Q-Panda Reviews

Good Omens: Chapter 6: Every Day (2023) Season 2, Episode 6

Season 2 was a disappointment

[5/10 · 26 November 2023]

Let me just start out by saying that David Tennant, Michael Sheen, Jon Hamm, and Miranda Richardson all did fine work on this. The acting was top-notch throughout the entire season.

But.

The absence of Terry Pratchett in writing this is keenly felt. Season 2 had none of the complexity, humor, or charm of season 1. Neil Gaiman is an excellent writer, but this kind of humor is not his forte. He needed to find an absurdist of Pratchett's caliber to collaborate with to make this as good as season 1 (and the original novel). And such writers are not common.

This episode, in particular, flubbed the ending double. First, the kiss was completely unnecessary and out of place. Neither Aziraphale nor Crowley have shown any interest in sex, and while Aziraphale is clearly a romantic, Crowley really isn't. The two of them have had an obvious queerplatonic relationship from the very beginning, and while them talking about it was great, the kiss was too much.

Second, Aziraphale going back to Heaven and leaving Crowley behind works only if it's a cliffhanger setup for season 3 *and* season 3 actually happens. Aziraphale should have, at the last moment, told The Metatron that he just couldn't do the job without Crowley and stayed behind, perhaps even suggesting Muriel be appointed in his place. (She couldn't possibly screw things up any worse than the other Archangels did.)

So in the end, this was a disappointing end to a disappointing season. If there is going to be a season 3, Gaiman needs to find a collaborator to fill in what Pratchett is no longer able to provide.

The Mandalorian: Chapter 22: Guns for Hire (2023) Season 3, Episode 6

Almost a complete waste of an episode

[3/10 · 1 October 2023]

Until we got to the final sequence, this episode felt like it was a complete waste. Nothing that happens before that point matters at all. I mean, much of the season so far has been spinning its wheels, but this was worse than anything preceding it.

Not only was it unimportant, but the main story of this episode was boring and formulaic in multiple ways. The whole concept of "droid rebellion" is a tired cliché in science fiction, even previously appearing in the Star Wars universe in the movie "Solo". This story, sadly, adds nothing of note to that worn-out trope.

In fact, this story could have been a great opportunity for Star Wars to pick up the thread that had been laid out in the aforementioned "Solo", and address in more depth the issue of droids' enslavement to biologicals. Instead, it was just a very standard whodunnit whose sole political contribution is a short, pointless rant about the cause of the Separatists by the episode's villain when they're confronted.

As for the stunt casting, well...Christopher Lloyd is always a treat, though he's looking old. Jack Black didn't really stretch any acting muscles here, but didn't do badly either.

Lizzo, unfortunately, showed no signs of any capability to act as anyone other than herself. And "herself" was not right for the character, however brief her appearance was.

As for the aforementioned final sequence, it really deserved to be the focal point of this episode, instead resolving its far more important conflict almost trivially. This makes the episode a double disappointment.

To be quite honest, you could skip through the entire episode until Din and Bo leave the city to confront the mercenaries and not miss anything worth watching.

Babylon 5: The Road Home (2023 Video)

For fans only

[7/10 · 19 September 2023]

Overall, _The Road Home_ isn't a bad movie, per se. But it really is just for the fans, relying more on nostalgia for situations from the series than its own merits.

First, the good:

* The voice performances are excellent. Several of the original actors returned to voice their characters, and all of them fell right back into character as if they'd never left. The replacement voice actors for the (sadly) large number of actors who have passed since the show ended do pretty good at imitating the distinct voices of their characters, especially the actors voicing G'Kar, Zathras, and Delenn; while a fan can tell that they're not the original actors, they still convey the expected tone of the characters, and honor the original actors in the process.

* The effects animation, backgrounds, and ship designs are outstanding. Thanks to the advances in technology over the past 25 years, ships look even better here than they did originally. The additional detail on the Shadow ships is especially nice.

Aaaand...the not so good:

* Character design is ATROCIOUS. Most of the characters look almost nothing like their live-action counterparts. The only characters that are instantly identifiable visually are Lyta, Delenn, and Londo, and that's primarily due to the unique look of their hair and costuming, not any facial resemblance. The humans in particular look horrible, with Lochley and Ivanova being easily confused for one another until they speak, and Sinclair identifiable only by context and/or dialogue. Londo looks positively demonic. The designs for the Narns are horrible, barely even resembling Narns at all. It could be passable if there was a clear attempt at stylized designs, but they don't really look stylized, just bad.

