Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
No, it's not that bad.
The utter hysterics among some of the reviews claiming this is "The worst Star Wars ever!" are a bit of an over-reaction. This is a completely acceptable Star Wars movie. I will say right off the bat that I didn't enjoy it as much as The Force Awakens, but some of the story elements are intriguing. It really requires multiple viewings to digest properly.
I can say without equivocation, though, that I think that a lot of this movie's problems would be solved by changing or eliminating a certain story line, which really dragged the movie down.
Ignore the hysterics. Go in with an open mind. The movie has problems for sure, but I'd say that the good outweighs the bad.
Absolutely nuts, but some of the best television I've ever seen!
I consider "Fargo" to be some of the best television I've ever seen, so when I heard that Noah Hawley (The guy behind Fargo) was going to be involved in Legion, I was immediately on board even though I didn't really know what I was getting into. Now that I'm more than half-way though the first season, I can say with certainty that, not only is Legion some of the best television that I've ever seen, it's also some of the flat-out craziest!
I've never been so thoroughly confused by a show and yet so enthralled. I suppose that's the brilliance of this show. Every episode is a visual masterpiece and every episode leaves you questioning what you've seen, and what you thought you knew. The detail that is put into, not only the plot itself, but the little things that you barely notice is just incredible.
The cast is top-notch. Dan Stevens (David) portrays someone you relate to, feel sorry for and fear all at the same time. I love the relationship he has with Rachel Keller (Syd). It's a sweet and refreshing love story, but one that, in keeping with the rest of the show, has you doubting some times. Aubrey Plaza (Lenny) is flat-out crazy, terrifying and a joy to watch (when you're not creeped out).
I really can't commend the writing, directing and production value enough. It's all done so well and with so much care, and passion.
I'd be lying if I said I knew what was going on with the plot of the show. Like I said, things are always changing. You're constantly doubting everything. Just when you think you've figured something out, the show throws another curve-ball. It would be frustrating in any other show, but here, it's just so much fun!
I suppose what Noah Hawley said was true. "I don't need you to understand the show, but I need you to experience it". And man, is this ever an experience! This isn't just a comic-book show done right, it's *television* done right. I can't recommend this enough.
There's a good film in here....underneath the rubble
I followed this film throughout its development. I was not a fan of Man of Steel at all, but I had hoped that the filmmakers had learned their lesson and plus, if you add Batman to anything, you have my attention. So it was, with cautious optimism, that I eagerly awaited this film. Then the reviews came out. Oh....
I had planned to see it in theaters, but the bad reviews drove me away. Now that it's out on DVD, I've finally gotten around to seeing it and I must say that it's not as bad as critics make it out to be. In fact, I believe there's a great film hiding in here somewhere, but it was unfortunately smothered by the insistence of setting up other films, some bad editing decisions, unclear motivations and, worst of all, falling back on the Snyder crutch of green screen 'splosions and confusing fights.
First, the good:
1. Ben Affleck was a good Batman. I was seemingly one of the few people who gave him the benefit of the doubt when he was first announced and he delivered an interesting Batman/Bruce Wayne. He is certainly the most authentic looking Batman we've ever seen, but he also finally captures the detective element and the paranoid, possibly crazy element as well. Like most people, I'd be interested in seeing him in a stand alone film.
2. Gal Gadot was good as our first big screen representation of Wonder Woman. There's a grace and mystery there combined with her ability to kick-butt that leaves you wanting more.
3. On a technical level, minus the CGI and score, this film was very interesting. The cinematography was stunning at times and the costumes were amazing. It shows that Snyder is a master of bringing comics to life. Unfortunately, he doesn't know what to do with them once he brings them to life.
4. Finally, I do like that DC is trying to do something different with these films in examining the real-world ramifications and ethics involved.
1. This film is just too overstuffed. The attempts to set up future films bloats this film to the point of boredom. Many of these scenes are simply unnecessary and cutting them could have reduced the run-time by 30-45 minutes, or could have filled in some sorely missing plot points.
2. Lex Luthor's motivation is dubious at best and the lengths at which he is willing to go to so he can accomplish his goals border on self-damaging. Why is he willing to potentially destroy the world to destroy Superman? Why does he hate Superman in the first place? Daddy issues? Jealousy? The genuine fear of powerful beings? All of the above? Possibly! Because all are explored and none make sense.
