Reviews

Predator (1987) was the violent birth cry of one of the greatest sci-fi franchises of all time. Yautjas are such an iconic creature design, and through all of the films and comics, a rich and compelling lore has been spun around this mysterious race of alien hunters and their rather violent dealings with humanity.

With the bar set so high by the first film, not all of the follow-up films have met audience expectations. Predators (2010) was the only sequel that truly matched the quality of the original, but it did so in many ways by emulating it (albeit with added twists likely inspired by the comics).

Prey is a much greater departure from the formula of special forces soldiers battling Yautjas in a sweltering jungle. Instead, we finally get a film that dives into the long history between humans & Predators previously only alluded to by stone carvings and a mysterious war trophy.

Amber Midthunder and her castmates do a bang-up job of bringing the 1719 Great Plains and Comanche culture to life. As we're introduced to the cocksure young warriors and their Plains Indian lifestyle, we're also treated to gorgeous shots of an expansive, pristine wilderness. The first act of Prey feels almost like a back-to-nature adventure film but for the building sense of dread as we catch glimpses of the Feral in the peripheries, waiting to pounce.

Of course that's the main attraction of the movie. The Feral is yet another variant of the Yautja we've never seen before. And his unique armor and weapon designs are... magnificent. They're so fitting of both his name and the setting, and his unique weaponry on top of just top-notch choreography, editing and VFX makes the fight scenes in this film far more thrilling than any previous installment.

If previous films were like Iron-Man duking it out with the Punisher, this film was like Deadpool vs Spider-Man. Those young Comanche warriors fight like people who grew up stalking prey and relying daily on exceptional agility, hand-eye coordination and lightning fast reflexes. Similarly, whilst the Feral can still lift a full-grown Grizzly over his head, he's built more like a quarterback than an offensive lineman.

Yeah, some will complain about the lack of a shoulder cannon; but, honestly, who cares? Yautjas hunt to continually evolve their tactics and technology. Wouldn't be much point if every Predator for centuries just used the exact same weapons, would it? The Feral has clearly adapted to his particularly primal existence. And his skull helmet is metal as all hell.

Anyway, I'm glad to see a Predator film channel the whimsical creativity of the comics and execute the vision so artfully in every department. So many other Predator films have had brilliant concepts let down by poor casting or sloppy VFX or bad designs (okay I don't love the Feral's elongated face neanderthal forehead, but he wears a helmet for most the film). Prey has finally brought the franchise back to form, introduced us to the badass Naru, and opened a new and exciting direction for future films to explore.

I honestly cannot wait for what else Trachtenberg has in store for us. LFG!

The BBC typically produces pretty high quality documentaries. Unlike Discovery/History Channel, they tend to be more informational, better researched and less sensational.

Waco: Madman or Messiah starts off alright, providing well-corroborated background on the Branch Davidians and David Koresh. However, towards the end of part 1, things start going downhill. It starts with cheesy graphics and music to play up the Seven Seals nonsense that Koresh spouted. But what's really unforgiveable is how, in part 2, they turn a well-documented and heavily investigated event into a subjective, he-said/she-said, "pick your own facts" story.

Air time in part 2 is heavily skewed towards the Branch Davidians and their sympathizers who make multiple false claims. They do also interview a negotiator and a member of the tactical team. However, the false claims made by the Branch Davidians are never addressed, even on key facts like whether the ATF went in guns blazing and would have killed all the women and children if the Branch Davidians hadn't "defended themselves" as the Branch Davidians claim or if the Branch Davidians had shot the ATF first, causing them to return fire as they rescued their injured colleagues (several of whom died).

This is a really well studied and heavily litigated incident. So there would have been tons of evidence based on ballistics, the footage from numerous TV crews, police reports and interviews, etc. But instead of actually figuring out what happened, the BBC chose to leave out all the direct evidence, giving each side equal weight in the program.

They don't even mention the fact that the Brand Davidians started the fire (arson investigators found that the fire started simultaneously in three separate parts of the building, and arson detection dogs alerted to the presence of chemical accelerants at each of these locations). Contemporaneous news reports didn't have access to these facts, but decades later the BBC did and simply chose to conceal it to make their documentary more open-ended.

This whitewashing of the Branch Davidians as harmless religious eccentrics who were innocent victims of jackbooted government thugs is extremely dangerous. The documentary makers know full well how dangerous this is given that they showed footage of Timothy McVeigh, the KKK and other far-right anti-government crazies rallying in support of the Branch Davidians during the siege. But they still chose to promulgate the surviving Branch Davidians' false narrative.

I was really turned off from this movie when I saw the screencaps of Alita's giant-ass eyes, but they don't feel as distracting in the film after the first few minutes. What surprised me (before I knew who the director and producer were) was that the film actually flowed really well and had a great story with lots of heart and some very emotional scenes.

That said, there were a few things that bugged me about the film-namely, some awkward/cheesy scenes in a few places that didn't quite match up to the rest of the film, Nova's character design (Ed Norton looks really bad with that hair and outfit, though I'm told that it's very true to the source material), and the other big-eyed characters aside from Alita all look extremely cartoonish and unrealistic (luckily these background characters only ever show up in very brief flashbacks).

But the rest of the film is such an entertaining and enthralling experience that the few flaws are very easy to overlook.

There have been quite a few crime comedies about hitmen/assassins over the years (Grosse Pointe Blank, Mr. Right, The Hitman's Bodyguard, Jean-Claude Van Johnson, Keeping Up With the Jones, Mr. & Mrs Smith, The Matador, Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, Killing Gunther, etc.), but for pure comedic value, Barry is far and away the best I've seen.

