E-un Reviews

Falling Skies (2011–2015)

Falling Ratings

[4/10 · 18 July 2011]

Falling Skies is a soap opera about a small group of amateur soldiers, along with 200+ civilians, that have taken up residence in a High School in the aftermath of an alien invasion. They sometimes eat gourmet meals served up by a convicted murderer, or stare at a wall of photos of loved ones complete with candles (the same one seen in Battlestar Galactica, actually). At all other times they just talk endlessly, endlessly, endlessly. Yet they say nothing I want to hear. I find it helpful to gaze at my feet when this happens...

Anyway... let's talk about the 'show' shall we? The set up...

Imagine taking your average alien invasion movie; remove the invasion complete with edge-of-seat action and terrible but exciting, mind-blowing scenes of utter destruction. Remove any character building, or any characters of interest. Populate with life-size mannequins with the capacity for mindless vocalization. Smatter said dialog with essential exposition of plot points. Tell - don't show. For goodness sake, limit the action to 2 to 3 minutes per episode (action costs money!) And whatever you do, do not explain anything until the Season 1 Finale. If there's to be a cliff-hanger we need it to be at the end of the last episode. After that, the network can cancel and you can snicker at all the poor saps who watch through to the end in restless expectation of anything remotely resembling a succinct story. Better to go out with a laundry list of unanswered questions than to actually tell a good story. Who does that these days? You need to populate this world with second-rate Battlestar Galactica personnel, but give them shallow, utterly uninteresting back stories. Hint at the life they once enjoyed so they can relentlessly whine about what they lost. We have to hint at a soul; then we can pretend there are multiple dimensions to our listless 'characters'.

Lastly, throw in some under-the-top, unimpressive, lame, (and almost seemingly non-present) aliens, along with their devastatingly clichéd robot/cyborg/alien in suit counterparts. For goodness sake, do not waste any money on effects. Cheap is best. In fact, make the whole show look 10 - 15 years out of date. That'll help to disguise the fact that the audience are watching rehashed ideas from several older movies, shows and books. It all helps to reinforce that feeling of witnessing old friends.

There's more in the mix. I forgot to mention the other elements that should make up Falling Skies. I failed to mention pointless plot points, constant 'emotional' scenes filled with mindless, uninteresting dialog. I also didn't raise the fact that, 4 episodes in, almost nothing of worth should happen. And let's not forget that at this stage in the game, we certainly don't want to explain what it is the aliens want (or anything about the aliens at all for that matter).

Oh my...

One can only presume that all the really interesting stuff is being done by another group of individuals who actually do things that any sane person would really do in this situation.

No, the thing to do when you take a prisoner, apparently, is to put them in a cage for two episodes, and then kill them having learned nothing at all. Oh, when they communicate we can hear static on a radio. Fabulously useful. So how do you know when you're not just hearing... um... static? Apparently, when the alien apocalypse comes, the thing to do is to talk it out until the bitter end. Attacking the enemy is quite out of the question. In this show, there is a leader of men, an Iraqi vet old enough to have fought in Korea (or so it seems), that issues orders one at a time to his team of four or five people! No sense in rushing things since we have an entire season to fill with the usual network television blah.

I'm pretty much done with television now, as this is the latest show to disappoint in new and interesting ways. I think the goal now is to destroy the notion of dramatic TV by showing us how bad it will be from this point on. You don't honestly believe they don't know how bad this is? It has to be deliberate. There is no sense in engaging an audience any longer. We just need to have 5 - 10 minutes of dialog to see us through to the next commercial break. Why not just jam the commercials completely inside the show? We may as well have the lead extolling the virtues of some automobile or washing machine than sending me to sleep with inanity. At least that way there would be a point to this drivel.

Collapse (II) (2009)

Yaaay! The End Of The World Is Finally Happening!

[9/10 · 23 April 2011]

Well, it has to be said from the off that Michael Ruppert is either one canny fella, or he's the craziest ding-bat you ever heard of. I have to take this with some level of salt grain-age, because we've heard these sort of arguments before. Plus, he's a self-confessed (at least at one time) Conservative, which gives me pause for thought.

But... and it's a biggie... the things he says make so much sense, and at some level I've had similar thoughts myself. I truly believe that we need to find alternatives to oil, but at the same time I know that oil is used in so many applications that there simply anything else that will do the full job. Literally everything you own, barring a few items, contains some level of plastic. And even if it doesn't you can bet that plastic played some part in its manufacture or packaging. But I digress.

Simply put, Ruppert is foretelling the complete breakdown of the life you know. He absolutely positively predicted the economic disaster we're now living through, and like him, I don't think it's getting better. His foreshadowing of riots and revolutions hits home when one considers the recent events in Egypt, Libya, and other places around the world. And then there's Japan, literally making nuclear energy a long-shot too.

Individually, these notions don't seem to add up to much, but Ruppert does manage to tell a compelling narrative, glues all the pieces together with a level of knowledge that's certainly impressive. So why imagine that we're in the final throes of modern civilization? The answers all surround the notion of Peak Oil, that we're on the downward spiral and the supply is getting less and less. Oil is literally everywhere, from the tires on your car, to the pesticides that are used to grow your food, and there's no quick way to turn this roller-coaster around. So, Ruppert advocates preparing for the long haul, learn to live locally, and stop relying on the miracle of the supermarket.

