Change Your Image
tsbrownie
Reviews
Visitor from Space (2016)
They Really Got The 1950s Feel
Lots of critics who clearly have not seen much 50s scifi.
My only complaint is they mixed hi-rez new footage with
old lo-rez clips. If they re-edit, I hope they'll normalize
all the clips for resolution.
First Man (2018)
How Much "Poetic License" Before Fact Becomes Fiction?
Enough has been written about the choices of photography, acting, etc. I won't repeat all that. My low rating comes from the fact that significant parts of the movie script NEVER happened - think twirling, bracelet on the moon, incidents with wife/kids, etc.
So what is this movie about if it's not historically accurate info about Neil Armstrong? It's fiction (or "fact-ion"), being sold by implying it's about a famous name and event. Personally I don't like to get suckered into watching an emotional roller coaster that never happened by being told its about Armstrong. That's a cheesy trick at best.
Would this movie have done well without the Neil Armstrong name? I doubt it.
Newhart: The Last Newhart (1990)
Greatest, Most Creative Series Finale Ever
Without spoiling, really this is the most interesting, creative and best closure EVER in TV history. Go out of your way to see it if you have not.
Inside the Medieval Mind (2008)
A Truly Great Series
A series of four shows (Knowledge, Sex, Belief and Power) about the way medieval people thought and how in many ways we are still affected by those hundreds of years old history. The presenter is excellent in his delivery and information, and he quotes reliable and germane sources. The one criticism is with the editing and effects, they are often annoying, inappropriate and / or add nothing. A must watch for people with an interest in history, royalty or medieval literature. One comes away with a much better understanding of how people thought then and how much carry over there is to today. I will certainly look for more works by Professor Robert Bartlett.
After Earth (2013)
It could have been there, but just wasn't.
SPOILERS: This movie is supposed to be about the future inhabitants of Earth residing on a new planet whose inhabitants are protected by well respected general who's at the top of his game and his son who is working hard to be part of his elite military ranger squad, but just not quite making it. The movie seems more like a catharsis for the story line writer (Will Smith). The symbolism for a well respected actor who has a son who is trying to be an actor like his father, but whose heart is not really in it is hard to miss. The movie is not terrible, but for the budget and people involved one expects more. The script is thin, character development just not there – you just don't get attached to the characters and it's hard to really care about their dilemma or back story or whatever, story line is weak – there was room for so much more detail and development, the actors just seemed to go through the motions,
It could have been there, but just wasn't.
Life After People (2009)
More Like A Show On What Happens When Maintenance Does Not Happen
The show certainly makes one think about how impermanent our impressions on the planet really are. The show is "applied archeology" or maybe archeology meets maintenance engineering. Overall the shows are worth watching because they are interesting and show many things in building, bridges, tunnels, factories, etc. that most of us will never see. Support for the scenarios they portray comes from interviews with experts; experts from engineering, from authors on "day after" books and from civil and maintenance engineers. However they don't give alternative views on what might happen, so that makes it a little less than scientific. On the down side, the shows are repetitive, often repeating the same clips within one show and across many shows. They dampen any surprises with repetition and with "pre-announcing" what's coming. Also there's little consideration of civilization in South America and Asia. And outside of a few examples (ex: pyramids) they tend to give little air time to existing, long term artifacts of mankind.
Idiocracy (2006)
People said it was funny...
People said it was funny so I thought it was going to be a comedy. Turns out to be a documentary.
OK, humor aside. It's a tongue-in-cheek spoof on evolution, our current society, the political leaders in our highest offices at that time (2006), our education system and a few other cheap shots at corporations, etc. A super average GI Joe in a military suspended animation experiment is sent forward in time ala an obvious homage (plot ripoff) to "Forever Young" (M. Gibson). He is accompanied by a civilian "average girl" Rita whose working girl status is un-revealed to Joe. While they are asleep smart people stop having kids and dumb people have so many, the IQ of the future world slips below average. Joe and Rita wake up 500 years in the future to find themselves the smartest people alive. Joe is forced to accept the responsibility he has always sidestepped in life and is tasked with solving the world's most difficult problems. And Rita's along for the ride.
The Last Nazis: Most Wanted (2009)
Not what it should have been
This is part of a 3 part series.
1. Follows Nazi hunter E. Zuroff in his pursuit of the last remaining (and lesser) Nazis. I found his arrogance, his self importance, his willingness to trample on other people's rights, his vanity (he wears lipstick during one interview), his displays of jealousy, his joviality over potentially destroying lives, ... to be extremely offensive. By the end of the show I am hoping that he fails, not because I support the Nazis, but rather because he is such an ass.
2. Follows BBC reporters in some of the most yellow, self-serving journalism I've ever seen on BBC TV. It borders on American style political reporting. They include themselves and their reactions in the "reporting" and admit they are looking for guilt. Not a credible report, but rather an attempt to generate emotional outrage at some minor Nazis.
3. Part 3 is a more factual report on Lebensborn children. It reveals how governments can twist societies into unnatural "norms". The reporting style has much more credibility and allows the viewer to form their views based on the facts presented.
