Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
Game of Thrones (2011)
Yes, folks, it's falling apart. Season 5-7.
Season 1 to 4 = 10/10.
TVW = TV writers.
Since the TV show left the books behind (around S5 on), the show's writing has gotten worse and worse. I think the first poor episode is probably the one where Arya is being pursued by the T- 1000. It is utterly absurd. But this season (s7) has been by far the worst.
Aside from the odd decent moment, and the awesome spectacle of the dragons, it has been average at best. Melodrama has replaced a proper narrative. Contrivances have replaced logic. Let me give you some examples:
1. Daenerys has spent her entire time planning to invade Westeros. And when it was finally time to do so, the dumb TVW threw a spoke in the wheel. Out of nowhere, she suddenly can't hurt any bystanders, so holds off the attack on King's Landing (Yeah, 'cause she hasn't had to hurt any innocent people in order to get to the position she is in now, has she!?) This silly little contrivance is designed to prolong Cersei on the throne (itself a really dumb idea) as long as possible in the most artificial way possible. The TVW are completely shitting on logic in order to force this demented Mexican standoff. The latest episode goes even further... A proposed alliance between Cersei and Daenerys and Jon - to defeat the Army of the Dead. Jon and co have to prove to Cersei that the army is real by capturing one of the living dead. Just think about how DUMB that sounds. As if Tyrion, or Daenerys, would be entertaining anything of the sort, especially at this moment in time. Tyrion would never even advise it, because he isn't stupid enough to trust his sister for ANY REASON.
2. The long awaited reunion of characters was handled in a really clumsy way. It was dreadful. Where was the real emotion with Sansa- Arya or Bran-Sansa? It was non existent. It was like these people were just ordinary buddies who chanced upon a meeting. I was really looking forward to seeing the reunions, because we have been waiting since SEASON 1 for it. What a complete let down that was.
3. Characters are everywhere, at any time; it's almost as if they've been chatting with Seth Brundle. Daenerys hears that the Lannisters have taken Highgarden - and the next minute, her army is right there with Jaime in the thick of it. The continuity has gone out of the window. Whatever the writers want to happen happens. Magic wand, LAZY writing.
4. Melodrama / soap opera nonsense. In the last episode (S7E4), I had to suffer watching jaime being saved by Bron in the most ridiculous way there is. The cliché and brainless 'last second save'. And then, as I fully expected, we open episode 5 to discover they haven't been captured and have miraculously managed to escape unscathed, floating in deep water while WEARING ARMOUR and A SWORD! Holy crap. That's what happens when you run out of actual genius (Martin's work) and have to work on your own crappy, limited brain (TVW).
5. Characters aren't behaving like they should be. I've already mentioned Daenerys in regards to this, but it extends across the board. Bran "OOooo I am suddenly not Bran anymore... but I can feel who he was" or some slop. He still hasn't explained ANYTHING to anyone, even though the world is about to do battle with a mortal threat that he understands better than any other person on the planet. Sansa's turned into some awful caricature, totally alien to who she is as a person. And don't give me the Ramsay bullshit, since that was a dumb TV move in the first place and never happens in the books. Cersei is somehow queen and ultimate ruler, and making logical tactical decisions. But, here's the thing, it's already been established long before now that she is a useless tactician, and a naive, childish brat, who has no leadership qualities. But that's all out now, because they need her to be a main antagonist on the show. Speaking of Cersei, her one remaining child died and her emotion to it was zero. That's after it being well established that her only reason for carrying on with life was her children. Oh, but let's just switch off our brains again. The TVW said it's all OK! Whoopi-doo.
6. Contrivances. For example, Jorah Mormont needs a cure. Suddenly, he's managed to trek to some sort of hostel hundreds and hundreds of miles away, seemingly to just die - where he meets up with Sam - who not only finds a cure in a random book, but manages to pull off the delicate procedure, explained within, at the first time of asking. Then Jorah is back with Daenerys super-quick time. It's just so damn lazy and transparent.
7. Dialogue. This has taken a big hit as well. It's always been the case that the writers think swearing is uber-cool and shoehorned it into as many places as possible - but now they are out of Martin's material, a lot of the meat is gone. Tyrion stands out the most. The TVW are in over their heads. They are out of their depth.
Does anyone think Martin will be remotely THIS incompetent? The TVW have always made a mess when changing things (very often for no sane reason) from the books. For example, army numbers and population numbers being exaggerated to absurd levels; ridiculous and unrealistic events, like Sansa marrying Ramsay; over the top swearing, sex, nudity - for no other reason than to appeal to the mindless, lowest common denominator. But this is worse.
It's still entertaining, but the quality slide after S1-4 is larger than people are admitting. Some cool scenes with dragons isn't making me blind and dumb to all these issues.
edit. At least E7S7 was decent.
Breaking the Waves (1996)
Roger Ebert Does It Again
When Roger arrives on the scene to praise a movie that's hardly known or recommended, you just know he's doing his usual and relentless routine of The Emperor's New Clothes. Seriously, the man is a total fool. He even looks like one. It's nothing to do with rating a movie fairly or intelligently, and everything to do with him trying to convince people that he is an intellectual/movie expert, which he is not. He's just a rather silly man who should have become a wine taster—another phony-baloney load of pretentious crap.
This film is ridiculous. Like most bad movies, the two most serious flaws are the pacing and the plot. Both are awful here. Some mentally ill woman (who talks to God, and then replies to herself, of course) is made even more mentally unstable when her crippled husband decides he wants her to romp with every man she can, so he can get off on the details. And she does. It sounds like some sort of bad porn movie, doesn't it? But, apparently, that's not what the writers were going for.
There isn't any believability to it, either. She just does it—no questions asked. No-one does a thing about it, despite the fact the whole village knows she needs help. The churchgoers throw her out. But the worst part of all this is that I've just summed up the entire movie for you. That's what they shove down your throat for two and a half hours. But I suppose it's better than what she was having shoved down her throat for much longer. The ending is the icing on the cake, which seems to be the pattern with the worst culprits. I.e., Vertigo, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Fight Club.
Nothing turns Roger Ebert on more than a film about nothing. Believe that, because it's true.
There really isn't anything about this film that makes one want to watch it a second time, unless you get off on it, like the woman's husband. It's just a plodding monstrosity of a film, and the good acting cannot save it. I am so tired of movies as bad and pretentious as this one getting high ratings simply because of liars, half-wits, and con men.
The Outer Limits: Family Values (2001)
The Outer Limits underwent a slide in quality after Season 5 (Season 6 was terrible and Season 7 was hit and miss). Likely the main writing staff of the seasons prior to Season 6 moved on, and this is the result.
When you have a premise this daft (come on, which guy would buy a robot to take his place around the home? And which wife would allow it haha?), nothing too good can come from it. It's just all-round silly. It at least remains slightly entertaining, but it's not well written, edgy, or anything we came to expect from the earlier episodes.
At least the next episode is good.
Man of Steel (2013)
Tried To Give It A Chance
And it's been turned off after 10 minutes. Feel so sorry for any intelligent person that went to watch this expecting a good film - although I guess most intelligent people, like me, didn't fall for it in the first place. I don't really think any of the Superman films have been good, but this one is just along the same-old lines we've seen recently a thousand times. It's all about action and explosions, and nothing to do with plot or character development.
At least I laughed at Superman IV. This is trying to look serious. That's the real joke haha. When people stop going to the cinema falling for this tripe, the movie makers will start to put effort into a film, instead of laughing at the sheep. Baaaaaa!
The Big Bang Theory (2007)
Another Heads and Tails
It's The Simpsons Syndrome all over again: a show that was great in the earlier seasons (in this case, primarily Season 1-3, which I rate as among the greatest put to television), entered a steady decline, and then jumped the shark. It's no great mystery; money has once again corrupted something good.
Like with the Simpsons, the show started off with a very solid base and great writing. It had to be well written in order for it to succeed. But as soon as it became a hit, the problems started. The first thing that happened was multiple guest appearances, largely for no practical or logical in-show reason (The Simpsons ring a bell?), which was then followed by changes in the writing to reach out to as many people as possible—demographics. You see, as soon as a show, or computer game franchise, or ANYTHING becomes famous enough, it can start branching out to more people in pursuit of more money. To do this, things have to change and, usually, these changes are for the worse. Greed gets in the way nearly every time.
In the case of TBBT, the changes were mainly designed to attract more female viewers.
The show's primary audience was originally sci-fi fans and technically minded people interested in science. News flash: that generally is not women. The show was funny because it had interactions between three desperate geeks, a genius with serious social problems, and their total opposite— a gorgeous female neighbour named Penny, who works at the Cheesecake Factory. A lot of people, male and female, enjoyed this dynamic, and there was a cleverness to the writing throughout. People more 'nerd' (a stupid word that insinuates being intelligent is a bad thing) oriented could understand the clever science references, as well.
That's all gone now. Beginning mainly Season 4 (although there were some silly individual moments beforehand), the show swamped the audience with brain-dead relationship story-lines, which a lot of women, sadly, find appealing. Also, dumb and relentless sexual references became the norm (in one scene, I kid you not, a main character goes to the bathroom to 'use her toothbrush'). 'Friends'-type crap is not what made TBBT great, but the writers don't care anymore. They want more money (and that includes the greedy cast. Look it up!). Sadly, like with The Simpsons, the show had no ending in mind when it started. There was no plan. Instead of a show that lasts a few seasons and has a respectable ending, we've got The Simpsons again—a show that just keeps on going, with no goal in sight, and with increasingly inferior writing to boot. I gave up with TBBT at the start of Season 9. Up until then, it was at least watchable. Now it's crossed over into insulting. The characters aren't even behaving remotely like they were in the first seasons, and the writers are waving a magic wand whenever they feel like it; for example, two of the main characters go from menial jobs to massive success in a very short period of time. But it doesn't matter, see. For every intelligent person that drops out, two status-quo loving, unimaginable dumb-asses have already taken their place.
This pattern happens an awful lot; there is nothing you can do except vote with your feet and watch the earlier seasons instead. It's sad that the characters were not done justice, all through the want of money instead of art. The show has become lazy, thick, and, even worse, predictable. It's over.
Terminator Genisys (2015)
Please - MAKE IT STOP! IT Burrrrrrrrrrns!
I saw the trailer. I needed no more. This film should be the test given to decide if you are eligible to vote. If you like the film, you should be banned from voting and sent for re-education. Is there anything Hollywood won't do these days in their insane lust for money? And, more importantly, is there any redemption for IMDb's rating system? I think not. Rating systems such as this one work on the basis that the reviewer is intelligent and/or logical. Well, forget it. If you liked this film, I beg of you, seek mental help. We can't go on tolerating this absolutely disgusting greed at the expense of art. Stop going to the cinema in the first place. Although this crap-heap still managed to find a way to annoy me, at least I didn't contribute to the wallets of the awful people who slapped the abomination together.
As an aside, I gave Terminator 1 and 2 a ten-on-ten rating. Very few films get that rating from me. Everything that came after them is a dismal, blatant, pathetic cash-in. Hollywood is just laughing at the sheep among us.
The Simpsons (1989)
Heads and Tails
This show requires two reviews. On one side (season 1-9), we have a show that ranges from good to brilliant and, on the other (season 10+), we have a show that ranges from mediocre to absolutely atrocious.
Most of what went wrong has been stated by pretty much everyone who once loved The Simpsons. Today, it is nothing like what it started out as. It's now just a big dumb cartoon for big dumb people. The soul has been ripped out and replaced by a putrid cesspool. The only drive there is at all now—be it for the writers or for the voice actors—is MONEY. The Simpsons has a multitude of writers (many of them now long gone), so it's little wonder that it has such extremes in quality. Clearly, no-one in charge cares about the show anymore; if they did, it would have ended a long time ago. But let's not blame the cast and crew entirely, because DUMB people are still watching this drivel. Either that or stupidly 'loyal' fanboys being taken for a ride. Still, there is no doubt that, somewhere along the way, a decision was made to appeal to the lowest common denominator, thus targeting a wider demographic, instead of those with a higher intellect. It's tougher to write clever, heart-felt stories than to write childish, directionless crap. That's where we are today.
I differ with most people as to when the Simpsons started heading down hill. To me, it was season four. Season four is the first major departure from self contained, logically sound storytelling in favour of mindless slapstick (especially in regards to Homer's transformation from loving dad to crazy moron). Go and watch seasons one to three, and you'll notice that season four is where the main departure took place (although there are some warning signs of what is to come in seasons two and three, such as celebrity appearances and the odd episode with Homer acting like an idiot). I consider seasons one to three to have a 10/10 rating, and seasons four to nine to have an 8/10 rating. The difference to me is that in seasons one to three, the characters act and feel real. The situations are mostly realistic, people are behaving like people, and there is an emotional attachment to the characters. I still enjoy seasons four to nine but, in my opinion, they were heading in the wrong direction.
