thommickel Reviews

Lost in Space (2018–2021)

Solid, Entertaining Reboot of a Beloved TV Sci-fi Classic

[21 April 2018]

I greatly enjoyed this new series. It has everything you'd want in a modern reboot of the classic 1960s series. Fantastic special effects. Dramatic, edge-of-your-seat cliffhangers (just like the original series). And of course, a memorable robot.

Certain aspects of classic 1960s TV series are so iconic that they're practically impossible to improve upon. Case in point: the original Batmobile from the 1960s "Batman" series. It was an icon of the 1960s and impossible to improve upon. Even the mega-budget "Batman" movies of decades later didn't have a Batmobile that was that ultra-cool or memorable.

I figured this would also the case with the robot from the original "Lost in Space." But the makers of this modern remake have risen to the challenge. The new robot in this remake is fantastic and memorable. In fact, it's the coolest robot I think I've ever seen in a sci-fi movie or series. It even has a slightly sinister vibe that's a bit unsettling.

I think the cast of this reboot also does a good job. I read a lot of negative reviews about how the father figure here is "weak" and "dominated" by his strong wife. But I didn't see that at all. Yes, this Maureen Robinson is a tough, intelligent woman (why does that frighten some men so much---especially in the year 2018?)

But the fact is, this John Robinson is also a very tough hombre. You sneak up and hit him with a crowbar and he's going to slam his fist into your face. Both are strong, smart, brave characters and I thought the actors did a great job.

All these reviewers who are so intimidated by strong women seem to forget one thing. The Maureen Robinson of the original series was a tough woman, too. She overruled the men on several key occasions and got her way. In one episode in the original TV series, she even demanded that the reluctant men go outside the ship and rescue the pain-in-the-ass trouble-maker Dr. Smith (over the strong objections of her husband and Don West).

I'm really impressed with the special effects in this reboot. They're dazzling and state of the art. The soundtrack is wonderful, particularly if you have a decent sound system. And (just like the original series), this reboot has some very tense cliffhangers. One criticism that I've read that I do agree with is that sometimes, things get a bit slow and talky during some episodes. But the drama of the cliffhangers more than makes up for that.

Finally, one big complaint I have with many of the negative reviews here is all the nasty and depressing attacks I've read on the mixed-race Judy Robinson character. I would have thought that, in the year 2018, we as a nation would have moved beyond idiotic attacks on people simply because of the color of their skin. But sadly, that's clearly not the case.

In any case, I liked the Judy character and I couldn't care less about her skin color. It's really sad that some people are obsessing over this "issue" in their reviews. Get over it, people.

Actually, I found the entire case likable and up to the job. Well, there was one exception: I wasn't that big a fan of the Dr. Smith character in this reboot. However, come to think of it, the Dr. Smith character was never meant to be likable in the first place.

I'm completely baffled by all the one star reviews of this show. That's just bizarre. I suppose I could understand maybe giving it something like a 7 or 8 if I was in a particularly cynical and foul mood. But a one star review? That's nuts.

This is a very entertaining series that was much better than I expected. I only started casually watching it because I own some Netflix stock and I was curious to see what this big budget adaption was going to be like. After 15 minutes, I was quickly pulled in and found myself absolutely captivated. I found the series to be a very worthy update to the original TV classic (and it even has much of the DNA of the original). It's clear the makers have closely studied the original and taken notes on what made the best parts of that series work.

OK, this "Lost in Space" isn't necessarily great sci-fi (neither was "Star Wars," for that matter). And it doesn't always make total logical sense. But that's not why you watch "Lost in Space" in the first place. You watch it for the exciting monsters, for the robot, for the rugged otherworldly adventures, and especially for the cliffhangers.

You want great sci-fi? Watch "2001,"----or the original "Solaris." But this reboot does the original TV classic proud. It's as good a remake as you could possibly ask for----in fact, it's much better, in my opinion. Forget the naysayers: this is well worth your time.

Training Day (2001)

Loud, Over-the-Top Movie That Tries Too Hard for Street Cred

[5 August 2015]

(Spoiler Alert in below review)

"Training Day" desperately tries to achieve "street cred" and just winds up overshooting its target.

