I loved "Project Blue Book" as a kid and really wanted to like this but it's not possible. So much of the dialogue is unintelligible and the Australian DVDs have no subtitles. Michael Malarkey in particular mutters and mumbles his way through his dialogue to the extent I wonder how he got the part. Actors used to be trained to enunciate clearly when whispering or speaking in a low voice. This training obviously doesn't happen anymore. I've persevered through eight episodes but that's enough. I'm also not a fan of the attempt at an ongoing, serialised conspiracy subplot. UFO of the week would have worked fine, like in the original series.
Reviews
23 Reviews
Project Blue Book
(2019–2020)
Really promising ideas but poor execution
6 January 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Beyond the Farthest Star
(2015)
A surprising, beautifully made film
24 June 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Family dramas with strong religious overtones are not normally my thing. The initial premise is really just a catalyst for all that follows, both new crises and ones that have been brewing for years. The central characters are flawed, complex, realistic and sympathetic. What really surprised me was how visually beautiful the film is. The choices of tones and lighting often reminded me a little of the last couple of seasons of Foyle's War. The cinematography and direction complemented it perfectly. A really high quality film in every sense. (I don't give 10s, knowing how IMdB's algorithms work, but I really can't think of anything wrong with this film).
Glitch
(2015–2019)
Great writing is more than having a great idea
2 September 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I initially gave this 8/10 on the promise of earlier episodes. I was very disappointed with the way it ended, leaving the events that started it all completely unresolved.
What appeared to be an exciting and fascinating premise turned into a backdrop, with episodes getting bogged down in the adventures of the various returned as they tried to find out who they were, how/why they died and what had happened to those who had been a part of their lives at the time. But why did they come back? And how? Who knows. The mysterious and sinister pharmaceutical company is probably to blame, and that's as close as you get.
The promos were right, if you loved "Lost" you'll love this. "Lost" also forgot its premise and early mysteries in favour of reams of character development at the expense of plot. The initial hook is great, but it means nothing if the story isn't finished. Bring back writers who are great storytellers, not just writers of characters.
What appeared to be an exciting and fascinating premise turned into a backdrop, with episodes getting bogged down in the adventures of the various returned as they tried to find out who they were, how/why they died and what had happened to those who had been a part of their lives at the time. But why did they come back? And how? Who knows. The mysterious and sinister pharmaceutical company is probably to blame, and that's as close as you get.
The promos were right, if you loved "Lost" you'll love this. "Lost" also forgot its premise and early mysteries in favour of reams of character development at the expense of plot. The initial hook is great, but it means nothing if the story isn't finished. Bring back writers who are great storytellers, not just writers of characters.
Whore
(1991)
Half-written, half-edited, all pointless
2 February 2013
A more realistic take on the life of a streetwalker after the glamorising of Pretty Woman is an interesting idea. This isn't it. These pseudo-documentaries always run the risk of being extraordinarily dull, the sort of thing only best friends and family would watch to the end. This is an excellent example of that type.
This film takes a list of "what sort of situations would a streetwalker encounter" and works its way through them. It's obvious and contrived, and the ham-fisted "humour" just makes it worse. I suppose they hoped Theresa Russell's monologues might glue it all together. It's risky to hang a whole film on the performance of one actor, and in this case Russell over-acts so much, almost constantly, that it comes across as a poorly executed joke. Maybe I'm missing something, and it's meant to be dreadful?
This film takes a list of "what sort of situations would a streetwalker encounter" and works its way through them. It's obvious and contrived, and the ham-fisted "humour" just makes it worse. I suppose they hoped Theresa Russell's monologues might glue it all together. It's risky to hang a whole film on the performance of one actor, and in this case Russell over-acts so much, almost constantly, that it comes across as a poorly executed joke. Maybe I'm missing something, and it's meant to be dreadful?
Oz
(1997–2003)
Vivid and unique character studies
5 February 2012
Warning: Spoilers
External shots of Oz are used only a handful of times in the entire run. We are inside to the point where the outside world becomes surreal and barely existent. When a character is released in season 6 only to return to Oz very quickly, there's a feeling that they've tasted a fantasy and are returning to "normal" life.
Augustus Hill and Tobias Beecher are our eyes and ears; we are the ordinary joes introduced to Oz through them. How Tobias changes and survives is not just a reflection of his strength of character but also the lengths people must go to in order to survive. Hill's intros/outros/interludes bridge the gap between the broader issues being explored and the events inside Oz.
It's a credit to the makers that they managed to give us just as vivid a picture of the staff without going outside the prison walls and into their personal lives. The political issues are well explored and I'm glad. It's as close to a vivid, realistic depiction of life in a modern prison as we could get without it being refused classification in countries like Australia (where the classification system is mandatory).
The line between being a gay man and being a straight man who is gay in prison is clearly defined in Keller and Beecher (anonymous exit surveys show something like 70% of straight men form a long term, monogamous sexual relationship with another man while in prison), but the distinction isn't really explored in depth beyond that. It's put in front of us in the hope that we'll simply get it, however I suspect it may be a bit too subtle for some.
I have only one real beef with the show: the depiction of prags and their "use" is pretty much limited to the Nazis. In reality this is widespread in US prisons at least, not being limited to any particular political, cultural or ethnic group. Rape generally is widespread and has been for decades.
Remember, too, that dramatic licence means there will be differences between this and reality. For example, all the long drawn out boring bits where nothing happens have been edited out ;). But overall, brilliant television.