Either way, it's advice that can't hurt. Just one question: should I stock up on duct tape and bullets as well?

Inception (2010)

What is the most resilient parasite?

[5/10 · 7 January 2011]

It could possibly be Leonardo DiCaprio. That's a bit harsh – I know he has to eat too – but does he have to always play the same sanctimonious, pedantic, self-righteous know-it-all? And he's been in some bad movies recently. "Revolutionary Road" was a potentially good movie, but he always comes off as immature. "Shutter Island" was so transparent that I guessed the ending about 10 minutes in. But, this is supposed to be about "Inception"...

Yes, "Inception", a movie so simplistic that I yawned throughout. My (lucky) wife fell asleep claiming that it wasn't of interest to her. What claimed to be a smart, intelligent thriller, turned out to be the usual bag of guns, explosions, chases, etc. The plot, paper-thin and without any real point, is a yawn-fest of borrowed ideas and takes liberally from movies we've seen before. Is 10 years really soon enough to remake "The Matrix" (with Ellen Page as Neo)? Dennis Quaid in "Dreamscape" is far more entertaining. "Videodrome" is way more complex and intriguing, a movie that makes the viewer work.

While the acting is fair enough for an action flick, there isn't much to say about the movie at all. It's pretty 1-dimensional and quite dumb. What really irks me is the fact that I was told repeatedly about how this movie was so complex, complicated, hard to understand, etc. It's really not. It just uses a nonsensical plot device; that of layered dreaming, to try and outwit the audience. While completely ridiculous – isn't a dream within a dream just part of the same dream? – it's also not hard to grasp. Is the bar really that low? What would the audience that this bamboozled make of a movie like "Primer" which is one of the most complex movies ever devised. Even "Mission Impossible" had more plot twists and turns than this drivel.

To be honest it was barely just okay. It was boring like a bus-ride through Nebraska. Your mind is the scene of the crime? I didn't see much of any crime - just some folks trying to get a guy to change his mind. Big deal. Michael Caine is even becoming a Director's Trademark. His two minutes on-screen were gratuitous at best, certainly not a requirement to the story.

So, to wrap up: boring, simple-minded, dumb, nonsensical plot with no 'science' and barely any 'fiction', less-than-average acting, annoying constant music while people are talking, convenient 'get-outs' when the logic of the story fails, which is frequently. Wow, I actually think I hate this movie.

8: The Mormon Proposition (2010)

Religion has no place in politics

[10/10 · 6 August 2010]

Tax exempt status for any religious organization should be repealed pending investigation of political shenanigans. All current loopholes regarding what should and should not be made public should also be repealed without any regard. After all, what are they hiding if they have nothing to hide? Religious leaders love to quote that this country is "founded on separation of church and state" when it suits them. But then they think they can organize solely to sway public opinion in a political context. It's absurd and needs to be addressed immediately.

I don't care who did or didn't say what. The film-makers didn't invent Prop. 8 or the events surrounding it. It was made very public that religious powers were behind the major push of Prop. 8, and that is simply a situation that can't be permitted to happen again. Ever. Even if I had something to gain by whatever legislation.

That's what this movie was about. Pure and simple.

The idea that bad light can be cast upon the LDS church is preposterous. I've met and spoken, and been lectured and informed in detail, and worked with Mormons and ex-Mormons. Nothing in this movie contradicted my experience. The LDS is run by a brigade of out and out fanatics who will step over the line at any cost to get their way. They destroy lives, they destroy families, and they are responsible for an awful lot of hurt. Anyone who says different is an active Mormon, still under the influence of the Kool Aid, or is possibly a member of a similarly twisted "faith". Or they are a sociopath.

Having spent a lot of time in Utah, I have heard the stories of way too many suicides by High School and College kids. These stories were told by the very people that live there, and were not told in any religious context, but just because it happens too much.

The absolute bottom line is that Prop. 8 was a bad idea. Taking rights away from people is something to be ashamed of. It's no different to the LDS trying to ban Coca-Cola and coffee because they contain caffeine. (Doesn't that sound stupid?) I would never dream of telling a religious individual that they can no longer practice their faith. So how can they claim the moral high ground? It makes me ashamed that I live in this country, and it makes me ashamed to be a human being.

You should all be ashamed.

{As I write this, Prop. 8 was recently overturned. It seems that $22,000,000 and a whole lot of bankrupted Mormon families, whose children will pay their own way through college, now have a lot of egg on their faces. What goes around, comes around. Yippee ki yay, m************.}

Shutter Island (2010)

Very Poor Effort

[2/10 · 27 June 2010]

I don't have much to say about this movie at all. I felt that the storytelling was amateurish at best. The scenes were hacked together in such a poor fashion, and the clues to the ending were so blatant. I worked out the premise of the movie about 8-15 minutes in. Sure, I wasn't absolutely certain at that point, but once I reached my conclusion the 'clues' came thicker, faster, and so blatant they were right in my face. After 30 minutes I had no further doubts that I'd nailed it. It's not so much that I'm so awesome at guessing movie plots, but more about how badly put together this story happens to be.

Without giving too much away, the initial scene on the boat tipped me off right away that something was off. The scene were they arrive at the island contained some more heavy-handed clues. The dead giveaway though, was the way that later scenes did not fit together coherently. The second or third dream sequence lasted too long for a conventional depiction of a dream, and I felt that we were supposed to lose track of what was real and what was fantasy/dreaming.

