The Last Kingdom Season 1- Gen. Chris' reviews of TV shows and movies (Updated 3/3/18)

[TheDarkKnight]

Centurion (2010)

Centurion (2010)

What do you get when you cross Romans with Behind Enemy Lines? Pretty much this.

Set during 117 AD, the film follows Quintus Dias, played by Michael Fassbender. Dias is the lone survivor of a frontier garrison, who is taken captive but later escapes the clutches of his captors: The Picts. Almost executed once recaptured, Dias is saved by Titus Flavius Virilus, general of the recently dispatched Ninth Legion. The legion was sent by the governor to eradicate the Pict nuisance. Wishing to see combat again, Dias eagerly joins the legion and reassumes his title of Centurion. As the legion continues its march, they are suddenly surrounded and attacked by a large Pict force. Dias is able to escape death yet again by hiding under the bodies of his fallen comrades, but virtually the entire Ninth Legion is annihilated in the attack, and Virilus is captured. Found by a group of fellow survivors, Dias and the men embark on a journey to save their captured general and return home.

So what are the negatives? Well, the fighting suffers some problems. The combat shows period-era weaponry (such as swords and light axes) cleanly cutting off limbs and heads with ease, which simply would not have been the case in real life. The problem is further exemplified by making it appear that non-shield armor was completely ineffective to arrows and blows by light weapons, with legionaries falling by the dozen to the inferior armor of the Picts. Of course, the issue of the weapons easily removing body parts from the torso could be attributed to a “coolness” factor. Also, the Roman soldiers are mostly equipped with Hastae, which while prevalent during the Republic era were far less uncommon during the Empire. You barely see any unnamed soldiers in the movie using a proper gladius. Other problems include the blood looking somewhat fake (sort of along the lines of 300 style) and a simple plot. One of the killer negatives, however, was an added romantic subplot added for Dias when he encounters a “witch” who harbors the men from the Picts that are pursuing them.

But what about the positives? Despite the problems with the combat, the fight scenes are relatively well done. Very little CG in the scenes (besides the aforementioned blood issue) lends the movie an air of grittiness and authenticity that keeps you on edge. The costumes, though many clearly “costumes” are well made and again lend the movie an air of authenticity. The acting is decent enough and the characters are fairly likable given their relatively limited character development. Everyone involved clearly gave a lot of effort into making this movie. In addition, the film features a lot of familiar faces that will make many nerds happy: Michael Fassbender ( Magneto in First Class), Liam Cunningham (Davos Seaworth in Game of Thrones), David Morrissey (The Governor in Walking Dead), and Noel Clarke (Mickey Smith in Doctor Who). One of the last clear positives was that the show did not give the audience a sense of good versus evil, which would be really easy to do given the topic of Roman colonization/conquering of the British Isles.

Overall, it’s not a horrible movie. It’s a good watch and I recommend it for anyone interested in seeing Romans kill barbarians and vice versa.

8.5/10

[TheDarkKnight]

Spartacus (2004)

Spartacus Miniseries/Movie

This miniseries (some call it a movie, but it aired as a miniseries) is much like the other series that I have reviewed.

Spartacus, played by Goran Visjnic

The story is one told by a woman to her child of a great warrior known as Spartacus. The plot is similar enough to the other one, so I do not really need to go into the specifics, but it covers the whole time period of the rebellion, covering both the trials and conflicts of the rebels as well as the man who would defeat them: Marcus Crassus.

Crassus addressing the Senate

So what are the negatives about the movie? For one, the acting at certain points is rather...bad. Of course, it is a rather cheaply produced TV series, and most of the actors are relative unknowns. The best acting comes from Ian Mcniece, who plays Batiatus, and Angus MacFadyen as Crassus, but other than that it can be downright wince worthy at times. Goran Visjnic as Spartacus is particularly bad. Other problems include the costuming: the regular Romans and the rebels look alright, but the soldiers...That's a problem. Again, it's a low budget production, but to portray the supposedly well trained and equipped legionary forces with leather body armor and helmets is just...bad. A case could be made for the garrisons that the rebels fight initially, but the actual soldiers? I think not. The tactics displayed by the Romans in battle are also quite bad, with even the legionaries breaking formation and fighting individually instead of as a group. The show is also not entirely historically accurate in general, but I suppose that comes with the territory of historical epics...ironically. Finally, the violence is rather underplayed; there are parts where you can clearly tell the weapon did not make contact or went under the arm, and there is little to no blood.

An example of the Roman soldiers

However, the movie does have some positives. Despite the rather bad fighting sequences for both the gladiator matches early on and the battles later, the show actually made quite an effort to make it look like there were many people in the scenes. Of course, much of this is accomplished through CGI soldiers/rebels in the distance, but it actually makes it look like the rebels and the Romans have some numbers in their armies. The production also did its best to make the movie look authentic as possible in the location shooting and the sets, so even if they were not entirely accurate their efforts cannot be ignored.

The rebel army in the final battle

Overall, the miniseries is far from a perfect production. There are numerous problems that even the novice historian would be able to notice, and the acting and scripting is mostly poor. However, if you are bored on a Saturday night with nothing else to do, you could definitely do far worst than this miniseries. It's definitely a popcorn movie, and will consume three hours of your time up.


7/10

[TheDarkKnight]

I plan on doing two more reviews sometime soon, one for a movie that I didn't want to see (Les Miserables) and one that I did want to see (The Hobbit). Gotta plan them out first, though.

[TheDarkKnight]

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

After many years in development (hell), Peter Jackson’s “The Hobbit” finally came to theaters a few weeks ago. Taken from Tolkien’s novel of the same name, Jackson is in the process of adapting the book into a trilogy. This review is (obviously) for the first film, “An Unexpected Journey”, which will be followed by “The Desolation of Smaug” later this year and “There and Back Again” next year.

A young Bilbo Baggins

Set sixty years before the events of “The Lord of the Rings”, “The Hobbit” follows Bilbo Baggins, wizard Gandalf the Grey, and thirteen dwarves (who are for the most part hard to tell apart) on their journey to reclaim the dwarven ancestral home, Erebor, or the Lonely Mountain. Erebor was taken from the dwarves many years before by the dragon Smaug, who was attracted to the expansive treasure of the dwarves. The company is led by Thorin Oakenshield, king of the dwarves, who seeks above all else to reclaim Erebor. On their journey throughout the film they encounter numerous foes as well as some friends. Throughout the film there is a sense that the happy, perfect world that was all that Bilbo knew before his adventure would soon come to an end.

Erebor

A shot of the city of Dale, a city of men that was destroyed at the same time as Erebor's loss to Smaug

As someone who has not read the book, I cannot say too much on the details of things that have been changed between the book and the movie. However, I am aware of some changes that have been made, some of which have upset many fans of Tolkien. The most notable one that I can discuss for sure are the inclusion of some characters that were not present in the novel, though those differences will seemingly become more apparent throughout the trilogy. Speaking of characters, it is also quite difficult, at least for me, to tell the difference between many of the dwarves.

Gandalf the Grey and Radagast the Brown. Radagast is one of the characters who did not appear in the original book, but was mentioned several times.

Regarding other problems, one of the most notable differences was the overwhelming use of CGI for many of the creatures as well as Rivendell. Fans of the Lord of the Rings trilogy remember quite well Jackson’s previous use of prosthetics and “bigatures” for creatures and structures and cities. The differences are quite obvious, and even though CGI has advanced considerably in the last decade, the CGI at times make it look sort of cheesey. I did not view the film in the faster than normal frame rate, but I am told that the effect makes the CGI look even worse. In addition, some of the story just felt plain childish compared to Lord of the Rings, though that of course comes from the fact that The Hobbit was a children’s book. Another problem, again going back to the dwarves, was that many of them simply did not look…dwarvish enough. I can’t quite explain it but they just looked too much like the Men in the lore. But perhaps that is just me being nitpicky.

Richard Armitage as Thorin


The Goblins are all CG

The Goblin King...Not very intimidating

Another small complaint would have to be the re-introduction of the One Ring. Yes, it is a big deal and all later on down the road, but during this movie and when Tolkien first wrote it the Ring was essentially inconsequential as a whole: it only gained its greater importance when Lord of the Rings was written. The audience really didn’t need the big dramatic entrance the ring receives on screen…anyone and everyone who has watched The Lord of the Rings already knew what it was. If The Hobbit film had come before the others, then perhaps the big dramatic entrance would have been good: anyone that didn’t know of the ring beforehand would be quite curious as to why such an object, even with its powers of invisibility, was given such prominence. I suppose this is all relatively minor, but I just don’t feel it was necessary.

