Reviews

OK, so the first episode, expecting a Mandalorian-quality show, was a bit of a let down. Action scenes feel totally lacklustre (though I think this is down to the 'straight-to-video' quality of the music which is a problem during all action scenes throughout the series.

But the series picks up in episode two, and is definitely worth sticking with. Mando and Grogu make very welcome appearances later in the series and do serve to lift the show somewhat.

Cad Bane looks fantastic, but his character is utterly wasted - a great character from the animated shows, and he seems to be given as much screen time strolling in from the distance as he does actually doing anything.

Which leads me to Cobb Vanth's untimely end, which also seems to be a rather throwaway means of tying off a loose end.

The Tusken Raiders look like a bunch of primitives in 'A New Hope', and are characterized as 'animals' by a young Vader, but here they are given a much more interesting treatment, with a clear hierarchy, the simple close-combat weapon given a more complex role, from the way it is earned to the way the warrior is guided to find the wood for it, and then his involvement in the process of making it, and they are respected as warriors by Boba Fett. I like this treatment of Tattouine's desert-dwelling tribes far more than previous characterizations which were all rather racist.

The Quadrophenia-esque support group is a bit disappointing. I like the fact they are all modded - what else would a young person find to do with their time stuck on Tattouine but modify themselves and cause trouble? But the primary coloured scooters decked in mirrors makes them look ridiculous and the show creators seemingly lacking in creativity. The sliding stop made by one of them is poorly presented as well, with her slide bringing her close to the 'camera', the exaggeration of her approach breaks the viewers' suspension of disbelief as it is so obviously and badly done with CGI - it looks horribly unnatural. Otherwise I think their inclusion has value, I just wish it had been done better.

The rancor is quite cool, but since it is absorbing multiple shots from laser turrets and rifles that are capable of destroying buildings, it seems unlikely it'd be so distressed by some light flaming. Mando's contribution to the scene where it is calmed is somewhat pointless, and his armour seems to take more punishment without leaving a mark than it should, judging by the damage the rancor had inflicted previously.

I could go on...

There are numerous problems with this show, and I found them troubling. I saw A New Hope in the cinema when I was 6 years old and have loved the franchise ever since, but I found myself being annoyed with this show from time to time - I mean, not Jar Jar or Fode and Beed level annoyed - there are levels - but still, I was troubled by the issues and found it distracted from the show's better parts.

Still, overall, I enjoyed the The Book of Boba Fett, even if I don't get why it is called 'The Book of', there being no book or any reference to a book, with half the show being Boba Fett's dreams of the past whilst being healed in a Bacta Tank. It's definitely worth watching, and a good addition to the Star Wars universe, if not a great one. I'd like to see more.

The concept has been done to death, and almost every time before so much better.

Repellent main characters having self-important but intrinsically dull conversations in ugly locations. Still I waded through two entire episodes hoping it would get better. it didn't. I just kept hoping she'd stay dead and I wouldn't have to watch any more of it.

I watched this through for the first time now in 2012, and was thoroughly disappointed to learn there would be no more to follow.

I enjoyed it immensely - a 24esque political terrorism thriller, but with the twist that here the terrorists are aliens, and their motivations are conflicted - we move from being sympathetic to their plight, to being completely horrified by them and cheering on those who wish to incarcerate/exterminate them. The way it builds, drawing an ordinary person into playing a pivotal role in such an incredible plot is done thoughtfully and believably.

Unlike other sci-fi shows, the main focus is on the pace of the action, the unfolding of the complex, twisty-turny plot, and personalities of the main protagonists: the flashy, gimmicky effects used in other shows to hide the limited strength of the plot are missing here.

Where alien technology is shown, it is done so carefully, and shows that it has very real limits, but still manages to terrify with the potential outcomes.

I wish there was more to come - I want to know more about what happened in the past, and what will happen in the future, and the roles of the guardians, etc.

The only thing that made me cringe was at the last minute when a planet was drawn to become Earth's neighbour. Everyone felt a bit of a shaky ground and windows. However, if an object so massive was drawn so close to the Earth, that would be a global destruction event in itself - the new gravitational effect against the earth would cause tidal waves, earthquakes, etc. as water and molten lava were attracted towards it, but sine it also wasn't spinning and had no apparent kinetic energy, it's motion once it got there would be difficult to predict - would it crash into the earth, the moon, as it took up a new orbit of its own, or with no apparent existing forces acting upon it, would it just start on a straight trajectory for the sun, messing up the orbit of the moon and the earth as it did so (still pulling on them with its own gravity). Hmmm. Anyway....

That colossal guff ignored, I'd still love to see more of it. I don't understand how shows with such a brilliant story, well-portrayed, and well-liked, are dumped in favour of crap viewing. So unfortunate. Still, if you haven't already seen this, go get it on DVD and you won't be disappointed.

So many people slam this movie because of the, ahem, *creative* history of employed, some because they simply can't bear the thought of any slur against 'the immortal bard'. I don't think they're giving this film a fair crack.

As a movie, I think it's actually rather good. It has everything a good Shakespeare play has, and Shakespeare himself wasn't above twisting history to his literary advantage.

I found issues with the way Elizabeth was portrayed, unable to make her own decisions, dithering and rather foolish. She was actually off the chart smart; spoke four languages fluently, regarded by all Christendom as a formidable stateswoman, and kept a position of immense power whilst being plotted against on all sides. Elizabeth I was nobody's fool. Having said that, Vanessa Redgrave's performance was compelling, and her wizened visage a good match for an aged Elizabeth (who maintained a pale complexion by rubbing white lead into her face, which over time ate at her skin rather cruelly), but - when will Elizabeth ever be portrayed on film with the black and missing teeth which made her diction difficult to comprehend? Incidentally, Elizabeth has also been blamed for writing Shakespeare's plays at one time or another. Nonsense, of course.

Shakespeare, one of Elizabeth's favourites, is portrayed as a vulgar, ignorant brute, who even murdered Kit Marlowe (who was killed in a bar fight, and whilst the reason for the fight is suspect, it definitely wasn't Shakespeare he was fighting with)! A curious friend to such a highly intellectual head of state. I think this film could have been made without assaulting the character of Shakespeare to this extent.

Whilst I found some of the characters unconvincing, the portrayal of those characters was done well. Except for the foppish Jamie Campbell Bower, fresh from an equally limp performance as King Arthur (and I expect the main reason that show didn't get a second season): he is his usual effeminate and ineffective self, and simply doesn't pass muster as a tough guy that Elizabethan noble women would have swooned over.

I did enjoy the scene with the Earl writing the name of Shakespeare in different ways - an interesting alternate explanation for the presence of this genuine document, which is normally considered to be a poseur's attempt at portraying himself in the best possible way, with multiple different spellings of his name (though to be honest, we've probably all done that when fist composing a signature that we keep for the rest of our lives).

And was Shakespeare really responsible for writing 37 plays, 154 sonnets, and at least 4 other poems? Probably he didn't write them all - it's entirely likely that several were incorrectly attributed to him. Not least because the sheer volume of work is frankly impressive if written in prose, but compounded by the much enhanced difficulty of writing the whole lot in iambic pentameter - it defies belief.

How did a poor playwright actually have such a fantastic classical education that allowed him to write (mostly) accurate historical plays? How did such a prolific playwright also find the time to prepare and perform the plays himself in London, and run a business as a Stratford grain merchant? I suspect that mistakes were made and the personages and works of several people have been inadvertently rolled into one (which Graham Phillips has been asserting since 1994), but many of the premises from this 1920 theory simply don't hold water.

Nevertheless, what difference does it make? I think this is one major point the film has against it - who really cares if it was one person or ten people who wrote in similar ways, written by princes (earls?) or paupers? I take the movie as a story in its own right - it's beautifully staged, well acted, and by turns shocks and amuses. Despite glaring errors in characterization and historic fact, it does manage to draw you in and think about it well after the film has ended - which in these days of 90 minute movies that I can't remember an hour after I saw them, I consider to be pleasing bang per buck, and the positive and negative discussions after the fact are all extra entertainment value, and I can't actually remember having witnessed so much controversy about a movie's storyline in my whole life!

Or as Shakespeare (or whomever) once said:

'Go hence, to have more talk of these sad things; Some shall be pardon'd, and some punished'

And, indeed, we have...

It seems to me that anyone watching this will probably have already seen the original 1987 Predator starring Arnold Schwarzenegger, and probably most of the other movies featuring the predator race. If that's true, then you've nothing to gain by seeing this - those who suggest it's new material must have seen a different movie.

In the previews, a big deal is made about how this film is different - new super predators, multiple alien species, takes place on an alien planet, etc. Sadly, the differences are actually minimal, and this is simply a study in plagiarism.

Largely military personnel are cut down by a group of predators. Sorry, super predators. You can tell the difference because they're a few inches taller, have bigger teeth, and their shoulder mounted canons have a different special effect. Should have spotted that.

They're in a jungle. Oh, but not an earth jungle (despite one character recognising and naming the plant life from his knowledge of Earth based plants - incidentally, allegedly a doctor, not a botanist, which is a curiosity in itself).

When you add to this mix one female member of the group to match the mix in the original, the predator whispers from the first movie (not used in a similar way, the same words, which the predator copied from hearing Mac say them in the first movie, but are not spoken by humans in this one...), the same lines being delivered by the main characters as Arnie used, precise duplications of specific camera shots, similar traps as Arnie made towards the end of the first movie, and a final battle between a mud covered human and the last remaining predator, and so on, and so forth.

Yes, there are some differences. For instance, the action starts almost right away, with no chance to meet the main characters and know anything about them as happens in the first, they are just thrown into the action and left to fend for themselves, with nothing but some crap dialogue and, oh, magically, a similar assortment of weapons as Arnie's team.

I watched aghast as the characters are slaughtered one by one. Not because I cared about them, but because so much more could have been done with them before they're offed. The Russian spetsnaz guy, elite special forces, probably the toughest, best trained special forces personnel in the world, is shown to be a trigger happy moron. I know it's an American movie and they have to show US forces as the be all end all of the world's fighting men, but please, this is ridiculous. The yakuza finds an old samurai blade to wield (and uses one of his few lines as a copy of one in Predator 2 commenting that they've been doing this a while) - convenient that the only old fashioned weapon there was just what he was proficient in using, don't you think. And what does he get to do with it? Anybody else seen Seven Samurai? Yep, plagiarism again as he uses it to duel with the predator, having stayed behind to fight him - just like Billy from the first movie, amazingly enough.

I would give this movie one star for it's weak story, weak script, poor acting and unashamed duplication of other films if it wasn't for a great performance from Laurence Fishburne which was sadly far too short, and again, his character was utterly wasted. Still, his few minutes of screen time lift my vote to three stars... albeit grudgingly.

I expected more of a movie with Robert Rodriguez pulling the strings even if it was Hungarian director Nimrod Antal at the helm. I even fell into that old Hollywood hype trap and expected at least halfway decent entertainment for my money having seen the trailer - but the most promising scene in the trailer, where the protagonist is lit up by multiple red dot sights from shoulder canons doesn't actually appear in the film at all.

If you want more predator action in your life, go rent the original again - it may be dated and a bit cheesy in places, but it's a far better way to spend your money, even if you have already seen it many times over.

I was a teenager in the eighties, and so revisiting that time sounds like a lot of fun. There's not much more to the movie - a hot tub takes a group of friends (and a nephew... ?) back to a time that was better for all of them.

The sets are cheap and crappy, the acting is mediocre at best, the storyline/plot is so thin it's transparent, and the weak, cheesy humour is mostly recycled from other films - just like all the great movies of the eighties. This is not a strong movie in any regard, but I loved it, and I suspect anyone who was also a teenager in the eighties will enjoy it too. The addition of the current teen nephew character to make it appeal to younger audiences as well is probably pointless - if you weren't there in the eighties, you probably won't 'get' this. If you were, it's well worth a look.

I award this film a totally undeserved 8 out of 10, cringing as I do so. Maybe I'll go see it again tomorrow...

I like it! Yes, the original movie, bringing a new idea to the screen had more impact, Arnie's role was iconic, and the movie remains one of my top ten faves of all time.

