Well, my QL fans, this episode has its ups and downs - literally and figuratively. However, it isn't one of my favorites yet it isn't bad either. Marjorie Monaghan, who plays up and coming model, Edie Lansdale, gives a good performance overall but it is Susan Anton who portrays Helen Le Baron, Edie's agent, who gives a great performance along with the supporting cast. The storyline deals with how Helen attempts to control her models by giving them uppers and downers to use to get through the long hours and high demands of modeling. However, as the title eludes to "One Toke Over the Line," ( a drug reference,) so does this episode. Sam's "job" is to prevent Edie from a fatal overdose after Helen laces Edie's coffee with "Black Beauties" and "Doors & Fours." ("Black Beauties" contained two forms of amphetamine. "Doors & Fours" was a combination of the drugs, "Doriden" and "Tylenol with codeine - or Tylenol#4.) This made a potent stimulant and depressant combination. As usual, Sam succeeds. There are a few unbelievable scenes in this episode such as when Helen drops several pills and capsules into Edies' coffee seconds before she drinks it. These drugs have an extremely bitter taste and the capsules would float! (I'm a retired pharmacist.) Also, the withdrawal process is fairly inaccurate and is shown as a stereotypical form of withdrawal in the episode. But that's not why this isn't one of the better episodes. In my opinion, it lacks the emotion usually evoked by Bakula is most other episodes. (Rating: C -)
Reviews
7 Reviews
This Episode May Swiss Cheese YOUR Brain!
24 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Wow! This is about the seventh or eighth time I saw this episode and, unlike some other episodes, I don't learn enough additional info by repeated viewings. The concept in this one is great and it DOES make sense despite a few holes in the story that would not neatly fit into the concept unless this was extended for another episode. But, actually, this is the SECOND part of the previous episode which is somewhat dependent on the viewer having watched "Deliver Us from Evil" -- an episode from season 5 (Season-5, episode 7)--in which Alia (the "evil" leaper, makes her debut.) Alia is a time traveler like Sam except her role is to make WRONG what was once RIGHT--the polar opposite role of Sam's reasons for leaping. The issue with THIS episode (Revenge of the Evil Leaper) is there are too many identity changes, most of which are made even more confusing because there are gender AND racial changes involved (ie. The black, male prison warden is taken over by a white female. This gets even more strange when the black male warden sexually assaults the prisoners at this all female prison. Enter actress Carolyn Seymour who is portraying this male role, and things get very strange. Confused? It's a challenge to grasp all parts of this episode while watching, let alone trying to write a logical explanation here! I suppose DB didn't want another three-part story since they just concluded "Trilogy" five episodes ago. However, it's my strong opinion this should have been a three parter as well. The risk with three-part "to be continued" episodes is losing some viewers who didn't like or missed the first and/or second parts. So.....four points for the CONCEPT, but nothing else.
A Brilliant Quantum Leap Forward!
23 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
This is one of my top five episodes of the QL series but NOT because of the storyline of the "mission." It's great for this QL fan to get to go "behind the scenes" of the fictional Project QL and see what it's like on the other end--back (or ahead) in 1999 -- something we only get to see one or two other times, one of which was the episode when Sam leaps into a fugitive holding a mother and her daughter hostage in their house while the criminal he "replaced" escapes from the imaging chamber. I think there MAY have been one other time we get to see PQL's home, but I could be wrong. We also get to know that Sam is married in this episode yet there's no reference to when Sam reunited Donna with her father in "Star Crossed" from season-one. (I guess that just wouldn't fit in properly in this fast paced episode.) It would have been nice to have made this episode into a two-parter and somehow merged the storyline with Al & Beth and had Al & Sam "simoleaped" back hone for the show's finale. I give this a 9.5 only b/c I feel Sam's leap home as himself during Thanksgiving, was a true 10 out of 10 -- and my favorite QL episode of the series.
The Hurt Locker
(2008)
Engrossing & Brilliant! But the Title was AWFUL.
15 August 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I am not going to list the entire cast and crew in this review since anyone can easily find that online. However, I am going to tell you that this film is one of the best I've seen in some time. It IS, as the summary line says, "Engrossing & Brilliant!" I found this movie by accident! I was staring at the Netflix main page and went to click on an ad, but a split second before I did, the ad changed to reveal a new ad which happened to be for this movie. I was bored, so I decided to watch it. I never even heard of this movie before! Now I am sitting here raving about definitely one of the best movies I've seen during my 52 years on this planet! Kathryn Ann Bigelow did an amazing job with this multi-award winning film. Bigelow also directed Point Break, a decent movie about the FBI infiltrating a surfer gang's turf to investigate bank robberies. She also directed a few other films that I never heard of. But she was spot-on in Hurt Locker which is not only captivating, but also provided an interesting view on human behavior. The Iraq war does not seem to be her topic here; the movie is not political. The acting, especially from Anthony Mackie who played Sergeant J.T. Sanborn and Brian Geraghty (Specialist Owen Eldridge,) is top-notch. The main protagonist, Sergeant First Class William James (Jeremy Renner), a battle-tested, adrenaline junkie veteran, arrives as a new team leader of a U.S. Army Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) unit in the Iraq War replacing Staff Sergeant Matthew Thompson who was KIA. It isn't Renner who makes this film a winner---it's the interactions between the actors that help make this exceptional. SPOILER AHEAD! The last 10-15 minutes that includes Renner back home after his tour, shows him alone in a safe yet mundane super-market's cereal/breakfast aisle. It's almost poetic how this is a great contrast as in polar opposites of experiences in his life, that really shows how deeply addicted to his EOD work.
What I really feel hurt this movie was the title. To the average person, what the heck does "The Hurt Locker" mean? I would never have guessed what this movie was about just from the horrible title.
