wicj Reviews

Fan-O-Rama (2016)

I Want More

[8/10 · 23 October 2023]

Love it! Wish it was longer, but I'm sure the budget wouldn't allow for that. Also, would have loved to see Hedonism Bot make a showing. I enjoyed seeing Rich Little do Nixon's head. The rest of the cast were perfect in their roles. I'm not sure why people have complained about the voices; I was pleasantly surprised that they emulated the original characters quite well. The Bender bot/puppet was perfectly and amazingly executed. Considering that this was an independent film made by fellow fans of the best animated series ever created, the production value surprisingly good. An example of this is the model of the Planet Express building.

I wish a major streaming service would have picked this up, put some money into it, and made a full-length movie of it.

9/11: Minute by Minute (2021)

Fire the Graphics Department!

[3/10 · 11 September 2022]

The script and narration weren't terrible...nothing really new here though. The real failure is in the graphics. Aside from the all-too-common misuse of footage of technology of an incorrect period as well as other anachronisms, I observed stock footage of a woman wearing shorts that were way too short or not short enough, depending on your point of view and a smiley face on an illustration of the first two terrorists entering the cockpit of American 11. I spent way too much time focused on the ridiculousness of the background images that I lost the narration a few times. This production is a lesson in laziness and perhaps even apathy.

The Cokeville Miracle (2015)

Two Movies in One

[5/10 · 11 April 2022]

I am primarily rating the first part of this movie which runs for a little under an hour. If you've read any of the reviews before mine, you are already aware that this was a movie with a Christian agenda. Some reviewers insist that non-believers, such as me, should have known this going in simply because of the word Miracle in the title; I disagree with this as the word miracle is used to describe plenty of non-religious events nowadays (Miracle on Ice is good example).

The first part of the movie does hint of things to come vis-a-vis Christian bias, but overall it does a decent job of telling the story of the madman and his very strange wife committing an act against children that is probably best described as evil -- if you believe in that sort of thing. There's not much of a build-up to the actual event, and it doesn't attempt to explain the thought-process of this guy, other than to portray that he was clearly deranged. When it comes to the events of that day, though, the movie does a pretty good job of accurately portraying the actions of those involved (I am basing this opinion solely on what I read on Wikipedia). Some of the early dialog, particularly that of the policeman and his wife who, along with their son, become much of the focus of the second part, is cringe-worthy. I thought the camera work and acting were fairly good.

Now, if you are Christian and believe in angels and the Christian definition of miracles, then there's a good chance you will enjoy the second half of this movie, and more power to you. I happen not to believe in those things and did not enjoy that aspect of it and wound up shutting the movie off a little while into that part.

If you are like me, watch the first half or so and you'll see a decent movie about a tragic event told with a fair amount of accuracy. It's not terrible.

Upload (2020– )

Genuinely Funny Sci-Fi

[9/10 · 6 April 2022]

Okay, not really great as sci-fi goes. But seriously funny and entertaining. If you are in a sci-fi only mood go watch (the amazing) The Expanse. But if you are looking a fun watch that you don't have to think too much about, Upload fits the bill. The characters are well-written, the jokes and gags almost always hit and the storyline will keep you watching. Season 2 isn't quite as sharp as the first one, but still clever and I still care about the characters.

American Traitor: The Trial of Axis Sally (2021)

Watchable as an Off-Broadway Play

[7/10 · 17 January 2022]

I felt like I was watching an off-Broadway play viewing this movie. It just has that feel. Very few pan and zooms used; I think that's why. Also, I've seen some very good off-Broadway plays. This wasn't uninteresting. It was pretty biased in favor of portrayed Axis Sally as a victim of, rather than a willing participant of, the Nazis. As shown, it's not hard to sympathize with what she endured. But that doesn't make what she did right or justified. What she did for the enemy of humanity was to act as their propaganda liaison to the American troops, and it was disgusting. The question posed by the defense, in this movie at least, that we ask ourselves, "what would I do?" in her position, is a valid one. I think the only sane answer is that "I wouldn't have put myself in that position in the first place."

