I though t the movie was terrible. Way to generic and boring for me, and the whole thing just falls apart entirely in the last act, makes less than no sense. When time travel in you movie makes less sense than in Doctor Who, you've got problems. And for a Tim Burton movie, the whole thing was surprisingly bland. It felt like he was on autopilot, just get it done and get the check. Then again, I was not too impressed with the book. The best part of it was Jacob's relationship with his grandfather, and father, and the way he was slowly untangling the whole thing on the gloomy island. II actually think it would have been a much better story if the magical kids and monsters remained an enigmatic story, never revealed if it's the turth or just grandpa's way of talking about the horror of war. Once Jacob meets the peculair children it all becomes way too much of a cliche post-potter young adult book.

Nope, that's it, and I love it. Although what I meant as a reason for malfunctioning is the original gives a very vague "it's a disease, don't question it", the show likens bugs in the code introduced through continuous updates as mutation, and the process of acquiring sentience as just natural evolution. Of course there's more to it, we're still finding out things.

My recommendation is watch the first episode. It's shorter than the movie, and if you don't like where it's going you can just drop it.

I agree wholeheartedly - this series is one of the best (so far), only topped by Stranger Things, in several years. You should try it.

I don't know how MANY series I've tried over the years in the genre of sci-fi/fantasy that gets flat-out boring after awhile, and cheaplisously covered knee-deep in explosions and fast-forced drama. There's something about the slow-paced story, the actors, music and interesting moral ethics that plaques humans that is compelling to me. Let's hope it last long enough to a tleast have an ending.

There was a little hope when british "Humans" came a couple of yeas back, but it was canceled (the fact that the asian chick from diary of a call girl was actor in it has nothing to do with why I liked it - I swear :-) ).


Movie: The November Man

Don't often see these kinds of movies as they tend to be either too cheesy or flat as a dumb egg under a car. It's nice to see Brosnan again in a spy/assassin thriller. The usual CIA-assasin turned good is on the menu and it delivers well enough to have kept me from getting more popcorn. I would say it's on par with The Recruit, but lighter, and not too deep.

Verdict: 4 star - I wasn't expecting much on a friday night, but it certainly had good moments. It reminded me of the 90' spy movies for some reason. Maybe it was even better than some of the Bond movies...

Just wanted to point that it's based on the Swedish show Real Humans, [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humans_(TV_series)]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humans_(TV_series)[/url] which I watched two seasons of on Swedish television a few years ago. Quite uncommon in many ways, even comparing it to other things I've seen. Almost all Swedish tv series are not worth watching, but this one got me hooked.

Also, according to the same wikipedia page "the second eight-episode series is scheduled to premiere in the UK on 30 October 2016", but I don't trust wikipedia to always have updated or even correct-at-the-time info.

Twelve Monkeys

Weird roller coaster ride of a film. I'm not really sure what to make of it. Most films tend to have extended periods of relative calm where you can just kind of chill and take in the film's atmosphere. Not so with Twelve Monkeys. Not at all.

I figured most people would say that, that's part of the reason I chose to write about it here. I don't mind the generic nature of it and the time travel rules, or rather, time loop rules make sense to me when thinking back, in the way that they don't seem to go against their own rules. Like I wrote, what sets it apart is the funny main villain and creative problem solving.

I guess I just have a low bar for entertainment, because I also liked Ender's game and Tim Burton's Dark Shadows (his last urban fantasy movie, which bombed) and just about any wannabe-Harry Potter movie that bombed.

Probably my least favourite of Gilliam's movies I've seen. I like most of his stuff, some I absolutely love (like FIsher King and Baron Munchausen), but Twelve Monkeys is just a pain to sit through. Maybe I'm being a bit to harsh, but for me it was strangely joyless for a Gilliam Movie (even Brazil was more fun in it's own ways, despite being also utterly depressing), and Brad Pitt was just terrible, overacting like he's in a competition with Jeremy Irons from Dungeons & Dragons. Only where Irons is a great actor who knew he was in a campy film and just went wild it, Pitt is a poor actor who seems to think making faces will compensate for that, and the movie takes itself way to seriously. It's the only one of Gilliam's movies I'd describe as pretentious.

Hehe, It's the reversed sentiment I have; can't stand anything that is created here, but I think Swedish television is great in comparison. Well, some movies and crime-series, that is. Maybe it's because we all grew up with "only" swedish tv (tv3, tv4, etc), long before we had our own quality tv streams :-D

We'll just have to see what happens with "humans". I think I tried to get a hold of the original just to see how it was, with no luck...

I'll try watching some of his other movies then. The only other one of his that I've seen (that he directed) is Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

Pitt's acting didn't really bother me. I found it convincing, but it, along with just about everything else in the film was just too tense, crazy and overbearing for me. Not least of which the horrid theme which really, really started to get on my nerves after a while. Though within the context of the film and its focus on a character with an understandably tenuous grasp on his sanity, I suppose that all kind of makes sense.

Terry Jones directed the Monty Python movies, Gilliam might have helped with some stuff, but if I'm not mistaken he was only fully responsible for the animated sections, and the intro short in Meaning of Life. By this I mean, his work on Python really isn't representative of his solo directed films.

Ah ok that makes sense. Monty Python and the Holy Grail stood out like a sore thumb among the list of films he has directing credit for.

Well, not most of them later on, but the early ones- Jabberwocky and Time Bandits are very Python-esque.

Oh, and by the way, since I only now noticed it- I pretty much agree with you on Westworld (the original movie), about it's pacing issues and all, but I liked the final chase a lot, and I like how it was kept ambiguous whether The Gunslinger has just gone haywiree, or if he is actually self-aware now. I think Brynner did a great job balancing the emotionless machine with hints of him enjoying paying his victims back for previous humiliation.

Also, for all it's weaknesses, it's good to recognize how important a movie it was- it was inspiration for Jurrasic Park (by the same author) and for the Terminator, and the first movie ever to use digital image processing (and the sequel was the first movie to use CGI).

It probably would have benefited from having an actual director at the helm, rather than being a writer's first attempt at it. Like I said, it has a lot of cool concepts, it just isn't well executed. This is the stuff that warrants remakes being made, and not taking already great movies and making them worse.

Still, it's not the worst thing he directed, have you ever watched Runaway? It's about a policeman played by Tom Selleck who specializes on malfunctioning robots, but all the robots are roombas with guns ductaped to them, being programed by an evil genius played by Gene Simmons from Kiss.

I know of it, but I have not seen it. It's on my list, but not exactly a priority ;)