Reviews

This documentary is like elevator music compared to a quality BBC documentary. The visuals bubble along hypnotisingly while Morgan Freeman rambles on in the background.

The visuals are great and I imagine it's nicely mesmerizing playing on one of those overhead TVs at the dentist, but there is not much to be learned from this documentary - the very few facts that are explored and presented are pretty basic; I was expecting more from a 2022 documentary, but maybe it is aimed at a different market.

The documentary presents the connections of life on Earth to the much bigger picture in a seemingly deliberately enigmatic way rather than explaining hard facts.

Lastly, I love Morgan Freeman as an actor, and his voice, but either age is getting to him or the sound mixing is poor, because he was not easy to understand.

Over the top action, very unrealistic creative license with the details of the story, and too many gratuitous slow motion shots distract from what should be a tribute to a soldier and hero who made the ultimate sacrifice.

The first half of the movie is slow and somewhat cheesy, but I get why it's there, to provide a backstory to Major Sandeep Unnikrishnan's life. There are some deep messages in the movie and it is moving, however, because it seems to be made for an audience which is used to a gaudy spectacle, it is hard to take the movie serious at times, which is a shame.

As a foreigner/international movie watcher, Hotel Mumbai is a much better movie about the Mumbai terror attacks and in a completely different league, so if you've already watched that one, you will be disappointed with "Major" and may even find it's glorification tasteless.

The 4-part documentary starts off by explaining the reasons for the historic losses of New Zealand unique native bird life, and efforts on the ground in remote Fiordland to understand the impact of introduced predators like the stoat.

From there, the documentary takes a look at past efforts to effectively prevent and reverse the dramatic loss of endemic bird species and the incredible successes on predator-free offshore islands in the past 15 years.

Using what has been learned, as well as groundbreaking innovations and new technologies, the documentary explores how New Zealand can get towards the audacious goal of "Predator Free NZ 2050". It shows the inspiring work of the countless community-led projects that are springing up all over New Zealand to work together towards this goal.

A truly inspring documentary, showing that if people work together and make use of research, innovation, and unwavering committment, it is indeed possible to not just stop, but reverse the damage done in the past.

If you're only watching one of the 72 Dangerous Animals, then watch this one.

The narration is good and the animals fascinating (and often scary in what they can cause). Most importantly compared to the other sets of 72 Dangerous Animals, the experts interviewed about the animals are engaging and good in front of the camera. Also, other sets of 72 Dangerous Animals are invariably let down by tedious interviews with survivors - the Australian one is much better in that regard. This one is worth watching if you like animal documentaries

This documentary is a real eye-opener for anyone who doesn't know much about Colombia. It covers natural attractions, fauna and flora, historic attractions, as well as the modern problems Colombia faces. The production values are outstanding and at the level of a top quality BBC documentary, with stunning landscape scenes, crisp close-up action shots of animals, and pleasant progressions between segments.

It reveals many surprising aspects of Colombia that a typical outsider would not know, such as the breathtaking landscapes, amazing diversity of wildlife, and spectacular natural attractions from glaciers to unique cloud forests to rich rain forests.

The balance of topics is spot on given the time available, and I think it is appropriate that the documentary does not shy away from briefly highlighting environmental problems - clearly with a message targeted at Colombians themselves. Reading between the lines, the documentary also entices international viewers to consider visiting Colombia, which it certainly did for me. However, given that intent, I wish some of the amazing places were called out a bit more obviously as to where they are located, but I get the feeling Colombia's tourism potential is largely untapped.

I watched this with English sub-titles, not knowing Spanish. The narrator's voice is excellent and a pleasure to listen to and his pronounciation so clear that you often inadvertently pick up Spanish words that sound similar to their English equivalent as you read the (well written) sub-titles. All up, a great watch even if you don't know Spanish and I'm kind of glad it's not dubbed.

The documentary has good aesthetics, but it dwells for a long time on the subject of surfing, and showing many shots of a particular female surfer. These are nice to look at, but for a documentary titled "Peru: Hidden treasure", the time spent showcasing surfing on the coast of Peru comes at the expense of a more in-depth look at the country and it's natural attractions.

