Reviews

23 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
The Mandalorian: Chapter 17: The Apostate (2023)
Season 3, Episode 1
2/10
Well, it was alright for two seasons, I guess.
13 February 2024
The episode opens with a display of military and tactical incompetence that makes the "marines" in David Cameron films look like Sun Tzu's smarter cousins.

Then we move on to a scene that seems straight out of a cartoon western aimed at three-year-olds, decorated with a lot of characters from previous episodes and films, in the hopes that nostalgia will mask the lack of substance or acting ability.

Then we get a CGI space fight so poorly choreographed that you have no idea what's going on (not that it matters), which seems to have been included just so the animators could have a go at (very badly) imitating Davy Jones from the Pirates of the Caribbean movies.

Finally we arrive at a generic video game location where a generic NPC is just waiting in a generic empty room to give the main character his next generic quest.

Three stars for the costumes and art direction in the second "act", minus one star for everything else.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Mandalorian: Chapter 15: The Believer (2020)
Season 2, Episode 7
8/10
Best episode in this season (so far)
23 July 2022
A simple but effective plot (with only one glaring hole - when one of the characters apparently "forgets" he can simply put his helmet on to avoid being recognised), good acting, and excellent direction (the intro alone is a masterpiece of framing and timing, and the rest of the episode doesn't disappoint).

I'm not a huge fan of Rick Famuyiwa's previous episode (chapter 6 - which has very entertaining individual performances, but is full of plot holes, contradictions and repetitive shots), but I guess its problems can be attributed to the original story and set(ting) limitations. This one definitely proved he's a competent writer and, above all, an excellent director (not just of action sequences, but dialogues and character interaction as well).
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Mandalorian: Chapter 12: The Siege (2020)
Season 2, Episode 4
3/10
10/10 for hallways
23 July 2022
Approximately 20 minutes of people running through and across hallways, followed by 10 minutes of people driving a truck along a hallway.

By some margin the weakest episode of The Mandalorian so far.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Stranger Things (2016–2025)
8/10
Nearly perfect first season
31 October 2020
Apart from a couple of bad CG shots and a couple of details in the last episode, the first season of Stranger Things borders on perfection. I won't include any spoilers, but if you like films and books like Carrie, Poltergeist, The Goonies, or The Thing, you will probably enjoy this. A lot. Even more so if you grew up in the 1980s.

The second season is slightly worse, less atmospheric, less mysterious, more focused on action sequences, but definitely still worth watching. Characters still behave more or less in character, with a couple of exceptions. Visual effects are a mixed bag, with the new "monster" looking great, but the ones inherited from season 1 still looking fake and badly animated.

The third season, sadly, is a complete mess (both in terms of the overall plot and the behaviour of some characters making no sense). It's still entertaining, in a sillier and more over-the-top kind of way, but it's really closer to Buffy the Vampire Slayer than to the excellent first series. The visual effects are excellent.

On a scale from 1 to 10, I would rate the first three seasons 10, 8, and 6, respectively. Hopefully season 4 won't be a 4.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Inside No. 9 (2014–2024)
9/10
A masterclass in dark humour
5 May 2015
When asked if the Voyager space probe should carry an audio recording of J. S. Bach's music, Carl Sagan (or possibly Freeman Dyson) supposedly replied: "That would just be showing off." If we assume aliens have any concept of dark humour and visual storytelling, the same could be said about this series.

The first three episodes are absolute masterpieces of their respective (quite different) styles, which is even more impressive when you realise they were all written and directed by the same people.

Episode 4 is probably the weakest of the first series, but episode 5 is fairly solid and the finale goes back to near perfection, manipulating the audience's assumptions to deliver a surprise even after we've learned to expect it.

The second series can't quite live up to the first. There are a few stylistic highlights (especially the 2nd and 4th episodes) and a few laughs (especially in episode 3), but the plots are more disjointed, the twists more predictable, the direction blander, the endings less satisfying. Even the order of the episodes somehow feels "wrong". It's still better than 99% of what's on TV, and definitely worth watching, but it won't humiliate alien film-makers as thoroughly as the previous season.
19 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Aliens (1986)
6/10
A terrible plot made into a very entertaining movie
5 May 2015
If ever a film summed up its director, this one is it. James Cameron is a shrewd producer, an excellent director... and a terrible writer.