Overall, I was very disappointed following some rave reviews. This movie has been made before, and it's been made much better.

The Book of Eli (2010)

Most Misunderstood Movie Of The Year?

[8/10 · 20 June 2010]

As an atheist you might expect me to be completely against this movie. Some have pointed to its Christian content as pure unadulterated evangelism. Sure, the lead protagonist does hear "voices" telling him to take the "book" west, but that's pretty much were it ends. While there is a hint that he has an invisible force-field protecting him, it becomes apparent that it is his faith alone that carries him on. And that, folks, is really what the movie is about: faith in the face of constant danger and almost certain death. In a world where most people have taken to either taking advantage of the weak, or settling for whatever they can get, he presses on with his mission. And, even if I do hold that the "book" is nothing but a collection of fairy stories, it still holds great historical meaning to our race as a whole; just as much as, say, the works of Shakespeare or Mozart. The fact that it is responsible for so much suffering means it should be saved, to serve as a warning to the future, possibly.

Ultimately, this is just a story being told of an improbable future. There are plot holes aplenty for sure, but no movie ever gets the apocalypse quite right anyway. The clichés and the idea that one man can down 20 in a stand up fight take some cake too, but I can get past that, even if the ghost of a certain Mel Gibson character does come to mind a little too frequently. And there is a certain point where the story has dragged for a little too long and the viewer wants to get it over with. That's something a lot of movies suffer from these days. I also have to wonder if the writers saw flashbacks from The Fifth Element when Oldman finally opens the "book". I certainly did, though I was pleasantly surprised by the reveal as it wasn't anywhere near as obvious as it could have been.

So, all in all, I quite enjoyed this little romp. It didn't quite prepare me for Armageddon as much as The Road did but it filled an evening with some popcorn-type entertainment.

Sleep Dealer (2008)

I'm giving this a 9/10

[9/10 · 16 May 2010]

Why so bold, you may ask? Wasn't this just another one of those weak independent movies (and in Spanish to boot)? Well, no. I love sci-fi as anyone will tell you, and I especially love it when it really it just that. This is not Hollywood's version of sci-fi at all. Check out recent movies like "I Robot" and "Surrogates" for that stuff. This is more in the vein of "Blade Runner"... and no I'm not the first reviewer to point this out. The movie itself is based on a potential future possibility, even something that is starting to happen as I speak.

The main theme of the movie is loss. The water that used to be free: lost. One's privacy in the hands of people we merely speak to: lost. Dignity: lost. The hope for those living beyond the borders of the United States that they may one day live there freely: lost.

To me, these things are already happening, in the works, or very likely/possible. That makes this movie true sci-fi. Not that there is the merest glimmer of a robot, or that people are plugging themselves into computers.

A rare treat for true sci-fi enthusiasts.

Wanted (2008)

Fun, suspension of belief movie, without pretensions of grandeur

[9/10 · 20 July 2009]

This movie is a non-pretentious thrill-ride. Jolie says little, and that's always a good thing. McAvoy plays the dweeb's transition to superhero assassin very well. He was convincing in both roles. Oh, and there's just enough silly improbability to clue you in that this movie isn't intended to be taken "too serious".

Well, after reading some of the downers who reviewed this movie, I have to say, yet again, why do people watch movies that they likely won't enjoy? This is definitely a "leave your brain at home" movie. Just pure fun and more than a little tongue-in-cheek. In many respects it shares something of what made "Crank" a fun movie. There's no doubt that most of what is portrayed in this movie is downright impossible in the real world. I see similar reviews for "Doomsday" and it makes my blood boil. Some people simply don't understand the film-makers' intentions and miss the point that it's just for fun.

Basically, we're given the premise of an every day guy who has lost his way. His job is boring, his boss is simply awful. One day, he finds out that he's really the son of a superhuman assassin and his destiny is to fill his shoes. Sure, there's a little hokey philosophy thrown in to tie the story together, but it's just a MacGuffin when all's told. No need to enter into a socio-political, philosophical rant about fate, etc.

If you've had your fill for the week of weighty, meaningful drama, or you're just a sucker for well choreographed, CGI-heavy action, then this is something for you. If, on the other hand, you believe that entertainment must only contain elements of fact and only reside in a world of what is possible, then stay at home, don't rent it, don't watch it, and don't whine on IMDb about the two hours of your life you'll never get back -- you still won't get 'em back.

All in all, I enjoyed this for what it is. It didn't leave me with a message, and I didn't think about it afterward. But sometimes, that's what I'm looking for in my entertainment.

Knowing (2009)

Dark, Spooky, and actually all right

[9/10 · 9 July 2009]

The movie "Knowing" is a well-told, intriguing, and at times, spooky story. The acting is on-par with the modern cinematic experience. There is action, wonder, intensity, and a wonderful sense of foreboding throughout. I liked it and it kept my interest. I had a feeling where it was going, but I was enjoying the journey to get there. There was never a moment where I thought, "Why is he doing that???" Nicolas Cage does what he's best at and it kinda works. The kids aren't too annoying.

