Reviews

I will begin by stating I am not a fan of Star Trek, original or TNG. I respect the series for it's promotion of sci-fi, and keeping it alive in some dark hours, but overall, Star Trek has always seemed a bit too safe and kiddy of a sci-fi show for me. It always seemed a series bent on being 'family viewing'. At it's best moments, it would get a hint of more maturity, and then pull back, scared.

I was assured that Deep Space Nine was different... darker, flashier, better story arcs, better acting, and... less kiddy.

That's half true. There are episodes of DS9 that definitely fall within the 'best sci-fi episodes ever' list. There are a perhaps a couple dozen episodes (that's a lot, really) that I;d say are just downright brilliant. And some of the characters become so well developed by the end of the series it's incredible.

And then there's always the kiddy element, the silly, clownish elements that make non-Trek fans like me feel a bit more assured in our skepticism towards the merit of the franchise.

The series is pretty weak until Season 4, and then gets pretty solidly good. There are some gems scattered in the first 4 seasons, and missing those seasons would make the characters and their motivations (and the politics) that arise later in the series difficult to appreciate. But it's a lot of ho-hum mediocrity to have to sit through, for a satisfying but not mind-blowing payoff. I can see how DS9 paved the way for a whole genre of sci-fi on TV that I now somewhat unfairly hold as the standard by which to judge DS9 itself upon... but so be it, I'm spoiled by the goodness this show resulted in enough to wish it had been a better template.

The strength of this show is indeed it's character development, though the space-fights towards the end are damn good, too. But by the end, for all the promise and the possibility this show inspires, one wishes the show's creators and writers hadn't so frequently opted to err on the side of 'tamed down'. It's where they forget to do so that the show shines.

If you decide to watch this, I'd HIGHLY recommend finding a review site with episode reviews by someone who's opinion you agree with, so you can skim over the exceedingly regretful episodes. Otherwise you may find yourself in the situation I'm in --- wishing I wasn't holding all the corniness of this show against it's brilliance.

I started watching this show several years ago, when it was new (in America) and fell in love with it. It had a good first few seasons, But then it began to parody itself, and seemed to dumb itself down painfully. It became more about 'the characters' then food. The premise becomes hard to take seriously. At this point, each episode is perhaps 30% flashbacks from within the episode itself. It feels like filler--- which is good neither in food nor TV. Now, the announcer explains every five or so minutes that something incredible and brand new and never before done will happen... and the hype gets exhausting.

I made the mistake of closing my eyes for a few minutes, just listening to the show as it played. It was laughable without the flashing camera back-and-forth. Loud, dramatic music with pounding drums, Ramsay screaming about "french fries oh god what the HELL is wrong with you oh you donkey NOOOOOOOOOO O Chef NOOOOOOOO (clanging pans) It's RAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWW CHEF! CHef O NOOOOOOOOOOO (louder drums) GET OUT! GET OUT! NOOOOOOOOOO. YOU moron, you can't COOK FRENCH FRIES JUST GET OUUUUUUT!...." Yeah, it gets silly.

At a certain point, if Ramsay's letting people who deserve the verbal abuse he's giving them as deep into the series as he does, then the show's not realistic, unless it's not really about cooking. If it's not really about cooking, then it's just 'the Real World', maybe dumber.

The season finales are always great big emotional releases... but it's becoming more and more painful to sit through a season to get there.

There comes a point, when you've watched all the glitzy, fancy sci-fi series that have come out in the last decade, and miss that sense of discovering an awesome new series with some good sci-fi elements that you start turning backwards, watching shows from previous decades, which begin to make more and more unrealistic projections of the next 20 yrs...

But then there's this show, this horribly-titled, 1-season show, with a pilot that begins on the wrong foot (sickly children in need of help. Awwwwwwwwww....) but... about three or four episodes in, you're hooked.

Because it's a damned good show. It relies a bit heavily on the whole 'Gaia Earth' theory, and it's a bit corny to hear characters circumventing the usual technobabble of sci-fi by insisting all oddness on the planet can be explained through 'the planet's strong metaphysical plane' (I mean, what the ****?)... But having just finished watching all of 'Deep Space Nine', I can definitely say that Earth 2's cheese quotia is far below that of anything 'Star Trek'. I'd even put it on par with some of the old Stargate SG-1.

Though there are weak episodes (mostly in the beginning). The good news is that a few of the characters who begin out the show extremely annoying eventually become quite likable, and the way in which story arcs develop is commendably good.

Beware when watching this show that you see the last few episodes in the right order. The very last episode is called 'All About Eve', even though it's often packaged earlier in the series. If you see this episode before others, you'll ruin the mildly cliff-hangery (and unresolved) ending for yourself.