A familiar face makes quite the return

However, the movie was a great ride and a pleasure to watch. The return to Middle Earth was a welcome adventure after so many years waiting. The landscapes that Peter Jackson chose in New Zealand to represent Tolkien’s world did not fail to disappoint in the slightest, contributing significantly to the tone of the movie, which was certainly a happier one compared to the Lord of the Rings in general. The acting was top notch, especially from Martin Freeman as Bilbo. Richard Armitage (Thorin) and Ian McKellen also offer great performances in their roles. It is difficult to give much of a rating to the other dwarves as they had very little dialogue in comparison. Andy Serkis returned in his role from Lord of the Rings, again giving a stunning and entertaining performance as Gollum/Smeagol. The action sequences were also fairly entertaining and action packed, though were also filled with quite a bit of distracting CGI. Howard Shore’s return as composer for the score was also a treat, and the soundtrack featured many cues to the Lord of the Rings soundtrack while featuring many unique songs as well. "Out of the Frying Pan" in particular is quite an epic piece, really setting the mood for the scene that it is associated with. This movie also featured some singing, most noticeably the Company of Dwarves led by Armitage.

Bilbo and three of the thirteen dwarves he accompanies on their quest

All in all, “An Unexpected Journey” was an entertaining movie filled with a lot of action and adventure. I wouldn’t say it was well worth the VERY long wait, but it was certainly worth the ticket price. I know a lot of fans of Tolkien were disappointed by the movie, but people have to remember that these are adaptations, not a direct take, on Tolkien’s work. Perhaps to a die hard, read the book once a year type of fan, the movie isn’t good, but as a movie by itself, it is definitely worthy of a watch, especially if you are a fan of the adaptations of Lord of the Rings.

Azog. Should not be in this film, but his presence is a nice, threatening one.

8.5/10

The set

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Blu-ray/DVD/Digital Copy

I purchased the Blu-ray/DVD/Digital Copy version of The Hobbit, and I quite like the set. The set has a nice slipcover that shows many of the cast gazing eastwards, to what can logically be assumed to be the Lonely Mountain. The case itself features the same artwork on the front and a nice back cover with a summary that makes a huge issue out of the ring. The ring is important of course, but that should not be the object of these films. But again, that is me nitpicking I suppose.

The case

Opening the case, you find three discs: the Blu-ray copy, the DVD copy, and the special features disc (which is only Bluray). The code for the digital copy (Ultra Violet, which I have not used, but I have heard mixed reviews of Ultra Violet). Obviously I do not need to discuss the contents of the movie discs, so let me talk about the special features. The special features include a variety of nice extras that offer you the chance to view videos relating to the development of the movie and the game, as well as the trailers and some other things. The best special feature has to be the development diaries as well as a video on New Zealand as the location for Middle Earth. The development diaries are titled:

- Start of Production
- Location Scouting
- Shooting Block One
- Filming in 3D
- Locations Part 1
- Locations Part 2
- Stone St. Studios Tour
- Wrap of Principal Photography
- Post-production Overview
- Wellington World Premiere Theatrical Trailers
- Dwarves
- Letter Opener
- Bilbo Contract
- Gandalf Wagers
- Gollum Paths

Also, with the purchase one could have watched a sneak peak of the next film, Desolation of Smaug, on March 24th online using a code given to you in the set. However, I missed it, and I don't know if I can watch it now or not.

The Blu Ray disc and the code for watching the sneak peak (on the back of that slip). The Ultraviolet copy can also be obtained through the code on the back

The Special features and the DVD copy

I was honestly hoping for more special features when I decided to purchase this set, but I suppose those are being held back for the release of the extended edition later this year. Even still, I think this is a great set for the price, and I am looking forward to seeing the next movie as well as the extended edition this winter.

8/10

Overall, f you are a fan of Tolkien, this movie is an entertaining, if not entirely faithful, adaptation, and I recommend it to anyone.

The back of the set

[TheDarkKnight]

Les Misérables (2012)

Les Miserables (2012)

Is it possible to think a movie is good, but still hate it? Yes, apparently.

Fantine, Jean Valjean, and Javert

The movie Les Miserables is based off of Victor Hugo’s novel of the same name. Starting in 1815 France, the movie follows Jean Valjean, a convict who has recently been released on parole, though he eventually ends up breaking parole in order to give himself a second chance. Eventually becoming mayor as well as a business man of a small town in France, Valjean is forced to go on the run after being discovered by a former prison guard, now policeman Javert, who knew Valjean during his sentence and is well aware of the broken parole. Just before he disappears completely he secures the illegitimate daughter of one of his factory workers from the family the daughter, Cosette, was staying with, and disappears. Many years later, Valjean and Cosette become stuck in the middle of the 1832 June Rebellion in France, and in the midst of all the chaos, Javert manages to discover Valjean again.

Some of the more minor characters that are a part of the June Rebellion

Instead of beginning with the negatives, I think I will talk about the positives first. The film features absolutely excellent acting by the actors and actresses. Hugh Jackman (Valjean) and Russell Crowe (Javert) in particular have outstanding performances, as does Anne Hathaway (Fantine, the mother of Cosette). A great surprise to me, one of the best performances in the whole movie was by Sacha Baron Cohen as Thenardier, the owner of the inn that Cosette was staying at and a sort of secondary antagonist in the film, as well as Helena Bonham Carter as Thenardier's wife. The cinematography and the background score are also quite good, giving the movie the look and feel of nineteenth century France. The portrayal and air of desperation of the June Rebellion was also quite good in establishing the tone of the movie in the latter portion.

The Thenardiers and a young Cosette

Unfortunately, the movie suffers quite a bit when it comes to its main attraction for many: it’s a musical. No, not your typical regular-dialogue-for-most-of-the-time-interspersed-with-some songs type of musical…It is almost completely sung through. In total there might have been a whole two or three minutes of regular dialogue. The rest of the movie, even in conversations between two or more characters, is sung through. For myself, it made the conversations rather difficult to understand, and in general those parts were just…awkward. It was especially difficult when they would do part where three or more characters were singing all at once, each singing different lines, making it almost impossible to understand. When the characters were alone and singing to themselves the singing was fine, but everything else, which was the majority of the movie, was quite hard to take. At some parts it was just painful to listen to, especially when Amanda Seyfried (adult Cosette) attempted to hit notes that she was not entirely capable of hitting. The movie would have benefited greatly from post-production voiceover singing instead of the singing on set that the film has been greatly acclaimed for; in part for fixing the obvious singing issues as well as the environment during parts made it difficult to understand (singing with water crashing around people is rather hard to hear). The sung-through nature of the film and its related issues is really my only criticism of the film, but due to the fact that it occurs throughout the film, the movie really suffers for me. I’m not quite sure why many others refuse to see this flaw but I guess that is not my problem.

\
Amanda Seyfried as an older Cosette. Her singing was definitely the worst in the whole movie

In general, this film was good, but I will never see it again. The sung-through nature of the film is far too distracting as well as disappointing. If I had not seen a previous adaptation and remembered it (1998 with Liam Neeson as Valjean), I would likely not even know what the plot of the movie was. The singing was THAT distracting. This movie has many positives, but I feel that the nature of this production means that mostly hardcore musical fans as well as fans of the story will truly enjoy it.

This film receives two ratings due to my conflictions over it.

Singing aside, the film receives a 9/10.

Including the singing, I’d say a 6.5/10 is being generous.

So, I guess it really is possible to think a movie is good but still hate it.

Also, in case you were not aware, apparently when French peasants become upset with things, they choose to display their grievances in synchronized singing, all in English accents. Who would have known?

[TheDarkKnight]

Skyline (2010)

Skyline

Skyline takes place in Los Angeles, where Jarrod (no last name) and his girlfriend Elaine have flown in to visit Jarrod’s best friend Terry. The night they are staying there blue lights descend from the sky, completely brainwashing anyone who looks at them, leading them to their abduction by the lights. Jarrod is almost taken before being rescued, though the physical effects of the experience begin to take its toll. Soon realizing that the entirety of the city has been affected by these alien invaders, the group (also including Terry’s girlfriend and a couple others) choose to leave the complex to try to escape the city.