However, from some of the comments I have read here, I would have believed this to be yet another bad Hollywood (despite being filmed almost entirely in Melbourne, Australia) popcorn flick.

phantasmagoric-1 from United Kingdom writes: "... aliens! The second worst cop out in history ..." How are aliens in any way a close second to, '... and then I awoke, and it was all a dream'? I don't understand why a movie cannot contain that particular story element? Who decided that it's off-limits? And when? (You do realize that Transformers are aliens, right?) Personally, I blame Steven Spielberg, Star Trek, Star Wars, and all those 50's science fiction movies. They really cornered the market, and paved the way for alien-free cinema.

This, in spite of the fact that the whole movie had the premise seeded throughout. This comment suggests that the aliens just popped up at minute 120 of a 2-hour film, and proverbially saved the day.

prezidanto from United States writes: "I've been reading science fiction for 30 years." Really? Well, I've been reading SF for 30 years too, and I've read many books with similar themes throughout those 30 years. There was nothing in this movie that validates this reviewer's comment, "'Thought-provoking' only in the sense that if you start thinking about it, you'll be astounded at how little sense in makes, and how much thinking you have to do to force any of it to work." The movie made complete sense. Yes, there is some thinking involved. A good story compels us to do that.

clement-reber from Switzerland writes that the movie is merely propaganda for Scientology. Well done genius. Now everyone's Googling the Scientology websites to find out where to sign up. Oh, hold on. They're not. Even if there is a Scientology angle to the film (and Hubbard did not invent the premise being told in this story... not even close), it doesn't work unless you put the phone number up on the screen, silly.

valonpimeys from Finland wants to know how a girl in 1959 could write down GPS coordinates... that are from the future. It's hardly worth my time pointing out such ridiculous lack of understanding. That's aside from the fact that GPS coordinates are simply latitude and longitude - a system that is way older than the 50's.

How about the one about the numbers, and how they're never explained. What? Never. Explained? Did some of you fall asleep? Did you turn your brains off, or were you texting on your phone through the whole movie?

So, now I get down to my review of the reviewers. The simple question that I want answered is this: Does anyone actually know anything about the movies they go and see? Or do they just blindly walk into a cinema based on the scenes of fire and destruction they saw in the trailer. It's obvious to me that a good many of the people that saw this movie rated it based on some misguided notion that it didn't play out how they expected.

Does anyone actually know how to be entertained these days? Not enough car chases and guns? It's my firm belief that people are getting stupider as time goes on, that unless a movie has a simple A-B-C plot then they don't know what's going on. Still more, in a tiresome attempt to relive the awe that followed their watching of "The Sixth Sense" refuse to accept a story that doesn't have a 'twisty' ending. How many films with tiresome plot-twists do you need to see before you realize that there just aren't that many great ideas left in the world. M. Night Shyamalan has proved that to be true on more than one occasion.

You're three quarters of the way through the movie, after every prediction comes to pass as written, and you still can't accept that John Koestler has no power to change anything. I mean, how dumb do you have to be to still be waiting for the big tangential plot-twist at that point. And did you wipe the constant appearance of the spooky aliens from your mind?

Were the constant references to the sun not a big enough clue? Didn't you understand soon enough that this wasn't a horror movie? That the occult wasn't being featured here? prezidanto from United States makes my point quite aptly when he asks: "How come the aliens can't find *some* way to communicate with people?" Well, big surprise for those of you who don't understand the obvious. They did. But, and here's the kick in the pants for you folks, even if they hadn't at all, or even if they'd phoned up the President himself, or appeared on the Today show with flashing neon underpants that spelled out "The End Is Nigh", they couldn't stop the inevitable from happening. And that, my children, was the point of the whole movie.

WALL·E (2008)

#1 movie of 2008

[10/10 · 12 July 2008]

To the 1,000 or so people who 'hated this movie.' I'm sitting here reeling. In fact I'm utterly bemused. How can so many people take time out of their lives to give bad 'reviews' for a movie they haven't seen, simply because they got the impression somewhere that it is an ecological screed (which it really isn't)? Do they really think they can disguise their 1 star votes by claiming, "I really loved the movie but I have to mark it down to level the playing field." Who do they think they are kidding? If you don't like the idea of this movie being in the IMDb Top 250, then too bad. It deserves its place and was put there by the people who enjoyed this movie. I mean, please stop politicking, it's just a movie! I'm also wondering how on Earth adding dialog (between who is quite another question?) to the first 40 minutes of the movie would do anything other than to devalue the story. If you really need language to explain a story then too bad. Not that words are necessary as the story explains itself anyway. And if your 4/5/6/7/8-year old was bored throughout then you should perhaps question your parenting methods, or figure out beforehand which movies are the dumb ones you can see with car chases and 1-dimensional plots so no thinking is ever necessary. I'm sure you'll agree that there are plenty of films like that to satisfy your simple needs. While you're about it, why not get a map out and see for yourself how far from Hollywood Pixar's offices are. Emeryville is in Silicon Valley, a stone's throw away from San Francisco. That's a 7-hour drive from Los Angeles.

I should point out at this juncture that I didn't want to see this. I thought it was going to be bland and silly; yet more terrible 'sci-fi'. I was so wrong...

