lucluv

I guess Darrell Miklos got tired of looking for "Cooper's Treasure," his previous show on the History Channel. He's moved on from lost Spanish treasure galleons seen from outer space, to "lost" Nazi U-boats, supposedly refitted to haul stolen European wealth to South America.

Seeing that his previous series was pretty much a bust, it makes one wonder what possessed the execs at History Channel to fund another of his pipe dreams?

A lot of this is the same sort of stuff you saw in "Cooper's Treasure." Guys riding around in a boat dragging a magnetometer. Guys scuba diving, sweeping the sea floor with handheld metal detectors. Guys not being able to do anything due to weather conditions.

Nothing new. Nothing interesting. Nothing to see here, that you haven't seen before.

I must credit Most Haunted for piquing my interest in paranormal shows. It was the first of the genre that I ever watched. At first, I was fascinated, with nothing else to compare it to. But after watching a few seasons, it became obvious to me how fake it was.

In the beginning, the biggest things they would find were orbs and an occasional odd noise. Then, it became stones being thrown at them by "ghosts" at every location. It seemed they would come up with a new gimmick, then ride it for all it was worth. The show was the same, episode after episode, until they added the next gimmick.

Derek would keep "sensing" things that had little, if any historical correlation. Later, he would get "possessed" just about every show. He couldn't be a very good medium if he kept getting jumped by spirits all the time.

And then there's the case of Stuart supposedly losing his hair due to fright.

The longer I watched, the hokier the show got. After more and more paranormal shows came on TV, and I had something to compare Most Haunted to, they showed just how poor Most Haunted was.

Most Haunted never really produced any even halfway convincing evidence. I gave up on the show, and shortly after, it was dropped from American TV.

The first two Kingsmen movies were quirky, fun and did not take themselves too seriously. Everything was sort of "over the top" and that's what made them so entertaining.

This prequel, The King's Man, took itself way too seriously. It started off slow and went downhill from there. It attempted to meld itself into real world history, from the Boer War up through World War I, coming up with fictitious causes behind real historic events. It did not do it very cleverly and was a bit muddled in the end.

The relationship between Orlando Oxford and his son, Conrad, has none of the charm, camaraderie and banter that was found between Harry and Eggsy in the first two movies, and is rather depressing to watch, actually.

Since this series of movies derives from a comic book series, let me sum it in these terms. The first two Kingsmen movies were Adam West and Burt Ward as Batman and Robin, while this clunker was Ben Affleck as Batman.

This should have been named "Stuporman v Superman". Ben Affleck does for Batman what he did for Daredevil...Nothing. He spends the whole movie looking and acting like he's constipated. On top of that, in the Batman suit, he looks more like Fatman.

If they'd have picked someone who could actually act and looked athletic in the suit, to go along side Gal Godot and Henry Cavill, this might have been a decent movie, but Affleck's take on Batman, left me flat, man. Had me wishing it was Batman who died in the end, just so Affleck wouldn't be around to ruin Justice League, as well.

This is another of Hollywood's misguided "re-imaginings" of a classic story.

This show has very little to do with the novels. Sure, they kept Joni, as his cheating wife, his sometime partner, Boyd, re-named "Buddy", and The Broker, as his middleman in the hit for hire business, but the rest of the people (for the most part) never appeared in any of the novels. They even start off on the wrong foot by giving Quarry a real life name, as opposed to the novels where he is never known by anything but "Quarry", unless he's using an undercover alias.

While each novel concentrates on the psychology and drama of a single hit, the TV show became mired in a morass of melodrama and mass shootouts. It adds a different Vietnam backstory that never existed in the novels.

Hollywood should stop taking classic stories and thinking "I can do it better!" As in most cases, and this case in particular, they can't. I'm not surprised the show got canceled. If you want the true "Quarry" read the books.

When I got to the end of this six-hour miniseries, my main reaction was "Huh?" So much of this miniseries followed no particular logic whatsoever. When it ended, it left the lingering question of "What was it all about?"

*SPOILER ALERT*

The Overlords show up and all of a sudden warring factions put down their weapons and begin hugging. No methodology for the how or why of this happening is ever given.

Why cure all illnesses plaguing mankind, if they are only going to wipe out the planet within a century or so?

With all of humanity's needs being met through renewable resources and equitable distribution of those resources, mankind suddenly becomes a bunch of dullards. Supposedly only in New Athens is there any attempt at creativity. You would think that, without the worries and stress of everyday existence, mankind would be free to pursue the arts and creativity, but no. People suddenly lose their curiosity and inventiveness for no reason.

Supposedly jobs are few and far between, so who is producing and distributing all of the food, water, energy. etc.?

The whole deal with the children makes no sense. With all of the people's needs being met, there is a baby-boom. The newborn children all develop psychokinetic and telepathic abilities. For what purpose? And there was never any explanation of where the kids were taken to, once they were Raptured up into the Overlords' ships. Why not leave them on Earth, where, eventually, they and their offspring would populate the planet?

What was the trigger for the Overlords to show up at this particular time in mankind's evolution to breed these children, then take them away? Why not 1,000 or 5,000 years before, or 100 or 500 years in the future? Once again, no logical explanation is given.

Lastly, with all of the millennia of human creativity from which to choose, Karellen picks some obscure song to preserve as an example of human creativity?

If this was religious allegory, it was told strictly from a Judeo-Christian point of view, while the majority of mankind has other beliefs. Why would those people react as though the Overlords are the personification of the Devil and the Overlords' planet as the Christian version of Hell? There was a lack of any sense of how these people of differing beliefs would react to the Overlords.

There is so much of this that just made no logical sense, and good SciFi SHOULD make at least some sort of sense, no matter how far-fetched. Even religious allegory should make sense. But, too much was done here for no particular rhyme nor reason.

By the end, I felt that I had wasted six hours in a meaningless pursuit.