eno2000 Reviews

Brave New World (1980 TV Movie)

Avoid This

[1/10 · 7 April 2024]

I found a full version of the film which was a total of three hours. While the actors in the film are some pretty notable giants of the day, the poor set design and poor dialogue make for a really hard to watch film. I grew up watching this stuff, and I can say the production is incredibly low grade compared to its contemporaries.

Consider this, the movie was made in 1979 and aired in 1980. Star Wars was released in 1977 and The Empire Strikes Back in 1982. This movie feels lower in production value than Tom Baker Doctor Who programmes (which has excellent writing and were far more enjoyable).

I will admit, I have not read BNW, the book. This is my second attempt at trying to get the story and I have to say I feel like this film failed. The first attempt was a book on tape in the 1990s that was incomplete so it made no sense at all. Now I feel like I have the bones of the story from this film, but am missing a lot of detail.

My wife and I discussed this a bit. This is one book she gave a hard pass to because when she was a teen all the guys who liked it were libertarians (we are far left of center). I never had much interest in the book itself other than wanting to see this film because of an article in Starlog magazine that made it look interesting.

On the libertarian side of things, I read and understood what Ayn Rand was saying in Atlas Shrugged. I find it comical that Trump has turned out to be everything she was warning people against, but I am sure most libertarians don't see it. However, as much as I disagree with Ayn Rand, I think Atlas Shrugged could have made a decent 1940s film.

The horrid attempt in the 2000s to make Atlas Shrugged into a movie reminds me of this BNW iteration. Poor teleplay writing. Poor acting, by otherwise decent actors. And a really low budget. At this point, I will have to make time to read BNW so I actually get what Huxley was trying to say. I don't think it was what this film presented. Just like Atlas Shrugged, the three part movie didn't present what Any Rand was talking about at all.

Resident Evil (2022)

Wow! Amazing Series. A Shame It Didn't Continue

[8/10 · 13 September 2022]

I just completed all eight episodes of Resident Evil. Having seen all the previous films (never played the video games), I can say this was a great entry in the canon. I suspect the primary reasons that this series put so many people off are the majority of the characters are non-white, and the main characters in the flashbacks are teens.

To me, the characters in this series could easily fit into a side story to any of the films. That is exactly what this is. It's not a reboot, it's just another story set in the universe where the Umbrella Corporation is the main character more than any of the people. The continuity was excellent.

I also found the story very intriguing. You never knew where anything was going because it was not tied into the original films. But, it could easily be in the same universe happening in parallel or a few years before/after depending on which part of the story you're looking at.

I loved the non-linear approach jumping back and forth between the past and the future. You get the back story of the characters to understand them better. It makes the characters more interesting and gives you potential to identify with them, or at least really get where they are coming from and why they are who they are.

Of course, having Deadmau5 doing some of the music really fit very well and was brilliant. This is a solidly 21st century series and it definitely kept me thinking "what happens next" from episode to episode. Honestly, that is the most important part of any film or series. If it doesn't do that, then it's really not worth watching. Resident Evil 2022 did that for me.

Finally, the issue of "bratty teens" is kind of a silly opinion. If you're a parent, you know that even the most mature kids have their moments of rebellion. That's not being bratty, it's testing your boundaries and learning who you really are. The main girls in this series during the teen years were pretty natural and seemed like good kids with moments of rebellion.

Sadly, since Netflix didn't indulge in fan service, they were lambasted by spoiled bratty adult males who wanted things to match their notion of what the series should be.

Prey (I) (2022)

Prey - An Excellent Entry in the Series That Shows Maturity

[6/10 · 13 September 2022]

Having seen all the previous movies in the Predator franchise, I can say that they've always been kind of old school action films with a SciFi element. As a result, while I enjoyed them, they were never my favorites. Of all of them, I really liked the first film because it was unique in its day.

Watching Prey, I really appreciated the more SciFi element of addressing social issues. It definitely means that the franchise is maturing. All of the best SciFi series addressed social issues. Star Trek TOS addressed the Cold War and racism during the era of Civil Rights. Doctor Who addressed women's equality in the early years from the 60s through the 80s. But the Predator filns? No. Sorry.

It makes sense. Action films masquerading as SciFi are just action with robots, lasers and in space. Good SciFi films like Moon, Mars, or Interstellar don't lean on action because they don't need to. Instead, these action films appeal to the worst kind of men. The men who believe that being "manly" requires being violent to show strength, and being offensive to show that you don't care.

Prey turns this formula on its head. Is it an action film? Yes. Is it SciFi, eh... arguably no more than the originals. Is it social commentary? Oh yes and it's sorely needed. There should be more films like this. I was very happy to see that the native American characters were played by native Americans! I was impressed with the respect to native American culture where these characters were not portrayed as primitive "savages".

Instead, the presentation, while "Hollywoodish" was still a lot closer of a representation of true indigenous people of the nation. In these days where the public expression and support for racism against non-whites has surged since the Trump administration, this is especially needed and very welcome.

The second social issue addressed is female equality. This issue is especially important in our upside down and backwards world of the post-Trump era. Women are more under attack than when I was a kid in the early 70s. Having a film like this that features a strong female lead is inspiring for young women who have quite the fight ahead of them. They should have the fierceness of the main character going into that fight.

I have read a few other comments that complain about the way the young native Americans speak in the film. I can understand why it was done this way. The audience for this film should be young Zoomers and the majority of them would not have an interest in a true period piece with the Comanche language and subtitles. (Yes, there are exceptions, but I really think that the current generation has few who want pure period pieces). Filming the native American characters speaking. Not only, English, but also with some of the modern colloquialisms, doesn't ruin the story.

If anything, it makes the story more accessible. You'll notice that the French characters spoke French with no subtitles. Why? Because what they said was of no importance because you knew they were the bad guys, and they were older than the main characters. Using this approach of the main characters speaking modern American English, even if it would not have been their language had this been a true story, was the perfect approach.

I've also seen some complaints that the main character looked too "puny" to be able to fight basically anyone. This is ridiculous. We're not watching a true story. There is no reason to hold to realism in a story like this. For God's sake, we're talking about an alien predator. So much for realism. The purpose of stories like this is to inspire and encourage the viewer. Young women who like this genre could definitely be inspired by the character on multiple fronts.

Finally, there are a lot of oversensitive people complaining about the gender or color of characters in different shows and movies recently. I believe this is because as our society changes in the 21st century, audiences are changing as well. The people who are the most upset are people who are not adapting to the present and even more so, the future. The future is not white and male, and there is nothing wrong with that. The people who can't accept this are the ones with the problem. The best thing the rest of us (the majority) can do is ignore them and avoid engagement. It is not our responsibility to teach them and bring them into the future. They need to make that change themselves. And if they don't adapt, they can simply become irrelevant by their own choices.

From the perspective of shows and movies, what this means is that different genres are now courting different audiences. For example, comedy has changed. It's no longer acceptable to indulge in certain kinds of humor that was acceptable in the past. As much as society is experiencing a backlash from the hangers on to racism and sexism, our institutions are moving forward and if we continue to fight we will have a better society for it. Prey shows us what that future can look like in terms of casting decisions, writing, and respect of different cultures. Kudos to Prey.

2067 (2020)

2067 was OK, Not Great, Not Horrible, but OK

[6/10 · 7 August 2021]

Minor spoilers ahead...

Reasons to watch this movie: You like your sci-fi to have complex twists. You like seeing, albeit, low quality but imaginative CGI landscapes instead of stupid mechas and monsters. You appreciate a climate change message in your eco-scifi. You HATE time travel stories because you think they're unimaginative.

Reasons to not watch this movie: You are a climate change denier. You like endless and boring, "epic" battle scenes (why?). You don't like keeping a mental tally of how the plot and potential paradoxes work to complete the story. You believe your "manly" and have disdain for men who don't fit your self-perceived notion of "manliness".

With that out of the way, I will say these things. I like 2067 well enough. Yes, I've watched movies like Pacific Rim (I and II) and Cloverfield, so I know what I speak of when I talk about stupid mechas and monsters. I enjoyed Cloverfield. I enjoyed Pacific Rim I, but hated II. (My friend and I called these movie SciFi for NASCAR fans. Yes we're city folk.) With 2067, you're getting an honest eco-SciFi film. Yes, that IS a thing if you actually read science fiction books. The main character WAS whiny and screamed and cried a lot. Yes, it could be annoying. But, you have to realize that given the Earth he lives on (no more natural air) and the way his life went south in his childhood, and his genetics giving him a lighter and thinner frame combined with what is probably a terrible diet, there is no human on Earth (now or in the future) who could be a big, beef eating, "manly" hero type (you know what I mean... the big guys who border on being gay bears, but eat a billion tons of pork and beef to "own the libs") under those circumstances.

I jest. The film actually has a character who does border on that annoying heroic type, except he's a villain. I'm willing to bet some people watched this movie thinking that THAT guy should have been the main character and should have just gone into the future, done the heroic thing, and then back to the present (2067) to save the day. But that's a stupid plot we've seen ad nauseum, isn't it?

Instead this movie presents a decent mystery that really is hard to decipher until you've seen the entire movie. Again... you do have to endure the main character's crying and whimpering and freaking out to do so, but that's kind of the point. He's the ONLY character who can interact with the story device to potentially save the day, or fail trying. You're given hints and clues about what's really happening so you can try to figure it out yourself while watching. His character's disposition is actually something that people can relate to in his circumstances. He's believable. Real life heroes are rarely people like John Wayne, Burt Reynolds, Tom Selleck, Chuck Norris, Jason Statham, Dwayne Johnson, John Cena.

Think about it for a minute, if you lived at a time where you had to buy artificial air to live, worked hard to earn the credits to do it, had no parents onward from age ten, were malnourished to the point where you were nearly anorexic, would you have a stable set of emotions? Now imagine that you're told that you have been called from the future (400 years in the future) because you're the only person who can save all of humanity under your current circumstances. If you tell me, "Yeah. Easy. I could do that". Then I suggest you run for president in 2024 for the Republican party because you'll go far. Kidding. Just kidding... (not really).

I've dropped enough hints in this review to let readers know where I stand on issues and politics. So yes, this is a movie that left leaning people will appreciate more than right leaning people. It is also a movie that even some lefties will find hard to to stomach simply because of the main character's disposition. It's a movie that will make the more scientific among us (I'm pretty scientific) say, "Uh... that's really stupid", but if you're in it more for the story than the science, you'll like it.

Anyone who claims this movie is garbage, has horrible CGI (it doesn't compared to some really crappy movies I've seen on Amazon Prime), or is "woke" is just throwing shade because they don't have the ability to suspend disbelief for a relatively interesting story. It's NOT that bad.

Also note, I use the stars here on IMDB a little differently. If I like a movie well enough it gets a 5 or 6. It's not a "failing grade", that's where "good enough" sits. Anything below that is heading to fail, which would be a 1. And anything above that is "very good" to "perfection" at 10. I think some people think of the stars as being akin to the grades in school which would make anything below a 6 (60%) a D or F or F-. That's not the way I rate.

Future '38 (2017)

If You Want to See a Weird Movie, Watch This. (HINT: It isn't what it claims to be)

[5/10 · 25 August 2019]

I came across this movie while looking at what else Betty Gilpin (GLOW) has been in. The described plot seemed so odd, I had to watch it. Bonus: For old Blade Runner fans, Sean Young had a very odd but appropriate presence in this story as the "telephone" operator, Mabel.

First thing to note, this movie is most obviously not from 1938. Instead, it's a humorous parody of movies from the past and how they pictured the future. Think of old 1930s and 40s films and comic stips that showed flying cars, and wrist watch phones (errr... they were right on that count). They also combine real 2018 objects, business names, and slang but used in completely different "old fashioned" ways. The thug with a "strap on" (shoulder holster with a gun) who is "gonna nail ya" (shoot you) is a striking example.

Recently I saw the film "Movie, Movie" (1978) which was more of an homage/parody of old 1930s cinema. Future '38 is kind of cut from the same cloth but with less homage and a lot more parody. The production itself is low quality in that once things go in color, it really doesn't try to emulate the look and feel of early color films like The Wizard of Oz. Instead it is digital video run through generic filters. That's OK, because I believe the story and parody are the primary reasons this movie exists.

