casarbi Reviews

House M.D.: Fetal Position (2007) Season 3, Episode 17

The worst episode of House M.D so far.

[1/10 · 14 July 2007]

The worst episode of House M.D

Admittedly, part of its failure is based on this series' overall success; the vast majority of episodes are fantastically written stories which interweave social issues with sharp wit and fast paced drama.

So when all the rest of a series are the Adonis of great television, it's going to make an average episode look Quasimodo.

First off, we have "the Batman problem" which is this: Batman swings from rooftops on his bat-rope, fighting crime. It's silly, but given this man is doing a job which is unique with no comparison, the audience can buy it. As soon as you add Robin, a less effective version with the same sort of role, suddenly the job is no longer unique; to create a partner you demean the original.

Same here with House. While Cuddy's role is not the equivalent to that of House, she starts playing with his unorthodox methods and the results don't just work in her favour, they actually prove House and everyone else wrong.

We all know that doctors CANNOT be like House; that their role is at the very nub of so many scientific and ideological issues, that they need to work within the confines of a system. House can only be a maverick because he has a gift; an innate skill which puts him apart from EVERYONE else. It's not his methods, but his ability to see what no one else can and then applies the methods to bring the conclusive outcome.

Here we have Cuddy using the methods and getting the results just like House - without his gift or objectivity. Sure, she fails on a couple of tests and virtually kills the patient, but House goes through that scenario on countless occasions. The pattern remains the same even though the motivations and characters are not.

Okay, as a rule, House himself spotlights this series in a similar role, but again, we go back to the issue of House being unique which is how the audience are able to justify supporting his unorthodox judgments; that House always has the right answer, and that's because he is a gem of no comparison; we accept he's a git because his gift is so precious.

Giving the irrational, emotionally involved, non-objective, years out of practice bureaucrat Dr Cuddy all of House's stage attributes weakens the supporting cast. Suddenly even House is being trumped by a doctor of little recent medical experience who is emotionally attached with the case. We accept House's power because he's unique, giving Cuddy the same power less the skill or objectivity damages the credibility of all the characters.

And then we have the issue of lecturing. Normally, House M.D is fairly non judgmental as a show; it offers more ideological questions than it solves, but this episode seemed totally geared to "pro-life", which, whether you agree with such a sentiment or not, seemed a very heavy handed approach to such a subtle series.

House objectively wants to kill the foetus (not "baby" because scientifically, it is still a foetus) because otherwise both mother and foetus die. The mother disagrees and expects the team to come up with a better answer to save her "baby". Cuddy decides to lead this mother's crusade of righteous expectation; that doctors should find a miracle to save the foetus than having to expect the dying mother to concede to terminate. Cuddy's choices aren't logical, her rusty medical experience seems to find answers none of her medically active colleagues could find and she takes risks with no objective philosophy other than to save a pregnant mother she over-identifies with. Yet despite this, the audience is meant to be rooting for her rather than the hero.

What's worse is that House in particular starts falling rapidly out of character to justify the ethos of this pro-life agenda. When examining the foetus, he becomes absorbed at the sight of it's cute little hands; of how beautiful life is, and that this "foetus" (that he's been so cruelly labeling with such a scientific term throughout the episode), is actually a living being, not just a parasitic mass. So much so, he accidentally calls it a "baby" in the epilogue - an issue the other characters in this episode have been correcting him throughout. And when in the middle of surgery House decides it is vital to terminate, Hero-Cuddy risks the paddles in pure desperation. She even threatens to electrocute House with the paddles if he tries to cut the umbilical cord - to which makes him back off. Now, House has never been a stranger to pain (he's let himself get kicked in to get his way) and certainly not a man to back down, but in this Mary Sue moment, he backs off to allow Cuddy, through lack of judgment and desperation to save the day.

