Change Your Image
royalef
Reviews
The Ark (2023)
Writers know very little science and cartoonish characters...
The production is decent, but the characters are cartoonish at times, and the science is absolutely absent. They use words and concepts they have no idea about. The ship is designed by idiots.
The radioactive uranium is stored under the user console so it explodes, spraying all over the operators killing them and irradiating the only lever that can save the ship. Yes, why use computers when you can pull a 4-inch lever to avert a Chernobyl event.
Every other problem requires someone to go somewhere stupid to probably die. If I wasn't rolling my eyes so hard at the nonsense... I might care if they died.
Characters do and say things that are erratic and nonsensical.
Character bitches about not being in charge, when in charge is useless. I don't know why he is even on the ship. He does nothing but sit around.
Character demands to go with the pilot in case they pass out. They pass out, character has no idea how to pilot. So you came because you have no value whatsoever... face palm.
They are travelling well below light speed but they constantly show the ship whizzing past dozens of stars (dozens of light years between each star), they slingshot past a binary, show star maps of constellation stars that span the Milky Way galaxy.
Rocket ships don't constantly burn fuel. That's not how space travel works.
If you like science and are into science fiction not pretty-actor-space-fantasy, this will require some effort to watch. It got a second season. I'm not sure if I will finish the first.
The Last Voyage of the Demeter (2023)
Some flaws but enjoyable and strong
There are a lot of good things here and I definitely enjoyed it.
The premise, setup, acting, soundtrack, script are all strong.
My biggest issue is the lag between when they are convinced something on board is killing and before they thoroughly search the vessel. That failed logically. If most had truly suspected one crew member, they would have done something to watch or guard against that one--they didn't. It felt like they were waiting to be killed.
And there is one death that I thought they should have pushed harder for it to be more graphic/upsetting. But I was happy they didn't shy away.
Zoey's Extraordinary Playlist: Zoey's Extraordinary Mystery (2021)
Iconic Episode
Every good show has episodes that cement into your mind. Years after you've stopped watching them you can recall them. They are iconic to the experience of the show. (Thanksgiving episodes of Friends?) This is one of those episodes. Just as powerful and beautifully done as the very best episodes of Season One. The song switch showed how much range every actor/singer has, each singing completely outside their character. Great surprises (a new singer) and wonderfully written with a heart wrenching ending.
Kyûketsuki hantâ D (1985)
Typical anime animation +style. Probably above avg for anime.
Vampire Hunter D is definitely better than usual in animation, and probably one of the best for 1985. I never read the source material, so I came to it knowing nothing and having no expectations to fall short of. I expected it to suck, but it is called a classic of anime. I thought it very dark, in lighting. Some scenes I had trouble figuring out what I was looking at. Dark not not mean atmospheric. It is just too dark. Maybe this is a sign of a poor quality transfer to DVD.
First off, I dislike anime. Japanese anime has a lot of style choices that are the same, movie to movie, show to show. Long pointy-chin people or big round face. Big giant eyes, or little slits. Wide open comic-strip mouths, or tiny little puckers. Woman are draw as little girls with big inflated balloon breasts, or anorexic thin. The women may wear panty-shorts and will even draw nipples. The fact that so many female characters look like big breasted teenage lolitas shows the kind of audience they are aiming for. Sorry I'm not titillated by cartoon nipples. Characters seem to be screaming all the time or whispering to themselves. Emotion is absent in most of the artwork. Shock, horror, surprise, laughter may all look the same. Often it seems like the same key animation artists draw all of them. Anime also is cheaply done--that is key to the industry. Crank it out. Long static shots that don't tell anything or set mood or have any interesting detail, they are just cheap ways to use one cell of artwork for 1 full second. See the picture, lets slide it diagonally for no reason and they just cut down cost of animators by 90% for that 1 second. I also find the voice acting is badly matched to the onscreen characters and emotions. And very often, the voice acting and dialogue is a huge stumbling block for me. It is very stunted--only one character may speak, then pause then another. Very unrealistic to normal human dialogue, prompting eye-rolls. might be a consequence of voice actors not being in the same room or excessively slow editing. And really bad translations.
There are two versions, the second has a newer dub of voices which people seem to hate. I've watched both. I think the better one is the original where the vampires sound like they were from the former Soviet block of nations.
Despite finding this forgetable, I watched the Bloodlust movie that came out 15 years later. I had it playing on the TV whie I did other things... my expectations set low form this. I find that is a MUCH better film. Still has some voice issues, D is boring and lifeless too much of the film. But the other characters are far more interesting, and the opponents are memorable. The film is also birghter, so you actually see what is going on. The music was scored to the animation, actually shifting with the on-screen changes. That stood out. The dramatic pieces are so much better handled. The animation is superior. I'm glad this movie didn't stop me from watching the followup. It is far more enjoyable than this.