As interesting as the idea of this movie is, and the pretty well concealed and somewhat anticlimactic twist, it still was hard to watch. The intentionally hammy acting was funny, but also distracting. The occasional insertion of real 21st century business names, slang and the like was a continual reminder that this is fully a 21st century film. "Movie, Movie" actually managed to lure me into feeling like I was watching a movie from cinema's golden age. But that only points more to the fact that this movie was less about honoring old cinema than poking fun at it as well as the 21st century itself.

If you're a fan of offbeat and unusual movies, this would definitely be worth a watch. But don't expect a movie with high production values. Expect an interesting/entertaining story more akin to watching an absurdist play. Additionally, Ethan Phillips (Neelix from Star Trek Voyager) has a role at the start of the film as well. And... Neil DeGrasse Tyson (obviously in on the joke). Don't let other reviews dissuade you from watching it. They're either trolling or just can't cope with absurdist parody.

Love, Death & Robots (2019– )

Fun, Slightly Uneven Romp for Nerds (in a good way)

[7/10 · 16 August 2019]

I'd heard that this was supposed to be the spiritual successor to Heavy Metal (1981). I can definitely say that is true in terms of the differing qualities of the writing and animation. Some of the stories are really really good, others are somewhat rehashed, and others... well they just didn't grab me. All my opinion, of course. If you're on the fence about watching this, jump off and dive in. At least one, if not more than one story will impress you. Very much like the original Heavy Metal. My primary warnings are: some ultra-intense violence and quite a bit of explicit nudity. If you can't stomach any of that to see a good story, then stay away.

Here are my individual rankings of the stories:

Sonnie's Edge: 4/10 - Didn't like the pro-wresling, gladiator motif going on. Sure it's kind of cyber punk, but it didn't seem too original. Animation was fair.

Three Robots: 7/10: This is what lured me in. I was wondering if they would be sort of like the green orb in Heavy Metal living through the centuries and fitting into different stories. Plenty of comedy and really nice punchline at the end. Great animation.

The Witness: 10/10: Alfred Hitchcock meets Blade Runner meets Akira. This one really resonated with me and had a very clever, if unoriginal twist. I loved the animation in this one.

Suits: 6/10: Being a city slicker, I'm not one for cyberbilly stories. However, there was a bigger plot that could be far more interesting as a back story here that is revealed at the end. Animation was fair. I don't like animation that looks too cartoonish. If you like big dumb machines and pioneers, this is your short.

Sucker of Souls: 6/10: Decent short, fair animation but nothing to get too excited about. If you like Scooby Doo, this is Scooby Doo for grown ups with a dark side. Not much to say here.

When the Yogurt Took Over: 5/10: I just couldn't get into this. The idea itself was fine for a story. But the animation just irritated me. Showing my age (70s kid), since animation that looks like silly video game characters from the 21st century seems to be a "thing" with people. Somehow the look just bugs me, but that's all me.

Beyond the Aquila Rift: 6/10: This one had some pretty good, semi-realistic animation with really good motion capture. The story itself has been told before. It reminded me very much of episode nine of season three of the 1995 series The Outer Limits. It was called "Tempests". Check it out on Amazon Prime after seeing this.

Good Hunting: 8/10: This one reminded me of some of the better anime from the late 80s and early 90s. The story would have certainly fit back then. The animation was very good too. Thumbs up!

The Dump: 4/10: I did not like this one much. It is played for humor, and the humor is mildly funny, but not uproariously. Three Robots was better for humor. In some way it felt like more cyberbilly stuff even though it really wasn't. The squalor probably contributes to that.

Shape Shifters: 5/10: An OK story. The animation was very well done. I'm not one for war stories, even if they have a non-traditional twist.

Helping Hand: 5/10: I get it. Survival is the theme. But this is kind of grotesque. I'm not squeamish and this didn't bother me in that way. But, I didn't think it was really all that interesting or rewarding to watch this unfold either. Animation was OK. Not great.

Fish Night: 9/10: Excellent animation and a creative story. I'd actually never thought of what the characters discuss, so it is an interesting point. Kind of like a Twitter comment I saw where someone said why are all ghosts always old? Why aren't there some who are from 2012 and are yelling "It's Britney B----!" at 3:00 AM.

Lucky 13: 9/10: I didn't expect to like this one since it's a war story. But somehow this was endearing. Not a new story by any stretch. There are tons of stories about the love a pilot/sailor/captain/driver has for their vehicle. Animation was good.

Zima Blue: 11/10: I loved this story. It's perfect in every way. You don't see it coming until the last few minutes. And the animation is excellent and stylish. Minimally reminiscent of Aeon Flux. I was glad this was the last episode I saw given the order that Netflix presented them to me. Nice way to close out the first season.

Blind Spot: 7/10: This is a VERY 1990s throwback to anime when it was really heading into its cyberpunk phase. Ghost in the Shell (1995) would fit with this short. The music in this one also fits the 90s with that sort of Industrial sound. And the hardened veteran characters breaking in the rookie for a scrappy team of miscreants is definitely a plot that would have fit back then too.

Ice Age: 10/10: When I saw this one which was more live action with composited animation elements, I kind of wondered if I was wrong about the premise of the series. This was the oddball in the bunch. Very good, but it belongs in a series more akin to The Outer Limits or The Twilight Zone. The plot could have been lifted from Rod Serling himself. There is nothing in the story that wouldn't fit in the 1960s.

Alternate Histories: 5/10: This felt like watching someone play a video game. Who does that? (snort) I didn't find it entertaining, but I got the humor. It's a great way to punch Nazis, which I'm all in on. What American isn't, right? Just was less entertaining than I would expect. Animation level: Ridiculous Fishing

The Secret War: 6/10: I almost forgot about this one. "Soviet" feeling story with good reason. Not my thing, but fair story and decent animation.

The one thing that really interested me was the music. For most of the episodes, the music was done by Robert Cairns. He seems very capable of multiple styles which is just what you want for a series like this. The series really had some great incidental music throughout. But there were some standouts. The Nitzer Ebb-like music at the beginning of Blind Spot was great. But Suits has country twang that would not have been out of place in Firefly. (again, I'm not into it, but it works well)

Just like Heavy Metal had multiple animation styles and multiple stories, this series does the same but updates it for today's Netflix viewers. The only thing I was hoping for was a shared thread throughout just like Heavy Metal. But, this is also its own series, so it's unreasonable to expect a clone. Enjoy it for its differences.

The Wandering Earth (2019)

Not a Bot: I Just Liked It

[7/10 · 9 June 2019]

This movie follows in the footsteps of producers like James Cameron, Michael Bay, and Roland Emmerich. Is this great cinema? No. Is the story breaking new ground? No. Is it fun to watch? Absolutely. I saw some other review claiming that all other reviews are from bots. I can say that mine is not since I'm... a human.

Like most movies from America, there isn't too much character development, and there is a lot of action. However, this movie is true Science Fiction, which has become exceedingly rare after the cyberpunk days of the 90s. The idea of moving the Earth, while implausible with today's technology, is a great story idea. I could actually see a TV series about the people on an Earth being moved from our solar system to another and the difficulties and experiences they face on that journey. In the right hands, it would be great.

Some of the professional reviews I've read focus on the fact that this movie is a stand in for climate change and that it silently states that only China is able to tackle that problem since the U.S. has no ability or interest to work on it. I can't disagree on that point which might be one reason why I like the movie. The other reason I liked it, is that it was well done dumb. Kind of like the first Pacific Rim. That movie was just as lacking in intellect, but it was fun to watch even if you aren't a NASCAR fan. Give The Wandering Earth a try going into it expecting low brow action scifi and you might enjoy it.

Downsizing (2017)

Forget About the Trailer

[8/10 · 7 April 2019]

Much like a lot of other reviewers, I saw Kristen Wiig, Jason Sudekis, and Matt Damon and figured this is probably going to be a comedy akin to a Judd Apatow film. It isn't and you shouldn't expect that if you want to really appreciate the film. I felt this had more in common with Wim Wender's Until the End of the World, only a little more lightweight in some regards. Much like the dream recording and sharing technology in Until the End of the World (which is more fully integrated throughout that film), the downsizing technology in this movie is simply a vehicle form some much needed social commentary.

If you're not an idiot climate change denier, then this movie will resonate somewhat. But even there, it tries to go farther than just climate change and touch on what our real purpose on Earth is and that is where it falls down a little. I think if it had a running time closer to Until the End of the World, it could have succeeded. Overall, the main point is that the main character, played by Damon, wants to do some good in the world for others. He's a physical therapist, which shows that he wants to be helpful. Through the film he's given several messages (indirectly) that strongly indicate that any kind of self-aggrandizement he tries to engage in ultimately fails.

When he and his wife (Wiig) plan to downsize, his dreams are shattered when she chooses not to go through with the irreversible process and he's essentially abandoned by her. When he is trying to get a relationship started with someone and he pushes too fast and too hard, he is again disappointed when he's told that the other person is not ready for that yet. Later in the film he wants to be a part of this big plan to essentially seal a group of "downsized" people into an underground ark. The woman he realizes he loves doesn't want to do this and he has to choose. This time, instead of being part of this big plan to preserve humanity in the face of the inevitable end of mankind due to our damage of the environment, he decides to stick it out with the woman he loves (albeit at the last minute).

The more I thought about the movie after seeing it, the more I realized this really had the potential to be as important a film as Until the End of the World. It even had a similar feel at points due to the international cast. There is nothing better than films that show unity among the nationalities of the world. I've never viewed myself as an American because America is so counter to my nature, but it is the country where I was born. Instead I consider myself a World Citizen like some of my idols and this film really is made for the World Citizen mindset. If that is you as well... my friend you will enjoy this movie. I just wish it was a little longer and more fully built out.

War for the Planet of the Apes (2017)

Didn't Like This

[4/10 · 7 April 2018]

I saw the first two films, with the first being the best IMO. I can understand why others felt the plot was non-existent even though I disagree. There was a plot and it was multilayered and deep. I just didn't like it.

The colonel was thoroughly unlikeable as expected. Trying to add complexity to his character with revelations about his own experiences that molded him didn't really help the story at all. I still disliked him and didn't care at all about his experiences since there was no justification for his behavior.

I think the mistake they made with this one was going for depth. First, it's a war movie, which really doesn't warrant depth and complexity for most viewers. People who like war movies don't want literature, they want to see people "blowing up the bad guys".

Which brings me to my second thought: they muddied the waters in terms of who the "bad guys" are. The only clear bad guy is the colonel. But when they get deeper into the plot, Caesar also has negative motivations, as do the apes who work with humans. With the colonel's back story and his explanation of why he wants to kill the apes, you're given a credible reason for why he is the way he is, but it doesn't make him any more likeable.

My third complaint: the movie is bleak. There is absolutely no hope for humanity at all save for the little girl. I don't know if they plan to do more with the series. If they do, they will have to fill in a lot of gaps because the story where it ends in this film is completely boring. Apes found a place to call home. Now they live there... like slightly more intelligent apes. They've lost their leader and the only one let who can speak like Caesar is the comic relief ape who is a coward and a moron.

So, no it wasn't plotless. The plot was just unlikable. I was lucky that this was viewed via a $.99 rental on Google Play otherwise I would have felt ripped off. If you did like it, I can't fault your opinion because it was pretty well made, it just didn't do it for me.

Synchronicity (IV) (2015)

Failed Homage to The Blade Runner

[4/10 · 16 June 2017]

Not much to say about this movie. The story line was weak. The acting mediocre. But the most maddening thing was the very obvious attempt to reproduce the look and feel of The Blade Runner. In that, it only partially succeeds by making it clear which shots were being replicated (har har).

Deckard's apartment is the most obvious source for the apartments of both the main character and his romantic interest: The light streaming in through blinds of vehicles flying by as an example. The scenes where elevators are moving up and down the external side of a building very much like the Tyrellcorp building elevators is another.

At one point there is a scene where the female love interest is asleep and the physicist is on the left side of the frame backlit. Very very reminiscent of the "do you trust me" scene in The Blade Runner. The apartment intercom is very very much like the scene where Deckard calls Rachel from the bar. Combine all of this with the use of Vangelis-like sounds that never quite go to the right places, and you have the makings of a film that elicits some amount of grief and a yearning for someone to do things right. This is not that film.

If you've never seen The Blade Runner, you need to see it and decide who does this better. Stories are completely different, but the attempt of look and feel is very obvious and ham fisted. If you haven't seen this movie, just go in expecting the quality of a 1990's SciFi original and you will not be disappointed.

Space Station 76 (2014)

I Was Hoping for More...

[5/10 · 22 March 2015]

When I first saw the poster and the trailer I was hoping for something like Woody Allen's Sleeper, set in space. But the film had more in common with the 1970s TV soap opera parody series, "Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman". If you found that series funny, and you're a fan of 1970s era SciFi visual style, you might enjoy this film.

Humor is really an individual taste. Some viewers like very obvious, "slam you over the head" comedy ranging from the Three Stooges through to modern films like "We Are the Millers". Other's prefer subtler comedy which may even be perceived as not being very funny at all. The Office (UK) version is a good example of this. Or perhaps the comic "Garfield". Both of those have much subtler, dryer humor than typical slapstick.

It is at this end where Space Station 76 lies. A lot of it is subtle and quiet humor. Nothing to really make you laugh out loud. But a lot more "Hmmh"s. If that's not your thing, then this is not your film. Personally I find dry humor to be boring. I know many people like it, but I really prefer something more akin to Green Wing, The Mighty Boosh or almost anything spun off of the Pythons.

One other commenter said that the movie doesn't really end, it just stops. I agree. You really have no idea what is going to become of the characters. You're led along for a while picking up on clues about them and their motives. But by the end, you're left in the middle where everything has been thrown up in the air and there's no real answer to any of your questions. Big secrets have been revealed but you're not even sure what the outcome of the revelation is.

I did enjoy the visuals. They did replicate some of the feel of shows like Space:1999, a hint of Sleeper, and they mixed it up with some great 1970s pop hit songs. I love that most of them were classic Todd Rundgren. That really sets the tone for the movie. If this was done just a tad better, it could have fit into the grind house movie genre. Making the film (digital video) look dirtier would have helped.

Increase the level of nudity and sex as well to match what was actually being shown back then and it would be a total fit. As an interesting gimmick, they could have also "re-released" the "hit soundtrack" suggesting that the songs in the movie became a hit because of the soundtrack instead of being appropriated for the movie. But that's not what happened here.

So while I hoped for a return to the same territory as Sleeper, I got something that made me feel sleepy instead. But I'm also not a fan of soap operas, so...

Thriller: Where the Action Is (1975) Season 4, Episode 6

Where the Action Is (Was this a lost Secret Agent plot?)

[10/10 · 26 December 2014]

Watching this just now, I'm amazed that no one else has noticed the strong similarity to the feel of the Patrick McGoohan series, Secret Agent (AKA Danger Man). From the very start, I kept telling my wife that this episode was making me miss Secret Agent. As the show went on, I kept thinking, this really is something you could drop John Drake into easily.

Looking at Brian Clemens writing credits, he was involved with ten episodes of Secret agent, five of them as a writer. The similarity can't be coincidental. I'd have to guess that this was a Secret Agent plot that was either un-produced or perhaps rejected for some unknown reason. Edd Byrnes also has some similar facial features and expressions to Patrick McGoohan, making it all that much easier to imagine this is an episode of Secret Agent from the 10th series had the show run through 1975.

So if you're a Secret Agent fan and you haven't watched Thriller, you really should watch this episode. Amazing.

Best of the West (1981–1982)

Not Really that Good

[5/10 · 24 February 2007]

I was about ten years old when this show was on and that was probably the primary demographic. As I learned later in broadcasting school, the time period this show was produced in was the era of a Reagan administration mandate that there be "family programming" in the 7:00PM-9:00PM block on all networks. This is what resulted in the low-grade but "fun" programming like Spencer, Different Strokes and Best of the West. I'm not saying that this was bad, but if was definitely not the best programming. For a six to ten year old this would have been acceptable entertainment and would have made them feel "grown up" for watching something after 8:00PM.