The series features such an excellent cast. Bill Hader is expectedly perfect for the titular role, but he's also supported by other great comedy actors, including Stephen Root, Henry Winkler and Chris Marquette. However, one of my favorite characters thus far has to be Anthony Carrigan's "NoHo Hank", who absolutely epitomizes the show's ridiculous brand of humor by channeling a scary Chechen gangster through the filter of vapid LA frivolity. For just about all comedies in this subgenre, the richest area of humor is the juxtoposition between a very serious and dark profession with really incongruous characters and situations. And NoHo Hank is just that. At first blush, he looks quite menacing with his shaved head and gang tats, but as soon as you hear him speak (with an almost comically upbeat and innocent-sounding Eastern-European accent), he's transformed from a one-dimensional stock character into an intriguing and surprisingly sympathetic character-despite the fact that he's planning someone's murder. He's the type of gangster who really wants you to like him even as he's threatening your life.

The way that the writers employ Barry's theater training to develop Hader's character and further his inner conflict is also quite brilliant. Sure, it's a very obvious choice given the premise, but the execution is so seemless and natural. Winkler is perfect for facilitating these scenes, delivering very genuine and heartfelt advice whilst punctuating these dramatic scenes with dry humor at just the right times.

My only worry with this show is how it might cannibalize the audience for Jean-Claude Van Johnson. But if both shows get renewed for multiple seasons, then it's a double win for audiences.

I'm not much of a sports fan, but I do enjoy the good occasional sports film or documentary, whether it's about football, baseball, snowboarding or hockey.

And this is a great sports film --if you're not turned off by excessive amounts of violence, profanity and generally vulgar language.

Pardon the crass review summary, but there are indeed a lot of parallels between this film and Forrest Gump:

• Seann William Scott plays Doug Glatt: a quiet and somewhat innocent protagonist who's not the brightest bulb in the box (especially compared to his physician father and brother) but demonstrates great heart and is endlessly sweet and endearing. His sweetness and generally meek and naive demeanor contrast starkly with the physical prowess he demonstrates as a bar bouncer/back alley enforcer.

• Our simple-minded hero is dragged out of his dreary, mediocre existence by a chance but dramatic demonstration of his physical talent: a superhumanly thick skull and ability to knock guys out cold without breaking a sweat. He's quickly recruited by a local hockey team and sets off on his athletic adventure.

• Doug falls head over heels for a flighty bad girl who has some emotional issues tied to self-destructive sexual promiscuity. She wants him but keeps pushing him away and alternating hot and cold because she knows she's bad for him. Yet our romantically naive hero never wavers in his adoration for this troubled hockey groupie.

OK, so it's not an exact point-for-point matchup with the multi-Academy-Award-winning 1994 classic. But Goon does have a lot of heart and will surprise those who give it a chance.

Obviously, being written by Jay Baruchel and Evan Goldberg (frequent collaborator with Seth Rogen), Goon is of a different ilk from more "serious" dramedies like Forrest Gump. This film features the same style of man-child pothead humor that has done so well in films like Pineapple Express, Superbad and This is the End. There are tons of memorable lines and gut-busting scenes that keep the energy level of the film high without encroaching on the plot or drama.

For a short dramedy that emphasizes the comedy, there's a fair amount of character development as we see Doug grow into his role on the team, discovering what it means to be a "goon" while also helping his girlfriend, Eva, and teammate, Xavier, get over their respective issues.

And really that's all the character development you need in a satisfying and life-affirming sports comedy. The main character doesn't need to experience a personal catharsis or undergo a sweeping character arc to touch the audience. And the hilarious supporting characters in the film (notables include the goalie, the best friend, and the Russian brothers) don't need to change in order to deliver compelling and thoroughly entertaining performances that sell the camaraderie between friends and teammates or create a convincing portrayal of hockey culture.

This is a very well cast and directed film in which pretty much every character works and adds their own contribution to the movie. Even the more minor roles, like the sportscasters, the donair restaurant owner, Ricky Mabe's character, etc. tie in so well to the feel of the movie and the comedic effect of each scene.

Schreiber also delivers an excellent portrayal of the "bad" goon and makes for an excellent antagonist/rival in a genre that often has very cheesy, hammed up "villains." Instead, Ross "the Boss" Rhea is shown as a tragic anti-villain who receives the audience's sympathy as much as he gains their antipathy for brutalizing the protagonists.

Overall, this is just a great feel-good sports film with lots of lewd language and hilarious characters. There's certainly drama as you watch the protagonist struggle against the odds in the rink and struggle with life and relationships on and off the ice. But it never gets too heavy and keeps you gripped with its abundant humor and action.

An earlier reviewer asked why this film is so hated, so I'll try to summarize the answer to that question in my review: Firstly, this film has a competent cast of actors--no one exceptional, but most of the protagonists are recognizable from TV series or films that have been largely successful.

The project started out as Escape From Mars--the latest installment of the Snake Plissken / Escape From N.Y. franchise, which was then changed when Escape From L.A. failed to meet box office expectations.

So a successful 80s franchise was given a late-90s early-2000s facelift. A much heavier metal and industrial-influenced rock soundtrack replaced the tamer pure-synth soundtracks from Escape From N.Y. and Escape From L.A.

Carpenter actually received help from some pretty good guitarists, but the soundtrack itself is hardly a masterpiece. It tries hard to give the film an edge that just doesn't materialize in the rest of the film.

To start with, while the acting isn't terrible, the writing and directing in the film really limits the effectiveness of the acting talent. Most characters are relatively flat and uncompelling. Some pseudo-futuristic slang is thrown in, but the dialog feels unnatural and perfunctory. The interactions between Statham and Henstridge, in particular, feels a bit creepy at times (I really thought Statham's character was going to rape our heroine during the setup to the kiss scene).

Worse, Pam Grier's character comes off very unconvincing as a police commander, and her wardrobe/makeup didn't help matters.

Which brings me to one of my main gripes with the movie: the set design and overall aesthetics of the film has the quality of a late 80s/early 90s B movie. I don't doubt the sets and props were expensive to build, but the very outdated aesthetics and lazy designs (e.g. the alien corridor, the freight train, the buildings, etc.) simply don't hold up to the standards of films released after the mid-90s.

Maybe as a designer, I'm more sensitive to these things, but what makes older sci-fi movies look dated is often a lack of attention to detail in the design of props and sets, or having designs that just don't mesh with the trends in industrial design/fashion/consumer tastes in the intervening years.

Ghosts of Mars' costumes (especially the police uniforms), sets (the small mining town is really the only setting for 99% of the film), props (the heavy machinery and weapons) all look very amateurish compared to the much more convincing and skillfully executed designs of other contemporary sci-fi films. Granted, Mission to Mars and even Red Planet had much larger budgets, but good design doesn't cost that much.

The film can be forgiven for the low quality practical effects and makeup, which are often laughably bad. But other poorly executed details are simply the result of sloppiness and lack of effort.

Case in point? The Martian language basically boils down to the actor just repeating "lah-lah-lah-lah-lah..." I'm dead serious. It comes off exactly as stupid as it sounds.

The leather police uniforms also look tacky, further giving the film a cheap, straight-to-video feel. I can see an 80s audience believing that this is how future police officers might dress, but it has zero relation to the evolution of police uniforms (in any country) in more recent decades (which tends towards utility over arbitrary aesthetics).

But the greatest sin of this action horror film is the terrible action scenes. I can live with low production values and a simple plot. I can even live with the abundant plot holes (like the rookie shooting the possessed prisoner and endangering everyone for no reason and the complete lack of reaction from everyone else, or the implausible plan used to attack the aliens). I can even ignore the cheesy special effects and makeup, as well as the 90s metal band look that all the aliens have.

However, I can't overlook the terribly choreographed fight scenes in the film and the stupid, contrived weapons that the aliens wield. An abundance of gory deaths doesn't come close to making up for Carpenter's utter lack of talent for directing a contemporary action film. The fights look incredibly fake, and the gruesome deaths and dismemberment scenes are clumsily edited in a way that disrupts the pacing of the action sequences (as if all the action pauses for a second as everyone watches someone get decapitated).

All in all, this is just an incredibly mediocre film from a director who seems to have either lost his touch or simply fallen behind the times. It's incredibly disappointing to say the least.

Here's yet another filmmaker using bots and puppet accounts to astroturf their IMDb entry.

This film has had 6000+ votes average to 8/10, yet has only 16 reviews, the majority of which are negative, and the only positive reviews are by accounts that have no other activity on them.

Unsurprisingly, the movie is terrible. Filmmakers who resort to stuffing ballots (like companies that spam their products/services) generally don't have the skill or character to produce a competent product. But, if anything, the trailer's at least good for a few laughs.

It's an incoherent montage of bad CGI and poorly shot, and even worse acted scenes that run more like screen test rejects than a promotional trailer for a commercial film. The clumsy, ham-fisted dialog will leave you scratching your head and feeling embarrassed for those with their names actually attached to this trainwreck. I'm not sure you could make a worse movie trailer if you tried.

I have no problem with people making and promoting bad films. Everyone has to start from somewhere, but IMDb really needs to address their astroturfing problem or IMDb ratings will soon completely lose their credibility.

So a movie with a 2.8 rating has 22 reviews, all giving it 8, 9, or 10 out of 10 stars and filled from beginning to end with soapy blind praise for the film and over-the-top fawning for the film makers. Oh and surprisingly all of these rather generic and utterly useless reviews have 100% usefulness ratings.

But the really odd part about all this is the fact that all 22 users have only a single review to each of their accounts and no message board posts. So they happen to have no interest or strong feelings about any movies except this one--amazing! Well, this is either the best indie film ever made or a film so bad, by filmmakers so incompetent and with so little professional integrity, that they actually resorted to such a tactless and blatant astroturf job.

And it should be no surprise to anyone that it's not the former. This movie is really, _really_ bad (even worse than the trailer). Paying barely literate people to spam positive reviews for their film on IMDb and YouTube is pretty much the only way they can trick anyone into watching this rubbish. But they couldn't even do that right.

What they really should have done was use all that money to hire some professional writers and film makers to make an actually decent film for them.

P.S. See the message board discussion entitled "Reviews" for more anomalies.

I didn't have high hopes for this film, as Starship Troopers is the type of franchise where, like Aliens or Terminator, you really need a big budget to properly do justice to on screen. And seeing as this clearly wasn't a major production on the same level as FF: The Spirits Within, GitS (1995), or even FF7: Advent Children, I was expecting it to be on the same level as Appleseed or Renaissance or, at best, Ultramarines. I mean, just look at what happened with ST2 and ST3 with their $9M budgets (about the same budget as Ultramarines).

However, I was actually pleasantly surprised by the animation quality of this film. It's not The Spirits Within, but it's at least on par with Advent Children. The film doesn't go for an ultra photo-realistic look, but the bugs, the armor, the ships, the environment, etc. are all exceedingly well rendered. The bugs in particular look extremely realistic (especially being chopped down by machinegun rounds), as do all the on-screen physics.