This movie is simply beautiful from start to end. I can't wait to see the opening scenes again, they simply took my breath away. The images, the music, the simple but brilliant story. All of it is worth every penny we spent to watch this. Our 6-year old daughter loved the movie, and laughed throughout. Even if the elements in of themselves are not stunningly original, it's the way that everything was sewn together so perfectly. I was blown away by Thomas Newman's amazing score, simply beautiful, not 'ugly' as the 'Roach Warning' lady (who never saw the movie either) described it.

All in all, this is a great movie, and I will watch it again... two or three times perhaps. It deserves its placing in the Top 250 because it is that good.

So, to counter all the 'take it from me, don't watch this' folks, please consider watching this masterpiece. And then vote for it and give it a rating it deserves. We can all continue to destroy the planet after the movie.

Come Monday, I'll be recommending this to everyone I know. And they'll probably rate it highly too. Too bad for the 1,000 or so no-shows.

Fear Itself (2008–2009)

Bad TV

[5/10 · 7 July 2008]

This is a very mediocre stab at a genre that has been overdone, and in most cases usually much better than this. The stories are predictable and 1-dimensional. The two episodes I have seen so far had no plot progression at all, and in one case I predicted the 'twist' a mere 10 minutes into the show. 'Obvious' is the word I would use. Oh, and talk about boring... extremely.

As for acting, it's not too shabby, and music, sets, etc. are well above average. I just tend to think that there have been too many shows of this nature, and perhaps mixing in a slice of sci-fi and fantasy might make the stories less predictable.

The Andromeda Strain (2008)

Strains a lot, then falls into the ocean -- or am I thinking of a better movie?

[4/10 · 27 May 2008]

Seriously folks, what did you expect? They couldn't make it just like the original novel/movie, because the original is not that obscure, and there isn't any good way to change the story and still make a reasonable production. All the major changes came in the second part, the first part was played almost exactly like the original. This seemed almost deliberate.

In the second part, we get some cursory mention of the two survivors and some theorizing as to why they may still be alive... but then they're simply forgotten and don't even figure in the overall plot. Presumably this was to avoid the obvious ending where the military spray everything with large vat-worths of stomach acid.

Having said that, I do feel that some of the reviewers here were watching a different mini-series. There weren't as many plot-holes as some want you to believe; it actually held up to plot scrutiny pretty well. The acting was about right for this kind of production, the effects were done well. It was just that cheesy rewrite of the original story that I can't get beyond. Time travel paradoxes, wormholes, 'things' sent back from the future? As someone already noted, way too many Star Trek plot-lifts for my liking. But the one thing that the original has in spades, and this has none of..? A spine-chilling sinister, spookiness, that just doesn't sit well and makes your skin crawl. The original, despite its almost complete lack of violence and gore, is every bit horror movie as it is sci-fi. This is just another one of those cheesy updates that will repeat endlessly on the SciFi channel.

The worst part for me was that the nail-biting ladder sequence from the original was wasted and replaced with 10 minutes of mind-numbing stupidity. He's dying because it's a radioactive pool, geddit? The other fella, it was the gravity that got him. We didn't mention the gravity? Darnit! You don't know what I'm referring to? LUCKY YOU!

If you want some advice, rent the original and watch it with the lights turned down, preferably late at night when it's all quiet outside.

John from Cincinnati (2007)

I don't know why

[10/10 · 2 July 2007]

I take offense at the "Lost" comment. I'm a huge fan of Lost, but I love this show for entirely different reasons. And for the record, I can't stand the Sopranos. However... back on point.

JfC is an awesome show and I can barely explain why. It's smart, it's funny... very funny at times, and it just keeps getting more interesting. The first episode was quite slow but showed real promise. I said that I'd give the show two more episodes to prove itself... and now I find that I'm desperately looking forward to the next installment. And that's the only thing JfC shares with Lost. So I guess we have a winner.

So what else is so great? Well, the acting, the dialog, the characters, and the anticipation of what might happen next. Because it could go absolutely anywhere.

By the way, if you want to get an idea of what the show is truly about, look up "Monism."

Dexter (2006–2013)

This show is a serial killer..!

[10/10 · 24 June 2007]

All right, settle down. Well, having briefly heard about this a long time ago, and while trawling through the free movies, etc. on EoD, I decided to give this a whirl. Well, that was last night. I just finished watching the whole first season (I had to sleep, silly, but I did try to stay up all night!) This is without doubt one of the best shows ever created. The plot is compelling, the acting quite breath-takingly brilliant, and everything else is just so amazingly well conceived. There is even humor sprinkled throughout... along with all the blood. Yes folks, so much blood that it might upset some, but hey, I like my realism to be... well... real.

Michael C. Hall is wonderfully cast and did a spectacular job. Who knew they could make a hero out of a serial killer? Well I'm glad they did, and I hope that this show's complete lack of promotion doesn't mean that there won't be a second and third season. Showtime have a habit of killing off perfectly good shows (Yes, it's you Dead Like Me that I'm talking about.) So, if you find that a second season isn't planned, please write your senators and congress-people. We need good entertainment and less 'reality' and definitely no more Hiltons or Lohans.

Heroes (II) (2006–2010)

Finally...

[10/10 · 26 September 2006]

NBC have given us something that is worthy of watching. The pilot for this show was smart and had a lot to cram in. I actually turned off the television after it was over because I felt that nothing could top this at that moment. It's chock full of characters that are actively being developed and the plot is definitely intriguing. As one reviewer suggests that the "coincidence" of them developing these powers at the same time is just that, I say, it's not a coincidence at all and they're being manipulated somehow.

One surprising element was the occasional gore. This definitely puts it in the 'mature' category and parental supervision may be necessary.

As for the accusation of bad effects, well, that's just not true... and after all this is television with a limited budget. I would prefer they spend the money on plot more than effects.

Good pilot. Definitely one to watch. Let's hope that NBC don't mess this up like they did with 'Surface'.

Autobahn (1979)

Wunderlicht!

[10/10 · 11 April 2006]

I just saw this on You Tube. The color was all washed out but I can see why it's very popular. Of course, the animation has zero to do with the Kraftwerk song, "Autobahn".

Now, about the "fun fun fun on the Autobahn"... I've heard dozens of people sing this and I still find it hysterical. It's actually German, as in, "fahren fahren fahren auf der Autobahn "... heh heh!

Here are the English lyrics for all you 'fans':

We are driving on the Autobahn

In front of us is a wide valley, The sun is shining with glittering rays

The driving strip is a gray track, White stripes, green edge

We are switching the radio on, From the loudspeaker it sounds thus: (radio noise)

We are driving on the Autobahn

House M.D. (2004–2012)

Get over it! This is a very good show!

[15 February 2006]

Well, first of all I'd like to answer all the people who have misgivings about the technical stuff in this show... I learned years ago that in order to sustain drama, sometimes the facts have to be changed, and the truth bent. Sometimes they just get it wrong -- after all, this isn't a real hospital -- it's the overall effect that counts.

Second, about the setup of "six doctors treating one patient" and "doing the work of lab techs"... well, the show is set in a teaching hospital. It's not supposed to be your local E.R. or some such, so we can excuse the fact that the various duties of the, somewhat trainee, doctors may be different to what one would expect.

Third, Laurie's accent... I actually started watching the show to see how the accent would turn out. I expected it to be terrible (because I'm a natural cynic). That aside, there is a wonderful anecdote where, during Laurie's audition, Bryan Singer said, "See, this is what I want: an American guy." That would explain why he can't use his 'home-grown' accent, and it sounds just fine to me. BTW: I'm an English guy living in the U.S. I know what a bad, fake American accent sounds like.

Last. Why I watch this show... it's well acted, it's dramatic and interesting, exciting, definitely not predictable, and, hey, I may learn something. Best of all, I like to see someone doing and saying all the terrible things that I would like to do and say to my peers and bosses! Oh, and if you don't like the show... well, don't watch it!

Surface (2005–2006)

Bad show... gets progressively more stupid!

[24 January 2006]

Oh boy! This is one of the latest in a long line of television series that manage to meander with no particular direction for 39 minutes, only to cram in this week's cliffhanger on the last minute… or thereabouts. Ultimately, what you end up with is 20 or so weeks' of cliffhangers, prefixed by hours of complete irrelevancy.

What we have is two separate stories that are tentatively linked by creatures referred to only as 'a new species of vertebrate marine mammal'. They're threatening the eco-system, they can eat individuals or whole boats (depends how hungry they are I guess).

We have a teenage boy who has been grounded so many times that he shouldn't see sunlight for another 50 years, yet somehow manages enough autonomy that one would imagine he murdered his parents and he's keeping them in the garage. Did I mention he has one of the creatures as a pet? Or that it's named for 'mighty' Nimrod, the dude that built the Tower of Babel? We also have a mom who's abandoned her young son, and a husband/father who's abandoned his family, both in search of some magic truth to end all truths.

There are more 'characters' but I grow weary just typing this… The only other I will mention is the evil corporate guy who also manages to be his own henchman in his copious spare time. We're supposed to believe something about his having unleashed the man-made monster on mankind and having some hidden agenda. Whoopee-doo, I can hardly wait. Maybe it's going to be the one about, "you people don't deserve this planet", blab, blab, yawn.

The show is based on the worst kind of scientific research possible… the kind that just manages to leave the words 'scientific' and 'research' out altogether. Basically, the plot holes, which are the size of Kansas, stem from the kind of research gathered by watching uninformed news snippets from some local channel. One interesting gaffe concerns Dolly (1996 – 2003, R.I.P.) the famous – but nobody quite understands why – sheep. We have a character who supposedly works in the field of genomics research state quite smugly that "we cloned our first sheep in the 1960's", completely in ignorance of the fact that Dolly's having being cloned wasn't really such a big deal. It was how she was cloned, and from what, that made her special.

Of course, the most mind-numbing concept to be introduced to the show was that three people, with a scrap yard's worth of junk, and with three days between them, could manage to build a fully-working submersible with an emergency floatation device, cameras, lights, flashing things that don't make sense, the whole bit. Incredible. I believe that maybe the A-Team and a budget of $100,000 may have been able to manage this feat (and managed a depth of 20 feet – not 5,000 feet!!!), but none of these people had an ounce of engineer in them. This woman has difficulties taking the safety off of a handgun, and the other chap can't steer a truck in a straight line for goodness' sake! This show has been on for about a hundred years, yet could so easily have been squeezed down to 3 or 5 hour-long episodes. I'm at that point where I've invested so much time that I just have to know what the inane ending is going to be (don't tell me that Godzilla will save the day). I should have known better since this is an NBC show, and NBC pay the Sci-Fi Channel's bills (under the dubious gaze of Sony Entertainment Corp. – quite bizarre). Sci-Fi Channel currently has but two or three redeeming shows, yet still manages to put on some of the most ridiculous (and unintentionally funny) 'movies' every Saturday night. They call them 'Sci-Fi Originals' and I can quite honestly say that, yes, they are definitely original, but probably not in the way that is meant.

The acting in Surface is just mediocre enough to be okay. The effects, when you can see them, are somewhat passable, but you mostly don't see them… I'm still completely confused as to whether we're supposed to sympathize with the creatures or loathe them.

But please… just get it over with NBC!!!

Battlestar Galactica (2004–2009)

The Best Sci-Fi Channel Franchise... Ever!

[10/10 · 14 January 2006]

When I watched the mini-series back in 2003 I wasn't sure whether there was any intention to make it into a regular show. I thought the story ended abruptly and I wasn't entirely sure if I liked the premise or the characters. The fact that they repeatedly say, "Frack!" seemed a little cheesy too.

Well, they eventually showed up with a whole season continuing where the mini finished (d'oh!) and I noticed a little more maturity in the story and the writing was much better. From one episode to another the story improved in leaps and bounds and started to become just a little compelling. By the end of the last season I was sad that it had to go on hiatus, and literally found myself waiting for more.

This season has topped all expectations (2 episodes in) and is just getting better all the time. The show has out-stripped all of my expectations with a mature, human, and downright gritty story. The realism is pretty amazing at times, and one never knows quite where each episode will lead. The show has some pretty well-developed characters for what it is (no, it's not Shakespeare!). Even the Cylons' plan is turning out to be a somewhat complex and detailed beast, and as we learn more and more about them we find that they're pretty deep also. By comparison, check out an original "by your command" episode and then tell me (if you dare) that they haven't finally made a worthwhile piece out of a late '70s Star Wars rip-off.

To those who think that the show is too violent or contains too much sex, well, get over it or change the channel. I don't like censorship and prude conservatism (for its own sake, especially) and I believe the show benefits from the added dimension of reality. Guess what? The human race is both violent and sexual. Goshhhh!

Bones (2005–2017)

Complete nonsense!

[18 September 2005]

Ha ha ha ha ha! My wife desperately wanted to like this show because she has a background in anthropology. So I decided to check it out with her...

This show reaches depths that I never knew existed. It features relentlessly unrealistic characters (my favorite was the young lady that exposes her breasts and later on explains how she wrote software that can compose a 3D hologram from a physical skeleton -- simply stupid.) I liked the scenes of the hero putting together a skull to the strains of a... love song? And that wasn't the only song in the show. Altogether, this show was wholly unbelievable.

Needles to say, I won't be watching this crap again.

Medium (2005–2011)

Ha! The Myth continues...

[6 June 2005]

Television has sunk pretty low recently. Alongside any conceivable Reality Show idea that can be thunk, and the amateur video antics of Britney, this show is in good company. But why, you ask. It's reasonably well written, well acted. Actually, the production quality is very good, and Arquette is a good-enough actor that she can pull it off. But that's not my problem.

As some have already mentioned, Allison is based on the "real-life" antics of Allison Dubois (her last name is an anagram, you know). The quotes denote that Allison's stories come mainly from the deepest depths of her mind. In the main, they simply didn't occur. Allison's first "case" was with the Texas Rangers. Not just in the show, but in her book, and since that supposed to be autobiographical, that would mean it really happened. Except for the fact that, "According to Texas Ranger senior management, the Rangers have not used psychics, including Ms. DuBois." That's a quote from Ms. Block of the Texas Department of Public Safety's Public Information Office.

Allison also purports to have worked with the Glendale, Arizona PD. Skeptical Inquirer magazine printed this quote: "Glendale police spokesman Michael Pena stated that the detective who handles missing persons cases 'does not recall using Dubois at all in one specific case, or in any other cases.'"

Even the NBC web folks are less keen to promote Ms. Dubois as they once did. Their website once stated: "DuBois has consulted on a variety of murders or missing-persons cases while working with various law-enforcement agencies including the Glendale Arizona Police Department, the Texas Rangers, and a County Attorney's Office in the Homicide Bureau." But the website currently has this to say: "Allison donates her time to missing/murdered persons and criminal cases for agencies across the country. She is contacted by law enforcement and families to help find missing and murdered people. Allison also assists in jury selection for District Attorney's Offices. Each of these is a means for her to give back to the world for being so blessed." Perhaps they finally did some research of their own.

So, what's my problem exactly? Well, I don't take kindly to this kind of fiction being peddled on the premise that it is true. But here's the kicker: James Randi offered to test Allison's abilities, as he does any so-called medium, psychic, whatever. There's a million dollars in it, but that's not enticing enough. Here's Allison's response, in her own words (imagine Patricia reading from the script if you like): "I want to address an issue that comes up from time to time. There is an irritating magician offering $1 million to anyone that can prove to him that there is anything paranormal. My response to this is there is a reason that mediums do not take him up on his challenge. The mediums I know, myself included, do not believe this man to be honorable. Not only is he an unintelligent skeptic, he would be an out of work skeptic if somebody were to prove this to him. Therefore, he will never come to the conclusion that any medium has met his standards. If he is so interested in million dollar challenges, maybe he should take Victor Zammit up on his. It would be appreciated if he would direct his anger, whining and bullying towards a therapist. FYI any e-mail concerning him will be rightfully deleted." Case closed; she's a fraud. And this show just promotes her in the worst possible way.

