Uberhamster Reviews

Planet of the Apes (1974)

A match for the original Star Trek?

[28 December 2023]

The short-lived Planet of the Apes series strongly reminded me of the original Star Trek. They compare roughly like this: Visually, they have the same looks, simply because they weren't that far apart. Same camera & production technology & standards. More importantly, both series would constantly feature new strange sitautions of the future. And both were cancelled relatively quickly.

Now, the first two "PotA" episodes are a bit weak, but I am thinking of later episodes where some thought has gone into society, how it's organised, and whether that's fair - things typically also found in the original star trek series. Random example: Poorer apes in one episode are a stand-in for low income white Americans whose poverty might make them more susceptible for racism.

On top of that, most episodes have a little surprise up their sleeve to give the plot an extra little twist. It's entertaining adventure stuff but also intelligently done.

And finally, how it was no star trek: the central PotA characters aren't very good. A timid chimpanzee who runs away with two generic American males - and it's good thing that one was blond, and the other had dark hair. This really is the weak spot of the series.

TV Monument: Drs. P (2018) Season Unknown, Episode Unknown

Insight into a man both normal AND unusual

[7/10 · 11 April 2021]

The late Heinz was perhaps almost someone from another century. The vocabulary of at least two normal persons put together. Astute, but not haughty. Witty, but not arrogant. Dark humour, but never offensive.

Well, almost never.

The one thing that distracts is the strange shape on the chin of Michél de Jong. Just below the lower lip - what IS that? A collapsing mole? His very first facial hair? A coffee stain?

Okay, it's probably just a soul patch, but that's only through a proces of elimination. It doesn't go particularly well with his rosy cheeks. (You SEE how distracting it is?)

Kingdom of Gladiators (2011)

Amazingly, this movie really has absolutely no redeeming qualities.

[1/10 · 18 May 2020]

Kingdom of the Gladiators... Sooner or later in everyone's life, there comes a time when you watch some crap. Either sorely disappointing A-listers; or B-movies that you watched on purpose. And usually they have some isolated talent in it that ended up there by mistake. An actor or a song or one plot idea.

It's very rare to find a film that really has no redeeming points at all whatsoever. This is that movie.

If I try really hard then I'd have to say that the sentences are gramatically correct. Just not making any sense at all when heard in sequence; and spoken with exagerated diction (king) or a super american accent (villainess). I wasn't expecting an intricate plot, but almost nothing is explained and what is, does not make any sense. Immediately from the start it's unclear why this king wants a deal to avoid bloodshed so that he can continue fighting, and how it's binding if he hasn't vowed to accept. Well, I say king, but it's some feeble elder man, wrapped in a curtain, left alone in some old rooms, with nothing that bears any resemblance to a royal court. Everyone is miscast - and that includes also a 19th century fortress which just can't double for a medieval castle. I might have overlooked that if that one fortress hadn't been their only location used for everything (and failing to convince at every turn). Of the two twin brothers mentioned, we see only one, i.e. twin brothers each from a different race yet from the same father.

Most amazingly of all, the DVD contains a deleted scene. Think about it - that means that it's possible for a scene to be so bad, as to be rejected from this movie. I would have thought that impossible. But on closer inspection, there's an explanation: It was an extended scene where an extra actually showed acting skill. So that obviously had to go.

Other pros scraped with difficulty from the barrel: I liked the woodcut that you see for 1 second. And at least it's not one of those predictable movies. It doesn't make enough sense to be that.

Pride and Prejudice (1938 TV Movie)

Surprisingly good pre-war Pride & Prejudice - the BBC always had the best version

[10/10 · 26 January 2019]

This is the oldest adaptation of Pride and Prejudice ever, on television BEFORE WWII, and two years before the Garson/Olivier movie.

Even without the BBC's 1995 adaptation as a benchmark, you'd expect pre-war television to be primitive, clumsy, and silly. Also, it seems impossible to fit Jane Austen's novel in a 1 hour program. This could never have been a serious program. Or so I thought.

