Elain-ee Reviews

Timeless (2016–2018)

Don't just suspend your disbelief - go back in time and shoot its parents!

[5/10 · 3 March 2020]

Any vestige of reason or logic will need to be suspended to get into this story. The fact that countless people have given it 10/10 illustrates that many are willing and able to do this, but since I'm extremely picky about what TV I watch, I can't justify doing that.

On top of the various plot holes picked up by other reviewers before me, I found the low quality acting to be an issue. Rufus is continually bug eyed, and the female lead whose name I can't seem to recall, looks perpetually stunned. The only character with a big of range is the soldier that's looking after him, but his script has him doing such silly things that it's difficult to get into his performance, either.

for some reason, I also find myself irritated by the habit that the female lead has of being chatted up and called 'beautiful' by every historical male she encounters. Why not 'perceptive' or 'clever' or any of a hundred other adjectives that would apply to her better than 'beautiful'? She's hardly a model but she is an action heroine with an apparently limitless memory for historical facts. Get with the times, Timeless! It's 2020. Women can be interesting in more ways than one.

I'm nearly finished Season 1 but it already feels like a lot of the scripted action is mere filler to hide the existence of massive plot holes; the characters are willing to risk their lives to cross time to fulfil an objective yet *every single time* they choke and stall, agonising over "Should I really kill this bad guy or save this good guy, or will it (gasp) change the future again??"

Seemingly to make the plot last longer, upon coming across the founders of the organisation that has set all these events in motion, they stall - again - and refuse to kill his son, leading to a present that is virtually unchanged. Can someone please explain to me how saving someone's life in episode 1 leads to a litany of differences in modern times, but killing a pivotal character in episode 7 or whatever has zero effect on the present whatsoever? Like, not even the paintjob is different in someone's house? These lazy, self serving oversights on the part of the producers lead to a story that is so inconsistent, it ruins all the fun.

A word of advice to the writers: if you create a different world with different rules, stick to those rules. don't change them every time it suits you or you're too tired to do a rewrite, it lowers the tone for the whole sci fi genre.

All the above makes me happy it was cancelled, because I feel like this is the kind of show that would leave me unsatisfied no matter how it concluded.

30 Rock (2006–2013)

Still 10/10, even with 20/20 hindsight

[10/10 · 29 February 2020]

I'm rewatching the series in 2020 after having discovered it in a library almost a decade ago and WOW! Has it aged well! Or maybe it's just that the world has aged badly in intervening years.

Step into 30 Rock and inhabit a world where female wit is a force to be reckoned with; where every actor gets their 2.5 minutes of fame per episode, and every character brilliantly subverts their own stereotypes in a way that's deep but not at all serious. From the mid life crisis man in Adsit, to the self sabotaging female boss in Fey, to the rags to riches star in Morgan, the aging fame addicted starlet in Krakowski... you never get tired of seeing the layers fall away from these people. It's light, but still riveting. And it is all tied together by plot arcs that are as insane as the best SNL skits (and funnier, in many cases).

By far, though, the best thing about watching this after several years is that it is so packed with one liners and sharp, snide social commentary that you can watch it again and again and still see new angles and perspectives. There's almost too much to take in in one single viewing in any of these episodes - and that's a great thing if you're a fan of the series, which I am.

I have a feeling you will be, too.

The Crazy Rulers of the World (2004– )

Good series which suffers from slopping editing

[7/10 · 11 June 2019]

For those of you who like getting your information about mad rumours - such as MK Ultra and the men who stare at goats - straight from a reliable source, this documentary is a must. A rare attempt to find solid proof that supernatural abilities were studied and deployed by the US military, this investigation manages to dig up some fascinating dirt and bona fide evidence of the uncanny; for instance, the psychic Prudence, accurately predicts that London will be the target of a major attack in the next 18 months (the series was released at the end of 2004, less than 18 months before the 7/7 suicide attacks). She impressively details the last moments of life of a man who was "suicided" by the CIA, too. Watch it for yourself and feel some scepticism slip away.

While it's a good study of this phenomenon, it suffers for its poor editing. Numerous, long television segments are included that are watching-paint-dry dull and add nothing to the story; these are seemingly only included to stretch out the story, or add some sort of nostalgic or cinematic element to an otherwise sober investigation. I found these segments only made the piece seem more dumbed down and wondered what they were thinking. At other times, interviews go on for too long or include irrelevant facts. These points could have been fixed by someone with a sharp eye. But, there's some gold here for seekers after paranormal truths.

Manufacturing Dissent (2007)

A catalogue of trivialities

[2/10 · 7 February 2019]

I was a little ashamed to see this poor attempt at a muckracking flick comes from Canada, although I ain't surprised CHUM (a right wing station) subsidized its making. This is almost definitely why Michael was wary about taking that interview!

The narrator sounds lifeless, the 'shocking' facts about Michael aren't that bad at all and are fake at least part of the time (witness the fact that the reporter admitted on camera that she didn't realize his shares in Halliburton had been faked, which she would have done, had she read his book), and the message of this film is skewed, to say the least. It veers from the heart breaking footage of Iraq bombings to lame-o Republican teens whining that they want to be represented at Moore's speeches, even as they admit they haven't watched his films. It's just a mess, and an amateurishly made mess. Dang, I just had to knock two stars off my review even thinking about it!

Am now just a few minutes away from the ending, and having seen all that this team has dug up on Moore and I am all like, "meh. so what?" So he staged a few scenes; anyone with a brain gets the feeling he does that anyway. Yeah, it sucks that he doesn't admit it freely because that gives the Right more ammo to attack him with, but it's hardly anything that changes the large, sweeping points that Moore's films successfully manage to make. Yes he takes cheap shots. Anyone who's aware of Bush's appalling humanitarian record will agree that he can afford to take a few cheap shots.

