kroolshooz Reviews

History's Verdict (2013– )

Informative but undermined by quirky faults

[5/10 · 20 January 2023]

This series contained some information that was new and interesting to me, a layman fairly well-read on WW II. So I have to give it that. But the series undermines itself in small but cumulative ways. The video clips are a really weird grab bag. Many are clearly from old movies, not war footage, so you never know if what you're seeing is real or some director's fantasy. Some clips seem like they were randomly drawn from a hat. For instance, in describing Patton's traffic accident there are random shots of different vehicles driving in varied terrain, in summer and winter, and one shot of a guy in shades who looks like a truck driver from a 70s road movie toolin' down the road. Just weird.

In addition, the narrator clearly has little knowledge of the topic, so mispronounces words and place names. (e.g., "Afrika Corpse" comes up again and again). Little things like this undermine the authority of the series.

The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power (2022– )

Should have used some of that money to hire good writers

[3/10 · 14 September 2022]

I just don't understand how anyone could watch this series and not be put off by the horrific writing. I give you:

(1) Wooden dialogue that strives for Tolkien's lofty gravitas but falls laughably short. "Where sunlight fears to tread." Jesus.

(2) Epic-level stupidity on the part of supposedly smart characters. Are you dumm enough to try to swim across an ocean? Because these nimnuts are.

(3) A level of incompetence at character creation unmatched in modern TV or cinema. Bear with me for a moment and imagine a new scene in the Fellowship of the Ring: Aragorn is leading the fellowship across the ice-choked pass of Mt. Caradhras. They are struggling at the limits of their endurance. Pippin collapses in exhaustion, unable to proceed. What do you imagine Aragorn says? Is it: "Leave him, we don't need him. Keep moving." Because that's what characters in Rings of Power do. Not the villains, mind you, the GOOD GUYS! Repeatedly! I have to wonder if the writers aren't sociopaths that they don't seem to see any problem with this! Your long-time traveling companions are just meat-shields to be discarded the instant they become inconvenient. Is that the way the writers see the world? Yikes.

Don't even get me started on Galadriel's lack of ANY redeeming personality traits. The Amazon version of Galadriel is foolish, rash, obnoxious, violent, and callous. Weird choice for the main protagonist, especially given that she was HANDED TO THE WRITERS as a previously established great character that everyone loved. For some reason they decided to make her the exact opposite of the established character in every way, (including the above-mentioned pathological disregard for the lives of her own traveling companions.)

And for those who aren't familiar with the lore who are saying "Yeah, but this is the young and brash Galadriel, who will mature into the older, wiser Galadriel." - NO. Just, NO. - She is already old and wise at this time. Thousands of years old. And her age isn't half of it. She has lived through epics, in which she and her family have played integral roles as rulers among the high elves. She has lived among the "gods," and spent centuries as the pupil of an angel-equivalent. So, take your "young and brash Galadriel" and shove it. If Galadriel was ever "young and brash," it was before the sun and moon existed. Literally.

So yeah, these writers don't know what they're doing. They seem to have no ability to write a believable three-dimensional character, and as near as I can tell they don't even know the difference between good and evil. They should never have been allowed within a mile of Tolkien's characters.

Secrets of Blackmoor: The True History of Dungeons & Dragons (2019)

Infomative and interesting, a little one-sided

[7/10 · 15 May 2022]

This is a highly informative documentary that goes deep into the period when the basic concepts of RPGs were first evolving from miniature wargaming. It's a great resource for people who are interested in those early days and want to meet some of the people who were there at the table when RPGs were being invented.

It does, however, tend to veer into hagiography when it comes to Dave Arneson. I'm the last guy to want to take credit from him: he deserves far more than he got. However, there are two sides to the Arneson story and this documentary largely only tells the sympathetic one (i.e., that he was unfairly muscled out of TSR by Gary Gygax.) I have read elsewhere that during Arneson's stint at TSR that he simply wasn't producing, and in fact there's little published material authored by him from this period. Meanwhile, no one seriously denies that Gygax cranked out the bulk of the 100s of pages of copy that went into D&D and AD&D. So there's the "unfairly muscled out" narrative and the "unproductive employee let go" narrative." Unfortunately, this documentary doesn't want to give you the choice of deciding which is more accurate.

In fact, I think the documentary may have missed out on an interesting subtext, because it's pretty clear to me from looking at Arneson's typed and handwritten notes that he was dyslexic. In the documentary, much is made of Arneson's "poor typing skills," and Arneson himself ascribes Gygax's ascendancy to the fact that Gygax could "type five times faster than me." But in the 60's and 70's no one knew dyslexia from a hole in the ground, and this sounds to me like one of the ways that intelligent dyslexics used to rationalize their disability. I think there's a lost story in here about how undiagnosed dyslexia cost a creative genius fame and fortune.

All that aside, this documentary offers a great, detailed look into those early days when the core concepts of the RPG were being birthed.

Dune (2021)

A good adaptation, given the limitations of the medium.

[8/10 · 27 October 2021]

I've been waiting for a good adaptation of Dune since I was about 13, and I have to say I'm mostly pleased with this one. Fans of the novel will notice how much is cut out, which is unavoidable. All the inner workings of the character's minds that form the backbone of the novel can only be hinted at in a movie. This is a shame, because no movie-goer will ever really appreciate things like the Bene Gesserit without the glorious opportunity to experience the detailed perceptions of minutiae going on inside Lady Jessica's head. However, given the limitations of the medium, the movie is largely faithful to canon and captures the feel of the setting, events, and characters enough to please this lifetime fan. I do have three quibbles however.

First, there is a LOT of whispering. Even with the earth-shattering theater sound system there were times when all I could understand of the dialogue were the S's. This was especially the case with Lady Jessica, who for the most part was unintelligible to me throughout.

Second, flash-forwards and flashbacks are a pet peeve of mine, and they are used WAY too often here. I understand the need to show Paul's "abilities," but enough's enough. Every time it happens, the main narrative is interrupted. And I found this annoying after a while. And then VERY annoying after another while. Please rein it in for Chapter Two, Denis.

Third, the compressed time frame creates a plot inconsistency. (Or possibly reveals one that was in the novel all along but less obvious thanks to all the intervening intrigue.) In the book, a lot happens before things start blowing up. In the movie, things go boom so soon after arrival on Arrakis that it leads me to a question I never thought to ask when reading the book: Why Arrakis? If the whole big plan all along was just to rain hell on the good guys, why go through this whole baroque plot of luring them to Arrakis? Seems like that could have been done anywhere, starting in Scene I, and saved everyone a lot of trouble and moving expense.

Anyway, all that aside, the movie was immersive, the faithfulness to canon was appreciated, the action and spectacle were awesome...after waiting basically a lifetime, I can finally say that I'm happy with a Dune movie.

Roller Blade (1986)

So it DOES exist!

[1/10 · 13 April 2021]

I saw this movie eons ago, probably shortly after it came out. And the only reason I'm here looking it up on IMDB is that I had to prove to myself that this movie really existed and wasn't a late-night hallucination from my drug-addled post-college daze. To be honest, finding out that it really DOES exist is MORE disturbing than the alternative. This was the most insanely bad movie I have ever seen, by far. I recall one of the post-apocalyptic characters wearing a re-purposed colander as a helmet. You know a film is low-budget when the costume designer was raiding the kitchen cabinet.

This movie would actually be worth seeing, or even owning, for one purpose: if your friends are ever talking about the worst movies they've ever seen, you can hear them out with a smug smile on your face and then say "You think you know bad movies? Watch this..." You'll blow 'em out of the water.

Gangs of London (2020– )

The pro wrestling of TV shows.

[3/10 · 12 April 2021]

You'll notice that the comments that give the highest ratings dwell almost entirely on the violence. And that should tell you something right there. Now, I like me a violent show. Breaking Bad, Westworld, Game of Thrones are some of my favorites. But Jeezus, you need MORE than JUST violence. If, for some reason, you feel the need to live vicariously by watching a bunch of guys way more handsome and stylish and tough than you will ever be beat the crap out of each other, with nothing meaningful at stake because they are all equally awful, brutish, dour, despicable people, then go for it. Otherwise, take the warning and spend your hours on a show that has something more to offer.

Westworld: Kiksuya (2018) Season 2, Episode 8

Transcendent

[10/10 · 25 May 2020]

This is as close to the sublime as television gets. If you can watch the sequence with "Heart Shaped Box" and not tear up and feel your world move a little bit, you just may be an android.

Mr. Robot: 410 Gone (2019) Season 4, Episode 10

Worst episode ever.

[1/10 · 9 December 2019]

Holy Jeebus, did I just spend an hour watching people decide whether or not to get on a plane? Was this some kind of joke?

Night Gallery: The Sins of the Fathers/You Can't Get Help Like That Anymore (1972) Season 2, Episode 21

This isn't terror, it's horror.

