Reviews

29 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Strike Back (2010–2020)
2/10
After watching Seal Team, this series is a chore
8 October 2022
We happened to watch the entirety of Seal Team and then went looking for similar series. On paper, at least, this one seemed like a good follow-up to Seal Team.

It wasn't.

The way the male lead characters are portrayed is so cliched, their behavior so obviously engineered to appeal to a certain dimwit audience rather than accurately portray men in those real-life roles, that it's impossible to watch without yelling at the screen in disbelief and frustration every few minutes. Even the other supporting actors are scripted so poorly as to make the entire production unbelievable... no, not unbelievably good, unbelievably bad.

It depresses and confuses me that any producer would think that the best way to create a series alleging to portray the work of special operatives is to NOT hire former specops consultants and otherwise make no effort at all to script accurate portrayals.
0 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
"Epic"? Really?
14 March 2022
This film's producer and publisher have the temerity and braggadocio to declare this an "epic" film.

It isn't.

Run. RUN the other way from The Green Knight. You will otherwise lose your head and sanity to it if you fail to flee.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Underappreciated and underrated
19 February 2022
The story this film tells is no less heroic and eventful than most other A-list sci-fi films you can name; it compares favorably with, say, Armageddon and Independence Day. The only thing that was missing here was a comparable budget and resources.

This film was produced on a relative shoestring budget, about 21 million dollars. That's peanuts compared to just the other two films I mentioned. If a comparable budget had been available to this film's production, allowing A-list actors and crew and top-notch digital effects, this film would have easily earned 4 out of 5 stars from nearly everyone who watched it, perhaps critics included.

In spite of that shoestring budget, perhaps because of it, it's nevertheless still a remarkable film. It's a keeper.
11 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Lotawana (2022)
2/10
Entirely mediocre until the horrid ending
14 February 2022
The two main characters - I hesitate to call them protagonists - are not entirely unlikable - until the end - but neither are they in any way remarkable, except perhaps in their complete lack of foresight. By the end of the film, however, they have evolved to be fully unlikable and quite the antagonists. The film wraps with an inexplicable extended sequence that was apparently intended to be allegorical but was instead just nonsensical. I've tried my best to give you a sense of the film without resorting to spoilers, but really the film was already spoiled by the screenplay and concept.
9 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Space: 1999 (1975–1977)
2/10
Not science fiction: fansci-fic
25 November 2021
Watching the first few episodes of this series as a much older adult, I am embarrassed that I was able to even tolerate watching the entire series as a teenager or young adult. At that time I had already been well immersed in the best that science fiction had to offer, having been reading science fiction novels from a fairly young age. I had also been brought up in a household and extended family with a father and relatives engaged in various scientific and STEM occupations; I knew what constituted "science" and what did not. I read very few fantasy novels.

This series has no underpinnings in science; none at all. It appropriates science and engineering terminology and then proceeds to pervert and butcher it relentlessly in a way that my older self cannot tolerate. The Anderson's prior series UFO (1970) was more grounded in science - barely - than this horrid production. Apparently someone found it convenient to production or storytelling to finally dispense with even the pretense of adherence to scientific principles and substitute pure fantasy in its guise.

If you're a fan of actual science fiction, steer a generously wide path around this series and everything that derived from it.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Season 1 ending is nonsense
28 August 2021
Warning: Spoilers
The premise of The Loop is, in essence, not accepting "that's just the way it is" and looking beyond what is to what might be. The final episode of the first season sees the writers forgetting this basic premise and throwing it out the window (or under the bus, pick your cliche). They scripted multiple characters just silently enduring various personal losses rather than saying "no!" and refusing to meekly accept what is and do something to bring about what might be. They did so because they wanted viewers to experience those losses, and in that Machiavellian twist threw the basic premise out the window when it inconveniently got in the way.

I despise writers who ignore the nature of their characters and creations whenever it suits their immediate short-term Machiavellian story goals. When I noted that Jodie Foster directed that particular episode, I thought that she should have known better and prevented the writers from trashing the basic premise for a few shed tears.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
War of the Worlds (2019– )
4/10
I despise how writers lead to inobvious conclusions
10 July 2021
Warning: Spoilers
This reimagining of Wells' novel involves a "time loop" of future humans suffering a cruel dystopian existence, who then travel back in time trying to prevent their fate by slaughtering most of humanity in our segment of the timeline. Supposedly, however, a single man is the nexus of their eventuality, but yet rather than simply assassinate him to alter their future they instead apparently intend to INHABIT their own past.

