Reviews written by registered user
|107 reviews in total|
I am so horrified that they slung this drivel at us in the guise of a
reboot. How could they have done this to us? It was boring, it was not
funny, it was ... just plain bad!
We loved the original. I could have seen a changing of the guard movie where they hand off to a new cast. But this was just SUCH a bad re- imagination. The whole ...
You can't do a movie on special effects. I don't care how good their goo monsters are. I don't blame the cast. Most of them were good in other movies. Melissa McCarthy was good in Spy Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones were Saturday Night Live Vets. How can you go wrong with Charles Dance? But NO, they managed to do it - somehow. It was an epic failure.
I am not an epidemiologist. But my job required me to go through the
CDC's Ebola isolation preparation training this week in preparation for
any emergencies with Zika virus. I'd had it before but when I watched
this show the training happened to be very fresh in my mind. I couldn't
help compare it with the ridiculously ill prepared and amateurish the
doctors seemed in Containment as they struggled.
It wasn't just the medical staff that struggled. Any easy excuse for drama was used, right down to cops throwing temper tantrums. We have overused dramatic stereotype after stereotype when simple logic would have worked completely differently. Oh, we have thousands of people contained within a few city blocks. There would be dozens of escape attempts. They showed one - ridiculously simple. That one escape attempt would have been stopped instantly if the Governor would have done the first logical thing which would be to call in the National Guard and position them all around the perimeter with rifles and to have sharp shooters behind them covering every inch of the line. Why didn't they? I think so they could have another cop temper tantrum.
Drama, drama, drama everywhere. Am I in the mood for more of their drama? I don't know. Maybe. Depends on my mood. I up voted it one point for being Sci Fi themed, rounding it up to a seven out of ten.
The Man in the High Castle had a lot going for it. The visuals were
stunning, quiet and yet fascinating. It made a very believable post-
defeat scene. It started with a very interesting Phillip K. Dick story
- like what could be weirder than Phillip K. Dick, right?
The first episode resembled the book, enough to get my interest. Unfortunately they took a huge departure from there, to the point of being almost unrecognizable by the end. I found their version of the identity of the man in the high castle to be utterly disappointing - and of course completely different in intention from the book.
I know Hollywood always takes a good story and ruins it, but this one seemed to try to take a good premise and spread it thin enough to go through ten episodes when it really only had enough meat for perhaps three. As a result, they not only ruined it but abandoned it.
Too updated for my tastes. I really liked the version with Albert
Finney from 1974. Who can argue with Sean Connery, Lauren Bacall,
Ingrid Bergman, Anthony Perkins and Richard Widmark? I also think their
dropping four of the participants in this modernized version really
reduced it and their use of the Internet rather cheapens it. Searching
by Google tells rather than slowly reveals. It made detective work far
Don't think me a purist. I thoroughly enjoyed the David Suchet version. Actually I thought it was one of the better "Poirot" scripts. I look forward to the Branagh version in 2017.
I will give this version five stars. It wasn't bad but the script took far too many liberties with Poirot's character and with the story. I've seen decent modern age Poirot before, like the Thirteen For Dinner from 1985. They knew what to update and what to leave alone.
The scenario is simple. Four would be astronauts go on a simulated
mission for 400 days. Things start out normal but get weirder and
weirder as they go on. They have ship failures and "lose communications
with Earth." From there, it takes a turn into the creepy. Was it all a
hallucination? Was it reality? Were they being tricked? Was one of them
cracking? We aren't quite sure what is going on.
The Russians did a similar simulated Mars mission recently, only it was on Earth and everyone walked out. The initial premise wasn't bad. The sets were adequate but not great. I could find lots of problems with them scientifically but I guess that's not the point. Net rating: Plus one point for it being SciFi so five points. Better than typical SyFy channel fare but not good.
I saw "suspense" flipping through something else. It was listed on IMDb
as a TV show so I looked up the referenced FaceBook page and found out
that it is actually a YouTube series. I checked it out and found out
that it was not a TV (video) production but a radio production.
I listened on YouTube to the episode "Testament." Someone who knows enough about old time radio to appreciate it fully would be able to give a better review. I knew the Captain of the ship of the episode, Vic Mignogna, from Star Trek fan fictions. The story was decent and the production seemed adequate.
If you like old time radio, give it a try. It may be your thing. The YouTube URL is https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCab7Qx12PeOV3MQbgyegirA
Starship Apocalypse attempts to be a part of a low budget rip-off of
the Star Wars trilogy. It is the sequel of Starship: Rising, which
currently has an IMDb rating of 2.1. This is not a good sign.
The plot is a mish-mosh of pieces taken from other movies. The evil emperor in a black robe wants to turn everyone into mindless zombies by infecting them with an evil virus and of course the noble rebel alliance tries to stop him.
The production values remind me of nothing so much as a Star Trek fan video made using little but green screen and CGI. The props and costumes are adequate. The acting was hardly stellar.
Their failing is the confusing, chaotic script. If the authors had a clear and imaginative vision. Unfortunately the whole movie rather resembled the confused, hemming and hawing reflection by the star at the beginning. It mumbled without ever really saying anything.
I rated this movie as a three and I will always rate any movie that is science fiction as a good point higher than if it were another genre just because I like Science Fiction.
I am really disappointed by this show. The word "painfully bad" comes to mind. I wanted so desperately to find something to like. It just wasn't there. Lost in another part of the universe, a cable network show, encountering weird aliens. I hoped for a low budget version of Farscape. I have seen some incredibly sophisticated shows made as fanfiction using green screen so I know the production values could have been adequate. Do you remember Sanctuary? It was all green screen and CGI. Look at productions like Starship Farragut, Star Trek Continues and especially Star Trek: Phase II (formerly known as Star Trek: New Voyages). So what went wrong? Crappy writing first and foremost. When the story is a tortured joke there's nothing you can do to salvage it. Was it trying to be a "So bad it's good" comedy? Probably, but it wasn't even funny. It was predictable and unimaginative. They didn't have the writing talent to pull off a parody of a Sci Fi show.
Spike tried to follow a tried and true recipe that HBO has used very
successfully. Pick a mysterious and fantastic time and place. Put some
young, attractive people and have them unfold a great story as they
have a lot of sex and violent fighting. We've all seen how incredibly
successful their "Game of Thrones" is. They also struck gold with
"Rome" and other epic sagas like "The Sopranos" and "True Blood."
Unfortunately, Spike didn't follow all the little details of HBO's
recipe that has yielded such a delicious array of guilty pleasures.
They didn't have a strong cast. Oh, they had one classic blockbuster star, Ben Kingsley, who said his words bravely but looked like he was depressed to be there. The title actor and his queen would have been quite at home in a soap opera set in a Hollywood poolside but they were utterly out of their league. In no way could they compete with James Gandolfini as Tony Soprano or Ray Stevenson as Titus Pullo or Anna Paquin as Sookie Stackhouse.
They didn't have enough sex. Oh they hinted at it but no really good nipple bearing with flashes of fur that all the geeks crave.
Worst of all, they didn't have the writing. There was never a mystery. At every step Tut had pretty much one choice and he followed that choice, without humor and with little joy or imagination. I'm not criticizing it for utter historical inaccuracy. That is expected and is forgivable. I'm criticizing it for being so predictable and boring. Here, King Tut was not a part of ancient Egypt but was such a painfully 21st century Generation X'er.
It wasn't a bad miniseries. It was just such an ordinary one.
I saw The Imitation Game with high hopes. Unfortunately those hopes
were dashed. I can't say that it was a bad movie. It just wasn't nearly
as good a movie as has been hyped.
First, it is a Hollyweird pro-homosexual club you over the head with their political notions movie. I guess I should have predicted that but it doesn't make it any the less true.
Second, they couldn't get their history right. The way they wrote it, Turing single handed saved Britain during the war. Ah, that's not true. The Poles gave Britain the entire base for cracking Enigma and had cracked the predecessors of it repeatedly. Turing wasn't the only contributor. Turing's group didn't make the only computer during the war for code cracking, etc.
Third, Turing wouldn't have just blabbed to some nobody cop about his war time record. He knew he could have been shot for it.
Rating: 5. It could have been a solid seven but I have to knock off one point for the painful pro-homosexual message and one point for the historical inaccuracy.
|Page 1 of 11:||          |