d-l-polonsky Reviews

40 Days and 40 Nights (2002)

Rape Depicted as Good

[1/10 · 14 June 2012]

Hollywood writers are largely egotistical, juvenile, spoiled, shallow, hedonistic, amoral, arrogant, and totally disconnected from the day-to-day world most of us "nobodys" live in. Once in a great while, something seeps into the scripts they write that's so extreme in it's reprehensibility it reveals their delusional view of the world. That's what happened with this movie, but since it wasn't a wildly popular blockbuster that was in the theatres for several months, it was mostly ignored. At the end of this movie a man is raped by a woman in a context that makes it clear that the writers think it's a good thing. Knowing the stupid plot of the movie doesn't make it any better. Matt (Josh Harnett) just had a bad break-up with a girl and decides he would get a better perspective on women and relationships if he went without sex during the 40 days of Lent, including kissing and masturbation. He meets a woman, but continues his experiment in sexual abstinence without explaining his experiment to her, just saying he wants a platonic relationship. I'll admit I didn't follow every detail of the plot and sub-plots (he's some kind of executive and has a lot of obnoxious roommates and co-workers) but I figure nothing could justify the rape at the end. There is a sequence where he's so aroused and frustrated he dreams he's flying through a landscape of CGIed breasts, which I guess is relatively imaginative. Near the end of the movie he goes to bed, as always handcuffed to the bedposts so he can't masturbate. His ex-girlfriend gets on top of him and RAPES HIM! If the sexes were reversed there'd be a public outcry about this movie that would be pretty considerable even though the movie wasn't extremely well- known. I think what the so-called writers think is that men having sex whenever they can get it and perpetually pursuing sex like mindless animals the rest of the time is the natural order of Nature and any man who goes against that is denying nature and is not a real man and deserves to be FORCED back into sexual activity, in other words deserves to be RAPED. In their minds, the abstinence is the twisted thing and the rape is the healthy thing. Of course movies are primarily entertainment and some people, mostly women I guess, would get a kick out of seeing a healthy, good-looking young guy constantly horny and teased and frustrated, but the movie doesn't even work on that dark level because Hartnett doesn't react the way most men would. Most of the other characters in the film are shallow, obnoxious twenty- somethings who act like 12-year-olds and I can't help thinking that this must be pretty close to what the writers act like. There are a lot of jokes about embarrassment over having erections at work. This isn't the worst movie ever made - that honor I think belongs to "Forrest Gump" - only because "40 Days and 40 Nights" is useful in the way it reveals the society-induced mental disorders of the "writers".

Brokeback Mountain (2005)

Boring Movie

[4/10 · 5 June 2012]

I didn't like Brokeback Mountain. Of course, many people reading that statement, without knowing anything else about me, are going to think, most likely, I didn't like it because I'm homophobic. Actually, since the main problem with the film is that it's freakin' boring, having more gay sex scenes and beefcake shots would undoubtedly have improved it. I don't agree with the other reviewers that "nothing happens in this film". It's about a man (Jake Gyllenhall) who's lust/love for another man (Heath Ledger) is largely unreciprocated and how the situation tears their families apart and makes them both miserable. How is this nothing? If this were a straight couple, would you call it insubstantial subject matter for a film? The problem is that it plays out way too slowly and, because of bad editing and shots in the conversation scenes that last too long there's a weird feeling of emotional separation from the characters. The second half of the film - where Ennis marries a woman and has kids and Jack gets a girlfriend who's also his business parter and this one-sided reciprocation of this ongoing love-lust of the two men ruins their relationships and makes them miserable - is more interesting and involving because it's probably what would have happened due to the societal values and bigotry of the time, and because the slow pacing serves this subject matter better since it all would have happened really slowly in real life and you can really feel Jack's frustration. Michelle Williams is probably the best actor in the film. Gyllenhall and Ledger both have a not-totally-convincing and slightly cutesy acting style (partly, but not mostly, the fault of the writing), but Williams totally embodies the part. She's a totally believable and recognizable type of naive young woman who would grow up in Wyoming at that time. A few people I know, mostly gay people, have mentioned that it's a big problem with the film that neither of them said "I love you" to each other. Well, maybe the connection was mostly physical lust and not love. That happens. Ennis was too emotionally shut-down and too influenced by the homophobia (I hate that word; "gay-hatred" or something like that would be better) of the time to consciously recognize the relationship was even partially about love and probably wouldn't have said it even if he did. It might have been better for the emotional impact of the film if Jack had said, "I love you" to Ennis, but either saying it or not would have been realistic. Some people said there's no chemistry between the two of them. So what? There are people in real life that you can't believe are together. Ledger's performance is overrated. He plays a person with limited emotional expression well, but like Billy Bob Thornton's Karl Childers, it's easier to play a part with limited emotional expression. Another problem is they don't visibly age in 15 years except for a little grey in the hair. I call it the Shawshank Syndrome. All in all, a movie with a good story badly paced and acted.