This is a watchable movie with fairly low production value and an agenda.

Also: I always enjoy watching Al Pacino, even in this movie where he plays the typical uninterested-attorney-who-grows-a-conscience.

Into the White (I) (2012)

1st WWII movie that I was rooting for the Germans to shoot the British

[2/10 · 16 January 2022]

As a few have mentioned before me, great premise, beautiful scenery and cinematography, but the script fails miserably. The acting is decent, I guess. But the characters, especially the British characters, and the dialogue, especially that of the Brits, are so unrealistic, trite, stereotypical, that the rest of the movie is just beautiful scenery and nothing more. The Brits are so grating that, not only is it unrealistic that the Germans didn't kill them within the first 20 minutes, but I was begging them to do so.

Suits (2011–2019)

Unwieldy Premise, Great Execution

[7/10 · 28 December 2021]

Bike messenger gets job in best corporate law firm in NYC. He doesn't have a law degree and, technically, never passed the bar. Possibly would have made a good movie with Mike Ross ending up in prison at the end. However, the overarching premise of this TV show is wrought with so many near-misses of Mike, et al, getting caught that it becomes almost comical. At any given point in the first few seasons, the law firm and Mike could've and should've cut their losses and ended the charade; and it still could've made for good viewing (maybe Mike becomes a consultant or stock trader who needs the law firm's help -- spoiler alert, the latter kinda sorta happens but then it didn't). Midway through the series, the {real} law comes a-calling. To the show-writers' credit, Mike goes to prison. Then he gets out early. Then goes back to practicing law. The roller-coaster ride gets to be exhausting. The law-bending, proclamations of moral authority, scapegoating and escaping justice get to be exhausting.

Another thing that bothers me about this series is how the writers keep Louis Litt, well-acted by Rick Hoffman, in such ridiculous side-stories that make the character cartoonish.

Now, the good: the acting, the cinematography, the well-written banter, and some decent characters. This is a top-notch cast led by Gabriel Macht and Patrick J. Adams. The big surprise was Rick Hoffman, who I had only seen play minor roles as a douchebag in several movies. At the start, I thought that was how his character was going to be: the 2 dimensional douchebag who everyone loves to hate. But, the writer's wisely gave him so much more depth, and the character is so well-acted that it's really hard to hate him...even when he does douchebag-gy stuff. I've come to really respect Hoffman's acting chops. The problem is, the writer's ran out of ideas for him and he ends up being cartoonish in some pretty ridiculous sitcom-my situations. Still, it's hard to not root for him, even in those ridiculous situations.

I will conclude by saying that this show is definitely worth a watch for at least 5.5 seasons. It's hard to watch after that without saying - usually out loud to no-one in particular - "oh, come on!" The show plots get that ridiculous. I'm stopping at season 7 because I really want to walk away with a mostly positive, 7 star, feeling about the show.

The Icebreaker (2016)

Pretty Bad

[2/10 · 15 November 2021]

It's not just the dubbing; the dialog is terrible. And as bad as the script is, somehow the editing is worse. There is no suspense. There is no continuity from the cuts on the boat to the ones on shore. The time shifts are unceremoniously mashed up so you have to intuit that you just jumped a few weeks ahead before any mention of it is made. The CGI is passable, the cinematography is pretty good and the storyline might have had some entertainment value as some early point in this filming project but the poor dialogue and amateurish dialogue makes this film almost unwatchable.

Jolt (2021)

Hate Hate Hate The Opening Naration

[2/10 · 6 November 2021]

The main character's backstory - as in the whole backstory - is narrated like the beginning of a fairy tale movie. As much of a bad taste this left in my mouth, I tried to watch and enjoy the movie for what is was: a comical action movie. I failed. It tried too hard to be funny and fun. There are cartoonish cops with one-liners that a 6 year old could write. They do stupid things. The main character does stupid things. Everyone does stupid things that don't make sense, that wouldn't happen in real life and wouldn't be clever enough for a Bugs Bunny cartoon. The only good thing you can say about this is that Kate Beckinsale is a hottie. Don't waste your time on this one.