(One note: Emerald City isn't an "unusual" prison, given it resembles most of the privately run prisons built since the early 90s. In 1985 such a prison was depicted in Ghosts of the Civil Dead, and at that time was considered "futuristic".)
Augustus Hill and Tobias Beecher are our eyes and ears; we are the ordinary joes introduced to Oz through them. How Tobias changes and survives is not just a reflection of his strength of character but also the lengths people must go to in order to survive. Hill's intros/outros/interludes bridge the gap between the broader issues being explored and the events inside Oz.
It's a credit to the makers that they managed to give us just as vivid a picture of the staff without going outside the prison walls and into their personal lives. The political issues are well explored and I'm glad. It's as close to a vivid, realistic depiction of life in a modern prison as we could get without it being refused classification in countries like Australia (where the classification system is mandatory).
The line between being a gay man and being a straight man who is gay in prison is clearly defined in Keller and Beecher (anonymous exit surveys show something like 70% of straight men form a long term, monogamous sexual relationship with another man while in prison), but the distinction isn't really explored in depth beyond that. It's put in front of us in the hope that we'll simply get it, however I suspect it may be a bit too subtle for some.
I have only one real beef with the show: the depiction of prags and their "use" is pretty much limited to the Nazis. In reality this is widespread in US prisons at least, not being limited to any particular political, cultural or ethnic group. Rape generally is widespread and has been for decades.
Remember, too, that dramatic licence means there will be differences between this and reality. For example, all the long drawn out boring bits where nothing happens have been edited out ;). But overall, brilliant television.
(One note: Emerald City isn't an "unusual" prison, given it resembles most of the privately run prisons built since the early 90s. In 1985 such a prison was depicted in Ghosts of the Civil Dead, and at that time was considered "futuristic".)
Offspring
(2010–2017)
More than "babies and love" (ick) so give it a go.
23 June 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Every reviewer of this show turns me off. If I listen to them it is everything I wouldn't enjoy. However the same thing happened with "The Alice", where every review and Nine's own promos made it look like "McLeod's Daughters". It's only through catching a few episodes by accident that I have realised how quirky this show is, and how well it balances comedy and drama (exactly like "The Alice").
Perhaps that's our real problem in Australia: we can make these shows just fine, we have the talent, but if it isn't a cop show or soapie we don't know how to sell it. Perhaps many people who'd enjoy it are being turned off by the advertising and reviews, which are in turn attracting the people who don't like it after all.
It has what I like: well written, well acted stories with original characters. The fact it is technically great (camerawork, sets, lighting etc) is a bonus. The characters are ordinary people without being ordinary clichés, and not everyone looks like a model with a six figure wardrobe.
Sure some of them give me the irrits no end with their stupidity - who agrees to a surrogacy arrangement without thrashing out the details *before* any sperm goes anywhere?! I want to bang their stupid heads together. But people are like that, some are stupid and annoying, and sometimes you're related to them. The show would only be unwatchable if the stupid and annoying were *the* core of it, which thankfully they aren't.
The comedy is varied and at times unexpected, while very intense dramatic moments (such as informing a couple of the death of their child after a car accident) are handled with subtlety while still managing to be confronting and difficult to watch. The fact that these extremes can be found within episodes, and yet it still flows and works, shows how good the writers are.
This is well worth a look, and I would encourage the sceptical who are turned off by the "babies and love" reviews to give it a shot anyway. You might be pleasantly surprised. Then go to a video store and hire "The Alice" and be pleasantly surprised again.
Perhaps that's our real problem in Australia: we can make these shows just fine, we have the talent, but if it isn't a cop show or soapie we don't know how to sell it. Perhaps many people who'd enjoy it are being turned off by the advertising and reviews, which are in turn attracting the people who don't like it after all.
It has what I like: well written, well acted stories with original characters. The fact it is technically great (camerawork, sets, lighting etc) is a bonus. The characters are ordinary people without being ordinary clichés, and not everyone looks like a model with a six figure wardrobe.
Sure some of them give me the irrits no end with their stupidity - who agrees to a surrogacy arrangement without thrashing out the details *before* any sperm goes anywhere?! I want to bang their stupid heads together. But people are like that, some are stupid and annoying, and sometimes you're related to them. The show would only be unwatchable if the stupid and annoying were *the* core of it, which thankfully they aren't.
The comedy is varied and at times unexpected, while very intense dramatic moments (such as informing a couple of the death of their child after a car accident) are handled with subtlety while still managing to be confronting and difficult to watch. The fact that these extremes can be found within episodes, and yet it still flows and works, shows how good the writers are.
This is well worth a look, and I would encourage the sceptical who are turned off by the "babies and love" reviews to give it a shot anyway. You might be pleasantly surprised. Then go to a video store and hire "The Alice" and be pleasantly surprised again.
Taxi to the Dark Side
(2007)
Technically good, but not the big picture
19 March 2011
The Nuremburg trials left us two legacies. First, no matter what your rank, you are responsible for your actions. As one Nazi after another said, "I was just following orders", we made it clear this was no excuse for war crimes. Second, given the winners get to write history, we have a deluded mindset that war crimes are things other people commit, not us.
Alex Gibney has tried to send a message about America's hypocritical sacrifice of longstanding principles by focusing on a single man, a taxi driver tortured to death by American forces in Afghanistan. This focus never allows us to forget that these victims are people just like us, and they are the victims of terrible crimes for which no one has been held accountable.
Gibney reveals how high up knowledge and sanction of these crimes goes. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield are directly responsible for the official policy allowing torture, increasing the number of people who have never faced war crimes charges but should do so.