But all those assumptions are completely wrong for the BBC's 1938 Pride & Prejudice. There is a full transcript of the program and it must have been very enjoyable. The screenplay by Michael Barry starts off calmly, with the well-known characters and the favorite scenes. The silly arguments between Mr. and Mrs. Bennet, the extremely silly Mr. Collins, they all get the attention and time they deserve. There are even some short outdoor scenes, that seem to be there only to let us know that these people weren't inside all the time.

Of course, big slices have been cut out of the story. There are many events that we don't get to see. But the longest jump forward is in fact quite ingenious: Darcy's letter is followed by the report of the elopement, which immediately vindicates all his claims. This way, all the characters can stay true to how they were written, and how you want them to be. Nothing they say or do contradicts expectations. That's quite a nice touch.

I'm giving this full marks because not only did they get the tone right, but it was so early on in television history! In fact, if they wanted to, the BBC could shoot the same script again as a re-enactment. (No reason why a one-hour version couldn't co-exist with the 1995 series.)

Note. No, this review is not written by a nonagenerian. A comprehensive script survives in excellent quality at the BBC, complete with description of sets and camera angles. This review is based on that document, and not on anyone's pre-war memories.

Welkom bij de Romeinen (2014)

The British Did It Better

[7/10 · 3 January 2016]

Welcome bij de Romeinen, "Meet the Romans", is a sort of sequel to "Welcome in the (Dutch) Golden Age". A presenter interviews the key figures in Roman history, reporting on the past as if it was happening today. I've got five words for this and those are: The British Do This Better. Whether it's Monty Python (or the obscure Complete And Utter History), Blackadder, or Horrible Histories, all of them are better than this mediocre attempt to be funny.

To be fair, although they also get a few facts completely wrong, on the whole it's informative for children and it does a real attempt to liven up material that is (sadly) not popular. As said before, I just didn't like the humour; the constant cries of "Applause!" and laughing about your won jokes are pretty annoying also.

The Slave Mart (1917)

Silly Slave Mart

[4/10 · 5 November 2015]

This film survives at the EYE = the Amsterdam Film Museum, and can be viewed online through the European Film Gateway. It's a rather silly affair. An young Italian immigrant is targeted by "white slave traders". Even for a silent film the plot and characters don't make much sense. This film was long thought to be from 1921 because that's when it premiered in other countries, but it's in fact from 1917. It was reviewed in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin of November 26, 1917, page 5, and the names and plot match the online video with Marguerite Snow.

There also was a film "The Slave Market" in 1917 starring Pauline Frederick, but that's a different story, involving pirates.

The Secret Diary of Desmond Pfeiffer (1998)

Reputation completely unrelated to reality

[9/10 · 11 March 2014]

Generally I don't write many reviews because usually everything's already been said at least once. But that is not the case with "The Secret Diary of Desmond Pfeiffer". (Premise: Abraham Lincoln had a black butler who was the only brains of the White House during the Civil War. Call it a US version of Blackadder the 3rd.)

This series has gained a reputation for being a turkey, but in reality, there wasn't really that much wrong with it. But we never found out because after 4 episodes it was canceled under false accusations of racism (5 episodes remain unaired).

And, I have some proof for this: One year later there was a historical comedy about the first American colonists, called "Thanks". It has six episodes and if you watch it, you'll see that it's very comparable, basically following the same pattern, with the same level of humor as "Pfeiffer", perhaps it's even less funny. But look it up, and you'll find it has a rating of 8.5, more than double the 4.2 that "Pfeiffer" has now. If you watch an episode of both shows, I think no-one can deny that "Thanks" is in no way superior, the only difference is that Pfeiffer's reputation has become a self fulfilling prophecy: We've been told that it's rotten, so we find it easier to spot bad points (cognitive bias, as it's known scientifically).

Of course, this doesn't mean everyone has to suddenly like this show. The British do this sort of thing better, I know. Perhaps Pfeiffer was too much like Blackadder and American audiences couldn't deal with it when it was their own history that was being turned upside down.

Hopefully there will one day be a chance to see all 9 episodes. Actually it's unlikely (I've only seen 3 myself). But IF that ever happens, judge it for what it really is, not for what others have been repeating about it.

DVD-R Hell: The Secret Diary of Desmond Pfeiffer (2012) Season 2, Episode 5

How tiresome to hear this brad guy's clueless review

[1/10 · 11 March 2014]

Produced by brad jones, written by brad jones, starrin brad jones as brad jones. Probably this item was submitted here by... brad jones, even though this is not a real film or series but basically just a guy with a web cam. Who likes to hear himself talk. Or, in this case, bleat.

