Change Your Image
billfitch7
Reviews
The Comeback (2005)
Clunker would be too kind.
It must be declared up front that I have not seen every minute of every episode, BUT, I have certainly seen enough to know that I will not ever watch this series again. I'm not a TV masochist. To call it a clunker would be too kind. I'm just so sorry for Lisa Kudrow, her talents have not deserved this nadir. But will there be a comeback from The Comeback? My advice would be to take your clothes off. There might still be some Kudrow fans out there who would tune in for that.
Kingdom of Heaven (2005)
A triumph of Dental Hygiene
Anyone who has ever read a review by me on IMDb will remember that I tend to spend the first few lines of my allotted 1000 words in decrying the imposition of a 10 line minimum by the powers that be. If 'Vikings' was run for the first time in Australia on 'The History Channel', then so should have been 'Kingdom of Heaven'. There's enough blood and violence and explicit sex scenes to keep even the most jaded history student on the edge of his seat. And this movie is truer to real history, according to Wikipedia. Well now, that's ninety percent of the requirement and I've hardly started. There I was, in the backblocks of France, minding my own business, slaving over a hot blacksmith's forge, when along comes this knight: Liam Neeson, who says he's my father. (Thank Christ it wasn't Sean Connery. At least we can understand what this one is saying.) Anyway I go over to Jerusalem and see this nice little raver (Eva Green) with the bluest of eyes and the prettiest of English accents. But she's a Muslim, more's the pity, and they're ten-a-penny around these parts, even today. So what's changed: Well they've all got perfect teeth in the twelfth century at the crusades. And that really would be a great theme for the History Channel.
Vikings (2013)
Beautiful fiction on The History Channel.
Because the 'Powers that Be' of IMDb have decreed that each Reviewer is to write a minimum of ten lines, I feel constrained to pad out this contribution with largely unsubstantive sentences such as this one. Phew! There's forty percent gone without saying too much at all. The fact that this series was first broadcast in Australia by 'The History Channel' is indeed remarkable. Here I was in the first place expecting a non-fiction documentary. No, it's better than that: it's a well acted historical drama using characters straight out of the pages of Wikipedia. But that's not to say there isn't enough explicit sex acts and compulsory violence that the subject 'Vikings' should normally be expected to depict. Full marks for effort. The head writer, Michael Hirst, is true to the genre. Comparisons with 'Game of Thrones' in other IMDb reviews (above) are indeed relevant. But even more remarkable, the apparent state-of-the-art in dental hygiene that existed in Viking times. I'm hoping that Mr. Hirst might explore this as a sub-theme in later series.
Andrew Marr's History of the World: Survival (2012)
Let down by simple anachronisms
If a reviewer is required to write a minimum of ten lines to have his opinion accepted, then padding out his contribution with clauses such as this one would be the order of the day. Realistically there is not so much to say about this series broadcast on BBC Knowledge Channel. As a ploy to illustrate the history of the world, in itself a foreboding theme, presenter Andrew Marr combines poorly cast 'actors' with improbable costuming. The homo sapiens with matted dreadlocks: I don't think so. The indigenous South Americans portrayed by dark-skinned Europeans: I don't think so. The first episode 'Survival' relies on these scenes as an introduction to the series. It can only get better from here but I sincerely doubt that it will.
Read a book instead.
Sudden Impact (1983)
The real message of this movie
Apparently the fourth outing in the ''Harry Callahan'' franchise, this movie is like a pleasant old acquaintance when it turns up on satellite pay-TV every six months or so in Australia.
Forget about 'probable cause' or 'Miranda rights' or the inherent decency of San Francisco's finest, this film's message is: If you're not the world's greatest actress, you can still get a starring role if you're shagging Clint Eastwood.
''San Francisco''?? Isn't that where the city fathers won't enforce the Federal Laws on illegal immigration? God help you if an illegal alien unlawfully re-enters the USA after being deported. He won't be locked up in San Francisco. He is free to murder your daughter. Thanks for that, Obama.
How about a 'Dirty Harry' movie on a ''Kate's Law'' theme ? With the 2016 Presidential Election in full swing, it might change the voting preferences of the great uneducated majority. Or is that too much to hope for??
Squizzy Taylor (1982)
Change channels.
I've always been of the opinion that Australian-made movies/TV programs were less than when compared with movies made in UK or USA. Even low budget American sit-coms seem to have higher production values than the big-budget Australian extravaganzas. Compare 'Burn Notice'(USA) with the latest (Australian) produced version of "The Great Gatsby"! I could never put my finger on the reason. The only exception to the foregoing statement would be "Phar Lap"(1983) directed by Simon Wincer.
Back to "Squizzy Taylor": a nasty little film about a nasty little man. According to Australian actor/critic/bore Graeme Blundell: David Atkins, since his starring role in this turkey, went on to become a film producer! Atkins has never been a household name and now we all know why. Even the much used Jacki Weaver can't save this tripe. Switch channels, mental note to self: never again. There we go: over ten lines already and I've hardly gotten started! Be warned.
Enemy of the State (1998)
Government sponsored technical tricks.
Probably, I have seen this movie before within the intervening 14 years, but I didn't remember it in 2012. There's the rub: the movie was made circa 1998 but what happened three years later?? (Clue: 11th. of September.) I am amused at the fact that I just accept all this technical trickery in 2012, and yes, I can look for any address on this planet by searching with Google Earth in my living room. I don't think it is too far fetched to believe that the US Government (or others) have the abilities of surveillance and control that this movie portrays, and I am slightly amused now that it is probably necessary, and desirable. I don't care - as long as they don't do that to me.
Kath & Kim (2008)
Don't watch the American version, it's awful.
The best thing I can say about the American version is that Jane Turner and Gina Reilly must be raking in the royalties for this crap. Yes, the American rip-off was shown for about two episodes in Australia but it didn't rate. It was probably only seen by curious viewers who were wondering how bad it would be. Answer: it's DEPLORABLE, a complete waste of time. The actors are relatively unknown and they don't take readily to the nuances of the Australian-written script. Bad luck for them as they are doomed to plummet with this turkey. My advice to USA viewers is DON'T. I feel very sorry for the reviewer in Denmark, above. Anybody else giving the American version a favorable report: I can only assume that you're shagging the producer's mother.
Americans should be best advised to find DVD's of the ORIGINAL VERSION on eBay, but be aware that some DVDs are in a different 'zone format' to those issued in the USA. Otherwise, some DVD players will operate discs from both/all zones.