Change Your Image
rlandmann
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Interstellar (2014)
Parts of it are excellent
"Interstellar" is a near-future quest story. Humanity is doomed by ecological collapse that's killing off food crops. A crew of astronauts explores planets on which our species can re-settle. I found it to be a film of interesting images, breathtaking visuals, and little consistency or sense.
There were three things I loved about it. First, it's the most solid and moving portrayal of the effects of time dilation I think I've ever seen. I've known about the "Twin Paradox" since I first encountered it in a children's book about space travel, but seeing it depicted here had real emotional punch. The second thing I loved was the representation of time as a physical dimension at the movie's climax. I thought this sequence was very cleverly done, and did an excellent job of representing five-dimensional space in three dimensions on a two-dimensional screen! Beyond that, there's a lot of eye candy here. The spaceship interiors are gorgeous and feel suitably lived-in and real; and many of the exteriors of space are really beautiful to look at.
Unfortunately, that's all I have to recommend in "Interstellar", a movie which can't seem to decide whether it wants to be "2001: A Space Odyssey" or not. On the one hand, the core story is that of a lone astronaut who traverses an artificial gateway located in the outer solar system to reach another dimension. Passing through the gateway, he is transformed to some other plane of being and can transmit messages of vital importance to friends and associates (OK, more shades of "2010: Odyssey Two" in this latter element). A substantial part of the film is taken up with the traveller's coming to terms with his extra-dimensional existence. He even has an AI to keep him company! (OK, shades of "2061: Odyssey Three" now".) However, "Interstellar" also includes more conventional narrative elements, including landings on and exploration of two planets before the encounter with the stargate, a fistfight with a crazy astronaut from a previous expedition, and a paper-thin love story.
Actually, I think the "crazy astronaut" subplot could have been a stronger film all by itself, as could have the time dilation tragedy, (as could the stargate story had Kubrick not already told it forty years ago). For me, "Interstellar" tries too many things, commits deeply to none of them, and the result is a disjointed mess.
Finally, given the obvious expense and care with which spacecraft are visually represented, it was a shame that their movements were so woefully unrealistic, especially in a film that seemed so eager to ape "2001" in so many ways. Kubrick instinctively understood the ballet-like grace and beauty of objects in the grip of "the cold equations" of motion in space. The equivalent sequences in "Interstellar" are nothing short of ludicrous. This wasn't a deal-breaker for me, but it was annoying and disappointing.
I wanted to like this movie a whole lot more than I did, but to me it was merely "OK".
Psych (2006)
This all depends on your sense of humour
"Psych" is marketed as comedy-drama; and comedy is a very subjective, personal thing. I thought the premise is interesting enough: Shawn Spencer is the son of a police officer, who raised him to have incredibly highly developed powers of observation. So highly developed, in fact, that to other people he appears to be psychic and know things that he couldn't possibly know. It's quite an original take on the Sherlock Holmes motif.
However, the degree to which you'll appreciate how this setup works out as Spencer hires out his talents to various police investigations will likely rest on how palatable you find the fairly basic humour of the series and how entertaining you find James Roday's muggings and antics in the starring role.
Fifteen minutes into the second episode and I was completely done with "Psych". I found the style of comedy on offer to be embarrassing and excruciating. I won't be back for any more of this.
The Lego Movie (2014)
Mixed feelings
I really liked The Lego Movie. I loved its minute attention to detail, its acknowledgement of Lego's own history and lore, its willingness to construct a narrative on multiple layers, and most of all, its heart. In many ways, it reminded me of a Muppet film in its aims and tone.
Along the way, it touches on peculiarly Lego concerns. For example, building by the instructions versus using the bricks to build whatever you want (no matter how goofy) is a central theme of the film. The film goes even further, to explore the competing natures of Lego as a child's toy and as a serious hobby for adults (AFOL -- Adult Fans of Lego). These are quintessentially Lego framings of the timeless opposition of order and conformity versus spontaneity and creativity.
Visually, the film is spectacular. Although computer-rendered, the world of the film is composed entirely of standard Lego parts and -- with more time and expense -- could have been made completely with stop-motion animation. The creativity exhibited is astounding.
