Reviews

18 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
American Genius: Oppenheimer vs Heisenberg (2015)
Season 1, Episode 6
3/10
Terribly chlichéd
20 January 2024
This episode stars two of the most eminent scholars of nuclear history, Alex Wellerstein and Richard Rhodes himself, but their brief appearances are the only good thing about it. The rest is a collection of very few actual facts and a lot of dumb clichés in the usual History Channel vein plus some embarrassing German (and American!) accents. No mention is made of the fact that almost all of the top scientists of the Manhattan Project were immigrants, or that they were in it mainly to fight the Nazis with their antisemitism and their Holocaust on the Jews of Europe.

Another 40 minutes of my life gone that I will never ever get back. Utterly skipable.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
So BORING
2 October 2022
Wide stretches of the film are purely concerned with celebrating fancy (for the time) science equipment and methods, which amounts to gear porn and modernity masturbation of an age long past. None of this stuff is modern any longer and therefore it is utterly boring.

The writing is also weak. All characters are old people completely devoid of characteristics. The filmmakers meticiulously avoid even trying to make the viewers care about any of these people for a millisecond. To the contrary: extended stretches with a crying baby make you absolutely hate it. Therefore there is no suspense, except for hoping that the baby finally dies so the screaming might finally stop.

In short: a yawn fest if ever I saw one. Attitudes, techniques and writing straight out of the cold war. It may have been made in 1971 but clearly not by the avant-garde. It is a late 50s/early 60s movie, and not one of the good ones.

The one single positive: there is no forced love story either.

Basically it is the exact opposite of true classics like Phase IV (1989) although admittedly that was made 18 years later.
7 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
From (2022– )
4/10
An allegory on gun control
2 June 2022
Think about it.

It has everything: The delusions, the irrationality, the panic, the deadly threat... even a crazy mass shooting. And the guns never actually solve anything.

All that's missing is the racism.

At the same time I got just as bored with the myriad standard tropes and rehashed standard dialogue, standard family drama etc etc as any non-American has gotten at this point with the boring American drama queens and their boring continuous mass shootings.
2 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Unstoppable (2010)
3/10
Style over substance
31 March 2022
It gets three stars only because Denzel is always good. For the life of me I will not understand why a director gets the idea he needs to spruce up a suspense thriller (about trains of all things) with agitated editing and senseless, hectic camera movement when there is plenty of suspense in the premise already. A movie whose every second makes me hate it more and which I massively regret re-watching, probably because I already regretted watching it the first time and instantly suppressed every memory of it.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Stargate Universe: Visitation (2010)
Season 2, Episode 9
2/10
Second-worst
26 March 2022
Almost as annoying as Cloverdale (2010) but at least it is not as cheaply made, with as clear and obvious a priority on cutting production cost. This whole sub-arc with the godlike aliens that can make entire star systems seems entirely pointless.
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Stargate Universe: Cloverdale (2010)
Season 2, Episode 5
1/10
Cheap
26 March 2022
Warning: Spoilers
Most of this episode takes place in a boring small town on Earth because that is a lot cheaper to produce than, say, a decent science-fiction drama on gigantic sci-fi sets with lots of CGI space battles and such.

A lot of the rest of the episode shows people boringly run around in the woods, which is also a nice, super cheap location and you don't even need a permit to film there.

The most expensive thing in terms of production value could actually be the prosthetics/make-up of the alien fungus or plant or whatever that starts growing on somebody's arm while taking over their consciousness.

The only worse budget-saving measure conceivable would be a clip show. I would prefer a decent bottle episode over this.

My mind can't stop switching to the Red Letter Media guys collectively facepalming ovcer this.
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
House M.D.: Post Mortem (2012)
Season 8, Episode 20
8/10
Robocop is a bad doctor now!
23 March 2022
Warning: Spoilers
To think I didn't even know who Peter Weller was when watching this the first couple of times. I only saw Robocop for the first time during the Pandemic. Now that I do know who that is, the cameo feels disappointing and like the waste of a super great actor who gets to do almost nothing. I could not remember clearly where all this was going, and his appearance in the beginning of the episode set me up to expect a far greater role. Sadly he stays gone forever after calling the time of death.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
House M.D.: Man of the House (2012)
Season 8, Episode 13
5/10
Good + bad = mediocre
22 March 2022
Warning: Spoilers
The subplots revolving around Mrs. House's green card inspector and Park chasing the team leader position are funny. But the main plot is handled much too heavy-handed, with the patient turning into a sexist caricature once his testosterone is restored; to the point it takes me out of the experience.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
House M.D.: Remorse (2010)
Season 6, Episode 11
10/10
Full marks for the casting... and whatever else they used
15 March 2022
Warning: Spoilers
I don't know how they managed to make that psychopath patient look like Antony Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter in "The Silence of the Lambs", even though she is a beautiful actress. But they pulled it off. Acting, casting, make-up, CGI or a combination of all these things - great job, spine-tingling.
11 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
House M.D.: The Down Low (2010)
Season 6, Episode 10
10/10
Full marks just for the final montage
15 March 2022
Warning: Spoilers
Whoever played that Lethal Weapon of a guitar over that final montage where the villains are taken down while the patient dies, sound like the love child of Eric Clapton and Gary Moore. Only 90 seconds or so but it will always make my day.

Reminds me of that time when I re-watched the actual Lethal Weapon for the umpteenth time, after having educated myself all through my twenties on classic rock appreciation, and suddenly it's like scales falling from my ears and hearing that that soundtrack sounded exactly like Eric Clapton, and looking it up and it actually *was,* of which I had had no idea before.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hannibal: The Wrath of the Lamb (2015)
Season 3, Episode 13
1/10
It's always the little things
9 March 2022
I'm taking the effort to downvote this specifically because of the wholly inappropriate, tasteless popsong they chose to play over the finale and which ruins everything. It's the kind of song played over a James-Bond intro but not remotely as iconic. Makes me wanna puke.
0 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hannibal: ...And the Beast from the Sea (2015)
Season 3, Episode 11
3/10
Sub-par writing
9 March 2022
Not just by the standards of this show itself, the writing falls apart here with a handful of glaring plot holes, character errors, and some of them even wrapped in fairly unpolished, in-your-face dialogue.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
House M.D.: Games (2007)
Season 4, Episode 9
10/10
Jeremy Renner's best role
3 March 2022
Bar none. God he was so good in this. So punchy. Why ever waste an actor of this caliber on boring, predictable superhero movies and mindless action crap?
16 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
House M.D.: Needle in a Haystack (2007)
Season 3, Episode 13
1/10
The gaping plot hole kills it
27 February 2022
Warning: Spoilers
Spoilers, I guess: How do you swallow a toothpick, then be surprised when you get sick but not tell your doctors you swallowed a godam toothpick?!