I won't include any spoilers, but a quick internet search (or even just a visit to the IMDb "goofs" section) will return a list of plot holes and factual errors that takes nearly as long to read as the film takes to watch (and most of them are so obvious that you WILL notice them even when watching the film for the first time).

And yet, despite all those internal contradictions, despite the nonsensical science and moronic military tactics, and despite the almost cartoon-like characters (or perhaps partly because of them), it's still worth watching.

The action sequences are fast and exciting but still easy to follow, there are several memorable one-liners, and the final confrontation is as iconic as it gets. If only it didn't take itself so seriously, maybe its flaws would come across more as a self-parody (like in Verhoeven's "Starship Troopers") and less as Cameron's lack of writing skills.

It would be unfair to give it a very high score, but if you're willing to overlook the bad plot and implausible characters, you'll probably find "Aliens" a very entertaining action-horror hybrid.
2 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Interstellar (2014)
5/10
A narrative ouroboros, with limited nutritional value
30 April 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Interstellar is, ultimately, the story of a man who flies into a black hole and finds that it's full of books much better than the movie's own plot.

Yes, most of the science in it is correct, at least during the first two thirds of the movie, and that by itself puts it ahead of all the nonsensical "sci-fi" that fails at both plot AND science. But it's still only half the ticket.

The cinematography is excellent, the special effects are almost flawless (without ever calling too much attention to themselves), most of the actors are convincing in their roles (with the spectacular and probably quite expensive exception of Dr. Mann), and both the direction and editing are very good.

But when a plot about interstellar travel ends up as a sentimentalist (albeit four-dimensional) metaphor for father-daughter communication issues, complete with emotionally manipulative music and tears trickling down cheeks, you can't help but feel that the writer couldn't really grasp the scope of what he was dealing with. It's like watching the best roadies in the world put together the greatest stage in the world, so the finest musicians in the world can play "Three Blind Mice". You keep thinking "there has to be more than this", but there isn't. In fact, it turns out there's even less.

To quote Stephen King, "coming back to where you grew up is like doing some crazy yoga trick, putting your feet in your own mouth and somehow swallowing yourself so there's nothing left". And (in clear defiance of King's follow-up line, which IMDb won't allow me to quote) that's exactly what Interstellar's plot manages to do.

I guess there were some hints along the way; a few pretentious-sounding but ultimately meaningless lines, such as "love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends time and space" (huh?), or "the only thing that can move across dimensions, like time, is gravity" (I imagine the film's scientific advisors lost some hair over that one). But I still wasn't expecting the story to suddenly eat itself like it did, both in terms of time (because it goes into an impossible loop) and in terms of gravity (the other kind of gravity - because it loses all sense of the relative importance of the events taking place).

Even the tributes to other sci-fi classics are done in a way that suggests the writer's imagination never rose very far from the ground. Arthur C. Clarke's monolith, a symbol of transcendent intelligence, is reduced to a kind of robotic sidekick, used as a mix of comic relief and deus ex machina solution to human incompetence.

And then there are the obvious plot holes, like how they need a huge rocket to launch a small "lander" from Earth into orbit, but that same lander can take off from all the other planets they visit on its own, without any need for booster rockets or extra fuel.

Finally, the "feel-good" ending (a man and his robotic dog riding into the sunset to save a damsel, after having thoroughly saved everyone else) seems like something pulled out of Starship Troopers (but without its tongue-in-cheekness), and I get the feeling it was added because some focus group wasn't happy leaving Matthew McConaughey trapped in library limbo (I wonder if the "tesseract" was a deliberate nod to Pratchett's L-Space; that would almost make me give it another star).

