DVD Collectors Online

The Descendents, a review by Antares

The Descendents (2011) 60/100 - Is it me, or are films of the last few years sorely lacking in creativity and re-watchability? One of the criteria in my reviews is whether or not I would ever want to watch a film again down the road. Sadly, many films I've watched from the last five years or so, fail miserably in this aspect. This was a film that my wife really wanted to see, and after seeing George Clooney in his last couple of roles, seemed like a good choice for me too. But this film's screenplay is so weak and flimsy, that it had me looking at the clock more times than I wanted. It just kind of meanders along without any concern on the part of the director, to make it either interesting or entertaining. And one final note...George Clooney should have it written into future contracts that his character will never run at full speed as part of his role. I thought it was bad watching Steven Seagal run like a girl in his films, but Clooney looks like he's about to keel over when he's on a sprint. That being said, if you decide to give this a whirl, at least the cinematography is first rate, but then again, it would take a complete hack to make Hawaii look bad.

What the color coding means...

Teal = Masterpiece
Dark Green = Classic or someday will be
Lime Green = A good, entertaining film
Orange = Average
Red = Cinemuck
Brown = The color of crap, which this film is

(From Antares' Short Summations on October 12th, 2013)

Moonraker, a review by Dragonfire

I'm trying to get caught back up here. 



James Bond blasts into orbit in this pulse-pounding adventure that takes him from Venice to Rio de Janeiro and to outer space! Roger Moore stars for the fourth time as Agent 007 and joins forces with NASA scientist Holly Goodhead (Lois Chiles) to prevent a power-mad industrialist (Michael Lonsdale) from destroying all human life on Earth.

My Thoughts

I first saw this movie years ago and I think it was actually one of the first Bond movies I did see.  That's probably why I like it more than other people.  The plot didn't bother me that much since space exploration had been going on for a while when the movie came out and the space shuttle was really being designed at that point.  It does seem like it was a blatant attempt to make the movie more relevant.  The plot is interesting and not any more far fetched than many of the other Bond movies for the most part.  Things went too far once the shuttles were in space and there was a laser battle.  The effects for that didn't look that great either.  I did like that Jaws was back.  It did get ridiculous how he kept surviving so many things that should have killed him or at the least really hurt him.  James was back to romancing several women, including Dr. Holly Goodhead who wasn't that believable as a scientist or NASA trained astronaut.  There wasn't anything special about any of the women in this movie.

Overall, I like this movie, though I know it has some issues.  I still need to watch all the extras on my DVD, though I have started working on a review to post on Epinions eventually.

 

(From James Bond Marathon on April 20th, 2009)

Babylon 5: Marathon, a review by DJ Doena

Synopsis: While Sheridan is somewhere stuck in time the rest brings Babylon 4 from the time where it originally disappeared (six years previously) to the time where Sinclair and Garibaldi evacuated it (2 years previously). And then one of them brings it back a thousand years in time.

My opinion: Valen, a Minbari not born of Minbari. A very good conclusion to the Sinclair storyline. And very well put together with the events and footage in "Babylon Squared".

Let me make another point about time traveling: Time travelling is a fairly common conept in Sci-Fi. Personally I distinguish between three different kinds of "time theories".
The first one is the Multiverse. In that you travel "back in time", repair something and when you travel forward again you land in a different universe. It's based on the theory that every choice you or anyone else makes creates a new universe for each possible outcome. Left or right? There will be two universes, one in which you went left, one in which you went right. When you back in time you simply choose to ge left instead of right this time. But the other universe will still be there where you went right. Although it is not really time travelling the TV show "Sliders" uses the concept of multiverses.
The second one is the most comfortable. You went back in time, repair something and when you arrive in the future you will be the only one who recognizes the change that has be done. This concept is used in "Back to the Future" and several Star Trek episodes.
In the third one time is a closed circle. You can jump in any point of time but whatever you do it has always been done this way and will always been done so. The first "Terminator" movie is an example for this (but only the first one, not the sequels). Kyle Reese brings the photograph with him that is made at the end of the movie. John Connor sends Kyle back in time and Reese becomes the father of John. Has always been, will always be that way. Ironically, Star Trek uses this concept, too, for example in the DS9 episode "Trials and Tribble-ations".
The third one may seem scary one because one could think there is no such thing as a  "free will" because every event seems to be carved in stone, but that is not true. It only states that every descicion we make can only be made once and when we look on it from an out-of-timeline perspective we see which descision we've made when the time has passed or what descision we will make when it still lays ahead. But once we've done anything we cannot undo it. It is unchangeable and unerasable.
Babylon 5 uses the third concept of time travelling. Sinclair is Valen and he has always been. He didn't change the past, we (the viewer) knew of Valen before we knew of Babylon 4. And when Sheridan jumps into the future we see events previously seen in dreams or prophecies. And it makes perfect sense. Prophecies (that are actually seen and come true, not fake ones) are only possible when the future has already been written. Londo sees his death and it comes true exactly as he saw it. Delenn warns Sheridan not to got to Z'ha'dum but he will go as he has always done it and will always do.



Synopsis: After Dr. Franklin took a leave from his post as chief of medical staff a few episodes earlier he wanders around the station. He tries to get rid of his stim addiction and uses an old aborigines tradition called Walkabout. Meanwhile Kosh's replacement called "Kosh" arrived at the station.

My opinion: Assumed she sung herself, Erica Gimpel  has a great voice. And we see the first real fight between the White Star and the Shadows.


Synopsis: After Sinclair has left Delenn is supposed to be become the new Ranger One / Entil'Zha. But that is a post the warrior caste member Neroon claims for himself. Meanwhile Garibaldi investigates the mystery of "Gray 17", a section of Babylon 5 which does not exist - officially.

My opinion: The "Gray 17" part was - in a miss for another word - weird. And so was the character played by Robert Englund. But I really liked the other part where Marcus was willing to lay down his life for Delenn and Neroon had to acknowledge her leadership over the Rangers.


Synopsis: The royal court on Centauri Prime demands that the dispute between House Mollari and House Refa is to be settled. And Mollari as well as Lord Refa have a plan how to achieve this. Meanwhile three religious people come to the station. Officially to sheperd their herds, inofficially to bring news from home and the resistance.

My opninion: The Z-countdown has begun. Sheridan once said "Always plant a lie inside a truth, that makes it esear to swallow.". And what a nice plan had Londo planted into another plan. I really liked the plot twist because at the first watch it came fairly unexpected. And it was awesome to look at the White Star fleet.

(From Babylon 5: Marathon on August 26th, 2007)