Most House episodes are eminently rewatchable but this one just makes me angry.
6 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Most ineffective movie ever
17 November 2021
It only becomes apparent just how bad this movie is once you realize it was made three years AFTER "Aliens" and had almost TWICE as much money to work with (budget of US$33 million, compared to 18.5 for "Aliens".) According to Shatner, apparently, most of that cash went to "talent". So it's basically the love child of a proto Adam-Sandler-type cash grab and a vanity project of a washed up actor who thinks himself an artist. And that's exactly what it looks like: Garbage.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Putin propaganda
10 September 2021
All you need to know about this film is that Putin ordered it made because he was miffed at the British miniseries of "Chernobyl" because of its, let's say unfortunate portrayal of the Soviet state and its bureaucracy. In other words, it is pure propaganda, meant to uphold the heroic but sadly fake Soviet narrative about the whole incident and stroke the egos of Putin's Russian magats equivalent.
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The Atomic Office but in the 1940s
28 July 2021
Atomic cringe. The levels of sexism, national stereotyping and general bigotry have to be seen to be believed. An invaluable window into history, if not for the intended reasons.
1 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Greyhound (2020)
3/10
Nice CGI, decent war plot, solid acting. I hated it. There is no need for it.
17 August 2020
Greyhound is set during the Battle of the Atlantic, specifically in February 1942. The "First Happy Time", the initial phase of great success for the German U-Boats, is long over. The Brits have adopted the convoy system to better protect the freighters and troop ships supplying their besieged island. They have been honing their ASW skills, to which the subs are trying to adapt by using the "Wolf Pack" tactic. Commander Ernest Krause (Hanks) has received his first command, the fictional Fletcher-class destroyer USS Keeling, call sign Greyhound. After a few months of work-ups, the time has come to sail his new ship into harm's way for the first time, commanding the escorts of the fictional convoy HX-25 to Liverpool. There is danger and suspense, well-paced action and tasteful special effects, mostly CGI of course. The film delivers on all the expected sweeping CGI footage of period ships and some aircraft on the high seas, specifically, a British Tribal-class DD, a Polish Gromm-class DD and even a Canadian Flower-class corvette, besides Krause's Fletcher and a selection of period freighters, tankers, Liberty ships and converted passenger steamers. Acting, direction and plot are mostly as solid as you would expect of a Hanks vehicle. I especially liked Stephen Graham portrayal of Krause's No. 1 Charlie Cole, a dead-eyed killer. Using Elizabeth Shue, the token actress in an otherwise all-male cast, for a single short, trope-heavy scene and a couple flashbacks feels like a needless waste of some world-class talent. The only real grievance as far as the acting is the over-the-top Englishness of the British voices which is typical of many American movies. Pip pip! Huzzah, old chum. But hey. Large parts of the writing also feel very solid, although seeing as Hanks gets a screenwriting credit, he could have gone a bit easier on the praying and the Jesus for my taste. So why do I hate this movie's guts? Well, for one, the definitive movie about this sujet has long been made. It is an anti-war film called "The Cruel Sea". Look it up. Watch it. It may be black and white and not have CGI and many ships are all wrong, and yet it is head and shoulders above this trillion dollar effort here. Much like "Play Dirty" is above so many infantry movies. But I digress. My second reason is the completely ahistorical portrayal of the mindset of the German U-Boot-Waffe as monstrous, gloating war criminals, in a manner fully consistent with the American state propaganda of the period, which successfully painted these men as despiccable pirates. One of the German U-boat commanders keeps taunting Greyhound over the radio, in the clear. Breaking radio silence, several times, on a convoy, was all but inconceivable for German sub commanders back then, if for no other reason than that it would have allowed the convoy escorts to triangulate their positions. Even outside of actual attacks, many of them defied Dönitz' personal demands for updates in order to avoid detection. One single memorable instance comes to mind: The Laconia incident. Korvettenkapitän Werner Hartenstein radioed his position in the clear when he found out there had been thousands of POWs on a ship he had just sunk. He took rafts of them in tow under red cross flags and was bombed by the Allies for his trouble. Look it up. None of them, not even the most loyal Nazis, would have resorted to this kind of dumb, childish bullying. I have a hard time coming up with an explanation of why they chose to ruin a perfectly adequate movie this way, seeing as it is bound to tick off historical-minded viewers no end. My best guess is they must have felt they needed to create some actual villains, not mere antagonists. Because they went to great lengths to avoid depicting the concept of war itself as the villain. The subdued CGI explosions and burning, sinking ships are too tastefully done to get the point across. Carnage is avoided and the PG-13 rating successfully retained. This is no anti-war movie by any stretch; this is good ole' Hollywood war GLORIFICATION. My own uncle served on U-997. Luckily, he survived the war, unlike almost all his fellow German submariners. The U-Boot-Waffe "won itself to death", with a full three quarters of its sailors lost. Most of them were very young. Like almost all soldiers, they felt their country was threatened and they had to do their part. Many found the killing of merchant mariners highly distasteful. They were not monsters. There is no place for monsters aboard submarines of any nation. You should think we'd be past such notions, 39 years after "Das Boot". You should think that, but apparently you would be wrong.
2 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed