Reviews

Most of Asylum's films are flat-out ripoffs; Independents Day (Independence Day), Top Gunner (Top Gun), Clown (It!), Atlantic Rim (Pacific Rim), and many, many more. Some, however, are fun films like the Sharknado and Megaladon series'. This is not one of the fun ones.

Bluntly, this is a slow, poorly-acted (over-acted, actually), with a threadbare script, low-quality directing, and truly abysmal special effects. Many of the principal actors are chewing the scenery so hard, it's astounding that any of it is left standing. The worst by far is Sean Lawlor as Captain Nemo. His overwrought line delivery is actually painful to listen to. The others, including Lorenzo Lamas, are simply not very good at their jobs.

I am unable to find how much the film cost to produce, but whatever the amount, it was at least ten times too much.

Unless you really enjoy Asylum's many, many other low-rent products, I strongly suggest you give this one a wide berth. And if you want to know more about Asylum's catalog, check its Wikipedia entry. It's an eye-opener.

I have watched and enjoyed NCIS and all of its spinoffs since before the beginning... I was a fan of JAG, the show that NCIS itself was spun off of. Sadly, in my opinion, this version is not very good.

The stories are not terrible as far as they go. Nothing surprising. And they are using the typical NCIS format; wise coroner, quirky forensics person, over-eager young agent, more action than any NCIS unit would ever see, etc.

The Australian cast is OK, albeit a bit difficult to understand if one's ear is not attuned to the Aussie accent and idiom. It will take a few more episodes, and maybe some "explain it to the Yank" dialog.

My main problem with the show is Olivia Swann's character, Michelle Mackey. I find her an incredibly unsympathetic character. As team leaders go, Mackey ranks at the bottom of the list. It's as though the writers went out of their way to make her alienate everyone including the audience.

I do not blame Swann at all, she's a good actor simply doing her best with what she's been given. Unfortunately, she's been given a poor character to work with.

The concept of a temporary duty (TDY) NCIS team has interesting possibilities. But I feel either the writers step up and change the character for the better, or the NCIS: Sydney will be a one-season show.

The stories are good, the animation is good, the voice acting is good. The character of Ben is not good. He's rude, self-centered, narcissistic, self-absorbed, arrogant, argumentative, impulsive, and acts rather stupidly in dire situations. In short, he has few, if any, redeeming qualities or characteristics. While the other characters change and grow to a greater or lesser extent, Ben does not. He is not a reasonable role model by any stretch of imagination, especially for boys from 9 to13, the target audience for the show. Gwen on the other hand show grace and growth and would be a very acceptable role model for both boys and girls in that age range. If parents watch with their children, they might do well to point out Ben's character flaws, and emphasize better solutions and responses for them.

As always, this is just my opinion and your mileage may vary.

I read the Sabrina comics when I was much younger. I liked them. I enjoyed the Sabrina Saturday Morning cartoon series. The Sabrina TV series was a delight to me. THIS IS NOT THEM! This is not even close to them. This series is Dark Horror and makes no apologies for it. Nor should it.

So, I found The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina to be well done. The acting is very good. The casting was excellent. Kiernan Shipka is an excellent actor. Her Sabrina is a delight to watch. It's good to see Michelle Gomez again. I've always enjoyed her work.

The writing is surprisingly good. It's a fairly intricate horror story line interspersed with a nice bits of dark humor. The show has very intense scenes, but it doesn't depend on jump-scares as so many lesser scripts do.

The visuals and special effects are top-notch. As it is a dark horror show, there is a significant amount of bloody gore. Think of the first Nightmare on Elm Street or Night of the Living Dead. This will certainly disturb those who are not dark horror fans.

HOWEVER, this is not to my taste, hence my rating of 8. I much prefer the lighter shows of the genre, such as Wednesday.

While I am not a fan of dark horror, I can appreciate how well-crafted the series is. This will appeal to those who enjoy good, well-acted horror stories.

Bottom line: if you enjoy dark horror, this will very likely suit you. If not, I recommend lighter fare like the aforementioned Wednesday.

As always, IMHO and YMMV.

I Woke Up a Vampire had a chance to be an enjoyable series. The concept of a young teen becoming discovering she's a vampling - half human, half vampire - had potential much along the lines of Sabrina. Unfortunately, it falls prey (pun intended) to the worst tropes of teen TV. It has the nice but somewhat oblivious parents, the annoying yet clever siblings, the best friend who knows the secret and is the source of esoteric knowledge, a self-centered mean girl, the uber-evil villain with the somewhat moronic and put-upon henchman, and more.

The cast is diverse and the young actors are good. The cartoon-like antagonists, however, tend to munch the scenery a bit. The writing is really predicable and gives away almost every "twist" or surprise well before they happen. The writers don't seem to be able to decide whether it's a comedy, a dramedy, or a teen-drama. The effects are fairly mediocre. And, yes, the vampires glow.

As I said above Ultimately, if you miss this series, you won't miss much. It is pretty ignorable.

As a fan of the Asterix comics from the early 70's, I was shocked to see how this live-action version stayed so close to the heart and soul of the comics.

While I disagree with the casting of Asterix himself, it's not terrible. I would have chosen someone a bit shorter. Still, he's ok enough. The rest of them are pretty close to the concepts of the books. Especially Cacofonix, the irredeemably bad Bard, Obelix, menhir-maker and Asterix's best friend, and the ever-hapless pirates. I don't know any of the French actors (It is a French film made from a French comic after all), but they are quite good.

The humor (mostly low puns and silly word-play), the comic violence (mostly over-the-top slapstick), and the overall tenor of the film are near-perfect.

I definitely recommend it as a delightful way to spend 111 minutes.

I've watch the series since it spun off of JAG. Including the three spinoffs, NCIS: LA, NCIS: New Orleans (cancelled), NCIS: Hawai'i and I am looking forward to NCIS: Sydney. They are among the better proceeduals on TV.

The writing is fairly ok. There have been some excellent episodes and some really bad ones. Generally, though, it tends to follow a standard bell curve tending towards the higher end.

One of the unfortunate features of the bad episodes is the tendency of the writers to use Hack Writer's Gambit. That's where one or more of the characters in life-threatening, dire straits then make a fantastical and completely unexplained escape.

Over it's run, there have been many cast changes. Most of them have been pretty good. A few, not so good. One of the changes that happened far too late in the series was Michael Weatherly's Tony DiNozzo character. Producer Donald P. Bellisario is alleged to have created him as comedy relief. However, the character was excruciatingly sexist, self absorbed, and generally unplesant IMHO.

In the most recent cast changes, Mark Harmon's Jethro Gibbs left the series. Many thought that would be the end of the series, but his replacement, Gary Cole's Alden Parker seems to have gained a majority of the audience's respect.

All in all it's overall a show I feel is worth watching. It can be binged on Netflix, if you are so inclined.

The film has a decent cast and Daniel Craig does do a passable Southern accent. I guess the directing is OK, but nothing really stands out. The cinematography is OK as well. The soundtrack is serviceable but doesn't really stand out. The script is a somewhat basic mystery plot, but there is no real mystery. It gives itself away very early in the film. And it's as dull as dirt. There is not a real laugh in the entire film. There's barely a genuine smile.

If you like these sorts of things, it will probably be acceptable to you. However, If you enjoy good mysteries, real mysteries, this will be very unsatisfying.

Of course, as always, this is only one opinion. YMMV.

Excellent artwork. Well done animation. Good script. Good, workmanlike voice-acting done by an inclusive and diverse cast.

Somewhat predictable storyline, even if one has not read the Webcomic or Graphic Novel this was based on. The fact that one knows where it's going does not take away anything from the story.

The concept of a futuristic medieval society should entertain the medieval reenactors and groups like the Society for Creative Anancronism. Should... but probably won't.

The soundtrack supports the visuals and does not detract in any way. The various minor easter eggs are entertaining, but too few to be a big draw.

I loved Night Court. Harry and the Crew were mostly excellent. Admittedly, it took until season 3 to reach comedic cruising speed. I doubt this sequel (NOT a reboot) will last that long.

The writing is not up to snuff. The writers would do well to watch the original series. Or any of the better comedy shows of the past, for that matter.

The cast needs work. Melissa Rauch is adequate and appears to be growing into the role. John Larroquette is the best of the batch and carries the show for the most part. The rest are mostly poor comedy stereotypes. The casting also suffers from the lack of decent character actors and up-and-comers.

The show has reportedly been picked up for a second season. I strongly suspect there will be several casting changes.

If it improves, I'll change the rating, but thus far, I think it will stand.

Cutting to the chase: It's like an Irwin Allen film but without the quality.

Bluntly, it suffers from a mediocre script, poor acting, and Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea special effects. This does not even take in to consideration that there is a complete ignorance of science.

One glaring error (among many) is a diver wearing a standard Dry Suit, exiting the sub through a moon pool, open to the sea, at depth of over 30,000 feet. Nope. Ain't gonna happen.

The submarine sets are of a similar design quality of Plan 9 From Outer Space's flying saucer interiors. Nope.

Your willing suspension of disbelief will be seriously challenged. BUT, if it's what you like, then enjoy. Otherwise, consider something along the lines of Green Slime, Leviathan Awaits, or any of a dozen other now-so-bad films.

As always IMHO and YMMV.

Cheers.

First, I will say I've read and enjoyed Verne, as well as Wells, and dozens of other classic SF/Fantasy writers. I've seen a huge number of film versions of their works, From the 1916 silent version of 20,000 Leagues through the 60s versions of his stories, and the various current crop.

I only have this to say about this film: This film is just for fun.

There are no deep insights or profound messages. There's just simple cartoonish adventure and dialog. The banter between Dwayne Johnson and Michael Caine is entertaining. The CGI is pretty and well done. Everything is done with a light touch.

If you're looking for heavy SF or Fantasy, this ain't it. It's just for fun. Pop it in, turn off your inner critic, sit back and enjoy the ride.

Don't overthink it. It's just for fun. Enjoy.

I'm a great fan of the Star Wars animated shows; Clone Wars and Rebels. Both are well written and enjoyable. Resistance, not so much. The main reason is writing is so poor. The main character, Kaz, is... well, an idiot with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. The supporting characters are pretty close to low-grade Saturday morning caroons. The protagonist thinks he's a good pilot, he's fair. In the first act of the first episode, he is asked to spy on the First Order by Poe Dameron. He can't shut up about it. His coworker is a green literalist who cannot shut up either. All in all, it's pretty bad. The animation is OK, rather similar to the first season of Chaotic, a Canadian cartoon series that ran from 2006-2008. The voice acting is OK as well. I cannot blame them for the poor writing. The actors do their best to make the lousy writing listenable. In relation to the rest of the Star Wars products, this ranks about the same or lower than the Star Wars Holiday Special. It is equally cringe-worthy. How it got a second season is beyond me. Do yourself a favor and give this one a miss. If you must watch it, stream it or rent it. You'll probably want you money and time back.

First and foremost, this isn't the original MacGyver. To the critics out there bemoaning that fact, get over it. This one belongs to Lucas Till, George Eads, and Tristan Mays.

What makes it work for me is the funny, fast, quick repartee. Till and Eads fire off dialog with ease and seem to be comfortable with each other. It's clear they are enjoying working on the project.

I have a bit of a problem with some of Mac's hacks, though. For example, he uses muriatic acid (aka hydrochloric acid) and to create a smoke diversion. Mac states that it creates smoke but is otherwise safe. Not true. The acid fumes are toxic. Kids, don't try this at home.

So, yes, the stories are unbelievable, as are the solutions Mac comes up with. If you're looking for "realism", look elsewhere. These are far-fetched stories with far-fetched characters.

It. Is. An. Entertainment.

So sit back and be entertained and don't sweat the little stuff.

How very sad. Good cast, good effects, lousy execution.

Philip K. Dick's short story, "We Can Remember It for You Wholesale" is a masterpiece of storytelling. 1990's "Total Recall" is a shadow of the short story. This film is the shadow of a shadow.

While there are several nods to, and in-jokes about, the 1990 film, by and large this is simply a rehash of that film with little to impress.

It did not hold this viewer's attention despite (or perhaps because of) an overabundance of chases, fights, and slam-bang action scenes. There is little exposition and virtually no opportunities to become attached to the protagonist. Indeed, it was as if director Len Wiseman took all his film cues from Transformers director Michael Bay and did so rather poorly.

Watch it if you must, but don't expect much and you won't be disappointed.

What could have been another excellent spin-off fails in so very many respects.

The interesting story ideas are thoroughly demolished by poor scripts. The writers were doing something that was never done in Dr. Who or any of its other spin-offs; They talk down to the audience. The writers also indulge in the use of "Hack-Writers Gambit". HWG can be best described as the practice of putting the protagonists in deadly danger, then shifting the scene to show them as having escaped with little or no explanation of how they did so.

The characters are flat. There is no depth to them at all. Worse, they are, for the most part, completely unsympathetic. There is no reason for the audience to care what happens to them at all.

Additionally, the program is hampered by poor acting. While the actors are mostly experienced, all too often they are either just running lines or chewing the scenery. It certainly doesn't look like they are having much fun on the set. It really does show, you know.

The sets and lighting are from the 60's. They are very much reminiscent of the early Dr. Who shows in their amateurishness.

I had such high hopes for this show. And I am so disappointed.

As a child of the 50's and 60's, I did indeed grow up with TV's Lone Ranger. I also heard it repeated on the radio. This ain't that Lone Ranger.

Still, if you can allow yourself to enjoy it, it's a fairly enjoyable film. There's action, romance (sort of), humor, and Johnny Depp.

The score is fine, as is the cinematography. The action is somewhat over the top, but that's Director Verbinski's stock in trade, isn't it.

The acting is adequate and the storyline, although somewhat silly, is entertaining nonetheless.

Don't try to compare it to the source materials. It's not worth the aggravation. Just enjoy it for what it is, another silly re-imagining distributed by the House of Mouse (not known for it's accuracy or consideration of viewer sensibilities).

Like so many other films, especially those made from Young Adult or Children's books, Sea of Monsters doesn't follow the book very closely. The source material was essentially used as a framework or guideline for the film.

The film is even less true to the book than Lightning Thief. However, that being said, the film has adequate SFX, a nice score, and a good bit of humorous dialog and byplay.

Casting was OK, but not as good as it could have been. Recasting Chiron and replacing Pierce Brosnan with Anthony Head wasn't the best idea. Although Head plays the part well, it seems he's simply rehashing his role as Rupert Giles from Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Also, Dionysus seemed to be written for Bruce Campbell instead of Stanley Tucci. Still, Tucci was OK. But not as good a Bruce would have been IMHO.

The CGI was reasonable but nothing outstanding. At least it wasn't the old-fashioned blue screen with the white line around the effect. Somehow, I think having Ray Harryhausen (were he alive) or one of his students, oversee the creature effects would have only improved it. He had significant experience with that sort of film.

Still, it was an OK film and nothing to get too worked up over. Sort of lazy Saturday Afternoon fare. YMMV.

I would run home from school, literally run, to watch Dark Shadows with Jonathan Frid. It, Les Crane, and Dick Cavett were my must-see TV.

Johnny Depp is wonderful as Barnabas with some hysterical lines (i.e.: upon seeing Alice Cooper, "ugliest woman I've ever seen"). His performance as the anachronistic Barnabas is nothing less than spectacular. Helena Bonham Carter as Julia Hoffman was a great bit of casting as well. And seeing Jonnie Lee Miller (Elementary's Sherlock Holmes)as the sleazy Roger Collins was great. The rest of the cast does a fine job as well.

Others may see Dark Shadows as an insult to the memory of the TV show, but I see it as both a wonderful homage and an entertaining send-up of both the show and the times.

For what it's worth, enjoy or not. It's your choice. I choose to be entertained by it.

Rebooting? Re-imagining? Remaking? Revolting!

On it's own, this miniseries tries far too hard to NOT be the source material. Sadly, in that and that alone, does it succeed.

I'm quite sure the writers, directors, and producers all thought they were creating a brilliant, important, surreal think-piece. They failed. And not even epically so. This series is not compelling. It is boring. Even the actors, including the marvelous Sir Ian McKellen are just phoning it in.

The sets are dull and uninspired, the scenery is as bland as can be, and the script is flat, flat, flat. This is just not good storytelling by any stretch of the imagination.

And it is terribly, terribly sad that this is so. It could have been great.

I have watched, read, and listened to Science Fiction, quite literally, my entire life. While it's not my only interest (by a long chalk), SF is my favorite genre.

I watched the first run of Star Trek as a teen in the 60's. I loved it and tolerated the dismissal of the series by peers and parents as "that Buck Rogers junk". Now, Star Trek; the Original Series (ST:TOS), is held up as iconic Science Fiction, not to be challenged or changed.

Star Trek 11 not only challenges and changes the fundamental premises of ST:TOS, but does so brilliantly with humor, excitement, and yes, romance. Additionally, there are more than a few unforeseeable twists and turns.

