Search
Search results
Pete Thompson (4339 KP) rated The Stand in TV
Feb 10, 2021
I've never written a full review before as I let my score tell the story for the film/TV show in my view and don't like to influence people by what I write, simply put watch it and make your own judgement but with this steaming pile of crap I've had to do this just to get the anger and loathing off my chest.
I heard this was being redone and was looking forward to it having an update and a larger budget than the 94 version (which I love) I thought it wouldn't be as good but would be a solid installment.
I listen to audio books now as I dont get time to read with work and my toddler keeping me busy so I got The Stand to listen to; to get the story back into my head properly and get the juices flowing. I had read it back in the 90s but had forgotten things about it and just had memories of the 94 mini series and had put the scenes from that into the book. Anyway the cast list came out with their characters and just looking through them I said the only 1 that might be ok was Whoopi Goldberg as Mother Abigail. The rest I wasn't keen on and in the case of Larry and The Judge being the wrong race and sex respectively made me irrate and Glen being too young but thought I better wait and see. Oh my god I was proven wrong not being keen was great until I actually watched this mess. Main characters that don't get much screen time Nick, Flagg, Tom, Mother Abigail, Larry and Stu compared to the book and 94 series. Harold gets waaaay too much screen time, Lloyd is just an irritating man child twerp, Tom needs to be punched whats with the hands together bow like he is chinese? And trashcan man oh my word who the hell thought that was the performance required? I can honestly say I wouldnt even swap the peripheral actors from 94 for the main cast in this.
The original story had a beginning, middle and end. The 94 series did it the same. Welcome to 2020/21 series and a director that thinks he's being clever starting the show at the midway point and having flash backs but only for certain characters at certain times in each episode. Even knowing the book and 94 series didn't help to keep track of where the story was and what time frame. I sst there getting more and more angry at the stupid style but what made it worse is the liberties taken to change the story no tunnel sequence for Larry now a sewer so 80s/90s horror cliche, Mother Abigail is in a retirement home not still living independently in her own home baking her own bread. Nick and Tom being in the same town from the start not meeting on the road in the case for Nick, no sherif and doctor that Nick meets after his beating on the road not in a bar as shown in this version. Video cameras being used by Harold to spy on the committee and to monitor his home were never in the book he read Franny' diary on the road and she breaks into his house 1st not Larry. Randall Flagg is supposed to be feared by the good side but this version is laughable as you barely see him and when he is there there is no feeling of threat and underlying malice from him, I expected a lot better from Skarsgard after his brother knocked it out the park with Stephen Kings IT remake. He just didn't seem to really be arsed about the character and was there for a paycheck.
Anyway sorry for such a long rant but loving the book and 94 series this pile of dog s**t should be scrubbed from all records and forgotten about the only redeeming things it has going for it is the music and thats usually a song just as the episode is about to end and the evil side looks a lot more like it would for people without moral compasses and surpasses the 94 series on this part only.
I give it a 2 / 10 and it only gets that due to the music. A very disappointing reboot when all you had to do was follow a great book with the right casting.
I heard this was being redone and was looking forward to it having an update and a larger budget than the 94 version (which I love) I thought it wouldn't be as good but would be a solid installment.
I listen to audio books now as I dont get time to read with work and my toddler keeping me busy so I got The Stand to listen to; to get the story back into my head properly and get the juices flowing. I had read it back in the 90s but had forgotten things about it and just had memories of the 94 mini series and had put the scenes from that into the book. Anyway the cast list came out with their characters and just looking through them I said the only 1 that might be ok was Whoopi Goldberg as Mother Abigail. The rest I wasn't keen on and in the case of Larry and The Judge being the wrong race and sex respectively made me irrate and Glen being too young but thought I better wait and see. Oh my god I was proven wrong not being keen was great until I actually watched this mess. Main characters that don't get much screen time Nick, Flagg, Tom, Mother Abigail, Larry and Stu compared to the book and 94 series. Harold gets waaaay too much screen time, Lloyd is just an irritating man child twerp, Tom needs to be punched whats with the hands together bow like he is chinese? And trashcan man oh my word who the hell thought that was the performance required? I can honestly say I wouldnt even swap the peripheral actors from 94 for the main cast in this.