TBH I'm very surprised that much MORE muck wasn't raked; seeing as how successful Moore is commercially I expected a lot more, but the fact that these inanities were the "worst" that they could dig up on him gives Moore a new sheen of respectability, in my eyes.

Oh and the title is awful: if nothing else, this film proves that Michael's documentaries sell fantastically specifically BECAUSE there is a lot of dissent that hasn't got any outlet in America, as well as elsewhere. If that wasn't the case then yes, as the filmmaker's state, he'd fade away into obscurity. But the man has managed to harness the public sentiment repeatedly precisely because so much dissent already exists that hasn't been tapped.

Richard Gere summed the whole shebang up best when he said, "I may not agree with his methods, but I agree with what he has to say." Millions feel the same way. We're not all as dumb as your reporters seem to be, CHUM, and do not expect anyone to be perfect. That the likes of that station can hold a progressive up to such impeccable standards whilst giving racists and warmongers an easy time says a lot more about their priorities than it does about Moore's.

Zoolander 2 (2016)

Hit = 60% Miss = 40%

[6/10 · 15 December 2018]

The storyline here seems rather secondary to the general absurdist, sadomasochistic atmosphere of the film and because of that, I nearly became fed up with it early on. Am glad I carried on watching. What got me laughing were the devastating riffs on hipster club culture and that character, who's name I can't remember, who seemed to be a kind of artist manager for Zoolander and Hansel. He was spot on as an insecure, scathing, worshipful, ironic twat and I wish the whole film would have been as nasty and funny as that character was. Alas. Benedict Cumberbatch as an annoyingly vague, haughty, ungendered model wasn't nearly as funny as I suspect Owen Wilson and Ben Stiller thought he would be - I can't stand him as an actor and anyway, he looks too gender specific to pull it off. That and few other instances where cameos were used would have been far better if an entirely new actor or actress should have been brought in who really fit the character, to bring him/her/it to life.

I've never seen the first Zooland, and when I see that it was released around 9/11 I can see why. Watching films wasn't a high priority on anyone's list at that time. But this film makes me want to see it. The purists are (as always) whining that Zoolander 2 isn't as good as the first one but it piqued my interest!

The Mummy (2017)

Misogynist Trash

[2/10 · 1 November 2018]

I'm kind of a fan of the original mummy series - it was funny as well as a bit dark, and it had a strong but sensual female lead. The mummy was kind of hot too, and had a definite sense of supernatural strength about him.

By contrast, here we're given a waifish mummy who has no passion, no sensuality and no zest for anything, just a parasitic need to manipulate men. I guess the writer had a bad divorce, a rebellious teen daughter or just a sane mom yelling at him when he created this steaming turd of a film, which reeks of anti-female hysteria from beginning to end.

As with nearly all major films these days - in particular, remakes - the qualities of humour and female strength that made the original a hit have been pretty much eviscerated from this version. Instead we have a female who 'terrorises' men by threatening to sleep with them, which leads them to attempt to kill her in a bunch of absurdly phallic ways. The lab where she eventually ends up seems to have been inspired by the producer's penchant for sadistic. woman hating, porn websites. Despite all the nudity present here, the film has a weird, stale kind of Puritanical vibe. There's not a second of real eroticism in it, unlike the original. Rather than a film, it seems a sad testament to the pathetic, neurotic Mummy issues of the person standing behind the camera.

If you're a human being with any taste or sense of self respect, avoid this. Seriously, it's that bad. Dark Universe would be better off donating its funds to a battery and assault center for women than sinking them in any other ventures that are as devoid of entertainment value as this film has been.

The VVitch: A New-England Folktale (2015)

Looks great but do we really need another whiny lead actress?

[4/10 · 5 September 2018]

This film seems very tempting, the setting and style of dress really draw you in. I was looking forward to a strong storyline about tough survivalist Puritans facing the realities of North America. Instead, we get a handwoven basket chock full o' stereotypes: the mother of the family is only a mother, and her only contribution to the storyline is her overused, stereotypical obsession with a dead infant. Because moms don't have any character of their own ya know? They just make babies. That's all. And when the babies are gone they basically implode.

The other female lead is a nasty old witch that steals babies from respectable moms. The dad's an incredulous gruff alpha male that barely tolerates all the whiny (as in, high pitched shrill wibbling that has no content, just expresses a kind of animal hysteria) antics of the women in the cast. Yuck. Why waste such incredible style on such predictable, stale characters?

the story's set in the 16th Century; that doesn't mean that we have to regress 400 years just to watch it, but that's exactly what the makers of The Witch seem to have done. I couldn't take the whining woman anymore and switched it off, myself - if that does your head in, you'll want to do the same.

The Book of Eli (2010)

"Savagery is the way of all men and only God can save 'em"

[3/10 · 7 August 2018]

...is what this movie wants us to believe. It strides off boldly in that direction without a second's reflection of its basic, flawed assumption that people are feral, rapacious, murderous and greedier than the worst animals are. Opening scenes show us women who willingly collude with misogynistic highway robbers, men killing each other for water and a supposed bible basher slaughtering a dozen people at a time. The 'hero' doesn't intervene when someone else's neck is on the line, though - for example, when a couple is being beaten and raped - oh no, fulfilling his quest is more important! Presumably, the additional message here is that preserving the alleged word of God is more important than the lives of innocent men and women, who are mere pawns in the quest to ensure 'something greater' survives. What could be greater than the human mind that creates these stories? Isn't destroying people to preserve a stupid book what countless inquisitors and jihadis believe to be right? How is putting a book above human lives meant to make the world a better place, when it apparently led to the near-annihilation of the human race just 30 years earlier? None of these questions are addressed or even asked.

Many of the other assumptions that are made in this film are so gross, it seems like they must have come from someone who was raised with no other education aside from the bible. People never thought of sitting down and sharing food before the bible was written? Seriously?? Ancient artefacts from Egypt, Turkey, Greece, Meso America and all across the planet would beg to differ. Even monkeys and gorillas share their food, for crying out loud (even dogs do). Countless other civilizations have managed to survive huge calamities and upheavals and survive, without a bible. The directors ought to crack open a real history book sometime. They may be pleasantly surprised what they find there.

I've personally also seen better use of this sort of black n white scenery in other graphic novel adaptations, like for instance, Sin City.

Day Watch (2006)

Don't gotta be Russian to enjoy this, just use your intuition

[9/10 · 20 July 2018]

Others will have described the massively complex plot here better than I ever could but I just came here to add that, even watching this is a foreign language with English subtitles, I 'got' enough of the in jokes (maybe it would even be called satire?) to laugh at the right parts of this film. The rest is done with such beautiful and surreal panache that you can't help but love it. A great and truly entertaining film that doesn't condescend or foreshadow anything. You won't know what's around the next bend but you'll probably agree it's all just as it should be. (And it's better than the first installment as well!)

Spartacus (2010–2013)

God awful!

[2/10 · 23 June 2018]

The acting stinks, the scenery looks like a bad set from the 1960s, and i don't even want to think about the historical 'accuracy' of this whole mind-in-the-gutter, sensationalised pile of you know what. Every single blow struck by every single actor is done is low-rent slowmotion regardless of whether it has any significance whatsoever. The special effects are mediocre. The budget was obviously shoestring. If you ask me, the only reason why this god-awful series has high ratings is because there are plenty of people out there who like their porn clicks to have a slightly more highbrow storyline than what you get on YouPorn. Give it a miss if you want storyline, historical accuracy or depth though, you'll be disappointed.

Britannia (2017–2021)

Don't be fooled by neo-Nazi reviewers - this is a good fantasy...

[10/10 · 6 March 2018]

... and it's good because of its inclusion of black and strong female characters where they "historically should not be". History was written by the Romans, who were misogynist and racist pigs. Anyone who has studied it knows this, and knows the cautionary phrase "history is written by the victors". Yes, Roman historians would have omitted strong female or non-Roman characters in their lives because they were blind to the existence of anything but themselves. It's why their empire fell (take the lesson from that, bigots of IMDB). So unless you're wanting to portray Celtic peoples as bloodthirsty incestuous filth encrusted superstitious animals - which is how they WERE portrayed in Roman tomes - then you have to use creativity to fill in all the blanks. Why not black legionaries? Black people were just as likely to be enslaved as anyone else the Romans conquered, and slaves could win freedom to do as they pleased. Why not women fighters? We know Boudica and many other Celtic women were warrriors and queens. Why not include any damn thing you like, as long as it makes for a gripping drama that all people - not just old white dudes - want to watch?

Well done Britannia, you've made an enjoyable show that I recommend watching. All the IMDB troll "reviewers" in the world will not change that fact.

Z Nation: No Mercy (2016) Season 3, Episode 1

Slow motion doesn't increase the quality any

[5/10 · 2 November 2017]

Was expecting better, at the very least this premiere could/should have been average length. The barely-there story line was dragged out to a bandwidth destroying 1.5-2 hour segment. Nearly every action lasted twice as long thanks to slow motion video; it felt like watching a bad metal video from the 1980s at times, but minus a decent soundtrack to make up for the lack of dialogue.

The start was alright but everything after The Man turned up for the second time was cheerless and wasteful. You won't be missing much if you don't watch this... and that pretty much says it all!

Z Nation (2014–2018)

funny and absurd

[8/10 · 27 October 2017]

An ex hippy, a survivalist teen, a hacker and other freaks, headed up by a strong black woman, make up the rag-tag band of unlikely Apocalypse survivors who have been tasked with saving the world. Their goal: to escort a hedonistic, self centred git with the cure to zombie-ism running through his veins back to a CDC, where government lab rats are waiting to make an antidote based on his DNA.

This is like an American version of one of those late night stoner shows that sometimes comes out of Great Britain. The 'high' concept here being that it's making fun of zombies, making fun of the apocalypse movies and making fun of stuff that you didn't even know existed, like Day of the Dead fashionistas. It's very, very ridiculous - more in an absurdist, B-movie art-film-gone-wrong kind of way than anything else. But the absurdity is very conscious and the tackiness seems 100% intentional and playful.

I've taken a few stars off my rating because the madcap humour seems to run out of steam part way through season 2, but I guess that's inevitable when they had to stretch the premise as far as they did to make the story arc last that long. Also, I'm not a fan of the serious episodes, although I guess they're also necessary to keep the series moving along.

This series would fare best if it stayed firmly in the late night stoner film category that it clearly belongs to. Anyone who tries to comment on Z Nation with a straight face or serious mindset is just too square, though... sorry, the truth hurts!

Grimm (2011–2017)

Poorly executed and written

[5/10 · 1 August 2017]

This TV show is just so-so. I have been watching it while I've been ill and found it moderately interesting, but then again, everything is pretty interesting when you're stuck to your bed - lol.

The opening episode treated me to a new premise: loads of monsters live amongst us, hidden in plain sight. Episode after episode, these monsters commit crimes which enable Nick Grimm to investigate and learn more about their different races. Unfortunately, it's not nearly enough to give us a real background or create that all-important feeling of entering a parallel universe with new and different laws. Some of the most glaring oversights (to me, anyway) are:

1) The monsters' faces always change when they're having a freaky moment, but we never find out why they only sporadically reveal themselves, nor why it's only their faces that change, even though many of them are actually dogs, birds, etc - creatures that should look different all over, not just in the face.

