paul_bibby Reviews

Dune: Part Two (2024)

An Unholy Mess

[6/10 · 17 March 2024]

I was really looking forward to Dune Part 2 in the hope that it would be better than Part One. Don't get me wrong P1 was a decent effort and set the scene reasonably well for the second instalment. Sadly, I was disappointed.

Much of the criticism of the original Lynch movie stemmed from the fact that Lynch altered a few of the key aspects of the novel but the same can be said of Villeneuve's production too. I'd argue Lynch's changes are far less problematic. At least he kept Alia and the Guild Navigators and didn't consign them to footnotes. What the hell is Spaihts and Villeneuve talking about when they say the passion for Leto's death in P1 would be diminished with a time jump of a few years to P2 just so they could avoid casting a child actor in the role of Pauls sister? It makes no sense and diminishes P2 immensely.

On the Guild Navigator's not appearing in the original novel; well the whole point of introducing them in the Lynch movie and the TV shows was to emphasise who had the real power in the Universe and who it was that Paul had to defeat to become the God Emperor. By leaving them out it needs some other vehicle to persuade the audience of the jeopardy faced by the Atreides dynasty and their Fremen followers. This production fails on that score.

My main problem with P2, however, is the whole alteration of the time from the start of P1 to the end of P2. In the novel and the Lynch movie there was no such problem. By cramming so much into such a short period of less than a year, rather than the 2 years of the book, the whole feeling of the film becomes messy and disjointed. Maybe, it was due to the budget constraints. $190m is not a lot for a movie these days. Lynch's movie cost $40m over 40 years ago. Today, we would expect at least $250m if not $400m for such a prestigious movie, with so much expectation. Far greater than in 1984.

Both P1 & P2 have been hyped up a great deal and rightly so. Audiences ought to expect a genuine epic from such great source material and with a strong history of visual productions. However, the end result was a space drama with no drama, a lack lustre soundtrack, mediocre acting, a lame script and a messy screenplay. I don't even think the costumes were all that good. No style. No panache. No drama. No humour. No intrigue.

Chalamet ought to have been able to mature in his role but he wasn't given the chance. I'm not entirely convinced he could have pulled it off anyway. He looks like a young skinny teen at the end of P2 just as he did at the start of P1. The same cannot be said of Kyle MacLachlan, whose Paul Muad'dib Atreides would have had millions of Fremen warriors chasing after him across the galaxy. I couldn't see the Fremen following Chalamet into battle on Arrakis, let alone on a crusade to decimate the universe. Let's not even mention the missing characters in P2 or the unsatisfactory relationship of Paul and Chani. I never felt warm to any of the characters, which I did in both the 1984 original and the TV shows.

Every omission and alteration creates problems that go beyond the basic story. It made the movie feel more like a first draft rather than the finished article. God knows how much was left on the cutting room floor but if what we ended up with is the best the editor could give us then he either deserves an Oscar or never to be hired again.

No Thufir Hawat. No Count Fenring. No Guild Navigators. No child Alia. No Leto Atreides II. No Harah. There is a reason these characters exist in the novel and why leaving them out makes for a far less satisfying evening at the theatre. Will there be a Part 3? Villeneuve says it makes sense but if he's going to butcher Dune Messiah as much as he did with Dune then I'm not sure anyone should give him the budget.

I gave Part One, 8/10. I give Part Two, 6/10, simply because it is worse than P1 when it should have been better.

Amsterdam (2022)

Fabulous Yarn

[9/10 · 10 December 2022]

A Coenesque tale with a veritable host of brilliant character actors. It's only fractionally off compared to the movies of the Coen Bros, but there's so little difference in terms of style & humour as to be of no consequence.

Set during the inter-war years the tale reflects the social morès of the day

I have to admit, I tend to fall in love with Ms Robbie everytime I look at her and Christian Bale is getting better & better with age. John David Washington puts in a great performance & is equally as good as his two co-leads. The supporting cast are as stellar as they come. Every one of them, from Chris Rock to Robert De Niro are brilliant. The humour is typically dark but I find movies that don't force the comedy are all the better for it.

