fleggett Reviews

Haven (2010–2015)

People either love it or hate it.

[4/10 · 18 February 2024]

I'm only halfway into season 4, but I have to get a few things off my chest.

THE ACTING - inscrutable. Emily Rose as Audrey Parker plays the character as if it's a boring burden, as she perks-up when inhabiting anyone other than our put-upon FBI agent, proving that she CAN act when given the chance. Unfortunately, she's the federal fuzz throughout most of Haven's runtime, so it's scene upon scene of disinterest.

Lucas Bryant as Nathan Wuornos is, believe it or not, even worse, "projecting" the most wooden personality known to man and seeming to not care about anything. Now, I KNOW there's a narrative reason for this (no spoilers), but it's still straining to sit through. He's the equivalent of having to attend a much-too-long mandatory training program at work that'll be forgotten a nanosecond after it ends. As with Rose, Bryant CAN act when given a chance, but it's like pulling an entire row of teeth.

By far the most fun character is Eric Balfour's Duke Crocker, as he seems to be having a decent time and gets in many quips, some of which I'm sure were ad-libbed. He tries, and I mean TRIES, to play off of Rose and Bryant, but it's like egging a sloth to pick up the pace. I've liked Balfour ever since Skyline (an unjustly maligned movie) and he acts ever-widening circles around his co-stars.

The other actors and actresses featured in Haven are the usual TV mixed bag, ranging from fairly decent to eeeuhhh. Which brings me to...

THE DIALOGUE - turgid and repetitive. Seriously, this is some of the most rote and uninspired stuff I've ever heard. Characters are always repeating plot points like they've never been uttered before to the point that it could become a deadly drinking game. There is no flair, no insightful and hard-hitting parables about life and lemonade, and the majority of the writing is something a high school glee club wouldn't (or shouldn't) touch with a 10-mile electric cattle prod. Once in a blue moon someone will dare to let something grand, operatic, and introspective slip, but it's immediately followed by the same-o, same-o. It's like drinking a coke that you can still tell is a coke, but is disappointingly flat and lacks much syrup.

And then we get to our favorite, most precious plot contrivance of the entire show - the barn.

I recently watched the 12 Monkeys series and, at some point, a character called The Witness was introduced. After that, it was all over, with The Witness this and The Witness that. If you had taken a shot of watered-down piss beer every time the word "witness" was orated, the average person would've been dead 30 minutes in.

"The Barn" is 12 Monkeys' Witness, as it is repeated over and over and over and over again to the point that it becomes a despised plot device that you wish had never been thought-up. Do you think Spielberg ensured that the script for Close Encounters of the Third Kind constantly and incessantly referenced aliens or UFOs? No! He didn't because repetition like that would've robbed those words of their mystery and power. To keep dialogue fresh the words spoken have to also be (gasp!) fresh. When you indefatigably say "the barn" 50 times in the course of one forty minute episode, it becomes an insufferable annoyance and has obviously been scribbled there by the writers as junk filler (or a terrible prank). I swear, I do NOT want to see the baby that "The Barn" and "The Witness" would foist upon the TV world.

I guess we've now come to...

THE STORY & CONCEPTS - I can count on three fingers the number of Stephen King books I've read and The Colorado Kid ain't one of 'em. I mainly got into Haven thinking I could evade reading King's latest mega-tome by doing what I do best - watch a TV serial instead. Not that The Colorado Kid is a large novel, clocking in at only 184 pages, but my grey matter gets off on watching attractive people frequently say and do stupid things on the boob tube.

The "troubles" are Haven's raison dêtre, which we quickly find out is a politically correct word for people-killing curses (well, the "troubled" don't always engage in mystical homicide, but often enough for the map dot to sport a steadily rising bodycount). And I do admit that the writers sometimes come up with inventive and clever hexes to terrorize the townsfolk. However, they also come up with some absurd ones that firmly plants a fork in ones suspension of disbelief. For example, there is one episode that's straight out of Under the Dome fused with Attack of the 50 Foot Woman, with several scenes of a kaiju-sized Audrey blankly (of course) looking down at the viewer thru a badly-rendered snowglobe, the goofy execution of which has to be seen to be believed.

Speaking of the F/X, I know many reviewers have derided them, but they're about as good as one would expect for a "pragmatically" funded show such as this. Yeah, some sequences were done on the cheap, but others were decent enough, like the destruction of buildings or other structures. Like everyone else, I wish more money had been allocated for the special effects till, but it is what it is.