2) Despite having radically different faces, each 'race' of monsters seems to obey the same physiological rules that all the other monsters follow. They turn into monsters under the same circumstances (e.g. moments of high stress) and they all inhabit human forms. How in god's name is this possible? Unless they somehow all descend from the same, original monster, it's just silly to suggest that all these different just so happen to be confined to a human form. This sort of demands a real explanation, but we never get one.

2) Every single crime committed in this show is committed by monsters. Like, EVERY SINGLE ONE. It's tedious and repetitive. Also, if the monsters in this show were an ethnic minority of some sort it would be tantamount to scapegoating. The crap thing about scapegoating is not just the fact that it's unethical, but also that it's lazy and unimaginative... especially in a fantasy show where the creators could theoretically do anything they want. Why can't the Grimm creators try jazzing things up a bit by sometimes creating a scenario that only involves humans, or one that does not involve a monster crime investigated by Nick? I mean, there's only so far you can stretch a premise like "monster-crime-gets-investigation-by-Nick" and, by halfway through Season 1, I feel they've already overused it to death. I'm losing interest fast.

I also agree the acting is wooden, but feel that the bigger problem may be the script and the glaring lack of imagination that has gone into it. The whole thing comes across as hasty, contrived and shallow. I'd rather watch Buffy or X-Files for the 15th time in a row than wait and see where this is going TBH. Oh and one other thing that really nags you after a while is Nick's voice: he sounds like he's monged out on Valium all the time - no tone, no inflection, nothing. How did he get hired?

As soon as I feel well again, I'll be going back to the library to exchange this for something (anything)else.

Heathers (1988)

'Heathers' teaches you stuff that no high school can

[10/10 · 23 April 2017]

Heathers had a really, really well-timed appearance in my life. It came out when I was halfway through my first year of junior high at the end of the 1980s, and feeling utterly bewildered by these outlandish creatures around me: the eighties trendsetters. Their alien styles and feral egotism was captured perfectly in Heathers, depicting the way high school seems when seen through the eyes of a meek, unpretentious beginner. Veronica Sawyer (played by Ryder) is a girl like you, me and pretty much anyone that was ever a junior student, desperate to fit in. But not THAT desperate!

The garish style of the characters in Heathers was never meant to be realistic... a fact that seems to have been lost on almost all viewers that were born after 1985. It was a brutal and massive send-up of everything that was hateful about the 1980s - and there was loads! But despite all the exaggeration, Heathers served up a very accurate reflection of way that the secondary school environment really seemed to my dazed, adolescent eyes.

And yet shoulder pads were never *that* big, hippies were never THAT f*cked up in class and the bad boy never carried a gun (this was back in the days before the real high school shootings began). We all knew that Heathers wasn't meant to be realistic, at least not on a factual level. It was meant to be realistic on an emotional one, though, and it fully succeeded at that. It was a revenge fantasy flick with a heart: a satirical and strangely sensitive depiction of the awe and shame that all teens feel about their high school experience.

Just when Heathers starts to seem like it's turning into a cartoonish, late-night stoner special, the murders begin. And then it gets dark... and awesome. Anyone who's been to a high school where they met their own 'Heathers' will feel alternately euphoric and disturbed about the events that follow. And that's what they should feel: it's a tale that's meant to make you reflect, and question your easy assumptions about the way 'everybody else' is. Even the "Heathers" in your life.

It's a shame that Americans have stopped making films that really delve into the ugliest, funniest parts of being a teen the way that Heathers did. Subsequent generations of juniors could have really benefited from seeing more stuff like this. Teens generally have very few chances to really reflect upon their attitudes, and maybe even change them before setting off on a destructive (or self-destructive) warpath. Heathers gave me that chance and I was glad that I had it.

Whatever your age, watch this film and you'll learn something that no school can ever teach you about being a teen... and have a laugh doing it.

Misfits (2009–2013)

The two-season curse strikes again?

[5/10 · 13 April 2017]

Until I saw Misfits, my favourite series from the UK were the typical comedies - Spaced, Black Books, Ab Fab, Blackadder - but this has replaced them as the reigning king of black humour, plus having the added bonus of genuine drama and at least a few deep moments to balance it all out. If you're a fan of any of the above, give this a watch. It's as hard to do justice to in words as any of the above as well, so just try it out and see what you think.

Unfortunately, a lot of the best television I've seen in the UK flagged after the first two seasons, and all the previews I've seen of season three suggest that's about to happen with Misfits. Ba humbug. Granted, the Simon story arc was a bit over-egged, but the ensemble and their intersecting tangents have maintained an almost perfect balance all throughout the first two seasons.

Edited later to add:

Okay, I've now watched season 3 and the beginning of 4 and I have to lower my original rating. The end of 3 and beginning of 4 are pants, and not because of the Alisha/Simon 'plot twist'. It's the writing - it's gone totally downhill, the characters seem to have a lot less dialogue and what they do have is blunt and un-witty. Did they change the writers or something? What a mistake.

Another issue is the rank misogyny of the end of season 3 and beginning of season 4. In the last few episodes I've watched, I've seen an episode where a dozen cheerleaders, an old lady, a long lost girlfriend and a female black social worker were all killed off in ever-more gruesome ways.

In another episode, a woman with the power to control people's minds used her power to 'pussy whip' (their word, not mine) her boyfriend and had to be punished by having her power taken away. WTF writers, did you have a bad breakup with your GF or something? What's worse, there is only one female Misfit left and she's a sulky grump who says nothing except to gripe about men. And the 'funny' character makes a lot of cracks that amount to rape jokes, which really isn't funny. Ever.

They really should have hired a woman to help them with the writing but with the attitudes on display in these episodes, I'm not surprised that they didn't bother trying. It just comes off as a show written by (and for) total w*nkers.

I'd give this part of the series about 1/10 and the first part of the series about a 9/10 so overall, it's only a 5/10. I don't watch TV to be reminded what a lot of hatred there is for women in English society, personally. The latter half of this show displays utter contempt for its female viewers by expecting us to find it entertaining.