After season nine, the show deteriorates before collapsing entirely. Here are some of the reasons:
1. Stories are now predominantly based on slapstick. Suspension of disbelief is impossible to maintain.
2. There is no structure to the stories. Episodes have become a vehicle for cheap jokes and predictable set-pieces. The audience is bombarded with them. Stories are no longer about anything—there is no message.
3. Pathetic celebrity appearances that are nothing more than an annoying ego-boosting exercise for those involved. The fact this hasn't abated, despite how obviously BAD it is, tells me a great deal about the people who now run The Simpsons.
4. Characters behaving totally abnormally and increasingly ridiculous. This is most noticeable with Homer, but occurs across the board. For example, Lisa is now a mouthpiece for the Left, and Chief Wiggum is the most ridiculous cop on earth.
5. Humour is no longer clever or based around a story; it's all just lame and chaotic.
6. All flash and no substance. Even the perfect intro has been replaced with a bloated monstrosity that illustrates perfectly where the problems lie: Flash and no substance, quantity and not quality, clean and lifeless animation (also less unique frames).
7. No direction or goal. Most ideas have already been realized.
8. Stories are no longer character driven.
It's disheartening to know that when The Simpsons finally ends, it will bring with it a huge sigh of relief, rather than sadness. Who would have thought that would be the case in the early '90s?
Oh Dear - What a MESS!
This film is exceedingly annoying to watch - unless you happen to be one of the multitude of pretentious fools who think their intellect is better than everyone else's because they "get it". Well, I have news for those dumb-asses: There is nothing to get.
Vertigo is plodding, annoying, and the pacing is terrible. The characters do not act like real people; it's yet another film where this is the case. What makes it all the more infuriating is that there IS a clever story buried under all the sewage, clawing to get out. And it never does. Even at the end, there's a brief moment where things actually make sense - where there is some semblance of reality - only for it to be dashed by one of the most ludicrous finales I HAVE EVER SEEN. It's THAT BAD. That ending would be laughed out of the cinema today (and probably was back then), but because this film is considered a 'classic', it's applauded as some kind of masterpiece. It isn't. It's just an exceedingly daft finale to a grossly unrealistic film.
The only way I could possibly enjoy Vertigo is if I had very little logical thinking. Unfortunately for all the die-hard movie buffs masturbating in unison, I am not a conformist who feels a need to nod their head in agreement, just because society says I am in the presence of brilliance. I was not in the presence of brilliance, just stupidity. The emperor has no clothes.
My rating: 1/5.
North by Northwest (1959)
Failed My 30 Minute Test
This film is the latest to fail my 30 minute test. I give every film 30 minutes and, in that time, if the film has promise, I watch the remainder. The only films that fail the test are those that are very poor, for one reason or another.
In the case of North by Northwest, the issue is blatantly clear: The script is ridiculously contrived, and the story is totally unbelievable. I cannot watch a serious film when it disregards reality in such a casual, off-hand manner. The premise of a man on the run because of mistaken identity is not too shabby, but there are so many insulting things the writer does to force the story. I'll give you one example, of many, in the first 30 minutes:
Protagonist is abducted at gun point from a busy public building (already, that's absurd) by two men, who then take him elsewhere. He meets their boss, who tells him that he may as well drop the innocent act, and that his identity is known. After he unsuccessfully tries to convince the abductors that they have the wrong man, they force bourbon down his throat, and then attempt to crash him off a cliff, in an effort to make his death look like an accident. Even though the quantity of alcohol he has ingested would render him completely helpless, he somehow fights off one of the abductors and takes control of the car, managing to drive it for a long while before the police apprehend him. He is arrested and tells his story to the police and judge. So far, the writer wants us to believe that these professionals have:
1. Abducted someone in this ridiculous fashion 2. Made a massive mistake with one of their targets 3. Been too stupid to realize after the protestations that the protagonist is not the man they are looking for 4. Have chosen a ridiculous method to kill their target. Seriously, if they were as organized as we're led to believe, the protagonist would just disappear. No professional would drive someone off a cliff.
The level of realism is already rock bottom, and it only gets worse from this point on (sigh... for example, the protagonist decides to do his own investigation work, which involves entering the hotel room of the intended target, even though he has come close to being murdered. NO-ONE WOULD EVEN THINK ABOUT DOING THIS. HUMANS DON'T BEHAVE THIS WAY.
Everything that happens is totally unbelievable and against how real people think and operate. In order to make the film work, the writer has had to cheat by making everyone act like a moron. I absolutely guarantee you that if you take the initial incident and apply it to real life, it would end with the villains apologizing for mistaking you for someone else, your own death, or the villains being arrested. With a foundation that is SO rotten, nothing of worth can possibly grow.
I love some of Hitchcock's films (especially Dial M For Murder, and Frenzy), but this is just absolute nonsense.
Lasted 30 Minutes
It really deserved to last only 10 minutes, but I give every film at least 30 minutes now before switching it off (if it is poor). The acting, script, and story, in the 30 minutes I have just seen, were shambolic and a waste of my time. There is no way a film with that start can possibly get any better.
No-one in this film talks or behaves like a real person, and the direction is all over the place. It's just more moronic titillation for the mindless masses, and yet ANOTHER overrated film in IMDb's top 250. Seriously, some of the films in that list are there because of dumb people - and dumb people alone. These days, plot isn't necessary as long as you have cartoon characters shooting people left, right, and centre.
12 Angry Men (1957)
Good Movie Ruined By Left Wing Bias and Smugness
12 Angry Men is entertaining, mostly well acted, and worth a watch. It could have been far better but, from the outset, the film was designed only to take a pot-shot at the Right, and promote a Left Wing Progressive viewpoint as the absolute truth. This story is hardcore propaganda and, judging by its score on IMDb, has succeeded in fooling a great number of people. What is interesting to me is that the Left-wing's brainwashing started this early. Hollywood is still churning out the same bias today (go and read my Dark Knight review).
The movie has a very interesting premise: An open-and-shut case is called in to question when one man on the twelve-man jury slowly convinces the others that the eighteen year old on trial for the murder of his father may, in fact, be innocent. That's got some real potential, hasn't it? Sadly, the gone-in-the-head Leftist who wrote this did what I feared he would: loaded the dice and peddled a Leftist agenda - namely one that excuses criminals of their actions and seeks to end the death penalty. That's the film's overwhelming goal. It wants the audience to come away from the movie, not with a greater appreciation of the legal system, but with the view that the death penalty should be abolished and that anyone who objects to this is a deluded, little bigot. Let's look at the facts we are given:
-Spoilers from here on-
1. An 18 year old is on trial for the murder of his father. He has no alibi. The alibi he gave to police (that he was in a theatre the whole time) fell apart when he could not recall anything about the movies that were showing - even their names.
