I like it ... except the 8-min format. It was clearly not produced for "You Tube" short format ... a std. 44-min tv show that was rudely cut to fit modern low-attention-span audience.
But this show is made for/by adults who are not YT generation.
Restore it to 44-min., w/maybe 6-12 episodes/season (remember "24" ran with 24 great episodes!!).
BTW ... I like this series !!
Reviews
5 Reviews
Survivors
(1975–1977)
Timeless!
6 April 2020
Saw it about 10 years ago (2011), and was impressed. Seems very appropriate in the age of COVID-19.This series was made in BBC's "golden era" of TV production. All the best Dr. Who episodes were simultaneously filling the airwaves.
Anyway, if you're in COVID-19 lockdown, stream this series. Be warned .... it can be graphic and disturbing.
What happened?!
12 March 2018
I waited for my local public library to get the DVD. I borrowed a copy yesterday ... cued up the disc ...... and I couldn't even make it to the half-way point. This movie is TRASH! Probably the worst SW movie of all.
I agree with all the negative and low-rating reviews in IMDB. Won't waste any time re-hashing all the well-deserved scolding of those responsible for this messy film.
More than the high IMDB rating, I am confused by its overall good standing in Wikipedia. I guess they (Wiki) are only interested in aggregated reviews, IMDB ratings, and "Critical" reviewers. Take a look from the wiki page under "Critical response": ====================== Critical response: On review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, Star Wars: The Last Jedi has an approval rating of 90% based on 366 reviews, with an average rating of 8.1/10. The website's critical consensus reads, "Star Wars: The Last Jedi honors the saga's rich legacy while adding some surprising twists-and delivering all the emotion-rich action fans could hope for." On Metacritic, the film has a weighted average score of 85 out of 100, based on 56 critics, indicating "universal acclaim" ...
...also see Wiki's: "Audience response" and "Accolades" ============
I agree with all the negative and low-rating reviews in IMDB. Won't waste any time re-hashing all the well-deserved scolding of those responsible for this messy film.
More than the high IMDB rating, I am confused by its overall good standing in Wikipedia. I guess they (Wiki) are only interested in aggregated reviews, IMDB ratings, and "Critical" reviewers. Take a look from the wiki page under "Critical response": ====================== Critical response: On review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, Star Wars: The Last Jedi has an approval rating of 90% based on 366 reviews, with an average rating of 8.1/10. The website's critical consensus reads, "Star Wars: The Last Jedi honors the saga's rich legacy while adding some surprising twists-and delivering all the emotion-rich action fans could hope for." On Metacritic, the film has a weighted average score of 85 out of 100, based on 56 critics, indicating "universal acclaim" ...
...also see Wiki's: "Audience response" and "Accolades" ============
Motive
(2013–2016)
Encapsulated incredulity
26 June 2014
Despite the unique approach to the narrative (reveal killer/victim at beginning, and concentrate on the "whydunit"), the episodic stories are often weak (1), not unique, and incredulous ... one wonders that given the story's hypothetical plotting and circumstance, why a human being would resort to the ultimate crime (2)... That incredulity (i.e., unbelievability) is a big minus in my book ...
However (and effectively) .... the incredulous story is encapsulated by a lots of pluses, including:
+ Cinematography;
+ Editing (tight) -- scene-to-scene "morphed" transitions are effective;
+ Direction;
+ Actors/acting (especially main/lead);
+ Music score (good use of ambient dark/rhythmic composition by Shawn Pierce. I disagree with other reviewers in that there is too much music or it's too loud. Yes, the music track is used more than in other series. However, this adds atmosphere/tonality, rhythmic pace, as well as important emotion/melody);
+ ...OTHER:
++ Flow/pace ... camera often moving; pulsing drive of score ++ Temporal economics/efficiency: best use of 43m run time ... scene content/length seems just right. Plotting seems decent, and distinguished from overreaching story elements ++ Nuances: incl. witticisms, dry humor.
Some of the guest actors seem to have been selected for image/"presence"/attractiveness ... as is the use of classic cars.
