cannotlogon103 Reviews

The Mandalorian (2019– )

Visually rich, emotionally powerful, but narratively paper thin.

[7/10 · 25 December 2020]

Looks great, appeals deftly to Star Wars fans, but, in the end, the story is a very thin soup. In other words, it's EXACTLY like the movie franchise. If you liked Star Wars -- as I did -- you will not be disappointed. If you are looking for Star Wars with an added depth of brilliant writing and a deeper story, keep moving, nothing new to see here.

I enjoyed it, and it's flaws are not fatal. It's fluff, very well made fluff, but fluff all the same. And there is nothing wrong with that.

Star Trek: Enterprise: These Are the Voyages... (2005) Season 4, Episode 22

Even IMDb takes a shot at this disgraceful finale.

[4/10 · 12 October 2010]

I won't recapitulate all the negative reviews of this horrible episode (with which I agree, incidentally); however, I noticed that even IMDb subtly disapproves, listing all the cast of "Enterprise" with the designation "(hologram)" next to their characters' names, suggesting it was as if...there weren't really even there.

Touche! The fact is, the B&B send off reduced the cast of "Enterprise" to ghostly afterthoughts, not unlike hologram characters -- photonic images created by the bending of light, and not fully-formed, fleshed out characters. The cast that dedicated four years of their respective careers deserved much better than to be pushed to one side (WAY to one side!) to make way for the bulky Riker and Troi.

A disgrace. (I gave it a four, simply because I liked the Shran story line, and Jeffrey Combs is always a welcome presence.)

Star Trek: Enterprise: Affliction (2005) Season 4, Episode 15

Good episode, poor rationale.

[7/10 · 11 October 2010]

As one who considers "Enterprise" an unfairly underrated series, I feel compelled to comment on segments of the sub-par fourth season such as this two-episode arc, that was, in effect, created for the sole purpose of explaining why Klingons in the original series didn't have the distinct "cranial ridges" featured in Klingons in ENT, TNG, DS9 and VOY.

Even though this "mini-arc" is an exciting and well-crafted tale, the rationale behind it is part of the reason that "Enterprise" failed as a series. Using the series to "set-up" the other Star Trek series that took place in the "future" was a sad waste of a good cast, excellent directors, and talented writers. It ultimately does a disservice to them all to use this series as little more than a device to explain events and distinctions found in the series that follow chronologically, even though they were produced years ago.

Like the much maligned series finale of "Enterprise" that employed members of TNG's cast, thus cheating the audience and the cast of a chance to make their finale about...well, about THEM, this arc is an artistic slap in the face of the Enterprise cast, writers and crew, as it wastes two episodes that could have been used to explore the relationships and develop the characters of Enterprise, instead of just "explaining" a matter of extremely minimal concern, i.e., why the Klingons in Kirk's era had smooth foreheads.

(I guess the producers felt it would have been too much to just trust that the fans of the series would understand that the reason that TOS's Klingons lacked cranial ridges was a simple matter of less developed make-up skills, and not a viral infection from a genetic augmentation experiment gone awry.)

Nevertheless, I gave it a seven (7) for some great action and good writing. The transfer of Trip by tether from the Columbia to the Enterprise at warp speed, alone, makes the two-parter worth watching!

Star Trek: Voyager: Warhead (1999) Season 5, Episode 24

Perhaps, Voyager's stupidest episode.

[3/10 · 22 September 2010]

"Warhead" may be the single most idiotic episode of Voyager. First of all, it absolutely defies all logic that the crew was unable to ascertain that the devise at the heart of the episode was a weapon of mass destruction until well after they had beamed it on board the ship.

Second, why they succumb to the Doctor's absurd request that they try to "save" this so-called "sentient being" (the warhead had built in to it an artificial intelligence that allowed it to communicate with the Doctor...hardly sentience, but, instead, simply a very low level self-awareness), is beyond reason.

Instead of immediately beaming the warhead off the ship and putting it a few million miles behind them, they choose to try to further communicate with it, in order to find out where it is from and where it was going. IT'S A BOMB! Who cares?!?!?! Granted, Picardo gives a nice performance, but the premise of the episode is so utterly ridiculous, it doesn't save the episode from its own lack of internal logic.

Star Trek: Voyager: Distant Origin (1997) Season 3, Episode 23

Chakotay as Scopes' Monkey!

[9/10 · 4 September 2010]

In one of the more clever and intriguing episodes of Voyager, "Distant Origin" pits a pure scientist against institutionally-enforced ignorance in a way that one can't help but compare to the present-day battle between evolutionists and creationists.

