Change Your Image
Lammasuswatch
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Homeland: Prisoners of War (2020)
Who is this Carrie?
I started watching Homeland from the beginning here in Australia, and found it quite riveting overall. (Although, as quite a few others here have mentioned, it certainly had its weaker seasons, such as the one set in Germany.) Unfortunately, in being continued over 8 years, I somehow missed out on the last two seasons, and have only just recently got the chance to start again, catch up, and finally get through to the end. The day before yesterday I finally saw that last ever episode. And I was so put off by the way it all ended that I spent some of the next day reading various reviews of that episode in several media, including all of the reviews here on imdb. To see if others felt the way I did about that last episode. I set them up in descending Review Rating order and read all of them from beginning to end.
The huge number of "10" ratings (74 reviews out of 125), and the reasons reviewers gave for this, started to convince me that perhaps I'd got the things that had disturbed me about that last episode wrong. Most people giving it "10" saw it as ending on the highest note, and that the writing of that last episode tied up all loose ends brilliantly. Many said it was the best ending to any series they had ever watched. So I started being persuaded that my discomfiture at that last episode was wrong, and that I had just not seen at first how brilliantly the whole narrative over the 8 seasons had been brought together and resolved at the end.
But that doubt still nagged. And as I got further down the review pile towards the less favourable reviews, I saw many of my own doubts as to the credibility of this last episode also raised by others. Since I'd recorded the episode, I watched it again, stopping it and thinking about things at key points. I do agree that the last episode did seem to bring up and then take to logical and satisfying conclusions many of the quirks and developments, not only of Series 8, but also earlier ones. One of the key themes across all eight series has been Carrie's mental difficulties, and the problems and complications these have created at times with her colleagues, but also especially with her family, particularly her daughter and sister. And the outcome of that in this episode did make a lot of sense. So did the resolution of various problems, such as the immediate dangers of the situation with Pakistan and the incompetent (or crazily aggressive) US leadership that had been developing over several seasons. Also to some extent the attachment Carrie developed over time with Russian spy Yevgeny was not unbelievable. (Although I really thought her live-in relationship with an apparently now besotted Yevgeny at the end unrealistic, mostly because I could never imagine master spy/manipulator Yevgeny being caught out in this way.)
What really disturbed me though was the cavalier way Carrie put her best (surviving) friend Saul in such danger - and not at least resolving that positively when she got what she wanted, thus leaving Saul's fate at the hands of two GRU killers almost to chance - as far as she knew. While she went to fly off to Israel (to fool and involve Saul's sister!) And, as another reviewer asked, when Carrie was arrested for being a potential Russian agent, how was she even released and allowed to go anythere?(Much less fly out to Israel??)
Most of all though, it was how Carrie was prepared to sacrifice the life of Saul's long-time asset Anna - someone she'd never met, but for whom Saul clearly had great regard. (And he expresses exactly what he thinks of her.) And then - after all this betrayal - when Saul receives the book and message from Carrie at the end, he smiles as if it's all gone according to plan, and everything's great. None of this fits in with either major character that we've got to know over 8 seasons. Most certainly not with Carrie who will - and did - do anything to save any of the people she was close to throughout the series, such as Peter and Max. I can't see her wantonly sacrificing an innocent - and someone close to Saul - in this way.
In that first viewing of the last episode, I found myself thinking again and again, "who is this Carrie, because she's certainly not the one we've got to know over the 8 years of the series?" And it really wrecked this last episode for me - that I'd been looking forward to for 8 seasons. Now, after reading all these reviews and others on other sites, and especially on the basis of twice reviewing that last episode and all its key - and critical - defects, I can't give Homeland a 10 - or at least not that last episode, although I'd like to. I loved the show, found it stimulating and really authentic. But sorry, for many people the writers may have got many things just right in that last episode, but re these issues I've raised, I just can't understand how those writers and creators got that last episode so fundamentally wrong.
The War of the Worlds (2019)
Wow! How could this series go so wrong?
I didn't know much about this new TV version of H G Wells' classic before tuning in to the first episode, except that it was to be set back in a time and setting closer to the period and location that Wells was depicting when he wrote it. Having just recently watched the other 2019 TV release of "War of the Worlds" set in the present day (and generally pretty well done), I was curious to see how this one would compare.
I have to agree with the criticisms of many of the reviewers here regarding editing and direction. The whole series is seriously undermined by this (but especially the later episodes).
In Episode 1 the jumps in time start the trend of unnecessarily confusing viewers. However, at this point, once you've actually twigged to what's going on, you can just concentrate again on what's happening. In this episode, everything looks reasonably good, nothing is particularly jarring, and the storyline and contemporary setting intrigue enough to award Episode 1 a good 6-7.
But from there on it's mostly progressively downhill as the organising principles just go more and more haywire. In Episode 2 a lot of the time I found myself thinking, "Haven't I already seen this?". It's often hard to tell. But at least the story does progress, if increasingly hampered by that often confusing editing. Episode 2 rates perhaps a borderline 5.
And then there's Episode 3. Because I knew it was the final episode, I expected resolution, some clarification of issues, and developing interest and tension in how this was all going to work out. Instead, by around 20 minutes into it, I was wondering where and when the hell we were at any particular time, and even looking at the clock to see how much longer there was to go. And thinking, surely somewhere along here the direction and production team have got to get their act together. Then twice more in the next 35 or so minutes I just wished it would hurry up and get to the resolution point. Finally it did indeed come to an end - an ending that, for me, completely spoiled the outcome to Wells' well-known apocryphal story.
It's this revelation, normally right near the end, that these apparently advanced and unbeatable Martians were defeated in the end by - at that time - the smallest and hardly known or acknowledged organisms on our Earth - the Earth's germ populations. This revelation conventionally appears almost as a final comment, (and has most impact done this way). Instead in this series this piece of information was almost lost by a brief appearance midway though the episode, and then even converted into a momentary deliberate scientific and recovery strategy by the two remaining "heroes". Yay team! Or "Oh my goodness?" And then I do not recall hearing of it again.
After this I just could not quite get what anyone was doing. Or perhaps I'd just stopped paying attention by then. A late question about something that had happened in the episode struck me as the credits rolled, and for a split second I considered rewinding the tape to clarify it. But I couldn't be bothered. I really had had enough.
Stateless (2020)
The Greatest Truth comes from Fiction - in this series well and truly
It has often been said that the greatest truth comes from fiction.
What is it about fiction that allows this? I think it's the capacity to inhabit a character's mind and feelings in a way that watching a documentary doesn't quite achieve. Certainly, I love documentaries; and some of them can be very powerful as well as being informative. But they tend to deliver only the hardest facts (which a lot of people deny anyway, and increasingly so with our ever more siloed media sources). And documentaries usually don't delve deeply into feelings or moral consequences. Even with eyewitness accounts or interviews, we are often not able to penetrate that experience barrier in the same way that fiction has of getting into someone's head.
And clearly in some issues, some people can never put their preconceived biases to one side. They can never step away from their political or cultural predispositions. Thus they never really get to walk around in anyone's shoes but their own. (OK, that suits some people just fine.) Books like Harper Lee's "To Kill a Mockingbird" talk of making you literally step into the skins of the various characters in that book so that you experience the real truth of Atticus Finch's statement, "You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view . . . until you climb into his skin and walk around in it." And walking around in someone's skin is exactly the sort of visceral thing that can finally shake people out of their experiential suit of armour.
"Stateless" was skillfully alive with this in-skin wandering! What's more, although the production warns that some liberty has been taken with some characters and incidents for the sake of the storyline, it seems to stick very close to the facts. (In fact, I would argue that it spares us the most sordid and depressing details.) Choosing the Cornelia Rau character's experiences as its central story, its strength is that it also tells the stories of others involved in varying degrees of detail not readily available at the time. So, the whole saga of the toll this story had on individuals (and even more so on our country's integrity) involves not only the inmates, but also people like the guards and their families, as well as the public servants who were just doing the jobs defined for them (but who were also often morally and physically conflicted in doing so). In fact, if you read the 2005 essay "The unknown story of Cornelia Rau" by Robert Manne, Emeritus Professor of Politics and Vice-Chancellor's Fellow at La Trobe University, you will realise that "Stateless" doesn't tell even 10% of the story of a completely dysfunctional, neglectful and morally corrupt system reminiscent more of Soviet gulags than what we Australians believe is the Aussie spirit.
You didn't know any of this? You just can't believe it? Well, if "Stateless" opens your eyes to it, and gets you to investigate and think further, then it is a truly remarkable series indeed.
Boychoir (2014)
A story rather out of key
I was looking forward to seeing this film, because good quality choral singing has been part of my life for at last 4 decades. I've sung in choirs nearly all of my life, learning what a professional sense of choral singing is really all about in my Anglican secondary school chapel choir in the 1970s. Run on the rules of the Royal School of Church Music, this forms a professional framework for all major Anglican church choirs in 40 countries. And it is the framework that produces sounds like those of Kings and St John's College, Cambridge, as well as all the great Anglican cathedral choirs all over the English-speaking world (which undoubtedly also influences other denominations' music as well).
But I was as disappointed as I could possibly have been with this film that I thought would give some impression of the joy of being in a good choir! I suppose it depends on who the intended audience is. If it's for 12-year olds and you're just trying to tell a story of a kid who learns to control his anger against a bunch of generally pretty nasty other kids, as well as inexplicably annoying adults ... or if story development or any kind of accuracy are fairly unimportant, I guess it could pass muster. If you know and like music, the movie starts off quite nicely but gets progressively more annoying to the point of becoming excruciating. And if you have a thing about plausible plots and good writing showing research, forget it too.
Hollywood (i.e the American film industry) has been rightly seen as the world leader in film-making for nigh on a century. The number of classics the US has produced probably numbers more than the classics of every other country put together. But there is also a phrase "Only in Hollywood" that implies anything but quality and status as a classic. And unfortunately "Boychoir" fits well and truly into this latter category.
What is wrong with this film? It did have potential. Indeed, as I went back to double-check bits and pieces of the dialogue, storyline and various characters' development for this review (I had recorded it), I found almost-concealed factoids that only made some sense on that second viewing. But they required you to put 2 and 2 together at the right point and time. And considering that the first 2 was a subtraction from 5-3, and the final 2 was a piece of quantum physics, flashing into existence for only a brief moment and then gone forever, they didn't make it easy. And so much of this film was like that. I can only put that down to an almost complete lack of research on choirs and choral music, poor writing, indifferent direction and pretty abysmal editing.
You can understand why lead boy character Stet (Garrett Wareling) has anger issues with such a neglectful family background, but why is conductor Carvelle (Dustin Hoffman) such an irrationally volatile (bordering on nasty) character? We only - finally - get a reason for this in the denouement before the big finale. And by then it's really too late and it seems totally artificial, because nothing like this was hinted at up to this point. Then it came and went in 10 seconds, and that was supposed to explain everything. Yet it was so easy to miss. I'm pretty attentive, but I didn't make the connections needed to understand its significance until that detailed second viewing. On first viewing most of the audience would have been like me then, going "Huh?" (And let's not even mention his "conducting' - not only completely eccentric, but almost always totally out of time too.)
And the way the staff of this "renowned boychoir school" were depicted was as possibly the most unprofessional group of "educational professionals" imaginable. With the exception of Kevin McHale's character, they play favourites, and Eddie Izzard's character commits what (as an educational professional myself) I would consider a sackable offence by covering up the faked illness of his treble favourite, the favourite's sneaking out of school and unauthorized travel to another city, as well as a terribly contrived truly nasty plot by this favourite against the other lead treble contender Stet, and then his teacher's (later) knowledge and cover-up of all of this. And what about Stet's natural father? Who inexplicably reverses the irresponsibility of 12-13 years' neglect toward his inconveniently born-out-of-wedlock son? He suddenly has a change of heart - the catalyst for which is apparently two involuntarily-attended performances (the latter momentary only), and his son singing a top D.
Yah, if that doesn't make sense to you, dear reader, it made even less to me, and I watched the film. Twice.
And we can't ignore that top D, because it's the turning point for so many things. For a school that allegedly reveres music - and it seems that the key consideration is showing that they're better than the Vienna Boys' Choir (no such luck!) - they seem to be capable of the most unspeakable offences against musical integrity. Something that rang as just so unbelievably phony for me (and I see also for many other reviewers here), that from that point on I just watched events in gaping disbelief.
My horror really started at the line delivered by Eddie Izzard's deputy choirmaster when the news comes that the choir will perform "Messiah", but "because there is no solo part" (there are in fact extensive soprano, alto, tenor and base solos forming well over half of the two hour++ work), "they would have to write a descant for the 'Alleluia Chorus' ", which is all the "Messiah" turns out to be in this movie. The fact that the credits misspell the famous Hallelujah Chorus, along with Handel's first name being unaccountably credited in the French version of Georges (don't ask, I'm assuming their sample CD was made in France) was representative of basically everything.
I have performed my bucket list of the great choral works through 2-3 decades singing in major choirs with symphony orchestras. That includes Handel's "Messiah" with four different choirs in well over a score of different performances. Well, if there could be any thought more sacrilegious to a music professional than rewriting the "Hallelujah" Chorus - perhaps the greatest choral chorus of all time (at least the best known), and which is pretty well perfect as it is - I don't know what it could be. But these "professional choir teachers" did, and they wrote a truly awful descant which did reach a high D completely illogical to the musical flow of either descant or the standard score of the piece. It was unbelievably bad, and stood out as such like a sore dinosaur's paw. ("Thumb" is really far too restrained a term.)
I can't believe it's an American thing. For instance I have certainly seen the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, outside the US probably the best-known professional American choir, do the usual highly professional performance - and no descant or high D there!
As I said previously, only in Hollywood.
If you're 12 or under in reality or spirit, OK. You just might like this.
But, if you love music and you love choirs, avoid it! It'll only upset you.
Gåten Ragnarok (2013)
"Man knows little" - and how!
I've just sat through 100 minutes of time I'll never get back.
The film is about the Norse legend of Ragnarok - basically the destruction of humanity. And if this film is giving clues as to how that's going to come about, it's obviously through collective stupidity.
I have never seen a film before in which every character in the film makes absolutely stupid critical decisions at exactly the wrong time in response to dangerous situations. It is seriously surprising that any of the major characters had earlier survived the intellectual and practical exercise of crossing a road safely long enough to feature in this story, but there you go. You have to find dinosaur fodder somewhere.
Obviously, this is the result of rather appalling scriptwriting and bad direction. Characterisation is so bad you never really care about any of them. The males are invariably predictable bad eggs, or pretty incompetent nitwits (especially the lead who is as incompetent and irresponsible as a father, and as hopeless as a person could be in ever hoping to hold down a job as an archaeologist for any length of time. And the females have been written as vaguely feminist heroes - the action people when the males don't measure up. But those same females are also as prone to silly decision making at decisive moments that is just in no way convincing.