So hurrah, the day is indeed saved by Cuddy, who became an unstoppable, irrational House substitute. It seems if any of the characters want something, and the story deems it righteous enough, being pig-headed with no objectivity or evidence will win you the day. The story ends with the mother very happy, with Cuddy incredibly self righteous and House conceding to the foetus actually being a baby. It all just feels very pro-life. Hell, even House's few relevant contributions is by objectifying the foetus as an adult; treating it like they would any human being. All in all, very heavy handed writing techniques.

And the Cameron/Chase subplot gets more cheesy, with the pregnant mother's photographic skills "capturing" the essence of both their inner beauty for the other to see and fall in love with. A cliché best left for the more run-of-the-mill soap.

I recommend all but hardcore pro-lifers to avoid this chapter of the fantastic House M.D like the plague.

Constantine (2005)

Hell comes to Hollywood

[4/10 · 29 June 2006]

I'm not acquainted with the comic book but this was a tepid and dull watch.

Keanu is terrible in this. It's not he's a bad actor, he just lacks charisma. I felt nothing for John who came across as a sulker rather than pained.

Comic books are often more about ideas than films. There are a lot of ideas floating around here and you need a strong lead to pull them together. If you don't feel for the lead, it becomes a mess. Keanu doesn't really convince me of the characters pain. I begin to wonder if he believes in the character. Maybe being so clean, with his well styled hair didn't help. No amount of "fatigue make up" could make him look truly worn out. A serious miscast.

Aside from that, the effects are not mind blowing and while there are some strong signs of decent cinematography and direction, the seems to be a lack of consistency in the visuals to tie it all together. It felt like this film should have been darker. More gritty. It comes across, as neither being mainstream or artistic. It just seems to lack cohesiveness from it's leads or the production.

The script is plodding and the film is far too long. While the last ten minutes builds up well it falters in the last couple as Hollywood formula comes a knocking.

I didn't get any satisfaction from this movie, and while a couple of scenes did have some nice production values and direction, overall this is unlikely to do have done the comic book series any justice. Avoid.

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989)

Nervously going where no Trek has gone before

[7/10 · 29 June 2006]

Not as terrible as fans like to jeer.

It does have faults, some of which are obvious to any film goer, others probably more painful for Trek fans, but in the scheme of all the original Trek movies, this is possibly the closest to the old show. Maybe that is it's mistake; to feel like an overlong TV episode, on not one that really shines either.

The plot is messy, possibly from having to much edited in the wrong places than anything else. Sybok's history, his vision from God, his mode through the barrier and the power he has over the mind is woefully lacking. By the last half hour, one feels that a tighter script could have at least saved the finale from feeling empty even if it couldn't raise it to being amazing.

In the end, for a mainstream franchise, tackling theology was an idea no studio would really go out to back, and from what the crew have said on the matter, it does sound that the dead ending is partially through this lack of conviction in realising the productions intent. Blame the studio, blame the production for truly going where no Trek probably has the sense not to go.

That said, there is a lot of good in here. Sybok is a well realised character. Despite the rather soap like connection to Spock, it never stuck me as awkward. Spock is a proud character and a character which embraces all he's fought against who is a blight on his family is unlikely to come up casually. Sybok is well acted and has enough presence to keep the plot from sinking under it's own theological confusion.

There is a lot of fun here. I know cast and audience have grumbled about the crew being sent up under Shatner's direction, but I think it works. While Sulu virtually vanishes in the excellent Star Trek IV, being lost in a forest is not only a nice character scene, it warms you to the character. Again with Uhura, while her dance is contrived, it is memorable; it spotlights the character. As for Scotty, well after being the deux ex machina of the engine room, it's nice to throw such a small comedy scene in where he smacks his head on a metal housing after proclaiming his ultimate knowledge of the ship. Lighten up.

What really holds the film together is the trinity of the Original Trilogy. The set up camping scene is endearing and beautifully acted. The characters feel real and honest to their roots. Throughout the film, this threesome of Kirk, Spock and McCoy are a joy to watch. The scene in the forward lounge as Sybok explores the pain of Spock and McCoy is beautifully directed and very well acted.