As the episode begins, we are introduced to an alien paleontologist who discovers the skeletal remains and tattered uniform of the recently dead Ensign Hogan on the planet upon which the Kazon deserted the crew of Voyager in "Basics" at the end of Season two. Based on his analysis, the alien scientist determines that humans and his species -- that resembles highly evolved dinosaurs -- share some 47 common genetic base pairs in their DNA -- evidence that supports his theory that his species did not originate in the Delta Quadrant; but, instead, find their ancestral origins on Earth in the Alpha Quadrant.

Unfortunately for our alien protagonist, his theory of evolution, if you will, stands in direct contravention to the prevailing "doctrine" of his people, who hold as sacred truth that their ancestors originated in the Delta Quadrant. As a result, he is charged with "heresy against doctrine", and threatened by the authorities of his people if he doesn't promptly recant his heretical assertions.

Unlike today's religious right that consider Darwin's theory of natural selection heretical and lobby to have creationism taught in our schools as scientific fact under the absurd, fabricated "science" of "intelligent design", the closed-minded aliens of "Distant Origin" are the ones currently in power, and demonstrate a blithe willingness to extort silence from those who dare to suggest any contrary scientific theory, regardless of the strength of the evidence in support thereof. Ultimately, after a Delta Quadrant equivalent of the "Scopes' Monkey trial", the alien paleontologist of "Distant Origin" is forced to withdraw his theory, lest he end up exiled to a penal colony. To make matters worse, the authorities also threaten to exile the entire Voyager crew, as well, in a clear attempt to "get rid of the evidence" of this radical theory that would throw thousands of years of institutionalized ignorance into chaos, and loosen the authoritarian governing body's hold on the unsuspecting populace.

If only the Clarence Darrow of the Delta Quadrant had shown up, things might have ended a little less bleak for our unfortunate hero!

Farscape (1999– )

A show that you have to give yourself over to in order to enjoy it.

[9/10 · 1 June 2010]

To quote another sci-fi classic, "Resistance is futile." Farscape demands a great deal from its audience, not the least of which is to suspend all that you believe a sci-fi series should entail.

It breaks every mold, and recasts them, slightly askew, in a way that no other sci-fi series ever has.

But be warned: If you enter into the series expecting it to be like Star Trek (and all its iterations), Battlestar Gallactica, or Stargate SG-1, you will end up supremely disappointed, and probably won't last past the first three or four episodes.

Instead, go with the show, instead of fighting the creator's vision and trying to impose your own opinion about what a sci-fi series is supposed to be, and you will be richly rewarded, as Farscape is unlike anything you have ever seen before.

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine: Duet (1993) Season 1, Episode 19

DS9 manages to take the viewer to remarkable places without moving an inch.

[9/10 · 16 April 2010]

I have long had mixed feelings about Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. On the one hand, it has such fine pedigree, I can't help but be intrigued. On the other, the idea of a "trekking the stars" while aboard a stationary space port seemed a contradiction in terms, and a recipe for boredom.

And yet, a surprisingly high percentage of Trek devotees hold up DS9 as the very pinnacle of the Trek series and the Trek "mission". They will tell you it is the most cerebral, the most philosophical, the most challenging. And, more often than not, they are right. Unlike TOS, TNG, VOY and ENT, DS9 (particularly in its first few seasons) rarely relies on hostile aliens, pyrotechnic space battles and mysterious spatial anomalies threatening its crew to hold the attention of its audience. Warp is NOT a factor on DS9, as it is a series dedicated not to the exploration of the far reaches of space, but to the exploration of the even more inscrutable mysteries of the mind.

"Duet" is the best of the first season, and, arguably, the best episode of the entire series. (Some here have even suggested it may be the best episode of ALL the Trek iterations.) Using clever plot twists, seemingly contradictory clues, and brilliant dialog culminating with a revelation that hits the viewer square in the gut, leaving you quite literally breathless. It is a beautifully written, performed, composed and produced episode.

Others here have revealed enough about the basic plot that I need not restate it; instead, I post this review just to add to the consensus, and let all those considering watching this episode (and this series), that this is amazing television, and far-reaching "exploration" -- even though the space explored is no bigger than that between your ears!

Star Trek: Enterprise: A Night in Sickbay (2002) Season 2, Episode 5

The good, the bad and the funny.

[8/10 · 27 March 2010]

I confess, I really like this goofy episode. I read over all of the reviews here, and, in many ways, the reviewers managed to point out aspects of this odd little episode that fly in the face of what Trek is all about -- duty, responsibility, open-mindedness to alien civilizations, etc.