What We Do in the Shadows (2014)

Not-that-original Mockumentary That Fires on All Cylinders

[9/10 · 4 November 2021]

If you don't have a dry sense of humor, don't bother watching. It's not Best In Show dry, but it's not Mel Brooks either. There's a lot of in-your-face gags, but plenty of subtle lines, and nuances that make this a gem. The main characters are all so wonderfully quirky and likeable that you can't help but laugh along side them. The casting and acting is spot-on. I especially loved how Stu, played by Stu, was portrayed. Watch this!

Catastrophe (2015–2019)

Funny, Great Characters, Quick and Sharp Dialogue

[9/10 · 1 May 2021]

To the one-star reviewer who admitted to only watching one episode: are you kidding me?? You watched one episode, from the middle of the second season, and you formed your opinion based on that? How could you possibly connect with the characters without watching from the start. Do you go to a movie theater after a movie is 15 minutes in, watch 15 minutes, then write a review? Ugh.... I'm so frustrated with people like you screwing up the IMDB rating system that I almost forgot to rave about this breath-of-fresh-air show.

I agree with the reviewer who didn't like the gap in events between seasons one and two: it left too many questions. And, yes, all shows stagnate eventually; but, like others before, I believe Catastrophe would've made a come back given the chance. It's a fairly standard sitcom, boy-meets-girl, ends up marrying her for one reason or another, type setup. But, the writing is so sharp (written by the two lead actors), the characters so interesting and the acting so engaging that it sets it apart from most sitcoms of the sort. And, let's face it: most "couple" sitcoms are a rip off of the original -- The Honeymooners, so "unoriginal" really isn't a fair measure of the quality of a TV show.

I watched this show by myself and it made me miss the rapport I had with my ex-wife. I'm watching it again with my current girlfriend and we have decided that these two characters are us to a tee. I have a feeling that there are a lot of other couples who say the same thing when they watch this: "oh my god...that's US!"

My only complaint is that, although fairly well-developed in their own right, some of the ancillary characters are annoying to the point that I wonder if Rob and Sharon would really be associating with them. My favorite among the supporting characters though, is Chris. I could see a spin-off series based on just him that I would definitely watch.

When Harry Met Sally... (1989)

Timeless

[10/10 · 27 April 2021]

I introduced this film to my 27-year old girlfriend; I am - um - older. I watched it with her for her first time because every time we'd be in a restaurant, she WAS Sally, and she missed the reference, so we had to watch it. Not only did I enjoy it for the umpteenth viewing, but she absolutely loved it. I mean, I came home from work tonight, and there she was, watching it - again - for the 5th or 6th time. She loves it because I am Harry and she is Sally. But, more importantly, she loves it - and I love it still - because it is a timeless classic. It's a great movie because Billy Crystal's deadpan delivery of every line hits every time, because Meg Ryan is in her prime as America's sweetheart and plays off Billy so well that it's hard to imagine anybody else in that role, ditto for the rest of the supporting cast, the direction by Reiner is well-paced and doesn't stagnate as many of these rom-coms tend to do, and the interview-style scenes with the random couples are funny and poignant.

The Green Mile (1999)

Don't Rent...Buy It

[10/10 · 8 March 2021]

As another (or more) reviewer(s) said: This should be rated higher than it is. I put it in a tie with Shawshank.

The actors: Of-course, Tom Hanks. Can you imagine anyone in that role? That is a truism for all of his roles, really; he's always the perfect fit. But every...single...member of this cast steps up to the plate in this one. Michael Clarke Duncan captivates as John Coffey; Michael Jeter is so memorable in this role, it was all I would think about while watching Elmo's World with my son every morning for a year; Sam Rockwell as the lunatic - just, WOW!; and Doug Hutchison: I will NEVER be able to watch another movie/TV show with him in it without thinking "what a d**k"...what better accolade for an actor? The casting was spot on with every single character -- rare!