As for the production, the effects are poor. The Enterprise suffers from some poor motion effects, and the end finale is lacking in the spectacular such a theological climax demands. There are some "Trek" glitches, there are three times the amount of floors to the Enterprise, the initial elevator scene seems to imply the elevator only goes upwards (even a casual watcher will notice the shuttlecraft bay is at the aft of the craft and the bridge is forward front) and some of "malfunctions" on the Enterprise are fairly trite.

Nevertheless, the pacing is light and the script has some nice character gags - particularly from the main three.

Certainly not the most perfect Trek film but not as terrible as fans declare. It has some lovely character moments, a gentle score and some solid acting all round. While it doesn't deliver it does entertain and I think Shatner and co deserve a seven just for that.

Harvey (1950)

Introducing "Harvey"'s fairy tale character: Elwood P Dowd

[9/10 · 8 January 2006]

This is a delightful film. Jimmy Stewart's Elwood is a timeless character. When we live in a world which is constantly looking forward or backwards, Elwood P Dowd is a character who reminds us how perfect our lives would be if could live in the now, enjoying the singular moment. It is Dowd's ideology as much as his "imaginary" friend that makes "Harvey" so captivating.

Of course, Elwood Dowd could be far less perfect than we imagine. The back story seems to imply he undertook some sort of personality shift seven years back (he says he took life seriously for thirty five years, he is now forty two as I recall). From the events he describes on his first encounter with "Harvey", his recalled dialogue infers this event was after his character transformation. Considering how his big sister, Veta seems to feel their mother should have warned her about Harvey when she moved in, it seems unlikely it was his mother's death that caused any sort of dramatic character alteration.

So Dowd's character - for some reason - shifted from normal to unique. His life now is simplistic yet to himself, very busy. He spends a lot of times hanging around in bars meeting people. To him, that's a vocation, and with life itself being such a rich tapestry of character and history, who is one to argue? His approach to each day is structured on much repetition. His dialogue and mannerisms are very uniform and repetitive. His approach to all people remains equal. Elwood does initially give the audience the impression of someone who has had suffered breakdown, as someone who probably isn't quite normal. But as the film reminds us, when "normal" is actually quite nasty and stressful, would those "normal" people see being so very nice as a mental deficiency? The film doesn't dwell on the question as to whether or not Dowd suffers from mental illness. It could be character just was hit by some amazing epiphany seven years earlier. Unlike more contemporary offerings, it's not interested in what makes us who we are; it is more interested in what we are at present.

While it's clear that Elwood was never always as simple and gracious as he is now. The film doesn't concern itself with any catalyst for this change; in fact, it seems to deliberately avoid talking about it. The beauty in "Harvey" is that Elwood is as much a fantasy character as the mischievous "imaginary" Pooka Harvey himself and in my opinion, just as fascinating.

The timeless character of Elwood is solidified by the play/films disinterest in creating a resolution for his identity, even if all the unhappy people attempt the contrary. I prefer to see the change in Elwood as being an epiphany rather than a breakdown. It just seems to suit his almost fairy tale perfection. He doesn't see the bad in others. All behaviour has its reasons and all actions can be dealt with positively. Even when confronted with selfish concerns, he sees the lighter side. While the film doesn't leave any doubt to whether Harvey exists or not, it does leave the audience to make up it's mind on Elwood. That to me is the beauty of this film. The actual fairy tale character is definitive, but Elwood isn't. Is he a drunk? Again, personally, I don't feel he is. He never shows any behaviour indicative to a drunk. He goes and has a drink when he meets people as part of a ritualistic pattern, but the alcohol never pertains importance to him beyond that. Again, if we take Elwood's almost fantasy built persona - something we would all want to aspire to - to be able to socially drink very regularly without dependence seems quite fitting. That's my opinion, but really it's up to you to decide.

So I think, deep down, we would all want to be Elwood Dowd. Not so much for the Pooka invisible friend, but simply because his existence shows us how life ought to be taken. This is of course, an impossibility given the responsibility of today's lifestyle. Life is too complicated for an existence firmly entrenched in the present and while we have to accept that we can't be like Elwood, it would be nice to think we can try.

For me Mary Chase's "Harvey" presents a dream existence made manifest, and that is very much thanks to Stewart's beautifully performed Elwood Dowd.

Rain Man (1988)

Men don't cry watching films.. or do they?

[10/10 · 6 December 2005]

I remember loving this movie when it was released. It was funny, well paced and touching. The gentle emotional bond of Charlie to Raymond is a fusion of tension and comedy. I've never been a Tom Cruise fan, and past this film, I'm still not one. Nevertheless, his talent is truly on show here. His role as Charlie is a difficult one; he has to lead a film along side an actor who is playing a very complex and captivating character. On top of that, he has to flesh out a man who could on the surface, be played very two dimensionally. Cruise succeeds in making Charlie's growth through the film as fascinating as watching Raymond.

I think what motivated this comment was how evocative this film is. I started to watch this film again (borrowed from the family) as background noise as I finished some artwork. Within thirty minutes, I was away from the drawing board and spellbound. I don't usually laugh out loud, and I certainly rarely feel like crying because of a film, but the chemistry is so poignant and yet so fluid, you can't help swing back and forth through the emotional spectrum.

I doubt I've added anything new to all the other comments here. I'm glad to have watched this film. I'm glad it was made, it's been a great experience for me and a great spotlight for autism awareness.

Go see it. Have fun.

Hellboy (2004)

Lacks the depth and darkness of the comic book.

[3/10 · 17 October 2005]

Warning, this a very poor translation of the comic. Without the subtlety, craft to the narrative and the emphasis on mythology/religion that the comic did so well, this is a flat clichéd affair. We certainly didn't need the dull X-Filesque conspiracy focus.

Hellboy himself is portrayed well by Perlman. Abe is well conceived also, but the plot is to static and lacks the comic's ethereal mix of intelligent narrative and deep characters. Certainly Rasputin comes off the worse lacking strength, depth and presence.

If you've read the comics, aside from the visual impact of Perlman, you'll find this lacks the atmosphere, presence and maturity. If you've not read the comics, you'll be fooled into think Hellboy is a silly concept. It probably is - if you don't know how to craft it into something special. That's the mistake of this movie; it takes a complicated and atmospheric comic and straightens out all the twists and turns. Not good.

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)

The more Lightsabers the better?

[7/10 · 10 June 2005]

This film is certainly the best of the New Trilogy, not that that title says much considering the woeful errors made in the creation of the last two.

By comparison, Attack Of The Clones is the best to refer to, having such a similar cast, and this film is certainly a far superior effort. The scripts seem more fluid (a script coach for Lucas maybe?) and the actors more comfortable with their roles. Anakin and Ben actually have a more positive chemistry here which would have probably been more fitting for the second movie. Anakin is far more likable and audience empathic here than in Attack Of The Clones where he really needed to be.

I found that this final chapter in the New Trilogy really helped bind the new films together into something with a little more focus. On their own, the films seem to lack direction or real balance between character and plot, but Revenge Of The Sith somehow takes up that looseness and binds the films as one. The only pity is in doing so in neglects the vital link between it and episode IV.

Visually - as always - it's stunning. Action is vast although occasionally disorientating. The Lightsaber fights are fast and furious, worthy of Jedi, however are a little long. The biggest crime this New Trilogy has committed (aside from dodgy scripts, direction etc etc) is the overuse of the sabre. By the time you get to Anakin's big end battle the viewer has lost the awe of the spectacle - especially having to suffer Grevious and his multi sabre wielding earlier.