Obviously, why Archer chooses to bring his dog to the planet is a head scratcher. He explains that even Porthos deserves a little fresh air sometimes, but, given the importance of the visit -- to acquire some much needed hardware for the ship -- it is ill-conceive to risk offending the natives of this planet who we know to be a sensitive lot based on the last time the crew of Enterprise met them.

Nevertheless, I think the other reviewers are being a little bit slavish in their commitment to "Trek-canonical continuity", or whatever you want to call it, and would be well disposed to suspend their religious-like devotion to the tenets of Starfleet, and enjoy the goofiness of this very good-natured episode.

From the suggestion that Archer subconsciously lusts after SubCommander T'Pol -- and his amusing Freudian slips in support thereof -- to the sappy-but-compelling story of a grown man's genuine affection for his quadraped, and, well, the "heart" of this episode defeats the logic of it, handily.

If you are willing to enjoy it as an intergalactic drawing room comedy, and not an "affront" to all that is sacred Trek-wise**, it's an amusing and, at times, touching episode.

** As much as I love Trek in all its incarnations, I certainly do not share the absurd conviction of those humourless drones who seem to view the show as sacred text, and Gene Roddenberry as their saint. If every episode involved a serious inquiry into the manifold issues of intergalactic travel, the prime directive, and the philosophical implications of exploring the galaxy...well, then the various series would be crushed under their own self-important weight, and the concepts themselves would implode, pulling the entire series into a dull, lifeless black hole of preachy sanctimony. The series needs -- nay, demands episodes like this one, if for no other reason than to remind the viewers that, particularly in the early years of warp-speed space exploration, mistakes and folly were as much a part of the growth process as revelation and enlightenment.

In short to the naysayers: lighten up. It's just a television show.

Barcelona (1994)

An underrated gem.

[10/10 · 24 August 2009]

Whit Stillman makes motion pictures like no one else. His vision is unique and incomparable. "Barcelona" is Stillman at his most brilliant, insightful, and uproarious. But, by "uproarious", I should caution: do not expect belly laughs, but subtle winks to a knowing audience. And, further, not snobby, intellectual "in-jokes", either. His humour is very much on the surface -- unless, of course he is talking about "subtext"! -- but not ham-fisted, vulgar, easy jokes either. He speaks through Eigman and Nichols as both his protagonists, antagonists and his chorus.

I cannot recommend this movie highly enough; but, it is not for everyone, either. If you find yourself only able to laugh at the blunderbuss humour of Judd Apatow (as movie maker, not television writer, in which he is much more subtle), then avoid Stillman, and all of the "Barcelona Trilogy" -- which consists of "Metropolitan", "Barcelona" and "Last Days of Disco" -- as you will be sorely disappointed.

Stillman takes his viewers on an emotional roller-coaster ride, in which you veer from wry comedy into surprisingly compelling and touch drama. It is a thing of masterfully crafted beauty. Stillman gives us the politics of US/NATO intrigue in Spain, the quirky philosophy of sales and love, and a deeply human drama of family and beliefs.

It is one of only a dozen or so movie that I have given 10 stars, and it deserves every single one. Enjoy!

Star Trek: Enterprise: Proving Ground (2004) Season 3, Episode 13

The best that "Enterprise" has to offer.

[10/10 · 20 September 2007]

Unlike many Trek-fans, I happen to think that it is a solid series. And "Proving Ground" may be the best single episode of the series -- compelling, funny and exciting, this episode is the finest episode in the finest season (Season 3) of an excellent series.

For those unfamiliar with the series, Season 3 is a season long arc in which Enterprise is dispatched into a little-known region of space (The Expanse), to track down a species known as the Xindi, who are preparing a weapon built with one purpose: to destroy Earth. Along the way, they encounter many obstacles, not least of which is the very nature of the region they must traverse -- fraught with "spatial anomalies" that twist space into an impassable region that everyday threatens to destroy Enterprise and thwart their mission. In "Proving Ground", they receive much needed help from the Andorrians and, in particular, series regular guest, Commander Shran of the Andorrian Imperial Guard.

Without revealing too much, Shran assists the crew of Enterprise navigating this tricky part of space and to capture a prototype of the weapon which is being built to destroy Earth. The episode is filled with misdirection and some of the most amusing writing of an otherwise grim 3rd Season ("Helm, move off...but slowly...the Andorrian Mining Consortium runs from no one!").

