Reviews

In a nutshell, the best TV comedy ever. Seriously. Here's why.

CHARACTERS: Dr. Frasier Crane and his brother, Dr. Niles Crane, are a couple of annoyingly (and hilariously) highbrow, snobby psychiatrists. They are both out of touch with the regular Joes and Janes and hide their insecurity behind the well-educated, well-read façade. Or, you can call them hopelessly geeky. Their father, Martin, is a down-to-earth retired policeman who, like many older men his age, has trouble expressing his affection and emotions but has plenty to say when it comes to his sons' shortcomings. Oh, by the way, he and his dog, Eddie, move in with Frasier by the end of the first episode. Daphne Moon is Marty's live-in physical therapist who is a "bit psychic." Niles is married to an heiress but gets infatuated the moment he lays his eyes on Daphne. In addition to this dysfunctional family, that sure could use some psychiatric help, there are Frasier's colleagues at KACL radio. Roz Doyle has street smarts, and her love life can make Don Juan/Giovanni proud! Bulldog is rude, crude and loves humiliating Frasier. Gil Chesterton… Well, is he, or isn't he….?

ACTORS: Individually and as a whole, the cast is impeccable. The chemistry among the actors and the characters is real. I read it somewhere that, when Kelsey Grammar's substance abuse became apparent during the show's eleven-year run, the rest of the cast paid a visit to his residence one night as concerned friends, not to confront him but to urge him to seek help. These actors are mostly middle-aged stage or film veterans. They may not be young sex kittens or stud muffins, but their acting skills make up for their average looks and then some.

SCRIPTS: No praise seems good enough for Frasier's scripts and the writers. Who needs a pretty face when the scripts are so crisp, sharp, witty, intelligent and often naughty. Retorts and double-entendres between Frasier and Niles come at you so fast, so often. They constantly refer to literature, performing arts, history, mythology, gourmet dining, what have you, so you may not have the slightest idea what the heck they are talking about at one point or another but still be able to laugh. Good scripts do that to you.

EDDIE: Okay, it's Eddie played by Moose. Jack Russells are known for their intelligence, but Moose must have been an exceptionally bright pup. Among the cast, he was the one with good looks and brains. Towards the end of the series, Moose's son, Enzo, replaced him, but it wasn't the same without Moose.

CALLERS: You wouldn't believe how many famous film actors rendered their voices as callers at the KACL station. Christopher Reeves, Linda Hamilton, Matthew Broderick, John Cusack… The list goes on. If you write well, they will come.

TITLES: For those who are not familiar with Frasier, each scene in every episode has a short title shown briefly on the black background. You can find jokes anywhere you look while watching Frasier. For movie buffs, there are such titles as 'My Coffee with Niles," "Three Days of the Condo," "Out and In," "A Room with Four Views (with a Rashomonesque story--only funnier)" and "To Kill a Talking Bird" for starters. Since I'm a Mozart fan, I have to mention "Cosi Fan Tushy" as well.

END CREDIT: After each episode, the audience gets to enjoy watching a short video clip during the credit roll at the end. There are no dialogues, but the video clip is an extension of the episode you just saw, so there's no need for dialogues. When you watch Frasier, it ain't over until the final fade-to-black.

BONUS: Frasier and Niles' favorite meeting place is called Café Nervosa! Details, details, details.

EXTRA BONUS: In the last episode of Season 5, the owner of KACL decides to change the station format to all-salsa, and the staff, including Frasier, subsequently lose their jobs. During the last credit roll where Frasier is seen carrying his personal effects in the background as a new Latino DJ occupies Frasier's booth, we hear salsa music. But pay close attention to the lyric of the music--it's the Spanish translation of the little ditty Frasier/ Kelsey Grammar sings at the end of each episode!

If you are a young gamer, you'll probably love 300. If you like films produced and directed by old school pros, watch this movie at your own risk.

This fictionalized account of a handful of Spartan soldiers pitting against a massive Persian armed force is appalling to put it mildly. It is almost two hours long, and about two thirds of the movie is a continuous battle scene. It's not that I am against fictionalization of historical events or battle scenes—I have seen plenty of those. What makes me FURIOUS is that some people in Hollywood made a movie that looks like an extremely violent video game. And glorifying killing. The enemy soldiers are pure evil and totally dehumanized looking like cartoon figures or creatures in a video game that video game players love to destroy. In my view, it's the worst form of entertainment. What's the point of the use of slow motion of a flying severed limb or head? In Bonnie and Clyde, the shooting scene at the end in slow motion was gut-wrenching, and there was nothing 'cool' about it. The larcenous pair met a violent death, and the viewers were horrified to see it on the screen.