The production values are good, but not noteworthy - the surfing segments are probably the best; clearly the passion of the team filming this.

My biggest criticism is that the natural attractions are covered only fleetingly in a rushed way, with brief shots of this and that place without much explanation. The history side is covered a bit better, with Machu Picchu (obviously), as well as the Nazca Lines, Kuelap, and Caral-Supe featured briefly - given the scope of the documentary, probably adequately - but it's a real shame that so much of the 80 minutes is taken up by the surfing shots! For comparison, a much more well-rounded, excellent documentary of a (neighbouring) country is "Colombia magia salvaje".

I watched this with English sub-titles, not knowing Spanish. The narrator is a bit monotone, but that's not necessarily a bad thing, as his voice fades into the background as you read the sub-titles.

Interesting facts about the geography, history, and animal life in the Atlantic. This is mostly an animal documentary, but provides an appropriate amount of contextual information - how the atlantic was formed, a little bit on the use by humans, etc. The first episode focuses on the Gulf Stream, which acts as a story line for that episode. I quite liked that it provided a natural flow to that episode.

The documentary is not up there with the best of BBC, but definitely high quality, with very good camera work - particularly up-close to the animal action.

I would have rated this documentary higher, but have rated it down by at least 1 star because of the sleepy narrator voice. He almost sounds disinterested, but at least he is good to understand and not cheesy.

Great idea to have a documentary about special trees - I just wish it was focusing more on the trees and not mainly on the animals that make use of the tree.

I understand that the animals making use of the trees are an important part, but at times it feels like an animal wildlife documentary. Having said that, the story telling is very good, so is the camera work, but not up to BBC standards. The narrator is a little bit sleepy sounding.

I watched this on Netflix with the title "Trees of Life", and I expected a documentary about many trees, not just 3 that are all in Africa.

The narrator is not too bad, but his attempts of humorous lines are often cheesy.

The camera work is OK, but it is obvious a big amount of the footage is from enclosures in zoos, captive animals, etc. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but you don't want to see distracting enclosure structures, etc. in the background in a nature documentary.

The cinematography is poor - the framing is more or less point and shoot, the focus often goes in and out.

The actual content is probably the only thing that is slightly above average (maybe a "6" for just the topics), as there are some surprising facts.

If you like Star Wars, you're going to love this movie. That aside though, if you're looking for a good family movie that appeals to grown-ups and kids alike, but without any cringy silliness, but also (by nature of being a family movie) without overly sophisticated plots, then go enjoy this movie!

The good points (no plot spoilers):

* Good amount of humour - one-liners, funny scenes - without being cheesy or ridiculous.

* Han Solo being Han Solo!

* Great new lead characters that I can see a new trilogy building with.

* Good amount of nostalgia and references to the original trilogy (characters, species in the background), but without being distracting or making it harder on people not so familiar with the original trilogy.

* Good plausible continuity in plot and existing characters.

* Great action scenes, but not dominated by action.

* Fully self-contained movie, but a solid setup for future continued plot development.

* No stupidly goofy character like Jar Jar Binks!

The bad points:

* If you're cynical, you could argue many points and characters are a re-hash of Episode IV.

* No sophisticated plot (if you were looking for that, then this is not the movie you were looking for ;-)

The Galapagos Islands and their animals are the stars of this documentary. David Attenborough's narrative gives an easily understandable explanation of how the islands came to be, their lifecycle, the animals that live there, how they got there and evolved, and what is so remarkable about it - their adaptation and evolution. Very interesting to watch, including for children 8 and up.

The shots are very well done, but not as grand and breathtaking as other big scale documentaries with a global scope, but that is largely due to the specialized topic of this mini series. Some of the token shots to just have the aging David Attenborough in the frame felt slightly contrived, but his narrative and delivery of explanations is certainly still up to the task! I watched this in 2D, as I don't like the visual look of 3D, so the "making of" was a bit of a waste, as it focuses a lot on 3D and the difficulties of bringing the big and heavy 3D cameras to hard to reach filming location. A slightly saddening note was also realizing in that last episode how much tourism has (inevitably?) already swamped the Galapagos, especially since the main episodes of the series portrayed an untouched original wilderness.