Overall, it's probably still worth watching. It's not insultingly bad, like (for example) Prometheus. But don't expect Stanislaw Lem levels of insight into scientific philosophy or mankind's relationship with the cosmos. Think of it as a two-hour dramatised documentary about a space trip that somehow got mixed with one hour of a soap-opera writer trying to justify his pay.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Battlestar Galactica: Scar (2006)
Season 2, Episode 15
1/10
An interesting metaphor for BSG as a whole
24 April 2015
Warning: Spoilers
About 39 minutes into the episode, when Kat asks for a drink, the following sequence of shots plays out:

1) Starbuck grabs a bottle with her thumb pointing down (i.e., as one would grab a club). Cuts to:

2) Slightly different point of view, Everything looks the same but Starbuck is grabbing the neck of the bottle in the opposite way (thumb at the top, as one would normally hold a bottle). She lowers her arm (bottle and hand go out of shot) and starts walking towards Kat. Cuts to:

3) Different shot of Starbuck walking, bottle and hand still out of shot. Cuts to:

4) Starbuck stops in front of Kat and raises her arm, revealing that she's holding the bottle with her thumb at the bottom (i.e., "club grip"). She reverses her grip and pours Kat a drink.

It's not just that it looks amateurish to have such glaring continuity mistakes in such a simple scene. And it's not just that the whole point of using a "club grip" until she reaches Kat was to make viewers wonder if she was going to pour her a drink or hit her with the bottle (a narrative device that is completely destroyed by shot #2, ruining one of the few interesting scenes in this episode).

What's really telling is that it could easily have been fixed during editing by cutting a single second off the start of shot #2.

The fact that neither the editor nor the director nor anyone else involved in assembling the finished episode noticed (or seemed to care enough to fix it) is an interesting metaphor for the show as a whole.

Maybe that's why Galactica is so full of nonsensical pseudo-science, internal contradictions, continuity errors, plot holes, and characters acting in illogical and inconsistent ways. It's not that the people making the show think those things are necessary to push the story along. It's not that they think no one else will notice them. It's that they just don't care.
6 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I can only hope the title refers to the writers
23 April 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Remember that episode about half way through the first series of McGyver where his plane crashed, so he climbed into the body of a dead albatross and squeezed its organs to make it fly, after explaining that birds only have four muscles? No? You don't remember that episode? That's probably because it doesn't exist. McGyver's writers took some liberties with reality, but they didn't treat their audience like complete idiots.

But if you ever wondered what such an episode would look like, you're in luck, because that's exactly what Galactica's writers and producers decided to give us.

To make a long and painful story shorter (and slightly more bearable), Starbuck shoots down a Cylon ship and then crashes near it herself. Since her ship is destroyed and her oxygen is running out, she climbs into the Cylon ship (which is inexplicably still in one piece), hoping to fly it home. This, in itself, makes no sense (because Cylon raiders were supposed to be autonomous drones, without a cockpit or physical controls, but let's ignore that - it gets worse).

She finds that the spaceship is in fact a kind of cybernetic creature, part living organism and part machine. The organic tissues are also inexplicably intact, despite having just fallen from orbit onto solid ground. But let's ignore that too, because it gets worse.

Starbuck then explains that "all flying things have the same controls: pitch, yaw, roll, and power", so she just needs to find those. I guess she has never seen a balloon. Or an insect. Or a bird. Or a helicopter. Or indeed one of Galactica's own fighters, which have six-axis movement (i.e., they can rotate around three axes and also move independently along three axes).

Armed with this piece of "knowledge" she climbs into a mass of bloody organs and veins and starts squeezing things "because there has to be a throttle somewhere". You know, like every flying organism has. I love roasted chicken's throttle, and I'm sure you do, too.

She also concludes that "living things have to breathe, so there has to be oxygen around here somewhere". Yes, surely a fighter designed to operate IN SPACE must require oxygen to breathe, and must continue to pump it even after a) being shot and b) crashing down on a planet. And, guess what, she finds a gas coming out of one of those random tubes. So what does she do? She removes her helmet (despite being on a planet that has no viable atmosphere) and sucks on the tube. At this point, it probably won't surprise you to know that her face doesn't explode, and that the space fighter built by robots is indeed full of exactly the right mix of gases for humans to breathe.

What are the odds, eh? 100%, as it turns out.

She then squeezes a couple more random organs and, in a matter of seconds, has the alien spaceship under full control. Undeterred by the bullet holes in its fuselage (yes, it can resist atmospheric re-entry and impact, but not bullets), she flies it back to space, manages to easily outmanoeuvre one of her fleet's best pilots by squeezing pieces of meat, and lands safely aboard Galactica.

Not only is the "plot" a series of insultingly nonsensical events, but there isn't even any sense of danger or uncertainty, because all this is happening to one of the four main characters of the show, and it's obvious that she isn't going to die half way through the first series. The only doubt hanging in the air is what level of stupidity the next scene will manage to attain. To describe the outcome as "deus ex machina" is probably blasphemy; it's more a case of stercus ex scriptor.

Meanwhile, the rest of the characters are behaving in their usual irrational and illogical ways, but the main plot is so amazingly bad that you don't even notice them. I guess that's the silver lining.

I can only hope that the episode's title is what the writer's family told her after watching this.
18 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Fractal dimensions?
22 April 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Galactica's writers seem unable to make characters act in a consistent, logical or even remotely believable way even when they are one-dimensional from the onset.

Case in point, after we spend a whole episode establishing that Admiral Cain runs her fleet with an iron fist, is obsessed with military discipline, and doesn't tolerate insubordination... she promotes a pilot who disobeyed orders (several times) to commander of her ship's air group "because she showed guts".

If they can't even make a one-dimensional character seem vaguely consistent for two episodes, I guess fractal dimensions are their only hope.

How does this kind of crap get made in the same planet where Firefly got cancelled...?
3 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A momentary quality spike in a sinking show
21 April 2015
The simple fact that this episode's plot avoids the pseudo-scientific nonsense that plagues most of the series would be enough to make it better than average, but the real star of the show turns out to be behind the camera (as well as in front).

Edward James Olmos' direction is a breath of fresh air. The shot composition, the pacing, even the acting, are significantly better than average. At times, it's reminiscent of the (absolutely brilliant) "Our Mrs. Reynolds" episode from Firefly.

I doubt I'll manage to make it through the remaining 3 seasons, but I'll definitely check out the other episodes he directed.
1 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Battlestar Galactica: Home: Part 2 (2005)
Season 2, Episode 7
3/10
At least they're consistent...
21 April 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Galactica's plots got progressively worse (and the characters' behaviour progressively more illogical) as time went by and as new writers were called in to "pad" the series to the number of episodes the network requested, but one thing still made me have faith in the original writers.

The really memorable plot twists are the ones that have been hiding in plain sight since the beginning. The recording in Coppola's "The Conversation", Keyser Söze in "The Usual suspects", or Onoff's real circumstances in Tornatore's much-imitated "Una Pura Formalità".

And since it was revealed that Apollo's arrow was the key that would unlock the map to Earth, I was secretly hoping that Ronald D. Moore (who wrote the excellent pilot episodes, as well as this one) was getting ready to pull one of those.

The physical object that Starbuck had retrieved from the museum would turn out to have the Caprican equivalent of "Made in Hong Kong" printed on the bottom, it would prove completely useless, and everyone would be disappointed and frustrated.

And then Starbuck would do the kind of thing she does. She'd get mad, she'd shout something about all the fraking people who had fraking died for that fraking piece of fraking plastic, she'd punch through some fake wall, and the map would be revealed

And everyone would suddenly realise that she (the best pilot in the fleet, Lee Adama's greatest weapon, the one who always hits the target) was Apollo's arrow. That she was part of the prophecy. That the answer had been hiding in plain sight all along.

But no. She got a bejewelled goldish arrow from a museum, put it in a statue's hand, and everyone got magically teleported to a room showing a nonsensical "map" that ignores the most basic principles of astronomy.

It's official: Galactica's writers aren't just bad at science and logic, they're also bad at drama.
6 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Battlestar Galactica (2004–2009)
6/10
Great start, but can't keep it up
18 April 2015
The two pilot episodes (i.e., the "miniseries") are excellent, but things go south shortly afterwards. By episode 5 the "deus ex machina" solutions to plot holes start to kick in, and by episode 7 we're down to the level of a CSI "plot", with people "enhancing" images to identify faces in 10-pixel-wide reflections and other such nonsense.

This sort of thing may have worked for the majority of TV audiences before they had access to image-editing software, flight simulators and internet search engines, but trying to pull this off now suggests that either Galactica's writers are deeply ignorant about science and technology, or they think the viewers are.

There's no need to make the plots revolve around technology (the original Star Wars movies proved that you can make a whole sci-fi saga without trying to explain how anything works), but using something they clearly know very little about as a crutch to disguise their own failings at storytelling is just insulting to the audience. Science fiction is supposed to be fiction based on the consequences of scientific progress, not a disjointed soap opera where "sciency-sounding" nonsense is used to patch over plot holes.

It's not all bad; there are several interesting characters and acting is generally quite good, although the direction is a bit irregular (which I guess is to be expected when each episode is directed by a different person before the series has even developed a solid style). Some of the episodes are well structured and there are enough arcs running through them to give the show a reasonably cohesive feel, but overall the series just doesn't live up to those first three hours.

One has to wonder how much better it could have been if Michael Rymer and Ronald D. Moore had actually been in charge of the whole thing, or if they had at least hired someone technically competent to supervise the scripts.
11 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Prometheus (I) (2012)
2/10
The only good thing about Prometheus is how forgettable it is
17 April 2015
The science and protocol are nonsensical, the characters one-dimensional, the directing seems to lack any sense of direction, and the only surprising thing about the plot is how it manages to get cheesier and more predictable with each new development.

Given the quality of the script and direction, it's hard to blame the actors for their haphazard performances, but the only one displaying believable emotions is Michael Fassbender, and he plays a robot. Idris Elba is competent as usual, but his character is such a cliché (token black captain gett'n too old fo' dis sheet) that I was half expecting him to pull off his face at some point to reveal Kirk Lazarus.

Even the over-hyped visual effects look like something from the previous decade, too sharp, lacking fluidity and subtlety, and with an overall attitude of "look at me, I'm an expensive CG shot, I took ages to render" (which is fine in a film like Pacific Rim, but not when you're trying to create a believable environment in which to tell a story) or "look at me, I'm clearly a practical effect because I'm covered in goo and all I can do is wiggle back and forth".

And one has to wonder if it was really so hard to find an 80 or 90 year old actor, instead of giving the role of Peter Weyland to a 44 year old with his face covered in so much rubber that it comes across as a misguided homage to Yogurt from Spaceballs.

Ridley Scott's attempt at emulating George Lucas and performing a "murder by prequel" on his own brainchild is just as successful (and seems born of the same roots - too much money, too few restrictions, too thick a bubble of sycophancy), but never manages to reach the same spectacular levels of fail. While Lucas' prequels (and "remasterings") are so bad they're almost funny, Scott's prequel is just flat and forgettable. Without the connection to Alien or the $125 million budget, it would be just a bad movie.

Blade Runner beware.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Remember Me (2014)
3/10
Some things are best left unseen
8 December 2014
It's hard to understand how a series with a nearly perfect first episode can crumble into something that makes even the worst X-Files episodes seem clever and consistent by comparison.

The actors, director and cinematographer try their best, but there's just no way to overlook the plot holes, the illogical behaviour of the characters, the awkward dialogues, and the repetitive use of dramatic music and "spooky" effects to manipulate the audience into thinking the story has any substance.

Watch the first episode and make up your own ending; it will save you two hours of your life and a large dose of disappointment.
25 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Fringe (2008–2013)
2/10
For people who find "Dr. Who" and "The X-Files" too scientific or too believable
4 June 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I won't bother with a long review; others here have already pointed out the bad acting, the endless stream of clichés, etc.. I'll just quote a couple of lines from episode two (note that this is a DIRECT quote from the show, I'm not paraphrasing or exaggerating in any way):

"The only way that we could see what she saw, even in theory, is if we could recover the electric impulses that were traveling along her optic nerve, which we can't."

"Ah! But we're in luck! This woman was given a muscle relaxant. The drug would have frozen her neural pathways at the moment of death, and the last images she saw with it."