3. Jessie Eisenberg's performance was just too manic and annoying, and not at all like the cold, smooth and calculating Lex Luthor we know and love.
4. Superman is mopey, depressed, dark and brooding. He is not who Superman should be at all. He is, by far, the weakest and least interesting of our three heroes. There is some attempt at tension and doubt with the world being very suspicious of Superman and he himself wondering if it's all worth it, but in the end, those interesting parts are smothered by all the brooding.
5. The film's editing decisions are questionable as you get the feeling that a lot of potentially important information was left out.
6. The CGI was awful. It was genuinely laughable for a film of this budget. Either get some better CGI, or don't be so over-dependent on CGI in the first place because it was truly unacceptable.
7. The music was awful. This is shocking coming from the great Hans Zimmer, but it was loud, obnoxious, crude and added nothing to the overall film. I guess Hans is burnt-out on all these superhero movies.
8. MARTHA: This makes no sense no matter any way I look at it. It's just a poor decision for what could have a very powerful scene a la "I'm with you to the end of the line" from Captain America: The Winter Soldier.
9. Finally, the final act seems tacked on as if Snyder & Co. had no idea how to finish it, or thought that audiences expected a final battle with lots of BIG 'SPLOSIONS! The resulting battle of Doomsday is a very muddled, confusing, headache inducing mess that hearkens back to the final battle with Man of Steel. The poor CGI, as you can guess, only adds to issues.
So as you can see, not a perfect film by any means. There are tons of issues, but it's not nearly as bad as some critics made it out to be. It certainly superposes Marvel films such as Thor and The Incredible Hulk. The real tragedy is that you CAN see a great film trying to get out, it was just smothered by bad creative choices and studio interference. If you love these characters, definitely give it a look. If not, you may want to give it a pass.
A Visually Stunning Film That Disappoints In The End
I'll start out by saying that I'd been looking forward to Interstellar for months. I wouldn't consider myself a "Nolanite", but I do consider him to be a good director who has done a lot to revolutionize film. Since I don't generally go to theaters, I avoided almost all information on this film (except for general reviews) until it came out on DVD and I could watch it. The time finally came! I was so excited to watch it and in the end I was....disappointed....and puzzled. Interstellar ain't no Inception, or Dark Knight, or Prestige. In fact, it's probably Nolan's weakest film. That's not to say that it's terrible, but it does fall short in the end.
Let's star with the positives: The film is absolutely stunning visually. The effects are fantastic, as is the cinematography. The scenes in space, the alien planets and the spacecraft are the best parts of the film. You can tell Nolan did his research in these instances and created a truly convincing world with believable technology and science.
I loved TARS and CASE, the blocky robots. They were something truly original and unique. I liked that they both had their own personalities and that they were truly there to help, and not have "crazy robot double motives" as is so cliché in these types of film.
Mathew McConaughey, Matt Damon, Mackenzie Foy, Jessica Chastain and the criminally underused Casey Affleck all deliver fantastic performances.
Finally, the concept of the film itself, is unique, original and interesting.
Unfortunately, there are quite a few negatives to this film that keep it from being a great film:
Like a lot of critics have pointed out, the dialogue tends to be a bit sappy. Like most people, I groaned at Anne Hathaway's "love" speech, as well as a lot of Cooper's overly "inspirational" speeches.
On that note, I found Anne Hathaway, who I thought did a great job in TDKR, to be flat, boring, passionless and generally uninteresting. Her performance simply did nothing for me. Likewise, Michael Cain, who usually knocks it out of the park, was uninteresting as well. Perhaps it was his character, which is slightly unlikeable, but it just seemed like he was playing a slightly different version of the character that he always plays in Nolan movies. Like I mentioned above, Casey Affleck was criminally underused. The guy's a great actor and there was potential for so much more to his character, but it wasn't used.
And then there's the biggest problem of all: The last third of the film. The film was genuinely exciting, interesting and enthralling right up until (SPOILER!! SPOILER!! SPOILER!!) Cooper goes into Gargantua. From here the film goes completely off the rails into the realm of near ridiculousness. Here, the story that was fairly plausible, goes completely out the window into a confusing, silly, overly convenient mess. This is where the film stalls and it doesn't really get better from then on out. And that's perhaps the worst thing of all. Until this part, this is an excellent film. It could have gone in a different direction to END as an excellent film, but unfortunately, it doesn't.
