Change Your Image
daaron
Reviews
Star Trek: Discovery: Brother (2019)
ZOMG More Tig Please
Jett Reno is exactly what this show needed. A perfect balance of urgency and humor, and hit the notes that made this episode I stand out in the series. Please let's see more of this character!
The Prisoner (2009)
They obviously didn't "get" the original
This production reminds me a little of Battlestar Galactica; not the recent excellent "re-imagining," but the original 1978 series. In 1978, the producers had a kernel of an brilliant idea, but the execution was sloppy and misguided. Only in the 2005-2009 remake did they correctly get "right" the pain, hope, and determination of a people without a home or a future.
"The Prisoner" has the opposite problem. Those responsible for the 2009 remake didn't get the point of Number 6, the message of the Village, or tension of his predicament. Their first mistake was casting the humorless and charmless Caviezel. McGoohan created the role for himself, and he played it with all the wit, ingenuity, and vigor of a man worthy of what The Village tried to do to him. In both productions, Number 2 is trying to "break" Number 6: in the 2009 version, this happens in the very first episode, and this inspires a shrug in the audience because we just don't care. McGoohan's Number 6 couldn't be broken, and it was thrilling.
The Village in the new show is neat to look at, but groundless. Those who run it want its inhabitants to think it's the only civilization on Earth, but this premise doesn't make any sense. (For instance, how do some inhabitants come to have British accents if they're all "from" the same town?) Even the marvelous Ian McKellen can't make sense of the muddled story or weak dialog.
But the message, or lack thereof, is really the biggest loss. The original 1960s show was veiled in cold-war anxiety, but it was the underlying paranoia exhibited by Number 6 as well as his captors, and the eventual reveal that the paranoia was beside the point, that made the show resonate. The Village in the new show is pointless, and Caviezel's Number 6 never rises above "rat in a maze" status.
Essentially, the producers of the 2009 series just didn't "get" the point of the original series; to be honest, I don't "get" why they bothered remaking it if they weren't going to do it right. Maybe they just wanted to do some cool stuff with big white weather balloons. What a waste. (Even The Simpsons got it right with "The Computer Wore Menace Shoes," which, coincidentally, was one of McGoohan's last roles.) I do have one bit of praise of the 2009 version: they made it different enough from the original that it hasn't ruined the original series for me. I can't wait to watch the 1967 version again!
Eureka: If You Build It... (2009)
A 42-minute long ad for Subaru
Normally, this is a fun show, but this particular episode was essentially a 42-minute long ad for Subaru. I don't like product placements, but I realize they're a fact of life on goofy shows like Eureka. But the writers didn't even try to veil the ad; they wrote a plot line that was specifically designed to show off Subaru's XYZ (or whatever it was), even to the point of having several characters covet it with ooohhs and aaahhs. Gross.
But aside from the fact that I feel dirty just having watched this stinker of an episode, it wasn't even good sci-fi. The idea of the town's kids building some sort of space machine by gluing office chairs to typewriters is stupid to say the least. Is Eureka now a Saturday morning cartoon? I haven't expected much from Eureka other than a little fun once a week, but this episode really turned me off the series.
Kings (2009)
Very strong series, except...
Kings enjoys strong performances, excellent production values, and compelling storytelling. I found "Judgment Day" particularly entertaining, much for Ian McShane's lead. And McShane's line in the first episode, "Half my kingdom it is," sealed my interest in the series. The sub-plot about the king's gay son is also good, albeit brushed under the carpet in some of the later episodes.
Now, pundits claim that the show is apparently very expensive to produce, and as such, begs for cancellation before it can build up enough audience to justify its cost.
But the show's real flaw is the burden of its own deity worship. Now, that God is part of the construct is only to be expected, in that "Kings" is a retelling of the biblical story of King David -- and that's not a problem. Rather, it's that the show's producers and writers seem so compelled to make the series rely so heavily on the faith of its characters, that the stories are crushed under their own weight. In Episode 7, "The Sabbath Queen," for instance (spoiler follows), the princess tells David that she can't be with him because of a promise she made to God. It's a silly, heavy-handed premise that's implausible --- even in a fictional universe where modern-day USA is a monarchy -- because her character has been written as an activist and a rule-breaker.
The exact same thing happened to the recently-canceled "Eli Stone." It started with a lighthearted, somewhat fantastical setting, and then became bogged down by religious dogma and heavy-handed arguments about faith.
Essentially, "Kings" could've been great, had its makers not sucked all the fun out of it.
Outlander (2008)
Entertaining, but nothing special
The creature was cleverly designed, but ultimately nothing more than a wild beast. And that's rather the point - the movie began as a creature hunt, but developed (as it should) into a story about the characters. It's obviously a redux of Beowulf, with a little 21st-century manifest-destiny guilt thrown in for good measure.
Sophia Myles was wonderful; stole every scene she was in. Not nearly enough Ron Perlman. James Caviezel was a colossal bore, which is a shame since the story mostly revolved around his character; an actor with a better screen presence would've elevated this picture above the fray. As it is, Outlander is okay at 2am if you can't sleep, but it's nothing worth rearranging your schedule for.
Watchmen (2009)
I want my 3 hours back
Excruciating movie. Long, tiresome, and a bore.
Weak acting and lifeless characters limit what might've been a promising message. Since the story lacks palpable emotional impact - learning the parentage of one "hero" is supposed to be more climactic than the destruction of most of the world's big cities, for instance - the desperate director repeatedly resorts to the sound of bones cracking and the sight of them splintering through skin to impress the audience. There's only so much bludgeoning I can take. And the Koyaanisqatsi soundtrack (Philip Glass) was only too apt; yet another reminder that this was a long, pointless journey to nowhere. In the end, I felt like Dr Manhattan - I didn't care about these people, this universe, or what any of it had to say.
And worst of all, this movie was no fun at all.
Coupling (2000)
Low-grade sitcom with a canned laugh-track
I've seen a few episodes of the first season of Coupling (UK version), and I honestly can't understand why the Brits love it so much. The humor relies entirely on one-liner jokes, backed up with a cheap canned laugh-track. It reminds me of the dozens of forgettable stupid sitcoms that have come and gone over the years; in all, nothing special here.
Now, I certainly don't mind infantile humor or sex jokes (quite the contrary), but they've got to actually be funny to make me laugh. I barely cracked a smile during the painful hour-and-a-half I devoted to the first few episodes of Coupling I endured before I started fast-forwarding and finally gave up altogether. (And yes, I'm referring to the original UK version.) The people who thought this show was "hilarious" have clearly never seen a minute of Arrested Development, Curb Your Enthusiasm, or Newsradio.
I started watching Coupling because of the show's writer Steven Moffat, whose unforgettable, brilliant work on Doctor Who and Jekyll made me crave more. But this type of writing is clearly not his strong suit. Moffat's dramatic and sci-fi writing is superb; unfortunately, Coupling was a waste of his time and mine.
To vlemma tou Odyssea (1995)
Beautiful but ultimately confusing and disappointing
This movie is about a personal journey by one man looking partly for lost reels of film, and partly for his own past.
The music and much of the cinematography in this film is quite beautiful; some of the images, such as the statue of Lenin floating down the river are absolutely unforgettable.
The problem is that the director's artistic vision seems to be getting in the way of storytelling, and the result is a film with a lot of atmosphere and little substance.
Anyone who claims to really understand this film is probably afflicted by the "Emperor's New Clothes" syndrome: too embarrassed to admit that this artful film just doesn't make any sense.
Harvey Keitel and Maia Morgenstern seem to float in and out of various characters without any explanation. Had the editing been a lot better, perhaps the filmmaker's message would've come through.
As is, it's mostly just confusing and ultimately disappointing.