Change Your Image
terrsgc
Reviews
Sam (2017)
This movie has it's faults, but it is so enjoyable, I rated it 9 stars.
I've given this movie one more star than I might otherwise have because, despite its flaws, I really enjoyed this one a lot.
The only reason I saw this movie in the first place is because after watching Goodbye Charlie (1964) I wanted to see all the remakes for comparison. I found and watched three true remakes and eight similarly premised movies that I wouldn't call remakes. Of this dozen movies (including the original), I liked Sam the best by far. Natalie Knepp really sold the female version of the main character as a man suddenly in a woman's body. What's more she sold it while making the role likeable. And, she made her basically despicable character extremely amusing and likeable despite her flaws. It was easy to care how things turned out for her. Sein Kleier, Sara Scott, and Brock Harris were particularly good in their roles as well. And, none of the acting was bad. But, Natalie was the true stand-out.
That all being said, I can't help but find fault as well. The office environment, while played for laughs, is unbelievable in this day and age. Seymour and Lulu are just a bit too silly. While Brock Harris had his character pegged, he really needed to have the same hair and eye color as Natalie for one of the plot points to work.
The movie is unrated, but I would mostly call it PG13. Older kids should enjoy it safely. There is some profanity, but it's infrequent compared to a lot of movies.
Stranger Things (2016)
My first TEN
I have watched this series since it first came on Netflix. Season 1 was brilliant. It captivated me, and when it was over I only wanted more. Season 2 gave me more, but to be honest it wasn't as good as the first season. It wasn't bad. It just didn't floor me like the first season did. Season 3 was better than season 2. The Mall nostalgia made it particularly interesting. However, it still didn't truly match the brilliance of season 1. Season 4 didn't match it either. Season 4 exceeded the brilliance of season 1. Season 4 introduced us to the story's antagonist, which up until now was simply a mysterious malevolence inhabiting a universe parallel to our own. Now, we know it for the evil it truly is. I was wondering if the show was slowly running out of steam. Now I know it isn't. I can hardly wait for the fifth and final season.
Captain Marvel (2019)
It was pretty good, not the 10 or the 1 that both sets of trolls are rating it
Okay, I just watched the movie. It started out quite interesting if a bit confusing, got more interesting, then it started to drag a bit for a while, then we finally learned the hidden background information, and finally it picked back up and got quite exciting to the end. The acting performances were ALL good. Being a Coulson fan, I'm a little disappointed we didn't see more of him. And, I'd like to have seen Mar-Vel a male if only as homage to the character in the comics. But, these are far from real criticism of the movie itself, just personal taste. In the past I would have given this 6 stars and wished I could have added a 1/2 star. But, I've since learned that 6 is considered the dividing line between good and bad (at least at Rotten Tomatoes). Silly me, I figured 5 was that dividing line. Anyway I gave it a 7 and wish for that half star. Also, now wish I'd given Alita a 9.
Now, as for all the hype. We've got 10-star reviews out there claiming the same things as the 1-star reviews, the difference being one side is in favor of it and the other is against it. I'm telling you now it is all something that bulls leave lying around the pasture. Aside from one short flashback to some military training hazing, there really wasn't much in the way of feminist propaganda. And, that scene lacked enough context to say for sure it wasn't just the standard military training hazing that is designed to push you to achieve if you possibly can. As for the supposed propaganda about "refugees", it is a total stretch to say that anything in the movie correlates to any current controversies in any way.
I don't believe I've given any real spoilers, so I won't check that box.
Alita: Battle Angel (2019)
Excellent movie, way better than I expected.
I saw the trailer for this movie and thought, "That might be good." But, the trailer didn't truly "grab" me. I debated whether to bother, and the deciding factor was I'd built up a lot of free movies in my movie club, and this was the only thing that even slightly interested me for the last couple weeks. I went in expecting an okay movie relying a lot on effects and with some "relatable" theme based on current issues without any real understanding of them. Instead, I got what might well be one of the stand-out movies of the year for me. It was exciting and kept moving, and it did what it was supposed to do. It entertained me. It probably won't win any Oscars, but I would think it won't be a box-office flop.
The movie is set in some distant future with an entirely fictional history that doesn't try to preach to us about the mistakes we are making today. The issues of this future time are nonetheless easily relatable, and I found no difficulty at caring about them. The main characters, especially Alita herself, had surprising depth, and I had no difficulty identifying with them. I found this especially surprising given the source material was manga comics. Some of the villains were somewhat cartoonish, but that seemed to only enhance the movie-going experience. Yet, at least one of them had quite a bit of depth to her. It was very satisfying to watch the overly evil ones get their comeuppance, while the more relateable villain was reasonably intriguing. They kept the true "big bad" relatively hidden and mysterious through most of the movie, and left Alita mostly dealing with his puppet minions, but he managed to connect into the movie here and there, tempting you to come see the sequel to see what he is really about. I sure hope there's a sequel. I won't be debating whether to bother seeing it.