If you don't have a problem with the above (namely the fact that muscles and nerves are different things, that nerve impulses are electricity and can't be "frozen", that the optic nerve doesn't actually carry images, etc.) or with the fact that this kind of voodoo basically replaces all investigation or deduction in Fringe, then you might enjoy the series. It has plenty of explosions and car chases, and an impressive body count. For some people, that's all that matters.

If you prefer a narrative where the characters actually need to investigate, outsmart suspects, etc. (instead of using voodoo pseudoscience to magically get out of every conceivable plot hole the writer dug himself into), then you'll probably find Fringe quite shallow. And if you have at least a highschool-level understanding of physics, biology and chemistry, or if you have any respect for rational thought and scientific procedures, you'll probably find Fringe offensive. The level of scientific illiteracy in a country can probably be measured by how popular "Fringe" is over there.

This isn't science fiction or even "mad science", it's just a random collection of slightly scientific-sounding words thrown together to patch the holes in a very weak plot.

I give it a second star because Dr. Bishop has some funny one-liners.
27 out of 58 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Broken News (2005)
9/10
This is not a sketch show
24 October 2006
What some of the people commenting on this series don't seem to understand is that this is not a sketch show.

The fact that none of the characters are particularly memorable, the fact that the news stories are not particularly surreal and the fact that each "channel" starts to feel repetitive even before the end of the episode are all deliberate.

As with "People like us", John Morton is able to avoid focusing on the superficial humour (the "jokes") at the expense of the deep humour (satire).

And that is all there. The bad grammar, the lack of scientific knowledge and basic research of the average journalist, the milking of non-events to fill hours of airtime, the patronising xenophobia of some US networks, the obsession with "live" coverage for the sake of it, the overly dramatic music, the distortion of facts so the reporter can end his story with a "witty" catchphrase or cliché. It's all there.

There are also plenty of jokes and nonsense, but I suspect most of those are just there so you won't mistake the show for a real news network. It's their way of saying "unlike the 'real' news networks, we are still sane enough to realise that this whole thing is ludicrous".

Some of the references will only make sense to people working in the field, but anyone who has spent 10 minutes zapping between different "news" networks will be able to relate.

Be warned, though: there are no pauses to let you laugh and no punchlines telling you when to laugh (a lot of people can't seem to understand humour without the latter). If you laugh, you miss something. In fact, even if you don't laugh, it's hard not to miss something (another obvious reference to the information overload - or "noise" - in modern news broadcasts).

To be watched with a progressively widening mental grin.
14 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Panic Room (2002)
3/10
A bad, bad film
18 June 2006
A group of unbelievably stupid and incompetent characters in ridiculously unlikely circumstances act out a predictable sequence of thriller clichés. Forest Whitaker does his usual hesitant bad guy with a kind heart, Jodie Foster does her usual panicky executive mom.

I suppose the film is technically well done (hence the score of 3, not 1). Cinematography and sound are competent, but it's hard to judge the quality of direction, acting or editing when the script is so bad you just want to grab the characters by their collar and shout "get a clue, you idiot!".

Avoid, avoid, avoid.
7 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Carnivàle (2003–2005)
9/10
Ambitious
28 December 2005
Carnivàle is a very ambitious series that, despite failing to live up to its own promises, is still well above average.

Several people have described Carnivàle as "Grapes of Wrath meets Twin Peaks". The dustbowl, a travelling carnival, characters with strange powers and stranger histories, a young man with a special gift and disturbing dreams, a priest who may or may not have been singled out by God. All these elements are brought together in an epic story with the help of excellent technical and artistic skills.

Everything, from the scripts to the post production, is sharp and polished beyond belief. The first series is almost perfect. The framing of every shot, the delivery of every line, the timing of every musical note. Every single episode is a lesson in storytelling and film-making.

Unfortunately, things start to go wrong in the second series. Despite the excellent cinematography, art direction, acting and music, and despite a few brilliantly directed and edited episodes (closer to the start of the season), the story becomes weaker and the plots grow increasingly bigger holes. Towards the end, direction and editing take a dive as well.