The direction: the scene when Tom Hanks is falling to the floor in pain for, what seems simultaneously as an eternity and the appropriate amount of time. Silence, and not an iota of movement anywhere else in the scene. He lays on the floor in agony and out of the silence comes Michael Clark Duncan's booming, baritone voice "Boss, I needs to see you." Perfection. Every scene: Perfect.

Ditto for the cinematography. The movie is a bit dark and brooding and kinda has a 1940s feel to it. I cannot imagine it shot any other way.

This is a 10 star movie if ever there was one. I've wasted a lot of money renting this, but am now the proud owner of the blue-ray.

Battlestar Galactica (2004–2009)

Paved The Way for The Expanse

[8/10 · 2 January 2021]

BSG: 2004 is great sci-fi. It's a great reimagining of a classic show that I remember enjoying - but not understanding - as a kid. It has relatable characters, a interesting storyline, capable acting (especially from the venerable Edward James Olmos) and amazing special effects for the budget. Most importantly though, this production showed that sci-fi can be intelligent without cheesy aliens and teachable moments. I am a fan of Star Wars and Star Trek, but they both suffer from a cheesiness that BSG finally breaks free from. It entertained without condescending to its audience. The Expanse, in my mind perfect sci-fi, stands on the shoulders of BSG and introduces actual science into the genre. This is the one area that this show fails at because physics is as ignored here as in Trek and Wars. My recommendation: watch this series, enjoy it in all its 2004 glory, then watch The Expanse.

The Thin Red Line (1998)

Hyperbole At Its Finest

[1/10 · 25 December 2020]

I watched this movie when it first came out and all I could remember about it was how much it sucked. I was reading the rave reviews of it tonight and thought maybe I should give it another shot. So, a middle finger for those of you who helped Hollywood steal four bucks from me. My one star was for cinematography only (also: you can't rate it any lower).

This is a movie of more: more celebrity-packed than every episode of The Love Boat combined, more soldiers screaming and leaping from the point of impact from a small explosive than Windtalkers, more unrealistic dialogue between soldiers than Hogan's Heroes (but not in a funny way), more voice-overs than a Martin Scorsese film, more pusillanimous men crying than in The Human Centipede III, and more undeserved praise than Arrival. It's one long -- very long -- war cliche.

I normally understand the differences between the low and high ratings of most movies and TV shows. But I can't get on board with the people who rated this one so highly. I suppose if you like interpretive dance and abstract art and long, rambling poems with no direction or purpose, this might be your thing. But if you want a good, realistic, novel war film, this ain't it.

Apologies for any typos or poor grammar, but I'm pretty high at the moment.

2012 (I) (2009)

It Is What It Is

[3/10 · 20 December 2020]

The only reason I am bothering to write this review is to comment on fact that they didn't bother to include any "world leaders" from Africa on their arcs, yet they are planning to land on the dark continent to continue civilization...yeah, good luck with that.

Also, where did all this water come from? It flooded the world to 29,000 feet?

Yep, it's a bad movie that doesn't leave out a single cliché or disaster movie trope and ignores basic scientific principles. But it's not the worst movie ever as other reviewers have declared. It's good for some chuckles and ooh and ahs at the effects. So if you catch it for free on a streaming service and you're looking to burn a couple hours on a movie you don't have to think about, consider this -- just don't think about it.

Mozart in the Jungle: Can You Marry a Moon? (2015) Season 2, Episode 7

Sound Effects A+

[10/10 · 15 November 2020]

I don't normally write reviews for individual episodes but I had to give props the the sound effects guys on this one. Maestro gets dizzy while acting for the VR/blue screen/covered in balls/CGI thing and the sound changes, almost imperceptibly, to a droning, echo-y, slightly ringing or whistling, and washed-out quality. Then recovers again. I had to rewind it to make sure it wasn't my ears ringing. Great work, sound-effect-guys who will probably never see this review. Will anyone see this review? I mean, honestly, how many people read individual episode reviews for any series?

