Change Your Image
cayates1
Reviews
Richard Hammond's Big! (2020)
Big but far from clever!
I've only seen 2 of these - the Super Galaxy C-5M & VW Wolfsburg but a clear picture is evident.
The problem is Richard Hammond.
He lacks the insight & depth to offer anything of interest.
Schoolboy enthusiasm never compensates for lack of knowledge.
When I compare his efforts to what James May has done in similar situations like say Toy Stories you can see he's a rather mediocre presenter. Clarkson would also do it better.
Presenters like Guy Martin, Ben Fogle & Freddie Flintoff rarely make the grade.
I think the worst is Charlie Boorman.
Who would do this well?
I suggest Ant Anstead, Edd China, Jem Stansfield, Mark Miodownik perhaps even Jason Bradbury. Dick Strawbridge, though he's now pratting about with a French castle.
I just reduced my rating from 4 to 3.
Knives Out (2019)
Washout
This film clearly considers itself to be very clever (& classy).
It is at least fairly well mannered.
Clever? No.
A decent episode of Columbo or Poirot(Suchet) is far more satisfying.
I was glad when it finished. There's no depth to this. Kermode thinks it's a work of genius. It isn't. Was Daniel Craig impressive? No, not really.
Was anything else impressive? Not at all.
A decent cast which delivers almost nothing.
A work of no obvious merit that's totally overblown.
Planet Dinosaur (2011)
oh the disappointment
The cartoon monster show is immensely disappointing. The BBC loves CGI which is fine but not when it's cheap 'n nasty CGI, the sort that would shame Channel5. You see the same rubbish in Doctor Who (which is rubbish anyway) & no doubt many other BBC co-productions which I've long since grown sick of. Outcasts, Bonekickers & Day of the Triffids are but 3 dreadful examples. It wasn't always like this. I kid you not the animation in Walking with Dinosaurs(1999)is easily better. The monsters in that have a gait & vitality that put this rubbish to shame. I can't comment about the palaeontological accuracy of this but I know when animation doesn't ring true. The landscapes look thin & synthetic, I've seen better work by amateurs on youtube. Tom & Jerry are more convincing. Ray Harryhausen must be wondering why his stop-motion technique was superseded by something that has been so shoddily rendered. Where's the quality control? The BBC is throwing a huge amount of prestige into this production with ancillary programmes on BBC2 & 4 by the likes of Alice Roberts, Jem Stansfield & Dallas Campbell(Dallas?) - a blitz really, so they obviously aren't aiming this at 5yearolds. Any simpleton can see this is not up to scratch. It's like evolution in reverse. I gave it 2/10 because the on-screen data blocks are OK, not good just OK.
The Road (2009)
Pointless,morbid drivel
There's a misguided tendency to believe something is profound or significant simply because it's miserable beyond endurance. Never have I used fast-forward so much. It's only slightly less bad than Crohn's Disease or arse cancer. There's nothing worthwhile about this - in fact it's entirely despicable. The problem is clear when it gets newspaper reviews like -"masterpiece", "magnificent" & "the film everyone should see". It gets worse when you see thoroughly so-so efforts like 'Hurt Locker' get 6 Oscars. Films like this attract the sort of people who think the word 'existential' is worth using. It isn't - ever! At least Robert Duvall was the Old Man & not the increasingly boring Tommy Lee Jones or he'd have insisted on speaking in Spanish which as we all know is the most impressive thing an anglophone actor can ever do.
The Day of the Triffids (2009)
How it stinks
The plus points – clearly better than Dr. Who. A bit better than the '81 BBC series which has not aged well. Production values were OK too. Credible cast.
At 0:08:12 Joely Richardson pronounces phenomenon as 'phenomenom'. At 0:40:40 her dead dad's eyelid flickers. Why does triffid expert Bill never wear protective head-gear despite it doubtless being in the company vehicle? At 0:51:19 they're en route to the flares in a Range-Rover & are then seen pulling-up to meet Torrence in a Landrover Discovery.
The pacing was wrong i.e. rushed. At 6 hours it would have worked much better. The triffid threat would emerge more slowly & there would be more sighted – submariners, those in military command bunkers & all manner of windowless control rooms. The real story would be the feudalistic hierarchy that developed. What we have here is a very stunted treatment coupled with a shoddy execution.
It's surprising that after 30 years there were no specialised anti-triffid weapons( the '81 series featured that) & no sign of flame throwers. Why all the dry-ice? If it's supposed to be smoke then why does no one ever cough? It is of course there to obviate the need for CGI landscapes which HD is very unforgiving of unless serious money is spent. The scene in the warehouse at 1:10:0 is ridiculous. The shutters were only raised a foot so how were these large plants supposed to enter & then lie in wait? Do they have swipe-cards & keys? Maybe they text – it's absurd. At 1:24:55 they're portrayed as either hooded monks or Ents & about 30 feet high–the scaling is wrong, unless they're shape-shifters too. There's no discipline in their portrayal. Triffids would surely be as likely to target cattle as humans.
Episode 2 - the triffid hunt is predictably absurd (even without the small child). Why would any triffid hide in such a barren place as if waiting for our hero? Welder's goggles – laughable. How can Torrence just walk into an electrified compound no doubt with motion detectors? How would triffids use 'underground tunnels & sewers'? The writer obviously confuses triffids with zombies & perhaps illegal immigrants. The last 15 minutes are an abomination – an insult in every way.
So maybe I'm wrong about the production values.It's all so bad.
Why is it that the BBC could do a much better job with 'Threads' in the mid '80s than with this now? So much for CGI.