2. There are two main witnesses: One saw the defendant leaving the scene of the crime (and heard the event); the other saw the murder take place through a window and identified the defendant. The defendant was also heard shouting in anger 'I'm gonna kill you', the same day as the murder.
3. The knife (with a very rare design) used in the murder is the same knife that the defendant had bought earlier and was carrying around. His friends testified to this effect.
4. The defendant is an habitual criminal who has had numerous run-ins with the law, including two arrests for knife fighting. He is said to be 'real handy with a knife'.
5. The defendant has a clear motive: His father was repeatedly violent and abusive towards him, and had beaten him regularly (with fists) since he was five years of age, including the day of the murder.
I was intrigued. Why does this one juror believe the defendant may not be guilty? How could he convince the rest that there is reasonable doubt? Despite the fact I feared these questions would receive fob-offs, I was still hopeful an intelligent investigation would be crafted around them. But no. Straight away, the film deliberately loads the dice by having certain jurors holding prejudiced or otherwise undesirable traits, while the dissenting voice is calm, collected, and supremely open-minded. That's cliché, and a very common Leftist tactic (you'll see it a lot on shows like Star Trek).
The film takes each of the facts above and finds an absurd alternate explanation for them, such as the knife could have fallen out of the defendants pocket and the true murderer used an identical knife (this is the fantastic explanation given by our Leftist hero). The film has a moronic moment where the 'hero' pulls out a knife he has bought (illegally), which appears identical to the one in question. The idea being that it isn't so rare, after all.
Other silly moments include the jury discussing why the defendant would come home a few hours later if he had indeed done the crime. Not one of them mentions that the defendant lives there and would have to come back home in order to allay fears that he was the murderer. It's part of an alibi. What else is he going to do, disappear and hope that the police don't find that a tad suspicious? Nearly every explanation given in favour of the defendant is absurd or complete conjecture.
When you string all the known facts together, the chances of them all being explained away in a fashion that exonerates the defendant is literally millions to one. It's so implausible that no sane jury would acquit. But the writer wants this to happen, so it does (and 12-0 in favour, just in case you missed the point). I love it when writers do that. Don't you? At one point, the following dialogue takes place:
"No-one can know a thing like that; this isn't an exact science." "That's right, it isn't."
Okay, then, let's just forget putting people on trial because we can hardly ever be 100% sure that they did the crime in question, can we?
The number of victims created by having no deterrent, or by allowing dangerous criminals to go free, is FAR GREATER than the absolute minority case where an innocent person is found guilty. Some people cannot be reasoned with and are far too broken to be rehabilitated. They are like a dangerous dog. We don't try to change the nature of a dangerous dog because we know it's futile, and we know that by ignoring it, we are just risking more innocent lives. This really isn't rocket science, it's just that the Leftist types (who have a huge stranglehold on the media/TV) refuse to budge, and muddy the waters with their insane Progressive agenda.
People cheering this movie are cheering for a violent thug, who got away with first-degree murder. It's not hip, it's just dumb. Wake up.
My rating: 3/5
Fight Club (1999)
The Most Ridiculous and Overrated Movie in the History of Mankind
I have tried to keep the number of spoilers to a minimum, while making those that remain as vague as possible.
This movie has broken some long-standing records of mine. Let me list them:
1. The most irritating movie 2. The most ridiculous high-budget movie (beating Knowing) 3. The most overrated movie (beating Pulp Fiction - Gotta admit, I didn't think this record was going to be beaten for a while longer)
To describe this film as a train wreck would be the understatement of the century. There isn't a word or phrase in existence to sum up this colossal nightmare. The closest I can come to it is the word 'abomination'. But go ahead and knock yourself out with a thesaurus. It's definitely the worst high-budget or worst high-rated movie I have ever seen, and I don't think that's a record that will be beaten for a long, long time.
The person who wrote this had absolutely no idea how to create a believable or coherent story (or else was trolling). It literally cannot work in the real world in ANY WAY. Even if this were a comic book fiction, the plot would have more holes in it than Britney Spears' brain. But it's set in our world and with ordinary humans. Well, I say 'ordinary', but the humans in this film have seemingly had brain tissue removed so they can get from A to B without wondering what the hell is going on.
I could go through the movie and write a thesis on everything that is contrary to good storytelling, but I will instead highlight some things that spring to mind:
1. A man goes into his place of work and threatens to kill his boss and co-workers. His boss does nothing at all about it. Not to mention the man is coming into work all the time with a smashed-in face.
2. If the "Fight Club" were real, the people in it would be dead long before they could enact a master plan. No human could or would inflict this level of damage on such a frequent basis.
3. You cannot beat yourself up the way the main character in this film does. It's physically impossible - and probably mentally impossible, too. When Jim Carrey did this in Liar Liar, we all laughed because it's funny and worked in a comedy. How thick does a director have to be to think this can work in a serious setting? The laws of biology are also absent for the duration of this picture, because a silly thing like fact can interfere with a bad writer's screenplay. Some dumb individuals tried to create their own Fight Club after seeing this movie, but they quickly learned the difference between reality and bad fiction. Brain damage, pain, and serious injury exist in the real world, folks. Who'd have thunk it?
4. There is no way that one person (especially a nut job) could infiltrate so many organizations in such a coordinated fashion, or plant so many bombs without people finding out. The real world is a bit more complicated than the moron who wrote this obscenity. A Tom and Jerry cartoon has better logic than this film.
5. Man's apartment (part of a tower block) is blown to bits and the police find out dynamite was involved. Man is told not to go anywhere but is then allowed to jet about the country. He isn't even brought in for questioning. Are you realizing why this story is cuckoo, yet?
6. There is no possible way a psychopath could brainwash so many people and form a large-scale army, spread over such a wide area. But the plot needs it to happen - so it does. Oh, I love it when writers do that. Don't you?
7. The twist makes as much sense as the rest of the film. It's not just impossible, it's ludicrous. It's so bad that even a three year old would laugh at it.
Fight Club also joins Pulp Fiction and Goodfellas as films to be in the top 20 simply because of gratuitous violence and gore. At least Goodfellas is a decent film with some basis in reality.
The only reason this film has been rated so high is because the dumb masses will swallow anything with violence and a pseudo-intellectual script. People who gave this film 10/10 are either gormless fools or mindless barbarians. It's an absolute travesty for the human race that Fight Club is currently in the top 10, let alone top 250.
It's beyond all my powers of reasoning to comprehend how people can like something as lazily written and ridiculous as this festering disease of a film. It has absolutely zero credibility.
My rating 0/5: DO NOT WATCH. STEER WELL CLEAR. Even the name 'Fight Club' should tell you something about the intellect that created it - by the looks of it, another sneering champagne socialist.
The Dark Knight (2008)
Nauseating and Preaching
The biggest problem with this movie is that large parts are dedicated to a theme that has been done to death by the Left Wing Progressives of Hollywood. The absurd premise of this entire picture is that if you kill someone, no matter the justification, you yourself become the bad guy; it's cliché, it's worn out, and it's just not true. To someone who accepts this pseudo-philosophical garbage, the Dark Knight might have some sort of meaning, but to the rest of us, it's just a rather silly message that turns Batman into a gibbering do-gooder with both hands tied behind his back. I'd put my faith in David Cameron before the weak-ass Batman portrayed in this movie - and that's saying something.
In the real world, a mass murdering psychopath would be hunted down and shot without any remorse whatsoever. No-one would care. There is no grey area here. IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME IN REAL LIFE. IT IS LAWFULLY ACCEPTABLE, especially when the said murderer is in the MIDDLE OF A RAMPAGE. Instead, in Nolan's fantasy world, killing a despicable killer (even to save others) is a no-no. Batman would much rather keep his 'morality' intact by sparing the killer time and time again - even at the risk of his own life. There are numerous examples of Leftist propaganda in this film, and silly scenes that serve only to give the liberals a warm heart, like the serious criminal who decides to throw away the detonator in order to save innocent lives. GIVE ME A BREAK. I'm not buying that cliché drivel. It's time for Hollywood to enter the real world. This film is an apologist for criminality.
How on earth has this garbage managed to fool so many people?
Given that the main theme of the film is utterly flawed, you won't be surprised to learn that almost all of it is. Like all of the films in the Nolan trilogy, there are WAY too many inconsistencies, plot holes, and totally unbelievable situations. Batman Returns is largely more realistic than this film is, and it wasn't even trying to be realistic. THAT should give you a good idea of how bad this is. At least the fast-cut editing has been toned down a little from Batman Begins.
The biggest mistake this trilogy made was to meld the comic book craziness with real life logic in the hope of making a gritty, realistic Batman. News Flash: The comic Batman is totally and utterly unrealistic. You either create a decent comic film, or you take only elements that can generally work in the real world. This trilogy tried to create some kind of hybrid and, because of that, it falls flat on its face. But even the parts that should be believable regardless are done badly - like the police force. In order to make the joker a super-villain, Nolan made everyone else a super-moron. LAZY WRITING.
There's not enough space to expand on every point I've made, and the film throws another curve ball at you before the end: The main law maker himself has a 100% reversal into a super-villain, because the Joker killed his wife hahaha. As you can no doubt tell, the script is completely bonkers. If you are going for realism, then don't insult my intelligence with this crap, Nolan.
Imho, the Dark Knight is the strongest of the three films, but it's still a giant mess. My rating: 5/10.
The Mask of Zorro (1998)
Let's get this straight - Batman Begins currently sits at 8.4 on IMDb, but this is less than 7. What? No. These kind of inconsistencies are a reflection of how dumb the masses really are.
This film is infinitely better written and directed and acted than the Batman films. The script is clever and interesting, the humour is spot on (didn't even exist in Batman Begins), you can suspend disbelief to the action and really enjoy it (unlike most films these days with thousands of half-second edits and a melee of mess), there's a proper villain (actually two), and the story makes bloody sense.
The characters are all well developed and the pacing is perfect. You see, here's the thing, dumb masses: We need characters we can understand and care about in order to care about the film. If this film went the Batman way and just had fast scene after fast scene with a rushed narrative, no-one would care and it would just be another dumb action movie.
Clearly The Mask of Zorro loses out because it doesn't have the marketing muscle and brand name of "Batman".
My rating: 4/5
Batman Begins (2005)
Signs Of Mediocrity From The Beginning
Perhaps this deserves a 3. I am not willing to expend any more of my time on the film to decide. I think 4 is about right. The tell-tale sign of an inept director, and an inept script, are present from the get-go. Scenes exist that are only present in films trying to stave off boredom by presenting flashy visuals at break-neck speeds. All flash - no substance. When you see a simple scene cut up into tons of half-second segments, you KNOW there's a problem; the action scenes are absolutely pitiful due to this. The viewer has absolutely no idea what is going on. It's an editor's nightmare.
So, within two minutes, I knew I wasn't going to be giving this an eight (I already had a very good idea I wouldn't like this film, which is why it's taken me until now to watch it), but it became apparent shortly afterward that it wouldn't even be getting a six. It's just more of the same Hollywood tripe, aimed at the lowest common denominator. The plot is nonsensical, the script is absurd, and some of acting, especially by Bale, is utterly laughable. It's another of those mindless films where anything the writer wants to happen happens, regardless of internal logic; sometimes a fall will hurt, other times blasting a car through a brick wall will leave only a scratch. You get the gist. If you have a brain, save yourself a couple of hours and give this a miss.
It's a real shame that this kind of baseless, silly farce is the standard film makers and audiences are holding themselves to these days. Shove in a cartoon villain, some stupid effects, a dumb chase or two, and you're Batman. If you want to see a comic-hero type action movie done well, watch The Mask of Zorro - it's infinitely better written and directed than this one.
Despite that, I will give The Dark Knight a viewing, even though I know I am not going to be overly impressed. It can't be any worse than The Dark Knight Rises... can it?
Taxi Driver (1976)
Another Pseudointellectual Movie
This movie joins the likes of Dr. Strangelove, Citizen Kane, and 2001: A Space Odyssey . It's not clever at all and it's about nothing. Some mentally ill taxi driver boogies around at night - That's all. Most of the film is taken up by slow scenes, totally unrealistic dialogue and situations, and a totally unrealistic portrayal of New York, yet Taxi Driver is currently rated 8.4 on IMDb.
There are two reasons for this: One is that wannabe gangsters will vote any film like this high, and the other is that people like Roger Ebert are the perfect example of a modern day Emperor's New Clothes. If the plot and script are nonsensical, they'll hail it a masterpiece and tell you that you are just too stupid to see the genius involved (for the record, 2001: A Space Odyssey doesn't have ANY story at all, but is still called "deep"). Those of us with an ounce of sanity are not happy sitting through a film that's about nothing (with the exception of a few scenes with Jodie Foster, who plays an underage prostitute) and has a pace slower than a tortoise on whiskey.
