Reviews

I worried a little about this show, I heard it had some problems in pre-production, it came out quite strong. Particularly excellent was the first episode, which is the only piece of episodic television that has made any effort to be remotely believable to military scifi fans.

Any show that opens with a sincere attempt to show a feasible military vessel (putting aside things like sound in space) is in my good books. This is a minor spoiler, not plot intensive: the first episode opens with a combat-preparation drill, filled with crewman running about, manning weapon turrets, and acting like an actual somewhat professional crew. When Sorbo's character walks onto the bridge and a pair of armed Lancers (Marine equivalents) snap to attention and call out "Captain on deck!", I almost wet my pants. Not even Babylon 5 had anything remotely like this level military realism. (in retrospect, this may be more of a comment on other scifi than on Andromeda, but it still has to weigh in Andromeda's favour).

The show, as anyone familiar with the basic plot knows, was soon stripped of its military crew. I think this was a good idea, making the show accessible to casual viewers, and die hard militarians like myself can enjoy it because we know it is not being presented as military.

As for the acting, its highly open to interpretation. Speaking for myself, every major character turns in a credible performance as their characters, with that of Rev Bem being outstanding. Sorbo's Capt. Dylan Hunt is a great relief, much better than I was afraid of. I don't know if I'll still think of highly of his performance when the relief dies off, but he'll probably remain watchable.

If you like scifi, watch this show! Nothing on the air that I've come accross has entertained me as much as it this year.

What is it with critics? They laud mediocrity, and all too often pan excellence.

This movie is an excellent example. No doubt, it is a somewhat watchable film, for the most part. If you want to know what's good about the movie, read one the multitude of idiotic reviews singing this movie's praises.

First, I realize some people accept that the film was not historically accurate, but some maintain that it largely is true to the period. The latter point is nonsense. For starters, the film opens with a battle of such historical inaccuracy that it is almost literally laughable (at least chuckle-able). This is spoiler, but not for the plot. If you don't want itty bitty spoilers, skip to the next paragraph and just take me at my word. Okay, here we go: Ridley Scott sacrifices historical accuracy to "spice up" this battle, big time. In five hundred years, a Roman Legion never fought so poorly. If one did, it would have retreated and the general been killed. Let me tell you something every Junior High Social Studies grad should know: Roman Legions (like the Greek Phalanx before it) dominated not because of individual skill, but because of regimented formation combat. Individually, the barbarians were by far the better warriors. The bulk of a legion would get into tight formation, and either advance as a unit or await the enemy advance. As the range closed, the legionnaires would throw their pila (remember those spears the Romans were carrying for no reason in the movie?) at the enemy, then draw their gladius swords. They would remain shoulder-to-shoulder, to give them their advantage. They did not use cavalry or artillery in any major way. I have to ask, why couldn't Scott have shown it as it was? It was just as bloody, and would have actually educated a few people.

Ridley Scott is at his worst as a director in this film. It is time he got some psychological help, to conquer his phobia that the audience might actually be able to see what is happening. Must every action scene be either pitch black or featuring a cut every ten frames?

This is yet another Hollywood film destroying historical accuracy, and it is only mediocre (in the worst sense of the word). Believe the hype at your own peril.

All I can say about this movie is that it blows away any other war movie. It is accessibly to anyone who watches it, from a high-school drop out factory worker to some rich guy with a doctorate in film studies, it leaves you with an impression that only a movie could deliver: "This is what it was like."

Some pople may not know this, but the plot of the movie is based on an extraction of what almost happened. One single mother sent her four sons into the war, and, on one day, recieved death notices for three of them (two died on D-Day, one was lost and presumed killed in the Pacific theatre, though he was actually captured and returned at the end of the war). The U.S. Army sent the last son home for the same reasons as in the movie. Fortunately, in reality, a chaplain found the homeward-bound GI very quickly. The movie asks, what would have happened had he not been so accessible?

Watching this film, it really gives you more an idea of what the war was like. I'm a history major, and my focus is on the Second World War; I've read at many dozens of books on the war, and written more than a few essays, including several on D-Day itself. Still, nothing brought me closer to a visceral understanding than this movie. Everything is so real, from the opening sequence, to the more subtle body of the movie (the two times city-fighting in the French town are amazing). It does not rely on any pansy artistic nonsense in the directing to make its point (as the far inferior "Thing Red Line" does), it simply presents the reality.

