Reviews

Interesting series. Each half-hour episode presents two documentary style stories about people who got into a high-speed car chase with the police. Usually they have serious outstanding warrants, or are in possession of a stolen car, or drugs, or stolen goods, and make the bad decision to try to outrun the cops. They use real camera footage; some scenes, especially when the perp abandons the vehicle and runs on foot, might involve recreations. Which is fine. Helicopter footage is often put to good use in such cases.

I always wonder if they ever consider that their car has a license plate, so unless it's stolen, they're going to be tracked down eventually even if they get away. I've watched about two dozen stories so far and not one "perp" has escaped capture. Maybe they don't show those! Would be interesting to see what happens if they do evade immediate capture.

It can be a bit repetitive, especially if you binge-watch, but still quite interesting. They do interview both the perp and the police officers involved. It's instructive to see how variable the sentences are which are imposed on the miscreants. Unless there are drugs or serious outstanding warrants, the penalties "just" for the chase run from 90 days to maybe 2 years, which seems pretty light to me considering the potential risks to innocents when a car is moving at 100-140 mph while being chased by multiple police cars. In fact, I'm surprised how often the police elect to chase, despite the danger to other drivers and civilians. A lot of these chases run thru city and rural streets and roads and it's only good luck that we don't see passersby killed. The police sometimes use a "pit maneuver" (new term to me!), which basically involves putting the miscreant's car into a spin by pressing the front of the police car against one side of the target's rear bumper. This causes the suspect's vehicle to spin out and I would think this could lead to a really hazardous situation for anyone nearby.

You do get the occasional episodes that are a bit different such as the guy who was speeding to get his pregnant wife to the hospital, which ends with the police officer delivering the baby right on the roadside. No penalty there, not even a speeding ticket. There's also the woman who stops taking her medicine and starts hallucinating about a bomb in her car which will explode if she slows down, like the movie SPEED. No penalty there either (other than 90 days being evaluated in a psych unit) although she was probably at high risk to be shot until the police realized she was sick rather than criminal.

In many cases, the police don't even know WHY the miscreant is running; i find it kind of hard to justify a high-speed chase then, especially since they could possibly use the license number to track down the person later. Even if the perp gets away, maybe that's better than having an innocent person run down accidentally during the chase. I'm watching one episode right now where the perp is throwing paint cans and hardware out the window on the freeway to discourage pursuit and I imagine this would be real dangerous for any driver. Might be time to just let him go...

Final comment: it's amusing how some perps use police type language during their. Interviews, words like "pursuit", "intoxication", "flee" or "incarcerate" instead of "chase", "drunk", "run" or "jail." Maybe that comes from spending days listening to lawyers and cops talking during their trials?

I do recommend this series if it sounds like your kind of thing. Only one season with 13 episodes in 2008, apparently, so maybe it didn't go over so well. Dunno why, much better than some shows that last multiple seasons.

The rather weak ending seems to want to leave us with the message "Could anyone be more screwed than Keanu!?"

Yeah, it's lousy to have his wife and kids come home to the nightmare his life became overnight. But... he was clearly attacked and assaulted. I'm sure he has a big bruise from being conked on the head and probably various scratches and other signs of attack. Probably more scratches than typical from voluntarily aggressive sex play. The evidence should support his story of involuntary fornication!

The girls have admitted to being 18 or older. And the video they posted on his Facebook page shows him bound to the bed. He can always deny he's a fetishist and just claim that everything was forced upon him, which sounds somewhat plausible based on the condition the house has been left in. The vandalism should be easy to pin on them based off handscrawling analysis and fingerprints. Plus didn't the two girls effectively kill the assistant who came by to get the wife's art by withholding his inhaler? That's on them, for sure. Plus Keanu didn't bury himself in the ground up to his neck! (False imprisonment? Maybe even kidnapping??) They're going to have a lot of "splaining" to do if the cops catch up with them and they don't seem the type to be able to vanish quietly into the mists. I'd suggest double insanity pleas and maybe visiting the judge after hours if they get bail.

Yes, it will take some mighty fast-talking by Keanu to get out of this mess with survivable damage. But he has plenty of time to work on his story as he gets dug out of the ground. Don't forget, in his defense, there's a record he called for a ride for the girls the night before to get them the heck out of his house, too. He wouldn't have done that if he was planning a night of debauchery!

Wasn't a total loss for Keanu. At least they left him with a better haircut.

BTW, who ever names a dog "Monkey"? What's up with that?!

This is an easy take but far from perfect and it's true the books are much better, in my opinion, and I've read them at least twice. This is usually the case with video adaptations, isn't it?

However, the series is worth viewing as entertainment and especially to see Bridget Regan. The producer and director must have realized this since the camera hovers over her face, torso and body in most scenes. She is gorgeous! I like when the little psychic kid assures the Seeker that she'd be receptive to what's on his mind. Uh... with the looks the two leads exchange you don't need to be psychic to realize that!

