Blackbird013-1 Reviews

Arrow (2012–2020)

Something just seemed off or missing

[5/10 · 27 June 2019]

It has all of the elements of a classic batman type billionaire superhero. At times the acting seems great, but at other times it just seemed like due to the acting or the script there was a lot of meaningless posturing backed up by mood music in a silent setting that just reminded you that the creators are trying to get you emotionally involved while somehow for some reason failing.

I did like a lot of the story line in general, including the flashbacks. Somehow though...there was just something not quite as satisfying as I would expect.

I've thought about it a lot. Mood music? Other shows have mood music so that can't be it. Plot? Not riveting, but not bad at all. Acting? Not always perfect but seemed solid. It's hard to put my finger on why I had the impression that it was a lot of brooding posturing. What I can say is that I have a tendency to bin watch shows. Maybe an episode or two at a time makes it a lot better but watching them all back to back it started to seem like a repetitive theme with a lot of posturing.

I did note the typical very tough guys with weak needy women that needed protection except for the one woman who was quite capable yet evil. I was unimpressed.

Overall I would say this is solid entertainment if you are in the mood to let go and just believe even when the show makes it hard to believe. If you are watching it trying to get your mind off of things or relax it's a less rewarding experience.

Bible's Buried Secrets (2011– )

Bringing things into focus....

[9/10 · 24 February 2019]

Theory is just that, theory. If you want to strip the delusion away from organized religion much of what is taught is either a bad translation, or church doctrine that deviates from the actual test. That means that much of what is believed is theory rather than part of the actual original religion.

Explaining the nature of the root of the religion or how it came to exist in it's current form is simply a reality check taken from a historical perspective. If faith is easily dispelled or offended when the contradictions and mistakes are pointed out, then it's faith based on the organized religion establishment that tells you what to believe rather than the actual religion.

Sooner or later religious history has to reconcile with actual history to have any value and survive over the centuries to come. The reality of existence is more likely to survive scrutiny over time than a false shine.

I believe this kind of presentation is spectacular, and will become more common until followers can reconcile themselves with actual history and actual text. Reform can be a good thing!

Lost in Space (2018–2021)

It's very good, but a bit frustrating.

[7/10 · 30 December 2018]

Overall I would say that this is spectacular. Visually stunning, interesting, and adventurous.

The problem is that as someone that has seen the previous series and movie I have to say they followed the formula too closely. Throughout the entire affair I sat there wondering how such intelligent people that were hand picked to be acceptable and able to deal with diversity could be so stupid concerning conflict and mind games from an external source. It just ruins the believably making it too much like a cheap horror film. I know that is how the original show was written and I respect that. I'm simply saying some adjustment so that you could respect the main characters would have been appropriate.

Black Mirror: Bandersnatch (2018)

A completely deceptive train wreck

[2/10 · 30 December 2018]

You start out watching a movie, and then you realize it's a choose your path game. The problem is that the questions are loaded, and the movie is unfolding in the way they choose regardless of what you want. The only choice you have is making it take longer to get there by trying to choose another path.

During the movie it is stated clearly there are multiple timelines and realities, and that you can choose. This is deceptive because what they have done is force a story line that is a train wreck regardless of what you choose and then try to make the watcher responsible.

The only real "twist" in this movie is trying to draw the watcher in psychologically and make them responsible for what is a low quality horror film. The horror is that in spite of them claiming it's a choose your path or choose your ending movie, it is built to force you to a determined ending bu sending you back to the choices and forcing you to choose the path they determined.

The choice is a lie, it's just a long drawn out boring train wreck with no real choices the viewer can make. As a movie it sucks, as a game it sucks, as a story where you choose the ending it sucks.

If this were simply published as a movie without choices you might not like it, but it would at least be valid. Most of the movie is visually boring with two characters standing out visually and you see them rarely. As is it just wastes your time seemingly intentionally insulting you.

Please Stand By (2017)

Real substance that deserves recognition

[10/10 · 5 May 2018]

Please stand by deviates from the typical movie by telling a story. Instead of using a basic formula of dangers or enemies this movie flows much in the same way that real life can.

Much like movies people are often seen as being simple, and easy to categorize. Because this movie breaks those bonds and steps outside of the lines portraying a person rather than a caricature it would seem not everyone gets it. Scenes such as the mugging are rather telling. The ipod has more value, but the notebook is a coping tool she needs that would have no real value to anyone else.