People get tied up on whether or not this film portrays the life of Beethoven accurately; this misses the point of the film entirely. This is not so much a film about Beethoven, so much as the way in which he effected those around him, and inspired a devotion among his followers which lives to this day. If you consider a movie like, for instance, 'Shakespeare in Love'--- it's quite apparent to anyone who knows anything about Shakespeare that the film has only the faintest correlation to Shakespeare, which didn't seem to get in the way of people awarding THAT movie, and lauding praise on it, because Shakespeare was played as a hopeless romantic that everyone WANTS to believe in. While Immortal Beloved may share a similarity to S.I.L in it's, shall we say, creative interpretations, Immortal Beloved is a far superior film because it shows Beethoven in all aspects of his humanity. There's Beethoven as a Romantic rock star, there's the tender friend, the arrogant drunken bastard, the possessive misogynist, the pathetic misanthrope, all of it. Gary Oldman's role is superb. It is difficult to imagine anyone else in the role after seeing this movie.

The acting is top-notch, albeit a bit melodramatic at points (Beethoven's assistant especially gets a bit heartfelt a bit often). There are a few scenes in this movie which are truly tearjerker moments. The scene in which 'Ode to Joy' is played is predictably great, even though it (like a lot of the film) feels a bit dated now.

All in all, a rewarding and thoughtful piece on a man whose life was indeed complicated and monumental.

Highly recommended.

This is a great film, and it goes into territories that few films even recognize, let alone approach. It does start a little slow, and the first few 'shorts' can come off as a bit ... well, pretentious, to be blunt. But past that, it's a fantastic portrait of an interesting character, and one which satisfies on a number of levels --- creatively, intellectually, and even emotionally.

What sets this film aside from many others are two main elements; the first is the novelty by which the film is presented: 32 short films, some of which are quite the same, but many of which are unexpected blasts of what can only be called 'experimental film'--- some of which seems almost silly, given how far technology and special effects have come since 1993. The 'films' really are quite short, and many of them are almost like small 'puzzles' which unfold so quickly that it's not until a second viewing that their underlying message becomes a bit more obvious, and it becomes clear how well-tied together all the shorts are. This is not short-attention span theatre, but it moves quick enough that once you get into the film, it's difficult to stop watching.

The other element which makes this film so great is the basic premise, and the way in which it refuses to be dumbed down for the audience. This is the rare case of a movie that respects it's audience, even at the expense of losing half an audience by not being bombastic and overly obvious. The first few shorts are the weakest, but they establish the basic character and 'backstory' of Gould quite well" He's a piano virtuoso who has become so amazing at playing piano that calling him 'genius' is a bit of an understatement. And while his character has a definite surplus of eccentricities and quirks, this film doesn't focus on his genius as we're used to seeing films treat the subject. Whereas most films make out a person;s genius to be a heavy burden to carry, which always seems to come at a high cost and lead to a desire for normalacy (to make we in the audience feel better for not being geniuses, I suppose), 32 Short Films goes in another direction: Here's a genius who enjoys being who he is, who makes the most of his mostly self-imposed loneliness by turning it into art, who enjoys the intellectual challenge of his own conflicts with intellectual society. Rather than the familiar portrait of genius as a soul-crippling condition which becomes almost indistinguishable from minor autism, we see a full human being, realized and thoughtful, able to confuse the sometimes-adoring, sometimes-confrontational media by admitting that he doesn't think it's worth talking about music--- how about talking about Indian rights, or the supernatural, or something that has no ostensible connection to music or anything piano-related? If you play music, or if you are an aficionado of classical music, there's a whole depth to this film which you'll enjoy, although it's not as at the forefront of the film as you might suspect. This is not a film about music, but the sort of person who plays music, recognizable as a character APART from the skill which defines him so much for everyone else.

This movie is a bit dated. That's really one thing it has working against it in some sense--- it feels at times like a movie from the 80's, and not in a 'cool 80's' way. Nonetheless, there's a certain air to the film which seems to disregard any particular age entirely, and this makes sense in a way, because Gould was clearly not one to feel confined to the age, and the ways in which things were being done.

There are so many things that are tempting to say about this film, which are probably just my own interpretations and conclusions, which it's probably better not to go into, simply because half the enjoyment of this film is developing those realizations yourself. Even if you can't stand classical music, you'll find this film rewarding.

Highly recommended.

If you're a Doctor Who fan, you'll probably watch this regardless of how bad anyone says it is, because you're own opinions are not all that influenced by people telling you how bad something is; after all, you're a fan of Doctor Who. Kudos to you.

Nonetheless, Doctor Who (and apparently all related media) has a tendency to get very dated, very fast. As far as comedy goes, the humor is quite below the levels of humor that recent Doctor Who episodes have engaged in. Pointing out the silliness of Daleks and the pompousness of the Master seems kind of tired, at this point.

Don't expect much. It's light fare. Better than some of the Season Specials of the real show, but quite meager compared to the real deal.

Amidst a number of shows which try so hard to be cerebral and generally expose themselves as fraudulent, 1000 Ways to Die is an odd breath of sincerity; sincerely stupid and ridiculous, but refreshing. Each show is a collection of 'shorts' wherein someone dies, usually in an unusual way. The acting is atrocious. The special effects are mediocre. The narration is often funny. And each scene concludes with a 'title' for that death, which is usually a pun. In my opinion, it's the funniest bit of the show, and you'll probably find yourself trying to guess what the death will be 'called' before it appears on screen.

The dramatizations are pure ridiculousness. In many cases, it's pretty clear that the producers and writers took great liberty with the characterizations (they wanted to make sure that for the most part, you don't feel too much sympathy for those who are going to die). Practically every other woman on the show is a stripper (as the narrator assures us) and ample screen time is given to showing us these women strutting around as sex kittens before someone else around them dies. Is it possible that death follows strippers? Maybe. I really don't know. But this is about the only 'thought candy' 1000 Ways to Die provides.

It also gets funny to see the 'experts; the show uses, to attempt a legitimization of itself. The same people keep showing up as experts, though their titles shift. The conspiracy theory expert becomes a certified 'deathologist' an episode or two later. I suspect he was really just some guy selling newspapers outside the studio, who was offered a few bucks to act official and accepted.

And the show doesn't suffer for it one bit.

It's a comedy. Enjoy it as dumb fun and it will indeed be fun. Expect more and you'll be let down. But you should have a pretty good idea of what the show is within the first five minutes.

As far as documentaries go, this should have been a long movie rather than a series. It's the strrrrrrrrrrrretching out of each episode that makes this show kind of dull, rather as fascinating as it easily could (and should) be. While the topic is great, there just aren;t that many bits of information that can be held out without explaining everything there is to know about any one of these 'lost Cities" in more than about 5 minutes. And so most of the show is the narrator explaining that something mysterious and unexpected, which would change 'everything' was just about to be discovered. And we get boring fluff about the explorers and some decent re-enactments, a lot of slow panning across rocks, and fifteen minutes later we're reminded 'It was a tremendous mystery which nobody could have guessed, but which would soon be revealed...' at which point you might get annoyed, because it's clear that there's an extra twenty minutes to go, and you'll have to sit through it before the single interesting bit of information is delivered. At which point, you'll realize it was just a lot of hype. Whatever happened is inevitably interesting, but would have packed a hell of a lot more punch if the show hadn't spent so long teasing your attention span.

Having no expertise on the subject, I can't attest to the scholarship of the series. However, it seems that the parade of experts that such shows generally rely on are notably absent in this series. Which is actually kind of refreshing.

But altogether, while the subject matter is great, the show deliberately drags in annoying ways. And for this, it suffers greatly. Watch with extreme patience.

One reason I decided to watch this show in the first place was because of the extremely high ratings it got on IMDb, and the praise lauded upon it. Some of the praise is beyond much debate. For instance, the acting is superb, with a realism that at times is almost eerie in it's precision. Being at least partially written by Dennis Leary, there's a fair amount of humor (albeit often very adolescent humor) which certainly helps one catch a breath between all the bleakness. For at least the first half of the first season, I was quite impressed with the show, and the way in which it took time to develop compelling characters; and I appreciated that despite the firefighting premise, the firefighting was not overdone, and is actually somewhat in the background of the series, which really focuses on the characters.

And so why the low rating? Because the show is so poorly written --- by which I mean, the writers don't have good ideas. It's actually kind of interesting, in a sense, to see a show that's so well executed but which is so directionless and uses deliberately gut-wrenching scenes to provoke concern in an audience until really, you just can't take it seriously; because, put simply, it's a really, really, really, sad and depressing show. And it relies too heavily on exploiting our concern for characters, until it's become so exhausting and unrewarding that you just don't like the world that the show presents.

I have no issue with violence, or any of the other 'adult' themes that the show deals with. The fact that many of the characters are lousy human beings doesn't bother me. But watching self-destruction isn't all that interesting, after a while. At various points throughout the show, when any character seems to have made any sort of progress, or anything good may have happened, the character goes through a painful loss of some sort. Sometimes they've been lied to or deceived, sometimes they've brought about their own destruction, and sometimes it's just plain dumb luck. But the Universe seems to be conspiring quite avidly against one particular New York firehouse.

It's as if in trying to provide realism, the writers forgot that occasionally good things happen, too.

For me, at least, watching this show became an ordeal. I desperately wanted to see things turn around for characters, and I suppose on that level, the writing sort of worked. But there is a certain point of diminishing returns, which the show has certainly passed. Just consider: If you watch a movie where someone has to see everyone they love die so as to learn the value of friendship, at what point is the lesson not worth the cost? If you're convinced that a character 'realizing' something can justify such prolonged pain for all those around them, then this show will appeal to you. But for those who like a bit of reality with their gritty realism, this show just seems sadistic. And for anyone who watches television for an escape from reality, I can't imagine this being an appealing alternative. It's just too painful to watch.

After a while, even the acting becomes hackneyed. There are fantastic actors in this show. But when the only emotion anyone shows is a brooding anger, an abusive rage, or a tight-lipped sadness as they hold back tears to affirm their manly masculinity--- it just feels like nobody is being utilized as well as they could be. The majority of the comic relief comes from the only 'non-angry' characters, who are all portrayed as borderline retarded (seriously). In short, this is a show where you feel loss along with the characters, but not necessarily for them. And you are expected to laugh at characters, instead of with them. It's all a bit cruel.

If this show could have delivered on it's promises within the first couple seasons, it could have been truly great TV. But for being such a 'provocative' show, it actually played things far too safe, never letting any characters develop past adolescence. It's just the same pain, over and over again, a bunch of lives circling the drain and occasionally bumping each other in somewhat comical ways; before someone lies, cheats, dies, or kills.

All in all, quite a downer.

This is a genuinely funny show, well worth watching, and deserving of it's high ratings on this site. It's compared to South Park for a number of reasons, most notably the enthusiasm with which it tackles socially sensitive issues and assaults them with the most extremist brands of political incorrectness --- but whereas South Park always tries to tidy up it's mess and make sure the audience knows the distinction between right and wrong, this show revels in the depravity and insanity of it's sociopathy. And it works amazingly well.

Since it's a situational comedy, there's not much to say about it without giving away the goods, but the actors all work better than any cast I've seen in a long time. It really seems like half the show is improvised and that the cast is talented enough to make it work without a hitch. The first few episodes are definitely the weakest, but still stronger than just about any comedy out there.

Highly recommended.

All in all, I found this movie quite a disappointment. I have a soft spot for sci-fi, and as several others have commented, Jude Law is a good reliable actor in sci-fi roles. But this movie seems awkwardly assembled, not quite thought-out, and a bit too proud of itself to be taken seriously. Throughout the film, at what seem to be important developmental points or even plot twists, there are one-liners tossed out with great sincerity, which in most cases either sound silly, pretentious, intellectually impoverished, or simply misplaced in this film. The first scene of the film, for instance, we are given a summarization of the 'Schroedinger's Cat' experiment, complete with some of the horrible logic underlying the film--- 'if something isn't definably dead or alive, then it must be both'. The fact that this statement shows a misunderstanding of both the scientific and philosophic merit of the experiment isn't the problem, because even incorrect junk science can be a good vehicle in a movie. The problem is that there's no reason to bring this up in the first place. the movie doesn't tackle whether things are dead or alive, whether being comprised of 'rented organs' is an crisis of existential definitions or what have you. The reference is just thrown in there to sound smart, to seem thoughtful, when the film is anything but. And this sort of pseudo intellectual posturing contaminates the movie.

The whole film's pace feels quite forced, as well. Jude Law seems underutilized. One can't help but wonder if he got drunk for the majority of the shooting for this film. When his wife leaves him, there's almost no emotion in the scene. When twenty minutes later our hero has decided to dedicate his eternal love to a street girl he finds attractive, there's really no chemistry whatsoever--- but apparently the movie insists that there be a love interest, and so it's just thrown in there, pointlessly. Because even in this day and age, it's apparently impossible to propose a hero character without a token damsel in distress.

Then there's the kind of gratuitous and uncomfortable 'surgical sex' scene. It's apparent that whoever choreographed it thought they were being clever, but the whole thing just seems like an attempt to force some sort of correlation between sex and surgical procedures that really just felt misplaced, and kind of heavy-handed. Granted, it has a purpose within the plot, but it's basically a slice of experimental film amid a sci-fi action flick, and like a lot of experiments, it fails.

There are some positive points to the film. While Jude Law's acting is a disappointment, Forrest Whittaker delivers a solid role. The action scenes are quite good, and while the overbearing presence of music makes some of it feel like a weird music video, it's nonetheless well-choreographed fighting and slashing. Some of the sets are good, although a fair number of sets and sequences seem blatant rip-offs of 'Brazil' (to say nothing of the ending)...

A pretty mindless flick. It's better than watching dust settle on your screen. A prettily-packaged emptiness.

The opinion on this show seems divided, mostly because the show is extremely well done, and has stellar acting and some truly clever dialogue, but is also plagued with a self-conscious need-to-be-hip which ultimately begins to feel both preachy and forced (much as happened with Six Feet Under, another Showtime project).

Firstly, Toni Collete's acting is superb. Some people complain that it isn't an accurate portrayal of DID, and this may very well be the case; but this is a TV drama, not a documentary, and it's the depth and degree to which T.C. plays her characters that give this show so much strength. This is a show about one person's disorder and how it effects her family, not the whole community of people who suffer from DID. In this regard, the show is compelling and establishes a range of situational dramas that are much more original than any family-based drama has been in some while.

Much of the show deals with Tara trying to figure out why it is that she suffers DID in the first place, since this condition is usually premised by something traumatic in childhood (usually sexual abuse). This storyline is handled quite well, and becomes a more intriguing mystery as the show proceeds.

The other 'main' focus of the show deals with the complications arising from Tara's condition --- that her 'alters' have their own sexual libidos and desires, for instance, which strain Tara's marriage; that she may slip into another persona at critical moments (which sometimes turns out for the better, amusingly). This part of the show is also handled extremely well.

The dialogue is also notably better than the dialog in many shows as of late. There are some truly laugh-out-loud exchanges between characters, and a good deal of realistic conversation, as well. Most importantly, all the characters (even the alters) all have distinct ways of explaining, presenting, and relaying information. For the most part, it's an impressively solid bit of dialogue writing.

But alas, U.S.O.T. does suffer from some rather unfortunate indulgences, as well. Namely, it wears it's liberalism a bit too proudly on it's sleeve not to become preachy. The main place where this is evident is in the subplot through the series of Marshall (Tara's son) coming to grips with his own homosexuality as he grows up; personally, I think it's a brilliant way to toy around with the theme of identity, as it extends outside Tara's disorder. However, this subplot is handled so clumsily that it comes across as self-righteous and quite forced. It's as if Showtime decided they needed something edgy, and defaulted to 'gay teens', since that's apparently not been done enough. As more emphasis is put upon how gay Marshall is, he becomes a less and less interesting character, defined only by the fact that he's gay, rather than layered and clever as he is in the first season.

Another problem with the series is the formulas which it creates for itself with promising relationships turning bad. As new romantic interests are introduced, these new characters seem sweet and interesting, but all eventually turn out to be secretly neurotic stalkers and sociopaths. It gets a bit cliché within the small confines of the show, and sadly predictable.

Again, this show bears a lot of the same structural strengths and weaknesses of Six Feet Under (although U.S.O.T. is decidedly funnier and less bleak), so if you enjoyed Six Feet Under, you'd probably like this. If you found Six Feet Under too lacking substance for all it's provocation, then you'll find that same disappointment here, and this show's probably not for you.

Definitely worth trying, if for nothing else just to see Toni Collete's impressive acting.

This show went for four seasons. The first season is quite enjoyable. The second is still pretty good, although it wears thin by the end of the season. By the fourth season, the show has become something so distant from it's beginnings that it's not even comparable, and in my opinion is barely watchable. Thus, there's plenty in the first season to draw you in... but it's probably not worth the extended stay, so to speak.

On the show's strengths --- the first season is well acted, has some amusing minor bits with a range of often unusual and often well-nuanced characters, and establishes the Hotel staff as impeccably sophisticated, and committed to remaining morally ambivalent so as to provide the best service for their clientele --- and this is what makes the show compelling; the glitz and the glamor of the Hotel is well-established with excellent sets, and everything in the first season speaks to the connection between class sophistication and discretion; what makes the show really exceed a lot of other shows which take a peek at the luxurious life of the upper class is that the sophistication/discretion theme is shown in it's worst and best lights, and the show as a whole attends a certain 'moral ambivalence' which makes it rather thought-provoking. The audience is shown exactly how much of 'class' is built on artifice, but it also makes the life of luxury look genuinely seductive.

While the writing begins to get notably weaker towards the end of season 2, it's not until Max Beesly's character (Charlie) leaves the show that it gets positively wretched and loses all lustre.

Unfortunately, by the fourth season, the show has lost all tact and elegance; it becomes a show about the blue-collar sensibilities of a sitcom staff amid unreasonably mean-spirited guests who are consistently trying to 'discredit' the Hotel. The writing gets so bad that the shows really aren't comparable. The writers no longer make the luxurious life seem tempting, but rather a filthy indulgence to be seen as a character flaw in the rich. The show also becomes more an attempt at comedy than drama. And sadly, the comedy feels horribly out-of-place; it's a slapstick, rather overacted kind of humor which might work well enough in a show about a wacky motel full of transients --- but it seems oblivious to the foundations of dry wit and subtlety that make the first season work so well. The characters all become caricatures.

All in all, rather a disappointment. Begins as enticing, but ends up being quite commonplace.

First off, it's true that this show is more or less a knock off of Sasha Baron Cohen's routine, playing characters in real situations with real people. It shouldn't be held against the show that 'it's been done before', because in fairness, it's a schtick that can only be pulled off by any one person for so long before the non-anonymity of the characters makes it impossible; so seeing La La Land as a continuation of a genre, rather than a rip-off, is the show worth watching? I'd say yes. It's got a much darker humor than SBC's routine, and this show actually presents something quite different than Ali G. or Borat or Bruno did--- rather than 'shocking people', Wooten instead shows more nuanced reaction slowly rising up to full unease. And unlike some of SBC's routines, where the ignorance or stupidity of the American public is exposed, we see the good side of a lot of people, and it's actually quite nice to see Wooten's characters confronted (rather than simply bamboozled) by his 'victims'.

The show seems quite short; it's best to watch a bunch of episodes at once (it takes an episode or two for me to ease into the humor of it). This isn't the greatest comedy in the world, but it's pretty funny if you like your humor dark and quite varied, from subtle uneasy to brashly overstated.

After the first few episodes, this show finds it's stride and it takes on all the hallmarks of really great television--- massive story arcs, great character development, interesting and often unexpected plot twists, and a better degree of writing than you might expect from a show with such a thin premise: two brothers drive around America fighting supernatural baddies. So far, the series has only gone 5 seasons, and a quite self-contained and satisfying run, and while it's difficult to foresee how Supernatural hopes to maintain the inertia it built with several seasons of slow tension rising, it'll probably be worth watching, too.

There are three story lines running through the series, which are all worth separate consideration; the first is the many 'one offs' that fill especially the first two seasons, wherein an urban legend basically comes to life, kills someone, and the Winchester brothers investigate and fight whatever monster-of-the-week appears. While these stories are often formulaic, the show manages to develop the characters and the general 'rules' of fighting supernatural beings very well, and the show drifts away from this format before it becomes too tiring.