The attack on the city

Enjoy poor acting and a thin script? Well you’ll love this movie. This movie is basically a B movie with A- effects. The movie is full of poorly acted and scripted scenes, those two attributes appearing to have been an afterthought in the production. There are almost no standouts in the film, and you would be hard pressed to find any familiar faces in this movie unless you are a frequent watcher of TV. The movie is also a rather slow going one for a sci-fi thriller, and there’s little to no explanation for the alien invasion. For the most part, this movie will have you fairly bored, until the last few minutes. The final scene will leave you wanting more, as it essentially ends with one of the weirdest cliffhangers you will ever see. The focus on civilians is fairly different from most alien invasion depictions, and for me the movie suffered because of it. The film is also quite short for an alien invasion movie, which is most disappointing when it comes to watching it.

Jarrod in danger of being taken

However, there is some positive aspects. The movie is quite different for an alien invasion film, presenting it as a far more hopeless situation than other films such as Independence Day. The effects were also not half bad considering the budget of the film, and for the most part look realistic. Some more effort could have been put into effects later in the film, but they are still fairly adequate.

VS.


Battle: Los Angeles (2011)

Battle: Los Angeles

Battle: Los Angeles takes place, unsurprisingly, in Los Angeles. The movie follows Marine Staff Sergeant Michael Nantz who was due to retire within a matter of days before meteorites begin crashing off the coast of California. Nantz along with a platoon of Marines is quickly flown from Camp Pendleton to help evacuation as it becomes apparent that the meteorites are instead alien ships that have destroyed several ships and are storming the beaches of Los Angeles, killing civilians at will. The platoon, upon landing at Santa Monica Airport, set out to bring people back as well as kill any aliens that they encounter before the Air Force levels the affected areas of Santa Monica. The platoon is soon attacked and is forced to fight its way out of the area as they discover the reasons for the invasion as well as the weakness of the aliens.

Attack on the beach

Cliché. That is one of the best ways to describe the plot, the lines, and practically everything about this movie. For the most part the plot is very predictable, and the lines are a little cringe worthy at times. There is little to no character development in the film for anyone other than Nantz, as well, which is somewhat disappointing. The acting is also quite bad at times, and if you wish to see the guy that played the somewhat annoying Leo in Transformers Revenge of The Fallen in a serious role as the platoon leader, this would be the movie (though he is far from convincing in that role). The reason for the invasion is rather disappointing, but it is different than other movies.

Nantz

But for me, there are a lot of positives with this film that make it quite enjoyable. For one, the movie is about as action packed as a movie can get. There’s only about thirty minutes of set up total before the characters and the audience are thrown into the midst of the battle, which pretty much lasts the entire rest of the movie with short breaks in the middle. In short, as an action movie, it is quite excellent and a thrill to watch. The effects were also pretty good, giving the aliens and their technology a distinctive look. The sound track was also a good addition, and the camera work really added to the intensity and the chaos. Despite fairly poor acting in general, Aaron Eckart offered a believable performance of a grizzled Marine veteran with an intense past. Some people found the film obnoxiously pro-American and American military, but I honestly do not understand why they consider that necessarily a negative. It’s an American made film…Of course it is going to show it from an American perspective. And with an alien invasion, why are people surprised that it centers around the military?

Comparison

I felt comparing the two movies would be interesting as they are similar in plot and setting, and they came out within four months of each other. Additionally, the producers of both movies became entangled in a lawsuit when it was discovered that the studio used by Battle: Los Angeles for its visual effects was owned by the producers of Skyline, the Strause Brothers. Sony (behind Battle: Los Angeles) was concerned that the company might have used resources earmarked for its movie in the other movie. A legitimate concern, but one that was settled when Sony was able to examine the effects and were satisfied that nothing of the sort had happened.

Fighting the aliens in Battle: Los Angeles

And in Skyline

Between the two movies, the clear winner has to be Battle: Los Angeles. Both films take place in Los Angeles and depict different alien invasions from different perspectives, Skyline from the perspective of a group of civilians and Battle: LA from a group of Marines. Because of this Skyline is significantly slower and consists of less action with the exception of the conflict between the military (who eventually arrive) and the aliens as viewed by the civilians. Both films have below average acting and scripting, but the action and the effects of Battle: LA at least make much more interesting to watch, while Skyline is only buoyed by its above average effects for the budget. For me, effects can only help a movie so much if everything else is poorly done. The budget difference between the two (~$10 million for Skyline including only $500,000 for the physical production and about $70 million for Battle L.A.) is very noticeable. Both films leave you wanting for more as they end, however, and for both there are talks of sequels.

Military drones attacking the mothership in Skyline

A view of the devastation in Battle: Los Angeles

Don't expect a movie like Independence Day from either of them, but both are watchable. It's just I find Battle: Los Angeles to be far more enjoyable

Battle: Los Angeles receives an 8/10

Skyline receives a 6/10

[TheDarkKnight]

Now while I'm certain that there are many of you waiting day in and day out for an update, it might be a while. Returning to school has made it difficult to write anything, reviews or otherwise. I also have not seen any new movies lately worthy of writing a review. But I will soon be watching Chronicle, so there might be a review for that.

[TheDarkKnight]

Note

This is a review of both the season and the DVD set of Season 2 of Game of Thrones, so it is written a bit differently. Some of the later pictures of the set were taken with a crappy camera, so I'm sorry for the bad quality. The pictures of the show were taken by myself from the DVDs.

Also, please keep in mind that while I have not intentionally divulged major spoilers there are still major spoilers to be inferred regarding the series as it stands right now. So please be aware of this.

Game of Thrones Season 2 DVD Set

Game of Thrones Season 2

The Plot

The Seven Kingdoms are at war, and winter is nearly upon them.

King Robb Stark in the North has invaded the Riverlands and battles the forces of Tywin Lannister. Though he has won every battle so far, Robb knows that he needs the support of other lords or claimants to the throne in order to succeed in his goals of independence for the North. To this end, he sends his best friend Theon Greyjoy to convince his father Balon to join the North, and he sends his mother Catelyn to Renly Baratheon, who holds the largest army in Westeros. The Lannisters hold Robb’s sister Sansa hostage at the capital, while Robb has Jaime Lannister, son of Tywin, as a prisoner.

Robb, King in the North.


Jaime Lannister, held captive by the Starks

The war is not only a civil war but a war between a family. Fighting to keep the throne itself is King Joffrey Baratheon, whose father Robert passed away in the first season. His mother, Cersei Lannister, has raised her son to be the eventual king but did not quite realize just how unfit Joffrey was to be king until after he was crowned. Those that claim the throne as theirs are Joffrey’s uncles Stannis and Renly Baratheon, brothers to the former king Robert. Stannis has been convinced by a priestess from faraway lands that he is some sort of savior figure foretold by an ancient prophecy, while Renly believes that Stannis would be a horrible king. Both are aware that Joffrey is not the rightful heir to the throne, but instead of combining forces and fighting against their nephew, the brothers are more intent on fighting each other. Renly has plenty of men but few ships, while Stannis holds a large navy but few soldiers, both wishing to bring the forces of the other into their own military. This leaves Joffrey and Kings Landing ample time to prepare, something that Joffrey’s other uncle Tyrion Lannister intends to exploit to ensure that, when the war does come to King’s Landing, the city will survive.

Stannis (right) and his right hand man Davos


Renly, self proclaimed king.


Joffrey threatening Sansa Stark, his betrothed captive

Far to the North and to the East, events unfold that will shape the destiny of the world. Beyond The Wall to the North, Jon Snow and the other Men of the Nights Watch probe deep into the harsh lands to investigate reports of an incredibly large army of Wildlings led by the King Beyond the Wall, Mance Rayder, as well as the supposed return of a millennia-gone enemy, the White Walkers. The Nights Watch is an ancient brotherhood that is sworn to protect a three hundred mile long wall that separates the Seven Kingdoms from the icy Wildling lands, as well as the White Walkers. In the East, on the far side of the continent Essos, Daenerys Targaryen has brought three dragons, the apparent last of their kind, into the world. The last of the Targaryen dynasty that had formerly possessed the Iron Throne and bent on reclaiming it, she leads her small band of surviving followers across the Red Waste, trying to find a city that will take them in. Eventually, she reaches the gates of a city known as Qarth.

