chopendoz Reviews

Serangoon Road (2013)

Not the Singapore I remember

[4/10 · 9 November 2013]

I was looking forward to this series as I was living in Singapore round about the time the series was set. Not only that, I was living quite close to Serangoon Road so (ike reviewer 'pgmucha') I viewed the series with a hopeful sense of nostalgia. Why is the series called Serangoon Road? It is nothing like it. In reality it was/is a straight, wide street not a narrow winding lane, as depicted. One reviewer stated that it is 'not a documentary' but they should have tried to get the backdrop right at least. This was not the Serangoon Road I remember. The average temperature in Singapore is 25C with 70% humidity. However, our hero runs around and fights – but never raises a sweat . Just walking around in a climate where it is hot and humid all the time, has one dripping with sweat. People walked in the shade, not in the sun. Where are the Indians? Quite close to Serangoon Road is Little India but I could not see any Indians wandering about in this series. Geographical locations have been telescoped it seems. Bugis St is not just round the corner but a kilometer away. (I lived in a rooming house on the same floor as 4 of the 'boys' from Bugis St). Chinatown is at least 3 kilometers away. The acting is not Emmy (or even Logie) material. Joan Chen tries her best to be inscrutable. Her young female sidekick has a somewhat incongruous Oxbridge accent. The hero is suitably heroic, designer stubble and all. Does he ever change his shirt? His romantic interest however, is insipid and the epitome of 'wooden' - hardly the stuff of a a passionate love affair. The other characters are two dimensional at best. The bad guys are very bad. I don't think that in 1964 phrases such as 'pissed me off'and 'forensic accounting' were used. Overall, it was a very average production that barely held my interest A pity that it was not better researched. Yes, I know 'it was not a documentary' but it WAS a 'Hollywood generic' scenario aimed at viewers who have no idea what Singapore was/is like.

Zero Hour (2013)

A waste of time

[2 February 2013]

This contains spoolers - that is if it could be spoiled any more than it is already.

I watched the pilot episode with a skeptics eye. I was expecting the usual generic TV formula with almost all the characters being around 30 - and good looking, for the most part. Maybe a patriarch-type figure for light relief. I was not disappointed. It was an interesting idea for a series but poorly executed. Who wrote this script? A teenager who failed a correspondence course? We are expected to believe that the two teenage reporters could just jump on a plane and fly to Bavaria, just like that? That the 93 year old German guy spoke English? That he would let them into his house merely because they 'had come a long way'? That he would tell them his secrets without even knowing who they were?That they actually understood who the Nazis were? That the FBI knew almost instantly that our hero was flying to Canada for some unknown reason ('hey! I think I'll go with him'). That an FBI agent could fly off to Canada at the drop of a hat? (where she has no jurisdiction I might add). To somewhere in the Arctic Circle - where it is apparently not cold. The bad guy had already flown to Canada the day before it seems. Possibly even before the abduction. Have the producers/writers any idea of how long things take? In a series with a time-based theme? They seem to live in a dream world. Perhaps it's just me, but I like a little realism now and again. This was a waste of time.

Privates (2013)

Woeful

[13 January 2013]

I finished my army service in late 1959 - only a few months before the period that 'Privates' was set. Consequently, I was very interested in how the times were portrayed. What a disappointment. Presumably the location was based on Catterick Barracks (nowhere near the sea) the biggest training camp in the north. I was at Catterick in 1957 and remember it well. The writers are obviously not drawing upon personal experience and should really have done some better research into what it was like to be a National Serviceman. This was supposed to have been the last 'call up' of 1960 (November-December) but it did not seem like a north Yorkshire winter. It would have been very cold and wet. I lost count of the anomalies that I saw in the episodes that I have seen so far. Recruits would have been issued with their BD's (battle dress) on their first day - along with a haircut - and the BD's would then go straight to the tailors for a refit. Most recruits looked like a bag of potatoes tied in the middle. So, not only did recruits not have BD's to wear but they would NOT undertake any fatigues, exercise or training in BD's . They would wear 'denims' or 'fatigues' most of the time. Recruits don't run along the beach in BD's - they would wear PT kit. Both the drill sergeant and corporal would have tailored BD's and gleaming boots and be cleanshaven at all times - to set an example. Recruits would not have time to sit around the barracks smoking and chatting as they had many chores to do such as cleaning kit - polishing brass and polishing their boots to a high shine. Recruits in basic training do not take beer back to their barracks! They would not be issued with a rifle and bayonet! Soldiers would line up by height - tallest being the marker, so that there would be no obvious disparity. The tallest soldier would not stand next to the shortest. The unit seems to be lacking officers and NCO's. Their would be a lieutenant and a sergeant major (at least) The captain and the sergeant would not wear their uniform when off duty! The lance corporal who went AWOL, is cooking for the regimental dinner (all by himself). There would be a sergeant cook (at least) - in the Catering Corps. I could on. For me the lack of authenticity detracted from the story line. I suppose that it may seem wonderful to someone who has no idea of what it was like. It is sad that many depictions of the 60's, whether in print or film, were produced by people who simply weren't there - and had no idea. This series was one of them.

Vegas Strip (2011– )

Unbelievable !

[1/10 · 25 April 2012]

I watched a couple of episodes late at night when I had nothing to do. As I lived in las Vegas some 20 years ago, it was of passing interest. However, I was horrified to see the actions of the police who seemed to be very suspicious and aggressive. One 'veteran' cop called upon a guy to stop and when he didn't he was tackled around the neck from behind and handcuffed. He could easily have been deaf or, with the street noise, not heard the officer call out. At this point that was his only 'crime' - not 'doing what he was told'. Another guy was arrested for 'suspicious running'. This is police work at its worst. If it were possible arrest a guy for resisting arrest, these cops would do it. This was taking probable cause to the extreme. 'Hey that guy is not acting normally - let's arrest him' - the guy was celebrating his 21st birthday and had been drinking. A walking crime wave no doubt. This series seems to be similar to other 'cop reality' programs where people are arrested and assaulted for traffic offences. The fictional TV shows are worse. An address is found for a suspect that detectives want to talk to so they go there with a fully armed SWAT team, with snipers prepared to shoot anything that moves. Is this the reality of the police in America?

Funny Games (1997)

No redeeming features

[1/10 · 12 January 2012]

SPOILERS

It is difficult to review this movie without spoilers, given the nature of the plot ....

The basic story is that of a subtle form of home invasion, but without a happy ending - and this seems to be the reason why some fans seem to regard the movie as 'art'. The actors did a fine job and the production values were quite good but the content left a lot to be desired. It is certainly not a movie for the faint of heart. A couple, with their young son, arrive at a remote location for a vacation. They encounter a pair of young men who slowly infiltrate their little world and, with menace, first disable the husband (by breaking his leg) and thereafter threaten the child in order to coerce the parents into 'performing' for the two young men who take perverse pleasure in their dominance. It does not end well. And that is the departure from the normal happy ending where the good guys win and the bad guys get their desserts. This is, apparently, the major selling point but I have a sneaking feeling that some 'fans' will seek this movie out for their own perverse pleasure. I realize that there are people who like horror movies for the adrenalin 'rush' and others who are turned on by violence but I am not one of them. I like to watch movies for entertainment but viewed this with some distaste. I was not entertained. True it was tense and menacing - but not thrilling - and devoid of any redeeming features. I would recommend this movie to clinical psychologists as a test screening for mental patients to see their reaction. It may help them to understand the motivation of serial killers and/or psychopaths.

Assassination Games (2011)

Don't waste your time

[8 September 2011]

I watched this movie when I had nothing to do – and wish I hadn't. To call this a B grade movie is being very kind. Hey guys! The acting classes didn't work! The plot was simply ludicrous. Two professional killers team up to fight the bad guys. One has a wife in a coma (JCVD's daughter and the best acting in the movie), the other is emotionless who subsequently bonds with his turtle after instruction from the abused hooker next door. The confusing plot revolves around some dirty law enforcement guys and some bad guys (who are really bad) who are plotting to do .. something. Our two heroes are somehow involved. The problem these days with these kinds of movies is the distortion of morality. It's not murder if a good guy kills a bad guy. It's not murder if a bad guy kills a worse guy. Don't the producers/directors realize the message they are sending? That it's OK to kill someone, that the law is irrelevant? In this movie we have two professional murderers who kill whom they please – without remorse, without pity, just for money. The police are never involved apparently. "Spoiler" Even when they have a photograph of JVCD with his crossbow (after a man is killed with an arrow, yet) JVCD walks the streets unmolested, unrecognized, with impunity – or should that be immunity? I am reminded of a couple of quotes that apply in this case … "If you think the acting was bad, just think of the actors that were turned for the roles" ' Beats me how they found someone willing to invest millions of dollars to produce this rubbish" I realize that it's all a matter of personal taste but am saddened to see that there are people who thought this was great and would go out and actually buy it.