The second storyline deals with demons, angels, Azazel, Lucifer, and the 'fated' battle between good and evil which the Winchesters are tied up in. I was quite cynical of this story arc at first, since 'the Apocalypse' seems a bit overdone today in movies and TV, and as someone who does not believe in religion and gets irritated with lazy writers using 'fate' or 'God' as a literal deus ex machina, I expected the show to fall flat on it's face--- especially with the introduction of angels into the storyline. I was happily proved wrong. Supernatural does not use religious mythology as a vehicle to preach, and it uses the Judeo-Christian mythology (and apocrypha) in a way that works extremely well for the overall series. And it's near impossible not to like 'The prophet Chuck'.

The third storyline is the one which gets a bit overplayed, but is nonetheless quite strong. It deals with the relationship between the brothers, Dean and Sam. One of the running themes in the show is 'nothing's more important than family'--- probably a somewhat saccharin sentiment for many people. Furthermore, a great deal of the tension between Sam and Dean seems self-inflicted and deliberately inflated... and once the 'Apocalypse' plot starts kicking in, it gets a bit redundant how many times we are asked to compare the familial structure to the Divine Hierarchy, absent fathers and blind devotion and all that. There are far too many scenes of Dean and Sam fighting about how their Daddy did or did not love them.

But aside from these relatively minor complaints, and the occasional stinker episodes (of which there are thankfully few) this is a damn good show. In many ways, it's the idiosyncrasies of the show which really strengthen it; the surprisingly kick-ass classic-rock soundtrack (which sadly gets neglected by Season 5), the recurring minor (and semi-major) characters (Bobby, Ellen and Jo, the Trickster, the Ghostfacers etc.), the extremely well-done special effects, and perhaps most importantly--- really laugh-worthy comedy. Like a lot of other shows which realize they're intensely good and become a bit 'self aware', Supernatural is willing to parody itself and develop an often unusual but effective brand of humor which does a good job of lightening up the somewhat oppressively bleak and brooding evil which remains the foundation of the show.

This is a solid show, genuinely creepy at points, impressively thoughtful sometimes, and solidly acted all the way through, by just about everyone but Paris Hilton (that's the show's low point, I think). Also be warned: this show may make you want to eat lots of fast-food hamburgers.

Recommended.

There is a lot of praise to be gushed for this show, but there are some definite problems which weigh it down, as well. Writing this review at the end of Season 3, I'm hoping the show will get through it's 'slump' and get better, because I WANT to like Chuck more than I do.

On the good side of things, the show's quite funny in a lot of the right places, and some of the characters, while absolutely cliché, are quite a lot of fun to watch. The first season, dealing with Chuck learning to become a spy while balancing out his 'normal' life are quite fun, especially because of the underlying tension of the show, which is that one day Chuck will have to make a real choice about whether to fully become a spy, or whether he can 'lose' the Intersect and return to a life of normalacy. The complications of his relationship with Agent Walker also make an interesting romance for the first season, though this theme especially drags until it becomes tired.

The big problem with Chuck is that it's a show all about making decisions--- and yet the decisions that get made are often clearly dumb ones, and the 'conflict' which is generated in the decision making process is often self-imposed by characters for no apparent reason. About mid-way through the second season, and well into the third, it begins to feel as if Chuck is just a vehicle for someone who wants to direct music videos of forlorn folk music; long drawn out scenes of Chuck and Sarah gazing at each other as indie guitars fingerpick... it's a nice moment at first, but the sentimentality wears thin after a while. One can easily forgive a show for not being realistic in certain degrees; but basic human relations shouldn't be nearly as pained as they are in this show.

And the Chuck-Sarah romance takes up waaaaaaaay too much time in this show. It's as painful as watching a junior-high school puppy love crush--- in slow motion--- and as the same scenes play over and over again, it becomes apparent that the writers don't know how to convey an actual 'healthy' relationship, only the awkward fumbling moment of unrequited love that each drawn out folksy montage revels in. Perhaps most important, while 'Sarah' is pretty, there's no other clear reason given why Chuck should fall for her at all; she's cold to him, won't be honest with him, and refuses his advances for a long while. At what point does his interest in her actually make sense? There's nothing wrong with watching a long drawn out pursuit of romance in such a show--- but there has to be some hint of a workable romance for it to be convincing, some potential chemistry which Chuck entirely fails to present.

So the Chuck Sarah subplot feels tangential. As does the Buy-More plot; trying to draw parallels between the CIA and the Buy-More simply flops. The comedy begins to feel forced. If this is a show about Chuck becoming a spy, why waste a fourth of the broadcast time on the childish pranks at the Buy-More? If this was something that just occasionally happened, that might be okay. But it's constant. And it gets tiring.

Does the ostensible 'main' focus of the show--- Chuck becoming a spy--- work? Yes, when it's not bogged down with Sarah or the Buy-More. In this regard, the show is promising. Each new Intersect becomes more enticing to the viewers. Some of the Ring's plots are quite impressive and amusing. All in all, the actual spy drama of the show is pretty good, with a well-proportioned mix of humor and suspense. If the show leans more in this direction--- especially maintaining it's stronger comedic elements --- then it may indeed bloom into a good show. As of now, it's floundering, recycling itself into pointlessness. Even the villains seem lackluster and indifferent at this point.

