Change Your Image
heartspill
Reviews
War of the Worlds (2019)
Too challenging for generation Sponge Bob and TikTol
It's not War of the Worlds by a long shot but that doesn't really matter. The story is compelling and sometimes hard to stomach when confronted with some of the harsh and unpleasant consequences of a catastrophic human extinction event. Here the show goes further than most apocalyptic shows. While not as gory as, say The walking Dead, WOTW depiction of the human tragedy is more realistic and not as cartoonish and over the top. This probably owed to its non-American provenance. The flow is a bit more relaxed and the action/violence punctuated and never pushed ad-absurdem, like it almost inevitably happens in US productions.
It's worth a watch, I enjoy it and, contrary to my initial concern, the bi-lingual format ads to the realism (there is more than the USA and English in the world) of the story.
Not everything makes sense in this show and the characters sometimes don't behave the way I expected but when do humans ever do?
The Dig (2021)
Don't expect bull whips and magic trinkets
It is quite amusing to read through negative comments of reviewers who obviously expected an action filled plot of the likes of Indiana Jones. But unlike Mr. Brown's fictional contemporary, the life of an archaeologist is a far cry from Hollywood's take on this humble profession. This film rather adequately depicts the reality of archaeology in the 1930's and 40's, much of which still persists today. The shovel and mattock are more often the tools of choice than the trowel and brush. The tedious and often dull excavation work requires a strong social aspect and comradely on a site sees them through the often miserable work conditions, with inadequate site facilities and unfavourable weather conditions that persist in this part of the world. It is thus no surprise that much of the movie shows these mundane but essential relationships, the human aspect of being an archaeologist. It may come across as being dull but it is ample in accurately portraying archaeology.
The arrogance of some formally trained archaeologists, especially those of high reputation, are legendary and the tension between the excavators and the scholars is portrayed rather well, albeit with a bit of tongue-in-cheek humour. But there are also the difficult diplomatic endeavours to massage some egos and satisfy juxtaposed agendas by various parties involved just so that the excavation can continue. The excitement of finally revealing the secret of a site, not always as sensational as Sutton Hoo - gold and other treasure are a rare occurrence indeed - make up for the all the hardships encountered.
Archaeology during that time often lacked the scientific rigour of modern excavations and this movie adequately depicts this.
The performances are convincing and do the true nature of the profession justice. The set of the excavation has been reconstructed with great care and the archaeology depicted true to the detail. All in all it is a slow but thoroughly enjoyable movie. If you loved Indiana Jones or Tomb Raider then this movie is probably not for you. If you love archaeology as much as I do, then I would highly recommend it for you.
The Good Doctor (2017)
It's so bad it's funny.
I won't comment on the depiction of autism because I don't know how highly functioning autistic people operate and if it's even feasible having someone like Shaun training to be a surgeon. But if he gets fits because sone minor details do not go his way he probably would be more of a liability in the OR than helpful. Genius or not.
He'd also be the least qualified person around patients with zero people skills in an environment where humans are most vulnerable and distressed.
However, the medical part of the show is riddled with complete and utter nonsense. From the get-go there are nothing but unrealistic scenarios. Preparing for and undertaking a surgery in the airport where ambulances are on stand by just around the corner. But genius Shaun has time to argue with another doctor, look for a knife, argue with security, get arrested and buy to bottles of booze before he gets to show off his McGyver skills. Yeah right..
The case loads are completely over the top. As surgeons, they get to examine, diagnose, X-ray, MRI, run labs etc. These are all jobs that are done by specialised staff and surgeons are not qualified to carry out these jobs. Maybe assist in the diagnosis but they certainly the other stuff. And they don't operate on anything that comes under their knives either. There are specialist surgeons for transplants, gynocology, paediatrics, reconstructive, fetal etc. That the same team operates on all these is beyond ridiculous.
And then come gems like the transfer of a life liver for a transplant. Why do resident surgeons do this? It's beyond me but the episodes adequately illustrates why they should not and leave it to those who have the training to do this. They of course mess it up and drain the liver in slushy before roasting it on the bonnet of a black police car in direct sunlight. REALLY? The only person who'd enjoy that lump of human tissue would be Hannibal Lecter along with a glass of Chianti.
I could go and I only am in episode 4. Horse manure!
Liquid Science: that's genius (2017)
So liquid it flows down the drain
DZA, openly a believer in unscientific concept like a 'soul' is probably a poor choice to communicate scienctiric subjects and it shows.
The allegedly cutting edge technology is often based on conjecture and as of yet proven hypotheses and is thus rather faith based: faith that at some point in the future the wishful thinking will prove to be true.
Cryogenic feeezing, robotic bees, digitised minds are but a few examples of hack-science presented without any critical assessment of the underlying concepts.
DZA is clearly out of his depth as a presenter evident in the often empty expression he displays when presented with even simple scientific concepts.
Two stars for the effort to use a presenter who is "down with the kids" to make science education more appealing. But because it's such a poor attempt it surely doesn't deserve any more.
Van Helsing (2016)
Who writes this nonsense? Monkeys?
The cringe factor of this show increases with every episode. After sitting through season 1 in a suspended facepalm position, I started watching season 2 because some said it was going to be improve. But it's getting worse. It's a continuous string of potholes and unimaginative writing. I cannot fathom who comes up with this nonsense and what goes through the head of the people pumping more into this farce. Is there really no better material out there and, above all, better writers with sufficient talent and imagination to put together a cohesive and engaging plot?
The premise of this show is actually not too bad and the production itself is also passable: good sets, costumes, camera work and editing. On that end everything is OK (and I think that's why I have made it through this show as long as I did) but holy donkey, the story is one convoluted mess and with every minute it develops I just wish that all the characters die die and the show comes to a quick end.
How can they get characters so wrong? Pretty much all the leads suffer from an extreme form of lack of common sense and decision making skills. It's not a sign of a good script if the viewer just wants top slap those characters for being complete idiots instead of sympathising with them. And what do the writers do to redeem their leads? They make the villains even worse. Take Sam, for example. He's not scary nor entertaining. He's simply an annoying side-kick who has nothing to offer. Every time he shows up I feel ashamed for the writers that they could dream up such an embarrassment of a villain. He's like the Joker's red-neck cousin who suffered a severe stroke.
The fact that nothing about the story is even faintly original has been covered elsewhere.
What a train wreck..
Dead Awake (2010)
Random
The only thing I can say about this: random. The story is pretty random and the execution is pretty poor. The story skips and jumps around like a rubber ball and there is no consistency in the characters. The acting is so awful that the makers had to resort to in-your-face scoring to push the viewer into the mood they couldn't achieve through good story telling. Nothing adds up in the end and you're left with a feeling that neither writer nor director have have any idea about how to make a compelling movie.
But what really ruined the movie for me were the two Irish characters. Brian Lynner as Decko was just as untalented as a B-class actor can get and his Irish accent was a completely annoying farce. Mixing Scottish and a few local Irish accents just made me want to turn off the sound every time that guy opened his mouth. Who ever casted him should hang their heads in shame. Same goes for the character of his wife, whose name I am too lazy to look up.
Do yourself a favor and skip this one. This movie is boring, unimaginative and annoying.
Life Blood (2009)
Lesbian couple turn angels. One good one bad. Lord help us!
What a waste of time.I watched about 30 min of this poor film before I had to turn it off. Even the two hot leads did not make me linger on..
The script is so poor and contains so much repetition that I'm wondering if the writer just made use of the copy/paste function a bit too often while he was watching lesbian soft porn on the internet instead of coming up with a better story line. Lines like "What is happening?" or "I don't know what is happening" occur numerous times during the first 30 min of the movie, mostly uttered in blocks of 4 to 5 in a row. I wished somebody would throw her the script (at her head), that might have given her an insight. But then again..
Not only do the two lead characters make out frequently but also does god, appearing as a female, kiss one of the girls. I mean, WTF? Just don't bother watching it. It really, really isn't worth it.