If you're a Star Wars fan anywhere from 8 years old to adult, you will love this movie - I was initially skeptical of buying a movie only 22 minutes long, but it crams an incredible amount of humor and detail into it. You will likely watch it at least 3 times to pick up all the funny elements, quick-witted lines, references to the live-action Star Wars movies, and details and jokes in the background.

The animation is very good and fitting for a LEGO Star Wars movie. The storyline is not complex or refined, but that doesn't matter, as the intent and focus is squarely on humor. The humor is best appreciated the more you know the Star Wars movies - most of it is parody, very little is cheap silly humor.

This mini series is up to the benchmark-setting standard of David Attenborough BBC nature documentaries, even though not narrated by him.

Each episode focuses on the birds of a different continent. The key feature of the documentary series is the bird's-eye view and the life of the birds from their perspective.

The rock-steady close-up camera-work of birds high up in full flight, over fantastic scenery, as well as the bird-mounted cameras, are nothing short of amazing and leaves you wondering how on Earth they did it!

The episodes are narrated by ex-Doctor Who David Tennant with his native Scottish accent. It may take a few minutes to get used to his accent, but like in "Polar Bears", his delivery is refreshing and captivating.

A very good documentary about the lives and struggles of several families of polar bears through the first year of their cubs. The cinematography, storytelling and pacing is almost up to the standard of a big BBC documentary series. David Tennant provides the narrative in his native Scottish accent, which may be a bit distracting at first.

The "stars" of this documentary are not just the bears, but also the very innovative "spy cameras" that are used to track and film the daily lives of the polar bears up-close. This provides not only a novel perspective, but also some fun moments, as the ever-curious bears initially investigate the remote-controlled cameras until they get used to them. The cameras are camouflaged to look like objects in the natural surroundings, and once the bears ignore them, they go about their business uninhibited. This, and the remarkable picture quality of these mobile cameras, allows for an unprecedented level of closeness.

The pacing is good and given a number of quite funny moments, it should hold the attention of younger viewers as well. Environmental concerns are hinted at, but not pushed like in some other documentaries. True to its title, this is primarily a documentary about polar bears and should be interesting and captivating for anyone with even a slight interest in them.

Peter Jackson continues to balance a faithful adaptation of a revered book with the realities of the movie format. The almost 3 hours fly by quickly and it almost feels like the movie needed a slower pace, but I suppose it has to first and foremost "entertain".

The acting is superb and while there are some comical and light-hearted moments, it is never kitschy or childish. I was afraid Bombur was going to turn out to be ridiculously silly, but I was wrong. Gollum is arguably even better than in LOTR and in some scenes surprisingly likable! Martin Freeman is an amazingly convincing hobbit, and Bilbo's relationship with Gandalf is nicely introduced/explained at the beginning.

The New Zealand scenery and sets are as grand and detailed as we are used to from LOTR and the CGI so good that you don't notice it, which in my opinion is the best compliment one could give. The Shire looks wonderful and even more detailed than in LOTR and other locations in both forested and mountainous areas are stunning!

Minor criticisms: 1. The scene with the mountain giants fighting felt a tad unnecessary for the flow of the movie.

2. Some action sequence shots seemed "made for 3D". Note: I watched the 2D version.

3. Only because it was unexpected: This movie is *not* for children, even though the book was intended for children. That will perhaps disappoint the parents of kids who read The Hobbit in anticipation of then watching the movie. I would say the minimum appropriate age for The Hobbit would be 13, but every parent has their own opinions on that.

In summary, an extremely well made, entertaining movie, irrespective of whether or not you've read The Hobbit.

PS: My favorite scenes: * The introduction of the dwarfs - well paced, balanced amount of humor. * The game of riddles - Andy Serkis at his best! * The final scenes concluding the confrontation with the Goblins/Wargs (can't be more specific without spoiling it ;-)

I have never watched a "Big, Bigger, Biggest" episode, but watched this one specifically because it was about the ISS. The documentary has a good mix of interviews and action shots with some good graphic illustrations thrown in. The "level" (of at least this episode) is aimed at the general population, thus concepts are explained in simple terms, suitable for 12 years and up I would say. For anyone who knows a bit more than the average person about the ISS, this probably doesn't offer anything new. Interestingly though, the scope does not just include the ISS, but every other "space station" that came before it, with the connecting thread being that each successive space station mastered yet another challenge, culminating (so far) in the ultimate space station, the ISS.