Jon Snow


Daenerys (right) and her protector Jorah Mormont

In the middle of all this are the younger Stark children: Sansa, Arya, Bran, and Rickon. All they (and many others caught up in the war) are trying to do is survive the game of thrones, or for some of the more mysterious characters (Peter Baelish, Lord Varys), influence it…

Arya Stark, who managed to escape capture, and is trying to make it back home



Peter Baelish and Lord Varys, two of the more intriguing characters in the show. Their motives are quite unclear, their allegiances really unknown

Review of the show

With ten episodes and a run time of about 545 minutes, Season two is an amazing adaptation of the second book of A Song of Ice and Fire, A Clash of Kings, by George R.R. Martin. Featuring a larger budget, a larger cast, and a bigger and more compelling story, Game of Thrones season two is an absolute joy to watch. The political maneuvering, the mystery, and the characters of the story is quite gripping, with many if not most of the episodes leaving you on the edge of your seat at times.

Tyrion and Cersei Lannister, discussing the events of the past few months

The acting has improved since the first season, a tough feat to accomplish considering it was already vastly superior to most shows on TV. Even the younger actors are superb. Watching each episode, one can tell the amount of work and passion the actors and actresses put into their scenes, their dedication to their work. It really helps bring their characters to life, especially in the case of actors like Jack Gleeson, who portrays his character Joffrey so well that it is easy to forget that they are two different people. Peter Dinklage, fresh from his Emmy win for best supporting actor, makes an amazing return as Tyrion Lannister, considered to be the fan favorite of the whole show. The producers really did well in finding such a talented group of actors to participate in a television show.

Peter Dinklage as Tyrion Lannister. He is one of the many bright spots of the show

The production values of the show in general are absolutely astronomical. Shot in multiple locations, the scenery of the locations can be quite breathtaking. Combined with the excellent sets built to represent the locations in the book, the “look” of the show really draws you in. The show received an increase in the budget for the season so that they could portray the climactic Battle of Blackwater, the key battle of the series (at least so far). The battle is quite possibly the best TV show battle in history, at least in my opinion. Also, the soundtrack of the show, composed by Ramin Djawadi, is absolutely phenomenal, and something that really helps set the atmosphere of key scenes.

Iceland standing in for the lands beyond The Wall

Dubrovnik, Croatia, stands in for King's Landing




Scenes from the Battle of Blackwater

One of the few criticisms of this season is the changes made from book to show as well as addition of multiple characters that can make it confusing for people who have not read the book. Even the Battle of Blackwater was changed to suit the confines of a TV show. What most people seem not to realize is that it’s a lot easier to write down an event on paper than it is to portray it on screen, and sometimes even if it were possible to do it perfectly it just would not work well in adapting to screen. In addition, the series is an adaptation, not a strict translation from print to film. It is best to treat it as such in order to enjoy the sometimes frustrating changes.

One of the changes from book to screen was the holding of Arya Stark by Tywin Lannister as a captive. But I felt it was a good change.


Overall season two (and the entire series) is what defines excellence in TV. Much of the time the show feels like a long movie, with a numerous character stories that are all intertwined and tied to the fight for the Iron Throne. My only big complaint of the show would have to be some of the characters had somewhat boring storylines this season, Daenerys prevalent among them. But that is somewhat tied to the book (and the decisions of the creators in adapting the series), and something that cannot be helped. Not every character can have an interesting story to tell at every point. The series is also one where you should not get too attached to characters, for all are at risk of death. The book series is known for killing of major characters when you least expect it, and the same is true for the show. But that is a positive attribute, I feel, as it feels more real knowing that there is (almost) no such thing as a plot shield in this show.

Despite the dragons (only one shown here), Daenery's story was somewhat weak this season

The Hound, Joffrey's (right) bodyguard.

The show receives 10/10

Review of the Set

The DVD set itself consists of a beautiful outer sleeve, an outer case, and an inner case (where the discs are held). The outer sleeve is of course the first thing you see, and its design is symbolic of the show in its design. Featuring a golden crown that is the sole object on the front cover, I like to think of it as a crown that is up in the air…As in the crown, the throne, the entire realm is up for grabs. Such is the nature of the overall plot of the series: the game of thrones. The crown also has silhouettes of soldiers on it, representing the fight for it by the thousands of men commanded by their lords to fight for it or against it. Once you open it and get down to the “book” of the set (inside the case) you find five discs as well as a pamphlet containing information about the episodes, the claimants to the throne, and a map of the world.