[9/10 · 1 February 2019]

The reviews of Sins of the Fathers fall into two categories: the "one of the most horrifying things I've ever seen" category and the "I don't see what's so scary about this" category. The difference here, I think, boils down to the difference between terror and horror. This episode (typical of Night Gallery in general) is about horror, not terror.

Terror is the start you feel when somebody jumps out from behind a bush and lunges at you. It's a simplistic emotion that almost everyone has as an instinctive response to danger. It requires no empathy. In Sins of the Fathers there are no monsters jumping out of shadows. It is not terrifying.

Horror is the revulsion you feel when you witness something deeply disturbing. I'm guessing that it requires some level of empathy to fully experience horror, and a fair segment of the population is probably immune to it. To fully appreciate the horror of Sins of the Fathers requires the ability to put yourself in the position of the main character. If you have the capacity to do that...then this episode is freaking HORRIFYING and you will never forget it.

Nightflyers (2018)

The Anti-Star Trek

[2/10 · 3 December 2018]

The Anti-Star Trek: instead of a crew of steely, intelligent professionals, Nightflyers brings us a crew of jumpy, dimwitted amateurs. It's clear that this is going to be one of those shows where the characters are their own worst enemies. That's Grade Z slasher film stuff. Aren't these people supposed to be on an important mission? Shouldn't they have selected Neil Armstrong-types instead of an unruly mob? Just a thought.

Also...it's generally not a good idea to seal yourself in a tube of water where the only air supply is a breathing mask. I know people love floating in tubes full of water, but you're really only asking for trouble.

Fear the Walking Dead (2015–2023)

Hard to care about characters this foolish.

[3/10 · 24 April 2016]

One of the problems with the original Walking Dead series is the CONSTANT near-suicidal foolishness of the characters. Fear the Walking Dead takes that foolishness to a whole new level. It's like the zombie virus doesn't just reanimate the dead...it drops the IQ of the living by 50 points.

In a world swarming with zombies, why can't the writers of WD and FTWD concoct suspenseful situations without resorting to gimmicks? Characters wander off alone in almost every episode. They stop for chats when they have seconds to escape certain death. They park under overpasses when they are expecting an ambush. They try to hold off an army of zombies (with a pistol) instead of running, until the army is on them. Do they not know that pistols hold a finite number of bullets?

Having just watched the FTWD episode Ourobouros, I will watch no more. If these characters don't care about their own lives enough to behave with a modicum of rationality, let the zombies have 'em.

John Carter (2012)

Will the real John Carter please stand up

[5/10 · 11 March 2012]

Others have commented on the qualities of this movie, which is so-so, but I just have to express my continued resentment at Hollywood for using the names of literary characters for movies about completely unrelated characters.

The John Carter character in this movie bears little resemblance to the John Carter of Edgar Rice Burroughs. Why do movie makers do this ALL THE TIME? If you want to make up your own character - DO IT! Call it "Bill Smith of Mars," or "Fred the Barbarian." Stop taking great classic characters like John Carter and Conan and wrecking them! Change whatever else you need in the plot to make it work as a movie, but at least - for the love of God - leave the character intact, or what's the point? John Carter was a genuine early 20th-century hero, chivalrous and honorable to a fault, with no dark, haunted past. They just HAD to make the movie John Carter into a late 20th-century antihero with a troubled soul...the kind of guy that would yank a woman off her horse and make her walk across the desert just to prove his point. Burroughs' John Carter would have fallen on his sword before treating a woman like that, and wouldn't have hesitated for one second to defend a good cause. This old-fashioned honor and chivalry was the ESSENCE of Burroughs' John Carter, the gentleman from Virginia.

The funny thing about the late 20th-century antihero is that it was a reaction to the cliché of the "classic" hero that had been worked to death, largely in Westerns, up through the 1950s. Clint Eastwood's Man with No Name upended the old stereotypes, and from the early 1960s on, almost every movie protagonist had to be a dark, brooding, antihero. The thing is...and listen up movie makers...the DARK BROODING ANTIHERO IS NOW THE Cliché!! It's been 50 years now of the same freaking character in every movie, for God's sake. The irony of the John Carter movie is that if they had made him the old-fashioned hero that he originally was, with no dark side, no murdered family haunting his memories, no ambivalent attitude toward society, THAT would have been breaking the cliché! An old-fashioned, chivalrous, Virginia gentleman on Mars...maybe even with a Virginia accent...would actually have been a breath of fresh air and would have made the character memorable and distinctive. Instead, same ol' same ol'.