He's reviewing the short lived 1998 series "The Secret Diary of Desmond Pfeiffer". Although he clears it of the false charge of racism, it quickly becomes clear that he doesn't like the series. Note that this show has a reputation as a turkey (perhaps undeserved but that's another matter). So brad doesn't really challenge that or come with an original point of view.

Still, to each his own opinion I'd say. But no, brad goes on and on arguing why his almighty opinion is a fact. Eventually it takes him just about as long as it would have taken to watch an actual episode and form your own opinion. So I guess that sums it up. If you happen to have a fetish for a certain brad jones (like he obviously has himself), than watch this. If not, don't.

Nero's Mistress (1956)

A factual comedy with the following story line: Mamma will always be Mamma! Even if she is Nero's Mamma.

[7/10 · 27 June 2010]

Nero's Big Weekend / Mero's Mistress / Mio Figlio Nerone

Nero is normally used as a bad guy opposite a (comic) hero, but here he is himself at the centre of the story. Tension rises when his mother Agrippina visits him in his seaside villa and tries to coerce him into tending to state affairs. She has to rival with Seneca and Poppea who try to manipulate him in the opposite direction. The latter two try to have her murdered but she seems to be immortal. Meanwhile, Nero has taken to singing. An international cast in a unique comedy. I do not mean that it is an all-time masterpiece. Rather, it is a strangely factual comedy. The attempts at Agrippina's life are all taken literally from the writings of Suetonius. All they did was make it all happen in one weekend. Somehow, you get the feeling this is almost exactly what history was like.

The movie was dubbed in several languages. The German dub or the UK version are unavailable. The US version puts more emphasis on Poppea than on Agrippina, but what is worse, it is missing the final punchline - shame! Try the French or the Italian version, which are anyway the only ones available on DVD (as of 2010). English subtitles have appeared on the internet.

Mara West (1921)

Silent drama

[5/10 · 3 August 2009]

Mara West is a silent drama. The story is about an actress named Mara West. In Rome she falls in love, marries, and becomes a mother.

However, the marriage is tested when she becomes more famous, while her husband remains unsuccessful as an actor. The critics love her but their reviews absolutely crucify her husband.

It does not seem to have made any lasting impression. Perhaps it wasn't such a great movie even by the standards of the time.

At least two acts from the middle part of this movie survive, found in an antique shop in the Netherlands, together with another movie, the complete "Elephant's nightmare" from 1920/1921.

The Real Room 101 (2003 TV Movie)

30 minutes of loitering around room 101

[4/10 · 13 January 2009]

The Real Room 101 is a shallow look at one of the concepts from George Orwell's 1984. If you've discovered its existence by browsing, don't bother to go look for it. It doesn't dig very deep and doesn't tell us anything really interesting. The setting of the book was largely based on London just after the war. So, mixed with a few interviews we get to see a room 101 in a building where George Orwell worked for the BBC during the war. An artist is making a cast of the inside of the room, regardless whether it is the true inspiration for room 101 or not - as she herself remarks, it has windows, so it can't be. Or was it perhaps his fascist public school, and does the interrogator echo his disturbed relationship with his father? We're not told. The interrogator's name of O'Brian 'clearly' being a reference to catholics and guilt was new for me, but then it goes of to the obligatory "yes, look how many of it has come true" bit. Instead of acknowledging how many of the book's predictions have come true, some real info would have been nice. For example, apparently, in the days of the Cold War, the head of the East German secret police arranged for himself to have room number 101. But that story isn't told. All in all, this documentary doesn't come from the Ministry of Truth, but instead was written, directed, and produced in-house by the Ministry of Wasting Time with Uninformative Shows.

What the Pythons Did Next... (2007 TV Movie)

The documentary featuring none of the pythons...

[4/10 · 26 January 2008]

In 1974 Monty python decided to quit after 4 TV series. So each of the pythons went their separate ways. This is the tale of "What the Pythons did next...". Fawlty Towers for John Cleese, Michael Palin went traveling, Terry Gilliam became a director in his own right, Eric Idle revisited Monty Python to make Spamalot, Terry Jones went into history, and Graham Chapman is dead. (Not really a spoiler I dare say.)

This is all nice and informative, but it doesn't go very deep. For example, there is no mention of Cleese's work on the Amnesty fund raisers (known as the Secret Policeman's Balls), or Graham Chapman's "Jake's Journey", which supposedly was actually very promising. Also left out is anything reuniting the pythons after 1974, except for the three movies: no word on their record collection, the live shows, or other occasional reunions as in 1989 and 1999. Come to think about it, I don't think any of the pythons appeared in this documentary except in archive footage? That's not good...

Also missing is some basic information. Michael Palin starred in Brazil, OK that's just a detail. And it is fun to finally see a few glimpses of "Out of the Trees" by Graham Chapman, but for some reason they forgot to mention Douglas Adams here? And wasn't Fawlty Towers based on a hotel where the pythons once stayed back in the days of the Flying Circus? The research department must have been sleeping.

There are a few glimpses of really obscure projects, but the whole thing doesn't really chart any unknown territory.

Looks Like a Brown Trouser Job (2005 Video)

Graham Chapman's anecdotes 30 years later

[7/10 · 11 February 2006]

When Graham Chapman toured colleges in 1988 he did not have much longer to live: he would die of cancer shortly after. Almost 30 years later some guy tracks down the tapes made on one or two of these tours and makes a DVD out of it.

Almost everything on this DVD was already in audio on the CD "a sixpack of lies". The videos of the same show are of very poor quality. If you already have the CD, don't buy this.

Very interesting for a few fanatic people. Though it has little meaning for the average viewer, if you are a fan of Monty Python and / or Graham Chapman, it is a must. His anecdotes concern Monty python as well as the dangerous sports club and Keith Moon (from the band "The Who").

It is a pity that more then 25 years after his death, we have only this one sloppy DVD. Surely the pilot for the never-produced series "Jake's Journey" would also have made an interesting item.

Monty Python's Fliegender Zirkus (1972)

The Beatles did it, Abba did it, Monty Python followed

[10/10 · 27 June 2004]

For the obsessed fan, a rare treat. For non-python people probably just a strange foreign curiosity. Yes, it is real. The Beatles sang in German, Abba sang in German; and then Monty Python acting on an invitation made two episodes for German / Austrian television in 1972.

It is essentially the same concept as an English episode, but in German. The paintings by Albrecht Dürer, fall victim to silly animations. Little Red Riding Hood shows up too. A number of familiar sketches, including the Lumberjack song, work as well in German as they do in English. For those familiar with the original series, it is a very nice mix of known and new material.

In fact, some material has been re-used later with new voice-overs, the Philosophers football match and the Silly Olympics for example, turn up at the Hollywood Bowl performance in 1982 (but the caption gives it away: Epikur is the German name for Epicurus).

All in all, it is for fans only. Relatively unknown and only the first episode is included on the 'Monty Python Live' DVD. The DVD quality is poor. Apparently no German DVD is available! Pity.

Nevertheless, for real fans, it's 'Go get it now!'.

Star Trek: Nemesis (2002)

More of the same. New however is the feeling of disappointment.

[1/10 · 21 June 2004]

The tenth Star Trek movie is the final proof against the theory that the even numbers are good and the odd bad.

SPOILERS

All in all, the movie either repeats the plots we've seen already, or blatantly contradicts them. The plot resembles the second movie, the Wrath of Khan. Data has yet another twin brother, that suddenly is detected by the enterprise and found on some primitive planet. This is only partly explained.

The Romulan senate sits back and watches how a member leaves the room, forgets a mysterious object, which spreads lethal gas or radiation. This is rather unexpected because the Romulan people have been depicted from day one in 1966 as paranoid people with a sort of fascist rule.

The suppressed Remans now take control of the Romulan empire. Their leader is a clone of Picard. He wants Picard, because his body doesn't last any longer. Wesley Crusher is also back, for the wedding of Troi and Riker. A boring and predictable couple.

The rest of the action is very standard and too dramatic. Data sacrifices himself to save Picard from his evil clone. Boarding Remans are light sensitive and yet the crew prefers to fight them rather then turn on the light to give them a good sunburn.