The story is a little bizarre, which is why it sits well within the Coenesque genre. The themes play on the perennial problems of racism, American capitalism, political extremism, American elitism, & casual drug use. It is modernised by putting mixed ethnicity relationships and disability front & centre. The set design & mis en scene perfectly represent 20's New York.

The production deserves much higher than 6.1 and don't even ask me why Rotten Tom's has it at 33%. I can only assume there has been a bit of a pile on from certain groups, who hate anti-fascist pro-equality themes.

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

A Veritable Masterpiece

[10/10 · 4 September 2022]

It fair to say, this show has been deliberately targeted by SocMed trolls to reduce the ratings score. I've literally no idea why anyone would do such a thing. It smacks of wanton immature vandalism. I have no problem with reviews that don't like one thing or another with a production but to then score the review with 1 or 2 stars indicates to me that the body of the review is made to throw people off the scent. I would probably have scored the show an 8 but to counteract the review bombing I've give it a 10.

So what to say about the show?

Well, the casting is exceptional and acting is Royal Shakespeare Company standard. Many of the actors will be unfamiliar to US, & indeed UK, audiences but don't let that put you off. Most shows that have a story to tell and don't want a celebrity to get in its way will cast relative unknowns. For UK audiences a number of faces will be familiar, in particular Sir Lenny Henry. For those who don't know Lenny is a comedian by profession but for the last 20 years he has taken on more an more straight acting roles. His most notable acting achievement was playing Othello on the West End. The other actors give faultless performances, and all of them a very belivable in thor roles.

The costume design is beyond belief for a TV show. There is literally no distinction from the LOTR & Hobbit movies.

The set design is of equal; stature. The quality of the filming is off the chart. We've talked about how superb some TV shows are these days, barely a difference between their production standards and that employed in film making. Well, I'm also watching the latest GOT: House of the Dragon, which falls into that category. It has a definite movie feel about each episode. However, when I watch TROP the level of production is mind blowingly good. Again, there is no discernable difference to the movies. If anything TROP is far far better.

The first two episodes have started to plot out what will be a great story, that by season 5 will have spanned 3500 years. So assuming there will be 40 episodes it means each show covers about 90 to 100 years. Expect the story to skip along. Also bear in mind that Elves don't age very quickly and most other people of Middle Earth live somewhat longer lives than we humans. That said, characters will come and go. The story so far has been about setting the scene and establishing the premise of the season, which appears to be about searching for Sauron, even though many Elves think he has gone, and starting the work to create the rings of power. All in all we're 2 hours in and we know what motivates people, what their objectives are and who we can't really trust. I'm all set for the next episode but I have re-watched S01E01 & S01E02 already. It was well worth it.

The music is by Howard Shore so you can expect it to be of the same quality of the movies and indeed it is. There are times when no background music is needed and they use it anyway and that did seem a little over the top. But then again Shore does use leitmotif to good effect, which all adds to that high quality dramatic feel. However, he hasn't reprised them from the movies. He's created new ones for this production, though it has a very similar tone to the original soundtracks that we all love so much.

In terms of direction the show is faithful to the character traits defined by Tolkien and brought to life by Jackson. There are 3 directors for the season, with Wayne Yip bagging 4 episodes. He has a great pedigree having directed shows on a huge range of top class sci-fi & fantasy TV dramas over the last 10 years.

Many Tolkien Pedants insist the show isn't faithful to this or that and some of it is true. There is artistic licence taken when introducing new characters and new story lines. However, none them undermine the work of the novelist and if anything, I'm sure Tolkien would not have minded. He created Middle Earth as a possible mythology for the people of the British Isles separate from the mythologies we inherited from our ancestors. Those mythologies are interpreted & reinterpreted all the time. No one in Sweden or Denmark complains if Thor is in a Marvel movie fighting Thanos. So to criticise this production as being unfaithful to Tolkien (which it isn't by the way) is to treat his work as a religious text and the shows producers as apostates. My take is these pedantic trolls would never be satisfied and should be ignored. I will confess, I can be very critical of shows that leave important things out. I still get annoyed at Jackson for not putting Tom Bombadil in the LOTR:TFOTR, either in the theatrical release or the extended edition. That said, I didn't go out and slag the whole movie off, I reviewed it on its merits as they appeared and not as I wished them to be. If I had been the director I'd have made different choices but I'm not and to judge something as if I was seems immature and petty.