The acting isn't bad, but the talent is wasted on a script as crap as this.
I'd only recommend watching this to tick the 'seen it' box.
Rated High Because It's A Gangster Movie
All you need to do is look at the top 100 films (and even top 10). Just look at how many are gangster movies or involve serious crime. The thing you have to understand is that these movies (nearly all of them, like Pulp Fiction) appeal to the masses and are alluring to the stupid (that includes scummy people, wannabe gangsters, and police haters). This is why they are always rated much higher than they should be, and why they are called masterpieces even though they include huge plot holes or have a ridiculous story. No genre on this planet gets a free pass like a gangster movie.
Well, no, not from me it won't.
This one is no different. 'Heat' is entertaining, but ridiculously flawed. The pacing is bad and it's overly long because of that. In one scene, an entire police squadron is wasted by a few criminals. It's so utterly laughable. Lazy storytelling and more moronic titillation for the mindless and easily pleased.
There really isn't anything here to get worked up about or find intellectually stimulating. It's just your run-of-the-mill action / shoot 'em up. Al Pacino can act, but we knew that already. If you want a quick bit of entertainment on a bored Sunday, this is the film for you. Otherwise, don't bother.
If you think I am joking, go and read some interviews with Dennis Wise, the creator of this nonsense. You'll discover that he believes 9/11 and JFK were inside jobs, and a number of other crazy conspiracy theories. Of course, that includes his belief that the Jews are to blame for most of the world's ills.
In short, he is yet another crazy anti-semite, neo-Nazi. The difference between him and most neo-Nazis is that he has managed to put the effort into splicing material with his own basic editing. Placing sad music over Hitler's face, and giving us a sob story, will not work, Dennis. Sorry.
It is true that Hitler was brave, intelligent, and a good speaker. But it is equally true that he was a hate-filled megalomaniac who led an evil war cult that resulted in the deaths of 50 million people (6 million or more of which were murdered in the chambers).
Still, at least he wasn't as bad as Merkel.
Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)
It's just more meaningless garbage dressed up with fireworks and graphics and sold to the mindless masses. And it worked.
If you are even thinking of going to watch Star Wars Episode VII, just remember that Abrams is in charge and he, and his cohorts, will make that a simplistic, illogical, fanboy driven (as in the "YAY! LIGHT SABERS!" brigade) mess.
I'd love to waste my time reviewing this title properly, but I'm going to skip. Sadly, it's everything we've come to expect from modern day films. Flash, no substance, and the selling point is endless CGI / battle.
Wake up, people.
Dilly Dally, Shilly Shally
I am being generous giving this abomination a 2. It's getting 2 because the characters were portrayed more or less like in the game (which was, for the most part, a well written fiction), and the graphics were nice.
Everything else about this film is wrong. Like with reviewing all terrible things, it's hard to know where to begin.
1. Localization is BAD. Let's start with my title: "Dilly Dally, Shilly Shally". This is a symptom of a terrible localization. You'd think that after the original game's problematic localization that at least THIS would be up to scratch... but no. I won't waste your time telling you what the Japanese was meant to convey—just Google it and find out. The nonsensical phrase above indicates the localization team was either on drugs or mentally deficient. The whole localization is poor. It's actually a slight improvement to watch this film in Japanese with English subs. I say 'slight' because that won't fix the crap script, plot, pacing, or anything else, sadly.
2. The plot makes absolutely no sense. Part of the reason is that Final Fantasy VII is a massive game with a huge story and, any sequel, even if well scripted, would likely need to be three hours long to tell a coherent tale. No effort was attempted. I watched the "Complete" version of this film and timed the amount of scenes dedicated to meaningless, out of control, and totally implausible battle sequences— it came to around 1/3 of the film. When you see things like this, you should instantly be aware that the writers are compensating for a lack-luster story. In this case, they are also appealing to FF7 fanboys, who will buy anything Final Fantasy as long as it has cool graphics. Square Enix has churned out a lot of Sequel-Prequel cash-ins since 1997. And fans just keep on biting.
3. The pacing is dire. The film is so busy trying to disguise its short-comings with battle sequences that it forgets to tell a story or have a proper narrative. No sooner are your characters in a setting where some meaningful dialogue can take place than something happens to thrust you into another coma inducing battle sequence.
4. The film is written like it is a game. Sigh... The genres are completely different, but some morons at Square Enix (including some of the original staff) thought that it would be a good idea to use game elements in a film. As a result, physics, gravity, logic, and reason are thrown out of the window. Characters are smashed into walls at 100 mph without a scratch... Look, I'm getting fed up with this review already. Just like the film, it's boring me. Needless to say, if you are intelligent enough to understand why believability matters to a fiction, you are too intelligent to watch this insulting film. In the game, battle elements are often treated as non-story elements because that's desirable—a player uses logic to decide how to interpret the battle in the wider scheme of things. The story in the game maintained the suspension of disbelief and didn't go too far, too often. This pile of rubbish doesn't care. Unfortunately, I have had the misfortune of debating this issue on a fan forum, and the overwhelming majority agreed that logic doesn't matter and that any and all things that happen in a story are acceptable. Little wonder, then, that these same people praise and defend this garbage.
5. Apart from Cloud (who is now an emo), the characters were well designed and acted like their game counterparts. Unfortunately, that's where the similarities end. The game versions had proper motivations and lengthy conversations. This film just wants to get you to the next battle sequence. It doesn't help that the fanboy servicing required numerous retcons (like dead characters returning - itself a sign of lazy, crap writing) to take place, and for every established former character to make an appearance, no matter the justification.
I am one of the biggest FF7 fans. I have recently finished a complete relocalization for the original game, found here: http://goo.gl/QBrX7B. But unlike some fans, I am not deluded by fanboyism. I know the short comings of the game and of this movie (if you can call it that). This film was made for the sole purpose of exploiting mindless fanboys - to make a quick buck. And on that front, it worked. If you aren't familiar with the game, I dread to think how much worse this film will be for you.
This film is an ABSOLUTE example of what NOT TO DO.
Battlestar Galactica (2004)
A Good Idea Turned Disaster
The first season was mostly solid, but the wobbly tower had already started being built. From the word go there were problems, inconsistencies, and things that did not make sense (for example, characters surviving a head-on blast from a nuclear weapon). That got me worried. I also didn't buy the premise that the Cylons could look and be indistinguishable from real humans- That really, really didn't work (with better writing, it may have).
