penandswrd
A rejoint le nov. 2004
Bienvenue sur nouveau profil
Nos mises à jour sont toujours en cours de développement. Bien que la version précédente de le profil ne soit plus accessible, nous travaillons activement à des améliorations, et certaines fonctionnalités manquantes seront bientôt de retour ! Restez à l'écoute de leur retour. En attendant, l’analyse des évaluations est toujours disponible sur nos applications iOS et Android, qui se trouvent sur la page de profil. Pour consulter la répartition de vos évaluations par année et par genre, veuillez consulter notre nouveau Guide d'aide.
Badges6
Pour savoir comment gagner des badges, rendez-vous sur page d'aide sur les badges.
Avis4
Note de penandswrd
Texas RANCH HOUSE (TRH) is the latest installment in a string of similar reality shows. As a history buff, I've seen them all and like the idea of seeing real, live people coping with situations and scenarios from other centuries. I often wonder what I would do in such circumstances. In the case of TRH, I'd run. Away. Fast.
PBS needs to decide what it wants these shows to be. Are they truly about 21st century people in X century situations, or are they assigning X century roles/tasks to 21st century people who are expected to "play" those roles and perform those tasks in the X century manner? As PBS presents the finished product, they don't seem to be able to make up their minds. TRH shows this fault with abundant clarity.
If there is any psychological screening for these shows, PBS needs to rethink the methodology used. Participant-induced drama with fragile personalities who shouldn't have made the cut for the show does not necessarily make the best reality television, especially when the "reality" is also supposed to be educational. I would expect this from Jerry Springer or Oprah. I don't expect it from PBS.
The only real educational bits of this programme were those artificially forced in along the way by the producers. If the PBS mission for this show was "Let's get as much whining, complaining, backbiting, and sniping on the air as possible", then Mission Accomplished. Otherwise, no.
The show does have heroes and villains, sometimes the same people, and there are some interesting moments. But much of the programme is dominated by whining and complaining.
The last hour (episode) of the programme has some genuine entertainment value, and I'm probably not the only one who said "Oh yeah!" out loud when the cowboys do their thing, but that means sitting through seven hours of tedium previously to get to it.
In the end, as regards the Texas ranch house experience, one is better off reading a real book with some real history to it.
PBS needs to decide what it wants these shows to be. Are they truly about 21st century people in X century situations, or are they assigning X century roles/tasks to 21st century people who are expected to "play" those roles and perform those tasks in the X century manner? As PBS presents the finished product, they don't seem to be able to make up their minds. TRH shows this fault with abundant clarity.
If there is any psychological screening for these shows, PBS needs to rethink the methodology used. Participant-induced drama with fragile personalities who shouldn't have made the cut for the show does not necessarily make the best reality television, especially when the "reality" is also supposed to be educational. I would expect this from Jerry Springer or Oprah. I don't expect it from PBS.
The only real educational bits of this programme were those artificially forced in along the way by the producers. If the PBS mission for this show was "Let's get as much whining, complaining, backbiting, and sniping on the air as possible", then Mission Accomplished. Otherwise, no.
The show does have heroes and villains, sometimes the same people, and there are some interesting moments. But much of the programme is dominated by whining and complaining.
The last hour (episode) of the programme has some genuine entertainment value, and I'm probably not the only one who said "Oh yeah!" out loud when the cowboys do their thing, but that means sitting through seven hours of tedium previously to get to it.
In the end, as regards the Texas ranch house experience, one is better off reading a real book with some real history to it.
This movie couldn't decide what it wanted to be. There were a couple of sub-plots that for awhile made you think these items would all come together in the end... but they didn't. If you want a "alien in the frozen waste" story, stick with the 1950's version of THE THING (not the abomination that was remade in gore-o-vision 20+ years later).
I couldn't get over the fact that the "alien" looked pretty much recycled from INDEPENDENCE DAY.
The "bare minimum" sets would have been more effective if they had hired actors who could actually act and carry off the intended mood.
Lots of scenery chewing with little payoff.
I couldn't get over the fact that the "alien" looked pretty much recycled from INDEPENDENCE DAY.
The "bare minimum" sets would have been more effective if they had hired actors who could actually act and carry off the intended mood.
Lots of scenery chewing with little payoff.
I can't add much to the numerous positive comments others have made. I would echo it is a very good film well worth seeing. If Rick Schroeder ever needed a role to break him out of the "child star" stereotype, he picked a good one.
As is often the case in war films there are a number of stories of self-sacrifice and bravado and places in between. One of the things that made the American troops a force to be reckoned with in WWI was not just their added numbers to the battlefield -- they had no experience in such warfare and unlike the French and British (and Germans) who had been pounded pretty thoroughly in the previous years, they simply didn't think as much about their own safety and were more likely to be considered by the "veteran players" to be a little reckless.
But my fave character of the film wasn't even human -- it was Cher Amis, the carrier pigeon. The real life story of Cher Amis is rather more sad than what comes out in the film, but essentially correct. Pidgeons were relied upon in warfare until relatively recent times. It was as late as only 20 years ago or so that France officially disbanded its military pigeon corps.
Even today, pidgeons carry blood samples from remote regions in France and Britain. In the USA they are used in rescue helicopters to spot shipwrecks because of their 360 degree vision. Of course, pigeon racing is very popular in many countries around the world.
In cities, people like to feed them and some regard them as pests.
As for myself, I'm on the side of the pidgeons. (:
As is often the case in war films there are a number of stories of self-sacrifice and bravado and places in between. One of the things that made the American troops a force to be reckoned with in WWI was not just their added numbers to the battlefield -- they had no experience in such warfare and unlike the French and British (and Germans) who had been pounded pretty thoroughly in the previous years, they simply didn't think as much about their own safety and were more likely to be considered by the "veteran players" to be a little reckless.
But my fave character of the film wasn't even human -- it was Cher Amis, the carrier pigeon. The real life story of Cher Amis is rather more sad than what comes out in the film, but essentially correct. Pidgeons were relied upon in warfare until relatively recent times. It was as late as only 20 years ago or so that France officially disbanded its military pigeon corps.
Even today, pidgeons carry blood samples from remote regions in France and Britain. In the USA they are used in rescue helicopters to spot shipwrecks because of their 360 degree vision. Of course, pigeon racing is very popular in many countries around the world.
In cities, people like to feed them and some regard them as pests.
As for myself, I'm on the side of the pidgeons. (: