jwb001

My wife and I stopped watching after half an hour. Painfully slow, boring beginning. I don't understand the "rave" reviews from professional critics; clearly they were told what to write to manipulate the public. Hey, just because a film has women in "empowered" roles doesn't mean the film is good.

As usual, very nice investigative work in this episode, especially regarding the matching shoe prints. Excellent film editing also contributes significantly to the impression of efficient, step-by-step solving of the crime. While watching this episode, I thought to myself, "This series deserves an award for its editing."

The producers make a gallant effort at adding graphics to enhance the viewing experience. I particularly liked the re-creation of the bullet's trajectory.

What didn't I like?

Overall, Detective Michael Mocello is fine. However, at times, he can behave like a slight jerk. I - and surely his colleagues as well - didn't appreciate his comment "That's why I make the big money" when he accidentally kicked a bag, exposing some blood. In fact, Mocello seems a little fixated on money. To victim's baby mama: "Did he flash his money around?" Comment after interviewing baby mama: "He wasn't really a wealthy man". Yo, Mocello, any other possible motives pass your mind?

Of course, given the series' name "Crime 360", viewers received the ubiquitous mini-lecture about the Leica 3D camera by Forensic Technician Jessica Kline; she served no other purpose in this episode. This mini-lecture has reared its ugly head in every episode so far. (If we change the name of the series to something else, can we dispense with the mini-lecture?)

Viewers were also treated to the silly graphics of a cell phone circuit board again... multiple times again. Once it's paid for itself, can we dispense with it, too?

The episode does a fine job of retelling the brutal, murderous rampage with sufficient "color commentary" by Maksim Gelman, the killer.

Gelman does NOT seem crazy. He explains all events clearly and logically; he just has his own interpretation of reality. Gelman's actions during the police pursuit were quite calculated, for example when he jumps between cars on a moving subway train and bangs on the door, telling the conductor, "This is official business".

Good analysis by the psychiatrist throughout the episode. I like this mental health professional better than Louis Schlesinger, the forensic psychologist in the previous episode, probably because his remarks seems a little more personal, not just sterile textbook statements.

Only two criticisms...

1. Given that Gelman feels no remorse, viewers would like to know about his life in prison with the hope that he's experiencing some suffering for the horrors that he inflicted (I had the same complaint about the previous episode) or to see how other prisoners react to a person such as Gelman.

2. To get points for itself, the episode frequently has Deputy DA Ken Taub or New York Times reporter Liz Robbins say, "We didn't know what was on Gelman's mind" about unfolding events. Then, Gelman tells viewers his exact thoughts during the interview. Apparently, we should react "What an amazing accomplishment by the producers!"

This episode can be characterized by its positive aspects - fresh items rarely or never seen in other reality homicide series - and its negative aspects - amateurish touches that lend an unprofessional, unpolished tinge.

FRESH

* Forensic Technician Jessica Kline provides a good explanation about blood splatter at the crime scene;

* Asst. Chief Medical Examiner Deborah Kay thoroughly describes the seven gunshots, including analysis of gunpowder stippling;

* Good insight given by Detective Thompson about the relation between amount of gunpowder stippling and familiarity of victim and suspect;

* Viewers see briefing before execution of search warrant. Surprisingly, a large number of police participate;

* When detectives go to victim's family, a local news reporter conducts the interview (maybe just strange editing for this episode);

* Only two members of Fugitive Task Force are used to apprehend suspect. In other series, marshals bring a veritable assault group;

* 3D imaging provides nice proof that eyewitness hiding in bushes had clear, unobstructed view across the street to the murder;

* Fire department washes down blood from porch of private house; I assumed residents would be responsible.

* Interesting to see Detective Thompson arguing with his captain, John Venuti, about whether they have a strong enough case to charge the suspect with murder;

* Interesting to see police settle for federal drug / gun charges and "non process" the murder charge;

* As with previous episodes, once detectives have all of the pieces in place, viewers get a nice graphical re-creation showing the actual events of the murder.

AMATEURISH

* Bad. Very bad. Scene with tracking dog also appears in Episode 1 "Welcome to Homicide". Feels like producer / director are lying to us when exact same scene is used in two different situations. Moreover, in the current episode, the scene has no ending; viewers are left to wonder whether the dog found anything.

* Hohum. At a minimum, this episode marks the third time that viewers receive an explanation about the Leica camera for taking a 3D image of the crime scene. Hey, we get it already. Should we buy a Leica 3D camera for home like the incessant drumbeat about 3D printers?

* Ridiculous graphics to show inner workings of victim's mobile phone... twice;

* At times, police come across as very inexperienced actors reading from a script. I don't have the same feeling with other reality homicide series (though they occasionally include someone hamming for the camera, e.g. Holly Monteleone in "Nightwatch" - but she's been toned down in recent episodes; Christine Mannina in "The Shift" - she was named in a lawsuit and eventually transferred to Robbery;

* Medical Examiner on camera a long time before embedded text finally identified her.

CONCLUSION

With the amateurish dimensions, I'm back to thinking that creative director Brent Young is a one-man show who receives little feedback to refine his ideas. However, overall, as the above lists indicate, the positives far outweigh the negatives in this episode, and "Crime 360" is probably the best reality homicide series that I've ever watched.

Hoorah! This first episode exhibits marked improvements over the pilot, which may account for the more-than-one-year delay.

Producers dropped "The First 48" format. That's good. Unfortunately, the show now feels like every other real-life homicides series with primarily recreated scenes; in "The Killer Speaks", though, viewers may not realize that most scenes are actual events.

Of highest importance, for this episode, producers selected a convicted killer who accepts his guilt, so he talks freely about his thoughts and his feelings during the murders and surrounding events. However, I really wonder about some of Levi King's responses in the interview; he just seemed to parrot explanations foisted upon him by psychologists.

The show now includes frequent interpretations by a renowned forensic psychologist. He provides very plausible, textbook analysis. I only disagreed with him on one point: why King didn't want to leave the McCool house. The psychologist says, "He wanted to kill", but I believe that King wanted to stay in a comfortable home, unlike his father's house filled with knives and guns and violence.

One segment of the show worked quite well. Describing when King fired into Robin Doan's bedroom, the camera repeatedly cuts back and forth between King and Doan, each telling their perspective on the event.

This episode suffers from a serious deficiency. Given that King feels no remorse, viewers would like to know about his life in prison with the hope that he's experiencing some suffering for the horrors that he inflicted.

Finally, to AETV. Why do you consistently screw up pilot episodes (see also "Crime 360"), then nail the first episode? How many viewers do you lose with a terrible pilot? How many good series do you cancel because the garbage pilot caused so many viewers to jump ship? Minimum answer: TWO... "Crime 360" and "The Killer Speaks".

I watched the first two episodes of the premier season before I wrote this review. Episode 1 is really horrible. Do NOT judge the entire series based upon Episode 1 because Episode 2 displays marked improvements.

My thoughts about Episode 1...

This pilot fails in two main areas:

1. Uses same old "The First 48" format

Unfortunately, this format now appears in three series - "The First 48", "After The First 48", and "The First 48: The Killer Speaks". Producers apparently think that success of "The First 48", now in its 15th season, lies in format.

Even worse, the content of this episode merely rehashes the original case that aired in "The First 48" S2 Ep1 "A Serial Killer Calls" with *LOTS* of the same clips; any "new" clips were probably gathered from the editing room floor of the original case.

Append a few scenes from the trial, and the result matches any episode from "After the First 48".

Sprinkle in a handful of excerpts from the murderer's prison interview, and Voila! - an episode of "The Killer Speaks".

However, viewers early in the episode begin to think, "I want to see something new".

2. Bad choice of convicted murderer

Terry Blair still maintains his innocence; therefore, he won't really "speak" about the crime. Instead, viewers get treated to typical inmate talk... a stream of "I'm innocent" and flaws in the case against him. He utters single sentences, carefully watching every word.

At about 1/3 into the episode, where Blair gets arrested and jailed, he starts to provide a few more details because, of course, he can't deny those events.

Why, then, did the producers select Blair as the "hook" to grab viewer interest in this new series? Well, Blair's original case in "The First 48" (S2 Ep1 "A Serial Killer Calls") was probably the most spellbinding episode ever for that series because Blair, before his capture, repeatedly phoned police to reveal more dead bodies. Very bad judgment by producers to assume that Blair's "The Killer Speaks" episode would be equally spellbinding.

Ultimately, this episode lacks so many aspects that viewers want to experience - details about Blair's developmental years that could have contributed to his serial killings, his feelings about events surrounding the murders, his motives beyond "prostitutes are scum".

=====

Besides these two main failings, here are a couple of minor complaints:

1. The title should have the same format (catchy words: killer's name) as all other "The Killer Speaks" episodes;

2. The killer's prison interview is conducted by the off-camera producer with low-quality, tunnel-sounding audio.

=====

...and a positive note - the ending of this episode is shocking and powerful, to describe it would be a HUGE spoiler.

Remember, give episode 2 a chance.

The show's stature as a refined "The First 48" continues with this episode.

Clean lines again in the investigation due to excellent film editing... and lots of lucky tips received by the detectives. More interesting insights for viewers; this time - if a detective asks a person about gang membership, "Are you a Blood?", a true Blood must answer "Yes" by the gang's code.

Forensics are excellent again. (Did you know that the tank for test firing a gun contains 900 gallons of water?) I particularly appreciated the detailed explanation about fingerprint analysis.

What new impressions appeared with this episode?

* Detective Walley Everett never fails to blurt out quotable lines. He's a stellar homicide detective... with a mouth.

* Another black-on-black murder, just like "The First 48". It really looks as though homicide reality shows have consciously divided up territory with NBC's "Dateline" and CBS's "48 Hours" taking the white, middle-class-or-higher murders.

In the end, I rated the episode "9" rather than "10" because the suspect's ultimate motive was not clearly stated.

This second episode (after the introductions in episode 1) presents the series' first full murder investigation. Its format **very** closely resembles "The First 48", another homicide detectives reality show. In fact, "Crime 360" does a better job.

The entire investigation has very clean lines. Its excellent organization and keen focus on the important details can probably be attributed to the simplicity of the crime, the detectives' work, and good film editing.

Unlike "The First 48", which tends to revolve around the detectives exclusively, in this episode of "Crime 360", all players (medical examiner, firearm examiner, K-9, etc.) are shown as they work.

Forensics especially receive attention. I liked the 3D scan of the crime scene - don't recall ever seeing it in another fictional or reality series. The body was included in the scan.

This episode offered viewers many good insights. For example, after the suspect was arrested, police put the news on the street, hoping people would now feel safe and come forward with more information to build a stronger case.

At the end of the investigation, with all of the pieces in place, a graphical re-creation showed the actual events of the murder.

Positive

1. Excellent storytelling

2. High production quality

3. Like most classic films, the dialog is perfectly clear to understand.

Negative

1. The film's fundamental premise - a stalker immediately accepted into a theater star's inner circle - is completely unbelievable. My god, then the film concocts the same premise a second time!?#@ The entire film is more contrived than an O. Henry short story.

2. Actors portraying actors feels so self-indulgent.

Additional Notes

1. Interesting to see Marilyn Monroe in a minor role

I watched the first two episodes of the premier season before I wrote this review. Episode 1 is really horrible. Do NOT judge the entire series based upon Episode 1 because Episode 2 is excellent.

My thoughts about Episode 1...

The creative director, Brent Young, strangely the booooring focus of the first segment about a minor filming technique used to produce the opening sequence, probably acted as a one-man show for making this episode. Clearly, he received no feedback to refine his ideas. At points throughout the episode, viewers sense that Young got overwhelmed by taking on a too big task. We can assume, therefore, that the series will rise and fall based upon the creative director.

RISES

1. The several Forensics segments - including "Superglue", "Scanning Electron Microscope", and "Entomology" - are excellent.

Jessica Kline and Joe Keiper speak clearly with concepts and terms understandable by everyone. Curt Jones... well, he's a geeky technician, a little deficient in communication skills.

FALLS

1. Grossly racist / classist that embedded subtitles only appear when the African-American forensics technician and the sole patrol officer speak, but never when a detective or another forensics technician speaks.

2. Three strange intertitles appear in succession after the "Fugitive Task Force" segment, including one that refers viewers to episode 5 to see "the more complete story surrounding the events shown".

The director clearly spends too much time on the Internet if he thinks viewers can simply click a link to jump to episode 5, which (obviously) hadn't aired yet when episode 1 was broadcast. Events shown?#@! What events? Viewers only see an image of an unidentified person's ankles as leg irons get put on. An intertitle about "innocent until guilty in a court of law"? The episode hasn't shown the person's face nor identified the person by name. Sheez, chill out and stop covering your butt against lawsuits.

3. Lack of consistency. The episode introduces each person - by name, city, and unit - with on-screen text... except W. Thompson. Viewers only see his doorplate (do you think his first name is really "W"?). His city... it appears on a forensics van in the background.

4. Ridiculously abrupt ending

FINAL NOTES

As I watched yet another reality homicide detectives series, I had two thoughts:

* So much material for so many shows can't serve American tourist bureaus very well.

* With so many shows and opportunities, I imagined the various police units competing for lucrative television contracts, which seems incongruous with my image of a serious, focused Homicide detective.

Remember, give episode 2 a chance.

How can the audience get immersed in a movie that lacks plausibility in every aspect?

Events would never transpire as depicted. A contract killer (Sade) delays his escape to shovel dirt into a grave? During a shootout, the girl (Bird) decides to stroll from a room into the line of fire?

Acting approaches the melodramatic. When Carter transitions from potential suicide to inducted savior, the look on his face is almost laughable. Bird's amateurish performance belongs in an elementary school production, not a feature film.

Adam Alleca as director? Really? He doesn't even have a Wiki page yet (yeah, I know, as though it's the measure of success). The world can barely swallow that he scripted "Cell" with Stephen King. Obviously, the casting couch now offers positions for directors and screenwriters, too.

The film does have some good stretches, specifically scenes involving Officer Baker as well as Sade's (far-too-short) period of silence.

Overall, though, "Standoff" embarrasses B movies--don't waste time here.

Positive

1. Wonderful storytelling of Kane's life.

2. Like most classic films, the dialog is perfectly clear to understand.

Negative

1. In the opening scene, when Kane utters his last, dying word, I immediately knew the denouement of the entire film. This film is such a classic, and that word so renowned - any suspense has disappeared long ago.

2. The final scene, which reveals the meaning of "Rosebud", is very weakly presented; it's almost anticlimactic.

Positive

1. Pure genius in every sense.

2. Amazing scenery. Odd angles to windows, walls, furnishings. Exaggerated, unnatural positions. Apropos nonsense painted on surfaces. Theater of the absurd connoisseurs undoubtedly worship this film.

3. Excellent casting right down to a midget as a visitor at the fair (rather than as a freak in one of the fair's sideshows)

4. Even the font chosen for the English intertitles displays brilliance.

Negative

1. The denouement encompasses two acts. The final act presents a completely unnecessary, confusing plot twist. I wish the film ended with a one-act denouement. If the film needed padding, an act that presents another scene of the somnambulist at the fair and another murder could have been inserted to the middle of the film.

2. Although the musical score for the version that I watched set an appropriate mood, does electric guitar hold true to the historicity of the original film?

Positive

1. Shot in Vienna soon after World War II. Amazing to see a fictional film, rather than a documentary, shot amidst the actual destruction. Prater, Vienna's amusement park, seems unscathed, interestingly enough.

2. Sewer chase is nicely presented. (Reminded me of some RPG or FPS games that I've played :-)

Negative

1. Unfairly suffers from the "nothing new under the sun" syndrome. This film may have been first with the idea of a wrong body in a grave, but when the scene occurred, my thought was "I've already seen it in recent films and more effectively".

2. Revelation of the third man's identity was underwhelming, without imagination.

The opening credits show that Charlie Chaplin was more than just a funny little actor. He wrote and directed this film. He composed the musical score. He even holds the copyright.

Brilliant satirical look at industrialized society.

Currently, this film ranks #6 on Rotten Tomatoes' "Top 100 Movies of All Time". I've watched every film from #1 to #6. The Wizard of Oz, especially the colorized version, deserves its #1 position. However, I don't understand why "Modern Times" isn't #2. Although I dutifully finished "The Third Man", "Citizen Kane", "All About Eve", and "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari", the experiences pained me, and I looked forward to "The End". Not with "Modern Times"--what a pleasure to behold!

Interesting notes

* Charlie Chaplin gets high on cocaine during the film

* The film includes both audio dialog and intertitles

* The ending is inconclusive at best, maybe even pessimistic

Very, very unwise decision to cast such a familiar star as Brad Pitt in the role of a historical person, specifically Jesse James.

In this film, whenever the audience sees the Jesse James character on the screen, they see Brad Pitt, not Jesse James. Consequently, they experience zero immersion in the film.

I had a similar problem with Brad Pitt in the film "Inglourious Basterds" (is it just a coincidence that both films have such cheesy titles? "the Coward"? incorrectly spelled "Inglourious" and "Basterds"? Come on!)

By contrast, when I watched the films "Inglourious Basterds" and "Django Unchained", I didn't know the characters Col. Hans Landa and Dr. King Schultz respectively are both played by Christoph Waltz. He gets so deeply into his roles that he actually becomes the character, winning a "Best Supporting Actor" Oscar in both cases. What an excellent actor!!! (Maybe that explains Brad Pitt's problem; he has never won an acting Oscar.)

What a horrible film!

1. This film insinuates that Chinese people are corrupt even though they have almost no involvement in the plot.

2. Zero criminal consequences for corruption in this film

3. Roman Polanski, the director, predicts his sexual perversions with a 13-year-old girl via this film; one of the main characters is an evil, powerful man who impregnates his own daughter also with zero criminal consequences.

The only redeeming quality--the film recreates the 1930s setting wonderfully.

My wife, a foreign national, is quite a fan of English-language musicals. As we watched "Oklahoma!" together, I occasionally saw her fidgeting in her seat and checking her watch. At the end, I asked, "How did you like it?" Straight out of her mouth came the words "I've seen better".

The problem lies in its plot, precisely described elsewhere as "The story can be boiled down to a single sentence: a girl must decide between the two suitors who want to take her to a social." Too, too simplistic. Not much to challenge the viewer's intellect here.

Moreover, production quality appears painfully low budget. Several "outdoor" shootings scream "sound stage", and I often felt like I was watching a theater version recorded to film.

EXCELLENT, PROPHETIC MOVIE !!!

Released in 1967, this movie provides a clear insight into the roots of Islamic "radicalization" as a reaction against the poverty, exploitation, corruption, and degradation caused by colonialism.

Several shocking ideas (for a film from 1956):

1. A large group of seven-year-old boys beat a drunk to death to "improve their community"

2. French police take vigilante justice against an innocent man's family by exploding his home late one night

3. Revenge bombings by Muslim females of an Air France flight and two cafés (not suicide bombings, incidentally)

4. French military uses waterboarding (I kid you not) and other tortures to extract information, "false flag" events (World Trade Center, anyone?) to justify circumventing laws, and "suicides" to eliminate "non-cooperative" rebel leaders.

5. The United Nations, as usual, is impotent.

Combined with any good documentaries about the history of African-Americans and the history of Native Americans, an astute viewer comes to the realization that Europeans are the devils who have brought misery to peaceful people throughout the world.

Lots of problems with this film:

* Feels too formulaic. The director just went through the motions to get the film done without putting in extra effort to make it distinctive.

* Unnecessarily depressing until the final scene. Depressing dialogue. Worst of all - the color of scenes in South Philadelphia is filtered to produce a depressing brown tint in a misguided attempt to "set the mood".

* Weak character development. Vince and the budding romance with Janet are handled well. Johnny, who is Vince's nemesis, feels formulaic again. The bar owner Max and the other neighborhood buddies, whose names I can't even remember - that gives some indication of the weak character development - seem two dimensional at best.

The only redeeming aspect of this film is its 1970s rock soundtrack.

The movie tells a fine story at an easy pace, like a pleasant read of a novel.

Its camera angles are fresh. Although countless other movies and television shows have been set in San Francisco, Vertigo gives us new scenes (e.g. the garden of Mission Dolores, exterior and interior of Palace of the Legion of Honor fine arts museum, the huge Brocklebank Apartments building, the old house known as "McKittrick's Hotel", Fort Point beneath Golden Gate Bridge, etc. etc. etc.). San Francisco feels fresh again.

Excellent character development... maybe the best I've ever seen in a film.

On the negative side:

1. John Ferguson's infidelity - how distasteful. Combined with the words "Mother's here" from his longtime girlfriend Midge and Ferguson's obsession with Judy, this movie's love theme comes off as a creepy, perverted love.

2. Ferguson's dream sequence is so amateurishly done - it's almost laughable.

3. The second half of the film is tedious, lacking visual freshness.

4. Many critics refer to Hitchcock as the master of suspense, but in this film, he fails to deliver. It contains only a few conundrums with minimal emotional intensity.

5. Judy's ending is contrived, inexplicable.

Why did you leave us so soon, Amy? I'm not a fan of jazz, but when I first heard Amy's music, I knew that she was something special. Her music seemed to have a very unusual syncopation. Amy could have brought jazz to the masses if she had reined in her excesses.

Excellent film. Sometimes, the embedded subtitles for song lyrics and dialogue are difficult to read--they really need a rework.

The secondary title of the film should be "Surrounded by Knobs"...

Mitchell Winehouse (a.k.a Ostrich Daddy, a.k.a. Mooch Groupie)

Blake Fielder. If only the wrist slitting at age 9 had succeeded....

Raye Cosbert, a glorified pimp

On another note, famous musicians are dropping like flies this year. Lemmy, Bowie, and yesterday, Paul Kantner, who was Jefferson Airplane's co-founder and guitarist. Really strange.

Positive

1. Absolutely beautiful locations (especially compared to the low-budget sound stages of "Oklahoma!", another Rodgers & Hammerstein musical)

2. When the story progresses at a steady pace, it's a pleasant experience.

Neutral

1. Mostly singing, minimal dance numbers

Negative

1. When the story trudges, harping ad infinitum on one topic such as Emile De Becque's murder of a bully or any of the romantic interludes, the audience screams with frustration, "Move forward!"

2. The director employs a cheap tactic of making the frame edges fuzzy and changing the background tint when an emotional scene occurs. Doesn't the director trust the dialog and the actors' skills to convey these emotions?

Divide this film into three basic components:

1. GOOD - Song and dance routines. Showcasing some very talented dancers.

2. BAD - Actors portraying actors. My #1 pet peeve in "entertainment". Feels so self-indulgent. (I also dislike films set in the film industry for the same reason.)

3. GOOD - Musical version of "Taming of the Shrew". Overall, it's very pleasant to watch. Even if Shakespeare's English eludes most current-day audience members, the production still clearly conveys its meaning.

For two hours, I watched this film with awe and admiration.

Complaints

1. As I watch this film, I feel like I'm playing the RPG "Dungeon Quest". The story is "on a rail". To accomplish an uncompleted quest, we must go back the exact same way that we came. Not much thought involved. Not much freedom to explore the map. Just action "on a rail".

2. I could never get the colors right. Reds are excessively red. Yeah, it's intentional. However, if my color settings work for every other video, why should I need to make major adjustments, without ultimate satisfaction, for this film?