But what's painfully cringe-worthy are the utterly stupid choices the heroes make, especially The Seeker. He endangers his great mission at every turn by helping out passersby, most of whom prove themselves to be entirely UNworthy, even criminally so. Giving him the Sword of Truth and the mission to confront the bad guy is like handing a hair-trigger 357 Magnum to a 5-year old!

Of course the enemy forces balance the stupidity with their own atrocious tactics. Like when a gang of them attack the Seeker and the Confessor, they're sure to attack in singles and pairs, thus allowing the two heroes to dispatch them sequentially and totally negate the numerical advantage. And nary a bow and arrow is ever utilized, which maybe even our brave heroes might have trouble fending off, especially if the wizard isn't around. Or how about spears!?

It's still very enjoyable though, in the same way that microwave popcorn with artificial butter flavoring is enjoyable. If you want fresh-popped with real churned butter, then read the books!

I'm a sucker for realistic movies set in foreign locales so that's why I gave this 4 stars. It has that much going for it. But the story is ponderously slow and the language barriers between the Germans and Bulgarians really cripples the development of a story. Like others have asked, why didn't the German construction company send a translator, especially after it's discovered there might be a problem requiring tapping the water supply feeding 3 local villages? How about a phrase book or translation dictionary? Something! You got a crew of workmen unable to continue their tasks because of a water problem and it might help to resolve it if your crew could communicate even minimally with the locals.

Not sure of the era but couldn't they call someone who can translate or even have brought along a German-Bulgarian dictionary? I feel that the inability to communicate is essential to the story so no effort is made to assist the characters in communicating. I mean, these aren't aliens from different planets. There are ways to communicate with those who speak another earthly language!

Do Bulgarians really dislike Germans so much? Some have posted here that Germany "occupied" Bulgaria in WW2 but my understanding is they were allies (or at least co-belligerents) and other than maybe some German troops defending a German base set in Bulgaria during the war I don't think the Germans "occupied" Bulgaria like they did Poland and many other subjugated European countries. I'm not sure here and I'd love to hear a native of the country enlighten us. I guess this might also depend on WHEN this movie is supposed to be set. It's not clear to me what era we're looking at. I'm trying to recall if I ever saw any cell phones...

It's odd that at times (when the glacially-paced plot absolutely requires it to advance) the Germans seem to understand something a Bulgarian is saying, even when the amateur sign language used still appears totally inadequate. It's like the idea that if someone doesn't understand your language, repeat LOUDER and they'll get it! Only here they don't really speak any louder... the dialogue is usually very soft-spoken. They just repeat the same word multiple times and "eureka!" the other side gets it. Watch it and you will see what I mean. More realistic would have been for someone to find an old heavily-thumbed translation dictionary! Or introduce a village elder who knows a smattering of German from wartime days. (I figured that was happening when the toothless old grandma makes an appearance at a dinner but no such luck.)

The "hero" Meinhard casts vague echos of Clint Eastwood's "Man with No Name" but that's about as close as this gets to being a "Western." (Quiet, tall, thin, brooding, smokes a lot, doesn't really get along with others, man of few words, drinks, likes horses, etc.) Other than that, I really don't understand the title. IMO this is NOT a "western" even in the most loosely metaphoric use of the term. One white horse does not make a western!

Honestly, it's so slow. I stopped watching with about 20 minutes to go and came here to find out if I missed anything in the last bit. Um.. doesn't look like it. I mean, I'm not looking for a machine gun battle, or even a bloody knife fight but "something" please! Does the project continue? Does someone find a phrase book? Do they unite their efforts and dig a well? Does the horse get a saddle? Something!?

(Re the horse: notice how the hero kind of steals the horse from the thin teenage kid. I mean the kid is riding it when Meinhard first encounters it and he grabs the bridle and forces the kid off. It's not clear at this point that the horse is "free" to anyone and it looks later like it belongs to one of the locals. Even Eastwood didn't rustle horses from innocent kids! The horse being white and all is probably a metaphor for something but I hesitate to guess.)

This movie does do a good job showing the essential dullness of life sometimes. But I watch movies to escape a bit from real life for an hour or two and this movie doesn't do it---for me, at least. YMMV. If you love art-housey type movies that would never go over in suburban theaters, then this may well be YOUR cup of tea.

The guy's name is TYLER but the movie is called TYREL.

Is there meaning to this? Or, as incredible as it sounds, did they just mis-name the movie?

Early in the movie one of the white guys calls him TYRONE, if I recall correctly, and I figured that this might be an ongoing "dis" where the white guys keep calling him by the wrong name and the movie title was working off that. But this isn't the case.

The movie does lay some vaguely interesting false trails. For example, I figured once everyone starts drinking and then playing with fire, throwing large flammable objects into the fireplace, something bad was going to happen and the movie would turn horrific. Especially with the birthday boy appearing to look like a redneck. But it never turns at all. And the birthday boy isn't a redneck, in fact he seems to be a (boring) decent guy.

Where do I send my bill to get an hour-and-a-half of my life back?

I enjoyed this film but it's not perfect. I do think it's longer than it needs to be There is some serious violence although none of it is really extreme and, as my stranger/neighbor seated near me at the theatre said at the end, "not like it's out of place."

There are some implausibilities. Like the heroine's horse. It's explained early on that even though she's still technically indentured her husband has completed his sentence and is working for himself and was able to buy her a horse, complete with saddle, saddlebags, holster for the rifle, etc. They make clear at one point that this is a very valuable asset since she offers to sell it for "ten pounds" and give the proceeds to the aboriginal if he helps her, emphasizing that with that much money, he wouldn't have to work again (I do believe she makes that statement.)

(Also in the course of several days journeying we never see them feeding or watering said mount. Maybe all this occurred off-screen but since our heroes regularly discuss the need to find food for themselves, I'm not sure they had any for the horse, especially when at one point she loses the small bag that evidently did have some supplies.)

In any case, it's clear that a personal mount is very valuable SINCE NOBODY ELSE SEEMS TO HAVE ONE, not even the lieutenant and his underlings when they undertake a hazardous journey in pursuit of his promotion. Not even the other "chain gangs" she runs into en route when she pursues them. It seems like the horse is a plot necessity so she can escape from the dangers she encounters en route, which she does more than once. This seems contrived to me. It's beyond me why British officers serving in the Tasmanian outback would not have access to horses. Other than that this would have undermined the story.

I also don't understand why she is left alive after the soldiers kill her husband and baby. In fact, the ensign is ordered by the lieutenant to kill her yet he only hits her with the butt of his rifle, and she wakes up a day later to the nightmare her life has become. If these soldiers are ready to rape her in front of her husband, kill him and then kill her baby to stop it crying, it's clear they wouldn't have hesitated to kill her as well. In fact, that was the lieutenant's stated intention. Well, I do understand why she is left alive... the writer would not have had a story to tell, but it does seem improbable. And that troubles this viewer.

The ending is enigmatic, and there's no way to avoid that since this wasn't going to end well for her, after being involved in the murders of two soldiers in their rooms and really having no way to escape justice. If the film ran a few more minutes, it would have to depict her being hanged.

The only character who maybe survives to enjoy the remains of a happy life is maybe... her horse?

The cinematography is excellent, the scenery beautiful and haunting in spots and the music and singing do contribute greatly to the story . A film well worth viewing, IF you can tolerate some rough rape scenes and some bloody shooting and stabbing. Watch the credits since they explain that apparently a Tasmanian language was created for the movie, based on a "real" language. Interesting..

A wonderful show, a real-life version of the James Herriot series, All Creatures Great and Small. In some ways even better than the original since this series is real life without any actors. Both vets Julian and Peter are appealing in their own ways, Julian as the slightly shy but endearing younger vet and Peter as the older and a bit more jocular older vet, who actually trained under the original James Herriot in the practice that was the basis for the "little dog and cat stories" that became so phenomenally popular.

I too find myself wondering why they don't wear masks to do surgery, and often don't even wear gloves. Maybe this is is standard veterinary practice in England but is seems counter-intuitive. I guess it's possible for filming operations they substitute mask-free scenes so the viewers can better identify with the vets performing the operation. Just a guess. I have to presume they wouldn't endanger real animals for production reasons so there has to be a good explanation.

An excellent series that I can't recommend highly enough. Thoroughly captivating and enjoyable. I'd go 11 if I could!

I watched Deliverance when it first came out, and have viewed it several times over the years since including just now, and it remains one of the greatest films I've ever seen. The acting excels, the scenery is superb and the drama and tension over the top. The torturous debating about whether they should tell the police what happened is so intense and plausible and it's entirely believable that the one guy couldn't handle the stress and effectively tried to kill himself in despair by not putting on hit life vest. In fact the first couple/three times I watched I did think that's how he died but now I realize he was actually shot by one of the hillbillies taking revenge. Interesting twist, either way.

All the actors are great, including even Peckinpah as the toothy sherriff. One of Reynolds' very best efforts, played appropriately understated compared to a lot of his gangbuster type roles.

Interesting, a rare movie almost entirely devoid of females. A story of men among men!

Conleth Hill does a lot better job at being nefarious and stealthy in Game of Thrones!