It is confronting, saddening and maddening to watch. But what undermines Gibney's effort is that he doesn't give us the full context. Instead he allows the soldiers' own words to absolve them of responsibility by allowing claims of "just following orders" to go unchallenged. Worse, he allows the miserable excuse of being "poorly trained", as if an adult needs to be told that torturing people, especially people they know are innocent, is wrong.
This is a cop-out. Our failed humanitarian intervention in Somalia revealed that torturing civilians (often to death) for sport and photographing it is a popular hobby among many military forces, and those of many Western democracies including the US are no exception. Yet we insist on seeing them as one-off instances of "a few bad apples" out of control, rather than an indication of a systemic, ingrained culture that urgently needs to be dealt with. All Bush and Co did was sanction activities many soldiers were already engaging in, but Gibney cannot or will not acknowledge this.
I can't fault his technical skills, it's methodical and well-edited. But I cannot add "well researched" or "thorough". By not giving us the broader context and by not looking at the culture that encourages war crimes among US soldiers, he let these guys off lightly.
Alex Gibney has tried to send a message about America's hypocritical sacrifice of longstanding principles by focusing on a single man, a taxi driver tortured to death by American forces in Afghanistan. This focus never allows us to forget that these victims are people just like us, and they are the victims of terrible crimes for which no one has been held accountable.
Gibney reveals how high up knowledge and sanction of these crimes goes. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield are directly responsible for the official policy allowing torture, increasing the number of people who have never faced war crimes charges but should do so.
It is confronting, saddening and maddening to watch. But what undermines Gibney's effort is that he doesn't give us the full context. Instead he allows the soldiers' own words to absolve them of responsibility by allowing claims of "just following orders" to go unchallenged. Worse, he allows the miserable excuse of being "poorly trained", as if an adult needs to be told that torturing people, especially people they know are innocent, is wrong.
This is a cop-out. Our failed humanitarian intervention in Somalia revealed that torturing civilians (often to death) for sport and photographing it is a popular hobby among many military forces, and those of many Western democracies including the US are no exception. Yet we insist on seeing them as one-off instances of "a few bad apples" out of control, rather than an indication of a systemic, ingrained culture that urgently needs to be dealt with. All Bush and Co did was sanction activities many soldiers were already engaging in, but Gibney cannot or will not acknowledge this.
I can't fault his technical skills, it's methodical and well-edited. But I cannot add "well researched" or "thorough". By not giving us the broader context and by not looking at the culture that encourages war crimes among US soldiers, he let these guys off lightly.
Newcastle
(2008)
Clichéd, predictable, dull
30 December 2010
Warning: Spoilers
This was on local telly last night, and as I feel a little "patriotic obligation" with Aussie films, I gave it a go.
Within ten minutes I had put nearly every character neatly back in the "central casting" pigeonhole they'd been taken from and was mentally writing the rest of the movie in dot points. In the end, the trendy, tokenistic gay element was the only thing I missed.
As far as the characterisations and plot are concerned, there is nothing original in this film. That can be overlooked if it is executed well, but it wasn't. Fairly pedestrian, soapie-level stuff for the most part, with wall-to-wall white Aussies acting out a story seemingly cobbled together from old episodes of "Home and Away".
Cast-wise, the youngsters weren't too bad, in fact certainly promising as far as their ability to express a range of emotions. By contrast, Shane Jacobson proved beyond doubt that he is a rubbish actor, possibly one of the most overrated actors of the last few years. Watching him "cry" was one of the funniest things about this film. He's that unconvincing. Shane, stick to "comedies" where you just play yourself, won't you?
So why two stars? The younger cast members for one. Two, the surfing sequences are beautifully shot - and no, I'm not a surfie by any means.
Within ten minutes I had put nearly every character neatly back in the "central casting" pigeonhole they'd been taken from and was mentally writing the rest of the movie in dot points. In the end, the trendy, tokenistic gay element was the only thing I missed.
As far as the characterisations and plot are concerned, there is nothing original in this film. That can be overlooked if it is executed well, but it wasn't. Fairly pedestrian, soapie-level stuff for the most part, with wall-to-wall white Aussies acting out a story seemingly cobbled together from old episodes of "Home and Away".
Cast-wise, the youngsters weren't too bad, in fact certainly promising as far as their ability to express a range of emotions. By contrast, Shane Jacobson proved beyond doubt that he is a rubbish actor, possibly one of the most overrated actors of the last few years. Watching him "cry" was one of the funniest things about this film. He's that unconvincing. Shane, stick to "comedies" where you just play yourself, won't you?
So why two stars? The younger cast members for one. Two, the surfing sequences are beautifully shot - and no, I'm not a surfie by any means.
A dumbed-down rewrite of an old Pertwee classic
13 June 2010
Warning: Spoilers
"The Hungry Earth" was fairly run-of-the-mill stuff. Predictable, and leaving me with a creeping suspicion that this was a bit of cheap filler rather than a proper, original story.
The strong suspicion I had at the end of "The Hungry Earth" was confirmed in this episode. This two-parter is simply a reworking of the classic Pertwee story "Doctor Who and the Silurians". But where the original was a complex and highly political story about values and tolerance, Chibnall's version barely scratched the surface of these issues.
Much of the politics of the original is set aside for predictable character-based drama, from an uninspiringly predictable set of characters. Only at the last when the negotiation, seemingly progressing well, is suddenly derailed, do we see any hint of the richness of the original story. But it simply isn't enough and it doesn't last.
