To say this anime is bad is an understatement. The animation is clunky, the characterization is wafer thin, and the plot is ridiculous even by the standards of 80s anime. The dubbed version is even worse, despite the efforts of at least two talented voice actors, one of them from RANMA 1/2. Even the robot guards sound like bored surfer dudes. The only good things about it are the soundtrack, which sounds like it was composed by the same people who did TRANSFORMERS: THE MOVIE, and the fact that every other scene has characters talking rapturously about coffee. I mean, these people are addicted. Try a drinking game in which you have to take a shot whenever anyone mentions coffee, and you'll be drunk within the first twenty minutes.
Reviews
6 Reviews
Some Reviewers Need To Calm Down
19 December 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Reading some of the reviews here make it sound like this episode is nothing more than "liberal propaganda" and even, in one memorable instance, "an attack on liberty." An attack on liberty? Are you out of your mind?
If there's anything wrong with the gun plot of this episode, it's that it lacks nuance, even as it depicts the two pro-gun voices in the episode (Lena and the gun manufacturer) as reasonable and sensible in their positions. If anything, it's J'onn and James who come off as unwilling to see the other side's arguments (even as they routinely use violence to keep National City safe). J'onn's speech at the end seems to come from out of nowhere - and who in the DEO wouldn't leave upon hearing they can't defend themselves from aliens who want to kill them?
The problem, then, is not the politics but the delivery. It's what TvTropes calls "anvillicious," and it could have been handled better. Even those of us who want our children and ourselves to be safer from gun violence through sensible gun control methods would stop at insisting that our police and armed forces NOT have that protection.
In other words, the problem isn't the demonization of conservatives or gun owners. It's a ridiculously broad depiction of so-called LIBERAL views - no matter what the gaslighting one-star reviews here might claim.
If there's anything wrong with the gun plot of this episode, it's that it lacks nuance, even as it depicts the two pro-gun voices in the episode (Lena and the gun manufacturer) as reasonable and sensible in their positions. If anything, it's J'onn and James who come off as unwilling to see the other side's arguments (even as they routinely use violence to keep National City safe). J'onn's speech at the end seems to come from out of nowhere - and who in the DEO wouldn't leave upon hearing they can't defend themselves from aliens who want to kill them?
The problem, then, is not the politics but the delivery. It's what TvTropes calls "anvillicious," and it could have been handled better. Even those of us who want our children and ourselves to be safer from gun violence through sensible gun control methods would stop at insisting that our police and armed forces NOT have that protection.
In other words, the problem isn't the demonization of conservatives or gun owners. It's a ridiculously broad depiction of so-called LIBERAL views - no matter what the gaslighting one-star reviews here might claim.
Don't Go Near the Park
(1979)
More like an episode of some horrible TV show...
13 November 2019
Warning: Spoilers
I actually had high hopes for this one, and for one reason only: one of the grind house/drive in channels on YouTube featured a VERY frightening trailer for it. Seriously, I want to see THAT movie!
Unfortunately, I found it immediately on YouTube, and instead of THAT movie, I got...this. Instead of a horror movie, it's more like a bad late 70's TV movie about runaways, an ancient curse, and a dad who is way too invested, with SOME horror in it. And not much at that.
I'm not going to bother going into the plot, since many others have already done so, except to ask: how many people did these two have to kill over 12,000 years if they're aging 100 years for every year they live? Or am I just incapable of doing the math? More likely the writer was...
Speaking of which, it says something that the writer of this movie also plays a role...as one of those three guys in the van. Fitting, really.
While there's so much that's bad - the acting, the plot, the special effects - the award goes to the music, which more than anything else makes this movie sound like an episode of some horrible 70's TV show. If you cut out all the curse bits and left the footage with Meeno intact, you might mistake it for an episode of CHiPs.
Oh, Meeno. Why did you have to go and be the only good thing about this movie?
Unfortunately, I found it immediately on YouTube, and instead of THAT movie, I got...this. Instead of a horror movie, it's more like a bad late 70's TV movie about runaways, an ancient curse, and a dad who is way too invested, with SOME horror in it. And not much at that.
I'm not going to bother going into the plot, since many others have already done so, except to ask: how many people did these two have to kill over 12,000 years if they're aging 100 years for every year they live? Or am I just incapable of doing the math? More likely the writer was...
Speaking of which, it says something that the writer of this movie also plays a role...as one of those three guys in the van. Fitting, really.
While there's so much that's bad - the acting, the plot, the special effects - the award goes to the music, which more than anything else makes this movie sound like an episode of some horrible 70's TV show. If you cut out all the curse bits and left the footage with Meeno intact, you might mistake it for an episode of CHiPs.
