboard cut-outs. I have never met anyone like these characters and thus, I see no reason to care if they live or die at all. I can't imagine anyone else caring either. They could be robots for all we know...wait...I may have figured it out!!! 1.5/10

Plot: it is the same plot as the original film...or at least, it says that it is. A killer kills using urban legends as his M.O. I gotta do a bit of a spoiler here and say that that doesn't really happen in this film more than once. it has the feel of a generic slasher film and you kinda get bored after not too long. It doesn't even try to make its kills creative. I mean, it just does not try at all. That's the one thing that is often a saving grace of films like this and it doesn't even have that. Or an interesting killer. But i do have to give it credit because it did have some good laughs that were ACTUALLY INTENTIONAL. I'm not talking huge laughs here but it did have moments (brief moments mind you) where I thought "okay, that was funny." But it was overall an uninteresting, underdeveloped, and boring plot. 1.5/10

Screenplay: There is a dialogue scene between two characters in the film. They are driving around just talking to each other. Man, my ears almost fused themselves shut just so I wouldn't have to hear the 'fingernails on chalkboard' quality dialogue anymore. It had absolutely not quality to it in the least. I just sat there thinking "who wrote this and have they ever had a conversation with a normal human being before?" The rest of the dialogue was just as bad as the car scene. it was just horrible. But once again, a few intentional laughs gave this film a few good moments. 1/10

Likableness: Not much really. It didn't have creative kills, it didn't have a good killer, it didn't have a good motive, it was thrown together and had no value to it whatsoever. Its like they didn't even try. Plus, look at the poster, do you notice that that poster layout (main cast looking blankly forward while the killer is somewhere on the poster as well) is the same layout as a ton of other slashers from this era? And guess who did it first? SCREAM! Just like everything else in this age. This is a film that I would suggest to nobody. You've probably seen this film already. it has a dozen other films just like it. 1.5/10

Final score: 4/40 10% (S)
Tomatometer rating: 9%
Tomatometer rating if my review was added: 9%


TRIVIA TIME: 1. The snow storm seen in the film was completely unexpected.

2. A picture of Professor Solomon's parents is seen on his desk. The picture is actually of John Ottman's parents.

My review of Pinocchio's Revenge

Oh look, a Child's Play rip-off. How do I know? There were a few scenes in here that were very similar to ones in that movie.

Acting/characters: what is one thing that you all know that I cannot abide in a horror film? KIDS!!!! Especially kids whose job in the film it to be a whiny brat. Okay, the kid in this film wasn't always that, but her acting was just horrible. I mean even by some other horror-kid standards it just sucked. It was cringe-worthy really. But the saddest part is (and I'm sure you can guess) the adults in the film were not much better. I detected not one shred of character complexity from any of them. I wouldn't mind that too much if most of them were knife fodder but alas


*SPOILER!!!!!!*


This movie has an incredibly low body-count




*END OF SPOILER*



One line is all it takes to add a whole new layer of depth to a character. But they didn't even give one thought about making interesting characters. It totally shows. 0/10

Plot: It could have been a little more interesting than it was but it was something that we had seen a million times before already. And when it delved into new areas that aren't explored as much, well, by then I didn't care because i had already shut down and was paying the minimum amount of attention that I could. it tried for a twist but the 'twist' was something that any rational audience member could see coming from a mile away. It was one of those endings that tried to stir debate between the 11 total people who have watched this film. But yeah, didn't work dudes. Aside from the ending, the rest of the plot was just as predictably bad. There is nothing in this film that tries to set itself apart from other films just like it. It was horribly done. 0/10

Screenplay: screenplay? what screenplay? Oh you mean the horridly timed and performed pieces of 'dialogue' that the actors said? You mean that? yeah, 0/10. just 0/10


Likableness: Nope. none whatsoever. it tried to be something that it wasn't, that is, original. It was not original whatsoever. The characters were boring, the plot moved along at too slow of a pace, and it just was not interesting. At least Rumpelstiltskin had a very very very mildly entertaining villain to get the story going. This one didn't really. It wasn't anything. It was just a poorly made movie that I would in no good conscience recommend to anybody even if you do happen to like really bad horror films. I think it would bore a lot of die-hard horror fans. It doesn't even have unintentional laughs. 0/10

Final Score: 0/40 0% (S)
Tomatometer rating: 33%
Tomatometer rating if my review was added: 25%


No trivia time for this one. Well, maybe the fact that some of the shots kinda look like they are out of the original Halloween.

My review of The Roommate

Single White Female remake that won't admit it's a remake. Charming.

Since this is a remake (even if it won't admit that it is) I have no problem comparing it to the original film.

Acting/characters: Can anybody say cardboard cutouts? well if you can't I will say it for you; cardboard cutouts. No one in this film was any different than anybody else in a dozen other films like this one. The acting was similar. It was just run-if-the-mill acting in every bad sense of the word.

The one person that you would hope gives a good performance (no I'm not talking about Billy Zane whose role is so minor it's really just a cameo more than anything else) was that of the psychotic roommate. And yes, she was the highlight...but that's like saying that a team losing a game by 15 points instead of 20 is a shining moment in the season. It didn't do anything to make this film much better. The original character was complex in her neediness. There was far more to the character than simply "she is obsessed with her roommate." This character was nothing new. she was almost a normal horror villain. She just did what she did and that was it. no layers, no meaning, nothing like that. She was just psychotic for no good reason. Forget medical disorders and such, I need a better reason for that. Tossing in info that she has mental problems doesn't make the character any deeper or more layered. Instead she's just another character in another movie. .5/10

Plot: Watch Single White Female...there's the plot. Oh there are some differences of course. It isn't a shot-for-shot remake (thank goodness) but if you have seen the original, you know what is going to happen with the film before it happens...heck, if you haven't seen the original you still know what is going to happen. It is one of the more predictable films that I have seen in a little while and that is saying something. It can hold your interest for a bit here and there, but it never takes any risks at all. it never attempts to shock you. It never attempts anything at all except re-packaging the original film and selling it back as something new. I simply cannot respect a film at all that doesn't even have the guts to admit that it is a remake. I put this film in the same category I would put Transmorphers or Paranormal Entity. .5/10

Screenplay: Like I said, nothing new here. It never tried to go anywhere. They didn't try to write interesting dialogue at all which is a fatal flaw considering the fact that a lot of the movie hinges on the interactions of the two leads. If what they are saying to each other is not interesting than the movie loses all of its appeal because there is no reason to watch it because we don't care about the conflict that the two are having. We don't care when they are having fun moments together, we don't care when they argue, we don't care at the end. They could just be mouthing things to each other and we as the audience wouldn't know the difference because we are just not interested in what they are saying. 0/10

Likableness: At the very least they could have made it a little terrifying. One of the creepy things about the original was that Heady (the original roommie) could flip from loving and caring to deadly with a drop of the hat and it would seem totally natural and thus far more terrifying. The lead crazy here just didn't pull that off and if you can't then your movie is, for all intents and purposes, dead. It is a remake that won't admit that it is a remake and it doesn't have the guts to take any risks at all. It was mildly entertaining here and there but overall, I wouldn't watch it again. I would suggest skipping this one if you come across it. It is a failure of a film. .5/10

Final Score: 1.5/40 3% (S)
Tomatometer rating: 4%
Tomatometer rating if my review was added: 4%


No trivia time for this one either...what?

 

Yeah, The Roommate is definitely a remake.

My review of The Wicker Man

I went into this one already knowing the ending which if you have already seen this, that's something that it is best that you not know. However, it didn't take too much away from my enjoyment of the film.

Acting/characters: The star here is definitely Edward Woodward who plays the protagonist. His character goes from an interesting transformation to stiff and formal to a little more crazy than I think he has ever been. it is played beautifully. Also, this movie has an excellent performance by Christopher Lee who, like all of his roles, is chillingly suave. Seeing the two of them clash with each other is awesome. The rest of the people on the island (none of them have MAJOR roles but a lot of them are seen more than once) are really creepy. They are so utterly blissfully happy but in such a way that it is immensely creepy. You wonder the whole time "what the heck is going on with these people!? The answer is pretty chilling. But the acting is solid. 9.5/10

Plot: The plot starts out simple enough, a cop investigating a missing girl. Simple enough. And that is all that I am going to leave you with...maybe that's even too much to tell you. The plot unravels from there and gets more and more insane. Like the cop, you never truly know what is going on. You get half-truths here and there, you get the feeling that you should never trust anybody and so on. But it sucks you in and doesn't let go even after the film is over. I still re-play images of the ending in my mind. It sticks with you like few other horror endings have. It never ever gets boring. Once you start, you get sucked in and I like that a lot about this movie. 9.5/10

Screenplay: it's pretty good. Since there aren't really action scenes and a lot of the film is dialogue between characters, it HAS to have a good script. and I think that it definitely does. I particularly liked the scenes between Woodward and Lee. They revealed more about Lee's character than any other time where he is on screen interacting with the locals and it makes him all the more charmingly sinister. if you like dialogue-driven films, you certainly will not be disappointed at all here with this one. It does a great job in holding your interest throughout the entire film which is something that a lot of horror films don't have a knack for doing these days. 9/10

Likableness: The biggest critics for this film are the ones who have completely missed the point. If you watch it I would advise thinking about what this film is trying to say. That aside, I would definitely watch this film again and I suggest that anyone who has not seen it go out and do just that. October is almost over! do it soon! There is no better time! Well, aside from that, this film is backed up by great performances, awesome dialogue, and a stellar, complex plot that will hold your interest from the very beginning to the very end of the film. This film will not disappoint you. It didn't disappoint me. It is one of the better horror films that I have seen in a long time. 9.5/10

Final score: 37.5/40 93%
Tomatometer rating: 89%
Tomatometer rating if my review was added: 89%


TRIVIA TIME: 1. Christopher Lee agreed to appear in this film for free.

2. Although the film is set in Scottish territory and all the characters are meant to be of Scottish nationality, all five of of the leading cast are not Scottish: Christopher Lee and Edward Woodward are English, Diane Cilento is Australian, Ingrid Pitt is Polish and Britt Ekland is Swedish.

3. As filming occurred between October and November, there were no trees in blossom. The trees in the scenes with the pregnant women had to be brought in and were all handmade. Edward Woodward admitted one of the memories of filming that stuck out in his mind was watching the trees being brought in on the back of a truck as he had never seen anything like it.