pcbrooks Reviews

Galavant (2015–2016)

Not Likely To Run For Long

[1/10 · 4 January 2015]

Additional Summary: This is, alas, a poor quality musical comedy (or comedy musical) by either American or English standards.

The obvious comparisons for this show are Mel Brooks' Men In Tights, and Python's Jabberwocky (although to be fair it's not a musical). Maybe Bing Crosby's A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, but that would be really pushing it. By those benchmarks Galavant (prat)falls by the wayside.

Seth MacFarlane's Family Guy does medieval orders of magnitude funnier than this show, but then I'm biased (an ex-pat Brit absorbing the culture in the USA for the past twenty years, and conscious that Americans can do some forms of comedy better than anyone else).

It's a shame really, because some of the actors are evidently capable of much better performances than I have seen in the first two episodes. I hope things improve but honestly I have serious doubts.

There are clearly some really good writers out there (so many excellent shows ended in the last year or two) but they weren't hired for Galavant (I'm more familiar with the "gallivant" spelling but that's the least of my gripes).

It's almost as if no-one did research into the (English) subject matter, too, which always rankles a bit with Brits. Shakespeare may have maligned one King Richard but none of the three officially- recognized Richards could be mistaken for the character portrayed in the show.

There are nowhere near enough anachronisms to make the dialog Pythonesque, which might have helped.

As for being a fairy tale, well, it has none of the hallmarks of that genre. I'm a big fan of taking original fairy tales and revisiting them to extract new stories, but Galavant doesn't really do that.

Lots of potential here, but so far very little of it in evidence. I'll keep watching though, ever hopeful. Sometimes shows take a while to find their feet.

Revolution (2012–2014)

I'm forcing myself to watch in the hope that things will improve...

[1/10 · 2 October 2012]

...but I'm increasingly depressed as I realize they probably won't.

This is SO bad on so many fronts I can't even work out where to begin my review, and I think I'm pretty forgiving when it comes to bad science fiction, as long as it's only a little bad...

Let's start with the "designer jean" look of the show. Neatly coiffed hair? Clean, fresh looking clothing? Shaped eyebrows on all the women? Manicured nails? Dozens of candles everywhere as indoor lighting? Really? Has anyone looked into what would be valuable commodities fifteen years after a major societal meltdown? Did anyone bother to sit down and think even a little about what the future might look like under those circumstances?

I've been around a few long-time street people (some with mental problems, most with severe personal hygiene issues often through no fault of their own). If you have too then you'll know about the distinctive look to the skin, the hair, and the smell.

That's how people were centuries ago. You could spot the wealthy a mile off - not just the clothes, the groomed look, but that pale skin, the result of not having to be outside most of the time scratching a living. To be utterly Pythonesque for a moment: He must be a king. He hasn't got sh*t all over him.

How does one group ambush another in this show without the slightest hint that someone's sniffing the air and giving advance warning of the presence of other humans nearby? Or possibly escaped zoo animals.

Whoever designed this show obviously never bothered to see films such as The Road or The Book of Eli, both excellently gritty post-apocalyptic portrayals of a breakdown in civilization (The Road being the better by far).

Then there's the science. Or rather, the lack of it. Others have pointed out the illogical way in which the mysterious talisman not only brings forth alternating AND direct current, it even manages to substitute for a cellphone tower AND an instantly-on wireless network that presumably is switched on permanently elsewhere in the world. And not once does it inflict radiation burns on the person holding the darned thing. And it has a USB port - did I see that right?

Jetliners spiraling out of the sky when the power goes out? Since when would Lift cease to exist when electricity magically disappears? Did no-one bother to examine what happens to aircraft when their engines quit? Fly-by-wire usually has mechanical or hydraulic backup, which means almost all aircraft would be gliding in for a landing, even if it was a crash-landing...

