Reviews

I only watched Season 1 of TWD for the novelty of seeing dead people eating live people and because Darabont (The Shawshank Redemption) directed Season 1 until he had a falling out and departed the series. Season 1 was actually pretty good due entirely to the script and direction. Season 2 fell off a cliff and the rest of the seasons never recovered the 'glory' of S1.

So a decade later I gave both TWD: Daryl Dixon and TWD TOWL a shot but alas the undead soap opera continues. The dead play a small part and I suppose it's necessary as dialogue between them is pretty scarce ;-)

The series writing and directing died 10 years ago but fascination addiction had set in and the studio saw dollars to be made from the ratings. Actually the relatively high rating of TWD is a reflection of the first season's rating. People saw the high ratings and though it was worthwhile. It wasn't but the ratings did their work and it became a self fulfilling prophecy. The rest is history. This series is no different. Even the spin off series are boringly uncreative in their titles; depending on TWD to bring in the bucks. Don't waste your time when there are so many good series available.

If a story is well told, a real life story can be more exciting than a writers imagination. Fargo in its latest iteration is just one of these real life events that force you to keep asking yourself "Is this actually what happened? It's just so extreme what these people are doing to each other!". According to the credits such gruesome and frightening events did take place. The producers have taken great pains to make it as realistic as possible and yet follow the true events closely. Sure the actors and actresses (yes, you read correctly) can only do their best to imitate the real characters, but I'm sure the director made sure the actors were as authentic as possible in their portrayal.

The story told here has been described by other reviewers so I won't repeat it but suffice it to say Fargo continues to be a tour de force bringing solid screenwriting, great cinematography and spot on acting to viewers of discretion.

I cannot understand how this superbly acted drama based on real life counterintelligence operatives receives only 7.3 at time of writing on IMDB. Damien Lewis )Homeland, Billions) is superb as is Guy Pierce. Accents are spot on and they slip convincingly into their roles primarily in early sixties London. Of course political correctness which has permeated the film industry requiring the production to write a black and a woman into into fictitious roles clouds authenticity slightly, but overall the production is authentic in all other ways. This is an intelligent, smart story that unfolds slowly that doesn't insult your intelligence. I found the weaving of the time line and character interplay riviting and I had no problem remaining focused, necessary to grasp the inferences and subtleties that unfolds over the six episodes. Highly recommended.

Yet another excellent portrayal of the horrors of war and sacrifice me and women can ,ake for their country. This is a balanced and historically accurate dramatisation of a battle we know little about. One that Canadians, the British and other colonies should see. We are exposed to far too many American fact and fiction war epics with big names and budgets, but there are many important battles by other nations during WW2 that never reach a wider audience. Like this little gem it's not a Universal or Warner Bros production; it's minor, small, lower budget film companies who cobble together the funds to make a historical record of heretofore undramatised but important turns of events of the war. I was touched by the time and care the director took to show how civilians and soldiers lived and died under such terrible circumstances. The scenes where a German soldier questions why he is there killing others and the scenes where a Canadian soldier encounters him are so palpable I cried at the end. May we NEVER allow humanity to enter again into such a tragic and avoidable sacrifice of men and civilians. I dedicate this to my father who fought for my freedom and liberty...

Remember when they cast Will Smith in the role of Spooner in I, Robot? The movie was dark and totally unlike the world Issac Asimov wrote about. Worst of all the interplay between robots and humans was portrayed in a menacing way; missing the point Asimov so poignantly described and not at all what he was trying to convey. It was an abomination. In my 60 years of watching sci-fi both original and 'adapted' screenplays casting Will Smith in the role of Spooner was the worst. One of the best loved sci-fi books of all time was ruined by this casting choice and the decision to portray robots as a menacing force at the expense of the central tenet of Asimov 's book which is the fundamental question: 'Are robots alive and how do they fit into society?' In other words the sensitive and thoughtful nature of Asimov's thesis, that robots could co-exist with humans was written out in favour of the 'alien menace'. The original The Day the Earth Stood Still was vastly superior to this Will Smith abomination.

Then comes Foundation. In the hands of those that believe authenticity to the writings of Sci-fi masters is paramount, it could have been be a triumphant screenplay, accurately portraying the time, place, people and purpose of the author; a joy to behold. But it is not.

