jtrascap Reviews

The Enfield Poltergeist (2023)

Lets YOU decide for a change

[9/10 · 3 November 2023]

A very smartly done documentary, with actors lip-syncing to the recordings of the owners, neighbors, and those affected by the going's on in that house. Eerie seeing and not seeing what was going on, knowing the reactions are real from the sound - the actors did a very good job of keeping everything in context.

High praises to the filmmakers for keeping us in mind that this is ours to evaluate - from the occasional peeks behind the sets to the real interviews with neighbors, reporters and photographers and ultimately the 2 girls at the center. Just when you think you've made up your mind, you get more information, and then you rethink, then more and a rethink..

Definitely worth seeking out and having a weekend watch party - the tone shifts in episodes 3, and again in 4, but the combined effect is something my wife and I talk about still.

The Core (2003)

Honest 1950s escapism wearing a 90s bomber jacket..

[8/10 · 8 February 2023]

It's easy to tear this movie apart scientifically if you want to be THAT person, but I'd argue you need to back up a bit and look at it for what it is: a throwback to the type of films like Fantastic Voyage, Journey to the Center of the Earth, and it's ilk. Yes - there are times when it's got the IQ of a bag of hammers, but dang - it's fun, most all of the characters interesting enough that I'd like to spend time with them, the tragedy (there's always tragedy...) actually hurt, and of course - great special effects galore.

If anything, it brought the word "unobtanium" to the people waaaay before Avatar (which, on video, I have far less time for). The Core is a perfect popcorn movie!

Thor: Love and Thunder (2022)

Deeply disappointing

[4/10 · 2 November 2022]

As this series goes on, it leaves the idea of nobility behind and makes the cast a bunch of rambling fools in search of a quest. The first Thor film may have been over-serious, but it pulled at the character in different ways and gave it depth; Thor had a genuine soul. This one reduces the character to a running joke about incompetence in anything but fighting - it's as if Marvel (Disney) made the series for a younger and younger audience each go round. All the characters are slight and one-note, the is plot thin and moves fast but randomly, like a drunk on a country road. It's such a shame - the original was about family, trust and honor - there's absolutely nothing honorable here. It just feels like a quick cash grab.

Ted Lasso (2020–2023)

Put away old expectations - this is remarkable

[9/10 · 24 August 2020]

Far more interesting and more deep than you'd; expect from a modern comedy. You kind of expect an office-type comedy where everyone is a caricature whose existence is just a single facet of the group as a whole... the scheming boss, the angry old athlete, the American out of his element, etc... immediately, they start breaking down these stereotypes and each and every main character starts developing depth, pathos, honesty, reasoning for their actions and often reflection of what they've done...they grow and develop, which is a rarity for a comedy these days. And it's hysterically funny, And it's completely engrossing.

"Ted Lasso" is really, REALLY good..easily one of the best shows of the season no matter the service. Looking forward to the next episode!

For All Mankind (2019– )

Addictive What-If TV

[8/10 · 10 November 2019]

I remember those days as a kid, and I can believe everything in this show. Politics aside, this is a great companion piece to films like The Right Stuff - if you liked that, this is for you.

Star Trek: Discovery (2017–2024)

Early days, but still interesting

[9/10 · 3 October 2017]

I think I was hooked by the second episode.

The first jarred my sensibilities and expectations, and - unlike some fans - I don't have a problem with being challenged. The lead isn't a noble-yet-slightly rebellious captain who can make their own rules; it's about an underling who takes unilateral action, completely correct and against the rules, and is defrocked for it, and suddenly all possibilities are now on the table.

People think the Federation has its noble purpose born into it - I sense this is more about how it comes to be. The Federation has always had the occasional dubious plan, the wrong step, possible invaders in their midst. That's the problem with Federations or Empires: to march to a common tune, you lose your individual humanity.

In many ways, Burnham is a microcosm of this. She's rigidly controlled, yet inside there still pulses a heartbeat of humanity that seeps out in more personal moments. She's raised in fire, given rules and then set out to test those in real life - much like the young Federation. In episode 3 she's given the chance to return to the machine but chooses the more honest path - It's going to be interesting to see how her better angels guide her.

Onto the naysayers.

Every "Star Trek" series has its early, rough start as it tries to dig a place for itself in the bedrock of Trek lore. I can remember the calls of "heresy" int he first years of The Next Generation from the purists who wanted another copy of their favourite Trek, TOS. Problem is, every generation expect something different now - which was your favourite? TOS, TNG? DS9? Voyager?? The movies (old or new cast)?? The argument is ridiculous to consider - there is no "right" Trek. They're ALL different parts of the same universe, so stop comparing!

Trek isn't bound by technology; it's wrapped in it but it's stories and the push of the ethos of Humanity into the cosmos is the core of the series. So there are holographic displays. So the ships look shiny and new..so what. Focus on the story - that's true Trekkie.

John Wants Answers (2010– )

Well, *we* love it...

[8/10 · 2 August 2016]

From the goofy opening song to the wittering-about on any subject under the sun, John Wants Answers is fun. It's a local-access TV show out of the LA region, but they babble on about everything..

Start with the show where John interviews several fellow ex-Apple employees on the Steve Jobs book - Daniel Kottke, Andy Hertzfeld and Steve Wozniak - but stay for the ramblings of John and near-permanent guest, Keith Stattenfield; it's like watching a doddering old couple have at it. Quite fun!

It's still in production on a monthly basis (last show was July 14, 2016) so IMDb need to update this!

The Quatermass Experiment (2005 TV Movie)

Perhaps I missed something...

[5/10 · 7 September 2008]

I'm an old fan of Quatermass and the Pit (watching the DVD now actually...) but I'm a bit surprised by the BBC4 experiment I saw a few late nights back. Not great, not bad, not much actually - it was very much all theatrics and really lacked any real bearing. Plus the ending just completely fizzled out..I sat there thinking "Huh? What have I missed?"

Jason Flemyng, as good an actor as he is, was just not Quatermass material. As the head of a space program, sorry - he's just too damn young. He lacks gravitas and bearing and just seems as if he's always catching up rather than leading.

Fun - to a degree - but ultimately disappointing

Doctor Who: Voyage of the Damned (2007) Season 4, Episode 0

You've got to be kidding...

[1/10 · 11 April 2008]

You know, when Hollywood does a steaming pile of explosions and cgi like this, it's called out for the useless drivel it is. Why is everyone loving this episode? It's so poor, so sub-class, so riddled with stereotypes and amazingly cruelty for a Doctor Who episode. And this was a holiday show?

Life is cheap now too it seems. Russell Davis seems to want to up the body count to match Torchwood. Frankly, I'd not mind if they were as half suspenseful or clever as the two-parter "Impossible Planet" and "Satan's Pit", but if this is a sign of things to come, it's sooo not.

Leave the needless Hollywood violence for Torchwood, hm'kay?

Torchwood (2006–2011)

Torchwood. What a flameout.

[4/10 · 26 April 2007]

I love Doctor Who - I think the second season has some of the best Doctor Who's ever. And I wanted, to like this...so much.

But... Wow! What a stinkburger!

Everyone is self-absorbed, has the emotional capacity of a 16-year old and virtually no-one is trustworthy. It's a tiresome show with annoying people and weak sci-fi. C'mon, Satan? Some finalé -- I saw it months before, more satisfyingly, in a decent Doctor Who. And seriously, does EVERYONE have to be bisexual? Who is the demographic for this show anyway? I mean, I'm as liberal as it gets, especially here in The Netherlands, but this was ridiculous!

Torchwood is lame. Terrribly, terribly lame.

F Troop (1965–1967)

Silly, funny family entertainment

[15 August 2003]

There was a time, perhaps when our better sensibilities knew it, when we were allowed to laugh at all races, religions and socio-ethnicities without being labeled "racist". It was a gentler, more naive time indeed, and the airwaves broadcast TV aimed at the silly side of life. "Gilligan's Island", "The Beverly Hillbillies", "I Dream of Jeannie", "Petticoat Junction", "It's About Time" and of course, "F-Troop".

There is a common thread in all of these shows: Simple, honest people are ennobled. Officious, pompous people are made fun of. Everyone is fodder for fun - no-one is above being poked at.

Ken Berry as William Parmenter is amazing in his comic timing (Mayberry RFD was a big step down for me). Melody Patterson is absolutely delicious jail-bait as "Calamity" Jane, and of course Frank DeKova and Don Diamond as Chief Wild Eagle and Crazy Cat, and Forrest Tucker and Larry Storch, as Sgt. O'Rourke and Corporal Agarn, respectively, are mirror-images of avarice and opportunity.

The relationships of these last 4 characters were the most typical of TV, but smartly turned on it's head: Agarn and Crazy Cat, full of ideas and energy, scheming and snatching at everything that moved, in their climb to "success". Sgt. O'Rourke and Chief Wild Eagle, as the "Establishment", wisely knowing when to take opportunities, but at the same time wringing their hands about their underlings almost as to say "What is it with the kids these days"?

This was wonderful social satire loaded with sight-gags, something for young and old. Unfortunately we Americans seem to have lost the knack for subtle comedy, as we now linger under the thumb of blistering insults and mechanical obviousness. I don't know if we get it ourselves these days - perhaps that is why people look at the show and react first without giving the show any thought.

I don't mean to discount the valid views of other, more PC posters, but they're missing the point. TV and film are just time capsules...you can no more examine history through something like "F-Troop" than experience the future through something like "2001". Ultimately, they're both the '60s.

What you can do is understand the period and sensibilities of that time, and remember one major lesson - something we were learning then but have perhaps since forgotten: That we are all the same under the skin. And at best, we should be taken very, very lightly.

Wild Wild West (1999)

Really Really Rotten!

[2/10 · 4 September 2000]

Okay, I'm a fan of the original series and Will Smith, Kevin Klein, Kenneth Brannagh and Barry Sonnenfeld, but...oy! What a completely joyless flop!

This is actually a perfect bean-counter's film: put all the elements in that you know previous successes were based on, have pretty people (male and female) show up and act smug on screen, and then blow things up. Part of the "old school".

Blurf. Boring. No surprises, none at all. "Godzilla" was grand opera compared to this. Will Smith walks on, smiles, gleens and preens and does his "Fresh Prince" gig...completely out of character and time. His performance has all the elements of the "star quality walk-on from Airport '77", except this one last 90 minutes. Sonnenfeld's sense of direction and momentum seems to be a bit lost, as if he just gave in and let the excesses mount. From Verhoeven I'd expect this, but in Barry...

Salma Hayek is completely wasted...she's hardly even a plot twist, much less a plot device (she had more to do in the video!) Only Kevin Klein and Kenneth Brannagh show any flair and sense of the adventure.

Save your nickles and wait for Will Smith's next flick...so long as he and Sonnnenfeld check their ego at the door.

2010 (1984)

Been there, done that, didn't need the book.

[4/10 · 27 June 1999]

It's definitely a division maker, a film that splits it's viewers down the middle. If you're a 2001 fan then you'll hate it - the sense of mystery and discovery is lost as events and motivations are layed-out and explained every step of the way. If you didn't like 2001, wondering aloud what the heck you just saw, I suggest you do see 2010 since you'll love the directness of the workmanlike treatment.

It's not a a put-down - it's just that the styles are so completely different that you have to consider the messenger as much as the message. 2001 was visionary in nearly every sense the word has -- it threw out the concept of the narrative (visual or otherwise) in an attempt to make you reach your own, personal conclusion of what happened. Rebirth? Ascension? Some Nietche-ish evolution to a "superman"? You tell me -- 2001 expects quite a lot from the viewer that 2010 would much rather even mention.

By comparison, 2010 is very much an old-fashioned Hollywood movie. It explains *everything*, step by step, and includes a Roy Scheider voice-over to help thread the small gaps in time between scenes together. The voice over is often beyond silly - it's in the lyric of a series of emails from Heywood to his wife who, it should be noted, is fearful for her husband's safety. Any spouse sitting through a reading of the atmosphere braking technique will probably not sleep for weeks. Any husband who could write that deserves a slap for scaring the beegeezus out of her.

2010 is not a strong film - frankly, it's quite derivative. It's visual sensibilities leech directly into "Alien" while inside the spacecraft (from the control buttons and displays on the Russian craft, to the lighting of the of EVA room as Baskin and Lithgow take their walk to Discovery, to the smoky "atmosphere" in the interiors when discussing the "troubles" at home). Outside, Hyams tries and is successful in the sense of scope and grandeur of space, and out pitiful size in relation to the course of the Universe. While he apes Kubrick, probably to establish a sense of continuity between the two films, he is at his best in the action scenes as the Leanov (sp?) enters Jupiter space. Either way, you watch this movie and get the feeling you've seen it all before.

To be fair, Scheider is very good in his role of Heywood Floyd, that is if you dismiss the style of the previous occupant of that role, William Sylvester, as only a Kubrick mannequin. Again, the camps are divided -- I believe I understand the tact Kubrick chose to take, the sense of human alienation and evolutionary boredom, and while 2010 puts "real people" in space and makes the voyage to the stars more human, this wasn't the goal of Kubrick. Kubrick wanted to show man at a spiritual, cultural and evolutionary dead-end, and so human reactions (like 2001's Bowman going after HAL) only escape from people as their vestiges of civilization fail them. Different approaches, different movies. So why compare them? Well, life's just not fair, now is it?

If you really don't need to compare the two, you can enjoy 2010. It's not a bad film, it just doesn't give much credit to the intelligence of the audience. That may not be a bad thing, so long as it's entertaining (insert Jim Carrey/Adam Sandler joke here) and 2010 can be entertaining at times. So long as you dismiss 2001 as a separate work of art.

If you have the time and the patience, see 2001 twice, giving yourself a week or two to let it all set in, and then remember that not everything in the Universe has added value by being strictly described.

Actually, whenever I watch 2010, I often wonder if Bob Balaban, hanging in HAL's memory center, is really as nauseous as he appears. And to the people who believe Kubrick was egotistical for destroying his sets, he did so because of what happened after Spartacus: Once production has ceased and the company left Italy, nearly every gladiator film of the '60 were shot on his old sets, some even coming out before Spartacus did.

Stanley Kubrick and Steve Reeves? Now THAT'S the ultimate trip...