Blogcritics Author: Victoria Ho

Announcement: Short-content feeds

Phillip Winn — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT

Sunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding.

Movie Review: Barnyard

Victoria Ho — Sat, 2 Sep 2006 15:51:48 EDT

This is Otis. He is a cow. That's right. Otis is a cow—a boy cow. Otis' father, Ben, is a big, butch cow who's in charge of the farm they live on, with other caricatured animals. I meant butch as in big, mean, tough and so on, not so much in what you'd term tomboyish girls, but I might as well have, since by all anatomical laws, cows are usually female, and that makes Ben one manly girl.Don't get me wrong; I'm all for artistic expression. The other farm animals in Barnyard are odd, cartoony versions of the real thing, which could go in two directions: amplified cuteness or strange deviations of nature. In this case, they mostly lean towards the latter, and while that's fine by me, I draw the line at male cows with jiggly, pink udders. Much like nipples on a man, they don't serve any function on the cows in the film.There is a bull, by the way, but he's just in the background, appearing in one flash scene where he rides a mechanical rodeo man, and at the end where he gets weepy eyed at the birth of Otis' girlfriend's little calf. Thankfully, the calf is not biologically Otis'. C'mon, it's a family show. Otis' girlfriend was already pregnant when they met.Yeeah.Ben, by the way, also abides by natural laws. He is also not Otis' biological father, but he found and raised him as his own.This might be the first ever film to actively include the smaller part of society that was brought up by a single, transgendered parent. May no one accuse the writer of not finding a unique selling point.Unfortunately, the rest of the film flounders about in terms of finding empathy with the audience. Apart from a tear-jerking scene in the middle (okay, I cried, I cried!), it often resorts to lame cracks and slapstick physical humour to lighten the mood now and then. And while it remains predominantly a kids' film with its message and targeting, that's even bigger cause for concern, what with misleading message on the affairs of cows and bulls and somewhat frightening scenes with coyotes.Okay, I was frightened, all right?

Victoria Ho is a writer, photographer and full-time geek. She lives and writes in Singapore.

TV Review: Nip/Tuck - Season Three

Victoria Ho — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 18:09:35 EDT

Word to the wise: Don't eat during episodes of Nip/Tuck. At least not during Season Three. With each season, they seem to be continually pushing the envelope with how far they can detail-ise blood and gore for TV consumption. This round, they've broken out the macro lens with stylised, slow motion close-ups. Perhaps they've been bitten by the CSI bug. The rest of this article will describe fairly graphic scenes and possible spoilers.I just know the last couple of times I tried to pick up a sandwich during the episode it proved to be quite the challenge. How much do you truly need to show the skin around a person's midsection getting jerked about by the surgeon's liposuction tube violently hovering beneath? While making screen caps for this review, I was very tempted to capture all the gory, grotesque bits, but decided against it in favour of good manners. It seemed downright rude to plaster pictures of, for example, the face transplant they so matter-of-factly portrayed, all over this page. And don't get me started on the poor girl's face when her body decided to reject the donor face tissue. (If you're cringing, don't watch Season Three.) Moving off from the previous season, they're back with the serial rapist, the "Carver" storyline. Still slashing people's faces and leaving cryptic notes behind, he's progressed to a stage worthy only of the show's own leap off propriety's platform.The Carver, creepy white mask in tow, has now progressed to killing his victims, writing on walls with their blood, and kidnapping the girlfriend of one of the protagonists. He -- hold your breath -- reverses all ten plastic surgeries she's ever had sans anesthesia, and sends her boyfriend, Christian Troy, a parcel with her silicone breast implants in it, covered in blood.I think there's a lot to be said for dramatic impact, but surely the gore could've been toned down a smidgeon without drawing away from the shock factor. That being said, the show has a fantastic cast, great writers, and a plotline so intriguing it'd grab anyone's attention, even without the visual spectacle.By the end of the season, they've played so much on the reverse-reverse psychology that you scarcely believe who the Carver is, even when they serve him up on a platter explicitly. You just think it's another deviation from the plot. By the time it's confirmed beyond the shadow of a doubt, you're hit with the dull thud of an anticlimax completely unbefitting of the drawn-out suspense the show built up over a season and a half.I already spoilt it for myself by Google-imaging "Carver, Nip/Tuck." The first hit was the Carver. Unmasked. Eesh.But watch it anyway if you can stomach it. (And I don't mean how much the actor playing Sean's son looks like Michael Jackson.) Unfortunately, you won't be able to fast forward through the operation bits without missing anything because the writers have chosen those moments to inject plenty of plot-crucial dialogue. Furthermore, there's already unavoidable violence (hitting someone with an already-broken nose) and gore (various emboweled Carver victims) outside of the operating room. After all, if the show were trying to push the envelope, their best bet would've been to make the entire world a veritable operating theatre. Just the thing for a show bent on making plastic surgery a metaphor for all the world's maladies.

