NoHeadedHershel Reviews

Locke & Key (2020–2022)

Brilliant idea ruined by absurd stupidity.

[5/10 · 19 December 2023]

The premise of the show, and the various story arcs are, in themselves, really brilliant. The show fails, like so many other "teen" shows, with the abject stupidity of the characters.

The writer's methods of manufacturing drama revolve around having the characters make unbelievably stupid decisions, and then solving the problems those stupid decisions created.

If you've ever watched something like this and thought "nobody would do that, though!" Then you understand what I'm talking about; this show seems to average at least two of those moments per episode.

The show could have been 8+, but falls to just average teenage dreg, in my opinion.

FUBAR (2023– )

It's just not very good.

[3/10 · 21 June 2023]

Action/Adventure/Thriller/Comedy - it purports to be all these things, but does none of them well.

The comedy is forced; the jokes aren't funny, and what is supposed to be funny banter seems too rehearsed and stilted, and doesn't flow naturally.

The 75 year old Schwarzenegger is passed off as a 65 year old dad; a US based CIA asset with an Austrian accent.

The very premise is unbelievable, and the characters do such wantonly stupid things they couldn't possibly be "agents," particularly agents that have the "highest scores" they've ever seen on agency tests! So in episode 2, for example, they are infiltrating a train they suspect is going to be robbed of the nuclear waste it's transporting. The nuclear waste is going to be made into a nuclear weapon. Not a dirty bomb - a nuclear weapon. These arms dealers simply wouldn't have the resources to do such a thing - but more unbelievable is the characters. They are given "secret" identities that have nothing to do with each other - but they go on the train together, they spend the entire time together, they speak in English, and talk out loud about the "case," all within ear shot of everybody else on the train.

They have to speed up the train - so they cool the magnets on the maglev train by opening up the valves for the coolants... that's not how a maglev train is propelled. More ridiculous, though, is they then need to slow the train down - instead of just turning off the coolant, they decide the best course of action is to pump nuclear waste into the "system," to heat the magnets and slow the train down.

Nor worries about radiation, I guess, but cool that the hose they were using to drain the nuclear waste just happens to fit the spigot for pumping... something... into the magnets?

Anyone with an IQ over 90 could not possibly be accepting these premises.

Then they have technology that, given the location of a target, blow them up from space in less than 10 seconds from learning the location; the secret office has all sorts of gadgets and tech... but then, when an agent sees the new firearms a "terror" group has, muses that they are more advanced than what the CIA could give them.

You cannot simply hand-wave stuff like this away, saying "but it's an action show, it doesn't have to make sense." It's an absurd justification - and you can certainly accept it, if you want, but it does not make for a 5+ star worthy show.

The action is the high point of this show - if fighting and shooting and explosions make a good show, you may like it.

Beast (I) (2022)

A worthwhile movie.

[6/10 · 8 February 2023]

Idris Elba plays a father of two teenage daughters whose mother has recently passed. Elba tries to reconnect with his daughters after having been an absent father as they try to connect with his deceased wife's roots by visiting the village she was from. Things go awry on a private tour of a preserve that is not open to the public, but has a problem with poaching that results in a rogue male lion going on a rampage. If it seems far fetched, it's really not - they make it seem like a plausible story.

It's an entertaining movie, and it's nice to see Sharlto Copley not play the villain. Idris Elba is always good, and the cast, in general, is above par.

Given the substance of the movie, it's a decent running length, unlike a lot of new movies that seem to need a 2+ hour running time even when the content is not there. This keeps the pacing steady with no boring gaps. It seems lately people use the term "slow burner" as a nice way of saying "boring." This movie is not boring.

The special effects are so phenomenal that you don't know they are there; it was unbelievably well done.

Despite not actually being made by Hollywood, however, this movie falls into some of the annoying Hollywood tropes that are, in my opinion, just insulting to the audience. Kids running off despite being aware of the imminent danger (and specifically being told not to by their father) being the worst offender.

It's ultimately a worthwhile movie and, despite my minor complaints, the director did an excellent job with it.

Without Remorse (II) (2021)

A decent action movie, but NOT Without Remorse

[3/10 · 12 May 2021]

A standard action flick where US special forces are used as pawns of the government, mischief ensues, people get killed, revenge gets had.

We've seen this formula any number of times, and this movie certainly doesn't do a terrible job with it. However, it's simply NOT "Without Remorse." I would not be surprised if this script was lying around for years and someone just got lazy when the rights were optioned; rename some of the characters, and there you go.

The character of John Clark is absolutely nothing like the character from the books or any of the movies so far. It's extremely disappointing such an interesting character, with an incredible backstory in the book, is wasted in a movie like this.

This is not a rant that the movie doesn't follow the book closely enough - the movie is simply NOT the book in any way except in name.

As a stand-alone movie, it's an adequate action flick; as part of the Jack Ryan "universe," it's completely out of place and disappointing.

Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)

Sadly misses the mark.

[4/10 · 29 December 2020]

A scathing rebuke to the entire DCCU - continuity means nothing; a bunch of disparate moves that they will continue to try to, unsuccessfully, tie together in a "make it up as you go along" fashion, and then wondering why the movies don't get the reviews (or money) MCU manages to get.

WW '84 is no different. In Justice League, Bruce Wayne comments about how Diana has been off the radar for 100 years, but the events that take place in '84 surely would have come to light in any cursory investigating, let alone the deep digging he did trying to find "super" beings to aid in defending humanity.

Right off the bat, in 1984, she helps destroy parts of a mall in an almost laughable, physics defying manner. It starts with the child-in-danger trope that temporarily prevents WW from dealing with four would-be thieves - completely inept thieves that would have been a better fit in an early Spiderman movie. By the way, it's not the last use of the child-in-danger trope in this movie, either.

She lassos around enormous circular columns that would never have held, somehow uses the same to defy physics; swinging in impossible ways... OK, magic lasso of truth can also defy physics, apparently? I don't recall that from all we know about WW, but OK. Then she bundles and tosses the criminals onto a police car... destroying police property when she didn't have to. That's after destroying the mall cameras, which somehow makes the footage they already recorded disappear, I suppose. I don't want my superheroes to not defend us at the expense of other people's property, but they tend not to wantonly destroy property for no good reason.

It gets worse from there, in my opinion - I do not want to spoil the entire movie, but I will say Cheetah never gets the air time (or build up) she deserved; Diana can now just magically make things become invisible (this is how they explain the invisible plane). Steve Trevor, World War I pilot somehow divines how to fly jet planes, and a fighter jet can now fly back and forth to the middle east without refueling. Oh... and Diana is perfectly fine with taking away the life of some guy so that Steve Trevor can occupy his body. I guess nobody cared about that guy, so it's all good.

Lastly, someone please correct me if I'm wrong - but WW can now lasso clouds (and use them to propel herself). When I first saw this I got another Spiderman flashback. It's just absurd and silly to me.

I really wanted to like this movie - the first one was great; I love strong female characters (and not just because of how gorgeous Gal Gadot is - I would even prefer it if the outfit was a less chauvinistic, more realistic form of protection/armor).

It's NOT the character - WW is an amazing character, and the first movie showed how well it could be done. The Christopher Nolan Batman Trilogy proved that DC characters can be every bit as compelling as Marvel characters. Why the company can't get it's act together and make a decent cinematic universe is beyond me, but it starts with DC management not deciding on a coherent plan from the get-go.

It was an OK movie, in it's own right; far worse than the original Wonder Woman movie, but definitely watchable; but include it as part of the DCCU and it's just terrible, and that really makes me sad. I so want DCCU to be just as good as Marvel, but I guess that ship has sailed.

Silhouette (II) (2019)

Slow Psychological Drama, not horror, not very good

[2/10 · 27 June 2020]

Firstly, there's a little bit psycho in this, but only briefly; given it's nearly two hours long, it's a real slow burn, and it's certainly not something you want to watch if you're actually looking for a thriller or horror movie.

Secondly, there seems to be this philosophy amongst film makers that if you make things really slow; long, drawn out dialog, really slow transitions, long periods of someone just standing there doing nothing, maybe staring into a mirror, that that somehow makes for brilliant,deep, introspective films. It doesn't.

Lastly, it's also technically lacking, particularly the sound. Out of sync at first (I thought it was the streaming service), then horrible mixing, was extremely distracting.