Oh, Meeno. Why did you have to go and be the only good thing about this movie?
What's with the hate?
28 May 2019
I honestly don't get all of the hate is coming down on this show from other reviewers. They seem to like their zombie shows to have scads of dialogue, endless amounts of backstory, and not that many genuine scares at all. This series, however, delivers the goods. Sure, it's not like other shows that take their time developing characters, but it's hard to say that the characters in this series don't get some development with time. Rose, for example, goes from a somewhat weepy housewife to the unquestioned leader of the pack. Also, the charactet of Sun doesn't speak a word of English , and yet she is given one of the most moving monologues in the entire series , one which you don't have to understand in order to get the depth of its emotion. Then there's Barbara, who gets a very haunting speech about the first time she saw a zombie and tried to figure out whether there was anything human left in there , which is exactly the same sort of philosophy that comes up in the early episodes of other zombie shows . Surely all that's worth getting some credit for.
Two of the other saving graces for the show is the use of fast zombies and an incredibly virulent infection a la 28 DAYS LATER that turns the recently departed into zombies even before their hearts have stopped beating ( and in one case arguably before it stops beating, but the show isn't perfect). Fast zombies have always been more frightening to me than the type that we get in THE WALKING DEAD. In fact, the characters in that show probably only get character development because they have so much free time running away from fast-moving former corpses. There's also something terrifying about the idea then if you accidentally kill someone, you'd better get busy and kill them immediately again because they will become an immediate threat. This conceit creates some of the best tension in the show, because it means that the inevitable human bad guys cannot be so easily dispatched as they are in THE WALKING DEAD.
Another great source of tension is the use of hand-held cameras and very quickly shot scenes. Admittedly, in some of the episodes, this works against the story a bit because it's a little too easy to get lost in all of the blurriness. That being said, it is a good visual representation of the chaos of the characters themselves are going through, and you rarely get that sort of thing in those previously mentioned Zombie series.
Mind you, as I said, the series is not perfect. There are few characters, such as Spears, who we would really like to learn more about. There are also some characters the carry the idiot ball so long and so hard that you have to wonder how they survived the initial outbreak at all (Lance, you're cute and all, but God, you are an idiot). And then there's the aforementioned conversion that happens almost instantaneously, before a character has even died. It would be nice if this virus were somewhat consistent.
That being said, this show did for me was another reviewer here said it did for him: it genuinely scared him. I can't remember the last time I watched a horror movie or television series that I had to take breaks from in order to come down from. I never had to do that with THE WALKING DEAD. So why are so many reviewers using that show as they were yardstick to measure this one, when they have really nothing in common except for the ravenous Undead?
Two of the other saving graces for the show is the use of fast zombies and an incredibly virulent infection a la 28 DAYS LATER that turns the recently departed into zombies even before their hearts have stopped beating ( and in one case arguably before it stops beating, but the show isn't perfect). Fast zombies have always been more frightening to me than the type that we get in THE WALKING DEAD. In fact, the characters in that show probably only get character development because they have so much free time running away from fast-moving former corpses. There's also something terrifying about the idea then if you accidentally kill someone, you'd better get busy and kill them immediately again because they will become an immediate threat. This conceit creates some of the best tension in the show, because it means that the inevitable human bad guys cannot be so easily dispatched as they are in THE WALKING DEAD.
Another great source of tension is the use of hand-held cameras and very quickly shot scenes. Admittedly, in some of the episodes, this works against the story a bit because it's a little too easy to get lost in all of the blurriness. That being said, it is a good visual representation of the chaos of the characters themselves are going through, and you rarely get that sort of thing in those previously mentioned Zombie series.
Mind you, as I said, the series is not perfect. There are few characters, such as Spears, who we would really like to learn more about. There are also some characters the carry the idiot ball so long and so hard that you have to wonder how they survived the initial outbreak at all (Lance, you're cute and all, but God, you are an idiot). And then there's the aforementioned conversion that happens almost instantaneously, before a character has even died. It would be nice if this virus were somewhat consistent.
That being said, this show did for me was another reviewer here said it did for him: it genuinely scared him. I can't remember the last time I watched a horror movie or television series that I had to take breaks from in order to come down from. I never had to do that with THE WALKING DEAD. So why are so many reviewers using that show as they were yardstick to measure this one, when they have really nothing in common except for the ravenous Undead?
Such A Missed Opportunity
10 August 2016
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
"Violations" is just what it says on the tin: a series of psychic violations against the crew of the Enterprise, but more importantly a more systematic set of violations against the rules of good drama.