2 Broke Girls (2011–2017)

Seasons 1 & 2 are good (but not if you're a prude!)

[7/10 · 23 March 2017]

I feel the need to write a review here because it seems like nearly everyone that's left a negative comment is a prude that's against sexuality, drugs and pop culture as a whole. In that case, why are they actually watching this show in the first place, didn't they even attempt to read a synopsis first...? Clearly street humour and street culture aren't everyone's bag - no one ever said they were - but there are plenty of shows that cater for more conservative themes that these people could/should watch instead.

Personally, I can't stand daytime soaps with tons of mushy sentimentalism so I avoid them like the plague... and I wouldn't presume to review them here, either. It'd be a waste of everyone's time. Maybe that's just me, or maybe there's a lesson to be learned in that...

Anyway, getting down to the actual review: I started off actually liking this show a lot and recommended it to a lot of mates. The jokes were just the right balance of nasty and self-deprecating (not all humour sits neatly on either side of the nice/nasty divide, as many viewers here seem to believe. 2BG used to inhabit that grey area pretty well).

I also liked the serious moments that happened in the first two seasons. They were a bit cheesy but really unexpected and that refreshed us whenever we started getting a bit tired of Max's cynicism and/or Caroline's naievete. Back then, the series was about a 7 out of 10 for its humour alone. And yes, if I sat back and analyzed each joke I'd be like, 'That's a bit rude/harsh.' But it made me laugh my a** off anyway and that's what humour should do. It's not meant to be heavily analyzed, not when it's done right. And I have to admit that also really liked the kitschy and cheap late night stand-up feel of the show, which many here can't seem to appreciate. You shouldn't watch this at all if you are bugged by that kind of atmosphere.

Unfortunately, while re-watching season 2-3 I noticed that there was a massive change in quality between these two seasons. It's not even that obvious what's the matter if you're not watching that closely. Almost all the same ingredients are there, but they just aren't funny any more. But if I had to nail them down I'd say the biggest changes are:

1) Everybody sounds like they're screaming. Everybody. All. The. Time. *Especially* Caroline and Sophie. I had to turn down the volume about a dozen times in each and every episode of season three & four due to the piercing, shrieky quality of the sound. And I actually had to stop after every few episodes to reach for painkillers because they gave me that much of a headache. This rarely happened in the first two seasons. I believe it's at least partly a studio issue - they need some better sound techs or something. And also, it may be an issue of the onstage format. Yes, there's a live audience, but we aren't sitting in a ****ing theatre and don't CARE how far Caroline's and Sophie's voices can carry. And anyway it's self defeating to have half the cast projecting so hard that they drown all the other characters out.

2) The edgy humour that used to walk a careful line between nasty and true is now just hasty and cheap. There's no cleverness in the majority of the jokes; they're just pot-shots and lame sexual innuendoes that lack the guts to say anything truly new or extreme.

3) The storyline about the shop often seems to be headed nowhere. Fast. The writers, for all their effort spent on crafting jokes, have utterly neglected to keep chasing after Caroline and Max's dreams in any meaningful way. Therefore, we have a pretty massive plot-free gap between the first and last episode of season 3. (Season 4 I can't even remember because I was covering my ears half the time).

4) There aren't any warm or serious moments anywhere, which takes away all the contrast from the show's tone... and contrast is so badly needed when you're doing a comedy because the jokes aren't as funny when they're happening every second.

In a nutshell, the first two seasons are great if you're into that type of thing. If you aren't, why not try going outside? Some people seem to feel duty bound to stare at anything that plays on their widescreen TVs and act as if they've been hugely betrayed when it's not exactly to their taste. But perhaps they should change the channel instead of banging on about it here, and remember that variety is the spice of life.

Vanishing on 7th Street (2010)

Good ending, but too tense to be really enjoyable

[21 February 2017]

A group of confused people stumble into the same bar after the population of Detroit suddenly disappears during a blackout. They struggle to find an explanation; alas, none of what the uncover is really satisfying enough to make up for the tension of this film.

I'm a veteran horror film buff, and love action movies too, so when I say that this film is too tense, I really mean it. The ensemble behind this flick is obviously great at creating an unnerving atmosphere... the only problem is, that's ALL they do! Not only is this film short on answers but, if you're looking for a tale about ingenuity and bravery in the face of harsh odds, you won't find it here either. The characters spend all the film freaking out, attempting to destroy valuable equipment, running around in the dark screaming, arguing and basically doing every last thing that you'd avoid doing in a situation like theirs.

The only saving grace is that the actors are talented enough to make their reactions to the situation seem understandable, but their emotional cacophony feels like an incessant assault on the senses, and just makes me want to switch off. There are too few enjoyable moments in this film. A bit of comedy or a few more reveries to break up the grim, hopeless atmosphere, would have done wonders... Director, please take note!

The upsides are that the tense atmosphere is immersive - if utterly devoid of variation - and the actors do a fabulous job with whatever role they've got. They're clearly talented. It's also an intriguing premise for a film but again, it's badly wrapped up. Personally, I'm tired of seeing Roanoke trotted in every movie involving disappearances... in this day and age, anyone with a wireless connection will have heard that legend and simply retelling it does nothing to add to our understanding. It would have been nice they'd attempted to solve that mystery, if not the mystery at the heart of this film.

Perhaps M. Night Shyalaman might have done better with such a storyline. Anyway, as it stands, this is solid Indie film material but nothing more. It's full of potential, but lacking in that extra investment of time / money that would have made it truly outstanding.

Diaz - Don't Clean Up This Blood (2012)

Flawed but heartfelt and factually accurate

[9/10 · 19 January 2017]

I just can't believe that even now, there are people like one reviewer on this page who are so nakedly towing the fascist party line on Genoa. The Diaz raid WAS as bad as this film makes out... at least, according to the severely injured and traumatized protesters, it was. And, call me crazy, but their take on the events matters a lot more to me than what some disconnected overseas film critic who wasn't even there has to say. Especially a critic who is more or less quoting the same anti-communist lines that the police in this film dispensed as they were beating people up...!

That aside, I want to say that this film, while overlong and brutal, is extremely hard to stop watching because it is so heartfelt. I was 24 when these events happened and I was attending the equivalent actions in London. Being that we were all so connected to the global anti-globalization movement (if that's not a contradiction in terms?) my friends and I were among the first people outside of Genoa to hear about the events at Diaz. Back then, I assumed from the descriptions given by Indymedia that it was pretty awful (they described the blood on the floor and walls, as well as the fact that women and elderly people were beaten in their sleep). Even so, I still didn't grasp the full extent of the damage until I saw this re-enactment. What would have been a good addition to this film, though, would have been to show some of the aftermath, in which various countries pursued justice for their respective citizens and were rebuffed by the Italian authorities with what can only be described as fascist zeal. This left the rest of Europe shaken, I believe, in the same way that the abuse meted out by the police left the left activist scene shaken. It was also a telling moment in the anti-capitalist movement, because it demonstrated how little the values of the masses actually mattered to the elite.

One interesting commentary that kind of sums the whole event up was made by Nick Davies of the Guardian, eight years after the fact. He wrote that, at Genoa, "the police acted as though somebody had promised them impunity". Since none of the assailants ever served time for their crimes, we can safely assume that that promise was upheld... and continues to do so. But by whom? I guess the answer lies is in the name of the entity whose summit the Genoa Social Forum was protesting against.

Wayward Pines (2015–2016)

Less unrealistic than people say

[6/10 · 2 November 2016]

When I started watching this series yesterday, I expected to find myself wading through a nonsensical, disconnected narrative that would make my head spin, judging by all the negative reviews. That hasn't been the case. Sure, there are a few minor issues (e.g. how does a 'Boise, Idaho' sign survive in humid pine forest conditions for 2000 years, only acquiring a bit of rust?). But many of the other parts that people are complaining about actually have explanations for them, if you pay attention.

Here are my thought about the 'problems' in the story line that some of the negative reviewers have cited:

1) Executing humans to maintain order (even though humans are endangered) is ridiculous/ doesn't make sense.

That may be, but it's realistic. The Stasi executed and tortured its own people to death, even when the GDR's population had been reduced to just a few million; and even when the people they executed tended to be healthy, active and intelligent members of society. For those who really believe that control is necessary for society's 'survival', sacrificing life to maintain order seems less dangerous than allowing people to go crazy. I see something sinister behind the founder's repeated statement, "We must keep them calm". He feels uncomfortable with disorder as a person, like many fascists do.

Of course, the town leaders' logic is a fallacy, but no more so than is the logic of any of the millions of people who have taken part in fascist organizations (including some modern ones, like Guantanomo Bay). The people running Wayward Pines are people of TODAY... who have moved to the future. Why shouldn't they hold some of the twisted views that modern humans clearly do?

These executions seem to exist to throw the idealistic rationalizations of the town's ruling class into stark relief. They show us that the people working behind the scenes have totalitarian beliefs lurking in their subconscious... just like so many people alive today, do. The leaders gloss over that fact by claiming they're protecting the future (like say, Donald Trump) because they are unaware of their own motivations. Before long, we start to see signs that it's the blonde hypnotherapist, with her 'clear and severe' philosophy of social control, who is driving the totalitarian rhetoric.

Another thing: humans who are alive *right now* are chopping down the world's LAST great forests to make matchsticks, cattle feed, palm oil and cocaine crops; they are dumping mercury into the ONLY oceans that we will ever have; driving cars and flying in planes that are destroying the ONE atmosphere we all breathe. If the majority of humans can do all that without feeling guilty, why shouldn't they kill a few 'endangered' people, too? Another point here, is that the head honchos of the town keep repeating that the kids are the future... making it easy to justify getting rid of adults who are 'getting in the way' of their vision.

2) If the first group of people who were awoken in the town rebelled, escaped and/or killed themselves, why haven't the 200 people in the leaders' complex done the same thing?

Simple - the 200 peeps in the complex were volunteers who knew what they were getting into, unlike the abductees. This was explained already. The only thing I'd add is that it would stretch credulity to say that every person who learned the truth offed themselves. But that isn't what was shown in the show, anyway - we were shown a handful of suicides, plus a lot of people running away because (presumably) they didn't believe what the town leaders told them... Well, but who would?

What would you say to these people, if you were the leader, to avoid sounding nuts? And if people in your town were rebelling against you, what would you do to put the rebellion down, if not execute them? Jail them? Well, guess what - that's a totalitarian response, as well.

Basically, the town's founders had a supposedly perfect survival plan but, like hundreds of leaders in similar situations, they had no clue how to manage people's expectations, whilst protecting their lifelong project.

But perhaps the moral of the story: that no single person should ever get to say that society and/or its machinations, are 'their' lifelong project. All the people living in such machinations need to have a say, too.

3) Why tell the kids but not the adults?

Kids are easier to condition and control because their expectations are still plastic. Plus, kids naturally hide a lot from their parents. Witness the amount of grown-ups who were abused as children and never told teachers or friends about the abuse. And with a hypnotherapist in charge, too... a hypnotherapist who treats you like little kings and queens... manipulation's even easier.

Also, not ALL the kids know 'The Truth' - only 110 of them do, and they were hand-picked for their suggestibility. Sure, it's a potentially weak system of maintaining order but, given the alternatives (e.g. totalitarian society with executions) hypnotizing the kids probably seems like a pretty safe option.