Grevious is another slight problem, but not in the normal fan cries that he wasn't powerful enough. For someone who had no interest in the Clone War cartoon, Grievous' part seems overstated and diverting for the central plot at hand, which brings the question whether relying on secondary media to support ones story actually strengthens or weakens the overall film. While Star Wars has always loved dropping the viewer in media res, this comes across to the average viewer as if you are wandering into a private party with such a large section being devoted to this unknown and rather irrelevant (in the context of this film) character.

Nevertheless, this is a good outing Star Wars fans should be proud of. There are some dialogue glitches, Padme's role is greatly reduced in time and strength, Hayden's portrayal of Vader is awful (when has Vader ever crossed his arms??) and why Lucas felt that Vader's "Noooooo" cry could be anything but funny in light of Homer Simpson mocking of that cliché is beyond me.

The final grumble I'll throw is at the end. After 1500 battles, one feels the end drama, possibly the most important dramatic moments of the whole New Trilogy are rushed. One wouldn't mind so much if the battles hadn't been so long. When relevant scenes have been deleted in favour of overlong battles, one is left feeling a little miffed. Some relevant scenes for Yoda and the Emperor were lost in favour of the excess fighting. Seems the wrong way round since this story was about tragedy rather than action.. or at least it should have been. The music was a little haphazard too. Some pieces ripped straight from other films.. so close that the incidental punctuating from one film is in the score for this, which seems odd (check out the beginning of the Yoda/Emperor fight for some of this).

Nevertheless, all that aside, this is a good film believe it or not. Yes it does occasional put spectacle before character (Ben suddenly seems en par with Anakin's skills in their final fight simply for a good brawl when his skills have been far less throughout the films previous), but overall it really does feel enjoyable. The Emperor is great all the way through and Obi Wan really gets a solid script to work on. Silly jokes are seriously toned down (no embarrassing Jar Jar or 3P0 sight gags) and the mix of intrigue and action feels at home than in previous NT movies.

It's not a perfect film, but then neither was Return Of The Jedi. This is a solid action movie which fans should be proud of. Not perfect in any way, but it has been a worthy final movie for the Star Wars trilogy.

One can't help feeling it could have been better if less attention had been made to action in favour of character, but I don't think that will deviate too much in the long run when it comes to re watching this film 10 years down the line. It will be remembered for a solid watch of action and sci-fi extravaganza with a hint of darkness.

It's worth it for the horrific victory of Ben over Anakin. To think a few years ago we were watching him as an icky sweet boy, and now we're just waiting for him to be sliced and thrown into acid... not many films that can boast that transition...

Ghostbusters II (1989)

Better dialogue, worse film

[7/10 · 22 March 2005]

I like Ghostbusters II and I loathe it. It reminds me of what could have been and what was.

Bill Murray is on excellent form in the sequel, as is Ramis and Aykroyd. The dialogue is tight and very funny. I think it gives Ramis a little more to play with also.

However, the story is just... well done before... better, around 5 years earlier. Yes, this is almost Ghostbusters by numbers.

Take almost any scene in Ghostbusters, and it's counterpart is in Ghostbusters II. Slimer in the Hotel? The Ghosts in the Courtroom. Mr Stay Puft? The Statue Of Liberty. Getting arrested? Erm, getting arrested and put away. Appealing to the Mayor? Appealing to the Mayor.

Some of this is intentional movie deja vu, but it comes across as lazy. There was so much potential in this idea they ended up playing to safe to the original and way too close to the toy market.

Some great laughs, wonderful acting and even superior dialogue to Ghostbusters, but it's a substandard film compared to the original.

I, Robot (2004)

Disappointing.

[4/10 · 22 March 2005]

This film had potential, but seems to miss the point of Asimov's laws and misses the mark as a solid film.

Rather than really dig into the issue of the laws of Robotics, the film takes some very lazy Hollywood steps. It prefers to remain uncomplicated, explosive and very "by the mill".