Arrested Development (2003–2019)

Sharp, Clever, but Occasionally Insubstantial, Social Satire

[8/10 · 28 May 2012]

If I have any criticism of this generally hilarious, clever and entertainingly twisted serial satire, it's that most of it's comedy comes from events and situations that are contrived for their easy-humor potential. Scenes set at social-concept events like "Scared Straight" programs, Oedipally-creepy mother-son pageants or entertainment events like the Blue Man Group or magic shows make it very easy of the writers to mine comedy and satire, but aren't the stuff that generally makes up the day-to-day lives of people, even eccentric people like this. This show contains many parallels to the 1978-81 comedy serial Soap in that it has a serial format and depicts the lives of a few screwed-up, interconnected families, but the way Soap surpassed AD in quality is that the characters on Soap, at least before the desperate last two seasons, spent a large percentage of their time doing basic, everyday things like working at their job, doing laundry at a laundromat or eating dinner and the writers still manage to generate outrageous humor out of it, and that kind of humor is more powerful because it's more relatable, because it comes from the way we deal with the limitations we all encounter trying to live within "societal norms" and within the law. While Soap had more substance, however, AD, all in all, is funnier, more entertaining and less smug. Michael's (Jason Bateman's) no-nonsense reactions to the lunacy of his family is hilarious and believable. Being used to his family's selfishness and craziness and knowing he'll never change it and not having time to react to it, he fast-forwards right past it, immediately seeing things from their point of view and suggesting things that'll appease them from their distorted, delusional perspective in order to keep the dysfunctional family together, which, in the long run, would help him monetarily. What's surprising to me is that there isn't one, but at least two, maybe three, male characters in the regular cast who are depicted as secretly gay, whose hidden homosexual desires are constantly betrayed by the phrasing of offhand comments, something, of course that they're blithely unaware of. Michael and Michael's son George Michael (Michael Cera) are the only likable characters on the show. Most of the jokes are based on the sexual obsessiveness and selfishness and hedonism of these once-wealthy characters, and though exaggerated to cartoon level, they always have a ring of truth to them. Too many pop-culture references and too much celebrity name-dropping though. Instead of an accessory to the show, they become too much of its basic structure. Like on the old sitcom "Here's Lucy", the characters are constantly meeting celebrities and interacting socially with them, something that wouldn't happen this much even if it took place in L.A. or Hollywood. A social satire, even a cartoonishly over-the-top one like this, has to be based somewhat in the real world its satirizing. The subplot with the beautiful British girl Michael almost married who turned out to be mentally retarded was edgy and brilliant, with her using dialogue throughout several episodes that, like Chauncey Gardner's dialogue in the movie "Being There", could either be taken as witty and urbane or stupid and simple-minded. AD is a sharp, funny, cynical and clever satire that occasionally slips into mediocrity, self-congratulation, superficiality and over-contrivance. It's still better than almost everything on television and could have gone on for a several more years. I don't know why it was cancelled, but shows have been cancelled just because, like the classic 1980s satire "Police Squad", TV executives thought they were too "intelligent", "cerebral" or "sophisticated" for American viewers, which I think is sickening. It's also a bit of a vicious circle. People will watch stupid crap because the TV is right there, watching TV is easy and that's almost all there is on TV. If TV writers, directors and producers make well-written, sophisticated, intelligent shows and have the faith in them to keep them on the air long enough for people to realize they're there, people will watch them too.