Only two things disappointed me about this film: its level of violence and its gender issues. Lego is itself surely a metaphor for creation and collaboration. Yet instead of a story where characters had to work together to create something wonderful, overcoming various obstacles along the way, the Lego movie is a standard action-movie plot where heroes must stop a megalomaniac bent on destroying the world. There is an incredible amount of gunfire depicted in this film. I wish the vehicle of a Lego movie had been used for a more--ahem--constructive narrative.
As for gender, there are only two female characters of any significance: Wyldstyle and Princess Unikitty. Wyldstyle is relegated to the role of sidekick to the protagonist (male construction worker Emmett) and Princess Unikitty's stereotypical ultra-femininity is presented as vaguely ridiculous up until one climactic action sequence in which she becomes powerful only by shedding the markers of her femininity (compare Lady Macbeth's plea that the spirits "unsex me here" to make her powerful). This is not a movie that passes the Bechdel test except on the very loosest, flimsiest definition of "conversation" imaginable. It gets worse. Wyldstyle expresses her disinterest in men's advances by saying that she has a boyfriend, and underscores this by emphasising that the relationship is "serious". Finally the live action sequences that depict the "real world" outside the Lego world revolve entirely around a father and son. This could have been so much better.
So, although I really liked the movie, it had the potential to be so much more. At the very least, its makers have promised to make more of their female characters in the forthcoming sequel. I hope this is the case, and that the film is less violent too.
Orphan Black (2013)
I just didn't care
I tried two episodes of "Orphan Black", and it takes that long for the show to actually reveal its premise: that central character Sarah is one of a large number of identical people. On paper, this is exactly the kind of weirdness I enjoy. In practice, by the time this is revealed, I had long stopped caring about the whiny character, her whiny friends, or any of their fates.
I do wonder a little about what I'm leaving on the table with this one: maybe there's a story buried here that I'd quite enjoy if I could bear to watch any more of it. But my care factor ran out before it even really got engaged. Maybe more generally: when I watch or read speculative fiction, it's for the ideas. When the production lets characters get in the way of the ideas, I'm unlikely to stick around. "Orphan Black" took a full hour and a half to get to the point. I'm out.
Offspring (2010)
I don't even know what I just watched
It's hard for me to appraise "Offspring" because after two episodes, I don't really know what it's aiming at. Essentially, it's a relationship drama, but it also presents the inner thoughts of its central character (via voice-over), which suggests to me that it's attempting commentary on... what I'm not exactly sure.
The set of relationships depicted are themselves bizarre, and presented together with dream and fantasy sequences, naturalism clearly is not the aim.
Unfortunately, all I was left with was a group of people I cared nothing for, in a place and time I cared nothing about, doing stuff I cared nothing about. So clearly, I didn't like it. But beyond that, I don't even know if it was any good in any kind of more objective sense. I won't be watching any more of this any time soon.
Kings (2009)
I'm not sure what the point is
"Kings" is set in an alternate-reality version of today; that is, the societies depicted have technology, architecture, and fashion indistinguishable from modern Western nations, but the states themselves (Gilboa and Gath) are fictional. The storyline takes its basic shape from the Biblical story of the rise of King David, echoing many of the names and narrative functions of characters from the ancient text. This is not a retelling: it's a reuse of structure. However, I don't think anything was made of this potential.
"Kings" is a good-looking show: most of its elements, taken individually, are very competently executed. Sets, costumes, and photography are all lovely, and the performances are convincing and sincere. However, compared to its source material, "Kings" is astonishingly tame and bland. Fatally, when the character of the King is so very toned down, it's not clear what the point is. Even regarded on its own terms, the stakes seem so very small and soap-operaesque. The battle sequences in the pilot episode are a microcosm of this: ludicrous in their tiny scale and nonsensical action. Armies are represented by half-a-dozen guys per side, deployed a couple of hundred metres apart. Imagine a low-budget 1970s BBC historical drama, but with state-of-the-art visuals.
The theme of leadership going bad and questions of holding and losing the mandate to rule are timeless and powerful. It's astonishing to me how little "Kings" managed to do with this.
True Detective (2014)
Breathtaking journey into very dark places
On its surface, "True Detective" is a cop show with a hackneyed premise: a mismatched pair of detectives go hunting for a serial killer, persisting on the case despite various obstacles placed in their way and ultimately going it alone to solve it. However, "True Detective" transcends this premise in so many directions that the show ultimately resembles nothing that's suggested by it.
For a start, detective fiction is perhaps the most heavily plot-driven genre of all: the pleasure for aficionados is routinely in matching wits with the fictional detective and trying to piece together the clues that solve the crime. In "True Detective", the focus is very much on the characters, setting, and mood instead; it's possible to enjoy these aspects of the show without caring too much about the story at all. Indeed, when a major breakthrough in the case rests on a single extraordinary co-incidence, I wonder how satisfying the story really is for dedicated fans of detective fiction.
The central characters of this drama are extremely well-rounded, even if some of the others are generic stereotypes. I particularly enjoyed the character of Detective Rust Cohle, one half of the central "odd couple": a deep-thinking nihilist given to long, philosophising speeches and giving air to uncomfortable truths. This character works all the better through his contrast with his down-to-earth partner Marty Hart, who is by turns baffled and repulsed by Cohle.
The setting -- the decrepit backwaters of Louisiana -- is so powerful that it's almost a character itself. Decay is all-pervasive: from industrial blight to burnt-out churches to the tawdriness of a low-rent tent revival and a hillbilly brothel made of caravans. All of this is shot magnificently and cinematically. When Cohle comments on a couple of occasions that he can "taste the ash" just by observing this landscape, I could see what he means.
For me, the greatest joy in the show was its treatment of its supernatural elements. The series of murders that drive the plot are unquestionably ritualistic, and the plot references elements of the broader Lovecraftian or Cthulhu mythos. Fans of that material (including me) will read the antagonists in "True Detective" as cultists succeeding in opening connections to an alien god. People not familiar with that material will just read it as "Satanists" deluding themselves. The skill in "True Detective" is in its ambiguity and subtlety -- exactly as the Mythos should work, in my opinion. The supernatural is here for those who know what to look for; yet everything remains within the realms of plausible deniability and can be rationalised away. For example, the most overt supernatural event in the show is seen through the eyes of a character known to experience hallucinations. Absolutely perfect.
If I have any criticism of this series at all, it's that I thought the ending was far too upbeat. Both Rust and Marty live through the serious injuries they sustain when they confront a powerful cultist in his lair. I think the tone of the rest of the story would have been better sustained had they died there, or if either had survived that they would have been driven to insanity by what they had seen and experienced. A grim tale deserves a grimmer ending.
I suspect that fans of detective fiction might enjoy this but not find anything noteworthy on those terms. Fans of the Mythos should enjoy this for the tour-de-force that it is. And for everybody else, if strong characterisation, dark and moody cinematography, and outstanding performances are your thing irrespective of genre, there's lots to like here too.
Muppets Most Wanted (2014)
A little disappointing
It pains me to give a Muppet movie less than a perfect score, but "Muppets Most Wanted" never quite came together for me. I guess there are three things that I want from the Muppets: catchy songs, corny jokes, and a warm heart. The only catchy song this time was recycled from "The Muppets Take Manhattan" ("Together Again"). There are indeed some suitably corny gags early in the film, but they peter out fast. And while the film's conclusion pays a weird kind of lip service to being heart-warming, this quality doesn't permeate the film at all. It really didn't feel much like a Muppet movie to me, especially as the film progressed.
Then there's the gulag, in which a lot of hijinks take place. I found this surprisingly distasteful. If you wouldn't use a concentration camp as a backdrop for a lighthearted family film, don't use a gulag either.
Even a really weak Muppet movie is going to be a good time for me, and I certainly don't regret this outing. However, like weaker installments in other franchises, the fun is probably more in catching up with old on-screen friends than in the movie on its own merits.
Pacific Rim (2013)
One-trick pony that goes on waaay too long
"Pacific Rim" is one thing and one thing only: giant robots punching giant monsters. This goes on for a shade over two hours.
Look, I totally get that this is a homage to the monster movies of an earlier era (movies that I enjoy too). And all the right ingredients are here. However, the end result felt to me like a cold paint-by-numbers exercise with a vast visual effects budget.
