Change Your Image
davethejackal
Reviews
Aquarius (2015)
Uncomfortable
Well acted, great script, amusing interplay between the characters, nice plot development, great 60s period piece ... so why don't I dig it, daddio? Basically I was uncomfortable with the fact they were fictionalising the escapades of a still living criminal, making all sorts of allegations about the victims, their families (some of whom may be still alive). Are characters and situations real or fictional? Either is a possible and, not being a Manson expert, I have no way to tell. The result is frequently confusion, frustration when it should be entertainment.
I also find both Manson and 60s America curiously sanitised even to the extend that hardly anyone smokes (tobacco, at least). There are hints of the racial tensions of the time but these are minuscule. The Helter Skelter race war Manson obsessed over hasn't been mentioned. Sexism is also virtually non-existent.
They'd have been better off sticking to the facts or choosing an entirely fictional antagonist, either would have been better than this.
Prometheus (2012)
Prometheus? More like Poopmetheus...
Never mind Von Daniken's "Mansions of the Gods", principal influences seem to have been the computer game Dead Space ... and a Johnny Walker commercial.
OK, so Dead Space itself draws heavily on numerous sources, not just Scott's "Alien" (John Carpenter's "the Thing", "Event Horizon") but it is a computer game, and you kinda expect that, they're not really meant to be cinematic masterpieces (though, compared to this movie, it is one) .... when were virus nano machines that could infect a host and mutate it in to, I dunno let's call them "necromporphs" shall we(?), ever part of the Aliens universe? Also stolen from Dead Space is quasi religious belief that grows up around an ancient artifacts (or "markers" as they say in Dead Space) that gives clues to our alien forefathers. Unlike Dead Space's creepy cult "unitology", which are clearly a sideswipe at Scott's own religion Scientology, Prometheus's religious seem to wear crosses in a religion that resembles Christianity/belief in God/belief we were created by aliens/who the floodle knows, even this wasn't thought through enough to make sense.
Scientologists aren't known for taking disrespect well, maybe that's what this is all about, making sure the rumoured Dead Space film project never gets off the ground. Yeah I like that theory, at least it would explain why dross like this ever gets made.
You can see the Johnny Walker commercial on Youtube, just google "Johnny Walker Human", it does in a minute what Prometheus fails to do in however many minutes it drags on for.
Other than that: extremely bad science, implausible leaps in logic by characters, levels of stupidity and poor decision making that would make the dimwitted denizens of "Friday the 13th Part 17" blush, several obvious internal inconsistencies .... I could go on. The science was so bad, 10 minutes in I was thinking, "O M G what have they done?". Androids don't have souls, eh, so everything is meaningless to them is it? W T F ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!?!?!?
I also object being shown clips in publicity that are not in the movie they are pretending to advertise.
The Prisoner (2009)
Not the Prisoner but not bad either
Not sure what the other reviewers are on about.
They're probably the sort of people who own not only the entire original Prisoner collection on DVD, Blue Ray, VHS and Beta-max, and watch it daily, but probably Doctor Who as well.
The no doubt think the Sylvester McCoy episodes are the best as they tick all the boxes as far as 'campness' is concerned.
Quite how they can pronounce any series dead and buried after just 1 episode I'm not sure.
For the rest of us, I'd say this is worth taking a look at.
Borrowing elements from the original series, it's not supposed to be a direct copy, and wasn't made using weather balloons in Wales.
Other than that, like all TV shows, it's difficult to tell from a pilot, but it seems to show promise.
In the Loop (2009)
It's a long time since I've seen a money this funny...