Still, there _were_ some flaws... First off, there's a distinct anime aesthetic to the film that seems ill-suited for this franchise. You'll recognize the costumes, equipment, etc. as being from the ST universe, but still with an anime-spin to it. This is especially obvious in Carmen's weird Gundam-style sci-fi-Victorian uniform. Somehow, a baby blue "crop top" military dress jacket and matching corset just doesn't seem to fit the ultra-macho, utilitarian culture of the fascist Terran Federation (nor the rest of the ST universe). In fact, she looked more like a flight attendant than a starship captain.

Likewise, the body and facial styles in the film are all stereotypical of anime characters--to the point that most of the male protagonists look pretty much alike. I suppose that's why they had to resort to giving Rico an eye patch, Hero a distinctive scar under his eye, and Holyman his weird anime-style tattoos and pale complexion.

Even the semi-mechanized mobile infantry body armor/spacesuits seemed to have a bit of a corseted waistline. That said, the ships, armor, and space station designs in this film are still very high quality overall, rivaling even the first movie in some respects. Even the overly-Halo-inspired-corset-wearing MI battle suits are better looking than the armor shown in any of the previous ST works. Though I personally would have stuck with the black and field grey color scheme for the mobile infantry gear/costumes instead of the jungle green cameo (this is supposed to read C-A-M-O, as in camouflage; please ignore IMDb's idiotic autocorrection) they used in the film, which is more reminiscent of U.S. marines than German storm troopers (and also not making much sense in space or inside of the silvery monolithic starships and space stations).

The overall CGI quality is actually very impressive considering that in theory, Stage 6's target production budget is at most the same as that of Ultramarines (the admirable but ultimately disappointing WH40K animated film), and yet ST: Invasion is head and shoulders above what Ultramarines managed to achieve with their budget.

If you want to be picky, sure, there are a few stereotypical mannequin moments that nearly all 3D animes tend to have, where the body movements seem a bit too rigid or the facial animation doesn't seem quite right (like the virtual actor had too much Botox). But all of this is fairly easy to overlook when you're fully engaged in the plot and action.

Alas, there is ONE critical area where ST:I falls flat on its face: voice acting. Carmen and Johnny's VO actors were decent, but much of the rest of the cast did not seem to be voiced by professional voice actors (or at least properly cast voice actors)--another sign of the film's anime heritage--and was quite painful to sit through. Like so many other great Japanese animated works, this one was ruined in the final leg of the race by a studio that just didn't care enough about the English voice-overs to get it done right.

It's a real pity, as the story was actually pretty serviceable and the rest of the film was very high quality overall, with only the aforementioned quibbles (all fairly minor and easily overlooked), and would probably do well with a major release in North America if not for the painfully bad English VOs. And supposedly this film was never even dubbed in Japanese (at least Akira and most other animes with poor English dubs are watchable in Japanese with English subs). It's such a severe flaw and stands in such stark contrast with the rest of the film, that I'd consider petitioning Stage 6/Sony to release the raw audio tracks of the film and let the community re-dub the VOs.

When I was a kid, my dad absolutely refused to allow me to watch Jim Carry movies. Now, Jim Carry may have some more adult material in his stand-up and has done comedies and dramas aimed at adults, but the reason my dad refused to allow me to watch his kids movies like The Mask and Liar, Liar was simply because Carrey's very frenetic, over-the-top, physical comedy style really turned him off. He didn't get it; he saw it as low brow/low class; and he saw Carrey as a sleazy person and an idiot.

Now, all of that seemed pretty judgemental to me, but it's understandable considering my father's background and personality type. And I think it's reasonable to expect a lot of people to be similarly turned off by Chris Kattan's equally eccentric and outlandish slapstick style. I think a lot of people enjoy his characters and skits on SNL, but certainly not everyone. And I can see how some might find it annoying (even without having an extremely uptight personality like my father).

However, if you do enjoy that type of bizarre slapstick comedy, Corky Romano is right up your ally. It's it's weird; it's funny, and it's just a lot of feel-good fun.

If you like watching a sweet, lovable goof get in way over his head but always come out on top due to fortunate and funny coincidences and mishaps (frustrating the bad guys to no end), then this is the movie for you. If you're looking for an intelligent film with witty writing or edgy humor, then this film will absolutely disappoint you. But taken for what it is, it's a solid comedy in its category.

Basically, if you haven't watched Chris Kattan on film or on TV, you should probably check out an SNL skit first to find out if you like his style of comedy or not. Otherwise, you could end up loving the film or absolutely hating it.

The first 3 films in the Leprechaun series have a place in my heart for being one of the most original, memorable, and most of all, _fun_ horror movies of my childhood. Sure, there are better and more critically acclaimed horror franchises (Friday the 13th, Halloween, Alien, Hellraiser, Nightmare on Elm Street, etc.), but it has a unique appeal in its own way.

As a horror film, Leprechaun has a very original and creative premise. The concept of a killer leprechaun seems ridiculous (because it is), but it's this whimsical and fanciful nature that gives outlandish horror films like Leprechaun, Tremors, Critters, Killer Klowns from Outer Space, etc. a magical quality that enthralls audiences, especially the young.

Warwick Davis was ideally cast as the titular villain, and he performs the role brilliantly, creating one of the most memorable and interesting monster characters in horror film history. Sure, the Leprechaun is evil and vicious and incredibly hideous, but he also has a comical and playful nature that almost makes you root for him instead of the good guys. Even though he stands not 3 feet tall, he has a giant personality and a larger-than-life attitude. This, really, is the key to Leprechaun's appeal and the reason why so many sequels were made.