So many movies seem to portray a fairy tale where everything is perfect or becomes perfect. Please stand by shows a struggle with deeper meaning meant for a thinking audience with much less flash. Pieces seem to fit together much like a puzzle showing deeper themes right down to the man in the hospital talking about his father.

I watched it with a friend, and at the end she said "It's a shame she didn't win, but it's good because it's more realistic that way." My reply was that she didn't win the contest, but she won everything else. After her experience her sister managed enough trust to let her hold the baby, and she herself found enough trust to be able to touch her sister. Others reading the script actually began understanding some of the connections. The "speck of light" was just trying to find a place where she belonged. Sometimes the journey really is about the destination.

Heidi (2015)

Spectacular Simplicity

[9/10 · 10 January 2018]

This is a spectacular family film. In it's original language there is a nuance of multiple languages blending so if you can stand subtitles with the actual voices of the actors I highly recommend it for adults and children old enough to keep up.

Things to understand: It's not a modern action children's movie with a defined villain although some actions in the film on the part of some characters can be seen as villainous or dark. The entire movie focuses on real life personality drama rather than mechanized drama.

It's not a Disney or typical family film format with unintelligent people characterizations made simple and obvious. While themes are simple enough for children, they are handled in a more subtle real way.

It may contain some classic clichés about conditions and illnesses among children which it is up to the viewer to determine the merit of.

It's an absolutely beautiful film that seems to portray a real world rather than a polished one which is actually refreshing. Period mud streets and dirty feet with a contrast between simple mountain life and prim proper city life.

Zoo (2015–2017)

An increasingly annoying train wreck

[3/10 · 15 October 2017]

The first season is actually OK to be honest, but the second and third season become increasingly annoying. It's a train wreck of obvious mistakes and overcooked drama perpetuated by obvious mistakes and sheer stupidity on the part of the protagonists.

By the third season there is no greater power they are fighting against, it's just a posturing group always outsmarted by the evil super genius. It actually becomes painful to watch as it progresses.

Star Trek: Discovery (2017–2024)

Bleh...Marketing Genius or Greedy Idiocy?

[1/10 · 5 October 2017]

I have to give this show a bad rating to do otherwise would be unethical and here is why: First...the premier was strategically placed after a football game in the claim that this would booster the audience. In reality they know so many people set a DVR and do other things and watch it later. Because of this what we actually had was three quarters or less of the first installment of the premier. Apparently there was a cliff hangar designed to trick everyone into a knee jerk reaction purchase of CBS all access. This is further evidenced by the fact that it is not on Itunes, or any other media outlet for those of us that are willing to pay fairly to watch it without buying a subscription to a single channel that has horrific mobile apps and mostly uninteresting content charging as much as a premium channel that gives you interesting content along with a plethora of movies. BTW those premium channels I mentioned acknowledge that when you pay for them through cable you should be able to watch them on your media app. CBS froze out cable and satellite owners long ago expecting us to pay to see anything on CBS unless we set our DVR to record it. Personally I've been uninterested in paying CBS since when I was able to access their VOD long ago it was so shoddy I couldn't watch the shows it kept freezing on commercials so I had to restart and couldn't watch anything. I pay my cable fees, and I'm uninterested in paying CBS with it's limited content for a couple of shows the same amount I pay Netflix which has infinitely more programming that is actually interesting to choose from.

So far as the show itself some say it's brilliant, but most that say that watched a lot more of it after buying CBS all access (many of which not realizing the nature of the trick that was played on them). What the rest of us were shown was a bit of a setup that did not endear any of the characters to us, and long sequences with the klingons that although may have been interesting in the long run ended up to be boring and hard to watch while multi-tasking due to all of the subtitles. In other words for an opening to the entire series trying to hook people into paying for a shoddy service account this was IMHO a total failure and should have been shown in flashback later after you had captured the audiences attention. I had my DVR record this, and as someone who has seen everything from Star Trek even what I did not like, I played it three times trying to convince myself there was anything worth giving in and buying an account even if it was an ethics violation. I was unable to find anything that worthy.

Since the show only showed this small glimpse of a incomplete and broken introduction and CBS would rather let the show die than let it be sold through other outlets getting fair value from those that would rather buy the first season (just to give it a fair chance) rather than buy yet another rarely used account, one can only guess this is a CBS executive power play to both gain direct user accounts for CBS from customers it's already profited from, while simultaneously killing the show through bad ratings due to this bungling.

