Reviews written by registered user
|45 reviews in total|
this series is inspired by the film of the same title, but starts out
as flawed as the original film ends.
what else can i say. this series uses poor c.g. to amuse a somatose audience, and uses filler dialog in the same way.
whoever put this series together deserves a good old fashioned trip to the wood shed.
it has few plot points, obviously filled between with incongruous character reactions and stupid dialog which prompt time-filling conflicts, which stretches this tripe from a ninety minute show, into a British series length.
i was insulted by the watching, but unfortunately i kept viewing to see if it would get better or worse. the good news is it didn't get any worse. it played mediocre all the way through.
you probably will never read this review.
but this allegedly historical drama is nothing short of pathetic.
anyone who attempts a medieval historical series about the building of a cathedral, attempts as lofty an enterprise as the original architects.
i realize that in our modern c.g. age, showing construction progress is much simpler, but when a production company attempts to low-ball a project that twenty years before, would have been cost prohibitive, to then treat the whole project as low-budget and attempt sex without sex, period language without language, and ambiance without ambiance, show themselves to care only about cash, and pleasing the moral and emotional agendas of a new 21st century peasant audience: betraying the story's medieval effort, where the characters put all forth in the name of art--pushing those characters and the spire beyond their cultural place and into greater heights.
this is a Scott free production--the same scott that brought us "KINGDOM OF HEAVEN", the difference between these two projects is that between sex with and without a condom.
it is somatose tripe.
ridley you should be ashamed--no doubt all the way to the bank.
this film, when compared to other efforts of ridley--especially the
illustrious "kingdom of heaven", seems a poor cousin, but its poverty
probably resides not in art but in necessity.
if you've read the written works of john ford, then you will know that ford made a devil's bargain with the Hollywood money men--I'll make one money movie for you if you then let me make a movie for me.
and i believe this is the same bargain ridley scott has made for a new breed of jj money men.
and in making it, i believe he did the best he could. it was no means the trashy "robin hood" of kevin costner, but by no means--i hope--the film he would rather have made.
it is a mix of Shakespeare's "the taming of the shrew", and a Hollywood/historical/mythical version of robin hood.
all i can hope for is that his next film is something true. his last one, "body of lies", was terrific. he has paid his dues for his next. i just hope he has not just turned into a prolific producer, churning out mediocre projects in the vein of "the pillars of the earth".
this is an excellent film. now modern, educated audiences will
immediately spot flaws in structure and editing, but the point to
realize is that this film was doing many of the techniques for the
first time. it is seminal. and the photography is captivating, and
groundbreaking for its time. don't bother watching this in pan and
scan. don't waste your time.
it has a recent remake in "payback", but thank god the filmmakers did not try to make the same film. the original was an exploration in psychology and stress effects, the second was a straight out modern action flick with one hell of a lot of visible technique and style. the two things they both share were the need for the fulfillment of honor and then revenge.
but the differences are what makes both of the films excellent, and let them both stand well and alone.
i am just now watching this film for the second time.
i was reluctant to watch this, as most films, without a substantial time gap between viewings. but this film is one, at least for me, that deserves at least a local, second viewing.
the first time i watched, i was engrossed and horrified by the physical and psychological torture. i didn't realize it at the time, but i was numbed by the watching.
in this second look i found myself crying, and sympathizing with the characters, and being reminded of the torture i have experienced in my own life.
this is an amazing film. it is beyond bold.
i also have pity for the mind that spawned it. but I'm glad that it was made.
a look at the highest rating demographic shows females under 18, that's a pity. it shows it was mainly appreciated by the main character's age group, which shows the film is under appreciated intellectually. as gross as it is, this is a very smart film, and transcends the usual horror type.
it is piece of work that transcends the genre.
more than once.
for rape and abuse victims, this will be tough.
i've read reviews of this show by NZ viewers, and they seem surprised
that such a show is produced in NZ. i hope that is because they are
glad to see such good entertainment, and not because most of the NZ
programming is rubbish.
now, this is a well written show, well thought out and well acted. as said before, it proves that good programming is not dependent on cash, but on good writing, good actors dedicated to the project, and a good production team which is dedicated to the quality and authenticity of the series.