Fortunately, I don't think that del Toro ever fell into the trap of taking any of it seriously: there's a sense of sly fun that permeates the movie all the way through to a short scene embedded in the closing credits. However, this wasn't enough to save the movie for me, where a 25-minute, Saturday-morning-cartoon plot is expected to support a 130-minute feature film. To be honest, despite all the undeniably impressive visuals, I was horribly bored by the end.
To some degree, I think the ultra-realistic visuals worked against the movie. The basic premise of choosing to combat giant sea monsters by building giant robots to engage them hand-to-hand is of course ridiculous. That's not something that should matter in this particular genre: plausibility is very definitely not part of the fun. However, for me at least, the realism of the presentation seemed to demand a more realistic premise. It just seemed very weird to have such nonsense presented so highly naturalistically.
I mostly enjoyed "Pacific Rim" but was very glad when it was over. If you're after something completely brainless but spectacular, this might do the trick.
NCIS: Naval Criminal Investigative Service (2003)
I didn't mind watching this, but would never seek it out
NCIS is a pure police procedural. Its sole distinguishing feature from other entries in the genre is its unusual setting. This setting--in and around Navy and Marine Corps facilities and hardware--was the only thing I found appealing about the show, but it's such a powerful and pervasive appeal that I found myself not minding the time I spent watching the two episodes that I tried.
From what I saw, the characters are pretty thin, not much more than stereotypes, so if you're attracted to drama with well-rounded, three-dimensional characters, you won't be finding it here.
I suspect that much of the show's appeal comes purely from its story lines as the protagonists attempt to connect clues and solve crimes. In this respect, the show seemed competently handled to me, but I'm not familiar enough with the genre to compare it to much.
One final note: there's a good dose of sexism in this show, mostly in the lines given to Michael Weatherly's character Anthony DiNozzo. This goes pretty much unchecked, even by characters that portray highly skilled and professional women. The show gives a free pass and even tacit approval to this kind of thing, which I found disappointing.
I'd probably watch NCIS if I were stuck somewhere and it was on the screen, but I wouldn't go seeking it out.
The Cabin in the Woods (2011)
Perfect in so many ways
It's impossible to say very much meaningful about this film without spoilers, so be warned.
"Cabin in the Woods" is an outstandingly clever and well-put-together film which I think succeeds at everything it sets out to do. It's taken me a while to get around to seeing it, so the film had a formidable reputation to live up to, which for me, it did.
The basic premise is familiar to the point of banality: five American college students encompassing typical horror movie stereotypes set out to spend a weekend in a secluded cabin in the wilderness. In what follows, writer Joss Whedon and director Drew Goddard pay homage to, lampshade, subvert, and riff on a wide variety of horror movie tropes.
The film neatly breaks down into two parts: the first plays almost straight as the movie that it's set up to be, with the college students being gruesomely picked off one at a time by zombie hillbillies. Despite its utter (intended) predictability, this is extraordinarily well-made, with much more naturalistic dialogue and performances than are the norm for slasher films. Indeed, if this had really been all there was to "The Cabin in the Woods", it would probably still have acquired cult status as maybe the most artfully made example of the genre.
The second half breaks the fourth wall of the original narrative (literally at some points) and tells a bigger story. This larger plot is a little less hackneyed than the slasher plot, but still never wanders far from its Lovecraftian roots. Again, the joy here is both in the skill of the execution, and in the makers' unmistakable knowledge of and respect for their material. The finale is far more Japanese than American, but Japanese horror has also been referenced throughout the film. Everything here works.
This is a horror film in its own right -- it's not parody. If you don't know or don't like that genre, there probably won't be much here for you. For everyone else, this is an absolute must-see!
Spooks (2002)
Nothing for me here
Spooks depicts the activities of MI5 agents protecting the UK from various threats to the country's internal security. The episodes I tried also mixed in a storyline presenting the personal life of the director of the agents depicted. This seemed like an awkward blend, and one that just didn't work for me. I wondered whom the show was trying to please.
The counter-intelligence plots are satisfying enough, but the stories seemed too neat, too quickly wrapped up. I've not yet been convinced of the season-long or series-long story arcs that are fashionable these days. Spooks, however, made me wonder whether such a format would work better for the stories they are telling.