This is not a movie for those looking for the cosy delusional homilies and self congratulatory tributes to politicians of something like Yes Minister, it's vulgar, raw, enticing. An excellent comedy that never lets a moment pass without something to amuse, whilst being painfully poignant at the same time. In the build up to war, the UK government conspires to provide made up intelligence to the US to justify an act of war... sound familiar? Really, really, really funny and those who claim Yes Minister and it's ilk are superior, or more representative of what goes on in the 'corridors of power', aren't living in the real world. Critics who compare this to 'The Thick of It': remember, if this movie includes the same characters it's obviously set before the events of 'in the loop', hence we might expect them to be more energetic, rawer and ... well swear a lot. I'm not sure the pacing of TToI would have worked in movie form and it's nice to see that the writers were able to translate the basic idea to a successful movie, unlike so many TV adaptations which have fallen flat on their faces.
Spider-Man 2 (2004)
2.1 beats 2 hands down
I've just upgraded my 7 rating for this movie to a 10 having seen the excellent 2.1 cut, much better than the original.
Its amazing what sacrifices a studio is prepared to make all for the sake of shaving off a few minutes from a movie. With those moments restored this movie has gone up immeasurably in my estimation.
That's not to say the original was bad, its just that this is so much better.
All the characters seem 'fuller' and the story telling is greatly assisted, the movie fires on all cylinders and forms a much more cohesive whole, I always thought that, in the original, the human story was very good but the whole super hero/villain thing was tacked on ... not so now, the comic book stuff now complements and forms part of the bigger story.
Great stuff and definitely worth watching if you haven't seen it already.
Battlestar Galactica: Crossroads: Part 2 (2007)
Hmmm...
A disappointing end to a season that started so well ...
Exodus part 2 and other notable episodes were amongst the best seen on TV in any series, where as this was rather bad.
Well I am not sure if it was the episode that was a disappointment, but the cheesy guitar music at that accompanied the closing sequence was laughable and would have been more at home in the original series.
Its almost as if the corporate execs didn't like the low key down note ending and wanted to jazz it up. They failed and rather spoilt everything.
Lets hope this is not a trend for the future.
Still at least we saw the return of a certain person even if somewhat bizarrely and tritely done.
Supernatural (2005)
What's the attraction? ... oh there it is...
OK I've changed my mind...
In season 1 i think my original comments were accurate, however in season 2 things change ...
SEASON 1 (my original comments):
I guess I'm not the target audience for this program, I'm neither female or gay (so the two hulks-o-beefcake do nothing for me) and, although I enjoy supernatural drama I don't actually believe in all that shoot...
But even then, after 10 episodes, I find it hard to fathom why anyone would really class !?"^£ like this.
I like Buffy, Medium and Angel, but this isn't even in the same sport, never mind the same league.
The ideas are mostly stolen form other programs and/or movies, 'ring', 13 ghosts, poltergeist, x files and final destination (amongst others). Worst still the plots are episodic and formulaic: something creepy happens; the brothers home in on said incident faster than Columbo on speed (never striking a dud); they fish around for clues in true Scooby style and after following one maybe two false leads and some creepy stuff track down then kill the ghoul. The acting is okay, but the script is awful, not even Olivier could bring this deader than a dead thing from Deadsville, Dead county to life.
Yeah I like it for casual/vegging viewing, simple plots, not particularly demanding and I know the nasty monsters are going to get it in the end ... but really folks ... what *IS* all the fuss about?
SEASON 2:
Season 2 is a very different beast to 1, in a few short episodes it turns what was quite a dull concept in to something quite compelling. A cross between The Shield and Frailty (http://imdb.com/title/tt0264616/), 'Buffy the Vampire slayer with rednecks', remodeled for America's Christian right whilst retaining a broad appeal. Production values and presentation are upped, the scripts far better, and the clichés whilst they are still occasionally used become homages, the backdrop against which the drama is set. Every ask your self why buffy and the scooby gang never got arrested or hassled by the cops? In Supernatural S2 that's one question you won't have to ask ...
I'll keep watching: entertaining, thrilling stuff.
Saw III (2006)
Vile Pap
I never did see the point of the Saw movies.
There's no real point to any of them.
You know that whatever people do they are going to suffer, plenty of gore but hell it's only latex n sh!t and since the main characters are neither believable nor likable the viewer has about as much interest in watching their fates unravel as watching paint dry.
