Reviews

It appalls me that the "History" channel should be broadcasting "documentaries" like this.

Whatever happened to the idea that natural history, history and educational channels would produce technically and scientifically accurate and informative programmes? Today the majority of US-made "documentaries" are at least sensational and poorly made, if not outright fantasy- as this one is.

This is even worse than I feared it would be. A very simple plot: An American single-handedly defeats literally an entire army. The enemy are two-dimensional assorted villains and Muslims (apparently the same). The supporting characters even more stereotypical and cardboard cutout than usual for Hollywood these days.

Amongst the many problems are the CGI. Probably the worst special effects that I have seen in years.

The plot makes no sense. All British policemen are apparently enemy agents - or whether they are or are not they are all shot down indiscriminately by the American.

An obscure MI6 agent happens to be well known to the head of London police, who is himself inexplicably junior, black and singularly inactive and useless. There is no explanation as to why Mi6 has a safe house in London, or is interested in domestic matters. Obviously the writers don't know the difference between Mi5 and Mi6.

The SAS manages to deploy, on foot, only a section led by a rather plebeian lieutenant, and their only role is to be shot while providing covering fire for the American. The rest of the Army and police are absent (apart from the dozens shot dead by the said American).

There is no logic to a lot of what happens, and whilst perversely fun at times, this is a stupid and illogical movie.

Many have said it is racist. I don't think that general hostility to Muslim terrorists is racism. But the way the British police and army are portrayed, and the underlying message that one American is superior to anything the UK has, is arrogant and offensive.

American war crimes are shown as good. An entire wedding party are murdered, and the Americans express outrage that the families of the victims want revenge. Idiotic - however this is realistic, as it is just like actual American policy, and the reason why the USA will lose the so-called war on terror.

Normally vampire films portray the vampire as either a monstrous villain (usually) or as a (relatively) innocent character (rarely). This film gives a more nuanced interpretation, which was quite effective. In order to protect his family and kingdom (actually principality), Vlad is prepared to run almost any risk. One which ultimately ends badly for him.

There were a few bizarre errors of plot - for instance why would the Sultan send 100,000 men after a handful of stragglers in the mountains of a remote part of the empire. And how could they get there in only one or two days? Did the Porte have teleporters? And how was an apparently impregnable monastery entered so easily.

The Sultan's army had only a minor role. They were just there to be killed with convincing completeness.

When Vlad and his people were lamenting the invasion of the Turk, and Vlad was willing to try anything to defeat them, I could not help thinking of Washington. Just like Vlad, the Pentagon is willing to make a pack with the Devil to defeat the Taliban/ISIS/Al Qaeda/Turk. A very contemporary film, in some ways.

Well acted, as befits a British-made film.

All in all, a good film, but one not without its flaws.

Canada should really stop making movies. This was a shockingly poor affair. A big budget and some good actors does not make up for a feeble script, confused and muddled plot, limited characterisation, totally inaccurate history for a historical film, and a surfeit of political correctness.

Like most Hollywood epics, the Roman Empire's heart seems to be in Britain. And that was where this film commenced. But it was nothing like the real Britannia. A clichéd damp English weather, and assorted rebelling "horse tribes". A pointless massacre of said rebels, and a boy left inexplicably alive. This was apparently a major military campaign to "open the Northern trade routes". Sounds more like a amateur attempt to paint Romans as evil from the outset, and set up a revenge sub-plot. A child could come up with a better plot.

The mysterious "Celt", having survived against the odds becomes not a horseman like his father, but a gladiator. Having overcome all competitors in Britain, he is sent not to Rome but to Pompeii.

This Pompeii is nothing like the real city. Its residents do not regard themselves as Roman. Odd that, as Pompeii was part of the Empire, its citizens were Roman citizens, and the city was a Roman resort. Rather like the citizens of Bournemouth hating Londoners and not regarding themselves as British.

Pompeii is dominated by a huge active volcano, which disturbs the locals from time to time. The real volcano looks only half the size (I have been in Pompeii) and it was not known to be active until the eruption itself.

I know modern audiences like gladiators, almost as much as Romans did. But what is entirely omitted from the movie is that gladiators were part of a religious rite, and that the fighting was both drama and intended to honour the Gods. Real gladiatorial combat did not always result in death. In fact gladiators were too valuable to kill swiftly. Most combat during the course of the day was not lethal. This movie represents gladiatorial combat as simply a form of mass murder, as brutal and swift as possible. Dozens killed in minutes. Even during the most costly games in Rome itself gladiators were not "used up" so swiftly.

The eruption of Pompeii looked impressive, but was completely wrong. The real mountain released clouds of pyroclastic material that suffocated and buried thousands, and collapsed buildings. Rather like a build up of snow on buildings. Most residents escaped. In this version there was a preternaturally hot pyroclastic flow, incendiary missiles, tsunami and other mayhem. No one survived, and in fact nothing of the city would have survived.

Culturally the movie got it wrong too. Apart from the erroneous view of the city of Pompeii, the role of slaves was misrepresented. In this version of history they were either "animals" and treated as such, or friends and companions whose status was only shown by the use of "master" from time to time. No sign of manacles or of slaves being whipped, no sign of social classes at all.

The young girl Cassia was for some unexplained reason sent to Rome to grow up, accompanied only by a slave. No chaperone, and no reason why a young girl would be parted from her parents. She returns only to avoid the snares of an evil senator. Convenient plot device, but highly improbable.

The emperor Titus is implied to be a degenerate despot, uninterested in the cities of Italia, much less the Empire. The real Titus was a soldier, and a popular and good emperor.

Many people do not believe that historical accuracy matters in a historical film. To a degree they are right. However history should not be changed unless it fulfills a purpose in the movie. The departures from historical accuracy in this film just make it confused, illogical and a bad film.

It is probably undeniable that the standard of movies has declined over recent years. Whilst technical resources have become more advanced, originality, scripts, acting, plots and characters have declined in quality. Many directors no longer seem able to properly use the technical resources and massive funding given to them.

300: Rise of an Empire is a good example of the worst type of modern film. Vast budget, over emphasis on CGI, weak script and characterisation, and bad acting. It was often hard to see what was happening in the murky darkness. Slow motion splattering of blood became tedious, as did the number of beheadings. It often looked as though the film was a cartoon, both visually and because of the "plot" and inane script.

The film is set in ancient Greece. A time and place well-known to moviegoers. Yet this Greece bears no resemblance to the historical reality. 300 is not meant to be a docudrama, certainly, but it could not be more inaccurate if it tried. It was often hard to follow what was happening, and there were many unexplained or disconnected events.

==Spoiler alert== Amongst the many anachronisms was the use of an "oil tanker" as a weapon. The "personal guard" suicide bombers swimming hundreds of yards underwater whilst carrying oil tank bombs was particularly absurd. The real Greeks fought in tight groups, wearing as much armour as they could afford. They were citizen-soldiers. These Greeks were described as farmers - though they came from a city - untrained, and fought largely without either armour or clothes. The real Sparta was known for its army. Yet this Sparta was a formidable naval power. The real battle of Thermopylae was between the Persians and a large Greek army. This one was fought by the 300 Spartans alone - Athens apparently did nothing to prevent being sacked. And two of the three main military leaders were woman, despite women having virtually no role in the real war. ====

I suggest that the people who fund these massively expensive turkeys should consider whether they really want to make travesties with their money, or whether a film with a semblance of intelligence, logic, historical reality, cohesion and a good script might be better.

This film is a satire on shallow American values and pointless "friendships". Though few reviewers seem to have noticed this - possibly because they are Americans.

Similarly the premise of a gas attack on one or more American city - an event which escapes the notice of call-centre employees overseas - is described by many reviewers and in the film description as the "end of the world". Sorry America, the end of a few American cities is not the end of the world.

The story is well paced, the developments never too obvious. There is much entertainment in watching the stupidity and pointless antics of these self-centres characters. They are blatant stereotypes, but that adds to the fun. The only galling aspect was their easy acceptance of the end.

This programme is unusual, and could have been very compelling viewing. Unfortunately unprofessional "special" effects, and confused time travel rather spoil it. The creator, Margaret Mahy, was seriously overrated as an author, and in particular had no conception at all of time travel. Her confusion makes the entire series confusing, and illogical. Unfortunately the producers were too besotted by her to question her views of time travel. I do not know whether it was a limited budget, or the special effects being done in New Zealand, but the effects were not special at all, but very amateur. That used to be normal for New Zealand television, though there has been improvements in recent years. It is a pity that the production and editing was not given to a more experienced and better funded team overseas. All-in-all an interesting concept, that better execution could have made a wonderful programme.

The plot of this series is so ridiculous that I thought it must be a spoof when I read it. Unfortunately it is accurate.

This show was aimed at the lowest form of humour, and didn't succeed. It attempts to dramatise an implausible scenario, and entertain by flaunting an amoral and debauched lifestyle.

Some people may have enjoyed watching it. All I can say is that such programmes are an affront to the public who have to fund them. It is no better than toilet humour, amusing by embarrassing and ridiculing its characters.

The show is very badly acted, which is not a surprise from New Zealand television. I cannot recall a single good actor who has stayed on television - they have all left for Hollywood.

I have tried to watch part of an episode, but found it impossible to watch.

There have been too many alien invasion movies and TV shows in recent years. The only justification for one more would be if it was both better made and had an original angle. Falling Skies is not well made, and is certainly not original.

There are the usual logical problems with highly advanced aliens being curiously vulnerable, disorganised and unable to conquer bands of roaming humans. How can they be defeated by a handful of civilians if the real military failed? The CGI is one of the poorest seen for some time.

The only partly redeeming feature is to include themes exploring human flaws. I would however question the previous reviewers who referred to those who collaborated with the Nazis in occupied Europe during WW2 as recent examples of people collaborating with an enemy. Iraqis who collaborated with American occupation forces would be a more current and pertinent example.

I suggest that Spielberg should can the rest of the series, and pretend that he wasn't responsible for this disaster of a series.

This film ought to have been good. It isn't. It is far inferior to the 1959 original.

Some people have said it is an improvement to have Australians playing Australians - and Americans, rather than Americans playing both, as in the 1959 film. I am not convinced that is an improvement. Americans played Australians reasonably convincingly in 1959. I am afraid that the Australians in this film sounded fake - even when playing Australians! The dialogue was phony, and far too contrived. The politics too obvious.

Special effects were very weak, even for a TV movie. The Ferrari crash was unbelievably poorly executed.

All-in-all not a pleasant experience - and that had nothing to do with the subject matter.

This film should be watched with the viewers brain in neutral - or perhaps off altogether! It is a truly awful movie. The more one thinks about it, the more one realises the extent of the plot flaws, poor dialogue, illogical events, clichés, poor CGI, false gung ho patriotism, and so on.

I will give a few examples. This film was filmed with the jerkiest camera ever used, presumably to add a touch of realism. The director shouldn't have bothered. It didn't work, and just made it impossible to see what was happening a lot of the time. This did have one advantage though. It meant that the aliens were never still or clear enough to see just how poorly they were CGI generated.

==SPOILERS== An advanced alien species, with vast technical resources, appears to rely on ground soldiers who have never heard of tactics, have weapons slightly less formidable than twentieth century infantry, and cannot hit a target even if it is right in front of them.

The US military, with hundreds of aircraft and other resources in California, similarly relies on Marines on foot - and only a handful for that matter - to fight off the aliens.

The Marines shout at each other as they walk down the middle of a road in alien-occupied territory. Even a pre-schooler would have more tactical sense. The result was a foregone conclusion.

Although there was a strong focus on military matters, the script writers obviously have no knowledge of military tactics, equipment or language - or even common sense about such things.

The "action" was interspersed with TV coverage of the breaking news. This clichéd device was obviously intended to provide background. However the "news" was largely journalists or "experts" expressing views or making presumptions that were not supported by what we were seeing, or that were even logical.

This film was a waste of over $70 million. The money would have been better spent if if had been burnt.

--Spoilers-- It was always my understanding that the mockumentary approach to film making was used to add a touch of realism. This film is far from realistic.

The shaky and sometimes unfocused camera is distracting, and can make it hard to tell what is happening. But it is also quite wrong for a supposedly professional documentary team. A backyard documentary made by a couple of teenagers for youtube would be filmed more professionally.

My biggest concern was the way exorcisms were represented. The preacher was a classic evangelical showman, of the character only seen in America. He was a fair representation of that peculiar type, though overacting. But his ministry and exorcisms were both represented as simply deceitful fakery. Hardly a fair image.

Exorcism is not simply a case of travelling the country shouting at "demons" and using hidden speakers and smoke generators. Any "exorcist" behaving like that would be exposed in a week. Even in America.

Odd that the last exorcism performed by Rev Cotton Marcus should be his only real one! Or was it? Marcus invented a demon, picking a page at random from his guidebook. And low and behold the "real" demon when it appears confirms that it is indeed Abalam, as the good rev had stated. Of course we know just as well as Marcus that that name was picked at random. Odd that Marcus should have chosen correctly. Was the Devil just playing his game? Or was this "real" demonic possession part of Marcus' performance - for the benefit of the film crew? Assuming the possession was "real", why does Marcus not react at all when he faces a genuine demonic possession? After all he had performed fake exorcisms for years, overtly denied the existence of demons and the devil. The real possession must have been a surprise, but he didn't show it.

The denouement when it comes was confused, and frankly ridiculous. I was not impressed with this film.

Even before I saw this movie I had misgivings. My overwhelming impression was that the script would be awful. It was. It is usually a mistake to get a scriptwriter to direct a movie. It usually means that there is no scriptwriter. The trailer contained every cliché and lame expression known, and not a single sentence of any originality or normality. The film was even worse, with an unreal and amateurish script. Every stereotype of kid known to the film industry was assembled in the team. And all uttered the expected cliché's, and behaved according to cue.

Yet there was no stereotype enemy. Instead ridiculous pussy-footing around the identity of the invader. Not wanting to offend the PC brigade, or Indonesia, it seems that the makers decided that the invaders should be the invisible men from nowhere. Speaking a made-up language that wasn't even traceable to a region. Yet their uniforms, features, and the politics clearly indicated a South East Asian coalition.

Stupid drug-addled kids take on and defeat professional soldiers. Talk about wish fulfillment. The ending with them all standing in line, festooned with Chinese weaponry, looked like a spoof of Rambo or Commando.

And where was the Australian armed forces? One FA-18 as a nominal presence is just too stupid for words. And if a bunch of idiot kids could survive in the wilderness, so could the Aussie commandos.

A quite ridiculous movie. But I have to confess reasonably enjoyable, so long as you leave your brain at the door.