We come to learn in episode 7 of season 2 that not this single man but a single pair of other individuals - and their offspring - are in fact the genesis of all this misery. We learn of this as they themselves do. The woman, who is already pregnant, discusses this genesis of so much misery with the man and begins to wonder aloud what they can do to prevent it.

This is where the writers go off the logical rails, in a horror-movie bid to achieve a certain desired shocking conclusion in spite of it making no sense at all. When the woman asks what they can do to prevent the horrible outcome of their union, her answer to herself is, "you have to kill me."

Wait... WHAT?! Oh, HELL no! All that needs to happen is you simply don't have offspring together! And frankly, another much more reasonable solution is that the man, who is a sociopathic murderous narcissist, needs to be shoved out of an airlock (they're in a spaceship from the future). Killing the woman is the least plausible and unnecessary solution to the problem... but writers always get what they want even if it's stupid, don't they?
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Stowaway (I) (2021)
2/10
NOT science fiction: pure horror with all the necessary stupid scripting
25 June 2021
This movie cannot be accurately described as science fiction. Because of all the "stupid writer tricks" employed to facilitate the drama -and horror - the film can only be classified as a horror flick.

I DO NOT like being misled.

Early in the film, there is a scene where the characters are overhead mentioning "safety protocols", but then in the climactic portion of the film (I'm being deliberately vague here) the characters are seen ignoring the most obvious safety protocols, ignoring them repeatedly. Why? The film could not have reached the desired conclusion had the characters simply thought to "turn on the light switch in a pitch black room". It's proverbial horror-movie shtick, passed off as science fiction.

The writers should be ashamed of themselves. I am disgusted and angry at the waste of a good plot by contrived writing whose only goal was shock value.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Designated Survivor (2016–2019)
3/10
Wandered off the trail after season one
25 April 2021
The first season of Designated Survivor was moderately engrossing. By the entrance of the second season, however, the incompetence of the writers became more pronounced and obvious. They prove repeatedly incapable of creating a fictional personality for characters and then keeping them internally consistent. The characters in this show repeatedly behave "out of character" whenever that happens to suit the desired plot progression. Most ironic is an "independent" President who doesn't act the part, neither independent nor Presidential: He throws temper tantrums rather than measuring his words and controlling his emotions, and values Trump-like lock-step loyalty rather than well-intentioned dissent.

Rather than making their characters do the hard work to stay in character and still advance the plot as desired, they take shortcuts by treating the characters like Gumby.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
For All Mankind (2019– )
4/10
Quickly enough, it devolves into typical PvP
16 April 2021
In spite of a series name that promises otherwise - in hindsight clearly it's meant as sarcasm - this series has quickly enough devolved into the usual human-versus-human tribe-versus-tribe PvP, rather than the promised humans-versus-the-universe PvE. Apparently the writers are so lacking imagination that they can't conceive how to make the latter entertaining for more than one season (if that). It's saddening that the only thing considered entertaining is human-versus-human conflict and killing.
2 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Dune Drifter (2020)
2/10
If this is the best SF the Aussies can muster...
16 January 2021
-- The story *could* have been interesting, but it was ruined by execution. -- The CGI was truly terrible. -- The acting was not believable. -- Too many WTF! moments committed by the actors (and writer and director). -- Pacing was too plodding, little was abstracted.

This experience has left me much less inclined to invest hours in any future Australian productions, especially science fiction.
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Star Trek: Lower Decks (2020–2024)
2/10
Trite, mediocre, unhumorous, unethical trash
2 December 2020
Is this intended for a young audience specifically? I would much rather my children watch Discovery than this trite unethical unhumorous trash. The animation is thoroughly mediocre, the plot and dialogue is anything but nuanced, the alleged humor lacks anything that could be identified as such, and it's not even ethically canon: in the pilot episode one crew member describes another as "worthless", which flies in the face of Starfleet and Federation ethos and was met with approval by the captain and crew rather than punishment.

There is quite literally nothing redeeming about this program, for humans of any age. It's an embarrassment to the entire franchise and the effect that Gene Roddenberry (Sr.) hoped it would have on human culture.
5 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Titans (I) (2018–2023)
3/10
Lazy contrived storyboarding and writing ruins it.
17 November 2020
This series is an apt demonstration why DC Comics doesn't have the same market penetration as Marvel: they fail to put in the effort to make it superlative or at least believable. The writers are lazy and resort to tactics, to advance the plot in the fashion they desire, that are no better than those of horror movies - the equivalent of having characters fail to flip a light switch when entering a dark and foreboding room.