There will be apoilers after this.
The ending is weird. There is this over one minute montage of "scenery", which includes time-lapse sequences as the palace collapses (the cloud timelapse is done beautifully) and then various shots of green lands. I assume this is to show that the land became green and beautiful without the vampire. Then we watch way too many shots of D, ever so slowly riding on his horse. Then the children running through fields shouting goodbye repeatedly. It reminded me of the end of a 1950s godzilla film where they stand on a cliff and all yell goodbyes to Godzilla who is far out in the ocean. You can only laugh at the silliness. The ending continues with more shots of him strolling on his horse with different mediocre paintings in the back. It is four minutes after the movie ends that the credits roll. Nothing happens in those four minutes. Dragging things out for no reason is a recurring theme.
I watched it again before writing this as I found I couldn't remember much about it. I find the specifics and visuals of it very forgetable. Lots of slow still shots that are just moments of boredom, not creating an atmosphere. D isn't that interesting and stands around saying nothing and having no facial expressions throughout the movie. This is a 'character" I suppose. The main girl, Doris, is annoying, vocally and visually. The little brother is clearly voiced by a woman and speaks like an adult, but is drawn ssmall enough to be an 8 year old. The exaggerated proportions of everything is big in anime style.
The girl is bitten and what would happen to her is unclear. They treat her like she has a plague, or that she is a vampire, but nothing ever happens to indicate that she is or would change. The urgency to kill the vampire who bit her seems dialogue-only. I'm sure the nude shower "scene"-(one cell panned upwoards) was "ground-breaking". It is purely gratuitous and absolutely pointless. Count Magnus Lee is proably the most interesting character--although he looks bored most of the movie. There is no explanation of the thing in his hand. Why does it start eating dirt and then breathe/blow wind? I don't know if fans would know the whys or what, but the movie just leaves you wondering what is going on. The little brother is saved by the mutant spikey hair murderer... why? I have no idea.
There are some nice animation shots and things, but I find most of it boring stuff to get past for small bits of visuals. There are continuity issues. His blade is stuck in Lee and collapses inside the palace, but he has it when he leaves. The girl is bitten then not bitten. But really it is the script, dialogue, voices that put me off the most. The script has lots of weakness. Her randomly attacking him on a road for no reason. Then whimpering please, I'm sorry I need a vampire hunter. Did she place an ad? Why is he here on this road being ambushed by her? A lot of the setup is non-sensical. This probably played better thirty four years ago.
Star Trek: Discovery: Such Sweet Sorrow (2019)
Kurtzman always has low standards for writing; he is back in the writers seat.
Kurtzman is a producer & creator of the show and he is a writer on the two-part season finale. He and Ortiz often write schlock that is pure futuristic fantasy with no basis in or respect for science, logic, character consistency. And time travel is a favorite deus ex machina of bad futuristic fantasy writers because it doesn't need to make any sense and they think they are being really deep and metaphysical. Like the person who thinks the (answered before ever asked) question of which came first, the chicken or the egg, is some deeply intellectual question, or worse a sign of enlightened philosophical contemplation. I had extremely low expectation for this show. But I found it enjoyable, to my surprise. Then the second season started and at first I thought it interesting, but then it started using time travel as the explanation for everything, and my eyes started to roll.
So now we have a season full of random and changing rules with no scientific reason for their existence are offered like they make sense to a highly advanced crew. The red angel is stuck 950 years in the future for no reason whatsoever, except if they don't make up some excuse, the whole premise of the season falls to pieces. In episode 7, the departing angel leaves a time portal which lingers open for some explained reason (which the finale will dispute entirely as they count on it closing quickly). Of course, they can't just launch a probe into it. They much hop a fragile weak shuttle and fly closer then launch a probe which then flies itself into it. The probe gets upgraded with ai which comes back and starts the entire 2nd half of the season's plot. So an ai flies back in time to find more advanced knowledge so it can become... super-sentient? I don't get it.