* The Shadow character designs are thoroughly cartoonish. The Shadows of _Babylon Park_ look better than these. Every iota of added detail the Shadow ships got was at the expense of detail in the Shadows themselves.

* As bad as the character designs are, the character animation is worse. Stilted, choppy, not smooth in any way. It's the exact opposite of the quality of the effects and ship animations.

* I was particularly dismayed by seeing in the end credits that JMS is the only credited writer, because the writing in this is way below the quality fans expect from him. The story itself is almost entirely nostalgia, not covering any new ground at all in terms of themes and characters. A lot of dialogue is recycled from the show in different contexts, especially poor Zathras, who is reduced to half of his lines being retreads of catchphrases from the show, despite him turning out to be a central character here. Joe, you could have done so much better than this.

* Finally, a problem that even many fans might not notice, but which irked me to no end. The movie starts in the middle of the penultimate episode "Objects at Rest", when John and Delenn are leaving the station to go to Minbar. Two scenes from the episode are recreated: the POV of John and Delenn getting off the transport tube to face the crowd, and the trade of salutes between Sheridan and Lochley. These scenes are recreated faithfully visually, copying the staging, framing, and camera movement. (I noticed this primarily because I had recently rewatched the episode, so it was fresh in my mind.)

For all the faithfulness of the directorial recreations in these two scenes, the content was inexplicably different. In the transport tube scene, everything that happens immediately after the doors open is completely different from what happened in the episode.

For the salute, while the action is the same (aside from an added lame visual joke at the end that completely ruins the mood), the lineup of characters with Lochley in C&C is different for no apparent reason. In the episode, Lochley is surrounded by the "new generation" of B5 leaders: Ta'Lon, Dr. Hobbes, Number One, Zack, Vir, and Lt. Corwin. In the movie, she's surrounded by...a group of unknown, unidentifiable people who are clearly not meant to represent the same characters who were there in the episode.

The reason this bothers me so much is that it's horribly disrespectful to the characters and their actors, all of whom otherwise would not appear in this movie at all. I find it especially disrespectful to Stephen Furst (Vir) and Jeff Conaway (Zack), both of whom were on the show for a long time (Stephen since the very beginning) and have since passed. The likenesses of those characters are as valid to use legally as those of any of the others, so it's doubtful that there were any legal issues causing this. It's baffling and inexplicable. As with the writing, Joe, you could have done better.

--

In the end, I can't recommend this movie to anyone who's not a dedicated fan of the show. Casual fans will not appreciate the constant references back to the series, and newcomers will be completely lost. And hardcore fans will be disappointed by the lack of originality. So who exactly was this movie made for?

I think the primary reason this movie got greenlit was as a test product, determining if there was still enough interest in the franchise to justify the reboot that was floated not long ago. If that's true, then fans of the original should definitely buy this movie, to show that there's still interest. But you may not enjoy it.

The Mandalorian: Chapter 16: The Rescue (2020) Season 2, Episode 8

Great with one killer flaw

[9/10 · 24 January 2021]

I can't deny that seeing Luke show up to collect Grogu was a huge thrill. The effects used to plug Mark Hamill's face in were a little off, but that's not a big deal.

What is a big deal is the huge Jedi ex machina the writers pulled. The only hint anywhere that someone like Luke might show up and rescue them was that Grogu made contact with somebody unknown two episodes earlier. Luke just showed up out of nowhere at exactly the right moment to save them.

Obviously, Luke must have maintained contact with Grogu during the time following the initial contact-that would be how he located Gideon's cruiser. Could they not have at least had Grogu show some signs that he might have still been in contact with Luke?

Don't get me wrong. The scene itself was well done. There just should have been a little bit more hint that someone new might show up before we saw that X-wing pull into view. It's sloppy plotting, one the few examples of bad writing in the entire series.

I won't take an additional star off for this, but the Dark Troopers? Not so scary once you find out that they're just droids, and not cyborgs or enhanced "human" troopers. Their behavior is so formally regimented that they're utterly predictable. They're actually more dangerous one on one than in a squad or platoon, as evidenced by Mando's hand-to-hand with the one that got out before he sucked the others into space.

In the Star Wars universe, most droids have the initiative of soap, especially ones designed to act in a group (think of the prequel trilogy's battle droids). The few cases where droids have been lively and creative are with droids that we know have been modified or have gone a long time without a wipe or reset, and every such example has been a droid that worked independently of other droids, not one that worked with a group of others just like it.

Alita: Battle Angel (2019)

For fans only...but awesome for the fans

[6/10 · 12 March 2019]

I'll start with the tl;dr: If you're not an anime or cyberpunk fan, this film will leave you cold. If you're not already familiar with the GUNNM/Battle Angel anime or the original GUNNM/Battle Angel Alita manga, this film will leave you confused.

BUT. If you're a fan of GUNNM/Battle Angel/Battle Angel Alita, you will probably love this film.

Alita: Battle Angel isn't just a great translation of GUNNM to live action-it's possibly the best live-action adaptation of an anime or manga title to come out of Hollywood. You can really tell that James Cameron (who wrote and produced the film, which he's been trying to make for thirty years) and Robert Rodriguez (who Cameron hand-picked to direct it once he accepted that he would probably never get to do so himself) have a great appreciation for the material and the story.

The plot is a mostly accurate condensation/blend of the first four manga volumes. This does leave the ending as an obvious sequel hook, since the full manga is nine volumes. Again, fans of the material won't mind, but non-fans might.

The main cast is pretty solid. Christoph Waltz is picture-perfect as Ido. Rosa Salazar does a great job as Alita. Jennifer Connolly and Mahershala Ali turn in good performances (as Chiren and Vector, respectively) but weren't given a lot to work with. And Jackie Earle Haley hams it up well as the film's "heavy", Grewishka. Unfortunately, the rest of the cast is pretty much unremarkable and mostly unmemorable.

My biggest complaints about the film are two. First, the pacing is horrible. The first two-thirds of the film feels like it's dragging whales, and act three feels like it's on coke and speed at the same time. I don't think this was a story problem, because the plot rolled through at a pretty consistent pace. I think it's more of an editing, and possibly directing, issue; scenes in the first part of the film get lots of lingering, detailed shots, while act three is full of quick-cut action. That's not just a matter of the difference between acts-there's plenty of action in the first two acts, and act three has its share of more sedate, dramatic moments. And the ending, while accurate to that point in the manga story, just kind of arrives suddenly, at a point where you feel like the film's about to go into a second, bigger climax, or perhaps an epilogue.

My second complaint is the eyes. The Internet went nuts over the "anime"-ing of Rosa Salazar's eyes when the first trailer showed them, and in the end, I think the backlash was warranted. Yes, there is a blink-and-you'll-miss-it in-movie explanation for why her eyes are so big, but they're still horribly distracting. Salazar's eyes are highly expressive at their normal size, so enlarging them just makes it creepy. It makes her look like a Pixar character dropped into an otherwise live-action film; you can't help but notice how non-human her face is in every lingering closeup. Given that her cyborg body is already CGI, it makes her feel a little less real. And Alita needs to feel real.

My 6/10 rating is based on the film's overall appeal in general. Strictly for fans, I'd give it 8 or 9. But if the title itself doesn't already draw you to this film, you'll probably feel like you wasted two hours after watching it.

Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald (2018)

Beautiful action sequences separated by boring exposition

[5/10 · 10 December 2018]

I love the Harry Potter universe. I'm not an ultra-fanatic-I enjoy too many different fandoms to devote a lot of energy to any single one-but I do love the world Rowling has created. This movie was not one of the more lovable moments.

The whole movie felt like it was trying to be two different movies. One was Newt Scamander having entertaining adventures with magical creatures. The other was the bringing together of Gellert Grindelwald and Creedence Barebone. The only reason for these two to intersect seems to be that Newt was instrumental in capturing Grindelwald and neutralizing Creedence in the previous film.

When Newt is interacting with the creatures, the movie shines. Eddie Redmayne excels at portraying quirky characters, and his portrayal of Newt is wonderful. But when Newt has to work with people, not only does the character become awkward (which is correct for the character), but the story bogs down in trying to force him to do things with people. Many of these circumstances feel beyond contrived. (Seriously, why would Queenie bring Jacob all the way to London just to see Newt? I'm sure this made sense in Rowling's head, but that sense didn't make it into the finished film.)

For every enjoyable sequence with Newt and his creatures, there's a boring scene trying to shoehorn more information into the viewer's brain. Rowling seems to want to include all the details she put into the Harry Potter books, but she doesn't appear to realize that most of that detail was glossed over or left out of those movies. She's trying to write a novel in the form of a screenplay, and it doesn't really work.

With all this effort to fill the movie with exposition, too many important explanations seem to be left out. Why does this movie involve all these characters Newt happened to meet coincidentally in the previous film? Because Rowling says it does. Why does Grindelwald want to take over the world? Because Rowling says he does. Why did we spend a large amount of time early in the movie with Newt and a creature who was never seen again in the entire film? Because Rowling wanted to. Why did we need to provide a backstory for a secondary character from the original series, and then do nothing of any significance with this character for the entire rest of the movie? Because Rowling wanted to.

This entire movie spent two hours going from point A to point A.1. Half of the exposition in this film could have gone into the previous movie. The "big reveal" twist at the end is a midpoint twist, not a film-ending twist. I get that it's a middle movie, the second of five, but if you're making a two-hour feature film, it needs to have a story of its own, not just be a stepping stone between other parts of the story.

The Dark Tower (2017)

Everything's just too darn fast

[6/10 · 12 November 2017]

The Dark Tower is part of a really good movie. The problem is that it's a seemingly random collection of pieces of a good movie.

McConaughey's and Elba's performances are top-notch—they both clearly understand their characters well and can make the roles seem effortless. There are other good performances, but they're all so short that you don't get much time to appreciate them.

The final battle between Roland and Walter is depicted exactly the way a final battle between two immensely, supernaturally powerful characters should be: brutal, messy, and SHORT. There's no beating around the bush.

With so many things to like, it's a shame that the film ends up so ultimately disappointing. And it didn't have to be that way.

The big problem is that everything happens just so fast that there's no time for the viewer to understand or absorb what's going on. It's a combination of the movie being so darn short (barely an hour and a half) and trying to fit a story drawn from seven lengthy novels into a single feature film of *any* length, much less 90 minutes. Even just an additional 30 minutes would have given the film some breathing room for character development and plot exposition.

I cannot recommend this film based on fidelity to the books, or quality of writing, or anything else, save one exception: It's worth seeing for Elba's and McConaughey's performances. Beyond that, this is just one more entry in the long list of "should've been better" films of Stephen King writings.

Mercy Street (2016–2017)

Mostly unremarkable but with a few pleasant surprises

[7/10 · 28 February 2016]

I had high hopes for Mercy Street. Fictionalized history has become increasingly popular in recent years, and this show had potential to be one of the more memorable ones, with a previously untapped setting and a cast full of talented actors. Sadly, the show has turned out to be mostly unremarkable.

The basic premise is simple: a widowed woman is sent to become head nurse at a military hospital converted from a hotel in Union-occupied Alexandria, Virginia. On top of this premise, the show's writers have piled enough dramatic crises and neurotic characters to populate a full soap opera. Everyone is constantly shouting at each other and plotting behind each other's backs.

Given the setting, conflict and friction is understandable, and of course a drama needs, well, drama. But with only six episodes, they've created enough plot lines to easily fill a US-standard 22-episode season, if not more. Everything is just so busy that the only way we learn anything about the characters is through their conflicts. Calm moments are few and far between. Most performances border on scenery- chewing, except of course when they jump well past that border.

That said, there are a number of things to enjoy. Mary Elizabeth Winstead, always a treat, seems so comfortable with the trappings of the period you'd think she was born into it. Donna Murphy is exquisite as the quintessential Southern matriarch, turning borderline overacting into a virtue. Tara Summers has channeled all the snarky disdain of Alan Rickman while Jack Falahee is the spitting image in looks and charm of a young Johnny Depp. Gary Cole, one of the few cast members not constantly gnaw at the walls, adds just enough temper to his usual near-deadpan dryness to be a realistic Southern businessman trying to hold onto what little he has left after the Union takes everything.

The real surprise, though, is Josh Radnor. If you've only seen him in How I Met Your Mother, you'd have no idea that he's capable of the quietly powerful performance he turns in here. Yes, he does spend a lot of time chomping on the set, but he balances that with more subtle moments that reveal significant talent he hasn't had much opportunity to utilize. In many ways, he reminds me of Mandy Patinkin in his younger days.

Ultimately, the show is entertaining enough to be worth watching if you like fictionalized history. Just don't expect more from it than it is.

The Age of Aerospace (2016– )

Thinly veiled Boeing propaganda

[1/10 · 15 February 2016]

The Science Channel promoted this as a history of aviation centered on the history of Boeing. What it really comes across as is Boeing patting itself on the back for everything they want to claim they pioneered and whining about all the times someone else did better. It's just pathetic.

Among the whinier assertions: "Government separating aircraft manufacturers from airline operators is like telling the company that makes computers that they can't sell them." No, it's actually like telling the studios that make movies that they can't own the theaters that show them—which is another industry-wide monopoly practice that was ended by the feds in the same era.

The more I watched of the first episode of this program, the stronger the feeling of being propagandized and manipulated became. Yes, Boeing is a long-lived company with a rich history, responsible for many achievements in aviation. No, they are not God's gift to aerospace.

Unless you want to subject yourself to six TV hours of corporate brainwashing, just let this one pass you by.

The Bastard Executioner (2015)

Just plain boring

[1/10 · 11 October 2015]

(MAY contain spoilers. I'm not sure if anything specific I referenced here could be considered a spoiler, so I'll play it safe.)

I'll admit it: When I first started seeing promos for this, I thought it looked cheesy and laughable, clearly a lame bandwagon-jump into the historical drama genre that has become so popular in recent years. I had no plans to watch it.

Then, in the newspaper the morning of the premiere (yes, I still read a newspaper!), there was a write-up that was mostly positive, without being the kind of puffery that says, "I was paid to write a good review." So I decided to plug it into my TiVo and give it a chance.

Well, I finally have had the chance to watch it, and I definitely should have followed my instinct. It's not that the show is painfully bad—it's just astoundingly boring. It shouldn't be possible for a show with this much action to be boring. But boring is exactly what it is. I lost all interest in it within the first half hour.

There is nothing distinctive about any of the characters. The only reason Katey Sagal is identifiable is that she's well-known. With everyone else, it's mostly generic male or generic female, and the performances do nothing to distinguish any of them from each other.

The show is also bloody to the point of hilarity. Pretty much everything that happens is bathed in blood, showered with blood, drowning in blood... Everything appears in just two colors: Dank, depressing nighttime blue, and deafening blood-red.

What story there is seems to be lost behind the attempt to out-graphic Game of Thrones, in both violence and sex. For just one example, during the initial battle sequence, blood is spraying in pretty much every direction (while yet managing to avoid completely covering any of the actors), an effect that some would claim to be realistic (since battle wounds in that era really did tend to spray high-pressure blood) but which goes well beyond what would be real—we're talking Monty Python levels of exaggeration here.

And then, right in the middle of this battle, for no apparent reason, we get a five- second shot of a naked woman's ass and legs, walking through the battlefield with a sword. Nothing in the shots preceding or following that seemed to reference anything relating to it at all—it's just thrown in without any context. (I honestly don't know if that shot is explained later on. I couldn't make it through the whole two-hour premiere.)

That whole opening sequence looks like the show is screaming, "You think Game of Thrones is graphic? Look at this! We've got more blood than the Red Cross! We'll show you a woman's bare ass just because we want to! We're EDGY!!!" It's just pathetic.

And when there isn't any violence or sex on the screen, it's almost totally dead. The whole first hour seemed to alternate between scenes of sloppily-edited massive violence and scenes of people doing absolutely nothing while they talk semi-unintelligibly about what I presume is supposed to pass for exposition. I honestly had no idea who was doing what to whom and why at least half the time, at least in part because the mishmash of atrocious attempts at accents combined with the clumsily-written pseudo-period phrasing renders all dialogue barely more understandable than Charlie Brown's teacher.

I'm not even going to get into nitpicking historical accuracy or plot holes or whether anything made any sense at all. Those things matter only if you can focus on the show long enough to recognize that they're getting things wrong— and I just couldn't.

I like historical drama, and I have no aversion to sex or violence. I can follow complicated plots and convoluted action scenes. Nothing in this show was over my head or offensive to my sensibilities. It just so completely failed to capture my attention that I may as well have not even bothered. Sorting dryer lint would be more entertaining.