I'm giving this movie two stars because it definitely is a curiosity, and not for any quality but for the lack of it.
Four characters do survive, but for the future of humanity and the avoidance of a real Ragnarok they should never be allowed to reproduce!
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (2004)
Did CIA Black Ops fund the making of this movie?
There are few movies I have seen in my life that were a real trial to watch through to the end. This was one of them.
I might have walked out, but I was watching it on TV in my living room. I did consider switching off - quite a lot, in fact - but in the end I had to keep watching just to see how this melange of a movie was going to end up. In a kind of morbid curiosity, resigned to my fate.
Others have said it all here. Things that happen for no reason and are never referred to again. Truly terrible and unconvincing acting. Wooden dialogue in a script as poorly constructed as I've ever experienced, with glaring gaps in logic. And with two actors in the movie that I normally find never give a bad performance, that is really something of an achievement.
At no point in this movie was I able to care what happened to any character, or about the outcome of any situation. Because none of the characters, and none of the situations were even remotely convincing, even for the comic-genre it was paying homage to.
The movie was set in the period of the decade change from the 1930s to the 40s, but with technology we might see represented in movies about the 23rd Century. Why these apparently illogical juxtapositions? Because it's a comic?
Yes, I know it's supposed to be a really clever representation of a comic book in film, and it does have things going for it. It certainly has achieved a striking overall look artistically - looking like a drably colourised version of a black and white movie from the 40s. That was an interesting idea. And some of the other ideas from various genres that have been rammed and pounded into place together could have worked out well too.
But they didn't. I read comic books when I was little, and I'm of an age when I have memories of many B-grade or C-grade movies at the Saturday afternoon matinee. And no comic I've ever read was as bad as this one. And even the C-grade movies were not in this league. They all at least had some kind of internal logic, weird as it might have been.
Whatever led to this result, "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" simply ended up being one of the most boring movies I've ever seen, because there was simply no part of the plot that sustained any interest. This movie was so lacking in any kind of underlying internal or external logic that what could have worked had no chance.
At almost every two minute interval through the movie, I was thinking to myself, "Oh gosh, do I REALLY want to watch this whole thing?" The only thing that really excited me in this movie for half a second was seeing the Titanic (at least I'm pretty sure it was the Titanic, as I recognised the shape) sinking in front of the plane as it flew under the ocean. (Yes, you did read this correctly! And no, I'm not on drugs.)
I was wondering if perhaps this movie was funded as a CIA enhanced interrogation technique? I reckon if I were made to watch this film again and again, by the third time I'd be pleading with my interrogators to tell them anything they wanted to hear.
Hunting Hitler (2015)
History for those who can add 2+2 together, and get 22 every time!
As I persisted with the interminable episodes of what turned out to be the first series of this tripe, I marvelled how the makers could possibly pad it out to 8 episodes. And when I finally got to the 8th episode, I looked up imdb, and found there were another two series of it!!
The show is little short of amazing. Mainly at the ability of the team of "investigators" and ex-navy seals (or whatever) led by ex-CIA man Bob Baer to come up with hypotheses out of dubious initial evidence, and arrange expensive trips for the teams to places across various continents, visiting Berlin, Argentina, Spain, the Canary Islands and so on. Wherever they end up they obtain side-scan sonar, ground-penetrating radar and other expensive equipment, and then somehow always manage to time their efforts to have them need to end prematurely - because it's "too late in the year" (with weather conditions deteriorating), or "too late in the day" (with light fading), or "they only have official permission" to be there one afternoon. And so on.
And then the attempt is just abandoned. (Just in time too! Before any real evidence is actually found to scotch whatever it is they're trying to find or prove in that particular sequence. And I am profoundly disturbed that any of these people could ever have worked for law enforcement, journalism or any intelligence services too.)
Yet each subsequent failure to prove anything much at all just adds to their ever-increasing conviction in each mini-hypothesis, and thus the grand theory of life, the universe and everything. To objective viewers absolutely no connection to credible evidence linking Hitler with any of these places is ever established. But to the makers and actors (you can only call them that) of this series, it's always incontrovertible proof and it just encourages them to go on.
Which apparently they do after this series, for another 16 episodes! (Without me, though. I couldn't "Baer" to watch any more of it!)
What will this show prove to the viewer? Nothing much about Hitler.
But you will gain a lot of insight into the psychology of how elements of the CIA and the Bush Administration could manage to psyche themselves into being convinced that Saddam Hussein was building an arsenal of WMDs before the Iraq War, and then to want to convince the public of this. Or real insight into just what a crock the so-called "History Channel" is!
Das Boot (2018)
Das Boot - Everyone's on morphine!
What in the world happened in this production? Did all the writers, directors and producers get high on the morphine that keeps rearing its head throughout the series, and that Resistance head Monroe is addicted to?
This series launches quite well but meanders into several minefields beginning already in Episode 3. And it seems to continue on a crash-dive all the way until we are finally released at the end of Episode 8. By that stage, although I continued to watch, I had lost interest in the fate of any of the main characters. The only ones we cared about were those we saw rather briefly throughout the series. There are small mercies.
And yet the first two episodes of Series One set an interesting scene, everything looked authentic, and the claustrophobia of the submarine came across. At first it also seemed interesting to include the shore-based support staff, and I thought the idea of portraying the dilemma of ethnic Germans born in Alsace, and now brought "heim ins Reich" was something you don't often see.
I wasn't too sure about the Gestapo officer. He seemed remarkably nice in those first two episodes and then remarkably unobservant of what surely must have been questionable, if not obvious and suspicious behaviours by the principal female character.
And the production really started taking on water in the next two episodes. The U-boat crew are redirected on a secret mission. OK. Back at base, the German Alsatian heroine actually meets a local resistance leader and does nothing? I could just about accept that until the two got into bed together by the end of that double episode. Now based on everything that's come so far, was that about the most unpredicted and unbelievable plot turn you could ever think of? It was for me. And why would it end this way? Who knows? There was no apparent logic in it from the story. I suspect a major consideration was the opportunity to show some bare female skin, (as is surely obligatory in any European production that the Sky organisation has a hand in anyway).
Episodes 5 and 6 just started getting ridiculous. Right, there was the obligatory bare breast scene which presumably was the point of the lesbian affaire. The Gestapo officer started putting two and two together and it added up to 2.2. (He has to be the most incompetent investigator ever!) And on the boat things start to go badly for the now very unpopular commander, the subject of all manner of nasty rumours.
In the last two episodes, we learn that Simone was happy to betray her newly minted fatherland because she had found the love of her life in the female head of the Resistance, Monroe. (This she had decided after a few days maximum, mind you, and when Monroe never showed any such loyalty or affection. Look, I'm sure there is some logical reason and some giant emotional revelation that this incredibly insensitive mere male reviewer somehow managed to misunderstand or ignore.) But by this stage, I was past caring. I just wanted it to end. It was distracting me from the washing-up.
So really, nothing much made a lot of sense in this series that promised so much and delivered so little. Such a terrible, terrible script, and a huge pity to have to associate this tripe with the groundbreaking movie from which it's derived. Imdb has listed a possible 2nd series. Surely, they wouldn't?! And if they did, what could it possibly be about? "Ein Kaleun in Amerika"? Gott helfe uns!
12 Monkeys (2015)
Watch all four seasons to the end! The finale will reward your loyalty.