Do the Right Thing (1989)

Biased, but Powerful, Film

[7/10 · 18 May 2012]

I don't feel like I have the right to comment on whether or not DTRT is racially fair and balanced or whether or not presents a realistic portrait of the black experience in Bed Stuy like a lot of reviewers do. I'm white and don't live there. The best thing about this movie for me is the strikingly original visual stylization. It seems like it uses colored lights or color filters in outdoor scenes, which is something I've never seen in a movie, or at least never seen done to this extreme, with no regard for replicating realistic outdoor light. As for the film's social/political point of view, it certainly seems from the script he's written that Spike Lee is arrogant, racially biased, even anti-white, but so what? I wish moviegoers these days would realize that movies don't have to be a blueprint for living one's life properly and decently, with characters that treat each other fairly and considerately and are an inspiration to the younger generation. Movies are entertainment, and, whether you like it or not, bad behavior is, generally, at least as entertaining as good behavior. All the characters in a movie can be complete *ssholes and it can still be a great movie. Even the so-called heroes of this film are seriously flawed. Mookie (Spike Lee) is a negligent father and boyfriend who only cares about working and getting paid. Even Spike himself has said that the character of Buggin Out (Giancarlo Esposito) was wrong in believing that Sal (Danny Aiello) has an obligation to have photos of black people on the pizzeria wall just because the customers are nearly all black. I agree that if Buggin had his own business, he could put up who he wants. The real racial injustice is the trouble he'd have starting the business in the first place, things like not being able to get a loan because he's poor and black. People have said that in the scene in which everyone is yelling racial slurs into the camera is anti-Semitic because after the Korean has shouted anti-Jewish slurs the scene ends and the Jews don't get to retaliate. To that, let me offer this point of view: THE SCENE HAS TO END SOMEWHERE! The way the scene is structured, with each character on screen disparaging a new ethnic group. it either has to go on forever or somebody has to be left out. True, Spike wouldn't have ended the scene with Pino (John Turturro) saying the anti-black slurs, but that doesn't mean the scene is necessarily anti-Semitic. i think the plot of getting photographs of black people on the pizzeria wall is weak, unimaginative and too literal. And Spike is a terrible actor, but probably does his best acting in this film. The retarded character Smiley (Roger Guenveur Smith) is too expensively and stylishly dressed. Being so-called disabled and selling photographs for a buck or two on the street, he probably couldn't afford those clothes. Tina's (Rosie Perez's) incessant nagging of Mookie seems like a movie cliché: the unsupportive, overbearing, haranguing girlfriend/wife. Da Mayor's (Ossie Davis's) unreciprocated romantic pursuit of a hostile and unmoved Mother Sister (Ruby Dee) is also a familiar movie cliché, largely unmotivated and too cutesy for this semi-realistic movie. The scene in which Radio Raheem (Bill Nunn) buys the batteries from the Koreans ("D, motherf*cker, D!") is a masterpiece of character-driven comedy. I like the way the store-owner (Steve Park) is on the edge of exploding verbally, even goading him, pretending he thought he asked for C batteries instead of D. I think Bill Nunn is the best actor in the DTRT, with a natural and seemingly effortless characterization of an overbearing and obnoxious but also deep-thinking and intelligent young man. The riot in front of the pizzeria with the cops choking Raheem to death is intense, violent, well-done and believable. The theme of this film will never get out-of-date, since police brutallty, racially-motivated and otherwise, will never stop. The scene in which the voice of DJ Senor Love Daddy (Samuel L. Jackson) is just listing famous black musicians is superficial and insubstantial, as if just dropping their names is going to infuse the film with the impact listening their music gives. I've seen that trend in a lot of movies lately: just mentioning the names of actors the writer likes or the names of songs, TV shows or movies the writer thinks are cool. It's lazy writing. This film is actually, to me, less about racial hatred than how extreme physical discomfort (in this case, from extreme hot weather) can either bring out feelings we represses or turns us into something we're not. Sal, I think, is too up-front with his intolerance and prejudice. His character would probably try to mask his feelings with humor and condescending false attempts to ingratiate himself with the black customers. This is a very biased, unbalanced, but entertaining and powerful film. Of course I don't know this for a fact, but I think Spike possibly has a lot of hostility toward whites that's possibly well-founded and that is definitely a great deal of the impetus of this script, but no one in this film does exactly "the right thing". There are no role models, but that's often how life is. Like most controversies, the issue of black and white isn't all black and white.

Sling Blade (1996)

The Best Film of the 90s!

[9/10 · 13 May 2012]

Usually I don't like the style of filmmaking in which whole scenes or long stretches of dialogue are shot from one angle, especially if it's an extreme wide shot as are most of the shots in Sling Blade. It reminds me of public access TV talk shows or the films of first-year film students and it generally causes the viewer's attention to drift. it has to be done with style, in other words the lighting and theme of the film should match the remote, impersonal feeling of the camera-work. That's exactly what this film does. Just about everything about this film works, and works powerfully. It's a dark film both thematically and literally, and the characters are so real and believable I couldn't stop watching it even during a second and third viewing. The outcome of the film, I think, is supposed to be predictable. Realistic films are often predictable because life is often predictable. The propensity of the mental hospital director (James Hampton) to evaluate Karl (Billy Bob Thornton) based on a the kind of superficial blanket diagnosis he learned in medical school is a typical and dangerous problem with mental health "professionals". The treatment of mentally ill people should be taken on a case-by-case basis, taking into account every part of their entire life situation, past and present, but of course that kind of attention, research and care takes a huge amount of time, money and effort for overworked mental health workers. This film shows that not doing that work can result in something much worse than making one's job more difficult, such as people being locked up for no good reason or, as in this case, people being released who are killers. Mental health "consumers" are generally more intelligent, diverse, and complex and HUMAN than the people who try to control them think they are, or HAVE to think they in order to control them. As far as the acting, i think the Lucas Black as the boy Frank and Dwight Yoakom as Linda's sadistic boyfriend Doyle are better than Billy Bob Thornton as Karl because Karl's fixed facial expression makes his acting easier, even if keeping that expression was physically painful. The scene where Doyle was trying to act nice to Linda and Frank out of fear of losing Linda was a masterpiece. That's exactly how a sadistic *sshole like that would act and talk in that situation. Even in trying to act nice he'd twist things around to make himself seem more important and indispensable to them. In the garage scenes, you can sense the unspoken boredom and desperation and disappointment with life in Karl's coworkers. I hope the gay character Vaughn (the late John Ritter) wasn't just thrown in because in 1996 it was just starting to be the style in Hollywood to throw in a gay character. It seems like that because the existence of his character doesn't help set up the film's conclusion and everything else in the film does, but he's very funny and believable and his speech is typical of the new gay political correctness. One line by the boy Frank, when speaking about Vaughn, is totally implausible: "Queers do better in the big town". A 9-year-old boy, especially one who lives out in the sticks, wouldn't know something like that, but that's nitpicking in a great film like this. It's strange, though, how Linda (Natalie Canerday) doesn't have a single close-up in the entire film. The closest the camera gets to her face is a middle-range-shot in the baptism scene. In the scene where Karl kills Doyle, it was a good decision not to show the blade actually striking the head. Everyone can imagine what a cracked skull looks like. It doesn't make the scene any more powerful to see it, in fact probably less. I think generally it only works to show an ultra-violent act on film if it's a documentary in which you're trying to convince the viewer about the cruelty and sadism of some actual group or person, because in that case the viewer is already swayed by a deeply-engrained false opinion and need to be wrenched out of it by something visceral and visually shocking. The background music in the film seems to add dignity to these unhappy characters while simultaneously making the impending tragedy seem more inevitable. It's not an entirely realistic world this film creates, maybe EVEN more dark and murky than life usually is both visually and thematically, but it's realistic enough to draw you into its darkness.

Titanic (1997)

The Blandest, Stupidest Account Possible of One of the Biggest Disasters in History

[1/10 · 12 May 2012]

