I will admit, while watching the first episode, I was extremely tempted into giving up on the series. Mainly because Carla, the "healer," is probably the most irritating, aggravating, infuriating, painful-to-watch character I've ever encountered in anime thus far. By contrast, Alvin the warrior, seems sympathetic and even lovable. However, if you manage to stay for the subsequent episodes, Carla's personality mellows... minutely, and Alvin's personality deepens, displaying his infrequent insensitivity and utter gullibility. In a way, the bickering between the two is reminiscent of "the old married couple" act. With the addition later on of the sentient mushroom, Altargaia, it's often hard to tell who's ganging up on who when it comes to the verbal jabs. Speaking of which, personally I found this anime immensely hilarious - the jokes never got ecchi-level and tended to form from Alvin's perpetual confusion and terror over Carla's antics. As far as other characters, the monsters are adorably personable, there's no harem nonsense even though several female characters are featured, and the show uses a "Goblin Slayer" style trick in never fully showing Alvin's face, but in a more humorous way. Add in the farcical episode titles, each of ridiculous length, and you end up with a fantasy-comedy anime that is obviously enjoying poking fun at the genre, a là Konosuba. Honestly, I'm rather disappointed that no season 2 is on the horizon.
Reviews
15 Reviews
A Centaur's Life
(2017)
A confused, chaotic mess.
16 March 2024
To preface, I haven't yet read the source manga, but I'm given to understand it's more of a stream-of-consciousness than coherent story. Which confuses me more as to how it even got an anime adaptation. Even 'Gintama', as wacky and oddball as it is, has a consistent narrative thread running though it. 'A Centaur's Life' has no such consistency.
Billed as a Slice-of-Life, the anime only lives up to this classification in that it shows a slice of every conceivable life of even random and side characters. Everything that could be thrown in, was: Yuri, fan service/ecchi, gaming tropes, biology, politics, spirituality and philosophy, international intrigue, divergent evolution... and that's just the stuff I can think of off the top of my head. The world-building is haphazard, sloppy, and, tbh, bizarre. (Honestly, some of the creature designs are more horrifying and grotesque than anything else, such as the merpeople and Antarcticans.) Let's take the most infamous example - the Holocaust-centered episode. To begin with, the students (who are ostensibly meant to be the primary focus of the series) only have 5 minutes of screen time, and I'm being generous here, before we're thrown in a story about a frog person- excuse me, amphibian person, who's some business hotshot, having a meeting. Yup, a business meeting. Woot, excitement. Then we follow the frog to, I'm guessing, his home village, where we're thrown into amphibian person politics in which there's some kind of war brewing against the local "filthy" mammalian population. Because the mammals are spreading out... I think? Really, I have no idea, but according to the militants, Mr. Businessman Frog is a traitor to his people because he lives and works with the "filthy" mammals, and is becoming like one of them. And that's it. The second part is the Holocaust flashback, which, again, is straight up nonsense. Not the parallels between history, but how idiotically it's presented. There seems to be no distinction between the "Nazis" and the concentration camp inmates - multiple species are shown as both victims and aggressors, despite there being some references to "livestock" (the centaurs, apparently) being in charge and a reward system is based on body type. But, again, this makes no sense. Wouldn't it be more logical for one race, one viewed as superior in this particular world, to be the "Nazis" and an inferior race to be the victims? It might be a twisted logic but it would still make more sense than what was shown on screen. Which was basically about this one Angelkin boy who survived being shot, was placed in a work camp, is starved and worked nearly to death, but is finally rescued by the Allies, one of whom adopts him. And that boy turns out to be the old businessman Mr. Businessman Frog was dealing with at the beginning. End episode... and never see any of these characters or storyline again.
As I said, I'm still confused as to how the manga of 'A Centaur's Life' received an anime adaptation in the first place. Nevermind that it also got an English dub when so many other anime - such as Yowamushi Pedal, Re: Creators (thanks Amazon Prime Video), Nisekoi, The Tatami Galaxy, Bakemonogatari, Wotakoi: Love is Hard for Otaku - still haven't. I wouldn't even class this as a guilty pleasure anime, the kind where you can just turn off your brain and drool. Despite the draw of its surface premise, that of a centaur girl and her schoolmates, it's not worth the time so I'd recommend skipping it.