The basic premise is interesting, especially how his addiction to the adrenaline-fueled buzz of shoplifting is somehow connected to the childhood experiences which are foundational for the book he writes (in theory) and brings him success as a writer, instructor and TV personality. I actually wish they had explored the roots of his shoplifting obsession more.

But the plot is undermined by the basic fact that blackmailers using audio or video tapes can---and probably almost assuredly do, if they have any brains---make extra copies of the goods so the victim can't just break into their apartment and steal the evidence. Beyond that it's incredible beyond belief that the victim will play burglar, dress all in black and break into the blackmailer's pad to steal the evidence and then forget entirely that it might be wise to wear a mask since the blackmailer is a SECURITY GUARD whose already demonstrated his skills with video surveillance!

Killing the blackmailer and dumping the corpse into a body of water, now that's a smarter move, especially when it's made clear the blackmailer has no friends and has most conveniently written a note which would presumably satisfy his employer as to the reason for his sudden disappearance. However a deus ex machina kicks in and the victim-now-murdered finds the cord wrapped around the corpse to be also wrapped around his own foot and gets dragged down into the water depths... poetic justice indeed for a writer with very bad writing habits!

The actor doing the blackmailing does a very good job. He's not over the top and he conveys well the sense that he doesn't really understand why he is not establishing a legitimate friendship with his victim.

I watched this film for Katee who is the quintessence of sexiness. Loved her in Longmire. But even she has a hard time making this palatable. The law enforcement storyline is pretty unbelievable, as other reviewers have pointed out. I also wondered what's with SWAT taking so long to show up and the cop allowing a random Marine to take over the scene! I wonder if the budget for this movie was so tight they had no money for 4 extra guys in SWAT gear.

The worst was at the end when the psychopath forces Katee to take the gun, hoping to bait her into shooting him and fulfill his death wish: "death by amore." But the cop shows up and orders the psycho to the floor. Katee drops the gun to the floor, WITHIN TWO FEET OF THE PSYCHO and walks away. The cop keeps pointing his gun at the psycho but makes no effort to secure the pistol lying right on the floor within arm's reach of the psycho. To emphasize the situation the camera pans back and forth more than once between the gun on the floor and the prone psycho's eyes looking intently at the gun. Finally the psycho makes a move for the gun and the cop kills him. I can't perceive this script having enough depth to believe that the cop intended to let the psycho make that move so he could kill him. If that had been the writer's intent the camera would have panned from gun on floor to psycho's eyes to cop's eyes---about five times! No, the writing just had the cop make no effort to secure the gun nor to handcuff the psycho! Aren't these the first things cops do in such situations on every cop show?! And probably IRL too!

I suggest a better ending by far would have Katee shoot the psycho, since they had established that she had a lot of turmoil in her upbringing, she was seeing a shrink herself and her own brain scans were showing signs of Charles Manson-like psychosis! But it would take real creative daring to have her kill the psycho (such as rarely seen in a daytime TV movie), despite his deserving it. He had committed multiple murder at this point including killing Katee's teacher/mentor and one of her students, both in cold blood and right in front of her. I'd call this justifiable homicide!

If they ever decide to remake this movie they're free to use MY alternate ending... NO CHARGE!

See this movie if you like Katee Sackhoff... but that's really about all the reasons I can offer myself. It's reason enough though if you're a fan...

I've watched both seasons and I enjoyed the series and don't regret watching them. But the feminist agenda, mentioned by some others posting here, is glaring enough at times to detract seriously from the story lines. For the most part Happy Valley presents female characters as almost invariably competent, virtuous (from a feminist perspective, of course) and smart while the males are all incompetent, criminal or malicious. Yes, there are exceptions. But even the "bad" females seem to have justifications, such as Royce's sucker fiancé who is a "victim" of his seductive good looks. Can anyone identify ONE admirable male in the 12 episodes?

Great example: Catherine and a male cop are chasing the murderer toward the train tracks. Now I'm sure Catherine is in semi-decent shape from chasing bad guys all the time but she is still a chunky middle-aged woman yet she's gaining on the bad guy, who appears to be slim and in very good shape. Even worse, the cop who's with her, who is much younger and in better shape than Catherine, not only doesn't he appear to be able to catch up, he even falls splat on his face!

Catherine finally catches up to the murderer on a road overpass and he climbs onto the wall ostensibly intending to kill himself. It's not all that high, as Catherine warns him, and he's likely just to break his legs. But after some back-n-forth which fails to convince him, he falls backwards, lands onto a passing car and presumably manages to kill himself despite the relatively short distance. This is all observed by a pack of cops who are down below watching the action above them.

Now in all that time do you think these cops might think to CLOSE THE ROAD to save a passing motorist from perhaps also being KILLED by the falling suicide? No, but they were too busy watching Catherine fail to convince him not to jump. Indeed, this appears to be one of the rare times that Catherine fails at anything, being the supremely competent female star of this series, although it isn't really much of a failure since the suicide was a nasty man who had murdered a woman with which he was having an affair and to whom he refused to pay 1000 pounds a month in extortion for breaking off the affair.