All of these positive reviews must be friends, family, I don't know; even if this movie was your "cup of tea," it certainly wouldn't rate a ten. I mean, seriously? This rates with The Godfather? These reviews have obviously been stacked, don't believe them.

The Walking Dead (2010–2022)

Just not realistic

[5/10 · 16 June 2020]

I know people may laugh at my title, but just because something is a work of fiction doesn't mean you should throw reason and logic out the window. The creators of fiction give us a premise, including something as far-fetched as people coming back from the dead; they ask you to get over the premise, and what follows should be an interesting, engaging, and entertaining story.

It also needs to be, given the confines of the premise, realistic. I'm not talking about the existence of zombies; I'm talking about, GIVEN the existence of zombies, what follows should make sense.

Point number one, something many "zombie genre" productions (in any format) fail at, is whether or not the explanation of the apocalypse actually makes sense. The "can't fail" approach is to give a supernatural explanation, but it's also a lazy way out of having to explain any kind of logic about what's happening. The more difficult way is a scientific explanation. George Romero actually wanted NO explanation for Night of the Living Dead, but the production company actually insisted and added some hoakey nonsense that then destroyed any reasonable rationale about the reanimated dead. The Walking Dead (TWD) chose to show us that the cause was indeed viral - a scientific explanation. That's great, in my opinion; 28 Days Later showed us it's possible to have a plausible story given a scientific explanation, although it wasn't technically reanimated corpses (it's still the genre, though).

But in TWD science completely fails after that; bodies need certain things to function; muscles need a constant supply of blood to carry energy and oxygen to them - they simply cannot work when the heart stops. This is why the lazy explanation of a supernatural occurrence ends up being more plausible (once you accept the premise).

But nit-picking aside, it should have been known that the root of the story is not zombies, but human interaction in the face of the apocalypse. How do we treat each other, how do we survive and overcome? The zombie apocalypse is the setting, not the story. Otherwise it's like saying 2001 is a move about space. So in this case, while "science based zombies" are a huge fail, it's not that difficult to get over and try to enjoy the rest of the story.

The first few seasons do an excellent job of this; we travel with our group from Atlanta to what seems like a reasonably safe farm, where fences are patrolled and protected, where we have food and water. From there we find a prison - what better fortress against the hoards of walkers? With a large fenced in yard to grow food, it seems like the ideal place to settle. Then we encounter "the Governor" from a nearby village that is trying to rebuild. Only problem is the leader is a psychopath. That's actually a reasonable story line - it just so happens many leaders are socio-boarderline-psychopaths, and the people are just wanted to get back to a happy life and following orders generally indiscriminately. Turns out most of them of good folk - which is reflection of the real world.

But from there the encounters just get more and more strange. Cannibals actually make for one of the best episodes of this show ever, in my opinion (S5E1), but Negan's community is not what I see happening with average, everyday people banding together. Then we encounter, essentially, the "garbage" people, and then the people wearing masks cut from dead people... again, crazy people and psychopaths exist, and some people are easily mislead, but a whole group of obstinate dead-skin wearers seems a little silly.

One of the worst parts of the show is the fake drama. The suddenly-surrounded-by-walkers moments that take even our veteran characters off guard; the loud gurgling walkers that suddenly sneak up behind our heroes without making a sound, as if the volume is turned off unless you can actually see them. The pop-up zombies that are strategically waiting behind trees in the forest for our protagonists to walk by before turning the volume level from 0 to 11 while springing out to grab our heroes unawares. The fake dramatic moments as a hoard of walkers is closing in and people absolutely must stop and stand in the way of danger to profess their love, or apologize for something, or whatever nonsense they use an excuse to NOT RUN (this is the kind of tripe you see in movies where the two lovers stand in a burning building collapsing around them to profess their love; or the bomb is ticking down and, instead of running, they simply must kiss). It all gets to be too much.

But perhaps the absolute worst part is the incredibly unbelievable character development. The more they focus on a single character, the more idiotic they seem to make them. I feel terrible for Lennie James - perhaps the best actor on the show, destroyed by having the worst, most useless character whose very philosophy makes no sense. He goes from being a crazy killer to being zen, and at every step of the way puts his friends in danger, often getting them killed. Lennie - best actor; Morgan - one of the worst main characters. Sorry, Lennie.