Billed as a Slice-of-Life, the anime only lives up to this classification in that it shows a slice of every conceivable life of even random and side characters. Everything that could be thrown in, was: Yuri, fan service/ecchi, gaming tropes, biology, politics, spirituality and philosophy, international intrigue, divergent evolution... and that's just the stuff I can think of off the top of my head. The world-building is haphazard, sloppy, and, tbh, bizarre. (Honestly, some of the creature designs are more horrifying and grotesque than anything else, such as the merpeople and Antarcticans.) Let's take the most infamous example - the Holocaust-centered episode. To begin with, the students (who are ostensibly meant to be the primary focus of the series) only have 5 minutes of screen time, and I'm being generous here, before we're thrown in a story about a frog person- excuse me, amphibian person, who's some business hotshot, having a meeting. Yup, a business meeting. Woot, excitement. Then we follow the frog to, I'm guessing, his home village, where we're thrown into amphibian person politics in which there's some kind of war brewing against the local "filthy" mammalian population. Because the mammals are spreading out... I think? Really, I have no idea, but according to the militants, Mr. Businessman Frog is a traitor to his people because he lives and works with the "filthy" mammals, and is becoming like one of them. And that's it. The second part is the Holocaust flashback, which, again, is straight up nonsense. Not the parallels between history, but how idiotically it's presented. There seems to be no distinction between the "Nazis" and the concentration camp inmates - multiple species are shown as both victims and aggressors, despite there being some references to "livestock" (the centaurs, apparently) being in charge and a reward system is based on body type. But, again, this makes no sense. Wouldn't it be more logical for one race, one viewed as superior in this particular world, to be the "Nazis" and an inferior race to be the victims? It might be a twisted logic but it would still make more sense than what was shown on screen. Which was basically about this one Angelkin boy who survived being shot, was placed in a work camp, is starved and worked nearly to death, but is finally rescued by the Allies, one of whom adopts him. And that boy turns out to be the old businessman Mr. Businessman Frog was dealing with at the beginning. End episode... and never see any of these characters or storyline again.
As I said, I'm still confused as to how the manga of 'A Centaur's Life' received an anime adaptation in the first place. Nevermind that it also got an English dub when so many other anime - such as Yowamushi Pedal, Re: Creators (thanks Amazon Prime Video), Nisekoi, The Tatami Galaxy, Bakemonogatari, Wotakoi: Love is Hard for Otaku - still haven't. I wouldn't even class this as a guilty pleasure anime, the kind where you can just turn off your brain and drool. Despite the draw of its surface premise, that of a centaur girl and her schoolmates, it's not worth the time so I'd recommend skipping it.
Undead Unluck
(2023– )
So so close to a perfect adaptation!
10 February 2024
I discovered the manga last year (thanks, local library!) and was hooked. So I anticipated the anime with bated breath. And in so many ways it's a fantastic adaptation of Sensei's work, even with the inevitable tweaking, additions , and storyline expansion that come with such projects. However, the one thing which bugs me, the biggest and only issue that bugs me, is that about half of each episode is spent in flashbacks and refreshers, and that's not counting the intro and extro credits sequences and next episode teaser. I don't know if this is because of this particular production, a quirk of this studio, or the state of anime production in general, but it's quite frustrating to sit through.
Now I get that some flashbacks are necessary to the plot: they help clarify the crisis of the episode, refresh the viewer's memory of stuff from the very beginning that might've become fuzzy, etc. But when an entire episode consists of such "refreshments" and add, maybe, 5-8 minutes of new stuff, is that truly necessary? To my mind, no. Especially not in this era of binge-watching and multi-episode premieres - are our memories so out of whack from our short attention spans to need reminders of something that happened just the previous episode? I admit, I have a crap memory, but even I'm not that forgetful.
So while the animation and voice work (of the original Japanese - I haven't watched the dub yet so I can't comment on it) are high-class, and the storyline is just as hilarious, action-packed, dramatic, and fast-paced as the manga's, the actual production could be better. Thanks to the state of anime and manga today, with its greater-than-ever focus on speed and earning capability to the exclusion of everything else, including the health of those involved, I can't say I'm surprised.
Now I get that some flashbacks are necessary to the plot: they help clarify the crisis of the episode, refresh the viewer's memory of stuff from the very beginning that might've become fuzzy, etc. But when an entire episode consists of such "refreshments" and add, maybe, 5-8 minutes of new stuff, is that truly necessary? To my mind, no. Especially not in this era of binge-watching and multi-episode premieres - are our memories so out of whack from our short attention spans to need reminders of something that happened just the previous episode? I admit, I have a crap memory, but even I'm not that forgetful.
So while the animation and voice work (of the original Japanese - I haven't watched the dub yet so I can't comment on it) are high-class, and the storyline is just as hilarious, action-packed, dramatic, and fast-paced as the manga's, the actual production could be better. Thanks to the state of anime and manga today, with its greater-than-ever focus on speed and earning capability to the exclusion of everything else, including the health of those involved, I can't say I'm surprised.
The Unusuals
(2009)
Another fabulous "Cancelled Too Soon" show...
29 January 2024
....That makes you want to find the executive (-s) responsible and slap them upside the head with a frozen tuna.
Seriously, this is one of the best cop shows made ever. Right out of the gate, you've got a show stuffed with well-written and well-rounded characters, absurd humor, sensitively written drama, tense action, and several subplots deserving of exploration.
Let's talk about the casting. Even at the time, when so many of these names and faces would go on to even more amazing roles, this was an amazing cast. Amber Tamblyn, Jeremy Renner, Harold Perrineau, Adam Goldberg, Terry Kinney, Monique Curnen. Even the guest stars: Miles Teller, Corey Stoll, Joanna Gleason (a national treasure btw), Chris Sarandon (same). And we can't forget the voice of the show, Marisa Vural as "Dispatch." There was so much talent here, it's almost criminal. (Har har har.)
Next we have the series writers, which included: Sarah Watson (whose credits include About a Boy, Parenthood, Pure Genius, and That's So Raven), Danny Zucker (The Arsenio Hall Show, Evening Shade, Roseanne, Grace Under Fire, Modern Family), Melissa Byer (Stargate: Atlantis, Crossing Jordan, Reaper, CSI, The Gifted), Robert De Laurentiis (St. Elsewhere, Providence, The O. C., The Umbrella Academy, Fargo). And let's not forget the series creator, Noah Hawley who wrote for Bones, Legion, and Fargo, while producing and directing episodes of the same (among other series). I mean, the man has won an Emmy, a Golden Globe, a Peabody Award, he's a novelist, screenwriter, series creator, showrunner, director, and producer. He's accurately named an auteur.
So with so much goodness wrapped around a show like this, why the hell was it cancelled? Well, it had disappointing numbers, ones that started out low and dropped even further as the weeks went on. Yet shows such as The Dick Van Dyke Show, The Mary Tyler Moore Show, All in the Family, M*A*S*H, Family Ties, Cheers, Seinfeld, and Homicide were the same and I think we know how they turned out. So, then, ultimately, why was The Unusuals cancelled? Was it cop show burnout? Was it insufficient advertising? Was it impatience with a more complex storyline and characters? I'm thinking all of the above, along with the standard issue of executive ignorance and - the worst possible reason - bad luck. So many shows succeeded when they should've failed because they dropped at the right time and caught the right audience. So many other shows failed when they should've succeeded because of the opposite - they never found their footing or the audience, advertiser, and executive support. Sadly, The Unusuals fell into this last category, joining a far too long list of other "Cancelled Too Soon" shows. But a show totally worthy of rewatching, if only to enjoy what was and mourn what could've been.
Seriously, this is one of the best cop shows made ever. Right out of the gate, you've got a show stuffed with well-written and well-rounded characters, absurd humor, sensitively written drama, tense action, and several subplots deserving of exploration.
Let's talk about the casting. Even at the time, when so many of these names and faces would go on to even more amazing roles, this was an amazing cast. Amber Tamblyn, Jeremy Renner, Harold Perrineau, Adam Goldberg, Terry Kinney, Monique Curnen. Even the guest stars: Miles Teller, Corey Stoll, Joanna Gleason (a national treasure btw), Chris Sarandon (same). And we can't forget the voice of the show, Marisa Vural as "Dispatch." There was so much talent here, it's almost criminal. (Har har har.)
Next we have the series writers, which included: Sarah Watson (whose credits include About a Boy, Parenthood, Pure Genius, and That's So Raven), Danny Zucker (The Arsenio Hall Show, Evening Shade, Roseanne, Grace Under Fire, Modern Family), Melissa Byer (Stargate: Atlantis, Crossing Jordan, Reaper, CSI, The Gifted), Robert De Laurentiis (St. Elsewhere, Providence, The O. C., The Umbrella Academy, Fargo). And let's not forget the series creator, Noah Hawley who wrote for Bones, Legion, and Fargo, while producing and directing episodes of the same (among other series). I mean, the man has won an Emmy, a Golden Globe, a Peabody Award, he's a novelist, screenwriter, series creator, showrunner, director, and producer. He's accurately named an auteur.
So with so much goodness wrapped around a show like this, why the hell was it cancelled? Well, it had disappointing numbers, ones that started out low and dropped even further as the weeks went on. Yet shows such as The Dick Van Dyke Show, The Mary Tyler Moore Show, All in the Family, M*A*S*H, Family Ties, Cheers, Seinfeld, and Homicide were the same and I think we know how they turned out. So, then, ultimately, why was The Unusuals cancelled? Was it cop show burnout? Was it insufficient advertising? Was it impatience with a more complex storyline and characters? I'm thinking all of the above, along with the standard issue of executive ignorance and - the worst possible reason - bad luck. So many shows succeeded when they should've failed because they dropped at the right time and caught the right audience. So many other shows failed when they should've succeeded because of the opposite - they never found their footing or the audience, advertiser, and executive support. Sadly, The Unusuals fell into this last category, joining a far too long list of other "Cancelled Too Soon" shows. But a show totally worthy of rewatching, if only to enjoy what was and mourn what could've been.
Pressure Point
(1997)
I can't imagine watching this straight - thanks Rifftrax!
4 October 2023
You've got a wannabe James Bond lead character who's instead balding (with a clown afro wig stuck on the back of his head), paunchy, and with all the sexual and action movie appeal of your average family dentist. Who runs with the grace and speed of a toddler and escapes from a max security prison (which was apparently built over... an industrial... power plant?) in a jumpsuit sized for Andre the Giant. Hilarious, true, but action packed and heart pounding? No. The rest of the movie is just a mass of cliches and action movie tropes stitched together, making it utterly forgettable. Steve Railsbeck is wasted and Mr. Paws the stuffed bear deserves more screen time. I applaud the Rifftrax team (Mike, Bill, and Kevin) for being able to stay awake long enough to riff this movie so hilariously.
Marred by the dumbest of errors.
17 September 2023
"Pied" means bicolored. So when Robert Browning wrote 'His queer long coat from heel to head
Was half of yellow and half of red' (and most likely his stockings were thusly colored, too), it doesn't mean the dyer combined equal parts red and yellow to make orange dye! It means exactly what it says: one half was yellow and one half was red. Hell, this was even explicitly spelled out further down in the poem in the lines 'A scarf of red and yellow stripe,
To match with his coat of the self-same cheque' (cheque meaning "pattern" not that the coat was a plaid). The costume designer should've been fired for not doing some stupidly basic research, or at least for not reading the daggum poem!