When I buy a ticket to a rock concert or the opera, would I be satisfied if the promoters decided to substitute the Stones for Billy Eilish? Or Mozart for Beethoven even though the poster says the Stones? After all, what gives the people who turn books into screenplays the right to REWRITE the author's story into what they want and pass it off on screen as the author's work?! In academia those that rewrite texts in their entirety and pass them off as their own with or without a citation commit plagiarism. But in the entertainment medium those with the money and desire to bring sci-fi masterpieces to the screen can buy the rights and then use literary license to produce a movie or series that bears little resemblance to the author's original ideas, characters, or vision; simply using Smith and Asimov as a money making tool to pull in large audiences. Such is what happened to I, Robot ... and now Foundation. I will not go into detail here how they have 'mortally wounded' this classic book. Just read the reviews. Suffice to say three key characters have been substituted for politically correct gender/race choices. To hell with the truth. This is how investors/producers/directors are rewriting classics to fit how the world sees the characters in 2024, not when the book was written in the 1950s or whenever. And the result is the slow but insidious rewriting of history where viewers, particularly a younger less knowledgeable audience thinks that what they see under the guise of entertainment is the truth...that the Foundation series on TV in 2023 is a portrayal of what the author was trying to say in tens of thousands of written words. But it is not! Read the wonderful book(s) because unlike Dune Part 1 and 2 which was a decently accurate portrayal of Frank Herbert's classic, this one most certainly is not.

The next time you turn to the classic movies channel and see how women's roles, cultural sensitivity, sexual orientation, family manners, or race relations are naturally portrayed in that era, thank your lucky stars we have a record in celluloid of how things used to be to inform us of how things have changed. To deny who we were is to censure our past. Thank you for reading and enjoy the books.

UPDATE I must also add (as many others have) that once a screen adaptation of a book betrays the underlying philosophy that connects the book to the author, the adaptation can no longer be called by its original title. The Foundation books by Issac Asimov have a clear philosophical underpinning; a thread that starts and finishes the work and leaves the reader with deep feeling of fulfillment: story-telling at its best.

This TV series lies to its audience when it purports to honor the author's original literary work. Call the series "Peyton Place in Space" "Foundation Soap Opera" anything, but you cannot call a movie or series after it's author/title when the underlying philosophy and fundamental meaning of the book is changed, not to mention changing gender and making it PC. As I wrote earlier, in academia, and as it should be in movie making, this is plagiarism.

Money and contracts underlie the truths of business in screen productions. Names, Titles and Stories are shamelessly used by production companies as marketing vehicles with truth being the first casualty when not honoring the author's philosophy, characters and story.

Here's a brief review of what's taken place so far and my feelings about the series. Reviews this early must always acknowledge it's a work in progress and it could develop to the better or worse. So far the series has been engaging. The acting is above average, photography and sets are realistic and show life as it could be in a giant underground silo after 140 years of confinement. As is the case with so many sci-fi series and movies the scenes are dark, akin to dark, gloomy atmosphere found in the original Blade Runner or Alien. This is not a bad thing if it's realistic and the story is believable and so far this is the case. We know little about the silo other than its approx age. We also do 't know much about the outside world above other than the effects it had on several people who left the silo. The story so far has been to develop a few characters and show life in the silo. The tension, the anticipation of what it is, how it got there, what is outside and possible people control problems all still hang in the balance. Clearly this is one series we'll have to wait for some major events to happen to better understand what the silo is all about. My only critique of the series is that the writers/directors have decided to follow the now standard liberal correctness policies of ethnic inclusion and sexual preferences. This series, like Picard or The Last of Us, is going to integrate homosexual relationships and extreme ethnic/race choices in the scripts. It backfires more often than not because the majority of viewers who enjoy sci-fi know it isn't necessary to insert these life choices to make good believable sci-fi. Star Trek TNG and TOS as well as The Expanse and the Alien movies did not need to pander to extreme liberal values to be successful. They were just good stories. This not to say that actors should only be white and straight, but it's insulting to the savvy movie goer when it's clear all the ethnic boxes have been checked off to satisfy the influential minorities that can exert powerful influence in Hollywood or elsewhere to the detriment of true percentages in the mix we live with everyday. In the old days non-Asian actors were used in Asian roles. This of course was wrong. In Voyager a black actor was chosen to be a Vulcan and the result was overwhelmingly negative. In I, Robot, arguably one of the greatest sci-fi books ever written by Isaac Asimov the protagonist was white. So do we honor the author's choice when the screenplay is written and it hit the theatres? No, we see Will Smith in the lead role. And in the end this actually was not the worst choice for the movie; it did not portray at all the critical interplay between robots and humans so we'll explored by Asimov as his thesis. A disaster of a movie in both ways...but I digress. My point is, for me to suspend my disbelief - a necessary state of consciousness - unbalanced percentages of actor choices can take me out of suspense because I know there's something wrong. Which brings me to my last point that I think many viewers would agree with me on, and that is we live now - the last 5-8 years - in a woman power time in movie making. Producers have decided as a result of the MeToo awakening that movies must have not just strong female actors but female leads that can do whatever a man can do. And in Silo it's no different. Why did they pick a female heavy duty mechanical engineer? They are all but non-existent in real life for the obvious reason it's often a dirty, full-time, heavy lifting job. All the power to 'Helga' or 'Bertha' if she can match the strength of men who 95% of the time do these jobs. But like a firefighter who climbs 8 stories on a ladder to carry down a man from a burning building it's insulting to the audience if the director signs off on a 50kg woman to do the job. I just think in this series they confused the actor Common with the actress they chose to be the engineer. Switch these roles and my disbelief remains suspended. Don't you agree? Common is a great actor and fits the 'musclely' engineer position. Too often writers/producers/casting directors go too far under the MeToo banner casting women in roles they're not suited to. I just hope they do not write an episode where the engineer beats up an 85kg man as we see regularly in NCIS and other cop shows where a tiny Asian (Toni Trucks, for example) knocks out full grown male adversaries.