But these problems could be ignored as they didn't, at that point, impact too greatly on the story. By the second season, warning bells had started ringing in my head. I could see that the writers had not planned the story from the beginning and were making a lot of stuff up on the fly (unlike Babylon 5, which still remains the greatest series put to television). I hoped BSG could be salvaged into something that was at least satisfying.
Even though it was clear to me by the end of season 2 that there were serious issues in the writing department, it was still entertaining- but worse was to come... By season 3 the game was up for Ron Moore and co. The writing had disintegrated and I just knew that they were now running on fumes. Nothing was making sense. Everything was being written with "DRAMA!" in mind, no matter how forced or phony. And, my god, worse was to follow.
I finally abandoned the show in the middle of Season 4. I could no longer stomach the insulting writing, inconsistencies and plot holes. I have never seen a show fall to pieces as badly as this one did (I haven't seen Lost, though). Not even DS9's final season is as bad as this. It absolutely disintegrated, and all because the writers had no plan for the show and no idea how to wrap up all the nonsense they had been churning.
Instead of developing the characters properly and making a clever, cohesive story, the writers resorted to this ridiculously childish "Who could be a Cylon?" thread. And who liked that? Only the most brain-dead of viewers. The writers had clearly just decided to appeal to fanboys and the easily titillated as a last resort to make a few more bucks. It wasn't as if this childish plot idea was executed well... it wasn't. Predictably, the useless writers decided to go for the totally obvious and totally ridiculous conclusion, namely that certain main characters were Cylons all along (urgh).
The tower went from wobbly to a pile of rubble. The only way you can possibly defend this show and the basic writing is if you have very low standards or simply do not have much intelligence. It's that simple.
And it's a crying shame because, like with a lot of stories-gone-bad, there is great potential here. I really liked some of the characters (NOT Starbuck, largely because of the irritating actress) and wanted to see them done justice. Gaius Baltar is still one of my favourite characters (although he was also ruined) but, in the end, not even characters like him are saving this ship.
Why Trek Writing Is Mediocre Part 2
Let's run through the nonsense that crops up in this episode to illustrate. I haven't done this before, so it should be fun. It will get to the point about how basic some of this writing is. Due to the laziness of Trek writing, there is quite a lot to talk about.
1. Ferengi society is absurd. For a space-faring race, they are grossly unrealistic. Rom still bleating about nakedness at a wedding is comedic only.
2. Garak has supposedly gone through 153 wedding dresses with Rom and Leeta. How does he know it's that many? And just how long have they been stood there? Five Hours? 3. Leeta, Rom, and Ziyal remember exactly which dress goes with which dress number. That means they know all 153 dresses that they discussed with Garak. They know it so fluently, as well. It comes as easy to them as 9 * 9 does to me. 81! There, I can do it too! Piece of cake.
4. Having this wedding comedy going on at the same time as doom and destruction beckon for the Federation sets a conflicting tone in the episode. Mixing those two story lines is naive writing.
5. "That's the fifth convoy heading for Cardassia in the last five weeks" And you have done nothing about it. Nothing at all. Talk about Adolf and the 1930s.
6. Jake is a reporter, and reports on his dad. Another shoehorned storyline to give a useless character a reason to remain on the show. The whole thing is stupid anyway. Nothing has led up to this apart from some minor words and HEY PRESTO- Heeeeere's Jakey! We haven't seen any proper reporters in Trek. It hasn't been touched upon, because Gene and co eradicated this sort of thing- just like Rock music v Classical. This also brings up the whole problem with how careers would work in a moneyless society. But hell, there is enough crap here to deal with already.
7. Is Sisko a genetic superhuman too? He can tell you what the 190th Ferengi Rule of Acquisition is on a whim.
8. Nog is another worthless character who was given a new job to keep him on the show. Suddenly this brainless half-wit is good enough to join Starfleet. Again, it's another example of Star Trek's HEY PRESTO writing.
9. Mining the entrance to the wormhole. Not a bad idea (maybe you should have started that five weeks ago?), but who have you got coming up with the method? It's Rom- another well established brain-dead character who then suddenly joined Starfleet. On one hand, acts like an idiot and, on the other, comes up with, and implements, a system of self replicating mines. And that brings up a further logical problem: This idea would have been devised a LONG time ago by somebody else. It's as if the writers thought "Wow, good idea. How fun. Roll with it." 10. Look at how this script: Rom: "What if I can't make her happy!? What if this is the biggest mistake of my life!?" O'Brien: "ROM!" Rom: "...Self replication. That's the only answer." WHAT is going on there??????????? And it doesn't stop. Go back and watch.
I can do it, too: "Balloons!" "E=MC2!" 11. There is a gaping problem with the mine idea (well, several actually). Even nuclear weapons today would be able to wipe out thousands of them in one shot. And Trek weapons must be better than that, right? But again, the writers don't care, so shut off your brain, people! 12. "You'll have to wait until the whole minefield is deployed before you can activate it." They can't work individually? That's just nonsense. The explanation Rom gives as to why this is doesn't make any sense either. He then goes on about Leeta's clothes. This entire scene is like he's having some sort of schizophrenic breakdown. The writers want him to be a genius and a dumb-ass at the same time. Comedy has a place, but not in serious exposition of this kind. And no-one acts remotely like this unless they have a medical condition.
13. DS9 would be long gone. It's right next to the wormhole and the Founders would have obliterated it. Especially given it has nothing substantial guarding it, except Starfleet's trusty "Shields down to 10%".
14. An ambassador to the mortal enemy of Starfleet comes to discuss the minefield. A bit like that Nazi ambassador who came to discuss allied tactics with Churchill during WWII....
Oh, and the ambassador knows about a minefield that hasn't even been deployed and to which there was no way an information leak could have occurred. The story doesn't even go into how he found out, because the writers didn't care about that. It's another HEY PRESTO moment.
This list does go to 26.... But no space here.
X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014)
Unless you are one of these people still dazzled by fight scenes and graphics, this film will be very average for you. 7/10 is about the most I would expect any sane person to bestow upon this (and IMDb has proved yet again that there are far more stupid people about than intelligent ones).
Firstly, when going into a film based on a comic book, you have to extend your suspension of disbelief. If I came into this review lambasting the far fetched powers, then that would be rather silly. Although X-Men is based in our world, being a comic book, it is afforded some leeway. Even so, I would just like to point out that much of what goes on in the X-Men is scientifically impossible, so I don't rate it as a sci-fi... more a sci-fantasy.
