Reviews

I don't think I can rate this higher than the original based on better special effects, because then you're only grading the present state of technology as better. That aspect of this you'll probably find more enjoyable, naturally.

I think also that the original was made for a younger audience being influenced by Buck Rogers and Star Wars, undoubtedly a decision by the studio to cash in on a trend. This new version is slightly freer to be itself.

Where the new version is not freer, however is that it is just the latest action movie, another Godzilla vs Kong, another Transformers. Accordingly, its drama scenes are not as intense as in the original. I think this enabled Lynch to do a better job of explaining the complexities of the plot and he even did so in a shorter runtime.

I think in the end, I enjoyed that the remake is less goofy and has better effects, but I wish it had been better at storytelling. There was something lost in this version on that end which, again, may've been a producer's decision.

The opening credits go on longer than I can remember in anything else. Then, the movie transitions into a slow drama with not-so-well written dialogue and uninteresting characters. After about a half-hour of that, the movie finally has its first scene that I could care about. And then the story is kinda okay. But, it almost seems like, between the slow opening and the slow development, there was an attempt to stretch a one-hour piece, maybe a pilot, into a movie.

The monster is really cool though. So, I was a little generous with my rating.

It was not the full three-sixty on the band, but centers on their sound in the Reed-Cale era and rather than spend much time on theory, it focuses on who Lou and John were as people in order to explain it, delving into the environment they lived and created in. It also eventually compares them to contemporaries, but again, here it prefers to compare who they were in attitude and emotion. When John and Lou split, when the band starts winding down, the movie also starts winding down. I'm fine with all that. Visually, I felt like it was interesting, but not mind blowing. Personally, I didn't need to it to be a visual masterpiece to be satisfying. I didn't need it to interview every former flat mate or girlfriend, I didn't need it to chase down every subplot in the band, I didn't need a happy ending. I wanted a piece on Lou and John and what made the band what they were. It's a two-hour piece on that.

The whole problem with this one is the story as written for or edited for the screen.

It starts really heavy but follows up with a plot so simple you can guess it on your first try, which it then navigates in a dull way that makes the movie hard to care about at all.

Basically, it goes through a lot of trouble to grab your interest, just to do nothing with it except bore you silly.

This reminds me a little of Voyager in that its first episode is a little clumsy, but I'm happy to report that the cast and crew of Discovery grew into their roles quickly. This is definitely not my least favorite Trek series, but not favorite either.

Star Trek was always a bit cheesy and I think Disco has maintained that element. That's probably not easy in this series because it's a little more graphic and realistic than the others - this is probably not a Trek series meant for kids under about 12, some might argue for even older. So, Its target audience is a little older than even the Ent audience was; it's more graphic than Ent. However, if you're looking for super heavy full-grown adult stories, you probably won't find them in star Trek. There is still an appeal to some kids which continues to be true, just as it was true for everything Star Trek from the beginning. Also, don't listen to Star Wars fanboys who come here and talk about "canon," because Star Trek hasn't cared about canon for like 30 years, it's a concept that is not a thing with Star Trek and actually it isn't really a thing for Star Wars any more either.

Lastly, it is also great to see that Star Trek is still an American TV leader for inclusion and diversity.

PG-13 has kinda come to mean 'This movie is not intended for audiences 13 and older.' Meanwhile, PG has come to mean 'Appropriate just for toddlers with puritanically strict parents.' This movie seems like it is just meant for children.

I disagree that CGI carried this movie. I think that we see so much CGI nowadays that CGI is mostly an inert element and you have to rely on the story firstly along with all the classic movie elements like acting, instead.

As for the fight sequences, most of them were okay, but generally this movie succeeds on hype, like a non-title match between a champion boxer and a celebrity from another sport - the fights didn't live up to the promotion. Everyone who paid for this fight kinda got took.

On the non-fight sequences, there was a lot of standard bad Hollywood stuff, like closeups for seemingly no reason unless the actors had it in their contracts. Also, I felt like a lot of the movie was recycled, like I'd seen it 100 times since the late '70s, each time with a different subject and title: the jokes felt old, the characters felt reused. Moreover, it wasn't a particularly good makeover. I barely made it through. In fact, I hoped it would end sooner and there were long spans that I didn't care about it at all.