Most of the main characters in 300 are so busy slaughtering in the CG battles, there's hardly any storyline. Simply put, the only message in this film is that freedom is not free; sacrifice yourself in the name of freedom and kill as many enemies as possible. Modify the characters and eliminate the historical aspects from 300, and you'll end up with an excellent recruit video for new Al-Qaeda suicide bombers.

As I see it, there are two kinds of kiddie movies--the ones that make children wild and everybody else over ten years of age moan and groan, and those that entertain everyone. Night at the Museum, in my opinion, belongs to the latter.

Some people are critical about this movie pointing out misinformation, inaccuracy, inconsistency and whatnot, and they are right on every account; however, this is a story where an ancient mummy comes to life and a fossilized T-Rex plays a fetch. I'd say just let your imagination take a free rein and enjoy this modern-day fairy tale.

Though the plot of the movie is something straight out of a storybook, the performance of the cast is, surprisingly, straight forward. Ben Stiller plays a ne'er-do-well divorced father of a young boy who is in need of a job. Stiller's character, Larry, may be bewildered, but he's not outrageous or over-the-top as one might expect after watching other Stiller's movies. Dick Van Dyke is a (gasp!) not so decent night guard at the Museum of Natural History. Robin Williams plays Theodore Roosevelt, who becomes the voice of reason and encouragement for Larry. Now, this casting is very bold and imaginative!

When Night at the Museum was at the top of the box office, I saw a news segment which reported that sleepovers at local museums were becoming increasingly popular. True, it said, some 'night-at-the museum' programs had been around for years, but the movie definitely contributed to the popularity. If a movie, any movie, can entice children to visit a museum or learn more about classical music (as Amadeus did), I'm all for it, with inaccuracies and all. 7.5 out of 10

For someone who would like to explore Mozart's music and/or learn more about his life, this documentary will be an excellent source of both. Except for Great G minor (K.550--on the selection screen on DVD) and Clarinet Concerto in A (K.622), which we hear at the very beginning, the viewers can listen to Mozart's compositions in a chronological order mostly and hear the progression of his composition skills. And how fast he progresses! As one of the interviewees in the film says, Mozart's life and the development of his musical talent were as if they had been on the fast-forward. The documentary showcases a wide range of musical genres--sonatas, concerti, symphonies, operas, motets, string quartets, and more. World-class musicians and conductors explain the technical aspects of certain pieces and talk about the emotions they evoke. We also journey through Mozart's life following some excerpts of his and his parents' letters and video clips of the cities he visited during his lifetime.

If you are a Mozart aficionado and have been gathering any scrap of information on Mozart over the years, you won't find anything earth-shattering in the film. After all, Mozart's life has been well chronicled through his correspondence and other forms of documents. The information the documentary provides is on the conservative side. I could not help smiling when I read the producer's note at the end; that Mozart probably died of rheumatic fever and kidney failure, and that he was not poisoned. I get this feeling that Phil Grabsky doesn't approve of the portrayal of Mozart in Amadeus. Attributing Mozart's death to rheumatic fever and renal failure has been one of the main theories for decades, but what about other possibilities? Only a year or two ago, I read a newspaper article, which claimed Mozart might have died of trichinosis. The article was fascinating, but Mozart's death is one of many mysteries we will never be able to solve. For music connoisseurs, this film has a great appeal with Renée Fleming, Lang Lang, Sir Roger Norrington and others affectionately and passionately speaking of Mozart's music. And let's fact it, you don't get to hear Mozart's first compositions on keyboard or early operas often even if you listen to an all-classical format radio station. In addition, you get to hear the samples of well-known, and not so well-known pieces by Mozart.

There's a Japanese proverb on prodigies that goes like this: A prodigy (literal translation: divine child) at age ten, a whiz at fifteen, just a man at twenty and over. I suppose Mozart himself, and In Search of Mozart to a certain extent, proved that even ancient oriental wisdom can be wrong every once in a century or two.

I checked the IMDb information on The Exorcism of Emily Rose and learned that it had won two awards in the best horror film category. I'm glad it did because I believe it deserves them, and maybe more accolades.

I've always loved reading Gothic horror stories, but the horror movies are almost always disappointing to me. Many of the horror movies are gory but otherwise laughable, almost comical--Friday the 13th for instance. Some others are based on a certain faith and may trigger fear in some viewers, but it may not have the same effect on those who do not follow the doctrine. I confess, I thought The Exorcist was pretty absurd. But not The Exorcism of Emily Rose, no.