Still, I applaud Nolan for making something truly original and unique. In this world of reboots and remakes, it's very nice to see an original idea. And like I said, the film is stunning visually. If you're a fan of sci-fi, science, space or Nolan, I recommend RENTING this. Just be aware that it falls well short of his past works such as Inception, Memento and The Dark Knight.
Man of Steel (2013)
Because the people want 'splosions and lots of them!
Coming off of the success of Nolan's "Dark Knight" trilogy, rebooting Superman was a given. So was "Nolanizing" it to make it more "realistic" and "darker". There's nothing wrong with any of this, of course, but this movie fails in every place Nolan's Batman succeeded. Specifically by devolving into a series of absurd explosions with little to no substance. But it's not all bad! There was potential for a good movie here. I think it got buried under one of those buildings in Metropolis.
One of the few things that I really like about this movie was how they portrayed a young Clark Kent. Let's be honest folks, if you think that you're just a normal kid from Earth and all of the sudden you start experiencing weird powers, such as heightened hearing, you'd be a little messed up. And that's what I really enjoyed about this film. It portrays a young Clark Kent struggling with his powers and all of the pain and confusion that comes with them. It's an interesting angle that added a very slight bit depth to an otherwise shallow movie.
Other highlights? Russell Crowe's performance was excellent, as were the bits on Krypton. Amy Adam's did a good job as Lois Lane as did Kevin Costner and Diane Laine as Pa and Ma Kent respectively. Hans Zimmer's score was excellent, as it always is, and the cinematography was so close to being good, if not for the obligatory "shaky cam".
But once this movie enters its mid-to-final act, everything (and I mean everything) falls apart. The entire thing devolves into "destructo-porn" where it seems like the filmmakers were just trying to see how much stuff they could blow up. Seriously, it's just one mind-numbing fight scene after another to the point where it's boring and almost insulting. Is this all that Hollywood thinks we want? More 'splosions and noise? Because at some point, it all becomes pointless and almost every fight scene in this movie was pointless. Sigh .what a waste.
Also, all of the jumping around via flashbacks were very awkward. Snyder was trying to go "Nolan Style" with the flashbacks. To be honest, I love how Nolan handles his flashbacks. They're brief, emotional and fluidic. You know, like how a flashback you have in real life is. The problem is that Nolan either sets up his flashbacks so you know what's going on, or he has a character speaking during the flashbacks, so you know what's going on. Snyder doesn't do this, so you don't know what's going on!
There could've been a good movie here. They had some good ideas, but they didn't go any deeper. They just relied on the new god of the big-budget Hollywood movie: Gratuitous CGI destruction. And that's a shame, because that's not what Superman is about. Superman is about preventing that destruction. Superman is a hopeful character. The reason the dark undertones work in Batman is because he is an inherently dark character (and subsequently, a far more interesting one IMO). There's nothing wrong with a little darkness and realism in a Superman movie, but millions of innocent dead people, a destroyed city and snapped necks isn't the way to go.
Maybe since they got all of the gratuitous 'splosions out of the way, the next one will be far better .I hope. Please don't screw up Batman!
The Girl (2012)
All of the pieces are in place for a great movie....except the story
I stumbled across this one day while scanning through the channels. I saw "Hitchcock" in the description, so I decided to have a look. Now I'll admit, I don't know all that much about Hitchcock. I know he's a great director, but I know next to nothing about his personal life or any controversy that may have lead to this movie. Instead I focused on the movie itself. After watching, I decided to look it up, where I came across the rather large controversy that this film has created. So here's my humble take on the film.
"The Girl" is a brilliant film from a mechanical standpoint. The acting is brilliant. Toby Jones sounds almost IDENTICAL to Hitchcock. It was really quite eerie to listen to the two. He seemed to capture the mannerisms from the director quite well. Sienna Miller was okay, but was a bit dry in some parts. Otherwise it was a fine group of actors. Likewise, directing, cinematography and editing were all exceptional, so why does this film fail?
A question I have instead of all the "is this a true story?" is, if you have all of the makings of a great film-a great cast, a great director, great camera-work-why base the story on such a controversial and doubtful series of events? Why not use the tools you have to make a biopic of sorts? This is what baffles me. If this film had followed a different story, it would probably have a much better rating. Everything points to a successful film EXCEPT the story, so why do it?