Nonetheless, an enjoyable watch if you can get past the feminist agenda and the occasional examples of poor scripting.

Other reviewers here have noted the great unlikelihood thank Frank would pursue this Middle East deal with Russia. That's script content that could be debated and it's fun to do so. I'm targeting the ludicrous plot twist in which the First Lady spends the night in a Russian prison cell with an imprisoned activist WHO HANGS HIMSELF WITH THE FIRST LADY'S SCARF unbeknownst to anybody, including the First Lady sleeping in a cot nearby. Now maybe she is a deep sleeper and, despite spending the night in a Russian prison, is so deep in slumber she can't sense him stealing her scarf, climbing up the bars on the window and hanging himself.

Even a man bent on suicide by self-strangulation will likely react involuntarily and make considerable noise in his death throes, but let's allow the writer that degree of suspension of disbelief. But do we REALLY believe both the U.S. Secret Service AND the Russian security people would leave the First Lady of the United States unattended and alone in a prison cell with a man who they must all consider to be, however possibly noble, a bit unhinged? Heck, the last thing either side wants is a suicide so even if they weren't concerned about Claire, one would think they'd both pay careful attention to the well-being of the activist, at least until the President and his wife board Air Force One and leave Moscow.

While watching this with my jaw dropping I postulated that the only HOPE to save this episode was for it to be disclosed afterwards that Frank, Claire and Petrov had made a devil's pact to string up the activist and make it look like a suicide, to do away with the guy's demands about refusing to be repatriated and insisting on a trial. That plot twist would still have been amateurish writing but it would have been far more consistent with the amoral pragmatism of all parties involved. For us to believe that an amoral murderess like Claire would suddenly start "doing the right thing" because of concerns for gay rights in Russia.... well it just doesn't work.

Good show, mediocre third season... horrible, ludicrous episode.

Come on! If you be a gangsta, man, and you have your homies check everyone who visits your home for weapons.... especially a big bad killa like Ray Donovan.... don't you check the bag full of money that he's bringing you for a weapon? How did Cookie live past his teen years letting his crew make stupid mistakes like that? I can't even let this go without comment for the benefit of the story since there are probably two dozen ways Ray could have snuck a weapon in, or found another way or spot to kill Cookie, without having to rely on Cookie's thugs being that stupid.

Overall, though, Season 2 was a non-stop roller coaster ride---even better than Season 1. Writers did a great job of maintaining a breakneck pace loaded with twists, turns, surprises and suspense. Which makes dropping the ball on a plot device like this all the more glaringly lame.

Love the characters and atmosphere, so a new episode of Foyle's War's default minimum rating gets a 6 from me. I can't do any better than that for the story because it really isn't very good.

Implausibility rules here. For example, once again using Sam as an undercover operative in a clearly dangerous situation (men have already been murdered) is entirely unbelievable. To top it off, she has to be a LIVE-IN companion to the old American billionaire! She's a married woman! How does she explain this to her husband, the long-suffering chauvinistic MP? Well, she doesn't have to because the writes conveniently supply her with an excuse to leave home when she catches her husband in the clinch with one of his constituents. She must have been relieved to have a good excuse because she doesn't pause to give him a chance to explain that he was just consoling the woman over the loss of her job. (This storyline is conveniently abandoned at this point, making clear that feminism and equal rights to work were not high priorities in post-WW2 Britain.) The whole story was entirely too predictable, which is surprising for a Foyle's War episode; earlier episodes kept me guessing to the final denouement. I mean, the moment they told us one of a series of photos taken before the war in Nazi Germany, pictures of businessmen with Himmler, it didn't take a genius---or a Mr. Foyle---to figure out that an American businessman was compromised and trying to cover up the mess.

This story could have been done in a half hour, regrettably.

Two more episodes to go, and to review. I sure hope they get better!

I found this episode to be above the already high standard for this series. The opening tragedy, triggered by an apparently drunk-driving mom who kills herself, one of her children and both of her nieces by driving at reckless speed and the wrong way onto a highway ramp is quite shocking and mysterious. The only reason I suspected there was more than meets the eye here is because every episode of L&O deals with pre-meditated murder, not a drunk driving "accident." The skilled writers of this excellent show usually foretell the main story line with subtle hints in the early scenes and that happens here when they introduce the grieving father's cancer-afflicted mother. At first it just looks all the burdens of the world are being dumped on this poor guy.

An earlier post here is wrong about Anita's own condition being unknown to her colleagues. She did indeed inform them in an earlier episode since her treatments would require considerable time away from work. What the brave woman does not want is showy sympathy and pity. This is why the detectives show pleasure at the fact that she has regained her appetite, but they do it subtly. It's been made clear in earlier episodes that she was struggling with being able to eat, due to chemo. You can see their affection for her and how they struggle with supporting her without offending her. She's a great actress and it's quite apparent in these episodes.

It's not usual to rate L&O "up for humor but this episode has the funniest scene in the 20-year run of the show, and it comes right at the end. I broke out into laughter while using my treadmill, which is my habit watching L&O. My wife was next door and poked her head in to ask if I was still watching L&O! The trial is hung and Cutter and Rubirosa visit McCoy to give him an update on what's happened subsequently. They inform Jack that the reality show producers are moving the suspected wife-killer, his family along with the "Septo-Mom" and her family into a mansion and putting a new spin on the show where both families will compete to show which of the parents is the killer. The audience gets to vote and they're recruited ARTHUR BRANCH as the TV judge! McCoy's expression is one of complete incredulity as he inquires, "You're kidding, right?" It's a great negative statement on reality shows as well as perhaps a not-so-subtle dig at the actor who played Branch, who went on to do ads for reverse mortgages and other products I can't remember right now.

Funny stuff!

A cast-ful of talent wasted on this tedious bit of desert "pseudo-film-noire." The plot's been covered at length here so just a few thoughts:

1. All the bills in a bag full of money are ENTIRELY DESTROYED by one shotgun blast? Really? This is a critical plot device because the whole movie depends on Sean Penn becoming penniless and "trapped" inside Superior, Arizona. And what happened to all the "money debris" that was floating around this store after the robbery? Oh, note that 3 $100 bills did survive because Penn gives those to the shop-owner so she'll keep mum about his presence during the robbery. C'mon, he could have least picked up the pieces and pasted together enough money to pay for his car repair ($200) and get the heck out of "Dodge."

2. Billy Bob Thorton is a hoot, as usual when he plays ugly, disgusting characters, which appears to be his natural forte. Covered head-to-toe with grey oil stains and smiling through hideously rotten teeth, he's the only major character in this film that we do NOT see enough of. He's got some great funny lines, too, like at one point when Penn calls him every name in the book, he responds with "Are those insults? Are you insulting me?" Penn gets what he deserves with the rude, insulting treatment he renders to the only guy for 50 miles who can fix his broken radiator hose.

3. A young Claire Danes is enjoyable to watch as the teen-aged girl friend of an obnoxious and blowhard Joaquin Phoenix, who gets his butt kicked by Penn after accusing Penn of coming onto his girlfriend. These secondary scenes are actually more enjoyable to watch than the main action.

4. As for what happens to Penn's character in the end... all I can say is "Stupid Is as Stupid Does."

I generally enjoy war movies, particularly WW2, and I'm not obsessively fanatical about true-to-life details. But this movie is just not very good.

It starts out with great potential. The new lieutenant's introduction to the dangers of the British 88's, where he burns one of his "three miracles" definitely grabs one's attention. The sniper incident is also interesting. The soldier's personalities are sympathetic and you do come to care for them.

But there is a bit too much lack of realism. The scene with Mussolini's horse is absolutely ridiculous. While it's evidently true that El Duce had his horse (which was white, not black as shown here) sent to Africa in order to ride it in a triumphal march into Egypt, I very much doubt it was loaded into an ordinary army truck strewn with hay and driven around aimlessly by a couple of lost-and-clueless Italian truck drivers! The other truck was loaded with shoe polish so the soldiers could polish up their boots for the event... pull the other one! There are also too many scenes of soldiers traveling through the desert hatless and with minimal gear... at times without even a canteen. In the desert of North Africa you're not getting far without head protection and without water. The actors aren't even particularly tanned... without hats their heads would be sun-burnt! Beyond issues of realism, which can be dismissed in pursuit of a good story... well, there isn't really a good story. The Italians are bombed presumably by the Brits (who are hardly ever seen) and they get their butts kicked, but any battle scenes are left to the imagination in mostly dark shots of night fighting with bombs exploding in the distance. I'm guessing the budget didn't allow for scenes of tank battles, although that would have been nice to include in a movie about a WW2 front where battles between tanks were the essence of strategy and tactics.

The film does give a sense of the hot white emptiness of the desert battle front but beyond that it's rather tedious. By halfway thru the movie I was counting the minutes to the end.

Any episode of Foyle's War with this much focus on Sam is sure to be enjoyable. But enlisting Sam as the undercover agent to investigate black market hijacking of rationed gasoline requires some serious suspension of disbelief. Diversion of strictly controlled gasoline from military and critical civilian needs to the black market was a serious crime in WW2 England, perhaps even a capital offense. IRL Sam would be risking her life going undercover in this way and what made the story all the more unbelievable is the thought that Foyle would even permit her involvement. Incredibly, she uses her real name in her undercover job and she's working in an area where she's somewhat known and has acquaintances in the area, as shown by the fact that her cover is nearly blown when Foyle's son, in his capacity as an RAF pilot, visits the fuel facility and recognizes her. Sam going undercover makes for some interesting plot developments but bottom line it's a bit too "comic book" for a series as typically well-written and plausible as Foyle's War.

As with some other episodes of this excellent series an episode which is thoroughly enjoyable and intriguing to watch, due to superior acting and captivating atmosphere, is undermined because of an embarrassingly weak plot flaw. In this case the entire story revolves around a faulty "slider" on a Spitfire (evidently the part which allows the pilot to exit his plane in a pinch by "sliding" the cockpit window forward) which is the result of the obscene negligence of the murder victim, a thoroughly disreputable chap who beats women, commits extortion, probably deals on the black market and what more is criminally negligent in the performance of his job as an RAF maintenance tech EVEN WHEN THE PROBLEM HAS BEEN POINTED OUT TO HIM MORE THAN ONCE. And by Foyle's son, no less, the handsome RAF fighter pilot.

Andrew ends up going AWOL because his best friend has to use his Spitfire (with the still-unfixed slider) to go on a very dangerous mission and is hideously burned in a crash, mainly because the slider fails and he can't escape fast enough to avoid the flames.

What's the plot flaw here? Andrew knew about the bad slider. He TOLD the mechanic to fix it. Andrew's commander knew about it. How hard would it have been to verify that the jerk had done his job and fixed the darn slider BEFORE his best buddy went on this dangerous mission? I can think of many ways to eliminate this horrible plot weakness while retaining the essence of the plot: such as making the faulty part more subtle, less detectable until subject to stress, etc. As it was written it's a deplorably inadequate device which stands out as a glaring flaw in an otherwise thoroughly enjoyable story of crime in WW2 England. I love Foyle's War. I'm critical here because the stories DESERVE to be better!

Michael Moriarty's final episode---so the story goes he was dropped from the series due to a dispute with Janet Reno about violence on TV. (No idea how accurate this is.) In the series he supposedly resigns out of guilt as ADA because a woman he pressured to testify against a Russian mob hit man is assassinated as she's moving into witness protection.

Interestingly, four episodes before in the episode Sanctuary he hints to Adam Schiff that he might have to quit because that he may not be able to tolerate the compromises he's forced to make, after Schiff orders him NOT to retry a black youngster whose murder trial of a white man he thought was Jewish ends in a hung jury. THAT incident was a more plausible motivator for Ben Stone to resign since Schiff was forcing him to compromise his principles. The assassination of the witness in this episode comes across as entirely contrived just to rationalize the departure of Moriarty. The mob "hit" occurs as an afterthought (isn't shown, just discussed between the district attorneys) and it seems ludicrous that a hit man could gun down a witness right in the process of being moved out of her home by federal officials. It also seems ludicrous that Stone would react so emotionally; it's been made clear he is a resolute standard-bearer of the law and strict justice and it's doubtful he'd consider he had a choice whether to threaten this woman with a crime if she refused to testify as to what she had seen. He was, after all, "just doing his job" following the dictates of the law. He'd be much more inclined to blame "the feds" for incompetently protecting the woman as she was being moved into witness protection.

You almost wonder if they appended this extra minute of storyline as an afterthought once it was determined that Moriarty wasn't going to come back for the following season.

The closing scene between Schiff and Stone is telling: not sure if the actors might have disliked each other but the characters clearly do as Schiff can't even bring himself to wish the other "well" in his future endeavors and rather than shaking hands, Stone strangely pats the old man on the head, an act seemingly less of affection than of subtle disrespect. Or, maybe I'm reading too much into TV fiction!

This episode is very atypical for several reasons.

First, Logan and Briscoe deal with several unrelated homicides while a clock is ticking down to the start of an evening basketball game for which Briscoe has been fortunate enough to acquire two tickets.

Second, there is really no "Order" part, since no case is ever brought to trial. The ADA's appear briefly in the course of debating whether they have enough evidence against the portly eyeglass-wearing chubby mama's boy who is an unlikely suspect in some serial killings, mainly because he resists disclosing his alibi, a homosexual tryst.

The "mama's boy" is ultimately cleared when his mother discloses this to Logan & Briscoe. The pair of detectives run down to Riker's with a release order for the man, only to discover that he was shanked to death in the prison by another inmate who evidently wanted his sandwich.

Briscoe shows a momentary "spasm" of anger at this injustice but shortly afterward joins Logan in shrugging it off as yet another part of a bad day which dragged on so long that they missed their ballgame.

This episode is troubling because even though law enforcement officials like Logan, Briscoe and Stone are depicted as "somewhat" concerned about prosecuting the wrong person, this doesn't prey on their minds all that much, especially considering that their errors led to this man being slaughtered while ostensibly in the "protection" of a holding cell while awaiting indictment. As much as I greatly enjoy L&O it does bother me that the show regularly depicts the detectives and the prosecutors as very willing to ignore or minimize clearly exculpatory evidence in their all-encompassing drive to complete an arrest and conviction. I'm not naïve enough to believe that law enforcement officials are purely dedicated to serving justice (as opposed to being focused on their rate of "case closure") but I would LIKE to think that having been directly responsible for the violent murder of an entirely innocent suspect, the detectives would be bit more upset about THAT than about missing a basketball game.

But L&O is about nothing if not "real life" so I suppose we should be afraid, very afraid, that this is often what "justice" is all about.

/brrrrrrr

This episode is all about the lead characters' personalities and interactions and nothing about law enforcement in a western town in the 19th century. Yeah, the events are very improbable and arguably contrived. But the interplay between Chester, Matt, Doc and Kitty is intriguing and heart-warming. Especially the finale where Chester, humiliated by the whole situation, apologizes to Matt and promises to reveal the whole truth to his uncle, only to have Matt tell him he'll be fired if he does so. Despite being the U.S. Marshal, Matt Dillon has no overweaning ego and is more than comfortable with pretending to be "Marshal Chester's" flunky, so that Chester can impress an uncle who raised Chester but never thought he'd amount to anything.

Very human, touching episode.

Airing the spring after 9-11 it's clear the writers of this episode want to cast some light on the impact of the homeland "war against terrorism" and the related notion that every American is a combatant in this very irregular armed conflict.

A Special Forces veteran investigates an Arab man with a suspicious background. He's an illegal immigrant, works a minimum-wage job involving learning how to drive a 16-wheeler, has $90,000 in the bank, disguises his name and background and makes calls to Arabic countries on a throwaway phone with references to "family" coming to visit soon, yet makes no effort to prepare for visitors. The veteran takes this as an imminent danger of an attack on NYC and blows up the Arab's building by tampering with the gas line.

The building has multiple units but only the suspected terrorist is killed. Here's where the writer's undermine their own efforts. The controversy behind this episode is supposed to be the argument that every American is a soldier in the war against terrorism and therefore justified in taking action against a terrorist. The writers do throw in the fact that this guy was indeed a terrorist, although the concluding evidence is not discovered until after his killing, further hurting the veteran's defense. But the real damage is done via the means the vet takes to kill "the enemy." Blowing up a multi-unit building in Manhattan, even if he is lucky enough only to kill his target, is not an honorable way to fight. I think the writers did this on purpose to blur the fundamental ethical question of how America needs to deal with "terrorists in our midst." The jury convicts the vet of murder, after 5 hours of deliberation, leading McCoy to conclude that there were initially some votes for acquittal. IRL I think there would have been a lot better chance of acquittal if the killing had been done face-to-face by gunfire, without risking innocent bystanders, especially where the plot makes clear the deceased was indeed an undercover terrorist.

Too bad the writers didn't have the stomach to lay out the fundamental moral issue more plainly.

Too much too fast and too unbelievable is my current judgment on this new series, after watching the latest installment from March 6th.

Sure, it's often a fair criticism of TV series that they develop their ongoing story lines too SLOWLY but The Americans seems to have the reverse problem. Things are happening too fast. For example, check out the most recent episode: The FBI agent is working with the female mole at the Russian embassy who fears for her life because she has heard from the "Resident" at the embassy that the Russians suspect a mole has penetrated their HQ. She confides her fears to the agent and within MINUTES of "TV time" he gets diamonds planted in the Resident's purchase of tea and manages in no time to get the KGB suspicions planted onto the Resident, who is caught with the planted diamonds and then immediately shuffled onto a plane back to "Mother Russia" where presumably a bullet to the back of the head awaits him. Problem solved and mole now safe! Re "unrealism": at the same time the KGB, worrying about the leak, kidnaps its own agents, the couple who are the "heroes" of this series, pretending to be FBI agents and subject them to "torture" (pounding with a phone book, dunking head in water---rather mild tortures by supposed KGB standards) in order to test their loyalty. After a few minutes of this torture, their KGB handler steps in to stop the test, but herself gets beaten up with an inch of her life by Keri Russell, who can't abide having their loyalty suspected---although she herself knows full well that her husband has already confided a desire to defect. Does anyone really believe the KGB would have handled this situation this way, OR would have tolerated their agents attacking and beating up their handlers in response? Worth watching because of the show's total unpredictability but please nobody should pretend that The Americans is in any way a realistic portrayal of the way "spy versus spy" worked back in Reagan Cold War America. If the Russians had been this dumb we would have won the Cold War in the 1950s...