Annihilation (2018)
Slow and ponderous
Sorry, folks. I just did not like this one. There was almost no humor. The sense of "danger" was almost overwhelming, but the pace was so slow I was thinking "Please, just go ahead and end the world already! Put me out of my misery." Even with the special effects and the occasional surprise, I found myself nodding off at times. This was not my kind of movie.
Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018)
My kind of superhero movie
This was a fun movie. At the time I write this, it is my number 2 movie for the year after "Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle". I like fun movies. It ties in (at the very end) with "Avengers: Infinity War", yet isn't really about that. I see nothing other than some light fantasy violence that need worry parents. The plot is a bit contrived, but no more than any comic-based movie. It is certainly not predictable, other than we know the good guys will win in the end. There are two main sets of villains, one bad, one not so bad. They give a good sense of urgency and importance to the efforts of our heroes without getting oppressive with it. The effects were superb. The acting was great. The dialog was sprinkled with just the right amount of humor, and the movie didn't take itself too seriously. Most importantly, the movie was paced just right. You won't get bored, nor will you get left behind.
Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017)
This movie is FUN. I recommend it with no restrictions.
Unlike most reviewers seem to feel, I like this movie a little better than the original Jumanji, which was an excellent movie. Both are silly, of course. You have to suspend disbelief a lot. This is unavoidable with the genre. All of our protagonists are flawed but like-able enough that you care if they die. Granted, deep-down you know that it is unlikely for the primary characters to permanently die, but on the surface you can't help but think, "just maybe ...". And, the multi-life game limit allows you to watch them suffer some horrible fates, anyway.
Another complaint I read a lot has to do with Karen Gillian's attire. She's dressed like Lara Croft Tomb-Raider. Get over it. Her cheeks aren't hanging out of her shorts. Her cleavage isn't showing. Yes, her midriff shows, but I see far skimpier walking around the neighborhood often enough in the summer time, and far FAR skimpier at the beach. Is it appropriate for a jungle? Probably not. But, then that's the joke, isn't it? She's a character straight out of a 90's video game.
The action scenes are fun, the comedy is fun, the location exotic enough. The game plot is as inane as the typical 90's video game, which it should be. What's not to like? And, I see nothing that most parents should find objectionable, with the possible exception of a curse word and some very minimal potty humor.
This movie does what it is supposed to. It entertains me for the duration of the film. And, it does it well. I don't recommend this movie as some great work of art that will win any awards. It's just FUN. Enjoy it and let the critics be critical.
Note: I removed the spoiler warning. I don't believe I've revealed anything that isn't in the trailers anyway.
You May Not Kiss the Bride (2011)
Surprisingly good attempt at this genre
I am glad to see they are still making decent movies in this genre (Romantic Comedy Blended with Action/Adventure). One Sunday I noticed this movie was airing on MoviePlex, and even though it was already a few minutes into the movie I gave it a watch. (I came in at the wedding.) I'd never heard of this movie or the two lead actors, and I expected it to be pretty bad. I was mistaken. The story was a bit silly, but nonetheless allowed for suspension of disbelief. Once the key event occurred and the action commenced, the pace was maintained pretty well with just enough laughs mixed in with the action to keep me on the couch and pleasantly entertained until it was over. It wouldn't (and didn't) win any Oscars, but it was far from a waste of two hours.
ACTING I had never heard of their names, but I quickly recognized the lead actress and actor from their TV work. They both did well as movie leads. I was surprised to see the two of them backed up by bigger names like Tia Carrere and Rob Schneider, along with Mena Suvari and Vinnie Jones. Everyone performed their roles well. I like Rob Schneider, but I usually don't like his movies. That's because a little Rob Schneider goes a long way and you usually get way too much. We got just the right amount of Rob Schneider in this one.
OTHER This was not a low-budget movie. It was filmed in a gorgeous Tahitian setting, and the cinematography, chase sequences, and helicopter effects were outstanding.
FOR PARENTS There is nothing in this movie that should keep most parents from letting their kids see it. While there are SOME amorous antics, they are extremely tame. The language is G rated as well. The main protagonists have decent morals, and one of their allies' lesser morals are depicted as silly. Vet the show if you feel you are a little stricter than mainstream.
The Assault (2014)
Decent Production and acting doesn't make up for the unrealistic and unbelievable plot
Lifetime does a lot of movies warning kids of what can happen if they aren't careful, and most of them present a realistic story that might actually happen that way. This movie isn't one of those. Still, the message is right and the story is interesting enough, even if it is totally unbelievable. Also, the acting and directing are decent enough. While I feel the father could have been just a little more devastated than he was presented, the portrayal was far better than the usual rabid angry dad most such movies would have. The main problem I have with the movie that I cannot believe the story presented would ever happen that way in real life.