Highly recommended, this episode represents some of the best writing, acting and directing of the entire series run. It is not a "stand-alone" episode, and is best enjoyed in the context of the entire season. Another great performance by Star Trek's frequent guest star, Jeffrey Combs (who most Star Trek fans recognize from his several appearances as a variety of aliens on several of the Trek series), as he struggles to balance his loyalty to his home world and his obvious respect and admiration for Capt. Archer of Enterprise. A terrific "twist" at the end of the episode reveals just how honorable Shran is, and opens the door for future appearance by this most intriguing character. Enjoy.

Star Trek: Voyager: Someone to Watch Over Me (1999) Season 5, Episode 21

In many ways, the essence of Star Trek

[10/10 · 5 June 2007]

As odd as it may seem, this episode in some ways epitomizes what Star Trek is all about. Not the vast philosophical concerns or mysteries of time and space, but the interaction between and among those holding unique perspectives of the universe. The main plot -- the Pygmallion story of the Doctor and Seven of Nine -- is a compelling examination of how we learn from those we seek to teach. Both the Doctor and Seven explore social ritual and protocol in an effort to expand Seven's capacity to engage the crew. The template for this experiment is "dating". In the course of his teachings, the Doctor develops a truly deep appreciation and affection for Seven, and she is, in turn, shown in a most compelling and humorous light, though never as the brunt of the joke. Alas, Seven does not directly share the Doctor's romantic feelings, but her earnest gratitude is most evident.

So, how does this episode come to epitomize Star Trek? For its utter compassion, empathy and ...well... sweetness. There is a tenderness to it that exists very much at the core of the "mission". Understanding. Compassion. Peaceful co-existence. And, more than anything, Mutual Respect.

Thus far, it is my favorite single episode -- not because it is emblematic, but, mostly, for the brilliant performances of Jeri Ryan and Robert Picardo, as they come to embody the "wonder" of it all. Enjoy.

Ricky Gervais Meets... Garry Shandling (2006 TV Special)

Two brilliant people doing things they are not brilliant at.

[6/10 · 2 May 2007]

Perhaps the degree to which one enjoys or dislikes this particular programme depends greatly on what he or she expects from the interview format. The simple fact is that Ricky Gervais is not a skilled interviewer and Garry Shandling is not a skilled interviewee. As others have noted here, they both come off extremely uncomfortable and awkward. Gervais is obviously hindered by the fact that he idolizes Shandling, and, as a result, at times tries too hard to connect with Shandling and to make Shandling laugh.

It is not until the last 15 minutes or so that Gervais calms down and actual conducts a proper interview. Shandling, likewise, seems extremely ill-at-ease with the entire idea of sharing himself with the public, and one can only wonder why he agreed to do the show in the first place -- though, it is clear that Shandling admires Gervais and thinks very highly of "The Office" and "Extras".

(Having seen Shandling interviewed by the dreadful Charlie Rose -- an interview that made this one seem positively free-flowing -- one can see that Shandling just doesn't seem comfortable being interviewed, period. The best interview I have ever seen of Shandling was the one conducted by Washington Post TV critic, Tom Shales, and is an extra on the DVD of the first season of "The Larry Sanders Show"; but even still, Shandling still comes off as uncomfortable talking about himself and his creations.)

Nevertheless, this programme is still worth watching, just so long as you are not too rigid in your perception of how structured an interview should be and how cogent and forthright the interviewee should be fielding the questions. Gervais and Shandling have created two of the greatest comedies ever to be broadcast, namely "The Office" and "The Larry Sanders Show" -- programmes which share a similar tone and style, in that they both explore human frailties and their primary characters, Gervais' David Brent and Shandling's Larry Sanders, are, at times, obtuse people who have a deep-seated need to be loved and respected. If we are to assume that the characters are psychological manifestations of their creators, than the interview takes on a much more interesting and illuminating dynamic.

Gilmore Girls (2000–2007)

I hate this show with a seething passion...and cannot stop watching it. Please help me....

[4/10 · 17 April 2007]

Looking for something new to watch, I perused the ratings of various television shows and noticed that the "Gilmore Girls" had an astonishingly high 8.6 rating and was intrigued. I came to the show with absolutely no preconceptions The title indicated it might be a "chick show", though was not discouraged as I loved Buffy the Vampire Slayer and appreciate shows featuring strong female characters. So, I managed to find a copy of the first season, and set about watching it. From there, it was all downhill.