To address some of the complaints of the movie:

The lack of other nationalities is understandable. Normandy was divided into five zones, two of them were American, it is in one of those two that the story takes place. Simple. Also, the man the story is based on was American, so that's were he is in the movie. And, to be honest, the American landings on Utah and Omaha beaches were more exciting than the Canadian one of Juno beach and the British ones on Gold and Sword beaches. This was true because the Commonwealth armies were competent; the Americans messed up by over-planning their landings and by declining to engage in pre-landing naval and aerial bombardment.

I've heard some complaints about the GI's comments on British General Montgomery, but those comments were true to what the American troops believed. Further, Montgomery, like most Allied commanders was no great shakes. Its like that in almost every field in the war. Rommel was better than Patton and Montgomery combined, Isoroku Yamamoto was ten times the admiral (and the man) Chester Nimits was, and so on. Face facts.

To close up here: That this film lost the Oscar to Shakespeare in Love is almost criminal. There can be no comparing the two films.

See this movie, if you already haven't.

**Spoilers**: The most profound part of the movie, comes with a single line. As he's dying, Tom Hank's character says to the man six men died to save, Matt Damon's character, "Earn this." The look in Damon's eyes (easily his best moment as an actor) brought a tear to my eye as the screen faded into an aged version of the same character fifty-plus years later. To live be told when you're a teenager that six people died to save you, and have to somehow live a good enough life to earn it...wow! I can hardly imagine that sort of pressure. Very intense.

When I saw the trailers for this movie, I was mildly interested, but I was putting in 65+ hour weeks when it came out, so I missed it in the theatres. By the time I rented it, I had heard so much hype about the movie that I was really energized to see it. The movie came as a massive disappointment.

In retrospect, I've decided that it was an okay science fiction film. Absolutely off-the-shelf plot, largely wooden acting (with exceptions, of course), spruced up by a few nice and cutting-edge special effects. Eminently watchable, if one likes scifi and approaches it un-biased.

Unfortunately, it is tough to approach the film unbiased because of the utterly insane amount of hype that followed its release. One of the most annoying things I keep hearing about the film is how new and original it was. I cannot adequately express my opinion of this nonsense without resorting to profanity, but I will try.

As far back as DesCartes, the idea that we may be living a lie and that all we think we know is being put into her head put into our heads by an outside force. Since that time, it has been in almost constant use by science fiction writers. The Matrix plot is neither new, nor even a new interpretation of an old idea. It is simply an old idea.

The acting had its shining moments, but between the actors and the script, there was never really a shot at greatness.

Cinematically, aside from a few very eye-catching shots, the movie descends into a series of largely boring and formulaic slow-motion shots.

The effects? Well, aside from the new (and, admittedly, spectacular freeze-panning effects), they were somewhere at or below the level of episodic television, especially those which occur in the nominal "real world."

Plot holes? Enough of them, and big enough, to drive a fleet of Mac Trucks through. Insanely huge example follows, but, be advised, it does contain big SPOILERS if you don't know the plot. If you don't want the spoilers, skip to the next paragraph. Okay, I warned you. All the humans in the world are tied into this virtual reality to keep them passive while their body heat is used to power a giant evil computer. Why humans? Why waste all that time creating the virtual reality, when they could just use a whole bunch of chained up squirels? I'll tell you why: because the creators had this "great" idea about people stuck in virtual reality, and couldn't come up with a good reason why, so they just slapped something together, that's why.

Perhaps the worst thing about this movie, is that it has ruined a lot of scifi that has followed. Anytime a fight scene features an attempt at actual martial arts choreography, or uses any slow motion in a fight scene, it is decried as a Matrix rip-off (often with the term "blatant" thrown in), as if Kung Fu and over-crank were invented for the Matrix. Even worse is that the technological aspects that the Matrix borrows from scifi canon are now decribed as being Matrix rip-offs too.

Anyway, here's the summation line: this is a watchable, and often enough enjoyable movie, that suffers from being extremely over-valued.