Victoria Ho is a writer, photographer and full-time geek. She lives and writes in Singapore.

Thoughts on Supernanny - More than Just a Frosty Glare

Victoria Ho — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 12:23:11 EDT

For weeks now, I've been fairly addicted to the U.K. series, Supernanny. Basically, the premise is simple: rotten child(ren) get "supernanny" Jo Frost to pay them a visit for about three weeks, camera crew in tow. She works her magic, rotten child(ren) come out of the entire shebang smelling like roses, the parents are happy and the audience is relieved. I say "relieved" because to me, it's unfathomable that anyone can watch monstrous children tear the household apart and not feel significantly frustrated; their eventual "transformation" is the final closure to the hour-long teeth-clenching, fist-balling episode documenting appalling behavior.And to the Asian, where the rod is absolutely not spared, that extra disciplinary option often leads to more frustration on the viewer's part, because you're left thinking, "Why don't you just smack the little bugger?"This perverse, self-inflicted frustration is the reason why the series has become so big. Just when I thought each formulaic and predictable episode was still enjoyable enough each week, watching it tonight with my mum brought that to new heights."Why doesn't somebody cane him?" she asked in despair, when the child ran about the house, screaming his lungs off. "Don't give him any juice!" she pleaded with the TV, when the mother was trying to placate the screaming child with cranberry juice."Aiyah, these young mothers and their new age parenting," she sighed. Finally, when the child screamed bloody murder and threw out a couple of vulgarities at his parents, she gasped in horror.Watching the show together, I reach a whole new level of perverse joy seeing MY mother get frustrated with these appalling children. It's also a good hint to your parents that you're The Best Child Anybody Should Ask For, because they're inevitably going to think back about how much better you were, compared to Possessed Child on TV (though what kind of comparison is that?) and double -- no, triple -- their gratitude for how great you've made their lives.Nothing beats looking good, and if you can't change the past, you can most certainly rock bottom their standards of comparison.

Victoria Ho is a writer, photographer and full-time geek. She lives and writes in Singapore.

Marvel at Imperfection

Victoria Ho — Thu, 10 Nov 2005 10:43:14 EST

Yeah, so I'm a bad loser. I hate playing games I can't win, and I hardly try to get better if I suck beyond redemption at the start. I'm also one of those people who have to google for validation on my opinions now and then (subsequently bitching about it on my blog if I fail to find any).Going through my collection of PSP games to lend a friend, I chanced upon marvel nemesis: rise of the imperfects, a game I had (I think) angrily thrown in a corner, having not been able to go past stage two after repeated tries over half an hour. (I also hate games which startle me, and this thing had the enemy blasting stuff at me, coupled with ominous music. Not fun at three in the morning.)While the game had glowing reviews for its xbox version, much to my chagrin, it shockingly had fair reviews as well for the PSP. How is that possible? For a game which has, having already started badly, been stripped and dumbed down even further because of the PSP's lack of a second analog stick, what we're faced with is a button-smasher pretending to be a lot more complicated.Don't get me wrong--I love hack-and-slash games, like dynasty warriors, to name one. But there isn't any pretence on the part of the latter, and it's a button-smasher with style, embellished with semi-accurate historical accounts and stylish martial arts flourishes.But marvel's imperfects are just that. They give you tedious "player ups" with cards that you earn with each victory, allowing some increases in power (in all, not worth the effort made in earning them), and make you play through ten stages just to unlock more characters. A mistake they made was only allowing you two characters to begin with: Johnny Ohm and The Thing. Johnny who? For a casual marvel fan, I would've preferred it if wolverine or cyclops were available, instead.Yes, this is a fighting game, and if people didn't expect complication or a proper storyline from street fighter or tekken, why should this be any exception? Only because both of the aforementioned fighting games had sufficiently diverse controls to keep you occupied--to make them truly fighting games. Button-smashers need some sort of style or storyline or drama to propel them through, and marvel imperfects just lacks any of that.

Victoria Ho is a writer, photographer and full-time geek. She lives and writes in Singapore.

Star Wars Episode 3: Revenge of the Sith - Of Course the Sith is Pissed

Victoria Ho — Thu, 19 May 2005 15:44:42 EDT

what was i expecting, watching star wars ep III tonight? nothing, for one. and nothing i got. which was what i was expecting, i guess. or not expecting. know what i mean?i thought rottentomatoes' aggregate score would agree with me, but it didn't, because it's pronounced the film 83% fresh by critics. and perhaps i'm just not with it enough to get the beauty of the giant space opera epic, but seriously... what happened there?i tried really hard, i promise i did, not to be too judgmental or set any hopes high. but when samuel l. jackson's character took a zillion years to kill the evil sith master lord person, you just know he's asking to be killed. there he is, poised above the enemy with his light saber (wow did that sound kind of weird taken out of context? uh.) and he's standing there going, "okay, i'm going to kill you now," and "aaaaanytime now, watch it!" and "your time has come, darth blahblah," and "say your prayers... hasta la vista evil sith thing!"so when he finally is killed, (i'm not spoiling this for anyone, it's too obvious, trust me) you practically breathe a sigh of relief so that he can stop thinking up empty threats.i like the bit where natalie portman and hayden christensen (you can tell by how i can't use their character names that i really wasn't getting into it) declare their love for each other, the string section playing in the background. it goes something like:him: you're so beautiful her: only because i'm so in love with you. him: no, only because i'm so in love with you.huh? if i were her, i would've walked over and slapped him and forbade him from stealing anymore lines from me. but i might've said "all the better to eat you with," to begin with, to avoid the entire hallmark-reject moment anyway, i reckon.and really, what he said after that isn't all that flattering, is it? like...him: uhh... actually, you aren't that good looking. only that i'm so in love. so i'm biased. so your looks are more a projection of my affection in my mind's eye, and i'm actually truly in love with whatever i think i'm in love with. which means that i'm pretty much in love with myself and my beautiful thought processes. uh huh uh huh.

Victoria Ho is a writer, photographer and full-time geek. She lives and writes in Singapore.

Nothing To Get Huffy Over

Victoria Ho — Wed, 2 Feb 2005 15:28:08 EST

Sure, it's got the excellently-cast Hank Azaria in it, but I'm not too sure I like Huff all that much. Amidst the well-shot angles and initially-tricky plot topics, it just comes across as trying too hard.What makes for good television sometimes only requires a good (looking?) cast, good script or good directing. In these, Huff seems to possess elements of all, but they tend to run into disharmony -- the script, albeit meaty, tends to drag the pace at times when it pauses for meaningful silences, or presents such a cacophony of issues that the audience is moved beyond frustration to plain boredom, instead. The clever camera angles and film-like feel tends to feel a little too pretentious then, and makes for an even faker-feeling experience.This is not to say that the cast can't pull the script off. They can, and they ought to be -- We have Hank Azaria, Oliver Platt, Blythe Danner and Paget Brewster (whom I noticed and haven't forgotten since her memorable turn in Friends). Problem is, casting actors who are generally linked to comedy is risky: It could be great, and we end up realising they have more acting depth than originally perceived; or we could have problems breaking out of that mental ditch, having the actors then come across as completely artificial and out of place.In this case, unfortunately, it's the latter where the cast seems to be placed. Moreover, it's fallen straight into No Man's Land, where television is concerned -- I (speaking just for myself, at least) am not excited, nor interested in what's going to happen the week after. In that, however, I realise I might be alone somewhat, since the series has been slated for a second season.To that, I say well done, and hope Season Two will be a little more natural on the feel. That's all it needs to elevate it from its current disarray to a product far greater than the sum of its parts.

Victoria Ho is a writer, photographer and full-time geek. She lives and writes in Singapore.