Aside from this boneheaded costuming choice, the episode is maybe not one of the better ones in the Faerie Tale Theatre series, but still enjoyable. Especially with Eric Idle playing two roles. (It's hard to get too much Eric Idle, I think.) I also applaud the choice of using the Robert Browning poem as the script, rather than adapting the poem into a conventional fairy tale-esque script.
Aside from this boneheaded costuming choice, the episode is maybe not one of the better ones in the Faerie Tale Theatre series, but still enjoyable. Especially with Eric Idle playing two roles. (It's hard to get too much Eric Idle, I think.) I also applaud the choice of using the Robert Browning poem as the script, rather than adapting the poem into a conventional fairy tale-esque script.
Death on the Nile
(1978)
It's a classic film for a reason.
14 September 2023
The definitive big-screen version of Agatha Christie's tale. I mean, the interaction between Bette Davis's Mrs. Van Schuyler and Dame Maggie Smith's Miss Bowers is worth the price of admission (figuratively speaking) alone. Not to mention Angela Lansbury as Salome Otterbourne, which is just the most fabulous, scenery-chewing performance ever! And unlike Albert Finney from "Murder on the Orient Express" Peter Ustinov better embodies the finicky, peculiar nature of Hercule Poirot, one of the better interpretations - until David Suchet came along, of course. If you feel the need to watch a cinematic adaptation of Christie's novel, avoid Branagh's poorly written and inaccurate attempt and watch this version instead. None of the amazing talents stuffed into this film (and there are an overabundance of famous faces, which - alongside those named above - include Mia Farrow, Olivia Hussey, David Niven, Lois Chiles, Simon MacCorkindale, George Kennedy, and Jack Warden) are wasted, all adding a facet to the story to drive the movie forward.
Death on the Nile
(2022)
Go for the 1978 Peter Ustinov version, instead.
14 September 2023
I really do enjoy Kenneth Branagh, but, please! Somebody take away his Agatha Christie privileges! Poirot is not - and I repeat, NOT - an action hero. He doesn't run and chase thugs, he doesn't handle firearms unless it's from a crime scene and he's looking for clues, and he most certainly doesn't tackle people - it would muss his mustache.* Christie wrote Poirot specifically as a foil to those kinds of hero figures, a man who uses his "little grey cells" to do the work, not his fists or guns.
And, please, PLEASE, stop labeling everyone "neurodivergent" or "OCD" (especially for comic relief). Poirot is finicky. He is particular and detailed. This is fine as it is. These habits don't make him autistic or OCD or anything else on the spectrum. A person can have odd little habits and tics without having mental health issues somehow driving them.
Several talented people are wasted in an unnecessary revamp of Agatha Christie's classic, a story which is - personally speaking - muddied and ruined due to modern meddling. This film is just a big, fat "no."
*Speaking of which, what the hell is that monstrosity on Kenny's face?! Yes, it's written as "moustaches" in the novel, but that's simply the more common way of describing lip art at the time. It doesn't mean Poirot's mustache has a mustache of its own! Granted, it's more restrained than in the first film, but still... Yikes! Nevermind the mind-boggling "back story" to the sacred mustache - gimme a break.
And, please, PLEASE, stop labeling everyone "neurodivergent" or "OCD" (especially for comic relief). Poirot is finicky. He is particular and detailed. This is fine as it is. These habits don't make him autistic or OCD or anything else on the spectrum. A person can have odd little habits and tics without having mental health issues somehow driving them.
Several talented people are wasted in an unnecessary revamp of Agatha Christie's classic, a story which is - personally speaking - muddied and ruined due to modern meddling. This film is just a big, fat "no."
*Speaking of which, what the hell is that monstrosity on Kenny's face?! Yes, it's written as "moustaches" in the novel, but that's simply the more common way of describing lip art at the time. It doesn't mean Poirot's mustache has a mustache of its own! Granted, it's more restrained than in the first film, but still... Yikes! Nevermind the mind-boggling "back story" to the sacred mustache - gimme a break.
The Starfighters
(1964)
"Poopie suits!"
13 September 2023
Yup, I've only watched this mind-numbingly boring "film" through the lens of an MST3K episode (S6 Ep12, for those who haven't seen it and would like to experience it for themselves) and even that was torture. The idea of watching this straight makes a little part of me die.
I don't believe this was a Bob Dornan vanity piece, despite his front-and-center placement. I firmly believe this was an Air Force recruitment movie, and they allowed Dornan to shoehorn in his little "romance" subplot in exchange for his "action star acting" skills. After all, aside from jokes about corn and sex (racy!) and some make out sessions, the majority of time is wasted with scenes of midair refueling (unintentionally sensual and therefore way sexier than the human action), stuff being blown up, more midair refueling, poopie suit training in a pool, and - yes - even MORE midair refueling - can't get enough of that riveting action! Basically, all the Air Force stock footage available of the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter (hence the movie's title - thoroughly misleading), sprinkled in with other jets and airplanes, and even a rescue helicopter.