Chuck is a potentially good show with pretty bad writers. I'm hoping they find their stride and make the show work soon--- because it could be good.

Mediocre.

The main critique against this show seems to be that it's too much like 'Heroes', which is a fair enough critique --- but also ignores the fact that 'Heroes' is an incredibly standard formula show (albeit a really good one). I would not base my review of 'Lost' off of Gilligan's Island. And so, Painkiller Jane should be seen in it's own right, and when this is done, it's a pretty satisfying show.

I never read the comic book is based on, and had almost no expectations going into it. But the show definitely builds on itself, and despite a fair number of gratuitous 'Jane getting shot up' scenes, it's a good way to waste a weekend. The show feels truncated, since it didn't get picked up for another season, and that's a disappointment. But some of the writing is impressively good, and the dynamics of the team (and their dialogue) tends to get better and better as the show goes along. There are weak episodes in the mix, but altogether, if you're looking for some series to quickly digest, this works.

Given the low budget and the miniscule fan base this show received, this show is a little gem amid the static.

It's true that the plot is pretty cliché, and that in some ways Alba is more a 'looker' than an actress in this show. But there are some great moments in the first season, to be sure. Some real drama, some good character development, and some rather funny dialogue, as well. The scenes at the bike courier depot that run through the show are actually far more entertaining than secondary plots usually are (works better than the 'Buy-More' at Chuck, for instance). There's nothing new offered in this show, just unrealized promise.

And this show clearly should have stopped after the first season. It gets ridiculous by the end. Rather than just 'super-soldiers', we find that there are essentially 'mutants' running about, now, including a half-man half-dog creature who we're supposed to find 'adorable', and yet I found only increasingly annoying.

If there's absolutely nothing better to watch, the first season of Dark Angel is a mediocre show which has some high points. But the show does collapse under it's own weak foundations and lack of direction. And so unless you've already seen everything else to see, it's probably better not to get too involved in this one.

Not recommended.

This is a great little show. While some people seem to have been able to see it in 'podcasts', I saw the three 'long' episodes, each one about as long as a short movie, and all of which run back to back very nicely. The show has a slow start, and the end of the first 'installment' is a bit hokey, but all in all, it's a fantastic effort which is thoroughly enjoyable.

I know next to nothing about 'gaming', and while I get the feeling that some of the more 'inside' humor relating to the gaming community may have indeed flown over my head, I think the real 'substance' of the show has less to do with gaming, per se, than the obsessions which otherwise socially reclusive people bond over. Anyone who has been obsessed with anything --- be it gaming, music, any strain of 'fandom', or any fixation on a past-time considered 'uncool' will be able to enjoy this show.

But most importantly, 'the Guild' doesn't waste too much time playing the 'cool kids/not cool kids' cliché that you might expect. Most of the social conflict arises between the defensive postures of gamers taking themselves too seriously. Some of the point of this show is, indeed, nobody is all that cool. And so embrace your inner geek and enjoy. Recommended.

If I was told this movie was conceived and written by a brain-damaged eight-year old, I wouldn't be surprised; and I would, in fact, probably feel justified beating up said kid and taking their milk money. I used to be a pacifist. Then I saw this film. Now I hate humanity.

Everything about this film is cliché. The absolute worst part of this atrocity is that it's so poorly thought-out. Even the special effects are mediocre and not worth sitting through the film for.

And since this is an end-of-the-world movie, I don't think it's much of a spoiler to say that a majority of the world's population gets killed; what is especially offensive about this movie is who survives, and that we're supposed to be happy that the people who do 'represent the future of humanity'.

Absolute and total garbage. Even reading this review has probably taken up more time in your life than you would want to waste with this smudge on the celluloid. Clipping your toenails would be a more fulfilling activity than watching this trash.

Avoid at all costs.

This show seems to be getting a bit maligned, and quite unfairly. It's a damned good show. Granted, it's not going to be nearly as enjoyable if you've not seen Stargate SG-1 and Atlantis --- but presumably, you've already seen both those shows in their entirety (and all associated movies). And yes, Stargate Universe is just as good, and in certain ways even better than those shows.

There are two elements of the show which do heavily detract from it; firstly, the occasional montages done to contemporary rock/pop is usually pretty bad. The choices made in the music selection were a bit too personalized to feel like they connected to the show holistically. I kind of enjoyed hearing eels included in a Stargate show, but I can understand why many fans might feel it ruined a moment. The other thing that seriously detracts at times is the silly 'shaky cam' which gets used at points (as well as imposing glares of light) which are more distracting and nauseating than artistic or atmospheric.

As for the critiques which seem frequent: the cast is too young, there aren't enough aliens, it's too 'mainstream' of a Stargate.... these are all quite unfair critiques, if actually considered in the light of what the show actually is trying to do.

Firstly, on a plot-basis, the fact that the crew is 'too young' is exactly what you're supposed to recognize, which is supposed to highlight how precarious their journey in space is. The youth of many of the cast is not merely a marketing device to hook younger viewers--- though it might indeed help do that --- but underscores the fact that many of the crew, military and civilian alike, are neither physically or mentally prepared for their situation.