Bottom line: Weak stories (3) encapsulated by great music and textbook/cutting-edge film-making .... watch/study this series for these virtues alone.
===EDITS/FOOTNOTES===
(1) The human story is the CORE component of a fictional program (this includes TV, movies, books/novels and comics). It's also the the hardest component of a program to "pull off" successfully. Suspending disbelief can be a tall order. I think the creators of this series (as well as fans of the genre) want/expect serious realism, and to keep the story entertaining/interesting, on a repeatable basis (weekly ... and not running out of ideas/motivation .. why all series eventually canceled). This includes studio and sponsor demands. Concomitantly, this is tough cocktail to mix by bartenders.
(2) Despite popular sensationalism, ACTUAL *motive* for murder in the human species is not that common (although "though-murders" are quite common and natural... evolutionary psychologist David M. Buss topically discussed this in his 2005 science book The Murder Next Door).
However (and effectively) .... the incredulous story is encapsulated by a lots of pluses, including:
+ Cinematography;
+ Editing (tight) -- scene-to-scene "morphed" transitions are effective;
+ Direction;
+ Actors/acting (especially main/lead);
+ Music score (good use of ambient dark/rhythmic composition by Shawn Pierce. I disagree with other reviewers in that there is too much music or it's too loud. Yes, the music track is used more than in other series. However, this adds atmosphere/tonality, rhythmic pace, as well as important emotion/melody);
+ ...OTHER:
++ Flow/pace ... camera often moving; pulsing drive of score ++ Temporal economics/efficiency: best use of 43m run time ... scene content/length seems just right. Plotting seems decent, and distinguished from overreaching story elements ++ Nuances: incl. witticisms, dry humor.
Some of the guest actors seem to have been selected for image/"presence"/attractiveness ... as is the use of classic cars.
Bottom line: Weak stories (3) encapsulated by great music and textbook/cutting-edge film-making .... watch/study this series for these virtues alone.
===EDITS/FOOTNOTES===
(1) The human story is the CORE component of a fictional program (this includes TV, movies, books/novels and comics). It's also the the hardest component of a program to "pull off" successfully. Suspending disbelief can be a tall order. I think the creators of this series (as well as fans of the genre) want/expect serious realism, and to keep the story entertaining/interesting, on a repeatable basis (weekly ... and not running out of ideas/motivation .. why all series eventually canceled). This includes studio and sponsor demands. Concomitantly, this is tough cocktail to mix by bartenders.
(2) Despite popular sensationalism, ACTUAL *motive* for murder in the human species is not that common (although "though-murders" are quite common and natural... evolutionary psychologist David M. Buss topically discussed this in his 2005 science book The Murder Next Door).
THIS poor-excuse-for-a-movie rates 8.0??
13 January 2012
THIS poor excuse for a movie rates 8.0?? Okay, I was 6 yrs from being born when this flick was released. So may be I can't "understand" its nuances, Zeitgeist, and related nostalgia.
Unbelievable that some compare "... Jane?" to Hitchcock! I watched maybe 1hr, and then abandoned this over-rated, over-long, confusing mess of a motion picture. Won't list/name flaws ... I can't count that high and, IAC, am limited to 1000 words per IMDb Guidelines!
But seriously .... I've sampled plenty of similar-genre flicks or TV episodes from the late 50s/early 60s ... and there are LOTS better. LOTS!
The only attributes this waste of celluloid has going for it is okay cinematography and an interesting soundtrack.
Maybe the orig novel on which this film was based PLAYS better...
Unbelievable that some compare "... Jane?" to Hitchcock! I watched maybe 1hr, and then abandoned this over-rated, over-long, confusing mess of a motion picture. Won't list/name flaws ... I can't count that high and, IAC, am limited to 1000 words per IMDb Guidelines!
But seriously .... I've sampled plenty of similar-genre flicks or TV episodes from the late 50s/early 60s ... and there are LOTS better. LOTS!
The only attributes this waste of celluloid has going for it is okay cinematography and an interesting soundtrack.
Maybe the orig novel on which this film was based PLAYS better...
Tell Your Friends