Even quick drying stuff.
I'm not sure why I sat through the first two never mind this pile of dross.
Avoid!
Battlestar Galactica: Exodus: Part 2 (2006)
In summary
I think the best way to put this, without giving anything away, is to describe "exodus part 2" as the best episode of any TV series I've ever seen.
Ever.
Drama, emotion, tension, excitement, surprises, superb acting, characterisation, a script beyond compare, it's all there plus huge space battles with big guns n explosions n stuff! Could you ask for more?
I wasn't an early convert to galactica, but now I'm hooked and, barring any 'the shield' like nose dives in quality will be there until the end.
Keep up the good work scifi channel, you done good.
Lost (2004)
My theories on Lost...
The theories may not be new, but they're mine. First expounded in a series of 3 posts by me and the first of which is reproduced here in, more or less it's original form.
*** POST 1 What's going to happen in lost is not the question, what I think is (a more interesting question at least) is "What is lost?".
My theory: it's an outlet for the religious beliefs of right wing Americans.
I suspected this in season 1 but as season 2 progresses it becomes increasingly obvious, with increasing references to the bible, situations framed in simplistic 'biblical' terms (e.g. the 'others' on the island, who's only crime seems to be that they are 'evil', distinct from the 'good' chiefly because of their lack of 'moral' values and being unable to dress like good upstanding churchgoing Americans).
Each of the characters has a problematic past... pasts they leave behind and resolve on the island. Truly, on the island, they are 'born again' ... just as, when you embrace the love of our Lord Jesus Christ ("lemme hear you say hallelujah!") you are 'born again' and your previous troubles and life are left behind.
There's the character who, even though he has obviously witnessed a miracle (the miraculous recovery of one of his patients after a failed spinal operation) still, to his very great detriment he fails to 'see the light' (more on this in season 2, if you haven't seen it already).
There are lessons in blind faith 'Type the code! Just type the code! You gotta have faith' (erm ... this may be season 2... not sure, whatever, and however dramatic the scene it didn't work for me).
It's all an allegory for the religious experience, for becoming and later what it is to be a Christian.
What happens ultimately isn't really that important, it's all about how they get there. As season 2 proceeds you will see the bible is extolled increasingly as the solution to, or at least a guide in resolving, many of the dilemmas the survivors face.
OK ... so ... is it then just some sort of cheap religious propaganda.
Without a doubt, to some degree, yes. Even if not intended as such it will be used in this way, you can't stop that.
However, I'd like to suggest another explanation of Lost's true 'purpose' (other than generating advertising revenues - which is undoubtedly what keeps it on the air).
It's not meant to 'spread the faith'; it's meant to be an outlet for the feelings, hopes and aspirations of the religious right of America.
If people have an outlet, see something on screen that validates their beliefs and values, that doesn't insult their intelligence, reinforces their belief in their way of life etc they feel validated, included, represented... they see their ideals being fulfilled on screen ... and ... as a result ... they're less likely to go out in to a world they may once have viewed as 'sinful' (since TV *is* real life, right?) and do something about it.
This has been a particularly bad habit amongst religious sorts in the US in recent years ... they get up to all sorts of mischief
the re-election of George Bush Jr in 2004 for example, to which they were major contributors, due to his stance on several biblically sensitive or, as they would have it, 'moral' issues.
Liberal culture in the states is reeling from several such 'attacks' in recent years and this is the liberal media fighting back. It's showing it can be just as 'neo-conservative' as those on the right.
It's a bit like Goldstein's book in 1984... Lost is not meant to encourage or assist the revolution, but is there to diffuse revolutionary feelings.
It's a first shot at the pacification/weakening of the Religious Right in the States and it's role as the 'angry, uncooperative mob' of American politics.
Give people something good to watch on TV, make them feel good about themselves and the world they live in, make them feel it conforms to their ideals and they're less likely to be politically active
vote against you
picket book stores
petition to have laws changed etc etc.
As simple as that
Lost is a 'little house on the Prairie' for the 00's.