The Last Nazis: Children of the Master Race (2009)
A very poor reporting style that robs the show of much credibility.
This is part of a 3 part series.
1. Follows Nazi hunter E. Zuroff in his pursuit of the last remaining (and lesser) Nazis. I found his arrogance, his self importance, his willingness to trample on other people's rights, his vanity (he wears lipstick during one interview), his displays of jealousy, his joviality over potentially destroying lives, ... to be extremely offensive. By the end of the show I am hoping that he fails, not because I support the Nazis, but rather because he is such an ass.
2. Follows BBC reporters in some of the most yellow, self-serving journalism I've ever seen on BBC TV. It borders on American style political reporting. They include themselves and their reactions in the "reporting" and admit they are looking for guilt. Not a credible report, but rather an attempt to generate emotional outrage at some minor Nazis.
3. Part 3 is a more factual report on Lebensborn children. It reveals how governments can twist societies into unnatural "norms". The reporting style has much more credibility and allows the viewer to form their views based on the facts presented.
South Park: Royal Pudding (2011)
Run Out Of Gas (no pun intended)
Hey, maybe it's me, but the last few episodes seem to be re-hashed punch lines and clichés from old shows. Not one guffaw, snort nor belly laugh in the whole show. Not even a chuckle.
They still go for the shock value thing, the parody of race, creed, color and place of national origin, but it's just not getting there. Maybe it's that Canadian Eskimos (native Canadians) just don't have a strong stereotype for most Americans, so trying to parody them is about as funny as doing one of a Tibetan goat herder (wait, that's got potential).
I'm hoping they get their cynical edge, their twisted view on the ordinary, their ability to put a keen edge on dull wits back soon.
South Park: Funnybot (2011)
Out of Shock & Awe
Seems they've fallen prey to their own past success with the shock and awe formula. The "make it more outrageous / uncomfortable each show" thing is getting predictable and just plain stale. They need to do some break-thru comedy again and find a new vein to mine. This show depends on the German stereotype that is only relevant to the last generation, some homage to Dr. Who (again kinda last gen.), a boring award show parity (not sure which they are making fun of), some twisted scifi logic applied to comedy and some other things that escape me now. Also instead of playing on one socially awkward issue they are now using "piling on" in order to make up in quantity what is lacking in quality.
Monsters (2010)
Came to it with no expectation and was disappointed!
Had heard nothing about this film when I saw it, had no expectations, none. Wish I had read some comments first. Acting: poor. Explained by the fact that all extras were locals recruited for the different parts.
Characters: "love story" not believable; oil and water chemistry. The romance is plastic. And the "beautiful moment" is two squids tangling tentacles while flashing red.
Script: Winged it and it looks that way. The "subtext" was hardly "sub" and preachy, oh yeah. One waits for the "exciting part" and it never shows.
Plot holes: The biggest is movie ends with the characters ignoring the "elephant in the room", the fact that these hard-to-beat alien squids have just invaded the continental US, the main characters go on to ask each other what they are going to do tomorrow. Deep, real deep.
Special effects: when they emphasize the low cost to make the film like it's something special, it says they were: A) lacking any real selling points, B) making excuses for what you saw. But "low costs" like "improvised script" explains a lot.
Think home movie to impress friends and family with what they can do with a minimal budget, they did it. If it was to be a professional film, uh, not. Think Ishtar, but on the cheap.
I see the new tactic of the paid posters are to not offer any rating and just write the review.
The Gospel of Judas (2006)
Interesting but its presentation creates credibility issues
It certainly presents some interesting ideas and findings about the less known gospels of Christianity. That Judas may have unwillingly been doing what Jesus asked him to do, that Jesus orchestrated his own demise, is certainly a new view for those of us raised on the 4 traditional gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. I wish they had been more reliable and more balanced in their reporting and less dramatic. For example, presenting the "upper room" in the show without telling us that it is certainly not the original place of the Last Supper as it is known to have been built much later. Additionally, they over dramatize the need to "burn the gospel of Judas" to carbon date it. In carbon dating only very tiny pieces need to be subjected to the tests, pieces a couple of square millimeters in size, but that they dramatize and hold back such information makes me wonder if other things were held back or changed to create a marketable show. Overall it's worth watching because it does stimulate an interest in finding out more, but the show itself should be taken with a grain of salt.
How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000)
My 5 year old was bored, he had company
The story was dull, boring, wandering. My 5 year old and I had watched the original the day before. Loved it, this was lame. Had to bribe him to watch it. For one, there was too much padding applied to the original story to make it into a full length movie. The glitz was distracting, the build up as to why the Grinch was grinchy was long and unneeded, the side stories weakened the main plot (ex: the hikers climbing up the Grinch's mountain, the mayor's competing love interest, house decoration contest, the Grinch winning the award...) The reviews are much more positive than the overall rating. I think the rating is a more accurate indicator. Perhaps people who don't like a movie are less inclined to spend time writing ten lines about it than those who do.