ridgebottom Reviews

Eureka (2006–2012)

A nice place to visit

[9/10 · 26 July 2006]

Eureka is never going to be remembered as a "classic" or "groundbreaking" SF show. It could, however, be remembered as one of the more charming and offbeat SF shows to come along in a while. It is a bit slippery to classify, but my best description of "Eureka" is kind of "Northern Exposure" for SF fans.

"Eureka" has thus far been family-friendly light adventure with its humor coming from the quirky nature of the brilliant scientist locals and the "fish out of water" experiences of new sheriff Jack Carter and his teenage daughter, Zoe.

Those tuning in to see traditional SF--where speculative fiction and profound "what if" moments rule the course of the show--will be disappointed. There won't be many serious examinations of the impact of new technologies here. The tech is secondary, actually tertiary. The odd characters are the focus of the show. Second to that is the weekly mystery. "How can the tech-ignorant sheriff learn to work with the ample supply of local geniuses to save the day?" Finally, comes the tech. And when tech is dealt with, it reminds me of vintage Geordi la Forge technobabble. I swear that someone was going to "reverse the flow of the graviton emitters." So, "Eureka" is not great SF. Nor is it great drama. Nor is it side-splitting comedy. It is instead an amiable and lightweight mix of the three. Eureka is not at all unlike "Northern Exposure's" Cicely, Alaska. It is a very pleasant place to visit once a week.

Sky High (2005)

Breezy fun, and my kid loved it!

[7/10 · 30 July 2005]

I went in with low expectations and found myself pleasantly surprised. The writers did miss a million chances to send up John Hughes, Harry Potter and Dr. Charles Xavier's School for Gifted Children. Sorry if I didn't use the perfect nomenclature on the X-Men reference. It's not the movie many comic fans or even super-hero movie fans would have preferred.

But somehow the lack of pop-culture zingers and one-liners leaves the movie with a certain innocence and sweetness that played well to me as a parent of a four-year-old. And it played really well to my boy. He loved every minute of it. And he was still chattering about it when I tucked him in an hour ago.

Yes the movie lacked "depth" and it lacked sharpness and it even lacked a profound message. But it entertained us for an hour and a half. And that's all this move was ever meant to do.

The Big Red One (1980)

This movie does one good thing

[31 May 2005]

Released in 1980, BR1 is one of the earliest war movies to feature a cast that at least resembles the age of the actual WW II soldier, Lee Marvin being the obvious exception. US combat soldiers were generally 18-24 years of age. Sergeant Mike Strank was the eldest flag-raiser at Iwo Jima. The enlisted men even kindly teased him about being an "old man." The "old man" died on Iwo at the age of 24.

Back to Big Red One: Babyfaced Mark Hammill was the eldest actor of the four junior leads. He was 29 at the time, but looked much younger. The other three were 23-26 years old during the filming, but also seem fairly young. Not quite young enough but...

Compare it to BATTLEGROUND, released 3 decades before BR1 and featuring a cast that was predominantly in their 30's and 40's. Compare BR1 to KELLY'S HEROES, released only one decade earlier with 40-year-old private Clint Eastwood surrounded by actors at least his age. These actors delivered great performances, but when I was a kid it created the illusion that the war was fought by men closer to my dad's age. Actually, they were closer to mine!

After BR1, war movies generally began to reduce the age of the actors cast as enlisted men. PLATOON, WE WERE SOLDIERS and SAVING PRIVATE RYAN feature the occasional "seasoned" actor in among a much younger cast. There are exceptions to this of course--we all can think of them--but the trend to younger combat soldiers in American films seems to have begun with BR1.

Battleground (1949)

The right feel in most ways

[8/10 · 30 May 2005]

"BATTLEGROUND" has the right feel in most ways. The constant pictures of limping soldiers with their feet wrapped in makeshift boot warmers, the generally haggard and scruffy look of the men, the old woman foraging for food at the trash can, even the white parkas pilfered from German dead remind us of the constant struggles the soldiers and citizens at Bastogne faced in December of 1944. And that doesn't even take into account the thousands of guys waiting in the woods to kill you. But every WWII movie has the combat scenes. It's these non-combat scenes that make BATTLEGROUND a special movie. Its ambiance is as thick as the fog that enveloped Bastogne.

My one gripe with most WWII movies made before THE BIG RED ONE is the age of the actors playing the combatants. Look at it this way, of the six servicemen who raised the flag at Iwo Jima, Mike Strank was the "old man." He was 24. I'm not sure if it was Hollywood's desire to get name stars and character actors with experience, or reluctance to display the horrible truth that most of the combatants were only a few years older than the kids roaming the halls of the local high school.

***Spoiler section*** I loved...

when Holley (Van Johnson) attempted to flee a battle and people followed him into perfect ambush position.

The boots at the edge of the foxhole.

The soldier wordlessly gathering the propaganda leaflets and our certainty of what he was heading into the woods to use them for.

Richard Jaekel, fighting to figure out a way out of combat to his very last breath. There was no safe harbor in Bastogne.

The wounded and their nurse in terror as the shells rained down around the barn.

The relative accuracy of the discussion between the colonel and the German envoy. Every account I've read has the German asking if MCAuliffe's response of "NUTS!" is "negative" or "positive." and the Americans telling him it is decidedly negative.