And the wave of car headlights blinking out one by one into the distance? That implies an electromagnetic pulse emanating from the camera's location - and incredibly slowly too. But what about hardened circuitry? And how can unhardened circuitry - such as that found in ordinary PCs - suddenly be persuaded to recover from the effects of an EMP?

The questions so seriously outnumber the answers. The suspension of critical faculties required to watch this show (and I've seen two cringe-inducing episodes so far, desperately hoping against hope that the quality of the writing would suddenly get better, let alone the concept) is so great and so long-lasting that only children who haven't reached the concrete-thinking stage could manage to enjoy this awful piece of work.

How did this get past any internal review? More than one person would have to have given this a green light so multiple heads should roll at some point. Or at least multiple butts should feel multiple boots.

I hate being this negative, because the actors have to have been choking on every other line, and I'm sorry that they're being tarred with the same fairly hefty brush that is rightfully being slapped all over the show's creator and writers (not to mention producers and director).

The characters are seriously flawed too - no substance, no evidence that they're being given any chance to be three-dimensional, and flip- flopping from one persona to another depending on the rather haphazard course the story line is taking at the time. One minute tough as nails, the next weak-willed and vapid.

If the cast has been grumbling or muttering among themselves I wouldn't be surprised. I *hope* that was the case and they didn't swallow their direction willingly. I know maybe two or three faces so far, and all of them are easily capable of better work, so their natural ability has to have been suppressed.

The only good thing about this show is that it's going to enter the Ed Wood category of being so bad it's fun to watch just for the glaring errors. Come back MST3K - there's more grist for your mill!

O'Horten (2007)

Excellent less-is-more study of an avoidant personality

[10/10 · 7 April 2010]

I think the first thing to note about this engrossing story is that you'll almost certainly have to watch the film twice in order to get close to the full picture. Things that don't make sense the first time around suddenly take on more meaning the second time.

It's like a chef's specialty dish in which the flavours are so subtle that if you try to wolf the food down you'll miss everything (as clearly one reviewer has). It has to be savoured to get the best from it. With food you can do that - hold it on your palate as the flavours work their way through to your senses; with visual storytelling you have to go through the story more than once to get the same effect.

The second thing to note is that this is a character study of a classic avoidant personality. Nothing too severe, but just enough to make a man appear to be buttoned down (as a former pipe smoker, I can attest that if you're a neat freak you won't touch a pipe) as he appears to meander through his life, having things happen *to* him rather than making them happen. Until the end scenes Horten is an observer of his own existence rather than an active participant in it.

His tendency to avoid certain situations, to be backward in coming forward, to avoid the limelight, is not set in stone, though. There are times when he acts against character - for example, when he climbs the scaffolding as he tries to attend a continuation of his retirement party at another engineer's apartment, since the apartment building's front door will not open when he keys in the correct access code.

His interaction with the young Nordahl (if I'm not mistaken, the two young lads in the apartment scene are played by Bent Hamer's relatives - possibly grandsons?) steps gingerly around the edge of what could otherwise have been a potentially very unpleasant situation had it been discovered by the parents - an elderly stranger in a bedroom with two young boys. These days one immediately jumps to a negative interpretation of the scene, sadly.

The movie has a dream-like quality, peppered with inexplicable events and people that give it just enough meat on the bone to make you go "Huh?" at fairly regular intervals.

Little things like the arrest of the chef by undercover police officers, the lesbian swimming pool attendants who frolic once the place is closed, the loss of Odd's shoes in the same place so that he ends up wearing a pair of red high-heeled boots (presumably belonging to one of the attendants; one assumes that they discovered his shoes and placed them in Lost & Found), the customer at the tobacconist's who repeatedly returns because he keeps losing his matches (through the window at one point you see him fall outside the shop, offering at least one plausible explanation as to why he keeps losing them), even the gentleman sliding down a sloping street on his rear, still clutching his briefcase, as the freezing rain coating every surface claims another victim.