Several different factors contributed to this film's riveting story. First, the cast, naturally. Laura Linney never fails to deliver a good performance no matter how small or difficult her role is. In the role of Erin Bruner, she is very persuasive, as a defense attorney as well as an actress. In The Exorcist, Max von Sydow's Father Merrin looks and is portrayed like almost a mythical being himself, but in Emily Rose, Father Moore is just another priest, who firmly believes poor Emily is possessed. Tom Wilkinson plays him convincingly. Jennifer Carpenter is simply amazing as Emily. I bet she, without any grotesque makeup or special effect, scared a whole lot more people than any other monsters or ghosts did in the recent horror film history. Campbell Scott, however, does not look or sound like a "shrewd son of a bitch," aka Ethan Thomas, a prosecutor, who is known to shred the opponent in the courtroom. If you ask me, Erin Bruner really beat the crap out of the D.A.

Another brilliant aspect of this movie is that it does not side with either the sacred or the secular and forces us, believers and non-believers alike, to think not only what and who to believe but also what 'the reality' is. In other horror flicks, we must accept certain premises: Catholic teachings; that Jason will never die; that a vampire is a blood-sucking shape-shifter that can be killed only by a stake through the heart, the sunlight, etc. If you don't believe in them, the stories are merely nonsense. But in Emily Rose, the viewers are like the jurors in the courtroom--we are there to think and judge for ourselves.

If you have ever studied anthropology, you probably know that 'the reality' is not quite the same for everyone and in every culture. Most of us scoff at the notion of a voodoo curse, but there are records of the deaths of some voodoo believers who passed away shortly after they learned that they had been cursed. Those cases document that the victims were in perfect health, but their bodies simply shut down. Was it psychosomatic? Most likely. But I can almost hear Erin Bruner asking, "Is it possible....?"

I'd like to point out a few facts before I review the movie. First of all, Mozart died at home surrounded by his family, pupil and a priest. Secondly, the plot of Amadeus is not exactly original. Rimsky-Korsakov wrote a short opera called "Mozart and Salieri" with the bare bones of the story and the identical characterization of the two composers, and he used Pushkin's drama for the libretto. So, the rumor that Salieri killed Mozart has been around for almost a couple of centuries though we all know there isn't an iota of veracity in it.

That being said, Peter Shaffer's movie adaptation of his own play is still an astounding achievement. Have you ever seen a movie based on your favorite book and come out of the movie theater rather disappointed though the film version faithfully followed the storyline of the book? Amadeus is definitely not one of those movies. Shaffer clearly understands the difference between stage and film; the story is more elaborate in the movie, and some of the lengthy lines are replaced with more subtle images and close-ups.

I'm often surprised to find that people don't get that Amadeus is the story of the fictionalized character, Antonio Salieri, not the real one, who adored Mozart's music but hated everything else about him. In other words, the movie viewers are seeing Mozart through Salieri's eyes. Needless to say, his view is rather slanted. If you have read Shaffer's original play, you probably remember he describes Mozart's laugh 'grating.' In the film, this annoying laugh becomes more symbolic. Though Salieri speaks in front of a Catholic priest, he is actually having a one-sided discourse with God. At one point, he declares, "One day, I will laugh at you. Before I leave this earth, I will laugh at you." But as he is wheeled out of his room by an aide at the asylum, what we hear is that screeching laugh of Mozart--or is it? It becomes obvious as we watch that this movie is called Amadeus because that's what Salieri wished to be--God's beloved.

The movie might give some viewers who don't know much about Mozart a wrong impression that he was a cad, and it gives incorrect information on some of his music (e.g.; the count in The Marriage of Figaro sings "Contessa perdono" AFTER he learns that the woman dressed in the maid's clothes is his own wife. There's no mistaken identity here. Read the title of the song--Countess, forgive me!), but these are minor offenses. Though I am a die-hard Mozart fan, I can laugh at tongue-in-cheek references to Amadeus in other movies. My favorite? In Guarding Tess, a secret service agent tells his partner, "He (Mozart)'s a jerk. One day, a guy shows up with a mask, and he drops dead."

What's not to like about Amadeus? The tale Peter Shaffer tells is gripping, the actors are first- rate, and, of course, there's music. The selection of Mozart's music in the movie is excellent; you can truly enjoy the beauty of his music no matter how much or how little you know about it. In case you are wondering, a little tune Mozart plays on his back and hands crossed as a penalty at a party is Viva Bacchus from The Abduction from the Seraglio, a duet for Pedrillo and Osmin. Pedrillo, while singing this song, is trying to get Osmin, the harem guard, drunk to help his master rescue his true love. No wonder Schikaneder calls it 'our song.' And the improvised version of Salieri's welcome march is actually a famous song, Non piu andrai farfallone amoroso, from The Marriage of Figaro.

