pdavis68-1 Reviews

Spartacus: The Red Serpent (2010) Season 1, Episode 1

Utter garbage

[1/10 · 16 February 2010]

If you're into exaggerated blood, guts, no story, and gratuitous sex scenes, then this show might be for you. Then again, therapy might also be right for you. I would honestly be concerned about the mental health of anyone who enjoys this show, certainly if the pilot is any indication of what's to come.

There is no real story. The characters are without depth. The blood is so overdone, I keep expecting it to come shooting out of the TV and splash me. It's beyond ridiculous.

Whereas HBO and Showtime can produce real quality shows with real stories and real actors, like Big Love, Rome, Dexter, Deadwood, etc, Starz has done nothing but produce one piece of garbage after another. This one was so bad, it may be 5 years before I'm even willing to give anything they do a chance.

Sliders (1995–2000)

Could have been great.

[5/10 · 4 October 2006]

Sliders is a show that could have been great. If you want to see Sliders done right, watch Stargate SG-1. Same basic premise, a device that takes you to other worlds, giving endless possibilities on the storyline. SG-1 did a great job with this.

The writers on Sliders, on the other hand, decided to rehash just about every sci-fi story they could think of. Some quick examples just from Season 3: Episode 1 - Running Man, Episode 7 - Jurrasic Park. Episode 13 - Any Star Trek TNG with holodeck episodes, Episode 15 - Tremors, Episode 19 - Species, Episode 20 - H.G. Well's The Time Machine.

These are just off the top of my head. They probably rehashed some really bad stories that I've never heard of as well. All the originals were better than these sad rehashes. They had a few original episodes, particularly early on, but it went downhill quickly.

If you're completely new to sci-fi, this would be like the cliff notes of sci-fi story lines. The original actors did a pretty decent job given the limitations of the script (and the reason Davies sited for leaving the show and I assume the reason the rest left).

This series is definitely a missed opportunity that a handful of talented writers and insightful producers could have turned into a goldmine. I'd recommend watching the first 2 seasons but would warn against going much further.

Star Trek: The Next Generation: The Inner Light (1992) Season 5, Episode 25

A Masterful Episode

[10/10 · 23 September 2006]

This episode, in my mind, has always been the absolute best of the series. Stewart really got the opportunity to show what he can do. The writing is exceptional as well.

The relationship Picard builds with Eline is very believable and you get the sense that he has really experienced many years as a husband and father. The characters, especially his family, all have a great deal of depth and it's easy to build an emotional attachment to them all.

This episode shows what can be done with really good Sci Fi. It's not about the technology. It's about the story.

Odyssey 5 (2002–2004)

Not bad at all.

[8/10 · 14 May 2006]

I enjoyed Odyssey 5 a lot. It's not great sci-fi, but it's good. And while the premise isn't absolutely original, it has a lot of original aspects. The acting is pretty good and the stories were generally pretty well thought out (though there are a few that aren't excellent).

Showtime really needs to replace whoever keeps getting rid of their good sci-fi shows. They had Stargate and they dumped it. What were they thinking? In its 10th season, it will be the second longest running sci-fi series in history (after Dr. Who, which ran for 26 straight seasons).

I suspect that Odyssey 5 would have found it's groove by the second season, maybe the 3rd. The first season of Star Trek: The Next Generation wasn't so good because the actors hadn't really found their groove yet. The Odyssey 5 actors had a much better head start in that aspect.

I'm really disappointed with Showtime for killing this and now that it's been 4 years, I suspect it won't come back at all, which is a shame. It would have been nice if the Sci-Fi Channel had picked it up and taken it over. They clearly know how to make good sci-fi and I think they could have done a lot with this one.

Doctor Who (2005–2022)

Fantastic Continuation

[1 December 2005]

I haven't watched Dr. Who since the 80's, when I watched a great deal of it. Mostly Tom Baker episodes, and I always saw him as "The Doctor." The pilot of the new one left me a bit unsure, but by the second or third episode I was hooked. By the end of the season, I was enthusiastic. I have to admit that I'm saddened by Eccleston's departure from the series. I felt he was really just settling into the role and I will miss him as The Doctor.

Originally Billie Piper struck me as a bit whiney, but that passed quickly and I think her character matured well over the season.

This is definitely an "upgrade" from the old series. The special effects are improved (though nowhere near ILM standards), the sets are improved. But having recently watched the second episode of the first series (from 1963), I was surprised how little the Daleks have changed. A little sturdier, but more or less the same. I think that's brilliant.

Despite the special effects sometimes being sub-par, the series is much better from the impprovements. I still love the old show because when it comes down to it, it's all about story, and in the incredibly long tradition of Dr. Who, they continue to deliver in this series. Cheers to everyone involved. This is a very worthy continuation of the series.

Oleanna (1994)

Typical Mamet

[7/10 · 6 July 2005]

I really like the stories and the dialog of David Mamet's movies. What bugs me is the delivery. In every movie that Mamet directs, the characters all talk exactly the same. Words are over-enunciated with well defined spaces between words. It's almost as if a computer were speaking the words. Characters frequently interrupting each other.

Listen to William H. Macy in this and listen to Joe Mantagna in House of Games, or Val Kilmer in Spartan and they all sound almost exactly the same. Listen to Debra Eisenstadt in this and Lindsay Crusoe in House of Games. Again, they sound exactly the same.

While it provides a definite identifiable style, it also adds a monotony to all of his movies to the point of annoyance. Really, I'd rather read a book based on his scripts rather than see his movies simply so I could imagine a better delivery.

As I said, the stories and dialog are great. And the direction, otherwise is great. If you can get past the monotone monotony then you'll probably enjoy this.