I don't think I'm its intended audience though. Kids may like it. Unless they've already seen 'Ghost Busters,' 'Transformers,' 'Goonies,' 'Gremlins,' etc..

If you enjoy "Next Generation," like me, then you're probably happy about the new show, "Picard," but there are some significant stylistic differences between this and the older show which have strengths and weaknesses.

In contrast to "The Next Generation," the first season of "Picard" is pretty much all business with its single overarching plot line that spans the entire first 10 episodes, a continuation of what happened at the end of "The Next Generation" and gone are the lighter standalone and two or three part stories found in the earlier seasons of the earlier show. In fact, "Picard" lacks that lightheartedness which was such an important part of "The Next Generation's" draw, instead diving straight into the heaviest story available. The story used for the first season of "Picard" is a continuation of the most serious story from Picard's past. It does make the most convincing case for the return of Picard from retirement and back onto your screen, but if you were ready, by the end of "Next Generation," to move on from that story and see something else, then the first season of "Picard" might well seem a little grueling to sit through.

That said, as someone who was indeed ready to see what happened in the last season of "The Next Generation" become a smaller detail about Picard, I have to admit that, generally speaking, the creative team behind "Picard" did a pretty good job with it. So, it was less grueling than I anticipated even though I did wish to move on already and maybe even have the occasional fun little short story arch like on the older show.

Notwithstanding, to me, the first season of "Picard" started out much more compelling than it ended and I feel that I have to acknowledge that although "Picard's" writers took on the most convincing case for Picard's return, they ultimately didn't make it into the best story. Maybe I felt that way because the story which they continued from the end of "The Next Generation" was one of my least favorite stories from that show, albeit the most serious, but I also think that "Picard's" supporting characters were sometimes much weaker than those on "The Next Generation" and the reason for that could be that instead of doing shorter, more playful plots that allow us to learn about and bond with the characters, "Picard's" first season took a path that left no time for anything of that style.

It might have been better but the music was terribly awkward throughout and really ruined it. Also, I don't think that it was as effective at being scary as the original, either, because it relied a bit on too much on camera tricks and CGI. Although acting between the kids was usually good, the grownup actors generally weren't picked or directed as carefully and typically were bad. It's biggest problem was that the dialogue was sometimes unnatural and unconvincing. It probably still could have been a six star movie for me with minor changes, but as is, it's a five. IT wasn't quite worth my time.

Some awful casting, bad acting especially by John Boyega, weak character development, and it relied on Star Wars cliches rather than a good original story.

If you are a big fan of westerns then you may not like this movie very much. On the other hand, if you are more of a fan of art and grind house style cinema then this will be more to your liking. There's a lot of camp and post-post-modernism in this movie. So, corniness is just too big of an ingredient in the recipe for it to take itself very seriously as a western. It's more cartoon-like than gritty. I'm rounding up to give it six stars our of ten.

Watching this is like trying to pretend that someone in a tuxedo t-shirt is wearing a real tuxedo. I also feel like I'm being made to pretend that such bull is truth not for my own sake, but for the sake of this show's creators.

I would welcome and enjoy exploring myths, the unknown or disputed aspects of the late Middle Ages and the crusades. This, however, revises facts, interesting facts. For what purpose it revises those facts, it is unclear. While it might even be an alright show otherwise, it certainly has not made the crusades any more exciting, but possibly less so.

Why not, for example, also make a show that pretends in all seriousness that Richard Nixon was president during the American Civil War?

This is a wasted opportunity.

It was cleverly written, for the most part. There were even times when it felt almost real. It has some problems though.

For starters, I left feeling a bit skeptical of the quality of the camera work. As for the story, although basically clever, there was a moment or two when it was hilariously predictable. However, it's most persistent problem is that its acting is terrible.

It would be nice to have a show that sometimes explores social issues in a constructive way, for young viewers. This show has a character, Tanya, who has prejudices, who generalizes about people of a certain color, but it's not presented as though her stereotyping is wrong. There is no evidence of oppression shown against her in this series, and all of the people closest to her, who she generalizes about behind their backs, seem are completely fair, good and decent to her. I realize her sort of attitude is common and often accepted lately, but if you're going to have it in a show, no matter how common it's become or what direction it comes from, it should be addressed, otherwise you risk offending some of your viewers. So, the writers of this show are recklessly bad, and that's also apparent by the overall lack of quality episodes.

I've been a fan of Evil Dead for decades, so this show is fun for me. I'll start with a mild criticism though: I feel like subplots in the series can sometimes be a little thin. Yet, I really like the 30-minute length of most episodes, even though that relative shortness may account for some of the occasional thinness. I just feel like the 30-minute length keeps the story advancing at a thrilling pace. There are enough great comedic moments to make it feel like slapstick and enough great action sequences to carry viewers almost from the start to finish, at that length.

Another critical observation: continuing a trend that started with Army of Darkness but to a lesser extent, one departure AvED makes from the first couple Evil Dead movies is that while, with gore and monsters, it looks like a scary movie from a distance, closer inspection reveals that devices which horror writers use to actually scare audiences best aren't often used or used to full effect here. If there were a 1-10 scale for ranking horror stories just on how scary they are and on nothing else, this show, graded liberally, wouldn't make it above a seven for even the biggest chickens, and for the toughest viewers this, still graded liberally, might just scrape into the realm of a four...maybe. So forgetting all the other elements which make this a good show, and just grading it on horror, I think it averages out to about a 5.5 on the scary meter, if I'm kind to it. Anything horror that isn't wet-your-jeans scary is always slightly disappointing to me in at least one respect. A horror-comedy should be successful in both horror and in comedy. This show probably gets it done in both areas, but in the area of horror, it's maybe resting a bit on the pretty old and now dusty laurels of the first two Evil Dead movies. They need to spruce up the scary.

The fact that this show isn't quite scary enough for me, I think, could be evidence that its creators are more concerned with reach than by its merit as art. The wide diversity of its cast could further evidence an attempt to reach further and grab more viewers, in the name of making more money. My guess is that, if that is the motive, then this show will wear out its welcome a little early. For now, though, I'll give an eight of ten.

Nightbreed is one example where advancements in special effects would now make Cabal, the book it is based on, easier to realize on screen and could finally do that story full justice. Also, probably for reasons of pacing, and to reach a wider audience, this movie censors and omits scenes from Cabal, that book it is based on. Not only has the movie been edited to sometimes omit the most intense scenes, but sometimes the story is just basically changed for reasons unclear. I wont knock Barker's screenplay or directing for this, but I will say that a lot could be done to remake this title and have it be really different than this version of the story. Maybe it could even develop into a series if we are lucky. There are so many aspects that could be changed that a remake could still end up feeling as definitive or more definitive than this version.

Its dialogue sometimes seems more well suited for its target audience than for its characters. Actually, fairly often it doesn't seem to fit the characters at all. Also, I think that it failed to grab me at a few pivotal plot points. For example, instead of being drawn in by certain scenes which were meant to be very tense, instead I found myself paying more attention to devises such as the music in such scenes. So, it wasn't a seamless movie watching experience. However, I like science fiction horror, and there were some things I liked about this picture. Still, ultimately, while I don't feel like it was a complete waste of time, I feel like it's basically forgettable.

5.4/10

I read the novel before seeing the television show. The basic setting for the story is very interesting to me, but I think the book got cheap and disappointing about midway through and remained as such. Still, I gave the TV show a chance. However, it was very poorly realized on screen. It had nothing to do with acting. It just didn't seem to translate well. The story on TV wasn't always presented with great artistic vision. That's a recipe for failure when, after all, the story isn't great to begin with. Unlike the novel, not even the the first half of the first season is good. In fact, it was just really dull the whole way through.

I understand that people want a good science fiction series to watch. I want one as much as anyone else, but don't kid yourselves about this show. It's bad. That being my opinion, my rating of seven stars may seem generous. Actually though, I've never been able to keep interest in a show with less than an average rating of about eight and a half stars. So, my view is honest. It looks at the big picture, taking into account that the vast majority of television is crap. I grade on a curve. Therefore seven stars, for me, means essentially not worth watching, though maybe with a few good things going for it here and there. Likewise, I found a few episodes kind of okay, at least in part, but had to drag myself through most of it,unable to really care about it.

