Reviews

This was my first time watching Gun Smoke! Great watch from start to finish. It started out with suspense and it built all the way up to the finale. Gideon stole the show for me. Tom O'Connnor exemplified the nobility of his character in choosing not to be ransomed for Sprat. Great acting, great writing etc. I enjoyed it! I'm now invested in actually watching the entire series.

Season 6 is probably the weakest of the bunch. It's too scattered and doesn't give nearly enough time for the story to take shape in a way that makes sense for the characters that we've been following up until now. However, the ending kept me on the edge of my seat so it was worth the watch. One of my favorite moments in this season (and perhaps the show) is when Daisy doesn't hesitate to activate Coulson's LMD. He was always such a father figure to her and she had so much love and respect for him and you could see in her face that she genuinely missed the dude and was willing to settle for a copy of he could give her some form of him back. I just loved that. I think that part was perfect.

I played all of the Tomb Raider games by the time the film came out and I was very excited, though skeptical. Angelina Jolie didnt seem like the ideal choice in my head but after seeing the film I was thoroughly impressed with her performance. She had charisma, she was believable and her accent was on POINT! My critique lies with the plot. I feel like they may have jammed too much into one film. Lara literally only raids ONE TOMB throughout the entire movie and she does it with a group of competitors stealing the spotlight which is such a far cry from the game. Having a sub-plot with her descended dad, the planetary alignment, the illuminati, her failed romance with an American accented Daniel Craig, her being "too manish"- it was all a bit much for one film and seriously could have paved out better into a trilogy. The first film should have been about her actually raiding tombs and either discovering or setting off some type of global catastrophe on the other side of the world that she didn't know about until halfway through the film. Just spit balling here but mainly that there were way too many thematic elements in the film, none of which involved her actually being an adventure archeologist.

I was definitely skeptical of watching Brotherhood when I'd first heard about it. I love the original Anime and didn't see the need for a reboot. When I started watching, I wasn't too happy. It seemed rushed and didn't elaborate on a lot of characters backstories. It wasn't until around episode 13 that the story started following the manga and took on a life of its own. As it progressed, I was thoroughly impressed and began to love every part of it. When I reached the end I was so satisfied. But after watching both anime's again from start- finish, I realize something: Brotherhood only makes sense if viewers have seen the original Anime. Brotherhood more closely follows the anime but does a terrible job at explaining many important aspects of the show; such as backstories, or the science behind certain characters alchemy and even motives. The original Anime does a phenomenal job of breaking things down within the story and making it entertaining. Brotherhood pretty much glosses over these aspects with little detail; as if it was written as a "buffer" to the first Anime and not a stand-alone masterpiece. There is also a huge degree of credit due to the show writers of the first Anime because they decorated so far from the manga but were able to create an equally good storyline that holds its own against the original. In a sense, with both the original and with brotherhood, viewers get to see a "what if this happened differently" story and each are both very compelling. There are however, many thematic elements in the original Anime that shine more from a writing standpoint. For example the Grand Arcanum and Scar's method for making a stone are such interesting and integral aspects of the story that are so layered and affect literally every character in the show at some point or another. It carried more depth than father simply creating all the chaos for a bigger philosopher stone. Overall, brotherhood's story was still a masterpiece but the show only worked because I appreciated HOW it deviates from the original and brings hypothetical scenarios for certain characters to life. Brotherhood is a masterpiece but only because of the original.

