Change Your Image
kbncincy
Reviews
Foundation (2021)
a TV show that makes intellectual demands of its viewers -- a wonderful rarity
My advice to all lovers of sci-fi: completely IGNORE the naysayers (tons of 'em can't wait to "show off" by writing negative reviews here) and just ENJOY this thoroughly challenging escapist drama.
Yes, I said "escapist" -- it's not like the books, especially, in a lot of ways. It's certainly not like Star Wars, that was sci-fi for the masses. Everybody could enjoy Star Wars, and it wasn't even really sci-fi, anyway. Get ready for "Foundation" to let you escape into a completely new and unexpected way of exploring the galaxy -- that's what good sci-fi is all about.
Asimov was an absolutely brilliant person and his powerful intellect was evident in all his writings. Some people say it got in the way of his writing, but so what? How many great sci-fi writers were actually brilliant scientists? Asimov was -- and his wonderful imagination created many stories with twists and turns, always with a scientific explanation. Usually the science is fictional -- so what? It's science "fiction", guys, it's supposed to be a fictional science! (spoiler: there's no such thing as "hyper drive", they made it up).
But my favorite thing about Asimov stories, and the TV version of "Foundation": they are intellectually CHALLENGING. It's hard to understand what's going on at first -- who are the several dozen characters, what are they doing, and why? I've actually heard reviewers here COMPLAINING that it's "hard to follow" -- as if it's some kind of requirement that TV shows operate on some sort of dim-witted level of obviousness, like an episode of "How I Met Your Mother". CLEARLY, with the amount of time and expense being put into this show, and the multi-year plan of producing episodes depicting a long-term story, the layers will continue to pile up. The characters will continue to develop. Plot lines, once confusing, will reveal themselves with greater clarity.
Asimov, as a scientist, knew the value of persistence and patience, and the same is true of his storytelling. "Foundation" is worth the effort it takes to watch and understand it. I'm eagerly anticipating the end of Season 1, because I will then go back and re-watch all the episodes and greatly enjoy that feeling of "oh -- NOW I get it!"
Of course, Asimov himself didn't write the script -- the dialogue and acting could be improved on, and I'm very sure it will. Be patient, folks...stick with it.
Consider it a challenge!
Welcome to Hard Times (1967)
sure it's bad, but good luck figuring out why
I'm amazed at the many reviewers here who tried in vain to attach their nonsensical "liberals are bad" political views to this movie. Totally off-base. Likewise the various gun nuts who have chimed in and claimed that in the Wild West, "everybody carried guns" and would have dealt with the bad guy in "the right way" -- meaning, by murdering him any way they could. Again, no -- not even close.
America was built by hard work and perseverance, mostly by people who never saw, never needed, and never used, a gun as anything other than a necessary tool. The idea that what "made America great" was the willingness of Americans to shoot each other, is so profoundly stupid that it's mind-boggling that people still believe it--despite the obvious fact that no living person has ever seen or heard of "kill all the bad guys" ever being used anywhere on earth as a way of developing a society of peaceful, lawful citizens. No one ever created peace by being violent.
Such is the attempted message of this film -- if violence is used as a tool, it will be applied equally to both the "bad guys" and the "good guys" and you'll be no better off in the long run. It's a good message; too bad the "story" is told in such a clumsy, slow-paced and confusing way.
Keeping in mind that the film was made in 1967, when SO many acts of senseless violence were occurring in America's cities and in the jungles of Southeast Asia, it makes sense that movies of the time would try to make the point that nothing ever comes from the use of violence except the escalation of violence. Henry Fonda's character represents all of us who look at the world's problems and simply don't know what to do -- we just know that in order to create a peaceful world, using violence has never worked yet. This movie tries to get us to think about that -- too bad its comically bad elements are such a distraction.
The Aeronauts (2019)
very entertaining!
I'm astounded, truly, by all the negative reviews (written by men, I assume) who seem to be so threatened by the fact that one of the characters is a female. In real life, this event involved two men....so??
In Doctor Zhivago, all the characters had British accents, not Russian...the movie was not ruined.
In most historically-based movies, there are fictionalized events and fictional characters...for two big reasons: 1) to tell an interesting story in a couple of hours that describes events that lasted much longer, and 2) because it's not a documentary!
Taking artistic license in a fact-based story is a long-standing literary and Hollywood tradition. All the mansplainers lining up here yelling "it wasn't a woman!" are overlooking all the great story-telling techniques employed, or at least attempted, in this movie.
The depiction of a lost and nearly forgotten world, over 150 years in the past, in such detail, is an undertaking worth saluting. An important job of period movies is to transport us back to that world of the past and experience it along with the characters. Try to enjoy this movie without the historical nitpicking, and you'll find much to like about it.
Star Trek: That Which Survives (1969)
one of the absolute worst!!
It's hard to come up with many candidates for "Star Trek episodes worse than this" -- and I've seen the Star Trek V movie!
I won't even bother talking about the plot, script, etc -- they are just bad. In the same way that the "Trouble With Tribbles" episode was written to basically just be a lot of one-liners and slapstick, this episode seems to attempt to completely re-write the basic personality of Mr. Spock -- he is, in this episode, simply a sarcastic bastard -- why would the writer do this?
In every Star Trek except this one, Mr. Spock has a consistent personality and outlook, and ways of dealing with the emotional humans he works with on the Enterprise. In this episode, despite the emergency situation which is non-stop, Spock takes time out to make sarcastic comments to everyone -- not only is he sarcastic, but it seems the writer was deliberately trying to make some of Spock's comments funny (totally out of character), as he constantly misinterprets statements made by others, as if he had no experience at all with the ways humans talk.
In the "Court Martial" episode, Spock told us that "human beings have characteristics, just as inanimate objects do." Likewise, throughout the ST universe, Spock's character is totally consistent, thanks to the excellent acting by Leonard Nimoy. He must have HATED being in this episode, it's bad on every level but particularly puts the Spock character in a bad light.
Star Trek: I, Mudd (1967)
totally embarrassing
There's a great line from Spock from another episode -- "human beings have characteristics, just as inanimate objects do". Throughout all of Star Strek, all the main characters are interesting, but they always behave, to put it simply, like themselves -- they are consistent characters.
The exceptions are the HORRENDOUS "comedy" episodes, of which "I, Mudd" is by far the worst. The outrageous one-liners and just plain silly behavior of the actors in this episode, and the Tribbles, and Piece of the Action, must have totally embarrassed them -- I'm embarrassed for them just watching it.
Exception: Chekov, while quizzing the beautiful female androids, finds out that lecherous and depraved Harry Mudd programmed them for "human female" behavior. At first acting shocked, he then smiles & says "this place is even better than Leningrad!" -- now THAT'S funny!