The Killing (2011–2014)

Watch the original

[5/10 · 11 April 2011]

May contain spoilers .... As has been mentioned, 'The Killing' is a Canadian adaptation (albeit set in Seattle) of the Danish TV series 'Forbrydelsen'. Having watched all 20 episodes of 'Forbrydelsen', I feel compelled to draw comparisons between it and the Canadian version. Seen for the first time, 'The Killing' comes across as 'brilliant' and 'the best thing on TV' etc. but it pales by comparison to its Scandinavian ancestor. One of the reasons is that the Danish actors were unknown to me and that added a greater sense of realism to the characters. The Canadian actors that I had seen before came across as ... just actors. It's not their fault but it detracted from their performances (from my perspective). I would recommend that American viewers get hold of the original series as opposed to watching a bad imitation. I found it hard to understand the writers whose adapted character, a 'detective', shared drugs with schoolgirls. If this is reality, I'm not surprised that the female detective is asked to stay on the case. Also, I am at a disadvantage in that I already know who the killer is (if the adaptation remains true to form). In fact I picked him quite early on in the original series. It does seem to me that 'The Killing' relies heavily on mood music to set the tone and the characters are, so far, undeveloped - as opposed to the original where (for example)the father of the dead girl was painful to watch. Bottling up all his emotions and trying to remain strong. Will we be treated to other adaptations of foreign series because American writers have lost all their imagination and/or creativity? How about other Scandinavian series like 'Irene Huss' or 'Van Veeteren' - or the brilliant French crime series 'Engrenages' (Spiral) now showing on BBC in the UK? More grist for the mill?

Who Do You Think You Are?: Lisa Kudrow (2010) Season 1, Episode 3

Good TV - but not genealogy

[7/10 · 21 March 2010]

This was the third episode of the series and, in my view, the most emotional. I had hoped that we would get through the series without the inevitable Holocaust story but here it was - just another reminder for us Gentiles of what happened in World War 2. Perhaps I am wrong but I was under the impression that the series was about genealogy and the efforts of celebrities to find their ancestors. However, it seems that it only scratches the surface and only provides sensationalist stories from the past. As a genealogist myself, I would do more than just look at the potentially interesting relatives but at both parents and grand parents, etc. of the subject. From my perspective, it was a nice story - good television - but genealogy it was not.

Who Do You Think You Are?: Emmitt Smith (2010) Season 1, Episode 2

More about ego than history

[7/10 · 19 March 2010]

I watched a number of British episodes of this show and came to the conclusion that it was less about historical research and more about egos. There was an element of hope that ancestors were somebody of note that was quickly dashed. The participants seemed genuinely surprised that their ancestors were mostly ordinary - just like the rest of us. I expected that the American version would be on the same par. Sadly, the first episode (Sarah Jessica Parker) was. More concerned in finding something interesting than actual genealogical research (why didn't they research her father's family?). The Emit Smith episode was much better as he knew he came from humble beginnings and there was no expectation of finding a famous figure or even a notable event to sensationalize. He conducted himself with great dignity throughout what was obviously a painful journey of discovery. However, it was apparent that he preferred the research into his African roots while trying to ignore the fact that he probably has living relatives who are white. And who can blame him?

Burn Notice (2007–2013)

The fatal flaw

[7/10 · 4 March 2010]

What started out as an interesting idea has become foolish. I liked seeing the ingenuity of the main character in various situations but soon realized that the series (in theory) only had a short life because of one fatal flaw. It's only a matter of time before Michael's past catches up with him. Not his past as a spy but his recent past as a 'problem solver'. Sooner or later someone related or associated with one of the criminals he has thwarted, will spot him sitting in a café or one of his regular haunts. Miami is not that big a place and past buddies of his and Sam's seem to have no trouble finding out where he lives and where his mother lives. Word will get round and he will become a target for revenge. It's only a matter of time. However, the series, being popular, will go on and on until milked dry. The longer it goes on the more foolish it will become.

Inglourious Basterds (2009)

Mixed feelings

[4/10 · 4 March 2010]

I have mixed feelings about this movie. It is interesting, violent, boring and silly in equal measures. I also found the music a bit odd and somewhat inappropriate. However, Christoph Waltz deserves the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor. The movie falls into the trap we see increasingly these days. It's a question of morality really. A good guy killing a bad guy is not murder apparently. Some of the action we see in this movie could be easily classified as war crimes. However, it's only a war crime when perpetrated by the losing side isn't it? I can see no funny side to killing someone but all too often it is dealt with as though there is. When we hear the 'Bear Jew' coming down the tunnel knocking his baseball bat against the bricks, we are aware that he is going to beat a man to death and we should be sickened. But were are not. We watch in fascination. We have become inured to death by violence and there are those that actually enjoy seeing it. So much for civilization. At the beginning of the movie Brad Pitt is telling a group of men that he is looking for Jewish/American soldiers for a special 'behind the lines' squad but late in the movie we discover that none of his remaining men seem to actually speak German. Surprising that Brad Pitt (as leader) cannot speak German either. My biggest problem lies with the genre which should have a special category of 'Holocaust Movies'. At the risk of being accused of being anti-semitic, may I say that I am sick of hearing about it. 65 years have passed since the end of WW2 and I can understand the Jewish people will never forget. But as a Gentile, why should I have to be reminded over and over again. There have been quite a number of movies and TV productions dedicated to and indirectly referencing the Holocaust over the years. The sight of a tattooed number on an old man's arm was commonplace in TV series back in the 70's & 80's. Yes, I understand that 6 million Jews died but I can't help thinking about the homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses and gypsies who also died in the concentration camps. Has anyone made a movie about them? What about the 50 plus million Russians who died under Stalin after WW2 and the 50 plus million Chinese who were massacred by Mao after WW2 ? - who speaks for them? I suppose it all boils down to who is producing movies these days - or better yet who is financing them.

Expedition Africa (2009– )

Incompatibility is the key

[6/10 · 10 June 2009]

I was interested in the subject matter and found the first two episodes quite entertaining. However, there was a tendency towards the 'Oh, Wow!' style of travel documentary where every event is a crisis and over exaggerated. It seems to be the practice by the producers of such programs to make a team of people most likely to be incompatible and this is the source of tension throughout the series. I wonder what the Masai really thought of them. Quite possibly they could have walked the whole way unaided in half the time. It showed how pampered westerners are. The Masai would just 'get on with it' and argue a lot less. I have no doubt that the team will succeed in the end but the trip did not need the 'blow by blow' treatment in my opinion. I realise that it is made for armchair travellers but it would have been more interesting if they had recorded the survivalist member doing the trip on his own.

Charley Boorman: Ireland to Sydney by Any Means (2008– )

A piece of self indulgence

[5/10 · 5 November 2008]

I was interested in this series being just one of the many hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people who traveled the overland trail from the UK to Australia from the late 70's onwards. Most of us did it without a map or guide book, little money or backup. The attitude of Charlie and his crew commenting on the 'primitive' conditions were laughable to those of us with a lot more experience of the Third World. This series would be interesting to armchair travelers but after a while it seemed that the actual traveling took precedence over the places visited. Some interesting locations were only worth a minute or so while shots of Charlie mugging for the camera quickly became boring. Overall, an interesting idea but it came across as simply a piece of self indulgence.

The Wire (2002–2008)

Excellent

[10/10 · 5 January 2008]

I have watched all the series so far and am looking for the next one. I cannot speak too highly of this series. It is so realistic - no 'Hollywood' style pinup boys and girls, no outrageous special effects, just the depiction of police work as it really happens. Overworked, often overweight, middle aged men dedicated to their job. Often divorced, alcoholic (or on a program) sitting behind a desk. either on the phone or shuffling endless paperwork,as opposed to the car chases and gunplay that seem to dominate other TV shows. What amazes me is the characters. It is sometimes hard to believe that some of the characters (such as Bubbles and Omar, for example) are actually actors, not street people. I suppose that is the test of true acting.

Dexter (2006–2013)

Nowhere near as good as the books (Spoilers)

[6/10 · 27 November 2007]

I became aware of the 'Dexter' TV series after I had read the first two books (I am currently half way through the third) and viewed the first series with some anticipation. Although they had stuck to the basic story, I feel that the writers have missed the point. The books are all about Dexter and his thoughts. Nothing else matters very much. The other characters such as his sister, work colleagues, etc. are largely irrelevant and very minor supporting players. However, the writers have given them personalities, lives, and screen time. Again, the story is about Dexter and he should be on the screen most of the time. No-one else matters. There were even extra characters created, tentative relationships formed and situations manufactured without Dexter input. Apart from that series one was quite well done. Series two, however is simply deteriorating into soap opera. Who cares about the life of his irritating sister? She is a terrible detective, making assumptions and jumping to conclusions. Then we have Dexter's attendance at 'meetings' to deal with an addiction that no-one asks about. Neither his girl friend or her mother or sponsor Leila actually ask what he is addicted to! Perhaps he is addicted to attending meetings? Bizarre. So much of the second series is contrived. It is irritating that most of the things which are happening in the current series did not happen in the books. It's no longer all about Dexter but about the lives of the supporting players – whom I have said are largely irrelevant. To illustrate how far the writers are 'off the plot', I have added a few SPOILERS (below)- from the books, not the TV series. If you don't want to know what happens in the books, stop reading here.

SPOILERS – but are they? Will the writers stick to the books?

Dexter's body stash is not found, there is no FBI involvement, Doakes is no longer a threat as he no longer has hands, feet or tongue (courtesy of the killer in book 2), Sergeant Deborah knows all about Dexter's compulsions and Leila simply doesn't exist. Dexter is about to marry Rita and one of her children (Cody) seems to be carrying a 'Dark Passenger' just like Dexter. And best of all... Dexter is being hunted by a mysterious stranger with a more powerful 'Dark Passenger'. I sincerely hope that the writers rethink their strategy and stick to the books. There is more than enough horror in them to attract an audience.

Poseidon (2006)

The Hollywood imagination

[3/10 · 3 June 2006]

This movie epitomizes what is wrong with Hollywood today. Because they lack imagination, the major film studios either copy an idea from a foreign film (Japanese, French, English, especially) or make a sequel or remake of an an existing moneymaker and milk it to death. Where are the original ideas? The Hollywood movie industry (and most of American TV for that matter) has become far too idealistic in my view. The characters are depicted as, not how people really are, but how we would like them to be, and the viewers often emulate what they see on screen as if life actually IS like that. Why should it be all about the 'bottom line'. Out of the top 10 top grossing movies each year, how many actually make a profit? It seems to be a matter of just churning out this sort of garbage and hoping for the best. Why don't the major studios spend the same amount of money making fewer but better films? One wonders sometimes how people are convinced into investing good money in making this rubbish. Poseidon? So far this 'blockbuster' has grossed $50 million – a long way from the $140 million it cost to make. Chances are it won't even break even. It becomes very obvious right from the start that it is formulaic and clichéd. For example, why anyone in their right mind would take a woman and her young son along with the exploring party is anyone's guess. Probably because they prove useful along the way. The Hispanic busboy (Valentine) who tags along was the obvious candidate to die being a nonentity, an unknown actor. It's all squarely aimed at the 'demographic' – the 13-30 group. That's why there is always a child involved in the story, why most of the characters are 30 years old – and good looking. That's why we have a politically correct cast with a black captain, Hispanic entertainers, etc. There is a always a love interest to attract the female segment of the audience and there is always a happy ending one way or another. We have the usual combination of 'B' list actors and those desperate for work, who go through the motions of what passes for acting these days. 'Stand on your mark and say your line when it's your turn'. Don't the directors realize that when people talk to one another, they often interrupt one another? Robert Altman knows this but few others. The special effects are good but with a few too many quick camera movements that are hard on the eye after a while. After only a few minutes I realized that I had seen this movie before in all its forms. Even though the backdrop changes, the character development is always the same. The guy who cares only for himself discovers that he has some redeeming features, The hero will do heroic things and maybe make the supreme sacrifice to save others. Father and son/daughter will reconcile their differences, the coward becomes brave, etc.etc. I've seen it all before.

Survivor (2000– )

What a load of old rubbish!

[19 April 2006]

I have just watched (to my infinite regret) an episode of 'Survivor'. The term 'survivor' is a misnomer as everybody survives. The fact that they are being filmed (and are conscious of being filmed) means that subconsciously, they know that they will never be allowed to come to any harm. They will not starve to death or drown or die of snakebite. If at any time there is a risk of a potential lawsuit, an injured party can be whisked away by helicopter. I wondered what the criteria were for choosing contestants. Photogenic? (certainly), in a stable job with a comfortable lifestyle? (sure), desperately greedy? (a given), the emotional age of a 10 year old? (in the younger females), unlikely to survive in in actual survival situation? (a definite requirement). If the producers took a dozen homeless people as contestants they would learn what real survival is. But that's not what they want. They want people who can't survive a week without fast food, TV or a cell phone. An SAS soldier or Malay Dayak or Amazonian Indian would run rings around the pampered Americans but they would probably be voted off quick smart as 'not being cool'. This program is pap for the masses - what TV has become. A mindless distraction for people who are either too lazy to do something else and too bored to get up and switch this rubbish off. HELLO! Try reading a book!