The first few episodes were by and large exposition, introducing the ensemble cast and the relationships among them. Center stage are the titular Gilmore Girls -- mother, Loreli and daughter, Rory. They are depicted as best friends, and more often than not, Rory as the voice of reason contrasted to her over-the-top, pop-culture-referencing, care-free, dare-to-be-different cliché of a mother. At first blush, the script seemed witty, the banter playful. But, after about three episodes, the style became forced and horribly contrived. Loreli's inability to provide a straight answer or simple declarative sentence under virtually every circumstance quickly turns from endearing to irritating.

Though the show's writer would have us embrace her as a free-thinking, independent woman, that facade quickly breaks down, and any sentient being watching sees her as little more than a selfish, vain, egotistical spoiled rich girl, who demands to be the center of everyone's attention. She demeans those who do not share her free-spirited world view, dismissing them as droll conformists who cannot appreciate her off-beat demeanor. She despises her parents, a wealthy insurance executive and his socialite wife, ridiculing them mercilessly and mocking them for their shallow need of respectability. But, her disapproval of them does not interfere with her turning to them for money when Rory is accepted to an exclusive private school. One need not be a PhD. In literature to spot the dripping irony of Loreli not only asking for the money from those she abhors, BUT for the purpose of sending Rory to a school that institutionalizes all that Loreli stands against. To stack the deck on her side, her parents are depicted as stodgy dullards, who have never resolved themselves with Loreli for getting knocked up at 16, and running away from home and have her child alone. (As an aside, Loreli's mother, Emily, though very much flawed, stands out as the only genuinely compelling and sympathetic character, as she struggles with her obvious mixed emotions for her ungrateful and overbearing daughter.) But, Loreli now puts up with their intrusive behavior in exchange for some quick cash. Free-spirited, indeed.

What is most appalling about show (and there is a lot of competition) is its depiction of men as either spineless, unreliable, effeminate, wimpy, or imbecilic, or all of the above. I appreciate a TV series or movie that features strong female characters that defy the brainless-bimbo-mold that makes up the lion's share of the women we see on TV. Smart, independent women are hot. It was one of the things that made Buffy such great television. However, in order to elevate the female characters, it does not require that you denigrate or marginalize all their male counterparts. The male character are clearly the creation of writers who demonstrate a profound lack of understanding of the male mind, or, worse, a deep-seated loathing of men in general. Not one male character is admirable, and all are reduced to little more than sounding boards for the unbearably whiny Loreli. Loreli's attitude towards this collection of eunuchs is, at best, dismissive, and, at worst, abusive. In one particularly egregious incident, in a display of monumental bad judgment, she begins an affair with Rory's teacher, then after breaking up with him, she entices him back with words of love and respect and promises of commitment. In no time, she impetuously agrees to marry him -- a decision based entirely on her fear of losing him and having nothing to do with love...again, what a free-thinker. However, the day of their wedding, Loreli suddenly panics at the prospect of sharing her life with this gutless panty-waist (the source of her panic is, it turns out, that up until the night before her wedding, she never gave thought to the fact they would live under the same roof, and, now, is repelled by the idea...bright girl...) and, being the free-spirit for whom convention will not suffice, she skipped town with Rory without so much as a word of explanation to her betrothed, the wedding guests and those who worked diligently to arrange the reception...including among them, her BEST FRIEND! And, of course, the writers have kindly presented the rough-edged, plaid-flannel-and-backwards-baseball-cap sportin', tactiturn, though deeply soulful local diner owner as the Sam to Loreli's Diane, in one of the least compelling "will they or won't they" story lines ever hatched in Cliché World.

In the case of Rory, her love interests have included a narcissistic, self-destructive preppy, a whipped townie whose most salient quality is his mistrustful attitude and soul-crushing neediness (whom, incidentally, pure and holy Rory lies to on a regular basis in order to hide her true feelings for another....seems the apple really doesn't fall far from the tree...), and a broken-home-bred bad boy who is equally at ease vandalizing property as he is quoting Steinbeck and Kerouac. You see, Rory is the only person in town who can see the true beauty of the aforementioned bad boy, ne'er do well, and, as we are so earnestly led to believe, she can tame his restless heart and draw forth the true potential that lies within.

And here is the part of the show that I find most troublesome: even though I hate most of the main characters, think the writing is contrived and the stories simple-minded cliché, find the depiction of men deplorable...despite all that...I can't stop watching the damn thing! I swear...it's like heroin.... I need help.