Focked Up

Victoria Ho — Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:27:49 EST

I was much anticipating Ben Stiller's sequel to Meet the Parents, particularly because of how well the first installment was received. I figured Meet the Fockers would do a decent job of upping that, especially with the help of Dustin Hoffman and Barbara Streisand. After all, casting well-known Hollywood icons is a simple but effective way of drawing in crowds. Unfortunately, it isn't a surefire way of guaranteeing a film's success.Without discredit to the actors -- most of whom I felt did a fine job; Hoffman, in particular -- the film fell flat on its face because it slipped and slid into a double-whammy: being a sequel, and being a Ben Stiller sequel.For one, it ran smack into the sequel rut, where (a) stabs at old jokes fell flat, (b) the plot wasn't quite carried on beyond a simple idea and (c) the viewers are left hoping and praying there wouldn't be a third installation.With Ben Stiller's touch, what we have is toilet humour repeated past novelty, where its predictability also spawns boredom and annoyance, simultaneously.A perfect example of the rehashed old joke from the first part is that corny eye-pointy thing Robert De Niro does to signal he's "watching" Ben Stiller's character. While that's all fine and very FBI-esque, when the baby in the film starts at it, it just gets completely trite. A mini-me of Robert De Niro? Hey, that idea only worked once in a totally separate comedy.The idea of old people getting sexy/sexual is an old stock way of making people squirm in their seats -- old people too, ironically. This was used, for example, in Duplex, when the elderly lady gets a kiss from Stiller, much to the audience's predicted revulsion. But when you centre the entire film around that concept, from right at the start of Streisand's appearance, to even the clinching moment of the plot's turn, where the elderly judge mentions his gratitude to her for her "help" with his sex life, one starts getting numb to the entire concept.And if you start being okay with a concept you were physically rejecting earlier, you ought to be worried about the subliminally sinister effects of an already superficially-sickening film.Sure, the plot progressed with formulaic Hollywood flow: problem, process to solving it, nice happy, resolved ending where baddie (ooh) sees the light. Sure, the cast was stellar, to say the least. Sure, slapstick comedy works and is used to that effect.But all that could not save a film that made me feel like it was just a money-making vehicle, at the very crux of it. Ben Stiller's had some gems in the past, but this just gleams dully like a poor imitation of them would. Jokes and themes that worked before worked before; copying them over just leaves the audience disatisfied with the awkward shift in context.

Victoria Ho is a writer, photographer and full-time geek. She lives and writes in Singapore.

The Joy of Seamonkeys

Victoria Ho — Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:16:06 EDT

It's a funny thing. You've seen them in Toys 'R' Us since you were little, but if you've never had them as a child, chances are slim that you'll ever pick a set up. Most people don't even know if they're "real".Seamonkeys -- just a fanciful name for brine shrimp, it would seem. Granted that the name is rather misleading (they are and look nothing like monkeys), would you pick up a packet of eggs off the shelf labelled "shrimp as pets"? The website cites their tails as the reason for why the corporation marketed them under that name; a lame attempt, some might think, at masking just really good packaging skills.But all profit-making aside, I never thought I'd be quite as caught up with the little critters as I have been. You read about people getting into these things: adults, with families and jobs and some semblance of a life. You can't imagine why someone would want these tiny little things swimming around a plastic tank on their desks.But when a friend picked a set up for her brother, I thought, what the hell, I'll give it a shot too. I got the set with the little toy castle in the centre of the plastic tank. I followed the instructions (well-written and illustrated) to a T. They seemed to thrive, and I soon found myself with a tank of around 20 adult seamonkeys.Then it fell to bits; I overfed them once, thinking they might have been starving, and overnight, I was picking up carcasses off the tank floor. All but two were gone. The two, however, consisted of an adult male and female.Just as I was beginning to get used to the idea of having two seamonkeys flitting about till their eventual death, I noticed soon after that they were mating, and that the female was pregnant. Could this be? A signal that my seamonkey-rearing days weren't over?And apparently, they aren't. I've spotted, at a go, 6 little baby seamonkeys swimming about. Could be more, only I keep losing count, because of how incredibly tiny (and identical) they are.But the effect of having these is what I'm amazed at. I realise I'm checking on them when I wake, if I happen to be home in the day, and before I go to bed. They've provided my usually-haphazard schedule with some sort of anchor, some sort of routine, even. And as far as a kid may expend that tiny little bit of energy caring for something, the care that I'm providing for the seamonkeys is exceeding my usual apathy towards these things.I had a cactus that died of neglect and dehydration.But this time, I'm actually supplementing my personal blog with their updates. And people write to tell me they're following my online updates on their progress, and so on.It's just... astonishing. I wouldn't go so far as to say it may be the same as caring for fish, or other aquatic pets, but damn, these shrimp seem to have a personality worth exploring. You just wouldn't know till you pick a set up for yourself.

