Reviews

So who thought up the science-heavy dialog in this? Sure, for astronomy and science buffs, this would be a goldmine, but I seriously doubt anyone who is not familiar with the concepts would understand it at all. But it is an all-star cast, which goes to prove that you can have the greatest actors ever and still have a lousy script. Okay, so Earth is being destroyed and we have to move. I can gather that, and I can understand the wormhole idea. It's very familiar to me, but why park Humanity next to a black hole? And then we find out it's not a real black hole? Look, all I can say is that the movie is very long with a lot of dialog and no real connection to what is going on. I could think up a thousand better beginnings and several ways to make the script way more dynamic. Instead, as the astronauts travel through the wormhole to explore a possible new home, life goes on back on Earth as a daughter is faced with anger because her dad left them, A fraudulent equation is the one best hope for humanity, but there is an alternative to rebuild. And Matt Damon, aka Jason Bourne, is a pathetic character that is trying to get rescued a little too much. And, in another tie-in with 2001, Matthew McCoughany (sp) falls into a magical portal that helps humanity be saved. Only difference is that, in 2001, it was a black monolith. Here, it's a black hole. So if you're in the mood for a dialog-heavy science movie, go ahead and watch it. If you liked 2001 and Mission to Mars, this might be good for you. Otherwise, pass.

Any time there is something new, a re-imagining, if you will, there will always be those who say that it's not worth it. This is what I feel is really going on here.

In my view, the main reason so many people are hating Supergirl is because they're used to having the title character grow up in Superman's shadow. She'd always been "Superman's cousin," never really given her own way to grow up into the character.

Sure, having her stuck in the phantom zone was a bit of a stretch, but going with the continuity of having her grow up, basically, on Earth as a younger cousin, because, as it says in the pilot, time doesn't pass in the PZ, gives her something that no other Supergirl had before.

Before, she was always someone who followed in Superman's shadow, someone who was just thought of as a female Superman. Now, Supergirl is her own character, written in such a way that she's growing into who she is supposed to be. She is a full hero in her own right, not just a girl who's like Superman.

As per her connection to James Olson, there is no reason at all that she and James can't have that kind of relationship. It shouldn't matter at all, for any reason, that James can be in the story in the way he is.

If you're looking for a female Superman, or if you're saying that it can't be good if it doesn't follow one of the "established story lines," then you will be disappointed. But, if you want to see a story of a female superhero who is growing into herself, learning about what she can do while facing the same fears and doubts that every woman feels at some time in their lives, and wondering who she really is, just like every person has ever felt, someone who definitely isn't Superman but can exist without his influence, then this show might be worth the watch.

Having seen the movie version first, I actually wanted to see the cartoon and began watching it.

I realized the movie was, at best, an extremely bad pale copy of the cartoon. Sure, in both, Appa was the coolest, but there were so many things missing from the movie that were in greater detail in the cartoon, even to the point where....

....Okay, just one example will do.

{{Spoiler Alert}}

While the end of the first season of the cartoon has the siege of the Northern Water Tribe the same as the movie, the way the Fire Nation was taken out is so much better in the cartoon.

In the cartoon, Aang uses the Avatar power to create a huge creature made entirely of water. He goes through, ship by ship, destroying them until they are all gone.

In the movie he creates a tsunami.

I don't think the movie would have been any worse if they'd simply used wooden dummies instead of actors.

If (big if) Night does the other two books, I hope he really studies and understands both of them before he writes a single line.

There was only one, yes one, thing that the movie had that would've made the cartoon a bit better. In the cartoon, the fire-benders could shoot fire out without any fire nearby, while earth and water needed their respective elements (air's everywhere, so there's really no need to point that out). I liked how the movie had the fire-benders needing to have a fire nearby to bend.

But that is the only reason I gave the movie a 3 and not a 1.

You can have show after show where there's a very clear difference between the good guy and the bad guy, and it's about the good guy going after the bad guy.

But can a grieving mom, desperate to make people pay for her son's suicide, really be considered a bad guy, or is she just someone who is using her ability to gain what she feels is justice?

Is it a good thing to make people believe they've found peace, even though it ends up hurting them?

And what if you had to break one of your principles to stop someone from doing something wrong?

For me, Alphas is compelling because they don't just present everything in clear black-and-white, good-guy/bad-guy scenarios that other superhero shows have done. Just as an example, No Ordinary Family had it pretty clear that the family was the good guys and the company was the bad guys.

And then there're the moral questions they seek to resolve in every show, but don't quite reach there.

Is it right to have a child by an Alpha who may be an alpha as well?

What if you were presented with a case where you had to do something you never wanted to do because a loved one was in danger?

What if you knew someone was trying to do something that appeared wrong, but ended up possibly being something everyone needed to know about anyway?

Is it right to use your team members to try and get your old job back?

The thing about Alphas is that it's fairly solid writing in a not-so- nebulous world where you have to wonder if these alphas are really the good guys or are they the bad guys, trying to get people off the streets and into a more controlled situation?

And that's why I think it's fantastic.

So it's supposed to be a movie about a Mormon missionary getting a chance to be a better person on his return, but they forgot some very important things. First, there is no missionary that would return and be alone in a house with his fiancée. Being a returned missionary myself, I can tell you, for sure, that no returned missionary would be that comfortable even being around a girl. True, it seems that they are supposed to be together, but there's not a single case where they would even come close to the susceptible temptation. What's more, why hang out in a bar, night after night, where there's temptation abounding, to talk to a mom who is clearly troubled? I mean, yes, the mom learning the gospel is nice, but he spent most of the 60 days messing everything up and leaving himself in the path of temptation when he was supposed to learn what he needed to learn.

SPOILERS: First, I have to take points off for the complete discontinuity in regards to the family members and how they supposedly all died off. Any even sub-rated film editor should recognize that people won't go for films that are wildly discontinuous.

Then I do have to remove some for the discontinuity of the "entity." If it was worried enough to cover the camera in the first "attack," why would it not care for the "killing?" Plus, and this should be a notification, there will be NO jury in the land that would convict "Thomas" of the rape if his DNA is not found inside "Sam." That, alone, has convicted many and exonerated as many. The only way it could convict is if incest was going on.

While I would buy that Thomas is being the "man of the house" and trying to protect his mom and sister, why was it so obvious they were uncomfortable around each other? Granted, the ideas presented might make them uncomfortable, but why would they seem to be such if they are supposed to be a family sticking together? And what teenage girl, in her right mind, wouldn't yell at her brother for barging in on her while she's not decent (even naked in one scene)? The special effects were corny. When the covers were removed, even though I didn't see anyone pulling the string, it was so obvious and not frightening at all. It seemed more like a way to portray "Sam" as a hot chick rather than a way to portray her as a target. Then having her naked a couple scenes later did nothing to dispel that idea.

About the only really good effect, I'd say, was the ash footprints on the ceiling and walls. Otherwise, the whole movie was a waste of time, like a lot of the "found footage" phenomena going on out there.

SPOILERS: About the only part I disagree with is that the Silence, which are a frightening image anyway, are scarier than the Weeping Angels. While the Silence can effectively be invisible by making you forget you saw them, there's just something about seeing something completely stone suddenly jump while you blink that would be completely unnerving. The Silence basically exist beyond consciousness, but the Angels....if any statue can be one, is there anywhere that's really safe? I have to hand it to Moffat, though. How could the Silence, only knowing technology up to 1969, know what a video phone is, and how could they have anticipated the moon landing being their downfall? They would have no knowledge of time travel, nor would they even begin to predict that a cell phone would have that capacity. Ever since the original series, there has been talk about the Doctor choosing young ladies as companions and the subtle implication of what that could mean. To have it even remotely suggested that The Doctor and Amy slept together is really, really interesting as, in the previous series, we already know exactly what he'd do if presented with that idea....go and get Rory. However, the question does arise.... How could the little girl have the ability to regenerate?

SPOILERS: There have been many other films that have tried to highlight the work of an LDS Missionary. These films have shown these young folks in more of a comic or a dramatic twist, but this one is different.

The fact is that mission work isn't all just comic or enjoyable romps. There are times it's very hard.

Like in this movie. Sure, from the standpoint of someone outside the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, it might seem rather dull or not make much sense.

Knowing that the film revolves around two particular missionaries as their district (group of missionaries in a particular area) goes on a treasure hunt, and how they end up serving people they run into, and learning about each other makes this more of a personal story and a story of these two as they look for the best kind of treasure any missionary could look for, someone ready and willing to listen to the testimonies of their work.

If you watch, don't watch to see them get gold or money, for, in the mission work of the LDS church, that doesn't matter. The treasure hunt is a treasure hunt for missionaries by missionaries.

While I must agree that The Source was a terrible embarrassment (made The Quickening look like Oscar material), and that I think they should've thought it through and pounded out a few more drafts (it is played like a first or second draft screenplay), I do have to say that there is one element in it I kind of like.

If we remember that the idea of The Gathering was dropped after the first season of the series, it becomes apparent that there are still more immortals out there, maybe many more that have yet to find their destiny. This does, in effect, create a paradox. How can there be only one when the supply keeps on getting bigger? Enter the idea that The Source is supposed to represent the final prize. Put in a supposedly unbeatable immortal in the name of The Guardian, and we have one solution to the paradox.

The One, then, would be someone who only participates in The Game for his own life's safety, one who feels every death and mourns every passing, and we get Duncan McLeod, earning the prize by not killing an enemy that was bent on his destruction.

The basis of the story is okay. The movie sucked big time. Of the 5 movies, this one ranks at the bottom, even lower than The Quickening.

Out of all the shows that network execs killed, this is, perhaps, one of the three saddest (the other two on the top three are Crusade and Firefly). The idea of having a whole team of Knight Riders with their own vehicles was, in essence, brilliantly conceived, and the show was actually a fantastic idea. It would've done even better if the network execs had let the creativity flow the way the creators wanted it to flow instead of trying to "suggest (i.e. demand)" things. Perhaps seeing less of Erica's overtly sexual advances and more of trying to build the dynamic between drivers and cars (one of the secrets of the original series), or having the relationships between them all build, the show would have survived. As it was, it should've made it.

This story, the second appearance of the aliens of Omicron Persei 8, has many side-notes worthy of taking interest in. First off is the question that Jrr has to ask of his fellow Omicronians, whether it's okay for them to eat humans as the humans have eaten their young. Eventually, Lrr, the leader of the planet, does eat a certain human hippie, noting that something was wrong before acting as if he is under the influence of a perception-altering drug.

Although it does comment on some social difficulties, such as whether or not it's natural for a carnivorous feline to learn to eat a plant-based product (no), it should be remembered that this show was never intended to be a commentary on the social welfare, just a satire on how things are today. That's not a contradiction, as it's not suggested how these problems could be fixed, but that they'll still have them in the future. And the fact that certain beloved species now are vermin (in the case of owls) or foodstuff in the future (for instance, the fact that the dolphin they ate wasn't that smart in that he gambled his money away) is merely a satirical statement as to how paradigms are likely to shift in the future.

As per other determinations that loving Leela is, somehow, supposed to be associated with bestiality, all I have to say about that is "come on." It's not as if Captain Kirk was accused of it, and he slept with plenty of alien women. And, should you care to investigate further, it turns out Leela is actually a mutant human after all, not knowing until a later season.