As I said, I'm a huge Mozart fan, so my rating may be somewhat biased, but what the heck, I gladly give ten stars to Amadeus. I watched it close to a hundred times over the years, and it still gives me a great pleasure every time I see (and hear) it.

If you don't know anything about The Pirates of Penzance by Gilbert & Sullivan and are hesitant to watch it because of the "classic" and "operetta" labeling, please let me clarify a few things. First of all, The Pirates is not your typical opera--a traditional opera consists of singing and recitatives (G&S call them 'chants' in the Pirates libretto). This operetta is more like a hybrid of an opera and a singspiel, which is more audience-friendly and has singing and regular dialogs as you find in The Magic Flute. And the movie version of the Pirates has a lot of Broadway flavor to it. Better still, since the Pirates libretto is in English, you can easily follow the story without the subtitles. And if you think this is only an old, stuffy story penned by a couple of prim and proper Brits in the late 19th century, you are sadly--or, in this case, hilariously--mistaken.

The Pirates has some of the zaniest characters who keep you howling with laughter. These pirates are too tenderhearted to prey on the weak and get maudlin when they meet an orphan, real or alleged. The Major-General tells you he knows so much about almost everything imaginable, and yet, he's generally clueless as to his surroundings. The policemen are a bunch of scaredy cats, or a pride of cowardly lions, who may faint with fright if you say "boo!" Yes, the entire premise is absurd, but the Joseph Papp production takes this absurdity to a higher level.

Pirate King a la Joseph Papp looks great on the outside: tall, dark and handsome with a rakish mustache; agile and athletic. Too bad that he has the attention span and dexterity of a hyperactive preschooler. You don't want to let him loose with a pair of scissors, let alone with a sword. Pretty Mabel is in love with young Frederick--and her own voice. Once she starts singing, even Frederick, an apprentice pirate, becomes a second fiddle. The cops may lack in courage and confidence facing criminals, but they sure can dance up a storm and rival Ziegfeld girls. And, in the With Cat-like Tread number, the producer hammers the glaring (in the Pirates, nothing is subtle) discrepancy between the libretto and the music with the sound of a cannon at the end, in the 1812 overture fashion.

Yes, I get a real kick out of watching this movie. So, you may ask why I give it only 7.5 out of 10. One of the reasons is that someone in the production decided to pare down some of the songs. Let's see, they took out some parts of I Am The Very Model of A Modern Major General, Oh Men of Dark and Dismal Fate (Orphan Boy song), Paradox song, to name a few. A short chorus by the pirates, We Triumph Now, is totally eliminated. Pray Observe the Magnanimity, which is the last chorus of Act I, is moved up and out of place, and the last scene with Ruth (Frederick's former nursery maid) at the end of Act I is gone. Hello? The Pirates is an operetta. Feel free to add more songs and scenes (which they did), but please don't take out the songs that are in the original libretto. Another reason for demerit is that the movie lacks spontaneity and raw energy of a live performance. Stage veterans like George Rose (Major General), Kevin Kline (Pirate King), Tony Azito (Police Sergeant) feed on the audience's laughter, and their characters truly come alive on-stage.

Some people don't like the recording of the live performance (also produced by Joseph Papp) at Delacorte Theater in New York on DVD, and I can see why. The sound quality is uneven, the camera work is erratic. There are many what-were-they-thinking moments--like a shot of George Rose, where he sings his solo number and you see the dancing feet (and the feet only) of the policemen in the background. But the problem of the DVD version is purely technical, in the audio/visual department. As far as the acting goes, it is exhilarating and dazzling. If you have seen the movie and know it forward and backward but haven't seen this live performance, you don't know what you're missing. Compared to the boisterous rendition of With Cat-like Tread on-stage, the same scene in the movie looks well-choreographed but flat. The DVD version is faithful to the original script almost to a T--it has all the songs G&S wrote for the Pirates and some extra ones (which you also find in the movie).

In my opinion, the movie and the theater versions of the Pirates are companion pieces; one makes up for the other's deficiencies. But, if you haven't seen either one, I recommend the movie first because of the aforementioned problems of the DVD. Think of it as a starter kit. If you like the movie, I guarantee you, you're gonna LOVE the theater version.