Since so many talk about content it's clear that this is more of a kelvin time-line for star trek divorcing itself from the entire concept of Star TREK TV show concept it's clear the show is only using the franchise name and warped universe to propagate a completely different type of TV show. The combination of a bad pilot strategy, locking everyone out from seeing the show, and deviation from all that is classic Star *Trek* in concept and format bodes badly for having the support of science fiction fans interested in more than flash and violence.

If you truly want to save the show fix the problems, and put it up for sale on Amazon, Itunes, and wherever else to give it a fair chance. Then the public can buy it and decide after a full season when it's had a chance to unfold whether it is treasure or trash. If the show fails like this because it's being used for the CBS power play it will be more than just the fans that frown on it, the entire entertainment industry (and business world) will know who was responsible.

Wonder Woman (2017)

Deceptive in it's anti-feminism and propaganda

[4/10 · 3 October 2017]

This film was amusing in the start, and as it continued I became ashamed I had bought it.

The film is misleading in a number of ways. It portrays wonder woman as a mindless military girl (which I suppose is why they wanted an actress with vehement military propaganda history involved) with no real mind for true philosophy, education, and refinement in spite of her good heart making her a intellectually needy character (The character, not the actress). We are led to believe the daughter of a god was raised by the amazons with only a military war training and lacked education on politics (which existed even in ancient history), the arrogance of men, or any clue how to behave or operate in the real world where she was not a central figure in the eyes of everyone. She floundered in the city in a very unbecoming way. She could see only her obsession on the horizon without applying any tactics about how to achieve her goal other than insist he guide her there. Too many things here point to a false feminine icon that is actually more of a female barbarian with a weapon. The times would change but a true royal education even if ancient would have included tactical presentation.

Wonderwoman was more than just formidable she was thoughtful and intelligent. The original bungled a little, but not so badly that she would not be aware that everyone else in a city was not wearing a sword and fur cape and that she was not blending in when they stared. The man had to guide her to appropriate clothing pointing out she was being noticed (somewhat anti-feminist when you consider she had centuries to be educated). She then handed over her sword tipping off a total stranger that she believed everything depended on it being guarded safely. The wonder woman we knew was intellectually formidable as well as physically. A true classical tactician would have known how to find a way to address a room of men rather than be ignored completely. If I'm reading too much into the downplay of feminism here it's because I'm familiar with how the original wonder woman entered the city without help and handled everything almost seamlessly without help installing herself as an in the know secretary.

Reading after watching (which I should have done before buying it) revealed that a lot of the hype was pro Israel military going as far as saying that wonder woman was an Israeli hero from the start claiming the character nationally when the movie clearly labeled her as a descendant of a Greek god. If the movie was going to be used for propaganda they should have hired a Greek actress so the right country would herald and claim her boosting the ratings. This is very ironic since the function of Wonderwoman in this movie was to stop the god of war which is the exact opposite of propagating war.

While it is supposed to portray a strong female hero, I think it portrays wonder woman as an indestructible barbarian with a good heart. So far as the death of her main interest it was a cliché' way to avoid any entanglements that could last long enough to imply anything could happen. I apologize for any offense, I'm just being realistic about my reaction to this it's a bit insulting to wonder woman, feminism, and the concept of the amazons as well as ancient Greek culture which was one of the most advanced at that time.

Is the message that women can work out and train physically but even a goddess after centuries or millennia of education is incapable of true intelligence?

The Orville (2017–2022)

Worth the watch, and something to be proud of

[8/10 · 2 October 2017]

It's hard to describe the all of the influences and reactions to this new science fiction attempt. First I should say it's worth watching, and probably worth buying. Please forgive the Star Trek comparison I see this as a good way to explain The Orville to a larger audience.

I'm not thrilled with the casting. The sardonic humor is a classic from a lot of science fiction movies many may not remember so well. So far as comparisons to Star Trek they are justified but lets be clear about why: Rather than rip Star Trek off which I consider going to far I say it simply appeals to true Trek fans. Star Trek as a pioneer set the stage for earth based alliance science fiction shows. While not as polished or established as a Star Trek series, The Orville actually replaces them completely by reviving true science fiction.

Before any Trek fans get wild or excited I'll explain what I mean here. Gene Roddenberry had a vision for a Utopian space faring human race. We weren't always perfect but in the vision in spite of personal conflicts we as a human race sought to expand our knowledge, and improve the universe. He was shown the door during TNG because they wanted more conflict, more drama! Enterprise although a good show went even further into the bad side of the federation and justifying wrong acts. The new movies seemed to throw away the Trek history as we know it and obliterate all we loved in the name of a newer more violent and meaningless generation.

With his very sardonic sense of humor blended in the give the situation conflict and drama Seth MacFarlane seems to have revolted against that trend and went back to what many science fiction fans truly want. Hope for a better society in the future. We still have the same personal issues, conflicts, and a bit of violence here and there, but the concept is meant to inspire the good in people (or so it seems). Rather than rip off Star Trek Mr MacFarlane seems to have brought back to life a vision Roddenberry showed us that the networks and movie makers threw in the trash. The Orville is a singular brilliant example of the concepts that made classic science fiction fans even after at least two shows (ST and BSG) were they themselves rebooted in ways that trashed their original concepts.

The Orville has it's rough moments, it makes fun of it's own crew, and it has conflict to keep things interesting. It's actually truer to the science fiction genre than the new ST or BSG was (No offense against any of them they were well made, they just deviated from the genre class and original concepts). In an industry that has been putting a science fiction mask on pure action and hijacking franchises to appeal to a "in your face giving you the bird intense audience" The Orville is actually something to be proud of. Even without the big budget graphics it's enough to make the true science fiction fans actually wake up and say "Hey wait, isn't this what science fiction was before everything was hijacked?". I'm not saying it's all that, I'm simply saying it's good solid science fiction without all of the drama gimmicks and network manipulation.

It's amazing that with so many details that don't thrill me, I'm more thrilled to watch it than a tragic reboot with a pretty cast used to lure people into paying outrageous fees.

Ghostbusters: Answer the Call (2016)

Surprisingly good

[7/10 · 28 October 2016]

I think this is best described as a remake. It varies from the original in quite a few ways while keeping with the original concept.

The main characters are a bit different, the plot is a little different, and the results may vary. It's different enough to entertain people that already watched the original while allowing the general concept to be translated to a more "modern" audience.

I would like to point out that many of the complaints I have read in reviews point to particular details that mirrored the first film, and seemed along with cameo appearances to remind viewers of the original film while staying true to it with a completely new story.

I'm intentionally being vague here, but most of us know what Ghostbusters was (bordering on the offensive). If why things in this film seem so true to the first isn't clear to you, maybe you should go back and watch it with fresh modern eyes. Ghostbusters (the original) was made as a wild comedy. While not liking everything done or the way it was done I personally think this modern remake was rather amusing and stayed true to the spirit of the original.

Without giving it a top rating, I definitely think it deserves more credit than I've seen in reviews. The most shocking part was how much I liked it in spite of so many people writing hateful reviews. While in no way approaching the brilliance of the original it's definitely a lot better than you would expect after reading so many bad reviews. In so many ways it seemed like a brilliant parallel story.

If I could point out just one serious flaw...characters. The original had Dana who was a serious musician and a likable character. Spengler from the original was a serious (yet possibly wacky) scientist with a sort of dry humor. Without any reliable characters to latch onto maybe it was harder for people to "get it". The intended parallel nature was obvious, but in the sense of characters things just seemed a bit scrambled.

Ice Pilots NWT (2009–2014)

Very interesting, with a lot of problems

[4/10 · 28 October 2016]

First off the purpose of the show is obvious. IRT always made a huge drama about people had to have their goods which left me thinking what about all of the aircraft that are usually used to get goods up north? In that sense, such a show is needed to counteract the fake drama involved with IRT.

Second this show has a certain romance about vintage aircraft, and creates a view of a business model in harsh environments that truly shows genius and common sense. Having pilots work their way up having to know every aspect of the business and the daily work of taking care of the planes before being given responsibility for one makes a lot of sense. That said the contract failures, the fuel shortages, and mechanical failures truly make one wonder whether it's viable to run a company composed only of vintage aircraft without any more suited or appropriate aircraft for diversity.

The fake drama, cursing, stress, and character driven twists that have nothing to do with the company, the planes, or the job were a huge turn off. I mostly avoid reality TV for just this reason, and the show would probably be much more popular and worthy with more historical information, or information in general instead of following "emotional drama" ,self promotion, or "family plot lines".

Overall my rating is based on the fact that it's a bit of fascination wrapped up in a lot of boredom that you have to wade through much like a pilot has many hours of boredom punctuated by moments of adrenaline. (This is in case any within the company read this so they can understand the POV of a viewer). It's amazing how much I had to fast forward through personal life tidbits and mechanized drama to get back to the show about the business, and the planes.

Season two became even harder to sit through, and the biggest shock was with all of those pilots available that two of the youngest pilots were considered to do the passenger flight TOGETHER. Was that just an intentional drama plot or did the least experienced ones really talk someone into sticking their neck out that far just to set a record for youngest pilots?

In the Heart of the Sea (2015)

This movie hits home

[8/10 · 17 March 2016]

First off, the Essex as well as other whaling incidents inspired Moby Dick, but this movie is inspired by the Essex rather than being a reconceptualization of Moby Dick. It's very important to understand this.

I was gravely disappointed that a moment couldn't be spared to explain what the Essex was: a smaller ship re-fitted to try to do a large whaling ship's job. This along with the way the whale hits the ship and the whale following the crew ruined what could have mostly been a historically educational film watched by history students for decades IMHO.

That said, I was thrilled to see the story of the Essex being told rather than another Moby dick film disaster which is a book that is rarely understood in modern times for the satire that it was at the time. It tells the story of the hunt, and the disaster that followed making it one of the most realistic sea disaster films I've ever seen. In that period surviving the ship going down was only the beginning of the horrors for so many. This convinces me that this team could handle something as difficult as the story of the Medusa.

The Essex looked true to size, and without going into every last gritty and grizzly detail of the disaster this film gave a more true view of the disaster than the book that became so famous.

With the mentioned shortcomings I personally believe this is a beautiful film to be proud of. I do think if people watch it with their children they should take the time to look up the Essex and explain the differences and the fictional nod to predatory whale myths but so long as that is done properly I still consider the film close enough to be educational.

Serena (I) (2014)

An iconic field that diverges from Hollywood formulas

[10/10 · 27 January 2016]

To be honest I am only writing this review because the film has had such a negative reception. I want to make a few things clear.

This film rather than following the Hollywood formula is more true to life in the sense that some European films have been. Life isn't always exciting, sometimes it can be brooding rather than fast paced with flashy cars and "cool" props being used to polish up perception.

I would classify this as historical fiction in the sense that most films with a historical setting have a lot of flash and posturing. This film offers a view of the less glamorous times during the depression. It gives you a glimpse of the issues through the plot rather than show you first hand. Some elements are true to Hollywood such as perfectly clean main characters but conceptually this film seems like a simple slice of life.

One person said you ended up not liking anyone. I think that's the entire point of the film. It's dark, brooding, and it has things to say about the nature of people and life without offering the flash and allure of a visually stunning or fun filled film. Many can't understand the setting (the depression) and might not understand the hard choices people made between survival and dreams which still relates to current life in many ways.

I found the plot believable and think it's a good film for the deeper thinkers and realistic story lovers. Although poetic, it substitutes flash for substance. Instead of looking for something action packed or something to cuddle up with just accept it for what it is. It's unlikely to be pleasant for the light hearted.

Humans (2015–2018)

Reclaiming the sci-fi Genre

[10/10 · 6 August 2015]

Humans was something I hadn't heard of but it was recommended. This is written after watching 6 episodes.

Over the years we've watched the T.V. sci-fi genre in general degenerate into over-done unrealistic drama or end of the world violence to trigger auto-emotional responses.

Humans completely defies this mindless trend by offering something well thought out and thought provoking with more substance than flash. This show reminds me of the golden age of science fiction books, when people recommended books to each other based on the sub-text, substance, and how they examined society or issues.

It's almost impossible to get a rating of ten out of me with T.V. shows or movies. This is the most epic science fiction show I've seen in five years or so. Why? It reminds us what the genre of science fiction is supposed to represent. With or without the constant science fiction props it really is the story and what it says about a concept that matters the most.

I did find fault with a couple of minor hard to catch mistakes, but that is so easy to forgive when you see something this well thought out and delivered. It covers the bases you would expect it to taking deep issues and presenting them in the most obvious simple ways.

Jericho (2006–2008)

Survival and Political based Drama worth watching and researching the source of

[1 October 2011]

There are so many things that can be said about Jericho. It is fantasy drama based on U.S. foreign policy and corporate corruption in the government. It brilliantly brings atrocities committed by Blackwater in Iraq into the spotlight by bringing the issue home to the United States and showing "ravenwood" abusing U.S. citizens in the same way. Parallels and caricatures showing the actions of corrupt government, corporations, and individuals who have helped destroy United States Liberties and civil rights.

Jericho isn't light, and it isn't comfortable. It brings to light real life issues in a way that could make many blind followers of the military or military action very uncomfortable. The first season shows people struggling to survive after a tragedy and breakdown of modern society. The second season progresses showing how they are abused and subjugated by the new government formed by the very internal terrorists that destroyed the old one.

The show is well done and keeps your attention. Unlike mindless drama shows the characters her grow and learn allowing resolution and understanding. It's definitely something not truly meant for kids to see, but worthwhile for anyone old enough to understand politics, world issues, and the dangers of war and military being used for profit, control, and the enslavement of the people by supported corporations. In other words the show brings the real ugly face of government and corporate corruption to life using a fictional world representing traditional American culture being destroyed by in house corruption.

Hart of Dixie (2011–2015)

A female Doc Hollywood story

[8/10 · 27 September 2011]

The pilot was free on Itunes so I watched it unexpectedly. I was pleasantly surprised.

The characters were believable even with a cliché' insulting to city people living in the country. Her initial reluctance and feelings that she can't make it work there are believable as well as the unexpected devices urging her to stay.

This does differ from Doc Hollywood enough to be it's own story. Whereas Doc Hollywood was more of a town contriving to capture a doctor this is more a story of a town that has one doctor already. In contrast the Hart of Dixie story is about a town where some of the people insist another doctor is needed. The pilot episode hints at why, and shows a doctor truly touched by compassion in spite of hints that she's just another young doctor after a huge paycheck. The opposition to a new doctor along with strong support easily dismissing the objections is quite well done.

There was a bit of irony with Hart being desired as a new doctor for the very qualities she was accused of not possessing yet.

In spite of this being a standard episode length pilot I thought the time was well used and the story well established. The characters as well as plot devices presented themselves as real and believable with only one or two exceptions that seemed to be thrown in for comic relief.

2012: Ice Age (2011 Video)

More adventure drama than action, without the needed character development.

[4/10 · 17 September 2011]

If you like old TV shows and low budget B Movies ignore all the reviews and just give it a try. If you want to enjoy the film, prepare yourself for following alongmuch like one would a T.V. show but without the familiar cast.

The biggest problem with the movie is the oversell and it's listing as action, when in fact it's more of a drama compared to the average action movie. If they put a made for TV drama movie label on it people would probably know what to expect and enjoy it more. Take a deep breath and pretend you are watching T.V. from the early nineties and you might just actually enjoy it! The good point is that it's modeled after the Day After Tomorrow, and they managed to use a more balanced cast rather than predominately male showing a more realistic disaster survival group rather than a male adventure movie.

The downside is that the movie really is modeled more after a real life disaster fleeing scenario so far as minute by minute events. Dealing with police saying you can't go there, masses in hysteria, and problems with being stuck in traffic in evacuation areas. In this sense it was possibly more realistic with some ironic humor such as the father worrying whether the son is breaking the law in a post disaster abandoned world. I found myself thinking it really had more in common with one of the old traffic movies than modern disaster movies in spite of the plot and injected fighter jets firing off at glaciers. Why? Most of the movie is a family in a car or plane: Where are we going, how will we get there, check the computer, check the G.P.S. (all working in spite of a natural disaster taking place oddly enough although for some reasons cell phones did not work in the same scenario). Unfortunately I considered the end intolerable nonsense transforming a situation one could almost manage to suspend your disbelief and ignore a family jaunting around while everyone else is freezing to death for to one of outright insanity. It's not a true survival movie in that it's meant to be fast paced, but it's simply not interesting enough to keep you riveted while it flies around. I can guess that they were trying to do a big budget thriller recipe on a small budget which almost always ends in an end product that is disaster.

It's a tolerable watch if you have someone there to crack jokes with, or if you are doing other things while watching it. Did I actually like it? Not really, but I have seen much much worse!

Monster Island (2004 TV Movie)

Bad reality TV quality sprinkled with occasional good acting and scenes

[3/10 · 28 April 2011]

As a horror movie it's anything but scary (other than some of the acting and posturing). As an adventure movie it's anti climatic. As a spoof it just isn't funny enough. As a cult film it just lacks conviction.

I was watching it for free and I admit it was good enough to finish but the commercials interrupting it were considerably better which only confirmed how badly it was done. On the other hand the fact that the computer graphics seemed to be intentionally bad it could indicate it's homage to pioneer science fiction horror. I have to agree with another reviewer and state I quite simply don't know what it was other than bad. Students of entertainment and film making are likely to find it uninteresting the project seems to have only survived due to a few names attached to it.

There is a lot of cheesy bad acting, with stereotype characters ripping off the styles and looks of other actors or actresses. At one point even the main character seemed to comment on the pointlessness of the scene. Some of the acting was true to the trade surrounded by others that seemed to scream "look, I'm on TV!" There was no quality continuity other than the headline entertainer's scenes were done fairly well while scenes without them seemed to just drop off the quality scale into oblivion. If you watch or buy it just because your favorite actor or actress is in it be assured they handled their scenes with dignity which they may have lost seeing the finished product.

Anyone looking for a well done movie will be disappointed but anyone in love with bad horror, low budget spoofs, or reality T.V. (hey look I'm on camera!) will probably be satisfied for bargain prices.

Defying Gravity (2009)

Science fiction with real depth

[9/10 · 21 April 2011]

What made the show a failure is exactly what made it worth watching. The character development was complex, but many viewers are tired of shallow characters going through the same motions in new shows and plots.

The show had a lot of flashbacks. While this is annoying on most shows with the way it was done on Defying Gravity it seemed to continuously add character depth. I myself watching the first few episodes was Waiting for it to get going. What should be considered is that this is what would make a show worth watching long term. This is the very thing that gave the show somewhere to go unlike many shows that have worn out their plot before the first season is over.

I thought the development of the interpersonal relationships between the astronauts and their support team on earth was very well done. While I admit this took quite a few shows to establish it ultimately gave you a group of richly developed characters you cared about. These were believable characters who had sacrificed everything to be in the space program and to be selected. The characters were developed as dedicated professional astronauts that were tough enough to make it through the selection process while still being fallible humans. There was no glossing over them to make them perfect role models. There was none of the childish outbreaks I noticed on another show. Rather than people vying for attention on camera I thought the show did quite well coming much closer to what you would expect among real astronauts.

Defying gravity held to it's name. There were moments when you had to love the characters for overcoming unbelievable sorrow and personal pain or weakness. The worst part about the show, is that it was canceled when it was just reaching a point where it could have been an epic landmark for science fiction on Television offering real depth and character development. The flashbacks were there to show you the relationships, and how they developed over the course of years leading up to the mission during training. They re-enforced concepts in real life such as the ground staff being an emotional lifeline as well as a technical lifeline as people who had spent years training with each other and working together.

So many space shows have been about politics, military, and war. This show lacked laser battles, cursing, violence, or shooting aliens, it was about the wonder of discovery, it addressed real issues such as having to keep incidents secret and away from the press (right or wrong it's real life).

So many shows were about the final frontier and facing the enemy in battle, but this show was more about a real life space program. Not the end of the world, not an epic space battle, but the reality of space flight oddities and how people react together (with the bit about alien life forms thrown in to add mystery and awe).

Not everything was perfect in character choices or development. There were a few items I'm sure the NASA P.R. staff noticing how close it was to real life took issue with. At the same time that made it just messy enough to give it conflict.

If theater is the willing suspension of disbelief I think Defying Gravity as a space jaunt came closer to present day believability in matching a space mission than anything else to date while still being interesting. It did so with real life issues, without killing people, stranding people improbably, or blowing up planets. The believable space setting was there but unlike most space shows deep character development and interaction was the value of the show, without the cheap tricks used in much sci-fi to keep you on the edge of your seat watching even when you aren't interested.

The story itself was worthwhile, the acting was believable if you had a feel for the characters, and the quality of the presentation was good enough to make it worthy mainstream space science fiction. I only hope they pick it back up and finish the story somehow rather than wait a decade or two for someone else to pick up the idea and re-work the story (which is realistically a goldmine).

Intelligent television will become popular again and with the cheap plot devices and tricks the science fiction TV genre uses to annoy viewers winning audiences back would be as easy as breathing with any commitment.

If you are with a network reading this consider one more thing: If you want to know which shows are really impressing people stop demanding they watch it the very minute you air the show people have busy lives, pay attention to how many watch it, and how many buy it. People buy shows that are well done enough to watch repeatedly which Defying Gravity is. You keep viewers by worrying about what they want, instead of how you think you can keep them on the edge of their seat under your control. Years from now you might care a bit less about a few ratings points, and more about what projects you were attached to.