I could go on, but I realize this is already quite long for a review. Suffice it to say I'm a fan of the genre, I WANT to like this show a lot more than I do, I WANT to like it now like I liked it the first five or six seasons (despite the occasional tripe), but it's just gone too far off the rails, IMO.

100 Humans: Life's Questions. Answered. (2020)

Just want to thrown my $0.02 in there and agree with most of the reviews.

[2/10 · 4 June 2020]

I found the first episode or two pretty entertaining, even if I thought they were reaching some predetermined conclusions.

But the episode where they wanted to show racial bias by asking participants to play the part of a police officer in a shooting situation really bothered me. The non-criminal actors would step out from behind obstacles, and the "officer" needed to decide whether or not to shoot.

The problem is the white guy would step out from behind something, holding up his phone as if he were reading facebook, or perhaps recording video. The black guy would step out holding his phone at arms length - often with two hands, as if it were a gun and he was ready to shoot; he'd step out in a crouched position, and he'd swing his aim right at the "officer." It was completely ridiculous.

The confirmation bias was NOT in how the subjects acted, it was in what the producers were trying to lead you to conclude. When real bias actually exists in the world, playing games like this to force the result you wanted is appaling.

Reckoning (2019)

Disappointing for a "limited" series.

[5/10 · 1 June 2020]

It seems there will be a second season of this limited series, which is both good and bad. It's good because they did not close out ANY story arc in the entire 10 episode run of the first season. It's bad because the shows just not that great, not good enough to invest in multiple seasons, in my opinion.

The acting is satisfactory; Sam Trammel as the school guidance counselor is the standout, here, although even he had some pretty bad writing to deal with. I don't know what to think of Aden Young, as I haven't seem him before (or, if I did, it wasn't memorable). His performance in this show, however, is the one-dimensional tough-guy cop, with lines as corny as (after hearing thunder), said monotone and gravely, "there's a storm comin'." Ugg. I don't know if it's just terrible writing or direction he had to deal with, or if he's just a one dimensional actor.

The writing was pretty silly at points. Why would CHP (California Highway Patrol) investigate a "clean" police shooting of an armed and dangerous suspect? Yes, every shooting gets investigated, but why would highway patrol do it? There's a lot of crazy police procedure here, too, but I'm not going to go into nit-picky detail.

Other than that, believe it or not, there is an upside. It seemed obvious "who done it," but not really... I think they actually did a pretty decent job making us question who the real serial killer is. It was good enough to keep my attention for the full 10 episodes, but I expected it to be tied up at the end. I actually could live with the ending of the main story arc (it was a non-ending ending, like so many "thoughtful" movies have, but you could take it either way, and leaving it as such would be interesting), but they started a half dozen other story arcs that never got resolved - it seemed so completely pointless to include them until I read there is supposedly a second season. But are those non-main story arcs enough to carry another season? I don't know, but they weren't interesting enough to make me want to find out.

If you're stuck with nothing else to watch during the pandemic, and want something background-ish on in the background, you could do a lot worse.

The Rift: Dark Side of the Moon (2016)

The production quality ruins any chance of enjoying this film.

[1/10 · 13 July 2018]

I often rate films on IMDB, but rarely feel compelled to write a review to explain why I gave the rating I gave.

I'm not in the film industry, but I am in the television industry, and have a lot of friends and colleagues who work on film projects and, in fact, produce their own low budget efforts like this one, so I typically understand the problems of production work flow and how low budget movies can suffer from even simple things, like continuity and special effects problems, and I try to look for the good in direction and acting and, of course, the story as a foundation of the entire movie.

Had there been even a minor step up in audio production, I would have actually watched this movie to the end, but my constant volume adjustments just got too tedious to bear. That, among other things, made this movie essentially unwatchable.

The movie hilariously starts showing a flyover of Seattle (see below for why). The two main characters are part of a special U.S. government organization, both with personal problems that have kept them from working for some time, both being recalled for this "special" mission to retrieve what's left of a government satellite that may not have completely burned up on reentry into our atmosphere. Just coincidentally, and conveniently, one has a Serbian accent... doing "special ops" for the U.S. government, based in Seattle, apparently. They meet to discuss the mission and Agent Smith (yes, really) says "let's take a drive."