The fact that the show doesn't rely on a constant stream of aliens is also not a bad thing. In this, it's kind of similar to Battlestar Galactica, which de-emphasized the vast amount of life in space with only humans and Cylons. I might add that this review is being written near the end of the first season, and while alien encounters have been scant, there may indeed be many more later. It's a bit early to call on that.

Lastly--- is Universe too commercialized, too mainstream? Not really. Personally, I find it less commercialized than Atlantis was. In fairness, this IS a 'Stargate: The Next Generation', and it does intentionally distance itself from some of the elements that the previous series relied too heavily on, at times. But it feels like a well-thought out progression of the Universe(s) that the previous series have set up so well. There's a kind of faux-intellectualism which popularizes the idea that commercialism always degrades the merit of art; this is the guise of nostalgia, which is just a trapping of advertising itself. Anyone who avoids watching a new science fiction show because it might taint the fondness they had for the old stuff has probably missed the whole thrilling sense of plunging headfirst into the unknown, which is really what good science fiction emboldens us to do.

Definitely a worthy evolution of the franchise. Recommended.

This show is hysterically bad. I don't think it was meant to be, but it is. I see that there's lots of praise being showered upon the show, and I honestly can't understand why--- this show is so poorly acted, the dialogue is so awful, and the plots are thin around their holes.

I think that this show is interesting in that it is a definite litmus test of your standards. Some elements of the show work, and perhaps those elements are just more important to some people than those that don't work, which make the show nearly unwatchable to people like me.

If you enjoy making fun of a show as you watch it, anticipating clichéd lines and such, this can be an enjoyable show to ridicule, if you have that sort of time on your hands.

The pilot is a pretty fair example of the whole show. If the nonsense saccharin cliché ending doesn't leave you in a dumb shock, then this may be a show for you.

The thing about Dr. Who (and this stands for the new, as well as the old) is that about a third of the show is absolutely horrendous garbage, a third is mediocre, and a third is pure brilliance which makes you enthusiastic about watching the rest. At the point wherein you find yourself hooked on the show, getting absorbed into it and obsessed, your friends may come by. You'll urge them to watch. They will make comments about seeing it as a child, when the Doctor wore that long scarf, and will question whether you're serious about liking this show. You'll urge them to watch, to give it a chance. And if it's an episode that you haven't already seen, odds are it will be an embarrassingly wretched episode which will make you question your allegiance to Dr. Who.

This keeps happening to me.

The thing is, the new Dr. Who is, in a lot of ways, much better than some of the older Dr. Who --- a better effects budget, better acting, and in many cases better plots. Where the new show fails, it's generally in the episodes wherein it tries too hard to pay homage to old episodes, or where it tries to offer some alien-based explanation for a stupid one-off (werewolves? Ah, they're an alien race! Witches? An alien race! Vampires?...) New Who is more reliably good than Old Who, but it still has it's fair share of stinkers. The Season Specials are almost all horrifyingly awful. Any episode that relies on a particular historical figure (Shakespeare, for instance) is usually bad. But these are the same weaknesses that the show has always had.

I've watched most of the Dr. Who from the 4th doctor (Tom Baker) to the present. I even watched the 8th doctor 'movie' (yaaaawwwwwnnnn). All in all, the show has gotten better. It helps to have a long mythology and an expansively defined Universe to work with.

As endearing as the old Dr. Who was, it was often wretched. Many people who claim the show is no longer as good either reflect too fondly on memory or have only focused on the admittedly bad episodes which do crop up in the new series. When Tom Baker became the fourth doctor, and the writers wanted to make the show more science fiction than ... well, whatever silly nonsense it was before --- there was a huge outcry from the public that the show had changed for the worse. In an effort to appease those who want an 'old school' more 'magical' Dr. Who and a more sci-fi, somewhat darker Dr. Who, the show has straddled quite a gap. The result is that neither audience will be totally satisfied, but both will find enough to enjoy.

Dr. Who is a fun show. It also can be thought-provoking at times. And it's absolutely addictive, like televised crack cocaine--- which I know nothing about, but feel comfortable referencing. The new Dr. Who does very well at creating grandiose story arcs, and while sometimes the resolution of these story arcs relies on some overly convenient plot twists, overall the result is some thoroughly enjoyable TV.

I'd recommend it. Just be sure to watch several episodes before making a final decision, or else you may miss one of those brilliant episodes which makes it all worthwhile.

I wrote a review before S2 came out, wherein I rated Fringe a 6 and said it was 'promising', but essentially a fancy version of the X-files. I have now concluded that Fringe is way better than the X-files; it's actually far more interesting, and whereas the alien-conspiracy angle of X-file was interesting but never really delivered, Fringe's 'parallel world' premise develops well, and tactfully, and is much better done. The characters become well-rounded enough by S2 that the whole show becomes far more enjoyable. All in all, Fringe seems to be getting better as it goes along, becoming more focused and more linear in it's plot structure. So long as it doesn't dip into the promise-but-don't-explain territory of 'Lost', it will continue to be an exceptionally good sci-fi show. Recommended.