As typical of films in this genre, Leprechaun and its sequels adhere to a set of spoken and unspoken rules which spell out whom the Leprechaun goes after and who will die. The Leprechaun doesn't just kill randomly; there is, after all, order to the chaos. For the Leprechaun's ultimate goal is to simply reclaim that which is rightfully his--his gold. So, as a villain, the Leprechaun actually has a unique sense of justice--albeit medieval justice--and this makes for an interesting dynamic not found in more typical horror movies, allowing the Leprechaun to be friendly to some individuals rather than killing everyone he comes across. It's also these rules which put a limit on the Leprechaun's almost unlimited powers. Hidden in these rules also lies the Leprechaun's weakness, making for some very interesting plot devices throughout the series.

I particularly enjoy Leprechaun and its kin because they balance out the dark, morbid aspects of a horror film with a somewhat light-hearted and less-than-serious tone, creating a fun and uplifting film-going experience. And true to the genre, Warwick's often comical Leprechaun character adds some welcomed comedic relief, even as he's torturing & killing his hapless victims.

Outlandish horror flicks like Leprechaun are also usually much more original and creative than the typical slasher movie and generally embody more elements of sci-fi or fantasy to their story lines. The Leprechaun films exploit this to the fullest, using the magical abilities of the Leprechaun to murder and maim people in inventive and occasionally humorous ways. Here, the rules of the Leprechaun universe allow the Leprechaun to turn people's desires and vices against them, though to be perfectly honest, this element of the franchise isn't really exploited until the second and 3rd films.

Lastly, unlike films like Gremlins, which are also very imaginative and maintain an upbeat mood and fantastical premise, Leprechaun is not a watered down made-for-kids family-friendly horror film. There is still all the gore, violence, uncensored vulgarity and creepiness that a real horror film should contain. But unlike many of today's horror films, it doesn't rely exclusively on gore and jump scenes to reel the audience in. It uses everything in the perfect amount--as the plot dictates. This, to me, is one of the hallmarks of good horror.

Perhaps it's just a more historied company, but I found this episode (which focuses on the aviation arm of Rolls-Royce) to be the most interesting installment of the 3-part "How to Build..." series.

This episode focuses on the Trent-700, one of the most popular turbofan engines in the world, and the newly developed Trent-1000 jet engine, designed for the high fuel efficiency Boeing Dreamliner. But the program also touches on the company's heritage, which is tied to the Trent family engines' original ancestor, the RB211--the first true three-spool turbofan jet engine in the world, and the engine that put Rolls-Royce in the jet engine big leagues.

I'm not a huge fan of the reality-TV style of engineering/construction documentaries that many educational networks have switched to. They do give you a look at the very personal side of the industry, showing you the real people behind these amazing machines, but there's less informational content usually than traditional science documentaries. However, this episode is a nice blend of science/engineering, history, and the human interest side of the story.

Unlike the other two episodes, even though there are still top secret proprietary processes involved, there's more detailed explanation of the manufacturing processes and engineering techniques put into the product. For example, how are super light, super strong titanium fan blades manufactured? How is a turbofan different from a traditional jet engine? How do the internal components withstand the tremendous forces and heat produced by the engine? How does Rolls-Royce support the fleets of airliners that employ their engines, preventing failures before they happen? All of this and more is answered by this hour-long documentary.

It's been a while since I've seen a Universal Soldier film, but this film seems to stand apart from all the others as an exceptionally well-crafted entrant to the series. (I've voted 9/10 since I couldn't select 8.5 and I feel the current score is too low.)

When you see a JCVD film, you expect to see intense and well-choreographed fight scenes, maybe some gunfights, maybe some explosions, and just generally lots of gratuitous violence without much plot or depth.

And considering that JCVD is now going on to 50 years old, I wasn't really expecting a lot from this film. I mean, unless they pulled a Terminator: Salvation and replaced Jean-Claude with a CG actor, I didn't really think the action would be that good (even Arnold's CG fight scenes weren't particularly exciting). And seeing as everything was riding on the action, this had the potential to be a complete dud.

However, this film proved me wrong on all counts. By some magic of editing or special effects, we see Jean-Claude as both an aging arthritic veteran as well as a spry killing machine with superhuman reflexes. The stark transformation from one into the other using the UniSol chemical cocktails was astonishing yet believable.

Not only that, but the performances given by all the main actors were excellent. From the complex character of the rebel leader (a villainous terrorist but also a fair leader and patriot) to the quirky and megalomaniacal evil scientist to the beautiful and compassionate Dr. Flemming... all were portrayed convincingly and flawlessly. Despite the presence of several familiar Hollywood archetypes, none of the intense performances were overacted or cheesy. But most surprisingly, Jean-Claude and Dolph Lundgren both deliver exceptional performances that take the movie to a whole 'nother level.

Lundgren's performance in particular was bone-chilling. In his brief monologue we're given an unnerving glimpse into the twisted psyche of a true psychopath--a scientifically engineered killing machine with no conscience or moral inhibitions. Although his lines are few, they reveal a man facing an existential crisis and gripped by a consuming nihilism, an understandable condition for a soldier robbed of his humanity and now knowing only violence.

That's not to say that Universal Soldier: Regeneration is some deep philosophical film. The movie's main focus is still intense action and gratuitous violence. But it's a layered work with nuance and surprisingly well-crafted characters. These small touches give the film subtle flavor and set it apart as an exceptionally thoughtful film for its genre.

I really wanted to give this movie a 9 to counter the unjustly low score it has on IMDb, but if I rate it honestly, it's a solid 8--no more, no less.