No, really. Supposedly in Seattle, they immediately jump to a car driving down the road in Serbia. No stock shots of planes, or walking out of an airport, they are just magically driving down the road there. While these b-roll driving sequences aren't very long, they certainly feel that way as the background music is turned up to intolerable levels, forcing me to turn down the volume (maybe if it was better music I could have left it turned up). Every time there is a pause in dialog, where we see the car driving down the highway, or the characters walking through a field, the music destroys any sense of mood you might have otherwise had.

At one point, where I have the dialog at acceptable volume levels, the two main characters - I kid you not - turn and walk away from the camera, and their dialog becomes impossible to hear without cranking up the volume again. Really? No boom mic operator back there? No dubbing (the characters weren't even facing the camera, it wouldn't have been hard)? It was at this point that my wife and I just decided to watch something else.

At least with movies like these I'd like be able to say "sorry, but an A for effort!" But no... I can't even do that this time.

The Hunger Games (2012)

Seen without preconceptions, without reading the book - it was good.

[8/10 · 25 March 2012]

I have not read the book; my kids have them and I plan on reading after I finish what I'm reading now, so this perspective is from someone with little knowledge about what was supposed to happen.

It was intense. My emotional level was kept high nearly the entire movie, it didn't seem to let up. In many ways, this is less an action/sci-fi movie than it is a compelling tragedy, and I cannot wait to get reading the books because I simply do not want to wait until the next movie to see what happens.

We all know the premise - it's written in the IMDb summary; Katniss Primrose volunteers to take her younger sister's place after the younger sister is selected in a lottery to join the Hunger Games.

Each district must supply a boy and a girl, aged 12 to 16, to compete, chosen by lottery in a spectacle aptly called "the reaping." Out of the 24, there is only one winner and death for the others. The districts are essentially all impoverished, with hunger being rampant; each district supplies the "capitol" with it's resources, but they are all kept on the verge of starvation. The "winning" district is supplied more food, thus "the Hunger Games."

Like the spectacle of gladiators, the Hunger Games are the opiate of the masses in this dystopian future; more heinous considering kids as young as 12 are compelled to compete. The "tributes," as they are called, are dressed up, paraded around the city, and interviewed one by one on what we would call TV in a macabre display as odds are calculated for each one for betting. Here we get to meet the tributes, learn which ones we like, which ones we don't, all the while knowing only one can live.

The movie predictably moves on to the "games" themselves; very compelling and, after accepting the premise, very real. This movie doesn't do what the "masses" want it to do. I was on the verge of tears nearly the whole movie, and they weren't tears of joy. As a parent it may have affected me more than others. Still, by the end of the movie I was left wanting more, and so definitely am looking forward to the next installments, as well as reading them myself.

The Tale of Despereaux (2008)

Like others, not what I expected, but not that bad, either.

[7/10 · 25 December 2008]

Based on the commercials, I was expecting a whimsical story about a non-conformist mouse, but the story went much deeper than that. The story was called "Despereaux," which is the name of the mouse... however, the story, strictly speaking, didn't actually revolve solely around the mouse. It was more of an "ensemble" animated movie.

While it had a few funny moments, for the most part it was much more of a serious story for kids, and then you get beat over the head with the "lesson" at the end.

Still, my two kids (7 and 9) both enjoyed it, although it obviously wasn't their favorite animated movie. My wife and I also enjoyed it. I was not disappointed that it wasn't what I expected; I don't see how you can mark a movie down just because it wasn't what *you* expected.

The animation was not terrible; I don't know what people expect these days. In fact, I was pleasantly surprised at the variety of styles that were used for different aspects of the movie; the animation they show when they visualize what a character is reading in a storybook, for example. The animation is not the greatest, but I don't think they were trying for "the greatest," they were trying for their own style, and their own style worked just fine. The humans in the film are not realistic, but they are not supposed to be (nor should they be... it's ANIMATED, after all, not live action).

I will agree with some reviewers about the voices; some of the characters were voiced quite well. Mathew Broderick as Despereaux, and Frank Langella as the Mayor were quite good. Most of the voicing was terrible, though, it just didn't seem to fit.

So, 7 out of 10 overall... this is not the Incredibles or Cars or Toy Story or Shrek, but there's a lot worse kids movies you could go to and the lesson is a pretty good one.