OK, I get it, the movie is only to show hot cars and girls, so I won't comment on the thin, improbable and hole-riddled plot. Instead I'm going to list just a few thing that are wrong about the cars in the movie, which I'm guessing was designed for viewers who largely have no clue about cars, maybe because the target audience is slightly too young to drive, i.e. early teens? Well, here goes: 1. NOS seems to be the solution to everything. There is a lot more involved to make a car go fast, yet the shop is full of NOS, NOS, and more NOS parts! Oh, and exhausts, because everyone knows loud exhausts are the 2nd most important thing that makes a car go fast ;-) 2. The car "tops out at 140", let's add some NOS (surprise!) and it'll go faster. If your car tops out at 140, NOS will not help you one bit. Maybe you're running out of gears, maybe the engine should be built for higher revs, but NOS won't change anything about your top speed! 3. The best qualities of the type of cars driven, modern Japanese cars, are cornering and handling. What do they do? They have a drag race on a straight instead - wrong car for this purpose, any average US muscle car will beat the hell out of the Jappa there with less money spent on it (and conversely, a modern Japanese car will leave an average old US muscle car in the dust in an actual race involving lots of corners).

4. Double-clutching ... oh dear, what a complete and utter nonsense! You double-clutch if you have an unsynchronized transmission - very unlikely - and even then only when you down-shift (which you never do in a drag race!) 5. 140mph is fast at the end of a quarter mile, but not that fast in principle, there are *many* European and Japanese cars that have a top speed around that figure or higher, even "family cars".

6. Nitrous oxide doesn't run out after a few seconds (lines in the movie indicate a racer has used his NOS boost "too early").

7. If Vin is serious about drag racing, he wouldn't have a sound system weighing a ton in his car. Note, there's a scene where the geek is explaining how to save 2-3kg of weight on the car they're building later on, so on the other hand they do seem to be interested in saving weight.

8. Towards the end, Vin drives the Charger and does a monstrous wheelie. You don't get that kind of traction/wheelie on anything but big fat racing slicks, yet the car has pretty normal tires on it.

9. While we're at it - the tires are smoking while he does a wheelie?! Wheelie means you have grip. Smoking tires means you don't have grip. Which is it?!? 10. A car like that Charger would definitely have a wheelie bar, especially since a wheelie as big and exaggerated as the one shown in the movie would just cost you time.

11. If you're serious about 1/4 mile times, you're not going to drive a FWD car, but rather a RWD or 4WD car.

12. Surely even the boy-racer scene with Jappa cars finds cheap stickers tacky (no pun intended) and would opt for real airbrush or pin-striping on their prized cars (there is one scene where they put decorative stickers(!) on a car).

13. Why would you rebuild a burnt out Supra?! Apparently their labor is free and restoring the car is done in a leisurely afternoon or something. Oh, and the engine is so special that $15k turns it into a 10s car! These are just off the top of my head, and I'm not even that knowledgeable about cars myself, so I'm sure there's plenty more wrong. The movie doesn't pretend to be anything it isn't, but at least they should have gotten the "car" parts right in what is meant to be a car movie! ...or did I get that wrong and I just watched a very long commercial for NOS (which is a brand name ;-) ?

I don't mind a remake and try to be open-minded, however, what this remake does is take all the action scenes from the 1981 original, add some more (presumably to squeeze in some 3D effects), and instead drop most of the storyline! What you are left with is a thin contrived plot where the actions of the characters make little sense.

The action scenes and CGI are good, but basically the kind you find in any average blockbuster movie today. There is no innovation, the creatures' looks seem contrived - the riders on the scorpions remind me of the Haradrim of LOTR, and the Kraken's face looks remarkably like a cave troll.

Without spoiling it, the original has intrigues amongst the gods and provides reasons for the actions of the characters (gods, humans and inbetween) - all missing from this remake, which rather concentrates only on the action sequences.