To quote Mike Nelson: "I really think there's more nothing in this movie than in any other movie." And that really does sum up The Starfighters. Shame, because the title sounds like you're going to see a rousing sci-fi action movie. Even a uber low budget Italian sci-fi action movie called "The Starfighters " would be more entertaining and enjoyable than this snoozefest.
I don't believe this was a Bob Dornan vanity piece, despite his front-and-center placement. I firmly believe this was an Air Force recruitment movie, and they allowed Dornan to shoehorn in his little "romance" subplot in exchange for his "action star acting" skills. After all, aside from jokes about corn and sex (racy!) and some make out sessions, the majority of time is wasted with scenes of midair refueling (unintentionally sensual and therefore way sexier than the human action), stuff being blown up, more midair refueling, poopie suit training in a pool, and - yes - even MORE midair refueling - can't get enough of that riveting action! Basically, all the Air Force stock footage available of the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter (hence the movie's title - thoroughly misleading), sprinkled in with other jets and airplanes, and even a rescue helicopter.
To quote Mike Nelson: "I really think there's more nothing in this movie than in any other movie." And that really does sum up The Starfighters. Shame, because the title sounds like you're going to see a rousing sci-fi action movie. Even a uber low budget Italian sci-fi action movie called "The Starfighters " would be more entertaining and enjoyable than this snoozefest.
ID:Invaded
(2020)
I don't get the hype
1 July 2022
I can't say I hate the show, but I can't say I understand all the rave reviews either. ID:Invaded wants to be an edgy psychological drama like the far superior Psycho -Pass, but lacks the necessary ingredients, ie edginess, psychological intrigue, and dramatic tension. I mean, for crying out loud, I figured out who the main Big Baddie was in the first episode - it's not that difficult to deduce! The story seems unnecessarily convoluted, which I guess it has to be since it's got nothing else going for it, its premise and technology reminding me so much of Minority Report and Inception. All but a couple of the characters are paper-thin as far as development, and even those with slightly more depth we really don't come to know all that well beyond basic emotional drives (one loves and misses his family, one's super into serial killers, etc). I think what bothered me most watching this short (thankfully) anime series was the animation, which wasn't pleasing or eye-catching or particularly well-done at all. In fact, it looked rather cheap and sloppy.
I watched ID:Invaded from first to last episode - so you can't say I didn't give it a chance - and I just can't recommend it. Your time would be better spent watching Psycho-Pass, Darker Than Black, Monster, Plastic Memories, B: The Beginning, or Ghost in the Shell S. A. C.
I watched ID:Invaded from first to last episode - so you can't say I didn't give it a chance - and I just can't recommend it. Your time would be better spent watching Psycho-Pass, Darker Than Black, Monster, Plastic Memories, B: The Beginning, or Ghost in the Shell S. A. C.
Better Off Ted
(2009–2010)
One of the best examples of network incompetence.
28 September 2018
'Better Off Ted' was a show with the highest potential for multi-season success. Innovative, original, with literal laugh-out-loud hilarity, the show was also blessed with a cast who had amazing chemistry with each other right from the pilot episode. So what did those brilliant executives over at ABC do? Those men with so much insight into America's viewing population? They cancelled 'Better Off Ted' after two measly, truncated seasons. Good move, ABC!
Despite the show being 9 years old, I still laugh (loudly and often) at all 26 precious episodes (even now, during a second binge watch, coming directly after the first binge watch) and wish it could be one of the many shows getting a modern restart (hello, 'Will & Grace' and 'Murphy Brown'). Where's a magic genie when you need one, to go back, rewrite time, and give 'Better Off Ted' the six full seasons it deserved?
Despite the show being 9 years old, I still laugh (loudly and often) at all 26 precious episodes (even now, during a second binge watch, coming directly after the first binge watch) and wish it could be one of the many shows getting a modern restart (hello, 'Will & Grace' and 'Murphy Brown'). Where's a magic genie when you need one, to go back, rewrite time, and give 'Better Off Ted' the six full seasons it deserved?
Indian Summers
(2015–2016)
There's a reason this show was so gorgeously shot: It was to make up for such an ugly and utterly dull story.
24 November 2015
Except for the fact it wasn't even shot in India! How sad it that?
There were really no sympathetic characters. All the English were racists and bigots, all the Indians were... ciphers. Yes, a lot of the English of that time were horrible, espousing the beliefs on view in this program. But there were many who were sympathetic to the plight of the Indians, yet there are only two people in this program who seem to tolerate or even like the native people they live among, Alice and Ian McCloud? Just doesn't seem realistic. And Julie Walters character? Oh, lord, what a harridan! I couldn't stand hearing her voice after the first episode, the writers had her spewing such hate and venom. I don't expect something that's all rainbows and sunshine, but the amount of hate and racism and bigotry on display in each and every episode made me nauseous. It's called striking a balance, showing all sides of a story, something that wasn't on display here.
The worst part was the storyline regarding the missionary's wife, Mrs. Raworth and the sister of the private secretary to the Viceroy, Alice Whelan. Alice has left her husband back in London, taken their child and run away to India, but to avoid scandal she tells everyone that her husband is dead. Well, because Mrs. Raworth is a nosy, desperate, social-climbing sneak, she winkles out the truth and holds it over Alice's head, blackmailing her in order to gain entre into the higher echelons of Colonial Indian society. The question is, why? Mrs. Raworth is about as threatening as a wet tissue; this is a women who would become confused at an intersection where the street signs have been swapped. All it would take is for Alice to slap Mrs. Raworth smartly on the face and say to her, "Go ahead, tell everyone I've left my husband. Yes, you might have a brief triumph over me, but it will be brief because I will make sure everyone knows you for the low, backstabbing, sneaky, pathetic blackmailing worm that you are. And once your true character is revealed, no amount of brown-nosing will ever get you the approval you so desperately crave. Which means I'll eventually regain my status, but you will never be looked upon at any kind of equal ever again." For Alice to be continually threatened by Mrs. Raworth was just completely unbelievable. And ridiculous. And utterly irritating to watch.
The main problem is whoever wrote this thing was trying to set up a grand mystery with lots of intertwining strands of smaller mysteries that somehow tied into the whole. Instead what was created was a vague, muddied, and meandering plot that barely allowed the viewer to get a grasp on any one character before being whisked off to another scene and another "mystery." There was no character development or depth, no understanding of the motivation behind their actions, and because of the general sloppiness, no reason was given to care about any of the characters or why they did what they did or wonder how they ended up. There are moments in the script where we're shown, "Hey, look, this character has feelings, is acting a little bit sympathetic even if you normally don't like them! That means they have depth!" Unfortunately, I don't buy into those moments because they're just more examples of lazy writing. And I think all of this is because there's no source material to back the program up as with the far superior "The Jewel in the Crown." Which is why I will recommend that program over "Indian Summers" any day because unless you like a pretty veneer with no depth, there's little else to look at.
There were really no sympathetic characters. All the English were racists and bigots, all the Indians were... ciphers. Yes, a lot of the English of that time were horrible, espousing the beliefs on view in this program. But there were many who were sympathetic to the plight of the Indians, yet there are only two people in this program who seem to tolerate or even like the native people they live among, Alice and Ian McCloud? Just doesn't seem realistic. And Julie Walters character? Oh, lord, what a harridan! I couldn't stand hearing her voice after the first episode, the writers had her spewing such hate and venom. I don't expect something that's all rainbows and sunshine, but the amount of hate and racism and bigotry on display in each and every episode made me nauseous. It's called striking a balance, showing all sides of a story, something that wasn't on display here.
The worst part was the storyline regarding the missionary's wife, Mrs. Raworth and the sister of the private secretary to the Viceroy, Alice Whelan. Alice has left her husband back in London, taken their child and run away to India, but to avoid scandal she tells everyone that her husband is dead. Well, because Mrs. Raworth is a nosy, desperate, social-climbing sneak, she winkles out the truth and holds it over Alice's head, blackmailing her in order to gain entre into the higher echelons of Colonial Indian society. The question is, why? Mrs. Raworth is about as threatening as a wet tissue; this is a women who would become confused at an intersection where the street signs have been swapped. All it would take is for Alice to slap Mrs. Raworth smartly on the face and say to her, "Go ahead, tell everyone I've left my husband. Yes, you might have a brief triumph over me, but it will be brief because I will make sure everyone knows you for the low, backstabbing, sneaky, pathetic blackmailing worm that you are. And once your true character is revealed, no amount of brown-nosing will ever get you the approval you so desperately crave. Which means I'll eventually regain my status, but you will never be looked upon at any kind of equal ever again." For Alice to be continually threatened by Mrs. Raworth was just completely unbelievable. And ridiculous. And utterly irritating to watch.
The main problem is whoever wrote this thing was trying to set up a grand mystery with lots of intertwining strands of smaller mysteries that somehow tied into the whole. Instead what was created was a vague, muddied, and meandering plot that barely allowed the viewer to get a grasp on any one character before being whisked off to another scene and another "mystery." There was no character development or depth, no understanding of the motivation behind their actions, and because of the general sloppiness, no reason was given to care about any of the characters or why they did what they did or wonder how they ended up. There are moments in the script where we're shown, "Hey, look, this character has feelings, is acting a little bit sympathetic even if you normally don't like them! That means they have depth!" Unfortunately, I don't buy into those moments because they're just more examples of lazy writing. And I think all of this is because there's no source material to back the program up as with the far superior "The Jewel in the Crown." Which is why I will recommend that program over "Indian Summers" any day because unless you like a pretty veneer with no depth, there's little else to look at.
Egyptian Vice
(2015– )
Digusting!
23 July 2015
What a disgusting, sensationalist, bigoted, biased, anti- intellectual, pro-violence piece of propaganda! All the colleges and universities that provided degrees to the "experts" used in this program should demand those degrees back and that remedial courses be taken by all. Every other word was "killing" or "evil" or "ruthless" or "psychopath" or "delusional" or "god-complex"; "evil" seemed to be the word of choice, though, being used at least a hundred times, if not more. With every pharaoh profiled, there was a single nugget of truth that was then distorted, misrepresented, blown out of proportion, taken out of context, and in every way used to create a fictional portrait. What I thought was most laughable was the profile of Akhenaten: the pharaoh who created and propagated one of the earliest monotheistic religions is described as mad and power-hungry, out to destroy the lifestyle of the priests of Amun and the entire way of life in Egypt, something that Jesus, thirteen hundred or so years later, gets lauded for. Bias? No, not here. The actors are hilarious, especially the woman they got to play Cleopatra VII, who looked like a Middle Eastern supermodel; Cleopatra was known for her intelligence, her wit, her political acumen, but not her looks; the man portraying Julius Caesar was a silver fox with carved abs, not the bald, paunchy old man he should've been. Oh, and of course, much was made of the incest without any cultural or historical context or precedent--it was simply something to be pointed at, exclaimed over, and sneered at.
There is no history here, just fantastical, fictional portraits skewed to provide as much blood, gore, and sex as possible without any regard to reality or historical accuracy.
There is no history here, just fantastical, fictional portraits skewed to provide as much blood, gore, and sex as possible without any regard to reality or historical accuracy.
What an over-dramatic load of bull.
14 July 2015
The intro to this program proclaims something to the effect that many stories have been told about Henry and Anne, but none have told the full story. And presumably, the full story will then be told in "Henry and Anne: The Lovers Who Changed History." Yet, what follows is yet another documentary that rehashes the same tired material, hosted by someone who is unabashedly romantic and translates that 21st century mindset onto a medieval court where romance rarely counted for much. And that's simply one of the issues plaguing this program.
First off is the casting. Emma Connell, who portrayed Anne Boleyn, is actually quite the best part of the mini-series, playing Anne with a lively spirit and mysterious allure which most agree Anne had in spades. The fact that her coloring is Anne-appropriate also helps; she has the brunette hair, dark eyes, and olive-tinged skin color for which Anne was noted and which made her stand out at the Tudor court against the more traditional blonde-haired, blue-eyed 'English Roses'. Jack Hawkins, however, cast as Henry VIII is too handsome and too slender for the Henry of this period. The one thing Jack has correct is the ginger hair and beard. During the time Henry met, wooed, married, and killed Anne (~1525-1536), the king was middle aged (34-45) and while he was always an athletically active man and slender in his youth, he was never a willowy man--I think 'stocky' would be the more appropriate word, despite the king's 6'2" height. Yes, the appearance of the actors is a nitpick, but to my mind, accurate physical portrayals lead to a more immersive viewing experience.
But I believe the most egregious aspect of "Henry and Anne" is the presenter, Dr. Suzannah Lipscomb. She states, quite upfront, her belief the Henry and Anne loved each other right from the beginning and narrates the series as though it were Henry and Anne against the world. Yet her story of the couple in incomplete: she completely leaves out Anne's early romances and her engagement to Henry Percy, which was thwarted by Cardinal Wolsey (explaining her hatred of the man and her persecution of him once she became queen), and she portrays the chase of Anne by Henry as a give-and-take romance between the two which they knew needed to be carried out with discretion and honor (bull!). Their "romance" began as a one-sided pursuit by Henry who was intrigued by Anne's singular appearance and vivacity and who desired her to become his mistress, never his wife, something Anne was never going to agree to. After all, Anne knew of Henry's affair with her sister, Mary, and of Mary's quick downfall once Henry became tired of Mary's charms; Mary was pensioned off with little money and even less honor. Once Anne became Henry's focus as his next potential mistress, it's likely she told him she would settle for nothing less than marriage in order to scare him off. Instead, he kept pursuing her and initiated proceedings for an annulment from Catherine of Aragon. Only then is it likely that Anne began to fall for the king, both from his persistent ardor and from the idea of being queen.
Will we ever really know the truth of what happened in Anne and Henry's romance? No, thanks to the fact that we only have Henry's side of their courtship; Anne's letters to him no longer exist, so we won't ever know if she played coy or if she experienced the same kind of ardor as Henry. However, Dr. Lipscomb wrote this documentary and narrated it with the clear intention of presenting the two as passionate lovers from a fairytale, without actually having much evidence to back up that wishing thinking. And that's exactly what this documentary is: wishing thinking dressed up in location filming and over-wrought acting/dialogue.
First off is the casting. Emma Connell, who portrayed Anne Boleyn, is actually quite the best part of the mini-series, playing Anne with a lively spirit and mysterious allure which most agree Anne had in spades. The fact that her coloring is Anne-appropriate also helps; she has the brunette hair, dark eyes, and olive-tinged skin color for which Anne was noted and which made her stand out at the Tudor court against the more traditional blonde-haired, blue-eyed 'English Roses'. Jack Hawkins, however, cast as Henry VIII is too handsome and too slender for the Henry of this period. The one thing Jack has correct is the ginger hair and beard. During the time Henry met, wooed, married, and killed Anne (~1525-1536), the king was middle aged (34-45) and while he was always an athletically active man and slender in his youth, he was never a willowy man--I think 'stocky' would be the more appropriate word, despite the king's 6'2" height. Yes, the appearance of the actors is a nitpick, but to my mind, accurate physical portrayals lead to a more immersive viewing experience.
But I believe the most egregious aspect of "Henry and Anne" is the presenter, Dr. Suzannah Lipscomb. She states, quite upfront, her belief the Henry and Anne loved each other right from the beginning and narrates the series as though it were Henry and Anne against the world. Yet her story of the couple in incomplete: she completely leaves out Anne's early romances and her engagement to Henry Percy, which was thwarted by Cardinal Wolsey (explaining her hatred of the man and her persecution of him once she became queen), and she portrays the chase of Anne by Henry as a give-and-take romance between the two which they knew needed to be carried out with discretion and honor (bull!). Their "romance" began as a one-sided pursuit by Henry who was intrigued by Anne's singular appearance and vivacity and who desired her to become his mistress, never his wife, something Anne was never going to agree to. After all, Anne knew of Henry's affair with her sister, Mary, and of Mary's quick downfall once Henry became tired of Mary's charms; Mary was pensioned off with little money and even less honor. Once Anne became Henry's focus as his next potential mistress, it's likely she told him she would settle for nothing less than marriage in order to scare him off. Instead, he kept pursuing her and initiated proceedings for an annulment from Catherine of Aragon. Only then is it likely that Anne began to fall for the king, both from his persistent ardor and from the idea of being queen.
Will we ever really know the truth of what happened in Anne and Henry's romance? No, thanks to the fact that we only have Henry's side of their courtship; Anne's letters to him no longer exist, so we won't ever know if she played coy or if she experienced the same kind of ardor as Henry. However, Dr. Lipscomb wrote this documentary and narrated it with the clear intention of presenting the two as passionate lovers from a fairytale, without actually having much evidence to back up that wishing thinking. And that's exactly what this documentary is: wishing thinking dressed up in location filming and over-wrought acting/dialogue.
Battle Los Angeles
(2011)
An entertaining, pro-military flick that gets way more hate than needed.
29 June 2015
I am not a pro-military person: I appreciate and value what the armed forces do for our country even if I don't always support or agree with how our forces are used (for which I always blame the higher ups rather than the grunts carrying out the orders). That said, there is something almost primal about the satisfaction I get from watching such thumpingly patriotic films. It's close to the same feeling I get when watching underdog sports films like "Rudy" or "Moneyball". Which is why I truly enjoy "Battle Los Angeles" and think it's undeserving of the hate it's received.
Okay, so we know the basics: a career Marine (Aaron Eckhart) who's put in for a discharge gets sucked back into active duty when alien creatures land on Earth. Battles are fought, tensions rise between Eckhart's character and others in his platoon, but duty, honor, and discipline win out in the end as the platoon bands together to fight the alien incursion. Is the alien storyline hokey and simplistic? Duh. The movie isn't about the aliens; they're simply an excuse to watch the interactions of these Marines as they struggle to find their common purpose and trust in one another. In which case, the story is almost irrelevant. Fun, in a turn-off-your-brain kind of way, but irrelevant. And certainly a lot lighter in tone than had the film been set in Afghanistan or Iraq and revolving around the tensions in that area of the world. Don't get me wrong, films of that type have their place, but they can't all be "Zero Dark Thirty" or "The Hurt Locker".
Now, the shaky cam style of film making used in BLA can get irritating after a while, but I can understand the decision to use it, especially in close shots: it lends a realism and sense of urgency and immediacy to the action, lending a more chaotic feel to the film. Balanced out with the FX shots, which were well done, the film has a gritty feel to it, even if its 2011 setting dates it rather badly. Quite honestly, the film is reminiscent of the WWII- era war films, full of jingoism and American can-do spirit, simply updated to a 21st century setting in which we're fighting alien invaders rather than Nazis.
Is "Battle Los Angeles" a perfect film? Far from it. But if you like stirring, military-oriented science fiction, something rather feel good and, yes, hokey, then "Battle" is for you. Even better, if you like watching the TNT series "The Last Ship", you'll enjoy "Battle" as they both revolve around an unfashionable belief in the United States military and its ability to engage with all enemies, foreign and domestic, and come out on top.
Okay, so we know the basics: a career Marine (Aaron Eckhart) who's put in for a discharge gets sucked back into active duty when alien creatures land on Earth. Battles are fought, tensions rise between Eckhart's character and others in his platoon, but duty, honor, and discipline win out in the end as the platoon bands together to fight the alien incursion. Is the alien storyline hokey and simplistic? Duh. The movie isn't about the aliens; they're simply an excuse to watch the interactions of these Marines as they struggle to find their common purpose and trust in one another. In which case, the story is almost irrelevant. Fun, in a turn-off-your-brain kind of way, but irrelevant. And certainly a lot lighter in tone than had the film been set in Afghanistan or Iraq and revolving around the tensions in that area of the world. Don't get me wrong, films of that type have their place, but they can't all be "Zero Dark Thirty" or "The Hurt Locker".
Now, the shaky cam style of film making used in BLA can get irritating after a while, but I can understand the decision to use it, especially in close shots: it lends a realism and sense of urgency and immediacy to the action, lending a more chaotic feel to the film. Balanced out with the FX shots, which were well done, the film has a gritty feel to it, even if its 2011 setting dates it rather badly. Quite honestly, the film is reminiscent of the WWII- era war films, full of jingoism and American can-do spirit, simply updated to a 21st century setting in which we're fighting alien invaders rather than Nazis.
Is "Battle Los Angeles" a perfect film? Far from it. But if you like stirring, military-oriented science fiction, something rather feel good and, yes, hokey, then "Battle" is for you. Even better, if you like watching the TNT series "The Last Ship", you'll enjoy "Battle" as they both revolve around an unfashionable belief in the United States military and its ability to engage with all enemies, foreign and domestic, and come out on top.
Tell Your Friends