Rate The Last TV Show Episode You Watched

[AndyDursin]

I haven't bothered with it. Fans loved seeing all the cast back together again but it seemed a transparent play to muzzle in the rest of their agenda with "new Trek" sensibilities. Doomcock usually nails these things and he saw right through it along with some other comments that were made:

[Monterey Jack]

Reacher is back...

[jkholm]

I really enjoyed the first season of Reacher. Lots of over the top (and occasionally gory) fight scenes with a likable performance by Alan Ritchson in the lead and some good supporting characters too. Can't say the same about season 2. The fight scenes are less interesting, the stakes are low and the supporting cast very dull. I didn't believe for a second anyone on Reacher's team was credible as members of an elite ex-army unit. The budget on the show must have been cut as well with dull locations and dark camerawork. The final episode is particularly bad. I was hoping they'd saved the best for last. The setup is predictable but with potential as the good guys and bad guys are all together in a giant warehouse, a perfect opportunity for creative cat and mouse fight scenes, the use of found objects as weapons, etc. It was not good. The episode is only 43 minutes long and the action is over after the twenty minute mark leaving the rest of the time for a dull coda.

[BobaMike]

Haven't watched the finale yet, but I feel the same way about Reacher season 2. Too many bland fight scenes, people making terrible choices (why did the good cop just walk up to the guys shooting at him. He had cover behind the car?) . Also, did they film all of Robert Patrick scenes in one afternoon? All he does is walk around the same room on the phone. Boring.

As a big fan of the books, they changed waaaay too much. Reacher is better off by himself. And he talks too much this season.

[Paul MacLean]

Greatest Geek Year Ever: 1982 (8.5./10)

Written by Mark A. Altman, this first-rate documentary series explores what many consider (hence the title) the greatest single year for cinema ever, 1982. Whether one agrees with that assessment or not, '82 was without question a phenomenal epoch in movie history, and this production delves into its myriad of enduring classics.

Greatest Geek Year Ever: 1982 is divided into four segments:

1) Summer of Spielberg
2) Science Fiction
3) Fantasy and Action
4) Comedy and Horror

Many of the interviewees / commentators are people who were inspired by these pictures in their youth, and went on to make a mark in the profession themselves -- Dean Devlin, Zak Penn, Bea Grant, Mick Garris, etc. Additional comments are offered from a few of the people who worked on the actual films, like Buzz Feitshans, John Dyskstra, Adrienne Barbeau, Steven Lisberger, etc. Even Barry Bostick is on-hand to offer some hilarious (and frequently self-effacing) comments about Megaforce!

Some movies do get more attention than others -- E.T. and Poltergeist most obviously (which are allotted their own episode). Star Trek II is also given a generous amount of coverage, with Nicholas Meyer and Robert Sallin on hand to provide reminiscences. Blade Runner also a gets generous coverage -- though sadly no comments from Ridley Scott, but Sean Young offers a few interesting bits of trivia, as does Paul M Sammon (who probably knows more about Blade Runner than anyone).

In contrast The Road Warrior gets no more than two or three minutes of coverage, which is pretty unforgivable considering how influential it was -- and that it was a big hit despite being a sequel to a film almost no one in America saw. (The considerably less-significant Rocky III is, bafflingly, given far-more attention here.) However I appreciated this series did spend a good amount of time on The Thing and Conan The Barbarian, acknowledged the importance of The Dark Crystal, and also included coverage of 48 Hrs., Tron, Fast Times at Ridgemont High, Creepshow, The Beastmster, First Blood and a number of other significant pictures from '82.

Greatest Geek Year Ever: 1982 really drives home the fact that these movies really were excellent -- at least within the confines of their aspirations (and many of them broke beyond those confines). The series also effectively points out that many 1982 films were also extremely innovative -- and managed the feat of pushing the envelope while remaining accessible and finding large audiences. Many also spawned sequels, and influence films and television to this very day.

All four segments can be view on CW's website...

https://www.cwtv.com/shows/greatest-gee ... d1cc44bb4e

[Monterey Jack]

In contrast The Road Warrior gets no more than two or three minutes of coverage, which is pretty unforgivable considering how influential it was -- and that it was a big hit despite being a sequel to a film almost no one in America saw.

The original Mad Max made $100 million!

https://screenrant.com/mad-max-1979-rec ... e-history/

[Paul MacLean]

The original Mad Max made $100 million!

https://screenrant.com/mad-max-1979-rec ... e-history/

But was not a success in the US. I said "it was a sequel to a film almost no one in America saw".

[AndyDursin]

Yeah exactly, the original Max was a dud in the US. It's why Warner had to retitle the sequel THE ROAD WARRIOR domestically, because nobody knew what MAD MAX was.

[Monterey Jack]

More Reacher, baby...!

[Eric Paddon]

A.D. (2015) 6.5 of 10
-As part of my annual Easter week viewing tradition, I decided to do some things different this year. For only the second time I watched the 2013 docudrama series "The Bible" produced by Roma Downey. And then, for the first time I watched something I've had for years but never committed myself to until now and that's the follow-up series "A.D." which was a weekly ongoing serialized drama of events following the Crucifixion. The series unfortunately was cancelled after just one season and maddeningly left things on a cliffhanger note.

-The concept I think was an interesting one. A chance to dramatize the book of Acts and beyond at a more leisurely pace than even the 1985 miniseries of the same name did. And to be fair, there are some very positive things like for instance the fact that this is the first Biblical drama of ANY kind I have ever seen that depicts the character of Jesus' half-brother, James the Just who became the head of the Jerusalem Church. Introducing him at a critical juncture is one of the strong points. The series did get to the conversion of Paul, but ended before Paul began to play any part in ministry as it's often forgotten that Paul's early years after converting were spent back in his home in Tarsus (remember, the book of Acts spans almost 30 years).

-Unfortunately what drags this series down and I think kept it from being fully embraced by its intended audience is that it too often degenerated more into a kind of overly melodramatic soap opera that ran afoul of real history in spots and tended to put depicting violence ahead of staying focused on the birth of the faith. The drama takes a real incident, an attempt by the Emperor Caligula to have a statue of himself installed in the Temple at Jerusalem and ludicrously turn it into an incident of bloodshed and violence that never happened, all so we can get a scene of the Jews and Christians in mutual act of non-violent defiance (that turns violent because of Zealot behavior). In fact, no bloodshed took place because Caligula was talked out of the plan when he was told how much violence it would generate. It would have been FAR better to have shown an incident being avoided if say before violence breaks out, word comes from Rome that the plans have been cancelled. But instead, we had to see a big dramatic scene of violence and temporary alliance bonding that was historically false to events.

-Sadly, this has been a flaw with so many Biblical dramas, even in well-made ones that don't achieve a proper synthesis of early Christian history and concurrent Roman history. The 1985 "A.D." is the only one I've seen that gets things more right than wrong (it's chief problem is the fictional characters who are meant to link both parts of the story don't age at the same rate everyone else does!). But IMO, those who would attempt such a thing would be well advised to consult the 1968 "documentary novel", "Pontius Pilate" by the great Christian historian Paul Maier (who just passed away a few weeks ago at 94) which remains to this date the best Biblical novel I have ever read in that it tries to blend the Gospel account with a thoroughly accurate version of Roman history during the period. The 2015 "A.D." alas falls into the trap of thinking Judea was the most important province of the Roman Empire and thus, sets us up for the ludicrous scene of Tiberius and Caligula visiting Jerusalem (Tiberius never left Capri in the last decade of his rule; Caligula didn't become mad until after he'd been Emperor for a year). Pilate's bloodthirstiness makes no sense whatsoever in the context of real history especially regarding the emerging Christian sect since he had tried to free Jesus unsuccessfully (as Maier noted, Pilate at the time of the Crucifixion was likely boxed into deferring to Jewish wishes because of the recent fall from grace of a prominent Roman administrator who had been responsible for hard-line anti-Jewish policies in Rome. Tiberius at the time was reversing those policies and calling for more deference to the Jews). I truly wish someone would try to do Maier's novel because it would IMO make for the best possible telling of what "A.D." in my opinion ultimately fails to do.

-Some of the casting choices in the drama are a bit puzzling. There is a curious need to give us too much of a mixed race cast so this means we get not just the Apostle John as a black man, we also get a very diminutive black female as Mary Magdalene who comes off noting at all like the Mary Magdalene of the Gospels. Others succeed like Adam Levy as Peter. I have to admit I really did a double take at Greta Scacchi as Mary the mother of Jesus. She REALLY aged badly in the 25 years since "Presumed Innocent".

-I'm glad I finally made room to see this but I doubt I will ever give it another look because any series that ends on a cliffhanger as this did is never the kind of thing you want to give another look.

[Eric Paddon]

Father Brown (1974) 8 of 10
-My introduction to G.K. Chesterton's famous sleuth came in 1982 when PBS in their "Mystery" series (then hosted by Vincent Price) aired a number of episodes from this 1974 British TV production (13 episodes total) that starred Kenneth More. It was in fact my first introduction to More the actor so as a result, every time I saw him afterwards in something ("Scrooge" and "A Night To Remember") I always instinctively thought of his performance as Father Brown. I was also inspired at the time to read some of Chesterton's stories though admittedly they are not on the same level as Conan-Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories (Though Chesterton did write a devastatingly funny satirical story "The Absence of Mr. Glass" in which Father Brown shows up a Holmes-like sleuth by pointing out how wrong all of his deductions are). Then about 30 years went by before I ever saw the More episodes again until they were released on DVD in the US.

Revisiting them recently, I was reminded of why I enjoyed seeing them and why More is always for me the definitive version of the sleuth even though he may not be 100% the picture of Chesterton's version. His kindliness and intellect is there as well as his keen insight into theological matters. More had been reluctant to take the part because he found the idea of playing a priest at odds with his own persona (he had recently gone through a scandalous divorce and remarriage) but eventually gave in and IMO did an outstanding job that has made it impossible for me to accept any other actor in the role. Jack Parnell's theme music also always stayed in my head too. The episodes do reflect some of the maddening limitations of British TV that I have always found annoying, especially the old mixture of film and videotape that American productions have NEVER resorted to. Outdoor scenes are done on location and on film but interiors are studio sets shot on videotape and the style is clashing to say the least (though Brits I know are used to it). But the episodes are very strong, the equal of the Peter Cushing 1968 Sherlock Holmes productions I've seen that resorted to similar methods. Although the first Father Brown story, "The Blue Cross" in which he outwits the jewel thief Flambeau was not adapted, the Flambeau character does appear in some of the episodes (by this point in his role as having been reformed and operating his own detective agency now). "The Eye Of Apollo" is a very strong story as is "The Secret Garden" (the last one in the series though it was the second Brown story in the canon). Admittedly, I may not have latched onto these again if not for the childhood nostalgia I associate with these episodes from the early 80s (and that in general I'm not a fan of British TV series) but I've found these enjoyable to go through again.

Going through these also made me decide to check out via Amazon Prime the first episode of the current Father Brown TV series that began in 2013. I have to confess, one episode and I am done. The first episode of that series "The Hammer of God" had also been adapted for the More series and the new version made some PC changes that I found offensive on all levels. They added a homosexual element in the story that is NOT part of the original and changes the motive of the murder completely and in the process not only is the story upended, so too is the integrity of Chesterton's work (Chesterton outside of Father Brown is known for being one of the greatest apologists for traditional Christianity and directly influenced C.S. Lewis's conversion). After that, my desire to see anymore episodes of this series is gone forever and I will cheerfully stick to the 13 episodes More did, production flaws and all.

[Eric Paddon]

Caprica (2010) 1 of 10
-Yes, I've made clear quite often my hate for Ron Moore's GINO. This is an opinion no longer rooted in just my visceral anger over the how and why this came to be, its backed up by the fact that I have seen a good chunk of it in the years since and I see no redeeming points in it. Especially on the subject of how religion is dealt with in it which is supposedly one of the things that is allegedly supposed to elevate it above the original in intellectual gravitas.

-I have now found the time to binge-watch the short-lived prequel series "Caprica" which tells us the initial backstory for how the Cylons in the Moore universe came to be and I confess that after seeing this, I think the idea that Ron Moore's concept represents anything deep is even more laughable than ever. The fact that this is an official canon prequel series made by the show's "creator" (I gag every time I see Moore use that term) means in effect that what you see here influences how one must interpret what then followed in GINO and here is what it comes down to: It all started with teenage girl angst in a dysfunctional family. Yep, that's the grand origin story of the Cylons. The first Cylon had the trapped soul of a dead teenaged girl with emotional problems. From here does everything else flow, mixed in with Ron Moore's wacko concepts of religious belief in which monotheists are terrorist murderers. Oh and naturally we also have to see in this society loads of gay marriages and "group marriages" in further concessions to PC wokedom.

-Call me old-fashioned, but to me the original series' subtext on where the Cylons came from has a lot more gravitas and resonance than this. The idea that the Cylons were the creation of the Devil himself (Count Iblis). That's far more compelling than origins rooted in teenage angst, dysfunctional families without a single likable character with a moral compass and a "God" directing things in the most brutally nihilistic fashion (because Moore and company clearly don't believe in the Devil or that concepts of Good/Evil exist. I am so sick and tired of hearing that "complexity" is required when that is nothing more than intellectual shallowness that refuses to allow for the fact that moral absolutes can exist in the Universe).

-I'm glad I watched this just to remind myself why I will never have a kind word to say about anything Ron Moore ever did with this property.