I agree with the technical criticisms however: how did they manage to store all the necessities, and keep the electrics running for 2000 years? More thought should have gone into this side of things. But since I'm only really watching this for the human factor, it doesn't bother me so much.

On the human front, I'm satisfied with what I've seen so far. Maybe that's just because I've spent a lot of time trawling through horrific accounts of idealistic societies that have gone wrong in our own time. I just wish the characters would reveal more of their personal flaws, so we could learn more about where they've gone wrong as *people*.

Sorry, Haters (2005)

Great metaphor!

[9/10 · 6 August 2016]

Ah, I thought about five minutes after the film ended, so THAT'S why they put a picture of the World Trade Centre attack on the cover! It's not immediately clear why, but I appreciated being allowed by the director to puzzle it out on my own. I suspect that's the whole point of this film?

There's almost no mention of 9/11 in 'Sorry Haters', a fact that I appreciate, because I watch movies for the drama and not for the cold, hard facts. But in the tradition of all great dramas, the makers of 'Sorry Haters' have managed to make a total fiction tell us some hard truths about 9/11.

This story is one big metaphor for the dynamics between the West and Middle East. The West is embodied by Phoebe and the Middle East, by Ashade. On the one hand, Phoebe goes out of her way to stir sh*t because she's brimming with inner tension. It turns out that she probably got this way from a lifetime of being casually tormented by people around her who got what she wanted to get, but was too 'civil' to fight for. Even Phoebe's so called best friend snipes, "I wasn't an accountant, I was even WORSE: a sales rep!" (Oh how nice Philly, you shouldn't have!) The hyper-successful and outgoing Philly practically oozes a constant stream of subtle insults like this, all meant to put Phoebe in her place. Whether she's doing it consciously or not is another question. It's obviously a very ingrained habit, though.

Having been forced to compete brutally with her peers, and even her best friend, Phoebe seemingly doesn't know how to stop until she's clawed her way to the top of some sh*t pile, somewhere in the city. And she's willing to go to desperate measures to do that. It looks like all that competitive spirit has wiped out any trace of sympathy or humanity in her. It's The American Dream gone oh-so wrong... as it increasingly tends to do, these days.

I kept asking myself throughout the film why Phoebe was so bonkers: it was her single minded obsession with, 'I want what she has'. It does make you ask questions about how much you really need any of the things you want.

There's a pretty clear connection between the rise of Islamic terrorism and the invasions of the Middle Eastern by Russia, the U.S., U.K and France over the last few decades. Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq were once more progressive places than they are… before the West started to get antsy about how much oil they were sitting on (or near). Every time we withdraw our troops, having failed, yet another chunk of Middle Eastern progress crumbles away for good. And the likes of ISIL and the Taliban spring up to funnel people's anger and pain into fundamentalism or civil war. Or terrorism. Of course, the problem could be solved (or at least lessened) if the West would just STOP messing about in the Middle East, but why do that when the weapons industry's making a killing from it all too...?

That's not to excuse terrorism - one attack is as bad as the other - but Western nations do like to play the innocent victim even as they go on doing things that they KNOW will add fuel the terrorists' fire.

The western world's compulsion to invade and manipulate the Middle East to enhance its own bank portfolios is very clearly mirrored in Phoebe's compulsion to violate Ashade's personal boundaries. She infiltrates his mind and controls him for the sake of saving her ego. It's insane but she's just like some of the more cutthroat businessmen I've met. She goes to radical extremes because she's bored with her routine, and exists in social isolation. The one-track mind she possesses isn't inherited, it's earned, and the business she works in rewards it.

Just like the Western world, Phoebe seems to 'have it all' but having it all's not enough. She's obviously just broken from living in her cut-throat object-obsessed world for so long. Again, the American supermalls full of dead eyed shoppers come to mind. (Sorry Haters might be interesting companion film for Dawn of the Dead or American Psycho for that reason!).

I also felt that Phoebe's character was strangely sympathetic... which is a real feat considering her actions. Bravo to Ms. Penn for sustaining that balancing act. Most western people will have felt as enraged about the unfairness of capitalism at some point, so it would have been bad to alienate all those people by making her too 'evil'. Many other actresses would have taken an easier route, but Penn keeps you guessing and wondering whether you should take her side.

I agree with the other reviewers who commented that Ashade is a little bit TOO good, though. After all, fundamentalist forms of Islam have always existed and have almost always been quite hostile toward women. It would be silly to dichotomize the Muslims as wonderfully good & pure people, just as it would have been a bit silly to turn Phoebe into a purely heartless killing machine. No one is totally good or evil. So as far as a realistic drama goes, it's a bit of a push... BUT seeing as this is a metaphorical drama, it worked out okay.

While the film opens on a city that's clearly still a bit edgy after 9/11, the ensuing tale neatly answers the question of who planted the insane IDEA of 9/11 in the minds of terrorists in the first place. Maybe it was someone like Phoebe who took "my family, my whole world" away from a stranger. Most acts of war and terror are like that, when you think of it - they're all just an externalization of the sound a mind makes when it pops.

Victoria (II) (2015)

Stylish and fast, but totally unbelievable

[5/10 · 29 March 2016]

As a fan of both Berlin and independent film, I really wanted to like this, and was hopeful after reading the positive reviews already posted. But ultimately, they are misleading about the film's merits.

This film tells the tale of Victoria, a Spanish newcomer in Berlin who (realistically enough) works at an underpaid cafe job and speaks no German. She meets four Berlin guys at a club and her decision to stick with them seems a little naive, at first. Unfortunately, this is the most believable part of the entire film. What follows is a descent into a rather cheesy, Hollywood-style gangster underground that feels totally out of place within the humble, realistic Berlin that the directors have clearly attempted to capture in this single-take film.

The problem with "Victoria" is that the film's makers don't seem to know what kind of film they are trying to make: is it a fly-on-the-wall docudrama showing us everyday events with wildly unforeseen circumstances? Or is it a cinematic thriller with exciting plot twists that would stretch credibility if we saw them anywhere but the silver screen? The makers should have chosen one of the two things and stuck with it, in my opinion. Mixing them together has resulted in a jarring experience. Even though we want to get pulled in to the events that are depicted, we are always aware that they just would not happen in the "gritty real life" Berlin that this film attempts to capture.

Having said that, this crew has clearly got some great dramatic skills. The performances are heartfelt and exciting, despite the lack of substance. So it will be interesting to see what they come up with after "Victoria".

Come Fly with Me (2010–2011)

Plane Insanity, Everyman-Style

[8/10 · 7 April 2012]

People compare Little Britain and Come Fly with Me unfavourably. They say the humour is different, or that the latter is not as funny as the former. Having watched the two series' back-to-back in a matter of weeks I have to say I disagree. The humour is essentially the same. The difference is a matter of targets.

Little Britain famously made fun of the disadvantaged and peripheral elements of the UK population: the people that everybody prefers not to see. At the same time it celebrated the English eccentricity in a weird way. We saw the disabled, the flaming queers, the transsexuals, the illegal immigrants, the chavs & council estate skivers as players in the national drama, even if only satirically. That was a first for British telly. The catch, and what made their style of satire acceptable, was that many of these people were not actually what they seemed: Ting Tong was actually a man from Tooting, Andy was actually able bodied, Dafydd was actually a repressed queer-hater, etc., etc.

The characters satirized on LB were freakish, fringe characters who were almost guaranteed not to be part of BBC's viewership. They were people that you would be more likely to see terrorizing the streets and the newsagents, stuffing themselves with cakes over a bodice-ripper or (as I imagine in Lou's case) watching obscure documentaries and re-reading newspapers from the previous decade. It was satire with a large element of "I'm glad that ain't me" humour. Those two styles of comedy are usually incompatible but in LB they found a balance; half the audience seemed to be laughing at the Walliams & Lucas duo while the other half was laughing with them. But the humour in Come fly seems to have sent those two camps scuttling back to their respective sides of the humour divide.

Come Fly With me targets more familiar faces and it's failing seems to be that it is set in an average setting, peopled by average characters. It satirizes people who have the time and money to use airports regularly - people with respectable dayjobs, authority and status; people with a shot at a managerial role. Basically, it targets the half of the audience that laughed AT the freak parade that was Little Britain. They are much more stable, affluent and secure characters than inhabited Little Britain - the kind of people who like to think of themselves as 'average' men and women, and that they should be able to hide behind their averageness.

I suspect that Little Britain fans who dislike Come Fly with me makes me are the same ones who never really understood LB's more satirical elements. They might have laughed at Little Britains' freakshow because, "I'm so glad that's not me" but they never recognized that the joke was also on them, at least in part. Walliams and Lucas took mainstream preconceptions to extremes and subverted them in unexpected ways. Basically, I think that Come Fly with Me hits hits too close to home and has dented the vanity of a certain BBC-watching demographic. That's why less people can take it and it's also exactly why it makes me laugh. I really hope there will be a second season of this!

Sorted (2000)

I spit on this (g)rave!

[3/10 · 10 January 2012]

If you want to know how London's 1999 club scene would have looked to a square, middle-class director who presumably loves every style of music except for techno then by all means, go ahead and watch this film!

The mixes in the club scenes sound like they were put together by a dodgy vinyl-touch program (I think even Judge Jules would have turned his nose up at them). The club crowds are portrayed as hopelessly thrilled, ironically overdressed, chronically overjoyed, continuously boogeying and mind-blowingly high. They are so over the top that, in the end, they are just boring. I've gone to tons of clubs, raves and underground parties in London and if I would have ever walked into a party like the ones shown in this film, I probably would have assumed that someone was shooting a bad movie there and left. I probably would have been right, too, and that bad movie probably would have been Sorted.

I am fully aware that Sorted shows London's techno scene the way that it might look to outsiders but that does nothing to improve my opinion of it. I cringe to think that this is how the finest days of London's club scene are being portrayed in foreign countries (I picked up my copy of Sorted in Germany). No wonder Europeans don't go clubbing in London anymore!

As of now, I am still waiting for someone make a good film about London's club and party scene. And as for Sorted, it's going in the bin. Pah.

Blood Ties (2007)

Flawed but still fun.

[6/10 · 8 January 2012]

This series is up against some stiff competition, airing as it does during the same era as Being Human, Vampire Diaries and True Blood. It is also following up on the heels of some classic supernatural television, namely Buffy the Vampire Slayer and X-Files.

What it does well at is keeping up a suspenseful plot arc and terse dialogue that keep things moving. At times, the dialogue crosses the line from terse to vague and clichéd though. All the actors seem highly competent, and manage to stay in their roles even when given poor lines - thankfully, this isn't a problem in every episode.

What I really noticed while watching this is how poorly its style and special effects compare to similar other shows. Both X-files and True Blood are favourite shows of mine and both obviously did a lot of research to keep up with the fashion, music and lingo of their time. By comparison the music, conversations and fashions in Blood Ties seems like they were pulled from a 1995 Style Guide - or worse still, from a Sears catalogue! The intro song, in particular, sounded so cringe-ingly outdated that I had to mute the television every time it came on. It's a shame, because Canada has some great cutting-edge music and fashions to choose from but in this series, it's painfully obvious that the budget (and imagination) needed to track it down just weren't there.

However, I think that most of these flaws stem from Canadian underfunding of television and the arts. When will this country's government get with the (television) program and realize that, by denying its budding stars a decent stage to shine on at home, it is driving all of its talent away? Probably never... it has been a huge problem for decades. Still, Blood Ties gives one the sense that talent still exists in Canada, even if it is doomed to languish in a latent form.