S_Craig_Zahler

The first dozen episodes of Ultraman Leo are quite special.

These have great Showa era kitchen sink monster designs with tons of textures and spew real fire or vapor or soap. The fights end with lots of violent dismemberments---Leo often rips out fangs and fins and then stabs his enemies with these weaponized bits. Also, the drama portions of these shows are largely brutal martial arts training sequences akin to those found in Lau Kar Leung's Enter the 36th Chamber and 8 Diagram Pole Fighter.

BUT the show then progresses to more toddler-centric story lines with shrill kids shrieking and overacting and making almost all of the non-fight stuff a bit of a chore to sit through. The monsters remain cool, especially the UFO/flying saucer designs, but the battles are toned down/less violent by the last third as well.

The original Ultraman series and Ultraman X are better uses of your Ultratime.

Ultraman X is perhaps the most consistently enjoyable tokusatsu show of the 30+ I've watched in their entirety, though it lacks the engrossing larger narrative and emotional crescendos of shows like Gaim, Go-Busters, and Shinkenger and even the dramatic highs of less solid shows like Jetman, W, Kuuga, and Fourze.

The protagonist/Ultra-partner Daichi looks and acts a bit too slack-jawed and clueless throughout the show, but the rest of the cast is earnest and likable, especially the two commanding officers.

The original monster designs, classic creature reinventions (esp. Red King, Mecha Gamora, and Cyber Gamora), ultra-armor, occasional forays into slice of life drama, and 24-episode length make this show a pleasure to watch from the very first episode. The sense of scale is quite good, and the miniatures constructed for the city buildings and cars are especially good---though I wish the Xio Team vehicles were all practical objects as well (they resorted to CG for these).

Ultraman X is lots of fun, and a good entry point for anybody who wants to see what tokusatsu shows are about.

The first 24 episodes of SPT Layzner are terrific. These shows are military focused science fiction that have the grit and mood of Votoms, but with a more likable cast and far, far better animation. It's the same director/creator, Ryosuke Takahashi, so likely he was given more money this time. I adore Votoms, but the animation timing and colors on that show aren't great (unless you like mauve and lavender explosions that happen at the same slow speed as a person walking). SPT Layzner contains some of the most wonderfully detailed television cel animation from Japan. The intricate shading, the dynamic key frames (often in the Yoshinori Kanada-style), and the fluid in-betweening in the fight scenes often compare to OVAs of that era. The mecha are incredibly well designed. In these regards, I'm hard pressed to think of SPT's rival.

For 24 episodes I thought I had come across something that would rank amongst my favorite real robot shows and OVAs, which are Macross, Macross Plus, Votoms, Gundam 08 MS Team, Mobile Suit Gundam (1979), and Metalskin Panic Madox 01.

But then the second season begins on episode 25 (actually 26 since 25 is mostly a recap episode), and things get different. The dark, atmospheric backgrounds are replaced with mostly bright daylight, and science fiction and military conceits are jettisoned in favor of an action story that was probably equally influenced by Fist of the North Star, The Road Warrior, Macross, and possibly the V mini-series. Although I like all of these things, they are not SPT Layzner, and the experience of watching the second part of SPT Layzner is frustrating and disappointing.

The temporal jump and overall concept of this second season are from Macross, and the freedom fighter angle is from there as well. The ensemble characters that worked so well in 1-24 no longer function as an ensemble---and they are less interesting as individuals than as a group. The villains in 25-38 are cackling buffoons (including the lone cackler who was resurrected from the first season). Some of these guys look like Jagi from FotNS, except Ru Cain, who looks like Shin from FotNS. And our once reluctant warrior Eiji is now a killer Kenshiro martial artist. These latter episodes have an increased amount of sadism, but not really comparable to what was going on with OVA stuff at the time--or even on a level with FotNS, so not notable in that regard. The mild version of Baoh or Violence Jack or MD Geist is a sad digression from what SPT Layzner originally was .

There is only one thing that gives these latter episodes any value: there are an abundance of very well animated mecha battles. But that's it, and that's a shame.

Also worth criticizing is the last episode, which is bad and mostly a clip show. So my suspicion is they ran out of money and this lackluster "conclusion" was only there to set up the OVAs. I will check these out when I've recovered from my disappointment with the last 14 episodes, but for it's first 24 episodes, this show was everything I want in a real robot anime and executed at a higher level than I've seen in eighties television anime. A bittersweet viewing experience.

Although the phrase 'The best Michael Bay movie ever' may not be an actual compliment in a lot of circles, '13 Hours' is a solid 7 out of 10 and better than almost every movie that I saw in 2015. It is the successful modern warfare movie that the highly confusing 'Black Hawk Down' and the very dull 'Zero Dark Thirty' were not.

Showcasing a big cast of likable (and discernible) characters and some good (albeit slightly confusing) action set pieces, this movie bears comparisons to the HBO series 'Band of Brothers' and 'Generation Kill,' which it more strongly resembles, but it is actually a bit better than those good shows, thanks to the very likable, better differentiated ensemble cast of characters and the uncomfortable, but steady ratcheting of the plot. And unlike 'Black Hawk Down' and 'Zero Dark Thirty' almost all of the drama here actually works. The grisly moments are well--and dryly--handled, and the performances are good, and in some cases--such as with Schreiber, Denman, and Krasinski--very good.

None of the flaws are severe. Mostly, they are limited to the (expected) overcutting of the material, the occasional stylistic flourishes that don't quite gel with the rest of the movie (e.g. the mortar shell point of view), some scenes that are explained rather than shown (eg. the guarding the ambassador during his public appearance), and a handful of line readings of the wisecracking dialogue that don't seem as natural as those that are in the rest of the movie.

In terms of morals and messages, '13 Hours' was noticeably grayer than I was expecting it to be, especially considering the director and that it was based on a true story. If I did not know who directed this, my first guess would actually have been Michael Mann--the visuals really have that lose, purposefully ugly 'Collatera'l and 'Miami Vice' (2006) feel--though this is certainly a much more sentimental picture than anything that Mann has made in decades. A surprisingly good ensemble war event along the lines of 'Men in War' (1957) and 'Battleground' (1949). Recommended.

This tedious movie is a humorless, monotonous, pretentious music video that occasionally feels like a Leonardo DiCaprio showreel. It is distractingly directed by the gimmicky showman Inarritu, whose Birman is possibly the least dramatically interesting movie ever to win an Oscar.

And while a movie does not need to have have likable characters, it should at least have interesting characters, and The Revenant has neither. DiCaprio certainly looks uncomfortable in the snow, but since there is nothing to his character but his affection for the young native--a relationship that does not last very long--most of the movie has a zero dimensional character struggling with the elements with elaborate, gimmicky, cg-enhanced set pieces. Despite being played by a talented actor, the lead is completely uninteresting and his quest for revenge dull.

This is the worst movie I've seen in the theater since the similarly humorless, monotonous, and self-important movie, Precious. The politics are very patronizing and simple minded and lacking any depth other than the typical "we are all to blame" rehash that so many guilty and self loathing people love, as exemplified by the "you are to blame!" and truly laughable final shot.

A feature length music video full of cg tricks, but wholly lacking in characters, drama, humor, heart, and depth. Self-congratulatory, egotistic garbage masquerading as important art that will unfortunately fool a lot of people.

Without question, Go-Busters has the best robot battles I have seen in a tokusatsu show, which is of no small importance in a Super Sentai series. The robots are really well done and the staging of their battles is superb. Tons of great mecha designs, each with multiple forms, and a more modern take on the sentai suit designs as well.

Although the series might crescendo twice, the likable cast and central mystery (about a missing group of scientists that disappeared to another dimension to aid humanity) keeps things fun and engaging in every single episode, even if it is a bit sillier than most of my other favorites.

Yet another thoughtful, well planned work by writer Yasuko Kobayashi.

Beware of chickens!

Surprising turns, cool speculative concepts, and a big likable cast make this my favorite tokusatsu series to date. Despite the inherent silliness of the fruits concept, Kamen Rider Gaim is an emotional, exciting, and philosophically deep fantasy adventure. An incredibly ambitious fighting science fantasy show only hindered by some pretty nutty fruit costumes and the overacting typically found in tokusatsu, though some of the cast is very solid--Kouto and Mitsuzane in particular. It's not surprising that this show was scripted by Gen Urobuchi, who also was behind Puella Magi Madoka Magica, a truly boundary pushing, beautiful, and superb magical girl anime. Kamen Rider Gaim is wholly unpredictable and smart--this one's a great gateway into tokusatsu for those who wonder at its merits, though I've not yet seen it's equal.

Deliberately paced vivisections are the meat of this nearly plot less gore exploration, which in quite a few ways tops the original Japanese Guinea Pig series whence it sprung. Although many will complain of the lack of dramatic content, this movie is a hideous spectacle that displays creativity in ways other than developing an interesting "plot" or "characters"...and these ways are for the most part exceedingly nasty. Some angles and films stocks and effects look more realistic than others, but most of the rough stuff plays pretty well or very well. It is no small achievement that after nearly an hour of carnage, Biro, Koch, Bebber, and company manage plumb the most disturbing depths in the final gore sequences and epilogue.

Included are some quite memorable usages of needles, a crucifix, and branch clippers...

Another atmospheric, creative and original gem by my favorite horror director of the 21st century, Brian Paulin. More of a slow build experience than his last three movies, so be patient with this one. It contains stronger performances than in his previous outings (both Olsen & Paulin) and a stunning end sequence.

Like other Paulin movies, Cryptic Plasm is a DIY confluence of Italian Horror (especially Fulci), the Guinea Pig series, Tetsuo: Iron man, anime, and 80s horror, but in the end, his approach and varied influences yield a very distinct art. Nothing else feels quite like a Brian Paulin movie...except other Brian Paulin movies.

Like Blood Pigs, Bone Sickness, and Fetus (which is my top favorite Paulin movie), Cryptic Plasm shows things that few micro budgeted movies would dare attempt and for me these achievements in scope and vision overwhelm any and all technical flaws...and often enhance the atmosphere and personality of the piece.

Recommended to people who want to see distinct, homegrown, creative indie horror.

Although Michael Todd Schneider is probably best known in the horror underground for his role as Maggot in the envelope-pushing Mordum picture in the August Underground series, his movie ...And Then I Helped is more compelling in all departments.

Surely, people who want a gorefest or an easy experience or a conventional one might be frustrated by the deliberate pace of this moody picture, and its obscured narrative, which is rather dreamlike. This isn't for everyone, though I think the artistic merit might actually appeal to people outside the hardcore gore crowd. Though yes, there is some quality splatter here.

Blurry and at times opaque, ...And Then I Helped is a visual poem---often free form with pinwheeling camera moves, odd cutaways and very over-saturated colors. It is engaging when no violence is upon the screen, though not from a character or plot standpoint as much as from the atmospherics and lush visuals and interesting angles. I'd prefer for it to have fewer edits in some of the scenes, though Schneider (also the editor) does find good rhythms most of the time. The textures, tone and trajectory had me involved for it's duration.

Reference points are things like Inland Empire, Mutilation Man, Lost Highway, Julien Donkey Boy, Easy Rider, and Natural Born Killers, as much as they are the more typical (and of course excellent) horror pictures like Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Don't Torture a Duckling. So yeah, I'm pointing to a pretty varied palette to describe what Schneider is doing, because it is unique.

Patient viewers will be rewarded: ...And I Helped is in no rush, which is part of its appeal, and it gets better as it progresses, heightening tension and atmosphere and overall interest.

Schneider has a distinct voice and it's clear he's bringing varied influences and a lot of talent to a genre overpopulated with people who are content to simply copy the masters. I purchased a limited edition DVD directly from his site and advise others to do the same and support this talented fellow.

Like the extremely overrated District 9, Elysium's lone strength is its convincing special effects and its weaknesses are in every other area. Although there is nothing as terribly stupid as the District 9 "alien blood that can bond with human DNA ... and also power spaceships," Elysium is heavy handed allegory, amped up drama and dramatically ridiculous.

Some of the ships and robots are great to look at---seeing Syd Mead's name in the credits was not a big surprise.

Since the days of Hitchcock people seemed to have forgotten that the first and most important job of a director is not to come up with 'cool visuals,' but direct actors. Ergo, the title, 'director.'

So congrats to Blomkamp for showing me the first truly terrible Jodie Foster performance. It's like he showed her a 1960s spider-man cartoon and said, 'like this but bigger.' And a lot of her work was dubbed for some reason, likely accent inconsistency (even though it's still inconsistent in the end product). And i am a HUGE William Fichtner fan, but this movie also showcases his career nadir. Sometimes he seems to be imitating Data from Star Trek, other times, sort of German. And Copley as the villain...well if there is a less menacing accent than this, i haven't heard it. And he is of course, way, way over the top as he was in District 9 (though he was decent in Europa Report). Damon is the only performer whose work is credible, probably because he's a big enough star to just say no if Blomkamp wants to turn him into a screaming cartoon.

In terms of story, don't expect any science or anything other than good versus evil. Sadly, with rare exception, Hollywood science fiction movies are really just noisy action movies these days, and as a huge science fiction fan I know i'll rarely see any interesting scientific elements in these (though the movies of Duncan Jones and Kosinski do have some smart ideas and are the exceptions). So no, Elysium isn't sci-fi, but just heavy handed action movie allegory, more or less the same class warfare of District 9, so he's already retreading this theme. Then there is the would-be action centerpiece exo-skeletal suit, an idea that doesn't work at all, and isn't well sold visually. Really, as designed, this thing wouldn't work without tearing off fingers and smashing the limbs of its user, which is why most exo-skeletal designs are also armor that could shield a water-based lifeform. In any case, the actions scenes are so shaky and over cut, it's hard to see what's happening regardless. But I never had even a moment of thinking the thing actually functioned or would function.

Blomkamp clearly has a political viewpoint---one that I have no issue with at all, except that it makes his writing too pedantic and monochromatic. A strong viewpoint does not make one a good writer. Writing rich people are bad and poor people are good is not dramatically compelling to watch, even if you actually believe things are that simple. Look at the success George RR Martin is having with complex characters...Blomkamp's writing seems like that of a child by comparison. That Elysium is self-important and humorless, doesn't help.

And if Blomkamp (who clearly should not write his own movies) really understood science fiction the way actual science fiction writers do---guys like Greg Egan, JMS, Ted Chiang, Arthur C. Clarke, Greg Bear, M. John Harrison, Stephen Baxter, Larry Niven, etc.--- he would not have a future world technology where humans can be rebuilt at an atomic level in the same world as one in which robots fire guns and miss their targets. (!!!) Robots hitting their targets when they fire is near future and to some extent, current; rebuilding bodies at an atomic level (in less than a minute) is very, very, very far future, if ever.

But like most Hollywood junk---and the similarly stupid, crazily overrated breakthrough success District 9--- Blomkamp is doing something that looks like science fiction, but isn't.

sharknado is the very best asylum / syfy TV movie i've ever seen and actually one of the only ones to rise above a 4. i'm glad to see the best one have such success--i saw it at a midnight screening in union square new york.

i hate the term guilty pleasure, because i feel no guilt when i enjoy a movie that delivers what it promises. sharknado delivers. it does not promise existential dilemma nor poignant allegory. it promises a feature length experience centered on the concept of sharks in a tornado...and succeeds.

the only real close competition from the syfy folks is air collision, which is an incredible piling on of the unbelievable and the illogical that seems conceived of by an imaginative child. like air collision, sharknado is a commendable example of how to take one event and stretch it out to feature length, which is no easy task when the event is 'sharks in a tornado' or 'two planes are about to crash in midair.'

amazingly, sharknado does not pad it's first act with drama minutiae, but quickly deliver some action and so the escalation of events really continues throughout the whole movie. and when the sharknado is finally glimpsed, it is actually pretty stunning to look at---certainly the zenith achievement of cg visual fx in a syfy movie.

intentional and unintentional humor fills the movie, and there's also stuff where i can't tell if they knew it was funny or not---such as the melodramatic monologues---but i had tears pouring down at one point i was laughing so hard. and there is a coincidence towards the end that may be the single funniest and least likely coincidence in movie history.

sharknado whirls quickly from one creative set piece to another and is engaging throughout.

a solid b picture from asylum, and their finest hour. i hope to see more at this level, because i like this energetic and creative low budget picture far more than most of the 100 million dollar pieces of junk i've seen come out of Hollywood in the last few years.

Star Trek is one of the only television successes to contain some actual science fiction concepts, especially from 3rd season forward in Next Generation, but this movie, like it's crappy reboot predecessor is an action movie with spaceships. Into Darkness has about as much science fiction and boldly going as the recent James Bond, Skyfall, which is to say ... sadly ... none.

This terrible writing team (the guy who couldn't figure out what to do with the show Lost or the movie Prometheus and the idiots behind Transformers) has contrived a tapestry of action with artificial amped-up crisis after crisis--- the entire movie is essentially action scenes with a couple of pauses for clichéd dramatic beats--- "You're a loose cannon!" "This time ... it's personal!" "Vulcans should be more emotional."

Most of the cast is terrible cartoon caricature (Scotty & Bones are abysmal Saturday Night Live sketch performances), except Greenwood as Pike (this actor is directorproof, great in Exotica) and Kirk and Spock are good enough to keep me interested at a level of almost a 4.

The things lifted from Wrath of Khan are numerous and embarrassing and exemplify everything that is wrong with Hollywood and the remake/reboot machine: No CREATIVITY anywhere. Too much attempt to please the crowd, without any thought, challenge or boldly going anywhere.

Looks like JJ Abrams is well set up to continue making Star Wars movies exactly as cluttered and contrived and silly as The Phantom Menace.

Cluttered Action Sequences + Thievery (aka "homages") + Caricatures = Into Darkness

It's sad that an innovative franchise is now a dumb, loud and thoughtless lowest common denominator junk. Sci-fi should make you think, but this pile of noise shuts down the thinking process.

Zero Dark Thirty is dull and plays out like a very long TV cop procedural. In an attempt to remain sort of removed from the incendiary topic, we get a bland, emotionally detached movie.

Chastain is bad. This is pure soap opera acting and sometimes way worse--- like TV anchorwoman kind of stuff. Her deliveries of some lines of dialog ("don't go outside") are incredibly stiff and just seem like (bad) audition material. The scenes of confrontation with her and her bosses are incredibly uncontrolled (read: sitcom overacting) and forced. She's just terrible. The fact that people think she's good in this shows that people have no idea what good acting is at all. It is clear that she is being awarded because the role is a "strong" role about a determined woman, though what we see on the screen is an unconvincing and teary-eyed eighties sitcom performance.

Jason Clarke is pretty good and has some charisma, as does Chris Pratt. The scenes with them don't seem like they are scenes starring actors who are trying way too hard to be something they are not.

The script is mediocre at best. Instead of any scenes that show us anything about these people or their world it's all procedure. Instead of witnessing Chastain's lack of a social life, we get one scene of her drinking a soda, and have several characters tell us about her lack of a social life. Instead of witnessing her fatigue (which isn't in her performance), her friends tell us she's tired. Instead of seeing Jason Clarke grow weary of his job as a torturer, we are told that he has grown weary of his job as a torturer.

Bigelow should get a new writer, cause this one isn't good, and in the end, we land with the exact same exact point of The Hurt Locker--- that "the people of war" aren't comfortable outside of their missions. And even the mission is cluttered in terms of her direction--- too many cuts and too many point of views.

A really dull and dramatically uninteresting telling of a powerful story.

So this is not nearly as disturbing as the reviews on this site and others imply.

There's a reason that movies like Deliverence, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Audition and Funny Games are far more unsettling than this one-- quality acting. The cackling bad guy is the least interesting choice a writer can make, and although certainly some real life bad guys have tittered, the villains in All Night Long 2: Atrocity often seem like people who should be fighting Speakman or Seagal in a direct to video martial arts movie. (Though plenty of those are better than this-- eg. Flesh & Bone, Last Man Standing and Martial Outlaw.)

When All Night Long 2 is dry and cool--- much of its first half--- the piece is a somewhat effective and uncomfortable viewing experience. But once the nerd starts smiling at the sadism, it's obvious where this is going-- and that happens very early on. His performance is stiff at best, and terrible and silly by the end. The sort of stuff that ruined Hong Kong movies likes Untold Story and Dr. Lamb (and I saw both of those projected in 35mm on the big screen). The gore is mostly spraying blood, oftentimes with too much magenta and overall this movie is not remotely convincing--- and since it's so contained and bare bones, it really needed to feel authentic. And the sound effects are very loud-- again, making the proceedings feel false.

Atrocity does not compare to other small shot on video sadism like (the serious) Guinea Pigs, nor the first August Underground, much less the wildly creative Brian Paulin movies (Fetus, Bone Sickness) and the early Ittenbach pieces.

The content of French indie gem Blackaria is the style--- its lush and oblique presentation of its giallo content.

Giallo can mean a lot of things, but here I use the term to mean stylishly-photographed horror-mystery with lingering shots of gore and unclothed females and a puzzling sensibility throughout akin to dreaming. No more or less logical than things like House by the Cemetery or Inferno, and similarly entertaining, Blackaria is a collection of dreamy and lush visual sequences. Lighted with the strong reds and blues of vintage Argento and misty like Fulci, Blackaria is an atmospheric and convoluted concoction of blades, blood and breasts.

I saw an Argento interview where he said that Sergio Leone told him that the center of Once Upon a Time in the West was not the plot or actors, but the camera and Blackaria follows in that tradition, offering an experience that is violent, erotic, puzzling and atmospheric.

American Horror works acceptably (until the end) because it keeps so many things in motion--- plots and timelines and things that go bump in the night. Sort of like Heroes (also a 5)-- and no scarier-- the show relentlessly churns and twists to surprising reveal after surprising reveal all delivered with maximum pathos, though a fair share of the performances are good. There is never once a scary moment--- quick cuts and lots of goofy canted shots pretty much guarantee there is never any atmosphere, unless you think music videos are atmospheric. The heavy handed music choices don't help, excepting the cool whistling bit and the piece that sounds stolen from Wojciech Kilar's superb score for (the otherwise crappy) Coppola-directed Dracula (I don't like to put Bram Stoker's name at the front of that one.)

So AHS functions as a fast moving and surprising soap opera with a big budget, some good make up fx and some decent acting, which is why it gets a 5. Actually had the last double length episode not been the series nadir--- really bad dialogue and spacious melodrama that fails utterly--- the show would be slightly north of mediocre, but 'afterbirth' is pretty stinky, and the penultimate episode 'birth' not much better.

Like most Stephen King stuff that I don't like*, it is essentially modern day fantasy with too much explanation of everything so it barely even functions as suspense, much less horror. Ghosts as lead characters who can appear and disappear at will puts this in a camp with things like Ghost (yes, the Swayze one) and Noel Coward's Blithe Spirit. If you think Ghost and Blithe Spirit are horror, then American Horror Story is horror, but I don't (and you shouldn't) even if AHS has occasional gore and burn make up.

Overall, American Horror Story is a mildly engaging soap with better than average acting for a soap and a lot more blood than the average soap, but actually less creepy than the original Dark Shadows show, which actually had atmosphere and let the scenes breathe (and had better music as well).

*Horror guys I dig are the old school of Lovecraft, Blackwood and Machen, and also the visceral and immediate books of high tension storyteller Richard Laymon.

I saw the restored print at Film Forum.

The main reason this is a partial success is because Bond is not a compelling or likable or interesting character. He's bland and it is his ordeal and his change during the ordeal that engaged me in the picture, but most of movie prior to his invitation to a drinking buddy's home is dramatically flat. One could argue that that is the point-- that not much is there, but the sequence in which Bond maniacally talks himself into betting (some of which seems like ADR added after the fact) is clumsy and tells me that I was supposed to have some emotional investment in whether he won or lost his freedom from the school system purgatory in which he was trapped.

The piece really takes off the moment the two big, menacing fellows step into the house and works very well once Bond is relegated to a witness of Donald Pleasance, who has never been better than he is here, maybe not even comparably good.

The hunting scenes are difficult to watch, but it is the wild abandon of the riders after the hunt, the berserk and forced "enjoyment" of their sadism, that is the high point of the movie and quite excellent. The filth and squalor of this presages things like Gummo and the overall tone reminds me of Walkabout, with a dash of Cannibal Holocaust.

It's sort of strange that the film is quite comfortable graphically showing animal death but shies away from depicting any of the implied drunken homosexuality.

Overall, this movie has about 40 really engaging and disturbing minutes, but lacks a compelling lead and ends a little to quaintly to be truly substantial.

Exact rating: 5.5

First a technical comment. I saw this projected in 70mm and although this is a gorgeous format, the sharp definition is often squandered by the shallow depth of field-- out of focus 70mm is not very different from out of focus 35mm. Still, it looks great, but often just felt like 35mm, despite the effort and cost of shooting 70mm.

The core problems of this piece are problems of most Paul Thomas Anderson work. It works sometimes as allegory and cinematic diorama, but infrequently as drama. Phillip Seymour Hoffman is neither beguiling nor charismatic, the way this role requires. (Compare the various Hoffman speeches to any scene with John Hawkes in the far, far, far superior cult picture, Martha Marcy May Marlene.) From the beginning, we see Hoffman as quick to anger and a cold manipulator and there is no element of seduction in terms of bringing Joaquin Phoenix, and the audience, into the cult. Joaquin is neither charismatic nor very interesting, unless you find a mediocre love interest and drinking interesting.

Both actors overdo it and get quite theatrical, though nothing like the abhorrent mugging and apoplectic histrionics of Daniel Day Lewis in There Will Be Blood. Maximum acting and method actor anger (the jail scene and singing bits are quite forced). I can engage in a movie with unlikable characters that are interesting, but these characters are neither and the actors do not bring enough personality to the roles to overcome the limitations of the script. Their relationship does not really work, and it's supposed to be a pillar of the movie--- see the failed melodrama at the end.

Like the excellent opening sequences of There Will Be Blood and the Tom Cruise stuff in Magnolia, The Master has about 20+ minutes of material that is truly noteworthy--- the processing sequences. The drama and intensity of these scenes crackle vibrantly in comparison to the other sort of engaging two hours, which plays out like a vague biopic sans pathos. With the exception of the processing scenes and the overwrought acting, the overall piece is mild and less interesting than its subject.

branded is a mess.

there is no scientific grounding whatsoever of the far out concepts or even a consistent logic with these concepts once they are presented.

the filmmakers obviously hoped to coast on the "important" message and allegorical nature of the piece, but the lead dude has no charisma, no core (a historian turned agent turned advertisement guy turned shepherd turned crusader) and the fx look like garbage for the most part. the pacing has a strange lumps and overall, the movie has the feel of a cobbled together eastern European movie that is imitating mainstream Hollywood, which seems like an idea that also goes against the premise of the movie. we are told of an important romance that happens in the center of the movie, but we do not see this.

i wonder if this movie is a tax write off.

if you want thoughtful, real science fiction that has a sense of wonder and makes you think without pandering, go watch moon.

if you a cerebral, trance-inducing sort of science fiction experience, check out beyond the black rainbow, although the piece is flawed.

i like some episodes of the original series, but certainly not this one. the popularity of this episode is truly confusing. although i am not expecting Ted Chiang, Greg Egan, Greg Bear, Larry Niven or Arthur C. Clarke in a star trek episode, this beloved episode is not science fiction and this premise--- altering the past and then the future-- was done repeatedly (and better) a decade or more before this piece (by bradbury and in outer limits) without the stultifying "drama."

there are some star trek episodes that have engaging science fiction ideas--- the corbomite maneuver, the changeling, metamorphoses and a taste of Armageddon--- but the many crappy time travel episodes in this series (or slight variations that show "parallel worlds" with gangsters and romans and gladiators and belly dancers and Nazis) are why i cannot fully embrace the show and feel it contributes to people not understanding what the term science fiction means.

more than a decade before this program, Hal Clement wrote mission of gravity and Clarke wrote childhood's end--- so weak time travel episodes (even worse in season 2) as well as the ones with evil kirks and the many creatures that can make your wishes into reality cannot be wholly excused because of the era. it seems like they were out of ideas or just had access to these costumes and sets and wrote something around them.

season three of star trek: the next generation was the first season of this franchise that is predominantly science fiction (even if the risible q character does turn up), and the first one that i, a sci-fi fan, like the major part of.

so for sci-fi fans looking to explore this show start with the above episodes or jump to the next generation season 3 (unless you want to watch joe piscopo, one of the least funny comedians ever, teach an android how to be funny in an episode that was probably not meant to be ironic). or just watch babylon 5, which is good from the very first season.

although this received some good press and was supported by the excellent folks at subway cinema, this movie is heavy-handed, monotonous and badly made junk. i suppose it would be a novelty to somebody who has never seen adult animation, but otherwise don't waste your time. if you want smart and rich adult animation, go watch heavy traffic (bakshi), berserk, shigurui, my neighbors the yamadas, ghost in the shell: innocence or porco rosso.

the king of pigs animation combines limited, inconsistent and ugly drawings (like king of the hill and beavis and butt head) with rotoscoping (tracing) and bad computer generated models. i saw this on the big screen and the animation is definitely the worst i've ever seen for a theatrical film-- and i saw cool world when it came out.

like many bad korean movies, it is monotonously mean and there are stupid twists that undo the limited amount of characterization the writing provided (see also: the good the bad and the weird, the host, shiru). the characters are dull and one dimensional, the scenes are repetitive, the animation is awful and the overall experience tedious.

actual rating 6.25.

this is slightly higher than the 6 i would give the second raimi spider-man movie, which is the best of that first bunch.

garfield supplies us with too much acting and emoting, as he did in 'never let me go.' he is capable, but needs to be reined in, as he was in 'the social network.' he's too fidgety, too dewy-eyed and too angry, though likely he was directed this way. fine, but not as naturally likable as was toby maguire in this same role not too long ago.

contrarily, the spider-man stuff is significantly better handled than in the other movies. it's nice to see that the guy running around in the suit...is a guy running around in a suit, not a weightless computer generated creation that has no personality. and when it is computer generated (which doesn't seem often), it meshes very well with the actual performer. the quipping/smart remarks during the fights work better than i would have expected and there are some smart moments--- the making of the motion sensitive web and the collusion of the crane operators are both pretty sharp ideas that are well presented. although the reversion of peter parker's web shooters to their original idea is different (and in line with the comic) it actually makes less sense in a movie that is trying deal more with the genetic side of parker's abilities. maybe this was done to differentiate it more from the raimi film?

like many people, after countless versions of the origin--- in comics (the original, ultimate s-m) in the previous raimi movie and also on stage, i am tied of the origin story and wish the filmmakers eschewed giving it to us again. still, a fine comic book movie.

no detailed plot spoilers, but a general discussion of the progression of the series.

gungrave works best when it is a moody crime drama, somewhat along the the lines of michael mann's 80s series crime story. the speculative fiction aspect--- the org men--- seems like an idea shoved into this crime world to make it conform to the video game and more like something for kids who like bleach. the "science fiction" element never fits comfortably with these characters and unfortunately distorts them into laughing evil cliché, injuring the dramatic integrity of the world.

overall, gungrave is somewhat like a mix of berserk (which also begins obliquely) and hellsing, but not nearly as well written and psychologically compelling as the earlier and nowhere near as fun as the latter.

bear walkin is a cool supporting character and the friendship of brandon and harry is enough to keep me engaged for most of the earlier episodes, but the action is badly directed and sloppy, which is unusual for a madhouse anime, since they are the most consistently excellent anime studio ever (eg. shigurui, x (tv series), death note, etc.).

another negative observation is that the violence seems very toned down from what it should have been-- like the pg version of something that should have been a rough hard R (see berserk and shigurui).

i'm surprised at the high rating--- this show succeeds somewhat as a moody crime drama, but really loses its way with poorly handled action (with three exceptions) and laughing "evil."

like sunshine, prometheus is a true sci-fi picture that turns into a below average horror movie. fassbender was really, really great, but the picture features many career-worst performances, such as the weakest work i've ever seen by theron and elba. this isn't a surprise, given the director--- harrison ford has never been worse than he was in blade runner.

i still don't understand what the opening scene meant--- why the thing altered it's dna and killed itself. or how exactly elba knew that it was a weapons depot. this seemed like a throw in to explain missing stuff to the audience.

additionally, the tie-in to the alien franchise is unneeded--- those are horror/action movies and have almost no science.

and the amount of dumb science was truly incredible.

1. "hmm. we are in an alien environment. let's sends balls of brilliant red lightning ahead of us--- that couldn't ever be construed as hostile, could it?" i bet ridley said, "cause it looks cool." 2. even more idiotic is the removal of helmets when the adjacent environment is toxic. they hit one air vent and they're all dead. 3. and then, after people are infected, they return...and remove their helmets again. yikes. scientists shouldn't be dumber that the dumbest person in the audience, but here they are. 4. and from what matter/energy source could the octo-alien increase its size by over 100 times in just a day? how did this 5 pound creature generate the body mass to become a thousand pound creature while stuck in a sterile lab? i bet ridley said, "cause it looks cool." 5. and more bad science is how a massively advanced ship would be destroyed by a lame human craft scuttling it. that ship would obviously have something to deal with matter in space that travels at far higher speeds than this slow human ship. 6. and even more bad science is the ergonomically awful "future" ship that requires the pilot to pick up a recorder and use two hands and a mouth to activate something and later move his hands across vast spaces to pilot the ship. this is like putting a turn signal in the back seat and the ignition on the hood.

overall, there were some striking images--- especially the resuscitated alien's head and the c-section sequence--- but it seems like prometheus was a three hour movie that the studio shortened by an hour to make more exciting, because lots of scenes were really rushed and none of the characters--- except fassbender's--- were at all developed.