Borat Subsequent Moviefilm (2020)

We See What We Want To See

[6/10 · 25 October 2020]

This is Borat 2. If you didn't get the humor of the first Borat movie you won't get it here either so don't bother watching or reviewing this. Like the first one, this movie had me laughing at the over-the-top portrayal of a backwards man from a backwards country with a lot of stupid sex jokes and shock-material. I also laughed at the all-to-real backwards Americans with the understanding that a lot of what we are seeing is very cleverly edited to make the dupes seem even more ridiculous. If you read interviews of the dupes from the first movie you realize that all is not as it seems. Hours worth of footage is presented as minute-long encounters in which people say really stupid things or appear to agree with Borat on some very risque subjects. So, TAKE IT WITH A GRAIN OF SALT! I'm sure that we'll hear more stories of how Sasha Baron Cohen and his crew deceived or otherwise bamboozled the people in the movie to act as they did, but we will most likely also conclude that fancy editing aside, some of those people really did say some pretty offensive things. For example, it really doesn't matter how silly a song Borat was singing to the crowd of Texans to make them all look like imbecilic conspiracy theorists, the guy who throws a Nazi salute up is an over-the-top moron. Like the first movie, this one had too many scenes that seem too contrived and a stretch of the imagination in order to shock or get laughs. Some of it just wasn't all that funny to me, but it had plenty of laughs otherwise. All-in-all, it was entertaining and I watched it for free thanks to Amazon Prime. But wait -- there's more! I have to take issue with the way that the media, Cohen and the production company have portrayed Rudy Giuliani here. I admit that I was a Rudy fan when I lived in New York and was very impressed with the way he conducted himself on 9/11, but I think he's lost his mind with age and has become nothing short of a hand-puppet for the most (the hugist) imbecilic conspiracy theorist, McDonald Trump. That said, I felt manipulated by the footage of Rudy and had to rewind it several times to try to align what I saw with what I read in the press. CNN and the New York Times would have us believe that he was caught making sexy time (or trying to) with Borat's daughter. What I saw was him stupidly agreeing to finish the interview in the bedroom with an attractive, much younger woman and being a bit touchy-feely (patting her on her hip). What I also saw was a quick shot of him trying to get her hair or microphone or something out of a button or zipper on the top of her dress. It appears that we are missing the lead-up to this, like, perhaps, her asking for him to help her get unstuck) making it even more likely that it was edited to make it look like he was unbuttoning her to get her undressed. The press made a very big deal about him laying on the bed putting his hands down his pants ostensibly to touch his penis. What I saw was her taking his microphone unit from the waist of his pants (you can see it in her hand as she lifts her hands from his pants) and then he lays back to tuck his shirt back in; anyone else who is a bit overweight with a larger belly knows that this is an efficient way to get tucked back in. I understand that the Trump administration is a bunch of ass-clowns just asking to be made fun of, but let's at least show the real stupidity of these people without resorting to the very type of fakery that the conspiracy theorists point to as proof that the holocaust never occurred. And stop feeding the extreme left-wing nut-jobs at CNN and the New York Times.