The show was cancelled after that, and, judging from the drop in quality from the first to the second season, it may have been for the best. Despite these problems, and despite the fact that the story is incomplete, you still owe it to yourself to watch Carnivàle; whether you're a fan of the genre or not, you'll almost certainly recognise it as one of the best series of the last decade.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Serenity (2005)
7/10
Good, but not on par with the TV series
17 October 2005
Let me start by saying I loved the series (Firefly). Apart from 2 or 3 weaker episodes, I thought it was the best sci-fi series of the last 10 or 20 years. The plots weren't brilliant, but they didn't get in the way, and the series didn't waste any time with Star Trek style pseudoscience. There were plenty of jokes and plot twists, good acting, etc..

Unfortunately, the movie is not up to the quality of the TV series. Or rather, it's perhaps on par with the weakest episodes, but the plot holes become more obvious and the jokes and twists get more spread out. The story is predictable, most of the battle sequences are too confusing and too random, and the actions of most characters make very little sense. At times, it feels like something written by James "plot hole" Cameron. Not only is the movie comparatively weak, but it burns a lot of bridges, making it virtually impossible to continue the series from the point where it was cancelled (and doesn't even shed light on some of the more obvious questions from the series, such as the men with blue hands or Shepherd Book's past).

If you've watched all the original episodes and want a new "fix", go see the movie, but don't get your hopes too high. And if you haven't seen the series, do yourself a favour and buy the Firefly DVD set.
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Style over substance
16 May 2005
This film is a masterpiece of... production design. The sets, the clothes, the lighting, everything is so perfect that it feels like a dream, or possibly a TV ad for really expensive scotch. The direction and editing are irregular at best (and pretty bad at worst). The acting is mostly mediocre (with the exception of Nigel Hawthorne, who is perfect as always), although part of that boils down to the script and the editing. The story is predictable and uninspired.

This is one of those movies that you keep hoping will get better, but never does. And it's annoying to see good actors, good sets and a good crew wasted on such a poor story, and then further butchered by senseless editing.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Labyrinth (1986)
8/10
Good, but not quite as good as the sum of its parts
11 January 2005
Labyrinth is worth watching, no doubt about it, but it's one of those movies where the whole is smaller than the sum of the parts. The puppets and sets are magnificent, Jennifer Connelly is great, and the dialogues are full of humour, but the story makes very little sense (especially the beginning and the end). You could change the order of many scenes and not even notice it.

Bowie, who is a decent actor is most of his movies, is absolutely terrible in this one. I'm not sure if it was his fault or the director's, but he just feels wooden, as if he's reading his lines from a cue card - reminded me of Patsy from Absolutely Fabulous, when she's nervous and freezes ("Yeah, cheers, thanks a lot."). The songs are also pretty bad and feel out of place, except for the last one (in the Escher "Relativity" labyrinth). Fortunately, he's not on-screen for very long, and the puppets and Connelly are able to turn almost every scene into a small work of art.

The DVD includes a mini documentary that shows how some of the scenes and creatures were made, but unfortunately leaves many other unexplained. In a movie as complex as Labyrinth, I think a longer and more thorough "making of" would be justified.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Surreality check
16 January 2004
After reading some of the reviews here, I couldn't help a couple of laughs.

I see people saying "this movie sucks because everyone knows there were no submarines / machine guns / whatever in 1899". Hello? This movie has vampires, monsters, immortals and invisible men and the detail that gets on your nerves is the date...? So tell me, Mr. Historian, when was invisibility discovered...?

And then there are people saying "the real Mr. Hyde would never do things that way". Excuse me? There is no real Mr. Hyde. It's a fictional character. That's the whole point.

In fact, most people's criticism of this film suggest they were expecting a documentary. Which "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" is not.

What it is, is a rather entertaining movie with good acting, generally good special effects and good photography, that will probably get a few laughs out of you. It's a good movie. If the fight scenes were a bit slower and less noisy (what is it with sound these days, are all the sound engineers going deaf, or is it just "louder is better"?), it would be excellent.

It may not follow the original comic book to the letter (apparently it went into pre-production before the book was finished), but it still feels like a comic book, or an animated film (it never takes itself seriously). If you like comics or cartoons, and if you have a sense of humour, you'll enjoy it.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed