go_titans
Joined Sep 2001
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews35
go_titans's rating
Star Wars needs great story, intelligent writing and great imagination. These three things are what the original trilogy (IV, V, VI) were built on.
Episodes I, II, III also had these three factors, but they are delivered badly. Episode VII was so lacking in story, intelligence and imagination that I didn't even bother to watch the Last Jedi...Abrams had successfully managed to kill off any interest I had in the continuing of that story.
But I loved Rogue One and Solo. In fact, I was astonished. They had story, intelligence and imagination in abundance, plus they were delivered well, so I honestly don't understand why so many people were unhappy.
And so now we come to the Mandalorian. A TV series for Star Wars?! This already threatens the first of the three needed things: a great story. What weekly series has ever told as gripping a story as the original Star Wars trilogy? Having said that, if this proves to be only a mini series then there might still be some hope for it.
So far, the story presented in the first two episodes comes across like a typical western in some ways, and so it continues to worry me that this will become a pointless 'Days of Our Lives' look at the Star Wars universe.
I'm also sorry to say I really don't like the music, there's nothing special about it at all. And some reviewers here have commented on how interesting the main character is, which I find to be quite puzzling. We can't see his face, and he has hardly said anything riveting so far, so I don't really see anything interesting about him yet.
I'm also a bit worried about the intelligence of the script. Our hero is told he needs to learn to ride a particular beast in order to reach a certain place, but in the end we discover that he could just as easily have walked there. You then realise that the script writers were simply trying to fill out the show's run time and had nothing else to go with. This is what worries me.
So to sum up, the Mandelorian is nowhere near as good as Star Wars at its best but it's way better than Star Wars at its worst, so I'll give it a 7 and hope that they don't turn it into another 'Days of Our Lives' style series like Star Trek. If they keep it short, say...8 episodes maximum, it may deliver on one of the core requirements of any good Star Wars installment - a truly worthwhile story. But if it drags on and the overall story gets forgotten as we focus on the main character going from town to town shooting bad guys, then for me I think this will become another nail in the coffin of the franchise.
Episodes I, II, III also had these three factors, but they are delivered badly. Episode VII was so lacking in story, intelligence and imagination that I didn't even bother to watch the Last Jedi...Abrams had successfully managed to kill off any interest I had in the continuing of that story.
But I loved Rogue One and Solo. In fact, I was astonished. They had story, intelligence and imagination in abundance, plus they were delivered well, so I honestly don't understand why so many people were unhappy.
And so now we come to the Mandalorian. A TV series for Star Wars?! This already threatens the first of the three needed things: a great story. What weekly series has ever told as gripping a story as the original Star Wars trilogy? Having said that, if this proves to be only a mini series then there might still be some hope for it.
So far, the story presented in the first two episodes comes across like a typical western in some ways, and so it continues to worry me that this will become a pointless 'Days of Our Lives' look at the Star Wars universe.
I'm also sorry to say I really don't like the music, there's nothing special about it at all. And some reviewers here have commented on how interesting the main character is, which I find to be quite puzzling. We can't see his face, and he has hardly said anything riveting so far, so I don't really see anything interesting about him yet.
I'm also a bit worried about the intelligence of the script. Our hero is told he needs to learn to ride a particular beast in order to reach a certain place, but in the end we discover that he could just as easily have walked there. You then realise that the script writers were simply trying to fill out the show's run time and had nothing else to go with. This is what worries me.
So to sum up, the Mandelorian is nowhere near as good as Star Wars at its best but it's way better than Star Wars at its worst, so I'll give it a 7 and hope that they don't turn it into another 'Days of Our Lives' style series like Star Trek. If they keep it short, say...8 episodes maximum, it may deliver on one of the core requirements of any good Star Wars installment - a truly worthwhile story. But if it drags on and the overall story gets forgotten as we focus on the main character going from town to town shooting bad guys, then for me I think this will become another nail in the coffin of the franchise.
And why on earth is there only one review here for it?!?! Well, let me write a second one.
This series was released on DVD in 2012 (so the previous reviewer eventually got their wish), and I purchased it out of curiosity but left it unwatched until now, December of 2018. Let's not go into lengthy explanations of why, I just have a habit of doing such things - call it a busy life.
From the first episode this show struck me as very unusual, very well written, well acted, and of good length (48 min per episode). Some other good shows (such as M-Squad with Lee Marvin) suffer from a 25 min run time, which doesn't allow the script writer time to sink their teeth into the story.
Things that have been most notable about this series are that as it has gone on there have been many face to face confrontations that have been so well written and acted that you find yourself completely absorbed by the scene. Someone could smash into your parked car and you would shrug off being told, saying "not now, go away!" Peter Falk's performance was a particular highlight, with Robert Lansing carrying off his half equally well.
If I had to criticise anything it would be the opening credits: the music is fine, but the action-less station-room character intros just don't match. Something much more dramatic was needed here, although I doubt this was the reason for the show's early axing.
Oh, one last thing - check out Ron Harper who plays one of the four main characters...it wasn't apparent immediately but after a while all I could see or hear was Mickey Rourke! See if you agree.
This series was released on DVD in 2012 (so the previous reviewer eventually got their wish), and I purchased it out of curiosity but left it unwatched until now, December of 2018. Let's not go into lengthy explanations of why, I just have a habit of doing such things - call it a busy life.
From the first episode this show struck me as very unusual, very well written, well acted, and of good length (48 min per episode). Some other good shows (such as M-Squad with Lee Marvin) suffer from a 25 min run time, which doesn't allow the script writer time to sink their teeth into the story.
Things that have been most notable about this series are that as it has gone on there have been many face to face confrontations that have been so well written and acted that you find yourself completely absorbed by the scene. Someone could smash into your parked car and you would shrug off being told, saying "not now, go away!" Peter Falk's performance was a particular highlight, with Robert Lansing carrying off his half equally well.
If I had to criticise anything it would be the opening credits: the music is fine, but the action-less station-room character intros just don't match. Something much more dramatic was needed here, although I doubt this was the reason for the show's early axing.
Oh, one last thing - check out Ron Harper who plays one of the four main characters...it wasn't apparent immediately but after a while all I could see or hear was Mickey Rourke! See if you agree.
I watched this tonight for the first time and I really feel the need to say something that is completely out of step with every other opinion I've read.
First, I should explain that I love movies from all periods and have bought over 1,500 films on DVD and Blu Ray, all ranging from 1920s releases right through to current day.
I have often been stunned by the acting performances of both main stars and supporting cast, and this film provides another few good examples of what must be considered masterful acting. Marlon Brando, Karl Malden and Kim Hunter all shine in this movie, and they deserve every accolade thrown their way. But Vivien Leigh?
There is not a single moment when I didn't find her acting to be completely over the top or lacking in authenticity. In fact, every scene of hers was painful, and the contrast it made with her co-stars was embarrassing to witness. I tried to remind myself that she was playing the part of someone who was going mad, but this fact provided no excuse for the shameful performance she gives here.
We've all seen people doing roles like this before, since portraying mental instability/illness is nothing new to the big screen, and there are many, many cases where it is handled superbly and the descent into insanity is made completely believable by the actor in question. But in 'Streetcar' Vivien handles it as if she's never even been in front of a camera before.
Watch her eyes, her reactions to people's comments and questions: there is not one second where she doesn't seem to be combining the automated recital of memorised dialogue with over-the-top emotion, and it was obvious to this viewer right from the start that she didn't understand how to portray authentic emotion/reaction at all.
Yeah, yeah, I've read the reviews that all gush over her performance, even the director's comment that she brought everything he wanted to the role and more. At first this fact puzzled me greatly, since I found her performance to be easily the worst I've seen out of tens of thousands of performances in perhaps 20,000 or more movies over the years. But then I discovered that she was married to Lawrence Olivier right throughout her career, and everything suddenly made sense.
How do you tell one of the greatest actors of all time that his wife reeks as an actress? Better yet, how do you cover for her awful performances when there is the possibility of a public backlash over her roles that could prove embarrassing for the great man? That's easily solved: just hand her an Academy Award and that will shut everyone up. "Oh, she got the Academy for that part?! Okay, then it must be good!"
It isn't, and it brings down what could have been a 9/10 for 'Streetcar' to a 7, in my opinion.
PS - I also found her acting to be just as painful in 'Gone With the Wind', and guess what?! She got the Academy Award for that part too!! Go figure.
First, I should explain that I love movies from all periods and have bought over 1,500 films on DVD and Blu Ray, all ranging from 1920s releases right through to current day.
I have often been stunned by the acting performances of both main stars and supporting cast, and this film provides another few good examples of what must be considered masterful acting. Marlon Brando, Karl Malden and Kim Hunter all shine in this movie, and they deserve every accolade thrown their way. But Vivien Leigh?
There is not a single moment when I didn't find her acting to be completely over the top or lacking in authenticity. In fact, every scene of hers was painful, and the contrast it made with her co-stars was embarrassing to witness. I tried to remind myself that she was playing the part of someone who was going mad, but this fact provided no excuse for the shameful performance she gives here.
We've all seen people doing roles like this before, since portraying mental instability/illness is nothing new to the big screen, and there are many, many cases where it is handled superbly and the descent into insanity is made completely believable by the actor in question. But in 'Streetcar' Vivien handles it as if she's never even been in front of a camera before.
Watch her eyes, her reactions to people's comments and questions: there is not one second where she doesn't seem to be combining the automated recital of memorised dialogue with over-the-top emotion, and it was obvious to this viewer right from the start that she didn't understand how to portray authentic emotion/reaction at all.
Yeah, yeah, I've read the reviews that all gush over her performance, even the director's comment that she brought everything he wanted to the role and more. At first this fact puzzled me greatly, since I found her performance to be easily the worst I've seen out of tens of thousands of performances in perhaps 20,000 or more movies over the years. But then I discovered that she was married to Lawrence Olivier right throughout her career, and everything suddenly made sense.
How do you tell one of the greatest actors of all time that his wife reeks as an actress? Better yet, how do you cover for her awful performances when there is the possibility of a public backlash over her roles that could prove embarrassing for the great man? That's easily solved: just hand her an Academy Award and that will shut everyone up. "Oh, she got the Academy for that part?! Okay, then it must be good!"
It isn't, and it brings down what could have been a 9/10 for 'Streetcar' to a 7, in my opinion.
PS - I also found her acting to be just as painful in 'Gone With the Wind', and guess what?! She got the Academy Award for that part too!! Go figure.