The producers and writers of Titanic obviously believed they'd bore and alienate the targeted teen and twenty-something audience to the point of losing them if the characters had the attitudes, mannerisms and style of speech that was appropriate for the time, so they had Jack (Leonardo Dicaprio) and Rose (Kate Winslett) speaking contemporary dialogue in a contemporary style, or at least contemporary for '97. A young man in 1912 would not say, "You seem more like an indoor girl." Aside from a certain hostile type of mental patient or the most outrageous and anti-social bohemian agitator, young adults in 1912 did not repeatedly tell their elders to shut up. The creators of the film are counting on what they perceive to be the teen and young adult's lack of knowledge or interest in the values and social customs of the very early 20th century. Since they want the audience to get swept away by the drama and romance of Jack and Rose they want them to relate to everything about them. I remember that this was billed as somewhat of a a fantasy re-imagining of a real event, but this type of historical revisionism, I think, in which human behavior is simply made more familiar, is an insult to any viewer with a 3-digit I.Q. One continuity problem that really gets me is how, when the ship is sinking and Jack and Rose are still inside, the water level is lower and the water becomes calmer around them every time they have a conversation. Again, the makers of the film don't want the reality of the disaster to encroach on, or distract us from, the passionate young romance they're trying to draw us into. Clearly the creators of the film think that the romance is a bigger draw for a major segment of the audience than the story of an enormous disaster that killed over 1,500 people and I'm sure they're right, but often when true and fictional stories exist in the same movie, one weakens the impact of the other, and it's certainly true in this case. I haven't seen the new 3D version but I assume the only change is the 3D effect. This is a bland, pandering, intelligence-insulting and epically overrated epic.

A Very Brady Sequel (1996)

Very Good Parody of a Very Bad T.V. Show

[9/10 · 11 May 2012]

First off, it should go without saying that The Brady Bunch was one of the worst, lamest, stupidest shows on television, but it goes without saying, too, that a lot of forty-and- fiftysomethings disagree. That, I think, is pretty much solely because it reminds them of their childhood, when most of them were happier, and had their whole life ahead of them, and any show that they remember watching in their youth, and that has some semblance of the styles, values and attitudes of that era, regardless of how bad the writing is, will do the same thing for them. With dialogue and behavior so brain-damaged it's almost a surreal experience to watch, it's perfect fodder for a satire. It should have been done in the late seventies, of course, a few years after it was cancelled, but better late than never. Unfortunately, these are affectionate satires created by people who seemingly actually liked the show, but they still work because the jokes are so dead-on and they string all the elements of the show together to create simple, entertaining plots. They're actually very campy, which is probably the best way to approach this immaterial material. The sequel, for a change, is the superior of the two. The first one was kind of boring, which is the worst thing a satire can be. The plot of the stolen horse in the sequel is appropriately ludicrous. Christine Taylor as Marcia bears a freakily uncanny resemblance to Maureen McCormick. Olivia Hack creates a classic distortion of Cindy. The only characters that don't quite work are Christopher Daniel Barnes as Greg, using facial mannerisms that parody straight-edge 70's nerds in general but not Greg in particular, and Shelley Long as Carol. There's always something subtly sad and pitiful about Shelly Long's face, voice and mannerisms in everything she's acted in. It works for Jay Pritchett's ex-wife and Diane Chambers, but is precisely wrong for Carol Brady. Her character seems like it thinks deeply and gets depressed, which makes the character too three-dimensional. Tim Matheson as Carol's fake ex-husband is humorously self-serving and unctuous. It's just personal taste, but I found the short-sleeve Banlon shirts he wears in almost every scene really annoying. Zsa Zsa Gabor's cameo was great. I don't see the satirical significance of having Rosie O'Donnell there though. There was one missed opportunity for a good joke. After the scene where Roy has a trip after eating spaghetti in which Alice accidentally put his stash of psychedelic mushrooms, he asks Marsha, "Who put the psychedelic mushrooms in the spaghetti?" She should have said, "Go ask Alice. I think she'll know."

The Shawshank Redemption (1994)

One of the Most Overrated Films Ever Made!

[2/10 · 7 May 2012]