It's a typical summer blockbuster, however when they throw the name of Asimov into the promotions, you expect something a little more cerebral from the film.

Will Smith is at home here. Wise cracking action hero of thunderingly dull proportions. While his back story is potentially interesting, it's handling is staggeringly predictable and follows every Hollywood cliché. So by the book are the comments and flashbacks throughout the movie, the end revelation to his past fails to live up to expectation.

Some great and not so great effects. I applaud the robot design, however it feels too ambitious for even this films budget and sometimes it looks very unrefined.

While the main robot is interesting, his involvement is shoved far into the background in favour of Will Smith's character will they/won't they with the second lead.

So in the end, if you aren't interesting in science fiction concepts, you like a no brainer, you feel that watching Will Smith leaping off a motorcycle guns a blazin' isn't even slightly stupid or out of place... this might be the movie for you.

This attempts to be a thriller but in the end gives up after 30 minutes and decides to opt for what the studio really wanted - a "by the numbers" whizz, bang, pop affair of messy proportions.

What makes the whole thing worse is the final 3 minutes is actually rather good.. it's just the bit between the first thirty minutes and the last three which really bored me to death.

Watch "I, Robot" with at least several cans of beer and you'll probably just relax and let the movie take you. Failing the beer, a half completed crossword should get you through the Hollywood clichés and to the fairly decent bits.

Jeeves and Wooster (1990–1993)

Super, Jeeves!

[22 March 2005]

A wonderful and almost perfect rendition of a classic.

Some people (few people) scoff at this version for being too visual. In fact, they scoff at any visual version for trying to interpret what in essence are novels driven by wonderful narrative. However, the charm comes in the perspective as well as the aesthetic.

Yes it's a beautiful show. It uses locations perfectly and remains diligent to those halls as to their fictitious namesake. You eventually come to know these halls and manors yourself as Bertie once again is called out to Tottley.

The music is a beautiful pastiche of all things 20s. Incidental score, while fairly repetitive (you'll hear the same motifs and themes pop up regularly) just adds to the warm familiar atmosphere. It adds charm and period distinction. The actual songs in the show are fun as well and made for a wonderful soundtrack.

The acting as well is perfect. It characterises the pomp without anyone seeming awkward. The scripts flow and the pace always complements the stories. Fry and Laurie were born for this part and never once slip from character or wither in the spotlight.

But as I was saying, the beauty comes in perspective. Some people have grumbled that Laurie's "Wooster" is too much of a fool compared to the beautiful prose he's meant to have jotted in "his" books, yet I think it adds, as I said, perspective. We all write and dictate experiences from a personal perspective, what the show does is offer similar instances (and they are similar not exact in most cases) from a third party perspective. What we write in hindsight is rare to what objectively happened. This warm hearted Oxford gentlemen is educated, but not over gifted in the sense department. He writes and plays beautifully, but he's not quick and we see that demonstrated perfectly through Laurie.

Fry is masterful as Jeeves. Younger than what some would prefer, nevertheless you don't doubt his presence for a second.

The stories are a mix of accurate rendition and loose interpretation. The final fourth season especially has a couple of episodes which don't really feel quite on the ball as the rest, possibly because the divert too far from Wodehouse's material, nevertheless, the fourth season does sort of tie up the loose ends yet has a finale which keeps Jeeves And Wooster feeling as eternal on the TV screen as it does in book form.

A wonderful compliment to Wodehouse's masterful books. Miss at your peril.

Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)

Watch this film.

[10/10 · 29 January 2005]

Good documentary. I've heard many comments like "Ugh, it's not a documentary, it's lies", but quite frankly, there is little in here which was reported overseas at the times. "Documentary" to some people - particularly when they dislike what's been said, seems to imply it has to offer two sides of a story. This documentary is there to offer the side which most of the American media - particularly in my experience of living in the US - tries to ignore, and shouldn't.