The reasoning of the protagonist makes no sense, as he changes his mind about accepting the gods' gifts when things get tough. The newly introduced love interest makes no sense, their dialog (like most of the lines in the movie) is bland, uninspired & uninspiring, and full of clichés.

The best acting is arguably from Pete Postlethwaite, but he doesn't get to say a lot.

This is an excellent, high quality animal documentary TV mini series. There 7 part series contains 4 actual animal documentary episodes dealing with the challenges arising from their migrations (or being the reason for them in the first place): The episodes titled "Born to Move", "Need to Breed", "Race to Survive", and "Feast or Famine" present these various aspects. Each episode focuses on the stories of a handful of completely different kinds of animals in a variety of locations across the globe - the only thing they have in common is that they all travel great distances in a migratory pattern. This is the clear, cohesive theme throughout the TV series. The remaining 3 episodes are: "Behind the Scenes", "Science of Migrations", and the un-narrated summary/re-hash "Rhythm of Life".

It is suitable for all ages in principle, but it does contain a few cases of predators killing other animals. In particular the crazy ants attacking the red crabs was very sad (esp. since the crazy ants are an introduced pest). Each of the migrations is treated as a story from start to end (or more aptly start of another cycle) in one episode, but the handful of stories per episode are interlaced, so it switches between them.

The camera work and production values are superb - in the same category as Planet Earth. The narrator is not as good though and frequently uses US-style exaggerations and clichéd phrases (very often things are "the greatest in the world", etc.)

I have just seen the 1960 version because I really liked the 2002 movie and had high hopes (originals are often better than remakes, of course). However, I was disappointed with the original. The acting is surprisingly not good, the pacing is inconsistent and surely those awful special effects would not have been very good even in 1960 (I have seen much better special effects in movies from the 50s!).

However, what surprised me the most were the differences in the storyline. This movie comes across like a fun trip into the future, just to return ready for tea time (I reckon the main character in the 2002 version has a more compelling reason for time travel!). The poor acting (also of his dinner guests, let alone the people in the future) doesn't help either. The idea of finding a time without war is the only idea that somewhat redeems the main character's reasoning.

The predictions of the future are obviously driven by the sentiment at the time, so I can't fault it for that, but this original version is full of obvious logical flaws, e.g. the English language being spoken well by everyone, so far into the future. When it came to the scene with the talking rings, I thought, wow, at last something visionary, maybe they're CDs of some kind, but no ... I won't spoil it, but suffice to say, the idea is technically ludicrous (and should have been even in 1960). Also, the lack of a ruler of the morlock makes it implausible that they build the machines, etc. just by themselves, as primitive and bumbling (and afraid of simple fire) as they seem.

Some say this original version has more charm - I don't see it, I just see a stilted acting, a dumb, *very* stereotypical blonde as the love interest, and ridiculous looking morlocks.

In summary, while above average *for its time* (hence the 6 stars), it is somewhat logically flawed. The storyline could be more compelling, the acting could be better, and the special effects are not good for 1960 (must have had no competition at the Oscars that year!). It's worthwhile watching for completeness, but certainly not as good as the 2002 remake in every aspect. Don't snobbily put a "classic" on a pedestal just because it's considered a "classic" (to some, just being old is enough for a movie to be called that).

I have just seen the 1960 version because I really liked this movie and had high hopes (originals are often better than remakes of course). However, I was disappointed with the original. This 2002 version obviously has better directing, surprisingly better acting, and (unsurprisingly) much better special effects - I reckon the special effects in this movie are good by 2000s standards, whereas surely the ones in the original would have been bad by 1960s standards.

What struck me as most surprising though is that the 2002 version's story is much deeper - it deals with the subject of inevitability and explores whether the main character can change the past. In doing so, it gives the main character much more of a reason to go into the future than the original version did (which came across as a fun adventure, coming back just right for tea time).

So, the main actors look better, so there's a romance - but hey, they had a pretty girl in the 1960 version, too, so don't diss it because of that. I have not read the book, so I don't know whether the brainy ruler of the morlock is in the book or not - it is never mentioned in the 1960s version, but here makes total sense and is a gaping plot hole in the 1960s version (how could the seemingly primitive morlocks build the machines by themselves?!). The movie has some very good ideas (whether original or from the book, but certainly not in the 1960 movie), like where the people live, the way they live, the changed language, the old library and remnants of the original language.

