Reviews written by registered user
|4 reviews in total|
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
The first Strike Back storyline was more complex, riveting. The main
character, John Porter, was more complex, riveting.
Second verse not quite good as the first.
The Formula: Take a lone wolf exactly like John Porter (dishonorably discharged), but make him a womanizing, American, charming cowboy. He's caricature of what we think "shoot from the hip" former Marines should be. Pair American Cowboy with a serious, sensitive, highly trained, play by the rules Brit.
Give both a thin back-story and send them on the road to do what? Rescue Hostages.
The writers force the tag team into a hero position by writing hostages into 75% of the plot lines. Each rescue somehow yields more information or the next mission. Each rescue brings them a step closer to resolving the series story arc.
They *must* find The Token Bad Guy and stop him from obtaining Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Oh yeah, the last piece of the formula is the internal "high ranking" Mole that thwarts their mission/rescue each episode. They vaguely refer to the mole throughout. I could just re-watch The Series 1 finale between Porter and his boss/buddy (aka....the mole).
Otherwise, the production value is high, the actors aren't bad to look at and there's plenty of violence and bits of nudity here and there. Overall, it's entertaining. Just not different or creative or breaking any mold of any kind anywhere.
Lt Colonel Greg Gadson was the true star of this film. The director,
Peter Berg, did the best he could with something as simplistic and
mechanical as the Battleship game. The characters were a bit thin and
predictable. Intimidating general, doting big brother, reckless little
brother, hot chick, arch nemesis turned right hand man, goofy sidekick
and toss in a nerd who finds his courage.
The two dimensional characters were what made Gadson's storyline and presence so compelling. Was worth seeing the movie to watch a true military man beat down an alien.
Otherwise, it was... meh. We've all seen better CGI, better plots, better action elsewhere.
I thought I'd be the only one but after reading just two reviews, I see
others also took issue with the casting of Arthur. Jamie Bower is not
right for this role. I want to like Arthur but Campbell always looks
surprised or frightened. Arthur is supposed to develop from a boy into
a strong leader but I don't buy it. It's a shame Arthur was miscast, as
the remainder of the cast are such strong and talented actors. As a
whole, the cast is outstanding! But, any scene with Arthur lacks...
chemistry, urgency and credibility. I gave Camelot this entire first
season but I just can't stand to watch Jamie Bower in this role.
The only reason I hung in there for the first season was because I enjoyed Fiennes as the tortured & skeptical Merlin, Green as the troubled ambitious Morgan, as well as Forlani, Winchester, Standen and Mooney in their roles. It's especially entertaining to see Forlani play Morgan.
Man, I wish they'd gotten Arthur right. Jamie really ruins a scene. Nothing against him as an actor in general, just terribly miscast for this role.
I suspect casting was a fatal error for the series.
The average lifespan for men of advanced society was around 30 years. Yet there are more old white men in this movie than in early 20th century parliament.
The very audience advertisers covet, the audience that keeps programs on the air (18-35) is the exact demographic that should have been cast for this series. The history buffs and anyone who appreciates solid writing would watch this series regardless.
It was a missed opportunity to be more historically accurate and garner a larger audience.