More than just the issue of Bush's validity as President - which in itself has been long documented as dubious by many sources - it really puts the war into the face of the viewer. The documentary - and the governments of the coalition know that war is a nasty thing, and the best way to retain public support is not to show them the nasty bits, the things you don't want to imagine happening to the innocents and our troops. But to justify a war you have to see all those elements, it may not be politically expedient, but it's ethically necessary that one doesn't blinker yourself to the real nastiness of what's happening.

Freedom is a worthy outcome of any campaign, but when kids are being sent to die by their country, they and their parents need to be able to believe their sacrifice is for the right reason. That the blood and pain they will personally have to deal with is in the right course. When there are issues of business incentives, family grudges to resolve and international stability to consider as well, one has to look and ask whether these kids are being sent in for the right reasons. A soldier obeys without question, it just has to assume it's administration's reasons are beyond approach, that it is honouring it's country.

These questions are the sort that I think will be foremost in the mind of anyone having watching this film, beyond the political issue of Bush.

Yes, this is a journalistic. When the commentary says Bush wasn't in office much prior to 9/11, it offers amusing and silly images of Bush with so complementary music. So yes, in that respect one might say it's one sided in it's approach, but don't let that delude you from thinking the underline themes and facts are anything but accurate or close to the truth.

A film which keeps the attention and both disturbs and opens your eyes. I know people refuse to watch it, but what does that prove? One shouldn't be scared of ideas even if you disagree with them. This isn't Moore spouting him beliefs on a podium, it's real images and factual evidence (which as I said, you'd find in the international media for years, it's nothing new in that respect. You don't have to like Moore to watch it, you just have to watch it!

Spirited Away (2001)

Fantastic

[9/10 · 30 December 2004]

Eastern storytelling always seems so much more open ended compared to the West. A good Japanese story in my experience is a lot harder to both pigeon hole and second guess.

Animation was quite beautiful, as was the general pace and the characters. The music was delightful also.

My only gripe in this story is it felt as if it would benefit from being two movies. One that dealt with the Bathhouse and one that took her on her quest to the sister. The dynamic of the 4 travellers seemed worthy of more time however the film had run out.. and so the pace picks up a little too much after she leaves the bathhouse - as if they are squeezing this final section in. It would have been nice if they had made the film a little shorter and followed with a sequel. I found the train journey was captivating and made me wish she could explore more of the spirit world, however there was no time to do so.

Great pity. Fantastic feel nevertheless. Worthy of it's hype.

The Matrix Reloaded (2003)

Overlong, poorly edited and largely superfluous to the tale it wants to tell.

[3/10 · 30 December 2004]

Disappointing.

I always felt the Matrix would have worked better stand alone, with no zippy flying off thing at the end, or need for a sequel.

There are two fundamental flaws in this movie and inherent in this franchise.

1. Dispel the magic. Some movies work best on mystery. Some work well by exposing all the components. Like with, say Star Wars, the film works better when you don't have all the details but you are thrown in and then out media res. You come in the middle, you leave as fast and without firm resolution. Do we need all explained and to know all that happens after (or in Star Wars case, before)? Do we need to know the function of the Matrix so intimately? Do we need to know the nature of the Oracle? Do we need to see Zion or does it work best as an almost mythological refuge of man, left to our own imagination.

2. Does the duration hamper the impact of the film? This film is a schism between waxing low level philosophy and extreme visual effects. Both have their merits when woven well - the first film managed this. Reloaded seems to crave them into the story in long chunks. Too long scenes of action, too long, droning scenes of dialogue. This film would work far better with a more dynamic edit. There are scenes which are overlong, scenes which are superfluous. Overall, these scenes damage the good ones.

Aside from that, Neo remains unlikeable and thus is love relationship uninspired. Mr Smith is great and some of the dialogue manages to surface above the general trite philosophy.