The cover

The five discs consist of two episodes each with each episode receiving a commentary (some have more than one) and a variety of language options. Disc one also has updated character profiles for the major characters of the show. Disc five is where the main special features are located, consisting of a thirty minute behind-the-scenes video on the Battle of Blackwater, a twenty minute video featuring a roundtable discussion with the creators and some of the actors, and a short video on the religions present in the series. For me, though that’s a good decent hour of special features (not including the commentaries on episodes, which I never count as special features), the set is rather slim considering the show’s scope. I was hoping for more. I hear the Blu-Ray version has more specific features apparently, so I’m kind of miffed about that. But it’s not that big of a deal in the end I guess.

Despite the disappointment at the relative lack of special features, I still love the set itself. The lack of special features does ding the score of the set itself, though, so I give it a 9/10.

I hope you enjoyed this review of season two of Game of Thrones.

9.5/10

[Mr. Shaboobies]

I loved season 2 as well. The acting I also agree was much improved this season over last, especially in the cases of the younger characters like Sansa and Joffrey who I felt had some cringy parts last season. Jack Gleeson was absolutely amazing playing Joffrey and really makes me hate him like in the book. As for some plots being more boring, Dany being one, I think it was the same as the book. Tbh I almost felt a bit down reading the book when it got to her parts, because during this book her story is quite boring, but I can't wait for season 3 because her story I feel becomes one of if not the most exciting. I also thought that Rose Leslie and Kit Harrington were a great duo that really worked well together, also can't wait to see how that turns out come March (plus who doesn't want to see her naked?)

[TheDarkKnight]

Thanks for your feedback.

---------
By the way, the Ironclad review has been updated with more pictures. I've been wanting to update it for a while and I finally had the chance.

[StealthFox]

Great reviews! Keep them coming!

[TheDarkKnight]

Why thank you boss.

More reviews will surely come. Been working a lot on my game review section, which seems to get more responses .

But I will add some more soon. Thinking about doing one for Skyfall, Public Enemies, and Rise of the Planet of the Apes. But those might also be product reviews cause they are Blu-ray sets. I don't know...it will depend on what I feel like doing once I get to it.

I also plan on updating some reviews once I get the chance...probably around summer. Will depend on my other writing projects.

Again, anyone who is reading these, I'd really appreciate some feedback. Love them, hate them, whatever.

[John ''True Grit'' Wayne]

Wow this was a really good informative read.Glad I found this thread.Good work.

[TheDarkKnight]

Thanks for the feedback.


If you have any more to offer I'd really appreciate it.

[TheDarkKnight]

I will be receiving a copy of The Hobbit sometime this week. I will update the respective post with a revised review as well as a review of the set itself.

[The Forgotten]

I always love it when I stumble upon things like this on TWC. It just goes to show that the site has much more to offer then just Total War and is in a way a very vibrant community.

Now that I am done being all fancy I can flat out say that I enjoyed your reviews. I agree wholeheartedly with your reviews of Monk, Game of Thrones, and the alien L.A. invasion movies. I might even go find Ironclad on Netflix (I mean who doesn't love charlie Dance? ).

If you need any suggestions I might say AMC's Breaking Bad. It is similar to Game of Thrones grey morality theme and has been pretty good from what I have found (just started the 3rd season). Also on the list would be the History Channel's Vikings, and The Bible. Both are fairly new and have yet to finish their first seasons but in my opinion both are worth a look.

Keep it up!

[TheDarkKnight]

Breaking Bad is on my to-watch list. Will probably happen this summer, or maybe this spring break.

Vikings I am watching, and The Bible looks interesting even though I'm not religious in the slightest.

And definitely watch Ironclad. You will not regret it.

[The Forgotten]

I would say watching The Bible and not being religious would be akin to watching the Twilight series. The people who like the book drive you insane but the show isn't half bad in itself. The budgets allowed the directors to use some decent special effects. From what I can tell they both follow their original stories pretty closely also.

[TheDarkKnight]

Oh I know.


I actually love the stories of the Bible as just that...Stories. Of course that is my personal opinion on the matter...I may or may not be wrong. Plus, despite its reputation there is some actual history presented in the Bible.


I just have too many damn things to watch right now.

[TheDarkKnight]

By the way, The Forgotten, I encourage you to also check out Lord Rahl's review thread. His reviews are quite good. Better than mine, I would say.


http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...iew-Repository