Regardless, PLEASE watch this; MOST won't regret it.
What I really feel hurt this movie was the title. To the average person, what the heck does "The Hurt Locker" mean? I would never have guessed what this movie was about just from the horrible title.
Regardless, PLEASE watch this; MOST won't regret it.
Saw II
(2005)
2 > 1
28 July 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Indeed. Two IS greater than one. And, although I do teach math, I'm referring to Saw-II versus Saw-I....I gave Saw 6.5 (posted as "7" on my review of the original Saw.) But this gets a 7.5 rounded to and 8.
Why? Because this one has more substance to the plot. Many scenes from Saw, hereafter called "Saw-1," were dug up from odds and ends including original black and white tape used by the crew during filming and practice. Many plot holes were filled using newspaper clippings b/c I read they were over budget& time and needed more filler to tell the story. But, in Saw-2, they shot what I consider to be one of the best of the torture-porn genre. I'm not going to tun through the storyline here; I believe most people reading this (all three of you, including the admin who approves this!) already knows what this is about. We get to learn much more about poor Jiggy in this one --what makes him tick. I also believe the major plot twist at the end of Saw-2 is better than Saw-I. Clever and a great way to set up and open doors for the next movie in this franchise. However, the acting was below average, though, thus, this teacher gives that a C- /D+. But as a film of it's genre, I believe it earns a solid "B."
Why? Because this one has more substance to the plot. Many scenes from Saw, hereafter called "Saw-1," were dug up from odds and ends including original black and white tape used by the crew during filming and practice. Many plot holes were filled using newspaper clippings b/c I read they were over budget& time and needed more filler to tell the story. But, in Saw-2, they shot what I consider to be one of the best of the torture-porn genre. I'm not going to tun through the storyline here; I believe most people reading this (all three of you, including the admin who approves this!) already knows what this is about. We get to learn much more about poor Jiggy in this one --what makes him tick. I also believe the major plot twist at the end of Saw-2 is better than Saw-I. Clever and a great way to set up and open doors for the next movie in this franchise. However, the acting was below average, though, thus, this teacher gives that a C- /D+. But as a film of it's genre, I believe it earns a solid "B."
Saw
(2004)
Did you see Saw? I saw Saw and what I saw was....
27 July 2015
Warning: Spoilers
NOT BAD! I'd really like for the Motion Picture Academy to have "Best Horror Film." Heck, maybe they do; I'm not sure! However, IF they did, I would think that Saw-1 could have been a nominee. Then again, it wouldn't have been called "Saw-1" at that time since there's been about 27 additional Saw movies since. Okay. Well, only six additional "Saws."
I read that the shooting budget was $700,000. They went a tad over at 1.2 million smackers! But Saw took in just over $103 million worldwide! That's a nice ROI! BTW, 55 million of that 103 came from North America. Not unexpected.
SPOILER COMING!!
They set up the way Saw (Saw-1) ended, believing there almost HAD to be a sequel (or six!) Ironically, good old Jiggy (Tobin Bell), spent 99.73% of camera time taking a nap. That part was quite absurd. Look, these aren't amongst the most credible movies, but the idea the Jiggy could lay there face down with a pool of "blood" around him and not even pass wind once in the hours he was idle, and not even be seen breathing, is just way too much for me. I guess he would have had to have Depends on.
The story go somewhat dull around 60 percent in before it picked up pace when Danny Glover started chasing Zeppers towards the end. However, all-in-all, as stated, the film wasn't bad for its genre leading me torn between 6.5 and 7 on the rating scale here.
If you haven't seen it, I suppose you may not. But if you do, I'd love to hear your opinion....thanks for reading mine!
I have a game to play.....Gotta run!
I read that the shooting budget was $700,000. They went a tad over at 1.2 million smackers! But Saw took in just over $103 million worldwide! That's a nice ROI! BTW, 55 million of that 103 came from North America. Not unexpected.
SPOILER COMING!!
They set up the way Saw (Saw-1) ended, believing there almost HAD to be a sequel (or six!) Ironically, good old Jiggy (Tobin Bell), spent 99.73% of camera time taking a nap. That part was quite absurd. Look, these aren't amongst the most credible movies, but the idea the Jiggy could lay there face down with a pool of "blood" around him and not even pass wind once in the hours he was idle, and not even be seen breathing, is just way too much for me. I guess he would have had to have Depends on.
The story go somewhat dull around 60 percent in before it picked up pace when Danny Glover started chasing Zeppers towards the end. However, all-in-all, as stated, the film wasn't bad for its genre leading me torn between 6.5 and 7 on the rating scale here.
If you haven't seen it, I suppose you may not. But if you do, I'd love to hear your opinion....thanks for reading mine!
I have a game to play.....Gotta run!
Gone Girl
(2014)
Tied with Dune as Worst Movie I've Seen
12 July 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I am amazed and very curious how this poor excuse for a movie has such a high rating; it honestly makes me suspicious. There is nothing that makes sense in this mess of a film. Absolutely nothing.
If the writer read the book, I would be surprised. Seems the production team may have read every ten pages of the book and filmed those pages out of order! There is nothing artsy or amazing about this. It should be rated "S" for schizophrenic. My advice is not to waste your time on this garbage. If you do watch it I wish you all the luck in the world trying to make heads or tails of this film. Again, just how did this an 8+ rating when I honestly would not even give it a "1" if there was a zero option.
If the writer read the book, I would be surprised. Seems the production team may have read every ten pages of the book and filmed those pages out of order! There is nothing artsy or amazing about this. It should be rated "S" for schizophrenic. My advice is not to waste your time on this garbage. If you do watch it I wish you all the luck in the world trying to make heads or tails of this film. Again, just how did this an 8+ rating when I honestly would not even give it a "1" if there was a zero option.
Tell Your Friends