For parents: The subject matter is a gang rape ... enough said.
Several issues I had with the plot:
1) A girl pours gasoline over herself and lights a lighter, setting only her arm on fire. And, her ex-boyfriend tackles her and somehow puts out the fire without even a blanket? Gasoline is far more volatile than presented. Don't try this at home, kiddies.
2) The girl is released from the hospital on some contrived-sounding explanation that her suicide attempt was some sort of temporary PTSD and the Doctors know it won't happen again? It sounds so made-up, it would have been far better if they simply didn't bother to explain.
3) It is stated or implied that video evidence was posted to the internet, and somehow the culprits were able to retrieve it before the police could get a look at it or copies. Once it's out there, it's out there.
4) The victim just happens to voice an objection which, by clipping the beginning and what comes after, can be made to look like she was consenting to be gang banged? I do not believe a girl confronted with that situation would say NO that way. It came across as a contrived piece of lazy writing.
5) The culprits made video evidence? This was an absolute clear-cut case of gang rape, not some other form of sexual assault foolish high school kids might think was minor. Not one of the several perps objected to taking video of their crime?
6) She screamed like a banshee. There were several people downstairs, and the music wasn't all that loud. Why didn't someone burst in on them?
7) She was conscious through the entire event, and can remember none of it? Alcohol can cause some memory black-outs, but the whole thing? At no point did anyone say she was roofied. I don't recall the cops even checking? Date rape drugs remain in the hair until it grows out to the point it's cut away. We are talking a couple years the evidence would remain.
Chasing Life (2014)
A good, typical ABC Family Drama
Having lost my father to cancer (not leukemia), I decided to avoid this show rather than dredge up painful memories. But, one Tuesday evening I was simply not ready to go to bed, and this was the only thing on TV that looked interesting. I watched episode 4 and found it wasn't so bad. So, I went back and watched the previous 3 episodes to catch up. I suppose if the show ever progresses to April's death, I'll have to stop watching, but it's okay at the current apparent stage of her illness.
While April's surprise leukemia diagnosis is central to the story, there is also much else going on, including a new boyfriend who may or may not be a good guy, a budding journalism career where she must deal with a new back-stabbing boss, a political campaign she is covering that introduces her to the candidate's obnoxious (and cancer infected) son, a troubled teen sister, a mother who is dealing with returning to the dating scene, her mysteriously self-estranged uncle/doctor, the recent tragic loss of her father, and a surprise previously unknown sister. There are plenty of hooks to keep most viewers interested, the acting is quite good. Aisha Dee is absolutely adorable as best friend Beth, and Scott Michael Foster is particularly good as the obnoxious Leo.
I'll have to take the other reviewers' word for how accurately leukemia itself is presented, as it's a type of cancer I've had no direct experience with. The presentation is believable enough to someone like me, who is unfamiliar to the disease, and this is a drama, and not a documentary. Still, I'd hope the writer would try to keep it at least somewhat realistic, and avoid encouraging someone not to take their condition seriously enough. While I don't think the show does that, it is a legitimate concern. I will also say that the show is a "drama" and not a "sitcom" as described elsewhere. And, however accurate or inaccurate the show's presentation of leukemia is, the show does NOT make light of the disease or its implications.
FOR PARENTS: The show deals with a terminal disease, but it hasn't shown any disturbingly graphic representations of illness. Also, with regards to sex, the show presents casual hook-ups as the norm (typical for ABC Family). However, sex is not dwelled upon, and there have been no gratuitous overly-lurid scenes so far.
Edit: Increased the stars. The show is improving with each episode.
Last Man Standing (2011)
Superb comedy I can't believe I haven't already reviewed
A sit-com doesn't have to be "edgy" and "challenge" us, nor "safe" or politically correct. It just has to be FUNNY. This show is FUNNY. Not one episode aired that didn't have me laughing. If the show has a message, it's pretty good one:
There is value in everyone, and in every point of view, however ridiculous they might seem.
The entire cast is excellent. Some very good new (or less known) talent is backed up by three solid performers - Tim Allen, Nancy Allen, and the wonderful Hector Elizondo. And, the characters make the show:
The main character, Mike Baxter (Tim Allen) is conservative and somewhat reactionary. While there is some similarity to Archie Bunker, Mike is better rounded and not entirely out-of-touch. Because he isn't entirely ridiculous, some weenies are crying this show promotes the more extreme views of the character, which is far from the truth. The show rarely takes a stand on the politics one way or the other, but rather presents a way for both sides to deal with their differences. Extreme stances on either side are ridiculed.
Mike's more sensible wife, Vanessa (Nancy Travis) is hilarious as she tries to reign in her husband, then surprises us with her own insecurities, fretting over her aging, her career, or her daughters, and winds up doing something crazy, herself.
Mike's boss/partner, Ed Alzate (Hector Elizondo) is an old-school entrepreneur who's entirely likable, believable, and hilarious. He'll be over-the-top with some ridiculous antic one minute, and the next he will provide a remarkably insightful bit of wisdom.
The middle daughter, Mandy (Molly Ephraim) has to be one of the most hilarious characters ever delivered to a sit-com, totally screwball and totally believable. This apparently superficial teen is delightful. Few characters have hit sit-com-land that are more memorable. (So far, only Alex P Keaton of Family Ties comes to mind.) Despite being a bit over-the-top, and a socialite, she is remarkably sensitive and empathetic towards others, often seeing value where others have overlooked it.
The youngest daughter, Eve (Kaitlyn Dever) is the tomboy son that Mike never had. And, she gets almost as many laughs as Mandy. And, she's not entirely one-dimensional, either. She struggles with concerns over boys and her looks like any other girl, even if her approach is quite different. Kaitlyn is every bit as talented as the older cast, and she delivers her performance flawlessly.
Kristen (Alexandra Krosny / Amanda Fuller) is the older daughter, who had a baby in high school and had to grow up fast. Circumstances (the father took off) left her on her own and still living with her parents. In season 1, Alexandry Krosny did a good job with the character, developing her into a funny screwball trying to make a life for herself and her son. Because Alexandra did such a good job, it may be hard for some to warm up to Amanda Fuller, who took over the role in Season 2. With season 2, the producers apparently decided they needed a credible and more mature liberal foil to play off against conservative Mike. So, they aged her and her son up, introduced an older version of the "baby-daddy" recurring as additional liberal support. The change has certainly not ruined the show, and has presented some new and interesting ways for the show to go.
Kyle Anderson (Christoph Sanders) is the hilarious, low-prospects, marches to a different drummer, employee of Mike and Ed's at the Outdoor Man headquarters store where they work. On the surface, he seems to have a simple outlook, yet that outlook often proves to be the better approach. The character is funny in his own right and often serves as the butt of other character's humor. Yet, most of the time, the audience is drawn into his corner by his uncomplicated, well-meaning outlook on life. In season 1, he had a short relationship with Kristen. Later, he would be Mandy's boyfriend, much to the distress of her mother, who doesn't think much of his prospects. Mandy, however, sees what her mother doesn't, and this relationship looks like it will last.
Boyde Baxter (Evan and Luke Kruntchev / Flynn Morrison) is the son of Kristen and Ryan Vogelson. In season 1, the Krunchev twins had a relatively easy task of playing what they were – a 2-year old. The role was only recurring at the time, and there was relatively little dialog. He served well as the focus of many hilarious conflicts over how the boy should be raised. In season 2, Flynn Morrison was brought in as a regular, and 3 years older. As child actors go, he is quite good, especially when Boyde is being a brat.
A number of recurring characters also exist. The most recurring are:
Ryan Vogelson (Nick Jonas / Jordan Masterson) is the now-repentant baby-daddy, returned to make amends and try to do what he can to support his child, yet never allowed by Mike to forget how he ran off in the first place. And, his liberal politics don't help.
Bud Baxter (Robert Forster) is Mike's father, who often comes into conflict with his son, especially regarding the kids. He's a mix, ready to (gasp) spank Boyd, yet selling marijuana.
Chuck (Jonathan Adams) and Carol (Erika Alexander) Larabee are the Baxters' African-American neighbors who often flout expectations. Chuck is a retired Marine, and Carol is a fiscally conservative member of the school board. I am particularly impressed with the interplay between Chuck and Mike,clearly the best of friends and clearly unable to admit that they even like each other. At the same time, Carol has to contend with Vanessa's transparent attempts to bond with Carol by identifying with Carol's heritage, which Vanessa clearly sucks at.
The Last Ship (2014)
Okay, the writers MAY have gotten a handle on this one
PLOT Okay, I'm upping it another two stars. They started out badly, but the show is definitely improving. They occasionally resort to a plot device or two that I find totally unbelievable, but after episode 3 they started getting better.
There was one horrible plot device up-front (They can't cure the outbreak without finding the original form of the virus?) But they aren't adding to that initial mistake much ... at least not with something that I can actually pretend to believe.
I still don't believe a Russian bad guy who can keep his own crew from shooting him isn't smart enough to pretend to "help" the good guys then turn on them later. But, it's too late now, he's given the game away ... and he's otherwise believable.
And, at least they finally truly attacked the enemy. The commando mission seemed to go off too easy and result in too few casualties. The bad guys mostly miss with rifles, when the good guys always hit what they are aiming at, even with pistols. But, you see this in pretty much every show. The writing was exciting at least.
The crew started behaving like I would expect them to, the stress of their predicament conflicting with their discipline and training. I especially liked the episode where the captain dealt with this issue head on, and found his crew-inspiring actions believable.