it makes no matter where a series is made, if there is intelligent use of existing locations, then with a small budget one can create an alternate reality, especially if it is not too far removed from the present.
but the most important factor--just ask any competent actor--is the writing. in television, more so than film, the writing must be tight. a two-hour film allows for more fat in the dialog than a one hour show, but that being said, a TV series allows for more character development, but also invites--if poorly made--more filler without advancing the narrative and plot-line.
this show is a tight project. i recommend it to anyone of above average IQ, and those who are burned out on the recycled plot-lines most producers fob onto their mass audience.
most TV runs on the premise that cash is king, but not this one. somebody cared about this series, and thank goodness.
this is one of the best combat films i have ever seen. and it feels,
looks and smells real.
it has everything: the conflict between the idealistic draftee and the hardened professional; the difference in commitment between invaded and invader; and self sacrifice; the ultimate warrior virtue.
it shows you can't always pick a conflict's winner solely by judging which side has the greatest amount of firepower, asks whether one should gauge a society's sophistication by the modern standard of technological achievement, or by its moral sophistication? and proves that terrain may often be the greatest adversary an invading army has to conquer.
and you get to feel just how impregnable a tank feels to foot-bound infantry--you feel its awesome firepower and how dangerous it is in the attack, and the potential sacrifice inherent in an infantry assault on on this impregnable beast.
and at the bottom of all these realities lurks the ultimate occupier's question, "how come we're the Nazis this time?".
and then there is George Dzundza. how come he didn't get more hard roles like this one? he was always the jolly fat guy who bought the next round. what a waste. but maybe his weight is what kept him sidelined. too bad. i bet he jumped through a giraffes tonsils to play this role, no matter how hard the shoot must have been, or how much weight they wanted him to lose.
now some of you are wondering what this movie is about. i don't blame
the title says it all. now usually the title is a cryptic clue, but in this case--it says it all.
if you are wondering why devote a film exclusively to gun-play, then ask yourself why devote a summer movie solely to computer special effects.
i know most of you are guilty of seeing one of the hot season flicks because your friends said it looked awesome. it's the same motivation for a different audience.
i'm an old pro, and let me tell you the action direction in this film is awesome, and i don't use that word often.
this film is a gunfight pasted with story, instead of the other way around. and i believe it shows a director who wanted to direct the ultimate action+editing rendition of a running gunfight.
i can only say, that if the director and the technical adviser ever read this statement, you have my vote as one of the best, most thrilling and realistic film gunfights ever. thank-you.
all around the world, TV companies are trying to replicate lost. the
best effort i have seen so far comes from New Zealand.
what made lost so successful? at its base, it is the same thing that makes any thriller successful, and that is delaying plot information to the characters and the viewer. the let down of the lost finale proves that the enjoyment came not from the destination but in the ride.
but if it was just that easy then this show would be a success, and many that have failed before would have been winners. lost had quality actors, which this show does not. up until the hurried, wrap-up last season, lost had engaging and intelligent scripts. the world was authentic and a character itself.
this show is an obvious summer ratings band-aid. i have tried to watch, but can't anymore.
when i first started watching, i started enjoying. the dialog and
interactions were more than i'm used to viewing from the us jj
programming. i liked the characters, i liked the dialog. i liked the
that is until they hit a tactical situation. after that the show turned into amateurish drivel. i'm an old pro, and if this is the kind of respect a major Australian network pays to shows that hinge on gun play, then they should stick to soaps.
the tactics and weapons handling were a joke, when one swat officer tells another she knows her scoped weapon shoots low and to the right i about crapped my pants--that is why they have a range to zero weapons and adjustments to get it right. a swat sniper should be able to hit a one inch spot at one hundred yards, no matter the angle.
now i know i'm not alone. there must be, at least, some Australian, Afghani vets that are cringing at this show.
this is the 21st century, and there is a global audience. get a decent technical adviser and listen to him.
i was hoping to enjoy this show, but instead i ended up laughing at it.
|Page 3 of 5:||    |