Does the AI have ADHD? Is it emotionally impatient for some reason? I guess it Lacks resources in the future? We've seen this overused storyline before(can you say Borg), but this little hyperactive child A.I. seems to want powers and knowledge that it doesn't even know exists, and jumps at whims to send itself back to a more primitive time. And of course, fake sci-fi writers think A.I.=a soul. And since you can't copy a soul, you can't make copies of an A.I. So you can clone a human and create new sentient clones of everyone, but A.I. which are stored digitally in memory chips--well that's impossible for it to just make copies of itself. We all know how difficult it is to make a copy of a word doc, mp3, video, or backup massive amounts of data. All advanced, super genius A.I. are reduced to the ignorance of the writer about technology, science and logic. Now of course, its hatred of life (again for no sensible reason) leads it to somehow wipe out all life throughout the whole galaxy? Hmm, that's gonna take a lot of work and resources. So it evolves to transfer itself into one human--the life form it needs extinguished, and then take control of their ships and technology (none of which it could build) so it can accomplish its goal to wipe out the thing enabling it to achieve its own goal. Oh wait it does make one random copy of itself and puts that in another life form. But it doesn't exist in any other computer, but sometimes does. So it needs the sphere to... i dunno. It already has seized control of all of S31 without any assistance. What exactly would the sphere get it that it couldn't do already. The sphere lacked the knowledge to inhabit bodies. It has already evolved in a way the sphere didn't. This is logic that only makes sense to tv viewers and studio writers and execs. This is the standard low-bar for Kurtzman and Ortiz. Their writing is often dramatic and silly simultaneously.
The show has devolved into brainlessness required watching. If you can shut down your brain enough you can enjoy it. All scholock has its audience--just look at the worst of reality TV. Making the show revolve around this jesus-like single player where all roads lead to Burnham is a mistake. You'd think the producers would have some inkling of Star Trek's past and the revolt that single-genius-always-saves-the-day-character focus caused with all the Wesley-hatred. But maybe these people are too young to learn from recent history. Its a shame because I like the burnham character and the actress. But the weak plot and logic swirling around her are leaning into soap-opera-melodrama. Soap operas make everything melodramatic because every storyline happens to the same small group of people year after year after year. So they rely upon the "melodrama" to make it falsely interesting, because you know nothing substantial is really going to happen.
Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust (2000)
Much better than the 1985 original; quality animation
I'm not a fan of Japanese Anime films. The lower quality of the animation is an obstacle for me. Then add in the awkward English dubbing and CC. The language sounds unnatural and often doesn't match the visuals in the sense of emotion and characterization,. Here the voice actors are acting. Seriously.
The animation is superior to almost every anime I've watched in the last two years easy. The quality of this is elevated and really enjoyable.
The film is far futuristic, somewhat post-apocalyptic. Dunpeal's horse is a robotic ride now. I think the blend of supernatural undead and future cataclysm is excellently done. Besides vampires, zombies & werewolves, there are a number of other creatures. Some are very interesting and cool. And surprising. And they are well done in animation style and use in combat and pacing. The characters and scene sets are memorable, which is wonderful. Even the music is varied to cinematic effect, like it would be in any movie that has a soundtrack built to emphasis the edited film. Many anime are blunt and obvious. You realize what is going to happen and often wait for the slow sequencing and slow script to spell everything out that you just saw happen, in case you couldn't figure out what just happened. The characters in the anime often narrate what they feel, what they and you just saw, what they are thinking. Good films demonstrate those things through acting and directing style. This feels like a movie.
This is not a movie for anime fans. This is for anyone who enjoys this genre. If you aren't a fan of low-cost, low frame rate anime, WATCH THIS BEFORE the original 1985 film.
The Lord of the Rings (1978)
Finally sat through the whole film... loved the soundtrack.
I have been listening to the soundtrack from Leonard Rosenman for 35+ years. There are some great tracks there. But the film is a mess. I've tried to watch it 2 or 3 times in the past and was bored at the pacing, voice acting and the off-putting mish-mosh of animation and film overlays. I finally sat through it today.
I read the trilogy in 1978, so I have no concern for the authenticity of the script to the book. I can't recall it accurately enough. Jackson deviated and IMHO vastly improved on the story with better pacing, memorable settings, distinct and memorable characterizations--not to mention great voice and visual acting. I had no trouble with him expanding the Hobbit story to flesh out the background events that the Silmarillion and Tales books added, nor the license to add a female elf to Tolkien Boys-Club-Only story, "how shocking" a chick other than Eowyn who isn't background!!!
The film suffers some from the age which it was made in. But other animated films and TV shows came off much, much better. This feels like a badly failed, and wildly off-course experiment.
Voice acting and script : This is a weakness here. There are a few moments that I have no idea what the characters are doing. They attempt to communicate meaning through actor's facial expressions and silence in scenes. But the animation can't convey it and I'm often wondering, why are we looking at this in this shot? The orcs sound bizarre when they speak the stunted English. "Bed and breakfast in Isengard!" really? Bed and Breakfast is an english phrase that an orc that barely speaks english would understand?? Gollum sounds like a variant of Boris Karloff, but quite bubbly at times. I felt the voices didn't inform character into those script lines. I see a lot of Disney-Sucks within reviews. But Disney, Pixar, Dreamworks and others have all shown that great voice actors can not only increase the quality of their character and the story, but can even demand the animators and storytellers to step up their game to match what the actors provided. That... does not happen here.
Rotoscoping... ugg. There seem to be two animation techniques here that can be called rotoscoping. The main character often appear to be traditionally drawn animation--but they could be rotoscoped actors. Particularly when their are certain 3D movements that are a challenge for 2D animators to simulate. This is fine. Then there are grainy film cutouts which is present in two colors (black & something) with a third color for glowing eyes. This results inthe ugliest animation I've ever seen. This format combines the limitations and costliness of physical costumes, with the erratic flashes of real world lighting mismatched with the flat lighting of traditional animation. It then drags the unlimited imagination of the animated form down to the budget of what you can afford in human extras, live horses and costumes. Painted background (that are underwhelming) are combined with traditional drawn character and blotchy/grainy two-color film overlay of actors in bad costumes. Often these creations are merely silhouettes. Sometimes the background is a schedilic waves or geometric patterns of colors--very 70s, I'm tripping dude. It is a jarring mish-mosh. And very clear they could not afford to do the animation needed and took lots of shortcuts.
A brilliant example of this utter train wreck of technology is the Balrog. When Gandalf the White returns, we are treated to a montage of paintings showing a very cool looking Balrog... a massive demon with a long snake body that dwarfs Gandalf. This image was used extensively in marketing and on the albums and photo-discs. What they don't show at all is the ridiculous man in a rigid-winged costume with no snake-tail that confronts Gandalf at the bridge in Moria. This key and dramatic moment is ruined by a silhouette of a high-schoolish costume of a man. The scene is a joke compared to the book. The two Balrogs have ZERO in common visually (continuity anyone?). They appear to be from different movies entirely.
I also feel this film suffer from this over-fascination with the rotoscoping. It is similar to how 3D films used to be done. They would literally show a blank scene with some thing poking out at the audience. The director might as well have put a caption on the shot--look at the cool 3D!!!! We are treated to simplistic shots of tribal-looking masks with scribbled red eyes mocking for the screen. I can here the animators saying, looking at how cool what we are doing is. Meanwhile the story and pacing suffer while we are treated to simplistic scenes that are engineered for the benefit of the tech, instead of for the story.
Fans of this film that laud this as a masterpiece ignore the repeated inconsistencies and poor production values at key moments like these. I feel they are clinging desperately to some nostalgia or Disney-hate to overstate the value here. When Gandalf rides in with Rohan, he shows up with not even a dozen horsemen and blotchy black spots that blink in and out of existence. Artifacts from low resolution of the art. A hundred or more orcs just run at the sight even though they clearly still outnumber them. It is a small battle, totally unimpressive. Not effective or accurate to Tolkein's story. Had this film been totally animated this scene would have no limitation to the story or how many soldiers could have been there. Jackson's success was dependent upon CGI technology having advanced to the point where the tech was capable of telling the story--how the story demanded. Not reducing the story to the bare minimum that could be accomplished by very limiting tech.
Honestly the Rankin-Bass films (hobbit & return) were more enjoyable to watch, both back then and now, than this. Look at their Goblin King. A wonderful design that ignored the proportions of a human actor inside a bad costume. Would the Great Wyrm Smaug have been reduced down to two guys in a halloween horse-like costume with wings and a slack tail?? The answer is YES, that is exactly what the bakshi/rotoscoped Hobbit would have done.
Godzilla (2014)
Moving in the right direction
This movie was actually made by someone who understood why someone of us enjoyed these movies as kids. This is a popcorn flick above all else. So logic is thin. There are all sorts of little messes.
The plot could definitely been improved. A crater of a former nuclear power plant is holding a giant cocoon for 15 years and no one notices. Right there, reality snaps. BUt this *IS* a movie about giant radioactive monsters, right? So are we really expecting real world logic to last long? WHen father yells out for his son being hit, when his son can't be seen and is in a covered and locked truck which he never saw before, you think, wow,talk about bad editing and continuity. There are more. The army stops all vehicles on a bridge, stranding them, then you hear, "don't fire there are civilians on the bridge," well yeah, you trapped them there then rolled a tank onto the bridge because a bridge is a great offensive line to a creature that is longer than the bridge itself.
The main characters are somewhat uninteresting. They try and put them all in harm's way, but really it is all very orchestrated and false feeling.
So why do I like this.