This movie would have been much more effective (and realistic) if it'd gone for a more low-key approach. The problem with today's Hollywood is that the first rule of movie-making is always MORE, MORE, MORE.

But the subtle, low-key approach has its advantages. It would have given this movie the street credibility that it so desperately tries to achieve.

Yes, there are rogue, out-of-control cops in America in real-life. It'd be nice if we could get a half-way realistic film about this problem.

But instead, we get this loud, over-the-top, ham-fisted movie that won't have any more real-world impact than the latest superhero/comic book movie.

A more subtle, low-key movie could maybe have shed a little light on the rogue cop phenomenon (and perhaps even let us relate to the rogue cops on some level and understand what drives them to act the way they do). In fact, it appears that this movie makes at least a half- hearted effort to achieve just that. But it fails.

Maybe some people in the audience related to why the Denzel character acted the way he did. But I thought he was just a one- dimensional jerk who was abusing the badge.

A lot of his dialogue was presented as being a lot more profound than it really was. Actually, a lot of it (along with his actions) didn't make a lot of sense (spoiler alert) starting with the premise of bringing a new guy along on a day of outrageous antics that would have shocked the most jaded, crooked veteran rogue cop.

This movie not only fails as a work of art, it is an insult to real- life police officers.

Tokyo Gore Police (2008)

A surreal blood-soaked cult film

[5 June 2011]

Recently, I popped this film into my DVD player, not really expecting much. From the box, it appeared to be yet another Japanese film based on an anime (which I generally don't find that entertaining). In any case, I watch loads of Japanese films, as I'm learning the language. (Incidentally, the original Japanese language title for this film is: "Tokyo Cruel Police.")

Five minutes into the movie, "Tokyo Gore Police" had my complete and full attention. I was stunned at what I was seeing. I've seen a lot of Japanese horror films and a lot of blood-soaked movies. But this film takes it to another level. "Tokyo Gore Police" has the ability to shock even those who are jaded and think they've "seen it all." "Tokyo Gore Police" is incredibly bloody and violent---maybe the most gory movie ever made. It makes the films of Takashi Miike seem tame by comparison.

And it reminded me, once again, why I am a huge fan of Japanese cinema. Whereas today's Hollywood movies are dull, predictable and follow tiresome rules, you never know what to expect with a Japanese movie.

This is particularly true with the horror genre. Hollywood-style predictability has ruined many a horror film for me. That's why many of the best horror films these days originate outside the Hollywood system.

Do you think Quentin Tarantino is radical, cutting-edge and dangerous? If so, watch "Tokyo Gore Police." It makes Tarantino look like the over-rated, predictable bore that he really is.

"Tokyo Gore Police" stars the dazzlingly beautiful Eihi Shiina, who also appeared in Miike's classic, "Audition." She plays a ruthless cop who goes after bizarre, murdering monsters called "Engineers." There's a bit of "Blade Runner" in this film, as well as some Paul Verhoeven-style social commentary. In fact, I'm sure Verhoeven would approve of the over-the-top violence.

And there is blood. Lots and lots of blood.

If you like horror, blood & guts and bizarre cult films, be sure to check this film out.

I give this film 9 out of 10 stars.

The Social Network (2010)

Overrated film about an overrated company

[28 February 2011]

I simply don't understand the hype about this film and I can't comprehend how it could be considered one of the year's best.

In a nutshell, "The Social Network" about a bunch of privileged, pampered Harvard kids who are ruthless and who crush anyone who gets their way. Along the way, they create a company that exists solely to collect as much personal data as it can get its grubby hands on---and then turn around and sell that data off to the highest corporate bidder.

For this, Facebook gets praised as a era-defining phenomenon that is supposedly out to invent a wonderful new online world by creating this vast social network.

To which I say: hogwash. The World Wide Web itself is actually the real great social network. In the end, Facebook really adds nothing to the online experience. Some might argue that a Facebook page is easier to set up than a Web site. But this is false. Anyone can easily set up a Web site for free, with only a few clicks these days---and in doing so, you have freedom from the grubby clutches of Facebook.

The problem with Facebook is that it goes against the open nature of the Web that made the latter so successful. Facebook basically wants to control everything. And not for lofty idealistic reasons, but simply to rake in billions.