But from an overall standpoint the story has good potential and could end up after 8 or 10 episodes as a riviting dark drama with a unexpected twist ending. Let's hope so. I will follow up on this critique after 6 episodes...

Kind of surprised at the 5.5 rating. It's definitely not. It's a simple story but with some interesting twists and turns. The acting is very good and at no time did I disbelieve what was going on. At the time of writing (2023) the lead actor is still alive, about to turn 100 this December. The others have all long since passed. As a Canadian I get to see many British movies here in Austria by watching a British channel on my TV courtesy of my giant satellite dish capable of capturing faint signals from abroad. This film was above the average of the ones I've seen over the years and enjoyed the way it ended.

The first two seasons of Picard are throw away. This season's storytelling may save it from the fate of Discovery: a directionless mish-mash of time and space. The first four episodes, which are really an almost two hours movie, have now shown that Star Trek may not be dead after all. Breathing life into the series using established Star Trek characters, familiar aliens, an omnipotent adversary and smart script writing may just save this aging franchise. Jean-Luc Picard is frail and lacks the energy and personal power he once had but shows promise when pushed to take command. Riker is still 'the man'. He has good on screen presence and other than a greying beard brings familiarity and reassuring self confidence to any scene he's in. Seven-of-nine has never been a great actress, just a great body, but in Picard she's starting to show her acting chops, likely because a tight fitting one piece jumpsuit and menacing half Borg attitude has been replaced with a more challenging role as an unofficial member of the crew trying to find her footing amongst the established crew members and the new younger officers. But the actors aside, the story told in the first four episodes of the third season, climaxing in yesterday's finale is refreshingly reminiscent of the dangers TNG crew and starship encountered in so many of their better episodes throughout their long run. I had given up on Picard, like Discovery, but I may now just sit back in my chair and say "engage".

This review concerns the complete two seasons. You don't need to be a nerd to appreciate the weight of the issues dramatised in this series. The story revolves around the use of facial identification technology and what it can mean to society. This is yet another intelligent British production that is well acted and believable. There'll be no spoilers here but suffice it to say the successful portrayal of this controversial topic is exceeded only by the frightening reality that it is either currently being used or will be soon, possibly for reasons shown in this series. Personally I enjoyed season 1 more than season 2 but both are very good and well above the average fare presented these days. Season 1 introduces us to the technology through the eyes of a British soldier and the troubles it causes him. It's really well done; Riviting at times. Season 2 continues and expands the theme with a new protagonist and delves much deeper into the frightening possibilities this technology can wreak on the population. Season 1 largely side steps the woke stereotypes found commonly these days in movies and series and finds its mark without drawing your attention to the choice of actors or the dialogue. Season 2 - even though I kept an open mind - starts to grate a little on my sensibilities as strong male leads give way to more female leads. The 'bitchiness' that tends to be seen with competing female leads is largely avoided with well written dialogue focusing on interesting content and developing trains of thought. Fortunately it does not fall into the trap so commonly seen these days of 50kg females physically overpowering 90kg males for the sake of promoting women in the media arts. But the producers, whether because of their own choices or pressed upon them by others, tick many of the boxes. Ethnic diversity across the board is on full display with mixed marriages, which, as portrayed here, for me stretches believability. It seems it's just too scary for productions to put ethic characters together in a relationship prefering to push the boundaries of believability by mixing but not matching. So in spite of what I've said above you may be able to suspend your disbelief and just enjoy it as I did, but it was borderline for me.