In summary, this *is* an intelligent movie just like the 1960 version, but without some logical flaws. On top of that, it is enjoying to watch, well paced, looks nice and has good special effects.

The first 10 minutes are great and heartfelt, but the rest of the movie is just standard kiddie-animated-action-movie fare, but without any really funny gags or interesting or quirky characters. It seems for a lot of people the central premise/moral of the story touches a nerve, but that one idea alone isn't enough to lift the movie above an average rating.

The animation is very good, as one has come to expect from Pixar, but sorry, the bar has been raised - in 2009 this level of quality has become the norm, i.e. average.

The character development is good for Carl Fredricksen, but lacks depth for Russell and also for Charles Munts. Carl is really the only person in the movie who you kind of get attached to, but again, mainly due to the first 10 minutes montage of his life.

The movie doesn't contain a lot of humour - the one it does have seems forced and silly (dog voice collars, the bird swallowing Carl's walking stick, etc. - yawn). This movie is nowhere near the league of Pixar greats ranging from Toy Story to Wall-E. For other studios this might be considered good, but for Pixar I would consider it average at best.

Having lived there for a while, this movie is a very accurate portrayal of the typical Austrian (yes, I know it's a generalization - there are always exceptions). For me, this movie is both a comedy as well as a critical look at the problems in Austria:

* Xenophobia - shown in the condesendence shown towards the illegal immigrant worker. This is absolutely common in Austria. * Male chauvinism - Austria still is a very conservative society when it comes to roles of males and females and who "has the pants on". * Corruption - so called "Freunderlwirtschaft"; it is not untypical in Austria to circumvent fair competition for jobs, rights of passing on apartments, etc. by preferential treatment and doing "under the table"-deals. Also, every little village in Austria seems to have their own mayor and again, there's a lot of wheeling and dealing going on behind the scenes. * Parochialism ("kleinkariert") - for many Austrians, the most exotic holiday would be to go to Italy (or Mallorca, as mentioned in the movie) and end up lazing on a beach and ordering "Wiener Schnitzel" instead of local cuisine. People like the one woman who has lived all her life in the same small village and hasn't even been up the hill does exist!

Many other little things, little bits of the language, the pathetic obsession with "Schrebergarten", the reaction of the village folk to a "Wiener", round out the movie's attention to detail.

So, in summary, it's both a comedy as well as tragic in a way, but certainly well made and in particular very authentically acted! Not sure what to make of the ending, though, because up to that point, it was utterly realistic.

Apparently, there is a germanized version of it - if you can manage to understand a Viennese accent, definitely go for the original Austrian one!

First up, Stargate SG-1 in my opinion was one of the best TV series ever! The movie does a good job of tying up all the loose ends and the performances of the cast are as good as we have come to expect of a cast that has lived these characters' roles for up to 10 years.

Having said that, the movie does exactly what was intended - closure - and nothing more. Since this is a movie and not a TV series, I rate it as such and if I look at it as a movie, it is an average science fiction movies. The special effects are good, but every average science fiction movie has good special effects these days.

The story is actually not that innovative (*over and beyond* what we know from the TV series) and somehow there isn't a great deal of suspense developing anywhere through the movie. It never gets boring, but at the same time, it feels a bit like a re-union, kind of a "let's have a fun movie for old time's sake" movie.

The ending scene is also a bit cheesy.

Note: 6 is not a *bad* rating in my books (can check my other ratings) - it is slightly above average.

In German, this series was called "Biene Maya", in English "Maya the Bee". It features two young bees having adventures out and about, discovering new things and helping other insects. Among their friends are a wise grasshopper, they also encounter ants, beetles, earthworms, and some not so nice wasps and the spider Thekla.

I would say the target audience is 2 - 8 year old children. The animation is good for its age, but you do notice that the series is over 25 years old, however, it holds up very well compared to modern children's TV series, especially as the characters and story lines are well thought through.

Most 20 minute long episodes will convey values such as friendship, helping others, etc., but the messages are never too blatant.