A plot to kidnap Picard, or relatives of Data or Picard have already been used several times on the show. An evil dictator attacking them isn't new either. I guess people see these movies as a sort of loyalty to their favourite series, to see how the characters have been doing. It all looks disappointing, and I am amazed none of the actors simply walked away with disappointement during filming.

Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975)

Absurd humor, or the hard life of king Arthur

[10/10 · 30 May 2004]

Humor on an absurd, abstract, and partly cult, level set in the the Middle Ages. Monty Python's first film gives birth to the famous Knights of Ni, the Castle of Aargh, the Capital of Assyria, Just a fleshwound and other unforgettable little masterpieces. Some less famous but equally hilarious jokes only wait to be discovered on second viewing.

Filmed without any substantial budget, Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail features a number of jokes that were born out of poverty, the most famous are the 'horses'. Perhaps(?) unintended but also comical is the dialogue alternating between lines as in medieval literature and normal talk. The basic ingredients are quests, knights, castles, dangers, tests and temptations, animation, and a little bit of witchcraft. Less unorthodox and anachronistic ingredients are of course also present. A few jokes may seem vaguely reminiscent of obscure earlier work, for those who know the Flying Circus series by heart.

Basically the stories narrate the hard times for King Arthur as the England of that time with it many strange inhabitants doesn't seem fit for his rule. First he has to find the knights for his round table. Next God grants him the Quest, but it is far from easy and the knights split up. Following some ridiculous separate adventures, their paths come together once again when they find an enchanter who has a lead to the grail. Nothing turns out the way you'd expect, and even after the dangerous bridge of death Arthur is not free of trouble. The ending is rather odd and once again mainly due to lack of money.

Made in 1975, its appeal still has not diminished even though the idea behind the humor has been copied many times (with less success). Given the poor circumstances in which the Monty Python team made this film (complete lack of funds, no experience in movie industry, use national castles denied shortly before filming began, a drunk Graham Chapman), I for one regard it as their best film.

Note - many interesting facts about the jokes, the locations, the cast and such are too detailed to list here, but can be found on the DVD.

The Return of the King (1980 TV Movie)

Incomplete in every sense of the word

[1/10 · 28 May 2004]

In spite of what some of the other user comments state, this film, made for TV in 1980, has nothing to do with the never finished Lord of the Rings movie by Bahksi from 1978.

That is, nothing except that it tries to tell the rest of the story. Unfortunately Bahksi did exactly half of the story, so when the return of the king continues with the last, third part, some of the most important pieces of the story are missing.

Bahksi left most of the story intact but had such a bad result that he never finished the movie;

Peter Jackson had nicer pictures but he actually got an Oscar for torturing a great story into something much less;

The Rankin-Bass team managed to do both: they killed the story and it didn't even look good.

The voice-overs could have been good but they take far too much time and they are too pretentious. The 'cast' of cartoon characters? Sam looks like a potato, Bilbo like a granny, Elrond is a Christmas tree, the nazgûl are akin to skeletors, gollum is a toad. Only Aragorn looks like something decent. There are only two soldiers and only two orks, just cloned a lot until there is an army of the two of them.

And also there are some strange mistakes in the story logic, one example (NO SPOILER) that Frodo and Sam spend several days waiting for Aragorn to charge the Black Gate. And the songs... better not mentioned with one strange exception.

This movie will always come last with a great distance after all the other adaptations ever made of Tolkien's work.

Armageddon (1998)

anything else!

[1/10 · 19 May 2004]

Suitable for all. No intelligence required. In fact, intelligence in a viewer is a major drawback when watching. An intelligent viewer is not going to like this piece of shall I say: film? It hardly deserves the name. This is in other words a waste of time and money. It is also not ridiculous enough to have a comic force. Intended humor also doesn't deliver.

Why so negative? It is packed with clichés, such as a sacrifice and subsequent countdown scene, which makes no sense at all. It has no depth. No motivation, characters just continue carrying out clichés without any real storyline whatsoever. There simply isn't anything good about it. Possible exception allowed for the score. Admittedly I am not a Bruce Willis fan, but I won't even enter into that, the arguments above would have ruled out this movie even if I were.