Modern Romance (1981)

The greatest movie ever on the horror and insanity of love

[10/10 · 16 April 2007]

Though only his second directorial outing, "Modern Romance" is arguably Brooks' finest film and is the single most insightful and hilarious examination of the gut-wrenching and mind-twisting ordeal that is love. Some have commented that the movie is not as polished as his later work, and while that may be true from a cinematic standpoint, it is this raw quality that lends itself to an even greater statement about how a man can be turned upside down and inside out as he tries to comprehend life while under the influence of love. Brooks' doppelganger, Robert Cole, is the epitome of the obsessed and doomed lover, a man who knows his love for a woman (brilliantly portrayed by Kathryn Harrold, as the haughty and insecure Mary Harvard) is unhealthy, but is compelled nevertheless to have her. His struggle with reason and love is the central theme to the film, yet even though Cole is depicted as an irrational neurotic, never once does Brooks make him unsympathetic. While Coles' actions in his pursuit of Mary defy reason, anyone who has ever been in love will understand all too well why he does the things he does.

This is perhaps that only movie for which it can be said that every single scene -- nay, every line -- is hilarious. Spectacular performances from Mr. Brooks, Kathryn Harold, Bruno Kirby, and terrific cameos from James L. Brooks (no relation), Bob "Super Dave Osborne" Einstein (who IS Brooks' brother....Yes, Albert Brooks real name is....Albert Einstein!), George Kennedy and, believe it or not, Harlem Globetrotter Meadowlark Lemon, whose scene with Brooks is a moment of surreal genius. If for no other reason, see this movie for "the movie within the movie" that Brooks' and Kirby's characters are editing.

I would say to those who, for whatever reason, do not like Albert Brooks -- either you find him irritating or just don't get his humor -- then do not bother, because Brooks is center stage for the entire movie and the humor is the very essence of "Brooks-ian". Yet even if the movie seems very personal, it speaks to all of the world's "fools in love", managing to embody and transcend the filmmaker. I happen to think he is one of the funniest and insightful observers ever of the human condition, but am aware his style is not universally loved.

Though made in 1981, it is as resonant now as it was then; and, considering that people, against all rational thought, will forever fall in love, this movie will always have something very insightful and extremely funny to say. For what it's worth, I have over the years rated almost a thousand movies and TV shows here at IMDb, and have given less than 15 "10 stars". "Modern Romance" is one of those few films, and deservedly so. I am not saying the movie is not without its flaws; but because of the nature and subject matter of the movie, and because it is painfully obvious that Albert Brooks' personal experience is very much on display, those flaws actually add to the genius of the work.

Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby (2006)

A surrealist work of genius

[7/10 · 29 March 2007]

I fully expected to find this movie, at best, mildly amusing. For the first 15 minutes or so, it lived down to expectations. And then...well, the movie took some strange twists and turns, and showed itself for a work of surreal brilliance. I think the scene in which Bobby and his racing partner argue what image of Jesus they find most compelling is one of the most bizarre yet hilarious set pieces in the entire film. While the movie tends to go for least common denominator material in most instances, it never treads all the way over to the obvious, and manages to express something oddly transcendent. Watch it with an open mind.

Brideshead Revisited (1981)

On the new DVD issue

[10/10 · 19 February 2007]

The previous posts speaks well of the brilliance of "Brideshead Revisited", which is arguably the finest television miniseries of all time, if not the single finest FILM of all time. Peerless acting, beautiful cinematography and perfect direction, there is not one aspect of this production that is wanting.

My comment is directed at Weasel100's post, noting the dearth of extra features in the DVD package. That has been redressed in spades with the issuance of the 25th Anniversary edition of Brideshead which is chock full of interviews with the actors, directors (there were two) and members of the production staff. And, of particular interest to fans are the archival BBC interviews of Evelyn Waugh, himself, and his take on his fame and the popularity of Brideshead, itself. Waugh was an extremely interesting individual, and listening to him and learning about his background will most certainly inform viewers about the sub-text of Brideshead.

I strongly urge fans of this brilliant production to indulge themselves and buy the most 25th Anniversary DVD re-issue. You will NOT be disappointed.

Crank (2006)

A real surprise, in every respect

[8/10 · 9 October 2006]

The way this movie was promoted, I was expecting pretty much a straight-forward "action flick", but was surprised to find the movie was so much more. Twisted, ironic, super-fast-paced and beautifully shot, "Crank" is a very clever little movie.