So, overall I am extremely pleased with the show so far and can only expect it to get better. If I was Amazon I would consider presenting it in cinemas as an 8-hour bingefest, in the run up to Season 2. It will be a sell out, I'm sure.

Raised by Wolves (2020–2022)

Lots of Interesting Ideas

[8/10 · 23 December 2020]

I watched e01 and having my interest piqued I thought I'd check out it's BTS information, to give me some idea where the show was heading. I was disappointed with the number of reviews saying it starts so well but from e05 or e06 it loses it's way and ends up as a total mess. However, I stuck with it, as much to see if I agreed with the negative reviews, as to make my own mind up.

I have always enjoyed Ridley Scott's work, though I have no illusions about his limitations. He is far more interested in imagery and the mis en scene, than he is with plot, continuity or plausibility. So inevitably, there are plenty of problems that are best ignored from around e05 and the final episode is somewhat unusual by virtue of the fact that very little is explained. I don't mind that per se, but as the show had turned into a less cerebral affair well before e10, I at least thought we may get a few more reveals than we did.

That said, the acting is pretty good and though Travis Fimmel will find it hard to shake off Ragnar, he really isn't reprising that character, as some reviewers would have us believe. Sure, he isn't likely to step onto the stage at Stratford On Avon reciting Shakespeare as Macbeth or Hamlet any time soon but he delivers a decent believable performance and that's all anyone can ask. His supporting actors do a sterling job, though Niamh Algar's character, Mary/Sue, gets on my wick, as she never seems to be happy just to be alive. Something Travis reminds her a few times. Does she learn? No. And then there's the nosey Lucius, played by Matias Varela. Lucius simply cannot stop yapping about the past and how Caleb/Marcus (Frimmel) was integral to it. To be honest I'd have but a bullet in his head straight away and have done with the risk of my identity being revealed. Cale/Marcus is far too kind in my view.

There was a definite plausibility to the whole religion-atheism debate and it serves as a metaphor for humanity to go to war over an idea, to point of near extinction. I found that wholly implausible. Why? Well, we've had ample opportunity to set off WW3 with the atheist Soviets versus the god fearing West. Yet in Scott's universe, the puritanical god squaders, who are the ruling elite on Earth, send us to oblivion because they can't tolerate the apostates. That said, it didn't detract from the reasonable manner, in which the subject of faith and unbelief, are handled.

All in all it is worth a watch but unlike other thought provoking SciFi of recent years, don't expect it to reveal anything profound.

Stargirl (2020–2022)

JSA Reboot for Teens

[8/10 · 27 June 2020]

It's pretty standard fayre for a 2020 Teen superhero drama, drawing on the Golden Age of comics by introducing audiences to the Justice Society of America. It's nice to have a couple of seasoned actors in Luke Wilson & Amy Smart.

The kids deliver decent performances and story arc of reforming the JSA to defeat their arch nemesis team the Injustice Society of America.

DC are turning out a wide range of shows lately. There's something for everyone. This one is targeted at the Stranger Things demographic, mid-teens and above. There's no swearing, a touch of teen angst & coming of age elements, so while it's not groundbreaking, it is good fun and there is sufficient menace from the baddies to give kids a scare ot two.

Penny Dreadful: City of Angels (2020)

Nothing New

[5/10 · 7 June 2020]

I get the feeling, Showtime wanted to capitalise on the credibility of the original Penny Dreadful series and by employing John Logan they are able to tie this show to the original. However, it simply doesn't work. It has the opposite effect. The original was brilliant and COA isn't. It would've been far better if they had dropped the irrelevant Penny Dreadful link and allowed COA to stand on it's own feet.

It's not the first time this has been done. I watched The Terror a few years ago. Another 19th century gothic horror tale, excellently executed. Season 2 was set in a 1940s internment camp for Japanese Americans. It didn't work and neither does this Penny Dreadful spin-off.

In its own right it would be an interesting effort. There's an obsession with nazi infiltration of the US. The subject is worthy of exploration but we need to be presented with a believable set of characters and a suspenseful storyline. We don't really get either, though I always enjoy watching Natalie Dormer & Rory Kinear. It's just a shame Showtime couldn't decide whether to risk letting COA stand on its own two feet or make it far darker and gothic.

On its own merits it's worth a watch but nothing to write home about.

Black Summer (2019–2021)

Tedious & Derivative

[5/10 · 2 June 2020]

How many derivative zombie shows will we have to endure before commissioning executives finally say never again?

This is a show that is as predictable as the day is long. The problem is the zombies. They do whatever they do. The problem is the behaviour of the living. The usual implausible scenarios and staggeringly idiotic decisions are the order of the day. Vehicles, garages & empty homes galore, yet only occasionally does anyone check any of them out. The plot, if there ever was one, tended to be dispensed with after episode 1. The title of each scene change became annoying after a while, simply because they were often pointless. "Dog" had a dog in it that wandered off. "Bike" had a kiddies bike in it that did nothing much. Eventually, I just wanted the zombies to win. The living didn't deserve to survive.

How it got a second season is beyond me.

I gave it 5stars simply because they did their best and I'm generous by nature.

The Letter for the King (2020)

Had potential

[4/10 · 24 May 2020]

A series of decent adult actors play no more than cameos. The story is the usual fantasy quest based coming of age format. The show is spoiled by the deliberate dumbing down of character behaviour. It's no Tolkien. Its rated for under 13s, so we can't expect anything for adults, but that shouldn't mean the telling of the tale has to suffer. However, that's exactly what happens, which is disappointing. I still watched the whole series and though it didn't improve, it was enjoyable enough and one that families can watch together. A missed opportunity but watchable.

I Am Not Okay with This (2020)

Worth Catching

[8/10 · 17 May 2020]

OK, there's lots about this show that derives from the regular teen high school horror superhuman drama genre. Angsty teen can't figure out what's going on with her adolescence. She's working her life out. There are the usual love interests, which as we all know, from a 17year olds perspective, amounts to having an awkward crush, and an awkward encounter or two. There's a series of clear references to Stephen King's Carrie, which could easily undermine the quality of the show, but all in all the story is interesting, and the actors are great. One key reason it works is the 25min episodes, which are tightly scripted and well produced. However, 7 short episodes isn't adequate. 12 would've allowed far more space to explore the characters back stories. That said, I'll catch season two.

Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018)

Super Dooper Fun Antedote in a Post-Infinity War World

[9/10 · 22 April 2020]

MCU is a work of genius. 3 Phases stretching back what seems like a generation. Phase 3 comes in two parts, which is a whacky idea in itself but I digress. Ant-man & The Wasp enters the scene after Infinity War but the action takes place at the same time. Releasing it after IW provides a moment of light relief following the tragic events of its predecessor. Michael Douglas & Laurence Fishburne have a few great moments, sparring with each other for laughs. Rudd pitches the comedy just right. He could've gone for over the top excess but he keeps a lid on it and so strikes a good balance between the moments of seriousness & the comical. Evangeline Lilly, is a particular fave of mine. She's a good choice for Pym's daughter. My only complaint is, the scenes of Lilly on the beach in her bikini were cut, supposedly to get the 12 cert (only joking). The supporting cast have a few enjoyable comedy scenes. Pena & Goggins play their parts with aplomb. The former is his usual over the top self and the latter plays the likeable baddy. Hank Pym is an abusive wife besting egotist in the comic books but here Douglas drops the abusive trait and plays up Pym's cantankerous, grumpy arrogant side. It all works really well. From the over officious, incompetent Feds and characterful giant ants, to great SFX and a fast paced screenplay. I wouldn't normally find anything for 12 year olds remotely funny but I found myself laughing at all the right moments. If you like good fun action movies with a comedic sensibility them this movie will tick all your boxes. The kids will love it too so what's not up like?