"The Social Network" is idealizing and over-hyping a company that is basically extremely overrated. Even revenue-wise, I'd say Facebook is overrated---I'm not at all convinced that its multi-billion dollar valuations are going to stand the test of time, any more than companies that had ridiculous valuations during the 2001 Dot Com meltdown. And even as a work of fiction, "The Social Network" utterly fails.

Maybe it's just me, but I simply can't get into a film that has no appealing characters. Nobody in this film has a heart. Nobody seems to care about anyone else but themselves. I couldn't really relate to anyone in the movie. They're all a bunch of privileged, elitist kids who believe they are geniuses who tower over the rest of us. In reality, the only way they're "superior" to the rest of us is that they have bigger trust funds (or trust funds at all, for that matter).

Maybe some people enjoy two hours of egotistical jerks, scheming about how they're going to control our online lives (and sell our personal data off to the highest bidder). But the characters left me ice cold, as did the story.

Incidentally, I know a thing or two about creating successful Web properties myself. I'm a Dot Com entrepreneur who has built a number of highly popular Web sites. And for me, "The Social Network" simply didn't ring true in depicting the grueling, hard work that it takes to build a popular Web site.

For one thing, no one in this film ever seems to break a sweat. Success for the characters seems to come effortlessly. The film does a poor job of depicting the brutal, marathon, 20-hour days that one must put in to build a popular Web site. When I built my sites, I didn't spend loads of time (as the characters in this movie do) at fancy bars and nightclubs, sipping $20 martinis. The reality is a lot less glamorous.

In truth, you simply spend endless hours hunched over a computer monitor, doing tedious, often repetitive work, trying to find the spark that will make your site a success. (Oh, and unlike the privileged, pampered site creators in this movie, most popular Web site builders, including myself, also worked at full-time day jobs as we built our Web sites). Life wasn't an endless series of parties, as it appears to be for the characters in this film.

For me, "The Social Network" simply didn't ring true. It's an overrated film about an overrated company.

Inglourious Basterds (2009)

The most overrated film ever?

[12 September 2009]

"Inglourious Basterds" is supposed to be Quentin Tarantino's homage to the Spaghetti Western. And here's what is interesting: Tarantino has had 40 years to improve on Sergio Leone's 1960s masterpieces. And he's failed miserably.

"Basterds" is a rambling, incoherent mess of a movie. It's obvious that Tarantino desperately wants to be the ultimate "bad boy" of cinema who makes "controversial" films. But if Tarantino really wanted to be controversial in making a war film, he'd tackle the horrors of the Iraq War, instead of World War II, a long-ago war that already has been re-hashed over and over from every conceivable angle over the decades.

Tarantino deeply wants to shock us, to outrage us and to create disturbing art. And he fails miserably. The fact is, Leone was infinitely more daring and controversial way back in 1968 than Tarantino ever has been. When Leone depicted the vicious cold-blooded gunning down of a child in "Once Upon a Time in the West," he created a scene that Tarantino would never, ever have the courage to film. Compared to scenes like that, everything in "Basterds" is tame and predictable (as is the case with all of Tarantino's work).

Last, but not least, I really can't understand why anyone would be interested in Tarantino's take on the 1960s Spaghetti Western film genre. I mean, why not just watch the stunning originals? The original Italian directors did vastly more with their tiny budgets than Tarantino can do with his bloated $80 million budgets.

If you want truly challenging and original film-making these days, I urge you to check out the best of what East Asian cinema has to offer. (Takashi Miike is infinitely more daring, dangerous and talented than Tarantino). Tarantino is a grossly overrated director and the fact that his work is praised in the U.S. shows just how utterly creatively bankrupt Hollywood is these days.

Redacted (2007)

A Powerful, Noble and Brave Film

[9 November 2007]

"Redacted" is a shattering, powerful experience. It has been criticized by some as painful to watch...but I think that is the point entirely.

For too long, Americans have been spoon-fed a steady diet of lies about the Iraq War (not least about why we invaded that nation in the first place).

De Palma aims to shows us another side to this terrible conflict; one that we won't get on Fox News (or any of the other corporate propaganda networks). It's about time Americans got another point of view on Iraq, because we're hopelessly misinformed about what's going on there (an astonishing number of Americans including a majority of Fox News viewers STILL believe to this day that Saddam was behind 9/11). My friends in Europe don't believe me when I tell them this.

Incidentally, I don't think a film has to be pleasant to watch to be a memorable cinema experience. For example, Fassbinder never made a "entertaining" film, and yet his movies are among the most powerful in all of cinema.

The Iraq War is a horror story of untold magnitude. This film aims to capture the nightmare of the ever-shifting, chaotic Iraq battlefield. It's a film that will be hated, in knee-jerk fashion, by the Bush worshiping nut-case right-wing fringe. But for the rest of us, it's a must-see, powerful and brave film.

Lost in Space (1965–1968)

The best show from TV's greatest decade

[8 June 2007]

I guess I'm alone in my views these days, but I've never agreed with the critics (or the vast audiences) that adore contemporary TV series like "Seinfeld" or "Friends."

For me, the best decade for TV (by a million miles) was the 1960s. It was truly a unique decade for television. Series produced then are totally unlike anything produced previously or since. I don't know what it was (perhaps someone spiked the water back then), but TV in the 1960s was unique. There was a certain sense of wonder, a certain sense of the fantastic---and a definite 60s vibe of surrealism that crept into every show from "Green Acres" to "Batman" to "Gilligan's Island."

And for my money, the best show in TV's greatest decade was "Lost in Space." It's impossible to describe what watching this show was like in the 1960s. It's an experience that simply can't be re-produced today. For a start, America was still an optimistic nation and we had an ambitious space program that would soon take us to the moon. For everyone who was young in the 60s, it seemed highly plausible that, we too, would get a chance to ride a rocket into space within our lifetimes. Little could we fathom that, after 1972, America wouldn't even land a person on the moon for 35 long years.

Today's TV shows are stiflingly dull and seem to be created by committees that cynically use focus groups to create their sterile product. "Lost in Space" is a million miles away from this creative process. In fact, it's the total opposite (and all the more brilliant for this).

The greatest science fiction always had a sense of wonder and mystery. "Lost in Space" captured the mystery of space---indeed, the show itself was actually quite bizarre. It's a far cry from the over-rated "Star Trek," which, instead of giving us a sense of mystery, followed an (increasingly stale) by-the-numbers formula.

And "formula" is precisely what one did NOT get in viewing "Lost in Space." Indeed, this show is so strange that, viewing it today, it seems like a relic from a lost civilization. It's hard, in fact, to really even fathom who the producers were targeting as their audience.

Naturally, there are cynics who hate this show, and fall over themselves pointing out the plot holes and the ignorance of "realism." To those folks, I say: Chill out. Even TV's "realistic" shows are NOT as realistic as they hyped to be. "Star Trek," for example, has plenty of flaws in its science. Even a highly-praised show like "ER," the medical drama, has plenty of inaccuracies (as any medical professional will tell you).

In many ways, "Lost in Space" does a wonderful job of capturing the essence of what made the 60s the greatest decade of the 20th century for TV, film, music, and culture in general. It's something we'll never re-capture in today's stale culture, dominated as it is by dull, overpaid celebrities. We've gone a long ways downhill from The Beatles to "American Idol."

North Country (2005)

Powerful, Intelligent and True-To-Life

[7 October 2006]

I'm astonished at the negative reviews of this film on this site. "North Country" is a great film. It is powerful, gritty, realistic, and intelligent. That alone makes it a rarity in an era in which Hollywood is probably in its most dismal state ever.

The vast majority of American films these days are utter dreck and they seem to be specifically and cynically aimed at boosting the sales of the related action figures and video games. They are cold, sterile product.

If you miss the days of smart cinema and great acting, then "North Country" is for you. What makes the film even more of a rare treat is that the fact that it takes a realistic look at working-class America (the sort of people that usually never get portrayed in a movie---even though we make up the vast majority of the population).

Having worked myself as a blue-collar factory worker for many years, I can say that this film nails it as far as realism. Sexual harassment in the workplace is real (and it continues to this day). Indeed, the advances that were portrayed in the film have been pretty much gutted by the Bush administration. Although the laws may technically remain on the books, corporate America knows full well that they can safely ignore these laws and face no penalty from the White House or the GOP-controlled Congress these days.

Most films these days, when they're not peddling McDonald's Happy Meals or Nintendo games, tend to glamorize the life of ordinary working Americans. It's refreshing to see a film that shows a realistic, warts-and-all portrayal of working-class Americans (especially when you consider that the vast majority of Americans are working class and not members of the elite, pampered, trust-fund-collecting executive class who normally are the only employees portrayed in U.S. cinema).

It's refreshing to see a film, ANY film, that (A) doesn't have yet another tedious car chase (B) doesn't have mindless sex and violence and (C) isn't full of product placements. Yes, I guess "North Country" can seem a bit "preachy" to some people (although how could any rational sane adult disagree with its premise that sexual harassment is bad?).

In any case, if you stop and think about it, ALL films are "preachy"---it's just that this particularly film isn't trying to cynically persuade your kids into pestering you to buy them a Happy Meal.

Are you tired of Hollywood's banal parade of dreck these days? Then watch "North Country."

This Divided State (2005)

What, exactly, does Moore "lie" about?

[25 June 2006]

I have to admit, I'm baffled by the constant attacks on Moore, (that his films are supposedly sloppy, poorly researched, one-sided and full of "lies.") I'm not saying that every single detail in "F911" is true, but I think Moore's films are a lot more accurate and balanced than he gets credit for. I think Moore's films, by and large are every bit as accurate as most "serious" documentary films (the only difference being that Moore's films generate blockbuster box office). Most of the attacks that I've seen on Moore's work are often highly selective, misleading and full of lies themselves. And these days, what exactly is the "truth"? I mean, Bush tells more lies in a typical 15-minute speech than you'll get from watching any Moore film. (But you'd never convince a brainwashed fanatical Bush supporter that their beloved hero lies about anything). And Fox "News" spews out lies and right-wing propaganda 24 hours a day. Even the media that the intellectual Left respects (The New York Times) is full of lies these days. I mean, reporter Judith ("Bush's Case for War is Solid") Miller told many lies in a highly deceptive manner. Bottom line: if Moore's work was so full of "lies," then he would not have been the target of the extraordinary and vicious attacks and deaths threats that he's received from the Right in this country. Instead of going through Moore's work with a fine tooth comb and trying to pick out tiny flaws, I suggest you examine the central premise that Moore raises in his work. Most of the investigative legwork in "F911" for example was done by Craig Unger, who's "House of Bush, House of Saud" was a devastating indictment of the Bush Crime Family. Unger's work was, by the way, completely ignored by the U.S. mainstream media----so we ought to be grateful to Moore for giving Unger a platform that he otherwise wouldn't have had. And as far as the "lies" in Moore's films, instead of slandering the man's films with sweeping generalizations, how about someone here actually specifically detailing a few of these "lies" for a change?

Team America: World Police (2004)

Parker & Stone: Stooges of the Ruling Elite

[15 October 2004]

Watching "Team America," one might almost be under the impression that the First Amendment is alive and well these days in America. After all, the film's "humor" knows no boundaries and is certain to offend almost everyone (which is always taken as a sign that free speech is alive and well). There's only one problem. Free speech is, in fact, under serious assault in this nation. A small handful of giant conglomerates own all the nation's major media outlets and, as a result, most Americans never get to hear a lot of today's most important news stories. (For example, most Americans remain blissfully unaware of how thousands of voters were disenfranchised in the 2000 election). The latter story was extensively documented by the European media, but ignored by the U.S. media. I'd imagine that a lot of the members of the ruling elite in this country are troubled by the prospect that Americans can't be kept in the dark forever about the decline of democracy in the U.S. So it's important to have films like "Team America" out there, to try to maintain the fiction that America's free speech and democracy is much more vibrant than it really is. I'm sure the creators of "Team America" would vehemently deny that they are somehow mere stooges for the ruling elite. But I find it interesting that films like "Team America" never seem to have any problems getting green-lighted for production and distribution, while Michael Moore had to go to Canada to find a distributor for "Fahrenheit 9/11." Like Howard Stern, Trey Parker and Matt Stone are hailed by many as entertainers who refuse to be hemmed in by any limits and who bravely say what everyone is afraid to say. The problem with this perception is that it's totally false. In reality, there's a huge amount of off-topic limits that Parker and Stone would never dare touch with a 10-foot pole. Example: how about the elected democracies around the world that the U.S. has overthrown over the past 50 years, like Argentina and Guatemala? There's no way Parker and Stone would ever touch such a topic, even if only to lampoon it with tasteless humor. Fans of Parker and Stone admire the duo's penchant for refusing to honor any taboos and having no limits on what they make fun of. Of course, this is total fiction. It's hard to imagine Parker and Stone making fun of the 9/11 attacks. However, the duo have no problems with lampooning other nation's tragedies. Parker and Stone are widely known as "libertarians," but all I see in their work is mindless jingoism, which stands out like a sore thumb despite their attempts to obscure it with heavy layers of sarcasm, irony, nihilism, outrageousness, etc. So despite the no-holds-barred facade of a film like "Team America," the fact is that free speech is severely curbed in America. The ruling elite of this country let us feast on all the potty jokes and scatological "humor" we want. But when it comes to telling the truth on a wide range of real, vital issues, the big media conglomerates in this nation don't hesitate to keep us in the dark. For a film that's supposed to be all about outrageous, cutting-edge humor, I found "Team America," to be tedious and predictable; the sort of thing that juvenile frat boys would create, given a film budget. Personally, I found a film like "Fahrenheit 9/11" to be infinitely more outrageous, shocking and disturbing than "Team America" could ever hope to be. However, if you found potty humor to be funny beyond the sixth grade, then go see "Team America," by all means.

