judasfm Reviews

Alien Worlds (2020)

For a show titled "Alien Worlds," it spends a heck of a lot of time on Earth

[4/10 · 18 January 2022]

I was excited when I saw this advertised on Netflix. I thought it was a clever idea. The way the show talked about things like sky grazers as though it was an authentic documentary was interesting.

Unfortunately, we get a few minutes of these alien worlds, and the rest of it is set on Earth. For example, Episode 3 talks about grazers, predators, shows us a world of giant red mushrooms (the worlds themselves are very well designed) and then spends the majority of the episode teaching us about the life cycle of the mayfly on Earth, and hummingbirds. I have nothing against either of those things, and I learned a lot about mayflies and hummingbirds. It's just that this wasn't what I wanted to watch.

If the creative team had done something like "Walking with Dinosaurs" ("Walking with Aliens?") then this could have been a truly phenomenal series. As it is, there's nowhere near enough focus on the Alien Worlds, and what there is tends to be reused. The designers also seem to have been running out of ideas. Although the sky grazers and their predators in Episode 1 were very well designed, the grazers and predators in Episode 3 looked like big-eyed bunnies and six-legged bush babies respectively.

Let's hope someone actually takes this concept and does something worth watching with it in the future.

The Stand (2020–2021)

I am so glad I didn't buy the whole series

[2/10 · 10 December 2021]

When I first saw this advertised, I was so excited.

After buying the first episode, I was disappointed but I figured I'd keep trying.

After the second episode, I was done.

I'm not usually someone who whines because the adaptation "isn't like the book." (Disney's Little Princess notwithstanding). And in this case, whining wouldn't be fair, because it's clear that the writers have read the book. There are so many little touches and scenes, such as the guy offering Larry $1m for the use of Rita, or the other guy who wants to run around the stadium naked; the people behind this are obviously very familiar with their source material.

The problem isn't the differences between the series and the book. You have to make cuts and changes; I absolutely get that, and I appreciate that a lot of minor scenes made it into the series.

The PROBLEM is that as a series, it's pretty much unintelligible to those who HAVEN'T read the book. Say what you like about the 1990s miniseries, but it had one very strong point in its favor: it told a linear, coherent story, so that even someone who hadn't read the book could enjoy it.

Episode 1 opens on a church full of dead people. We see other, not-dead people coming in to take them out. In other words, we're seeing the Boulder Zone Burial Committee in action. It then cuts back to "Five Months Earlier."

This is the one time that the flashback setting actually works well. The guys doing the burying are hidden behind masks and not recognizable, so there are no spoilers. Flashbacks in this sense are like a pinch of salt in a dish; a nice addition that makes it slightly different.

Unfortunately, the creative team takes the view that if a pinch of salt makes it nice and different, just think how much better it would be if they tipped the whole salt cellar into the pot!

What's left are disjointed fragments of a story. There's next to nothing in the way of orientation: in Episode 2, the story cuts from Larry, Joe and Nadine arriving in Boulder, to Larry getting ready to perform, to Larry meeting Rita, to Larry, Joe and Nadine in a nice big house, to Larry wading through sewers. There's no warning and nothing to remind the viewer of the time/place, but - since we know Larry will meet a kid called Joe and a woman called Nadine and they'll move into a big house in Boulder together - there's no suspense either.

I wanted to like this. I wanted to like it so much. I loved the 1990s miniseries, I loved the book and I wanted to love this. The most frustrating thing is that if they'd put the scenes in order, they'd have the makings of something pretty good.

Don't waste your time on this, much less your money.

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2005)

Fair, but disappointing

[5/10 · 1 May 2012]

There are some really high points in this adaptation, and their names are Martin Freeman (Arthur Dent) Alan Rickman (voice of Marvin) and Bill Nighy (Slartibartfast). And let's face it, everyone knows those three are fantastic.

The film draws enough from the books to satisfy fans, and the song So Long (And Thanks For All The Fish) was brilliant.

However, Ford Prefect was a little annoying, although just about watchable. The thing about Zaphod's extra 'face' being under his regular one and his third arm being secret is, however, ludicrous. The actor was fantastic in the role; it's just a shame that the above changes to his character prevented me from really enjoying his performance.

Zooey is a good actress, however I felt she was completely wrong for Trillian and I find her presence ruins whatever scene she happens to be in. Again, let me stress that Zooey herself is a good actress; she's just completely wrong for this part, and that's the problem with this version of Trillian and Ford. Both are played by very good performers; unfortunately they're also played by completely the wrong performers.