You know how you watch a TV series that lasts four seasons, and then in the very last episode they try to tie it all up in some way that satisfies all its fans. And they completely mess up that last episode and you're left wondering, what the hell was that supposed to be? And thinking how could they possibly come up with such an obscure and disappointing end to such a brilliant series? Well, "12 Monkeys" was NOT that sort of series.
"12 Monkeys" was intriguing from Season 1 Episode 1. You got extremely invested in the characters, especially in the way they and their stories developed over four seasons, there was never a dull or unnecessary moment (in retrospect), and the writing was some of the best I've ever seen in a SciFi series. In fact I consider "12 Monkeys" definitely one of the best made and most addictive TV series I've ever watched.
Some reviewers on this site have given very poor ratings (almost invariably a "1 star" rating) to this TV series, basically because it wasn't the movie (made more than 20 years ago). Some even because Bruce Willis wasn't in it (!?). And nearly all of these very critical reviewers seem to have given up on the series after the first couple of episodes of Season One. I've just watched the movie again, and while it was very interesting, especially for the time in which it was made, it was very much a Terry Gilliam movie, and shared little more than an overall concept and some familiar names and situations with this TV-series. And this is what seems to upset the "critics". These reviewers seem to feel that the makers of the TV-series were somehow disrespectful to the movie. I think nothing could be further from the truth.
And seriously, what did these people expect? For one thing, a movie is usually just over two hours and a TV series even lasting only one season is almost always a minimum of 10 hours. The most obvious thing that seems to have escaped the attention of the Army of the One Star is that the makers of this series were creating a storyline in its own right, using ideas from the original film. Obviously it's not going to rehash exactly the script of the movie and is going to introduce the "side stories" that seem to so upset some of these reviewers.
Over four years on free-to-air TV, I've watched "12 Monkeys" from the very first episode through to the very last (just a couple of weeks ago), four years later. It's not often that you can watch a TV series over that time and say that you spent each week of the series duration eagerly awaiting the next episode.
OK, if your attention span is prone to drifting, it does jump around forward and back through time, and you have to watch actively or you soon get lost. It's not the sort of show you can watch while you're simultaneously on social media and texting 35 friends in 14 different conversations.
The series is certainly complicated and intricately constructed. But contrary to the claims of its most damning critics, I think the writers of the time-travelling world constructed in "12 Monkeys" stay consistent and true to their sci-fi construct, and for me everything made sense. Sure, when you are watching a series for about ten to fifteen weeks each year over four years, you can forget what happened in some of the earlier story arcs, even when you have been paying attention. And I'm not sure whether the physics are in order, but who cares! It's a sci-fi series about time travel, and the physics for that are debatable anyway (as were those same physics in the so-beloved movie). So if you can accept "Star Trek's" warp drive, you can accept this.
But now at the end of the complete series, I'll be one of those people eagerly awaiting the arrival of the boxed DVD set, so I can go back and work my way through the series and put the twos and twos together where they might not have quite added up to four for me the first time through. And I'll be looking forward to the pleasure of doing that.
In summary, this is a very cleverly written and produced series that ALWAYS delivers and actually does get more intriguing as it goes along. An excellent cast is completely convincing in facing the increasingly difficult moral and personal choices all of them face. And I consider that finale one of the best written and executed TV finales I've seen. The symbol that became more prominent towards the end of the series - the snake following its own tail - did rather describe the whole story arc. And I liked that.
An outstanding series, if you put your attention into actually watching it, and not reminiscing about past movies or checking out your Inbox.
Origins: The Journey of Humankind (2017)
National Geographic - RIP
Wow!
How did National Geographic, a once respected scientific organisation the world over, come to this?
And the answer is apparently through a takeover by Fox and Rupert Murdoch. Enough said.
The first and most jarring thing that strikes you about this series is its overly dramatic host Jason Silva. Not someone I've ever heard of before, and someone I will go out of my way to avoid in future. His "narration" alone is probably enough to avoid this series, at least unless you really want to spend the whole time fast forwarding him out.
And then the two episodes I forced myself to watch seemed overwhelmingly to emphasise violence. Some of it way beyond what is suitable for children or even young teens, not only for the regular sprays of blood, but also the rather callous and superficial portrayal of various acts of killing. And a bit of (implied) sex adds spice too, doesn't it (according to the storyboarding of whoever put this together). It may be typical of violent video games, and clearly this "history documentary" is aimed at the same audience - I would guess teenage boys or men who have never grown up. (In other words, the typical Murdoch audience.) But I was pretty sick of most of this within about five minutes.
Did it make sense? Did it teach anything much about history? Not particularly. How it managed to leap between eras and locations and events and miss out on others was often mystifying.
Unfortunately we're seeing more and more of this sort of pseudo-history series on TV. After all, history is so boring without special effects, isn't it. It just can't get an audience without livening it all up a bit. And thus Rupert continues on his quest to lower the collective IQ of humanity.
Knightfall (2017)
Holy Grails, Batman!
Like many other reviewers here, I was looking forward to this series after seeing the trailers. The story of the Templars and especially of their downfall through the greed and intrigue of French King Philip IV has long fascinated me. And I was at first intrigued at the suggestion that the Holy Grail was going to play a part.
But even in the 1st episode warning bells were clanging for me, when we find out senior Templar Landry is having an affaire with the French Queen. The French Queen?! And of course, Landry just happens to be King Philip's best bud. Now knowing that in historical reality Phillipe Le Bel (Philip the Fair) was the French King who persecuted the Templars with a series of outrageous accusations, just so he could steal all their vast wealth for himself, I could already guess from that 1st episode that this cheap, unnecessary and historically ridiculous contrivance is going to be the main excuse for the King to turn on the Templars some time down the track. As if he needed this? Instead of the quite simple fact that Philip the Fair was anything but, and one of the most greedy and soulless Kings of France in a line of greedy and soulless Kings of France. Was this going to be the laziest of writing?
But I've stayed with the series to see how it developed despite the ever stranger plot developments, often embarrassingly cornball dialogue, and the increasingly comic depiction of major bad guy Councillor de Nogaret. Now the historical Nogaret was an exceedingly unprincipled schemer and villain, but in this he's like a medieval Bond villain, at the centre of every intrigue. I'm half expecting him to turn up with a top hat, twirling his moustache and saying, "Nyah-ha-ha".
And with writing like this there are few real surprises. I don't think any plot point has happened that wasn't telegraphed beforehand (with some so obvious it was almost insulting).
And the writers have almost no characters behave in ways real people would behave - with the Queen and Landry especially unconvincing. By Episode 5, when Landry has just found out the Queen is pregnant with his child, and that she has dealt with the situation so her pregnancy will not fall under suspicion, this by now Master of the Paris Temple acts like a sullen teenager who watches too many American sitcoms and pleads with her that they could "leave Paris and go somewhere". Groan!
It was Episode 5 where I thought, I really can't see myself wasting too much more time on this. One more episode perhaps, but if it's as hokey as it has been, I can't see myself lasting out the ten episodes. Much less waiting for the stake burnings and so on down the track.
I did in fact persist to the last episode of Series 1. Some of the episodes from 6 through to 8 were an improvement, where you could actually believe some of what was happening, with some developments quite intriguing. But penultimate Episode 9 took a turn for the worse.
And the last episode of the series.... Well, here's this guy Landry who's been made the Master of the Paris Temple, because he's so respected by his brother Templars. And yet, for most of the series and especially in the last 3 episodes or so, every decision he makes is tactically so ludicrous - or simply so selfish - that any loyalty any of his brother Templars could have shown him, or at least kept showing him, is so unbelievable as to be laughable.