The result is a production that doesn't create immersion because the characters' irrational behavior continually reminds viewers that it's just a fictional show. It's sufficient entertainment for the beer-and-pretzels crowd who only require some fight scenes and pyrotechnics to provide a distraction, but the rest of the plot between those scenes was thrown under the bus and won't entertain anyone who expects more.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Archive (2020)
3/10
Utterly ruined by oppressive music track
19 October 2020
It was quite impossible to become fully immersed in the story being presented. The spoken dialogue was drowned-out by an oppressively loud music track that wasn't even good enough to warrant that degree of focus on it. There were quieter moments in the movie where the music track was absent, allowing one to begin to become immersed... and THEN the oppressive music would return, yanking one back to the realization that one is just watching a movie with terrible sound mixing.

Brian Gilligan should have been fired and the audio re-mixed before release.
7 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Lion King (2019)
2/10
What an awful moral to this story
17 October 2019
What an awful, horrid moral to keep repeating for every generation to ensure that nothing in human civilization ever evolves: tribalism and monarchical succession. This story and its moral needs to die.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Not quite deserving of just one star
8 September 2019
This movie is horrifically bad in multiple aspects, but no aspect worse than how it mercilessly mangles the story and lore for the selfish motivations of the people who produced it. Quality of effort matters naught to them if they walk away with fat wallets. Having said that, there have still been movies and TV episodes that made me more upset and yell louder at the screen than this media massacre, so for the sake of objectivity I am obligated to give it one more star. Emotionally I'm a distraught Eric Lehnsherr hellbent to wrap it up in chunks of a train and squeeze until it blinks out of existence.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Last Man (I) (2019)
2/10
This is the debut of the Asado Sci-Fi
29 January 2019
You've no doubt heard of the Spaghetti Western genre? I mark this movie as the debut of the Asado Sci-Fi genre. It's a supremely ignominious debut at that. There is no talent nor innovation on display here; like its Spaghetti forebears, it's laden with misappropriated tropes and stereotypes, acted out - very poorly - with no particular rhyme or reason. Keitel and Christensen will not be able to live this one down; they should have seen the apocalyptic train wreck coming when they first read the script.
13 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Ally's manager sticks in my craw
24 January 2019
Warning: Spoilers
My wife and I watched A Star is Born together. I didn't know what to expect, as I has never seen any of the earlier movies of the same name. It had us both in tears repeatedly... and then the final act rolled on stage.

The plot had well established Maine's destructive behaviors by that point, and how those behaviors had finally affected his wife and not just himself. We see him return from rehab, teetering on the cliff's edge of recovery, and then... Ally's manager corners him alone and - knowing his vulnerabilities - ruthlessly, selfishly, says things to him cruelly calculated to drive him away from her at the least and drive him to suicide at the worst. And he succeeds in his selfish plot to protect "his property" (Ally), because minutes later Maine is dead, having finally been given the emotional push to succeed where he had failed at thirteen.

The sociopathic behavior of Ally's manager should be remembered as the moral of the story.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Kaleidoscopic Stupidity
16 December 2018
What writer and director in 2017 would think it's a grand idea to resurrect the worst of so-called "science fiction" from the Seventies and Eighties, including the mind-numbing kaleidoscopic effects that were stand-ins for actual special effects?

There is no science on display here, though it is certainly fictional. Fiction without science is just fantasy. Exploitation of a few trendy buzzwords and concepts from STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) does not make it scientific. There is neither any deep thinking. The plot and concepts are incoherent, like the hallucinogenic "trip" of a career drug addict. The writer apparently had an extended trip himself and began to imagine himself as a philosophical genius who had wisdom to impart to the rest of us?

He isn't and he didn't.
91 out of 132 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Extinction (2018)
9/10
Inventive, provacative, surprising, and engaging
29 July 2018
The first half of the movie belies what is to come in the second half; the first half slowly and carefully airbrushes the backdrop upon which the "real" plot of the movie will take place in the second half. Without ruining the surprises, do not let your A.D.D. traits and impatience drive you to the error in judgement of quitting the film during the first half. You will regret it when you hear other people who did persevere sharing their awe about the film. There will be much to discuss afterward, not least of which is the moral of the story. Yes, it most certainly has one.

It's also quite fitting that such a film should be shot in Serbia.
4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Occupation (2018)
4/10
All about expressing Austrialian pride and self-reliance
28 July 2018
This movie is Australian propaganda, but mostly intended for self-consumption: an echo chamber. Even though we're told that the rest of the world is also affected by this alien invasion, it is entirely excluded from the movie, as if Australia *is* the world. This movie was an attempted counterpoint - albeit a poor one - to the innumerable alien invasion movies wherein heroic ***insert some other nationality here*** save the world.