(That snowglobe episode was extra-special, though.)

What else to address... The show occasionally ropes-in some actual talent, like Stephen McHattie, Nicholas Campbell, and Nicole de Boer, but they smartly don't stay around too long. I couldn't help but chuckle whenever Adam Copeland's opening citation appeared, as it often read, "WWE Superstar Edge" (Copeland plays police chief Dwight who is often called Sasquatch by Duke). Mr. 90210 himself, Jason Priestley, slums around for a few episodes and actually emotes, which frequently took me off guard (hey, remember the show's overall acting prowess).

I keep hoping that Laura Vandervoot will respond to my ESP pleas for her to have my babies, but all I get in return is neural static. Claudia Black has an episode where she's anti-Claudia Black by being outfitted like a homeless person. Even the Maytag Man, Colin Ferguson, stops in for a few drinks. And the gorgeous, beautiful, and ravishing Kate Kelton slinks around like an exotic wildcat for a fair number of episodes, much to my delight (I have an intense thing for long raven-hairs).

And while I haven't seen him yet, William Shatner is destined to appear at some point. Shatner is my acting hero and a God to the profession, so if Haven does him dirty, I'll be back here with a MUCH amended review.

That's about all I got. Haven is a bog-standard show of its type that doesn't strive to win a single Emmy and would probably not even appear on a fan ballot. Its lore is horribly constructed and the town is infested with acting zombies that occasionally turn human when pushed. And while Balfour is a treat, not even he can get this patient out of its coma (though he is trying).

If you hate Haven, good on you. If you like Haven, also good on you (but I would encourage you to raise your standards). If the show has come and gone and you don't remember any of it, much like that dull workplace class, I suspect you're right in the middle of the bell curve.

"Talent is cheaper than table salt. What separates the talented individual from the successful one is a lot of hard work." - Stephen King.

"I am the literary equivalent of a Big Mac and fries." - also Stephen King.

Halloween Ends (2022)

Watch it only for Rohan Campbell.

[4/10 · 15 October 2022]

Both Carpenter and Curtis have, at various times, expressed their loathing for the Halloween franchise. That might sound insane since the 1978 original firmly placed both on the Hollywood map, but after watching Ends, I'm convinced the pair has let their hatred come full circle.

As for Green and McBride - who the hell knows. Were they ever Halloween devotees or just slick posers who somehow huckstered their way into the Blumhouse boardroom?

What's unfortunate among a sea of unfortunates is that Rohan Campbell is genuinely great as the doomed Corey. The circumstances surrounding his fall from grace are admittedly ridiculous and hamfisted, but once done, you know this kid is fodder for the abyss and Campbell really, REALLY sells it.

Another luckless aspect of the movie is that the writers actually had a terrifying premise, but threw it into the trash. While Myers subsisting in a drainage tunnel is a stretch, it could've been overlooked had said premise been fully realized.

And there it was, just waiting to be easily grasped as one would a juicy and ripe apple from the produce aisle. Yet, once again, these Hollywood types continue to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory because of...well, I don't have a clue.

What's even more baffling is that this premise began to take shape in the form of street billboards documenting missing Haddonfield residents. Oh, I'm sorry - ONE billboard. Why just the one? Hey, I'd pay good money for an equally good answer.

It was so obvious how the film should've played out to deliver true terror. Perhaps too obvious, but it certainly would've been better than what we got. In short, Corey should've led a parade of victims into Myers' drain domicile for grisly dispatch. And as Michael killed, he should've regained his supernatural strength and resolve, climaxing to becoming The Shape we all know and love. Such a mesmerizingly horrific montage could've been a celebration of the latest in gory practical effects, some of which being homages to past kills from all the Halloween films. This would've put the entire town on scared-to-death edge, as more and more billboards are erected, while the eyes of Haddonfield are leveled at Laurie as the catalyst for another series of murders courtesy of a likely source.

Once at 100%, Michael could've delivered his coup de grâce by luring both Laurie and Allyson back to the still-standing, but haunted house-like 707 Meridian Avenue on October 31st in preparation for their slaughter. Corey could've then had a glimmer of redemption by realizing his evildoings and fondness for Allyson, thereby teaming-up with the duo to defeat Michael in a bloody and action-filled sequence that left the door open for Michael's survival, a la Halloween 1978.

Oh, the possibilities. Instead, what we got was a 95% Lifetime movie about mentally damaged young adults, with the remaining 5% a lukewarm effort to instill some degree of fear into a hitherto listless audience.

I could go on, like the unengaging murder of the slimy doctor and his mistress, one of the victims of Kills having somehow miraculously survived (apparently, Michael has gotten sloppy), an all-steel radio transmitting tower on fire, the lack of any scope to the proceedings, and Lindsey (yes, she's in this movie) not even being present while Michael is turned into hamburger, but the film has so many odd and inane story choices that they almost disappear into the background.

Look, I understand the desire to be profound and to do something different with these characters, especially since this is the capstone of a (celebrated?) series based on a beloved spooky franchise, but this is Halloween, not Dostoevsky. It shouldn't be burdened with trying to say something complicated about the human condition. All it needed to do is be gripping and fun for two hours. That sort of narrative weight isn't there, nor is it expected, so why the writers and director thought they had to perform a pointless deadlift that ultimately yielded zero results is...well, I got nothing.

As with the Hellraiser reboot, Ends ends in deep disappointment. Both Curtis and Carpenter need to make the final break from what made them famous and put Halloween in the rear-view if this is all they can come up with. That said, I give it around five years before the studio can't help itself and commissions another bleached Shatner mask.

Boooooooo!

Hellraiser (2022)

A bit...confusing.

[5/10 · 8 October 2022]

I have never read The Hellbound Heart, so I'm not knowledgeable on the literary side of Hellraiser lore. However, I have seen all of the movies and this remake/reboot/whatever is, as the title indicates, confusing.

The main narrative thrust of Hellraiser is fairly simple - solve the box, claim your "prize". As eloquently observed in Hellbound, it's not hands that call the Cenobites, but desire. Yet, in this film, all there seems to be are hands that fondle a puzzle box with a mind of its own.

I'm generally not one to spoil things, but I think the writers either didn't understand the movies or they returned to Barker's written source material. If the former, that's unfortunate. If the latter, then I guess I'm just ill informed.

Revenge plots are familiar ground with the Hellraiser films, but, as we all regrettably know, they increasingly ran off the rails as the movies iterated. I'm a big fan of the first two (especially Hellbound), Hell on Earth was a misfire, and I genuinely thought Bloodline had ambition and merit. That's where my interest in the universe plummets, though, as the remaining outings are mediocre at best. As such, Hellraiser 2022's narrative, to me, is very, very strange and even a bit off-putting, as it all hinges on clueless people doing clueless things to our favorite box, not individuals seeking experiences from the furthest reaches. I know that critique is a bit vague, but you'll understand once seen.

The acting is...fine. I know much has been made of the new Hellpriest(ess), but the character didn't do a whole heckuva lot for me, mainly just delivering cryptic dialogue in the most stoic manner possible. The pacing is agonizingly slow in the first and second acts, but does pick up considerably in the third. The cinematography is exactly what you'd expect for a moderately funded horror flick in current year. The Cenobite redesigns are quite good and I swear the one called The Gasp was inspired directly by Bloodline's Angelique. Even our boy The Chatterer makes a few appearances.

Leviathan and the labyrinth are also featured, which may (or may not) be carryovers from Hellbound. The score is just background noise and only rises to the occasion when Christopher Young's legendary leitmotifs are reused. The whole film was apparently shot in Serbia, so it has that distinctly Eastern European sterility and grime that Romanian Deader capitalized on.

So, all in all, a mixed bag. If it sparks another series of films, I suppose that's a blessing to be found. It would be cool to see Ashley Laurence one last time as the REAL Kirsty Cotton instead of that unrecognizably awful and subverted character that she was turned into for Hellseeker (which still leaves a bitter taste).

My final advice - grind through the first two acts for the rewards of the third, then go rewatch the original and Hellbound while throwing some love Bloodline's way. And if you want to also slot in Hell on Earth, hey, to each his own.

Fall (I) (2022)

Not for the faint of heights.

[7/10 · 28 September 2022]

Acrophobia: (noun) - extreme or irrational fear of heights.

What many people don't realize about this "phobia" is that looking up is just as dizzying and terrifying as looking down. Looking in any direction triggers the sensation of vertigo. As such, it is a paralyzing fear that is only resolved by returning to terra firma, and even then nightmares will often persist.

And, really, what is so phobic about not wanting to place oneself in a situation where falling to the ground could result in serious injury or death? If you ask me, avoiding such heights is eminently sane and reasonable. Phobias are typically those that are, as the definition states, IRrational, like flying via a major air carrier or wading in the shallow end of a pool, whereas scaling a rust-ridden 2000+ foot communications tower missing many of its bolts seems like the pinnacle of pointless idiocy.

I won't comment on the mountain climbing aspect of this film, which accounts for the film's premise. Others who practice the activity have eviscerated it appropriately and even I, someone who gets nervous scaling a stepladder, could recognize the foolish actions the characters were engaging in. Seriously, do even amateur climbers try to blindly shove a cam into a bird's nook without first checking for the occupant?

After the Vertical Limit inspired first act, our heroine keeps herself planted, giving a certain pill case longing looks, for 51 weeks when her best friend comes calling, commanding her to get back on the airy horse. Her solution? Scaling the aforementioned monster tower in a stupidly desolate area of what looks like a scorpion-filled desert. No civilization, no help should something go wrong, and no hope. The perfect recipe for disaster and tragedy. This is the situation our characters willingly jump into with eyes wide open.

Fall is rather predictable, save for a mid-movie twist that I won't ruin (though others have). The ascent obviously goes awry, sticking our heroines 2000 feet up on a small "pizza-sized" platform. This is the effective end of the vertical journey, just a few feet shy from the red warning light for aviators. The only assets remaining being two backpacks, a push-up bra, and a panic box containing small binoculars and a flare gun with one lone round.

Before I start moaning, let me say that the film is shot exceptionally well and pulls out an impressive Hollywood trick to fool the viewer into thinking the action actually takes place on a real communications tower (seriously, read the IMDb trivia, but only AFTER you've seen the movie). My large-screen TV, for which I'm well and truly blessed, became something of a curse for an avowed acrophobe. Fall is not a film to be approached lightly for those heavily afflicted with the condition and I can only imagine how heart-attack inducing it would be to watch it on a VR setup. What it sets out to do it does distressingly well in much the same way that Kingdom of the Spiders or Arachnophobia would be purified kryptonite to someone horrified by the 8-legged critters.

The characters, though, are...problematic. We're in the day and age of "girl power", so we're expected to believe that one lanky girl and one slightly heavier 2nd girl would embark on such a reckless endeavour without an appropriate amount of climbing gear and other survival assets. For example, one thing that stuck out was the ropes the girls utilized, as they seemed no better than bungee cords. Small diameter ropes are difficult to grasp and even harder to lift heavy objects. After a certain weight is applied, they act like piano wire and become hot knives against buttery skin. Our ambitious pair didn't even bring generic gardening gloves, so it becomes bare hands or bust. They don't even think to take off their clothing to use as SOME layer of protection between their naked paws and the dollar-store twine.

The Bionic Women these two are not, so the inevitable happens and...well, that would be telling. I'm not here to spoil, as the film is genuinely worth a watch and the twist is an actual surprise. You could read the IMDb trivia and short-circuit the narrative, but I'd advise against it.

Something else that the pair don't consider, for inscrutable reasons, is to perform a lineman descent, which would seem rather easy given what we're expected to believe the girls are otherwise capable of doing. Perhaps this would be impossible given the meager gear they brought along, but it should've been an obvious plot point to at least bring up (and reject as needed). If you don't know what a lineman climb is, Google it, as it's a clever and viable way to sashay up and down a pole or tree without ladder rungs.

I could extol virtues or bitterly complain for many more paragraphs, but I'll end it here by saying that Fall is, indeed, worth your time, as the filmmaking on display, particularly for a scant $3 million, is wildly competent and breathtaking. Just don't get TOO mired in the numerous narrative deficiencies, as there are many. Just consider the theme to be two girls that did something brainless and are no longer thinking straight. If you can do that, you'll (probably) be all right.

Color Out of Space (2019)

All the colors of a cosmic horror rainbow.

[7/10 · 18 February 2020]

It's not every day that you run into a genuinely divisive film on here, but boy does this flick fit the bill. Kinda reminds me of the flak hurled at Conan: The Barbarian from REH purists, even though the film itself is fantastic. I'm talking about the Schwarzenegger classic, obviously, not the Momoa failed reboot.

Even then, though, we don't talk about Conan: The Destroyer. Ever.

Wow, this film is a Cronenberg/Carpenter-laced trip. And that means bad, BAD news for the characters. I dunno. As I get older, I become less tolerant of Godawful things happening to just random innocent people for no discernible reason. In times past, in media like TV shows and movies, bad things would tend to happen to actual bad people, or at least people who were morally tainted. Nowadays, though, everyone seems to be fair game, including little nerdy kids and moms already suffering with cancer.

It's really ugly what happens to this family, particularly the mom and her youngest child. While all eventually fall prey to the meteorite from hell, what happens to the two of them is indescribably brutal and VERY hard to watch. This might've been less of a blow if the mother had been revealed to be abusing the kids or something, but she's just trying to telecommute and get through the days while dealing with an unnamed form of cancer. And the kid is just a kid who doesn't even squish ants for fun.

The other family members are just as virtuous, if a bit squabbly. The worst thing that's revealed is that the older son smokes his share of pot supplied by Tommy Chong's squatter hippie character, but is that even a negative in this day and age? The Hellraiser Rock spares no one a painful and violent death, including the local animal population, except for a comically young hydrologist scientist taking water samples.

And then there's Nicky Cage, hootin' and hollerin' as he's want to do. Compared to the others, he actually gets off with the equivalent of a wrist slap. Sure, he's consumed by the Lovecraftian light at the end, but his suffering is mostly mental, not physical (save for a rash), which gives him ample opportunity to go crazy in the way that only Cage can pull off. It's not Wicker Man levels of ridiculousness, but it's up there.

The movie does take its sweet time before going completely bonkers, so it's not a rollercoaster from start to finish. However, that finish...wow. If that's what a bad LSD trip looks like, get it the hell away from me.

I don't know much about HP Lovecraft other than what I've remembered through casual osmosis, so I can't comment about the film's fidelity to the original Colour story. However, I can say that those last 10 or 15 minutes should elicit a jarring response from just-about anyone.

According to the stats on here, this film only cost a paltry $6 million. I can easily see that being recouped and then some, even when advertising is added to the final production tally. Richard Stanley surely must know he's onto something by pursuing Lovecraft's mad, mad genius, so I'm confident we'll either see a sequel (if that's possible) or an unrelated entry further exploring the unknowable cosmic horrors that occasionally brush against our fair Earth.

A film NOT for the kids, nor for the faint of heart.

Frozen II (2019)

Well, that was...something.

[6/10 · 18 February 2020]

As of the date of this review, F2 has a 7.1 rating. That's not particularly good for a tentpole Disney flick. But, hey, who really cares if the money keeps flowing in Mickey's direction (Star Wars, anyone?)?

I'm an old man and watched this because my dear ole ma wanted to see it. As such, I'm not the target demo. However, I've read in other reviews that kids were bawling in the theatre (but in a good way), so it obviously hit a nerve with the tikes. If that was Burbank's goal, then I suppose it succeeded.

This won't be a review per-se, just the ramblings of a semi-senile geriatric. For starters, the relationship between Anna and Elsa in F2 is a bit weird. While Anna hangs on Elsa's every word, Elsa herself seems rather detached from it all, including her one and only sister. Who, may I remind the audience, was almost killed by one of Elsa's errant frost blasts. This is underscored by the charades bit, where Anna is (somewhat frighteningly) REALLY into the game, while Elsa just shakes her hips a bit and looks like a fish just given a bike.

It's off-putting. I dunno. I'm estranged from my own sister, so I probably don't get how female twins are suppose to act and show affection toward each other. However, A&E's "inseparable" bond is kinda thrown in the dumpster at the film's denouement (no, I won't reveal how or why, even though I ticked-off the spoiler button), though I did see it coming when the gang run into the Eskimos of Arendelle.

The bad guy is literally a bad guy in the form of A&E's grandfather, who doesn't trust anyone possessing magical abilities. Ho hum. Hey, Disney - if subverting expectations was just peachy for Star Wars, why didn't you do some here by making the Big Bad a woman? Asking for a friend.

There is an unintentionally hilarious scene where ALL of Arendelle is evacuated and we see maybe a hundred people gathered around a cliff outcropping. Not exactly a kingdom-class population, but on the plus side, I assume there are no slums or crack dens to speak of.

The whole crux of the problem stems from this ENORMOUS dam constructed to draw out the Eskimos to gauge their numbers, ordered by the aforementioned villainous g-f. I looked at this marvel of engineering which must've taken thousands upon thousands of man-hours to plan and build, and my jaw dropped. I'm serious - this thing makes Hoover look like something a couple of beavers cobbled-together over a weekend. I'm expecting F3 to proudly display Arendelle's space force program.

As others have mentioned, F2's geography seems, well, constrained is a polite word to use. The Eskimos are about a half-day travel on foot, which actually critically plays into the plot later on (trust me). In fact, it's so claustrophobic that the sisters stumble onto the ship their parents were aboard when it sank. There's even a line in the film that lampshades this geographical impossibility. Wink wink.

Anyway, Elsa runs into this cute gecko-looking thing that's the embodiment of the local fire spirit, which is obvious merchandise bait. I guess Olaf's sales had plateaued and Iger's bonus check needed a boost. If you have kids of the appropriate age who are in love with this series, prepare to buy them a plushie of this critter.

What else...oh, the music. Can't stop the music, especially in F2 where not five minutes go by until there's yet another oddly forgettable musical number. I'm serious, not one track stays in the brain. Which might be for the best considering "Let It Go"'s earwormy infamy. Of course, my memory might be doing a slalom run to nothingness, but even I in my current state can hum LIG...unfortunately.

Anna eventually figures out that the solution to whatever mess they're in is the destruction of that damn dam. To do so, though, would flood the fjord upon which Arendelle is located, as Kristoff conveniently observes (see? I told you proximity itself would become a major plot point). After hearing this, my neurons immediately started firing about ways to slooooowly release the giga-gallons of water behind said dam, but nope, Anna wants to perform the tried and true HULK SMASH! maneuver of plot resolution and entices a group of earth giants to start hurling rocks at the thing. And, really, if Arendelle's own Army Corps of Engineers can build a dam that impressive that quickly, rebuilding the entire kingdom should probably only take a week or two.

But alas, Elsa rides back into town on her spirit animal and saves the day Superman cold-breath style (but, y'know, with her hands). It's awfully nice that all this takes place within a one- or two-mile radius, isn't it?

(I just realized this review is dropping all kinds of spoilers, but I just can't help myself, as the neighborhood ABC is closed.)

So, Elsa decides to "go native" and live with the Eskimos while Anna is crowned queen and marries Kristoff. Y'know, I realize there's this romantic notion of cutting-up your credit cards and going off the grid, but the first time I'd have to do a #2 in the woods is the LAST time I'd do a #2 in the woods. I'm old, though, and have certain sphincter issues. I also love my bidet.

So, yeah, that's Frozen 2. Great animation, even if Disney did "arrange" for that Klaus Oscar snub. Kids will eat it up and undoubtedly cry a river at a certain point where a main character "dies" (don't worry, parents, it's only one of those temporary comic book deaths).

Did I mention Sven is in this, too?

The White Princess (2017)

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

[7/10 · 1 January 2019]

This seems to be the lesson taught by The White Princess, even if it means having to behead all your male siblings. Our titular Yorkish-based queen to Henry VII goes from dedicating herself to destroying the Tudor King of England from within to embracing the red usurper while having a final stare-down contest between her and her younger soul-crushed sister, Margaret of Plantagenet (Maggie).

I have to say, the production of this series utterly baffles me. Only ONE actress from the prior series, The White Queen, returns, that being Caroline Goodall (Duchess Cecily). I know 4 IRL years passed between both series, but still, not a single actor or actress besides Goodall was convinced to return to any roles? Yeah, Rebecca Ferguson has gone on to (arguably) bigger and better things, but what about Amanda Hale, Tom McKay, and/or Rupert Graves? No takers?

And this is NOT a cheap-looking affair. This has all the trappings of a grade-A British mini-series, with gorgeous set design, costuming, and location shots. And the people who populate TWP don't work for peanuts, either, with heavy-hitters like Michelle Fairley and Kenneth Cranham (anyone remember Dr. Channard?). Many shekels were undoubtedly handed out to these performers.

So, a bunch of money was spent, but almost no one returned to the party. So bizarre. Maybe it's an English thing.

Apart from that, the series is pretty damn good. And pretty damn disturbing. The royal halls of Merry Ole England must've been overrun with sociopaths and even a few totally unhinged psychopaths. Hey, I'm not a moral absolutist and understand the concept of historical ethical relativism. However, if you're able to emotionally detach yourself to the point of ordering the execution of your completely innocent half-wit brother who's been locked-up for most of his life for the crime of simply being born, then I'd probably not want to have you over for Thanksgiving dinner. Just sayin'.

The moral of both TWQ and TWP seems to be find a cozy cottage somewhere OTHER than London, perhaps even all of Britain. How's Tahiti this time of year?