I suppose this is the problem with film these days. People are more concerned about the shock factor than an actual quality film. It's a shame too, because this could have been much, much better and free from controversy.
Home & Family (2012)
Other people in the family enjoy this kind of stuff, but I think that this show is a joke, especially from a technical aspect. The topics covered are typical daytime talk show schlock, which in and of itself isn't bad, but rather predictable. However, the production values are laughable. Because the show is filmed inside a "real house", filming is incredibly awkward. There are crew members constantly walking into frame, realizing that they just walked into frame and abruptly walking out. The hosts are running about to different parts of the house....sometimes they don't make it in time for their cue. Much of the time, there's some sort of audio feed issue with a guest, which just adds the the awkwardness. Also, the hosts (Steines and Davis) accidentally read each others lines, or those of their guests quite often. Paige Davis, while pleasant and upbeat, usually degenerates into a goofy mess by the end of the segment. I don't blame this on her, I blame it on how badly the show is run. Steines is a bit more composed, but you can tell with the guests that things are awkward and they would rather be somewhere else.
The concept is novel (filming in an actual house), the hosts can be likable and the topics are fine, but whoever is running/directing this show needs to be fired ASAP. I know it's a daytime talk show and I would normally never write anything about this sort of thing, but the way the show is run is just terrible, one of the worst I've ever seen. It's an insult to the viewers and to the hosts.
One of the funniest and most original shows on T.V. today
I'm not a big fan of FX comedies. Crap like "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" is painfully unfunny and woefully over-rated. However, I've enjoyed Wilfred from the beginning. It's one of the funniest shows that I've seen in a while. It takes a lot for a T.V. comedy to make me laugh, but Wilfred does it effortlessly. The comedy comes from the sheer absurdity of it. Seeing Jason Gann dressed as a dog doing "dog things" and other "non-dog things" is hysterical. Yes, some of the humor is crude, but it's well-balanced. The director's scene in "Honesty" was hilarious and I don't see how they made it though that scene.
Elijah Woods is an excellent Ryan. Likable sometimes, unlikable other times and down right pitiable other times, Ryan is the unlucky guy who has to put up with Wilfred's schemes while dealing with his own shortcomings and, possibly, "mental instability". Wilfred's schemes are usually a lesson for Ryan, but sometimes not.
What I really enjoy about this show is the darker aspect. In almost every episode, we're lightly reminded of the fact that Ryan may not be "all there". We're also reminded of Ryan's past mistakes and their consequences. Sometimes Ryan fesses up to them. Sometime's the truth works out, sometimes it's disastrous for Ryan. We also see that not fessing up can be disastrous for Ryan, as we saw when he lost Amanda. A lot of people call this tedious, boring and "not funny man!", but I see it as what I like to call "an intelligent plot". So many comedies out there are cheap, tired, unintelligent garbage that's degenerating into seeing how many lines the writers can cross for the sake of crossing them. The irony of people saying Wilfred is boring is that is ISN'T boring! It's fresh, new and original! It's trying something different instead of adhering to the same old formula. So yes, the gratification isn't instant, it isn't a constant knee slapper and the plot isn't so simple and predictable that a 5 year old could have written it, but that's what makes it great! The show has a brain and a heart, which is sorely lacking from many of today's comedies.
I really wished this had a higher rating and I hope that it continues. I also hope more writers take after Wilfred and create a show that's a little...."different".
Mermaids: The Body Found (2011)
An obvious fake that doesn't belong on Animal Planet or Discovery Channel
I stumbled upon this when they re-ran it on the Discovery Channel. It looked fishy (no pun intended) from the beginning, but, since this was the Discovery Channel, I thought that it was a reenactment of actual statements. Wrong. It was very easy to tell that the "scientists" were actors. They were trying too hard to look "candid" and genuine. So that struck me right off the bat. Then we were treated to a "video" of a teenager stumbling across the body of an alleged mermaid. Again, very obvious that it's fake with blatant, poor CGI.
I have no problem with any of this. It's a free country and there are people who believe this stuff. However, I do have a problem with this kind of stuff being shown on the Discovery Channel. The Discovery Channel has (or had) a reputation of having legitimate scientific programing. They've had plenty of ACTUAL documentaries in similar style to this and to put this program on the channel, regardless of how many times they alluded to how it was fake, is completely inappropriate. I expect this kind of stuff on the SyFy Channel, where it would be appropriate, not on a channel like Discovery. I believe this program, more than any other in recent times, speaks to the poor state of U.S. television.
