Change Your Image
magneto-16
Reviews
Ring of Fire (2012)
A Science Fiction Where the Science Was Made Up, and Facts Don't Count
I enjoy a good disaster movie. There's something fun about it, and I'm not sure why.
I read the premise to "Ring of Fire" and thought it would be good, silly fun, kind of like the recent "Eve of Destruction", where bad physics ran amok. Then, I watched it.
I expected bad geology to be a part of it, but I didn't expect the whole movie to be based on it. The science issues began right away, with an Evil Corporation drilling for oil...in a volcanic caldera? The science only got worse from there--including one of the main plot points: that causing a volcanic eruption on one volcano can trigger hundreds of others around the Pacific Ring of Fire to erupt--by the way, Yellowstone is NOT part of the Pacific Ring of Fire.
Along with the bad science, there were the typical, modern movie stereotypes: evil corporation headed by a charming, charismatic white man with larceny in his heart, and the environmentalist with a heart of gold, who is heroically willing to sacrifice everything in order to do the right thing, and who is always right about everything scientific and environmental. And, let's not forget the cast of 2-dimensional bit players, most of whom seem to be there just to die stupidly.
I did think the acting was a cut above many low-budget TV movies. I also have to be impressed that these guys can keep a straight face and not wink at the camera while delivering their lines.
Did I enjoy it? Oddly, yes, sometimes. I didn't think it was a good movie; the entertainment value lies in how bad it is. Between the eye-rolling and occasional sigh--brought on by yet another science error--I got some good laughs. I wasn't offended by the shaky cam, the way some people were, but I will agree it was overused. Conclusion? If you believe science should be accurately portrayed in movies, don't watch this one. If, instead, you can laugh well at the ignorance of filmmakers and think drivel like Sharknado is fun because it's awesomely silly, then you might just enjoy this movie.
Castle: The Fast and the Furriest (2013)
Predictable, Bland, and Atypical
Having become accustomed to Castle's great characters, ensemble interaction, and overall fun, I was never overly bothered that plots are often a bit weak or predictable. Unfortunately, this episode lacked the character interaction that makes this series hum. Everything felt a little strained, all just a bit out of sync. Gags and lines fell flat, and Castle's normally charming willingness to be open-minded to bizarre possibilities was just annoying.
Add to that a dull plot and a(nother) predictable outcome, and the whole thing fell flat. It had little drama and less humor. I'm so glad this is not typical for this series. This seemed to be one of the inevitable clinkers with which long-running series and their fans must contend. It wasn't awful, it just wasn't Castle.
Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1997)
Never Judge a Book by Its Cover, Nor a Program/Movie by Its Name
When "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" movie was released, I went to see it, completely undeterred by the odd name. Unfortunately, I hated it.
Fast forward to 1997. I heard they were making a "Buffy" television series. My first reaction: "Why?" My second reaction: "Well, THAT won't last long.
Somewhere around 2002, I accidentally saw an episode of the BtVS series. It wasn't awful - and it was WORLDS better than the crappy movie that was foisted onto the public. I accidentally saw another couple of episodes, and I was surprised by what I saw. The show was intelligent - and assumed its viewers were, too. The plots were well-developed, but it was the characters that shone most brightly.
I mentioned to my son that I was impressed by what I had seen - so he bought the Season 1 DVD set for me. "Might as well start at the beginning." He said.
The first season was uneven, but overall enjoyable. I debated going on, as it wasn't good enough to be 'compusory', but I decided to give Season 2 a shot. From the first episode, it was better in every respect. Then, about halfway through the season - BAM!! I was absolutely and irrevocably hooked. I won't explain why, you just have to see it. Here I was, a 48-year-old man, hooked on "Buffy the Vampire Slayer." Was it just me? Nope. I've since hooked several people my age (and older) on it - and they ALWAYS are surprised by the wit, by the wonderful characterizations, and by the depth of story-telling. And they ALWAYS reach a point about midway through Season 2 where there is no turning back.
If you haven't yet watched this show, you have two options:
2) Run. Don't look back.
1) Give it a chance. Watch Season 1, just to get the background. Then, trust me on this, watch Season 2. After you finish Season 2, you'll need no more advice. You'll know exactly what to do next.