The original story had a beginning, middle and end. The 94 series did it the same. Welcome to 2020/21 series and a director that thinks he's being clever starting the show at the midway point and having flash backs but only for certain characters at certain times in each episode. Even knowing the book and 94 series didn't help to keep track of where the story was and what time frame. I sst there getting more and more angry at the stupid style but what made it worse is the liberties taken to change the story no tunnel sequence for Larry now a sewer so 80s/90s horror cliche, Mother Abigail is in a retirement home not still living independently in her own home baking her own bread. Nick and Tom being in the same town from the start not meeting on the road in the case for Nick, no sherif and doctor that Nick meets after his beating on the road not in a bar as shown in this version. Video cameras being used by Harold to spy on the committee and to monitor his home were never in the book he read Franny' diary on the road and she breaks into his house 1st not Larry. Randall Flagg is supposed to be feared by the good side but this version is laughable as you barely see him and when he is there there is no feeling of threat and underlying malice from him, I expected a lot better from Skarsgard after his brother knocked it out the park with Stephen Kings IT remake. He just didn't seem to really be arsed about the character and was there for a paycheck.
Anyway sorry for such a long rant but loving the book and 94 series this pile of dog s**t should be scrubbed from all records and forgotten about the only redeeming things it has going for it is the music and thats usually a song just as the episode is about to end and the evil side looks a lot more like it would for people without moral compasses and surpasses the 94 series on this part only.
I give it a 2 / 10 and it only gets that due to the music. A very disappointing reboot when all you had to do was follow a great book with the right casting.
Sarah (7800 KP) rated Stargate SG-1 in TV
Dec 5, 2017
Sci-fi tv at its best
I’m finding it hard to believe that this show has been over since 2007. You’d find it hard to believe that a fairly good but not brilliant film could provide the basis for a fantastic series, but Stargate has done just that.
It’s an action packed sci-fi adventure, full of humour and intrigue with some surprisingly good special effects for the time it was made. The cast and characters are well written and loveable, with Richard Dean Anderson as Jack O’Neill being by far my favourite, full of razor sharp wit and sarcasm. Better played by far than Kurt Russell in the film. The rest of the characters too though are hard not to like despite their differing personalities, and they all make for such a fun and endearing dynamic. Personally I think the characters are what kept this going for so long.
It isn’t without its faults, as sadly i think towards the end it went slightly downhill with some of the main characters disappearing and it’s probably good that it ended when it did.
Still, I have a very fond nostalgic memory of this show as it used to be on Channel 4 on Sunday evenings and I’d sit down to watch it every week without fail with my dad. Fantastic show.
It’s an action packed sci-fi adventure, full of humour and intrigue with some surprisingly good special effects for the time it was made. The cast and characters are well written and loveable, with Richard Dean Anderson as Jack O’Neill being by far my favourite, full of razor sharp wit and sarcasm. Better played by far than Kurt Russell in the film. The rest of the characters too though are hard not to like despite their differing personalities, and they all make for such a fun and endearing dynamic. Personally I think the characters are what kept this going for so long.
It isn’t without its faults, as sadly i think towards the end it went slightly downhill with some of the main characters disappearing and it’s probably good that it ended when it did.
Still, I have a very fond nostalgic memory of this show as it used to be on Channel 4 on Sunday evenings and I’d sit down to watch it every week without fail with my dad. Fantastic show.