I watched this episode when it first aired, and a reviewer whom I admired at the time (but whose name I have since forgotten) said it best: "There's no suspense here, only rape." That sticks with me because, having re-watched the episode recently, I can see exactly what he was talking about. From the very beginning - from the very end of the teaser, in fact - we already have a sense that the villain of the piece will be Jev (played with an almost mustache- twirling abandon by Ben Lemon). The last shot of the teaser focuses on him, and the trademarked "danger" music swells up. You'd have to be a fool not to guess that something is going to be wrong with this guy.
The episode does itself no favors by then featuring Jev in each of the violations that he commits - against Troi, then Riker, then Beverly - and in the least subtle of ways. He takes the place of a particular character in that person's memory, though it's only in Troi's memory that he's actually forcing himself upon the victim in a rapey way. (I'm not trying to be facetious, by the way - the mental violations that Jev commits are clearly meant to be considered a form of rape, though only in Troi's case does that metaphor become all too literal. Twice, even.) There's no build-up of suspense, no possibility given that it COULD be Jev's father Tarmin, as Jev tries to make everyone believe later in the episode. Before he gets all rapey again and gives himself away, of course.
And that's really the problem with the entire episode: there's no sense of control for the purpose of dramatic effect. Just like Jev, the episode's writers can't help themselves - this episode is going to be about RAPE, dammit, and forget telling a good story. Instead of subtlety, let's just knock the audience over their collective head with the message, or else it won't get through.
Consider how much more interesting and suspenseful this episode could have been had the writers and director gone a different route: having Troi, Riker, and Crusher NOT see Jev's face in their visions, so that we know it's got to be one of the Ulians (which would also have allowed the woman Inad to be one of the suspects, if it had been handled right) but we don't know which one. Only at the end is it revealed that it's Jev - probably because he couldn't control himself, and Troi really IS that damned lovely.
But that doesn't excuse his final act of self-revelation, nor the reasons why the producers of this episode didn't handle the story much more carefully. Not giving away the attacker's identity would have done nothing to cheapen the anti-rape subtext - if anything, it would have returned it to the level OF subtext rather than making it so obvious that the episode should carry a trigger warning for those who care about such things. And on top of it all, we'd get a creepy and mysterious story with a strong payoff at the end, rather than a story that's just...creepy.
"Violations" is just what it says on the tin: a series of psychic violations against the crew of the Enterprise, but more importantly a more systematic set of violations against the rules of good drama.
I watched this episode when it first aired, and a reviewer whom I admired at the time (but whose name I have since forgotten) said it best: "There's no suspense here, only rape." That sticks with me because, having re-watched the episode recently, I can see exactly what he was talking about. From the very beginning - from the very end of the teaser, in fact - we already have a sense that the villain of the piece will be Jev (played with an almost mustache- twirling abandon by Ben Lemon). The last shot of the teaser focuses on him, and the trademarked "danger" music swells up. You'd have to be a fool not to guess that something is going to be wrong with this guy.
The episode does itself no favors by then featuring Jev in each of the violations that he commits - against Troi, then Riker, then Beverly - and in the least subtle of ways. He takes the place of a particular character in that person's memory, though it's only in Troi's memory that he's actually forcing himself upon the victim in a rapey way. (I'm not trying to be facetious, by the way - the mental violations that Jev commits are clearly meant to be considered a form of rape, though only in Troi's case does that metaphor become all too literal. Twice, even.) There's no build-up of suspense, no possibility given that it COULD be Jev's father Tarmin, as Jev tries to make everyone believe later in the episode. Before he gets all rapey again and gives himself away, of course.
And that's really the problem with the entire episode: there's no sense of control for the purpose of dramatic effect. Just like Jev, the episode's writers can't help themselves - this episode is going to be about RAPE, dammit, and forget telling a good story. Instead of subtlety, let's just knock the audience over their collective head with the message, or else it won't get through.
Consider how much more interesting and suspenseful this episode could have been had the writers and director gone a different route: having Troi, Riker, and Crusher NOT see Jev's face in their visions, so that we know it's got to be one of the Ulians (which would also have allowed the woman Inad to be one of the suspects, if it had been handled right) but we don't know which one. Only at the end is it revealed that it's Jev - probably because he couldn't control himself, and Troi really IS that damned lovely.
But that doesn't excuse his final act of self-revelation, nor the reasons why the producers of this episode didn't handle the story much more carefully. Not giving away the attacker's identity would have done nothing to cheapen the anti-rape subtext - if anything, it would have returned it to the level OF subtext rather than making it so obvious that the episode should carry a trigger warning for those who care about such things. And on top of it all, we'd get a creepy and mysterious story with a strong payoff at the end, rather than a story that's just...creepy.
1984
(1956)
A strangely bowdlerized version of a great book
3 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
After wanting to see this movie for about three decades and after teaching the book for almost two, I finally found a copy recently and was surprised by two things: 1) how surprisingly faithful this movie is at times, even more so in certain parts than the definitive 1984 version; and 2) just how painful it is to watch something that bowdlerizes a story you're intimately familiar with.
On the one hand, the 1956 version gets the larger picture of Orwell's dystopia completely wrong. Much like the BBC version of two years previously, the movie ignores Orwell's descriptions of Airstrip One as a ruined and war-torn version of London for the most part, and such places as the Ministry of Truth and the canteen look like every other 50s sci-fi movie's version of the 1980s. (They even change Goldstein's name to something futuristic-sounding and unmemorable, though they may have been to avoid any hint of anti-Semitism.) No wonder Orwell's widow hated it so.
It's also no surprise that both Julia and O'Brien (oops, sorry, it's O'Connor here, probably because of the lead actor's name being too close to O'Brien) are able to spot Winston as different: Edmund O'Brien plays Winston not as an intellectual stuck in a society antithetical to intellectual thought but as a bit of a gormless idiot, a man who has to be told repeatedly "That photo does not exist. Yes, that one in your hand. Yes, THAT one. It doesn't exist. What, are you deaf?" It's hard to imagine THIS Winston Smith lasting for very long in the actual novel, let alone the 1984 version of the movie. This Winston is also enough of an idiot to believe that the steely, vaudeville villain-eqsue O'Connor could ever be sympathetic - though, to be fair, that's more to do with Michael Redgrave deciding to play the part without an ounce of subtlety, and neither movie does a decent job of explaining why Winston trusts O'Brien in the first place. Of the three actors to play this part, it's definitely Burton first, then André Morell, then Redgrave far in the rear. And don't even get me started about trying to do a movie in the 50s about a society trying to abolish the orgasm...
And yet the movie gets some bits absolutely right. Winston's visit to O'Brien's quarters, unlike the similar visit in the later version, includes Julia and includes her objection to O'Connor's suggestion that they may someday have to separate. (All these years, I thought that scene occurred in the later version, too, but rewatching it the other night revealed that it doesn't.) It also gets some of the broader strokes right, too: I hadn't expected the Two Minute Hate to work so well in this futuristic setting, nor to have the torture scenes make any sense. Still, give me the later version anyday over this one. This is definitely your grandfather's 1984, not Orwell's.
On the one hand, the 1956 version gets the larger picture of Orwell's dystopia completely wrong. Much like the BBC version of two years previously, the movie ignores Orwell's descriptions of Airstrip One as a ruined and war-torn version of London for the most part, and such places as the Ministry of Truth and the canteen look like every other 50s sci-fi movie's version of the 1980s. (They even change Goldstein's name to something futuristic-sounding and unmemorable, though they may have been to avoid any hint of anti-Semitism.) No wonder Orwell's widow hated it so.
It's also no surprise that both Julia and O'Brien (oops, sorry, it's O'Connor here, probably because of the lead actor's name being too close to O'Brien) are able to spot Winston as different: Edmund O'Brien plays Winston not as an intellectual stuck in a society antithetical to intellectual thought but as a bit of a gormless idiot, a man who has to be told repeatedly "That photo does not exist. Yes, that one in your hand. Yes, THAT one. It doesn't exist. What, are you deaf?" It's hard to imagine THIS Winston Smith lasting for very long in the actual novel, let alone the 1984 version of the movie. This Winston is also enough of an idiot to believe that the steely, vaudeville villain-eqsue O'Connor could ever be sympathetic - though, to be fair, that's more to do with Michael Redgrave deciding to play the part without an ounce of subtlety, and neither movie does a decent job of explaining why Winston trusts O'Brien in the first place. Of the three actors to play this part, it's definitely Burton first, then André Morell, then Redgrave far in the rear. And don't even get me started about trying to do a movie in the 50s about a society trying to abolish the orgasm...
And yet the movie gets some bits absolutely right. Winston's visit to O'Brien's quarters, unlike the similar visit in the later version, includes Julia and includes her objection to O'Connor's suggestion that they may someday have to separate. (All these years, I thought that scene occurred in the later version, too, but rewatching it the other night revealed that it doesn't.) It also gets some of the broader strokes right, too: I hadn't expected the Two Minute Hate to work so well in this futuristic setting, nor to have the torture scenes make any sense. Still, give me the later version anyday over this one. This is definitely your grandfather's 1984, not Orwell's.
Tell Your Friends