Tin Man (2007)

Disappointing.

[6/10 · 10 December 2007]

Start with a great concept; then let sci-fi channel mangle it step by step until you have Tin Man. Tin Man is not so much a modern remake of the Wizard of Oz as it is a sequel to a reinvented Oz. All the characters are there, in one way or another, even the flying monkeys.

The story revolves around "DG" who feels she doesn't belong in her mundane existence, feeling there's something more while having visions she can't explain. Her adventure begins when, like the Dorothy of the original Oz, she gets transported to the "O.Z." and begins the journey to discovering her past.

It goes downhill from there.

The concept is wonderful, but the next step is the writing, which seems to me to leave a lot to be desired; horrible lines, and junk thrown in seemingly just to be able to spend the entire special effects budget (they should have had fewer but better effects).

Speaking of special effects, Sci-Fi apparently spends more on it's wonderful bumps (those Sci-Fi ads they show during commercials) then they spent on this mini-series. Normally I don't rag on special effects unless they detract from the movie, but after spectacular running shows like Battlestar Galactica and the Stargate series, I'd expect a little bit more effort.

It's hard to figure out if the rest of the problem was acting or directing. It's hard to to act well when your lines are rubbish, and in this mystical land of the O.Z. you have people saying things like "I was numero one." Of course, the character was trying to act his name; in this case "Glitch," (ostensibly the Scarecrow) who has issues... but "numero?" So now there's Spanish in this parallel world, too? The American colloquialisms didn't end there, either, and I found them distracting.

Finally, the three part series could easily have been done in two, and this is coming from someone who normally wishes movies were longer and more detailed.

Zooey Deschanel is wasted in the title role of DG; her real talent is singing, something she's demonstrated in other roles. She's also quite attractive when she wants to be... but not in this role. I've heard some say she was more "real" because of it, but I doubt anyone as attractive would wear such unflattering clothes or wear their hair in such a hideous style in "real life."

Alan Cumming as Glitch (the modern version of the Scarecrow), probably did the best job with what he had to work with. Raoul Trujillo, as "Raw" (the cowardly lion) was adequate, but the role didn't seem to require much. Neal McDonough as "Cain" (the Tin Man), was a mixed blessing; I liked his "steely" look (no pun intended), but I'm not sure the part was played quite like it should have been... after all, the Tin Man had no heart, McDonough's Cain was nothing but heart, if you gave it any thought.

Kathleen Robertson as Azkadellia, the evil sorceress, probably had the worst of it, though; horrible lines and hideous costumes.

At the end, what I really felt was that it could have been better. The concept carried it, and there is an interesting twist that I caught onto in the second part that I felt added something to the story. It's definitely worth catching on TV; I wouldn't pay for it, though.

Tomb Raider: Legend (2006 Video Game)

Excellent

[8/10 · 7 May 2007]

The only thing this title is lacking is more, and longer, levels.

As with previous Tomb Raider games, the over-the-shoulder camera can get wonky in tight places, which makes some of the game very difficult to play.

The addition this round of a very Dragon's Lair-esqe cut-scenes with user intervention was interesting; during some cut scenes the appropriate button to push flashes and you have but a moment to press it or... well... there's an "extra" you can unlock with a compendium of all of the tragic ways Lara can bite it. Fun, fun, fun! I've been a Tomb Raider fan since I had the first one on my Sega Saturn. The graphics and the controls of Legend is by far the best. Still not perfect, though.

In short, wonky camera and sometimes annoying controls aside (I don't know how else they could do it, frankly), the game was too good to be so short.

(and here's the spoiler) Looks like a nice sequel might be coming down the pike, unless they leave this story unfinished. Seeing as how we're going to have at least one, if not two "anniversary" editions, I hope it's not too long before another original story comes out.

The Shield (2002–2008)

Excellent

[9/10 · 12 January 2006]

I started watching the Shield in reruns during the fall of 2005. After watching several other shows on the same channel, and seeing these very compelling, well produced commercials (yes, it happens), I decided to give it a shot... Tivo is great. I'd have about 4 or 5 episodes saved up and start watching them with my wife after we put the kids to bed. We'd stay up and watch every single one of them. We couldn't go to bed having seen one episode and knowing there's another one just waiting to be viewed.