ACTING I don't know why some people are complaining about it. They are doing a decent enough job with the script they were given. I never had a problem with the acting.
EFFECTS I understand that the show has a limited budget, and they can't damage a real US Navy destroyer for the show. The effects are going to be cheap, and I can live with that. But, they could adapt the writing to at least keep it believable. When a missile hits a ship, there is going to be a LOT of visible damage - a big gaping hole in fact. Yet, missiles hit the ship and they don't even scratch the paint. I can live with the obvious CGI explosions, but you couldn't CGI in a little damage too? ... scorch marks at least? You couldn't do a sound-stage scene with people fighting fires and doing damage control? Or, better still, why have the missiles hit at all? They have Phalanx! Shoot the missiles down. At least they were willing to spend a little on damage to the Russians.
TECHNICAL What? We have Star Trek sensors now? Maybe we do. But, it surprised me they could tell a random missile was a nuke, and they have dumbed down radar for the audience and plot convenience in early episodes. That seems to have been lessened lately, though I'm not sure if I believe all the doctor software displays.
They finally added be a decontamination protocol.
In an early episode, they showed off their knowledge about slow speed maneuverability, but in a way that really didn't fit with an Arleigh Burke. But the on-board procedures are coming off more believable.
CONCLUSION This show is watchable, and only the better-informed audience members are going to have a difficulty with the technical stuff. The logical errors of the plot looked like they were going to be more of a problem, but they seem to be making fewer logical errors, now. For those willing to suspend disbelief (and this is getting a lot easier now), the show has a lot of suspense and isn't all that predictable. You certainly shouldn't be bored, and it is definitely improving.
FOR PARENTS It might be a little scary for smaller children. There's not exactly a lot of sex in this, and what there is of it isn't detailed graphically. This is an action/adventure. While our characters struggle with their consciences, the good guys mainly stay true an set a good example.
Blended (2014)
A good romantic comedy
This was a decent enough romantic comedy. I enjoyed it very much. And, while it was predictable enough that you could tell where it was going, it was fresh enough to make watching how it gets there enjoyable, with a few surprises. I prefer Adam Sandler in his later stuff like this one, Bedtime Stories, and Just Go With it over his earlier stuff.
For parents: The target audience seems to be families. I see very little for any parents to find objectionable in this movie. It doesn't promote any values I find objectionable. Some parents might worry about one scene regarding a swimsuit model centerfold and a 12 year old boy, but I find it tame enough. Most of the sexual implications are fairly indirect.
Rome: Rise and Fall of an Empire (2008)
A very good series that covers what the others don't
I liked this series a lot. The series does not try to cover the entire history of the Empire continuously. Rather, each episode covers a specific critical episode or period for the Empire, concentrating on Rome's contentious relations with the various barbarian tribes from Marius' wars with invading Gauls to the fall of Rome. In some episodes, the story deviates to civil conflict or conflict with eastern civilizations, but the emphasis is mostly on the barbarians.
While the series does cover some of the better known periods like Spartacus, the Rise and Fall of Julius Caesar, Marcus Aurelius' barbarian wars, and Attila the Hun, the series also covers a lot of history that is far less covered in media, such as Marius wars against tribes invading Italy and the subsequent strife between Marius and the nobles, Trajan's conquest of Dacia, Stilicho's attempts to save the Empire, Rome's conflicts with the Gauls, the Vandal's conquest of Africa, etc. I would have liked to see them cover even more, like the Punic Wars, early Italian wars, maybe follow up the story of Marius with the story of Cornelius Sulla, and cover the period of barracks Emperors better. But, the Roman Empire lasted a very long time (until 1453 if you count the Eastern 'Byzantine' period). And, budgets for series like this are only so big. I doubt there will ever be a truly comprehensive television documentary.
Of course, the series isn't perfect. The dramatizations seem to use a lot of generic "Roman" and "barbarian" wardrobe and props without too much concern about being correct for the period or tribe. Sometimes what is well-supported conjecture is presented as known fact. But, overall they did a very good job on this series.
The World Wars (2014)
Not true history ... they went too far.
Even though I don't like it, I've had to come to accept the use of "dramatic license" in historically based movies. But, it should not be accepted in a historical documentary, even one containing some dramatizations.
I can understand the omission of major events and persons. This series takes the lives of several major figures of the Second World War, and shows how their experiences in the first war and the period between wars shaped their lives, and through them the second war. Events that didn't concern the chosen figures might be excluded, however major. But, you can't Re-write history just because the truth isn't the story you want to tell. And, that is what the producers of this series have done. And, the mis-information is not just minor details, either. It doesn't help that they added historically inaccurate footage in the background throughout, either.
To catalog all of the distortions and outright falsehoods would require me to torture myself by re-watching this disaster, and I just can't bring myself to do that. However I will point out some of the most glaring.
In the segment on Midway, Japanese Prime Minister Hideki Tojo is given credit for the Japanese plan against Midway, not Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto. And, to watch this show, one would believe that Roosevelt's code-breakers in Washington found out about the attack, reported it to the President, and he ordered that them to warn the Pacific Fleet. In fact, the code-breakers were in Honolulu, reporting to Admiral Nimitz, who reported to Washington. Nimitz made the decisions, and the President's main contribution was to not interfere much with his man on the spot. In addition, the description of the battle was just plain wrong, and included false statements like, "In under six minutes four of the carriers that attacked Pearl Harbor had been destroyed." (Three were badly damaged in under 6 minutes, and after damage control failed were eventually lost. The fourth carrier was damaged hours later, and not lost until the next day.)
In the series, we are told George Patton conquered Sicily, then went on to conquer Italy in six weeks. Then, he slapped a soldier with Battle Fatigue and got sidelined. Patton conquered Italy? Since when? He slapped that soldier in Sicily and was sidelined away from the Italian campaign. German forces in Italy didn't surrender until just a few days before the final German surrender a couple years later.
To hear this bunch tell it, Patton was finally re-instated and given battle command in order to save US forces during the battle of the bulge. In fact, Patton was given a command as soon after the D-Day landings and commanded for months before the Battle of the Bulge.
The Battle of Stalingrad was completely misrepresented as some egotistical conflict between Stalin and Hitler because of the city's name. It was also implied that Hitler diverted troops in the north practically on a whim. In fact, Hitler sent specifically assigned forces towards Stalingrad in order to secure the Caucuses oil fields, not to rob Stalin of his namesake. And, Stalin fought back to prevent that, not because of his ego.
Hitler was stopped during the battle of Stalingrad because of the surprise of the Russian winter? Really? The battle started in the summer AFTER the first Russian winter German troops had to endure.
Does History Channel have no historians working for them? Or, are they simply willing to throw away the facts in order to write what they think is a more entertaining story? ... or to avoid confusing their audience with the more complicated truth? I'll forgive MacArthur wearing five stars when he wasn't a five star general. I'll forgive American aircraft shown as Japanese bombers and American troops shown as Germans invading Poland. I'll even forgive lack of even a mention of incredibly important figures like Yamamoto, Montgomery, Rommel or Eisenhower, or important events like the Battle of the Atlantic. But, how can I forgive supposed EXPERTS simply getting the history itself wrong.
Note: Statements from figures like Dick Cheney and Colin Powell are included in this series. I doubt any of the interview subjects were aware of the context their statements would be placed in. Don't blame them for the misinformation.
The mini-series still gets 3 stars because, despite all of its flaws, it is at least entertaining fiction. If they'd gotten the history correct, it would have been wonderful. But, don't mistake this series as an accurate representation of what happened.
Crusades: Crescent & the Cross (2005)
Mostly good, but History Channel needs to reign in their interviews
This was a very interesting show. It only covers the first three crusades, and the coverage of that is a bit superficial. Certainly, the causes and motivations for the Crusades could have been covered better. This might be explained by the slight bias towards the Muslim side. It is better balanced than some of the other reviewers indicate, however.
Unfortunately, two scenes with one particular historian interview pretty much ruined it for me:
First, after Saladin defeated one particular set of crusaders, he beheaded all the captured knights except the leader himself. Please note that the war was over, and Saladin had won. There was no real tactical advantage to executing the prisoners. Yet, one Middle Eastern historian describes this positively as some great display of power and prestige on the part of Saladin.
Later, the same professor describes a different occasion, when Richard I was being besieged. In this case, Richard had a large number of Muslim prisoners. He firstly offered to do a prisoner exchange. Saladin refused for the obvious tactical reasoning. Richard could not feed them without reducing his own troops rations. So, Richard chose to execute them. The historian presents this as some sort of war crime!
Why did History Channel let this pass? Saladin had no necessity to kill those knights, yet his murders were a great thing. Richard had sound tactical reasons for killing his prisoners, and even tried another alternative first. In addition, this was kind of bad history. The historian left out facts that actually support his position that Richard's act was a war crime - that Richard actually did what he did out of anger, that the prisoners weren't all soldiers, but included women and children.
The crusades were a shameful enough episode in Christian history that we really don't need this sort of obvious propaganda being presented as history.
The Lying Game (2011)
Pleasant surprise
I've checked the spoiler warning just to be safe, but there there's nothing really all that revealing in this review.
At this time, only two episodes have aired. So, my opinion may change further down the road. You can prefix most of my opinions with "so far ...". And, I'm going to leave off the star rating for now.