First off, Will Ferrell is great. His sense of humor seems to connect with most people, and even though, like most comedians, he plays very similar characters in all of his movies, it's still always enjoyable to see him on screen. And he's made some great movies: Anchorman, Old School, and Talladega Nights are hard movies to top, but few comedians can crank out so many hits in so short a time.

Land of the Lost may not be quite the gut-buster that a few past Will Ferrell movies have been, but it's still an exceptionally well-written and entertaining film. I'd put it on the same level as Step Brothers, though it's more accessible and makes use of more sight gags than offbeat humor and awkward situations.

The chemistry between the cast is terrific, and Danny McBride's whitetrash goofball antics really compliments Ferrell's pretentious yet clueless scientist character. And even though the movie has its fair share of quotable one-liners, a lot of the film's less overt humor isn't dialog-derived but rather situational. They're scenes that remind you of your own experiences in similar social situations presented with subtle humor that you just can't help but chuckle at. There are many of these familiar and extremely relatable moments interspersed throughout the film that keep you grinning between the tear-inducing sight gags and side-achingly funny dialog. And it's this mixture of comedic elements that keeps the pace of the movie just right and makes the film and its characters so endearing.

This isn't a comedy that relies on the character's extreme awkwardness or that's filled with cringe-inducing embarrassing moments. The humor is accessible and characteristic of Ferrell's films but still remains fresh and dynamic. And it's because of all of this that I really can't imagine why so many people dislike the movie. Still, I think if you enjoyed films like Talladega Nights or Year One (another underrated film), you'll enjoy this well above average comedy.

When I first heard people criticizing this movie, I wrote them off as the typical whiners that accompany the release of any outrageously far-fetched monster movie. Of course whales can't grow to the size 2 football stadiums, and of course they can't snatch helicopters out of the air--that's why it's fiction! It's precisely this outrageous scale and the novelty of seeing the impossible that makes these films so entertaining and thrilling. However, this time the criticism proved to be 100% deserved.

Sci-fi B movies have their place in my heart. And I actually quite enjoyed Peter Benchley's "The Beast" and its epic portrayal of a giant man-eating squid. That was a made-for-TV movie from 1996; fourteen years later, we have "2010: Moby Dick". But although CGI has made huge leaps in the intervening years and no doubt costs far less these days, Moby Dick's special effects are still laughably bad in comparison. They simply come off as cheap and very rushed.

To be fair, the whale itself, although a bit too shark-like IMO (as seen in the movie poster), isn't all that bad. It's not the best CG ever, but it's respectable for a low-budget movie. However, much of the supporting special effects used throughout the movie is very poorly done, with no attention to detail.

For example, we've all seen underwater explosions on TV and in movies. When something blows up under water, the explosion has a very distinct look: there's cavitation, a bright flash, and lots of gas bubbles. Not in Moby Dick though... In Moby Dick, the underwater explosions are simply dry explosions taken from stock footage sloppily overlaid on top of a poorly rendered underwater scene. The result is an entirely unrealistic effect that precludes audience engagement in the story. I mean, there are Xbox games that have more convincing underwater action sequences.

Another example of the sloppy effects in this movie involves a scene in which a dead "school of squid" are supposedly being shown floating to the ocean surface--that's what is described in the dialog at least. But instead we're shown a shot of the ocean overlaid with blurry blown-up photos of 2 enormous-sized squids. And not only are the squids very poorly pasted into the scene (imagine a really bad Photoshop job), but as the camera pans (being shot from a moving helicopter), the squid cut- outs move completely out of sync with the background (the ocean surface). No attempt is made to synchronize the squid overlays with the camera movements or the corresponding perspective changes. And it's scenes like these that make the film look so amateurish and cheesy. You might expect this from a local cable access program or a Conan O'Brien skit, but not a feature film.

Sadly, as the movie intensifies and the stunts get ever more outrageous, the effort made by the filmmakers and special effects team seem to decrease. By the end of the movie, when the audience ought to be sitting on the edge of their seats, gripped by the explosive action as they approach the big finale, they're instead completely detached from the on-screen action, the sloppiness of the film having worn away any suspension of disbelief they had. So when the big finale does come, they're no longer emotionally invested in the characters or plot enough to care.

Although Barry Bostwick delivers an impassioned performance as Captain Ahab, Renee O'Connor (Gabrielle from TV's Xena), the female lead, is unconvincing in her role as a marine biologist. And for good measure, a few peripheral military characters also deliver some spectacularly bad acting during their few seconds on screen.

This is just a really shoddily made movie. There's no other way to put it. It would have been better had they cast Jack Black as Ahab and turned it into an intentionally cheesy comedy/spoof. However, this movie tries to take itself seriously and aims to be a big action monster movie, but the production team clearly weren't willing to make the effort for it to work.

I don't believe in such a thing as being untalented, just laziness and sloppiness. And that's what killed this movie. The sad part is, most of the problems don't seem to be budget related, and the individuals involved are clearly capable of producing quality work if they simply paid more attention to detail and set higher standards.

I'm not going to say this program is awful, because it's not. It's actually a tad better than many edutainment programs out there that have tried to mimic the success of "Mythbusters". However, like most of those failures, the producers seem to have screwed up one minor detail: the cast.

If you look at successful science programs, such as "Mythbusters", "Bill Nye the Science Guy", "Bang Goes the Theory", etc., all of these programs have one thing in common: they are hosted by creative, science/engineering-minded people. Sure, Adam Savage doesn't have a degree, but prior to "Mythbusters" he had years of experience as a special effects artist and model maker, demonstrating a passion for invention, engineering and creativity. Both he and Jaimie Hyneman are modern renaissance men, both having acquired a huge range of skills working at a diverse range of jobs.

