iViewed

I usually stay well away from religiously biased films. In this case the film title, The Seminarian, piqued my curiosity as I thought it may either be a unwatchable, cliché ridden, full-on, sex and insensibility, gay scene romp or a philosophical exploration of religious hypocrisy and the oppression it creates for humanity. Thankfully, this film dishes up few of those socio-sexual clichés.

The script is intelligently written, with good, if not great, accompanying cinematography. As the subject matter is of a personal, inner nature, no Lean or Powell majesty was required. The claustrophobic atmosphere of a Seminary was suited to the predominantly fixed angle shots.

The only weakness of The Seminarian was the actors (especially Ryan, the protagonist). His gentle, considerate and emasculated, though, not effeminate, personality would have been better cast by using a less gay mannered man. Ryan's best male friend, also a seminarist, seemed to have not a clue about his sexuality even though his best friends' girlfriend/fiancée appears to have suspected...all along.

I thought Bradley, the focus of Ryan's seemingly wasted affections, was a great character; deeply damaged, Bradley is cruising through a pot-holed life perpetually in the wrong gear and selecting anguish, self-pity, evasiveness, neediness and self-avoiding nymphomania for fuel. Though viewers only get to see him for several seconds throughout the entire film, his actions (don't blink, you'll miss them) are crucial to The Seminarian's thesis.

The cast of seminarist's, armed only with their own delusional focus of belief, has certain of them playing right into the hand of another of their God's vile and cheap tricks. The result being natural humanism conflated with a perverse supernatural Abrahamism.

I gave it 8/10 purely because the protagonist is so well endowed... No I didn't, silly! Score is because I thought it was a unique and intelligent take on self-oppression coupled with religious dogma.

P.S. Nose aside, I hazard Ryan's not a grower, more a shower.

Despite the millions of dollars Hollywood wastes on post-apocalyptic films, none have come close to capturing the horror or degrading suffering of post-nuclear-strike "survivors".

If such such an event were to occur during my lifetime my preference would be to stop outdoors in the centre of a London park (preferably one with swings and roundabouts) and muck about with some mates until the point where we are instantaneously vaporised beneath the air-burst.

Life for we kids born during the 50's and 60's was filled with cold-war paranoia incessantly fanned by irresponsible newspapers and deeply offensive anti-communist propaganda continuously foisted on us by nihilistic American film studios given 100% backing by the US Armed Forces and Republican politicians.

Not one US cinematic attempt to portray a realistic nuclear aftermath has disturbed me as profoundly. Threads pulls no punches. No sickeningly toxic sentimentality employed to make a cosy job of such a nightmarish tragedy utilised. It is a raw, unyielding and utterly depressing portrayal of politically unregulated militaristic hegemony.

Threads is the only film of this genre worth taking the time to watch. It has unparalleled integrity and sticks strictly to the facts of physical and social science.

An intriguing legal and personal story ruined by extremely unsympathetic acting from the rather arrogant and obnoxious lead male character, Mathias Gold (clumsily played by Kevin Kline). The lead female characters, Mathilde Girad (Maggie Smith) and familial support, Chloé Girard (Kristin Scott Thomas) acted their roles as deftly as permitted. The forced direction, however, felt awkward and unprofessional; starving both Smith and Scott Thomas of oxygen, which, considering they are both far more capable actors than this film allowed, turned the potential colour of this film into a drab. The brut script became tedious as the female protagonists appeared to have had to reign in their performances so as not to jar alongside Kline's unconvincing and lacklustre acting.

I understand the film is based on a play written and directed by the same writer, Israel Horowitz. My sincere hope is that the stage version was not so stiflingly contrived nor that the audiences' expectations disabused.

One just feels with this film that Maggie Smith accepted the role because of the interesting and little known central issue of the films plot, which certainly has much comedic potential (at which she can excel) and emotional complexity (another of her great acting skills). This role, sadly, did not make good use of any of the female acting talent the director had at his disposal. I enjoyed Orton's score (though the song when Mathias sat wallowing in self-pity was crass).

I've not seen a film with Kline in it before and if this is typical of his acting (in)ability, I shan't ever again.

Just watched this on the TV. Interesting storyline let down by poor research and immature psychological insight, silly stereotyping and stilted dialogue script.

Initially I thought the acting a bit wooden. Slowly each of the main characters idiosyncrasies grew on me until they became almost believable characters and worthy of the "Actor" job-description. The exceptions were the girlfriend of the main protagonist and a truly SSified SS officer. She; really quite irrelevant to the story. He; relevant but preposterous. Why, in the 21st Century, did the director decide to have a German SS officer who came from the same mould Hollywood production lines fabricated in the 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's...? The man who played "SS offizer" wasn't even any good at acting a simple 2D stereotype.

Bomber flight formations were good even if the CGI was a bit naff, though one can't be too picky as the producers certainly wouldn't have had a Spielberg or Cameron budget (and they can create disastrously bad films costing tens to hundreds of millions., ie., , Titanic, Avatar, Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List, Jurassic Park series).

The plot would have been better served with less time in the air and more time on enemy occupied ground as terrorfliegers cautiously avoiding the wrath of a heavily bombed people and SS Panzer division.

The girlfriend (story) could easily have been ditched with no loss, and the cardboard cutout SS officer spun into a more credible human being. Which, frankly, is what I'd hoped the film would be like when I read the TV schedule description.

These 90 seconds, or so, six part webisodes reveal the story behind Hannah, the lawn-crawling "walker", Deputy Sheriff Rick compassionately returns to to deliver the coup de grâce in the first episode of The Walking Dead TV series. The six short scenes are indulgently created to show viewers the prosthetic talent behind the series make-up team. They mostly do a fantastic job and the "finished" Hannah is a wonder to behold. The webisodes were, unfortunately, spoilt by poor casting most obviously seen in the atrocious hammy acting of Hannah's ex, Andrew, played by Rick Otto. Likewise, the child actors and some of the prototype "Walkers" were also low-grade choices. If any one of these scenes had made it into the first episodes final cut they would have felt incongruous due to the high standards of the main body of work.