Victoria Ho is a writer, photographer and full-time geek. She lives and writes in Singapore.

13 Going On 30

Victoria Ho — Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:29:07 EDT

Against friends' dissuasion, I went and caught 13 Going On 30, starring the surprisingly-lovely Jennifer Garner. And I admit too, that I was pretty hyped up about catching it, because I'm often easily entertained by fluffy, light comedies that others perceive as far too predictable. The verdict? I loved it.Of course I did. But here's the thing; I found myself crying not once but twice -- something I didn't expect myself to be doing in such a film. I won't spoil it for you, but let's just say that the first time, I was just so glad for her, for her self-discovery. The second time, I was touched but also just so enthralled by the way that Garner and her co-star, Mark Ruffalo, brought us to the ending.Speaking of self-discovery, for that matter, how often do you see that happening in a comedy? Interestingly, the only direct parallel I can find to this movie is What Women Want, and that was brought to you by the same people who did this film, too. You know the drill: the high-powered worker, got everything in life, good-looking to boot and popular, has some sort of life-altering experience and discovers new stuff about not just the people around him/her, but also basically about him/herself -- and fixes it by the end of the 120 minutes.Sure, it's predictable in that way, but I'd say chalk up another point for Garner, for her portrayal of a kid in an adult's body. Sure, Tom Hanks was cute and believable in Big, but he was nowhere near any sort of understanding of life and the people around him. He just wanted to be little again. Garner's Jenna Rink actually goes and gets off her butt and works at it.Perhaps my only little niggle about the film is a slight lapse in continuity, which is, how on earth did Jenna Rink get so good at applying her make-up and picking out great outfits a mere day after transformation? She may have read a lot of beauty magazines, but she was distinctly experimenting, still, the day before, having been rather shabby with the make-up, in particular. But the technique with which she was patting and fluffing and sprinkling stuff on her face the day after was just... impressive -- too impressive.Don't go into the film expecting great controversy or even a very intellectual script, of course. Just be appreciative of a few curveballs the film throws your way with regards to still working within its genre, and don't be surprised if you shed a couple of tears yourself.

Victoria Ho is a writer, photographer and full-time geek. She lives and writes in Singapore.

French Kiss

Victoria Ho — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 12:31:30 EDT

If there's one movie I know far too well, it's French Kiss. It made its stars, Meg Ryan and Kevin Kline, two of my all-time favourite actors, and rightfully so; in my opinion, neither have been more in their element than in their roles in this film. Ryan plays the typical All-American, endearingly cute, wide-eyed girl, stuck in a foreign European land and just getting by with her wit and pluck. Kline is different in this film -- more so than in his others -- due to the fact that he plays a gruff French thief with the typical "greased up" look. For one, he hardly looks that greasy in other films, and that French accent he sports is so convincing you almost forget he's the same guy who was the likable, hapless dogooder in Dave. (That Oscar he won for A Fish Called Wanda clearly wasn't a fluke, I'd say.)When I say I know this movie well, I mean it -- I've watched it close to 40 times since it came out in 1995. Come to think of it, it's almost been 10 years, huh. Wow. Didn't realise it till now. Ryan, at this point in her career, had fully cemented herself in her romantic comedienne role, her cute, People's Princess sort of image. This was after Sleepless in Seattle and When Harry Met Sally, don't forget. But it shows a little more of her, I think, than in the aforementioned. For one, she isn't just the supporting actor, or a boring character in a lead role. She carries this film effortlessly, and shows far more character depth than in, say, Sleepless. (Though I do have to say that this might be more credit to the writers, than her, really.)Talking to people, and reading what people have had to say about this movie, it really got me thinking. The main complaints were that it was predictable, and that you had to be a fan of "this genre" to like it. Which is to say that people were having problems with the simple premise that it had a happy ending, that we knew Ryan would end up with Kline. Well, well. Doesn't the poster make that clear, even before you watch it?Sure, I'm a fan of the romantic comedy genre. And if it didn't have a happy ending, it might not quite qualify, would it? It'd be the romantic tragedy, or something. You know what we need? We don't need to criticise a film, clearly set out to be a light, happy one, for well... being what it said it'd be. That's silly. What we need is more depressing, anarchic, tragic films to flood the market, tipping the balance, and letting the happy ending be "unpredictable" for a change.

Victoria Ho is a writer, photographer and full-time geek. She lives and writes in Singapore.