The show has many glaring misrepresentations of the old west, but what do you expect from a family friendly sitcom? Family friendly often equates to sanitized of most truth. The most memorable character from the show is without a doubt, Frog. Something about the actor reminds me of William Sanderson who played the Larry character in Newhart (I'm Larry, this is my brother Daryl and this is my other brother Daryl). They both had the same kind of bumpkin delivery in their roles with a pinch of weirdness. Tracy (the actor who played Frog) also appears in the classic film Repo Man as a possible alien. Playing up on his strangeness.

It is quite unfair that this program is not on DVD for those who wish to see it as all the episodes could fit on one or two DVDs and wouldn't really need any special features. Also surprising that it isn't on TV Land, Nick at Night or even AOL's In2TV.

Cremaster 3 (2002)

Beauty and Ugliness

[10/10 · 7 June 2003]

I just saw this film tonight and I must say that I am glad I did. This is the first of the Cremaster Cycle that I've seen, but I will certainly go see the rest. If you haven't yet seen this film, but have the opportunity to, you owe it to yourself to see the lush imagery and hear the rich sound work. I will not reveal much about the film in these comments. Suffice it to say, if you liked the Jarman film, The Garden or Greenaway's - Prospero's Books, you will probably appreciate this film too.

I think the mistake that many people have made, who commented negatively on this film, is that they expected some kind of traditional linear story line. From my perspective, this film was primarily a gallery with the narrative as a side bar. The film is packed with scenes that are all masterfully shot and incredibly captivating in their beauty and their ugliness. Much as you would walk through a museum looking at the various works and find them either gorgeous or hideous, each scene in this film should be weighed in the same way.

Another mistake is that the viewer absolutely must pay attention to detail. There are many recurring symbols throughout the film and just finding them in nearly every scene is as enjoyable as evaluating each scene. Be obsessive in your attention to these details as that is what it appears that Barney wants the viewer to be.

Much like the scenes in the film, the sound work can also be perceived as beautiful or ugly. This is what reminded me of Jarman's - The Garden. The music in Cremaster 3 is intensely intertwined with the visuals and at other times completely juxtaposed to great effect. Particularly captivating was the the an early scene where loud squeals in the music slowly and laboriously rising in pitch appear to mimic car sounds that you hear minutes later.

Finally, Barney appears to be refreshing when compared to most "art film" creators in that he has a great sense of humor. The inclusion of the two punk bands was definitely not an attempt to illustrate his cool affiliations as another reviewer commented. It appeared to be an honest sign of a sense of humor. Much like the bartender's "bagpipe playing" at an earlier point in the film. The bartender was quite hilarious and apparently intentionally so. He almost had a Shemp Howard quality about him.

The bottom line, if you haven't seen any of the other films and aren't privy to their plot lines, there really is nothing to "get" from this film. Instead there is a rich array of very well shot, framed and arranged scenes with a sound track that is simultaneously relaxing and tension inducing. Prepare to have you senses assaulted.

Otherworld (1985)

If you liked Sliders, you'd probably have liked Otherworld

[12 January 2003]

Although the characters and the plot was different, the premise is very similar: a group of people (a family this time) are on a parallel world trying to get back to their own. Instead of sliding from one universe to the next, they travel extensively on the world they originally entered. Each "province" they travel to is as different as the worlds that the Sliders visited.

Stars and Bars (1988)

Depending on your expectations, you'll either hate it or love it.

[30 November 2002]

This is one of those rare films that seems to divide into only two groups: You will only be able to love or hate this movie. However, I think the previous reviews leave out an essential element to determining which camp you fall into: whether you are interested in the actors (based on previous roles) or the film.

The best way to give you some idea of what to expect is the usual vehicle: comparison with other films. If you loved Martin Scorcese's film, After Hours or enjoyed Something Wild (with Melanie Griffith and Jeff Daniels) or were even guiltily amused by Who's That Girl (Madonna and Griffin Dunne), then you will probably like this movie. Stars and Bars uses a similar formula of "straight laced, uptight man" being taken for a wild adventure by "free-spirited, sexy woman".

Obviously, this would put someone like Daniel Day-Lewis into the right role (a tightly wound serious man), but in a very different universe from films like "My Left Foot" and "The Age of Innocence". If you are hoping for another period piece or serious art, this film is not for you. Luckily, I happen to like films that range from Wim Wenders to the latest Adam Sandler vehicle. :)