Vic Mackey is the leader of "the Strike Team", a special group put together to combat gang violence. It's hard to describe him as either a good cop or a bad cop. Yes, he might steal from the criminals (an ambiguous crime at best) and go a little overboard on his interrogations, but ultimately he obviously wants to do the right thing. In any episodes where kids are involved, his primary concern is them (both his own and others). He knows he can't eliminate the gang problem entirely, and so often bends the rules to help keep under control... he'd rather see gang members kill themselves than see innocent people getting hurt in the melee.

But he also has a problem in knowing when enough is enough. He doesn't own up to his own mistakes, and often involves those around him in conspiracy to cover up the mistakes of him or his men. Often this unintentionally hurts people. Sometimes it's not quite so unintentional.

It's a great show; a police department and a man and his followers filled with both internal and external conflicts, going too far, and digging themselves in deeper and deeper each episode.

As I write this, the series is reaching a boiling point; something big is going to happen. Get ready for some excellent drama.

Man with the Screaming Brain (2005)

My brain was screaming...

[2/10 · 3 October 2005]

My brain was screaming "why do you keep watching! Turn it off and go to bed!" But couch potatoness won out, and I watched until the predictable ending. I guess when it's Bruce Campbell I need to give it a chance.

I find it hard to complain about a low budget movie purely because of the low budget... time and time again we see low budget movies proving that a good story, good writing and good acting are enough to make a good movie. Ted and Bruce got their start on just such a movie, but they didn't seem to learn from Sam that it takes a bit more than slapping it on film to make a movie.

It's sad, too, because Bruce has always been a favorite. After the 70's and 80's, I just can't believe movies this bad are still being made. Bruce, I'm really disappointed.

The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker (2002 Video Game)

Fun, addicting game for me and my son.

[25 September 2005]

I'm writing this from the perspective that the reader already knows Link and Zelda and has possibly heard a lot of negative comments, mostly about the cel shaded graphics, which give Wind Waker a more cartoony appearance. Major features of the game include: cel shaded 3D graphics, over 50 locations with tasks to complete, only slightly structured, fairly free storyline and game play, fun for all ages (I'm 38, my son is 6), and linking to a Gameboy Advance without needing a separate cartridge.

Considering the first Zelda I played (A Link to the Past) was stylized 2-D animation, this transformation to 3-D seemed pretty natural to me. Despite what some people have complained about, Link's appearance wasn't distracting at all, nor were the cartoony graphics. As a matter of fact, as a computer animated anime story, it was done quite well. I'm looking forward to future "realistic" Zelda games, but have no problems whatsoever with the cel shading used in Wind Waker.

The story revolves around you (an apparent heir of Link's) trying, once again, to defeat Ganondorf, Link's archenemy from the past. It starts innocently enough on your home island from which your little sister is abducted by a giant bird. The world is made up of 49 island locations on a 7 by 7 grid. You link up with some pirates who take you to where your sister is being held. Instead of rescuing her, you ultimately discover Ganondorf's plot to take over the world.

You are given the Wind Waker, a wand that can conduct wind (among other things), that initially helps you sail a LOT faster to various locations on the map, but ultimately has many more uses. Learning one pattern helps you conduct a gale that can carry you to one of eight locations on the map quickly, without having to go through the often tedious sailing.

A series of adventures ensues where you find stronger and stronger weapons, interact with dozens of the denizens of the world, and slowly but surely uncover the plot and collect all the items necessary to defeat the big bad enemy in a final showdown at the end.

I specifically wrote the previous paragraph that way so that you can cut and paste in your review of just about every adventure game in existence. We all know what it's about long before picking up the box, it's just a question of "did they do the adventure right?" All in all, I had a great (if sometimes frustrating) time playing the game. The story is downright addicting. I have a small family of four, and whenever someone (either me or my son) was playing, anybody who happened by would usually sit and watch. It's one of those games where, after hours of playing, you would keep saying "I'll just finish -something- and then I'll stop for today." You'd tell yourself that maybe a dozen times before you finally were ready to quit for the day.

The drawbacks are numerous, often taking a little something away from the game play. Despite these shortcomings, the game comes way out ahead, having great, fun game play. But just so you won't think I didn't warn you, here are some of my pet peeves:

Sailing is fun . . . for a little while. There's way too much of it here.