Because Godzilla was the good monster. Granted, Godzilla probably needed a little more screen time. He wasn't just destroying things like a dinosaur running wild. I loved the description of G as an alpha predator, a force of nature.
And he was given a cool looking monster to fight against. I really liked the MUTOS. They were like atomic gnats. People loved those old movies because they loved the monsters. Recreating the outdated monsters of the 60s will not work. The monster need to be monsters that people would find cool today. I wish they didn't feel the need to drag the fight to the U.S. to make it "interesting" to Americans.
This is what the old movies were about. "Let them fight." It is exactly what the audience wants. They got those elements right this time. Hopefully the sequel will invest in better plots and characters.
2 Broke Girls (2011)
Funny lines, a bit overacted, but likable stars and characters
I argue this down to a seven if the characters weren't so likable. The actors aren't the best and the stereotypes are heavy handed. The character of Max has a lot of funny lines, but the actress delivers them like she is at a comedy show. It reminds of the first season of Roseanne. Roseanne Barr would giggle and laugh while delivering her lines--cracking herself up. Later, she learned to act the lines and the show rose to awesome status. Max reminds me of that, less acting, more delivering. Stifler's Mom (Jennifer Coolidge) is the heaviest on the overacted caricatures. The show produces some good humor in between the goofiness. Occasionally a good emotional moment slips in. While I don't think the show will ever rise to a great show, it is likable and fun enough to watch.
Space: Above and Beyond (1995)
Poorly acted, bad writing, some merit to ideas
Back in 1995 I watched the first few episodes of this show and then never watched it again. Others have said how wonderful it was and I had the opportunity to watch the series again, nearly twenty years later. I was 29 when the show premiered, so I had no childhood gush to be nostalgic about.
The first 3 or 4 episodes were painful to watch again. Lt. West's storyline is so boring, melodramatic and overacted--you cringe at the thought that the show will revolve around him. The lines and acting are bad. I had to force myself to watch some episodes. Others carried your attention better. Towards the end, I watched the end, but not with any particular enthusiasm.
Now, Babylon 5 had similar bad acting and some bad dialogue. It improved with time, except where Jeff Conaway was involved (bleah!). Like Babylon 5 there were ideas about this world that were interesting that could carry your interest. However, Babylon 5 also had a lot of interesting characters, and very interesting plots, especially their longer arcs. And the writing was sometimes wonderful. S:AAB doesn't weigh in well on these areas. I only found the two in-vitro characters, truly interesting. After the initial episodes, the In-Vitro and AI story lines really carry the show. They provide the most interesting story lines in mid-season. Then the story lines return more to the war, and frankly the quality of the stories rollercoasters.
The alien war, well it kinda sucks, and didn't make sense at times. I liked the references back to historic war maneuvers and battles. But, for instance, after many land and space battles over months, with 100's of thousands of infantry fighting... no one had ever taken the helmet of a Chig off and taken a photo of what they looked like. It was NEVER the intent of the military to capture one, to study the biology, language, etc. It was unimportant to the war effort. Of course, this is ridiculous, but they had to put forward this ridiculous concept to setup a storyline late in the season. Even though I seem to recall lots of scenes where they had the opportunity to look at one. I believe the helmet comes off one, but there is smoke and so much darkness you can't see anything.
One annoyance... the show is very dark. No, I mean the lighting. Maybe it was the video source I watched, but there were scenes that I couldn't figure out what I was looking at. I'm guessing they were trying to save money.
As a fan of soundtracks, the music for the show threw me. It seemed overly dramatic and bombastic all the time. Very militant, yet inappropriate for the action on the screen. It almost seemed to be written for the concept of the show, but not scored for what was happening on screen. Again, it just always seemed mismatched.
So, yes some interesting ideas along the way, but unless this style of show, acting, script clicks for you--you're gonna probably have to force yourself through the too-many bad episodes to see the pieces that are interesting.
Jeremiah (2002)
Quality of second season nose-dives badly
The show had promise and built the characters reasonably and set a consistent atmosphere. I watched both seasons on Netflix long after it was canceled. The first season is very enjoyable, but I found much of the second season... unwatchable. The show became plagued by very preachy, stunted dialogue, bad scenes and smash you over the head with our message subtly.
Straczinsky has publicly commented on how bad his experience was with MGM during the second season, saying he "got the hell out of there." His loss of control was obvious throughout the 2nd season, particularly in the quality of the writing and plots. There is an episode in which there is a verrrry long monologue voice over. I believe it may have lasted 2-3 minutes--it felt like it. It just goes on and on. Literally it stopped me and I said to the screen, "what the hell?" I was so disappointed by the second season. The show went off the rails. Definitely watch the first season, but lower expectations for the second.