Raising Hope (2010–2014)

Martha Plimpton Dissed Me

[9/10 · 20 August 2020]

Okay, here's my claim-to-fame: On a vacation with family, mid-80s, I'm - what - 15, maybe 16 - we're eating at a restaurant in L.A., my little sister - idk, 12ish - says, "OMG! (the real thing though as that abbreviation wasn't a thing yet)", pointing, "that-t-t-t's River Phoenix!" I say, "who?" She says, "the dreamboat (clearly an anachronism) that was in Stand By Me." Me: "Whatevs. LOL" Little sis: "Pleasssssseeeee, get me his autograph?!" Now, I don't throw around the word "hero" too much, but clearly what I did next was nothing short of heroism. I waltzed over to River Phoenix's table where he was supping with no less an actress than his Mosquito Coast co-star, Martha Plimpton, and, because celebrities have no right of privacy nor freedom from intrusion into their private lives, I leaned in and said "hey, would you mind if I took a picture of you with my sister?" Because it would have been a major faux pas of him to deny me, the big brother of a girl who knows who he is, my request, he acquiesced, and asked if we could quietly do it outside the restaurant, presumably to avoid some rude fans. As we are headed out, I turned to Ms. Plimpton and asked "can you come out also?" Bear in mind here, I had absolutely no clue who either of these two people were. I'm going solely on the word of a ga-ga tween that he was 1) dreamy (or whatever the word was in the 80s) and 2) a big-time star capable of attracting a spontaneous flash mob of other tween girls in a screaming, puberty-induced frenzy. So, follow my logic here...I ask this woman who is 1) eating with a famous person, 2) could be a fellow-famous person and C. probably made more money that both of my parents, if she would come outside with us. I really have no idea what I planned to do had she agreed to accompany us outside. This was thirty-odd years ago and I don't remember every detail or thought-process or motivation to intrude on these poor people's nice dinner, but I do remember very distinctly that she dissed me. She looked me square in the eye and firmly, perhaps a bit threateningly, said "no." Since I was a teenage boy who, very much like present-day me, was deathly afraid of women, I meekly acknowledged the rejection and slinked away toward the door of the restaurant without turning my back on her.

That's my claim-to-fame. I figured I'd share it with you, my BFFs, since I keep seeing that lovely starlet on reruns of this show and I relive that agonizing moment every time she says any of her lines. So, in spite of this thirty-year-old feud that I have with one of the stars of this show: I rate this show a winner! Yep, love it. It's that same theme-driven, over-the-top, slap-you-in-the-face humor, with a lot of heart, yet sometimes a bit preachy type of sitcom as its big-brother, My Name Is Earl. Like Earl, it has a cast of quirky characters who are from perfect but very-much loveable, and an ensemble of talented actors who pull that off. Like any good series, you come to know the characters well enough to predict their reactions and get their inside jokes. Like any good family drama, you come to feel as part of the family. My favorite part of the whole series: when certain characters from a certain other TV show that was created by the same certain creator crossover into this show. If you are reading reviews to see if you should take a chance (no pun intended) on this show, do it! If you have a sense of humor, you will like it. And for the love of Jeebers, don't write a review of a TV series until you've watched at least a few episodes.

BookendS (2016)

The Acting Makes This A Decent Watch

[7/10 · 3 August 2020]

I'm surprised that this doesn't have any reviews yet. It's actually a decent flick, made so by the actors. I get the sense that much of this was a sparse script with occasional dialogue but mostly made up of stage directions like "act as if you are secretly, but not so discretely, attracted to character X." Lesser actors would have been crushed under such pressure. This crew of four, however, handle it ably; even when said stage directions take turn and unlikely turn. I have seen movies and TV shows in the past in which the actors were in a small party setting and trying to pass off random, overlapping conversation as being spontaneous. Often though, these scenes become unwieldy and cartoonish: your brain perceives the deception in the same way it knows that the characters in a video game aren't real. The actors in BookendS seem to adlib their scenes of this nature (which are throughout most of the film) in a convincing way, however. Scenes with two couples talking amongst the four, or in sets of two, seems natural and realistic. That's great acting; it's extemporaneous on cue. Unfortunately, great acting can't carry an entire movie, as witnessed by {insert name of really bad movie with all-star cast here}. In the scriptwriter's defense though, there wasn't much to be done with the subject matter, save go straight up porn. They did what they could with it. We start out with a pair of couples chatting and drinking, then drinking and chatting. There's a revelation from one couple that they are swingers. There is a curious/intrigued/obsessed member of the other couple who can't get off the topic. This goes on for a while. FINALLY, they get to the swinging and swapping that you knew was coming eventually from the description of the movie. Okay. No problems thus far...some suspense as to how they were going to make the leap from friends to lovers, some well-acted party scenes to build up to that point, a plausible transition...okay. Now the director shows us that we are dealing with two very different swinging scenarios: one fast and exhilarating, the other slow and sensuous. Nice. But. Where to go from here. Will it be a days-long orgy with tantalizing sex scenes and maybe a cryptic, tragic, 9-1/2 Weeks type ending? Or, storm over, sex over, friends go on and pretend nothing ever happened? Both of those themes have been played and re-played. We've seen this before, right? Nope. The screenwriters throw us a twist, and, as unlikely as it is, it is welcome. It's something different that allows for more dimensions to the characters than most movies in this genre, indeed even the first two-thirds of this one, would allow. Then, the writers hit you with yet another couple of twists. Here's the rub, though: the subject of the movie is believable, dare I say, desirable. The twists are neither. They comprise the characters saying things uncharacteristic of the characters that we have come to know up to those points of the movie. Suddenly, my brain is saying "cartoon".