The music is not bad, but the game takes so long to finish you can't help but start to get annoyed at it.

The game often pauses to display dialog or other information. When it's dialog, you can skip past it fairly quickly by tapping the button. When it's instructions, it does not let you skip. This is annoying, because by the fortieth time I've found a "Joy Pendant", I already know what it's for. This happens on far too many objects.

When conducting with the Wind Waker, the animations are tedious after a while, with no way to skip past them.

The default 3D camera position is almost always WRONG, and the controllable camera is not versatile enough. Too many places require you to go to a first person mode in order to look around. This is especially bad in a number of fights, especially bosses.

And one final comment, without any spoilers, is during the final battle Zelda often talks to you. Now, note the last "peeve" I wrote above... after someone talks to you, the camera goes back to the default position... so if you're pushing one way to run, then the camera changes, the way you are pushing is usually not the way you want to go. Very frustrating.

Some of these "peeves" are things where it was just painfully obvious the creators of the game were trying to stretch out game play. Pretty annoying. As I said though, it's all about game play and this game was FUN, it was very hard to put down. I'd give it an easy 8 out of 10, maybe even a 9.

IMDb side note: IMDb keeps saying "cel" is not spelled correctly. It is, in fact, the way you spell the word when you are talking about animation.

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003)

I'd be insulted...

[3/10 · 20 January 2004]

I'd be insulted I wasn't supposed to suspend belief in movies like this.

The movie starts off in 1899 with six "classic" literary characters joining forces to save the world from the arms race about to be created by the evil "Phantom". To tell much more of the plot would be spoiling it for those who haven't seen it.

We start with Sean Connery as Allan Quartermain. This is a believable character, IMO, as Connery does an aging adventurer quite well. Then we have Mina Harker who, in this version of her character, is still a vampire. We also have Captain Nemo, who must be a multi-billionaire genius - he's got a submarine with insides that look like the Taj Mahal, and *guided* missiles... all in 1899.

We also have the invisible man, Tom Sawyer, Dorian Gray, and Dr. Jekyll (and his famous counterpart, Mr. Hyde).

But wait, that's seven! Tom Sawyer wasn't supposed to be there, he just snuck in somehow.

Most great adventure movies, and even B-horror movies that involve historical times at least try to be plausible by fitting in with events that were happening, and not trying to change history. Indiana Jones is a superb example of how you can include Nazis, even kill Nazis, even meet Hitler, all without changing history.

If we believe this movie, half of Venice was blown up and collapsed... caused by a domino effect of destroying one building and having the others follow that is somehow stopped by blowing up one of the buildings before the domino effect reaches it. If that sounds plausible to you, you might like this movie.

Speaking about plausibility, how about a submarine 10 stories tall that pops up off a short pier in England. I'm sure that small wooden pier had footings 150 feet down, right? Now take that same gigantic submarine and cruise through the canals in Venice. Right.

I like the idea of joining the literary characters together, but in order to do it they just butchered the finer points of each one. Mina still a vampire? Dorian Gray and Mina with an implied history? It just doesn't wash. I kept pointing out how implausible and ridiculous things were, to the annoyance of my wife who, by the end of the movie, was pointing out stupid things too.

In the end, the movie had two positive things I could say about it: it was a free rental (one of Blockbuster's "guaranteed in stock" deals), and it was better than the Hulk (we didn't see Gigli, but I'm guessing it's better than Gigli, too).

Hulk (2003)

Good cure for insomnia

[1/10 · 20 January 2004]

OK, so I didn't see this on the big screen. My wife and I rented it.

First night: started to fall asleep almost immediately. It wasn't that late, but we may admittedly have been tired. Still, we've seen a lot of movies in that state, and as long as they are interesting, we somehow manage to stay awake.

I decided to trudge through it until the first transformation, at which point I figured I'd be able to stay awake. No such luck... I was falling asleep DURING the transformation. We gave up, and decided to get a good nights sleep and pick up from where we left off the next day.

Second night: same thing. Started with the transformation, during which were parts we didn't remember - because we must have been dozing. So we watched that whole scene again. Didn't help.

Long story short, we fast forwarded through a lot of the rest of the movie just to be done with it. One of the most boring, worst movies I've ever seen.