10 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
The Walking Dead: Beside the Dying Fire (2012)
Season 2, Episode 13
5/10
The Walking Dead Collides With The Young And The Restless
13 May 2013
The post-apocalypse genre is an interesting one to write about. It's different from every other genre in that society has collapsed and the world reverts to a prehistoric state (by 'prehistoric' I'm referring to roaming bands without permanent settlements and the lack of organized government). This limits what you can write about, but it also opens some doors. You lose the ability to write about conventional political intrigue, for example, or of contemporary every day life, or of society or culture because all of that is gone.

With The Walking Dead, it should be a visceral show about survival, and how out of their element these characters are, and of how their relationships develop and struggle. Instead, we have a soap opera on a farm with the occasional reference to a zombie.

I'm fine with a lack of zombies. In fact, I'd prefer if there were less zombies and more human conflict (because the way some of these characters slice through a zombie skull like it's butter doesn't depict them as much of a threat). And we did get that. Sort of. There really weren't many zombies, and there was human conflict. If by human conflict you mean atrociously written soapy drama about problems that shouldn't matter as much as they do, thereby completely ignoring the survival aspect of the show.

Episodes seemed to drag on and on with subplots that last half a dozen episodes longer than they should have. A skilled writer would have taken this season and condensed it into two or three episodes, trimming all the laughable drama and terrible dialogue along the way.
12 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Vikings: All Change (2013)
Season 1, Episode 9
5/10
Promising Series
13 May 2013
I'm a natural fan of historical fiction, and so I was eager to see how this series would fare. So far, I'm very much enjoying it.

As far as likable characters go...well, there aren't many. Or any. At all. But that's not a necessity in a series as THE SOPRANOS has already proved, but none of the characters are particularly interesting, either. That's the one major drawback this series has. It keeps me from being emotionally attached or interested in anyone, and so I don't look forward to seeing any of the story lines develop.

Except, being a fan of history, I'm hugely interested in the history, and that's what keeps me watching. I'm not picky about historical accuracy when it comes to the details, so I won't be complaining about any of that (but thank goodness the Vikings don't have horned helmets).

As far as the story goes, it's been handled well. With the exception of the last two episodes I felt as though the season was building quite well episode after episode. It was only episode 8 (which could have been placed elsewhere) and the finale (which didn't tie up much at all and only confirmed events the audience already knew was going to happen).

Best Episode: A King's Ransom (07) Best Actor: Gustaf Skarsgard
20 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Game of Thrones: Fire and Blood (2011)
Season 1, Episode 10
10/10
Best Debut Season I've ever seen
13 May 2013
The title of this review says it all. Never have I been so pulled into a series and made to care for its characters the way this show has done. This season has been overall spectacular in all departments.

One of my favourite qualities of this series is that there are multiple connected story lines happening simultaneously, so the second half of the season is non-stop payoff with episodes drowning in riveting scenes. Almost every actor portrays their part flawlessly and the dialogue is sharp and unforgettable.

The final two episodes might be the two best hours in television, and that says a lot considering the competition.

Best Episode: Baelor (09) Best Actor: Sean Bean
34 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Game of Thrones: Valar Morghulis (2012)
Season 2, Episode 10
4/10
Inconsistent, but overall very strong
13 May 2013
It's a funny thing with adaptations, you can never properly judge the people handling the adaptation unless they stray from the source material. Once that happens, depending both on the writing talent, and the quality of the original work, the adaptation could go in several directions.

It seems that this season has gone the way of almost total inconsistency. By that I'll use an example from this season. WHAT IS DEAD MAY NEVER DIE (03) was a terrific episode, perhaps one of the best in the series, and it was followed by GARDEN OF BONES (04) which is pretty mediocre.

It's clear, then, that as the writers stray from the source material (and they do, rather substantially, in the second half of the season) their mediocre talents stand out among the source material's already high quality.

The season started off quite well, however, with the first three episodes being quite strong, but then some perplexing adaptation choices and poor writing made the middle of the season quite mediocre. It did pick up again, but then the finale was an hour of anti-climaxes and half-climaxes, failing to do what the season one finale succeeded in: tying up loose ends with emotional momentum, rounding off character arcs, and setting up for the next season.

Best Episode: What Is Dead May Never Die (03) Best Actor: Alfie Allen
4 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Homeland: The Choice (2012)
Season 2, Episode 12
6/10
Started out strong, but gradually fell apart
5 March 2013
Warning: Spoilers
This season is strange in that it feels backwards. The first two episodes were my favourites of the whole series, and then it gradually grew weaker and weaker, until the final three episodes were some of the weakest I'd seen from this show.

Characters who were handled carefully in the previous season became useless and annoying, relationships felt forced and overplayed and as a whole, the story felt out of focus.

The real problems surfaced around the halfway mark. Most of the time people were drifting out of character and subplots were cropping up with no seemingly logical reason other than to create unneeded drama. In the end all these subplots had achieved was to hold back the main plot more than it should have been.

But it was Nazir's character that was the biggest disappointment this season. "Broken Hearts" was the worst episode of the series, followed by "In Memoriam" which was the second weakest. Both served to turn Nazir into a terrorist caricature plucked right out of 24. In the first season I had seen Nazir as almost humane, in a way. He was a terrorist, of course, but he seemed to have some sort of philosophy to him. This season, he wasn't reluctant to admit that no such thing was true; he was your standard terrorist.

After watching the first season I made a prediction that the series would lose its foundation and stray off in new directions, and I'm half-right. The show is desperately clutching on to its roots and seems ready to milk its premise more than it should be while slowly burying itself in subplots and far-fetched plot twists.
11 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Homeland: Marine One (2011)
Season 1, Episode 12
7/10
Engaging season with a premise not built to last
5 March 2013
I came into this show well aware of the hype surrounding it. It had taken home several Emmy's and golden globes in its first year, which was quite an accomplishment. Once I saw it however, I quickly came to the conclusion that it was overrated. Not that it wasn't a good season, because it was very good overall, but it just is not as fantastic as people have made it out to be.

Carrie is a well thought out character: she's interesting, unreliable yet somehow reliable at the same time, and her illness provides great potential and unpredictability. For the most part she was handled well this season, and was portrayed so well by Claire Danes. However, I think Saul takes the cake for best character on the show. He's real, dynamic, and flawed despite coming across as a generally nice guy to be around.

But the character who should be the most interesting isn't. Nicholas Brody. No doubt the mystery surrounding his captivity and rescue makes for a good season, but he himself really isn't all that captivating. And once we find out who he is and what he's doing, the story takes a turn in a direction that does not hold open many doors for following seasons.

This is a show that does have a good premise, but it's one that can likely be solved in a single season or two at most. But where does it go from there? Likely the story branches out into so many different directions and angles that we no longer even acknowledge the fact that there indeed was a premise that sparked the show.

Unlike shows like The Wire, Game of Thrones, The Sopranos, or Breaking Bad, which all have premises that can sustain themselves for multiple seasons at which point the show gracefully ends rather than drawing out unnecessarily, Homeland does not.

Only time will tell, but ignoring all that, I can say that the first season was a successful run.
6 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Entertaining but thin throughout
3 March 2013
Warning: Spoilers
You can tell this movie was going for depth (which it sometimes achieved) and, during the games themselves, intensity, but it never quite reaches the heights it could have.

The first thing I noticed about the film was the directing style, which had a "Children of Men" approach to it at times (which is interesting considering Alfonso Cuaron is directing the sequel) but instead goes a little overboard. Some shots were extreme close ups and extremely shaky at the same time, giving you a slight headache within the first ten minutes, but that soon ended and for the most part the directing was pretty good.

What keeps this film at six stars for me were the games themselves. The build up to it was quite strong--the emphasis on getting sponsors, the reality show feel the games were supposed to be for Panem, the survival factors--but those did not come to fruition during the games themselves. Haymitch makes it quite clear to Katniss that she needs to find water. He says something along the lines of "water is your new best friend", and yet she enters the arena, escapes the initial carnage, finds some water almost immediately and never needs to restock for the rest of the film. As for sponsors (I'm assuming those "gift drops" are provided by sponsors), we only ever really see that come into play once or twice--a few quick shots of Haymitch shaking hands with some stylish dressers.

But my absolute biggest letdown was the ending. I liked the fact that the rules were changed to allow two competitors from the same district to survive, only to have that rule revoked at the very end. But then, Katniss boldly tries to commit suicide along with Peeta, which draws the sympathy of the Game maker who ends it there with both surviving? I understand the point is for Katniss to be a symbol of rebellion but the whole film seemed to be leading up to Peeta's death (and it should have, because now I fear the next film might involve a sappy Twilight-esque love triangle between Peeta, Gale and Katniss) Still, it was a good film overall and I'm hoping the sequel will top it.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Cloud Atlas (2012)
5/10
Charming, but difficult to like
9 February 2013
Let it be known that I went into this film knowing exactly why critics thought it was mediocre and exactly why audiences loved it. I thought, just by reading the reviews, that I would be on the audience's side...and I'm not.

It's easy to see that this film was going for an epic scope, but it never made it. Instead, we're left with a number of wide shots and great looking environments for brief amounts of time before we're whisked away to the next story line.

Let me make it clear early on: I WAS NOT CONFUSED, NOR LOST AT ANY POINT DURING THIS FILM. I UNDERSTOOD IT FROM START TO FINISH AND SAW ALL THE THEMES IT WAS GOING FOR. The criticism I hear being thrown from the defenders of the film to its detractors is that "you didn't understand it". Well, I did. It's still not very good.

This film is not even that complicated. The themes are quite straight forward, and it's clear what they are from the very beginning. The problem was, they were never all that compelling. Sure, there was the potential for a great ending, but it all turned out pretty cliché and disappointing.

I won't go as far as to say, like many critics, that the film is borderline pretentious, because I don't think it is. Normally, I like these kinds of films and I was really hoping to like Cloud Atlas.

Other problems with the film is the tiring Wachowski directing, especially during the action sequences. I was reminded not too fondly of the dreadful Matrix sequels and their flashy and unbelievably unrealistic fight scenes.

The dialogue turned out to be pretty flat at times as well, opting for clichés and simplicity more than anything.

One thing I did really enjoy, however, was Tom Hanks and his many portrayals. He managed to melt into his roles and brought me back to the great Hanks films of the last two decades.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Decent, yet disappointing
9 February 2013
This film sorely lacks the depth that The Dark Knight had, but why? Is it because Heath Ledge is no longer in the mix? Maybe. But Nolan seems to have changed the style from its predecessor considerably. It's still dark and gritty, but it has a much greater comic book feel to it than the previous film did.

I'm not bashing comic book movies as they can be entertaining, but the fact that Chris Nolan set out to have a Batman revival that stood apart from other comic book movies, only to have many comic book aspects in his final film detracted from the experience.

The directing is really good, but not Nolan's best, despite some fantastic shots here and there. The acting remains at good as it needs to be, with a pleasant surprise from the charming Anne Hathaway.

What really held this film back for me was how unrealistic and flashy it became. There were too many plot holes to count, with characters seemingly acting without much motivation, some arcs that were less than satisfying, and reveals that could have been handled much better. There's one "big" plot twist near the end that, while interesting, did not hold up as well as it should have.

All in all, a good action film in its own right, but one that feels like a let down after the fantastic predecessor.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Looper (2012)
7/10
A very good action movie with a premise that makes little sense
21 October 2012
I really enjoyed this movie. I was interested right from the beginning and it kept up for most of the film, (except the ending, which was a little too melodramatic), but there were a few things that hindered 'Looper'.

I'm not a fan of information given to the audience without allowing them time to figure things out by themselves, and Looper does do exactly that for the first fifteen minutes through voice over. I understand that casual action film-lovers do not always enjoy thinking while watching movies, but giving the audience the opportunity to work out just what a 'Looper' is and what 'closing your loop means' by reading expressions on character's faces and listening to them talk to each other about these things would have sat better with me.

Despite the premise having a number of holes, it was nothing that ruined the plot. Instead of wading down in working out exactly how time-travel works (as Bruce Willis' character succinctly puts: 'We would be here all day making diagrams with straws'), the film focuses on a great story. I found the tension slowly rising throughout most of the film and there were a number of interesting surprises that kept this film separated from other recent sci-fi action flicks. The idea of a telekinetic 'virus' infecting a small percentage of the population is not simply there to strengthen the near-future society, but instead plays a pivotal role in the plot towards the end of the film.

As I mentioned before, things did get a bit too melodramatic near the end. I was emotionally invested in the well-developed characters for the first three quarters of the film, so I don't really understand why the writers felt the need to write a pretty drawn out 'touchy' scene that actually decreased my sympathy for what was going on.

Despite the ending, I thought this was a very good sci-fi movie
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed