mynameisdetonation

The story may not be overwhelmingly unpredictable, but nor is that the point. This is about Ana and Damon and the people around them--who they are and what they go through. The acting and direction is mostly strong, as is the attention to detail. The dialogue is smart and reasonably natural. While the production is generally solid, it sags notably in the make-up department--where the work ranges from good to perfunctory and outright incongruous. (A strange area for a reasonably high-profile production to flounder, these days.) The FX work is all right albeit very derivative--as is the soundtrack, which thankfully never slips into being overly bombastic or loud.

When it comes to writing, the series definitely could have used a more coherent approach. The fact that there were twelve (12) different writers for this ten-episode run bleeds through and muddles the narrative. In some episodes (the sixth one in particular) trite, traileresque exposition overwhelms the otherwise stark and intimate narrative style, making for an awkward and ironically comic-like detour.

As for the story's adherence to the original--well, which original? Daimon's inception was in the early seventies. Both he and his sister (who has a considerably smaller role in most of the comics) have been portrayed in various ways through the years. The '75-'77 run is vastly different to the later two, which in turn don't entirely align either (and that's not even getting into the disparate appearances the characters have made in other comics.) Marvel loves alternate universes, and this is an accomplished, more restrained and human version which I think works really well. (I admit, though--while I really like Austen's and Lemmon's portrayals, I would've preferred for the siblings to at least have been redheads. Also, that title sequence is just off.)

If you like sombre, portentuous horror drama series with a focus on character interplay, this is probably for you. If you come in expecting Hollywood spectacular or a straightforward comic adaptation, you are going to be sorely disappointed.

I have no doubt that most of what is described and depicted in this documentary is true. The superficial facts of the drug trade have been well-known for a long time. Furthermore, the purpose of the miniseries is ostensibly admirable--to address the disconnect between the glamour and cool of cocaine use and the harsh, cruel reality of how the drug is produced and distributed. Paradoxically, though, because of the clumsy way in which Gordon Ramsay on Cocaine was created, it becomes hard to take the subject matter seriously.

The edit very clearly shows only the "juicy" bits. I guess you could call it "fast-paced" if you were generously inclined, but the whole thing comes across as grossly hamfisted. For example: in the first episode, a police representative sketches on a map how cocaine moves across the world to get to Britain. Chunks of the clip are plainly edited out to focus on only a few parts of the trade. In the second episode, the same clip is used again--this time even more heavily edited to give the impression that Colombia (the country Ramsay visits to ooh and aah at the brutality of the drug's production) is the sole source of Britain's cocaine.

Ramsay seems to do his best to sound gruffly severe, but his stilted staccato delivery just adds to the cheesy docu-soap atmosphere, and much of the time he is clearly too wrapped up in his own excitement to even maintain a critical tone. It doesn't help that the camera often seems more interested in Ramsay's reactions than the subject matter. It's hard not to find this reality-TV style presentation a bit of a mockery of the desperation and ruthlessness many scenes depict.

The topic of illegal drugs such as cocaine is a deeply complex sociopolitical issue every step of the way--rife with misery, corruption and political callousness. It could easily fill up several seasons of a documentary series. The fact that the production team thought it was a good idea to blitz through it all in one and a half hour of action clips and shallow five-minute interviews should tell you everything you need to know about this documentary.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe this is the way to get people who usually never think about the consequences of cocaine use to realise the devastation the trade causes, but I doubt it. Telly isn't real life. You turn it off and go about your business--regardless of whether that involves taking cocaine.

If you want the long and short of it: don't do cocaine--it's bad for you and it's horrible for nearly all the people involved in its production and distribution. If you want to know more, go read a book about it or watch something that actually delves into the specifics and sociopolitical intricacies of the drug trade. Don't watch this--it will tell you very little you don't already know.

What to say about "Hellraiser: Judgment"?

Well, the picture quality isn't great, the sound is pretty poor, and the direction is slipshod. Beyond the acting of the protagonists as well as the Auditor and the Assessor, only the occasional bit and piece of the script and the make-up effects merit any notice. The production can be summed up as "amateurish with intermittent splashes of talent." (To boot, there is the squalid, one-eyed sexism of portraying sexual allure exclusively in voluptuous female bodies and leaving the male body to express only repugnance.)

If "Judgment", then, were the usual fare of hackneyed, rote "horror", it would deserve only derision. However, contrary to well-nigh all of the previous Hellraiser installments since "Inferno" (whether or not you include it is up to you-I actually think it had merit) this one at least tries to take you into the unknown. It's heavy-handed and often graceless, but it does attempt to build on Barker's vision rather than bury it deeper in the mealy, sanitised drivel usually proffered under the "horror movie" banner.

This is a film that plays brazenly (and occasionally successfully) on revulsion and debasement. It does its best to properly get under your skin and make you squirm-and even when it doesn't quite get there, the prickling sensation of it desperately scrabbling to get in is enough to make you (or me, anyway) realise how rare it is that a horror film tries to evoke anything besides brief, tawdry shocks to the reptile brain.

Is this a good film? No-but with more focus on tension, immersion and character depth, as well as better direction and sound, it could have been. "Judgment" tries to be a real horror film-a new experience in stark contrast to the hundreds of sodden regurgitations produced every year. For that, it deserves praise-albeit with some considerable reservations.