Fred (860 KP) rated Aquaman (2018) in Movies
Feb 20, 2019
The best DCEU film so far
It still astonishes me that DC can make such good (or at least decent) TV shows, while they can't do movies too well. So, when I watched Aquaman last night, I was highly surprised. It's a good film. It's a very good film. It's easily the best film in the DCEU so far. Taking a page from Marvel, Aquaman is a fun film, full of action & great characters. Yes, who would think that Aquaman would be the most interesting DC character in the DCEU? I give credit to Jason Momoa. He's funny, sexy (at least that's what my fiance says) & he kicks ass. The story borrows from the tale of King Arthur, and doesn't hide this fact. The movie is full of actors from other superhero films & they all play their parts well. I do wish the film was fleshed out more, but this is a film, not a series. It would have been nice to see the different "fish-people" tribes, instead of just having them as opponents on the battlefield. But I can overlook that because the battle was just intense. Great special-effects throughout as well. If I had one complaint, it would be the film ends suddenly. The battle is over & it's like everyone just stops & says "Arthur (Aquaman) is king! YAY!" and that's it.
Awix (3310 KP) rated Godzilla, Mothra and King Ghidorah: Giant Monsters All-Out Attack (2001) in Movies
Feb 17, 2018 (Updated Feb 17, 2018)
Four's a crowd
Twenty-sixth Godzilla movie (also eleventh Mothra movie, eighth Ghidorah movie and third Baragon movie, in case anyone's counting) recruits director Shusuke Kaneko, helmsman of the brilliant 90s Gamera trilogy; results are (perhaps inevitably) disappointing. A new incarnation of Godzilla threatens Japan, but a young tabloid TV journalist encounters a mysterious old man in an equestrian safety helmet who tells her of three legendary Guardian Monsters who will defend the country against this menace (Baragon is also a Guardian Monster but not famous enough to get his name in the title).
Some interesting innovations: first film to address (even obliquely) issues of Japanese culpability for events of the Second World War, first film where King Ghidorah is a good guy, first film with a scene set in Godzilla's intestinal tract. However, the end result is let down by a fatally uncertain tone - seemingly serious scenes of death and carnage are intercut with knockabout cheesy humour and in-jokes (in the English dub at least). The retro feel of the movie, hearkening back to the 60s films of the series, is not unwelcome, but its take on the formula is just plain weird. Most importantly it lacks the mythic grandeur of the Kaneko Gamera trilogy. Still better than the films which immediately preceded it, though.
Some interesting innovations: first film to address (even obliquely) issues of Japanese culpability for events of the Second World War, first film where King Ghidorah is a good guy, first film with a scene set in Godzilla's intestinal tract. However, the end result is let down by a fatally uncertain tone - seemingly serious scenes of death and carnage are intercut with knockabout cheesy humour and in-jokes (in the English dub at least). The retro feel of the movie, hearkening back to the 60s films of the series, is not unwelcome, but its take on the formula is just plain weird. Most importantly it lacks the mythic grandeur of the Kaneko Gamera trilogy. Still better than the films which immediately preceded it, though.
Gripping and gritty
Not normally a fan of British drama, I was persuaded to watch this based on the hype surrounding it and my wife being told by everyone at work how good it was. The first episode was exceptional TV - gripping, tense and realistic with strong characters outlined early on. For me, this was the peak, as PS David Budd (Richard Madden) acts on his suspicions over someone boarding his train.
From there on, Budd becomes embroiled in politics (as the protection officer for the outspoken Home Secretary) and a series of conspiracies. Right up until the final episode, there was a definite feel of early Homeland about this, as you are constantly trying to work out whether Budd is in on it, as the evidence suggests, or is honestly trying to stop the terrorists or find the culprits.
A few clumsy moments here or there that took the edge off for me (most notably certain people suddenly admitting everything under the lamest of police interrogations, but also more practical things like switching radio channels with only one hand).
Overall, Madden was a strong main actor, but as with a number of Scottish actors I find their need to soften their accent comes across as bad, less natural acting and it is hard for me to see past this.
From there on, Budd becomes embroiled in politics (as the protection officer for the outspoken Home Secretary) and a series of conspiracies. Right up until the final episode, there was a definite feel of early Homeland about this, as you are constantly trying to work out whether Budd is in on it, as the evidence suggests, or is honestly trying to stop the terrorists or find the culprits.
A few clumsy moments here or there that took the edge off for me (most notably certain people suddenly admitting everything under the lamest of police interrogations, but also more practical things like switching radio channels with only one hand).