Jason Statham brings the right amount of tough-guy bravado and wry humour to a role that if performed by an actor who took himself too seriously would never have worked (and it would be pretty hard to take yourself seriously as an actor when you spend about 20 minutes of the movie running all over LA in nothing but a hospital gown). Unlike his performance in "The Transporter" flicks (which were fun, to be sure), he is less the cock-sure action-figure, and actually turns in a surprisingly nuanced performance, closer in spirit to his pitch-perfect portrayal of Turkish in "Snatch".

But it is Amy Smart who steals the show as his oblivious girlfriend -- she's cute, amorous and just off-kilter enough to make her a rather compelling character study. Her scene in the restaurant where Statham confesses that he is a hired killer, and she tries to take it all in, all the time trying to suppress a case of the hiccups is priceless, and you won't soon forget the scene where Statham and Smart have sex in a crowded pavilion before a hundred on-lookers.

The underlying story of why Statham has been marked for death is lost in the frenetic blur of the movie, which entails Statham doing everything imaginable to keep his heart rate up so the poison he has been given won't be able to take effect. But that doesn't matter, as the fun of the movie is in watching Statham run rampant to pump up his adrenaline and stay alive long enough to exact revenge. Kudos to the writers/co-directors Mark Neveldine and Bryan Taylor for not copping out with a "boy-gets-the-girl-and-lives-happily-ever-after" ending that lesser, focus-group-satisfying auteurs might have offered. The movie ends on just the right note.

The movie looks great, too -- interesting camera angles and cuts, terrific lighting and color, and a subtle yet effective "psychedlic" quality that illustrates Statham's panic-stricken run for his life.

Don't be mislead by the pedestrian promotion of this movie; it genuinely is NOT your run-of-the-mill action movie.

Primer (2004)

The permutations are limitless

[7/10 · 8 September 2006]

Like most here, I was completely baffled by the first 20 minutes or so of "Primer". Surprisingly though, the movie actually began to make MORE sense as it progressed. The key to enjoying it is, as some have suggested here, is not trying to understand it in the conventional sense, for the very simple reason that time travel and the countless permutations of existing in two times (or more) at once defies understanding.

Instead, immerse yourself in the confusion of what it would mean to exist at two "times" simultaneously. What was most enjoyable about the movie was not so much the science of it, as was the psychology and emotional impact that such a venture would have on two close friends. Either by over-reaching or self-indulgence, the two begin to drift apart not only with their "time/space doubles", but with each other in the "present." From the many reviews I read here, it seems that many viewers over-complicated the story, either by considering the plausibility of the science or by actually trying to make linear that which is, by definition, completely UN-linear (the two main characters are, after all, doubling back on history itself, altering or taking advantage of the outcome by knowledge gleaned from their forays into the future). That strikes me as defeating the purpose of the movie, which was made not so much as a science lesson as it was a simple and straightforward cautionary tale. (It also seems as if the introduction of the occasional bits of narration was an offering of sorts by the movie-maker to create a more readily understood story.)

As for the comparisons to the dreadfully indulgent "Pi", this movie is a much more enjoyable and, yes, relatable tale, indeed.

Revolver (2005)

Confusion has its virtue...but not here

[5/10 · 1 September 2006]

Confusion can be a fun thing to induce in your audience; however, confusion for the sake of confusion leaves the viewer ultimately dissatisfied. Such is the case with "Revolver", as the audience is left with nothing to hold on to, but confusion itself. There is no pay off for having tried to follow the story, and make sense of it, when the director and writer leave you with a handful of sand. The movie held my attention, but ultimately left me wanting. I suppose one can watch a film like this, and derive enjoyment or entertainment by being left to fill in the blank himself. But isn't the point of storytelling to actually impart a story? Maybe, as one reviewer here noted, "Revolver" is more art than storytelling. If so, then I suppose kudos are in order.

I can neither recommend nor advise against this movie. Watch it yourself, and then decide...for yourself.

Silent Hill (2006)

Interesting looking but, like so many VG-to-Movie films, ultimately empty and non-sensical.

[5/10 · 26 August 2006]

Like so many video games turned into films, "Silent Hill" is ultimately all about form over substance. There is a great deal of confusion surrounding the paper thin plot, and maybe only those who have played the game (I have not) can understand what exactly is going on. One must assume than Rose is trapped in some sort of Hellish dimension that changes back-and-forth from a deserted town that suffered a not-so-natural disaster (in this case, uncontrollable fires from coal mines underneath the titular town, Silent Hill, West Virginia) to an Hell-on-Earth world populated by mutants and monsters of unexplained origin or purpose.

The movie is rather interestingly rendered and the photography and FX are used to good advantage. However, no matter how well-dressed, one is, in the end, left scratching one's head, completely unsure of what precisely is going on and why one should care.

