Reviews

Amazon Prime's "Fallout" series emerges as a vivid tableau of the beloved video game's universe, repackaged with a distinctively modern twist that seems tailored specifically for a Gen Z audience. Helmed by Lisa Joy of "Westworld" fame and Geneva Robertson-Dworet, known for her ventures into action-packed science fiction, the series injects a youthful vibrancy into the bleakness of post-apocalyptic survival. However, this injection skews the narrative, favoring contemporary issues and stylistic flourishes that resonate more with new viewers rather than purists of the "Fallout" franchise.

The result is a series that feels fundamentally disjointed; it's slick and stylized, with an aesthetic and thematic overhaul meant to appeal to younger viewers who appreciate rapid-paced storytelling and visually driven narratives. This focus on style over substance and an evident preference for melodramatic over meaningful character development suggests a misalignment with the original spirit of "Fallout." Such a directional shift might capture the fleeting attention of Gen Z viewers, yet it leaves longtime fans of the series alienated, underscoring a generational divide in both the interpretation and appreciation of what makes "Fallout" fundamentally compelling. This version of "Fallout," while visually arresting, suggests that sometimes a shared name might be the only thing a adaptation retains from its source material, turning a potentially rich narrative landscape into mere thematic ruins.

The Guardian review para-titled "Nothing Nowhere Over a Long Period of Time", remains the most accurate review I have come across to date on this colossal waste of time, unless you actually read the plot synopsis that contains "insane adventure" and "other universes" and then still proceeded to watch two hours and twenty minutes of gen Z hyper nonsense.

This failed attempt at inspirational movie making from an industry largely bereft of an original thought, will no doubt feed the coffers of its producers, by those still caught up in over-hyped media messaging, delusional story lines, and possibly kaleidoscopes.

Gen Z Oscar bait if ever there was one.

Intriguing right up to the overplayed, underdone conclusion. To maintain the one hundred and fifty word count to explain it more simply than that, as a purely fair warning commentary - is a waste of time.

This is really a love story between the Spitfire, those that designed and flew them or simply watched them in any capacity as spectator, and a world, that to a great degree owed its future to the existence of this, ahead of its time, fighter.

My father, who has long passed, flew a few variants of the Spit in WW2, while in the RCAF. In later years when conversations occasionally touched on the topic, his voice and tenor would wax affectionately in discussions of the Spit, and controlling the bird was to him "like wearing a glove."

"Ahhh what a beautiful plane" in a tone that matched the sentiment, he would occasionally remark upon viewing even a picture.

The movie apart from touching on the history of the plane, is really a sentimental journey to those that once flew these magnificent birds and a fond hope for those who barely know of its existence to get a sense of the awe they felt.

The movie succeeds masterfully.

Bravo!

Gave it the old college try, but this has narcolepsy inducing potential. I have seen this far too often in recent years with other TV series, including the latest Westworld. Both series have no concept of who its audience might be or how to hold them.

Looked good.

Tolkien - for the mature of all ages; is an absolutely beautiful movie. It captures accurately the essence of the period, the characters and their places in it, and the background catalysts' for one of the most inspirational writers in recent history and for generations to come.

The negative critics who have unjustifiably denigrated the movie Tolkien, indicate a lack of sensibility once only attributed to crustaceans.

Hard to imagine in the preponderance of schlock Hollywood has turned out in the past few years...that a filmmaker would get even close to the mastery the movie Tolkien achieves.

A movie not to be missed.

Brian Mitchell

Douglas and Arkin, et al, present the most humorous and insightful slice of later years, firmly planted in today's world - to come along in a while. For the mature of all ages!

Hard to imagine a movie less interesting than watching paint dry, however Roma has managed to top it, no offense to those who can find the excitement found in the evaporation of paint.

No doubt an inspiration of art house folk who seem to glean pleasure from more than less common place mundane activity. In fairness though, there are a few redeeming moments - not minutes - of interest in this two hour and fifteen minute experiment in self imposed sleep deprivation.

I strongly suggest you take note of reviewers giving this experiment for induced narcolepsy anything above a five, unless you are young AND have plenty of time to waste watching more of their recommendations.

One of the best I have seen, and I'm no spring chicken, crossing all genres including landmarks like Ben Hur (1959), Titanic, Casablanca, 2001, Inherit the Wind (not Gone with), Amadeus, Saving Private Ryan - the list is not long.

Blade Runner 2049, for the mature of all ages, is immersive, moving and stunning both visually and aurally and indeed it stands on its own, albeit the impetus for me was the original Blade Runner, making it the perfect sequel - as well. Purchased the movie in 3d to match my theatre viewing experience...and on my fifth home viewing....still incredible! The speculative, marketing inspired demise of 3d in North America is undoubtedly and assuredly premature. 3d format or otherwise the movie remains a masterpiece.

It should be the Oscar pick for best movie of 2017, and the cast including Ryan Gosling, Harrison Ford, Ana de Armas and others nominated in respective roles. Consummate actors all, not to mention Denis Villeneuve as Best Director. Thank Ridley Scott for recognizing his genius.

The reality is that Science Fiction, even as a statement on the human condition, has never won an Oscar for Best Movie, as far as I know. The Academy Awards will likely miss this, caught up in the social media swamp and the cause of the day. The Academy will likely instead vote for an odd duck or more common place take on the trials and tribulations of the human condition, all destined to become mediocrities and also rans for 2017. This in turn, as it continues to demonstrate, makes Oscar night nothing more than a gossips' social gathering and more redundant and meaningless than ever in what it's function should be - rewarding real achievement in film.

Meanwhile like the first Blade Runner, Blade Runner 2049 will continue to attract an ever growing following and challenge current and future movie makers to raise the bar.

Baby, Baby, Baby Review

Just about missed this one...tripped over it on a movie network streaming service and purchased it immediately after. That pretty well says it all.

One of the best movies I have seen in a while - right up there with Woody Allen's, Annie Hall - in a more current setting. The line from Allen in Annie Hall for those who know the movie "we need the eggs" comes to mind. Look it up if you're not familiar.

Brian Klugman who wrote, directed and appears in the movie as the main character, Sydney is a far less neurotic Alvy Singer (keeping with the Woody Allen character) and he plays the part superbly from start to final curtain. Adrianne Palicki the other (and great looking) half of the relationship is right on the mark as well.

I wanted to buy the movie in Blu-Ray but I could barely find it, in any format on amazon - I actually had to type in Brian Klugman's name to find it, in DVD. Talk about a sleeper. The reviews I read over, that gave this movie anything but top marks reminds me of Ripley's (Sigourney Weaver) line from Aliens to should-know-betters' in regard to their IQs dropping sharply. Baby, Baby, Baby is a masterpiece.

This is a heartfelt, well-written and insightfully timed comedy, superbly acted by the main characters and includes appearances by Kelsey Grammar, Bradley Cooper, Jessica Alba and others. A movie well worth the time - an unexpected pleasure - and as it turned out, for me, a well deserved expense.

Kudo's to Brian Klugman – a beautiful piece of work.

Don't miss this one.

What do these have in common?

Both generated great gobs of money, both represent a dramatic distortion of the truth, both take another significant chunk out of American credibility.

It is bad enough that a majority of America receives its education (17th or lower in world ranking) from movies, in Argo's case "based on a declassified true story". When Ben claimed, in a recent interview, that the reason the Canadians integral role (90% Canada/ 10% USA - according to president Jimmy Carter and those actually involved) in freeing the hostages was not represented truthfully, he brushed it off quickly by commenting that "there was not enough time to fit it all in".

In other words, for Ben, making the Americans "centre of the universe" even under the guise of docudrama, trumps truth. The reality is that the small role the CIA did actually play, had the real potential of getting the hostages killed on their way out of Iran. Historically (pun intended) the CIA espionage folk put a wrong date on the passport stamp - which if not detected, and altered (again by a Canadian) would have meant instant detection, and potentially certain death on their way out of the airport - not to mention what would have happened to the Canadian embassy personnel.

Dramatic license must be extended to any historical account for time constraints or the inevitable lapse in research, however, when the focus is to distort and or pervert the truth, everyone involved suffers.

Ben in recent award shows, still attempts to use his youthful ignorance and surprised- face to pass off this travesty of history. I don't buy that, or the movie - nor should anyone interested in the truth. Historical accuracy can be every bit as dramatic and entertaining as BS with the added bonus of attracting a wider audience and staying on the charts for many more years.

No doubt, all those, who have or will receive monetary gain from this schlock will rally to its defense, somehow. There is no defense, however, for the damage inflicted on the historical record, those who buy into that distortion, or the Canadians, and the lives of six US hostages whose lives depended on real intervention by real people.

Ziek / bamfrmcan

After all the hype about Skyfall I was disappointed in the movie. It is an average James Bond movie, with all the constituent pieces, chase scene(s), women, at least one archaic gadget (in Skyfall's case), and of course a super villain. But Skyfall was sorely lacking - I have seen better everything, over the years from this franchise, starting with my visit to the local movie theater in 1965, at the ripe age of 15 to watch Goldfinger. I have long been a fan of the series and have no serious argument with the Bonds' chosen over the years. Some, I thought more suitable than others, but all around, they all worked just fine.

The problem with Skyfall is that the promotion of the movie worked out better than the movie itself, including dollars moving from my coffers to theirs. The promoters (critical and actual) get a 5 and the movie gets a 3. The downside is that many critics, who are supposed to be fair (as they are not the real promoters) stated in various tongue, that this is "the" must see James Bond. These nere-do-watch critics have forever lost credibility in my eyes.

Roger Ebert who I generally include among the several movie critics I read before making an investment, probably because he's been around as long as I have, and, has been correct more than once, until now, gave SkyFall a 4 out of 4 - on a 2.5, absolute tops, movie! Possibly the medication.

As always, caveat emptor, rent before you buy (or better, borrow a duped friend's:) and beware of movie critics bearing gifts.