There are some other good things - the scene with Arthur and Ford and the babel fish, and the little touches such as the crab that the Vogon smashes (you really do need to be a die-hard fan of the book or radio play to get that reference!) and, of course, the Vogons themselves are fantastically designed - and it's those things and the performance of the other three actors who were perfectly cast which garner it 5/10 from me, if only because 5.5 isn't available as a rating.

Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem (2007)

No, no, NO!

[4/10 · 6 June 2008]

I've been a die-hard fan of the Alien movies since I was nine, and one of my biggest regrets is not being old enough to see any of them (especially Aliens) at the cinema. With that in mind, I'll watch anything with an Alien in it and bought the DVD of this when I was out shopping.

Big mistake. Let's break it down:

THE GOOD

The ending. No, I'm not just saying that because it meant the movie was over; the ending is pretty good in its own right.

The CGI. I guess. I mean, it's done very well, but it's honestly no more impressive than seeing Bolaji Badejo dressed up in an Alien suit in the first movie. Fantastic CGI isn't enough to save a terrible script.

The acting. Nothing spectacular, but it's good enough to pass.

THE BAD

The PredAlien. Although I was looking forward to seeing it...well, if you can imagine a PredAlien version of a Mary-Sue, you'll get pretty close. Not only does it come into being with fully pleated dreadlocks, it manages to annihilate half its own life cycle by doing away with the need for facehuggers, eggs and the queen alien.

How? By kissing the intended victim and spitting the embryos down their throat, thus achieving in a few minutes what takes facehuggers at least an hour, based on the other movies.

Yes, embryos plural. Instead of the single chestburster munching its way out of some poor victim's torso, there's now a litter of three or four to a person (which, interestingly enough, look absolutely nothing like the PredAlien that fathered them).

The action...or lack thereof. Okay, so I'm the first to admit that a movie doesn't have to have constant shooting in it to be fantastic (the original Alien movie is a case in point here) but you need something to keep the audience occupied. When the people did start shooting I remember sitting up and thinking, Wow, something's FINALLY happening! Three minutes later I was back in a kind of idle boredom.

The characters. The other Alien movies (and to a lesser extent, the first AvP) gave you characters you could care about and relate to, characters you really wanted to survive. This one...well, if you can tell each of the main characters apart at the end of the movie (much less remember their names) you're doing well. No exaggeration.

For (really) die-hard Alien/Predator fans, it's worth a look purely because it has Aliens/Predators in it, but there's not much more to recommend it.

The Animals of Farthing Wood (1993–1995)

Mostly excellent

[9/10 · 5 January 2007]

I watched this on and off as a kid, then as an adult I re-read the whole series of Farthing Wood books and got hooked once again.

THE GOOD:

The series is very faithful to the books; a lot of the script has been taken directly from it. It covers all the story lines (lately released prequel notwithstanding) from the initial flight to White Deer Park to the problems posed by the likes of Scarface and Trey and the rats at the end. While some parts of it take two separate books and combine them into one storyline, this is done so well and so cleverly that it really doesn't matter. The animation is basic but sound, and consistent all the way through. The voice acting is reasonably good (Badger in particular is excellent) The characters act more or less as they do in the books, with two notable exceptions (see below for details)

THE BAD:

Most of the animals seem to have undergone a sex change. Adder, Tawny Owl, Weasel and Kestrel are all female in this adaptation, whereas in the books they were all male. Out of all four, Owl's voice is the best; the persona is completely identical to that of the book.

Character redesign: Weasel comes across as a silly clown with possibly the most irritating laugh I've ever heard

Character redesign: Adder comes across as an evil, sneaky villain, even going so far as to alter the words of the Oath (in the book, Badger insists Adder swear first, and Adder complies willingly and serves as a full member of the group). This really did disappoint me, as Adder was easily my favourite character from the books.

All in all, though, a fantastic series and well worth a watch!

A Little Princess (1995)

Bitterly disappointing

[4/10 · 18 December 2006]

I was looking forward to this so much, being a big fan of the book. However, when it came out I remember thinking it was one of the biggest wastes of money and time I've ever spent at the cinema.

In principle, the acting, the sets and the music were excellent, and are the main reason why I'm rating this a 4. The other nice thread Disney picked up out of the book (so far, they're the only ones) is Sara's storytelling.

In this version, Sara is a little too self-sacrificing for my taste. There is no way she would have deliberately lied to Miss Minchin just to stop her punishing the other girls; in the book she makes a point of describing lies as "not just wicked, but vulgar."

There's also far too much of a Disneyfied ending for me; Sara's father coming back from the dead and having his amnesia/brain fever cured simply by seeing his little girl, and all of them trotting off into the Indian sunset. While the book does have a happy (and critics might say equally improbable) ending, it doesn't leave you thinking, "Oh puh- leeze."

However, to be perfectly fair, Disney isn't the first one to do this ending; instead, they ripped it off from the Shirley Temple version. Still infuriating to watch (why couldn't they have ripped off the BBC ending, if they had to rip off anyone?) but I suppose it's marginally better than having them just rewrite the book.

About the only things true to the book were:

1. Sara's father being a soldier 2. The lines between Sara and her father ("Are you learning me by heart?"/"No. I know you by heart. You are inside my heart.") 3. Sara's friendship with Becky, and her 'adopting' Lottie (although this last one wasn't developed as much as it could have been) 4. The changing of her room by adding various luxury items. That part was brilliantly done. 5. The basic core - a rich girl being flung into poverty suddenly - is there, but that's about all that is.

People might say that this adaptation is more for the younger audience. Possibly. All I can say to that is I have two cousins - aged 7 and 12 respectively - who were big fans of this film until they read the book.

If all you want is a 'feel-good' family film, then this delivers. If you're looking for a film that actually tells the story of A Little Princess (in fact, if you've read the book) don't waste time with this one. It's such a shame; with a cast like this, if they'd stuck to at least the basic story it could have been fantastic.

Am I harping on about 'read the book' this and 'read the book' that a little too much? Very probably. But if someone attempts to adapt a book - especially such a classic - into a movie, then they should at least have done the same thing. I was led to believe this was an adaptation of the book, not a remake of the Shirley Temple version.

The Land Before Time XI: Invasion of the Tinysauruses (2005 Video)

This is getting silly

[3/10 · 13 April 2006]

Alright. To be honest, I think all the sequels are let down by the idea of musical numbers; it turns what was originally an animated film for slightly older children into a Disneyfied trip of cavity-inducing irritation. This one has the worst musical numbers in the whole series (some of the others admittedly weren't bad).

My biggest problem with this film was lack of plausibility. Granted that's quite a strange thing to accuse this kind of film of this late in the series, as any paleontologist would tell you, along with everyone jumping down various throats and saying, "Yes, but it's a kids film so accuracy doesn't really matter." Fair enough. I'm not disputing that.

However, the original film and its sequels up to this point were...well, at least believable within the Land Before Time universe. The idea of Littlefoot and pals raising a baby sharptooth or journeying to find a magic flower or having to deal with bullies are fine.

But minuscule longnecks...no! That really does push the boundaries to breaking point! If it had been little creatures, then this could have kept up the passable trend with the other sequels, but just what was the point in these creatures? A fair idea that was let down by a lousy concept. The reason I'm giving it three stars instead of one was that this film does deal well with a fairly sensitive issue; namely that of a single parent finding someone else and how it can affect both children and adults.

Though I could quite happily have lived the rest of my life without finding out that Cera's dad was named Topsy...

Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog (1993)

Great for what it is

[18 September 2005]

I remember watching this when I was a kid. It was on Channel 4, Sunday at 9am and I used to watch the programs for about two hours beforehand so I would be sure not to miss it. Is it really that good? It was to me, and still is.

People comment that the humour is very slapstick in this. They're right. But so what? Pantomime is slapstick and nobody complains. Why? Because it's an accepted part of the show. I think the same goes for this one.

Is it better than Sonic X? Tough one. I'm a huge fan of Sonic X (mostly because I happen to be a huge fan of Knuckles, although I do love the series for its own sake). I don't see how you can reasonably compare the two of them; Sonic X is good for older viewers, while the slightly younger ones will probably enjoy this one more. The one thing that bugs me a little that I don't remember bugging me when I was younger (the age thing again) was the way that occasional episodes would ram the moral down your throat. Example: in Subterranean Sonic, after Sonic and Tails rescue the miser mole, he turns to them and says something like, "Oh, I can't thank you enough for showing me the error of my ways!" and then the three of them walk into the sunset together. Corny? You betcha. But so what? These incidents are few and far between, and if you're too old to be affected by them, you're not too old to laugh.

People who slam this are most likely used to the straighter story lines of Sonic X or can't remember what it was like to be eight or nine years old and watching this. No, it doesn't have particularly deep or engaging story lines. But since when does a twenty minute cartoon for kids really need them? On a closing note, it features the ultimate Robotnik. Long John Baldry's voice was absolutely perfect for this character; it's such a shame he wasn't able to participate in any other Sonic productions.

Bottom line; it's great. I doubt it'll get you on the edge of your seat unless you're aged about ten or under, but Sonic fans can still enjoy it.

Sonic the Hedgehog: The Movie (1996)

Good, but don't take it too seriously

[7/10 · 2 September 2005]

Watching this gave me a distinct feeling of The Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog meets Pokemon. First things first: The dubbing from Japanese is actually not bad, as dubbing goes. My main criticisms would be on the sound of the actors rather than their talent: Sonic sounds a little like an old-fashioned cowboy, Knuckles sounds far too young (and WHAT is up with that HAT??) and Tails...well, Tails sounds like he has a bad cold.

The story isn't too bad; it's just strong enough to keep the movie going. Introducing the President's daughter (or even the President) was a big mistake; the characters don't fit at all. The writers appear to have completely disregarded the planet and backstories set out in the original Sonic franchise, creating a completely new planet called Freedom. That said, this one-off planet does feature more aspects from the games than most of the other TV series, with the spikes, springs and well-known bots such as Caterkiller.

Robotnik came across as a six year old having a bad day. I've heard the TV series The Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog called slapstick...well, this goes way beyond slapstick. Certain things like Robotnik blowing raspberries at Sonic at his (supposed) moment of victory...well, I won't bore you with the details. Metal Sonic was good though, and the fight between him (it?) and Sonic was well done. A good movie, entertaining but not a patch on Sonic X or The Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog. Fantastic for younger viewers though.

Dawn of the Dead (2004)

Good zombie viewing (in more ways than one)

[6/10 · 23 July 2005]

Okay. Maybe I've become too jaded to horror films (unlikely; I tend to jump at the same point several times in a row) but I really don't get what's so great about this movie.

Point one. Fast running zombies just don't work for me. This movie should have been called Dawn of the Psychos (or Demented, if you want to stick with the alliteration theme) That could have worked; a bunch of lunatics running around trying to carve people up would probably have gotten me on the edge of my seat. To be honest, half the time I forgot these guys were supposed to be dead until I got a close up. Zombies that move slowly and seemingly unstoppably creep me out far more than ones that run around like hamsters on caffeine. To make a comparison, it's like the shower scene in Psycho; part of the reason that's so sinister is because of the slow, deliberate movements right up until the knife flashes down. If he'd rushed in, yanked the curtain off and killed her in about three seconds, it wouldn't have been nearly so nerve-racking. Same goes for here. There's nothing truly scary about a zombie that races around.

Point two. The suspense for me was almost non-existent, as was the character development. Basically, people need to care about characters in order to worry about whether or not the zombies/aliens/vampires/insert bad guy here will get them. Character development here was so lax that I honestly didn't care whether or not the people lived or died. End result, almost no suspense. I think the dog got better character development overall than the humans.

There were a couple of good bits; the communicating between the two groups on the rooftops was good, and the end credits sequence (watch it and you'll see what I mean) I was on the edge of my seat far more with those credits than the rest of the movie.

Don't get me wrong. I liked Dawn of the Dead; it's a fun film to zombie with (pun intended ;)) I just don't get why everyone was raving about it. It's worth a watch if you like horror flicks and if you have a spare couple of hours, but don't rush to buy it.

The Phantom of the Opera (2004)

My first experience of Phantom...

[10/10 · 12 December 2004]

I'd read the original book years ago, and had a vague idea of the story from the cinema blurb, but I'd never heard all the songs from the score (at least, not in order) and had no idea what to expect.

In a word, breathtaking. I was literally on the edge of my seat the whole time. Emmy stands out as a superb Christine. Admittedly she didn't bellow out the songs like a lot of recordings I've heard (and which seems to be the main complaint against her) but on the plus side, the audience could actually understand what this Christine was singing; people who go for effect and volume tend to wind up singing so high that the audience needs the lyrics sheet to understand what's being said. Sounds wonderful, and technically very impressive, but give me a clearer voice like Emmy's any day.

Patrick as Raoul was also good, although I felt his voice lacked power in one or two parts. He seemed to struggle slightly with singing and acting convincingly at the same time; most of the time he did an excellent job, but there were one or two parts (especially at the end) when he seemed unsure whether he should give more effort to his singing or acting. By and large however, a fantastic performance.

Finally we come to the Phantom. I was blown away by Gerard Butler's performance; at times he seemed to carry the entire thing. The added scene detailing the Phantom's childhood and background worked well as well.

Overall, an amazing production and a full 10 out of 10! Highly recommended.

Animal Farm (1999 TV Movie)

I was mesmerised

[9/10 · 29 August 2004]

People seem to slam this one down into the ground, although I can't see why (maybe it has to do with the unrealistic expectations people nowadays seem to have of films). As a massive fan of the George Orwell book, I found this gripped me from the start. Okay, so there are more than a few discrepancies, but these are more than made up for by the outstanding voice acting and the atmosphere. The musical score is one of the most apt and best composed that I've ever heard, and it's worth watching the movie for that.

If you haven't read the book, you'll probably enjoy the movie more than if you have, but either way this is a must-see!