Ultraviolet (2006)

Easy on the eyes, hard on the logic

[4/10 · 21 July 2006]

The dialogue is silly, the story is wafer thin, the performances are uncompelling. And yet, if this movie has one saving grace, it is Milla's leather midrift outfits. No, well yes, but, also, it really is a beautifully designed movie. Granted, it is over-stylized, but the art director should nevertheless be commended for creating an interesting space, and the movie is photographed gorgeously. Milla looks delicious from start to finish, and the fights are well-choreographed, even if they stretch the bound of credulity to their utmost limits. (By a very conservative count, Milla kills about 250 people.) But, as is often the case with comic-books-made-into movies, the stories and the characters are thin and completely lacking in...well...character. An middling diversion, at best, but expect nothing more than eye candy.

Hex (2004– )

An American point of view....

[9 June 2006]

Reading through the comments here, I noticed that there wasn't a single one from an American viewers and, so, felt compelled to weigh in. (Of course the reason there are no comments from we Yanks may have something to do with the fact that Hex has only just begun airing here on BBC America. Nevertheless, I downloaded the entire first season, and have watched the first episode only.) Foremost, I cannot agree more with the many reviewers here who cogently point out that this is by no means the "British Buffy". Aside from the fact that the protagonist is a teen-aged blond girl and there is an element of the supernatural to the show, the show is not at all like Buffy. Reserving for now the question of which is superior, suffice to say that Hex is different in tone and theme, and does not lend itself to the producers' hopeful comparison, made, I would assume, simply to draw in the Buffy faithful as viewers.

Hex is decidedly more sombre in its production, music, lighting and overall tone. While Cassie and Thelma have their share of witty banter, the script is nowhere near as "joke-laden" as Buffy, and is definitely more akin to a straight dramatic programme than Buffy ever was. Likewise, the supernatural aspect seems slightly more sinister than it was with Buffy, and our heroine is not so firmly entrenched in moral purity (if not in deed, at least in purpose) as Ms. Summers was in her day.

I cannot comment on the overall effectiveness of the series as a whole, but am intrigued enough after watching the first episode (which was, by necessity, a tad overladen with exposition) to soldier on, looking forward to the manner in which the story is developed.

Underworld: Evolution (2006)

What a mess.

[4/10 · 28 May 2006]

While there can be no doubt, Underworld: Evolutions, like its predecessor, Underworld, is a beautiful looking movie, it suffers from the same illness that hobbled the original: a confusing, underwritten back story. It is Gothic film-making in every sense, but the story is muddled and, ultimately, a victim of the movie's emphasis of form over content, style over substance. The script, as far as there is one, is inane, the dialogue wooden and the acting overwrought. Yes, the special effects are, indeed, special, and Ms. Beckinsale looks stunning in her leather body suit, but it ends up being much ado about absolutely nothing. And for those who are considering it for a Saturday night rental without having seen the original, prepare to be utterly lost with regard to the storyline of the war between the vampire and the "lycans", or werewolves. Even having seen the original, it was, alas, a distant memory, and, as such, I couldn't recall who was who, and what it was they were fighting about.

If all you are looking for is a violent, garish, blue-tinted, overblown music video of a film, then you might not be too disappointed. If, however, you are looking for a compelling, intriguing vampire movie, skip this one.

Extras (2005–2007)

Classic Gervais...in other words, Bloody Brilliant!

[8/10 · 16 May 2006]

If you liked "The Office" (the BBC version, that is, not the US wannabe), you'll love "Extras". While the story and Gervais's character is markedly different from that of The Office, it still features Gervais's unique brand of "embarrassment humour", i.e., an average guy undone by his inability to hold his tongue, and saying things that are either misunderstood or too well understood, and causing him untold embarrassment, and the audience cringe-worthy laughs as we cannot help but share in his discomfort. A special note must be made of the appearance of Stephen Merchant, Gervais's creative collaborator, who, in Extras, plays his feckless talent agent.

Each episode features a "real star" with whom Gervais is cast in a film as an extra. The episode in which Kate Winslet appears is an instant classic, as she explains why she is making a movie about the Holocaust (not for any high-minded philosophical reasons, but purely in her drive to get an Oscar) and her advice to Gervais's friend, the adorable Maggie, on proper phone sex etiquette. Other stars include Ben Stiller, Samuel L. Jackson and an uproariously funny Patrick Stewart.

This little seen gem is well-worth tracking down...only six episodes were made, and each one is comedy gold.