The film is a mosaic of such odd vignettes - some of which, as others have mentioned, are worth watching alone, such as the trials Odd undergoes in order to locate his friend Flo. How many of us have had to go through a rectal exam in order to see a pal? The neat twist involving the schizophrenic inventor was a very nice touch. Nothing too dramatic (such as the eye-gouging in the French classic, Betty Blue (aka 37°2 le matin)) but just enough to provide a reason for irrational behaviour that allows Odd to take another step or two towards what for him is almost certainly the light at the end of his own personal tunnel.

The elderly lady he visits in the nursing home - his mother, Vera - appears to have mild dementia, and this may be a factor that plays into Odd's subsequent decisions when he reaches fork after fork in the road unfolding ahead of him. His decision to make a jump on stolen skis (in the dark yet) almost certainly stems from the sudden realisation that he may reach a point in his life where he too can only sit in silence looking out of a window in a nursing home, so now might be a good time to do the things he has not dared to for the best part of his 67 years.

All in all a very enjoyable story, with excellent, first rate acting by everyone involved. It takes more skill IMHO to impart the subtler emotions than it does to create the never-ending wham-bam-shoot-em-up-chase-em-down-screaming-and-yelling scenes that fill today's action/adventures (not that I don't enjoy those too).

This is one that I will definitely be adding to my home collection if I can. Godt gjort, Bent!

Doubt (I) (2008)

Doubt... and Disillusionment

[10/10 · 18 December 2009]

Just a reminder: what follows is a spoiler.

Undoubtedly an excellent story, and well-deserving of its plaudits. Likewise the acting, which is superb.

I disagree with other commenters though in their conclusion that at the end of the movie, doubt concerning Father Flynn's guilt still remains, and that Sister Aloysius is a single-minded overbearing tyrant.

If nothing else, the story is an exercise in deductive reasoning. Once presented with all the evidence, one is left with the same conviction that is possessed by Sister Aloysius: namely, that Father Flynn is indeed guilty as charged.

He took advantage of a child whose sexuality was already recognized by his parents and had caused him to leave a prior school. It doesn't matter whether the child was a willing participant (as is clearly the case), he was still a child and Father Flynn had an obligation as an adult not to take advantage of that. That is as true now as it was in 1964, the time in which the story is set.

With Father Flynn the child was attempting to create the relationship so clearly missing with his own father, who tried to physically beat him into something he could not be. The mother recognized the child's nature yet still permitted abuse by his father, a situation that is still commonplace today in dysfunctional families where one parent passively permits abuse by the other, for a variety of reasons.

The inexperienced and readily manipulated Sister James is all too willing to accept Father Flynn's explanation because the alternative is for her unthinkable. She reflects the discomfort that the majority of us would feel in the same position.

The final piece of the jigsaw is revealed when Sister Aloysius tells Sister James that when confronted with the information that a nun at his prior parish had confirmed his previous inappropriate behavior, Father Flynn had demanded to know the name of the nun rather than denounce the claim as untrue. Sister Aloysius had not contacted anyone at his prior parish - hers was a shot in the dark and it connected. Father Flynn's bluster and bravado crumpled at that point, which is not what would have happened had he been completely innocent.

Having managed to protect the child (and possibly even more children - the reality has been that those priests who have admitted to inappropriate behavior have done so in literally hundreds of instances, not just one or two) from the attentions of Father Flynn, Sister Aloysius is inevitably and inescapably driven into a position where she now doubts her own faith.

How could any God worthy of the name allow such execrable things (physical violence, abandonment and sexual exploitation by those in whom a child should be able to place absolute trust) to happen to the young children for whom he claimed to have such love?

It should be pointed out that the story is not anti-gay. No mention is made that the nature of either the child or Father Flynn is anything other than normal.

What is wrong, however, is the failure of an authority figure (Father Flynn) to maintain the correct level of trust and responsibility when dealing with a minor. Had the child in fact been a fellow adult, there would have been no issue (although of course we know that even today such a relationship is still a contentious issue, even between consenting adults - and it should not be).

The tragedy is that Sister Aloysius did the right thing - she maintained the responsibility she had been given (namely to look after the best interests of the child) - but paid the price of beginning to lose her faith. She doesn't lose it absolutely - we are simply told that she now has severe doubts - and one could extrapolate to a future in which she reconciles her beliefs with what she has experienced; however, it is my opinion that ultimately she must lose her faith if she is to remain true to herself and her principles.

This excellent story tells itself through a process whereby some of the facts are provided to the audience indirectly.

On that basis I suggest that the title is missing a key piece of information. It should read: "Doubt... and Disillusionment".

You Don't Mess with the Zohan (2008)

Daffy Duck Does The Palestinian-Israeli Conflict

[9/10 · 19 April 2009]

The summary says it all. My hunch is that the writers sat down, picked the most contentious subject they could find, and then said: "What would Daffy Duck do with this?"

The humor is way out there; some of it is silly (Warner Brothers cartoons), some of it is a little cringe-inducing (The Office - both versions, and Little Britain), some of it is unexpected, some of it breaks all the known laws of the universe (think of some of the fight scenes in various Kung Fu type movies in which combatants manage to ignore gravity on a regular basis) but overall it's a nice bit of extremely silly escapism. There were times when I couldn't help but laugh.

It could be subtitled "Stereotypes R Us" because it's rife with those, but that plays into the comedy. And is it my imagination or does Adam Sandler look younger now than he did when he was a regular on SNL? I want what he's been having :)

This is a blend of so many different kinds of silliness and yet it will probably not "click" with many older viewers - definitely one for the younger generation (or older folks whose sense of humor is still very young at heart. Or who have dementia.)

Prime Suspect (1982 TV Movie)

Is it a goof, or was it deliberate?

[5/10 · 5 October 2008]

Considering the serious subject matter of the film, it's all the more incongruous that at one point the word "ARSE" appears prominently in several scenes.

For example, one shot has Mike Farrell in an office facing the camera and over his shoulder the street number is visible (in reverse) on a window. The number is "3216", which appears as the word "ARSE" when seen in reverse.

Another example scene is in chapter 3, at 20:14 minutes, as Teri Garr approaches the office door (viewed from inside the office).

I was so surprised by this that I went to the trouble of photographing that particular scene and placing copies online at www.story-lines.com/IMDb. These are large files, but if you feel inclined, take a look and see if you agree. (And that's "imdb" all in lowercase - for some reason, the submission process changes that to IMDb every time. PB)

One shows the scene with "ARSE" visible, the other shows the location on the DVD from which the screenshot was taken.

It's entirely possible that this was an accident, but I would have thought that it would have been picked up early in production.

If it was a deliberate act, one wonders why it was done - was there some issue about behavior during production that resulted in a little passive-aggressive payback? Curious minds would like to know...

I, Robot (2004)

Suspend your critical faculties...

[8/10 · 10 July 2005]

... and you'll enjoy this movie.

But if, like me, you have enjoyed Asimov's work *and* you know something of the current developments in robotics (and you have some understanding of logic), then this movie is filled with a very large number of errors. It's not been well thought out, and that detracts from it.

The key concepts are fine but the implementation of them is groan-inducing at times.

For example, in an era when Lake Michigan has been turned into a landfill site, why would you - as a corporation - inefficiently and wastefully store huge numbers of working robots in containers (with only a handful of robots per container)? The resources alone would be worth a fortune, quite apart from whatever energy source is powering these things. No company would behave like that.

Another example: the vehicles used to deliver robots are an enormous waste of space. The robots inside are not packed efficiently, and why would such a huge machine be used to deliver one robot at a time? The sensible thing is to have the new robot deliver itself, and having transferred specific details of the human owners' requirements to the new guy, the old robot would likewise return itself to the manufacturer. That's just common sense.

Another example: the ubiquity of robots of different generations seems to result in (a) crowded streets with robots just hanging around doing nothing, and (b) the usual detritus associated with purely human existence (including badly painted and poorly finished surfaces). With all these robots going to waste, wouldn't someone have decided to set them to work tidying and decorating the place? The only time we see any machine tidying up is in a tunnel, and then they're purpose-specific.

It doesn't take more than a moment's thought to determine that any society in which the machines take the place of humans in service-oriented positions will be one in which everything is tidy and spotless. Did housekeeping suddenly stop once the robots appeared?

Not only that, but today "script kiddies" and others hijack computers en masse daily and use them for their own purposes. Yet in this story it is claimed there has never been an instance in which a robot has committed a crime - it's pretty obvious that the future holds the unfortunate promise of lots of hacking attempts on robots and some are bound to be successful. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that criminal and anti-social activity applied to computers is going to be applied to robots too, yet we never see any instances of this.

The colors used in this movie are also pretty drab and uninteresting. Why do film-makers ALWAYS make the mistake of imagining a future in which there is no color except gray or hues of gunmetal? If you look at even poverty-stricken communities what's the one thing you notice most? How colorful they are. People go out of their way to try and inject some soul into their environment (unless of course the government of the day enforces drabness), and a society in which everything is so drab would instead be filled with color. There would be no reason NOT to be colorful. Color sells.

The look of the robots too was something that should have had more attention paid to it. The one thing that current robot development has recognized is that the machines have to look human enough to be acceptable but not so off-human as to appear menacing or disconcerting. These machines either look and act "cute" (compare the old generation of robots, who are more endearing than the new generation) or look disturbing (which is something the marketing types would have hit on straight away. Or maybe marketing is declared illegal in the future?) Without giving anything away, at one point one of the players gets to make use of some nice spray-on artificial skin, yet none of the robots have this. Why? This movie could have been SO much better if attention had been paid to the details. And don't even get me started on the illogicality of describing logic as "undeniable".

This is why I suggest that the movie will appeal ONLY if you suspend your critical faculties. Otherwise the constant errors are jarring and keep pulling you out of the story as you say out loud: "Huh? That doesn't make sense..." Other irritations include a few glaring product placements - I hate that in movies - and some clear design flaws (cars intended to only be used with a driver sat on the left - even current concept cars don't make that mistake), as well as no catering for the disabled (presumably they've all been forced to be made able-bodied in the future - bear in mind that there are disabled groups even now who refuse to have their disability "corrected").

The story line is thin but interesting - but then, it's based on Asimov's work, and I've always found Asimov to be thought-provoking.

The acting is good - Will Smith demonstrates once again that he's a natural performer in front of the camera and delivers a believable character to the viewer (although the description of his character as a "technophobe" is something of a joke, since he has so much technology at his fingertips. Someone didn't understand the meaning of technophobia). I can't recall a single wooden or unprofessional performance from anyone (although some of the extras were a little over the top).

In recent years there have been a number of attempts to make what might be called the definitive robot story, but they all fall down on the details, and it's in the details that true credibility resides (as anyone who is trying to create an animation will tell you).

While this is an enjoyable movie in other ways, I'm afraid I'm still waiting for the definitive "robot" story to be created...

Dil Chahta Hai (2001)

Well worth the time it takes to watch

[23 October 2004]

Indian movies tend to have a reputation for (a) being musicals and (b) having overmodulated, distorted sound tracks, as if everyone was singing and playing through a guitar fuzzbox. Fuzz is fine in its place (heavy metal rock music, for example) but a surfeit of it can readily wear down the listener.

Dil Chahta Hai is a welcome breath of fresh air in the genre. It does have musical numbers but they're very pleasant on the ear, as is the sound track in general - modern musical styles, in some cases mixed with more traditional musical instruments (even a didgeridoo, the presence of which is explained below).

I have an absolute hatred of musicals so for me to find this movie likable it really has to be something special. The awards it has already won demonstrate that it IS something special.

The storyline is a little convoluted (which may explain why it takes 3 hours to run its course - around twice as long as its western counterparts, although Indian audiences may prefer the much longer format) but the acting is excellent throughout and the viewer is kept interested as the multiple interwoven plots twist and turn.

This movie demands concentration though, to get the whole picture. There is a good deal of spoken English mixed with Hindi, so the subtitles are a must for those who don't understand Hindi, but the English speech is not often mirrored in the subtitles, so one must both listen carefully and watch carefully in order not to miss a beat.

The subtitles themselves are not perfect, using unusual punctuation at times to emphasize a point (a word bracketed by a plus or minus symbol on one side and a two thirds fraction on the other takes a little time to absorb, for example).

But these are only minor niggles. This movie is richly textured and provides a visual a feast throughout, especially if, like me, you are not familiar with the sights and sounds of places like Bombay and Goa. A good part of the movie is also set in Sydney, Australia, providing plenty of material to keep the interest going (and hence the presence of the aboriginal instrument noted earlier).

This is very much a westernised production, with characters and behaviours that are possibly harder for traditional Indian audiences to identify with; I had no difficulty though with identifying with the three main male characters - three guys who are firm friends and have been for some years, and who may separate but somehow always manage to come back together when circumstances demand it. This kind of theme is pretty universal - the British TV series "Last of the Summer Wine" operates along pretty much the same lines, albeit fifty years on.

One of the themes is the conflict between traditionalist parents and modernist offspring (in particular the arranged marriage) and the author leaves the audience to make up their own mind about which is "right", but maybe with a slight nudge in the direction of the traditionalists.

The only gripe I have is with the choice of the anglicised title "Do Your Thing" for the US market. I think that totally misses the point of the movie. From the subtitles, Dil Chahta Hai translates as "The heart wants...", which would be more accurately and pertinently translated as "What The Heart Wants...".

In other words, the storyline is more about following your heart in love than it is about leading a self-indulgent life (which, obviously, these characters do most of the time - courtesy of being very well off and generally able to please themselves what they do; not quite the little rich kids, but verging on it).

This movie is that rare beast, a guy flick that is also a chick flick. Guys will enjoy watching it for the macho moments, girls will enjoy it for the soulful scenes (and the fact that the women generally behave with more maturity than the guys) and the weepy bits.

All in all a very enjoyable, watchable movie. If this is a new direction for the so-called Bollywood cinema, then it is very welcome and I would like to see more of the same.

As a professional writer I'd even be interested in contributing to that new direction...

The Full Monty (1997)

Either you love it, or you hate it...

[2 January 2004]

Unemployment is no joke (as an ex-pat Brit living and sometimes working in the US, I can confirm that with a vengeance). But sometimes, with a little vision and a lot of confidence (or desperation - take your pick), you can either find a way out of the depths of despair, or at the very least lighten the load a little, even if only for a short time. You take your pleasure wherever you can find it.

This movie will undoubtedly strike chords with those who have been unemployed long term, especially in the north of England (or in the Midlands or indeed anywhere. Depression - economic, social or clinical - knows no boundaries).

It's a smile, unless of course it *doesn't* strike a chord with you. Then you'll see it as a politically charged documentary with a few unnecessary laughs that ring very hollow.

But this isn't another Boys from the Blackstuff and I don't think it ever intended to be. The characters in this story are less focussed on pleading "Gissajob" and more inclined to say "Gissasmile". There is social commentary, yes, and it's well made (in my opinion, obviously), but the bigger message, I think, is that when life sucks - and it can do, most of the time - you don't have to give in to the feelings of utter despair.

You can fight back, you can refuse to be bowed, and for everyone in the awful predicament of being willing and able to work but being unable to find anyone willing to give you a chance, there is the possibility of finding a ray of sunshine, even if only temporarily, in an otherwise grey and depressing condition.