Lost in Translation (2003)

Offensive and overrated

[17 September 2004]

A lot of reviewers here have remarked on how "boring" this film is. It IS boring, but the way I see it, that's only the beginning of the problems with this movie.

I found it offensive the way this film portrayed Japanese people. From the bizarre, creepy behavior of the female masseuse to the hyperactive photo shoot director, this film seems to delight in poking fun at the Japanese. (Never mind the fact that the depictions have no basis in reality and are, in fact, based on shallow, inaccurate American stereotypes of the way the Japanese supposedly behave).

As far as Bob Harris's "plight," I found it hard to understand, relate to, or even care about. This is someone who seems completely miserable and like a fish out of water in a totally alien and foreign culture. The problem is, it's hard to have sympathy for his character. After all, this already-rich character is getting paid $2 million for a few days of "work," (which in his case means sitting in a studio being photographed for a few minutes).

It's hard to care at all about either Bob Harris or Charlotte. Neither character has anything interesting to say. Neither character makes the slightest effort to connect to their new surroundings. Neither can be bothered to even learn a couple of Japanese phrases (although Harris is constantly annoyed that the Japanese can't always speak perfect, fluent English).

Harris is, in fact, a major jerk. He can't either be bothered to chat a few minutes with a couple of fans in the hotel bar. (One thing that always annoys me about Hollywood prima donnas is that they tend to forget who signs their paychecks). Speaking of the hotel bar, Harris seems to spend most of his time there, wallowing in his "misery," instead of getting out and exploring his surroundings. (Which is a shame. I know from experience that Tokyo is in fact the world's most exciting and fascinating city---it makes LA or New York seem positively dull).

I also found it hard to relate on any level to the Charlotte character. Scarlett Johansson drifts through this film with a vacant, deer-in-the-headlights expression. She simply doesn't seem very bright--and she, like her co-star, makes absolutely no effort to connect in any way with her surroundings. In fact, I've traveled with people like her in the past (they're the ones who're always wondering where the nearest McDonald's is in places like Europe). In short, they're boring folks, and I certainly have little desire to see such people depicted in a film.

Speaking of which, I can't comprehend why this film garnered such rave reviews. I can only guess that it has something to do with the fact that Hollywood is so completely creatively bankrupt these days.

Either we get films based on comic books or video games or 1960s TV series, or we get mindless explosions and violence. If you're looking for a film that doesn't have a target audience of adolescent boys, it's pretty slim pickings these days. So a "serious" film like "Translation" isn't exactly faced with a lot of competition.

Bottom line: I absolutely despised this film. Hollywood is so in-bred and disconnected these days. I really wonder if the studio honchos have ever considered bringing in some fresh, outside talent.

Just because you're the daughter of a major film-maker doesn't mean you have talent. And on the basis of "Translation" Coppola should find another line of work (although with her inherited millions, I suppose she doesn't need to work at all, really).