When they advertised that this was by the same author as Pretty Little Liars, I wasn't going to bother watching it. But, when I saw they were airing both episodes in a row last week, I thought, "Ah, what the heck?". And, so far, I'm glad I did. The mystery is intriguing, and the writing well thought-out. Unlike Pretty Little Liars, the show has only one main character who's POV we follow. I find this far better when the story is a mystery with a lot of plot-twists. There may be some parental concern over certain plot elements, such as a pair of otherwise-nice parents that are fully suspect in the mystery, another parent who's an alcoholic, and yet another parent (possilbly also an alcoholic) who is a horrible bully. There is also one major protagonist who's a bit of a 'mean girl', and the show paints a rather dismal picture of the foster care system in Nevada. I find all of these far less of an issue for kids than certain elements of Pretty Little Liars, such as Aria's love interest.
As I write this, there have been four other reviews, two positive, and two negative. I noted that the basis of both negative reviews is entirely how poorly the show follows the books. If this is important to you, then you will probably be disappointed in the show. Otherwise, I think you'll find this one is worth giving a shot.
Pretty Little Liars (2010)
A bit difficult to follow, and may not be suitable for all ages
This show is a mystery ... That's it, ONE MYSTERY, not a new mystery each week, but one ongoing mystery! So, if you missed the beginning, the show can be hard to pick up. In addition, the author provides one twist after another, and it can get confusing. This would probably add to the 'mystery' atmosphere and help the audience immerse themselves in the story, if you were following ONE main protagonist. But, you are following four co-equal characters, and it is hard to remember who knows what. So, the twists just make it even harder to follow. Nonetheless, if you enjoy a good mystery, with lots of twists, and you are willing to put in the work (and believe me, following this show is a lot of work), then it might be worth your while.
For parents: The show has certain plot elements that some parents might find objectionable for their teens. The most glaring is the inappropriate relationship between one of the main characters and her teacher, one which the show implies might be acceptable now that she's older, and he's moved to a different school from hers. Other issues might be that one main character lesbian, all the main characters are constantly lying and deceiving their parents, etc. Personally, I think the show is alright for teens that have a firm grounding in the real world and can understand that the show is a bit of a fantasy. Still, parents should vet this and decide for themselves if it is appropriate for their kids to watch.
Lemonade Mouth (2011)
Great movie, but with a few flaws
If it is a theatrical release, you can pretty much be certain that anything coming from Disney will be superb. However, Disney's television releases range from superb down to pure crap. I'm happy to say that, while "Lemonade Mouth" is not up to the theatrical standards, it nonetheless lands closer to the superb end of the scale than the pure crap end. The story and screen-play were very good. The acting was well done. And, the music was terrific. Overall, the movie was enjoyable, and I would recommend it to anyone. That being said, I do have a few nits to pick.
SPOILER WARNING - If you don't want spoilers, don't read beyond this line.
Message: The general message seems to be, "Stand up for what you believe." This is a "Fight the system." movie, and I frankly don't agree with the way the message was presented. My parents taught me to stand up for what I believe, but they added a couple things to that. First, they taught me to be fair, keep an open mind, and hear the other side out before going to the mattresses over something. And, though the secretary suggested they take the matter up with the principle, they chose instead to surprise the principle by using their music spot at the school dance to stage a major protest. When they're dressed down for their actions, one of them complains that he "shut us down". Unfortunately, the principle doesn't take the opportunity to point out that what he shut down was them "shouting him down". The second thing my parents added was that I should pick my battles, that I should carefully decide if the issue is really important enough to make a fuss over. And, in this case, the removal of a lemonade machine seems like a poor choice of battles. Disney's audience is children, and I don't really think they should be suggesting to their audience that it is okay to take a stand without at least hearing the other side out, or that it is noble to make a huge stink over relatively inconsequential matters.
Continuity: There were a few continuity issues, but one was really glaring. The band goes to a pizza place to decide whether they'll continue performing outside of school. It is revealed in the pizza place that the pizzeria owner wants to book them to perform there. Some of the characters decide they don't want to do it and walk out, with the others chasing after them. They turn around and are amazed to see their band pictured on an enormous billboard mounted to the top of the pizzeria. ... What? They didn't see that huge sign when the went IN to the pizza joint? C'mon! That humongous thing wasn't just thrown up while they were eating. Heck! When they left, their backs were to the sign. They had to turn around to see it. THEN they notice it. ...
Music continuity: Several times, certain instruments could be heard playing, but the performer playing that instrument was doing something else. This sort of thing happens all the time, since the people producing movies expect the audience not to notice such things. (Examples: I could hear the base line in "She's So Gone" when the base player was doing only vocals, and the vocalist was playing a second guitar rather than the base. Keyboards could be heard during the pianist's rap sequence in "Determinate" and "Breakthrough" while his keyboard was slung over his back. We had base again in "Breakthrough" when the base player was solely on vocals. And, again in "Breakthrough", the drummer is standing and pointing instead of playing the drums, while you can clearly hear the drums playing.)