Twin (2019)

Comedy or Thriller?

[5/10 · 19 April 2020]

Silly plot with far too many convoluted implausible moments to consider it a thriller. It's almost like a farce but devoid of any humour. I can't believe it's the Norwegian way of doing comedy but with a bit of light incidental music and canned laughter the show would be hilarious. I'm not saying this to be cruel but there is literally nothing thrilling about the show. The police are hopeless and only the young cop's daughter seems to show any promise, with her over active imagination. It's a shame the Adam/Erik actor didn't wear glasses when playing Adam but apparently slightly tidier hair is all he needed to differentiate him from Erik. It's so good no one ever mistakes one for the other. There is zero suspense. Zero danger. Zero thrills. Just a silly plot.

I gave the show 5stars as it passes 45minutes when there's nothing else to watch and Covid-19 has forced you to watch everything Netflix has to offer.

Locke & Key (2020–2022)

Decent GN Adaptation

[6/10 · 13 February 2020]

Enjoyable enough. Worth a binge watch, especially if you enjoy graphic novel adaptations. However, J found the show fell onto the annoying trap of treating the viewers like idiots. Far too often the magic keys were either used irresponsibly time & again or known information, about said keys, was only revealed with other family members, to suit the suspense. Also, a key that controls others was seemingly ignored even though it is the obvious way of defeating the badly. Also, these incredibly precious & powerful keys were held on to abominally by any & everyone. Enjoyable fun but don't expect anything remotely consistent. Too many dumb people realising they're doing dumb stuff but doing it come what may

The Spanish Princess (2019–2020)

Phillipa Gregory's Continuing History of England Part 3

[7/10 · 30 June 2019]

Like the other Starz shows, The White Princess & The White Queen, this production is lavish and high in value. It is undoubtedly cleaner than the real 16th Century world but has the feeling of authenticity about it.

There are some horrendous historical liberties taken by the producers. Arthur & Catherine were 15 when they married. Arthur died before his 16th birthday. Henry was 10, going on 11, over the 6 months of Catherine's marriage. Given most of the series is about Henry & Catherine's relationship the producers saw fit to make Henry & Arthur a similar age, maybe 18 & 19, respectively. Fair enough, but it does ensure a divergence from the historical facts, which is a pity.

The other and maybe more relevant fact is why Catherine was chosen to be the wife of the English heir male. She was descended from the legitimate English Lancastrian line via her mother. She had a stronger claim to the English throne than Henry VII, who was descended from an illigitimate Lancastrian line. The male offspring of Catherine would legitimise the Tudor dynasty. For this reason Henry VII, his wife & his mother would be moving heaven & earth to keep Catherine in England. Indeed, she became a virtual prisoner of the English crown for 7 years before she married her brother in law, the young Henry.

Overall, the historical costume drama is enjoyable enough and given it's only 10 episodes makes it easy enough to watch.

Doom Patrol (2019–2023)

Hit Patrol

[10/10 · 21 May 2019]

DC make decent, easy on the eye, predictable shows for kids and they're very often big hits. I'm thinking Smallville, Arrow, Flash, and Supergirl, to name the obvious ones. They've failed to deliver on far too many DCU movies, when Marvel have rarely had a flop.

However, when DC gives itself the freedom to ignore the young teen market, they produce adult shows that are far more entertaining than anything Marvel has created.

Gotham seems to have been the start of the "let's embrace the crazy, insanity of the DCU" and since then DC have gone from strength to strength. Doom Patrol is the latest iteration of DC insanity. It builds on the appearance of the misfits in Titans, which is another highly enjoyable, twisted romp. What sets Doom Patrol apart from all the others is undoubtedly the show's super cast, though it's important to mention the script is also inspired. I hope the show gets to see out a handful of seasons. It really is worth every penny.

The Romanoffs (2018)

A Fine Production

[9/10 · 14 October 2018]

This review is based on the 1st episode. I hope the rest of the series maintains the standard. That said, as the series is an anthology, each episode should be viewed individually.

If you like a witty, charming, well acted, beautifully shot drama produced with a style rarely found on TV then this is for you.

The characters are fully three dimensional and yet, due to the superb screenplay, the story moves along at a good pace.

I'd best describe Episode 1 as a classic French romantic contemporary drama with plenty of wonderful dialogue.

Anushka, the matriarch, played superbly by Marthe Keller, has some wonderful lines and indeed the whole episode revolves around her presence. Even when she's not in a scene her personality is hovering in the background.

I've found a few of Amazon's TV shows falling a bit short of the mark but this is right on the money. Of course, if you don't like light comedy dramas you probably won't like this. They often fall short of expectations. Either they have no drama or are too weak, comedically. This has sufficient elements of both to at least please this viewer.

The Conjuring (2013)

Haunted House revisited again

[7/10 · 18 September 2018]

This doesn't deserve a 15 rating. In the UK it ought to be a PG13 at best. Virtually no horror content. A few dead animals, a few attempts at raising the tension but sadly it flopped. Don't get me wrong, it's entertaining enough and I like all the actors. I love horror movies so I'm not going to recommend fellow genre fan's to avoid it, on the contrary it's well made and enjoyable enough but don't expect too much. It should be watched alone, to at least improve the fear factor.

Berlin Station (2016–2019)

Old School Spy Thriller Continuing Season 2 in Style

[9/10 · 7 November 2017]

In many ways this would never had been made if Homeland hadn't been such a success. That said, Berlin Station is just as well made and just as devious, just as convoluted as Carrie's show.

The cast is strong and well chosen. Plenty of character acting at it's best. In someways it's too good and by the end of an episode the viewers may not quite understand what has happened. It's the sort of show that warrants a repeat viewing to really get to understand the tiny details that lead up to the season finale.

Season 2 has continued to explore contemporary political themes just as Season 1 did with whistle-blowing. I won't give anything away save to say the Trump administration and the rise of far right politics in Europe feature centrally. I've watch the first 4 episodes so far and there are lots of twists and turns already to take stock of. If anything the show is more assured than Season 1, which is a welcome improvement. I also found the accuracy of the character portrayals of a few new cast members and their politics very close to reality. Season 2 has a subtle fear factor because the far right are a very real scary bunch and are presented excellently in the show.

Highly recommended, cerebral spy thriller with superb acting, strong characters and a nail biting plot.

Star Trek: Discovery (2017–2024)

Star Trek for the Next Generation

[9/10 · 7 November 2017]

I was all but ready to write this show off, especially after reading some the negative reviews, but as I've watched each episode I have grown to like it. My initial rating of 6.5 for the first episode has been boosted to an overall 9 for the series this far.

So why the upgrade? Well, even though the first episode is a disappointment for a lifelong admirer of Star Trek I determined to give it a chance, to see just how bad it could get. To my utter surprise, the show develops excellently. From Episode 3 the focus shifts to Captain Lorca, who is definitely not the typical Star Fleet skipper. A soldier at heart, he is a man who wants to get things done and doesn't care, one jot, for anyone else, including his Star Fleet superiors. The other Star Fleet characters eventually develop a familiar nature and the only group who tend to be a problem are the Klingons. Indeed, the additional villains seem to echo regular Start Trek fayre. The Harry Mudd episode was familiar territory and worked particularly well.

If I'm being harsh I'd say they are a totally new race and the writers portray them as far too "Klingony"; aggressive, unsubtle, nutters. We know there is far more to them than the one dimensional stereotype we see here. They'd be better if they were a little less alien, especially in their language. There is no need for them to speak in Klingon when they are the only ones listening. Their scenes are a bit over the top and drag on a little too much. That said, they do get better as the shows progress but many old viewers will be disappointed. I didn't use them as an excuse to mark the show down as taken as a new race they are perfectly fine as potential enemies.

Finally, the show is not for kids. I was 8 or 9 when I watched the first series back in the 70's and there was never any complaint from my parents. This show has a liberal smattering of expletives and suggestive sexual scenes that many parents will not want under 13's watching. It does make it a more grown up affair which isn't a bad thing in my view.

I'd recommend treating Episodes 1 & 2 as background to plough through, rather than episodes to make you hungry for more. The production and SFX are great throughout so even the early duffers are watchable, if not inspiring. If you think of the show as slightly askew of the Star Trek canon, with references to The Original Series that are no longer relevant (such as the Communicator), but overall an enjoyable Sci-Fi outing, you won't be disappointed.

Stranger Things (2016–2025)

Derivative is an understatement

[5/10 · 2 November 2017]

I've watched both seasons and I have to admit I enjoyed the novelty of the first season and became disappointed with the second. Sure I get the whole 80's influenced mash-up thing. It is really enjoyable to recall the movies I watched back then. As a fan of all things Spielberg, John Carpenter, Tobe Hooper, David Cronenberg and many others to boot, I liked the idea of paying those guys a revisit as an homage to their great works. Of course, this is the 80's we're talking about and SFX could be really ropey back then, so I thought a modern reboot would be just what the doctor ordered. Sadly, the SFX were OK in Season 1 and took a backward step in Season 2.

First off, as everyone knows, as soon as you introduce anything with tentacles or root-like appendages there is a massive risk the whole show becomes a joke. It did and not in a good way. No matter how much the inappropriately and randomly used "suspense" music attempted to induce fear into the viewer I found myself horrified, in dismay.

If returning to the 80's horror genre requires the viewer to remove any 21st century expectations, and transplant them with those of 40 years ago, then so be it but having been there, seen it, and done it I for one would prefer the source material over this derivative drivel. It is all so lazy and obvious. OK, I understand I'm knocking on a bit as an over 50 and this show is meant more for the "youth" demographic but puhleese! there is no reason why every scene, every aspect of film making, every note and beat has to anchor itself in the past. What I was hoping for was an updated version of the 80s, etc, not an inferior one. Parodies of the 80's horror genre have been done before and with much greater humour. Indeed, we've even had parodies of the parodies, which have amazingly worked well too. So the Duffer Bros (or should that be Doofus Bros) have no excuse for this.

Some of the acting was up to par but other than that it falls way short of the mark. There's lots of social media comments about the cuteness of the kids, and how everyone would treat them way better than their contemporaries but all I see is a group of odd looking youngsters made to look utterly freakish by hair & makeup artists, who really don't like children. I guess that was the whole point but where was the humour to go with it? If it wasn't presented as a boxset I wouldn't have managed to make it to the end.

In the end, it all comes down to the production being seemingly unsure in which direction the show should go. Horror? Comedy? Thriller? Sci- Fi? Action Adventure? Parodies must surely be more than a cut n paste of source material. A lot is said about plagiarism today and there is a fine line between that and a genuine homage. This season ventured further towards the former and used the latter as the excuse. If such shows as Stranger Things are to be worth watching they need to send the originals up (like Z Nation) or out gun them (like The Fringe). Sadly, Stranger Things 2 does neither and I cannot imagine how awful season 3 will be.

C-, must do better.

Atlas Shrugged: Part I (2011)

Atlas ROFL'd?

[2/10 · 19 October 2013]

I knew a little of Ayn Rand, her philosophical and political bent, before watching this movie and indeed it was that prior awareness that piqued my interest when I discovered this production.

On the whole I tend to agree with other negative reviews with regards the production, direction, screenplay, editing, acting and cinematography. They are all second rate even by TV-movie standards though that is not surprising given the high quality of many hit TV shows. Usually if budget restricts production values then other aspects of filming tend to be improved such as the screenplay or editing but that is not the case here. Every aspect of the movie is poor. One can forgive the mediocre acting or lack of on-screen presence of any characters but one cannot forgive a poor screenplay, direction and editing.

Maybe the source material is where the problems begin. Rand's political views are a clear product of totalitarian Soviet socialism, having left Russia for the USA, and her understandable amazement at the vibrancy of the USA in the mid-20's. The development of her views seem as inevitable as the rise of Fascism around the world in the same period and feel like an anachronism, living as we do in the early part of the 21st Century. Just as Orwells '1984' and Fritz Lang's 'Metropolis' speak of Dystopian dictatorships and oligarchies of a near future, only faint aspects of the Atlas Shrugged resonate with today's viewers. Rands views were as extreme as those she opposed and as such it is difficult to see how the novel can be filmed without putting the story in the distant future or some parallel universe.

When one creates an adaptation of a politically derived work it is surely the message of the politics that one is attempting to convey. To do this successfully one has to take account of the current political state of the world otherwise it will look outdated, extreme, unrealistic and wholly anachronistic. That is the effect of this production. Are there messages of importance in the work? I think there are but only viewers who see the world through the eyes of fear and distrust can believe that setting the movie in 2016 is a realistic proposition. Yes, we worry about fuel prices and about too much state control and interference but the assumption that this will happen within the next few years in the USA is most likely scaremongering. If its not scaremongering then it is even more poorly judged than I first thought.

The loony Tea Party Republicans will love this movie as it it speaks volumes about the world they feel we are quickly moving towards, if not actually in. From my more moderate perspective I would say we are not marching inexorably towards a Stalinist future either by degree or by giant leaps. This movie would have us believe that the individual will soon be reduced to an irrelevance at worst, or an inconvenience at best, and that the greater good will be all that matters if we let the State get too big. But that is not all it assumes; it contends that the sole purpose of anyone to create or invent anything is only motivated by greed and selfishness, that in doing so the rest of the population can go to hell, though they do have the freedom to choose whether or not to purchase the invention or creation. Clearly, these individualistic aspects of human nature are motivators for creative people and entrepreneurs but they are not the only ones. Indeed, war is a great motivator though who would recommend that as the best situation for us to exist in? Furthermore, altruistic motives of inventors and creators are never explored in this movie and so the viewer ends up either wholly agreeing with the message or totally disagreeing and that seems like an opportunity missed. This omission to provoke balanced thought and debate is probably the best reason for avoiding a faithful adaptation .

I can't recommend this movie to the general viewer and can only suggest watching it if you have an interest in politics, economics and philosophy in order to get a feel for the Randian world view that some crack pots believe we should adopt. For me, it made me feel that living in the West, we tend to have the political balance about right and if anything the movie helps reassure me of that view. We don't want over-controlling State structures nor do we want the selfish, 'I'm-not-playing-if-I-can't-play-by-my-rules' types running companies. This movie does nothing to convince me otherwise.

Camelot (2011)

Derivative drivel

[4/10 · 5 June 2011]

This gets 4 stars simply because there are a number of notable cameo performances from a variety of top draw actors as well as charismatic performances from Joseph Fiennes and Eva Green. As for the rest of the cast one can only describe many performances as wooden as the forests in which Britons of the Dark Ages inhabited. Most obvious miscast character is that of Arthur, who not only doesn't look the part but acts as unkingly as is humanly possible, which to be fair is more a consequence of the lamentable screenplays as it is a measure of his inability to pull off a convincing performance.

And this brings me to the script. God forbid the producers of this execrable pile of horse droppings might have deigned it worthwhile to peruse the various medieval writings, or even contemporary re-workings, of the Arthurian Legend for suitable source material but how on earth could they imagine that seemingly making it up as they go along would in any way convince the viewers that the tale is in anyway believable or inspiring.

I have read a few excellent contemporary novels set in the Dark Ages, the best of which is most definitely Bernard Cornwell's Warlord Chronicles series, so it isn't true that there is nothing new to say about Arthur et al. It is a continual disappointment that there are still producers out there who think throwing in a few breasts and pretty faces is all it needs to make a winning production. It does not. We know it so why don't the producers? It takes the sort of source material that is winning fans of Game of Thrones, which though not without it's flaws has a great story, great scripts and great believable performances.

Sadly another missed opportunity.