I confess to not being a fan of Chibnall. He has a fondness for overblown set-pieces instead of proper stories, and likes to stick melodramatic character interactions into a story at the most inopportune times - like poking a stick into the spokes of a wheel, derailing the momentum of the story entirely. Ironically I missed the beginning of "The Hungry Earth" and so was initially unaware this was his handiwork.
That said, there are moments of good dialogue, but that is all that this story has going for it.
When you are reduced to plagiarising your own canon, things must be pretty desperate. I had high hopes for new Who under Moffatt and am becoming very disillusioned indeed.
The strong suspicion I had at the end of "The Hungry Earth" was confirmed in this episode. This two-parter is simply a reworking of the classic Pertwee story "Doctor Who and the Silurians". But where the original was a complex and highly political story about values and tolerance, Chibnall's version barely scratched the surface of these issues.
Much of the politics of the original is set aside for predictable character-based drama, from an uninspiringly predictable set of characters. Only at the last when the negotiation, seemingly progressing well, is suddenly derailed, do we see any hint of the richness of the original story. But it simply isn't enough and it doesn't last.
I confess to not being a fan of Chibnall. He has a fondness for overblown set-pieces instead of proper stories, and likes to stick melodramatic character interactions into a story at the most inopportune times - like poking a stick into the spokes of a wheel, derailing the momentum of the story entirely. Ironically I missed the beginning of "The Hungry Earth" and so was initially unaware this was his handiwork.
That said, there are moments of good dialogue, but that is all that this story has going for it.
When you are reduced to plagiarising your own canon, things must be pretty desperate. I had high hopes for new Who under Moffatt and am becoming very disillusioned indeed.
Sea Patrol
(2007–2011)
Propaganda and nonsense
28 March 2010
A large amount of the funding for Sea Patrol comes from the RAN, who in turn took their cut from many tens of millions given to the ADF under the Howard Government to "promote" the armed forces. In return for putting up the money, RAN reportedly have a fair amount of say in the scripts.
Nine made Blue Heelers the same way (with the NSW Police Media Liaison Unit having final veto over the scripts). It means they aren't paying all the bills, but it also means the primary purpose of the show is not to provide quality entertainment. The result is a show with poor quality stories and acting. Visually it is very good, but it has no substance. It features a cast of well known faces playing the same kinds of roles they've been playing for years. They have no real emotional investment in their characters and it shows.
The execs involved are happy to let all this slide because none of it matters. There is one purpose only to Sea Patrol, and that is to make life in the Navy look exciting and attractive to impressionable youngsters so they are more likely to join up when they're old enough.
There's enough rubbish on TV. It saddens me that creative options are foregone in favour of what amounts merely to government advertising.
Nine made Blue Heelers the same way (with the NSW Police Media Liaison Unit having final veto over the scripts). It means they aren't paying all the bills, but it also means the primary purpose of the show is not to provide quality entertainment. The result is a show with poor quality stories and acting. Visually it is very good, but it has no substance. It features a cast of well known faces playing the same kinds of roles they've been playing for years. They have no real emotional investment in their characters and it shows.
The execs involved are happy to let all this slide because none of it matters. There is one purpose only to Sea Patrol, and that is to make life in the Navy look exciting and attractive to impressionable youngsters so they are more likely to join up when they're old enough.
There's enough rubbish on TV. It saddens me that creative options are foregone in favour of what amounts merely to government advertising.
Dogs in Space
(1986)
The film mirrors their lives.
25 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
At various points during this film, I noted the time, and thought "Well, I'm still waiting for something to happen". And I kept waiting, watching what appeared to be a film with no structure, direction or progress as far as its characters or "plot" were concerned. Like an idiot, I just didn't realise until the end.
Someone who has not lived like this, or known people who have, could easily dismiss this as a directionless mess, a string of scenes with no real purpose, and characters who don't learn or evolve. But that's the point Lowenstein is making, he has deliberately structured this film in a way that mirrors the lives the characters led: directionless and stagnant, not planning or thinking of a future, but just staggering from one party, gig or shag to the next. Not living at all, just existing.
Only when something drastic happens beyond their control are they forced to re-evaluate where they are and change their lives. The existence they led ends, and quite rightly the film ends also.
It's a clever piece of film-making, and the more I think about it the more impressed I am.
Someone who has not lived like this, or known people who have, could easily dismiss this as a directionless mess, a string of scenes with no real purpose, and characters who don't learn or evolve. But that's the point Lowenstein is making, he has deliberately structured this film in a way that mirrors the lives the characters led: directionless and stagnant, not planning or thinking of a future, but just staggering from one party, gig or shag to the next. Not living at all, just existing.
Only when something drastic happens beyond their control are they forced to re-evaluate where they are and change their lives. The existence they led ends, and quite rightly the film ends also.
It's a clever piece of film-making, and the more I think about it the more impressed I am.
Lie to Me
(2009–2011)
Rubbish premise which undermines everything
14 January 2010
I wanted to like "Lie to Me". I really did. And I have tried, many times, but every attempt is thwarted by the ridiculous premise on which the show is based.
Fact: humans are all different, and the same gesture can mean different things depending on age, cultural background, life experience, health, state of mind, current circumstances, whether or not you're thirsty or preoccupied with something, etc. Put simply, you cannot look at someone and "know they are lying".
In every episode I've watched, just as things start to get interesting, we get a silly scene of painful exposition where we learn about another "tell", ie "he looked down when she looked at him, he's feeling guilty about something", and "she bit her lip, that means she's lying". On the basis of such tiny, simple gestures, they will set out to hang someone.
The only thing more ridiculous is the fact that there are people out there who believe this ignorant stupidity.
I've made three attempts. That's enough, life is just too short.
Fact: humans are all different, and the same gesture can mean different things depending on age, cultural background, life experience, health, state of mind, current circumstances, whether or not you're thirsty or preoccupied with something, etc. Put simply, you cannot look at someone and "know they are lying".
In every episode I've watched, just as things start to get interesting, we get a silly scene of painful exposition where we learn about another "tell", ie "he looked down when she looked at him, he's feeling guilty about something", and "she bit her lip, that means she's lying". On the basis of such tiny, simple gestures, they will set out to hang someone.
The only thing more ridiculous is the fact that there are people out there who believe this ignorant stupidity.
I've made three attempts. That's enough, life is just too short.
Bodyline
(1984)
Melodramatic exercise in patriotism
9 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I first watched this as a cricket-obsessed kid, and loved it. Watching it again as an adult, it disappoints on many levels.
Firstly, I understand the need for dramatic licence, but this doesn't excuse some of the laughable inaccuracies portrayed here. A batsman described as left-handed but depicted otherwise, fielders described as leg fielders moving to the offside when the opposite is the case, etc. They must know that cricket fans would be attracted to a series such as this, so they should have done their homework.
Secondly, it is technically poor. The writers seem more interested in telling a fable, with its cast of clichés and "representative" characters. The radio commentator (played by real life sports commentator Norman May) detracts from the story with his repetitive exposition, and I was sick to death of "the barracker" by the fourth episode. Honestly, wasn't there a Depression? He followed them from one city to the next, I can only think he must have been a millionaire disguised as an uncultured and stupid yob. By contrast, Bradman's own parents get barely a look in, with only the odd scene here and there.
Thirdly, they felt they could make up for the above with melodrama. I'm a sports fan and have known over the years quite a number of sportsmen and women who represented Australia. Nobody takes it this seriously. This was patriotic muck at its worst - five and a half hours of it. By the time going out to bat was compared to Gallipoli, I'd had enough.
This is certainly not one of our finest TV moments.
Firstly, I understand the need for dramatic licence, but this doesn't excuse some of the laughable inaccuracies portrayed here. A batsman described as left-handed but depicted otherwise, fielders described as leg fielders moving to the offside when the opposite is the case, etc. They must know that cricket fans would be attracted to a series such as this, so they should have done their homework.
Secondly, it is technically poor. The writers seem more interested in telling a fable, with its cast of clichés and "representative" characters. The radio commentator (played by real life sports commentator Norman May) detracts from the story with his repetitive exposition, and I was sick to death of "the barracker" by the fourth episode. Honestly, wasn't there a Depression? He followed them from one city to the next, I can only think he must have been a millionaire disguised as an uncultured and stupid yob. By contrast, Bradman's own parents get barely a look in, with only the odd scene here and there.
Thirdly, they felt they could make up for the above with melodrama. I'm a sports fan and have known over the years quite a number of sportsmen and women who represented Australia. Nobody takes it this seriously. This was patriotic muck at its worst - five and a half hours of it. By the time going out to bat was compared to Gallipoli, I'd had enough.
This is certainly not one of our finest TV moments.
Monster Ark
(2008 TV Movie)
Talented leads can't compensate for poor writing and direction
9 January 2010
When you're mentally editing a film nine minutes in, you know you're in trouble. Redundant scenes, pointless arguing instead of good dialogue...these things can be forgiven if they are rare occurrences and the story is good enough to carry it through. Unfortunately that isn't the case here, and the directionless scenes and dreadful writing continues to the end.
It's a pity, because the story is a good and interesting one, and O'Connor and DeKay have more than proved their talent over the years. They are let down by a bad script (so bad that at times their frustration is almost palpable), and direction which makes no attempt to compensate for or deal with the poor quality script. Surely opportunities for rewrites, even the odd scene, presented themselves?
If I didn't know any better, I would assume that the script is either a) a first draft, or b) a rush job. Maybe both. Or maybe the whole thing was written and directed by people with little experience who desperately needed a mentor throughout the process, and didn't have one.
The result is quite awful. The only people who might get anything positive out of this film are hardcore fans of the two leads who are prepared to forgive *anything* to see their faves on screen, or film students who would like to see a very good example of bad writing, especially bad dialogue.
That said, I gave it 3/10: one for the story (despite its poor execution), one for making the effort, and one for O'Connor and DeKay.
It's a pity, because the story is a good and interesting one, and O'Connor and DeKay have more than proved their talent over the years. They are let down by a bad script (so bad that at times their frustration is almost palpable), and direction which makes no attempt to compensate for or deal with the poor quality script. Surely opportunities for rewrites, even the odd scene, presented themselves?
If I didn't know any better, I would assume that the script is either a) a first draft, or b) a rush job. Maybe both. Or maybe the whole thing was written and directed by people with little experience who desperately needed a mentor throughout the process, and didn't have one.
The result is quite awful. The only people who might get anything positive out of this film are hardcore fans of the two leads who are prepared to forgive *anything* to see their faves on screen, or film students who would like to see a very good example of bad writing, especially bad dialogue.
That said, I gave it 3/10: one for the story (despite its poor execution), one for making the effort, and one for O'Connor and DeKay.
Battlestar Galactica: The Plan
(2009 Video)
In a sense, just a flashback two-part "review" episode.
28 December 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I loved the new BSG, I think it is one of the best TV shows ever made. I was expecting this to contribute something new and was disappointed. Don't expect a plot, and don't expect any significant revelations. Certainly don't expect it to live up to the hype of "telling the story of two powerful Cylon leaders", or telling the story "from the point of view of all the Cylons". That's just rubbish.
Over the last 10 or so episodes of BSG, we saw a few episodes which involved reviewing events to give us a reminder of what had gone before, and to put things into a new perspective by revealing more background of key characters in days leading up to the attack on the colonies, or more information on the role they played afterwards.
Essentially, that is all "The Plan" is. I'm convinced it was something which was probably intended to be part of season 4 but for some reason was omitted. It centres around Brother Cavil and reveals that he had more influence over events on Galactica than we were previously aware of, and likewise his counterpart on occupied Caprica did the same. That, in a nutshell, is it. Most of the other Cylons barely get a look-in.
Oh, and as for the Cylons' "Plan", don't expect to learn all about that, unless "the plan" was finding ways to mop up because the original attack didn't wipe all the humans out.
To be honest I don't feel my BSG experience was lacking by not seeing this as part of Season 4. I say this because now, having seen it, I feel it contributes little, if anything, to the show. At times it feels like a series of out-takes edited together and nothing more. I've watched it once and now I'm going to sell it, that's how much it matters.
Over the last 10 or so episodes of BSG, we saw a few episodes which involved reviewing events to give us a reminder of what had gone before, and to put things into a new perspective by revealing more background of key characters in days leading up to the attack on the colonies, or more information on the role they played afterwards.
Essentially, that is all "The Plan" is. I'm convinced it was something which was probably intended to be part of season 4 but for some reason was omitted. It centres around Brother Cavil and reveals that he had more influence over events on Galactica than we were previously aware of, and likewise his counterpart on occupied Caprica did the same. That, in a nutshell, is it. Most of the other Cylons barely get a look-in.
Oh, and as for the Cylons' "Plan", don't expect to learn all about that, unless "the plan" was finding ways to mop up because the original attack didn't wipe all the humans out.
To be honest I don't feel my BSG experience was lacking by not seeing this as part of Season 4. I say this because now, having seen it, I feel it contributes little, if anything, to the show. At times it feels like a series of out-takes edited together and nothing more. I've watched it once and now I'm going to sell it, that's how much it matters.
Ashes to Ashes
(2008–2010)
Okay but lacking substance...
15 July 2009
Warning: Spoilers
This is certainly an entertaining show, but not up to the standard of Life on Mars.
The basic template and structure is here, with similar plot devices, etc (the clown instead of the testcard girl, and the vision of a key event from childhood, for example), but what is lacking is an emotional depth to the character of Alex who is almost flippant about her predicament, and the more cohesive links between the "present day" and 1981, such as the links between Alex in 1981 and what Alex in the present is enduring. With LoM we were strongly reminded on a regular basis of the link between Sam's present day physical self and his 1973 self. Apart from the odd vision of her daughter, Alex appears to have almost no connection at all.
Furthermore, the occasional forced dialogue and "speechgiving" we saw in LoM is present in abundance here, along with a severe amount of cheese and an embarrassingly predictable attempt at "sexual tension".
The result is something that, instead of coming across as a kind of sequel, comes across as a poor copy. Disappointed.
The basic template and structure is here, with similar plot devices, etc (the clown instead of the testcard girl, and the vision of a key event from childhood, for example), but what is lacking is an emotional depth to the character of Alex who is almost flippant about her predicament, and the more cohesive links between the "present day" and 1981, such as the links between Alex in 1981 and what Alex in the present is enduring. With LoM we were strongly reminded on a regular basis of the link between Sam's present day physical self and his 1973 self. Apart from the odd vision of her daughter, Alex appears to have almost no connection at all.
Furthermore, the occasional forced dialogue and "speechgiving" we saw in LoM is present in abundance here, along with a severe amount of cheese and an embarrassingly predictable attempt at "sexual tension".
The result is something that, instead of coming across as a kind of sequel, comes across as a poor copy. Disappointed.
Odyssey 5
(2002–2004)
Unfinished.
12 July 2007
I'm astounded at the number of people who describe this as the best scifi they've ever seen - if that's the case, then god help the whole genre.
I just finished watching the "complete" series on DVD. First the good points: the characters are well written, the dialogue is thankfully excellent (because it's a real let down in many shows), the cast are great, and a special mention to the incidental music. It's one of the best scores I've heard and I think Laura Karpman is a genius.
The bad points: it is not, as others might have you believe, highly original. In very general terms, the "aliens among us" type of story is one of the oldest of scifi themes, and has been around since the early 20th century. More specifically, the show takes a great deal from "The X Files": they've just changed the shadowy secret organisation within the Government to the shadowy secret organisation within NASA, changed "aliens" to "sentients" and Mulder and Scully to the Odyssey 5 crew.
But to describe it as a "complete" series is unfortunate. The DVD release may comprise all the episodes that were filmed, but it is far from the whole story. I watched it with an increasing sense of foreboding as it seemed there was an unhealthy emphasis on character development and "set piece" events that comprised entire episodes, at the expense of the main plot. Of course character development is a vital part, but it should never take first place ahead of the plot. Watching it, I felt as if the plot was moving at a snail's pace.
Had I known that it is basically not finished, I would not have bothered investing 15 hours of my life into watching it. There's no such thing as a "great story" that's only half written, and the really frustrating thing is that they could have wrapped it up in 18 episodes with sharper writing and editing.
If you like stories to have an actual ending, don't bother with this. It will only make you angry and disappointed.
I just finished watching the "complete" series on DVD. First the good points: the characters are well written, the dialogue is thankfully excellent (because it's a real let down in many shows), the cast are great, and a special mention to the incidental music. It's one of the best scores I've heard and I think Laura Karpman is a genius.
The bad points: it is not, as others might have you believe, highly original. In very general terms, the "aliens among us" type of story is one of the oldest of scifi themes, and has been around since the early 20th century. More specifically, the show takes a great deal from "The X Files": they've just changed the shadowy secret organisation within the Government to the shadowy secret organisation within NASA, changed "aliens" to "sentients" and Mulder and Scully to the Odyssey 5 crew.
But to describe it as a "complete" series is unfortunate. The DVD release may comprise all the episodes that were filmed, but it is far from the whole story. I watched it with an increasing sense of foreboding as it seemed there was an unhealthy emphasis on character development and "set piece" events that comprised entire episodes, at the expense of the main plot. Of course character development is a vital part, but it should never take first place ahead of the plot. Watching it, I felt as if the plot was moving at a snail's pace.
Had I known that it is basically not finished, I would not have bothered investing 15 hours of my life into watching it. There's no such thing as a "great story" that's only half written, and the really frustrating thing is that they could have wrapped it up in 18 episodes with sharper writing and editing.
If you like stories to have an actual ending, don't bother with this. It will only make you angry and disappointed.
Death Becomes Her
(1992)
Witty satire cleverly done
11 February 2004
I must have seen this film about 15 or so times now. I love the vain, shallow characters of Madeline and Helen who are the ultimate example of what might happen if you took the advice of our "obsessed-with-perfection" media to its illogical conclusion. Meryl and Goldie play their parts with unrestrained enthusiasm, pushing them to the limit to emphasise that these two who believe they are truly beautiful are, after all, just caricatures of perfection.
Like Icarus, Mad and Hell take no advice and pursue the unattainable regardless of the cost. That they see every mountainous obstacle as a mere minor inconvenience helps reinforce the humour of the film. Bruce Willis is marvellous as Ernest, the unhappy mouse caught in the middle of their game; the voice of reason amid lunacy.
The writing is witty and sometimes painfully sharp, emphasising in almost every scene that beauty does not equal happiness, and the closer you come to attaining an obsessively pursued physical perfection, the further you get from real happiness and fulfillment. Stylistically our attention is focused on this concept over and over again, with mirrors and reflections used very creatively throughout the film.
We don't see a lot of clever satire these days, which is a pity. This is a fabulous film.
Like Icarus, Mad and Hell take no advice and pursue the unattainable regardless of the cost. That they see every mountainous obstacle as a mere minor inconvenience helps reinforce the humour of the film. Bruce Willis is marvellous as Ernest, the unhappy mouse caught in the middle of their game; the voice of reason amid lunacy.
The writing is witty and sometimes painfully sharp, emphasising in almost every scene that beauty does not equal happiness, and the closer you come to attaining an obsessively pursued physical perfection, the further you get from real happiness and fulfillment. Stylistically our attention is focused on this concept over and over again, with mirrors and reflections used very creatively throughout the film.
We don't see a lot of clever satire these days, which is a pity. This is a fabulous film.
Terminal Invasion
(2002 TV Movie)
Good actors let down by bad plot
7 February 2004
I picked this one up at the video store the other day. It looked promising, in a rollercoaster fun "Con Air meets The Faculty" kind of way. Bruce Campbell is his usual "Adam West" style of hero and the remaining cast, while containing no familiar faces, certainly made their presence felt early in the film.
At first the dialogue was very good, the story moved along quickly without rushing things, and scary scenes weren't telegraphed or overdone. I was really enjoying it. Then about halfway through the plot took the stupidest, least viable, least intelligent turn it could have taken. I sat there for the next ten minutes going "I can't believe they didn't...". After that, I thought "well you can all die for all I care, you bunch of fools".
While I did watch all the film, the stupid plot twist really sucked the fun out of it for me. I ceased to care at all. It was fun, but next time I feel like this sort of thing, I'll watch The Faculty again.
At first the dialogue was very good, the story moved along quickly without rushing things, and scary scenes weren't telegraphed or overdone. I was really enjoying it. Then about halfway through the plot took the stupidest, least viable, least intelligent turn it could have taken. I sat there for the next ten minutes going "I can't believe they didn't...". After that, I thought "well you can all die for all I care, you bunch of fools".
While I did watch all the film, the stupid plot twist really sucked the fun out of it for me. I ceased to care at all. It was fun, but next time I feel like this sort of thing, I'll watch The Faculty again.
Nine to Five
(1980)
This is why you should join a trade union!
31 January 2004
I first saw this film as a kid when it was in the cinema. I must have watched it more than a few dozen times since then. As a kid I simply loved the comedy, and the way our three heroes triumph over the Boss from Hell. As an adult I've found it's a great way to cope after a terrible day at work: beer, pizza and 9 to 5. When you've got the Boss from Hell, then this movie is your fantasy. I feel like I'm getting revenge on my boss from the comfort of my own home!
Parton, Fonda and Tomlin make a fantastic team. There is obviously an incredible chemistry at work between them. Along with Dabney Coleman they play their fantastic characters to the hilt, right up to the edge of "over the top" without actually jumping off. At the same time the dramatic moments in the film fire up their (and our) sense of outrage at the conditions they must work under, giving the story a kick along at exactly the right moments.
Apart from being horrendously funny, it is a stark reminder of what sort of conditions prevail in a workplace without a union to represent staff. I've been working for 14 years now and spent many years as a trade union delegate in my workplace. So much has been gained in the last 20 years that it is now not uncommon to encounter young, naive employees with no idea of history, asking "So, why should I join the union? What's the union ever done?". Look at this movie, look beneath the comedy, and see exactly what a workplace can be like without a union.
Parton, Fonda and Tomlin make a fantastic team. There is obviously an incredible chemistry at work between them. Along with Dabney Coleman they play their fantastic characters to the hilt, right up to the edge of "over the top" without actually jumping off. At the same time the dramatic moments in the film fire up their (and our) sense of outrage at the conditions they must work under, giving the story a kick along at exactly the right moments.
Apart from being horrendously funny, it is a stark reminder of what sort of conditions prevail in a workplace without a union to represent staff. I've been working for 14 years now and spent many years as a trade union delegate in my workplace. So much has been gained in the last 20 years that it is now not uncommon to encounter young, naive employees with no idea of history, asking "So, why should I join the union? What's the union ever done?". Look at this movie, look beneath the comedy, and see exactly what a workplace can be like without a union.
Earthquake
(1974)
It's not Shakespeare, but it's bloody good fun
31 January 2004
In the 90s our re-found love for disaster flicks led to people desperately trying to outdo each other, but focusing so much on the disaster element that everything else was forgotten. Earthquake is not that kind of film, it's actually an excellent example of a disaster movie. Yes I know the acting leaves a lot to be desired, and it has its faults plot-wise, but it's good to see a disaster flick where the disaster isn't the main character.
Earthquake takes its time developing characters and their relationships and building tension before getting to the Main Event. This is unlike films such as Daylight, where we get a basic meet-and-greet introduction to the characters before it all goes to hell. Sure characters continue to develop after the disaster, but it's knowing them well beforehand and seeing how they change as they cope with it that makes all the difference.
For anyone out there thinking of writing such a film, Earthquake's structure is a good example to follow. Much better than recent films like Dante's Peak (I was cheering for the lava).
Earthquake takes its time developing characters and their relationships and building tension before getting to the Main Event. This is unlike films such as Daylight, where we get a basic meet-and-greet introduction to the characters before it all goes to hell. Sure characters continue to develop after the disaster, but it's knowing them well beforehand and seeing how they change as they cope with it that makes all the difference.
For anyone out there thinking of writing such a film, Earthquake's structure is a good example to follow. Much better than recent films like Dante's Peak (I was cheering for the lava).
Ghosts... of the Civil Dead
(1988)
riveting...
30 January 2004
As others have said, this is a disturbing and frightening film. For me, it raised questions about exactly who are the barbarians in our "civil" society and at what point can it be said that we are no better than "them".
Some with no knowledge of conditions in modern prisons dismiss this as a brutal movie out for shock value and nothing else, but it is based on a true story. One previous comment says it was filmed in NT (Australia) and based on events that happened in an outback prison. However it was based on the testimony of David Hale, a warder at USP Marion, Illinois, USA, who spoke out about the management tactics and treatment meted out to both prisoners and staff at the prison - tactics which culminated in a lockdown after two people were murdered in one day. When Hale spoke out he was branded a drunk, a drug user and mentally unstable in order to discredit him. (If the soundtrack is still available, it is worth a listen. It features an extensive interview with Hale.)
The cast features four professional actors and two musicians (Cave and The Reels' Dave Mason). The rest are predominantly ex-cons with about a dozen ex-cops, ex-warders and tough types found hanging around in local Melbourne gyms thrown in. It was workshopped for several months before filming began. You will not see a more realistic picture of life in prison - unless you are unfortunate enough to find yourself in one.
Some with no knowledge of conditions in modern prisons dismiss this as a brutal movie out for shock value and nothing else, but it is based on a true story. One previous comment says it was filmed in NT (Australia) and based on events that happened in an outback prison. However it was based on the testimony of David Hale, a warder at USP Marion, Illinois, USA, who spoke out about the management tactics and treatment meted out to both prisoners and staff at the prison - tactics which culminated in a lockdown after two people were murdered in one day. When Hale spoke out he was branded a drunk, a drug user and mentally unstable in order to discredit him. (If the soundtrack is still available, it is worth a listen. It features an extensive interview with Hale.)
The cast features four professional actors and two musicians (Cave and The Reels' Dave Mason). The rest are predominantly ex-cons with about a dozen ex-cops, ex-warders and tough types found hanging around in local Melbourne gyms thrown in. It was workshopped for several months before filming began. You will not see a more realistic picture of life in prison - unless you are unfortunate enough to find yourself in one.
Series 7: The Contenders
(2001)
Good idea poorly executed
31 July 2002
I guess I was expecting something more like the Running Man, rather than the documentary-style approach taken here. I was bored to death after the first twenty minutes. I persevered only because I felt that to turn it off so early would be unfair, but I needn't have bothered. There was simply too much "human interest" stuff and too little action.
More interaction between them, and more info on how such a show came into being and what sort of society/Government allows it to happen, and it would have made a far more interesting film. As it was, it is one of those rare instances where it really was dull and a total waste of time and money.
More interaction between them, and more info on how such a show came into being and what sort of society/Government allows it to happen, and it would have made a far more interesting film. As it was, it is one of those rare instances where it really was dull and a total waste of time and money.
Tell Your Friends