Sorry.

Fahrenhype 9/11 (2004 Video)

Meandering movie that doesn't fulfill its promise

[1/10 · 11 April 2005]

We rented this movie already suspicious, but we were prepared to accept any accurate repudiation of Michael Moore's facts. I'm not a Democrat, and not exactly a died-in-the-wool Liberal, but I do appreciate Moore's attempts to correct some ills in this country.

However, this movie didn't make more than a couple of salient points before descending into what I can only describe as "soup". After the first 15 minutes there is no cogent plot to the piece and we're given, instead, random comments from individuals and groups of military personnel (that look as if they just happened to be in some bar across the street from the base). In fact, after a certain point, the film-makers are no longer discrediting Michael Moore (their words, not mine) at all, but instead making the usual excuses for invading Iraq. And it isn't without the merest irony that I write this after yet another report has been released discrediting Bush's original "motive" of WMDs.

Ultimately, the so-called evidence to discredit Michael Moore is nit-picking and doesn't even begin to amount to 10% of Moore's movie ("Bush sat for 5 minutes in the classroom before getting up, not 7 minutes. Moore totally got that wrong in his movie.") While I wholeheartedly believe that one should view a movie before commenting, we actually got to a point where we simply fast-forwarded through the last 15 minutes. Moore has a talent that cannot be disputed; that of being able to serve up something that is interesting and compelling. This, on the other hand, was mind-numbingly boring, meandering, and missing any kind of point. The makers needed to set their goals and not just mish-mash together pieces of commentary.

Lastly, if you want to make a serious impact on the Democrats and Liberals, it would serve you well not to invite commentary from such well-known loons as Ann Coulter and Ron Silver. Ann Coulter is especially trippy as she speaks of the "humanitarian reasons for the conflict in Iraq" all the while being one the most divisive people in the media, and someone who has been proved to lie or simply make up the facts as they suit her.

All in all, this movie doesn't do what it sets out to do, and probably hopes to rely on its existence as proof that Michael Moore is a liar, knowing full well that ignorant America will not watch it, but believe it all the same.

Taking Lives (2004)

Another obvious movie! Ick!

[5/10 · 11 October 2004]

After viewing the trailer a few times, this movie looked to be compelling viewing. I finally took the time to watch it on Pay-per-View and couldn't have been more wrong! This movie is just plain boring from start to finish. It played like an M. Night Shyamalan reject with its all-too-obvious plot and terribly convoluted finish.

I don't understand why French-Canadians are being played by Frenchmen here. This just makes no sense, it's obvious that they're French. Worse than that though, I wish that they had picked someone other than Jolie; the woman simply cannot act. Even Ethan Hawke was too busy gagging on the pedestrian script to be able to save her.

But by far the worst problem was the boredom. Once it became obvious that the script was shot full of holes it was no longer enjoyable to watch and the end didn't come soon enough. There simply isn't anything new here.

There was literally no character development, just mere hints acting as explanation for a particular character's actions. The villain of the piece really had no purpose other than to kill people; sure he's a psychopath, but I want to know why.

Kiefer Sutherland, by the way, was completely wasted. Maybe he stopped by the set one day and they threw him in for a cameo, or so it seems.

The Manchurian Candidate (2004)

Very Disappointing!

[1/10 · 2 August 2004]

Having seen the original many years ago, I was looking forward to this movie. The acting was done well, and the movie was very believable. However, I have to say that this movie is a complete stinker. The story is completely one-dimensional, and linear to the point of tedium. I actually found myself nodding off at one point, as I didn't feel there was anything new in the movie that wasn't already laid out in the preview. There wasn't one plot twist at all. Denzel's character was weak and had almost no clue of what was going on throughout the whole movie. While this is very realistic, it doesn't make for a good story.

The analogy to the current political climate in the US, the idea that corporations are really in charge (or very nearly), was very obvious except that the key villain was a South African, and not from Saudi Arabia!

The line, "Maybe this is all a dream", was a cheesy reference to Jacob's Ladder (a far superior movie by the way).

This movie was given such high praise by the likes of Ebert and Roeper, but it really is a bad movie (and I won't be paying much attention to those two from this point forth). This was the first movie I've seen in a long time after which I felt cheated and would have liked very much to regain both the time I wasted and the money!

My recommendation: watch the original and go see something else instead.

The 4400 (2004–2007)

Huh?

[15 July 2004]

It's hard to take a script seriously when the writers can't even do decent research. I noticed several glaring physical impossibilities within the first hour... ...But why would Shawn, a kid borin in the mid-eighties, not have heard of the band Killing Joke? Or even Handsome Boy Modeling School who were definitely around before 2001?

Utterly stupid!

I won't even get into the obvious point of this being a lame cross between The X-Files and The X-Men. To be honest, the writers should all be declared ex-employees. This is just another wasted effort to produce obvious, unoriginal garbage, and package it as some amazing, "unprecedented" television event.

10/10 for not putting it in the cinema... although at least that would have condensed this nonsense to a couple of hours at most, instead of the hours and hours of silliness we see here.