Now compare that to "It's Effin Science", hosted by Angie Greenup, an actress/TV presenter whose previous credits consist of: "Get Sexy! Workouts: Learn, Firm & Tone" and "Smash Cuts", a show that's basically a mash-up of YouTube videos. Sure, Angie gets some help from Marc Horowitz and Chad Zdenek, but Chad, the only scientist of the trio, has the least lines and is often overshadowed by comedian Marc Horowitz's John Heder routine.

I will give them this; they do not try to pass themselves off as a serious educational program the same way that "Smash Lab" tries to and fails terribly at. In fact, the sparse educational content in the program is always relevant to the experiments and presented in a natural, unaffected fashion. That said, much of the "science" is so diluted that there doesn't seem to be much of a point. The show also tries too hard to be "edgy", seemingly placing more emphasis on cheap hooks (explosions, girls, etc.) than the eponymous science the program is supposed to be about.

"It's Effin' Science" is definitely easier to watch than "Smash Lab", "Doing DaVinci" or the "Re-Inventors" (US), just because the hosts aren't so annoying, and there isn't an affected "science-y-ness" to the program, but still falls short of shows like "Prototype This", which, while not as good as "Mythbusters", is at least hosted by genuine nerds.

Maybe this program's frenetic pace and accessible content will be enough to hold the attention of today's hyperactive teenagers. But there are much better options for entertaining experiment-based shows.

Although I'm probably biased because I've always had a preference for educational programs and documentary series over most other types of TV shows, this is definitely one of the best (and most entertaining) educational programs produced in recent years.

Since the success of Mythbusters, there have been numerous other TV programs that have tried, unsuccessfully, to similarly capture the magic and excitement of scientific experimentation and exploration. Some of the worst programs in this category include Smash Lab and the Re-Inventors, where, despite the ostensible label of "educational programming" and being aired on the Discovery Channel, the actual educational content is so thin that it just comes off as affected and pretentious. And it certainly doesn't help that the hosts seem to have been selected more for their looks than any scientific or engineering qualifications.

In contrast, Bang Goes the Theory really emphasizes the science behind the show and ends up being very informative even for adults. Not only that, but the scientific content is always presented in novel ways that are sure to catch the interest of kids and grownups alike.

And while Dallas Campbell and especially Liz Bonnin (who actually holds a Ba in biochemistry and master's in wild animal biology) can both be considered "beautiful people", they for the most part just present themselves as simply ordinary lay persons exploring scientific concepts and learning along with the audience from the interviewed experts. This avoids stilted lines, as on shows like Smash Labs, where program hosts awkwardly try to convince the audience of their scientific credentials by clumsily injecting random high school physics terms into the conversation (especially when its connection to the conversation is tenuous at best).

Indeed, all of the dialog and interactions on this show seem very natural and unscripted. And I think this is largely due to the great chemistry between Liz, Dallas, Jem, and Yan. Unlike Jem's previous show, Planet Mechanics, Bang Goes the Theory has a much more balanced and better matched cast. I think the hosts all play off each other's personalities quite well. From Yan's simple experiments that starkly demonstrate scientific principles to Jem's extravagant uses of various physical forces & phenomena to Dallas and Liz's segments exploring real-life applications of science and engineering, each cast member compliments the others and comprises a vital element of the show.

No, Bang Goes the Theory isn't going to dethrone James Burke's "Connections" series any time soon, but along with "Is It Real?", Mythbusters and Air Crash Investigations, it's definitely one of the best documentary/educational programs that's been aired in the last 10 years. Very original and always informative, the series is sure to pique the viewer's interest in engineering and science.

As others have already mentioned, this is media sensationalism at its worst and its most shameless. The show purports to merely present the "evidence" for various doomsday theories and apocalyptic prophecies, without arguing for or against the views expressed. For the less critical-minded, this might seem like an honest attempt to provide an unbiased view of all the available information, and letting the viewer make up his own mind about the facts. But in practice, this seems to be the show producers' way of avoiding any responsibility for the accuracy or validity of the claims/theories they present.

A 45-minute TV program can't possibly present _all_ the information that there is to examine on any controversial issue. There's always a practical limit on the amount of information that one is able to convey in any given medium. This is a limitation faced by all journalists and documentary makers. And, in truth, most audiences don't want to be presented with every scrap of info pertaining to a topic, or they'd be inundated with useless trivia, unfounded rumors, or outright fabrications. Like it or not, the media is a filter for the information that the public consumes. It is their responsibility to perform this duty with honesty and integrity. That means doing thorough research and, most importantly, verifying the authenticity/verity of the information they present.

On any given controversial topic—such as apocalyptic themes in human culture—there's likely to be only a handful of genuine authorities and knowledgeable experts for every thousand quack jobs or charlatans. Correspondingly, there will be truths, half-truths, and blatant falsehoods told about each issue. It's the documentarian's job to filter out the cruft and present only the most plausible theories based on substantiated facts. It is NOT the media's job to present, both, scientific theories and conspiracy theories in even parts. Unfortunately, this program does not do even that. It seems that the producers at History Channel have firmly decided that the truth is not as entertaining (read: sensational) as unfounded speculation put forth by the lunatic fringe. So, like "MonsterQuest", "The Nostradamus Effect" dedicates its entire program length to presenting spurious/unscientific speculation and interviewing hack authors of books advancing such ludicrous theories.