And it's those little rays of sunshine that help to give you hope. A laugh here, a giggle there, a bit of extreme silliness once in a while - it all helps keep you sane.

And that's what is enjoyable about this movie: it's the story of a group of men trying to stay sane even if it means losing some of their dignity in the process. And the one thing you notice towards the end of the story - and it's certainly capable of being true of real life - is that in raising their own spirits, the main characters here also raise the spirits of those around them.

They also remind me of myself and some of my friends. I could see myself taking part in something like this, albeit reluctantly (since I'm pathologically shy), just for the hell of it.

And doing something just for the hell of it is what makes this movie one of my favourites.

Red Planet (2000)

Waited for it to improve...

[3/10 · 25 January 2002]

...but it didn't.

Two actors whose work I enjoy - Terence Stamp and Val Kilmer - couldn't save this rather poor story from its lack of characterization and its many scientific errors.

In case anyone thinks "Well, so what?", I'd just like to remind them that this genre is SCIENCE fiction and so it should go without saying that you need to get the science right - or at least believable. The misuse of the term Nematodes (non-segmented worms) had me groaning, quite apart from the rest of the gaffes (like the wrong symbolic letters for the amino acids involved in DNA).

I'd almost swear there was a hidden agenda here - the spiritual comments coupled with the poor science shriek of something being (not quite) peddled, as if someone wanted to do a bit of science-bashing but couldn't quite get their facts straight. I half expected the old (and very wrong) chestnut about Man being descended from monkeys to be hauled out for an airing... (The suggestion is that Man and Apes have a common ancestor, in case you were wondering).

Terence Stamp always does an excellent job of being Bad, so it was a little disconcerting to find him as a philosopher here - a little like finding Bob Hoskins, the best London gangster ever, in a movie as a priest (A Prayer for the Dying).

I'd have found this film a little more credible if Terence had been an antagonist, but perhaps he was trying out a new persona. He managed that quite well, I thought, in Priscilla, Queen of the Desert (another Oz-based movie).

Since the film was shot on location in Coober Pedy in Australia, my guess is that Val Kilmer's red face may have been partly due to the climate, but either way it was a departure from his usual good-looks type roles and an interesting experiment if it was.

Carrie-Anne Moss I remember from the Matrix (a movie that merits being seen several times in order to understand everything clearly, which isn't the case for this film) but this was no Matrix role for her. Somehow her character wasn't quite believable - nothing like Sigourney Weaver's Ripley in Alien et seq.

The film also lacked the kind of macho action (not my favorite) that might have been expected from the writers, given their credits - not a patch on Predator or Terminator, although in some respects the elements were there (just not exploited).

All in all, not an atrocious movie (not so bad as to be B-A-D), but not a really good piece of entertainment either.

2001: A Space Travesty (2000)

Not as good as it should have been

[1/10 · 13 January 2002]

This movie is probably not intended to be viewed by American or British audiences, despite the presence of two of my favourite actors - Leslie Nielsen and Peter Egan.

The style of acting here is more usually seen in movies intended for French, German or Italian audiences, where slapstick and exaggerated movements, associated more with the silent era, are still popular faire.

This is definitely not of the same calibre as Police Squad, Airplane, Naked Gun or Dracula: Dead and Loving It - which is a little surprising, given Leslie Nielsen's credit as co-writer.

The movie begins fairly strongly but then disintegrates rapidly, running out of steam and containing bizarre 'filler' scenes to the end (check out the condoms stuck to the beard scene - this should have ended up on the cutting room floor along with its sequel).

That's sad, because it could have been a contender (and should have been, having ridden on Nielsen's name). I strongly suspect this was an STV (Straight To Video) offering aimed at a specific European audience, and the credits do tend to bear this out - my guess is that most of the other actors are probably well-known outside the States and the UK (I know I've never heard of or seen them before).

However, it's not a terrible movie (I've seen very much worse) and if you like the style of acting found in French, German or Italian farces then you'll enjoy this one.