It seems that every time a movie comes out with an exceedingly positive and uplifting message or story, the average moviegoer is blind to any other problems or shortcomings the film might have. Every moment of this film feels phony and hollow. The character of Red (Morgan Freeman) is just a vehicle to keep the plot moving and doesn't seem to even exist as a whole person. His narration is embarrassing with its phony regional dialect and forced folksiness. The prison life depicted, while brutal and violent in a few scenes, is overromanticized by the picturesque cinematography and florid music. The plot is fairly clever but, like bad American television, everything that happens is in service of the plot. There's no behavior from the characters that doesn't help bring you to the film's stunningly maudlin final scene. And there are logistical problems, like the fact that you can't make a hole in a thick metal sewer pipe by hitting it with a rock three times. They could have solved this problem by just showing a shot of a clock moving forward. The best character is a relatively brief and peripheral one, Brooks (James Whitmore). Whitmore doesn't seem to know he's in such a shallow, contrived movie and gives the character a realism and three-dimensionality the other characters don't have in his short time on screen. In the montage-type scene in which he's trying to cope with life out of prison, however, he suddenly seems less intelligent and more of a stereotype of a befuddled old man. Tim Robbins as Andy Dufresne is somewhere between good and mediocre, seeming to force weird expressions onto his face like he just read the character description in the script for the first time. Bob Gunton as Warden Norton is over-the-top and seemingly one-dimensional, but it works because Bible-thumpers are often over-the-top and seemingly one-dimensional. He's actually believable and interesting to watch. The prison guard Hadley (Clancy Brown) is realistically sadistic, but his type of comically crude sexual language sounds too contemporary for the time. The final scene is just so unrealistically over-the-top happy and sunny it's an insult to the viewer's intelligence and, I think, ruins much of the film. This film obviously has developed a huge following over the years, but I think that's largely just because of it's sentiment of hopefulness and positivity, and that doesn't necessarily indicate a well-written, well-executed, well-acted film. Some of the worst crap in theatres and on television has a hopeful, inspiring, uplifting message. Of course a film doesn't have to depict a realistic world. In fact, I like surrealism in movies. But it should at least show an interesting version of a world, and to keep any intelligent viewer's attention the characters have to be fully realized, seemingly existing in a world outside of the film's plot.

Modern Family (2009–2020)

Entertaining and Funny, But Seriously Flawed, Satire

[6/10 · 5 May 2012]

Scripted shows that employ a documentary format often use the P.O.V. talking-head shot as a gimmick to put more visual variety into the show, and to create a style of story-telling that they hope will keep your attention without having to improve the plot or characterizations. You can tell because they often go back to the interview at the most weakly-written moments. This is one problem, but not the major one, with Modern Family. The aspects that disturb me the most are these: they're supposed to be modern families and there are no working mothers (do the writers misunderstand the term "post-feminist era"?) except for a few temporary jobs in single eps. Also there are no poor or even lower-middle-class characters. Actually, I do remember one character who was poor, but of course he was a one-time character on a Christmas episode. I'm sick of the characters whining about first-world problems like not being able to buy the "perfect gift" for their spouse on their birthday. What's so tragic about buying the iPad the day before or after their birthday? I realize this is a satire, but the writers don't seem to have that much contempt for the people they're satirizing. They don't seem to be TRYING to show how spoiled and self-centered many upper-middle-class are (it just comes out that way). That's not part of the satire, except maybe with the character of Haley (Sarah Hyland). Another thing that bothers me is that Claire (Julie Bowen) comes off as a lot crazier than the writers seem to intend. She's ALWAYS breathlessly freaking out, and it's more irritating than funny. In real life she's be at least an OUTpatient in some psychiatric facility. The gay couple (Eric Stonestreet and Jesse Tyler Ferguson) are gay stereotypes, especially Cameron, but since I hate political correctness and they're actually funny it doesn't bother me much. It would be nice, however, if the show did what it could to improve America's perception of gay people. Since Camoron is a prissy, whining, crying drama queen, the other character, Mitchell, could be the antithesis of a gay stereotype. The comedy could come from people thinking the character is straight. Manny's (Rico Rodriguez's) character doesn't resemble any human being on the planet. He's too cartoonish (sitcoms have always had kids who act like adults and adults who act like kids) and neither funny nor well-acted. On the positive side, Ed O'Neill is amazing as Jay Pritchett. As he was in "Married, With Children", he's like a comedy machine, delivering every line perfectly. To sum up, Modern Family is funny and entertaining but not particularly witty and intelligent, and uses a kind of soft-edged, sentimental satire that flatters, but doesn't challenge, the audience's ability to laugh at itself.

Monk (2002–2009)

Monk's OCD is Often Exploited for Laughs

[9/10 · 1 May 2012]

I've read interviews with the producers, writers and directors of the show that say they make sure that the obsessive-compulsive character of Adrian Monk is depicted with sensitivity and dignity and is never the butt of the jokes or exploited for comedic value. Anyone who watches the show for more than ten minutes, however, knows that this is bull. The main reason for having a character with eccentric behavior on a comedy is to laugh at that behavior. In the process of investigating that week's crime, Monk does weird things like make the police's "Do Not Cross" tape perfectly straight or even out the arms of an unconscious victim and we're supposed to laugh. The sudden light-hearted background music, or the simple fact that it's a comedy, tells us that. It's right there; how can the creators of the show pretend anything more high-minded or sophisticated is going on? And the juxtaposition of a detective noir setting doesn't change the fact that we're laughing at the behavior of a man with a mental illness. Before you think that I'm hopelessly politically correct and humorless, I want to say that I think there's nothing wrong with that. People have always laughed at dark serious subjects like diseases or afflictions that cause people great misery and pain. It's human nature and it doesn't mean we're necessarily bigoted or insensitive. I have OCD and I suffer a lot from it and almost nothing on the show offends me. I just wish the creators of the show would be honest about what they're doing. The only thing that ever really offended me was the ep "Mr. Monk Takes his Medicine". After refusing medication for years, he agrees to take a pill Dr. Kroeger prescribed. The very next day, he turns into the exact opposite of his usual self. Not only is he relaxed and extroverted, with all his neurotic behavior gone, he's making messes, eating off people's plates, hugging strangers etc. He went from Felix to Oscar overnight! Aside from the obvious fact that psych medication doesn't work like that, it's a trite, desperate and overused gimmick of TV comedy to have a character suddenly become the exact opposite of himself. The viewers have come to expect a higher, more realistically complex level of writing from the show. Other problems is that they never used the exact terms "O.C.D." or "Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder" on the show. What's the thinking behind that? And Natalie's (Traylor Howard's) face seems physically incapable of any expressions but neutral or smiling. Aside from those criticisms, it's an unusually entertaining show with often clever (if often implausible) plots and a realistically quirky kind of dialogue that you rarely hear on American television.

Married... with Children (1987–1997)

The Lack of Quality in the Later Seasons

[7/10 · 27 April 2012]

Married seemed to have been taken over late in the 5th season by writers who didn't understand what the show was trying to convey or what was effective or appealing about it. It started out as a dark comedy that used sarcastic dialogue and controlled comedic exaggeration to show the hostilities and resentment that members a family (in this case a "white trash" suburban family) feel toward each other deep down and usually suppress out of basic human decency. Though it always had toilet humor and crude sex jokes, the writing was actually fairly sophisticated in that it used low humor for a high purpose, to show the often ugly truth of the relationships in the kinds of families that make up a huge portion of the American population, and the frustration of the lower-class working man. Around the third season it got a little more far-fetched and cartoonish with too much time given to Bud (David Faustino) and Kelly's (Christina Applegate) verbal put-downs, which were tediously redundant and reminiscent of JJ and Thelma's fighting on the African-American 70s sitcom Good Times. Al became even more pathetic, but in, I think, a profound way (In the classic "Peggy Turns 300", Al and Peg go bowling and Al is distressed that Peg seems about to bowl a perfect game, making it impossible to conceivably beat her. When she gets a 9 in the last frame, Al jumps up and down with joy and his vibrations cause the last pin to fall. Perfect!) Somewhere in the 5th season however, probably with the two-part ep "Route 666", the entire sensibility of the show suddenly changed. The dark, biting satire was, for the most part, replaced with random crazy behavior of the characters, sexiness for the sake of sexiness and superficial, weakly-constructed jokes. The cartoony outrageousness had a numbing effect. Everything in the script was in service of the weak, contrived joke, even at the expense of character consistency. At about this time, Ted McGinley entered the cast. Every show he's been on (Love Boat, Happy Days) seemed to go down in quality, and then get cancelled, shortly after he joined the cast. Though Married didn't get cancelled for several more years, the writing certainly went down in quality. Al even seemed to become, occasionally, a nice guy. There were references to him being on the verge of starving to death, but since he was always concerned with things like "being cool", you never really believed it. Though he was suppose to be hated by everyone, he was often seen with lots of friends (the NO-MA'AM group). I believe all this ruined the poignancy and profoundness of his character, and the writing of the entire show was weak, randomly "zany" and often just plain stupid. Could it be said that Al Bundy's ultimate curse was Ted McGinley?