Regardless of the show's disclaimer, by giving a completely one-sided account of the issues presented (shows like National Geographic's "Is It Real?" at least give equal time to scientists/skeptics) and always skewing the evidence to favor the most outrageous interpretation possible, they are in effect promoting specious and scientifically unsound theories and irrational thinking. Making this all the more reprehensible is the fact that History Channel tries to present itself as an educational network while it shamelessly panders to the lowest common denominator, making programs that discourage critical thinking and promote self-delusion.

Perhaps it's the growing culture of anti-intellectualism sweeping through our society, perhaps it's the abandonment of empirical science & rational thought, or perhaps it's just media sensationalism. Whatever the reason, there seems to be an upsurge in the number of drivel-spewing paranormal TV series pandering to the lowest common denominator of our society, and "Conversations with a Serial Killer" is the latest one.

Following the tradition of "Ghost Hunters," "Paranormal State," "UFO Hunters," and "MonsterQuest," this self-professed paranormal "documentary" series has joined the ranks of the superstitious/pseudoscientific quackery inundating popular TV networks. True to form, the show is hosted by a painfully insipid "journalist" and a delusional, and likely brain dead, ex-cop "psychic medium," who together try to make contact with deceased serial killers from beyond the grave.

They do a well enough job to suppress most of the supernatural mumbo-jumbo through the first half of the show. This part is at least watchable as it's just the two hosts interviewing different law enforcement professionals, criminal psychologists, etc. who've dealt with the serial killer's case. Although, the questions asked by the male co-host are expectedly inane, and the hokey, melodramatic narrative by the female "journalist" is more sensationalized commentary than it is informative reporting.

The excessive use of over-stylized video filters and dramatic sound effects just adds to the cheap, played up feel of the show. And the segments where the two hosts actually visit "haunted" locations in order to contact ghosts are just plain insulting to the audience's intelligence. Since ghosts exist only in the minds of the naive, gullible or mentally disturbed, these segments inevitably show the two self-deluded hosts bumbling around in the dark under the cliché green glow of infrared cameras, freaking themselves out over the slightest noise or the movement of their own shadows.

In short, this show is absolutely pitiful and a complete disgrace to true documentary TV shows, such as those shown on the BBC or National Geographic Channel. If you want to watch a _real_ documentary on serial killers, I think the A&E Biography Channel has some good exposés on famous serial killers.

It's rare these days that you find anything worth watching on TV, either terrestrial broadcast television or cable. Networks which purport to air "educational" programming, such as the Discovery Channel and History Channel, have mostly degenerated into tabloid media pandering to the lowest common denominator with shows on Big Foot, the Lochness Monster, and UFOs. Meanwhile, the Sci-Fi channel fills its programming blocs with pro wrestling and second-rate shows that fail to live up to the legacy of literary/artistic vision & creativity left by great sci-fi authors such as H.G. Wells, Isaac Asimov, Robert Heinlein, and others who've helped to define the genre.. Frankly, it's hard to find anything worthwhile on TV that doesn't insult one's intelligence, either in its presentation of science/technology or in artistic substance.

Because of the previously mentioned complaints, I had very low expectations for the Andromeda Strain mini series. Indeed, it has some very stereotypical characterizations of certain segments of our society, and it fumbles a little in trying to convey a deep and poignant message with the story. The thinly veiled social and political commentary, while a noble effort, fails to demonstrate any real insight into the topics the program tries to touch on.

That said however, The Andromeda Strain _is_ a cut above the rest, both in its creative plot mechanisms and attempt to tell a hard science fiction story. Although the science involved in the plot isn't anything too esoteric--any decent high school student should be able to grasp the way the Wild Fire team deals with the virus--and some cinematic liberties were taken for dramatic effect, the show maintains some level of realism and plausibility.

I haven't read the book, nor seen the first movie, but after watching this adaptation, I certainly plan to do both. While there were certain things that bugged me about the series, like the unnecessary religious undertones and sparse character development, the plot was fully engaging and the storyline was quite original, at least in my opinion.

The Andromeda Strain is far from perfect; it's not a cinematic masterpiece by any means. But if you like hard sci-fi then it's probably better than anything else that's on TV.

i just watched this film, and although it's received some rave reviews on here which piqued my curiosity initially, i was thoroughly disappointed by this horrible, horrible movie.

ignoring the poor production value, The Other Side still totally blew. the acting, special effects, dialog, and plot were all cheesy and sub par. so i really can't understand why there are people giving this film such high ratings or raving on about it with blatant over exaggerations about the performance by the cast and the directing.

this film is not the least bit original, the plot is unimaginative, and the film makers show no signs of talent and little creativity. Hollywood already has an overabundance of derivative action movies if that is what you're looking for (nothing wrong with that, i love many of them too). there is just absolutely nothing exceptional about this cinematic failure.

good films can indeed be made on a low budget. Population 436 for instance is a good example of how good writing, acting talent, and good directing can make a great movie without a huge budget or even exceptional production value. however, The Other Side does not deserve the same kind if praise and will no doubt be relegated to the $.99 bin at a discount video store.

save yourself the time and money and skip this film. this movie gives indie films a bad name. don't be deceived by the mouth-frothing astroturfers giving rave reviews that are full of stock quotes paying lip service to the film and comparing the director to the likes of Robert Rodriguez--pfft... yea right. it's these types of film industry sycophants that turn film criticism into simply adverts or marketing mouthpieces for the movie studios.

it seems that no matter how bad a film is, studios can always find some hack to give them positive reviews to quote on the DVD. this is unsurprising, but the way this trend has infected IMDb lately is somewhat disturbing.

i predict the IMDb rating to drop from 7.7 as of right now to well below 5 as more people seeing the film and give their honest ratings.