I suspect this little gem may not get the credit it deserves in spite of wide release, partially because technology crime is not to everyone's taste. But it's too well acted, brutally believable, and prescient to be overlooked. It may be one of the best 'docu'-dramas as a predictor of how this technology will someday be implemented, assuming we believe it to be true and not 'corrected'... 😉

This is the kind of cockpit footage you can get in real training and the theatre of war shown in many documentaries. Top Gun Maverick like Mission Impossible is strictly a money making venture; it has little entertainment or informational value and bears little resemblance to actual military activities.

Fact: non-military personnel are NOT permitted to fly military assets. Tom Cruise was NOT sitting in the cockpit flying these aircraft as it appears in the movie! He sat in the back mugging the camera. You're better off watching the TV series Seal Team which at least includes some actual Seal members and a well informed and accurately written script.

So, it's a Tom Cruise vehicle, people, little more. Set aside your TC idol worship and this is at best a movie about an unreal military operation with zero chances of success, until of course, the hero of the day comes out of retirement (unbelievably) and sucks up camera time. Kelly McGillis avoided this stinker, but Jennifer Connelly took the big money. Even the cameo from Val Kilner is dubbed as he is unable to speak. Did you wonder why Cruise, sitting thoughtfully speaking to the camera introduces the movie? Why is he out of character? This never happens at the beginning of a movie, right? He knew this was not a great movie and wanted, disengenuously, to thank you for donating to his production company and ingratiates himself to win you over. Did you think he really gives a s*** about your loyalty to sit through his movie? There are fine films out there that sometimes go wanting, that tell great stories and can be truly entertaining without insulting history, science, facts, or you, and it is a shame that their production companies cannot afford multi-million dollar advertising campaigns to promote quality film-making... and that truly is a shame. You as a viewer have to seek out hidden gems (and there are plenty) and support them. And every time you pay to see mega dollars being spent on TC closeups and totally unrealistic action scenes, you contribute to the making of further productions of this kind of chest-beating, Ra Ra, bomb-the-bad-guy-in-some-rogue-state mentality.

Don't spend your post COVID money on this nonsense. And remember the ratings for this movie come from two main sources: young minds who are yet unable to see how transparent this movie is, and two, millions of dollars spent on promotion saturating TV, and print media extolling the virtues of the next fantastic TC movie (read: hundreds of millions spent, must be good, need to recoup investment).

Update: I continue to see advertising and reviews (from paid experts) saying this picture is Cruise piloting a jet. HE DID NOT! Whatever camera trick they used, he's sitting in back of the pilot. Civilians are never permitted in the pilot seat of a military aircraft. You are being lied to to squeeze yet more revenue from this phony movie. In addition to him not piloting the aircraft (which he never comes clean on) he's a lousy actor. How many academy awards or awards of any kind does he have for acting? None. He just makes a ton of money promoting himself and his production company - he laughs all the way to the bank. Sorta like casino operators watching hordes of addicted gamblers throwing their money away in their establishments. Additionally the premise it absurd. Many REAL pilots have gone on record stating the stunts shown in the movie are impossible to carry out; they are just testosterone on steroids with no physical reality for the pilot (who would black out) and the aircraft (which would likely self-destruct); just eye candy. Expensive movies have massive advertising budgets to bring in an audience that will believe anything they're shown. Don't give in to Tom Cruise superhero worship. Like Trump who has gotten rich grifting the American public by saying the election was stolen, Cruise has a powerful economic machine behind him that inflates reality and plasters the airwaves with advertising to recoop the millions spent on the movie. Cruise wants to conquer the cinematic world with help from money grabbing Hollywood execs. Keep this in mind when scrutinizing the next Cruise "blockbuster".

I should be talking about what an interesting and we'll acted series this is with a stellar cast, but instead I must inform readers to ignore the ~7 rating; it's better than that! Whenever a tv series or movie depicts right wing political operatives engaged in shady or illegal activities, even if it is based on an historically accurate story they skew the overall rating by entering low scores as a reflection of their bias. To confirm take a moment and read a few to see what I mean. Enjoy the well acted story.

That Dirty Black Bag is a dark, sometimes violent but we'll written and acted western that pays homage to the classic spagetti westerns of the 60s with Clint Eastwood, Lee van Cleef and a host of well known actors of the time. Not only is it filmed in the province of Almeria, Spain (near Tabernas) with its stark, dry, desolate landscape, but it has overtones of Quentin Tarantino's dramatic, violent, oversized red credits style similar to what we saw in The Hateful 8. But more importantly it's a nod to the great director Sergio Leone who pioneered the good vs evil western with closeups of the cool, calculating and terror-filled faces with rousing academy award winning music by Ennio Moricone. We see hints of Sergio's directing style throughout the series but especially in episode 8 "The Great Duel" which is so reminiscent of the final scenes of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly replete with a cemetery, wide angle POV followed by angst-ridden closeups of the gunslingers as they prepare to shoot em' up. To make it even more interesting the evil protagonist is of Italian descent and of course the crew is 95% Spanish. As I write this there are few ratings for the last few episodes but I expect this series to be a sleeper, and fan reviews will come out soon with headlines like "the best western you missed" or that you should see... Definitely in the 8 area of IMDB...

For people who write reviews that extoll virtues or condemn after one or two episodes, please learn how to review TV series. You can review objectively with or without spoilers an episode or two but you cannot definitively write that the series is terrible or fantastic until it has run its course. There is no rush. Learn patience. Seasoned and usually older more experienced viewers see the big picture better than newbies or younger audiences expecting instant gratification. Improve your writing skills by giving the audience the benefit of your episode analysis. And later as the series unfolds tie the parts together but refrain from summarizing the series until it's over. The reason for this that not all series meet your idea of quality and some series start off slow but take time to build. Jumping to conclusions in your review early may result in people deciding not to watch when in a few episodes it starts to really show its true colors and can even become a classic. Breaking Bad, Peaky Blinders, Dark, The Sinner, Gloria, and Mind Hunter (all on Netflix) are only a few series that were not immediately hits. To put it another way, many of the 'best' series start slowly and unfold unrushed to reveal complex and deep stories while less interesting series grab your attention from the get go but ultimately disappoint or fizzle. The top 10 series by viewers rarely include examples from the first group above; usually the 'flavours of the week' are new under-reviewed attention grabbing often controversial series that social media and advertisers recommend or 'push'. The morbid flash-in-the-pan novelty of a Squid Game will rarely if ever stand the test of time while slow burning Ozark or Outlander, for example, are riviting character driven layered dramas that deserve your attention. IMDB ratings of new releases must be thoroughly vetted to sort out the diamonds from the glass. Keep watching glass and studios will keep producing glass.

In the late 19th century a French aristocrat buys land in the Dakotas to raise cattle and ship them by refrigerated rail cars to market. A study of conflicted cultures as the Frenchman exercises his values leading to conflict and murder. A court case ensues a with a surprising result.

Short, truthful summary: There is no viewing value in this film. It lacks a coherent, novel or engaging narrative. You'll wonder why people rush out to see it because other than 2021 technical CGI wizardry there's little here. And it's insulting. The premise lurches from one unbelievable scene to another. Honestly folks, it's a desperate attempt to milk King Kong/Godzilla for every last penny at the box office. Nothing more. Think of how citizen Trump is currently getting rich... same approach: promote as supporting quality but in the end it's grab and run...

Not to be over-thought, just see it for what it is: a poke at serious sci-fi. It's witty, quick and never takes itself seriously. As far as location is concerned as usual it's a Vancouver production pretending to be a place in the US. Having been in the business in Vancouver and recognizing people in the credits I'm happy to report that after years of Millenium, Outer Limits, Stargate, X-files, to name a few, filmed in and around my home town, sci-fi is back in a winning way. I just hope the tongue in cheek comedy keeps delivering. If the pilot is any indication I think X-files meets Northern Exposure meets Fargo has a future...