When I see two reviews of opposite ratings, here 8/10 and 1/10, it is obvious that there is a need to examine how subjective they are. Reviews are supposed to be helpful, that's why IMDb asks "Was the above review useful to you?"
So, in one corner, 8/10 with Summary "Awesome!" Now, when I see a Summary like that, I am reminded of Dave Langford's recent column, where he pointed out that the word "awesome" is over-used. He posed the valid question, somewhere along these lines: "What are you going to say when aliens land in your backyard? 'Awesomely awesome'?" So, does the episode have enough merits to be called awesome? Yes, it is action-packed, but that action is so ridiculous I won't waste anyone's time to go into detail. If you must see it for yourself, go ahead, you'll never get those minutes of your life back. Does it indeed have a good story? Please. The writers wouldn't recognize a good story if it hit them on the head. We have so many clichés here with Mike's mystery past and his shady superiors it isn't even unintentionally funny. And what the frak is with the mystery woman walking calmly away in the subway with the FBI agents not apprehending her? Eh? Eh? And the fact that this episode lacks anything even remotely resembling a coherent narrative arc is just unforgivable. What then about the "fun characters"? Well, humor is a highly subjective matter, so if you find lowbrow jokes to your liking, then you get what you like. However, sophisticated these characters are not. And "overall felt like a video gamer"? The fact that there is a spelling mistake should tell you enough. Besides, something "feeling like a video game" doesn't convey any meaning, since there are good and bad video games.
In the opposing corner, 1/10 with Summary "Please Do Not Bother." Well, as a summary, that is more useful. Justifications? The reviewer was "tired of this one after fifteen minutes" and I can't blame him. He hits the nail on the head when he says "Almost everything is overdone." It's obvious the makers of Knight Rider wanted to cash in on the Transformers success by giving KITT inexplicable transforming abilities that aren't even science fiction, they're just complete fantasy - impossible. Justin Bruening is indeed flat, but accusing Val Kilmer of the same when he's portraying an artificial intelligence *with no personality* is unfair. I think Kilmer makes a very good KITT voice indeed. Unless KITT develops human traits in the following episodes.
While I agree that this is garbage, my overall rating isn't so extreme as to go for a 1/10. Indeed, this *could* have been worse. This could have had lower production values and this could have been even more duller. I think 3/10 is pretty close to general opinion, since only 169 people have *bothered* to rate this episode with an average of 6.1 and 1,838 people have rated the series as a whole with an average of 5.4 - obviously most of these 169 are hardcore Knight Riderists more willing to overlook the massive flaws in this episode than the average viewer.
0 out of 3 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