To summarize, whilst watching this flick, my mind said: "hmmm, okay, yeah baby!, ummm..., huh?, meh.

Get a Life (1990–1992)

It's Just Like the Skits My Brother and I Used to Put On When We Were In Grade School

[8/10 · 15 July 2020]

And I mean that in the best possible sense. There is no realism to this show. There is no logic. Just stupid, juvenile, hilarious goodness. The acting is terrible, the sets are cheap, but the comedy is gold. The main character, Chris Peterson, is as dumb as Philip J. Fry without the sweetness, as much a loser as George Costanza without the self-awareness to realize it and as undeservedly egotistical as Russell Dunbar without the money. This is a sitcom that shouldn't work, but it does. The cheapness, the poor acting, the unrelatable situations that take place all work toward the ultimate quirkiness of the show. Of-course, quirkiness alone isn't reason enough to watch a series so luckily the writing is a perfect mix of smart, dumb, sophomoric and witty, even for the ancillary characters. But what really kept me watching (and laughing) was Chris Elliot, who, without a shred of dignity, stalwartly pulls off the loser with an attitude to a tee.

Generation Kill (2008)

Iraq War's Band of Brothers, Sans Righteous Cause

[10/10 · 16 July 2018]

I got the same feeling watching this that I got when watching the first season of Band of Brothers: Fantastic! Superb acting, no big anti- or pro-war message being shoved down your throat, just a well-told story of men in combat. It's said that warriors (from day one of war one) fight not for country, religion or cause, but for their brethren. So any war movie or TV series that tries to portray more than that is implausible tripe. Even Saving Private Ryan had it's moments of preachiness that almost--almost--ruin that movie for me. This series does visit civilian casualties, conflicting ROEs, conscientious refusal of orders, and the banalities "why are we here?/what did we really accomplish?" that are ever-present in Hollywood war tales. But the above listed do not detract from the larger narrative: the intersection of the singular experience of combat and soldiers, mere ordinary men in extraordinary circumstances. This is exactly why this series works so well; the soldiers are relatable, the dialogue is natural, their relationships are human. This is why Band of Brothers and All Quiet Along the Western Front work. The side that the soldiers are fighting for or against is immaterial; we relate to their humanity, when portrayed correctly, and imagine ourselves in their shoes. Generation Kill succeeds where its contemporary The Hurt Locker failed miserably: it portrays grunts, officers, enemy and civilians with all the humanity and diversity that you would realistically get from a cross-section of people in the midst of unfathomable violence. In addition, humor is thrown into the mix to good effect. I found myself laughing along with the soldiers' inside jokes, and cursing along with them at their tribulations, making me feel part of their story -- a sign of a well-told story. My only complaint about Generation Kill is that they only made one season. I wanted more!