I won't go into a big review with this film, because I don't think it really deserves that much attention. Instead, I will summarize: The Good: 1. The film is mostly well paced (apart from that stupid video game sequence at the start).
2. The acting is good.
3. The visuals are good. One scene in particular, which is in slow motion (you will know what I mean when you see it), is pretty cool and well made.
4. The characters are likable.
The Bad: 1. The X-Men's abilities are far too powerful, especially Magneto's. Not only does it come across as laughable, some of the things they achieve, but more importantly, it breaks the tension. Instead of fearing the worst for our heroes and for their future, we are constantly allowing for an 'anything can happen' scenario. There is one part of the movie where Magneto lifts a giant structure (no spoilers) off the ground like it is a piece of play-doh. That's all well and good, but without a shred of believability (even for X-Men), and without seeing some sort of limit to these powers, there is no dramatic tension. The movie does at least place limits on some of the other characters... for a time.
2. The plot is very basic. When I found out this film had a time travel element, I was interested. Unfortunately, that potential is wasted here, so don't go into this movie expecting some really well written time travel stuff. The way in which the time travel works in this film is not original either (despite some claims), and has been done countless times before- for example in Babylon 5 (my favourite show, and infinitely better written than this). The general plot is way too simplistic. The pacing may be decent, but the story just plods along. No decent twists or parts where you have to engage your brain. It's just auto-pilot storytelling.
3. JFK was killed by Oswald. I am sick and tired of seeing conspiracy garbage portrayed as reality. If you are a logical person, and have done proper research, you will come to the sane conclusion that Oswald did it. The odds on it not being him are astronomical, based on the wealth of evidence that exists. The film does include a twist in this regard, but it's an absolutely absurd twist.
4. Evolution does not work like this film supposes. There are too many writers out there that have no idea how it works, or how science in general works. When dealing with a film like the X-Men, you'd think they would hire proper advisers.
Overall, I was disappointed with the film, but it was still worth the watch, and the day out to the cinema. 6/10
Incredibly Childish Writing
This is one of the worst episodes of Deep Space 9. The writers portray the Cardassian courts as completely ridiculous. A true dictatorship show-trial is a clever and sophisticated affair- It's designed to fool people. The court portrayed here is a bumbling nonsense that makes the Cardassians look like weak fools (which they are not).
I have absolutely NO idea what kind of idiot it takes to write an episode as childish and badly written as this one. The whole thing makes no sense at all. And I can't be bothered elaborating on it, as it's already wasted enough of my time.
The writer of this episode clearly didn't do ANY research into real show-trails or the politics of real dictatorships.
I also note by the rating my review has so far received that the crazy Star Trek fanboys are on the case.
Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (1993)
Star Trek is Mediocre
Star Trek was created by a socialist, who actively used it as a mouth-piece for his own liberal political views. Nothing has changed since.
Deep Space 9 didn't stand a chance of being anywhere near as good as Babylon 5 (which it plagiarized, in part). Here's why:
1. In Star Trek, humans are near perfect. There are no drug addicts, internal wars, or internal struggles. No one causes crime. There is no currency. We are led to believe that humans have evolved into completely different beings in around 300 years- that people work when they don't have to. Yeah.. right. The show is limited by its deluded and backward liberal philosophy.
2. There is no tension in Star Trek. You just know they are going to come up with an absurd explanation for everything. No matter what happens, treknobabble by the good doctor, or engineer, will solve every issue. The writers don't care that they are writing unrealistic GARBAGE, because the stupid fanboys will swallow anything. What show is interesting when you know anything can happen, at any time, and no matter the absurdity of the explanation? In Babylon 5, there is an episode where an ENTIRE RACE is wiped out by a virus. In DS9, the doctor comes up with some absolute rubbish in the last minute that saves everyone. The difference in realism between the two shows is perfectly illustrated in those episodes.
3. It's for children. It's not even remotely aimed at an adult mindset. The ridiculous left-wing nonsense blinds it from being able to accept that there is often more than one answer to a given problem. In Star Trek world, left-wing ideas are great and always work, and right-wing ideas are stupid and always fail. Trek writing is far too simplistic.
So with that said, let's get into specifics about why DS9 didn't work: a. Avery Brooks is a terrible actor. See, the reason he was cast is likely entirely due to the colour of his skin... Just like Mulgrew was cast due to her gender. In other words, the best people for the job or the story weren't chosen. It was just another trendy liberal political statement. Even then they could have at least found people who could play these parts properly... but they didn't. Avery is useless.
b. Kira and Nog are ridiculous and irritating. Watching a tiny woman beat up a big male Cardassian is absurd. Kira whines about the Cardassian occupation for 7 seasons. Also, Nana Visitor cannot act. Nog entering Starfleet is equally ridiculous, and Aron Eisenberg cannot act either. The show would have been better off without these two characters- and without Jake. Adding child characters for the sake of appealing to a younger audience is a kiss of death for a TV show.
c. DS9 made things up as it went along... unlike Babylon 5. For example, the doctor being genetically engineered, and Section 31, were made up on the fly to stoke up some mystery. But a good story doesn't do that on a whim, it is THOUGHT OUT in advance. Because the writers had no clue which direction the show was heading in, it disintegrated in the final season (to the extent of having a demonic possession of a main character by a fire alien, summoned from a magical book). I mean, really, people think this show is a serious science fiction? It's for toddlers.
d. The station is taken over by the Dominion, but the suspense is totally lost because the audience is already aware that an unrealistic and silly episode in the future will return the status quo. And it does.
e. Kira and the commander's son are allowed to stay on the station after the Dominion and Cardassians have taken over. How would this be allowed to happen? In real life, Sisko's son would be jailed, and probably used as blackmail. But in liberal la-la land, he is on the station, planning the overthrow of the Cardassians, while also pursuing a job as a reporter. Laughable. Also, Kira would likely have been executed, not given free rein to plot and plan.
Look, I could go on all day exposing plot holes, mistakes, and bad writing, but I think I've made my point.
Basically, if you think Trek is brilliantly written, you are not a very bright person. I like Trek as a bit of mild entertainment, but I cannot take it seriously because it is littered with plot problems, propaganda, and lazy writing.
One final note: I am sick and tired of people making excuses for bad writing- especially the ones that use cheap cop-out statements, such as 'It's fiction'. A fictional world still has rules, and in the case of Trek, it is supposedly set in OUR future. If you don't mind bad writing, that's great, but don't bother telling me to accept it.