Watch it if you REALLY want to see the end story of the tale of Mr Anderson. Beware, it's a hard slog, and when you commit to this film, you commit to the next... it's the nature of things Mr Anderson.. better off enjoying "The Matrix" and then watching something else.

Babylon 5: In the Beginning (1998 TV Movie)

A solid movie if a little flawed.

[8/10 · 23 December 2004]

A good movie. Suffers maybe a little from lacking any definitive lead. Sheridan is the closest, but in this film, the history is the main role rather than an actor. It's a nice if isolated vantage point, with Londo narrating, but somehow it does lack a little viewer empathy as a result.

Nevetherless, the dialogue is good. Londo is captivating as always. Jurasik is a fine actor and I've never seen him foul up a line yet.

The Battle Of The Line is beautifully done, with Franke's harrowing minor scale progression once again making an excellent backdrop.

I like how most of the show dovetails in this film although not overkeen with the Sheridan/Franklin/G'Kar meeting. As far as the B5 arc goes, it feels contrived, but a movie must stand alone even if it's part of a bigger story and I think it was necessary for this movie to draw some of the key characters together.

A nice start to the show, I think if any of my future kids are sad enough to watch Daddies TV shows, I think I'll show them B5 with "the Beginning" at the end. On a rewatch, while insightful, it does kill some of the initial mystery to the story of B5.

Good stuff, could possibly have done with being dramatised as a mini series.

Battlestar Galactica (2003)

Intelligent scifi for a new generation

[10/10 · 22 December 2004]

A fantastic reinterpretation of Larson's original premise.

I loved the old Galactica. It was cheesy, simplistic fun. However, I always find Larson's old pilots hold more promise than their series.

Like Buck Rogers, the original Galactica pilot is far darker than the rest of the series run. For a show based on the genocide of 12 planets, the original Battlestar Galactica never really got to grips with the futility, fear and condition of a race on the edge of extinction.

The new show makes up for that in abundance. The tone is dark, the pace is slow yet methodical. In the old show the attack on the colonies was dealt with in the first half hour. Here we have a far slower build up.

The characters, while sombre are very real. Even Starbuck (and kudos for changing sex here, how many male Solo rips offs will we have to endure in SciFi?) works well. She has a hint of Benedict in expression and dialogue with far more consistency ever offered to Benedicts character.

Apollo takes some getting used to, but surprisingly, the best characters this time around aren't the pilots, but the Administration. Adama is fantastic. Believable and oozing authority. Tigh is a wonderful mess and the President surprisingly well written.

Finally, the glory to the show has to be Baltar. No longer a panto baddie, he is deeper character. A character with realistic motivations, drives and issues. While a tragic character, his portrayal is humorous and sinister at the same time.

The best scifi show since Farscape. The series is pretty fine too!

Babylon 5: Thirdspace (1998 TV Movie)

Not perfect, but certainly an enjoyable scifi romp.

[7/10 · 22 December 2004]

A reasonable outing.

B5 - and JMS writing in particular - works better when not contained to standalone episodes. Give him space to breathe, and his musing flows far better. He has room to comment, moralise and philosophise beautifully. Give him a single story and he tries to cram in too many explanations and plot movements which start to clog up the script. This is a pity as the script is what he is good at.

So a nice story, but a little uneven. Sometimes continually underlines the same plot points over and over killing room for nice stand alone dialogue or character exposition. Other times, the character scenes (the lift scene ) are too long an neither help the story or offer any depth for their duration.

That said, the SFX is very nice, the music from Franke is far more classically orientated than before and it's a nice chance to try and highlight some of the minor characters. The story idea is reasonable, if a little unusual in scifi tone for B5 (befitting Trek more) and it lacks some of the regular B5 heavyweight actors (G'Kar and Londo are sadly missing and Delenn has few scenes).

Nevertheless, an enjoyable if a little vacuous compared to what one comes to expect from B5. The aural and visual experiences are good, the actors are solid and the story good enough to standalone. Not perfect, but still a good slice of pulp scifi action.