The pseudo reality style of film is easy to paint yourself into a corner with if you are a filmmaker, in the same way that writing in the first-person is a trap to avoid for fiction writers. As an example of that style, "Area 51" indeed becomes awkward from time to time. Notwithstanding, pound-for-pound, "Area 51" is one of the better recent examples of the pseudo reality style of movie, a style which can, after all, be chosen simply to meet budgetary restrictions. Therefore, I'm not deducting substantially for use of that style.

What I liked about this movie is that it built and sustained suspense in a very healthy and economical way for a science fiction horror movie, and for that type of movie, that's the key to success.

Although "Area 51" started off somewhat weakly, as its story and tension built up, I gradually liked it, until, by the end, I actually liked it more than I disliked it. So I gave it a six out of ten stars.

I immediately liked the idea that the makers of this movie had, of using the world surrounding commercial haunted houses, for setting. Additionally, although I was tempted to make an automatic deduction for its use of the found footage cliché, and pseudo documentary style, I held off, and instead, I was ultimately pleasantly surprised by how well this movie handled those tired, barren, ridiculous, sickeningly depleted sub-genres. So, rather than its style, the problem with this movie is actually that its story really isn't that great, especially in how the tension that it builds is too gradual and not intense or quite as sustained as it ever needs to be in order to make a great horror movie. I also thought that the main characters, apparently somehow a group of thirty-something teenagers, or a group of teenagers visibly in their thirties, were a bit bizarre, but they acted the part really well.

I love the premise for this show. The main character Elliot almost even seems to speak for me at times. Also, I am a fan of Christian Slater's work from the 1980s and early 1990s. So this show has a large potential for me. However, although I think Mr. Robot is basically well accomplished, its average review rating on IMDb makes me compare it to other shows with IMDb average review ratings near to it. And unfortunately, so far, I don't think Mr. Robot builds suspense quite as well as shows like Breaking Bad or True Detective have, nor is the over all performance of Mr. Robot's acting as high, and its scripts are not quite as strong.

Mr. Robot is indeed a good show, but maybe its being done a slight disservice by some overzealous viewers. I think amateur reviewers have a tendency to overrate when they particularly enjoy the theme behind a particular movie or television show. Additionally, I think sometimes even professional reviewers will take a populist view and rate movies and television shows just based on whether they think most people will enjoy such rather than rate such according to what they feel are the actual technical and artistic merits of the piece in question. That all seems to be the case with Mr. Robot. So instead of being able to just write about how I enjoy Mr. Robot and to what extent here, I'm almost forced to say that although Mr. Robot is good, it is slightly overrated, and that is unfortunate.

Of course, all is not said and done with Mr. Robot. This show is only six episodes into its first season. I predict that it could, ultimately, deserve a rating in the neighborhood of 9/10, and by "neighborhood," I mean a very strong 8/10, say an 8.8 or an 8.9. However, at the moment, I have it at about an 8.3 or 8.4 of ten, so I'm rounding to the nearest whole number in my rating and giving it eight stars. Every TV show that I've tried which was rated by other viewers at below 8.2/10 has eventually felt like a waste of time to me. So, my actual rating of 8.35/10 stands for a a bit above average or pretty good.

This show feels a lot more like "Castle" than like "Breaking Bad," and just about anyone who has watched "Castle" should recognize its formula by now. Rather than slow developments designed to build lots of tension, this show has so many twists and turns of plot in one episode, that you may not even have time to think much about what is happening. So there is very little tension in it because everything goes by fast, and over all, that makes for very light viewing. Moreover, despite its setting and some of its characters, its grittiness is mild, and instead of the boundary-pushing edginess of "Breaking Bad," it has moments when it is even a bit campy. Yet the quality of the stories and the acting are pretty good, probably better than we had with "Castle." And in sum, it is kind of like television's equivalent to comfort food: Not challenging, but easy and familiar.

There are a few instances of awkwardly read lines that seem to have more to do with the acting of the two who play parents of the family that this story is centered on rather than completely on the director. The director has to take a bit of blame for those problems, but I stress acting rather than directing, because the child actors, if not the adults, do a really good job. Despite those couple instances of bad acting, the story remains fairly engaging. There is a subplot which seems not to enhance or advance the plot in any way, but for all its uselessness, it doesn't detract from the story much. So, for me this is closer to a seven out of ten than it is to a six, specifically, about a 6.6 or 6.7.