Reviews

Revolution is one of those shows that gets buried under a load of criticism for showing the viewers a future they can't identify themselves with. All of a sudden plot holes become so important to the general public, they use every single one of them to burn the show down, even if these plot holes haven't had a chance to be explained by the writers because the show is only half-way in it's first season.

The entire show is based on a fictional future where every single piece of electronic equipment started failing, all at once, by some mysterious and unexplained force. Being thrown back to medieval means of living for several decades, the story picks up when several individuals start looking for answers to this mystery, helped by rumors of one of the governments being able to 'turn back on the lights' shortly. In the years following the black-out, governments worldwide have fallen, lacking their entire infrastructure of communication and transportation, thus unable to govern millions of people. Civil wars lead to the formation of several smaller governments, those who came out on top in the struggle for survival in the aftermath of the disaster.

What follows is a pattern of discoveries, solving the mystery piece by piece by a band of unlikely heroes, ranging from kids to grown ups, each with secrets of their own. Every episode answers some questions but raises even more.

This pattern is hard to find when you first start watching the show. In the first few episodes, the writers overwhelm the viewers with tons of questions. This strategy isn't yet paying off, a lot of viewers stopped watching because they find the show too mysterious, too full of unexplained plot holes and unlikely character motivations.

But here's the thing: Most of the things criticized about this show actually makes sense, as long as the viewer is ready to suspend his disbelief for some time and allows himself to emerge into the world the writers have created for the viewers. It might feel like a pool of quicksand at first, but giving this show time to develop is key to enjoying it the way the writers intended.

To be honest, I cannot understand almost all the negative reviews on this show. Based on what reviewers tend to write about the plot holes and seemingly impossibilities, I bet every single one of them structurally dislikes fiction, especially science fiction. How do these people not dislike movies like Star Trek, the Jacket, the Fifth Element, Mad Max, Escape from New York, Blade Runner, the Terminator or RoboCop, to name just a few? These are filled with plot holes, fictional future governments, unlikely characters and unexplained mysteries yet these are all loved by many or called 'cult', rarely being criticized like "Revolution" is.

Add to the equation this show is written and produced by people responsible for hit series like Lost and you know on forehand most questions will be answered only after many episodes, in a very slow pace, if at all. Try watching 10 episodes of 'Lost' and ask yourself: Do I understand what is going on? Because you simply won't. That's the point, you must allow yourself to be emerged in the mysterious world created by the makers of this show, suspending disbelief until they think the time has come to answer some questions you've had for over 20 episodes or so.

For me personally, all this show lacks is a feel of a solid team of writers, producers, directors and actors: the first 10 episodes or so feel a bit sloppy, like the entire crew couldn't really get used to the scope of the show's heading. But trust me, it gets better and better, and after several episodes the characters seem to feel more at home in this strange world of mystery, improving the quality of the show on each episode.

Is this a great show? It is - if the people behind it get a chance to steer clearly towards their goal and so far, it feels like the show is hugely underrated by so many, criticizing it on every minor plot hole.

Or else, maybe those people should stop watching science-fiction altogether...

Not knowing what to expect, I went to see this movie in theaters yesterday. Being a long-time World War 2-buff and fan of Verhoeven's early Dutch work (Floris, Turks Fruit, Soldaat van Oranje) and some of his Hollywood-projects (Robocop, Total Recall, Basic Instinct) I was pleasantly surprised.

First off, this is clearly Verhoeven. Some nudity is somehow unmissable in all of his movies, so we get to see some. Verhoeven is also known to put mind-boggling plot-twists in the story, and again he left this trademark of his. I'm glad he did.

The movie tells us the story of a young Israeli teacher in a '50s Kibbutz. Triggered by the unexpected visit of an old friend, she thinks back about what happened during the last months of the war in Europe.

We see a young Jewish girl getting into trouble after her hide-out was accidentally bombed by a chased Allied bomber. She has nowhere to go and, with some help, decides to flee to the already liberated lower south of the Netherlands. The transport however is intercepted and wiped out before they reach the safe side. Being the sole survivor she suddenly finds herself in increasingly threatening situations. She is picked up by a small Dutch resistance-group and offers her services as a spy. She infiltrates the headquarters of the Sicherheitsdienst (German Intelligence Agency) but unexpectedly finds herself facing the deeper aspect of war and occupation: Not all Germans were monsters. Facing increasingly difficult situations she tries to survive the war against all odds.

Verhoeven does a great job telling the story in the emotional, colorful, humorous and utterly thrilling way he is so good at. He does what he did with 'Soldaat van Oranje' (Soldier of Orange) and adds his Hollywood-experience and an even greater budget to realize his visions.

The story is absolutely lifted to an even higher level by van Houten. She is impressive and convincing throughout the movie and the chemistry with Koch, Hoffman and Reijn never looses grip. Koch does a great job, probably partly due to his earlier roles of 'humane nazi' such as Claus Graf Schenk v. Stauffenberg ("Stauffenberg") and Albert Speer ("Speer und er"). He (finally) gives the German occupier a more humane face, a big relief compared to the black/white way Germans are portrayed in most WW2 movies even today. Kobus is very convincing in his role as the frustrated, treacherous and non-stop drinking first Lieutenant and Hoffman does a great job portraying the resistance 'hero'. It is also nice to see Derek de Lint again in his role as resistance leader, the exact opposite of his role as Dutch voluntary SS-man in 'Soldier of Orange'.

The only character that felt out of place was that of Theo (Johnny de Mol). Not only is de Mol very unconvincing and clearly not up to roles beyond soap-opera's, his character is an unnecessary addition to the otherwise convincing group of resistance-fighters.

Verhoeven is back - and how. Go see this one, it will, one way or another, grip you by the throat and won't let you go until well after the movie has ended.

9/10

After seeing Snipes' horrible, horrible '7 seconds' and 'the Marksman', I wasn't particularly thrilled when I saw his name on the payroll. But hey, everybody makes mistakes. And Jason 'Snatch' Statham... well, that's about all it takes for me to at least give it a try.

Well then, on to the first half of the movie. Although maybe a nice artistic touch, the very first scene gives away a part of the plot. We see a big clipboard full with articles and pictures of one Det. Connors, trialled and suspended after a fatal accident on a bridge. First clue: Someone is after Connor.

Then the movie starts out pretty nice. A bank robbery, some nice action and Connor back on the force and on the case. The master thief, who calls himself Lorenz (Snipes) escapes along with the other robbers forcing Connor to start a big-scale hunt. Connor and his newly appointed sidekick, the youngster Det. Dekker (Philippe) then shoot, threaten, joke, smart-talk and one-line their way to the point where Lorenz' real identity is revealed. But is it really him who is the brain behind all this?

The movie is a somewhat strange combination of clichés and smart plot-twists. The director manages to build up the tension to some extent and Statham, Snipes and Philippe do a good job in making the characters believable. Direction overall is fine, as is the camera-work, the dialog, the score and the plot.

Then comes the last 30 minutes or so of the movie. One single event triggers Dekker to re-think everything, which unfortunately results in boring and unnecessary flashbacks. Pieces of the puzzle seem to fall together, bam. The end. Huh?

I can't seem to point out the main reason for the chaos later on in this movie. Is it the directing? Is it the script? A combination perhaps? I do get the plot, still it's confusing.

All in all a very enjoyable movie, some fun and smart plot-twists, decent acting and overall pretty good script. But those last 30 minutes... Seriously, I am confused. Oh well, they called it 'chaos', at least now I know why.

This is typically one of those many movies that could have been much better if they were made by more capable people and relies on the name of a single star.

The star in this flick is action-hero Wesley Snipes. Snipes is a very capable actor who does not often makes the mistake of showing his face in cheap flicks, unlike many of his colleagues. Now he does.

'The Marksman' tells the story of an elite group of Rangers. They are given the task of guiding a missile to it's target by planting a device on the target the missile can track down, this to prevent collateral damage. Meanwhile in Chechnya, a Russian warlord has assembled a small army and plans to mislead both the Kremlin and the Pentagon. Consequently, the chaos should allow some Communist general to overthrow the administration and re-establish Russia's communism. Snipes and his team are sent in to mark a nuclear plant before it gets re-cored, not knowing it has already been re-cored. The team gets betrayed and Snipes finds out it is all a setup. Then, it is up to him to rescue both his team and the world.

This all sounds like a decent, action-packed popcorn movie, right? Wrong. The whole cast, save Snipes, act as if they are introduced in some soap-opera, the director seems to be unable or unwilling to choose where he wants to focus upon (action in Chechnya? Communist plot in the Kremlin? Personal problems between snipes and his ex-lover/psychiatrist/CO?)and the dialogue... sigh.

And on top of all that, it is full of mistakes and some extremely low-budget special effects. The ground-action looks pretty decent, the location in Chechnya looks perfectly grey and abandoned, but my-oh-my, the air-combat scene... Even if it was the 70's they should be ashamed. It is a stealth-operation, right? Then why is Snipes the only one carrying a silenced weapon? Why does the carrier-captain wear a submarine-cap? Oh and one of the rangers seems to switch between his AK-47 and Uzi every other second. Soldiers keep jumping in the air many seconds after an explosion, guns fire without sound, soldiers get shot without anybody shooting and then there is this T-72 tank that wants to imitate his Goldeneye-counterpart. And, seriously guys... elite forces with Uzi's? My sister would have done better as the military adviser.

All in all, this move has potential but this is completely wasted by miscasting, poor support-acting, poor plotting.. and then there is the air-combat scene. See for yourself...