And while we're on the topic of tactics, what sort of an idiot would put all his soldiers in the middle of a clearing surrounded by woods when you know an army's about to attack you? And all packed tightly together in a circle? Apparently no-one writing or directing this series has heard of archers and bows and arrows or crossbows, all of which would have been devastating when presented with such an invitingly exposed target.
And then when Grand Master Jacques de Molay decides to ride to the rescue after all, and stages a cavalry charge with his armoured knights, which initially cuts swathes through the enemy, what does he do next? That's right! They all dismount and give up their huge tactical advantage to fight on foot! And at the end, they've only lost about 30 Templars? Amazing!
If there is a Series 2, I certainly won't be watching.
I reckon you'd get a lot more out of reading the comic.
Pay It Forward (2000)
If ever an ending completely ruined a movie, this is the one!
"Pay it Forward" was showing again on TV recently. I knew I had seen it at the cinema when it first came out but, strangely, couldn't remember anything about it at all, except the general premise of paying favours or good deeds forward. So, as I felt a dose of positivism would do me some good, I thought I'd watch it again.
It turned out that my mind had good reason for blocking out memory of this film. About an hour and three quarters into it, as it continued to meander ineffectually without really getting anywhere, I was already considering the benefits of tighter editing.
And it would also be hard to find more stereotyped characters outside a cartoon. From the funky black jailbird, and the would-be reporter who discovers his breakthrough scoop, through main character Trevor's trailer-trash Mum, her bag-lady mother, all the way to poor bullied Adam. OK, the heartstrings did get tugged, and for four fifths of the film, I was prepared to go along with the tugging, as forgettable as it was.
But just when all seems over bar the tears of happy resolution, Trevor intervenes in a bullying incident that has completely unexpected - and what could only be considered completely illogical - consequences. And I doubt that this ending would have been unfathomable only for people who live in a country where bullying incidents in the first year of secondary school are not likely to end up in the morgue. I presume this movie did not do much to encourage international exchange students to attend American high schools!
Like so much of this film, this ending was more a case of lazy-minded writing, direction and story-telling. What were they thinking? "Hey man, we just gotta kill the kid, or it just ain't gonna woik!"
And then - of all things - to finish off we get a brazen copy of the final scene from "Field of Dreams" (think headlights of cars coming from all directions) to give a kind of cosmic Christ-like significance to Trevor's sacrifice (?).
Was this a box-office bribe or desperation? "Yup! If ya kill him, they will come."
Maybe. But they'll sure also go away very dissatisfied and welcoming of a complete memory block.
Egyptian Vice (2015)
No words can describe this .
Let me start off by saying that if I could give zero stars and still post a rating I would. However, they don't allow you to give zero, so I'm going to have to give this alleged history movie (?) one star.
It is categorised here on IMDb as a movie, although it is masquerading as a documentary (I think), utilising frequent cut-in interviews with a number of experts who are supposed to be providing historical commentary and expansion on the re-enactments, which are obviously the main purpose of this documentary, movie
whatever.
Now, I was not previously familiar with the other experts featured in this melange of dreck, but none of them seems to have Egyptology as a specialty. Englishman Dr Chris Naunton does, however, and he is a serious archaeologist, and a significant Egyptologist. I do find it difficult to believe that he knew what he was signing up for when he agreed to participate in this travesty. But he can take solace in the fact that he was the ONLY expert who quietly provided measured and accurate commentary, and actual known facts.
Whether the others had their commentaries pre-scripted by the series writers and given to them to learn off will be one of the great academic mysteries of all time. It is hard to believe they will ever be taken seriously by any of their colleagues in their chosen fields again. Such is the damage that this program could – and should – do to their academic credibility. And as for the narrator, actor Alexander Siddig, he's not stupid. He must have needed the money.
So what is "Egyptian Vice" all about? Well, they got the names of the Pharaohs right, but announcing them in Greek-style script was just one of the bewildering decisions made by whoever was in charge. (Was someone in charge?)
Otherwise it's about nothing. At least nothing factual. There are lots of huge pecs, and six-pack abs, fight and atrocity scenes, blood and guts galore, as well as the requisite seductive bath and sex scenes. (But don't get too excited! They're only on the risqué level of a bath soap commercial - and about as interesting.)
Any historical context in terms of religious beliefs or cultural beliefs of the times depicted (spanning 3,000 years!) is completely ignored. And within that framework, they managed to almost completely ignore any known facts or conjectures, except for the most basic details that suited the storyline they wanted to show. What we also get lots of, besides the sex and violence, is moralistic and pseudo-psychological claptrap. But nothing at all enlightening about any aspect of Ancient Egypt.
All but one of our 'experts' analyse the personalities of various Egyptian Pharaohs using ridiculously emotive and inappropriate language. And then they invariably come to the conclusion that ________ (insert applicable Pharaoh's name) was a sociopathic liar, an evil ruthless killer, a blood-hungry psychopath, and/or someone who mistreats both his enemies and his own people, and shows no value in human life, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. All of which we can't possibly know except in extremely general terms, if at all. And all the females are delightfully
- well, I'm sure you already know what. (Yes, of course, sexual deviants. What else?)
From all these moralistic pronouncements one might deduce that the intended audience is the Christian right, for whom the producers have created the ideal viewing opportunity to bask in the moral superiority of looking down on such godless pagan religions and societies. But I rather suspect the true intended audience is those who really like to spy through keyholes. And people who don't care a jot for history, but like films in the manner of "300" where you have lots of sex and stylised extreme violence, filmed as if it's an animated video game, with the same attitude of respect towards any real historical knowledge.
But if you're a fan of documentaries about Ancient Egypt, avoid it like the plague. It'll only upset you.
Come to think of it, I don't think zero does this tripe justice. Feel free to understand my rating as a minus score.
Pompeii (2014)
The definitive account of the destruction of Pompeii? Ah ... no.
I watched this on TV last night and only realised 20 minutes in that I had seen it at the cinema upon its release. This probably shows how much it impressed me then.
If you've always been fascinated by the story of Pompeii, and you've been looking for a movie that gives you the experience of being there on that day - sorry, this ain't it!
In terms of historical accuracy, the Doctor Who TV series episode about Pompeii is far superior, and that assessment would still be accurate even allowing for the involvement of an alien Time Lord. While the sail shading in the amphitheatre did seem to take in some of the latest speculations and discoveries about Roman arenas around the time of filming, the rest ....
Appalling writing, direction seemingly concerned only with 3D spectacle. And a pyroclastic cloud - over Pompeii? Plus a tsunami??!!! And EVERYONE dies?
But surely, what about that wonderful, tragically romantic moment at the end?
Sort of lost its impact when the whole theatre burst out laughing!
However, with every cliché, historical inaccuracy and insult to intelligence the audience had been subjected to for nearly two hours, the reaction was entirely appropriate.
A.D. The Bible Continues (2015)
Historical liberties, but much to recommend - and no Pilate error
I am amazed at the number of people writing these reviews who seem to think that the Roman Prefect of Judea at the time of the Crucifixion of Jesus was a guy called "Pilot". This is somewhat worrying when many of them want to take every Bible word literally.
The original miniseries "The Bible" was a bit of a joke. It tried to please scriptural literalists while simultaneously appealing to today's attention-deficit disordered viewers. So we ended up with a bizarre mix of "Hour of Power" with "Xena Warrior Princess", complete with obligatory sword-fights at 10-minute intervals. Of course, nothing could have prepared most viewers for the hilarity of the ninja angels. A master stroke of ironic witticism! Oh sorry, it wasn't irony, and the producers were being serious?
Well, the good news is "The Bible Continues" has hosed down the Hollywooditis and used some very good actors and a much more believable storyline. They have done some serious research into biblical history, archaeology and textual criticism. It hasn't always come out authentically, but it's a pretty valiant effort. Sure, there are again characters and situations created purely for dramatic effect. But at least with this effort - supposed to be a sequel to the original miniseries and based around the Book of Acts - I am not finding myself continually doubled over with the laughter of pure disbelief at what's happening on screen.
All the principal characters of this new visitation are believable psychologically, and for the most part historically. (That is, as far as we know, given that we actually know very little or nothing at all of actual historical merit about most of them).
I thought it might have added some dramatic interest to have the resurrected Jesus never actually appear on screen, so the viewer is left in the same boat as those to whom the disciples were preaching. Have these people been seeing or imagining things, or did something amazing actually happen? The producers do hint at this approach upon Saul's conversion later in the series, but clearly the series message regarding an actual physical resurrection of Jesus tolerates no doubt. So, in the first episode we see all the magic of the resurrection, complete with bright heavenly light shows and Angel warriors. (But thankfully, with everybody no longer kung-fu fighting!)
Pontius Pilate (or, sorry, should that be "Pilot"?) is accurately portrayed for a change, at least in personality and competence, if not in actual events. The role of Pilate and the Romans in the death of Jesus, whitewashed by the romanized Church after Constantine, is largely corrected here. This puts the storyline roughly in line with the history of the romano-Jewish historian Josephus. He was writing at about the same time as the first three Gospels were being written (anywhere between A.D. 65-95, although Paul was probably writing his Epistles as early as A.D. 50).
Vincent Regan's Pilate is certainly capricious and often a poor judge of sensible courses of action. Josephus writes that Pilate had a reputation for offending his subjects' religious sensibilities, and his suppression of a Samaritan uprising was so harsh that he was recalled to Rome in AD 36. The rash of petty crucifixions after an attempted assassination depicted in this miniseries is probably a loss of control and common sense even the historical Pilate would never have countenanced. But the idea that he agonized over the death of an innocent man - washing his hands of all responsibility - is not a picture in keeping with the historical Pilate, who would never have hesitated nor had a moment's regret in executing anyone he deemed a danger to Rome's authority. This miniseries got that right.
There are other liberties taken with historical fact. The decision to have Emperor Tiberius and soon-to-be Emperor Caligula visit Pilate in Jerusalem is puzzling. Neither of these Emperors visited Judea - and certainly not together. For the last ten years of his life, Tiberius could hardly be coaxed away from his Isle of Capri pleasure retreat even to visit the Italian mainland, much less the insignificant province of Judea! And while there was a rumour that Tiberius was smothered by a pillow, and that Caligula arranged it, it certainly didn't happen in the Holy Land. But the big question is, what does this fictional plot line add to the story besides two extra episodes and a black mark in the authenticity column? And what does it do for those poor souls who desperately want to view this series as a televised authentic-history Bible Study, who are surely its main audience?
There are, however, many things this miniseries handles very impressively - particularly the depiction of the politics, the cultural practices and clashes, and the atmosphere of 1st Century Judea. High Priest Caiaphas is not the complete villain we know from the scriptures, but (as portrayed very convincingly by Richard Coyle) principally a diplomat walking a tightrope in trying to balance his role defending his Temple and Faith along with the safety of his people against the naked brutality of the Roman occupiers. Fascinating to watch also are the different viewpoints and priorities of the followers of Jesus: from the zealot-oriented Simon; through the two leaders of Judaic Christianity, Peter and James the Just, and their different approaches to spreading the word; balanced against the fanatical persecution, then the fanatical participation of the converted Saul. The Saul we have here (depicted by Emmett Scanlan) - mercurial, ultra-opinionated and just as dangerous when he is for Jesus as he was when against him - is one interpretation of this Apostle's possible personality garnered from careful textual analysis. It shows excellent research and more than a bit of daring, since Paul is one of the great Christian heroes.
And on top of all this, we have a Pilate - or should that be Pilot? - flying straight and true for a change! What more could you ask?
Lest We Forget What? (2015)
Essential viewing for understanding the "Anzac Legend"
You think you know about the Anzacs at Gallipoli because you've seen the movie?
The Anzac legend has become a large part of the 'creation myth' that contributes to Australia's modern day identity. But just how true is the story we think we know?
We may have already taken the trouble to think a bit beyond the 'official story' that the powers-that-be encourage us to believe and identify with. Or our understanding may already go beyond the highly emotive but possibly artificial experiences of organised journeys such as Anzac Day pilgrimages to Anzac Cove. But are we still seeing this story through highly rose-coloured glasses?
In this very interesting documentary, presenter and journalist Kate Aubusson goes on a journey of discovery to find out something about her own forbears who fought for Australia in the Great War. With the help of some of Australia's foremost military and wartime historians, such as Professors Robin Prior and Joan Beaumont, and Drs Roger Lee and Rhys Crawley, as well as retired Major General Jim Molan, she discovers a lot of things that aren't exactly in line with the story we all know. Or think we do.
If you want to know the real story of ANZAC in Gallipoli and on the Western Front, this is a very good place to start. It may at the very least stop you acting like a national embarrassment when you visit these foreign battlefields as part of your overseas trip. And just maybe it may awake in you the desire to learn more about our fascinating true history, and open your eyes to some things that you might think we should have got right by this time.
Well worth a look!
Gallipoli (2015)
An even-handed and interesting drama about the Gallipoli campaign
With last year's 100th anniversary of the start of the First World War, and moving towards the 100th anniversary of the landings at Gallipoli next month, the past six months have seen some very good TV drama on a conflict which has previously seen little attention except for the odd documentary. "Gallipoli" has followed on the heels of "Anzac Girls", which gave us the till now unsung story of the nurses accompanying the ANZAC troops in the First World War, whose bravery and contribution has been largely ignored. "Anzac Girls" set an impressive standard; "Gallipoli" has certainly kept that up.
This British-led campaign to capture the Gallipoli Peninsula in Turkey in 1915 was largely written off by Britain and France as a succession of blunders, and an escapade best forgotten; in contrast, it is seen by Australians and New Zealanders as a national 'baptism of fire' that consolidated the process of forging two new, young nations into what they would become. The sufferings and huge per capita numbers of casualties became a source of pride, such that Anzac Day (the anniversary of the first landings on 25 April) has been observed since the end of that war as a national day of commemoration in both nations. We should also not forget how important it was for the Turks too, who saw it similarly as the catalyst for the birth of their modern Turkey under their Gallipoli hero, Kemal Ataturk.
So how can you do a national legend justice in film and TV? Previous efforts have often been weighed down by an often awkward tweaking of history to create clear goodies and baddies (incompetent, mostly British generals filling this role). One reviewer on this webpage complains that not enough is seen of the New Zealanders, that even though New Zealand characters do come into the story there is not enough of their story told. Another mildly criticises the depiction of the Turks and similarly calls for more emphasis. But essentially this miniseries views the campaign not through a wide-angle lens, but through one with a fairly narrow focus. The story is experienced through the eyes of a small group of fictional Australians sharing a journey through an increasing hell, the likes of which none of them had ever anticipated. That's why the focus is reasonably narrow, and it's all the better for telling this story.
That lens is also a zoom lens, however; and at times we zoom back out to follow the true experiences of the war correspondents covering the campaign, who want to tell the real story of the military disaster unfolding, but can't because of military censorship. And finally, the zoom pulls back to the last group of fleshed-out characters - the remotely located (and minded) General Staff officers, who have more understanding of the tactics, logistics and considerations of the classical Greek and Trojan heroes of their public school education than of the new modern warfare they are supposed to be managing.
It is impressive that the overall excellent writing and direction constructs even these situationally incompetent officers as real, layered characters. So even when the completely out of his depth General Sir Ian Hamilton is relieved of his command and recalled to London in quiet disgrace, he still evokes sympathy - even though we have been wishing for this moment since the first episode. And the scripted criticism is for once even-handed: inflexible and initiative-lacking Australian officers who cause the useless deaths of many Aussies are depicted as equally culpable, in contrast to some earlier productions that diverted blame to the British.
The script, written by Christopher Lee (and adapted from Les Carlyon's history of the campaign), is mostly very well-crafted and leaves just enough unsaid. Certainly, the subplot of the 'love triangle' between Tolly, Bevan and Celia seems a bit of an intrusion at first. But if you watch to the end this becomes a unifying theme, and the key to Tolly's actions. And it is resolved finally in the most low-key, unexpected, but satisfying way.
Glendyn Ivin's direction is adventurous - including his direct-to-camera looks by lead actor Kodi Smit-McPhee at significant points in the narrative. Potentially dangerous cinematically, but so appropriate here. All is backed up by the excellent cinematography of Germain McMicking and the beautifully evocative score by Stephen Rae, which complement each other and the action just so fittingly.
Acting was uniformly excellent. I can't think of anyone who could garner a negative comment, and particularly impressive were Kodi Smit-McPhee as Tolly and John Bach as General Sir Ian Hamilton.
It is a testament to just how well this script has brought to life characters for whom we come to deeply care, that we are left wondering in the end what the writer's thoughts might have been as to whether our remaining fictional heroes would have survived the campaign on the Western Front they were soon to join. And whether they would finally have returned home to build the lives that were suggested they might have.
Even the weaving of a bullet into this interesting tapestry and its literal resurfacing in the end create an entirely appropriate epilogue.
World Without End (2012)
A careless and disappointing adaptation
I note that some other reviewers here mention that they gave up watching this series part-way through Episode 1. That was probably wise, especially if you like Ken Follett's books.
The series from the first book "Pillars of the Earth" was fairly satisfying. So how could "World Without End" be such a fizzer? Where do I begin?
Perhaps, with all the production companies involved - from at least three different countries - simply too many cooks spoiled the broth. You get the impression that someone asked all stakeholders to fill out a questionnaire on what they wanted. Then all answers were compiled, and someone decided to include them all. None of the stakeholders had read the book? No problem.
The studio moguls obviously wanted at least one international draw-card among the cast. Who gets top billing here? Cynthia Nixon! (Who?) She stood out all right, but for absolutely woeful acting. Very ably assisted by a number of ham-acting sequences by much of the cast at one time or another. (And most of these people can actually act, so you really can't blame anything except poor direction or the awful script.)
I often marveled at the way the miniseries characters were turned into cartoon caricatures, making any logical character development almost impossible. The most ludicrous example was changing relatively minor book character Petranilla into a vehicle for Cynthia Nixon to channel mass murderer Lucrezia Borgia - but laughably. And while the fatal character flaws of Godwin in the novel interestingly turn him bit by bit from a basically good person towards ever greater moral degradation, the treatment in the miniseries has him labeled 'baddie' about as soon and unsubtly as possible. I'm sure black stetson hats would not have been thought amiss by some of the people putting this film together.
But every character was pretty one-dimensional, good or bad. And to be honest, it was difficult to care too much about what happened to any of them. And what could even the best actors and directors do with this screenplay? Besides its careless historical deficiencies, it often just didn't come together dramatically or logically.
From a rather awful first episode in which the clichés come thick and fast, the miniseries actually improves for the middle episodes, but it does eventually get tedious with the continually repeated pattern: 'goodies try to do good, baddie thwarts this for no good reason, goodies back to scratch, next item'. It's turned a complex and generally very satisfactory novel into R-rated late-night soap opera.
Historical accuracy is an obvious casualty. Other reviewers have pointed out things wrong with this historically, but no-one else seems to have seen the most obvious and careless error. After witnessing a battle in France, nuns Caris and Meir are seen returning to England by ship, with this shot labeled on screen "Autumn 1341". And in the same scene we see they are accompanied at the dock by (drum roll) plague-bearing rats. Then shortly after, of course, the Black Death makes its entrance. Except that the Black Death didn't even get to Europe until 1347, and certainly not to England until 1348! The director could have got away with no date labeling here, since there was none that existed or that at least stood out anywhere else. But to get the onset of the Black Death - one of the defining events of British and European history - so publicly wrong! All you have to do is look up Wikipedia to check this! But guess what? No-one had the sense to.
I was wondering if this gaffe was a result of the international crew? Was the label actually supposed to read "Autumn 1347"? (Which would have been accurate.) Could it have been that a European crew created this graphic, misreading an English "7" as a European "1? Who knows? But that may be an explanation rather than an excuse. The fact that no-one bothered to proof-read this date is completely symptomatic of the carelessness with which this series was put together.
Historical accuracy apart, the plot doesn't flow logically either. I have seldom seen a story "tie all strands together" so unsatisfactorily in its concluding episode. It's not this way in the novel, but since the script artificially extends the life spans of the two now principal baddies (Godwyn and Petranilla actually die about two thirds of the way though the novel during the first wave of the Black Death), the miniseries has to somehow kill them off spectacularly. But it even manages to turn these sequences into somewhat ridiculous anticlimaxes.
And the final battle! Clearly the medieval miniseries rulebook states that any remotely medieval story must end in an epic final battle, although there is no hint of such in the book and it certainly doesn't suffer for it. Having the series end with the king's army attacking Kingsbridge might have worked, if it were not so unconvincing logically and dramatically. (That's ignoring its historical inappropriateness, but when has anyone in this series cared about that?) Virtually everything about it from the tactics of both attackers and defenders, through to the fight of the two kings does not work logically. (No-one seriously notices that another knight has a sword to the throat of Edward III?!) And then Edward suddenly calls the whole thing off, with everyone obediently stopping the fight. (And really - Thomas Langley IS Edward II? Did no-one ever recognize their former king? Seriously?)
I was not able to recall how this miniseries had ended the morning after I watched this last episode, despite wracking my brains and being able to blame neither alcohol nor Alzheimer's. All I actually remembered was laughing in disbelief for the last few minutes. Such was the impression it made.
I give "World Without End" a reluctant two stars for the fact that it got better in the middle - for a while.
Healing (2014)
Definitely the highlight Australian film of the year for me!
We keep hearing that the Australian film industry is in the doldrums.... Well, "Healing" will restore your faith in its health.
Excellent cinematography, good music, a good script and some really fine performances, particularly from the three male leads, Hugo Weaving, Don Hany and Xavier Samuel. But every performance in this film is good, and Jane Menelaus is so convincing as the Sanctuary's Raptor Expert that one could believe that is her day job. And Yasmine the wedge-tailed eagle, plus some very cute owls, nearly steal the show. Another star of the show is atmospheric shots of the beautiful scenery.
The movie takes a leisurely pace, but this is absolutely fitting to parallel the slow rate of healing for all of these damaged animal and human characters. It also reflects the slow routine of the prisoners' lives.
Some critics have called this film too predictable in its outcome, but if things come out well for the characters we care about, what's wrong with that? It's nice to have that happen occasionally!
Definitely the highlight Australian film of the year for me!
The Man in the Iron Mask (1998)
Still one of my favourite escapist or inspiring films!
OK, if you're a stickler for accuracy in retelling French history, you're going to have problems with this film. The same goes for anyone who wants a script close to the content of Dumas' book. There are quite significant deviations from both.
Having said that, the story that this movie DOES tell is logically consistent, satisfying and inspiring within itself. (And actually possibly an improvement on Dumas' last Musketeers novel, which rather gets lost along its way at times. And isn't exactly history either!)
In fact, the first time I saw this movie on its cinema release I rated it as one of my favourite films, and it still is one of my favourite escapist or inspiring movies. It was never going to be an award winner, or a "most important story" told in film. But the story does have a significant moral to it, there are 'journeys of discovery' made by various characters, the authentic music and settings are great, the acting (from such a skilled cast) is mostly excellent and the last 15 minutes are especially inspiring and heartstring-tugging.
Of the principal actors, Gabriel Byrne and Jeremy Irons shine. They are totally convincing, with Byrne really showing his capabilities. And the pleasure of hearing Irons deliver his lines is almost worth the price of admission to any of his films. Depardieu is mainly the comic relief, but he does it well. Leonardo DiCaprio, who when this film was released was one of my least favourite actors of all time, pleasantly surprised me by showing that he could act after all, managing to convey two very different but related characters pretty convincingly. John Malkovitch I know as a great actor, but often in this film I found him the least convincing of any of the main characters, definitely the odd man out. Much more than DiCaprio, his broad American accent just doesn't seem to fit with all the other surroundings. Or was it because he seemed to be half-asleep when delivering some of his lines?
Other reviewers have similarly talked about the weird mix of accents, with supposed French characters voicing British, American and rather pronounced Franglais accents. It was only distracting for me after several viewings - I don't particularly recall this on my first viewing, which left me enthralled. For all except perhaps devoted linguistic pedants the willing suspension of disbelief should suffice, and the accents question certainly doesn't detract from letting good actors tell a good story.
The Musketeers are supposed to represent an inspiring ideal of loyalty to one another, and to an ideal France in the form of its King. This film certainly expresses the disappointment of many of the people already with the excesses and abuses of royalty and nobility which would lead to the French Revolution about 125 years later. Athos voices the common dream, "...that one day we would finally be able to serve a king who was worthy of the throne". Unfortunately, few of the kings of France up to this point (and beyond) would qualify for this description. Nor, in reality, would Louis XIV despite the feel-good voice-over at the end.
But the real history is not the point. Did you worry about the reality of "The Adventures of Robin Hood" or "Raiders of the Lost Ark"? Real truths about the human condition are told in fiction, rather than non-fiction. And by the last "All for One, One for All", most viewers will be moved and wanting to cheer along with the Musketeers.
The British (2012)
A most bizarre history documentary series
I did actually watch the whole series - quite a trial for a person who is really fascinated by history, and expects to learn something from any history documentary series. But I was curious to see how it would all fit together (and to just what lengths the producers would go).
It's hard to categorise "The British", or even guess at what purposes the producers had in mind. An attempt to draw in and capture the notoriously short attention spans of the Reality TV / Soap Opera / celebrity generation? In fact the whole series reminded me exactly of those sorts of rah-rah TV productions that try to drum up support for a national team prior to a major international sporting event. Or like one of those expert commentary shows about football. It was not produced by the usual British documentary companies, but for Sky-TV (part of the Rupert Murdoch stable). Aha!
In a collection of really strange production decisions, one of the most bewildering was the choice of talking head 'expert' commentary. There were some of the usual smattering of history professors and expert authors, but they all seemed to have little of consequence to say. Presumably the producers didn't want to overtax viewers' mental capacity (or have them switching back to Big Brother).
But 'expert opinion' did not get much exposure anyway compared to actors, comedians, famous broadcasters, rock singers, musicians and footballers! I mean, I like and respect Helen Mirren and Jeremy Irons and many of the other actors featured. Normally. But these are truly the worst lines these people have ever had to deliver, even in their bad films. And nearly all of the comments from all these last categories of commentators were about how these people "felt". Often not even about the specific historical event or trend being outlined, but in a general, vaguely propagandistic way, as if they were giving their opinion on why their favourite football team would win their game on the coming weekend. Relevant? Rarely. Weird? Nearly always.
Those are the really bad features. Obviously it's hard to give a potted history of more than 2,000 years of British history in seven 50-minute episodes, especially where people like Simon Schama have done it so well. So, if the purpose was to give the current generation an overview of British history that they would otherwise never have (or never have watched), then I suppose it fulfils that purpose. And with the epic battle scenes, currently in-trend computer graphical reconstructions and other such 'blockbuster' features, it is clear that this was the intention. So, if it does awaken curiosity about the past in those people and the wish to investigate further, so much the better.
But it says less about any particularly accurate or objective recounting of history. It silently says more about what thinking skills human beings are losing as a result of the passive 24-hour infotainment web we are being drawn into, as well as the increasingly lamentable state of western education. Some powers that be want us trained to work their jobs, indoctrinated to cheer for our manufactured heroes, but not generally educated to question what has been done in the past, what we can learn from it, what we are doing now, or why. That's what history documentary series usually do. This one don't. It's all Yay Team!
Let's hope this is not the start of a trend for historical documentaries. As it seemed to be such a flop, this is probably unlikely. After all, ratings are king in this world.
I thought the very last frame of the credits, announcing that it was a "nut-opia" production (my breakup of the word) said it all.
Meet the Spartans (2008)
Truly, truly, excruciatingly awful
What can I say? How can a film be so unbelievably bad as this one is?
Like other films in this franchise, "Meet the Spartans" was supposed to be a spoof on a particular film, with references to other movies or cultural references thrown in. In this case, the spoof object was "300", a cult film for some, a tedious pop video for others. I thought, just maybe "Meet the Spartans" may be more palatable than the pretentious "300", with some humorous spoofing added to the formula. I could not have been more wrong! "300" made its antecedent "300 Spartans" look like multi Academy Award material. And "Meet the Spartans" made "300" look like high art - a feat in itself!
I didn't laugh a single time. I think laughing was supposed to be the point of it, but who knows? Indeed the thought processes, maturity, film-making skill and sense of direction of whoever was ultimately responsible for this dog's breakfast of a movie are not something I would like to investigate closely.
In a film in which nothing could be said to be a high point, the really lowest point was an extended rap dancing sequence. (Don't bother asking what rap dancing was doing in this film!) This was an exercise in endurance - it just kept going on - and on - and on. And this sequence probably took up a tenth of the whole hour or so of storyline running time. Or it seemed like it did. But, I hear you say, the movie goes for 86 minutes! Well, after the end of the actual film storyline, the viewer gets to see (apparently all) the out-takes for another interminable period. Were these deemed too funny to be put in the film, or too unfunny, or too irrelevant? Your guess is as good as mine. The editor must have been barkingly high or dead drunk to have got through putting this film together.
All I can say in conclusion is thank God I saw this film after taping it from free-to air television so I could watch it later. It allowed me to fast-forward past bits that got just too painful, and it meant that I never had to waste actual money on it. (Although I feel like sending the distributors a bill for my time spent and electricity expended, with an extra loading for having to work with noxious materials!)
Not recommended! An outstanding candidate for the worst film I have ever seen. While the earlier movies in this franchise were often quite entertaining, the franchise is now clearly dead, and should be quietly buried for public health reasons.