Out of Time (1988)

There are a few TV shows and movies that aren‘t available on DVD or streaming.  In some cases, like Doctor Who, the tapes were wiped.  New episodes are made available as lost tapes are found, but many are still missing.  Other productions don’t have enough demand to be released on DVD.  It’s a shame because many of them were good enough to at least be worthy of streaming.

One made-for-TV movie that I remember watching was called Out of Time.  It was about a police officer from the future who chases a criminal back to what was then the present.  It was exactly what you’d expect of a failed pilot episode, but I remember liking it.  My only option, apparently, was to watch it streaming on Amazon.

The movie starts in the year 2088.  Channing Taylor is a Los Angeles police officer who doesn’t trust a computer to do a human’s job.  He’s after Richard Marcus, who is up to something.  Taylor comes to realize that Marcus might have a time machine.  It’s the only thing that makes sense.  Taylor figures out when and where the time machine will appear.  Marcus shows up just in time to get the machine, himself.  The two end up back in 1988, where Channing Taylor meets his great-grandfather, Max Taylor.

The movie wasn‘t quite as good as I remember it.  (I can see why it wasn’t picked up for a full series.)  Channing is your typical fish out of water.  Even in 2088, he’s a police officer mostly because Max Taylor was such a great police officer. (No mention is made if any other Taylors made the force.)  When Channing tries to navigate 1988 Los Angeles, he seems to know just enough to get what he wants.  He’s able to use future technology to win money in a scratch-off lottery, but has no idea what a tie is.  He also seems ambiguous on what a bank is, even though Marcus is going to rob one.

The movie is somewhat generic and cliché.  Part of this could be attributed to the fact that it was supposed to be a TV series.  The writers may not have wanted to use up all of their good stuff in one episode.  Other things, I can’t let off so easily.

For instance, Channing has to use his last bit of fuel to save Maxwell.  Since the fuel won’t be invented for a while, it’s used to strand Channing in the past.  Couldn’t the writers have found another way?  Maybe have enough to make one trip back, but have Channing decide to stick around.  He was suspended, so I could understand there being no rush to get back to 2088.

I’d say that it could make for a good TV show, but a similar concept was used for Time Trax.  (This is another TV series I’d like to see released on DVD.)  I think Out of Time may have suffered from more than a few setbacks.  Part of it is the writing.  I’d like to think the movie would have made more sense as part of a series, but it just doesn’t work as a standalone release.  Channing and Maxell seem just too goofy to take seriously.

Also, I suspect that there wasn’t enough of a budget to make it work.  There are almost no special effects to speak of.  We see a laser effect maybe two or three times.  When we do see it, it comes across as just this side of obvious.  The props look like rejects for kids toys.  Channing’s gun looks like someone found a piece of acrylic somewhere and found a way to make it vaguely look like a gun.  I’m really not surprised that it didn’t get picked up for a full season.

IMDb page

Fuck (2005)

Note:  This review was originally posted to my Epinions account.

How do I write a review of a movie when I can’t even mention the title? I recall having a similar situation on a few occasions, such as with Princess Mononoke, where I couldn’t mention a character’s name due to a similarity to a banned word. Here, the word in question is the title and we’re talking about the king of all bad words.

Growing up, I simply didn’t use it. There was some great taboo, as if by saying it, I was committing some great crime. Now that I’m a little more accustomed to saying it, I’d love to be able to say it in this review. Not only is it the title, but it’s such a great word. (The irony is that the full word is listed in the database, but I can’t use it in the actual review.)

I rented F**k from NetFlix after seeing This Film is Not Yet Rated. (I have yet to review it, but I plan to soon.) Both focus on society’s standards. This Film is Not Yet Rated deals with motion pictures and language/imagery in general. Fuck deals with one particular word and a single-finger gesture that’s generally associated with it, albeit only briefly.

The movie goes into a lot of different areas, such as the origin of the word and the various usages. For instance, George Carlin and his Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television came up. That led to Lenny Bruce, Howard Stern and the FCC’s censorship of the word. Does the word fall under freedom of speech?

No one’s really sure where the word came from, but many people in the movie point out that pretty much all of the acronym theories are wrong. It probably comes from some word from before English even existed and probably always had to do with sexual intercourse.

The movie also touches on how fuck is seen as low class and vulgar. It’s definitely not appropriate for TV and radio. As Billy Connolly said, everyone knows what fuck off means, and it means more than just ‘get lost’. There is a strong emotional impact to the word. I suppose if we remove the meaning from the word, somehow, then some other word will take it’s place. We do need that outlet.

There are interviews with Ron Jeremy, Pat Boone, Ice-T and Drew Carey among others. Each person had something to say about the word. As you can imagine, the word was used a lot in the movie. (Some people used it more than others, but I’d imagine that the total count is through the roof.)

The only problem I had with the wide range of areas covered was that the movie didn’t cover any one area that well. The movie was only 93 minutes and could have gone in to a little more depth. Then again, I really don’t know what to expect. It was still a well-made movie.

I wouldn’t recommend buying it. The movie has very little replay value except maybe to watch with friends. I’d recommend renting it, instead. I might even recommend the movie to my mother if I can just bring myself to say the title in front of her. 

IMDb page

Religulous (2008)

Note:  This review was originally posted to my Epinions account.

 

I don’t usually watch documentaries.  Every so often, though, I come across one that strikes my interest.  I’ve liked Bill Maher on occasion and I have been known to watch documentaries that deal with religion.  Based on what I saw of this one, I could tell that Maher wasn’t a huge fan of religion.  I figured I’d give Religulous a try.

That being said, I’m hard pressed to call this a documentary.  You can tell that Maher is on a mission of sorts to debunk, mock or ridicule religion.  In once scene, he interviews someone who has created devices to get around Judaism’s ban on not using machinery on the Sabbath.  (How the devices don’t count as machinery is beyond me.)

When he talks to various religious people, you can tell that he’s holding back his contempt, but just barely.  Other scenes, like a decked-out priest, are shown to hold up the person as an example of what religion shouldn’t be.  (If Jesus gave to people, why is a priest wearing expensive clothes?)

Maher also visits a Christian-themed amusement park in Florida.  While talking to a person who portrays Jesus, Maher asks the employee how God can be three things, referring to the Trinity.  The employee responds that water can be three things:  liquid water, water vapor or ice.  It’s the one time that I recall where Maher was caught off guard and remotely recognizes that someone has a point.

Maher also looks at other religions and groups, such as Scientologists and Muslims.  I don’t want to give the impression that Maher is picking on one or two religions.  The main focus here is on religion in general and how it’s gotten to the point of being ridiculous.

The problem here is that when you look to debunk something, or even to support it, you can usually find what you need.  That’s not to say that religion isn’t full of crackpots and losers.  However, the movie doesn’t really do much to analyze anything.  There weren’t any moments where I felt Maher looked deeply into anything.

Take the contraptions to get around using machines on the Sabbath.  Maher didn’t really go in to detail on why the machines were necessary or why you weren’t allowed to use machines on the Sabbath.  The entire thing took a few minutes.  Then you were on to the next thing.  I think a movie like this could really do more justice by looking a little more deeply rather than holding it up as something that’s beyond rational belief.

There are a lot of better movies out there that deal with the issue of religion better.  Many focus on one aspect of religion, such as child abuse or a particular group of people, that do a better job of showing the hypocrisy or ridiculousness of religion and its adherents.  Even if you’re looking to slam religion, I’m sure there are better examples.

If the movie comes on TV, you might watch a few minutes of it.  Otherwise, I wouldn’t bother with it.

IMDb page