lensman-4 Reviews

Fringe (2008–2013)

Love this show

[9/10 · 13 August 2009]

Yes the show has to grow, but they have done a terrific job on it. If anyone wants more insight into the show please go to youtube and look for the ComicCon footage. I am one of the lucky few who go to go to the Q&A for Fringe. They were an awesome group. As to the people who are saying it is a Rip off of X-Files get a life. X-Files was not even original, hello Kolchek, the Night Stalker. Even though it wasn't the FBI it was very much an early X-Files.

One person at the Con asked where the writers got their ideas and they said things like Scientific America and other scientific magazines and publications. Also, they have a neuro-scientist consultant on the show as well as consulting with JPL, CERN, MIT and other science organizations. They are really trying to be smart about the show. For the person who complained about John Nobles accent, well he has a really thick New Zealand accent and he was trying to go for that Professor type accent from when he was in college. Also, JJ Abrams has not had anything to do with Lost since season 1. He is only on the credits as creator. Anyway, go see the footage from the Comic-Con and you may get a better understanding of the actors and the show in general.

Sin City (2005)

AWESOME The movie for comic fans

[10/10 · 18 May 2005]

This movie is beyond AWESOME. The Rodriguez-Miller team was perfect. I don't think I could have wanted a better comic book movie than Sin City. All of the actors were awesome. I loved Mickey Rourke as Marv, and could Bruce have been any better for Hardigan? I cannot praise this movie enough. And, the fact that they took the comic panels and created the movie right out of the Graphic Novels is just amazing.

And, Jessica Alba was really really good as Nancy, after all of the hoopla over her not being naked in the movie, I think she pulled off the part of Nancy very well. You did not need her to be naked, she was able to convey that innocent nature within the context of her being a stripper.

I LOVED LOVED LOVED This movie, saw it twice, and would have gone for a third time if I had the chance. Will definitely buy this on DVD. The icing on the cake, THEY ARE MAKING MORE!!!!!

The Phantom of the Opera (2004)

Horrible, Horrible, Horrible

[3/10 · 18 May 2005]

Why would anyone let the director of Batman and Robin direct the beautiful Andrew Lloyd Webber story of the Phantom of the Opera is beyond me. This movie was awful. I am not one to try to compare the stage version with the movie, I have seen the stage version of both Chicago and Cabaret, and I enjoyed both movie versions. This, however, felt like they were trying to go for a "Moulin Rouge" type movie (which, IMO, was worse).

Also, what was with Madam Giry knowing what the Phantom was doing. Madam Giry was terrified of the Phantom, she wasn't helping him. She respected him out of the fear of him. She knew his origins but she was not his partner.

Although I think that Emmy Rossum is quite beautiful and her voice was pretty she did not convince me that she was an opera Ingenue. The problem with the role of Christine is that Webber wrote the music specifically for Sarah Brightman. Now I have seen the stage version with 2 different Christine's, Brightman (who was beyond fab.) and her understudy, who was phenomenal stepping into the role. Rossum, just does not have the strength for the role. In the song "Think of Me", it's a bittersweet song and she just made it too happy, too Pop music ish. When she sings the duet with Raoul, "All I Ask of You," it was also very Pop, the song is Christine imploring Raoul to love her and to "hide" her so that she feels safe. She is trying to convince herself that she loves Raoul, but what she feels at this point is gratefulness for someone to protect her. Raoul is showing her that he loves her. I did not get this at all from Rossum.

The direction often felt like an overblown perfume commercial. I mean, Christine riding on a horse from the top of the opera house to the bottom of the opera house? GIVE ME A FREAKIN' BREAK.

I HATED the way Gerard Butler played the Phantom. It was either weepy, or over the top, not angry, or anguished. Again, not comparing to the stage play, but I have seen 3 different people play the Phantom and all of them while unique had some the same basic elements. The anguish of the years of exile, the anger at being rejected, not only by Christine, but by society. Butler did not show that, I felt like he was a romance novel anti-hero come to life. Also, Butler was WAYYYYY too young to play the Phantom. The Phantom is supposed to be in his mid to late 40's (and that is out of the book, folks).

Minnie Driver as Carlotta was AWFUL, and way too skinny. There is a reason we have the saying "It ain't over till the fat lady sings". Opera divas, especially those that achieved the type of status the Carlotta was supposed to have would have been on the thicker side. I know from singing in choirs all of my life that you develop a LOT of muscles in you stomach and chest when you sing constantly, especially in Opera. It is a very demanding profession and most of the well know renowned opera stars are NOT skinny little waifs.

The other problem I had with this movie was the art direction and the cinematography. What the heck was that soft focus on Rossum EVERY time they did a close-up. That got annoying really really fast. Everything was too bright and flashy and absolutely no substance in the visuals. If the directors were trying for a period piece, they did an AWFUL job.