There are moments of graphic, horrific violence here, but I cared so little about the characters that even this lacked any serious emotional punch. "Ewww" is a pretty cheap reaction to set up; but if you're not engaged with the characters, it's meaningless and quickly over.
So, definitely not my thing. If not for the weird inclusion of soap opera elements, I could recommend it to folks who like spy thrillers, but on the basis of what I saw, I won't be recommending this to anybody.
Misfits (2009)
Intriguing
From the myth of King Midas and his golden touch to various episodes of "The Twilight Zone" and "Star Trek" to "The Greatest American Hero", the basic premise of "Misfits" is nothing new: what if ordinary people were suddenly given super powers? However, what gives the show its unique flavour is that the central characters are atypical heroes: they are juvenile offenders, convicted of petty crimes and sentenced to community service.
Also, like the more cautionary episodes of "The Twilight Zone" and "Star Trek" that trod this path, the titular misfits find that super powers come at a price. To me, this is the most interesting aspect of the show.
The second episode essentially retells the mediæval legend of the Loathly Lady. However, where the knight protagonist was to extend chivalry and courtesy to the hag he met, the young delinquent in this version, Nathan, cannot bring himself to do so.
In the third episode, Alisha discovers that her power of being sexually irresistible to anyone she touches is more a curse than a blessing; effectively cutting her off from intimacy instead of helping her attain it.
Comparisons to "Heroes" are probably inevitable. "Misfits" is far grittier and more down-to-earth than that show. I personally prefer the modest, typically British approach of "Misfits", even though I found the characters far less likable.
For me, the most powerful appeal of the series is in its exploration of the ideas around its central premise. As long as the series keeps investigating the mixed-blessing nature of the characters' powers, I am interested in seeing where it goes.
Defying Gravity (2009)
Mixed feelings but keen to continue
My first impressions of this show are very conflicted. On the one hand, it's a real joy to be watching a near-future space exploration show with mostly realistic hardware. Seriously: Antares is maybe one of the best thought-out deep-space exploration vessels depicted on film or TV. On the other hand, the two episodes I watched were more about the tawdry personal lives of the astronauts than about space exploration.
There's a long tradition of hard sci-fi being used as a backdrop for psychological exploration, and although there's a faint note of that in this show too, it's no "2001" or "Solaris". However, some time is devoted to astronauts dwelling on and having to come to terms with past decisions.
Against all that, I was interested to learn that the show had been pitched as "Gray's Anatomy in Space", because that's more or less how it plays out. I really, really didn't care who was bedding whom though, I just wanted to see how the mission played out.
As a final hook, it becomes evident very early on that there's something aboard the Antares that mission control on earth knows about and the crew do not. I can't wait to find out more! :)
Burn Notice (2007)
Not for me
I think this show rides very much on the charisma of Jeffrey Donovan as ex-spy Michael Westen. If you're won over by his particular brand of cool, you'll probably have a good time here. On the other hand, I just found the character irritating and smug, which supplied a powerful disincentive to watch any more than the two episodes that I tried. There was pretty much nothing that appealed to me about this show at all.
I think the only thing I liked was Bruce Campbell, whom I can't separate from Ash in "Evil Dead" in my head anyway. So if only there had been more (OK, any) zombies in this show, I might have enjoyed it more (OK, at all). His presence is probably the only thing preventing me from giving this a one-star review, a rating I usually reserve only for things that actually annoyed me.
Gravity (2013)
The closest that most of us ever get to experiencing space for ourselves
Gravity is a strange mixture of the ridiculous and the sublime. For me, the latter eclipsed the former almost all the way along: the beauty, wonder, and grandeur of the film let me quickly forgive the few truly facepalmy moments.
Let's start with the bad and get it out of the way. What little story there is here is completely linear, paper-thin, and relies on howlingly bad science to create a crisis and then howlingly bad science to resolve it. The few characters are presented as professional astronauts yet, as introduced, two of the three behave more like twenty-somethings on a package holiday. Did I mention how oh God the science is really bad? It's the astrodynamics that suffers the worst: all kinds of ludicrous orbital impossibilities are depicted. I know it's only a movie and supposed to be a fun way to spend 90-odd minutes, but I found this stuff as jarring as a movie set on terra firma where a hoodlum on a skateboard in New York snatches a handbag, darts off down the street, and in the next scene is swapping the skateboard for a bicycle in Beijing. It really is that bad (indeed, it's actually worse than that!)...
...except when the science is really good! The title "Gravity" is perhaps a little misleading because gravity doesn't (directly) play much part in the film. Rather, it's "Conservation of Angular Momentum" that's a recurring theme. For the most part, aside of one very very obvious and annoying gaffe, Newtonian mechanics are well respected, and I found the terror and desperation of characters in the grips of "the cold equations" palpable at times.
So what else does this movie do right? Well, for a start, I think it's the most beautiful cinematic depiction of space since "2001: A Space Odyssey": the cinematography is stunning in an "enlarge any frame and hang it on your wall" kind of way. It really has been 40 years since space has looked this good. The vistas of Earth from orbit are really breathtaking; in particular, a gorgeous panorama of Egypt sticks in my mind. As I was watching that sequence, I was wishing a little that all attempts at a story had just been excised from the finished film. Set to a mellow jazz or classical score, I think I could watch those spacescapes for hours and hours.
Finally, I found its depictions of real (or close to real) space hardware and working in microgravity really, really convincing and immersive. When a character loses a tool at a crucial moment, I (like they) had a very strong sense of panic about not ever ever getting it back. And it's the spacecraft of the film—a space shuttle, a Soyuz TMA, and a Shenzhou. all lovingly rendered and presented—that to me were perhaps the real stars of the show. To me, these felt like real spacecraft, and I felt like I was there aboard them.
I highly, highly recommend this movie. You might get into the survival story—I could take it or leave it, but I think it was credibly done—but watching this on the big screen in 3D is likely to be the closest that most of us ever get to experiencing space for ourselves.
Star Trek Continues: Pilgrim of Eternity (2013)
Very pleasantly surprised
I've seen a few fan films over the years, and while I could never flaw their enthusiasm or the technical excellence with which they recreate (and exceed!) Star Trek's vintage production, I've always felt very let down by the acting and direction in them. In this specific regard, past examples I've seen have resembled mediocre amateur theatre—fine if your family member or significant other is up there on stage but difficult to watch for almost anyone else. Despite reading and hearing some positive things about Star Trek Continues, I was honestly expecting more of the same, and was not expecting to actually make it through more than a couple of acts. How wrong I was.
First, though, the obvious: the show is an extremely high-fidelity recreation of Star Trek. I was deeply impressed not only by the quality of the sets but the number: Farragut Films has built at least sections of most of the show's interior sets (the engineering room being the most notable absence). Some limitation in camera angles makes me think that these sets are not as complete as the originals were, but it is nevertheless a stunning achievement. The costumes and props are also extremely faithful replicas, and are probably built to an even higher standard than the originals (the flaws in which are really sticking out to me now that I'm seeing them on Blu-Ray). The soundscape is faithful too: "Pilgrim of Eternity" seamlessly blends its original musical cues with familiar stock music and sound effects from the series. The CG special effects look to me just like they come from the recent Star Trek remasters. I would rate this part of the production as perfect if not for one wobbly corridor wall, a quibble I have with the lighting, and one issue of focus. The problem with the wall is self-explanatory. The problem with the lighting is that although the sets are lit perfectly authentically, the lighting on the cast is too high-contrast; it should be a lot more even. I don't remember seeing shadows like that except in "The Enemy Within"! And as to focus, I'll come to that later.
To me though, the real genius in this fakery is in more intangible areas: the direction, cinematography, and editing. This show is put together just like a 1960s Star Trek episode: camera angles, camera movement, composition, and cuts are all exactly where they should be. The fidelity is astonishing.
And... these people can act! I found almost all of the performances really impressive. I found Larry Nemecek, Grant Imahara, and Kim Stinger completely convincing in their roles as McCoy, Sulu, and Uhura respectively. I thought that Todd Haberkorn struggled with Spock a little bit; but then, Star Trek's Vulcan characters are a really difficult bunch to play. Other than Leonard Nimoy, I think only Mark Lenard and Kirsty Alley really got it right, and Haberkorn's interpretation is certainly on par with other professional performances on the various Star Trek series and movies over the years. The stand-out performances to me were Christopher Doohan's Scotty, Vic Mignogna's Kirk, and Michael Forest guest-starring as Apollo.
Doohan plays his father's signature role with tremendous affection and warmth and seemed to me entirely comfortable and natural in it. The familiarity of his voice and some of his facial expressions certainly help recall Doohan Sr's original interpretation of the character. Mignogna somehow manages to recall Shatner's Kirk at least as vividly, and without a head start from his genes. Mignogna incorporates so much of Shatner's body language, expressions, and gestures that I felt he was continually at risk of falling into pastiche; it was like watching a tightrope walker. In the end, I never thought he fell; his performance really was his own, but at the same time managed to remind me continually of the original inspiration of his character. As for Michael Forest, I was presently surprised by the sheer presence he brought to his role, in particular the menace that he conveyed in his confrontation with Kirk.
The only cast member who didn't work for me was Michele Specht as Dr Elise McKennah. I thought there was some kind of self-consciousness at work that interfered with bringing the character to life. In fact, this was the one performance in "Pilgrim of Eternity" that reminded me of why I've been so dissatisfied with other fan productions in the past. Also, to be truly authentic to the 1960s Star Trek, she should have been shot in much softer focus. For better or worse, this was really how they shot their actresses.
I wasn't overly engaged by the story, but the characters were written right, both in what they had to say and how they said it. And the theme it explores--the extent to which a person can change their essential nature--is pure Star Trek. JJ Abrams could take note. If anything, it was maybe a little too ambitious, incorporating a late twist in the tale that probable didn't really need to be there (and seemed to come straight from Monsters Inc anyway).
I found the first five minutes of "Pilgrim of Eternity" jarring as I settled into watching new actors play familiar parts, but as soon as I let that go, I had a great time with it. I was deeply impressed by the technical excellence, and pleasantly surprised and impressed by the performances. I look forward to more from Farragut Films.
Dexter (2006)
Surprised that I liked this
I wasn't expecting to like Dexter at all. On face value, there's nothing here that I would normally enjoy in a story. However, I've just watched the first three episodes and am keen to keep watching. For me, I think the appeal lies almost entirely in the character of Dexter himself and in his portrayal by Michael C. Hall.
"Dexter" is really a play-within-a-play and Hall convinced me that I was watching somebody playing a part within the fictional world of the series. I really enjoyed his performance, as well as that of James Remar as Dexter's foster father. I was interested in the abnormal psychology and motivations of Dexter and of his opponent, the so-called "Ice Truck Killer".
The end of the first episode came up very quickly for me; I had been engrossed in the story and was left wanting more. The second episode left me undecided. Normally, I only include two episodes in my roadtest of any show, but in this case, "Crocodile" had done so much to erode my good impressions of the series that I decided to watch a third. "Popping Cherry" once again captured my interest, and based on that, I want to go on and watch the rest of the season.
9 (2009)
An unexpected gem
I don't even remember how this made it to my watchlist, but I have a hunch it was on the basis of IMDb's recommendation engine. What a gorgeous little film! The thing I loved about it most was its setting and the beautiful way this was brought to life by the animators: a post-apocalyptic world with heavy noir and steampunk overtones. The characters are all types and none had overly strong individual personalities, but I really liked the flawed nature of the titular character and his sense of personal responsibility for what goes wrong in the world.
The plot is also fairly linear and holds few surprises, but while simple, it was never stupid. I was also pleasantly surprised when the ending avoided one really obvious resolution and (in my opinion) retained a lot more integrity.
I found 9 to be an unexpectedly dark and beautiful film and I'm really glad to have stumbled across it.
30 Rock (2006)
Completely unappealing to me
I watched the first two episodes and found them completely devoid of appeal. Not only did I not like any of the characters, I found them actively irritating. The opening (hot dog) scene of the first episode surprised me: Lemon is established as an obnoxious person, and I'm not sure that was the intention.
Apart from that, there was absolutely nothing at stake for me. The show-within-a-show "The Girlie Show" seemed to be nothing but vacuous, so why would I care if it was interfered with or cancelled altogether?
The fatal blow however, was that I simply didn't find it funny, and without that, there's not much point to watching comedy. Actually, I found the show slightly mystifying. Normally, even if I don't find a comedy amusing, I can at least see what other people might find funny in it. Not in this case.