Spawned music videos: This isn't a problem with the movie, but rather with the hype. Disney spawned music videos from three of the songs in Lemonade Mouth. "Somebody", a song that showcases Bridgit Mendler was made into at least two different music videos. The "Breakthrough" and "Determinate" music videos were taken straight from the movie, and seem to largely showcase the group as a whole. What's missing is the "She's So Gone" music video. Bridgit Mendler is a very talented singer, but from what I saw, Naomi Scott is a strong singer, too. And, "She's So Gone" was my favorite song in the movie. And, that particular scene was well choreographed and would have made an excellent video. Do they not want to promote Naomi Scott? Or, are they only showing that video in the UK?
Covert Affairs (2010)
The best thing USA Network has put out since Monk
Annie Walker is a new recruit and still in training when she's bumped up to active agent because of her language skills (and a past relationship). Each episode pits green agent Walker up against a new threat to national security, and each time she succeeds, or at least manages not to fail too miserably. All the while, she must keep her career secret from her sister's family, which isn't easy considering she's living in her sister's guest house.
I know ... it sounds kinda typical ... maybe even bland. However, the product is anything but. The first season just ended, and every episode has been fast-paced, exciting, and entertaining. Many of the TV series that USA Networks puts out are the equal of or superior to those of the major broadcast networks. And, Covert Affairs is one of the very best. Of the shows USA has produced, I can think of ONE that was better (Monk). Of the shows still in production today on any network, I can think of ONE that is better (Chuck). Many of you may think certain other shows I didn't just mention are better. But, I suspect most of those same people will consider Covert Afairs a great show, nonetheless.
EDIT: The Season 2 Finale just aired. This series just keeps getting better and better. If you haven't tried it lately - give it a shot.
EDIT: After Season 3, this series was still going strong. Season 4, while good, "felt" as though they were stretching the main plot-line just a little too long. The Season 5 premier just aired, and it was fantastic, introducing a new "threat" that should sustain it for the season, and perhaps beyond. The writers certainly seem to have freshened the series back up.
Chuck (2007)
Started out good, but has progressed to excellent!
I thoroughly enjoyed Chuck from the first episode. It was very entertaining, and there was nothing better competing against it. But, I would pass on it if something better came along. Now in its second season, I can't say this any more. The show has grown into something much better than it started. Now, I can't imagine a show good enough to draw me away from this one. Every episode is action-packed, exciting, and hilarious. The main characters have been developed so that you can't help but identify with them. Characters I'd thought would just stay mostly in the background have been well developed into some truly fascinating and funny supporting roles. The people making Chuck definitely know what they are doing. If you haven't seen it, give it a try. The climax of the Season 2 finale is a must-see. The writers achieved a whole new level of brilliance with that one.
Legend of the Seeker (2008)
Entertaining Fantasy, well worth a look
If you like sword-and-sorcery type fantasy, this show is well worth a look. It is interesting, entertaining, well acted, and visually appealing. The stories are based on Terry Goodkin's "Wizard's First Rule", and follow it about as closely as you are likely to see on broadcast television. The story follows Richard, the magic-sword wielding "Seeker" on his quest to defeat the evil Lord Rahl who is in the process of enslaving everyone on this medieval fantasy world. With Richard are his companions, the Wizard Zedd and the lovely "confessor" Kahlan with unique magical powers of her own. On their quest, the trio must contend with Rahl's army, a variety of monsters and sorcerers, and villagers as likely to turn on them as help them. The interaction between the three main characters is also constantly evolving as deep personal secrets are slowly revealed. All in all, you won't have wasted an hour watching this one. The plot has been shortened and altered to fit a season or two of 1 hour episodes. If the show lasts beyond that novel, there are ten more novels to provide many more seasons of adventure.
The sex and violence has been toned down sufficiently to meet the basic standards of US broadcast television, but the show is probably not suitable for small children. While there isn't a lot of blood and gore, the frequent sword fights typically result in death (good guy and bad guy.
Stardust (2007)
Superb Fantasy Film - Well Worth Watching
This movie really surprised me. After seeing promos for this movie, I really thought it was going to be a disappointment. Oh, I was expected good special effects and maybe some really cleaver twists. But, I also expected the movie to rely heavily on the effects. For some reason, I was quite sure that the story would either prove uninteresting, or (more likely) the writers would be so "clever" that they outsmarted the audience. I was sure it would be so confusing that I would have no idea what the movie's about. I sort of expected only so-so acting, too. Well, I was pleasantly surprised Stardust. This very engaging story held me from beginning to end, and the characters were well thought-out and well-portrayed, with the heroes holding my sympathy and the villains my disdain. As a whole, the movie was well put together, with plenty of action, romance, and humor to go with those excellent effects. I'm sure there are those who won't care for this one, but I think it was pretty good.