Now, I grew up with movie musicals and stage musicals all of my life as my Grandmother and Mother would watch them avidly. So, I have come to learn what is a good story and what is not, this was not. What has happened to the classic musical? What is with the MTV video style of musicals these days? This movie, and Moulin Rouge are perfect examples of WHAT NOT TO DO, Yet, Chicago give me hope.

Battlestar Galactica (2003)

Wow, worse than I originally thought

[11 December 2003]

Ok, I said I would be back after watching the second half, and here I am. Well, I did not think it could get any worse than it was, boy was I wrong.

Let's forget for a moment that this is a Battlestar Galactica remake and look at it as a Sci-Fi miniseries. No 1. NO PLOT DEVELOPMENT. The series started off really well but then did not develop, It took almost the 1st half of part 1 for ANYTHING to happen, then it happend and there was no sense of urgency in ANYONE. People are saying this is great, but watch again and you will see the enormous plot holes. No 2. People are commenting on the great character development, what character development, they were the same from beginning to end, NO CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT. No 3. Can anyone say THEME MUSIC? there was hardly any music and what there was, was a 6 note drum beat. No 3. BAD CAMERA WORK, there was absolutely no cinematography. The documentary style filming was very annoying. No 5. The battle scenes were boring and anti-climactic, enough said. No 6. The many many unnecessary miscellaneous scenes that did not help the development of the story. AND lastly, No 7. Waaayyyy too politically correct that in some ways it was politically incorrect. All the pilots were white, and 1 korean girl, no black, hispanic, or any other races. The bridge crew had a couple of black women, and the maintenance crew had 1 or 2 hispanics, huh?

Now, as a remake or adaptation of BSG, this was terrible. Now, I will say I am the first person to say that BSG needed to be updated and some changes made, but did they have to make gross changes? Did they have to change everything about the story? The core story and characters were fantastic, even in 1978. The Cylons were not made by humans, the humans did not know where the Cylons came from, and to me that is more menacing, the unknown enemy is scarier than the known. So, that said where was the enemy? Who cares if you see a hot blonde trying to seduce Baltar, physically and mentally, we (the fans) wanted to see Cylons. These had to be the coolest bad guys in a long time, and we get what, a glimpse at the beginning and the end and that is it? All we see is the "human" looking cylons? Whoopee dooooo. Too much time was spent on useless stories, the "President" with cancer, the angst of Apollo and his father, Starbuck being a badass. I don't see why the 4 hours couldn't be shortened into 2 hours, then the other 2 hours spent on the problems of "planetbound" people now having to live in space.

There was no talk of cultural and religious differences between the colonists, yes, they all worshipped from the book of Cobol, but they all had various beliefs and ceremonies, just like Christians here, there are many sects and differences, but all stemming from the Bible.

My most major complaint though was the way Adama was handled. Adama became the hope of the 12 colonies. His leadership and compassionate behavior as well as his sense of personal responsibility is what helped these people live and work together, I got no sense of that with this Adama. I am not waxing nostalgic here, I just think the way that Lorene Green's Adama was made more sense, there was a reason his people loved him and respected him. When he lands on Caprica and all of the refugees start coming to him they at first start to blame him, but HE is the one to put out the call to everyone who had ships on the colonies and get as many people aboard as possible, not the president. Seeing the galactica in tact is what gave all the colonists hope. I think too much emphasis was put on the role of the president. The "council" was recreated AFTER they fled their homes and went in to space.

Also, Adama was a AVID believer in the books of Cobol, he was a very religious man and he truly believed in Earth and that they would be able to find it. It was his undying belief that gave his people hope, and it was where he pulled his own strength from. The way he was portrayed in this new mini-series was terrible.

For instance he would never make Commander Ty vent the hull that ejected 85 people, Adama would have taken personal responsibility as the leader and (later) Admiral of the Galatica, not given that order to a sub-ordinate.

And where was the humor? This was a very humorless mini-series, even in the face of all the tragedy there was humor, the most basic of human emotions.

This series was emotionless, humorless, enemyless, heartless, very boring and stiff. And people said the original had stiff actors, look again people, the original actors had FUN and you could see it in the way they approached their characters, I did not see any fun in this mini-series.

Also, let us have an actual ending, don't end it on a cliff hanger with the hopes of a weekley series to come out of it. Sure you could have kept it open ended, but at least give us a plausible ending.

Well, enough said, I could say so much more that is wrong with this series, but I wont because I would just go on and on and on and on.

Battlestar Galactica (2003)

some changes for the batter, some not

[9 December 2003]

I wanted to wait till I saw the entire mini-series, but I just couldn't. I am a huge fan of the original series, and I will be the first to tell you that it had it's flaws, but the flaws made it charming. Yes, it was sexist, but the original show addressed that pretty early. Yes, it got lost in its own wanderings sometimes, but it always had heart.

Where is the heart so far in this? Adama (played by Edward James Olmos) is very distant and cold, his relationship with his son is strained, WHAT!!! why does everything on Sci-Fi channel lately have to always show a strained relationship between father and son, why can't they show a healthy family relationship, much like Apollo and Adama from the original. That was where Adama pulled his strength and hope was that his surviving family was with him and if they were together than hope survives.

I don't like the fact they cut out the underlying Egyptian and Greek themes. The helmets of the fighter pilots, the uniforms, much of the architecture and style of Caprica and even the Galactica had these underlying themes of Egytian culture, that was a great link to the "lost 13th tribe" of the colonies. Where is that theme? Everyone and everything looks and feels exactly like earth today or in the near future, huh? Why do you have to show it looking like a possible Earth future? It is not Earth, it is a completely different planet and culture, you don't think they would have developed differently? That was one of the great things in the original it was different enough that you saw this as an alien culture, but a little bit like earth that they could be related. Also, you weren't supposed to realize that they were related to Earth till Adama gives his speech that they were going in search of it.

I, like most fans, do not like the gender-bending. I have to say though I think the actress they got to play Starbuck is pretty cool. She is kick-a** enough that she is just like Starbuck, but, the implied relationship between her and Zack was weird and out their a**es. Where are the original strong females? Athena, Sheba and such.

The pace of the beginning was soooo slow, there was about 1/2 hour to 45 minutes they could have cut or edited into about 20 minutes, plus there were a lot of unessesary scenes. The whole storyline about the Secretary of Education/President having breast cancer has absolutely no bearing on the storyline. In fact the whole thing about the voting and finding out the rest of the "senate" is dead and her becoming President just slowed the pace of the show. This firs part could have been told in 1 hour, easily and still given all of the important story. The pre-decomissioning scenes were way too long. I like mini-series and shows that flesh out characters and storylines, but do it at a good pace, don't slow or bog down the story with too much miscellaneous stuff.

there was much more that I did not like, but let me tell you what I did like.

The seduction of Baltar and the betrayl was very well done. I like that they have given a more solid or valid reason for Baltar's betrayl than "I want to rule my colony". I also like that Baltar is young and intellectual, not the wimpering, idiot in the original.

I like the size proportions, the vipers look almost miniscule compared to the Galatica, that is the one big problem I had, they had all these people, but the ship looked waaaaaayyyyy too small to fit people, vipers, crew and such.

I like that you see an actual full complement of crew on the Galactica. And I like the updated look of the Cylon Centurions, and the Centurion fighters were cool.

This series, so far is not perfect, there are major changes I would have made before putting it out on Sci-Fi channel. And, lastly my one big pet peeve of any Sci-Fi is that the producers and directores always concentrate on the big special effects, the big technology, but they always forget about the smaller technologies. For instance, Baltar is making a phone call and his phone is push button? They made it clear why the Galactica does not have computerized phones and systems, but on-world one of the great intellects has a old style push-button phone? Sorry folks, but this is the kind of thing that most forget about and there is an inconsistency of technology.

Rosemary's Baby (1968)

The Book was just as boring

[6 February 2003]

First off I have to say that when I read the book about 6 years ago I was looking forward to seeing the movie to see if it would be any better. Well, I was wrong. I don't understand all of the praise this movie has received. I am not one of those into schlock horror where it has to be gory to be scary. I have seen many movies that are more suspenseful than this, such as the remake of House on Haunted Hill, Frighteners, The Exorcist, The Haunting, and I could keep going. I like suspense, I am a fan of the 1940's ghost and haunted house movies which hold more suspense than this movie.

Yes, I read the book so I knew everything that was going to happen, in fact the movie did not deviate from the book one iota. The screen writing had nothing to do with Roman Polanski, and everything to do with Ira levin's book. The movie was so slow that I was bored to tears. Yes, the cinematography was gorgeous, the apartment building was beautiful, and the elderly neighboor couple had an underlying sinister quality to the seeming "dotty" exterior. But, that does not make a movie.

Because the movie was trying to be "normal" the supposed suspense was not there. At no time in the movie, except for the dream sequences and the very end was there any suspension of disbelief. The Main character did not progress into the unreal till the climax and the climax was so fast in the resolution that there was no satisfaction. The slowness of the movie so put me off that I was cooking dinner at the same time and knew exactly what was going on without even looking up at the television. I also thought that the "rape" scene was a little creepy, but at no time did Mia Farrow look horrified. I have had a rape dream and even in the dream I was fighting and kicking and trying to get free, I can't believe that someone would be so out of their mind that there would be no fighting back, even if it is verbal protestations, which there were none. I don't understand the extreme praise of this movie, it is slow, boring and goes nowhere till the last 25-30 minutes.

I also did not like the movie for a more personal reason. I am a practicing Witch, and anybody who is a practicing Witch will tell you that Satan is a Christian Icon, not a witchcraft Icon. I felt like Mr. Levin and Mr. Polanski read the Malleus Malefictarum a little too much and believed that what is contained was how Witches really were. The pagan community has been trying to live down the stereotypes of Witches and Pagans that this movie and others has perpetuated. No witches and pagans do not worship Satan, nor pray to him, or acknowledge him in any way, shape or form. I know this is deviating a little from the main subject, but if the movie had been about say, blacks or hispanics, or any one of another race, or color, there would be uproar, especially in the late 60's, but no, let's write a book, and make a movie about Satan worshipping Witches, because you know, they don't matter. Well you know what folks, we do matter, and we are starting more and more to stand-up for ourselves, and the Christian right-wing be damned. (Sorry for the little tirade there, but it just burns my A** everytime).

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)

A very disappointing "prequel" to the first movie....

[31 December 1999]

I had not seen this movie until just this week, and I was thouroghly (?sp) disappointed with it. I love Raiders, and Last Crusade.

I understand that Lucas and Spielberg were trying to create a different kind of scenario for Indy, but this was not a very good attempt. The story was not very original, the sets were so so, and the mine car scene was a little dragged out. The gross-our scenes were overly done, even if meant in a campy way. The Kate Capshaw character was whinney and annoying. Personally I liked the Nazi stories better. They were well thought out, and Hey People (for those bashing the use of the Nazi stories) It was the Mid-1930's Nazi's were EVERYWHERE. And especially when talking about artifacts. If any of you know your history Hitler was trying to scour the world for any and all art and historical treasures, so it makes sense that Indy, being an ARCHEOLOGIST, would run into the Nazi faction quite often. That aside, Temple seemed to not know what it wanted to be. The humorous scenes did not mesh well with some of the more serious scenes, and the action seemed contrived. It was too much like one huge chase scene with no real plot in the middle. And there were way too many "cliffhanger" like sequences.

I can understand liking this movie to some extent, it is one of those movies to watch when you are bored with nothing else to do. But those who love this movie saw way more than what was really there. As I stated above the plot was weak, the acting (aside from Ford) was weak, and the action sequences were totally contrived. This movie was not terrible, just lukewarm.

Vampirella (1996 Video)

This movie was pure CRAP!!!!!!!!!!

[24 July 1999]

I was originally excited about this movie. I am a HUGE vampirella fan and have just about all of the comics and am now trying to collect the older vampi by Harris. So when I heard they did a movie about the eternal Vamp I was intrigued, interested, and a LOT excited. This movie is TERRIBLE. I agree with earlier comments that they should have concentrated on the current story line about her time on Drakuulon was all a false dream that was given to her. This would have been an interesting movie. I say would have been, but the acting was terrible especially Roger Daltry as a wanna be "hip" Dracula. Dracula in the original comic was creepy, demanding, but always smart and sophisticated not the schlop that Daltry doled out to us. The sets were horrible the lighting was horrible the acting was atrocious, and the costume, come on. I read an article just before I saw the movie that the reason they changed the costume was because Ms. Soto was "uncomfortable" in the original design which was exactly like the one in the comic. Oh poor poor little miss Soto, she was uncomfortable woh is me. Hey if your going to play the sexy Vampi vixen GET OVER YOURSELF. The original model for Vampi had NO PROBLEM with the costume. I normally like the movies that are sponsored by the Roger Corman theatre, and I thought "hey if anyone would make a good movie about Vampi it would be him or his production team." I was sorely disappointed and actually angry that this comic heroine was treated so terribly. Please someone out there with half a brain make a better Vampi movie to redeem this character.

The Lord of the Rings (1978)

This is one of the most underrated animated films of all time.

[24 July 1999]

This movie is for TRUE JRR Tolkien fans and TRUE animation fans. Bakshi did not have the money to do a lot of the things that he originally wanted to do in the movie. Also people seem to forget the fact that the trilogy is a DENSE and LONG (but not boring) trilogy. Even in the upcoming new movies they will NOT!!!!!!! be able to do the whole story. Things will always be cut out and condensed. In my opinion Bakshi did a wonderful job of giving us an overall sense of middle earth and who these wonderful characters and what they were about. For those of you who put this film down, YOU KNOW NOT OF WHAT YOU SPEAK. This was a faithful adaptation. It was beautiful animation and the rotoscoping actually gave some interesting effects. This is no different that the technology of some computer animation out there. Some of the wonderful computer graphics are done in a similar way, or have all of you forgotten that??????

Please anyone a fan of Tolkien put aside your misgivings and view this film for what it is -- a wonderful glimpse into a fantasy world. An overall feeling that you are in middle earth with these great characters.