All of the main actors give their characters wonderfully full, believable, and well-rounded existence. Their iconic relationships are developed logically and with sensitivity to the fannish sensibilities.

There ARE changes. Major changes. But most are reasonably explained in the course of the film. Those changes that do not have explicit explanation, can be rationally inferred from the context surrounding them.

The Battlestar Galactica series was successfully, and brilliantly rebooted. Star Trek 11 is doing the same for the Star Trek franchise. May it live long and prosper.

Watching this film was an exercise in self-discipline. After the first 10 minutes, I wanted to shut it off. After the next 10, I wanted a refund and an apology. By the end of 30 minutes, I wanted the head of the studio on a silver platter. I shut it off at 35 minutes. I felt somewhat guilty taking it back to the Video rental knowing some other poor innocent might be subjected to it.

First let me say, I like Rowan Atkinson. He is a very funny man. His Black Adder series is brilliant and "The Thin Blue Line" is very good.

Mel Smith, the Director (probably best known in the U.S. for his role as the Albino in "Princess Bride") is also a very funny man. So is Peter MacNicol.

So how in the name of all that is good and funny could they have possibly made such a clunker as "Bean"? Atkinson's BBC show, "Mr. Bean" on which the film was based, was humorous, but it was sketch comedy which rarely translates into a good film. Look at all the filmic bombs made from "Saturday Night Live" sketches.

The fact it was from a sketch show was blatantly obvious in the erratic pacing and lack proper set-up for the jokes. Moreover, much of the humor depended solely on Atkinson doing things that would embarrass a typical adult. One example early on is Bean unabashedly removing his drying underwear from his host's oven while his hosts are discussing whether he should stay or go. While this might amuse some 12-year-old boys, for an adult viewer, it was excruciating to watch. As far as I could determine, the scene had no reason for existence except to draw an 'eewwww' out of the audience.

The only reason it didn't rate a '1' is that it was clear the actors were doing their best to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Bean can best be summed up in one word... Bleah!

As a youngster, I loved Marvel Comics. The Silver Age (1960's & 70's) had some amazing artists and stories. Nick Fury, Agent of SHIELD was one of the best. Drawn by Jim Steranko, it had the hip, psychedelia look of the period. It was fantastic and remains a source of great enjoyment and artistic inspiration when I pull them from storage and re-read them.

Then came this film. Gone was the sleek, high-tech image of a powerful, worldwide counter-espionage agency. Instead we got the 1950's rusty, oughta-be-mothballed tramp freighter look.

Instead of being a street-wise, combat honed, leader of SHIELD, Col. Fury (David Hasselhoff) was a scene-chewing, blowhard thug. Instead of a sexy, tall agent who could hold her own in a barfight, Countess Val (Lisa Rinna) was short, somewhat timid administrator. Even Hydra, SHIELD's antagonist organization, is portrayed as a bunch of leftover Nazis and triggerhappy idiots instead of the sophisticated agency of evil they were legendary for in the Marvel Comics Universe.

Although the storyline had potential, it fell apart quickly with a lack of backstory, poor acting, and mediocre directing and editing. And the production and set designers should turn in their union cards in shame.

Exec. Producers, Ari Arad and Stan Lee should had squelched this mess before it got out of pre-production.

Other than that, I'm not terribly fond of this film.

Max Frost and his band want to run the country and with the help of their friends and some pharmacology, they take over the political structure of the USA. It's a reasonably well made cautionary tale of the late 60's. It briefly became a cult favorite and was said to have prompted then-mayor of Chicago, Richard Daily, to put guards around the city's water supply just prior to, and during the 1968 Democratic National Convention to prevent anarchists from "dosing" the water with psychedelics.

The storyline is fairly slick for the time; how do a bunch of don't-trust-anyone-over-30 kids take over the country? There's a little romance, a little angst, a little rock music, and a lot of scenery-chewing and overacting by the "Major Stars" including Shelly Winters and Ed Begley. Hal Holbrook was able to keep it toned down.

This was also one of the first major films the late Richard Prior appeared in. The other being Sid Cesar's "The Busy Body", released the same year.

The psychedelic aspects of "Wild in the Streets" make it a great film to pair with Peter Fonda's "The Trip" for a 60's double feature flashback fest. Enjoy and never trust anyone under 30. heh.