The only value to watching this movie is a part of a larger study of how nationalism - as one form of tribalism - affects human behavior.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Lost in Space (2018–2021)
3/10
Not Lost in Space: Secrets in Space
19 April 2018
This series has no business being called Lost in Space. It has no resemblance whatsoever to the Irwin Allen production; even the most collapsed outline view of the storyline doesn't match up with the plot in Allen's original series. This is a blatant attempt to capitalize on the name to lure potential viewers, and in return Allen's estate gets a cut of the ill-gotten proceeds.

It's also a poor excuse for a science fiction series. It should more literally be titled "Dallas in Space" or "Secrets in Space". The entire storyline is predicated upon multiple characters keeping secrets and being dishonest with each other. The writers have created a "player versus player" story, where once again humans are their own and only enemy. It could have have been an interesting story about "player versus environment", had writers and producers and executives with any intelligence and depth been responsible... but none were.

Instead we get this depressing and mediocre story about humans in some distant place keeping secrets from and lying to each other, and generally threatening each other. Even the vague good guys in this situation lie and keep secrets, convincing themselves it's "for their own good". The only honest creature in the story isn't even human.

Humans are indeed their own worst enemies. We don't need to be reminded of it, we need an escape from it. This series is no escape. It wallows in the mud of humanity and drags us down along with it.
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Defiance (2013–2015)
2/10
Pedestrian garbage better suited to the CW Network
27 February 2018
I saw during the opening credits that Rockne S. O'Bannon was one of the writers; I thought perhaps that was a good omen. It wasn't. I lost patience twenty-five minutes into the first episode. That was enough to make it plainly obvious where the plot design and writing was headed: into thoroughly pedestrian territory. The writing stank of something created for a "young adult" demographic that was pitched to the CW Network and rejected. As if it's not bad enough that the aliens don't look like aliens so much as actors in facial prosthetics, the aliens don't even behave like aliens. The "back story" was poorly established, leaving me wondering if it had really been established at all. The background music in the episode was oppressively distracting, and again more representative of what might be found on the CW Network.

This is not science fiction. This is not Farscape II. This is bad melodrama with face prosthetics and lots of makeup.
1 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Beta Test (I) (2016)
4/10
Kevon Stover nails the coffin shut
21 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
For a movie with limited production resources but a rather unique plot device, this movie should have been better than it was. Poor cast selection, especially choosing Kevon Stover as "Zane", and some unrealistic conflict choreography shoved it still kicking into a coffin and nailed it shut. Stover's acting is worse than I've seen in some fan films that have even less budget and no cast with acting credits. Manu Bennett gave a decent performance within the constraints of the script. Linden Ashby had a more difficult role, scripted as he was to deliver buttoned-down megalomaniac monologues at some length, and then surprise us at the climax with a Samurai sword-fest.

The name I will remember and associate unfavorably with this film and with both wooden and overly dramatic acting in general, however, is Kevon Stover.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Transcendence (I) (2014)
5/10
Brazen manipulation of the worst humanity has to offer
8 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Just as the writers involved with various Star Trek projects did, the writers of this film set out to deliberately manipulate the reaction of the audience to something "beyond" themselves. The writers wanted us to fear the possibility of becoming anything more than the isolated entities our minds are doomed to now remain.

With Star Trek, the boogeyman was the Borg and the threat that humanity would cease to have "individuality"; in this film, it is the "transcendent" AI. At least in the instance of the Borg, we were shown that they used violence and force to achieve their loftier goal, just as Communism failed because it tried to use force to achieve something noble. In this movie, there was even less reason to fear the (r)evolution, since no one who becomes part of this collective does so against their free will. Quite to the contrary, it is the "freedom fighters" who resort to brutal violence to achieve their purpose. Only at the very end of the movie are we given even a hint that perhaps that fear was foolish and misplaced.

That hint at the end was not enough to make up for the brazen attempt to drag my wife and I down into the muck of our emotions and make us wallow in baseless fear for the second half of the movie. We weren't angry at or afraid of the transcendent AI; we are afraid of small-minded humans who lack capacity to realize that existing in utter isolation is NOT such a wonderful thing, and equally afraid of those, like the writers of this film, who would exploit the small-minded for their own benefit.

This film had potential to make people think. Instead the writers pandered to what they knew would resonate and sell, and in the process did their minute part to hold humanity back from its real-life transcendence.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed