breckswordz

I came across this film by accident; I had just read Elan Mastai's highly enjoyable novel, "All Our Wrong Todays," and "Duck-Ducked" him to see what else he had written. This film was just as much fun to watch as "Todays" was to read.

I loved the witty, educated dialog. And, no, Radcliffe is not a "hunk." To me, this another plus for this film--Radcliffe & Kazan look like real people, not movie stars. This is not Hugh Jackman and Scarlett Johanssen; this is a couple of ordinary folks like the ones in my neighborhood.

One thing I've been wondering about--were the main supporting characters cast as taller than average on purpose? Even Mackenzie Davis is 5 inches taller than Radcliffe, and 6 inches taller than Kazan. Is this symbolic of something?

As an American, I'm not intimately familiar with Dutch history. And that's a shame, because our concept of individual freedom is a direct descendant of the Republic's.

I had heard of De Ruyter, but this film really opened my eyes. I know it's not strictly historically accurate (no film ever is), but it inspired me to read more on Dutch history, and more about this brilliant tactician in particular.

On a different tack, I appreciated this film's superior accuracy in depicting war in the Age of Sail. I've seen too many Hollywood movies with mysterious "exploding solid iron cannonballs." "Admiral" accurately shows that the greatest danger to life & limb came from the huge oak splinters that flew in every direction when a cannonball crashed through a wooden wall.

If you enjoy historical films, and nautical adventure in particular, see this one!

I can't figure out who the target audience is for this show. It's far too simplistic to hold the interest of adults, and, if it's for kids, you would think they would at least get the science right, especially considering it's a production of a major university.

Example: early in the first episode, Arthur sees what is apparently a large meteor streak across the sky. He seems to be a smart kid--one of the first things he unpacks in his new home is a handmade model of the Solar System. Yet he continually refers to the meteor as a "comet." Not even his new-found nerdy friends correct him on this.

If a kid-oriented show deals with scientific topics, it should be scientifically accurate. Kids are exposed to enough nonsense in their lives to have it reinforced in a show with educational pretensions.

I spent the entire movie expecting a plot twist because of a sloppy continuity error!

Let me explain: When McDormand first puts the gun in her purse, a closeup clearly shows that it's a Smith & Wesson, a revolver that is loaded by swinging the cylinder out to the side.

Later, when Walsh sneaks into the house and steals a revolver, he breaks it open to see if it's loaded. This is a break-action revolver, most probably a Harrington & Richardson (we get a much better look at it later in the film.) This is the gun that Walsh uses to shoot Hedaya, (and also the one that magically fires itself when Getz accidentally kicks it.)

Throughout the movie, I thought this inconsistency was deliberate, and was very disappointed to find that it was just a blunder on the part of the movie crew! (Also, the "goofs" section of IMDb on this film has some nonsense about a revolver with a "cocking lever;" this is apparently written by someone with no more knowledge of revolvers than the film crew. Revolvers do not have "cocking levers," except maybe for some rare antique.)

Sorry to seem a nit-picker, but I expect crime films to be consistent.

(To their credit, the Coen brothers are better able to tell one gun from another in their excellent True Grit.)

As someone who has read all 82 of the Perry Mason novels, I have to say that this is the best I've seen of the Warner Brothers Perry Mason films. Readers of Gardner's mysteries will appreciate how faithfully the screen writers were able to keep to the essentials of the original plot in this short 70 minute film.

This film is far superior to the turkeys WB made with Warren William (although that's not saying much.) And Donald Woods was more like the literary Mason than Raymond Burr, who was almost fat enough by the end of the TV series to play Nero Wolfe!

And, of course, there's the great 1930's atmosphere in this film, something the TV series could never hope to reproduce.

If you come to this film expecting edgy humor and a creative story line, you'll probably find it rather painful to watch.

As a comedy, it's almost a total loss. I imagine even the "Albert Brooks can do no wrong" crowd cringed a little at the cheap Third-World-Country gags (the faulty elevator, the tiny office, the cramped taxi)

I found that it (sort of) works, however, as a commentary on government projects, what a waste of money they are, and how they often achieve the opposite of their intended result.

For instance, only government yahoos would send a Jewish comedian to learn what makes Muslims laugh (and of course they send him to a predominately Hindu country.) Brooks' clueless character symbolizes the well-intentioned government idiot, imposing his cultural values on others, in this case by trying to make them laugh by telling blatantly ethnocentric jokes. And, of course, the project, intended to bring people together, eventually causes a minor war. It's a textbook example of government in action!

Is Albert Brooks a closet libertarian?

Although I usually avoid anything the Sci-Fi Channel produces because it far exceeds Sturgeon's Law, I kept hearing that BSG was "one of the best shows on TV," so I decided to give it a try. I rented the 2003 mini-series, to begin at the beginning…

The sound of explosions in a vacuum should have warned me off, but I persevered. I only laughed a little when the Cylon virus shut down the Viper systems and they spontaneously CHANGED COURSE (Isaac Newton? Who's he?). I even stood my ground against the Assault of the Cardboard Characters and the Attack of the Hackneyed Plot Elements.

But even I was eventually overwhelmed by the sheer silliness of this fiasco. Presumably, this occurs in some far future century, but executives still seem to be wearing 20th century ties. Why not togas or doublets & hose? The scanning eye (or whatever it is) of the Cylons looks like a rip-off of Klaatu from "The Day the Earth Stood Still." And the names of the colonies-Caprica? Sagitarion? Geminon?

I know this is an early attempt to deal with the concept of The Singularity, but why would a cybernetic intelligence bother to cross interstellar space to attack humans?

What I really want to know is, does this thing eventually get better when it becomes a series? Did they replace the writers with people who stayed awake in science class? Or maybe one or two who view writing as something more than a cliché assembly kit? I may have to buy the first DVD of the series in order to watch it (my Blockbuster doesn't bother to stock it), so, can somebody please tell me whether I'll be wasting my money (or "cubits" as they say in BSG)!!!

I've just about given up hope of ever finding a sci-fi movie or TV show written by people who have actually READ a science fiction novel, instead of Hollywood hacks who think a few special effects are all you need to create "science fiction."

This series could just as easily have been written about a tramp freighter in the South Pacific in the 1950's, instead of "500 years in the future;" the writers seem to have no idea of the implications of another 500 years of technological progress. For instance, in one episode, one of the characters is shot, and the ship's doctor is nowhere to be found. The captain tries to stop the bleeding by applying a compress! Anyone who has read real science fiction would realize that, in 500 years, even the poorest ship would be equipped with automated medical facilities that we can only dream of today. And this, of course, is only one example of the complete lack of imagination this show exhibits.

Oh, well- I guess I'll just go back to my SF novels, and dream of the day when sci-fi movies are written by the likes of Vernor Vinge and Larry Niven. . .

After enduring all three hours of Timothy Hines' effort, it's quite apparent to me that a 19th century science fiction novel can't easily be made into a 21st century action film. The attention span of the modern film-goer is just not up to the job of watching a faithful adaptation.

That being said, I still think that this is the core of the film that Spielberg could have made instead of the silly FX-fest he has just released. Retro action films can be made extremely entertaining- witness "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" or "Wild Wild West."

Hines gets an A for effort, but an F Minus for execution. I was shocked- SHOCKED to learn that this is a 2005 film. The CGI effects are crude for even a 1985 film. The acting is sub-par for community theater. And just how is it that, after wandering the desolate landscape and being trapped for days under a wrecked house, none of the men show even a trace of five o'clock shadow?

This amateurish effort looks like it was made by a high-school A-V club. It's just a crying shame that someone with more ability didn't take on this project. . .

This film reminds me of another great Lionel Barrymore classic, "Captains Courageous-" another "boy comes of age on the sea" film. If you enjoyed this one, you'll like that one, too. Leonard Maltin gives this film three stars and "Captains" four, but I prefer this one, probably because I had a hard time getting past Spencer Tracy's laughable attempt at a Portuguese accent in "Captains."

Although I'm not a sailor, this film seems pretty authentic, as though they paid attention to their technical adviser. Less Hollywood than you might expect from a 1949 film.

A previous reviewer described the ships in this film as Bluenose Schooners; actually, all the vessels in "Down to the Sea" are square-rigged whaling ships In my opinion, few things made by Man are as magnificent as a square-rigger under full sail.

I have by now resigned myself to the fact that cinematic science fiction is almost always inferior to the written version (witness "Starship Trooper(s)"), but the geniuses who made this monstrosity seem to think that all you need to make a science fiction film are special effects, a formulaic plot, and gobble-de-gook dialog. No actual SCIENCE needs to appear anywhere in the story. This is fantasy, not science fiction. It's no more scientific than "Lord of the Rings" or "Merlin."

The writers are also lazy. The story opens in the "Devos 3 System." Normally, this type of nomenclature would mean the third planet from a star called "Devos." There is no star named "Devos," but the writers are apparently too lazy to look up a real star. Later, the story shifts to a "moon" that is "7.5 light years" from Earth. A moon of what planet? A planet around what star? There is no star 7.5 LY from earth. Again, why not just take a minute or two to look up a real star and use that? (Wolf 359 is about 7.75 LY from here.)

This film seems to be aimed at underachieving ten-year-olds (most of the ten-year-olds I've met know that explosions can't be heard in a vacuum.) If you don't fit into this narrow demographic, skip this movie. Rent "Battlefield Earth" instead- at least Travolta's travesty can be viewed by adults as unintentional comedy.

And if you're looking for real science fiction and not just fantasy, try your local book store.