craigwscott-76928
Joined Aug 2022
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews3
craigwscott-76928's rating
Whilst visually stunning and with an interesting basic premise, this is just awful.
With few exceptions, every single character is flakey, emotional and irritating. We're to believe this military vessel could effectively operate with the crew depicted, yet surely someone has to be available to fly the ship when everyone else is crying about their repressed trauma in Starfleet wellness rooms.
This would be like if you showed a tiktok-addicted teenager a single episode of TNG then gave them an unlimited budget to create a modern analogue.
That Burnham shares the honour of fronting a Trek series with the likes of Ben Sisko and Jean-Luc Picard legitimately keeps me up at night.
With few exceptions, every single character is flakey, emotional and irritating. We're to believe this military vessel could effectively operate with the crew depicted, yet surely someone has to be available to fly the ship when everyone else is crying about their repressed trauma in Starfleet wellness rooms.
This would be like if you showed a tiktok-addicted teenager a single episode of TNG then gave them an unlimited budget to create a modern analogue.
That Burnham shares the honour of fronting a Trek series with the likes of Ben Sisko and Jean-Luc Picard legitimately keeps me up at night.
A beautiful setting, wonderful cinematography for the most part and an impressive ensemble cast try valiantly but ultimately fail to salvage this absolute stinker of a script.
The antihero archetype pervades modern cinema and television - the last vestiges of the rounded he-man protagonist having been thoroughly shunned at the turn of the 21st century in favour of your Tony Sopranos; your Jimmy McNultys and your Gregory Houses. The dissonance between the audience's belief in these characters' fundamental goodness and the audience's exposure to things they do which seem to directly prove otherwise force the audience to reflect deeply on how they judge the people around them. It bootstraps the audience's investment into the character, causes some subconscious hope that they live up to the viewer's internalized opinions, to vindicate their belief in the character.
In order for this phenomenon to work, however, the antihero in question must give the audience a reason to believe they're something other than what they outwardly seem. Costner's John Dutton, whilst played with style and grace within the bounds of the script, lacks this indescribable quality; whatever it was that made us root for Walter White when we could all see he was a self-absorbed maniac is utterly missing here.
I can't put my finger on why. He does the stilted-masculine-single-parent thing relatably enough, but this somehow isn't enough to make him remotely likeable.
It may have something to do with the fact this issue pervades the entire cast - with each of the children ably personifying their respective personality disorders, as is becoming tradition in shows depicting the inheritance of vast riches. Again, though, in Succession, one found oneself rooting for each kid at one stage or another, here I simply hate them all.
A very, very pretty soap opera, but a soap opera nonetheless. Melodramatic, grandiose, entertaining to some degree, but ultimately forgettable. It's like the video to a Luke Combs song, but it goes on for several dozen hours.
The antihero archetype pervades modern cinema and television - the last vestiges of the rounded he-man protagonist having been thoroughly shunned at the turn of the 21st century in favour of your Tony Sopranos; your Jimmy McNultys and your Gregory Houses. The dissonance between the audience's belief in these characters' fundamental goodness and the audience's exposure to things they do which seem to directly prove otherwise force the audience to reflect deeply on how they judge the people around them. It bootstraps the audience's investment into the character, causes some subconscious hope that they live up to the viewer's internalized opinions, to vindicate their belief in the character.
In order for this phenomenon to work, however, the antihero in question must give the audience a reason to believe they're something other than what they outwardly seem. Costner's John Dutton, whilst played with style and grace within the bounds of the script, lacks this indescribable quality; whatever it was that made us root for Walter White when we could all see he was a self-absorbed maniac is utterly missing here.
I can't put my finger on why. He does the stilted-masculine-single-parent thing relatably enough, but this somehow isn't enough to make him remotely likeable.
It may have something to do with the fact this issue pervades the entire cast - with each of the children ably personifying their respective personality disorders, as is becoming tradition in shows depicting the inheritance of vast riches. Again, though, in Succession, one found oneself rooting for each kid at one stage or another, here I simply hate them all.
A very, very pretty soap opera, but a soap opera nonetheless. Melodramatic, grandiose, entertaining to some degree, but ultimately forgettable. It's like the video to a Luke Combs song, but it goes on for several dozen hours.
The content here is largely captivating, especially if you're British and are dimly aware of many of these scandals. The use of dramatisations, while potentially taking a degree of artistic liberty make the stories involved much easier to digest. Both hosts are skilled narrators and are immersive in their impressions, pacing and overall delivery.
Technically, the podcast is well-edited, written and produced, for the most part.
Unfortunately the dynamic between the two hosts is almost unlistenably awkward and forced.
Levine's constant misandry, whilst arguably justified in a show which so often centres around male hubris, is ceaseless. I don't think listeners necessarily want to be told precisely which opinions to form about the characters in a story, especially when every one expressed here can be boiled down to the male protagonist being a chauvinistic manipulator, and the female counterpart being simultaneously a powerless waif when the scandal is taking place, and then a principled moralist when the reckoning comes.
This podcast could be markedly improved by removing whichever host is not narrating. The interim segments drag what could be a 9/10 down to at best a 6, in my view, though I understand the need for padding as well as the opinions stated given the demographics of Wondery's listeners.
Technically, the podcast is well-edited, written and produced, for the most part.
Unfortunately the dynamic between the two hosts is almost unlistenably awkward and forced.
Levine's constant misandry, whilst arguably justified in a show which so often centres around male hubris, is ceaseless. I don't think listeners necessarily want to be told precisely which opinions to form about the characters in a story, especially when every one expressed here can be boiled down to the male protagonist being a chauvinistic manipulator, and the female counterpart being simultaneously a powerless waif when the scandal is taking place, and then a principled moralist when the reckoning comes.
This podcast could be markedly improved by removing whichever host is not narrating. The interim segments drag what could be a 9/10 down to at best a 6, in my view, though I understand the need for padding as well as the opinions stated given the demographics of Wondery's listeners.