Yes, T2 was let down by some overly cutesy PG-13-ness that complicated the simplicity of the of the 'terminator', that which was designed purely to kill. Knee-capping doesn't cut it, and the cringe-worthy thumbs up at the end was truly stomach churning, but it was still a good movie in its own right, and added lots of good stuff - not the least of which was stomping effects that still look good today. I still wish they'd gone with their original idea which was to have Arnie play a double role.

T3 was indeed pants by comparison, and whilst the T3 bad terminator did address one major technical issue in the construction (i.e. where's the T-1000's sodding memory chip, electrical system, power source, etc.?), it still failed to explain how the machine got through the time displacement equipment that was a: only able to transfer the T-101 because it was covered in living tissue, and neither it nor Kyle could bring weapons as they aren't living or cybernetic and b: destroyed after the T-101 went through to prevent any further messing with the timeline, at a point when the humans had apparently won, according to Kyle. I keep a copy though - despite its shortcomings it has its moments, and I do love a good old terminator punch up.

Which brings us to this movie. Finally. I thought Christian Bale was a great choice for John Conner, and the 'bad guy that wasn't' being a further experimentation of a cybernetic organism brings us back into line with the first movie - a little. At this stage, it's too late to bring the story back to the simplicity of the original, so ignore the issues with the time line which can, sort of, in a way, be explained anyway - remember this is a different version of the future ('one possible future' - as Kyle explains in the first movie). So let's just take it as it is.

It's a good romp, a new twist to the terminator plot, and another dose of terminator smackdown that's easy to enjoy. I liked the new machines - remembering that the T-101's etc. were designed as infiltration units and thus human-sized, if I were building a machine that's designed to kick ass without the need to infiltrate, I'd go large as well, and have multiple machines interconnect, to split off as the occasion demands - this is efficient. Those who whinge that it's 'just a copy of transformers', well, no, not really - but both are views of advanced, futuristic, intelligent robots, so why shouldn't there be a similarity? I thought the characters were good, but the only one I really connected with was Marcus Wright. I would have liked some more time to see the personalities of the characters and their relationships at the expense of some of the special effects and chase scenes.

I liked the 'halfway there' approach to the vision of the future we were given in the original, where humans use plasma rifles - clearly technology taken from the machines. It makes sense that at this stage they would be using the remnants of existing military hardware to form a rebellion. I also liked that John Connor wasn't in charge - that would be far too flat a storyline.

I think T4 felt like an introduction to new characters that will be developed later. It's not perfect, but it manages quite well in recovery of the plot lines from T2 and T3 and establishes a firm base for future movies to build on. It was entertaining (developing the plot in unexpected ways, robo-bashing aplenty, cool special effects that we've come to expect from this series tempered with honest to goodness action) and thought provoking. Is it original? Of course not - it's the fourth movie in a series dealing with a plot that was spelled out in 1984, and it can't deviate too far from that and remain a terminator movie.

I had low expectations, thinking it would follow the downward spiral of the last two movies, but I was pleasantly surprised. It's not going to make it into my top ten, but it's still a good example of the genre, a couple of hours well spent. Fingers crossed, we're all set for a brilliant Terminator 5.

Recycled: Jean-Claude and Dolph are both looking a bit long in the tooth for this kind of action, and it shows as these traditionally wooden actors appear to be made of stone.

Regurgitated: The story line is thin at best, certainly a repeat of previous outings - Monsieur VD plays a nice homicidal maniac, and Dolph's outing here a pure repeat of previous Unisol role.

Ultimately, Re-diculous: There seems to be a habit of late of taking decrepit actors from their nursing homes on day release and trying to shoe horn them into the roles they performed well twenty or thirty years ago (witness Harrison Ford's last outing as Indiana Jones...), and this is one of the saddest offerings. A little sleight of hand is attempted with some fresh faces and some major league cliché-driven bad guys, such as Kerry Shale's Dr Colin here, but only the addition of Andrei 'The Pit Bull' Arlovski provides anything worth watching here. Decent actors should learn they are getting old and take on old person roles with some depth and character, and the likes of Messrs VD and Lundgren who never learned to act should be left with a bowl of soup and a blanket in front of a warm fire instead of stealing our hard earned in exchange for a look at this drivel.

OK, so the script isn't the finest, the not-so-special effects that worked for 300 (a cinematographic view of a graphic novel) somewhat questionable here (especially the cheesy sky effects above the ludus and the dodgy guts-spilling effects), but this story brings Rome to our screens and gives a genuine flavour of the ludus, of the sex, and the intrigue of life in the political capital of one of the greatest empires that ever was.

Ancient Rome was a cesspit, home to extraordinary violence int he name of entertainment, twisty-turny intrigue that would make your head spin, smouldering passion and sex that would make a modern lady of negotiable affection steady herself on the furniture, and here is a flavour of it. I'm aching to see the revolt Spartacus led that came very close to overthrowing one of the greatest empires on earth, but until then I'm well pleased with the love, passion, intrigue and violence that the writers choose to offer us, portrayed by an array of fine actors.

The more puritanical may be offended - the values they hold dear had not been invented in roman times, and I'm glad they chose not to depict yet another HollyRome, but be prepared for sex and violence in abundance. Of course, in every respect, it's still tame compared to real life of the day, but every moment spent watching this is a moment well spent.

Feel the fierce joy of trouncing your opponent on the arena, the pain of murdering your best friend at the order of your master, the smouldering passion of forbidden love, and the dull ache of being a slave with no will of your own. Whilst it can't be taken as a definitive guide to ancient Rome, it gives a good flavour of it, and educates us in the meaning of emotion.

Ignore the silly cartoon-esquire effects and take a deep breath of history, violence and passion. You'll love it.

I watched this out of curiosity. I enjoyed Stargate SG1 and I've watched many of the other TV shows and movies that the principal characters have worked on.

My expectations weren't high, so I was surprised to be so monstrously disappointed.

The acting throughout is appalling, and the script is worse.

Zero research into the bad science that is spouted throughout the movie, or into martial arts (which several cast members engage in throughout the movie, despite clearly having no martial arts training (baton twirling does not a warrior make)) training makes the already implausible plot even less credible. The same weapon (carried by Michael Shanks), when shot at the side of a mountain, causes extreme damage, but when shot indoors at the wall made of wicker, creates a small fireworks effect without damaging the wicker structure - OK, I suppose Michael Shanks fans will be sued to seeing that in Stargate SG1, where a staff weapon creates either a surface burn on a main character, or blasts a hole in a section of castle wall as required), but still... A bad CGI snake 'god' eats one of the faithful in the way a dog would eat - snakes just don't behave like that.

The basic premise of an amazonian warrior cult on a distant planet is silly at best. Matriarchal societies have always been based on a lack of understanding that men are required in the process of propagating the species - for instance, the Picts, who didn't figure out the role of men in sexual reproduction until the ninth century - at which time, the balance of power moved from the women to the men. They carry technological weapons and demonstrate some knowledge of science - particularly of medicine, so the idea that a matriarchal society could exist with this level of scientific knowledge is based purely on the original author's wet dream. Of course, the few references to stellar science made in this movie demonstrate that the author knew nothing about that either (except for a few keywords that he must have heard in other movies). Still, it could have been done better - like 'She' in 1965 for instance, which showed matriarchal society with a certain reverence, far more believably, and even after 45 years it seems fresher than this fetid exercise in stupidity. Marching a few women around in 'armour', pouting aggressively, and spitting out their lines like a kiddie looking for a fight in a nightclub ("Come on then! I'll do ya!" style), seems to be over-simplifying the complexities of a matriarchal culture.

The cultural references are so simple - 'all hail the snake mother' pretty much sums it all up. Even the tiniest hamlet shows more cultural variation.

There is nothing clever, thought-provoking, interesting, visually exciting, or remotely entertaining about this movie. The soundtrack is of similar quality.

I can only assume that the few, overly-charitable positive reviews this movie has received are from blinkered Michael Shanks fans who will give a thumbs up to anything he's involved in. Don't be fooled. Low budgets are not a reason for a film to fail - cheap B movies can be brilliant. This isn't one of them, and there's no reason to inflict this movie on yourself.