What Goes Up (2009)

A disturbing title for a disturbing film.

[3/10 · 14 June 2009]

I first learned about this on the IMDb, when the trailer was posted on this site. One of the IMDb's greatest strengths as it pertains to their trailer postings is that, when you hover over the image, a text pop-up appears with a short synopsis of what the film is about.

The title of this indie-sounding piece kinda/sorta intrigued me and, seeing as it is very easy to obtain plot distillations via these pop-ups, I hovered.

What I read was, well, pretty damn unnerving. I'm VERY surprised this hasn't been broached yet, even in the forums.

The second half of the saying "what goes up" is, of course, "must come down". Keep this in mind, as the chronological setting for this film is days before the Challenger disaster on January 28, 1986 and the where is the late Christa McAuliffe's teaching hometown.

Maybe I'm just being overly sensitive, but given the film's date and place, the title seems rather blasphemous. Can you imagine the awful stares one would've received if nonchalantly murmuring this whimsical phrase right after the explosion? Or how about when the Hindenburg burst into flames or when the WTC towers collapsed? This is a saying reserved for helium balloons and radio controlled airplanes, not when hapless people and iconic objects are obliterated.

Apparently, this was originally entitled "Safety Glass", but was changed to "What Goes Up" shortly before its release. Why? I have no idea, other than maybe shock value.

What's even more perplexing is that the setting could've been practically any small town at any particular time. The Challenger disaster isn't even the focal point. It's just used as, IMO, a cheap gimmick and VERY uncomfortable reminder of when this film is suppose to occur.

I dunno. Perhaps living only fifty miles from Cape Canaveral and LC 39B greatly colors my opinion. I also remember exactly where I was when the news was announced; similar to those who precisely recall where they were when Kennedy was shot.

Which is a shame, because the cast does an otherwise fine job, particularly the kids playing "the shed" misfits. I'm not entirely certain I subscribe to the film's dubious message - that facts shouldn't get in the way of perception - but many of the scenes were very endearing and even a little intense.

Still, I just cannot overcome the horrible title.

Meteor (1979)

In defense of the film.

[21 October 2001]

I've read the negative reviews in here and am perplexed at the vitriol directed at this film. "Meteor" is, admittedly, a flawed movie, but still one with many strengths that deserve attention.

Firstly, it was made in 1979, so the effects are not going to be as stellar as they were in the 80's and 90's. And even then, some of those effects still hold up quite well to movies produced today. The modeling work, especially of the orbiting Hercules and Peter the Great nuclear missile platforms, is extremely impressive. The meteor itself is a big, ugly, and rather scary chunk of scarred rock, reminiscent of the Texas-sized shard in "Armageddon". Yes, some of the effects DO look cheesy (the avalanche being the most frequently cited example), but others are quite striking. At worst, "Meteor"'s effects are extremely uneven, but certainly not completely junkable.

Secondly, unlike "Deep Impact" and "Armageddon", the film focuses on the multitude of hurdles that have to be overcome in order to combat the threat. Personal, politicial, and scientific obstacles are given due screentime, which serves to advance the story rather than bogging it down.

Thirdly, "Meteor" is a far more globalized film, as it pulls together Russian, English, and even Chinese characters into the story. The attempt to track the rock and derive a viable solution to knock it out of its Earth-based trajectory is not solely an American one, but instead a closely coordinated international effort. Indeed, even the U.N. is (briefly) featured.

Fourthly, the film doesn't get mired in the 'human element' (as what happened in "Deep Impact" and "Pearl Harbor"). "Meteor" is non-tangential in that it STICKS TO THE STORY, which is the main interest of the viewer (at least, for me). Yes, there is the attraction between Connery and Wood's characters, but it's generally unobtrusive and the screentime limited.

Fifth, Laurence Rosenthal's score is great! Its boldness reminds me of Poledouris' legendary score for "Conan: The Barbarian". It effectively captures both the 'feel' of space and the direness and immediacy of the situations portrayed.

Finally, I emjoyed the acting. Connery, Keith, Malden, and Fonda turn in sincere performances (especially Malden). "Meteor" is an ensemble production in the tradition of Irwin Allen's best disaster productions.

Don't let the naysayers in here turn you off from this underrated gem. If "Deep Impact" and "Armageddon" left you wanting, give "Meteor" a try. Sure, it may not be as polished as those two productions, but it has more going for it than you might think.