Sons of Guns (2011)
A soap opera with occasional scenes about guns
This show was great when it first came out. I loved seeing these guys modify and build cool new guns. Unfortunately, as the seasons progressed, the show become less and less about guns, and more about stupid reality show drama. First, we had the Stephanie-Kris love crap, then we had the Vince crap. Now we have the Kris getting jealous of Stephanie goofing around with Jessie James crap. Come on guys! This show was great when it was solely about the guns, but when you add in this stupid reality show stuff, it just becomes a detractor. That said, these guys have always done some really cool stuff. I like seeing the design and building process, as well as the some of the old guns that come along. I just wish that they would go back to making guns and not trying to make this a soap opera.
Hatfields & McCoys (2012)
An amazingly tragic epic that's very well done.
I'll start off by saying that I'm not the biggest Costner fan in the world. I don't hate him like a lot of people do, but I find that he can be quite wooden when he acts. That said, he did an awesome job with this one! Everyone did an awesome job!
We all know the story, but this drama brings it to life vividly and highlights an important lesson. The series is beautifully shot, fully capturing the grit of the period. The set's and props also look great.
Kevin Costner, who, like I said above, is usually rather wooden, shines here as someone who originally wanted no part in the feud, but as time goes on is fully drawn into it. Appearing more level headed as McCoy, in truth, Devil Anse is just as hateful.
Bill Paxton made the series for me as Randall McCoy. We see how McCoy, who is inexorably screwed at almost every turn, grows more and more bitter, and hateful. The more bitter he get's, the more he gets screwed and we see an enormous downward spiral. The character invokes massive amounts of pity, because he really did go through a lot from the beginning. This is only added to when the feud begins. He loses several children, his home and his wife goes mad. At the same time, the character makes you want to slap him because his stubbornness causes most of his troubles. Toward the end, he's a broken, hollow man that has lost most everything, but still refuses to let things go. A brilliant performance, as it shows where bitterness can lead.
The supporting cast is great as well, with the likes of Mare Winningham giving the most profound lines of truth toward the end. The musical score is great in some places, but it lacks in others.
So haters are gonna hate (as you can see from the message boards), but it really is a great series. Is it the most accurate? No, but it captures the spirit of the feud and the real tragedy that it was. Were the performances perfect? No. They rarely are. Was it shot in Romania? Yes, but I don't know the reasoning over that (probably money), so I'm not going to judge. No film is perfect, but this one is great and finally presents some actual HISTORY on The History Channel that has been sorely missed.
Finally something on the History Channel that doesn't involve Ice Road Truckers, or Swamp People!!
When I first heard about this series, I was excited for many reasons. One reason was that it was actually something that involved history on The History Channel. It seems that for the last few years, The History Channel has pursued a policy of forsaking almost anything that has to do with history in favor of stupid, unoriginal reality shows, "ancient aliens" and other things that just don't belong on a channel about history.
Another reason is that, each of our states have such a rich, deep history that's unique to every single state. It's good to learn about that kind of thing. I mean, it's our own country for cryin' out loud! We should want to learn more about it! A show that teaches us that is okay with me.
Not only is the show educational, but it's entertaining. We follow Mr. Unger as he visits all fifty states and along the way he'll visit some interesting sites (some that have been almost forgotten), speak to some experts and even talk to the residents of the various states where he asks them questions about their own state, as well as others.
The quest goes far beyond geography, because the show explores the deep history and eccentricities of each state, such as the battle over BBQ, the different accents around our country and other cultural differences. It even shows us some states that were lost, such as Franklin and Deseret.
If you've ever seen and enjoyed Stephen Fry's America, you'd enjoy this as well. If you've never seen either, you'd still enjoy this, because it's a deep, but fun look at the history of our country.
Falling Skies (2011)
Spielberg had something to do with this?
For the record, I love sci-fi. I'm an avid fan of Star Trek, Stargate SG-1 and the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica. A new show that has even a hint of sci-fi elements can be exciting, but this one just fell short. From the minute I first saw the trailer, I knew that this was not going to be very good. I was right.
First of all, the plot of this series is an unoriginal mish-mash of better works. Someone compared it to Jericho, which I kind of agree with,except it's got some War of The Worlds thrown in. The aliens even make a weird noise like in the War of The Worlds movie that came out recently. But despite having a similar look to Jericho, it's no where near as well done.
The writing is poor and unoriginal. It tends to lead to several clichés and situations that have been done so many times before.The characters and situations are predictable, and not very exciting. The story itself isn't complicated. In essence, it's about human survival like Jericho and BSG, but if you just throw that in without anything else, things get boring quickly. Jericho had a rich, mysterious plot, as did BSG, but I don't really see this story unraveling. Aliens have invaded. There's no complex mystery and probably no other goal except to "survive". Mr. Cliché General said so.
The CGI is pretty bad and while the cinematography tries to be original, it generally just dissolves back into regular T.V. stuff.
What I'm getting at is this: The bar has be raised fairly high by shows like BSG and even The Walking Dead in terms of writing, cinematography, acting, story lines and even effects. You just can't put something up that looks like it was made ten years ago with an unoriginal plot and expect it to be a success.
SGU Stargate Universe (2009)
Hi, Stargate producers? You wanna push that knife in my back a little deeper?
So Stargate SG-1 is one of the most beloved sci-fi series ever. It slightly continued the Star Trek theme of exploration, but it did it in its own way. It had plenty of action and adventure with a few lightly themed episodes. It also had a great cast that had a lot of chemistry. When they introduced Stargate Atlantis I was a little apprehensive, but I grew to like it. It continued the tradition of action, adventure and exploration that its predecessor had, but in its own way. But just as I was beginning to like it they canceled it. For Stargate Universe. One big mistake. Where to begin with this slow, dark, dank, petty attempted rip-off of both Battlestar Galactica and Star Trek Voyager. The producers said they wanted something younger and edgier which meant they wanted to rip-off BSG. So with that in mind they decided to make a horribly hopeless, dark, violent and depressing show with a shaky camera.
We start with the cast. I don't like them. Why? Because they all act like they would rather shoot each other than find a useful way home. There's no chemistry and there's no one to either like or relate to. They're constantly at each other's throats and it just isn't enjoyable to watch. Everyone has their over the top quirks from annoyingly arrogant, to annoyingly sarcastic. What did the writers want to create Stargate: The Hills?
So in the writer's attempt to make the show young and edgy and show how humans really act in times of trouble like BSG they totally miss the point. Battlestar Galactica was dark and at times depressing and I believe it did a good job of showing humanity in the midst of tragedy. But the thing that made BSG great was not the dark side of human behavior in the midst of tragedy, but the good side. It's a little thing I like to call "Sacrifice". The show was full of it. Adama just wanted to be with Roslin, but couldn't because it would create a tense political situation. Instead he opted to find survivors a new home. Likewise, Roslin also wanted to be Adama, but couldn't because of the tense political situation it would create. She also could've taken it easy due to her cancer, but instead opted to help lead an idiot filled civilian government. See where I'm going with this? Human behavior in bad situations usually brings out the best in us, not the worst. Unfortunately, no one told the writers of Stargate Universe this because everyone is a petty selfish jerk looking out for number 1.
The show has none of the chemistry of past series'. I don't even know anyone's purpose. In SG-1 everyone had their purpose; O'Neill was the leader and military dude, Carter was the brains, Jackson the diplomat and archaeologist, Teal'C was the warrior searching to free his people and Hammond was the father figure general. Here, it's anyone's guess. Who's in charge? At times that jerk Dr. Rush and then an assortment of officers and it's all confusing. Needless to say they all hate each other. Except when they fall in love. Oh wait! That person already loves someone else and couldn't care less about you! So yeah, they all hate each other.
SGU is the Stargate franchises "Nemesis". Nemesis was the last movie in the Star Trek: The Next Generation franchise and it was needlessly dark and violent. Previous Stargate series' had dark and violent parts, but they didn't last long. They were there long enough to move the story along. There was usually a happy outcome. This show is just stupidly violent. Stargate has always been a family show, so how are you going to explain to little Timmy why the soldier is getting burrowed into by a giant leach thing? It's just overly depressing and not in keeping with the past series'
So why this long rant against this show? Well, because I consider it a slap in the face for Stargate fans and it's also because it's a terrible rip-off of BSG. It has no depth and no entertainment value to it. It's a daytime soap in space, but this time everyone has guns. You can't just be dark for the sake of being dark. There needs to be a purpose and some heroes. 'Tis a blemish on a grand series.