Pathology wasn't too bad. These are my thoughts after watching the film for the first time. Twenty-five minutes in, I kept saying to myself how messed up the film is. It was gritty, violent and a tad oversexed but it had potential. The story was unique- Residents committing perfect murders and being able to cover them up on the job. Not unlike a group of Hannibal Lectors as they harness the craft. Milo Ventimiglia's character was deceiving. I honestly didn't see him turning into one of them- I thought he would have remained a good guy throughout. But his transformation segment is where I turned a disliking eye towards the film. The drugs, the not well-placed sex scenes and the nonchalant attitudes of Doctor's who were committing murder as a game... It all felt like a failed attempt at making the story seem more raw. How cool and collected the four doctors besides Gallo and Grey behaved made them look like incomplete replicas of Tyler Durden; and not nearly as interesting as his character was. Alyssa Milano's character was unfortunately "bland"- almost as if they didn't need to cast a name as big as hers for such a minute role. Her death was something of a surprise, as I had anticipated a typical movie story where the good guy re-emerges inside of Milo and he somehow saves the day for everyone. After she died, I figured that he would do one of three things: (1) Set a trap for Gallo where both of them would take the fall for the fire and Gwen's murder (as with her death, Grey would have lost his raison d'être) (2) Leave the hospital and live on the run (3) or end up getting killed by Gallo making his story somewhat realistic. However, Michael Weston's character is an unrealistic individual. Is it possible for a psychopath to become a doctor? Of course. But a doctor such as him who more than likely grew up privileged, going crazy without anyone of note knowing, perfecting a murder routine at his age (while not having become an established M.D.) with enough charisma for others to follow his lead and displaying the habits of a pimp? It's a bit of a stretch. So keeping that in mind I was prepared for any type of ending and was leaning towards disappointment. Within the last 5 minutes, i was prepared to give the film a 5 out of 10 stars. But the ending surprised me quite pleasantly, I must say. The doctor who had a man-crush on Milo's character coming to save the day- a bit unrealistic but his revere for Grey had been established in the film more than once before this scene ever took place so his involvement in Gallo's downfall wasn't entirely random. Grey's description of his girlfriend's death while a paralyzed Gallo listened as Grey chose to forgo the mercy he showed to Gwen, was sadistically sweet. The ending bumped my rating up one star; I gave it a 6. The writing could have been better and the cinematography was a tad boring but it was a decent story that was portrayed by good actors and the pace was solid enough to tell the story without losing anyone's attention. If I watch it again, I may juggle the rating between a 5 and a 6 only because the surprise is not linger a factor, but overall, it was a decent film.

Seeing this movie and comparing it with the first film, put me in mind of the Matrix trilogy. In both cases, the first film was ground breaking and influenced every following film of it's genre. And in both cases, the second film did match up to the first one at all. And though it has not been made known whether or not the franchise will go in the direction of a trilogy, this film certainly makes it seem that it may fall victim to the "trilogy" formula that has been the ruin of many a good film. My expectations for this film were not at all what I saw in theaters.The ending to the first film left me very satisfied. It was clear that Greece would eventually defeat the Persians and that the Spartans held the bulk of that muscle. 300 did not need a follow-up film, but it did leave room for other stories. I thought that the second film would chronicle the end of the Greek-Persian war, from the Spartan perspective. I hadn't considered the story being told from the aspect of other Greek City-States that were involved in the conflict. This story of this film lacked focus and the overall quality of the final product paled in comparison to the first 300. The beginning of the film centering on the Athenians was a nice surprise. I figured it would be nice to see how the Persian invasion affected other Greeks and with Themistocles as the center, it was a nice touch. But the opening sequence went south when too much time was spent on Xerxes' origins. Normally, putting a face to an enemy that a main character would face on the battlefield can be interesting if not necessary to see. However, it just did not work with Xerxes. The whole sequence beginning after we see a young Xerxes watch his father die, felt unnecessary and somewhat excessive. It seemed like a failed attempt to include the original story line for the film, which was originally only supposed to be about Xerxes. And I personally wouldn't have wanted to see that film. Not since the popularity of the first film centered on the Spartans and their way of life. This sequence also made me realize the presence of the somewhat anachronistic title."300: Rise of an Empire." This film is about the rise of the Persian Empire? Then why is an Athenian Admiral the main character? Seems like more remnants of the original storyline trying to stay with the altered movie script. The casting for the film could have been better. While returning actors for established characters do not need to be reviewed, newer characters do. The character Artemisia was portrayed by French beauty Eva Green. And while Green's performance was not bad, it was not at all memorable. Green's approach to the role came off as an attempt at being sinister, rather than owning the role of a complex character. She was very mono-tone and unfortunately became boring. Even in the sex scene (which itself was also boring and predictable) she did not command attention without the camera panning to her breasts. Though the casting director wrote the role specifically for her, I think that there are a handful of other actresses who could have done a much better job with the role. Actresses such as Rhona Mitra or Diane Kruger would have put forth much better performances. I have loved Eva Green since Casino Royale but this was not her best work. The character Aesyklos, portrayed by Hans Matheson was also a very forgettable character. Not necessarily because of Matheson's acting, but because his character's impact and presence in the life of the main character was too similar to his role in "Clash of the Titans." In both films, he plays a right hand man to a Greek hero. Yet somehow regardless of one story being fact, the other being fiction, and the two story lines taking place decades apart he had virtually the same characteristics of the previous role. (As well as the same haircut) Another aspect of the first film that was the icing on the cake was the narration. The combination of good writing and the voicing of David Wenham made for a good show. His voice was perfect and maintained the audience's attention while he spoke and even stole the show while he was on screen standing opposite major other major characters. His voice was sorely missed in this film as was his presence on screen. And while it was lovely to hear Lena Headey tell a tale and even more lovely to see her wield a sword, she did not make the most intriguing story teller. Visually, this film did not introduce anything new that stood out. The scenery was somewhat repetitive and though the new aspect of battle taking place at sea was a change of pace, it was not overly captivating. A nice color scheme was the bright Blue cloaks that the Athenians donned. It was in perfect contrast to the Spartans, fitting of their role as Seamen and subtly reminded us who the heroes of this film were. (Although considering the ending, that title seems to fall again to the Spartans.) The musical score also did not stand out and did not raise the excitement level for scenes that should have been heart-pumpers. Themistocles was very well cast and Sullivan Stapleton did very well with the part. He had some charisma about him that pretty much carried the film considering that the stage that was set for him was not very sturdy. Overall, the film needed much polishing before it should have been released and this "finished product" leaves room for another film. And though trilogies are not always the best formula, I think one final film is all that can be afforded with this particular story line. If such does happen, hopefully 300 will not follow the path of the "Spider-Man", "X-Men" and "The Matrix" trilogies.

There's so much to say about the finale and yet so hard to choose the right words. Phenomenal, breathtaking, heartbreaking, brilliant, etc; the list goes on. I sat in great anticipation of how the show would portray this historical, already knowing the ultimate outcome. I already that the Rebel army would be defeated by Crassus, knew that most (if not all) of the slaves would be killed and that Spartacus would be mortally wounded in battle but his body would not be claimed by the Romans. The final battle sequence was beautiful. I think that they focused on the correct points of the battle, showing each death of characters that the audience had come to love. My only reserve, was Gannicus' death. Or rather, it would have been had he not hallucinated being in the arena for the last time. As a Gladiator to the heart, Im sure he would rather died with sword in hand, rather than be crucified but his vision of Oenomaeus and his final "return" to the arena made it fitting. Liam's performance for his final stand against Crassus was MAGICAL!! His acting was so superb. The setup for this fight, goes back to his speech to the rebels who would not be joining the battle and they all thanked him for "saving them." When looking at Spartacus on this show, one sees a great man who lost something dear to him and began giving to others what he could not secure for himself and his wife. And these people knew it and were grateful for it. So watching that same man who impacted the lives of so many, fight tooth and nail against Crassus' men completely drew me in. I was on the edge of my seat as he fought Crassus himself. (When Crassus disarmed him by grabbing the gladius with his bare hands, i thought Sparty was a goner. but it was not so.) It was hard to tell what would stop this unmovable force called Spartacus- I knew at some point, he would have to stop fighting. But would Crassus stab him? would he be shot by arrows from behind? What? then he gets impaled by spears... and i seriously teared up. such an intense moment and the very fitting verbal exchange between Crassus and Spartacus..."Would that you had been a Roman and stood beside me." "I bless the fates that it was not so." History tells that while it is widely accepted that Spartacus died in battle, there is no official death record for him. His body was never discovered. So it was appropriate to have him taken from the battlefield by Agron and Nasir to die far from Roman eyes. I like that our hero reiterates that his name is not Spartacus without actually sharing what it truly is. (Some things are better off as mysteries) And having Agron say the final farewell was perfect. Job well done to the entire cast and crew, they have seriously made the best television show in history.

This was an excellent episode. The previous 3 episodes, began an ascension of twists and shocks. (Particularly, how Tiberius "handled" Caesar in the previous episode.) The most shocking and pleasing moment, was when Spartacus was revealed to be "Pompey" waiting to ambush Crassus' troops. That, I did not see coming at all. But it quickly became apparent what lay in store for these Romans. History tells that in the wake of Crixus death, Spartacus held gladiatorial games using the prisoners to honor his fallen brother. I was very much looking forward to this. And while i imagined it as a very dark moment for Spartacus, I was very pleased with the way it was played out in the show. It was a bright time of memory and revere for their days as Gladiators, a way for them to execute justice and honor Crixus all in one act.The entire sequence, was a masterpiece (Everything from the remaining gladiators along with the earliest rebel recruits leading the charge, Spartacus and Gannicus opening the games, Spartacus' exchange with Laeta, all of it was just really pulled me in. Excitement, nostalgia, some intrigue.) Spartacus' relationship with Laeta has the potential to grow into something beautiful so it is disappointing to know that it will be short lived.

Most touching of all, was Crixus' final tribute; and they began speaking the names of the fallen... For those audience members who have followed and loved the show from day 1, this is the appropriate way to prepare for the end. An episode very well done.