Overall, Madden was a strong main actor, but as with a number of Scottish actors I find their need to soften their accent comes across as bad, less natural acting and it is hard for me to see past this.
David McK (3623 KP) rated Batman: Nightwalker - DC Icons Book 2 in Books
Jan 28, 2019
I saw this in my local Eason's one day and, thought that, even though it was advertised as DC Icons #2 (and I hadn't read #1) that I would give it a shot.
Now that I've read it, I'm going to make two main points:
1) Strictly speaking, this should be called "Bruce Wayne: Nightwalkers rather than "Batman: Nightwalkers". I get it, the Batman name has more 'pull' than the Bruce Wayne name, but in this he's only just turned 18 and has yet to take up the mantle of the Bat (despite lots of heavy foreshadowing).
2) Tied somewhat, perhaps, to point number 1 number: I found it kind hard to disassociate a teenage Bruce Wayne (proto-Batman) from the character as portrayed in the TV series Gotham. I'm sure I'm not the only one, which (perhaps) goes further towards explaining why this titled as Batman ...
As for the plot: I must say, I did find this largely intriguing, with the character of Madeline laying further groundwork (as it were) for who Bruce Wayne would later become. It was also interesting to see the early friendship between Harvey Dent (the future Two-Face) and Bruce Wayne explored further: it's just a pity, I felt, that you could see the 'twist' coming from miles and miles away!
Now that I've read it, I'm going to make two main points:
1) Strictly speaking, this should be called "Bruce Wayne: Nightwalkers rather than "Batman: Nightwalkers". I get it, the Batman name has more 'pull' than the Bruce Wayne name, but in this he's only just turned 18 and has yet to take up the mantle of the Bat (despite lots of heavy foreshadowing).
2) Tied somewhat, perhaps, to point number 1 number: I found it kind hard to disassociate a teenage Bruce Wayne (proto-Batman) from the character as portrayed in the TV series Gotham. I'm sure I'm not the only one, which (perhaps) goes further towards explaining why this titled as Batman ...
As for the plot: I must say, I did find this largely intriguing, with the character of Madeline laying further groundwork (as it were) for who Bruce Wayne would later become. It was also interesting to see the early friendship between Harvey Dent (the future Two-Face) and Bruce Wayne explored further: it's just a pity, I felt, that you could see the 'twist' coming from miles and miles away!
Vegas (725 KP) rated Buffy The Vampire Slayer in TV
Oct 26, 2019
The cast (4 more)
The story
The humour
Spike
Giles
Holds up well for it's age.
Returning to watch Buffy after quite a few years, fully expecting the nostalgic feeling I had towards it to be ruined by it not aging well. I actually found it still held the same appeal and could easily have been made a couple of years ago, the humour, action and cast chemistry make it a joy to watch, even now.
The idea (for those who don't know) is one girl, being the chosen one, The Slayer who fights the forces of darkness, secretly, with the aid of a mentor "The Watcher" brilliantly played by Anthony Head. Except, Buffy is a bit different from other previous Slayers... She has a life, friends, relationship issues and so the "secret" part of the the task at hand isn't quite so secret... With help and hindrance in almost equal measure from humans, vampires, daemons, military, and witches to name but a few...
The 2 main watchers we encounter during the series are superbly played and could almost be clones of each other and Spike is still one of the best characters of all time on TV...
If you haven't seen it, it is really worth a go and if you haven't seen it for some time, spare a little time for a classic...
The idea (for those who don't know) is one girl, being the chosen one, The Slayer who fights the forces of darkness, secretly, with the aid of a mentor "The Watcher" brilliantly played by Anthony Head. Except, Buffy is a bit different from other previous Slayers... She has a life, friends, relationship issues and so the "secret" part of the the task at hand isn't quite so secret... With help and hindrance in almost equal measure from humans, vampires, daemons, military, and witches to name but a few...
The 2 main watchers we encounter during the series are superbly played and could almost be clones of each other and Spike is still one of the best characters of all time on TV...
If you haven't seen it, it is really worth a go and if you haven't seen it for some time, spare a little time for a classic...
David McK (3623 KP) rated Wonder Woman (2017) in Movies
Jul 27, 2019 (Updated Jun 22, 2021)
Like, I'm sure, many others, if you'd mentioned the words 'Wonder Woman' to me prior to 2016 Batman Vs Superman: Dawn of Justice I probably would have thought of the 1970s(?) Linda Carter starring TV series.
That was a role that Gal Gadot took in in the 2016 movie, portraying a different take on the character: one who has largely remained in the background throughout history, only revealing herself (and her powers) towards the end of that movie.
This film takes place at an earlier period in her life (albeit 'bookended' by a modern day setting, with Diana receiving a vintage photo of her in costume): during the First World War, to be precise, when Diana first leaves the Amazonian island paradise of Thermiscyra and enters the world, discovering her powers and heritage in the process.
While there may be an element of truth in the criticism that the plot of this movie is - largely - a role-reversed Captain America (World War setting? Sacrificial ending?) and that it probably could have done without the CGI battle at the end (which, IMO, lessened the impact the movie would have had without it) this is still a very enjoyable movie indeed!
As an aside: the stand-out scene where Diana crosses No-Mans land on her own? That was nearly cut from the movie.
That was a role that Gal Gadot took in in the 2016 movie, portraying a different take on the character: one who has largely remained in the background throughout history, only revealing herself (and her powers) towards the end of that movie.
This film takes place at an earlier period in her life (albeit 'bookended' by a modern day setting, with Diana receiving a vintage photo of her in costume): during the First World War, to be precise, when Diana first leaves the Amazonian island paradise of Thermiscyra and enters the world, discovering her powers and heritage in the process.
While there may be an element of truth in the criticism that the plot of this movie is - largely - a role-reversed Captain America (World War setting? Sacrificial ending?) and that it probably could have done without the CGI battle at the end (which, IMO, lessened the impact the movie would have had without it) this is still a very enjoyable movie indeed!
As an aside: the stand-out scene where Diana crosses No-Mans land on her own? That was nearly cut from the movie.
Rebecca Billcliff (2409 KP) rated The Simpsons in TV
Nov 26, 2019 (Updated Nov 26, 2019)
Going down hill
When I was a child, I loved the Simpsons. Even now, as an adult, I re-watch episodes and find subtle and adult jokes I missed entirely as a child. Those fist 8 or so seasons were very good. Full of little details, great humour, and plenty of theme variety. After that, things started to go down hill.
My new sustain of the more modern show, culminated in an episode involving a screaming caterpillar.... after that, I lost all hope they would produce a good episode again.
The characters have now become very one dimensional, with personalities in the extremes. For example, homer is no longer just quite dim, with a fair few moments of total stupidity, but with a good heart; now he is mentally defective, and to dumb to realy feel love. This is seen right across the board, with each story now being a rip off of either a film, tv series or book, or some crazy nonsense that seems to fizzle out by the third act.
All in all, the original seasons, up to 10, are either great or at least worth a watch, after that, I would not bother.
How sad the fall from greatness, if only they had quite while they were ahead, instead of milking this yellow cow dry.
My new sustain of the more modern show, culminated in an episode involving a screaming caterpillar.... after that, I lost all hope they would produce a good episode again.
The characters have now become very one dimensional, with personalities in the extremes. For example, homer is no longer just quite dim, with a fair few moments of total stupidity, but with a good heart; now he is mentally defective, and to dumb to realy feel love. This is seen right across the board, with each story now being a rip off of either a film, tv series or book, or some crazy nonsense that seems to fizzle out by the third act.
All in all, the original seasons, up to 10, are either great or at least worth a watch, after that, I would not bother.
How sad the fall from greatness, if only they had quite while they were ahead, instead of milking this yellow cow dry.
Be-be-bears
Games, Entertainment and Stickers
App
Exciting educational game for kids about charming little bears Bjorn & Bucky and Franny the Fox now...
Pete Thompson (4339 KP) Feb 10, 2021